Skip to main content

Full text of "The lives of the popes in the early middle ages"

See other formats 


THE  LIVES  OF  THE  POPES 

VOL.   XVII. 


THE 

LIVES  OF  THE  POPES 

IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES 


BY    THE 

RT.   REV.   MONSIGNOR  HORACE  K.  MANN,    D.D. 

"De  gente  Anglorum,  qui  maxime  familiarcs  Apostolirac  Sedis  semper 
existunt"  (Gesta  Abb.  Fontanel.,  A. D.  747-752,  ap.  M.G.  SS.  II.  289). 

RECTOR    OF    THE    COLLEGIO    BEDA,    ROME  J    CORRESPONDING    MEMBER    OF    THE    ROYAL    ACADEMY    OF 

HISTORY    OF    SPAIN  ;     MEMBER    OF   THE   ACCADEMIA    D'ARCADIA    AND    OF   THE  R.    SOCIETA    ROMANA 

DI    STORIA    PATRIA. 


THE  POPES  AT  THE  HEIGHT  OF  THEIR 
TEMPORAL  INFLUENCE 


Innocent 

II. 

to  Blessed  Benedict  XI 
1130-1305 

/goI(\ 

v;4^/ 

VOL.    XVII. 

Nicholas 

IV. 

to    St.    Celestine    V.,    1288-1294 

LONDON : 

KEG  AN   PAUL,   TRENCH,   TRUBNER  &   CO.,   LTD. 

ST,   LOUIS,    MO.:     B.   HERDER  BOOK   CO? 

1931 


PRINTED    IN    GREAT   BRITAIN   BY 
STEPHEN    AUSTIN    &   SONS     LTD.,    HERTFORD 


A    LIST    OF    THE    PRINCIPAL    ABBREVIATIONS 
USED    IN    THIS    VOLUME 


Potthast       .  .  =  Regesta  Pontificam  Romanorum,  ed. 

A.  Potthast,  2  vols.,  Berlin,  1874. 

Reg.  .  .  =  One  of  the  volumes  of  the  Registres 

des  Papes  in  course  of  publica- 
tion by  the  French  Schools  of 
Athens  and  of  Rome,  ed. 
Fontemoing,  Paris. 

L.  P.  .  .  =  Liber     Pontificalis,     2     vols.,     ed. 

L.  Duchesne,  Paris,  1886. 

M.  G.  H.  or  Pertz  .      =  Monumenta     Germanico     Historica, 

either  Scriptores  (M.  G.  SS.),  or 
Epistolcs  (M.  G.  Epp.),  or  Poetcu 
(M.  G.  PP.). 

P.  G.  .  .  =  Patrologia  Gr&ca,  ed.  Migne,  Paris. 

p.  L.  .  .  =  Patrologia  Latina,  ed.  Migne,  Paris. 

R.  I.  SS.       .  .  .      =  Rerum     Italicarum     Scriptores,    ed. 

Muratori,  Milan,  1723  ff.,  or  the 
new  ed.  in  course  of  publication. 

R.  F.  SS.      .  .  =  Recueil   des   Historiens    des    Gaules, 

ed.  Bouquet  and  others,  Paris, 
1738  ff. 

R.  S.,  following  an  edition    =  The  edition  of  the  Chronicles,  etc., 
of  a  book  of    Great    Britain    and    Ireland, 

published  under  the  direction  of 
the  Master  of  the  Rolls. 

Rymer  or  Foedera         .      =  Foedera,  Liter  a,  etc.,  ab  anno  1101 

ad  nostra  usque  tempora, 
accurante  T.  Rymer.  Unless  the 
contrary  is  stated,  we  quote 
from  the  original  ed.,  London, 
1704  ff. 
v 


vi  LIST  OF  ABBREVIATIONS 

Other  abbreviations  will  be  readily  understood  by  reference  to 
the  Sources  prefixed  to  each  biography. 

The  sign  f  placed  before  a  date  indicates  that  the  date  in 
question  is  the  year  of  the  death  of  the  person  after  whose  name 
the  sign  and  date  are  placed.  The  sign  *  placed  before  the  title 
of  a  book  indicates  that  the  author  of  these  volumes  has  seen 
the  book  in  question  favourably  mentioned,  but  has  not  examined 
it  himself. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


14 
142 

163 
179 
207 


List  of  Abbreviations  ...... 

Nicholas  IV.   (1 288-1 292) 

Chapter  I.     Holy    See.      Election   of   Cardinal    Jerome    of 

Ascoli.    His  previous  career 
II.     Missionary    enterprise    by    Nicholas    IV.    and 

other  mediaeval  Popes  in  (1)  Persia,  (2)  China, 

and  (3)  Ethiopia 

III.  Sicily 

IV.  The  Empire,  France,  and  the  Crusades 
V.     Rome  and  the  Papal  States,  Art     . 

VI.  The  British  Isles 
VII.  Europe  (Portugal,  Constantinople,  Servia,  and 
Bulgaria),  Asia,  Africa.  Heretics,  Studies. 
Death  and  Tomb  of  Nicholas       .  .  .226 

S.  Celestine  V.  (1294) 247 

Chapter  I.     Long  vacancy  of  the  Holy  See.     Election  of 

Peter  de  Morrone.      His   previous   career      .      254 

II.     His   election   announced  to   Bro.   Peter.     His 

consecration     and     coronation.        Goes     to 

Naples.     His  pontifical  acts         .  .  .280 

,,     III.     Celestine  resigns.     The  rest  of  his  life's  story   .      311 

Index    .  .........     343 


NICHOLAS   IV. 

A.D.    1288-1292. 


Sources. — As  there  is  no  extant  contemporary  biography  of 
Nicholas,  the  best  source  for  his  life  is  his  Register  which  has  been 
published  in  two  volumes  by  E.  Langlois  (Paris,  1905).  The 
editor  has  done  his  work  well,  adding  a  number  of  most  useful 
tables.  One  gives  the  numbers  in  his  edition  which  correspond 
with  certain  of  the  documents  analysed  by  Potthast.  Another 
puts  the  bulls  in  their  proper  chronological  order ;  a  third 
gives  their  "  incipits  ",  and  the  last  an  index  of  proper  names. 

The  only  thing  one  misses  is  an  introduction  such  as  Prou 
prefixed  to  his  edition  of  the  Register  of  Honorius  IV.  The  first 
thing  that  strikes  one  in  looking  over  the  Register  of  Nicholas  IV. 
is  the  number  of  indulgences  which  he  granted  to  those  "  who 
had  confessed  their  sins,  were  truly  sorry  for  them  ",  and  who 
had  paid  a  visit  to  some  church  on  certain  feast  days.  The 
indulgences  varied  from  "  forty  days  "  to  "  two  or  three  years  "  .l 
This  Register  also  shows  that  the  custom  of  assigning  cardinal- 
protectors  to  persons  and  institutions  was  growing.2 

The  biography  of  Nicholas,  published  by  Muratori  (R.  I.  SS. 
hi,  pt.  i)  "  from  the  MSS.  of  Bernard  Guidonis  "  is  the  same  as 
that  published  by  Eccard  (Corpus,  i,  p.  1461)  under  the  name 
of  Theoderic  of  Nein,  and  almost  the  same  as  the  one  he  gives 
"  from  another  "  MS.  of  the  Ambrosian  library  (Milan).  Of  no 
additional  use  is  the  life  from  Amalricus  Augerius,  ap.  ib.,  hi, 
pt.  ii,  p.  433. 

1  Cf.  nos.  135,  257,  285,  289,  333,  415,  etc.  Sometimes  the  indulgences 
were  granted  for  hearing  sermons,  e.g.,  nn.  191,  214  ;  and  sometimes 
we  see  the  Pope  delegating  power  to  others  to  grant  similar  indulgences, 
e.g.,  n.  297. 

2  Cf.  n.  3940,  where  a  cardinal-protector  is  assigned  to  the  city 
hospital  of  St.  Thomas  in  Formis  ;  n.  4059  to  the  Humiliati,  n.  4094 
to  the  Church  of  S.  Croce  ;  n.  5010  to  the  Knights  of  St.  James  in 
Portugal  ;  nn.  5459,  6848  to  the  monasteries  of  S.  Maria  de  Farneto 
and  of  Subiaco  ;   n.  5751  to  Margaret,  the  wife  of  Guy  de  Montfort,  etc. 

Vol.  XVII.  b 


2  NICHOLAS    IV. 

A  few  pleasing  facts  in  connection  with  the  early  life  of  Jerome 
of  Ascoli  may  be  gathered  from  the  statement  or  "  process  " 
which  was  drawn  up  for  the  canonization  of  brother  Conrad  of 
Ascoli,  the  playmate  of  Jerome.  This  document  was  found 
by  Luke  Wadding,  and  inserted  by  him,  in  an  abridged  form,  in 
his  Annales  Minorum,  v,  p.  213  ff. 

Dr.  H.  Finke's  Acta  Aragonesia,  Berlin  and  Leipzig,  1908 
(extracted  from  the  diplomatic  correspondence  of  James  or 
Jayme  II.,  King  of  Aragon,  1291-1327,  furnishes  a  number 
of  documents  useful  for  the  story  of  the  pontificate  of  Nicholas. 

In  the  second  volume  of  Mabillon's  Museum  Italicum,  Paris, 
1689,  there  is  a  collection  of  Or  dines  Romani  or  books  of 
ceremonies.  The  fourteenth  of  these  he  ascribes  to  Cardinal 
James  Gaetano  Stefaneschi,  the  historian  and  relation  of 
Boniface  VIII.  It  is,  however,  as  it  stands,  obviously  interpolated, 
and  has  been  studied  by  L.  H.  Labande,  "  Le  ceremonial  romain 
de  Jacques  Cajetan  "  in  the  Bibliotheque  tie  I'ecole  des  Chartes, 
Jan.,  1893,  p.  45  ff.  He  concludes  that  the  original  edition  of 
the  work  of  the  cardinal  is  represented  by  MS.  n.  1706  of  the 
library  of  Avignon.  Then  about  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century, 
an  unknown  writer,  using  the  Ceremonials  of  Peter  Amelli  and 
William  d'Estouteville,  re-edited  the  work  of  Stefaneschi,  and 
produced  the  Or  do  published  by  Mabillon.  The  original  work 
of  the  cardinal  embodied  certain  historical  details,  some  of 
which  have  been  printed  by  Labande,  and  illustrate  our 
period. 

To  the  Chronicles  already  quoted,  we  may  add  the  Cronaca 
Romana  (1288-1301),  which  is  only  a  brief  diary  of  Guidotto 
Spiapasto,  procurator  at  Rome  for  the  Commune  of  Vicenza.1 

In  connection  with  the  missionary  and  crusading  efforts  of 
Nicholas,  mention  may  be  made  of  that  "  brilliant  Franciscan 
thinker"  and  martyr  (f  1315),  Raymond  Lull.  Born  in  1235 
at  Palma,  and  renouncing  the  world  in  1266,  he  spent  the  rest 
of  his  extraordinarily  energetic  and  devoted  life  in  labouring 
both  by  word  of  mouth  and  by  his  prolific  pen  -  for  the  con- 
version of  the  infidel.     Understanding  that  the  faith  must  be 

1  Ed.  D.  Bortolan,  Archivio   Veneto,  vol.  xvii  (1887),  p.  66  ff. 

2  Salzinger  published,  or  rather  proposed  to  publish,  his  works  in 
ten  volumes  (1721-42,  Mayence)  ;  but  it  would  seem  that  vols,  vii 
and  viii  were  never  issued.  These  vols,  contain  only  48  out  of  the 
260  works  certainly  written  by  Lull. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  3 

preached,  he  was  for  ever  urging  the  Popes  and  all  his  superiors 
to  establish  colleges  wherein  might  be  taught  the  languages  of 
those  to  whom  the  faith  had  to  be  preached.  But,  in  dealing  with 
the  Moslem,  he  also  understood  that  the  sword  must  be  met  by 
the  sword,  and  so  urged  that  he  should  be  driven  from  Spain, 
and  then  gradually  eastwards  along  North  Africa  from  Ceuta. 
He  came  to  Rome  in  1291,  for  the  second  time,  in  order  to  pro- 
pound his  views  to  Pope  Nicholas.  To  him  he  unfolded  his  plans 
for  dealing  with  the  aggressive  Moslem,  and  for  the  establish- 
ment of  centres  of  Oriental  studies.  But,  "  on  account  of  the 
formalities  of  the  Curia — propter  impedimenta  Curiae,"  as  his 
contemporary  biographer  expresses  it,  he  did  not  accomplish 
much.1 

As  in  the  case  of  Honorius  IV;,  time  has  allowed  a  few  documents 
of  Nicholas'  treasury  department  (camera  apostolica)  to  escape 
its  ravages.  One  of  Sept.  13,  1290,  setting  forth  the  dues  of  the 
camera,  in  the  two  Sicilies,  was  published  by  Muratori,  Antiq. 
Medii  Mvi,  vi,  pp.  150-4.  P.  Fabre  has  published  two  more, 
ap.  Melanges  d'Arche'ol.,  1890,  p.  369  ff.,  and  1897,  p.  221  ff. 
He  entitles  the  first  :  "La  perception  du  cens  apostolique  dans 
l'ltalie  centrale  en  1291,"  and  the  second  :  "  Le  perception  du 
cens  ap.  en  France  en  1 291-3."  We  have  freely  used  his  com- 
mentaries on  these  documents. 

Modern  Works. — In  1585  Jerome  Rubens,  the  historian  of 
Ravenna,  compiled  a  life  of  Nicholas  which  was  edited  with 
copious  notes  by  A.  Mathaeias,  a  professor  of  Pisa  in  I766.2  This 
work  is  still  very  useful.  F.  P.  Massi's  Nicolo  IV.,  primo  Papa 
Marchigiano,  Senigallia,  1905,  is  a  short  piece  of  declamation 
of  no  practical  use  for  historical  purposes.  But  Dr.  O.  Schiff, 
in  his  Studien  zur  Geschichte  P.  Nikolaus'  IV.,  Berlin,  1897, 
has   written   three   dissertations   on   the   policy  of    Nicholas   in 


1  Vita,  c.  2,  n.  13,  ap.  Acta  55.,  t.  v,  Jun.,  die  30.  The  data  on  this 
visit  given  by  Barber,  Raymond  Lull,  London,  1903  ;  Andre,  Raymond 
Lulle,  Paris,  1900,  and  Beazley,  Dawn  of  Mod.  Geog.,i,p.  311,  must  be 
corrected  by  Golubovich,  Bib.  dell'  Oriente,  p.  366  f.  Cf.  ib.,  p.  373  ff., 
for  the  original  of  Lull's  petition  to  Popes  Celestine  V.  and 
Boniface   VIII. 

2  Nicolai  IV.  vita  ex  codicibus  vaticanis  cum  observationibus  Antonii 
Matthcei,  Pisa,  1766.  The  dissertation  of  Benedict  XIV.  on  the  cult 
once  given  to  Nicholas  is  appended. 


4  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Sicily,   Aragon,    etc.     He  believes  that    Nicholas   was   a    "well 
meaning,  but  rather  weak  man."  1 

We  will  leave  over  to  the  chapter  on  "The  British  Isles  "  our 
notice  of  some  documents  that  concern  them  more  especially. 

CONTEMPORARY    SOVEREIGNS. 

Emperors  in  the  West.  Emperors  in  the  East. 

Rudolf  of  Hapsburg,  1275-91.         Andronicus     II.,     Palaeologus, 

1282-1328. 
England.  France. 

Edward  I.,  12 72 -130 7.  Philip   IV.    (le   Bel,    the   Fair) 

1285-1314. 

1 

1  See  English  Hist.  Rev.,  1899,  Apr.,  p.  764  ff.  Schiff's  third  disserta- 
tion on  the  quarrel  between  Venice  and  the  Patriarch  of  Aquileia  as 
to  the  government  of  Istria  has  but  slight  importance  for  the  life  of 
Nicholas.  He  attempted  to  make  peace  between  them  as  he  did 
between  all  combatants  in  different  parts  of  Italy.  Finally  "  the 
Republic  bought  the  Patriarch's  rights  for  a  rent  of  450  marks  a  year 
(1304)  ".     Hodgson,   Venice,  ii,  p.   180. 


CHAPTER    I. 

HOLY    SEE.       ELECTION    OF    CARDINAL    JEROME    OF    ASCOLI. 
HIS  PREVIOUS  CAREER. 

After  the  death  of  Honorius  IV.,  the  Holy  See  was  Vacancy, 
vacant  for  the  greater  part  of  a  year.  Writing  with  a 
bitterness  to  no  little  extent  justifiable,  the  English 
Chronicler,  Thomas  Wykes,  says  :  "  Through  the  discord, 
at  once  frivolous  and  despicable,  of  the  cardinals,  due 
perchance  to  the  fact  that  each  of  them  wanted  the 
papal  dignity  for  himself,  the  Apostolic  See  was  vacant 
for  nearly  a  year.1  During  the  vacancy,  death  so  thinned 
the  ranks  of  the  cardinals  that  their  number  was  reduced 
to  nine,  .  .  .  and  the  Church  swayed  to  and  fro  without 
a  head." 

From  this  assertion  that  death  reduced  the  number 
of  cardinals  to  nine,  combined  with  that  of  Ptolemy  of 
Lucca  that  "  six  or  seven  "  cardinals  died  during  the 
vacancy,2  we  may  conclude  that  fifteen  or  sixteen 
cardinals  3  at  first  took  part  in  the  election  of  a  successor 
to  Honorius.  For  months  they  could  not  agree,  and  when 
the  summer  heats  set  in,  and  one  after  another  of  them 
died,  the  remnant  left  the  unhealthy  Aventine  palace 
and  dispersed. 

1  Wykes,  Chron.,  p.  312,  R.  S.,  by  mistake  says  :  "  fere  per  bicnnium." 

2  H.E.,  xxiv,  c.  19.  Cf.  Mem.,  Pot.  Reg.,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  viii,  p.  1168. 
From  Eubel,  Hierarchia,  it  is  clear  that  the  following  six  cardinals 
died  during  the  vacancy  :  Geoffrey  of  Alatri,  Giordano  Orsini,  the 
English  cardinal  Hugh  Atratus,  Gervase  of  Glincamp,  Comes  Gluscanus, 
and  Geoffrey  de  Barro,  "  decanus  Parisiensis  "  whom  Ptolemy  calls 
"  decanus  Pisanus  ". 

3  Probably  15,  as  John  Cholet  seems  to  have  remained  in  France. 
Cf.  Potthast,  ii,  p.  1825,  giving  various  acts  of  his  dated  at  different 
places  in  France  from  July  to  December,  1287. 

5 


6  NICHOLAS    IV. 

The  From  a  letter  in  Rymer  addressed  by  "  the  cardinal- 

C       A'        1 

carrion5  the  bishops,  priests,  and  deacons  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church 
Sicilian  to  the  lord  Edward,  the  dearest  son  of  the  Church  ",  it 

is  clear,  in  the  first  place,  that  in  carrying  on  the  work 
of  the  Church,  the  Sacred  College  continued  the  policy 
of  the  Holy  See  in  supporting  the  house  of  Anjou.    They 
begged  our  King  to  continue  his  exertions  for  the  release 
of  the  Prince  of  Salerno,  assuring  him  that  the  liberation 
of  the  heir  to  the  Sicilian  crown  would  bring  joy  to  the 
Church,  and  general  satisfaction.1    As  this  letter  is  dated 
Nov.  4,  1287,  at  Sta.  Sabina,  we  may  conclude  that  the 
cardinals  had  by  that  time  reassembled  for  the  election 
of  a  Pope. 
Election  of        When    the    other    cardinals    had    left    the    Aventine, 
Jerome,         Cardinal  Jerome  alone  had  remained  behind,  and  we  are 
1288-  assured  that  he  escaped  the  infection  by  causing  fires 

to  be  kept  burning  in  every  room  in  the  palace,  even  on 
the  very  hottest  days.2  At  length,  after  many  more 
discussions,  the  cardinal  of  Palestrina  was  unanimously 
chosen  "  by  the  method  of  scrutiny  "  (Feb.  15,  1288). 
Jerome,  however,  firmly  refused  the  proffered  honour ; 
but  on  the  following  Sunday  (Feb.  22),  when  he  was 
re-elected,  finally  gave  his  consent,  "  lest,"  as  he  tells 
us  himself,  "  we  who  had  been  brought  up  under  obedience 
should  seem  too  long  to  resist  it."  3    The  same  day,  which 

1  Rymer,  ii,  p.  353  f.  The  contents  of  this  letter  show  that  it  was 
not  the  first  which  the  cardinals  had  addressed  to  King  Edward  on  this 
subject. 

2  Ptolemy  of  Lucca,  Annates,  pp.  94-5,  with  the  note  on  p.  95,  ed. 
Minutoli,  Florence,  1876.     The  passage  in  Muratori's  ed.  is  corrupt. 

3  See  his  encyclical  of  Feb.  23,  ap.  Reg.,  n.  1.  "  Ne  sub  obedientia 
nutriti  diutius  earn  contempnere  .  .  .  et  mundi  graviter  guerrarum 
multiplicatione  divulsi  .  .  .  tandem  acquievimus."  "  Bis  electus," 
says  the  chronicler  Flores  temporum,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xxiv,  p.  249  ; 
Wykes  adds,  Chron.,  p.  313  ("  vexatione  dante  intellectum  "),  that 
the  election  was  made  by  six  cardinals,  as  "it  is  said  "  that  three  of 
them  had  been  sent  on  an  embassy.  A  "  versifier  "  noted  :  "  Frater 
Jeronimus  mundo  minor,  est  modo  primus."  Ap.  Annals  of  Waverley, 
ii,  p.  407  R.  S. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  7 

was  the  feast  of  St.  Peter's  chair,  he  was  solemnly  "  conse- 
crated", or  "with  the  greatest  honour  was  placed  in  the 
very  chair  in  which  Peter,  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  had 
merited  to  sit  ".1  The  new  Pope,  duly  crowned  on 
March  i,2  took  the  name  of  Nicholas  (IV.),  and  lovers  of 
the  marvellous,  like  the  unknown  author  of  the  Annals 
of  King  Edward  I.,  tell  us  that  he  took  that  name  because, 
when  he  was  a  young  man,  St.  Nicholas  had  foretold  to 
him  that  he  would  be  Pope.3  More  prosaic  people 
believe  that  he  took  the  name  in  memory  of  Pope 
Nicholas  III.  who  made  him  a  cardinal. 

"  Jerome  Petri  Massius  (Massi)  "  was  born  on  Early  career. 
September  30,  1227,  of  humble  parents,  in  Lisciano,  a 
hamlet  so  near  Ascoli  that  Nicholas  called  himself  and 
was  called  by  others  a  citizen  of  Ascoli.4  In  his  youth 
he  formed  a  close  friendship  with  a  young  noble  (after- 
wards brother  Conrad)  some  seven  years  younger  than 
himself.  The  friendship  began  by  the  little  noble  bending 
his  knee  to  the  country  lad,  and  giving  as  his  reason  for 
so  doing  "  that  he  saw  in  his  hands  the  keys  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Heaven  ".5  The  two  boys  grew  up  in  virtue 
together  ;  and,  after  talking  the  matter  over  between 
themselves,  both  of  them  decided  to  renounce  the  world, 
and  were  received  into  the  Franciscan  convent  just  out- 
side the  city  of  Ascoli.  They  were  then  sent  to  continue 
their  studies,  first  at  Assisi,  and  then  at  Perugia,  where, 
despite  their  humble  resistance,  they  were  proclaimed 

1  Wykes,  ib.     Cf.  B.  Guidonis,  Vita,  etc.,  ap.  Potthast,  ii,  p.  1826. 

2  G.  Spiapasto,  p.  427. 

3  P.  481,  R.  S.    The  third  fragment  printed  at  the  end  of  Rishanger. 

4  In  the  process  of  Conrad  (p.  213),  he  is  described  as  "  juvenculum 
rusticanum  humili  oppidulo  Lisciano  natum  ".  The  Pope  himself 
{Reg.,  2413)  wrote  :  "  ad  civitatem  Esculanam  in  qua  nostre  nativitatis 
originem  traximus."  "  Nacione  marchie  Anconitane  "  says  Gilbert, 
Chron.  Pont,  et  Imp.,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xxiv,  p.  137  ;  "  Natione  Escu- 
lanus,"  Mart.  Pol.,  cont.  Brabant.,  ap.  ib.,  p.  260.  Cf.  ib.,  vol.  xxx, 
p.  714,  etc. 

5  Processus,  p.  213. 


8  NICHOLAS    IV. 

doctors  of  theology.1  The  two  friends  were  then  sent 
to  Rome,  where  they  spent  "many  years"  in  teaching 
theology  and  in  preaching.  Their  zeal  and  earnestness 
at  length  acquired  a  reputation  for  them,  and  their 
superiors  decided  to  advance  them  to  positions  of  honour 
in  the  Order.  Conrad  contrived  to  evade  advancement, 
and  to  be  sent  as  a  missionary  to  Africa  ;  but  Nicholas 
had  to  submit,  and  became  Minister  of  the  province  of 
Slavonia  or  Dalmatia.2 

Whilst  Minister  of  Dalmatia,  he  was  sent  by  Gregory  X. 
to  Constantinople  to  promote  the  union  between  the 
Greek  and  the  Latin  Churches  (1272)  ,3  and  we  have 
already  seen  how  ably  and  successfully  he  accomplished  his 
mission.  In  his  absence  he  was  elected  Minister-General 
of  the  Franciscans  at  the  general  Chapter  held  at  Lyons 
whilst  the  Council  was  in  progress.  He  held  that 
important  office  for  five  years  (1274-9). 4  Then,  on 
March  12,  1278,  whilst  remaining  General  for  a  time, 
he  was  named  cardinal-priest  of  S.  Pudentiana  by 
Nicholas  III.5  On  this  occasion  also  he  had  received  an 
honour  during  his  absence.  Jerome  was  at  that  date  in 
France,  whither  he  had  been  sent  by  Nicholas  (1277)  in 
order  to  make  peace  between  the  Kings  of  Castile  and 
France  on  the  subject  of  the  "  Infants  of  Cerda  ".6     In 

1  lb. 

2  lb.,  Mart.  Pol.  cont.  Angl.,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xxx,  p.  714,  "  Factus 
primum  est  predicator,  dcinde  lector  provincialis  "  ;  and  Chron. 
XXI.  General.  O.M.,  p.  352,  ed.  Quaracchi.     Cf.  p.  335  n. 

3  Cf.  supra. 

4  Chron.  XXIV.  G.,  p.  353.  We  have  letters  of  his  in  which,  as 
Minister-Gen.,  he  sends  to  the  chapter  of  the  Order  held  at  Padua  in  1275, 
etc.,  an  account  of  the  miracle  by  which  St.  Francis  restored  eyes  to 
a  man  who  had  been  deprived  of  them.  See  his  letter  of  May  5,  1275, 
ap.  Archiv.  Francisc.  hist.,  an.  1908,  p.  85  ff.,  and  of  Apr.  23,  1276,  ap. 
Chron.  XXIV.  G.,  p.  358,  n. 

5  Reg.  Nic.  III.,  nn.  243,  260. 

6  Cf.  supra,  and  Chron.  XXIV.  Gen.,  p.  366  ;  Golubovich,  Biblioteca 
4ell'  Orienle,  ii,  p.  421  ff, 


NICHOLAS    IV.  9 

France,  we  are  told  that  he  was  joined  by  friar  Conrad, 
the  friend  of  his  early  life,  and  that  his  mission  was 
successful  owing  to  the  help  he  received  from  his  old 
friend.1  Without  making  the  least  attempt  to  probe  the 
accuracy  of  these  two  statements,  we  will  content  our- 
selves with  observing  that  the  Holy  See  was  evidently 
satisfied  with  the  manner  in  which  he  conducted  his 
mission,  for  in  1281,  Martin  IV.  made  him  cardinal- 
bishop  of  Preneste. 

When  Jerome  returned  to  Rome,  he  took  Conrad  with 
him,  and  for  two  years  had  the  benefit  of  his  society. 
At  the  end  of  that  period  Conrad  was  sent  to  Paris  to 
teach  ;  but  no  sooner  was  the  cardinal  of  Preneste  made 
Pope,  than  he  bade  him  return  to  Rome  to  be  made  a 
Cardinal.  Unfortunately,  however,  the  good  friar 
contracted  a  fever  on  his  journey  and  died  "  an  hour 
before  the  dawn  "  in  the  monastery  outside  Ascoli,  in 
which  he  had  first  been  educated  (Apr.,  1289). 2  Nicholas 
was  greatly  distressed  at  his  friend's  unexpected  death, 
and  declared  to  the  cardinals  that  it  was  a  great  loss  not 
merely  to  their  College,  but  to  the  whole  Church. 

It  is  allowed  both  by  contemporary  and  modern  authors  character, 
that  Nicholas  was  learned  and  holy.  The  writers  of  his 
Order,  to  which  he  was  devoted,  quite  naturally  praise 
him  very  highly,  even  going  as  far  as  to  attribute  wholly 
to  him  that  union  of  the  Greeks  to  the  Roman  Church 
under  Gregory  X.  (1274),  which  they  enthusiastically 
exaggerate.3  His  learning  and  holiness  are,  however, 
extolled  by  contemporaries  who  were  not  Franciscans.4 


1  Processus,  p.  214. 

2  lb.,  p.  214-15. 

3  "  Ipso  efficaciter  procurante,  Graeci  ad  Sedis  apostolicae  obedien- 
tiam  redierunt."  Chron.  XXIV.  G.,  p.  356.  "Hie  totam  Graeciam 
adduxit  ad  fidem  et  obedientiam  S.  R.  E."  Reg.  Frat.  Min.  Lond., 
p.  533-4,  ap.  Mon.  Francisc,  i,  R.  S. 

*  C.  113  sub  fin. 


10  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Even  the  Sicilian  historian,  Bartholomew  of  Neocastro, 
who  heartily  disapproved  of  the  policy  of  Nicholas  towards 
his  country,  speaks  of  him  as  a  "  pastor  of  remarkable 
holiness  ".1  From  his  condemnation  of  friar  Roger 
Bacon,2  however,  one  may  be  excused  for  doubting 
whether  his  intellect  could  be  ranked  with  the  best  of 
his  time.  This  conclusion  may  be  further  justified  by 
the  allegation  made  by  certain  chroniclers  that  he  was 
led  by  the  cardinals.3  Nor  can  his  intelligence,  of  what- 
ever calibre  it  was,  be  said  to  have  been  of  a  worldly 
and  practical  order.  We  are  told  that,  as  head  of  the 
Church,  "he  displayed  such  humility  that  he  disbanded 
the  guards  (clavarios)  whom  his  predecessors  had  employed 
to  protect  their  persons,  and  caused  fool's  bladders  to 
be  carried  in  front  of  him."4  If  Nicholas  really  acted 
in  this  way,  we  can  the  more  readily  understand  the 
disappearance  under  his  pontificate  of  the  good  order 
maintained  by  his  predecessor.  Timid  in  tackling  the 
affairs  of  life  that  came  before  him,  of  narrow  outlook 
and  slow  in  the  transaction  of  business,  Nicholas  lacked 
the  qualities  that  make  a  successful  ruler  of  men.5  He 
was,  as  we  believe,  according  to  the  just  judgment  of 

1  Wykes,  Chron.,  p.  313,  speaks  of  him  as  "  virum,  nt  fertur, 
supereminentis  literature,  et  sanctitatis  eximiae  ".  Cf.  Flores  Hist.', 
iii,  68,  R.  S.,  where  his  knowledge  of  Greek  is  insisted  on. 

2  Cf.  Chron.  XXIV.  G.,  p.  360.  "  Hie  Generalis  .  .  .  de  multorum 
fratrum  consilio  condemnavit  .   .   .  doctrinam  f.  R.  B.,  etc." 

3  '*  Pre  nimia  benignitate  sua  ductilis  fuit,  ita  ut  pro  voluntate 
cardinalium  regebatur."    M.  Pol.  cont.  Aug.,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xxx,  717. 

4  Chron.  de  Lanercost.,  i,  p.   121. 

5  Leo  of  Orvieto,  Chron.  Pont.,  p.  336,  ed.  J.  Lamius,  Florence,  1737. 
Leo  was  a  contemporary.  "  Hie  .  .  .  Doctor  eximius  vir  vita  laudabilis, 
sanctitate  famosus,  sed  in  negotiis  adgrediendis  timidus,  et  pusillanimis! 
ac  in  expediendis  tardus."  Cf.  the  judgment  of  Angelo  Clareno  in 
his  Hist.  trib.  "  Vir  manswetus  (sic)  et  satis  modestus  et  tardus  ad  iram 
et  injurias  inferendas,  licet  esset  remissus  et  tepidus  in  promocione 
bonorum."  Quinta  trib.,  p.  288,  ed.  Ehrle  in  Archiv  fur  Litteratur, 
Bd.  ii,  Heft  i,  1886. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  II 

Gregorovius,  "  a  pious  monk,  without  thought  of  self  ; 
concerned  only  for  the  peace  of  the  world,  for  a  Crusade, 
and  for  the  extirpation  of  heresy."  1  When  we  read  that 
he  used  in  all  seriousness  to  say  that  he  would  rather  be 
his  brethren's  cook  than  a  cardinal,  we  can  certainly 
see  how  little  he  thought  of  his  own  advancement.2 
We  are  not,  therefore,  surprised  to  hear  that,  in  his 
private  capacity,  he  was  dear  to  all,3  and  very  generous 
to  poor  clerics,  if  only  they  had  satisfactory  qualities. 
He  expected  them  to  be  able  to  read  well,  sing  well, 
write  or  compose  well  (bene  construit),  and  to  have  skill 
in  some  science  (grammar,  logic,  rhetoric)  or  in  any  of 
the  liberal  arts  (medicine,  canon  or  civil  law).  To  such 
he  gave  prebends  and  special  favours.4 

On  the  day  after  his  election,  Nicholas  announced  it  Nicholas 
to  the  various  rulers  of  the  Church  and  the  State.     After  hig 
expressing  his  wonder  at  the  ways  of  God,  he  went  on  accession, 
to  tell  how,  against  all  his  wishes  (for  it  had  been  all  his 
desire  to  lead  a  retired  life  of  contemplation),  he  had  all 
his  life  been  kept  in  the  midst  of  the  whirl  of  business. 
Finally,    by   the   unanimous   and   insistent    call   of   his 
brethren,  he  had  been  compelled  to  shoulder  the  burden 
of  the  chief  priesthood.    That  he  might  be  able  to  bear 
that  dread  weight,  he  earnestly  begged  the  prayers  and 
help  of  his  correspondents  ;    and,  in  conclusion,  urged 
them  to  be  just  to  their  subjects  and  not  to  give  more 
than  bare  necessaries  to  the  bearers  of  his  letters.5 

Nicholas  did  not  take  long  in  settling  down  to  the  Creation  of 
routine  work  involved  in  the  ruling  of  the  Church.  The  May,  1288. 
procurator  of   Vicenza   tells   us   that   he   held   his   first 

1  Rome,  vol.  v,  p.  508. 

2  S.  Antoninus,  Chron.,  tit.  xxiv,  p.  781. 

3  Mart.  Pol.  cont.  Aug.,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xxx,  p.  714. 

4  lb.,  cont.  Brabant.,  ap.  ib.,  xxiv,  p.  260. 

5  Reg.,  n.  1.    This  gives  a  brief  sketch  of  his  pre-papal  life.    Cf.  ib., 
2-5.     Potthast,  22604,  22648. 


12  NICHOLAS    IV. 

business  audience  on  April  6,  in  the  Vatican,1  to  which 
he  had  betaken  himself  from  the  Lateran  towards  the 
end  of  March.  These  business  sittings  were  for  the  time 
suspended  on  the  last  Friday  of  the  same  month.  But 
when,  soon  after,  the  Pope  went  to  Rieti,  they  were 
resumed,2  and  on  May  16  he  made  a  number  of  cardinals.3 
In  his  selection  of  the  new  members  of  the  Sacred  College, 
Nicholas  displayed  no  little  shrewdness.  Of  his  six 
nominees  one,  Matthew  of  Aquasparta,  was  a 
Franciscan,  another,  Hugh  Seguin,  was  a  Dominican, 
while  Napoleon,  the  cardinal-deacon  of  St.  Hadrian, 
was  an  Orsini,  and  Peter  of  St.  Eustachio  was  a 
Colonna. 
Nicholas  is         Though   in   the   College   of   Cardinals,    Nicholas   thus 

said  to  have 

unduly  nicely  balanced  Roman  families  and  the  new  religious 

FrTa?sred  the  0rders>  it  is  not  so  clear  that  he  was  as  careful  of  his 
episcopal  appointments.  At  any  rate,  such  as  were 
opposed  to  the  Franciscans  declared  that,  in  his  undue 
elevation  of  his  Order,  he  made  a  great  many  of  them 
bishops.  Rishanger  declares  that  "  this  idol  ",  as  he  was 
called,  of  the  Friars  Minor  so  legislated  in  their  behalf 
as  to  make  them  lose  their  heads  completely  4  ;  and  the 
author  of  the  Flowers  of  History  assures  us  that  the 
Franciscans,  "  counting  the  Pope  as  the  sun  and  the 
archbishop  of  Canterbury  (J.  Peckham,  O.M.)  as  the 
moon,  began  to  erect  their  horns  against  the  whole  world, 
sparing  neither  Order  nor  position  in  the  English 
province,"  especially  the  Benedictines.5  Nor  did  this 
same   group   of   writers   hesitate   to   prophesy  that,   on 

1  "  Primo  fecit  audientiam  literarum  et  causarum."     L  c 

2  lb. 

3  Potthast,  n.  22712  ;    Ptolemy  of  Lucca,  1.  xxiv,  c.  20. 

4  Chron.,  p.   112,  R.  S. 

5  Flores  Hist.,  vol.  iii,  p.  75,  R.  S.  Cf.  Annals  of  London,  ad  an. 
1292,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xxviii,  p.  553,  and  Ex  notis  S.  Martini  Lemov., 
ap.  ib.,  xxvi,  p.  439. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  13 

the  death  of  Nicholas,  the  Friars  would  fall  as  quickly 
as  they  had  risen.1 

It  is,  indeed,  certain  that  Nicholas  favoured  his  Order. 
He  attended  its  General  Chapter  in  Rieti  (1289),  and 
there  confirmed  the  election  of  Raymond  Gualfredi  as 
its  twelfth  Minister-General.2  He  protected  it  from 
calumny,3  and,  naturally  enough,  granted  it  privileges, 
such  as  freeing  it  from  all  jurisdiction  except  that  of  the 
Holy  See.4  But  he  also  favoured  other  religious  orders,5 
if  not  even  the  Fraticelli,6  so  that  there  is  no  reason  for 
believing  that  he  greatly  surpassed  his  predecessors  in 
bestowing  well-deserved  favours  on  the  still  worthy  sons 
of  St.  Francis. 

1  "  Gloria,  laus  speculum  Fratrum,  Nicolae  Minorum  Te  veniente 
vigent,  te  moriente  cadunt."  Ap.  Flores,  I.e.  Cf.  Ann.  de  Wigornia, 
p.  509.  The  Friars  said:  "  '  Solem  et  lunam  sub  nostro  habitu 
habemus.'     Sed  quarto  non.  Aprilis  sol  cognovit  occasum  suum." 

2  Mariano  of  Florence,  Compend.  Chron.,  p.  54  ;  and  the  Annals  of 
Colmar,  ap.  Boehmer,  Pontes,  ii,  26. 

3  Reg.,  n.  2539. 

*  Potthast,  nn.  22694-7,  22702-10. 

5  Favours  for  Dominicans,  ib.,  nn.  22758-9  ;  for  the  Order  of 
Penitents,  23355. 

6  It  is  the  ill-informed  Annales  Florentini  (1288-1431),  ap.  Boehmer, 
Pontes,  iv,  p.  672,  that  assert  that  "  he  permitted  the  foundation  of  the 
superstitious  sect  of  the  Fraticelli".  The  first  set  of  these  sectaries, 
which  split  off  from  the  Franciscan  body  under  Angelo  Clareno,  would 
not  appear  to  have  shown  itself  schismatical  or  heretical  at  this  date  ; 
and  it  is  accordingly  possible  that  N.  IV.  may  have  shown  some  favour 
to  this  group  of  Spirituals. 


CHAPTER    II. 

MISSIONARY  ENTERPRISE  BY  NICHOLAS  IV.  AND  OTHER 
MEDLEVAL  POPES  IN  (i)  PERSIA,  (2)  CHINA,  AND 
(3)    ETHIOPIA. 

Interest  of     When  we  think  of  the  residence  of  Jerome  of  Ascoli  in 
the  Constantinople,  of  his  successful  work  for  the  union  of 

missions.  the  Greek  Church  with  that  of  Rome,  and  of  what 
he  heard  and  saw  of  the  wonderful  enterprise  of  the 
missionaries  of  Innocent  IV.  and  his  successors,  we  are 
not  surprised  to  find  that,  with  the  exception  of  the 
Crusades,  Nicholas  IV.  was  not  interested  in  anything 
so  much  as  in  the  eastern  missions.  His  efforts  in  that 
direction  must  accordingly  occupy  our  attention  at 
some  length.  But,  as  his  efforts  were  not  isolated  ones 
in  the  story  of  the  Popes,  we  purpose,  for  the  sake  of 
greater  clearness  of  exposition,  to  narrate  here  what 
was  done  in  this  matter  not  only  by  Nicholas,  but  also 
by  some  of  his  more  immediate  predecessors  and 
successors. 

I.    Persia. 
introduction      The  boundaries  of  the  Persian  Empire,  like  those  of 

Of  v  •  1 

Christianity  every  other  empire,  have  varied  from  time  to  time.  But 
into  Persia.  when  our  Lor(}  came  into  this  world,  the  Empire  of 
Persia  occupied  not  only  the  great  Iran  plateau  to  the 
south  of  the  Caspian  Sea,  but  its  western  provinces, 
including  Mesopotamia,  the  land  of  the  two  great  rivers 
Euphrates  and  Tigris.  At  that  same  epoch,  it  was  ruled 
by  the  Parthian  dynasty  of  the  Arsacids. 

As  in  the  case  of  many  another  country,  it  is  not  known 
exactly  when  or  by  whom  Christianity  was  introduced 


NICHOLAS    IV.  15 

into  it.  This,  however,  we  do  know,  that  among  those 
who  listened  to  St.  Peter  on  the  first  Pentecost  were 
"  Parthians  and  Medes  and  Elamites,  and  inhabitants 
of  Mesopotamia." 1  No  doubt  then  the  doctrines  of 
Christ  crossed  the  frontiers  of  the  Roman  Empire,  and 
found  their  way  into  Persia  before  the  Apostles  had  all 
gone  to  their  eternal  rest.  Indeed,  there  is  a  tradition 
that  the  Apostle  Thomas  himself  preached  in  Parthia.2 
Then,  despite  the  fact  that  the  Roman  and  the  Persian 
Empires  were  generally  at  war  with  each  other,  Christian 
soldiers,  captives,  and  traders  continued  to  cross  the 
much  disputed  boundaries,  and  to  pass  on  the  faith  they 
had  received. 

From  the  Acts  of  Thomas?  which  though  only  a  kind  Persian 
of  novel,  dates  from  the  first  half  of  the  third  century,  ^^third 
it  can  safely  be  gathered  that  Christianity  was  fairly  century, 
diffused  in  Persia  at  that  epoch.4     The  same  can  be 
inferred    from     a    letter    of     Dionysius,     patriarch    of 
Alexandria,  to  Pope  Stephen  I.   (253-7).     He  writes  5 : 
"  All    the    provinces   of    Syria    and   Arabia    which    at 
different  times  you  have  supplied  with  necessaries,  and  to 
whom   you    have    now    written,    Mesopotamia,    Pontus, 
and     Bithynia  ...  all     are     rejoicing     everywhere     at 
the    unanimity    and    brotherly    love    now    prevailing." 
St.  Irenaeus,6  Tertullian,7  and  Bardesanes  (Bar-Daisan),8 
too,  are  contemporary  witnesses  that  Christianity  had 

1  Acts,  ii,  9.  2  Eusebius,  H.E.,  iii,  1. 

3  Eng.  trans,  in  Wright,  Apocryphal  Acts.     It  is  a  Syrian  document. 

4  Cf.  Burkitt,  Early  Christianity  outside  the  Roman  Empire,  pp.  63, 
72,  76,  and  the  same  author's  Early  Eastern  Christianity ,  ch.  vi.  See 
also  The  Teaching  of  Thaddeus  or  Addceus  (Addai),  a  Syriac  document 
of  the  third  or  early  fourth  century,  pp.  23,  32,  48.  Eng.  trans,  ap. 
Clark's  Ante-Nicene  Library,  vol.  xx. 

5  Ap.  Euseb.,  I.e.,  vii,  5.  6  Adv.  hceres.,  i,  c.  10. 

7  Adv.  JudcBos,  c.  7. 

8  See  B.'s  (154-223)  Book  of  the  Laws  in  English  and  Syriac  in 
W.  Cureton's  Spicilegium  Syriacum,  London,  1855,  p.  1  ff.  He  tells 
of  Christian  communities  in  Bactria,  etc. 


l6  NICHOLAS    IV. 

found  its  way  into  Persia  in  the  second  century  ;    and 

Arnobius,1  in  the  third  century,  notes  with  emphasis  that 

the  same  Christian  faith  is  found  among  very  different 

nations,  among  which  he  reckons  the  Persians,  Medes, 

and  Parthians. 

Was  the  The  fact  of  this  unity  of  faith  and  practice  between 

Church  auto-  Latins,  Greeks,  and  Orientals,  is  obviously  independent 

cephaious  in    f  relation   that   may   have   existed   between   the 

the  second  J  J  . 

century  ?  Church  in  the  Persian  Empire  and  the  patriarchal  see 
of  Antioch.  Indeed,  later  Oriental  writers,  such  as 
Maris,  Amri,  and  Bar-Hebraeus  (twelfth  and  fourteenth 
centuries),  have  pretended  that  the  Persian  Church 
became  "  autocephalous  "  towards  the  end  of  the  second 
century.  They  say  that  Achadabues  (or  Ahadabues), 
the  fifth  or  sixth  bishop  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon,  the 
principal  see  in  the  Empire,  was  sent,  when  elected,  to 
Antioch  to  be  consecrated.  There  he  was  accused  of 
being  a  Persian  spy.  Having  escaped  with  difficulty 
to  Jerusalem,  he  was  there  consecrated  in  virtue  of 
letters  received  from  Antioch.  Thereupon  "  the  Western 
Fathers ",  seeing  the  difficulties  connected  with  the 
journey  to  Antioch,  drew  up  a  syngrapha  (or  systaticon) 
authorizing  the  Oriental  bishops  in  future  to  consecrate 
their  own  chief,  who  should  rank  after  the  four  patriarchs, 
and  should  have  jurisdiction  "over  all  the  regions  of 
the  East,  Mosul,  Khorasan,  and  Persia  ".2  It  is,  more- 
over, contended  that  the  Council  of  Nicaea  confirmed  this 

1  Adv.  Gentes,  i,  10,  and  ii,  10  al.  12  ;  Meshiha-Zekha,  Hist.,  often 
refers  to  churches  which  he  had  seen,  and  which  dated  from  the  second 
century.  E.g.,  pp.  86,  96.  Cf.  also  the  "  Acts  of  the  Persian  Martyrs 
in  Rome  (270),  SS.  Maris,  Martha,  Audifax,  and  Abacum ".  See 
Butler's  Lives  of  the  Saints,  Jan.  19. 

2  Cf.  Maris  ibn  Solomon,  Comment,  de  Pat.  Orient.,  pt.  i,  pp.  5-6  ; 
Amri,  pt.  ii,  pp.  4-7,  ed.  Gismondi,  Rome,  1899  ;  Bar-Hebraeus, 
Chron.  eccles.,  vol.  iii,  pp.  24-6,  ed.  Abbeloos.  The  four  patriarchs 
had  no  existence  then.  Cf.  what  the  Rev.  G.  P.  Badger,  The  Nestorians 
and  their  Ritual,  i,  p.  137  f.,  London,  1852,  has  to  say  about  this  early 


NICHOLAS    IV.  17 

resolution 1  in  its  thirty- third  canon.2  But  the 
authenticity  of  this  canon  is  much  more  than  doubtful, 
nor  can  it  be  supposed  that  towards  the  end  of  the 
second  century  the  Church  in  Persia  was  as  developed  as 
this  story  supposes.3  We  can,  however,  safely  conclude 
from  this  narrative  that  the  perpetual  warfare  between 
the  two  empires  was  the  chief  cause  of  the  isolation  of 
the  Persian  Church,  and  of  its  subsequent  schismatical 
and  heretical  development. 

In  the  third  century  at  any  rate,  the  organization  of  ?e"ec" tioiJh 
the  Church  in  Persia  made  great  progress,  whether  that  century, 
organization  came  from  Armenia  or  Edessa.4  Eusebius 
tells  us  that  Constantine  was  informed  not  merely  that 
there  were  "  infinite  numbers "  of  Christians  in  that 
Empire,  but  that  "  the  churches  of  God  were  numerous 
among  the  Persians".5  Writing  in  the  sixth  century, 
the  monk  Meshiha-Zeka  (or  Jesuzeka)  of  Adiabene,  in 
his  History  of  the  Bishops  of  Adiabene*  says  that  the 
Persian  Church  was  in  a.d.  225  governed  by  over  twenty 
bishops. 

About  this  very  year  (227)  the  Parthian  dynasty  of 
the  Arsacids  was  replaced  by  the  Sassanid  (227-642). 
For  some  time  the  toleration  which  the  Christians  had 

autocephalous  Church,  especially  p.  403  f.,  where  his  editor,  J.  Mason 
Neale,  has  to  correct  the  statements  of  Mr.  Badger,  as  they  rest  on  a 
clear  and  now  generally  acknowledged  forgery. 

1  Maris,  I.e.,  p.  7.  Note  what  follows  :  It  was  further  decreed  "  ne 
quis  ex  orientalibus  proprium  primatem  apud  patres  occidentales 
accusaret  ". 

2  Al.  can.  38.  Cf.  J.  M.  Neale,  The  Patriarchate  of  Antioch,  pp.  29-30, 
38  ff.,  and  119. 

3  Cf.  J.  Labourt,  Le  Christianisme  dans  V Empire  Perse,  p.  17,  Paris, 
1904. 

4  Sozomen,  H.E.,  ii,  8,  says  that  he  thinks  that  the  Armenians 
and  Osrhoenians  (the  people  especially  of  Edessa  in  Osrhoene)  intro- 
duced Christianity  into  Persia. 

5  Vit.  Constant.,  iv,  c.  8.     Cf.  c.  43. 

6  Sources  Syriaques,  vol.  i,  ed.  Mingana,  p.  106,  Mosul,  1907,  sold  at 
Leipzig.     Cf.  Wigram,  The  Assyrian  Church,  pp.  24,  27,  37. 

Vol.  XVII.  c 


l8  NICHOLAS    IV. 

enjoyed  under  the  earlier  dynasty  continued  under  the 
new  one,  and  we  see  Persians  like  SS.  Abdon  and  Sennen,1 
ignorant  of  persecution  in  their  own  land,  coming  to 
Rome,  and  there  being  put  to  death  for  their  faith.  But 
when  the  Roman  Empire  became  Christian,  and  the 
Roman  emperors  began  not  only  to  protect  their  own 
Christian  subjects,  but  to  interest  themselves  in  their 
coreligionists  in  Persia,  the  rulers  of  that  country  began 
to  view  the  Christians  with  suspicion.  Sapor  II.  the 
Great  (309-79)  may  not  have  been  much  disturbed 
when  he  received  a  request  from  Constantine  the  Great, 
asking  him  to  be  kind  to  "  the  multitudes  of  Christians  " 
in  his  dominions  ;  but  he  may  have  wondered  what  the 
emperor  meant  when  he  went  on  to  say  that  if  he  acceded 
to  his  request  it  would  be  well  for  him,  as  well  as  for  his 
correspondent.  His  suspicions  may  well  have  been 
deepened  when  he  found  that  Constantine  considered 
himself  the  Defender  of  all  Christians  wherever  they 
were,2  and  again  when,  about  343,  he  saw  a  missionary 
(Theophilus,  the  Indian)  sent  by  Constantius  causing 
a  church  to  be  built  "  where  is  the  mart  of 
Persian  commerce  hard  by  the  mouth  of  the  Persian 
Gulf  ".3  The  Christians  in  Persia  would  naturally 
turn  to  a  Christian  ruler  and  a  Christian  Empire  4  ;   and 

1  Butler's  Lives  of  the  Saints,  vii,  p.  364  f.  Martyred  in  the  persecu- 
tion of  Decius,  250,  their  portraits,  showing  their  Persian  bonnets,  may 
still  be  seen  in  the  Catacomb  of  St.  Pontianus.  See  the  illustration  in 
Roller,  Les  Catacombes,  ii,  p.  345.  See  also  the  case  of  the  Persian 
pilgrims  SS.  Maris,  Martha,  etc.,  martyred  at  Rome  in  270.  Butler, 
ib.,  i,  p.   185. 

2  Cf.  Eusebius,  Vit.  Const.,  iv,  cc.  8  and  9,  and  better  in  Theodoret, 
H.E.,  i,  25. 

3  Philostorgius,  H.E.,  iii,  c.  4.  This  place  may  well  have  been  Ommana 
on  the  Arabian  coast  of  the  Persian  Gulf.  Most  writers  place  O.  in 
the  bay  of  Chabbar  on  the  Makran  coast,  though  others  identify  it 
with  Sohar  "  on  the  Batineh  coast  of  Oman,  north  of  Muscat  ".  Schoff, 
The  Periplus  of  the  Erythrcean  Sea,  pp.  150-1. 

4  Because  oft  protected  by  them.     See  Theodoret,  H.E.,  v,  39. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  19 

such  a  famous  man  among  them  as  bishop  (?)  Aphraates, 
known  as  the  Persian  sage,1  writing  in  336-7,  did  not 
hesitate  to  explain  to  the  Christians  that  Sapor  and  his 
soldiers  would  be  humbled  and  that  the  Romans  would 
be  victorious.2  Whatever  were  the  motives  that  animated 
Sapor  II.,  he  inaugurated  one  of  the  most  terrible  perse- 
cutions which  the  Church  has  ever  experienced.  It  lasted 
almost  continuously  for  forty  years,  and  ceased  only 
with  the  monarch's  death  (379).  Sozomen  gives  16,000 
as  the  number  of  known  martyrs  in  this  persecution.3 

No  doubt  the  motives  of  Sapor  and  of  his  Zoroastrian 
advisers,  the  Magians,  were  in  the  main  those  of  their 
people.  Of  these  we  are  informed  in  some  of  the  "  Acts 
of  the  Persian  Martyrs  ".  The  Christians,  we  are  there 
told,  "  destroy  our  holy  teaching,  and  teach  men  to 
serve  one  God,  and  not  to  honour  the  sun  or  fire.  They 
teach  them,  too,  to  defile  water  by  their  ablutions,  to 
refrain  from  marriage  and  the  procreation  of  children, 
and  to  refuse  to  accompany  the  King  of  Kings  in  his 
wars.  They  have  no  scruple  about  the  slaughter  and 
eating  of  animals.  They  bury  the  corpses  of  men  in  the 
earth,  and  attribute  to  God  the  origin  of  snakes  and 
creeping  things."  4 

The  death  of  Sapor  did  not  end  the  persecution  of  the  Persecution 
Christians.     The  Magians  were  ever  trying  to  excite  the  chosroes  I. 
Shahs  against  them,5  and  at  times  put  forth  specious 
arguments   in   favour   of   their   wishes.      The    following 
reasoning  enabled  them  to  prevail  even  on  Chosroes  I., 

1  See  the  introduction  to  his  Demonstrations  in  vol.  xiii  of  A  Select 
Library  of  Nicene  and  post-Nicene  Fathers,  Oxford,   1898,  p.   152  ff. 

2  See  especially  Demonstrate  v,  translated,  ib.,  p.  352  ff. 

3  H.E.,  ii,  14. 

4  Acts  of  Aqib-shima,  ap.  Acta  SS.,  ed.  Bedjan,  1890-5,  cited  by 
Wigram,  I.e.,  pp.  64-5.  Cf.  the  official  creed  put  forth  by  a  viceroy  of 
Yezdegerd  II.,  450,  in  St.  Martin,  Memoires  sur  I'Armenie,  ii,  472,  cited 
in  the  Diet,  of  Christian  Biography,  sub  Chosroes. 

6  See,  e.g.,  Socrates,  H.E.,  vii,  8. 


20 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


The  Persian 

Christians 

become 


surnamed  Nushirvan  or  the  Just  (531-79),  to  persecute 
the  Christians.  The  Roman  Caesar,  they  said,  compels 
all  within  his  dominions  to  worship  as  he  does.  "  Let 
thy  godship,  therefore,  command  that  ...  all  persons 
in  thy  dominions  worship  according  to  thy  worship,  and 
that  such  as  insolently  dare  to  resist  thy  commandment 
shall  no  longer  live."  x 

But  the  action  of  the  Roman  Caesars  in  trying  to  force 
upon  their  subjects  acceptance  or  rejection  of  the  councils 
Nestorians.  of  Nicaea,  Ephesus,  and  Chalcedon,  not  merely  brought 
temporary  persecution  upon  the  Christians  of  Persia, 
but  plunged  them  for  the  most  part  into  the  "two-person  " 
heresy  of  Nestorius,  who  had  been  condemned  at  the 
Council  of  Ephesus  (431).  "  For  the  bishops  generally 
throughout  the  whole  country  of  Persia,"  says  John  of 
Ephesus,  "  are  Nestorians,  and  but  few  orthodox 
(i.e.,  Monophysites)  are  found  there." 2  One  certain 
result,  at  any  rate,  followed  imperial  interference  in 
religious  controversies.  Whether  it  was  a  case  of  heretical 
emperors  persecuting  Catholics,  or  of  Catholic  emperors 
persecuting  heretics,  men  were  in  each  case  driven  into 
exile,  and  truth  or  error,  as  the  case  might  be,  was  thus 
propagated.  The  great  persecutions  of  the  pagan 
emperors  of  old  Rome  drove  Christians  across  the 
Euphrates,  and  thus  helped  to  spread  the  faith  in  Persia. 
The  attempts  of  the  Basileus  on  the  Bosphorus  to  make 
all  men  conform  to  his  religious  decrees  helped  in  the 

1  John  of  Ephesus,  H.E.,  ii,  19;  ed.  Payne  Smith,  p.  119.  John 
was  a  contemporary  of  these  events.  Cf.  Evagrius,  H.E.,  v,  7-15  ; 
and  the  Acts  of  S.  Hiztibouzit,  p.  261,  ed.  F.  C.  Conybeare,  in  his 
The  Apology  of  Apollonius,  etc.,  London,   1894. 

2  H.E.,  vi,  20.  To  the  Monophysite  John  "  the  orthodox  "  are 
naturally  Monophysites.  John  also  tells  us  significantly  that  "  the 
Catholicus  of  the  Nestorians  was  constantly  at  the  court  of  Chosroes  I." 
In  his  life  of  the  Persian  Bishop  Simeon,  he  repeats  the  assertion  that 
"  believing  bishops  and  their  dioceses  are  few  there  ".  See  his  "  Lives 
of  the  Eastern  Saints  "  (written  566-8),  ed.  W.  Brooks,  with  Eng. 
trans,  in  Bib.  Orient.,  t.  xvii,  p.  138. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  21 

fifth  century  to  spread  Nestorianism  in  that  country. 
About  the  middle  of  that  century,  Theodosius  II.  con- 
demned "  the  impious  creed  of  Nestorius  "  and  those 
who  professed  it 1 ;  and  because  they  were  persecuted 
by  the  Byzantine  rulers,  they  were  naturally  favoured 
by  the  Persian  rulers.  If  the  latter  were  to  have  Christians 
in  their  dominions  they  had  better,  they  argued,  have 
those  who  were  at  enmity  with  Constantinople.2 
Accordingly,  the  Byzantine  historian  Cedrenus  (c.  1057), 
states  that  Chosroes  I.,  Nushirvan,  out  of  hatred  of  the 
Roman  Emperor,  Heraclius,  compelled  the  Christians  in 
his  dominions  to  become  Nestorians.3 

But  how  exactly  did  it  come  about  that  by  the  end 
of  the  sixth  century  most  of  the  bishops,  and  presumably 
many  of  their  people  as  well,  had  become  Nestorians. 
The  main  reasons  were  the  isolation  of  the  Persian 
Christians,  the  absence  of  Persian  bishops  from  the 
Councils  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon,4  the  ambition  of 
some  of  their  ecclesiastical  rulers,  and  the  policy  of  the 
Shahs.  During  the  first  centuries  of  their  Christianity 
the  Persians  were  one  in  faith  with  the  Greeks  and  the 
Latins  ;  and,  as  they  had  received  their  faith  and  their 
orders  from  the  West,  they  naturally  looked  up  to  its 
great  bishops.  If  their  bishops  had  been  consecrated 
at  Edessa,5  they  were  thus  in  dependence  on  the  patriarch 

1  Evagrius,  II. E.,  i,  c.  12. 

2  Cf.  ib.,  v,  7,  where  Chosroes  I.  has  to  complain  of  Christians  in 
his  dominions  joining  his  enemies  in  time  of  war.  It  is  true  that  they 
had  been  badly  treated  by  the  Persians  "  especially  on  account  of 
their  faith  ". 

3  Chron.,  i,  415,  or  ed.  Bonn,  i,  727.  Cf.  Agapius  (Mahboub),  Hist., 
p.  [199]. 

4  Cf.  Agapius  (Mahboub),  Hist.,  p.  151.     On  Agap.  see  note  below. 

5  "  The  '  Church  of  the  Easterns  '  was  the  daughter,"  says  Wigram, 
I.e.,  pp.  25-6,  "  not  of  Antioch,  but  of  Edessa."  But  Edessa  in  turn 
got  its  episcopal  succession  from  Antioch.  See  Burkitt,  Early 
Christianity  outside  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  12,  and  his  Early  Eastern 
Christianity,  pp.  18-19,  and  26.     From  this  last-named  work  we  read 


22  NICHOLAS    IV. 

of  Antioch  from  whom  the  episcopate  of  Edessa  traced 
its  origin.  Indeed,  Solomon,  bishop  of  Basra  on  the  right 
bank  of  the  united  rivers  Euphrates  and  Tigris,  writing 
about  1212,  and  speaking  about  the  Eastern  Catholici, 
the  successors  of  Addai  and  Mari,  says  that  they  were 
"  of  the  laying  on  of  hands  of  Antioch  ".  Then,  of  their 
later  successors,  he  writes  that  they  were  "  of  the  laying 
on  of  hands  at  Ctesiphon."1 

It  is  not,  perhaps,  certain  that  any  Persian  bishops 
were  present  at  the  Council  of  Nice.  Some,  however, 
believe  that  a  certain  John  of  Beit-Parsaya,  a  name 
found  in  Syriac  lists  of  the  Fathers  of  that  Council,  was 
a  Persian,  while  others  contend  that  Parsaya  is  a  mistake 
for  Perrhae.2  Of  late  years  the  tradition,  given  in  our 
note  below,  that  Persian  bishops  were  present  at  Nice 
has  been  strengthened  by  the  discovery  of  an  anonymous 
history  known  as  the  Chronique  de  Seert,  said  to  have 
been  written  not  later  than  the  beginning  of  the 
thirteenth  century.  "  Among  those,"  says  our  author, 
"  summoned  (to  the  Council)  by  the  bishop  of  Rome,  was 
Papa,  who  did  not,  however,  assist  at  it,  on  account  of 
his  great  age."  He  was,  nevertheless,  represented  at  it, 
he  continues,  by  Simeon  and  by  Mar  Sahdost  or  James 
of  Nisibis.  Whether  this  statement  is  of  any  value  or 
not,  he  quotes  Elias,  bishop  of  Merv,  and  Sahdost,  bishop 
of  Tirhan,  for  the  further  assertion  that  among  the 
Orientals  at  the  Council  were  George,  bishop  of  Sindjar, 
and  John,  bishop  of  Beit  Garmai.  Now  as  Elias  flourished 
in  661  and  was  the  author  of  a  "  trustworthy  "  history 

that  according  to  some  ancient  Syriac  documents,  Serapion  of  Antioch 
(190-203),  who  consecrated  Patut  of  Edessa,  was  himself  consecrated  by 
Pope  Zephyrinus.  There  may  be  want  of  historical  accuracy  in  these 
statements,  but  they  serve  to  show  tradition. 

1  Cf.  his  The  Book  of  the  Bee,  c.  51,  p.  116,  ed.  and  trans,  of  E.  A.  W. 
Budge,   Oxford,    1886. 

2  In  Commagene.  Gams,  Series  Episc,  p.  436,  does  not  give  a  bishop 
John  of  Perrhae. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  23 

of  the  Church  now  lost,  there  does  not  seem  much  reason 
to  doubt  that  Persian  bishops  were  actually  present  at 
the  Council.1  But,  in  any  case,  the  Persian  bishops  must 
have  known  all  about  the  Council,  as  St.  James  of  Nisibis 
(which  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Persians  not  many 
years  after  the  Council),  and  Paul  of  Neo-Cesarea,  a 
fortress  on  the  banks  of  the  Euphrates,  were  certainly 
present  at  it.2  Unfortunately,  however,  the  rivalry 
between  the  Roman  and  Persian  Empires  isolated  the 
Christian  subjects  of  the  latter  more  and  more  from  their 
Western  brethren.  Still,  for  nearly  a  hundred  years  after 
the  Council  of  Nice,  Persia  was  in  full  communion  with 
the  Church  Catholic. 

The  ecclesiastical  union  between  the  Orientals  and  Council  of 
the  rest  of  the  Catholic  world  is  well  brought  out  by  what  410. 
we  know  of  the  story  of  Marutha,  bishop  of  Maipherqat 
(or  Martyropolis)  near  Amida,  whom  Socrates  calls 
"  Bishop  of  Mesopotamia  ".3  Sent  on  a  mission  by 
Theodosius  II.  to  Yezdegerd  I.,  Shah  of  Persia,  he  made 
himself  as  much  beloved  by  that  monarch  as  by  his 
subject  Christians.  Through  his  influence,  the  Shah 
issued  an  Edict  of  Toleration  (409)  on  behalf  of  his 
Christian  subjects,  permitted  Marutha  to  erect  churches 

1  The  Anon.  Hist.  (ed.  A.  Scher,  Patrolog.  Orient.,  iv,  Paris,  1908), 
c.  18,  p.  277.  It  is  'Abhd-isho  (thirteenth  century)  who  calls  the  hist,  of 
Elias  "trustworthy".  See  Wright,  Syriac  Lit.,  p.  180.  Cf.  the 
"  Hist,  of  the  Metropolitan  See  of  Karka  d'Beit  Slokh  ",  ap.  Bedjan, 
Acta  MM.  el  SS.,  ii,  507.  Agapius  (Mahboub),  a  Christian  Arab  of 
the  tenth  century,  says,  p.  548,  ed.  Vasiliev,  Paris,  1909,  that  Zinabius, 
bishop  of  Seleucia,  was  present  at  the  Council  of  Nice. 

2  Theodoret,  H.E.,  i,  7.  It  may  be  noted  that  Bar-Hebraeus, 
Chvon.  Eccles.,  n.  23,  ed.  Abbeloos,  i,  p.  70,  says  that  bishops  from 
Mesopotamia  and  Persia  were  at  the  Council  of  Nice  ;  and  long  before 
him  Maris,  De  Pat.  Nest.,  i,  p.  13,  says  that  Papa,  bishop  of  Valencia 
(whom  Wigram,  p.  26,  calls  the  "  first  figure  of  any  reality  and  weight  " 
in  the  Persian  Church),  unable  to  go  by  reason  of  his  age,  sent  two  repre- 
sentatives who  afterwards  succeeded  him. 

3  H.E.,  vii,  8. 


24  NICHOLAS    IV. 

wherever  he  wished,1  and  to  hold  with  Mar  Isaac, 
Catholicus  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon,  the  first  Persian  Synod 
(410) .  Forty  bishops  assembled  at  Seleucia,  acknowledged 
their  indebtedness  not  only  to  Marutha,  but  also  to  various 
"  chief  bishops  of  the  country  of  the  Romans  ",2  and 
accepted  "the  orthodox  and  true  canons  which  had  been 
laid  down  by  the  honoured  bishops  of  the  West  ",  and 
of  which  the  Western  Fathers  had  sent  them  a  copy.3 
Marutha  then  insisted  that  all  should  show  their  adhesion 
to  them  by  affixing  their  signatures  to  them.  This 
was  duly  done,  and  all  would  have  been  well  but  for  the 
interference  of  the  civil  power.  The  acts  of  the  Synod 
tell  us  that  Yezdegerd  declared  Mar  Isaac  head  of  all 
the  Christians  of  the  East,  and  made  it  treason  for  any 
one  to  resist  the  bishops  appointed  by  him.4  It  was 
the  beginning  of  the  end  of  the  subservience  of  the 
Orientals  to  the  civil  power.  When  the  Council  was  over, 
Marutha  returned  to  Constantinople,  and  there  proclaimed 
the  integrity  of  the  faith  of  the  Oriental  Christians. 5 
Eastern  Ten  years  later  there  was  still  absolute  union  in  faith 

'  between  East  and  West.  On  the  occasion  of  another 
embassy  from  Constantinople,  another  synod  of  the 
Eastern  bishops  was  called  together  by  the  Catholicus, 
Mar  Jabalaha  I.6  Again  the  Eastern  bishops  asked  the 
Western  envoy  to  give  them  the  laws  established  by  the 
blessed  bishops  for  the  Catholic  Church  in  the  Empire 

1  lb.  In  fact,  Socrates  says  that  only  death  prevented  the  conversion 
of  the  Shah  himself.  Cf.  the  Synod  of  Mar  Isaac,  a.d.  410.  It  is  the 
first  council  in  the  Syriac  Synodicon  Orientate,  ed.  Chabot,  with  a 
French  trans.,  Paris,  1902.  A  Latin  trans,  of  this  particular  Synod 
is  given  ap.  Muratori,  Antiq.  Med.   fF.vi,  iii,  p.  975  ff. 

2  Of  these  the  first  named  is  Porphyrius,  patriarch  of  Antioch. 
S.O.,  p.  255. 

3  lb. 

4  lb.,  p.  261.     Cf.  can.  12,  p.  266. 

5  Maris,  p.  27. 

6  The  acts  in  Chabot,  p.  266  ff. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  25 

of  the  Romans,  in  order  that  "  professing  the  one  time 
faith  of  those  bishops  who  have  succeeded  the  illustrious 
Apostles,  we  may  be  directed  by  the  laws  which  they 
have  made  at  different  times,  so  that  there  may  not  be 
the  smallest  divergence  between  us  and  them,  but  that 
we  may  all  be  part  of  the  one  body  which  is  Christ  ". 

Unfortunately  the  union  of  the  Orientals  with  the  The  Synod 
Church  Catholic  was  at  this  very  time  on  the  eve  of  Markabta, 
breaking.  The  peace-loving,  fair-minded  Yezdegerd  I.  424.  ^^ 
died  the  very  year  of  this  Synod  (420),  and  Jabalaha, 
the  Catholicus,  about  the  same  time.  Schism  followed 
in  both  Church  and  State.  In  the  State  it  was  soon 
ended.  Vararanes  (or  Barhram  II.)  succeeded  his 
father,  and  at  once  began  to  wage  fierce  war  on  the 
Roman  Empire  (420-1),  and  on  the  Christians  of  whom 
a  number  fled  for  refuge  across  the  Euphrates.1  But 
in  the  Church  the  schism  is  said  to  have  led  immediately 
to  results  much  more  fateful.  On  the  death  of  Jabalaha, 
there  were  three  candidates  for  his  see,  two  of  whom, 
Ma'na  or  Magnes  and  Farbokht,  appear  to  have  been 
put  forward  by  the  sword,  and  deposed  by  it.  The  third 
candidate,  Dad-Ishu,  who  was  ultimately  selected,  had 
in  the  interim  to  suffer  considerable  persecution.  When 
his  position  was  secured,  there  was  held  the  Synod  of 
Markabta  (424). 2  Thirty-six  bishops  present  at  it 
recognized  Dad-Ishu  as  head  of  the  "  flock  of  Christ  in 
all  the  countries  of  the  East".  Then  one  of  their 
number  rose  and  pointed  out  what  help  the  "  rulers  of 
the  West  "  or  "  the  Western  Fathers  "  had  been  to  them 
in  their  schisms  from  the  days  of  Papa  onwards.     He 

1  Socrates,  H.E.,  vii,  18-21.  The  persecution  ended  when  the 
Persians  had  to  make  peace  with  the  Romans.  lb.,  c.  20.  Theophanes, 
Chronog.,  i,  p.  134,  ed.  Bonn,  explains  that  Theodosius  made  the 
peace  especially  for  the  benefit  of  the  Christians.  Cf.  Maris,  De  Pat.  N., 
p.  31. 

a  Synod.  Ay.,  p.  285  ff. 


26  NICHOLAS    IV. 

told  how  these  Western  Fathers  had  taken  cognizance 
of  the  attack  on  Papa,  had  reversed  the  decision  of  his 
enemies,  and  had  deprived  the  ring-leaders  of  the  rebellious 
bishops  of  their  sees,  but  had  left  those  in  possession  who 
had  erred  rather  from  simplicity  than  malice.1  They 
also  declared  that  the  other  Eastern  bishops  had  no 
right  to  hold  a  synod  against  their  head,  the  holder  "  of 
the  patriarchal  see  established  at  Seleucia  ".  Our  Lord 
had  indeed  given  the  priesthood  to  all  the  Apostles,  but 
the  Principate  only  to  Peter.2 

Similarly,  the  Western  Fathers  and  the  Emperor  of 
the  Romans  were  the  means  of  restoring  to  their  positions 
both  Mar  Isaac  and  Mar  Jabalaha. 

After  this,  in  the  text  of  this  synod  which  has  reached 
us,  comes  the  extraordinary  conclusion  that  the  Oriental 
bishops  thereupon  decreed  that  "  the  Orientals  must 
not  complain  of  their  patriarch  to  the  Western 
Patriarchs  ".  Christ  alone  can  judge  their  patriarch. 
This  conclusion  is  so  utterly  at  variance  with  all  that 
precedes  it,  that  modern  writers  generally  believe  there 
is  interpolation  somewhere.  Labonst  thinks  that  the 
first  part  is  an  interpolation  ;  but  as  that  is  in  harmony 
with  the  language  of  the  synods  of  410  and  420,  it  seems 
more  likely  that  Assemanni  is  correct,  and  that  the 
conclusion  is  a  Nestorian  invention.3 

1  lb.,  pp.  290-1.  Thus  they  decided  that  Mar  Simeon,  who  had  been 
elected  in  Papa's  place,  might  succeed  him,  as  he  had  been  forced  to 
what  he  had  done. 

2  They  quote  Mat.  iii,  15,  and  xvi,  18,  19.  Papa  was  the  predecessor 
of  Simeon  Bar  Cabae,  who  was  martyred  in  341. 

3  J.  A.  Assemanni,  De  Catholicis  Chald.  et  Nestorianorum,  p.  17, 
Rome,  1775.  He  also  cites  the  words  of  Elias  of  Damascus  (c.  890) 
in  his  Nomocanone,  where  anathema  is  pronounced  against  anyone 
who  should  dare  to  cite  the  Catholicus  before  any  Patriarch.  But, 
as  he  notes,  all  that  was  really  decided  by  the  Council  under  Dad-Ishu 
was  that  the  Orientals  should  not  hold  conventicles  against  the 
Catholicus.  Of  course,  Maris,  in  his  account  of  Dad-Ishu,  knows 
nothing  of  this  unlikely  decree  (pp.  31-2). 


NICHOLAS    IV.  27 

However,  before  the  next  Oriental  synod  was  held  Nestorius. 
(486),  the  Council  of  Ephesus  (431)  had  condemned 
Nestorius,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  for  teaching  that 
in  Christ  there  were  two  persons,  and  that  doctrine, 
with  schismatical  consequences,  had  penetrated  into 
the  Persian  Empire. 

Hardly  had  one  council  been  called  together  to  condemn  Eutyches. 
the  "two-person"  error  of  Nestorius,  than  another  had 
to  be  called  at  Chalcedon  (451)  to  condemn  the  "  one- 
nature  "  error  (monophysitism)  of  his  opponent,  the 
monk  Eutyches.  In  his  zeal  to  refute  Nestorius,  he  fell 
into  heresy  himself,  and  taught,  but  in  confused  language, 
that  after  the  Incarnation  the  God-man  had  but  one 
nature. 

Unfortunately  before  his  authoritative  condemnation 
by  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  Eutyches  had,  through  the 
favour  of  the  Emperor,  been  acquitted  by  the  so-called 
Robber  Synod  of  Ephesus  (449).  Many,  especially  among 
peoples  at  a  distance,  supposed  that  the  tenets  of 
Eutyches  had  been  duly  approved,  and  their  belief  was 
strengthened  by  the  assurances  of  his  followers  who 
were  exiled  by  the  decrees  of  the  Catholic  emperors. 
Nestorians  and  Eutychians  driven  forth  from  the  Roman 
Empire  crossed  the  Euphrates  into  the  Persian  Empire,1 

1  The  Nestorians  had  captured  the  famous  school  of  Edessa.  Broken 
up  by  the  emperor  Zeno  in  489,  its  professors  spread  their  doctrines 
over  Persia.  "  Persarum  schola  ex  urbe  Edessa  excisa  est  "  says  the 
Chronicle  of  Edessa  in  the  Corpus  SS.  Christ.  Orient.,  SS.  Syri,  ser.  iii, 
t.  iv,  p.  8,  ed.  I.  Guidi.  Cf.  ib.,  p.  9,  sub  an.  831  (Era  of  the  Seleucidae), 
i.e.,  a.d.  520,  for  a  banishment  of  a  bishop  of  Edessa  to  Seleucia  because 
he  would  not  subscribe  to  Chalcedon.  An  Eng.  trans,  of  the  Chron. 
is  in  the  Journal  of  Sacred  Lit.,  1864,  p.  28  ff.  Re  the  school  of 
Edessa  see  also  John  of  Ephesus,  who  wrote  his  Lives  of  the  Eastern 
Saints  (a.d.  566-8),  about  the  same  time  that  the  Edessene  Chronicle 
was  written.  See  his  life  of  Simeon,  the  bishop,  ap.  Pat.  Orient., 
t.  xvii,  p.  139,  ed.  Brooks.  See  also  the  important  letter  of  the  Mono- 
physite  bishop,  Simeon  Beth-Arsan  (510-25),  ap.  Assemanni,  Bib. 
Orient.,  i,  p.  353. 


28  NICHOLAS    IV. 

where  they  were  well  received  as  hostile  to  the  Czesars 
at  Constantinople.  Both  heresies  found  a  permanent 
home  in  Persia,  especially  that  of  Nestorius  which  was 
first  in  the  field,1  and  which  national  hatred  of  Egypt, 
and  hatred  of  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  caused  to  be 
preferred  by  the  Orientals  to  Monophysitism.2  It  was, 
as  we  have  seen,  also  fostered  by  the  Shahs. 
rBeaiSapStie  Nevertheless,  as  the  fifth  century  progressed,  we  are 
of  Nes-  assured  by  Eutychius,  patriarch  of  Alexandria  (950), 
that  Nestorianism  was  dying  out  in  Persia,  when  it  was 
revived  by  Barsauma,  archbishop  of  Nisibis.3  He  had 
imbibed  Nestorianism  in  the  famous  school  of  Edessa,4 
and,  after  being  expelled  from  it  with  other  Nestorians, 
became  metropolitan  of  Nisibis  (453),  and  all-powerful 
with  Shah  Firuz  (457-85).  He  persuaded  the  Persian 
monarch  that  his  Christian  subjects  would  never  be  true 
to  him  until  their  faith  was  different  from  that  of  the 
Greeks,  and  that  consequently  he  should  force  upon  them 
the  doctrine  of  Nestorius.  This  the  King  proceeded  to  do, 
and  succeeded  in  spreading  the  heresy  throughout  his 
dominions.5 

1  Nestorius  himself  was  banished  to  Egypt,  Socrates,  vii,  34  ; 
Evagrius,  i,  7.  A  thirteenth  century  history  known  as  the  Chronicle 
of  Seert,  ap.  Patrolog.  Orient.,  t.  viii,  p.  415,  says  that  Theodosius 
banished  "18  metropolitans,  and  many  bishops,  priests,  and  monks  " 
who  supported  Nestorius.  [See  also  Agapius,  p.  [155]  ubi  infra.]  Cf  ib 
vol.  xiii,  c.  55,  p.  461  (Paris,  1919)  for  similar  action  of  the  Emperor 
Maurice. 

2  Cf.  Agapius  (Mahboub),  first  Arabian  Christian  historian  (tenth 
century),  Hist.  Univers.,  ap.  Pat.  Orient.,  v  ff.,  ed.  A.  Vasiliev,  p.  [152] 
and  passim. 

3  Annals,  ap.  Migne,  P.G.L.,  t.  iii,  p.  1033. 

4  See  note,  p.  27. 

5  Bar-Hebraeus,  Chron.  eccles.,  p.  62  ff.  Eutychius,  I.e.  ;  Meshiha- 
Zeka,  Hist.,  p.  147  ;  Maris,  De  Pat.  com.,  pp.  35-40  (the  wretched 
character  given  to  Barsauma  even  by  Maris  is  enough  to  justify  most 
of  the  accusations  of  Bar-Hebraeus  against  him,  or  even  those  of 
Leontius  of  Byzantium  in  his  work  against  the  Nestorians,  Lib.  iii, 
n.  21.     He  wrote  it  between  529  and  544.    There  would  appear  to-be 


NICHOLAS    IV.  29 

But  Barsauma  was  not  satisfied  with  propagating  his 
views  by  violence  only.  He  established  a  school  at 
Nisibis,  where  the  doctrines  which  he  had  imbibed  from 
Ibas,  bishop  of  Edessa,  were  taught,  and  when,  in  489, 
the    Emperor   Zeno   broke    up   the    school    of   Edessa, 

so  much  confusion  of  thought  as  to  what  is  the  kernel  of  the  teaching 
of  Nestorius,  that  we  must  say  something  about  it,  so  as  to  answer 
the  question  as  to  whether  those  Orientals  who  are  now  and  always 
have  been  called  Nestorians  are  really  so  or  not.  Wigram  appears  to 
suppose  they  are  not,  but  that  in  fact  they  are  orthodox.  Leaving 
aside  the  difficulty  of  supposing  that  their  opponents  for  1,500  years 
have  been  incapable  of  properly  understanding  their  position,  and 
granting  that  it  may  be  difficult  always  to  understand  their  terms,  the 
very  comparisons  which  they  make  in  their  official  confessions  show 
that  they  believed  that,  for  a  time  at  least,  there  existed  a  perfect  human 
person,  whatever  became  of  it  when  the  human  nature  which  belonged 
to  it  was  taken  by  the  Second  Person  of  the  Blessed  Trinity.  They 
say,  to  use  Mr.  Wigram 's  own  translation,  "  He  took  it  inseparably,  a 
perfect  temple,  to  be  the  dwelling-place  of  his  Godhead  "  (p.  275).  Now, 
the  human  nature  taken  by  the  Second  Person  never  existed  complete 
by  itself  like  a  temple  to  be  taken  possession  of  by  the  Divine  person. 
Hence  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  doctrine  of  these  Orientals  who 
revere  Nestorius  is  correctly  given  by  one  of  them  who  writes  :  "  Note 
the  belief  in  the  unity  of  parsopa  (person)  of  the  son  of  God  and  of  the 
man  ;  call  the  Virgin,  mother,  not  of  God,  but  of  the  Christ  ;  separate 
the  natures  ;  see  the  persons  ;  but  give  one  and  the  same  adoration." 
Mar  Sabriso,  f  650,  ed.  Mingana,  Sources  Syriaques,  vol.  i,  228.  Cf. 
Meshiha-Zeka,  pp.  141,  143-6  ;  and  Chabot,  Synod.,  pp.  583,  586,  597, 
627,  632.  See  especially  p.  597,  where  an  assembly  of  Nestorian  bishops 
states  :  "  When  Christ  is  called  God,  one  does  not  mean  the  Three 
Persons  of  the  Trinity,  but  only  the  person  of  God  the  Word  ;  and 
similarly  when  Christ  is  called  man,  one  does  not  mean  all  the  persons 
of  humanity,  but  only  that  one  person  of  the  human  race  who  has  been 
taken  for  union  with  God  the  Word.  Nature  cannot  subsist  without 
the  person."  And  so  in  a  conference  before  Justinian,  Babai,  bishop 
of  Sigar  (Sindjar),  said  that  "nature  (or  substance)  could  not  exist 
without  an  hypostasis  (person),  nor  an  hypostasis  without  a  nature. 
Therefore,  the  two  natures  could  not  have  one  hypostasis  "  (Chronique 
de  Seert,  p.  188  or  [96].  John  of  Ephesus,  too,  quotes  another  "  Babai  ", 
the  Catholicus  (499-504)  as  saying  :  "  The  Word  of  God  came  down 
on  a  man  like  us,  born  of  a  woman."  (See  his  "Life  of  Simeon", 
p.  148,  ed.  Brooks,  ap.  Bib.  Orient.,  t.  xvii.  Mr.  Wigram's  views  are 
not  new.  They  had  already  been  propounded  by  Mr.  Badger,  I.e., 
and  especially  by  F.  F.  Bethune-Baker,  Nestorius  and  his  Teaching, 


30  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Barsauma    greatly    strengthened    his    own    school    by 

receiving  the  fugitives  into  it.1 
The  rise  of        Now  that  we  have  seen  Nestorianism  well  on  the  way 
Cathoiicus  of  to  becoming  the  dominant  form  of  Christianity  in  the 
ctesiphon      East,  we  must  retrace  out  steps  a  little  in  order  to  sketch 

the  rise  of  the  bishop  who  was  to  become  its  head. 

with  special  reference  to  the  newly-recovered  Apology  of  Nestorius, 
The  Bazaar  of  Heraclides  (French  trans.,  ed.  F.  Nau,  Paris,  1910), 
Cambridge,  1908.  He  tries  to  prove  that  "  Nestorius  was  not 
Nestorian  ",  p.  vii.  In  judging  of  the  teaching  of  Nestorius  we  must 
never  forget  that,  according  to  his  contemporary  the  able  lawyer  and 
historian  Socrates  (H.E.,  vii,  32  and  4),  he  was  grossly  illiterate,  and 
that  he  erred  rather  in  his  spoken  than  in  his  written  words.  He  said  : 
"  I  cannot  call  him  God  who  was  but  two  or  three  months  old."  Then 
it  would  appear  that  the  three  modern  writers  I  have  cited  have  never 
themselves  fully  grasped  the  Catholic  doctrine  that  the  human  nature 
assumed  by  the  Second  Person  of  the  Blessed  Trinity  had  never  an 
existence  except  as  united  to  the  divine.  From  the  first  instant  of  its 
existence,  "  the  humanity,"  to  use  the  words  of  Socrates,  "  was 
united  to  the  Divinity  in  the  Saviour."  Hence  Mr.  Badger  himself 
quotes  documents  that  show  that  the  Nestorians  are  Nestorians.  One 
of  the  Nestorian  service  books  (Khamees),  he  says  (ii,  p.  39),  proclaims 
that  God  the  Son  took  "  from  us  a  nature  and  a  person."  Cf.  ib.,  p.  393, 
where  he  quotes  Mar  Abd  Yeshua,  the  Nestorian  metropolitan  of 
Nisibis  (1298),  as  saying  in  his  The  Jewel :  God  "  took  to  Himself  a 
man  for  His  habitation  .  .  .  and  thus  united  an  offspring  of  mortal 
nature  to  His  Divinity  in  an  everlasting  and  indissoluble  union." 
Mr.  Baker  assures  us  (p.  197)  that  Nestorius  had  "  one  only  end  in 
view — that  no  one  should  call  the  Word  of  God  a  creature  or  the  man- 
hood which  was  assumed  incomplete  "  (the  italics  are  ours),  i.e.,  from 
the  words  of  Nestorius,  a  manhood  complete  even  as  to  its  individuality 
or  personality.  Accordingly  F.  Nau,  the  translator  of  Le  livre 
d'Heraclide, writes  with  justice  (p.  xii)  "il  a  ete  victime  de  l'imprecision 
de  son  langage  theologique  ". 

1  M.-Z.,  p.  147.  John  of  Ephesus  in  his  Life  of  Simeon  the  Bishop 
{Persian),  ap.  Lives  of  the  Eastern  Saints,  ed.  E.  W.  Brooks,  Pat. 
Orient.,  t.  xvii,  p.  138  (Paris,  1923),  says  :  "  It  is  especially  in  that 
country  that  the  teaching  of  the  school  of  Theodore  and  Nestorius  is 
very  widespread,  so  that  believing  bishops  (i.e.,  Monophysite)  and  their 
dioceses  are  few  there."  Then,  on  p.  139,  he  tells  of  the  suppression 
of  the  Persian  school  of  Edessa,  and  of  the  Persian  students  ("  keen 
enquirers  ")  being  established  at  Nisibis,  "  from  which  all  the  country 
drinks  the  dregs  of  gall."  Cf.  also  Theodorus  Lector,  H.E.,  ii,  n.  5, 
ap.  P.G.L.,  t.  86,  p.  186,  etc.,  49,  p.  210. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  31 

Some  twenty  miles  below  Baghdad  stands  the  village 
of  El-Mada'in  (the  two  cities),  marking  the  site  of  the 
double  city  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon  on  the  right  and  left  bank 
respectively  of  the  Tigris.  Ctesiphon  rose  in  importance 
with  the  decay  of  Seleucia,  which  from  its  position  was  more 
exposed  to  the  attacks  of  the  Romans.  Tacitus  calls  it 
"  the  seat  of  the  Empire  "  (of  Persia),  and  in  the  early 
days  of  the  Persian  Church  it  was  a  very  large  city.  As 
Christianity  entered  Persia  from  the  north,  it  will  be 
readily  understood  that  there  were  other  bishoprics  in 
Persia  before  that  of  "  the  two  cities  ".1  To  begin  with, 
Seleucia-Ctesiphon  was  served  by  visiting  bishops.2  Its 
first  permanent  bishop  was  the  ambitious  Papa  who  was 
consecrated  between  the  years  285  and  291, 3  and  its  rise 
to  ecclesiastical  supremacy  followed  the  same  course  as 
that  of  Constantinople.  It  was  natural  that  the  other 
bishops  of  the  Empire  should  find  it  convenient  to 
transact  their  business  in  the  capital  with  the  government 
or  others  through  the  resident  bishop.  Very  soon  Papa 
began  to  arrogate  to  himself  "  supremacy  over  all  the 
other  bishops".4  His  ambition  met  with  strenuous 
opposition,  and  so  he  appealed  "  to  the  bishops  of  the 
West  "  to  support  him.  Thinking  that,  as  there  were 
patriarchs  in  the  Roman  Empire,  it  would  be  useful  if 
there  was  a  patriarch  in  the  Persian  Empire,  the  Western 
bishops  acknowledged  Papa  as  Patriarch  (or  Catholicus) 
of  the  East.  Fear  induced  the  Oriental  bishops  to  submit, 
for  they  were  afraid  that  the  Western  bishops  would 
otherwise  put  them  between  the  enmity  of  the  Christian 

1  In  fact  Meshiha-Zeka  (pp.  106-7)  says  that  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Sassanid  dynasty,  when  there  were  twenty  bishoprics  in  Persia,  there 
was  not  one  either  at  Nisibis  or  at  S.-C. 

2  Cf.  ib.,  p.  Ill,  for  the  doings  of  Sahloupha  (258-73),  bishop  of 
Adiabene,  in  S.-C.  Cf.  Acta  Miles.,  in  Evod.  Assemanni,  Acta  Martyr. 
Orient.,  i,  72,  or  Bedjan,  ii,  p.  266  ff. 

3  M.-Z.,  p.  119. 

4  lb.,  p.  121. 


32  NICHOLAS    IV. 

emperors  of  Rome,  on  the  one  hand,  and  "  the  perverse  " 

emperors  of  Persia  on  the  other.1     Such  is  the  succinct 

way  in  which  the  sixth  century  historian  tells  of  the  rise 

to   ecclesiastical   pre-eminence   of   the   see   of   Seteucia- 

Ctesiphon.     This  story  of  Meshiha-Zeka  is  supported  not 

merely  by  the  later  compilers,  such  as  Maris,  etc.,2  but 

substantially  by  the  Council  of  Dad-Ishu  (424). 3 

The  bishop        At   any   rate,    the   bishop   of   Seleucia-Ctesiphon   did 

becomes  the  become  the  head  of  the  Nestorians ;    and  as  his  power 

head  of  the   over  the  other  bishops  increased,  he  and  his  Church,  as  they 

Nestorians.  . 

became  more  and  more  isolated  from  the  West,4  became 
more  dependent  on  the  civil  authority,  more  Erastian. 
Confining  our  evidence  simply  to  the  declarations  of  the 
Nestorian  synods,  we  see  the  Nestorian  bishops  in 
a.d.  585  declaring  that  they  held  their  sees  "  by  the 
permission  of  God  and  the  royal  authority".5  A  little 
later  (598)  they  call  Chosroes  II.,  it  may  be  said  perhaps 
with  mere  Oriental  exaggeration  of  language,  "  their 
adorable  master,"  6  and  they  allow  that  "  the  King  of 
Kings,  the  instrument  of  the  great  providential  care  of 
Our  Saviour  in  their  regard,"  ordered  them  to  assemble  to 
elect  a  patriarch.  When,  on  the  occasion  referred  to, 
they  did  not  elect  the  man  he  wanted,  he  would  not 
allow  the  election  of  a  successor  to  their  nominee  ;  and 
so  the  patriarchal  see  was  vacant  for  twenty  years.7 
During  that  vacancy  an  assembly  of  bishops  met  in  612, 
at  the  bidding  of  Chosroes   II.,  to  hold  a  debate  with 

1  lb.,  p.  123. 

2  Maris,  p.  5  ;  Amri,  p.  4,  and  Bar-Hebraeus,  ii,  p.  26,  though,  as 
we  saw  above,  these  authors  ascribe  the  action  of  the  Western  bishops 
to  a  supposed  predecessor  of  Papa. 

3  Cf.  supra,  p.  25. 

4  After  the  synod  of  424,  there  is  no  more  mention  of  the  Western 
bishops  in  the  Synods  of  the  East. 

5  Chabot,  Synod.  Orient.,  p.  292. 

6  lb.,  p.  470. 

7  lb.,  pp.  471-2,  and  562. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  33 

the  Monophy sites.  They  offer  the  most  fulsome  praise  to 
the  man  who  was  oppressing  them,1  and  call  on  him  to  be 
the  guardian  of  their  faith,  and  to  impose  it  on  that  part 
of  the  Roman  Empire  which  he  had  subdued.2 

But  the  Nestorians  were  not  content  with  disputing 
with  the  Monophysites.  They  endeavoured  to  eliminate 
them.  At  any  rate,  the  Monophysite  historian,  John  of 
Ephesus,  narrates  that  "  on  one  occasion  the  Nestorian 
bishops  of  the  chief  cities  met  together  to  give  informa- 
tion to  the  King  of  the  Persians  about  the  believers 
(Monophysites  and  perhaps  Catholics  too)  in  that  country, 
saying  :  '  These  men  are  traitors  to  your  majesty,  as  it 
is  in  your  power  to  learn,  since  their  faith  also  and  their 
rites  agree  with  those  of  the  Romans.'  "  These  insinua- 
tions were  successful,  and  the  orthodox  were  persecuted 
till  they  could  procure  the  intercession  of  the  Emperor 
Anastasius    (491-518). 3 

At  the  end  of  the  twenty-years'  vacancy  just  alluded 
to,  the  new  Shah,  Shoes,  according  to  Elias  of  Nisibis, 
"ordered  Ishu-Yahb  II.  of  Gedala  to  be  elected  and 
constituted  Catholicus  ".4 

But  the  Nestorians  were  soon  to  change  their  masters.  Fall  of  the 
The  followers  of  Mahomet  had  left  their  burning  deserts  Empire,  636. 
to  spread  his  faith  by  the  sword ;  and  the  Persian  Empire, 
now  rotten  to  the  core,  went  under  almost  at  the  first 
assault.  The  battle  of  Cadesia  decided  its  fate  (636). 
The  Nestorians  were  to  live  and  gradually  pine  away 
under  Moslem  rule  to  the  present  day. 

1  lb.,  p.  581. 

2  lb.,  p.  585.  The  Nestorians  became  even  more  subservient  to  their 
Moslem  rulers. 

3  Cf.  Lives  of  the  Saints,  ed.  Brooks,  ap.  Bib.  Orient.,  t.  xvii,  p.  143. 
Cf.  p.  152. 

4  Cited  in  note  1,  Vol.  II,  p.  114  of.  Abbeloos'  ed.  of  Bar-Hebraeus. 
Cf.  Maris,  p.  54.  Thomas  of  Magia,  Bk.  of  Govs.,  i,  c.  35,  says  that 
S.  "commanded  the  Christians  to  elect  a  patriarch,  and  I.  was 
appointed." 

Vol.  XVII.  d 


34  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Spread  of  But  meanwhile  glorious  work  was  to  be  done  by  them. 

to  the  East.  0ne  result  no  doubt  of  the  Arab  invasion  was  to  turn  the 
thoughts  of  many  of  them  to  the  East  in  order  to  escape 
the  invader.  Christianity  had,  of  course,  been  spreading 
eastwards  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  for  some  time.1 
This  Eastern  propagation  of  the  faith  had  received  a 
considerable  impetus  whilst  the  friendship  lasted  between 
the  Emperor  Maurice  and  the  Shah  Chosroes  II.  During 
that  period,  says  Michael,  the  Syrian,  "  Christianity 
developed  in  all  Persia.  Churches  were  built  in  the 
cities  and  in  the  country  districts  even  to  the  ends  of 
the  earth."  2  But  no  doubt  the  coming  of  the  Arabs 
precipitated  the  missionary  movement  towards  the  far 
East,  especially  as,  at  first,  the  Christians  were  persecuted 
by  the  Moslems.  It  is  true  that,  under  the  Abbassid 
Caliphate  of  Baghdad  (750-1258),  especially  during  the 
first  and  best  period  of  its  existence  (750-847)  when  it 
was  under  Persian  influence,  Christianity  was  tolerated. 
Indeed,  when  the  Caliph  Mansur  founded  Baghdad  on  the 
Tigris,  some  twenty  miles  north  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon 
(762),  the  Catholicus  left  the  decaying  capital  of  the 
destroyed  Persian  Empire,  went  to  the  new  city,  and 
with  the  Christian  body  generally  became  the  instructor 
of  his  conqueror.  This  state  of  things  was  very  distasteful 
to  the  rigid  Moslem,  and  we  find  the  author  of  the  Siyasat- 
nania  (Treatise  on  the  Art  of  Government,  a.d.  1091-2) 
complaining  that,  quite  different  to  what  was  the  custom 


1  The  Syriac  Chronicle  of  569,  known  as  that  of  Zachary  of  Mitylene, 
tells  us  (L.  xii.c.  7,  p.  329  ff.,  ed.  Brooks)  that  some  priests  from  Arran 
in  Armenia  went  into  Central  Asia  among  the  Huns,  "in  a  country 
where  there  is  no  peace,"  and  "  made  converts  among  the  Huns  .  . 
and  translated  books  (the  Bible  ?)  into  the  Hunnic  tongue,"  and  that 
another  priest  "  built  a  brick  Church  ". 

2  Chron.,  vol.  ii,  p.  374,  ed.  Chabot.  Michael  was  the  Jacobite 
patriarch  of  Antioch  from  1166-99.  Cf.  Cosmas,  Topog.  Christ., 
p.  118  ff.,  ed.  McCrindle. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  35 

in  the  "days  of  Alp  Arslan,  Jews,  Christians,  Fire- 
worshippers  are  employed  by  the  government  ".1 

There  was  a  regular  Christian  quarter  in  Baghdad, 
known  as  Dar-ar-Rum,  or  House  of  the  Greeks,2  and  the 
Eutychians  and  the  Nestorians,  especially  the  latter,  had 
many  churches  and  monasteries  within  and  just  without 
the  city.3  Of  the  various  Christian  sects,  the  Moslems 
had  from  the  very  first  most  favoured  the  Nestorians.  The 
Dominican  missionary  traveller,  Ricold  of  Monte-Croce, 
tells  us  that  he  had  read  in  authentic  Saracenic  sources  that 
the  Nestorians  were  friends  and  allies  of  Mahomet  who  had 
ordered  his  successors  to  protect  them.  The  reason  for  this 
friendship  is  also  suggested  by  the  brother  when  he  notes 
that  both  the  Nestorians  and  the  Saracens  say  that  Christ 
is  by  nature  man  and  not  God,  whereas  the  Jacobites 
(Eutychians)  hold  that  by  nature  he  is  God  and  not  man.4 
With  all  that,  especially  as  time  went  on,  the  Christians 
were  liable  to  heavier  taxation  and  to  more  or  less  severe 
outbreaks  of  persecution.5  We  may  therefore  be  sure 
that  missionary  zeal  was  helped  by  a  wish  to  get  clear  of 
the  Moslem. 

Though  travel  towards  the  far  East  was  difficult  to  the 
last  degree,  there  was  communication  between  Persia 
and  even  China.  Under  the  Sassanids  some  dozen 
missions  penetrated  to  China  between  a.d.  455  and  555,° 
and  later  at  Baghdad  we  know  there  was  a  market  in  that 
city  where  Chinese  goods  were  exposed  for  sale.7  With 
the  caravans  that  made  their  painful  way  to  China  went 

1  Quoted  by  Browne,  Lit.  Hist,  of  Persia,  ii,  p.  214. 

2  Cf.  Le  Strange's  valuable  Bagdad  during  the  Abbasid  Caliphate,  p. 
207.     Cf.  p.  202. 

3  lb.,  pp.  82-3,  208-9  ff. 

4  Voyage,  pp.  315,  317,  ed.  De  Backer. 

5  Cf.  Browne,  A  Literary  Hist,  of  Persia,  vol.  i,  pp.  232-3,  343,  and 
Muir,  The  Caliphate,  pp.  521-2. 

6  Sykes,  Hist,  of  Persia,  i,  447. 

7  Le  Strange,  p.  197. 


36  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Christian  teachers,  and  the  famous  Si-ngan-fu  inscrip- 
tion, erected  there  in  781,  tells  us  that  Nestorian  teachers 
taught  Christianity  in  China  as  early  as  635. x  The 
teachers,  who  from  the  seventh  century  onwards  spread 
the  faith  eastwards,  were  mostly  Nestorians.  If  we  are 
to  believe  Michael,  the  Syrian,  Chosroes  II.,  on  the 
murder  of  his  friend  the  Emperor  Maurice  (602),  made 
war  not  only  on  the  Byzantine  Empire  but  also  on  the 
supporters  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  especially  on  the 
bishops.  Hence  "  the  memory  of  the  Chalcedonians 
disappeared  from  the  Euphrates  to  the  East  ".2  In 
China,  indeed,  the  Christians  suffered  so  severely  in  the 
revolution  of  877-8, 3  that  by  938  it  was  said  to  have 
completely  decayed  there.4  Still,  about  that  very  time 
(c.  940)  an  Arab  traveller,  Abu  Dulaf  Inis'ar,  encountered 
Christians  in  various  places  betwTeen  Bokhara  and 
China,5  and  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  century  friar 
travellers  and  Marco  Polo  found  Nestorians  here  and 
there  all  across  Asia  and  in  China. 

At  the  time  of  the  greatest  extension  of  the  Nestorian 
Church  in  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries 
previous  to  the  devastations  of  Timur  the  Tartar,  it 
is  said  to  have  had  a  hierarchy  of  some  250  bishops 
scattered  over  Mesopotamia,  Persia,  Khorasan  (south-east 
of  the  Caspian  Sea),  Turkestan  (north-west  of  Tibet), 
the  Merv  oasis,  the  island  of  Socotra  (off  Cape  Gardafui 
at  the  entrance  of  the  Gulf  of  Aden),  Malabar  (the  west 
coast  of  the  Madras  presidency),  Tartary,  and  China. 
They  were  immediately  subject  to  some  twenty-five 
metropolitans,   and  they  in  turn  to  the  Catholicus  of 


1  See  Pauthier,  L' inscription  de  Si-ngan-fon,  with   facsimile,  Paris, 
1858,  and  infra  under  Nicholas  IV. 

2  Chron.,  ii,  pp.  380-1  ;  Agapius,  Hist.,  p.  (199). 

3  Beazley,  Dawn  of  Mod.  Geog.,  i,  418,  and  infra. 

4  Le  Strange,  I.e.,  p.  213. 

5  Ap.  Ferrand,  Relations  de  Voyages,  pp.  213,  218,  Paris,  1913. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  37 

Seleucia-Ctesiphon,  or  of  Baghdad  or  wherever  else  he 
placed  his  see.1 

If  ever  the  Nestorian  Catholicus  had  such  a  hierarchy 
under  him,  he  would  have  had  some  grounds  for  conceiving 
a  high  opinion  of  his  position.  In  any  case,  one  at  least 
of  the  Catholici  had  the  very  highest  opinion  of  it. 
Timothy  I.  (1823),  who  appears  to  have  constituted  the 
first  metropolitan  for  China,2  put  forth  a  claim  to  the 
first  place  among  the  five  patriarchs  in  the  Universal 
Church,  on  the  ground  that  our  Lord  came  from  the  East. 
"  For  if  the  first  and  chief  place  is  assigned  to  Rome  on 
account  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  with  how  much  more  justice 
should  it  be  assigned  to  Seleucia-Ctesiphon  on  account 
of  the  Lord  of  Peter."  3 

It  is  true  that  by  the  thirteenth  century  the  Nestorians, 
especially  in  the  Far  East,  were  for  the  most  part  in  a 
degraded  state,  for  their  centre  in  Persia  had  gone  to 
ruin.  Persecution  and  internal  corruption  had  done  their 
work.  Even  before  the  capture  of  Baghdad  and  the 
destruction  of  the  Abbassid  Caliphate  by  the  Mongols  in 
1258,  we  read  that  many  of  the  Nestorian  monasteries 
had  fallen  to  ruin.4 

Like  every  other  eastern  civilized  community,  the 
Nestorians    everywhere    suffered    from    the    ravages    of 


1  Cf.  Yule,  Cathay  and  the  Way  Thither,  vol.  iii,  pp.  20-4,  with  map  ; 
Fortescue,  The  Lesser  Eastern  Churches,  pp.  97,  108. 

2  Cf.  H.  Labourt,  De  Timotheo  I.,  pp.  45-8,  Paris,  1904.  The 
Catholicus,  Theodosius  (852-8),  accordingly  speaks  of  the  Metropolitan 
of  China.     Cf.  Assemanni,  Bib.  Orient.,  iii,  pt.  ii,  p.  439. 

3  "  Si  enim  Romae  propter  Petrum  Ap.  ordo  primus  et  principalis 
servatur,  quanto  magis  ergo  Seleuciae  et  Ctesiphonti  propter  Dominum 
Petri."  Ep.  26  Timoth.,  p.  101,  ap.  55.  Syri  (S.  ii),  t.  67, 
Pat.  Orient.,  ed.  O.  Braum,  1915,  Rome.  Fantastically,  he  argues 
that  as  there  are  five  books  of  Moses  and  five  of  the  Apostles  (?), 
Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  John,  and  Paul,  so  there  ought  to  be  five 
patriarchal  sees  ! 

4  Le  Strange,  pp.  203,  211  ff. 


38  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Zinghis  Khan  and  his  terrible  Mongols.1  But  after 
Hulagu  had  taken  Baghdad  (1258),  putting  an  end  to 
the  Abbassid  Caliphate,  and  his  successors  had  founded 
a  Mongol  Dynasty  in  Persia  which  was  practically  always 
independent  of  the  Khakhan  or  Great  Khan  of  the 
Mongols  (1265-1337),  the  Christians  in  Persia  had  peace. 
Hulagu  favoured  them,  and  they  everywhere  helped 
him.2 
The  11-  The    independence    of    the     Ilkhans    brought    them 

Christian       troubles.      They    found    their    match    in    the    Moslem 
aid-  Mameluke    dynasty    of    Egypt,    and    they    accordingly 

looked  about  for  allies.  The  negotiations  entered  into 
by  the  early  Khakhans  with  the  Christians  of  the  West, 
were,  as  we  have  seen,  a  sham.  Zinghis  Khan  and  his 
immediate  successors  had  no  thought  of  an  alliance  with 
any  western  ruler.  They  were  bent  simply  on  subduing 
them.  But,  with  the  Ilkhans  of  Persia,  it  was  different, 
and  the  first  of  them,  Abaga  (1265-82),  opened  bona  fide 
negotiations  with  the  West.  He  had  a  Christian  step- 
mother, and  he  was  the  husband  of  a  Christian  wife.3 
He  is  even  said  to  have  been  baptized.4  In  1260  the 
Mameluke  Sultan,  Beibars,  had  checked  the  great  rush 
of  the  Mongols  at  the  decisive  battle  of  Ain-Jalut. 
Impressed  with  the  power  of  Egypt,5  Abaga  sought  an 
alliance  with  the  West,  and  his  ambassadors  appeared 

1  Cf.  Bar-Hebraeus,  Chron.,  iii,  p.  406. 

2  Cf.  Hist,  de  la  Siounie,  c.  66,  p.  227,  trad.  Brosset,  St.  Petersburg, 
1866.  It  was  written  in  1297,  by  Bishop  Stephannos  Orbelian.  Cf. 
Bar-Hebraeus,  Chron.  Syriacum,  i,  pp.  567,  584,  ed.  Bruns  and  Kirsch  ; 
and  Makrizi,  Hist,  des  Sultans  Mamlouks,  vol.  i,  p.  98,  Paris,  1837. 

3  Maria,  a  natural  daughter  of  Michael  Palaeologus.  His  step- 
mother, Dokuz-Khatun,  was  the  granddaughter  of  Ung  Khan, 
the  original  Prester  John. 

4  But,  says  the  well-informed  Venetian,  M.  Sanudo,  "  baptizari  .  .  . 
renuit,  et  coluit  idola."     Secreta  fidel.,  ap.  Bongars,  Gesta,  ii,  238. 

5  All  this  is  well  brought  out  by  Bro.  Fidentius  of  Padua  in  his 
Liber  recviperationis  Terre  Sancte,  c.  85,  ap.  Golubovich,  Biblioteca 
Francese,  ii,  p.  57.    The  book  was  written  to  the  order  of  Gregory  X. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  39 

before  Pope  Clement  IV.  (1265-8).  They  brought  with 
them  a  letter  written,  not  as  before  in  Latin,  but  in 
Mongol.  He  may  have  wished  to  make  the  Pope  realize 
that  the  communication  was  genuine.  As  his  previous 
communications  had  been  in  Latin,  the  papal  curia 
could  deal  with  them  directly.  But  as  it  was,  as  Clement 
explained  in  writing  to  the  "  Elchan  Apacha  ",  no  one 
in  the  Pope's  court  could  read  the  letter,  and  so  its 
contents  had  to  be  explained  by  the  Tartar  envoy. 
Clement  gathered  from  the  interpreter,  as  we  learn  from 
his  letter  to  the  Ilkhan  from  which  alone  we  know  of  these 
details,  that  Abaga  was  a  Christian.  Consequently,  he 
congratulated  him  on  that  fact,  and  then  proceeded  to 
deal  with  the  subject  of  the  letter.  He  told  the  Mongol 
ruler  that  a  great  host  of  Christians  was  preparing  to 
conquer  the  Holy  Land,  and  that,  as  the  Khan  had 
expressed  his  intention  of  helping  the  Latins,  he  assured 
him  that  he  would  let  him  know  their  precise  plans  as 
soon  as  the  Christian  leaders  had  formed  them,  and  had 
communicated  them  to  him.1 

Whether  or  not  on  the  advice  of  the  Pope,  the  Tartar  James  of 
embassy  visited  the  warlike  James  I.  of  Aragon,  who  was  1 267-9.' 
only  prevented  by  a  storm  from  joining  forces  with  the 
Khan.2 


1  Ep.  Aug.  13-16,  1267,  ap.  Martene,  Thes.  nov.,  ii,  n.  520,  p.  517, 
or  Raynaldus,  an.  1267,  n.  70.  Cf.  Sanudo,  Hist.  HierosoL,  1.  iii,  pt.  13, 
c.  8.  The  letter  received  by  Clement  will  have  been  like  those  recently 
found  in  the  Vatican  library  from  Arghun.     See  p.  42. 

2  See  his  Chronicle,  pp.  433-56,  ed.  Gayangos  ;  Makrizi,  Hist,  des 
Sultans  Mamlouks,  vol.  i,  pt.  ii,  pp.  77,  101,  and  vol.  ii,  pt.  ii,  pp.  128-9, 
and  Nowa'iri,  Vie  de  Bibars,  f.  82  r.,  cited  ib.  by  Quatremere.  Cf.  Swift, 
James  of  Aragon,  pp.  116-19,  and,  on  all  this  subject,  the  well-known 
essay  of  A.  Remusat,  "  Les  relations  des  Princes  Chretiens  avec  les 
Mongols,"  ap.  Mem.  de  I'Academie  des  Inscriptions,  vol.  vii,  1824, 
p.  335  ff.  This  is  the  second  memoir  and  deals  with  Persia  ;  the  first 
is  in  vol.  vi,  1822,  and  deals  with  Zinghis  Khan  and  the  united  Mongol 
Empire. 


40 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


Another 
embassy, 
1274. 


The 

Vassalli, 

1276. 


Encouraged  by  the  bona  fide  effort  made  by  the  old 
warrior  of  Aragon,  another  Tartar  embassy  from  Abaga 
appeared,  as  we  have  seen,  at  the  Council  of  Lyons. 
Some  of  the  Tartars  received  baptism,  and  our  King 
Edward  addressed  a  fairly  hopeful  letter  "  to  the  excellent 
and  powerful  lord,  Abaga-Chaan,  Prince  of  the  nation 
of  the  Moals  (Mogalorum)  ",  in  which  he  said  that,  as 
soon  as  the  Pope  had  fixed  the  date  for  the  expedition 
to  the  Holy  Land,  which  he  hoped  would  be  soon,  he 
would  at  once  inform  the  Khan.1 

To  convince  the  Princes  how  much  he  was  in  earnest 
the  ruler  of  Persia  sent  another  embassy  to  Europe. 
This  time  its  chiefs  were  two  Georgian  Christians,  John 
and  James  Vassalli.  They  presented  themselves  before 
Pope  John  XXI.  at  Viterbo  (Nov.,  1276),  and  explained 
to  him  the  wish  of  their  master  for  an  alliance  with  the 
Christians.  Thence  they  wrote  to  various  Christian 
princes  telling  them  how  well  they  had  been  received  by 
the  Pope  and  Charles  of  Anjou,  and  telling  them  that 
they  hoped  to  visit  them  soon.2  The  envoys,  however, 
were  robbed  by  one  of  their  servants,3  and  could  get 
nothing  but  vague  promises,  although  they  visited 
several  of  the  European  princes.4  In  any  case,  Pope 
John  did  not  live  long  enough  to  help  them.  But  they 
fared  better  at  the  hands  of  the  great  Pope  Nicholas  III. 
He  sent  off  to  Abaga,  at  a  cost  of  about  a  thousand  pounds 


1  Ep.  Jan.  26,  1275,  ap.  Rymer,  ii,  p.  43. 

2  Cf.  their  letter  to  King  Edward.  They  called  themselves  "  messages 
dou  puissant  Abaga,  roi  des  Tatars  ".  They  told  Edw.  that  besides 
letters  for  the  Pope,  they  had  letters  for  him.  There  appears  to  have 
been  a  Nestorian  in  their  suite.  Cf.  their  interesting  letter  to  Edward, 
n.  3  among  "  Lettres  inedits  concernant  les  Croisades  ",  by  Kohler 
and  Langlois,  p.  56,  ap.  Bib.  de  Vecole  des  Chartes,  1891. 

3  M.  Riccio,  II  regno  di  Carlo  I.,  an.  1277,  p.  7. 

4  Will,  of  Nangis,  an.  1277,  and  Chron.  S.  Denis,  t.  v,  p.  55,  ed.  G. 
Paris.  They  even  went  to  Eric  of  Norway.  Cf.  the  Annals  of  Iceland, 
an.  1286,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xxix,  p.  264. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  41 

(Turonenses),1  brother  Gerard  of  Prato,  and  five  or  six 
other  Franciscans  who  had  been  selected  by  his  prede- 
cessor. With  Gerard  our  gossiping  chronicler,  Salimbene, 
had  lived  when  they  were  young  men  together  in  the  friary 
at  Pisa,  and  with  him  he  talked  much  about  his  mission 
on  his  return.2  The  missionaries  were  bearers  of  letters 
from  Nicholas  not  only  "  to  the  excellent  and  magnificent 
Prince,  illustrious  King  of  the  Eastern  Tartars,"  3  but 
also  to  Kublai,  whom  the  Pope  calls  "  Quobley,  Great 
Khan,  Emperor  and  Governor  (moderator)  of  all  the 
Tartars  ".4  Abaga  was  praised  for  his  goodwill  towards 
the  Christians  in  his  dominions,  and  for  his  promise  to 
help  the  Crusaders  when  they  reached  Palestine  ;  and 
he  was  asked  to  send  on  the  envoys  in  due  course  to  his 
uncle  Kublai,  who  is  said  to  have  been  baptized,  and  had 
expressed  a  desire  to  have  missionaries  to  instruct  his 
people  in  the  Christian  faith.  With  regard  to  the  military 
expedition,  the  Pope  said  he  would  make  all  arrangements 
when  the  proper  time  came. 

Though,  in  his  letter  to  Kublai,  Nicholas  told  him  that  Deaths 
he  was  sending  to  him  Gerard  of  Prato  and  others,  it  h\safonand 
does  not  appear  that  they  ever  made  their  way  to  China.5  ^£™^> 
Abaga  had  meanwhile  suffered  another  great  defeat  at 
Abulustayn  at  the  hands  of  the  Mamelukes  (1277),  and  was 
to  suffer  another  at  Hims  (1281).  These  military  disasters, 
civil  wars,  and  heavy  drinking  did  not  leave  Abaga  much 
time  to  treat  with  the  Franciscans.  He  died  of  delirium 
tremens  in  1282. 6    His  successor,  who  had  been  baptized 

1  Cf.  Reg.  Nich.  IV.,  n.  7244,  ed.  Langlois. 

2  Chron.,  p.  210. 

3  Reg.,  n.  232,  March  31,  1278. 

4  lb.,  n.  233,  Apr.  4,  1278. 

5  The  missionaries  themselves  were  furnished  with  letters  of  recom- 
mendation to  various  Princes,  and  with  special  faculties  to  simplify 
their  work.     lb.,  nn.  234-8. 

6  Sykes,  A  Hist,  of  Persia,  ii,  pp.  102-3.  Browne,  Persian  Literature, 
iii,  p.  24.     Still  we  know  from  an  interesting  letter  to  Edward  I.  from 


of 


42  NICHOLAS    IV. 

with   the   name   of   Nicholas,   no   doubt   in   the   Pope's 

honour,  apostatized  and  became  a  Moslem.     He  at  once 

began  to  persecute  the  Christians,  and  several  Franciscans 

received  the  crown  of  martyrdom  during  his  brief  reign 

(1282-4). 1     Ahmad  Takiidar  (or  Nikudar),  as  he  called 

himself,    was    succeeded   by   his    nephew   Arghun,    who 

straightway  reopened  negotiations  with  the  Popes  and 

the  West,  and  with  the  Christian  kings  of  Armenia  and 

Georgia,   and  began  to  rebuild  the  churches  destroyed 

by  the  Apostate.2    Of  all  the  Mongol  rulers  of  Persia,  he 

seems  the  most  familiar  to  us,  as  facsimiles  of  his  letters 

Arghun's       have  recently  been  found  in  the  Vatican  library.3     On 

embassy  to    May  18,  1285,  he  addressed  a  letter  to  his  holy  father 

!285WeSt'      "  the  lord  PoPe  "  which  has  come  down  to  us  in  an  almost 

unintelligible  Latin  translation.4    The  Ilkhan  began  by 

pointing  out  the  goodwill  which  the  Mongols  had  always 

shown  towards  the  Pope  and  the  King  of  the  Franks  from 

the  days  of  Zinghis  Khan  himself,  and  by  emphasizing 

the  fact  that  they  had  exempted  the  Christians  in  their 

Nicole  le  Lorgne,  Grand-master  of  the  Hospitallers,  that  "  la  paienisme 
(Islam)  est  mot  affeblie  par  ceste  venue  des  Tartas  ".  Nicole  wrote  to 
our  King  "  porce  que  vos  estes  le  prince  de  crestiente  qui  plus  aves 
a  cuer  le  fait  de  la  terre  sainte  ".  Ep.  of  March  5,  1282,  ap.  Bib.  de 
I'ecole  des  Charles,   1891,  p.  59  ff. 

1  Orbelian,  H.  de  la  Siounie,  c.  66,  p.  238  ;  Makrizi,  Hist,  des  Sultans 
Mamlouks,  vol.  ii,  pt.  i,  p.  57,  ed.  Ouatremere.  Cf.  Mariano,  Com- 
pendium Chronicantm,  pp.  49-50.  Mariano's  (f  1523)  chronicle  was 
printed  for  the  first  time  at  Quaracchi  in  191 1.  Cf.  Haiton  or  Hetoun, 
Fleur  des  Hists.,  p.  196,  ed.  de  Backer. 

2  Haiton,  ib.,  p.  198  ;  Mem.  Potest.  Reg.,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  viii,  p.  1158  ; 
Orbelian,  p.   238. 

3  Cf.  P.  Pelliot,  Les  Mongols  et  la  Papaute,  ap.  Revue  de  V Orient  Chret., 
nn.  1  and  2,  1922-3,  p.  1  ff.  Remusat,  I.e.,  had  already  published 
a  copy  of  his  letter  to  Philip  le  Bel  in  1289. 

4  It  has  been  printed  by  Raynaldus,  Annal.,  1285,  n.  79  ;  Reg., 
n.  489  ;  Remusat,  I.e.,  p.  426,  etc.  We  shall  follow  Remusat's  interpre- 
tation of  this  letter  (p.  356  ff.),  as  modified  by  Chabot  in  his  Hist,  du 
pair.  Mar  Jabalaha  III.,  p.  191  ff.,  Paris,  1895.  His  chief  modification 
is  the  substitution  of  Syria  for  Egypt  as  the  point  of  attack.  Speaking 
generally,  Chabot  must  now  be  followed  instead  of  Remusat. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  43 

dominions  from  the  payment  of  tribute.  His  grand- 
father, Hulagu,  had  favoured  the  Christians,  as  had  also 
his  worthy  father  Abaga.  When  he  had  received  the 
investiture  of  his  kingdom  from  the  Khakhan,  he  had 
decided  to  send  envoys  and  presents  to  the  Pope.  A  long 
interval  had  passed  since  the  last  embassy  from  Persia, 
but  that  was  due  to  the  fact  that  Ahmad  had  apostatized 
and  become  a  Moslem.  He  proposed  an  attack  on  Syria, 
and  asked  for  reliable  information  as  to  the  place  where 
the  two  armies  could  meet.  "  Between  us  we  will 
annihilate  the  Saracens."  As  nothing  more  is  known  in 
connection  with  this  tantalizing  letter,1  we  may  perhaps 
suppose  that  the  envoys  who  brought  it  2  arrived  during 
the  vacancy  of  the  Holy  See  after  the  death  of 
Honorius  IV.  (1287),  and  that,  because  it  was  dated 
1285,  it  was  inserted  on  a  spare  page  at  the  end  of  the 
curial  letters  of  his  first  year. 

At  any  rate,  it  is  certain  that  an  embassy  from  Arghun  ^^  of 
did  arrive  in  Rome  (July,  1287)  during  the  vacancy  of  Arghun, 
the  Holy  See.    Of  this  embassy  we  know  much,  as,  among  1287"8- 
other  documents,  we  possess  the  most  interesting  journal 
of  its  leader,   Rabban   Sauma.3     He  was   a   Nestorian 
Uigur   (Turk),  born  at  Pekin,  a  great  traveller,  and  a 

1  Prou  in  his  Introduc.  to  his  ed.  of  the  Reg.  of  Hon.  IV.  has  also 
given  a  trans,  of  this  letter,  p.  lxix. 

2  Ise,  the  interpreter,  Bogagoc,  Mengilic,  Thomas  Banchurius,  and 
Ougueto.  The  last  two  are  supposed  to  be  the  Thomas  de  Anfusis 
and  Uguetus  of  Nicholas  IV.,  Apr.  2,  1288,  in  his  letter  to  Arghun. 

3  In  the  Histoire  de  Mar  Jabalaha  III.  (Catholicus  of  the  Nestorians, 
1281-1317),  translated  from  the  Syriac  of  a  Nestorian  monk  who  wrote 
soon  after  the  death  of  Jabalaha  (t  1317),  by  J.  B.  Chabot,  Paris,  1895. 
This  important  biography  greatly  supplements  the  documents  known 
to  Remusat.  Bar-Hebraeus,  Chron.  Syriacum,  vol.  i,  p.  627,  notes 
that  Arghun  often  received  Prankish  envoys  from  the  Roman  Pope 
and  other  kings  about  an  alliance  against  the  Egyptians,  and  that 
he  in  turn  sent  "  our  master  Barsuma  the  Uigur  "  (Iguraeus)  to  the  Pope 
with  whom  he  made  a  treaty  to  attack  and  destroy  Islam.  (Ed.  Bruns 
and  Kirsch,  Leipzig,  1789.) 


44 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


The 

embassy- 
received  by 
the 
Cardinals. 


friend  of  the  Catholicus,  Mar  Jabalaha  III.,  with  whom, 
when  he  was  the  simple  monk  Marcos,  he  had  made  his 
pilgrimage  from  Pekin  to  Persia.  In  the  papal  letters, 
i.e.,  in  the  Register  of  Nicholas  IV.,  this  Rabban  (monk) 
Bar  Sauma  generally  appears  as  Bersauma. 

The  biographer  of  the  Catholicus,  in  his  naive  manner, 
assures  us  that  Arghun  "  loved  the  Christians  with  his 
whole  love  ",  and  wished  to  get  possession  of  Palestine 
and  Syria.  But,  said  he,  this  I  cannot  do  unless  I  get 
the  help  of  the  Christians.  He  accordingly  asked  the 
Catholicus  to  find  him  a  suitable  man  whom  he  could 
send  to  the  various  kings  of  the  West.  Mar  Jabalaha 
at  once  named  the  Rabban,  Sauma.  Furnished  with 
letters  and  presents  for  the  Pope  from  the  Catholicus, 
and  with  letters  and  presents  for  the  kings  of  the  Greeks 
and  the  Franks  from  the  Khan,  the  worthy  monk  set 
out  on  his  arduous  journey  from  Persia.  There  accom- 
panied him  "  honourable  men,  among  whom  were  priests 
and    deacons  ".1 

Travelling  by  Constantinople  and  Naples,  he  reached 
Rome  in  July,  1287,  when  the  Holy  See  was  vacant. 
"  After  the  death  of  my  lord  the  Pope,"  says  the  charming 
narrative  we  are  following,  "  twelve  men  administer  the 
see  who  are  called  Kardinale."  2  Now  at  the  beginning 
of  the  year  1287  there  were  fourteen  cardinals.  Godfrey 
of  Alatri  died  June  11,  1287,  and  we  know  that  four 
others  died  sometime  during  the  course  of  the  year. 
If  then  we  suppose  that  they  died  after  July,  and  that 
John  Buccamatius  had  not  returned  from  Germany,3 
there  would  have  been  just  twelve  cardinals  to  meet 
Bar  Sauma.  The  monk  and  his  party  had  been  told 
that,  on  entering  the  audience  chamber,  they  would 
find  an  altar  which  they  must  venerate  before  saluting 
the  cardinals.     "This  they  did,  and  that  pleased   the 


1  Hist,  de  Mar  J.,  c.  7. 


lb.,  p.  62. 


lb.,  p    83. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  45 

cardinals."  None  of  them,  we  are  told,  rose  when  the 
envoys  entered,  "  for  it  was  not  the  custom  of  these 
twelve,  on  account  of  the  dignity  of  this  See."  x  In 
answer  to  a  series  of  questions  by  different  cardinals,  Bar 
Sauma  explained  that  they  were  envoys  of  the  Mongol 
Khan  and  the  Catholicus,  that  they  had  first  received 
their  Christianity  from  the  Apostle  Thomas,  that  there 
were  many  Christians  among  the  Mongols,2  and  that 
their  sovereign  had  sent  them  to  get  the  help  of  the  West 
to  enable  him  to  take  Jerusalem.  Asked  about  their 
faith,  they  professed  regarding  the  Incarnation  what  was 
sheer  Nestorianism,3  but  the  cardinals  do  not  appear  to 
have  observed  this,  and  concentrated  their  queries  on 
the  Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  envoys  expressed 
the  Greek  view  ;  but,  when  pressed,  said  they  had  come 
not  to  dispute  about  articles  of  faith,  but  to  venerate  the 
lord  Pope  and  the  relics  of  the  Saints,  and  to  set  forth 
the  wishes  of  their  master. 

The   cardinals,    accordingly,   bade   "the   governor   °f^[tsSp^ 
the  city"  show  them  the  holy  places.4     Then,   as  the  le  Bel  and 
cardinals  said  they  could  not  give  them  a  definite  answer      war 
before  the  election  of  the  Pope,  the  envoys  went  off, 
crossed  the  Alps,  and  interviewed  Philip  le  Bel  in  Paris, 
and  King  Edward  in  Gascony. 5    Both  kings  received  the 
envoys  favourably,  especially  our  own,  who  told   them 
that  he  had  taken  the  Cross,  that  his  heart  was  set  on  a 


1  lb.,  p.  63. 

2  Cf.  Bar-Hebraeus,  Chron.  Syriacum,  vol.  i,  p.  575. 

3  lb.,  p.  65. 

4  Our  narrative  has  interesting  things  to  say  about  them,  p.  68  f. 

5  Ed.  was  in  Gascony  from  the  close  of  1286  to  June,  1289.  He  did 
not  get  back  to  England  till  Aug.  12.  Cf.  Gough,  Itinerary  of  Ed.  I., 
vol.  ii,  p.  27  ff.  The  continuator  of  Florence  of  Worcester,  ad  an. 
1287,  tells  us  that  Ed.  received  a  solemn  embassy  from  the  Khan  of 
the  Tartars  while  he  was  in  Gascony,  and  that  the  object  of  the  embassy 
was  to  renew  the  alliance  between  the  two  rulers.  F.  of  W.,  ed.  Eng. 
Hist.  Soc. 


46  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Crusade,  and  that  he  was  delighted  to  find  that  Arghun's 

ideas  on  this  matter  were  the  same  as  his. 

Sauma  The  Rabban,  whose  personality  seems  to  have  charmed 

Cardinal  J.    everyone,  was  back  in  Genoa  about  December  and  there 

Buccamatius  passed  the  winter.1    There,  too,  on  his  way  back  from 

Germany  to  Rome,  Sauma  met  the  cardinal  of  Tusculum 

(Frascati),   whom   he   styles   "  the   periodeutes   (visiting 

priest,   TreptoSevrrj?)   of  the  lord  Pope ".      To    him  he 

complained  that  whilst  those  whose  hearts  were  harder 

than  rocks  (the  Saracens)  wished  to  hold  Jerusalem,  those 

to  whom  it  belonged  troubled  not  themselves  about  it.2 

Promising  to  make  known  his  position  to  the  new  Pope, 

and  meanwhile  to  try  to  forward  his  election,  the  cardinal 

hurried  on  to   Rome.      He   fulfilled  his   promises,   and 

immediately  after  the  election  of  Nicholas  IV.  (Feb.  22, 

1288),  Sauma  was  summoned  to  Rome.3 

Sauma  back      The  new  Pope,  who  knew  not  a  little  of  the  East  from 

1288.    G'       ms  visit  to  Constantinople,  received  the  Mongol  envoy 

most  kindly.     He  not  only  gave  him  permission  to  say 

Mass,  but  on  Palm  Sunday  himself  gave  Communion  to 

the   Rabban.4     With  amazement   the  good  monk    saw 

"  thousands  and  thousands  of  people  "  receive  branches 

of  olive  from  the  Pope,  who  then,  in  vestments  of  purple 

embroidered    with    gold,    precious    stones,    and    pearls, 

preached  to  the  people.     One  would  gladly  quote  the 

whole  of  the  Rabban's  simple  description  of  the  ceremonies 

of  Holy  Week  as  he  saw  them  performed  by  the  Pope, 

but  we  must  be  content  to  add  that  he  estimated  the 

numbers  of  those  who  dined  with  the  Pope  on  Holy 

Thursday  at  two  thousand,  and  several  times  records 

the  Pope's  preaching  to  the  people. 

Sauma  On  his  first  arrival,  the  Rabban  had  presented  to  the 

Persia  with    Pope  the  letters  and  presents  from  Arghun  and  from  the 

letters,  etc., 

Apr.,  1288.  1  The  narrative,  p.  83.  2  lb.,  p.  84.  3  lb. 

4  lb.,  p.  86  f.    Evidently  the  Pope  knew  nothing  of  the  Nestorianism 
of  Sauma. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  47 

Catholicus.1  After  Low  Sunday  he  asked  the  Pope's 
permission  to  return  to  Persia.  This  was  granted,  and 
Nicholas  in  turn  gave  the  envoy  letters  and  presents 
for  the  Khan  and  for  Mar  Jabalaha.  To  the  Catholicus 
he  sent  his  own  tiara,  sacred  vestments  in  precious 
materials,  including  even  the  liturgical  buskins  adorned 
with  seed  pearls,  and  the  ring  from  his  finger.  Then  for 
the  expenses  of  his  journey  he  gave  the  Rabban  fifteen 
hundred  gold  pieces.2  Further,  according  to  the  Rabban, 
Nicholas  gave  him  for  Mar  Jabalaha  a  patent  letter 
granting  him  patriarchal  authority  over  all  the  Orientals.3 
But  in  the  Register  of  Nicholas  there  is  no  such 
letter.  It  may  be  that  that  particular  letter  was  not 
registered,  or  it  may  be  that  the  monk  misunderstood 
the  extant  letter  to  the  Catholicus,  or  even  possibly, 
though  we  trust  and  believe  not  probably,  it  may  be  an 
invention  of  the  Rabban,  on  the  lines  of  previous  Nestorian 
fabrications,  setting  forth  that  the  Catholicus  had  received 
his  power  from  "  the  Western  fathers  ". 

Unfortunately  the  letters  of  Arghun  and  the  Catholicus 
to  the  Pope  are  not  forthcoming,  and  so  we  are  left  to 
conjecture  their  purport  from  the  replies  of  Nicholas. 

To  judge  from  the  Pope's  answer  to  Mar  Jabalaha,  Letter  of 
and   from   his   admitting   his   envoy  to   communion,   it  the 
would  appear  that  both  of  them  had  declared  that,  if  Catholicus. 
their  faith  was  not  that  of  the  Pope,  it  was  due  to  the 
fact  that,  owing  to  the  distance  of  their  country  from 
Rome,  they  did  not  know  the  faith  of  the  Pope,  but  that 
they  acknowledged  his  faith  to  be  the  true  one.4 

1  lb.,  p.  85. 

2  P.  92.  The  monk  was  also  given  a  number  of  relics,  just  because 
he  had  come  from  such  distant  lands. 

3  lb. 

4  Nicholas  notes  that  the  Catholicus  and  his  people  "  a  Romana 
ecclesia  .  .  .  longo  maris  terraque  spatio  sunt  remoti  ".  Ep.  Apr.  7, 
1288,  ap.  Chabot,  Hist,  de  M.  J.,  p.  195  ff.  Chabot  at  the  end  of  his 
ed.  of  the  story  of  Mar  J.  gives  a  very  valuable  Appendix  completing 
Remusat's  essay  on  the  Popes  and  the  Mongol  rulers  of  Persia. 


48  NICHOLAS    IV. 

(Submission       This  conjecture  is  confirmed  by  the  orthodox  profession 
Mar  of  faith  and  act  of  submission  to  the    Roman   Church 

jabaiaha.)  which,  by  the  hands  of  the  Dominican,  brother  James, 
the  Catholicus  sent  to  Pope  Benedict  XI.  (May  18,  1304). 1 
That  Mar  Jabaiaha  did  make  this  act  of  submission, 
which,  however,  was  only  personal,  is  confirmed  by  the 
narrative  of  the  Dominican  missionary,  Ricold  of  Monte- 
Croce.  He  visited  Baghdad  during  the  reign  of  Arghun 
(1290), 2  and  says  that  the  Patriarch  (at  that  time  Mar 
Jabaiaha)  declared  he  was  not  a  Nestorian.  Although 
brother  Ricold  believed  that  the  Catholicus  was  not 
speaking  the  truth,  his  assertion  greatly  shocked  his 
fellow  bishops,  who,  nevertheless,  after  discussion,  told 
the  Dominican  that  they  believed  his  doctrine  was  the 
true  one,  but  that  they  themselves  dared  not  profess  it.3 
Besides,  as  early  as  1255,  some  Nestorians  had  told 
William  of  Rubruck  that  they  believed  "  that  the  Roman 
Church  was  the  head  of  all  the  Churches,  and  that  they 
would  receive  their  patriarch  from  the  Pope,  if  the  roads 
were  open  ",4 

Nicholas  began  his  letter  to  the  Catholicus  by  thanking 
him  for  his  kindness  to  the  Franciscan  missionaries  in 
his  country,  and  then  informed  him  that,  as  his  people 
were,  on  the  one  hand,  far  away  from  Rome,  and,  on  the 
other,  were,  as  he  had  been  assured,  desirous  of  professing 
"  the  pure  faith  which  the  Roman  Church  held  and 
preserved  ",  he  sent  him  a  profession  of  faith.  In  con- 
clusion, he  begged  the  Catholicus  to  instruct  his  people 
in    accordance    with    that    formula.      Seeing    that    the 

1  It  is  given  in  full,  ib.,  p.  249  ff. 

2  lb.,  pp.  85  and  258. 

3  lb.,  p.  85  f.,  where  the  original  text  (ed.  Laurent,  pp.  130-1)  is 
quoted.  We  cite  here  the  old  French  version  (ed.  de  Backer,  pp.  322-4)  : 
"  Nous  savons  .  .  .  que  la  verite  de  la  foy  est  tout  ainsi  comme  vous 
le  preschies,  mes  pour  certain  nous  ne  l'oseriemes  point  publiquement 
ne  appertement  dire  a  nous  aultres  nestorius." 

4  The  Journey  of  W.  of  R.,  p.  213,  ed.  Rockhill,  Hakluyt  Soc,  1900. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  49 

profession  of  faith  which  Nicholas  forwarded  to  the 
Catholicus  was  the  same  as  that  forwarded  by  Clement  IV. 
to  Michael  Palaeologus,  he  evidently  supposed  that  the 
Christians  of  Persia  had  the  same  faith  as  the  Byzantines. 
Nothing  is  said  in  it  about  Nestorianism. 

The  other  letters  entrusted  to  Bar  Sauma  by  Nicholas  Letters  to 
were  just  as  little  political  as  that  to  the  Catholicus.  ^fs.1"1' 
In  two  letters  addressed  (Apr.  2,  1288)  to  Arghun,  after 
explaining  to  him  the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  and  the 
position  of  the  Pope  in  the  Church,  he  exhorted  him  to 
get  baptized  at  once,  and  not  wait  till  he  had  captured 
Jerusalem.  Indeed,  his  baptism  would,  by  God's  help, 
forward  the  liberation  of  the  Holy  City.1 

From  the  journal  of  the  Rabban  it  would  appear  that  5etu™  of 

J  ,  ,      Bar  Sauma, 

he  must  have  carried  back  either  other  letters  from  the  1288. 
Pope  or  at  least  verbal  messages,  for  it  is  there  stated 
that  "  the  lord  Pope  and  all  the  Kings  of  the  Franks  " 
received  the  Ilkhan's  propositions  most  favourably.2 
But,  although  Arghun  showed  his  gratitude  to  the  aged 
monk  for  the  fatigues  which  he  had  undergone  in  his 
service  by  erecting  for  him  at  the  entrance  of  his  residence 
a  chapel  to  contain  the  ornaments  given  him  by  the 
Pope,3  he  was  not  satisfied  with  the  result  of  the  embassy. 

1  These  letters  are  quoted  in  full,  ap.  Chabot,  ib.,  p.  200  ff.,  and  also 
one  to  Bar  Sauma  with  a  profession  of  faith,  one  to  a  member  of  the 
embassy  named  Sabadin  Archaon  (i.e.,  in  Mongol,  the  Christian), 
one  "  to  the  interpreters  of  the  king  of  the  Tartars  ",  one  to  the 
Franciscans  "  among  the  Tartars  ",  one  to  the  Mongol  princess  Tuctan 
or  Nukdan-Khatun,  and  to  a  bishop  Dionysius  of  Tauriz.  See  also 
Wadding,  Annates,  v,  p.  170  ff.,  and  Mosheim,  Hist.  Tartar,  eccles., 
p.  86  ff. 

2  P.  93. 

3  It  would  have  been  a  tent  of  felt  close  to  the  great  tent  of  the 
Ilkhan.  Ib.,  pp.  93-4.  Cf.  Hist,  de  la  Sionnie,  by  Stephen  Orbelian, 
who  was  consecrated  bishop  of  that  province  in  1285,  and  who  tells 
us  that  "  the  chapel  "  had  been  given  by  "  the  great  Pope  of  Rome  ". 
Trad.  Brosset,  p.  265,  St.  Petersburg,  1866.  The  bishop,  writing  in 
1297,  says  that  he  went  "  to  the  master  of  the  world  "   .   .  .  "He 

Vol.  XVII.  E 


50  NICHOLAS    IV. 

He  wanted  something  more  definite  than  the  vague 
promises  which  he  had  received,  and  so  dispatched  a 
third  embassy  to  Europe.  This  time  he  put  a  Western 
at  the  head  of  his  mission,  a  Genoese  whom  Pope  Nicholas 
calls  "  Biscarellus  de  Gisulfo,  a  citizen  of  Genoa  ".1 
Third  Leaving   Persia   in   the   second   half   of   April,    1289, 

embassy   of  .  , 

Arghun,  Buscarel  reached  Rome  m  the  autumn  of  the  same  year, 
1289-90.  passing,  but  not  meeting,  an  embassy  of  Franciscans, 
headed  by  the  famous  John  of  Monte  Corvino,  which 
Nicholas  had  dispatched  to  Arghun  and  the  East.  The 
mission  of  Buscarel  was  distinctly  political.  It  was  to 
assure  the  Pope  that,  in  accordance  with  his  desire,  the 
Persian  monarch  was  ready  to  join  the  Crusaders  in  their 
attempt  to  free  the  Holy  Land,  and  to  make  known  to 
the  kings  of  the  West  his  plan  of  campaign.  Nicholas 
at  once  sent  the  envoy  on  to  Edward,  and  exhorted  our 
King  to  pay  special  attention  to  what  he  had  to  say.2 
On  his  way  to  England,  Buscarel  delivered  from  his 
master  to  Philip  of  France  the  very  letter  which  is  still 
to  be  seen  in  the  national  archives  of  France.3  This  letter 
is  one  of  the  most  remarkable  documents  in  existence. 
It  is  written  on  a  cotton  roll  about  six  and  a  half  feet  long 
by  some  ten  inches  wide,  in  the  Mongol  language,  and  in 
Uigur  characters,  and  bears  on  it  in  red  ink  a  seal,  thrice 
impressed,  some  five  and  a  half  inches  square  in  Chinese 
characters.4    "  By  the  power  of  the  eternal  God,"  opens 

ordered  us  to  remain  to  bless  in  his  palace  a  chapel  which  the  great 
Pope  of  Rome  had  sent  him." 

1  Ep.  Sept.  30,  1289,  ap.  Rymer,  ii,  p.  429.  In  the  letter  which 
Arghun  sent  to  Philip  the  Fair,  of  which  the  original  is  preserved  in 
Paris,  the  envoy's  name  appears  as  Mouskril.    lb.,  pp.  212  and  226. 

2  Ep.  just  cited. 

3  J.  937. 

4  In  connection  with  these  seals  we  may  note  that  William  of 
Rubruck  in  his  Voyage,  c.  39,  says  that  in  a  single  figure  each  composite 
letter  expresses  a  word.  The  letter  is  beautifully  reproduced  in  Prince 
Roland  Bonaparte's  Documents  de  I'epoque  Mongole,  Paris,  J  895, 
plate  xiv,  n.  1  ;    cf.  also  a  reproduction  at  the  end  of  Remusat's  essay. 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


the  letter.  Then,  stating  that  he  acted  under  the 
auspices  of  the  Khakhan  and  that  he  had  by  Mar  Bar 
Sauma  received  the  message  of  the  King,  Arghun  pro- 
ceeded to  unfold  his  plan  of  campaign.  It  was  to  attack 
Damascus  in  the  February  of  the  year  1290,  and  he 
undertook,  if  the  King  kept  his  word  and  sent  troops,  and 
if  they  took  Jerusalem,  to  hand  it  over  to  him.  The 
letter  concluded  with  a  request  for  envoys  who  spoke 
various  languages,  and  for  presents.  "  Our  letter  is 
written  on  the  sixth  day  of  the  first  month  of  the  summer 
of  the  year  of  the  ox  (April-May,  1289)."  *  This  letter 
was  accompanied  by  diplomatic  instructions  in  old  French. 
If  the  King  of  France  were  to  come  in  person,  Arghun 
would  bring  with  him  two  Christian  Kings  of  Georgia, 
would  supply  the  horses  and  provisions,  etc.2 

What  result  Buscarel  had  with  Philip  the  Fair  is  not 
known  ;  but  we  know  something  of  his  reception  by 
King  Edward.  He  arrived  in  London  on  Jan.  5,  1290,3 
and  appeared  before  the  King  and  Parliament  (Jan.  30). 4 
On  behalf  of  the  Ilkhan,  Buscarel  promised  that  the 
Mongols  would  attack  "  the  pagans  "  in  the  Holy  Land, 
if  the  King  of  England  would  co-operate  in  person. 
This  Edward  promised  to  do  in  two  and  a  half  years, 
i.e.,  on  the  feast  of  St.  John  the  Baptist  (June  24),  1292  5  ; 
and,  as  he  said  in  his  extant  letter  to  Arghun,  he  would 
inform  him  of  the  exact  date  of  his  coming  as  soon  as 


1  Ap.  Chabot,  I.e.,  p.  221  ff. 

2  lb.,  p.  229. 

3  Cf.  T.  H.  Turner,  "  Unpublished  Notices  of  the  time  of  Edward  I." 
in  the  Archceological  Journal,  vol.  iii,  1851,  p.  45  ff. 

4  Cf.  Annals  of  Worcester,  ap.  Annal.  Monast.,  iv,  p.  499,  R.  S.  This 
fact  has  escaped  the  notice  of  Chabot.  The  Annals  state  that  the 
King  held  a  parliament  in  London  "  after  Christmas  "  (this  we  know 
was  held  on  Jan.  30),  and  that  Tartar  envoys  presented  themselves 
at  it. 

5  As  a  consequence,  the  Pope  gave  him  the  tenth  not  only  of  the 
three  years  already  collected,  but  of  the  three  years  to  be  collected.    lb. 


52  NICHOLAS    IV. 

he  could  obtain  the  consent  "  of  our  most  holy  father  in 
Christ,  the  supreme  pontiff  of  the  Holy  Roman  Church  "} 
It  was  not  the  consent  of  Nicholas  that  proved  to  be 
wanting ;  but  it  was  Edward's  ambition  that  took  him 
to  Scotland  instead  of  to  the  Holy  Land.  However,  at 
this  time,  Edward  was  in  earnest  about  undertaking  an 
expedition  to  the  Holy  Land  ;  and  in  the  course  of  this 
year  (1290)  he  dispatched  to  Acre  with  large  sums  of 
money  one  of  his  advisers,  Otho  de  Grandison,  "  to 
prepare  the  way  before  his  face  ".2  Edward  believed, 
too,  in  the  importance  of  the  Tartar  alliance,  because 
when  he  was  in  Palestine,  he  had  himself  contrived  to 
secure  Tartar  assistance  against  the  Moslem.3 
Baptism  of       Meanwhile  Arghun  had  caused  his  third  son,  Kharbenda, 

Arghun  s  son  ° 

and  dispatch  who  afterwards  became  the  Ilkhan,  Oljai'tu,  to  be 
missioners  baptized  under  the  name  of  Nicholas  (Aug.,  1289). 4 
by  the  Pope.  Meanwhile,  too,  a  little  earlier,  Pope  Nicholas  had 
dispatched  to  Arghun,5  to  other  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
potentates  in  the  East,  and  to  the  Khakhan  himself,6 
a  number  of  Franciscans  who  had  already  had  many 
years'  experience  of  missionary  work  in  the  East.  The 
head  of  this  important  mission  was  the  famous  John  of 
Monte  Corvino  of  whom  we  shall  speak  at  length  in 
connection  with  the  work  of  Nicholas  for  the  spread  of 

1  See  his  letter  in  Chabot,  I.e.,  pp.  234-5,  taken  from  Turner,  who 
printed  it  from  the  Tower  records  :  Close  Rolls,  18  Edw.  I.,  m.  6 
dorso. 

2  Walter  of  Hemingburgh,  Chron.,  vol.  ii,  p.  24.  "  Habuit  enim  in 
proposito  rex  in  terram  sanctam  proficisci."  To  save  the  money, 
Otho  fled  to  Cyprus  during  the  last  siege  of  Acre,  and  gave  occasion 
for  the  Chronicler  to  sneer  at  him.  Despite  his  name,  he  made  but  a 
"  little  sound  "  amid  the  clash  of  arms. 

3  Cf.  Marino  Sanudo,  Secreta  fidel.,  ap.  Bongars,  ii,  p.  224. 

4  Hist,  of  M.  Jab.,  p.  95.  Cf.  Stephen  Orbelian,  Hist,  de  la  Siounie, 
trad.  Brosset,  p.  265,  who  says  the  baptism  was  given  by  a  bishop 

ent  from  Rome. 

5  Ep.  of  July  15,  1289,  ap.  Reg.  Nich.  IV.,  n.  2240. 

6  Kublai  whom  he  calls  Cobla.     See  his  letters,  ib.,  nn.  2218-44. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  53 

Christianity  in  China.  Meanwhile  we  will  but  note  that 
in  his  letter  to  Arghun  (July  15,  1289)  the  Pope  thanked 
him  for  the  goodwill,  which,  according  to  the  report  of 
Friar  John,  he  entertained  towards  the  Church  of  Rome 
and  the  other  Christian  Churches,  and  for  the  kindness 
which  he  had  already  displayed  towards  John  himself 
and  his  companions.  Again,  as  he  observed  he  had 
already  done  before  through  "  Roban  Barsamma,  bishop 
in  the  Eastern  parts  ",  he  earnestly  exhorted  the  Mongol 
monarch  not  to  put  off  his  baptism,  or  the  acceptance  of 
the  true  faith  which  is  the  light  of  our  lives.1 

Among  the  many  letters  carried  by  Friar  John,  was 
another  to  the  Catholicus  Mar  Jabalaha  "  to  whom  "  the 
Pope  said  that  it  was  reported  "  that  a  great  multitude 
of  people  was  subject  ".  Nicholas  exhorted  him  without 
further  delay  to  hearken  to  the  Vicar  of  Christ,  and 
embrace  "  that  faith  which  the  Roman  Church  holds 
and  preserves  intact  ".2 

Encouraged  no   doubt  by  the   more   or  less   definite  Fourth 
promise   of   co-operation   which   he   had   received   from  Arghun3!'  ° 
King  Edward,  but  much  alarmed  by  the  warlike  activities  1290-1. 
of  the  cruel  Mameluke  Sultan,  Khalil  (1290-3),  Arghun, 
immediately    on    the    return    of    Buscarel,3    dispatched 
another  more  important  embassy  to  the  Pope  and  to  the 
kings  of  the  Franks.4 

The  head  of  the  mission  was  a  Mongol  of  position  named 
Chagan  or  Zagan,  who  with  his  nephew  was  baptized 
on  his  arrival  at  the  papal  court.  He  was  accompanied 
by  Buscarel.     Nicholas  immediately  hurried  the  envoys 

1  Ep.  ap.  Chabot,  p.  214  f.,  or  ap.  Wadding  or  Mosheim  as  before. 

2  Ep.  ap.  ib.,  p.  218  f.  "  Suademus,  quatenus  ad  observandam 
fidem  Catholicam  quam  tenet  et  servat  romana  ecclesia  inconcusse, 
ac  etiam  ad  ipsius  ecclesie  unionem  sublato  cujuslibet  tarditatis 
obstaculo  .   .   .  promptus  advenias." 

3  It  is  calculated  that  at  this  period  the  journey  between  Persia 
and  France  took  about  four  months. 

4  Though  only  our  King's  name  is  mentioned. 


54 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


Acre,  1291. 


on  to  Edward,  and  begged  him  to  take  earnest  note  of 
the  propositions  which  they  were  to  put  before  him,  and 
to  transact  business  with  them  as  quickly  as  possible. 
At  the  same  time  he  informed  Edward  that,  on  his  own 
account,  he  proposed  to  send  a  special  envoy  to  the 
Ilkhan  with  his  returning  embassy.1 
The  fan  of  Unfortunately  we  do  not  know  exactly  how  the  Mongols 
fared  when  they  left  the  Pope,2  nor  do  we  even  know  when 
they  returned  to  Persia.  But,  in  the  first  half  of  the 
year  following  their  arrival,  an  event  happened  which 
was  naturally  calculated  to  help  their  cause.  On  May  18, 
1291,  Acre,  the  last  important  stronghold  held  by  the 
Christians  in  Palestine,  fell  into  the  hands  of  the  Mameluke 
Sultan,  Khalil-Aseraf.  Knowing  that  the  Mongols  were 
making  every  effort  to  effect  an  alliance  with  "  the 
Franks  ",  3  and  realizing  that  such  an  alliance  would  be 
their  ruin,  the  Mameluke  sultans  strove  with  the  greatest 
energy  to  make  the  alliance  impossible.  They  threw 
themselves  on  the  Christian  remnant  in  Palestine,  and 
wiped  it  out  of  existence.  News  of  this  disaster  roused 
the  greatest  grief,  say  our  old  chroniclers,  in  all  who  were 
zealous  for  the  Christian  name— a  grief  more  distressing 
"  than  the  lamentations  of  Jeremias  the  prophet ". 
He  only  bewailed  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  a  refuge  but  for 
proselytes  and  Jews.  But  Acre  was  a  bulwark  for  all 
who  professed  the  faith  of  Christ,  and  went  to  Palestine 
to  avenge  the  injuries  inflicted  on  their  Redeemer,  who 

1  Epp.  of  Dec.  2  and  31,  1290,  to  Edward,  ap.  Chabot,  p.  236  f., 
or  Rymer,  ii,  p.  498. 

2  From  Everislen,  who  continued  Florence  of  Worcester,  it  appears 
that  the  envoys  at  least  met  Edward,  as  he  says  that  in  1291  envoys 
came  from  the  great  Khan  to  the  Pope  and  to  the  Kings  of  France 
and  England  in  connection  with  his  accepting  the  Christian  faith, 
and  his  granting  help  for  the  succour  of  the  Holy  Land. 

3  Bro.  Fidentius  of  Padua,  in  his  treatise,  De  recuperatione  Terns  S., 
c.  85  (written  c.  1266-91),  shows  why  the  Tartars  of  Persia  wanted 
an  alliance  with  the  Franks.    Ap.  Golubovich,  Bib.  Francesc,  ii,  p.  57. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  55 

had  watered  with  his  blood  the  land  of  promise  which 
by  hereditary  right  belonged  to  the  sons  who  bore 
his  name.1 

News  of  the  fall  of  Acre  seems  to  have  reached  the  Pope  Nicholas 
about  the  beginning  of  August.    From  the  very  beginning  *0"Jees 
of   his   short   pontificate,   he   had   urged   the   Christian  Christendom, 
princes  to  make  an  effort  to  save  the  remnant  of  the 
Latin  kingdom  of  Jerusalem.2     He  had  redoubled  his 
efforts    when    the    redoubtable    Mameluke    sovereign, 
Kilawun,  proclaimed  a  Holy  War  against  Acre  (1289), 
and  after  Hospitallers  and  Templars  had  come  to  Europe 
to  tell  him  of  the  terrible  massacres  that  Kilawun  had 
perpetrated,  and  to  beg  assistance.3     Not  content  with 
ordering  a  Crusade  to  be  preached,4  the  Pope  had  com- 
missioned the  Venetians  to  equip  and  dispatch  twenty 
galleys  at  his  expense  to  the  East  immediately,5  and  he 
had  implored  Philip  le  Bel  to  undertake  to  guard  the 
Holy  Land  till  the  general  expedition  could  be  got  ready 
(Dec.  5,  1290). 6    Then,  on  the  receipt  of  King  Edward's 
assurance  that  he  would  accept  the  date  to  be  fixed  by 
him  for  the  departure  of  the  Crusade,  Nicholas  had  fixed 
it  (March  16,  1291)  for  the  feast  of  St.  John  the  Baptist, 

1  Florcs  Hist.,  iii,  74.  Cf.  Les  Grandes  Chron.  de  France,  torn,  v, 
p.  99,  ed.  Paris. 

2  Cf.  e.g.,  Ep.  Oct.  1,  1288,  to  the  King  of  Cyprus,  ap.  Raynaldus, 
Ann.,  1288,  n.  39.  He  points  out  what  an  irreparable  loss  it  would  be  : 
"  si,  quod  absit,  Terrae  memoratae  particula,  quae  Christianis 
remansisse  dignoscitur,   occuparetur   ab  hostibus   Crucifixi." 

3  See  the  letter  of  Nicholas  to  King  Edward  (Aug.  13,  1289),  ap. 
Rymer,  ii,  p.  428. 

4  Sept.  1,  1289,  Potth.,  nn.  23064,  and  Jan.  5,  1290,  23151-3. 

5  Sept.  13,  1289,  ib.,  n.  23078.  It  would  appear  that  the  Venetians 
cheated  the  Pope  in  the  matter  of  the  armaments  of  the  galleys.  Cf.  ib., 
23439.  They  were  commanded  by  Jas.  Tiepolo,  the  son  of  the  Doge 
Lawrence  Tiepolo.  Cf.  Amadi,  Chron.,  p.  218.  Cf.  p.  228,  and  the 
Chronicle  of  bro.  Christopher  of  Cyprus  (wrote  c.  1496),  ap.  Golubovich, 
Bib.  dell'  Oriente,  vol.  ii,  205. 

6  lb.,  n.  23484.    Cf.  nn.  23489,  23500. 


56  NICHOLAS    IV. 

1293. J  He  had,  moreover,  granted  our  King  a  variety  of 
tithes,  and  in  proclaiming  the  date  of  the  proposed 
Crusade  to  the  Christian  world,  he  had  told  how  King 
Edward,  "  thinking  nothing  of  the  sweetness  of  his  native 
land,  despising  the  riches  of  his  realm,  and  shunning  its 
delights  and  the  glory  of  ruling  there,"  had  humbly 
accepted  that  date.2 
King  Of  our  King's  zeal  at  this  period  in  the  cause  of  the 

Edwards         _  °  .... 

embassy  to    Crusades,  we  have  seen  one  indication  in  his  sending 
Persia.  Grandison  to  Acre  "  with  his  treasures  ".     Some  frag- 

mentary exchequer  documents  in  our  national  archives 
give  us  further  proof  of  his  earnestness  in  that  matter. 
Impressed  by  the  embassies  of  Arghun,  he  sent  an 
important  embassy  of  his  own  to  the  Ilkhan  in  reply  to 
the  Chagan-Buscarel  embassy  of  1290-1.  It  was  headed 
by  Sir  Walter  de  Langele,  and  it  is  only  from  records 
of  the  expenses  of  the  mission  kept  by  his  squire,  Nicholas 
of  Chartres,  that  we  know  anything  about  it.3  Sir 
Walter  would  seem  to  have  been  accompanied  by 
Buscarel  4  as  guide,  for  we  find  the  latter  in  company 


1  Rymer,  ii,  505.  Cf.  a  number  of  other  letters  of  March  18  and  25, 
1291,  ap.  ib.,  pp.  509-23. 

2  lb.,  p.  513  ff.  Cf.  his  letter  of  March  29,  sadly  announcing  the 
fall  of  Tripoli,  ap.  Raynaldus,  Ann.,  1291,  n.  2,  and  that  of  Aug.  1, 
1291,  ap.  Bullar.  Rom.,  iv,  p.  111.  As  a  sign  of  the  goodwill  entertained 
by  Edward  for  the  Pope,  who  was  thus  urging  him  to  the  dangers  of 
a  distant  expedition,  we  find,  from  a  letter  of  the  Pope  {ib.,  pp.  521-2), 
that  he  had  sent  him  a  present  of  beautifully  embroidered  silk,  etc., 
and  an  emerald  ring.  Nicholas  tenders  his  thanks,  "super  capa,  et 
doxali  altaris,  ac  alio  panno,  sericis,  plumarii  operis  multiplici 
varietate  distinctis,  etc." 

3  Public  Record  Office.  Exchequer,  Treasury  of  Receipt,  Miscellanea, 
n.  49.  Cf.  on  these  "bills",  T.  H.  Turner,  "Unpublished  Notices 
of  the  Times  of  Edward  I."  in  the  Archceological  Journal,  vol.  viii, 
1851  ff.,  but  especially,  C.  Desimoni,  I  conti  dell'  ambasciata  al  Chan 
di  Persia  (1292)  ;  it  is  an  extract  from  Atti  Soc.  Liguria  St.  Patria, 
vol.  xiii,  fasc.  iii. 

4  On  his  family  the  Ghizolfi,  see  Desimoni,  p.  554  f. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  57 

with  the  embassy  making  purchases  for  it . *  The  embassy, 
procuring  supplies  of  furs,  arms,  medicines,  etc.,  at  Genoa 
and  Brindisi,  would  appear  to  have  left  the  former  place 
in  December,  1291,  and  to  have  taken  some  in  days 
to  reach  Tabriz.  They  went  by  Constantinople  and 
Trebizond.  Unfortunately,  our  ambassador  came  in 
contact  not  with  Arghun  (f  March,  1291),  but  with  his 
drunken  and  incompetent  successor,  Gaykhatu  (or 
Kengiatu).  Hence,  although  we  have  absolutely  no 
hint  as  to  what  passed  between  the  Mongol  and  Sir 
Walter,  we  may  be  sure  that  nothing  of  any  importance 
was  arranged  between  them.  Unfortunately,  too,  when 
the  envoys  reached  Rome  on  their  return  journey  (Dec. 
24,  1292),  the  zealous  Nicholas  IV.  was  dead,  and  the 
Holy  See  was  vacant.  It  was  fated  that  the  Mongol 
alliance  should  not  mature. 

Meanwhile,  on  August  1,  Nicholas  had  issued  another  Nicholas  on 
urgent  appeal  to  Christendom  to  get  ready  for  1293,  Acerea 
but  there  is  no  mention  therein  of  the  fall  of  Acre.  News 
of  its  fall  must  have  come  soon  after,  and  roused  the 
Pope,  if  possible,  to  still  greater  efforts.  Letters  were 
sent  everywhere  to  tell  of  the  loss  of  Acre  (Aug.  13). 
Often,  said  the  Pope,  had  the  East  already  inflicted 
terrible  blows  on  the  Church,  but  never  before  so  severe 
a  one  as  this.  He  told,  too,  of  the  efforts  which  the  Holy 
See  itself  had  made  in  the  hope  of  securing  the  safety  of 
the  city,  at  least  until  the  arrival  of  the  general  Crusade — 
of  the  galleys,  men,  and  money  which  it  had,  all  in  vain, 
sent  to  Acre.2 

Most  eloquently  did  Nicholas  call  on  all  lovers  of  the 
Christian  name  to  prepare  with  the  greatest  zeal  for  the 
general  Crusade  of  1293.    The  Genoese  and  other  maritime 

1  lb.,  p.  550  ff. 

2  See  the  fragment  of  this  encyclical  in  Walter  of  Heminburgh, 
Chron.,  ii,  27  ff.  It  is  practically  the  same  as  the  one  sent  to  the 
Genoese  which  is  given  in  full  in  Raynaldus,  Ann.,  1291  n.,  23  ff. 


58  NICHOLAS    IV. 

powers  were  asked  to  prepare  ships,  to  make  peace  with 
one  another,  not  to  trade,  especially  in  arms,  with  the 
infidel,  and  to  send  to  him  experienced  men  to  advise 
as  to  the  best  measures  to  be  taken  in  the  meanwhile.1 
The  bishops,  too,  of  the  various  countries  were  asked  for 
their  advice,  especially  as  to  the  feasibility  of  uniting 
the  Templars,    Hospitallers,   and   Teutonic   knights,   as 
their  discords  had  contributed  to  the  loss  of  Acre.2 
The  response      In  his  concern  for  the  Holy  Land,  Nicholas  gave  almost 
to  the  las?    as  much  attention  to  the  Mongol  question,  as  to  the 
embassy  of    proposed  Crusade  of   1293.      If  he  could  only  convert 
1291.  the   Mongols,   or  induce   the   European  princes  to   ally 

themselves  with  them,  the  future  hold  of  Christendom, 
or  at  least  of  Christianity,  on  the  Holy  Land  was  assured. 
Had  the  kings  to  whom  he  appealed  been  less  selfish, 
there  can  be  but  little  doubt  that,  with  the  Mongol 
alliance,  the  power  of  the  Turk  would  have  been  held 
in  check,  endless  misery  and  degradation  saved  to 
Europe,  and  Western  civilization,  kept  free  from  the 
Turkish  blight,  would  have  advanced  much  more  steadily. 
To  lead  his  new  embassy  to  Arghun,  Nicholas  selected 
two  Franciscans,  William  of  Chieri  and  Matthew  of 
Chieti,  and  furnished  them  with  no  fewer  than  thirty-one 
letters.3  The  envoys  left  Italy  towards  the  end  of  August, 
and  from  the  letters  of  recommendation  which  they 
carried  we  can  tell  that  they  journeyed  by  Sicily,  Con- 
stantinople, Trebizond,  through  Georgia  to  Tiflis,  then 
through  Armenia  to  Tauriz  (Tabriz)  and  Maragha  to  the 
east   of    the   great    Lake    Urmiah    (Urmi),    and    finally 


1  See  the  letter  to  the  Genoese  just  cited,  Will,  of  Nangis,  Chron., 
ad  an.  1291,  p.  279.  The  French  bishops  said  that  the  first  thing  to  be 
done  was  to  bring  about  peace,  especially  among  the  Greeks,  Sicilians, 
and  Aragonese. 

2  Eberhard  Alt.,  Chron.,  p.  540,  ap.  Bohmer,  Fontes,  ii. 

3  Dated  from  Aug.  13  to  23,  1291.  See  these  letters  in  Chabot, 
p.  238  ff.  ;    in  Reg.  Nich.  IV.,  ii,  nn.  6722-3,  6735,  6806-33. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  59 

turning  west  on  the  way  back,  to  Mosul  on  the  Tigris, 
to  Cis,  the  capital  of  Lesser  Armenia,1  and  no  doubt  to 
the  port  of  Lajazzo  (Laias,  Ayas),  the  port  of  the 
Mediterranean  trade  for  north  Persia  (Tabriz). 

Nicholas  appealed  to  the  rulers  of  these  various 
countries  to  facilitate  the  journey  and  forward  the  work 
of  his  envoys.2  To  these  latter  he  gave  faculties  to 
choose  their  companions,  and  to  exercise  various 
ecclesiastical  powers  generally  reserved  to  higher 
ecclesiastics.3  He  also  entrusted  them  with  the  task 
of  drawing  up  a  report  for  him  on  the  state  of  all  the 
religions  among  the  Tartars.4  Various  Western  Christians 
occupying  important  posts  under  the  Ilkhan  were 
thanked  for  what  they  had  done  to  propagate  the  faith, 
and  urged  to  continue  their  good  work.5 

Then  addressing  himself  to  different  members  of 
Arghun's  family,  he  congratulated  his  son  Kharbenda 
(Nicholas)  on  his  reception  of  the  sacrament  of  baptism, 
and  bade  him  live  up  to  his  faith,  and  spread  it ;  but, 
for  the  sake  of  not  giving  needless  offence  to  his  people, 
not  to  change  his  style  of  dress,  or  mode  of  life  generally.6 
Kharbenda's  brothers,  Saro  and  Ghazan  (afterwards 
Ilkhan),  were  earnestly  exhorted  to  follow  their  brother's 
example,7  and  two  Tartar  queens,  who  were  already 
Christians,  were  asked  to  use  their  influence  with  the 
two  princes  in  that  direction.8 

1  Golubovich,  Biblioteca  dell'  Oriente  Francesc,  ii,  pp.  473,  476.  The 
letters  in  question  in  the  text  were  addressed  to  Queen  Constance  of 
Sicily,  the  Byzantine  emperor  Andronicus  II.,  John  II.,  emperor  of 
Trebizond,  etc. 

2  Pott.,  n.  23776;  Reg.,  nn.  6809-14.  All  the  letters  in  connection 
with  this  papal  embassy  are  dated  from  Aug.  13  to  Aug.  23,  1291. 

3  Reg.,  nn.  6806-7. 
*  lb.,  n.  6808. 

5  Reg.,  nn.  6820-3.     Raynaldus,  Ann.,  1291,  n.  33. 

6  Ep.  in  full,  ap.  Chabot,  p.  244. 

7  lb.,  p.  246. 

8  lb.,  p.  242. 


6o 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


To  Arghun  himself,  Nicholas  sent  two  letters.  In  the 
first  he  told  him  that  he  had  received  the  letter  which 
he  had  sent  to  him  by  his  ambassador  Chagan,  and  that, 
in  accordance  with  his  strongly  expressed  wishes,  he  had 
reported  favourably  on  its  contents  to  King  Edward. 
In  the  rest  of  this  letter,  Nicholas  does  not  say  another 
word  directly  bearing  on  the  political  topics  in  the 
Ilkhan's  letter.  He  simply  urges  him  to  get  baptized, 
pointing  out  to  him  that  thereby  his  fame  and  power 
would  be  increased.1  But,  in  his  second  letter,  he  tells 
the  Mongol  how  the  fall  of  Acre  had  caused  him  to  rouse 
the  kings  of  the  Catholic  world,  and  that  King  Edward 
and  other  princes  were  making  active  preparations  for 
the  recovery  of  the  Holy  Land.  He  assured  the  Ilkhan 
that  there  was  every  reason  to  hope  that,  with  his 
co-operation,  their  efforts  would  be  crowned  with  success, 
and  he  again  pressed  him  to  be  baptized.2  Letters, 
exactly  like  this,  were  sent  to  the  Kings  of  Armenia  and 
Georgia,  and  to  the  Emperors  of  Constantinople  and 
Trebizond.3 
Arghun°Ld  Unfortunately,  but  little  came  of  the  strenuous  efforts 
Nicholas.  of  the  Pope  and  the  Ilkhan.  The  latter  was  already 
dead  (March  7,  1291)  when  Nicholas  made  these  heroic 
exertions  against  Islam  ;  and  he  himself  died  within  a 
few  months  after  making  them  (Apr.  4,  1292). 
Fortunately  he  did  not  live  long  enough  to  see  that  the 
Crusade  proclaimed  for  1293  did  not  materialize.  Through- 
out the  whole  of  that  year  (1293),  the  Holy  See  was 
vacant,  and  King  Edward,  the  great  hope  of  Nicholas, 
was  engaged  in  a  quarrel  with  France.  Before  he  died, 
however,  the  Pope  made  one  more  effort  in  behalf  of  the 

1  Ep.  ap.  Chabot,  p.  238.    "  Tuque  fama  et  viribus  cresceres,  laudando 
christianorum   consortio  copulatus." 

2  Ep.  ap.  ib.,  p.  240.     Many  of  these  letters  are  given  in  full  also 
by  Wadding,  Annul.,  v,  p.  255  ff.,  Raynaldus,  and  Mosheim. 

3  See  note  to  n.  6809  in  the  Register. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  6l 

Christian  East.  Master  of  Palestine  and  Syria,  Khalil 
directed  his  forces  against  Armenia-Cilicia,  and  threatened 
Romcla,1  the  residence  of  the  Armenian  patriarch. 
Hayton  II.,  King  of  Armenia,  appealed  for  help  to  the 
Pope.  Nicholas  not  only  received  his  envoys  kindly, 
and  sent  them  on  to  the  Kings  of  France  and  England, 
but  he  ordered  the  preachers  of  the  general  Crusade 
(1293)  to  exhort  some  intending  Crusaders  to  proceed 
at  once  to  help  Armenia  "  placed  in  the  very  midst  of 
perverse  nations  like  a  lamb  among  wolves  ".  He  offered 
them  the  same  indulgences  as  were  offered  to  those 
who  should  take  part  in  the  general  Crusade,  and  he 
ordered  the  Grand  Masters  of  the  Templars  and 
Hospitallers  to  proceed  to  the  help  of  Armenia  with  the 
galleys  of  the  Holy  See.2  Whether  they  were  able  to 
effect  much  or  little,  the  kingdom  of  Armenia-Cilicia 
contrived  to  prolong  its  existence  till  1375. 3 

After  the  death  of  Arghun,  there  succeeded  in  Persia  Ghazan 

,  ,  .  L      f  ,    ,.  .       Khan,  1295- 

lour  years  01  incompetent  government  and  disorder  under  1304. 
the  Khans  Gaykhatu  and  Baydu.  But  when  law  and 
order  were  restored  under  the  firm  rule  of  Ghazan,  the 
grandson  of  Hulagu,  negotiations  were  reopened  with 
the  West.  Ghazan  had  obtained  the  throne  by  Moslem 
aid  ;  but,  it  is  said,  wrongly  perhaps,  at  the  cost  of 
apostasy.  At  any  rate,  at  the  beginning  of  his  reign  he 
persecuted  Christians,  Jews,  and  pagans  alike.4    However, 

1  Or  Hromgla,  or  Roumqualat,  or  Kalaat (castle) -Rum.  Khalil 
took  the  place  and  slew  its  Mongol  and  Armenian  garrison.  It  was 
the  strongest  fortress  on  the  Euphrates,  and  was  situated  on  an 
abrupt  promontory  at  the  extreme  point  of  the  great  western  bend 
of  the  river. 

2  Reg.,  nn.  6850-6,  Jan.  23,  1292. 

3  See  Tournebize,  Hist,  de  I'Armenie,  p.  220  ff.,  etc. 

4  According  to  Prince  Hetoun,  Fleurs  des  Hist.,  p.  199,  ed.  de 
Backer,  Baydu  was  "  a  good  Christian  ",  and  forbade  the  preaching 
of  Islam.  Bar-Hebraeus,  indeed,  confirms  Hetoun  so  far  as  to  say 
that  Baydu  favoured  the  Christians  in  every  way,  but  he  adds  that 


62  NICHOLAS    IV. 

when  it  came  to  the  question  of  fighting  the  Mamelukes, 
Ghazan  gave  up  persecution,  and  turned  to  the  West 
for  allies.  In  1299  he  gained  a  considerable  victory 
over  the  Sultan  En-Nasir  at  Salamia  to  the  north  of 
Hims  (Emessa).1  Exaggerated  stories  of  this  victory 
and  its  results  reached  Europe,  for  it  was  only  for  a  brief 
space  that  Palestine  and  Jerusalem  fell  into  his  hands. 
Dominicans  and  other  religious  are  declared  to  have 
said  Mass  at  the  Holy  Sepulchre.  We  are  even  assured 
that  Ghazan  sent  two  Friars  Minor  to  the  Pope  to  ask 
him  to  send  out  people  to  take  possession  of  the  occupied 
territory.2  The  report  of  the  capture  of  Jerusalem 
caused  the  greatest  joy,  as  it  was  said,  even  in  well- 
informed  circles,  that  Ghazan  had  undertaken,  if  he 
received  help  from  the  Christians,  "  to  destroy  the  sect 


he  had  not  the  courage  to  call  himself  a  Christian,  and,  at  length,  even 
called  himelf  a  Moslem.  Chron.  Syriacum,  vol.  i,  p.  642  f.  Accordingly 
the  Moslems  offered  the  crown  to  Ghazan  "  se  il  vouloit  renoncer  a 
la  foy  crestienne.  Casan  qui  petite  cure  avoit  de  la  foy,  etc,"  agreed. 
But,  from  the  letters  of  Nicholas  IV.  quoted  above,  Ghazan's  baptism 
had  not  then  taken  place,  but,  of  course,  it  might  have  taken  place 
after.  For  the  persecution  of  the  Christians,  etc.,  see  Hist,  de  Jabalaha, 
c.  11,  p.  106,  and  M.  Sanudo,  Secreta  fidel.,  ap.  Bongars,  Gesta  Dei, 
ii,  p.  239. 

1  Cf.  a  letter  of  the  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  ap.  Annates  Reg.  Edw.  I., 
p.  422  ff.,  R.  S.  The  Grandes  Chroniques  de  France,  "  Philippe-le-Bel," 
c.  29,  say  that  Ghazan  (or  Khazan)  or  Cassahan,  with  a  great  many  of 
his  people,  was  converted  to  Christianity  by  his  Armenian  wife  ;  and 
that,  as  a  result  of  his  victory,  the  Holy  Land  fell  into  his  hands,  and 
Mass  was  once  more  said  in  Jerusalem.  "Et  a  Pasques  ensuivant,  si 
comme  Ten  dit,  en  Jerusalem  le  service  de  Dieu  les  crestiens  avec 
exaltacion  .  .  .  celebrerent."  Cf.  Makrizi,  Hist,  des  Mamlouks, 
vol.  ii,  pt.  ii,  pp.  146,  153-4,  170. 

2  Ann.  Frisacenses,  p.  67,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xxiv  ;  Martin.  Polon. 
Contin.  Anglic,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xxiv,  258.  The  Chronicle  goes  on  to 
say  that  the  Pope  sent  the  friars  on  to  the  Kings  of  France  and  England, 
and  that  on  June  6  they  reported  themselves  to  Edward  at  Cambridge 
(1300).  But  at  that  period  the  King  was  at  Pontefract  (see  H.  Gough, 
Itinerary  of  Edw.,  ii,  p.  190),  and  was  never  at  Cambridge  in  1299  or 
any  subsequent  year. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  63 

of  Mahomet  "  and  "  to  restore  the  Holy  Land  to  them  ".1 
But,  whatever  were  his  intentions  in  these  respects,  he 
had  no  opportunity  of  carrying  them  out.  His  success, 
however,  duly  made  known  to  Pope  Boniface  VIII.  by 
certain  citizens  of  Genoa,  "  and  by  the  report  of  brother 
Philip,"  stirred  up  his  crusading  zeal  and  also  that  of 
a  number  of  Genoese  ladies  belonging  to  the  best  families 
in  Genoa — to  the  Grimaldis,  the  Dorias,  the  Spinolas,  etc. 
The  Pope  proclaimed  a  solemn  "  station  "  in  thanks- 
giving for  the  victory,2  and  preached  a  crusade,  but  only 
succeeded  in  rousing  John,  Duke  of  Brittany.3  The 
Genoese  ladies,  however,  proposed,  to  the  great  joy  and 
admiration  of  Boniface,  to  lit  out  a  fleet  at  their  own 
expense,  and  to  go  themselves  to  the  Holy  Land  to 
minister  "  to  the  warriors  of  the  Crucified ".  But, 
though  Boniface  commissioned  Porchettus  Spinola,  the 
administrator  of  the  archdiocese  of  Genoa,  to  preach 
the  Crusade,  and  to  give  the  cross  to  such  as  were  willing 
to  go  to  the  help  of  the  Holy  Land,  the  subsequent 
misfortunes  of  Ghazan,  and  the  difficulties  of  Boniface 
would  appear  to  have  prevented  anything  coming  of  the 
heroism  of  the  matrons  of  Genoa,4  or  of  the  preparations 
of  the  Duke  of  Brittany. 

1  Hetoun,  I.e.,  cc.  43  and  44,  avers  that  Ghazan  said:  "Nous 
donnerons  ordre,  en  cas  qu'ils  (the  Christians)  join  Cotulossa  (one  of 
his  generals)  les  (the  Holy  Land)  leur  restituer,  et  de  les  aider  a  retablir 
les  chateaux  ..."  He  intended  "  detruire  absolument  la  secte  de 
Mahomet,  et  de  restituer  de  bonne  foi  la  Terre  Sainte  aux  Chretiens." 
Ed.   Bergeron. 

2  Cf.  Ann.  Fris.,  I.e.,  and  Gesta  Boemundi  aep.  Treverensis,  ap.  ib., 
p.  483.  Cf.  the  Christian  Copt,  Moufazzal  ibn  Abil-Fazail,  Hist,  des 
Sultans  Mamlouks,  ap.  Bib.  Orient.,  t.  xiv,  p.  667.  He  quotes  an  older 
historian  to  the  effect  that  some  of  Ghazan's  Tartars  made  a  raid  from 
Damascus  (which  Ghazan  entered  in  Jan.,  1300)  against  Jerusalem 
and  Hebron.  This  passage  gives  us  the  truth  of  the  Jerusalem  occupa- 
tion.   M.'s  own  work  was  finished  in  1358. 

3  Cf.  ep.  of  Sept.  28,  1300,  ap.  Raynaldus,  Ann.,  1300,  n.  33.    Cf.  n.  34. 

4  "  Attendentes  quod  Casanus,  magnus  Tartarorum  imperator,  .  .  . 
regnum  Hierosolymitanum  intraverat,"  Reg.   Bonif.    VIII.,   n.   4384 


64 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


Negotiations 
with  the 
West, 
1300-2. 


Death  of 
Ghazan, 
1304. 


The  victory  of  the  Mongols  in  1299  was  not  well 
followed  up.  Palestine  was  soon  lost,  and  floods  spoiled 
Ghazan's  winter  campaign  in  Syria  in  1300-1.  But, 
resolving  on  another  campaign  in  1303,  he  meanwhile 
again  tried  to  secure  Western  help.  To  this  he  was  induced 
not  only  by  the  example  of  his  father,  Arghun,  but  by 
offers  of  help  which  had  been  made  to  him  by  James  II. 
of  Aragon  (1300). x  His  embassy,  once  more  placed  under 
the  indefatigable  Buscarel,  left  Persia  in  1301  2 ;  and 
its  chief  presented  himself  before  Boniface  VIII.  in  Rome, 
no  doubt  about  the  end  of  that  year.  Then,  as  before, 
he  went  on  to  King  Edward.  But  he  came  at  a  most 
unfortunate  time.  Boniface  was  in  the  midst  of  his 
quarrel  with  Philip  the  Fair,  and  Edward  was  preparing 
for  another  invasion  of  Scotland.  Accordingly,  on 
March  12,  1303,  the  latter  sent  a  letter  to  Ghazan  to  say 
that,  through  Buscarel,  he  had  received  the  Ilkhan's 
letters  about  the  Holy  Land,  but  that  wars  at  home 
prevented  him  from  doing  anything  in  the  matter  at  the 
moment.  "  When,  however,"  he  continued,  "  the 
Supreme  Pontiff,  with  the  help  of  Almighty  God,  shall 
have  put  us  into  such  a  position  that  we  can  attend  to 
this  affair,  we  would  have  you  know  that  we  will  give  all 
our  attention  to  it,  as  we  desire  its  success  more  than 
anything  in  the  world."  3 

One  need  not  say  that  Buscarel  had  even  less  success 
with  Philip,  whom  he  visited  in  Paris  in  Easter  week 


Aug.  9,  1301.  Cf.  the  other  letters  to  these  Genoese  ladies  and  others, 
nn.  4380-6.  Ed.  Digard.  See  also  the  Chronichetta  di  S.  Andrea, 
p.  29  f.,  ed.  Carini,  Rome,  1893. 

1  Remusat,  pp.  386-7. 

2  Finke,  Acta  Aragonensia,  i,  n.  60,  p.  85,  gives  a  letter  which,  if 
correctly  dated  by  him,  would  show  that  the  Tartar  envoys  were  already 
in  Apulia  on  July  2,  1300,  and  were  expected  at  the  curia  any  day. 

3  Ep.  of  March  12,  1303,  ap.  Rymer,  ii,  918-19.  He  sent  a  similar 
letter  to  the  "  Patriarch  of  all  the  Christians  of  the  Orient  ",  i.e.,  to 
Mar  Jabalaha.     lb.,  p.  919. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  65 

(Apr.  7  ff. ,  1303). 1  Meanwhile  his  master's  forces  had 
been  utterly  defeated  near  Damascus  (March,  1303),  and 
the  Ilkhan  himself  died  of  vexation  about  a  year  later 
(May  17,  1304). 

He  was  succeeded  by  his  brother,   Kharbenda,  who,  Embassy  of 

.-.ti-i  hit   ■,  t  Olja'itu, 

though  he  had  been  baptized,  had  become  a  Mohammedan,  1306-8. 
and  styled  himself  Olja'itu  Mohammed.  Nevertheless 
he,  too,  sent  an  embassy  to  Europe  to  try  to  form  an 
alliance  against  the  Egyptians.  Fortunately  his  original 
letter,  on  a  cotton  roll  some  ten  feet  long  by  ten  inches 
wide,  to  Philip  the  Fair,  is  still  extant  in  the  Archives  of 
France.2  On  the  back  of  it  is  a  contemporary  Italian 
translation,  for  the  letter  is  in  Mongol  in  Uigur  characters. 
To  judge  by  the  letters  addressed  to  Oljaitu  by  Pope 
Clement  V.  in  1308,  and  by  Edward  II.  in  1307,  it  is 
clear  that  the  letters  sent  to  them  were  similar  to  the 
extant  one  addressed  to  Philip  le  Bel.  From  this  last 
document  we  gather  that  the  Ilkhan  had  sent  two 
ambassadors,  Mamlakh  3  and  Tuman,  who  appears  as 
"  Tomaso  mio  iulduci  "  in  the  Italian  version,  and  as 
"Thomas  Ilduci  "  ("sword-bearer"  in  Mongol)  in  the 
letter  of  Clement  V.4  It  would  seem,  too,  that  they  were 
accompanied  or  followed  by  envoys  from  Leo  IV.,  King 

1  Grandes  Chron.,  I.e.,  n.  48,  ed.  P.  Paris. 

2  See  a  facsimile  of  it  in  Prince  R.  Bonaparte's  Documents  (see 
supra,  p.  50),  and  a  "  copie  figuree  "  of  it  in  Remusat.  It  bears  a 
seal  in  Chinese  characters  (five  times  impressed  in  red  ink)  signifying  : 
"  By  a  supreme  decree,  seal  of  the  descendant  of  the  Emperor,  charged 
to  reduce  to  obedience  the  ten  thousand  barbarians."  Remusat,  I.e., 
p.  392. 

3  Mamalac  in  the  Italian  version,  ap.  Remusat,  437.  This  version 
is  dated  1306,  which  perhaps  shows  that  the  envoys  did  not  leave  Persia 
till  then. 

4  Ep.  March  1,  1308,  ap.  Raynaldus,  Ann.,  1308,  n.  30.  This  Tomaso 
has  been  identified  with  Tomaso  Ugi  of  Siena,  who  in  a  Venetian  docu- 
ment signs  himself  "  Alduci  del  Soldano  ".  He,  like  Buscarel,  belonged 
to  the  Sultan's  bodyguard.  Cf.  Heyd-Raynaud,  Hist,  du  Commerce 
du  Levant,  ii,  123  ff. 

Vol.  XVII.  f 


66 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


Answers  of 
Edward  II. 
and 

Clement  V. 
to  it. 


of  Armenia-Cilicia.  At  any  rate  a  letter  of  his  to  Edward  I. 
dated  March  28,  1307,  is  extant  among  the  English 
Royal  Letters,1  in  which  he  says  he  is  sending  "  discreet 
men  "  to  explain  "  our  great  necessity  and  need,  and 
the  very  great  danger  in  which  we  are  ". 

The  Ilkhan's  letter  is  addressed  not  only  to  Philip, 
but  also  "  to  the  other  Sultans  of  the  Franks  ".  After 
the  opening  phrase,  "  the  word  of  one  Oljaitu,"  the 
letter  called  attention  to  the  alliances  that  had  existed 
between  the  Mongols  and  the  Franks  during  the  times  of 
his  great-grandfather  (Hulagu),  his  grandfather  (Abaga), 
his  father  (Arghun),  and  his  elder  brother  (Ghazan). 
Then,  after  declaring  that  it  was  the  wish  of  Oljaitu 
even  to  intensify  those  good  relations,  and  that,  after 
forty-five  years  of  disunion,  all  the  reigning  descendants 
of  Zinghis  Khan  are  now  again  united,  the  letter  asked 
for  an  alliance  with  the  Sultans  of  the  Franks. 

What  answer,  if  any,  was  returned  to  this  letter  by 
Philip  is  not  known.  On  October  16,  1307,  however, 
our  King  Edward  II.  sent  a  reply  to  the  letters  which 
he  had  received  from  the  lord  "  Dolgieto  "  to  the  effect 
that  the  Tartar  envoys  had  arrived  after  his  father's 
death,2  and  that  he  hoped  something  might  be  done 
soon  about  the  alliance,  but  that,  at  the  moment,  internal 
troubles  prevented  him  from  attending  to  it.3 

The  answer  of  Pope  Clement  V.  was  somewhat  more 
satisfactory.  He  told  "  Olgetucani  "  with  what  pleasure 
he  had  learnt  from  his  letters  and  his  ambassadors  of  the 
large  supplies  of  men  and  provisions  with  which  he  was 
prepared  to  come  to  the  assistance  of  the  Christians  for 
the  recovery  of  the  Holy  Land.  He  and  his  brethren 
would  give  the  closest  attention  to  the  matter,  and,  as 


1  N.  3285,  ap.  BibliotMque  de  I'ecole  des  Chartes,  1891, 
a  Ed.  I.  t  July  7,  1307. 
3  Rymer,  vol.  iii,  p.  15. 


61  f. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  67 

soon  as  an  expedition  was  arranged,  he  would  inform  the 
Ilkhan.1 

Clement,  indeed,  did  his  best  to  rouse  the  West,  but 
in  vain.  The  golden  opportunity  was  utterly  lost.2 
Oljaitu,  tired  of  waiting  for  Western  help  which  never 
came,  attacked  the  Mamelukes  in  Syria  in  13 12  with 
his  own  forces,  but  met  with  no  success.  It  is  true,  as 
we  hope  to  relate  in  his  biography,  John  XXII.  tried  to 
induce  Abu-Said  (1316-35),  the  son  of  Oljaitu,  to 
save  Armenia-Cilicia.3  The  power,  however,  of  the 
Mongol  Ilkhans  of  Persia  had  oozed  out,4  and  "  with 
Abu-Said's  death  the  dynasty  of  the  Ilkhans  of  Persia  .  .  . 
practically  came  to  an  end  ".  A  period  of  anarchy  ensued 
which  lasted  till  Persia  was  absorbed  by  another  savage 
all-conquering    Tartar,    Timur    the    Lame   (Tamerlane), 

ti405-5 

From    the   foregoing   narrative   one   might   hurriedly  Missionary 
draw    the    conclusion    that,    during    the    rule    of    the  J^  Mongol 
descendants  of  Zinghis  Khan  in  Persia,  the  only  relations  dynasty  in 
of  the  Pope  and  the  religious  Orders  with  it  were  political. 
But  such  was  far  from  being  the  case.     Although  the 
Popes    were    constantly    using   the    friars    for   political 
missions,  they  not  only  used  the  very  same  men  for  the 
preaching  of  the  Gospel,  but  they   also  sent   others  to 
Persia  merely  for  that  purpose.     Thus  practically  the 
whole  life  of   the  famous  John  ot   Monte  Corvino  was 
devoted  to  missionary  enterprise,  and  the  same  is  true 


1  Ep.  March  1,  1308.  ap.  Raynaldus,  an.  1308,  nn.  30-1. 

2  Marino  Sanudo,  in  his  valuable  work  on  the  way  to  recover  the 
Holy  Land,  is  always  impressing  on  Clement  the  advisability  of  getting 
the  help  of  the  Tartars.    Cf.  Secretafidel.,  ap.  Bongars,  Gesta,  ii,  pp.  7,  36. 

3  Cf.  ib.,  an.  1322,  n.  41  ff.    Ep.  of  July  5,  1322,  etc. 

4  A.-S.  in  1323  signed  a  treaty  with  the  Sultan  of  Egypt,  and  thus 
put  an  end  to  a  war  which  had  lasted  over  60  years. 

s  Browne,  Persian  Literature,  iii,  p.  58. 


68  NICHOLAS    IV. 

of  many  another  Franciscan1  and  Dominican.  Con- 
versions,2 and  even  martyrdoms  were  frequent.3  Most 
of  the  latter  came  from  the  hands  of  the  ever  intolerant 
Moslem,  for  the  Mongols,  as  we  have  said  before,  favoured 
Christianity.  All  the  later  Franciscan  authors  especially 
assure  us  of  that  fact.4 

Conversions  were  naturally  followed  by  organization. 
Persia  was  included  in  the  third  Franciscan  district 
(custodia)  in  Oriental  Tartary.5  It  formed  the  greater 
part  of  the  Custodia  of  Tabriz,  and  we  know  that  in  the 
thirteenth  and  fourteenth  centuries  there  were  at  least 
nine  important  cities  in  which  there  were  Franciscan 
houses.6  Pope  John  XXII.,  too, established  (Apr.  i,  1318), 
a  metropolitan  see  (with  six  suffragans)  in  the  new  capital 
of  Sultanieh  (Congorlaun,  according  to  the  Tartars) 
founded  (1305-13)  by  Oljaitu  to  the  south-east  of  Lake 
Urmiah.7 

But  at  this  time  the  heroic   work  of  the  friars,  and 


1  For  records  of  Franciscan  missions  in  Persia  during  the  period 
in  question,  see  Golubovich,  Biblioteca  dell'  Oriente  Francescano,  ii, 
153-4,  iii ;   pp.  59,  214,  218  ff.,  350,  413  f.  ;    Potthast,  n.  22644,  etc. 

2  Note,  e.g.,  the  conversion  of  a  certain  Dionysius  (Nestorian)  bishop 
of  Tabriz.  See  ep.  of  Nicholas  IV.  of  Apr.  7,  1288,  ap.  Chabot,  Hist. 
de  Mar  Jub.,  p.  205. 

3  Cf.  Golubovich,  ib.,  ii,  pp.  62,  66  ;  iii,  182  ;  and  vol.  iv,  p.  235,  for 
the  martyrdom  of  the  English  Franciscan,  Will.  Walden,  in  Salamastro 
in  Persia  (c.  1334). 

4  Cf.  John  Elemosina,  Chron.,  p.  120,  ap.  Golubovich,  I.e.,  ii,  p.  120. 
After  speaking  of  their  general  toleration,  he  adds  :  "  Sed  precipue 
Christianis  concesserunt  ista."  Cf.  an  anonymous  German,  De  gestis 
trium  regum,  c.  65,  ap.  ib.,  p.  153,  writing  about  the  same  time,  says  : 
"  Imperator  Tartarorum  ...  in  omnibus  regnis  suis  multum  favet 
christianos  ;  et  fides  Christiana  que  ibidem  (among  the  Nestorians)  per 
infideles  fuit  oblita,  nunc  per  Fratres  Minores,  Predicatores  .  .  .  et 
alios  doctores  de  novo  cepit  florere." 

5  Vicaria  Tartariae  Orientalis  :  Custodia  Thauris. 

6  See  map,  etc.,  in  Golubovich,  I.e.,  vol.  ii,  and  pp.  72,  107,  146, 
265-6,  in  the  same  vol. 

7  Ep.  of  John,  ap.  Raynaldus,  Ann.,  1318,  nn.  4-7. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  69 

the  generous  co-operation  of  Lombard  and  other  rich 
merchants  was  not  destined  to  succeed.1  Their  work, 
which  was  somewhat  arrested  by  the  fact  of  the  acceptance 
of  Islam  by  the  Ilkhan  Ghazan  and  his  successors,  was 
finally  ruined,  along  with  the  country  itself,  by  the 
ravages  of  the  Moslem  Tamerlane. 


II.    China. 

At  what  precise  period  China  first  began  to  interest  the  China  first 
West  is  difficult  to  say,  but,  both  from  Chinese  and  from  w°st.n 
Western  sources,  it  is  certain  that  China  and  Europe 
were  in  touch  in  the  first  century  of  our  era.  To  begin 
with  the  Western  sources  which  we  know  best,  we  learn 
from  Florus,  who  wrote  in  the  days  of  the  Emperor 
Trajan  (98-117),  that  in  the  time  of  Augustus  there  came 
to  Rome  to  ask  for  peace,  besides  Scythians  and 
Sarmatians,  also  Indians  and  Seres  (or  Chinese).  He  tells 
us  that  the  Indians  and  Seres  declared  that  their  journey 
had  taken  four  years,  and  he  adds  that  their  very  com- 
plexion proved  that  they  belonged  to  another  world.2 
Pliny  too,  writing  towards  the  close  of  the  first  century, 
has  something  to  say  of  the  Seres  in  his  Natural  History. 

1  "  Nam  mercatores  de  Lombardia  et  aliis  terris  ditissimi,  qui  in 
illis  partibus  degunt,  et  frequenter  perveniunt,  trahunt  hos  ordines 
(Franciscans,  Dominicans,  Carmelites,  etc.)  ad  illas  partes,  et  eis  cum 
auxilio  .  .  .  fidelium  claustra  fundant  .  .  .  Et  ipsi  mercatores 
adducunt  secum  .  .  .  juvenes,  Unguis  diversis  eruditos  quos  tradunt 
Ordinibus."  The  friars  then  train  the  youths.  Anon.  Germanus, 
De  gestis  trium  regum,  c.  65,  ap.  Golubovich,  ii,  p.  153. 

2  Hist.  Rom.,  iv,  12.  "  Ipse  hominum  color  ab  alio  venire  ccelo 
fatebatur."  Cf.  Yule,  Cathay  and  the  Way  Thither,  i,  18,  for  Chinese 
support  of  the  account  of  Florus. 


70  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Though  his  idea  of  the  position  of  their  country  was  of 
the  vaguest,  he  knew  that,  in  order  to  reach  it,  one  had 
to  cross  deserts  almost  impassable  by  reason  of  snow, 
wild  animals,  and  barbarous,  even  cannibal,  Scythians. 
He  says  that  the  Seres  themselves  are  "  mild  ",  and,  like 
timid  animals,  shun  the  society  of  other  men.  Still,  he 
continues,  they  are  keen  to  trade  with  their  silk,  which, 
speaking  of  it  as  wool,  he  believed  grew  like  cotton.  He 
assures  us  that  it  was  through  their  wool  forests  that  the 
Chinese  are  famous  1  ;  and  he  adds  that  "  our  women 
have  to  unravel  and  weave  "  the  wool  which  had  been 
detached  from  the  trees  by  "  water  ".  Incidentally  we 
may  add  that  with  the  exception  of  the  Greek  geographer, 
Pausanias  (fl.  176),  practically  all  the  classical  Western 
geographers  believed  that  there  was  a  silk  plant.  But, 
although  Pausanias  did  not  know  where  the  Seres  (Chinese) 
lived,  he  was  sure  that  silk  was  produced  by  a  worm,2  as 
was  also  St.  Basil,  long  before  the  days  of  Justinian.  He 
tells  us  of  the  "horned  worm  of  India"  (including  southern 
China)  which  "  turns  from  a  caterpillar  into  a  buzzing 
insect  ",  and  provides  the  silk  sent  by  the  Chinese  for 
"  the  delicate  dresses  "  of  the  Roman  women.3 

It  was,  however,  but  seldom,  if  indeed  ever  at  all, 
that  the  ancient  Romans  traded  directly  with  the  Chinese 
for  their  silk.  They  had  to  get  it  from  the  Persians,  or 
from  the  Alans,  who  lived  by  the  northern  slopes  of  the 
Caucasus  and  by  the  Caspian  Sea,  and  in  time  became 
Christians.     However,  it  would  appear  that  they  made 


1  Hist.  Nat.,  vi,  c.  20.  "  Lanicio  silvarum  nobiles."  Cf.  vi,  15,  24  ; 
xxxiv,  41.  Pomponius  Mela,  De  situ  orbis,  iii,  7,  writing  c.  a.d.  40-50, 
speaks  of  the  Seres  as  "  full  of  justice  ". 

2  See  his  Description  of  Greece,  1.  vi,  c.  26.  Centuries  before  him, 
Aristotle  also  knew  that  silk  came  from  a  worm.  Cf.  Hist.  Animal., 
v.  19.  Cf.  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall,  iv,  228  ff.,  and  Append,  xii, 
p.  534  1,  ed.  Bury. 

3  Hexameron,  horn,  viii,  8,  ap.  Migne,  Pat.  G.,  t.  29. 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


71 


efforts  to  get  the  raw  silk  direct  from  China,  for  the 
Chinese  Annals  relate  that,  in  the  year  166,  a  Roman 
emperor,  whom  they  call  An-thum  (Marcus  Aurelius 
Antoninus),  sent  ambassadors  to  China  for  trade  purposes. 
The  said  Annals  declare  that  the  Romans  were  very 
skilful  in  working  the  silk,  and  that  their  dyes  were 
better  and  their  colours  were  more  brilliant  and  gay  than 
any  in  the  East.1  The  geographer  Ptolemy,  too  (writing 
in  the  first  century),  speaks  of  Roman  caravans  that  went 
to  China  (Sera).  He  says  that  they  went  from  north 
Persia  by  the  great  commercial  road  between  Bactria 
and  Sogdiana.  The  merchants  assembled  at  Hierapolis 
on  the  Euphrates,  and  journeyed  to  Bactria  by  the 
south  of  the  Caspian  Sea.  He  does  not,  however,  give 
any  details  of  their  journey  beyond  the  river  Jaxartes  ; 
but  simply  relates  that  they  had  to  give  presents  to 
various  savage  tribes  to  be  allowed  to  pass  farther  on.2 
Hence  we  may  well  doubt  if  many  or  any  of  these  caravans 
ever  reached  China  proper,  and  accept  the  statement  of 
the  author  of  the  Periplus,  believed  to  have  been  written 
also  in  the  first  century,  who,  after  speaking  of  Thin 
(China),  where  the  raw  silk  and  silk  stuffs  come  from, 
adds  :  "  It  is  not  easy  to  get  to  this  Thin,  and  few  and 
far  between  are  those  who  come  from  it  " — a  statement 
we  find  repeated  by  the  Arabian  historian,  Abulfeda,  in 
the  fourteenth  century.  "  There  are  few  travellers,"  he 
says,  "  who  arrive  from  those  parts."  3 

1  Pauthier,  Chine,  p.  260,  and  F.  Hirth,  China  and  the  Roman  Orient, 
p.  42.  Cf.  pp.  46-7,  Leipzig  and  Shanghai,  1885.  The  Chinese  Annals 
also  mention  an  embassy  of  the  Emperor  Carus  (282-3).  Cf.  Beazley, 
Dawn  of  Modern  Geog.,  i,  180  ;   cf.  pp.  471-3. 

2  Geog.,  i,  c.  11-12.  Cf.  i,  17  ;  vi,  16,  and  vii,  2,  3,  5.  For  other 
classical  references,  see  Yule-Cordier,  Cathay,  i,  183  ff. 

3  The  Periplus,  ap.  Midler,  Geog.  Grceci  Min.,  i,  p.  303  ;  Eng.  trans., 
ed.  Schoff,  c.  64,  N.  York,  1912  ;  and  Guyard's  French  trans,  of 
Abulfeda's  Geog.,  n,  ii,  p.  122.  English  extracts  ap.  Yule,  Cathay, 
i,  pp.  183  and  255. 


72 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


Chinese 
Annals  and 
the  West. 


Nevertheless,  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  it  was  only 
the  Romans  who  endeavoured  to  get  in  touch  with  the 
Chinese.  At  times,  at  least,  the  Chinese  tried  to  get  in 
touch  with  the  Romans  for  purposes  of  trade  or  even  of 
conquest.  From  the  Chinese  Annals  it  would  appear 
that,  under  Ho-Ti  (a.d.  89-106)  of  the  dynasty  of  Han 
(202  B.C. -a.d.  222)  the  Chinese  general  Kan-ying  reached 
the  coast  of  Syria  (about  a.d  90)  in  his  efforts  to  establish 
relations  with  Rome  (Ta-thsin).1 

Not  unnaturally  communications  between  China  and 
the  Byzantine  Empire  were  more  frequent  than  between 
it  and  the  early  Roman  Empire.  Ammianus  Marcellinus 
(c-  33°-400)  knows  of  the  quiet  unwarlike  Chinese,  of  the 
healthy  climate  of  their  country,  of  their  silk  and  other 
exports,  and  of  their  not  purchasing  anything  from 
others.2  A  Byzantine  traveller,  Cosmas  Indicopleustes, 
not  only  speaks  of  "  Tzinista  which  produces  the  silk  ", 
but  was  the  first  geographer  to  give  clearly  its  true 
boundary  on  the  East.  He  states  correctly  :  "  Beyond 
this  there  is  no  other  country,  for  the  Ocean  borders  it 
on  the  East."  3  Cosmas  wrote  in  the  days  of  the  Emperor 
Justinian,  in  whose  time  the  silkworm  was  first  cultivated 
in  the  West  from  eggs  which  two  monks  are  said  to  have 
contrived  to  bring  from  China  sealed  in  a  cane.4  Chinese 
records  speak  of  several  embassies  from  Constantinople 
especially  during  the  great  Tang  dynasty  (618-907). 
They  tell  of   one  in  643  to  the   Emperor   Tai-tsung,  in 


1  Cf.  Pauthier,  Chine,  p.  258-9,  and  his  Relat.  polit.  de  la  Chine  avec 
les  puiss.  occid.,  1859,  and  E.  Bretschneider,  On  the  Knowledge  Possessed 
by  the  Ancient  Chinese  of  the  Arabs,  etc.,  p.  4,  London,  1871,  and  his 
Mediceval  Researches  from  Asiatic  Sources,  i,  143-4  ;  ii,  323. 

2  Hist.,  xxiii,  6. 

3  Topog.  Christ.,  ap.  Migne,  Pat.  Grcec,  vol.  88,  p.  169.  Seethe  anno- 
tated English  translation  of  McCrindle,  London,  1899  (Hakluyt  Soc.). 

4  Procopius,  De  bello  Gothico,  iv,  17  ;  Theoph.,  Excerpta,  printed 
with  Dexippus,  etc.,  ed.  Bonn,  p.  484  ;  ed.  Labbe,  Eclog.  hist,  byz., 
pp.  22,  112  ;    and  Zonaras,  Epit.,  xiv,  9. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  73 

whose  reign  the  famous  Si-ngan-fu  inscription  was  set 
up.  Other  missions  are  spoken  of  in  711,  719,  742.1  All 
during  this  period,  and  especially  in  the  first  three- 
quarters  of  the  ninth  century,  there  was  a  great  deal  of 
Arab  and  Moslem  intercourse  with  China,  especially  by 
sea.2  Indeed,  until  the  establishment  of  the  Mongol 
Dynasty,3  China  was  never  so  much  in  touch  with  other 
countries  as  during  the  Tang  dynasty.  Taitsung  (or 
Tai-tsung,  627-49),  the  principal  ruler  of  this  dynasty, 
is  said  to  have  recommended  both  Islam  and  Christianity 
to  his  subjects.4  At  any  rate,  with  regard  to  the  former, 
we  are  assured  that  the  Moslems  erected,  in  751,  a  mosque 
in  Canton  which  still  stands.5 

Although  it  is  true  that  Byzantine  and  Moslem  envoys 
or  traders  found  their  way  to  China  during  the  nineteenth 
Chinese  dynasty,  that  of  Sung,  a  dynasty  distinguished 
for  advance  in  art,  literature,  and  philosophy  (960-1279), 
still  after  the  revolution  of  878  before  the  close  of  the 
glorious  Tang  dynasty  intercourse  between  China  and 
other  countries  almost  ceased.  A  Moslem  contemporary 
traveller,  Abu  Zeyd,  tells  us  how  in  that  year  a  rebellion 
broke  out,  and  how  in  the  course  of  it,  the  rebels  sacked 
Khanfu,6  the  principal  city  of  foreign  trade.  In  the  sack 
Christians,  Jews,  Moslems,  and  Parsees  who  were  dwelling 
there  for  business  purposes  were  ruthlessly  massacred, 
along  with  the  natives.  In  their  savage  fury  the  rebels 
cut  down  the  mulberry-trees  of  the  district,  and  for  a 
time  ruined  the  silk  trade.  "  From  all  this,"  concludes 
Abu  Zeyd,  "  arose  unjust  dealings  with  the  merchants 
who  traded  thither,  so  that  there  was  no  outrage,  no 

1  Pauthier,  Chine,  p.  297  ;    Hirth,  I.e.,  p.  55. 

2  Cf.  Beazley,  Dawn  of  Mod.  Geog.,  i,  401,  414  ff. 

3  Known  as  the  Yuen  (original)  dynasty. 

4  Cf.  I.  C.  Hannah,  Eastern  Asia,  p.  78,  London,  1911. 

5  H.  H.  Gowen,  An  Outline  Hist,  of  China,  p.  133,  Boston,  1918. 

6  The  Kin-sai  of  Marco  Polo,  c.  68. 


74  NICHOLAS    IV. 

treatment  so  bad,  but  they  exercised  it  upon  the  foreign 
traders  and  the  masters  of  the  ships."  *  The  result  was 
that  foreign  intercourse  with  China  practically  ceased 
for  three  centuries. 

With  the  conquests  of  Zinghis  Khan,  and  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Mongol  (Yuen)  dynasty  in  China  in  the 
thirteenth  century,  distrust  or  at  least  ill-treatment  of 
the  foreigner  had  to  cease  throughout  the  Celestial 
Empire.  Christianity  had  another  opportunity  in  China 
and,  as  we  shall  see,  availed  itself  of  it. 

We  have  said  "  another  opportunity  ",  for  in  its  early 
days,  and  in  the  beginning  of  the  Middle  Ages,  Christianity 
had  had  a  first  opportunity.  The  religion  of  Jesus  Christ 
was  no  doubt  introduced  into  China  in  the  same  way 
as  it  was  introduced  into  most  other  countries— by 
traders  and  prisoners  of  war,  by  slaves  and  travellers, 
and  also  possibly  by  men,  cleric  or  lay,  who  made  it 
their  business  to  propagate  the  faith.  At  any  rate,  we 
are  assured  by  the  Christian  apologist,  Arnobius,  that  in 
the  third  century,  at  least,  the  faith  of  Christ  had  found 
its  way  among  the  Seres,  as  the  Romans  called  the 
Chinese.2  The  famous  bishop  and  historian,  Theodoret, 
writing  in  the  fifth  century,  also  includes  the  Seres  among 
the  peoples  to  whom  Christianity  had  been  preached.3 
"  Our  fishermen,"  he  says,  have  carried  the  laws  of  the 

1  Cited  by  Beazley,  Dawn  of  Mod.  Geog.,  ii,  p.  418.  See  pp.  57-8  of 
the  Italian  version  of  Abu  Zeyd,  Bologna,  1749.  Reinaud,  in  his 
Relations  des  Voyages  dans  I'Inde,  etc.,  2  vols,  Paris,  1845,  has  given 
French  versions  of  the  voyages  of  Abu  Zeyd  Hassan  of  Siraf,  and  of 
the  Anonymous  Traveller,  identified  with  Suleyman  the  Merchant. 
There  is  an  English  version  of  The  Two  Mussulman  Travellers  (as  edited 
by  Renaudot  in  1718)  of  1733.  Cf.  Abou'lfeda,  Annates  Moslemici, 
p.  213  f.,  ed.  Reiske;  and  El-Masudi,  Meadows  of  Gold  (written 
c  943),  p.  323,  Sprenger,  Eng.  trans. 

2  Adv.  Gentes,  ii,  10.  He  mentions  the  Seres  again,  ib.,  vi,  3.  Cf. 
Theodoret,  Serm.  9.  For  further  notes  on  the  intercourse  between  the 
West  and  the  Extreme  East,  see  Beazley,  I.e.,  i,  p.  530  f. 

3  Serm.  9.     "  De  providentia,"  ap.  Migne,  Pat.  Grczc,  83,  p.  1038. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  75 

Gospel  even  to  those  outside  the  Roman  Empire,  "  to 
Indians,  Ethiopians,  Persians,  and  Chinese  (Seras)." 

At  the  end  of  a  manuscript  of  the  so-called  Lausiac 
History  of  Palladius,  seemingly  bishop  of  Helenopolis  in 
Bithynia,  written  in  the  year  420,  there  was  found  a 
curious  treatise  in  Greek  on  India  and  the  Brahmins.1 
It  has  been  wrongly  attributed  to  St.  Ambrose  2  and  to 
Palladius  himself,  but  the  date  and  authorship  of  the 
little  work  appear  to  be  unknown.  Its  contents,  however, 
show  that  it  was  written  at  a  date  when  "  the  Roman 
Emperor  "  was  known  all  over  the  civilized  world,  and 
when  to  be  a  "  Roman  citizen  "  was  sufficient  to  secure 
respect  everywhere.  The  little  narrative  then  may  well 
date  from  the  time  of  St.  Ambrose  or  even  earlier.  Its 
author  frankly  acknowledges  that  he  has  never  been 
outside  Europe,  but  has  set  down  what  he  has  heard 
and  read  about  the  Brahmins.  He  begins  by  relating 
that  one  Musaeus  or  Moses,  called  by  some  bishop  of  the 
ancient  city  of  Aduli,  south  of  Massowah  in  Abyssinia, 
told  him  that  he  had  both  visited  the  Brahmins  in 
India,  and  had  travelled  over  almost  all  the  country  of 
the  Seres.3  He  added,  however,  an  account  of  the  "silk- 
trees  "  among  the  Seres  and  further  stated  that,  also 
among  them,  he  had  seen  a  column  on  which  were  the 
words  :  "I,  Alexander,  reached  this  place."  From  these 
latter  statements  it  would  seem  fairly  evident  that 
Musaeus  had  never  been  in  China  proper ;  he  probably 
never  got  beyond  Sogdiana  nor  crossed  the  Jaxartes.4 

1  Cf.  Ceillier,  Hist,  des  auteurs  eccles.,  vii,  p.  493,  Paris,  1861. 

2  Hence  it  is  printed  in  vol.  iv  of  his  works,  p.  1131  ff.,  ed.  Migne, 
Pat.  Lat.  It  was  also  printed  in  London,  1668,  with  a  Latin  version, 
by  Ed.  Bissaeus. 

3  Moses  is  really  described  as  "  Dolenorum  episcopus  ",  and  he 
stated  that  "  Sericam  fere  universam  peragravit  ". 

4  The  rest  of  the  brief,  seemingly  incomplete,  narrative  rests  on 
the  more  reliable  assertions  of  a  "  scholasticus  of  Thebes  "  who,  embark- 
ing on  the  Red  Sea  "  navigavit  primo  sinum  Adulicum  et  Adulitarum 
oppidum  (Aduli)  ".    JL.c,  p.  1133. 


j6  NICHOLAS    IV. 

As  strengthening  these  vague  allusions  to  the  early 
introduction  of  Christianity  into  China,  we  may  call 
attention  to  very  ancient  objects  of  Christian  worship 
which  have  been  found  in  that  country  from  time  to 
time.  An  iron  cross  with  Chinese  inscriptions  in  praise 
of  the  life-giving  cross  is  said  to  have  been  discovered 
in  the  Kiang-si  and  to  date  from  the  third  century.1 
Three  other  antique  crosses  found  in  other  places  are 
assigned  to  the  fourth  or  fifth,  and  sixth  and  seventh 
centuries  respectively.2 

Whatever  may  be  thought  of  the  proving  force  of  the 
evidence  already  adduced  to  show  the  early  preaching  of 
Christianity  in  China,  there  is  at  any  rate  no  manner  of 
doubt  that  it  was  preached  there  before  the  seventh 
century.  This  is  certain  from  the  famous  Si-ngan-fu 
inscription,3  which  was  found  in  1625,  close  to  the  walls 
of  the  city  which  has  given  its  name  to  the  monument. 
The  inscription  is  cut  on  a  large  block  of  a  dark  coloured 
marble  some  ten  feet  high  by  five  in  breadth,  and  is  on 
one  side  of  the  great  slab.  Though  a  small  portion  of  the 
inscription  is  in  Syriac,  and  in  such  Syriac  characters  as 
are  found  in  Syriac  manuscripts  of  an  earlier  date  than 
the  eighth  century,  the  great  body  of  it  is  in  ancient 
Chinese. 

From  the  monument,  which  was  erected  in  the  year 
780-1,     "  in    the     days    of    the     Father    of     Fathers, 

1  Cf.  Chardin,  Les  missions  franciscaines  en  Chine,  p.  7,  Paris,  1915. 

2  lb.,  p.  8.     Cf.  Yule,  Cathay,  i,  122. 

3  A  complete  translation  of  the  inscription  is  given  in  French  in  the 
valuable  art.  "  Chine  "  in  Cabrol's  Diet,  d'archeol.,  and  in  English  in 
Hue's  Christianity  in  China,  etc.,  vol.  i,  c.  2,  Eng.  trans.,  London,  1857. 
A  recent  description  and  photographs  of  the  inscription  will  be  found 
in  F.  Nichols,  Through  Hidden  Shensi,  1902.  Si-ngan-fu  is  now  the 
capital  of  the  province  of  Shensi,  but  was  then  the  capital  of  the 
Empire.  Cf.  also  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall,  v,  Append.  7,  p.  520  ff., 
ed.  Bury,  and  Beazley,  I.e.,  i,  215  ff.,  and  Pauthier,  L 'inscription  de 
Si-ngan-fou,  Paris,  1858. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  77 

Ananjesus  II.  (775-80),  Catholicos,"  1  by  a  Syrian  priest 
to  commemorate,  as  he  said,  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel 
by  our  fathers  to  the  Chinese,  a  sufficiently  clear  idea 
of  the  doctrines  of  Christianity  may  be  gathered.  The 
inscription  also  states  that  a  certain  religious  man  of 
great  virtue,  by  name  A-lo-pen,  along  with  some  others, 
came  from  the  Roman  Empire  in  635,  to  Si-ngan-fu. 
He  was  well  received  by  the  reigning  Emperor,  Tai- 
tsung,  who  bade  him  translate  the  sacred  books  which 
he  had  brought  with.  him.  In  an  imperial  decree,  cited 
in  the  inscription,  the  doctrine  taught  by  A-lo-pen  is 
summarized,  and  pronounced  good.  Permission  is 
accordingly  given  for  it  to  be  taught.2 

This  important  decree  has  also  been  preserved  by  the 
Chinese  historian,  Wang  P'u,  who  was  ordered  by  the 
first  Emperor  of  the  Sung  dynasty  to  draw  up  the  history 
of  the  preceding  Tang  dynasty  (618-907)  which  it  had 
overthrown.  As  given  in  the  pages  of  Wang  P'u,  the 
decree,  dated  639,  is  set  forth  substantially  in  the  same 
terms  as  in  the  monument.  "The  monk  A-lo-pen," 
it  states,  "came  from  Po-sze  (Persia),  bringing  from 
afar  the  Scriptures  and  the  doctrine  in  order  to  present 
them  at  our  capital.  On  examining  the  spirit  of  this 
doctrine  we  find  it  excellent  .  .  .  and  that  it  is  quickening 


1  On  Ananjesus  see  Bar-Hebraeus,  Chron.,  vol.  iii,  p.  163  ff.,  with 
the  notes  thereto  of  Abbeloos. 

2  The  inscription  also  proclaims  some  of  the  practices  of  the  Christian 
faith,  such  as  praying  for  "  the  living  and  the  dead  ".  "On  the  seventh 
day  we  offer  sacrifice,  after  having  purified  our  hearts,  and  received 
absolution  of  our  sins."  Hue,  I.e.,  p.  51.  It  is  generally  maintained, 
without  sufficient  grounds,  as  it  seems  to  some,  that  the  scheme  of 
Christian  doctrine  set  out  by  the  inscription  is  Nestorian.  Chinese 
Annals,  ap.  Hirth,  China  and  the  Ro.  Orient,  p.  55  f.,  assert  that  in 
719  the  Emperor  of  Byzantium  sent  "  priests  of  great  virtue  to  our 
court  with  tribute  ".  Leo,  the  Iconclast,  was  then  Emperor.  Did 
he  send  Nestorian  priests  ? 


j8  NICHOLAS    IV. 

for  mankind  and  indispensable.  ...  It  is,  therefore, 
worthy  of  being  spread  over  the  Celestial  Empire."  x 

The  Kings  and  ministers  of  the  Tang  dynasty  for  the 
most  part  favoured  Christianity. 

Besides  the  decree  of  639  just  cited,  which  was  the 
work  of  the  famous  Emperor,  Tai-tsung  (627-49),  giymg 
permission  for  Christianity  to  be  taught  throughout  the 
Empire,  there  is  another  of  the  Emperor  Hiuen-tsung, 
bearing  on  Christianity,  inscribed  on  a  tablet  found  in  our 
own  times.  It  is  dated  in  the  year  745,  and  decrees  that, 
in  order  to  make  the  origin  of  "  the  luminous  doctrine  " 
(Christianity)  ' '  quite  clear,  their  temples  should  in  future 
be  known,  not  as  those  of  Po-se-se  (Persia),  but  as  those 
of  Ta-tsin,  i.e.,  "  of  the  Roman  Empire,"  or  at  least 
"  of  the  West  ".2  The  only  persecutor  of  the  Christians 
in  the  Tang  dynasty  was  the  Emperor  U-  (or  Wu) 
tsung,  who  in  845  ordered  the  secularization  of  the  priests 
of  Ta-tsin.3  Throughout  the  greater  part  of  the  Tang 
dynasty,  then,  Christianity  flourished  in  China. 

Churches  were,  as  just  noted,  built  in  various  parts,4 
and,  according  to  Hue,5  during  that  period  the  Nestorian 
Catholicus,  Saliba-Zacha  (f  729  or  730)  founded  the 
metropolitan  see  of  China.  The  abbe  cites  Ebedjesus 
(or  Abdh-Isho  '),6  metropolitan  of  Nisibis  (f  1318),  as  his 
authority  for  this  statement ;  and,  in  fact,  to  quote 
from  the  Latin  version  of  Cardinal  Mai,  the  Syrian 
historian  writes  :  "  The  Catholicus,  Saliba-Zacha,  founded 
the  metropolitan  sees  of  Heria  (in  Khorassan),  Samarcand 
and  China.     It  is  said,  indeed,  that  they  were  founded 

1  Quoted  by  the  archimandrite  Palladius  in  The  Chinese  Recorder, 
vol.  vi  (1875),  p.  147,  Shanghai. 

2  Cf.  Hue,  I.e.,  p.  78,  and  Cabrol,  Diet.,  iii,  p.  1358. 

3  Cabrol,  ib.,  p.  1357. 

4  Cf.  the  inscription  ap.  Hue,  I.e.,  pp.  52  fL  Indeed,  it  seems  that 
the  Emperor,  Hiuen-tsung,  was  a  Christian  (Nestorian). 

5  L.c.,  p.  42. 

6  On  him  see  Wright,  Hist,  of  Syriac  Literature,  p.  285  ff. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  79 

by  Achaeus  and  Silas.1  But  the  metropolitans  of  Heria 
and  India  take  precedence  of  the  metropolitan  of  China, 
but  the  metropolitan  of  China  ranks  before  the  metro- 
politan of  Samarcand."  2  Similarly,  Amru-ben-Matthaei, 
a  Nestorian  Syrian,  who  wrote  somewhat  later  (fl.  1340), 3 
but  who  quotes  as  his  authority  Mar  Salomon  who  lived 
some  two  centuries  earlier,  when  enumerating  the 
patriarchs  subject  to  the  Catholicus  assigns  the  twelfth 
place  to  the  "  metropolitan  of  the  Chinese ".  And, 
writing  as  a  contemporary,  Thomas  of  Marga  tells  us  that, 
seemingly  about  the  middle  of  the  ninth  century,  one 
David,  who  was  known  to  him,  a  monk  of  the  famous 
Nestorian  monastery  of  Beth  Abbe  in  Mesopotamia,  was 
consecrated  metropolitan  of  Beth  Sinaye  or  China.4 

In  the  eighth  century  the  patriarch  Timothy  I.,  the 
successor  of  Ananjesus  II.,  not  only  speaks  of  the 
Christians  in  Thibet  and  China,  but  tells  us  that  he  made 
the  bishop  of  the  Chinese  into  a  metropolitan.5  In  the 
following  century,  we  find  the  Catholicus  Theodosius 
(852-98),  deciding  that  the  metropolitans  of  such  distant 
and  inaccessible  countries  as  China  need  not  observe  the 

1  Achaeus  was  Catholicus  from  412  to  416,  and  Silas  from  503-20. 
Cf.  Bar-Hebraeus,  ii,  p.  52,  with  the  notes  ;  and  p.  82.  On  Saliba- 
Zacha,  ib.,  p.    150. 

2  Script.   Vet.  nova  Coll.,  x,  pp.  141-2. 

3  Ap.  Assemanni,  Bib.  Orientalis,  ii,  458.  Cf.  Amri  and  Sliba, 
p.  73,  ed.  Gismondi,  where  "the  metropolitan  of  China  is  given  the 
fourteenth  place  ". 

4  Book  of  Governors,  1.  iv,  c.  20,  vol.  ii,  pp.  447-8,  ed.  Budge,  London, 
1893.     Cf.  vol.  i,  p.  cxv. 

5  Cf.  the  valuable  paper  of  A.  Mingana,  The  Early  Spread  of 
Christianity  in  Central  Asia  and  the  Far  East,  p.  12  ff.,  Manchester, 
1925,  and  H.  Labourt,  De  Timotheo  I.,  pp.  45,  48,  64  (Paris,  1904), 
quoting  writings  of  the  patriarch,  and  also  Assemanni,  Bib.  Orient., 
in,  pt.  i,  p.  143.  Also  on  the  work  of  Timothy  in  China,  see  Hue,  I.e., 
p.  86  ff .  He  relies  on  the  Historia  Monastica,  iv,  20,  of  Thomas  of 
Marga  (ninth  century).  Assemanni  gives  an  analysis  of  it  {I.e.,  pp.  464- 
501),  but  Budge  has  published  the  full  text  and  an  English  trans.,  The 
Book  of  Governors  ;  Historia  Monastica,  a.d.  840,  2  vols.,  London,  1893. 


80  NICHOLAS    IV. 

canon  which  commanded  metropolitans  to  visit  the 
Catholicus  every  four  years.  It  would  be  sufficient  if 
they  sent  letters  of  communion  every  six  years,  and  just 
dues  for  the  upkeep  of  the  patriarchate.1 

As  already  stated,  it  was  under  the  Emperors  of  the 
enlightened  Tang  dynasty  that  these  Christian  relations 
with  China  were  so  frequent ;  and,  from  a  story  preserved 
by  an  Arab  historian,  we  can  see  what  an  interest  they 
took  in  it.  Abu  Zeyd  Hassan,  of  Siraf,  on  the  Persian 
Gulf,  cited  once  before,  writing  in  the  last  quarter  of  the 
ninth  century,  describes  the  journey  of  his  friend  Ibn 
Vahab  to  the  court  of  the  Emperor  of  China,  at  Si- 
ngan-fu.  Finding  that  Vahab  was  a  Mohammedan,  the 
Emperor  called  for  a  box  in  which  were  a  number  of 
pictures,  and  asked  the  Arab  if  he  could  identify  his 
Prophet.  This  he  was  easily  able  to  do,  and  he  also 
recognized  "  Moses  with  his  rod,  and  the  children  of 
Israel  ".  He  also  said  to  the  Emperor  :  "  There  is  Jesus 
upon  an  ass,  and  here  are  his  Apostles  with  him." 
"  Ah,"  said  the  Emperor,  "  he  was  not  long  upon  the 
earth,  for  all  he  did  was  transacted  within  the  space  of 
little  more  than  thirty  months."  2 

The  Emperor  who  was  thus  acquainted  with  our  Lord's 
life  was  no  doubt  Hi-tsung,  who  began  to  reign  in  874. 
Before  his  reign  closed,  a  rebellion  was  begun  which  not 
only  broke  the  Tang  dynasty,  but  practically  put  an 
end  to  intercourse  between  China  and  other  countries, 
and  largely  destroyed  the  Christianity  which  had  spread 
so  widely.     It  is  again  Abu  Zeyd  who  tells  us  how  the 

1  Ebedjesus,  Epit.  Canon.,  ap.  Assemanni,  Bib.  0.,  ill,  pt.  i,  p.  347. 
On  the  whole  question  of  Christianity  in  China,  see  ib.,  i,  p.  504  ff. 

2  The  narrative  of  Abu  Zeyd  has  been  published  by  Renaudot 
(of  which  an  English  version  appeared  in  1733),  but  better  by  Reinaud 
in  his  Relations  des  Voyages  dans  Vlnde,  etc.,  Paris,  1845.  We  have 
used  Beazley's  translation,  I.e.,  iii,  420,  and  an  old  Italian  translation, 
pp.  67-8,  Bologna,  1749.  It  is  a  translation  of  E.  Renodozio's 
(Renaudot)  French  version.     See  also  Hue,  I.e.,  i,  p.  90  ff. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  01 

rebellion  broke  out,  in  two  provinces  north  of  the  Yellow 
River  under  a  man  who  called  himself  "The  General 
who  attacks  the  Heavens  "  (878).  Among  other  places, 
as  we  have  said  already,  he  sacked  the  then  centre  of  the 
foreign  trade  with  China,  the  city  of  Kanfu,1  hard  by 
the  modern  Hang-chow  on  the  Chang-kiang  river. 
"  The  inhabitants,"  says  the  Arab,  "  were  put  to  the 
sword.  Persons  acquainted  with  the  events  that  take 
place  in  China  report  that  on  this  occasion  there  perished 
120,000  persons,  Moslems,  Jews,  Christians,  and  Parsees, 
who  had  settled  in  the  city  for  the  sake  of  trade."  2 

Though  the  revolution,  with  the  cessation  of  foreign 
trade  which  it  brought  about,  caused  the  progressive 
decay  of  Christianity  in  China  till  its  revival  by  the 
Franciscan  missionaries  of  the  fourteenth  century,  it 
probably  did  not  extinguish  it  altogether.  Not  only  did 
these  missionaries  find  Nestorians  in  China,  but  we  have 
a  few  fleeting  notices  which  tend  to  show  some  Nestorian 
activity  in  those  parts  in  the  interim.  It  is  true  that  an 
Arabian  has  left  it  on  record  that  he  had  talked  with 
a  young  monk  at  Baghdad  who,  with  five  others,  had  been 
sent  by  the  Catholicus  (Ebedjesus,  963-86)  to  China  to 
regulate  the  affairs  of  the  Church  there,  but  who  said 
that  he  had  not  been  able  to  find  a  single  Christian  in 
China.  However,  as  the  young  monk  also  stated  that 
"  he  had  returned  more  quickly  than  he  went  ",  we 
may  reasonably  conclude,  considering  the  extent  of  China, 
that  his  researches  had  not  been  considerable.3  Against 
this  we  may  note  that  a  Chinese  authority  of  the  following 
century  speaks  of  a  Christian  temple  which  had 
"formerly"  been  built  by  people  from  Central  Asia.4 

1  It  is  the  Quinsay  of  Marco  Polo. 

2  Zeyd,  ap.  Hue,  I.e.,  p.  93  ff.,  or  Beazley,  I.e.,  p.  418. 

3  Ap.  Abulfeda,  i,  cdii ;   Yule,  i,  113-14  ;  Le  Strange,  Bagdad,  p.  213. 

4  Ap.  Yule,  i,   116  n.,  and  H.  Cordier,  Le  Christianisme  en  Chine, 
p.  17. 

Vol.  XVII.  g 


82  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Unfortunately,  however,  he  does  not  say  whether  the 
temple  was  still  used  by  the  Christians.  Moreover,  one 
of  the  Jesuit  missionaries  of  the  seventeenth  century 
found  a  copy  of  the  Bible  of  this  very  eleventh  century.1 
It  was  written  in  Gothic  characters  on  the  very  thinnest 
parchment  ;  but,  as  it  was  in  Latin,  it  may  perhaps 
have  been  brought  into  China  by  one  of  the  Franciscans 
in  the  fourteenth  century.2  Whether  these  facts  really 
prove  anything  or  not  as  to  Christianity  in  China  between 
the  close  of  the  ninth  century  and  the  thirteenth,  the 
following  statement  by  the  Franciscan  Rubruquis  would 
seem  to  show  that  there  must  have  been  some  Nestorian 
activity  there  during  that  period.  Telling  of  his  journey 
(1253-4)  t°  the  Tartar  capital,  Karakorum,  he  says  not 
only  that  he  found  Nestorians  all  the  way  to  Cathay,  but 
that  "  in  fifteen  cities  of  Cathay  there  are  Nestorians, 
and  they  have  an  episcopal  see  in  a  city  called  Segin  ".3 
John  of  Piano  Carpini,  too,  had  previously  spoken  of  the 
people  of  Cathay  who  had  reverence  for  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  who  believed  in  eternal  life,  but  had  not  been 
baptized.4  They  were  no  doubt  the  descendants  of  the 
Nestorian  Christians  of  earlier  centuries. 
The  West  However  all  this  may  be,  it  is  certain  that  Catholic 

fntereTt  in  Christianity  was  introduced  into  China  at  the  close  of 
the  East.  the  thirteenth  century.  The  Crusades  in  the  eleventh 
century,  the  stories  of  the  great  priest-king,  Prester  John, 
in  the  Far  East  which  reached  Europe  in  the  twelfth 
century,  the  doings  of  Zinghis  Khan  and  his  terrible 
Mongols   in   the   beginning   of   the   thirteenth   century, 


1  For  list  of  Christian  MSS.  found  in  China,  see  Mingana,  Early 
Spread  of  Christianity  in  Asia,  p.  42  ff. 

2  Yule,  I.e.,  pp.  122-3. 

3  ch.  26  and  ch.  28,  ed.  Rockhill  or  Bergeron,  Recueil  de  divers 
voyages,  ii,  p.  60.  In  ch.  26  he  states  that  he  had  met  a  Nestorian  from 
Cathay.     Segin  is  generally  identified  with  Si-ngan-fu. 

4  Ch.  9  of  his   Voyage. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  83 

turned  the  attention  of  the  West  very  strongly  even  to 
the  Far  East.  Gregory  IX.  and  Innocent  IV.  pro- 
claimed Crusades  against  the  Mongols,  and  the  latter 
pontiff,  instituting  the  "  Society  of  brother  travellers  for 
Jesus  Christ  ",  sent  Franciscans  and  Dominicans  to 
gather  authentic  information  about  those  dreadful  Tartars, 
and  to  work  for  their  conversion.  Most  nobly  did  many 
of  the  friars  fulfil  the  mission  entrusted  to  them.  Despite 
every  difficulty  of  language,  barbarous  manners,  and 
well-nigh  impassable  country,  the  friars  gradually  pushed 
their  way  to  the  Far  East,  and  before  the  end  of  the 
thirteenth  century,  they  had  penetrated  into  China. 

The   pontificate   of   Nicholas   IV.    was   contemporary The  Mongol 
with  a  small  portion  of  the  reign  in  China  of  Kublai  Yuen  in 
Khan,  grandson  of  Zinghis  (Genghiz)  Khan  (1162-1227),  Chma- 
the  founder  of  the  Mongol  Empire.     Kublai's  brother 
Mangu  had  made  great  conquests  in  China,  and  on  his 
death  (1257),   Kublai  assumed  the  title  of  Emperor  of 
China  (1257-94),  was  recognized  all  over  China  c.  1279, 
and  founded  the  Mongol  dynasty  of  Yuen  which  held 
sway   over   that   immense   realm   for   about    a   century 
(1257-1368). 

Owing  to  the  freedom  from  commercial  or  religious 
bigotry  which  in  the  main  characterized  the  Mongol 
rulers,1  the  Popes  had  very  soon  entered  into  relations 
with  them.  Regular  negotiations  between  them,  begun 
under  Innocent  IV.  through  John  de  Piano  Carpini, 
continued  for  more  than  120  years  (1245-1368),  till  the 
fall  of  the  Mongol  Chinese  dynasty,  and  the  re-establish- 
ment of  a  native  Chinese  dynasty,  that  of  Ming,  and  long 
after  the  more  westerly  Mongols,  after  a  period  of 
indecision,    had    accepted    Mohammedanism    and     its 

1  John  Elemosina,  Liber  Hist.  S.  Romance  Ecclesice,  ap.  Golubovich, 
Biobibliog.  dell'  oriente  Francescano ,  vol.  ii,  p.  107  :  "  Et  libere  con- 
cesserunt  (the  Mongols  or  Tartars)  nationibus  et  populis  leges  suas 
servare  et  precipue  Christianis."    John  wrote  about  1336.    Cf.  ib.,p.  120. 


84  NICHOLAS    IV. 

official  intolerance  about  the  beginning  of  the  fourteenth 

century.1 

The  Friars         The  agents  used  by  the  Popes  were  the  Franciscan 

Pope's6  and  Dominican  Friars,  then  in  their  first  fervour.    The 

agents  in  the  £rst  ones  whom  they  sent  to  the  Mongol  princes  were, 

not   unnaturally,   for  the   most    part    rather   diplomati- 

envoys    and   explorers   than   missionaries.      Such    were 

those  whom  Beazley  has  well  described  as  "  the  great 

friar-travellers      of     the     first     generation"  —  Carpini, 

Rubruquis,    and    Andrew    of    Longumeau,    who    found 

their  way  to  Mongol  rulers  on  the  Volga  and  at  Kara- 

korum,  their  capital,  in  the  far  distant  region  of  Lake 

Baikal.2 

Acting  on  the  information  obtained  from  these  first 
devoted  and  intelligent  ecclesiastical  explorers,  the 
Popes  took  in  hand  the  organization  of  regular  missionary 
expeditions  to  the  more  important  sections  of  the  huge 
Tartar  Empire,  to  China,  to  Persia,  and  south-western 
Asia,  and  to  the  different  countries  of  Central  Asia. 
Of  these  great  realms  "  to  the  north  of  the  Himalayas,  the 
Hindu  Kush,  and  the  Arabian  deserts,"  only  Tartaria 
Magna,  i.e.,  Cathay  or  China,  will  be  here  touched  upon, 
and  its  story,  as  far  as  this  work  is  concerned,  will  be 
bound  up  with  that  of  Friar  John  of  Montecorvino.  This 
Italian  Franciscan,  born  about  the  year  1247,  established 
a  Catholic  mission  in  China  which  flourished  amain 
under  the  Mongol  rule,  but  was  completely  blotted  out 
when  the  Tartar  dynasty  came  to  an  end.     Its  success 


1  This  took  place  under  Khaibenda,  otherwise  called  Oljaitu,  the 
brother  and  successor  of  Ghazan  the  Ilkhan  of  Persia  (1304-16).  Cf. 
Brother  Paolina  da  Venezia  (fl344),  Chronologia  magna,  written 
(c.  1316-14),  and  published  in  part  by  Golubovich,  Bibliog.,  ii,  97  ; 
and  Hayton,  Flores  hist.  Orient.,  iii,  c.  44  bis,  ap.  ib.,  p.  463.  On  the 
whole  subject  of  the  Franciscan  missions  to  China  see  also  the  Abbe 
Hue,  Christianity  in  China,  Tartary,  and  Thibet,  vol.  i,  London,  1857. 

2  The  Dawn  of  Modern  Geography,  vol.  iii,  p.  161. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  85 

was  wholly  due  to  John,  of  whom  it  has  been  said  that 
"  no  character  so  worthy  of  respect  .  .  .  appears  among 
the  ecclesiastical  travellers  "  of  the  age.1 

After  the  missionary  efforts  of  Innocent  IV.,  the  Popes  Papal 
kept  in  more  or  less  close  touch  with  the  Tartars  of  the  with  "the 
furthest  East  till  towards  the  last  quarter  of  the  fourteenth  Tartars  from 

•  •  r  rr^-  rr.  Innocent  IV. 

century,  till  the  reign  of  the  dreaded     Timur  the  Tartar    ,  to  Nicholas 

the  founder  of  the  second  great  Mongol  Empire,  in  whose  Iv- 

time  the  Mongols  of  the  centre  and  south-west  generally  The  Polos. 

accepted  Mohammedanism.     Details  have  been  already 

given  of  the  intercourse  between  them  and  Alexander  IV., 

under  whose  pontificate  they  gave  some  satisfaction  to 

Christendom  by  putting  an  end  to  one  of  its  great  foes, 

the  Caliphate  of  Baghdad  (1258).     In  his  reign,  too,  there 

set  out  for  the  Far  East  the  famous  Venetian  travellers, 

the  brothers  Maffeo  and  Nicolo  Polo   (1260).       It  was 

while  his  second  successor,  Clement  IV.,  was  Pope,  one 

of  whose  first  acts  was  to  cause  a  crusade  to  be  preached 

against  the  Tartars,2  and  who  appears  not  to  have  been 

very  much  disposed  to  place  confidence  in  Tartar  promises 

— it  was  while  he  was  Pope  that  the  Polos  stood  before 

the  Great  Khan  Kublai  in  China  and   told   him  about 

the  position  of  the  Pope  among  Christian   Princes   and 

about  the  Church  of  Rome.    Much  impressed,  the  Khan 

begged  the  brothers  to  go,  with  one  of  his  nobles,  on  an 

embassy  to  the  Pope  in  his  behalf  (1266).     Furnishing 

them  with  a  letter  in  Turkish  for  the  Pope,  he  therein 

begged  him  to  send  him  a  hundred  men  "  wise  in  the 

Christian    law    and    acquainted    with    the   seven  arts ", 

who  could  prove  that  it  was  better  than  theirs.3    Finding 

when  they  reached  Acre  (April,  1269)  that  Clement  IV. 

was  dead  (Nov.,  1268),  the  brothers  informed  Tedaldo 

1  Sir  H.  Yule,  Cathay  and  the  Way  Thither,  vol.  iii,  p.  11,  new  ed.  of 
H.  Cordier,  London,  1914. 

2  See  his  letter  to  the  bishops  of  Hungary  cited  below. 

3  Polo's  Travels,  c.  7. 


86  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Visconti,  the  Papal  legate  in  Palestine,  of  the  letters 
they  had  for  the  Pope.  The  legate,  whom  the  Polos 
justly  describe  as  a  "  wise  clerk  ...  a  man  of  great 
authority  ...  the  most  distinguished  man  in  all  the 
Church  of  Rome  ",  bade  them  await  the  election  of  a 
new  Pope.1  But  the  election  was  delayed  and  delayed, 
and  the  brothers,  with  Nicolo's  son,  the  famous  author, 
Marco,  determined  to  return  to  Kublai,  without  the 
wished-for  missionaries.  Arrived  at  Acre,  they  again 
presented  themselves  before  the  legate  (1271),  who  gave 
them  letters  for  Kublai.  With  these,  the  Polos  departed  ; 
but  they  had  not  gone  far  on  their  way  when  they  were 
recalled  by  the  Legate  who  had  received  news  that  he 
had  himself  been  elected  Pope  (Sept.,  1271).  Unable 
at  the  moment  to  find  the  hundred  wise  missionaries, 
the  newly-elected  Pontiff 2  attached  to  the  Polos  the 
two  most  learned  Dominicans  he  could  find  in  the 
province,  and  furnished  them  with  letters.3  But  the 
Dominicans  proved  to  be  wanting 4  in  the  necessary 
courage,  and  left  the  merchants,  who  accordingly  once 
more  presented  themselves  before  the  great  Khan  without 
missionaries.  Interest,  however,  in  the  Tartars  was 
again  aroused  in  Gregory  by  the  appearance  of  the  legates 
of  the  Khan  Abaga  at  the  Council  of  Lyons  (1274). 
Baptized  before  the  assembled  Fathers,  "  they  returned 
with  joy  to  Tartary,"  says  John  Elemosina,5  "  telling 

1  Travels,  Prologue. 

2  Known  as  Gregory  X. 

3  Polo's  Travels,  ib. 

4  Ib. 

5  See  extracts  from  his  Chronicle,  published  for  the  first  time  by 
Golubovich,  Biblioteca,  ii,  p.  125.  The  Acts  of  the  Council  for  July  16 
say  that  "  one  of  the  Tartar  envoys,  with  two  of  his  suite  (socii)  ", 
was  baptized.  The  remaining  thirteen  members  of  the  embassy  were 
already  Christians.  On  Jan.  26,  1275,  our  own  King  Edward  directed 
a  letter  to  Abaga  Khan,  "  Prince  of  the  Magali,"  in  which  he  expressed 
his  pleasure  at  his  affection  for  the  Christian  faith,  and  at  his  promise 
to  assist  the  Christians  in  the  Holy  Land.     Rymer,  ii,  43. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  87 

their  king  and  people  great  things  about  the  faith  of 
Christ  and  about  the  holy  Roman  Church.  From  that 
time  the  Church  of  the  Faithful  increased  in  Tartaria 
Aquilonari,  Gazaria  and  Kipchak,  i.e.,  among  the  Tartars 
to  the  north  of  the  Black  and  Caspian  Seas."  Gregory, 
unfortunately,  did  not  live  long  enough  to  follow  up  his 
first  dealings  with  Kublai,  and  his  first  three  successors 
reigned  for  too  short  a  time  to  be  able  to  give  much 
attention  to  Tartar  questions.  But  in  April,  1278, 
Nicholas  III.  sent  off  a  fresh  band  of  Franciscans  furnished 
with  letters,  not  merely  to  Abaga,  the  subordinate  Khan 
of  Persia,  but  to  his  uncle,  Kublai,  the  great  Khan  himself 
in  China.1  This  he  did,  to  some  extent  at  least,  in 
fulfilment  of  the  wishes  of  his  predecessor,  John  XXI. 
That  pontiff  had  received  fresh  communications  from 
Abaga  who  had  followed  up  his  negotiations  with 
Clement  IV.,  and  the  embassy  of  sixteen  which  he  had 
sent  to  the  Council  of  Lyons  by  another  in  charge  of  the 
brothers  Vassalli.2  John  had  therefore  selected  five 
Franciscans,  placing  at  their  head  Gerard  of  Prato,  to 
carry  his  replies  to  the  Khan,  and  to  work  for  the  con- 
version of  his  subjects.  Salimbene,  who  gives  us  this 
information,  was  personally  acquainted  with  these  envoys, 
and  on  their  safe  return  learnt  much  about  the  Tartars 
from  them.3 

Abaga's  embassy  to  John  XXI.,  just  like  his  former 
ones,  was  mainly  political  in  its  object.  Faced  by  the 
power  of  the  Moslem,  Abaga,  whose  wife  had  told  him 

1  See  the  letters  in  Wadding,  Ann.  Minorum,  v,  35  ff.,  or  Reg. 
Nich.  III.,  nn.  232-8.     Cf.  Hue,  Christ,  in  China,  i,  287  ff. 

2  The  register  of  Charles  of  Anjou  reveals  the  fact  that  one  of  these 
envoys  (Jacobus  Vassallus,  nuntius  illustris  regis  Tartarorum)  had 
been  robbed  by  one  of  his  servants.  Cf.  M.  Ricci,  II  regno  di  Carlo  I. 
d'Angid,  ad  an.  1277,  Jan.  26,  p.  7. 

3  Chron.,  p.  210.  G.  de  Prato  "  cum  quo  habitavi  in  conventu 
Pisano  quando  eramus  juvenes  .  .  .  Reversi  sunt  itaque  fratres  .  .  . 
sopites,  et  multa  dicebant  de  eis  (Tartars)  ut  ab  eis  audivi  ", 


88  NICHOLAS    IV. 

much  about  the  power  of  the  Christian  West,1  hoped 
to  get  the  aid  of  the  Christians  to  help  him  to  break  it. 
He  had  accordingly  as  a  bait,  offered  to  help  them  to  free 
the  Holy  Land  from  the  Moslem.  This  was  as  far  back  as 
the  days  of  Clement  IV.  That  Pontiff,  in  replying  to  the 
offer  (1267), 2  had  told  him  that  the  Christian  princes  were 
preparing  to  wage  war  on  the  Moslem,  and  that  he  would 
communicate  his  wishes  and  those  of  his  father-in-law 
to  them,  and  in  due  course  report  to  him  their  decisions. 
As  the  Crusade  of  St.  Louis  (1270)  went  to  Tunis,  there 
was  no  opportunity  of  testing  the  genuineness  of  the 
promises  of  Abaga  ;  but  Gregory  X.  gave  to  his  envoys 
at  Lyons  a  reply  similar  to  that  which  Clement  IV.  had 


1  He  had  married  a  natural  daughter  of  Michael  Palaeologus.  Abaga 
and  Palaeologus  also  urged  the  warlike  James  I.  of  Aragon  to  help 
them  to  recover  the  Holy  Land,  promising  him  supplies  of  all  kinds. 
According  to  his  own  account,  James  was  inclined  to  fall  in  with 
their  suggestions,  but  the  King  of  Castile  warned  him  that  "  the 
Tartars  were  deceitful,  and  .  .  .  would  not  perform  what  they  had 
promised  "  ;  and  advised  him  not  to  undertake  such  an  enterprise 
"  for  anything  in  this  world  ".  This  was  in  the  year  1268.  Cf.  James' 
Chronicle,  vol.  ii,  cc.  475  and  481,  Eng.  trans. 

2  The  letter,  ap.  Martene,  Thes.  nov.  anecdot.,  ii,  517,  n.  520,  is 
addressed  to  "  Elchani  Apacha  ",  i.e.,  to  the  Ilkhan,  Abaga,  and  is 
of  Aug.  13-16,  1267.  The  Pope  says  that  no  one  in  his  court  could 
read  the  letter,  as  Abaga  had  not  written  in  Latin  as  before.  He  had 
to  depend  upon  what  he  could  gather  through  an  interpreter,  from  the 
envoy.  The  letter  of  the  Pope  began  by  congratulating  Abaga  upon 
being  a  follower  of  God's  only  begotten  Son,  and  by  thanking  him  for 
his  congratulations  on  the  defeat  of  Manfred  by  Charles.  Evidently 
the  ruler  of  Persia  was  well  informed  as  to  European  politics,  probably 
better  informed  than  the  Pope  was  regarding  the  Tartars.  Clement, 
though  his  language  is  ambiguous,  appears  to  have  supposed  that 
Abaga  was  actually  a  Christian.  But  as  Marino  Sanudo,  Liber 
Secretor.,  lib.  iii,  pt.  xiii,  c.  8,  ap.  Bongars,  Gesta  Dei  per  Francos, 
p.  238),  who  wrote  between  1306  and  1321,  says  :  "  He  refused  to  be 
baptized,  and  worshipped  idols."  The  first  letter  of  Clement  IV.  about 
the  Tartars  had  been  to  the  bishops  of  Hungary  (June  25,  1265),  urging 
them  to  preach  a  Crusade  against  them  in  their  country  and  in 
Bohemia,  Poland,  Brandenburg,  etc.    Cf.  Theiner,  Mon.  Hung.,  i,  280. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  89 

given.     He   promised   to   notify  him   about   the   future 
movements  of  the  Christian  forces.1 

Though  thus  in  touch  with  the  Mongols  of  the  south- 
west of  Asia,  it  does  not  appear  that  Gregory  made  any 
further  efforts  to  get  into  communication  with  Kublai. 
He  doubtless  awaited  the  return  of  the  Polos.  His  letters 
had  by  these  adventurous  travellers  been  duly  presented 
to  the  Great  Khan  "  probably  in  the  early  summer  of 
1275  ".2  But  long  before  the  Polos  returned  to  Venice 
with  Kublai's  replies  (1295),  Gregory  had  died,  and  fresh 
papal  missions  had  been  sent  to  China. 

The  first  of  these  was  that  dispatched  by  Nicholas  III.,  ^ennssion 
of  which  we  have   already   spoken.     But   there  is   no  m.  to  China, 
evidence  that  Gerard  of  Prato  and  his  companions  ever  1278- 
reached  China.     It  is  true  that  Nicholas  had  urged  Abaga 
to  help  them  to  reach  his  uncle,3  and  he  had  addressed 
a  letter  to  Kublai  whom  he  wrongly  supposed  to  be  a 
Christian.    He  had  briefly  explained  to  him  the  mystery 
of  man's  redemption  by  our  Lord,  and  the  power  that 
the  Saviour  had  left  with  St.  Peter  and  his  successors. 
He  had  told  the  Khan  that,  in  virtue  of  his  office,  it  was 
his  duty  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  the  whole  world,  and  he 
accordingly  urged  Kublai  to  help  the  missionaries  whom 
he  was  sending  to  him  in  order  that  they  might  convert 
his  people.4 

Though   they  appear  to  have  made  many  converts,5 

1  Ep.  of  March  13,  1274,  ap.  Wadding,  iv,  pp.  416-17. 

2  Travels,  Prologue. 

3  Ep.  Apr.  1,  1278,  ap.  Wad.,  v,  p.  36  f.  He  calls  the  great  Khan 
"  Quolibey  .  .  .  moderator  omnium  Tartarorum  ",  and  says  of  him, 
"  qui  jam  dudum  fuisse  asseritur  baptizatus."  He  tells  Abaga  that 
the  friars  he  is  sending  him  are  especially  good  men,  well  acquainted 
with  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  and  he  begs  him:  "  eos  cum  securo 
conductu  ad  praefatum  Cham,  cum  expensarum  et  aliorum 
necessariorum  provisione  matura   deliberatione  transmittens." 

4  Ep.  Apr.  4,  1278,  ap.  ib.,  p.  38  ff. 

6  Cf.  ep.  of  Nicholas  III.  (Oct.  7,  1278),  ap.  ib.,  p.  42. 


9°  NICHOLAS    IV. 

still,  as  we  have  said,  there  is  not  the  slightest  evidence 
that  Gerard  and  his  companions  ever  got  as  far  as  China. 
Whether  they  finally  lost  heart,  like  the  two  Dominicans 
who  set  out  with  the  three  Polos,  or  whether  Abaga's 
successor,  Ahmad  Nikudar,1  who  apostatized,  would 
not  permit  them  to  proceed,  is  wholly  uncertain. 
It  was  reserved  for  the  first  Franciscan  Pope, 
Nicholas  IV.,  to  send  the  first  real  Franciscan 
missionary  to  China. 

Montecorvino      Towards  the  beginning  of  his  pontificate,  Nicholas  IV. 

sent  thither    selected  among  others  for  the  important  work  of  the 

by  Nicholas     „  •  £    lA        ^  ,    _,,  . 

IV.,  1289.  conversion  of  the  Tartars  of  China,  two  of  the  most 
distinguished  Franciscans  of  his  time,  John  of  Parma, 
who  had  once  been  Minister-General  of  the  Order,  and 
John  of  Montecorvino,2  whom  contemporary  and  modern 
authors  alike  agree  in  praising.  John  had  already  had 
considerable  experience  of  missionary  work  in  the  East, 
and  had  brought  back  word  that  Arghun  (Argon),  the 
fourth  Ilkhan  of  Persia  (1284-91),  was  very  well  disposed 
"  towards  us  (the  Pope)  and  the  Roman  Church,  as  also 
towards  other  Christian  Churches  ".3  The  Tartar  Prince 
had  himself  expressed  this  goodwill  by  his  envoys,  and 

1  M.  Sanutus  (Sanudo)  calls  him  Tangodomor  (1281-4),  and  tells 
of  his  inducing  many  of  his  subjects  to  become  Moslems  like  himself, 
and  of  his  persecuting  the  Christians.  L.c,  p.  239.  It  is  interesting 
to  note  that  this  embassy  cost  the  Holy  See  :  "  998  pounds,  2  solidi 
and  9  denarii."  Cf.  ep.  of  Nicholas  IV.,  Jan.  8,  1290,  ap.  Reg.,  n.  7244, 
ed.  Langlois.     See  Golubovich,  Biblioteca,  ii,  426  ff. 

2  Cf.  the  Chron.  of  Bro.  John  Elemosina,  ap.  Golubovich,  ii,  pp.  110, 
126-7,  and  131.  In  the  last  reference  we  read  :  "  Frater  Yohannes 
de  Monte  corvino  de  ordine  Fratrum  Minorum,  b.  Francisci  devotus 
imitator,  in  se  ipso  rigidus  et  severus,  et  in  verbo  Dei  docendo  .  .  . 
fervidus,  a  d.  Nicolao  P.  IV.  auctoritate  ...  ad  predicandos  infideles 
iter  aggressus."  On  John  and  his  work,  see  A.  van  der  Wyngajrt, 
Jean  de  Mont  Corvin,  Lille,  1924,  and  A.  Thomas,  Histoire  de  la  mission 
de  Pekin,  Paris,  1923. 

3  See  ep.  of  Nicholas  to  Arghun  (July  15,  1289),  ap.  Wad., 
v,  195. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  91 

had,  at  the  same  time,  declared  that  this  same  goodwill 
was  shared  by  "  Cobyla  (Kublai),  the  great  illustrious 
Prince  of  the  Tartars  ",  who  had  asked  that  "  some  Latin 
religious  "  should  be  sent  to  him.  Wherefore,  to  oblige 
them  both,  Nicholas  sent  to  them  John  of  Montecorvino 
and  a  number  of  companions.1 

As  John  of  Parma  died  before  the  departure  of  the 
mission,  Montecorvino  became  its  chief.  Travelling 
first  to  Tabriz  in  Persia,  he  made  his  way  thence  to  India 
(1291).  After  staying  some  thirteen  months  in  India, 
"  wherein  is  the  Church  of  St.  Thomas  the  Apostle," 
and  baptizing  about  a  hundred  people  in  different  parts, 
he  set  sail  for  China.  The  ship  in  which  he  sailed  was, 
according  to  his  own  description  of  it,  not  one  to  inspire 
much  confidence.  It  was,  he  wrote,  "  mighty  frail  and 
uncouth  with  no  iron  in  it,  and  no  caulking.  It  was  sewn 
like  clothes  with  twine,  and  so  if  the  twine  breaks  any- 
where there  is  a  breach  indeed.  ...  It  has,  in  the  middle 
of  the  stern,  a  frail  and  flimsy  rudder  like  the  top  of  a 
table,  a  cubit  in  width.  Tacking  could  only  be  done 
with  much  trouble,  and  if  there  was  much  of  a  wind,  it 
was  impossible  to  tack  at  all.  There  was  but  one  sail, 
and  one  mast,  and  the  sail  was  of  matting  or  some 
miserable  cloth.  The  ropes  were  of  resti  (some  kind  of 
grass).  The  mariners,  too,  were  few  and  far  from  good 
.  .  .     Hence  when  a  ship  achieved  a  safe  voyage,  it  was 

1  lb.,  and  the  letter  to  "  Cobyla  Cham  ",  ib.,  p.  196  f.  Nicholas  even 
wrote  to  Kaidu  who  was  in  arms  against  Kublai,  lb.,  p.  197,  as  also 
to  the  King  of  Little  Armenia  (Cilicia),  anxious  for  union  with  Rome, 
to  his  Aunt  Mary,  to  the  bishop  of  Tabriz,  to  the  Jacobite  Patriarch, 
"  to  the  illustrious  Emperor  of  Ethiopia  "  and  many  others.  Ib., 
p.  199  ff.  The  Emperor  of  Ethiopia  may  be  the  Sultan  of  Delhi,  but 
is  probably  the  Emp.  of  Abyssinia.  In  the  Revue  des  Quest.  Hist., 
July,  1922,  p.  201,  it  is  stated  that  M.  Pelliot  had  found  in  the  Vatican 
archives  a  letter  of  Arghun  (1291)  to  Nicholas  IV.,  and  a  safe-conduct 
for  a  mission  of  bishops,  and  also  a  letter  of  his  successor  (Gamgiatu, 
or  Aicatu  or  Caictu)  regarding  a  mission  of  Guiscard. 


92  NICHOLAS    IV. 

customary  to  say  that  it  was  by  God's  guidance,   and 
that  man's  skill  had  availed  but  little."1 

Under  God's  guidance  then,  Friar  John  stood  before 
the  great  Khan  in  Cambaliech  (Peking)  in  1292  or  1293, 
not  very  long  after  the  Polos  had  set  out  from  Zaiton 
(Amoy  harbour)  on  their  return  journey.  These  worthy 
merchants  had  won  great  favour  with  Kublai,  whom  they 
correctly  described  as  "the  most  puissant  man  who  has 
ever  been  in  the  world  ",2  and  consequently  had  prepared 
the  way  for  the  missionary.  "  Continuing  my  journey," 
says  John  himself,  "  I  reached  the  realm  of  the  Emperor 
of  the  Tartars  who  is  called  the  Great  Cham,  and  by 
means  of  the  letter  of  our  lord  the  Pope  (Nicholas  IV.), 
I  invited  him  to  adopt  the  Catholic  faith  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  But  he  was  too  firmly  rooted  (inveteratus) 
in  idolatry.  Still  he  bestowed  many  benefits  on  the 
Christians,  and  this  is  now  the  twelfth  year  that  I  have 
been  with  him."3    As  Kublai  Khan  died  at  the  age  of 

1  Yule's  translation  of  this  letter  has  here  been  largely  utilized,  ap. 
Cathay  and  the  Way  Thither,  iii,  66  f.,  new  ed.,  1914.  The  original  may 
be  read,  e.g.,  in  Golubovich,  i,  305  ff. 

2  Travels,  c.  1.  Polo  says  that  the  statements  in  his  book  prove  his 
words.  "  After  Chingiz  himself,"  says  Mr.  Beazley,  Dawn  of  Mod. 
Geog.,  iii,  43-4,  "  no  one  of  the  Mongol  Khans  could  be  said  to  rival 
Kublai.  As  a  civilizer,  a  patron  of  arts  and  letters,  a  ruler  of  spirit 
finely  touched  and  to  fine  issues,  he  was  unequalled  among  the  princes 
of  his  dynasty.  ...  He  was  the  fine  flower  of  Tartar  nature  :  the 
philosopher-king  of  a  dynasty  which  had  begun  with  no  claim  but 
force."  If  he  was  a  great  personality,  the  territory  over  which  he  ruled 
from  the  Chinese  Sea  to  the  Dnieper,  and  from  the  Arctic  Ocean  to  the 
country  south  of  the  Ganges,  was  the  greatest  that  has  ever  been 
subject  to  one  ruler.  As  the  Mongol  Emperors  in  China  had  a  Russian 
bodyguard,  he  must  have  learnt  something  of  Christianity  from  them 
before  the  arrival  of  John.     Cf.  H.  Cordier,  Ser  Marco  Polo,  p.  129  f. 

3  The  letter  of  John  of  Montecorvino  :  "  Given  in  the  city  of 
Cambuliech  in  the  kingdom  of  Cathay  a.d.  1305,  Jan.  8."  See  Golu- 
bovich's  new  and  most  correct  reading  of  this  letter,  iii,  p.  87  ff.  The 
other  printed  versions  of  this  letter,  giving  two  years  as  the  time  of 
John's  being  with  the  Great  Khan,  have  caused  great  confusion.  Yule, 
I.e.,  p.  45  f.,  gives  an  English  translation  of  this  letter. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  93 

eighty  in  February,  1294,1  we  may  perhaps  suppose  that 
in  1293  the  actual  government  was  already  in  the  hands 
of  his  grandson,  Timur  Oljaitu  (1294-1307)-  Moreover, 
as  the  devotion  of  this  latter  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Lamas 
is  known  from  other  sources,2  the  phrase  "  grown  old  in  Prince 
idolatry,  inveteratus  in  ydolatria  "  would  apply  to  him 
as  well  as  to  the  aged  Kublai.  At  any  rate,  neither  of 
them  was  converted. 

However,  if  John  failed  to  convert  Timur,  he  succeeded 
in  converting  one  of  his  subordinate  princes.  This  was 
the  Nestorian  Prince  George,  of  the  family  of  the  famous 
Prester  John.  To  him  John  gave  the  Minor  Orders  ;  and 
when  he  said  Mass,  the  Prince  served  it  "  wearing  his 
royal  robes  ".  Angry  at  their  Princes  leaving  their  body, 
the  Nestorians  "  who  profess  to  bear  the  Christian  name  ", 
but,  adds  John,  "  who  deviate  sadly  from  the  Christian 
religion,"  strove  to  ruin  the  missionary  by  saying  that 
he  was  no  true  envoy  of  the  Pope,  but  was  an  impostor 
and  a  perverter  of  the  minds  of  men.  They  also  taunted 
Prince  George  with  apostasy.  But  their  calumnies  were 
finally  exposed,  and  they  were  banished  with  their  wives 
and  children  by  the  Emperor.  As  for  Prince  George, 
he  remained  firm  in  the  faith,  "  brought  over  a  great 
part  of  his  people  to  the  true  Catholic  faith,"  and  built  a 
great  church  "  in  honour  of  our  God,  of  the  Holy  Trinity, 
and  of  our  lord  the  Pope,  calling  it  the  Roman  Church  ".3 

It  was  in  vain  that  John  tried  to  bring  back  these 
Nestorians  to  the  obedience  of  the  See  of  Rome,  pointing 

1  Cf.  H.  Cordier,  Ser  Marco  Polo,  p.  68,  London,  1920. 

2  Rashid-ed-din,  the  contemporary  most  important  authority  on 
Mongol  hist.,  p.  191,  ed.  Quatremere,  cited  by  Yule,  I.e. 

3  Ep.  of  John.  The  Nestorians  even  accused  John  of  having 
murdered  the  real  papal  envoy,  and  stolen  the  great  presents  which 
he  was  bearing  to  the  Khan.  Timur  is  highly  praised  by  the  Dominican, 
Jordan  of  Severac,  in  his  Mirabilia  Descripta,  ap.  Beazley,  Dawn, 
iii,  232. 


94  NICHOLAS    IV. 

out  to  them  how  necessary  authority  was  for  salvation. 
They  replied  by  trying  to  pull  down  in  the  night  what  he 
had  built  of  his  "  Minorite  abbeys  "  in  the  day  time. 
And,  yet,  says  John  of  Cora,  whom  we  are  here  quoting, 
if  only,  with  their  numbers  and  wealth,  with  the  official 
positions  they  held  at  the  imperial  court,  with  their  fine 
churches,  they  had  been  willing  to  co-operate  with  John 
and  his  friars,  they  could  have  converted  the  whole  Chinese 
Empire.  In  fact,  John  would  have  himself  have  con- 
verted the  whole  country  if  the  Nestorians  had  even  left 
him  alone,  and  not  done  all  they  could  to  thwart  him.1 
fib111  S  ^e  mdefatigable  missionary,  however,  made  converts 

among  the  idolatrous  Mongols,  and  amongst  the  Chinese 
themselves,  whether  among  the  utilitarian  pantheistic 
followers  of  Confucius  or  among  the  magic-loving  disciples 
of  Lao-Tze,  or  among  the  devotees  of  the  Indian  Buddha. 
For  eleven  years  John  was  without  help  in  his  missionary 
labours  ;  but,  about  two  years  before  writing  the  letter 
from  which  we  have  just  quoted,  he  was  joined  by  a  friar 
Arnold,  a  German  of  the  province  of  Cologne.  However, 
despite  the  bitter  calumnies  of  the  Nestorians,  and  want 
of  assistance,  John  built  a  church,  baptized  thousands  of 
people,  bought  150  boys  and  trained  them  to  sing  the 
Divine  Office,  teaching  them  Latin  and  Greek.  He  also 
translated  into  the  Tartar  tongue  the  New  Testament 
and  the  Psalter.  But  as  he  had  no  music  books  with 
him,  the  boys  had  to  be  taught  by  ear.  He  accordingly 
begged  "  the  Minister-General  of  our  Order  "  to  send  him 
such  books,  and  also  earnest  brethren,  men  who  could 
stand  the  allure  of  "  aromatic  spices  and  precious  stones  " 
and  who  would  "  lead  exemplary  lives,  and  not  merely 
strive  to  enlarge  their  own  phylacteries  ".2     When  he 

1  See  the  report  of  John  de  Cora,  Livre  de  I'fitat  du  Grand  Caan, 
pp.  344-5,  ed.  de  Backer;    and  Beazley,  Dawn,  iii,  208-10. 

2  lb.     John  had  to  deplore  the  relapse  of  his  convert  Nestorians  on 
the  death  of  Prince  George,  and  the  arrival  of  a  Lombard  surgeon  who 


NICHOLAS    IV.  95 

penned  this  interesting  letter  which  he  desired  to  have 
brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  Pope,  he  had  not,  he 
said,  had  any  news  of  the  Papal  court  or  of  his  own  Order 
for  twelve  years.  Hence  he  prayed  the  brethren  to  whom 
his  letter  might  come  to  bring  it  to  the  notice  of  the  Pope 
and  of  the  agents  of  our  Order  in  Rome. 

In  the  following  year  (1306),  John,  "legate  and  nuncio 
of  the  Apostolic  See,"  had  another  opportunity  of  sending 
a  letter  to  the  West,  and  of  telling  of  the  further  progress 
of  his  labours,  and  the  anxiety  of  the  Khan  to  see  envoys 
from  the  court  of  Rome  and  the  Latin  world.  John  was 
the  more  anxious  to  have  more  fresh  workers  sent  to  the 
East,  as  he  had  received  a  deputation  from  a  certain  part 
of  Ethiopia,1  asking  for  Christian  preachers,  as  they  had 
had  none  since  the  days  of  St.  Matthew  the  Apostle, 
and  his  disciples.2 

From  the  chronicle  of  brother  Elemosina,  we  learn  the  John's 
joy  which  these  letters  caused  to  cleric  and  lay  alike  on  received  by 
their  arrival  in  Italy  "  and  the  western  regions  "  in  the  Clement  v. 
days  of  Clement  V.3     They  had  been  brought  to  Italy 
by  a  certain  Franciscan,  brother  Thomas  of  Tolentino, 
who  had  himself  "  preached  for  many  years  among  the 
infidels  ".     He  then  took  them  to  Avignon,  and  at  first 
brought  them  to  the  notice  of  the  Pope  through  the 
Franciscan  cardinal,  "  John  de  Muro."  4    Anxious  that 
"  such  a  holy  work  of  God  "  should  continue,  Clement 
bade  the  Minister-General  of  the  Franciscans  pick  out 

had  spread  abroad  "  incredible  blasphemies  against  the  Roman  curia, 
our  Order,  and  the  state  of  the  West  ".  All  this  work  of  John  is 
described  also,  but  not  so  accurately,  in  the  Chron.  of  John  of  Winterthur 
(fl.  1348),  ap.  Eccard,  Corpus,  i,  p.  1895  f.,  or  Golubovich,  iii,  p.  160  ff. 

1  That  is,  no  doubt,  India,  as  it  was  from  the  fourth  century  onwards 
often  called  Ethiopia.  Cf.  Reinaud,  Relations  de  I'Emp.  Rom.  avec 
Asie  Orient.,  p.  175. 

2  Ep.  of  Feb.  13,  1306,  ap.  Golubovich,  iii,  p.  91,  and  Yule,  p.  51  ff. 

3  Ap.  Golub.,  ib.,  p.  86. 

4  He  had  been  Minister-General  of  the  Order.  In  Eubel,  Hierarchies, 
p.  13,  he  is  called  "  Joannes  Minius  de  Murovallium  ". 


96  NICHOLAS    IV. 

seven  zealous  brothers  "  learned  in  the  divine  Scriptures  " 
to  be  ordained  bishops  by  his  authority.  They  were  to 
proceed  to  China,  consecrate  Montecorvino  "  archbishop 
and  Patriarch  of  the  whole  East  ",  and  be  his  suffragans 
(July  23,  1307). *  Montecorvino  was  to  be  another  Pope 
in  the  Far  East,  but  he  and  his  successors  in  Peking  had 
ever  to  acknowledge  their  submission  to  the  Roman 
Pontiff,  and  receive  the  pallium  from  him.2 

With  a  large  number  of  other  brothers,  the  seven  who 
were  duly  consecrated  bishops,  set  out  for  Peking,3  and 
as  we  are  informed  in  a  letter  of  one  of  them,  Andrew, 
bishop  of  Zayton  (Amoy  harbour),  they  reached  Peking 
"  in  the  year  of  our  Lord's  incarnation  1308,  as  well  as 
I  can  reckon."  4  When  we  say  "  they  reached  ",  we  mean 
that  a  number  of  them  reached  China.  From  the  letter 
of  Andrew,  from  which  we  have  just  quoted  a  few  words, 
it  appears  that  no  fewer  than  three  of  the  bishops  and 
many  of  the  brothers  died  during  the  journey  "in  an 
extremely  hot  locality "  in  India.  When  the  three 
bishops  arrived  in  Peking,  which  cannot  have  been  before 
1309  or  10,  they  "  according  to  the  orders  given  us  by  the 
Apostolic  See" ,  duly  consecrated  Montecorvino  Archbishop. 

Among  other  Franciscans  who  somewhat  later  went 
out  to  work  under  Montecorvino,  was  one  of  the  most 
famous  of  the  friar-traveller  authors,  Odoric  of  Pordenone 
or  of  Friuli.5     He  remained  in  Peking  for  three  years, 

1  Chron.  of  J.  Eles.,  ap.  Gol.,  ib.,  p.  94.     Cf.  pp.  95  and  108. 

2  lb.,  p.  95.  "  Tarn  ipse  fr.  Johannes  quam  omnes  archiepiscopi 
Cambalienses  futuri  per  secula  Romane  ecclesie  subjaceant  in  his 
pactis." 

3  Ib.  From  the  names  which  can  be  traced,  it  would  seem  that  only- 
six  set  out. 

4  He  was  writing  in  Jan.,  1326.  Ep.  ap.  Yule,  iii,  p.  71  ft.  The 
original  may  be  read  in  Raynaldus,  Annates,  1326,  nn.  30-1. 

5  His  story  of  his  travels  may  be  read  in  the  original  Latin  in  Marcell. 
da  Civezza,  Storia  delle  Missioni  Francescane,  iii,  739-81  ;  in  old 
French  in  L.  de  Backer,  L'extreme  Orient,  p.  89  ff.,  and  in  English  in 
Yule,  Cathay,  vol.  ii. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  97 

sometime  between  1323  and  1328  ;  and  then,  according 
to  the  tradition  of  the  Order,  he  was  sent  back  by  the 
great  Khan  to  the  Pope  in  order  to  obtain  more 
missionaries.  Unfortunately,  however,  he  died  at  Pisa 
(f  1331)  when  on  his  way  to  Pope  John  XXII. 
at   Avignon.1 

Despite  the  fact  that  by  1326  all  the  six  suffragan 
bishops  who  actually  set  out,  except  Andrew  of  Zayton, 
had  died,2  and  despite  the  constant  opposition  of  the 
Nestorians,  considerable  advance  was  made  under  the 
new  regime.  Churches  were  built,  and  many  of  the 
idolaters  were  baptized  ;  though,  says  bishop  Andrew, 
"  many  of  the  baptized  walk  not  rightly  in  the  path  of 
Christianity."  3 

Three  fresh  Franciscan  suffragan  bishops  had  been 
sent  out  by  Clement  V.  in  1311,4  but  the  distance  between 
Europe  and  China  was  great ;  and  the  natural  obstacles 
of  every  kind  to  be  encountered  in  overcoming  that 
distance  were  greatly  increased  by  the  wars  constantly 
in  progress  among  the  Mongols  themselves.  Hence, 
seemingly,  no  further  help  from  the  West  reached  the 
Chinese  mission. 

In  1328  John  of  Montecorvino  went  the  way  of  all 
flesh  ;  and,  as  we  are  told  by  the  Franciscan  missionary 
traveller,    John    of    Marignolli,    who    died    bishop    of 


1  Wadding,  Annates,  vii,  p.  124  ;  Beazley,  The  Dawn  of  Modern 
Geography,  iii,  pp.  250  ff.  and  287,  and  Yule,  I.e.,  p.  275,  ed.  1914. 

2  Ib. 

3  Ib.  Cf.  The  Book  of  the  Estate  of  the  Grand  Cham,  ap.  Yule,  ib., 
p.  89  ff.,  nn.  8-10.  This  was  written  about  1330,  when  Montecorvino 
was  dead,  and  is  supposed  to  be  the  work  of  the  Dominican,  John 
de  Cora.  At  any  rate  it  was  the  work  of  the  Archbishop  of  Soltaniah, 
and  J.  de  C.  was  named  archbishop  of  S.  by  John  XXII.  See  the 
diploma  in  Raynaldus,  ib.,  1330,  n.  57.  The  original  of  the  Livre  du 
Grant  Caan  may  be  read  in  De  Backer,  p.  335  ff. 

4  See  the  bulls  of  nomination,  Dec.  20,  1310,  and  Feb.  19,  1311,  ap. 
Wad.,  Annal.,  vi,  467  ff. 

Vol.  XVII.  h 


98  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Bisignano  (1357-9),  he  was  "  venerated  as  a  Saint  "  by 
the  Alans  and  Tartars.1 

The  death  of  Montecorvino  would  appear  to  have  been 
soon  followed  by  the  deaths  of  bishop  Andrew  of  Zayton, 
and  of  his  successor,  Peter  of  Florence,  one  of  the  three 
additional  suffragans  sent  out  by  Clement  V.  For  the 
Book  of  the  Estate  of  the  Great  Cham,  which  was  written 
about  1330,  speaks  as  though  they  were  both  dead.2 
Successors  of  When  news  of  the  death  of  Montecorvino  reached 
vino.  Avignon    (1333),    the    energetic    John    XXII.    at    once 

nominated  as  his  successor  a  certain  Nicholas,  also  a 
Franciscan,3  and  sent  him  to  China  in  company  with 
twenty  friars  and  six  laymen.  They  were  bearers  of 
letters  for  the  Great  Khan,  for  the  Tartar  princes,  and 
other  great  people  whom  they  were  likely  to  meet  on 
their  journey,  Oct.,  1333. 4  But  it  would  appear  that 
these  missionaries  never  got  beyond  the  Middle  Tartar 
sub-empire,  that  known  in  some  Latin  documents  as  the 
Medic  Empire.5  A  letter  of  Pope  Benedict  XII.  to 
Chansi  (i.e.,  Jinkshai),  Lord  of  the  Middle  Tartars,  dated 
1338,  shows  Nicholas  -building  and  repairing  churches 
in  those  parts,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  an  embassy 
from  the  Great  Khan  himself,  and  a  letter  from  some  of 
his  Christian  chiefs,  which  also  reached  Avignon  in  1338, 

1  See  his  Recollections  of  Eastern  Travel,  ap.  Yule,  iii,  215-16,  new  ed. 
The  original  may  best  be  read  in  Pontes  Rerum  Bohemicarum,  iii, 
p.  492  ff.,  ed.  Prague,  1882,  as  the  Recollections  were  first  inserted  by 
Marignolli  in  his  Cronica  of  Bohemia.  Cf.  The  Book  of  the  Estate, 
n.  8,  p.  101. 

2  L.c,  n.  8. 

3  Sept.  18,  1333,  ap.  Eubel,  Bull.  Francisc,  v,  n.  1037.  Cf.,  n.  1057 
of  Feb.  13,  1334.  In  a  note  Eubel  records  that  John  gave  Nicholas 
"100  gold  florins  as  viaticum  ". 

4  The  letters  in  Wadding,  Ann.,  vii,  138  ff.,  include  some  to  Princes 
in  Russia  and  Armenia. 

5  It  was  the  country  between  Persia  and  Cathay  (China)  with  its 
capital  Armalec.  It  was  hence  called  the  Middle  Empire,  and  was 
equivalent  to  Turkestan. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  99 

shows  that  Nicholas  and  his  party  had  not  yet  reached 
China  when  the  imperial  envoys  left  it.  The  letter 
(about  July,  1336)  from  Christian  Alan  chiefs  in  the 
Emperor's  service,1  begins  by  assuring  the  Holy  Father, 
whom  they  salute,  as  they  say,  "with  their  heads  in 
the  dust,"  that  "  for  a  long  time  we  received  instruction 
in  the  Catholic  faith  .  .  .  from  your  legate  Friar  John, 
a  man  of  weighty,  capable,  and  holy  character.  But, 
since  his  death  eight  years  ago,  we  have  been  without 
a  director.  We  have  heard,  indeed,  that  thou  hadst 
sent  another  legate,  but  he  hath  never  yet  appeared. 
Wherefore  we  beseech  your  Holiness  to  send  us  a  legate 
wise,  capable,  and  virtuous  to  care  for  our  souls.  And  let 
him  come  quickly,  for  we  are  here  a  flock  without  a  head  ". 
They  add  that,  on  three  or  four  occasions,  papal  envoys 
have  arrived,  have  been  well  received  by  the  Emperor, 
and  have  promised  to  return  again  with  messages  from 
the  Pope,  and  have  not  done  so.2 

The  Emperor's  letter  to  the  Pope,  "  the  lord  of  the 
Christians,"  recommending  his  envoys,  merely  states 
that  he  has  sent  an  embassy  to  facilitate  communication 
"  between  us  and  the  Pope  ".3 

This  embassy  was  well  received  by  Pope  Benedict  XII.4 
One  of  the  envoys  was  attached  to  the  Pope's  guard,5  and 
after  many  consultations  with  the  cardinals,  Benedict 
sent  off  the  Tartar  envoys  with  a  number  of  letters  to 

1  See  Marignolli's  Recollections  of  Eastern  Travel,  ap.  Yule,  Cathay, 
iii,  p.  210,  ed.  of  1914. 

2  Cf.  the  letter  ap.  Yule,  Cathay,  iii,  p.  181  ff.  The  extraordinary- 
names,  "  Futim  Joens,  etc.,"  of  the  chiefs  is  one  reason  why  the 
authenticity  of  this  letter  has  been  called  in  question  by  some.  But 
the  names  have  been  proved  to  be  authentic,  for  several  of  them  have 
been  found  in  Chinese  documents.     lb.,  p.  182,  n. 

3  Ap.  ib.,  p.  180  f. 

4  See  his  letter  to  Philip  VI.  of  France,  ap.  Raynaldus,  an.  1338,  n.  73. 

5  Vita  octava  Bened.  XII.,  ap.  Baluze,  i,  p.  238  n.  "  Servientem 
armorum  suorum  creavit."     Ed.  Mollat. 


100  NICHOLAS    IV. 

the  great  Khan,  "  probably  Toghon  Timur  Ukhagatu 
(1332-68),"  the  last  Mongol  ruler,  to  the  Alan  chiefs,  and 
to  other  Tartar  and  Christian  Princes  (June,  1338). 1  In 
his  letter  to  the  Great  Khan,  whom  he  styles  "  Magnificent 
Prince,  Emperor  of  the  Emperors  of  all  the  Tartars", 
Benedict  thanked  him  for  the  respect  he  had  manifested 
to  him,  and  for  the  favour  he  had  shown  the  Christians 
in  his  Empire,  which  he  begged  him  to  continue.  He, 
moreover,  exhorted  the  Khan  to  embrace  the  faith  of 
Christ,  and  promised  to  send  him  the  envoys  for  whom 
he  had  asked,  and  from  whom  he  could  learn  all  the  Pope 
wished  to  communicate  to  him.2  To  the  Alans  and  the 
other  Christians,  Benedict  sent  a  fairly  detailed  list  of 
the  chief  articles  of  the  Christian  faith.3 

In  October  he  nominated  a  number  of  Franciscans 
as  his  envoys  to  the  Khan.4  Of  these,  one  was  John 
of  Florence,  or  John  Marignolli,  who,  as  we  have 
stated,  has  left  us  various  notices  of  his  mission. 

John  tells  us  how  he  was  sent  by  Benedict  XII.  "  to 
carry  presents  and  letters  "  to  the  "  chief  Emperor  of  all 
the  Tartars,  a  sovereign  who  holds  the  sway  of  nearly 
half  the  eastern  world  ".  5  He  set  out  from  Avignon  in 
December,  1338,  and  reached  the  city  of  the  Great  Khan 
(Cambaliech,  Peking)  in  August,  1342.  The  Khan  was 
delighted,  he  says,  with  the  great  horses  and  the  other 
presents  sent  him  by  the  Pope,  and  also  with  the  letters 
of  the  Pope  and  King  Robert  "  with  their  golden  seals  ", 
and  treated  us  with  the  greatest  honour.  John  remained 
in  Peking  between  three  and  four  years,  and  with  his 
companions   "had  many  glorious  disputations  with  the 

1  Ap.  Wad.,  vii,  210  fif.,  or  Raynaldus,  an.  1338,  n.  75  ff. 

2  Ep.  of  June  13,  1338,  ap.  Raynaldus,  nn.  75  and  76  of  the  year  1338. 

3  Ap.  ib.,  nn.  77-9.     Cf.  Hue,  Christianity  in  China,  i,  p.  404  ff. 

4  lb.,  vii,  p.  214  (Oct.  31,  1338).  Cf.  Joan.  Vitoduranus,  Chron., 
ap.  Eccard,  Corpus,  i,  1852.  The  Chinese  envoys  left  Avignon  after 
July  19,  1338. 

5  Ap.  Yule,  Cathay,  iii,  p.  209  f. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  IOI 

Jews  and  other  sectaries,  and  made  also  a  great  harvest 
of  souls  in  that  empire  ".  But  John  was  not  prepared  to 
devote  the  whole  of  his  life  to  the  noble  work  he  had 
begun  ;  and  so,  "  when  the  Emperor  saw  that  nothing 
would  induce  me  to  abide  there,  he  gave  me  leave  to 
return  to  the  Pope,  carrying  presents  from  him,  with  an 
allowance  for  three  years'  expenses,  and  with  a  request 
that  either  I  or  someone  else  should  be  sent  speedily 
back  with  the  rank  of  Cardinal,  and  with  full  powers 
to  be  Bishop  there."  These  words  would  seem  to  prove 
clearly  enough  that  when  they  were  written  Nicholas 
had  still  not  arrived  at  Peking.  Some  authors,  however, 
believe  that,  nevertheless,  he  did  ultimately  reach  that 
city,  as  they  identify  him  with  a  certain  Nich-ku-lun 
who  is  mentioned  in  the  Chinese  Ming-Shih,  a  work  which 
was  concluded  in  1724.  The  document  says  that  "  at  the 
close  of  the  Yuan  Dynasty,  Nich-ku-lun,  a  native  of 
Fu-lin  (the  Empire  in  the  West)  came  to  China  for  trading 
purposes.  When,  after  the  fall  of  the  Yuan,  he  was  not 
able  to  return,  the  Emperor,  T'si-tsu,  who  had  heard  of 
this,  commanded  him  to  his  presence  (1371),  and  gave 
orders  that  an  official  letter  be  placed  in  his  hands  for 
transmission  to  his  King  ".* 

The  letter  explained  the  fall  of  the  corrupt  Yuan 
Dynasty,  and  the  establishment  of  the  "  Great  Ming  " 
Dynasty.  It  concluded,  "  We  now  send  Nich-ku-lun 
to  hand  you  this  manifesto  announcing  our  peaceful 
intentions."  2  No  doubt  it  is  possible  that  this  passage 
refers  to  the  Franciscan  bishop  Nicholas  ;  but  for  our- 
selves, we  believe  it  refers  to  a  trader  of  that  name, 
and  conclude  that  Nicholas  never  reached  Peking.3 

1  See  Golubovich,  Biblioteca  dell'  Oriente  Francescano,  in,  419  ff. 

2  From  F.  Hirth,  China  and  the  Roman  Orient,  p.  65. 

3  And  that,  too,  despite  the  fact  that  on  Nov.  30,  1338,  Benedict 
XII.  addressed  a  letter  (Etsi  pastoralis,  ap.  Eubel,  Bull.  Francisc, 
t.  vi)  to  our  "  Venerable  brother  the  archbishop  of  Peking  "  where 
"  there  are  many  faithful  ".    Cf.  Golubovich,  I.e.,  iv,  p.  261. 


102  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Returning  to  the  narrative  of  Marignolli,  we  note 
that  he  interrupts  his  narrative  for  a  moment  to  advise 
that  any  such  dignitary  as  might  be  sent  out  to  oblige 
the  Emperor  should  be  a  Franciscan,  "  because  they 
are  the  only  priests  that  they  are  acquainted  with  ;  and 
they  think  that  the  Pope  is  always  of  that  Order,  because 
Pope  Girolamo  (Nicholas  IV.)  was  so  who  sent  them  " 
John  of  Montecorvino.1  During  his  return  journey, 
Marignolli  was  robbed  by  a  Saracen  ruler  of  the  presents 
which  he  had  received  for  the  Pope  at  Peking,2  though 
he  was  afterwards  given  others  for  him.3 

Perhaps  with  these  latter  still  in  his  possession,  he 
reached  the  court  of  Pope  Innocent  VI.  in  Avignon 
(1353),  and  presented  to  him  the  letter  he  had  brought 
from  the  great  Khan.  In  it  the  Khan,  after  averring  that 
the  Christian  faith  was  praiseworthy,  declared  the  Pope 
supreme  over  all  the  Christians  in  his  dominions,  no 
matter  to  what  sect  they  belonged,  and  begged  for 
more  missionaries.  John  was  most  favourably  received 
by  the  Pope,  who  at  once  dispatched  a  letter  to  the 
Franciscan  chapter  which  was  about  to  meet  at  Assisi, 
asking  that  suitable  brethren  should  be  set  apart  for  the 
Chinese  mission,  and  stating  that  he  would  himself 
consecrate  some  of  them  bishops,  as  the  Khan  was 
especially  anxious  for  such.4 

But,  for  some  reason  or  other,  it  would  appear  that  no 
fresh  mission  was  sent  to  China  by  Innocent  VI.  Luke 
Wadding,  the  great  Franciscan  annalist,  says  that  the 
reason  was  the  internal  troubles  which  had  broken  out 

1  Marignolli,  I.e.,  p.  215.  He  incidentally  remarks  that  in  his  capacity 
of  papal  legate,  he  received  from  the  Christians  of  St.  Thomas,  who 
were  masters  of  the  public  steel  yard,  100  gold  fan  (about  £3  6s.) 
every  month.     lb.,  p.  217. 

2  lb.,  pp.  231-2. 

3  lb.,  p.  268. 

4  Cf.  Chron.  XXIV.  General.,  an.  1352,  p.  548  ;  Glassberger,  Chron., 
ad  an.  1353,  p.  187  ;    and  Wadding,  Annul.,  t.  viii,  p.  87. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  103 

in  Tartary.  He  refers  no  doubt  to  the  rising  of  the 
native  Chinese  against  the  Mongol  dynasty  which  ended 
in  1368  in  the  establishment  of  the  native  Ming  (Bright) 
dynasty.1  Perhaps  the  reason  given  by  the  author 
of  the  Chronicle  of  the  XXIV.  Generals  is  also  not  beside 
the  mark.  He  ascribes  the  failure  to  a  lack  of  interest 
on  the  part  of  those  who  ought  to  have  promoted  the 
mission.2  He  does  not,  however,  say  whether  the  luke- 
warmness  was  on  the  part  of  the  Pope  or  on  that  of  the 
Franciscans,  or  on  the  part  of  all  concerned.  Moreover, 
we  must  not  forget  that  between  the  years  1349  and  1362 
occurred  the  three  terrible  Pestilences  which  completely 
disorganized  the  traffic  of  Europe,  and  carried  off  two- 
thirds  of  the  whole  Franciscan  Order.3  At  any  rate,  the 
Franciscan  mission  to  China  was  near  its  end.  We  read 
in  1362  of  the  martyrdom  by  the  Saracens  in  the  kingdom 
of  the  Medes  (the  Chagatai  Khanate)  of  brother  James  of 
Florence,  "  bishop  of  Zayton  "  4  ;  and  in  1370  of  a  last 
effort  for  the  conversion  of  China  made  by  Pope  Urban  V. 
From  a  number  of  letters  which  he  wrote  in  the  March 
of  that  year,5  we  learn  that  a  certain  brother  Cosmas, 
who  had  succeeded  Nicholas,  the  successor  of  John  of 
Montecorvino,  was  transferred  to  the  see  of  Sara'i  in 
Tartary  from  that  of  Peking  (1370),  and  was  replaced 
by  the  Parisian  doctor,  William  of  Prato.6  This 
distinguished  Frenchman  who  had  been  a  professor  at 


1  Cf.  Hue,  China,  i,  416. 

2  "Tamen  tepescentibus  hinc  inde  qui  negotium  debebant  promovere, 
ulterius  modicum  est  processum."    L.c. 

3  Wyngaert,  Jean  de  Mont  Corvin,  p.  46. 

4  Chron.,  I.e.,  p.  559. 

5  See  also  the  Chron.,  p.  572,  "  P.  Urbanus  misit  ad  imperium  de 
Cathay  laetissimum  dominum  fratrem  Gulielmum  de  Prato  .  .  . 
quern  fecit  episcopum,  cum  aliis  magistris  et  60  fere  aliis  fratribus." 

6  See  also  the  letters  addressed  to  him  as  "  archiepiscopus  Cam- 
baliensis  "  ;  to  the  Great  Khan,  etc.,  ap.  Wadding,  Annal.  Min., 
viii,  p.  222  ff.,  or  Raynaldus,  an.  1370,  n.  9  ff . 


104  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Oxford,1  was  appointed  by  Urban  chief  of  all  the 
missionaries  whom  he  was  sending  not  merely  to  the 
Chinese,  but  to  the  Saracens,  Goths,  Jacobites,  Nestorians, 
Georgians,  etc.  He  was  also  made  the  bearer  of  letters 
to  the  Great  Khan,  and  to  other  Tartar  Princes.  In  his 
letter  to  the  Great  Khan  2  Urban,  while  begging  him  to 
receive  William  well,  made  the  mistake  of  supposing  that 
he  was  a  Christian,  and  hence  prayed  that  his  faith 
might  never  fail.3  Unfortunately,  nothing  more  is  known 
of  this  important  mission  ;  and  though  the  names  of  some 
successors  of  William  de  Prato  in  the  see  of  Peking  appear 
to  be  known,4  there  is  no  evidence  that  either  William 
himself  or  any  of  his  successors  ever  visited  Peking. 

In  their  opposition  to  the  Mongols,  the  Chinese  turned 
against  the  Catholics  whom  they  had  favoured,  and  in 
the  course  of  the  fifteenth  century  destroyed  them  almost 
entirely,  whilst,  owing  to  the  fearsome  ravages  of  the 
terrible  Tartar,  Timur-Leng,  or  Tamerlane,  it  was 
impossible  to  get  spiritual  help  to  them  from  the  West. 
The  effort  of  "  Pope  Girolamo  "  was  spent,  but  the 
"  Society  of  Brothers  Travellers  for  Jesus  Christ  ",  as 
the  Franciscan  and  Dominican  missionaries  to  the  Far 
East   were   touchingly   called,   had   covered   themselves 

1  Cf.  note  4,  p.  572,  to  the  Chronicle  of  the  Generals. 

2  Still  Toghon  Timur  Ukhagatu  (1332-68  or  70),  or  in  Chinese, 
Chum  Ti,  the  last  sovereign  of  the  Yuen  dynasty. 

3  Ep.  ap.,  Wad.,  I.e.,  p.  223  f.,  or  Raynaldus,  Annales,  1370,  n.  9. 

4  Chardin,  Les  Missions  Franciscaines  en  Chine,  p.  19,  from  what 
source  I  know  not,  gives  as  successors  of  William  de  Prato,  Dominic, 
appointed  in  September,  1403  ;  Bartholomew  de  Capponi,  nominated 
in  April,  1448  ;  John  de  Pellety  created  in  1456,  and  an  Alexander  de 
Caffa,  who  was  taken  by  the  Turks  in  1476,  and  died  in  Italy  in  1483. 
Eubel,  Hierarchia,  i,  p.  160,  on  the  other  hand,  from  authentic  docu- 
ments, names  in  1410,  John,  bishop  of  Soltaniah  in  Persia,  as  adminis- 
trator of  the  see  of  Peking,  vacant  by  the  death  of  archbishop  Charles  ; 
and  in  1426  and  1427  a  certain  Dominican,  James,  described  as  an 
Italian  "  de  Capha  ".  He  was  transferred  to  the  see  of  Caffa  in  1441. 
Thomas,  Hist,  de  la  mission  de  Pekin,  p.  68,  gives  a  different  list. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  105 

with  glory.1  Moreover,  they  had  brought  honour  to  the 
Papacy  which  ever  encouraged  them  with  words  of  good 
counsel  and  with  money,  and  which,  by  the  efforts  it 
made  through  them  to  bring  about  an  alliance  between 
the  Mongol  rulers  and  the  Princes  of  Christendom,  proved 
its  political  insight.2 

Before  Christianity  was  again  introduced  into  China, 
Vasco  de  Gama  had,  by  doubling  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope, 
opened  the  path  of  the  sea  to  the  Celestial  Empire,  and 
had  done  away  with  the  necessity  of  the  route  across 
Asia  which  in  those  days  could,  even  in  times  of  peace, 
only  be  accomplished  by  the  strongest,3  and  which,  in 
times  of  war,  was  almost  wholly  impassable. 

It  is  interesting  to  note,  in  concluding  the  story  of  the 
efforts  made  by  the  mediaeval  Popes  for  the  conversion 
of  the  Chinese,  that,  when  the  Jesuits  entered  China  at 
the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century,  they  were  able  even 
then  to  discover  faint  traces  of  the  preaching  of  the  friar 
travellers.4  Accordingly,  we  find  Ricci  declaring  in 
letters  dated  July  26,  1605,  and  Nov.  12,  1607,  that  some 
traces  of  Christianity  were  still  to  be  found  in  the 
provinces  of  Ho-nan  and  Shen-si.5 

1  Hue,  Christianity  in  China,  i,  p.  391  ff.  The  painfully  laborious 
journeys  of  these  observant  missionaries  did  a  very  great  deal  towards 
increasing  the  geographical  knowledge  of  the  world  in  which  we  live. 
They  went  "  to  announce  a  religion  of  peace,  concord,  and  fraternity 
to  those  barbarous  populations  which  seemed  to  be  happy  only  in  the 
midst  of  the  horrors  of  war.  These  intrepid  and  zealous  priests  returned, 
sometimes  after  long  absence,  to  their  brethren  in  Europe  ;  they  related 
their  travels  and  their  apostolic  labours,  and  the  manners  of  foreign 
nations."     lb. 

2  lb.,  p.  311.  3  lb.,  c.  vi,  p.  203  ff. 

4  Yule,  Cathay,  i,  pp.  121-2  ;  and  Assemanni,  Bib.  Orientalis,  iii, 
pt.  ii,  pp.  536-7. 

5  Opera  del  P.  Mat.  Ricci,  S.J.,  i,  p.  469  ff.,  cited  p.  12  in  Wessels' 
Early  Jesuit  Travellers  in  Central  Asia,  The  Hague,  1924.  Cf.  the 
story  of  the  Jesuit  N.  Trigault  of  numerous  Christians  in  the  North. 
He  reached  China  just  after  Ricci 's  death.  (Cited  in  C.  H.  Robinson, 
History  of  Christian  Missions,  p.  175.) 


106  NICHOLAS    IV. 


III.    Abyssinia  (Ethiopia) 
Ethiopia  Among   the   many   countries  to  which  Nicholas  sent 

(Abyssinia).         ....  „     ,. 

missionaries,  there  are  reasons  to  believe  that  we  must 
reckon  Ethiopia  or  Abyssinia.  It  is,  however,  far  from 
easy  to  write  accurately  about  mediaeval  Abyssinia,  as 
one  will,  perhaps,  readily  concede,  when  he  finds  the 
Roman  calling  the  Ethiopian  an  Indian  1  ;  and  some 
mediaeval  writers  placing  Ethiopia  in  India  or  adjoining 
it 2— one  writer  indeed  making  it  include  China  3— and, 
when  he  remembers  that  the  present  Ethiopia  or  Abyssinia 
does  not  extend  as  far  as  the  early  kingdom  of  Ethiopia 
known  to  the  ancient  Egyptians.  As  Egypt  is  the  land 
of  the  Lower  Nile,  Ethiopia  was  at  one  time  the  land  of 
the  Upper  Nile.  The  traditional  boundary  of  the  former 
was  at  the  first  cataract  of  the  Nile  at  Syene,  now  Assouan. 
Above  (south)  of  Syene  there  was  a  comparatively 
short  (90  miles)  straight  stretch  of  the  Nile  extending  to 
Hiera  Sycamminos  (Wady  Maharrakah  ?),  known  as  the 
Dodecaschcenus,  generally  under  Egyptian,  Greek,  and 
Roman  influence.  South  of  this  city,  we  have  Ethiopia,  the 
Kush  of  the  Bible,  the  country  of  the  black  races,  extend- 
ing, in  the  fullest  application  of  the  name,  to  the  south 
of  the  Abyssinian  highlands.  In  this  sense,  "  Ethiopia  " 
includes  Nubia,  a  country  on  both  sides  of  the  great 

1  Juvenal,  Sat.,  xi,  125.  "  Mauro  obscurior  Indus  (the  Ethiopian)." 
The  Panegyrist  Eumenes  associates  the  Ethiopian  and  the  Indian. 
Addressing  Constantius  Chlorus  he  says,  n.  5,  "  Deut  veniam  trophaaa 
Niliaca,  sub  quibus  .Etbiops  et  Indus  tremuit."  Hence  an  India 
citerior  Ethiopia  (Africa)  was  distinguished  from  an  India  ulterior 
or  India  proper  ;  or  in  other  cases  the  I.C.  was  southern  Arabia,  and 
the  I.U.,  Abyssinia  and  India. 

2  "  Abyssinia  is  contiguous  to  India."  Cf.  Abu-Salih  (an  Armenian, 
beginning  of  thirteenth  cent.).  The  Churches  and  Monasteries  of  Egypt, 
trans,  by  B.  Evetts,  Oxford,   1895. 

3  The  Arab  geographer,  Ibn  Khordadbeh  (ninth  cent.).  See  Beazley, 
Dawn  of  Mod.  Geog.,  i,  p.  432.    Cf.  ib.,  iii,  pp.  151,  563. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  107 

western  bend  of  the  Nile  which  begins  at  Hiera  Sycam- 
minos,  Ethiopia  proper  or  civilized  Ethiopia,  or  the 
kingdom  of  Meroe  between  the  Nile  and  its  first  tributary 
the  Atbara  (Astaboras),1  and  the  highland  kingdom  of 
Axum  or  Abyssinia,  the  kingdom  of  the  Blue  Nile,  the 
second  of  the  Nile's  tributaries,  which  rises  in  its  midst. 
"Ethiopia"  also  included  a  number  of  other  districts 
inhabited  indeed  by  black  peoples,  but  almost  impossible 
to  locate  accurately. 

Speaking,    then,    generally,    we   may   see   that   when  Abyssinia 

,    r  •>       -XT    1  •         j  ,r  .the  land  of 

Abyssinia  stretched  from  the  Nubian  desert  to  the  great  the  Nile-S 
lakes  Rudolf  and  Stefanie,  and  from  the  Nile  proper  to  affluents. 
the   Red   Sea,   it   was  literally  the   land   of   the   great 
tributaries  of  the  Nile.     Even  in  its  present  shrunken 
state,  it  is  so  yet  to  no  inconsiderable  extent.    The  last, 
that  is  the  most  northerly  tributary  of  the  Nile,  the 
Atbara,   is   made   up   of   the   rivers    Takazze    or    Setit 
strengthened  by  the  Mareb  or  Gash,  both  of  which  rivers 
rise  in  Abyssinia — the  Mareb  in  the  northern  district  of 
Tigre,  and  the  Takazze  in  the  central  one  of  Amhara. 
Whereas   the  largest  Abyssinian  river,  the  Abai,  which 
ultimately  becomes  the  Blue  Nile  and  joins  the   White 
Nile,  or  the  Nile  proper,  at  Khartoum,  is  the  river  of  the 
southern  districts  of  Shoa  and  Godjam.2     The  greater 
part  of  Abyssinia  consists  of  a  plateau  varying  from  six 
to  seven  thousand  feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea  3— a  fact 
which  goes  far  to  explain  how  its  people  were  able  to 
maintain   their   Christianity  and   independence    against 
the  Moslem. 

Even  up  to  the  great  western  bend  of  the  Nile  of  which 
we  have  just  spoken,  ancient  Egyptian  civilization  spread 

1  Hence,  because  between  these  rivers,  the  Kingdom  of  Meroe  was 
often  called  "  the  island  of  Meroe  ". 

2  We  owe  the  substance  of  this  paragraph  to  Colonel  Prideaux, 
Abyssinia,  p.  2f.,  London,  1913. 

3  T.  Bent,  The  Sacred  City  of  the  Ethiopians,  p.  16,  London,  1893. 


108  NICHOLAS    IV. 

at  an  early  period;    and  Usertsen  III.  of  the  Twelfth 
Dynasty  set  up  at  Semnah  an  inscribed  stele  setting  forth 
that  it  had  been  erected  in  the  eighth  year  of  "  the  Majesty 
of  the  King  of  the  South  and  North,  giver  of  life  for  ever. 
No  Black  whatsoever  shall  be  permitted  to  pass   (this 
place)    going   down-stream  .  .  .  with   the   exception   of 
such  as  come  to  do  business  ...  or  an  embassy."  x    In 
fact,  "  it  is  probable  that  he  was  master  of  the  island  of 
Meroe'  ".2     In  any  case,  subsequent  Egyptian  monarchs 
pushed  their  way  right  up  to  the  Blue  Nile,  and  traded 
with  the  kingdom  of  Axum  (Abyssinia),  at  first  by  land 
and  afterwards  by  sea.    Thus  it  was  then  by  the  merchant 
that   Egyptian   civilization   penetrated   into   Abyssinia. 
The  trade  in  gold,  slaves,  and  ivory  carried  on  by  ancient 
Egypt  with  Ethiopia  was  continued  by  the  Greeks  under 
the  Ptolemies,  and  by  the  Romans.     Accordingly,  we 
hear  Juvenal  denouncing  the  luxury  which  brought  great 
tusks  of  ivory  from  "  the  gate  of  Syene  ",3  and  of  Nero 
sending  an  expedition  to  explore  the  Upper  Nile.4 
First  j0  answer  the  question  as  to  when  Christianity  was 

PnEthiopil  first  introduced  into  Ethiopia,  one  is  naturally  inclined 
c-  326-  to  tell  that  most  picturesque  story  of  the  powerful  Jewish 

Ethiopian,  the  treasurer  of  Queen  Candace,  who  was 
baptized  by  the  deacon  Philip.5  But  the  realm  of  Queen 
"  Candace  "  6  was  seemingly  not  Abyssinia.     It  was  the 

1  This  inscription,  with  its  translation,  is  given  by  E.  A.  Wallis 
Budge,  Annals  of  Nubian  Kings,  p.  170  f.     Cf.  p.  xxiii,  London,  1912. 

2  lb.,  p.  xxiv. 

3  l x. 

4  Pliny,  Hist.  Nat.,  vi,  181,  cited  by  M.  Charlesworth,  Trade  Routes 
of  the  Roman  Empire,  p.  249,  Cambridge,  1924. 

5  Acts,  viii,  27  ff. 

•  "  Candace  "  was  a  royal  title  borne  by  the  queens  who  ruled 
over  Meroe.  Cf.  Ludolf,  A  New  Hist,  of  Ethiopia,  pp.  164,  247-9, 
London,  1862.  Cf.  Smith,  Diet,  of  Christian  Biography,  art.  "  Ethiopian 
Church".  The  Jesuit  Father  Alvarez  was  in  1520  assured  by  the 
Negus  David  that  the  eunuch  of  Queen  Candace  had  converted  Tigre, 
the  northern  province  of  his  country,  and  that  the  rest  of  the  country 


NICHOLAS    IV.  IO9 

kingdom  of  Meroe,  and  it  was  a  Nubian  queen  of  that 
country  and  name  who  attacked  the  Roman  province 
of  Egypt,  and  then  had  to  sue  for  peace  in  the  days  of 
Augustus  (22-3  B.C.).  Still,  if  the  eunuch  introduced 
Christianity  into  Meroe,  it  will  have  found  its  way  by 
traders,  captives,  and  the  like  into  Abyssinia.  In  any 
case,  however,  it  does  not  appear  that  any  particular 
impression  was  made  on  the  country  by  such  isolated 
converts  as  may  have  existed  there  during  the  first  three 
centuries  of  our  era.  Despite  the  Abyssinian  tradition 
to  the  effect  that  the  country  owed  its  Christianity  to 
Queen  Candace,  it  seems  that  the  real  apostles  of  the 
country  were  Frumentius  and  Edesius  about  the  year 
a.d.  330.  Their  history  comes  to  us  from  Rufinus,  the 
contemporary  and  sometime  adversary  of  St.  Jerome, 
who  got  his  information  from  Edesius  himself,  then  a 
priest  at  Tyre.1 

Meropius,  a  philosopher  of  Tyre,  inspired  by  what  he 
had  heard  of  the  adventures  in  "further  India",  or 
Abyssinia,  of  the  philosopher  Metrodorus,2  set  out,"  in 
the  times  of  Constantine  "  (306-37)  with  two  boys, 
relations  of  his,  whom  he  was  teaching,  in  order  to  visit 
the  same  distant  land.  The  younger  boy  was  named 
Edesius,  the  elder  Frumentius.  On  his  return  journey, 
his  ship  put  into  a  certain  "  Indian  "  harbour  for  water 

had  been  converted  by  force  of  arms.  Queen  Candace,  he  said,  had 
been  converted  ten  years  after  the  death  of  Christ,  and  since  then 
Ethiopia  had  always  been  ruled  by  Christians.  Consequently  there 
had  been  no  martyrs.  Many  men  and  women  in  the  land  had  led  holy 
lives,  and  had  been  on  pilgrimage  to  Jerusalem.  See  the  Narrative, 
c.  83  (cf.  c.  39),  of  Alvarez,  Eng.  trans.,  p.  208,  Hakluyt  Soc,  1881. 
This  tradition  is  accepted  by  L.  J.  Morie,  Hist,  de  I'fithiopie,  ii,  p.  101, 
Paris,  1904  ;    but  this  work  is  anything  but  critical. 

1  H.E.,  i,  n.  9,  ap.  P.L.,  t.  xxi,  p.  478  ff.  The  story  is  repeated  by 
Socrates,  H.E.,  i,  19  ;  Sozomen,  H.E.,  ii,  24  ;  and  Theodoret,  H.E., 
i,  23.  Rufinus  says  his  story  is  founded  "  non  opinione  vulgi,  sed  ipso 
Edesio  .   .   .  referente  cognovimus." 

2  "  Inspiciendorum  locorum  et  orbis  perscrutandi  gratia."    Ruf.,  I.e. 


110  NICHOLAS    IV. 

or  some  other  necessity.  Unfortunately  for  the  philosopher 
and  the  ship's  crew,  the  Romans  had  recently  broken  a 
treaty  with  the  barbarians,  and  so,  in  accordance  with 
their  custom  when  this  sort  of  thing  happened,  massacring 
all  the  Romans  on  whom  they  could  lay  their  hands,  the 
"  Indians  "  slaughtered  Meropius  and  his  companions. 
However,  finding  the  boys  studying  under  a  tree,  they 
did  not  kill  them,  but  took  them  to  the  King,  who  made 
Edesius  his  cupbearer,  and  ultimately  entrusted 
Frumentius,  who  was  more  intelligent  and  quicker,  with 
the  care  of  his  revenues  and  records.  Before  his  death, 
the  King  gave  them  their  freedom,  but  the  Queen  induced 
them  to  remain  with  her  during  the  minority  of  her  son. 
Whilst  acting  as  regent  of  the  kingdom,  Frumentius 
induced  the  Roman  Christian  merchants  to  build  churches 
in  different  parts  of  the  country,  co-operating  with 
them  in  every  way  by  granting  them  sites,  and  all  that 
was  necessary.  When  the  heir  came  of  age,  Edesius 
returned  to  Tyre,  but  Frumentius,  unwilling  to  take  his 
hand  from  the  plough,  went  to  Alexandria,  and  asked 
St.  Athanasius  "the  lately1  consecrated  patriarch"  to 
send  a  suitable  bishop  to  the  Christian  communities  which 
he  had  formed.  Rightly  concluding  that  Frumentius 
himself  was  the  most  suitable  person  he  could  find,  the 
Saint  consecrated  him  and  sent  him  back  to  Abyssinia 
as  its  first  bishop.  God,  concludes  Rufinus,  is  said  to 
have  given  him  such  grace  that  he  wrought  miracles  and 
"converted  a  countless  number"  to  the  faith.  The 
native  historians  of  Abyssinia,  whatever  their  weight 
for  this  early  period  of  their  history  may  be  worth,  also 
tell  of  the  work  of  Frementos  or  Abba  Salama.2    They 

1  St.  Athanasius  became  patriarch  in  326,  and  from  his  Apologia 
ad  Constantium,  ap.  P.G.L.,  t.  xxv,  p.  636,  it  would  seem  that  it 
was  between  339  and  347  that  Frumentius  was  consecrated.  Cf. 
Duchesne,  jfiglises  Separees,  p.  311,  and  his  Early  Hist,  of  the  Church, 
iii,  398,  Eng.  trans. 

2  Cf.  R.  Basset,  fitudes  sur  I'hist.  d'fithiopie,  pp.  96,  220. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  Ill 

add  that  when  he  returned  from  Egypt,  he  found 
reigning  in  Abyssinia  the  brothers  Abreha  and  Arzbeha, 
who  are  thus  praised  by  the  poetical  historian  of  Ethiopia : 1 

"  Their  lips  the  words  of  Christ's  own  Gospel  taught, 
To  build  him  temples  with  their  hands  they  wrought." 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  progress  of  Christianity  in 
Abyssinia  was  helped  by  the  fact  that  Greek  was  in 
common  use  at  the  court  of  the  Negus.  A  first  century 
author  of  a  book  of  travel  tells  us  of  a  king  of  the  Axumites, 
one  Zoscales,  who  was  miserly,  "  but  otherwise  upright, 
and  acquainted  with  Greek  literature  ".2  Early  Ethiopian 
coins  bear  Greek  legends  ;  and  inscriptions  have  been 
found  at  Axum  in  Sabaean  and  Greek  characters.3 

As  Axum  and  its  port  Adulis  on  Annesley  Bay  were  the 
emporiums  for  the  ivory  trade,  we  may  be  sure  that  the 
advance  of  Christianity  in  Abyssinia  was  helped,  just  as 
its  introduction  had  been,  by  Christian  merchants,  and 
that  too  right  up  to  the  collapse  of  the  Roman  Empire 
in  the  fifth  century,  and  the  occupation  of  Africa  by  the 
Vandals  (429). 

The  religions  which  the  Gospel  had  to  combat  in 
Abyssinia  were  a  polytheism  of  an  Arabian  type  and 
Judaism,  and,  as  always,  it  made  more  progress  among 
the  pagans  than  among  the  Jews.4 

The     next     known    event     of    any    importance     in  The  nine 

Saints, 

1  Ludolf,  Hist,  of  Ethiopia,  1.  ii,  c.  4,  Eng.  trans.,  pp.  164-5.     The  455-95. 
Ethiopian  Chronicle  assigns  to  them  the  building  of  Axum.    Ed.  Basset, 

I.e.,  p.  97.  According  to  Morie,  Hist,  de  I'fithiopie,  ii,  p  113,  the  Church 
of  Abba-Hasabo  (Abha-Hasouba)  in  Axum  dates  from  the  days  of 
Frumentius. 

2  The  Periplus  of  the  Erythrcean  Sea,  n.  5,  p.  23,  of  W.  Schoff's  Eng. 
trans.,  London,  1912. 

3  Bent.  I.e.,  pp.  176,  180,  240-1  ;  I.  Guidi,  Dictionnaire  d'hist.  eccles., 
art.  Abyssinie. 

4  The  Ethiopian  chronicle,  published  by  Basset,  divides  the 
Ethiopians  of  those  days  into  Jews  and  serpent- worshippers.  Ex., 
p.  97. 


112  NICHOLAS    IV. 

the  history  of  the  Church  of  Ethiopia  is  the  arrival 
of  the  nine  saints  "  from  Rome  and  Egypt  ".  They 
may,  perhaps,  have  been  simple  fugitives,  flying  from 
the  barbarians  who  broke  up  the  Roman  Empire  in 
the  West;  but,  as  we  are  significantly  informed  by  the 
Monophysite  chronicle  edited  by  Basset  1  that  "  they 
reformed  the  faith  ",  and  as  we  know  that  they  are  greatly 
honoured  by  the  Monophysite  Abyssinian  Church,  we 
may  safely  conclude  that  they  were  teachers  of  that 
heresy  come  from  Egypt  and  other  parts  of  the  Roman 
(Byzantine)  Empire.  They  are  said  to  have  arrived  in 
Abyssinia  in  the  reign  of  Al-Ameda,  who  reigned  about 
455-95  •  One  of  the  most  remarkable  characteristics  of 
the  Abyssinians  is  their  loyalty  to  Christianity,  and  to 
Alexandria  whence  they  received  their  first  bishop. 
Their  loyalty  to  the  former  has  enabled  them  to  retain 
their  faith  in  Christ  in  spite  of  isolation  and  the  incessant 
attacks  of  pagans  and  Moslems  for  some  fifteen  hundred 
years,  and  their  loyalty  to  the  latter  caused  them  to  drift 
into  Monophysitism.  The  first  half  of  the  fifth  century 
saw  the  rise  of  the  disastrous  heresies  of  Nestorius  and 
Eutyches,  and  the  crumbling  of  the  Roman  Empire  in 
the  West.  The  one  series  of  events  infected  the 
patriarchate  of  Alexandria  with  the  "  one-nature " 
heresy 2  of  Eutyches,  and  the  other  isolated  the  Church  of 
Ethiopia  ;  and  so  not  only  prevented  its  people  from 
knowing  what  was  going  on  in  the  Church,  but  naturally 
weakened  their  intellectual  hold  on  their  recently  acquired 
faith.  The  "  nine  Saints "  reformed  their  faith  by 
teaching  them  the  heresy  in  which  the  greater  number  of 
them  have  remained  to  this  day.  Still  the  Ethiopic 
poet  praises  the  concord  of  the  Saints  in  working  for  the 
destruction  of  paganism,  which,  in  view  of  the  particular 

1  lb. 

2  On  this  point  see  Neale,  Patriarchate  of  Alex.,  vol.  ii,  sect,  i,  p.  1  ff. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  113 

character  of  its  worship,    he    calls   the    "  kingdom    of 
Arwe  "  or  "  of  the  Serpent  ".1 

When  Africa  was  recovered  for  the  Empire  by  the  Renewed 
genius  of  Belisarius  (533-4),  easier  communication  with  JJ^0011186 
Abyssinia  was  re-established,  and  we  begin  again  to  know  Abyssinia, 
something  of  it.     The  famous  Byzantine  traveller,  the 
monk  Cosmas  Indicopleustes  (c.  545),  tells  us  not  only 
of  the  trade  at  Adulis  2  in  ebony,  incense,  gold,  etc.,  but 
that  there  were  "  in  Ethiopia,  in  Axum,  and  in  all  the 
country    round     about  "     groups    of     Christians     with 
bishops.3 

At  this  period  the  rulers  of  Abyssinia  were  powerful  £aieb- 

*  .  Elesbaas  in 

sovereigns,  and  we  read  of  one  of  them,  with  a  formidable  Arabia. 
army,  crossing  over  into  Arabia,  more  than  once,  to 
avenge  his  fellow-Christians  who  were  being  cruelly 
treated  by  a  Jewish  ruler.  These  incidents,  which  took 
place  in  the  reigns  of  the  Emperors  Justin  and  Justinian, 
are  told  with  not  a  few  variations  by  native  writers  as 
well  as  by  Greek  and  Syriac  authors.  The  Ethiopian 
monarch  .is   called  Caleb  by  the  Abyssinians,  Elesbaas 


1  Ludolf,  I.e.,  p.  255.  Mr.  Salt,  A  Voyage  to  Abyssinia,  p.  466, 
believes  "  that  the  conquest  of  Arabia  took  place  prior  to  the  arrival 
of  the  holy  men  from  Egypt  ". 

2  Somewhat  south  of  the  modern  port  of  Massowah. 

3  Topog.  Christ.,  1.  ii,  pp.  50  ff.  Eng.  trans,  ed.  McCrindle,  Hakluyt 
Soc.  Also  p.  140  ff.,  and  1.  iii,  p.  118  ff.  Cosmas  notes  that  from  the 
Cataract  about  Syene  to  Axum  is  "thirty  marches".  Procopius, 
De  hello  Pers.,  i,  c.  19,  n.  27,  says  the  same  "  for  a  well-equipped 
traveller  "  ;  and  he  notes  (ib.,  n.  22,  that  the  city  of  Adulis  is  only 
20  stadia  from  the  harbour,  and  "12  days  "  from  Axum.  Cosmas 
also  gives  us  a  piece  of  information  which  shows  that,  as  ivory  was 
always  reaching  Europe,  there  must  always  have  been  some  vague 
knowledge  of  Abyssinia  among  certain  European  traders.  He  points 
out  that  the  Indian  elephants  have  poor  tusks,  whereas  the  numerous 
elephants  of  Abyssinia  have  great  ones,  and  that  they  are  exported  to 
Arabia,  Persia,  the  Roman  territory,  and  even  to  India.  One  of  the 
great  Abyssinian  ports  for  ivory  is  spoken  of  by  Marco  Polo.  Cf.  Heyd, 
Hist,  du  Commerce,  ii,  p.  429  f. 

Vol.  XVII.  1 


ii4 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


or  Hellestheaeus  by  the  Greeks,1  and  Adad  or  Aidog  by 
the  Syrians,2  and  he  certainly  established  Abyssinian 
rule  in  south-western  Arabia,  and  thereby  benefited 
suffering  Christians  (520-3). 3 

About  this  same  time,  too,  the  Ethiopians  were  able 
to  help  their  co-religionists  in  Persia.  Alarmed  at  the 
successful  propagation  of  Monophysitism  in  that  country 
by  Simeon,  metropolitan  of  Beth-Arsam,  the  Nestorian 
bishops  persuaded  the  Shah  Kobad  (or  Oawad)  that  the 
Monophysites  were  traitors  to  the  Empire.  Simeon  and 
others  were  thrown  into  prison,  from  which  they  were 
delivered  only  after  protests  had  been  made  by  the 
ambassadors  of  the  King  of  Ethiopia.4 

The  power  of  the  Negus  of  Abyssinia  did  not  escape  the 
notice  of  Justinian.  Even  if  his  diplomacy  was  not 
responsible  for  Caleb's  invasion  of  Arabia  Felix,  he 
certainly  tried  to  use  the  Abyssinians  against  the  Persians. 
He  tried  to  use  their  traders  to  divert  the  silk  trade  from 
the  Persian  Gulf  to  the  Red  Sea,  and  to  use  their  arms 
directly  against  the  Persian  troops.     Both  these  efforts 


1  The  Ethiopic  poet,  speaking  of  him  as  Caleb,  sings  of  his  "  slaughter 
of  the  Sabean  (Homerite,  S.  Arabian)  host  ",  and  of  "  Martyrs  now 
avenged,  and  Christians  saved  ".  Ludolf,  I.e.,  p.  167.  This  author 
conjectures  that  Elesbaas  is  formed  from  the  Ethiopic  name  for 
baptism,  Atzbeha,  and  the  Arabic  article  El. 

2  Cf.  Mode,  fithiop.,  ii,  144  n.,for  the  many  variations  of  the  name  of 
this  sovereign.  The  work  of  Morie,  useful  for  information  of  this  sort, 
is  not  critical,  and  does  not  support  its  statements  by  any  citation  of 
authorities. 

3  Cf.  Assemanni,  Bib.  Orient.,  vol.  i,  p.  358  ff.,  quoting  John  "  of 
Asia  "or"  of  Ephesus  "  ;  Zachary  of  Mitylene,  Chron.,  viii,  c,  p.  192  ff.; 
Nicephorus  Callistus,  H.E.,  lib.  xvii,  c.  6  ;  Theophanes,  Chronog., 
pp.  260-1,  346-7,  ed.  Bonn  ;  Cedrenus,  Compend.  Hist.,  vol.  i, 
p.  639,  ed.  ib.  ;  Procopius,  De  hello  Pers.,  i,  c.  20  ;  Malalas,  Chron., 
lib.  xviii,  pp.  433-4,  ed.  Bonn.     Cf.  Basset,  I.e.,  p.  223  f. 

4  John  of  Ephesus,  De  beatis  orientalibus ,  ap.  Laud,  Anecdot. 
Syriac.,  ii,  p.  76  ff.,  cited  by  Labourt,  Christ,  en  Perse,  p.  158;  or 
better,  ap.  Pat.  Orient.,  t.  17,  p.  153,  ed.  E.  W.  Brooks,  Paris,  1923. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  115 

failed,  but  they  led  to  diplomatic  and  religious  intercourse 
between  Axum  and  Constantinople.1 

The  event  which  has  most  profoundly  affected  the  Mahomet, 
history  of  Abyssinia  after  the  introduction  of  Christianity 
was  the  spread  of  Islam.  The  followers  of  Mahomet  have 
kept  its  people  perpetually  at  war,  and  succeeded  for  ages 
in  almost  completely  isolating  its  people  from  the  Christian 
world  at  large.  In  the  early  days  of  the  Prophet's  teaching, 
some  of  his  followers,  persecuted  at  Mecca,  fled  to 
Abyssinia,  to  that  land  where,  according  to  himself,  "  no 
one  is  wronged."  They  were  well  received  by  the  Negus 
(615-16),  who  could  not  be  bribed  by  their  enemies  to 
surrender  them.2 

Some  ten  years  after  this  flight,  the  King  of  Ethiopia, 
in  common  with  the  Emperors  of  Byzantium  and  Persia, 
was,  according  to  Arab  tradition  at  least,  summoned  by 
Mahomet  to  acknowledge  his  claims  as  the  Prophet  of 
God  (627).  No  notice,  we  are  told,  was  taken  of  the 
summons  by  the  last  two  rulers,  but  the  Negus  is  said  to 
have  humbly  accepted  the  invitation  and  to  have  expressed 


1  Cf.  the  embassies  of  Julian  and  Nonnosus,  ap.  Malalas,  Chron., 
pp.  456-9,  ed.  Bonn,  and  Procopius,  B.  Pers.,  i,  20,  §  9  to  end  ;  and 
ii,  1,  §  10,  and  3,  §  40  ;  and  Nonnosus  himself,  ap.  Photius,  Biblioteca, 
n.  3  or  ap.  vol.  xiii,  Corp.  Byz.,  ed.  Bonn,  p.  478  ff.  John  of  Ephesus 
(ap.  Assemanni,  Bib.  Or.,  i,  385)  speaks  of  both  the  Ethiopians  and  the 
Homerites  asking  Justinian  for  bishops.  Cf.  Diehl,  Justinien,  p.  392  ff., 
who  has  best  treated  of  this  portion  of  Ethiopic  history.  A  letter  of  a 
contemporary  bishop,  however,  Simeon  of  Beth-Arsam  (ap.  Assemanni 
B.O.,  i,  364),  would  ascribe  the  intervention  of  Caleb-Elesbaas  to  the 
exhortations  of  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria.  We  have  used  the  French 
translation  of  this  Syriac  document,  ap.  Leclercq,  Les  Martyrs,  vol.  iv, 
p.  180  ff.,  Paris,  1905.  In  the  same  vol.  is  a  translation  of  the  Acts 
of  the  martyrdom  of  St.  Arethas  and  his  companions  (p.  163  ff.),  which 
led  to  Caleb's  intervention.  It  must  be  added  that  the  authenticity 
of  the  letter  of  Simeon  is  called  in  question.     lb.,  p.  161. 

2  Muir,  The  Life  of  Mohammed,  pp.  69,  86  f.,  91,  quoting  Ibn  Hisham 
(t  828)  and  al-Tabari  (f  922). 


Il6  NICHOLAS    IV. 

regret    at    not    being    able    to    join    his    standard    in 
person.1 
Moslem  However  that  may  be,  the  Saracen  outburst  of  the 

Egypt°and     middle  °f  the  seventh  century  which  broke  the  power  of 
Nubia.  the    Persian    Empire,    irretrievably    damaged    that    of 

Byzantium,  and  overran  the  whole  north  of  the  continent 
of  Africa,2  more  or  less  completely  cut  off  Abyssinia  from 
communication  with  the  rest  of  the  world.  The  invaders 
were  helped  by  the  native  Egyptian  or  Coptic  population, 
which  on  national  and  religious  grounds  hated  its  Roman 
(i.e.,  Greek  or  Byzantine)  rulers.  The  Copts,  inordinately 
proud,  as  they  regarded  themselves  as  the  oldest  race  in 
the  world,  bitterly  resented  the  contempt  with  which 
they  were  regarded  by  the  Romans,  and,  having  for  the 
most  part  embraced  Monophysitism,  they  had  another 
reason  for  hating  the  Romans  whom  they  dubbed 
Melkites  (Royalists),  instead  of  giving  them  their  proper 
title  of  Catholics.3  Consequently,  no  sooner  did  'Amr  and 
his  Moslems  show  themselves  in  Egypt,  than  the  native 
population  "  began  to  aid  them  ".4  As  time  went  on, 
the  Copts  suffered  for  their  baseness  in  helping  the 
infidel  against  their  fellow-Christians.  But  still  "  the 
Muslims  naturally  favoured  their  allies  of  the  national 

1  lb.,  p.  368  ff.  ;  Drapeyron,  L'emp.  Heraclius,  p.  321  ff.,  Paris,  1869- 
Some  authors  do  not  accept  this  story,  which  seems  only  to  be  based 
on  Arab  tradition.  See  A.  Pernice,  L'imp.  Eraclio,  p.  262,  Florence, 
1905  ;    Maspero,  Hist,  des  Pat.  d'Alex.,  p.  23. 

2  Egypt  was  invaded  in  639,  and  Nubia  in  651-2. 

3  Cf.  Maspero,  Hist,  des  Patriarches  d'Alex.,  ch.  ii,  Paris,  1923. 
El-Masudi,  Meadows  of  Gold  (written  943),  calls  the  Melkites  "the 
main  body,  and  (they)  are  the  original  Christians  ".  Eng.  trans., 
vol.  i,  p.  227,  ed.  Sprenger. 

4  John  of  Nikion,  Chron.,  ed.  Zotenberg,  p.  233.  According  to 
Eutychius,  Melkite  (Catholic)  patriarch  of  Alexandria  (933-9),  a  much 
superior  historian  to  Severus,  the  governor  of  Egypt,  the  Monophysite, 
"  Makaukasus  ",  betrayed  Egypt  to  the  Moslems.  See  his  Hist.,  ap. 
Migne,  P.G.L.,  t.  cxi,  p.  1103.  On  p.  1105  he  tells  how  the  Copts 
helped  the  Arabs. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  II7 

or  Jacobite  Church,  rather  than  the  orthodox  Church  of 
Constantinople  which  was  represented  in  Egypt  ".1 
This  favour  enabled  the  Coptic  Monophysite  Church  to 
keep  its  hold  on  Abyssinia,  whose  Christianity  was  almost 
ruined  by  the  subjection  in  which  it  was  kept  by 
Alexandria,  and  by  the  subdivisions  of  Monophysitism 
which  found  their  way  into  it.2 

When  the  Moslems  entered  Egypt,  Benjamin  I.  was  Monks  enter 
the  Monophysite  Coptic  Patriarch  (620-59)  ;  and,  as  Abyssinia- 
the  see  of  Axum  was  vacant,  he  sent  as  its  Abuna  3  one 
of  his  partisans,  Cyril.4  Benjamin  had  been  acknowledged 
patriarch  of  the  Coptic  (Egyptian)  Christians  by  the 
Moslem  conqueror  'Amr ;  and,  from  a  story  told  by  the 
Monophysite  Severus  (?)  it  is  easy  to  see  that  he  had 
favoured  the  Moslem  against  his  fellow  Christians.  'Amr, 
he  writes,  promised  that  if  he  would  pray  that  he  might 
conquer  Africa  as  he  had  conquered  Egypt,  "  I  will  do 
all  for  thee  what  thou  shalt  ask  me."  5 

It   has   been   asserted  that   it   was   whilst   Cyril  was 

1  Lane-Poole,  A  Hist,  of  Egypt  in  the  Mid.  Ages,  p.  26  ;  Neale,  I.e., 
ii,    p.  72  f. 

2  Michael  the  Syrian,  ii,  p.  251  ;    Maspero,  I.e.,  pp.  95,  193,  289. 

3  The  title  given  to  the  chief  bishop  of  Abyssinia. 

4  Severus,  bishop  of  Al-Ushmunain,  a  Coptic  historian  of  the  tenth 
century.  His  poor  and  inaccurate  Hist,  of  the  Patriarchs  of  Alexandria, 
going  down  to  about  the  middle  of  the  seventh  century,  is  published 
in  the  Patrol.  Orient.,  i  and  v.  Its  editor,  Mr.  B.  Evetts,  has  given  an 
English  translation  with  the  Arabic  text.  He  assigns  622-61  as  the 
date  of  the  Patriarchate  of  Benjamin.  It  is  Neale,  I.e.,  ii,  p.  74,  who 
gives  Severus  from  Renaudot,  p.  170,  as  the  authority  for  this  statement. 
Renaudot,  however,  distinctly  avers  that  Severus  knows  nothing 
about  Cyril  ;  but  quotes  the  Jesuit  Tellez  (Hist,  da  Companhia  de 
Jesus)  as  his  authority,  who  drew  his  information  from  "  the  books 
of  Axum  ". 

6  Ed.  Evetts,  I.e.,  i,  pp.  496-7.  'Amr  would  seem  to  have  been  as 
good  as  his  word,  for  Severus,  ib.,  vol.  v,  p.  123,  after  stating  that  the 
Catholics  (Melkites)  complained  that  at  one  time  all  the  churches 
were  theirs,  adds  "  but  the  Muslims  after  their  conquest  of  Egypt 
handed  them  over  to  the  Copts  ". 


Il8  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Abuna  that  monasticism  was  formerly  introduced  into 
Abyssinia  by  one  Tekla-Haimanot  (Plant  of  the  faith),  who 
was  supposed  to  have  been  sent  thither  by  Benjamin.1 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  however,  Tekla-Haimanot,  "the 
founder  of  the  order  of  monks  of  Debra  Libanos,  who  is 
recognized  as  a  Saint  by  the  Catholic  Church,  did  not 
live  till  the  thirteenth  century.2  The  Ethiopic  tradition 
has  it  that  he  was  ordained  deacon  at  the  age  of  15  by 
Cyril,  not  the  one  just  mentioned,  but  the  third  of  that 
name  (1225-43).  He  is  "  thrice  commemorated  in  the 
calendar "  of  Abyssinia,  and  his  spiritual  sons,  so 
enthusiasts  say,  "  are  as  famous  in  the  Ethiopic  as  the 
Benedictines  in  the  Western  Church  ".3 
Relation  of  We  have  just  seen  that  Cyril  was  sent  to  Abyssinia 
pontan  of  as  its  metropolitan  ;  and  though  it  is  generally  agreed 
Abyssinia  to  tjiat  tfie  Abyssinians  have  always  received  their  metro- 

Alexandria.  J 

politan  from  Alexandria,  it  is  not  easy  to  discover  when 
the  canonical  relations  between  the  two  churches  were 
defined.  Severus,  speaking  of  the  Monophysite  Patriarch 
Michael  I.  (744-68),  boasts  that  "  the  patriarch  of  the 
Jacobites  exercises  authority  over  all  the  Kings  of  the 
Abyssinians  and  Nubians  ".4  And  it  is  believed  that  it 
was  in  this  century  that  the  Monophysites  concocted  a 
canon  which  they  attributed  to  the  Council  of  Nicaea  by 
which  Ethiopia  was  not  to  have  a  patriarch,  but  was  to 
be  subject  to  Alexandria.5  This  canon  is  embodied  in 
the  treatise  on  Canon  Law  compiled  in  the  thirteenth 

1  Neale,  I.e.,  ii,  p.  74  ;   Ludolf,  I.e.,  p.  257. 

2  Cf.  Bruce  in  his  Annals  of  Abyssinia,  which  he  gives  in  his  vol.  iii 
of  his  Travels  to  Discover  the  Sources  of  the  Nile,  p.  37,  ed.  Edinburgh, 
1805.     Cf.  Basset,  I.e.,  p.  231. 

3  Neale,  ib. 

4  Hist.,  I.e.,  vol.  v,  p.  146. 

5  Mansi,  Concil.,  ii,  p.  994.  There  is  no  need  to  quote  this  canon, 
as  it  is  faithfully  given  in  Ibn  al-A.,  but  it  decrees  that  the  Patriarch 
of  Alexandria  may  appoint  for  the  Ethiopians  "  Catholicum  qui 
inferior  Patriarcha  est  ". 


NICHOLAS    IV.  Iig 

century  by  Ibn  al-Assal,  and,  under  the  title  of  "  Fetha 
Nagast  ",  adopted  by  the  Abyssinians  as  their  code  of 
ecclesiastical  and  civil  law.  The  Coptic  canonist  explains 
that  it  belongs  to  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria  to  ordain 
for  the  Ethiopians  a  head,  a  bishop,  and  that  too  not  one 
from  among  them,  but  from  among  his  own  people,  i.e., 
from  among  the  Egyptians.  Moreover,  the  metropolitan 
so  constituted  may  not  consecrate  other  metropolitans 
as  patriarchs  can.  He  may,  indeed,  be  honoured  by  the 
title  of  patriarch,  but  he  may  not  have  the  power.  And 
should  a  council  be  called  in  Greco-Roman  territory, 
the  metropolitan  of  Ethiopia  shall  occupy  the  eighth 
place,  the  place  after  the  titular  of  Seleucia-Ctesiphon, 
inasmuch  as  he  is  permitted  to  consecrate  bishops  for 
his  own  country,  whereas  the  Abuna  is  not  allowed  to 
do  this.  But  it  is  not  lawful  for  either  group  of  bishops 
to  constitute  a  Catholicos  or  Abuna.1  It  will  be  seen 
that  the  church  of  Alexandria  bound  that  of  Abyssinia 
hand  and  foot. 

The  canon  just  cited  rules  that  the  Abuna  must  be  The  Abuna 
a  Copt.  When  this  rule  was  put  into  actual  practice  is,  copt. 
like  so  many  other  matters  connected  with  the  history 
of  Abyssinia,  uncertain.  It  is  said,  however,  that  this 
regulation  was  brought  about  by  the  great  monk  Tekla- 
Haimanot  of  whom  we  have  just  spoken,  and  that,  when 
Abuna,  he  caused  it  to  be  made  because  he  feared  that,  if 

1  See  the  fine  edition  in  Italian  of  the  Fetha  Nagast  (Legislation  of 
the  Kings),  by  I.  Guidi,  p.  29  f.,  Rome,  1899.  Guidi  notes,  p.  vii, 
that  the  Nomocanone  of  Ibn-al-Assal  acquired  great  authority  in  the 
patriarchate  of  Alexandria,  and  like  so  many  other  Arab  books  was 
translated  into  Geez  for  use  in  the  dependent  country  of  Abyssinia. 
Fortescue  states  (I.e.,  p.  300,  note),  that  :  "  The  Copts  also  set  up  a 
law  that  a  Metropolitan  must  be  ordained  by  twelve  bishops.  Then 
by  not  allowing  the  Ethiopians  to  have  more  than  seven,  they  secured 
the  right  of  ordaining  Abuna  themselves."  That  right  was  really 
secured  by  the  regulation  mentioned  in  the  text.  Renaudot,  Hist. 
Pat.  Alex.,  p.  510,  however,  observes  that,  if  the  Abyssinians  had 
had  ten  bishops,  they  could  have  consecrated  a  metropolitan. 


120  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Abyssinia  were  further  isolated  by  ceasing  its  connection 
with  Alexandria,  it  would  fall  back  into  paganism  or 
into  a  very  degenerate  form  of  Christianity.1  The 
connection  resolved  itself  into  the  Abyssinians  having  to 
buy  their  Abuna  from  Alexandria,2  and  in  its  kings 
having  to  write  very  humble  letters  to  the  Sultan  of 
Egypt.  Thus  in  1274  Icon-Amlak,  wanting  an  Abuna 
"  virtuous  and  learned,  who  does  not  love  gold  and 
silver  ",  but  who  has  been  chosen  by  the  Patriarch, 
subscribes  himself  as  "  the  humblest  of  your  slaves  who 
kisses  the  ground  before  you  .  .  .  and  whose  country 
belongs  to  you  ".3 
Relations  of  Now  that  we  have  seen  what  were  the  relations  of 
Rome!nia  °  Abyssinia  to  Alexandria,  we  must  look  into  its  relations 
with  Rome.  Before  that  country  was  led  by  Alexandria 
into  schism,  it  was  connected  with  Rome  only  indirectly 
through  the  Catholic  patriarch  of  Alexandria.  Except 
during  a  brief  period  in  the  seventeenth  century,  the 
Church  of  Abyssinia  has  never,  as  a  whole,  been  directly 
subject  to  Rome.4  But,  like  some  other  ecclesiastical 
bodies  to-day  nearer  home,  it  acknowledged  in  theory 
its  supreme  jurisdiction  without  concerning  itself  about 
obeying  the  dictates.  Let  us  again  turn  to  the  code  of 
the  Abyssinian  Church,  and  hear  what  it  says  on  the 
matter.  "  The  patriarchs,"  it  lays  down,  "  are  the 
successors  of  Christ  and  his  Apostles  .  .  .  and  the 
power  (dignita)  of  the  patriarch  over  Christians,  is  like 

1  Basset,  I.e.,  p.  232  ;    Bruce,  I.e.,  ii,  p.  458. 

2  Cf.  Alvarez,  Embassy,  c.  97.  Makrizi  before  him  had  stated  that 
the  King  of  Abyssinia  had  to  ask  a  patriarch  "  a  rege  JEgypti  per 
litteras,  quas  una  cum  munere  mittit  .  .  .  atque  tunc  patricio  metro- 
politan designatio  demandatur  ".  Hist,  regum  Islam,  in  Abyssinia, 
p.  4,  ed.  F.  F.  Rinck,  Lugd.  Batav.,   1790. 

3  The  Sultan  was  Malik-Daher-Bibars.  Cf.  Makrizi  (1378-f  1441), 
Hist,  des  Sultans,  i,  pt.  ii,  p.  122,  ed.  Quatremere.  Cf.  Nowairi  cited  ib., 
and  Bruce,  Travels,  iii,  p.  37  ff. 

4  On  paper  at  least,  the  Abyssinian  Church  was  united  to  Rome  in 
the  fifteenth  century.     See  infra. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  121 

the  principate  of  Moyses  over  the  Israelites."  Now, 
because  there  are  four  Gospels,  four  rivers  of  Paradise, 
four  seasons,  etc.,  the  Fathers  of  the  Council  of  Nicsea  * 
decreed  that  there  should  be  in  the  world  but  four 
patriarchs,  "and  that  the  head  and  Prince  of  these 
should  be  he  who  holds  the  see  of  Peter  at  Rome,  as  the 
Apostles  themselves  ordered."  The  second  is  the  holder 
of  the  see  of  St.  Mark,  Alexandria,  the  third  is  the  holder 
of  the  see  of  Ephesus,  that  of  St.  John  the  Evangelist ; 
the  fourth  is  the  holder  of  the  see  of  Antioch,  which  is 
also  a  see  of  Peter.  However,  continues  the  code,  the 
patriarchate  of  Ephesus  has  been  transferred  to 
Constantinople  "  to  honour  the  Empire  and  the  Priest- 
hood (sia  onore  del  Regno  e  del  Sacerdozio)  ".  2  The 
code  goes  on  to  declare  that  the  power  of  the  patriarch 
is  like  that  of  a  father  over  his  sons  ;  and,  as  the  patriarch 
has  power  (imperio  e  potest  a)  over  those  who  are  subject 
to  him,  so  the  patriarch  of  Rome  has  power  over  all  the 
other  patriarchs,  because  he  is  the  head,  just  as  Peter 
had  power  over  all  the  heads  of  the  Christians  (i.e., 
according  to  a  gloss  "over  the  Apostles"),  and  the 
community  of  Christian  men,  over  the  faithful,3  because 
he  is  the  Vicar  of  Christ  our  Lord  over  his  people  and 
his  churches.4 

1  No.  37  of  the  Arabic  canons. 

2  P.  27  ff.  of  Guidi's  Fetha  Nagast.  Cf.  Ludolf,  who  says  (p.  307) 
that,  of  the  four  patriarchs,  the  Abyssinians  "reckon  the  Roman 
patriarch  to  be  the  first  and  call  him  Bik  Papaste  Zaromcia  or  the 
Roman  Prince  or  Master  of  the  Metropolitans.  For  they  have  no 
higher  title  (than  Bik  Papaste)  to  give  to  anyone  who  may  be  thought 
superior  to  a  patriarch.  Alvarez,  too,  Embassy,  c.  114,  p.  311,  ed. 
Stanley,  says  that  they  named  the  bishop  of  Rome  "  Rumea  Negus, 
ligne  Papaz  ",  "  which  means  the  King  of  Rome  and  Head  of  the 
Popes." 

3  The  gloss  adds  "over  the  seventy  disciples". 

4  The  F.N.,  p.  30.  Cf.  ib.,  p.  530  ff.  on  the  power  of  the  patriarch 
who  can  add  or  take  away  "  as  he  judges  advantageous  at  the  moment  ". 
The  limitations  of  his  power  are  discussed  in  the  pages  quoted,  and 
also  p.  31  ff. 


122  NICHOLAS    IV. 

The  Coptic        Returning  to  the  realm  of  facts,  we  experience  the 

r^strifirrh  in 

trouble,         greatest  difficulty  in  finding  even  the  smallest  scraps  of 
686-9.  information  about  early  mediaeval  Abyssinia.     This  is 

the  less  to  be  wondered  at  when  we  are  told  that  there 
is  not  a  single  known  Abyssinian  document  which  can 
be  ascribed  to  any  date  between  the  eighth  and  twelfth 
centuries.1 

However,  before  the  fatal  seventh  century  had  passed, 
we  have  further  evidence  of  communication  between 
Alexandria  and  Abyssinia.  During  the  patriarchate  of 
Isaac  (686-9)  a  war  was  g°m§  on  between  the  Ethiopians 
and  Nubians.  Thereupon  the  patriarch  sent  letters  to 
the  Negus  exhorting  him  to  peace.  This  act,  according 
to  Severus,  made  him  suspect  by  the  Moslem  Governor 
of  Egypt,  Abd-el-Aziz.  He  caused  the  patriarch  to  be 
seized.  Thereupon,  to  use  the  words  of  the  historian  just 
quoted,  "  the  (patriarch's)  secretaries  wrote  out  letters 
different  from  the  patriarch's  letters,  and  gave  them  to 
the  messengers  whom  he  had  sent  to  the  Abyssinians, 
taking  the  first  letters  from  them.  This  they  did  only 
lest  evil  should  befall  the  Church."  When  the  new  letters 
were  taken,  the  Governor  was  satisfied,  because  "  he 
found  nothing  in  them  of  what  had  been  told  him  ".2 
As  Abd-el-Aziz  is  known  to  have  persecuted  the  Christians, 
it  looks  as  if  the  patriarch  had  written  to  ask  the  help 
of  the  Negus. 
Subservience      However  this  may  be,   the  history  of  his  successor 

of  Simon.  '  J 

Simon  (689-701)  shows  how  dependent  on  and  subservient 
to  the  Moslem  rulers  the  Coptic  patriarchs  had  already 
become.  Without  going  into  the  details  of  Simon's 
election,3  we  may  observe  that  the  consent  of  the  Moslem 
governor  of  Egypt  was  the  deciding  factor  in  it,  and 

1  C.  Conti  Rossini,  "  Egitto  ed  Etiopia  nei  tempi  antichi  e  nell'  eta 
di  mezzo,"  p.  15,  in  the  review  JEgyptus,  April,  1922,  Milano. 

2  Severus,  I.e.,  vol.  v,  pp.  24-5. 

3  They  may  be  read  ap.  Neale,  I.e.,  ii,  p.  83  f. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  123 


proceed  to  translate  from  the  narrative  of  Severus  an 
episode  in  his  patriarchal  career  which  proves  his  sub- 
servience to  the  governor.  Some  "  Indians  ",  or,  as  we 
are  told  in  another  place,  "  a  black  Indian  who  was  a 
monk  and  a  priest  "  came  to  Simon  to  ask  for  a  bishop 
for  their  country.  This  "  black  Indian  ",  as  the  Ethiopian 
is  not  infrequently  called  at  this  period,  may  have  been 
a  Nubian  1  or  an  Abyssinian.  The  reply  of  Simon  was, 
"  I  cannot  ordain  a  bishop  for  you  without  the  command 
of  the  Emir  who  is  governor  of  the  land  of  Egypt."  2 

In  this  dark  period  of  Abyssinian  history,   it  will  be  ^ftehe 

seen  that  the  only  rays  of  light  that  fall  upon  it  come  Abuna  John. 

from  the  Coptic  Church  ;    and,  from  the  patriarchate  of 

Simon,  we  have  to  wait  more  than  a  hundred  years  before 

we  can  glean  another  fact  about  Ethiopia.     In  the  year 

826  the  patriarch  Jacob  consecrated  one  John  as  Abuna. 

In  some  way,  whilst  the  King  of  Abyssinia  was  at  war, 

John  earned  the  enmity  of  a  party  at  the  head  of  which 

was  the  Empress.     He  fled  the  country,  and  retired  to 

the  monastery  in  Egypt  from  which  he  had  been  taken 

to  be  made  Abuna.    However,  when  the  Negus  returned 

from  the  wars,  and  found  an  intruded  Abuna,  he  sent 

to  Alexandria  to  beg  that  John  might  be  sent  back. 

But  opposition  to  him  was  reawakened,  and  the  people 

declared  that  they  would  never  obey  an  uncircumcised 

Abuna.     It  was  only  when  it  was  discovered  that  John 

had,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  been  circumcised  in  his  youth 

that  his  position  was  recognized.3 

1  Eutychius  states  (ap.  P.G.L.,  t.  iii,  p.  1122)  that  the  Nubians 
got  their  bishops  from  the  Jacobite  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  and  that 
"from  that  time  Nubia  embraced  the  doctrine  of  the  Jacobites  ". 

2  Severus,  I.e.,  v,  pp.  36  and  40.  Cf.  Ibn-Rahib  (c.  1257),  Chron. 
Orientate,  p.  86,  who  adds  that  the  envoy  went  off  "  to  another  "  who 
complied  with  his  wish  (this  "other"  may  have  been  the  Catholic 
(Melkite)  patriarch.)      (Ed.  Abraham  Ecchellensis,  Venice,   1729.) 

3  Makrizi  (|  1441),  Khitat,  ii,  p.  494,  ed.  Boulaq,  cited  by  Basset, 
I.e.,  p.  227,  and  Neale,  ii,  pp.  146,  150,  177.  Ibn-Rahib,  Chron.  O., 
p.  91  f.,  says  nothing  of  the  circumcision  story. 


124  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Dynastic  It    was,    at    a    very   early  period,    the   belief  of  the 

revolution  in  -^  ...         .    .        ,     J    f 

Abyssinia.  Emperors  of  Abyssinia  that  they  were  the  descendants 
of  King  Solomon,  through  the  Queen  of  Sheba.  Whatever 
truth  there  may  have  been  in  their  traditional  belief  in 
this  matter,  some  time  in  the  early  part  of  the  tenth 
century,  Del  Na'ad  of  this  dynasty  of  Solomon  was 
deprived  of  his  imperial  power  by  a  faction  headed  by 
Judith,  or  Esther,  the  chieftainess  or  queen  of  the  Jewish 
independent  tribe  on  Mount  Samen.  The  royal  princes 
were  murdered,  but  Del  Na'ad  himself  escaped  to  the 
province  of  Shoa  where  he  contrived  to  keep  his  inde- 
pendence. Bitter  persecution  of  the  Christians,  and 
destruction  of  their  churches  followed  the  accession  of 
the  Jewess. 

Fortunately,  however,  Judith  and  her  family  were 
not  able  to  keep  possession  of  imperial  power  for  long. 
It  was  soon  seized  by  a  Christian  family,  that  of  the 
Zagues.1  It  would  appear  to  have  been  just  before  these 
dynastic  troubles  that  the  patriarch  Cosmas  III.  (925-37) 
sent  a  monk,  Peter,  as  Abuna.  This  consecration  of  a 
metropolitan  for  Abyssinia  is  described  by  the  biographer 
of  Cosmas  as  "  a  wonderful  event  ".2  The  new  Abuna 
was  received  with  the  greatest  honour  by  the  Negus, 
over  whom  he  acquired  such  influence  that,  on  his  death- 
bed, he  authorized  him  to  bestow  the  crown  on  either  of 
his  two  sons.  Peter  selected  the  younger  son.  Of  this 
act  two  vagabond  Coptic  monks,  Menas  and  Victor, 
whom  he  had  in  some  way  annoyed,  availed  themselves. 
By  forged  letters  which  they  professed  to  have  received 

1  The  Chronicle,  published  by  Basset  (p.  98  ;  cf.  p.  227)  says,  indeed, 
that  the  imperial  power  was  taken  from  Del  Na'ad,  but  it  does  not  say 
by  whom.  It  adds  that  the  said  power  was  afterwards  "  given  to  others 
who  were  not  Jews  ;  they  are  the  Zagues."  The  author  proceeds  to 
give,  "  as  we  have  learnt  them  from  men  instructed  in  the  law,"  the 
names  of  eleven  rulers  of  this  dynasty,  and  to  say  that  their  joint 
reigns  occupied  354  years. 

2  Ap.  Le  Quien,  Oriens.  Christ.,  ii,  648. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  125 

from  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria,  they  persuaded  the 
elder  brother  that  Peter  was  merely  an  impostor.  He 
thereupon  rebelled,  dethroned  his  brother,  and  named 
Menas  Abuna.  When,  however,  the  patriarch,  having 
discovered  the  fraud,  excommunicated  Menas,  the  king 
put  him  to  death.  Then,  as  Peter  had  died  in  the  mean- 
time, he  forced  one  of  his  disciples  to  act  as  Abuna. 
He  would  not,  however,  allow  him  to  go  to  Alexandria 
for  consecration,  so  that  it  would  seem  that  neither  he 
nor  Menas  was  consecrated.  The  king  who  thus  outraged 
the  rights  of  the  patriarch  was  Del  Na'ad.1 

The  Jewish  intruders  who  followed  him  naturally  did 
not  want  an  Abuna  ;  but  the  first  ruler  of  the  Zagaean 
line,  Mara-Takla-Haimanot,  about  the  beginning  of  the 
eleventh  century,  applied  as  usual  to  the  Monophysite 
patriarch  of  Alexandria  for  one.  His  application  was 
made  through  George,  King  of  Nubia,  to  whom  he  wrote 
a  letter,  of  which  a  part  is  still  extant.  He  pointed  out 
how  cruelly  the  country,  the  churches,  and  religion  had 
suffered  during  the  days  of  the  intruders.  They  had  no 
Abuna,  and  their  bishops  and  priests  had  died  off.  King 
George  passed  on  the  letter,  which  was  received  by 
the  simoniacal  patriarch  Philotheus  (979-1003).  He 
accordingly  consecrated  Daniel,  a  monk  of  St.  Macarius, 
metropolitan  of  Axum  ;  and,  in  the  words  of  the  ancient 
Abyssinian  hagiographer, "  Ethiopia  breathed  once  more." 2 

Philotheus    was    succeeded    as    Coptic    patriarch    by  The  Abunas, 
Zacharias  (1005),  of  whom  an  item  of  information  has  severus. 
been     preserved     which     shows    with    what     difficulty 

1  Michael  of  Tanis  (eleventh  century)  the  continuator  of  Severus, 
ap.  Renaudot,  I.e.,  pp.  336-41  ;  of.  Neale,  I.e.,  ii,  p.  178  ff.  ;  Basset, 
I.e.,  p.  227  f.  ;  Assemanni,  Chron.  Orient.,  p.  141.  It  would  appear 
that  Ludolf's  account  of  the  Jewish  intruders  and  the  Zagaean  line 
(bk.  ii,  c.  5,  p.  168  f.)  must  be  corrected  by  the  above-named  authors. 
But  all  is  dark  in  Ethiopia  ! 

2  Renaudot,  Hist.  Pat.,  I.e.,  pp.  381-3  ;  Basset,  p.  228  ;  Neale,  ii, 
pp.  197-8,  citing  Le  Quien,  Oriens  Christ.,  ii,  p.  650  ;    Assemanni,  I.e. 


126  NICHOLAS    IV. 

communication,  ecclesiastical  or  secular,  was  maintained 
between  the  Coptic  and  Abyssinian  Churches.  Writing 
at  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century,  Abu-Salih 
declares  that  "  the  fathers  and  patriarchs  (Coptic)  used 
to  write  letters  to  the  Kings  of  Abyssinia  and  Nubia  twice 
in  the  year  ".  The  last,  he  continues,  to  do  this  was  the 
sixty-fourth  patriarch  Zacharias ;  for  that  criminal 
lunatic  el-Hakem  (996-1021)  "  forbad  the  practice  which 
ceased  from  that  time  till  now  ".1 

If,  notwithstanding,  from  this  time  a  little  more 
information  has  reached  us  about  the  relations  between 
Axum  and  Alexandria,  it  is  still  confused,  and  reveals 
not  a  small  proportion  of  unworthy  occupants  of  both 
sees.  We  find  the  simoniacal  patriarch  Christodulos 
(Abd-el-Messiah,  1047-77)  prepared  to  recognize  one 
Cyril  or  Abdun,  who  had  intruded  himself  unconsecrated 
into  the  metropolitan  see  of  Abyssinia 2 ;  but  under 
Cyril  the  successor  of  Christodulos,  Abdun  was  driven 
from  his  position,  and  ultimately  beheaded  at  Cairo 
through  the  exertions  of  a  certain  Severus.  This  young 
man  had  secured  episcopal  consecration  from  Cyril 
through  the  influence  of  the  Moslem  vizir  which  he  had 
gained  by  money  and  by  promising  to  bring  the 
Abyssinians  under  the  yoke  of  the  Caliph  !  Once  in 
possession  of  the  position  of  Abuna  which  he  had  coveted, 
Severus  would  appear  to  have  conducted  himself  better 
than  might  have  been  expected.  At  any  rate,  he 
strove  to  stem  the  practice  of  concubinage  widely 
indulged  in  by  all  the  Abyssinians,  and  in  a  letter  seen 
by  Mauhub,  one  of  the  continuators  of  the  history  of 
Severus,  he  begged  the  patriarch  to  help  him  in  his 
efforts.  On  the  other  hand  he  made  himself  hated  by  the 
Abyssinians  by  his  efforts  to  build  mosques  for  the  Moslems.3 

1  The  Churches  and  Monasteries  of  Egypt,  p.  290.     Trans.  Evetts. 

2  Basset,  ib.  ;    Neale,  ii,  221-2  ;    Assemanni,  p.  143. 

3  Renaudot,  I.e.,  p.  461  f.  ;   Basset;  Neale,  pp.  224,  229;  Ass.,  p.  144. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  127 

After  another  wicked  patriarch,  Michael  (or  Chail)  IV.,  A  move  for 

,      ,  ....  .     .„  .  ,         . '  freedom, 

had  sent  another  iniquitous  monk  (George)  to  be  Abuna  1131-46. 
(1102),1  the  reigning  Negus  begged  his  metropolitan2  to 
increase  the  number  of  bishops  so  that  there  would  be 
at  least  ten,  and  they  could  then  constitute  a  metropolitan 
of  their  own.  This  the  Abuna  declared  he  could  not  do 
without  the  leave  of  the  patriarch  of  Alexandria.  To 
obtain  this  permission,  the  Negus  wrote  to  the  patriarch 
Gabriel  III.  (1 131-46),  and  also  to  the  Fatimite  Caliph, 
El-Hafiz.  The  Moslem  first  showed  himself  favourable 
to  the  request,  but  the  patriarch  caused  him  to  change 
his  mind  by  pointing  out  to  him  that  he  would  lose  what 
hold  he  had  on  Ethiopia,  if  the  petition  were  granted. 
"  Thus,"  concludes  Neale,  "  ignorance  and  heresy  were 
riveted  on  its  unfortunate  people."  3 

The  most  outstanding  figure  of  the  Zagaean  dynasty  Laiibaia, 
was  Laiibaia  (the  Lion),  whose  reign  may  safely  be  referred  century. 
to  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century.  He  also  at 
first  received  an  unworthy  Abuna  (Kilus,  bishop  of 
Fua),4  who  was  expelled  by  the  people  for  his  cruelty 
and  avarice  (c.  1209). 5  Laiibaia  is  remarkable  as  the 
builder  of  the  eleven  famous  rock-churches  of  Abyssinia. 
With  the  aid  of  "  white  men  "  from  Egypt,  for,  says 
Alvarez,   the   Abyssinians  well   know  that  they  cannot 

1  Basset,  p.  229  ;    Neale,  ii,  235  f.  ;    etc. 

2  Michael  or  Chail  sent  out  by  the  patriarch,  Macarius  II.  (1102-29). 

3  P.  248.     Cf.  Ass.,  p.  148. 

4  Writing  in  1203,  Abd  Allatif,  of  Baghdad,  who  had  a  relative  in 
Abyssinia,  says  that  in  August,  1200,  there  came  to  the  Caliph  of 
Egypt  an  ambassador  from  the  sovereign  of  Abyssinia,  with  a  letter 
notifying  the  death  of  the  patriarch  of  the  Abyssinians,  and  asking 
for  another  to  be  sent  in  his  stead.  The  letter  also  stated  that  the 
rains  had  been  but  scanty  that  year,  and  so  the  rise  of  the  Nile  had 
been  small,  Relation  de  I'Egypte,  p.  334,  ed.  Silvestre  de  Sacy,  Paris,  1810. 

5  The  continuator  of  Severus,  ap.  Renaudot,  pp.  562-3,  B.,  p.  229  f., 
and  N.,  ii,  p.  275  ff.  The  successor  of  Kilus  was  a  monk,  Isaac,  of  the 
laura  of  St.  Anthony,  and  according  to  Assemanni  in  his  notes  to  Ibn- 
Rahib,  he  was  consecrated  in  1209,  Chron.  Or.,  p.  150. 


128  NICHOLAS    IV. 

"  do  any  well  executed  work  " }  he  excavated  complete 
churches,  with  columns,  arches,  and  windows  with 
tracery  out  of  the  living  rock,  just  as  one  sees  at  Les 
Baux.2  The  king  himself  lies  buried  not  in  the  church 
which  bears  his  name,  but  in  one  known  as  Golgotha. 
In  another  named  Abba  Libanos,  built  by  the  widow  of 
Lalibala,  is  an  outline  portrait  of  the  famous  king.  The 
Abyssinians  were  evidently  attached  to  their  rock 
churches,  for  an  anonymous  German  chronicler  tells  us 
that  beneath  Mount  Calvary  they  cut  out  of  the  hard 
solid  rock  a  chapel  in  honour  of  the  Three  Kings.  But 
now,  he  adds  (writing  between  1364  and  1379),  the 
Moslems,  through  envy,  have  blocked  up  the  entrance 
to  it  with  stones.3  To  Lalibala,  too,  is  attributed  the 
idea  of  diverting  the  course  of  the  Nile  so  as  to  ruin 
Egypt,4  and  later  writers  go  so  far  as  to  assert  that  the 
Caliph  of  Egypt  paid  tribute  to  the  Negus  in  order  that 
he  might  not  "  shut  off  the  waters  and  cause  Egypt  to 
perish  ".5 

It  is  supposed  to  be  the  first  or  second  successor  of 
Lalibala,  who  under  the  advice  of  the  famous  Abuna, 

1  See  the  Jesuit  Alvarez's  Narrative  of  the  Portuguese  Embassy  to 
Abyssinia  (1520-7),  p.  130. 

2  Alvarez,  I.e.,  p.  122  ff.  Cf.  Castanhoso,  The  Portuguese  Expedition 
to  Abyssinia  (1541-3),  p.  95,  ed.  R.  S.  Whiteway  who,  on  p.  99  ff., 
gives  a  valuable  note  on  these  wonderful  churches.  He  says  that 
each  church  is  a  monolith,  and  that  the  largest  measures,  outside, 
110£  feet  by  77£  feet. 

3  Ap.  Golubovich,  Bib.  delta  T.  Santa,  ii,  p.  152. 

4  The  Egyptians  told  the  Jewish  traveller,  Benjamin  of  Tudela, 
in  1168,  that  the  flooding  of  the  Nile  was  due  to  rains  in  Abyssinia, 
and  indeed  such  is  the  fact.  P.  72,  ed.  Adler.  B.  also  notes  (ib.,  p.  76) 
that  Abyssinian  merchants  traded  in  Alexandria,  and  had  an  inn  of 
their  own  in  the  city.     About  the  Nile,  see  Bruce,  Abys.,  ii,  p.  454  ff. 

6  Cf.  The  traveller  Marignolli  (1338-53),  orig.  text  ap.  Golubovich, 
I.e.,  iv,  p.  275  ;  English  trans.,  with  interesting  note  in  Yule,  Cathay, 
iii,  p.  223.  Cf.  Makrizi,  A  Short  Hist,  of  the  Copts,  p.  93,  trans,  by 
S.  C.  Malan,  London,  1873.  It  is  n.  3  of  his  "  Original  Documents  of 
the  Coptic  Church  ". 


NICHOLAS    IV.  129 

Tekla-Haimanot,  yielded  up  the  imperial  power  to  a 
descendant  of  Del  Na'ad,  and  so  restored  the  dynasty 
of  Solomon   (1268). 1 

Our   brief   survey   of   the   history   of   the   Church   in  European 
Ethiopia  has  brought  us  down  to  that  wonderful  thirteenth  Abyssinia*  in 
century  in   which   such   great   progress   was   made   not  the 

1  •*  !  1  1  1  •  -i  thlrteenth 

only  in  philosophy,  theology,  and  art,  but  in  practical  century. 
knowledge  of  the  earth  on  which  we  live.  The  Crusades 
had  riveted  the  gaze  on  each  other  of  East  and  West, 
they  had  caused  greater  attention  to  be  given  by  the 
Western  to  the  land  and  sea  routes  to  the  East,  and  they 
had  expanded  the  field  of  commerce.  The  Western 
merchant  proved  himself  as  enterprising  and  as  daring 
as  the  Western  knight,  and  if  the  latter  captured  Moslem 
territory,  the  former  captured  much  of  his  trade.2 
Matthew  of  Paris  declares  that  Frederick  II.  was  "  friendly 
with  all  the  Sultans  of  the  Orient  "  and  that  his  trading 
agents  (institores)  went  even  to  India.3  Among  his 
guards,  too,  we  are  told,  there  were  Ethiopians  as  well 
as  Saracens.4  At  the  same  period  Germanus  II.,  the  Greek 
patriarch  of  Constantinople,  knew  of  the  "  Ethiopians 
who  dwell  on  the  confines  of  the  Orient — in  prima  parte 
Orientis  ". 5  Travellers,  like  Marco  Polo,  began  to  describe 
Abyssinia,  and  to  tell  of  its  Christian  ruler  and  of  some 
of  its  religious  customs.6  "Nubians"  and  "immense 
numbers "  of  Abyssinians,  in  the  thirteenth  century, 
went  on  pilgrimages  to  Jerusalem,  etc.7  Their  centre  in 
Jerusalem  was  the  famous  "  white  monastery "  of 
Scenuti.  Already,  about  the  year  1187,  Saladin  had 
granted  the  Abyssinians  a  site  in  Jerusalem  near  that  of 

1  Chron.,  p.  98,  ed.  Basset.     Cf.  ib.,  pp.  231-2  ;    Bruce,  Abyssinia, 
vol.  ii,  p.  457  f.,  ed.  1805. 

2  Cf.  Beazley,  Dawn  of  Mod.  Geog.,  ii,  p.  462  n. 

3  Chron.  maj.,  v,  p.  217,  R.  S. 

4  Supra,  vol.  xiii,  p.  251.  5  Mat.  Par.,  CM.,  iii,  p.  460. 
6  Travels,  Lib.  iii,  c.  38,  al.  39.           7  Ib. 

Vol.  XVII.  k 


130  NICHOLAS    IV. 

the  Copts.1  The  Crusader,  Robert  de  Clery,  in  1204, 
tells  of  the  arrival  in  Constantinople  of  "  the  King  of 
Nubia",  i.e.,  no  doubt,  Abyssinia,  who  had  been  on  a 
pilgrimage  to  Jerusalem,  and  was  on  his  way  to  Rome 
and  to  St,  James  of  Compostela,  He  was  black,  and, 
says  Robert,  he  explained  that  the  cross  that  was  branded 
on  his  forehead  had,  in  accordance  with  the  custom  of 
his  country,  been  done  when  he  had  been  baptized.2 
This  custom  is  alluded  to  by  Marco  Polo,3  and  many 
subsequent  travellers,  and  is  no  doubt  referred  to  in  the 
Abyssinian  Code,  the  Fetha  Nagast.*  Christian  merchants 
who  went  to  Alexandria  and  Cairo  must  have  come  into 
contact  with  Abyssinians  in  these  places.  In  the  twelfth 
century  (1168),  the  Jewish  traveller,  Benjamin  of  Tudela, 
found  Abyssinian  merchants  with  an  inn  of  their  own 
in  Alexandria,5  and  we  read  of  Coptic  patriarchs  being 

1  So  says  Rossini,  p.  17,  in  "  Egitto  ed  Etiopia  "  in  Mgyptus  of 
1922,  quoting  H.  Duensing,  "  Die  Abesinier  in  Jerusalem  "  in  Zeitschr. 
des   Paldstina-Vereins,    1910,  pp.    100-1. 

a  La  Prise  de  Constantinople,  c.  54,  p.  45,  ed.  C.  Hopf,  Chron.  Grec- 
Rom.  "  Si  vint  illueques  un  rois  qui  toute  avoit  le  char  noire,  et  avoit 
un  enmi  le  front,  qui  li  avoit  este  faite  d'un  caut  fer,  etc."  We  say 
"  Abyssinia "  here  because  "  Nubia "  had  become  largely  Moslem 
about  1145.  Cf.  Alvarez,  Embassy,  c.  79.  Alvarez,  ib.,  cc.  83,  127-8, 
found  that  the  pilgrimage  to  Jerusalem  was  a  tradition  with  the 
Ethiopians.  It  is,  as  we  have  just  noted,  generally  stated  that  Nubia 
lost  its  independence  and  became  Moslem  about  the  middle  of  the 
twelfth  century.  This  statement  is,  however,  not  true  for  all  Nubia. 
Makrizi,  Hist,  des  Sultans  Mamlouks,  ii,  pt.  i,  p.  108,  states  that  Sema- 
mun,  King  of  Dongola,  was  still  independent  in  1290.  Moreover, 
Abdorrashid,  known  as  Yakuti  (Bakui)  in  his  Geographie  (ed.  de 
Guignes,  ap.  Notices  et  extraits  des  MSS.,  vol.  ii,  p.  396),  calling  Nubia, 
a  vast  country  south  of  Egypt,  and  east  and  west  of  the  Nile,  says  that 
its  numerous  inhabitants  are  Christians,  and  that  they  have  a  king 
whom  they  call  Kabil.  He  also  speaks  of  Dancala  (Dongola),  "  a  great 
city  of  Nubia  on  the  Nile  where  the  people  are  Jacobite  Christians," 
p.  399.     The  Geog.  was  drawn  up  in  the  fifteenth  century. 

3  L.c. 

4  When  it  says,  p.  528,  that  the  Ethiopians  and  Nubians  tattoo  the 
face.  «  p.  76,  ed.  Adler. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  131 

buried  at  Cairo  "  in  the  Church  of  the  Abyssinians  " } 
and  of  there  being  in  that  city  a  barracks  of  Abyssinian 
guards,  and  Abyssinian  monks  and  others.2 

Accordingly,  when,  fired  by  the  example  of  their  Popes  send 
glorious  founder,  the  Franciscans  wished  to  go  every-  AbyssiSa? 
where  to  convert  the  infidel  or  to  win  from  him  the  crown  1245  ff- 
of  martyrdom,  it  is  not  surprising  to  find  that  some  of 
them  should  want  to  go  to  Abyssinia  where  there  were 
many  Moslems,  and  not  a  few  pagans  as  well  as 
schismatical  Christians.  Their  desire  was  granted,  and 
Innocent  IV.  sent  both  Franciscans  and  Dominicans  not 
only  to  Nubia  but  also  to  the  country  of  the  Ethiopians.3 
It  is,  moreover,  asserted  that  Alexander  IV.,4  Nicholas 
III.  and  IV.,5  Innocent  V.,  Clement  IV.  and  V.,  Urban  IV., 
Boniface  VIII.,6  Benedict  XI.,  and  John  XXII.  "all 
wrote  letters  to  the  Emperor  of  Ethiopia."  7  At  any  rate, 
in  the  very  first  year  of  his  pontificate,  Nicholas  IV. 
began  to  take  steps  to  bring  back  the  Abyssinians  to  the 
one  fold  of  Christ,  and  in  the  following  year  we  see  him 
addressing  a  letter  "  to  the  illustrious  Emperor  of 
Ethiopia ".  He  explained  to  him  that,  inasmuch  as, 
though  unworthy,  he  occupied  the  place  of  Christ  on  earth, 
it  was  his  duty  to  strive  that  all  should  enter  heaven  by 
the  way  established  by  Christ,  i.e.,  by  the  way  of  the 

1  Chron.  Orient.,  pp.  96,  99,  and  Michael  of  Tanis,  ap.  Assemanni, 
ib.,  p.   142. 

2  Assemanni,  ib.  See  also  The  Churches  and  Monasteries  of  Egypt, 
p.  87,  of  the  Armenian  Abu-Salih,  thirteenth  century,  trans,  by  B. 
Evetts,  Oxford,  1895. 

3  Reg.  Inn.  IV.,  nn.  1362,  7753,  letters  addressed  to  the  friars  in 
the  lands   "  Ethyopum  .   .   .  Nubianorum,   etc." 

4  See  the  bull  of  Alex.  IV.  (Apr.  19,  1258,  ap.  Wadding,  Annal., 
iv,  p.  84),  granting  various  privileges  to  the  Franciscans  working  in 
Bulgaria,  Ethiopia,   etc. 

6  Reg.  Nich.  IV.,  n.  611,  Sept.  3,  1288. 

6  Reg.  Bonif.  VIII.,  n.  3355. 

7  Such,  says  Beazley,  Dawn  of  Mod.  Geog.,  iii,  p.  497,  is  the  state- 
ment of  Nicolo  Fortignera  to  Benedict  XIII.  (1394-1417). 


132  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Catholic  faith,  which  the  Roman  Church  ever  guarded. 
The  Emperor  was  therefore  exhorted  to  work  for  union 
with  that  Church.1  Similarly,  the  Archbishop  (Abuna), 
bishops,  and  people  of  Abyssinia,  were  invited  to  enter  the 
unity  of  the  Catholic  Church.2  Just  two  years  later,  his 
register  shows  that  Nicholas  was  still  working  for  the  return 
of  Ethiopia  to  the  communion  of  the  Roman  Church.3 

If  aity  results  followed  these  efforts  of  Nicholas  IV. ,  no 
John  of  Piano  Carpini  has  given  us  any  account  of  them. 
Some  modern  writers,  indeed,  unduly  sceptical,  believe 
that  with  the  Popes  of  the  thirteenth  century  there  is 
question  of  "  Asiatic  ",  and  not  of  African  Ethiopia. 
However  that  may  be,  it  would  appear  that  in  the 
fourteenth  century,  at  any  rate,  the  Popes  in  their 
letters  about  Ethiopia,  referred  to  African  Ethiopia  or 
Abyssinia.  That  country  is  assigned  its  proper  position 
on  the  map  of  Marino  Sanudo  which  appeared  in  the 
first  quarter  of  that  century.4  He  knows  "  of  the 
Christian  blacks  of  Nubia  and  of  other  countries  beyond 
upper  Egypt  "  ;  that  they  were  Jacobites,  and  that 
before  baptism  they  were  branded  on  the  forehead — some 
with  the  sign  of  the  cross.5  The  zealous  Dominican 
missionary,  Jordan  of  Severac,  had  often  talked  about 
this  interesting  land  "with  Latin  merchants".6     They 

1  Ep.  July  11,   1289,  ap.  Wadding,  Ann.,  v,  p.  201. 

2  Reg.  Nich.  IV.,  nn.  2218-39,  Potth.,  n.  23002. 

3  Reg.,  n.  6735,  Aug.  13,  1291. 

4  Printed  ap.  Bongars,  Gesta  Dei  per  Francos,  Tab.  i,  Abyssinia 
(Habesse  et  terra  nigrorum)  is  correctly  placed  in  connection  with 
the  Red  Sea,  the  Nile,  Aden,  Lower  Ethiopia,  Nubia,  etc. 

6  See  his  Secreta  fidelium  Cruris,  ap.  ib.,  vol.  ii,  pp.  36,  184-5.  Cf. 
p.  261. 

6  See  two  letters  of  his,  one  from  Gogo,  a  port  of  Gujarat  (Oct.  12, 
1321),  ap.  Echard,  Script.  Ord.  Praed.,  i,  550,  and  the  other  from 
Tana  near  Bombay  (Jan.  24,  1323-4)  in  Wadding,  vi,  359  ff.  English 
versions  of  them  may  be  read  in  Yule,  Cathay,  iii,  p.  75  ff.,  ed.  1914. 
In  his  Mirabilia,  p.  89,  ed.  Cordier,  1925,  he  says  he  has  seen  and 
known  many  of  the  people  of  Ethiopia. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  I33 

had  assured  him  that  "  the  way  to  Ethiopia  was  open 
for  anyone  who  wished  to  go  and  preach  there  ",  and 
he  himself  had  prayed  that  he  might  not  die  till  he  had 
been  "  a  pilgrim  for  the  faith  in  those  regions  '\1  A  year 
or  two  later,  Jordan  again  returns  to  the  subject  of 
Ethiopia,  and  declares  that  it  was  a  very  suitable  place 
for  some  friars  to  be  sent  to.2  But  it  is  in  his  Mirabilia 
that  he  sets  forth  in  detail  what  he  had  heard  of  gold- 
bearing  Ethiopia,  of  its  people  "  wholly  Christian  but 
heretical  ",  and  of  its  mighty  Negus  who  ruled  over 
fifty- two  kings,  and  was  the  real  Prester  John.3  Another 
Dominican,  William  of  Adam  (f  1329),  who  knew  "  the 
true  Ethiopia  ",  beyond  the  mountains  opposite  Eden,4 
and  had  been  in  the  island  of  Socotra  for  some  time, 
also  wished  to  preach  the  faith  in  Ethiopia  (1317),5  for 
he  was,  he  said,  full  of  compassion  for  so  great  a 
people  who  were  totally  cut  off  "  from  the  knowledge 
of  our  contemporaries".6  William's  promotion  to  the 
archiepiscopal  see  of  Sultanieh  (Oct.  6,  1322)  7  prevented 
him  from  putting  his  wish  into  execution. 

1  The  first  letter. 

2  The  sec.  letter  "  Et  secundum  audita,  via  esset  gloriosa  per  fidei 
dilatationem  ". 

3  The  Mirabilia  has  been  published  in  the  Recueil  des  Voyages, 
vol.  iv,  1839,  and  an  English  translation  of  it  by  Yule  (Hakluyt  Society, 
1863),  Jordan  and  Marignolli  (ap.  Yule,  Cathay,  iii,  p.  223)  were  the 
first  to  make  the  mistake  of  locating  Prester  John  in  Africa  instead  of 
in  Asia.  The  mistake  had  been  prepared  for  them  as  it  was  current  in 
Egypt  that  "  all  the  Kings  of  Abyssinia  are  priests  ".  Abu-Salih, 
Churches  of  Egypt,  p.  286. 

4  See  his  "  De  modo  Saracenos  extirpandi  ",  ap.  Recueil  des  histor. 
des  Croisades,  Docs.  Armen.,  vol.  ii,  p.  549,  Paris,  1906.  This  valuable 
pamphlet  is  analysed  in  Delaville  de  Roulx  in  his  France  en  Orient, 
i,  p.  70  ff. 

5  lb.,  p.  555. 

6  P.  551.  Cf.  the  very  valuable  work  of  C.  B.  de  la  Ronciere,  La 
decouverte  de  I'Afrique  au  moyen  age,  2  vols.,  Cairo,  1925. 

7  See  the  bull  of  John  XXII.  printed  by  C.  Kohler,  "  Documents 
relatifs  a  S.  Adam,"  ap.  Revue  de  I'Orient  Latin,  1905,  p.  29  ff. 


134  NICHOLAS    IV. 

John  xxii.  It  would  seem,  then,  that  if  the  Friars  did  not  penetrate 
tonAbyfssfmSa. into  Abyssinia  in  the  days  of  Nicholas  IV.  they  did  in 
the  days  of  John  XXII.  (1316-34),  in  whose  time  Jordan 
was  praying  that  it  might  fall  to  his  lot  to  preach  there. 
It  is  said  that  in  1316,  eight  Dominicans,  "  having  kissed 
the  feet  of  Pope  John  XXII."  and  visited  the  Holy 
Land,  after  a  long  and  toilsome  journey  through  Egypt 
and  Nubia,  reached  the  Ethiopians  and  Abyssinians. 

Among  these,  they  reconciled  many  to  the  Church. 
They  even  enrolled  some  of  the  converts,  including  one 
of  the  princes,  in  their  Order,  and  to  keep  the  converts 
in  the  faith,  even  appointed  the  royal  friar  as  Inquisitor.1 
John  xxii.       Encouraged  by  the  reports   which  he  received  from 
to  the  Negus,  different  parts  of  the  mission  field,   Pope  John  XXII. 
1329.  backed  up  the  missionary  enterprise  of  the  friars  with 

all  his  wonted  energy.  Wadding  assures  us  that,  in  the 
year  1329,  he  sent  a  large  number  of  Franciscans  and 
Dominicans  to  Georgia,  Persia,  and  other  countries,  and 
also  to  Ethiopia.2  He  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Negus  of 
Abyssinia,  exhorting  him  to  enter  the  one  fold  of  Christ, 
and  to  place  himself  and  his  people  under  its  one  shepherd. 
He  wished  him  that  "  grace  now  which  leads  to  future 
glory  ".3  The  sovereign  to  whom  this  letter  was  addressed 
must  have  been  Amda-Syon  (1312-42),  a  man  of  grossly 
sensual  habits,4  but  valiant  and  generous.  Accordingly, 
when  under  the  Mameluke  Sultan,  Nasir,  the  Christians 
of  Egypt  were  badly  persecuted,5  he  did  not  hesitate  to 

1  Cf.  Fontana,  Monument.  Dominic,  p.  172,  Rome,  1675.  He  refers 
to  L.  de  Paramo,  De  S.  Inquisitione,  tit.  2,  c.  19. 

2  Annates,  ad  an.  1329,  n.  11. 

3  lb.,  vol.  vii,  103  ;  Raynaldus,  an.  1329,  n.  98  ad  fin.  Neither 
of  these  authors  gives  the  actual  text  of  the  letter  to  the  Negus,  but 
the  latter  says  it  was  of  the  same  import  as  that  addressed  to  the 
Emperor  of  Trebizond,  which  is  given  by  Wadding,  I.e.,  p.  100. 

4  See  the  Ethiopian  chronicle,  ap.  Basset,  I.e.,  pp.  99,  100,  or  Bruce, 
vol.  iii,  p.  41. 

5  Cf.  Muir,  The  Mameluke  Dynasty,  p.  74. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  135 

threaten  reprisals,  and  to  stop  the  overflow  of  the  Nile.1 
What  effect  the  threats  of  Amda  may  have  produced  is 
not  known  ;  but  we  do  know  from  Makrizi,2  that  the 
Caliphs  of  Egypt  kept  always  under  arms  a  body  of  men 
to  resist  attacks  from  the  Abyssinians  as  well  as  from 
the  Nubians  and  Negroes.  Certainly  among  the  Egyptians 
of  this  period  there  was  a  wholesome  respect  for  the 
power  of  the  Negus.  They  regarded  him  as  "  the  fourth 
of  the  Kings  of  the  earth,  and  no  King  on  earth  is  strong 
enough  to  resist  him  ".3 

Circumstances  during  the  reign  of  Amda-Syon  were 
favourable  to  Catholic  missionaries.  The  saintly  Abuna 
Takla-Haimanot  (f  c.  1282)  had  recently  reformed 
monasticism  in  Abyssinia  ;  and  we  read  in  the  Ethiopic 
annals  that  his  spiritual  son  enrolled  in  its  ranks  a 
number  of  men,  whom  they  designate  as  "  stars  "  and 
who  reflected  great  credit  on  the  monastic  life.4  Such 
men  would  welcome  the  zealous  friars,  while  they  must 
have  regarded  with  horror  the  corrupt  state  of  the  Coptic 
Church.  Of  this  we  may  form  some  idea  from  Makrizi's 
description  of  the  "  Feast  of  Martyrs  ",  which  was  so 
disreputable  that,  for  a  time  (1302-38),  it  was  even 
stopped  by  the  Moslems.  According  to  this  writer,  the 
Copts  believed  that  there  would  be  no  satisfactory  over- 
flow of  the  Nile  unless  they  dipped  into  it  a  relic  case 
containing  the  finger  of  a  certain  martyr.  This  ceremony 
took  place  on  April  8,  "  the  feast  of  the  Martyrs,"  and 
was  made  the  occasion  of  a  great  fete.  The  whole  Coptic 
population  from  Cairo  and  the  district  round  flocked  to 
the  banks  of  the  Nile  at  Choubra,  a  suburb  of  the 
city,  set  up  tents,  and  for  days  shamelessly  abandoned 

1  Makrizi,  Mem.  sur  I'Egypte,  ii,  p.  275,  ed.  Quatremere,  ap.  Basset, 
p.  233. 

2  Descript.  de  I'Egypte,  p.  76,  ed.  W.  Bouriaut,  Paris,  1895. 

3  Abu-Salih,  The  Churches  and  Monasteries  of  Egypt,  p.  286. 

4  Ed.  Basset,  p.  99. 


I36  NICHOLAS    IV. 

themselves  to  every  form  of  vice.     As  much  as  a  hundred 

thousand    dirhems   of   silver   would   be   spent   on   wine 

alone,  and  the  people  of  Choubra  reckoned  to  make  as 

much  profit  on  its  sale  as  to  pay  all  their  taxes.    But  at 

length,  in  1355,  the  Moslem  authorities,  having  destroyed 

the  Church  where  it  was  kept,  publicly  burnt  the  finger, 

and  "  from  that  day  to  this  ",  concludes  Makrizi,  "  the 

Feast   of   the    Martyrs    has — to   God    be    glory — never 

again  been  celebrated."  x 

Bishop  Bar-      It  was  during  the  temporary  suspension  of  the  Feast 

TivoH™      °  °*  the  Martyrs,  and  during  the  pontificate  of  John  XXII., 

that  the  Dominican  friar,  Bartholomew  of  Tivoli,  was 

consecrated  in  Rome  bishop  of  Dongola,  the  then  chief 

city  of   Nubia.      Before   proceeding  to   his  destination, 

Bartholomew,  with  two  other  Dominican  priests,  went  on 

a  pilgrimage  to  Jerusalem   (1330).     We  have  just  seen 

other  missionaries  for  Abyssinia  doing  the  same ;   and  it 

may  be  that  they  went  to  Jerusalem,  not  only  to  confirm 

their  faith,  but  to  meet  there  "  men  from  Ethiopia  who 

are  blacker  than  charcoal  ".2    With  information  obtained 

from  them,  Bartholomew  and  his  companions  set  out  for 

Egypt,   and  after  much  fatigue  and  suffering,  they  at 

length   reached   Abyssinia.      There,    we   are   told,    they 

converted    many    infidels,    and    brought    back     many 

Christians  to  their  duty.    They  ordained  priests,  and  built 

1  Descript.  de  I'Egypte,  c.  22,  p.  194  ff.  It  is  only  fair  to  remind 
the  reader  that  this  scene  is  painted  by  a  Moslem. 

2  Viaggio  in  terra  santa  (1395),  p.  43,  ed.  F.  Z.,  Bologna,  1867.  Cf. 
the  testimony  of  Friar  James  of  Verona  in  1335,  Liber  peregrinationis, 
ap.  Golubovich,  Bib.  dell'  Oriente,  iv,  p.  33,  where,  speaking  of  the 
different  Christian  bodies  that  said  Mass  in  the  basilica  of  the  Valley 
of  Josaphat,  he  enumerates  the  Nubians  and  Abyssinians  "  who  are 
black,  like  the  Nubians  ".  Cf.  ib.,  p.  21,  for  their  presence  in  Jerusalem. 
Cf.  pp.  237-8.  Towards  the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century,  too,  the 
worthy  Russian  archimandrite,  Grethenios,  politely  records  as  present 
in  Jerusalem,  besides  "  the  orthodox  Greeks  ",  also  "  the  accursed  .  .  . 
Latins  .  .  .  Abyssinians,  etc."  Cf.  Khitrowo,  I  liner  aires  russes  en 
Orient,  p.   173,  Geneva,  1889.. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  137 

and  repaired  churches.  Further,  "  to  render  more  lasting 
his  labours  among  the  Abyssinians  of  Ethiopia — a  country 
ruled  by  the  Emperor  '  Gran  Neguz  ',  wrongly  called 
Pretegianni  (Prester  John) — Bartholomew  built  a  famous 
convent  called  Alleluia,  because  Angels  were  often  heard 
singing  Alleluia  whilst  it  was  being  built."  *  It  is  said 
that  this  monastery  became  very  famous,  and  that  in 
the  sixteenth  century  it  was  visited  by  a  son  of  the  Sultan 
of  Fez  and  Morocco,  when  on  a  pilgrimage  to  Mecca. 
He  was  so  edified  by  the  piety  of  the  religious  that 
he  became  a  Christian,  and  then  a  Dominican,  and, 
says  the  authority  we  are  quoting,  was  still  alive 
in  1606. 2 

During  the  pontificate  of  John  XXII.,  the  prospects  Mission  from 
of  universal  diffusion  of  the  faith  were  most  hopeful.  thl  p^f 
With  missions  all  over  Asia  even  to  China,  and  in  1351- 
Africa  even  to  Ethiopia,  the  supreme  pontiff  was  then 
indeed  recognized  even  to  the  ends  of  the  earth.  The 
"  Society  of  friars  travellers  for  Jesus  Christ  "  had  been 
organized  under  a  special  head,3  and  more  system  had 
been  introduced  into  their  work.  But,  unfortunately, 
before  the  close  of  the  century,  their  heroic  labours  were 
nearly  all  undone.  In  China,  their  missions  were  destroyed 
by  the  overthrow  of  the  Mongol  dynasty  ;  in  Asia  by  the 
ravages  of  the  terrible  Tamerlane  ;  and  in  Ethiopia  by 
an  accentuation  of  the  perennial  difficulty  of  communica- 
tion. This  increased  difficulty  of  intercourse  with 
Ethiopia  was  one  of  the  results  of  the  terrible  Black 
Death  which  swept  over  Europe,  Asia,   and  Africa  in 

1  Such  are  the  words  of  the  Dominican,  F.  M.  Cavalieri,  in  his 
Galleria  dei  Sommi  Pontefici,  arcivescovi,  etc.,  i,  p.  137  f.,  Benevento, 
1696. 

2  lb.  The  same  author  says  that  bishop  Bartholomew  died  about 
1350. 

3  Cf.  Mortier,  Hist,  des  Maitres  Generaux,  ii,  p.  495  ff.,  and  especially 
a  dissertation  "  De  congregatione  peregrinantium  propter  Christum  " 
in  Masetti,  Mon.  ord.  prcedicatorum,  i,  p.  454  ff.,  Rome,  1864. 


I38  NICHOLAS    IV. 

1348-9,  and  wrought  special  havoc  among  priests  and 
religious  who  with  heroic  courage  attended  the  plague- 
stricken.  Contemporary  writers,  probably  indeed  with 
some  exaggeration,  have  set  down  most  terrifying  figures 
when  they  treat  of  the  mortality  in  the  great  cities.1 
Here  we  will  merely  give  a  few  figures  relating  to  religious. 
In  a  Franciscan  convent  of  sixty  friars  in  Messina  (Sicily), 
half  of  them  were  carried  off  in  a  brief  space.2  In  the 
same  city,  all  the  Carmelites,  and  all  the  Franciscan 
hermits  perished.3  At  Marseilles  all  the  Friars  Minors 
died.4  But  there  is  no  need  to  continue  this  list,  for  the 
records  of  most  of  the  city  monastic  houses,  especially, 
have  the  same  story  to  tell.  After  such  a  phenomenal 
mortality,  there  were  not  enough  religious  left  to  do 
what  was  expected  of  them  in  their  own  neighbourhood, 
let  alone  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  new  missions.  We 
will  but  further  quote  on  this  subject  a  letter  of 
Clement  VI.,  dated  March  6,  1349,  in  order  to  show  how 
the  Oriental  missions  suffered  from  the  dread  pestilence.5 
From  this  document  which  is  addressed  to  the  Vicar- 
General  of  the  Dominican  Order,  and  to  the  "  Reader  " 
in  theology  in  the  Apostolic  Palace,  it  appears  that  in 
Persia  out  of  fifteen  Dominican  houses  (where  there  were 
only  three  survivors)  and  as  many  of  other  religious 
Orders,  no  priests  at  all  were  left  to  look  after  "the 
copious  multitude  of  the  faithful  "  in  those  parts.  The 
survivors,  believing  that  their  Order  was,  at  the  time, 

1  See  the  chapter  on  "La  Peste  "  in  Mortier,  Hist,  des  Maitres  gin., 
iii,  p.  254  ff. 

2  John  of  Vitoduranus,  Chron.,  ap.  Eccard,  Corpus,  i,  1925. 

3  lb.,  p.  1927. 

4  Henry  of  Hervodia,  Chron.,  p.  269,  ed.  Potthast. 

5  It  is  quoted  in  full  in  Mortier,  I.e.,  pp.  262-3.  In  connection  with 
it,  we  may  note  that  like  most  papal  letters  of  this  period,  it  is  very 
badly  constructed  in  that  it  consists  of  only  two  long  rambling  sentences. 
Even  in  our  own  days  papal  letters  are  at  times  models  of  all  that 
such  documents  ought  not  to  be. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  139 

without  a  Master-General,  had  turned  to  the  Pope,  and 
had  asked  him  to  provide  suitable  labourers. 

It  may  be  that  it  was  to  make  the  same  request,  that 
the  Negus  in  135 1  sent  an  important  embassy  to  the 
same  Pope  Clement  VI.  It  may,  of  course,  have  been 
that  the  Ethiopic  ruler  wanted  Crusaders  to  help  him 
against  the  Moslems  of  Egypt.1  At  any  rate,  whatever 
was  his  motive,  the  anonymous  German  traveller  we 
have  already  quoted  tells  us  that  the  Negus,  whom  he 
also  wrongly  styled  Prester  John,  sent  some  of  his 
family  and  other  envoys  to  the  Roman  court.2 

Whatever  were  the  subjects  discussed  by  Clement  VI. 
and  the  Abyssinians,  we  may  be  sure  that  the  fact  that 
an  embassy  from  Ethiopia  had  been  able  to  get  to  the 
Pope  caused  anxiety  to  the  Sultans  of  Egypt.  We  know, 
from  the  author  we  have  just  cited,  that  they  kept  the 
closest  watch  on  the  Red  Sea,  so  that  no  communication 
might  pass  between  the  Princes  of  Europe  and  Abyssinia.3 
They  feared  an  alliance  between  the  Franks  and  the 
Ethiopians.4 

Either  the  Sultan  of  Egypt,  or  the  Plague,  or  both,  No  further 

,  r  .  communica- 

would  appear  to  have  been  successful  in  stopping  any  tion  in  our 
further  religious  or  political  intercourse  between  the  ^™^  wlth 
Pope  and  the  Negus  to  the  close  of  the  period  with 

1  Cf.  John  of  Vitoduranus,  Chron.,  1341,  ap.  Eccard,  Corpus,  i, 
p.  1868,  or  Golubovich,  I.e.,  ii,  p.  147.  According  to  the  Ethiopic 
chronicle  published  by  Basset,  p.  100,  one  cause  of  war  at  this  period 
between  Egypt  and  Ethiopia  was  the  fact  that  the  Sultan  had 
imprisoned  Martin  IV.,  patriarch  of  Alexandria  (1348-63). 

2  "  De  quorum  semine  (Pester  John)  anno  dni.  1351,  ibidem  strenui 
principes  fuerunt  supe  stites  in  curia  Romana  et  ambasiatores." 
Ap.  Golubovich,  I.e.,  ii,  p.  152.  Basset,  I.e.,  p.  243,  quoting  Codigni, 
De  Abbassinorum  rebus,  p.  177,  Lyons,  1615,  says  the  Ethiopians  had 
already  sent  a  mission  to  Clement  V. 

3  lb.,  c.  10,  p.  151. 

4  Cf.  Alvarez,  Embassy,  cc.  102  and  114.  Cf.  Fra  Niccol6  da 
Poggibonsi,  Libro  dei  Santuari  d'oltre  mare  (1345),  ii,  277.  Bologna, 
1881,  ap.  De  la  Ronciere,  La  decouverte,  i,  67,  ii,  111. 


14°  NICHOLAS    IV. 

which  we  purpose  to  concern  ourselves,  i.e.,  up  to  the 
pontificate  of  Martin  V.  (1417).  We  must,  apparently, 
wait  till  the  reign  of  the  Negus,  Zara  Yacob,  or  Constantine 
(1434-68),  and  the  pontificate  of  Eugenius  IV.  before 
Rome  and  Abyssinia  get  in  touch  again.  In  their 
days,  the  question  of  the  reunion  of  the  Churches  was 
much  to  the  fore.  It  was  treated  of  at  the  Council  of 
Ferrara-Florence-Rome  (1438-45).  Representatives  of 
the  different  schismatical  bodies,  Greeks,  Armenians, 
Chaldeans,  etc.,  appeared  before  the  Council  in  one  or 
other  of  the  places  at  which  it  met.  The  arrival  in  Rome 
of  the  envoys  of  the  Copts  and  the  Abyssinians  made  a 
sensation,  as  is  clear  from  an  entry  in  the  brief  diary  of 
Paolo  dello  Mastro  of  the  Ponte  quarter.  "  I,  Paul, 
remember  that  in  the  year  1441,  October  9,  an  abbot 
(Andrew)  of  St.  Anthony  in  Egypt,  who  was  a  great  lord 
of  Prester  John  (Prete  Givanni) ,  with  a  company  of  twelve 
monks  came  to  Rome.  When  they  entered  the  gate  of 
the  city,  they  were  escorted  by  the  Castellan  of  St.  Angelo 
and  the  Conservators  of  the  City.  They  accompanied 
them  to  the  Church  of  St.  Blaise,  and  then  the  heads  of 
the  different  quarters  of  Rome  (the  Caporioni)  escorted 
them  to  St.  Lorenzo  in  Damaso.  .  .  .  They  were 
Christians  of  the  fire."  x 

Before  this,  they  had  appeared  before  the  Pope  and 
the  Council  at  Florence  (Sept.  2,  1441),  and  their  spokes- 
man had  declared  that  nowhere  was  the  Pope  held  more 
in  honour  than  in  the  great  Empire  of  Ethiopia.  There 
men  kissed  the  feet  of  his  legates,  and  tore  their  garments 

1  Paolo  di  Benedetto  di  Cola  dello  Mastro,  Memorials,  p.  9,  ed.  A. 
De-Antonis,  Rome,  1875.  Cf.  also  the  Miscellanea  Hist.,  of  Paul, 
the  son  of  L.  Petronius,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  xxiv,  p.  1124.  They  were 
called  "  Christians  of  the  fire  "  because,  as  we  have  seen,  they  were 
branded  at  their  baptism.  These  envoys  had  come  by  Jerusalem  where 
also  they  had  made  a  sensation.  See  a  letter  to  the  Pope  ap.  M.  de 
Civezza,  Storia  delle  Missioni,  iv,  607  ff . 


NICHOLAS    IV.  141 

to  keep  them  as  relics.  The  Queen  of  Sheba  and  Queen 
Candace  were  among  the  glories  of  their  country.  All 
the  Churches  that  were  separated  from  Rome  had  been 
ruined  except  that  of  Abyssinia  ;  and  the  reason  that  it 
was  spared  was  that  its  estrangement  from  Rome  was 
due,  not  to  rebellion,  but  to  distance,  and  even  to  the 
negligence  of  some  of  the  Popes  themselves  who  had  not 
sent  them  legates.1 

The  outcome  of  the  discussions  at  the  Council  was  the 
union,  temporary  only  for  the  most  part,  of  the  Greeks, 
Armenians,  Copts,  Ethiopians,  etc.,  with  the  mother 
Church  of  Rome  ;  and,  a  little  later  under  Sixtus  IV. 
(1471-84),  the  establishment,  at  S.  Stefano  (degli 
Abissini  or  dei  Mori),  at  the  back  of  St.  Peter's,  of  a  hospice 
and  monastery  for  Abyssinians.2 

1  Hardouin,  Condi.,  t.  ix,  p.  1031  ff.,  ap.  Hefele,  Concil.,  vii,  pt.  i, 
p.  1085  ff.,  ed.  Leclercq,  Paris,  1916. 

2  Hence  the  locality  of  the  College  came  to  be  known  as  "in  ^Egypto". 
Cf.  R.  Lanciani,  Notes  topograph,  de  burgo  S.  Petri,  pp.  234,  238-9 
(Estratto,  1923).  Cf.  on  the  church,  Armellini,  Le  chiese  di  Roma, 
p.  750  ff.  The  article  needs  some  corrections.  The  first  opening  of 
the  College  (reopened  for  Abyssinians,  1919)  is  assigned  to  this  period 
by  Basset,  I.e.,  p.  243.  Cf.  especially,  M.  Chaine,  Un  monastere 
Ethiopien  a  Rome,  Beyrout,  1910. 


CHAPTER    III. 

SICILY. 

Efforts  for     jN  ^  attitude  towards  the  Sicilian  question  Nicholas 

the  release  ^ 

of  Charles  of  followed  exactly  the  policy  of  his  predecessor.  He 
refused  to  acknowledge  the  claims  of  James  and  Alfonso 
to  the  thrones  respectively  of  Sicily  and  Aragon,  and 
worked  hard,  especially  through  King  Edward  of  England, 
for  the  release  of  Charles  the  Lame,  Prince  of  Salerno, 
the  heir  of  Charles  I.  of  Anjou.  He  also  imitated  Honorius 
in  making  it  clear  to  the  Kings  of  France  and  England 
that  he  would  not  accept  the  terms  on  which  Alfonso  of 
Aragon  had  offered  to  release  Charles.1 

He  began  his  efforts  on  Charles'  behalf  by  urging 
Alfonso  to  release  him,  as  he  had  never  injured  him,  but 
had  been  seized  when  defending  his  father's  rights.  The 
detention  of  the  Prince  was  an  outrage  to  the  whole 
Christian  people.  Alfonso  should,  therefore,  release  him, 
and  not  assist  the  usurpation  of  his  brother  James. 
Moreover,  if  he  does  not  appear  before  the  Holy  See  in 
the  course  of  the  next  six  months,  proceedings  both 
spiritual  and  temporal  will  be  taken  against  him.2  The 
papal  envoys,  the  archbishops  of  Ravenna  and  Monreale, 
and  the  Dominican  Raynonus  of  Viterbo,  were  ordered  to 
deliver  the  papal  letters  to  Alfonso  personally,  or  at  any 
rate  to  cite  him  in  public,  before  the  assembled  clergy 
and  people.3 

1  See  his  letters  to  Philip  IV.  of  France,  Reg.,  nn.  560-1,  of  March  15, 
1288  ;  and  to  the  King  of  England,  ap.  Rymer,  ii,  358.  Cf.  Reg., 
n.  1389.    He  enumerated  the  proposed  conditions  to  which  he  objected. 

2  Ep.  of  March  15,  1288,  ap.  Reg.,  n.  565. 

3  lb.,  nn.  566  ff. 

142 


NICHOLAS    IV.  143 

Nicholas  next  repeatedly  exhorted  the  Kings  of  France 
and  especially  of  England,  to  make  every  effort  to  secure 
the  release  of  the  Prince.1 

On  the  other  hand,  he  lost  no  time  in  urging  James  of  James  of 
Aragon  to  cease  his  opposition  to  the  Church.     He  pro-  exhorted  to 
claimed  his  grievances  against  him   before  the  people  f£irnsP  hls 
assembled  in  St.  John  Lateran's  on  Maundy  Thursday, 
and  ordered  the  parchment  on  which  the  process  against 
him  was  written  to  be  affixed  to  the  doors  of  the  basilica.2 

Neither  of  the  brothers,  however,  showed  any  tendency  Action  of  the 
to  comply  with  the  wishes  of  the  Pope.    Alfonso  reiterated  Edward 
the   conditions   on   which   he   was   prepared   to   release  f^j18*  the 
Charles,3  and  continued,  so  Philip  complained  to  Edward,4  1288. 
to  act  against  his  ally  the  King  of  Majorca.    On  his  side, 
Nicholas  pushed  on  the  raising  of  the  tenths  in  Italy  5 
and  in   France   for  the  campaigns  against   James  and 
Alfonso.     He  granted  Philip  IV.   tithes  for  two  years, 
and  then  for  three  6  years,  and  exhorted  the  people  to 
give  freely.    Then,  finding  that  the  authorities  in  Genoa 
were  not  disposed  to  encourage  their  citizens  in  supporting 
James  of  Aragon  in  Sicily,7  he  wrote  to  Philip  of  France 
urging  him  to  co-operate  with  the  regents  of  Sicily  in 

1  lb.,  nn.  107-9  ;    Rymer,  ii,  358,  364,  and  365,  of  May  26. 

2  Reg.,  n.  559,  March  28,  1288.  "  Cartas  sive  membranas,  pro- 
cessum  continentes  eundem  in  presentis  basilice  S.  Johannis  L.  appendi 
.  .  .  affigi  ostiis  seu  super  luminaribus  faciemus."  Cf.  ib.,  n.  597, 
giving  him  till  September  to  make  his  submission. 

3  Rymer,  ii,  p.  362,  Apr.  3,  1288. 

4  Ep.  March  20,  ap.  ib.,  p.  357.  Cf.  L.  de  la  Marche,  France  et  le 
royaume  de  Majorque,  i,  298.  5  Reg.,  nn.  96-100,  Apr.  30,  1288. 

6  lb.,  nn.  613,  615,  Sept.  11  and  15,  1288.  The  tithes  were  to  be 
collected  by  persons  nominated  by  the  Holy  See,  and  were  not  to  be 
demanded  from  clerics  whose  income  was  under  15  pounds  "  Turo- 
nensium  parvorum  ",  from  the  Templars,  etc.  Cf.  ib.,  nn.  617-18,  1634. 

7  Ep.  May  18,  1288,  ap.  Wadding,  v,  176.  In  this  letter  the  Pope 
commissioned  two  friars  to  absolve  the  Genoese  (at  the  request  of  their 
Commune)  from  the  censures  they  had  incurred  because  some  of  their 
citizens  had  traded  with  the  Sicilians  "contra  interdictum  Sedis 
Apostolicae  ".     Later  on,  after  the  death  of  Alfonso  III.  of  Aragon 


144  NICHOLAS    IV. 

cultivating  the  Genoese,  and  in  trying  to  induce  them  to 
ally  themselves  with  him  against  Aragon  and  the  invaders 
of  the  island  of  Sicily.1 
Edward  On  his  side  Edward,  in  response  to  the  request  of  the 

procures  the  x 

release  of  Pope,  continued  his  efforts  to  obtain  the  release  of  his 
L288leS'  kinsman,  the  Prince  of  Salerno.  Though  his  motives 
were  suspected  by  some  of  the  French,2  there  does  not 
seem  sufficient  reason  to  doubt  that  he  was  in  the  main 
disinterested  in  this  matter.  However  that  may  be,  he 
applied  himself  earnestly  to  the  task  of  settling  the 
Sicilian  question.  To  make  it  plain  that  he  did  not 
accept  the  fait  accompli  as  the  basis  of  negotiation,  he 
was  at  pains  to  proclaim  to  the  world,  by  a  public  notarial 
act,  that  if  in  the  course  of  diplomatic  correspondence, 
James  was  by  him  alluded  to  as  King  of  Sicily,  he  had  no 
intention  of  acknowledging  him  as  such.  This  document, 
drawn  up  by  a  public  notary  of  the  Apostolic  See,  was 
signed  by  a  number  of  important  clergy  and  laymen, 
such  as  Boniface,  Peter,  and  John,  archbishops  of 
Ravenna,  Monreale,  and  York,  Otho  of  Grandison,  etc.3 
Encouraged  by  the  people  of  Jaca  (in  north-west 
Aragon),  who  swore  to  use  their  best  efforts  to  make 
Alfonso  carry  out  the  terms  of  the  treaty,4  Edward  had 

(June  18,  1291),  when  James,  leaving  his  brother  Frederick  in  charge 
of  Sicily,  had  gone  to  Aragon  for  the  crown  of  that  country,  Nicholas 
urged  the  Genoese  not  to  help  him  or  Frederick  in  any  way.  On  the 
contrary,  they  should  assist  the  Pope  and  Charles  II.  Ep.  of  Feb.  29, 
1292,  ap.  Raynaldus,  Annales,  1292,  n.  15. 

1  Ep.  Oct.  23,  1288,  ap.  Reg.,  n.  7178. 

2  Will,  of  Nangis,  Chron.,  i,  268.  Some  thought,  says  William,  that 
he  was  really  acting  against  France.  But  it  is  rather  more  probable 
that  he  was  really  acting  not  merely  in  the  interests  of  an  imprisoned 
cousin,  but  also  in  those  of  the  Crusades. 

3  Protestatio,  ap.  Rymer,  ii,  366  f.  It  was  drawn  up  at  Jaca  in 
Aragon. 

4  lb.,  p.  367,  Sept.  18.  Hardy's  summary  of  this  doc.  is  not  accurate. 
Syllabus  of  Rymer' s  Fcedera,  i,  p.  104  ;  nor  is  his  date  of  the  treaty 
of  "  Campo  Francho  "  ;  ib.,  p.  105.  He  gives  it  as  Oct.  27.  It  should 
be  Oct.  28  :    "  Quarto  die  exeunte  mensis  Octobris." 


NICHOLAS    IV.  145 

a  meeting  with  Alfonso  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jaca, 
to  wit,  at  Campfranc  (Oct.  28),  and  a  new  treaty  regarding 
the  liberation  of  Charles  was  agreed  to.1  Its  foundation 
was  the  treaty  of  Oleron.2  Charles  himself  was  present 
at  the  meeting,  and  we  are  assured  that  the  clauses  of 
the  Oleron  treaty  were  read  out  distinctly  and  approved 
by  him,  subject  to  the  changes  introduced  in  the  new 
convention.3  These  changes  did  not,  as  we  have  just 
insinuated,  affect  the  fundamental  clauses  of  the  treaties 
of  Cefalii  and  Oleron,  such  as  the  cession  of  Sicily  to 
James  of  Aragon,  to  which  the  Popes  had  objected,  but 
simply  concerned  the  ransom,  hostages,  and  securities 
generally,  which  were  to  constitute  the  price  of  Charles's 
liberation.  Seemingly,  suspecting  that  the  treaty  of 
Campfranc  would  be  no  more  acceptable  to  Nicholas 
than  its  predecessors,  the  parties  to  it  agreed  to  stand  by 
it,  despite  the  protests  or  prohibitions  of  any  person  what- 
soever, no  matter  what  position  he  might  hold.4  Yet  in 
the  agreement  between  Charles  and  Edward  by  which 
the  former  promised  to  repay  our  King  all  the  monies  he 
was  to  advance  for  him,  and  in  general  to  perform  all 
he  had  undertaken  to  do  in  order  to  secure  his  release, 
Edward  insisted  that  he  should  consent  to  being  forced 
to  keep  his  promises,  if  necessary,  by  papal  pressure.5 

1  Rymer,  ii,  p.  371  ff. 

2  Treaty  of  July  25,  1287,  ap.  ib.,  p.  346  ff.  "  Personaliter  (Alfonsus 
and  Edward)  convenientes  apud  Oleron  in  Beam." 

3  Rymer,  ib.,  p.  371. 

4  "  Immo,  sine  omni  excusatione,  mandato  .  .  .  ac  precibus 
cujusqunque  personae,  quantaeque  dignitatis  aut  status  existat,  in 
contrarium  non  admissis,  stabunt  praedictis  conventionibus."  Cf. 
the  treaty,  ap.  ib.,  p.  374,  Oct.  27,  1288.  Cf.  ib.,  p.  390.  This  surely 
seems  aimed  at  the  Pope. 

5  Agreement  of  Nov.  3,  1288.  On  this  date  Charles  now  "in  sua 
libertate  existens  "  ;  agreed  to  submit  "  cohercioni  d.  Papas  .  .  .  ita 
quod  d.  Papa,  ad  solum  requisitioned  .  .  .  regis  Angliae  .  .  .  possit 
eundem  principem  .  .  .  compellere  ad  complementum  omnium,  etc." 
Ap.  Rymer,  ii,  389  f . 

Vol.  XVII.  l 


146  NICHOLAS    IV. 

And  for  still  greater  security,  he  required  that  the  docu- 
ment embodying  this  consent  should  be  signed  by  the 
Pope's  envoys,  the  Archbishops  of  Ravenna  and  Monreale. 

Besides  acknowledging  the  claim  of  James  of  Aragon 
to  the  island  of  Sicily,  Charles  had  to  engage  to  strive  to 
bring  about  within  a  year  a  truce  of  three  years  between 
Alfonso  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Pope,  Philip  of  France 
and  Charles  of  Valois  on  the  other,  and  to  secure  the 
Pope's  sanction  of  the  treaty.  Within  three  years  he 
was  to  make  a  definite  peace  with  James  and  Alfonso, 
which  would  satisfy  the  latter,  and  was  not,  during  the 
same  period,  to  do,  or,  as  far  as  he  could,  suffer  to  be 
done  anything  against  them. 

As  a  guarantee  of  good  faith,  Charles  was  to  give  to 
Alfonso  as  hostages  his  two  sons,  Louis  and  Robert  at 
once,  and  his  eldest  son  Charles  Martel  in  the  course  of 
the  next  ten  months,  and  sixty  nobles  of  Provence.  He 
was  also  to  hand  over  to  Alfonso  thirty  thousand  marks. 
Should  he  fail  to  carry  out  these  terms,  or  to  return  to 
captivity  should  he  be  unable  to  fulfil  them,  he  was  to 
lose  his  hostages  and  the  money  deposited  with  Alfonso, 
by  himself  and  his  surety  King  Edward,  to  incur  the  note  of 
infamy  and  to  lose  Provence  and  his  title  of  King.  To 
insure  the  prince's  keeping  his  word,  our  King  had  also 
to  give  Alfonso  a  number  of  hostages,  and  to  bind  himself 
in  large  sums  of  money.  Finally,  it  was  agreed  that  the 
hostages,  etc.,  should  be  handed  over  to  Alfonso  either 
at  Sta.  Christina  or  between  the  hill  of  Panessars  and 
Jonquere.1 

1  With  the  formal  Pact  of  Campfranc  (ap.  Rymer,  ii,  371  ff.),  cf.  the 
statement  of  Charles  about  the  treaty  (ib.,  p.  441,  Nov.  1,  1289),  and 
that  of  Alfonso  about  it,  ap.  ib.,  455  ff.,  Jan.  4,  1290.  For 
the  bonds  of  King  Edward  for  70,000  marks  and  hostages,  see  ib., 
p.  375,  Oct.  28,  1288.  Edward  paid  down  at  once  23,000  marks, 
partly  in  gold  sovereigns  (in  Sterlingis  bonis)  at  the  rate  of  13  solidi 
and  4  denarii  to  the  mark  ;   partly  in  good  silver  Tournois,  at  the  rate 


NICHOLAS    IV.  147 

When  King  Edward  had  duly  paid  a  large  deposit,  Release  of 
and  had  handed  over  to  Alfonso  some  eighty  hostages 
(Oct.  28), *  and  Charles  had  consigned  to  him  his  two 
sons  Louis  (afterwards  the  saintly  bishop  of  Toulouse) 
and  Robert  (Oct.  29), 2  the  Prince  was  released  and  betook 
himself  to  Edward  at  Oleron.  This  took  place  either  at 
the  end  of  October  or  the  beginning  of  November.3  At 
any  rate,  the  Prince  was  free  on  November  3,*  and 
proclaimed  that  our  King  was  "  the  head  and  front  " 
of  his  deliverance.5 

He  was  most  kindly  received  by  Edward,  and  having  paries  ^ 
obtained  a  loan  of  money,  and  a  bodyguard  from  him,6  the  Pope, 
went  to  Provence,  and  afterwards  to  King  Philip  in  Paris.  *  88~9' 
However  anxious  Charles  may  have  been  to  carry  out 
the   conditions   of   the   treaty   of   Campfranc,    he   soon 
found  that  he  was  faced  with  well-nigh  insurmountable 
difficulties.     The  Pope  was  not  prepared  to  have  his  fief 
of  Sicily  left  in  the  hands  of  the  Aragonese  invaders  ; 
James  of  Majorca  was  not  ready  to  leave  his  kingdom  in 
the  power  of  Alfonso,  Charles  of  Valois  was  as  resolved 
as  ever  to  make  good  his  title  to  the  throne  of  Aragon, 
and  he  himself  was  overwhelmed  with  debt.     To  raise 
money,    he   appealed,    not    altogether   in   vain,    to   the 

of  54  gros  Tournois  to  the  mark,  and  partly  in  good  gold  florins  at  the 
rate  to  the  mark  of  six  florins  less  2  solidi  "  Turonensium  minutorum  ". 
See  the  acknowledgment  of  Alfonso,  ap.  ib.,  p.  381,  Oct.  28,  1288. 
The  details  of  this  treaty  occupy  about  100  pages  in  Rymer.  The 
terms  of  the  treaty  are  also  briefly  given  by  the  chroniclers,  Rishanger, 
p.  116,  R.  S.  ;  Ann.  Edw.  I.,  p.  482,  R.  S.  ;  Ann.  of  Worcester,  p.  497, 
R.  S.  ;    Will,  de  Nangis,  i,  p.  274,  etc. 

1  Rymer,  ii,  378  ff.,  381. 

2  lb.,  p.  386. 

3  Cf.  ib.,  p.  436. 

4  lb.,  389. 

5  "  Liberationis  nostrae  caput  et  principium."     Ib.,  p.  486. 

8  lb.,  p.  388  ;  Ann.  de  Wigornia,  p.  498  ;  Geoffrey  de  Courlon, 
Chron.,  p.  574  ;  Muntaner,  Chron.,  cc.  162,  167  ff.,  but  his  account 
is  hopelessly  confused. 


I48  NICHOLAS    IV. 

generosity  of  his  friends.1  Then,  to  assist  Edward  in 
fulfilling  his  share  of  the  treaty,  he  gave  over  to  him 
another  of  his  sons,  Raymund  Berenger,  so  that  our  King 
might  deliver  him  to  Alfonso,  and  so  conclude  all  he 
had  undertaken  to  do.2 

Whilst  a  desultory  warfare  was  being  waged  between 
the  French  and  the  Aragonese  in  the  interests  of  Charles  of 
Valois,  but  mostly  in  favour  of  Alfonso,  Charles  of  Salerno 
was  slowly  making  his  way  to  the  Pope.  All  the  time 
he  was  doing  his  best  to  make  good  the  treaty.  For  this 
even  the  old  Aragonese  chronicler,  Muntaner,  gives  him 
credit,  declaring  that  he  was  "  one  of  the  generous  .  .  . 
pious  .  .  .  and  upright  lords  of  the  world  ".3 
Charles  is  However  that  may  be,  he  reached  Rieti,  where  Nicholas 

theWpope  y  then  was>  *n  May  >  and>  °f  course>  discussed  the  situation 
1289.  with  him.    In  the  very  first  month  of  his  pontificate,  the 

Pope  had  clearly  stated  to  the  Kings  of  England  and 
France,  that,  as  his  predecessor  had  rejected  the  pact  of 
Cefalii,  he  also  refused  to  accept  that  of  Oleron  which, 
as  King  James  had  insisted,  had  embodied  the  conditions 
of  the  earlier  agreement.4  Now,  after  Charles  had  laid 
the  conditions  of  the  treaty  of  Campfranc  before  him, 

1  See  his  correspondence  with  the  Commune  of  Brescia  which  had 
already  manifested  its  goodwill  to  him,  ap.  James  Malvecio  (fi.  1412), 
Chron.  Brixianum,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  xxiv,  p.  953  ff.  Charles's  letter  for 
help  is  dated  Marseilles,  Dec.  1,  1288. 

2  See  the  declaration  of  Alfonso  that  Edward  was  quits,  ap.  Rymer, 
ii,  415,  March  9,  1289. 

3  Chron.,  c.  167.  Cf.  Chron.  Siculum,  p.  6,  ed.  De  Blasiis  :  "  Carolus 
fuit  multum  Justus,  etc." 

4  Cf.  ep.  of  March  15  to  Philip,  Reg.,  560-1.  James  had  insisted 
that  "  Ut  ipse  (Alfonso)  a  compositione  sine  concordia  pridem  inter 
eum  (Prince  Charles)  illosque  tractata,  dum  adhuc  in  Sicilie  partibus 
primogenitus  ipse  esset,  recedere  non  deberet  ".  Alfonso  had  hearkened 
to  his  brother's  desire,  and  had  added  that  the  Prince  could  not  be 
released  till  marriages  had  been  arranged  between  K.  James  and  his 
eldest  daughter,  and  between  his  eldest  son  and  Isalanda  the  sister  of 
James  and  Alfonso.  The  letter  to  Edward,  in  the  same  terms,  is  given 
in  full  in  Rymer,  ii,  358  ff. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  149 

and  had  declared  that  the  final  settlement  must  rest  with 
him,1  Nicholas  thanked  God  with  tears  in  his  eyes  for 
his  freedom,  but  declared  that  he  was  not  bound  by  his 
undertakings  to  his  Sicilian  enemy.  What,  however, 
he  had  promised  to  Edward,  through  whom  he  had 
acquired  his  liberty,  that  must  be  observed.2 

Then,  on  the  feast  of  Pentecost  (May  29),  Nicholas, 
whom  Specialis  calls  "  the  author  of  his  liberation  "  3 
solemnly  crowned  Charles  King  of  Sicily  in  the  Church 
of  our  Lady.4 

Fortunately  Cardinal  Stefaneschi  has  left  us  a  record  Ceremonies 
of  the  ceremonies  observed  on  this  occasion.5  Nicholas  coronation, 
took  his  place  in  the  church  "  in  the  early  morning  ", 
and  was  followed  by  Prince  Charles  with  an  attendant 
bearing  a  sheathed  sword  in  front  of  him.  Surrounded 
by  a  number  of  his  nobles,  and  of  the  prelates  of  his 
kingdom  clad  in  copes,  he  was  received  at  the  choir  by 
Latinus  Malabranca,  Bernard  of  Languisel,  John  Bocca- 
mazza,  and  Bentivenga,  cardinal-bishops  respectively  of 
Ostia,  Porto,  Tusculum,  and  Albano.  After  the  cardinals 
and  others  had  said  various  prayers  over  him,  the  Prince 
proceeded  to  an  altar  at  the  right  of  the  high  altar. 

1  Bartholomew  of  N.,  c.  112,  p.  109  (new  ed.).  "  Sed  nihil  actum, 
vel  agendum  credidero,  nisi  quod  a  tua  Sanctitate  tantum,  pater 
clementissime,   decernetur." 

2  lb.,  cf.  Will,  of  Nangis,  an.  1289,  i,  p.  275.  "  Absolutus  totaliter 
a  juramento  quod  fecerat  regi  Aragonum  et  Siculis." 

3  Chron.,  ii,  c.  15,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  x,  p.  958. 

4  lb.,  B.  of  N.,  I.e.  ;  Chron.  Snessanum,  ap.  Raynaldus,  an.  1289, 
n.  1  ;  the  author  of  the  Memoriale  Potest.  Reg.,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  viii, 
p.  1171,  who  says  that  "  in  his  presence  "  Charles,  accompanied  by  his 
wife,  Mary  of  Hungary,  was  crowned  King  of  Jerusalem  and  Sicily 
by  the  Pope  who  granted  to  him  all  the  territories  which  his  father 
had  held  of  the  Roman  Church  ;  and  Charles's  own  letter  written  to 
the  Commune  of  Brescia  immediately  after  his  coronation.  Ap. 
Malvecio,  Chron.,  viii,  c.   108. 

5  "  La  ceremonial  romain  de  Jacques  Cajetan,"  by  L.  H.  Labande, 
ap.  Bib.  de  I'ecole  des  Chartes,  1893,  p.  71  ff. 


150 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


Charles 
takes  the 
oath  of 
allegiance, 
1289. 


There,  at  his  own  request,  the  bishop  of  Ostia  anointed 
him  "  as  the  Kings  of  France  are  anointed  ",  to  wit,  on 
his  hands,  arms,  breast,  and  shoulders.  After  this 
anointing,  Charles  put  on  more  splendid  garments,  one 
like  a  dalmatic,  and,  above  it,  another  like  a  stole.  Next, 
when  he  had  said  the  "  Confiteor  "  with  the  Pope,  he 
received  from  him  the  kiss  of  peace,  "  just  as  the  cardinal 
deacons  do."  Nicholas,  then  proceeding  with  the  Mass, 
said  a  special  collect  for  the  Prince,  and  after  the  epistle 
put  the  royal  crown  upon  his  head,  the  orb  into  his  right 
hand,  and  the  sceptre  into  his  left.  Then  taking  the 
sheathed  sword  from  the  altar,  on  which  it  had  been 
laid,  girded  it  on  the  King,  who,  drawing  it  from  its  sheath, 
thrice  brandished  it  in  the  air.  This  done,  the  King 
kissed  the  feet  of  the  Pope,  and  was,  in  turn,  kissed  by 
him.  At  the  offertory,  the  King  presented  the  Pope 
with  bread,  wine,  wax  candles,  and  gold  pieces.  Whilst 
Nicholas  was  saying  the  Canon  of  the  Mass,  the  King 
remained  near  the  altar  close  to  the  Deacons,  and  received 
the  Pax  and  Holy  Communion  from  the  Pope. 

After  Mass,  the  King  held  the  stirrup  whilst  the 
Pope  mounted  his  horse,  and  led  it  to  the  adjoining 
Palace.  Then,  mounting  his  own  horse,  Charles  II.,  with 
his  crown  on  his  head,  rode  to  his  own  abode. 

With  reference  no  doubt  to  such  ceremonies  as  the 
holding  of  the  stirrup,  the  account  of  the  coronation  closes 
with  a  remark  that  "  many  "  of  the  things  that  were  done 
at  it  were  "  not  so  much  approved  as  tolerated  by  the 
lord  Pope  and  his  brethren  ".  Accordingly,  when  Robert 
the  Wise, the  son  of  Charles  II., was  crowned  by  Clement  V. 
at  Avignon,  those  ceremonies  were  suppressed.1 

In  the  month  following  his  coronation,  Charles  took 
the  usual  oath  of  allegiance  to  Nicholas  for  the  kingdom 
of  the  two  Sicilies,  such  as  it  had  been  granted  to  his 


Labande,  p.  71. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  151 

father  (June  19,  1289). x  Not  long  after,  having  received 
from  the  Pope  many  concessions  as  to  the  date  of  his 
payment  of  the  tax  for  Sicily,  etc.,  the  newly  crowned 
King  left  Rieti  to  proceed  to  his  kingdom.  He  was 
anxious,  among  other  things,  to  make  headway  against 
James  of  Aragon,  who  was  at  the  moment  ravaging  his 
realm.2  On  June  27,  as  we  learn  from  one  of  his  charters, 
he  was  at  Sulmona  ;  and  we  may  note  that  henceforth  the 
public  documents  of  the  kingdom  no  longer  bear  the 
names  of  Cardinal  Gerard  and  Robert,  count  of  Artois, 
but  that  of  King  Charles  II.3 

After  spending  some  weeks  in  Naples,  Charles,  with  Truce  with 
troops  furnished  him  by  the  Pope  and  the  Guelf  cities  of  A^on? 
Tuscany,  Lombardy,  etc.,  marched  to  the  relief  of  Gaeta,  1289- 
which  was  being  besieged  by   King   James    (August).4 
However,  before  the  month  of  August  was  out,  a  truce 
for  two  years  had  been  arranged  between  the  two  kings, 
through  the  mediation  of  Otho  of  Grandison,  an  envoy  of 
King  Edward,  and  of  a  papal  legate,  and  James  returned 
to  Sicily.5 

Whoever  else  was  satisfied  with  this  truce,  or,  at  any 
rate,  with  the  way  in  which  it  was  concluded,  Cardinal 
Benedict  Gaetani  (afterwards  Boniface  VIII.)  was  not. 
With  good  reason  he  had  no  high  opinion  of  the  ability 

1  Given  in  full  in  Liinig,  Cod.  Ital.  Diplom.,  iv,  p.  441  ff.  In  turn 
Nicholas  granted  Charles  various  ecclesiastical  privileges.  Reg.,  1052-9, 
June  28,  1289. 

2  Bart,  of  N.,  I.e.    Re  the  concessions,  Reg.,  nn.  2246-9,  June  20,  1249. 

3  Syllab.  Membran.  Sic.,  ii,  pt.  i,  p.  44,  n. 

4  lb.,  p.  57  for  a  document  of  Charles  of  Aug.  18,  1289.  "  In  castris 
in  obsidione  hostium  prope  Caietam."     Cf.  Bart,  of  N.,  I.e. 

5  Aug.  25,  1289,  to  Nov.  1,  1291.  Cf.  C.  M.  Riccio,  Delia  domin. 
Angioma  in  Sicilia,  p.  11  ;  Bart,  of  N.,  pp.  109,  111.  (This  author 
is  more  concerned  with  concocting  speeches  than  recording  facts)  ; 
Muntaner,  c.  169.  Cf.  Camera,  Annali  delle  due  Sicilie,  ii,  p.  12.  Our 
Chronicler,  Rishanger,  in  telling  of  this  truce,  calls  James  "  the  occupier 
(occupatorem)  of  Sicily",  P-  118,  R.  S.  See  also  a  letter  of  Charles 
to  Alfonso  of  Nov.  1,  1289,  ap.  Rymer,  ii,  441. 


152  NICHOLAS    IV. 

of  Charles  II.,  who  would  appear  to  have  been  more 
chivalrous  than  intelligent.  When,  as  Pope,  Benedict 
had  occasion  to  blame  him  for  acting  on  his  own  initiative, 
he  recalled  the  fact  that  he  and  Cardinal  Gerard  had 
been  sent  to  his  assistance,  and  yet  he  had  made  the 
truce  without  the  knowledge  of  Benedict,  or,  as  he  says, 
of  his  colleague.  By  such  conduct,  added  Benedict, 
you  flouted  not  only  me  and  Cardinal  Gerard,  but  also 
your  mother,  the  Roman  Church.  After  recalling  in 
sarcastic  terms  "the  provident,  discreet  and  useful" 
terms  he  had  subsequently  made  with  James  for  his  own 
release  and  that  of  his  children,  the  Pope  concluded  : 
"  From  such  acts  we  have  learnt  by  long  experience  that 
in  serious  matters  things  do  not  go  well  when  you  rely 
on  yourself."  1 
Formal  Establishing  his   son,   Charles   Martel,   as  his   regent, 

of  the  treaty  Charles  II.  left  his  kingdom,  which  he  was  not  to  see 

frfancamp"  again  for  over  four  years'  and  in  the  first  instance 
returned  to  Nicholas  at  Rieti  (September).2  We  do  not 
know  whether  he  tried  or  not  to  induce  the  Pope  to  accept 
the  treaty  of  Campfranc ;  but,  in  any  case,  on 
September  12,  1289,  Nicholas  issued  a  bull  in  which  he 
formally  annulled  all  the  treaties  between  Alfonso, 
Edward,  and  Charles,  and  absolved  the  two  latter  from 
the  oaths  which  they  had  taken  in  connection  with  them.3 
Nicholas  was  justly  determined  that  his  rights  should 
not  be  bargained  away  by  others.  After  the  signing  of 
the  treaty  both  James  and  Alfonso  had  sent  envoys  to 
him.     Those  of  the  former  had  come  in  three  ships  of 

1  Reg.  Bonif.   VIII.,  n.  3425. 

2  This  we  know  from  a  document  ap.  Syllab.  Memb.,  I.e.,  p.  61. 

3  Reg.,  n.  1389.  Unfortunately,  of  this  important  document, 
Langlois  has  only  given  the  above  meagre  analysis.  However,  we  may 
regard  the  bull  "  Dissolve  colligationes  "  ap.  Raynaldus,  Ann.,  n.  17, 
as  a  reiteration  of  that  of  Sept.  12.  Again,  unfortunately,  Raynaldus 
does  not  date  the  document,  but  it  appears  to  have  been  issued  about 
the  same  time,  but  after  some  illness  of  Alfonso. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  153 

war  to  Rome.  Nicholas  had  at  once  ordered  the  Senator, 
Berthold  Orsini,  to  see  that  their  galleys  were  anchored 
below  St.  Paul's  outside  the  walls  and  that  the  envoys 
themselves  were  not  to  be  allowed  to  stay  in  Rome 
where  they  might  work  mischief,  but  were  to  be  sent  on  to 
him  at  once.1  They,  however,  were  apparently  no  more 
successful  in  obtaining  recognition  for  their  master's 
claims,  than  were  those  who  had  been  sent  by  Alfonso 
immediately  after  the  signing  of  the  treaty  of  Campfranc. 
Although  Charles  had  pleaded  along  with  the  envoys 
of  the  latter,  Nicholas  flatly  refused  to  recognize  the 
right  of  anyone  to  give  away  or  keep  what  did  not  belong 
to  him,2  and,  as  we  have  said,  issued  a  specific  con- 
demnation of  the  pact  of  Campfranc.  In  the  language 
of  a  later  condemnation,  he  had  declared  :  "  '  Loose  the 
bands  of  wickedness,  undo  the  bundles  that  oppress  .  .  . 
and  break  asunder  every  burden  '  (Isa.  lviii,  6).  By 
these  precepts  of  Holy  Writ  we  are  led  to  dissolve 
wicked  obligations  impiously  contracted  to  oppress  the 
innocent."  Denouncing  the  invasion  of  Sicily  and  the 
mainland  by  Peter  of  Aragon  as  an  outrage  of  the  rights 
of  the  Church,3  he  reviewed  the  chief  terms  of  the  treaties 
made  between  Alfonso  and  Charles,  and  declared  that, 
as  Peter  was  an  unjust  aggressor,  neither  he  nor  his  son 
had  any  right  to  keep  Charles  in  prison,  as  he  was  properly 
defending  his  father's  rights.  He  pointed  out,  too,  that 
the  treaties  had  been  wrung  from  a  man  in  prison,  who, 
as  a  liegeman  of  the  Church,  could  not  bind  himself, 
and  still  less  the  Church  or  the  King  of  France.    It  would 

1  Reg.,  n.  7050,  June  12,  1288. 

2  See  the  letter  of  Alfonso  to  Edward  (Nov.  24,  1289)  complaining 
that  what  he  called  his  justice  (or  rights — justitia)  "  eis  (his  envoys), 
imo  nobis  in  eisdem,  per  Ecclesiam  totaliter  extitit  denegata  ".  Ap. 
Rymer,  ii,  451. 

3  "  Quod  (the  kingdom  of  the  tv/o  Sicilies)  ipsius  Ecclesiae  juris  et 
proprietatis  extitit."  See  the  letter  "  Dissolve  colligationes  ",  ap. 
Raynaldus,  1288,  n.  17. 


154  NICHOLAS    IV. 

be  a  fine  thing,  moreover,  if  the  Church  were  debarred 
from  helping  loyal  friends,  and  had  to  favour  its  enemies. 
Accordingly  Honorius  IV.  had  already  condemned  not 
only  the  "liberation  treaty"  of  Oleron,  but  any  other 
like  it.  Therefore,  especially  as  it  had  been  said  on  good 
authority  2  that  Peter  on  his  deathbed,  and  even  Alfonso 
himself  in  grave  sickness  had  ordered  the  release  of 
Charles,  we  absolutely  annul  the  treaty,  and  declare  all 
oaths  taken  in  connection  with  it  not  binding.  At  the 
same  time,  he  declared  that  in  another  process  issued 
by  him  at  Rome  on  Maundy  Thursday,  he  had  ordered 
Alfonso  to  return  the  hostages  and  money  which  he  had 
received.  Moreover,  he  had  strictly  forbidden  Edward, 
King  Charles,  and  all  others  concerned  to  fulfil  their 
undertakings.  This  he  did,  he  added,  because  he  was 
aware  that  generous  souls  sometimes  imagined  that  they 
were  bound  to  keep  promises  which  they  had  had  no 
right  to  make. 
Criticism  of  The  position  taken  up  by  Nicholas  with  regard  to  the 
position.6  S  treaty  of  Campfranc  which  must  have  been  generally 
anticipated,  and  was  evidently  regarded  as  natural  by 
his  contemporaries,2  quite  naturally  did  not  please  the 
Sicilians.  Accordingly,  one  of  their  historians, 
Bartholomew  de  Neocastro,  who  was  present  at  the  siege 
of  Gaeta  just  mentioned,  puts  a  speech  into  the  mouth 
of  a  certain  Guido,  a  Templar,  in  which  he  is  supposed 
to  have  said  that  the  Pope  "  the  head  of  all  the  Princes 

1  "  Praecipue  cum  habeat  fide  digna  relatio,  quod  .  .  .  Petrus 
in  supremis  suis  .  .  .  principem  a  carcere  liberari  mandavit."  lb. 
Charles  is  called  by  the  Pope  "  Ecclesiae  vassallus  praecipuus  ". 

2  Mr.  C.  L.  Kingsford,  indeed  ("  Sir  Otho  de  Grandison,"  ap. 
Transacs.  of  the  R.  Hist.  Soc,  1909,  p.  134,  calls  it  a  breach  of  good 
faith,  and  adds  that  Edward  "  naturally  indignant,  sent  O.  de  G. 
to  expostulate  with  Nicholas  for  stirring  new  strife  among  Christians, 
etc."  For  this  assertion  he  quotes  Rymer,  i,  708,  May  8,  1289.  It  may 
scarcely  be  credited,  but  the  document  (in  my  edition,  ii,  421)  is 
merely  a  letter  of  credence  "  pro  quibusdam  negotiis  nostris  ". 


NICHOLAS    IV.  155 

of  Christendom  "  ought  to  be  rousing  them  to  the  defence 
of  Acre,  now  threatened  by  the  Moslem.  Instead,  "  for 
the  recovery  of  Sicily  .  .  .  you  have  against  its  King  armed 
other  kings.  Listen  to  the  voice  of  your  conscience,  and 
cause  the  French  to  make  peace  with  the  Sicilians."  x 

After  the  decided  way  in  which  Nicholas  had  rejected  Charles  asks 
the  treaty  of  Campfranc,  King  Charles  felt  that  there  was  prorogation. 
no  hope  of  inducing  him  to  change  his  mind  in  a  short 
time.  Accordingly,  through  Hugh,  Bishop  of  Saragossa, 
and  Abbot  Sinaqua,  he  asked  Alfonso  to  grant  him  more 
than  a  year  in  which  to  fulfil  his  undertakings.2  His 
request  was  supported  by  King  Edward.3  Alfonso, 
however,  declared  that,  though  he  could  not  grant  the 
delay  asked  for,  he  would  grant  what  was  really 
equivalent.  If  King  Charles  had  fulfilled  his  promises  by 
May  1,  1290,  he  would  not  meanwhile  exact  any  forfeits.4 

1  Hist.,  c.  112,  p.  108  f.  Cf.  ib.,  p.  110,  for  a  similar  speech  to  the 
Pope  by  Hugh,  an  envoy  of  Edward.  He  also  appeals  to  the  Pope's 
conscience  "  qua  totius  orbis  circulus  gubernatur  ".  See  ib.,  p.  112  ff. 
for  the  preposterous  and  insolent  speeches  which  an  angel  is  supposed 
to  have  inspired  a  hermit  from  Sicily  to  address  to  the  Pope.  The 
said  hermit,  among  other  things,  tells  the  Pope,  in  the  style  of  the 
Pharisee,  that  he  fasted  twice  in  the  week,  etc.,  whereas  the  Pope 
feasted  on  every  kind  of  fish,  flesh,  fowl,  and  wine  !  See  again,  p.  114, 
for  the  rubbish  which,  by  the  mouth  of  his  envoy,  brother  Raymond,  a 
Catalan  monk,  Nicholas  is  supposed  to  have  addressed  to  James  of 
Sicily,  when  asking  him  to  go  to  the  rescue  of  the  Holy  Land.  Our 
Edward,  who  had  nearly  twenty  years  more  of  fight  in  him,  is  said  to 
be  too  old  to  fight  and  the  French  King  too  fat  !  More  ridiculous 
speeches,  regarding  Gregory  IX.  and  the  Crusade  of  Frederick  II. 
on  p.   115  ff. 

2  Cf.  epp.  ap.  Rymer,  ii,  p.  368.  These  two  letters  are  obviously 
wrongly  dated,  and  belong  to  the  year  1289,  after  Charles's  release, 
and  not  to  1288  before  his  release.  Cf.  also  ib.,  p.  429,  for  the  letter 
of  the  bishop  of  Saragossa. 

3  See  his  letter  of  Aug.  31,  1289,  ap.  ib.,  p.  428. 

4  See  Hugh's  letter  to  Charles,  Sept.  5,  1289.  "  Et  super  hiis  .  .  . 
Rex  Aragonum  mittit  celsitudini  vestrae  literam  suam."  Rymer,  ii,  429. 
See  the  King's  letter,  ib.,  pp.  430  and  431,  of  Sept.  7,  1289.  With  this 
compare  the  wrongly  dated  letters,  ap.  ib.,  p.  368. 


156  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Dissatisfied  with  this  reply,  or  in  despair  of  being 
able  to  fulfil  the  treaty,  Charles  resolved  to  give  himself 
up  to  Alfonso  and  to  return  to  captivity.  At  any 
rate,  he  sent  envoys  to  the  King  of  Aragon  to  prepare 
to  receive  him.1  As,  however,  he  did  not  furnish  his 
envoys  with  any  particulars  as  to  his  proposed  surrender,2 
it  would  appear  that  he  was  not  in  earnest ;  but  was 
going  to  take  a  leaf  out  of  the  Aragonese  book,  and  play 
a  trick  similar  to  that  played  at  the  lists  of  Bordeaux 
by  Pedro  III.  on  his  father.3 
Charles  11.  However  all  that  may  be,  on  Monday,  October  31, 
hfmseiftobeI289>  Charles  presented  himself  between  the  hill  of 
led  back  to  Panissars  and  Jonquere  to  be  led  back  to  captivity. 
1289.V1  y'  There  he  remained  for  three  days,  supported  by  James  of 
Majorca,  who  was  careful  to  explain  that  he  was  not 
there  to  attack  Alfonso  or  his  followers,  but,  if  need  be, 
to  defend  Charles.4  As  neither  Alfonso  nor  any  repre- 
sentative of  his  appeared  to  conduct  Charles  to  his 
prison,  that  Prince  caused  documents  to  be  drawn  up 
certifying  that  he  had  duly  presented  himself  at  the 
appointed  time  and  place  ready  to  return  to  captivity, 
as  he  had  been  unable  to  comply  with  the  terms  of  the 
peace.  He  had  come  "  unarmed  "  and  with  a  small 
number  of  unarmed  followers.5  He  had  done  his  part,  and 
was  now  free  ! 

On  November  1  he  wrote  to  tell  Alfonso  what  he  had 
done,  to  assure  him  that  he  intended  to  remain  some  time 

1  Ep.  Oct.  21,  1289  (not  1288)  of  Alfonso  to  Charles,  ap.  ib..  p.  368  f. 
Charles's  envoys  said  "  quod  vos,  ad  captionem  nostram  redire  volentem, 
nos  recipere  pararemus  ".  Cf.  ep.  of  bishop  Hugh,  ib.,  p.  368,  Oct.  19, 
1289  (not  1288). 

2  See  the  letter  of  Alfonso  just  cited,  and  his  letters  of  complaint 
about  Charles's  artfulness  of  Nov.  24,  1289,  and  Jan.  4,  1290,  ap.  ib., 
pp.  450,  455.  a  Cf.  supra. 

4  See  his  declaration  ap.  Rymer,  ii,  p.  440. 

5  "  Venit  inermis  et  cum  modica  gente  sua  inermi."  Ap.  ib.,  p.  437. 
Cf.  the  two  foil,  documents  of  Nov.  1. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  157 

in  the  neighbourhood,  and  to  ask  him  to  come  to  him 
so  that  they  could  continue  to  treat  of  peace.  Then,  as 
it  was  not  his  fault  that  no  one  had  been  sent  to  conduct 
him  back  to  his  prison,  he  intended  to  push  his  claim  for 
the  liberation  of  his  children  and  hostages,  and  the  repay- 
ment of  the  thirty  thousand  marks  of  silver.1 

Alfonso  lost  no  time  in  protesting  to  King  Edward  Protest  of 

1     j    -rr*         ^i       1        1      1     n  1'  •         1  t  Alfonso. 

that  King  Charles  had  done  nothing  but  pretend  to  try 
to  fulfil  his  treaty  obligations,  and  that  his  offer  to 
surrender  himself  was  nothing  but  a  sham,  as  he  had  not 
stated  whether  he  intended  to  present  himself  at  the 
hill  of  Sta.  Christina  or  at  that  of  Panissars.  Yet  the  two 
places  were  more  than  ten  days'  journey  apart,  and  he 
had  chosen  the  place  which  had  fallen  into  the  power 
of  the  enemies  of  Aragon,  and  had  come  "  with  a 
multitude  of  armed  men  ".  He  begged  Edward  to  induce 
Charles  to  keep  his  word.2 

Our  King,  accordingly,  continued  his  thankless  task  of  Edward 

.     .  ..  1  t         i  /-1       1       continues   to 

trying  to  bring  about  an  understanding  between  Charles  strive  for 
and   his   Aragonese   foes,    and   Nicholas    continued   his  Peace>  129°- 
efforts  to   raise  money  for  his  "chief  vassal"   against 
James  of  Sicily.3 

King  Charles  also  earnestly  co-operated  with  Edward  Nicholas 

sends  legates 

in  his  efforts  to  end  the  Sicilian  question,  and  begged  to  France, 
Nicholas  to  send  legates  to  France  in  order  to  facilitate  129°- 

1  lb.  "A  jure  .  .  .  super  liberatione  .  .  .  nostrorum  liberorum, 
etc.,  cum  per  nos  non  steterit  quia  parati  essemus  in  condicto  loco  et 
termino  vestrum  carcerem  reintrare,  discedere  non  intendimus  quoque 
modo." 

2  Ep.  ap.  Nov.  24,  1289,  ap.  ib.,  p.  450  ff.  Cf.  another  to  the  same 
effect  of  Jan.  4,  1290,  ap.  ib.,  p.  455.  In  this  latter  letter  he  expressed 
his  belief  that  Charles  could,  had  he  wished,  have  secured  the  assent 
of  the  Holy  See  to  the  peace. 

3  See  his  letters  (1)  to  the  Archbishop  of  Ravenna  and  all  his 
ecclesiastical  dependents,  ap.  Balaze,  Miscell.,  iii,  41,  ed.  Mansi,Nov.  26, 
1289,  and  (2)  to  "imperial"  Tuscany,  Reg.,  2136-8,  Feb.  20,  1290. 
Ib.,  and  Kaltenbruner,  Actenstiicke,  n.  380,  Feb.  9,  1290,  to  the  Archbp. 
of  Rouen. 


158 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


Charles  of 
Valois 
renounces 
his  claim, 
1290. 


a  settlement.  Nicholas  was  glad  to  comply  for  other 
reasons  as  well.  A  quarrel,  which  was  to  culminate  in  the 
terrible  Hundred  Years'  War,  had  begun  between  Edward 
and  Philip  of  France,  and  the  latter  monarch  was  con- 
tinuing his  interference  with  the  Church  in  France,  which 
was  to  embitter  the  pontificate  of  Boniface  VIII.1 
Nicholas,  accordingly,  dispatched  to  France  (March  23, 
1290)  two  distinguished  cardinals.  One  was  cardinal 
Gerard  of  Parma,  who  had  been  in  the  midst  of  the 
Sicilian  affair  since  the  Vespers,  and  the  learned  canonist, 
the  famous  Benedict  Gaetani.2  Expressing  his  pleasure 
that,  "  for  the  sake  of  the  peace  of  the  world,  the  profit 
of  the  Holy  Land  and  the  good  of  souls,"  serious 
negotiations  were  again  on  foot  between  Charles  and 
Alfonso  and  other  "  exalted  personages ",  Nicholas 
gave  the  two  cardinals  most  extensive  powers,  and  recom- 
mended them  to  the  King  of  France,  the  Duke  of 
Burgundy,  and  others.3 

As  James  of  Sicily  had  made  it  quite  plain  that  he  had 
no  intention  of  quitting  that  island,  and  Charles  II. 
had  equally  no  intention  of  letting  him  remain  there  if 
he  could  help  it,  the  latter  devoted  all  his  energies  to 
making  peace  with  Alfonso.  As  a  preliminary,  he  induced 
Charles  of  Valois,  in  exchange  for  the  hand  of  his  daughter, 
Margaret,   and   the   counties   of   Anjou   and   Maine,   to 


1  Jordanus,  Chron.,  ap.  Muratori,  Antiq.  Hal.,  iv,  p.  1017.  He 
says  of  the  quarrel  "  quae  magna  fuit,  et  multum  duravit  "  ;  and  of 
the  work  of  the  legates  that  they  could  not  patch  up  the  quarrel,  but 
"  Concordarunt  tamen  Clerum  cum  Rege,  propter  quod  aliqui  putant 
eos  principaliter  missos  ".  Cf.  Ptolemy  of  Lucca,  H.E.,  xxiv,  26, 
p.  1197  ;    B.  Guidonis,  in  vit.  Nich. 

2  Bart,  of  N.,  c.  112,  p.  118  (new  ed.)  pretends  that  the  cardinals 
were  dispatched  in  consequence  of  the  pleadings  of  the  aged  John  of 
Procida  sent  by  James  of  Sicily  to  him  who  "  hominum  genera,  qui 
Deum  Patrem  agnoscunt,  sub  tuo  cuncta  regas  imperio  ". 

3  Cf.  Raynaldus,  an.  1290,  n.  17  ff.  ;  Reg.,  4254-4300,  March  23, 
Apr.  9  and  25,  1290.     Cf  Rymer,  ep.  of  Charles,  July  28,  1290. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  159 

renounce  his  claim  to  the  crown  of  Aragon.  To  this  the 
Pope  agreed,  and  sent  a  dispensation  for  the  marriage, 
as  the  couple  were  related  in  the  third  degree.1 

Alfonso  was  the  more  willing:  to  come  to  terms  with  Treaty  of 

0  Tarascon- 

King  Charles,  and  to  let  his  brother  James  look  after  Brignoies, 
his  own  interests  in  Sicily,  because  in  addition  to  his  129L 
difficulties  with  France  and  his  uncle  James  of  Majorca, 
he  had  troubles  nearer  home.  His  nobles  were  dis- 
contented, as  they  saw  their  country  exposed  to  dangers 
and  its  resources  dissipated  in  the  quarrels  of  others,  and 
he  himself  was  also  worried  by  the  aggressions  of 
Sancho  IV.  of  Castile  and  Leon.2  Accordingly,  he  sent 
envoys  to  meet  those  of  Edward.  They  assembled  with 
King  Charles  at  Tarascon  (in  castro  Tarasconensi),  and 
then  went  to  Brignoies  (Var),  where  the  two  legates  of 
the  Pope  were  residing  (February  19).  Their  object, 
they  stated,  was  to  bring  back  Alfonso  and  James  to 
their  duty  (ad  devotionem  et  reverentiam)  to  the  Roman 
Church,  and  to  make  a  general  peace.3  It  was  finally 
agreed  that  Alfonso  should  send  envoys  to  Rome  to 
declare  that  their  master  had  never  consciously  offended 
the  holy  Roman  Church,  but  that  he  believed  that  the 
Holy  See  looked  on  him  as  an  offender  on  account  of  the 
doings  of  his  father.  He,  in  any  case,  begged  for  pardon, 
and  placed  himself  and  his  country  at  the  goodwill  of 

1  Will,  of  Nangis,  Chron.,  i,  p.  278.  They  were  married  at  Corbeil, 
Aug.  15,  1290.  The  dispensation  was  sent  March  24,  1290  ;  Reg., 
n.  7370.  Theversion  of  W.  of  N.,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  xx,  p.  574,  gives  Aug.  16  ; 
see  also  Gerard  de  Frachet,  ap.  ib.,  xxi,  p.  10. 

2  Cf.  Jofre  de  Loaisa,  Chron.  de  Castille,  c.  38  ff.  Sancho's  attack 
on  Aragon  was  in  connection  with  the  "  Infantes  de  la  Cerda  ". 

3  See  document  "  datam  Brionae ",  of  Feb.  19,  1291,  ap.  Rymer, 
ii,  501.  Muntaner,  Chron.,  c.  173,  tells  the  story  of  this  treaty  in  his 
own  naive  and  loose  fashion.  Among  other  things  he  says  that  if 
anyone  would  know  the  names  of  the  envoys  at  the  conference  "  and 
all  that  the  cardinal  said  to  them  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Father  .  .  . 
let  him  go  to  the  Gesta  which  En  Galceran  de  Vilanova  wrote  of  it  ". 
But  where  the  reader  will  find  the  Gesta.  I  know  not. 


i6o 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


Death  of 
Alfonso, 
1291. 


James  of 


the  Pope.  On  its  side,  the  Roman  Church  was  to 
acknowledge  Alfonso  as  King  of  Aragon,  holding  the  same 
rights  as  his  father  before  his  quarrel  with  it.  King 
Charles  was  also  to  undertake  to  bring  Philip  of  France 
and  Charles  of  Valois  to  agree  to  make  the  same  acknow- 
ledgment. When  all  this  was  done,  Alfonso  was  to 
restore  the  hostages  and  money  he  had  received,  and 
before  the  following  Christmas  to  renew  his  promises 
before  the  Holy  Father  in  person.  He  would  also  go  on  a 
Crusade,  and  deny  all  help  to  his  brother  James  of 
Sicily,  if  he  would  not  submit  to  the  Holy  See.  The 
position  of  the  King  of  Majorca  was  left  over  for  the 
moment ;  but  a  little  later  he  agreed  to  submit  it  to  the 
ruling  of  the  Pope  and  his  two  legates.1 

On  the  following  day  the  two  cardinals  accepted  the 
treaty,  saving  due  respect  to  God,  and  to  the  honour  of 
the  Pope  and  the  King  of  France.2 

As  this  treaty  would  have  isolated  James  of  Sicily, 
it  is  more  than  likely  that  it  would  have  proved  fatal 
to  the  Aragonese  power  in  that  island.  But  its  whole 
force  was  upset  by  the  comparatively  sudden  death  of 
Alfonso  III.  (June  18,  1291).  When  he  found  that  his 
illness  was  serious,  he  made  his  will,  and  "  left  the  kingdom 
to  the  Lord  King  En  Jaime,  King  of  Sicily,  his  brother, 
and  his  body  to  the  Minorite  Friars  of  Barcelona  ".3 

Accordingly  the  count  of  Ampurias  and  others   were 


poTsJssion^of  at  once  dispatched  to  Sicily  "to  bring  the  Lord  King 

Aragon. 

1  Doc.  of  Apr.  12,  1291,  ap.  ib.,  p.  523. 

2  Ap.  ib.,  p.  504.  Spanish  historians  add  that  Alfonso  engaged  to 
pay  tribute  to  Rome  as  Peter  II.  had  long  ago  agreed  to  do.  Cf.  Liber 
Censuum,  i,  p.  16*,  ed.  Fabre.  According  to  Bart,  of  N.,  c.  114,  p.  121, 
Alfonso  agreed  to  go  on  paying  the  annual  30  ounces  of  gold  which 
had  been  paid  by  all  his  ancestors  except  his  father  after  he  had  been 
angered  by  the  Sicilian  affair.  If  the  Aragonese  tribute  was  discussed, 
no  doubt  B.  has  given  us  the  correct  conclusion.  But  the  actual  treaty 
says  nothing  of  this.     Cf.  supra,  vol.  xii,  p.  171. 

3  Muntaner,  ib.,  c.  174.    Cf.  B.  of  N.,  c.  115. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  l6l 

En  Jaime  to  be  lord  of  Aragon  and  Catalonia,  and  of 
the  kingdom  of  Valencia  ".1  Before  leaving  Sicily, 
James  put  the  island  under  the  control  of  his  mother 
and  his  brother  "  the  Infante  En  Fadrique  "  2  ;  and  as 
soon  as  he  landed  in  Aragon  he  made  peace  with  Sancho 
of  Castile,  inducing  the  Infants  of  Cerda  to  renounce 
their  claim  to  that  country.3  They  were  to  receive  estates 
in  Castile. 

James  was  anxious  to  have  peace  at  home  in  order  struggle  for 
that  he  might  be  freer  to  carry  on  the  fight  for  Sicily,  continued 
In  all  the  negotiations  which  the  Pope  had  sanctioned  1291. 
with  Aragon,  he  had  never  shown  any  intention  of 
surrendering  Sicily  to  its  domination.  Both  during  and 
after  the  parleys  which  ended  in  the  treaty  of  Tarascon- 
Brignoles,  Nicholas  had  continued  to  act  against  the 
Aragonese  in  Sicily.  At  the  regular  seasons  for  the 
issue  of  such  things,  he  had  instituted  processes  against 
James,4  and  he  had  for  sixteen  months  granted  to  King 
Charles  the  tithes  from  the  half  of  the  city  of  Avignon 
recently  ceded  to  him  by  Philip  of  France.5  He  had 
granted  indulgences  to  those  who  fought  for  him  6  ; 
and,  after  the  death  of  Alfonso  (June)  and  the  taking 
possession  of  Aragon  by  James,  he  continued  his  action 
against  him.  In  August  he  was  engaged  both  by  letter 
and  by  envoys  in  exhorting  the  people  of  Majorca  to 
expel  the  Aragonese  intruders,  and  to  return  to  the 
allegiance  of  their  sovereign  (James  of  Majorca).7  A 
little  later  he  was  exhorting  Philip  le  Bel  to  help  Charles  II. 

1  lb.,  c.  175.  2  lb.    Cf.  B.  of  N.,  I.e.  3  lb.,  c.  177. 

*  Reg.,  n.  4404.  On  the  feast  of  the  dedication  of  the  basilica  of 
SS.  Peter  and  Paul  (Nov.  20,  1290),  Nicholas  had  summoned  James 
to  submit  to  the  Church  by  Apr.  1,  1291  ;  and  after  the  death  of 
Alfonso,  he  had  (Nov.  20,  1291,  Reg.,  n.  6839)  renewed  the 
excommunication  already  issued  against  him. 

5  Reg.,  4243  ;    Feb.  16,  1291.     Cf.  6703,  6724. 

6  lb.,  n.  6702,  May  7,  1291. 

7  lb.,  nn.  6732-4,  Aug.  9,   1291. 

Vol.  XVII.  m 


l62  NICHOLAS    IV. 

"  to  defend  the  country  which  he  now  has,  and  to  recover, 
when  the  opportunity  occurs,  his  territory  now  in  the 
hands  of  enemies."  *  At  the  same  time,  he  instructed  the 
Archbishop  of  Reggio,  whom  he  had  sent  to  Genoa  on 
matters  connected  with  the  Holy  Land,  to  help  King 
Charles  when  he  should  get  to  the  city,  so  as,  if  possible, 
to  get  assistance  from  the  republic.2  Finally,  up  to  a 
month  or  two  of  his  death,  he  was  engaged  in  endeavouring 
"  to  boycott  "  Sicily.3  If  Charles  did  not  recover  Sicily 
the  fault  was  not  that  of  Nicholas  IV. 

1  Reg.,  n.  6835,  Oct.  1,  1291. 

2  lb.,  n.  6837.  It  would  seem  from  the  Annals  of  Genoa,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.t 
vi,  p.  600,  that  King  Charles  had  already  (March,  1290)  made  one 
effort  to  induce  the  Genoese  to  help  him.  See  especially  Bart,  of  N., 
c.  114,  p.  122,  new  ed.  Cf.  ib.,  c.  119,  whence  it  would  appear  that 
Charles  did  not  get  help  from  the  republic. 

3  Reg.,  n.  6836,  Oct.  1,  1291  ;    cf.  6838  and  6954,  Feb.  29,  1292. 


Chapter  IV 

THE   EMPIRE,   FRANCE,    AND   THE   CRUSADES 

Although  Kaltenbrunner  has  collected  about  a  hundred  Relations 
and  fifty  documents  addressed  by  Nicholas  to  King  Empire. 
Rudolf  or  other  persons  in  the  Empire,1  there  is  not 
much  of  general  interest  to  be  extracted  from  them. 
They  are  for  the  most  part  concerned  with  the  ordinary 
details  of  church  government.  There  are  matrimonial 
dispensations,  and  dispensations  for  the  holding  of 
pluralities,  etc.  ;  there  are  notices  to  Rudolf  of  the 
appointment  of  bishops.2  There  is,  too,  a  document 
giving  various  powers  to  the  archbishop  of  Treves, 
among  others,  to  bestow  benefices  which  had  fallen  to 
the  Holy  See  during  its  long  vacancy.3 

Among   these   numerous   documents,   however,   there  Nicholas 

intercedes 

are  a  few  of  exceptional  interest,  and  to  these  we  will  10r  a  Jew. 
now  give  a  little  attention.  In  his  struggles  against 
the  results  of  the  half  century  of  anarchy  that  preceded 
his  accession,  and  in  his  efforts  to  restore  the  unity  of 
the  Empire,  King  Rudolf  was  often  in  want  of  money. 
To  replenish  his  exchequer,  it  would  appear  that,  at  least 
on  one  occasion,  he  tarnished  his  deserved  reputation 
as  a  lover  of  justice  by  imitating  the  methods  of  our 
King  John.  To  judge  from  the  Annals  and  Chronicles  of 
Colmar,  to  which  the  letter  of  Nicholas  about  to  be  cited 
lends  support,  it  would  seem  that  Rudolf  seized  a 
distinguished  Jewish  Rabbi.    There  had  been  a  rising  of 

1  Actenstiicke,  nn.  317-463. 

2  E.g.,  tb.,  nn.  335,  appointment  of  Archbp.  of  Treves  (Trier),  and 
n.  336  of  Archbp.  of  Mayence  (Mainz). 

3  lb.,  n.  348. 

163 


164 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


Nicholas 
opposes 
baronial 
oppression. 


The  arch- 
bishop of 
Cologne  is 
taken 
prisoner. 


the  people  against  the  Jews,  and  Rudolf  had,  apparently, 
taken  advantage  of  the  disturbance  to  imprison  "  their 
chief  master  ".  For  his  release,  we  are  told,  the  Jews 
offered  Rudolf  twenty  thousand  marks,1  and  laid  the 
case  before  the  Pope.  Nicholas  at  once  wrote  to  the 
King,  and,  whilst  praising  his  actions  generally,  reminded 
him  that  the  Jews  ought  to  be  treated  with  kindness 
if  only  because  Our  Lord  was  of  their  race.  He  therefore 
begged  him  to  restore  the  Jew  to  full  liberty,  if  it  was 
ascertained  that  he  had  not  done  anything  wrong.2 
Whether  from  respect  for  the  Pope  and  the  Apostolic 
See  as  he  had  been  asked,  or  by  reason  of  the  money  or 
of  simple  justice,  Rudolf  restored  the  rabbi  to  liberty, 
fined  his  Christian  aggressors,  and  bade  the  archbishop 
of  Mayence  publicly  proclaim  that  the  Christians  had 
greatly  wronged  the  Jews.3 

As  Rudolf's  guiding  principles  were,  while  striving  in 
Germany  to  restore  the  central  authority,  to  leave  Italy, 
as  much  as  possible,  to  itself,  and  to  work  in  harmony 
with  the  Church,  there  was  no  room  for  misunderstandings 
between  him  and  Nicholas.  Acts  of  oppression  of 
ecclesiastics  proceeded  now,  not  from  the  head  of  the 
Empire,  but  from  insubordinate  members.  The  greater 
Princes  carried  on  private  wars  as  they  pleased. 
Accordingly  we  find  Nicholas  appealing  to  Rudolf  to  put 
a  curb  on  their  licence. 

On  the  Rhine  there  was  strife  between  Sigfrid,  arch- 
bishop of  Cologne,  and  other  nobles  on  the  one  hand, 
and,  on  the  other,  John,  Duke  of  Brabant,  Count  Adolf 
von  Berg  and  others.     Adolf  wanted  the  archbishopric 


1  Chron.  Colmar.,  ad  a.  1288,  ap.  Bohmer,  Fontes,  ii,  p.  72,  or  ap. 
M.  G.  SS.,  xvii.  Cf.  Annates  C,  ap.  ib.,  p.  23.  "  Rex  R.  coepit  .  .  . 
Judeum  qui  a  Judeis  magnus  in  multis  scientiis  dicebatur." 

2  Ep.  June  22,  1288,  ap.  Kalt.,  p.  341. 

3  Chron.  C,  ib.  In  justice  to  Rudolf  it  must  be  stated  that  there 
is  no  record  of  his  actually  having  received  the  marks. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  165 

of  Cologne  for  his  brother,  and  Duke  John  wanted  the 
Duchy  of  Limburg  which  was  claimed  by  one  of  the 
allies  of  the  archbishop.  A  battle  was  fought  near 
Cologne  at  Worringen  (1288),  and  the  archbishop  was 
defeated  and  imprisoned  by  those,  who,  wrote  the  Pope, 
"  are  declared  to  be  his  vassals."  Prelates  and  laymen, 
continued  Nicholas,  have  already,  to  no  purpose,  striven 
to  induce  Duke  John  and  his  confederates  to  cease  to 
maltreat  the  archbishop  and  his  church.  The  Pope, 
therefore,  earnestly  exhorted  Rudolf  to  insist  on  the 
immediate  release  of  the  archbishop.1  The  archbishop 
was  indeed  set  free  (1289)  2 ;  but  no  attempt  was  made  by 
his  opponents  to  cease  their  encroachments  on  his  church. 
Accordingly,  in  1290,  we  find  Nicholas  still  taking  steps 
with  Rudolf  and  others  in  the  interests  of  Sigfrid  and  his 
church  3 ;  and  in  that  year  we  have  evidence  that  Rudolf 
took  the  matter  up,  as  he  summoned  the  Duke  of  Brabant 
to  appear  before  him.4  What  steps,  if  any,  were  taken 
by  the  King  do  not  appear  to  be  known,  and  it  would 
seem  that  Nicholas,  having  placed  the  affair  in  his  hands, 
took  no  further  action  in  it. 

A  much  more  hardy  plunderer  of  ecclesiastical  property  Meinhard, 
was  Meinhard  II.,  Duke  of  Carinthia,  and  Count  of  the  j^^i  °  *  e 
Tyrol.  Seemingly  without  any  justification,  he  had  seized 
the  city  of  Trent,  which  was  subject  to  the  temporal 
authority  of  its  bishop,  Philip,  and  possessed  himself  of 
various  rights  and  property  that  belonged  to  the  bishop. 
Philip  appealed  for  justice  to  the  Pope,  and  Nicholas, 
declaring  that  "  in  the  matter  of  justice  he  was  a  debitor 

1  Ep.  n.  358,  Aug.  9,  1289,  K. 

2  Notes  Colonienses,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xxiv,  p.  364  ;  and  Chron.  vet. 
Due.  Brunsv.,  ap.  Leibnitz,  55.  Brunsvic,  ii,  18. 

3  lb.,  nn.  375-9,  Jan.  31,  1290,  K.  ;    cf.  ib.,  n.  394,  June  13,  1290. 

4  Reg.  Imperii,  vol.  vi,  n.  2302.  Apr.  29,  1290.  See  the  wholly 
fantastic  account  of  the  imprisonment  of  Sigfrid  given  in  Menzel, 
Hist,  of  Germany,  ii,  82. 


l66  NICHOLAS    IV. 

to  all  ",  turned  to  King  Rudolf  and  asked  him  to  adjudi- 
cate between  the  Duke  and  the  Bishop  (1289). x  But 
Rudolf  moved  slowly,  if  at  all,  and  Meinhard  would  not 
give  heed  to  any  remonstrances  which  the  Pope  caused 
to  be  made  to  him.2  Consequently,  Nicholas  instituted 
process  after  process  against  him,  and  made  further 
appeals  to  Rudolf  to  induce  him  to  interfere.3  Meinhard, 
however,  took  no  heed  of  the  Pope's  processes,  and  even 
despised  his  excommunications.4 
The  affair  On  the  death  of  Nicholas,  Meinhard  was  able  to  impose 

settied^y*  upon  his  simple  successor,  Celestine  V.,  who  ordered  the 
Clement  v.  withdrawal  of  the  excommunication  issued  against  him. 
But  Boniface  VIII.  promptly  recalled  his  predecessor's 
indulgence,5  and  in  turn  took  steps  against  the  recalcitrant 
noble  (Nov.  18,  1295). 6  Before  this  date,  however,  the 
Duke  had  ceased  to  give  trouble  to  anybody  (f  Nov.  1, 
1295),  and  it  was  hoped  that  the  unfortunate  situation 
would  now  be  brought  to  an  end.7  But  it  was  not  so. 
The  Duke's  sons  followed  in  their  father's  footsteps  in 
their  treatment  of  the  Bishop  of  Trent  and  his  rights. 
But  King  Albert  was  a  much  stronger  man  than  his 
father  Rudolf.  Besides,  by  his  marriage  with  Elizabeth, 
Meinhard's  daughter,  he  was  the  brother-in-law  of  the 
Duke's  sons.  Accordingly,  when  appealed  to  by 
Clement  V.,  he  was  able,  either  by  force  of  character  or 

1  Cf.  n.  362  Kalt. 

2  N.  381,  Feb.  11,  1290. 

3  lb.,  nn.  415,  Nov.  18, 1290  ;  431,  Jan.  23,  1291  ;   445,  Apr.  19,  1291. 

4  lb.,  n.  448,  May  23,  1291.  Cf.  n.  449  and  n.  451  for  yet  another 
process  against  Meinhard,  May  31,  1291.  Cf.  nn.  457-8  and  460, 
Nov.   18,   1291  ;    and  462,  Feb.  29,   1292. 

5  lb.,  n.  464,  Sept.  3,  1295.  He  had  been  also  excommunicated 
at  a  Council  at  Salzburg  in  1294.  Ann.  Mellicenses,  ap.  M.  G.  SS., 
ix,  510. 

6  Process,  n.   467  K. 

7  Cf.  n.  474,  Sept.  8,  1296,  and  n.  503,  Sept.  17,  1301.  These  docu- 
ments show  that  various  supporters  of  Meinhard  were  seeking 
reconciliation. 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


167 


family  influence,   to  bring  the  affair  to  a  satisfactory 
conclusion.1  .    . 

The  most  important  negotiations  that  were  entered  Negotiations 
into  by  the  Pope  and  Rudolf,  concerned  not  the  King's  imperial 

•  r  i     r  id    a   u  crown, 

subjects,  but  himself.  In  1289,  if  not  before,  Kudoll  1289-9l. 
began  to  treat  with  Nicholas  about  his  imperial  corona- 
tion. His  envoys  appeared  before  the  Pope  in  April, 
and  said  that  their  master  proposed  to  come  to  Italy  in 
the  summer,  or  about  the  beginning  of  the  coming  winter, 
in  order  to  receive  "the  diadem  of  Empire"  from  his 
hands.  Nicholas  replied  that,  knowing  that  both  before 
and  after  he  became  king,  Rudolf  had  always  shown  great 
devotion  to  the  Roman  Church,  he  was  anxious  to 
arrange  everything  for  the  best  with  regard  to  the 
coronation,  and  so  would  send  Benvenuto,  bishop  of 
Gubbio,  to  settle  everything  to  their  mutual  satisfaction.2 

Nicholas  was  particularly  anxious  that  the  arrange- 
ments should  not  be  spoiled  by  being  too  hurried.  He 
pointed  out  that ,  before  he  became  Pope,  he  had  impressed 
upon  the  King's  envoys  not  to  hasten  the  necessary 
preparations.  Because  his  advice  had  not  been  followed, 
the  negotiations  for  the  coronation  had  ended  in  nothing.3 

This  note  of  caution  may  have  had  its  effect  on  Rudolf. 
At  any  rate  he  did  not  come  to  Rome  at  either  of  the 
times  which  he  had  proposed.  It  may,  on  the  other  hand, 
have  been  that  such  instances  of  lawlessness  among  the 
greater  lords  of  the  Empire  as  we  have  just  narrated,  had 
convinced  the  King  that  the  time  for  his  leaving  Germany 
for  the  Rome  journey  had  not  yet  arrived.  At  any 
rate,  two  subsequent  legations  of  his  to  the  Pope,  of 

1  lb.,  n.  677.  July  7,  1306. 

2  Ep.  of  Nich.,  Apr.  13,  1289,  ap.  M.  G.  LL.,  iii,  p.  409;  cf.  ib., 
n.  417,  p.  410. 

3  "  Nam  alii  tui  nuntii  contra  nostrum  eis  impensum  consilium,  dum 
eramus  in  minori  officio  constituti,  se  ad  brevitatem  termini  nimium 
artaverunt."     Ib.,  p.  409. 


i68 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


Rudolf's 
second 
legation, 
1290. 


Rudolf's 

third 

legation 

regarding 

Hungary. 


Claimants 
for  the 
throne  of 
Hungary. 


which  we  chance  to  know,1  are  not  recorded  to  have  said 
anything  on  the  subject  of  the  coronation. 

Rudolf's  second  legation  was  sent  for  the  purpose  of 
again  protesting  against  the  grant  of  tithes  to  Philip  of 
France  for  the  Aragonese  war  from  dioceses  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Aries  or  Burgundy,  subject  to  Imperial 
control.  Nicholas  had  to  explain  that  the  tithes  were 
really  being  given  to  him,  inasmuch  as  the  French  King 
was  fighting  his  battles.2  Accordingly,  he  begged  Rudolf 
"  as  the  most  special  son  of  the  Church,  and  its  chief 
defender  ",  to  tolerate  what  had  been  done,  in  view  of 
the  needs  of  the  Church,  and  of  his  express  assurance 
that  the  reception  of  the  tithes  in  question  would  not 
confer  any  rights  whatsoever  in  those  districts  on  the 
King  of  France.3 

In  judging  of  the  character  of  Rudolf  of  Hapsburg 
from  the  strongly  partisan  evidence  which  has  come 
down  to  us,  or  from  the  conclusions  of  modern  writers 
upon  it,  it  is  not  easy  to  say  whether  the  leading  aim  of 
his  life  was  to  restore  the  influence  of  the  central  authority 
in  Germany  or  to  advance  his  family.  Historians  who 
believe  the  former,  maintain  that  his  efforts  to  improve 
the  position  of  his  family  were  made  with  a  view7  to 
enabling  him  the  better  to  subdue  the  lawlessness  of  the 
barons,  while  those  who  believe  that  his  sole  thought  was 
the  aggrandisement  of  his  family,  contend  that  he  only 
opposed  such  lawlessness  as  stood  in  the  way  of  the 
advantage  of  his  relatives.  Without  attempting  to 
resolve  this  question,  we  will  here  merely  relate  one  of 
the  things  he  attempted  to  do  for  the  advantage  of  his 
son  Albert,  whom  he  wished  to  succeed  him. 

The    dissolute,    degenerate,    Ladislaus    IV.,    King  of 
Hungary,   was   assassinated  on   July   19,    1290.      Duke 

1  Unfortunately,  Rudolf's  letters  are  very  largely  lost. 

2  Ep.  Nich.  July  3,  1290,  ap.  M.  G.  LL.,  iv,  p.  438. 

3  lb. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  169 

Andrew,  the  heir  to  the  throne,  the  last  male  descendant 
of  the  house  of  Arpad,  was  more  than  half  a  Venetian, 
but,  as  grandson  of  King  Andrew  II.,  had  been  acknow- 
ledged his  heir  by  Ladislaus.1  When,  however,  one 
reads  in  one  of  Hungary's  old  historians  2  that  it  was 
in  the  days  of  Ladislaus  that  the  glory  of  Hungary  began 
to  pass  away,  and  that  internal  wars  were  everywhere 
doing  their  baleful  work,  one  is  also  prepared  to  read 
that  the  right  to  the  succession  of  his  throne  was  disputed. 

Duke  Andrew  was  crowned  ten  days  after  the  death  of 
Ladislaus,3  and  at  once  had  to  face  rivals.  The  first,  an 
impostor,  who  pretended  to  be  a  brother  of  the  deceased 
monarch,  was  soon  disposed  of.  But  the  pretensions  of 
Rudolf  and  Charles  II.  of  Sicily  were  not  so  easily  quashed. 

The  latter,  in  behalf  of  his  wife,  Mary  Arpad,  the  Claim  of 
sister  of  the  late  King,  wrote  to  the  magnates  of  Hungary 
to  point  out  to  them  that  by  the  death  of  Ladislaus,  the 
crown  belonged  "  to  his  most  beloved  wife,  the  late  King's 
sister  and  his  heir  ".  But  he  had  heard  that  "  a  certain 
Andrew  fellow  (Andreacci — Andreatius  nomine)  from 
Venice  "  had  seized  the  kingdom.  Appealing  to  their 
well  known  loyalty  to  their  rightful  sovereigns,  Charles 
exhorted  them  to  bestow  their  homage  where  it  was  due. 
If  Andrew  did  not  at  once  give  up  his  pretensions,  he 
would  be  forced  to.4  In  the  spring  of  the  following  year, 
Mary  made  over  her  claims  to  her  young  son,  Charles 
Martel.5     But  though  he  died  (1295)  a  mere  titular  King 

1  John  de  Thurocz  (fifteenth  cent.),  Chron.  Hungar.,  pt.  i,  cc.  81-2, 
p.  80,  ed.  Frankfort,  1600. 

2  lb.  3  lb.     Cf.  S.  Katona,  Epit.  rer.  Hung.,  i,  p.  543. 

4  Ep.  of  Apr.  21,  1291,  ap.  Mon.  Hungar.  hist.,  Acta  extera,  vol.  i, 
p.  76,  ed.  W.  Gustav,  Budapest,  1874.  Cf.  ib.,  p.  78,  for  another 
similar  letter  written  Sept.  21,  1291,  in  his  own  name  and  in  that  of 
his  wife,  "  Mary,  Queen  of  Hungary." 

5  lb.,  n.  101,  p.  84.  Henceforth  Charles  Martel  signs  himself 
"  King  of  Hungary  ".  See  a  document  of  June  7,  1292,  ap.  Syllabus 
Membr.,  ii,  pt.  i,  p.  92. 


170  NICHOLAS    IV. 

of  Hungary,  his  son  Charles  Robert  (Carobert)  was 
destined  to  be  one  of  Hungary's  most  able  rulers.  Through 
him  the  House  of  Anjou  brought  Hungary  into  close 
touch  with  the  more  westerly  nations  which  was  to  be 
maintained  for  many  decades. 
Rudolf's  But   a  more  immediately  formidable  rival  than  the 

Hungary.  YounS  Charles  Martel  was  Rudolf,  King  of  the  Romans. 
Declaring  that  Hungary  was  a  fief  of  the  Empire,  he 
invested  his  son  Albert  of  Austria  with  it.  Albert  at  once 
attempted  to  make  good  his  claim,  and  about  Christmas 
(1290),  entered  Hungary  with  a  considerable  force. 
King  Andrew,  however,  who  was  far  from  wanting  in 
energy,  collected  a  great  army,  and  not  only  drove  Albert 
out  of  Hungary,  but  pushed  forward  to  the  very  gates 
of  Vienna  (1291).1 

Meanwhile,  Pope  Nicholas  had  been  taking  action. 
Addressing  Benvenuto,  bishop  of  Gubbio,  he  told  him 
that  it  had  come  to  his  knowledge  that,  on  the  death  of 
Ladislaus,  the  greatest  disorders  had  arisen  in  Hungary.2 
As  it  is  well  known,  he  added,  that  that  kingdom  is 
subject  to  the  Apostolic  See,3  the  bishop  is  ordered,  as 
soon  as  he  gets  to  Hungary,  to  summon  the  clerical  and 
lay  magnates  of  the  country,  and,  in  the  Pope's  name,  to 
prohibit  anyone  of  any  rank  whatsoever  from  invading 
the  country  to  the  prejudice  of  its  rights  and  those  of 
the  Holy  See.4 

Rudolf  had  meanwhile  sent  a  third  legation  to  Nicholas, 

1  This  is  clear  both  from  the  Annals  of  Austria,  and  from  a  diploma 
of  Andrew  himself  (Aug.  28,  1291),  both  cited  by  Katona,  I.e. 

2  "Cum  .  .  .  Rex  Ungariae  rebus  sit  humanis  exemptus,  turbationes 
pericula  et  scandala  gravia  in  regno  Ungariae  sint  exorta."  Ep.  of 
Sept.  13,  1290,  ap.  K.,  n.  404,  p.  415.     Cf.  n.  402. 

3  "  Ad  quam  (Ap.  See)  regnum  ipsum  pertinere  dinoscitur."  lb. 
Cf.  the  subsequent  statement  of  Bonifacius  VIII.  "  Stephanus  Rex 
Ungariae  .  .  .  ab  ipsa  sede  (of  Rome)  accepit  humiliter  coronam  et 
regnum."     Ep.   Oct.    17,    1301,  ap.  Theiner,  Mon.  Hungar.,  i,  p.  387. 

4  Ep.  just  cited. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  17 1 

informing  him  of  what  he  had  done  with  regard  to 
Hungary.1  Nicholas,  however,  while  declaring  that  he 
had  no  wish  to  interfere  with  any  rights  over  Hungary  that 
the  King  might  have,  reminded  him  that  that  kingdom 
was  known  to  belong  to  the  Holy  See.  Accordingly,  he 
exhorted  Rudolf  not  to  trespass  against  the  rights  of  the 
Holy  See,  especially  as  he  was  its  chief  defender.  Bishop 
John  of  Iesi,  who  was  being  sent  as  a  legate  to  Hungary, 
would  explain  the  Pope's  position  more  at  length.2 

Bishop  John,  thus  commissioned  to  go  to  Hungary, 
was  to  send  information  to  the  Pope  on  the  exact  state 
of  affairs.  He  was,  moreover,  to  befriend  Isabella,  the 
outraged  wife  of  the  late  King  Ladislaus.3  Nicholas 
then  wrote  to  the  archbishops  of  Gran  and  Kalocsa  to 
inform  them  that  he  was  sending  a  legate  to  Hungary. 
At  the  same  time  he  expressed  his  great  astonishment 
that,  whereas  during  the  lifetime  of  Ladislaus  they  were 
constantly  complaining  to  the  Holy  See  of  the  wretched 
state  of  their  country,  they  had  not  sent  him  any  details 
about  the  death  of  their  King,  or  about  the  claimants  to 
his  throne.4 

As  to  the  immediate  result  of  this  energetic  action  of  Jfh|^itude 
Nicholas,  we  are  unfortunately  very  much  in  the  dark.  Nicholas. 
If  the  Hungarian  primates,  stirred  out  of  what  Nicholas 
called  their  "  blameworthy  negligence ",  sent  him  in 
reports  of  the  condition  of  affairs,  they  have  not  reached 
us  ;  nor  has  the  report  of  the  legate  John  come  down  to  us. 
Historians,  moreover,  both  ancient  and  modern,  by  not 
carefully  attending  to  dates,  have  added  to  the  darkness. 

1  The  King's  letters  are  lost,  but  from  the  Pope's  reply  we  know 
that  he  told  Nicholas  :  "  Nobili  viro  Alberto  duci  Austrian  nato  tuo 
et  ejus  heredibus  ...  in  feudum  regnum  Ungariae  concessisti  ".  Ep. 
of  Dec.  28,  1290,  to  Rudolf,  ap.  M.  G.  LL.,  Constit.,  iii,  pt.  i,  p.  439. 

2  lb.,  and  the  following  letter  (n.  454)  of  Jan.  31,  1291. 

3  Cf.  epp.  of  Jan.  2,  1291,  to  John,  nn.  594-6,  600-2,  ap.  Theiner, 
Mon.  Hung.,  i,  p.  370  ff. 

4  Nn.  603-4,  Jan.  31,  1291,  ap.  ib.,  p.  374. 


I72  NICHOLAS    IV. 

The  cause  of  most  of  this  trouble  would  appear  to  be  the 
Chronicle  of  St.  Antoninus  or  of  Villani.    The  former  tells 
us  that  in  1290  Charles  II.,  then  in  Naples,  caused  his 
son  to  be  crowned  King  of  Hungary  by  a  papal  legate.1 
Now  Charles  II.  was  not  then  in  Naples,  nor  had  his  wife, 
Mary,  by  that  time  made  over  her  claim  to  Hungary  to 
her  son.    Nicholas  IV.,  moreover,  died  Apr.  4,  1292,  and 
we  know  for  certain  that  as  late  as  Apr.  13,  1292,  Charles 
Martel  still  called  himself  "  Prince  of  Salerno  ".2    It  was 
not  till  a  month  or  two  later  that  he  subscribed  himself 
as  King  of  Hungary.3     If  then  in  that  interval  he  was 
crowned  King  by  anyone,  it  was  not  by  a  legate  of  a 
Pope,  because  there  was  no  Pope  at  the  time.      But  if 
he  was  then  crowned  by  one  who  had  been  a  legate  of  a 
Pope,  it  is  quite  certain  that  he  was  not  crowned  by  the 
order,  or  even  by  the  connivance  of  Pope  Nicholas  IV.4 
There  is  then  only  one  conclusion  to  draw.     Nicholas 
had  not  received  any  information  which  caused  him  to 
see    any   reason   for   interfering   with    the    election    of 
Andrew    III.      Accordingly    the    Hungarian    historian, 
Katona,  concludes  that  Nicholas  recognized  Andrew  as 
the  legitimate  ruler  of  Hungary,  and  he  adds  that  he 
had  been  unable  to  find  any  document  in  which  the  Pope 
denied  him  the  title  of  King.5 

1  Tit.  xx,  c.  v,  n.  7,  p.  230,  ed.  Lyons,  1587  (perhaps  from  G.  Villani, 
Chron.,  vii,  134,  al.  135).  "  Ac  etiam  per  legatum  paps  fecit  eum 
coronari  in  regem  Hungarian." 

2  Syllab.  membran.,  ii,  pt.  i,  p.  90. 

3  lb.,  p.  92.  M.  Riccio  in  his  rare  Saggio  di  Cod.  diplom.,  ii,  pt.  i, 
pp.  6,  7,  gives  documents  of  Apr.  11  and  18,  1292,  in  which  Charles 
Martel  signs  himself  King  of  Hungary. 

4  With  still  less  ground  Sayons,  Hist,  des  Hongrois,  i,  p.  290,  pretends 
that  S.  Celestine  V.  crowned  him. 

5  Epit.  chron.  rer.  Hung.,  i,  p.  547,  n.  451.  "Nullum  ego  sane 
documentum  adhuc  reperi,  quo  Nicolaus  Andream  administratoris 
dumtaxat,  non  regis,  titulo  condecoraverit."  From  what  has  now 
been  said  on  this  matter,  the  reader  can  see  how  unfounded  are  the 
statements  about  the  crowning  of  Charles  Martel  by  Nicholas'  legate, 


NICHOLAS    IV.  173 

In  any  case,  Andrew  III.  was  able  to  maintain  his  Andrew 
position  as  King  of  Hungary  till  his  early  death  (1301).  r(faim. 
Rudolf,  greatly  disappointed  that  the  electors,  at  the 
diet  of  Frankfort  (May,  1291),  had  refused  in  his  life- 
time to  name  his  son  Albert  as  his  successor,  had  died 
July  15, 1291,  and  Charles  Martel  was  in  a  position  to  push 
such  claims  as  he  had  to  the  throne  of  Hungary  by  force 
of  arms. 

The  Hungarian  succession  would  appear  to  have  been  Death  of 
the  last  important  matter  which  engaged  the  joint  ^9^  ' 
attention  of  the  Pope  and  Rudolf.  The  King  of  the 
Romans  died  July  15,  1291,  and,  it  would  appear,  before 
news  of  the  fall  of  Acre  (May  18,  1291)  had  reached  him. 
As  we  have  seen,1  Nicholas  did  not  receive  the  news  of 
that  disastrous  event  till  after  August  1,  so  that  we  may 
take  it  for  granted  that  Rudolf  was  not  stirred  by  it,  as 
the  hand  of  death  had  prevented  the  tidings  from  reaching 
him.  This  was  most  unfortunate,  as  Nicholas  had  to  face 
the  grave  situation  without  the  counsels  of  the  wise  old 
King  of  the  Romans.2  If,  however,  the  Germans  at  the 
time,  and  we  now  regard  Rudolf  as  wise  for  devoting 
his  energies  to  increasing  his  power  in  Germany,  many 
of  the  Italians  of  his  day  blamed  him  for  allowing  : — 

"  Through  greediness  of  yonder  realms  detained, 
The  garden  of  the  empire  (Italy)  to  run  waste."  3 

and  about  that  Pope's  requiring  Rudolf  "  to  support  the  prince  of 
Naples  " — to  be  found  in  W.  Coxe,  Hist,  of  the  House  of  Austria,  i,  p.  52. 
Though  adversely  criticizing  these  statements  in  Coxe,  we  would 
quote  with  approval  the  words  with  which  he  concludes  his  sketch  of 
his  character  (p.  58)  :  "we  must  place  Rhodolph  among  the  best 
and  greatest  princes  who  ever  filled  a  throne." 

1  Cf.  supra,  p.  55. 

2  A  chronicler  recording  his  death,  praises  his  wisdom,  and  calls 
attention  to  his  big  nose  as  a  mark  of  it :  "  Fecit  magnalia  in  vita 
sua  ;  fuit  enim  robustus  usque  in  senectutem  ejus  et  sapiens,  magnum 
habens  nasum."  Ann.  Lubicenses  (fourteenth  cent.),  ap.  M.  G.  SS., 
xvi,  p.  415. 

3  Cf.  Dante,  Purg.,  vi,  103-5  ;    Villani,  Chron.,  vii,  145  (al.  146). 


174  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Philip  the  Of  very   different   character  to   the  energetic,   clear- 

sighted Rudolf,  soldier  and  statesman,  was  that  mask, 
Philip  le  Bel,  that  "  image  ",  fair  but  brainless.1  However, 
as  the  quarrel  between  the  ruler  or  rulers  of  France  and 
the  Papacy  did  not  come  to  a  head  till  the  pontificate  of 
Boniface  VIII.,  we  shall  not  here  say  our  last  word  on 
the  obscure  character  of  its,  at  any  rate,  nominal  head, 
Philip  le  Bel,  till  we  treat  of  the  reign  of  Boniface. 
Attacks  on  Meanwhile  we  can  feel  that  storm  is  nearer  under 
oMhc08"1011  Nicholas  IV.  than  it  was  under  Honorius  IV.  It  was 
Church.  more  clear  that  there  was  a  bitter  anti-clerical  party  in 
France,  and  that  the  regime  of  arbitrariness  had  advanced. 
The  King's  officials  were  more  frequently  acting  against 
recognized  law  or  custom.  On  March  I,  1289,  Nicholas 
addressed  a  weighty  letter  to  Philip,  urging  him  not  to 
compel  Walter,  bishop  of  Poitiers,  to  appear  before  the 
officials  of  the  royal  court.  The  Pope  pointed  out  that, 
by  immemorial  civil  and  canonical  privilege,  the  bishop 
was  exempted  from  pleading  before  the  King  or  any 
lay  authority.2  He  reminded  the  King  that  the  matter 
concerning  which  the  royal  officials  had  endeavoured  to 
force  the  bishop  to  appear  before  them  was  the  fraudulent 
acquisition  of  an  episcopal  fief  by  a  certain  Geoffrey  de 
Valeya,  a  cleric  of  the  diocese  of  Angers.  Then  he  tried 
to  impress  upon  Philip  that  to  treat  the  bishops  of  his 
realm  in  the  way  in  which  Walter  was  being  treated  was 
unworthy  of  the  royal  honour,  inasmuch  as  it  was  his 
duty  to  defend  them.  If  heed  were  not  taken  to  his 
remonstrance,  he  would  have  to  look  for  a  suitable  remedy. 

1  \'.(  rnard  Saisset,  bishop  of  Pamiers,  was  accused  of  saying  that 
Philip  "  non  erat  homo,  nee  bestia,  sed  imago  ".  Ap.  Martene,  Thes. 
nov.,  i,  p.   1331. 

2  "  At  idem  episcopus  .  .  .  regali  privilegio  et  possessione  ac  etiam 
canon ica  libertate  a  tempore  a  quo  non  extat  memoria  communitus, 
quod  coram  rege  Francie  vel  alio  judice  laicali  non  tenetur  in  judicio 
respondere,  etc."     Reg.,  n.  709. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  175 

The  bishops  of  Evreux  and  Senlis  were  ordered  to  make 
a  personal  representation  to  Philip  on  the  bishop's  behalf, 
and  Walter  himself  was  told  that,  except  against  the 
persons  or  chapel  of  the  King  and  Queen,  he  could  freely 
use  "  the  spiritual  sword  ".l 

Soon,  other  complaints  reached  the  Pope  of  similar 
wrongs  being  inflicted  on  the  churches  of  Chartres,2 
Lyons,3  etc.  It  was  always  more  or  less  the  same  story. 
On  one  plea  or  another  ecclesiastics  were  brought 
before  the  civil  courts,  and  the  situation  was  aggravated 
by  a  royal  decree  4  to  the  effect  that  "  in  the  King's  court 
no  prelate  of  the  kingdom  of  France  could  act  by  a 
proctor  no  matter  how  legally  constituted,  or  commence 
an  action  no  matter  how  trivial  ".5  The  Pope  pointed 
out  what  harm  this  would  do  to  the  country,  as  it  would 
compel  bishops  to  be  absent  from  their  sees  for  long 
periods.  He  accordingly  urged  the  King  to  withdraw 
or  modify  the  decree  as  contrary  to  both  law  and 
equity.6 

As  the  situation  did  not  improve,  Nicholas  sent  to  Legates  sent 
France  two  experienced  cardinals  to  deal  with  it,  to  129o. 
wit,   Gerard,   bishop  of  Sabina,   and  Benedict   Gaetani, 
deacon  of  St.  Nicholas  "  in  carcere  Tulliano  ".7     They 
were  also  sent,  as  we  see,  in  the  interests  of  the  Sicilian 
affair,  and  of  the  Crusades.8     Seeing  that  no  more  is 

1   Epp.  of  March  1  and  9,  1289;    ib.,  nn.  710-11.     Cf.  nn.  752-3. 
a  Ep.  of  March  19,  1289  ;    ib.,  n.  736. 
»  Epp.  of  July  18,  1289;    ib.,  nn.  1175-7. 

4  "  Statutum  scu  consuctum,  ut  patrie  verbis  utamur  "  it  is  called 
by  the  Pope.     Ep.  Apr.  13,  1289  ;    ib.,  n.  825. 

5  Ib. 

6  "  Statutum  .  .  .  utpotc  juri  contrarium,  dissonum  equitati, 
etc."     Ib. 

'  Epp.  of  March  23,  1290.     Reg.,  nn.  4296-9. 

•  Potthast,  nn.  23226-7.  Cf.  23246,  23500.  A  few  days  before  he 
died,  Nicholas  was  writing  to  the  King  to  get  justice  for  the  Church 
of  Tours.     Epp.  of  March  27,  1292  ;    ap.  Reg.,  nn.  7394-6. 


of  bankers. 


176  NICHOLAS    IV. 

heard  of  the  grievances  of  the  churches  in  question,  it 
may  be  that  "  the  angels  of  peace  ",  as  the  Pope  called 
the  legates,  were  able,  at  any  rate  temporarily,  to  find 
with  the  King  some  "  ways  and  means  by  which  the 
troubled  waters  were  smoothed  ".1  It  may,  however, 
also  be  that  the  excitement  caused  by  the  news  of  the 
fall  of  Acre  pushed  the  troubles  of  the  churches  out  of 
sight. 
Molestation  But  churchmen  were  not  the  only  ones  whose  rights 
were  not  respected  by  the  grasping  officials  of  the  Crown. 
On  November  8,  1291,  Nicholas  had  to  complain  to  the 
King  that  some  merchants  of  Lucca  had  been  seized 
along  with  their  goods,  and  to  beg  him  to  restore  them 
to  liberty.2  Some  of  these  merchant  bankers  belonged  to 
the  principal  firms  connected  with  the  apostolic  camera 
(treasury),  firms  which,  said  the  Pope,  "  had  served 
the  Roman  Church  long  and  usefully."  3  Nevertheless, 
only  a  few  weeks  before  Nicholas  died,  these  trusted 
bankers  were  still  in  jail,  despite  renewed  papal  protests.4 
Yet  all  this  time  the  Pope,  by  enforcing  the  payment  of 
the  tithe  for  the  Aragonese  affair,  was  putting  money 
into  Philip's  hands.5 

1  This  would  seem  to  be  proved  by  the  words  of  the  anonymous 
biographer  of  Nicholas,  published  by  J.  Rubens  :  "  Concordaverunt 
tamen  clerum  cum  rege,  propter  quod  aliqui  putant  eos  (the  legates) 
principaliter  missos."  P.  169.  The  passage  is  from  the  Chronicle 
of  Jordan,  ap.  Muratori,  Antiq.,  iv,  p.  1017. 

2  Potthast,  n.  23859. 

3  Reg.,  n.  7384,  Oct.   3,   1291. 

4  Reg.,  n.  7393,  March  15,  1292. 

5  Reg.,  n.  2114,  Feb.  9,  1290.  Cf.  ib.,  6316,  Dec.  18,  1291,  and 
Potthast,  n.  23874,  Dec.  13,  1291,  where  we  see  Nicholas  refusing  to 
satisfy  the  insatiable  greed  of  the  King  for  further  tithes  for  doing 
little  or  nothing  in  connection  with  "  that  special  business  of  the 
Roman  Church,  the  affair  of  Aragon  ".  Reg.,  n.  2114.  See  also  the 
bull  of  May  31,  1289,  naming  the  archbp.  of  Rouen  and  the  bp.  of 
Auxerre  collectors  of  the  tenth,  and  prescribing  in  detail  how  the  tax 
was  to  be  raised.  Ap.  "  Docs,  inedits  relatifs  a  Philippe  le  Bel,"  by  E. 
Boutaric  in  Notices  et  extraits,  etc.,  t.  xx,  p.  91  ff. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  177 

After  what  we  have  said  above  1  about  the  work  of  Crusades. 
Nicholas  for  the  preservation  and  redemption  of  the 
Holy  Land  from  the  Moslem,  there  is  no  need  to  say  much 
more  about  it  here,  especially  as  the  subject  will  come 
up  again  in  connection  with  grants  of  "  Saladin  tithes  " 
to  King  Edward.  We  will  but  note  now  that  before  the 
fall  of  Acre  (May  18,  1291),  Nicholas  most  earnestly 
besought  the  French  King  to  take  on  himself  the  protec- 
tion of  the  Holy  Land,  at  least  until  the  general  Crusade 
was  ready.2  Grants  of  money  collected  for  the  Crusades 
were  made  to  him,3  and  after  the  fall  of  Acre,  Nicholas 
urgently  implored  him  to  imitate  the  zeal  of  his  ancestors 
for  the  welfare  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  to  send  a  fleet 
thither  at  once  in  order  to  help  such  Christians  as  were 
left  there,  and  to  be  a  menace  to  the  enemy.4  Quite 
unmoved  by  the  Pope's  appeals  to  piety  or  to  glory,  Philip 
or  his  officials  took  "  Crusade  "  money,  but  did  not 
send  a  galley  to  sea. 

Whether  the  Pope's  appeals,5  and  the  real  zeal  of  our 
own  King  would  have  launched  a  new  Crusade,  it  is 
impossible  to  say,  because  not  only  Rudolf  and  Alfonso 
of  Aragon  died  before  the  time  appointed  for  its  departure, 
but,  most  unfortunately,  Nicholas  himself  also  died  (Apr. 
4, 1292).  Had  only  a  zealous  Pope  succeeded  him  at  once, 
a  great  Crusade  might  possibly  have  again  left  the  shores 

1  P.  55  fif. 

2  Reg.,  4409-14,  Dec.  5-16,  1290. 

3  lb.,  n.  4413-14. 

4  Reg.,  6778,  Aug.  23,  1291.  Cf.  nn.  6779-81.  Nicholas  himself, 
however,  sent  20  galleys  to  Cyprus  to  help  the  fugitives  from  Acre  who 
had  fled  there.     Cf.  Sanudo,  Secreta,  ap.  Bongars,  ii,  232. 

5  lb.,  nn.  6782-805.  Cf.  the  chronicles  of  the  time,  e.g.,  Ann. 
Blandin.,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  v,  p.  33  f.  ;  Ann.  Colmar.,  ap.  Bohmer,  Fontes, 
ii,  27  ;  Will,  of  Nangis,  i,  279  ;  Eberhardi,  Annales,  ap.  M.  G.  SS., 
xvii,  594  ;  Bartholomew  of  Cotton,  Chron.,  p.  176.  One  result  of  the 
Pope's  appeal  for  advice  was  that  Bro.  Fidentius  of  Padua  presented 
him  with  a  special  treatise  "  De  recuperatione  Terrae  Sanctae,"  ap. 
Golubovich,  Biblioteca,  i,  p.  291  f.,  426  ff.,  and  ii,  1-60. 

Vol.  XVII.  n 


178  NICHOLAS    IV. 

of  Europe.  But  a  disastrously  long  vacancy  of  the  Holy 
See  followed  the  death  of  Nicholas,  and  effectually 
destroyed  all  chances  of  the  hoped-for  Crusade.  Although 
the  great  crusading  era  which  had  lasted  for  two  hundred 
years  closed  with  Nicholas  IV.,  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose 
that  crusading  efforts  died  with  him.  For  more  than 
a  hundred  years  after  his  death  one  effort  after  another 
was  actually  made  to  reconquer  the  Holy  Land.1 

1  Cf.  J.  D.  le  Roulx,  La  France  en  Orient,  i,  p.  6  ;   Paris,  1886. 


CHAPTER  V 

ROME  AND  THE  PAPAL  STATES.   ART. 

When  Nicholas  IV.  ascended  the  pontifical  throne,  he  General 

Cnapter  or 

found  the  city  of  Rome,  which  the  firm  rule  of  the  two  the  Fran- 
brothers  Savelli,  Pope  and  Senator,  had  kept  well  in  ^ns' 
hand,  in  a  state  of  unwonted  tranquillity.  That  it  would 
remain  in  peace  he  was  the  more  encouraged  to  believe, 
seeing  that  the  Romans  named  him  their  Senator  for 
life.1  Accordingly,  with  a  light  heart,  he  betook  himself 
to  Rieti  about  the  middle  of  May  (1289),  to  preside  over 
the  twenty-third  General  Chapter  of  the  Franciscan 
Order.  With  Matteo  Rosso,  the  cardinal  protector  of 
the  Order,  he  was  present  at  the  election  of  the  new 
General,  Bro.  Raymund  Geoffrey  of  Provence.  Though 
it  is  said  that  Raymund  was  not  the  candidate  desired 
by  the  Pope,  he  nevertheless  confirmed  the  election.2 
Raymund  belonged  to  the  party  of  the  Spirituals  or 
Zealots,  and  it  may  have  been  that  Nicholas,  knowing 
his  unbalanced  views,  was  loath  to  see  him  elected 
General.3  It  was  after  this  Chapter  that  Nicholas  crowned 
Charles  II. 

Although  the   whole   subject   of  the   disturbances  in  £ro0^les  in 
Rome  during  the  pontificate  of  Nicholas  is  most  obscure, 

1  Vitale,  Storia  de'  Senatori,  i,  p.  196.  The  foundation  for  this 
assertion  would  appear  to  be  the  epitaphs  on  his  first  and  later  tomb. 
The  earlier  epitaph  describes  him  as  "  fascibus  auctus  "  (ap.  P.  de 
Angelis,  Descript.  S.M.  Maj.,  p.  158),  and  the  later  states  "  Senatoriam 
P.R.  dignitatem  sedi  apost.  restituit  ".     lb.,  p.  158. 

2  Chron.  XXIV.  Gen.,  p.  419,  ed.  Quaracchi.  Cf.  Mariano  of 
Florence,  Compend.  Chron.,  p.  54,  and  Catal.  Gen.  Minist.,  ap.  M.  G.  SS., 
xxxii,  p.  669. 

3  About  him  see  the  note  to  the  Chron.  XXIV.,  and  the  Chron.  of 
St.  Antoninus,  tit.  xxiv,  c.  9,  n.   11,  p.  782. 

179 


i8o 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


Nicholas 
favours  the 
Colonnas. 


it  would  seem  that  disorders  broke  out  in  the  city  soon 
after  the  Pope's  departure  from  it.  Indeed,  the  Annals 
of  Colmar  which  speak  of  these  troubles  declare,  obviously 
quite  mistakenly,  that  the  Romans  expelled  the  Pope 
from  Rome  because  he  had,  against  their  will,  crowned 
King  Charles.  They  add  that  in  the  course  of  the  fighting 
attending  the  expulsion  more  than  five  hundred  men 
were  killed.1  As  to  the  fact  of  the  disorders,  we  have 
the  additional  testimony  of  Bonincontrius,  and  he,  too, 
would  seem  to  imply  that  they  broke  out  in  the  early 
part  of  the  Pope's  reign.  After  telling  of  his  election, 
he  adds  :  "At  that  time  the  Romans  were  agitated  by 
civil  broils  ;  and  the  whole  city  was  a  prey  to  arson, 
rapine,  and  murder."  2  They  were  equally  "  agitated  " 
in  the  last  year  of  Nicholas'  reign.  They  started  fighting 
among  themselves  in  the  month  of  February,  1292,  and, 
according  to  the  Annals  of  Parma,  "  plundered  churches, 
religious  houses,  and  foreigners."  3 

We  have  evidence,  moreover,  that  Nicholas  rather 
aggravated  than  diminished  the  disorders  by  his  ignorance 
of  the  most  elementary  ideas  of  government.  It  is 
possible  that  he  even  failed  to  realize  that  a  civil  ruler 
must  have  material  force  behind  him,  and  it  appears 
certain  that  he  failed  to  understand  that  the  ruler  must 
treat  all  impartially,  and  compel  all  alike  to  obey  the 
law.  We  are  assured  that  Nicholas,  on  the  contrary, 
favoured    one    party,    and    that    the    Colonnas.4      The 


1  Ann.  C,  ap.  Bohmer,  Fontes,  ii,  26. 

2  Hist.  Sicula,  iii,  p.  57.  He  assigns  these  troubles  to  the  year  of 
the  release  of  Charles  II.  (1288). 

3  Ad  an.  1292,  p.  63,  new  ed. 

*  Cf.  Ptolemy  of  Lucca,  H.E.,  xxiv,  c.  21.  Despite  his  goodness, 
he  erred  :  "  quia  nimis  uni  generi  adhaerebat."  See  also  F.  Pipinus, 
Chron.,  iv,  23,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  ix,  p.  727.  Boniface  VIII.  is  said  to  have 
incurred  the  hatred  of  the  Colonnas  because  he  did  not  follow  them 
as  Nicholas  had  done  :  "  quibus  .  .  .  non  annuebat,  prout  annuerat 
N.  IV."     Cron.  Urbevet.,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  xv,  pt.  v,  p.  201,  new  ed. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  l8l 

Bolognese  Dominican  historian,  Franciscus  Pipinus,  who 
had  a  greater  craving  for  marvels  than  for  accuracy,1 
assures  us  that  there  was  a  story  current  to  the 
effect  that  Nicholas  was  much  attached  to  a  youth 
(puerulus)  who  was  thought  to  have  the  gift  of  prophecy. 
On  one  occasion  he  said  to  this  youth  :  "  Nicholas, 
bishop,  servant  of  the  servants  of  God,  by  whom  is  he 
ruled  ?  "  The  reply  came  promptly,  "  By  the  men  of 
the  Column "  (the  Colonnas).2  The  same  historian 
goes  on  to  tell  us  how  Nicholas  was  lampooned  in  a 
pamphlet  entitled :  "  Incipit  initium  malorum  "  or 
"  Principium  malorum  ".  The  first  Pope  to  be  caricatured 
in  this  pamphlet  was  Nicholas  III.3  Pipinus  describes 
these  caricatures  from  that  of  Nicholas  III.  to  that  of 
Clement  V.,  the  last  Pope  of  whom  he  writes.  Attached 
to  them,  he  tells  us,  were  "  most  obscure  inscriptions  ". 
Nicholas  was  represented  as  enclosed  in  a  column  4  out 
of  which  only  appeared  his  head  covered  with  a  mitre. 
In  front  of  him  were  two  other  columns,  representing 
perhaps  the  two  Colonna  cardinals,  James,  created  by 
Nicholas  III.,  and  Peter,  created  by  Nicholas  himself. 
On  the  top  of  one  of  them  was  the  head  of  a  bird  holding 
in  its  beak  a  nest,  in  which  was  the  head  of  an  aged  cleric. 
The  inscription  on  the  caricature  ran  :  "  Nicholas  IV. 
Confusion.    Error  will  be  stirred  up." 

This  book  of  caricatures  is  evidently  like  one  which  was 
produced  in  the  fifteenth  century,5  and  is  still  preserved  in 
the  Vatican  library. 6    It  gives  a  series  of  coloured  pictures 

1  He  wrote  after  1320. 

2  Pipinus,  ib., 

3  lb.,  c.  20,  p.  724. 

*  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  remind  the  reader  that  the  arms  of  the 
Colonna  family  were  and  are  a  column. 

5  Certainly  after  1431,  a  date  given  on  fol.  11  v. 

6  Cod.  reg.  Lat.,  580.  It  was  published  in  Venice,  1600,  under  the 
title  of  Vaticinia  sive  Propetice  Abbatis  Joachim,  with  illustrations.  See 
Pastor,  History  of  the  Popes,  i,  p.  151  ff. 


1-82  NICHOLAS    IV. 

of  the  Popes  from  Nicholas  III.  to  Eugenius  IV.,  purport- 
ing to  illustrate  prophecies  about  them.  It  is  a  distinctly 
scurrilous  production,  and  of  no  historical  value  whatso- 
ever for  the  story  of  the  Popes  of  this  period.  To  show 
its  nature,  we  will  give  its  presentment  of  Nicholas  IV. 
Wearing  a  tiara  of  three  crowns,  he  is  shown  seated  between 
two  female  figures.  The  one  on  his  right  is  putting  a 
chalice  into  his  hand,  while  on  the  same  side  a  small  winged 
dragon  is  seen  climbing  or  flying  up  to  his  knee.  The 
abusive  inscription  below  declares  that  Nicholas,  useless 
to  the  world  which  he  neglects,  is  a  slave  to  drink  and 
impurity. 
Positions  for  There  is  perhaps  then  evidence  enough  that  Nicholas 
did  favour  the  Colonna  family.  He  made  Peter  "  de 
Columna  "  a  cardinal,  Stephen  and  Landulf  of  the  same 
stock  rectors  respectively  of  the  Romagna  and  the  Duchy 
of  Spoleto,  and  Giovanni  (John)  Colonna  Senator  in  his 
own  place,  after  he  had  made  him  Rector  of  the  March 
of  Ancona.1  The  succession  of  Senators  during  the 
reign  of  Nicholas  is  now  fairly  well  established,  and  it 
would  seem  that  it  cannot  be  maintained  that  he  also 
named  another  Colonna,  James  (Giacomo)  Senator  after 
John.  When  Nicholas  became  Pope  some  believe  that 
the  brother  of  Honorius  IV.,  Pandulf  Savelli,  was  still 
Senator.2  However,  we  know  now  from  documents  of 
Feb.  3  and  May  24,  that  Matteo  Rosso  Orsini  was  Senator 
for  the  second  time,3  and  Berthold  Orsini  (de  filiis  Ursi) 
was   certainly    Senator   on   June    12,    1288. 4     He   was 


1  Reg.,  n.  7089,  June  27,  1288  ;  and  Potthast,  nn.  22606-9,  for  the 
nomination  of  Landulf. 

2  They  point  out  that  Honorius  :  "  Pandulphum  deinde  fratrem  in 
magistratu  Senatorio  confirmavit."    Bonincontrius,  Hist.  Sic, Hi,  p.  55. 

3  Docs.  ap.  Boiiard,  Les  institutions  de  Rome,  pp.  246-7. 

4  Reg.  N.  IV.,  n.  7050.  Other  authentic  documents  show  him 
still  Senator  on  Oct.  14,  Dec.  17,  1288,  and  Feb.  12,  1289,  ap. 
Gregorovius,  Rome,  v,  pt.  ii,  p.  512-13,  n.  3. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  183 

apparently  followed  by  Nicholas  Conti  and  Luca  Savelli.1 
Then  came  the  famous  John  Colonna  to  whom  we  have 
letters  addressed  by  the  Pope,2  and  who  was  certainly 
Senator  from  August,  1290,  till  May  19,  1291.3  The 
Register  of  Nicholas  shows  us  that  in  July  and  October,4 
1291,  the  Senator  of  Rome  was  Roffred  (or  Loffred) 
Gaetani.  He  was  probably  the  Senator  at  the  time  of 
the  Pope's  death,  though  sometime  in  1292,  certainly 
by  May  10,  he  was  succeeded  by  Stephen  Colonna  and 
Orso  Orsini  (de  filiis  Ursi).5 

Taking  it  as  a  fact  that  the  Gaetani  and  the  Savelli  gj^the^  ^ 
as  well  as  the  Orsini  were  at  this  period  in  open  hostility  the 
to  the  Colonnas  and  their  friends  the  Annibaldi,  we  may  j^r°pial 
well,  with  this  authentic  list  of  his  Senators  in  front  of 
us,  assert  that  Nicholas  at  any  rate  did  not  give  undue 
civil  authority  to  the  Colonnas.    The  list  shows  that  he 
aimed  at  balancing  the  influence  in  Rome  of  its  most 
powerful  families.     It  is  true  that  in  the  person  of  the 
Senator  John  (Giovanni)  the  Colonnas  made  a  bold  bid 
to  keep  the  civil  authority  in  their  hands.    We  are  assured 

1  Gregorovius,  ib.,  p.  513  n.,  quotes  a  document  to  show  they 
were  Senators  on  Jan.  1,  1290,  and  the  Senator,  John  Colonna,  in  an 
important  document  of  Sept.  9,  1290,  speaks  of  them  as  "  his  prede- 
cessors "  ;  i.e.,  he  speaks  of  what  happened  "  tempore  nostro  et  tempore 
senatus  dominorum  De  Comite,  et  Luce  de  Sabello  ".  Ap.  Pinzi, 
Storia  di    Viierbo,  ii,  p.  464. 

2  Cf.  epp.  of  Aug.  and  Sept.  27,  1290,  Reg.,  nn.  7259,  7264  ;  Vitale, 
Senatori,  i,  p.   199  f. 

3  See  a  series  of  authentic  documents  in  Pinzi,  Storia  di  Viterbo, 
ii,  p.  459  ff. 

4  Nn.  7333  (July  5)  and  7339  (Oct.).  In  the  former  letter  the  Pope 
speaks  of  his  beloved  son  the  noble  "  Johannes  de  Columpna  de  Urbe  " 
who  was  Senator  before  Roffred.  From  n.  7369  it  would  appear  that 
he  was  a  cleric  and  a  nephew  of  Benedict  Gaetani  (afterwards 
Boniface  VIII). 

5  Chron.  Parm.,  ad  an.,  1292,  p.  63,  new  ed.  The  above  list  may  be 
used  to  amend  those  in  Vitale,  Gregorovius  (ll.cc),  and  in  L.  P.  Olivieri, 
//  Senate  Romano,  p.  224  f.,  as  it,  in  turn,  may  be  amplified  from 
Boiiard,  I.e. 


184  NICHOLAS    IV. 

that  "  the  Romans  ",  i.e.,  the  Colonna  faction,  in  1290, 
made  John  "  de  Columpna  "  *  their  lord,  led  him  in 
triumph  through  Rome  in  a  chariot,  and  saluted  him  as 
Caesar.  Thus  encouraged,  John  tried  to  act  the  Caesar  ; 
and,  as  we  shall  see,  strove,  but  in  vain,  to  subject  Viterbo 
and  other  places  to  the  authority  of  the  Senate.2  But 
despite  all  his  assumption  of  power,  he  was  not  able  to 
maintain  himself  in  office  for  more  than  the  year. 
to^subje^1  Whilst  Conti  and  Savelli  were  Senators  (1290),  the 
viterbo  to  Viterbese  had  been  summoned  to  acknowledge  the 
overlordship  of  the  Senate,  and  as  a  sign  thereof  to  send 
a  number  of  players  to  the  carnival  games  at  Monte 
Testaccio,  as  did  the  people  of  Terracina,  Anagni,  etc.3 
This  the  people  of  Viterbo  refused  to  do,  and  appealed 
to  the  Pope.  Nicholas,  who  at  the  time  was  at  Orvieto, 
replied  that  the  action  of  the  Senators  was  prejudicial 
to  the  Holy  See.  Viterbo  belonged  solely  (pleno  jure)  to 
the  Roman  Church,  and  consequently  its  people  must 
not  take  orders  from  "  the  Senators  and  the  other  officials 
who  at  the  moment  govern  the  city  ".4  But  the  Romans 
were  always  jealous  of  the  Viterbese  5  ;  and,  as  the  latter 
would  not  acknowledge  their  suzerainty,  they  proceeded 
to  ravage  their  territory.  Infuriated  by  the  wanton 
damage  inflicted  on  their  vineyards  and  cornfields,  the 

1  Chron.  Parmense,  ad  an.  1290,  p.  60.  The  Chronicle  by  mistake 
speaks  of  James.     He  was  the  cardinal. 

2  Chron.  Parm.,  ib. 

3  See  the  process  of  John  Colonna  against  the  Viterbese  of  Sept.  9, 
1290,  given  in  full  by  Pinzi,  Viterbo,  ii,  p.  460  ff.,  both  in  Italian  and 
in  the  original  Latin. 

4  Ep.  June  17,  1290,  Reg.,  n.  7252,  or  Pinzi,  ii,  449. 

5  Pinzi's  important  book  shows  how  the  Viterbese  even  of  to-day 
dislike  the  Romans  !  In  1290,  the  walls  of  Viterbo  had  been  greatly 
strengthened,  as  an  inscription  in  Gothic  characters  still  proclaims  : — 

"  His  igitur  duris,  lector,  circumdata  muris 
Urbs  ego  Viterbi,  cui  stat  protectio  Verbi, 
Pape  sic  quarti  Nicolai  tradita  parti." 
Part  of  the  twelve  verse  inscription  given  by  Pinzi,  I.e.,  p.  454,  n. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  185 

Viterbese  put  themselves  in  the  wrong  by  cruelly 
massacring  a  number  of  Romans  whom  they  had 
captured.1  Thereupon  the  Senator,  John  Colonna, 
summoned  the  Viterbese  to  pay  a  fine  of  twenty-five 
thousand  pounds  of  the  money  of  Provins,  and  damages 
to  the  families  of  the  slain  (Sept.  9,  1290). 2  The 
unfortunate  people  called  upon  Nicholas  to  arbitrate 
between  them  and  the  Romans.  He  accordingly  put 
the  matter  into  the  hands  of  cardinals  James  Colonna 
and  Benedict  Gaetani.  The  final  award  of  the  arbitrators 
and  of  the  Pope  was  so  far  favourable  to  the  Viterbese 
that  the  Romans  at  first  tried  to  render  it  more  severe. 
But  the  cardinals'  conditions  were  maintained,  and  there 
was  once  more  peace  between  the  rival  cities  (1291).3 

Viterbo  was  not  the  only  city  to  which  the  Senators  Nicholas 

,     .  ,    ,T.   -,     ,        ,      ,    ,      defends  the 

attempted  to  dictate.     At  their  request  Nicholas  had  to  rights  of 
come  to  the  assistance  of  the  men  of  Arricia,  "  vassals  of  ^icia 
the   Roman   Church,"   and   to   decide   that,    for    crimes  Terracina. 
committed  in  their  district  by  strangers,  they  were  not 
to  be  punished  by  the  Senators  in  any  way.4     He  was 
also  called  upon  by  the   people  of  Terracina  to  help 
them  to  maintain  their  rights  in  the  face  of  the  Senator 
or  his  friends.     Like  Orvieto,5  Ascoli,6  etc.,  Terracina 

1  See  the  proclamation  or  sentence  of  John  Colonna,  ap.  ib.,  p.  462. 

2  Ib. 

3  See  the  original  documents  of  Apr  .-May  19,  1291,  from  the  local 
archives  in  Viterbo  in  Pinzi  and  Signorelli,  Viterbo  nella  storia  delta 
chiesa,  p.  301.  The  latter  author,  too,  is  full  of  the  superiority  of  the 
Viterbese,  and  tells  how  "  La  fierezza  dei  Viterbesi  .  .  .  s'impose  ai 
degeneri  figli  di  Roma".  See  also  the  documents  ap.  P.  Savignoni, 
"  L'archivio  storico  del  comune  di  Viterbo  "  ap.  Archivio  Rom.  di 
Storia  Patria,  1896,  p.  15  ff.(  n.  151  ff.  Many  of  the  docs,  give  the 
amounts  the  Viterbese  had  to  pay  in  compensation  for  wounding 
Romans  "  with  effusion  of  blood  ". 

4  Document  of  May  10,  1290  ap.  Theiner,  Cod.  Dip.,  n.  474. 

5  Ann.  Urbevetani,  ap.  R.I  SS.,  t.  xv,  pt.  5,  p.  162,  new  ed.  "  D.  N. 
IV  papa  fuit  potestas  et  capitaneus  Urbisveteris." 

6  Theiner,  I.e.,  n.  471  ;    Reg.,  n.  2413,  and  6961,  6963-5. 


l86  NICHOLAS    IV. 

had  named  Nicholas  their  Senator  for  life.1  First  it  was 
the  Senator,  Berthold  Orsini,  who  had  to  be  called  to 
task  by  the  Pope  for  attempting  to  claim  jurisdiction 
over  Terracina  as  well  as  other  places  in  the  Campagna. 
He  had  to  be  strongly  reminded  that  the  cities  of  the 
Campagna  and  the  Maritima  were  directly  subject  to 
the  Roman  Church  both  in  spirituals  and  temporals,  and 
he  was  ordered  to  cancel  any  action  he  had  taken  against 
them.2 

This  interference  of  Nicholas  did  not  free  the  people 
of  Terracina  from  trouble.  Their  liberties  were  next 
assailed  by  the  Annibaldi,  possibly  with  the  secret  support 
of  the  Colonnas,  one  of  whom  was  then  Senator.  To  him 
(John  Colonna)  Nicholas  at  once  wrote  from  Orvieto  in 
behalf  of  his  harassed  subjects.  As  this  letter  failed  to 
produce  any  effect,  the  Pope  wrote  him  some  stronger 
ones.  He  told  him  that  certain  Annibaldi  "  and  other 
Roman  citizens  "  had  attempted  to  seize  Terracina  which 
belonged  to  the  Holy  See,  and,  failing  in  that,  were 
ravaging  the  district.  The  Senator  must  punish  the 
culprits,  and  let  them  know  that,  if  they  do  not  desist, 
they  will  be  deprived  of  all  the  lands  which  they  hold 
of  the  Church.  He  must  also  exact  guarantees  that  they 
will  refrain  from  such  conduct  in  the  future.3  Nicholas 
achieved  his  immediate  purpose  ;  but  the  Annibaldi  did 
not  cease  to  scheme  to  get  control  of  the  city,  so  that  later 
he  had  to  forbid  the  communal  authorities  to  allow  any 
of  them  to  enter  it.4 


1  Reg.,  7501,  July  22,  1289. 

2  Ep.  of  Nov.  22,  1288,  given  by  Vitale,  Senatori,  i,  p.  197,  but 
wrongly  assigned  by  him  to  John  Colonna. 

3  Ep.  of  Sept.  27,  1290,  ap.  Reg.,  n.  7264.  Cf.  7265.  The  Senator 
must  fulfil  the  Pope's  orders,  "  non  obstante  quod  dicti  Terracinenses 
dicuntur  in  Capitolio  diffidati." 

4  Reg.,  n.  7607,  May  29,  1291. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  187 

From  among  the  very  large  number  of  Nicholas'  letters  The  Aido- 

,       .  ,       ,  r   ,1       ^v         1  brandini 

which  are  concerned  with  the  States  of  the  Church,  we  country. 
may  pick  out  a  few  more  to  bring  out  still  more  clearly 
the  difficulties  which  he  had  in  preventing  aggressive 
barons  from  rendering  themselves  masters  of  portions 
of  his  dominions.    We  have  seen  how  on  the  death  (1284) 
of  the  "  Red  Count  "  (Aldobrandino  Rosso  da  Pitigliano), 
the  notorious  Guy   de   Montfort   left   the   Romagna   to 
protect   the   great    estates   of   his   wife,    Margaret,    the 
count's  heiress.    Known  as  the  "  contado  aldobrandesco  ", 
they  stretched  from  Monte  Argentario  to  Monte  Amiata, 
and  along  the  valley  of  the  Paglia  to  lake  Bolsena,  and 
from  there  to  the  sea  by  Corneto.1    After  defending  his 
wife's  rights  against  the  pretensions  of  her  relative,  the 
count  of  Santa  Fiora,    Guy   fought   for   the    Angevins, 
was  captured  (1287),  and  died  in  prison  (1291).    Deprived 
of  the  strong  arm  of  her  husband,  and  at  length  wearied 
by  his  absence,  "the  noble  lady  Margaret,  countess  de 
Pitiliano,"  appears  to  have  sought  and  found  another 
protector   and  comforter  in  the  person  of  the   ruffian 
"  Nellus  de  Petra  ".    With  the  connivance  of  the  Countess 
(occulta  dolositate),   he  took  possession  of  one  of  her 
fortresses,   that  of  Pereta,   and  from   it   plundered  the 
neighbourhood  with  impunity.      Nicholas,   accordingly, 
instructed  the  Rector  of  the  Patrimony  of  Tuscany  to 
summon  the  pair  to  give  up  the  fortress  to  him.2    We 
may  conclude  that  the  summons  was  unheeded,  for,  about 
a  year  later,  Nicholas  declared  that   "  the  noble  lady 
Margaret  ",  wife  of  Guy  de  Montfort,  detained  in  prison 
by  enemies,  was  unable  to  rule  the  fief  she  held  of  the 
Holy  See,  and  that  consequently  her  fief,  "  the  county  of 
Soana  "  was  to  be  put  under  the  strong  control  of  Cardinal 

1  Such   is   the   description    given    by   G.    Gaetani   in    "  Margherita 
Aldobrandesca  ei  Gaetani"  ap.  Archivio  Rom.  di  stor.  pat.,  an.  1291,  p.  5. 

2  Reg.,  nn.  7260-1,  Aug.  23,   1290. 


i88 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


Privileges 


Benedict  Gaetani.1  This  sentence,  however,  was  far 
from  putting  a  term  to  the  unprincipled  conduct  of  this 
dissolute  woman.  Accordingly  Gaetani,  now  become 
Pope  Boniface  VIII.,  formally  declared  her  deprived  of 
her  fief  altogether,  inasmuch  as  she  had  illegally  alienated 
part  of  it  and  had  equally  illegally  married  the  count 
of  Santa  Fiora,  her  cousin  and  former  foe,  and  a  public 
enemy  of  the  Church.2 

Other  rights  and  properties  belonging  to  the  Holy  See 

annual  Nicholas  was  able  to  recover  for  money.    Thus,  by  paying 

payments.      about  six  hundred  and  sixty-six  florins  of  gold,  he  was  able 

to  recover  all  the  rights  over  the  castrum  Miranda  in  the 

diocese  of  Narni,   which  had  already  been  bought  by 

Pope    Gregory    IX.3      Other    rights    Nicholas    sold    for 

money,  and  so  we  have  many  documents  which  show  that, 

for  money,  he  conceded  to  a  number  of  cities  the  right  to 

elect  their  own  magistrates.4    In  the  same  way,  certain 

nobles  were  granted  civil  and  criminal  jurisdiction  in 

their  estates.5 

strfves^or         StiU>  desPite  the  concession  of  so  much  local  liberty, 

local  justice.  Nicholas  would  not  suffer  the  cities  to  make  regulations 

which  were  detrimental  to  the  general  good.     True  to 

the  traditions  of  the  Holy  See,  he  would  not  suffer  the 

levying  of  new  tolls,  and  we  find  him  blaming  various 

towns  for  not  paying  sufficient  attention  to  the  security 


1  Reg.,  n.  5751  f.,  Aug.  2,  1291. 

2  See  his  sentence  of  March  10,  1303,  ap.  Potthast,  n.  25219,  from 
Ughelli,  Italia  Sacra,  ii,  744.  For  further  information  regarding 
Margaret  and  the  dissipated  men  with  whom  she  was  in  touch,  see  the 
article  of  Gaetani. 

3  Lib.  Censuum,  i,  p.   598,  ed.  Fabre. 

4  lb.,  p.  594  fi,  59,  n.  365;  Reg.,  4417-87  ;  Theiner,  Cod.  dip., 
i,  nn.  476,  480,  etc. 

6  Cf.  Cronache  di  Fermo,  pp.  495,  551,  ed.  De  Minicis  ;  and  Theiner, 
I.e.,  n.  469. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  189 

of  the  roads  in  their  locality,  or  for  acts  of  injustice.1 
For  these  latter  he  had  also  at  times  to  blame  his  own 
officials.  The  knight,  John  de  Pileo,  surnamed  Bucca- 
porcus,  whom  he  had  appointed  Rector  of  Benevento,2 
had  with  his  insolent  followers,  so  it  was  told  to  the  Pope 
by  the  citizens,  grievously  oppressed  them  with  a  view 
to  wringing  money  from  them.  The  situation  was 
complicated  by  the  action  of  the  archbishop,  John  de 
Castrocceli,  who,  as  it  was  reported,  had  interfered 
with  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Rector  and  had  acted  as 
if  he  also  were  Rector.3  One  result  of  this  clashing  of 
authorities  was  that  one  of  the  papal  revenue  officials  4 
was  killed.  Nicholas  at  once  caused  inquiries  to  be  made 
into  the  matter,  summoned  the  archbishop  to  Rome,5 
and  instituted  a  legal  process  against  the  Rector  (1291).6 
As,  however,  Nicholas  died  not  long  after  the  process 
was  opened,  the  result  of  it  does  not  appear  to  be  known. 
But,  because  Celestine  V.  named  the  archbishop  cardinal 
and  vice-chancellor  of  the  Holy  See  (1294), 7  we  certainly 
cannot  assume  that  he  was  able  to  clear  himself  of  the 
charges  brought  against  him.  According  to  James 
Stefaneschi,  John  was  a  man  "  skilled  in  dissimulation  " 
and  became  cardinal  in  one  of  Celestine's  foolish  and 
irregular  promotions.8 

1  Lib.  Cens.,  ib.,  p.  596,  n.  363  ;  Chron.  di  F.,  I.e.,  p.  492  ;  Reg.,  2048. 
Nicholas  was  podesta  of  Fermo.  Reg.,  7114.  See  Reg.,  7179-84. 
"  Contra  praedones."  "  In  districtu  vestro  .  .  .  securus  transitus 
non  habetur  "  to  Chiusi,  etc.    For  an  act  of  piracy,  cf.  Reg.,  nn.  7340-1. 

2  Reg.,  nn.  7247-8,  March  9,   1290. 

3  Reg.,  n.  7262,  c.  Sept.,  1290.  "  Quasi  alterius  rectoris  in  tem- 
poralibus  officio  fungeretur." 

4  Reg.,  n.  7287,  Nov.  4,  1290,  "  Qui  ad  conscribendum  introitus  et 
expensas  curiae  in  civitate  Beneventana  constitutus  erat." 

5  Reg.,  nn.  7286,  Nov.  4,  1290. 

6  Loye,  Les  archives  de  la  Chambre  Apostolique  au  XI  Ve  siecle, 
p.   3,  Paris,   1899. 

7  Stefaneschi,  Vita  Ccelest.   V.,  iii,  10,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  iii,  p.  637. 

8  "  Simulare  sciens."     Ib. 


190  NICHOLAS    IV. 

No  leagues         Disorders  such  as  we  have  just  chronicled  in  Benevento 

to  be  formed.  J 

were  rampant  all  over  the  papal  States.  Other  cities 
besides  Rome  were  striving  to  dominate  other  cities, 
and  nobles  were  fighting  to  subject  to  their  authority  other 
nobles,  and  to  grasp  all  power  in  the  towns  in  which  they 
lived.  Nicholas  was  greatly  distressed  at  the  disorders 
he  saw  all  around  him,  and,  though  perhaps  incapable 
of  bringing  about  peace,  still  laboured  hard  to  promote  it. 
He  strove  to  keep  peace  within  the  cities  of  his  dominions, 
and  to  make  them  keep  it  with  one  another.  For  this 
latter  end,  he  published  a  decree  forbidding  the  towns  to 
combine  together  without  the  express  permission  of  the 
Holy  See.  Such  leagues,  he  pointed  out,  were  most  wisely 
forbidden  in  the  Empire,  as  they  led  to  great  dangers 
both  to  men's  bodies  and  souls.  Any  cities  which  formed 
such  leagues  would  each  of  them  be  liable  to  a  fine  of 
three  thousand  marks  of  silver  as  well  as  to  other  spiritual 
and  temporal  penalties  as  the  occasion  might  demand. 
The  decree,  at  the  same  time,  expressly  took  from  "  the 
Rectors  of  Provinces,  districts  or  towns  "  power  to  modify 
these  penalties  in  any  way.1 
Troubles  in  xhe  Pope's  own  native  city  of  Ascoli  gave  him  no  little 
trouble.  Word  was  brought  to  him  that  serious 
disturbances  had  broken  out  in  the  city,  and  that  what  the 
Pope  called  "  detestable  excesses  "  had  occurred  during 
them.  Nicholas  accordingly  ordered  Frederick,  bishop- 
elect  of  Ivrea,  Rector  of  the  March  of  Ancona,  and  the 
archpriest  of  Osimo,  to  proceed  thither  at  once  and  to 
see  that  those  guilty  of  outrages  appeared  before  him 
within  twelve  days.2  Frederick  carried  out  his  com- 
mission satisfactorily,  and  received  an  order  from  the 

1  See  the  document  in  Theiner,  Cod.  dip.,  i,  p.  313,  n.  483,  Nov.  18, 
1290.  "  Moderandi  .  .  .  penam  .  .  .  provinciarum,  terrarum  vel 
locorum  Rectoribus  .  .  .  adimimus  facultatem."  Cf.  Chron.  Firm., 
I.e.,  p.  493. 

2  Reg.,  nn.  6963-5,  March  21-4,  1288. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  191 

Pope  not  to  depart  from  Ascoli  till  the  arrival  of  the  new 
Rector.1  Frederick  accordingly  continued  his  work  of 
reforming  the  city,2  but  with  the  consent  of  the  Pope  left 
before  the  arrival  of  the  new  Rector  as  there  were  other 
disorders  in  the  March  (Ancona)  to  be  remedied.3  In 
May,  Nicholas  appointed  Stephen  Colonna  Rector  of 
Ascoli,4  and  about  the  same  time  sent  thither  John, 
bishop  of  Iesi,  to  help  to  complete  the  pacification  of 
the  city.5  When,  at  length,  the  citizens  of  Ascoli  had 
returned  to  the  ways  of  law  and  order,  and  were  paying 
their  debts  and  the  fines  inflicted  on  them,6  Nicholas 
proceeded  to  make  gifts  to  their  churches,7  to  grant 
privileges  to  their  city,8  and  finally  to  remit  part  of  the 
large  fine  which  was  due  to  the   apostolic  treasury.9 

Not  to  weary  the  reader  with  endless  local  details  of  Troubles  in 
political  disturbances  in  Tuscany,  the  Duchy  of  Spoleto,  spoieto,  etc. 
etc.,  we  will  simply  say  briefly  that  with  regard  to  the 
first  named  locality,  Nicholas  had  hardly  been  elected 
when  the  wars  between  the  Guelfs  and  Ghibellines 
"  became  hot  (riscaldandosi)  again  by  reason  of  the 
war  begun  by  the  Florentines  and  Sienese  against  the 
Aretines,  and  by  the  Florentines  and  Lucchese  against 
the  Pisans  ".10  Consequently  we  read  of  efforts  made  by 
Nicholas  to  reconcile  the  Guelfs  and  Ghibellines  in  various 
places,  e.g.,  in  Chiusi,11  and  to  pacify  the  whole  province. 


1  lb.,   n.  6995,  Apr.  17,  1288. 

2  Cf.   Potthast,  22677,  Apr.  22,  1288. 

3  lb.,   n.  23698,  Apr.  29,  1288. 

4  Reg.,  n.  7030,  May  17,  1288.     The  son  :    "  Johannis  Stephani  de 
Columpna." 

5  lb.,  nn.  7036-7,  May   19. 

6  lb.,  7098,  July  26.     Cf.  7082-3. 

7  lb.,  n.  7101.     The  famous  cope  of  Ascoli,  about  which  see  infra. 

8  lb.,  n.  7122. 

9  Theiner,  Cod.  dip.,  i,  n.  466,  Apr.  29,  1289. 

10  Villani,  Chron.,  vii,   127   (al.   128). 

11  Reg.,  nn.  4218-20,  Feb.   18,  1291. 


192  NICHOLAS    IV. 

He  had  heard  that  the  disorders  in  the  Tuscan  province 
of  which  notice  had  been  brought  to  him  were  being 
fomented  by  the  redoubtable  Guido  da  Montefeltro,  who 
with  extensive  powers  had  been  made  their  captain  by 
the  Pisans.1  The  Pope  accordingly  commanded  the 
communes  of  Florence,  Siena,  Arezzo,  etc.,  to  send  him 
plenipotentiaries  to  arrange  with  him  the  best  means  of 
maintaining  order  throughout  the  province.2  Meanwhile, 
because  to  go  to  Pisa  Guido  had  left  Piedmont  to  which 
district  he  "  was  confined  by  his  terms  of  surrender  to  the 
Church  ",  he,  his  sons,  and  the  Pisans,  were  excom- 
municated by  Nicholas  "  as  rebels  and  enemies  against 
Holy  Church  ".3  But  despite  all  his  efforts  there  was  very 
little  peace  in  Tuscany  during  the  pontificate  of  Nicholas. 
Throughout  the  whole  of  it,  the  Florentines  and  their 
allies  were  at  war  with  the  Ghibelline  cities  of  Pisa  and 
Arezzo.  In  the  main,  Florence  and  the  Guelfs  were 
successful,  especially  at  the  battle  of  Certomondo  in  the 
Casentino  (1289).  There  the  Florentines  completely 
defeated  the  people  of  Arezzo,  and  there,  says  Villani 
with  great  local  feeling,  "  were  brought  low  the  arrogance 
and  pride  not  only  of  the  Aretines,  but  of  the  whole 
Ghibelline  party  and  of  the  Empire."  4 

Serious,  too,  was  the  situation  in  connection  with 
Perugia  which  was  displaying  a  most  aggressive  spirit. 
Even  under  Martin  IV.  it  had  been  endeavouring  to 
reduce  Foligno  to  a  state  of  vassalage.  Nicholas  strictly 
forbade  the  haughty  hill-town  to  continue  its  attempts,5 
and  called  upon  the  communes  of  Todi,  Orvieto,  etc.,  not 
to  afford  any  manner  of  help  to  Perugia,  but  to  get 


1  Reg.,  nn.  2174-5,  Villani,  I.e. 

2  lb.,  nn.  6987-92,  Apr.  13,  1288.     Cf.  ib.,  nn.  7039-44,  May,  1288. 

3  Reg.,  nn.  2172-5,  Apr.  7,  1289  ;    Villani,  I.e. 

4  Chron.,  vii,  130  (al.  131). 

6  Reg.,  nn.  7017-18,  Apr.,  1288. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  193 

ready  to  assist  the  Rector  of  Spoleto  against  it.1  To  put 
more  pressure  on  the  recalcitrant  Perugians,  Nicholas 
next  sent  to  them  cardinals  Matteo  Rosso  and  Benedict 
Gaetani.2  Even  they  failed  to  check  the  ambition  of  the 
Perugians,  who  continued  their  attacks  on  Foligno,3  and 
furthermore  assailed  Rieti.4  At  length,  however,  they 
thought  fit  to  submit  to  the  Pope  (1290)  5  ;  though  it 
would  appear  that  their  submission  was  largely  a  matter 
of  words,  as  in  the  following  year  Nicholas  had  again 
to  complain  of  their  usurpation  of  rights  belonging  to  the 
Holy  See.6 

Of  course  if  there  were  disturbances  anywhere  in  the  A  new 
States  of  the  Church,  there  would  sure  to  be  disturbances  the 
in  the  Romagna,  and  at  this  time  the  chief  brawlers  were  ^°8magna' 
the  Malatestas  of  Rimini,  and  the  Polentani  of  Ravenna. 
Soon  after  his  accession,  Nicholas  replaced  the  existing 
Rector  or  Count  of  the  province,  Petrus  Stephani,  by 
Armann  dei  Monaldeschi.7     Since  Guido  of  Montefeltro 
had  had  to  go  into  exile,  the  province  had  become  tranquil, 
so  that  Armann  on  his  arrival  was  able  to  hold  in  peace 
"  a  great  parliament  "  at  Forli  (May  16,  1288). 8    But  the 
peace  was  of  very  short  duration.     In  the  very  month 
of    his    arrival,    Malatesta    of    Verucucchio,    who    was 
apparently  aiming  at  making  himself 9  tyrant  of  the  city, 

1  lb.,   nn.    7019-28,   Apr.-May,    1288. 

2  lb.,  nn.  584-93,  May  28,  1288. 

3  lb.,  nn.  645-7,  Jan.  18,  1289;    cf.  nn.  2168-9. 

4  lb.,  nn.  7197-8,  Dec.  15,  1288.         5  lb.,  n.  3680,  Nov.  27,   1290. 

6  lb.,  nn.  7329-30,  June  5,  1291.  Cf.  Hey  wood,  A  Hist,  of  Perugia, 
p.  153.  Hence  the  Annals  of  Perugia,  ap.  Archiv.  Stor.  It.,  xvi  (1850), 
p.  58,  assign  the  general  peace  to  1292. 

7  Otherwise  called  Hermannus  de  Monaldensibus.  Reg.,  6366, 
Apr.  4,  1288  ;    cf.  6979-80. 

8  Pietro  Cantinelli,  Chron.,  ad  an.  1288,  p.  57,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  xxviii, 
new  ed. 

9  He  is  called  "  rebellis  et  inimicus  capitalis  communis  Arimini  " 
by  the  Syndic  of  Rimini.  Cf.  a  document  cited  by  Torraca  the  editor 
of  P.  Cant.,  ib.,  p.  58. 

Vol.  XVII.  o 


194  NICHOLAS    IV. 

was  expelled  from  Rimini.  He  appealed  to  the  Rector 
who  summoned  the  representatives  of  the  Commune  to 
appear  before  him.  As  they  declined  to  go  on  the  ground 
that  Malatesta  with  an  army  was  near  the  city,  the 
Rector  (or  Count)  raised  a  force  to  compel  them.  However, 
he  did  nothing,  and  the  people  of  Rimini  succeeded  in 
capturing  some  of  the  sons  of  Malatesta.1  After  further 
evidence  of  incompetence,  Armann  was  recalled  by  the 
Pope,  and  pending  the  arrival  of  the  new  Rector,  there 
appeared  on  the  scene  an  apostolic  legate,  Pietro  Saraceno, 
bishop  of  Vicenza  (Aug.,  1289). 2  He  at  once  took 
possession  in  the  name  of  the  Church  of  the  castles 
belonging  both  to  the  Commune  and  to  Malatesta.  The 
new  Rector  Stephen  Colonna  was,  therefore,  able  straight- 
way to  enter  Rimini,  and  to  hold  a  parliament  at  Forli 
where,  by  the  ambassadors  of  Bologna  and  of  all  the 
cities  of  the  province,  he  was  granted  a  free  hand  (Dec.).3 
The  Rector  Consequently  he  was  soon  able  to  effect  a  reconcilia- 
treacherous-  tion  between  the  Commune  of  Rimini  and  Malatesta, 

1290 1Z6d'  who  ^k  his  Party  returned  to  tne  citY  (I290)-  However, 
before  leaving  Rimini  himself,  the  Rector,  for  safety's 
sake,  commanded  Malatesta  and  his  sons  to  retire  to  one 
of  his  residences  in  the  country.4  Unfortunately  before 
the  year  was  out,  Stephen  Colonna,  his  son  and  his  son- 
in-law,  were  treacherously  seized  by  the  sons  of  Guido 
de  Polenta  at  Ravenna,  whither  he  had  gone  to  take  over 
its  strongholds.5  Instantly  disturbances  broke  out  all 
over  the  province.     Malatesta  took  advantage  of  the 

1  P.  C,  ib. 

2  lb.,  p.  59. 

3  lb.,  pp.  59-60.  By  the  Chronicle  of  Bologna,  S.  C.  is  called 
"  S.  de  Gananzano  (Genezzano)  de  domo  de  Columna  Romanus  ". 
Chron.  Bonon.,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  xviii,  p.  230,  new  ed. 

4  P.  C,  p.  60.  Stephen  C.  was  in  this  seemingly  acting  by  the 
advice  of  the  two  Colonna  cardinals,  Peter  and  James.  See  the 
document  quoted  as  a  note  to  this  passage  in  P.  Cant. 

5  P.  C.  pp.  61-2.     Cf.  Chron.  Bonon.,  I.e.,  cf.  pp.  232-3. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  195 

situation  to  return  and  make  himself  master  of  Rimini, 
and  allying  himself  with  the  Polentani  and  others,  drove 
the  papal  officials  out  of  Forli.1 

Nicholas  at  once  ordered  Agapito  Colonna,  the  Vicar  The  Rector 
of  John  Colonna,  the  Rector  of  the  March  of  Ancona,  to  1291. 
collect  troops,  and  to  march  into  the  Romagna  in  order 
to  pacify  it,  and  to  effect  the  release  of  Stephen.2  He 
next  sent  (Dec.  22,  1290)  a  new  Rector  to  the  Province 
in  the  person  of  Hildebrandinus,  bishop  of  Arezzo,  naming 
him  Rector  in  "  spirituals  "  as  well  as  in  "  temporals  ".3 
The  bishop  was  a  man  of  energy  and  courage.  He 
convoked  envoys  and  "  wise  men  "  from  the  different 
cities  of  the  province,  as  well  as  from  Bologna  and 
Florence,  effected  the  release  of  Stephen,  and  caused 
compensation  to  be  paid  to  him.4 

Despite  occasional  appeals  to  the  Pope,  and  despite  Grants  to 
an  illegal  league  of  Forli,  Faenza,  and  Ravenna  against  Cardinals, 
him,  Hildebrandinus  5  held  his  own  not  merely  during 
the   pontificate   of   Nicholas,    but    all   during   the   long 
vacancy  of  the  Holy  See  until  the  new  Pope  Celestine  V. 
sent  Rob.  de  Gernay  to  replace  him  (Sept.  9,  1294). 6 

Some  domestic  troubles  of  the  Pope  we  can  pass 
over  here,  as  they  were  mentioned  in  the  biography 
of  Nicholas  III,  but  we  may  conclude  this  chapter 
by  recording  what   we  may  call  an  item  of  domestic 

1  P.  C,  p.  63.  Nicholas  himself  {Reg.,  nn.  7317-18,  March  7,  1291) 
says  that  on  the  seizure  of  S.  C.  "  status  ipsius  provincie  fluctuaret  ". 

2  Reg.,  n.  7294,  Nov.  17,  1290.  Cf.  many  similar  instructions  to 
other  authorities  in  the  neighbourhood.     Ib.,  nn.  7295-7306. 

3  Reg.,  7324,  May  27,  1291.  Cf.  ib.,  7317-18,  March  7,  1291.  H.  was 
appointed  Dec.  22,  1290,  ib.,  n.  7582.     See  P.  C,  I.e.,  pp.  63  and  65. 

4  P.  Cant.,  p.  63  f.,  and  n.  l,p.  64.  At  a  general  parliament  he  held 
in  Forli,  it  was  decided  that  he  was  to  receive  a  salary  of  26,000  gold 
florins  per  annum. 

6  Sometimes  called   Ildebrandinus,   Aldrebandinus,   etc. 

6  Cf.  P.  C,  pp.  64-76.  On  p.  75  we  see  "  ego  Petrus  Cantinelli  " 
taking  part  in  the  events  he  narrates.  Cf.  Pasolini,  I  tiranni  di  Romagna, 
p.  74  ff.  ;    Rubens,  Hist.  Ravennatum,  p.  477  ff. 


I96  NICHOLAS    IV. 

finance.  On  July  18,  1289,  Nicholas  published  a  bull 
which  had  a  considerable  effect  in  enhancing  the  power 
of  the  College  of  Cardinals.  He  set  forth  that  they  were 
the  chief  supporters  of  the  Papacy,  strong  and  towering 
columns  of  the  Church.  Their  College  was  nobler  than 
any  other  in  the  world1;  and  so,  for  their  support,  he 
decreed  that  the  entire  revenues  of  the  Church  should 
be  divided  into  two  parts— one  to  belong  to  the  Pope, 
and  the  other  to  be  divided  equally  among  the  cardinals. 
He  hoped  that  one  result  of  this  would  be  that  the 
cardinals,  being  personally  interested  in  these  revenues, 
would  prevent  their  alienation,  and  would  see  to  the 
better  administration  of  the  various  cities  and  provinces 
of  the  Church.  For  this  latter  purpose  he  decided  in 
fine  that  the  cardinals  should  have  a  voice  in  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  Rectors  of  the  towns  and  provinces,  and  in 
their  general  financial  management. 
Patron  of  In  the  midst  of  his  labours  to  bring  about  civic  order 

in  the  States  of  the  Church,  and  to  improve  the  material 
conditions  under  which  his  subjects  lived,  Nicholas  did 
not  forget  the  influence  of  art  in  this  latter  direction. 
In  his  patronage  of  art  in  all  its  branches,  he  stands 
midway,  as  in  his  numerical  position,  between  "  his 
father  "  and  model,  Nicholas  III.,  and  his  great  successor, 
Nicholas  V.  Less  famous  indeed  in  this  respect  than 
his  successor,  Tommaso  Parent ucelli,  he  was  more 
distinguished  than  his  predecessor  Giovanni  Gaetani 
Orsini.  By  Italy's  best  known  living  exponent  of  the 
History  of  Art,  he  is  described  as  the  "  Maecenas  of  his 
age  ".2  He  gathered  round  him  the  greatest  painters, 
sculptors,   mosaicists — art  workers  in  every  department 

1  This  document  is  printed  in  full  ap.  Bullar.  Rom.,  iv,  p.  88  f.,  and 
Theiner,  Cod.  D.,  i,  p.  308,  n.  468.  "  Horum  coetus  in  orbe  magnificus 
omnes  et  singulos  quibuslibet  titulis  decoratos,  excellit." 

2  A.  Venturi,  V Arte  d' Italia,  vol.  v,  p.  1050,  "  Mecenate  del 
Dugento."    Cf.  Sedgwick,  Italy  in  the  Thirteenth  Century,  vol.  ii,  p.  257. 


Art 


NICHOLAS    IV.  197 

whom   he   could  find.     Under  him   Rome   became   the 
artistic  centre  of  Christendom. 

He  had  the  services  of  such  painters  as  Pietro  Cavallini, 
the  greatest  master  of  the  thirteenth  century,  and  the 
teacher  of  Giotto,  the  Franciscan,  Jacopo  della  Turrita,1 
Gaddo  Gaddi,  Filippo  Rusutti,  and  others  known  only 
by  the  works  they  have  left  behind.  Sculptors  like 
Cintio  de  Salvati,  and,  above  all,  Arnolfo  da  Cambio 
also  worked  for  him  ;  and  for  his  "  ribbon  pattern  " 
mosaics  he  could  command  Giovanni  and  other  members 
of  the  Cosmati  family. 

It  was  in  1291  that  Pietro  Cavallini  finished  the  mosaics  Pietro 
of  the  apse  of  Sta.  Maria  in  Trastevere.2  They  illustrate 
six  episodes  in  the  life  of  our  Lady  :  her  birth,  the 
Annunciation,  the  Nativity,  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi, 
the  Presentation  in  the  Temple,  and  her  death.3  Speaking 
of  these  productions  of  a  Roman  master,  the  Florentine 
art  critic,  Lorenzo  Ghiberti,  who  saw  them  only  about 
a  hundred  years  after  their  completion,  declares  that 
he  had  never  seen  better  mosaics.4  Ghiberti,  in  fact, 
would  seem  not  to  be  able  to  extol  Pietro  and  his  works 
enough.  He  calls  him  "the  most  accomplished  of  all  the 
masters  ".  If  he  ventures  a  little  criticism  on  his  style, 
he  adds  immediately  :  "he  was  a  most  noble  master." 
Also  in  the  Trastevere,  we  are  assured  by  Vasari  that 
"  he  painted  almost  the  whole  of  the  Church  of  S.  Cecilia 


1  Also  called  Torriti  or  da  Turrita. 

2  On  the  date  see  G.  Navone,  "  Di  un  musaico  di  Pietro  Cavallini 
in  Sta.  Maria  Transtiberina,"  ap.  Archivio  di  Rom.  di  Storia  Patria, 
vol.  i,  1877,  p.  224  f. 

3  They  are  described  with  pictures  by  Venturi,  I.e.,  p.  141  ff.  Cf. 
Barbet  de  Jouy,  Les  mosaiques  chret.,  p.  124  ff. 

4  See  Vita  di  L.  G.  con  i  commentarj  di  L.  G.,  p.  39,  ed.  C.  Frey, 
Berlin,  1886.  "  Ardirei  a  dire  in  muro  non  avere  veduto  di  quella 
materia  lavorare  mai  meglio."  Cf.  Frothingham,  The  Monuments  of 
Christian  Rome,  p.  332  f. 


I98  NICHOLAS    IV. 

in  fresco  ".1  Although  no  trace  of  Pietro's  work  is  to 
be  seen  in  the  church  to-day,  there  is  no  reason  to  call 
his  statement  in  question,  as  it  had  been  previously 
made  by  Ghiberti,  and  as  frescoes  of  his  have  been  found 
comparatively  recently  in  the  adjoining  convent  of 
enclosed  nuns.  They  were  discovered  more  or  less  well 
preserved,  on  the  removal  of  some  stalls,  and  cover  three 
sides  of  the  nuns'  choir.  On  the  main  wall  the  artist  has 
depicted  the  Last  Judgment,  and  no  one  who  has  ever 
seen  the  dignified  face  of  his  Christ,  and  the  glory  of  the 
colouring  of  his  angels,  will  ever  forget  his  work.2 

Again,  according  to  Vasari,  he  adorned  the  facade  and 
nave  of  St.  Paul's  outside  the  walls  with  mosaics,  and 
he  also  decorated  the  chapter-house  with  frescoes. 
Again,  too,  are  Vasari's  assertions  in  this  matter  partly 
borne  out  by  the  testimony  of  Ghiberti.  Unfortunately 
again,  too,  hardly  any  trace  of  all  this  work  is  left.  It 
was  destroyed  by  the  fire  of  1823.  However,  in  the  arch 
of  the  tribune  of  the  present  church,  there  has  been 
inserted  his  kneeling  figure  of  Pope  John  XXII.  which 
once  formed  part  of  his  frontal  mosaic  and  was  preserved 
from  the  fire.3  Pietro  is  further  credited  by  Ghiberti 
and  Vasari  with  having  done  work  at  St.  Peter's,  S.  Maria 
in  Aracceli,  S.  Francesco-presso-Ripa,  and  San  Crisogono. 
If  that  is  so,  time  or  the  wanton  hand  of  man  has 
destroyed  all  trace  of  it,  though,  with  regard  to  the  last- 
named  church,  the  mosaic  in  the  style  of  the  Cosmati, 
of   the   Madonna,    enthroned   with   her   Child   between 

1  See  his  life  of  P.  C,  init. 

2  The  frescoes  are  described  in  detail  by  F.  Hermanin,  "  Un  affresco 
di  Pietro  Cavallini  a  S.  Cecilia  "  ap.  Archiv.  Rom.  di  Storia  Pat.,  vol. 
xxiii  (1900),  p.  397  ff.  See  also  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle,  Hist,  of  Painting 
in  Italy,  i,  p.  92,  n. 

3  By  mistake,  C.  and  C,  I.e.,  p.  94,  call  the  figure  that  of  Benedict  XI. 
The  design  of  the  old  facade  is  preserved  in  the  Vatican  Library,  Cod. 
Barb.  Lat.,  n.  4406.  Cf.  Venturi,  I.e.,  pp.  129  f.,  141.  On  the  identity 
of  the  papal  figure  see  Villani,  S.  Paolo,  p.  37. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  199 

SS.   Chrysogonus  and  James,   used  at  one  time  to  be 
thought  a  survival  of  Pietro's  work. 

More  immediately  in  connection  with  Nicholas  IV.  are  Jacopo 

.   •  -1  x-.  •       ^r  .li  Tornti. 

the  productions  of  Jacopo  Tornti  and  Rusutti.  Of  these 
two,  only  Torriti  is  incidentally  mentioned  by  Vasari,1 
and  what  he  says  of  him  shows  that  he  did  not  think 
much  of  him  as  an  artist.  However,  both  his  words  and 
the  more  important  testimony  of  an  inscription  prove 
that  Torriti  worked  at  the  glorious  mosaic  of  the  apse 
of  St.  Mary  Major's.  Nicholas  IV.,  in  conjunction  with 
Cardinal  James  Colonna,2  was  not  merely  the  decorator 
of  that  splendid  basilica,  he  was  its  saviour.  If  it 
alone  of  the  great  fourth  century  basilicas  still  stands 
showing  its  original  lines,  it  is  due  to  his  little  transepts.3 
When  he  had  restored  the  fabric,  Nicholas,  with  the  aid 
of  Torriti  for  the  interior  and  of  Rusutti  for  the  exterior, 
proceeded  to  decorate  it  with  mosaics.  The  restoration 
of  the  fine  fifth  century  mosaic  of  the  apse  was  the  work 
of  the  former,  and  was  completed  in  1295. 4  Recalling, 
by  the  sweeping  curves  of  its  arabesque  designs  through 

1  In  his  life  of  Andrea  Tan. 

2  See  the  inscription  from  the  Sacristy  of  the  basilica,  ap.  Galletti, 
Inscrip.  Rom.,  i,  p.  cxcviii.  After  praising  both  cardinals  Peter  and 
J.   C,  it  continues  : — 

"  Sed  Jacobus  opere  sumptuque 
Collato  cum  Nicolao  Pontifice 
Ex  instauratione  basilica? 
Decessit  illustrior." 
See  also  P.  de  Angelis,  Basilica  S.  M.  Maj.  descript.,  p.  90. 

3  See  the  inscription  in  mosaic,  "almost  eaten  away"  in  the  days 
of  de  Angelis  (1621),  which  was  once  on  the  right  of  the  apse  : — 

"  Quartus  Papa  fuit  Nicolaus 
Virginis  JEdem 
Hanc  lapsam  refecit,  fitque 
Vetusta  nova." 
L.c.,  p.  89. 

4  On  the  left  of  the  apse  is  seen  the  artist's  name.  According  to  de 
Angelis,  I.e.,  p.  90,  it  read  :  "  Jacobus  Torriti  pictor  hoc  opus  momaicen 
fecit  "  ;    and  in  a  corner  on  the  right  :    "  anno  domini  MCCXCV. 


200  NICHOLAS    IV. 

a  field  of  gold,  the  lovely  mosaics  of  Ravenna,  the  upper 
part  of  the  picture  is  perhaps  more  or  less  the  work  of 
the  original  artists.1  The  lower  portion  is  the  work  of 
brother  Torriti ;  and  a  modern  art  critic  has  declared 
that  "  no  Italian  artist,  not  even  Cimabue  or  Duccio, 
has  imitated  with  greater  skill  the  solemnity  of  style, 
the  emphasis  of  feature,  and  the  magnificent  colouring 
of  the  Byzantine  productions  ".2  The  centre  of  the  apse 
is  filled  with  a  large  circle  within  which  sit  enthroned 
our  Lord  and  His  Mother.  Mary  with  hands  upraised 
is  being  crowned  by  her  divine  Son ;  while  angels  with 
extended  wings  cluster  round  each  side  of  the  lower 
half  of  the  circle.  On  its  left  are  seen  the  small  kneeling 
figure  of  Pope  Nicholas  IV. ,  tall  upright  figures  of  SS.  Peter 
and  Paul,  and  last  in  smaller  size  that  of  St.  Francis, 
showing  the  stigmata.  The  figure  of  the  Pope  is,  on 
the  other  side,  balanced  by  that  of  Cardinal  James 
Colonna,  and  the  other  Saints  by  St.  John  the  Baptist, 
St.  John  the  Evangelist,  and  St.  Anthony  of  Padua. 

Below  the  "shell"  of  the  apse,  and  between  the 
windows  which  give  light  to  it,  Nicholas  placed  a  series 
of  seven  mosaics.  They  depict  scenes  in  connection  with 
the  story  of  our  Lady.  Enumerating  them  from  the 
left,  we  see  the  Purification  of  St.  Anne,  our  Lady's 
mother ;  the  Annunciation,  and  the  Nativity.  The 
centre  mosaic,  the  largest  of  the  series,  shows  the  death 
of  our  Lady.  Then  follow  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi, 
the  Purification,  and  the  aged  Simeon.  Whatever  adverse 
criticism  certain  details  may  call  for,  there  can  be  no 

1  This  is,  however,  called  in  question  by  Mgr.  Wilpert.  Cf.  La 
Peinture  Romaine,  by  R.  van  Marie,  p.  14.  Personally,  I  am  very 
sceptical  as  to  the  judgments  of  art  critics  about  the  age  of  a  painting 
when  they  have  no  extraneous  data  to  help  them.  Cf.  ib.,  p.  216, 
for  Van  Marie's  judgment  as  to  the  extent  of  Torriti's  work  on  the  apses 
of  St.  Mary  Major  and  St.  John  Lateran. 

2  E.  Bertaux,  Rome,  ii,  p.  83. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  201 

doubt  that  the  decoration  of  the  apse  of  St.  Mary  Major's 
is  at  once  sumptuous  and  beautiful.1 

The  mosaics  of  the  loggia  of  the  facade,  now  very 
largely  restored,  were  the  work  of  Filippo  Rusutti,  as 
the  inscription  on  them  shows.2  Again,  the  centre  of 
the  work  is  taken  up  with  a  large  circle  showing  a  starry 
background,  and  again  have  we  an  elaborate  throne  with 
our  Lord  in  highly  decorated  robes  seated  thereon.  His 
right  hand  is  raised  in  benediction,  and  in  His  left  He 
holds  an  open  book  in  which  are  the  words,  "  Ego  sum 
lux  mundi." 

Torriti  has  also  worked  at  the  mosaic  of  the  apse  of  st-  John 
St.  John  Lateran.  This  mosaic,  which  in  design  recalls 
that  of  St.  Stefano  Rotondo,  is  said  by  some  not  to  have 
been  much  modified  by  the  Franciscan  mosaicist.  As 
it  now  stands,  it  is  divided  into  three  bands.  In  the 
centre  of  the  upper  one  is  a  full-bearded  bust  of  our 
Lord  with  the  head  surrounded  by  a  large  white  nimbus. 
Immediately  above  the  head  of  our  Lord  is  the  figure  of 
a  Seraph,  and  all  around  the  bust  are  angels  floating 
through  the  dark  blue  sky  amid  crimson  tinted  clouds, 
after  the  manner  of  the  mosaic  in  the  Church  of 
SS.  Cosmas  and  Damian.  The  centre  of  the  second  band 
is  occupied,  on  a  gold  background,  by  a  large  jewelled 
cross  standing  on  a  mound  from  which  flow  the  four 
rivers  of  Paradise  at  which  two  stags  are  drinking.     On 

1  In  addition  to  the  authors  already  cited  in  connection  with  the 
basilica,  see  G.  Clausse,  Basiliques  et  mosaiques,  ii,  p.  443  ff.  ;  A. 
Venturi,  Musaici  Cristiani  in  Roma,  p.  43  ff.,  Rome,  1925.  Illustra- 
tions will  be  found  in  most  of  the  works  cited.  See  also  Gregorovius, 
Rome,  v,  pt.  ii,  pp.   654-5. 

2  "  Philipp  Rusutti  fecit  hoc  o(p)us."  To  him  or  to  Gaddo  Gaddi 
are  assigned  the  four  mosaics  below  that  of  our  Lord  dealing  with 
the  story  of  the  foundation  of  the  basilica  under  Pope  Liberius.  Cf. 
Venturi,  Storia  dell' Arte,  v,  p.  181  ff.,  with  plates,  nn.  150-1  ;  and  Van 
Marie,  p.  221.  See  also  Frothingham,  I.e.,  pp.  330-1,  for  certain  frescoes 
in  a  fragmentary  state  in  St.  Mary  Major's  which  that  author  assigns 
to  an  unknown  artist  in  the  days  of  Nicholas  IV. 


202  NICHOLAS    IV. 

the  left  of  the  Cross  are  three  large  upright  figures  of 
our  Lady,  St.  Peter,  and  St.  Paul.  Kneeling  by  the 
Virgin's  side  is  Pope  Nicholas  on  whom  rests  one  of  her 
hands,1  and  beneath  whose  figure  runs  the  inscription: 
"  Nicholas  IV.  Pope,  the  servant  of  the  Holy  Mother  of 
God.  Nicolaus  PP.  IIII  See.  Di.  Genitri.  Servi."  Behind 
him  stands  St.  Francis,  like  Nicholas  in  smaller  pro- 
portions than  the  figures  of  the  apostles.  On  the  right 
side  of  the  cross  are  also  three  large  upright  figures 
representing  St.  John  the  Baptist,  St.  John  the  Evangelist, 
and  St.  Andrew,  while  the  smaller  figure  of  St.  Anthony 
is  placed  between  the  first  two  Saints.  The  third  and 
narrowest  band  shows  a  river  with  its  name,  Jordanus, 
into  which  pour  the  four  streams  from  the  base  of  the 
cross,  and  on  which  swim  swans  and  small  boats  float, 
carrying  little  naked  children.  In  the  left  bottom  corner 
we  have  the  proof  that  the  mosaic  was  the  work  of 
Torriti  in  the  words  of  an  inscription  :  "  Jacopus  Toriti. 
Pict.  hoc.  op.  fecit."  Moreover,  between  the  windows 
which  give  light  to  the  apse  are  the  figures  of  the  other 
apostles,  and  between  the  two  on  the  extreme  left  is  the 
little  kneeling  figure  of  the  Franciscan  artist  himself 
with  a  square  and  compass  in  his  hand.  Between  the 
two  apostles  on  the  extreme  right  is  the  kneeling  figure 
of  Brother  James  of  Camerino,  who,  as  the  inscription 
by  his  side  declares,  was  "  the  associate  of  the  master  of 
the  work  ",  and  who,  as  with  his  hammer  he  is  seen 
breaking  up  the  enamel  into  suitable  pieces,  commends 
himself  to  his  patron  St.  John. 

1  E.  Miintz  believes  that  all  Torriti  did  was  to  insert  the  three  smaller 
figures,  and  to  alter  the  figure  of  our  Lady.  This  he  did  by  giving  her 
a  second  right  hand  to  rest  it  on  the  kneeling  Pope,  and  by  leaving  the 
original  right  arm  raised.  He  then  tried  to  turn  the  latter  into  a  left 
arm  by  inverting  the  hand,  obliterating  the  original  left  hand.  Such, 
at  any  rate,  is  A.  L.  Frothingham's  presentation  of  Miintz's  article 
in  Revue  Arch.,  Nov.,  1878. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  203 

Above  this  striking  scene  once  ran  an  inscription  which 
proclaims  that  Nicholas  IV.,  a  son  of  Blessed  Francis, 
renewed  the  Church  in  1291,  and  adorned  it  with  mosaics, 
restoring  to  its  place  the  face  of  our  Lord  as  it  originally 
manifested  itself  when  the  church  was  consecrated.1 

But  Nicholas  was  concerned  not  only  with  the  Churches.  The 
He  had  the  honour  of  laying  the  foundation  stone  of  one  orvieto. 
of  the  most  lovely  churches  even  of  Italy.  The  Annals 
of  Orvieto  tell  us  that  Nicholas  came  to  that  city  when 
Adinulf  was  its  podesta  and  captain  ;  that  on  October  13, 
1290,  the  workmen  began  to  dig  the  foundations  of  the 
Duomo,  Sta.  Maria  Nuova,  and  that  "  they  were  terribly 
deep  ".  On  November  13,  the  Pope,  surrounded  by  a 
number  of  cardinals  and  prelates,  in  presence  of  all  the 
people,  "  descended  to  the  foundations,"  and  laid  the 
foundation  stone,  and  Latinus,  cardinal-bishop  of  Ostia, 
proclaimed  the  indulgence  "  granted  by  the  Pope  and 
the  prelates  who  were  present  ".2 

Among    the    sculptors    employed    by    Nicholas    was  c.de  Salvati. 
a  certain  Cintio  de  Salvati.     In  a  register  of  the  Archivio 
of  St.  Alexius,  Giordani  has  found  a  notice  to  the  effect 
that,  in  1293,  "  there  died,  most  piously,  Magister  Cintio 
de  Salvati,  a  Marmorarius,  sculptor  of  a  statue  of  Pope 


1  On  all  this,  see  especially  Clausse,  I.e.,  p.  341  ff.  For  the  above 
and  for  another  inscription  in  mosaic  once  on  the  Gospel  side,  see 
Rasponi,  De  Basilica  Lat.,  p.  29,  Rome,  1656.  This  second  inscription 
sets  forth  the  work  done  for  the  basilica  both  by  Innocent  III.  and 
Nicholas  IV.  in  1291.  See  them  also  in  N.  Alemanni,  De  Lateran. 
Parietinis,  p.  137  f.,  who  from  Rasponi,  I.e.,  p.  91,  tells  us  that, 
before  the  restoration  of  Nicholas,  there  was  represented  above  the 
cross  the  City  of  the  Church,  and  in  its  midst  a  palm-tree  on  which  was 
seen  that  emblem  of  Christ  the  Phoenix.  Now  the  tree  and  the  bird 
are  beneath  the  cross. 

2  Annates  Urbevet.,  p.  162.  Cf.  pp.  134,  162,  ap.  R.  I.  55.,  t.  xv,  pt.  v, 
new  ed.     Cf.  L.  Fumi,  Cod.  diplom.  Orviet.,  doc.  548,  p.  339,  ap.  Penzi, 

Viterbo,  ii,  p.  448,  n.,  and  the  same  II  duomo  'di  Orvieto,  Rome,  1891, 
for  permission  for  materials  to  be  taken  from  Rome  for  the  great  work. 


204  NICHOLAS    IV. 

Nicholas  IV."  which  once  was  in  St.  Mary  Major's,  but 
which  is  no  longer  to  be  found.1 

Embroidery.  ^ye  are  reminded  by  an  art  historian  that  Nicholas 
was  also  a  princely  donor  of  fine  embroidery  work  to 
many  churches.  Among  other  presents  to  the  Church  at 
Assisi,2  he  sent  it  an  altar  frontal  with  the  history  of 
St.  Francis  embroidered  thereon  in  gold,  silver,  and 
pearls,  and  also  a  most  beautiful  cope  of  gold  tissue  with 
the  figures  of  the  Apostles  embroidered  thereon.  To 
St.  Peter's  he  gave  an  altar-cover  (dossale)  worked  in 
gold  and  pearls  with  the  figures  of  our  Lady,  St.  John, 
Francis,  Gregory,  Nicholas,  etc.3 

The  famous  On  July  28,  1288,  Nicholas  wrote  from  Rieti  to  the 
COpe'  cathedral  church  of  Ascoli  Piceno  to  attest  his  devotion 
to  it  from  his  youth  upwards,  and  his  desire  to  favour 
it.  He  went  on  to  say  that  he  had  recently  sent  to  it 
by  his  beloved  son  the  Franciscan  brother  Lambert, 
a  cope  (pluviale)  of  samnite  with  figures  embroidered 
upon  it,4  and  adorned  with  gold  fringe  and  emeralds. 
Then,  in  order,  as  he  said,  that  the  Church  might  not  in 
the  future  ever  be  defrauded  of  it,  he  absolutely  forbade 


1  So  says  Filippini  (Laura),  La  scultura  nel  trecento  in  Roma,  p.  54, 
from  whom  the  notice  in  the  text  is  taken.  Some  maintain  that  the 
kneeling  papal  figure  in  the  Chapel  of  the  Crucifix  at  St.  John  Lateran 
is  that  of  Nicholas  IV.  But,  as  the  arms  of  Boniface  IX.  are  seen  by 
his  side,  I  cannot  see  sufficient  reason  for  denying  that  it  is  a  statue 
of  the  latter  Pope.     See  also  Filippini,  I.e.,  pp.  152-9. 

2  The  gifts  of  Nicholas  to  Assisi  are  discussed  by  Rubens,  p.  55. 

3  Venturi,  Arte,  v,  p.  1050  ff.  With  regard  to  the  Dossale,  of  which 
we  find  mention  in  II  tesoro  delta  basilica  di  S.  Pietro,  p.  15,  ed.  Miintz 
and  Frothingham,  Rome,  1883  (really  an  extract  from  the  Archivio 
Rom.  de  Storia  Pat.,  vol.  vi),  it  is  simply  there  stated  "  quod  dossale 
dicitur  pape  Nicolay  ".  The  presence  of  the  figure  of  St.  Francis  on  it, 
is  the  reason  for  assigning  it  to  Nicholas  IV. 

4  Among  others  with  those  of  Popes  Innocent  IV.,  Alexander  IV., 
Urban  IV.,  and  Clement  IV.  A  description  of  the  cope  may  be  read 
in  E.  Bertaux,  "  Tresors  d'Eglises,"  ap.  Melanges  d'archceol,  1897, 
p.   77  ff. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  205 

it  to  be  alienated  from  it  in  any  way.1  As  is  well  known, 
his  wishes  have  not  been  respected,  and  it  is  now  in  the 
National  Gallery  of  Rome.2 

Though   practicallv   all   the   art   work   forwarded   by  The  palace 

.  •  ,        !  1  1  .       .  at  St.  Mary 

Nicholas  was  in  connection  with  churches,  he  repaired  Major's, 
or  completed  the  palace  at  St.  Mary  Major's,  begun  by 
Clement  III.3 

To  execute  all  this  beautiful  work,  Nicholas  required  Funds  for  all 

this  work. 

funds.  A  few  documents  have  been  preserved  which 
show  us  some  ways  in  which  he  procured  them.  The 
banking  firm  "  Clarentum  " — setting  an  extraordinarily 
rare  example  of  a  delicate  conscience  in  a  corporate  body 
— wrote  to  Nicholas  acknowledging  that  they  were  in 
possession  of  funds  which  they  had  acquired  by  usury 
and  other  unlawful  means.  They  therefore  asked  him 
what  they  should  do  with  regard  to  the  past,  as  they 
proposed  to  abstain  from  malpractices  in  the  future,  and 
had  made  satisfaction  to  all  the  creditors  whom  they 
could  trace.  After  praising  their  good  intentions  and 
resolutions,  the  Pope  absolved  them  from  the  necessity 
of  troubling  about  future  possible  demands  on  them, 
provided  they  paid  a  thousand  ounces  of  gold  towards 
the  repairs  of  St.  Mary  Major's.4  For  the  works  going 
on  in  connection  with  the  church  of  St.  Francis  at  Assisi, 
he  authorized  the  using  of  the  offerings  made  in  that 
church  and  in  the  Portiuncula.5 

A  little  later  we  find  him  absolving  Sir  John  de  Wotton  St.  Peter's. 

1  Reg.,  n.  7101. 

2  It  was  stolen  in  1902,  came  into  the  hands  of  Mr.  Pierpont  Morgan, 
and  was  restored  by  him  in  1904. 

3  "  Ubi  satis  magna  palacia  compleri  fecit."  Contin.  reg.  lib.  de 
Temp.,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xxxi,  p.  577,  or  Mem.  Pot.  Reg.,  ap.  R.  I.  SS., 
viii,  1171.     Cf.  G.  Biasiotti,  La  basilica  Esquilina,  p.  29  f. 

*  Reg.,  6926,  March  21,   1292. 

5  Ep.  May  15,  1288,  ap.  Wadding,  v,  p.  512,  n.  10.  "  Continua 
ecclesiae  b.  Francesci  de  Assisio  conservatio  non  modicum  noscitur 
sumptuosa." 


206  NICHOLAS    IV. 

from  a  vow  to  make  a  pilgrimage  to  Rome,  on  the  ground 
that  he  was  old  and  weak,  and,  as  sheriff  of  his  county  of 
Wiltshire,  was  very  much  occupied.  In  satisfaction  of 
his  vow,  the  knight  had  to  send  as  much  money  to 
St.  Peter's  as  he  would  have  spent  on  his  journey.1 

Nicholas  was  not,  however,  always  successful  in  his 
endeavours  to  raise  money  for  his  churches.  As  we  shall 
see  when  we  come  to  speak  of  his  relations  with  England,2 
his  efforts  to  assign  an  English  benefice  in  perpetuity 
to  St.  Peter's  met  with  a  final  repulse.3 

1  Cal.  of  P.  Letters,  i,  p.  492. 

2  Cf.  infra. 

3  Cf.  C.  of  P.  L.,  i,  pp.  518,  555  ;    Rymer,  ii,  494. 


CHAPTER    VI. 


THE    BRITISH    ISLES. 


Sources. — Among  the  documentary  outcomes  of  the  relation 
between  Nicholas  IV.  and  England  was?  the  Taxatio  ecclesiastica 
Anglics  et  Wallice  auctoritate  P.  Nicolai  IV.,  circa  A.D.  1291, 
which  was  published,  far  from  well,  "  by  command  of  H.M.  King 
George  III."  in  1802.1  Its  very  inadequate  preface  begins  with 
the  misleading  statement  :  "  Pope  Innocent  XXII.  (for  IV.), 
to  whose  predecessors  in  the  See  of  Rome  the  firstfruits  and 
tenths  of  all  ecclesiastical  benefices  had  for  a  long  timebeen  paid, 
gave  the  same,  a.d.  1253,  to  King  Henry  III.  for  three  years, 
which  occasioned  a  taxation  in  the  following  year,  sometimes 
called  the  Norwich  taxation,  and  sometimes  Pope  Innocent's 
Valor."  2  The  preface  then  goes  on  to  state,  more  or  less 
accurately,  that,  in  1288,3  Nicholas  IV.  granted  the  tenths  to 
King  Edward  I.  for  six  years  towards  the  expense  of  an  expedi- 
tion to  the  Holy  Land,  and  that  they  might  be  collected  to  their 
true  value,  a  taxation  by  the  King's  precept  was  begun  in  that 
year  (1288).  .  .  .  The  taxatio  of  P.  Nicholas  IV.  is  a  most 
important  record,  because  all  the  taxes,  as  well  to  our  Kings 
as  to  the  Popes,  were  regulated  by  it,  until  the  Survey  made  in 
the  twenty-sixth  year  of  Henry  VI II.  It  is  the  result  of  this 
taxation  or  valuation  of  Nicholas  that  was  published  in  1802. 
It  shows  us,  diocese  by  diocese,  the  sums  yielded  by  the 
"  spiritualities  "  (tithes,  offerings)  and  "  temporalities  "  (lands) 
of  the  various  churches,  abbeys,  etc.,  of  the  country.  But  though 
we  gather  from  it  that,  on  the  whole,  it  furnished  a  higher  basis 
for  taxation  than  preceding  valuations,  it  does  not  show  how 


1  Cf.  Miss  R.  Graham,  "  Taxation  of  Nicholas  IV."  ap.  Eng.  Hist. 
Review,  1908,  p.  434  ff.,  a  paper  we  have  here  freely  used. 

2  We  must  point  out  that  the  "  First  Fruits  "  or  Annates  were 
not  exacted  till  the  reign  of  John  XXII.,  and  that  only  occasional 
tenths  had  been  granted  to  the  Popes. 

3  It  was  not  till  Jan.  10,  1290,  that  Nicholas  gave  his  consent  for 
a  fresh  valuation  to  be  made.     Rymer,  ii,  459,  and  see  infra. 

207 


208  NICHOLAS      IV. 

that  basis   was  arrived  at,   and  consequently  does  not  enable 
us  to  ascertain  exactly  the  real  revenues  of  the  churches. 

In  connection  with  this  Taxatio,  we  would  call  attention,  besides 
the  paper  of  Miss  Graham  just  cited  in  a  note,  to  that  of  Mr.  W.  E. 
Lunt,  "  Collectors'  accounts  of  the  clerical  tenth  of  N.  IV.,"  ap. 
Eng.  Hist.  Review,  Jan.,  1916,  p.  102  ff. 

King  We  have  already  seen  how  the  perilous  condition  of 

Edward   and    .--.,-,  ,  ,         -,  ,  (1  .  •, 

the  tithes  for  the  Holy  Land  on  the  one  hand,  and  on  the  other  a 
the  Crusade.  p0ssiDie  alliance  with  the  Mongols  to  succour  it,  had 
rekindled  King  Edward's  desire  to  lead  a  Crusade  in  its 
defence.1  After  he  had  taken  the  cross,  and  been  named 
captain-general  of  the  hosts  of  Christendom  (1287)  ,2 
he  had  entered  into  renewed  communication  with  Pope 
Honorius  IV.  on  the  subject  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  of 
the  tithes  he  desired  to  enable  him  properly  to  equip 
his  forces.  On  the  death  of  Honorius,  he  had  continued 
the  negotiations  with  his  successor,  Nicholas  IV.  The 
latter,  in  letters  now  lost,  had  promptly  declared  his 
wishes  to  Edward,  who,  on  February  3,  1289,  explained 
his.  They  were  that,  without  fail,  the  great  Crusade 
(passagium  generale)  should  start  on  the  Feast  of  St.  John 
the  Baptist  in  1293,  that  the  six  years'  tithes  and  other 
crusade  taxes  (obventiones)  already  collected  in  England, 
Ireland,  Scotland,  and  Wales,  should  be  handed  over 
to  him  before  that  date,  and  that  of  the  tithes,  etc.,  to  be 
collected  during  the  next  six  years,  those  received  during 
the  first  three  years  should  be  given  to  him  before  his 
departure  for  the  Holy  Land,  and  the  rest  as  they  fell 
due.  The  Crusade  was  to  be  preached  everywhere,  and 
those  who  had  taken  the  cross  were  to  be  compelled 
to  fight  or  pay.  Finally,  he  was  to  receive,  as  far  as 
possible,   the  tithes  from  those  countries  whose  rulers 

1  Cf.  supra,  pp.  55  ff.,  etc. 

2  Flores  Hist.,  iii,  65  ;  Rishanger,  p.  130.  The  French  wanted  the 
position  for  their  King  or,  at  any  rate,  for  one  "  ex  genere  Gallorum  ". 
Cf.  John  of  Thilrode,  Chron.,  p.  581  ff.,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xxv. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  209 

should  not  take  part  in  the  Crusade.1  In  a  separate 
letter  he  undertook  to  restore  the  money  assigned  to 
him,  if,  for  any  cause,  he  was  not  ready  to  sail  on  the 
appointed  day.2 

Some  of  these  wishes  of  our  King  led  to  much  corre-  The  Pope 
spondence  between  him  and  the  Pope.     In  the  first  place  ^nt^aii  the 
Nicholas  declared  that,  owing  to  the  disastrous  loss  of  King's 
Tripoli   (Apr.   26,   1289),  which  had  occurred  after  the 
dispatch  of  the  King's  letter,  the  Crusade  could  not  be 
delayed  beyond  1292.     But,  with  regard  to  the  assign- 
ment   of   the   tithes,    always   understanding   that    they 
should  be  refunded  if  the  Crusade  were  not  undertaken, 
he  even  granted  more  favourable  conditions  than  the 
King  himself  had  asked  for.    Speaking  generally,  Nicholas' 
answer  was  in  accordance  with  the  King's  petitions.3 

If  Edward  was  anxious  to  lead  a  Crusade,  he  was,  a  new 
perhaps,  still  more  anxious  to  get  hold  of  the   money  J^madT  t0 
which  was  to  be  raised  for  it,  and  to  get  as  much  of  it  as  1290. 
possible.      His    envoys,    accordingly,    pressed    for    the 
granting  of  a  new  valuation  of  ecclesiastical  property  in 
England.4    From  the  Pope's  reply  we  see  that  they  had 
put  forward  as  a  reason  for  their  request  that  there  was 
not  a  uniform  basis  of  valuation  in  the  different  countries 
under  Edward's  sway.    Accepting  the  assertion,  Nicholas 
granted  that  the  taxes  should  be  paid  "  according  to  the 
true  value  "  of  the  revenues.    The  collection  of  the  taxes, 
however,  was,  he  insisted,  to  be  made  by  persons  deputed 
by  the  Apostolic  See,  and,  though  in  the  King's  interest, 

1  Ep.  to  Nicholas  :  "  cum  recommendatione  humiii,  pedum  oscula 
beatorum,"  ap.  Rymer,  H,  p.  413. 

2  lb. 

3  Ep.  of  Oct.  7,  1289,  ap.  ib.,  p.  432  ff.  Nicholas  showed  himself 
ready  to  help  the  King,  because  he  knew  that  the  undertaking  was 
necessarily  very  costly,  "  pro  eo  quod  negotium  multis  oneribus  et 
sumptibus  est  onustum." 

4  The  Annals  of  Worcester,  p.  509,  says  that  the  Pope  consented  to 
the  new  valuation  "  rege  procurante  ". 

Vol.  XVII.  p 


210  NICHOLAS    IV. 

was  so  to  be  made  as  to  avoid  scandal.1  This  letter  was, 
a  few  months  later,  followed  by  a  long  one  setting  forth 
in  detail  what  sort  of  revenues,  profits,  etc.,  were  to  be 
taxed,  and  what  were  not  to  be  taxed,  what  institutions 
were  not  to  be  taxed  at  all,  such  as  those  of  the  military 
Religious  Orders,  and  what  deductions  could  lawfully 
be  made  from  the  revenues  before  their  value  could  be 
settled  for  taxation.2 
Further  in  presence  of  a  number  of  bishops  and  nobles,  of 

rcn  ucsts 

from  the       brother  William   de   Hothun,   who  had   conducted   the 
Kmg.  negotiations  for  the  King,  and  of  Bartholomew,  bishop 

of  Grosseto,  the  papal  nuncio,  Edward  "humbly  and 
devoutly  "  accepted  the  Pope's  conditions.3  Nevertheless, 
he  did  not  cease  to  press  Nicholas  for  more  money. 
Specially  did  he  ask  for  the  money  from  those  countries, 
whose  rulers  were  not  going  to  take  part  in  the  Crusade, 
and  for  a  grant  from  the  Pope  himself.  In  reply  to 
Edward's  requests,  Nicholas  declared  that  he  was  most 
anxious  to  help  him,  who  was  indeed  "  Christ's  champion 
and  the  protagonist  of  Christendom  ",  but  the  King 
must  know  that  from  France  the  Church  has  not  received 
anything,  that  Pope  Gregory  had  granted  the  tithes  of 
Castile  to  its  King,  and  that  very  little  (modicum)  had 
come  to  the  Church  from  Germany  and  the  countries  of 
the  North.    Moreover,  as  the  tithes  of  England,  Ireland, 

1  Ep.  Jan.  10,  1290,  ap.  ib.,  p.  459  :  "  Diversae,  ut  dicitur,  sunt 
extimationes  redituum.  .  .  .  Statuimus  ut,  juxta  verum  ipsarum 
valorem,  tibi  praedicta  decima  persolvatur."  Cf.  ib.,  p.  460,  for  a 
similar  letter  regarding  the  other  crusade  taxes  (obventiones),  and 
ib.,  p.  509,  for  a  confirmatory  letter  (March  18,  1291)  regarding  "  the 
true  value  ",  in  which  he  again  lays  down  that  in  collecting  the  tithes 
according  to  this  value  all  occasion  of  grave  inconvenience  and 
consequent  scandal  must  be  carefully  avoided.  See  a  version  of 
Bartholomew  of  Cotton,  p.  433,  R.  S.,  and  other  texts  from  chroniclers 
infra.  The  scope  of  the  tax  is  well  expressed  by  the  Chronicle  of 
Lanercost,  ad  an.  1291,  sub  fin. 

2  Ep.  May  14,  1290,  R.,  p.  475. 

3  Ep.  Oct.  10,  1290,  ap.  R.,  ii,  p.  495. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  211 

Scotland,  and  Wales  had  already  been  granted  to  the 
King,  he  could  easily  conjecture  for  himself  how  much 
was  left  for  the  Church.  Then,  out  of  that  residue,  he 
had  himself  equipped  men  and  ships  for  the  defence  of 
the  Holy  Land.  Still  he  assured  Edward  that  he  would 
give  him  all  the  financial  help  he  could.  Further,  when 
the  King  was  ready  to  sail,  he  would  comply  with  his 
request,  and  depute  a  cardinal-legate  to  watch  over  the 
interests  of  the  Holy  Land,  and  take  him  and  his  people 
under  the  special  protection  of  the  Holy  See.1 

About  a  month  after  the  dispatch  of  this  answer,  a  Further  con- 
sheaf   of   letters 2    left    the   Apostolic   chancery,   giving  action  of  the 
further  grants  to  Edward,  and  now  fixing  1293  as  the  Pope'  129L 
date  of  the  crusade  against  the  Sultan  of   Egypt    who 
"  with  all  his  might  is  striving  wholly  to  blot  out  the 
Christian  faith  and  name."  3 

On  the  same  day  as  the  issue  of  this  encyclical,  Nicholas  The  new 
appointed   Oliver  Sutton,  bishop  of  Lincoln,  and  John  England" 
of  Pontissara,  bishop  of  Winchester,  as  chief   collectors 
of  the  tenth  to  be  raised  in  England.4 

The  fall  of  Acre  (May  18,  1291)  everywhere  enkindled 
for   the    moment  a  lively  interest  in  the  Holy  Land,5 

1  Ep.  Feb.  12,  1291,  ap.  R.,  ii,  p.  499.  Nicholas  added  that  many 
were  grumbling  at  the  special  favours  he  had  granted  Edward.  Cf. 
the  following  letter  (p.  501),  of  the  same  date  in  which  the  Pope  begs 
our  King  not  to  delay  his  preparations. 

2  Epp.  of  March  18-29,  1291,  ap.  ib.,  pp.  509-23. 

3  Encyclical  of  March  18,  1291,  ap.  ib.,  p.  515. 

4  Ep.  ap.  Bartholomew  of  Cotton,  p.  183  ff .  The  tenth  to  be  collected 
"  juxta  veram  aestimationem  (proventuum)  ".  Cf.  ep.  of  March  29, 
addressed  to  the  same  two  bishops.     Ib.,  p.  189  ff. 

5  The  letters  of  the  Pope  to  England  on  the  matter  (of  which  we 
spoke  above)  may  also  be  read  in  full  in  the  Regis trum  Johannis  de 
Pontissara,  ed.  Deedes,  ii,  p.  474  ff.  ;  and  the  boastful  letter  of  the 
Sultan  on  it,  ap.  ib.,  p.  481.  The  editor  gives  an  English  translation 
of  it  in  his  valuable  introduction,  p.  lxxxiii,  but  he  is  mistaken  in 
supposing  it  was  addressed  to  Hako  of  Norway.  It  was  addressed 
to  Hayton  II.,  K.  of  Armenia,  and  was  included  by  Bartholomew  of 
Cotton  in  his  Chronicle,  p.  215,  R.  S. 


212  NICHOLAS    IV. 

but  Nicholas  died  within  the  year  after  that  event,  and 
Edward  became  involved  in  the  affairs  of  Scotland. 
The  Crusade  of  1293  was  never  undertaken,  though,  at 
the  preaching  of  archbishop  Peckham,  many  of  our 
nobles  had  taken  the  cross.1 

Meanwhile,  the  new  valuation  was  begun  in  England, 
because,  as  the  Annals  of  Osney  put  it,2  "  the  lord  Pope 
out  of  the  abundance  of  his  power  had  granted  to  the 
King  of  England  a  tenth  for  six  years  of  all  the  possessions 
of  ecclesiastical  persons,  as  well  religious  as  secular,  .  .  . 
in  aid  of  his  future  expedition  to  the  Holy  Land  in  order 
to  attack  the  enemies  of  the  Cross  of  Christ.  The  tenth 
was  to  be  raised  not  on  the  old  valuations,  but  according 
to  the  true  value  of  the  said  possessions  which  the  Pope 
had  decided  was  to  be  reckoned  anew  by  an  intolerable 
valuation."  These  same  Annals  go  on  to  say  that  to 
the  greater  vexation  of  the  tax-payers  new  valuers  were 
appointed  who  raised  "  incomparably "  the  previous 
iniquitous  valuation.  "  But  still  they  could  not  satisfy 
the  insatiable  avarice  of  the  King's  heart."  3 

Since  the  year  1252,  the  Popes  had  often  granted  our 
Kings  tithes  of  ecclesiastical  revenues  for  the  succour 
of  the  Holy  Land.  For  the  raising  of  them  a  valuation 
had  been  made  by  Walter  of  Norwich  in  1256,  with  the 
sanction  of  Alexander  IV.4  In  1275,  a  second  valuation 
had  been  made  by  the  papal  nuncio,  Raymund  de 
Nogeriis,  and  we  are  assured  by  the  Canon  of  Barnwell 
that  the  first  valuation,  if  tolerable,  pricked,  that  the 


1  Bart,  of  C,  p.  177. 

2  P.  331.  Cf.  Bart,  of  Cotton,  p.  433,  "  ad  taxationem  novam 
secundum  verum  valorem  faciendum." 

3  P.  333.     Cf.  Ann.  of  Dunstable,  p.  367,  and  our  annalists  generally. 

4  For  the  first  clerical  income  tax  levied  by  Innocent  III.  (1199), 
each  clerk  assessed  his  own  income.  Cf.  W.  E.  Lunt,  "  Early 
assessments  for  papal  taxation  of  English  clerical  incomes,"  ap. 
Annual  Report   of  the   American   Hist.    Assoc,    1917,   p.   265    ff. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  213 

second  was  heavy  and  wounded,  but  that  the  new  one 
(1291)  was  most  sharp  and  cut  down  to  the  bone.1 
Though  the  general  opinion  seems  to  have  been  that 
the  valuation  of  1291  was  oppressive,2  no  one,  we  are 
told,  opposed  it  in  England,  Scotland,  Wales,  or  Ireland.3 
The  levying  of  the  tithe  began  on  June  24,  1291,  but 
owing  to  the  death  of  Nicholas,  the  subsequent  long 
vacancy  of  the  Holy  See  and  other  causes,  its  collection 
did  not  begin  in  earnest  till  1296,  and  was  not  finished 
till  1302.  From  a  certain  want  of  exactness  and  definite- 
ness  in  the  Taxatio  document,  as  it  has  come  down  to  us, 
it  does  not  seem  possible  to  arrive  at  the  knowledge  of 
the  exact  sum  raised  ;  but  it  appears  to  have  been 
between  £206,000  and  £220,000. 4 

When  Nicholas,  in  mournful  but  inspiring  accents,  Councils  to 
proclaimed  the  fall  of  Acre  to  the  Christian  world  (Aug.  18,  England^ 
1291),5  he  did  not  content  himself  with  granting  tithes  to 
King  Edward,  but  inaugurated  extensive  measures  to 
cope  with  the  situation.  He  resolved  to  call  together,  as 
Gregory  X.  had  done,  a  diet  of  Christendom.  Meanwhile, 
he  ordered  local  councils  to  be  assembled  all  over  Europe 
to  consult  on  what  was  best  to  be  done,  and  to  forward 
to  him  without  delay  the  result  of  their  deliberations.6 
Especially  did  he  commend  to  the  bishops  the  considera- 
tion  of  how   best   the   great   Military   Orders   could   be 


1  Lib.  memor.  eccles.  de  Bernewelle,  p.  191. 

2  "  Fuit  ilia  taxatio  durissima,"  Bart,  of  Cotton,  p.  199. 

3  Pierre  de  Langtoft,  Chron.,  vol.  ii,  p.  189,  R.  S.  There  were,  of 
course,  complaints  against  arbitrary  increase  of  the  valuation  in 
certain  cases.     Cf.  John  of  Oxnead,  p.  260. 

4  Cf.  among  other  authors  who  have  attempted  this  calculation, 
Dixon,  Hist,  of  the  Church  of  England,  i,  p.  249. 

5  Ap.  Bart,  of  Cotton,  p.  199. 

6  lb.  Cf.  Geoffrey  de  Courlon,  Chron.,  p.  564,  ed.  Julliot,  Letters 
from  Northern  Registers,  p.  96,  R.  S.,  where  Romanus,  archbishop  of 
York,  gives  a  letter  from  Nicholas  ordering  him  to  summon  a  provincial 
council. 


214 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


Provincial 
synod  of 
Canterbury, 
1292. 


united,  as  from  their  discords  great  harm  had  been  done 
to  the  Christian  cause.1 

In  obedience  to  the  Pope's  orders,  the  metropolitans 
everywhere  summoned  their  suffragans  and  clergy 
together.  On  Dec.  22,  1291,  archbishop  Peckham  bade 
the  bishops  and  priests  of  his  Province  assemble  in  the 
New  Temple  on  Feb.  13,  1292. 2 

The  council  duly  met,  and  it  was  decided  that  the 
faithful  should  be  regularly  exhorted  to  prayer,  fasting, 
and  good  works  for  the  benefit  of  the  Holy  Land,  and 
that  the  leadership  of  the  Christian  forces  should  be  put 
into  imperial  hands,  "  as  the  imperial  majesty  is  the 
greatest  among  the  powers  of  this  world."  It  was,  there- 
fore, recommended  that  an  emperor  should  be  chosen 
at  once,  "  to  whom  the  sword  for  the  recovery  of  the 
Holy  Land  could  be  safely  entrusted."  Every  effort 
should  also  be  made  to  bring  about  peace  between  princes.3 
If  an  Emperor  was  not  for  any  cause  available,  King 
Edward  should  lead  the  Crusade,  and  the  tithes  of 
Christendom  be  made  over  to  him.4 

Speaking  generally  the  recommendations  from  the 
different  countries  were  much  the  same.  The  French 
councils,  whilst  also  urging  the  prompt  election  "of  a 
King  of  Germany  "  and  his  promotion  to  the  imperial 
dignity,  recommended  that  the  laity  should  be  taxed 
equally  with  the  clergy.  They  also,  like  our  own,  agreed 
that  the  Military  Orders  should  be  united,  and  also  that 
inquiries  should  be  made  to  see  if  they  were  maintaining 
as   many  knights  in  the  field  as  their  revenues  could 


1  Ep.  ap.  B.  of  C  (Aug.  18,  1291),  p.  203,  Ann.  Blandin.,  ap.  M.  G.  SS., 
v,  p.  33  f . 

2  Epp.  ap.  B.  of  C,  p.  204  f. 

3  And  should  they  be  in  rebellion  against  the  Roman  Church,  to 
bring  them  back  to  its  unity. 

4  Bart,  of  C,  pp.  206-10  ;   Ann.  of  Dunstable,  pp.  366-7,  R.  S.  ;    J.  of 
Oxnead,  pp.  284-5. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  215 

support.  The  French  clergy,  also,  though  protesting 
that  they  were  heavily  burdened  with  taxation,  professed 
their  readiness  to  pay  what  the  kindly  prudence  of  the 
Roman  Church  should  think  fair.1 

The  Council  of  Salzburg  (April,  1292)  advised  that 
the  best  parts  of  the  constitutions  of  the  Templars, 
Hospitallers,  and  Teutonic  Knights  should  be  selected,  and 
a  new  one  made  for  a  united  Military  Order.  The  "  Rex 
Romanorum  "  and  the  Princes  should  be  summoned  to 
succour  the  Holy  Land.  We  are  told,  however,  that 
Nicholas  had  died  before  the  deputies  from  that  Council 
reached  Rome.2  With  the  death  of  the  Pope  in  whom 
all  obviously  trusted,  died  all  hope  of  the  Crusade  of 
rescue. 

Although  Nicholas  and  Edward  had  the  same  views  on  ^ovisions^ 
many  subjects  besides  the  Crusades,  and  the  release  Vations. 
of  King  Charles  from  confinement,  their  ideas  on  other 
matters  were  sometimes  in  direct  opposition.  Edward 
believed  that  the  Pope  made  too  free  use  of  his  powers  in 
granting  benefices  in  England  to  foreigners  or  in  spite  of 
the  rights  of  patrons,  and  Nicholas  was  convinced  that 
Edward  did  not  always  respect  the  immemorial  privileges 
of  the  Church  in  his  realms.  Though  the  Register  of 
Nicholas  proves  that,  at  times,  he  granted  provisions 
and  reservations  at  Edward's  own  request  to  his  kinsmen 
or  dependents,3  it  is  a  fact  that  far  too  many  English 

1  lb.,  pp.  210-15.  "  Gallicana  ecclesia  .  .  .  non  modicum  sit 
gravata  .  .  .  ne  tamen  tarn  S.  Rom.  ecclesiae  desiderio  pioque  pro- 
positi videatur  deesse  .  .  .  nos  ad  illud  offerimus  subsidium  faciendum, 
quod  vestrae  sanctitatis  prudentia  et  dementia  .  .  .  duxerit  imponen- 
dum."  Cf.  Will,  of  Newbury,  contin.,  an.  1291,  ap.  Chron.  of  Stephen, 
etc.,  R.  S.,  vol.  ii,  p.  279. 

2  Eberhard  of  Ratisbon,  Annates,  an.  1291,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xvii,  594. 
Other  councils  advised  the  formation  of  a  fleet,  union  with  the  Greek 
Church,  etc.     Cf.  Hefele,  Conciles,  vi,  pt.  i,  p.  327  f. 

3  See  the  striking  case  of  Edward's  kinsman,  Peter  of  Savoy.  At  the 
King's  request  Nicholas  granted  Peter  "  provision  of  a  canonry  of 


2l6  NICHOLAS    IV. 

benefices  were  granted  by  the  Pope  to  foreigners  who 
were  often  non-resident,  and  generally,  even  if  resident, 
were  ignorant  of  the  language  and  customs  of  the  country.1 
"  The  cathedrals  and  cathedral  churches,"  it  has  been 
truly  noted,2  "  suffered  most  from  these  provisions,  as  the 
benefices  and  prebends  in  them  as  a  rule  had  no  cure  of 
souls  attached."  At  this  period  the  greatest  sufferers 
in  England  were  the  dioceses  of  York 3  and  Lincoln. 
The  Archbishop  of  York,  John  Romanus,  had  complained 
to  various  cardinals  about  the  abuse,4  and  even  Nicholas 
himself  had  acknowledged  the  state  of  things  in  that 
diocese  owing  to  provisions.5 
Edward  The  complaint  of  the  Archbishop  of  York  was  backed 

complains  to  r 

the  Pope,  up  by  the  King  and  the  nobles  of  the  land.  Edward 
told  the  Pope  that  he  could  not  understand  how  it  was 
conceivable  that  he  who  had  always  shown  such  favour 
to  himself  and  his  realm  should  sanction  such  appropria- 
tion of  English  benefices  as  had  lately  taken  place. 

Especially  was  the  King  (and  the  archbishop  of  York 
also)  6  annoyed  at  the  proposed  permanent  alienation  of 
the   prebends   of   Fenton   and   Nassington    (in   Lincoln) 


Lincoln,  with  reservation  of  a  prebend,  notwithstanding  that  he  is 
under  age,  and  holds  the  treasurership  of  Llandaff,  and  canonries  and 
prebends  of  York,  Salisbury,  and  Hereford."  Cal.  of  Papal  Reg.,  i, 
p.  557.     Cf.  ib.,  p.  529,  etc. 

1  Ann.  of  Dunstable,  p.  353. 

2  See  the  introduction  to  the  Register  of  Arch.  John  Romanus,  vol.  ii, 
p.  xv. 

3  lb. 

4  lb.,  n.  1082,  vol.  i,  p.  380,  of  Sept.  16,  1289. 

5  Ep.  of  Apr.  1,  1289,  ap.  Cal.  of  P.  L.,  i,  406. 

6  See  the  archbishop's  letter  of  Sept.  20,  1288,  from  Jaca  in  Aragon 
to  Cardinal  Matteo  Rubeo  Orsini,  who  had  proposed  the  assignment 
of  his  prebend  of  Fenton  in  Yorkshire  to  the  Hospital  of  S.  Spirito  in 
Sassia  of  which  he  was  protector.  "  Spoliatur  hoc  modo,"  he 
indignantly  wrote,  "  Eboracensis  ecclesia  et  Romanum  hospitale 
vestitur  .  .  .  Tollitur  Anglicis  hospitalitas,  et  transvehitur  ad 
Romanos."     Cf.  his  Register,  ii,  p.  xvii  ff. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  217 

for  the  benefit  of  St.  Peter's  and  of  the  Hospital  of 
St.  Spirito  in  Sassia  which  already  had  the  English 
benefice  of  Writ  el.  Edward  pointed  out  that  these 
numerous  appropriations,  especially  the  permanent  ones, 
of  English  benefices  to  foreigners  and  foreign  institutions, 
were  causing  damage  to  the  dignity  of  Divine  worship  in 
the  country,  were  depriving  the  poor  of  the  country  of 
their  alms,  were  lessening  charitable  bequests  as  the 
donors  saw  that  their  wishes  were  not  respected,  etc. 
The  King  declared  that  he  could  not  see  that  it  was  for 
the  honour  of  God  that  "  one  altar  should  be  unduly 
stripped  for  the  benefit  of  another ".  He  therefore 
earnestly  besought  the  Pope  to  remedy  these  evils,  as 
he  could  not  suffer  the  alienation  of  a  heritage  he  had 
sworn  to  defend.1 

Edward  did  not  get  much  satisfaction  from  the  reply 
(Sept.  17,  1290)  of  the  Pope's  "  superior  (prsecellens) 
authority  "  :  Nicholas  expressed  his  astonishment  "  at 
the  curious  and  serious  letter  "  he  had  received  from 
the  King,  and  confined  his  comments  to  the  prebends  of 
Fenton  and  Nassington.  In  his  action  which  had  been 
inspired  by  pure  motives,  he  declared  that  he  had  not 
had  any  intention  of  diminishing  the  King's  rights,  but 
he  wished  to  assign  one  of  the  said  prebends  to  the  basilica 
of  St.  Peter's,  on  whom  rests  the  whole  fabric  of  the  Church, 
and  the  other  to  the  Hospital  of  St.  Spirito  whither  flock 
such  a  multitude  of  sick  and  poor.  Accordingly,  the 
Pope  professed  to  have  no  doubt  that  out  of  reverence 
for  God  and  His  Apostle,  the  King,  "  at  once  Catholic 
and  devout,"  would  forego  any  rights  he  may  have  in 
connection  with  the  two  prebends,  and  offer  them  to  him.2 

1  Ep.  c.  July,  1290,  ap.  Rymer,  ii,  p.  493,  and  ib.,  the  protest  of  the 
English  nobles. 

2  lb.,  p.  494.  Nicholas  took  great  interest  in  this  hospital.  He 
exempted  their  houses  in  England  from  the  Saladin  tenth,  as  their 
"  goods  are  applied  to  the  uses  of  the  sick  and  poor."  Cf.  Cal.  of 
P.  L.,  i,  pp.  534,  536. 


2l8 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


With  regard,  however,  to  the  permanent  alienation  of 
these  two  prebends,  Edward  stood  firm,  and  threatened 
divers  severe  penalties  to  anyone  who  should  dare  to 
attempt  to  annex  them  to  institutions  in  Rome.1  But 
with  regard  to  the  general  question  of  Provisions  by 
which  he  benefited  himself,  he  took  no  particular  action, 
though  these  were  causing  endless  disputes,  and  giving 
a  great  deal  of  trouble  to  the  bishops  of  the  country.2 
Even  when,  in  the  following  century,  various  Statutes 
of  Provisors  (1351,  1362,  1390)  were  passed  against  the 
granting  of  Provisions  by  the  Pope,  because  "  if  they 
should  be  suffered,  there  should  scarcely  be  any  benefice 
within  a  short  time  within  the  said  realm  (of  England), 
but  that  it  should  be  in  the  hands  of  aliens  and  denizens 
by  virtue  of  such  provisions  "  3 — even  then,  as  the  King 
was  able  to  reward  his  servants  by  them,  the  practice 
went  on  as  before,  and  the  rights  of  the  patrons  were 
ignored.4 

If  King  Edward  had  to  complain  that  the  Pope  was 
abusing  his  prerogatives,  Nicholas  in  turn  complained 
to  the  King's  envoy,  and  by  letters  and  nuncios  to  the 
King  himself,  "  that  things  are  done  by  royal  authority 


1  Cf.  Cal.  of  Close  Rolls,  1288-96,  pp.  307,  464. 

2  Cf.  Cal.  of  P.  L.,  i,  p.  492,  for  the  case  of  Stephen  Surdus,  nephew 
of  card.  Ric.  Annibaldi  ;  of  Boniface,  nephew  of  card.  Oct.  Ubaldini, 
p.  493  ;  Raynold  of  Sarmineto,  nephew  of  the  late  Pope  Alexander  IV., 
p.  493  ;  Andrew  of  Languisel,  brother  of  the  card.-bp.  of  Porto,  p.  494  ; 
of  Francis  Napoleon,  papal  sub-deacon,  p.  495  ;  and  other  cases  ap. 
ib.,  pp.  501,  508,  509,  etc. 

3  "  A  statute  of  Provisors  of  benefices,  made  an.  25,  Edw.  III.,  Stat.  6, 
and  a.d.  1350  (legal)  "  ap.  The  Statutes  at  large,  i,  p.  268,  ed.  Ruffhead, 
London,   1763. 

4  "  The  latter  volumes  of  the  Calendar  of  Papal  Letters  .  .  .  show 
how  thoroughly  the  Pope's  claims  to  reserve  and  provide  to  vacant 
benefices  were  recognized  by  the  Church  in  England."  Introduc.  to 
Arch.  John  le  Romeyn's  Reg.,  ii,  p.  xvi.  The  Statutes  did  not  check  the 
abuse  of  Provisions.     Cf.  supra,  vol.  xiii,  p.  161  ff. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  219 

in  England  in  subversion  of  ecclesiastical  liberty."1  As 
no  particular  attention  seems  to  have  been  paid  to  his 
first  protests,  Nicholas  sent  to  England  Bartholomew, 
bishop  of  Grosseto,  with  two  letters  dated  May  20  and 
June  27,  1290,  addressed  to  Edward,  in  which  he  stated 
that  he  had  been  informed  that  appeals  to  him  had  been 
prohibited,  that  his  letters  had  been  overridden  by  the 
King's  writ,  that  clerics  had  been  made  to  answer  before 
secular  judges  regarding  non-feudal  lands  and  possessions 
belonging  to  their  churches,  and  that  clerics  had  been 
imprisoned  for  taking  game  in  the  King's  preserves.  If 
these  things  are  so,  and  the  King  does  not  remedy  them, 
the  Pope  will  have  to  take  such  steps  as  justice  may 
require.2 

Accompanied  by  ten  other  horsemen,  Bartholomew 
duly  arrived  in  England,  and  presented  the  Pope's 
letters  to  the  King.  To  get  rid  of  the  nuncio's  importunity, 
Edward  got  him  recalled  on  the  ground  that,  as  by  the 
Pope's  commission  he  had  to  be  provided  with  two 
marks  a  day  for  his  expenses,  he  was  a  burden  to  the 
kingdom.3  Bartholomew  died  soon  after  leaving  England, 
and,  as  the  abuses  against  which  he  had  remonstrated 
had  not  been  remedied,  Nicholas  had  again  to  renew  the 
protest  presented  to  Edward  by  the  bishop  of  Grosseto 
"  of  good  memory  "  (June  8,  1291).4  In  this  document 
Nicholas  further  complains  that  his  letters  concerning 
ecclesiastical  affairs  have  at  times  not  been  allowed  to 
be  presented  to  the  persons  to  whom  they  were  addressed, 
and  at  times  persons  cited  have  not  been  allowed  to  leave 

1  Cal.  of  P.  L.,  i,  511,  Ep.  of  Nov.  10,  1289. 

2  lb.,  pp.  526-7. 

3  Will,  of  Newbury,  Contin.,  an.  1290,  ap.  Chronicles  of  Stephen, 
vol.  ii,  R.  S.  The  same  information  is  given  in  what  are  called  the 
Annals  of  Furness  Abbey,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xxviii,  p.  559.  The  bishop's 
importunity  was  considerable.  Cf.  the  Annals  of  Dunstable,  p.  365, 
which  add  "  Utinam  per  hoc  status  ecclesiae  Anglicanae  emendetur." 

4  Cal.,  I.e.,  p.  555,  or  Rymer,  ii,  530. 


220  NICHOLAS    IV. 

the  realm.     The  King  must  write  to  him   undertaking 
to  correct  this  state  of  things. 

Some  more  months  passed,  and  the  King,  through 
his  envoys,  John  de  Sancto  Johanne  and  Roger  Lestrange, 
had  merely  sent  a  vague  reply  to  the  Pope  to  the  effect 
that  he  was  at  peace  with  the  prelates  and  clergy  of  his 
realm,  and  was  ready  to  do  justice  to  all.  With  such 
shirking  of  the  questions  at  issue,  Nicholas  was  naturally 
not  satisfied.  Accordingly,  a  few  weeks  before  his 
death  he  wrote  both  to  his  legate,  Geoffrey  de  Vecano, 
and  to  Edward  himself,  making  it  plain  that  he  would 
not  be  content  with  anything  short  of  a  specific  reply  to 
each  of  the  points  he  had  raised.1 
The  annual  Nicholas  had  also,  in  the  beginning  of  his  pontificate, 
to  complain  to  Edward  that  the  annual  tribute  of  one 
thousand  marks  due  to  the  Holy  See  was  three  years  in 
arrear  (Apr.  28,  1288). 2  This  time,  the  King  hearkened 
to  the  complaint,  and  in  the  following  year  sent  payment 
for  six  years.3  He  was,  however,  desirous  of  getting  rid 
of  the  obligation  of  this  census,  and  petitioned  to  be 
allowed  to  place  the  burden  on  certain  churches  of  the 
realm.  But,  as  "  not  agreeable  to  the  honour  of  the 
apostolic  see,  nor  of  advantage  to  the  King  ",  Nicholas 
refused  to  alter  the  negative  decision  which  his  name- 
sake, Nicholas  III.,  had  already  given  to  a  similar  petition.4 
Nevertheless,  from  this  time  forth,  the  payments  of  this 
feudal  rent  became  more  irregular.  In  13 17  Edward  II. 
acknowledged  that  it  had  not  been  paid  for  twenty-four 
years.5  After  1334  Edward  III.  ceased  to  pay  it;  and 
it  was  resolved  by  the  Parliament  of  1366  that  payment 

1  Epp.  of  Feb.  18,  1292,  ap.  Cal.  of  P.  L.,  i,  p.  556. 

2  Ap.  Rymer,  ii,  364. 

3  See  ib.  for  the  Pope's  receipt  (Nov.  4,  1289)  for  6,000  marks.  P.  445. 

4  Ep.  of  March  1,  1292,  ap.  Cal.  of  P.  L.,  i,  557. 

6  See  the  letter  of  his  envoys   (Apr.    1,   1317),  ap.  Theiner,  Mon. 
Hibern.,  p.    193. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  221 

of  it  should  be  finally  abolished  and  all  arrears  since  1334 
cancelled  (May  4,  1366). 1 

In  his  need,  not  to  say  greed,  of  money,  Edward  next  Expulsion 
turned  his  eyes  on  the  unfortunate  Jews.  It  is  not  °ronie  *ev 
impossible  that  they  may  not  have  been  very  ready  to  Edward's 

..  .  ..  c     ,      dominions, 

pay  crusading  taxes.  At  any  rate,  as  enemies  01  the  1288-9. 
Cross,"  our  King  in  1288  expelled  them  from  Gascony 
and  all  his  other  territories  in  France.2  In  the  following 
year  he  expelled  them  from  England,  needless  to  say 
confiscating  their  property,  but  allowing  them  their 
expenses  to  France.3  We  are  told  that  the  wretched  exiles 
encountered  a  severe  storm  on  their  departure  from  our 
shores,  and  that,  in  consequence,  many  of  them  were 
drowned.  The  sight  of  their  sufferings  is  said  to  have 
moved  the  French  King,  who,  arguing  that  if  "  they  were 
ungrateful  enemies  of  God  they  were  still  his  creatures  ", 
allowed  them  to  settle  in  Amiens.  For  this  act  of 
humanity,  the  anonymous  historian  we  are  here  quoting 
declares  that  the  Pope  was  inflamed  with  anger  against 
him,  and  bitterly  reproached  him.4  It  is  possible  that 
our  nameless  chronicler  may  be  here  giving  us  a  fact, 
but  we  believe  that  he  was  merely  reporting  what  was 
said  by  those  who  wished  to  justify  Edward's  conduct.5 


1  Cf.  Parry,  The  Parliaments  of  England,  p.  129  ;  and  especially 
O.  Jensen,  "  The  Denarius  S.  Petri  in  England,"  ap.  Transactions  of 
R.  Hist.  Soc,  1901,  p.  188,  and  1905,  p.  243.  See  also  Stubbs,  Constit. 
Hist.,  ii,  415. 

2  Rishanger,  p.  116,  R.  S.  More  definitely  they  were  accused  of 
dipping  the  coins,  and  of  "  usury,  rapine,  sacrilege,  theft  .  .  .  and 
corrupters  of  the  Christian  faith  ".     Chron.  of  Lanercost,  ad  an.  1289. 

3  lb.,  p.  118  ;    Ann.  de  Dunst.,  p.  361. 

4  Opus  Chronicorum,  p.  57,  R.  S. 

5  The  full  extent  of  his  dexterity  (not  to  use  a  harder  word)  in  this 
matter  is  expressed  with  grim  humour  by  old  Sir  Thos.  Gray  in  his 
Scalacronica  :  "  E.  caused  the  Jews  to  be  expelled  from  his  realm, 
wherefore  he  took  (a  tax  of)  a  fifteenth  from  the  laity,  and  a  tenth  from 
the  clergy."     Ed.  Sir  H.  Maxwell,  p.  4. 


222  NICHOLAS    IV. 

IRELAND   AND    SCOTLAND. 

Citation  of        The  relations  between  Nicholas  IV.   and  Ireland  are 

the  bull  of  .  ...,„. 

Hadrian  iv.  merely  concerned  with  ordinary  ecclesiastical  affairs. 
His  letters  regarding  that  country  tell  us,  for  instance, 
that  he  had  himself  consecrated  Stephen  as  archbishop 
of  Cashel,  and  that  the  newly-ordained  prelate  had 
subsequently  received  the  pallium  from  three  cardinals.1 
There  is,  however,  one  of  them  which  deserves  special 
mention  both  from  an  historical  and  from  a  social  point 
of  view.  It  is  only  a  matrimonial  dispensation,  but 
it  has  incorporated  the  reasons  on  which  the  request 
for  the  dispensation  was  based.  They  set  forth  that  in 
days  gone  by  the  people  of  Ireland  did  not,  "  as  they 
are  bound,"  obey  either  the  Holy  See  or  the  King  of 
England,  "  but  roamed,  as  it  were  in  an  unbridled  manner 
over  the  fields  of  licence."  Accordingly,  "  at  the  Pope's 
desire,"  2  Henry,  King  of  the  English,  entered  Ireland 
with  an  army,  and  reduced  its  people  to  the  obedience 
of  the  Holy  See  and  to  himself.  Then  to  keep  the  people 
in  that  obedience,  Henry  and  his  successors  from  time 
to  time  settled  reliable  men  "  of  another  nation  "  in  the 
country.  Among  these  was  the  petitioner,  Geoffrey  of 
Geynville,  who  had  a  large  estate  in  Meath,  and  was 
striving  to  maintain  the  people  in  due  obedience  and  at 
peace  with  one  another.  To  effect  this  he  had  averred 
that  he  had  need  of  many  relations  and  friends,  and  these 
he  and  his  children  could  only  obtain  by  marriages  with 
the  magnates  of  the  country.  As  very  many  of  these 
were  related  to  him  Geoffrey  had  asked  permission  for 
his  son  to  marry  a  cousin  related  to  him  in  the  fourth 
degree.    In  view  of  the  good  to  be  effected  by  the  marriage, 

1  Cal.  of  P.  L.,  i,  p.  516. 

2  "  De  voluntate  sedis  ipsius  (Rome)."  Ep.  May  13,  1290,  ap. 
Theiner,  Mon.  Hib.,  p.  151,  n.  331.  This  allusion  to  the  famous  bull 
of  P.  Hadrian  is  most  interesting. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  223 

Nicholas  declared  that  he  gladly  granted  the  required 
dispensation. 

Turning  from  this  interesting  glimpse  of  English  The 
policy  in  Ireland  to  Scotland,  and  just  noting  that  succession, 
Nicholas  had  trouble  with  Scotch  determination  not  to  1286  ff- 
promote  foreigners  to  their  benefices,1  we  may  at  once 
devote  our  attention  to  the  important  question  of  the 
Scottish  succession.  Edward's  sister,  Margaret,  had 
married  Alexander  III.,  King  of  Scotland,  and  their 
daughter,  Margaret,  had  in  turn  married  Eric,  King  of 
Norway.  On  the  death  of  Alexander  III.  in  1286,  the 
heir  to  his  kingdom  was  his  little  granddaughter,  also 
called  Margaret,  known,  because  the  daughter  of  Eric, 
as  the  "  Maid  of  Norway  ".  Edward  saw  his  opportunity 
of  uniting  the  crowns  of  England  and  Scotland,  and  pro- 
posed a  marriage  between  his  son  and  the  little  Maid. 
His  wishes  were  agreed  to,  and  he  applied  to  the  Pope 
for  a  dispensation,  as  the  two  were  related  within  the 
forbidden  degrees.  This  also  he  succeeded  in  obtaining 
(Nov.  16,  1289). 2 

Unfortunately,  however,  for  the  schemes  of  Edward, 
the  Maid  died  on  her  voyage  to  England  (Sept.,  1290), 
and  there  at  once  appeared  over  a  dozen  claimants  to 
the  Scottish  crown.  Only  two,  however,  were  able  to 
establish  serious  claims.  They  were  John  Baliol  and 
Robert  Bruce,  both  descended  from  David,  earl  of 
Huntingdon,  the  brother  of  King  William  the  Lion. 
Baliol  was  great  grandson  of  the  eldest  daughter,  whereas 
Bruce  was  the  grandson  of  the  second  daughter,  and  so 
was  a  degree  nearer  to  the  common  progenitor.     Bruce, 

1  Encyclical  to  the  Scotch,  Apr.  1,  1289,  ap.  Rymer,  ii,  417.  The 
Pope  strictly  forbids  any  custom  which  excludes  foreigners  "  ab 
ordinibus,  officiis,  et  dignitatibus  in  praedicto  Regno  ". 

2  Cf.  Calendar  of  Documents  relating  to  Scotland,  ii,  97,  R.  S.,  or 
Rymer,  ii,  450.  The  Pope  granted  the  dispensation  in  the  interests 
of  peace. 


224  NICHOLAS    IV. 

whose  case  was  really  the  weaker,  appealed  to  King 
Edward  to  arbitrate  between  himself  and  Baliol  (1291). 
Edward  forthwith  accepted  the  appeal,  and  professed 
to  act  as  overlord  or  lord  paramount  of  Scotland.1  Then, 
to  make  his  position  secure,  he  begged  the  Pope  to 
confirm  his  title  as  arbitrator  in  the  dispute.  This,  how- 
ever, Nicholas  distinctly  refused  to  do.  He  was  desirous, 
he  said,  of  obliging  the  King,  but  the  case  was  difficult 
and  involved  the  interests  of  many,  both  clerics  and 
laymen.  If  the  Holy  See  were  to  act  inconsiderately, 
great  trouble  might  result  both  to  the  King  and  to  others. 
Besides,  it  would  not  do  to  detract  from  the  rights  of 
others,  "  especially  from  the  rights  which  the  Roman 
Church  has  in  that  kingdom."  Wherefore,  on  the  advice 
of  his  brethren,  he  had  to  refuse  to  grant  the  King's 
request.2 

Unfortunately  for  Edward,  he  was  able,  without 
hindrance,  to  pursue  his  ambitions.  The  Pope  died 
within  about  a  month  after  the  dispatch  of  this  prohibi- 
tion, and  the  long  vacancy  of  the  Holy  See  which  followed 
the  death  of  Nicholas  prevented  further  papal  inter- 
ference with  his  immediate  designs.  After  some  hesitation 
on  the  part  of  Baliol,  the  Scotch  magnates  generally 
accepted    Edward    as    overlord    and    arbitrator.      His 


1  Cf.  Walter  of  Hemingford,  ii,  pp.  32-3.  He  claimed  "  esse  .  .  . 
regni  Scotiae  dominum  capitalem  "  ;  and  his  advisers  said  "  quod 
supremum  dominium  regni  Scotiae  pertineret  ad  regem  Angliae,  etc." 
See  also  the  Annals  of  Worcester,  p.  504.  Ed.  "  cogitans  Scotiam 
subjugare,  in  antiquis  chronicis  de  jure  regum  Angliae,  quaesitum  et 
inventum  est  "  ;  and  the  documents  in  Annates  Regni  Scotia,  in  the 
same  vol.  as  Rishanger,  R.  S. 

2  Ep.  March  1,  1292,  Reg.,  n.  6951.  "  Petitioni  regie  in  hac  parte 
non  duximus  annuendum."  It  is  unfortunate  that  in  the  Cat.  of  P.  L., 
i,  p.  557,  the  not  required  both  by  the  text  and  the  context  has  been 
omitted. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  225 

decision  was  correctly  given  in  favour  of  Baliol 1  ;  but 
his  interference  brought  about  a  state  of  things  which 
was  to  give  trouble  to  future  Popes,  to  involve  England 
and  Scotland  in  bitter  strife,  and  to  hasten  his  own  death. 

1  Cf.  Lingard,  Hist,  of  England,  ii,  p.  260  ff.  ;  and  Vickers,  England 
in  the  later  Mid.  Ages,  ch.  iv  ;  and,  for  the  Scotch  point  of  view,  Tytler, 
Hist,  of  Scotland,  \,  p.  67  ff. 


Vol.  XVII. 


CHAPTER    VII 

EUROPE  (PORTUGAL,  CONSTANTINOPLE,  SERVIA  AND  BUL- 
GARIA), ASIA,  AFRICA.  HERETICS,  STUDIES.  DEATH 
AND  TOMB  OF  NICHOLAS. 

Portugal,   a  Already,  in  the  preceding  chapters,  we  have  seen  Nicholas 

I289.0rdat>     exerting  influence  all  over  the  world,  in  Europe,  Asia, 

and  Africa.     In  order,  however,  to  give  a  fuller  idea  of 

his  varied  activities,  we  must  say  a  little  more  about 

what  he  effected  in  each  of  the  then  known  continents. 

During  the  reigns  of  Alfonso  III.  of  Portugal  and  of 
Pope  Gregory  X.  there  had  been  difficulties  in  that 
country  on  the  very  thorny  question  as  to  the  respective 
rights  of  the  Church  and  the  State.  These  difficulties 
had  continued  under  the  reign  of  Alfonso's  successor, 
Dionysius  or  Diniz  (1279-1325).  Alfonso,  indeed,  had 
opposed  the  privileges  of  the  Church,  "  not  from  any 
regard  for  the  interests  of  his  people,  but  from  avarice 
or  the  lust  of  power."  *  By  whatsoever  motives  inspired, 
Diniz  would  not  at  first  observe  the  agreement,  made  by 
his  father  and  accepted  by  himself,  not  to  tax  ecclesiastical 
property,  not  to  nominate  to  ecclesiastical  dignities  and 
not  to  subject  clerics  to  lay  tribunals.  For  his  contumacy 
he  had  been  duly  excommunicated,  and  his  kingdom  laid 
under  an  interdict.  The  opposition  against  him  was, 
however,  too  strong,  and  he  agreed  at  length  with  repre- 
sentatives of  his  clergy  approved  by  Nicholas  2  to  a 
concordat  of  forty  articles  (March  7,  1289).  The  agree- 
ment, as  we  now  have  it,  was  finally  drawn  up  at  Rome 
in  the  presence  of  cardinals   Latinus,  bishop  of   Ostia, 

1  Dunham,  The  Hist,  of  Spain  and  Port.,  iii,  p.  200. 

2  They  were  the  archbishop  of  Braga,  the  bishop  of  Coimbra,  etc. 
Cf.  ep.  of  Feb.  1.  1289,  Reg.,  n.  457. 

226 


NICHOLAS    IV.  227 

Peter  Peregrossus  of  St.  Mark's,  and  Benedict  Gaetani 
of  St.  Nicholas  in  Car  cere,  and  is  preserved  in  the  Register 
of  Pope  Nicholas.1 

Many  of  the  articles  contained  accusations  to  which  the 
King  pleaded  not  guilty,  but,  in  any  case,  he  promised  by 
them  not  to  do  the  things  of  which  he  was  accused.  It  had 
been  said,  e.g.,  that  he  had  forced  incumbents  to  resign 
their  appointments.  In  such  cases,  he  also  agreed  that, 
if  his  officials  or  those  of  his  father  had  on  their  own 
account  done  such  things,  he  would  cause  satisfaction 
to  be  made  to  the  injured  parties  if  he  had  not  already 
done  so.  In  many  articles,  too,  promises  were  made 
that  the  civil  authority  would  not  interfere  with  legiti- 
mate sentences  of  excommunication.  The  King  also 
engaged  not  to  impose  certain  taxes  on  the  clergy,  and 
not  to  violate  sanctuary  nor  the  persons  or  property  of 
clerics.  He  also  undertook  to  prevent  his  judges  or 
barons  treating  ecclesiastics  or  their  claims  unjustly, 
and  to  see  that  the  Jews  wore  a  special  badge  and  paid 
tithes  in  certain  cases.  He  further  consented  not  to 
interfere  with  ecclesiastical  elections.  On  the  other  hand 
the  bishops  agreed  that  delimitations  of  parishes  made 
by  them  should  be  just  and  fair,  and  only  made  after 
due  public  notice  had  been  given  (n.  8),  and  they  also  had 
to  agree  to  give  up  certain  tithes  (n.  g).2 

On  March  23,  1289,  Diniz  was  freed  from  excommunica- 
tion, and  his  country  from  interdict.3  A  few  months 
later,  Nicholas  had  to  ask  the  monks  to  come  to  the  help 
of  the  bishops,  and  make  them  grants  of  money  to  meet 
the  great  expenses  they  had  incurred  in  their  long  and 
arduous  fight  for  ecclesiastical  liberty.4 

1  Reg.,  n.  716,  whence  it  is  also  published  in  the  Raccolta  di  Con- 
cordati  tra  la  S.  Sede  e  le  autorita  civili,  p.  94  ff.,  Rome,  1919. 

2  Cf.,  relating  to  the  above,  Potthast,  nn.  22908  (March  16,  1289) 
and  22910-12. 

3  Reg.,  nn.  795-6.  *  Reg.,  n.  1618,  Sept.  24,  1289. 


228 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


Constanti- 
nople.    A 
proposed 
marriage, 
1288. 


Though  Nicholas  had  again  to  exhort  the  Portuguese 
monarch  not  to  suffer  his  nobles  to  injure  the  Church,1 
his  subsequent  relations  with  him  were  most  friendly. 
He  was  constantly  granting  him  favours,2  and,  as  we 
shall  see  presently,  supported  the  King's  scheme  for 
a  studiwn  generate  (university)  at  Lisbon. 

Passing  from  one  end  of  Europe  to  the  other,  we  see 
Nicholas  interested  in  a  proposed  marriage  for  Michael, 
the  eldest  son  of  Andronicus  II.,  Emperor  of  Constanti- 
nople. That  wretched  prince  who  was  only  successful 
in  breaking  the  union  between  the  Greek  and  Latin 
Churches,  and  in  embroiling  the  Greek  Church,  deposing 
one  patriarch  after  another,  was  anxious  to  secure  a 
suitable  wife  for  his  son.  With  no  little  sagacity,  he  fixed 
his  eye  on  Catherine,  daughter  and  heiress  of  Philip  of 
Court enay,  the  son  of  Baldwin  II.,  the  last  Latin  Emperor 
of  Constantinople.  Such  a  marriage  would  put  an  end 
to  any  further  danger  of  Latin  interference  with  the 
rights  of  the  Palaeologi  to  the  Byzantine  throne  ;  and, 
as  Catherine's  mother  was  a  daughter  of  Charles  I.  of 
Anjou,  that  formidable  house  would  be  converted  from 
hostility  to  friendship  towards  them.  Accordingly,  on 
the  subject  of  the  marriage,  he  approached  Robert  of 
Artois,  regent  for  Charles  II.  of  Sicily,  uncle  of  the  lady, 
but  then  a  prisoner  in  Aragon.  The  count  at  once 
informed  the  Pope  and  the  King  of  France  of  the  offer 
that  had  been  made.  Perhaps  in  the  hope  of  reopening 
the  question  of  reunion  of  the  Greek  and  the  Latin  Churches 
for  which  he  had  worked  so  hard,  Nicholas  would  appear 
to  have  thought  that  a  favourable  hearing  should  be 
given  to  the  Emperor's  request.     Envoys  were,  at  any 


1  Potthast,  n.  23065,  Sept.  1,  1289.  Cf.  ib.,  n.  23066,  or  Reg., 
n.  1353. 

2  E.g.,  Reg.,  nn.  3014,  3580,  4802,  etc.  On  all  these  relations  with 
Diniz,  the  reader  may  also  consult  M.  Murdo,  The  Hist,  of  Portugal, 
ii,  p.  33  ff.,  rather  badly  written  as  it  is,  and  wholly  devoid  of  references. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  229 

rate,  at  once  sent  off  to  the  East,  and  were  received  with 
the  greatest  honour  by  Andronicus  then  staying  at 
Nymphaeum.  Pachymeres,  who  tells  us  this,  adds  that 
he  himself  chanced  to  come  there  whilst  "  the  Italians  " 
were  with  the  Emperor,  and  at  their  request  he  told  them 
all  about  the  young  Prince  whom  he  had  just  left  at 
Constantinople.  The  envoys  were  delighted  with  what 
they  heard  about  him,  and  the  marriage  treaty  seemed 
to  be  on  the  point  of  completion.1  But  the  religious 
bigotry  of  Andronicus  spoilt  his  plans.  He  would  not 
furnish  the  envoy  whom  he  sent  to  the  Kingdom  of 
Apulia  where  the  lady  was  residing  with  letters  for  the 
Pope.  This  he  would  not  do,2  because  etiquette  required 
that  he  should  address  him  as  "  Your  Holiness  "  (most 
holy).3  The  fact  that  Andronicus  was  at  least  attempting 
to  ignore  him  cannot  but  have  soon  impressed  itself 
upon  Nicholas.  Though  he  must  have  been  prejudiced 
against  the  Greek  Emperor  for  his  having  broken  the 
Union,  he  would  perhaps  have  used  his  great  influence 
with  the  House  of  Anjou  in  his  behalf,  if  he  had  made 
any  kind  of  friendly  advances  to  him.  As  it  was,  he  saw 
clearly  that  there  was  nothing  to  hope  from  the  extreme 

1  De  Andronico,  1.  ii,  c.  18,  vol.  ii,  p.  153  ;  1.  iii,  c.  1,  p.  195  ;  ed. 
Bonn.  The  account  of  these  negotiations  in  Nicephorus  Gregoras, 
Hist.  Byz.,  1.  vi,  c.  8,  is  only  a  series  of  mistakes.  See  C.  du  Fresne, 
Hist,  de  V Empire  de  Constantinople,  p.  97,  ed.  Venice,  1729.  He,  and 
those  who  have  followed  him,  speak  of  two  letters  of  Nicholas  IV.  to 
Count  Robert  on  this  matter.     There  would  appear  to  be  only  one. 

2  He  suspected  the  pride  of  the  Pope  of  Rome,  says  Pachymeres, 
iii,  c.  5. 

3  "  Ols  (letters)  eSei  ayttorarov  ypd<f>€iv  tov  TraTrav.''  Pach., 
I.e.,  iii,  5,  p.  202.  This  reminds  me  that  a  reviewer,  who  once  wrote 
a  very  kindly  notice  of  one  of  my  previous  volumes  (xiii),  remarked 
that  I  went  too  far  in  using  "as  evidence  the  flowery  language  of 
compliment  .  .  .  which  fills  the  real  outlines  of  contemporary  docu- 
ments ".  Perhaps  I  did  ;  but  I  do  know  the  special  passages  to  which 
my  reviewer  referred,  and  the  above  quotation  shows  that  some  men 
in  the  Middle  Ages  attached  great  importance  to  the  language  of 
compliment. 


front,  1290 


230  NICHOLAS    IV. 

bigotry  of  Andronicus,  and  so  opposed  his  wishes. 
However,  he  wrote  to  Robert  of  Artois  not  to  break  off 
the  negotiations  till  he  had  also  heard  from  the  French 
King  on  the  matter.1  But  he  need  not  have  counselled 
any  such  delay,  for  it  was  realized  in  France  that  Catherine 
could  be  used  at  any  moment  as  a  card  against  Andronicus, 
and  so  was  too  valuable  to  be  given  over  to  him.  The 
"  noble  gentleman "  Andronicus,  as  the  Pope  would 
only  call  him,  had  to  be  content  with  an  Armenian  princess 
for  his  son,  as  she  was  quite  ready  to  give  up  her  creed 
for  that  of  the  Greeks.2 
Change  of  Time,  however,  inspired  Andronicus  with  a  little  more 

diplomatic  sense.  The  hopeless  dissensions  of  the  Greek 
church,  and  the  utter  incompetence  of  his  son  Michael, 
not  to  speak  of  his  own,3  made  the  Greek  Emperor  think 
of  entering  into  relations  with  Nicholas.  He  caused  it 
to  be  supposed  in  Rome  that  he  had  returned  to  the 
unity  of  the  Church.  The  Pope  accordingly  wrote  "  to 
his  very  dear  son  Andronicus  Palaeologus,  the  illustrious 
Emperor  of  the  Greeks  ",  to  say  how  glad  he  was  that 
God  had  placed  him  in  the  bosom  of  the  Apostolic  See, 
and  he  excused  himself  for  not  having  sent  him  a  special 
envoy  when  he  took  upon  himself  the  apostolic  duties. 
The  fact  was,  he  declared,  that  the  envoy  whom 
Andronicus  had  sent  to  Philip  of  France  had  also  pre- 
sented himself  before  him  (the  Pope),  and  had  assured 
him  that  the  Emperor  was  about  to  send  an  embassy  to 
him  to  make  known  his  desires  and  intentions.4 

1  Reg.,  n.  594,  June  3,  1288.  On  his  side  Nicholas  would  only  style 
Andronicus  "  a  noble  gentleman,  nobilis  vir  ". 

2  Cf.  Lebeau,  Hist,  du  Bas-Empire,  vol.  xviii,  378  f .  Catherine 
subsequently  (1301)  married  Charles  of  Valois.  See  J.  le  Roulx,  La 
France  en  Orient,  i,  p.  43  f.  Nicephorus  Gregoras,  I.e.,  says  that  the 
negotiations  were  broken  off  on  account  of  the  demands  of  the  Latins. 
No  doubt  one  was  that  Catherine's  religion  should  not  be  interfered  with. 

3  Cf.  Finlay,  Hist,  of  the  Byz.  and  Greek  Empires,  p.  463  ff. 
*  Reg.,  n.  7242,  Jan.  12,  1290. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  231 

Unfortunately,  we  know  nothing  about  the  sequel  of  The  intended 
these  communications.  Still  friendly  intercom se,  at  129^  e' 
least,  had  been  established,  so  that  when  the  disasters  in 
the  Holy  Land  caused  Nicholas  to  attempt  to  arouse  the 
zeal  of  every  Christian  against  the  Moslem,  one  of  those 
whom  he  tried  to  induce  to  make  war  upon  the  infidel 
was  the  Emperor  Andronicus.1  Had  Nicholas  lived, 
and  his  Crusade  taken  shape,  it  is  possible  that  in 
his  own  interests,  Andronicus  might  have  joined  it.  As 
it  was,  he  pioved  himself  incapable  of  stopping  the 
advance  in  Asia  Minor,  even  of  the  worn-out  Seljuk 
Turks,  and  powerless  to  stop  the  rise  of  the  Ottoman 
Turks  who,  in  a  century  and  a  half,  were  for  ever  to  blot 
off  the  map  the  Empire  of  Constantinople. 

One  of  those  Princes  to  whom  the  worthless  Andronicus  Servia. 
lost  territory  was  Stephen  Urosh  II.,  Milutin,  King  of 
Servia  (1282-132 1).  During  the  long  reign  of  this  brave 
but  utterly  undisciplined  sovereign,2  Servia  developed 
considerably,  and  made  no  little  preparation  for  the 
brief  period  in  the  following  century  when  it  was  to  be 
the  dominant  power  in  the  Balkans.3 

The  real  Servia  began  with  the  Grand  Jupan,  Stephen  I.  its  King  gets 
Nemenja.     He  had  assured  Innocent  III.  (1199)  that  he  r^^T 
had,  like  his  father  (St.  Symeon  Nemanja),  always  looked 
to   the   Roman   Church,   and  ever   wished  to   keep   its 
precepts.4     The  development  of  the  country  continued 

1  Reg.,  nn.  6809-14  ;    6825-32,  Aug.  13-23,  1291. 

2  He  would  appear  to  have  been  a  regular  Bluebeard  in  the  matter 
of  his  wives  and  his  treatment  of  them.  A  Serb  historian,  D.  Davidovits, 
whose  history  of  his  country  has  been  translated  into  French  (Hist, 
de  la  nation  Serbe,  Belgrade,  1848),  allows  that  both  Eastern  and 
Western  historians  are  agreed  on  the  faults  of  S.  U.  II.,  but  says  he 
prefers  to  rely  on  the  narrative  of  archbishop  Daniel,  once  Milutin 's 
tutor,  who  says  nothing  of  the  King's  vices.     Pp.  61-2. 

3  Temperley,  History  of  Serbia,  p.  50  f. 

4  "  Nos  autem  semper  consideramus  in  vestigia  S.  Rom.  Ecclesiae, 
sicut  bone  memorie  pater  meus,  et  preceptum  S.  R.  E.  semper  custodire." 
Ep.  ap.  Theiner,   Vet.  mon,  Slav.  Meridional,,  vol.  i,  p.  6,  n.  11, 


232  NICHOLAS    IV. 

under  his  son    Stephen    II.  "  the   first    crowned,"  who 
asked  Innocent  for  a  regal  crown.    Though,  out  of  regard 
for  the  King  of  Hungary,  his  request  was  refused  by 
Innocent,1  he  was  more  successful  with  his  successor. 
He  had  already  promised  Innocent  to  bring  his  country 
to  the  obedience  of  Rome  instead  of  that  of  Constanti- 
nople, and  now,  through  his  younger  brother,  the  famous 
Servian  patron  Saint  Saba  (or  Sava),  asked  Honorius  III. 
for  the  crown.    The  Saint  had  been  a  monk  at  Mt.  Athos,2 
and  then  (122 1)  by  the  Emperor   and  the  patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  at  that  epoch  both  Latins,  had  been  made 
archbishop   of   Servia.3     His   contemporary   biographer, 
the  monk  Dometian,  writes  :    "  Sava  sent  to  Rome  one 
of  his  disciples,  bishop  Methodius,  with  presents  worthy 
of  His  Holiness.     He  begged  the  glorious  apostles  Peter 
and  Paul  and  their  successor  to  bless  his  country,  and 
to  deign  to  crown  its  orthodox  Prince.     He  also  asked 
the   successor    of  the  glorious   apostles  to   confirm    his 
own   elevation  to   the  archiepiscopal  dignity.     God  who 
hearkened  to  all  the  requests  of  his  beloved  servant, 
moved  the  Pope  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  send  the  crown. 
When  the  blessed  diadem  was  brought  to  Sava's  country, 
his  orthodox  brother,  the  Grand  Jupan  Stephen,  came 
to  the  archbishop's  residence   at   Ujitza    (Jidicensis),  to 
the    monastery    he    had    himself    founded.  .  .  .      Then 
during  Matins,  the  Saint  took  the  sacred  diadem  into  his 
hands,  and  placed  it  on  the  head  of  his  pious  brother, 

1  Cf.  supra,  vol.  xii,  pp.  8  and  33. 

2  Then  in  union  with  Rome.  Cf.  Nilles,  Kalendar.  utriusque  ecclesice, 
vol.  i,  pp.    179-80. 

3  Cf.  a  short  account  of  St.  Sava  ap.  ib.,  p.  446  ff.  S.  received  his 
archiepiscopal  power  from  the  Latin  patriarch  Gervase  (or  Everard), 
who,  inflated  with  his  new  dignity,  encroached  on  papal  prerogatives, 
by  dispatching  legates  a  latere,  interfering  with  the  rights  of  bishops, 
etc.  No  wonder  S.  asked  Honorius  to  confirm  his  rank.  Cf.  Belin, 
Hist,    de    la   Latinite   de    Constantinople,   p.    85,    and   supra,    vol.  xi; 


NICHOLAS    IV.  233 

and  by  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  consecrated  him, 
so  for  the  future  he  was  called  the  "  Lord  King  ".1 

The  contemporary  archdeacon  Thomas,  in  his  Historia 
Salonita,  says  it  was  Stephen  himself  who  sent  to  ask 
for  the  crown,  and  that  Honorius  sent  with  it  his  legate, 
who  crowned  Stephen  "  and  constituted  him  the  first 
King  of  his  territory  ".2  To  reconcile  the  two  statements, 
we  have  only  to  suppose  that  the  mission  of  St.  Sava  was 
in  Stephen's  name,  and  that  the  legate  allowed  one  brother 
to  crown  another  in  the  Pope's  name. 

However  that  may  be,  it  is  certain  that  immediately  K.  Stephen 
after  his  coronation,  the  new  King  sent  Methodius  to  ^p£s  j^o  * 
Honorius  with  a  letter  which  has  come  down  to  us.3  It 
is  addressed :  "To  the  most  holy  Father  and  lord 
Honorius,  universal  pontiff  of  the  See  of  the  Roman 
Church,  Stephen  by  the  grace  of  God  crowned  King  of 
all  Servia,  of  Dioclea,  Trebinje,  Dalmatia,  and 
Herzegovina,  humble  greeting  in  all  fidelity  and  con- 
stancy." It  then  goes  on  :  "As  all  Christians  love  and 
honour  you,  and  hold  you  as  father  and  lord,  so  we  too 
desire  to  be  accounted  the  faithful  son  (of  your  holiness) 
and  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  we  pray,  if  it  so  please 
you,  that  God's  blessing  and  yours  may  ever  plainly 
rest  on  our  crown  and  country.  Wherefore  have  we  sent 
you  our  bishop  Methodius  ;    so  that,  should  you  think 

1  This  life  of  Dometian  was  published  by  Martinov,  Brussels,  1863, 
in  his  Trifolium  Serbicum  corona  SS.  Cyrilli  et  Methodii.  It  was  written 
about  1250.  Martinov  has  given  a  Latin  translation  of  the  old  Slav 
original.  A  French  translation  of  the  life  along  with  the  original  is 
given  by  A.  Chodzko,  Legendes  Slaves  du  moyen  age,  Paris,  1858.  In 
the  life  of  S.  Sava,  published  in  1921  by  the  Soc.  for  Promoting 
Christian  Knowledge,  pp.  25-6,  there  is  no  mention  of  this  sending 
to  Rome  for  a  crown.  But  the  Lives  of  the  Serbian  Saints  is  translated 
from  a  martyrology  edited  last  century  "  for  the  use  of  the  Church 
throughout  Serbia  ".     lb.,  p.  vii. 

2  P.  91,  ed.  Racki,  Agram,  1894. 

3  It  is  to  be  found  in  the  Register  of  Hon.  III.,  and  has  been  printed 
by  Raynaldus,  Ann.,  1220,  n.  37. 


234  NICHOLAS    IV. 

it  well,  you  could  let  us  know  your  will  by  means  of  the 
bearer  of  these  presents/'  1 
Nicholas  iv.       Despite  all  this,  however,  and  despite  the  fact  that, 
Dnragutmhen  in  XI99'  tne  famous  council  of  Dioclea  had  acknowledged 
1288.  that   "  the  most  holy   Roman  Church  was  the  mother 

and  mistress  of  all  the  Churches  "  ,2  it  would  not  seem  that 
there  was  any  close  union  between  Rome  and  Servia  after 
these  events.  At  any  rate,  any  union  there  may  have 
been  would  appear  to  have  worn  thin  when  Nicholas  IV. 
began  his  correspondence  with  the  brothers  Stephen 
Dragutin  and  Urosh  II.  It  has  been  thought  that 
Stephen  II.  Nemanja  was  induced  to  turn  to  Rome 
through  the  influence  of  his  wife,  the  niece  of  the  great 
doge,  Henry  Dandolo.3  If  Stephen  Dragutin  did  the 
same,  it  was  largely  due  to  his  mother  Helen,  who 
"  tradition  says,  was  a  French  woman,  and  who  was 
probably  a  Catholic  ".4  On  August  8,  1288,  Nicholas 
wrote  to  her  as  "  the  illustrious  Queen  of  the  Slavs  ", 
and  urged  her  not  to  fail  by  continued  exhortations 
to  try  to  induce  her  two  sons,  Dragutin  and  Urosh, 
Kings  of  the  Slavs,  to  return  to  the  unity  of  the  Catholic 
faith,  and  to  bring  back  their  people  to  it.5  He  had 
already  written  to  the  two  Kings  6  themselves,  and  had 
sent  them  two  Franciscan  monks,  Marinus  and  Cyprianus, 
to  convert  them.7     He  had  reminded  them  that  faith 

1  Cf.  supra,  vol.  xii,  pp.  32-3. 

2  Ap.  Theiner,  Vet.  mon.,  i,  p.  7,  or  Smiciklas,  Cod.  diplom.  regni 
Croatia,  etc.,  ii,  p.  335. 

3  A.  d'Avril,  La  Serbie  chretienne,  p.  118,  Paris,  1897.  We  have 
found  all  his  works  on  the  Eastern  churches  most  useful. 

4  lb.,  p.  119.  5  Ap.  Theiner,  I.e.,  n.  580,  p.  359  f. 

6  In  1282  Dragutin  had  "  divided  the  kingship  with  his  younger 
brother  ",  but  from  that  date  till  his  death  (1316)  "he  had  little  power  ". 
Temperley,  I.e.,  p.  49.  If  T.  had  consulted  these  letters  of  Nicholas  IV., 
he  would  probably  have  modified  some  of  his  remarks  anent  the  complete- 
ness of  the  subjection  of  Servia  to  Constantinople  at  this  period. 

7  Ep.  of  July  23,  1288,  ap.  ib.,  p.  360  f.  The  letter  also  contains  a 
profession  of  faith. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  235 

is  one,  and  that  it  is  preserved  by  the  Roman  Church, 
and  he  had  exhorted  them  to  return  to  her  bosom. 

On  Stephen  Urosh  neither  Nicholas  nor  the  friars  made 
any  impression,  but  it  was  different  with  his  elder  brother 
Stephen  Dragutin.  He  returned  to  the  unity  of  the 
Roman  Church,  and  in  his  zeal  for  the  return  of  his  people 
to  the  faith  begged  Nicholas  to  send  into  those  parts  of 
Bosnia  which  were  subject  to  his  sway  some  suitable 
persons  who  were  acquainted  with  the  language  of  the 
country  to  withdraw  his  subjects  from  heresy.1  This 
the  Pope  did,2  and,  in  return  for  the  zeal  of  Dragutin, 
he  took  under  his  protection  the  King's  person  and  all 
the  territories  which  he  held  justly  at  the  time.3 

Though  the  submission  had  no  great  effect  on  the 
Servian  people  strictly  so  called,  it  was  not  without  some 
influence  upon  them,  and  these  successive  Latin  influences, 
as  it  has  been  truly  said,  "  added  a  new  and  rich  element 
to  the  civilization  of  mediaeval  Serbia."  4 

Encouraged  by  the  success  of  the  Queen-mother  in  King  George 
Servia,  Nicholas  exhorted  her  to  use  her  influence  with  of  Bu  gana" 
the  perennially  inconstant  rulers  of  Bulgaria.5  Frequent 
marriages  with  Greek  princesses  had  removed  the  Kings 
of  Bulgaria  further  and  further  from  the  Catholic  faith 
and  Western  ideas.  It  would  seem,  however,  that  George 
Terterii,  who  ruled  Bulgaria  in  the  days  of  Nicholas, 
had  given  some  indications  of  a  wish  to  be  united  with 
Rome.  The  fact  was  that,  at  this  period,  as  the  fortunes 
of  Servia  in  the  Balkans  were  rising  those  of  Bulgaria 
were  falling.     Greeks  and  Tartars    from    without,    and 

1  Cf.  ep.  March  23,  1291,  to  S.  D.,  ap.  Theiner,  I.e.,  p.  377,  n.  610. 

2  lb.,  n.  611. 

3  Ep.  March  15,  1291,  ap.  ib.,  n.  605.  "  Quanto  propensiori  affectu 
consurgis  ad  nostra  et  ipsius  ecclesie  beneplacita  prosequenda,  etc." 

4  Temperley,  I.e.,  p.  53. 

5  Only  a  few  months  ago  (writing  in  Feb.,  1926)  the  ex-King  Ferdinand 
of  Bulgaria  made  his  submission  here  in  Rome  to  the  head  of  the 
Church  he  had  repudiated. 


236  NICHOLAS    IV. 

dynastic  decay  from  within  were  bringing  the  country 
to  the  verge  of  ruin.     In  the  midst  of  disorders  of  every 
kind,   the  nobles  in   1280  raised  one  of  their  number, 
George  Terterii,  to  the  throne.     To  make  head  against 
the  Greeks,  George  turned  to  Charles  of  Anjou  for  armed 
assistance,1  and  to  the  Pope  for  religious  support.     The 
Sicilian    Vespers   and   its   consequences   prevented   any 
Angevin  help  from  reaching  Bulgaria,  but,  nevertheless, 
Terterii  would  appear  to  have  still  thought  of  ecclesiastical 
union  with  Rome.    At  any  rate,  he  listened  to  the  Queen- 
mother,   Helen  of  Servia,   whom   Nicholas  called   "  the 
divinely  illumined  light  of  the  Catholic  faith  ",  and  who 
had  spoken  to  him  on  the  need  of  reunion  with  the 
Catholic  Church.     At  her  suggestion,   it  was  arranged 
that  a   conference    on    reunion   should   be  held  in   the 
summer    of    1291,    and    that    the    Pope    should    enter 
into    communication    with    George,    "  Emperor   of   the 
Bulgarians,"  and  with  the  archbishop  of  the  Bulgarians. 
Nicholas  approved  of  her  plans,2  and  earnestly  exhorted 
her  to  push  them  with  vigour.    He  wrote  to  the  Bulgarian 
ruler,  impressing  on  him  the  necessity  of  union  with  the 
Roman  Church,  which,  by  the  will  of  Christ,  was  the  ruler 
of  all  the  churches.3    By  that  same  will  it  was  for  him 
to  strive  to  direct  all  men  in  the  way  of  God's  com- 
mandments.    Both  to  the  King  and  the  archbishop  he 
sent  a  profession  of  faith.     Unfortunately  Nicholas  was 
not  sure  of  the  identity  of  the  archbishop,  or  he  might 

1  In  this  he  was  following  the  example  of  his  predecessor,  Constantin. 
The  Register  of  Charles  I.  of  Anjou  shows  that  in  1271  he  was  expecting 
envoys  from  the  ruler  of  Bulgaria.  Cf.  C.  M.  Riccio,  Saggio  di  Cod. 
dip.,  i,  p.  87,  n.  94.  On  this  chapter  of  Bulgarian  history,  see  G. 
Bousquet,  Hist,  du  peuple  Bulgare,  p.  90  ff.,  and  W.  Miiller,  The 
Balkans,  p.   182  ff. 

2  Ep.  of  March  23,  1291,  ap.  Theiner,  M.H.,  i,  p.  375,  n.  607. 

3  Ep.  ib.,  n.  608.  The  Roman  Church  "  que,  disponente  Jesu 
Christo,  .  .  .  sola  super  omnes  ecclesias  summum  et  precipuum 
optinet  principatum  ". 


NICHOLAS    IV.  237 

have  been  able  to  strike  a  more  personal  note  with  him. 
As  it  was,  recalling  his  strenuous  work  in  Constantinople 
for  the  Greek  reunion  of  1274,  he  said  to  the  archbishop 
that  he  had  every  hope  in  him  if  he  was  the  same  man 
who,  "  in  the  imperial  palace  of  Blachernae  before  the 
Emperor  Michael  Palseologus  and  us,  professed  that  you 
were  directly  subject  to  the  Pope  of  Rome."  x 

Very  little,  if  any  result,  would  appear  to  have  resulted 
from  this  intervention  of  Queen  Helen  and  Pope  Nicholas. 
The  latter  died  about  a  year  after  the  dispatch  of  these 
letters,  and  if  the  archbishop,  whose  name  was  Joachim, 
was  in  favour  of  union  in  Rome,  he  was  slain  (1296),  and 
his  successors  remained  in  schism.2 

Although,  speaking  generally,  until  the  destruction  of  Armenia. 
the  kingdom  of  Lesser  Armenia  (Cilicia)  in  1374,  the 
people  of  that  country  were  in  communion  with  the  see 
of  Rome,  their  loyalty  to  it  might  at  times  have  been 
more  pronounced.  During  the  pontificate  of  Nicholas, 
King  Leo  III.  had  died  :  "an  obedient  son,  and  a 
Catholic  Christian  "  (1289),  as  the  Pope  had  learnt  from 
John  of  Montecorvino,  and  the  same  authority  had 
assured  him  that  Leo's  son  and  successor,  Hayton  II.,  was 
devoted  to  the  Roman  Church,  and  was  in  union  with  it.3 
Nevertheless,  in  order,  as  he  said,  that  the  King  might 
be  more  fully  instructed  in  the  Christian  faith  as  pre- 
served by  the  Roman  Church,  Nicholas  sent  him  a 
profession  of  faith — the  same  one  which   Clement   IV. 

1  lb.,  n.  609,  like  the  last  of  March  23,  1291.  "  Cum  tu,  si  tamen 
ille  sis,  qui  tunc  erat  Archiepiscopus  Bulgarorum  olim  coram  .  .  . 
M.  Palaeologo  .  .  .  eo  tempore  Constantinopoli  residente,  professus 
fueris  .  .  .  coram  nobis  .  .  .  oraculo  vive  vocis  te  pape  Romano 
immediate  subesse." 

2  Cf.  D'Avril,  La  Bulgarie  chretienne,  p.  27;  and  G.  Markovic,  Gli 
Slavi  ed  i  Papi,  vol.  ii,  pp.  351,  573  ff. 

3  Ep.  ad  Aytonum,  July  7,  1289,  ap.  Raynaldus,  an.  1289,  n.  57. 
"  Fratre  Joanne  de  Montecorvino  .  .  .  nobis  ex  parte  regia  referente, 
quod  erga   R.   ecclesiam   .   .   .  ferventis  devotionis  geris  affectum." 


238 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


The 

Armenians 
lose  their 
inde- 
pendence 
and  the 
Catholic 
faith. 


had  sent  to  Michael  Palaeologus,  and  which  was  the 
one  used  by  the  Popes  at  this  period. 

Nicholas  also  wrote  to  Mary,  the  sister  of  the  Queen 
of  Armenia,  to  Thoros  the  King's  brother,  and  other 
notables,  as  well  as  to  the  Armenian  people  themselves, 
urging  them  to  cherish  the  union.1  He,  moreover, 
entrusted  his  letters  to  the  same  famous  Friar  John  who 
had  brought  him  news  of  the  faith  of  Armenia,  and 
whom  he  was  sending  to  China.  Nicholas  also  encouraged 
union  between  the  kingdoms  of  Armenia  and  Cyprus. 
For  this  purpose  he  authorized  marriages  between  a 
sister  of  Henry,  King  of  Cyprus,  and  a  brother  of  King 
Hayton,  and  between  a  son  of  Hugh,  the  late  King  of 
Cyprus,  and  one  of  Hayton's  sisters,  although  the  parties 
were  united  in  the  fourth  degree  of  consanguinity.  From 
these  marriages  the  Pope  looked  for  great  advantage  for 
the  Holy  Land,  and  for  enhanced  security  for  the  faithful 
in  those  parts.2 

The  affectionate  feeling  of  Nicholas  for  Armenia  was, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  clearly  displayed  by  his  efforts 
to  save  it,  after  the  fall  of  Acre,  from  the  destructive 
hand  of  Khalil.3  But  such  Crusaders  as,  in  1292,  sailed 
to  the  East,  practically  did  nothing,4  and  before  the  end 
of  the  next  century  the  gallant  little  kingdom  of  Armenia- 
Cilicia  had  lost  its  independence.  Moreover,  as  we  learn 
from  the  German  traveller,  Johann  Schiltberger, 5  the 
majority  of  them  had  by  that  time  "  separated  from 
Rome  ",  though,  he  says,  they  had  great  confidence  in 
the  Catholic  faith,  and  assured  him  that  between  their 
religion  and  ours  (the  Catholic)  there  was  only  a  hair's 


1  lb.,  n.  58,  and  Reg.,  nn.  2229-39,  July  7-14,  1289. 

2  Ep.  May  7,  1290,  ap.  Reg.,  n.  2667,  "  Ut  asserit  praedictus  Henricus." 
See  also  Gatenus,  Conciliationis  eccles.  Arm.,  i,  p.  403  ff. 

3  Cf.  supra,  p.  61. 

4  Sanudo,  Secreta,  1.  iii,  pt.  xiii,  c.  1,  p.  232,  "  cum.  nihil  egissent." 

5  Travels  of  J.  S.,  pp.  91-3,  in  the  Hakluyt  series,  No.  53. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  239 

breadth,  but  that  there  was  a  great  division  between  the 
Greek  and  their  religion. 

Meanwhile,  we  may  note  that  the  Armenian  patriarch  Presump- 
Stephen  was  not  so  submissive  to  Rome  as  his  sovereign  Armenian6 
Hayton.    Although,  as  his  successor  the  learned  Gregory  patriarch, 
acknowledged,  it  belonged  to  the  Roman  pontiff  alone 
to  grant  matrimonial  dispensations,   Stephen  presumed 
to  grant  permission  to  the  Armenian  prince  Sembat  to 
marry  Isabella,  the  daughter  of  Guy,  Count  of  Joppa, 
though  they  were  related  in  the  third  degree.    However, 
at  the  instance  of  the  Patriarch  Gregory,  Boniface  VIII. , 
after  annulling  the  dispensation  of  Stephen,  regularized 
the  marriage  himself.1 

Passing  over  Nicholas'  letter  to  the  patriarch  of  the  "  Heretical 
Jacobites  on  the  subject  of  union,2  but  noting  his  appoint-  dePravity-' 
ment  of  the  Franciscan,  brother  Roderick,  to  the  arch- 
bishopric of  Morocco  (1290),  after  a  long  vacancy  of  that 
see,3  we  may  briefly  review  his  attitude  towards  "  heretical 
depravity  "  with  which  he  was  much  occupied.  A  great 
many  of  his  letters  are  concerned  with  it.4  He  was 
insistent  that  local  authorities  should  insert  in  their 
municipal  regulations  "  the  laws  against  heretical 
depravity  promulgated  by  Frederick  (II),  once  Emperor 
of  the  Romans  ".5  He  also,  for  the  strengthening  of  the 
faith    and    the   salvation  of  the   faithful,   renewed  the 

1  See  his  letter  of  Oct.  11,  1298,  given  in  full  ap.  Galenus,  I.e., 
p.  412  ff.  Cf.  Tournebize,  Hist,  de  V Armenia,  p.  301  f.,  who  says  that  the 
act  of  Stephen  can  be  explained  by  difficulty  of  communication  with 
Rome  and  "  par  un  moment  d'oubli,  d'entrainement  ". 

2  Ep.  July  7,  1289,  Reg.,  n.  2218. 

3  Ep.  ap.  Wadding,  Annales,  vol.  v,  p.  532,  n.  37,  and  Potthast, 
nn.  23138,  and  23180  and  3.  This  Nicholas  was  able  to  do,  as  the 
Sultans  of  Morocco  employed  regular  companies  of  European  soldiers. 
See  on  this  curious  state  of  things,  M.  L.  de  Mas  Latrie,  Traites  des 
Chretiens  avec  les  Arabes,  pp.   147-54,  and  pt.  ii,  p.   17. 

4  E.g.,  Potthast,  22839-47  ;    22946,  etc.,  etc. 

5  Ep.  Dec.  23,  1288,  ap.  Raynaldus,  Ann.,  1288,  n.  27. 


240 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


Nicholas 
himself  not 
hard  on 
heretics. 


Nicholas 
and  various 
Universities 
(a)  Padua. 


decrees  of  his  predecessors  against  the  Cathari  and  other 
heretics.1  Moreover,  he  commanded  the  inquisitors  to 
force  the  local  authorities  by  threat  of  excommunication 
to  carry  out  their  sentences.2  Especially  did  he  devote 
attention  to  stopping  the  migration  of  the  Cathari  and 
kindred  heretics  from  the  south  of  France  to  Lombardy.3 

He  condemned,  too,  the  so-called  Order  of  the  Apostles,4 
but  though  severe  against  Christians  who  became  Jews, 
or  against  Jews  who  had  become  Christians,  and  had 
then  apostatized,5  he  protected  the  Jews  themselves.6 

Although  very  severe  on  paper  against  heretics, 
Nicholas,  to  judge  by  the  case  of  our  countryman,  brother 
Richard  de  "  Clappewelle  ",  would  not  appear  to  have 
been  very  hard  on  them  in  practice.  According  to  the 
Annals  of  Dunstable,7  the  said  brother  had  in  the  year 
1287  been  condemned  for  heretical  teaching  on  many 
points.  He,  thereupon,  betook  himself  to  Rome,  and 
appealed  to  the  Pope.  He  was  simply  ordered  not  to 
ventilate  his  opinions  in  future.  However,  on  his  return 
journey,  he  renewed  his  heretical  teaching  at  Bologna. 
Here,  however,  he  would  appear  to  have  lost  his  mind, 
or  to  have  been  regarded  as  a  fool,8  and  at  any  rate  died 
in  want  and  misery. 

Although,  on  account  of  the  anti-social  tendencies  of 
the  majority  of  the  heretical  doctrines  of  the  days  of 
Nicholas  IV.,  it  was  necessary  for  him  to  prevent  the 
laws  against  their  teachers  from  falling  into  desuetude, 


i  ib.  2  Potthast,  n.  22842. 

3  Documents  cited  by  Douais,  Documents  de  V Inquisition,  vol.  i, 
p.  xxxii  f . 

4  Reg.,  n.  4253.  5  lb.,  n.  322,  Sept.  5,  1288. 
8  lb.,  nn.  313,  4184.  7  P.  341. 

8  lb.,  "  Sed  ibi  incidit  in  desipientiam  et  miseriam  magnam  valde." 
Not  unnaturally,  as  much  taken  up  with  these  matters  of  conscience, 
Nicholas  turned  his  attention  to  the  Papal  Penitentiary,  of  which 
we  have  treated  under  Nicholas  III.  On  the  Summa  of  N.  IV.  see 
Haskens,  The  Papal  Penitentiary,  p.  426. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  24I 

it  is  more  pleasant  to  speak  of  his  zeal  for  the  spread  of 
learning,  and  for  the  well-being  of  the  Universities.  In 
their  interest,  for  instance,  we  see  him  absolving  students 
from  rash  vows,  the  observance  of  which  would  have 
meant  ruin  to  the  University  and  to  the  city  in  which 
it  was.  In  the  autumn  before  his  accession,  there  had 
been  a  great  commotion  at  the  University  of  Padua. 
The  Italian  students  and  two  or  three  of  the  Ultramontanes 
had  elected  a  certain  James  de  Arena  as  a  professor  of 
Civil  Law.1  He  appears  to  have  been  a  suitable  man. 
He  is  called  by  the  Pope  "  his  beloved  son  ",  and  the 
election  was  approved  of  by  the  Commune.  For  some 
reason,  however,  the  foreign  students  would  not  have 
him,  and  they  swore  that,  if  he  were  not  removed  from 
the  post  for  ten  years,  they  would  leave  the  University, 
and  would  not  return  for  ten  years.  As  this  would  have 
meant  ruin  for  the  University  and  a  great  loss  to  the 
town,  the  Commune  begged  the  intervention  of  the  Pope. 
Nicholas,  accordingly,  took  the  matter  up,  and  com- 
missioned the  archpriest  of  the  cathedral,  for  the  general 
good  both  of  the  students  and  of  the  city,  to  absolve  the 
Ultramontanes  from  the  oath  they  had  taken,  but  to 
impose  a  suitable  penance  upon  them  for  the  excess  of 
which  they  had  been  guilty.2 

A  few  years  later,  we  find  him  authorizing  the  bishop  {b)  Bologna. 
of  Bologna  to  do  the  same  for  the  students  of  the 
University  of  that  city.  The  civil  authorities  had  ordered 
the  banking  companies  of  the  Amanati  and  Clarentes  of 
Pistoia,  who  were  the  bankers  of  the  University,  to  leave 
the  city  by  a  certain  date  ;  nor  would  they  listen  to 
the  request  of  the  University  that  the  date  should  be 
altered.     The  interval  allowed  by  the  city  authorities 

1  From  the  Pope's  letter,  Reg.,  n.  112,  June  1,  1288,  we  learn  that 
at  Padua,  the  students  elected  and  the  city  confirmed  the  election 
of  the  Professors  of  Civil  Law. 

2  lb. 

Vol.  XVII.  r 


242  NICHOLAS    IV. 

did  not  give  the  students  time  enough  to  close  their 
transactions  with  the  banks.  Thereupon,  as  the  request 
was  refused,  the  syndic  of  the  University  took  an  oath, 
in  its  name,  that  the  students  would  leave  the  city  if 
their  petition  was  not  granted.  By  partial  concessions 
on  the  part  of  the  commune  and  the  action  of  the  Pope, 
a  crisis  was  avoided.1  Then,  to  show  his  sympathy  with 
the  Universit}',  he  granted  all  its  students  who  had  duly 
received  from  the  archdeacon  of  Bologna  their  doctorate 
in  civil  or  canon  law,  the  right  of  teaching  anywhere 
without  any  further  examination.2 
(c)  Paris.  Nicholas  had  to  pursue  an  almost  identical  course  of 

action  in  connection  with  the  University  of  Paris.  This 
time  the  trouble  was,  as  so  often  in  Paris,  between  the 
University  and  the  Chancellor.  In  defiance  of  Apostolic 
privileges,  of  custom,  and  the  decrees  of  the  University 
itself,  the  Chancellor,  so  it  was  said,  persisted  in  granting 
the  doctorate  in  theology,  medicine,  and  the  liberal  arts, 
not  to  the  properly  qualified  candidates  presented  by 
the  University,  but  to  those  whom  he  thought  fit,  whether 
qualified  or  not.  The  University  appealed  to  the  Pope.3 
Nicholas  at  once  commissioned  a  number  of  bishops  and 
others  to  examine  into  the  truth  of  the  charges  against 
the  Chancellor,  and  to  try  to  arrange  matters.  It  was 
most  important,  he  said,  that  peace  should  be  restored 
to  the  University,  so  that  the  abundant  fruits  which 
came  from  the  teaching  of  the  Paris  University  should 
not  be  injured.4 

Again,  as  in  the  case  of  the  University  of  Bologna  and 

1  Reg.,  n.  5821,  Aug.  11,  1291. 

2  lb.,  n.  5861,  Aug.   18,   1291. 

3  The  appeal  was  lodged  by  the  Rector  of  the  University  John, 
called  Vate,  against  Master  Bertrand  of  St.  Denis,  Aug.  6,  1290.  Cf. 
Denifle,  ubi  infra,  n.  569. 

4  Reg.,  n.  6905,  March  15,  1292.  Should  his  commissioners  be 
unable  to  settle  the  question,  it  was  to  be  referred  to  him.  Cf.  Crevier, 
Hist,  de  l'  Universite  de  Paris,  ii.  127  ff. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  243 

on  the  same  conditions,  he  gave  the  Paris  students  the 
jus  ubique  docendi.1 

At  Montpellier  there  had  long  been  a  famous  school  (<*)  Mont- 

pellier. 

of  medicine,  and  Nicholas,  considering  that  "  it  would 
be  for  the  public  good"  if  a  "  studium  generale  "  were 
established  there,  by  a  bull  dated  Oct.  25,  1289,  duly 
erected  a  University  in  that  city.  Its  authorities  were 
authorized  to  confer  degrees  in  canon  and  civil  law, 
medicine,  and  the  arts,  but  not  in  theology,  and 
its  properly  approved  candidates  were  also  granted 
the  right  of  teaching  everywhere  without  further 
examination.2 

In  response  to  the  request  of  the  archbishop  of  Besancon  (e)  Graetz 
of  the  Count  of  Burgundy  and  of  a  number  of  abbots,  '  ra  z'' 
priests  and  professors,  Nicholas  erected  the  school  of 
Gratz,  the  capital  of  Styria,  into  a  University  exactly  on 
the  same  lines  as  those  of  Montpellier.3  Because,  said 
the  Pope  in  his  bull  of  foundation,  by  the  help  of  God, 
where  studies  flourish,  divine  worship  is  improved,  the 
Catholic  faith  grows  strong,  and  people  are  elevated  by 
virtue  and  learning,  "  we  readily  plant  those  studies  in 
suitable  places  .  .  .  and  foster  them  by  apostolic 
favours."  4 

In   the   first   year  of   the   pontificate   of   Nicholas,    a  (/)  Lisbon, 
petition  was  presented  to  him  from  the  abbot  of  Alcobaca 
and  other  important  ecclesiastics  praying  him  to  confirm 
the  establishment  at  Lisbon  of  a  Studium  Generale  to  be 
supported  by  a  tax  to  be  levied  on  the  properties  of 

1  lb.,  n.  6932,  March  25,  1292.  Nicholas  himself  had,  at  times, 
difficulties  with  the  Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Paris,  and  could 
not  always  get  a  degree  for  a  candidate  presented  by  himself.  Cf. 
Denifle,  Chartular.  Univer.  Par.,  vol.  ii,  nn.  548,  550-1.    Cf.  ib.,  i,  p.  291. 

2  Reg.,  n.  1584. 

3  lb.,  n.  4570,  March  7,  1291.  On  Montpellier  University,  see 
Rashdall,   Universities  of  Europe,  vol.  ii,  pt.  i,  p.   113  ff. 

4  lb.,  n.  4570,  March  7,  1291.  He  founded  the  "  studium  generale  " 
"  ut  cultores  sapientiae  augmententur  ". 


244  NICHOLAS    IV. 

the  petitioners.1  As  we  learn  from  the  Pope's  reply, 
King  Diniz  had  already  established  the  various  faculties 
at  Lisbon,  so  that  Nicholas,  in  this  case,  had  only  to 
ratify  what  had  been  done,  and  to  grant  the  jus  ubique 
docendi  without  further  examination  to  such  as  had 
been  duly  acknowledged  qualified  by  the  University 
authorities.  From  this  privilege,  however,  he  excepted 
the  right  of  teaching  theology.2  Then,  in  the  interest 
of  the  students,  he  urged  the  King  to  compel  the  citizens 
to  let  vacant  houses  to  the  students  at  a  price  to  be 
fixed  by  a  committee  of  clerics  and  laymen.  After  various 
wanderings  backwards  and  forwards  between  Lisbon  and 
Coimbra,  the  University  that  Nicholas  confirmed  is  now 
in  the  latter  city. 

It  is  especially  in  considering  the  relations  of  the 
Papacy  to  learning  and  the  Universities,  that  one  perhaps 
realizes  most  easily  what  Europe  has  suffered  by  having 
ceased  to  be  Christendom,  one  family  under  the  overlord- 
ship  of  the  Popes. 
Death  of  The  work,   however,  of  Nicholas  IV.,  scholastic  and 

1292°  aS  '  missionary  as  well  as  political,  was  now  done.  He  was 
"  worn  out  with  age  ".3  We  read,  indeed,  of  his  being 
so  ill  in  May,  1279,  that  he  could  not  attend  the  General 
Chapter  of  the  Friars  Minor  at  Assisi  4  ;    but  one  does 

1  Cf.  Brandao,  Monarchia  Lusitana,  pt.  v,  p.  530,  cited  by  Rashdall, 
I.e.,  p.  102.  See  the  reply  of  the  Pope  quoted  in  the  following  note, 
whence  also  we  learn  that,  in  a  truly  patriotic  spirit,  the  salaries  of  the 
masters  were  to  be  provided  by  some  prelates,  Cistercian  abbots, 
Augustinian  and  Benedictine  priors  and  rectors  of  certain  churches 
in  the  kingdoms  of  Portugal  and  Algarve. 

2  Reg.,  n.  3102,  Aug.  9,  1290.  The  bull  is  given  in  full  in  Raynaldus, 
Ann.,  1290,  n.  52,  or  in  Bullar.  Rom.,  iv,  p.  103  f.  "  Et  quicunque 
magister  in  civitate  praefata  (Lisbon)  per  episcopum  vel  vicarium 
supradictos  examinatus  et  approbatus  fuerit  in  facultate  quacumque, 
theologica  dumtaxat  excepta,  ubique  sine  alia  examinatione  regendi 
liberam  habeat  potestatem." 

3  Stefaneschi,  Vita  S.  Celestini,  1.  i,  c.  1,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  iii,  pt.  i,  p.  620. 

4  See  ep.  of  Nich.  III.  to  the  Chapter,  ap.  Wadding,  Annul.,  v,  p.  70. 


NICHOLAS    IV.  245 

not  read  of  any  particular  illness  from  which  he  suffered 
during  his  pontificate.  It  was  believed,  at  the  time, 
that  the  fever  from  which  he  died  x  was  brought  on  by 
grief  at  the  loss  of  the  Holy  Land.2  Whether  that  was 
so  or  not,  we  learn  from  the  famous  James  de  Voragine 
that  when  he  had,  in  1292,  been  made  archbishop  of 
Genoa  by  Nicholas,  and  had  been  summoned  by  him  to 
Rome  to  be  consecrated,  he  found  him  on  Palm  Sunday 
"  suffering  from  a  severe  and  dangerous  sickness  ".  He 
died  a  few  days  after,  on  Good  Friday  (Apr.  4)  in  the 
palace  at  St.  Mary  Major's  which  he  had  completed,  and 
"  as  we  believe,  entered  the  heavenly  palace  ".3 

The  body  of  the  devoted  Nicholas  was  buried  near  Tomb, 
that  of  St.  Jerome  in  St.  Mary  Major's  for  which  he  had 
done  so  much.4  More  exactly,  it  was  interred  in  that 
one  of  the  four  Colonna  chapels  which  was  at  the  north- 
west angle  of  the  basilica,  and  the  site  of  the  coffin 
was  marked  by  a  slab  which  displayed  the  arms  of 
Nicholas,  and  was  decorated  with  porphyry.5  His 
epitaph  set  forth  that  this  son  of  St.  Francis  who,  when 
Pope,  had  restored  the  Church  of  St.  Mary  Major,  had, 
when  dying,  ordered  that  his  bones  should  remain  in 
a  lowly  tomb.6 

When,  however,  in  1572,  some  levelling  operations  in 
the  basilica  brought  to  light  "  the  antique  urn  "  in  which 


1  Bonincontri,  Hist.  Sicil.,  i,  65. 

2  John  Elemos.,  ap.   Golubovich,  Bib.  dell'  Orient.,  ii,   109. 

3  J.  de  V.,  Chron.  Jan.,  c.  9,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  ix,  p.  53.  We,  too, 
may  hope  that,  in  accordance  with  his  motto,  the  light  of  God's 
countenance  then  fell  upon  his  servant.  "  Illumina  faciem  tuam  super 
servum  tuum."  He  died  "  aput  S.  Mariam  M."  G.  Spiapasto,  Cron. 
Rom.,  p.  427. 

4  Chron.  SS.  PP.,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xxiv,  p.  440. 

5  Platina,  Vit.  Nic.  IV.,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  iii,  pt.  i,  p.  257,  new  ed. 

6  "  Hie  tumulus  tumulat  humilem  ;  qui  fascibus  auctus  Sic  moriens 
statuit  ossa  manere  sua,"  etc.,  ap.  e.g.,  P.  de  Angelis,  Basilica  S.  M. 
Maj.,  p.  158. 


246 


NICHOLAS    IV. 


Benedict 
XIV. 
prohibits 
cult  of 
Nicholas  IV 


his  body  had  been  enclosed,1  the  Franciscan  cardinal, 
who  afterwards  became  the  famous  Pope  Sixtus  V., 
commissioned  Fontana  to  design  for  it  the  mausoleum 
that  one  now  sees  on  the  left  of  the  main  door.  The 
centre  of  the  monument  is  taken  up  with  the  seated 
figure  of  the  Pope  stretching  out  his  hand,  not  in  the 
act  of  benediction,2  but  in  that  of  gracious  invitation  to 
approach  him.  Allegorical  figures  of  Justice  and  Religion, 
the  work  of  the  sculptor  Leonardo  da  Sarzana,  stand  on 
either  side  of  the  Pontiff.  At  the  top  of  the  monument 
are  seen  the  arms  of  Nicholas,  and  at  the  bottom  those 
of  the  cardinal.  At  the  base  is  an  inscription  which 
states  that  Bro.  Felix  Peretti,  cardinal  of  Montalto, 
erected  it  in  1574  to  Pope  Nicholas,  who  was  of  the 
same  Order  (the  Franciscan)  and  nationality  as  himself, 
and  whose  body  had  long  lain  in  a  neglected  tomb.3 

Towards  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century  there 
sprang  up  a  cult  of  Nicholas,  but  Benedict  XIV.  showed 
that  it  was  wholly  unauthorized,  and  forbade  any  relics 
of  his  to  be  in  any  way  exposed  for  public  veneration 
(Oct.  24,  1750). 4 


1  lb. 

2  As  stated  by  Gregorovius,  Tombs  of  the  Popes,  p.  55. 

3  Ap.  de  Angelis,   ib.     Then  follows  a  long  eulogy  of  Nicholas  of 
not  sufficient  importance  to  be  quoted  here. 

4  See  his  De  beatificatione,  in  vol.  vi,  p.  186  ff.   of  his  works,  Prati, 
1842.     Cf.  Rubens  (ed.  Matthaei),  p.  xlvi  ff.  and  p.  194  ff. 


ST.  CELESTINE  V. 

A.D.    1294. 


Sources. — Though  there  exists  a  mutilated  fragment  containing 
seven  letters  of  the  Registrum  Camerale  of  C.  V.,  his  ordinary 
Register  is  lost.1  Existing  original  bulls  of  his,  however,  show- 
that  a  Register  like  those  of  his  predecessors  was  extant  even  after 
the  days  of  Boniface  VIII.  Six  such  documents  were  examined 
by  P.  M.  Baumgarten,  each  marked  on  the  back  with  the  letter  R 
and  other  marks,  showing  not  only  that  they  had  been  registered, 
but  even  in  what  chapter  of  the  Register  they  had  been  placed. 
As  in  other  Registers  of  the  period,  there  were  in  Celestine's  lost 
Register  both  litter ce  communes  and  litter  eo  curiales  ;  and  in  the 
Vatican  Archives  there  may  still  be  seen  a  smail  collection  of 
sixteen  political  letters  which  appear  to  have  been  copied  from 
the  latter  part  of  the  Register,  and  were  certainly  copied  long- 
after  the  pontificate  of  Boniface  VIII.  It  would  seem  to  be 
likely  that  the  Register  of  C.  perished  by  neglect.  As  Boniface 
properly  cancelled  a  large  proportion  of  the  documents,  no  doubt 
therein  registered,2  and,  as  some  of  them  were  drawn  up  in 
improper  form,  and  others  were  said  to  contain  clauses  that 
Celestine  had  not  even  seen,  still  less  authorized,3  it  is  not 
wonderful  that  no  one  had  any  use  for  such  an  unreliable  collection, 
and  that  it  perished  as  valueless.  Ptolemy  of  Lucca,  indeed, 
who  was  often  in  the  presence  of  Celestine,  declares  that  there 
had  actually  been  found  documents  which  proved  that  the  same 

1  What  we  have  to  say  on  the  subject  of  the  Register  of  C.  is,  for  the 
most  part,  taken  from  a  pamphlet  of  P.  M.  Baumgarten,  Regesto  di 
Celestino  V.,  Chieti,  1896. 

2  See  a  number  of  Boniface's  letters  of  Apr.  8,  1295,  ap.  Potthast, 
nn.  24061-3.  Two  are  given  in  full  in  Bartholomew  of  Cotton,  Hist., 
p.  265  ff.,  R.  5. 

3  "  Concessit,"  says  Boniface,  ap.  B.  of  C,  p.  265,  "  inordinata,  et 
insolita  .  .  .  sub  cujus  bulla  nonnulla,  ut  fertur,  praeter  ipsius  con- 
scientiam  transierunt."  Although  all  the  German  Annalists  speak 
well  of  C,  the  Annals  of  Austria,  contin.  Flor.,  ap.  M.  G.  55.,  ix,  p.  750, 
repeat  this  charge.     He  did  much  "  preter  usitatum  ordinem  curie  ". 

247 


248  ST.     CELESTINE    V. 

benefices  or  favours  (gratiae)  had  been  granted  to  several  persons, 
and  also  blank  forms  already  sealed.1  Baumgarten,  however, 
after  positing  that  no  one  has  seen  more  documents  of  Celestine  V. 
than  he  has,2  declares  that  not  a  single  one  of  them  lends  any 
kind  of  confirmation  to  Ptolemy's  assertion.3  He  further  declares 
that  Celestine's  vice-chancellor  was  the  Benedictine,  John  of 
Castrocoeli,  archbishop  of  Benevento,  whom  he  made  cardinal- 
priest  of  St.  Vitale,4  and  that  the  extant  documents  of  this 
Pope  prove  the  existence  during  his  pontificate  of  a  properly 
constituted  chancery.5  Without  in  the  least  calling  all  this 
in  question,  there  is  no  reason,  nevertheless,  to  doubt  the  definite 
assertion  of  Ptolemy.  Persons  of  the  simple  confiding  nature  of 
Celestine  V.  are  easily  persuaded  to  act  in  an  arbitrary  way, 
so  that  some  of  the  documents  may  have  been  issued 
irregularly.  Moreover,  it  may  easily  have  been  that  many  of  the 
fraudulent  documents  were  destroyed  when   Boniface   annulled 


_Cel£stine's  concessions.  These  suppositions  are  all  the  more 
probable  in  that  the  man,  John  of  Castrocoeli,  his  vice-chancellor, 
who  ought  to  have  enlightened  Celestine,  was,  according  to 
Stefaneschi.6  a  man  of  poor  character,  who  kept  the  Pope  in 
ignorance. 

However  all  that  may  be,  we  have  a  number  of  Celestine's 
bulls  and  briefs  that  were  preserved  in  the  places  to  which  they 
were  sent.  Potthast's  list  and  synopsis  of  such  documents  was 
increased  by  that  of  B.  Cantera  in  his  5.  Pier  Celestmo,  Napoli, 
1892,  p.  96  ff.  In  his  Regesto  degli  atti  di  P.C.V.,  he  gives  94 
documents,  to  which  he  adds  nine  others  that  are  alluded  to  in 

1  H.E.,  1.  xxiv,  c.  31.  "  Inveniebantur  gratiae  aliquae  factae  .  .  . 
pluribus   personis,    membrana   etiam   vacua   sed   bullata." 

2  He  avers  that  he  has  examined  them  at  La  Cava,  Naples,  Mte 
Cassino,  Sulmona,  Aquila,  Rome,  Florence,  Vienna,  Paris,  London, 
and  Oxford. 

3  "  Non  c'e  nessuna  che  potrebbe  anche  da  lontano  servire  a  provare 
tale  accusa."  P.  9.  We  presume  it  is  to  Ptolemy  that  B.  refers  ; 
but  he  does  not  give  a  name  to  the  author  of  the  assertion. 

4  He  appears  to  have  been  made  cardinal  after  Oct.  13,  1294,  i.e., 
after  the  promotion  of  twelve  cards,  on  Sept.  18,  1294.  He  died 
Feb.  22,  1295. 

5  L.c,  p.  11. 

6  "  Haud  radiat  lucere  datus."  Cf.  Vita  Celest.,  iii,  cc.  2,  and  10, 
ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  iii,  pt.  i,  or  pp.  59  and  69  in  the  new  ed.  of  Seppelt,  Mon. 
Ccelestiniana. 


ST.     CELESTINE    V.  249 

later  documents.  To  his  collection  six  more  can  be  added  which 
have  been  preserved  by  John  di  Pontissara,  bishop  of  Winchester 
(f  1304),  in  his  Register.1  Celidonio,  moreover,  speaks  of  a 
Codex  diplomaticus  S.  Pietri  C.  by  Baumgarten  and  Sdralek.2  It 
does  not  appear  to  have  been  published,  but  Celidonio  himself 
has  added  a  few  more  documents  to  those  already  mentioned.3 
There  is  a  document  which  would  be  of  first-class  importance 
for  the  early  life  of  Celestine,  if  only  it  were  authentic.  It  is  his  so- 
called  confessio  or  brief  autobiography,  published  by  the  Celestine 
abbot,  C.  Telera,  along  with  eleven  Opuscula  also  attributed  to 
the  Saint.4  This  work  of  under  twenty  printed  octavo  pages 
was  supposed  to  have  been  left  by  Peter  Morrone  in  his  cell  at 
St.  Onofrio,  when  he  left  it  as  Pope.  All  these  documents  were 
published  by  order  of  the  abbot-general  of  the  Celestine  Order, 
Dom  Franceso  d'Aielli.  They  are,  however,  probably  no  more 
genuine  than  the  bloodstained  nail  which  the  said  general  pro- 
fessed to  have  found  in  a  wall.  It  was  hoped  to  show  that  the 
Saint  was  both  Doctor  and  Martyr.  Speaking  now  only  of  the 
confessio,  we  note  that  the  Rev.  Dr.  Celidonio,  the  learned  local 
modern  biographer  of  the  Pope,  thinks  that  it  is  at  least  inter- 
polated, added  to  by  later  Celestines  to  glorify  their  founder. 
Hence  he  made  practically  no  direct  use  of  it.5  The  Bollandists, 
no  doubt  correctly,  go  further,  and,  urging  that  Celestine  knew 
too  little  Latin  to  have  been  able  to  write  it,  reject  it  as  worthless, 
and  assign  it  to  a  disciple  more  zealous  than  wise.6    The  Opuscula 

1  Recently  (1915-24)  published  by  the  York  and  Canterbury  Soc. 
Cardinal  Pitra  regards  as  doubtful  the  authenticity  of  those  letters 
that  rest  only  on  the  authority  of  a  French  biographer  of  the  Celestines, 
De  epp.  RR.  PP.,  p.  274. 

2  I,  p.   12. 

3  Vita  C.  V.,  iii,  p.  73,  and  so  has  E.  Casti,  p.  168  f.,  in  the  collection 
of  papers  in  Celestino  V  ed  it  VI.  centenario  delta  sua  incoronazione, 
Aquila,  1894.  Hence  Celidonio  was  able  to  reckon  156  documents  in 
all.     Cf.  iii,   128,  and  iv,  93. 

4  Opuscula  S.  Petri  Coslestini  PP.  V.  by  C.  T.,  Naples,  1640.  Seven 
letters  and  a  few  prayers,  all  supposed  to  be  written  when  he  was  a 
hermit,  are  also  added.  The  "  confessio  "  was  also  published  by 
Papebrock  in  Acta  SS.,  t.  iv.  Maii,  p.  421  ff. 

5  Vita  di  S.  Pietro  del  Morrone,  Lib  i,  pp.  31-47.  On  the  non- 
authenticity  of  the  Opuscula,  ib.,  Lib.  iv,  p.   151  ff. 

6  Cf.  Analecta  Bollandiana,  t.  xviii,  1899,  p.  35  f.  They  think  it  is 
possible  that  the  confessio  which  is  alluded  to  both   by  Stefaneschi 


250  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

are  doubtless  no  more  genuine  than  the  autobiography,  and  as, 
in  any  case,  they  do  not  contribute  anything  of  a  biographical 
nature,  we  may  neglect  them. 

Most  useful  and  authentic  is  the  account  written  by  two 
disciples  of  the  Saint,  and  published  for  the  first  time  by  the 
Bollandists.  There  are  two  editions  of  this  biography,  one 
represented  by  a  manuscript  in  the  Vatican  library  which 
manifests  a  spirit  of  hostility  to  Boniface  VIII. ,  and  the  other 
by  two  MSS.  at  Paris,  which  are  practically  free  from  any  bitter 
expressions  against  him.  Even  these  two  MSS.  are  not  quite 
identical.  The  second,  e.g.,  tells  (n.  15a)  of  Peter's  being  made 
abbot  of  St.  Maria  in  Faysolis  in  the  province  of  Molise  (Apulia), 
of  the  persecution  he  endured,  and  the  miracles  he  performed 
there,  and  of  his  resignation  of  office.1 

Celidonio  and  the  Bollandists  are  not  agreed  as  to  the  priority 
of  the  Paris  and  Vatican  MSS.  With  the  latter,  however,  we 
believe  that  the  Vatican  version  was  written  first,  when  the 
feelings  of  the  Celestines  were  hot  against  Boniface,  when  they 
were  thinking  more  of  the  supposed  wrongs  inflicted  on  their 
Founder  than  of  the  good  of  the  Universal  Church.  This  version, 
too,  shows  greater  precision  of  detail,  giving  more  names  of 
persons  and  places,2  and  more  frequently  appeals  to  sources 
of  evidence  for  what  it  states.3  The  Paris  editions  were  no 
doubt  written  after  the  death  of  Boniface  (between  1303  and 
1306)  when  time  and  reflection  had  cleared  the  judgment  of  the 
biographers.  It  is  regarded  as  probable  that  the  first  part  of 
this  biography  (the  first  eight  chapters)  was  written  by 
Bartholomew  of  Trasacco,  who  gave  evidence  for  his  canoniza- 
tion,   and   the   second   part   by   Thomas   of   Sulmona,    prior   of 

and  by  the  contemporary  biography  of  the  two  disciples  may  contain 
something  which  the  writer  had  heard  from  Celestine.  For  citing  or 
publishing  this  confessio,  the  Bollandists  only  accuse  Telera  and  the 
earlier  L.  Marino  (La  vita  ed  i  miracoli  di  S.  Pietro  di  Morrone,  Milan, 
1630)  of  excessive  credulity,  but  not  of  fraud. 

1  The  first  Paris  biography  was  published  in  the  Analecta  Bollandiana, 
vol.  ix,  1890,  and  the  second  in  vol.  x,  1891,  giving  the  chapters  wherein 
it  differs  from  the  first.  The  Vatican  life  is  printed  in  vol.  xvi  (1897). 
See  also  ib.,  vol.  xviii,  1899,  p.  34  ff.  for  further  indications  about  these 
lives,  and  criticisms  on  the  work  of  Celidonio  which  they  justly  highly 
praise,  though  showing  some  of  its  shortcomings  owing  to  a  somewhat 
confused   style. 

2  Vol.  xvi,  p.  372.  3  Cf.  ib.,  p.  373. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  251 

St.  Spirito  di  Morrone,  who  was  much  with  Celestine,  being  with 
him  even  in  his  confinement  on  Monte  Fumone.  We  shall 
quote  this  biography  as  B.D. 

Another  source  of  first-class  importance  for  the  life  x  of 
Celestine  is  the  Opus  Metricum  2  of  James  Gaetani  "  de 
Stephanescis  ",  cardinal  of  St.  George  in  Velabro,  generally  known 
as  James  Stefaneschi.  It  was  put  together  at  Avignon,  and 
sent  to  the  monks  of  the  Celestine  monastery  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  at  Sulmona  in  1319.  It  consists  of  2,902  hexameters  ; 
is  often  confused  and  generally  very  inflated  and  obscure. 
Fortunately,  it  is  preceded  by  a  long  prose  introduction,  written 
at  Valence  in  1316,  and  is  accompanied  by  a  number  of  glosses. 
The  Opus  is  divided  into  three  parts — I.  The  life  of  Cel.  V.  ; 
II.  The  election  and  coronation  of  Boniface  VIII.  (finished  in 
1296)  ;  III.  The  canonization  of  Celestine  V.  (finished  in  1316). 
With  reference  to  the  first  part  of  Stefaneschi's  life  of  Celestine  V. 
where  he  relies  on  the  spurious  biography,  the  Bollandists  3 
call  attention  to  the  significant  fact  that  in  a  Vatican  codex 
(Lat.  4932)  of  the  fifteenth  century  which  gives  the  poem  of 
Stefaneschi,  that  part,  consisting  of  140  verses,  is  replaced  by 
the  following  five  verses  : — 

"  Est  locus  Aprutii,  cui  profert  accola  nomen 
Molitium,  patria  huic  humili  sub  plebe  latenti. 
Hunc  fugiens  petiit,  fragilis  dum  labitur  aetas, 
Obseqium  praestare  Deo,  sacrumque  professus 
Est  habitum  Cristo  Benedicti  dogmata  spondens." 
Evidently  in  the  fifteenth  century  some  had  no  faith  in  the 
autobiography ,  even  so  far  as  it  was  used  by  Stefaneschi. 

Stefaneschi  wrote  from  personal  knowledge — as  one  "  known  ", 
nay,  "  dear  "  to  the  pontiffs  of  whom  he  wrote.  He  was  a  grand- 
nephew  of  Nicholas  III.,  and  probably  related  to  Boniface  VIII. 

1  Giving  "  vitam,  mores,  regulas,  electionem  ad  papatum,  gesta 
in  eo,  renuntiationem,  obitum,  canonizationem,  postremo  quoque 
miracula  sancti  confessorisque  mirifici  fratris  Petri  de  Murrone,  quon- 
dam Celestini  pape  quinti,  ordinis  vestri  ".  The  letter  of  Stefaneschi 
to  the  monks  of  St.  Spirito  de  Sulmone  sending  them  his  Opus  Metricum, 
and  prose  introduction. 

2  It  has  been  printed  by  the  Bollandists,  by  Muratori,  ap.  R.  I.  SS., 
iii,  pt.  i,  p.  613  ff.,  and  lastly  by  Dr.  F.  X.  Seppelt,  Monumenta  Cceles- 
tiniana,  Paderborn,  1921.  We  use  this  last  ed.  as  more  correct  than 
Muratori's. 

3  Analecta  Bol.,  vol.  xviii  (1899),  p.  38. 


252  ST.     CELESTINE    V. 

who  made  him  a  cardinal  in  1296.  As  a  patron  of  art,  his  name 
is  closely  associated  with  that  of  Giotto,  and,  as  an  historian, 
even  if  he  naturally  looked  with  a  favourable  eye  on  Boniface, 
he  has  the  great  merit  of  truthfulness.  Stefaneschi  is  also  the 
author  of  poems,  etc.,  on  the  Jubilee,1  and  other  subjects  ;  and 
besides  sermons  and  letters,  he  also  wrote  a  Roman  Ordo  or 
Ceremonial  from  which  various  historical  details  can  be  drawn.2 
This  virtuous  and  learned  man  died  at  Avignon  in  1343. 

Other  useful  sources  for  the  life  of  Celestine  are  the  pre- 
liminary Process  for  his  Canonization,  drawn  up  by  two  bishops 
at  the  order  of  Pope  Clement  V.,  and  also  published  by  Seppelt 
(p.  211  ff.)  ;  the  minutes  of  the  last  secret  consistory  preparatory 
to  the  canonization  of  C.  V.,  published  in  the  Analecta  Boll., 
vol.  xvi  (1897),  P-  475  #•»  and  the  bull  of  his  canonization 
ap.  Celidonio,  iv,  74  ff.  ;  Fontanini,  Codex  Constitutionum, 
p.  117  ff.,  etc. 

Modern  Works. — Of  modern  biographies  that  of  Lelio  Marini, 
La  vita  ed  i  miracoli  di  S.  Pietro  di  Morrone,  Milan,  1630,  may 
possibly  be  of  some  use  even  as  a  source,  as  he  professes  to  have 
used  materials  no  longer  extant  ;  but,  as  we  said  above,  he  is 
too  credulous.  The  biographies  of  Pierre  d'Ailly  (Paris,  1539), 
and  Maffeo  Vegio,  though  earlier,  do  not  add  to  our  knowledge, 
and  Seppelt,  who  has  published  them  both,  would  have  done  better 
to  have  republished  the  original  lives  printed  in  the  Analecta 
Boll.  Seppelt  himself  published  useful  Studien  zum  Pontifikat 
Papst  Coelestins  V.,  Berlin,  191 1. 

The  most  important  modern  work  on  Celestine  is  certainly 
that  of  Canon  G.  Celidonio,  Vita  di  S.  Pietro  del  Morrone,  in  four 
books,  each  of  which  is  unreasonably  paged  separately,  Sulmona, 
1896.  It  is,  unfortunately,  rather  wanting  in  clearness,  and  is 
somewhat  overloaded  with  perfervid  reflections.  The  5.  Pier 
Celestino  of  B.  Cantera,  Naples,  1892,  is,  as  we  said  before,  also 
valuable,  indeed  in  many  ways  more  so  than  the  work  of  Celidonio. 
The   Celestino    V.   ed   il    VI.    centenario   delta   sua   incoronazione, 

1  Ap.  Bibliotheca  Patrum,  t.  xxv,  p.  936  ff.,  ed.  Lyons. 

2  Published  by  Mabillon,  Museum  Hal.,  t.  ii,  p.  241  ff.,  and  numbered 
xiv  by  him.  On  the  first  ed.  of  this  Ordo,  cf.  L.  H.  Labande,  "  Le 
ceremonial  de  J.  Cajetan,"  ap.  Bib.  de  I'ecole  des  Chartes,  Jan.,  1893, 
p.  45  ff.  Stefaneschi  gives  us  a  brief  autobiography  on  p.  6  f .  One 
conceives  a  good  opinion  of  the  man  from  the  grateful  way  in  which 
he  speaks  of  his  father  and  mother,  both  of  ancient  noble  stocks. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  253 

Aquila,  1894,  contains  sixteen  papers  relating  to  Celestine,  by 
different  writers.  Of  slighter  value  are  such  biographies  as  those 
by  T.  Bonanni,  5.  Pietro  C,  Aquila,  1894,  $•  Pierre  Celestin,  by 
Dom  Aurelien,   Bar-le-Duc,    1873,  etc.1 

A  number  of  pamphlets  have  been  written  on  "  II  gran  rifiuto  " 
of  Dante,  e.g.,  G.  Roselli,  Discolpa  di  Dante,  Pisa,  1896  ;  Note 
stir  le  grand  refus,  by  Jules  Lanczy,  Paris,  1901,  etc.  G.  Ricciotti 
has  written  notes  on  Fumone  e  Celestino  V '.,  Alatri,  1896. 


CONTEMPORARY   SOVEREIGNS. 

(See  under  Nicholas  IV.) 

Emperor  in  the  West.        Adolf  of  Nassau,    1 292-8. 2 

1  In  a  materialistic  spirit,  Dr.  Hans  Schulz  treated  of  C.  V.  in  his 
dissertation  for  his  doctorate  (Peter  von  Murrhone,  P.  Coelestin  V ., 
Berlin,  1894),  and  continued  his  work  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  Kirchen- 
geschichte,  Oct.,   1894. 

2  Not  one  of  the  "  Kings  of  the  Romans  "  after  Frederick  II.  till 
Henry  VII.   (1308-14)  was  strictly  speaking  Emperor. 


CHAPTER  I 

LONG   VACANCY   OF   THE    HOLY   SEE.       ELECTION   OF   PETER 
DE    MORRONE.       HIS    PREVIOUS    CAREER. 


The 

cardinals 
meet  and 
disperse. 


Parties 
among  the 
Cardinals. 


After  the  funeral  of  Pope  Nicholas  IV.  the  cardinals, 
twelve  in  number,  met  in  the  palace  at  St.  Mary  Major's. 
They  were  Latinus  Malabranca,  the  virtuous  cardinal- 
bishop  of  Ostia,  Gerard  the  White,  bishop  of  Sabina, 
John  Boccamazza,  bishop  of  Tusculum,  Matthew 
Acquasparta,  cardinal-priest  of  St.  Lorenzo  in  Damaso, 
Hugh  of  Alvernia,  cardinal-priest  of  St.  Sabina,  John 
Cholet  of  St.  Cecilia,  who  died  during  the  vacancy  (1293), 
Peter  Petrogrosso  of  St.  Mark's,  Benedict  Gaetani 
(Boniface  VIII.)  of  St.  Martino,  Matteo  Rosso  Orsini, 
of  St.  Maria  in  Portico,  James  Colonna,  cardinal-deacon 
of  St.  Maria  in  Via  Lata,  Napoleon  Orsini  of  St.  Hadriano, 
Peter  Colonna  of  St.  Eustachio,  nephew  of  cardinal  James 
Colonna.  Of  these  twelve,  Latinus,  Boccamazza,  Matteo 
Rosso,  James  and  Peter  Colonna,  and  Napoleon  Orsini 
were  Romans,  Hugh  and  Cholet  were  French,  and  the 
remaining  four  were  from  different  parts  of  Italy. 

Some  of  these  cardinals  were  perhaps,  as  they  are 
called  by  one  of  our  historians,1  "  carnals,"  men  who 
thought  more  of  their  own  flesh  (caro)  and  blood,  of  their 
own  kith  and  kin,  than  of  Christ  and  His  Church.2  So 
it  may  be  said  with  Villani,3  that  the  Orsini  party,  headed 
by  Matteo  Rosso,  were  desirous  of  a  Pope  who  would 

1  "  Cardinales,  qui  potius  dici  poterant  carnales,  etc."  Bart,  of 
Cotton,  p.  251,  R.  S. 

2  S.  Antoninus  says  severely  :  "  Quaerentibus  quae  sua,  et  non  quae 
Jesu  Christi."     Chron.,  tit.  xx,  c.  7,  p.  233. 

3  Chron.,  vii,  c.  150,  al.  151.  Cf.  S.  Anton.,  I.e.,  and  Mart.  Pol. 
contin.  Anglica,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xxx,  p.  717. 

254 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  255 

favour  the  Angevin  dynasty  of  Sicily,  and  that  the 
Colonna  party,  headed  by  Cardinal  James  Colonna,  were 
anxious  for  a  pontiff  who  would  break  with  the  French 
connection.  It  may  be,  too,  that  some  of  them  were 
working  merely  for  their  own  personal  advantage.1  There 
is  ground  for  more  than  suspicion  that  the  Colonna 
cardinals  were  actually  in  the  pay  of  the  Aragonese. 
From  a  letter  of  King  James  of  Aragon  to  his  brother 
Frederick  in  Sicily,  it  appears  that  a  certain  John 
Velletrani,  purporting  to  be  an  agent  of  cardinals  James 
and  Peter  "  de  Columpna  ",  had  presented  himself  before 
Frederick,  and  in  their  name  had  undertaken  to  do 
certain  things  for  him  in  the  future  as  they  had  done  in 
the  past,  should  they  receive  from  him  an  annual  grant 
of  a  thousand  ounces  (of  gold)  with  an  immediate  payment 
of  five  hundred.  Frederick  had  made  the  promise,  and 
paid  over  the  instalment  to  the  agent.  His  brother, 
however,  evidently  was  far  from  sure  of  the  credibility 
of  the  agent.  If,  he  wrote  to  Frederick,  what  John  said 
was  true,  I  approve  of  the  payment,  but  if  not  I  shall  be 
vexed,  and  you  will  have  been  fooled,  and  will  have  lost 
your  money.2  This  document  must  be  taken  in  connection 
with  others.  Another  from  Barcelona  tells  of  the  Colonna 
cardinals  asking  Frederick  for  money  to  be  able  to 
resist  the  Orsini  cardinals  who  are  on  the  side  of  King 
Charles.3  The  money,  as  we  have  just  seen,  was  duly 
paid  ;  but,  as  we  learn  from  another  similar  document, 
the  Colonnas  did  not  draw  it,  as  the  unworthy  transaction 
had  transpired,   and  the  other  cardinals  had  come  to 


1  Menko.  Chron.  contin.,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xxiii,  567.  The  chronicler 
says  that  after  the  death  of  Nicholas  IV.  most  atrocious  wars  broke 
out  all  over  Christendom,  and  while  the  Kings  of  France  and  England 
fought  for  power,  "  Romae  cardinales  certabant  pro  papatu." 

2  Ep.  of  July  1,  1294,  ap.  Finke,  Acta  Aragon.,  i,  p.  18,  n.  12. 

3  This  document  belongs  to  the  year  1294,  after  May  8.  Ap.  Finke, 
Aus  den  Tagen  B.  VIII.,  p.  xi,  n.  2. 


256  ST.     CELESTINE    V. 

hear  about  it.  Still,  though  the  money  was,  for  the 
moment,  returned  to  Frederick,  King  James  was  asked 
to  be  ready  to  supply  them  with  "  men  or  money  ", 
should  need  for  them  arise.1  These  documents  prove 
plainly  enough  that  in  their  party  spirit  the  Colonnas 
were  traitors  to  the  papal  policy  which,  since  the  coming 
of  Charles  of  Anjou,  had  invariably  favoured  him  and 
his  heirs. 

Nevertheless,  despite  these  intrigues  on  the  part  of 
some  of  the  cardinals,  it  may  be,  on  the  other  hand,  that 
some  of  the  others  in  this  dreadful  vacancy  of  two  years 
three  months  and  two  days,  genuinely  found  it  hard  to 
choose  between  the  distinguished  and  experienced  men 
of  whom  the  Sacred  College  was  at  this  time  composed. 
In  this  connection  a  reflection  of  Mr.  Sedgwick  is  much 
to  the  point.  "  One  must  remember,"  he  says,  "  that 
the  history  of  the  Roman  Curia  is  not  merely  a  tale  of 
wrangling  ambitions  and  worldly  policy  .  .  .  but,  more 
often  than  not,  underneath,  deep  in  their  hearts,  though 
covered  up  by  covetousness  and  self-seeking,  lay  the 
desire  to  do  right,  to  make  the  Church  fulfil  her  great 
mission."  2 

There  would  seem,  moreover,  to  have  been  an  idea  at 
this  time  that  the  election  had  to  be  unanimous.  At  any 
rate,  we  find  in  the  election  encyclicals  of  the  Popes  at 
this  period  the  fact  of  their  unanimous  election  regularly 
stated.  Any  idea  of  the  necessity  of  unanimity  would  of 
course  increase  the  difficulty  of  finding  a  candidate. 
Cardinal  Whatever  were  the  dominant  motives  which  animated 

Latinus 

addresses  the 

Cardinals.  1  j)oc    \\    ap   Finke,  Acta  Aragon,  i,  p.  15.    "  Quantum  ad  primum 

articulum  respondit  d.  Petrus  de  Columpna  :  quod  regraciabatur  d. 
regi  de  pecunia  sibi  missa  et  promissionibus  sibi  factis.  Et  quod  pecu- 
niam  sibi  missam  non  recepit,  set  mandavit  mercatoribus  .  .  .  quod 
earn  remitterent  d.  Frederico.  Pro  tanto  autem  pecuniam  non  recepit 
quia  negocium  aliis  cardinalibus  fuerat  publicatum." 

2  Italy  in  the  Thirteenth  Century,  ii,  p.  142,  London,  1913. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  257 

the  twelve  cardinals  who  on  this  occasion  met  in  the 
palace  by  St.  Mary  Major's,  their  duty  was  put  before 
them  by  their  dean,  Latinus  of  Ostia.  After  prayers  had 
been  ordered  for  the  election  of  a  worthy  successor  of 
Nicholas,  "who  might  preside  in  Christ's  name  and 
succeed  Peter,"  the  Sacred  College  was  addressed  by 
Latinus,  a  man,  sings  our  poetical  cardinal,  "  shining 
with  virtue,  and  radiant  with  the  titles  of  noble  birth."  * 
No  one  of  sound  mind,  he  said,  would  strive  for  the 
exalted  dignity  of  the  Papacy.  But  the  cardinals  must 
seek  for  a  candidate  who  was  firmly  rooted  in  virtue. 
This  was  the  more  necessary  as  the  days  were  evil. 
Acre  and  Tripoli  have  been  lost.  The  savage  Aragonese 
have  possessed  themselves  of  a  realm  which  was  bestowed 
on  the  Franks — a  situation  which  is  "  a  disgrace  to  them 
and  to  us  who  give  kingdoms.  On  all  sides,  too,  our 
subjects  give  us  trouble."  2 

"  The  cold  hearts,"  however,  of  the  cardinals  were 
not  moved  by  this  address,  but,  after  spending  ten  days 
in  the  palace  built  by  Nicholas  IV.,  they  adjourned  to 
that  on  the  Aventine,  which  Honorius  IV.  had  erected.3 
Here,  says  Stefaneschi,  the  divergence  of  the  views  of 
the  cardinals  became  more  and  more  manifest,  as  it  was 
said  that  no  candidate  received  even  a  third  of  the 
votes.4  It  was  to  no  purpose  that  the  electors  again 
changed  their  place  of  meeting,  and  assembled  at  another 
Dominican  centre,  that  of  St.  Maria  sopra  Minerva.  The 
feast  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul  brought  on  them  the  heat  of 

1  "  Virtute  coruscans 
Et  generis  titulis  radiatus." 

Stefan.,  Elect.,  i,  1.  I  may  note  that  my  study  of  the  cardinal's  obscure 
poem  was  simplified  by  having  had  access  to  a  translation  which  had 
been  prepared  by  the  nephew  of  the  late  Mr.  Oscar  Browning. 

2  "  Dedecus  illis 

Et  nobis  qui  regna  damus."     lb. 

3  Stef.  condemns  this  habit  of  building  new  palaces,  and  leaving 
those  of  the  Vatican  and  Lateran.  4  lb. 

Vol.  XVII.  s 


258  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

summer.  Faction  fights  broke  out  in  the  city,  and  the 
Plague  stalked  through  its  narrow  reeking  streets.  The 
French  cardinal  Cholet  died  (Aug.  2,  1291),  and  "by  a 
grave  innovation  ",  the  surviving  cardinals  dispersed. 
The  six  Romans  remained  in  different  parts  of  the  city  ; 
Gaetani  in  fear  of  the  Plague,  because  he  was  seriously  ill,1 
betook  himself  to  his  native  Anagni,  and  the  remaining 
four  went  to  Rieti  "  by  the  waters  ".2  When  the  heat 
had,  by  the  middle  of  September,  somewhat  abated, 
Gaetani  and  Matthew  Aquasparta  returned  to  the 
Minerva.  They  were  gradually  joined  by  the  others  ; 
but  the  summer  of  1293  still  found  them  in  disagreement. 
This  time,  with  the  exception  of  the  two  Colonnas, 
John  Boccamazza  and  Gaetani,  all  the  cardinals  went 
to  Rieti  to  escape  the  summer  heat.  Of  the  four  excep- 
tions, the  first  three  remained  in  Rome,  but  "  the 
Campanian  went  about  his  own  affairs  apart  from  the 
others  ".3 
Danger  of  Thereupon,   the   three   cardinals   who    were    together 

proposed  that  they  should  by  themselves  elect  a  Pope, 
on  the  grounds  that  they  stood  for  the  Sacred  College 
because  the  majority  of  it  was  composed  of  Romans,  like 
themselves,  and  that  they  were  in  Rome.  There  was 
evidently  a  rapidly  increasing  danger  of  a  schism. 
Fortunately,  for  the  present,  however,  the  three  declared 
that  they  preferred  to  discuss  the  situation  with  their 
brethren.  Let  them,  therefore,  hasten  to  Rome,  "  if 
they  were  desirous  of  putting  an  end  to  the  tears  of  the 
Church."  4 

1  Cf.  the  Prosa,  p.  8.   "Gravi,  longa,  cronicaqueconcussusinfirmitate." 

2  Poem,  i,  c.  2  :    "  Quattuor  undatum  lymphis  placidumque  Reate." 

3  lb.,  c.  3.  Benedict  G.  of  Anagni  was  "  the  Campanian  ".  From 
the  Prose,  I.e.,  we  learn  that  he  went  to  Viterbo — perhaps  for  the 
medicinal  waters  near  it. 

4  lb.,  c.  5. 

"  Cupiunt  si  ponere  finem 
Ecclesie  lacrimis." 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  259 

On  this,  the  cardinals  at  Rieti  met  to  consider  the 
legality  of  this  summons.  They  were  addressed  by  Matteo 
Rossi  Orsini,  whose  sister,  our  poet  is  careful  to  remind 
us,  was  his  mother.1  He  begged  them,  and  the  learned 
men  they  had  summoned,  to  give  their  opinion  clearly 
on  the  claims  made  by  those  cardinals  who  had  elected 
to  remain  in  the  city  so  full  of  civil  strife.  After  much 
discussion,  it  was  resolved  that,  as  the  majority  of  the 
cardinals  were  in  Rieti,  it  was  for  them  to  fix  the  time 
when  the  College  should  meet  to  elect  the  Pope.  After 
some  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  cardinal  of  Milan,  who 
was  attached  to  the  Colonnas,  it  was  finally  decided 
that  the  cardinals  should  meet  in  Perugia  on  the  Feast 
of  St.  Luke  (Oct.  18,  1293). 

To  this  ruling  the  Colonnas  submitted,   and  all  the  The 
cardinals,   warmly  welcomed  by  the  people,  assembled  ^Perueif0 
at  Perugia  by  the  appointed  day.2    There  we  may  leave 
them  still  to  continue  for  months  discussing,  quarrelling,3 
intriguing,  and  voting,  while  we  see  what  was  meanwhile 
going  on  in  Rome. 

Whilst   the  cardinals  were  disputing,   the  citizens  of  Disorders  in 
Rome,   without   a  ruler,   were  fighting  in  their  streets, 
and  cities  of  the  papal  states  were  warring  against  one 
another.4    As  month  after  month  sped  by,  and  the  Holy 
See  still  remained  vacant,  the  state  of  things  naturally 

1  Stefaneschi,  ib.,  here  sings  the  praises  of  the  Orsini  family. 

2  See  also  Annul,  di  Perugiu,  ap.  Archivio  stor.  Itul.,  vol.  xvi  (1850), 
p.  58,  and  Ptolemy  of  Lucca,  H.E.,  1.  xxiv,  c.  27.  On  the  welcome 
of  the  Perugians,  see  extracts  from  the  municipal  archives  given  by 
Canon  Pietropaoli  in  his  paper  :  "  II  conclave  di  Perugia,"  ap.  Celes- 
tino  V.,  p.  106  f.  They  also  prayed  God  to  bring  them  to  unity  "  for 
their  own  good  and  that  of  the  Christian  religion  ". 

3  Cf.  Stef.,  i,  c.  7,  p.  31,  for  the  way  in  which  to  the  great  discomfort 
of  penitents  some  of  them  refused  their  consent  to  Aquasparta  remaining 
Grand   Penitentiary. 

4  Stefan.:  "  Nos  undique  turbant  Subjecti,"  p.  20.  "  Gemitus, 
heu  !  nee  non  tristia  bella  Insurgunt  populo."  Ib.,  i,  c.  2,  p.  22.  Cf. 
ib.,  c.  3. 


26o 


ST.    CELESTINE    V. 


Fighting  in 

the 

Patrimony. 


went  from  bad  to  worse.  Not  only  were  foreigners 
robbed,  but  the  very  churches  and  religious  houses  were 
plundered.1  The  sound  of  the  sacrilegious  disturbances 
penetrated  even  to  Iceland,  and  the  author  of  the  saga 
of  bishop  Lawrence  of  Holar,  speaking  of  the  year  1294, 
says  (c.  7)  that  there  was  strife  in  Rome,  and  people 
were  killed  in  St.  Peter's.  Indeed,  according  to  the 
Annals  of  Colmar,  one  of  the  Orsini  killed  eleven  pilgrims 
in  the  basilica  about  Easter  of  that  year  !  In  the  midst 
of  the  troubles  one  Senator,  Orso  Orsini,  died,  and  the 
other  Senator,  Agapitus  Colonna,  retired  in  fear  (spring, 
1293).  For  six  months  there  was  no  senator  at  all.2 
Then  in  the  month  when  the  cardinals  went  to  Perugia, 
two  new  Senators  were  elected,  the  aged  but  warlike 
Peter  Stefaneschi,  the  father  of  our  poetical  historian, 
and  Oldo  of  San  Eustachio.  But  as  they  did  not  act 
together  for  long,  no  lasting  peace  followed  their  election.3 
While  robbery,  sacrilege,  murder,  and  street  fighting 
were  the  order  of  the  day  in  Rome,  many  of  the  towns 
thought  that  a  fine  time  had  arrived  to  impose  their  will  on 
their  weaker  neighbours  by  force  of  arms.4  Narni  fell 
upon  Castrum  Strunconi,  Orvieto  seized  Bolsena,  and 
laid  siege  to  Aquapendente.5     In  dealing  with  some  of 


1  Chron.  Parmense,  p.  63,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  new  ed. 

2  Stef.,  I.e.,  i,  3. 

3  lb.,  c.  6.     Cf.  the  introduction  (prosa),  p.  9. 

4  "  Tutumque  putans  hoc  tempore  bellis, 
Lascivire  palam." 

Stef.,  I.e.     Cf.  Cantera,  p.  45,  n.  for  notice  of  trouble  between  Ascoli 
and  Fermo. 

5  Stefaneschi,  i,  c.  4,  and  Bartholomew  of  Cotton,  p.  251  f.  Not 
infrequently  our  historians  alone  have  preserved  items  of  Roman 
news.  As  far,  however,  as  Bolsena  and  Aquapendente  are  concerned, 
the  Annates  Urbevetani,  pp.  163-4,  have  also  spoken  of  them.  Whilst 
Bartholomew  wrote  the  siege  of  Aquapendente  had  not  ended  (nondum 
expugnatur),  and  we  learn  from  the  Annals  just  quoted  that  on 
July  18,  1294,  the  people  of  Orvieto  made  a  truce  with  Bro.  James 
Pocapaglia,   "  who  was  in  Aquapendente  for  the  Roman  Church." 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  261 

these  outbreaks  the  cardinals  were  successful.  With  the 
aid  of  troops  sent  by  Charles  Martel,  Cardinal  Matthew 
Aquasparta,  for  instance,  succeeded  in  reducing  Narni 
to  order.1  In  other  cases,  however,  they  were  not 
successful.  Despite  threats  of  excommunication  and 
interdict,  of  a  fine  of  twenty  thousand,  and  of  a  loss  of 
rights,  the  cardinals  were  incapable  of  restraining  "  the 
Seven  "  of  Orvieto.2  They,  accordingly,  resolved  to 
raise  "  a  great  army  ",  and  called  on  the  vassals  of  the 
Church  to  assemble  in  arms.  For  the  most  part,  however, 
they  would  not  move,  but  told  the  cardinals  that,  as  soon 
as  they  elected  a  Pope,  they  would  defend  him  and  the 
Church  too.3  Even  this  rebuff  did  not  make  the  cardinals 
end  their  differences,  but  they  tried  to  raise  an  army  in 
Rome,  and  to  put  it  under  the  command  of  Agapitus 
Colonna,  Luke  Savelli,  and  Berthold  Orsini.  Here, 
however,  cardinal  Napoleon  Orsini  stepped  in.  This 
arrangement  of  commanders,  he  said,  would  not  do. 
There  would  be  two  Colonnas  to  one  Orsini.  Fortunately, 
however,  the  Roman  people  had  more  care  for  the 
Church  than  these  despicable  "  family  men  ".  They, 
too,  realized  that,  if  an  army  was  raised  for  the  cardinals, 
they  would  not  devote  themselves  to  electing  a  Pope.4 
They,  therefore,  as  our  chronicler  notes,  "  resuming  their 
ancient  vigour  ",  set  the  nobles  at  defiance,  and  in  arms 
to  the  number  of  over  seventy  thousand  horse  and  foot 
withdrew  to  the  Aventine.  They  then  took  over  the 
Capitol  "  where  justice  was  administered ",  and  sent 
envoys  to  Henry  of  Spain  who  had  just  escaped  from  the 

1  Stef.,  i,  c.  4.     "  Regreditur  (the  cardinal)  victor,  populo  comitante 
regressum." 

2  See  one  of  their  many  letters  to  the  Podesta  and  "  the  Seven  ", 
ap.  Theiner,  Cod.  Dip.,  i,  n.  492. 

3  Bart,  of  C,  p.  251. 

4  "  Romanis    perpendentibus    quod    si   talia    effectum    haberent  de 
papa  minime  curaretur,  etc."     lb. 


262 


ST.    CELESTINE    V. 


Election  of 
Peter  of 
Morrone. 


Charles  II. 
and  his  son 
Visit 
Perugia, 
1294. 


hands  of  King  Charles,  and  had  fled  to  Sicily  to  come  to 
be  their  Senator.1 

Understanding,  at  length,  "  that  the  Church  had  lost 
everything,  that  the  Romans  were  getting  out  of  hand, 
and  that  their  own  discomfiture  and  that  of  the  Roman 
nobility  was  approaching,"  the  cardinals  at  length  gave 
their  serious  attention  to  electing  a  Pope.  Unable  or 
unwilling  to  choose  one  of  their  own  number,  they  elected 
(July  5,  1294)  the  hermit  Peter  de  Morrone,  "  a  man  of 
little  literary  culture,  and  of  absolutely  no  knowledge 
of  worldly  affairs,"  but  a  man,  so  it  is  said,  "  of 
extraordinary  sanctity."  2 

These  interesting  details,  furnished  us  by  Bartholomew 
of  Cotton,  which  appear  to  have  escaped  the  notice  of 
previous  biographers  of  Celestine,  are  naturally  supple- 
mented by  Stefaneschi's  writings.  From  him  we  learn 
other  circumstances  that  preceded  and  influenced  the 
election  of  Peter. 

In  the  early  spring  of  1294,  i.e.,  in  the  month  of 
March,  Charles  II.  on  his  way  from  Provence  to  his 
kingdom,  accompanied  by  his  son  Charles  Mart  el, 
King  of  Hungary,  who  had  come  from  Naples  to 
meet  him,3  approached  Perugia.      They    were    met    by 

1  "Who,"  (Henry)  says  Bartholomew,  evidently  quoting  some 
report  he  had  received  from  a  friend  in  Rome,  "  was,  I  believe,  the 
brother  of  the  Queen  of  England." 

2  B.  of  C,  I.e.  He  adds  that  Peter  was  a  member  of  a  Benedictine 
congregation  which  he  had  himself  founded,  that  the  habit  of  his  order 
was  white,  and  that  its  members  lived  as  good  monks  (et  bene  cohabi- 
tant fratres). 

3  See  an  order  (Dec.  6,  1293)  of  Charles,  "  Vicar  of  the  Kingdom 
of  Sicily,"  for  the  purchase  of  what  was  necessary  for  his  journey  to 
the  Roman  Curia.  Cf.  Syllabus  Membran.  Sicilies,  ii,  p.  134,  n.  8.  He 
was  at  San  Germano  on  his  way  to  meet  his  father,  Feb.  15,  1294.  Cf. 
C.  M.  Riccio,  Saggio  di  diplom.,  Supplement,  pt.  i,  p.  75,  n.  62.  N.  63 
shows  that  Charles  II.  was  in  Naples  March  8.  But  it  would  appear 
from  a  fuller  series  of  extracts  from  the  Angevin  Archives  given  by 
Schipa,  Carlo  Martello,  ap.  Archiv.  Stor.  Nap.,  xv,  1890,  pp.  84-5, 
that  Charles  II.  did  not  reach  Naples  till  Apr.  13,  1294. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  263 

the  cardinal-deacons,  Napoleon  Orsini  and  Peter  Colonna, 
and  a  crowd  of  people,  and  were  conducted  in  great  state 
to  the  great  hall  where  the  cardinals  awaited  them. 
After  receiving  the  kiss  of  peace  from  them,  the  King 
took  his  place  between  two  cardinal-bishops,  and  his  son, 
whose  youth  and  handsome  features  are  extolled  by  our 
poetical  historian,  between  the  cardinal-deacons.  Then 
when  a  little  time  had  been  devoted  to  talk,  the  Kings 
were  escorted  to  their  lodging.  But  before  continuing 
his  journey,  King  Charles  addressed  the  cardinals,  and 
urged  them  to  elect  a  Pope  without  further  delay.  To 
this  speech,  without  giving  any  hint  as  to  whether  he 
thought  it  was  inspired  by  pure  zeal  for  the  Church  or 
by  a  wish  to  encourage  his  party,  the  mild  cardinal 
Latinus  returned  a  diplomatic  answer.1  But  Gaetani, 
a  man  cast  in  a  very  different  mould,  gave  him  plainly 
to  understand  that  the  votes  of  the  cardinals  must  be 
free,  and  that  he  had  no  right  to  put  any  kind  of  pressure 
on  them.  Hard  words  passed  between  them,  but  Charles 
made  no  further  open  effort  to  get  his  own  way.2  He  left 
Perugia  soon  after,  honourably  accompanied  by  the 
cardinals  to  the  gates  of  the  city,3  and  in  the  course  of 
his  journey  to  Naples  visited  the  hermit  Peter  near 
Sulmona,  and  assigned  to  his  monastery  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  an  annual  revenue  of  ten  ounces  of  gold.4 

After  the  departure  of  the  King,  months  again  went  The  hermit 
by,  and  there  was  still  no  Pope.    One  day  (July  5),  how-  eieCtecL 
ever,  nine  of  the  cardinals  met  together  in  a  serious  mood. 
They  had  just  attended  the  funeral  of  a  young  brother 


1  Stef.,  i,  8. 

2  Cf.  Ptolemy,  H.E.,  1.  xxiv,  c.  28,  and  Annates,  p.    1300,  "  Regem 

.    .   .  multum  exasperasset  "  ;    and  Platina,  in  vit.  Nic.  IV.,  sub  fin. 

3  Stef.,   I.e. 

4  See  his  grant,  dated  Sulmona  Apr.  6,  1294,  in  Cantera,  p.  29.     Cfx 
the  foil,  doc.,  ib. 


264  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

of  their  colleague,  Napoleon  Orsini.1  Grief  had  kept 
Napoleon  away  from  the  meeting,  and  gout  the  Milanese 
Pietrogrosso.  With  the  thought  of  death  in  their  minds, 
the  rest  listened  with  attention  to  cardinal  Boccamazza, 
who  appealed  to  them  to  dry  the  tears  of  their  mother 
the  Church,  to  put  an  end  to  the  discord  among  them- 
selves, and  to  elect  a  Pope.  Seeing  that  his  brethren  were 
moved,  Latinus  declared  that  he  had  received  a  letter 
from  a  holy  man  telling  him  it  had  been  revealed  to  him 
that  God  would  punish  them  unless  they  elected  a  Pope 
forthwith.2  Thereupon  Gaetani  asked  with  a  smile  if 
the  holy  man  in  question  was  the  hermit  Peter  de  Morrone. 
Finding  that  such  was  the  case,  the  cardinals  began  to 
talk  of  the  marvellous  life  of  the  hermit,  and  of  the 
numerous  miracles  that  were  ascribed  to  him.3  Some 
even  began  to  wonder  whether  he  were  not  worthy  of 
the  Papacy.4  Then  suddenly  the  virtuous  cardinal 
Latinus,  who  had  long  loved  Peter  and  had  been  a 
benefactor  of  his  Order,5  cried  out  :  "In  the  name  of 
the  Father  and  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  I  elect 
brother  Peter  de  Morrone."  6  At  the  moment  all  were 
thunderstruck,  but  almost  immediately  five  cardinals 
voted  with  Latinus.  The  required  two-thirds  seemed 
in  sight.  Cardinal  Napoleon  was  summoned  in  haste, 
and  at  once  gave  his  vote  also  for  the  saintly  hermit. 
Matteo  Rosso,  "  whom  long  experience  had  made  slow," 
then  fell  on  his  knees,  and  with  tears  in  his  eyes  added 

1  The  Biog.  of  the  two  disciples  (which  we  shall  call  B.D.),  c.  28. 
Unless  there  is  a  note  to  the  contrary,  it  is  to  be  taken  for  granted 
that  there  is  no  difference  between  the  different  versions  in  the  passage 
cited. 

2  Cf.  Stef.,  ///  Op.  M.,  iii,  c.  17. 

3  All  this  is  from  Stef.,   Vit.  C,  ii,  1  and  2. 

4  "  Miraque  gesta  Extollunt  alii,  nura  quid  sit  dignus  honore  Papatus 
secum  tractant,  diversa  loquntur."     lb.,  c.  2. 

5  Ptol.  of  L.,  H.E.,  xxiv,  c.  30. 

6  B.D.,  c.  28. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  265 

his  vote  to  those  of  the  others,   and   the  two  Colonna 

cardinals  who  had  left  the  conclave  to  consult  the  sick 

cardinal  of  Milan  about  the  proposal  of  Latinus,   soon 

returned  with  his  assent  and  their  own.    By  the  unanimous 

vote  of  the  Sacred  College,  Peter  the  monk,  beloved  by 

all  the  mountainous  Abruzzi,  had  been  elected  to  rule 

the  Church  of  God.1     "  Nor  was  there  any  one,"  add 

the  Saint's  disciples,  "  who  did  not  say  that  the  election 

was  satisfactory  "—a  thing  which  had  never  happened 

in  any  pontifical  election  before." 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  truth  of  that  assertion, 

the  first  of  the  cardinal-deacons  proclaimed  to  the  people, 

whilst  his  brethren  were  singing  the  Te  Deum,  that  Peter, 

the  aged  Hermit  of  Suimona,  was  Pope.    The  excitement 

produced  by  the  glad  tidings  that  the  long  vacancy  of 

the  Holy  See  was  over  was  but  added  to  by  the  fact  that 

the  majority  of  the  people  were  utterly  ignorant  of  the 

identity  of  the  elect.     Who  was  he  ?  was  on  the  lips  of 

everyone.2    This  query  may  now  be  answered. 

Peter,  afterwards  known  as  "  de  Morrone  ",  was  born  feter .of 
'  .       Isernia. 

in  the  province  of  Molise  in  its  present  chief  town,  Isernia. 
The  year  of  his  birth  seems  to  have  been  12 10  (or  1209). 
His  parents,  Mary  and  Angelerius,  both  virtuous,  were 
poor  and  of  humble  station.    They  had  twelve  children, 


1  Stef.,  and  B.D.,  ll.cc,  Ptolemy  of  Lucca,  ib.,  c.  29,  and  Annates, 
p.  1300  ;  and  especially  the  letter  of  C.  V.  himself  to  our  K.  Edward. 
Ep.  Sept.  3,  1294,  ap.  Rymer,  ii,  654.  He  tells  how  the  Holy  Ghost 
"  subito  et  celeriter  conjunxit  "  (the  cardinals)  "in  unum ;  ...  in 
humilitatem  nostram  omnes  unanimiter  concordantes."  See  also 
Jas.  de  Voragine,  Chron.  Jan.,  c.  9.  By  the  election  decree  (cited  by 
Celidonio,  iii,  p.  25)  those  who  went  to  consult  the  sick  Milanese  cardinal 
were  Boccamazza,  Peter  Colonna,  and  Hugh  of  S.  Sabina.  This  is 
no  doubt  correct. 

2  "  Fit  strepitus,  queruntque  simul  quis  noverit  ilium,"  Stef.,  ii,  2. 
Peter  was  about  84  when  he  was  elected.  One  of  our  historians, 
Florence  of  Worcester,  Chron.  contin.,  p.  272,  R.  S.,  says  he  was  100 
at  that  time  ! 


266 


ST.     CELESTINE    V. 


Peter 
becomes  a 
hermit. 


of  whom  Peter  was  the  eleventh,1  and  they  had  always 
prayed  that  one  at  least  of  their  children  might  be  "  a 
true  servant  of  God  "*  To  his  mother's  joy,  for  his 
father  had  died  when  Peter  was  very  young  indeed,  her 
eleventh  child  soon  began  to  show  signs  of  his  future 
sanctity.  At  the  early  age  of  five  he  was  already  fond  of 
the  Bible  and  holy  books.  His  attachment  to  books, 
however,  was  not  viewed  with  favour  by  his  brothers. 
Besides  their  father,  six  of  their  brothers  and  sisters  were 
already  dead.  The  family  was  poor,  and  could  not 
afford,  they  urged,  to  have  one  of  its  number  brought  up 
in  idleness.  Moreover,  they  reminded  their  mother  that 
a  rich  man  had  taken  a  fancy  to  Peter,  and  had  promised 
to  make  him  his  heir.  But  she,  recalling  to  mind  that 
the  boy  had  been  born  with  a  caul,  persevered  in  her 
determination  to  bring  him  up  for  the  service  of  God, 
the  more  so  that  her  husband  had  expressed  the  same 
wish  before  his  death.  The  boy  corresponded  with  her 
desires,  and  by  the  time  he  was  twelve  knew  the  Psalms 
by  heart.  But  about  this  time  his  mother  was  much 
troubled  by  seeing  him,  still  a  beardless  youth,  feeding  a 
flock  of  snow-white  sheep.  She  recovered  her  serenity, 
however,  when  she  reflected  that  it  was  a  question  of  the 
flock  of  Christ. 

Daily  did  Peter  grow  in  goodness,  so  that  his  disciples 
assure  us  that,  even  in  his  youth,  he  was  old  in  virtue.3 

1  Stef.,  ii,  7,  and  local  authorities  and  traditions,  ap.  Celidonio, 
i,  73,  and  iv,  52.  From  B.D.,  c.  47,  we  learn  that  Peter  died  in  1296 
aged  86  (Vatican  version  says  87).  He  was,  therefore,  born  in  1210 
or  1209.  From  documents  in  the  Angevin  Archives  of  Naples,  cited 
at  length  by  Cantera,  p.  6,  n.,  and  54,  n.,  we  learn  not  only  the  name 
of  Celestine's  father,  but  those  of  two  of  his  brothers  (Nicholas  and 
Robert)  and  two  of  his  nephews  (William  and  Peter). 

2  "  Precibusque  rogarent 

Sepe  Dei  verum  natorum  crescere  quemquam 
Cultorem,  etc."     Stef.,  I.e.,     All  these  details  of  Peter's 
early  life  are  drawn  by  Stef.  from  the  spurious  autobiography. 

3  B.D.,  c.  8. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  267 

-We  learn,  too,  from  Stefaneschi,  who  alone  gives  us  these 
details  of  Peter's  boyhood  and  youth,1  that  he  felt  drawn 
to  a  hermit's  life.  He  was,  however,  deterred  at  first  from 
carrying  out  his  project,  because,  even  at  home,  when 
alone  he  feared  "  the  phantoms  of  the  night  ".  He  did 
not  realize  that  one  might  be  a  hermit  in  a  cave  and  still 
have  a  companion.  But  when  he  was  about  twenty 
(c.  1230), 2  he  persuaded  a  companion  to  leave  home  with 
him  and  seek  the  real  "  sweet  things  of  life  "  in  solitude. 
They  agreed  to  go  first  to  Mother  Rome  to  get  a  sanction 
for  their  proposed  mode  of  life.  But  after  a  day's  journey, 
his  companion  returned  home,  and  Peter  had  to  go  on 
alone.  Hearing  that  there  was  a  hermit  near  Cast  el  del 
Sangro,  he  went  to  consult  him.  But  enlightened  from 
above,  "  from  Olympus,"  as  sings  our  poet  with  classical 
reminiscences,  he  left  him,3  and,  timid  though  he  was, 
passed  the  night  in  the  open.  Comforted  and  encouraged 
by  heavenly  visions,  he  thenceforth  lost  all  fear  of 
darkness,  and  dug  out  for  himself  a  cave  beneath  a  great 
rock,  but  so  small  was  it  that,  though  he  was  not  tall, 
he  could  not  stand  upright,  nor  lie  down  at  full  length 
within  it.  Here,  clad  in  a  rough  tunic,  he  remained  for 
three  years,  with  no  companions  but  snakes,  toads,  and 
lizards.4 

Oft  was  the  young  hermit  here  tempted  by  evil  spirits,  J""5  ^  and 
and   oft,   too,   did   he   receive   "  great    and    mellifluous 
graces  ".     One  of  these  later  he  thus  lost.     It  was  his 
wish  to  recite  some  of  the  canonical  hours  during  the 
night,  and  ever  was  he  able  to  fulfil  his  desire  as  a  loud- 

1  But  as  drawn  from  the  spurious  autobiography  they  must  be 
received  with  caution. 

2  This  squares  with  the  statement  in  B.D.,  c.  46,  that  at  the  time 
of  his  death  Peter  de  Morrone  had  led  a  life  of  sixty -five  years  of 
penance. 

3  "  Forte  malus  simulare  bonum."     Stef.,  I.e. 

4  "  Hie  fuit,  hie  jacuit.    Serpentibus  atque  lacertis 

Hie  locus  est,  rospi  comites  recubantibus  adsunt."     lb. 


He  is 


268  ST.     CELESTINE    V. 

resounding  bell  regularly  roused  him  from  his  sleep. 
Ignorant  of  this,  a  brother  hermit  suggested  that  he 
should  get  a  cock  to  rouse  him.  Peter  agreed,  but  the 
cock  that  was  given  him  crowed  no  more,  nor  was  the 
sound  of  the  great  bell  heard  again.1 
SdaLed  ^he  *ame  °*  Peter's  sanctity  spread  abroad,  and  the 

priest.  many  who  came  to  visit  him  urged  him  to  get  ordained 

priest.  He  accordingly  went  to  Rome,  and,  returning  to 
the  Abruzzi  a  priest,  took  up  his  abode  in  a  cave  on 
Mount  Morrone,2  where  now  stands  the  Church  of 
St.  Spirito. 

The  chronology  of  the  life  of  Peter  previous  to  his 
election  as  Pope  is  obscure  ;  and  it  is  not  possible  to  say 
exactly  in  what  year  he  was  ordained  or  in  what  year 
he  became  a  monk.  With  regard  to  the  latter  event,  we 
know  at  least  that  it  took  place  before  the  year  125 1,3 
and  we  know  further  that  he  was  received  into  the 
Benedictine  Order  in  the  abbey  of  Our  Lady  of  Faysolis 
(or  in  Faivolis).4  From  the  evidence  of  the  octogenarian 
physician,  Raynald  Gentilis,  the  date  of  this  reception 
can  be  pushed  back  beyond  1241,  as  the  doctor  testified 
that,  when  he  was  "  about  fifteen  "  (c.  1241),  he  saw  and 
spoke  to  brother  Peter,  who  was  "  clad  in  the  garb  of  a 
monk  ".5      Finally,    as    Pope    Celestine    himself,   when 

1  "  Sed  protinus  ille 
Subticuit  vocemque  negat,  cantumque  recusat 
Gallus." 

lb.  This  story  is  taken  by  Stefaneschi  from  the  supposititious  auto- 
biography, c.  i,  n.  7. 

2  lb. 

3  The  last  witness  whose  testimony  was  taken  in  1306  by  the  arch- 
bishop of  Naples  said  that  he  (Leonard  Carpentarius)  was  80  years 
old,  and  that  he  had  seen  brother  Peter,  then  a  beardless  young  man, 
in  the  garb  of  a  monk  on  Monte  Morrone,  fifty-five  years  before,  i.e.,  in 
1251,  ap.  Seppelt,  p.  330. 

4  B.D.,  c.  15a.  "  Cujus  (S.  Maria  in  Fayfolis)  abbas  dederat  sibi 
primo  habitum  sanctae  religionis." 

5  See  the  twenty-three  witnesses,  ap.  Sep.,  p.  232. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  269 

confirming  "  the  Celestine  congregation  of  the  Benedictine 
Order  ",  not  only  expresses  his  particular  affection  for 
that  Order,  but  says  that  he  made  his  vows  in  it  in  his 
early  youth,1  we  may  safely  conclude  that  he  became  a 
monk  before  he  became  a  hermit  in  1230. 

Finding  that  his  solitude  which  he  loved  so  much  was  Retires  to 
too  much  disturbed  on  Monte  Morrone,  as  it  was  com- 
paratively near  the  town  of  Sulmona,  Peter  retired  to 
the   still  more  inaccessible   range  of  the   Majella.      He 
was  certainly  there  by  the  year  1256. 2 

Even  here  men  followed  him,  and  a  number  of  them  The 
put    themselves    under    his    direction.      The    Celestine  Qf  thenmg 
congregation  was  born.3     With  some  strict  interpreta-  Celestine 

00  1  1         r  congrega- 

tions, the  Saint  placed  his  followers  under  the  rule  of  tion. 

St.  Benedict  which  he  had  himself  embraced  4  ;   for,  say 

his  biographers,  it  was  the  will  of  God  that  this  rule, 

which  many  of  its  professors  had  trampled  in  the  mud, 

should  be  revivified  by  these  His  new  servants.5 

As  the  number  of  his  disciples  increased  rapidly,  brother 

Peter  had  to  seek  out  suitable  places  in  which  they  could 

live ;     and   when   they   were   established   in   their   new 

homes,  he  used  to  visit  them  frequently,  in  order,  we 


1  "  In  quo  (the  Benedictine  Order)  dum  juventutis  nostrae  pro- 
gressio  ordiretur,  professionis  nostrae  vota  devovimus."  Bull,  of  Sept. 
27,  1294,  ap.  Bullar.  Rom.,  iv,  p.  116  ff.,  ed.  Turin.  Ludovisi  gives  a 
different  chronological  scheme  of  Celestine's  early  life,  p.  30  f.,  in  the 
Centenary  vol. 

2  Peter  de  Balduino,  the  eighty-third  witness  examined  for  our 
Saint's  canonization  in  1306,  said  that  he  had  often  visited  him  in  his 
cell  (career)  among  the  hermits  on  Mt.  Majella  fifty  years  before. 
"  Dixit  quod  jam  sunt  anni  quinquaginta  quod  ipse  testis  vidit  eum 
in  heremis  in  monte  videlicet  de  Majella,  etc."  Ap.  Seppelt,  p.  284. 
Cf.  n.  49,  p.  251  f.,  for  the  similar  evidence  of  Dompna  Maria.  Cf. 
Stef.,  ii,  7. 

3  "  Misit  (God)  ad  ilium  non  paucam  multitudinem  fratrum."  B.D., 
c.  9,  Stef.,  I.e.,  p.  52. 

4  Stef.,  I.e. 

5  B.D.,  c.   12. 


270  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

are  told,  to  strengthen  their  weakness  and  to  encourage 

them  to  bear  their  poverty  by  his  words  and  example.1 

Tile    ..        .      These,  indeed,  were  the  two  things  that  had  drawn 

attraction  of  ° 

Bro.  Peter,  them  to  him — the  sight  of  his  austere  life,  and  the 
irresistible  sweetness  of  his  words  and  manner.  Both 
his  disciples  and  Stefaneschi  tell  us  at  length  of  his  love 
of  prayer,  how  he  spent  much  of  the  night  as  well  as  of 
the  day  praying,  how  the  devotion  with  which  he  said 
Mass  inflamed  the  piety  of  the  bystanders,  and  how  he 
recited  the  Divine  Office  on  his  knees  with  the  greatest 
fervour.  His  austerities  well-nigh  pass  belief.  He 
brought  his  body  into  subjection  by  hairshirts,  knotted 
leathern  girdles,2  and  even  iron  chains.  When  his 
exhausted  frame  could  no  longer  stand  or  kneel  he  lay 
down  on  boards  in  a  cramped  position,  with  a  stone  or 
a  block  of  wood  for  a  pillow,  and,  in  the  bitter  winter 
on  an  exposed  mountain,  with  coverings  utterly 
insufficient  to  keep  out  the  cold.3  At  no  time  did  he 
eat  more  than  was  barely  enough  to  support  life.  Often 
the  bread  that  he  ate  was  so  stale  and  hard  that  it  had 
to  be  broken  with  a  hammer,  and  during  the  four  or  six 
"  Lents  "  which,  quite  apart  from  everyone,  he  kept  every 
year,  he  often  ate  only  twice  a  week,  and  then  took  nothing 
but  bread  and  water.  Sometimes  he  even  went  without 
bread,  and  took  but  some  raw  vegetables  and  apples. 
On  Sundays  and  festivals,  he  and  his  disciples  partook 

1  lb.,  c.   10. 

2  See  also  the  evidence  of  witness  111,  ap.  Seppelt,  p.  308  ;  of  W.  162, 
p.  329. 

3  B.D.,  c.  6,  where  it  is  said  that,  owing  to  the  freezing  of  his  wet 
clothes  to  the  walls  of  his  cave,  he  remained  immovable  for  twenty 
days.  "  Qui  hujusmodi  tenacitate  glacierum  obsessus  diebus  viginti 
stetit  immobilis."  When  after  this  he  had  been  warmed  back  to  life, 
he  somewhat  modified  these  austerities,  as  he  heard  a  voice  telling  him 
not  to  put  so  heavy  a  load  on  "  the  little  ass  "  of  his  body  ;  for,  if  he 
died  in  consequence,  he  would  have  to  answer  to  God  for  the  loss  of 
his  life. 


ST.     CELESTINE    V.  271 

of  cooked  vegetables  flavoured  with  poor  oil ;  but,  as 
far  as  he  himself  was  concerned,  he  generally  ate  the 
vegetables  without  any  kind  of  flavouring. 

When  not  occupied  in  prayer,  he  was  always  engaged 
in  reading  or  in  some  kind  of  manual  work.  He  was  never 
idle.  If  he  was  not  engaged  with  visitors  he  was  either 
reading  the  Bible  or  some  pious  book,  or  copying  or 
binding  books,  or  making  or  mending  his  own  poor 
coarse  clothing,  or  that  of  the  brethren.  He  knew  that 
idleness  was  the  source  of  all  evil.1 

Except  during  his  "  Lents  "  his  time  was  very  largely 
taken  up  in  receiving  people  who  came  to  see  him  from 
all  parts.  All  sorts  and  conditions  of  men  flocked  to  him. 
The  fame  of  his  goodness  and  sanctity,  of  his  miraculous 
powers,  and  of  his  engaging  manners  2  drew  both  men 
and  women  to  him  in  the  hope  of  getting  health  of  body 
or  consolation  for  their  stricken  spirits.  Not  only  did 
kings  3  and  nobles  come  to  consult  him,  but  even  the 
clergy  4 ;  and  what  is  the  greatest  miracle  of  all,  many 
men  of  evil  life  were  converted  as  soon  as  they  came  in 
contact  with  him.  In  fact,  we  are  assured  that  no  matter 
how  dissolute  some  of  those  who  visited  him  might  be, 
they  all  left  him  better  men.5  As  far  as  women  were 
concerned,  though  he  did  not  refuse  to  see  them,  still, 


1  "  (Ut)  tentationis  interdiceret  alimenta,  liberalibus  aut  mechanicis 
sudabat  in  artibus,  scribens  scilicet,  libros  ligans,  vestes  attritas  suas 
fratrumque  resarciens  aut  suens."    B.D.,  c.  3.    Cf.  c.  7. 

2  Helped  for  a  long  time  at  least  by  his  handsome  appearance : 
"  Hie  .  .  .  juvenili  forma  decorus."  lb.,  c.  8.  Cf.  the  eighth  witness 
notes  how  people  were  affected  :  "  solo  aspectu  faciei  illius."  Ap. 
Sep.,  p.  211. 

3  The  Kings  of  Sicily  and  Hungary,  Charles  II.  and  Charles  Martel. 

4  Cf.  witness  56,  ap.  Sep.,  p.  258,  and  B.D.,  c.  19,  p.  408. 

5  See  witnesses  19,  ap.  S.,  pp.  226-7  ;  wit.  22,  p.  231  ;  and  the 
testimony  of  Bartholomew  of  Trasacco,  ap.  ib.,  pp.  333-4.  Cf.  B.D., 
n.  5. 


272  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

for  the  sake  of  greater  recollection,  he  avoided  meeting 
them  as  far  as  possible.1 

He  had  the  greatest  love  and  care  for  the  poor,  and, 
though  none  so  poor  as  he,  he  was  able  to  help  them 
with  money  that  was  given  to  him,2  and  by  the  effect 
which  his  words  had  with  the  rich  and  powerful  whom 
he  ever  urged  to  greater  regard  for  the  poor. 
Jfhe  As  the  poor  got  alms  from   Brother   Peter,  the   sick 

Order.  health,     the     perplexed     advice,     and     the     sorrowful 

comfort,  his  time  and  attention  were  largely  absorbed  by 
the  crowds  that  flocked  to  him  for  these  blessings.  But 
over  and  above  these  lesser  worries,  his  ever-growing 
congregation  gave  him  much  more  concern.  From  his 
first  house  of  St.  Maria  del  Morrone,  and  especially  from 
his  second  of  St.  Spirito  di  Majella,  his  religious  family 
began  to  spread  steadily.  Streams  of  monks,  wrote 
Petrarch,  flowed  like  its  water-courses  from  the  Majella 
over  the  plains  beneath.3  The  poet  was  astonished,  and 
we  must  remember  that  he  was  born  (1304)  only  eight 
years  after  the  death  of  Celestine ;  he  was  astonished  when 
he  reflected  how  rapidly  the  Saint's  congregation  had 
spread  over  Italy.4  In  the  lifetime  of  its  founder,  brother 
Peter's  Order  counted  thirty-six  monasteries  and  six 
hundred  monks.5 

1  See  the  sworn  evidence  of  various  witnesses,  ap.  S.,  pp.  226,  234, 
334.  One  of  these  witnesses  says  bluntly  (p.  234)  :  "  Frater  Petrus 
visionem  mulierum  horrebat."  Cf.  witness  81,  p.  282  ;  w.  85,  p.  285  f.  ; 
w.  105,  p.  303  f.  2  Cf.  wit.  125,  p.  320.     Cf.  p.  334. 

3  De  vit.  solitaria,  ii,  sect.  3,  c.  9,  vol.  i,  p.  296,  ed.  Basle,  1554. 

4  lb.,  ii,  sect.  3,  c.  18.  "  Et  quam  brevi  spatio  temporis  per  omnem 
Italiae  tractum,  usque  ad  alpes  quot  ab  eodem  instituti  ordinis  conventus 
sacri  !  " 

6  Before  its  final  collapse  in  the  turmoil  at  the  beginning  of  the  last 
century,  it  had  spread  into  France  and  Belgium,  and  in  Italy  alone  it 
had  at  one  time  120  abbeys,  priories,  and  monasteries,  without  reckoning 
oratories.  Cf.  G.  Ettore's  paper,  "  Sinopsi  storica  dell'  ordine  di  C.  V." 
in  Centen.,  p.  371  ff.  For  the  numbers  in  Peter's  lifetime,  see  B.D., 
n.  26. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  273 

It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  the  Order  of 
St.  Damian,1  or,  as  it  was  afterwards  called,  that  of  the 
Celestines,  was  not  a  great  asset  to  the  Church.  William 
of  Nangis  calls  Pope  Celestine  "the  Father  of  a  certain 
thin  religion  "  and  after  the  effect  of  brother  Peter's 
personal  example  had  worn  off,  the  Order  began  to  decay 
steadily.  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  he  made  no 
definite  regulation  about  the  regular  practice  of  mental 
prayer,  nor  about  the  reception  of  novices,  nor  about 
study.  Hence,  though  the  various  houses  were 
dependent  on  the  abbot-general  of  the  monastery  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  on  Monte  Morrone,  they  were  independent  of 
one  another,  and  often  small,  unfit  subjects  were  very 
frequently  received,  and  at  length  profound  ignorance 
even  of  the  proper  principles  of  the  spiritual  life  became 
manifest  among  considerable  numbers  of  the  brethren  of 
the  Order.  Despite  the  efforts  of  Blessed  Robert  Bellar- 
mine,  who  became  Protector  of  the  Order  in  1666,  to 
reform  it,  disunion  and  corruption  led  to  its  suppression 
in  France  in  1766,  and  to  its  entire  extinction  in  the 
course  of  the  following  few  decades.2 

The  first   Pope  who  was  brought  into   contact   with  The  Popes  in 
the  new  congregation  was  Urban  IV.    In  accordance  with  thTnew1*11 
a  request  which  had  been  laid  before  him  on  behalf  of  "  the  Order. 
Rector  and  Brothers  of  the  Hermitage  of  the  Holy  Spirit  iv.,  1263! 
on  the  Majella  ",  he  commissioned  the  Ordinary  Nicholas, 
bishop  of  Chieti,  to  incorporate  them  with  the  Benedictine 
Order,  without  prejudice  to  the  rights  of  any  one,  seeing 
that  at  present,  he  wrote,  they  are  not  subject  to  any 
Order  whatsoever.3 

1  The  Order  "  qui  a  plerisque  dicitur  S.  Damiani  sub  regula  S. 
Benedicti  ".     B.  Guidonis,  Vita,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  iii,  pt.  i,  p.  669. 

2  See  X.  Le  Bachelet,  "  Le  B.  Bellarmin  et  les  Celestins  de  France," 
ap.  Rev.  des  Quest.  Hist.,  1926,  p.  527  ff.,  from  which  this  paragraph 
is  mostly  drawn. 

3  Ep.  June  1,  1263,  ap.  Potthast,  18551,  and  in  full  in  Cantera,  p.  13. 
Vol.  XVII.  t 


274  ST-    CELESTINE    V. 

(2)  Clement       Five  vears  later,  Clement  IV.  addressed  a  letter  to  the 

IV      1368 

faithful  of  the  dioceses  of  Valva-Sulmona,  Chieti,  and 
Marsi.  He  told  them  of  what  he  had  heard  of  the  hard 
life  which  "  the  Prior  and  brothers  of  the  hermitage  of 
the  Majella  "  were  leading  in  the  remotest  recesses  of 
the  mountains,  in  order,  by  the  strictest  poverty,  to 
serve  the  poor  Redeemer.  Now,  he  added,  the  Prior  and 
brothers  of  the  hermitage  of  Mte.  Morrone,  subject 
to  the  hermitage  on  the  Majella,  have  taken  in  hand  to 
rebuild  the  Church  of  our  Lady  there.  He  accordingly 
exhorted  the  people  to  help  them,  and  "  by  the  authority 
of  God  and  of  the  Blessed  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul  which 
had  been  confided  to  him,  he  granted  to  all  such  as  did 
so,  and  had,  with  due  sorrow,  confessed  their  sins,  a 
relaxation  of  a  hundred  days  of  the  penance  which  had 
been  imposed  upon  them  ".1 

(3)  Gregory        But  no  matter  into  what  well-nigh  inaccessible  places 

X      1273-4 

on  the  Majella  the  Saint  retired,  men  followed  him  ;  and, 
whether  he  wished  it  or  not,  kept  him  in  touch  with  the 
things  of  the  world.  Thus  he  learnt  of  the  great  council 
which  Pope  Gregory  X.  had  summoned,  and  also  of  his 
intention  to  suppress  a  number  of  Orders  that  had  been 
recently  started.  In  fear  for  his  own  Order,  Bro.  Peter 
with  two  companions  walked  all  the  way  to  Lyons  where 
the  council  was  to  be  held.  Like  other  men,  Gregory 
fell  under  the  charm  of  the  simple  monk  ;  and,  to  Peter's 
great  satisfaction,  readily  confirmed  his  adaptation  of 
St.  Benedict's  rule.2  Protected  from  robbers  by  snakes 
and  by  an  angel  in  the  guise  of  a  beautiful  horseman,3 
the  Saint  and  his  companions  returned  in  safety  to  his 
monks.     All  flocked  "  to  look  once  more  on  his  glorious 

1  Ep.  of  May  26,  1268,  ap.  N.  F.  Faraglia,  Coclice  diplomatic*)  Sul- 
monese,  Lanciano,  1888,  p.  73. 

2  B.D.,  cc.  11-12  :    "  Qui  (God)  in  futurum  providebat  b.  Benedicti 
regulam  per  istos  novellos  servulos  relevare." 

3  See  also  Stefan.,  iii.  Oi>.  Met.,  iii.  c.  16. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  275 

face ",    and    to    hear    read    the    bull    confirming   their 
Order.1 

Soon  after  his  return  to  the  Majella,  Peter  was  called  to  Abbot  of  S. 
be  abbot  of  the  monastery  of  Sta.  Maria  in  Faysolis  in  Faysolis, 
which  he  had  received  the  Benedictine  habit.2  The  1276~8- 
monastery  had  fallen  into  complete  decay.  Its  buildings 
and  finances  were  ruined.  But,  not  long  after  Capifer, 
archbishop  of  Benevento,  had  made  it  over  to  brother 
Peter,  it  began  to  revive,  and,  before  he  left  it,  its 
possessions  had  been  recovered,  over  forty  monks  were 
in  residence,  and  he  had  made  accommodation  for  sixty. 
His  biographer  says  that  he  went  back  to  his  solitude 
after  being  abbot  for  a  year  only,3  but  from  local  episcopal 
letters  addressed  to  Bro.  Peter  "de  Murrone",  "abbot  of 
Sta.  Maria  in  Faysulis  "  (1276-8),  it  would  seem  that  he 
must  have  been  abbot  for  part  at  least  of  two  years.4 
Peter  was  certainly  speaking  the  truth  when,  as  Pope, 
he  said  that  the  great  wish  of  his  heart  had  always  been 
to  keep  churches  from  falling  to  pieces,  and,  if  they 
had  collapsed,  to  restore  them  to  spiritual  and  temporal 
prosperity.5 

After  Peter  had  been  abbot  of  Faysolis  for  two  or  three  Peter  in 
years    "  because    he    had    always    loved    solitude  "  6   he 

1  lb.,  c.  13  :  "  Omnes  fratres  .  .  .  concurrebant  ad  revidendam 
suam  faciem  gloriosam."  Cf.  Gregory's  bull  of  March  22,  1275,  ap. 
Potthast,   n.   21006. 

2  lb.,  c.  15a.  The  monastery  was  in  the  province  in  which  Peter 
had  been  born,  "  cujus  abbas  dederat  sibi  primo  habitum  sanctae 
religionis." 

3  lb. 

4  Reg.  Nich.  I  V.,n.  4217  of  Feb.  20,  1291,  wherein  letters  of  four  local 
bishops  are  quoted.  Two  of  them  bearing  dates  1276  and  1278 
respectively,  are  addressed  to  Peter  "  de  Murrone",  abbot  of  S.  M.  de 
Faysulis. 

5  See  his  letter  of  Oct.  20,  1294,  ap.  Faraglia,  Cod.  Sulm.,  n.  92, 
p.  117.  "  Inter  cetera  desideria  cordis  nostri  illud  existit  precipuum, 
ut  ecclesias  preservemus  a  collapsibus,  et  collapsas  ad  prospera, 
spiritualiter  et  temporaliter  reducamus." 

6  B.D.,  c.  15a. 


(a)  Episcopal. 


276  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

resigned   the   abbatial   dignity,    substituted   one   of   his 
brothers  in  his  place,  and  returned  to  live  under  the  eyes 
of  his  Maker  alone. 
Roman  -phe  affairs  of  his  Order,  however,  soon  called  him  forth 

monasteries.  .  . 

again  before  the  eyes  of  his  fellow  men  ;  and,  from  one 
of  the  witnesses  in  connection  with  his  canonization,  we 
learn  that  he  was  in  Rome  "  in  the  month  of  August,  at 
the  time  when  the  Lord  Pope  Nicholas  died  "  (1280). x 
He  had  come  to  the  Eternal  City  in  order  to  found  or 
visit  two  monasteries  of  his  Order,  one  St.  Pier  in  Montorio, 
and  the  other,  St.  Eusebio.2 
Persecution.  Though  in  its  strictest  sense  the  saying  that  it  takes 
two  to  make  a  quarrel  is  necessarily  true,  the  implication 
in  it  that  the  two  are  both  more  or  less  to  blame 
cannot  be  so  readily  admitted.  It  may  be,  of  course, 
that,  if  one  knew  all  the  circumstances  of  every  quarrel, 
the  implication  even  might  prove  to  be  true.  But,  in  such 
accounts  as  we  have  of  many  quarrels,  it  sometimes 
seems  that  only  one  party  to  the  quarrel  is  to  blame  ; 
and  certainly  in  the  disputes  in  which  Peter  was  engaged 
it  would  seem  that  he  was  not  at  fault. 

When  the  rumour  that  Gregory  X.  intended  to  suppress 
newly-founded  religious  Orders  took  Peter  to  Lyons,  a 
number  of  bishops  who  had  monasteries  of  his  Order  in 
their  dioceses  promptly  declared  that  it  had  been 
suppressed,  and  laid  hands  on  its  property.  However, 
on  his  return  with  a  papal  bull  of  approval,  the  bishops 
"  with  very  great  shame  "  restored  what  they  had  seized, 
and  most  of  them,  moreover,  ceased  to  worry  the  monks 
as  they  had  done  before.  The  bishop  of  Chieti,  however, 
was  an  exception,  and  "  so  persecuted  the  servants  of 
God  "  that,  in  preparation  for  moving  out  of  his  diocese, 
they  sent  elsewhere  their  bells  which  they  had  got  from 

1  Witness  92,  p.  447.     Nich.  III.,  f  Aug.  22,  1280. 

2  Celidonio,  ii,  c.  8,  p.  58  ft.  ;    68  ff.    Cf.  witness  74. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  277 

Venice,  their  books  and  other  property.  When,  however, 
he  was  taken  ill,  he  expressed  his  sorrow  to  Bro.  Peter 
for  the  treatment  he  had  meted  out  to  him  and  his 
monks,  and  by  way  of  satisfaction,  imitated  an  example 
that  had  been  already  set  him,  and  exempted  the 
monasteries  of  the  new  Order  from  episcopal  jurisdiction.1 

Among  others  who,  according  to  the  two  disciples,  (&)  Lay, 
persecuted  the  monastery  and  brothers  of  Faysolis  was 
a  certain  baron,  Simon  of  St.  Angelo.  Originally  the 
quarrel  turned  on  a  question  of  homage  for  property  held 
by  the  Abbey.  Simon  maintained  that  Peter  should 
have  done  homage  to  him  for  it,  whereas,  with  good 
reason,  as  Charles  I.  had  declared  on  appeal,  the  abbot 
had  taken  the  oath  to  the  Justiciar  of  the  Terra  di  Lavoro. 
Abbot  Peter  therefore  appealed  to  Charles,  who,  after 
praising  the  worthy  life  led  by  his  devoted  subject 
(devotus  noster)  Peter  of  Morrone,  took  him  and  his 
monastery  under  his  special  protection  in  order  that  he 
might  be  free  from  molestation  and  at  liberty  to  give 
himself  wholly  to  divine  contemplation.  The  royal 
officials  were  therefore  ordered  to  protect  the  brethren 
who  in  security  would  be  able  to  pray  for  him.2 

But,  as  was  often  the  case  in  those  days,  the  local  baron 
was  more  powerful  than  the  distant  King,  and  Simon 
continued  to  harass  the  monastery.  Unwilling  to  remain 
in  the  midst  of  strife,  Peter  first  of  all  handed  over  the 
care  of  the  abbey  to  another  (Bro.  Philip),  and  then, 
as  his  substitute  was  equally  unable  to  get  effective  aid 
against  Simon,  he  ordered  his  monks  to  leave  Faysolis, 
and  to  betake  themselves  to  the  ruined  abbey  of  St.  John 

1  Nicholas  IV.  in  taking  S.  Spiritus  de  Majella  "in  proprietam  Ap. 
Sedis  "  confirmed  the  exemptions  of  Nicholas  of  Chieti,  etc.  Reg., 
n.  4217  of  Feb.  20,  1291.     Cf.  B.D.,  c.  14. 

2  Ap.  C.  M.  Riccio,  II  regno  di  Carlo  I.  d'Angio,  an.  1278,  Sept.  27  ; 
but  more  documents  from  the  Angevin  Registers,  ap.  Cantera,  I.e., 
p.  23  f. 


278  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

Third  Order,  in  Piano  (Apulia)  which  had  been  offered  to  him.  While 
the  people,  we  are  told,  who  had  profited  spiritually  and 
temporally  by  the  monks  declared  that  they  were 
abandoned  by  God  when  the  monks  left  them,  Simon 
was  delighted.  But  his  joy  was  short-lived,  for  death 
in  turn  soon  after  robbed  him  of  his  life  and  of  his 
ill-gotten  goods.1 

Bro.  Peter  must  also  have  been  kept  much  occupied 
with  a  Fraternity  or  sort  of  "  Third  Order  "  which  he 
established.  This  he  founded  for  those  who  could  not 
take  the  religious  habit,  but  desired  to  be  connected 
with  his  Order.  Its  members  had  to  say  every  day  a 
certain  number  of  Our  Fathers  "  for  the  living  and  for 
the  dead  ",  to  keep  from  grievous  sin,  to  give  alms,  to 
love  each  other,  looking  after  one  another  in  sickness, 
helping  their  poorer  brethren,  and  practising  the  works 
of  mercy  as  far  as  they  could.  This  society  rapidly 
spread  everywhere,  and  in  some  places  soon  counted  a 
thousand  members.2 
Returns  to  jQ  avo^  the  society  of  men  in  order  that  he  might 
Morrone.  the  better  devote  himself  to  communing  with  his  Maker, 
Bro.  Peter  had  retired  from  one  place  to  another  seeking 
out  retreats  where  he  could  not  be  disturbed.  From 
Morrone  he  had  retired  to  the  Majella,  for  on  that  range 
he  had  gone  from  one  remote  spot  to  another.  From 
the  mountain  by  Castel  del  Sangro  where  he  made  his 
first  attempt  to  lead  the  life  of  a  hermit,  he  had  gone  to 
Monte  Palleno,  and  then  Monte  Morrone,  whence  he  took 
his  name.  From  the  last-named  mountain,  he  had  retired 
to  the  more  remote  Majella,  and  in  its  wild  recesses  or 
on  its  slopes  he  had  betaken  himself  to  Faysolis,   to 

1  So  say  the  two  disciples,  B.D.,  cc.  \5b-d,  and  they  add  that, 
"  dicitur,"  he  died  under  sentence  of  excommunication  for  his  treat- 
ment of  their  monastery.  Peter  soon  restored  the  monastery  of  St.  John 
in  Piano,  ib.    Cf.  docs,  in  Cantera,  I.e. 

2  B.D.,  c.  26. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  279 

St.  Giovanni  in  Piano,  to  St.  Bartolomeo  de  Legio,  and 
to  Orfente.  But  though  he  had  a  more  or  less  permanent 
residence  at  one  or  other  of  these  places  on  the  Majella, 
he  had  often  to  leave  them  in  order  to  visit  the  forty 
monasteries  or  houses  he  had  established  in  Rome  and 
elsewhere.1  Finding,  however,  that  the  people  would 
come  to  him,  winter  or  summer,2  wherever  he  went,  he 
decided  to  return  to  Monte  Morrone,  in  order,  says  his 
biographer,  that  they  might  have  more  easy  access  to 
him.  He  caused  a  cell  (St.  Onofrio)  to  be  built  by  a  cave 
on  an  old  fort  (cast rum)  called  Segezanum,  two  miles 
from  Sulmona,  and  half  a  mile  from  the  monastery  of 
the  Holy  Ghost.  When  he  came  to  this  new  abode,  he 
was  received,  we  are  told,  "  like  Christ  come  down  from 
heaven,"  by  the  whole  countryside  (June,  1293).  Here 
he  remained  for  thirteen  months,  till  the  day  he  left  it 
as  Pope  (July,  1294). 3 

1  Celid.,  ii,  58  ff. 

2  One  witness  (n.  128,  p.  324)  said  that  he,  with  other  men  from 
Sulmona,  had  often  in  the  winter  time  cleared  away  the  deep  snow 
from  the  road  so  that  the  people  could  get  to  the  Saint. 

3  B.D.,  cc.  23-5.     Cf.  Cel.,  ii,  88,  108  ff. 


CHAPTER    II 

HIS  ELECTION  ANNOUNCED  TO  BRO.  PETER.  HIS  CON- 
SECRATION AND  CORONATION.  GOES  TO  NAPLES. 
HIS   PONTIFICAL  ACTS. 

Ordinals  When  Brother  Peter  de  Morrone  had  been  duly  elected 
send  envoys  Pope,  the  formal  election  decree  was  at  once  drawn  up 
Pet^r0'  and  si&ned  by  a11  the  cardinals  (July  5,  1294).1    But,  no 

sooner  was  this  done,  and  the  excitement  of  the  extra- 
ordinary moment  had  passed  away,  than  the  cardinals 
began  to  regret  their  impulsiveness.2  This  they  showed, 
according  to  Stefaneschi,  by  sending  to  the  Pope-elect, 
with  their  decree  and  a  letter  asking  his  consent  to  their 
election,  not  one  of  their  own  number,  but  three  bishops 
and  two  notaries.  From  the  letter  which  was  dated 
July  n,  and  signed  by  all  the  cardinals,  we  learn  that 
its  bearers  were  Berald  de  Got,  archbishop  of  Lyons,  the 
bishops  of  Orvieto  and  Patti,  and  the  two  apostolic 
notaries.  It  was  addressed  "  To  the  most  holy  Father, 
and  reverend  Lord,  Brother  Peter  of  Morrone,  of  the 
Order  of  St.  Benedict,  by  Divine  Providence,  bishop- 
elect  of  Rome  and  supreme  Pontiff ".  The  cardinals,  all 
of  whom  signed  the  letter,  after  saying  that  they  kissed 
the  feet  of  the  Pope-elect,  told  him  how  God  had  moved 
them  to  elect  him,  and  they  entreated  him,  in  view  of  the 
needs  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  of  all  the  flock  of  Christ, 
to  consent  to  their  election  of  him.3 


1  Given  in  full,  ap.  Raynaldus,  Annul,  1294,  n.  6  ;  Cantera,  p.  39,  etc. 
It  states  that  he  was  elected  "  nullo  prorsus  discordante  ". 
"  Nam  linquere  dulcem 
Incipiunt  pacem  proceres,  monstrantque  dolere 
Hunc  legisse  virum." 
Stef.,  Op.  Met.,  ii,  c.  3. 

3  Document  in  Raynaldus,  I.e.,  n.  7,  and  Cantera,  p.  41  f. 

280 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  28l 

From  Perugia  the  delegates  of  the  cardinals  made  their  Their 

0  °  journey. 

way  by  Spoleto  and  Terni  to  Rieti.  There,  by  the  pass 
of  the  Velino,  they  entered  what  our  poet  calls  the  "  jaws 
of  the  mountains  "  }  and  made  their  way  over  difficult 
paths  to  Aquila.  Thence  down  the  valley  of  the  Pescara 
they  went  to  Popoli  and  on  to  Sulmona.2  After  their 
wearisome  journey  of  some  one  hundred  and  fifty  miles 
which  must  have  taken  them  about  five  or  six  days,  the 
envoys  must,  with  great  satisfaction,  have  looked  up 
from  the  road  to  the  cell  in  which  dwelt  the  hermit  they 
had  come  to  hail  as  Pope. 

News  of  the  wondrous  event  had,  of  course,  already  ^fjates 
reached  the  whole  neighbourhood,  and  Brother  Peter  flight, 
himself.  Everyone,  say  his  disciples,  was  filled  with 
joy  at  the  news,  except  the  hermit.  He  was  in  despair, 
and  could  not  rid  himself  of  his  distress  day  or  night. 
He  called  together  his  brethren,  and  told  them  that  he 
could  never  accept  the  dignity.  They,  however,  declared 
that  schism  would  follow  if  he  did  not.  "  This  selection," 
they  argued,  "  has  been  brought  about  not  by  you,  but 
by  God.  If  you  refuse  to  accept  it,  you  are  going  against 
the  will  of  God."  "  But  who  am  I,"  he  rejoined,  "  to 
take  up  such  a  burden  and  such  power  ?  I,  who  have 
not  strength  enough  to  save  myself,  how  am  I  to  save 
the  whole  world  ?  " 

He  accordingly  resolved  to  fly  with  a  single  companion, 
and  we  learn  from  Petrarch  that  he  selected  to  accompany 
him  a  young  monk  called  Robert  de  Sala.  But  the 
people  of  the  district,  knowing  his  humility  and  fearing 
he  would  attempt  flight,  watched  him  day  and  night. 
He  could  do  nothing  but  await  the  course  of  events, 


1  "  Cumque  super  strictas  fauces  montanaque  claustra  Transissent, 
etc.     Stef.,  I.e. 

2  "  Populique  domus,  ubi  pinguior  amnis 
Ingreditur  gelidas  vallis  Sulmonis  in  undas."     lb. 


282  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

dreading  on  the  one  hand  to  act  against  the  will  of  God, 
and  on  the  other  to  be  unable  to  benefit  the  Church.1 
Kmgs  of  Meanwhile,    too,   other  important   personages  besides 

Hungary        the  envoys  of  the  cardinals  were  hurrying  to  Sulmona. 
Suimona        ^s  soon  as  Charles  II.  heard  that  a  subject  of  his,  one 
already  bound  to  him  by  ties  of  gratitude,   had  been 
elected  Pope,  he  named  one  of  his  sons,  Philip,  Prince  of 
Taranto,  Vicar  of  the  kingdom,  and,  with  his  eldest  son, 
Charles  Martel,  hastened  to  the  Abruzzi  in  order  to  put 
immediate  pressure  on  the  new  Pope.2 
Envoys  and       Meeting   in   Sulmona,   the   Kings   and   the   cardinals' 
Peter.  envoys  together  made  their  way  up  the  steep  slopes  of 

Monte  Morrone  to  Peter's  cell.  The  mountain  rises  to 
the  height  of  some  six  thousand  feet,  and  well  over  a 
thousand  feet  up  its  seared  and  stern  looking  face, 
whose  wrinkled  brow  bears  even  to  the  end  of  May  3  the 
remains  of  the  winter's  snows,  brother  Peter  had  found 
in  the  soft  rock  a  cave  close  by  a  well  of  water.  Hard  by 
he  had  caused  a  little  cell  of  stone  to  be  built  on  a  narrow 
ledge  of  rock  on  one  side  of  which  was  a  steep  precipice. 
Here,  where  in  the  summer  no  sound  is  heard  but  the 
scream  of  the  hawk,  and  in  the  winter  none  but  the  howl 
of  the  wolf,  he  had  already  lived  for  more  than  a  year, 
when  he  was  called  to  his  iron-grated  window  to  receive 
kings  and  bishops. 

Whilst,  with  the  sweat  pouring  from  them,  the  kings 

1  B.D.,  c.  28.  "  Timebat  enim  Dei  voluntati  contraire,  timebatque, 
si  reciperet,  quod  non  prodesset  Ecclesiae  Dei,  sicut  omnes  credebant." 
Cf.  Petrarch,  De  vita  solit.,  ii,  sect,  iii,  c.  18,  who  has  much  to  say  in 
Robert's  praise.  Telera,  in  his  life  of  R.  di  Salla,  says  that  when 
Celestine  afterwards  begged  him  to  accompany  him  as  Pope,  he  replied 
that  he  was  ready  to  follow  the  footsteps  of  Peter  of  Morrone,  but  not 
those  of  Celestine  V.     Historie  de  Celestini,  p.  219,  Bologna,  1648. 

2  See  the  Angevin  Registers,  n.  60  (1292  C),  ff.  208,  242;  and  n.  66 
(1294  C),  ff.  23  a  tergo,  66  a  tergo,  etc.  ;  and  n.  185  (1309  B.).  f.  26, 
cited  by  Cantera,  pp.  42-3. 

3  When  I  visited  it  in  1923. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  283 

and  envoys  were  toiling  up  the  narrow  track  which  led 
to  the  hermit's  cell,1  they  were  joined  by  cardinal 
Peter  Colonna.  He  had  come,  says  Stefaneschi,  quite 
on  his  own  account,  merely  to  curry  favour.2 

It  is  not  difficult  to  imagine  the  curiosity  with  which 
Colonna  and  the  delegates  peered  through  the  window 
of  the  little  cell  to  see  what  sort  of  a  man  was  the  new 
Pope,  or  their  wonder  at  what  they  saw.  Behind  the 
bars  stood  a  man  evidently  of  very  great  age,  seemingly 
dazed  at  the  sight  of  the  dignified  throng  before  him,  and 
by  the  knowledge  of  the  errand  on  which  they  had  come. 
Bearded  was  he,  and  pale,  with  cheeks  and  limbs 
emaciated  by  long  fasts,  and  with  the  lids  of  his  dark 
eyes  swollen  with  much  weeping.  Yet  with  all  this, 
and  with  his  stiff  coarse  garments,  he  was  venerable 
withal ;  for  his  form  and  features,  dress  and  dwelling, 
all  bespoke  the  Saint.3 

Uncovering  their  heads,  all  present  bent  their  knees  Brother 
before  the  pious  recluse,  while  he  in  turn  bowed  down  to  accepts  the 
the  earth  before  his  visitors.      Then  the  archbishop  of  PaPacy- 
Lyons  told  him  that  he  had  been  unanimously  elected 


1  Stef.,   Vita.,  ii,  c.  4.     "  Fusa  per  artus  Unda  fuit  gravitate  vie." 

2  One  MS.  of  Stef.  has  a  more  severe  verse  about  him  than  the  others. 
It  runs  :  "  Sed  gravi  cupiens  proprio  captare  favorem."  The  same 
version  adds  what  is  very  unlikely,  and  that  is  that  brother  Peter  was 
at  first  disposed  not  to  receive  the  forward  cardinal. 

3  Such  is  the  description  of  the  Saint  as  given  us  by  Stefaneschi, 
who  saw  him.  Other  descriptions  given  us  by  some  modern  writers 
have  no  other  foundation  than  that  of  their  imaginations. 

"  Grandevum  videre  senem  .   .   . 

Attonitum  tantave  super  novitate  morantem, 
Hirsutum  barba,  mestum  pallore  figura 
Atque  genis  maciem  jejunaque  membra  ferentem, 
Sed  tumidum  lacrimis  oculi  velamina  nigri 
Palpebras,  rigidum  toga,  vultuque  verendum. 
Nam  domus  et  facies,  habitus  gestusque  beatum 
Demonstrant." 
Stef.,  Vita,  ii,  c.  5. 


284  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

Pope,  handed  him  the  decree  of  election,  and  implored 
him  to  undertake  the  ruling  of  the  Church.  After  cardinal 
Colonna  had  added  a  few  words  of  his  own,1  brother 
Peter,  receiving  the  election  decree,  begged  the  delegates 
to  add  their  prayers  to  his  that  God  would  enlighten 
him  as  to  what  reply  he  should  make.  For  a  time  he 
prayed  prostrate  on  the  ground,  and  then  quietly  told 
his  hearers  that  he  bowed  to  the  wishes  of  the  Sacred 
College  and  accepted  the  dignity  of  the  Papacy.  For  the 
sake  of  his  own  peace  of  mind,  he  concluded,  he  would 
not  allow  the  Church  of  Rome  to  suffer  further  wrongs.2 
Straightway  the  assembled  company  hailed  him  as 
Pope,  kissed  the  hairy  buskins  (chiffonibus  vilosis) 3  which 
encased  his  feet,  and  received  in  turn  the  kiss  of  peace. 
Meanwhile  the  mountain  was  alive  with  people  swarming 
up  its  steep  sides  to  gaze  on  the  new  Pope.  Toiling  up 
the  steep  slopes  under  the  blazing  July  sun  might  be 
seen  bishops  and  clergy,  nobles  and  peasants,  including 
our  poet  himself,  "  with  perspiration  pouring  from  his 
face  and  every  limb."  Among  those  who  then  "  adored  " 
the  new  Pope  were  the  King  of  Naples  and  his  son,  Charles 
Martel,  whom  Stefaneschi  describes  as  bright  of  face, 
with  curly  golden  hair,  and  with  the  velvety  down  of 
youth  on  his  smooth  white  cheeks.4 
The  new  Jo  be  more  accessible  to  the  crowds  who  flocked  to 

Aquila  and    see  him,  the  new  Pope  left  his  cell,  and  came  down  the 
w>tnetn°ndS   mounta-in  to  the  monastery  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  he 

cardinals. 

1  lb.  In  his  brief  commentary  on  his  own  poem,  Stefaneschi  adds 
that  cardinal  Peter  spoke  simply  on  his  own  account,  "  quia  a  se,  non 
ex  parte  Collegii  loquebatur." 

2  lb.,  c.  6.  Even  Gregorovius,  Rome,  v,  pt.  ii,  p.  520  f.,  is  disposed 
to  admire  "the  courageous  acceptance  of  the  Saint",  and  to  believe 
it  probable  that  he  acted  from  "a  sense  of  duty". 

3  lb.  Such  as  may  still  at  times  be  seen  covering  the  feet  and  legs 
of  an  Italian  peasant. 

4  lb.  Cf.  also  B.D.,  cc.  28-9.  "  Reges  Sicilian  et  Ungariae  .  .  . 
electum  .  .  .  depositis  coronis  regalibus,  adoraverunt." 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  285 

had  himself  rebuilt.1  There  he  remained  a  few  days, 
and  then  prepared  to  leave  it,  in  order  to  be  consecrated 
and  crowned.  To  judge  from  the  narrative  of  his  disciples, 
he  had  naturally  thought  of  going  to  Rome  to  be 
enthroned.2  But  that  was  not  to  the  mind  of  Charles  II., 
and  perhaps  it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  mind 
of  the  King  should  impress  itself  on  that  of  the  new  Pope. 
If  brother  Peter  was  never  "the  keeper  of  the  King's 
conscience  ",3  he  was  very  friendly  with  him,4  and  must 
have  been  very  well  disposed  towards  him  for  what, 
certainly  up  to  this,  had  been  his  disinterested  kindness 
to  him,  and  interest  in  his  Order.  At  any  rate,  Stefaneschi 
assures  us,  and  subsequent  events  seem  clearly  to  prove 
that,  in  his  utter  ignorance  of  the  ways  of  the  world  and 
of  affairs  of  state,  he  put  himself  completely  in  the  hands 
of  King  Charles  and  his  lay  lawyers.5  The  members  of 
his  Order,  too,  did  the  same,  as  they  feared  that,  if  power 
again  came  into  the  hands  of  the  College  of  Cardinals, 
they  would  suppress  them.  Accordingly,  both  the  King 
and  the  monks  persuaded  the  Pope  that  at  his  age  he 
could  not  in  the  summer  journey  to  Rome  or  Perugia, 
and  that  he  should  be  consecrated  at  Aquila  instead. 
A  letter,  therefore,  to  that  effect  was  dispatched  to  the 
cardinals.6 

Without  waiting  for  the  cardinals'  reply  to  his  letter, 
the    Pope    decided    to    go    to    Aquila.     King  Charles, 

1  lb. 

2  "  Ibi  (in  the  monastery)  aliquot  peractis  diebus,  arripuit  iter,  ut 
Romam   pergeret  .   .   .  mantum   apostolicum  suscepturus."     C.    29. 

3  Geoffroy  de  Courlon,  Chron.,  p.  580,  tells  us  that  it  was  said  that 
bro.  P.  "  suam  (the  King's)  conscienciam  audiebat." 

4  lb. 

5  Vita.,  iii,  c.   1. 

"  (Ex)  quo  factum  est,  ut  sibi  magni 
Crederet  hie  laicos,  quos  juris  in  arte  peritos 
Prudentesve  ratus." 

6  lb. 


286  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

accordingly,  sent  word  to  the  Justiciar  of  the  Abruzzi 
that  the  Pope  and  he  were  about  to  proceed  to  that  city, 
and  that,  therefore,  especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
people  would  crowd  to  it  from  every  quarter  to  see  the 
new  Pope,  he  must  look  to  it  that  there  was  an  abundant 
supply  of  the  necessaries  of  life.1 

Despite  the  protests  of  the  two  kings  and  the  great 
ones  in  the  Church  and  State  "  who  take  delight  in  fine 
horses  ",  the  Pope  insisted  on  riding  on  an  ass.  Some 
regarded  such  an  act  as  derogatory  to  the  Papacy,  and 
even  Stefaneschi  thought  it  would  have  been  better  had 
he,  in  humble  spirit,  ridden  a  horse,  though  at  the  same 
time  he  believed  that  a  profitable  example  had  been 
thereby  given  to  some  of  the  clergy.2 

At  any  rate,  the  Pope  had  his  own  way,  and  left  Sulmona 

on  the  25th  or  26th   of  July.     Passing  by   Popoli,  he 

entered  Aquila  on  the  27th,  with  a  King  on  each  side 

of    him    leading    his    ass,    and    accompanied    by   three 

cardinals,   "  counts,  barons,  and  a  countless  number  of 

people."  3 

The  A  reply  to  his  letter  now  reached  him  from  the  cardinals 

the  Pope  to  at  Perugia.    They  had  already  sent  a  letter  which  crossed 

come  to         fa^t  0f  ^e  p0pe.     In  it  they  had  begged  him  to  come 

Perugia  or  to  r  J  °° 

papal  to  them,  as  it  would  furnish  a  bad  precedent  if  a  Pope 

territory. 

1  See  his  Reg.,  1294,  M.  fol.  232  t.,  ap.  M.  Riccio,  Studii  sopra  84  Reg. 
Ang.,  p.  47,  Naples,  1876.  See  other  similar  mandates  of  July  22-5, 
ap.  Cantera,  p.  45. 

2  B.D.,  c.  29  ;    Stef.,  Vita,  iii,  c.  2,  and  commentary,  p.  59. 

3  B.D.,  and  Stef.,  II. cc,  and  documents  in  Cantera,  p.  46,  for  the 
dates.  The  disciples  speak  of  the  cardinals,  "  qui  praevenerant  alios," 
and  from  Stefaneschi  we  learn  that  two  others,  the  Dominican  Hugh 
Seguin  and  Napoleon  Orsini,  had  imitated  the  example  of  Peter  and 
come  :  "  Non  missos  gravitate  patrum  sed  sponte  ruentes  "  (iii,  c.  4). 
Ptolemy  of  Lucca,  however,  in  place  of  Orsini,  gives  the  other  Colonna, 
James  (Annales,  ap.  R.  I.  SS.,  xi,  p.  1300).  Ptolemy  is  probably 
correct.  It  was  perhaps  this  conduct  of  the  two  Colonnas  that  helped 
to  turn  Gaetani  (Boniface  VIII.)  against  them. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  287 

were  consecrated  at  a  distance  from  the  cardinals.  Then 
there  were  the  expenses  and  inconveniences  of  a  summer 
journey  and  places  unsuitable  for  their  residence  to  be 
considered,  besides  other  powerful  reasons  which  they 
thought  advisable  not  to  specify.  When,  however,  the 
Pope's  letter  reached  them,  they  realized  that  they  would 
have  to  speak  plainly.  In  their  answer,  therefore,  to  his 
letter,  they  pointed  out  that  it  was  not  desirable  for  the 
Roman  Curia  to  go  into  the  kingdom  of  Naples.  Pope 
Martin  IV.  had  refused  to  go  to  help  King  Charles  I.  when 
the  Aragonese  had  seized  Sicily.  Then,  when  they  had 
repeated  their  previous  arguments  about  expense  and 
trouble  for  so  many  of  them  to  go  to  Aquila,  they  pointed 
out  that  he  could  come  to  them  by  slow  stages  in  a  closed 
litter,  and  begged  him  not  to  give  ear  to  men  who  were 
working  simply  for  their  own  ends.1  Further,  the  bishop 
of  Orvieto,  in  the  name  of  the  cardinals,  begged  the  Pope 
to  come  at  least  into  papal  territory  if  the  journey  to 
Perugia  was  too  much  for  him.  Finally,  as  a  last  resort, 
the  cardinals  even  besought  the  King,  by  all  that  he  and 
his  father  owed  to  the  Holy  See,  to  support  their  petition. 

Deceived,  however,  by  those  around  him  in  whom  he  The  new 
placed  his  trust,  the  simple  Pope  would  not  listen  to  UnfortSnate 
the  cardinals'  reasons,  but  renewed  his  declaration  that  appoint- 
he   would   be    crowned    at    Aquila,    and    requested    the 
cardinals  to  send  him  the  papal  insignia.2     Meanwhile, 
too,  the  new  Pope  showed  his  simplicity  still  further  by 
appointing,  contrary  to  custom,  a  lay  notary,  and  one, 
moreover,  attached   to   the    chancellary   of    Charles    II. 
This  was  Bartholomew  of  Capua,3  whose  name  figures 
so    frequently    in    the    Angevin    archives    as    Counsellor 

1  Stef.,  Vita,  iii,  c.  iii. 

"  Suberunt  que  scripsimus  olim 
Exemplum,  mores,  grave  damnum  murmur  egestas." 

2  lb.,  c.  4-5. 

3  lb.,  c.  2. 


288 


ST.    CELESTINE    V. 


Death  of 

cardinal 

Latinus. 


Peter  takes 
the  name  of 
Celestine. 


and  Protonotary  of  the  Kingdom  of  Sicily.1  Charles 
might  well,  after  stating  that  Bartholomew  had  been 
made  a  papal  notary,  add  that  he  would  be  as  useful — 
even  more  useful — to  him  in  the  future  than  he  had  been 
in  the  past.2  Moreover,  in  naming  the  archbishop  of 
Benevento,  John  of  Castrocceli,  a  mere  worldling,  his 
vice-chancellor,  the  confiding  Pontiff  made  perhaps  a  still 
greater  mistake.3 

At  this  juncture  died  Latinus,  the  worthy  cardinal  of 
Ostia,  who  had  been  mainly  instrumental  in  bringing 
about  the  election  of  brother  Peter.  He  was  spared  the 
sight  of  the  troubles  which  directly  and  indirectly  it 
brought  on  the  Church.  As  it  was  the  bishop  of  Ostia 
who  had  to  take  the  most  important  part  in  the  instalment 
of  a  Pope,  Peter  ordered  the  archbishop  of  Benevento 
to  consecrate  the  Dominican  Hugh,  one  of  the  three 
cardinals  who  had  already  come  to  him,  as  bishop  in 
place  of  Latinus.4 

As  soon  as  the  red  mantle  and  the  other  papal  insignia 
reached  Aquila,  they  were  conferred  by  cardinal  Orsini 
on  the  new  Pope,  who  thereupon  took  the  name  of 
Celestine.  Clad  now  in  all  the  state  that  became  his 
high  office,  he  received  the  solemn  homage  of  bishops 
and  clergy,  kings  and  nobles,  and  imparted  over  and 
over  again  his  solemn  benediction  to  the  assembled 
people.5 


1  E.g.,  M.  Riccio,  Delia  dominazione  Angioma,  p.  36. 

2  Naples,  Archivio  di  Stato,  Angio.  Reg.,  68,  f.  117,  cited  by  Seppelt 
in  his  notes  to  this  passage  of  Stefaneschi. 

3  Stef.,  I.e., 

4  lb.,  c.  5.     Cf.  Ptolemy  of  L.,  H.E.,  xxiv,  c.  30. 

5  Stef.,  I.e.,  Hi,  5. 

"  Subjecta  pedum  dant  oscula  proni 
Pontifices,  reges,  clerus,  comites  proceresque." 
Cf.  Ptolemy,  I.e.,  c.  31,  who  tells  he  was  present  and  saw  how  the  shouts 
of  the  people  for  his  blessing  brought  the  Pope  to  the  window  over  and 
over  again. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V. 


The 


Realizing  at  last  that  their  well-founded  objections  to  ^ 
the  Pope's  being  consecrated  outside  his  own  realm  had  come  to 
made  no  impression  on  the  untutored  mind  of  Celestine,  ^estinete 
the  cardinals  made  a  virtue  of  necessity  and  came  as  they  consecrated, 
feared  "  into  the  great  dangers  "  of  Aquila.1     The  last 
to  arrive  was  cardinal  Gaetani.     He  had  at  first  hesitated 
to  come,  as  he  knew  that  his  free  speech  at  Perugia  had 
offended   King   Charles.      By  his   address,   however,   he 
soon,  at  least,  pacified  the  King,  and  gained  that  out- 
standing position  in  the  Curia  which  had  been  previously 
held  by  the  three  cardinals  who  had  first  come  to  Celestine. 
They  had  become  "  lords  of  the  Curia  "  (domini  curiae)  ; 
but  when  Gaetani  came,  it  was  he  who  was  promptly 
looked  up  to  "  as  the  lord  of  the  Curia  ".2 

In  the  course  of  the  eighties  of  this  thirteenth  century, 
brother  Peter  had  entirely  rebuilt  the  Church  of  our 
Lady  of  Collemaggio  about  half  a  mile  from  the  city  of 
Aquila.3  This  great  church,  whence  one  sees  to  the 
north  the  Gran  Sasso  d'ltalia  with  its  two  peaks,  and 
to  the  East  Monte  Morrone  with  the  Majella  behind  it, 
though  much  damaged  by  earthquakes,  still  presents  a 
noble  appearance.  Especially  is  this  the  case  when  the 
sun  illumines  the  rich  red  and  yellow  stone  of  which 
its  facade  is  composed,  and  throws  up  into  relief  its 
dainty  twisted  columns  and  the  delicately  carved  foliage 
with  which  they  are  adorned. 

In  and  around  this  Church  on  the  Feast  of  the  beheading 
of  St.  John  the  Baptist  (Aug.  29)  in  the  year  1294  stood 
some  two  hundred  thousand  people  of  whom  Ptolemy  of 

1  lb.,  c.  6. 

2  Cf.  Ptolemy,  I.e.,  and  his  Annates,  p.  1300.  In  the  first  passage 
we  read  :  "  Venit  (Benedict  Gaetani)  ultimo,  et  sic  scivit  deducere 
sua  negotia  quod   f actus  est  quasi  Dominus  Curiae." 

3  See  the  rescript  of  bp.  Nicholas  (Oct.  6,  1287)  exempting  the  new 
church,  then  near  completion,  from  episcopal  jurisdiction.  Ap.  Reg. 
Nicholas  IV.,  n.  4217,  or  ap.  Muratori,  Antiq.  Hal.,  vi,  p.  943  n.  Cf. 
Celidonio,  ii,  pp.  74  and  84  f. 

Vol.  XVII.  u 


290  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

Lucca  was  one.1  They  had  come  from  every  hill  town 
to  this  solitary  little  plateau  to  see  their  well-beloved 
saint  and  countryman  raised  to  the  highest  throne  on 
earth.  It  was,  says  Stefaneschi,  the  new  bishop,  Hugh 
of  Ostia,  who  poured  upon  the  head  of  the  Saint  the  oil 
of  episcopal  consecration,  and  the  first  of  the  deacons, 
Matteo  Rosso,  who  bestowed  on  him  the  pallium  of  white 
wool,  and  placed  the  glittering  crown  upon  his  head. 
After  the  ceremony  in  the  Church,  Celestine  mounted  a 
platform  which  had  been  erected  outside  it  from  which 
he  could  give  his  blessing  to  the  expectant  thousands. 
Thence,  this  time  on  a  white  horse,  he  returned  amidst 
the  joyous  acclamations  of  the  multitude  to  the  city, 
in  order  to  hold  the  traditional  banquet.2 
Celestine  As  Celestine  in  his  new  surroundings  continued,  as  far 

continues  to  ,  _  ° 

lead  his  as  possible,  to  lead  his  old  style  of  life,3  we  may  be  sure 
simp  e  i  e.  ^at  ]3anqUe^s  were  not  to  his  liking.  A  contemporary 
poet,  Francesco  da  Baberino,  a  man  in  his  day  (1264-1348) 
well  known  in  royal  courts,  lets  us  know  of  what 
magnificence  were  Celestine's  ordinary  banquets.  He 
tells  us  that  he  saw  him  walking  about  in  his  room 
munching  a  piece  of  dry  bread  whilst  a  monk  from  a 
little  pitcher  of  wine  gave  him  to  drink.  And  he  heard 
him  say,  as  his  mother  had  been  wont  to  tell  him,  that 


1  H.E.,  xxiv,  29.     "  Et  ego  interfui." 

2  Stef.,  I.e.,  c.  6.  He  adds  that  he  had  described  this  coronation 
ceremony  but  briefly,  because  he  intended  to  describe  that  "  of  his 
holy  successor  "  at  length,  not  to  gain  any  kind  of  favour,  but  because 
a  coronation  in  Rome  was  naturally  a  more  splendid  affair.  We  have 
seen  that  he  carried  out  his  intention.  Cf.  Celestine's  ep.  of  Sept.  29, 
ap.  Raynaldus,  Ann.,  1294,  n.  13,  and  the  Angevin  Archives  (e.g., 
Reg.  1345-6  U.  fol.  160,  ap.  Notizie  storiche  of  M.  Riccio,  p.  22)  for 
notices  of  an  annual  grant  of  money  to  the  Church  of  St.  Maria  "  because 
Pope  C.  was  crowned  there  ",  or,  ap.  ib.,  p.  48,  "  out  of  reverence  for 
Blessed  Teter  of  Majella  whose  body  is  buried  there."  Other  references 
in  Cantera,  p.  50,  n. 

3  B.D.,  cc.   29,  34. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  2C;I 

eating  and  drinking  in  that  manner  was  the  most  enjoyable 
(sapidius)  way  in  the  world  to  eat  and  drink. 

He  was  also  wont  to  say  to  his  monks  :  But  for  you 
I  would  not  be  Pope.  Asked  why,  he  replied  :  It  is  a 
greater  annoyance  to  me  to  command  than  it  was  a 
pleasure  to  do  everything  for  myself.1 

A  few  days  after  his  consecration,  Celestine  announced  Announces 
his  election  to  the  Catholic  world,  writing  among  others 
to  our  King  Edward .  After  emphatically  calling  attention 
to  the  inscrutable  ways  of  God,  and  to  the  unfortunate 
delay  in  the  election  of  a  successor  to  Nicholas  IV.,  he 
told  how  the  cardinals  were  suddenly  moved  to  elect  him. 
Although  he  knew  that  the  burden  that  had  been  put  upon 
him  was  far  too  heavy  for  his  weak  shoulders,  especially 
as  for  a  very  great  length  of  time  (longissimis  temporibus) 
he  had  been  leading  the  life  of  a  hermit,  he  had  accepted 
it,  as  he  knew  that  a  longer  vacancy  of  the  Holy  See 
would  be  most  detrimental  to  the  Church,  and  as  he 
feared  to  resist  the  call  of  God.  He  trusted  that  the 
Almighty  would  help  his  inexperience.  Meanwhile  he 
urged  Edward  to  reign  with  justice,  and  to  work  for 
the  peace  of  his  people  and  of  surrounding  nations, 
promising  him  that  he  would  do  all  he  could  to  promote 
his  interests.2 

Among  the  many  letters  of  congratulation  which  the  Letter  of 
new  Pope  received  one  has  come  down  to  us.     It  was  ti^fromthe 

archbp.  of 
York. 

1  Cf.  A.  Thomas,  F.  da  B.  et  la  Htterature  Provengale  en  Italie,  p.  181  f., 

Paris,  1883.  Cf.  p.  14.  The  quotation  is  from  F.  da  B's  Document 
Amoris,  fo.  26b.  F.  da  B.  does  not  actually  give  the  Pope's  name, 
but  it  is  clear  to  whom  he  refers.  He  tells  us,  further,  that  he  came 
from  a  humble  station  in  life  (vilis  status)  and  that  he  had  neither  been 
in  the  household  of  any  distinguished  person,  nor  had  ever  himself 
been  waited  on.  He  tells  also  of  others  as  uncultivated  as  himself 
(rudes)  who  served  him  in  their  own  rough  manner. 

2  Ep.  of  Sept.  3,  1294,  ap.  Rymer,  ii,  p.  654.  Cf.  Potthast,  nn. 
23958,  and  23969,  to  the  archbishop  of  Ravenna,  the  Duke  of 
Austria,  etc. 


292  ST.     CELESTINE    V. 

sent  by  Romanus,  archbishop  of  York,  a  man  who  had 
been  in  favour  with  five  Popes  from  Innocent  IV.  to 
Nicholas  IV.  Addressing  his  father  and  lord  in  Christ, 
subscribing  himself  the  Pope's  lowly  servant,  and  pro- 
fessing his  complete  subjection  to  him,1  he  told  him  how 
the  Church  at  large  was  rejoicing  at  the  close  of  the  long 
vacancy  of  the  chief  See,  and  how  much  that  joy  was 
shared  by  the  Church  of  York,  directly  dependent  as 
it  was  on  the  Roman  Church.2  Praying  God  to  grant 
the  Pope  a  long  and  happy  life,  he  begged  him  to  give 
a  favourable  reception  to  his  proctors, 
injudicious        Unfortunately,   as  a  rule,   neither  one's  own  prayers 

acts  of  the 

new  Pope,  nor  those  of  others  will  make  up  for  want  of  training, 
and  Celestine  had  had  no  manner  of  education  for  the 
post  he  was  called  upon  to  fill.  Despite  anything  that 
could  be  done  by  Gaetani  and  the  more  serious  and 
conscientious  of  his  official  advisers,  Celestine  was  misled 
by  his  monks,  more  well-meaning  than  well-informed, 
and  deliberately  deceived  by  many  who  were  bent  solely 
on  advancing  their  own  interests  by  any  means.3  With 
the  place  and  favour  seekers,  with  the  benefice  hunters, 
and   with   all  that    tribe,    many   officials   of   the   papal 


1  "  Servulus  suus  .  .  .  cum  recommendatione  devota,  et  subjectione 
omnimoda,  humillima. 

2  Ep.  of  Nov.  11,  1294,  ap.  Letters  from  North.  Registers,  p.  108, 
R.  S.  "  llujus  autem  solatii  Ebor.  ecclesia  .  .  .  parte  non  caret 
praecipua,  propter  immediationem  praesertim,  quia  S.  R.  ecclesiae, 
cujus  noscitur  decorata  patronis,  nullo  medio  est  subjecta."  This 
letter  is  not  reprinted  in  the  Surtees  ed.  of  the  Register  of  R.,  but  it  is 
there  noted  that  the  impossible  reading  "  parochia  quod  "  of  the 
R.  S.  ed.  should  be  "  persona  que  "  which  makes  sense  (p.  174). 
Cf.  Reg.  of  R.,  p.  173,  for  his  letter  introducing  his  proctors  to  the 
Pope  and  the  cardinals. 

3  A  report  on  Celestine's  resignation,  evidently  sent  by  some  English 
agent  of  the  Curia,  and  printed  in  the  Register  of  John  de  Halton  (thence 
in  Letters  from  North  Reg.,  p.  109  ff.),  p.  30  fl,  London,  1913,  sets  down 
as  the  worst  offenders  "  quidam  cardinales,  non  habentes  conscientiam, 
decipiebant  enim   quotidie  ". 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  293 

chancellery  co-operated  for  gain.  They  sold  documents 
drawn  up  in  due  form  and  sealed  which  could  be  filled 
in  as  the  purchasers  desired.1  Although  this  last  fact 
is  not  mentioned  by  the  Saint's  disciple,  he  does  tell  us 
that  "  cardinals  and  prelates  .  .  .  kings  and  magnates 
began  to  ask  the  Pope  for  benefices  and  fiefs  (beneficia) , 
churches,  and  prebends.  And  he,  inasmuch  as  he  was 
simple  and  straight,  generously  granted  all  their  requests  ".2 
The  more  spiritually  minded,  such  as  many  of  his  monks 
and  the  people  generally,  sought  spiritual  favours.  It 
was  noised  abroad  that  he  had  granted  a  plenary 
indulgence  to  all  who  had  assisted  at  his  consecration. 
Accordingly  crowds  flocked  to  Aquila  from  all  parts, 
anxious  "  to  drink  from  the  fountain  "  of  mercy  which 
Celestine  had  caused  to  flow,  and  so  "on  the  octave  of 
his  coronation  he  granted  a  similar  indulgence  ".3  Then, 
adds  his  disciple,  when  he  reflected  how  the  rich  ceased 
not  to  beg  from  him  temporal  goods,  he  bethought  him 
how  he  might  grant  spiritual  goods  to  the  poor.  He, 
therefore,  granted  a  plenary  indulgence  to  all  who  should 
visit  the  Church  of  St.  Maria  di  Collemaggio  on  the  feast 
of  the  Beheading  of  St.  John  the  Baptist. 4    This  indulgence 

1  "  Inventa?  fuerunt  plures  literae  albae  sine  scriptura  buUatae." 
lb.  Cf.  Ptol.  of  L.,  H.E.,  xxiv,  c.  31  ;  Stefaneschi,  iii,  cc.  7  and  10, 
and  De  coron.  Bonif.,  i,  c.  4  ;  and  decrees  of  Boniface  VIII.  of  Dec.  27, 
1294  (ap.  Bart,  of  C,  Hist.,  p.  258,  R.  S.),  and  Apr.  8,  1295,  ap.  Reg., 
n.  770,  ed.  Thomas. 

2  B.D.,  c.  30.  Of  the  first  importance  in  connection  with  the  hopeless 
doings  of  Celestine,  is  the  evidence  of  the  saintly  and  learned  con- 
temporary author  of  the  Golden  Legend,  the  archbishop  of  Genoa, 
James  "  de  Voragine  "  (Varazzo)  in  his  Chronicle  of  Genoa  (ap.  R.  I.  SS., 
ix,  p.  54).  "  Dabat  etiam  dignitates,  praelaturas,  ofheia,  et  beneficia, 
in  quibus  non  sequebatur  Curiae  consuetudinem,  sed  potius  quorumdam 
suggestionem  et  suam  rudem  simplicitatem.  (These  acts)  in  magnum 
Ecclesiae  praejudicium  redundabant." 

3  B.D.,  c.  30. 

4  lb.,  c.  31.  The  grant  is  thus  expressed  :  "  In  ecclesia  .  .  .  S.  M. 
de  Collemadio  talem  indugentiam  posuit,  ut  quicumque  poenitens  et 
confessus  in  Decollatione  S.  J.  Baptistae  ad  eandem  ecclesiam  annuatim 


294  ST-    CELESTINE    V. 

never  became  operative,  as  it  was  revoked  by  Boniface, 
who  ordered  the  Celestines  to  hand  over  to  him  the 
bull  granting  it.1  In  a  word,  to  cite  the  conclusion  of  the 
famous  contemporary  canonist,  Joannes  Andreas,  "  He 
acted  like  an  animal  that  lacks  the  light  of  reason  (unum 
pecus).  He  would  grant  a  favour  in  the  morning,  and 
in  the  evening  recall  it,  and  grant  it  to  another."  2 

By  degrees  it  must  have  filtered  into  the  mind  even  of 
such  a  simple  soul  as  Celestine  that  this  wholesale  con- 
cession of  favours  of  every  kind  could  not  be  quite  in 
order.  Before  he  resigned,  this  had  become  clear  to  him, 
and  so,  on  the  day  of  his  resignation,  he  told  the  assembled 
cardinals  that  "  of  the  many  things  he  had  done,  he  would 
like  to  undo  those  that  he  had  not  done  well,  but  that, 
as  he  could  not  be  sure  which  those  were,  he  left  it  to 
his  successor  to  decide  the  question."  3 
Creation  of  Another  disastrously  unwise  act  was  his  creation  of 
Sept.  18.'  cardinals.4  He  did  well  in  creating  cardinals  and  in 
creating  twelve  at  once.  Indeed,  he  would  have  done 
better  if  he  had  created  four  or  five  times  that  number. 
But  circumstances  spoilt  his  otherwise  useful  act. 
Celestine's  disciple  tells  us  that  he  made  the  new  cardinals 

veniret,  a  culpa  et  a  poena  a  baptismo  absolutus  esset."  Cf.  Potthast, 
23981.  See  also  ib.,  23975  and  23977  for  his  extravagant  grants  of 
indulgences  (2,000  years,  etc.)  to  his  monastery  of  St.  Spirito  near 
Sulmona,  and  ib.,  24040  and  24724  for  the  way  in  which  they  were 
curtailed  by  Boniface  VIII.  From  n.  23976  we  see  that  C.  freed  it, 
along  with  all  the  other  monasteries  of  his  Order,  from  all  episcopal 
jurisdiction.     Cf.  Cod.  Dip.  Sulrn.,  nn.  91-4,  p.  115  ff. 

1  Reg.  Bon.   VIII.,  n.  815. 

2  Quoted  by  Thurston,  The  Holy  Year  of  Jubilee,  p.  8,  n. 

3  The  English  report  just  cited  :  "  Sed  successori  meo  relinquo  ut 
super  hoc  faciat  suae  beneplacitum  voluntatis."  P.  109.  This  little  or 
wholly  unused  document  is  one  of  those  that  show  how  unfairly  the 
actions  of  the  great  Pope  Boniface  have  been  judged. 

4  From  Rishanger,  p.  144,  and  Nich.  Trivet,  p.  332,  we  learn  that 
the  creation  was  in  the  month  of  September  ;  and  from  B.D.,  c.  32, 
that  it  was  in  Ember  week. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  295 

because  the  Church  was  not  well  served  (disposita)  by 
the  existing  ones,  and  that  those  he  created  were  among 
the  best  men  that  were  to  be  found.  He  does  not, 
however,  tell  us  what  other  historians  do,  i.e.,  that  they 
were  chosen  for  him,  for  the  most  part  at  least,  by  King 
Charles.1  But  even  if  other  contemporaries  had  been 
as  silent  on  the  subject  as  Celestine's  disciple,  the  list 
of  the  new  cardinals'  names  would  have  spoken  for  itself. 
Seven  out  of  the  twelve  of  them  were  Frenchmen,  and, 
of  the  five  Italians,  two  of  them,  Peter  of  Aquila  and 
William  dei  Longhi,  were  in  Charles'  service,  being  his 
counsellor  and  chancellor  respectively,  and  the  remaining 
three  were  his  subjects.  Two  of  these  three,  Thomas 
of  Ocra  and  Francesco  Ronci,  belonged  to  the  Pope's 
Order,  and  the  third,  Landulf  Brancaccio,  was  a  native 
of  Naples.  The  seven  Frenchmen  were  Simon  de  Beaulieu, 
archbishop  of  Bourges  (bp.  of  Praeneste),  Berard  de  Got, 
archbishop  of  Lyons  (bp.  of  Albano),  Jean  le  Moine, 
bishop-elect  of  Arras  (SS.  Marcellinus  and  Peter),  William 
of  Ferrier  (S.  Clemente),  Nicholas  de  Nonancour 
(St.  Marcellus),  Robert,  abbot  of  Pontigny  (St.  Puden- 
tiana),  Simon  of  La  Charite  (St.  Balbina).2 

Speaking  generally,  the  new  cardinals  were  at  any 
rate  a  body  of  estimable  men  3  ;  though,  to  judge  from 
the  fact  that  seven  of  them  died  in  the  course  of  the  five 


1  Geoffroy  de  Courlon,  Chron.,  p.  580;  Annals  of  Verona,  p.  443, 
ed.  C.  Cipolla.  The  new  cardinals  were  made  "  sine  scitu  et  voluntate 
cardinalium  ad  voluntatem  Karoli  .  .  .  et  facit  omnia  secundum 
beneplacitum  suum  ".  Ptolemy  of  L.  also,  H.E.,  xxiv,  29  ;  Stefaneschi, 
Vita,  iii,  c.  8  ;   etc.,  say  the  same. 

2  This  list  is  that  of  Eubel,  Hicrarchia  Catholica  Med.  Mvi,  which  is 
based  on  the  study  of  P.  M.  Baumgarten  :  "  Die  Cardinals- 
ernennungen  Calestins  V."  in  Festschrift  des  Deutschen  Campo  Santo, 
ed.  S.  Ehses,  Freiburg-im-B.,  1897,  p.  161  ff. 

3  Will,  of  Nangis,  Chron.,  an.  1294,  i,  p.  285.  "  Fecit  satis 
laudabiles  et  valentes  personas." 


296  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

years  following  their  election,  they  would  appear  to  have 
been  men  advanced  in  age.  According  to  Stefaneschi,1 
the  election  was  engineered  by  Bartholomew  of  Capua. 
After  the  list  of  names  had  been  agreed  upon  by  the  Pope 
and  the  King,  only  three  cardinals,  the  French  cardinal 
Hugh,  Matteo  Rosso,  and  James  Colonna  were  let  into 
the  secret.  Then  the  Sacred  College  was  called  together 
suddenly  on  Friday,  Sept.  17,  and  the  names  were  so 
sprung  upon  them  that  they  could  do  nothing  but  accept 
them.  The  whole  twelve  were  thereupon  solemnly 
acclaimed  on  the  following  day. 
A  nfw  ,  Whatever  truth  there  may  be  in  these  details,  it  is 

cardinal  00 

made,  Oct.  certain  that  the  twelve  were  proclaimed  on  Sept.  18, 
and  that  one  of  them,  the  Celestine  Ronci,  died  on  Oct.  13. 
Then,  says  the  author  of  the  Golden  Legend,2  "  the  Pope 
who,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  power,  had  made  twelve 
cardinals,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  simplicity  made  another" 
in  the  same  way  as  he  had  made  the  others — irregularly 
and  at  the  suggestion  of  another.  This  thirteenth  cardinal 
was  that  very  indifferent  character,  John  of  Castrocceli, 
the  archbishop  of  Benevento,  who  became  cardinal- 
priest  of  St.  Vitalis.  One  reason,  perhaps,  why  Celestine 
made  one  mistake  after  another  was  that,  though  not 
altogether  ignorant,  he  was  in  awe  of  the  Sacred  College, 
and  so  presumably  did  not  consult  them  much  ;  and, 
though  not  without  some  skill  in  speaking,  he  would 
only  address  them  simply  in  his  mother  tongue,  and 
not  in  Latin,  and  would  never  himself  make  a  public 
reply  to  any  important  question.3     No  doubt,  too,  the 


1  L.c. 

2  James  de  V.,  Chron.  Jan.,  p.  54.     "  Tempore  et  modo  debito  non 
servato  .   .   .  sed  ad  suggestionem  aliquorum." 

3  Stef.,   Vita,  iii,  c.  7. 

"  Sic  ille  sciens,  non  nescius  omnis 
Non  etiam  ignarus  sensus  et  congrua  fandi 
Sed  titubans,  aliosve  timens,  reverenscme  senatum,  etc," 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  297 

relations  between  him  and  the  older  cardinals,  especially, 
must  have  gone  from  bad  to  worse  as  they  saw  him, 
without  or  contrary  to  their  advice,  doing  one  imprudent 
thing  after  another.  They  had  been  particularly  annoyed 
at  the  promotion  of  John  of  Castrocceli.  They  had  seen 
how,  to  ingratiate  himself  with  Celestine,  he,  Benedictine 
as  he  was,  had  put  off  his  black  habit  and  had  clothed 
himself  with  that  of  the  Pope's  Order.1  Then,  too,  he 
had  been  given  the  hat  after  dinner  (post  cenam)  in 
Celestine's  private  residence  in  Aquila.  At  first  some 
of  the  cardinals  refused  to  sit  with  him.  But,  says 
Stefaneschi,  "  patience  made  the  Pope  great."  It  was 
finally  agreed  to  hold  an  inquiry  into  the  custom  regarding 
such  appointments,  and  that  meanwhile  John  should 
cease  to  wear  the  cardinal's  hat.  After  an  inquiry  which 
Stefaneschi  regarded  as  but  summary,  the  cardinals 
"  rehabilitated  the  man  ",  partly,  says  our  poet,  from 
fear,  and  partly  "  from  a  secret  hope  "—a  hope,  perhaps, 
that  the  Pope  would  soon  resign,  or  perhaps  more 
probably  that  the  schemer  would  not  long  enjoy  his 
honours.2  At  any  rate  the  ambitious  man  did  not  enjoy 
them  long,  as  he  died  within  a  few  months  after  he  had 
received  them.3 

With    less    reason,    considering    their    conduct,    but,  Celestine 

,  .ill     confirms  the 

considering  human  nature,  perhaps  more  thoroughly  conclave 
were  the  cardinals  annoyed  at  Celestine's  renewing  the  ^ercerge^r>ofx 
conclave  constitution  of  Gregory  X.  relative  to  their 
strict  enclosure  on  the  death  of  a  Pope  till  they  had 
elected  a  new  one  (Sept.  28). 4  On  account  "  of  the 
inconveniences  which  had  come  upon  the  world  "  by  the 
delays  in  electing  a  Pope,  he  renewed  Gregory's  decree, 


1  c.  10. 

2  "  Sed  timor  urgebat,  tacite  spes  addita  cetum  impulit."     lb. 

3  lb.     He  died  Feb.  22,  1295. 

4  His  decree  ap.  Raynaldus,  Ann.,  1294,  n.  17. 


298  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

"  that  dreadful  law,"  which  for  various  reasons  Hadrian  V. 
and  John  XXL  had  suspended.1 

Somewhat  later,  he  thought  it  necessary  to  support 
this  decree  with  others.  Another  step  he  had  meanwhile 
taken  had  even  more  profoundly,  and  this  time  with 
good  reason,  perturbed  the  Sacred  College.  After  as 
before  his  consecration,  Celestine  had  made  up  his 
mind  to  proceed  to  Rome,2  and  after  as  before  it,  Charles 
induced  him  to  change  his  mind.  This  time  he  persuaded 
him  to  go  to  Naples.3  Seeing  from  the  beginning  that 
the  Pope  was  putting  himself  into  the  power  of  Charles, 
the  cardinals  had  exacted  an  oath  from  the  latter  that  if 
they  followed  Celestine  to  Aquila  he  would  not  detain 
them  in  the  event  of  the  Pope's  dying  in  Neapolitan 
territory. 

As  the  keeping  of  this  oath  by  Charles  might  enable 
the  cardinals  to  evade  a  real  conclave,  Celestine,  when 
at  San  Germano  on  his  way  to  Naples,  absolved  the  King 
from  his  oath,  on  the  ground  that,  if  he  were  to  die  in 
the  King's  territory,  it  would  devolve  upon  Charles,  in 
accordance  with  Gregory's  constitution,  to  see  that  the 
cardinals  were  strictly  enclosed.4 

Finally,  in  view  certainly  of  his  contemplated  resigna- 
tion of  the  Papacy,  and  to  take  away  every  chance  of 
the  cardinals  being  able  to  find  a  subterfuge  for  evading 
the  conclave,  Celestine  issued  another  decision  on  the 


1  "Lex  ilia  timenda,"  Stefaneschi  calls  it  (iii,  c.  9)  and  he  says,  ib., 
that  it  inflicted  a  dire  wound  on  the  cardinals. 

"  Heu  dolor,  lieu  lacrime  !     patimur  sine  murmure  sevum 
Quod  loquimur  vulnus,  vulnus,  miserabile  vulnus." 

2  Stef.,  iii,  9. 

3  lb.  Cf.  B.D.,  c.  33.  "  Rex  Sicilian  cum  magna  instantia  .  .  . 
petebat  ut  Neapolim  ad  suum  negotium  expediendum  papa  cum 
cardinalibus  pergeret." 

4  Decree  of  Oct.  17.  "Si  casus  mortis  dicti  Pontificis  in  eodem 
regno  contingeret,  ad  te  secundum  formam  Constitutionis  (of  Pope 
Greg.  X.)  ipsa  coarctatio  pertineret."     Raynaldus,  1294,  n.  17. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  299 

subject  a  few  days  before  his  resignation.  He  decreed 
that  the  conclave  regulations  were  to  hold  good  for  ever 
and  whether  the  Papacy  became  vacant  by  death, 
resignation,  or  any  other  way.1 

On  his  way  to  Naples,  the  Pope  and  his  cortege  stopped  Celestine 
first  at  his  monastery  of  the  Holy  Ghost  at  the  foot  of  with  the 
Mt.  Morrone,  and  there  he  named  Louis,  the  second  son  Mt.ncLsLo. 
of   King   Charles  II.,  archbishop  of  Lyons.2     Although 
Louis  was  only  about  20  years  of  age,3  and  the  appoint- 
ment was,  of  course,  due  to  the  dictation  of  Charles  II., 
it  may  perhaps  be  justified,  or  at  least  explained,  if  not 
by  the  candidate's  age,  at  any  rate  by  his  exceptional 
virtue.      He   had   already   assumed   the   poor   habit   of 
St.  Francis.    Although  Boniface  VIII.  annulled  the  acts 
of  Celestine,  he  did  not  altogether  overlook  the  saintly 
young  man.     He  himself  gave  him  the  major  Orders, 
and  then  consecrated  him  bishop  of  Toulouse.4 

Celestine's  next  indiscretion  was  committed  at  San 
Germano,  the  town  on  the  little  hill  at  the  foot  of  Monte 
Cassino.  He  attempted  to  force  the  monks  of  that  famous 
monastery,  to  which  his  own  congregation  had  been 
attached,  to  adopt  his  own  rule,  and  in  sign  thereof  to 
exchange   their  black   habit   for   the   grey  of   his   own. 

1  Decree  issued  at  Naples  (Dec.   10,  1294),  ap.  Raynaldus,  I.e. 

2  lb.,  n.  15,  p.  141,  ed.  Paris,  1887.  Cf.  Potthast,  n.  23990  (Oct.  7) 
andn.  23994  (Oct.  9). 

3  He  was  born  in  February,  1274.  Cf.  the  valuable  little  life  of 
5.  Louis  d'Anjou  by  V.  Verlaque,  Paris,  n.d. 

4  Cf.  Potthast,  n.  24444,  Dec.  29,  1296.  Cf.  Verlaque,  c.  vi. 
Louis  f  Aug.  19,  1297,  and  was  canonized  in  1317.  Verlaque,  p.  74,  n., 
says  that  John  of  Orta,  the  contemporary  biographer  of  St.  Louis, 
does  not  mention  Celestine's  appointment,  and  that  he  could  not  find 
the  original  of  the  bull  of  Oct.  9.  He  therefore,  with  others,  does  not 
believe  in  the  nomination.  Cantera,  however,  p.  104  f.,  says  that  the 
bulls  of  Oct.  7  and  9,  1294,  are  to  be  found  in  the  small  Vatican  collec- 
tion of  Celestine's  bulls,  nn.  13  and  14  ;  and  it  is  quite  in  the  style  of 
hagiographers  to  omit  what  does  not  redound  to  the  glory  of  their 
heroes. 


Favours 
granted  by 


300  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

Not  unnaturally  the  Cassinese  objected,  but  Celestine 
made  Angelarius,  one  of  his  own  monks,  abbot  of  the 
monastery,  and  those  monks  who  would  not  conform  were 
exiled.  However,  says  Niccolo  della  Frattura,  one  of  the 
sufferers,  our  holy  Father  Benedict  soon  brought  about 
the  resignation  of  Pope  Celestine,  and  his  successor, 
Boniface,  restored  us  to  our  monastery  and  to  our  black 
habit,1  and  deposed  Angelarius.2 

To  strengthen  his  hold  on  the  poor  old  Pope,  Charles 
Charles  to'  carefully  refrained  from  attempting  to  cross  him  in 
the  Pope.       such   acts   as  the    aboV6j   which    ^id  not  interest  him, 

but,  on  the  other  hand,  he  was  at  pains  to  do  things 
which  he  knew  would  please  him  and  which  would  not 
seriously  interfere  either  with  his  own  treasury  or  policy. 
Hence,  before  leaving  Aquila,  he  pardoned,  at  Celestine's 
request,  those  inhabitants  of  Sulmona  who  had  been 
condemned  by  his  father  for  favouring  Conradin,3  and 
ordered  his  justiciaries  to  help  the  papal  officials  to  keep 
order  in  Benevento  when  requested  to  do  so.4 

He  also  made  offerings  to  Celestine's  monastery  of 
St.  Spirito  at  Sulmona,5  granted  pensions  to  his  brother 
Nicholas,  and  to  his  nephews,6  and,  at  the  Pope's  special 
request,  named  cardinal  Peter  of  Aquila  the   guardian 


1  Stef.,  iii,  c.  7,  and  especially  the  contemporary  monk  cited  in  the 
text,  and  cited  from  his  MS.  by  Tosti,  Storia  della  Badia  di  Monte- 
Cassino,  iii,  p.  35  ff.  The  English  continuation  of  the  Chronicle  of 
Martinus  Polonus,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xxx,  p.  718,  says  that  he  changed  the 
black  into  a  "  russet  "  habit. 

2  Reg.  Bonif.  VIII.,  n.  96. 

3  Cf.  his  indult  of  Aug.  22,  granted  because  Celestine  "  a  santitatis 
(sic)  virtute  qua  rutilat  pie  motus  "  had  asked  him.  Ap.  Cod.  diplom. 
Sulmonese,  n.  89,  p.  110.     Cf.  nn.  59,  60,  64. 

4  Docs.  ap.  Cantera,  N.  Doc.,  pp.  8-9. 

5  N.  90,  Sept.  20,  1294.  It  must  be  said,  however,  that  Charles 
had  a  genuine  regard  for  the  Celestines,  and  he  continued  to  grant 
them  money  after  the  Pope's  death.     Cf.  ib.,  nn.  95-6,  nn.  108,  118. 

6  Doc.  of  Sept.  6,  1294,  ap.  Cantera,  p.  54. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  301 

of  privileges  that  had  been  granted  to  that  city.1  Further, 
in  preparation  for  Celestine's  arrival  in  Naples,  he  ordered 
the  streets  to  be  paved,2  and  gave  instructions  to  his 
officials  along  the  line  of  route  through  the  Abruzzi 
and  the  Terra  di  Lavoro  to  do  everything  to  make  the 
Pope's  journey  thoroughly  satisfactory.3 

Despite   the   helplessness  of  the   Pope,   much  of  the  ^fa11^dof 
work    of    the    Church    went  on    as    usual    through    the  (i)  Arohbp. 
instrumentality    of    the    cardinals    and    the    permanent Wmchelsea- 
officials.    This  we  know  by  the  records  of  our  own  country 
for  example. 

On  the  death  of  Peckham,  archbishop  of  Canterbury 
(Dec.  8,  1292),  Robert  of  Winchelsea  was  unanimously 
elected  to  succeed  him  (Feb.  13,  1293).  Setting  out  at 
once  to  obtain  the  Pope's  confirmation  of  his  election,  he 
reached  Rome  on  Whit-Sunday  (May  17), 4  and  had  to 
remain  there  or  in  the  neighbourhood  for  over  a  twelve- 
month for  the  election  of  a  Pope.  Whilst  waiting  with 
what  patience  he  could,  his  learning  and  sterling  character 
so  impressed  itself  upon  those  with  whom  he  came  in 
contact  that  many  thought  him  worthy  of  the  supreme 
pontificate.5  After  brother  Peter  had  been  proclaimed 
Pope,  we  learn  from  the  Continuator  of  Gervase  of 
Canterbury  that  he  held  his  first  consistory  on  Sept.  7. 
At  this  assembly  the  election  of  Robert  came  up  for 
discussion,  and  was  referred  to  a  commission  of  three 

1  Reg.  Ang.,  n.  65  (1294  E.),  f.  72,  cited  ib.,  p.  63. 

2  Docs.  ap.  M.  Riccio,  Sagio  di  Cod.  dipt.,  p.  80  f.,  Sept.  2-9,  1294. 

3  Again  documents  from  the  Angevin  archives,  ap.  Cantera,  pp. 
63  f.,  69. 

4  Cal.  of  Pat.  Rolls  (1292-1301),  p.  7. 

5  Cf.  Steph.  Birchington  (14th  cent.),  Vitce  Arch.  Cant.,  ap.  Wharton, 
Anglia  Sacra,  p.  12.  Here  we  may  note  that  Tout,  Diet,  of  Nat.  Biog., 
sub  voce,  "  Winchelsea,  Rob."  justly  observes  that  Hook  in  his  Lives 
of  the  A.  of  C,  "  is  careless  in  details,  and  unhistorical  in  tone  "  when 
treating  of  R.  W.  Our  archbp.  was,  says  Tout,  "  a  zealous  upholder  of 
papal  authority  ".     That  explains  Hook. 


3°2  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

cardinals.  It  was  confirmed  on  Sept.  6,  but  Celestine 
wished  to  make  him  a  cardinal.  In  view  of  the  needs 
of  Canterbury,  Robert  managed  to  get  the  Pope  to  change 
his  mind,  and  let  him,  after  having  been  consecrated  by 
Gerard,  cardinal-bishop  of  Sabina,  return  to  England.1 
One  of  his  first  acts  on  his  return  to  his  native  land  was, 
in  virtue  of  powers  received  from  the  Holy  See,  to  promote 
the  worthy  John  of  Monmouth  to  the  see  of  Llandaff, 
which  had  been  long  vacant.2  His  long  enforced  residence 
in  Italy,  and  the  expenses  connected  with  his  consecra- 
tion, had  involved  him  in  a  good  deal  of  debt.  From 
Lapo  and  company,  merchant  bankers  of  Pistoia,  he 
had  had  to  borrow,  when  at  the  Papal  Curia,  the  sum  of 
three  thousand  pounds,  which  he  agreed  to  refund  by 
a  certain  date.  Unable  to  provide  the  money  by  the 
time  specified,  he  had  to  plead  for  delay,  and  the  Register 
of  John  of  Pontissara  has  preserved  for  us  the  letter  of 
the  company's  agents  in  London  (Feb.  25,  1295),  by 
which  in  consideration  of  the  business  put  in  their  hands 
by  the  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  and  in  hope  of  future 
business,  they  agree  that  he  may  defer  the  payment  of 
two  thousand  pounds  of  the  debt  to  Feb.  2,  1296.3 
Edward™  0n  September  24>  Celestine  had  written  to  King 
peace  with  Edward  to  notify  him  of  his  confirmation  of  the  election 
of  Robert,  and  to  ask  him  to  return  intact  to  the  arch- 
bishop the  temporalities  of  his  see  which  "  during  the 
time  of  the  vacancy  of  the  see  are  said  to  be  held  by  you  ".4 
Then,  a  few  days  later  (Oct.  2)  he  wrote  5  what  the 
editor   of   the   Register  of  John  of  Pontissara  6  calls  a 

1  Gervas.  Contin.,  vol.  ii,  p.  307,  R.  S.,  Birchington,  I.e. 

2  "  Unde  cum  sibi  a  sede  apostolica  attributum  fuisset  ut  Landavensi 
ecclesiae  .  .  .  de  episcopo  provideret,  etc."  Birchington,  I.e.  Cf.  N. 
Trivet,  p.  333. 

3  Reg.,  vol.  ii,  p.  505  f.  4  Ep.  ap.  Rymer,  ii,  p.  656  f. 

5  Ap.  ib.,  p.  657  f. 

6  It  is  also  printed  in  that  Reg.,  vol.  ii,  p.  509  ff.  I  have  availed 
myself  of  Mr.   Deedes'  analysis  and  partial  translation  of  this  letter 


France. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  303 

"  dignified  appeal  to  Edward  "  to  urge  him  to  stop  his 
preparations  for  war  with  France.  He  begins  by  assuring 
the  King  of  his  anxiety  for  the  welfare  of  Christendom 
in  general,  and  of  England  in  particular,  and  by  praising 
the  devotion  of  his  ancestors  to  the  Roman  Church  and 
to  peace.1  But  bitter  rumours  of  quarrels  between  him 
and  the  King  of  France  and  of  preparations  for  war  have 
wrung  the  heart  of  the  Pope.  He  fears  the  gravest 
losses  for  the  souls  and  bodies  of  many,  and  disasters 
for  both  realms  and  so  for  the  Holy  Land.  He  is 
anxious  indeed  that  all  Christian  princes  should  live  in 
peace,  but  especially  is  he  anxious  that  the  Kings  of 
England  and  France  should  remain  at  peace,  as  Mother 
Church  is  specially  attached  to  them.  Accordingly,  he 
has  decided  to  send  suitable  persons  to  them  to  try  to 
restore  concord.  "  Would  that  we  ourselves  could  go 
to  you,  and,  putting  aside  all  other  business,  thus  give 
proof  of  our  earnest  desire  for  peace.  But  the  length  of 
the  journey  and  our  advanced  age  will  not  permit  this." 
He  then  exhorts  Edward  to  avoid  actions  which  will 
hurt  the  Church  which  has  done  so  much  for  him  and 
his  predecessors.  It  would  be  hateful  in  the  sight  of  God 
and  man  if  violent  dissensions  should  break  out  between 
princes  so  nearly  related  in  blood.  He  begs  him  "  a 
soldier  of  Christ,  a  zealous  supporter  of  the  true  faith, 
an  earnest  champion  of  the  Church  "  to  abstain  from 
acts  which  will  cause  such  a  conflagration  that  it  will 
be  well  nigh  impossible  to  find  a  remedy.2  "So,  there- 
fore, devoutly  incline  your  ears  to  our  words,  and  hearken 
to  the  prayers  of  the  Apostolic  See,  that  you  may  not 
offend  God,  nay  rather  that  you  may  please  Him  by  your 

1  "  Progenitores  quidem  tui  .  .  .  erga  Deum  et  Romanam  ecclesiam 
clariori  devocione  fulgentes  .   .   .  pacem  undique  coluerunt." 

2  Here  Celestine  spoke  as  a  prophet  indeed.  Because  he  was  not 
listened  to,  a  conflagration  was  started  which  could  not  be  extinguished, 
but  took  a  hundred  years  to  burn  itself  out. 


304  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

filial  devotion,  and  may  henceforth  win  His  blessing  more 
fully  and  that  of  the  Apostolic  See."  As  the  bearer  of 
his  letter,  he  sends  to  the  King,  Bertrand  "  called 
Delgot  " y1  canon  of  Lyons,  our  chaplain,  and  Edward's 
ardent  partisan.  He  will  give  the  King  further  evidence 
of  the  Pope's  mind. 

Following  up  this  letter  by  another  on  the  following 
day  (Oct.  3),  addressed  to  all  the  prelates  through  whose 
district  his  agent  was  to  travel,  Celestine  enjoined  them 
to  provide  Bertrand  and  his  suite,  whilst  "  on  this  side 
of  the  English  sea,"  with  four  pounds  "  Turonensium 
parvorum  "  a  day,  and  with  twenty  solidi  sterling  on 
the  other  side.2 

In  accordance  with  this  permission,  we  find  Bertrand 
in  England  appealing  to  the  bishop  of  Winchester  to 
grant  him  the  share  of  the  allowance  due  from  him,  and 
showing  the  greatest  care  that  he  was  not  robbed  of  the 
papal  indult.3 
Money  The    same    valuable    register   of   John   of    Pontissara 

England  for  furnishes  us  with  a  number  of  Celestine 's  letters  to  the 
the  Crusade  bishops  of  Winchester  and  Lincoln  relative  to  the  paying 
over  to  certain  accredited  bankers  in  Italy  named  by 
the  Pope  of  the  Crusade  tenth  ordered  by  Nicholas  IV.4 
In  letters  dated  October  25.  and  November,  5,  19,  25 
from  Teano,  Aversa,  and  Naples,5  the  two  bishops  were 

1  That  is  De  Got,  afterwards  Archbp.  of  Bordeaux  and  Pope 
Clement  V. 

2  Ep.  ap.  Reg.  of  John  de  P.,  ii,  p.  822.  The  document  was  counter- 
signed by  Berald,  card.-bp.  of  Albano,  who  declared  that  it  was  intact 
and  furnished  with  the  Pope's  bulla  duly  attached  with  a  cord  of  hemp. 

3  Cf.  ib.  for  Bertrand's  letter  of  May  6,  1295  (p.  824),  and  ib.  (p.  825) 
for  a  mandate  of  John  de  Pontissara  ordering  a  levy  of  20  pounds 
from  his  clergy  as  their  contribution  to  B's  expenses.  Cf.  the  Annals 
of  Dunstable,  p.  388,  whence  we  see  that  monastery  paying  the  20  solidi 
a  day  to  Bertrand.  Under  threat  of  interdict  the  monastery  had  also  to 
let  him  have  a  carriage  horse. 

4  Supra,  p.  208  ff. 

5  L.c,  pp.  503,  501,   504. 


to  be  paid 
over 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  305 

peremptorily  ordered  to  raise  and  pay  over  the  money 
to  various  named  agents  of  the  Frescobaldi  company  of 
Florence,  merchant  bankers  of  the  Apostolic  See,  or  of 
the  Amandati  company  of  Pistoia.  In  accordance  with 
agreements  made  with  the  King,  thirty  thousand  marks 
sterling  could  be  kept  in  the  country,  but  the  rest  in 
specified  proportions  had  to  be  paid  over  to  certain 
branches  of  the  companies  just  named. 

At  the  same  time,  the  Pope  wrote  to  the  powerful 
bishop  of  Durham,  Anthony  de  Bek,  then  in  Italy,  to 
order  him,  if  it  should  be  necessary — a  contingency  which 
the  Pope  does  not  expect — to  compel  the  two  bishops  to 
carry  out  his  orders  under  pain  of  ecclesiastical  penalties.1 

From  a  very  fiery  passage  of  Pierre  de  Langtoft's  The  affairs 
rhymed  Chronicle  2  in  which  he  prays  that  Scotland  may 
be  "  accursed  of  the  Mother  of  God  "  or,  as  in  Mannyng's 
old  English  version,  "sonken  to  Helle  ground,"  for  the 
truth  was  never  in  her,  we  gather  that  when  Edward 
was  in  trouble  with  Wales  and  France,  "  the  foolish 
King,  li  fol  ray"  of  Scotland,  added  to  his  difficulties. 
Though,  continues  the  chronicler,  Baliol,  who  had  been 
"brought  to  the  kingdom"  by  Edward,3  led  astray  by 
his  "  false  baronage,  against  his  homage  and  against  his 
fealty",  sent  envoys  to  Pope  Celestine  to  contend  that  the 

1  Ap.  ib.,  p.  505,  ep.  of  Nov.  19.  This  same  register  gives  a  number 
of  letters  (from  p.  804  to  835)  relative  to  a  collation  of  a  benefice  (that 
of  Middleton,  now  Longparish,  Hants)  by  Celestine.  The  benefice 
had  been  in  the  hands  of  the  famous  notary,  Berard  of  Naples.  As  he 
died  in  Rome,  Celestine  gave  it  to  Bartholomew  of  St.  Angelo,  a  client 
of  the  Colonna  cardinals.  Boniface  VIII.  confirmed  Celestine's  grant. 
The  case  was  complicated  and  caused  much  feeling,  so  that  bishop 
J.  de  P.  had  to  exhort  even  the  abbess  of  Were  well  not  to  fail  in  her 
obedience  to  the  Holy  See.  When  in  Rome,  J.  de  P.  was  won  over  by 
the  cardinals,  and  for  their  sake  professed  his  regard  for  Bart.  (p.  833), 
and  secured  him  the  benefice. 

2  Vol.  ii,  p.  221,  R.  S.,  or  in  Wright's  Political  Songs,  p.  273,  or  in 
Rob.  Mannyng's  old  Eng.  version  of  it,  vol.  ii,  p.  265  ff.,  ed.  Hearne. 

3  Cf.  supra,  p.  223  ff. 

Vol.  XVII.  x 


306  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

voice  of  antiquity  proved  that  Scotland  was  a  fief  of  the 
Holy  See,  but  that  against  his  will,  King  Edward  had 
forced  him  to  do  homage  to  him.  He,  therefore,  begged 
the  Pope  to  absolve  him  from  his  oath.  "  Too  unadvised  " 
Celestine  duly  absolved  him.  Thereupon,  the  Scottish 
barons  chose  twelve  peers,  and  took  counsel  how  "  to 
disinherit  Edward  of  the  sovereignty  ".  And,  so  con- 
cludes our  chronicler,  "  for  the  great  honour  which 
Edward  the  wise  did  to  John  Baliol  such  is  the  reward 
he  received  from  John  the  dreamer  (musard)."  For  the 
moment,  as  we  shall  have  to  treat  this  matter  fully 
under  Boniface  VIII.,  we  may  say  with  Pierre  "  with 
Scotland  let  it  be  as  it  may  ",  it  is  necessary  for  us 
"  on  our  geste  to  spede  ". 
Grant  to  Still,  before  closing  our  account  of  the  relations  between 

to  card.  jas.  Pope   Celestine   and   King   Edward,   we   must   notice   a 
Coionna.        grant  made  by  the  former  to  the  latter.     Bartholomew 

of  Cotton  1  quotes  a  letter  from  the  Pope  to  our  King, 
dated  Naples,  Nov.  19,  which  is  as  extraordinary  in  its 
form  as  in  its  contents.  As  to  its  form — it  is  addressed 
to  Edward  and  to  cardinal  James  Coionna.  As  to  its 
contents  it  is  a  grant  of  the  firstfruits  of  ecclesiastical 
benefices  in  the  province  of  Canterbury  for  three  years 
to  Edward  for  the  Crusade,  and  to  the  cardinal  to  enable 
him  to  liquidate  the  "  heap  of  (honourable)  debts  which  " 
he  had  contracted.2  Celestine  made  the  grant,  so  he 
explained,  in  order  that  the  King's  zeal  for  the  Crusades 
might  increase,  and  that  "  the  innate  purity  of  the 
cardinal  might  be  preserved  intact  ".3 

1  Chron.,  p.  261. 

2  We  acid  "  honourable  "  because  Celestine  speaks  of  "  moles 
debitorum  quae  tu  .  .  .  in  cardinalatus  dignitate,  sinceritatem  et 
puritatem  in  tuis  servando  vestigiis  contraxisti  ". 

3  W.  Prynne,  in  his  The  hist,  of  King  John,  K.  Henry  III.,  and  K. 
Edward  I.,  London,  1670,  p.  627,  quotes  a  letter  of  Edw.  to  the  card, 
thanking  him  for  getting  the  grant,  and  telling  him  he  may  rely  that 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  307 

After  reading  this  unprecedented  document — an 
evidence  of  joint  scheming  on  the  part  of  the  King,  and 
particularly  of  the  cardinal,  for  whom  it  was  especially 
drawn  up — one  is  very  pleased  to  read  immediately  after 
it  in  Cotton,  the  bull  whereby  Boniface  VIII.  promptly 
annulled  all  Celestine's  grants  (Apr.  8,  1295).  His 
predecessor,  he  justly  said,  was  ignorant  of  what  was 
due  to  law  and  justice,  and  to  the  dignity  of  his  office, 
and  he  was  overcome  by  the  insistence  of  the  ambitious, 
and  seduced  by  the  guile  of  the  deceitful.  Consequently, 
continued  Boniface,  not  only  were  grants  made  that 
were  quite  out  of  order,  but,  so  it  was  said,  some  were 
made  even  without  Celestine's  knowledge.1  Unfortu- 
nately, however,  in  this  case,  Boniface  had  to  renew  the 
grant  to  Edward  and  the  cardinal,  as  is  clear  from  a 
letter  in  which  the  King  thanks  Colonna  for  obtaining 
the  renewal  of  the  grant,  and  assures  him  that  he  will 
find  in  him  a  partner  with  whom  he  will  be  contented.2 

As   might   have   been   expected   from   his   character,  Approves 

,  ,       ,  ,  r  conditions  01 

Celestine  did  all  he  could  to  further  the  cause  of  peace  peace 
among  Christian  Princes,  especially  seeing  that,  like  all  J^ieTand 
his  predecessors,  he  was  anxious  about  the  expulsion  of  james  of 
the   infidel   from  the  Holy  Land.     He  was  accordingly  Aragon- 
overjoyed  at  the  prospect  of  the  close  of  the  Sicilian 
trouble,  and  accepted  at  once  the  treaty  which  had  been 
made  between  the  Kings  of  Sicily  (Naples)  and  Aragon. 
Writing  to  Charles  II.  on  October  1,  he  praised  him  for 
his    unsparing   efforts   to    make    peace    with    James    of 
Aragon,  and  for  his  success  in  having  made  it.     As  the 

he  (Edw.)  will  do  for  him  anything  he  wants.  "  Si  quid  autem  pro 
vobis  volueritis  nos  facturos  id  nobis  significetis  cum  fiducia  obtinendi." 
Ep.  of  Apr.  6,  1295.  Prynne  quotes  from  the  Patent  Rolls,  23  Edw.  I., 
n.   10. 

1  Ep.  of  Apr.  8,  1295,  ap.  B.  of  C,  p.  265,  a  document  already  cited. 
Here  again,  too,  we  may  see  a  cause  of  the  subsequent  great  quarrel 
between  Boniface  and  the  Colonnas. 

2  Calendar  of  Close  Rolls,   1288-96,  p.  442. 


308  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

treaty  between  them,  he  said,  concerned  the  Roman 
Church,  he  enumerated  and  confirmed  its  terms.  By 
them,  Charles  was  bound  to  try  to  induce  the  Roman 
Church  to  remove  all  ecclesiastical  censures  published 
in  connection  with  the  Sicilian  affair.  Philip  of  France 
and  Charles  of  Valois  were  to  renounce  all  claims  to 
Aragon,  and,  on  the  other  hand  the  four  sons  of  Charles  II. 
were  to  be  released  from  captivity.  James  was  also 
to  surrender  to  Charles  all  the  cities  that  he  held  on  the 
mainland  of  Italy,  and  in  three  years  from  the  following 
first  of  November  was  to  give  up  to  the  Roman  Church 
Sicily,  Malta,  and  the  other  adjacent  islands  as  they 
were  held  by  Charles  I.  If  the  Sicilians  were  unwilling 
to  return  to  their  allegiance,  James  had  to  help  to  force 
them  to  do  so.1  These  conditions,  so  favourable  to  Charles, 
were  arranged,  despite  the  intrigues  of  the  Colonna 
cardinals,  who  were  working  to  secure  every  advantage 
for  the  Sicilians  and  the  Aragonese,  even  the  election  of 
Frederick  of  Sicily  as  Senator  of  Rome.2 

On  the  following  day  (Oct.  2),  and  here  again  is  manifest 
the  paramount  influence  of  Charles  in  the  Papal  Curia, 
Celestine,  with  regrets  certainly,  granted  him  for  a  year 
the  "  Saracen  "  tithes  from  France  and  England  to  help 
him  to  recover  Sicily.  These  were  granted  on  the  ground 
that  its  recovery  would  be  of  the  greatest  service  to  the 
Crusades  on  account  of  its  neighbourhood  to  the  Holy 
Land,  its  fertility,  and  its  possession  of  all  the  materials 
useful  for  war.3 

1  Ap.  Raynaldus,  1294,  n.  15,  p.  137  f.  Also  in  the  interests  of 
peace  he  issued  dispensations  for  the  marriages  of  Bianca,  daughter  of 
Charles  II.,  with  James  of  Aragon,  and  of  Iolanda,  sister  of  James,  with 
Robert,  son  of  Charles.     Epp.  Sept.  24,  ap.  Cantera,  pp.  100-1. 

2  See  the  document  of  the  summer  of  1294,  ap.  Finke,  Acta  Aragon., 
i,  p.  15,  n.  11. 

3  lb.,  p.  139  f.  Such  were  the  reasons  alleged  for  the  wish  :  "ad 
educendum  ipsam  insulam  de  ipsorum  detestabilium  manibus  deten- 
torum." 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  309 

A  few  days  later  he  wrote  to  the   Kings  of  France 

and  Aragon  urging  them  to  put  no  obstacles  in  the  way 

of  the  final  conclusion  of  the  peace,  and  taking  advantage 

of  the   opportunity   to   exhort   James  to   break  off  his 

illicit  connection  with  the  daughter  of  the  King  of  Castile.1 

But  even  if  Celestine  was  beguiled  into  doing  many  Absolution 
1  •  1  .  •_.  ^-n  ,  •        of  Guido  of 

unwise  things,   his  personal  sanctity  was  still  working  Montefeltro. 

wonders.  It  subdued  the  indomitable  Guido  of  Monte- 
feltro. On  account  of  his  continual  support  of  the 
Ghibelline  party,  and  his  active  hostility  to  the  subjects 
of  the  Church,  he  had  again  been  excommunicated  by 
Nicholas  IV.  Hitherto  he  had  paid  no  heed  to  the 
censure.  Now,  however,  he  presented  himself  before 
Celestine,  and,  professing  his  sorrow  and  readiness  to 
make  satisfaction,  begged  absolution  from  him.  The 
Pope  received  him  most  kindly,  and  promised  that  he 
should  be  duly  absolved.  But,  before  the  formalities 
had  been  completed,  he  had  ceased  to  be  Pope.  This, 
however,  was  one  of  his  undertakings  which  Boniface 
did  not  annul.  Guido  was  duly  absolved  by  him,  and 
began  his  life  of  exemplary  penance.2  The  "  man  of 
arms"  "in  good  St.  Francis'  girdle"  clothed  him  then.3 

During  this  unhappy  period  the  needs  of  the  States  states  of  the 
of    the    Church    were    not    forgotten.     In    the    days    of 

1  lb.,  p.  140  f.  On  Oct.  8,  he  had  already  sent  Jasbert,  bp.  of 
Valencia,  and  the  Hospitaller  Boniface  of  Calamandrana  to  ratify  the 
peace,  and  prepare  for  the  succour  of  the  Holy  Land.  Ep.  ap.  Cantera, 
p.  105. 

2  lb.,  n.  15,  sub.  fin.,  p.  142.  The  letter  of  Boniface  whence  we 
learn  this  is  dated  Nov.  27,  1296.  The  eighth  witness  for  Celestine's 
canonization  (ap.  Seppelt,  p.  212),  said  that  it  was  generally  believed 
that  Guido,  "  that  great  man  of  blood,"  changed  his  life,  and  took  the 
religious  habit  as  soon  as  he  heard  that  Celestine  had  been  made  Pope. 
Cf.  infra.  It  was  Boniface  VIII.  who  made  all  the  arrangements  for 
Guido  to  become  a  Franciscan,  who  arranged  for  the  dowry  to  be 
settled  on  his  wife,  as  she  agreed  to  his  entering  a  religious  Order,  etc. 
See  his  letter  of  July  23,  1296,  ap.  Wadding,  Ann.  Min.,  v,  349-50. 

3  Dante,  Inf.,  c.  27. 


310  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

Martin  IV.,  the  twelve  consuls  of  Benevento,  unmindful 
of  their  recognized  powers,  aspired  to  the  supreme  control 
of  the  city.  As  a  result,  the  Pope  suppressed  them 
altogether.1  But,  taking  advantage  of  the  long  vacancy 
of  the  Holy  See,  the  people  re-elected  their  twelve  consuls. 
However,  they  brought  down  upon  themselves  a  severe 
reprimand  from  Celestine.  He  annulled  their  election, 
and  severely  prohibited  them  from  again  choosing 
consuls.2 

If  in  such  acts  as  this  we  merely  see  the  workings  of 
pontifical  bureaux,  we  may  no  doubt  see  the  influence 
of  the  Pope  himself  in  the  instructions  which  were 
issued  to  the  Rectors  of  the  March  of  Ancona,  and  of 
the  Romagna,  empowering  them  to  moderate  the  penalties 
which  had  been  inflicted  by  former  rectors  or  their 
officials,  and  in  the  appointment  of  various  rectors  "  in 
spirituals  "  in  the  interests  of  the  ghostly  and  temporal 
necessities  of  the  people.3 

But,  as  we  have  already  said,  let  us  "  spede  on  our 
geste  ",  as  there  is  no  temptation  to  linger  on  the 
pontificate  of  Celestine,  pitiable  in  itself,  and  deplorable 
in  its  results.  The  foolish  acts  performed  in  it  brought 
ill-deserved  odium  on  his  successor,  Boniface  VIII.,  one 
of  the  most  arresting  figures  that  ever  filled  the  chair 
of  Peter ;  and  through  the  preponderance  of  French 
cardinals  whom  Celestine  created,  he  involved  the  Church 
in  one  disaster  after  another,  culminating  in  the  Great 
Schism  of  the  West. 

1  Ep.  Sept.  10,  1281,  Potthast,  21786.  Cf.  S.  Borgia,  Mem.  Stor. 
di  Benevento,  ii,  169  f. 

2  Ep.  Aug.  30,  1294,  Potthast,  23950. 

3  Docs.  Sept.  1-9,  ap.  ib.,  nn.  23952-23963. 


CHAPTER    III. 

CELESTINE   RESIGNS.      THE   REST   OF   HIS   LIFE'S    STORY. 

When  Celestine  arrived  in  Naples,  he  was  lodged  in  the  Celine  ^ 
Castel  Nuovo,  which,  begun  by  Charles  I.  (1283),  over-  wooden  cell. 
looks  with  its  five  great  round  towers  the  so-called 
military  harbour  (porto  militare).  In  one  of  its  great 
halls,  when  one  of  the  Saint's  "  Lents  "  drew  nigh— that 
of  St.  Martin,  Nov.  n— Celestine  ordered  a  wooden  hut 
to  be  constructed,  and  decided  to  remain  in  it  all  alone, 
as  he  had  been  accustomed  to  spend  his  "  Lents  "  in  the 
past.1  To  ensure  that  he  would  be  left  undisturbed,  he 
caused  a  document  to  be  drawn  up  by  means  of  which 
all  the  pontifical  powers  were  to  be  handed  over  to  three 
cardinals.  However,  before  it  was  sealed,  cardinal 
Matteo  Rosso  induced  him  to  withdraw  it,  lest  the 
Spouse  should  come  to  be  thought  to  have  married  three 
husbands."  2 

But,  however  he  might  wish  to  be  alone,  and  however 
he  might  succeed  at  times  in  avoiding  intercourse  with 
men,  he  was  not  hidden,  observes  Stefaneschi,  because, 
like  the  ostrich,  he  had  buried  his  head  in  the  sand. 
King  Charles  could  still  get  at  him  and  persuade  him  to 
do  as  he  wanted,  to  suspend,  for  example,  the  decree  of 
Nicholas  III.,  as  Martin  IV.  had  done,  and  to  name 
him  Senator  of  Rome.3     Thus  once  more  the   Colonna 

1  B.D.,  c.  34,  cf.  Stefaneschi,  Vita.,  iii,  c. 

2  Stef.,  I.e.,  vv.  346-7. 

"  ne  sponsa  maritis 
Credatur  nupsisse  tribus." 

3  Ep  of  Dec.  11,  given  in  full  by  Cantera,  p.  110,  n.  Celestine  avers 
that  he  rescinds  the  decree  of  Nicholas,  because  Rome  was  very  well 
governed  when  Charles  I.  was  senator,  and  he  has  every  reason  to 
hope  that  it  will  be  equally  so  by  Charles  II.  and  his  heirs.  However, 
as  Celestine  resigned  two  days  after  the  issue  of  this  bull,  Charles 
never  ventured  to  assume  the  title  or  the  position. 

3ii 


312  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

cardinals,  in  the  interest  of  Aragon,  had  failed  to  block 
the  aspirations  of  Charles  II.  They  had  written  to  tell 
King  James  that,  if  they  failed  to  secure  the  nomination 
of  Frederick  of  Sicily  as  Senator,  they  would  try  to 
prevent  that  of  Charles,  by  getting  the  Pope  himself 
named  Senator  with  the  proviso  that  he  could  not  appoint 
a  substitute.1  Charles  had,  however,  as  we  have  seen, 
proved  too  much  for  them. 
His  scruples      At  times,  however,  Celestine  did  contrive  to  remain 

aggravated 

by  at  peace  in  his  cell,  and  to  find  time  to  think  over  the 

Tod°iP°ne  da  situation  in  which  he  had  been  placed.  Among  other 
things  that  worried  him  was  a  poetical  effusion  of  Fra 
Jacopone  da  Todi.  It  was  but  natural  that  the  Spirituals 
or  Zealots  among  the  Franciscans  should  have  been 
overjoyed  at  the  election  to  the  papacy  of  such  a  renowned 
ascetical  monk  as  Peter  of  Morrone.  The  really  sincere 
and  sane  ones  among  them  simply  wanted  to  be  allowed 
to  live  as  far  as  possible  in  the  same  way  as  St.  Francis 
had  done  ;  those  of  them  who  were  sincere,  but  fanatical, 
wanted  they  knew  not  what,  but  not  to  live  as  they 
were  ;  the  downright  merely  fanatical  ones,  full  of  the 
real  and  supposed  prophecies  of  Joachim  of  Fiore,  hoped 
that  now  at  last  had  really  dawned  the  epoch  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  and  of  the  monks.2  To  this  body  of  men, 
dangerous  from  the  number  of  its  fanatics  of  whom  the 
main  body  seemed  to  think  that  ignorance  was  a  virtue, 
but  among  whom  were  leaders  of  learning  far  from 
inconsiderable,  but  ill-directed  by  their  narrow  outlook, 

1  Doc.  ap.  Finke,  Acta  Aragon.,  i,  p.  15  f.  They  beg  James  to  keep 
their  communications  secret. 

2  Cf.  supra,  vol.  x,  p.  435  ff.,  and  vol.  xv,  99  ff.  According  to 
Joachim's  scheme  of  the  entire  history  of  the  world,  the  first  period 
of  its  history  under  the  rule  of  God  the  Father  and  the  Levites,  here 
below,  extended  from  the  Creation  to  Ozias  (Uzziah)  ;  the  second 
under  God  the  Son  and  the  priests  from  Ozias  to  about  the  year  1260  ; 
and  the  third,  under  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  monks,  from  c.  1260  to 
the  end  of  the  world. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  313 

and  even  more  dangerous  from  the  fact  that  its  members 
generally  had  failed  to  realize  that  the  essence  of  any 
kind  of  religious  life  is  humble  obedience— to  this  body 
had  attached  himself  the  famous  Jacopone  da  Todi,  the 
generally  acknowledged  author  of  the  Stabat  mater 
dolorosa.  After  the  tragic  death  of  his  young,  fair,  and 
saintly  wife,  the  mind  of  the  worldly  and  far  from  virtuous 
Jacopone  was  for  a  time  completely  unhinged.  But, 
though  he  at  length  so  far  recovered  as  to  be  received 
into  the  Franciscan  Order  (c.  1278),  and  as  to  become 
a  poet  of  the  first  rank,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  his 
mind  ever  recovered  its  perfect  balance,  or,  to  put  it 
somewhat  differently,  whether  sympathy  did  not 
invariably  have  too  large  a  share  in  the  formation  of  his 
judgments,  and  whether  waywardness  was  not  but  too 
often  the  mainspring  of  his  actions.1 

When   Peter,  the   hermit  of  Morrone,   became   Pope  The 

.  ,  Spirituals 

the  then  leaders  of  the  Spirituals,  among  whom  is  named  send  an 
Jacopone  (Jacopus  Tudertus),  decided  to  send  to  the  ^bassy  to 
new  Pontiff  two  of  their  number  who  had  known  him 
before  he  became  Pope.  It  will  perhaps  give  an  idea  of 
the  spiritual  pride  which,  no  doubt  unconsciously,  was 
behind  many  of  the  acts  of  the  Zealots,  if  we  give  a 
translation  of  the  passage  from  Clareno  2  which  tells  of 

1  See  the  most  sympathetic  and  delightful  chapters  on  him  in 
Ozanam's  Les  poetes  franciscaines,  Eng.  trans.,  The  Franciscan  Poets, 
p.  186  ff.,  London,  1914.  Many  others,  but  not  so  well,  have  written 
on  Jacopone.  In  her  Sons  of  Francis,  Miss  A.  Macdonnell  has  a  chapter 
on  /.  da  T.  She  says  of  him  :  "  too  much  poet  to  be  all  Saint  "  ; 
but  I  would  venture,  I  trust,  with  more  truth,  to  say  of  her  :  "  too 
much  poet  to  be  all  historian."  Hence  I  would  recommend  her  work 
much  more  for  her  most  pleasing  renderings  of  some  of  J's  poems  than 
for  her  historic  judgments.  One  could  well  have  done  with  more  of 
the  former  and  less  of  "  Boniface's  fraud  and  villany  "  of  which 
Miss  M.  could  certainly  have  known  nothing.  J.  Pacheu's  Jacopone 
da  Todi,  Paris,  1914,  will  be  found  useful  for  his  selection  of  J's  poems 
accompanied  by  a  French  trans.  E.  Gebhart's  Italie  Mystique  (Eng. 
trans,  by  Hulme,  London,  1922,  Mystics  and  Heretics  in  Italy)  has 
suggestive  material  on  J.  da  T.  2  Certainly  a  superior  character. 


314  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

this  embassy.  "  Brother  Peter  of  Morrone  having 
meanwhile  become  Pope,  it  seemed  good  to  the  Minister- 
General  and  to  all  the  more  principal  brethren  in  whom 
Christ  and  His  spirit  was  firmly  believed  to  dwell,  and 
especially  to  brothers  Conrad  of  Offida,1  Peter  of  Monti- 
culo,  Jacopo  of  Todi,  Thomas  of  Trivio,  Conrad  of 
Spoleto,  and  the  others,  who  aspired  to  the  pure 
observance  of  the  rule,  that  they  should  send  to  the 
Supreme  Pontiff  brother  Peter  of  Macerata  and  his 
companion,2  because  they  had  been  friendly  with  him 
before  he  became  Pope,  and  he  had  full  confidence  in 
their  uprightness  (bona  voluntas)."  3  The  envoys  found 
the  Pope  at  Aquila,  and  were  favourably  received  by 
him.  He  bade  them  strive  to  live  in  accordance  with 
the  rule  and  testament  of  St.  Francis,  absolved  brother 
Peter  (Liberatus)  from  all  obedience  to  his  then  superiors, 
placed  the  exempt  brethren  under  cardinal  Napoleon 
Orsini,  and  gave  them  the  name  of  "  brothers  or  poor 
hermits  of  Pope  Celestine  ".4     For,  observes  Angelo  in 

1  One  of  the  Sons  of  St.  Francis  treated  of  by  Miss  Macdonnell. 

2  P.  of  M.  was  afterwards  known  as  bro.  Liberatus,  and  his  com- 
panion, Peter  of  Fossombrone,  became  more  generally  known  as 
Angelo  Clareno  (also  treated  of  by  Miss  M.).  By  mistake,  the  writer 
of  the  article  "  Jac.  da  T."  in  the  Cath.  Encyc.  says  that  J.  d.  T.  himself 
went  on  the  embassy. 

3  From  the  Chronica  Septem  Tribulationum,  p.  308.  Most  of  this 
work  was  published  by  Ehrle  (now  cardinal)  in  Archiv  fur  Litteratur 
und  Kirchengeschichte  des  Mittelalters,  ii  (Berlin,  1886),  pp.  125-55  ; 
256-327.  Cf.  the  Epist.  excusatoria  of  Ang.  Clar.  to  John  XXII.,  ap. 
Ciro  da  Pesaro,  II  Clareno,  p.  280  ft.,  285.    Cf.  p.  144,.  Macerata,  1921. 

4  Chron.,  S.  T.,  I.e.  The  same  is  also  stated  by  Ubertino  da  Casale 
in  that  rare  book  of  his,  Arbor  vitcs  Crucifixes,  v.,  8,  Venice,  1485.  It 
is  also  stated  in  similar  terms  of  spiritual  pride.  He  denounces  Boniface 
for  killing  :  "  Christi  spiritum  et  evangelicum  statum  ejus  quern  paulo 
ante  Celestinus  ...  in  legitimis.  F.  filiis  (of  St.  Francis)  per  bullam 
autenticam  ordinaverat  reflorere."  This  quotation  is  from  the  fifth 
col.  after  the  beginning  of  v.,  c.  8.  On  "  U.  da  C."  (and  on  his  hostility 
to  Boniface  VIII.,  p.  115)  see  Miss  E.  M.  Salter  in  Franciscan  Essays, 
Aberdeen,  1912. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  315 

another  passage,1  though  "  the  lord  Celestine  was  in 
habit  and  name  a  monk,  he  was  in  fact,  deed,  and  virtue, 
a  poor  man  of  the  Gospel  (pauper  evangelicus),  and  in 
humility  a  true  friar  minor  ". 

But  no  sooner  had  Celestine  resigned  the  Papacy  than 
the  opponents  of  these  Spirituals  (who  no  longer  professed 
to  be  Friars  Minor,  but  "  poor  hermits  "  living  according 
to  a  rule  approved  by  that  pontiff,2)  denounced  them  to 
Pope  Boniface  as  apostates  from  the  Franciscan  Order. 
But,  says  Angelo  Clareno,  as  trustworthy  men  who 
were  present  have  declared,  Boniface  bade  them  leave 
them  alone  as  they  were  better  than  they  were.3  Not  to 
be  thus  put  off,  the  opponents  of  the  Spirituals  next 
declared  that  they  were  schismatics,  and  preached 
everywhere  that  Boniface  was  not  a  true  Pope.  A  little 
inquiry  soon  convinced  Boniface  that  there  were  a 
number  of  men,  some  really  monks  and  some  pretending 
to  be  such,  and  some  hermits,  who  were  talking  against 
him  and  the  Church  generally.  He,  accordingly,  issued 
an  encyclical  Firma  cautela  (Sept.  22,  1296),  in  which 
he  renewed  the  condemnation  of  the  so-called  Order 
of  the  Apostles  by  Honorius  IV.,  and  then  proceeded  to 
condemn  recent  "  apostates  from  religious  Orders  ;  men 
known  as  Bizochi  who  pretend  to  be  monks  ;  and  such 
as,  pretending  to  lead  an  eremitical  or  solitary  life  ", 
are  leading  the  people  into  error.  The  episcopal  authorities 
whom  the  Pope  was  addressing  are  urged  to  be  diligent 
in  proceeding  against  such  persons,  examining  "  the 
conversation  and  life  "  of  those  hermits  and  Bizochi 
who  appear  to  be  suspicious.4 

1  Chron.,  p.  126. 

2  Cf.  the  Ep.  excusat.  of  A.  C,  ap.  C.  da  Pesaro,  p.  281.     Cf.  p.  283, 
and  his  De  sept,  trib.,  p.  319,  ap.  ib. 

3  Ep.  excusat.,  p.  287. 

4  This  decree  is  printed  in  full,  n.  244,  pp.  126-7,  ap.  Alessandri  and 
Pennachi,  Bullarium  Pontificium  Assissiense,  Quaracchi,  1920.    It  was 


3i6 


ST.     CELESTINE    V. 


meCssage.eS  Tt  was  the  best  known  of  these  Celestine  hermits, 
Jacopone  da  Todi,  who  addressed  the  Pope  in  verses 
that  brought  trouble  and  doubt  to  his  delicate  conscience. 
"  What  are  you  going  to  do,  Peter  de  Morrone  ?  x  You 
have  come  to  the  test.  Your  work  will  show  us  what 
you  have  thought  out  in  your  cell.  If  you  fail  the  hope 
of  the  world,  a  curse  will  light  upon  you.  ...  If  you 
hold  not  the  balance  fair,  before  God  men  will  hail 
you.  .  .  .  Great  grief  had  I  when  from  thy  lips  came 
forth  '  I  will  '.  Then  didst  thou  place  upon  thy  neck  the 
yoke  which  may  be  thy  ruin.  Right  low  has  fallen  the 
Sacred  College,  each  of  them  but  thinks  of  enriching  his 
kin.  Beware  of  benefice-holders  ever  athirst  for 
revenues  .  .  .  Beware,  too,  of  the  traffickers  who  make 
black  white.  If  thou  knowest  not  how  well  to  guard 
thyself,  sad  will  be  the  song  thou  wilt  have  to  sing." 

Celestine  ln  the  retirement  of  his  little  wooden  cell,  Celestine 

contemplates  , 

resignation,  began  to  realize  that  he  could  not  defend  himself.  He 
could  not  even  thoroughly  understand  the  language  of 
those  about  him,2  still  less  could  he  cope  with  the  intricate 
questions  of  law  and  politics  which  day  by  day  were 
brought  before  him.  No  matter  how  simple  he  may 
have  been,  it  must  have  dawned  upon  him  at  last  that 
Charles  and  every  one  around  him  were  doing  nothing 
but  ask  for  favours.  He  began  to  realize,  too,  how  often 
he  had  acted  in  opposition  to  the  more  experienced  of 

unfortunate  for  the  genuine  "  poor  hermits  "  that  they  were  con- 
founded with  the  Bizochi  and  the  Fraticelli  generally.  Cf.  Celidonio, 
iii,  p.  99  f.,  and  especially  Tocco,  "  I  fraticelli  o  poveri  eremiti  di  C.  V.," 
ap.  his  Studii  Francescani,  p.  239  ff.  See  also  ep.  of  Bonif.  VIII.  of 
May  7,  1297,  ap.  Potthast,  n.  24510  ;  Ep.  ex.,  p.  287  ;  Extra vag. 
John  XXII.,  "  Sancta  Romana  "  of  Dec.  30,  1317. 

1  "Que  farai,  Pier  da  Morrone."     Satire  25,  ed.  Brugnoli,  p.  294  ff. 
Le  satire  di  Jacopone  da  Todi,  Florence,  1914. 

"  Que  farai,  Pier  da  Morrone  ?  ej  vinuto  al  paragone. 
Vederimo  el  lavorato  ke'n  cella  ai  contemplate 
Si  '1  monno  e  da  te  ingannato     sequita  maledictione !  " 

2  Stef.,   Vit.,  iii,  7,  v.  206  ff. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  317 

the  cardinals.  Accordingly,  "  be  began  to  think  if, 
without  danger  to  his  soul,  he  could  cast  down  the  burden 
he  was  bearing."  1 

Among  the  very  few  books  that  he  had  ever  possessed 
was  a  little  compendium  of  Canon  Law.  After  consulting 
this,  Celestine  came  to  the  conclusion  that  if,  for  good 
reasons,  other  clerics  could  lay  down  their  office,  so,  too, 
could  a  Pope.  Of  his  conclusion,  however,  as  a  Pope  had 
no  superior  into  whose  hands  he  could  resign  his  office, 
he  did  not  feel  quite  sure.  He,  therefore,  asked  "  a 
friend  ",  who  finally  agreed  that  a  Pope  could  resign  for 
a  suitable  cause,  and  he  was  of  opinion  that  to  resume 
one's  former  mode  of  life  was  reason  enough.2  If  that 
were  all,  replied  Celestine,  he  had  causes  in  plenty. 
Nevertheless,  for  greater  security,  he  consulted  a  second 
friend.  The  second  opinion  confirmed  the  first,  and 
Celestine  made  up  his  mind.     He  would  resign.3 

1  B.D.,  c.  34.  "  Et  sic  eodem  ibidem  (in  the  wooden  cell)  permanente, 
coepit  cogitare  de  onere  quod  portabat,  si  quo  modo  posset  illud  abicere 
absque  periculo  et  discrimine  suae  animae."  It  is,  then,  his  own  disciple 
who  tells  us  that  Celestine  himself  first  conceived  the  idea  of  resigning. 
After  this  irrefragable  evidence,  only  those  who  want  to  believe  evil 
of  Boniface  VIII.  will  give  the  smallest  credence  to  the  stupid  story 
of  the  Ghibelline  Ferreto  Vincentino.  Even  he  only  gives  it  on  hearsay  : 
"  ferunt."  The  story  is  that  through  a  hole  which  he  had  made  in 
the  Pope's  cell,  Gaetani,  pretending  to  be  an  angel  from  heaven, 
exhorted  him  to  resign,  and  devote  himself  to  the  service  of  God 
alone  !  Ed.  Cipolla,  vol.  i,  p.  64,  and  the  important  n.  1.  After  the 
testimony  of  the  disciples  there  is  no  need  to  add  the  corroboration  of 
Stefaneschi,   Vita,  iii,  c.  12.     He  reflected  : — • 

"  Numquid  precidere  funem 
Est  opus,  et  melius  Romanam  linquere  sedem 
Pontifici,  qui  sceptra  tenens  in  pace  gubernet 
Ecclesiam,  etc." 

2  All  this  is  from  Stefaneschi,  I.e.  Some  have  suspected  that  this 
"  friend  "  was  Gaetani,  but  as  we  learn  from  the  next  chapter  of  Stef. 
(c.  13),  the  first  two  friends  whom  Celestine  consulted  were  not  cardinals. 

3  Stef.,  I.e. 

"  Firmabat  idem  ;    gaudebat  anhelus 
Presbiter  altipotens,  statuens  in  corde  volatum." 


3*8  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

Sme°of  "the  With  his  mind  now  made  up'  Celestine  consulted  some 
cardinals.  of  the  cardinals  as  to  his  resignation.  Of  these,  one 
was  naturally  cardinal  Benedict  Gaetani,  who  was 
acknowledged  generally  to  be  the  most  learned  of  his 
brethren,  and  who,  even  by  Celestine's  disciples,  is  called 
"  the  wisest  and  most  upright  cardinal  of  his  time  ",1 
According  to  them,  Benedict  (as  every  other  sensible  man 
must  have  been)  was  "  exceedingly  rejoiced  "  to  hear  of 
the  Pope's  design,  assured  him  that  he  could  resign,  and 
even  adduced  instances  of  some  Popes  who  had  already 
done  so.2  He  gave  him  the  only  answer  that  reason  and 
common  sense,  informed  by  the  records  of  history,  could 
have  given.  If,  however,  cardinal  Benedict  correctly 
assured  the  Pope  that  he  could  resign,  we  have  it  on  the 
best  authority  that  he  urged  him  not  to  do  so.  The 
authority  is  that,  too,  of  a  Colonna,  the  famous  iEgidius 
(Giles),  archbishop  of  Bourges,  a  man  as  distinguished 
by  his  learning  as  by  his  character —  a  man  immeasurably 
above  the  detractors  of  Boniface,  and  infinitely  more 
worthy  of  credence  (f  1316).  In  his  apology  for 
Boniface  VIII.  (De  rennnciatione  Papce)  he  boldly 
appealed  to  the  testimony  of  living  eyewitnesses  who 
declared  that  cardinal  Benedict  had  urged  Celestine  not 
to  resign,  protesting  that  his  sanctity  would  suffice  to 
instruct  and  enlighten  the  Sacred  College.  Hence, 
concludes  iEgidius,  as  this  took  place  in  the  hearing  of 
many,  there  were  not  in  his  renunciation  any  of  those 

1  "  Ad  hos  suos  cogitatus  convocavit  (Celestine)  unum  sagacissimum 
atque  probatissimum  cardinalem  tunc  temporis,  d.  Benedictum." 
B.D.,  c.  34  ;  cf.  Stef.,  iii,  c.  13.  From  these  words  of  the  Pope's  own 
disciples,  it  is  clear  that  Ptolemy  of  Lucca  (H.E.,  xxiv,  31,  32,  33  ; 
Annales,  p.  1300)  does  not  put  the  case  properly  when  he  makes 
Gaetani  (whom  he  names)  and  other  cardinals  take  the  initiative  in 
persuading  Celestine  to  resign  on  the  ground  that  designing  men  were 
causing  him  to  throw  the  whole  Church  into  confusion. 

2  Not  to  mention  such  a  Pope  as  Benedict  IX.,  Gaetani  may  have 
quoted,  e.g.,  the  example  of  Martin  I.     Cf,  supra,  vol.  i,  pt.  i,  p.  400. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  3IC) 

tricks  or  contrivances  or  deceits  that  the   adversaries 
of  Boniface  talk  about.1 

Before  the  cardinals  as  a  body  had  given  their  opinion  Efforts  made 

•*  .  .         to  dissuade 

on  the  legality  of  Celestine's  proposed  resignation,  Celestine. 
rumours  of  his  intention  had  begun  to  spread  about. 
When  those  of  his  monks  who  had  remained  with  him 
heard  the  report,  they  moved  heaven  and  earth  to  divert 
him  from  his  purpose.  His  "  rustic  crowd  ",  as 
Stefaneschi  calls  them,  implored  him  not  to  abandon 
them,  his  "  untutored  flock  ".  They  were  afraid,  they 
said,  of  the  great  cardinals  ;  they  will  class  us  as  heretics. 
Not  content  with  this,  the  monks  stirred  up  the  people 
of  Naples.2  From  Ptolemy  of  Lucca,  who  tells  us  that 
he  was  present  at  it,3  we  learn  that,  by  the  command  of 
the  King,  a  great  procession  in  which  were  to  be  seen 
many  bishops  of  the  neighbourhood,  with  all  the  religious 
and  clergy,  made  its  way  from  the  Cathedral  to  the 
Castel  Nuovo.  Arrived  at  the  Castle,  appeal  was  made 
by  it  "  in  the  usual  way  "  for  the  Pope's  blessing.  Showing 
himself  with  three  bishops  at  one  of  the  windows,  Celestine 
duly  blessed  the  assembled  multitude.  He  then  hearkened 
to  an  address  from  one  of  the  bishops  of  the  procession, 
who  in  a  voice  so  trumpet-like  that  it  was  heard  by 
Ptolemy  and  all  the  people  in  the  square,  begged  the 
Pope  in  the  name  of  King,  clergy,  and  people,  not  to 
consent  to  resign  "as  he  was  the  glory  of  their  kingdom  ". 
To  this  one  of  his  attendant  bishops  gave,  in  the  Pope's 
name,  an  ambiguous  answer.  Supposing  that  his  petition 
had  been  granted,  the  King's  orator  intoned  the  Te 
Deum,  which  was  taken  up  by  the  whole  procession. 

1  C.  23,  p.  56  :  "  Quia  sumciebat  collegio  quod  nomen  suae  sanc- 
titatis  invocaretur  super  eos."  The  De  R.P.  is  printed  in  J.  T.  Rocca- 
berti's  Bibliotheca  maxima  pontificia,  ii,  pp.  1-64,  Rome,  1695. 

2  This  is  the  assertion,  no  doubt  correct,  of  Stef.  (iii,  c.  14).  Accord- 
ing to  the  disciples,  the  Neapolitans  stirred  themselves  up. 

3  H.E..  xxiv,  32,  and  Annates,  p.  1300. 


Celestine 


320  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

This,  concludes  Ptolemy,  took  place  about  the  feast  of 
St.  Nicholas  (Dec.  6).1 

From  both  Stefaneschi  and  the  disciples,  however,  it 
would  seem  that,  as  a  result  of  the  agitation  of  the  Pope's 
monks,  a  disorderly  mob  had  broken  into  the  Castle  and 
made  the  same  request  that  was  afterwards  made  in 
form  by  the  organized  body  of  the  clergy  of  the  city. 

Celestine  having  put  off  the  intruders  with  soft  words, 

resigns, 

Dec.  13.  a  request  for  prayers  and  his  blessing,  summoned  the 
whole  body  of  the  cardinals  a  day  or  two  after  the 
dismissal  of  the  mob.  When  he  had  put  before  them 
his  previous  mode  of  life,  he  asked  them  whether  old 
age,  formed  habits,  ignorance  of  Latin,  or  of  polished 
speech  (inculta  loquela),  limited  intelligence,  experience, 
and  training  were  not  reasons  enough  to  justify  his 
resignation.  Though  the  cardinals  could  not  but  agree 
that  the  reasons  adduced  were  sufficient  to  justify 
resignation,2  they  urged  him  to  test  his  powers,  and  to 
remain  in  office  for  a  time  longer,  and  meanwhile,  refrain- 
ing from  following  bad  advice,  to  pray  himself  and  order 
prayers  to  ascertain  the  will  of  God  for  the  good  of  the 
world.3 

Public  prayers  were  accordingly  ordered,  and  for  some 
eight   days   Celestine  so  acted  as  to  allay  all  suspicion 


1  This  date  harmonizes  quite  well  with  the  declaration  of  Celestine 's 
disciples  (B.D.,  c.  34)  that  he  kept  silent  as  to  his  intentions  for 
"  about  eight  days  ",  and  then  resigned  on  the  feast  of  St.  Lucy  (Dec.  13). 

2  The  disciples  (c.  34)  suggest  that,  in  giving  this  answer,  the  cardinals 
were  looking  to  their  own  advantage.  But  their  hopes,  they  add,  came 
to  nought ;  for  in  place  "  of  a  simple  dove  they  were  to  get  a  most  wise 
serpent  ".  These  insinuations  show  the  mental  calibre  of  the  disciples 
who  had  not  wit  enough  to  see  that,  whatever  were  the  hopes  of  the 
cardinals,  they  gave  the  only  answer  that  honest,  sensible,  and  learned 
men  could  give. 

3  Stef.,  iii,  c.  15.  The  Chron.  S.  Petri  Erford.  mod.,  add  that  Celestine 
was  also  deaf.  "  Surdus,  multamque  debilis  utpote  octogenarius." 
P.  307,  ed.  Holder-Egger. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  321 

that  he  still  entertained  any  idea  of  resigning.  Mean- 
while, however,  with  the  aid  of  cardinal  Gaetani,  he  drew 
up  a  deed  of  renunciation.1  At  the  close  of  the  period 
of  calm,  the  cardinals  were  ordered  to  meet  the  Pope  on 
the  feast  of  St.  Lucy  (Dec.  13),  in  the  great  lofty  central 
hall  of  the  Castle,  now  known  as  the  Sala  S.  Luigi  or 
the  Sala  dei  Baroni.  Swinging  open  the  very  door  which 
still  gives  entrance  into  this  magnificent  apartment,2 
they  found  the  Pope  seated  on  his  throne  in  full  pontificals. 
When  he  had  signified  that  he  did  not  wish  any 
interruption,  Celestine  suddenly  produced  the  deed  of 
renunciation  which,  with  pale  face  but  determined  mien, 
he  read  out  clearly  to  the  assembled  fathers.  He  told 
them  that  of  his  own  accord  (sponte)  and  free  will  (libens), 
he  resigned  the  papacy,  as  his  age  and  other  defects 
rendered  him  incapable  of  fulfilling  its  duties,  and  he 
wished  to  put  an  end  to  further  disasters,  and  to  attend 
to  his  soul's  salvation.  He  then  exhorted  the  cardinals 
to  show  their  care  for  the  world  by  electing  a  worthy 
pastor  who  would  lead  the  flock  to  pastures  abundant 
and  fresh,  and  who  would  correct  the  many  mistakes  he 
had  made.3    Then,  to  the  profound  astonishment  of  the 

1  B.D.,  c.  34,  and  Stef.,  iii,  c.  16.     The  suspicions  even  of  the  King 
were  lulled. 

2  For  the  reason  that  this  hall  is  an  armoury  of  modern  weapons, 
I  had  the  greatest  difficulty  in  getting  permission  to  see  it. 

3  Stef.,  iii,  c.  16,  v.  534  ff. 

"  Defectus,  senium,  mores,  inculta  loquela, 

Non  prudens  animus,  non  mens  experta,  nee  altum 
Ingenium,  cura  solerti  cognita  nobis 
Cedendi  causas  subigunt,  etc. 
Et  date  pastorem  .   .   . 

nostrosque  ut  corrigat  actus 
Obnixe  petimus,  cum  devius  impulit  error, 
Nam  multis  variisque  modis  errasse  fatemur." 
As  we  have  already  stated  from  the  English  account  of  the  resignation, 
Celestine  also  confessed  in  his  mother  tongue  that  he  left  it  to  his 
successor  to  correct  his  mistakes.    Ap.  Letters  from  North.  Reg.,  p.  109. 
The  actual  text  of  Celestine's  act  of  resignation  is  not  known  ;     for  the 
Vol.  XVII.  y 


322  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

cardinals  in  front  of  him,  straightway  descending  from 
the  throne,  he  took  off,  one  after  another,  the  insignia 
of  the  papacy — his  mitre  with  its  one  crown,  the  red 
mantle,  the  ring,  and  the  other  pontificalia  even  to  the 
alb.1  All  this  he  did,  so  we  are  assured  by  Petrarch,2 
who  had  his  information  from  eyewitnesses,  "  with 
every  sign  of  joy.  If  he  took  the  chair  of  Peter  with 
sorrow,  he  left  it  with  gladness  :  Ascensus  mcestus, 
descensus  lsetus." 

He  then  withdrew  for  a  moment,  and  returning,  clad 
in  the  simple  garb  of  his  Order,  he  took  his  seat  on  the 
lowest  step  of  the  throne,  and  said  :  "  Behold,  my 
brethren,  I  have  resigned  the  honour  of  the  Papacy; 
and  now  I  implore  you  by  the  Blood  of  Jesus  and  by  His 
Holy  Mother,  quickly  to  provide  for  the  Church  a  man 
who  will  be  useful  for  it,  for  the  whole  human  race,  and 
for  the  Holy  Land."  3  When  he  had  said  this,  he  rose  to 
go,  but  the  cardinals  who  had  not  been  able  with  dry 
eyes  4  to  look  at  this  scene  so  touching  in  its  simple 
humility,  entreated  him  not  to  leave  them  until  he  had 
duly  provided  for  the  future. 

Addressing  him,  therefore,  in  the  name  of  the  Sacred 
College,  Cardinal  Matteo  Rosso  said  that  by  his  words 

document  given  by  Ciaconius,  Vitce  RR.PP.,  ed.  1677,  is  not  regarded 
as  authentic.  However,  from  the  English  narrative  {I.e.,  p.  110)  we 
know  it  contained  the  following  :  "  Ego  C.  P.  V.,  considerans  me 
insufneientem  ad  onus  istud,  tutus  ratione  inscientiae,  turn  quia  senex 
et  impotens  corpore,  turn  quia  vitae  contemplativae,  sicut  consuevi,  colo 
vacare  .   .   .  resigno  papatui  et  oneri  et  honori." 

1  B.D.,  c.  34,  Eng.  narrat.,  I.e.  This  narrative  is  also  found  inserted, 
in  almost  identical  terms,  in  various  of  our  Chronicles,  e.g.  those  of 
Bart,  of  Cotton,  p.  256  f.  ;  Gervase  of  Canterbury,  Contin.,  ii,  p.  308,  etc. 

2  De  vit.  solit.,  1.  ii,  sect.  3,  c.  18. 

3  Eng.  nar.,  I.e.  The  word  before  the  "  Holy  Land  "  is  mutilated. 
It  appears  as  ".  .  .  nitati  ".  I  have  supposed  it  to  be  "  humanitati  ". 
Cf.  Stef.,  iii,  18. 

4  The  disciples  suggest  that  in  the  case  of  many  of  the  cardinals 
the  tears  were  those   of  joy  ! 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  323 

and  acts  he  had  made  his  determination  to  resign  so 
plain  that  on  that  matter  there  was  no  more  to  be  said. 
To  put  the  situation  in  order,  however,  it  would  be  well 
if  he  would  decree  that  a  Pope  could  resign,  and  that 
the  cardinals  could  accept  such  resignation.  A  decree 
to  that  effect  was  accordingly  at  once  drawn  up,  and 
signed,  and  afterwards  inserted  by  Boniface  VIII.  in  his 
Liber  Sextus  of  the  Canon  Law.1 

On  the  resignation  of  Pope  Celestine  which,   at  any  Various 
rate,  all  serious  historians  both  at  the  time  and  since  thVresigna- 
allow    to    have    been    spontaneous    and    free,2    various tion  of 

Cclcstinc 

criticisms  have  been  passed.  The  best  is  the  laconic 
one  of  the  procurator  of  the  Commune  of  Vicenza, 
Guidotto  Spiapasto  :  "  On  St.  Lucy's  day  Pope  Celestine 
resigned  the  Papacy,  and  he  did  well  "  !  3  His  best  deed 
was  his  self-sacrificing  acceptance  of  it,  thereby  putting 
an  end  to  its  disastrous  vacancy,  and  his  second  best 
act  was  his  humble  resignation  of  it,  whereby  he  saved 
himself  from  inflicting  irreparable  harm  on  it  and  the 
Church. 

Whether  one  is  right  or  wrong  in  describing  Spiapasto's 


1  Stef.,  iii,  c.  17.  "  Et  reserant  decreta  novis  jam  consita  libris." 
Cf.  Annates  Austria,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  ix,  p.  750.  The  decree  is  to  be 
found  in  Tit.  vii.  De  renunciatione,  c.  1,  vol.  ii,  p.  971,  ed.  Friedberg. 
In  this  chapter  Boniface  says  that,  to  take  away  all  doubts  as  to 
whether  a  Pope  could  resign,  Celestine,  with  the  advice  of  the  cardinals, 
of  whom  he  was  then  one,  decreed,  by  his  apostolic  authority,  that 
a  Pope  could  freely  resign  ("  Romanum  pontificem  posse  libere  resi- 
gnare  ")  and  that  he  himself,  also  with  the  advice  of  "  our  brethren  ", 
had  inserted  it  among  other  decrees  that  it  might  not  be  lost  sight  of. 
Cf.  Ptolemy  of  L.,  H.E.,  xxiv,  c.  33.  In  H.E.,  ii,  9,  Ptolemy  tells 
of  the  resignation  of  Pope  Clement  I.  to  which  he  had  alluded  in  the 
former  place. 

2  In  addition  to  the  absolutely  competent  authorities  already  cited, 
add  :  Anna!.  Zwifalt.,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  x,  p.  61,  "  Sponte  papatum 
renunciavit  " ;  and  Ann.  Colmar.,  ap.  Bohmer,  Pontes,  ii,  p.  32, 
"  Voluntarie  resignavit." 

3  Ap.  Archiv.    Venet.,  xvii,  1887,  p.  428. 


324  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

"  bene  fecit  "  as  the  best  criticism  passed  on  Celestine's 
resignation,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  one  most  frequently 
passed  upon  it,  is  that  "  from  cowardice  he  made  the 
great  renouncement  "  ;  and  the  main  reason  that  this 
is  the  popular  criticism,  is  because  it  is  generally  believed 
to  be  the  criticism  of  Dante.  In  his  weird  wanderings  in 
the  nether  regions,  the  poet,  in  a  kind  of  ante-chamber 
of  hell,  encountered  the  shades  of  the  lukewarm,  of  those 
who  in  life  had  been  neither  good  nor  bad,  and  among 
them  he  recognized  him  who,  from  meanness  of  spirit 
and  littleness  of  soul,  had  uttered  the  great  refusal.1 
This  passage  is,  as  we  have  said,  popularly  supposed  to 
refer  to  Celestine  and  his  renunciation  of  the  Papacy  ; 
and  some  think,  moreover,  that  the  identification  is 
confirmed  by  another  passage  of  the  Inferno,  wherein 
Boniface  VIII.  speaks  of  the  "  two  keys  which  my 
predecessor  held  not  dear  ".2 

"Lo  gran  rifuto"  may,  of  course,  refer  to  Celestine.3 
But  it  is  hard  to  see  how  even  Dante's  unmeasured  hatred 
of  Boniface  (which  appears  to  be  the  principal  reason 
alleged  for  his  attack  on  Celestine)  could  have  led  a  man 
of  his  sympathetic  intelligence  to  ascribe  to  vilta  Celestine's 
eminently  sensible  and  heroic  act  of  resignation.4  For 
our  part,  we  subscribe  to  the  arguments  or  comments  of 
Benvenuto  da  Imola,  the  most  important  of  Dante's  early 

1  Inf.,  iii,  59  and  60. 

"  Vidi  e  conobbi  l'ombra  di  colui 
Che  fece  per  vilta  lo  gran  rifuto." 

2  Inf.,  xxvii,   104-5. 

"  Son  due  le  chiave 
Che  il  mio  antecessor  non  ebbe  care." 

3  Such  a  man  as  Fazio  degli  Uberti,  who  lived  near  Dante's  time, 
accordingly  places  Celestine  in  hell.  Dittamondo,  iv,  c.  21.  Petrarch 
(De  vita  solit.,  1.  ii,  sect,  iii,  c.  18),  however,  does  Celestine  but  justice 
when  he  praises  his  action  in  this  matter.  He  was  wonderful,  he  says, 
in  that  he  resigned  the  dignity  of  the  Papacy  "  qui  nihil  est  altius  ". 

4  It  was  an  example  of  humility,  says  a  contemporary,  that  was 
"  astounding  to  all,  imitable  by  few  ",  Jordan,  Chron.,  c.  236. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  325 

commentators.  Dante,  he  urges,  could  not  have  meant 
Celestine,  as  he  certainly  did  not  renounce  the  pontificate 
from  want  of  spirit,  for  he  was  truly  great  hearted  : 
"  magnanimus  ante  papatum,  in  papatu,  et  post 
papatum."  He  showed  nobility  of  soul  before  his 
pontificate,  because  when  he  heard  of  his  election  he 
wished  to  fly  with  a  young  man  of  Salerno  called  Robert.1 
During  his  pontificate  he  showed  his  magnanimity  by 
daily  retiring  to  a  little  cell  for  contemplation,  and  then, 
because  he  realized  his  unfitness,  surrendering  by  one 
act  every  form  of  honour  and  distinction.  After  his 
pontificate,  he  once  more  showed  his  greatness  of  soul 
by  again  seeking  retirement.  It  is  not,  then,  possible  to 
suppose  that  "  the  most  wise  Dante  "  would  damn  a 
most  holy  man.  No,  continues  Benvenuto,  he  referred 
to  Esau.2  The  commentator  goes  on  to  remark  that 
Dante  was  irritated  against  Boniface,  and  so  very 
frequently  spoke  evilly  of  him,  that  "  great  souled 
sinner  "  ;  and  yet  it  was  Celestine  who  "  of  his  own 
accord  (sponte)  "  had  given  the  pontificate  to  him.3 

To  enable  us  to  conclude  the  story  of  Peter  of  Morrone,  Election  of 
we  must  here  note,  though  without  going  now  into  details, 
that  Benedict  Gaetani,  the  one  among  the  cardinals  whom, 
at  least  on  one   subject  towards  the  end  of  his  brief 
pontificate,  Celestine  most  consulted,4  was  quickly  and 

1  This,  as  we  have  seen,  is  also  stated  by  Petrarch  from  whom  we 
learn  that  the  disciple  was  as  great  as  his  master  ;  for  when  Celestine 
wanted  him  to  remain  with  him  as  Pope,  he  replied  he  was  ready  to 
fly  with  him  to  poverty,  but  not  to  abide  with  him  in  honour  and  glory. 

2  Many  conjectures  have  been  made  as  to  whom  Dante  referred  to. 
G.  Rivera,  in  his  pamphlet,  Dante  e  gli  Abrnzzi,  p.  6,  regards  it  as 
highly  probable  that  D.  referred  to  Vieri  de'  Cerchi,  chief  of  the 
Bianchi  faction,  as  his  family  "  per  vilta  "  refused  the  dominion  of 
Florence. 

3  Comment.,  Inf.,  iii,  vol.  i,  pp.  117-20,  ed.  Lacaita,  or  vol.  i,  p.  95  ff. 
of  the  Italian  trans,  of  Tamburini.  Dante  "  saepissime  dixit  multa 
mala  de  Bonifacio,  qui  .   .   .  fuit  magnanimus  peccator  ". 

«  Cf.  John  Longus,  Chron.  S.  Bert.,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xxv,  p.  866.    The 


326  ST.     CELESTINE    V. 

unanimously  elected  Pope  on  Dec.  24,  1294. 1  Not  a 
little  has  been  written  by  modern  writers  to  explain  this 
speedy  election,  but  it  must  be  confessed  that  a  large 
proportion  of  them  rely  rather  on  their  own  political 
theories  than  on  such  direct  evidence  as  is  available. 
Relying  exclusively  on  the  latter,  we  may  say  that 
Celestine  was  the  chief  cause  of  his  election.  We  have 
just  seen  that  Benvenuto  da  Imola  believed  that  Celestine 
"  gave  "  (donaverat)  the  pontificate  to  Boniface.  But 
there  is  better  evidence  than  that.  Stefaneschi  assures 
us  that  he  had  it  from  the  mouth  of  Boniface  VIII. 
himself,  and  from  others,  that  Celestine  had  told  him  and 
others  also  that  he  would  succeed  him.2  Celestine's 
disciples,  moreover,  assert  that  he  foretold  to  Thomas  de 
Ocra,  a  member  of  his  own  Order  whom  he  had  made 
cardinal,  and  to  Benedict  himself  that  he  would  be  his 
successor.3  An  English  authority  is  still  more  definite 
on  the  influence  exerted  by  Celestine  in  behalf  of  cardinal 
Gaetani.  It  states  that  when  asked  whom  he  regarded 
as  a  just  and  holy  man  suitable  to  succeed  him,4  he  had 
named  Benedict  Gaetani.  Seeing  that  he  had  made  a 
wise  choice,  the  cardinals  elected  Benedict  Pope.5 
Peter  M.  is        As  soon  as  Gaetani  had  been  elected,  Peter  at  once 

kept  near  .  .     . 

Boniface.       paid  him   due   homage       reverently   kissing  his   feet  ", 
and  then   asked  his  permission  to   return  to   his  cell. 


chronicler  makes  far  too  wide  an  assertion  when  he  says  that  C. 
consulted  Benedict  "  ut  ab  eo  in  suis  factis  papalibus  .  .  .  informa- 
retur  ".  He  would  not  have  made  so  many  mistakes  if  he  had  con- 
sulted him  regularly. 

1  "  Cardinales  .  .  .  concorditer  per  viam  scrutinii  elegerunt  d. 
Benedictum."     Eng.  nar.,  ap.  Letters  from  N.  Reg.,  p.  110. 

2  Canonis  Cel.,  iii,  c.  17,  and  Stef.'s  own  note  thereto. 

3  B.D.,  c.  35. 

4  It  will  be  remembered  that  when  Celestine  resigned,  he  urged 
the  cardinals  to  elect  a  pastor,  "  rectum  doctumque."  Stef.,  Vita, 
iii,  c.  6. 

5  Flores  Hist.,  iii,  276,  R.S. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  327 

But,  continue  the  disciples,  Boniface  had  other  designs 
in  his  regard,  and  said  that  he  did  not  wish  him  to 
return  to  his  cell,  but  that  he  should  accompany  him 
into  Campania.  They  even  insinuate  that  Boniface 
began  to  bully  the  saint.1  The  fact  merely  was  that 
no  one  better  than  the  new  Pope  understood  how  simple 
Peter  was,  and  how  liable  he  was  to  be  influenced  by 
those  in  whom  he  trusted.  He  naturally  feared  that 
designing  men  who  hoped  everything  from  Peter  de 
Morrone  might  succeed  in  persuading  him  that  he  could 
not  resign  the  Papacy,  and  so  that,  especially  in  view 
of  his  popularity  with  the  multitude,  a  dangerous  schism 
might  be  brought  about.  He  was  aware  that  many  had 
disapproved  of  Celestine's  renunciation,2  and  so  he 
judged  it  better  to  keep  him  under  his  eye.3 

Peter's  subsequent  conduct  showed  how  well  founded  ^ur/Sf1 
were  the  suspicions  of  Boniface.     The   new   Pope  had  Peter  of 

,  1  --U1      Morrone, 

naturally  decided  to  leave  Naples   as  soon  as  possible,  1295. 


1  "  Et  aliis  verbis  multis  coepit  terrere  ilium."     B.D.,  c.  35. 

2  "  Hac  renunciatione  peracta,  omnes  (?)  qui  hoc  audiebant  contra 
ilium  clamabant  quod  non  bene  fecisset."  Such  is  the  exaggerated 
language  of  the  disciples.     B.D.,  c.  34,  sub  fin. 

3  He  feared  that  "  simplices  "  would  still  think  Celestine  Pope,  "  et 
per  consequens  scisma  in  ecclesia  oriretur."  Annates  Austria,  contin. 
Florianensis,  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  ix,  p.  750.  Cf.  Chron.  Osterhoviense,  ap. 
Bohmer,  Pontes,  ii,  p.  557  ;  Benvenuto  da  Imola,  Comment.,  vol.  ii, 
p.  42,  ed.  Lacaita  ;  Annates  Altahen.  cont.  "  Ipsum  (C.)  reclusit,  ne 
scisma  fieret,"  ap.  M.  G.  SS.,  xvii,  p.  416  ;  B.  Guidonis  Vita  Cel.,  etc. 
Even  the  "  Spiritual  ",  John  Peter  Olivi,  thought  it  necessary  to 
write  a  work  "  De  renuntiatione  Papae  "  (ed.  Oliger,  ap.  Archiv. 
Francisc.  Hist  ,  xi,  1918,  p.  307  ff.)  to  disprove  the  arguments  put 
forth  to  show  a  Pope  could  not  resign.  He  died,  1298.  See  also,  ib., 
p.  366  ff.,  his  letter  to  the  famous  "  Spiritual  "  Bl.  Conrad  of  Offida 
(Sept.  14,  1295),  in  which  he  refutes  the  "  frivolous  and  ridiculous 
reasons  "  (springing  not  from  reason  and  Canon  Law  but  from  a  false 
mysticism  and  Joachism)  of  those  "rash  and  presumptuous"  men 
who  "  stupidly  "  say  that  a  Pope  cannot  resign,  and  that  Boniface  is 
not  a  true  Pope. 


32$  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

and  to  go  to  Rome.1    Bidding  Peter  accompany  him,  he 
left  Naples  perhaps  before  December  was  out,  but,  at 
any   rate,   in   the   beginning  of   January,2   1295,    as  he 
reached  Rome  on  January  17. 3     Having  told  Peter  to 
journey   in   his   company,    Boniface   presumed   that   he 
would  do  so,  and  evidently  did  not  order  any  very  strict 
watch  to  be  kept  over  him.     Meanwhile,  however,  Peter 
had  allowed  himself  to  be  influenced  by  those  around 
him.     They  had  put  all  kinds  of  ideas  into  his  mind  as 
to  what  Boniface  intended  to  do  with  him.    Among  other 
things  they  said  that  he  was  taking  him  into  Campania 
to   imprison   him   there.4     Arguing   that   he   had   only 
resigned  in  order  that  he  might  be  able  to  lead  the  same 
sort  of  life  as  he  had  done  before  his  election,   Peter 
decided  to  return  to  it,  despite  anybody.     He  had  left 
with  quite  a  large  company,  including  his  former  disciple, 
Angelarius,    Abbot    of    Mt.    Cassino.      When,    however, 
he  reached  San  Germano,  he  quickly,  with  the  aid  of  a 
priest,   slipped  away,   and  returned  to  his  cell  on  Mt. 
Morrone  amidst  the  greatest  manifestations  of  joy  on  the 
part  of  the  people  of  all  the  country  round.5 

On  hearing  of  his  secret  departure,  Boniface  was 
perturbed,  and  justly  annoyed.  He  feared  that  the  simple 
monk  had  been  induced  to  resume  the  Papacy.6  He, 
accordingly,  straightway  dispatched  his  chamberlain 
(camerarius),   Theodoric   of   Orvieto,  and   the  abbot  of 

1  He   left  ".   .   .  Ut    Petri   sedes,    compressa   dolore 

Libertate  frui,  sponsumque  revisere  posset." 
Stef.,  Bonif.,  c.  5. 

2  Ace.  ib.,  Prose,  p.  1 1,  B.  left  for  Rome  on  the  first  or  second  of  Jan 

3  This  date,  not  given  in  Potthast,  is  furnished  by  the  useful  English 
narrative,  ap.  Letters  from  N.  Reg.,  p.  111. 

4  B.D.,  c.  36.     "  Multi  dicebant  quod  in  Campaniam  ilium  volebat 
ducere,  ut  ibi  ilium  incarceraret.     Et  alii  alia  cogitabant." 

5  B.D.,  cc.  37-8.     "  Sulmonenses  cives  .   .   .  occurrerunt  ei  omnes 
obviam  et  ilium  videntes  nimium  laetati  sunt."    Cf.  Stef.,  Canon,  i,  c.  2. 

6  B.D.,    c.    38.      "  Credebat    ivisse   ad   papatum,    quern   dimiserat, 
resumendum." 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  329 

Monte  Cassino  to  seek  him.  They  had  no  difficulty  in 
tracking  him  to  his  cell,  where  they  found  him  giving 
thanks  to  God  that  He  had  brought  him  back  there. 
They  upbraided  him  for  having  gone  off  without  the 
Pope's  permission,  and  bade  him  return  at  once  lest 
Boniface  should  be  angry  with  him.  Peter,  however, 
replied  by  pointing  out  that  he  had  resigned  in  order  to 
be  able  to  return  to  his  former  mode  of  life,  and  he 
begged  the  Pope's  messengers  to  entreat  him  to  allow 
him  to  end  his  life  in  solitude  as  he  had  begun  it.  He 
undertook,  moreover,  not  to  speak  to  anyone  but  to  his 
monks.  Extracting  a  promise  from  him  that  he  would 
not  leave  his  cell  till  they  should  return  with  the  Pope's 
answer,  the  messengers  departed. 

On  their  return  journey,  they  were  met  by  another 
papal  messenger,  who  informed  them  that  they  were 
to  bring  Peter  back  with  them  whether  he  wanted  to 
come  or  not.  Before  the  chamberlain  could  retrace  his 
steps,  word  of  his  errand  had  reached  the  hermit  ;  so 
that  when  the  messenger  reached  the  cell,  Peter  was  not 
to  be  found.  It  was  to  no  purpose  that  the  chamberlain 
scoured  the  country,  uttered  threats  and  offered  rewards. 
Peter's  hiding  place  was  not  to  be  discovered.  However, 
the  irate  official  seized  the  two  monks  whom  he  found 
in  the  hermit's  cell.  But,  as  one  was  too  ill  to  travel, 
he  carried  off  the  other,  Angelo  di  Caramanico.  Presumed 
to  be  privy  to  Peter's  flight,  the  unfortunate  monk  was 
imprisoned  in  the  rocky  islet  of  Martana  (or  Malta), 
one  of  the  two  little  islands  in  lake  Bolsena.  Here  he 
died  in  a  few  days.1 

1  All  this  is  from  B.D.,  c.  39,  and  the  note,  p.  425,  from  another  MS. 
It  is  from  Benvenuto  da  Imola,  commenting  on  "  Malta  "  in  Paradiso, 
cant.  9,  that  we  learn  the  name  of  the  prison,  and  the  speedy  death  of 
the  prisoner.  But  he  has  confused  the  monk  Angelo  with  abbot 
Angelarius,  and  says  that  it  was  the  latter  who  was  imprisoned  by 
Boniface  for  not  guarding  Peter  properly.     He  is  certainly  wrong,  as 


330 


ST.    CELESTINE    V. 


Peter  tries 
to  cross  the 
sea. 


Peter  is 
captured. 


Meanwhile,  brother  Peter  of  Morrone  was  making  his 
way  to  "  a  certain  wood  in  Apulia  in  which  there  were 
a  number  of  good  servants  of  God  ",  and  which  was  about 
four  days'  journey  from  his  cell.  Though  clad  "in 
a  most  vile  cloak  ",  he  was,  we  are  told,  everywhere 
recognized  as  he  walked  along,  even  by  paople  who  had 
never  seen  him  before.  In  the  wood  he  remained  con- 
cealed till  Palm  Sunday  (March  27),  but  when  on  that  day 
a  Benedictine  Abbot,  searching  for  him,  passed  through 
the  wood,  Peter  resolved  to  fly  across  the  sea  to  Greece.1 
Some  of  his  monks,  accordingly,  engaged  some  sailors  of 
Rodi,  on  the  coast  below  the  northern  slopes  of  Mte. 
Gargano,  to  convey  him  across  the  Adriatic.  For  five 
or  six  weeks,  however,  storms  and  contrary  winds 
prevented  their  putting  to  sea,  and  when,  at  last,  they 
sailed  out  they  were  driven  back,  and  had  to  come  ashore 
close  to  Viesti  only  fifteen  miles  from  Rodi  round  the 
promontory.2 

Again,  for  several  days,  the  sailors  were  unable  to 
launch  their  boat,  and  word  reached  "  the  Captain  "  of 
Viesti  that  the  ex-Pope  was  in  the  neighbourhood. 
Overjoyed  at  the  news,  the  Captain,  or  Podesta,  seized 
him,  and  at  once  sent  word  to  the  Pope  and  to  the  King 
of  Naples  and  his  officials  regarding  his  capture. 
Charles  II.,  we  are  told,  was  then,  according  to  the 
disciples,  at  Anagni,  no  doubt  with  Boniface,  who  went 
there  in  June.3  The  King  agreed  to  act  in  concert  with 
the  Pope,  as  he  had  done  from  the  time  when  Peter  had 


we  know  that  Angelarius  was  alive  on  Apr.  18,  1295,  when  he  was 
deposed  by  Boniface,  not  for  carelessness  in  guarding  Peter,  but 
because  he  had  been  most  injudiciously  forced  on  the  monks  of  Mt. 
Cassino  by  Celestine.     Cf.  Reg.  Bonif.   VIII.,  n.  96,  and  supra,  p.  300. 

1  B.D.,  c.  40. 

2  lb.,  c.  41.     Cf.  Stef.,  Canonis.,  i,  c.  4. 

3  B.D.,  c.  42.     Charles  II.  reached  Anagni  June  7.     Cf.  Syllabus 
Membranar.,  ii,  157. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  331 

fled  from  San  Germane1  He,  therefore,  with  the  consent 
of  Boniface,  sent  to  Viesti  "  the  patriarch  of  Jerusalem  ",2 
a  Templar  (William  of  Villaret,  prior  of  St.  Giles  in 
Provence),  the  knight  Louis  de  Roheriis,  and  the  Constable 
William  l'Estendard  to  escort  the  fugitive  to  him. 
From  the  actual  documents  giving  King  Charles's  com- 
mission to  these  men  to  act,  it  appears  that  they  were 
sent  on  their  errand  whilst  the  King  and  Boniface  were 
still  in  Rome  (May  16  and  17), 3  before  either  of  them 
went  to  Anagni.  However,  it  was  when  both  of  them 
were  in  that  hill  town  that  brother  Peter  was  presented 
to  them. 

The  disciples  tell  us  on  the  one  hand  that  "  those  good 
lords  ",  the  King's  Commissioners,  treated  Peter  with 
as  much  deference  as  if  he  were  still  Pope,4  and  on  the 
other  hand  that  "  many  men  "  were  constantly  urging 
him  to  reclaim  the  Papacy,  as  he  had  no  legal  right  to 
renounce  it.  "All  men  were  on  his  side."  5  But,  adds  the 
biographer,  I  myself  heard  him  reply  :  "  Far  be  it  from 
me  to  cause  dissension  in  the  Church.  I  did  not  give  up 
the  Papacy  to  take  it  back  again  ;    and  I  am  still  of  the 


1  See  his  letters  dated  Jan.  26,  1295,  from  Rome  to  the  Justiciary 
of  the  Abruzzi,  and  other  officials,  ordering  them  to  assist  in  the  search 
for  brother  Peter.     Docs.  ap.  Cantera,  p.  81  f. 

2  Or,  as  he  is  perhaps  more  correctly  called  by  the  eighth  witness, 
"  the  once  (quondam)  "  patriarch  of  Jerusalem.  Ap.  Seppelt,  p.  212. 
This  was  Radulf  (Raoul  or  Rudolf)  de  Grandivilla,  a  Dominican,  who 
had  been  consecrated  patriarch  by  order  of  Celestine  V.  His  appoint- 
ment, like  the  rest  of  those  of  Celestine,  was  cancelled  by  Boniface. 
Cf.  Chron.  Gerard  de  Frachet  contin.,  ad  an.,  1294,  ap.  RR.  FF.  SS., 
xxi,  p.  12.  However,  as  witness  xi  speaks  only  "  of  a  certain  (quendam) 
patriarch  of  J.  "  (Seppelt,  p.  216)  and  King  Charles  II.  calls  Radulf 
"  Patriarch  of  J.,"  it  may  be  that  his  nomination  by  Celestine  had 
not  yet  been  cancelled. 

3  The  diplomas  are  given  in  Cantera,  p.  83,  n.  They  are  also  published 
by  Capasso  in  vol.  x  of  the  Arch.  Stor.  Nap.,  vol.  x,  p.  779. 

4  C.  42. 

5  lb.,  c.  43. 


332  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

same  mind  come  what  may."  1  So  great  were  the  number 
of  the  Saint's  admirers  who  came  to  salute  him  on  his 
journey,  that  at  length  his  escort  had  to  insist  on  travelling 
by  night.  By  night  also  was  he  brought  secretly  into 
Anagni,  and  lodged  close  to  the  Pope.2 
Peter  is  Next  day  he  was  brought  before  Boniface,  and  asked 

confined  in        ,       ,       ,      , 

the  castle  of  wnY  ne  had  not  obeyed  the  orders  he  had  been  given, 
Fumone,  but  had  fled  from  San  Germano,  and  then  from  his  cell 
at  Sulmona.  When  he  had  explained  his  reasons,  brother 
Peter  begged  to  be  allowed  to  return  to  his  cell.  To  this 
request  the  Pope  replied  that  he  could  give  no  answer 
till  he  had  consulted  the  cardinals.  The  matter  was 
accordingly  referred  to  them  in  consistory.3  If  we  are 
to  believe  Peter's  biographers,  several  (plures)  of  the 
cardinals  advised  that  his  desire  should  be  granted. 
Nevertheless,  the  majority  of  them,  having  in  mind  that 
brother  Peter  did  not  understand  that  obedience  was 
better  than  sacrifice,  that  he  had  shown  that  he  could 
be  persuaded  to  disobey  orders,  and  to  break  his  word, 
and  that  large  numbers  of  his  simple  or  interested 
admirers  believed  or  feigned  to  believe  that  he  could 
not  resign  the   Papacy,   decided  that  it  was  necessary 

1  ib. 

2  lb.,  cc.  43-4.     Cf.  Stef.,  Canonis.,  i,  c.  5.. 

3  The  narrative  of  Celestine's  disciples,  which  we  are  here  following, 
gives  the  impression  of  a  rather  rough  reception  of  the  Saint  by 
Boniface.  But,  if  we  turn  to  the  narrative  of  Stefaneschi,  I.e.,  which, 
to  say  the  least,  is  as  worthy  of  credence  as  that  of  the  disciples,  we 
find  that  Boniface  received  him  most  kindly,  and  so  put  the  situation 
before  him,  that  he  expressed  his  readiness  to  go  to  Mte.  Fumone,  where  : 
"  Non  facilis  gressus,  nee  bello  pervia  et  armis."  If  he  lived  hardly 
there,  he  did  so  because  he  wished  to  live  as  he  had  lived  before. 

"  Blandeque  amplectitur  almum 
Alloquiturque  senem  placidis  sermonibus  heros   (Boniface)  ; 
In  tantumque  pium  movet,  ut  consistere  promptus 
Arce  velit  castri  Fumonis 

Sed  celica  spirans 
Parce  usus,  parceque  tulit,  moresque  priores 
Observare    studet."     L.c. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  333 

that  he  should  be  kept  in  safe  confinement.     He  was, 
therefore,  after  being  retained  two  months  at  Anagni, 
whilst  such  a  place  was  being  prepared,  conveyed  by 
night  to  the  castle  on  Monte  Fumone,  some  eight  miles 
above  Ferentino.1    The  little  town  of  Fumone,  standing 
on  a  round,  stony  isolated  hill,  and    commanding    the 
whole  district,  forms,  like  the  Italian  hill-towns  generally, 
as  it  were  a  large  fortress,  with  its  castello  as  a  sort  of 
citadel  in  its  centre.    It  was  in  a  very  small  room  in  this 
castle  that  the  ex-Pope  was  confined  (c.  August,  1295). 
When  he  saw  it,  he  gave  thanks  to  God,  exclaiming  : 
"  I  have  longed  for  a  cell  and  a  cell  I  have  got."  2    At 
his  request,  two  of  his  brethren,  with  whom  he  could 
recite  the  divine  office,  were  allowed  to  remain  with  him. 
At  first,  they  had  to  be  changed  frequently,  as  they  could 
not  endure  the  close  confinement.     But  at  length  two 
stronger  ones  were  found  who  remained  with  him  till 
his  death,  which  took  place  some  ten  months  after  his 
arrival.3    Though  it  is  true  that  in  brother  Peter's  cell 
there  was  barely  room  to  turn,  we  are  assured  that  he 
never  made  any  complaint  about  it,4  and  it  may  certainly 
be  said  that,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  it  was  no  worse  than 
his  cell  on  Mte.  Morrone.   Hence  it  is,  that  though  Peter's 
cell  was  so  narrow,  and  though  no  one  was  allowed  to 
converse   with  him  or  his  two   companions,5  still  con- 


1  B.D.,  c.  44.     I  visited  the  castle  of  Fumone,  Dec.  30,  1908. 

2  lb.,  c.  45.  "  Cellam  desideravi,  cellam  habeo,  sicut  tuae  placuit 
pietati  D.  Deus  meus." 

3  lb. 

4  "  Et,  ut  ipsi  fratres  mihi  rettulerunt,  numquam  ipse  turbabatur 
.  .  .  nee  propter  artationem  carceris  nee  propter  improbitatem  militum 
qui  eum  custodiebant."  lb.  As  far  as  the  "  improbitas  or  malice  " 
of  the  jailers  are  concerned,  we  may  be  permitted  to  believe  that  the 
Saint  did  not  complain  of  it,  because  it  did  not  exist. 

5  How  necessary  this  restriction  was  will  be  understood  when  one 
reflects  that  the  two  Colonna  cardinals,  in  their  hostility  to  Boniface, 
put  forth,  in  Celestine's  lifetime,  that  his  deposition  and  the  election 


334  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

temporary   historians,    as   a   body,    assert   that   he   was 
treated  with  consideration.1 
Death  of  por  some  ten  months,  brother  Peter  bore  his  confine- 

bro.  Peter, 

1296.  ment  without  any  inconvenience.     But  he  had  already 

long  outlived  the  allotted  span  of  human  life,  and  God 
now  thought  fit  to  bring  his  sixty-five  years  of  penance 
to  a  close.  The  Saint's  disciples  narrate  how,  after  he 
had  celebrated  with  great  devotion  the  feast  of  Pentecost 
(May  13),  for  which  he  had  prepared  himself  by  special 
prayers  and  fasts,  he  fell  ill  before  the  day  had  expired. 
A  doctor  was  sent  for  at  once,  but  he  declared  that  there 
was  no  hope.  The  Saint  was  suffering  from  an  abscess 
(apostema)  in  his  right  side  which  gave  him  great  pain. 
Predicting  his  death  to  his  brethren,  he  received  the  last 
sacraments,  and  bade  his  companions  disturb  him  as  little 
as  might  be  so  that  he  could  devote  all  his  thoughts  to 
preparing  for  his  last  end.  "  He  who  had  dominion  over 
the  whole  earth,  and  had  left  it  all  for  Christ  .  .  .  lay 
dying  on  a  board  covered  with  a  single  cloak."  2  After 
lying  thus  for  a  week,  he  died  on  the  Saturday,  at  the 

of  Boniface  were  invalid.  "  Qui  (these  cardinals)  vivente  P.C.,  schisma 
commoverant,  dicentes  indebitam  ejus  depositionem  et  injustam 
Bonifacii  promotionem  extitisse."  Will,  de  Nangis,  Chron.,  ad  an. 
1296. 

1  W.  of  N.,  ad  an.  1294.  *'  Fecit  (Boniface)  eum  (C.)  sicut  decuit 
honestissime  custodiri  "  ;  or  in  another  version  :  "  Honorifice  fecit  eum 
diligenti  custodia  .  .  .  custodiri."  Cf.  Ann  ales  Halesbnm.,  ap. 
M.  G.  SS.,  xxiv,  p.  46.  An  author  of  a  continuation  of  Martinus  Polonus 
(Cont.  Brabant.,  ap.  ib.,  p.  261),  though  he  believes  that  Boniface  induced 
Cel.  to  resign  by  throwing  near  his  bed  a  parchment  written  in  letters 
of  gold  as  though  from  heaven,  telling  him  that  he  could  not  be  saved 
as  Pope,  still  says  that  he  as  a  captive  :  "  curialiter  tenuit  (eum)." 
See  also  Florence  of  Worcester,  Contin.,  p.  276. 

2  B.D.,  c.  46.  Here  again  the  disciples  manifest  their  bitter  feelings 
and  utter  want,  one  will  not  say  of  Christian  charity,  but  of  fairness. 
They  complain  that  their  father,  who  had  never  used  a  bed,  and  would 
not  have  used  one  if  it  had  been  brought  to  him,  had  no  bed  to  lie  on, 
whereas  "  he  to  whom  he  had  left  the  Papacy  reposed  like  a  god  on  a 
couch  adorned  with  purple  and  gold  ". 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  335 

hour  of  vespers,  just  as  he  said  the  words  :  "  Let  every 
spirit  praise  the  Lord "  of  the  psalm :  "  Laudate 
Dominum    in   Sanctis    suis  "    (May    19,    1296). x 

From  the  day  before  till  the  hour  of  his  death,  the  Appearance 
soldiers  on  guard  declared  at  the  time  and  afterwards  to  °ou^  crossCU" 
Pope  Boniface  and  everybody  that  they  had  seen  a 
golden  cross  suspended  in  the  air  in  front  of  his  room.2 
The  disciples  add  that  by  this  miracle  the  Almighty 
wished  to  show  that  He  was  pleased  with  the  way  in 
which  His  servant  had  for  so  many  years  borne  the  cross 
of  penance.  They  also  state  that  the  brothers  who 
were  with  the  dying  Saint  were  so  much  concerned  with 
his  state  that  they  had  no  wish  to  leave  his  room  in 
order  to  see  the  shining  cross. 

This  apparition  of  a  luminous  cross  is  given  as 
miraculous  in  the  bull  of  Celestine's  canonization,  but 
the  account  of  it  is  given  somewhat  differently  by  one 
of  the  witnesses  examined  for  it.  Canon  Nicholas 
Verticelli  of  Naples,  professor  of  civil  law,  swore  that  he 
had  acted  as  assessor  (auditor)  to  Thomas,  cardinal  of 
Sta.  Cecilia,  who  on  the  death  of  bro.  Peter  had  been 
sent  by  Pope  Boniface  to  Mte.  Fumone.  There  they 
spoke  with  Theodoric  of  Orvieto,  the  Pope's  chamberlain 
(camerarius)  and  with  a  number  of  the  warders  of  the 
castle.  These  men  asserted  that  before  the  death  of 
the  Saint  there  had  appeared  before  the  door  of  his  room 
a  ball  of  fire  which  gradually  formed  itself  into  a  cross 
of  a  golden  colour,  and  remained  suspended  in  the  air 
for  more  than  an  hour  (per  magnam  horam).3 

1  lb.,  c.  47.     This  was  in  the  87th  year  of  his  age. 

2  lb.  A  modern  inscription  in  what  is  shown  as  the  Saint's  cell  sets 
forth  :  "  Circa  hujus  cubiculi  ostium  tota  die  XIX.  Maii,  an.  MCCIVC 
qua  S.  Petrus  Celestinus  PP.  Quintus  hie  obdormivit  in  Domino  aurea 
crux  mirabiliter  in  aere  pendere  visa  fuit."  Cf.  Stef.,  Canonis.,  i,  c.  7  ; 
and  iii,  c.  10. 

3  Witness  9,  ap.  Seppelt.  p.  213. 


Burial  of 
bro.  Peter. 


336  ST.    CELESTINE    V. 

Word  of  the  Saint's  death  was  immediately  sent  to 
Rome,  and,  though  the  disciples  themselves  assure  us 
that  Boniface  showed  signs  of  grief  at  the  news,  they, 
in  some  way  best  known  to  themselves,  divined  that  he 
was  "  exceedingly  rejoiced  "  at  it.1  At  any  rate,  the 
Pope  straightway  dispatched  to  Mte.  Fumone,  cardinal 
Thomas  and  his  chamberlain,  Theoderic,  with  orders 
that  all  honour  should  be  paid  to  the  body  of  the  one-time 
Pope.  Meanwhile,  he  himself  with  great  solemnity  sang 
Mass  in  St.  Peter's  for  the  repose  of  his  soul. 

Arrived  at  Mte.  Fumone,  the  two  representatives  of  the 
Pope  summoned  thither  the  bishops  and  religious  of  the 
whole  of  Campania,  and  accompanied  by  a  great  crowd 
of  people  carrying  candles  and  torches,  took  "  the  holy 
body "  in  a  coffin  of  wood  down  to  the  church  of 
St.  Anthony  close  to  Ferentino.  In  this  church,  which  in 
life  bro.  Peter  had  completely  restored,  his  body  was 
laid  to  rest  near  the  high  altar  (May  21), 2  and  many,  we 
are  assured  by  the  disciples,  were  the  miracles  wrought 
at  his  tomb.3  Whoever  else  were  distressed  at  the  Saint's 
death,  his  disciples  certainly  were.     They  bewailed  the 


1  B.D.,  c.  47.  "  Nimium  gaudens  effectus  est."  It  is  scarcely  worth 
while  to  observe  that  Boniface  might  be  glad  that  danger  of  schism 
in  the  Church,  and  of  great  trouble  to  himself,  had  been  removed, 
and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  be  sorry  that  a  good  man  had  been  taken 
away. 

2  B.D.,  c.  47  ;   witness  n.  9,  ap.  Seppelt,  p.  214  ;    Stef.,  Can.    i,  c.  8. 

3  13. D.,  ib.  "  Ubi  hunt  multa  miracula  sicut  fides  petentium  exigit." 
This  narrative  contains  accounts  of  many  miracles  wrought  by  bro. 
Peter,  both  before  and  after  he  became  Pope,  and  during  his  Papacy. 
We  have  not  inserted  them  in  our  narrative  in  order  not  to  interrupt 
the  Saint's  life  story,  and  because  a  large  proportion  of  them  were 
rejected  by  the  cardinals  who  examined  them  in  view  of  bro.  Peter's 
canonization,  either  because  the  alleged  fact  was  not  sufficiently 
established  as  a  fact,  or  as  a  miracle,  or  both.  Cf.  Sententice  cardinalium 
de  miraculis  f.  Petri  de  M.  quondam  C.  P.  V .,  ap.  Analect.  B.,  1897, 
p.  475  ff.  Stef.  gives  a  number  of  the  miracles  in  Lib.  iii,  cc.  2-20  of 
his  Canonis.  P.  de  M . 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  337 

loss  "  of  the  foundation  of  their  religion  (i.e.,  of  course, 
their  Order),  and  of  the  glory  of  all  religious",  and  of  one 
"  who  was  the  comfort  of  the  sad,  the  uplifter  of  the 
poor,  and  the  support  of  the  weak  ".1 

That  the  body  of  the  Saint  should  rest  near  Ferentino  The  body  of 

J  i        r    a        -i  a      •     the  bamt  is 

was  not  all  to  the  mind  of  the  people  01  Aquila.     As  in  carried  oft  to 

life  brother  Peter  had  been  much  more  closely  connected  Aquila,  1326- 

with  Aquila  than  with  Ferentino,  they  argued  that  in 

death  his  body   should  belong   to   Aquila   rather  than 

to    Ferentino.     Accordingly,   when    a  war   had  broken 

out  between  Anagni  and  Ferentino,  in  1326,  the  people 

of  Aquila,  thinking  that  their  chance  had  now  come, 

entered  into  negotiations  with  the  counts  of  Anagni  in 

order  to  induce  them  to  get  possession  of  the  body,  and 

then  hand  it  over  to  them.2    Hearing  of  this,  the  people 

of  Ferentino,  despite  the  protests  of  the  monks,  brought 

the  body  within  the  city  walls,  and  placed  it  in  the  Church 

of  St.  Agatha.    But,  robbed  of  their  treasure,  the  monks 

of  St.  Anthony  came  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was  better 

that    the    body  of    their    founder    should    repose    in    a 

church  of  their   Order  in  Aquila  than  in   a  church  of 

seculars   in   Ferentino.      Despite,  therefore,  the    jealous 

care  which  the  people  of  Ferentino  took  of  the  Saint's 

body,   the   monks  managed   to   smuggle   it   out   of   the 

Church  of  St.  Agatha  in  a  mattress.    Then,  after  a  brief 

1  B.D.,   c.   48.      "  Lamentatio  de  eodem  Patre." 

2  Cf.  "  Legenda  de  translatione  S.  corporis  ejus  ",  published  in  the 
Analecta  B.,  1897,  p.  468  ft.  This  account  is  evidently  written  by  an 
inhabitant  of  Aquila  ;  for  the  writer  thinks  that,  though  the  people 
of  Ferentino  honoured  the  body  of  the  Saint,  their  praise  was  not  enough 
"  for  the  merits  of  Celestine  ".  Greater  praise  was  due  to  one  "  qui 
erat  lucerna  et  speculum  mundi  ".  Of  course,  that  he  could  get  that 
praise  in  the  superior  city  of  Aquila,  is  the  insinuation.  The  document 
(Vatican  MS.  8883)  was  drawn  up  in  the  first  half  of  the  fourteenth 
century.  There  is  another  narrative  of  the  translation  which  was  first 
published  by  D.  Faber,  and  reproduced  by  the  Bollandists,  Acta  SS., 
t.  iv,  Maii,  pp.  435-6.    The  Legenda  is  the  original  version. 

Vol.  XVII.  z 


338 


ST.     CELESTINE    V. 


concealment  in  a  desk  of  their  prior,  the  monks,  taking 
advantage  of  an  attack  by  the  people  of  Anagni,  con- 
trived, under  cover  of  night,  to  convey  the  sacred  remains 
to  Aquila.1  They  were  then  deposited  in  a  chapel  at  the 
end  of  the  left  aisle  in  the  church  of  St.  Maria  di 
Collemaggio,  wherein  he  had  been  crowned.  "  You 
wished,"  sings  a  local  poet  of  the  Saint,  "  to  return  to 
Aquila  which  you  ever  loved."  2 

Overjoyed  at  the  possession  of  the  body  of  the  Saint, 
beloved  by  all  the  Abruzzese,  the  people  of  Aquila,  after 
great  preparations,  began,  on  February  15,  1236, 3  a  series 
of  festivities,  ecclesiastical  and  secular,  in  which  more 
than  a  hundred  thousand  persons  are  said  to  have  taken 
part.4 

In  what  sort  of  a  tomb  the  mortal  remains  of  Celestine  V. 
were  first  placed  in  Aquila  is  not  known.  But  in  the 
beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the  silver  chest  5 
enclosing  them  was  put  in  the  existing  tomb  of  Parian 
marble,  made  at  the  expense  of  the  city  wool- workers. 
It  is  remarkable  for  its  grotesque  figures  and  capricious 
intaglios  executed  with  great  delicacy.6 

1  lb.,  p.  471. 

2  See  a  quotation  from  the  Laude  Aquilane  in  the  notes  to  the 
Cronaca  of  Buccio  di  Ranallo,  p.  65,  ed.  de  Bartholomaeis. 

3  The  poet  B.  di  R.,  p.  65,  gives  1327  as  the  date  of  the  bringing  of 
the  body  of  St.  C.  to  Aquila,  but  the  authority  of  the  Legenda  is  better. 

4  Legenda,  p.  472.  "  Veniunt  cum  muneribus  venerari  .  .  .  sanctum 
Domini."     Cf.  B.  di  R.,  p.  64. 

"  Gran  festa  ne  fo  facta,  sacciate  veramente  : 

Tucte  le  Arte  annarovi,  ciaschuna  con  gran  gente, 

Ciaschesuna  Arte  fe  ad  san  Petro  presente  ; 

L'altre  spese  facembo  nui  genera] mente." 

5  This  beautifully  chased  chest  was,  with  other  rich  treasures  of 
the  Church,  carried  off  in  1529  by  Filibert  of  Chalons,  Prince  of  Orange. 
Cantera,  p.  91. 

6  See  an  illustration  of  the  tomb  in  the  Bollandists,  Propyl,  ad  mens. 
Mail,  p.  391,  ed.  Antwerp,  1742.  Cf.  V.  Bindi,  Monumenti  storici  ed 
artistici  degli  Abruzzi,  Naples,  1889.  See  plates  156-7.  Among  the 
inscriptions  on  the  monument  we  read  :  "  Opus  magistri  Hyeronimi 
Vincentini   Sculptoris." 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  339 

The  bones  of  the  Saint  are  now  distributed  among  Present 
eight  reliquaries.  In  one  of  these  is  the  skull,  and  on^^0 
its  frontal  protuberance  on  the  left  side  above  the  middle 
of  the  left  orbit  is  an  oblong  hole  which  might  have  been 
made  by  a  nail.  The  existence  of  this  hole  furnished 
excellent  material  for  the  imaginations  of  the  enemies 
of  Boniface  VIII.  That  monster  had  caused  the  Saint 
to  be  killed  by  ordering  a  nail  to  be  driven  through  his 
head  !  If  there  was  nothing  else  to  attach  any  fair  or 
generous  minded  man  to  the  memory  of  Boniface  VIII., 
the  realization  of  the  utterly  unscrupulous  way  in  which 
he  has  been  maligned  would  be  more  than  enough.1 

Though  there  is  no  denying  that  Peter  de  Morrone  Peter  de 

°  .    °  ,  _  Morrone  is 

was  a  man  of  "  rude  simplicity  ",  and  that,  when  Pope,  canonized, 
he  did  much  harm  to  the  Church  "  not  from  malice  "  but  1313- 
from  this  very  simplicity,2  and  though  there  is  no 
denying  that,  from  want  of  education,  he  was  deficient 
in  secular  learning,3  and  even,  it  may  perhaps  be  said, 
in  the  knowledge  of  some  of  the  soundest  principles  of 
the  spiritual  life,  nevertheless,  he  made  most  heroic 
efforts  to  sanctify  himself.  There  is,  moreover,  every 
reason  to  believe  that  God,  who  sees  the  heart,  blessed 
his  efforts,  by  giving  him  a  certain  control  over  the  forces 


1  After  what  we  have  written  about  the  death  of  Celestine  there  is 
no  need  to  refute  this  malicious  invention.  I  will  only  say  that  I 
examined  the  skull  with  a  medical  friend,  Dr.  J.  E.  A.  Ferguson,  now 
the  Very  Rev.  Mgr.  He  assured  me  that  there  was  nothing  to  show 
that  the  hole  might  not  have  been  made  after  death,  and  that,  in  any 
case,  a  nail  inserted  in  the  position  described  might  not  kill  ! 

2  Such  is  the  just  judgment  of  the  enlightened  and  pious  James  de 
Voragine,  Chron.  Januense,  c.  9,  ap.  R.  I .  SS.,  ix,  p.  54.  In  his  acts  he 
often  followed  "  non  Curiae  consuetudinem,  sed  .  .  .  suam  rudem 
simplicitatem.  ...  Et  quamvis  non  ex  malitia,  sed  ex  quadam 
simplicitate  haec  faceret,  tamen  in  magnum  Ecclesiae  praejudicium 
redundabant." 

3  That  is  the  general  verdict  of  his  contemporaries,  Will,  of  Nangis, 
ad  an.,  1294  ;    Bart,  of  Cotton,  p.  252,  R.S.,  etc.,  etc. 


34°  ST.     CELESTINE    V. 

of  nature  so  as  to  enable  him  to  work  miracles,1  and,  what 
is  more  wonderful,  by  giving  him  exceptional  power  to 
draw  men  from  indifference  or  even  from  vice  to  virtue. 
Consequently,  he  had  not  been  long  dead  when  an 
agitation  began  for  his  formal  canonization.2  It  was 
taken  up  by  princes  and  people  alike.  Among  the  former, 
assuredly  from  anything  but  worthy  motives,  was 
Philip  le  Bel.  His  motives  can  be  seen  in  the  form  of 
his  request  to  Pope  Clement  V.  ' '  With  great  importunity, 
he  demanded  from  the  Pope  the  bones  of  Boniface  VIII. 
that  he  might  burn  them  as  those  of  a  heretic,  and  also 
the  insertion  of  the  name  of  Peter  of  Morrone,  once 
Pope  Celestine  V.,  in  the  catalogue  of  the  Saints."  3 
Not  having  the  slightest  intention  of  granting  Philip's 
first  outrageous  request,  Clement  took  preliminary  steps 
towards  granting  his  second.  He  commissioned  James, 
archbishop  of  Naples,  and  Frederick,  bishop  of  Valva- 
Sulmona,  to  collect  the  necessary  evidence  with  regard 
to  the  life  of  Peter  of  Morrone.  The  commissioners  began 
their  work  on  May  13,  1306,  and  its  result,4  from  which 
we  have  often  quoted,  was  discussed  at  the  Council  of 
Vienne  (Oct.,  1311),5  and  then  frequently  by  the 
cardinals.  At  length  on  May  5,  1313,  Clement  V.,  wearing 
a  beautiful  cope  of  English  workmanship,  preached  on 
the  saintly  life  of  Peter  of  Morrone  ;  and  afterwards,  on 
the  same  day,  issued  the  bull  "  Qui  facit  magna  ",  by 
which,  "  relying  on  the  power  of  Almighty  God,  and  on 

1  The  bull  of  his  canonization  accepts  nine  miracles  and  declares 
that  he  wrought  "  very  many  others  ".    Cf.  Stef.,  Canonis.,  iii,  cc.  1-21. 

2  Ptol.  of  L.,  H.E.,  xxiv,  35.  "  De  cujus  (P.  of  M.)  canonizatione 
facienda  .  .  .  apud  magnos  viros  in  Curia  Romana  sollicitudo  incubuit, 
ac  lungo  tempore  duravit." 

3  Nic.  Trivet,  Chron.,  p.  411,  cf.  Ptol.  of  L.,  I.e.  ;  Stef.,  Prose,  p.  13, 
and  Can.,  i,   16,  and  his  Ceremonial,  p.  61  ff. 

4  Ap.  Seppelt,  p.  211  ff. 

5  Cantera,  p.  87,  citing  Acta  conciliorum,  t.  vii,  p.  1360,  ed.  Paris,  1714. 
Cf.  Stef.,  Ceremonial,  p.  61. 


ST.    CELESTINE    V.  34I 

the  authority  of  the  Blessed  Apostles  Peter  and  Paul, 
and  on  our  own,  we  decide  that  he  (Peter  of  Morrone)  is 
to  be  enrolled  in  the  Catalogue  of  the  Saints."  x 

The  portrait  we  have  given  of  Celestine  is  said  to  be  taken  from  Note  re 

a  most  ancient  original,  and  certainly  may  be  said  to  bear  a  number  pictures  of 

Celestine. 
of  marks  of  authenticity.     It  is  taken  from  Zecca,  Memorie  artistiche 

istoriche  della  Badia  di  S.  Spirito  sul  Monte  Maiella,  p.   103.     In  the 

church   of    S.  Pietro  a  Maiella  in  Naples  there  are  pictures  showing 

Pope  Celestine  giving  a  bull  of  exemption  to  Abbot  Onofrio  da  Comina. 

Cf.  Filangieri,  Di  alcuni  dipinti  nella  chiesa  di  S.  Pietro,  t.  ii,  pp.  308  f., 

320  f.,    Naples,    1881.      But   these    date    only   from   the   seventeenth 

century,  being  the  work  of  Calabrese  (mostly  from  Cantera,  pp.  4,  n., 

and  101,  n.).     In  the  book  of  caricatures  entitled  Malorum  initium, 

Celestine  is   represented   in  the  habit  of  a  religious  with  cowl  and 

tonsure.       In  his  right  hand  he  has  a  sickle  and   in  his  left  a  rose. 

The  inscription  on  the  picture  ran  :  "  Coelestinus  P.  V.  Elatio,  paupertas, 

obedientia,  castitas,  temperantia,  gastrimargia."      Cf.  Pipinus,  Chron., 

iv,  c.  40. 

1  See  the  bull,  e.g.,  in  the  Benedictine  ed.  of  the  Register  of  C.  V., 
n.  9668,  vol.  vii,  p.  292  ff.  The  Pope  also  granted  indulgences  to 
those  who  visited  the  tomb  of  the  Saint  on  the  anniversary  of  his 
death  or  during  its  octave  ;  and  Philip  le  Bel,  believing  he  had  scored 
a  point  against  the  memory  of  Boniface  VIII.,  gave  substantial  presents 
to  those  who  first  brought  him  the  news  of  the  canonization.  Cf. 
Baluze,  Vitce  PP.  Avenion.,  i,  p.  607,  quoting  from  a  Regest.  earner ce 
Compritorum  Paris.  Cf.  Stef.,  Prosa,  p.  14  (S.  assisted  the  Pope  as 
deacon  in  the  Cathedral  at  Avignon  on  the  occasion  of  the  publication 
of  the  bull),  Canon.,  ii,  cc.  1-8,  and  Ceremon.,  p.  65.  In  the  days  of 
Charles  III.  of  Durazzo  and  other  Angevin  Kings  of  Naples,  Aquila 
and  Sulmona  are  said  to  have  coined  money  bearing  on  the  reverse 
the  bust  of  St.  Celestine  with  mitre  and  cope,  and  the  words  :  S.  Petrus 
Papa  F.  S.,  etc.,  which  Muratori,  Antiq.  Ital.,  ii,  p.  630  (plates, 
pp.  639-40)  believes  to  refer  to  St.  Peter  Celestine.    Cf.  Cantera,  pp.  92-3. 


INDEX 


Abaga,  Ilkhan,  38  ff.,  87  ff. 
Abuna,  the,  117  ff. 
Abu-Said,  Khan,  67. 
Abyssinia,  106  ff. 
Acharabues,  16. 
Acre,  fall  of,  54. 
Ahmad,  Ilkhan,  42,  90. 
Albert  of  Hapsburg,  166,  170. 
Aldobrandini,  187. 
Alexander  IV.,  pope,  85. 
Alfonso  of  Aragon,  142  ff. 
Alfonso  III.  of  Portugal,  226. 
Andrew  of  Hungary,  169. 
Andrew  of  Zayton,  96  ff. 
Andronicus      II.,       emperor, 

228  ff. 
Aphraates,  19. 
Arghun,  Ilkhan,  42  ff.,  90. 
Armann   dei  Monaldeschi, 

193-4. 
Armenia,  237  ff. 
Arricia,  185  ff. 
Art,  Nicholas  IV.  and,  196  ff. 
Ascoli,  190-1. 

Bacon,  Roger,  10. 
Baghdad,  34  ff. 
Baliol,  John,  223-5. 
Barsauma,  28  ff. 
Bartholomew  of  Grosseto, 

219  ff. 
Bartholomew    of    Tivoli, 

136  ff. 
Benedict  XII.,  pope,  98  ff. 
Benjamin  I.,  patriarch,  117. 
Bologna,  University  of,  241-2. 
Boniface  VIII.,  pope,  63,  166, 

307,  325  ff. 
British  Isles,  207  ff. 


Buccamatius,  J.,  card. 
Bulgaria,  235  ff. 


46. 


Caleb-Elesbaas,  113-14. 

Candace,  Queen,  108-9. 

Canterbury,  Synod  of,  214. 

Cardinals,  Nicholas  IV.  and, 
195-6  ;     creations    of 
Celestine  V.,  294  ff. 

Catherine  of  Courtenay,  228. 

Cavallini,  Pietro,  197-8. 

Celestine  V.,  St.,  pope : 
election,  262  ff.  ;  early 
life,  265  ff.  ;  accepts 
papacy,  280  ff.  ;  con- 
secrated, 289  ff.  ;  life 
as  Pope,  290  ;  papal 
acts,  292  ff.  ;  resigns, 
316  ff.  ;  subsequent 

history,     326  ff.  ;      dies, 
334  ff.  ;     canonized,  339. 

Celestine  Congregation,  269  ff . 

Chagan,  53. 

Charles  Martel  of  Hungary, 
169  ff.,  282  ff. 

Charles  of  Salerno  (Charles  II. 
of  Sicily),  142  ff.,  169  ff., 
262  ff.,  282,  300  ff.,  307. 

Charles  of  Valois,  146-7, 
158  ff. 

China,  35  ff.,  69  ff. 

Chosroes  I.,  19  ff. 

Chosroes  II.,  32,  36. 

Clement  IV.,  pope,  39,  85, 
274. 

Clement  V.,  pope,  66,  95  ff., 

166,  340-1. 
Colonna,  James,  card.,  306. 
Colonna,  Peter,  card.,  283  ff. 


343 


344 


INDEX 


Colonnas,  the,  180  ff.,  254  ff. 
Conclave     after     death      of 

Nicholas  IV.,  254  ff. 
Conclave  Decree  of  Gregory 

X.,   297-8. 
Conrad,  bro.,  7-9. 
Constantine  the  Great,  18. 
Constantinople,  Nicholas  IV. 

and,  228  ff. 
Crusades,  Nicholas  IV.  and, 

177,  208  ff. 
Cyril,  Abuna,  117  ff. 

Dad-Ishu,  25  ff. 
Dante  and  Celestine  V.,  324-5. 
Diniz  of  Portugal,  226. 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,  15. 
Dragutin,   Stephen,   234  ff. 

Edesius,  109  ff. 

Edessa,  School  of,  27. 

Edward  I.  of  England,  6,  40, 
45,  51  ff.,  55-6,  142  ff., 
208  ff.,  291,  302  ff. 

Edward  II.  of  England,  66. 

Elias,  bp.  of  Merv,  22-3. 

Empire,  the,  163  ff. 

England,  Celestine  V.  and, 
301  ff. 

Eutyches,  27  ff. 

Faysolis,  St.  Maria  in,  275. 
France,    Nicholas    IV.    and, 

174  ff. 
Franciscans,      favoured      by 

Nicholas     IV.,     12  ;      in 

Persia,  68  ;  in  Abyssinia, 

131  ff. 
Frumentius,  109  ff. 

Gaetani,  Benedict,  card., 
151-2,  158,  175,  188  ; 
see  also  Boniface  VIII. 

Gaykhatu,  57. 

George,  Prince,  93. 

Gerard  of  Parma,  158. 


Gerard  of  Prato,  41,  87  ff. 
Ghazan,  Khan,  61  ff. 
Gratz,  University  of,  243. 
Gregory  IX.,  pope,  83. 
Gregory  X.,   pope,   8,   86  ff., 

274-5. 
Gualfredi,  Raymond,  13. 
Guido  of  Montefeltro,  309. 
Guy  de  Montfort,  187. 

Hayton   II.,  k.  of  Armenia, 

61,  237. 
Heretics,    Nicholas   IV.   and, 

240. 
Honorius  III.,  pope,  222. 
Hungary,  168  ff. 

Ilkhans,  the,  38  ff. 
Innocent  III.,  pope,  231-2. 
Innocent  IV.,  pope,  83. 
Innocent  VI.,  pope,  102. 
Ireland,  222-3. 
Isaac,  Mar,  24. 

Jabalaha  I.,  24. 
Jabalaha  III.,  44,  47  ff. 
Jacopone  da  Todi,  312  ff. 
James  I.  of  Aragon,  39  ff. 
James    II.    of    Aragon,    64, 

142  ff.,  307. 
Jews,  expelled  from  England, 

221. 
John,  Abuna,  123. 
John,  bp.  of  Iesi,  171. 
John,  Duke  of  Brittany,  63. 
John  XXI,  pope,  40,  87. 
John     XXII.,     pope,     67-8, 

134  ff. 
John     de    Castrocoeli,     189, 

296  ff. 
John  of  Beit-Parsaya,  22. 
John  of  Monte  Corvino,   50, 

84  ff.,  90  ff. 
John  of  Parma,  90. 
John  Marignolli,  100  ff. 


INDEX 


345 


Khalil,  sultan,  53,  61. 
Kharbenda,  52  ff.,  65. 
Kilawun,  54  ff. 
Kublai  Khan,  41,  83. 

Lalibala,    k.    of    Abyssinia, 

127  ff. 
de  Langele,  Sir  Walter,  56-7. 
Latinus  of  Ostia,  card.,  256  ff., 

264,  288. 
Leo     IV.,     k.     of    Armenia- 

Cilicia,  65-6. 
Lisbon,  University  of,  243. 
Louis,   St.,   of  Toulouse,  147, 

299. 
Lull,  Raymond,  2-3. 

Mahomet   and   Abyssinia, 

115  ff. 
Malatesta     of     Verucucchio, 

193-4. 
Mamelukes,  54  ff. 
Margaret,    Maid   of   Norway, 

223. 
Markabta,  Synod  of,  25  ff. 
Martin  IV.,  pope,  9. 
Marutha,  23  ff. 
Massi,     Jerome     Peter,     see 

Nicholas  IV. 
Matthew  of  Aquasparta,  12. 
Matthew  of  Chieti,  58. 
Meinhard,    Count    of    Tyrol, 

165  ff. 
Menas,  Abuna,  125. 
Meshiha-Zeka,  17. 
Michael    of    Constantinople, 

228  ff. 
Missions,   Nicholas   IV.   and, 

14  ff. 
Monte  Cassino,   Celestine  V. 

and,  299  ff. 
Montpellier,     University    of, 

243. 
Morrone,  Monte,  268  ff. 

Nestorianism,  20  ff. 


Nicaea,  Council  of,  16-17,  22. 

Nicholas  the  Franciscan, 
98-9. 

Nicholas  III.,  pope,  7,  8, 
40  ff.,  87  ff. 

Nicholas  IV.,  pope,  election, 
6  ff.  ;  character,  10  ff.  ; 
and  missions,  14  ff.  ;  and 
Sicily,  142  ff.  ;  and  the 
Empire,  163  ff.  ;  and 
France,  174  ff.  ;  and 
Italy,  179  ff.  ;  and  art, 
196  ff.  ;  and  British 
Isles,  207  ff.  ;  death, 
244  ff. 

Nine  Saints,  the,  111-13. 

Odoric   of   Pordenone,  96  ff. 
Oleron,  Treaty  of,  145. 
Oljaitu,  50  ff.,  65  ff. 
Orsini,  the,  260  ff. 
Orsini,  Berthold,  186. 
Orsini,  Napoleon,  12. 

Padua,  University  of,  240-1. 

Papa,  bp.  of  Seleucia,  31. 

Paris,  University  of,  242-3. 

Persia,  14  ff. 

Perugia,  192-3. 

Peter,  Abuna,  124  ff. 

Peter  de  Morrone,  see  Celes- 
tine V. 

Peter  of  Aragon,  153. 

Peter  of  St.  Eustachio,  card., 
12. 

Philip  le  Bel,  of  France,  45, 
64,  143  ff.,  174  ff. 

Polo  brothers,  the,  85. 

Portugal,  226  ff. 

Provisions  and  Reservations, 
215-16. 

Raymund  of  Provence,  179. 
Ricold  of  Monte-Croce,  35,  48. 
Robert  of  Artois,  228  ff. 
Romanus,  abp.  of  York.  292. 


346 


INDEX 


Rome,  disorders  in,  during 
Papal  interregunum, 

260  ff. 

Rudolf  of  Hapsburg,  163  ff. 

Rusutti,  Filippo,   199  ff. 

Sapor  II.,  18  ff. 

Sauma,  Rabban,  43  ff. 

Sava,  St.,  232. 

Scotland,  223-5,  305-6. 

Seguin,  Hugh,  12. 

Seleucia,  Catholicus  of,  30  ff. 

Servia,  231  ff. 

Sicily,  142  ff. 

Sigfrid,  abp.  of  Cologne, 
164-5. 

Simon,  patriarch,  of  Alex- 
andria, 122-3. 

Simon  of  St.  Angelo,  277. 

Si-ngan-fu  inscription,  76-7. 

Spinola,  Porchettus,  63. 

Spirituals  and  Celestine  V., 
313  ff. 

Stefaneschi,  card.  James, 
251  ff. 

Stephen  I.,  pope,  15. 

Stephen  II.  of  Servia,  232  ff. 


Tarascon,  Treaty   of,  159. 
Terracina,  185  ff. 
Terterii,  George,  236. 
Theodosius  II.,  21,  23. 
Third  Order,  Celestine,  278. 
Timothy  I.,  Catholicus,  37. 
Torriti,  Jacopo,  199  ff. 
Tuscany,  191-2. 

Universities,  240-1. 
Urban  IV.,  pope,  273. 
Urosh,  Stephen,  234-5. 

Vararanes,  25. 

Vassalli,  John  and  James,  40. 

Viterbo,  184-5. 

Wang  P'u,  77. 
William  of  Chieri,  58. 
William  of  Prato,  103-4. 
Winchelsea,  Robert  of,  abp., 
301. 

Yezdegerd   I.,  23-5. 

Zinghis  Khan,  38. 


Printed  in  Great  Britain  by  Stephen  Austin  &■  Sons,  Ltd.,  Hertford. 


MANK,   H.K.  BOX 

Lives  of  the   Popes   in  .M2 

the  Middle  Ages 
Volume   XVII        1288-12%