A HISTORY OF THE POPES FROM THE GREAT SCHISM TO THE SACK OF ROME. BOOK III THE COUNCIL OF BASEL. 1419-1444.

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

Through the Swiss cantons Martin made a triumphal progress, and had no reason to complain of want of respect or lack of generosity. On June 11 he takes up reached Geneva, and in the city of the prince bishop he stayed for three months; there he had the satisfaction of receiving the allegiance of the citizens of Avignon. He seems to have wished to display himself as much as possible, and exert the prestige of the restored Papacy to secure his position. At the end of September he moved slowly from Geneva through Savoy to Turin, and thence through Pavia to Milan, where he was received with great honor by Filippo Maria Visconti on October 12. So great was the popular curiosity to see the Pope that when he went to consecrate a new altar in the cathedral several people were trampled to death in the throng. At Milan Martin showed his desire for the pacification of Italy by making terms between Filippo Maria and Pandolfo Malatesta, who had seized on Brescia. There too, he received ambassadors from the Florentines, who in their capacity of peacemakers, were anxious to arrange matters so as to enable the Pope to return quietly to Rome. They offered him a refuge in their city and also their service as mediators. On October 19 Martin left Milan for Brescia and on October 25 he entered Mantua. There he stayed till the end of the year seeking for some means to make the Papal influence a real power in Italian affairs. At length he resolved to accept the services of the Florentines, and set out for their city, avoiding on his way the rebellious Bologna, which had cast off the Papal rule. On February 26, 1419, he entered Florence, where he was honorably received, and took up his abode in the monastery of Santa Maria Novella.

The condition of Italy was indeed sufficiently disturbed to need all the efforts of the Pope and of Florence to reduce it to order and peace. In Lombardy, Filippo Maria, Duke of Milan, was bent on winning back the lands of his father Giangaleazzo, which had fallen into the hands of petty tyrants. Southern Italy was thrown into confusion by the death of Ladislas, who was succeeded in the kingdom of Naples by his sister Giovanna II, a woman with none of the qualities of a ruler, who used her position solely as a means of personal gratification. The death of Louis of Anjou gave every hope of a peaceful reign to the distracted Neapolitan kingdom; but Giovanna’s ungovernable passions soon made it a sphere of personal intrigue. At first the Queen, a widow of forty-seven years old, was under the control of a lover, Pandolfello Alapo, whom she made Chamberlain and covered with her favors. To maintain his position against the discontented barons, Alapo formed an alliance with Sforza, who was made Grand Constable of Naples. But the barons insisted that the Queen should marry, and in 1415 she chose for her husband Jacques de Bourbon, Count of La Marche. The barons sided with the Count of La Marche, who, by their help, imprisoned Sforza, put Alapo to death, and exercised the power of King. The favor, however, which he showed to his own countrymen the French disgusted the Neapolitan nobles, and in 1416 Giovanna was able again to assert her own power. By this time she had a new favorite to direct her, Giovanni Caraccioli, who drove the King to leave Naples, and thought it wise also to find an occupation for Sforza which would keep him at a distance. For this purpose he sent him on an expedition against Braccio, who had attacked the States of the Church and had advanced against Rome.

Andrea Braccio, of the family of the Counts of Montone, was a noble Perugian who, in his youth, had been driven by party struggles to leave his native city, had embraced the calling of a condottiere under Alberigo da Barbiano. He served on many sides in the Italian wars, and finally was in the pay of Ladislas, who played him false in an attack upon Perugia; whereon Braccio joined the side of John XXIII, who left him governor of Bologna when he set out for Constance. Braccio was possessed with a desire to make himself master of his native city of Perugia, and in 1416 sold the Bolognese their liberty and hired soldiers on every side. He defeated Carlo Malatesta, whom the Perugians called to their aid, and in July, 1416, made himself master of the city. Soon, desirous of enlarging his territory, he advanced into the States of the Church. Todi, Rieti, and Narni soon fell before him, and he pressed on to the neighborhood of Rome. But Braccio, to win Perugia, had drawn to his side the condottiere general Tartaglia, who stipulated, in return for his services, that Braccio should not oppose him in attacking the dominions of Sforza. From that time Sforza conceived a deadly hatred against Braccio, and for the next few years the history of Italy is an account of the desperate rivalry of these two rival condottieri.

Rome during the abeyance of the Papacy was left in an anomalous condition. The Castle of S. Angelo, which had been taken by Ladislas, was still held by a Neapolitan governor. John XXIII on departing for Constance had appointed Cardinal Isolani his legate in Rome; and he was assisted, or hindered, by the presence of the Cardinal of S. Angelo, Pietro degli Stefanacci, who found Rome preferable to Constance. The legate Isolani managed to retain considerable influence over the Romans, and induced them to carry on the government of the city according to the constitution established before the interference of Ladislas. But Rome was in no condition to offer resistance to Braccio when he advanced against it, and on June 9, 1417, took up his position by S. Agnese. In vain the legate tried to negotiate for his departure. Braccio harried the adjacent country, and reduced the Romans to capitulate through hunger. He had an ally in the Cardinal Stefanacci, who welcomed him on his triumphal entry on June 16 and helped him to form a new magistracy. The legate fled into the Castle of S. Angelo, and begged for help from Naples. His entreaties were heard, as Sforza was burning for revenge against Braccio, and Giovanna's new favorite, Caraccioli, was looking about for some means of getting rid of Sforza, whose manly frame might soon prove too attractive to the susceptible Queen. Braccio was engaged in besieging the Castle of S. Angelo when the arrival of Sforza on August 10 warned him of his danger. Sforza, seeing how matters stood, went to Ostia, and crossed the Tiber without hindrance. When Braccio heard that he was advancing against him he judged it unwise to risk the loss of his newly-won possessions, and on August 26 withdrew to Perugia. Sforza entered Rome in triumph with the banners of Naples and of the Church. He restored the legate Isolani to power, appointed new magistrates, and imprisoned the traitorous Cardinal of S. Angelo, who died soon afterwards.

Such was the condition of affairs which Martin V had to face on his election. It was natural that his first movement should be towards alliance with Giovanna II of Naples, seeing that the Neapolitan influence seemed most powerful in Rome. He welcomed Giovanna's ambassadors and sent a cardinal to arrange matters with the Queen as early as May, 1418. Giovanna agreed to restore all the possessions of the Church and make a perpetual alliance with the Pope, who was to crown her Queen of Naples. She gave a pledge of her sincerity by the usual means of enriching the Pope’s relations. Martin's brother, Giordano Colonna, was made Duke of Amalfi and Venosa, his nephew Antonio was made Grand Chamberlain of Naples; and, on August 21, appeared with a Bull announcing the Pope's alliance with Giovanna. Antonio at first attached himself to the favorite Caraccioli; but before the end of the year Sforza was strong enough to organize a popular rising against the favorite, who was forced to leave Naples, and was sent as ambassador to Martin V at Mantua. There the surrender of the fortresses which the Neapolitans occupied in the States of the Church and the coronation of Giovanna were finally arranged. Early in 1419 a Papal Legate was sent to Naples to perform the coronation.

Thus matters stood when Martin took refuge in Florence. He could do nothing better than await the course of events in Naples and the results of the Florentine mediation. Return to Rome with Braccio hostile was impossible. If Braccio were to be overthrown, it could only be by the arms of Sforza; but the Pope’s first steps had been to ally with Giovanna and Caraccioli, with whom Sforza was now at enmity. At Florence Martin’s prestige was increased by the arrival of four of Benedict XIII's cardinals, who were solemnly received on March 17. So far as Italy was concerned, Martin V had nothing to fear from Peter de Luna. But the deposed Baldassare Cossa was still an object of his dread, for Braccio had threatened to espouse Cossa’s cause, and might again raise him to the position of a dangerous rival. Accordingly, Martin was very anxious to get Cossa into his hands, and the Florentines, in the interests of peace, were desirous that this matter should be arranged. John XXIII, when legate of Bologna, had always been on good terms with the Florentines, and had stood in friendly relations with several of the richest citizens, amongst whom were Giovanni dei Medici and Niccolò da Uzzano, who were now ready to interfere on his behalf. They procured from Martin V a promise that he would deal gently with his deposed predecessor, and advanced the sum of 38,500 Rhenish ducats to buy the release of Cossa from Lewis of Bavaria, in whose custody he was. On his way to Florence Cossa was escorted by the Bishop of Lubeck, who was charged by Martin V to keep a sharp eye upon him. At Parma he lodged with an old friend, who alarmed him with rumours that Martin V meant to have him imprisoned for life at Mantua. He fled by night to Genoa, where he found protection from the Doge, Tommaso di Campo Fregoso. Friends quickly gathered round him, urging him once more to try his fortunes and assert his claims to the Papacy. For a brief space there was a thrill of horror lest the miseries of the Schism should again begin. But the wise counsels of Giovanni dei Medici and his Florentine friends seem to have prevailed with Cossa; they assured him of his safety, and urged him to fulfill his promise. John XXIII no longer possessed his former vigour or felt his old confidence in himself and his fortunes. The helplessness which had overtaken him at Constance still haunted him, and though the old spirit might rekindle for a moment, it was soon chilled by doubt and hesitation. He judged it wisest to trust his friends, proceed to Florence, and submit to the mercy of Martin V. On June 14 he entered Florence, and was received with respectful pity by the entire body of the citizens. The sight of one who had fallen from a high degree kindled their sympathy, and Cossa’s poor apparel and miserable look impressed more vividly the sense of his changed fortunes. On June 27 he appeared before Martin in full consistory, and kneeling before him made his submission. “I alone”, he said, “assembled the Council; I always labored for the good of the Church; you know the truth. I come to your Holiness and rejoice as much as I can at your elevation and my own freedom”. Here his voice was broken with passion; his haughty nature could ill brook his humiliation. Martin received him graciously, and placed on his head the cardinal’s hat. But Cossa did not long live under the shadow of his successor. He died in the same year on December 23, and his Florentine friends were faithful to his memory. In the stately Baptistery of Florence the Medici erected to him a splendid tomb. The recumbent figure cast in bronze was the work of Donatello, and the marble pedestal which supports it was wrought by Michelozzo. It bears the simple inscription, Johannes quondam Papa XXIII obiit Florentiae.

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

In January, 1420, Sforza paid Martin V a visit in Florence, and the Pope broached his views, to which, with some reluctance, Sforza gave his adhesion. Scarcely had Sforza departed before Braccio, at the end of February, made a triumphal entry into Florence, there to celebrate his reconciliation with the Pope. With a splendid escort of four hundred horsemen and forty foot, with deputies from the various cities under his rule, Braccio entered the city in grandeur that awoke the enthusiastic acclamations of the Florentines. In the middle of the bands of horsemen, gleaming in gold and silver armour, mounted on splendid steeds richly caparisoned, rode Braccio, clad in purple and gold, on a steed whose trappings were of gold. He was a man rather above the middle height, with an oval face that seemed too full of blood, yet with a look of dignity and power that, in spite of his limbs maimed with wounds, marked him as a ruler of men. Amid the shouts of the thronging citizens Braccio visited the Pope, and paid him haughty reverence. After a few days spent in negotiations, an alliance was made between Martin V and Braccio, by which Braccio was left in possession of Perugia, Assisi, and other towns which he had won, on condition of reducing Bologna to obedience to the Pope.

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

He was glad to see Braccio leave Florence, and hoped that the task of reducing Bologna would occupy him long enough to enable Sforza to make his attack on Giovanna unimpeded by Braccio’s hostility. Braccio, however, rapidly gathered his forces, and conducted matters with such skill that on July 22 the Pope’s legate took possession of Bologna.

Meanwhile Sforza hastened the preparations against Giovanna II. On June 18 he suddenly raised the standard of the Duke of Anjou, and began to make war against Naples: on August 19 ten Angevin galleys made their appearance off the Neapolitan coast. Louis of Anjou eagerly caught at Martin V's offer of protection; he did not scruple to leave France in the hands of the English, and abandon his land of Provence to the hostile attacks of the Duke of Savoy, that he might pursue the phantom kingdom of Naples, which had proved disastrous to his father and his grandfather alike. Giovanna II, seeing herself thus threatened, cast about on Alliance of her part also for allies. She sent an ambassador to the Pope whose hostility was not yet declared; but the subtle Neapolitan easily saw through the Pope's equivocal answers to his demands. There was in Florence at the Papal Court an ambassador of Alfonso V of Aragon. To him in his strait the Neapolitan turned. He reminded him that the House of Aragon had as good a claim to Naples as the House of Anjou. Giovanna II was childless, and could dispose of her kingdom as she chose; if Alfonso succored her in her strait, he might count upon her gratitude. This proposal was very acceptable to Alfonso V, a young and ambitious king. By the death of Martin of Sicily without children in 1409 the kingdom of Sicily had been attached to that of Aragon, and Alfonso was keenly alive to the advantage of annexing Naples also. At the time that Giovanna's offer reached him he was engaged in prosecuting against the Genoese his claims on the island of Corsica, where, after a long siege, the desperate efforts of the Genoese threatened to render his undertaking hopeless. His ambassador at Florence was endeavoring to obtain from Martin V a recognition of Alfonso’s claim to Corsica; but Alfonso V at once saw the policy of abandoning a doubtful attempt upon a barren island for the more alluring prize of the Neapolitan kingdom. He despatched from Corsica to the relief of Giovanna II fifteen galleys, which arrived off Naples on September 6, and Giovanna II showed her gratitude by adopting him as her son.

War was now let loose upon Naples. Alfonso and Giovanna sought to strengthen themselves by an alliance with Braccio. Martin V’s policy had succeeded in providing occupation for all whom he had most to dread. He was now in a position to take advantage of the general confusion, and amid the weakness of all parties raise once more the prestige of the Papal name. He had gained all that was to be gained from a stay in Florence, and might now with safety venture to Rome. Moreover Martin V was not over-satisfied with the impression which he had produced on the Florentines. The common-sense of the quick-witted commercial city was not taken in by high-sounding claims or magnificent ecclesiastical processions. The Florentines had shown for Braccio an admiration which they refused to Martin V. However much Martin might wrap himself in his dignity, and affect to despise popular opinion, he yet felt that in Florence nothing succeeded like success, and that a fortunate freebooter ranked above a landless Pope. The bustling, pushing spirit of a prosperous commercial city was alien to the Papacy, which could only flourish amongst the traditions and aspirations of the past. A few days before his departure from Rome Martin V could not refrain from showing his wounded pride to Leonardo Bruni, who was present in the library of S. Maria Novella. For some time Martin V walked gloomily up and down the room, gazing out of the window upon the garden below. At last he stopped before Leonardo, and in a voice quivering with scorn repeated the doggerel of the Florentine mob, “Poor Pope Martin isn’t worth a farthing”. Leonardo tried to appease him by saying that such trifles were not worthy of notice; but the Pope again repeated the lines in the same tone. Anxious for the fair fame of Florence, Leonardo at once undertook its defense, and pointed out to the Pope the practical advantages which he had derived from his stay the recovery of some of the States of the Church, and especially of Bologna, the submission of John XXIII, the reconciliation with Braccio. Where else, he asked, could such advantages have been so easily obtained? The Pope’s gloomy brow grew clearer before the words of the Florentine secretary. Martin departed with goodwill from Florence; thanked its magistrates for their kind offices, and marked his gratitude to the city by erecting the bishopric of Florence to the dignity of an archbishopric.

On September 9 Martin V journeyed from Florence with due respect from the citizens. On September 20 he was honorably received in Siena, and used his opportunity to borrow 15,000 florins, for which he gave Spoleto as a pledge. From Siena he proceeded through Viterbo to Rome, which he entered on September 28, and took up his abode by S. Maria del Popolo. Next day he was escorted to the Vatican by the city magistrates and the people, bearing lighted torches and clamorous with joy. The Romans had indeed occasion to hail any change that might restore their shattered fortunes. Everything that had happened in late years had tended to plunge them deeper and deeper in misery and ruin. The havoc wrought by the invasions of Ladislas, of Sforza, and of Braccio, the absence of the Pope, and consequent loss of traffic, the want of all authority in the Papal States, the pillage that wasted up to the walls of Rome all these combined to reduce the city to wretchedness and desolation. Martin V found Rome so devastated that it hardly looked like a city. Houses were in decay, churches in ruins, the streets were empty, filth and dirt were everywhere, food was so scarce and dear that men could barely keep themselves alive. Civilization seemed almost extinct. The Romans looked like the scum of the earth. Martin V had a hard task before him to bring back order and decency into the ruined city. It was his great merit that he set himself diligently to put matters straight, and that he succeeded in reclaiming its capital for the restored Papacy. His first care was to provide for the administration of justice, and put down the robbers who infested Rome and its neighborhood, for the purpose of pillaging the pious pilgrims who visited the tombs of the Apostles. But much had to be done to repair the ravages of preceding years, and new disasters rendered the task more difficult. In November, 1422, the town was overwhelmed by a flood in the Tiber, occasioned by Braccio’s destruction of the wall of the Lago di Pie di Luco, the old Veline Lake. The water rose to the height of the high altar in the Pantheon, and as it subsided carried away the flocks from the fields and caused great destruction of property.

In Naples little was done worthy of the great efforts which were made. Alfonso's reinforcements checked the victorious career of Louis of Anjou and Sforza, till in June, 1421, Braccio brought his forces to Giovanna's aid, Alfonso himself arrived in Naples, and the Pope despatched Tartaglia to the aid of Louis. Alfonso and Braccio engaged in a fruitless siege of Acerra. Nothing serious was done, as the condottieri generals were engaged in a series of intrigues against one another. Sforza accused Tartaglia of treachery, seized him, and put him to death. Tartaglia’s soldiers, indignant at the treatment of their leader, joined Braccio, who was anxious only to secure his own principality of Capua. Martin V was weary of finding supplies, and was embarrassed by Alfonso’s threats that he would again recognize Benedict XIII.

Caraccioli was afraid of Alfonso’s resolute character, and sowed discord between him and Giovanna: Alfonso on his part was perplexed by the Queen’s doubtful attitude towards him. As everyone had his own reasons for desiring peace, the Pope's mediation was accepted for that purpose in March, 1422. Aversa and Castellamare, the only two places which Louis held, were surrendered to the Papal Legate, who soon afterwards gave them over to the Queen. Braccio and Sforza were outwardly reconciled, and Sforza joined the side of Giovanna, only with the purpose of favoring more surely the party of Louis. Louis himself withdrew to Rome, where he lived for two years at the Pope’s expense, awaiting the results of Sforza’s machinations. But this peace and its reconciliations were alike hollow. The mutual suspicions of Alfonso and Giovanna II went on increasing till in May, 1423, Alfonso determined on a decisive blow. He suddenly imprisoned Caraccioli, and made a dash to obtain the person of the Queen, who was in the Castel Capuano at Naples. The attempt to surprise the Queen failed, and Alfonso besieged the Castle. But Sforza hastened to the Queen’s aid, and, though his army was smaller than Alfonso’s, he gave his men fresh courage by pointing to the splendid equipments of the Aragonese; raising the battle-cry, “Fine clothes and good horses”, he led his men to the charge. His inducement proved to be sufficiently strong; he won the day, and Alfonso in his turn was besieged in the Castel Nuovo. After this failure the fortunes of Louis of Anjou began to revive. Caraccioli was ransomed from prison, and he and Sforza urged Giovanna to cancel the adoption of the ungrateful Alfonso and accept Louis as her successor. At the end of June Louis arrived in Naples, and his adoption as Giovanna’s heir was formally accomplished with the Pope’s sanction.

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

The departure of Alfonso relieved Martin V of a troublesome enemy; but his attention in this year, 1423, had to be directed to an equally troublesome matter. It was now five years since the dissolution of the Council of Constance, and the period for holding the next Council had arrived. Already in 1422 the University of Paris sent ambassadors to urge Martin V to fulfill his promise. Among the envoys of the University was a learned Dominican, John Stoikovic, a native of Ragusa in Dalmatia, who stayed at Rome to watch Martin’s proceedings, and be ready for the Council as soon as it was summoned. Pavia had been fixed at Constance for its place of meeting; but in his letters of summons Martin V was careful to express his fervour in behalf of the Council by saying that if Pavia was found unsuitable, he was resolved to call it to a more convenient place rather than it should dissolve. The transalpine prelates were not inspirited by this kindly assurance; they felt that a Council in an Italian city was as good as useless. Martin V had taken no steps in the way of reforming the abuses of the Church. The state of Christendom was not favorable for a Council. In England Henry V was dead, and the minority of Henry VI had already begun to open up intrigues and jealousies. France was exhausted by its war with England. In Germany Sigismund was engaged in war with the Hussites in Bohemia, and had no time to spend in talk. There was nothing to encourage men to undertake the costly journey to Italy, where Martin V was likely to employ them on the barren subject of a proposed union between the Eastern and Western Churches.

When the Council was opened, on April 23, by the four prelates whom the Pope had nominated as presidents it was not largely attended. Few came from beyond the Alps, and the absence of Italians showed that the pope's influence was used against the Council from the beginning. Scarcely were the opening formalities at an end when the outbreak of the plague gave a reason for removing elsewhere, and the Council decided to go to Siena, where, on July 2, it resumed its labours.

The first step of the Council was to organize itself according to nations, and to determine who should have the right of voting. All prelates, abbots, graduates of universities who were in orders, rectors, ambassadors of kings, barons, and universities were to be admitted freely: other ecclesiastics were to be judged of by the nation to which they belonged. Each nation was to have a president elected every month, who, together with chosen deputies, was to prepare the business to be discussed by the nation according to the wishes of the majority. While making these arrangements the Council repeatedly sent to the Pope urging him to come to Siena, and their request was confirmed by the city magistrates, who showed themselves amenable to the Pope's will by granting a safe-conduct in the terms which he demanded.

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

The reforming party felt that something must be done. They settled the matter of the safe-conduct, and agreed to pass some decrees on which there could be no difference of opinion. On November 6 a session of the Council was held, which declared that the work of reform must begin from the foundation of the faith, and consequently condemned the errors of Wycliffe and Huss, denounced the partisans of Peter de Luna, approved of negotiations for union with the Greek Church, and exhorted all Christian men to root out heresy wherever they found it. After this the reforming party urged that the work left unachieved at Constance should be resumed, and the French nation put forward a memorandum sketching a plan of reform according to the lines laid down at Constance. The Curial party resolved on resistance, and the small numbers present at Siena rendered personal pressure tolerably easy. John of Ragusa, though wishing to make the Council seem as numerous as possible, can only count two cardinals and twenty-five mitred prelates, as representatives of the higher clergy, at the session on November 6. The Curial party thought it best to throw the machinery of the nations into confusion. They managed to cause disputed elections to the office of president both in the French and in the Italian nation in the month of January, 1424. The Papal legates offered their services to the French to judge in this dispute. The French answered that, on matters concerning a nation in the Council, no one, not even the Pope, could judge but the Council itself: they asked the presidents to summon a congregation for the purpose. The presidents refused, whereupon the French called the other nations together on January 10, and afterwards drew up their grievances in the shape of a protest, which they lodged with the legates. Meanwhile the legates were busily engaged in strengthening their party within each nation, so as to prevent any possibility of unanimity. While thus the nations were divided, the legates steadily pursued the dissolution of the Council, and, as a first step towards this, urged the appointment of deputies to fix the meeting place of the next Council. This question in itself aroused antagonism. The French wished the future Council to be held in France. This excited the national jealousy of the Germans and English. The Curial party openly avowed that they never wished to see another Council at all, and opposed the decrees of Constance.

There were hopes, however, of renewed concord when, on February 12, the Archbishop of Rouen and the ambassadors of the University of Paris arrived at Siena. They interposed to heal the dissension among the French, and the Archbishop of Rouen was by a compromise elected to the office of president of the French nation. The compromise was, however, fatal. The Archbishop of Rouen had been already won over by the legates, and the ambassadors of the University had a greater desire to go to Rome and seek favors for themselves than stay at Siena and watch over the reformation of the Church. On February 19 deputies from all the nations agreed in choosing Basel as the meeting place for the next Council to be held in seven years.

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

Meanwhile the legates were ready to dissolve the Council, the reformers were anxious to continue their work. At last, on March 7, the legates, taking advantage of the solitude produced by the festivities of the Carnival, posted on the door of the cathedral decree of the dissolution of the Council, which had been secretly drawn up on February 26, and prohibited all from attempting to continue it. On the same day they hastily left Siena for Florence. Those who remained were too few to hope to accomplish anything. Thomas, Abbot of Paisley, who was a member of the French nation, published an energetic protest against the dissolution, which was joined by a few other zealous reformers. Then on March 8 they held a meeting in which they decided that, to avoid scandal to the Church, and danger to themselves on account of the nearness of the Papal power, it was better to depart quietly. The Council of Siena came rapidly to an end, and Martin V could plead the smallness of its numbers, its seditious conduct with the Sienese burghers, and its own internal disorders, as reasons for its dissolution. Really the Council of Siena followed too soon upon that of Constance. The position of affairs had not materially changed. The Pope had not yet recovered his normal position in Italy, and those who had been at Constance were not prepared to undertake the labors of a second Council, when they had nothing to give them any hopes of success. What was impossible with the help of Sigismund was not likely to be more possible in the face of Martin V's determined resistance.

Martin V judged it wise, however, to make some promises of reform. As the Council had been too full of disturbance to admit of any progress in the matter, he promised to undertake a reform of the Curia, and nominated two Cardinals as commissioners to gather evidence. The results of Martin V’s deliberations were embodied in a constitution, published on May 16, 1425. It reads as though it were the Pope's retaliation on the attempt made at Constance to constitute the Cardinals as an official aristocracy which was to direct the Pope’s actions. Martin V provided for decorous and good living on the part of the Cardinals, forbade them to exercise the position of protectors of the interests of kings or princes at the Papal Court, or to receive money as protectors for monastic orders; they were not to appear in the streets with a larger retinue than twenty attendants; they were, if possible, to live near the churches whence they took their titles, and were to restore the dilapidated buildings and see to the proper performance of divine service. Similarly the duties of the protonotaries and abbreviators of the Papal chancery were defined and regulated. Archbishops, bishops, and abbots were ordered to keep strict residence, and hold provincial synods three times each year for the redress of abuses; all oppressive exactions on the part of ordinaries were forbidden, and propriety of life was enjoined. Finally the Pope withdrew many of his rights of reservation as a favor to the ordinaries as patrons.

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

Nor did the more accomplished Braccio long survive his sturdy rival. In spite of the withdrawal of Sforza’s troops after their leader’s death, Aquila still held out. As its possession was regarded as the key to the possession of Naples, Martin V was eager to raise troops for its relief. He found it as easy to arouse the jealousy of the Duke of Milan against Braccio as against Alfonso; and in May a joint army of Naples, Milan, and Pope advanced to the relief of Aquila. Braccio scorned to take advantage of his enemies as they crossed the mountain ridge that led to the town; though their forces were superior to his own, he preferred to meet them in the open field. An unexpected sortie of the Aquilans threw Braccio’s army into confusion. As he rode around exhorting his men to form afresh and renew the fight, a Perugian exile forced his way through the throng, and with the cry, “Down with the oppressor of his country!” wounded Braccio in the throat. On the fall of their leader the soldiers of Braccio gave way, and the siege of Aquila was raised, June 2. Braccio’s haughty spirit would not survive defeat; for three days he lay without eating or speaking till he died. Unlike Sforza, he had no grown-up son to inherit his glory. His shattered army rapidly dispersed upon his death. His body was carried to Rome, and was buried as that of an excommunicated man in unconsecrated ground before the Church of S. Lorenzo.

Martin V reaped the full benefit of Braccio’s death. On July 29 Perugia opened its gates to the Pope, and the other cities in Braccio’s dominions soon followed its example. Martin found himself in undisputed possession of the Papal States. This was a great point to have gained, and Martin had won his triumph by his astute and cautious, if unscrupulous, policy. He had not hesitated to plunge Naples into war, and had trusted to his own acuteness to fish in troubled waters. Fortune had favoured him beyond what he could expect, and the only further difficulty that beset him was a rising of Bologna in 1429, which was put down, though not without a stubborn struggle, by Carlo Malatesta. From that time he set himself with renewed zeal and statesmanlike care to organize the restoration of law and order in the Roman territory and the rest of the Papal possessions.

When we look back upon the wild confusion that he found at his accession we must recognize in Martin V’s pontificate traces of energy and administrative capacity which have been left unrecorded by the annals of the time. The slow and steady enforcement of order and justice is passed by unnoticed, while discord and anarchy are rarely without a chronicler. It is the great merit of Martin V that he won back from confusion, and reduced to obedience and order, the disorganized States of the Church.

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

The same year that saw the deaths of Sforza and Braccio freed Martin V from another enemy. In November 1424 died Benedict XIII, worn out by extreme old age. In his retirement at Peñiscola he had been powerless either for good or ill. Yet the existence of an anti-Pope was hurtful to the Papal dignity, and Alfonso’s hostility to Martin V threatened to give him troublesome importance. Benedict’s death might seem to end the Schism, but one of the last acts of the obstinate old man was the creation of four new cardinals. For a time his death was kept secret till Alfonso’s desires were known; at length in June, 1425, three of Benedict’s cardinals elected a new Pope, Gil de Munion, canon of Barcelona, who took the title of Clement VIII. But schism when once it begins is contagious. Another of Benedict’s cardinals, a Frenchman, Jean Carrer, who was absent at the time and received no notice, elected for himself another Pope, who took the title of Benedict XIV. Martin was desirous of getting rid of these pretenders, and sent one of his cardinals, brother of the Count de Foix, to negotiate with Alfonso. But Alfonso refused him entrance into his kingdom, and ordered Clement VIII to be crowned in Peñiscola. Martin summoned Alfonso to Rome to answer for his conduct. Alfonso saw that nothing was to be gained by isolation from the rest of Europe. Time mollified his wrath at the loss of Naples, and in his hopes for the future it was better to have the Pope for his friend than for his foe. The Cardinal de Foix carried on his negotiations with wise moderation, and was helped by one of the King’s counsellors, Alfonso Borgia. In the autumn of 1427 Alfonso V received the Pope’s legate, agreed to recognise Martin, and accept his good offices to settle disputes between himself and Giovanna II. In July, 1429, Munion laid aside his papal trappings, submitted to Martin, and received the melancholy post of Bishop of Majorca. The good offices of Alfonso Borgia were warmly recognized both by Alfonso V and Martin V, and this ending of the Schism had for its abiding consequence in the future the introduction of the Borgia family to the Papal Court, where they were destined to play an important part. The Pope of Jean Carrer was of course a ridiculous phantom, and in 1432 the Count of Armagnac ordered Carrer, who was still obstinate, to be made prisoner and handed over to Martin V.

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

In France Martin V easily succeeded in overthrowing the attempt to establish the liberties of the national Church on the basis of royal edicts. Charles VI had issued in 1418 ordinances forbidding money to be exported from the kingdom for the payment of annates or other demands of the Court of Rome, and had confirmed the ancient liberties of the Gallican Church as regarded freedom of election to ecclesiastical offices. In February, 1422, he had further forbidden appeals to Rome in contempt of the ordinances. But before the end of the year Charles VI was dead, and the confusion in France was still further increased by the English claims to the succession. The youthful Charles VII was hard pressed, and wished to gain the Pope's support. In February, 1425, he issued a decree re-establishing the Papal power, as regarded the collation to benefices and all exercise of jurisdiction, on the same footing as it had been in the days of Clement VII and Benedict XIII. The Parliament, it is true, protested and refused to register the decree. The Pope, on his part, granted an indemnity for what had been done in the past. All the reforming efforts of the University of Paris and its followers were for the time undone.

In England Martin V was not so successful. In 1421 he wrote to Henry V and exhorted him to lose no time in abolishing the prohibitions of his predecessors (the Statutes of Provisors and Praemunire) on the due exercise of the Papal rights. Next year, on the accession of King Henry VI, he wrote still more pressingly to the Council of Regency. When nothing was done, he directed his anger against Henry Chichele, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Chichele in 1423 proclaimed indulgences to all who in that year made pilgrimage to Canterbury. Martin indignantly forbade this assumption of Papal rights by a subordinate; as the fallen angels wished to set up in the earth their seat against the Creator, so have these presumptuous men endeavored to raise a false tabernacle of salvation against the apostolic seat and the authority of the Roman Pontiff, to whom only has God granted this power. It was long since an English archbishop had heard such language from a Pope; but Chichele was not a man of sufficient courage to remonstrate. He withdrew his proclamation, and Martin V had struck a decided blow against the independence of the English episcopate.

The restored Papacy owed a debt of gratitude to Henry of Winchester for his good offices as mediator at Constance, and immediately after his election, Martin V nominated him Cardinal. Chichele protested against this step as likely to lead to inconveniences; and Henry V, declaring that he would rather see his uncle invested with the crown than with a cardinal’s hat, forbade his acceptance of the proffered dignity. When the strong hand of Henry V was gone, Beaufort was again nominated Cardinal on May 24, 1426, no longer from motives of gratitude, but because the Pope needed his help. In February, 1427, he was further appointed Papal legate for the purpose of carrying on war against the Hussites. But the Pope still pursued his main object, and in a letter to the Bishop of Winchester denounced still more strongly the execrable statute of Praemunire by which the King of England disposed of the affairs of the Church as though himself, and not the Pope, were the divinely appointed Vicar of Christ. He bade him remember the glorious example of S. Thomas of Canterbury, who did not hesitate to offer himself as a sacrifice on behalf of the liberties of the Church. He bade him urge the abolition of this statute on the Council, on Parliament, and on the clergy, that they may preach about it to the people; and he asked to be informed what steps were taken in compliance with his commands. He wrote also in the same strain to the University of Oxford. Indeed, so deeply did Martin V resent the ecclesiastical attitude of England that he said in a consistory, “Amongst Christians no States have made ordinances contrary to the liberties of the Church save England and Venice”. Martin’s instincts taught him truly, and he did his utmost to blunt the edge of the weapon that a century later was to sever the connection between the English Church and the Papacy.

Again Martin V wrote haughtily to Chichele, bidding him and the Archbishop of York set aside the Statutes of Provisors and recognize the Papal right to dispose benefices in England. Chichele humbly replied 1427-28 that he was the only person in England who was willing to broach the subject; and it was hard that he should be specially visited by the Pope’s displeasure for what he could not help. Martin V retorted by issuing letters to suspend Chichele from his office as legate—a blow against the privileges and independence of the Archbishops of Canterbury, who since the days of Stephen Langton had been recognized as the Pope’s ordinary legate (legatus natus) in England. Chichele so far roused himself as to appeal to a future Council against this encroachment. The Pope’s letters were seized by royal authority, and the suspension did not take effect. But Chichele was a timid man, and the condition of affairs in England made him shrink from a breach with the Pope. The Lollards were suppressed but not subdued, and a strong antihierarchical feeling simmered amongst the people. In the distracted state of the kingdom, little help was to be gained from the royal power, and Chichele feared the consequences of an interdict. He called to his help the bishops, the University of Oxford, and several temporal lords, who addressed letters to the Pope, bearing testimony to Chichele’s zeal for the Church, and begging the Pope to be reconciled to him. To Chichele’s letters pleading his excuses, the Pope still answered that the only excuse that he could make was active resistance to the obnoxious statutes. At length Chichele, in 1428, appeared before the Commons, accompanied by the Archbishop of York and other bishops, and with tears in his eyes pointed out the dangers in which the Church and kingdom were placed by their opposition to the Pope’s demands. Parliament was unmoved either by Martin’s letters or by Chichele’s half-hearted pleadings. They only petitioned the Pope to restore the Archbishop to his favor. The King wrote in the same sense, and the matter was allowed to drop. Martin V might console himself with the reflection that, if he had failed to carry his point and abolish the hateful statutes, he had at least succeeded in humiliating the English episcopate by treating them as creatures of his own.

In September, 1428, Beaufort made his first appearance in England since his elevation to the Cardinalate, and a protest in the King's name was issued against his exercise of any legatine authority within the realm. Next year the question was raised whether Beaufort, being a Cardinal, was justified in officiating as Bishop of Winchester and prelate of the Order of the Garter: the King’s council advised Beaufort to waive his right. Meanwhile Beaufort was allowed to gather troops for a crusade against the Hussites. But the English statesman and the Papal councillor came into collision; and the troops which Beaufort had gathered for a crusade in Bohemia were turned against France. Beaufort pleaded to the Pope the lame excuse that he had not ventured to disobey the King’s commands in this matter; nor would the soldiers have obeyed him if he had done so. Though treacherous, the action of Beaufort was popular. He was allowed, though a Cardinal, to take his seat at the King’s council, except only when matters were under discussion which concerned the Church of Rome. Really, Beaufort was too much absorbed in deadly personal rivalry with Gloucester to be of any service to the Pope in furthering his attempt to overthrow the liberties of the English Church.

But the Papacy has never in its history gained so much by definite victories as it has by steady persistency. It was always prepared to take advantage of the internal weakness of any kingdom, and to advance pretensions at times when they were not likely to be resolutely disavowed. In time they might be heard of again, and when reasserted could at least claim the prestige of some antiquity. By his treatment of Archbishop Chichele, and by his grant of legatine powers to Beaufort, Martin V exercised a more direct authority over the machinery of the English Church than had been permitted to any Pope since the days of Innocent III. The Church was weak in its hold on the affections of the people, and when the kingly office was in abeyance, the Church, robbed of its protector, was too feeble to offer any serious resistance to the Papacy. Martin V used his opportunity dexterously, and his successors had no reason to complain of the independent spirit of English bishops.

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

The only part of the work of the reformation of the Church which Martin V showed any wish to carry into effect was that concerning the Cardinals. The Papal absolutism over all bishops, which Martin V desired to establish, aimed at the reduction of the power of the ecclesiastical aristocracy which surrounded the Pope’s person, and the rules for the conduct of the Cardinals issued in 1424 were not meant to be mere waste paper. Martin V succeeded in reducing the power of the Cardinals; he paid little heed to their advice, and they were so afraid of him that they stammered like awkward children in his presence. Sometimes he even excluded them altogether. In 1429 he retired from Rome to Ferentino before a pestilence, and forbade any of the Cardinals to follow him.

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

In these peaceful works of internal reform and organization Martin V passed his last years, disturbed only by the thought that the time was drawing near for summoning the promised Council at Basel. Moreover, there was little hope of avoiding it, for the religious conflict in Bohemia had waxed so fierce that it had long been the subject of greatest interest in the politics of Europe. Army after army of the orthodox had been routed by the Bohemian heretics. Papal legates had in vain raised troops and conducted them to battle. Germany was hopelessly exhausted, and when force had failed, men looked anxiously to see if deliberation could again avail. Martin V ordered the legate in Bohemia, Giuliano Cesarini, to convoke a Council at Basel in 1431. But he was not to see its beginning: he was suddenly struck by apoplexy, and died on February 20, 1431. He was buried in the Church of S. John Lateran, where his recumbent effigy in brass still adorns his tomb.

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

In this way he may be regarded as the founder of the theory of Papal omnipotence which is embodied in modern Ultramontanism. Yet Martin V succeeded rather through the weakness of Europe than through his own strength. He did not awaken suspicion by large schemes, but pursued a quiet policy which was dictated by the existing needs of the Papacy, and was capable of great extension in the future. Without being a great man, he was an extremely sagacious statesman. He had none of the noble and heroic qualities which would have enabled him to set up the Papacy once more as the exponent of the religious aspirations of Europe; but he brought it into accordance with the politics of his time and made it again powerful and respected.

There were two opinions in his own days respecting the character of Martin V. Those who had waited anxiously for a thorough reformation of the Church looked sadly on Martin’s shortcomings and accused him of avarice and self-seeking. Those who regarded his career as a temporal ruler, extolled him for his practical virtues, and the epitaph on his tomb called him with some truth, “Temporum suorum felicitas”, “the happiness of his times”. At the present day we may be permitted to combine these two opposite judgments, and may praise him for what he did while regretting that he lacked the elevation of mind necessary to enable him to seize the splendid opportunity offered him of doing more.

After the funeral of Martin V, the fourteen Cardinals who were in Rome lost no time in entering into conclave in the Church of S. Maria sopra Minerva. They were still smarting at the recollection of the hard yoke of Martin V, and their one desire was to give themselves an easy master and escape the indignities which they had so long endured. To secure this end they had recourse to the method, which the Schism had introduced, of drawing up rules for the conduct of the future Pope, which every Cardinal signed before proceeding to the election. Each promised, if he were elected Pope, to issue a Bull within three days of his coronation, declaring that he would reform the Roman Curia, would further the work of the approaching Council, would appoint Cardinals according to the decrees of Constance, would allow his Cardinals freedom of speech, and would respect their advice, give them their accustomed revenues, abstain from seizing their goods at death, and consult them about the disposal of the government of the Papal States. We see from these provisions how the Cardinals resented the insignificance to which Martin V had consigned them. To reverse his treatment of themselves they were willing to reverse his entire policy and bind the future Pope to accept in some form the Council and the cause of ecclesiastical reform. They entered the Conclave on March 1, and spent the next day in drawing up this instrument for their own protection. On March 3 they proceeded to vote, and on the first scrutiny Gabriel Condulmier, a Venetian, was unanimously elected. Others had been mentioned, such as Giuliano Cesarini, the energetic legate in Bohemia, and Antonio Casino, Bishop of Siena. But in their prevailing temper, the Cardinals determined that it was best to have a harmless nonentity, and all were unanimous that Condulmier answered best to that description.

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

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

Eugenius IV was faithful to his promise before election, and on the day of his coronation, March 11, confirmed the document which he had signed in conclave. He also showed signs of a desire to reform the abuses of the Papal Court. His first act was to cut off a source of exaction. The customary letters announcing his election were given for transmission to the ambassadors of the various states, instead of being sent by Papal nuncios, who expected large donations for their service.

But the first steps of Eugenius IV in the conduct of affairs showed an absence of wisdom and an unreasoning ferocity. Martin V had been careful to secure the interests of his own relatives. His brother Lorenzo had been made Count of Alba and Celano in the Abruzzi, and his brother Giordano Duke of Amalfi and Venosa, Prince of Salerno. Both of them died before the Pope, but their places were taken by the sons of Lorenzo—Antonio, who became Prince of Salerno; Odoardo, who inherited Celano and Marsi; and Prospero, who was Cardinal at the early age of twenty-two. Martin V had lived by the Church of SS. Apostoli in a house of moderate pretensions, as the Vatican was too ruinous for occupation; his nephews had a palace hard by. It was natural for a new Pope to look with some suspicion on the favorites of his predecessor. But at first all went well between the Colonna and Eugenius IV. The Castle of S. Angelo was given up to the Pope and a considerable amount of treasure which Martin V had left behind him. But Eugenius IV soon became suspicious. The towns in the Papal States grew rebellious when they felt that Martin V’s strong hand was relaxed, and Eugenius needed money and soldiers to reduce them to obedience. He suspected that the Papal nephews had vast stores of treasure secreted, and resolved by a bold stroke to seize it for himself. Stefano Colonna, head of the Palestrina branch of the family and at variance with the elder branch, was sent to seize the Bishop of Tivoli, Martin’s Vice-Chamberlain, whom he dragged ignominiously through the streets. Eugenius IV angrily rebuked him for his unnecessary violence, and so alienated his wavering loyalty. At the same time Eugenius demanded of Antonio Colonna that he should give up all the possessions in the Papal States with which his uncle had endowed him, Genazano, Soriano, S. Marino, and other fortresses were Eugenius imagined that the Papal treasures lay hid. Antonio loudly declared that this was a plot of the Orsini in their hereditary hatred of the Colonna; he denounced the Pope as lending himself to their schemes, and left Rome hastily to raise forces. He was soon followed by Stefano Colonna, by the Cardinal Prospero, and the other adherents of the family. Gathering their troops, the Colonna attacked the possessions of the Orsini and laid waste the country up to the walls of Rome.

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

The contest might long have raged, to the destruction of the new-born prosperity of the Roman city, had not Florence, Venice, and Naples sent troops to aid the Pope. But the Neapolitan forces under Caldora proved a feeble help, for they took money from Antonio Colonna, and assumed an ambiguous attitude. In Rome the confession of a conspiracy to seize the Castle of S. Angelo and expel the Pope was extorted from a luckless friar, and gave rise to fresh prosecutions and imprisonments. Amid these agitations Eugenius IV was stricken by paralysis, which was put down to the results of poison administered in the interests of the Colonna. Sickness brought reflection; and the Colonnesi on their side saw that the chances of war were going against them, since Venice and Florence were determined to support Eugenius, whose help they needed against the growing power of the Duke of Milan. Accordingly, on September 22 peace was made between the Pope and Antonio Colonna, who paid 75,000 ducats and resigned the castles which he held in the Papal States. Giovanna of Naples deprived him also of his principality of Salerno. The relatives of Martin V fell back to their former position. But Eugenius had gained by violence, disorder, bloodshed, and persecution an end which might have been reached equally well by a little patience and tact.

The disturbances in the States of the Church gradually settled down, and Eugenius in September was anxiously awaiting the coming of Sigismund to Italy for the purpose of assuming the Imperial crown. On his dealings with Sigismund depended his chance of freeing himself from the Council, which had begun to assemble at Basel, and whose proceedings were such as to cause him some anxiety.

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

Before the election of a new Pope, the Bohemians could still denounce the arbitrary proceedings of the Council, and hope for fairer hearing in the future. But the election of Oddo Colonna, who as Papal commissioner had condemned Hus in 1411, dashed all further hopes to the ground. Martin V accepted ail that the Council had done towards the Bohemian heretics, and urged Sigismund to interpose. He threatened to proclaim a crusade against Bohemia, which would then be conquered by some faithful prince, who might not be willing to hand it over to Sigismund. The threat alarmed Sigismund, who wrote urgently to his brother Wenzel; and the indolent Wenzel, who had allowed dim notions of impossible toleration to float before his eyes, at last roused himself to see the hopelessness of his attempt neither to favor nor discourage the new movement. At the end of 1418 he ordered that all the churches in Prague should be given up to the Catholics, who hastened to return and wreak their wrath on the heretics. Two churches only were left to the Utraquists, as the reformed party was now called, from its administration of the communion under both kinds. But the multitudes began to meet in the open air, on hill-tops, which they loved to call by Biblical names: Tabor and Horeb and the like. Peacefully these assemblies met and separated; but this condition of suppressed revolt could not long continue. On July 22, 1419, Wenzel’s wrath was kindled by hearing of a vast meeting of 40,000 worshippers, who had received the communion under both kinds, and had given it even to the children of their company.

These meetings at once awakened the enthusiasm of the Utraquists, and gave them confidence in their strength. On Sunday, July 30, a procession, headed by a former monk, John of Sulau, who had preached a fiery sermon to a large congregation, marched through the streets of Prague, and took possession of the church of S. Stephen, where they celebrated their own rites. Thence they proceeded to the Town Hall of the Neustadt, and clamored that the magistrates should release some who had been made prisoners on religious grounds. The magistrates were the nominees of Wenzel to carry out his new policy; they barred the doors, and looked from the windows upon the crowd. Foremost in it stood the priest, John of Sulau, holding aloft the chalice. Someone from the windows threw a stone, and knocked it from his hands. The fury of the crowd blazed out in a moment. Headed by John Zizka, of Trocnow, a nobleman of Wenzel’s court, they burst open the doors, slew the burgomaster, and flung out of the windows all who did not succeed in making their escape. It was the beginning of a religious war more savage and more bloody than Europe had yet seen.

Wenzel’s rage was great when he heard of these proceedings. He threatened death to all the Hussites, and particularly the priests. But his helplessness obliged him to listen to proposals for reconciliation. The rebels humbled themselves, the King appointed new magistrates. Wenzel’s perplexities, however, were soon to end; on August 16 he was struck with apoplexy, and died with a great shout and roar as of a lion. He was buried secretly at night, for Prague was in an uproar at the news of his death. Wenzel’s faults as a ruler are obvious enough. He was devoid of wisdom and energy; he was arbitrary and capricious; he was alternately sunk in sloth, and a prey to fits of wild fury. He had none of the qualities of a statesman; yet with all his faults he was felt by the Bohemians to have a love for his people, to whom he was always kindly and familiar, and to whom in his way he strove to do justice. His own ambiguous position towards his brother Sigismund and European politics corresponded in some measure with the ambiguous attitude of Bohemia towards the Church, and for a time he was no unfitting representative of the land which he ruled. Just as events had reached the point when decision was rendered inevitable, Wenzel’s death handed over to Sigismund the responsibility of dealing with the future of Bohemia.

Sigismund did not judge it expedient to turn his attention immediately to Bohemia. His Hungarian subjects clamored for his aid against the Turks, who were pressing up the Danube valley. He was bound to help them first, and obtain their help against Bohemia. He trusted that conciliatory measures would disarm the Bohemian rebels, whom he would afterwards be able to deal with at leisure. Accordingly he appointed the widowed queen, Sophia, as regent in Bohemia, and round her gathered the nobles in the interests of public order. At the head of the Government stood Cenek of Wartenberg, who was leader of the Hussite league, and who strove to check excesses by a policy of toleration. But men needed guarantees for the future. The Diet which met in September, 1419, and in which the Hussites had a majority, demanded of Sigismund that he should grant full liberty for the Utraquist preaching and ceremonies, and should confer office in the State on the Czechs only. Sigismund returned the ambiguous answer that he hoped soon to come in person, and would govern according to the old customs of his father, Charles IV. No doubt the answer was pleasant to the patriotic aspirations which their request contained; but men significantly observed that there were no Hussites in Charles IV’s days.

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

But Sigismund did not know the strength nor the political sagacity of the leaders of the extreme party, which had been slowly but surely forming itself since the death of Hus. The moderate party were men of the same views as Hus, who were faithful to an ideal of the Church, repelled the charge of heresy, and still hoped for tolerance, at least in time, for their own opinions. With men such as these Sigismund could easily deal. But the extreme party, who were called Taborites from their open-air meetings, recognized that the breach with Rome was irreparable, and were prepared to carry their opinions into all questions, religious, political, and social alike. Their position was one of open revolt against authority both in Church and State; they rested on the assertion of the rights of the individual, and appealed to the national sentiment of the masses of the people. At the head of this party stood two men of remarkable ability, Nicolas of Hus and John Zizka, both sprung from the smaller nobility, and both trained in affairs at Wenzel’s court. Of these, Nicolas had the eye of a statesman; Zizka the eloquence, the enthusiasm, and the generalship needed for a leader of men. Nicolas of Hus saw from the first the real bearing of the situation; he saw that if the extreme party of the reformers did not prepare for the inevitable conflict they would gradually be isolated, and would be crushed by main force. Zizka set himself to the task of organizing the enthusiasm of the Bohemian peasants into the stuff which would form a disciplined army. Like Cromwell in a later day, he used the seriousness that comes of deep religious convictions as the basis of a strong military organization, against which the chivalry of Germany should break itself in vain. While Sigismund was delaying, Zizka was drilling. On October 25 he seized the Wyssehrad, a fortress on the hill commanding the Neustadt of Prague, and began a struggle to obtain entire possession of the city. But the excesses of the Taborites, and the fair promises, of the Queen-regent, confirmed the party of order. Prague was not yet ready for the Taborites, and on November 11 Zizka and his troops fell back from the city.

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

From Brünn Sigismund advanced into Silesia, where was received with loyal enthusiasm, and many of the German nobles met him at Breslau. Sigismund became convinced of his own power and importance and let drop the mask too soon. At Breslau he put down the Utraquists, inquired severely into a municipal revolt, which was insignificant compared to what had happened in Prague, caused twenty-three citizens to be executed for rebellion, and on March 17 allowed the Papal legate to proclaim a crusade against the Hussites. The result of this false step was to lose at once the support of the moderate party, and to alienate the national feeling of the Bohemians. The people of Prague issued a manifesto calling all who loved the law of Christ and their country’s liberties to join in resisting Sigismund’s crusade. The nobles, headed by Cenek of Wartenberg, denounced Sigismund as their enemy and not their king. The country was at once in arms, and the pent-up fanaticism was let loose. Churches and monasteries were destroyed on every side. No country was so rich in splendid buildings and treasures of ecclesiastical ornament as was Bohemia; but a wave of ruthless devastation now swept across it which has left only faint traces of the former splendor. Again excesses awoke alarm among the modern nobles. Cenek of Wartenberg went back to Sigismund’s side; and the burghers of Prague saw themselves consequently in a dangerous plight, as the two castles between which their city lay, the Wyssehrad and the Hradschin, again declared for Sigismund. As they could not defend their city, they again turned to thoughts of submission, in return for an amnesty and permission to celebrate the communion under both kinds. But Sigismund had now advanced into Bohemia and proudly looked for a speedy triumph. He demanded that they should lay aside their arms and submit. This harshness was a fatal error on Sigismund’s part, as it drove the burghers of Prague into alliance with the extreme party of Zizka.

As yet this alliance had not been made; as yet Prague wished to proceed on the old constitutional lines. It wished to recognize the legitimate king, and obtain from him tolerance for the new religious beliefs. If this were impossible, there was nothing left save to throw in their lot with those who wished to create a new constitution and a new society. Zizka had been preparing for the contest. He remorselessly pursued a policy which would deprive the Catholics of their resources, and would compel Bohemia to follow the course in which it had engaged. Monasteries were everywhere pillaged and destroyed; Church property was seized; the lands of the orthodox party were ruthlessly devastated. Sigismund, if he entered Bohemia, would find no resources to help him. Zizka so acted as to make the breach at once irreparable; he wished to leave no chance of conciliation, except on condition of recognizing all that he had done. Moreover, he established a center for his authority. When he failed to seize Prague as a stronghold, he sought out a spot which would form a capital for the revolution. A chance movement made him master of the town of Austi, near which were the remains of an old fortified place. Zizka’s eye at once recognized its splendid military situation, lying on the top of a hill, which was formed into a peninsula by two rivers which flow round its rocky base. Zizka set to work to build up the old walls, and strengthen by art the strong natural position. The approach to the peninsula, which was only thirty feet wide, was rendered secure by a triple wall and a deep ditch. Towers and defenses crowned the whole line of the wall. It was not a city, but a permanent camp, which Zizka succeeded in making, and to which was given the characteristic name of Tabor. Henceforth the name of Taborites was confined to Zizka’s followers.

Before the danger which threatened them with entire destruction, as Sigismund’s army numbered at least 80,000 men from almost every nation in Europe, all parties in Bohemia drew together. The troops of Zizka entered Prague, and the burghers destroyed such parts of their city as were most open to attack from the Wyssehrad and the Hradschin, which were held by the Royalists. The hill of Witkow, on the north-east of the city, was still held by the Hussites, and against that Sigismund directed an attack on July 14. The attention of the enemy was distracted by assaults in different quarters, and Sigismund’s soldiers pressed up the hill. But a tower, defended by twenty-six Taborites, with two women and a girl who fought like heroes, kept the troops at bay till a band of Zizka’s soldiers came to their aid, and charged with such fury that the Germans fled in dismay. Sigismund learned with shame and anger the powerlessness of his great host to contend against a people actuated by national and religious zeal. Their repulse kindled in the Germans a desire for vengeance, and they massacred the Bohemian inhabitants of the neighboring towns and villages. When the Bohemian nobles of the King’s party resented this display of hatred against the entire Bohemian race, Sigismund’s unwieldy army began to break up. There was again a talk of negotiation, and the people of Prague sent to Sigismund their demands, which are known as the Four Articles of Prague, and formed the charter of the Hussite creed. They asked for freedom of preaching, the communion under both kinds, the reduction of the clergy to apostolic poverty, and the severe repression of all open sins. These articles were a worthy exposition of the principles of the Reformation: the first asserted the freedom of man to search the Scriptures for himself; the second attacked one of the great outposts of sacerdotalism, the denial of the cup to the laity; the third cut at the root of the abuses of the ecclesiastical system; and the fourth claimed for Christianity the power to regenerate and regulate society. There was some semblance of discussion on these points but there could be no agreement between those who rested on the authority of the Church and those who entirely disregarded it.

These negotiations, however, gave still further pretext for many of Sigismund’s troops to leave his army. Resolving to do something, Sigismund on July 28 had himself crowned King of Bohemia, a step which gave greater appearance of legitimacy to his position. He strove to bind to his interests the Bohemian nobles by gifts of the royal domains and of the treasures of the churches. Meanwhile the Hussites besieged the Wyssehrad and succeeded in cutting off its supplies. It was reduced to extremities when Sigismund made an effort to relieve it. The chivalry of Moravia, Hungary, and Bohemia were checked, in their fiery charge by the steady organization of the Taborites, and more than four hundred of the bravest nobles were slaughtered by the flails of the peasants as they struggled in the vineyards and marsh at the bottom of the hill. Sigismund fled, and the Wyssehrad surrendered on November 1.

After this, Sigismund’s cause was lost, and he was regarded as the murderer of the nobles who fell in the disastrous battle of the Wyssehrad. The troops of Zizka overran Bohemia, and the Catholic inhabitants fled before them. Town after town submitted, and in March, 1421, Sigismund left Bohemia in despair. He had hopelessly mismanaged affairs. He had alternated between a policy of conciliation and one of repression. He had alienated the Bohemians through the cruelty of his German followers, and had lost the support of the Germans through his anxiety to win the Bohemian nobles. Finally his hope of overcoming the people by the help of the native nobles had ignominiously failed and had covered Sigismund with disgrace.

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

Although Bohemia was united in opposition to Sigismund and Catholicism, it was but natural that the divergencies of opinion within itself should grow wider as it felt itselt more free from danger. The division between the Conservative and Radical party became more pronounced. The Conservatives, who were called Calixtins or Utraquists from their ceremonial, or Praguers from their chief seat, held by the position of Hus—a position of orthodoxy in belief, with a reformation of ecclesiastical practice carried out according to Scripture. They altered as little as possible in the old ecclesiastical arrangements, retained the mass service with the communion under both kinds, and observed the festivals of the Church. Against them were set the Radicals, the Taborites, amongst whom there were several parties. The most moderate, at the head of which stood Zizka, differed from the Praguers not so much in belief as in the determined spirit with which they were prepared to defend their opinions and carry them out in practice. The thorough Taborites cast aside all ecclesiastical authority and asserted the sufficiency of Scripture, for the right understanding of which the individual believer was directly illuminated by the Holy Ghost. They rejected Transubstantiation, and asserted that Christ was present in the elements only in a figurative way. Besides these were various extreme sects, who held that the Millennium had begun, that God existed only in the hearts of the believers, and the devil in the hearts of the wicked. Most notorious amongst these was the small sect of the Adamites, who took possession of a small island on the river Nezarka and gave themselves up to a life of communism which degenerated into shameless excesses. Against these extreme sectaries the Praguers and Zizka set up a standard of orthodoxy, and proceeded to measures of repression. Fifty of both sexes were burned by Zizka on the same day: they entered the flames with a smile, saying, “Today will we reign with Christ”. The island of the Adamites was stormed, and the entire body exterminated. Martinek Hauska, the chief teacher who opposed Transubstantiation, was burned as a heretic in Prague.

It was indeed needful that Bohemia should retain the appearance of unity if she were to succeed in maintaining her new religious freedom. Sigismund was disheartened by the failure of his first attempt, and was ready to wait and try the results of moderation. But the German electors and the Pope were by no means willing to give up Bohemia as lost. The four Rhenish Electors formed a league against the heretics: the Papal legate, Cardinal Branda, journeyed through Germany to kindle the zeal of the faithful. Sigismund was openly denounced as a favorer of heresy, and was compelled to bestir himself. It was agreed that the Electors should lead an army from Germany, and Sigismund should advance from Hungary through Moravia and unite with them. In September Germany poured an army of 200,000 men into Bohemia; but Sigismund tarried and deferred his coming. Loud accusations of treachery were brought against him by the angry princes, and disputes sprang up among them. The vast army wasted its energies in the siege of Saaz, and began gradually to disperse; the news of Zizka’s advance turned it to shameful flight. It was said ironically that such was the horror which the German princes felt against the heretics, that they could not even endure to see them. When Sigismund had finished his preparations, he also in December entered Bohemia with a formidable army of 90,000 men, well-armed, trained in warfare, led by Pipo of Florence, one of the most renowned generals of the age. Zizka put forth all his powers of generalship to save Bohemia from the impending danger.

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

This new organization was sorely tried when, on December 21, Sigismund’s army advanced against Kuttenberg, and met Zizka’s forces hard by its walls. The wagons of the Bohemians proved an impregnable defence, and their artillery did great injury, against the Hungarians. But treachery was at work in Kuttenberg, and opened the gates to Sigismund. Next day the Bohemians found themselves shut in on all sides, and their foes prepared to reduce them by hunger. But in the darkness of the night Zizka drew his troops together, and with a charge of his wagons broke through the enemy’s line and made good his retreat. Rapidly gathering reinforcements, Zizka returned to Kuttenberg on January 6, 1422, and fell suddenly upon the centre of the unsuspecting army. A panic seized the Germans; Sigismund fled ignominiously, and his example was followed by all. Zizka followed, and, aided by the wintry weather, inflicted severe losses on the invaders. More than 12,000 men are said to have perished. The second crusade against the Hussites failed even more signally than the first.

Bohemia had now beaten back both Sigismund, who came to assert his hereditary rights to the crown, and the German princes, who viewed with alarm the dismemberment of the empire. There remained the more difficult task of organizing its political position. The great statesman, Nicolas of Hus, was dead, and Zizka had the talents of a general rather than a politician. His own democratic ideas, were too strong for him to put himself at the head of the State, and bring about the necessary union between the Praguers and the Taborites. The Bohemian nobles and the Conservative party generally desired to take the management of affairs out of the hands of the Taborites, and reestablish a monarchy. Already they had offered the kingdom to Ladislas, King of Poland, who shrank from incurring the charge of heresy, which would hinder him in his constant warfare against the Teutonic Knights in Prussia. But Witold, Grand Duke of Lithuania, a man of high political sagacity, had before his eyes the possibility of a great Slavic confederacy which would beat back all German aggression. He saw in the Hussite movement a means of bridging over the religious differences between the Latin and Greek Churches, which were an obstacle to the union of Prussia and Poland. These plans of Witold created great alarm in Germany, and many efforts were made to thwart them; but Witold took advantage of events, announced to the Pope that he wished to restore order in Bohemia, and in May, 1422, sent the nephew of Ladislas of Poland, Sigismund Korybut, with an army to Prague. Prague, torn with internal dissensions, accepted Korybut as a deliverer. Zizka recognized him as ruler of the land, and Korybut showed zeal and moderation in winning over all parties to his side.

This union of Bohemia and Poland was a standing menace to Germany, and a Diet held at Nurnberg in July appointed Frederick of Brandenburg to lead a new expedition into Bohemia. Frederick was keenly alive to the gravity of the situation, which indeed threatened himself in Brandenburg. He endeavored to gather together both an army for a crusade and a permanent army of occupation, which was to be left in Bohemia. But Germany’s internal weakness and constant dissensions prevented Frederick from accomplishing anything. He led a few soldiers into Bohemia, spent some time in negotiations, and then returned Nor was Korybut’s position in Bohemia a strong one. He failed in his military undertakings; his attempts at conciliation alienated the extreme Taborites; Zizka maintained an attitude of neutrality towards him. Meanwhile Martin V was untiring in his endeavors to break down the alliance between Poland and Bohemia. He exhorted the Polish bishops to labor for that purpose. He wrote to Ladislas and Witold, pointing out the political dangers which beset them if they strayed from Catholicism. Sigismund, on his part, was willing to purchase an alliance with Poland by abandoning the cause of the Teutonic Knights. The combined efforts of Martin V and Sigismund were successful. Witold wrote to the Bohemians that his desire had been to reconcile them with the Roman Church; as they were obstinate, he was driven to abandon them to their fate. Korybut was recalled, and left Prague on December 24. The great idea of a Slavonic Empire and Church was at an end, and the future of Poland was decided by its cowardice at this great crisis. Henceforth it was condemned to the isolation which it had chosen through want of foresight.

The departure of Korybut and freedom from invasion awakened amongst the Bohemians the differences which danger made them forget. The Praguers and the Taborites stood in stronger opposition to one another. The Praguers were more disposed to negotiation, and hoped that they might still find room for their opinions under the shadow of the authority of the Church. Zizka had grown more convinced of the futility of compromise, and a stern spirit of resistance took possession of him and his followers. The year 1423 is full of the records of civil war and devastation in Bohemia, and Zizka spread fire and slaughter even in the neighboring lands of Moravia and Hungary. The year 1424 is known in Bohemian annals as “Zizka’s bloody year”. He swept like a storm over towns and villages of those who wished for compromise, and inflicted a sore defeat on the forces of the Praguers who were following on his track. The Praguers in dismay looked for a leader and found him in Korybut, who in June, 1424, returned to Prague, no longer as the deputy of Witold and the Governor of Bohemia, but as a personal adventurer at the head of the Moderate party. Zizka advanced against Prague; and the capital of Bohemia, the seat of Hus and his teaching, was in danger of a terrible siege. But moderate counsels prevailed at the last moment to avert this crowning calamity. Zizka withdrew and soon after died of the plague on October 11. His followers bewailed the loss of one who was to them both leader and father; they took the name of Orphans in sign of their bereavement.

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

By Zizka’s death the party opposed to reconciliation with Rome lost its chief strength. The Taborites divided into two—the Orphans, who held by the opinions of Zizka, and were separated from the Praguers rather on social and political than on religious grounds; and the extreme Taborites, who denied Transubstantiation and were entirely opposed to the Church system. But both these parties were feeble, and spent their energies in conflicts with one another. The field was open for Korybut and the Praguers to continue negotiations for peace and reconciliation. Bohemia was growing weary of anarchy. The first fervor of religious zeal had worn away, the first enthusiasm had been disillusioned. Men were beginning to count the cost of their political isolation, of the devastation of their land by foes without and quarrels within, of the ruin of their commerce. Against this they had little to set as a counterpoise. The exactions of feudal lords were as easy to bear as the exactions of a plundering army; the equality which they had hoped to find through religion was not yet attained. Though victorious in the field, the great mass of the Bohemian people longed for peace almost on any terms.

During the year 1425 Korybut pursued his negotiations, engaged in paving the way for reconciliation with Rome. The people were not unwilling, but the army still remained true to its faith. As they felt that danger was menacing them, the Taborites again drew together, reasserted their principles and prepared to wage war. Besides the danger from half-heartedness at home, two active enemies harassed the Bohemian border. Albert of Austria attacked Moravia, and Frederick of Meissen, whom Sigismund had made Elector of Saxony, was winning back Silesia. A new leader arose to guide the renewed vigor of the Taborites, Procopius, called the Great to distinguish him from others of the same name. Procopius, like Zizka, was sprung from the lower nobility, and was a priest at the time when he first attached himself to the party of Hus. Without possessing the military genius of Zizka, he knew how to manage the army which Zizka had created; and he had a larger mind and was capable of greater plans than his predecessor. Procopius was averse from war, and as a priest never bore arms nor took part in the battles which he directed. He wished for peace, but an honorable and enduring peace, which would guarantee to Bohemia her religious freedom. Peace, he saw, could only be won by arms; it was not enough to repel the invaders, Bohemia must secure its borders by acting on the offensive. He led his troops up the Elbe to the siege of Aussig. Frederick of Saxony was absent at a Diet at Nurnberg, but his wife Catharine called for succors and gathered an army of 70,000 men. The Bohemian troops, reinforced by Korybut, amounted only to 25,000, On June 16, 1426, was fought the battle under the walls of Aussig.

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

As usual, a victory united Germany and disunited Bohemia. Korybut pursued his schemes for union with Rome, and wrote to Martin V asking him to receive Bohemian envoys for this purpose. Martin V expressed his willingness, provided they would abide by the decision of the Holy See, which was, however, ready to receive information of their desires. Korybut hoped that the Pope would abandon Sigismund and recognize himself as King of Bohemia in return for his services to the Church. But Korybut was not yet firm enough in his position to carry out his plan. The dissension between the Taborites and the Praguers was not yet so profound that the Moderates as a body were willing to submit unreservedly to Rome. Korybut’s plans were known in Prague, and a party formed itself, which, while in favor of reconciliation, stood firm by the Four Articles. On Maundy Thursday, April 17, 1427, an eloquent and popular priest, John Rokycana, denounced in a sermon the treachery of Korybut. The people flew to arms, drove out the Poles, and made Korybut a prisoner. His plans had entirely failed, and the victory of the Moderate party over him necessarily turned to the profit of Procopius and the Taborites.

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

This disgraceful retreat did not bring men’s minds nearer to peace. Martin V urged a new expedition, and Sigismund was not sorry to see the Electors in difficulties. In Bohemia the party of peace made a vain effort to raise Prague in the name of Korybut; but the rising was put down without the help of Procopius, and Korybut was sent back to Poland in September, 1427. Procopius rallied round him the entire Hussite party, and, true to his policy of extorting an honorable peace, signalized the year 1428 by destructive raids into Austria, Bavaria, Silesia, and Saxony. After each expedition he returned home and waited to see if proposals for peace were likely to be made. In April, 1429, a conference was arranged between Sigismund and some of the Hussite leaders, headed by Procopius, at Pressburg in Hungary. Sigismund proposed a truce for two years till the assembling of the Council at Basel, before which the religious differences might be laid. The Hussites answered that their differences arose because the Church had departed from the example of Christ and the Apostles: the Council of Constance had shown them what they had to expect from Councils; they demanded an impartial judge between the Council and themselves, and this judge was the Holy Scripture and writings founded thereon. The proposal of Sigismund was referred to a Diet at Prague, and answer was made that the Bohemians were ready to submit their case to a Council, provided it contained representatives of the Greek and Armenian Churches, which received the Communion under both kinds, and provided it undertook to judge according to the Word of God, not the will of the Pope. Their request was equitable but impracticable. It was clearly impossible for them to submit to the decision of a Council composed entirely of their opponents; yet they could have little hope that their proposal to construct an impartial tribunal would be accepted.

The negotiations came to nothing. Indeed, Sigismund was busy at the same time in summoning the forces of the Empire to advance again Bohemia. Henry of Winchester had gathered a force of 5000 English horsemen, and in July, 1429, landed in Flanders on his way to Germany. But religious considerations were driven to give way to political. The unexpected successes of Jeanne d’Arc, the raising of the siege of Orleans, the coronation of Charles VII at Rheims, gave a sudden check to the English power in France. Winchester’s soldiers were ordered to the relief of their countrymen; the Cardinal’s influence could not persuade his men to prefer religious zeal to patriotic sentiment. The Catholics in Germany broke into a wail of lamentation when they saw the forces of the Papal legatediverted to a war with France.

Germany was feeble, and Bohemia was again agitated by a struggle. The peace party in Prague had for its quarters the Old Town, and the more pronounced Hussites the New Town. The two quarters of the city were on the point of open hostility when Procopius again united Bohemia for a war of invasion. The year 1430 was terrible in the annals of Germany, for the Hussite army carried devastation into the most flourishing provinces of the Empire. They advanced along the Elbe into Saxony, and penetrated as far as Meissen; they invaded Franconia, and threatened with siege the stately town of Nurnberg. Wherever they went the land was laid waste, and fire and slaughter were spread on every side.

The policy of Procopius was beginning to have its effect. The Hussite movement was the great question which attracted the attention of Europe. Hussite manifestoes were circulated in every land; the new opinions were discussed openly, and in many places met with considerable sympathy. The Hussites complained that their opponents attacked them without really knowing their beliefs, which were founded only on Holy Scripture; they invited all men to acquaint themselves with their opinions; they appealed to the success of their arms as a proof that God was on their side. The opinion began to prevail that, after all, argument and not arms was the proper mode of meeting heresy, particularly when arms had proved a failure. Martin V, who hated the very name of a Council, was again haunted at the end of 1430 by the face of John of Ragusa, who had been negotiating with Sigismund that he should combine with the University of Paris to urge on the Pope a speedy summons of the Council to Basel. Soon after John’s arrival in Rome, on the morning of November 8, the day on which Martin V was to create three new Cardinals, a document was found affixed to the door of the Papal palace which caused a great sensation in Rome.

“Whereas it is notorious to all Christendom, that since the Council of Constance an untold number of Christians have wandered from the faith by means of the Hussites, and members are daily being lopped off from the body of the Church militant, nor is there any one of all the sons whom she begat to help or console her; now, therefore, two most serene princes direct to all Christian princes the following conclusions, approved by learned doctors both of canon and of civil law, which they have undertaken to defend in the Council to be celebrated according to the decree of Constance in March next”. Then followed the conclusions, which set forth that the Catholic faith must be preferred before man, whoever he be; that princes secular as well as ecclesiastical are bound to defend the faith; that as former heresies, the Novatian, Arian, Nestorian, and others, were extirpated by Councils, so must that of the Hussites; that every Christian under pain of mortal sin must strive for the celebration of a Council for this purpose; if Popes or Cardinals put hindrances in the way they must be reckoned as favorers of heresy; if the Pope does not summon the Council at the appointed time those present at it ought to withdraw from his obedience, and proceed against those who try to hinder it as against favorers of heresy. This startling document was currently supposed to be authorized by Frederick of Brandenburg, Albert of Austria, and Lewis of Brieg.

Several of the Cardinals, chief of whom was Condulmier, future Pope, urged on Martin V to comply with the prevailing wish. But Martin V wished again to try the chance of War, and awaited the results of a diet which Sigismund had summoned to Nurnberg. On January 11, 1431, he appointed a new legate for Germany, Giuliano Cesarini, whom he had just created Cardinal. Cesarini was sprung from a poor but noble family in Rome, and his talents attracted Martin V’s notice. He was a man of large mind, great personal holiness, and deep learning. His appearance and manner were singularly attractive, and all who came in contact with him were impressed by the genuineness and nobility of his character. If any man could succeed in awakening enthusiasm in Germany it was Cesarini.

Before Cesarini’s departure to Germany Martin V had been brought with difficulty to recognize the necessity of the assembly of the Council at Basel, and commissioned Cesarini to preside at its opening. The Bull authorizing this was dated February 1, and conferred full powers on Cesarini to change the place of the Council at his will, to confirm its decrees and do all things necessary for the honor and peace of the Church. This Bull reached Cesarini at Nurnberg, shortly after the news of Martin V’s death. The Diet of Nurnberg voted an expedition into Bohemia, and Cesarini eagerly travelled through Germany preaching the crusade. At the same time steps were taken to open the Council at Basel. On the last day of February a Burgundian abbot read before the assembled clergy of Basel the Bulls constituting the Council, and then solemnly pronounced that he was ready for conciliar business. In April representatives of the University of Paris and a few other prelates began to arrive; but Cesarini sent to them John of Ragusa on April 30 to explain that the Bohemian expedition was the object for which he had been primarily commissioned by the Pope, and was the great means of extirpating heresy. He besought them to send envoys to help him in his dealings with the Bohemians, and meanwhile to use their best endeavors to assemble others to the Council. The envoys of the Council, at the head of whom was John of Ragusa, followed Sigismund to Eger, where he held a conference with the Hussites. The conference was only meant to divert the attention of the Bohemians, and it was speedily ended by a demand on the part of the envoys that the Bohemians should submit their case unconditionally to the Council’s decision. Sigismund returned to Nurnberg on May 22, and the German forces rapidly assembled. There were complaints at the legate’s absence; Cesarini’s zeal had led him as far as Koln, whence he hastened to Nurnberg on June 27. There he found a messenger from Eugenius IV, urging the prosecution of the Council, and bidding him, if it could be done without hindrance to the cause at heart, to leave the Bohemian expedition and proceed at once to Basel. But Cesarini’s heart and soul were now in the crusade. He determined to pursue his course, and on July 3 appointed John of Palomar, an auditor of the Papal court, and John of Ragusa, to preside over the Council as his deputies in his absence.

On July 5 Cesarini addressed an appeal to the Bohemians, protesting his wish to bring peace rather than a sword. Were they not all Christians? Why should they stray from their holy mother the Church? Could a handful of men pretend to know better than all the doctors of Christendom? Let them look upon their wasted land and the miseries they had endured; he earnestly and affectionately besought them to return while it was time to the bosom of the Church. The Bohemians were not slow to answer. They asserted the truth of the Four Articles of Prague, which they were prepared to prove by Scripture. They recounted the results of the conferences at Pressburg and Eger, where they had professed themselves willing to appear before any Council which would judge according to Scripture, and would work with them in bringing about the reformation of the Church according to the Word of God. They had been told that such limitations were contrary to the dignity of a General Council, which was above all law. This they could not admit, and trusting in God’s truth were prepared to resist to the utmost those who attacked them.

On July 7 Cesarini left Nurnberg with Frederick of Brandenburg, who had been appointed commander of the Crusade. Cesarini had done his utmost to pacify the German princes and unite them for this expedition. He was full of hope when he set out from Nurnberg. But when he reached Weiden, where the different contingents were to meet, his hopes were rudely dispelled. Instead of soldiers he found excuses; he heard tales of nobles needing their troops to war against one another rather than combine in defence of the Church. “We are many fewer”, he wrote to Basel on July 16, “than was said in Nurnberg, so that the leaders hesitate. Not only our victory but even our entry into Bohemia is doubtful. We are not so few that, if there were any courage amongst us, we need shrink from entering Bohemia. I am very anxious and above measure sad. For if the army retreats without doing anything, the Christian religion in these parts is undone; such terror would be felt by our side, and their boldness would increase”. However, on August 1, an army of 40,000 horse and 90,000 foot crossed the Bohemian border, and advanced against Tachau. Cesarini seeing it unprepared for attack urged an immediate onslaught: he was told that the soldiers were tired with their march, and must wait till tomorrow. In the night the inhabitants strengthened their walls and put their artillery into position, so that a storm was hopeless. The crusading host passed on, devastating and slaughtering with a ruthless cruelty that was a strange contrast to the charitable utterances of Cesarini’s manifesto. But their triumph was short-lived. On August 14 the Bohemian army advanced against them at Tauss. Its approach was known, when it was yet some way off, by the noise of the rolling wagons. Cesarini, with the Duke of Saxony, ascended a hill to see the disposition of the army; there he saw with surprise the German wagons retreating. He sent to ask Frederick of Brandenburg the meaning of this movement, and was told that he had ordered the wagons to take up a secure position in the rear. But the movement was misunderstood by the Germans. A cry was raised that some were retreating. Panic seized the host, and in a few moments Cesarini saw the crusaders in wild confusion making for the Bohemian Forest in their rear. He was driven to join the fugitives, and all his efforts to rally them were vain. Procopius, seeing the flight, charged the fugitives, seized all their wagons and artillery, and inflicted upon them terrible slaughter. Cesarini escaped with difficulty in disguise, and had to endure the threats and reproaches of the Germans, who accused him as the author of all their calamities.

Cesarini was humbled by his experience. He reproached himself for his confidence in German arms; he had now seen enough, of the cowardice and feebleness of Germany. He had seen, too, the growing importance of the Hussite movement, and the force which their success was giving to the spread of their convictions throughout Germany. When he returned to Nurnberg Sigismund met him with due honor; the German princes gathered round him and protested their readiness for another campaign next year. But Cesarini answered that no other remedy remained for the check of the Hussite heresy than the Council of Basel. He besought them to do their utmost to strengthen the feeble and cheer the desponding in Germany, to exhort those whose faith was wavering to hold out in hope of succor from the Council. With this advice he hastened to Basel, where he arrived on September 9. To the Council were now transferred all men’s expectations of a peaceable settlement of the formidable difficulty which threatened Western Christendom.

The ancient city of Basel was well fitted to be the seat of a great assemblage. High above the rushing Rhine raised its stately minster on a rocky hill which seemed to brave the river's force. Round the river and the minster clusters the city. It was surrounded by a fertile plain, was easily accessible from Germany, France, and Italy, and as a free Imperial city was a place of security and dignity for the Council. To the eye of an Italian, accustomed to marbles and frescoes, the interior of the cathedral looked bald and colorless; but its painted windows and the emblazoned shields of nobles hung round the wall gave it a staid richness of its own. The Italians owned that it was a comfortable place, and that the houses of the merchants of Basel equalled those of Florence. It was well ordered by its magistrates, who administered strict justice and organized admirably the supplies of food. The citizens of Basel were devout, but little given to literature; they were luxurious and fond of wine, but were steadfast, truthful, sincere, and honest in their dealings.

The Council was long in assembling. It was natural that, while the President was absent in Bohemia, few should care to undertake the journey. If the crusade ended in a victory, it was doubtful how long the Council would sit. Cesarini’s deputies, John of Palomar and John of Ragusa, opened the Council with due ceremonial on July 23. It was only sparsely attended, and its first business was to increase its numbers, and obtain some guarantees for its safety and freedom from the city magistrates and from Sigismund. On August 29 came the news of the flight of the Crusaders from Tauss. It produced a deep impression on the assembled fathers, and convinced them of the seriousness and importance of the work which they had before them. They felt that the chastisement which had befallen the Church was due to her shortcomings, and that penitence and reformation alone could avert further disaster.

To this feeling the arrival of Cesarini on September 9 gave further force. Deeply impressed with the importance of the crisis, he sent forth letters urging on the prelates that they should lose no time in coming to the Council. Only three bishops, seven abbots, and a few doctors were assembled, as the roads were unsafe, owing to a war between the Dukes of Austria and Burgundy. He wrote also to the Pope to express his own convictions and the common opinion of the work which the Council might do: it might extirpate heresy, promote peace throughout Christendom, restore the Church to its pristine glory, humble its enemies, treat of union with the Greeks, and finally set on foot a crusade for the recovery of the Holy Land. An envoy was sent to the Pope to explain to him how matters stood, and to urge the need of his presence at Basel. Meanwhile there were many discussions relative to the constitution of the Council, who were to take part in it, and what was to be the method of voting. There was a general agreement that, as the great object of the Council was to arrange a union with the Bohemians and the Greeks, it was desirable to admit men of learning, that is, doctors of canon or civil law, as well as prelates. The question of the method of voting was left until the Council became more numerous.

The Council, moreover, lost no time in trying to bring about its chief object. On October 10 a letter was sent to the Bohemians, begging them to join with the Council for the promotion of unity. Perhaps God has allowed discord so long that experience might teach the evils of dissension. Christ's disciples are bound to labour for unity and peace. The desolation of Bohemia must naturally incline it to wish for peace, and where can that be obtained more surely than in a Council assembled in the Holy Ghost? At Basel everything will be done with diligence and with freedom; every one may speak, and the Holy Ghost will lead men's hearts to the truth, if only they will have faith. The Bohemians have often complained that they could not get a free hearing; at Basel they may both speak and hear freely, and the prayers of the faithful will help both sides. The most ample safe-conduct was offered to their representatives, and the fullest appreciation given to their motives. “Send, we beseech you, men in whom you trust that the Spirit of the Lord rests, gentle, God-fearing, humble, desirous of peace, seeking not their own, but the things of Christ, whom we pray to give to us and you and all Christian people peace on earth, and in the world to come life everlasting”. This letter, which breathes profound sincerity and true Christian charity, was, no doubt, an expression of the views of Cesarini, and was most probably written by him. The greatest care was taken to make no allusion to the past, and to approach the matter entirely afresh. But it was impossible for the Bohemians to forget all that had gone before. The difficulty experienced in sending the letter to the Bohemians showed the existence of a state of things very different from what the Council wished to recognize. There was no intercourse between Bohemia and the rest of Christendom; the Bohemians were under the ban of the Council of Siena as heretics. It was finally agreed to send three copies by different ways, in hopes that one at least might arrive. One was sent to Sigismund for transmission, another to the magistrates of Nurnberg, and a third to the magistrates of Eger. All three copies arrived safely in Bohemia in the beginning of December.

This activity on the part of the Council necessarily aroused the suspicion of Eugenius IV. The zeal of Cesarini, which had been kindled by his Bohemian experiences, went far beyond the limits of Papal prudence. The Bohemian question did not seem so important at Rome as it did at Basel. A Council which under the pressure of necessity opened negotiations with heretics, might greatly imperil the faith of the Church, and might certainly be expected to do many things contrary to the Papal headship. A democratic spirit prevailed in Basel, which had shown itself in the admission of all doctors; and the discussion about the organization of the Council showed that it would be very slightly amenable to the influence of the Pope and the Curia. Eugenius IV resolved, therefore, at once to rid himself of the Council. He thought it wisest to overturn it at once, before it had time to strike its roots deeper. Accordingly, on November 12, he wrote to Cesarini, empowering him to dissolve the Council at Basel and proclaim another to be held at Bologna in a year and a half. The reasons given were the small attendance of prelates at Basel, the difficulties of access owing to the war between Austria and Burgundy, the distracted state of men's minds in that quarter owing to the spread of Hussite opinions; but especially the fact that negotiations were now pending with the Greek Emperor, who had promised to come to a Council which was to unite the Greek and Latin Churches on condition that the Pope paid the expenses of his journey and held the Council in some Italian city. As it would be useless to hold two Councils at the same time, the Pope thought it better that the Fathers of Basel should reassemble at Bologna when their business was ready.

A Bull dissolving the Council on these grounds was also secretly prepared, and was signed by ten Cardinals. The Council, in entire ignorance of the blow that was being aimed at it, was engaged in preparations for its first public session, which took place under the presidency of Cesarini on December 14. The Council declared itself to be duly constituted, and laid down three objects for its activity: the extirpation of heresy, the purification of Christendom, and the reformation of morals. It appointed its officials and guarded by decrees its safety and freedom. On December 23 arrived the Bishop of Parenzo, treasurer of Eugenius IV, and was honorably received; but the coldness of his manner showed the object of his mission. The Council was at once in a ferment of excitement. In a congregation on December 29, the citizens of Basel appeared in force, and protested against the dissolution. Various speakers of the Council laid before the Bishop of Parenzo four propositions; that the urgent needs of Christendom did not allow of the dissolution of the Council; that such a step would cause great scandal and offence to the Church; that if this Council were dissolved or prorogued, it was idle to talk of summoning another; that a General Council ought to proceed against all who tried to hinder it, and ought to call all Christian princes to its aid. The Bishop of Parenzo was not prepared for this firm attitude; he found things at Basel different from his expectations. He thought it wise to temporize, and declared that if he had any Papal Bulls he would not publish them. Meanwhile he tried to induce Cesarini to dissolve the Council. Cesarini was sorely divided between his allegiance to the Pope and his sense of what was due to the welfare of Christendom. It was agreed that two envoys should be sent to the Pope, one from Cesarini and one from the Council. The Bishop of Parenzo thought it wise to flee away on January 8, 1432, leaving his Bulls with John of Prato, who attempted to publish them on January 13, but was interrupted, and his Bulls and himself were taken in custody by the Council’s orders.

Cesarini was deeply moved by this attitude of the Pope. To his fervent mind it was inconceivable that the head of Christendom should behave with such levity at so grave a crisis. He wrote at once to Eugenius IV a letter, in which he expressed with the utmost frankness his bitter disappointment at the Pope’s conduct, his firm conviction of the need of straightforward measures on the part of the ecclesiastical authorities to restore the shattered confidence of Christian people. He began his letter by saying that he was driven to speak freely and fearlessly by the manifest peril of the faith, the danger of the loss of obedience to the Papacy, the obloquy with which Eugenius was everywhere assailed. He recapitulated the facts concerning his own mission to Bohemia and his presidency of the Council; detailed the hopes which he and every one in Germany entertained of the Council's mediation. “I was driven also to come here by observing the dissoluteness and disorder of the German clergy, by which the laity are sorely irritated against the Church—so much so, that there is reason to fear that, if the clergy do not amend their ways, the laity will attack them, as the Hussites do. If there had been no General Council, I should have thought it my duty as legate to summon a provincial synod for the reform of the clergy: for unless the clergy be reformed I fear that, even if the Bohemian heresy were extinguished, another would rise up in its place”. Having these opinions, he came to the Council and tried to conduct its business with diligence, thinking that such was the Pope’s desire. “I did not suppose that your holiness wished me to dissemble or act negligently; if you had bid me do so, I would have answered that you must lay that duty on another, for I have determined never to occupy the post of a dissembler”.

He then passed on to the question of the prorogation of the Council, and laid before the Pope the considerations which he would have urged if he had been in the Curia when the question was discussed.

(1) The Bohemians have been summoned to the Council; its prorogation will be a flight before them on the part of the Church as disgraceful as the flight of the German army. “By this flight we shall approve their errors and condemn the truth and justice of our own cause. Men will see in this the finger of God, and will see that the Bohemians can neither be vanquished by arms nor by argument O luckless Christendom! O Catholic faith, abandoned by all; soldiers and priests alike desert thee; no one dares stand on thy side”.

(2) This flight will lose the allegiance of wavering Catholics, amongst whom are already rife opinions contrary to the Holy See.

(3) The ignominy of the flight will fall on the clergy, who will be universally attacked.

(4) “What will the world say when it hears of this? Will it not judge that the clergy is incorrigible and wishes to moulder in its abuses? So many Councils have been held in our time, but no reform has followed. Men were expecting some results from this Council; if it be dissolved they will say that we mock both God and men. The whole reproach, the whole shame and ignominy, will fall upon the Roman Curia as the cause and author of all these ills. Holy Father, may you never be the cause of such evils! At your hands will be required the blood of those that perish; about all things you will have to render a strict account at the judgment seat of God”,

(5 and 6) To promote the pacification of Christendom ambassadors have been sent to make peace between England and France, between Poland and the Teutonic Knights; the dissolution of the Council will stop their valuable labours.

(7) There are disturbances in Magdeburg and Passau, where the people have risen against their bishops and show signs of following the Hussites. The Council may arrange these matters; if it bedissolved discord will spread.

(8) The Duke of Burgundy has been asked by the Council to undertake the part of leader against the Hussites. If the Council be dissolved, he will be irritated against the Church, and his services will be lost.

(9) Many German nobles are preparing for another expedition into Bohemia if need be. If they are deluded by the Pope, they will turn against the Church. “I myself will rather die than live ignominiously. I will go perhaps to Nurnberg and place myself in the hands of these nobles that they may do with me what they will, even sell me to the heretics. All men shall know that I am innocent”.

(10) The Council sent envoys to confirm the wavering on the Bohemian borders: if the Council be dissolved, their work will be undone and there will be a large addition to the Hussites.

He then proceeded to answer the Pope’s objections. If he cannot conveniently come to Basel in person on account of his health, let him send a deputation of Cardinals and eminent persons. As to the safety of the place, it is as secure as Constance. It is said that the Pope fears lest the Council meddle with the temporalities of the Church. It is not reasonably to be expected that an ecclesiastical assembly will act to its own detriment. There have been many previous Councils with no such result. “I fear lest it happen to us as it did to the Jews, who said: ‘If we let Him alone, the Romans will come and take away our place and nation’. So we say: If we let this Council alone, the laity will come and take away our temporalities. But by the just judgment of God the Jews lost their place because they would not let Christ alone; and by the just judgment of God, if we do not let this Council alone we shall lose our temporalities, and (God forbid) our lives and souls as well. Let the Pope, on the other hand, be friendly with the Council, reform his Curia, and be ready to act for the good of the Church”.

The Council is likely, if pressed to extremities, to refuse to dissolve, and there would be the danger of a schism. He begged to be relieved of his commission and complained of the want of straightforwardness. If he attempted to dissolve the Council, he would be stoned to death by the fathers; if he were to go away, the Council would be certain to appoint for itself another president.

This letter is remarkable for its clear exhibition of the state of affairs in Europe at this time, and as we read it now, it is still more remarkable for the political instinct which enabled its writer to make so true a forecast of the future. It would have been well for Eugenius IV if he had had the wisdom to appreciate its importance. It would have been well for the future of the Papacy if Cesarini’s words had awakened an echo in the Court of Rome. As it was, the politicians of the Curia only smiled at the exalted enthusiasm of Cesarini, and Eugenius IV was too narrow-minded and obstinate to reconsider the wisdom of a course of conduct which he had once adopted. He did not understand, nor did he care to understand, the sentiments of the Council. He had forgotten the current of feeling against the Papacy which had been so strong at Constance. The decrees of Constance were not among the Papal Archives; and one of the Cardinals who possessed a manuscript of Filastre was heard with astonishment by the Curia when he called attention to the decree which declared a General Council to be superior to the Pope. At Basel, on the other hand, there were many copies of the Acts of the Council of Constance, and it was held that the Pope could not dissolve a General Council without its own consent. The rash step of Eugenius forced the Council into an attitude of open hostility towards the Papacy, and a desperate struggle between the two powers was inevitable.

The first question for both parties was the attitude of Sigismund. His personal interest in the settlement of the Hussite rebellion naturally inclined him to favour in every way the assembling of the Council. In July, 1431, he took the Council under his Imperial protection, and in August wrote in its interest to make peace between the Dukes of Austria and Burgundy. But Sigismund felt that the years which had elapsed since the Council of Constance had not been glorious to his reputation. He had failed ignominiously in Bohemia and had exercised little influence in Germany, where he had quarrelled with Frederick of Brandenburg, who was the most distinguished amongst the electors. His early enthusiasm for acting with dignity the part of secular head of Christendom had been damped at Constance, and he did not care to appear at Basel without some accession to his dignity. With characteristic desire for outward show, he determined on an expedition to Italy, to assume the Imperial crown. He hoped to establish once more the Imperial claims, to check the power of Venice, which was the enemy of Hungary, and to induce the Pope to come to Basel. Yet to attain all these objects he had only a following of some 2000 Hungarian and German knights. His hopes were entirely built on the help of Filippo Maria Visconti, who was at war with Venice and Florence, and with whom Sigismund made a treaty in July. Before setting out for Italy he appointed William of Bavaria his vicegerent as Protector of the Council: then early in November he crossed the Alps, and on November 21 arrived in Milan. But the jealous and suspicious character of Filippo Maria Visconti could not bear the presence of a superior; he was afraid that Sigismund's presence might be the occasion of a rising against himself. Accordingly he gave orders that Sigismund should be honorably received in Milan; but he himself withdrew from the city, and remained secluded in one of his castles. He refused to visit Sigismund, and gave the ridiculous excuse that his emotions were too strong; “if he saw Sigismund he would die of joy”. Disappointed of his host, Sigismund could only hasten his coronation with the iron crown of Lombardy, which took place in the church of S. Ambrogio on November 25. He did not stay long in Milan, where he was treated with much suspicion, but in December passed on to Piacenza, where, on January 10, 1432, he received news of the Papal Bull dissolving the Council of Basel.

Sigismund had left Germany as the avowed Protector of the Council: but it was felt that his desire to obtain the Imperial crown gave the Pope considerable power of affixing stipulations to the coronation. In fact, Sigismund’s relations with Eugenius IV were not fortunate for the object which he had in view. Not only did the question of the Council an obstacle to their good understand, but Sigismund’s alliance with the Duke of Milan was displeasing to Eugenius IV, who as a Venetian was on the side of his native city. When Sigismund discovered how little he could depend on Filippo Maria Visconti his political position in Italy was sufficiently helpless. There were grave fears in Basel that he might abandon the cause of the Council as a means of reconciling himself with the Pope.

At first, however, Sigismund's attitude seemed firm enough. Immediately on hearing of the proposed dissolution of the Council he wrote to Basel, exhorting the fathers to stand firm, and saying that he had written to beg the Pope to reconsider his decision. The Council, on its side, wrote to Sigismund, affecting to disbelieve the genuineness of the Bull brought by the Bishop of Parenzo, and begging Sigismund to send William of Bavaria at once to Basel. On receipt of this letter Sigismund wrote again, thanking them for their zeal, saying that he was going at once to Rome to arrange matters with the Pope, and exhorting them to persevere in their course.

Before it received the news of Sigismund’s constancy the Council on January 21 issued a summons to all Christendom, begging those who were coming to the Council not to be discouraged at the rumours of its dissolution, as it was improbable that the Vicar of Christ, if well informed, would set aside the decrees of Constance, and bring ruin on the Church by dissolving the Council which was to extirpate heresy and reform abuses. Congregations were continued as usual to arrange preliminaries, and on February 3 William of Bavaria arrived in Basel, and was solemnly received as Sigismund’s vicegerent. Prelates poured in to the Council, which daily became more numerous. The Dukes of Milan, Burgundy, and Savoy all wrote to express their cooperation with the Council. Cardinal Cesarini could not reconcile it with his allegiance to the Pope to continue as President of the Council in spite of the Pope’s wishes, and the breach with the Papacy was made more notorious by the election of a new President, Philibert, Bishop of Coutances. As a further sign of its determination the Council ordered a seal to be made for its documents. Its impress was God the Father sending down the Holy Spirit on the Pope and Emperor sitting in Council surrounded by Cardinals, prelates, and doctors.

On February 15 was held the second general session, in which was rehearsed the famous decree of Constance, that a General Council has its power immediately from Christ and that all of every rank, even the Papal, are bound to obey it in matters pertaining to the faith, the extirpation of heresy, and the reformation of the Church in head and members. It was decreed that the Council could not be dissolved against its will, and that all proceedings of the Pope against any of its members, or any who were coming to incorporate themselves with it, were null and void. This was the Council's answer to the Pope’s Bull of dissolution. The two powers now stood in open antagonism, and each claimed the allegiance of Christendom. The movement against the Papal monarchy, which had been started by the Schism, found its full expression at Basel. The Council of Pisa had merely aided the Cardinals in their efforts to restore peace to the disturbed Church; the Council of Constance had been a more resolute endeavor for the same purpose of the temporal and spiritual authorities of Christendom. But the Council of Basel asserted against a legitimate Pope, who was universally recognized, the superiority of a General Council over the Papacy. It was a revolt of the ecclesiastical aristocracy against the Papal absolutism, and the fate of the revolt was a question of momentous consequences for the future of the Church.

After this declaration the Council busily sent envoys throughout Christendom, and set to work to organize itself for the transaction of business. The means for this purpose had been under discussion since September, 1431, and in the plan adopted we recognize the statesmanlike capacity of Cesarini. The fortunes of the Council of Constance showed the danger of national jealousies and political complications in an ecclesiastical synod. It was resolved at Basel to avoid the division by nations, and to work by means of four committees, which were to prepare business for the general sessions of the Council. As the objects of the Council were the suppression of heresy, the reform of the Church, and the pacification of Christendom, these objects were confided to the care of deputations of Faith, of Reformation, and of Peace, while a fourth was added for common and necessary business. The deputations were formed equally out of every nation and every rank of the hierarchy. They elected their own officers, and chose a new president every month. Every four months the deputations were dissolved and reconstituted, care being taken that a few of the old members remained. As a link between the four deputations was appointed monthly a committee of twelve, chosen equally from the four nations, who decided about the incorporation of new members with the Council, and their distribution among the deputations. They decided also the allotment of business to the several deputations, received their reports, and submitted them to a general congregation. At each election four of the old members were left to maintain the continuity of tradition; but the same men might not be reappointed twice. For the formal supervision of the Council’s business was a small committee of four, one appointed by each deputation, through whom passed all the letters of the Council, which it was their duty to seal. If they were dissatisfied with the form of the contents, they remitted the letter, with a statement of their reasons, to the deputation from which it originated.

This system, which was conceived in the spirit of a liberal oligarchy, was calculated to promote freedom of discussion and to eliminate as much as possible political and national feeling. Secrecy in the conduct of business was forbidden, and members of one deputation were encouraged to discuss their affairs with members of the other deputations. The deputations met three times a week, and could only undertake the business laid before them by the president. When they were agreed about a matter, it was laid before a general congregation; if three of the deputations, at least, were then in favour of it, it was brought before the Council in general session in the cathedral, and was finally adopted. Every precaution was taken to ensure full discussion and practical unanimity before the final settlement of any question. The organization of the Council was as democratic as anything at that time could be.

The first deputations were appointed on the last day of February. It was not long before cheering news reached the Council. The French clergy, in a synod held at Bourges on February 26, declared their adhesion to the objects set forth by the Council, and besought the King to send envoys to the Pope to beg him to recall his dissolution; and at the same time to send envoys to Sigismund to urge that nothingshould be done by the Council against the ecclesiastical authority, lest thereby a plausible pretext for transferring the Council elsewhere be afforded to the Pope. The letters of Sigismund to the Council assured it of his fidelity; and his ambassadors to the Pope on March 17 affirmed that Sigismund's coming to Italy aimed only at a peaceful solution of the religious and political difficulties of Europe, and was prompted by no motives of personal ambition. He wished the Pope to understand that he was not prepared to win his coronation by a desertion of the Council’s cause. From Bohemia also came the news that the Praguers had consented to negotiate with the Council on the basis of the Four Articles, and had desired a preliminary conference at Eger with the envoys of the Council, to which the Fathers at Basel readily assented.

Yet the success of the Council and the entreaties of Sigismund were alike unavailing to move the stubborn mind of the Pope. Envoys and letters passed between Sigismund and Eugenius IV, with the sole result of ultimately bringing the two into a position of avowed hostility. Sigismund said that no one could dissolve the Council, which had been duly summoned. Eugenius IV answered with savage sarcasm, “In what you write touching the celebration and continuation of the Council you have said several things contrary to the Gospel of Christ, the Holy Scripture, the sacred canons and the civil laws; although we know these assertions do not proceed from you, because you are unskilled in such matters and know better how to fight, as you do manfully, against the Turks and elsewhere, in which pursuit, I trust, you may prosper Sigismund must have felt keenly, the sneer at his failures in the field. He fancied himself mighty with the pen and with the tongue, but even his vanity could not claim the glory of a successful general”.

Sigismund had gone to Italy with the light-heartedness which characterized his doings. He hoped to indulge his love of display and at the same time fill his empty pockets. His coronation would give him the right of granting new privileges and would bring presents from the Jews. He was not sorry to send William of Bavaria to Basel in his stead, for he did not at first wish to commit himself too definitely to the Council’s side; if the Council could restore peace in Bohemia, he was ready to support it; otherwise its action might come into collision with the Imperial pretensions. So long as Sigismund was doubtful about the Bohemian acceptance of the Council’s invitation, and about the Pope’s pliancy, he wished not to commit himself too far. Hence William of Bavaria had a delicate part to play at Basel, where he distinguished himself at first by care for the Council’s decorum, and forbade dancing on fast days, to the indignation of the ladies of Basel. But soon William had more important work to do, as Sigismund found that he needed the Council’s help for his Italian projects. He had hoped, with the help of Milan, Savoy, and Ferrara, to overcome Florence and Venice, and so force the Pope to crown him. But when the Duke of Milan openly mocked him, Sigismund was driven to make a desperate effort to retrieve his ignominious position. He could not leave Italy without the Imperial crown; if he set himself to win it by submission to the Pope, Bohemia would be lost for ever. He had tried to reconcile the Pope and the Council; but Eugenius IV scornfully refused his mediation. The only remaining course was to cast in his lot with the Council, and use it as a means to force the Pope to satisfy his demands. On April 1, 1432, he wrote to William begging him to keep the Council together, and not to allow it to dissolve before the threats of the Papal dissolution. He advised the Council to invite the Pope and Cardinals to appear at Basel; he even suggested that if the Council called him to its aid, its summons would afford him an honorable pretext for leaving Italy. Acting on these instructions, William prompted the Fathers at Basel to take steps to prevent Eugenius IV from holding his Council in Bologna as he proposed to do. Accordingly, on April 29, the Council in a general session called on Eugenius IV to revoke his Bull of dissolution, and summoned him and the Cardinals to appear at Basel within three months; in case Eugenius could not come personally he was to send representatives.

The support of Sigismund and the obvious necessity of endeavoring to find some peaceable settlement for the Bohemian question made Europe in general acquiesce in the proceedings of the Council. No nation openly espoused the Papal side or refused to recognize the Council, which gradually increased in numbers. In the beginning of April the deputations contained in all eighty-one members; and the hostility between the Pope and the Council became more decidedly pronounced, all who were on personal grounds opposed to Eugenius IV began to flock to Basel. Foremost amongst these was Domenico Capranica, Bishop of Fermo, who had been a favorite official of Martin, and had been by him created Cardinal, though the creation had not been published at the time of his death. This secrecy on the part of Martin V arose from a desire to abide as closely as possible by the decrees of Constance forbidding the excessive increase of the Cardinalate. He endeavored, however, to secure himself at the expense of his successor by binding the Cardinals to an undertaking that in case he died before the publication of such creations, they would, nevertheless, admit those so created to the Conclave. On Martin V’s death Capranica hastened to Rome and presented himself as a member of the Conclave: but the Cardinals were in violent reaction against Martin V and the Colonna, and refused to admit one of their adherents. The new Pope involved Capranica in his general hatred of the Colonna party, denied him the Cardinal’s hat, and showed the greatest animosity against him. Capranica for a time was driven to hide himself, and at last set off to Basel to obtain from the Council the justice which was refused him by the Pope. On his way through Siena he engaged as secretary a young man, aged twenty-six, Eneas Sylvius Piccolomini, sprung from an old but impoverished family. Eneas found the need of making his way in the world, and eagerly embraced this opportunity of finding a wider field for the talents which he had already begun to display in the University of Siena. No one suspected that this young Sienese secretary was destined to play a more important part in the history of the Council and of the Church than any of those already at Basel; when in May Capranica entered Basel, where he was received with distinction, and in time received full recognition of his rank, which Eugenius IV afterwards confirmed.

In Italy Eugenius IV found that things were going against him. In Rome the Cardinals were by no means satisfied with the aspect of affairs and many of them secretly left the city. The efforts of Eugenius IV to stop Sigismund’s progress and raise up enemies to him in Italy were not successful. From Piacenza Sigismund passed to Parma and thence in May to Lucca, where he was threatened with siege by the Florentines. In July he advanced safely to Siena, where he fixed his abode till he could go to Rome. In Basel the Council pursued its course with firmness and discretion. The conference with the Bohemians at Eger resulted in the settlement of preliminaries about the appearance of Bohemian representatives at Basel. The Bohemians claimed that they should be received honorably, allowed a fair hearing, be regarded in the discussion as free from all ecclesiastical censures, be allowed to use their own worship, and be permitted to argue on the grounds of God’s law, the practice of Christ, the Apostles, and the primitive Church, as well as Councils and doctors founded on the same true and impartial judge. Their proposals were willingly received by the majority at Basel, and in the fourth session, on June 20, a safe-conduct to their representatives was issued. At the same time a blow was aimed against the Pope by a decree that, if a vacancy occurred in the Papacy, the new election should be made at Basel and not elsewhere. Another and still bolder proceeding was the appointment by the Council of the Cardinal of S. Eustachio as legate for Avignon and the Venaisin, on the ground that the city was dissatisfied with the Papal governor and the Council thought it right to interfere in the interests of peace.

Eugenius IV saw that unless he took some steps to prevent it another schism was imminent. He attempted to renew negotiations with Sigismund, and sent four envoys, headed by the Archbishops of Tarento and Colocza, to Basel, where they arrived on August 14. They proposed a future Council at Avignon, Mantua, or Ferrara. It was evident that the sole object of the Papal envoys was to shake the allegiance of waverers and spread discord in the Council. To repel this insidious attempt the promoters of the Council, in its sixth session, on September 6, accused the Pope and Cardinals of contumacy, for not appearing in answer to the summons, and demanded that sentence should be passed against them. The Papal envoys were driven to demand a prolongation of the term allowed, which was granted. After this, on September 6, Cesarini again resumed the presidency of the Council, judging, it would seem, that moderation was more than ever necessary.

Eugenius IV now turned his attention to Sigismund, whose position in Siena was sufficiently pitiable. Deserted by the Duke of Milan and his Italian allies, he was cut off by the Florentine forces from advancing to Rome, and was, as he himself said, caged like a wild beast within the walls of Siena. It was natural that Sigismund should be anxious to catch at the Pope’s help to release him from such an ignominious position. When Eugenius IV promised to send two Cardinals to confer with him, Sigismund wrote to the Council urging it to suspend its process against the Pope, until he tried the result of negotiations, or of a personal interview. The Council was uneasy at this, and begged Sigismund to have no dealings with the Pope until he recognized its authority. Sigismund answered, on October 31, that such was his intention, but that he judged it wise to see the Pope personally, and so arrange things peaceably. The Council grew increasingly suspicious, and Sigismund did not find that his negotiations with the Pope were leading to any satisfactory conclusion. Again he swung round to the Council’s side, which, strengthened by his support, in its eighth session, on December 12, granted Eugenius IV and the Cardinals a further term of sixty days, within which they were to give in their adhesion to the Council, or the charge of contumacy against them would be proceeded with.

So far Sigismund and the Council were agreed; but their ends were not the same. Sigismund wished only for a pacification of Bohemia and his own coronation; so far as the Council promoted these ends it was useful to him, and he was resolved to use it to the uttermost. Accordingly, on January 22, 1433, William of Bavaria prevailed on the Council to pass a decree taking the King under its protection. By this means Sigismund was helped both against the Pope and the Council; for if the Council made good its claim to elect a new Pope, it might proceed to elect a new King of the Romans as well. The reason of this decree was a rumour that Eugenius IV intended to excommunicate Sigismund. The Council pronounced all Papal proceedings against him to be null and void.

Eugenius IV at last felt himself beaten. The Council had taken precautions against every means of attack which the Papal authority possessed. The Pope had succeeded in driving Sigismund to espouse warmly the Council’s cause, and was alarmed to hear that he was engaged in negotiating peace with the Florentines. The arrival of the Bohemian envoys at Basel, on January 4, gave the Council a real importance in the eyes of Europe. The Council was conscious of its strength, and on February 18appointed judges to examine the process against Eugenius IV. But Eugenius had been preparing to retreat step by step from a position which he felt to be untenable, and strove to discover the smallest amount of concession which would free him from his embarrassment. He sent envoys to Basel, who proposed that the Council should transfer itself to Bologna; when this was refused, they asked that it should select some place in Italy for a future Council. Next they offered that the question whether the Council should be held in Germany or Italy should be referred to a committee of twelve; finally they proposed that any city in Germany except Basel should be the seat of a new Council. When the Fathers at Basel would have none of these things, Eugenius IV at last issued a Bull announcing his willingness that the Council should be held at Basel, whither he proposed to send his legates; on March 1 he nominated four Cardinals to that office.

Sigismund rejoiced at this removal of the obstacles which stood in the way of his coronation; he was anxious that the Council should accept the Pope’s Bull and so do away with all hostility between himself and Eugenius IV. But the Fathers at Basel looked somewhat suspiciously on the concessions which had been wrung with such difficulty from the Pope. They observed that the Bull did not recognize the existing Council, but declared that a Council should be held by his legates. Moreover, he limited the scope of the Council to the two points of the reduction of heretics and the pacification of Christendom, omitting the reformation of the Church. It was argued that Eugenius IV had not complied with their demand that he should withdraw his dissolution; he refused to recognize anything done at Basel before the coming of his legates. Determined to affirm its authority before the arrival of the Papal legates, the Council passed a decree on April 27, renewing the decree of Constance about the celebration of General Councils at least every tenth year; asserting that the members of a Council might assemble of their own accord at the fixed period; and that a Pope who tried to impede or prorogue a Council should after four months' warning be suspended, and then after two months be deprived of office. It was decreed that the present Council could not be dissolved nor transferred without the consent of two-thirds of each deputation and the subsequent approbation of two-thirds of a general congregation. The Cardinals were henceforth to make oath before entering the Conclave that whoever was elected Pope would obey the Constance decrees. To give all possible notoriety to these decrees, all prelates were ordered to publish them in their synods or chapters. So far as a new constitution can be secured on paper, the Council of Basel made sure for the future the new principles of Church Government on which it claimed to act. It was a transference to ecclesiastical matters of the parliamentary opposition to monarchy which was making itself felt in European politics.

When the Papal legates arrived and claimed to share with Cesarini the office of president, Cesarini answered that he was the officer of the Council and must obey their will in the matter. The Council, in a congregation on June 13, answered that they could not admit the claim of the Pope to influence their deliberations by means of his legates: not only the President, but the Pope himself, was bound to obey the Council's decrees. They were bent upon asserting most fully the supremacy of a General Council, and aimed at converting the Pope into its chief official. The concessions made by Eugenius IV had not ended the conflict between him and the Fathers at Basel. They had rather brought more clearly to light the full opposition that had arisen between the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the Papal monarchy.

But Eugenius IV had not so much aimed at a reconciliation with the Council as a reconciliation with Sigismund. He saw that for this purpose concessions must be made to the Council; but he hoped with Sigismund’s help to reduce the Council in course of time. Sigismund's position in Italy made him eager to catch at any concession on the part of Eugenius which would allow him to proceed to his coronation without abandoning the Council, from which he hoped for a settlement of his Bohemian difficulties. He received with joy the Pope’s advances; and Eugenius on his side felt the need of Sigismund’s protection even in Rome. Five Cardinals besides Capranica had already left him and joined the Council. The officials of the Curia grew doubtful in their allegiance, and began to think that their interests would be better served in Basel than in Rome. On March 2, the anniversary of the Pope’s coronation, as he went from the commemoration service he was beset by members of the Curia, who craved with tears leave to depart, and followed him with their cries to the door of the Consistory. A few had leave given them, and all were bent on departure.

In this state of affairs Eugenius IV saw the wisdom of gratifying Sigismund in the two matters which he had at heart, the pacification of Italy and his coronation as Emperor. There were not many difficulties in the way of peace. Florence, Venice, and the Duke of Milan were all equally weary of war; and the Pope had little difficulty in inducing them to submit their grievances to Niccolo of Este, Lord of Ferrara, who at that time played the honorable part of mediator in Italian affairs. By his help the preliminaries of peace were arranged at Ferrara on April 7; and on the same day Sigismund's envoys arranged with the Pope the preliminaries of the Imperial coronation. Sigismund acknowledged that “he had always held and holds Eugenius as the true and undoubted Pope, canonically elected; and with all reverence, diligence, care, and labour, among all kings and princes, all persons in the world ecclesiastical as well as secular, venerates, protests, and acts in defense of his holiness, and the Church of God, so long as he shall live, faithfully and with a true heart, according to his knowledge and power, without fraud or guile, so far as with God's help he may”. He agreed also to stay at Rome for a time after his coronation, and labour for the peace of Christendom and especially of Italy.

This alliance of the Pope and Sigismund was naturally regarded with growing suspicion at Basel. Sigismund's letters to the Council changed in tone, and dwelt upon the evils of scandal in the Church and the disastrous effects of a schism. On May 9 he urged the Council to treat the Papal legates with kindness, and to abstain from anything that might lead to an open rupture. The Council loudly exclaimed that the Pope had beguiled the King under the pretence of a coronation, and meant to keep him in Rome as a protection to himself. Sigismund, however, hastened his coronation, and on May 21 entered Rome with an escort of 600 knights and 800 foot. Riding beneath a golden canopy he was met by the city magistrates and a crowd of people. The bystanders thought that his deportment showed a just mixture of affability and dignity; his smiling face wore an expression of refinement and geniality, while his long grizzly beard lent majesty to his appearance. On the steps of S. Peter’s, Eugenius in pontifical robes greeted Sigismund, who kissed his foot, his hand, his face. After mass was said Sigismund took up his abode in the palace of the Cardinal of Arles, close to S. Peter’s. On Whit Sunday, May 31, the coronation took place. Before the silver door of S. Peter’s, Sigismund swore to observe all the constitutions made by his predecessors, as far back as Constantine, in favour of the Church. Then the Pope proceeded to the high altar and Sigismund was conducted by three Cardinals to the Church of S. John Lateran, where before the altar of S. Maurice he was consecrated canon of the Church. He returned to S. Peter’s, and took his place by the side of the Pope, each seated under a tabernacle erected for the purpose. The mass was begun, and after the epistle the Pope and Sigismund advanced to the altar. The Pope set on Sigismund's head first the white mitre of a bishop and then the golden crown; he took from the altar, and gave into his hands, the sword, the sceptre, and the golden apple of the Empire. When the mass was ended the Pope and Emperor gave one another the kiss of peace. Then Sigismund took the sword in his hand, and Eugenius, holding the crucifix, gave him his solemn benediction. When this was over they walked side by side to the church door: the Pope mounted his mule, which Sigismund led by the bridle for a few paces and then mounted his horse. Eugenius accompanied him to the bridge of S. Angelo, where Sigismund kissed his hand and he returned to the Vatican. On the bridge Sigismund, according to custom, exercised his new authority by dubbing a number of knights, Romans and Germans, amongst others his chancellor Caspar Schlick. The Imperial procession went through the streets to the Lateran, where Sigismund dismounted.

The days that followed were spent in formal business such as Sigismund delighted in. Letters had to be written and all grants and diplomas given by the King of the Romans needed the Imperial confirmation, which was a source of no small profit to the Imperial chancery. It is worth noticing that after his coronation Sigismund engraved on his seal a double eagle, to mark the union of his dignities of Emperor and Roman King. From this time dates the use of the double-headed eagle as the Imperial ensign.

It soon, however, became obvious that Sigismund's coronation had affected his relations towards the Council. He was still anxious for its success in the important points of the reconciliation of the Bo- hemians; but he had no longer any interest in the constitutional question of the relations which ought to exist between Popes and General Councils. No doubt this question had been a useful means of bringing Eugenius IV to acknowledge the Council; now that he had done so, and Sigismund had obtained from the Pope what he wanted, his instincts as a practical statesman taught him that in the midst of the agitation of European politics it was hopeless for a Council to continue on abstract grounds a struggle against the Pope, which could only lead to another schism. On June 4 he wrote to the Council announcing his coronation, and saying that he found in the Pope the best intentions towards furthering all the objects which the Council had at heart. His envoys on their arrival at Basel found the Council preparing accusations against Eugenius, and the seven Cardinals present engaged in discussing the canonicity of his election. They had some difficulty in persuading the Council to moderation, but at last obtained on July 13 a decree which, while denouncing in no measured terms the contumacy of Eugenius IV, extended again for sixty days the period for an unreserved withdrawal of his Bull of dissolution, and for a declaration of his entire adhesion to the Council. If he did not comply within that time the Council would at once proceed to his suspension. Eugenius, trusting to the help of Sigismund, showed a less conciliatory spirit; for he issued a Bull withdrawing from the Council all private questions, and limiting its activity to the three points of the extirpation of heresy, the pacification of Christendom, and the reform of manners. In the same sense Sigismund’s envoys on August 18 brought a message to the Council, exhorting to greater diligence in the matters of pacification and reform, for so far no fruits of its energies were apparent. He warned it against creating a schism, for after extinguishing one at Constance he would rather die than see another. He begged the Fathers to suspend all proceedings against the Pope till his arrival at Basel, when he hoped to remove all difficulties between them and the Pope. The Council answered that it was the Pope and not the Council that was causing a schism; the relations of the Pope to a General Council was a matter concerning the faith and the reformation of the Church, and nothing could be done on these points till the present scandal was removed. Sigismund, in fact, was asking the Council to desist from measures which he had formerly urged. The Council naturally demanded securities for the future. Its position was undoubtedly logical,though practically unwise. Eugenius IV, to strengthen Sigismund's hands, issued a Bull on August 1 expressing, at Sigismund's request, his willingness and acquiescence that the Council should be recognized as valid from its commencement He declared that he entirely accepted the Council, and demanded that his legates should be admitted as presidents, and that all proceedings against his person and authority should be rescinded. The Fathers at Basel naturally looked closely into the language of the Bull. They were not satisfied that the validity of the Council from the beginning should merely be tolerated by the Pope. They wished for the Papal 'decree and declaration' that it had been valid all along. Every step towards conciliation only brought into greater prominence the fact that the Council claimed to be superior to the Pope, and that Eugenius was determined not to suffer any derogation from the Papal autocracy

In this view of Eugenius IV Sigismund acquiesced. He wished the Council to engage in more practical business, and he dreaded as a statesman the consequences of another schism. In this he was joined by the Kings of England and France, the German Electors, and the Duke of Burgundy. All of them urged upon the Council the inexpediency of provoking a schism. Eugenius IV’s repeated attempts at compromise at length created a feeling of sympathy in his favour. He had given way, it was urged, on the practical points at issue. The Council did not meet with much attention when it answered that he had not conceded the principle which was at stake in the conflict. The great majority were in favour of proceeding to the suspension of Eugenius IV when the term expired; but the remonstrances of the Imperial ambassadors, and the consideration that an open breach with Sigismund would render Basel an insecure place for the Council, so far prevailed that in the session of September 11 a further term of thirty days was granted to Eugenius IV, on the understanding that within that time Sigismund would appear in Basel.

Sigismund meanwhile at Rome had been employing his versatile mind in studying the antiquities of the city, and drinking in the enthusiasm of the Renaissance under the guidance of the famous antiquary Ciriaco of Ancona. He lived in familiar intercourse with Eugenius IV, and a story is told which illustrates the mixture of penetration and levity which marked Sigismund's character. One day he said to the Pope, “Holy Father, there are three things in which we are alike, and three in which we are different. You sleep in the morning, I rise before daybreak; you drink water, I wine; you shun women, I pursue them. But in some things we agree : you distribute the treasures of the Church, I keep nothing for myself; you have gouty hands, I gouty feet; you are bringing the Church and I the Empire to the ground”. But these days of peaceful enjoyment were disturbed by the news from Basel, where it was clear that Sigismund’s presence was needed. On August 21 he left Rome, and journeyed through Perugia, Rimini, and Ferrara to Mantua. He would not go through the territories of the Duke of Milan, against whom he nourished the deepest anger. Venice took occasion of his wrath to make an alliance with him for five years, in return for which they gave the needy Emperor ten thousand ducats to pay the expenses of his journey from Rome to Germany. From Mantua Sigismund hastened to Basel, so as to reach it at the end of the term granted to the Pope. He arrived unexpectedly on October 11, having come through the Tyrol to the Lake of Constance, and thence by boat to Basel. So hasty had been his journey that he brought little baggage with him, and before entering Basel the Imperial beggar had to send to the magistrates for a pair of shoes.

The Fathers of the Council hastily assembled to show Sigismund such honor as they could. He was escorted to the cathedral, where he took his place on the raised seat generally occupied by the Cardinals, who now sat on lower benches. There he addressed the congregation, setting forth his zeal for the Council’s cause, as his hasty journey testified; he asked for further delay in the proceedings against the Pope, that he might carry out successfully the work of pacification on which he was engaged. To this the Council did not at once assent, but urged that the Pope’s suspension might help on Sigismund’s endeavors. Murmurs were heard on all sides, and it was clear that Sigismund’s authority was not omnipotent at Basel. The Council was filled with the enemies of Eugenius IV, and was convinced of its own power and importance. Sigismund reminded the Fathers that the Emperor was guardian of the temporalities of the Church. He was answered that it was also his duty to execute the decrees of the Church. He angrily asserted that neither he nor any of the kings and princes of Christendom would permit the horrors of another schism. In his vehemence he forgot his Latin, and gave schisma the feminine gender. It was maliciously said that he wished to show the Council how dear the matter was to his heart. At last the Council, which was not really in a position to resist, reluctantly granted a prolongation of the term to Eugenius IV for eight days.

Sigismund found it necessary to change his tactics and listen to the Council’s side of the quarrel, as at Rome he had listened to the Pope. He conferred with the ambassadors and with the chiefs of the Council, and was present at a public disputation on October 16 between the president, Cesarini, and the Papal envoys. Cesarini spoke for three hours in behalf of a Council’s superiority over a Pope. He argued that the Bulls of Eugenius IV refused to admit this proposition, and that without securing the means of a reformation of the head of the Church it was useless to reform the members; as to the Pope’s demand that all proceedings against himself should be revoked, there were no proceedings if only he did his duty. On behalf of Eugenius IV the Archbishop of Spoleto urged the sufficiency and reasonableness of his proposal, to revoke his decrees against the Council if the Council would revoke its proceedings against himself. There were replies and counter-replies, but both parties were equally far from an agreement. A second prolongation of eight days to Eugenius IV was obtained by Sigismund by a repetition of his former assertion, that he could not endure a schism. This was succeeded by a third, on which Sigismund repeated an old doggerel about the three Emperors Otto, which afforded him a pun on the eight days of the prolongation.

Sigismund and the ambassadors of France united in urging the Council to give Eugenius IV a security that no proceedings would be taken affecting his title to the Papacy. Words ran high on this proposal, and at length, on November 7, Sigismund's persistency succeeded in extorting from the Council a further term of ninety days, within which the Pope was to explain the ambiguities in his decrees by revoking anything which could be construed to the derogation or prejudice of the Council.

In the interval Sigismund urged the Council to proceed with the question of reform, a matter which had been making little progress during the excitement of this conflict with the Pope. The only point inwhich the Council had taken up reform was to use it as a Weapon against the Pope. On July 13 a decree had been passed abolishing reservations and provisions except in the domain of the Holy See, and enacting that elections should be made only by those to whom the right belonged, and that no dues be paid for Papal confirmation. This was merely an onslaught on the Pope’s revenues, and was scarcely meant seriously. In answer to Sigismund's exhortations the Council embodied, in a decree on November 26, the only point on which there was agreement, the revival of the synodal system of the Church. The Council’s scheme of reform was to extend the conciliar system to all parts of the ecclesiastical organization. By means of diocesan synods the bishops were to put down heresies and remedy scandals in their respective dioceses, and were to be themselves restrained by provincial synods, whose activity was to be in turn ensured by the recurrence of General Councils. It was on all grounds easier to agree on machinery which was to deal with questions in the future than to amend abuses in the present.

Even this measure of reform was secondary to a violent dispute which convulsed the Council concerning precedence in seats at the sessions between the ambassadors of the Imperial Electors and those of the Duke of Burgundy. So keen was the contention that it almost prevented the solemn celebration of the Christmas services, and was only ended in July, 1434, by assigning a separate bench to the representatives of the Electors immediately below the Cardinals, and arranging that the Burgundian envoys should sit next to those of kings. This burning question was further complicated by the claims of the envoys of the Duke of Brittany to be as good as those of the Duke of Burgundy; at last it was arranged that the Burgundians should sit on the right, the Bretons on the left.

In the middle of the controversy came envoys from Eugenius IV, on January 30, 1434, announcing that he had at last given way. They brought a Bull revoking all previous Bulls against the Council, acknowledging its legitimacy from its beginning, and declaring fully the Pope’s adhesion to it. Great was Sigismund's joy at this triumph of his mediatorial policy. Great was the relief of all parties at Basel when, in the sixteenth session on February 3, the Council decreed that Eugenius IV had fully satisfied their admonition and summons. It was under the pressure of necessity that Eugenius IV had given way. His impetuous rashness had raised up enemies against him on every side. He had begun his pontificate by attacking the powerful family of the Colonna. He had plunged into Italian politics as a strong friend of Venice, and thereby had drawn upon himself the animosity of the wily Duke of Milan. With these elements of disturbance at his doors he had not hesitated to bid defiance to a Council which had the support of the whole of Christendom. Basel had become in consequence the resort of the personal and political enemies of the Pope, and on Sigismund's departure from Rome Eugenius was threatened in his own city. The Duke of Milan sent against him the condottiere Niccolo de Fortebracchio, nephew of Braccio da Montone, who on August 25, 1433, captured Ponte Molle. The Pope fled for safety to the Church of S. Lorenzo in Damaso, and in vain called for help. Fortebracchio, aided by the Colonna party, took possession of Tivoli and styled himself 'the General of the Holy Council'. Francesco Sforza, won over to the side of the Duke of Milan by the promise of the hand of his natural daughter Bianca, invaded the March of Ancona, and scornfully dated his letters ‘invito Petro at Paulo’, ‘against the will of Peter and Paul’. The Duke of Milan was supported by the Council, which Sigismund in vain tried to interest in the pacification of Italy. The name of the Council lent a colourable pretext to all acts of aggression. Eugenius IV found himself destitute of allies. Never had the Papacy been in a more helpless condition. No course was possible except submission.

Accordingly Eugenius IV made his peace with the Council, and then proceeded to face his enemies at home. He detached Francesco Sforza from the side of Milan by appointing him, on March 25, Vicar of the March of Ancona which he had overrun. Sforza willingly exchanged the dubious promises of Filippo Maria Visconti for an assured position. But the Duke of Milan sent to the aid of Fortebracchio the condottiere Niccolo Piccinino; before their superior forces Sforza was driven to retire, and the blockade of Rome was continued. The sufferings of a siege were more than the Romans cared to endure for the sake of an unpopular Pope. It was easy for the foes of Eugenius IV to raise the people in rebellion.

A crowd flocked to S. Maria in Trastevere, whither Eugenius had retired for safety, to lay their grievances before the Pope. They were referred to his nephew, the Cardinal Francesco Correr, who listened to them with haughty indifference. When they complained of the loss of their cattle, he answered that they busied themselves too much about cattle; the Venetians who had none led a much more refined and civilized life. The remark might be true, but it was not consoling. The people resolved to take matters into their own hands, and on the evening of May 29 raised the old cry of “The people and freedom!”, stormed the Capitol, and set up once more their old republic under seven governors. Next day they demanded of the Pope that he should hand over to them the castles of S. Angelo and Ostia, give them his nephew as a hostage, and come himself to take up his abode in the palace of his predecessor by the Church of SS. Apostoli. When Eugenius refused, his nephew was dragged away by force in spite of his entreaties, and he was threatened with imprisonment. Eugenius heard that the palace of SS. Apostoli was being prepared for his custody, and he knew that there he would be the prisoner of the Council and the Duke of Milan.

'There was no escape except by flight, which was difficult, as his abode was closely guarded. At last a pirate of Ischia, Vitellio, who had a ship at Ostia, was prevailed upon to help the Pope in his need. His Florence, aid was secured just in time, as on the evening of June 4 the Pope was to be removed to the palace of SS. Apostoli. At midday, when everyone was taking his siesta, Eugenius and one of his attendants, disguised as Benedictine monks, escaped the vigilance of the sleepy guards, mounted a couple of mules and rode to the Tiber bank, where a small dirty boat was prepared for them. A few bishops professed to be waiting for an audience with the Pope, so as to lull the suspicion of his guards. But the two mules left riderless on the bank, and the unwonted energy of the rowers, made the spectators give the alarm. The people of Trastevere gave chase along the bank, hurling stones and shooting arrows at the boat. The wind was contrary, the bark was crazy, the crowd of pursuers increased along both banks; Eugenius lay at the bottom of the boat covered by a shield. When the Church of S. Paolo was passed, and the river became broader, the fugitives hoped that their danger was over; but the Romans ran on before, and seized a fishing boat, which, filled with armed men, they laid across the stream. Luckily for Eugenius his boat was commanded by one of the pirate’s crew whose courage was equal to the occasion. In vain the Romans hurled their darts, and promised him large sums of money if he would deliver up the Pope. He ordered his boat to charge the enemy. Their boat was old and rotten, and they feared the encounter. The prow turned aside and the Pope’s boat shot safely past. Eugenius could now rise from his covering of shields, and sit upright with a sigh of thankfulness. He reached Ostia in safety and went on board the pirate's ship. There he was joined by a few members of the Curia who had succeeded in fleeing. He sailed to Pisa and thence made his way to Florence, where he was honorably received on June 23, and like his predecessor, Martin V, took up his abode in the cloister of S. Maria Novella. There he could reflect that his inconsiderate obstinacy had endangered at Basel his spiritual supremacy, and handed over his temporal possessions to the condottieri of the Duke of Milan.

If the downfall of Eugenius IV was due to his obstinacy, the prestige of the Council, which enabled it to reap the advantage of his weakness, was due to the Bohemia hopes which were conceived of a peaceable ending of the Bohemian revolt. It was much easier for a Council than for a Pope to open negotiations with victorious heretics, and the Bohemians on their side were not averse from an honorable peace. Bohemia, with a population of four or five millions, had suffered much during its ten years' struggle against the rest of Europe. Its victories were ruinous to the conquerors; its plundering raids brought no real wealth. The commerce of Bohemia was annihilated; its lands were uncultivated; the nation was at the mercy of the Taborite army, which no longer consisted solely of the God-fearing peasants, but was recruited by adventurers from the neighboring lands. The policy of Procopius the Great was, by striking terror, to prepare the way for peace, that so Bohemia, with its religious liberty assured, might again enter the confederacy of European States. When the Council of Basel held out hopes of peace he was ready to try what could be won; and Bohemia consented to send representatives to Basel for the purpose of discussion.

Accordingly the Council proceeded to prepare for its great undertaking. In November, 1432, it appointed four doctors, John of Ragusa, a Slav; Giles Carlier, a Frenchman; Heinrich Kalteisen, a German; and John of Palomar, a Spaniard, to undertake the defense of the Church doctrine against the Four Articles of Prague. These doctors zealously studied their case with the aid of all the theologians present at Basel. As the time of the advent of the Bohemians drew near, strict orders were given to the citizens to abstain from everything that might shock the Puritanism of their expected guests. Prostitutes were not to walk the streets; gambling and dancing were forbidden; the members of the Council were enjoined to maintain strict sobriety, and beware of following the example of the Pharisees of old, who taught well and lived ill. At the same time guards were set to see that the Bohemians did not spread their errors in the seat of the Council. On the part of the Bohemians seven nobles and eight priests, headed by Procopius the Great, were chosen by a Diet as their representatives at Basel. They rode with their attendants through Germany, a stately cavalcade of fifty horsemen, with a banner bearing their device of a chalice, under which was the inscription, ‘Veritas omnia vincit’ (Truth conquers all). In alarm lest their entry into Basel might seem like a demonstration and cause scandal, Cesarini sent to beg them to lay aside their banner. Before his messenger reached them they had taken boat at Schafthausen, and entered Basel, quietly and unexpectedly, on the evening of January 4, 1433. The citizens flocked to gaze on them, wondering at their strange dress, the resolute faces, and fierce eyes of the men who had wrought such terrible deeds of valour. They were conducted to their hotels, where several members of the Council visited them, and Cesarini sent them presents of food. On January 6, the festival of the Epiphany, they celebrated the Communion in their lodgings, and curiosity drew many to attend their services.

They noticed that the Praguers used vestments and observed the customary ritual, with the sole exception that they communicated under both kinds. Procopius and the Taborites, on the other hand, used neither vestments nor altar, and discarded the mass service. After consecration of the elements they said the Lord’s Prayer and communicated round a table. A sermon was preached in German, at which many Catholics were present. This scandalized Cesarini, who sent for the Bohemians, and requested them to discontinue preaching in German. They answered that many of their followers were Germans, and the sermons were for their benefit; they had the right of performing their services as they thought fit, and meant to use it; they invited no one to come, but they were not bound to prevent them from doing so. Cesarini sent to the magistrates of the city a request that they would prevent the people from attending their preachings. The magistrates took no measures for this end; but after a few days the crowd grew weary of the novelty, and ceased of its own accord to attend. John of Ragusa makes a sage remark, which the advocates of religious protection would do well to remember: “Freedom and neglect succeeded where restraint and prohibition would have failed, for human frailty is always eager after what is forbidden”. The Bohemians, on their side, asked to be present at the sermons preached before the Council; permission was given on condition that they entered the cathedral after the reading of the Gospel, and left when the sermon was ended, so as not to be present at any part of the mass service.

Next day, January 7, Procopius invited John of Ragusa and others to dine; they had a general theological discussion, in which the predestinarian views of the Hussites came prominently forward. Most skillful among their controversialists was an Englishman, Peter Payne, an Oxford Lollard, who had fled to Bohemia, whom John of Ragusa found to be as slippery as a snake.

On January 9 the Council ordained that Wednesdays and Fridays should be strictly kept as fast days and prayers for union be said during the period of the negotiations with the Bohemians. A solemn procession was made for success in this arduous matter; forty-nine mitred prelates and about eight hundred other members of the Council took part in it. The Bohemians asked when and where they were to have an audience. Cesarini fixed the next day in the ordinary meeting-place of congregations, the Dominican monastery. The Bohemians objected to the place as being too small and out of the way; but Cesarini was firm in refusing to depart from the usage of the Council.

On January 10 the congregation assembled, and seats were assigned to the Bohemians on two rows of benches opposite the Cardinals. Cesarini opened the proceedings with a long and eloquent oration, in which, speaking in the person of the Church, he exhorted all to unity and peace, and addressed the Bohemians as sons whom their mother yearned to welcome back to her bosom. On the part of the Bohemians, John of Rokycana arose and took for his text, “Where is He that is born King of the Jews? We have seen His star in the east, and are come to worship Him”. He said that the Bohemians were seeking after Christ, and, like their Master, had been evil spoken of; he asked the Council not to be astonished if they said strange things, for truth was often found in strange ways; he praised the primitive Church and denounced the vices of the clergy of the present day. Finally, he thanked the Council for its courtesy, and asked for a day to be fixed for a full hearing. Cesarini answered that the Council was ready at any time; after a private conference the Bohemians fixed the next Friday, January 16.

The Bohemians brought with them to the Council the same spirit of reckless daring which had characterized them on the field of battle. Only on January 13 did they arrange finally their spokesmen, whereas the theologians of the Council had been for two months preparing their separate points. Each day the Bohemians paid visits to the Cardinals and prelates; they were received as a rule with great friendliness. At first some of the Cardinals tended to be cold, if not discourteous: but Cesarini’s anxious efforts to promote conciliatory conduct were in the end successful, and free social intercourse was established between the two parties. In a few days’ time a Cardinal discovered at least one bond of union between himself and the Bohemians; he laughingly said to Procopius: “If the Pope had us in his power he would hang us both”.

On January 16 the proceedings began with a ratification of the safe-conduct, and a formal verification of the powers of the Bohemian representatives. Then John of Rokycana began the controversy by a defense of the First Article of Prague, concerning the Communion under both kinds. He argued from the nature of the rite, from the words of the Gospel, the custom of the primitive Church, the decrees of the General Councils and the testimonies of the Fathers, that it was not only permissible but necessary. His speech extended over three days, and was listened to with great attention. When he ended Procopius sprang to his feet—a man of middle height, of stalwart frame, with a swarthy face, large flashing eyes, and a fierce expression of countenance. He passionately exhorted them to open their ears to the Gospel truth; Communion was a heavenly banquet, to which all were invited; let them beware lest they incurred punishment by despising it, for God could vindicate His own. The Fathers heard with amazement these expressions of a fervent conviction that right could be on the side opposed to the Church. Cesarini, with his wonted tact, interposed to prevent an untimely outbreak of zeal on the part of the Council. He suggested that the Bohemians should first speak, and then submit their arguments in writing, so that they might be fully answered on the side of the Council. This was agreed to, and the assembly dispersed.

On January 20 Nicolas of Pilgram began the defense of the Second Article of Prague—the suppression of public sins. He spoke for two days, but on the second day did not imitate the moderation of Rokycana. He attacked the vices of the clergy, their simony, their hindrance of the Word of God; he reproached them with the deaths of Hus and Jerome, whose saintly lives he defended. A murmur arose in the Council; some laughed scornfully, others gnashed their teeth; Cesarini, with folded hands, looked up to heaven. The speaker asked if he was to have a fair hearing according to promise. Cesarini ironically answered: “Yes, but pause sometimes to let us clear our throats”. Nicolas went on with his speech. Afterwards Rokycana blamed him for the bitterness of his invective, and expressed a wish to speak himself on the Third Article. He was overruled by the other ambassadors, and only at the last moment was it definitely settled that Ulrich of Zynaim was to be their spokesman.

On January 23 Ulrich began his arguments for the freedom of preaching, and also spoke for two days, urging the supremacy of the Word of God over the word of man, the danger of the substitution of the one for the other, the dignity of the true priest, and his duty to preach God’s Word in spite of all endeavours to prevent him. At the end of his first day's speech Rokycana rose and said that he had heard that the Bohemians were accused of throwing snow at a crucifix on the bridge; they wished to deny it, and if it could be proved that any of their attendants had done so he should be punished. Cesarini answered that many tales were told about their doings, which, however, the Council had resolved to endure as well as their speeches. He wished, however, that they would restrain their servants from going into the neighboring villages to spread their doctrines. He was answered that the servants only went to get fodder for the horses, and if the curious Germans asked them questions, such as, whether they held the Virgin Mary to be a virgin, no great harm was done if they answered, “Yes”. They promised, however, to see to the matter.

On January 26 Peter Payne began a three days’ speech on the temporal possessions of the clergy. He admitted that worldly goods were not to be entirely denied them, but, in the words of S. Paul, having food and raiment, therewith they should be content; all superfluities should be cut off from them, and they should in no case exercise temporal lordship. When he had finished his argument, he said that this doctrine was commonly supposed to originate from Wycliffe; he referred the Council, however, to the writings of Richard, Bishop of Armagh, and went on to give an account of Wycliffe’s teaching at Oxford, his own struggles in defense of Wycliffite opinions, and his flight into Bohemia. When he had ended, Rokycana thanked the Council for their patient and kindly hearing: if anything that they had said could be proved to be erroneous, they were willing to amend it. He asked that those who answered in the Council’s behalf should follow their example and reduce the heads of their arguments to writing. One of the Bohemian nobles, speaking in German, thanked William of Bavaria for his presence at the discussion. William assured them of his protection, and promised to procure for them as free and complete a hearing as they wished. Cesarini then proceeded to settle the preliminaries of the Council’s reply. First he asked if all the Bohemians were unanimous in their adhesion to the arguments set forth by their speakers: he was answered, “Yes”. Cesarini then commented on the various points in the Bohemian speeches which gave him hopes of reconciliation. He said that the Council was resolved not to be offended at anything which was said contrary to the orthodox belief: but if any concord was to be obtained they must have everything under discussion. Besides the Four Articles, which had been put forward, he believed there were other points in which the Bohemians differed from the Church. One of their speakers had called Wycliffe “the evangelical doctor”; with a view to discover how far they held with Wycliffe he handed to them twenty-eight propositions taken from Wycliffe’s writings and six other questions, opposite to each of which he asked that they would write whether they held it or no. The Bohemians asked to deliberate before answering. It was the first attempt of the Council to break the ranks of the Bohemians by bringing to light the differences which existed amongst them.

On January 31 the reply on the part of the Council was begun. First came a sermon from a Cistercian abbot, which gave offence to the Bohemians by exhorting them to submit to the Council. Then John of Ragusa began his proof that the reception of the Communion under both kinds was not necessary and, when forbidden by the Church, was unlawful. His speech, which was a tissue of scholastic explanations of texts and types and passages from the Fathers, lasted till February 12. He angered the Bohemians by his tediousness and by the assumptions, which underlaid his speech, that they were heretics. Some stormy interruptions took place in consequence. On February 4 Procopius rose and protested against the tone adopted by the Cistercian abbot and John of Ragusa. “We are not heretics”, he exclaimed; “if you say that we ought to return to the Church, I answer that we have not departed from it, but hope to bring others to it, you amongst the rest”. There was a shout of laughter. “Is the speaker going to continue rambling over impertinent matter? Does he speak in his own name or in that of the Council? If in his own, let him be stopped: we did not take the trouble to come here to listen to three or four doctors”. The Cistercian abbot and John of Ragusa both excused themselves from any intention of violating the compact under which the Bohemians had come to Basel. Rokycana asked: “You talk of the Church: what is the Church? We know what Pope Eugenius says about you; your head does not recognize you as the Universal Church. But we care little for that and hope only for peace and concord”. Cesarini exhorted both sides to patience; he reminded the Bohemians that if they had answered the twenty-eight articles proposed to them there would be less doubt about their opinions, and it would be easier to decide what was pertinent and what was not.

On February 10 there was another outburst of feeling. John of Ragusa, in pursuing his argument respecting the authority of the Church, was examining the objections that might be raised to his positions. He introduced them by such phrases as “a heretic might object”. This enraged the Bohemians; Rokycana rose and exclaimed: “I abhor heresy, and if any one suspects me of heresy let him prove it”. Procopius, his eyes flashing with rage, cried out: “We are not heretics, nor has any one proved us to be such; yet that monk has stood and called us so repeatedly. If I had known this in Bohemia I would never have come here”. John of Ragusa excused himself, saying, “May God show no mercy to me if I had any intention of casting a slur on you”. Peter Payne ironically exclaimed: “We are not afraid of you; even if you had been speaking for the Council your words would have had no weight”. Again Cesarini cast oil on the waters, beseeching them to take all things in good part. “There must be altercations”, he truly said, “before we come to an agreement; a woman when she is in travail has sorrow”. Next day the Archbishop of Lyons came to ask pardon for John of Ragusa. The Bohemians demanded that the other three speakers should be more brief and should speak in the name of the Council. During the remainder of John’s address Procopius and another of the Bohemians refused to attend the conference.

It was agreed by the Council that the other three orators should speak in the Council's name, reserving, however, the right of amending or adding to what they said. Matters now went more peaceably. The speeches of Carlier, Kalteisen, and John of Palomar, which were studiously moderate, extended till February 28. Meanwhile the Bohemians, on being pressed to answer the twenty-eight articles submitted to them, showed signs of their dissensions by standing on the treaty of Eger. They said that they had only been commissioned to discuss the Four Articles of Prague, and they did not think it right to complicate the business by introducing other topics.

The disputation had now come to an end; but Rokycana claimed to be allowed to answer some of the statements of John of Ragusa, who demanded that, in that case, he should also have the right of further reply. It was obvious that this procedure might go on endlessly; and Cesarini suggested that a committee of four on each side should be nominated for private conference. However, on March 2, Rokycana began his reply, which lasted till March 10. When he had ended, John of Ragusa rose and urged that the Bohemians were bound to hear him in reply. The Bohemians announced that they would hear him if they thought fit, but they were not bound to do so. “

We will put you to shame throughout the world”, said John angrily, “if you go away without hearing our answers”.

Rokycana sarcastically said that John of Ragusa scarcely maintained the dignity of a doctor.

“And yet”, he added, “before we came here, we had never heard that there was such a person in the world. Still, I have proved that his sayings are erroneous; for is it not erroneous”, and he raised his voice with passionate earnestness, “to say that either man or council can change the precepts of Christ, who said: Heaven and earth shall pass away, but ‘My words shall not pass away’?”

It was clear that such war of orators was preventing rather than furthering the union which both parties professed to seek. William of Bavaria interposed his mediation; and the Council deputed fifteen members, chief of whom was Cesarini, to arrange matters in private with the fifteen Bohemian representatives. Their meetings, which began on March 11, were opened with prayer by Cesarini, whoexerted all his persuasive eloquence and tact to induce the Bohemians to incorporate themselves with the Council, which would then proceed to settle the differences existing between them. The discussions on this point were at last summed up by Peter Payne:

“You say: ‘Be incorporated, return, be united’; we answer: ‘Return with us to the primitive Church; be united with us in the Gospel’. We know what power our voice has, so long as we are one party and you another; what power it would have after our incorporation experience has abundantly shown”.

The Bohemians began to speak of departing; but a learned German theologian, Nicolas of Cusa, raised the question—if the Council allowed the Bohemians the Communion under both kinds, which they regarded as a matter of faith, would they agree to incorporation? if so, the other questions, which only concerned morals, might be subjected to discussion. At first the Bohemians suspected a snare; but William of Bavaria assured them of his sincerity. After deliberating, the Bohemians refused incorporation, as being beyond the powers given them as representatives; moreover, if they were incorporated and the Council decided against them, they could not accept its decision. An attempt was made to advance further by means of a smaller committee of four on each side; but it only became obvious that nothing more could be done in Basel, that the Bohemian representatives were not disposed to take any decided step, and that, if the Council intended to proceed with the negotiations, they must send envoys to Bohemia to treat with the Diet and the people.

Meanwhile disputations continued before the Council, in which Rokycana, Peter Payne, and Procopius showed themselves formidable controversialists. They had been formed in a ruder and more outspoken school than that of the theological professors who were pitted against them. John of Ragusa especially met with no mercy. One day he was so pedantic as to say that he did not wish to derogate from the dignity of his university.

“According to the statutes”, said John of Ragusa, “a doctor is not bound to answer a master; nevertheless, as it concerns the faith, I will answer you”.

“Certainly”, was the retort; “John of Ragusa is not better than Christ; nor John of Rokycana worse than the devil; yet Christ answered the devil”.

Another time, when John of Ragusa had been speaking at great length, Rokycana remarked: “He is one of the preaching friars, and is bound to say a great deal”.

Kalteisen, in his reply to Ulrich of Zynaim, reproved him for having said that monks were introduced by the devil.

Procopius rose: “I said one day to the President: If bishops have succeeded to the place of the Apostles, and priests to the place of the seventy-two disciples, to whom except the devil have the rest succeeded?”.

There was loud laughter, amid which Rokycana called out: “Doctor, you should make Procopius Provincial of your Order”.

It was at length arranged that on April 14 the Bohemians should return to their own land, whither the Council undertook to send ten ambassadors who should treat with the Diet in Prague. Procopius wrote to inform the Bohemians of this, and urged them to assemble in numbers at the Diet on June 7, for great things might be done. On April 13 the Bohemians took farewell of the Council. Rokycana in the name of all expressed their thanks for the kindness they had received. Then Procopius rose and said that he had often wished to speak, but had never had an opportunity. He spoke earnestly about the great work before the Council, the reformation of the Church, which all men longed for with sighs and groans. He spoke of the worldliness of the clergy, the vices of the people, the intrusion into the Church of the traditions of men, the general neglect of preaching. Cesarini, on the part of the Council, recapitulated all that had been done, and begged them to continue in Bohemia the work that he trusted had been begun in Basel. He thanked Rokycana for his kindly words: turning to Procopius, he called him his personal friend and thanked him for what he had said about the reformation of the Church, which the Council would have been engaged in, if they had not been employed in conference with the Bohemians. Finally he gave them his benediction and shook them each by the hand. Rokycana also raised his hand, and in a loud voice said: “May the Lord bless and preserve this place in peace and quiet”. Then they took their leave; as they were going, a fat Italian archbishop ran after them and with tears in his eyes shook them by the hand. On April 14 they left Basel, accompanied by the ambassadors of the Council.

The conference at Basel was most honorable to all who were concerned in it; it showed a spirit of straightforwardness, charity and mutual forbearance. It was no slight matter in those days for a Council of theologians to endure to listen to the arguments of heretics already condemned by the Church. It was no small thing for the Bohemians, who were already masters in the field, to curb their high spirit to a war of words. Yet, in spite of occasional outbursts, the general result of the conference at Basel was to promote a good feeling between the two parties. Free and friendly intercourse existed between the Bohemians and the leading members of the Council, chiefly owing to the exertions of Cesarini, whose nobility and generosity of character produced a deep impression on all around him. But in spite of the friendliness with which they were received, and the personal affection which in some cases they inspired, the Bohemians could not help being a little disappointed at the general results of their visit to Basel. They had been somewhat disillusioned. They came with the same moral earnestness and childlike simplicity which had marked Hus at Constance. They hoped that their words would prevail, that their arguments would convince the Council that they were not heretics, but rested on the Gospel of Christ. They were chilled by the attitude of superiority which showed itself in all the Council’s proceedings, and which was the more irritating because they could not formulate it in any definitely offensive words or acts. The assumption of an infallible Church, to which all the faithful were bound to be united, was one which the Bohemians could neither deny nor accept. In Bohemia the preachers had been wont to denounce those who departed from the Gospel; in Basel they found themselves the objects of kindly reprobation because they had departed from the Church. It gradually became clear that they were not likely to induce the Council to reform the Church in accordance with their principles: the utmost that would be granted was a Concordat with Bohemia which would allow it to retain some of its peculiar usages and opinions without separation from the Catholic Church. The Bohemian representatives had failed to convince the Council; it remained to be seen if the good feeling which had grown up between the two contending parties would enable the Council to extend, and the Bohemian people to accept, a sufficient measure of toleration to prevent the breach of the outward unity of the Church.

The ten ambassadors of the Council, chief amongst whom were the Bishops of Coutances and Augsburg, Giles Carlier, John of Palomar, Thomas Ebendorfer of Haselbach, Canon of Vienna, John of Geilhausen, and Alexander, an Englishman, Archdeacon of Salisbury, travelled peaceably to Prague, where they were received with every show of respect and rejoicing on May 8. They spent the time till the assembling of the Diet in interchanging courtesies with the Bohemian leaders. On May 24 a Bohemian preacher, Jacob Ulk, inveighed in a sermon against the Council’s envoys, and bade the people beware of Basel as of a basilisk which endeavored to shed its venom on every side. He attempted to raise a riot, but it was put down by Procopius, and the magistrates issued an edict that no one under pain of death was to offend the Council’s ambassadors. On June 13 the Diet assembled, and after preliminary addresses John of Palomar submitted the Council’s proposal for the incorporation of the Bohemians and the common settlement of their differences in the Council. He was answered that the Council of Constance was the origin of all the wars and troubles that had beset Bohemia; the Bohemians had always wished for peace, but they were firm in their adhesion to the Four Articles of Prague:

2.- Celebration of the Lord’s Supper in both kinds, bread and wine to priests and laity alike.

and they wished to hear the Council’s decision respecting them. John of Palomar at once answered that the Four Articles seemed to be held in different senses by different parties among the Bohemians; before he could give the Council’s opinion, he wished them to be defined in writing in the sense in which they were universally believed. It was the first step towards bringing to light the dissensions of the Bohemian parties. A definition drawn up by the University of Prague was repudiated by the Taborites as containing treacherous concessions. Rokycana gave a verbal answer, and a committee of eight deputies of the Diet was appointed to confer on this point with the ambassadors of the Council. A definition was then drawn up in which the Council's side gained nothing. They saw that by this procedure they would merely drift back to the disputation which they had in Basel.

Accordingly on June 25 the Council’s ambassadors took the decided step of negotiating secretly with some of the Calixtin nobles, to whom they said that the Council would most probably allow to the Bohemians the Communion under both kinds, if they would incorporate themselves for the discussion of the other points. This was received with joy by some of the nobles, amongst whom a party in favour of this course was gradually organized. The Diet inquired under what form such privilege would be granted, and a proposed form was presented by the ambassadors. The Diet, in answer, drew up on January 29 a form of their own, which, if the Council accepted, they were willing to unite with it. As the form contained the full acceptance of the Four Articles of Prague, the ambassadors refused to entertain it. On July 1 they again had a meeting in Rokycana’s house with some of the Calixtin nobles, who agreed to moderate the form into such a shape that another Bohemian deputation might take it to Basel. In the discussion that ensued in the Diet some sharp things were said. When the Council's ambassadors begged the Bohemians to forget the past and be as they had been twenty years ago, Procopius scornfully exclaimed, “In the same way you might argue that we ought to be as we were a thousand years ago when we were pagans”. A statement, however, was drawn up that the Bohemians agreed to unite with the Council and obey “according to God’s Word”. Three ambassadors, Mathias Landa, Procopius of Bilsen, and Martin Lupak, were appointed to take this, together with an exposition of the Four Articles, to the Council. They, with the Council’s envoys, left Prague on July 11 and reached Basel on August 2, where they were received with joy.

The object of this first embassy of the Council was to survey the ground and report the position of affairs in Bohemia. On July 31 one of the envoys, who was sent on before, announced to the Council that everywhere in Bohemia they had found a great desire for peace, and had been listened to by the Diet with a courtesy and decorum which the Council would do well to imitate. He urged that conciliation be tried to the utmost. The other envoys on their arrival gave a full report of their proceedings to the Council, which appointed a committee of six to be elected from each deputation who, together with the Cardinals, were to confer on future proceedings. Before this committee John of Palomar on August 13 made a secret report of the general aspect of affairs in Bohemia. He said that neither the nobles nor the people were free, but were tyrannized over by a small but vigorous party, which feared to lose its power if any reconciliation with the Church took place; the strength of this party lay in the hatred of the Bohemians to German domination, and their willingness to carry on war to escape it. He sketched the position of the three chief sects, the Calixtins, Orphans, and Taborites; the only point on which they all agreed was the reception of the Communion under both kinds. The first party wished to obtain the use of f their rite by peaceable means and desired union with the Church; the second party desired to be in the bosom of the Church, but would take up arms and fight desperately to defend what they believed to be necessary; the third party was entirely opposed to the Church, and was not to be won over by any concessions, for the confiscation of the goods of the clergy was their chief desire

The commission then proceeded to deliberate whether the Communion under both kinds could be conceded to the Bohemians, and what answer the Council should return to the other three articles, of which the Bohemian envoys brought a definition to the Council. The discussions lasted for a fortnight, and on August 26 an extraordinary congregation was held, which was attended by the prelates at Basel and 160 doctors, who were all bound by oath of secrecy. John of Palomar put before them, on behalf of the commission, the pressing need of settling the Bohemian question, and the desirability of making some concession for that purpose. He argued that the Church might lawfully do so, and follow the example of Paul in his dealings with the Corinthians; for he “caught them by guile”. The Bohemian people was intractable and would not enter the fold of the Church like other Christians; they must treat it gently as one treats a mule or horse to induce it to submit to the halter. When once the Bohemians had returned to union with the Church, their experience of the miseries of a separation from it would lead them to submit to the common rites of Christendom rather than run new risks in the future. Cesarini followed in the same strain; and next day William of Bavaria, on behalf of Sigismund, urged the interest of the Emperor in securing his recognition, by means of the Council, as King of Bohemia. After three days’ deliberation it was agreed to concede the reception of the Communion under both kinds, and an answer to the other three articles was framed. But the secret was still kept from the Bohemian envoys, as the Council did not wish their decision to be known too soon in Bohemia, and they were also afraid lest Eugenius IV might interpose. On September 2 the Bohemians were dismissed with kindly words and the assurance of the dispatch of four envoys from the Council to Prague. Four of the previous embassy—the Bishop of Coutances, John of Palomar, Henry Toh, and Martin Verruer—set out on September 11.

The second embassy from Basel did not meet with such a peaceable entrance into Bohemia as had the first. War had again broken out, a war in which were involved the contending interests of the Council and the Hussites. In the very middle of Bohemia there still remained a city which held fast by the cause of Catholicism and Sigismund. In the reaction which ensued after the first successes of the commencement of the Hussite movement, the strong city of Pilsen in the south-west of Bohemia had swung back to Catholicism, and from its numerous outlying fortresses had defied all efforts to reduce it. Year by year their sufferings from Hussite attacks made the inhabitants grow firmer in their resistance; and when the Council’s envoys first came as spies into the land the Bohemians keenly felt the disadvantage under which they lay in their negotiations when they could not offer a decided front to their foe. Messengers from Pilsen visited the Basel ambassadors and prayed for help from the Council. As the Bohemians began to see that all that the Council would grant them was a recognition of their exceptional position, they felt the need of absolute internal unity if they were to secure or maintain it. The Diet decreed a vigorous siege of Pilsen; the Council’s ambassadors protracted their negotiations to allow the men of Pilsen to gather in their harvest; and later the Fathers of Basel sent a contribution of money to the aid of Pilsen, and used their influence to prevail on Nurnberg to do the same. On July 14 the Bohemian army began the siege of Pilsen, and in the beginning of September the besieging host had grown to 36,000 men. The might of the Hussites was directed to secure religious unity within their land.

Pilsen was strongly defended, and the besiegers began to suffer from hunger. Foraging parties were sent to greater distances, and on September 16 a detachment of 1400 foot and 500 horse was sent byProcopius under the command of John Pardus to harry Bavaria. As Pardus was returning laden with spoil, he was suddenly attacked by the Bavarians; his troops were almost entirely cut to pieces, and he himself, with a few followers, made his escape with difficulty to the camp at Pilsen. Great was the wrath of the Bohemian warriors at this disgrace to their arms. They rushed upon Pardus as a traitor, and even hurled a stool at Procopius, who tried to protect him; the stool hit Procopius on the head with such violence that the blood streamed down his face. The wrath of the chiefs was turned against him; he was imprisoned, and the man who had thrown the stool was made general in his stead. This excitement lasted only a few days. Procopius was released and restored to his former position, but his proud spirit had been deeply wounded by the sense of his powerlessness in an emergency. He refused the command, and left the camp never to return.

This was the news which greeted the Council's envoys when they reached Eger on September 27. They feared to advance farther in the present excited condition of men's minds. The Bohemians in vain tried to discover what message they brought from the Council. The leaders of the army before Pilsen at length sent two of their number to conduct them safely to Prague, where they said that the Diet could not assemble: before S. Martin's Day, November 11. The fears of the envoys were entirely dispelled by the cordial welcome which they received in Prague on their arrival, October 22. A plague was ravaging the city, and the physicians vied with one another in precautions for ensuring the safety of their city's guests. The preacher still raised his voice against them; they had honey on their lips but venom in their heart, they wished to bring back Sigismund, who would cut off the people’s heads for their rebellion.

The proceedings of the Diet, which opened on November 17 resolved themselves into a diplomatic contest between the Council’s envoys and the Bohemians. The Council was trying to make the smallest concessions possible, the Bohemians were anxious to get all they could. But the four envoys of Basel had the advantage in contending with an assembly like the Diet. They could gauge the effect produced by each concession; they could see when they had gone far enough to have hopes of success. Moreover, they knew definitely the limits of concession which the Council would grant, while the Bohemians were too much at variance amongst themselves to know definitely what they were prepared to accept. Accordingly, after the preliminary formalities were over, the Council’s envoys began to practise economy in their concessions. John of Palomar, after a speech in which he lauded General Councils and recapitulated all that the Fathers at Basel had done to promote unity, proceeded to give the limitations under which the Council was prepared to admit three of the Articles; about the fourth, the Communion under both kinds, he said that the envoys had powers to treat if the declaration which he had made about the other three was satisfactory to the Bohemians. The Diet demanded to have the Council's decision on this also put before them. The envoys pressed to have an answer on the three Articles first. For two days the struggle on this point continued; then the envoys asked, before speaking about the Communion, for an answer to the question whether, if an agreement could be come to on the Four Articles, the Bohemians would consent to union. John of Rokycana answered on behalf of all, “We would consent”; and all the Diet cried “Yes, yes”. Only Peter Payne rose and said: “We understand by a good end one in which we are all agreed”; but those around him admonished him to hold his tongue, and he was not allowed to continue. Then John of Palomar read a declaration setting forth that the Communion under one kind had been introduced into the Church, partly to correct the Nestorian error that in the bread was contained only the body of Christ, and in the wine only His blood, partly to guard against irreverence and mishap in the reception of the elements; nevertheless, as the Bohemian use was to administer under both kinds, the Council was willing that they should continue to do so till the matter had been fully discussed. If they still continued in their belief, permission would be given to their priests so to administer it to those who, having reached years of discretion, asked for it. The Bohemians were dissatisfied with this. They complained that the Council said nothing which could satisfy the honor of Bohemia. They demanded that their words, that the reception under both kinds was“useful and wholesome”, should be adopted, and that the permission be extended to children.

On November 26 an amended form was submitted to the Diet, which became the basis of an agreement. Bohemia and Moravia were to make peace with all men. The Council would accept this declaration and release them from all ecclesiastical censures. As regarded the Four Articles:—

1.-If in all other points the Bohemians and Moravians received the faith and ritual of the Universal Church, those who had the use of communicating under both kinds should continue to do so, “with the authority of Jesus Christ and the Church His true spouse”. The question as a whole should be further discussed in the Council; but the priests of Bohemia and Moravia should have permission to administerunder both kinds to those who, being of the age of discretion, reverently demanded it, at the same time telling them that under each kind was the whole body of Christ.

2.- As regarded the correction and punishment of open sins, the Council agreed that, as far as could reasonably be done, they should be repressed according to the law of God and the institutes of the Fathers. The phrase used by the Bohemians, “by those whose duty it was”, was too vague; the duty did not devolve on private persons, but on those who had jurisdiction in such matters.

3.- About freedom of preaching, the word of God ought to be freely preached by priests who were commissioned by their superiors: “freely” did not mean indiscriminately, for order was necessary.

4.- As regarded the temporalities of the clergy, individual priests, who were not bound by a vow of poverty, might inherit or receive gifts; and similarly the Church might possess temporalities and exercise over them civil lordship. But the clergy ought to administer faithfully the goods of the Church according to the institutes of the Fathers; and the goods of the Church cannot be occupied by others.

As abuses may have gathered round these last three points, the Diet could send deputies to the Council, which intended to proceed with the question of reform, and the envoys promised to aid them in all possible ways.

The basis of an agreement was now prepared, and a large party in Prague was willing to accept it. Procopius, however, rose in the Diet and read proposals of his own, which John of Palomar dismissed, observing that their object was concord, and it was better to clear away difficulties than to raise them. On November 28 the legates judged it prudent to lay before the Diet an explanation of some points in the previous document. The rites of the Church, which the Bohemians were to accept, they explained to mean those rites which were commonly observed throughout Christendom. If all the Bohemians did not at once follow them, that would not be a hindrance to the peace; those who dissented on any points should have a full and fair hearing in the Council. The law of God and the practice of Christ and the Apostles would be recognized by the Council, according to the treaty of Eger, as the judge in all such matters. Finally, on November 30, after a long discussion and many verbal explanations given by the envoys, the moderate party among the Bohemians succeeded in extorting from the Diet a reluctant acceptance of the proposed agreement.

The success of the Council was due chiefly to the fact that the negotiations, once begun, awakened hopes among the moderate party in Bohemia and so widened the differences between them and the extreme party. There were both plague and famine in the land. More than 100,000 are said to have died in Bohemia during the year, and men had good grounds for feeling sadly the desolate condition of their country and counting the cost of their prolonged resistance. Moreover, the appearance of the Council’s envoys had emboldened those who wished for a restoration of the old state of things to lift up their heads. There were still some adherents of Sigismund, chief of whom was Meinhard of Neuhaus; there were still formidable adherents of Catholicism, as the continued ill-success of the siege of Pilsen showed. As soon as doubt and wavering was apparent among the Hussites the party of the restoration declared itself more openly. Further, the events of the siege of Pilsen brought to light the disorganization that had spread among the army. The old religious real had waxed dim; adventurers abounded in the ranks of the Lord's soldiers; the sternness of Zizka’s discipline had been relaxed, and the mutiny against Procopius bowed the spirit of the great leader and made him doubtful of the future. The Bohemian nobles were weary of the ascendency of the Taborites, whose democratic ideas they had always borne with difficulty. The country was weary of military rule; and the party which was aiming at Sigismund's restoration determined to use the conciliatory spirit of the Diet for their own purposes. On December 1 a Bohemian noble, Ales of Riesenberg, was elected governor of the land, with a council of twelve to assist him; he took oath to promote the welfare of the people and defend the Four Articles. The moderate party, which had sought to find a constitutional king in Korybut in 1427, now succeeded in setting up a president over the Bohemian republic. The peace negotiations with the Council had already led to a political reaction.

The Compact had been agreed to, but the difficulties in the way of its full acceptance were by no means removed. The envoys demanded that, as Bohemia had agreed to a general peace, the siege of Pilsen should cease. The Bohemians demanded that the men of Pilsen should first unite with the Bohemian government, and that all Bohemians should be required by the Council to accept the Communion under both kinds. Other questions also arose. The Bohemians complained that, in treating of the temporalities of the clergy, the Council used language which seemed to accuse them of sacrilege. They demanded also that the Communion under both kinds should be declared 'useful and wholesome' for the whole of Christendom, and that their custom of administering the Communion to infants should be recognized. The discussion on these points only led to further disagreement. The envoys had convinced themselves that a large party in Bohemia was prepared to accept peace on the terms which they had already offered. As nothing more was to be done, they asked to be told definitely whether the Compact was accepted or not; otherwise they wished to depart on January 15, 1434. The Diet answered that it would be more convenient if they went on January 14; a Bohemian envoy would be sent to Basel to announce their intentions. Accordingly the Council's ambassadors left Prague on January 15, and arrived at Basel on February 15.

The result of this second embassy had been to rally the moderate party in Bohemia, and break the bond that had hitherto held the Bohemians together. The envoys had laid the foundations of a league in favour of the Church. Ten of the masters of the University of Prague subscribed a statement that they were willing to stand by the Compacts and had been reconciled to the Church; even when the envoys were at Eger two nobles followed them seeking reconciliation. When the ambassador of the Diet, Martin Lupak, joined them at Eger, it is not wonderful that they warned him that it was useless for him to journey to Basel if he went with fresh demands. The Council, after hearing the report of their envoys, gave Martin audience at once on February 16. He asked that the Council should order all the inhabitants of Bohemia to receive the Communion under both kinds; if all did not conform, there would be different churches and different rites, and no real peace in the land, for each party would claim to be better than the other, the terms “catholic” and “heretic” would again be bandied about, and there would be perpetual dissension. This was no doubt true; but the Council listened to Martin with murmurs of dissent. It was clearly impossible for them to abandon the Bohemian Catholics, and to turn the concession which they had granted to the Hussites into an order to those who had remained faithful to the Church. Still Sigismund besought them to take time over their answer and to avoid any threats. The answer was drawn up in concert with Sigismund, and on February 26 Cesarini addressed Martin Lupak, saying that the Council wondered the Bohemians did not keep their promises, as even Jews and heathens respected good faith. He besought him to urge his countrymen to fulfill the Compacts; then the Council would consider their new demands, and would do all they could consistently with the glory of God and the dignity of the Church. Martin defended his demands, and there was some altercation. At last he taunted Cesarini with the remark that the Church had not always wished for peace, but had preached a crusade against Bohemia. “Peace is now in your hands, if you will stand by the agreement”, said Cesarini. “Rather it is in the hands of the Council, if they will grant what is asked”, retorted Martin. He refused to receive a letter from the Council unless he were informed of its contents, and after briefly thanking the Fathers for hearing him, he left the congregation and departed.

A breach seemed again imminent; but the Council knew that it would not be with Bohemia, but only with a party in it, which they trusted to overcome by the help of their fellow-countrymen. The first envoys had reported that there was a number of irreconcilables who must be subdued by force; the second negotiations had brought to light internal dissensions and had founded a strong party in Bohemia in favour of union with the Council. Everything was done to strengthen that party and gain the means of putting down the radicals. On February 8 the Council ordered a tax of 5 per cent, on ecclesiastical revenues to be levied throughout Christendom for their needs in the matter of Bohemia. John of Palomar was sent to carry supplies from the Council and from Sigismund to aid the besieged in Pilsen, where the besieging army was suffering from plague, hunger and despondency. In Bohemia Meinhard of Neuhaus was indefatigable in carrying on the work of the restoration. In April a league was formed by the barons of Bohemia and Moravia and the Old Town of Prague for the purpose of securing peace and order in the land; all armed bands were ordered to disperse and an amnesty was promised if they obeyed.

Procopius was roused from his retirement in the New Town of Prague by these machinations, and once more put himself at the head of the Taborites and the Orphans. But the barons had already gathered their forces. The New Town of Prague was summoned to enter the league, and on its refusal was stormed; on May 6 Procopius and a few others succeeded with difficulty in escaping. At this news the army before Pilsen raised the siege and retired. Bohemia merged its minor religious differences, and prepared to settle by the sword a political question that was bound to press some day for solution. On one side were the nobles ready to fight for their ancient privileges; on the other side stood the towns as champions of democracy. On May 30 was fought the decisive battle at Lipan. The nobles, under the command of Borek of Militinek, a companion-in-arms of Zizka, had an army of 25,000 men; against them stood Procopius with 18.000. Both armies were entrenched behind their waggons, and for some time fired at one another. The Taborites had the better artillery, but their adversaries turned their superiority to their ruin. One wing feigned to be greatly distressed by their fire; then, as if goaded to exasperation, rushed from behind its entrenchment, and charged. When they thought that the foe had exhausted their fire, they feigned to flee, and the Taborites, thinking their ranks were broken, rushed from their waggons in pursuit. But the seeming broken ranks skillfully reformed and faced their pursuers, who had meanwhile been cut off from their waggons by the other wing of the nobles' army. Shut in on every side, Procopius and his men prepared to die like heroes. All day and night the battle raged, till in the morning 13,000 of the warriors who had been so long the terror of Europe lay dead on the ground. Procopius and all the chief men of the extreme party were among the slain. The military power of Bohemia, which had so long defied the invader, fell because it was divided against itself.

The fight of Lipan was a decided victory for the Council. It is true that among the conquerors the large majority was Hussite, and would require some management before it could be safely penned within the fold of the Church. But the Taborites had lost the control of affairs. The irreconcilables were swept away, and the Council would henceforth have to deal with men of more moderate opinions

At the beginning of the year 1434 the Council of Basel had reached its highest point of importance in the Position affairs of Christendom and of the Church. It had compelled the Pope to accept, without reserve, the conciliar principle for which it strove; it had gone so far in pacifying Bohemia that its final triumph seemed secure. It looked to further employment for its energies in negotiating a union betweenthe Greek and the Latin Churches. Yet the Council’s success had been largely due to accidental circumstances. Eugenius IV had been subdued, not by the Council’s strength, but by his own weakness; he fell because he had so acted as to raise up a number of determined enemies, without gaining anyfriends in return. The Council’s policy towards him was tolerated rather than approved by the European Powers; if no one helped Eugenius IV, it was because no one had anything to gain by so doing. Sigismund, whose interest was greatest in the matter, was kept on the Council’s side by his personal interest in the Bohemian question; but he, with the German electors and the King of France, was resolute in resisting any steps which might lead to a schism of the Church. If the Council were to keep what it had won, it must gain new hold upon the sympathies of Christendom, which were not touched by the struggle against the Pope.

Sigismund gave the Fathers at Basel the advice of a statesman when he exhorted them to leave their quarrel with the Pope and busy themselves with the reform of the Church. But to contend for abstract principles is always easy, to reform abuses is difficult. The Council found it more interesting to war with the Pope than to labour through the obstacles which lay in the way of a reformation of abuses by those who benefited by them. Each rank of the hierarchy was willing to reform its neighbors, but had a great deal to urge in its own defense. In this collision of interests there was a general agreement that it was good to begin with a reform in the Papacy, as the Pope was not at Basel to speak for himself. Moreover, the Council had grown inveterate in its hostility to the Pope. The personal enemies of Eugenius IV flocked to Basel, and were not to be satisfied with anything short of his entire humiliation. In this they were aided by the pride of authority which among less responsible members of the assembly grew in strength every day, and made them desirous to assert in every way the superiority of the Council over the Pope.

The first question that arose was concerning the presidency. Eugenius IV, after his recognition by the Council, issued a Bull nominating four Papal deputies to share that office with Cesarini. The first decision of the Council was that they could not admit this claim of the Pope, since it was derogatory to the dignity of the Council, but they were willing themselves to appoint two of the Cardinals. Again Sigismund had to interpose, and with some difficulty prevailed on the Council to receive the Papal presidents. They were not, however, admitted till they had bound themselves by an oath to labour for the Council, to maintain the decrees of Constance, to declare that even the Pope, if he refused to obey the Council, might be punished, and to observe strict secrecy about all its proceedings. On these terms the Papal presidents, Cardinal Albergata, the Archbishop of Tarento, the Bishop of Padua, and the Abbot of S. Justin of Padua, were admitted to their office on April 26, 1434, at a solemn session at which Sigismund in his Imperial robes was present.

The pretensions of the Council went on increasing. On May 2 Cardinal Lusignan, who was sent on an embassy to pacify France, received from the Council the title of legatus a latere, in spite of the protest of the five presidents against conferring a dignity which only the Pope could grant. Sigismund also felt aggrieved by the small heed which the Council paid to his monitions. Few German prelates were present; the large majority were French, Italians, and Spaniards. The democratic constitution of the Council prevented Sigismund from receiving the deference which was his due; he was not even consulted about the appointment of ambassadors. He felt that a slight had been offered to himself by the dealings of the Council with his enemy, the Duke of Milan. He complained bitterly of the irregular conduct of the Council in granting a commission to the Duke of Milan as its vicar, and so abetting him in his designs on the States of the Church. The Council at first denied, then defended, and finally refused to withdraw from, its connection with the Duke of Milan. Sigismund saw with indignation that the Council adopted a policy of its own, and refused to identify its interests with his. He sadly contrasted the purely ecclesiastical organization at Basel with the strong national spirit that had prevailed at Constance. He determined to leave a place where he had so little weight that, as he himself said, he was like a fifth wheel to a carriage, which did no good, but only impeded its progress.

Before departing he seems to have resolved to give a stimulus to the Council. He sent the Bishop of Lübeck to the several deputations to lay before them a suggestion that the marriage of the clergy should be permitted. “It was in vain”, he pleaded, “that priests were deprived of wives; scarcely among a thousand could one continent priest be found. By clerical celibacy the bond of friendship between the clergy and laity was broken, and the freedom of confession was rendered suspicious. There was no fear that a married clergy would appropriate the goods of the Church for their wives and families; the permission to marry would rather bring those of the highest ranks into the clergy, and the nobles would be less desirous of secularizing ecclesiastical property if it was in the hands of their relations and friends”. The fathers listened; but “the old”, says Aeneas Sylvius, “condemned what had no charms for them. The monks, bound by a vow of chastity, grudged that secular priests should have a privilege denied to themselves”. The majority ruled that the time was not yet ripe for such a change; they feared that it would be too great a shock to popular prejudice.

Before his departure Sigismund addressed the Council, and urged that it would be better to follow the example set at Constance, and organize themselves by nations. He wisely remarked that the reformation of the Church would be better carried out if each nation dealt with its own customs and rites. Moreover, decisions arrived at by a national organization would have greater chance of being accepted by the States so represented. He was answered that the deputations would take his suggestion under consideration. Finally, on May 19, he departed in no amiable mood from Basel, saying that he left behind him a sink of iniquity.

After Sigismund’s departure Cesarini besought the Council to turn its attention to the question of reformation; he said that already they were evil spoken of throughout Christendom for their delay. The basis of the questions raised at Constance was adopted, and the extirpation of simony first attracted the attention of the fathers. But there was great difficulty in keeping to the point, and little progress was made. Insignificant quarrels between prelates were referred to the Council as a court of appeal, and the Council took greater interest in such personal matters than in abstract questions of reform. The question of union between the Eastern and Western Churches was hailed with delight as a relief. This question, which had been mooted at Constance, slumbered under Martin V, but had been renewed by Eugenius IV. The Council, in its struggle with the Pope, thought it well to deprive him of the opportunity of increasing his importance, and at the same time to add to its own. In January, 1433, it sent ambassadors to Greece to inaugurate steps for the proposed union. In consequence of these negotiations the Greek ambassadors arrived at Basel on July 12, 1434. They were graciously received by the Council; and Cesarini expressed the general wish for a conference on their differences, which he said that discussion would probably show to be verbal rather than real. The Greeks demanded that they should have their expenses paid in coming to the conference, and named as the place Ancona, or some port on the Calabrian coast, then Bologna, Milan, or some other town in Italy, next Pesth or Vienna, and finally some place in Savoy. The Council was anxious that the Greeks should come to Basel; but when the Greeks declared that they had no power to assent to this, their other conditions were accepted. Ambassadors were to go to Constantinople to urge the choice of Basel as a place for the conference. The Greeks also demanded that Eugenius IV should give his assent to the Council's proposals, and envoys were accordingly sent to lay them before him.

But Eugenius IV, on his side, had made proposals to the Greeks for the same purpose; and the Greeks, with their usual shiftiness, were carrying on a double negotiation, in hopes of making a better bargain for themselves by playing off against one another the rival competitors for their goodwill. Eugenius IV sent to Constantinople in July, 1433, his secretary, Cristoforo Garatoni, who proposed that a Council should be held at Constantinople, to which the Pope should send a legate and a number of prelates and doctors. When the Council’s proposals were laid before him, Eugenius wrote on November 15, 1434, and gently warned it of the dangers that might arise from too great precipitancy in this important matter. He mildly complained that he had not been consulted earlier. He added, however, that he was willing to assent to the simplest and speediest plan for accomplishing the object in view. The question of the place of conference with the Greeks was sure to open up the dispute between the Pope and Council. The chief reason which Eugenius IV had given for dissolving the Council was his belief that the Greeks would never go so far as Basel. He was now content to wait and see how far the Council would succeed. He already began to see in their probable failure a means of reasserting his authority, and either transferring the Council to Italy, as he had wished at first, or setting up against it another Council, which from its object would have in the eyes of Europe an equal, if not a greater, prestige.

On the departure of the Greek ambassadors the Council again turned to its wearisome task of reformation, and on January 22, 1435, succeeded in issuing four decrees, limiting the penalties of interdict and excommunication to the persons or places which had incurred them by their own fault, forbidding frivolous appeals to the Church, and enforcing stricter measures to prevent the concubinage of the clergy. Offenders whose guilt was notorious were to be mulcted of the revenues for three months, and admonished under pain of deprivation to put away their concubines; fines paid to bishops for connivance at this irregularity were forbidden. The Council felt that it was at least safe in denouncing an open breach of ecclesiastical discipline, one which in those days was constantly condemned and constantly permitted.

From this peaceful work of reform the Council was soon drawn away by a letter from Eugenius IV, announcing the hopes he entertained of effecting a union with the Greeks by means of a Council at Constantinople. The letter was brought by Garatoni, who, on April 5, gave the Council an account of his embassy to the Greeks, and urged in favour of the Pope's plan, that it involved little expense, and was preferable to the Greeks, who did not wish to impose on their Emperor and the aged Patriarch a journey across the sea. The Council, however, by no means took this view of the matter; it was resolved not to lose the glory of a reunion of the two Churches. On May 3 an angry letter was written to the Pope, saying that a synod at Constantinople could have no claims to be a General Council, and would only raise fresh discord; such a proposal could not be entertained. Eugenius IV gave way in outward appearance, and sent Garatoni again to Constantinople to express his readiness to accept the proposals of the Council. He was contented to bide his time. But the Council was in a feverish haste to arrange preliminaries, and in June sent envoys, amongst whom was John of Ragusa, to Constantinople for this purpose. It also began to consider means for raising money, and the sale of indulgences was suggested. This suggestion raised a storm of disaffection amongst the adherents of the Pope, and seemed to all moderate men to be a serious encroachment on the Papal prerogative.

It was not long, however, before a still more deadly blow was aimed at the Pope’s authority. The reforming spirit of the Basel fathers was stirred to deal vigorously with Papal exactions. The subject of annates, which had been raised in vain at Constance, was peremptorily decided at Basel. On June 9 a decree was passed abolishing annates, and all dues on presentations, on receiving the pallium, and on all such occasions. It was declared to be simoniacal to demand or to pay them, and a Pope who attempted to exact them was to be judged by a General Council. Two of the Papal presidents, the Archbishop of Tarento and the Bishop of Padua, protested against this decree, and their protest was warmly backed by the English and by many other members of the Council. There were only present at its publication four Cardinals and forty-eight prelates. Cesarini only assented to it on condition that the Council should undertake no other business till it had made, by other means, a suitable provision for the Pope and Cardinals. The abolition of annates was, indeed, a startling measure of reform. It deprived the Pope at once of all means of maintaining his Curia, and to Eugenius IV, a refugee in Florence, left no source of supplies. No doubt the question of annates was one that needed reform; but the reform ought to have been well considered and moderately introduced. As it was, the Council showed itself to be moved chiefly by a desire to deprive the Pope of means to continue his negotiations with the Greeks.

The decree abolishing annates was a renewed declaration of war against the Pope. It marked the rise into power of the extreme party m the Council—the party whose object was the entire reduction of the Papacy under a conciliar oligarchy. At the time, Eugenius was too helpless to accept the challenge. Two of his legates at Basel protested against the annates decree, and absented themselves from the business of the Council. The Council answered by instituting proceedings against them for contumacy. But the matter was stayed for the time by the arrival, on August 20, of two Papal envoys who had been sent expressly to deal with the Council on this vexed question—Antonio de San Vitio, one of the auditors of the Curia, and the learned Florentine, Ambrogio Traversari, Abbot of Camaldoli. The feeling of the Italian Churchmen was turning strongly in favour of Eugenius IV; they saw in the proceedings of the Council a menace to the glory of the Papacy, which Italy was proud to call its own. Reformation, as carried out by the Council, seemed to them to be merely an attempt to overthrow the Pope, and carry off beyond the Alps the management of ecclesiastical affairs which had so long centred in Italy. Traversari, who had been zealous for a reform, and had sent to Eugenius on his election a copy of S. Bernard’s De Consideratione, now placed himself on the Pope's side, and went to Basel to defeat the machinations of what he considered a lawless mob.

The answers which Traversari brought from the Pope were ambiguous: he was willing that the union with the Greek Church should be conducted in the best way; when the preliminaries had advanced further he would be willing to consider whether the expenses had better be met by indulgences or in some other way as to the abolition of annates, he thought that the Council had acted precipitately, and wished to know how they proposed to provide for the Pope and Cardinals, There was, in this, no basis for negotiation; and Traversari in vain endeavored to get further instructions from Eugenius IV. He stayed three months in Basel, and was convinced that Cesarini’s influence was waning, and that it was a matter of vital importance to the Pope to win him over to his side; he urged Eugenius IV to leave no means untried for this end. Traversari was shrewd enough in surveying the situation for the future, but for the present could obtain nothing save an empty promise that the question of a provision for the Pope should be taken into immediate consideration.

Pending this consideration, the Council showed its determination to carry its decrees into effect. When customary dues for the reception of the pallium demanded by the Papal Curia from the newly elected Archbishop of Rouen, the Council interposed and itself bestowed the pallium on December 11. In January, 1436, it resolved to admonish the Pope to withdraw all that he had done or said against the authority of the Council, and accept fully its decrees. An embassy was nominated to carry to Eugenius IV a form of decree which he was to issue for this purpose. The reason for this peremptory proceeding was a desire to cut away from the Pope the means of frustrating the Council’s projects as regards the Greeks. Its envoys at Constantinople could not report very brilliant success in their negotiations. They could not at first even establish the basis which had been laid down at Basel in the previous year. The Greeks took exception to the wording of the decree which was submitted to them; they complained that the Council spoke of itself as the mother of all Christendom, and coupled them with the Bohemians as schismatics. When the ambassadors attempted to defend the Council’s wording they were met by cries, “Either amend your decree or get you gone”. They undertook that it should be changed, and one of them, Henry Menger, was sent back to Basel, where, on February 3, 1436, he reported that all other matters had been arranged with the Greeks, on condition that the decree were altered, and that a guarantee were given for the payment of their expenses to and from the conference, whether they agreed to union or no. He brought letters from the Emperor and the Patriarch, urging that the place of conference should be on the sea-coast, and that the Pope, as the head of Western Christendom, should be present. The envoys attributed these demands to the machinations of the Papal ambassador Garatoni.

More and more irritated by this news, the Council proceeded with its plan of crushing the Pope, and on March 22 issued a decree for the full reformation of the head of the Church. It began with a reorganization of the method of Papal election; the Cardinals on entering the Conclave were to swear that they would not recognize him whom they elected till he had sworn to summon General Councils and observe the decrees of Basel. The form of the Papal oath was specified, and it was enacted that on each anniversary of the Papal election the oath, and an exhortation to observe it, should be read to the Pope in the midst of the mass service. The number of Cardinals was not to exceed twenty-six, of whom twenty-four were to be at least thirty years old, graduates in civil or canon law, or in theology, none of them related to the Pope or any living Cardinal; the other two might be elected for some great need or usefulness to the Church, although they were not graduates. It was further enacted that all elections were to be freely made by the chapters, and that all reservations were to be abolished.

At the end of the month appeared the Pope’s ambassadors, the Cardinals of S. Peter’s and S. Crose. They brought as before evasive answers from the Pope, who urged the Council to choose a place for conference with the Greeks which would be convenient both for them and for himself; he did not approve of the plan of raising money by granting indulgences, but was willing to issue them with the approval of the Council. This was not what the Council wanted. It demanded that Eugenius IV should recognize its right to grant indulgences. On April 14 it issued a decree granting to all who contributed to the expenses of the conference with the Greeks the plenary indulgence given to crusaders and to those who made a pilgrimage to Rome in the year of Jubilee. On May 11 an answer was given to the Pope's legates, complaining that Eugenius IV did not act up to the Council’s decrees, but raised continual difficulties; he did not join with them in their endeavors to promote union with the Greeks, but spoke of transferring the Council elsewhere; he did not accept the decree abolishing annates, except on the condition that provision was made for the Pope, although he ought to welcome gladly all efforts at reformation, and ought to consider that the question of provision in the future required great discussion in each nation; he did not recognize, as he ought to do, the supremacy of the Council, which, with the presidents who represented the Pope, had full power to grant indulgences. On receiving this answer, the Archbishop of Tarento and the Bishop of Padua resigned their office of presidents on behalf of the Pope and left the Council. It was a declaration of open war.

Eugenius IV on his side prepared for the contest. He drew up a long defense of his own conduct, and a statement of the wrongs which he had received from the Council since his recognition of its authority. He set forth the Council's refusal to accept the Papal presidents as the representatives of the Pope, its decrees diminishing the Papal revenues and the Papal power, interfering with the old customs of election, granting indulgences, exercising Papal prerogatives, and doing everything most likely to lead to an open schism. He commented on the turbulent procedure of the Council, its democratic organization, its mode of voting by deputations which gave the preponderance to a numerical minority, its avowed partisanship which gave its proceedings the appearance of a conspiracy rather than of a deliberate judgment. For six years it had labored with scanty results, and had only destroyed the prestige and respect which a General Council ought to command. He recapitulated his own proposals to the Council about the place of a conference with the Greeks, and the repulse which his ambassadors had met with. He stated his resolve to call upon all the princes of Christendom to withdraw their support from the Council, which, he significantly added, not only spoke evil of the Pope, but of all princes, when once it had free course to its insolence. He promised reformation of abuses in the Curia, with the help of a Council to be summoned in some city of Italy, where the condition of his health would allow his personal presence. He called upon the princes to withdraw their ambassadors and prelates from Basel.

This document of Eugenius IV contained nothing which was likely to induce the princes of Europe to put more confidence in him, alleged no arguments which could lead them to alter their previous position so far as the Papacy was concerned. But there was much in his accusations against the Council, where the extreme party had been gradually gaining power. Cesarini was no longer listened to, and his position in Basel became daily more unsatisfactory to himself. He had earnestly striven for a settlement of the Bohemian difficulty, and for the pacification of France, which had been begun at the Congress of Arras. He was desirous for reformation of the Church and so had agreed to the decree abolishing annates. But he could not forget that he was a Cardinal and a Papal legate, and was opposed to the recent proceedings of the Council against the Pope. Round him gathered the great body of Italian prelates, except the Milanese and the chief theologians. But the majority of the Council consisted of Frenchmen, who were led by Cardinal Louis d'Allemand, generally known as the Cardinal of Arles, a man of great learning and high character, but a violent partisan, who belonged to the Colonna faction, and intrigued with the Duke of Milan. He had no hesitation in taking up an attitude of strong political hostility against Eugenius IV. The French followed him, as did the Spaniards, so long as Alfonso of Aragon was the political enemy of Eugenius IV. The Milanese and South Italians were also on his side. The English and Germans who came to the Council were animated by a desire to extend its influence, and so were opposed to the Pope.

The organization of the Council gave the Pope a just ground for complaint. It had been decided at the beginning that the lower ranks of the clergy should have seats and votes. The Council was to be fully representative of the Church, and so was entirely democratic. All who satisfied the scrutineers, and were incorporated as members, took equal part in the proceedings. At first the dangers of this course had not shown themselves; but as the proceedings of the Council were protracted, the prelates who took a leading part in its business became fewer. The constitution of the Council was shifting from week to week. Only those were permanent who had some personal interest to gain, or who were strong partisans. The enemies of Eugenius IV clung to the Council as the justification of their past conduct as well as of their hope in the future. Adventurers who had everything to gain, and little to lose, flocked to Basel, and cast in their lot with the Council as affording them a better chance of promotion than did the Curia. Thus the Council became more and more democratic and revolutionary in its tendencies. The prelates drew to the side of Cesarini, and found themselves more and more in a minority, opposed to a majority which was bent on the entire humiliation of the Papacy.

It was natural that the violence of the French radical party should cause a reaction in favour of the Pope. Many had been in favour of the Council against the Pope, when the Council wished for reform, which the Pope tried to check. They were shaken in their allegiance when the Council, under the name of reform, was pursuing mainly the depression of the Papal power, and the transference of its old authority into the hands of a self-elected and non-representative oligarchy. The cry was raised that the Council was in the French interest; that it simply continued the old struggle of Avignon against Rome. The friends of Eugenius IV began to raise their heads, and attacked the Council on political grounds, so as to detach from it the princes of Christendom. Their arguments may be gathered from a letter of Ambrogio Traversari to Sigismund, in January, 1436: “The Council of Basel has found time for nothing but the subversion of Catholic peace and the depression of the Pope. They have now been assembled for five years; and see on how wrongful a basis their business proceeds. In old days bishops, full of the fear of God, the zeal of religion, and the fervour of faith, used to settle the affairs of the Church. Now the matter is in the hands of the common herd; for scarcely out of five hundred members, as I saw with my own eyes, were there twenty bishops; the rest were either the lower orders of the clergy, or were laymen; and all consult their private feelings rather than the good of the Church. No wonder that the Council drags on for years, and produces nothing but scandal and danger of schism. The good men are lost in the ignorant and turbulent multitude. The French, led by the Cardinal of Arles and the Archbishop of Lyons, want to transfer the Papacy into France. Where every one seeks his own interest, and the vote of a cook is as good as that of a legate or an archbishop, it is shameless blasphemy to claim for their resolutions the authority of the Holy Ghost. They aim only at a disruption of the Church. They have set up a tribunal on the model of the Papal court; they exercise jurisdiction, and draw causes before them. They confer the pallium on archbishops, and claim to grant indulgences. They aim at nothing less than the perpetuation of the Council, in opposition to the Pope”.

There was enough truth in this view of the situation to incline the statesmen of Europe to take a more languid interest in the proceedings of the Council. Moreover, the Council had lost its political importance by the gradual subsidence of the Bohemian question. The Council had done its work when it succeeded in bringing to a head the divergence of opinion which had always existed between Bohemian parties. The negotiations with the Council had given strength to the party which wished to recognize authority, and was not prepared to break entirely with the traditions of the past. Round it gathered the various elements of political discontent arising from the long domination of the democratic and revolutionary party. At the battle of Lipan the Taborites met with such a defeat that they could no longer offer a determined resistance to the plan for a reconciliation with Sigismund.

But the hopes of immediate success which the fight of Lipan awakened in Basel were by no means realized at once. The spirit of the Bohemian Reformation was still strong; and though the Calixtins were on the whole in favour of reconciliation with the Church, they had no intention of abandoning their original position. The Bohemian Diet in June, 1434, proclaimed a general peace with all Utraquists, and a truce for a year with all Catholics. It took measures for the pacification of the land and the restoration of order. To Sigismund's envoys, who had come to procure his recognition as King of Bohemia, the Diet answered by appointing deputies to confer with Sigismund at Regensburg. Thither the Council was requested by Sigismund to send its former envoys. On August 16 its embassy, headed by Philibert, Bishop of Coutances, but of which John of Palomar was the most active member, entered Regensburg an hour after the Bohemians, chief amongst whom were John of Rokycana, Martin Lupak, and Meinhard of Neuhaus. As usual, Sigismund kept them waiting, and did not arrive till August 21. Meanwhile the Council’s envoys and the Bohemians had several conferences, which did not show that their differences were disappearing. The Bohemians were requested to do as they had done at previous conferences, and not attend mass in the churches. They consented; but John of Rokycana remarked that it would be better if the Council were to drive out of the churches evil priests rather than faithful laymen, who only wished to receive the Communion under both kinds. John of Palomar had to apologize for the Council’s delay in its work of reform; the English and Spanish representatives, he said, had not yet arrived, and everything could not be done at once.

When negotiations began on August 22 Sigismund and the Council's envoys found that the Bohemians were firm in their old position. They were willing to recognize Sigismund on condition that he restored peace in Bohemia, which could only be done by upholding the Four Articles of Prague, and binding all the people of Bohemia and Moravia to receive the Communion under both kinds. Sigismund appealed to the national feelings of the Bohemians by a speech in their own tongue, in which he recalled the connection of his house with Bohemia. About the questions in dispute John of Rokycana and John of Palomar again indulged in the old arguments, till the Bohemians declared that they were sent to the Emperor, not to the Council's envoys. They submitted their request to Sigismund in writing, and Sigismund in writing gave answer, begging them to stand by the Compacts of Prague. The Bohemians declared their intention of doing so, but said that the Compacts must be understood to apply to the whole of Bohemia and Moravia. John of Palomar declared that the Council could not compel faithful Catholics to adopt a new rite, though they were prepared to allow it to those who desired it. The conclusion of the conference was that the Bohemian envoys should report to the Diet, soon to be held at Prague, the difficulties which had arisen, and should send its answer to the Emperor and to the Council. Matters had advanced no further than they were at the time of accepting the Compacts. In some ways the tone of the conference at Regensburg was less conciliatory than that of the previous ones. One of the Bohemian envoys fell from a window and was killed. The Council’s ambassadors objected to his burial with the rites of the Church, on the ground that he was not received into the Church’s communion. This caused great indignation among the Bohemians, who resented this attempt to terrorize over them. Still they submitted to the Council’s envoys a series of questions about the election of an archbishop of Prague, and the views of the Council about the regulation of ecclesiastical discipline in accordance with the Compacts. Sigismund besought the Council for money to act against Bohemia, and some of the Bohemian nobles asserted that with money enough Bohemia could soon be reduced to obedience. Yet Sigismund did not hesitate to express to the Council's envoys his many grounds for grievance at the Council’s procedure. The parties in the conference at Regensburg were at cross purposes. Sigismund, dissatisfied with the Council, wished to make it useful for himself. The Council wished to show Sigismund that its help was indispensable for the settlement of the Bohemian question. Bohemia wished for peace, but on condition of retaining in matters ecclesiastical a basis of national unity, without which it felt that peace would be illusory. On September 3 the conference came to an end without arriving at any conclusion. All parties separated mutually dissatisfied.

Still these repeated negotiations strengthened the peace party in Bohemia. Of the proceedings of the Diet held at Prague on October 23 we know little; but they ended in an abandonment by the Bohemians of the position which they had taken up at Regensburg. There they had maintained that, as the people of Bohemia and Moravia were of one language and under one rule, so ought they to be of one ritual in the most solemn act of Christian worship. They now decided to seek a basis of religious unity which would respect the rights of the minority, and on November 8 wrote, not to the Council, but to the Council's envoys, proposing that in those places where the Communion under both kinds had been accepted it should be recognized; in those places where the Communion under one kind had been retained it should remain. Mutual toleration was to be enjoined, and an archbishop and bishops were to be elected by the clergy, with the consent of the Diet, who were to be subject to the Council and to the Pope in matters agreeable to the law of God, but no further, and who were to regulate the discipline of the Church in Bohemia and Moravia. It was a proposal for the organization of the Bohemian Church on a national basis, so as to obtain security against the danger of a Catholic reaction.

The Council’s answer to the Bohemians was, that they would again send their former envoys to confer with them and with the Emperor. The Bohemians, seeing that little was to be hoped for from the Council, resolved to see if they could obtain from Sigismund the securities which they wished. A Diet held in Prague in March, 1435, sent Sigismund its demands: the Four Articles were to be accepted; the Emperor, his court, his chaplain, and all State officers were to communicate under both kinds; complete amnesty was to be given for the past, and a genuinely national Government was to exist for the future. The envoys who brought these demands to Sigismund inquired if the Council's ambassadors, who were already with Sigismund in Posen, were prepared to accept the offer made by the Diet in the previous November; otherwise it was useless for the Bohemians to trouble themselves further or incur more expense. But the Council's ambassadors had come armed with secret instructions, and refused to have their hand forced. They answered that their mission was to the Emperor in Council of the Bohemians assembled, and then only could they speak.

Many preliminaries had to be arranged before the Conference finally took place at Brunn. There the Council’s envoys arrived on May 20, and were received with ringing of bells and all manifestations of joy by the people. On June 18 came the Bohemian representatives; but Sigismund did not appear till July 1. Meanwhile the Bohemians and the Council's envoys had several sharp discussions. Those of the Bohemians who had been reconciled to the Church were allowed to attend the mass; but the others were forbidden to enter the churches, and were refused a chapel where they might celebrate mass after their own fashion. On June 28 some of the Bohemians, on being requested to withdraw from a church where they had come with their comrades, were so indignant that they were on the point of leaving Brünn, and were only appeased by the intervention of Albert of Austria, who had luckily arrived a few days before

The day after Sigismund’s arrival, on July 2, John of Rokycana brought forward three demands on the part of the Bohemians: that the Four Articles be accepted throughout the whole of Bohemia and Moravia; that those countries be freed from all charge of heresy, and that the Council of Basel proceed with the reformation of the Church in life, morals and faith. He asked also for an answer to the demands sent to Eger by the Bohemian Diet in the previous November. The Council’s envoys answered by justifying the procedure of the Council and blaming the Bohemians for not keeping to the Compacts but raising new difficulties. There was much disputation. The Bohemians professed their willingness to abide by the Compacts as interpreted by their demands sent to Eger; the legates answered that these demands were contrary to the Compacts themselves. Sigismund urged the legates to give way, but they refused. On July 8 the legates demanded that the Bohemians should declare their adhesion to the Compacts, as they had promised; no promise had been made by the Council about the Eger articles, otherwise it would have been fulfilled. It was clear to the Bohemians that the Council regarded the Compacts as the ultimate point of their concessions, whereas the Bohemians looked on them only as a starting-point for further arrangements. John of Rokycana angrily answered the legates, “We are willing to stand by the Compacts; but they cannot be fulfilled till they are completed. Much must be added to them; for instance, as regards obedience to bishops, we will not obey them if they order what is contrary to God’s word. How do you ask us to fulfill our promises when you will not fulfill yours? It seems to us that you aim at nothing save to sow division amongst us, for since your coming we are worse off than before, and will take heed that it be so no longer. We ask no difficult things. We ask for an archbishop to be elected by the clergy and people or appointed by the King. We ask that causes be not transferred out of the realm. We ask that the Communion be celebrated under both kinds in those places where the use exists. These are not difficult matters; grant them and we will fulfill the Compacts. We do not ask these things through fear, or through doubt of their lawfulness; we ask them for the sake of peace and unity. If you do not grant them, the Lord be with you, for I trust He is with us”. While John of Palomar was preparing a reply, the Bohemians left the room and thenceforth conferred only with the legates through Sigismund.

The Bohemian envoys had, in fact, begun to negotiate directly with Sigismund, who showed himself much more ready to give way than did the legates of the Council. On July 6 a proposal was made to Sigismund that he should grant in his own name what the Council refused. Under the pretext of removing difficulties and providing for some things omitted in the Compacts, Sigismund promised that benefices should not be conferred by strangers outside Bohemia and Moravia, but only by the king; that no Bohemian or Moravian should be cited or be judged outside the kingdom; that those who preferred to communicate under one kind only should, to avoid confusion, be tolerated only in those places which had always maintained the old ritual; that the archbishops and bishops should be elected by the Bohemian clergy and people. These articles Sigismund promised to uphold “before the Council, the Pope, and all men”. The legates of the Council strongly deprecated any secret negotiations on the part of Sigismund; the Bohemians, relying on the promises they had received, showed themselves more conciliatory. On July 14 they offered to sign the Compacts with the addition of a clause, “Saving the liberties and privileges of the kingdom and of the margravate of Moravia”. This the legates would not accept, as it clearly carried the election of the archbishop by the people and clergy. Sigismund answered the legates privately, and besought them to consent, lest they should be the cause of a rupture, and woe to them through whom that came. When the legates again refused, he angrily said, "You of the Council have granted articles to the Bohemians, and have held conferences without my knowledge, but I acquiesced. Why, then, will you not acquiesce for my sake in this small matter? If you wish me to lose my kingdom, I do not". He exclaimed in German to those around him, “Those of Basel wish to do nothing except diminish the power of the Pope and Emperor”. He showed his indignation by abruptly dismissing the legates.

Sigismund’s anger cooled down, and the clause was withdrawn. The Bohemians demanded the acceptance of various explanations of the Compacts, which the legates steadily refused. At last the signing of the Compacts was again deferred because the legates would not substitute, in the article which declared that "the goods of the Church cannot be possessed without guilt of sacrilege", the words “unjustly detained” (injuste deteneri) for “possessed” (usurpari). On August 3 the Bohemians departed, and the legates undertook to lay their demands before the Council and meet them again at Prague in the end of September.

The Council’s envoys had acted faithfully by the letter of their instructions; they had stood upon the Compacts, and had refused to make any further concessions or even admit any material explanations. The negotiations had therefore passed out of their hands into those of Sigismund. The Compacts had laid the foundations of an agreement. The Council had opened the door to concessions; and Sigismund was justified in declaring that the Council could not claim to have the sole right of interpreting the concessions so made or regulating the exact method of their application. The proceedings at Brünn led the Bohemians to think that the Council had dealt with them unfairly, and after begging them to accept the Compacts as a means to further agreement, was now bent on doing its utmost to make the Compacts illusory. The Bohemians therefore turned to Sigismund and resolved to seek first for political unity, and then to maintain their own interpretation of the Compacts by securing the organization of a national Church according to their wishes. In this state of things the interests of the Council and of Sigismund were no longer identical. The Council wished to minimize the effect of the concessions which it had made— concessions which were indeed necessary, yet might form a dangerous precedent in the Church. Sigismund wished to obtain peaceable possession of Bohemia, and trusted to his own cleverness afterwards to restore orthodoxy. The one thing that was rendered tolerably certain by the conference at Brünn was the recognition of Sigismund as King of Bohemia, and he was determined that the Council should not be an obstacle in the way. At the same time Sigismund was rigidly attached to the orthodox cause; but he was convinced that the reduction of Bohemia was a matter for himself rather than the Council.

The proceedings with Sigismund at Brünn satisfied the party in Bohemia, and the Diet, which met in Prague on September, ratified all that had been done. The submission of Bohemia to the Church and to Sigismund was finally agreed to on the strength of Sigismund's promises. A committee of two barons, two knights, three citizens, and nine priests was appointed to elect an archbishop and two suffragans. Their choice fell on John of Rokycana as archbishop, Martin Lupak and Wenzel of Hohenmaut as bishops. On December 21 the Bohemian envoys again met Sigismund and the legates of the Council at Stuhlweissenburg. The legates had heard of Rokycana’s election, though it was kept a secret pending Sigismund's confirmation. They were perturbed by the understanding which seemed to exist between Sigismund and the Bohemians. They had come from Basel empowered to change the words in the Compacts as the Bohemians wished, and substitute “unjustly detained” for “possessed”; but before doing so they demanded that Sigismund should give them a written agreement for the strict observance of the Compacts on his part. This was really a demand that Sigismund should declare that he intended the promises which he had made to the Bohemians at Brünn to be illusory. Meinhard ofNeuhaus, the chief of Sigismund’s partisans amongst the Bohemians, was consulted on this point. He answered, “If the Emperor publicly revoke his promises, all dealings with the Bohemians are at an end; if he revoke them secretly, it will some day be known, and then the Emperor, if he were in Bohemia, would be in great danger from the people”.

Accordingly Sigismund refused to sign the document which the legates laid before him, and submitted another, which declared generally his intention of abiding by the Compacts, but which did not satisfy the legates. Sigismund referred the legates to the Bohemians, and they accordingly demanded that the Bohemians should renounce all requests which they had made contrary to the Compacts. This the Bohemians refused, and Sigismund endeavored to lead the legates to a more conciliatory frame of mind by telling them that dissimulation on many points was needful with the Bohemians, that he might obtain the kingdom; when that was done, he would bring things back to their former condition. The legates answered that their instructions from the Council were to see that the Compacts were duly executed; when this was done, the king's power would remain as it had always been; if the Bohemians wanted more than the king could grant, they could seek further favours from the Council. The question of the Emperor’s agreement with the Council again raised much discussion. The Bohemians refused any responsibility in the matter.

“If there is ought between you and the legates”, they said to Sigismund, “it is nothing to us, we neither give assent nor dissent”.

The agreement was at last drawn up in general terms. The legates contented themselves with Sigismund's verbal promise as to his general intentions, and a written statement that he accepted the Compacts sincerely according to their plain meaning, and would not permit that any one be compelled to communicate under both kinds nor anything else to be done in contradiction to the Compacts. Iglau was fixed by the Bohemians as a frontier town in which the final signing of the Compacts might be quietly accomplished, and the ambassadors departed on January 31, 1436, to reassemble at Iglau in the end of May.

In all these negotiations the result had been to put difficulties out of sight rather than to make any agreement. Since the conference at Prague in 1433 no nearer approach had been made by the Bohemians to the orthodoxy of the Council. They had rather strengthened themselves in a policy by which they might obtain the advantages of peace and union with the Church, and yet might retain the greatest possible measure of ecclesiastical independence. This they hoped to secure by a strong national organization, while Sigismund trusted that once in power he would be able to direct the Catholic reaction; and the Council, after taking all possible steps to save its dignity, was reluctantly compelled to trust to Sigismund's assurance.

Sigismund appeared at Iglau on June 6; but the Bohemians were on the point of departing in anger when they found that the legates had come only with powers to sign the Compacts, not to confirm the election of the Bohemian bishops. With some difficulty the Bohemians were prevailed upon to accept Sigismund's promise that he would do his utmost to obtain from the Council and the Pope a ratification of the election of the bishops whom they had chosen. At last, on July 5, the Emperor, in his robes of state, took his place on a throne in the market-place of Iglau. The Duke of Austria bore the golden apple, the Count of Cilly the sceptre, and another count the sword. Before Sigismund went the legates of the Council, and by them took their places the Bohemian envoys. The signing of the Compacts was solemnly ratified by both parties. John Walwar, a citizen of Prague, gave to the legates a copy of the Compacts duly signed and sealed, together with a promise that the Bohemians would accept peace and unity with the Church. Four Bohemian priests, previously chosen for the purpose, took oath of obedience, shaking hands with the legates and afterwards with Rokycana, to show that they held him as their archbishop. Then the legates on their part handed a copy of the Compacts to the Bohemians, admitting them to peace and unity with the Church, relieving them from all ecclesiastical censures, and ordering all men to be at peace with them and hold them clear of all reproach. Proclamation was made in Sigismund's name that next day the Bohemians should enter the Church and the Compacts be read in the Bohemian tongue. Then the Bishop of Coutances, in a loud clear voice, began to sing the Te Deum, in which all joined with fervour. When it was done, Sigismund and the legates entered the church for mass; the Bohemians, raising a hymn, marched to their inn, where they held their service. Both parties wept for joy at the ending of their long strife.

The next day showed that difficulties were not at an end, that the peace was hollow, and that the main points of disagreement still remained unsettled. In the parish church, the Bishop of Coutances celebrated mass at the high altar, and John of Rokycana at a side altar. The Compacts were read by Rokycana from the pulpit in the Bohemian tongue, then he added, “Let those of the Bohemians who have the grace of communicating under both kinds come to this altar”. The legates protested to the Emperor. John of Palomar cried out, “Master John, observe the canons; do not administer the sacraments in a church of which you are not priest”. Rokycana paid no heed, but administered to seven persons. The legates were indignant at this violation of ecclesiastical regulations, and said, “Yesterday you vowed canonical obedience; today you break it. What is this?”. Rokycana answered that he was acting in accordance with the Compacts, and paid little heed to the technical objection raised by the legates. Sigismund urged the legates to grant a church, or at least an altar, where the Bohemians might practise their own ritual. The legates, who were irritated still more by hearing that Martin Lupak had carried through the streets the sacrament under both kinds to a dying man, refused their consent. The Bohemians bitterly exclaimed that they had been deceived, and that the Compacts were illusory. They threatened to depart at once, and it required all Sigismund’s skill in the management of men to prevail on the Bohemians to stay till they had arranged the preliminaries about his reception as King of Bohemia. The utmost concession that he could obtain from the legates was that one priest might celebrate mass after the Bohemian ritual. They refused to commission for this purpose either Rokycana or Martin Lupak, and accepted Wenzel of Drachow, on condition that they should first examine him to be sure of his orthodoxy. This Wenzel refused, and the Bohemians continued to celebrate their own rites in their houses, as they had done previously.

Thus the long negotiations with the Council had led to no real agreement. The signing of the Compacts was rather an expression on both sides of the desire for peace, and for the outward unity of the Church, than any settlement of the points at issue. The conception of a united Christendom had not yet been destroyed, and both parties were willing to make concessions to maintain it. But neither side abandoned their convictions, and the peace which had been proclaimed affected only the outward aspect of affairs. The Bohemians remained the victors. They had re-entered the Church on condition that they were allowed an exceptional position. It remained for them to make good the position which they had won, and use wisely and soberly the means which they had at their disposal for this purpose.

In political matters also they saw the necessity of abandoning their attitude of revolt, and entering again the State system of Europe. They were willing to recognize Sigismund, but on condition that he ensured the Bohemian nationality against German influences. On July 20 Sigismund agreed to ratify the rights and privileges of the Bohemians, to be guided by the advice of a Bohemian Council, to uphold the University of Prague, to admit none but Bohemians to office in the land, and to grant a full amnesty for all that had happened during the revolt. On August 20 the Governor of Bohemia, Ales of Riesenburg, laid down his office in Sigismund’s presence, and the Bohemian nobles swore fidelity to their king. On August 23 Sigismund entered Prague in state, and was received with joyous acclamations by the people. The pacification of Bohemia was completed. The great work which Europe had demanded of the Council was actually accomplished.

If we consider the deserts of the Council in this matter, we see that its real importance lay in the fact that it could admit the Bohemians to a conference without injuring the prestige of the Church. A Pope could adopt no other attitude towards heretics than one of resolute resistance. A Council could invite discussion, in which each party might engage with a firm belief that it would succeed in convincing the other. The decree for reunion with the Church arose from the exhaustion of Bohemia and its internal dissensions; it found that it could no longer endure to pay the heavy price which isolation from the rest of Europe involved on a small state. The temper of the Bohemians was met with admirable tact and moderation by the Council under the influence of Cesarini. Moral sympathy and not intellectual agreement tended to bring the parties together. The impulse given at first was strong enough to resist the reaction, when both parties found that they were not likely to convince each other. But the religious motives tended to become secondary to political considerations. The basis of conciliation afforded by the negotiations with Basel was used by the peace party in Bohemia and by Sigismund to establish an agreement between themselves. When this had been done, the position of the Council was limited to one of resistance to the extension of concessions to the Bohemians. The Council was thenceforth a hindrance rather than a help to the unscrupulous policy of illusory promises, which Sigismund had determined to adopt towards Bohemia till his power was fully established. From this time the Council lost all political significance for the Emperor, who was no longer interested in maintaining it against the Pope, and felt aggrieved by its treatment of himself, as well as by its democratic tendencies, which threatened the whole State system of Europe.

CHAPTER VII.

WAR BETWEEN THE POPE AND THE COUNCIL.

1436—1438.

If Sigismund’s interest in the Council had faded away, the interest of France had equally begun to wane. At the opening of the Council, France, in her misery and distress, the legacy of the long war with England, felt a keen sympathy with one of the Council's objects, the general pacification of Christendom. The Council’s zeal in this matter stirred up the Pope to emulation, and Eugenius IV busied himself to prevent the Council from gaining any additional prestige. In 1431 Cardinal Albergata was sent by the Pope to arrange peace between England, Burgundy, and France. His negotiations were fruitless for a time; but the ill-success of the English induced them in 1435 to consent to a congress to be held at Arras. Thither went Albergata as Papal legate, and on the side of the Council was sent Cardinal Lusignan. Representatives of the chief States of Europe were present; and 9000 strangers, amongst whom were 500 knights, thronged the streets of Arras. In the conference which began in August the rival legates vied with one another in splendor and in loftiness of pretension. But though Lusignan was of higher lineage, Albergata was the more skillful diplomat, and exercised greater influence over the negotiations. England, foreseeing the desertion of Burgundy, refused the proposed terms, and withdrew from the congress on September 6. Philip of Burgundy's scruples were skillfullycombated by Albergata.

Philip wished for peace, but wished also to save his honor. The legate’s absolution from his oath, not to make a separate peace from England, afforded him the means of retreating from an obligation which had begun to be burdensome. On the interposition of the Church Philip laid aside his vengeance for his father’s murder, and was reconciled to Charles VII of France on September 21. The treaty was made under the joint auspices of the Pope and the Council. Both claimed the credit of this pacification. Cesarini, when the news reached Basel, said that if the Council had sat for twenty years, and had done nothing more than this, it would have done enough to satisfy all gainsayers. But in spite of the Council’s claims it had won less prestige in France than had Eugenius IV, and France had no further hopes of political aid from its activity.

Thus the chief States of Europe had little to gain either from Pop or Council, and had no reason to take either side, when the struggle again broke out about the union with the Eastern Church. The letter of Eugenius IV, asking the princes of Europe to withdraw their countenance from the Council, met with no answer; but the Council had no zealous protector on whose help it could rely. The conflict thatensued was petty and ignoble.

The policy of Eugenius IV was to allure the Council to some Italian city where he could more easily manage to bring about its dissolution. In this he was helped by the desire of the Greeks to avoid a long journey overland, and his envoy Garatoni had continued to confirm them in their objection to go to Basel or to cross the Alps. The Council was fully alive to the Pope’s project, and hoped to prevail upon the Greeks, when once their journey was begun, to give way to their wishes. But the great practical difficulty which the Council had to face was one of finance. The cost of bringing the Greeks to Basel was computed at 71,000 ducats and their maintenance, which could not be reckoned at less than 200,000 ducats. Moreover, it would be needful that the Western Church should not be outdone by the Eastern in the number of prelates present at the Council. At least a hundred bishops must be summoned to Basel, and it might not be an easy matter to induce them to come. The sale of indulgences had not been productive of so rich a harvest as the Council had hoped. In Constantinople the Bull was not allowed to be published, and the Greeks were by no means favorably impressed by this proof of the Council's zeal. In Europe, generally, it had awakened dissatisfaction; it was a sign that the reforming Council was ready to use for its own purposes the abuses which it condemned in the Pope. Altogether, the Council had before it a difficult task to raise the necessary supplies and celebrate its conference with due magnificence in the face of the Pope’s opposition.

As a preliminary step towards raising money and settling the place of the conference, envoys were sent in May, 1436, to negotiate for loans in the various cities which had been mentioned. They were required to promise 70,000 ducats at once, and to undertake to make further advances it necessary. The envoys Greeks visited Milan, Venice, Florence, Siena, Buda, Vienna, Avignon, as well as France and Savoy. In August Venice offered any town in the patriarchate of Aquileia, the Duke of Milan any town in his dominions; both guaranteed the loan. Florence also offered herself. Siena was willing to receive the Council, but could not lend more than 30,000 ducats. The Duke of Austria was so impoverished by the Bohemian wars that he could not offer any money but would welcome the Council in Vienna. The citizens of Avignon were ready to promise all that the Council wished. During the month of November the representatives of Venice, Florence, Pavia, and Avignon harangued the Council in favour of their respective cities. Venice and Florence were clearly in favour of the Pope, and so were not acceptable to the Council. In Pavia the Council would be sure enough of the Duke of Milan's hostility to the Pope, but could not feel so confident of its own freedom from his interference. If the Greeks would not come to Basel, Avignon was, in the eyes of the majority, the most eligible place.

But though the majority might be of this opinion, there had been growing up in the Council a strong opposition. The undisguised hostility of the extreme party to the Pope had driven moderate men to acquiesce in the pretensions of Eugenius IV, and this question of the place of conference with the Greeks was fiercely contested on both sides. Cesarini had for some time felt that he was losing his influence over the Council, which followed the more democratic Cardinal d'Allemand. He now began to speak decidedly on the Pope's side. He argued with justice that Avignon was not specified in the agreement made with the Greeks; that the Pope's presence at the conference was necessary, if for no other reason, at least as a means of providing money; that if any help was to be given to the Greeks against the Turks the Pope alone could summon Europe to the work; finally, he urged that if the Pope and Council were in antagonism, union with the Greeks was rendered ridiculous. On these grounds he besought the Council to choose a place which was convenient for the Pope. There were angry replies, till on November lo Cesarini took the step of openly ranging himself on the Pope's side. He warned the Council that henceforth they were to regard him as a Papal legate, and sent a paper to all the deputations demanding that in future no conclusions be arrived at respecting the Roman See until he had first been heard at length on the matter.

But the dominant party was determined to have its own way and took measures to out-vote its opponents. It summoned the priests from the neighborhood and flooded the Council with its own creatures. On December 5 the votes were taken, and it was found that more than two-thirds of the Council, 242 out of 355, voted at the bidding of the Cardinal d'Allemand for Basel in the first instance; failing that, Avignon, and failing that, some place in Savoy. Basel had been already refused by the Greeks. The Duke of Savoy had not offered to provide money for the Council. The vote was really given for Avignon alone. Cesarini, in the Pope's name and in his own, protested against Avignon as not contained in the treaty made with the Greeks; if the Council refused to go to Italy there remained only Buda, Vienna, and Savoy as eligible; if the Council decided on Savoy, he would accept it as according to the agreement; beyond this he could not go. In spite of his written protest, the majority confirmed their vote by a decree in favour of Avignon.

At the beginning of February, 1437, the Greek ambassador, John Dissipatus, arrived in Basel, and was surprised to find that the Council had fixed on Avignon. He vainly pleaded that Avignon was not included in the decree which the Greeks had accepted, and when the Council paid no heed he handed in a protest on February 15. The Council requested him to accompany their envoys to Constantinople. He refused, declaring his intention of visiting the Pope and renewing his protest before him : if no remedy could be found he would publish to the world that the Council could not keep its promises. The majority at Basel was little moved by these complaints, save so far as they tended to strengthen the position of the minority which was working in favour of the Pope. Through fear of playing into their hands, a compromise was made on February 23. The Council decreed that the citizens of Avignon were to be required to pay, within thirty days, the 70,000 ducats which they had promised; a further term of twelve days was allowed them to bring proof of their payment to Basel; if this were not done in the appointed time the Council “could, and was bound” to proceed to the election of another place.

During the period of this truce arrived, on April 1, the Archbishop of Taranto, as a new Papal legate, accompanied by the Greeks who had visited the Pope at Bologna. His arrival gave a new turn to affairs. Cesarini was opposed, on grounds of practical wisdom, to the proceedings of the Council rather than decidedly in favour of the Pope; the Archbishop of Taranto entered the lists as a violent partisan, as energetic and as unscrupulous as was the Cardinal d'Allemand. He set to work to organize the Papal party and to devise a policy of resistance. Opportunity soon befriended him. As the term allowed to Avignon to pay its money drew near its close there was no news of any payment. Parties in favour of the Pope and the Council were formed amongst the burghers, and the disunion awakened the fears of the cautious merchants, who doubted whether the Council's presence within their walls would prove a profitable investment; they proposed to defer the full payment of the money till the actual arrival of the Greeks. On this the Papal party insisted that the agreement with Avignon was forfeited, and on April 12, the day on which the term expired, Cesarini exhorted the Council to proceed to the choice of another place. In his speech he used the words “the authority of the Apostolic See”; there was at once a shout of indignation, as it was thought that he hinted at the dissolution of the Council. The discussion was warm, and the sitting broke up in confusion.

The position assumed by the Archbishop of Taranto was that the decree of February 23 was rigidly binding; the contingency contemplated in it had actually occurred, and the Council was bound to make a new election. Nay, if some members of the Council refused to do so, he argued, from the analogy of a capitular election, that the power of the Council devolved on those who were ready to act—a numerical minority, if acting according to the law, could override a majority which acted illegally. The Papal party numbered about seventy votes, their opponents about two hundred; but the Archbishop of Taranto’s policy was to create a schism in the Council and destroy the power of the majority by the prestige of the ‘saner part’. Accordingly on April 17, when the deputations voted on the question of adhering to Avignon or choosing another place, the presidents in three of the deputations, being on the Papal side, refused the votes in favour of Avignon as technically incorrect, and returned the result of the voting as in favour of a new election. When the majority protested with shouts and execrations, the minority withdrew and allowed them to declare their vote in favour of Avignon. There was now a hopeless deadlock; the two parties sat separately, and the efforts of the German ambassadors and of the citizens of Basel were alike unavailing to restore concord

When agreement proved to be impossible, both sides prepared to fight out their contention to the end. On April 26 the majority published its decree abiding by Avignon; the minority published its choice of Florence or Udine, and asserted that henceforth the power of the Council, as regarded this question, was vested in those who were willing to keep their promise. In the wild excitement that prevailed suspicions were rife and violence was easily provoked. On the following Sunday, when the Cardinal of Arles proceeded to the Minster to celebrate mass, he found the altar already occupied by the Archbishop of Taranto, who suspected that the opportunity might be used of publishing the decree of the majority in the name of the Council, and who had resolved in that case to be beforehand. Loud cries and altercations were heard on all sides; only the crowded state of the cathedral, which prevented men from raising their arms, saved the scandal of open violence. The civic guards had to keep the peace between the combatants. Evening brought reflection, and both parties dreaded a new schism, and were appalled at the result which seemed likely to follow from a Council assembled to promote the peace of Christendom. Congregations were suspended, and for six days the best men of both parties conferred together to see if an agreement were possible; but all was in vain, because men were swayed by personal passion and motives of self-interest, and the violence of party-spirit entirely obscured the actual subject under discussion. Every one acted regretfully and remorsefully, but with the feeling that he had now gone too far to go back. The die had already been cast; the defeat of the Council involved the ruin of every one who had till now upheld it; to retreat a hair's breadth meant failure. Conferences brought to light no common grounds; matters must take their course, and the two divisions of the Council must find by experience which was the stronger.

On May 7, a day which many wished never to dawn, the rival parties strove in a solemn session to decree, in the name of the Council, their contradictory resolutions. In the early morning the Cardinal of Arles, clad in full pontificals, took possession of the altar, and the cathedral was filled with armed men. The legates arrived later, and even at the last moment both sides spoke of concord. It was proposed that, in case the Greeks would not come to Basel, the Council be held at Bologna, and the fortresses be put in the hands of two representatives of each side. Three times the Cardinals of Arles and of S. Peter's stood at the altar on the point of making peace; but they could not agree on the choice of the two who were to hold the fortresses. At twelve o'clock there were cries that it was useless to waste more time. Mass was said, and the Bishop of Albienra mounted the pulpit to read the decree of the majority. The hymn Veni Creator, which was the formal opening of the session, had begun; but it was silenced that again there might be negotiations for peace. Ali was in vain. The session opened, and the Bishop of Albienza began to read the decree. On the part of the minority the Bishop of Porto seized a secretary's table and began to read their decree, surrounded by a serried band of stalwart youths. One bishop shouted against the other, and the Cardinal of Arles stormed vainly, calling for order. The decree of the minority was shorter, and took less time in reading; as soon as it was finished the Papal party commenced the Te Deum. When their decree was finished, the opposite party sang the Te Deum. It was a scene of wild confusion in which violent partisans might triumph, but which filled with dismay and terror all who had any care for the future of the Church. Both parties felt the gravity of the crisis: both felt powerless to avert it. With faces pale from excitement, they saw a new schism declared in the Church.

Next day there was a contention about the seal of the Council, which Cesarini was found to have in his possession, and at first declined to give up. But the citizens of Basel insisted that it was their duty to see that the seal was kept in the proper place. On May 14 a compromise was made. The seal was put in custody of a commission of three, on condition that both decrees be sealed in secret; the Bull of the conciliar party was to be sent to Avignon, but not to be delivered till the money was paid by the citizens; if this was not done within thirty days the Bull was to be brought back; meanwhile the Bull of the Papal party was to remain in secret custody. Again there was peace for a while, which was broken on June 16 by the discovery that the box containing the conciliar seal had been tampered with, and the seal used by some unauthorized person. The discovery was kept secret, and the roads were watched to intercept any messengers to Italy. A man was taken bearing letters from the Archbishop of Taranto, which were produced before a general congregation. There was an outcry on both sides, one protesting against the seizure of the letters, the other against the false use of the Council’s seal. Twelve judges were appointed to examine into the matter. The letters, which were partly in cipher, were read, and the case against the Archbishop of Taranto was made good. He was put under arrest, and when the matter was laid before the Council on June 21 there was an unseemly brawl, which ended in the use of violent means to prevent an appeal to the Pope being lodged by the Archbishop’s proctor. On July 19 the Archbishop, surrounded by an armed troop, made his escape from Basel and fled to the Pope.

The majority in the Council of Basel might pass what decrees they would, but they had reckoned too much on their power over the Greeks. The Papal legates won over the Greek ambassadors, and sent them to Eugenius IV at Bologna. The Pope at once ratified the decree of the minority, fixed Florence or Udine as the seat of a future Council, and on May 30 issued a Bull to this effect. He wrote to all the princes of Christendom announcing his action. But Sigismund raised a protest against a Council being held in Italy, and the Duke of Milan strongly opposed the choice of Florence. Apparently wishing to avoid discussion for the present, Eugenius IV prevailed on the Greeks to defer till their arrival on the Italian coast the exact choice of the place. The Greek ambassador, John Dissipatus, solemnly declared in the Emperor's name, that he recognized as the Council of Basel, to which he had formed obligations, only the party of the legates, and that he accepted the decree of the minority as being the true decree of the Council. Eugenius IV hired at his own expense four Venetian galleys to convey the Greeks to Italy. Preparations were made with all possible speed, and on September 3 the Bishops of Digne and Porto, representing the minority of the Council, and Garatoni, now Bishop of Coron, on the part of the Pope, arrived in Constantinople. Claiming to speak in the name of the Pope and of the Council, they at once began to make preparations for the journey of the Greeks to Italy.

The assembly at Basel could not make its arrangements with Avignon quickly enough to compete on equal terms with the Pope. It had to face the usual disadvantages of a democracy when contending against a centralized power. Its hope of success with the Greeks lay in persuading them that the Council, and not the Pope, represented the Western Church, and was strong in the support of the princes of Western Europe. It determined again to proceed to the personal humiliation of Eugenius IV and so by assailing his power to render useless his dealings with the Greeks. On July 31 the Council issued a monition to Eugenius IV, setting forth that he did not loyally accept its decrees, that he endeavored to set at nought its labours for the reformation of the Church, that he wasted the patrimony of the Holy See, and would not work with the Council in the matter of union with the Greeks; it summoned him to appear at Basel within sixty days, personally or by proctor, to answer to these charges. This admonition was the first overt act towards a fresh schism. Sigismund and the German ambassadors strongly opposed it on that ground, and besought the Council to recall it. It was clear that the Council would meet with little support if it proceeded to extremities against the Pope. But in its existing temper it listened to the ambassadors of the King of Aragon and the Duke of Milan, the political adversaries of Eugenius IV, and paid little heed to moderate counsels; On September 26 it annulled the nomination to the cardinalate by Eugenius of the Patriarch of Alexandria, as being opposed to the decree that during the Council no Cardinal should be nominated elsewhere than at Basel. It also annulled the decree of the minority on May 7, by whatever authority it might be upheld, and took under its own protection the Papal city of Avignon.

In vain the Council tried to win over Sigismund to its side. Sigismund had gained by the submission of Bohemia all that he was likely to get from the Council. In Italian politics he had allied himself with Venice against his foe the Duke of Milan, and so was inclined to the Papal side. He wrote angrily to the Council on September 17, bidding them hold their hand in their process against the Pope. He reminded them that they had found the Church united by his long labour, and were acting in a way to cause a new schism. They had met to reform and pacify Christendom, and were on the way to do the very reverse; while wishing to unite the Greeks, they were engaged in dividing the Latins. If they did not cease from their seditious courses, he would be driven to undertake the defense of the Pope. The Council was somewhat dismayed at this letter; but the bolder spirits took advantage of current suspicions, and declared it to be a forgery, written in Basel, by the same hands as had forged the Council's Bulls. Passion outweighed prudence, and men felt that they had gone too far to withdraw; on October the Council declared Eugenius IV guilty of contumacy for not appearing to plead in answer to the charges brought against him.

On his side also Eugenius IV was not idle. He accepted the challenge of the Council, and on September 18 issued a Bull decreeing its dissolution. In the Bull he set forth his desire to work with the Council for union with the Greeks; in spite of all he could do they chose Avignon, though such a choice was null and void as not being included in the agreement previously made with the Greeks. Still, in spite of the default of Avignon to fulfill the conditions it had promised, the Council persevered in its choice. The legates, the great majority of prelates, royal ambassadors, and theologians, who made up the saner part of the Council, protested against the legality of this choice, and chose Florence or Udine, and at the request of the Greeks he had accepted their choice. The turbulent spirits in the Council, consisting of a few prelates who were animated partly by personal ambition and partly were the political tools of the King of Aragon and the Duke of Milan, gathered a crowd of the lower clergy, and under the specious name of reformation resisted the Pope, in spite of the Emperor’s remonstrances. To prevent scandals and to avoid further dissension, the Pope transferred the Council from Basel to Ferrara, which he fixed as the seat of an Ecumenical Council for the purpose of union with the Greeks. He allowed the fathers to remain at Basel for thirty days to end their dealings with the Bohemians; but if the Bohemians preferred to come to Ferrara, they should there have a friendly reception and full hearing.

The Council on October 12 annulled the Bull of Eugenius, on the ground of the superiority of a General Council over a Pope, and prohibited all under pain of excommunication from attending the pretended Council at Ferrara. It warned Eugenius IV that if he did not make amends within four months he would be suspended from his office, and that the Council would proceed to his deprivation.

Both Pope and Council had now done all they could to assert their superiority over each other. The first question was which of the two contending parties should gain the adhesion of the Greeks. The Papal envoys had arrived first at Constantinople, and their offers were best adapted to the convenience of the Greeks. When on October 4 the Avignonese galleys arrived off Constantinople with the envoys of the Council, the captain of the Papal galleys was with difficulty prevented from putting out to sea to oppose their landing.

The Greek Emperor was perplexed by two embassies, each brandishing contradictory decrees, and each declaring that it alone represented the Council.

Each party had come with excommunications ready prepared to launch against the other. This scandalous exhibition of discord, in the face of those whom both parties wished to unite to the Church, was only prevented by the pacific counsels of John of Ragusa, who had been for three years resident envoy of the Council in Constantinople, and had not been swallowed up by the violent wave of party-feeling which had passed over Basel. The Council's ambassadors proceeded at once to attack the claims of their opponents to be considered as the Council. They succeeded in reducing to great perplexity the luckless Emperor, who wanted union with the Latin Church as the price of military help from Western Europe, and only wished to find out to whom or what he was to be united. The Greeks were puzzled to decide whether the Pope would succeed in dissolving the Council, or the Council in deposing the Pope: they could not clearly see which side would have the political preponderance in the West. The two parties plied the Emperor in turn with their pleadings for a space of fifteen days. The Council had the advantage that the Greeks were already committed to an agreement with them. But the Papal party had diplomats who were adroit in clearing away difficulties. The Greeks ultimately decided to go with them to Italy, and the Emperor exhorted the Council's envoys to peace and concord, and invited them to accompany him to Venice. They refused with cries of rage and loud protestations, and on November 2 departed for Basel.

Now that the breach between Pope and Council was irreparable, and the Pope had won a diplomatic victory in his negotiations, both parties looked to Sigismund, who, however, refused to identify himself decidedly with either. He disapproved of the Pope's dissolution of the Council, from which he still expected some measures of ecclesiastical reform; on the other hand, he disapproved of the Council's proceedings against the Pope, which threatened a renewal of the schism. Eugenius IV had showed his willingness to conciliate Sigismund by allowing the Council in his Bull of dissolution to sit for thirty days to conclude its business with Bohemia; or, if the Bohemians wished, he was willing to receive their representatives at Ferrara. This was important to Sigismund and to the Bohemians, as it showed that the Pope accepted all that had been done in reference to the Bohemian question, and was ready to adopt the Council’s policy in this matter.

Sigismund had indeed reason to be content with the result which he had won. His restoration to Bohemia had been accomplished, and he had organized a policy of reaction which seemed likely to be successful. On August 23, 1436, his entry into Prague had been like a triumphal procession. He lost no time in appointing new magistrates, all of them chosen from the extremely moderate party. The legates of the Council were always by his side to maintain the claims of the Church. Bishop Philibert of Coutances began a series of aggressions on the episcopal authority in Bohemia. He asserted his right to officiate in Rokycana’s church without asking his permission; he held confirmations and consecrated altars and churches in virtue of his superior office as legate of the Council. The Bohemians, on their part, waited for the fulfillment of Sigismund's promises, and the knights refused to surrender the lands of the Church until they were satisfied. Sigismund was bound to write to the Council, urging the recognition of Rokycana as Archbishop of Prague; but he told the legates that he trusted the Council would find some good pretext for delay. “I have promised”, he said, “that till he dies I will hold no other than Rokycana as archbishop; but I believe that some of the Bohemians will kill him, and then I can have another archbishop”. It is clear that Sigismund knew how to manage a reaction, knew the inevitable loss of popularity which a party leader suffers if he makes concessions and does not immediately gain success. Rokycana was looked upon as a traitor by the extreme party, and as a dangerous man by the moderate party. We are not surprised to find that in October rumours were rife of a conspiracy organized in Rokycana’s house against the Emperor and the legates. Inquiries were made, and without being directly accused Rokycana was driven to defend himself, and then his defense was declared to be in itself suspicious.

Rokycana seems to have felt his position becoming daily more insecure. On October 24 he paid his first visit to the legates to try and find out their views about the confirmation of his title of archbishop. The legates received him haughtily, and talked about the restoration of various points of ritual whichthe Bohemians had cast aside. “You talk only about trifles”, said Rokycana impatiently; “more serious matters need your care”. “You say truly”, exclaimed John of Palomar, with passion; “there are more serious matters: for you deceive the people, and can no more give them absolution than this stick, for you have not the power of the keys, seeing you have no apostolic mission”. This bold onslaught staggered Rokycana, who repeated the words of Palomar in amazement, and said that the people would be indignant at hearing them; he would consult his fellow-priests. One of his followers warned the legates that they and the Emperor were becoming unpopular through their refusal to confirm Rokycana’s election as archbishop. Rokycana withdrew with a bitter feeling of helplessness.

The legates on November 8 pressed the Emperor to take further measures for the Catholic restoration. They had now been two months in Bohemia, they urged, and little had been done. The Communion was given to children, the Epistle and Gospel were read in Bohemian and not in Latin, the use of holy water and the kiss of peace was not restored, and toleration was not given to those whocommunicated under one kind. All this was contrary to the observance of the Compacts, and the kingdom of Bohemia was still infected with the heresy of Wycliffe. Sigismund angrily answered, “I was once a prisoner in Hungary, and save then I never was so wearied as I am now; indeed, my present captivity seems likely to be longer”. He begged the legates to be patient till the meeting of the Diet. He was engaged in treating with Tabor and Koniggratz, which were still opposed to him and he needed time to overcome their resistance. Tabor agreed to submit its differences to arbitration; Koniggratz was reduced by arms.

On November 27 the legates and Rokycana came to a conference on the disputed points in the Emperor’s presence. Rokycana demanded the clear and undoubted Confirmation of the Compacts; the legates the reestablishment of the Catholic ritual. There were many difficulties raised and much discussion; but Rokycana found himself abandoned by the masters of the University, and opposed by the city magistrates and the nobles. He gave way unwillingly on all the points raised by the legates except the Communion of children and the reading of the Epistle and Gospel in Bohemian. On December 23 the Catholic ritual was restored in all the churches in Prague; the use of holy water and the kiss of peace was resumed, and images which had been cast down were again set up in their former places. Still, Bishop Philibert abode in Prague, and exercised the office of Bishop. On February II, 1437, the Empress Barbara was crowned Queen of Bohemia by Philibert, and Rokycana was not even bidden to the ceremony.

On February 13 the legates at last received from the Council the Bull of ratification of the Compacts of Iglau. Together with it came an admonition to the Emperor not to tolerate the Communion of children. He was urged also to restore the Catholic ritual throughout Bohemia, and to hand over to the Council Peter Payne, who maintained the Wycliffite doctrine that the substance of bread remained in the Eucharist. When the ratification was shown to Rokycana, he demanded that there should also be issued a letter to the princes of Christendom freeing Bohemia from all charge of heresy. He brought forward also the old complaint that many priests refused to give the sacrament under both kinds; he demanded that the legates should order them to do so, should enjoin the bishops to see that the clergy obeyed their command, and should request the Bishop of Olmutz himself to administer under both kinds. The legates answered that the letter clearing the Bohemians had already been issued at Iglau; for the future the Bohemians, by observing the Compacts, would purge themselves in the eyes of all men better than any letter could do it for them. To the other part of his request they answered that they would admonish any priest who was proved to have refused the Communion under both kinds to any one who desired it; they could not ask the Bishop of Olmutz to administer the Communion himself, but only to appoint priests who were ready to do so. This was the utmost that Rokycana could procure, in spite of repeated renewal of his complaints.

The reaction went on with increasing strength. The rest of Bohemia followed the example of Prague, and restored the Catholic ritual. Sigismund set up again in the Cathedral of Prague the old capitular foundation with all its splendor. The monks began to return to Prague; relics of the saints were again exposed for popular adoration. In this state of affairs representatives of Bohemia were summoned to Basel to discuss further the question of the necessity or expediency of receiving the Communion under both kinds. Sigismund, wishing to rid himself of Rokycana, urged him to go. Rokycana steadily refused, knowing that at Basel he would only meet with coldness, and that during his absence from Prague the triumph of the reaction would be assured. On April 7, Procopius of Pilsen, in the Emperor’s presence, bade Rokycana remember that he had been the leader in former negotiations with the Council. “You are experienced in the matter”, he said; “you have no right to refuse”.“Procopius”, said Rokycana, forgetting where he was, “remember how our party fared at Constance; we might fare in like manner, for I know that I am accused and hated at Basel”. “Think you”, said Sigismund angrily, “that for you or for this city I would do anything against mine honour?”. It was so long since Sigismund had broken his plighted word to Hus that he had forgotten that it was even possible for others to remember it.

Though Rokycana stayed in Prague, he was systematically set aside in ecclesiastical matters. On April 12 Bishop Philibert appointed rural deans throughout Bohemia, and charged them how to carry out their duties; Rokycana was not even consulted. The church in which Rokycana preached was given to the Rector of the University, who was inducted by the legate. Peter Payne was banished by Sigismund from Bohemia as a heretic, and an opportunity against Rokycana was eagerly looked for. This was given by a sermon preached on May 5, about the Communion of children, in which he said that to give up this practice would be a confession of previous error and of present instability of purpose. “Too many now condemn what once they praised. But you, poor children, lament. What have you done amiss that you should be deprived of the Communion? Who will answer for you? Who will defend you? Now no one heeds”. Mothers lifted their voices, and wept over the wrongs of their children, and that was judged sufficient to establish against Rokycana a charge of inciting the people to sedition. The Diet demanded that some steps should be taken to administer the archbishopric of Prague; and Sigismund’s influence with the moderate party was strong enough to obtain on June 11 the election ofChristiann of Prachatic to the office of Vicar of the Archbishopric. Rokycana on being asked to surrender the seal and submit to Christiann as his spiritual superior, judged it wise to flee from Pragueon June 16.

The exile of Rokycana was the triumph of the moderate party, the Utraquists pure and simple, who wished for entire union with the Church, but who were still staunch in upholding the principles of a reformed Church for Bohemia. Envoys were sent off to Basel to end the work of reconciliation and settle the points which still were disputed. On August 18 the envoys, chief amongst whom were the priests John Pribram and Procopius of Pilsen, entered Basel with great magnificence. Pribram in his first speech to the Council demanded that the Communion under both kinds should be fully granted, not only in Bohemia and Moravia, but universally, seeing that it was the truth of God's law. Pribram and John of Palomar argued learnedly for many days on the subject; but Pribram felt that he met with little attention from the Council. One day he angrily met the suspicious coolness which surrounded him by declaring that the Bohemians had never been heretical, but had always remained in the unity of the faith; if any one said otherwise, they were ready to answer with their steel as they had done in past. When Pribram had ended his disputation, Procopius of Pilsen advocated the Communion of children with no better success.

At last, on October 20, the Bohemians submitted nine demands to the Council, which deserve mention as Demand, showing the ultimate point arrived at by these long negotiations;

1) That the Communion under both kinds be granted to Bohemia and Moravia;

2) that the Council declare this concession to be more than a mere permission given for the purpose of avoiding further mischief;

3) that the Church of Prague be provided with an archbishop and two suffragans, who should be approved by the realm;

4) that the Council issue letters clearing the good name of Bohemia;

5) that in deciding whether the Communion under both kinds be of necessary precept or not, the Council adhere to the authorities mentioned in the Compact of Eger, the law of God, the practice of Christ and the Apostles, general councils and doctors founded on the law of God;

6) that the Communion of children be allowed;

7) that at least the Epistle, Gospel, and Creed in the mass service be said in the vulgar tongue;

8) that the University of Prague be reformed and have some prebends and benefices attached to it;

9) that the Council proceed to the effectual reformation of the Church in head and members.

Pribram besought that these be granted, especially the Gospel truth concerning the Sacrament. “The kingdom of Bohemia is ready”, he added, “as experience has shown, to defend and assert this even by thousands of deaths”. Great was the indignation of the Bohemians when, on November 6, Cesarini exhorted them to conform to the ritual of the universal Church as regarded the Communion of the laity under one kind only; still, he added, the Council was willing to stand by the Compacts.

Cesarini had gone too far in thus openly showing the policy of the Council to reduce the Bohemians to accept again the Catholic ritual. It required some management on the part of other members of the Council to allay their indignation. On November 24 the Council gave a formal answer to the Bohemian requests. As regarded the necessity of the Communion under both kinds the point had now been argued fully; it only remained for them to join with the Council and accept its declaration on the subject as inspired by the Holy Ghost. Their other points had either been already settled by the Compacts or were favours which might afterwards be discussed by the Council. This was of course equivalent to a refusal to grant anything beyond the bare letter of the Compacts. The Bohemian moderates saw themselves entirely deceived in their hopes of obtaining universal tolerance for their beliefs. The Council would grant nothing more than a special favour to Bohemia and Moravia to continue to use the ritual which they had adopted, until such time as it could safely be prohibited. In vain the Bohemians asked that at least they should not be sent away entirely empty-handed, lest it be a cause of fresh disturbances. They could get no better answer, and left Basel on November 29. In spite of Cesarini’s remonstrance against the imprudence of such a step, the Council on December 23 issued a decree that the Communion under both kinds was not a precept of Christ, but the Church could order the method of its reception as reverence and the salvation of the faithful seemed to require. The custom of communicating under one kind only has been reasonably introduced by the Church and was to be regarded as the law, nor might it be changed without the Church's authority.

In Bohemia the disappointment of the expectations which the great mass of the people still retained caused growing irritation, and seemed likely to lead to afresh outbreak. Moreover, Sigismund's declining health gave an occasion to the ambitious schemes of those of his own household. Sigismund had no son, but his only daughter was married to Albert of Austria; and the fondest wish of Sigismund's declining years was that Albert should succeed to all his dignities and possessions. But the Empress Barbara had already tasted the sweets of power and was unwilling to retire into obscurity. She and her relatives, the Counts of Cilly, raised up a party among the Bohemian barons with the object of elevating Ladislas of Poland to the thrones of Bohemia and Hungary, and marrying him, though still a youth, to Barbara, in her fifty-fourth year. Sigismund discovered this plot and felt the danger of his position. He was seized with erysipelas, and had to submit to the amputation of his big toe. His one desire was toquit Bohemia and secure Albert’s succession in Hungary. Concealing his knowledge of what was passing around him, he left Prag on November, borne in an open litter and dressed in the imperial robes. He was accompanied by the Empress and the Count of Cilly, and on November 21 reached Znaym, where Albert and his wife Elizabeth awaited him. There he ordered Barbara to be imprisoned, but the Count of Cilly had timely warning and escaped. At Znaym Sigismund summoned to his presence several of the chief barons of Bohemia and Hungary, and urged on them the advantages to be gained by uniting both lands under one rule; he warmly recommended to their support the claims of Albert. This was his last effort. Feeling his malady grow worse, he was true to the last to that love of dramatic effect which was so strong a feature of his character. He wished to die like an emperor. Attired in the imperial robes, with his crown on his head, he heard mass on the morning of December 9. When mass was over he ordered grave clothes to be put on over the imperial vesture, and sitting on his throne awaited death, which overtook him in the evening. He was left seated for three days according to his command, “that men might see that the lord of all the world was dead and gone”. Then his corpse was carried to Grosswardein and buried in the resting-place of the Hungarian kings.

The facile pen of Eneas Sylvius gives us the following vigorous description of Sigismund: “He was tall, with bright eyes, broad forehead, pleasantly rosy cheeks, and a long thick beard. He had a large mind and formed many plans, but was changeable. He was witty in conversation, given to wine and women, and thousands of love intrigues are laid to his charge. He was prone to anger, but ready to forgive. He could not keep his money, but spent it lavishly. He made more promises than he kept, and often deceived”. These words are a fair representation of the impression produced on his contemporaries by this mighty lord of all the world. With all his faults, and they were many, on the whole men loved and esteemed him.

No doubt vanity was the leading feature of Sigismund’s character; but it was the dignified vanity of always seeming to act worthily of his high position. He would have been ludicrous with his dramatic strut had not his geniality and keenness of wit imposed on those who came in his way, and so saved him from hopeless absurdity. It is easy to mock at Sigismund's undertakings, at his pretensions as compared with the results which he achieved; but it is impossible not to feel some sympathy even for the weaknesses of an Emperor who strove to realize the waning idea of the empire, and whose labours were honestly directed to the promotion of the peace and union of Christendom. Sigismund possessed in perfection all the lesser arts of sovereignty; kindly, affable, and ready in speech, he could hold his own amidst any surroundings. His schemes, however chimerical they might seem, were founded on a large sympathy with the desires and needs of Europe as a whole. He laboured for the unity of Christendom, the restoration of European peace, and the reformation of the Church. Even when he spoke of combining Europe in a crusade against the Turks, his aim, however chimerical, was proved by the result to be right. But Sigismund had not the patience nor the wisdom to begin his work from the beginning. He had not the self-restraint to husband his resources; to undertake first the small questions which concerned the kingdoms under his immediate sway, to aim only at one object at a time, and secure each step before advancing to the next. Relying on his position, he caught at every occasion of displaying his own importance, and his vanity led him to trust that he would succeed by means of empty display. Hence his plans hampered one another. He destroyed his position at the Council of Constance by a change of political attitude resulting from a futile attempt to bring about peace between England and France. He induced Bohemia to think that its religious interests were safe in his keeping, and then trusted to repress its religious movement by the help of the Council of Constance. When he had driven Bohemia to revolt, he oscillated between a policy of conciliation and one of repression till matters had passed beyond his control. He lost his command of the Council of Basel because he entered into relations with the Pope, who was bent upon its overthrow. His schemes of ecclesiastical reform slipped from his grasp, and after spending his early years in extinguishing one schism, he lived to see the beginning of another. Few men with such wise plans and such good intentions have so conspicuously failed.

The death of Sigismund removed the only man who might averted an open outbreak between Eugenius IV and the Council of Basel. Both sides now proceeded to extremities. On December 30 Eugenius IV published a Bull declaring the Council to be transferred from Basel to Ferrara. At Basel Cesarini made one last attempt to bring back peace to the distracted Church. On December 20, in an eloquent speech breathing the true spirit of Christian statesmanship, he pointed out the evils that would follow from a schism. Farewell to all hopes of a real union with the Greeks, of real missionary enterprise against the Mohammedans, who were the serious danger to Christendom. He besought the Council, ere it was too late, to recall its admonition to the Pope, provided he would recall his translation of the Council: then let them send envoys to meet the Greeks on their arrival in Italy, and propose to them to come to Basel, Avignon, or Savoy—failing that, let them frankly join with the Pope and the Greeks in the choice of a place which would suit all parties. He offered himself as ready to do his utmost to mediate for such a result. But Cesarini spoke to deaf ears. The control of the Council had passed entirely into the hands of Cardinal d'Allemand, who was committed to a policy of war to the bitter end. A ponderous reply to Cesarini was prepared by the Archbishop of Palermo, a mass of juristic subtleties which dealt with everything except the great point at issue.

Cesarini saw the entire disappointment of the hopes which six years before had been so strong in his breast at the opening of the Council. He had longed for peace and reform; he saw, instead, discord and self-seeking. The Council, which ought to have promoted the welfare of Christendom, had become an engine of political attack upon the Papacy. The noble, generous, and large-minded aims of Cesarini had long been forgotten at Basel. The reformation which he projected had passed into revolution, which he could no longer control nor moderate. He shared the fate of many other reformers at many times of the world’s history. The movement which he had awakened passed into violent hands, and the end of his labours for peace and order was anarchy and discord. With a sad heart he confessed his failure, and on January 9, 1438, he left Basel amid demonstrations of respect from his opponents. At the request of the Pope and all the Cardinals he went to Florence, where he was received with honour and lived for a time in quietness and study.

At Basel Cardinal d'Allemand was appointed president in Cesarini’s stead. The Council on January 24 took the next step in its process against Eugenius IV. It decreed that, as he had not appeared to plead within the appointed time, he was thenceforth suspended from his office; meanwhile the administration of the Papacy belonged to the Council, and all acts done by Eugenius were null and void. Sixteen bishops were present at this session, of whom nine were Savoyards, six Aragonese, and one Frenchman. Of the eighteen abbots who were there, eleven were Aragonese and six were Savoyards. The Council was, in fact, supported only by the King of Aragon and the Dukes of Milan and Savoy. The Duke of Savoy hoped to use it for his personal aggrandizement. The King of Aragon and the Duke of Milan saw in it a means of forcing Eugenius IV into subserviency to their political schemes in Italy. Neither of them was prepared to support the deposition of the Pope, but they wished the process against him to be a perpetual threat hanging over his head. The rest of the European powers looked with disapproval, more or less strongly expressed, on the proceedings of the Council. Henry VI of England wrote a letter addressed to the Congregation (not the Council) of Basel, in which he reproved them for presuming to judge the Pope, denounced them for bringing back the times of Antichrist, and bade them desist from the process against Eugenius. Charles VII of France wrote to the Council to stay its measures against the Pope, and wrote to the Pope to withdraw his decrees against the Council; he forbade his bishops to attend the Council of Ferrara, but allowed individuals to act as they pleased at Basel. His purpose was to regulate ecclesiastical matters in France at his own pleasure. In Germany, Sigismund’s policy of mediation survived after his death; men wished to avoid a schism, but to obtain through the Council some measures of reform. The Kings of Castile and Portugal and the Duke of Burgundy all admonished the Council to withdraw from their proceedings against Eugenius.

The quarrel of the Pope and the Council now ceased to attract the attention of Europe; it had degenerated into a squabble in which both parties were regarded with something approaching contempt. But this condition of affairs was full of danger to the future of the organisation of the Church.

CHAPTER VIII.

EUGENIUS IV IN FLORENCE AND THE UNION OF THE GREEK

1434—1439.

Since his flight from Rome in 1434, Eugenius IV has merely appeared as offering such resistance as he could to the growing pretensions of the Council. During the four years that had passed from that time he had been quietly gaining strength and importance in Italy. True to her old traditions, Florence graciously received the exiled Pope; and under the shadow of her protection, Eugenius IV, like his predecessor Martin V, had been able to recruit his shattered forces and again reestablish his political position.

At first his evil genius seemed still to pursue Eugenius IV, and he played a somewhat ignominious part in Florentine affairs. The time when he arrived in Florence was a great crisis in Florentine history. The prudent conduct of Giovanni de' Medici had preserved the internal peace of Florence by carefully maintaining a balance between the aristocratic and popular parties in the city. But between his son Cosimo and his political rival Rinaldo degli Albizzi a bitter hostility gradually grew up which could only end in the supremacy of the one or the other party. The first step was taken by Rinaldo, who, in September, 1433, filled the city with his adherents; Cosimo was taken unawares, was accused of treason, cast into prison, and only by a skillful use of his money succeeded in escaping death. He went as an exile to Venice; but his partisans were strong in Florence, the city was divided, and a reaction in his favour set in. It was clear that the new magistrates who came into office on September 1, 1434, would recall him from banishment, and Rinaldo and his party were prepared to offer forcible resistance. On September 26 Florence was in a ferment, and Rinaldo degli Albizzi, with 800 armed men, held the Palace of the Podesta and the streets which led to the Piazza. Eugenius IV in this condition of affairs offered his services as mediator. He sent Giovanni Vitelleschi, Bishop of Recanati, to Rinaldo, who, to the surprise of every one, was persuaded to leave his position and confer with the Pope at S. Maria Novella. It was one o'clock in the morning when he did so. What arguments the Pope may have used we do not know; but at five o'clock Rinaldo dismissed his armed men and remained peaceably with the Pope. Perhaps he was not sure of the fidelity of his adherents, and trusted that, by a show of submission, he might, with the Pope’s help, obtain better terms than the doubtful chances of a conflict seemed to promise.

His enemies at once pursued the advantage thus offered to them. The Signori sent some of their number to thank the Pope for his good offices, and whatever may have been the first intention of Eugenius IV, he was soon won over to abandon Rinaldo. On October 2 the party of the Medici filled the Piazza and decreed the recall of Cosimo. Next day Rinaldo and his son were banished. The Pope attempted to console Rinaldo, and protested the uprightness of his own intentions and the pain which he felt at the failure of his mediation.

“Holy Father”, answered Rinaldo, “I do not wonder at my ruin; I blame myself for believing that you, who have been driven out of your own country, could keep me in mine. He who trusts a priest's word is like a blind man without a guide”.

Sadly Rinaldo left Florence for ever, and on October 6, Cosimo de' Medici returned in triumph amid shouts that hailed him father of his country. From that day forward for three hundred years the fortunes of Florence were identified with those of the house of Medici.

In his abode at Florence things gradually began to take a better turn for Eugenius IV. The rebellious Romans, who had proudly sent their envoys to Basel announcing that they had recovered their liberties and that the days of Brutus had returned, began to find themselves in straits. The Papal troops still held the castle of S. Angelo and bombarded the town; their commander also by a stratagem took prisoners several of the Roman leaders. The people soon turned to thoughts of peace and submission, and on October 28 Giovanni Vitelleschi, at the head of the Pope's condottieri, took possession of the city in the Pope’s name, and put to death the chief leaders of the rebellion. Moreover, Venice and the Pope renewed their league against the Duke of Milan, appointed Francesco Sforza as their general, and sent him against the Duke's condottiere general, Fortebracchio, who had occupied the neighborhood of Rome. Fortebracchio was routed and slain, whereon the Duke of Milan found it advisable to come to terms. On August 10, 1435, peace was made, leaving Eugenius IV master of the Patrimony of S. Peter and the Romagna, while Francesco Sforza obtained the lordship of the March of Ancona. The Duke of Milan also withdrew his aid from the rebellious Bologna, which on September 27 submitted to the Pope. Even in Florence Eugenius IV was not safe from the machinations of the Duke of Milan. A Roman adventurer, named Riccio, obtained the connivance of the Milanese ambassador at Florence, the Bishop of Novara, to a plot for seizing the person of Eugenius when he retired into the country before the summer heat. The city magistrates discovered the plot, and Riccio was tortured and put to death. The Bishop of Novara abjectly prayed for pardon from Eugenius; and the Pope granted his life to the entreaty of Cardinal Albergata, who was just setting out as Papal legate to the Congress of Arras. Albergata took the Bishop of Novara to Basel, where he remained as one of the bitterest opponents of Eugenius IV.

In another quarter the affairs of the kingdom of Naples afforded a scope for the activity of Eugenius IV. The feeble Queen Giovanna II continued to the end of her reign to be the puppet of those around her. Even her chief favorite, Caraccioli, could not retain his hold upon her changeful mind. He saw his influence fail before the intrigues of the Queen's cousin, the Duchess of Suessa, who at length succeeded in obtaining the Queen's permission to proceed against her over-weening favourite. On August 17, 1432, Caraccioli celebrated magnificently his son's marriage; in the night a message was brought to him that the Queen was dying, and wished to see him. Hurriedly he rose, and opened his door to a band of conspirators, who rushed upon him and slew him on his bed. Giovanna wept over his death, and pardoned those who wrought it. His mighty tomb in the Church of San Giovanni Carbonara is worthy of a more heroic character. Three knightly figures of Strength, Skill, and Justice bear the sarcophagus on which stands Caraccioli as a warrior. The tomb is in the vast style of the old Neapolitan work; but in its execution we see the delicacy of Tuscan feeling and the hand of Florentine artists. The way is already prepared for the later flow of the Renaissance motives into the rude regions of Naples.

On Caraccioli’s death Louis of Anjou prepared to return to Naples; but the imperious Duchess of Suessa preferred to exercise undivided sway over her feeble mistress. The death of Louis, in November, 1434, awakened the activity of Alfonso of Aragon; but Giovanna II would not recognize him as her heir, and made a will in favour of René, Count of Provence, the younger brother of Louis of Anjou. On February 2, 1435, Giovanna II died, at the age of 65, worn out before her time; one of the worst and most incapable of rulers that ever disgraced a throne. On her death the inevitable strife of the parties of Anjou and Aragon again broke out. René claimed the throne by Giovanna’s will, Alfonso of Aragon put forward Giovanna’s previous adoption of himself, and the claims of the house of Aragon. But Eugenius IV put forth also the claims of the Papacy. The Angevin line had originally come to Sicily at the Papal summons, and had received the kingdom as a papal fief. Eugenius IV asserted that on the failure of the direct line in Giovanna II the kingdom of Sicily devolved to the Pope. He appointed as his legate to administer the affairs of the kingdom Giovanni Vitelleschi, who had been created Patriarch of Alexandria. Little heed was paid to the Pope's claims. Alfonso’s fleet vigorously besieged Gaeta, which was garrisoned by Genoese soldiers to protect their trade during the time of warfare. Genoa, at that time under the signory of the Duke of Milan, equipped a fleet to raise the siege of Gaeta, and on August 5 a battle was fought off the isle of Ponza, in which the Genoese were completely victorious. Alfonso and his two brothers, together with the chief barons of Aragon and Sicily, were taken prisoners.

Italy was shaken to its very foundations by the news of this victory, of which the Duke of Milan would reap the fruit. It seemed to give him the means of making himself supreme in Italian politics. But the jealous temper of Filippo Maria Visconti looked with distrust on this signal victory which Genoa had won. His first proceeding was to humble the pride of the city by depriving it of the glory of bringing home in triumph its illustrious captives. He ordered Alfonso and the rest to be sent from Savona to Milan, and on their arrival treated them with courtesy and respect. Alfonso’s adventurous and varied life had given him large views of politics and great experience of men. He recognized the gloomy and cautious spirit of Filippo Maria, who loved to form plans in secret, who trusted no one, but used his agents as checks one upon another. In the familiarity of friendly intercourse, Alfonso put before the Duke political considerations founded upon a foresight which was beyond the current conceptions of the day. “If René of Anjou”, he argued, “were to become King of Naples, he would do all he could to open communications with France, and for this purpose to establish the French power in Milan. If I were to become King of Naples I should have no enemies to dread save the French; and it would be my interest to live on good terms with Milan, which could at any moment open the way to my foes. The title of king would be mine, but the authority would be yours. With me at Naples you will remain a free prince; otherwise you will be between two strong powers, an object of suspicion and jealousy to both”.

The state system of Italy was already so highly organized that arguments such as these weighed with the Duke of Milan, and he determined to forego all thoughts of present glory for future safety. Instead of treating Alfonso as a captive, he entered into an alliance with him, gave him his liberty and ordered Genoa to restore his captured ships. Alfonso was sufficiently keen-sighted to perceive, and Filippo Maria was sufficiently prudent to recognize, the danger that would arise to Italian independence from the centralization of the French monarchy and the power of the house of Austria. They devised a scheme for neutralizing this danger. The idea of a balance of power in Italy, founded on identity of interest between Milan and Naples, which was to keep Italy in peace and exclude all interference from beyond the Alps, began from this time forward to be a central point in Italian politics.

The immediate result of this policy was that Genoa, indignant at the slight thus cast upon her, revolted from Milan, and joined the league of Florence, Venice, and the Pope. Eugenius IV, alarmed at the alliance between Alfonso and the Duke of Milan, withdrew his own claims on Naples, and espoused the cause of René, who was a prisoner of the Duke of Burgundy but was represented in Naples by his wife, Elizabeth of Lorraine. Neither she nor Alfonso had any resources at their command, and the war was carried on between the rival factions in the realm. We have seen that Alfonso was anxious to minimize the help which the Pope could give his rival, by supplying him with sufficient occupation in the affairs proceeding at Basel.

When Eugenius IV had recruited his shattered fortunes by an abode of nearly two years in Florence, he left it for his own city of Bologna, on April 18, 1436. Before his departure he consecrated the stately Duomo of Florence, which had just received its crowning ornament of Brunelleschi’s mighty dome, and was again ready for divine service. The city wished that the ceremonial should be befitting of its splendour. A scaffolding, adorned with carpets, was erected from S. Maria Novella to the Duomo, on which Eugenius IV walked in state, the gonfaloniere of the city bearing his train.

On April 22 Eugenius I entered Bologna with nine Cardinals, and was soon followed by two others from Basel. The Papal government of Bologna had not been such as to win the affections of the people. The legate, the Bishop of Concordia, had proclaimed a general pacification, on the strength of which Antonio de' Bentivogli, after fifteen years' exile, returned to the city which he had once ruled. He had not been there three weeks when he was seized as he left the chapel where the legate had been saying mass. He was gagged, and immediately beheaded by order of the Pope’s Podesta, as was also Tommaso de' Zambeccari. The only reason assigned for this treacherous act was dread of the number of their followers. The cruelty and tyranny of the Podesta made the Papal rule hateful in the city. Nor did Eugenius IV do anything to mend this state of things. He was busied with his negotiations with the Council and with the Greeks. The only attention which he paid to the citizens of Bologna was to extort from them 30,000 ducats by holding out hopes of summoning his Council thither. When the citizens found themselves disappointed they looked with scarce concealed discontent on the Pope's departure for Ferrara on January 23, 1438. Scarcely had he gone when Niccoli Piccinino, the Duke of Milan's general, appeared before Bologna. On the night of May 20 the gates were opened to him by the citizens. Faenza, Imola, and Forli joined in the revolt, and the greater part of Romagna was again lost to the Pope.

This was, however, of small moment to Eugenius IV. His attention was entirely fixed on the Council of Ferrara, through which he hoped to win back all that of the he had lost. The union of the Greek Church was to reinstate the Papacy in its position in the eyes of Europe; the Pope was again to appear as the leader of Christendom in a great crusade for the protection of Constantinople. It is a melancholy spectacle that is offered to our view. The Eastern Empire, with its splendid traditions of past glories, has sunk to be a cat’s-paw in the ecclesiastical squabbles of the West. The trembling Greeks are ready to disavow their religious convictions to obtain help from their Western brethren. The States of Europe are so rent by intestine struggles, or are so bent upon purely selfish ends, that they are incapable of understanding the menace to European civilization contained in the establishment of the Turks on this side of the Bosphorus. The Greeks cannot appeal to any feeling of European patriotism, or to any considerations of political wisdom. Only through the semblance of an ecclesiastical reconciliation can they hope to awaken any interest for their cause in Western Europe. At the last moment they see the Western Church itself distracted by contending parties; they engage desperately in a sacrifice of their convictions, which they half feel will avail them nothing.

The causes of the separation between the Churches were national rather than religious. The beliefs and rites of the two Churches did not materially differ. But the political development of the East and West had been different. In East, the Imperial autocracy had maintained and strengthened its power over the Church; in the West, where the Teutons had weakened the fabric of the Imperial system, the Pope, as supreme head of the Western Church, had won an independent position for his authority. It is true that the Greek view of Purgatory differed somewhat from that of the Latins, that they used leavened and not unleavened bread for the Host, and that they did not adopt the addition of the words “and from the Son” (Filioque) to the clause of the Nicene Creed which defines the procession of the Holy Ghost. But no vital point was concerned in any of these differences. The real disagreement was that the Papacy strove to assert over the Eastern Church a supremacy which that Church was unwilling to admit. The ill-feeling created by the claim of Pope Nicolas I in 863, to interfere as supreme judge in the question of the election of the Patriarch of Constantinople, simmered on till it produced a formal rupture in 1053, when Leo IX at Hildebrand's suggestion excommunicated the Greek Patriarch. Round its ecclesiastical establishment the narrow spirit of Greek nationality centred, and the Greeks were ready in every sphere to assert their superiority to the barbarous Latins. In the time of their distress their pride was humbled if their minds were not convinced. They were ready to sacrifice the traditions of the past, which they still held firmly in their hearts, to the pressing need for present aid. It is sad to see the feeble representatives of an ancient civilization lowering themselves before the Papacy in its abasement.

On November 24, 1437, the Greek Emperor, John Palaeologus, his brother, the Patriarch, and twenty-two bishops, went on board the Papal galleys and set sail for Italy. Though the Greeks journeyed at the Pope’s expense, yet the Emperor, in his anxiety to display fitting magnificence, converted into money the treasures of the Church. An earthquake, which occurred at the time of his departure, was looked upon as an evil omen by the people who with heavy hearts saw the ships quit the harbour. After many perils and discomforts on the way, the Greeks reached Venice on February 1438, and were magnificently received by the Doge, who went out to meet them in the Bucentaur, which was decked with red carpets and awnings wrought with gold embroidery, while gold lions were standing on the prow. The rowers were clad in uniforms richly wrought with gold, and on their caps was embroidered the image of S. Mark. With the Doge came the Senate in twelve other splendid ships, and there was such a multitude of boats that the sea could scarce be seen. Amid the clang of trumpets the Emperor was escorted to the palace of the Marquis of Ferrara, near the Rialto, where he abode. The amazement of the Greeks at the splendour of Venice is the most striking testimony to the decay of their own noble city. “Venice splendid and great”, says Phranza, “truly wonderful, yea most wonderful, rich, variegated and golden, trimly built and adorned, worthy of a thousand praises, wise, yea most wise, so that one would not be wrong in calling it the second land of promise”.

For twenty days the Greeks remained in Venice. The Doge offered them hospitality as long as they chose, and advised them to see whether they could get better terms from the Pope or from the Council. There was not much difference of opinion on this point. Three only of the Greek prelates thought itdesirable to wait; the Emperor’s doubts, if he had any, were decided by the arrival of Cardinal Cesarini, who was the representative of that saner part of the Council to which the Greeks professed to adhere. The stay of the Greeks in Venice was not without melancholy reflections. Wherever they turned they were reminded that the glory of Venice was in a measure due to the spoils of Constantinople. In the rich jewels which bedecked the colossal statue on the high altar of S. Mark’s they saw the plunder of S. Sophia’s.

On February 28 the Emperor set sail for Ferrara. The Patriarch was sorely displeased at being left behind to follow in a few days. The Emperor disembarked at Francolino, where he was received by the Marquis of Ferrara and Cardinal Albergata as the Pope’s legate. He entered the city on March 4, riding on a magnificent black charger beneath a canopy held by his attendants. He advanced into the courtyard of the Papal palace, where Eugenius IV was seated with all his clergy. The Pope rose to greet the Emperor, who dismounted and advanced; Eugenius prevented him from kneeling and embraced him. Then he gave him his hand, which the Emperor kissed and took his seat on the Pope's left; they continued some time in friendly conference. The Patriarch, who was particular to keep close to his luggage, followed grumbling, and reached Ferrara on March 7. His good humour was not increased by a message from the Emperor, telling him that the Pope expected him to kiss his foot on his reception. This the Patriarch stoutly refused to do. “I determined”, he said, “if the Pope were older than me, to treat him as a father; if of the same age, as a brother; if younger, as a son”. He added that he had hoped by the Pope’s aid to free his Church from the tyranny of the Emperor, and could not subject it to the Pope. The negotiations respecting this knotty question occupied the entire day. At last the Pope, for the sake of peace, consented to waive his rights, provided the reception was in private, and only six of the Greek prelates were admitted at one time. On the evening of March 8, the Patriarch Joseph, an old man of venerable aspect, with white hair and a long white beard, of dignified bearing, and considerable experience of affairs, greeted the Pope in his palace. The Pope rose and the Patriarch kissed his cheek, the inferior prelates his right hand. When the ceremony was over they were conducted to their lodgings.

The Council had been opened at Ferrara on January 5 by the Cardinal Albergata as Papal legate. Its first decree on January 10 was to confirm the translation of the Council from Basel to Ferrara, and to annul all that had been done at Basel since the Pope's Bull of translation. On January 27, the Pope entered Ferrara escorted by the Marquis Nicolas III of Este. He took up his abode in the palace of the Marquis; and as he suffered grievously from gout, the citizens of Ferrara consulted his infirmity by erecting a wooden scaffold, communicating between the palace and the cathedral, so as to spare him the inconvenience of mounting steps. On February 8 he presided over a congregation, and commended to its deliberation the work of union with the Greeks, and the repression of the excesses of those still remaining at Basel. The result of this deliberation was the issue of a Bull on February 15 annulling the proceedings of the Council of Basel, and declaring excommunicate all who did not quit it within thirty days. Eugenius IV had thus done all he could to affirm his dignity before the arrival of the Greeks.

In like manner the first point of importance with the Greeks was to affirm their own dignity at Ferrara. The question that first called for solution was the arrangement of seats in the Council. Cesarini suggested that the Greeks should sit on one side of the cathedral, the Latins on the other, and the Pope in the middle as a link between the two parties. The Greeks bluntly answered that they needed no such link; but if a link were thought necessary it should be strengthened by the addition of the Greek Emperor and Patriarch to the Pope. Both sides fought to win prestige; but the Greeks were not fighting on equal terms. They were the Pope’s stipendiaries in Ferrara, and the arrangement for supplying them with the stipulated allowances went on side by side with the negotiations about the knotty question of seats. The Pope at first proposed to supply the Greeks with food; this they resisted, and demanded an allowance in money. Ultimately the Pope gave way; it was agreed that the Marquis of Ferrara should furnish them with lodgings, and the Pope give the Emperor thirty florins a month, the Patriarch twenty-five, the prelates four, and the other attendants three. The Greeks accepted a compromise about seats. The Latins were to sit on one side, the Greeks on the other. The Pope’s seat was highest, and was nearest the altar; next him was a vacant seat for the Western Emperor, opposite to which sat the Greek Emperor, and behind him the Patriarch. When the Patriarch wished to adorn his seat with curtains like the Papal throne, he was not allowed to do so. The Greeks murmured at this arrangement, but were obliged to submit. The Emperor exclaimed that the Latins were not aiming at order, but were gratifying their own pride.

Before appearing at the Council the Greek Emperor Insisted that it should not be merely an assembly of the prelates but also of the kings and princes of the West. The Pope was driven to admit that some time was necessary before the princes could arrive. It was agreed that a delay of four months should take place to allow them to be duly summoned. Meanwhile a general session should be held to proclaim that the Council was to be held at Ferrara, and nowhere else.

Some time was spent in settling these matters. At last on April 9 a solemn session was held in the cathedral, “a wonderful and awful sight”, says a Greek; “so that the Church looked like heaven”. The Pope and Papal retinue chanted the psalm, “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel”. The Patriarch was too ill to be present; but a declaration of his consent to the Council was read in his absence. Then the decree convoking all to Ferrara within four months was read in Latin and Greek, and received the formal approval of both parties. After a few thanksgivings, the synod was dismissed.

The festivities of Easter occupied some time, and the Greeks were annoyed that they could not get a church in Ferrara for the celebration of their own services. The Pope referred them to the Bishop of Ferrara, who answered that all his churches were so crowded that he could not find one large enough for their purposes. One of the Greeks said that he could not worship in the Latin churches, as they were full of saints whom he did not recognize; even the Christ bore an inscription which he did not understand; he could only make the sign of the cross and adore that. The tone of mind exhibited in these remarks did not augur well for any real Agreement, nor did the Emperor wish the discussions to go too far. His plan was to defer matters as long as possible, to insist upon the Council being representative of the powers of Europe, to obtain from them substantial help against the Turks, and to go back to Constantinople having made as few concessions as were possible.

The Latins, however, were anxious to make their triumph complete. They urged that it was a useless waste of time to do nothing while they waited for the appearance of the European princes. Cesarini displayed his wonted tact in inviting the Greeks to dinner, and overcoming the reserve which the Emperor wished them to maintain. He succeeded in inducing one of the most stubborn of the Greek prelates, Mark of Ephesus, to publish his views in writing, to the great wrath of the Emperor. The Papal officers were remiss in the payment of allowances, and hinted that the Pope could not continue to pay men who would do nothing. By such means the Greeks were at last driven to agree to the appointment of ten commissioners on either side, who should engage in preliminary discussions upon the points of variance. Chief among the Greeks were Mark, Bishop of Ephesus, and Bessarion, Bishop of Nicaea; the Emperor ordered that they only should conduct the discussions. On the side of the Latins Cesarini took the leading part.

The conferences began on June 4. The first question discussed was that of Purgatory, on which the real difference of opinion was not important. The Latins held that sins, not repented of during life, are purged away by purgatorial fire, which at the Judgment is succeeded by everlasting fire for the reprobate. The Greeks admitted a Purgatory, but of pain and grief, not of fire, which they reserved as the means only of eternal punishment. Also the Greeks maintained that neither the punishment of the wicked nor the joy of the blessed was complete, till the general resurrection, seeing that before that time neither could receive their bodies. The Latins admitted that the punishment of the wicked could not be perfect till they had received their bodies, but held that the blessed, as souls, enjoy at present perfect happiness in heaven, though on receiving their bodies their happiness would become eternal. Even the most staunch upholder of the Greek doctrines, Mark of Ephesus, was driven to admit that there was not much difference between the Greek and the Latin opinions on this question. When the discussion was ended, the Latins handed in their opinion in writing. The Greeks were timid in committing themselves. Each wrote his opinion and submitted it to the Emperor, who combined those of Bessarion and Mark, to the effect that the souls of the happy departed, as souls, enjoy perfect felicity, but when in the resurrection they receive their bodies they will be capable of more perfect happiness and will shine like the sun. On July 17 this statement was submitted to the Latins. The only result of these conferences was to bring into prominence the differences existing amongst the Greeks themselves. The narrow and bigoted spirit of old Byzantine conservatism, expressed by the rough outspoken Mark of Ephesus, did not harmonize with the cosmopolitan feeling of the polished Platonist Bessarion, who saw the decadence of the Greeks, and wished to bring his own ability into a larger sphere of literary and theological activity. The Latins learned that there were some amongst the Greeks who would bow, and some who must be driven, to consent to union.

Then came a pause till the four months’ interval had elapsed for the fuller assembling of the Council. None of the European princes appeared, and the delay continued. Ferrara was attacked by the plague; some of the Greeks grew terrified or weary, and fled home. The Emperor requested the magistrates to keep guard over the gates, and forbade any of the Greeks to leave the city without his permission. The Emperor meanwhile spent his time in hunting in the woods round Ferrara, and paid no heed to the requests of the Marquis that he would spare his preserves, which had been stocked with great difficulty. The plague drove the Latins out of the city. Of a hundred and fifty prelates who were present at the first session, only five Cardinals and fifty bishops remained. The Greeks escaped the ravages of the plague, except only the household of the Russian archbishop.

It was some time before the Pope could obtain the Emperor’s consent to a second session of the Council. The Greeks were suspicious; they were indignant at a rumour which had been spread that they were guilty of fifty-four heresies; they were afraid that, if they allowed the Council to proceed, they might be outvoted. Their fears on this last point were set at rest by an agreement that each party should vote separately. After that they could no longer resist the Pope’s entreaties that the business of the Council should proceed.

On October 8 the second session was held in the Pope’s chapel, as Eugenius was unable to move through attack of the gout. The Greeks had previously decided among themselves the question to be discussed. The more moderate party, headed by Bessarion, who was in favour of a real union if it were possible, wished to proceed at once to the important point which divided the two Churches, the double procession of the Holy Ghost. The Nicene Creed, which had been framed to define the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, dealt chiefly with the relation between the Father and the Son, and contenteditself with the statement that “the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father”. The continuance of controversy in the West led to the addition of the words “and from the Son” (Filioque), an addition which the Greeks never made. The Western Church argued that the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father alone derogated from the dignity of the Son, who was equal with the Father in all points save only in His generation by the Father. The explanatory addition gradually became incorporated in the Creed. The greater metaphysical instinct of the Greeks led them to reject such an addition, which seemed to them dangerous, as tending to give a double origin to the Holy Ghost, and thereby to imperil the Unity in Trinity. There was no fundamental difference of opinion between the Greek and Latin fathers at first; but the genius of the Greek language admitted of finer distinctions than a Latin could comprehend. The Greeks were ready to allow that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father through the Son, not that He proceeded from the Father and the Son. The difference was of little moment till the resentment of the Greek Patriarch against the Papal claims to supremacy led in the ninth century to an open rupture between the two Churches, and every shadow of difference was at once brought into prominence. Tomes of learning had been amassed on either side in support of their opinions on this point, and a molehill had been piled to the height of a mountain. It was felt that this question presented the greatest difficulty in settlement. Bessarion and his followers wished to discuss it at once. Mark of Ephesus, and those who were opposed to the union, succeeded in overruling them, and proposed the more dangerous preliminary question, “Is it permissible to make any addition to a Creed?”. Six disputants were chosen on either side: Bessarion, Mark, and Isidore of Russia were chief among the Greeks, Cardinals Cesarini and Albergata, and Andrea, Bishop of Rhodes, among the Latins.

The arguments were long and the speeches were many on both sides. The Fathers of Ferrara found, like the Fathers of Basel when dealing with the Bohemians, that a disputation led to little result. Speech was directed against speech; orator refuted orator. But amid the flow of words the central positions of the two parties remained the same. The Latins urged that the Filioque was an explanation of the Nicene Creed in accordance with the belief of most of the Latin and Greek Fathers, notably S. Basil; the Greeks urged that it was not derived from the text of the Creed itself, but was an unauthorized addition, which gave a careless explanation of a doctrine needing careful definition. Through October and November the discussion rolled on. The monotony was only broken by the arrival of ambassadors from the Duke of Burgundy, who aroused the deepest indignation in the Greek Emperor by paying reverence to the Pope and not to himself. When they urged that they were commissioned only to the Pope and had letters to him alone, the Emperor was still more enraged and threatened to leave the Council where he was subject to such slights. He could only be appeased by the solemn and public presentation of a letter forged by the ambassadors.

The discussions were leading to no result. As a way of escaping from a mere strife of words, Cesarini besought that the real point of issue, the truth of the double procession of the Holy Ghost, be taken into consideration. If they were agreed that it was true, the addition of it to the Creed was of small moment. The majority of the Greek prelates were loth to enter upon a doctrinal discussion; but the rumours of a new Turkish attack on Constantinople made the Emperor more desirous for succours. He assembled his prelates and said that it was unworthy of them, after so many labours and so much trouble, to refuse to come to the point; their refusal in the present state of affairs would only give cause of triumph to the Latins. In vain the Patriarch urged that it was unwise to quit the safe position of the unlawfulness of an addition to the Creed. The Emperor succeeded in extorting from the discordant prelates a reluctant consent to the discussion of the doctrine.

The Pope meanwhile had been pressing on the Emperor the necessity of transferring the Council from Ferrara to Florence. He pleaded that at Ferrara he could fulfill his agreement with the Greeks. Niccolo Piccinino was ravaging the neighborhood so that no revenues could reach the Papal coffers; the plague had made Ferrara an unsafe place of residence; Florence had promised a large loan to the Pope, if he would again take refuge within its walls. Eugenius IV was anxious to remove the Greeks further from their own land, to a place where they would be more entirely dependent on himself. The Greeks murmured, but their necessities gave them little option; as the Pope's stipendiaries they were bound to go where he could best find them rations. On January 10, 1439, the last session was held at Ferrara and decreed the transference of the Council to Florence on the ground of the pestilence.

On January 16 Eugenius IV left Ferrara for Florence; his journey was more like a flight before the troops of Piccinino than a papal progress. The sedentary Greeks were greatly wearied by the discomforts of a long journey across the Apennines in winter. The aged Patriarch especially suffered from the journey; but his vanity was gratified by the splendor of his reception in Florence, where he was met by two Cardinals, and amidst a blare of trumpets and the shouts of a vast multitude he was escorted to his lodgings. Three days after, on February 16, arrived the Emperor; but a storm of rain spoiled the magnificence of his reception, and scattered the crowd which came to give him the welcome that the Florentines, better than, any others, could give to a distinguished guest.

In Florence the Pope was determined to proceed more speedily with business than had been done at Ferrara. The Greek Emperor had by this time seen the actual position of affairs. He was obliged to submit to the failure of the expectations with which he had come to Italy. He had hoped to play off the Council of Basel against the Pope, and so secure good terms for himself; he found Latins united and undisturbed by the proceedings of the fathers still remaining at Basel. He hoped that the Western princes would have assembled at the Council, and that he could have made the question of union secondary to a project for a crusade against the Turk; he found a purely ecclesiastical assembly which he could not divert from purely theological considerations. As he could not with dignity go back to Constantinople empty-handed, and as he sorely needed succors, he saw no other course open than to accept such terms of union as could be obtained, and trust afterwards to the generosity of Western Christendom. At Florence he used his influence to expedite matters, and fell in with the Pope's suggestions for this purpose.

On February 26, a meeting took place at Florence in the Pope’s palace, confined to forty members on each side. It was agreed to hold public disputations three times a week for three hours at least, and also to appoint committees on each side, who might confer privately about the union. The public sessions, which began on March 2, were really a long theological duel between John of Montenegro, a famous Dominican theologian, and Mark of Ephesus. Day after day their strife went wearily on, diversified only by disputes about the authenticity of manuscripts of S. Basil against Eunomius, whose words Mark of Ephesus was convicted of quoting from a garbled manuscript. The argument turned on points verbal rather than real; each side could support its own opinion more easily than prove the error of its opponent. Even Mark of Ephesus was wearied of talking, and in a long speech on March 17 fired his last shot. John of Montenegro, on his part, made a statement which the partisans of union among the Greeks seized as a possible basis for future negotiation. He said explicitly that the Latins recognized the Father as the one cause of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. This was the only theological point involved in the two positions. The Emperor requested John to put his statement in writing, and laid it before his assembled prelates. He spoke of all his labours to bring about union, and he urged them to accept this basis. The Greeks in truth were weary of the controversy; they longed to return home. The Patriarch grew feebler day by day; the Emperor grew more determined to see some fruits of all his trouble. A passage of a letter of S. Maximus, a Greek writer of the seventh century, was discovered by the Greeks, which agreed with the language of John of Montenegro. “If the Latins will accept this”, exclaimed the partisans of the Union, “what hinders us from agreement?”. In an assembly of the Greek prelates the Emperor’s will overbore all opposition except that of Mark and the Bishop of Heraclea. The letter of Maximus was submitted to the Latins as the basis for an agreement; meanwhile the public sessions were suspended.

John of Montenegro, however, was anxious to have his reply to the last onslaught of Mark of Ephesus. Another session was held on March 21 to gratify the vanity of the Latins; but the Emperor took the precaution of ordering Mark to absent himself. When thus bereft of an adversary and listened to in solemn silence, John of Montenegro talked himself out in two days. An understanding had now been established between the Pope and the Emperor; but the susceptibilities of the Greeks were still hard to manage. Public sessions, which only awakened vanity, were stopped. Committees composed of ardent partisans of the Union were nominated on both sides for the purpose of minimizing the difficulties that still remained. Bessarion and Isidore of Russia among the Greeks strove their utmost to overcome the rigid conservatism of their fellow-countrymen. The Cardinals Cesarini and Capranica among the Latins laboured assiduously to secure the Papal triumph. Perpetual messages passed between the Pope and the Emperor. Documents were drawn up on both sides; proposals towards greater exactness of expression were put forward. Bessarion argued in a learned treatise that there was no real difference of meaning, when the Latins said that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Son, and the Greek fathers wrote that He proceeded through (Sia) the Son, if both agreed that there were not two causes, but one, of the procession, and that the Father and the Son formed one substance.

The Patriarch was lying on his death-bed. Bessarion and his party were resolute for the Union on large grounds of ecclesiastical statesmanship. Others of the Greeks, following the Emperor, were convinced of its practical necessity. They had gone so far that they could not draw back. They were willing to seek out expressions of double meaning, which might serve for a compromise. Yet many of the Greeks held by the stubborn Mark of Ephesus, and would not give way. The discussion passed from being one between Greeks and Latins to one between two parties among the Greeks. Many were the fierce controversies, many the intrigues, great the anger of the Emperor, before an end was visible to these troublesome disputations. At last, on June 3, the Greeks agreed that, without departing from their ancient belief, they were ready to admit that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as one cause and one substance, proceeds through the Son as the same nature and the same substance. Next day a schedule was drawn up, of which a copy was handed to the Emperor, the Pope, and the Patriarch: it ran: “We agree with you, and assent that your addition to the Creed comes from the Fathers; we agree with it and unite with you, and say that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son as from one origin and cause”.

Matters had proceeded so far that the Emperor turned to business, and asked the Pope what succours he would grant. Eugenius IV promised to supply 300 soldiers and two galleys for the constant defence of Constantinople; in time of need, twenty galleys for six months, or ten for a year.

He also undertook to preach a crusade and rouse the West for the defence of the Greeks. Satisfied with this promise, the Emperor hastened to bring matters to a conclusion. Mark of Ephesus was peremptorily ordered to hold his tongue, and he himself admits that he was not unwilling to be relieved from further responsibility in the matter.

But the sudden death of the Patriarch Joseph on the evening of June 10 seemed at first likely to put a stop to all further negotiations. The Greeks, bereft of their ecclesiastical head, might well urge that without his sanction all proceedings would be useless. Happily for Eugenius IV, there was found a paper subscribed by Joseph a few hours before his death, approving what seemed good to his spiritual sons, and acknowledging the supremacy of the Roman Church. The Patriarch was buried with due honours in the Church of S. Maria Novella, where the inscription on his tomb is the only memorial remaining to this day of the labours spent in uniting the Eastern and Western Churches.

Fortified by the Patriarch’s declaration, the Emperor urged on the completion of the work of union. The Pope submitted to the Greeks for their consideration the differences between the Churches, concerning the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist, Purgatory, the Papal Primacy, the words used in consecration. The Pope had already laid before them a statement of the views which the Latins would be ready to accept. The only question was that those who were in favour of the Union should win over the rest to accept the proffered terms. The subject of Purgatory had already been threshed out at Ferrara, and the difference was seen to be slight. A satisfactory form of agreement was soon found. It was laid down that those who died in sin went to eternal punishment, those who had been purged by penitence went to heaven and beheld the face of God, those who died in penitence before they had produced worthy fruits of penitence for their omissions and commissions went to Purgatory for purification by pains, and for them the prayers and alms of the faithful availed, as the Church ordained. The use of leavened or unleavened bread was a small point of ritual, on which the Latins could urge that their own custom of using unleavened bread was more in accordance with the facts of the institution of the Sacrament, as it was clear that at the time of the Passover Christ could only have unleavened bread. The Pope declared that, though the Latin Church used unleavened bread, the Sacrament might also be celebrated with leavened bread. The question was left open. As to the consecration of the elements, the Greeks were in the habit of using after the words of consecration a short prayer of S. Basil that the Spirit might make the bread and wine the Body and Blood of Christ. The Latins demanded that the Greeks should declare that the Sacrament was consecrated only by the words of Christ. The Greeks did not doubt the fact, but objected to the declaration as unnecessary. It was agreed that it should be made verbally, and not inserted in the Articles of Union.

So far all went smoothly enough; but the greatest difficulty arose about the Papal Supremacy. Up to this point the Greeks might flatter themselves that they had been making immaterial compromises or engaging in verbal explanations. Now they had to face the surrender of the independence of their Church. However true it might be that they must make some sacrifices to gain political consideration, the recognition of the Papal headship galled their pride to the quick. The Pope demanded that the Greeks should recognize him as the chief pontiff, successor of Peter, and vicar of Christ, and admit that he judged and ruled the Church as its teacher and shepherd. The Greeks requested that their own privileges should be reserved. There was a stormy discussion. At length the Greeks, on June 22, proposed to admit the Pope's Supremacy with two provisos :

1) That the Pope should not convoke a Council without the Emperor and Patriarch, though if they were summoned and did not coine, the Council might still be held;

2) That in case an appeal were made to the Pope against a Patriarch, the Pope should send commissioners to investigate and decide on the spot without summoning the Patriarch to the Council.

Next day the Pope answered roundly that he intended to keep all his prerogatives, that he had the power of summoning a Council when it was necessary, and that all Patriarchs were subject to his will. On receiving this answer the Emperor angrily said, “See to our departure”. It seemed that the negotiations were to be broken off, and that the Greeks would not give way. But next day, June 24, being the festival of S. John Baptist, was given to religious ceremonies. The Greeks who had committed themselves to the Union, Bessarion, Isidore of Russia, and Dorotheus of Mitylene, spent the time in trying to arrange a compromise. Reflection brought greater calmness to the Emperor, and on June 26 Bessarion and his friends submitted a proposal couched in vaguer terms: “We recognize the Pope as sovereign pontiff, vicegerent and vicar of Christ, shepherd and teacher of all Christians, ruler of the Church of God, saving the privileges and rights of the Patriarchs of the East”. This was accepted by the Pope. Nothing now remained save to draw up in a general decree the various conclusions which had been reached. For this purpose a committee of twelve was appointed, which laboured for eight days at the task.

On July 4 the decree was finished. When it was taken to the Emperor he objected to the fact that it ran in the Pope’s name, in the usual style of an ecclesiastical decree, and he insisted on the addition of the words—“with the consent of the most serene Emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople”. On July 5 it was signed separately by the Latins and the Greeks. It bears the signature of one hundred and fifteen Latin prelates and abbots, and of thirty-three Greek ecclesiastics, of whom eighteen were metropolitans. A great majority of the Greeks signed it unwillingly. Syropulus tells us of many machinations which were used to win their assent. On the one hand, the declared will of the Emperor drove the compliant to submission; on the other hand, Papal largesses were doled out to the needy, and social cajoleries were heaped upon the vain. Mark of Ephesus, alone of those who were at Florence, had the courage of his opinions and refused to sign. He was too considerable a person to be intimidated by the Emperor, and too stubborn a conservative to be won over by the Pope. In spite, however, of the pathetic account of Syropulus, it is difficult to feel much sympathy with the reluctant Greeks. They knew, or they might have known, when they left their homes what they had to expect. It was a question of political expediency whether or not it was desirable in their imminent peril to abandon their attitude of isolation, and seek a place amid the nations of Western Christendom. If so, they must expect to make some sacrifice of their ancient independence, to overthrow some of the walls ot partition which their conservatism had erected between themselves and the Latin Church. An acknowledgment of the Papal Supremacy was the necessary price for Papal aid. It was useless to appear as beggars and demand to retain all the privileges of independence. It was useless to advance so far on rational calculations of expediency, and to raise objections the moment that the actual pinch was felt by national vanity. The wisest heads among the Greeks confessed that since the Greek Church was no longer the centre of a vigorous national life, it must conform in some degree to the Latin Church if the Greeks looked for aid to the Latin nations. Moreover, the circumstances of the time were such that the Pope was as anxious for the Union as were the Greeks themselves. The Latins were willing to accept vague conditions and to agree readily to compromises. The Greeks could not complain that they were hardly pressed in matters of detail.

On July 6 the publication of the Decrees took place in the stately cathedral of Florence. The Greeks had at least the satisfaction of outdoing the Latins in the splendor of their vestments. The Pope sang the mass. The Latin choir sang hymns of praise; but the Greeks thought their Gregorian music barbarous and inharmonious. When they had ended the Greeks sang their hymns in turn. Cesarini read the Union Decree in Latin and Bessarion in Greek; then the two prelates embraced one another as a symbol of the act in which they had engaged. Next day the Greeks who had been spectators of the Latin mass asked that the Pope should in like manner be present at the celebration of their mass. They were told that the Pope was not certain what their mass was, and would like to see it performed privately before he committed himself to be present at a public ceremony. The Greeks refused to subject themselves to this supervision. The Emperor said indignantly that they had hoped to reform the Latins, but it seemed that the Latins only intended to reform them.

The Greeks were now anxious to depart, but waited to receive from the Pope five months' arrears of their allowance. The Pope tried to raise some other questions for discussion, chief of which was divorce, which the Greek Church allowed, while the Latin Church did not. He suggested that they should at once proceed to the election of a Patriarch. The Emperor refused any further discussion, and said that they would proceed to elect a Patriarch on their return, according to their own customs. The Pope requested that Mark of Ephesus should be punished for his contumacy, but this also the Emperor wisely refused. To make assurance doubly sure, the Pope demanded that five copies of the Union Decree should be signed by the original signatories, one for the Greeks, the rest to be sent to the princes of Europe. The Greeks objected that this was unnecessary; at last, however, they agreed to sign four duplicates, on the understanding that no further difficulties were to be put in the way of their departure. On July 20 the Greek prelates began to quit Florence. The Emperor remained till August 26, when he made his way to Venice, and returned to Constantinople after an absence of two years.

“Have you won a triumph over the Latins?” was the Reception question eagerly asked of the returning prelates. “We have made a satisfactory compromise”, was the general answer. “We have become Azymites” (so the Latins were called by the Greeks because they used unleavened bread in the mass), “we have become Azymites, and have betrayed our Creed”, said Mark of Ephesus, and the Greek people took his view of the matter. They were profoundly conservative, and though their leaders might see the necessity of departing from their national isolation, the people could not be induced to follow the new policy. The Greek prelates who at Florence had unwillingly accepted the Union could not stand against the popular prejudice, and by their excuses for what they had done only tended to inflame the popular wrath. Mark of Ephesus became a hero; the prelates who had wished for the Union were treated with contumely. The Emperor was powerless. The Bishop of Cyzicum, whom he made Patriarch, was looked upon with aversion as a traitor. When he gave the people his blessing many of them turned away that they might not be defiled by one tainted with the leprosy of Latinism. The Emperor, finding that he could do nothing to abate the force of this popular feeling, adopted an attitude of indifference. The Pope supplied for the defence of Constantinople two galleys and 300 soldiers, as he had promised; but no great expedition was equipped by Europe against the Turks. The Emperor’s brother, Demetrius, despot of Epirus, who had been with him in Italy, and had been a spectator of all that had there been done, actually ventured to raise a rebellion. He combined Turkish aid with the fanatical feeling of the extreme Greek party against the Latins, and for some time troubled his brother. The three Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria issued in 1443 an encyclical letter, in which they condemned the Council of Florence as a council of robbers, and declared the Patriarch of Constantinople a matricide and heretic.

Thus the Council of Florence was productive of no direct fruits. The Popes did not succeed in establishing their supremacy over the Greek Church; the Greeks results got no substantial aid from Western Christendom to enable them to drive away their Turkish assailants. Yet the Council of Florence was not utterly useless. The meeting of two different civilizations and schools of thought gave a decided impulse to the literary world of Italy, and attracted thither some of the leaders of Greek letters. It was not long before Gemistus Pletho took up his abode at Florence, and Bessarion became a Cardinal of the Roman Church. Greek letters found a home in the West; and when the impending destruction at last fell upon Constantinople, the Greek exiles found a refuge prepared for them by their fellow-countrymen.

To Eugenius IV and to the Papacy the Council of Florence rendered a signal service. However slight its ultimate results might be, it was the first event since the outbreak of the Schism which restored the ruined prestige of the Papacy. Public opinion is naturally influenced chiefly by accomplished facts. No one could judge of the permanence of the work, but all were in some measure impressed by a new sense of the Papal dignity when they heard that, downcast as he was, Eugenius IV had still succeeded in healing the schism which had so long rent asunder the Christian Church. The Pope whose name was loaded with obloquy at Basel had been accepted as supreme at Constantinople. The power which was hard pressed at Rome still had sufficient vigour to win new conquests abroad. With lofty exultation Eugenius IV wrote to the prince of Christendom, and announced the success of his efforts. He recapitulated his labours in this holy cause, carried on in spite of many discouragements, because he knew that only in Italy, and only in the presence of the Pope, could this great result be obtained. It was a home thrust which the fathers of Basel would find it hard to parry.

The Council of Florence was felt to be a triumph of Papal diplomacy. The prospect of it had drawn from Basel all men possessed of any moderation. The Italians saw in it the means of reasserting their hold on the headship of the Church, which the transalpine nations had begun to threaten. In union with the Greeks, they saw the beginning of a new epoch of crusades, in which the Papacy might again stand forth as the leader of the Latin race. The acute statesman and learned scholar, Francisco Barbaro, who was at that time Capitano of Brescia, wrote to the Archbishop of Florence at the beginning of the Council, pointing out the means to be employed. Learning and argument, he said, were useless; for the Greeks were too acute and too proud of their knowledge to be overcome by disputation. They must be treated with tact and with kindness; they must be led to see that in union lie their safety and glory. He urged the necessity of the greatest care. The union must be made to succeed; otherwise there was no chance for the Papacy, and Italian affairs would be plunged into hopeless confusion. The policy recommended by Barbaro was that pursued by the Pope’s advisers. Cesarini’s experience at Basel had fitted him admirably for the work to be done at Florence. The Papal diplomacy won a signal triumph, and followed up its first victory by others, less conspicuous indeed, but which added strength to the Papal cause. In December, 1439, the reconciliation of the Armenians to the Roman Church was announced to Europe, and Jacobites, Syrians, Chaldaeans, and Maronites in succeeding years made illusory submission, which served to present a dazzling display of Papal power.

CHAPTER IX.

THE GERMAN DECLARATION OF NEUTRALITY AND THE ELECTION OF FELIX V.

1438—1439.

Eugenius IV might triumph at Florence; but the fathers of Basel, weakened yet not dismayed, pursued their course with an appearance of lofty indifference. In the January, 1438, they suspended Eugenius IV from his office for venturing to summon a Council without their assent. The logical consequence of such a step was the deposition of Eugenius; and to this Cardinal d'Allemand and his followers were ready to proceed. But, although all who had any leaning towards Eugenius, or who had any scruples about the omnipotence of the Council, had already left Basel, there still remained many who did not wish to proceed at once to extremities. Motives of statesmanship and considerations of expediency landed them in a somewhat illogical position. Through their desire to support the Council without attacking the Pope they were nicknamed at Basel “the Greys”, as being neither black nor white. This party, though it had the weakness which in ecclesiastical matters always attaches to a party that is trimming through political pressure, was still strong enough to put off for some time the deposition of Eugenius. It raised technical points, disputed each step, and gave weight to the remonstrances against a new schism which came from the princes of Europe.

Accordingly, says Aeneas Sylvius, the question of procedure against Eugenius was discussed according to the Socratic method. Every possible suggestion was made, and every possible objection was raised against it. Was Eugenius to be dealt with simply as a heretic, or as a relapsed heretic, or was he a heretic at all? On such points the fathers differed; but they agreed on March 24 in fulminating against the Council of Ferrara, declaring all its procedure null and void, and summoning all, under pain of excommunication, to quit it and appear at Basel within thirty days.

It was, however, impossible that this war between the Pope and the Council could continue without exciting serious attention, on political grounds, amongst the European nations most nearly interested in the Papacy. Germany and France, about the same time, took measures to protect themselves against the dangers with which they were threatened by the impending outbreak of a schism. What Germany desired was a measure of ecclesiastical reform without the disruption of the unity of the Church. It felt no interest in the struggle of the Council against the Pope; rather the German princes looked with suspicion upon the avowed object of the Council, of exalting the ecclesiastical oligarchy at the expense of the Papacy. It bore too near a resemblance to their own policy towards the Empire, and they did not wish to be embarrassed in their own schemes by an access of independence to the bishops. Accordingly the Electors entered into correspondence with Cesarini in 1437, and lent their support to his efforts for a compromise between the Pope and the Council. When this failed, the Electors, under the guidance of Archbishop Raban of Trier, devised a plan of declaring the neutrality of Germany in the struggle between the Pope and the Council; by so doing they would neither abandon the reformation of the Church nor assist in creating a schism, but would be in a position to take advantage of any opportunity that offered. This scheme was, no doubt, suggested by the example of the withdrawal of the French allegiance from Boniface XIII, and had much to be said in its favour. The Electors had sent to obtain the assent of Sigismund when the news of his death reached them.

In March, 1438, the Electors met for the purpose of choosing a new king at Frankfort, where they were beset by partisans of Eugenius IV and of the Council. They resolved that before proceeding to a new election they would secure a basis for their new policy. In a formal document they publicly declared on March 17 that they took no part in the differences between the Pope and the Council, nor would they recognize the punishments, processes, or excommunications of either, as of any validity within the Empire. They would maintain the rights of the Church till the new king found means to restore unity; if he had not done so within six months they would take counsel of the prelates and jurists of their land what course to adopt. Next day Albert, Duke of Austria and King of Hungary, Sigismund’s son-in-law, was elected king, as Sigismund had wished and planned.

This declaration of neutrality was a new step in ecclesiastical politics, and was equally offensive to Pope and Council, both of whom were loud in asserting that in such a matter neutrality was impossible. Both hastened to do all they could to win over Albert; but Albert was not easy to win over, nor indeed was he in a position to oppose the Electors. His hold on Hungary, threatened by the Turks, was but weak, and Bohemia was insecure. His personal character was not such as to afford much opportunity for intrigue. He was upright and honest, reserved in speech, a man who thought more of action than of diplomacy. Tall, with sunburnt face and flashing eyes, he took his pleasure in hunting when he could not take it in warfare, and was content to follow the advice of those whom he thought wiser than himself. Ambassadors could do nothing with him, and in July he joined the band of the Electors, and declared himself personally in favour of neutrality.

The example of Germany was followed by France. Germany had taken up the attitude most in accordance with its views; France proceeded to do likewise. For the large questions of Church government involved in the struggle between Council and Pope, France had little care. Since their failure at Constance the theologians of the University of Paris had sunk into lethargy. France, suffering from the miseries of its long war with England, took an entirely practical view of affairs. Its object was to retain for its own uses the wealth of the Church, and prevent Papal interference with matters of finance. Charles VII determined to adopt in his own kingdom such of the decrees of the Council as were for his advantage, seeing that no opposition could be made by the Pope. Accordingly, a Synod was summoned at Bourges on May 1, 1438. The ambassadors of Pope and Council urged their respective causes. It was agreed that the king should write to Pope and Council to stay their hands in proceeding against one another; meanwhile, that the reformation be not lost, some of the Basel decrees should be maintained in France by royal authority. The results of the Synod’s deliberation were laid before the king, and on July 7 were made binding as a pragmatic sanction on the French Church. The Pragmatic Sanction enacted that General Councils were to be held every ten years, and recognized the authority of the Council of Basel. The Pope was no longer to reserve any of the greater ecclesiastical appointments, but elections were to be duly made by the rightful patrons. Grants to benefices in expectancy, whence all agree that many evils arise, were to cease, as well as reservations. In all cathedral churches one prebend was to be given to a theologian who had studied for ten years in a university, and who was to lecture or preach at least once a week. Benefices were to be conferred in future, one-third on graduates, two-thirds on deserving clergy. Appeals to Rome, except for important causes, were forbidden. The number of Cardinals was to be twenty-four, each of the age of thirty at least. Annates and first-fruits were no longer to be paid to the Pope, but only the necessary legal fees on institution. Regulations were made for greater reverence in the conduct of Divine service; prayers were to be said by the priest in an audible voice; mummeries in churches were forbidden, and clerical concubinage was to be punished by suspension for three months. Such were the chief reforms of its own special grievances, which France wished to establish. It was the first step in the assertion of the rights of national Churches to arrange for themselves the details of their own ecclesiastical organization. It went no further, however, than the amendment of existing grievances as far as the opportunity allowed. It rested upon no principles applicable to the well-being of Christendom. While Germany, true to its imperial traditions, was content to hold its hand till it discovered some means of bringing about a reformation without a schism, France entered upon a separatist policy to secure its own interests.

The issue of both these plans depended upon the struggle between the Pope and the Council. Charles VII besought the Council to suspend their proceedings against the Pope, and received an answer that it was doing so. On July 12, at a Diet held at between Nürnberg, the Electors offered to mediate between the Pope and Council, but were answered by the Council’s envoys that secular persons might not judge ecclesiastical matters, and that it would be a bad precedent if Popes and Councils were interfered with. The Electors, with Albert’s assent, extended the neutrality for four months. On October 16, at a second Diet at Nurnberg, appeared Cardinal Albergata, as the head of a Papal embassy; but the envoys of the Council, headed by the Patriarch of Aquileia, were received with greater marks of distinction. Eugenius IV never again subjected any of his Cardinals to such a slight, but chose less important and more skillful diplomatists. The Electors again offered to mediate, on the basis that the Councils of Ferrara and Basel should alike be dissolved, and a new one summoned at another place. The Basel envoys replied that they had no instructions on this matter; they asked if the Electors accepted the decrees of the Council, and were answered in turn that envoys should be sent to Basel to answer this question. At Basel accordingly there was much negotiation with the German envoys, who were joined by those of the other princes, but the fathers resolutely opposed a translation of the Council, and rejected all proposals tending to that end. When the third Diet met at Mainz on March 5, 1439, matters had advanced no farther than they were at first.

To Mainz Eugenius sent no envoys; but many of his adherents were there to plead his cause, chief amongst whom was Nicolas of Cusa, a learned theologian, who had been an admiring follower of Cesarini, “the Hercules of Eugenius’ party”, as Aeneas Sylvius calls him. But the Electors now wavered in their policy of mediation, and began to turn their eyes to the example of France. They tended towards using the opportunity for establishing the privileges of the German Church. The Council sent again the Patriarch of Aquileia. But the German princes had by this time seen that a reconciliation between Pope and Council was impossible. They had an adviser of keen sagacity in the legist John of Lysura, sprung, like Nicolas of Cusa, from a little village in the neighbourhood of Trier. He was the firm upholder, if not the originator, of the policy of neutrality. He now advised the Electors, if nothing were to be gained by mediation, to follow the example of France, and secure such of the work of the Council of Basel as satisfied them. On March 26 the Diet took the unwelcome step of publishing its acceptance of the Basel decrees concerning the superiority of General Councils, the organization of provincial and diocesan synods, the abolition of reservations and expectancies, freedom of election to ecclesiastical benefices, and the abolition of annates and other oppressive exactions of the Curia. The Pope was not to refuse confirmation to the election of a bishop, except for some grave reason approved by the Cardinals. Appeals to Rome, until the cases had been heard in the bishops’ courts, were, with few exceptions, forbidden. Excommunications were not to be inflicted on a town for the fault of a few individuals. Such were the chief provisions of this pragmatic sanction of Germany.

The state of things which now existed in France and Germany was really a reversion to the system of concordats with which the Council of Constance Pope and had ended. The rights that had then been granted by the Papacy for five years, and had afterwards proved mere illusory concessions, were now extended and secured. The strife between the Pope and the Council enabled the State in both countries to assert, under the sanction of a General Council, liberties and privileges which needed no Papal approval. Such a policy of selection was opposed equally to the ideas of the Council and of the Pope. The Council wished for adhesion to its suspension of Eugenius IV; the Pope was not likely to acquiesce quietly in the loss of his prerogatives and of his revenues. Meanwhile, however, each was bent on using its opportunities. Eugenius IV hoped by the brilliancy of his success at Florence to establish himself again in a position to interfere in European affairs. The Council trusted that, if it carried to extremities its proceedings against the Pope, Germany and France, after establishing reforms by virtue of its authority, would be driven to approve of a decisive step when it was once taken.

Accordingly at Basel the process against Eugenius IV was prepared. The proctors of the Council gathered together a hundred and fifty articles against the Pope, swelling the number of charges to make matter look more terrible, though all converged to the one point, that Eugenius by dissolving the Council had made himself a schismatic and the author of a schism. It was clear that such a process might be protracted endlessly by a few determined opponents at every stage of the pleadings. The more resolute spirits, led by a Burgundian abbot Nicolas, carried the adoption of a more summary method of procedure. The Council was summoned to discuss the heresy of Eugenius and set forth the great points of Catholic doctrine which he had impugned. This discussion took place in the middle of April, and for six whole days, morning and afternoon, the dispute went on. First the theologians laid down eight conclusions:—

1) It is a truth of the Catholic faith that a General Council has power over a Pope or any other Christian man.

2) It is likewise a truth that the Pope cannot by his authority dissolve, transfer, or prorogue a General Council lawfully constituted.

3) Anyone who pertinaciously opposes these truths is to be accounted a heretic.

4) Eugenius IV opposed these truths when first he attempted by the plenitude of the Apostolic power to dissolve or transfer the Council of Basel.

5) When admonished by the Council he withdrew his errors opposed to these truths.

6) His second attempt at dissolution contains an inexcusable error concerning the faith.

7) In attempting to repeat his dissolution he lapses into the errors which he revoked.

8) By persisting in his contumacy, after admonition by the Council to recall his dissolution, and by calling a Council to Ferrara, he declares himself pertinacious.

The Archbishop of Palermo, who had formerly distinguished himself as an opponent of Eugenius IV, now at his King’s bidding counselled moderation. He argued with much acuteness that Eugenius had not contravened any article of the Creeds, nor the greater truths of Christianity, and could not be called heretical or relapsed. John of Segovia answered that the decrees of Constance were articles of faith, which it was heresy to impugn. The Bishop of Argos followed on the same side in a speech of much passion, which the Archbishop of Palermo indignantly interrupted. The Bishop of Argos called the Pope “the minister of the church”.

“No”, cried the Archbishop of Palermo, “he is its master”.

“Yet”, said John of Segovia, “his title is servant of the servants of God”.

The Archbishop of Palermo was reduced to silence.

The discussion went on; but really narrowed itself to two questions, “Has a General Council authority over a Pope? Is this an article of faith?”

The disputation at last ended, and the voting began. Three deputations at once voted for the conclusions of the theologians. The fourth deputation accepted the first three conclusions, but doubted about the last five; it hoped by delay to keep the whole question open. When the day came for a general congregation to be held, the Archbishops of Milan and Palermo prepared for resistance with the aid of the ambassadors of the princes. They pressed for delay, on the ground that the princes of Europe were not sufficiently represented. When they had finished their arguments, Cardinal d'Allemand made a splendid speech for a party leader. The princes of Europe, he said, were well enough represented by their prelates; the Archbishops of Milan, Palermo, and Lyons had said all that could be said. They had complained that the voice of the bishops was disregarded in the Council, and that the lower clergy carried everything against them. What Council had done so much to raise the condition of bishops, who till now had been mere shadows with staff and mitre, different only in dress and revenues from their clergy? The Archbishop of Palermo had said that his opinion ought to prevail because more bishops were on his side. The order of the Council could not be changed to suit his convenience; it had pleased him well enough so long as he was in the majority. Everybody knew that the prelates were only anxious to please their princes; they confessed to God in private, to their political superiors in public. He himself maintained that it was not the position, but the worth, of a man that was of importance. “I could not set the lie of the wealthiest prelate above the truth spoken by a simple priest. Do not, you bishops, despise your inferiors; the first martyr was not a bishop but a deacon”. The example of the early Church showed that Councils were not restricted to bishops. If it were so now, they would be at the mercy of the Italians, and there would be an end to all further reforms. The Archbishop of Palermo pressed for delay only as a means of wasting a favorable opportunity. He threatened them with the anger of princes, as if the Council was to obey princes, and not princes the Council. They must cleave to the truth at all hazards. He ended by urging them to affirm the first three conclusions, as a means of stopping the intrigues of Eugenius IV, and defer for the present the remainder in deference to the Archbishop of Palermo’s request.

All listened with admiration to the dashing onslaught of D'Allemand. But on the attempt to read the decree affirming the three conclusions a scene of wild clamour and confusion arose, as had happened two years before. The Patriarch of Aquileia turned to the Archbishop of Palermo and cried out, “You do not know the Germans; if you go on thus, you will not leave this land with your head on your shoulders”. There was a loud cry that the liberty of the Council was being attacked. Again the citizens of Basel had to interfere to keep the peace. The fathers were free to conduct their debates at pleasure, but a citizen guard was always present to see that arguments were not enforced by stronger than verbal means.

When silence was restored, the debate was resumed for a while, till Cardinal d'Allemand again rose to put the question. The Archbishop of Palermo interposed, saying, “You despise our entreaties, you despise the kings and princes of Europe, you despise the prelates; but beware lest, while you despise all, yourselves be despised by all. We have the majority of prelates on our side; we form the Council. In the name of the prelates I declare that the motion must not be carried”. There was a hubbub as of a battlefield, and all was again confusion. John of Segovia was sufficiently respected by both parties to obtain a hearing while he denounced the scandal of the day’s proceedings, urged the observance of the ordinary procedure of the Council, and defended the authority of the president. His speech made no impression on the Archbishop of Palermo, who declared that he and the prelates of his party constituted the Council and would not allow any decree to be published in the teeth of the protest he had just made. No one kept his seat; the rival partisans gathered round their leaders, the Cardinal of Arles and the Archbishop of Palermo, and looked like two armies drawn up for contest. It seemed that the Archbishop’s policy would prevail, that the congregation would be ended by the evening darkness without passing any vote, and thus a substantial triumph be gained for Eugenius IV. The followers of the Cardinal of Arles loudly upbraided him with his incompetency: “Why do you sleep? Where is nowyour courage and your skill?”

But the Cardinal was only waiting his time. When a slight lull prevailed he called out suddenly in a loud voice, “I have a letter just come from France which contains wonderful, almost incredible news, which I would like to lay before you”. There was at once silence, and D'Allemand began to read some trivialities; then the pretended letter went on to say that messengers of Eugenius IV filled France and preached that the Pope was above the Council; they were gaining credit, and the Council ought to take measures to check them.

“Fathers”, said the Cardinal, “the necessary measures are found in the eight propositions which you have examined, all of which, however, you do not intend at present to pass; but I declare the three first to be passed, in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost”.

Thus saying, he hastily left his seat and was followed by his triumphant partisans. He had snatched a formal victory at a time when defeat seemed imminent. He had shown that French craft was a match for Italian subtlety.

A few days afterwards arrived from Mainz the ambassadors of the Electors, from whom the opponents of the decree expected help in their resistance. But the Electors at Mainz had practically forsaken their position of mediators. They had seen the hopelessness of mediation unless supported by a general agreement of European powers. Private interests prevailed too strongly for this to be possible. Portugal and Castile were at variance. Milan and Aragon had their own ends in view in any settlement that might be made with the Pope.

The attitude of France was dubious; and the Germans suspected that France aimed at getting the Council into its own hands, and reviving the French hold upon the Papacy. The Electors had no settled policy, and were content with a watchful neutrality. The German ambassadors did nothing at Basel, though an attempt was made to revive the national divisions, and procure joint action on the part of the German nation. On May 9, the German ambassadors were present, though by an accident, at a general congregation which accepted the form of decree embodying the conclusions previously passed. Again there was a stormy scene. The Archbishop of Milan denounced the Cardinal of Aries as another Catiline, surrounded by a band of ruffians. When the Cardinal of Arles began to read the decree the Archbishop of Palermo thundered forth his protest. Each side shouted down the other, to prevent their proceedings from claiming conciliar validity. The Cardinal of Arles rose to leave the room. His opponents prepared to stay and enact their protest; but a sudden cry of one who declared that he would not be untrue to his oath, and allow the Council to degenerate into a conventicle, recalled all to a sense of the gravity of the situation. All felt that they were on the verge of disruption of the Council. The Cardinal resumed his seat; those who were departing were recalled. The Bishop of Albi read a protest to himself, for no one could hear him for the hubbub. The Lombards, Castilians, and Aragonese declared their adhesion to the protest, and left the congregation. The Cardinal of Arles then went on with the ordinary business, late though it was, and the form of decree was at last adopted. As the Archbishop of Palermo left the Council he turned to his followers and said with indignation, “Twice, twice”. It was the second time that the policy of the Cardinal of Arles had been too acute for him, and had baffled his attempts at obstruction.

For a few days the followers of the Archbishop of Palermo absented themselves from the meetings of the deputations; and on May 15 the ambassadors of the Electors feebly protested that they did not assent to any proceedings which were contrary to the conclusions of the Diet of Mainz. Next day they tried to make a compromise, but failed, as the opponents of the decree could not make up their minds what terms they were prepared to accept. A session was held on the same day, May 16, for the publication of the decree. The greater number of prelates refused to be present. None of the Aragonese bishops, none from any of the Spanish kingdoms, would attend. From Italy there was only one, and from the other kingdoms only twenty. But the Cardinal of Arles was not deterred by their absence. He had a large following of the inferior clergy, and had recourse to a strange expedient to cast greater ecclesiastical prestige over the assembly. He gathered from the churches of Basel the relics of the saints, which, borne by priests, were set in the vacant places of the bishops. When the proceedings began, the sense of the gravity of the situation moved all to tears. In the absence of opposition the decree was read peaceably, and was formally passed.

On May 22 the ambassadors of the princes appeared in a general congregation, and took part in the business, excusing themselves for their previous absence on the ground that it was not their duty as ambassadors to mix with such matters. It was clear from such vacillating conduct on the part of their representatives that the princes of Europe had little real interest in the struggle between Pope and Council. They had ceased to act as moderators, and had no large views about the need of ecclesiastical reforms. They were content to gain what they could for their separate interests, as they understood them at the moment, and to let the whole matter drift. They were incapable of interposing to free the question of reform from the meshes of personal jealousy in which it had become entangled. So long as every power which could interfere with their own projects was enfeebled, they were content that things should take their own course. The only man at Basel with a settled policy was the Cardinal of Arles; and he was no more than a party leader, bent on using the democracy of the Council as a means of asserting the power of the ecclesiastical oligarchy against the Papal monarchy.

Emboldened by his first triumph, the Cardinal of Arles pursued his course. The German ambassadors still urged a suspension of the process against the Pope. On June 13 a solemn answer was made by the Council that the process had now been suspended for two years in deference to the wishes of princes. They must not take it amiss if the Council, whose business it was to regulate the affairs of the Church, declined to delay any longer. Faith, religion, and discipline would be alike destroyed if one man had the power to set himself against a General Council, and bear a tyrant’s sway over the Church; they would rather die than desert the cause of liberty. The ambassadors were silent when, on June 23, the remaining five of the eight conclusions were decreed by the Council, and Eugenius IV was cited to appear in two days and hear his sentence. The plague was at this time raging in Basel, and very little pressure would have sufficed to induce the fathers to transfer the Council elsewhere; but there was no real agreement amongst the powers of Europe. The session on June 25 was attended by thirty-nine bishops and abbots, and some 300 of the lower clergy. Eugenius IV was summoned by the bishops, and when he did not appear was declared contumacious. He was declared to be a notorious cause of scandal to the Church, a despiser of the decrees of the Holy Synods, a persistent heretic, and destroyer of the rights of the Church. As such he was deposed from his office; all were freed from his allegiance, and were forbidden to call him Pope any longer. The dominant party in the Council had everything to win and nothing to lose by pursuing to its end the quarrel with the Pope. In the divided state of political interests there was a chance that some of the European powers might be drawn to its side if once a decided step was taken. But it forgot, in the excitement of the conflict, that the Council’s hold upon men’s obedience was a moral hold, and rested upon hopes of ecclesiastical reform. When this had been sacrificed to the necessities of a party conflict, when a schism and not a reformation was the issue of the Council's activity, its authority was practically gone. It required only a little time to make this clearly manifest.

The Council, however, did not hesitate in its course. On the day of the deposition of Eugenius IV a consultation was held about future procedure; and the opinion of John of Segovia was adopted, to defer for sixty days the election to the vacant office of Pope. The position of the Council was discouraging. The plague, which since the spring had been raging in Basel, had grown fiercer in the summer heat. Five thousand of the inhabitants are said to have fallen before its ravages. Terror prevailed on every side, and it was hard to keep the Council together. The learned jurist Pontano and the Patriarch of Aquileia, two pillars of the Council, were amongst those who fell victims to the mortality. The streets were thronged with funerals and priests bearing the sacrament to the dying. The dead were buried in pits to save the trouble of digging single graves. Aeneas Sylvius was stricken by the plague, but recovered. Eight of his friends amongst the clerks of the Council died.

In spite of all danger and the repeated advice of his friends that he should flee before the pestilence, the Cardinal of Arles stood to his post, and so kept the Council together. At the beginning of October the business of the Council was resumed, and the method of the new election was discussed. The College of Cardinals was represented in Basel only by Louis d'Allemand. It was clear that Electors must be appointed. After some discussion their number was fixed at thirty-two, but there were many opinions about the means of choosing them. At last William, Archdeacon of Metz, proposed the names of three men who should be trusted to co-opt the remaining twenty-nine. The three whose high character and impartiality were supposed to place them above suspicion were Thomas, Abbot of Dundrennan, in Scotland, John of Segovia, a Castilian, and Thomas of Corcelles, Canon of Amiens. At first this plan met with great objections; but they gradually disappeared on discussion. The Germans urged that they were not represented, and it was agreed that the three should associate with themselves a German, Christian, Provost of S. Peter’s in Bruma, in the diocese of Olmutz. They took an oath that they would choose fitting men who had the fear of God before their, eyes and would not reveal the names of those they chose till the time of their publication in a general Congregation.

The triumvirs at once set about their business. They conferred with representative men of every nation: they did their best to acquaint themselves with the characters of those whom they had in view. Yet they displayed singular discretion in their inquiries; and when, on October 28, they met to make their election, no one knew their intentions. Next day the congregation was crowded to hear their decision. Everywhere speculation was rife. The more vain and more simple among the fathers displayed their own estimate of their deserts by appearing in fine clothes, with many attendants, ready to enter the conclave at once. Suspense was prolonged because the Cardinal of Arles was late. He appeared at last with a gloomy face, and took his seat, saying, “If the triumvirs have done well, I confess that I am rather late; if they have done ill, I am too soon”. He was afraid that their democratic sympathies might have outrun his own. His words were an evil omen; every one prepared for a dissension, which in the matter of a new election would work irreparable ruin to the Council.

The triumvirs behaved with singular prudence. First Thomas of Dundrennan, then John of Segovia, explained the principles on which they had acted. They had regarded national divisions, and had considered the representative character of those whom they chose; goodness, nobility, and learning had been the tests which they had used. The general result of their choice was that the electors would consist of twelve bishops, including the Cardinal of Arles, which was the number of the twelve apostles, seven abbots, five theologians, nine doctors and men of learning, all in priests’ orders. This announcement in some degree appeased the general dread. When the names were read, the position of the men chosen, and their distribution amongst nations, met with general approval. The Cardinal’s brow cleared; he praised the triumvirs for their wisdom and prudence, and the Congregation separated in contentment. On October 30, after the usual ceremonies, the electors entered the conclave in the house Zur Brücke.

The Cardinal of Arles was, of course, ready with a nominee for the papal office; naturally, he had not proceeded to extremities without making preparations for the result. If the cause of the Council was to succeed, it must again strike its roots into European politics, and must secure an influential protector. As other princes had grown cold towards the Council, the Duke of Savoy had declared himself its adherent. The greater part of the fathers now remaining at Basel were Savoyards. Amadeus VIII had ruled over Savoy since 1391. He was a prudent man, who knew how to take advantage of his neighbors’ straits, and had greatly increased the dominions and importance of Savoy till it embraced the lands that extended from the Upper Saone to the Mediterranean, and was bounded by Provence, Dauphiné, the Swiss Confederacy, and the Duchy of Milan. Like many others, Amadeus VIII had drawn his profits from the necessities of Sigismund, who, in 1416, elevated Savoy to the dignity of a duchy. The Duke of Savoy refused to take any side in the internal struggles of France or in the war between France and England, but grew rich on his neighbors’ misfortunes. He married a daughter of Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy; his eldest daughter was married to Filippo Maria, Duke of Milan, his second was the widow of Louis of Anjou. From his wealth, his position, and his connections, the Duke of Savoy was a man of great political influence. But the death of his eldest son caused him deep grief and unhappiness. In 1431 he retired from active life, and built himself a luxurious retreat at Ripaille, whither he withdrew with seven companions to lead a life of religious seclusion. His abode was called the Temple of S. Maurice; he and his followers wore grey cloaks, like hermits, with gold crosses round their necks, and long staffs in their hands. Yet Amadeus, in his seclusion, took a keen interest in affairs, and, when the suspension of Eugenius IV was decreed by the Council, sent an embassy to the Pope excusing the Council, and offering to mediate. As matters went on his support was more openly declared, and he offered to send to Basel the prelates of his land. During the year 1439 Savoyards had largely reinforced the Council, and the scheme of electing Amadeus as the future Pope had taken definite form. Amadeus had consulted other princes on the subject, and from the Duke of Milan had received the warmest promises of support. The electors to the Papacy had been chosen equally from the nations represented at the Council—France, Italy, Germany, and Spain. But, from its geographical position, Savoy was reckoned both in France and Italy. Of the twelve bishops amongst the electors seven were Savoyards; the others were the Cardinal of Arles, two French and one Spanish bishop, and the Bishop of Basel. Without any accusation of false play in the choice of the electors, it fell out that quite half of them were either subjects of Amadeus or were bound to him by ties of gratitude.

The proceedings of the conclave were conducted with the utmost decorum. At its commencement the Cardinal of Arles reminded the electors that the situation of affairs needed a rich and powerful Pope, who could defend the Council against its adversaries. On the first scrutiny of votes it was found that seventeen candidates had been nominated, of whom Amadeus had the greatest number of votes—sixteen. On the next scrutiny he had nineteen votes, and on the third twenty-one. His merits and the objections that could be raised against him were keenly but temperately discussed, and in the final scrutiny on November 5 it was found that he had received twenty-six votes, and his election to the Papacy was solemnly announced by the Cardinal of Arles.

The Council published the election throughout Christendom, and named an embassy headed by the Cardinal of Arles, with seven bishops, three abbots, and fourteen doctors, to carry to Amadeus the news of his election. Probably from want of money, the embassy did not leave Basel till December 3, when it was accompanied by envoys of the citizens and several nobles. On reaching Ripaille they were met by the nobles of Savoy. Amadeus, with his hermit comrades, advanced to meet them with the cross borne before him. Amadeus entered into negotiations in a business-like spirit, and rather surprised the ambassadors of the Council by stipulating that a change should be made in the form of the oath administered to the Pope, that he should keep his hermit’s beard and his former name of Amadeus. The envoys replied that the oath must be left to the Council; they could not alter the custom of assuming a religious name; the beard might be left for the present. Amadeus also disappointed the Council’s envoys by showing an unexpected care about his future financial position. “You have abolished annates”, he said; “what do you expect the Pope to live on? I cannot consume my patrimony and disinherit my sons”. They were driven to promise the cautious old man a grant of first-fruits of vacant benefices.

At last matters were arranged. Amadeus accepted his election, assumed the name of Felix V, and took the oath as prescribed by the Council. Then he left his solitude in Ripaille, and went in pontifical pomp to Tonon, where, amid the ecclesiastical solemnities of Christmastide, his friends were so struck by the incongruity of his bearded face that they persuaded him to shave. On the festival of the Epiphany he took the final step of separating himself from his worldly life by declaring his eldest son Louis Duke of Savoy, and his second son Philip Count of Geneva. By the Council’s advice he agreed not to fill up the offices of the Curia, lest by so doing he should hinder the reconciliation of those who held them under Eugenius IV; as a provisional measure they were put into commission. Felix V also submitted to the Council’s demand that, in the letters announcing his election, the Pope’s name should come after that of the Council. On the other hand, the Council allowed him to create new Cardinals, even in contradiction to their decrees on this point. Felix named four, but only one of those, the Bishop of Lausanne, as a dutiful subject, accepted the doubtful dignity, to which small hope of revenue was attached.

On February 26, the Council of Basel issued a decree commanding all to obey Felix V, and excommunicating those who refused. This was naturally followed by a similar decree of Eugenius IV from Florence on March 23. Neither of these decrees was very efficacious. Eugenius IV had strengthened himself in December by creating seventeen Cardinals, Bessarion and Isidore of Russia among the Greeks, two Spaniards, four Frenchmen, one Englishman (John Kemp, Archbishop of York), one Pole, one German, one Hungarian, and five Italians. Unlike the nominees of Felix, all accepted the office except the Bishop of Krakau, who refused the offers of both Popes alike. The news of the election of Amadeus at first caused some consternation in the court of Eugenius IV; but the sagacity of Cesarini restored their confidence. “Be not afraid”, he said, “for now you have conquered, since one has been elected by the Council whom flesh and blood has revealed to them, not their Heavenly Father. I was afraid lest they might elect some poor, learned and good man, whose virtues might be dangerous; as it is, they have chosen a worldling, unfit by his previous life for the office, one who has shed blood in war, has been married and has children, one who is unfit to stand by the altar of God”.

Felix V did not find matters easy to arrange with the Council. He stayed at Lausanne for some time, and did not comply with the repeated requests of the fathers that he would hasten to Basel. No steps were taken to provide for the support of the Papal dignity. The letter of Felix V, nominating the Cardinal of Arles as president of the Council, was ruled to be so informal that it was not inserted in the Council’s records. Questions concerning the Council’s dignity in the presence of the Pope gave rise to many discussions; it was agreed that the Pope and his officials should take an oath not to impede the jurisdiction of the Council over its own members. Not till June 24, 1440, did Felix enter Basel accompanied by his two sons, an unusual escort for a Pope, and all the nobility of Savoy. On July 24, he was crowned Pope by the Cardinal of Arles, the only Cardinal present. The ceremony was imposing, and more than 50,000 spectators are said to have been present. Felix V looked venerable and dignified, and excited universal admiration by the quickness with which he had mastered the minutiae of the mass service. No expense was spared to give grandeur to the proceedings; the tiara placed on Felix’s head cost thirty thousand crowns. After this, Felix abode in Basel awaiting the adhesion of the princes of Europe.

The two Popes were now pitted one against the other; but their rivalry was unlike any that had existed in former times. Each had his pretensions, each represented a distinctive policy; but neither had any enthusiastic adherents. The politics of Europe were but little concerned with ecclesiastical matters; the different States pursued their course without much heed to the contending Popes. Germany was the least united State and had the least determined policy. To Germany both Eugenius IV and Felix V turned their attention; each strove to end its neutrality favorably to himself. The hopes of both parties were awakened by the death of Albert II, on October 27, 1439. He died in Hungary of dysentery, brought on by eating too much fruit when fatigued in hot weather. Albert in his short reign had not succeeded in restoring order in the Empire, in giving peace to the Church, or in protecting his ancestral kingdoms; but his noble and disinterested character, his firmness and constancy, had roused hopes in men’s minds, which were suddenly extinguished by his untimely death. It became at once a question what would be the policy of the Electors during the vacancy in the Empire.

CHAPTER X.

EUGENIUS IV AND FELIX V.

1440—1444.

The German Electors heard at the same time the news of the death of Albert II, and of the elevation of Amadeus to the Papal dignity. They refused to receive either the envoys of Eugenius IV or of Felix V, and renewed their declaration of neutrality. Everything urged them to hasten their election to the Empire, and on February 1, 1440, they unanimously chose Frederick, Duke of Styria, second cousin of the deceased king and head of the house of Austria. Frederick was a young man, twenty-five years of age, whose position was embarrassing and whose responsibilities in Germany were already heavy. He was guardian of the county of the Tyrol during the minority of Sigismund, son of that Frederick who had played so luckless a part at Constance. Moreover, Albert II died without male heir, but left his wife pregnant; when she gave birth to a son, Ladislas, Frederick became guardian also of Bohemia and Hungary. At his election Frederick was held to be sagacious and upright; but he was not likely to interfere with the plans of the electoral oligarchy. Representatives of the two Popes at once beset both Electors and King. Frederick III, unlike his predecessor, was not committed definitely to the policy of neutrality, and only said that he proposed at the first Diet to confer with the Electors about the means of amending the disorders of the Church. He took no steps to hasten the summoning of a Diet, which met at Mainz a year after his election, on February 2, 1441. Even then Frederick III did not appear in person.

Meanwhile Felix V had received the adhesion of a few of the German princes. In June, 1440, Albert of Munich recognized him, and in August Stephen of Zimmern and Zweibrücke came to Basel with his two sons, and did him reverence. Albert of Austria, brother of Frederick III, followed, as did also Elizabeth of Hungary, widow of the late king. On the other hand, Felix met with a decided rebuff in France, where a synod was held at Bourges to hear ambassadors of both Popes. On September 2 answer was made in the King’s name that he recognized Eugenius IV, and besought his relative, “the lord of Savoy” (as he called Felix), to display his wonted wisdom in aiming at peace. France had no reason to deviate from her old policy, especially as Eugenius IV maintained the cause of René of Anjou in Naples. The Universities, especially those of Vienna, Koln, Erfurt, and Krakau, declared themselves in favour of Felix. It was but natural that the academic ideas, from which the conciliar movement sprang, should accept the issue which followed from the application of their original principle. The Council was especially anxious to gain the adhesion of the Duke of Milan, and Felix consented to pay a large subsidy in return for his protection. But Filippo Maria Visconti merely played with the offers of Felix. He promised to send envoys, but nothing came of it. In like manner Alfonso of Aragon adopted an ambiguous attitude. Both these princes wished to play off Felix V against Eugenius IV in Italian affairs, but saw nothing to be gained by committing themselves too definitely.

Thus Felix V was supported by no great power, and the schism had little influence on the mind of Europe. Felix represented only the new-fangled ideas of the Council—ideas which had long deserted the sphere of practical utility, and so had lost their interest, Felix and the Council were indissolubly bound together. The Council, in electing a Pope, had taken its last step. Felix could not dissolve the Council against its will, and was helpless without it. Yet, in spite of their close connection, it was difficult to regulate the relations between the two. There was at the outset a difficulty about money. The Council had elected the Duke of Savoy as a man who would spend his money in its behalf. Felix demanded that the Council should make due provision for its Pope and his Cardinals. This could only be done by granting to Felix V what had been taken away from Eugenius IV. The reforming Council must admit that it could not afford to carry out its own reforms; there was no escape from this admission. On August 4 a decree was passed giving the Pope for five years a fifth, and for the succeeding five years a tenth, of the first year’s revenues of all vacant benefices. It is true that the reason assigned for this special grant was to enable him to rescue from tyrants the patrimony of S. Peter. None the less it awakened opposition from the Germans in the Council, and was defended only by the fact that it was practically inoperative except in the dominions of Savoy. It brought little money; and when, on October 12, Felix, at the instance of the Council, nominated eight Cardinals, amongst whom were the Patriarch of Aquileia and John of Segovia, the question of their revenues again became pressing. On November 12 six Cardinals were created to conciliate France. It was necessary to have recourse to the old system of provisions of benefices to supply them with revenues. Felix chafed under the restraints which the Council laid upon him, and took advantage of the absence of the Cardinal of Arles in November to preside over the Council, and pass some decrees which awoke much comment. When he asked to have the same rights granted to him over ecclesiastical benefices in Savoy as the Pope exercised in the States of the Church, the Council refused the demand.

Meanwhile Frederick III gave no signs of his intention. This indecision, which was the result of indolence and infirmity of purpose, passed at first for statesman- like reserve. Both parties looked to the Diet at Mainz for an opportunity of achieving a signal victory. They were disappointed to hear that the King found himself too much engaged with difficult matters in his own States to undertake in person the affairs of Germany. He sent four commissioners to Mainz, who were to hear the arguments of the rival claimants. Eugenius IV had learned wisdom by former experience, and sent as his representatives two men skilled in affairs, but not of high dignity, Nicolas of Cusa, a deserter from the Council, who well knew the temper of Germany, and John of Carvajal, a Spaniard of great personal piety and worth, a trained official of the Papal court. The Council, on the other hand, sent its highest dignitaries, Cardinal d'Allemand and three of the new Cardinals, chief of whom was John of Segovia. John claimed to appear as Papal Legate; but when he was entering with pomp the Cathedral of Mainz the Chapter met him, and declined to admit his legatine authority, so that he was obliged to retire. The Diet decided to hear him as an ambassador of the Council, but not to recognize on either side the claims of any dignity which had been conferred since the declaration of neutrality. When the Council’s representatives tried to resist this decision, they were told by the citizens of Mainz that their safe-conduct would be revoked within eight days if they did not submit to the demands of the Diet. They were driven sullenly to give way, and only the Cardinal of Arles received the honor due to his office.

On March 24 d'Allemand appeared before the Diet, and pleaded the cause of the Council, while his colleagues remained sulkily at home. Next day Carvajal and Cusa answered him, and seemed to produce considerable effect upon those present, the Electors of Trier and Mainz, the king’s commissioners, the ambassadors of France, and a few German nobles. Stung by the success of Cusa, John of Segovia laid aside his pride, assumed a doctor’s robes, and with great clearness and cogency restated the Council’s position. He produced a vast treatise, divided into twelve books, in which he had argued out at length the various points raised by his speech. Carvajal and Cusa replied. When John of Segovia wished to return to the charge the Diet ruled that it had heard enough. It is no wonder that it quailed before John of Segovia’s treatise, especially as the matter in dispute was one in which Germany took a political, not an ecclesiastical, interest. A paper was circulated amongst the members of the Diet, most probably the work of Jacob, Archbishop of Trier, urging the acceptance of whichever Pope would summon a new Council, to be organized by nations, and would guarantee to the German Church the reforms which it had claimed for itself. In accordance with this plan the Diet laid before the rival parties the old proposal that a new Council should be summoned in some neutral place with the concurrence of the kings of Europe. Six places in Germany and six in France were submitted for choice, and Frederick III was to negotiate with the two Popes further arrangements for this new Council, which was to meet on August 1, 1442.

Both parties retired from Mainz disappointed, and beset Frederik with embassies. Frederick, who was rapidly showing himself to be a master of the art of doing nothing, said that he proposed to hold another Diet at Frankfort next year, when the question might be again discussed. He was not altogether satisfied with the policy adopted by the Diet. The Diet was ready to recognize the Pope who would grant to the German Church such reforms as suited the Electors; Frederick III, was desirous to recognize the Pope who was generally held to be legitimate, especially if in so doing he could further his own interests.

Pending the next Diet, the fathers at Basel composed and disseminated statements of their cause. Their proceedings otherwise were not very harmonious. There was the old difficulty about money. Felix complained that he incurred great expenses in sending out embassies and the like, while he received little or nothing. The Cardinals clamoured for revenues, and the officials of the Curia claimed their share of such money as came in. The Council granted to Felix a bishopric, a monastery, and one benefice in Savoy till he should recover the States of the Church. An outcry was raised against the excessive fees of the Papal Chancery; the officers answered that they only exacted the dues recognized by John XXII. Want of money led to a strict inquiry into the conduct of the financial officers of the Council; and this caused great bitterness. Felix sent the captain of his guard to imprison some who were accused of malversation. The Council loudly complained that their liberty was infringed, and called on the citizens of Basel to maintain their safe-conduct. The magistrates interfered, restored peace, and fined the Pope’s captain. The Council urged on Felix to send embassies on all sides to set forth his cause. Felix answered that embassies were costly things, and as yet he had got little for his money spent on them. The Council, believing in the power of plausibility, commissioned the Archbishop of Palermo to draw up a letter to be presented to Frederick III. When he had done his work it did not satisfy them, and the facile pen of Aeneas Sylvius was employed to put it into a more seductive form. The time for the Diet of Frankfort was drawing near, and Felix was prevailed to send another embassy. His Cardinals at first pleaded their outraged dignity, and refused to go. Felix bade them disregard their clothes in the interests of truth and justice. The Cardinal of Aries, the Archbishop of Palermo, and John of Segovia accepted the office and set out in May, 1442.

Eugenius IV meanwhile had asserted his authority by decreeing, on April 26, 1441, the transference of his Council from Florence to Rome, on the ground that Rome was a better place to receive the ambassadors of the Ethiopian Church, who were conducting an illusory reconciliation with the Papacy. It was a proud assertion of Papal superiority over Councils. An attempt was made by the more decided of the Electors to obtain the assent of Eugenius IV to the policy which they had put forward at Mainz. A learned jurist, Gregory Heimburg, was sent to Florence with the proposals of the Electors, drawn out in the form of two bulls, one dealing with the new Council, the other with the liberties of the German Church. Eugenius gave no definite answer, as Heimburg brought with him no credentials. He deferred his answer to the Diet at Frankfort. But this negotiation showed a disposition on the part of the German princes at this time to take the matter into their own hands, without waiting for Frederick, whose dubious attitude was probably due to a hope of winning back from the Swiss cantons some of the Hapsburg possessions, with which view he did not choose to quarrel with Basel or with Savoy.

On May 27 Frederick arrived in Frankfort with the three ecclesiastical Electors, the Count Palatine, and the Duke of Saxony. The Council was represented by its three Cardinals; Eugenius IV by Carvajal and Cusa, as before. But they were not permitted to air their eloquence before the King. He decided, before entering the troubled sea of ecclesiastical disputes, to secure his position by the prestige of a coronation, and announced his intention of going to Aachen for that purpose. In his absence commissioners would hear the arguments of the rival envoys, that on his return he might not find them contending. The Cardinal of Arles, as a prince of the Empire, accompanied the King; but at Aachen he was shut out of the cathedral by the bishop as being excommunicated. At Frankfort the Archbishop of Palermo harangued the royal commissioners for three days, and Cusa, not to be outdone, did the same. The weary commissioners asked that the arguments might be reduced to writing, which was done. On Frederick’s return, July 8, they were laid before him, and the business of the Diet commenced. The plan of the five Electors for recognizing Eugenius was, under Frederick’s influence, laid aside. At Aachen he had signed a treaty with Zurich to help him to recover his ancestral domains. The Electors agreed to stand by their King, and leave in his hands the decision of the ecclesiastical question.

The policy adopted at Frankfort did not in its contents differ from that previously followed. Envoys were to be sent to Eugenius and to Basel, urging the envoys summons of an undoubted Council. But the object the two of this new embassy was the glorification of the new King of the Romans. Six places were proposed for the Council, all in Germany, because in Germany was greater liberty and security than in other kingdoms, where war prevailed and scarcity was felt. Punctilious orders were given to the ambassadors as to the manner in which they were to observe the neutrality. Eugenius IV was to be treated with the ordinary respect due to the rank which he had held before the declaration of neutrality. Felix V was not to be treated as Pope. Everything was done to convince both parties that they must submit their cause to the decision of the German King.

From Frankfort Frederick III made a kingly progress through Alsace and the Swiss Cantons, which received him with due respect. He was accompanied by the Cardinal of Arles, and proposals were made to him for a marriage with Margaret, the daughter of Felix V, and widow of Louis of Anjou. Frederick III does not seem to have rejected the proposal. It suited him to take no decisive steps. He promised to visit Basel, but demanded that first his ambassadors should be heard, and an answer be returned by the Council, which, sorely against its will, was driven to consider the proposals of the Diet. After many discussions and many complaints, the Council answered that, though they were lawfully assembled and enjoyed full security at Basel, and would run many dangers in changing their place, still, in their desire for peace, they were willing to agree to the King’s proposal, provided the King and princes would promise obedience to all the decrees of the new Council, and also would agree to choose the place of its meeting from a list which the fathers in Basel would submit. It was clear that such reservations made their concession entirely futile.

On receiving this answer Frederick III entered Basel on November 11, and was honorably received by the Council. He maintained, however, an attitude of strict neutrality, and visited Felix V on the understanding that he was not to be expected to pay him reverence as Pope. The interview took place in the evening. Felix V appeared in Papal dress, with his nine Cardinals, and the cross carried before him. The Bishop of Chiemsee on Frederick’s behalf explained his master’s attitude, and was careful to address Felix as “your benignity”, not “your holiness”. Nothing was gained by the interview. Frederick was respectful, but nothing more. The marriage project did not progress, though Felix is said to have offered a dowry of 200,000 gold ducats provided he was recognized as Pope. Frederick left Basel on November 17, saying, “Other Popes have sold the rights of the Church; Felix would buy them, could he find a seller”.

The German envoys to Eugenius IV were referred to a commission, chief amongst whom was the canonist, John of Torquemada, who raised many technical objections to their proposals. But Eugenius IV refused to take advantage of the technicalities of the commission. On December 8 he gave a decided answer. He wondered at the demand for an undoubted Council, seeing that he was then holding a Council which had done great things for Christendom, and to call it doubtful was nothing less than to oppose the Catholic faith. He did not call Frederick by his title of King, but spoke only of “the Electors and him whom they had elected”. He was willing to summon more prelates to his Council at the Lateran, and leave them to decide whether any further steps were necessary. The answers of the Pope and the Council were formally reported to the envoys of the King and some of the princes at Nurnberg on February 1, 1443. They deferred their consideration to a Diet to be held in six months; but they fixed no place for its meeting. In fact, the German Electors were rapidly falling away from their mediatorial attitude, which had never been very genuine. No sooner had Frederick III succeeded in checking their league in favour of Eugenius IV than a new league was formed in behalf of Felix V. The personal and family relationships of the House of Savoy naturally began to tell upon the German princes. A man who had a dowry of 200,000 ducats at his disposal was not likely to be without friends. In December, 1442, negotiations were set on foot for a marriage between the son of the Elector of Saxony and a niece of Felix V. The Archbishop of Trier was busy in the matter, and stipulated for his reward at the expense of the Church. The Archbishop of Koln was a declared adherent of the Council. These Electors were indifferent which Pope was recognized; they only bargained that the victory should be won by their help, and that they should be rewarded by an increase of their power and importance. It was hopeless to attempt to secure for Felix V universal recognition; but it would answer their purpose if he obtained by their means a really important position. A league in favour of Felix V was definitely formed, and its success depended upon obtaining the support of Frederick III or of the French King.

The plan dearest to Frederick III was the recovery of the possessions of the House of Hapsburg from the Swiss Confederates. His alliance with Zurich and his march through the lands of the Cantons was regarded by Frederick III as an important step.

But the jealousy of the Confederates was easily aroused, and the quarrels which had urged Zürich to seek alliance with Frederick soon revived. Zürich was called upon to renounce her alliance with Austria, and on her refusal was attacked. The war was waged with savage determination. Zürich was overmatched in numbers, but trusted to Austrian help. Frederick III could raise no forces in his own dominions, where he had troubles on every side. The German princes refused to send troops to prosecute a private quarrel of their King. A crushing defeat on July 22, 1443, threatened Zürich with destruction, and Frederick III, in his desire for aid, turned to the French King, and begged to have the loan of some of the disbanded soldiers, who were the miserable legacy to France of the long English war. These Armagnacs, as they were called after their former leader, were a formidable element in the French kingdom, and Charles VII was willing enough to lend them to his neighbors. But he also was ready to fish in troubled waters; and the embarrassments of the Empire suggested to him that he might extend his frontier towards the Rhine. Instead of 5000 troops, as Frederick III demanded, he sent 30,000; instead of sending them to the Austrian general, he sent them under the command of the Dauphin. Eugenius IV tried to use this opportunity for his own purposes. He conferred on the Dauphin the title of gonfalonier of the Church, with a salary of 15,000 florins, in hopes that he would attack Basel and disperse the Council. In August, 1444, the French marched through Alsace, took Mümpelgard, and, spreading devastation in their way, advanced towards Basel. In a bloody battle on the little river Birs, by the cemetery of S. Jacob, not far from the trails of Basel, a body of 1500 Confederates fought for ten hours against the overwhelming forces of the French. They were cut to pieces almost to a man; but the victory was so dearly bought that the Dauphin made no further attempts to conquer Basel, or to fight another battle against the troops of the Cantons. He made peace with the Confederates through the mediation of the fathers of the Council, and retired into Alsace, where his troops pillaged at will.

This was the state of things when, at the beginning of August, 1444, Frederick III at last arrived at Nurnberg, to be present, as he had so often promised, at a Diet which was to settle the affairs of the Church. He had during the past year sent letters to the princes of Europe, begging them to consent to a General Council, which he, following the example of the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius, proposed to summon. He received dubious answers; it was clear that such a Council was impossible. The French King, in his answer, said that it would be better to drop the name of a Council, and bring about an assembly of secular princes; where were the princes there was also the Church. Aeneas Sylvius expresses the same opinion still more forcibly: “I do not see any clergy who would suffer martyrdom for one side or the other. We all have the same faith as our rulers, and if they were to turn idolaters we would do so too. We would abjure not only a Pope, but Christ Himself at their bidding. For love has waxed cold, and faith is dead”. Fortified by the proposition of the French King, Frederick III put off his presence at a Diet till the need had grown urgent. He went to Nurnberg more interested about Swiss affairs than about the position of the Church.

On August I Frederick III arrived in Nurnberg, where the Electors of Trier, Saxony, and Brandenburg awaited him, and were soon joined by the Archbishop of Mainz. Many of the chief German princes were also there. Frederick’s first desire was to get help from the Diet against the Swiss Confederates; but in this he was coldly listened to, and when the news of the battle on the Birs reached Nurnberg the King was placed in a sorry predicament. The hungry bands of France had ravaged the possessions of the Empire, and the Dauphin was already negotiating peace with the enemies of Austria, whom he had been summoned to overthrow. Frederick, crimson with shame, had to listen to reproaches which he could not answer. The only lesson which he learned from them was not to face another Diet, a lesson which for the next twenty-seven years he steadfastly practised. The Diet appointed the Pfalzgraf Lewis general of the army of the Empire against the strangers from France. Frederick III, by his supineness, had lost his control over the German princes. A proposition which he put forward about ecclesiastical matters—to extend the neutrality for a year, and proclaim a Council to meet on October 1, 1445, at Constance, or, failing that, at Augsburg—was not accepted. The Diet separated without coming to any joint decision. The discord between the King and the Electors had at length become manifest.

Moreover, at Nurnberg the Pfalzgraf Lewis had been won over to the side of Felix V by a marriage contract with Margaret, the daughter of Felix, whom Frederik had refused. Four of the six Electors were now leagued together in favour of Felix. It was a question how far they would succeed. The dispute between the two Popes had passed into the region of mere political expediency and personal intrigue. The whole matter was felt to centre in Germany, and in the midst of these political intrigues the Council of Basel sunk to insignificance. Felix V had found that the Council was useless to him, as well as irksome. Towards the end of 1443 he quitted Basel on the ground of health, and took up his abode at Lausanne. There he might live in peace, and be rid of the expense which the Council perpetually caused him. Forsaken by the Pope of its own choice, the Council became a mere shadow. Its zeal and energy had been expended to little abiding purpose. After a glorious beginning, it had gone hopelessly astray, and had lost itself in a quagmire from which there was no escape.

The hopes of Felix V entirely rested on Germany. Eugenius IV relied upon the revival of his prestige as sure to tell upon Italian politics, in which the Papacy was a necessary element to maintain the balance of power. In Italy Eugenius IV had been slowly gaining ground. In 1434 the condottiere bishop, Giovanni Vitelleschi, had taken possession of Rome in the Pope’s name, and ruled it with severity. Francesco Sforza had, however, gained a firm hold of the March of Ancona. The Duke of Milan encouraged Bologna in 1438 to throw off the Papal yoke and declare itself independent; its example was followed by Faenza, Imola, and Forli. The condottiere general, Niccolo Piccinino, in league with the Duke of Milan, beguiled Eugenius IV into a belief that he was going against Sforza in the March. Suddenly he showed himself in his true colours, and prepared to enrich himself at the Pope’s expense. Moreover, he planned an invasion of the Florentine territory, and was supposed to have drawn to his side the Papal general, Vitelleschi. Vitelleschi with a strong hand introduced order into Rome and the neighborhood; he even waged war against Alfonso in Naples. He enjoyed to the full the confidence of Eugenius IV, over whom he had greater influence than anyone else, and by whom he was created Cardinal in 1437. Vitelleschi was a condottiere influenced by the same ambitions as Sforza and Piccinino, and in Rome he held an independent position which tempted him to act on his own account. He was known to be bitterly hostile to Sforza, and was negotiating with Piccinino for the overthrow of their rival. When Eugenius IV summoned to the aid of the Florentines the Pontifical forces under the leadership of Vitelleschi, the cautious Florentine magistrates were alarmed lest the understanding between the two condottieri might prove stronger than Vitelleschi’s obedience to the Pope. They laid before Eugenius IV intercepted letters of Vitelleschi to Piccinino. The favorite had many foes among the Cardinals, who succeeded in persuading the Pope that Vitelleschi was a traitor. But Eugenius IV dared not proceed openly against a powerful general. Secret orders were sent to Antonio Redo, captain of the Castle of S. Angelo, to take him prisoner. On the morning of his departure for Tuscany Vitelleschi came to give his last orders to the commander of the Castle. Suddenly the drawbridge was raised; Vitelleschi was attacked by soldiers and received three severe wounds. He was made prisoner, and resigned himself to his fate. When he was told that his captivity would be brief, as the Pope would soon be convinced of his innocence, he answered, “One who has done such deeds as mine ought either never to have been imprisoned, or can never be released”. He died on April 2, 1440, and the rumour spread that his death was due to poison, and not to his wounds.

At all events, the Florentines were glad to be rid of Vitelleschi, and managed to persuade the Pope to appoint as his successor a man whom they could trust, Ludovico Scarampo, who had formerly been Archbishop of Florence. In June, 1440, Eugenius IV conferred on Scarampo and his own nephew, Pietro Barbo, the dignity of Cardinal.

The fall of Vitelleschi freed Florence from the fear of Piccinino, for it restored the balance between him and his rival Sforza. But the Duke of Milan was growing weary of the indecisive war which he had been waging against the League of Venice, Florence, and the Pope. Sforza and Piccinino had won all that for a time they were likely to hold. All parties wished for peace, which was concluded at Cremona in November, 1441, on the usual terms that each should keep what they had won. Sforza also received in marriage the illegitimate daughter of the Duke of Milan, Bianca, whose hand had often been promised him, and often refused. Eugenius IV alone was discontented; for Sforza was left in possession of the March of Ancona and other conquests in the States of the Church.

In Naples also the Angevin party, which Eugenius IV, supported, was gradually giving way before the energy of Alfonso. In 1442 René was driven into enters Naples and there was besieged. His only hope June, was to gain assistance from Sforza; but the Duke of Milan, jealous of his powerful son-in-law, set Piccinino to keep him in check, and Eugenius IV, who now saw in Sforza his chief enemy, was only too glad to do his part of fulminating against him. Alfonso pressed the siege of Naples, which he entered on June 2, 1442. René was driven to flee from the Castel Nuovo, where the superb triumphal arch in the inner doorway still stands to commemorate the entrance of Alfonso. René fled on board a Genoese galley to Florence, where he received the Pope’s condolences, and afterwards betook himself to his county of Provence.

The fall of the Angevin party in Naples greatly affected the policy and position of Eugenius IV. He had little to expect from France, whose position towards the Papacy was now declared. On the other hand, he had much to gain from Alfonso, and Alfonso had shown by his dealings with the Council of Basel that his chief object was to bring the Pope to terms. By an alliance with Alfonso, Eugenius could obtain help against Sforza, and could also pave the way for a peaceful return to Rome. He had begun to feel that in a contest against a pretender the establishment of his Curia in Rome would add to his prestige. He had already decreed the adjournment of his Council from Florence to the Lateran, and it was worthwhile to make his hold on Rome secure. Moreover, he had gained little by his alliance with Florence and Venice; in the peace of 1441 they had regarded only their own interests and had paid no heed to his desires. Accordingly Eugenius IV negotiated with Alfonso to recognize him in Naples, and legitimatize his son Ferrante, on condition that Alfonso helped him against Sforza. As this was a step alienating himself from the League and from Florence, Eugenius IV found it desirable to leave Florence on March 7, 1443. The Venetians urged the Florentines to keep him prisoner, and only on the morning of his departure did the Florentines determine to let him go. Yet the final departure was courteous on both sides, and Eugenius IV thanked the magistracy for their hospitality. He betook himself to Siena, a city hostile to Florence, and, by so doing, gave a clear indication of his change of policy.

In Siena Eugenius IV was honorably received, and concluded his negotiations with Alfonso. He also had Eugenius an interview with Piccinino, and doubtless devised with him schemes against their common enemy Sforza. On September 13 he set out for Rome, where he arrived on September 28, after an absence of eight years. The Romans received their Pope with acquiescence, but without enthusiasm. Eugenius IV settled down quietly into his capital, and proceeded at once to open his Council in the Lateran. But the Council of the Lateran was an empty form maintained against the Council of Basel, which was now weakened by the defection of Scotland and Castile, as well as Aragon. Eugenius IV trusted to diplomacy to destroy the last hope of Felix V, by driving Frederick III to abandon the German neutrality. Meanwhile in Italy he had important work to do in using his new allies as a means of recovering from Sforza his possessions in the States of the Church.

In Italy circumstances favored the Pope’s policy. The suspicious Duke of Milan was always jealous of his powerful son-in-law, and wished to keep him in check. Alfonso of Naples was true to his agreement with the Pope, and in August, 1443, marched against Sforza. He was joined by Piccinino, and their combined army is said to have numbered 24,000 men, against which Sforza could only command 8000. Sforza resolved to act on the defensive and secure his chief cities by garrisons; but many of the leaders in whom he trusted betrayed his cause. His ruin seemed imminent, when suddenly the Duke of Milan interposed on his behalf. He wished to see his son-in-law humbled, but not destroyed, and so prevailed on Alfonso to withdraw his troops. Sforza was now a match for Piccinino, and succeeded in defeating him in battle on November 8. But Piccinino was rich in the resources of Eugenius IV, while Sforza suffered from want of money. Both sides retired into winter quarters, and as spring approached Piccinino had a superior force at his command. Again the Duke of Milan interposed, and invited Piccinino to a conference on important affairs. No sooner was Piccinino absent than Sforza hastened to seize the opportunity. He gathered together his starving troops, and told them that now was their last chance of wealth and victory. His skillful generalship outmatched Piccinino’s son, who, with the Papal legate, Cardinal Capranica, was left in charge of the troops of the Church. Piccinino, already an old man, had gone to Milan with sad forebodings; he was so overwhelmed with the news of this defeat, that he died of a broken heart on October 25, 1444. He was a marvelous instance of the power of genius over adverse circumstances. Small in stature, crippled through paralysis so that he could scarcely walk, he could direct campaigns with unerring skill; though devoid of eloquence or personal gifts, he could inspire his soldiers with confidence and enthusiasm. He was impetuous and daring, and showed to the greatest advantage in adversity. But he lacked the consistent policy of Sforza, and saw, in his last days, that he had founded no lasting power. With his death his army fell in pieces, and no captain was left in Italy to match the might of Sforza.

When the fortunes of war had begun to turn against the Pope, Venice and Florence joined with the Duke of Milan in urging peace, which was accepted on condition that each party should retain what it held on October 18. Sforza employed the eight days that intervened between the conclusion of the peace and the date for its operation in recovering most of the cities which had been won for the Pope. Eugenius IV only retained Ancona, Recanati, Osimo, and Fabriano, and they were to remain tributary to Sforza. His first attempt against the powerful condottiere had not met with much success. Next year, however, he was again prepared to take advantage of another quarrel which had arisen between Sforza and the Duke of Milan, and war again broke out. Bologna, which had been in the hands of Piccinino, proclaimed its independence under the leadership of Annibale Bentivoglio; but the Pope and the Duke of Milan both looked with suspicion on the independence of a city which each wished to bring under his own sway. In June, 1445, a band of conspirators, supported by the Duke of Milan, assassinated Annibale Bentivoglio after a baptism, where he had been invited to act as godfather to the son of their ringleader. But their plan of seizing the city failed. The people were true to the house of Bentivoglio, and slew the assassins of Annibale. Florence and Venice came to their help. There was again war in Italy with Sforza, Florence, and Venice on one side, the Pope, Naples, and Milan on the other. Again Sforza was hard pressed, and the Papal troops overran the March of Ancona. In June, 1446, Sforza made a raid in the direction of Rome, and penetrated as far as Viterbo. But the cities shut their gates against him, and he had no means of besieging them. Sforza’s ruin seemed certain; Jesi was the only town in the March which he held. But, luckily for him, the Venetians took this opportunity to attack the Duke of Milan, who, being ill provided with generals, needed the help of Sforza, whose ambition was henceforward turned to a nobler prize than the March of Ancona, which fell back peaceably into the hands of the Pope.

Thus Eugenius IV, by stubborn persistency, succeeded in repairing the mischief of his first political indiscretion, and obtained again a secure position in Italy, while the mistakes of the Council had done much to restore his ecclesiastical power, which had been so dangerously threatened. The leading theologians of the Council had been driven to quit it, and range themselves on the side of the Pope; only John of Segovia and John of Palomar remained true to the principles with which the Council opened. It is noticeable that the great advocate of the Council’s power, Nicolas of Cusa, was now the chief emissary of Eugenius IV. Cusa had been taught in the school of Deventer, and came to Basel deeply imbued with the mystic theology of the Brethren of the Common Life. His work, De Concordantia Catholica, written in 1433, represented the ideal of the reforming party, a united Church reformed in soul and body, in priesthood and laity, by the action of a Council which should represent on earth the eternal unity of Heaven. Cusa’s work was the text-book of the Council; yet its author was disillusioned, and found his theories fade away. He quitted Basel with Cesarini, and in common with others who felt that they had been led away by their enthusiasm, laboured to restore the Papal power which once he had striven to upset. The Council of Florence gathered round the Pope an extraordinary number of learned theologians, whose efforts were now devoted to the restoration of the Papacy. Again, after the interval of a century and a half, the pens of canonists were engaged in extolling the Papal supremacy. John of Torquemada, a Spanish Dominican, whom Eugenius IV raised to the Cardinalate, revived the doctrine of the plenitude of the Papal power, and combated the claims of a General Council to rank as superior to the Pope. Now, as in other times, the immediate result of an attack upon the Papal supremacy was to gather round the Papacy a serried band of ardent supporters; if the outward sphere of the exercise of the Papal authority was limited, the theoretic basis of the authority itself was made stronger for those who still upheld it.

These labours of theologians were to bear their fruits in after times. The immediate question for Felix V and Eugenius IV was the attitude of Germany towards their conflicting claims. Germany was to be their battlefield, and diplomacy their arms

READING HALL

DOORS OF WISDOM

A HISTORY OF THE POPES FROM THE GREAT SCHISM TO THE SACK OF ROME