HISTORY OF THE POPES FROM THE CLOSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES

POPE LEO X

CHAPTER XVIII.

THE FRENCH CONCORDAT.— ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY.— CHARACTER AND PONTIFICATE OF LEO X.

THE Council of the Lateran aroused vehement opposition in France at the moment when the Concordat with Francis I was being ratified within its walls with the utmost pomp and solemnity. When the eleventh session set the seal to this agreement, it was already an accomplished fact, thanks to the negotiations carried on so assiduously after the battle of Marignano. Profiting by the deep impression made by his victory, the astute French monarch knew how to conduct his affairs with consummate ability. It was during the private conference which took place at Bologna on the 1th of December, 1515, at the close of the Consistory, that Francis quite unexpectedly asked his host to confirm the Pragmatic Sanction. Leo X replied that he could never be induced to tolerate a schismatic constitution, but that he would not be averse to a concordat, having a similar purport to that of the Pragmatic Sanction ; that is to say, all the stipulations in the latter inimical to the Papacy were to be eliminated, and the privileges contained therein to be placed on a legitimate basis. In this and subsequent conversations the Pope and King came to an agreement on essentials. The results must have been even more agreeable to the crafty King than to his former antagonist. By a bold move Francis had secured that for which he had long striven : the substitution for the Pragmatic Sanction, which he disliked, of a concordat in the highest degree advantageous to himself; and any odium which might arise in his own country, he could avert from himself by referring to the wishes of the Pope, from whom the plan had emanated.

After the Pope and the King had come to terms on the main article of the Concordat, the nomination of bishops, confidential persons were entrusted by both with the task of drawing up a convention in proper form. For this purpose the Cardinals Lorenzo Pucci and Pietro Accolti remained behind in Bologna, while Francis was represented by his Chancellor, Du Prat. The negotiations proceeded with difficulty, as each party was a match for the other in diplomatic craft. Notwithstanding their arduous endeavours, the Papal advisers were unable to carry through their demands concerning jurisdiction. After making some concessions they succeeded, in the course of a few weeks, in settling the articles of the compact ; by the beginning of February, 1516, the plenipotentiaries had already left Bologna. At the head of the arrangements stood the Concordat, which, from the French point of view, was looked upon, not unreasonably, as the greatest and most remarkable concession that had ever proceeded from the chair of St. Peter. Thereby, in return for the abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction, the Pope handed over to the French Crown the full right of nomination to the bishoprics and abbeys bestowed in Consistory ; all the conditions thereto belonging reappear in the later contract. For nine months in the year the bishops are to appoint to the lower clerical offices ; after that the Pope can intervene by mandate. Expectancies and reservations are abolished entirely in France and Dauphine. All lawsuits affecting the clergy and their benefices, except the causa majoris reserved for hearing in Rome, must, under pain of excommunication and deprivation, be settled within two years in the country to which they belong.

Then follows a series of stipulations, which were not adopted in the subsequent Concordat, but for a long time played an important part in the relations between Paris and Rome. The King during his lifetime retained the same rights of patronage in Brittany and Provence as in France ; all privileges established in these provinces the Pope promised to uphold. Further, the King was granted the privilege, for one occasion only, of the primaria preces. Leo was also ready to accommodate him in the settlement of the bishoprics of the Duchy of Milan, provided he did not interfere with the lower offices. The Pope was equally willing to make con cessions over the Bull of the Crusade ; the King was left free to fix the amount of the tithe for the building of St. Peter’s. The Pope sent a Legate to France to assess, along with prelates appointed by the King, all taxes on cathedrals and abbeys granted in Consistory; hitherto the customary taxes had been levied. The regulations for indulgences granted to the Knights of the Holy Cross and to the Hospital of Paris, the removal of Wolsey from the administration of the diocese of Tournai, the suppression of two sees created in Savoy, the measures directed against the contumacious clergy in the Archbishopric of Milan, the absolution of all who were under ban for their hostility to the Roman Church, were all points on which, almost without exception, a decision was made favourable to the Most Christian King.

Thus with heavy sacrifices Leo purchased peace with France and preserved this important member of Christendom within the unity of the Church. The tenacious Du Prat never swerved from the attainment of that which would gratify the insatiable demands of his master. It was easy to foresee that the conditions exchanged between Paris and Rome would encounter much opposition.

It was apparently in his own court that Francis found the antagonism most speedily quelled. Louisa of Savoy, to whom Francis sent drafts of the terms, that their utility to the throne, the kingdom, and the Church might be considered, expressed herself in their favour. The same opinion was held by distinguished jurists. From different quarters came the advice that “certain points which the Pope had had inserted should be struck out, while others called for more time for reflection”. Disregarding these opinions, Francis ordered the Concordat to be read in Parliament and set forth the motives which had led him to conclude this agreement. The Parliament making no reply, he “took their silence for consent”. This occurred in the early days of 1516.

Much more difficult was it to persuade the Cardinals in Consistory. They opposed before all else the numerous concessions on points of ecclesiastical jurisdiction ; they demanded with vehemence that the interference of the secular authorities with the incomes and property of the churches should be forbidden. Some were of opinion that it would have been better for the honour of the Pope and the Holy See if no bargain had been struck and things had remained as they were. The Sacred College, in fact, endeavoured to reject the articles which were much too favourable to the State. To clear the way for an adjustment, the King, in April, 1516, ordered a confidential friend of Du Prat, Roger de Barme by name, to go to Rome. A full half year was now spent in negotiations; they were rendered difficult because Francis proposed alterations in the Bolognese arrangements and demanded yet further concessions. The King's plenipotentiary, whose qualities were highly praised by Leo himself, made the journey between Paris and Rome at least four times. There were great differences of opinion over the result ; both parties spoke of an alteration in the original conditions ; according to the French, this was favourable to the Pope ; according to Cardinal Medici, it was to his disadvantage. Be this as it may, it was in any case a successful achievement that, during this third and final stage of its development, the Papal diplomacy succeeded in coupling the acceptance of the Concordat with the condemnation of the Pragmatic Sanction.

The first and most important stipulation of the Concordat of the 18th August, 1516, which applied to the kingdom of France, Dauphiné, and the Marquisates of Die and Valentinois, concerned the appointment to bishoprics. The Concordat conveyed to the French King, for the time being, along with the repeal of the Pragmatic Sanction and of the right of election of the cathedral chapter, the right of nomination to all vacant bishoprics. It was demanded that, within six months from the day of vacancy, the candidate to be nominated to the Pope should take his degree as master or licentiate of theology or canon law, that he should have attained at least his twenty-­seventh year, and be also in other respects a fitting person. If the King’s nominee possessed the requisite qualifications the Pope confirmed his appointment ; if not, the King had the right to nominate another fit person within three months. In default of this, or if the vacancy occurred through the death in Rome of the holder of the see, the Pope had full power of appointment. The King also had the power of appointing blood relations and persons of high rank, as well as learned members of the reformed orders who were unable to acquire academical degrees. The same right of nomination was given the King for abbeys and priories, only in this case the candidate must belong to the order in question and be at least three-and- twenty years old. The chapters of churches, monasteries, and priories, whose right of free election was reserved by special Papal privilege, were excepted.

The Concordat made a clean sweep of all expectancies and reservations, while the provisions for benefices by any other patron than the King were kept within strict bounds. Every Pope had the right, but only once in the course of his Pontificate, to bestow expectancies, and this in such a way that for every ten benefices in his patronage he was entitled to one such presentation, and for every fifty or more, to two such.

All legal processes, with the exception of the causa majores, were to be settled by the existing judges of the country in which the suits arose. To avoid frivolous appeals, the ruling of the Court was to hold good without immediate appeal to the Holy See: appeals even from those holding directly from Rome were to be laid before judges in France pending the delivery of judgment, except in cases of miscarriage of justice or of legitimate fear.

Special stipulations were directed against the ground less disturbance of the holders of benefices, against open concubinage, as well as the frivolous imposition of the Church punishments of excommunication, suspension, and interdict. Resignations of benefices were only to be held valid on the production of authentic documentary evidence. Finally, it was agreed that if the Concordat were not ratified and accepted by the French Parliament and people within six months, it would not be valid.

Hardly less important than the articles of the Concordat are its omissions. Although many of the stipulations of the Pragmatic Sanction passed into the new convention, yet the proposition that the Pope is subordinate to a General Council is absent. Silence on this point made it possible for the former view of this relationship to be again revived. The abolition of annates also was not mentioned in the Concordat ; their reintroduction was thereby made possible.

After the ratification of the Concordat by the Pope on the 18th of August, 1516, its administration was at once proceeded with, regardless of the fact that the French Parliament had not entered it on the registers. This may be taken as certain, although a greater part of the Acts referring to it have been lost. From the documents that remain it is clear with what inconsiderateness and almost cynical naiveté Francis at once proceeded to extract every possible advantage from the treaty. The King’s favour and purely secular considerations prevailed in the choice of candidates for church preferment. Even in cases where the abbeys still had the free choice of election, the latter took place in the presence of a royal official, who brought such pressure to bear that freedom of voting was out of the question. It was just as bad when the examination of candidates at Rome was speedily degraded into a mere matter of form. The domineering influence of the French King, which had so long swayed the Church, was now turned into a permanent system, firmly established by law. Already on the 16th of September, 1516, the Concordat as a whole was extended to Brittany and Provence.

Since the Concordat settled that in case of the nullity of a presentation being pronounced, a correct account of the income of the benefice should be rendered, Leo had for long hoped that in addition to this he might carry out the restoration of annates, but in vain. On this point Francis showed not the least sign of yielding, and Leo had to submit.

The King showed equal firmness in presence of the heated opposition to the Concordat which he encountered from the clergy, Parliament, and the Universities. In order to break this opposition and give to the whole agreement the utmost possible solemnity, Leo X embodied in a Bull, which he laid before the Council for acceptance at the eleventh session on the 19th of December, 1516, the Concordat which he had already published on the 18th of August. To the astonishment of the Pope and the members of the Council, the French envoys did not attend this session ; they gave their adhesion “in private”, says Paris de Grassis. The envoys kept away on a hint from Paris, where the storm in Parliament was foreseen, since in the same session of the Council, after long preparation the express and solemn repeal of the Pragmatic Sanction was to be announced. The constitution relating to the French Concordat was read by the Bishop of Isernia. The Pope herein insisted on the full validity of the Concordat derived from the conjoint assent of himself and the Cardinals ; his object in submitting it to the approval of the Council was thus to give its position greater security. The Pope also laid stress on the duty incumbent on him of maintaining the unity of the Church ; he then sketched the previous history of the Concordat from the reign of Pius II onwards. The advantages of the measure were appraised with profuse rhetoric, and the corresponding disadvantages of the wholesale surrender of the rights of nomination were as much as possible kept out of sight. The establishment of peace and of the common law in France implied such a great gain for Church and State, that no sacrifice was too great to make for it. The harsh description of the abuses accompanying the election of bishops and abbots was meant to serve as an explanation of the relentless way in which these appointments had been handed over.

Such an insincere conclusion was not likely to convince the more intelligent of the fathers. Only a few, however, gave expression to their alarm in the Council. Domenico Jacobazzi, Bishop of Nocera dei Pagani, supported by two others, grounded his assent on the very doubtful condition that the withdrawal of the Pragmatic Sanction was accepted by the French people. Like him too, without doubt, Girolamo Ghinucci of Ascoli, who asked that the agreement might have the formal acceptance of both parties, saw through the manoeuvres of the French states men. The Bishop of Chios disapproved of the royal assent being required for resignations in Curia, and the Bishop of Tortona of the arrangements with regard to the attacks of Parliament on the legal immunities of the clergy. All the other leading churchmen give their assent uncond1tionally.

A French Bishop then mounted the pulpit and read out the decree Pastor Aeternus, which removed the “pestilence of Bourges”. It insisted, in the first place, on the primacy of the Church in matters of faith. It then went on to relate, in considerable detail, how Julius II had invited to the Council the supporters of the Pragmatic Sanction, although he might without further consideration have cut off this “French gangrene” which threatened the souls of men and fostered schism ; how Leo also, with the concurrence of the Council, had extended the time of grace from date to date, without any of these recalcitrants presenting themselves. From this was shown the character of the depravity by which the Pragmatic Sanction of Louis XI had been revived by these men; they aimed at lessening the Papal power, and contested the absolute right of the Pope to bestow benefices on deserving Cardinals and members of the Curia ; they encouraged prelates to be disobedient, thus destroying the “very nerve of ecclesiastical discipline”; they were not regularly in possession of their sees, but at the utmost were only tolerated by the Pope ; finally, that the assembly of Basle was a mere conventicle (conciliabulum). A great array of in stances from ancient church history were produced to show that the Pope, who was above all Councils, alone had the right to summon, prorogue, and dissolve them. On these grounds Leo, in the present Council, could not avoid annulling such an evil system without placing on himself and the Cardinals a stigma of disgrace. Since Scripture and tradition teach the necessity of obedience to the Bishop of Rome on the part of all the faithful, the constitution of Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, will be solemnly renewed, and the explanatory Bull, Memit, be maintained. The Pragmatic Sanction is given up and removed from the archives of the kingdom under penalty of the Pope's reserved ban, along with disqualification for all ecclesiastical office in the case of a priest, and denial of all clerical ministrations in the case of a layman.

All the fathers said simply Placet. The Bishop of Tortona added : “I am pleased at the repeal of the outcome of the Councils, or rather, the conventicles of Basle and Bourges”. When Pope Leo’s turn came, so relates his Master of the Ceremonies, he cried in a loud and triumph ant voice :  I not only assent, but I assent gladly and entirely”.

From more than one point of view this rejoicing of the Pope at his triumph over the schismatic tendencies of Bourges was justified. A hard and protracted struggle of eighty years had thus ended in victory for the Holy See ; for the moment Leo X forgot entirely the price at which the great victory had been bought. Cardinal Medici at once informed the Papal plenipotentiaries at Paris that the Council had confirmed the Concordat with the unanimous consent of all the Cardinals and eighty Bishops ; in spite of the peculiar attitude of the French envoys, it was hoped that Francis would keep his word, and that effect would be given to the decrees of the Pope and Council. In April, 1517, the Acts of the Council were at length officially handed to the King; the Nuncio presented the Bull for the repeal of the Pragmatic Sanction in a violet cover, that for the Concordat in a white one. The choice of colours evidently seems symbolical. Before the Acts reached France the storm against the treaty between King and Pope had broken loose.

As soon as the Concordat became known, the clergy, the Parliament and the University of Paris were in a state of agitation. All those who had hoped that the victorious King would compel Leo to accept the Pragmatic Sanction found themselves bitterly deceived. The Concordat was opposed not merely to the views of the partisans of the conciliar ideas, but by the removal of free election it damaged the interests of a great number. “Defence of Gallican liberties” became the watchword. Since, under penalty of the nullity of the whole treaty, Francis was pledged within six months to have the same proclaimed to clergy and people, to have it accepted, published, sworn to and registered, he had to strain every nerve to master the opposition. But so vehement was the latter that he had twice to beg for a respite of a year.

In vain had the Chancellor Du Prat, in one of his speeches addressed in February, 1517, to the Prelates, Councillors of Parliament and Professors of the University, exposed the political reasons which had influenced the King to conclude the Concordat. In vain had Francis explained that, since the Pragmatic Sanction was bound to go, he had to consider how, by means of the Concordat, he could prevent the recurrence of the disorders which had prevailed previous to the Sanction. The royal letters-patent of May, 1517, enjoining on the Parliaments of Paris, Bordeaux, Toulouse, Grenoble, and on the King's judges the observance of the Concordat, met with the most obstinate resistance. The Parliament of Paris stoutly refused to register and publish the measure ; they declared that the new treaty would bring ruin on the State, destroy the liberties of the Gallican Church, and deprive them of their means of help. Although Francis I brought all his influence to bear, the Parliament would not yield. They had not the power, nor was it their duty to publish and register the Concordat ; much rather should the Pragmatic Sanction be upheld with greater care than ever, and time be given to the University of Paris and others to express their opinions.

In a detailed remonstrance, the Parliament showed further that the Concordat, along with several good enactments, contained many that were bad and dangerous ; but the repeal of the Pragmatic Sanction was an injury to France, an outrage on the Synods of Basle and Constance ; an appeal must be made to a fresh Council. All the eloquence of Du Prat was without result ; even the concession demanded of the Pope that, in inferior benefices, the income should be computed at twenty-four ducats, caused no alteration in the view of the Parliamentary party. They insisted that the Concordat was contrary to the honour of God, the liberties of the Church, and the well­being of the realm. Not less persistent was the opposition of the Theological Faculty of the University of Paris, which was held in high reputation throughout the whole of France.

The agitation was carried on recklessly : envenomed pasquinades against Leo X and Du Prat were circulated. On the last day of February, 1518, Francis declared that he was weary of the negotiations ; he could not suffer the Parliament, like a Venetian Senate, to overthrow engagements which he had concluded, and forthwith gave orders for the publication of the Concordat. On the I5th and 19th of March, La Trémouille, in the King’s name, repeated the order with threatening words. Then, at last, the Parliament, in order to avoid worse troubles, gave in and undertook, under protest, to proceed to publish and register the Concordat ; at the same time they appealed to the Pope better informed and to the next General Council regularly assembled. The publication and entry in the registers took place on the 22nd of March. Five days later the University of Paris protested and appealed, at the same time, to a future Council. The King thereupon ordered the arrest of some of the most violent of the Professors, and forbade the University to meddle with affairs of state. On the 12th of April, Francis issued from Amboise the general instructions for registration, which were then taken up by the Parliaments of Toulouse, Bordeaux, and Grenoble. On the I4th of April a second edict of Francis I. announced the repeal of the Pragmatic Sanction.

In proportion to the satisfaction caused at Rome by the firm attitude of the King was the indifference shown towards the opposition of the University of Paris, an opposition which many in Germany regarded much more seriously. As the result of mature consideration, there appeared on the i6th of June, 1518, a Bull, couched in severe terms, against the appeal of the University of Paris. This was followed on the 25th of June by an edict of Leo X which authorized the Cardinal-Legate Bibbiena to pronounce against the Rector and University of Paris the censures and punishments to which they were liable for their open rebellion against the two highest authorities, whereby they incurred the guilt of schism and heresy, and, while esteeming themselves wise, had become fools. This document set forth the highest claims of the Papal power, whereby the decrees of former Pontiffs as well as of Councils might be altered or abrogated ; the rashness of the appellants was sharply reproved, the repeal of the Pragmatic Sanction justified, the com plaints against the Roman See briefly refuted, the appeal characterized as a false and ludicrous libel, which was null and ineffectual, and full powers were given to the Legates to proceed against the guilty parties and their followers.

The opposition to the Concordat, and especially to the repeal of the Pragmatic Sanction, survived in France, even after external resistance had disappeared, down to the fall of the ancient monarchy, and no wonder; for nowhere had schismatical tendencies struck such deep roots as there. Had there been no Concordat, the separation of the French Church from Rome would have become, without doubt, an accomplished fact. Through the great advantages which the new treaty legally guaranteed to the Crown, the schismatic movements lost the unconditional support of the monarchy, but they gained that of the independent provincial parliaments ; the latter carried on with energy the opposition once waged against Rome through the protection of alleged judicial prerogatives and national interests.

It is exceedingly difficult, in dealing with treaties which, like the Concordat, mean a compromise, to estimate correctly the loss and gain which is bound to accrue to both the contracting parties. Thus up to the present time very varying judgments have been passed on the Concordat.

The advantage which fell to the Papacy consisted mainly in the victorious ending to the long and unfruitful struggle against the Pragmatic Sanction. What Pius II, Sixtus IV, and even Julius II had attempted in vain, the clever Medici Pope achieved : the last remnant of the conciliar opposition vanished, the supreme authority of the Papacy was again recognized in France, and this country, which had taken up a schismatic position, was linked anew to the Holy See. This momentous result was certainly bought at such a costly price that perhaps it may be spoken of as a Pyrrhic victory.

By the right of nomination the Crown had, with very scanty limitations, the privilege of appointing persona grata to all the high offices of the French Church, ten arch bishoprics, eighty-three bishoprics, and five hundred and twenty-seven abbeys. In order to appreciate the meaning of this we must realize, in the first place, the extraordinary wealth of the French Church. According to some accounts the French clergy were then owners of a third, according to others of even two-thirds of the whole soil. These accounts are certainly exaggerated. On the other hand, it is certain that in 1516 the total income of the French clergy amounted to five million livres—almost as much as that of the state. The whole of these extraordinarily large revenues were now at the disposal of the Crown ; never before had the monarchy obtained such an increment of power at a single blow. How perilous in and for itself such a dependence of the whole higher clergy on the ruling power might be, how easily the latter might lie open to the temptation of encroaching arbitrarily, not only on the Church’s property, but on something much greater, even on the faith itself, is self-evident. Some guarantees certainly were offered in the limitations to which the King was subject and in the right of control which Rome had secured. But these were not sufficient to prevent the Concordat being very soon abused as an engine of oppression and far-reaching injury to the Church.

With inconceivable carelessness Rome neglected to effect any change in the control which she was capable of exercising : no attempts were made in this direction before Pius V. The Crown, however, with a selfish cynicism, exploited to the uttermost the treaty which was such a source of advantage. The Concordat, in itself, was less injurious to the Church of France than the circumstance that Francis, heedless of the earnest expostulations of the noble Lodovico di Canossa, abused without scruple, in the most shameful way, the extraordinary privileges accorded to him, and often raised the most unworthy nominees to the highest offices in the Church.  “Like a good-natured, open-handed boon companion”, says a Venetian Envoy, “he gives away bishoprics in answer to ladies' entreaties and abbeys to soldiers in lieu of pay ; in short, he makes himself popular with all sorts of men, without giving a thought to their personal characters”. What grave evils sprang from this state of things will be described only too often in the course of this history.

Nevertheless the Concordat had this good result ; it set up a powerful barrier against the separatist tendency which threatened to detach France from Rome, a barrier which stood firm throughout the storms let loose by the Reformation. The clergy were certainly brought into the closest dependence on the Crown, but yet were not separated from Rome ; since the Crown controlled church property indirectly, the temptation, at least, to downright spoliation was removed. The Concordat, undoubtedly, made the King, to a certain extent, the overlord of the French Church, but also at the same time its natural protector. The Kings had now most powerful motives for remaining Catholic. In order to understand the extra ordinary situation of Leo X, we must always bear in mind that the French Crown, long before the Concordat was entered into, had, as a matter of fact, disposed, with almost unlimited power, of the high dignities of the Church. Therefore the treaty meant nothing else than the legal recognition of a long existing slate of things ; it was the end of a long development. As things were, the Concordat was, perhaps, the only way in which the then existing privileges could have been placed on a legal basis, and the great evil, the complete separation of France from Rome, have been prevented.  It would, however, be a grave deception to suppose that, this result having been secured, the French Church was no longer a cause of anxiety ; the crisis was only deferred, it had not been rendered impossible.

Leo X’s concessions were not confined to France. With other States also he made arrangements of such a far-reaching kind that half a century later they were the subject of comment in the Roman Court.

In Spain the monarchy had received from Sixtus IV and Innocent VIII privileges of presentation and patron­age of such a comprehensive character that hardly anything was left that the temporal power could desire. By the law also of 1476 the Crown, through the Royal Council, exercised the widest supervision over the spiritual jurisdiction. The Kings claimed too the right of refusal of Papal enactments, the so-called right of the retención de bulas. In addition there was the Cruzada or Bull of the Crusade, conferring certain spiritual graces, which was transferred to the Crown, as a means of defraying the expenses of the war against the infidels. Like his predecessor, Leo had also.in 1519, sanctioned such a Cruzada under conditions of the widest scope. The legal claim to refuse Papal Bulls was met on the 1st of March, 1519, by a constitution of Leo's which had quite as little success as his attempt to subject the Spanish Inquisition to the procedure of the common law, since the Pope just at that moment stood in need of Charles as a political ally.

Leo stood in remarkable relations with the ruler of Portugal, whose activity “in defending and spreading the faith in Africa, Ethiopia, and Arabia” he could not sufficiently praise. For this purpose the King received important privileges, the tenth of the property of the clergy and a portion of the Cruciata. We have already spoken of the privileges granted by Leo to Emmanuel the Great for his possessions over-sea. Very valuable was the right of patronage over the three religious orders of Knighthood of St. James, St. Avitus, and Christ, conceded to the King on the 30th of June, 1516. The prodigal liberality of the Pope, however, was always met by fresh demands and proposals on the part of the King. The former was far too compliant. In 1515, in contravention of the regulations of the Lateran Council, he promised to bestow on the King's fourth son, Alfonso, who was still a boy, the first vacant bishopric in Portugal. In 1516 the Portuguese Envoy went the length of requesting further that Alfonso should be admitted to the Cardinalate, and in the same year he was made Bishop of Guarda. In July, 1517, at the great nomination of Cardinals, Alfonso was included ; the only condition imposed was that he should not assume the insignia of his rank until he was eighteen. With all this the King was not satisfied : Alfonso had hardly been made Cardinal before he pressed for yet additional ecclesiastical dignities.

If the case of Portugal was an exception, yet in almost all the other Latin countries the Pope had had to protest and take steps repeatedly against acts of violence towards the clergy and other infringements of ecclesiastical liberties. Among the Italian States the self-centred Republic of Venice indulged in many acts of aggression ; the Pope had also to bestir himself against the Marchioness Isabella d'Este and several towns in the States of the Church, as he had to do against the Swiss in defence of the Church’s freedom. Certainly the corrupt state of the clergy was one of the causes of this one-sided action on the part of the State. Often criminals attempted to escape punishment by an appeal to the privileges of the clergy, against which Leo, in 1520, took suitable measures on behalf of the Venetian Republic. The freedom of the clergy from taxation was made the subject of a Concordat with Florence in 1516.

The Council of the Lateran opened the way for a closer connection between Poland and Rome, the co-operation of that kingdom being announced by Joannes de Laski, Primate and Archbishop of Gnesen. The two decisive factors in this movement were the Turkish danger and the dispute between Poland and the Teutonic Order. In the latter respect the wishes of Poland were in agreement with the secret views of Leo X, who was also averse to this quarrel being brought before the Council.

The presence of Laski in Rome led to many important results both politically and ecclesiastically; he informed the Pope of the critical state of affairs in the Polish kingdom, which was overrun by infidels and schismatics, and negotiated the Bull of the I4th of November, 1513, which limited the Papal reservations and expectancies to certain canonrics and archdeaconries, as well as the still more important one of the 9th of August, 1515. This latter regulated the discipline of the Polish Church by an agreement between the Pope and King Sigismund I. These articles contained salutary provisions for the election and residence of Bishops, the reform of pastoral duties, intercourse with schismatics, and the infliction of censures. A Bull of the 25th of July, 1515, bestowed on the Archbishop the title of legatus natus. Of the greatest importance for Poland was a Bull of the 1st of July, I519, negotiated by Bishop Erasmus Ciolek of Plock. In this the Pope, in accordance with the King's wishes, confirmed all favours granted in the Council as well as the privileges previously granted to individual Polish Bishops ; he also declared all Papal reservations and expectancies null if they interfered with the episcopal alternativa mensium; the latter was granted to all Polish Bishops for six months instead of four, as prescribed by the rules of the Chancery. This Bull was, in fact, a Concordat save in name and outward form; it was withdrawn under Clement VII.

From the beginning of his Pontificate Leo X had had close relationship with Henry VIII of England. After the deatht of the King's representative, Cardinal Christopher Bainbridge, a man who had become thoroughly italianized, and was hated for his arrogance, his post was filled by Silvestro Gigli, Bishop of Worcester. The efforts of this accomplished diplomatist were mainly instrumental in obtaining for the English minister, Thomas Wolsey, the rank of Cardinal. The latter, who was destined to play an important and eventful part in the intercourse between Rome and England, was born in 1471 in Ipswich, in the county of Suffolk, the son of a humble citizen. He began his career as King's Almoner, and knew how to make himself indispensable to his master by cleverness and subserviency. Soon the most important affairs passed almost entirely through Wolsey’s hands ; his influence over Henry VIII. became permanent. Of uncommon ability, but ambitious and covetous, he soon became the recipient of the richest benefices : in 1513 he was Bishop of Tournai, in 1514 that of Lincoln, and in the same year, on the death of Bainbridge, was advanced to the Archbishopric of York. Still dissatisfied, Wolsey now aimed yet further at the Cardinal’s hat. Henry did what he could at Rome; Leo held out against the appointment for a considerable time, but at last yielded under the pressure of political circumstances; on the 10th of September, 1515, Wolsey was nominated. The Pope sent him the red hat, and it was assumed by Wolsey on the 18th of November, in West minster Abbey, with great solemnity; he now called himself the Cardinal of York. The celebrated John Colet delivered a discourse, on this occasion, on the newly conferred dignity. Wolsey had already, in July, been made Lord Chancellor of the kingdom.

Wolsey, like a true upstart, surrounded himself with un precedented pomp and luxury. He was liberal towards scholars, and encouraged learning and art. With the King, who was sensual, masterful, and self-centred, he was on the best of terms; he understood thoroughly how to enter into all his inclinations. Yet with all the overmastering influence that he thus wielded, he was too clever to adhere obstinately to his own opinion. In such instances this proud and self-seeking man gave way to his master, and followed his views with the same eagerness which he would have shown had they originated from the first from himself. It was hard to say who was the real ruler, so completely did the King and his minister appear to be of one mind. The service of his Sovereign went before all else, even before the interests of the Church, with Wolsey. All his manifold gifts—as a statesman he developed an astonishing capacity—were dedicated practically to a single end ; to raise the reputation and influence of his King, in whose exaltation his own was involved, and to make Henry VIII the arbiter of Europe. When Leo X, in 1518, despatched Cardinal Campeggio to England to discuss the Turkish question, the latter was not received until he consented to share his legateship with Wolsey : Leo had to give way, as he had also sacrificed Cardinal Adriano Castellesi to the English Lord Chancellor. The latter expressed his thankfulness that thereby the whole work of pacification had been taken out of the Pope's hands and that all the glory of it would be secured to the King.

After that Rome knew what to expect of Wolsey : no wonder that the indefinite extension of his legatine powers was resisted; a Bull of the 6th of January, 1520, limited this extension to two years. The English Cabinet on its side considered itself injured by the Pope’s attitude towards the question of the Imperial succession.

The somewhat strained relations between Rome and England were exchanged in the following year for most friendly ones, in consequence of the rapprochement between Leo and Wolsey and of the determined opposition of Henry VIII. to Luther.    On the 12th of May, 1521, in St. Paul’s Churchyard, close to the famous St. Paul’s Cross, in presence of a great multitude, the solemn publication of the Papal Brief against Luther took place along with the burning of his writings. During these proceedings, at which John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, delivered a long discourse, Wolsey bore himself as if the tiara, on which his ambition had long been fixed, were now resting on his head. The Venetian Envoy who relates this adds : a. Brief has come from Rome with an extension of Wolsey's legatine authority. On the I2th of May, Henry VIII announced to the Pope the despatch of a work which he had written against Luther. This book, A Defence of the Seven Sacraments against Luther, which was substantially the King’s own work. was not completed until the autumn. Wolsey, who had had a share in its com position, now renewed his endeavours at Rome to obtain for the King a title of honour similar to that of the Kings of France and Spain. On the 14th of September the English Envoy, Clerk, presented in private audience to the Pope the splendidly bound copy of the royal polemic, which is now exhibited in the Vatican Library along with its author's love-letters to Anne Boleyn. Leo X read forthwith the first five pages, and expressed by words and gestures his great satisfaction. The Envoy then ventured to call the attention of His Holiness to the dedication, which ran, “England’s King Henry sends Leo X this work as a sign of faith and friendship”. The Envoy wished to read aloud to the Pope, who was short-sighted, this dedication, written in small letters, but Leo seized the book eagerly and read quickly, more than once, the flattering dedication with expressions of approval ; he then begged that he might have five or six copies for the Cardinals.

It was the wish of the English Envoy to be allowed to present the work again in open Consistory. This Leo declined, on the pretext that the presence of laymen on such an occasion might give rise to disagreeable discussions on the Lutheran question. Leo remaining inflexible, Clerk had to content himself with the permission to present the volume on October 2nd in a secret Consistory and to make a speech on the occasion. As regards the title which he had been asked to bestow on Henry VIII, the Pope, ignoring the opposition of several Cardinals, showed himself compliant to the English wishes. A Bull of the 26th of October conferred on the King of England the proud title of Defender of the Faith, which is still borne on the arms and coinage of English Sovereigns. Wolsey, with whom the whole concern originated, earned the cordial thanks of his delighted master.

The well-known gentleness of Leo X and his goodness of heart were shown especially in his treatment of the Jews. Few Popes have favoured them as much as he.at whose Court Jewish doctors and musicians held high and conspicuous posts. Where Jews suffered injuries at the hands of Christians, he showed himself their energetic protector. Many new privileges were added to those already existing; even the establishment of a Hebrew printing press in Rome was permitted. The historians of the Jewish community in that city cannot find sufficient words of praise to celebrate the happiness and security they then enjoyed. By various exemptions, which were intended to protect the Jews, especially in Rome, from unjust taxation, the hope was expressed that in this way that nation might be more easily won to the Christian faith. Although the protection given to the Jews by the Pope was generous, he was, at the same time, often obliged to take steps against them. In one special instance, when he learned that a Jewish book hostile to the faith had been published at Venice, he took stringent measures.

While Leo X sanctioned the cultus of the founder of the Servites, Filippo Benizi, and of the Seven Franciscan friars of Septa in Africa, he gave orders for the preparation of the process of canonization of Giovanni Capistrano, of the Florentine Archbishop, Antonino, of Lorenzo Giustiniani, and of the founder of the Minims, Francesco di Paula. The Pope would have liked above all to have lived to see the canonization of his fellow­ countryman, Antonino. But since the examination was carried out with the greatest thoroughness, it was long in being brought to a conclusion. In the canonization of Francesco di Paula, France took a special interest. This was celebrated by the Pope on the 1st of May, 1519, in St. Peter’s, with all the solemnity which, from of old, has accompanied this rite.

Leo was liberal in the granting of indulgences. Many churches not only in Italy, but also in other countries, especially Germany, were richly endowed in this respect. Indulgences were also attached to the devotion of the Stations of the Cross, and to the confraternity of the Rosary, as well as to the famous pilgrimages to Aix la Chapelle and Treves.

In special Bulls Leo regulated the position of the Auditors of the Rota, of the College of the Abbreviators of the Apostolic letters, and of the clerical chamberlains, as well as the oath of obedience of the Bishops to the Holy See. The laws of Julius II against duelling were renewed with sharper penalties. A special Bull dealt with magic and fortune-telling. Leo X had also repeatedly enforced the Church's noble privilege of protecting the liberty of the human race and vindicating its dignity. A difference of opinion among the American missionaries as to the lot of the natives, called from the Pope the declaration that not only religion, but nature itself, protested against slavery. He entered into negotiations with King Ferdinand of Spain with a view to restraining the settlers from acts of violence and in justice towards the Indians. Further, the Pope was unremitting in his endeavours to ransom Christian captives of the Turks.

On several occasions the care of the churches of the East called for the Pope’s attention. The restoration of union with the Maronites in the Council of the Lateran  has already been mentioned. The return to union of other orientals as well was then a matter of consideration. The repeated attempts to draw nearer to Russia miscarried completely, partly owing to unfavourable circumstances and partly in consequence of a mistaken appreciation of the circumstances. Iacopo Piso, who was appointed Nuncio in 1514, had as little success as his successors, Schonberg and Ferreri ; none of these Envoys reached Moscow.

The Uniat Greeks who were subjects of the Venetian Government were treated by Leo with good-will and entire loyalty. As early as 1513 the Pope had made efforts to settle the disputes in Rhodes between Latins and Greeks. Leo repeatedly took steps against the Catholic clergy in Corfu, who wished to force the Greeks into conformity with these rites, just as he took the Greeks in Venice under his special protection. Since the oppression of the Greeks by the Latin clergy in the Venetian possessions, especially Corfu, continued, Leo issued, on the 18th of May, 1521, a very strongly-worded Bull, in which he renewed all the existing rights and privileges of the Greeks, and severely condemned the hostility of the Latins. It was laid down that Greek bishops should not ordain Latin clerics nor Latin bishops Greeks. The Latin priests were strictly forbidden to celebrate Mass in Greek churches. No one must condemn or despise the Greek ritual, which had been approved by the Council of Florence. Where two Bishops were co-resident, a Latin and a Greek, each was to abstain from interference in the other's affairs. In spite of the heavy penalties attached to the infraction of these decrees, both Clement VII., and Paul III at a later date, had to come to the help of the Greeks.

In maintaining the integrity of the faith, the Pope continued to employ the Dominicans as Inquisitors. In Italy, in 1513, 1515, and 1516, he was forced to take steps against several fanatical preachers, two of whom—Teodoro of Scutari and Fra Bonaventura—gave themselves out to be the Angelic Pope foretold by Savanarola. Fra Bonaventura, who preached downright apostasy from the Church, laid the Pope under excommunication and announced his speedy death, was imprisoned in St. Angelo in May, 1516, whereupon the bulk of his followers fell away. The prompt suppression of this fanatical movement may have led many to hope that similar measures would be applied to Martin Luther, whose appearance followed shortly after, and that his agitation would thus be brought to a speedy end. That Leo X and his chief adviser, Cardinal Medici, did not share such illusions, is shown by their action with regard to the Wittenberg Professor, which has already been described. But they certainly did not recognize the full bearing of the movement which had broken out in Germany.

Still less did Rome recognize the danger which threatened the Church in Scandinavia. Here also as in other countries a profound impression was made by the appointment to Church benefices of strangers and courtiers, who drew the revenues and neglected the duties. Although the Danish clergy made just complaints no redress was given. In February, 1520, Leo even went so far as to bestow the rich Archbishopric of Lund on Cardinal Cesi. A mistake of equal magnitude was the despatch of the Papal chaplain, Giovanni Maria Arcimboldi, as Nuncio to the northern kingdoms ; he was at the same time to proclaim an Indulgence for the building of St. Peter’s. How unscrupulously this was done by his covetous agent, Leo was afterwards informed by Raffaello de' Medici. The latter wrote from Worms in the beginning of 1521 that the Princes were specially embittered towards this prelate, who had “in a thousand instances done the most useless things, and with the help of the Capuchins had raked in all the money he could lay his hands on”. Paul Eliesen said later : “Arcimboldi’s gross abuse of power and of his commission gave Lutheranism its opportunity in Denmark ; there had been Roman Legates in Denmark before who did useful and edifying work, but Arcimboldi's mission was a scandal, and set at naught all religion and the fear of God”.

At the close of 1516 Arcimboldi arrived in Denmark. The King was the gifted but autocratic Christian II, whose ambition was the restoration of the Union of Kalmar. To him Arcimboldi had to pay 1120 Rhenish florins in order to obtain permission to publish the Indulgence. In 1518 he went on to Sweden, where the higher clergy, and particularly the Archbishop of Upsala, Gustav Trolle, took Christian’s side in opposition to the Swedish vice-regent Sten Sture. Arcimboldi, before he left Denmark, had given a promise to Christian that he would use his influence on his behalf in Sweden ; he did the reverse. Sten Sture knew how to reach his man on his weak side ; rich presents and large promises took the Nuncio completely captive. He did not scruple to dis close to the Regent the secret connections which Christian had with Sweden ! When the Archbishop of Upsala was dismissed from the Swedish Reichstag, on account of his Danish sympathies, the Nuncio also acquiesced in this dismissal.

King Christian took his revenge, for in April, 1518, he confiscated all the money and property in kind which Arcimboldi had left behind in Denmark or sent thither from Sweden; at the same time the Nuncio’s brother and servant were thrown into prison. Neither protests nor entreaties were of the least avail: the Papal representative must have been glad to have had the good luck to reach Lubeck even with empty hands. In Rome, where King Christian had accused him of intriguing and treachery, his recall was demanded. Arcimboldi replied by asserting his innocence : as the originator of the calumnies he indicated his former secretary, Dietrich Slageck, a Westphalian. The latter gained a decided influence over King Christian ; he had complained at Rome of the Archbishop’s dismissal, and had succeeded in having the Regent put under the ban. As the executioner of this penalty, Christian began war with Sweden. In January, 1520, when the countless lakes and marshes of that country were covered over with hard ice, he opened his campaign and won a victory, with great bloodshed, on the frozen lake of Asunden, near Bogesund ; Sten Sture succumbed to his grievous wounds. At Whitsuntide Christian appeared with his fleet before Stockholm. The city capitulated, after Christian had given a written promise that all that had been done against him and the prelates, especially Archbishop Trolle, would be forgiven. The provinces followed the capital, and Christian returned to Copenhagen as King of Sweden. Here he determined to secure for himself, by one bold stroke, absolute sovereignty over Sweden. Dietrich Slageck showed him how, without breaking his pledge of pardon, he might yet exterminate his enemies. A distinction, said Slageck, must be drawn between the King, who can and must pardon what concerns himself, and the executioner of the Papal Bull against all those who took part in the deposition of the Archbishop of Upsala. Christian acted accordingly ; at the end of October he landed in Stockholm from his fleet of war ; on the 8th of November, without judicial trial and in breach of his royal word—which had guaranteed an amnesty to all persons compromised—he ordered ninety-four Swedes of the highest rank and office, who were opponents of the Danish rule, to be beheaded on the Stortorget or market-place of Stockholm ; they were not given time to make confession before they died. Many more executions followed until the number amounted to six hundred. Among the victims were the Bishops Matthias of Strengnas and Vincent of Skara.

Soon after the massacre of Stockholm, Christian begged his uncle, the Elector Frederick of Saxony, to send him some theologians of the school of Luther and Carlstadt to Copenhagen. In response came Martin Reinhard at the end of 1520; the latter, however, disappointed the expectations of the King to such a degree that he was soon sent back to Germany. Christian did not on this account abandon his plan of separating the Danish Church from Rome, and, by bringing it into subjection to himself, legally as well as practically, strengthening thereby his sovereign power. He did not merely call in the aid of Carlstadt ; he ordered the construction of a new legal code whereby a state church might be formally established in Denmark. All appeals to Rome were forbidden ; instead, a privy tribunal was to be created in Denmark from which appeals could be made to the King and the Reichsrath only. The clergy were prohibited from acquiring property unless, “in accordance with the teaching of St. Paul” (I Tim.), they married. No one should be ordained sub-deacon or deacon before the age of five-and-twenty, or priest before the age of thirty. The man at whose instigation the massacre of Stockholm had taken place, was appointed successor to the murdered Bishop of Skara.

How did Leo act towards the arbitrary rule of the despotic King? He decided to send, in the person of the Minorite Francesco de Potentia, a new Nuncio to Copenhagen, to call Christian to account for the execution of the two Bishops ; but the envoy was instructed not to make the absolution of the King for his offence too difficult, lest the latter should, in defiance or despair, adhere to the Lutheran teaching. Francesco de Potentia appeared in Copenhagen at the end of November, 1521. The King now threw all the blame on Slageck, who, in the meantime, had been raised to the Archbishopric of Lund. The latter did not enjoy his new honours long. In January, 1522, as ringleader in the butchery of Stockholm, on the same spot where his victims had been done to death, he made just expiation for his crime on the scaffold. The Nuncio now absolved the King, who repudiated his Lutheran sympathies ; as his reward Francesco received the Bishopric of Skara. When the Pope and his representative thus acted, was not the King justified in thinking that all things were permitted him ? Heavy as his guilt may have been, a portion of it falls on Pope Leo and his adviser. There is thus justification for the severe verdict that Christian would never have acted as he did if Leo had fulfilled his duty and defended the Church of the north with determination against the arbitrary attacks of the secular power.

In many ways the Pope busied himself with the affairs of the regular clergy. It is matter of rejoicing that he made repeated and energetic efforts to reform the discipline of the cloister. Successful, however, as these efforts were in individual cases, they were not sufficient to cope with deeply-rooted evils of long standing. Leo showed special favour to the newly-founded order of the Minims ; but his benevolent protection was also extended to the Augustinian Hermits, the Carmelites, the Benedictine congregation of S. Giustina, and the order of St. Dominic. He restored the order of St. Lazarus which Innocent VIII had dissolved in Italy, and also confirmed finally the statutes of the French order of the Annunciation.

Leo’s measures as regards the Franciscan order were of the greatest importance. Julius II had already endeavoured to bring all the branches of this order under one general ; but he was unable to overcome the opposition of the Observantines. Leo was not more successful than his energetic predecessor. In the general chapter held in Rome at Whitsuntide, 1517, he certainly made one more attempt to unite the different observances. This having failed, he determined on a complete separation of the Order so as to put an end to the continued dissensions. In two Papal constitutions it was enacted that all Franciscan houses which wished to retain their privileges should become separate from those which refused to permit any dispensation from the rule. The latter were amalgamated in one body, and along with them four minor reforms coalesced ; viz. those of the Clares, Colettines, Amadeans, and two custodi of the discalced friars in Spain and Portugal. The Observantines who were thus united had to chose a head for six years, to whom the ancient seal of the order was to be given and who should bear the title of General of the whole Order of Franciscans. The Conventuals had their privileges confirmed, especially the right of holding landed property and rentals and of choosing their own superior-general.

Leo’s appointments to the Sacred College, especially those of the great creation of 1517, have been so thoroughly treated of already, that only a retrospective glance is here necessary.

In the eight promotions of the Pope's reign two-and-forty prelates received the purple. To his contemporaries it seemed remarkable that each of the four great orders, the Benedictines, Augustinians, Dominicans, and Franciscans, should each have a Cardinal. As regards nationality, the Italians were preponderant. Of the one-and-thirty new Italian Cardinals, eight were Romans (Francesco Conti, Giandomenico de Cupis, Andrea della Valle, Pompeo Colonna, Domenico Jacobazzi, Franciotto Orsini, Paolo Emilio Cesi, and Alessandro Cesarini), seven were Florentines (Lorenzo Pucci, Giulio de' Medici, Niccolo Pandolfini, Ferdinando Ponzetti, Luigi de' Rossi, Giovanni Salviati, and Niccolo Ridolfi), four others were Tuscans, (Bernardo Bibbiena, Giovanni Piccolomini, Raffaello Petrucci, and Silvio Passerini), five came from the States of the Church (Lorenzo Campeggio, Francesco Armellini, Cristoforo Numai, Egidio Canisio, and Ercole Rangoni), the rest from Genoa (Innocenzo Cibo and Giambattista Pallavicini), Piedmont (Bonifacio Ferreri), Milan (Scaramuccia Trivulzio and Agostino Trivulzio), Venice (Francesco Pisani), and Gaeta (Tommaso de Vio). The non-Italian Cardinals, in whose nominations the variations in the Papal policy were to some extent reflected, were the Englishman Wolsey (1515), the Frenchmen Adrien Gouffier de Boissy (1515), Antoine Bohier Du Prat (1517), Louis de Bourbon (1517), and Jean de Lorraine, the Netherlander Guillaume de Croy (1517), Adrian of Utrecht (1517), and Eberhard de la Mark (1520), the German Albert of Brandenburg (1518), the Spaniard Raymond de Vich (1517), and Don Alfonso, the son of the Portuguese King (1517).

It is a characteristic of the reign of Leo that, in filling up vacancies in the Cardinalate, he was guided chiefly by political and personal motives. Thus there were introduced into the highest Council of the Church many unworthy members who were blemishes on the credit and dignity of the purple. Yet in this respect the great creation of 1517 was a turning point for the better.

In the same year in which this Consistory was held, the great apostasy from Rome began in Germany, presenting to the Church tasks unknown before. That Leo grasped this situation cannot be asserted. To the necessity of ecclesiastical reform he certainly did not shut his eyes, but at this critical moment in affairs he acted, as in so many other matters, like an intellectual dilettante and never went below the surface. The anti-Papal movement in Germany could only be successfully met by the counter acting force of trenchant reform. To this Leo was blind ; while the tempest was ready to break in which a third part of Europe was to be torn from the chair of St. Peter, he gave himself up with a light and joyous mind and without anxiety to the enjoyments and preoccupations of the world. In all respects a true child of the Renaissance, Leo, surrounded by his artists, poets, musicians, actors, buffoons and other parasites of a court, flung himself with a terrible nonchalance into the vortex of secularity without troubling himself to ask whether such pursuits were in accordance or not with his position as a spiritual ruler. Neither the warlike complications of Europe, nor the Turkish peril, nor the rise of a new heresy disturbed him amid his favourite pastimes or the gratification of his intellectual tastes. His Court, with its lavish expenditure on wholly secular objects, the card-table, the theatre, the chase, stood in sharp contradiction to the aims and calling of a great dignitary of the Church. Under Alexander VI there was certainly a greater depravity of morals, but it is hard to say whether the subtle worldliness of Leo X. was not an evil more difficult to encounter and of greater danger to the Church.

Only a few of his contemporaries realized this. They had become so accustomed to the growing secularity of the Popes of the Renaissance, that they judged Leo X only by the standards of a temporal prince. Thus Guicciardini only speaks of him as a sovereign who had many praiseworthy and many blameable characteristics. Vettori also starts from this standpoint ; he begins by remarking that he will not attempt to balance Leo’s faults and virtues; then he corrects himself and thus gives , his verdict: “Even if Leo X did amuse himself with jesters, he yet had so many good qualities that men might well be satisfied with such a prince”. Both these writers—Vettori and Guicciardini—speak only of the “Principe”, of the politician, not of the Pope and not even of the Maecenas of art. Giovio, who has drawn the traditional portrait of Leo, takes a higher standpoint. His pen is not that of a mere flatterer ; this talented humanist portrays rather the kindred spirit, the man who reflected, as in a mirror, the most vital, the freest, the most perfect traits of the Renaissance. Giovio thought himself entitled to end his biography with the words : “Leo’s lofty spirit (virtus) brought back to us the golden age for the healing of the human race ; now that this great prince has departed, we perforce must mourn under an age of iron inasmuch as, through our mistakes and failures, barbarous savagery has brought upon us murder, pestilence, hunger, desolation—in short, all human evils ; knowledge, art, the common well-being, the joy of living— in a word, all good things have gone down into the grave along with Leo”.

If Giovio says nothing of Leo as a spiritual ruler, he is so far in correspondence with fact, for the mainspring of this Pontiffs actions certainly did not lie in the ecclesiastical sphere. Judges whose eyes are fixed solely on the interests of the Church, like Cardinals Seripando and Pallavicini cannot but censure Leo severely. But even if we take a wider survey and weigh his services in the cause of human culture, a closer examination convinces us that in this respect also the Leonine era was not, as it has for so long been assumed to be, the type of the highest and most flawless product of literature, knowledge, and art. And yet within this domain Leo rendered services which must always be taken into account in forming a general estimate of his place in history.

If on many points the last word has not yet been spoken over the Medici Pope, it may yet be safely asserted at the present stage of inquiry that his Pontificate, praised to exaggeration by humanists and poets, and lit up by the beams of Raphael's art, was, in consequence of its too free surrender to secular tendencies, whereby the Church was thrown into the background to make way for her brilliant forms of culture, one of momentous import for the Holy See.