CHAPTER II
The Papacy and the Empire
1
Henry VII and the Italian Expedition
WITH the assassination of Albert of Hapsburg on the banks of the Reuss, on 1 May 1308, the question of the German succession arose. Philip the Fair having no hope of securing the imperial throne for himself, tried to seize it for his brother, Charles of Valois, and hastened to canvass the votes of the prince electors on his behalf. To realise his ambitions and extend his hegemony to imperial soil, he had to have the support of the Papacy. The king of France, with characteristic impulsiveness, requested this support in the course of his second meeting with the Pope at Poitiers.
The election of Henry of Luxemburg as king of the Romans on 27 November 1308 gave rise to complications in Italy. Clement V gave a cordial welcome to the ambassadors who had been sent to Constance on 2 June 1309 to request that the election be confirmed. He was anxious to set Henry against Philip the Fair, whose everincreasing protectiveness he found somewhat oppressive. On 26 July, a Consistory of unusually solemn character was held in the convent of the Dominicans at Avignon. The meeting began with the reading of the act giving authority to the ambassadors; then Cardinal Napoleone Orsini made known the terms of the oath they were to take. Next the Pope declared that Henry VII possessed all the qualities required for holding the imperial office, and as a General Council was shortly to be held in Vienne in the Dauphiné, he announced that the coronation ceremony would take place at St Peter's in Rome on 2 February 1312. He himself would consecrate the Emperor; if he were prevented from doing so, he reserved to himself the right to postpone the date. 1
The Pope's over-hasty action annoyed Philip the Fair, and French plenipotentiaries dared to protest formally in December 1310. But Clement V justified himself with eloquence: his approval of the
____________________
1 J. Schwalm, Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum, Hanover 1906-11, VOL. IV, nos. 293-9.
election of Henry VII had not been lightly granted; Henry's ambassadors had waited a long time for a reply; the affair had dragged on for eight weeks; in face of the repeated German requests for a decision, he could in all conscience delay it no longer. Moreover, all the cardinals save one had approved what he had decided.
The French did not persist in their objections; but they pointed out to the supreme pontiff the dangers that would beset the Church in the future. Clement protested that Henry's promotion would help the pacification of Italy, given up as she was to discord, and secure honour and protection for the Church. Moreover, he added with a smile, 'I will straightway show you that which will cause you joy.' Thereupon the Camerarius, Bertrand de Bordes, showed to the representatives of Philip the Fair the acts of procuration delivered under the seal of the king of the Romans. 1.
The dangers foreseen by the French chancery were by no means illusory. Henry VII came of an obscure family, and thought that by gaining the imperial crown and restoring the rights of the Holy Roman Empire he would acquire the authority he lacked. His first thought was to march on Italy, and the announcement of his imminent arrival 2. roused great enthusiasm among the Ghibellines. Ready in speech and pleasant in manner, zealous for justice and filled with the best intentions, magnanimous and chivalrous, Henry none the less suffered from strange illusions as to the mission that he ingenuously believed he was destined to fulfil. His dream was to restore peace to the Italian peninsula, but he forgot that previous expeditions to Italy by the emperors had only succeeded in rousing the mutual hatred of the factions who afflicted the cities.
Did Clement V hope 'to restore imperial power under the protection of the Church,' as R. Caggese 3 has suggested, or as Davidsohn 4 has supposed, to use imperial power to re-establish papal authority? Some of his actions seem to give equal support to both hypotheses. Henry VII had requested to be accompanied on his expedition by a legate a latere ; on 27 June 1310 the Pope chose 5 one of his kinsmen, Cardinal Arnaud de Faugères, and charged him, in September, 6 to make his way to the Italian frontier to meet the prince, receive him with all due honour, and assist him 'with zeal' in his noble enterprises. Clement, moreover, urged both the subjects of the Empire
____________________
1 Ibid. no. 514, pp. 472-3
2 Ibid. nos. 361-79 ( May-August 1310)
3 R. Caggese, Roberto d' Angiò e i suoi tempi, VOL. I, Florence 1922, p. 118.
4 R. Davidsohn, Geschichte von Florenz, VOL. III, Berlin 1912, p. 414.
5 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 390.
6 Ibid. no. 437.
and the peoples of Lombardy and Tuscany to support the prince in his attempts at pacification and to obey him. 1.
The Pope indeed appeared on the whole to favour the restoration of the Holy Roman Empire; he had realised that nothing would deter Henry VII from crossing the Alps. He even seems to have been afraid that friction might arise between Henry and the Guelphs in Lombardy, and he urged the prince to preserve the status quo which was in their favour. 2 In the main, Clement V accepted the inevitable, watched the progress of events, manœuvred for position, took precautions against surprise and strengthened his ties of friendship with the king of Naples, who had paid homage in the traditional manner 3 and whom the Guelph league, reformed in 1310, 4 regarded as their leader. A Bull of 19 August 1310 appointed Robert of Anjou as rector of Romagna, as though this province, recently ceded to the Church by the Empire, were in some danger of reverting to its former masters. 5 When Henry VII proposed that the date of his coronation should be put forward to 30 May 1311, Clement raised difficulties: the time was too short for him to make adequate preparations for such a magnificent ceremony; the choice of consecrators demanded mature consideration and consultation with the College of Cardinals. 6 To gain time, he sent two nuncios to Italy, to negotiate an agreement; they accepted the date of 15 August 1311. 7.
Clement V's uneasiness is clearly to be seen in the oaths 8 Henry was obliged to swear on 11 October 1310 in Lausanne, just before he entered Italy. The prince undertook all obligations incumbent upon a sincere defender of the Roman Church; he swore to root out heresy, to help the Church against her enemies and not to oppress her 'faithful'--that is, the Guelphs. These conditions were thought at the time to be too harsh, and it was alleged that they created 'a grave peril for the king of the Romans, or at least constituted innovations which he might find prejudicial. The papal court, realising that their intentions were revealed, vigorously countered these objections, and described them as 'mischievous and insidious.' They considered that the Lausanne agreement removed all cause for conflict between Church and Empire, and gave Henry some security against a rebellion on the part of the Guelphs in Lombardy and Tuscany who, appalled at the news of his arrival, were holding themselves on the alert. 9.
____________________
1 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 435
2 Ibid. no. 441 ( 8 October 1310).
3 Regestum Clementis Papae V, Rome 1884-92, no. 4782 ( 27 August 1309).
4 Caggese, op. cit. VOL. I, p. 117.
5 Regestum Clementis Papae V, no. 10347.
6 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 586 ( 28 February 1311).
7 Ibid. nos. 587, 604-08
8 Ibid. no. 454.
9 Ibid. no. 455 (end of October 1310)
The other articles to which Henry VII subscribed gave rise to no suspicion, being simply the traditional 'ratification, confirmation and renewal' of all privileges granted to the Roman Church by his predecessors and a promise to respect the integrity of the Papal States-to avoid ambiguity they were enumerated in detail--and to exercise no jurisdiction over them.
The actual presence of a legate in the imperial army was not without an ulterior motive, and served to conceal the manœuvres of the papal court, for Arnaud de Faugères had a double mission: to ensure the good offices of the Pope as a peace-maker, and to keep an eye on the activities of Henry VII. The instructions he received from Le Groseau give clear proof of this, for they counselled him to practise 'prudence.' 1 Arnaud de Faugères followed these instructions so well that in 1313 the emperor asked to have him recalled. 2.
If Clement V had really been concerned to further the interests of Henry VII, he would have given greater support to a plan suggested in 1309 by Cardinal Giacomo Caetani Stefaneschi for a marriage between the emperor's daughter, Beatrice, and Robert of Anjou's son, the duke of Calabria, in the hope of eliminating all cause of conflict between Guelphs and Ghibellines. Clement V, more aware of the realities, thought agreement between them somewhat unlikely and took only a discreet part in the negotiations which began at Avignon in 1310. For the sake of appearances, however, he declared: 'I should believe it a mortal sin to oppose the marriage that is planned.' 3.
But the demands of the Neapolitan ambassadors proved excessive; they insisted on an enormous dowry which Henry VII was quite incapable of paying and demanded that the kingdom of Arles should be ceded to the house of Anjou. Philip the Fair, who coveted this fine heritage, sounded Clement V. He received a highly reassuring reply from Avignon: the Pope, fearing that war might break out between France and Germany, affirmed on 1 May 1311 his 'intention' of giving his consent to no kind of transfer save to the Roman Church.' 4 It would in any case have been rash for him to further the over-bold plans of the Angevins, and contrary to the terms of the homage they had paid to the Holy See. His predecessors had always been careful to curb the ambition of their vassals. Robert of Naples himself had promised in August 1309 to ask for no territorial compensation if he came to the help of the Church, and never to accept
____________________
1 Ibid. no. 645 ( 19 June 1311).
2 Primo quod legatus concedatur petitus a domino imperatore, qui verisimiliter habeat majorem voluntatem deducendi ad effectum negotia domini, quam ille qui ibi est ad presens, ibid. no. 1006, p. 1051
3 Ibid. no. 514, p. 473
4 Ibid. no. 612.
an imperial or royal crown, or any lordship in Lombardy or Tuscany, or any office, whether of senator or any other, in the Papal States, without the express consent of the Holy Father.1Regestum Clementis papae V, no. 4782. Had he acceded to Neapolitan demands, Clement V would have appeared to be contradicting himself.
The first expedition of the little imperial army 2 --it had about five thousand men--promised to be glorious and profitable. Guelphs and Ghibellines, in a sudden rush of enthusiasm, forgot their old quarrels and came with all haste to pay homage to Henry; at Milan the Visconti and the della Torre were reconciled and embraced one another. 3 Within a month, Pavia, Cremona, Reggio, Piacenza, Lodi, Crema and many other towns welcomed back the exiles that they had long since driven forth from their walls. 4
But this happy state of concord was short-lived. Whatever might be the personal desires of the king of the Romans, as soon as he set foot on Italian soil he became the leader of the Ghibelline party, and as such inevitably identified himself with their disputes. By 12 February 1311, blood was flowing in the streets of Milan and cries of 'Death to the Teutons!' rang out. 5
The downfall of the powerful family of the della Torre, which had been deprived of the seignory, sufficed to put the whole of Italy in a state of revolution: Cremona, Crema, Brescia and Lodi shut their gates in the Emperor's face. 6 From an 'angel of peace,' Henry was changed by the force of circumstances into a conqueror whom the excited Guelphs likened to Barbarossa or Frederick II. The Priors of the Arts of Florence 7 wrote that the Tuscan communes 'despair of their safety,' and fear to suffer the same fate as Milan, which is reduced 'to slavery and death,' and they added: 'Wherever the imperial forces set up their headquarters, they have no thought but of booty and pillage, bloodshed and murder and the extermination of the Guelphs.' And so on 1 April 1311 their ambassadors at the papal court were begged to do all they could to prevent Henry VII from entering Tuscany.
The taking of Cremona in May 1311 caused much dismay. The rebels, who had had no hesitation in giving sanctuary to Guido della
____________________
2 An account of the expedition was given some time between 24 August 1313 and 20 April 1314, by Nicolas de Ligny, bishop of Bitonto. The text will be found in Baluze, Vitae, VOL. III, pp. 491-561.
3 The act of agreement is dated 27 December 1310. See Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 509; Baluze, op. cit. VOL. III, p. 501.
4 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, nos. 526-34, 542-7, 554-8; Baluze, op. cit. VOL. III, p. 503.
5 Baluze, op. cit. VOL. III, pp. 505-06.
6 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, nos. 582-5; Baluze, op. cit. VOL. III, pp. 506-07.
7 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 597.
Torre, surrendered unconditionally and appeared before the imperial forces clad in shirts, their girdles about their necks; despite their humble posture, they were cast into prison, where some of them died. In vain did their wives, with their young children, cry, 'Mercy, Mercy!' and beg for the deliverance of their husbands, brothers or sons and implore the cardinals to intercede on their behalf: the emperor would not forgive them, but pronounced rigorous sanctions against them. 1.
The fall of Brescia on 18 September 1311 had still greater repercussions throughout Italy. This city had welcomed those banished from Milan, Cremona and Tuscany; its garrison, which according to Villani 2 numbered six thousand gallant men, was in active communication with other Guelph cities and incited them to rebel against the king of the Romans. For more than four months--the siege began on 19 May 3 --the inhabitants, full of confidence in the thickness of the city walls and the depth of the moat at their base, repelled all the Germans' attacks and inflicted considerable losses upon them. Unfortunate the man who was taken prisoner, for he was hanged or burned. Ballistas and other engines of war hurled projectiles upon the house where Henry and his wife were living. On 25 July his brother Walram died of the consequences of a wound from an arrow. The royal council suggested that the legate Arnaud de Faugères should excommunicate those of the rebels who continued to resist. But the cardinal got out of this situation with some skill: under the seal of secrecy, he asked the bishop of Bitonto to inform Henry VII that the Italians paid no heed to the 'spiritual sword'--witness the Bolognese and the Florentines, at the time of Napoleone Orsini's legation; 4 and moreover, that before making use of it, he would have to consult the Holy See.
In the end famine overcame the besieged. On 1 October 1311, out of respect for Clement V who had preached mercy 5 and for the cardinals who were in the camp, Henry VII granted them their lives, but exiled those most deeply involved and imposed a heavy fine-70,000 gold florins--on the rest of the population, and compelled them to fill in the moats that guarded the approaches to the city and to destroy completely all towers, gates and walls. 6
But the song of triumph so enthusiastically intoned by Henry VII
____________________
1 Ibid. no. 631; Baluze, op. cit. VOL. III, pp. 509, 515, 516
2 Villani, Istorie fiorentine, Bk IX, ch. xv.
3 F. Böhmer, Regesta Imperii, 1273-1313, Stuttgart 1844, VOL. VII, p. 290.
4 See above, p. 69.
5 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 648 ( 1 JuLy 1311).
6 For the siege of Brescia, see Baluze, op. cit. VOL. III, pp. 510-17; Villani, op. cit. Bk IX, chs. xv, xix; Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, nos. 688, 689.
on the occasion of his initial victory 1 was now a little out of tune. It would have been wiser not to have besieged Brescia, but either to have marched on Rome without delay, as he was advised by the bestinformed men of his entourage, 2 or to have descended on Tuscany, which, according to Villani, 3 was poorly supplied with both soldiers and victuals. But Henry VII had listened to his brother Walram, to whom the exiled Ghibellines had promised 20,000 florins and guaranteed to surrender the city within a fortnight. 4 Instead of this, the blockade had been inordinately prolonged, and the imperial army had melted away by reason of the large number of slain, and the ravages of an epidemic. In the meanwhile the Florentines had manned the passes of the Apennines and now forbade their access to the imperial troops. 5 Having made his way through northern Italy, the king of the Romans retired on 21 October 1311 to Genoa, where the cold compelled him to spend the winter. It was impossible to advance further: the Ghibellines, tired of the war, had gone home, and even the Germans had done the same; so greatly reduced were the troops escorting the emperor that the bishop of Bitonto feared for his sovereign's safety. 6
These events in northern Italy put the king of Naples in an embarrassing situation. As protector of the Guelphs, he ought to have intervened on their behalf. But, thinking only of his own interests, Robert did not entirely give up hope of coming to an agreement with Henry VII, and so of avoiding war. All his efforts tended towards a single end: to protect himself at any price from an attack by the king of Sicily, an attack which would almost certainly have taken place had Robert come in on the Guelph side. He thought to achieve this end by playing a dangerous and perfidious game. The two hundred Catalans in his pay, who, to begin with, were concentrated in Romagna, never joined battle with the imperial forces who were fighting in northern Italy, but for a long time remained inactive despite protests from Florence and only very belatedly marched into Tuscany. What is more, outside the very walls of the Guelph city of Brescia, besieged as it was by German troops, two ambassadors from Naples had the effrontery to resume the abortive negotiations concerning a marriage between Beatrice of Luxemburg and the duke of Calabria. 7.
Henry VII was not deceived, and he called upon Robert to withdraw his mercenaries from Tuscany, to pay him homage in person
____________________
1 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 688.
2 Baluze, op. cit. VOL. IV, p. 510.
3 Villani, op. cit. Bk IX, ch. xv.
4 Baluze, op. cit. VOL. III, p. 510.
5 Ibid. p. 522.
6 Ibid. pp. 518-19.
7 Ibid. p. 511
for the counties of Provence and Forcalquier, and to be present at his coronation. 1 To fulfil the humiliating conditions of vassalage would have made the king of Naples lose all his prestige and have brought upon him the justifiable anger of the Guelphs, who would have been perfectly warranted in crying treason. Help reached him from the papal court at the right moment, and Clement V pleaded eloquently on Robert's behalf. He pointed out that if Robert were in Rome for the forthcoming coronation of Henry VII disorders would inevitably ensue; Guelphs and Ghibellines would surely fight. On 8 January 1312, he begged the emperor not to break Robert's heart with 'pain and sorrow' but to consent to receive homage by proxy. 2
Instead of uniting the Guelphs and deceiving Henry VII, the king of Naples had recourse once again to diplomatic intrigue. His excuse was his well-founded fear of warlike intervention by Frederick II, who had, indeed, been seeking the hand of Beatrice of Luxemburg for his own son Peter. 3 Clement V, aware of the danger which was threatening, begged James II of Aragon to do his utmost to prevent open conflict between the courts of Naples and Palermo. 4 In a letter dated 1 April 1312 he suggested to Henry VII that he should turn a deaf ear to the perverse suggestions of advisers who neither loved him nor sought either his well-being or his honour: he ought rather to listen to the fatherly voice of one who had always felt a 'tender' affection for him and who had supported his elevation to the dignities of Empire. He should not overthrow the kingdom of Sicily, a possession of the Church, and 'an orchard wherein is her delight.' 5
The papal manœuvres were useless. Henry VII had seen through Robert's subterfuges and considered them a mark of weakness. The alliance with Aragon came into being in March-April 1312, and created a serious danger for the house of Anjou. Frederick II was to supply for the space of one year, seven hundred horsemen and thirty galleys, to help Henry VII 'to acquire, recover, maintain and defend the rights of the Empire against all comers.' In return, he was to be given help 'against any attacker, save Clement V and his successors, the Roman Church and the king of France.' 6
Robert continued to hope for the best, and still persisted in his temporising methods. In this Henry VII seemed to encourage him for he sought to allay Robert's suspicions by raising once again on to March 1312, the question of Beatrice's marriage, which was still
____________________
1 Ibid. p. 520; Caggese, op. cit. p. 139.
2 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 726.
3 H. Finke, Acta Aragonensia, Munster-Berlin 1908-23, VOL. 1, no. 195.
4 Ibid. no. 196.
5 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 752.
6 Ibid. nos. 765-6.
unsettled. 1 With an amazing disregard for the true state of affairs, the Angevin prince made exorbitant conditions on 12-18 May 1312: the duke of Calabria was to have the title of vicar of Tuscany for life; Florence, Lucca, Siena and other places were to pay an annual tribute to the emperor, and supply him with soldiers, in return for a guarantee of security; at Rome, Henry was to help in the reconciliation of the Colonna with the Orsini, and he was not to remain there for more than four days after his coronation; in Lombardy, a vicar was to be appointed for a period of ten years, who should be 'non suspect' at the court of Naples; an admiral was to assume command of the combined fleets. 2.
Florence, realising what was being secretly plotted, protested indignantly on 17 June 1312 against a plan that she declared to be 'abhorrent', since it was likely to bring about her ruin and that of the Guelph party. 3
Meanwhile, the imperial army set sail from Genoa on 16 February 1312 in thirty galleys, landed at Pisa on 6 March, and there awaited the arrival of reinforcements from Germany. They set out for Rome on 23 April, three thousand horsemen strong, according to Cristiano Spinola, 4 or, if we are to believe Villani, with two thousand soldiers. 5 One section followed the Mediterranean coastline, while the remainder proceeded without delay via Siena and Orvieto; they joined forces at Viterbo.
A Neapolitan army under the command of Jean, count of Gravina, King Robert's brother, had been encamped before Rome since 16 April. Troops barred the approaches of the Ponte Molle and, from the top of a tower fortified with ballistas, threatened to deal death to any who attempted to cross the Tiber.
The Colonna and Senator Louis of Savoy had warned Henry VII of the warlike preparations taking place in Rome, and he resolved to negotiate. Two ambassadors made it clear that he wished to receive the imperial crown without any untoward incidents; that the two warring families of the Orsini and the Colonna should be reconciled, or at the worst be compelled to observe a truce; that the soldiers guarding the Ponte Molle should be withdrawn, or how could the king of the Romans and the cardinals cross the river?
On 4 May, Jean, count of Gravina, replied: 'My brother did indeed charge me to receive honourably him who sent you. But later instructions commanded me to forbid him to enter Rome and to do
____________________
1 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 751; Baluze, op. cit. VOL. III, pp. 530-1.
2 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, nos. 781-3; Baluze, op. cit. VOL. III, p. 536
3 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 784.
4 Ibid. no. 1290, p. 1428.
5 Villani, op. cit. Bk IX, ch. xxxix.
my utmost to prevent him from receiving the crown at St Peter's. Therefore I defy your king, all his servants and yourselves. Know that I will not allow him to enter Rome, but I will attack him wherever I may. The Colonna are my enemies; I will make neither peace nor truce between them and the Orsini; wherever I find them I will fight them.' 1
On 6 May the imperial army crossed the Ponte Molle without much damage despite the many shots fired by the enemy arbalisters. When Henry was venturing across, the count of Savoy called to him, 'Sire, cover your armour, for the gold and precious stones in it mark you out. In the tower there may well be engines able to shoot arrows that will pierce it.''My lord count,' was the reply, 'of the two thousand men who have crossed this bridge, have you heard that a single one was killed or mortally wounded?''No,' said the Count. 'Very well. God had them in his keeping; he will preserve me too.' Thereupon, the whole escort went across. Some were wounded, but not one was killed; only some horses died. 2
But once he was inside Rome, Henry VII was to suffer the bitterest disappointment. Neapolitan troops, reinforced by help from Florence, Lucca, Siena and other districts of Tuscany 3 had occupied more than half the city of Rome, including the most densely populated part, the Borgo, Castello Sant' Angelo, Trastevere, all the bridges over the Tiber, Monte Giordano, the Campo di Fiore and Minerva's temple. Barricades were set up in the streets and barred the way to St Peter's, where the emperor's coronation had necessarily to take place. The imperial army, confined to the Lateran, Santa Maria Maggiore, the Colosseum, the Pantheon, the Torre delle Milizie and Santa Sabina, was forced to fight for every inch of ground.
On 26 May a fierce battle took place near the Ponte Sant' Angelo. More than two hundred and fifty Germans were killed or taken prisoner, and Thibaud de Bar, bishop of Liège, died of a treacherous sword-thrust in the back. 4 The imperial forces, discouraged by their failure to dislodge the enemy from the strong-points they were occupying, had to abandon all hope of forcing their way to St Peter's, and Henry VII decided that he could only get there by making a formal approach to the legate. On 10 May 1312 he promised upon oath and under surety, the amount of which was to be settled by the cardinals and other men of worth, not to attack his enemies, provided that they allowed him free passage to the basilica of the
____________________
1 Baluze, op. cit. VOL. III, pp. 530-3.
2 Ibid. p. 535.
3 The Guelph army included at least nine hundred Catalans and Apulians, seven hundred horsemen and two thousand six hundred foot-soldiers. See Villani, Bk IX, cli. xxxviii.
4 Ibid. ch. xlii.
Vatican. If the difficulties proved insurmountable, there was nothing in canon or civil law, nor any statute or privilege to prevent his being crowned at St John Lateran. 1 If the cardinals refused his request, all responsibility for any subsequent 'violence, mischief or damage' must be laid at their door. 2 To persuade them to his point of view, Henry gave into their hands a written legal opinion, full of arguments more or less relevant. 3 But Arnaud de Faugères, Niccolò Albertini and Luca Fieschi hesitated; the orders they had received from the Pope were formal, and their letters of appointment gave them no authority to make arrangements for the coronation except in the basilica of the Vatican, as prescribed in the Pontifical. 4 In order to compel the cardinals to agree, Henry promised under surety, at the end of May 1312, to sign the contract of marriage between his daughter and the duke of Calabria immediately after his coronation, if Clement V so desired. 5
The cardinals tried to persuade the Orsini and the count of Gravina to free St Peter's. They warned them on 31 May 1312 that the Romans, weary of hostilities that threatened to destroy the city, were resolved to sound the tocsin and to attack them. 6 The count of Gravina merely replied once again that in accordance with his brother's instructions, he would not permit the imperial coronation to take place at St Peter's and would do all he could to prevent it.
The cardinals' obstinate determination to conform to Papal instructions at last gave way before the shouts and threats of the countryfolk who were besieging the Torre delle Milizie, where conversations were going on with the king of the Romans. 7 Unless they received orders to the contrary from the Pope before a stated date, the cardinals declared that they would hold the coronation at St John Lateran. Having received no instructions, on 29 June 1312 Niccolò Albertini, bishop of Ostia, anointed Henry VII with holy oil, before a great assembly of archbishops, bishops, abbots, clergy, nobles and citizens of Rome, and after the singing of the Epistle, with the assistance of Arnaud de Faugères and Luca Fieschi, invested him with the mitre, diadem, orb, sceptre and sword, according to the modified rite of the Pontifical, 8 necessitated by the absence of the supreme pontiff. In the written account of the ceremony drawn up at their request,
____________________
1 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 777.
2 Ibid. no. 780.
3 Ibid. no. 778.
4 The cardinals' letters of appointment were despatched on 19 June 1311; ibid. nos. 644-5.
5 Ibid. no. 779; Baluze, op. cit. VOL. III, p. 536.
6 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 780.
7 Baluze, op. cit. VOL. III, p. 539.
8 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 644, pp. 609-13.
however, the cardinals state that they acted under pressure of the dangers threatening Rome, and that not one of the canons of St Peter's had been able or willing to receive Henry VII. 1
Clement V gave no outward sign of displeasure. But when he wrote to Henry VII that 'his heart rejoiced in the Lord,' he was being ironical. The rest of the letter reveals his true sentiments: it is simply a complaint that the imperial messengers bringing news of the coronation have breathed no word of the desirability of peace negotiations with the king of Naples, nor of the marriage of Beatrice. 2 Their silence was deliberate. The emperor wished to take his revenge on Robert and the Guelphs, who had been responsible for the incidents in Rome which had greatly wounded his pride: on 4 July 1312, he appointed representatives who were empowered to sign an alliance with the king of Trinacria and the contract of betrothal between Beatrice and Peter of Aragon. 3 At the same time he announced his intention of declaring war on the Angevin sovereign, whom he accused of treason, and on the Tuscans. 4
Robert was not unduly dismayed, and patiently waited to be attacked. The truce that Clement V had promulgated on his own initiative on 19 June 1312 5 provided Robert with a pretext for not going to the aid of Florence. The most he did was to make the empty gesture of begging the Pope on 14 August 1312 to include his Guelph allies in the truce. 6 The Florentines would have rejected such an offer, for they had deplored the Pope's initiative, taken, as they considered, under pressure from the Ghibellines, who would thus gain the necessary time to prepare to crush the Florentines. 7 Henry VII, for his part, deeply involved in his war-like schemes, made a solemn protest against the truce on 1 August 1312, declaring it to be derogatory to his sovereign rights. 8
As a result of the summer's heat, the increasing unrest in Rome and his lack of resources, 9 the emperor retired to Tivoli on 20 July and there he suffered a serious disappointment: the legates notified him of the conditions which the Pope had imposed upon his coronation. The papal messengers bringing these conditions had travelled too slowly. Certain of these conditions gave rise to no difficulties: for instance, the obligation to leave Rome and ecclesiastical territory on the day of his coronation, and never return there without permission from the Apostolic See; the declaration by letters patent
____________________
1 Ibid. no. 797.
2 Ibid. no. 810.
3 Ibid. nos. 815-20.
4 Ibid. nos. 821-2.
5 F. Kern, Acta Imperii, Tübingen 1911, p. 150, no. 227.
6 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 843.
7 Caggese, op. cit. p. 172.
8 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 839.
9 Baluze, op. cit. VOL. III, pp. 540-1.
that no act performed by the emperor while in the Eternal City was to create a precedent nor constitute an infringement of the rights of the Church or of the Romans; the liberation of prisoners, the evacuation of fortresses, dwellings and palaces occupied by the Germans and their restoration to their respective owners. By 10 September 1312, these wishes of Clement V had been satisfactorily fulfilled. 1 But to promise not to make any attack, direct or indirect, on the kingdom of Naples or any part of its territory; not to give aid, help or assistance to any invader or belligerent, on pain of excommunication and interdict; not to punish any who had opposed the coronation at St Peter's, including Jean, count of Gravina; and to respect the truce of 19 June 1312, 2 these conditions the emperor's policy forbade him to keep since the conclusion of the alliance he had made with Frederick II king of Trinacria.
Henry VII, without revealing the secret motives behind it, legatised his refusal by a lawyer's arguments. Between 1 and 6 August 1312, he pointed out that a truce implied a state of war; yet no military action had been taken against the king of Naples. The Pope's initiative in making the truce had been taken without the emperor's knowledge and was unwarrantable, for the emperor was not a vassal of the Roman Church. Take an oath of loyalty, as the legates had begged him to do, never: like his predecessors before him, no thraldom of this kind bound him to the supreme pontiff. But, none the less, it was his firm intention always to act as 'defender and guardian of the Church's rights.' 3
Persisting in his plans of vengeance, Henry VII developed an exaggerated idea of his own strength; he determined to punish Florence, and began to besiege the city on 19 September 1312. But it was well enough fortified to withstand all assaults, and, quite downcast, the emperor ordered the army to retreat towards Pisa. There, he brought to an end the proceedings begun against the king of Naples on 12 September 1312 and 12 February 1313 4 by an Act of exceptional severity. The Constitution of 26 April 1313 5 declared him deprived off all 'diplomas, honours, liberties, immunities, privileges, provinces, countries, cities, castles, lands, towns, fiefs, goods, possessions, rights of vassalage and other rights and jurisdictions both perpetual and temporary,' put him under the ban of the empire and condemned him to death. In May, Henry, who was making active preparations for war, 'required' the king of Sicily to begin the
____________________
1 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 847.
2 Ibid. nos. 839-44.
3 Ibid. nos. 839-40; see also the long memorandum, no. 1248.
4 Ibid. nos. 848, 913.
5 Ibid. no. 946.
campaign forthwith by invading the kingdom of Naples and supplying him with men and galleys. 1
Philip the Fair was much dismayed at the news of the danger threatening a prince of his own blood. In a letter dated 12 May 1313, the king expressed his surprise that, despite his repeated requests, Clement V had as yet done nothing to remedy the critical situation, and begged him to act with all speed. 2 A Bull dated 12 June declared that any person, even though he possessed 'the brilliance of imperial and royal dignity,' would be excommunicate if he dared to 'invade and attack' the king of Naples, vassal of the Church, or supported in any manner whatsoever, but especially by supplying galleys, ships or oarsmen, the equipping of a fleet sailing against his states. 3 Henry VII said in reply to the two nuncios who brought this document from the Pope that their master had been misinformed: he had no intention of committing any act derogatory or prejudicial to the rights of the Church of Rome; he was simply making use of his powers to punish a vassal who had failed in his duty. 4 The chancellor, Henry, bishop of Trent, Nicolas de Ligny, bishop of Bitonto, and the count of Savoy were instructed to go to the papal court and there to protest, 'a smile on their lips,' at the conduct of the Holy Father and to demand reparation. Arnaud de Faugères, who was accused of having been uncooperative in putting forward the imperial point of view, was to be replaced by another legate, who would invite all subjects of the empire to submit, on pain of excommunication, and judicial proceedings. Prelates who proved on enquiry to be intractable were to be deprived of their benefices and replaced by others; the faithful of the Church were exhorted not to take any action against the emperor; compensation was to be paid by those who had in any way harmed either the emperor himself or his followers; and Robert, king of Naples, was to be deprived of his office as rector of Romagna. The annulment of the papal decree of 12 June 1313 was, of course, a necessity. 5
Clement V would not consent to the strange concessions demanded by the imperial ambassadors. Consequently, Henry VII defied the prohibition to attack the king of Naples. But, as he was moving south with a considerable army, a fever attacked and overcame him at Buonconvento in Sienese territory. On 24 August 1313, the emperor died.
This unexpected disaster bewildered Frederick II of Trinacria, who had crossed the straits of Messina and landed on the Calabrian coast and at Piombino on 1 August. Instead of fighting the Guelphs
____________________
1 Ibid. nos. 979, 980.
2 Ibid. no. 948.
3 Ibid. no. 1003.
4 Ibid. no. 1005.
5 Ibid. no. 1006.
he returned to Sicily, having refused the Pisans' offer to become their overlord. He acted wisely, for the sentence of excommunication which Clement V reiterated on 7 September 1313 against those who had falsely interpreted the earlier Bull of 12 June was no doubt directed against him. 1
The sudden death of Henry VII caused great rejoicing among the Guelphs: 2 it was with transports of joy that the Florentines announced the 'very happy news' of the departure from this world of 'that most cruel tyrant.' 3 But though the Italian expedition attempted by the late emperor had proved abortive, was there not every reason to fear that another emperor would renew the attempt? The Guelphs decided to guard against this danger by inaugurating a very bold and novel policy. On their recommendation, the Neapolitan court drew up a memorandum intended for the Pope's eye, obviously tendentious in tone and containing the suggestion that from thereon no imperial election should be celebrated, for history proved abundantly that the king of the Romans was the natural enemy of the Church and Italy, of the kingdoms of Naples and France. 'The Germanic race, to which he commonly and generally belonged, usually produced only a nation cruel, intractable, imbued rather with barbarous ferocity than with the Christian spirit, and considering theft to be no crime.' Between this nation and the French and Italian, there could be no sympathy, but only hatred; as for 'sweet' Italy, 'Germanic barbarism was threatening to plunge her into bitterness.' If the German electors did elect a king, there was no need to recognise him, anoint or crown him, and he must be forbidden all access to Italian soil. 4
It is impossible to know whether this violent diatribe of the Neapolitans influenced Clement V and was the cause of the peremptory decisions, prepared with great expense of time and learning by skilful lawyers 5 and promulgated, first on 14 March 1312 in the Decretal Romani principes and later in the Constitution Pastoralis cura. In any case, the Pope made good use of the interregnum, to make regulations, to his own satisfaction and to his best advantage, for the future relations between Church and Empire. The Decretal Romani principes 6 set out the various phases of the controversy provoked by Henry VII concerning the nature of the oath which he
____________________
1 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 1163. See also Villani, op. cit. Bk IX, ch. liii.
2 Caggese, op. cit. p. 197.
3 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 1240 (letter dated 27 August 1313).
4 Ibid. no. 1253.
5 Ibid. nos. 1249-51, 1254-5. See also G. Lizerand, 'Les Constitutions "Romani principes" et "Pastoralis cura" et leurs sources,' Nouvelle Revue historique de droit français et étranger, VOL. XXXVII, 1913, pp. 725-57.
6 Corpus juris canonici, Bk II, tit. ix, in Clem.
had sworn. This oath, Henry declared, contained no indication of vassalage. Clement V accused the emperor of bad faith. Had not the emperor's ambassadors appeared at Avignon in public consistory and there, in the presence of both clergy and laity, offered and taken oaths of fealty? These facts were not to be disputed, as was proved by the Decretal which was read at Rome before the legates and which contained the complete text of the earlier Pontifical. The verdict was unequivocal: 'By virtue of our apostolic authority and having consulted our brethren, we declare that these are oaths of fealty and must be considered as such.'
The Constitution Pastoralis cura 1 proclaimed the superiority of the Holy See over the Empire. Having given an account of the procedure followed by Henry VII against King Robert, it gave legal proof of the nullity of this procedure. The summons of King Robert to appear before the emperor, made public at Pisa on 12 September 1312, was invalid, because it had been given outside imperial territory, in the kingdom of Sicily, where it was well known that the king always resided. As judge in ordinary of its vassal, the Holy See should have been required to summon the king. Consequently the imperial sentence against him was illegal. The Pope quashed it in the following terms: 'We annul it by virtue of the incontestable supremacy of the Holy See over the Empire and of the right of the Head of the Church to administer that Empire during a vacancy, and by that fulness of power that Peter received from Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords.' Even before his outspoken Decretal had been made public, Clement had applied the theoretical principles contained in it by appointing Robert on 14 March 1314 to be vicargeneral of the Empire in all its Italian dependencies, except in Genoa and the territory belonging to that city. 2 However, the Pope's death prevented his seal from being affixed to the fair copy, with the result that the king of Naples could not exercise his office until John XXII rectified the situation on 16 July 1317. 3
2
Louis of Bavaria and His Conflict with the Papacy
The theories set out in the Constitutions Romani Principes and Pastoralis Cura 4 were immediately applied by John XXII. On the
____________________
1 Ibid. tit. xi, ch. 2, in Clem.
2 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. IV, no. 1164.
3 Ibid. VOL. V, no. 443.
4 Ibid. VOL. IV, nos. 1165, 1166, 1249-51, 1254-5.
death of Henry VII, the House of Luxembourg ceased to support the candidature of John of Bohemia, and went over to the side of Duke Louis of Bavaria. In this way they hoped to counterbalance the excessive influence of the Hapsburgs, whose choice had fallen on a prince of their own family, Frederick of Austria. The result was a double election. On 19 October 1314, the archbishop of Cologne and Rudolf, count palatine of the Rhine, elected Frederick. On the next day the majority of the prince electors and the archbishops of Mainz and Trier, King John of Bohemia, Duke John of Saxony and the margrave of Brandenburg cast their votes in favour of Louis. There were also two coronations, both on the same day, 25 November, celebrated in both instances with innovations which gave rise to some objections. Louis of Bavaria was crowned in the traditional place, at Aachen, but by the archbishop of Mainz, a prelate to whom, in the ordinary way this prerogative did not belong. As for Frederick he was indeed properly anointed by the archbishop of Cologne, but at Bonn.
The court of Naples hoped to profit by this double election to the Empire. They submitted to John XXII the draft of a Bull which would have had the effect of removing Italy from the Empire completely, and of giving the supreme pontiff the right to define the frontiers both of Germany and Italy, in effect to dispose of the kingdom of Arles.
But John XXII was too astute a politician to lend himself to such plans as these. Faithful to the programme followed by his predecessor, he was not anxious to give the kingdom of Arles which surrounded the Comtat-Venaissin to too powerful a master, nor to assure to the over-ambitious Robert of Anjou the hegemony in Italy. He temporised until, after the battle of Mühdorf, Louis of Bavaria's policy came into conflict with his own. 1
The balance of power in Italy was suddenly threatened in 1327. On 13 March, Louis of Bavaria left Trent. Passing through Bergamo and Como, he entered Milan, with a ludicrously small escort of only six hundred men. On 31 May the iron crown was set upon his brow by the excommunicate Guido de' Tarlati di Pietramala, the deposed bishop of Arezzo, instead of by the archbishop of Milan who had slipped away to avoid officiating at the coronation. The affronts to the Papacy had begun. 2
Louis, who was 'hard up' according to Villani who always speaks
____________________
1 P. Fournier, Le Royaume d'Arles et de Vienne. Étude sur la formation territoriale de la France dans l'Est et le Sud-Est, Paris 1891, pp. 527-39.
2 Villani, op. cit. Bk IX, chs. xv, xviii.
of him in disdainful and contemptuous tones, lingered at Milan until 12 August, to collect money and troops. Being asked to supply him with these commodities the haughty Galeazzo Visconti arrogantly replied: 'You will get them when and where I choose.' Such an impertinent answer called for punishment. On 6 July Galeazzo, together with his son Azzo and his brothers Marco and Luchino, was in all innocence attending a general council when the imperial marshal arrested him and his family.
The seizure of so eminent a person caused general amazement: how could it happen that the instigator of the Italian expedition was in prison? At the castle of Orzi, Louis of Bavaria justified himself by showing letters, most probably forged, in which Galeazzo had proposed an alliance with Bertrand du Poujet, and had gone so far as to appoint three bishops, to Cremona, Como and Città di Castello.
Louis, now supplied by the Ghibellines with 200,000 gold florins and reinforcements, crossed the Po near Cremona and advanced as far as Borgo San Donnino. Bertrand du Poujet, whose forces were numerically superior, could well have prevented him from crossing the passes of the Apennines; but he made no attempt to do so, and thus roused the wrath of the Tuscans, who regarded him as a traitor, unjustly as it would seem, for it was lack of cash which prevented him from ordering his mercenaries, many of whom were German, to advance. 1
The Ghibelline city of Pisa gave Louis of Bavaria an unpleasant welcome. Although when they learned of the coronation of 31 May, the common people had cried, 'Death to the Pope! Death to King Robert! Death to the Florentines! Long live the Emperor!'--the richer citizens were by no means anxious to have an excommunicate within their walls, and had no desire to break off their negotiations with the Guelphs. Ambassadors offered Louis 70,000 florins not to enter Pisa. Their unlawful arrest drove the city to resist. The siege lasted from 6 September until 8 October. Victorious, Louis extorted the 70,000 florins and, furnished with this viaticum, went on his way to Rome. 2
Entry to Rome was easy but not because of any sympathy of its inhabitants for the invader. Cardinal Napoleone Orsini describes their mentality with some humour in a letter to Ferrer d' Abella, the agent of the king of Aragon. 'It is true that the Romans have friends and enemies; they accept help from their friends, be they Guelph or Ghibelline; they do even give help to their friends, and love them, whoever they be; but you will not find a single Roman who is at heart
____________________
1 Ibid. chs. xxx, xxxi.
2 Ibid. chs. xxiii, xxxii, xxxiii, xlvii.
either Guelph or Ghibelline.' 1 The one great wish of the people was to compel John XXII to bring the Papacy back to the banks of the Tiber. Their ambassadors pointed out to him that, if he did not take their wishes into account, Rome would welcome Louis of Bavaria as Emperor. The Pope promised to come as soon as he could, when the time was ripe, but exhorted them not to receive one who was an excommunicate, a heretic and an enemy of Holy Church.
The Romans remembered how their peace had been disturbed by street-fighting at the time of Henry VII's Italian expedition. So they drove out those nobles who might have offered the lordship to Robert of Anjou, and appointed Sciarra Colonna as captain, together with fifty-two counsellors, four from each district.
The king of Naples was, in fact, thinking of making use once more of the tactics that had been so successful in 1312. His brother John, prince of Morea, arrived at Rome, but the people refused him entry to the city. The blockade of the mouth of the Tiber by a Genoese fleet from 5 August 1327 deprived the city of corn and victuals, but failed to break down its resistance. The city militia were sent out against the sailors, who had landed at Ostia, but fell back before the heavy fire of the enemy's crossbows. The Genoese attack exasperated the populace and drove them to break with Robert of Anjou, who had been its contriver.
The legate Giovanni Orsini and the prince of Morea now tried a surprise attack: during the night of 27-28 September, five hundred horsemen and some footsoldiers entered the city through a breach in the walls of the garden of St Peter's, invaded both the Vatican basilica and the adjacent square and the Borgo, killed the sentinels and erected barricades. The Romans, roused by the tocsin, ran to take up arms, rushed the barriers, and put the Guelphs to flight: the latter, to cover their retreat, set fire to the Borgo. A second attack made on St Sebastian's gate on 29 September was unsuccessful. 2
Louis of Bavaria entered Rome on 7 January 1328, bringing in his train large numbers of clerics, prelates, and religious of various orders, especially Franciscans whom the Church had condemned as heretics. As the city had been placed under an interdict, there were only these excommunicates to celebrate divine office and ring the bells; the clergy faithful to the Pope refused to violate the interdict and hid the vernicle.
As the Holy See refused to invest Louis as king of the Romans, he had to have recourse to laymen. The exigencies of the moment
____________________
1 H. Finke, Acta Aragonensia, VOL. 1, no. 391 (quoted by E. Berger, in Journal des Savants, 1908, p. 289).
2 Villani, op. cit. Bk X, chs. xix, xx.
compelled him to put into practice ideas which contained a threat to the imperial power, and to apply the principle of popular sovereignty put forward, not without certain specious reservations, by Jean de Jandun and Marsiglio of Padua. By some strange lack of insight, Louis of Bavaria did not realise the full implications of his gesture; for by accepting revolutionary theories, renouncing theocratic prerogatives and reducing his office to the level of a power of democratic origin, he was irrevocably lowering the status of the ancient Empire. On 11 January those Romans who supported Louis of Bavaria met at the Capitol, where the schismatic bishop of Aleria, in Corsica, addressed them in flattering terms, promising them wonders of every description, and asked them to grant Louis the imperial crown. The crowd greeted his words with cries of 'Long live our lord! Long live the king of the Romans!' and elected four syndics who were to proceed to crown him.
On the morning of 17 January 1328, a solemn procession went to escort the future emperor from Santa Maria Maggiore, where he was living. Clad in white silk and mounted on a white charger, he rode through the streets of Rome, whose houses were richly decorated, and reached St Peter's. There the bishops of Aleria and Castello anointed him according to the traditional rite; and then Sciarra Colonna, captain of the people, clothed in cloth of gold, in the name of that same people, placed the diadem on the head of 'the anointed of the Lord.' 1
Louis of Bavaria's relations with the Romans soon became strained. On 4 March, a revolt broke out when the occupying troops requisitioned victuals without making any attempt at payment. Arms were taken up, barricades erected, Germans killed. The severity of the punishment meted out to the rebels caused some indignation 2 and public discontent was rapidly increased when the emperor, finding himself short of money, levied a financial contribution of 30,000 gold florins. The Romans were willing enough to benefit by his presence, but they had no wish to suffer from it. 3 In any case, many of them had disapproved of his coming from the beginning, and feared that the Church would make reprisals. 4
John XXII was not disheartened by the success of the German expedition to northern Italy; on the contrary, he put new vigour into his conflict with Louis of Bavaria. A Bull dated 3 April 1328 had deprived Louis of the duchy of Bavaria, and of all his fiefs, both imperial and ecclesiastical, and summoned him to come and hear
____________________
1 Ibid. chs. liii, liv.
2 Ibid. ch. lxiv.
3 Ibid. ch. lxvi.
4 Ibid. ch. liii.
read his sentence of condemnation. 1 A second Bull 2 of 23 October had declared him to be a heretic, since he had defended the doctrines of the Spirituals and encouraged the pernicious work of Marsiglio of Padua and Jean de Jandun; on the same day the Defensor pacis was censured, 3 and the duke's vassals were freed from their oath of loyalty. In Italy, a league 4 formed on 2 March 1328, with Robert of Anjou and the inhabitants of Bologna, Florence, Siena and Perugia, raised an army of about five thousand men ready to cut off Louis of Bavaria's retreat, or at least prevent him from invading the kingdom of Naples. The crusade preached against him was producing results. As for his coronation, 5 on 31 March it was pronounced null and void.
Meanwhile other dangers threatened the emperor: in Germany, the Austrian faction were negotiating for the recognition of Frederick the Fair. John XXII might perhaps have agreed to this, but as the report of the election of 1314 was not submitted to him the negotia tions came to nothing. 6 Those with the German princes almost succeeded: being invited by the Pope in April-May 1328 to proceed to a new election, the electors seemed willing to do so, but could not agree among themselves. Everything was a topic for misunderstanding, the choice of the place to hold the election, its date and the name of the final candidate. 7
John XXII's vigorous action redoubled the antagonism of his enemies, who were determined to see things through to the end. Marsiglio of Padua took his revenge for the condemnation of his writings by persecuting the few clerics who had remained in Rome and who had been guilty of observing the interdict placed upon the city. Upon his orders, the prior of the Augustinians at San Trifone was delivered to be eaten by lions in the Capitol. Meanwhile, Jean de Jandun, Ubertino da Casale and Fra Bonagrazia roused the Roman populace. On 14 April, when they thought public feeling had been sufficiently excited, Louis of Bavaria summoned a parliament in the forecourt of St Peter's. The meeting, consisting of a small number of clerics and many laymen, questioned the orthodoxy of John XXII and begged the emperor, in virtue of his office as supreme judge, to bring a case against him. 8
A second parliament met in the forecourt of St Peter's on 18 April.
____________________
1 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. VI, nos. 273, 274.
2 Ibid. no. 361.
3 Five statements from the Defensor pacis were condemned. See Rinaldi, ad annum 1327, §27-36.
4 F. Gregorovius, Storia della città di Roma nel medio evo, VOL. III, Rome 1901, p. 307, n. 50.
5 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. VI, nos. 427, 428.
6 Ibid. no. 409.
7 K. Müller, Der Kampf Ludwig des Baiern mit der römischen Kurie, VOL. 1, pp. 230-4.
8 N. Valois, in Histoire littéraire de la France, VOL. XXXIII, pp. 595-6.
The dais was erected on the steps of the basilica: there sat Louis of Bavaria, dressed in purple, a crown on his head, in his right hand the sceptre, in his left the golden orb, around him prelates, barons and knights-in-armour. Three times the Augustinian Niccolò da Fabriano cried out: 'Is there any counsel willing to defend the priest Jacques de Cahors, styled John XXII?' There was no reply. Then a German abbot made a long speech beginning with the words, ' Haec est dies boni nuntii. . . . ' First he flattered public opinion in Rome. Louis, their master, had left behind him his kingdom and his young children, and had come in haste to the capital of the whole world of Christendom, to set it up again in vigour and to make it once more the spiritual and temporal seat of the Papacy. John XXII, still in Avignon, had preached a crusade against the Romans. And so it was by the express desire of the syndics of the clergy and people, that an action was being brought against him. 'A holy pastor and a faithful Christian' must be set in his place following the example given in times past by Otto III.
Then the German monk added argument to argument to support the accusation of heresy levelled against Jacques de Cahors. He reproached him for his sympathetic attitude to the Saracens, for holding doctrines that ran counter to the poverty of Christ, and for despising the teaching of the Gospels concerning the distinction between spiritual and temporal. The chief article of his indictment was treason committed against the imperial authority by the revocation of the election of 1314. As a result the final sentence, 1 which was in effect dictated by Marsiglio of Padua, deposed from his office the heretic Pope. Villani tells us that though the common people heard this sentence with pleasure, persons of judgment were somewhat uneasy. 2
John XXII's supporters boldly disturbed the public rejoicings. Jacopo Colonna summoned more than a thousand citizens to the Piazza San Marcello, and made public the proceedings instituted by the Holy See against Louis of Bavaria, a convicted heretic and excommunicate. The fifty-two syndics from the districts of Rome and those representing the clergy were excommunicated, as were all those who had given aid or assistance to the emperor. Thereupon, Jacopo nailed the papal document to the door of the church of San Marcello, and, mounting a horse, was soon far from Rome. 3
Louis of Bavaria thought to regain popular favour by publishing on 23 April a proclamation which he considered likely to give
____________________
1 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. VI, nos. 436, 437.
2 Villani, op. cit. Bk X, ch. lxviii.
3 Ibid. ch. lxix.
complete satisfaction. 'The supreme pontiff should be compelled to reside permanently in Rome, and go no further away than a two-days' journey without asking and obtaining the permission of the clergy and people.' If he did not return to his post after three requests, he should be liable to forfeiture. 1
The aftermath of the struggle against John XXII came but slowly. The question of his replacement posed problems difficult to resolve, for instance, of whom was the College of Electors to be composed? There were no cardinals living in Rome. Not one of them had deserted the Pope, not even Napoleone Orsini, who had little liking for him, or rather who detested his policy. Sciarra's son, Giovanni Colonna, and Marsiglio of Padua induced the clergy of Rome to set up by means of election a college of thirteen electors, who in their turn voted for the friar minor Pietro Rainallucci, a native of Corbara. The antiPope was therefore elected according to a mode of election well known in canon law and frequently used in the Middle Ages: that of ballot by arrangement. 2
On 12 May 1328, the populace was once more summoned to assemble in the forecourt of St Peter's. The ceremony which there took place was the solemn ratification by the people and the emperor of the choice of the Roman clergy, followed by the enthronement of their nominee. The Augustinian, Niccolò da Fabriano, opened the session with a discourse on the following theme: Reversus Petrus ad se dixit: Venit angelus Domini, et liberavit nos de manu Herodis, et de omnibus factionibus Judaeorum, in which he compared Louis of Bavaria with the angel of the Lord, and John XXII with Herod! After this violent harangue, the bishop of Castello rose to his feet and cried three times to the people: 'Do you wish to have Fra Pietro da Corbara for Pope?' The people were already disillusioned by the unprepossessing appearance of the friar minor, as he stood beneath the canopy sheltering the emperor, and had in any case hoped that a Roman would be chosen, but they dared not voice their opinion, and replied: 'We wish it.'
The vote of the populace was immediately ratified by an imperial decree, read out by the bishop of Castello. Louis of Bavaria rose from his throne, gave the newly elected Pope the name of Nicholas V, placed the fisherman's ring on his finger, delivered to him the temporal power of the Church, and led him into the basilica of the Vatican, where he was enthroned. On 22 May a twofold coronation took place: that of the antiPope, and a repetition of that of Louis of
____________________
1 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. VI, p. 362 ( 23 April 1328).
2 G. Mollat, "'Miscellanea Avenionensia.'" in Mélanges, VOL. XLIV, 1927, pp. 5-
Bavaria, since the first had taken place in such unusual conditions that its validity was in question. In order to emphasise the abolition of all the claims made against the Empire by Popes Clement V and John XXII, the emperor confirmed the earlier sentences pronounced by Henry VII against Robert of Anjou, the Florentines and certain Guelph cities. 1
3
The Schism of Pietro Da Corbara
Louis of Bavaria had had no difficulty in creating a schism: but now he had to persuade Christendom to accept the Pope he had made. This task was rendered the more thankless by the fact that he had chosen a man of negative personality, about whom his contemporaries expressed diametrically opposed opinions. Albertino Mussato praises his learning and his gifts as an administrator; others relate that after five years of married life, he left his wife against her will to enter the order of the Friars Minor. An anonymous Franciscan writer describes him as 'a great preacher, confessor and director of souls,' who had laboured for more than fifty years for the conversion of sinners, an ascetic, a lover of holy poverty and a model of* obedience. Even Villani, who did not like him, admits that his reputation was good and his life holy. But Alvarez Pelayo, the author of De planctu Ecclesiae, who had known him in the convent of Ara Coeli at Rome, and seen him at work, has painted a very unflattering portrait of him. Unless this writer is disparaging him, which he probably was, Pietro da Corbara was an egregious hypocrite, who made a show of asceticism while he secretly amassed ill-gotten gains, tirelessly frequented women of doubtful reputation and ran after honours. 2
Whatever may be the value of this collected evidence in forming an opinion about him, Pietro da Corbara himself revealed what feelings governed his conduct towards the emperor. Instead of obeying the orders of the provincial, Giovanni da Magliano, and the legate, Giovanni Orsini, he had not left Rome when the emperor arrived, and had celebrated Mass in spite of the proclamation of the interdict. For this the chapter, meeting at Anagni, condemned him to life imprisonment. In accepting the papal crown, he was acting, according to his own account, out of consideration for Louis of Bavaria and Michael of
____________________
1 Villani, op. cit. Bk X, chs. lxxi, lxxiv.
2 See the evidence collected in Baluze, Vitae (ed. Mollat), VOL. II, pp. 196-200.
Cesena, the Minister-General of his order, whom John XXII had deposed. 1
We may think of him as an honest friar, devoted to absolute poverty, grateful to Louis of Bavaria for the protection he had afforded to members of the order persecuted by the Holy See, but spineless to a degree and always ready to carry out slavishly the emperor's wishes. According to the theory set out in the Defensor pacis, the antiPope should have set the example of complete poverty. But how could he rule Christendom without some outward show of temporal power, without a court modelled on the one at Avignon? So a Chancery, an Apostolic Camera, and a Penitentiary, with all their complicated machinery came into being. In the Chancery alone there were six abbreviators, a corrector, eleven scribes, a protonotary, five notaries, a registrar and an auditor litterarum contradictarum. Pietro da Corbara was soon to be surrounded by chaplains, household staff, an auditor of the Rota and a lay staff consisting of a marshal, squires, sergeants, mace-bearers, janitors and two treasurers. 2
The Sacred College was recruited only with very great difficulty. Any Roman who had any forebodings declined the offer of the red hat. 3 By 15 May 1328, Nicholas V had only succeeded in collecting six cardinals who had broken with the official church or were already involved in schism. These were Giacomo Alberti, the deposed bishop of Castello; the German abbot who had read the sentence deposing John XXII; the Augustinian monk Niccolò da Fabriano; the Pisan Bonifazio di Donoratico; and two Romans, Pietro Oringa and Giovanni Arlotti. Later promotions included a friar minor, Paolo di Viterbo, Pandolfo Capocci, the pseudo-bishop of Viterbo, and Giovanni Visconti who accepted the purple with an ill grace and shortly after resigned it. 4
The newly constituted court was lacking in universality; it was chiefly distinguished for its Italian, and more especially Roman element.
The AntiPope inevitably betrayed the ideal of holy poverty, and lived in the very luxury so condemned by the Spirituals. Inevitably he and his cardinals had at their disposal horses, liveried household servants, knights and well-equipped squires; inevitably, their tables were lavishly served. 5
The upkeep of a court was expensive and necessitated more
____________________
1 C. Eubel, Bullarii franciscani epitome, 1908, pp. 311-13.
2 G. Mollat, 'Miscellanea Avenionensia,' Mélanges, VOL. XLIV, pp. 7 - 10.
3 Villani, op. cit. Bk X, ch. lxxiii. See also J. Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. VI, no. 454.
4 Baluze, op. cit. VOL. II, pp. 202-03.
5 Villani, op. cit. Bk X, ch. lxxiii.
financial resources than the needy Louis of Bavaria could supply. He was consequently compelled to remove from their benefices those incumbents who had remained faithful to John XXII, and to redistribute these benefices generously among the schismatics; the strongly criticised practice of pluralism inevitably flourished. 1
Despite all the ridicule he brought upon himself, Nicholas V had many supporters in Rome, as we may learn from the papal registers. One Bull shows, for example, that 'almost all the canons of St John Lateran' had embraced his cause. 2 In the rest of Italy he had a fairly closely defined zone of influence, having adherents at Milan, Cremona, Como, Ferrara, Savona, Albenga, Genoa, Pisa, Lucca, Pistoia, Volterra, Chieti, Arezzo, Borgo San Sepolcro, Città di Castello, Viterbo, Todi, Bagnorea and Camerino. In the Marches, the procurators of the towns of Fermo, Osimo, Urbino, Jesi, Fabriano, Matelica, Sant' Elpidio and Serra de' Conti alleged in 1331 and 1333 that their allegiance to Nicholas V was simulated and occasioned by fear. 3 The whole episcopal hierarchy consisted of only sixteen bishops, recruited for preference from the hermits of St Augustine and the friars minor. While, of the various prelates who had been promoted, there were only about four who took possession of their sees. 4
The schismatic party's most enthusiastic supporters were to be found among the Augustinians and Franciscans. The Dominicans supplied fewer recruits, and those were placed under the direction of Cardinal Bonifazio di Donoratico. 5 All these friars displayed a fanatical zeal in rousing world opinion in support of Nicholas V. Michael of Cesena and William of Ockham were to collect innumerable defamatory tracts against John XXII. At Milan, friars frequently preached in public places, denouncing the Pope as a heretic and excommunicate, one who was 'deposed' and 'the worst of murderers.' On the other hand, they were loud in their praises of the antiPope. Galvano della Fiamma remarked sadly that Milan, formerly noted for the wisdom of its inhabitants, had become 'a spring of impiety and a nest of heretics.' 6 At Amelia, the people set fire to a sack of straw representing John XXII; they also chased a dog named after him, threw it in the water and drowned it. 7
____________________
1 See the register of Bulls issued by Nicolas V, published in Mollat VOLS. VII and VIII.
2 Mollat, VOL. XIII, no. 63389.
3 Ibid. VOL. IX, no. 54855; VOL. XII, no. 61291.
4 K. Eubel, 'Der Gegenpapst Nikolaus V. und seine Hierarchie,' Historisches Jahrbuch, VOL. XII, 1891, pp. 277 - 308.
5 Mollat, VOL. VII, no. 42499.
6 Galvano delia Fiamma, Opusculum de rebus gestis ab Azone, Luchino et Johanne Vicecomitibus, ed. C. Castiglioni, Bologna 1938, p. 6. See also Annales Mediolanenses in Muratori, VOL. XVI, ch. ci.
7 Histoire Littéraire de la France, VOL. XXXIII, p. 477.
In Sicily, Nicholas V put the metropolitan see of Monreale in charge of Jacopo Alberti, a cardinal of his faction, on 18 May 1328. 1 There the regular and secular clergy, weary of the interdict which had long lain heavy on the churches and disorganised their services, publicly preached adherence to Nicholas V. According to the correspondents of the king of Aragon, the whole island would have gone over to the antiPope, but for the opposition of Frederick II: he published a decree forbidding on pain of death the making of any speech against John XXII.
Frederick's attitude is somewhat surprising. He had plenty of grievances against the Pope in Avignon, who had always supported Robert of Anjou. Moreover, he was already allied to Louis of Bavaria. Of this the emperor was careful to remind him, and he added his threats to the tempting offers of Nicholas V. Frederick's answer was that their alliance was only temporal and not spiritual, and that, although John XXII might be his mortal enemy, he still regarded him as the true Shepherd of the Church. 2
Despite this, the rumour that Frederick had joined the schism was so current that Alfonso IV, as head of the house of Aragon, informed Frederick of his firm intention of breaking off relations with him, if he persisted in the plans attributed to him. 3
The influence which Nicholas V had acquired in Italy, through the active propaganda of those Franciscans who had rebelled against the Church was chiefly dependent for its continuance on the support of the Emperor, and it declined rapidly as soon as the latter was obliged to leave Rome. The growing hostility of the inhabitants, the discord in the ranks of the German mercenaries and the lack of both victuals and money, made his departure imperative. Louis of Bavaria and his 'idol'--as contemporaries called the antiPope--left Rome amid the jeers of the populace on 4 August 1328. The fickle crowd gave an enthusiastic reception to Bertoldo Orsini and Stefano Colonna and to the legate Giovanni Orsini. A bonfire was lighted before the Capitol, and piled high with imperial privileges; the bodies of Germans were dug up, dragged through the streets and thrown into the Tiber. On 23 August eight hundred Neapolitan horsemen entered the city and restored order. 4
After its ignominious departure from Rome, the imperial army ravaged the duchy of Spoleto, and exacted forced contributions from
____________________
1 Mollat, VOL. VII, no. 42500.
2 Nicola Speciale, Historia Sicula, in Muratori, VOL. X, col. 1075.
3 Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. VI, pp. 423-4, 438-44.
4 Villani, op. cit. Bk X, ch. cxvi. See also Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. VI, pp. 396-7, 399400, 405-06.
Todi. It might perhaps have marched as far as Florence, if Castruccio Castracani had lived; but the death of this powerful ally brought to nothing the plans for an expedition to Tuscany, and compelled Louis of Bavaria to make his way to Pisa on 21 September 1328 in order to deprive the dead man's sons of their rights of lordship. 1
Nicholas V, having passed through the Patrimony of St Peter and having robbed the treasure of the church of San Fortunato at Todi of all its jewels and silver lamps of great value--a curious action for a believer in holy poverty--joined the emperor at Pisa on 2 or 3 January 1329. His reception was on a grand scale and a magnificent procession came to meet him. On 8 January he preached and granted forgiveness to all who had repudiated John XXII, and confirmed the sentence of deposition proclaimed with much commotion by Louis of Bavaria on the previous 13 December, following the indictment drawn up by Michael of Cesena. 2 On 20 January he conferred the purple on Giovanni Visconti, canon of Milan, and made him legate in Lombardy, while the emperor confirmed the granting of the lordship of Milan to Azzo Visconti in return for a promise of 125,000 florins.3Ibid. ch. cxvii. See also Schwalm, op. cit. VOL. VI, p. 451. On 19 February a farcical ceremony took place in the cathedral where, according to the chronicler Heinrich von Erfurt, the antiPope condemned as a heretic a dummy dressed in pontifical vestments to represent John XXII, deprived it of its dignities and handed it over to the secular arm. 4 The Pisans showed little enthusiasm for attending this travesty; those who did come were brought by force of arms. 5
Policies in. Italy were so inconstant that a sudden change in them brought about an entirely new situation. Azzo Visconti, to everyone's surprise, had an interview with the legate, Bertrand du Poujet. This defection determined Louis of Bavaria on 11 April 1329 to leave Pisa, and to come to an agreement on 21 April with the Ghibellines of Mantua, Como and Cremona, in order to attack the traitor. 6
The sudden departure of the emperor was the signal for the general melting-away of the supporters of the antiPope. Did he himself make a break with his protector of his own accord, as his act of recantation declares? It seems likely that he did since Michael of Cesena, William of Ockham and the cardinals, with the exception of Paolo di Viterbo, all abandoned him. As a final blow, Pisa drove him out. He was obliged to seek refuge at the castle of Burgaro where he lived shut up for three months. The secret of his hiding-place was
____________________
1 Ibid. chs. xcvii-xcviii, cii.
2 Ibid. chs. xcvii, cxiii, cxiv.
4 Histoire littéraire de la France, VOL. XXXIII, p. 477.
5 Villani, op. cit. Bk X, ch. cxxi.
6 Ibid. ch. cxxviii.
so well kept that no one knew where to lay hands on him. His host, Count Bonifazio di Donoratico, took fright at the approach of an army from Florence, and had him secretly transferred to his own house in Pisa, where his presence soon became known. Informed of this, John XXII immediately requested the count to hand over the antiPope ( 10 May 1330). Negotiations were begun. In July John guaranteed the pretender's life and absolution from his crimes, provided that he made formal abjuration, and at the same time assured him of an annual pension of 3,000 florins and exemption from all lesser authority than that of the Holy See. The terms of the agreement were accepted. Pietro da Corbara wrote a very humble letter to the supreme pontiff, offering to renounce his errors in public, wherever it should be convenient. 1
On 25 July, the archbishop of Pisa and the bishop of Lucca received the solemn recantation of the antiPope. On 4 August a galley in charter to a private owner from Marseilles took him aboard. A favourable wind brought him to Nice in two days. On 24 August Pietro da Corbara entered Avignon, and the following day, with a rope about his neck and dressed in his Franciscan habit, he appeared in Consistory where he renewed his act of recantation and received pardon. The Pope treated him generously: his prison was the papal palace. After three years' detention, far from harsh, Pietro died quite forgotten on 16 October 1333. 2
Thus the schism into which Louis of Bavaria had so irresponsibly plunged Christendom petered out miserably. Instead of furthering his cause, the schism had compromised it even in the eyes of the Ghibellines who everywhere in Lombardy, except at Vercelli, shut the gates of their cities against him. The sentinels on guard on the walls of Milan shouted abuse at the emperor: 'Drunken sot! fathead!' they cried, 'Drink, baby, drink! babo!' 3 Unable to chastise their abuses, the German army went off to Pavia and thence to Reggio Emilia and Parma; there a plot was hatched which, had it been successful, would have been disastrous for the Church. It was decided that Louis of Bavaria should go to Modena and then lead his cavalry against Faenza which, he was assured, would not resist. Bertrand du Poujet would be sure to send his troops against the enemy, thus withdrawing them from the defence of Bologna, where he was in residence. At this precise moment a riot was to break out, while considerable forces of foot-soldiers were to come down from the mountains; they would seize Bologna, and then drive out the
____________________
1 Eubel, Bullarium franciscanum, VOL. V, Rome 1898, p. 472.
2 Ibid. pp. 470-9, 510-11.
3 Galvano della Fiamma, op. cit. p. 6.
legate and hand the city over to the emperor. But Bertrand du Poujet, who had been secretly informed of the conspiracy, had its ringleaders arrested and summoned the Florentines to his aid. With the three hundred cavalry and the four hundred cross-bowmen that they sent him he was able to put down the conspiracy with severity; all the chief culprits were beheaded in the main square, except the archbishop, who escaped capital punishment by virtue of his sacerdotal office; but his fate was not much better, for he died in prison from the consequences of his detention, in November 1329. 1
In chagrin, Louis of Bavaria retreated to Trent and planned revenge. A meeting was held, at which it was decided, in agreement with the Ghibellines in Lombardy, that Bologna should be invested and captured, and Romagna invaded. But, learning on 13 January 1330 that his rival, Frederick of Austria, had died, the emperor determined to cross the Alps.
4
Louis of Bavaria and John XXII, from 1330-34
The death of Frederick of Austria gave new hope to the supporters of the duke of Bavaria. One after the other, the king of Denmark, Count William of Holland, King John of Bohemia, Duke Otto of Austria and the archbishop of Trier, each thought to appease the wrath of John XXII. The Pope, however, remained adamant. Before any reconciliation could take place he insisted that Louis must resign the imperial title, of which he had been deprived by papal decree. Now, in the very petition in which he begged for pardon, Louis had made the express condition that he was to be continued in his existing status and dignities. In any case, his approaches did not appear particularly sincere, for heretics like William of Ockham, Michael of Cesena and Fra Bonagrazia frequented his court as assiduously as ever. 2
John XXII's plan was clear-cut: to compel the emperor to abdicate and so bring about a new election.
From 1331, France and Bohemia came over to his point of view. By the Treaty of Fontainebleau of January 1332, the king of Bohemia promised to ratify Philip VI's encroachments upon imperial territory and to cede to him the kingdom of Arles, if he himself were allowed complete freedom of action to cause the imperial crown to fall to a
____________________
1 Villani, op. cit. Bk X, chs. cxlvi, cxlvii.
2 Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, VOL. II, cols. 800-06.
member of his own family. In November 1332, the Pope joined in their schemes, and, in addition, allowed the king of Bohemia to create a kingdom for himself in northern Italy.
Louis of Bavaria, dismayed at the coalition formed against him, abdicated in favour of Henry of Bavaria, on condition that the Holy See promised him absolution from the censures imposed upon him. By this means he was able at least to keep for himself the duchy of Bavaria, of which he had been dispossessed by the Bull of 3 April 1327.
The Bavarian plan was acceptable to Philip of Valois, and at Frankfurt, on 17 December 1333, he guaranteed to supply Henry of Bavaria with the money he required for his election, namely 300,000 marks of pure silver; he felt sure that he would never have to give back the kingdom of Arles, which was handed over as a pledge for this loan.
The Treaty of Frankfurt, signed by the Pope and the king of Bohemia, was so favourable to France that it was bound to cause some opposition. Rather than have any hand in ceding the kingdom of Arles to Philip VI, Robert of Anjou 1 changed his tactics completely and, abandoning all the traditions of the Guelphs, whose leader he was in Italy, he joined forces with a thoroughbred Ghibelline, Cardinal Napoleone Orsini, in order to foil France's intentions. Orsini advised Louis of Bavaria to bring his case before a general council, at the same time suggesting that he should not abdicate, and putting him on his guard against Henry of Bavaria and John of Bohemia. 2
Louis of Bavaria, a man 'of wavering character, easily influenced in any direction, and so quickly moved that he could shift suddenly from one extreme to the other,' allowed himself to be persuaded, and on 24 July 1334 a circular letter announced to the cities of the Empire that it had never been the emperor's intention to abdicate. 3 Orsini's advice, supported by that of the Franciscans who had taken refuge at the Bavarian court, had ruined a scheme which had the advantage of dealing tactfully with the susceptibilities of both emperor and Pope, and of making possible the reconciliation of these two enemies.
____________________
1 K. Müller ( Der Kampf, VOL. I, pp. 394-405), has published a violent memorandum against the king of Bohemia issued by the Angevin chancellery.
2 For the part played by Orsini, see the report made by the friar Gauthier to Michael of Cesena, in Höfler, Aus Avignon, p. 11.
3 P. Fournier, Le Royaume d'Arles, pp. 391-405.
5 Louis of Bavaria and Benedict XII
As uncompromising as had been the policy of John XXII towards Louis of Bavaria, so that of his successor, Benedict XII, was from the outset conciliatory. The emperor, determined to take advantage of the Pope's favourable attitude, sent four ambassadors, Count Ludwig von Ottingen, Eberhard von Tumnau, Markwart von Randeck and Ulrich von Augsburg, on 20 March 1335, to investigate the real intentions of the Curia and to find out on what conditions he would be pardoned. 1 Discussions, begun on 28 April, continued for a long time. On 5 July, the ambassadors returned, bringing the peace conditions stipulated by the Pope. 2 Although harsh, Louis accepted them and sent a second embassy, which reached Avignon about 8 September. In addition to the previous ambassadors, it consisted of Count Ludwig von Ottingen the elder and Heinrich von Zipplingen, commander of the order of the Teutonic Knights. In a letter addressed to the supreme pontiff, Louis declared himself ready to take the Pope's advice as a command, and in particular to be entirely at the Pope's discretion concerning the agreement to be concluded with the kings of France and Naples, which agreement was one of the essential conditions of his own reconciliation with the Pope. 3
Markwart von Randeck appeared at a meeting of the Consistory on 9 October, and there read a long speech, full of quotations from legal and scriptural sources, setting forth seven reasons why his master's pardon should no longer be deferred. 4
At once, Benedict XII declared himself ready to grant it; but this graciousness upset the plans of the kings of France and Naples. Philip VI was opposed to any reconciliation, or, at the least, thought that it should be bought as dearly as possible, and on the condition that the emperor ceded territories on the other side of the Rhône. Robert of Anjou, for his part, after the set-back suffered by John of Bohemia in Italy, 5 had turned against the emperor, and had no wish to see a peace between him and the Pope, by which he would himself inevitably lose the advantages he had gained as vicar of the Church
____________________
1 J. Schwalm, "' Reise nach Italien. . .,'" Neues Archiv, VOL. XXVI, 1901, pp. 709-13.
2 K. Rümler, "' Die Akten der Gesandschaften Ludwigs des Baiern an Benedikt XII. und Klemens VI.,'" Quellen-Studien aus dem historischen Seminar der Universirtät Innsbruck, VOL. 11, 1910, pp. 112-20.
3 S. Riezler, Vatikanische Akten, p. 592, no. 1748.
4 Ibid. pp. 597-600, no. 1759.
5 See above, p. 2 12.
in Italy. The two monarchs had therefore combined their efforts to prevent any understanding, and were constantly creating fresh impediments. In full Consistory, their emissaries made clear to Benedict how very unseemly it would be for the Holy See to resume relations with Louis of Bavaria, and thus to favour a prince who was a notorious heretic, at the expense of Catholic sovereigns like themselves. 1 In short, the French and Neapolitan requirements were so severe that the German ambassadors had to depart at the beginning of 1336, to arm themselves with fresh authority. 2
Supplied with letters containing more extensive powers of attorney and dated 5 March 1336, 3 the ambassadors soon returned to the Curia. Negotiations were proceeding normally when suddenly, in May, the Pope learned that Louis of Bavaria was making ready to join a league formed by the nobles of Germany against France. This was an act of treachery, for on 4 August of the previous year, 4 Louis had left to Benedict XII the task of contracting an alliance with France. When the Bavarian ambassadors were summoned before the Pope on 15 May 1336, they could not conceal their embarrassment, and begged leave to withdraw. 5
But Louis of Bavaria wrote to Benedict protesting that he was not to blame, and that the Pope had been misinformed, and indeed a third embassy, accredited on 28 October 1336, 6 reached Avignon on 31 January of the following year, having first gone to Paris where an alliance with France had been discussed. Philip VI had promised to send his delegates to the Curia without delay, so that they could state the basis of agreement in the presence of the supreme pontiff. Having been long awaited the ambassadors finally arrived about 3 April 1337 but only to ask the Pope to allow the affair to drag on, and even to hinder its progress. 7 Benedict XII consented unwillingly, for he considered that at a time when Edward III of England was seeking allies against France, it was a mistake not to fall in with the overtures of Louis of Bavaria. 'In the end,' he said, 'the Germans will learn the reason for all these delays, and will make an alliance with England.'
The Pope's forecast proved correct. On 26 August, the emperor, realising that France was playing with him entered into an alliance, both defensive and offensive, with Edward III. From this time, there were no further negotiations with the Avignon court. 8
____________________
1 Bohmer, Fontes rerum germanicarum, VOL. IV, pp. 206- 08.
2 Rümler, op. cit. pp. 120-5.
3 J. Schwalm, in Neues Archiv, VOL. XXVI, pp. 713-24.
4 Riezler, op. cit. p. 592, no. 1748.
5 Rümler, op. cit. pp. 125-32.
6 J. Schwalm in Neues Archiv, VOL. XXVI, pp. 724-6. See also Riezler, op. cit. pp. 637654, nos. 1841, 1842.
7 Riezler, op. cit. p. 668, no. 1876.
8 Rümler, op. cit. pp. 132-42.
The interdict under which Germany lay was annoying the populace; by fair means or foul, the clergy defied it. The archbishop of Mainz had rebelled, and unfortunate disagreements split the religious orders into two rival camps: the Hospitallers of St John of Jerusalem, the Teutonic Knights and the Franciscans were rent by schism. The German bishops, anxious to improve this unhappy state of affairs, summoned Louis of Bavaria to Speyer. They begged him to be reconciled with the Curia, and on 27 March 1338 themselves sent a message to the Pope to this effect, carried by Count Gerlach von Nassau and Ulrich, bishop of Chur. The Estates of the Empire added their requests to those of the bishops. 1 When Benedict XII failed to respond to the wishes of the German people, popular indignation was aroused. At Rense, on 16 July, 2 all the prince Electors except the king of Bohemia swore to defend the liberties, rights and customs of the Empire. They proclaimed that the dignity of the emperor came direct from God and that he who had been elected by a majority vote was the legitimate king. Consequently, from the time of his coronation at Aachen, the emperor could govern without the approval, confirmation or consent of the Pope or of any person whatsoever. The threatening decrees formerly issued by John XXII against Louis of Bavaria were declared illegal. Foreseeing that the Holy See might persist in upholding these decrees the ecclesiastical Electors wrote, somewhat insolently, to Benedict: 'We shall be reluctantly compelled to seek and find suitable remedies against the said proceedings and decrees.' 3 On 6 August, in the edict Licet juris 4 Louis of Bavaria gave his sanction to the Rense decision, and even decreed that anyone contesting it would be deprived of his fiefs and considered guilty of treason.
In order to conform with the injunctions of the German clergy, Louis renewed relations with the papal Curia. In August 1338 the abbot of the Cistercian monastery at Ebrach 5 was sent with letters protesting the emperor's feelings of respect and obedience towards the Holy See. When he asked for his master's pardon, it was no longer on the old terms. Although the documents do not reveal the nature of these terms, there can be little doubt that they included the French alliance, which had previously been stipulated. But in
____________________
1 J. Schwalm in Neues Archiv, VOL. XXVI, pp. 727-33.
2 K. Zeumer, ' Ludwigs des Bayern, Königswahlgesetz "Licet juris" vom 6 August 1338. Mit einer Beilage: Das Renser Weisthum vom 16 Juli 1338,' in Neues Archiv, VOL. XXX, 1905, pp. 110-12.
3 J. Schwalm in Neues Archiv, VOL. XXVI, pp. 734-7.
4 K. Zeumer in Neues Archiv, VOL. XXX, pp. 100-02.
5 According to Friedrich Bock, the abbot of Ebrach was given this mission during the pontificate of John XXII. See his "' Die Prokurationen Kaiser Ludwigs IV. und der Papst Benedikt XII.,'" Quellen, 1933-4, pp. 251-91.
1338, this was no longer to be talked of. At the meeting at Coblenz on 5 September, Edward III had received the golden rods, the insignia of the imperial vicariate in southern Germany. Benedict XII, embarrassed, sent his chaplain, Arnaud de Verdale, to Louis of Bavaria on 13 September 1338, to find out what were his real intentions. 1 The nuncio had an easy interview with the emperor, who, together with the prince Electors, promised to send ambassadors to Avignon. However, not one put in an appearance. Only on 15 March 1341 did the agreement between the Empire and France, which had superseded that between the Empire and England, bring about a reconciliation with the Curia. But Louis of Bavaria, who seems to have been incapable of acting consistently, alienated the Church and made all efforts at reconciliation useless; for, in order to make sure that his son Louis, the margrave of Brandenburg, would have the Tyrol, he married him on 10 February 1342 to Countess Margaret Maultasch. Her earlier marriage to John, son of the king of Bohemia, he annulled, on his own authority, on grounds of impotence 2 and had even granted to the two parties the necessary dispensations for consanguinity.
6
The End of the Struggle between the Church and the Empire
France's constant intervention had made all Benedict XII's wellmeaning plans for Louis of Bavaria come to nothing. Clement VI adopted different tactics, and reverted to the harsh policy pursued by John XXII. It is true that Louis first took the offensive by announcing his intention of going to the assistance of the Ghibellines in Italy. The Pope's retort to this act of provocation was to appoint a legate on 19 July 1342, whose special mission was to prevent the emperor from having access to Lombardy. 3
In spite of that, Louis of Bavaria, confident of the support guaranteed him by France at the Treaty of Vincennes on 15 March 1341, once more made overtures for a reconciliation with the Church. Discussions took place between October 1342 and January 1343, but Philip VI of Valois by betraying his promises contributed to the failure of these negotiations. 4
____________________
1 Riezler, op. cit. pp. 714-16, nos. 1974, 1975.
2 On this occasion Marsiglio of Padua composed an apology for the emperor's conduct, see N. Valois in Histoire littéraire de la France, VOL. XXXIII, pp. 617-18.
3 Rinaldi, ad annum 1342, §17.
4 Rümler, Die Akten, pp. 142-52.
On 12 April 1343, the Pope published the Bull Prolixa retro, in which, after setting forth the lengthy catalogue of the misdeeds of Louis of Bavaria, he called upon him to resign the imperial authority within the next three months. 1 When this length of time had expired, on 11 July, the emperor was declared contumacious, and Clement VI wrote to the archbishop of Trier, asking him to place on the throne of Germany some prince who was a devoted son of the Church. 2
The Pope's uncompromising attitude alarmed Louis, especially as the ranks of his supporters were growing disquietingly thin. The marriage between his son Louis and the heiress of the Tyrol had alienated the house of Luxembourg. Moreover, the persecution of such of the clergy as had remained faithful to the Holy See had roused popular discontent: the Dominicans, for instance, had been driven from seventeen of their convents. 3 In these menacing circumstances, Louis instructed a second solemn embassy, led by the dauphin of Vienne, to offer his submission to the court at Avignon in the humblest terms. In the procuration drawn up for the occasion on 18 September 1343, he admitted his former misdeeds, retracted his heretical opinions, accepted in advance any penance that the Holy See cared to impose upon him, and abdicated. 4
This act of respect gave Clement VI pause; but the pressure brought to bear by the kings of France, Bohemia and Naples, and also by such Italian cities as Florence, 5 got the better of his hesitation. Lest he should incur the odium of causing a rupture, the Pope insisted on such harsh terms for peace that the Estates, when they met at Frankfurt on 8 September 1344, refused to agree to them. The princes held an assembly a few days later at Rense, and expressed the view that a new election should be held, putting forward the name of Charles of Moravia, the son of King John of Bohemia. When Louis of Bavaria pleaded on behalf of his son, Louis of Brandenburg, he was told bluntly: 'As for you, Bavarian, you have brought the Empire to ruin; we want no more Bavarians on the throne!' 6
From this time, the Luxemburg faction worked actively to further the cause of Prince Charles. Without paying any heed to the protests of Philip of Valois, who, after the announcement of the Bohemian candidature, had begged his pardon of Louis of Bavaria, Clement VI patiently pursued his ends. On 7 April 1346 Heinrich von Wirnemburg, a warm supporter of the emperor, was canonically deposed and
____________________
1 Rinaldi, ad annum 1343, §43-58.
2 Riezler, Vatikanische Akten, p. 775, no. 2151.
3 Neues Archiv, VOL. XXX, p. 447.
4 Riezler, op. cit. pp. 780-5, no. 2167.
5 Archivio storico italiano, ser. 3, VOL. 11, 1865, pt 1, p. 184.
6 Böhmer, Fontes rerum germanicarum, VOL. IV, pp. 229-30, 526.
replaced as archbishop of Mainz by Count Gerlach von Nassau. 1 Six days later, a Bull proclaimed the complete downfall of Louis of Bavaria and deprived him of the Empire; while another, dated 28 April, urged the Electors to make a fresh election. 2 On 22 April, Charles of Moravia solemnly swore at Avignon that, should he be elected king of the Romans, he would annul all proceedings instituted against Robert of Anjou, Rome and Florence by Henry VII; revoke all the acts of Louis of Bavaria and respect the Church's domains in Italy; never enter any territory belonging to the Church without formal permission from the Holy See; not enter Rome before the day appointed for his coronation, and leave it on the evening of the same day; remove from their sees all bishops improperly appointed and replace them by prelates nominated by the Roman Curia etc. 3 Finally, on 11 July, the king of Bohemia, Duke Rudolf of Saxony and the archbishops of Trier, Mainz and Cologne, gathered at Rense, declared that they were putting an end to the vacancy of the Empire by voting unanimously for Prince Charles.
The Rense election was received with a marked lack of enthusiasm, especially in northern Germany. The malcontents mocked the newly elected prince, calling him 'the priests' emperor.' The gates of Aachen were shut against him, and by an apostolic dispensation the coronation took place at Bonn on 26 November. Louis of Bavaria was even preparing to invade Bohemia, when he died suddenly of an apoplectic attack while on a bear hunt, 11 October 1347. His followers elected Count Gunther von Schwarzenburg king, but death was still on Charles's side, and rid him of this second rival on 14 June 1349, thus ensuring that he would possess the Empire in peace.
But the Holy See's triumph was more apparent than real, for Charles IV paid no heed to the oaths he had sworn in 1346. Though he had promised to enter Italy only after the Curia had confirmed his election, he made no formal request for approval, but was content to beg for favours, notably that of being crowned emperor. Charles had also undertaken to oppose those bishops who had been put into German sees by Louis of Bavaria against the wishes of the Pope; but as soon as Heinrich von Wirnemburg, who had been deprived by Clement VI of the archbishopric of Mainz, recognised Charles as his legitimate sovereign, Charles ceased to support the Curia's candidate Gerlach von Nassau, and took refuge in strict neutrality.
Nor were these the only disappointments in store for the Papacy. It was with bitterness that Clement VI saw his former pupil turn a
____________________
1 K. Zeumer and R. Salomon, Constitutiones, VOL. VIII, pt 1, no. 4. ( Monumenta Germaniae Historica.)
2 Ibid. nos. 7, 16-49.
3 Ibid. nos. 9-13.
deaf ear to his advice, by refusing the hand of a daughter of France and marrying the Princess Palatine Anna, thus becoming reconciled with the house of Wittelsbach. The Pope took his revenge by once more excommunicating the Margrave Louis the Old and his adherents. He distrusted Charles's independent policy and opposed any suggestion of an expedition to Rome, no doubt fearing that the German king might encroach upon the Holy See's rights in Italy. 1 His successor, Innocent VI, was more conciliatory: he permitted Charles IV to cross the Alps in 1354 and had him crowned emperor at Rome on 5 April 1355 by Cardinal Pierre Bertrand de Colombiers. 2
Innocent VI received a poor return for his friendliness. Charles IV had realised that Germany was weary of the quarrels caused by the Popes' intervention in the election and confirmation of German kings. He broke the bonds that had for so long held Church and Empire together. This was the purpose of the Golden Bull 3 published on 13 January 1356. This celebrated edict, amongst other things, reserved to the seven Electors the right to elect to the throne of Germany and, in time of a vacancy, decreed that the prince of Saxony should be Vicar for the North and the Count Palatine of the Rhine Vicar for the South. It completely ignored the Curia's claims both to approve and confirm the election of the king of the Germans, and to assume imperial authority in Italy during an interregnum. 4
So came about the final separation of spiritual from temporal power, the assertion of the independence of rulers and nations with regard to the Papacy, the overthrow of the universal monarchy which the Holy See had exercised throughout the Middle Ages, the first manifestation of what has been called the spirit of the modern age.
Charles IV had put an end to the Roman Curia's pretensions, by the simple method of disregarding them. His object in so doing was to avoid a conflict with Innocent VI. The Pope made no protest. 5 After the Diet of Metz, in 1335, when the Golden Bull was first issued in the presence of the papal delegate Androin de la Roche, Innocent sent the emperor a very friendly letter. If he felt slighted,
____________________
1 W. Scheffier, Karl IV. und Innocenz VI. Beiträge zur Geschichte ihrer Beziehungen, 1355-1360, Berlin 1912, pp. 17-22.
2 E. Werunsky, Der erste Römerzug Kaiser Karls IV. 1354-1355, Innsbruck 1878. Johannis Porta de Annoniaco liber de coronatione Karoli IV. imperatoris, ed. R. Salomon, Hanover 1913.
3 K. Zeumer, Die goldene Bulle Kaiser Karls IV., Weimar 1908 (text of the Golden Bull).
4 Contrary to the generally accepted view, K. Zeumer, op. cit. pp. 192-4, alleges that Charles IV did not mention the claims of the Curia, in order to leave the difficulty unresolved.
5 Many historians have wrongly alleged that the opposite was true. M. Scheffler has proved that there is no evidence whatever of a protest by Innocent VI ( op. cit. pp. 101 104 ).
he at least concealed his resentment. There is no reason to be surprised at this attitude. The Golden Bull 'legalised, once and for all, Germany's constitutional anarchy, and made the country into one huge confederate state.' As a result, it weakened imperial authority, and so indirectly furthered papal claims in Italy: in effect it separated the peninsula from the Empire. Moreover, Innocent VI had no interest in quarrelling with Charles IV in 1356; he was counting on his support to further his Italian policy, to gain financial assistance from the German clergy and to repel the incursions of the Great Companies into the Comtat-Venaissin. For the rest, the supreme pontiff's real feelings emerge in the decision he took concerning the two Constitutions Romani principes and Pastoralis cura promulgated by Clement V. 1
When he felt that his end was near, Charles IV wanted to secure the imperial throne for his son Wenceslas. Gregory XI announced his intention of publishing a decree with reference to the election of the king of the Germans. Charles pointed out to the Pope that he could pass as many laws as he pleased, but that they would be completely worthless, since neither he nor the prince Electors would give them any authority. In practice, however, the emperor realised that he must respect the Pope's feelings in this matter. He sent him the decree electing Wenceslas without expressly asking for papal approval. As Gregory XI did not at once recognise the validity of the election, Charles made promises on his own behalf, without the sanction of the electoral college, and drew up a request, under a false date, for the Holy See's approval of the election. Moreover, he conceded that, so long as the emperor remained alive, the Curia had the right to intervene in the election of the king of the Germans. But this concession should not be regarded as a negation of the Golden Bull. It was nothing more than a diplomatic expedient, quite worthless legally, and without consequence for the future, but necessary in order to avoid a conflict with Gregory XI. But Charles IV did not deceive the Pope, who died without recognising the election of Wenceslas. 2
____________________
1 See above, pp. 204 - 05.
2 Scheffler, op. cit. p. 93. See also J. Weizsäcker, Deutsche Reichstagsakten unter König Wenzel, VOL. 1, Munich 1867, for many documents concerning the relations between Charles IV and Gregory XI.
CHAPTER III
The Papacy and France
1
The Trial of the Templars
FOR six hundred years, Christendom has been moved and troubled by the story of the trial of the Templars; men's minds have never ceased to find in it the fascination inherent in every famous unsolved mystery. Popular imagination and that of informed and thoughtful persons are alike stirred by the question of the order's innocence or guilt. We are more fortunate than the people of the fourteenth century, whose judgment was systematically warped by conflicting rumours purposely let slip from prisons and torture-chambers by judges and gaolers; at the present time we can give a more reasonable appraisal to the facts in the light of documents recently made available in the archives. We now have so complete a dossier on the trial that the parts played by Clement V and Philip the Fair can be exactly defined. It seems unlikely that any further discoveries will do more than throw light on minor problems.
About the year 1119, on the site of Solomon's Temple at Jerusalem, there settled a number of knights who had come from Champagne and Burgundy under the leadership of Hugues de Payens. They proposed to set up a society at once military and religious, for the defence of the Holy Places. They added a fourth vow to the three usually governing the religious life: to protect pilgrims and guard the routes to Palestine. The Council of Troyes ( 1128) sanctioned their existence and gave them a rule that was short, hard and war-like, drawn up under the inspiration of St Bernard. 1
At first the order distinguished itself by real feats of arms, such as the defence of Gaza ( 1171), the battle of Tiberias ( 1187), the conquest of Damietta ( 1219) and the expedition to Egypt ( 1250). But the exploits of the knights could not prevent the decadence of the little kingdom of Jerusalem and the return of the Saracens to the offensive. In 1291, the recapture of St John of Acre by the Infidels
____________________
1 L. Bréhier, L'Église et l'Orient au moyen âge. Les croisades, Paris 1928, pp. 96-7.
completed the loss of the Holy Land. 1 The knights, having failed to settle on the island of Cyprus, were driven back to Europe, where they possessed considerable domains and strongholds. Far from their sphere of action, they were now in the position of a permanent army receiving news of universal peace. There was no longer any reason for their existence unless they made a new one for themselves, by finding a different but useful way to serve Christendom. If the order did not reorganise itself, it would have to disband.
By the beginning of the fourteenth century, the Templars could plead little to justify their existence except the general services they rendered as skilled financiers. Unrivalled in handling money, judicious, positive and practical in matters of administration, they had rapidly gained the confidence of the whole world. As bankers their credit exceeded that of the Jews and Lombards, who were usurers rather than financiers. Their houses, being at once impregnable fortresses and inviolable religious buildings, were thought to be the safest possible trustee banks. The Templars, far from freezing the capital entrusted to them, knew how to make intelligent use of it: they opened current accounts for the solvent, made themselves into brokers and arranged payment anywhere, either by transporting from one country to another considerable sums of money under strong escort, or by transfer of credits and a system of accounts. Their book-keeping had so high a reputation that Popes, kings and princes made them responsible for their treasury transactions. The Templars had to bank the income from taxes, pay dues, reimburse sums borrowed by the French royal house. From Philip Augustus to Philip the Fair, the history of the royal treasury is that of the treasury of the Templars. 2 It is true that in 1295 the management of state funds was withdrawn from the knights. This, however, was not the result of any disgrace, but an attempt at direct royal administration. It appears that the attempt was unsuccessful, for in the spring of 1303, the brother treasurer resumed his duties under the control of royal officials. 3
A religious order, however, cannot become a financial power and the creditor of kings and Popes without arousing jealousy. Temporal prosperity almost inevitably produces a slackening of discipline, excites pride and favours the deterioration of moral standards. By the
____________________
1 L. Bréhier, op. cit. pp. 114-15, 222-9, 245-6.
2 L. Delisle, "' Mémoire sur les opérations financières des Templiers,'" Mémoires de l'Académie des inscriptions et belles-lettres, VOL. XXXIII, Paris 1889, pt 2, passim.
3 Borrelli de Serres, Recherches sur divers services publics du XIIIe au XVIIe siècle, VOL. 111, Paris 1909, pp. 1-45. See also Ch. V. Langlois, "' Études sur l'administration royale du XIIIe au XVIe siècle,'" Journal des Savants, 1910, pp. 489-98.
end of the thirteenth century public opinion had turned against the Templars. They were said to be backward in almsgiving. They were reproached with having forsaken the cause of the Crusades, and secretly accused of having made a pact with the Infidel. The secular clergy protested vigorously against their immunities and exemptive privileges, while the mendicant orders complained of competition from lay collectors employed by the Templars. Vague rumours circulated among the common people. There was talk of the knights' greed and unscrupulousness, of their passion for self-aggrandisement and their rapacity. Their insolent bearing was a byword. They were said to be given to drunkenness; the saying 'to drink like a Templar' was already in use. The Old German word Tempelhaus meant a house of ill-fame. Guardroom gossip was repeated, such as the story of the knight who bragged: 'It is of no consequence to deny Jesus. In my country he is denied a hundred times for the sake of one flea.' 1 Such talk as this roused all kind of suspicion against the orthodoxy of the order.
The secrecy with which the chapter meetings were surrounded in accordance with the rule of the order, gave credence to all kinds of rumours. The ceremony for receiving novices took place at night. Sentinels guarded the closed doors of the rooms where meetings were held. Only a few of the dignitaries of the order knew the whole content of the rule; ordinary brethren practised it without ever having seen it or read it. What could the common people think when they heard a Templar say, 'We have articles that are known only to God and the devil and to us brethren'? 2 They were driven to the conclusion that the rule must contain some dreadful secrets, if indeed it did not actually prescribe abominable practices. At every period of history monita secreta have been a bogy to scare simple people.
Undue weight should not be given to the accusations that popular spite levelled against the Templars. The Knights of St John and other orders were equally decried. Rightly or wrongly, the literature of the Middle Ages condemns monastic morals crudely and indiscriminately. The wealth of the Templars in landed property was far less than that of the Hospitallers, and only a half or two-thirds that of the Cistercians. 3 See also Ch. V. Langlois, "'L'Affaire des Templiers,'" Journal des Savants, 1908, pp. 420 ff. One fact is especially worthy of attention and shows how far public opinion had gone astray: in the famous memorandum De recuperatione Terrae Sanctae ( 1305-07), in which he recommends
____________________
1 Ch. V. Langlois, " 'Le Procès des Templiers,' " Revue des deux mondes, VOL. CIII, 1891, p. 389.
2 Ibid. p. 390.
3 H. Finke, Papsttum und Untergang der Templerordens, VOL. I, Münster 1907, pp. 70, 85.
the suppression of the order, Pierre Dubois does not make any complaint against the orthodoxy of the morality of its members; he is only questioning its usefulness as an institution. 1 He accepted in principle the opinion of the Popes and councils, who had already thought of uniting the Hospitallers and the Templars.
It is rather difficult to say what were Philip the Fair's motives in doing all he could to destroy the Templars. Before 1307 there had never been any misunderstanding between the king and the order. During the conflict with Boniface VIII, indeed, the Templars had supported the king, who, in token of his gratitude, had confirmed its privileges in 1304. On 12 October 1307, at the funeral of the wife of Charles of Valois, the Grand Master, Jacques de Molai, had held one of the cords of the pall. The Templars' European policy had never been anti-French. Their strength could never be a cause for alarm, for a document dated 1308 puts the number of their knights in France at no more than two thousand. 2 There had never been any criticism of their handling of the royal finances.
It is perhaps possible that Philip the Fair's greed was excited by the wealth of the Templars. Contemporaries certainly thought so, 3 and there was strong evidence to support them in this belief. They had seen the king, who was for ever in urgent need of money, driven to debase the coinage, and then, in 1291, to despoil the Lombard bankers and, in 1306, the Jews. No doubt they noticed how, as soon as the Templars were arrested, the king began to assign the rents from the sequestrated property, as if he were certain to keep it for the future. 4 Regestum, no. 4404. They concluded that Philip's motives were not disinterested. Their guess, indeed, still seems a plausible one; but, in the absence of documentary proof, we cannot make any categoric statement on the reasons for the attitude taken up by the French king. One thing alone remains quite certain: it was Philip who was the chief author of the downfall of the Templars. 5
At the beginning of 1305, some denunciations of the order had already been made. A certain Esquieu de Floyran, a native of Béziers, came to Lérida and confided to James II of Aragon the revelations that had been made to him, while in prison, by a Templar who was incarcerated at the same time. Having failed to impress the Aragonese king, he went to Philip the Fair whom he found easy to
____________________
1 Pierre Dubois, De recuperatione Terrae Sanctae, ed. Ch. V. Langlois, Paris 1891, pp. 13-15.
2 Finke, op. cit. VOL. II, p. 114.
3 Gestes des Chiprois, in Recueil des historiens des croisades, Documents arméniens, VOL. II, Paris 1906, pp. 869-70.
4 Borrelli de Serres, op. cit. p. 41.
5 Finke, op. cit. VOL. I, pp. 54-61. See also Langlois, in Journal des Savants, 1910, pp. 489-98; Borrelli de Serres, op. cit. p. 39.
convince. 1 At about the same time further accusations joined those of Esquieu; they were made by Bernard Pelet, a clerk from Languedoc, and by a Gascon Templar, Géraud Lavernha. 2 These various depositions were made known to Clement V, before and during the celebrations of his coronation. But whereas the Pope attached no importance to these moves, Philip the Fair was already at work, in the strictest secrecy, collecting evidence against the order. Twelve spies were infiltrated into the Templars' ranks to find out their alleged misdeeds. Some renegade Templars, who had come forward as informers, found themselves inside the royal prisons. 3
After two years, enough charges against the order had been accumulated. But Clement V had still to be convinced. The overtures made to him at Poitiers, in April-May 1307, had come to nothing. Then the king began to assail the Pope with letters. His ambassadors urged him to take action. Finally, on 24 August, at the request of Jacques de Molai, Clement ordered an enquiry in accordance with strict legal procedure. 4
Philip was well aware of the slow machinery of proceedings in canon law, and had no wish to be subjected to them. After lengthy discussions with his council, he played a master-stroke: on the morning of Friday, 13 October, all the Templars in France were arrested. On the 14th and 15th, Guillaume de Nogaret, 5 the instigator of this action, made it his business to legalise the king's conduct. By means of proclamations and speeches, he made clear to the clergy and people of Paris that the king had acted upon a request from the Inquisitor-General of France, Friar Guillaume Imbert, after consultation with the Pope and on the advice of the barons. He enumerated the infamous crimes of which the Templars were guilty: on the day they were received into the order, the knights denied Christ three times, and spat thrice on the crucifix; they were encouraged to practise sodomy; they worshipped an idol; at Mass, when priests of the order officiated, they left out the words of consecration.
The sudden arrest on 13 October was, strictly speaking, legal; but, whatever the king's followers might allege, it had not been carried out with the Pope's consent. Clement wrote to Philip on 27 October:
____________________
1 Finke, op. cit. VOL. II, pp. 83-5.
2 J. Michelet, Procès des Templiers, VOL. I, Paris 1841, p. 37. Finke, op. cit. VOL. II, p. 319. Langlois in Journal des Savants, 1908, p. 425, suggested that these three persons were perhaps acting on behalf of Guillaume de Nogaret. Esquieu de Floyran was in fact rewarded for his denunciation by being given the spoils of the temple of Montricoux (Tarn-et-Garonne). See Mémoires de la Société archéologique du midi de la France, VOL. V, p. 193, and Mémoires de l'Académie de Toulouse, VOL. II, 1864, p. 122.
3 Finke, op. cit. VOL. II, p. 145.
4 Baluze, Vitae, VOL. III, p. 60.
5 Boutaric, "'Clement V, Philippe le Bel et les Templiers,'" R.Q.H. VOL. X, 1871, pp. 327-9.
'Most dear son, we declare with sorrow that, in defiance of all rules, while we were far from you, you stretched forth your hand against the persons and goods of the Templars; you have gone so far as to cast them in prison, and have not released them--the which causes us the greatest sorrow. It is even said that you have added to the affliction of captivity a further affliction which, for the Church's modesty and our own, we think best to pass over at present in silence. . . . We have told your Serene Highness, in our letters, that we have taken this affair in hand, and that we wished diligently to seek out the truth. In the same letter, we begged you to take care to inform us of what you had discovered concerning this, promising that we would tell you what we ourselves discovered. Despite this, you have committed these outrages against the persons and goods of men who are immediately subject to us and to the Roman Church. In this hasty action all men see, and not without reasonable cause, an insulting scorn of us and of the Roman Church.' 1 The Pope ended his letter of protest by requesting Philip to transfer the persons and goods of the Templars to the Cardinals Bérenger Frédol and Étienne de Suisy. Nevertheless--and this is not without importance--he had nothing to say about the innocence of the knights, and was only protesting against the lack of respect that had been shown to himself.
Clement's wrath was soon appeased. After the dramatic events of 13 October, the king's officers, anticipating in almost every case the action of the Inquisition, had obtained damning confessions, by applying every possible method of intimidation. Most cruel torture had overcome all resistance. The prisoners had no choice but to confess the crimes attributed to them, or to go to certain death. The king's orders were formal and explicit: 'And let them [the Templars] be promised pardon if they confess the truth and return to the faith of Holy Church; otherwise let them be condemned to death.' 2 Those unfortunates who were arraigned before tribunals of the Inquisition had no such chance of recantation. According to the corrupt practice then current, the king's men were present at the interrogation, and made sure that they adhered to their original declarations.
Of the one hundred and forty accused who were brought before the Inquisitor-General, Guillaume Imbert, only four declared that they were innocent. All the others, including the high dignitaries of the order, confessed to blasphemies; about three-quarters of them admitted to using obscene gestures at the time of their initiation, and almost one-quarter to having incited others to sodomy. Almost all of
____________________
1 E. Renan, Études sur la Politique Religieuse de Philippe le Bel, Paris 1899, pp. 417-19.
2 Boutaric, op. cit. p. 331.
them rejected with horror the suggestion that they had ever practised this degrading vice. Twice, on 24 and 25 October, the Grand Master acknowledged his own shame and that of his subordinates. He humbly begged pardon of the king and absolution of the Pope and declared that he was ready to accept whatever penance was given him. Moreover, a note, sealed with his own seal, directed the Templars, by virtue of holy obedience, to confess before the Inquisition or the episcopal authority the crimes with which they were charged.
On 22 November 1307, when Clement V had been fully informed of events and the whole collection of confessions had been placed before him, he urged all Christian princes to seize the Templars and to sequester their property in his name. 1 He hoped in this way to prevent other monarchs from imitating the violent measures of Philip the Fair.
Pleased with this gesture which to a certain extent justified his own action, the king of France reserved to himself the right to administer the lands and goods of the Templars, and handed over their persons to the Cardinals Bérenger Frédol and Étienne de Suisy. But suddenly his good humour vanished, for instead of adhering to their confessions, the Templars, even Jacques de Molai, solemnly withdrew them in the presence of the Holy See's representatives. This news dismayed the Pope, and in February 1308 he suspended the judicial activity of the inquisitors and bishops, declaring that he alone would now deal with the matter.
The Pontiff's change of attitude quite thwarted Philip's plans. Alarmed at the turn events had taken, the king decided to keep hold of both the property and the persons of the Templars; then he launched a furious campaign of blackmail against this order that he was determined to destroy, and against Clement V. Vile pamphlets from the learned and venomous pens of Guillaume de Nogaret and Pierre Dubois 2 held the Pope up for public execration. Everything that had formerly been said about Boniface VIII was now repeated against the new Pope. Everything provided material for adverse criticism: Clement's nepotism, and his extortion of the clergy's goods. Since the Pope, it was alleged, neglected the duties of his pastoral charge, it was for the king, that zealous upholder of divine law, to take immediate action. Straightway an Assembly of Notables meeting at Tours from 5 to 15 May 1308, approved the king's conduct and declared the 'Templars worthy of death for their crimes.
____________________
1 P. Dupuy, Histoire de la condamnation des Templiers, Brussels 1713, p. 127.
2 Boutaric, in Not. et extr. des mss. VOL. XX, pt 2, pp. 166-86.
Armed with the approval of his Estates, the king went boldly to Poitiers, there to have a further interview with the Pope. He appeared in great pomp at the meetings of the Consistory, surrounded by the princes of the blood, barons, bishops and delegates from the Estates meeting at Tours, and there launched a formidable attack against Clement V. 'Holy Father, Holy Father,' said Plaisians, 'act quickly, otherwise the king will not be able to forbear, and if he could, the barons will not be able to forbear, and if the barons could, the very people of this glorious realm will not be able to forbear to avenge the insult to Christ. . . . Rouse yourself, therefore, to action! Or we will have to use other words to you!' Gilles Aycelin whispered slyly in his ear: 'When a prelate fails to stamp out terror, it is as if he made himself guilty of it.' 1 But Clement remained equally undismayed by the insolent speeches of Guillaume de Plaisians and the threatening tones of Gilles Aycelin; despite all their efforts, he still refused to believe in the Templars' guilt, and to condemn them. 2
Faced with the Pope's courageous resistance, Philip realised that he must change his tactics. On 27 June 1308 he officially handed over the persons of the Templars to the Church; but, alleging that Molai was ill, he took care to keep him in the dungeons at Chinon, and did not relinquish his hold on any of the great dignitaries of the order. 3 On the other hand, he sent seventy-two Templars to Poitiers: heads of houses, lay brethren, renegades and members of the rank and file, all carefully sorted out and duly catalogued by Guillaume de Nogaret's minions. The Pope may have been unaware of the quality of these witnesses; in any case, their depositions, an unfavourable to the order, made such a vivid impression upon him that, in a series of solemn pronouncements, he gave up his objections one by one. Doubtless Philip the Fair did not obtain full satisfaction, but the Inquisition was reorganised so that the trial might begin again on a different basis. Two enquiries were to be set up simultaneously: the first, or episcopal enquiry, was to take place in the dioceses; it was to be directed against the persons of the Templars and carried out under the auspices of the Ordinary, assisted by two delegates from the cathedral chapter, two Dominicans and two Franciscans; the other was the papal enquiry, directed against the order itself and carried out by commissioners appointed by the Pope. Provincial councils were to judge individuals in accordance with the results of
____________________
1 Langlois, in Journal des Savants, 1908, p. 429.
2 Finke, op. cit. VOL. II, pp. 140-50.
3 In August 1308, they appeared before the Cardinals Bérenger Frédol, Étienne de Suisy and Landolfo Brancacci, and confessed their guilt. See Finke, op. cit. VOL. II, pp. 324-8.
the diocesan enquiries; while an œcumenical council would decide the fate of the order after the investigation made by the papal commissioners. The first session of the General Council was to take place at Vienne, on imperial soil, on 1 October 1310. Meanwhile, the Templars' property was in theory to be held in trust by four persons in each diocese, two designated by the bishops and two by the king; in actual fact the king disposed of this property as he pleased, since he had been skilful enough to compel the bishops to accept men devoted to himself. Clement V made one last mistake--though indeed he could scarcely have acted otherwise: he made Philip responsible for the custody of the Templars, and thus gave him the opportunity to impede the subsequent progress of the trial.
The tribunals of the Inquisition instituted in July and August 1308 were slow to begin the work. The papal commission met for the first time on 8 August 1309 and did not actually function until the following November, when it met at the Benedictine monastery of Sainte-Geneviève in Paris. It can hardly be regarded as having enjoyed any real independence of the French king, for the Pope had acted weakly in having it composed of prelates who had Philip's interests at heart. The president was Gilles Aycelin, that same archbishop of Narbonne who, at Poitiers in 1308, had made a violent speech in condemnation of the order and called for its suppression. The assessors were Guillaume Durant, bishop of Mende; Guillaume Bonnet, bishop of Bayeux; Renaud de la Porte, bishop of Limoges; Mathieu de Naples, an apostolic notary; Giovanni of Mantua, auditor of cardinal Pietro Colonna; Jean de Montlaur, archdeacon of Maguelonne; Jean Agarvi, provost of Aix-en-Provence. All these churchmen failed in their duty, at least in this that they allowed officers of the king to be present at interrogations and did not respect the secrecy of depositions made to them. 1
As had already happened during the winter of 1307-08, many of the Templars, confident of the impartiality of the papal commission, recanted their confessions, and explained that their earlier admissions had been extracted under torture. Brother Ponsard di Gisi described the appalling suffering that was inflicted upon them: 'Three months before my confession,' he recounts, 'I had my hands bound behind my back, so tightly that the blood gushed from my nails, and I was put into a pit and tied by a tether. If I am made to suffer such torture again, I will deny all that I am now saying, and tell you anything you wish. I am prepared to suffer torture, so long as it does not last long; they can cut off my head, or boil me alive for the honour of the
____________________
1 G. Lizerand, Clément V et Philippe IV le Bel, Paris 1910, pp. 128-32, 139-50.
order; but I cannot bear slow tortures such as have been inflicted on me for more than two years in prison.' 1 Many others said the same.
Jacques de Molai's attitude was less noble. Terrorised, in-advised, deprived of legal aid, the plaything of Guillaume de Plaisians, he did worse than fail to defend his order; he deserted it. The other holders of high office were equally pusillanimous: reading their depositions, it is impossible to avoid the impression that their dominant emotion was the fear of death. They were frightened of their judges, and cast about for any subterfuge to avoid being compromised. When they were confronted with the crimes confessed by their brethren, they pled ignorance, or prevaricated. Yet, everything considered, if they did not defend their order, neither did they condemn it, nor supply any weapons to attack it. 2
The cause of the Templars, then, did not appear to be going too badly about May 1310. Those who, braver than their leaders or perhaps merely more ingenuous, came forward to defend their order, reached the number of five hundred and seventy-three. The witnesses for the prosecution were a few laymen, brought forward by the king's men, and their allegations were vague and incoherent. It seemed likely that the trial would turn out badly for Philip the Fair. Once again, however, he did not hesitate to try one of those strokes of violence that had been so successful in the past. At his instigation Philippe de Marigny, the brother of the minister Enguerrand and recently made archbishop of Sens, convoked to Paris a provincial council which, according to the law, had the right to judge the Templars. The members of the papal commission made no serious attempt to prevent this council from opening proceedings before their own enquiry was complete. When the Templars, feeling that they were lost, implored Gilles Aycelin to intervene on their behalf, that prelate replied with various excuses, either that he had to hear a Mass or celebrate one. His assessors declared themselves powerless to curb the action of Philippe de Marigny, action which was moreover strictly legal. On 11 May 1310, without having given any further hearing to the accused, the provincial council of Sens condemned as relapsed heretics fifty-four Templars who had recanted their earlier confessions. The next day these unfortunate men died at the stake outside the walls of Paris, between St Antoine and the windmill. To the very last they protested their innocence. 3 In like manner nine were burned at the stake at Senlis on 16 May. The surviving
____________________
1 Langlois, in Revue des deux mondes, VOL. CIII, 1891, p. 408.
2 Ibid. p. 406-08.
3 Lizerand, op. cit. pp. 155-7.
Templars were horror-stricken. The knight Aimery de Villers-leDuc, pale and dispirited, cried out before the papal commissioners on 13 May: 'I confessed to some things because of the tortures inflicted on me by Guillaume de Marcilly and Hugues de la Celle, knights of the King; but they were not true. Yesterday, when I saw fifty-four of my brethren going in carts to the stake because they would not confess to the sins imputed to us, I thought that I should never be able to withstand the fear of the fire. I know in my heart that I would confess to anything; I would confess that I had killed God, if they asked me.' 1
The fear of the stake had its effect. The defenders of the Temple faded away. Only confessions were now heard, about two hundred as against twelve denials. The papal commission, being as it were in a state of paralysis, saw no point in summoning three-quarters of those who had undertaken to defend the order. With the consent of the Pope who had declared himself satisfied, the commission brought its proceedings to an end on 5 June 1311. 2
On the whole the papal enquiry in France had been unfavourable to the Templars. The same cannot be said of the enquiries set on foot in the rest of Europe.
Immediately after the rounding up of the Templars on 13 October 1307, Philip the Fair had warmly encouraged other sovereigns to follow his example: he met with resistance on every hand. Writs for arrest were issued only after Clement V's order of 22 November. In England, Edward II allowed the Templars to continue in provisional liberty for some considerable time. The Council of London, which met on 20 October 1309, put them into close confinement and had them interrogated to no purpose; it broke up without having found any conclusive evidence against the order. It was the same at the councils held at York, on 30 July 1311, and in Ireland and Scotland. As for the members of the papal committee of enquiry, in order to achieve even a trumped-up charge, they were reduced to listening to a large number of witnesses not themselves members of the Temple. 3
The attempts made to brand the Templars in Spain with heresy and idolatry failed completely. A verdict of not guilty was pronounced by the councils of Tarragona ( October 1310-4 November 1312) and Salamanca ( October 1310). In the same way, the papal enquiry resulted in a declaration of the order's innocence. 4
____________________
1 Langlois, in Revue des deux mondes, VOL. CIII, 1891, p. 411.
2 Michelet, op. cit. VOL. II, pp. 270-3.
3 Delaville le Roulx, "'La Suppression des Templiers,'" R.Q.H. VOL. XLVIII, 1890, pp. 40-2; see also Finke, op. cit. VOL. I, pp. 312-17.
4 Finke, op. cit. VOL. I, pp. 282-312.
In Germany, despite the use of torture, the commission appointed by Clement V could collect only evidence in favour of the Templars, and honourably paid them a public tribute. 1
Provence, the kingdom of Naples and the Papal States, all subject to influence by the king of France, were the only countries where certain depositions laid before the provincial synods tended to prove the existence of the crimes with which the French Templars were charged. And it must be said that such depositions were extremely few and came from persons of secondary importance, who, on the rack, said anything their torturers wanted. 2
In Cyprus, the order was at first acquitted; but the accession of Henry of Lusignan to the throne proved disastrous for it. At the Pope's instigation, a fresh enquiry was instituted; but before any legal judgment could be made, the Templars were put to death by drowning or burning. Their appalling death was a political crime: Henry of Lusignan was taking his vengeance on those who had given powerful assistance to his brother Amaury de Tyre in his attempt to gain the throne. 3
To sum up, the twofold enquiry set up by Clement V resulted in conclusions that were somewhat contradictory, but for the most part favourable to the Templars. As a result, the General Council which met at last on 16 October 1311 at Vienne was, on the whole, well disposed towards them. To the Pope's deep disappointment, the high commission, which had been set up to review the trial, in December expressed the view, held by a large majority, that the Templars should be permitted to appear and put forward their defence. Clement, who was determined to ruin them, tried the effect of a diversion, and encouraged the discussion of reforms to be introduced in the Church, and plans for a crusade. Meanwhile Philip the Fair, careful not to lose the game to which he was pledged, consulted the Estates at Lyons, revived the trial of Boniface VIII which had momentarily been forgotten, and worked on public opinion. When he thought the time was ripe, he went to Vienne, intimidated the opposition and coerced the waverers by threats or promises. On 22 March 1312, in a secret consistory, the members of the commission voted for the suppression of the Templars by a four-fifths' majority. The Fathers of the council would perhaps not have ratified this decision, but, at the second session on 3 April, they learned that silence was to be imposed upon them on pain of excommunication, and they had to listen to the reading of the papal sentence. Clement V
____________________
1 Finke, op. cit. VOL. I, pp. 317-20.
2 Ibid. pp. 320-2.
3 Ibid. pp. 322-3. See also Delaville le Roulx, op. cit. pp. 47-9.
abolished the order by virtue of his apostolic authority, and by way of precaution rather than of condemnation. After overcoming much resistance from Philip the Fair and the Fathers, the Pope decreed at the third session of the Council on 3 May, that the property of the Templars should be handed over to the Hospitallers of St John of Jerusalem, except in the kingdoms of Aragon, Castile, Portugal and Majorca, where it should fall to the national orders then engaged in fighting the Saracens. Finally, on 6 May, he allowed the provincial councils to settle the fate of individual Templars, leaving for himself the sentences to be imposed on the Grand Master, the Visitor for France, on Olivier de Penne, and on the overseas preceptors of Normandy, Aquitaine, Poitou and Provence. On the same day the Council of Vienne came to an end. It had really been nothing more than an expedient designed under pressure from Philip the Fair to give an appearance of legality to the speedy winding up of the trial of the Templars. The other business on the agenda of the Council, such as Church reform and the crusade, had been despatched in all haste. 1
The great wealth of the Templars aroused everyone's greed. Lesser princes as well as the great sovereigns hoped that they would have their share of the booty. Clement V's decision disappointed them all. If Philip the Fair had really worked to destroy the order, with a view to growing rich on its spoils, then the issue must have proved a cruel disappointment. His financial difficulties were not lessened, even while he was receiving the revenues from the confiscated property, 2 though he received at least 200,000 pounds tournois as compensation from the Hospitallers.
In other countries, the knights of St John had to agree to tiresome compromises. But despite the difficulties they encountered from those whose hopes had been dashed, within ten years they had taken possession of the greater part of the landed property of the Temple all over Europe. 3
____________________
1 Lizerand, op. cit. pp. 250-340. See also Finke, op. cit. VOL. I, pp. 345-69. The Council ordered a sexennial tenth to be levied for the organisation of the crusade that Philip the Fair promised to undertake. It also dealt with the question of the Spirituals (see F. Ehrle, "'Zur Vorgeschichte des Concils von Vienne,"' Archiv, VOL. II, 1886, pp. 353-416; VOL. III, 1887, pp. 1-95, 409-552), issued certain edicts concerning the reform of the Church and morals (see J. Haller, Papsttum und Kirchenreform, Berlin 1903, pp. 52-73), and after hearing the complaints of the whole episcopate, did nothing more than declare that those who threatened the liberties of the Church would be excommunicated (see M. Heber, Gutachten und Reformschläge für das Vienner Generalconcil ( 1311- 1312), Leipzig 1896; J. Duffour, "'Doléances des évêques gascons au Concile de Vienne" ( 1311),' Revue de Gascogne, 1905, pp. 244-59; G. Lizerand, op. cit. pp. 309-36). On the Council, see M. Debièvre, "'La Définition du Concile de Vienne sur l'âme" ( 6 mai 1312), "' Recherches de science religieuse", VOL. III, 1912, pp. 321-44; Cl. Bouvier, Vienne au temps du Concile ( 1311- 1312), Paris 1912.
2 Borrelli de Serres, op. cit. VOL. III, p. 39.
3 Delaville le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers à Rhodes, Paris 1913, pp. 28-50.
The fate of the dignitaries of the order had not been settled at the Council of Vienne. At long last, on 22 December 1313 1 Clement V delegated to the three cardinals, Nicolas de Fréauville, Arnaud d'Aux and Arnaud Nouvel, the authority to pronounce final judgment upon them. Their sentence was read out to the crowd that had gathered before Notre-Dame on 18 March 1314. The leaders of the order were sentenced to life imprisonment. In a burst of sincerity and courage, Jacques de Molai and Geoffroi de Charnay cried out, 'We are not guilty of those things of which we are accused, but we are guilty of having basely betrayed the order to save our lives. The order is pure; it is holy; the accusations are absurd and the confessions false.' 2 Taken aback at this unexpected incident, the cardinals put off their decision until the following day, and contented themselves for the time being with handing Molai and Charnay over to the Provost of Paris. That very day, the king's council decided that the two renegades should be put to death without delay. As it grew toward dusk, the fire was built up on the Ile des Javiaux and its flames cast their gloomy light on the walls of the royal palace. Molai and Charnay died heroically with their eyes turned towards Notre-Dame, still proclaiming their innocence. 3
Certain facts emerge from the foregoing account which make it possible to come to a definite conclusion concerning the extremely perplexing question of the guilt of the Templars. Earlier historians have resolved this question in various ways according to their personal prejudices, because they lacked the necessary material for forming a final judgment. The question of the Templars' guilt does not arise except for the French section of the order: in all European countries not under French influence, the Templars' innocence was abundantly evident. Even in France, the problem is reduced to a few points of detail: were the denial of Christ, the spitting on the crucifix, the encouragement of sodomy, the obscene kisses, the adoration of the idol Baphomet 4
____________________
1 Regestum Clementis Papae V, no. 10337.
2 Langlois, in Revue des deux mondes, VOL. CIII, 1891, p. 419.
3 Molai's attitude is surprising. On 24 and 25 October 1307, he confessed to the crimes of which the order was accused; the following spring he withdrew this confession in the presence of the papal commissioners; in August 1308, at Chinon, he again confessed; in November 1309, though he did not repeat this confession, he did nothing to defend the order; he protested his innocence on 18 March 1314. Viollet has put forward the suggestion that Cardinal Bérenger Frédol falsified the depositions made at Chinon in the hope of saving Molai's life. This would explain why he was so amazed to hear his alleged deposition read out in 1309. See Les Interrogatoires de Jacques de Molai, Paris 1909. Lizerand has rejected this hypothesis, giving substantial reasons for his objection. See "'Les Dépositions du grand maître Jacques de Molay au procès des Templiers" ( 1307- 1308),' Le Moyen Age, VOL. XXVI, 1913, pp. 81-106.
4 Following a paper read by M. Salomon Reinach to the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres on 26 August 1910, on the origins of the legend that the Templars had worshipped Baphomet, it was stated that there is no idol at present existing that was once thought to be a 'Baphomet.' prescribed by the rule? Did they form part of the
It should be noted in the first place that the surprise perquisitions made by the royal sergeants in the autumn of 1307 yielded no material evidence. They found no idols, no heretical books, no copy of a secret rule extolling an immoral way of life. All they could seize were copies of the pure and noble rule of St Bernard, translations of the Bible into the vulgar tongue and a large number of account books. A head made of silver-gilt was exhibited in Paris, containing female bones and bearing the inscription Caput LVIII ; it was a reliquary such as is still frequently used by popular devotion to deck altars on feast days. 1 In 1789 a chest of carved stone, on which Arabic characters were engraved, was dug up at Essenois, a few miles from the site of the Voulaine commandery. One archaeologist tried to identify this with the Ark where the mysterious idol Baphomet was kept; 2 but he was unable to produce any evidence in support of this theory, which existed only in his own imagination. There are a number of small bronze statuettes in the Louvre, with the word Baphomet engraved on the base. One of them is even dated 1156. Monsieur Héron de Villefosse has submitted these to a searching investigation, and concluded that they are clumsy fakes. 'It is likely,' he wrote, 'that the date for the manufacture [of these fakes] cannot be put much earlier than 1819: a year in which there was much discussion concerning the practices of magic and sorcery attributed to the Templars.' 3 There is, therefore, no material proof whatever of the infamy of the Knights.
We must now consider whether the verbal evidence provides acceptable proof of their guilt. At first sight, the confessions obtained in France seem so multifarious and so precise in detail that they baffle all attempts to form an opinion. A critical examination of this evidence, however, can do much to dispel the first unfortunate impression. Heinrich Finke 4 has performed the service of proving categorically that the reports of the French trials cannot be used as historical proof of the guilt of the order.
Whatever the outcome, it is extremely unlikely that the admission ceremonies could have been tainted for a long time by any blasphemous or ignoble rites without any hint of them being noised abroad.
____________________
1 Michelet, op. cit. VOL. II, p. 218.
2 A mould of this casket is in the Dijon museum, and there is a reproduction of it in Loiseleur, La Doctrine secrete des Templiers, Paris 1872. See also E. Pfeiffer, "'Zwei vermeintliche Templerdenkmale,"' Zeitschrift für Kulturgeschichte, VOL. IV, 1897, pp. 385-419; Mignard, Monographie du coffret du duc de Blacas, Paris 1852; S. Reinach, "'La Tête magique des Templiers,"' Revue de l'histoire des religions, VOL. LXIII, 1911, pp. 25-39.
3 Bulletin de la Société nationale des antiquaires de France, 1900 pp. 305-12.
4 ceremony of initiation? Were they customary at chapter-meetings?
4 Finke, op. cit. VOL. I, pp. 326-44.
How could it be that there was none to protest among men so famed for their piety as were the Templars? How could an order to which so many honourable men belonged have based its principles of belief and its rule on such wickedness? Truth, however, can sometimes be improbable. But if we do for one moment suppose that the Templars did indulge in shameful practices and detestable error, we are confronted by a further improbability, namely that not one among them died for this alleged heresy. Not one Templar persisted in the errors he confessed; all abjured them without a moment's hesitation. Not one deluded soul died to defend his belief or to uphold the honour of his practices. The fire consumed only those who refused to admit their guilt, or withdrew confessions extorted by violence or the fear of torture.
If we consider one by one the statements of the Templars who pleaded guilty, new difficulties arise. Why do these supposedly true statements not agree with each other? When the Templars were asked to describe the idol, in the form of a head, which they confessed they had worshipped, the judges received completely contradictory answers. 'For one this head was white, for another black, gilded for a third, a fourth had seen its eyes blazing like carbuncles, a fifth had seen two faces, a sixth three faces, another gave it two pairs of legs, and yet another three heads. One said it was "a statue," another "a painting on a plaque." One said, "We believed it to be our Saviour," another "It is Baphomet or Mahomet." For some it was the Creator, who makes the trees blossom and ripens the harvest; for others, a friend of God, a powerful intercessor. Some had heard it speak; others had seen it suddenly turn into a black cat, or a crow, or a demon in the guise of a woman.' 1
The use of torture is sufficient explanation and excuse for the large number of confessions, but at the same time it invalidates them. How could a man withstand such torments as are described by Bernard de Vado ? 'So greatly was I tortured, so long was I held before a burning fire, that the flesh of my heels was burned away: and these two bones, which I now show to you, these came away from my feet. Look and see,' he added, turning to the papal commissioners, 'if they be not missing from my body.' 2 In Paris thirty-six prisoners died as a result of the tortures inflicted on them by the bishop's executioners. 3
The methods used in the enquiry allowed of only one way of escaping the stake: confession. This was the sensible course followed
____________________
1 Langlois, in Revue des deux mondes, VOL. CIII, 1891, p. 415.
2 Raynouard, Monuments historiques relatifs à la condamnation des Templiers, Paris 1813, p. 73.
3 Raynouard, op. cit. p. 63.
by ignorant men, depressed after lengthy confinement, terrified by the threats of their gaolers or intimidated by the legal experts who had charge of the interrogations. Philip the Fair was so well aware of the insincerity of his prisoners' confessions that he would not allow either Molai or any of the other dignitaries of the order to appear before the Pope in 1308. At the Council of Vienne, when seven knights came forward to defend their order, Clement V had them put in irons, to get rid of awkward witnesses whose revelations might perhaps influence the Fathers. 1 Nor was this all: though Clement suppressed the Templars, he did not condemn them; he proceeded cautiously, and to support his decision--which was not to be disputed--he invoked the unprecedented scandal that the trial had caused in the Christian world. The order was too notorious and had lost its reputation too thoroughly to continue in existence.
The unanimity of the confessions is largely counterbalanced by the solemn affirmations made in support of the order's innocence. As we have seen, in 1310 nearly six hundred knights rose in its defence. Their declarations are all the more worthy of belief because exceptional courage was needed to proclaim the truth. If a man recanted he was considered perjured and a relapsed heretic, and this was tantamount to condemning himself to the stake.
The absence of material proof, the improbability of the charges, the contradictory nature of the statements, the brutal methods used at the enquiry, the number of recantations, the courage of those who defended the order--all go to prove the Templars' innocence. 2 3 The whole course of the trial reveals the undisguised hand of Nogaret. The arrest of the Templars, like that of the Jews in 1306 and the Lombard bankers in 1291, came suddenly. The technique seems to have been Nogaret's own invention, for it was he who had taken charge of the great seal on the previous 22 September. It was he who arrested the Templars living in Paris, drew up the writ of accusation
____________________
1 Lizerand, op. cit. p. 259.
2 It cannot be denied that some Templars committed acts contrary to faith and morals. But these are only individual cases, which in no way impugn the reputation of the order as a whole. Their trial was a trumped-up affair, and bears the unmistakable mark of Guillaume de Nogaret. The relentless pursuit of the Templars shows the same tactics as those employed against Boniface VIII and Guichard de Troyes: a war of propaganda, the summoning of the Estates, speeches to the common people, violence, charges of heresy and grotesque accusations of dealings with succubi and incubi.
3 A. Rigaud, Le Procès d Guichard, évêque de Troyes, Paris 1896. See also Ch. V. Langlois , in Histoire de France (ed. Lavisse), VOL. III, pt 2, pp. 201-2.
gainst the order, and, in defiance of all principles of law, was present at the interrogation of the accused either in person or through the intermediary of his kindred spirit, Guillaume de Plaisians. In the Estates of Tours Nogaret played a major part, for he had been authorised to represent several of the great lords of Languedoc.
It is impossible to know for certain whether Nogaret inspired the king's policy, or was simply carrying out the orders of Philip the Fair. In any case, the king and his minister together contrived the suppression of the Templars. To achieve their ends, they exerted overbearing pressure on a Pope poor in health and weak and conciliatory in character. They blackmailed Clement V by constantly threatening him with the resumption of the trial of Boniface VIII. In this way they succeeded in overcoming the pontiff's distaste for the task, and forced him to make the most regrettable concessions.
2 The Trial of Boniface VIII
The trial of the Templars is very closely linked with that of Boniface VIII: the one cannot be understood without the other.
In the course of the struggle between Philip the Fair and Boniface, Nogaret, in order to counter the attack on the king, had accused that pontiff of serious crimes--sodomy, heresy and simony--and had demanded that he should be severely punished. Once begun the trial did not end with the Pope's death, for Nogaret pursued the memory of the dead man with extraordinary bitterness and did everything in his power to procure his final condemnation. Benedict XI was skilful enough to avoid calling a council, and to consider Philip's case separately from that of his minister, Nogaret. He annulled the measures taken against the kingdom of France, conferred favours on the king and granted a general absolution to the guilty parties. Only the instigators of the outrage at Anagni failed to receive a pardon; on 8 June 1304 they were summoned to appear at Perugia on the 28th of the same month. 1
The outlook for Nogaret seemed black; but the death of Benedict calmed his fears. Clement V was a much less formidable opponent. With great skill, Nogaret saw to it that his own interests were closely interwoven with those of the king, and played in masterly fashion
____________________
1 Ch. Grandjean, Les Registres de Benoit XI, Paris 1885, nos. 1254, 1255, 1257, 1258, 1260, 1261, 1263, 1276.
upon the fear that the resumption of the trial of Boniface VIII roused at the papal court. Each time that Clement hazarded some resistance to the king's wishes, he saw the trial revived; he saw it as lightly adjourned whenever he had weakly consented to the demands made upon him.
From the beginning of his reign, although he kept up an appearance of respect for his predecessor and made certain reservations, Clement lost no time in annulling, on 1 February 1306, the two notorious Bulls of Boniface VIII, Clericis laicos and Unam sanctam, which had exasperated Philip the Fair.' 1 The king seemed satisfied, and did not then insist on the resumption of the proceedings; he bided his time, and made the demand at Poitiers in 1307. The committee of cardinals which had assembled for this purpose arranged a compromise: the Pope should annul the measures taken against France by Boniface and Philip should leave the task of ending the proceedings against the late Pope's memory entirely in Clement's hands. But--either because the conditions under which Nogaret was to be released from excommunication seemed too harsh, or else because the intrigues of the Cardinals Colonna, who had hated Boniface, prevailed--the king refused to accept the Curia's offer of conciliation. 2
At the time of the second meeting at Poitiers, on 6 July 1308, the case of the Templars was uppermost in the king's mind. Moreover, Philip now started making excessive demands: he asked for the canonisation of Celestine V, the alleged victim of Boniface, and wanted the Pope's bones exhumed so that they could be burned. In vain Clement V tried to make him change his attitude; he had reluctantly to resign himself to granting permission, in the Consistory of 12 August, for the proceedings to be re-opened after Candlemas 1309. 3 This was one way of gaining time, and the expedient proved successful. The accusers of Boniface VIII did not come to Avignon until 16 March 1310: they were Nogaret, Guillaume de Plaisians, Pierre de Galard, the seneschal of Beaucaire, Pierre de Broc and the archdeacon of St Brieuc, Alain de Lamballe. The king had at first been included in the list, in the Bull of citation of 13 September 1309, but had prudently declined to give evidence, and Clement approved of his action. Among the defenders of Boniface were Cardinals Francesco Caetani and Giacomo Stefaneschi, together with some renowned Italian legal experts.
A fierce battle began between the two opposing camps. The
____________________
1 Corpus juris canonici, Bk III, tit. xvii, in Clem.; Extravagantes communes, Bk V, tit. vii, ch. 2; Regestum Clementis V, no. 906.
2 Lizerand, Clément V et Philippe le Bel, pp. 71-5.
3 Ibid. pp. 134 - 7.
defenders and accusers of Boniface in turn made violent attacks upon each other, each pleading that the arguments of their opponents were inadmissible. Meanwhile Clement was using all his ingenuity to slow up the normal course of the proceedings as much as possible, by frequent adjournments of the hearing. Even an attack of nosebleeding gave him an excuse to put off the appearance of the claimants until the following day. As summer approached he invented a new delaying tactic; he insisted that verbal proceedings should be given up, and that henceforward the opposing parties should make their depositions in writing. At that time no decision at all had been made about the admissibility of the evidence for either side. The Pope's object was to persuade the king to waive his interest, and he offered to finish the business on his own. But this solution did not fit in with Philip's private ideas, and he bitterly reproached Clement for the slowness of the trial, and so in the heat of the summer of 1310, the witnesses for the prosecution were examined at Le Groseau, where the Pope was staying.
In November, when the court returned to Avignon and the trial began again, Clement continued to prevaricate, this time with better prospects of success. He tried to create a diversion, and, in order to overcome Philip's obstinate attitude, refused to intervene on his behalf against the Flemings, while the supporters of Boniface made an alliance with the emperor of Germany and King Robert of Naples, by which the kingdom of Arles was restored to the house of Anjou. Philip the Fair took fright and sent an embassy to Avignon, where it was coldly received by Clement. The cardinals, who had the true interests of France at heart, advised the king to leave the trial of Boniface VIII to the Pope. Philip was disturbed by their advice and in the end agreed to act on it. By February 1311 all difficulties had been smoothed out. Although the condition was not expressly stated in the king's letters, it was agreed that the fate of the Templars should be decided at the Council of Vienne. In return for this, the accusers of Boniface withdrew. A similar withdrawal had already been agreed to by his defenders. 1 A number of Bulls, dated 27 April, clarified the situation. Clement acquitted Philip, praised his zeal and solemnly declared his own good intentions. He annulled all acts made by Boniface VIII and Benedict XI after 1 November 1300 which were contrary to the interests of the king or his kindred; these acts were indeed to be erased from the papal registers within four months. Nogaret was provisionally released from excommunication--a grace for which he had been continually begging, but unsuccessfully--
____________________
1 Lizerand, op. cit. pp. 190-243.
provided that he made certain pilgrimages, went to the Holy Land with the next crusade and stayed there, unless he were subsequently dispensed by the Holy See. Absolution was also granted to Sciarra Colonna, Rinaldo da Supino and the inhabitants of Anagni; but it was withheld from those who were still keeping the papal treasures that had been pillaged at the time of the attempt on the person of Boniface. 1
It is true that the decisions made by Clement V were humiliating for the Papacy and cast a slur on the conduct of his immediate predecessors; but they had the enormous advantage of imposing silence on the most bitter accusers of Boniface VIII, and of interrupting a trial which had shocked the whole of Christendom. But to prolong the agony, Philip would not allow the proceedings to be definitely closed. Witnesses for the prosecution and the defence were still free to give evidence. The king would not abandon a weapon of intimidation which had proved highly effective in his dealings with Clement, and indeed, at the Council of Vienne, Philip threatened to resume the trial of Boniface VIII as soon as the Fathers showed themselves unwilling to condemn the Templars. Later, on 5 May 1313, to humour the monarch, Clement canonised Celestine V. 2 But in order to bear witness to the legality of the election of Boniface and the validity of Celestine's renunciation, he was careful to canonise the latter under the name of Pietro da Morrone. 3
3
The Papacy and France from John XXII to Gregory XI
Although Clement V did from time to time suffer the constraint of Philip the Fair to an unwarranted degree, he none the less eluded his importunities on many occasions, notably in the question of the election to the throne of Germany. 4
The Avignon Popes showed their favour especially by giving financial assistance to the kings of France. They advanced them considerable sums of money during the monetary crises caused by the
____________________
1 Regestum Clementis V, nos. 7501, 7503, 7504, 7507.
2 Rinaldi, ad annum 1313, §40-2. See also Cocquelines, Bullarum, VOL. III, pt 2, pp. 140-3.
3 C. Borromeo, Avignone e la politica di Filippo il Bello nella canonizzazione di Pietro da Morrone, Modena 1894.
4 See above, pp. 190 - 1. The policy of his successors was consistently favourable to France, but without servility; on occasion, they proved quite independent.
misfortunes of the Hundred Years' War, 1 2
The profits from the sexennial tenths, decreed in 1312 and 1333 for the purpose of the crusade, were to be handed over to the kings of France, who had been appointed captains-general of the proposed expedition. But neither Philip the Fair, Louis X nor Philip VI of Valois had any desire to go to the Holy Land and the money collected for this expedition was used for the war in Flanders and the general needs of the kingdom. John XXII and Clement VI dispensed the kings from any obligation to make good the money thus misappropriated.
In addition to these tenths, the Popes granted many others. The amount received was sometimes considerable. In 1330, the net revenue from taxes that found its way into the royal coffers amounted to 265,990 livres tournois, 14 shillings and 8 pence, or, in gold, 4,872,936-80 francs.
Philip the Tall had the unprecedented privilege of collecting the annates in France, Navarre and the county of Burgundy for a space of four years beginning on 14 September 1316. Such a favour was never again granted, despite the urgent entreaties of the kings.
Philip the Tall also received some caritative subsidies at the beginning of the reign of John XXII. But later neither he nor his successors were able to overcome the unwillingness of the Pope who pleaded that the Gallican church had already been drained dry. Benedict XII, Clement VI and Innocent VI also refused to listen to the repeated demands they received. Urban V, however, allowed himself to be persuaded, and on 17 July 1364 permitted Charles V to levy a subsidy; but this favour was withdrawn, since the conditions he imposed were not fulfilled. On 21 July 1369 Charles at last received authority to levy a subsidy of two years' duration on the whole kingdom with the exception of the Languedoc. Gregory XI was more gracious to him and the last subsidy he granted to the king continued until 18 September 1377. 3
Such advantages were not exclusively reserved to the kings of France. The Emperor Charles IV and the kings of Aragon, Castile, Majorca, Naples, Hungary, Norway and England all enjoyed some tenths. 4
____________________
1 See above, p. 38 - 9. and allowed them to benefit from certain taxes levied on ecclesiastical benefices, such as tenths, annates and caritative subsidies.
2 On the question of these taxes, see below, Bk III, ch. 11.
3 Samaran and Mollat, La Fiscalité pontificale en France au XIVe siècle, Paris 1905, pp. 14-20, 24, 59.
4 E. Hennig, Die päpstlichen Zehnten. See also L. Möller, Die Einnahmen, pp. 98?99?. Nevertheless, it appears that the financial aid given to the
French royal house surpassed in both variety and value that granted to sovereigns of other nations. It should be noted, however, that Clement VI's only reason for allowing John the Good to levy an extraordinary tax, a thirtieth, on the clergy was to facilitate the repayment of the sums he had lent to the Crown, and that certain tenths were used to drive out the Great Companies, which were as great a threat to the Church as they were to France itself.
Not content with promising the kings of France substantial financial aid, the Avignon Popes also gave vigorous support to their foreign policy. If, for example, Philip the Tall conquered the Flemings, was it not due to the use of what a chronicler has picturesquely called the 'papal arms'-- armis papalibus --in other words, to the use of sentences of excommunication and interdict pronounced against the rebels. 1 Some fifteen years later, Benedict XII used all his ingenuity to prevent the Flemish towns from becoming the allies of England: he excommunicated Count William of Hainault, who had dared to revolt against his sovereign lord Philip VI and make an alliance with Edward III of England. When, due to French pressure, Count Henry IV, of Bar, was betrothed to Yolande, the daughter of Robert of Cassel, who had earlier been promised to Louis de Maele the Pope feared that hostilities might break out between the houses of Flanders and Bar, and, to avoid any such danger, sent Queen Jeanne of France a marriage dispensation to use as she thought fit. 2 When Edward III sought the hand of Margaret, heiress of Flanders, for his fourth son, Edmund, earl of Cambridge, he found himself in conflict with Urban V, who refused to grant him 'a general dispensation so that his children might contract marriages with their kinsfolk to the third or fourth degree' ( 18 December 1364). On 30 October 1365, the Pope revoked all marriage dispensations granted in general terms to the English sovereign by Clement VI and Innocent VI and, on 3 November 1367, all reciprocal undertakings made by Edmund and Margaret. On the other hand, he removed all obstacles to the marriage of that princess with Duke Philip of Burgundy. Urban did not want Margaret's inheritance, which included Flanders, Artois and the Nivernais, to fall into English hands; and indeed, this would have been an unprecedented disaster for the French. 3. In a word, it is obvious that the Papacy was on the side of France rather than of England during the Hundred Years' War.
____________________
1 P. Lehugeur, Histoire de Philippe le Long, roi de France ( 1316- 1322), Paris 1897, pp. 120-50.
2 A. Fierens, Lettres de Benoît XII, pp. xiv-xxviii.
3 M. Prou, Étude sur les relations politiques du pape Urbain V avec les rois de France, Jean II et Charles V ( 1362- 1370), Paris 1888, pp. 74-6. See also R. Delachenal, Histoire de Charles V, Paris 1909-28, VOL. III, pp. 499-510
Despite certain appearances to the contrary, the relationship of the Avignon Popes with France was in no way tainted with servility. They supported French diplomacy to the utmost, because to do so was in their own interests. John XXII, it is true, flattered Philip the Tall, Charles the Fair and Philip of Valois; but this was done so that they would adopt his Italian policy and support him against Louis of Bavaria. In turn, Clement VI, Innocent VI, Urban V and Gregory XI, who had no reason to fear anything from the Empire, set themselves to restore peace between France and England. Their legates were constantly being sent out into the highways and byways, scouring battlefields, forcing truces or armistices on the belligerents. Sometimes peace talks took place at Avignon, although the negotiations never in fact had any definite result. For this the English blamed the Holy See, which they accused--not without some apparent reason--of favouring their enemies. Yet the attitude of the French Popes was dictated not so much by patriotism as by their desire to carry out their cherished plans for a crusade; for the journey to the Holy Land could never take place until the kings of France and England, the eventual leaders of such an expedition, were reconciled.
Benedict XII, far from being influenced by Philip VI of Valois, as has been generally supposed, had interests totally opposed to those of the king. A man of 'imperious temperament,' he had determined to compel Louis of Bavaria to bow to his authority, by isolating him and grouping the other Christian princes round the Holy See. To succeed in such a plan he had to impose peace on Europe, an arduous task at a time when France and England were preparing for battle; but the Pope did not hesitate to undertake it. Philip VI sought to make an alliance with Louis of Bavaria; Benedict forbade it. The king wanted to intervene between Scotland and England; the Pope 'dissuaded him and turned him aside.' Philip announced the confiscation of Guyenne; Benedict requested him to revoke it. Most important of all, from 1337 until 1341, the supreme pontiff prevented the king of France from taking the offensive, at a time when, deprived of the help promised him by his allies, Edward III could easily have been crushed by his adversary. The king of England took advantage of Philip's mistake, made an alliance with Louis of Bavaria even though the Pope forbade it, and secretly prepared for war. 1 Thus, though France and the Papacy were often pursuing a common foreign policy, neither power was really concerned with anything except its own interests.
____________________
1 E. Déprez, Les Préliminaires de la guerre de Cent Ans, Paris 1902, pp. 400-06 and passim.
Private relations between the kings of France and the Popes of Avignon were often friendly and trusting, but they were not marked by excessive partiality or favour on the part of the Popes in matters concerning the domestic affairs of the kingdom. There was a real friendship between John XXII and Philip the Tall. The Pope had a deep affection for the king, whose attitude towards him was one of filial respect. John frequently gave him good advice and sometimes even rebuked him with a solicitude that is surprising. He urged him to be attentive at Mass and during the sermon, not to be shaved on Sunday, to avoid making unseemly gestures, to dress like a king and to reduce his household expenditure. If the king fell ill, the Pope was anxious about his health. When he recovered, he rebuked him for not following the advice of his doctors, who had recommended a moderate diet, and, fearing that his advice would not be heeded, he asked Henri de Sully, the royal cellarer, to do his best to prevent Philip from indulging his convalescent greed. 1
Philip the Tall made no secret of his gratitude to the Pope. He was grateful to him for having dissolved the feudal leagues formed against him at the beginning of his reign, and for having prevented Queen Clementia, the widow of Louis X, from joining the party of the malcontents. Royal couriers were constantly coming to Avignon bearing gifts--joints of venison, cheeses, fish, precious jewels. Philip also lavished favours on the Pope's relatives and the dignitaries of his court. 2
Passing disagreements occasionally estranged the two friends. From time to time John XXII would interfere directly in the affairs of the kingdom. He had imposed a truce on Amanieu d'Albret and Sans-Aner de Pins, on Béraud de Mercœur and Hugues de Chalon, and on certain nobles from the Mâcon. 3 On two separate occasions, on 11 May and 17 August 1318, he had commissioned the bishops of Bayonne, Dax and Aire to give notice of a truce to Mathe and Bernard d'Armagnac and Marguerite de Foix. 4 Philip expressed his displeasure to the Pope, and questioned his right to interfere in the affairs of the king's own vassals. Instead of giving him any satisfaction on this point, John XXII replied tersely: 'Surely, my son, if you think carefully about events that the future may hold in store, you cannot disapprove of the Holy See's exercising its right to impose truces, or find it prejudicial to yourself or your kingdom.' 5
On other occasions, too, the Supreme Pontiff uncompromisingly
____________________
1 Coulon, nos. 116, 1309, 1343, 1347, 1348, 1351, 1367, 1369. Lehugeur, op. cit. pp. 199-211.
2 Coulon, nos. 280, 966.
3 Ibid. nos. 32-6, 583-7.
4 Ibid. nos. 588-678.
5 Ibid. no. 704. See also Bulletin critique, VOL. VIII, ser. 2, p. 87.
upheld the old-established doctrine of the superiority of spiritual over temporal power. When the king complained that clerks supplied with apostolic letters received preference in obtaining benefices which he was keeping for his favourites, the Pope politely refused to listen. When Philip V demanded the breaking off of proceedings against a member of his council, Bishop Guillaume Durant of Mende, accused of holding schismatical views, the Pope overruled him. Furthermore, the parcelling out of the ecclesiastical province of Toulouse into several bishoprics took place without any warning or consultation of the king. 1
These few examples, selected from among many others, indicate how great was John XXII's independence of Philip V. During the reigns of Charles the Fair, Philip VI, John II and Charles V, the Pope and his successors were again to meddle in the kingdom's affairs, the only difference being that they were less heeded. The court of Avignon exercised in France a jurisdiction which was but little restricted, a jurisdiction which might even be described as sovereign. Some difficulties were to arise over the question of rights to the goods of deceased clergy, and the heirs of deceased bishops demanded justice of the King. In every known case, the papal treasury had the last word, and as a rule the king's officers confined their activities to delaying the settlement of the disputed inheritance. The papal taxcollectors did their work without encountering any serious obstacles; but the French kings would have been ungracious indeed had they impeded them, since they themselves had the privilege of levying subsidies on the clergy. Because they drew substantial profits from them, these monarchs were careful not to protest against papal reservations as did the English sovereigns. On the contrary, they even went so far as to beg the Pope to extend them still further. 2
The question of ecclesiastical jurisdiction gave rise to serious and prolonged disagreements between the Papacy and the French royal house. The fourteenth century saw an extension of the influence of royal justice by means of a systematic encroachment on all other forms of justice in the kingdom, both in the seignorial courts and in those of the Church. Because the latter were better organised, more powerful and more respected, they were more bitterly opposed. It is true that in two ordinances, dated 1315 and 1316 respectively, both Louis X and Philip V had guaranteed ecclesiastical liberty and ordered their bailiffs to respect the rights of ecclesiastical courts; 3 but in practice there were a large number of petty conflicts. These grew to such
____________________
1 Coulon, nos. 967, 775, 849, 374, 410, 516, 330.
2 Ibid. no. 667.
3 O. Martin, L'Assemblée de Vincennes de 1329 et ses consiquences, Paris 1909, pp. 44-6.
a pitch that an assembly of prelates and barons met in 1329 at Vincennes, or, to be more precise, in Paris, under the presidency of Philip V. The legal expert, Pierre de Cugnières, developed the thesis of the absolute distinction between the two jurisdictions, temporal and spiritual, and accordingly concluded that they could not both be in the hands of the same person.
The clergy's spokesmen, the bishop of Autun, Pierre Bertrand and Pierre Roger, the future Clement VI, instead of agreeing to concessions, boldly upheld the argument of possession, and the theory that temporal must be subordinate to spiritual justice; they undertook only to put down specified abuses. The king, for his part, invited the bishops, in very vague terms, to correct these abuses, and assured them that the Church in France would have nothing to fear in the future; indeed, no ordinance was promulgated. Yet the assembly of Vincennes, while not the starting-point of immediate action against ecclesiastical jurisdiction, did mark a significant stage in the slow and crafty war waged against it by the Parlement in Paris and by the secular courts. From this time onwards, there were continual conflicts. The officers of the king had no respect for the benefit of clergy: they arrested clerks, imprisoned them, judged them and even hanged them without any scruple. Benedict XII and his successors were often obliged to instruct the kings, either by letter or through legates, to safeguard the freedom of the Church. 1 For the most part their protests were fruitless. In 1372 there was great dismay at the Court of Avignon. A royal ordinance, dated 8 March, forbade French prelates to deal with actions of real estate which had up till then been submitted to their courts: 'Actions for recovery of property, suits of succession, possessory injunctions, suits for redemption in tail, actions concerning annual rents assessed on hereditable property,' etc. Any trial in the ecclesiastical courts resulting in a decision adverse to the defendant was to be revoked. If they encountered opposition, the royal bailiffs were to proceed to constrain the offenders by seizure of their property and by other means. Gregory XI made a vigorous protest. Bulls were sent to the powerful nobles of the kingdom, urging them to dissuade Charles V from his plan. 2 Two nuncios came to the court. The king apparently withdrew his edict, but in 1377 new difficulties arose concerning a sentence of excommunication pronounced by the chapter at Lyons against judges in commercial actions.
Following the example of the king of England, Philip VI of Valois decreed that all goods, tithes and ecclesiastical revenues of
____________________
1 Ibid. pp. 249-51, 254-6.
2 Ibid. pp. 342-7, 404-07.
prelates and clergy not residing within the kingdom on 13 February 1347 should be seized. The cardinals who were affected by this ordinance quickly protested. Two internuncios, Guillaume Lamy ( Amici ) and Pasteur de Sarrats, brought the protests to Paris. Thanks to the queen's intervention, the king agreed to make a partial withdrawal of his edict, in so far as it affected cardinals, employees of the court at Avignon and his own entourage. But this was not enough for Clement VI. He gave notice of his intention, however reluctantly, to make use of 'opportune and proper remedies' if the king did not revoke his ordinance completely. Philip was not to be moved. The sequestrated benefices were not restored until October 1360, after the Treaty of Brétigny had been signed.
[ Previous | Continue to Ch.VI ]