CHAPTER I

CAUSES OF THE REFORMATION

(a) The Renaissance.

Baudrillart, /The Catholic Church, The Renaissance, and Protestantism (Tr.)/, 1908 (chap. i.-iii.). Guirard, /L'Eglise et les Origines de la Renaissance/, 1902. Burckhardt, /Die Cultur der Renaissance in Italien/, 11 auf., 1913 (Eng. Trans. by Middlemore, 1878). A Baumgartner, S.J., /Geschichte der Weltiteratur/, vol. iv., 1900. /The Cambridge Modern History/, vol. i. (/The Renaissance/, 1902). Stone, /The Reformation and Renaissance/, 1904. Janssen, /Geschichte des deutschen Volkes/, 1887 (Eng. Trans. by Mitchell and Christie, London, 1896 sqq.). Pastor, /Geschichte der Papste im Zeitalter der Renaissance/, Freiburg, 1886 sqq. (Eng. Trans. by Antrobus, London, 1891 sqq.). Muntz, /La Renaissance en Italie et en France a l'epoque de Charles VIII./, 1885. Gasquet, /The Eve of the Reformation/. Mourret, /La Renaissance et la Reforme/, 1912.

The great intellectual revival, that followed upon the successfulissue of the struggle for freedom waged by Gregory VII. and hissuccessors, reached the zenith of its glory in the thirteenth century.Scholasticism, as expounded by men like Alexander of Hales, Albert theGreat, Roger Bacon, St. Bonaventure, and St. Thomas, and illustratedby a wealth of material drawn alike from the Scriptures, the writingsof the Fathers, the wisdom of Pagan philosophers, and the conclusionsof natural science, was alone deemed worthy of serious attention.Classical studies either were neglected entirely even in the centresof learning, or were followed merely for the assistance they mightrender in the solution of the philosophical and theological problems,that engaged men's minds in an age when Christian faith reignedsupreme.

The Catholic Church, indeed, had never been hostile to classicalstudies, nor unmindful of their value, as a means of developing thepowers of the human mind, and of securing both breadth of view andbeauty of expression. Some few teachers here and there, alarmed by thedanger of corrupting Christian youth by bringing it into contact withPagan ideals, raised their voices in protest, but the majority of theearly Fathers disregarded these warnings as harmful and unnecessary.Origen, St. Clement of Alexandria, St. Gregory of Nazianzen, St.Basil, and St. Jerome, while not ignoring the dangers of such studies,recommended them warmly to their students, and in the spirit of thesegreat leaders the Catholic Church strove always to combine classicalculture and Christian education.

With the fall of the Empire, consequent upon its invasion by thebarbarian hordes, classical studies were banished to some extent tothe Western Isles, Ireland and Britain, from which they weretransplanted to the Continent principally during the Carlovingianrevival.[1] In the cathedral, collegiate, and monastic schools theclassics were still cultivated, though beyond doubt compilations wereused more frequently than were the original works; and even in thedarkest days of the dark ages some prominent ecclesiastics could befound well versed at least in the language and literature of Rome. Itlooked, too, for a time, as if the intellectual revival of the twelfthcentury were to be turned towards the classics; but the example of menlike John of Salisbury was not followed generally, and the movementdeveloped rapidly in the direction of philosophy. As a consequence,the study of Latin was neglected or relegated to a secondary place inthe schools, while Greek scholarship disappeared practically fromWestern Europe. The Scholastics, more anxious about the logicalsequence of their arguments than about the beauties of literaryexpression, invented for themselves a new dialect, which, howeverforcible in itself, must have sounded barbarous to any one acquaintedwith the productions of the golden age of Roman literature or evenwith the writings of the early Fathers of the Latin Church. Nor was itthe language merely that was neglected. The monuments and memorials ofan earlier civilisation were disregarded, and even in Rome itself, theCity of the Popes, the vandalism of the ignorant wrought dreadfulhavoc.

So complete a turning away from forces that had played such a part inthe civilisation of the world was certain to provoke a reaction.Scholasticism could not hold the field for ever to the exclusion ofother branches of study, especially, since in the less competent handsof its later expounders it had degenerated into an empty formalism.The successors of St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure had little of theiroriginality, their almost universal knowledge, and their powers ofexposition, and, as a result, students grew tired of the endlesswranglings of the schools, and turned their attention to otherintellectual pursuits.

Besides, men's ideas of politics, of social order, and of religionwere changing rapidly, and, in a word, the whole outlook of the worldwas undergoing a speedy transformation. In the Middle Ages religionheld the dominant position and was the guiding principle in morals, ineducation, in literature, and in art; but as the faith of many beganto grow cold, and as the rights of Church and State began to bedistinguished, secularist tendencies soon made themselves felt.Philosophy and theology were no longer to occupy the entireintellectual field, and other subjects for investigation must befound. In these circumstances what was more natural than that someshould advocate a return to the classics and all that the classicsenshrined? Again, the example set by the tyrants who had grasped thereins of power in the Italian States, by men like Agnello of Pisa, theViscontis and Francesco Sforza of Milan, Ferrante of Naples, and thede' Medici of Florence, was calculated to lower the moral standard ofthe period, and to promote an abandonment of Christian principles oftruth, and justice, and purity of life. Everywhere men became moreaddicted to the pursuit of sensual pleasure, of vain glory, andmaterial comfort; and could ill brook the dominant ideas of the MiddleAges concerning the supernatural end of man, self-denial, humility,patience, and contempt for the things that minister only to man'stemporal happiness. With views of this kind in the air it was notdifficult to persuade them to turn to the great literary masterpiecesof Pagan Rome, where they were likely to find principles and idealsmore in harmony with their tastes than those set before them by theCatholic Church.

The thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, then, mark aperiod of transition from the Middle Ages to modern times. They saw asharp struggle being waged between two ideals in politics, ineducation, in literature, in religion, and in morality. In this greatupheaval that was characterised by a demand for unrestricted libertyof investigation, a return to the study of nature and of the naturalsciences, the rise and development of national literatures, and theappearance of a new school of art, the Humanist movement or therevival of the study of the classics, the /literae humaniores/, playedthe fundamental part. In more senses than one it may be called the Ageof the Renaissance.

Nor was it a matter of chance that this revival of interest inclassical studies should have made itself felt first in Italy, wherethe downfall of the Empire, and the subsequent development of pettystates seem to have exercised a magical influence upon theintellectual development of the people. The Italians were the directheirs to the glory of ancient Rome. Even in the days of theirdegradation, when the capital deserted by the Popes was fast going toruin, and when foreigners and native tyrants were struggling for thepossession of their fairest territories, the memory of the imperialauthority of their country, and the crumbling monuments that borewitness to it still standing in their midst, served to turn theirpatriotic ardour towards the great literary treasures bequeathed tothem by Pagan Rome. Greek literature, too, was not forgotten, thoughin the thirteenth century few western scholars possessed anyacquaintance with the language. Many causes, however, combined toprepare the way for a revival of Greek. The commercial cities of Italywere in close touch with the Eastern Empire, especially since theCrusades; ambassadors, sent by the Emperors to seek the assistance ofthe Pope and of the Western rulers in the struggle against the Turks,were passing from court to court; the negotiations for a reunion ofthe Churches, which had been going on since the days of the firstCouncil of Lyons, rendered a knowledge of Greek and of the writings ofthe Greek Fathers necessary for some of the leading ecclesiastics ofthe West; while, finally, the fall of Constantinople in 1453 forcedmany Greek scholars to seek a refuge in Italy or France, and providedthe agents sent by the Popes and Italian rulers with a splendidopportunity of securing priceless treasures for the Western libraries.

Though Dante (1265-1321) is sometimes regarded as the earliest of theHumanist school[2] on account of his professed admiration for some ofthe Pagan masters and of the blending in his /Divina Comedia/ of thebeauties of Roman literature with the teaching of the Fathers andScholastics, still, the spirit that inspired him was the spirit ofChristianity, and his outlook on life was frankly the outlook of theMiddle Ages. To Petrarch (1304-74) rather belongs the honour of havingbeen the most prominent, if not the very first writer, whose workswere influenced largely by Humanist ideals. Born in Arezzo in 1304, heaccompanied his father to Avignon when the latter was exiled fromFlorence. His friends wished him to study law; but, his poetictendencies proving too strong for him, he abandoned his professionalpursuits to devote his energies to literature. The patronage and helpafforded him willingly by the Avignonese Popes[3] and otherecclesiastics provided him with the means of pursuing his favouritestudies, and helped him considerably in his searches for manuscriptsof the classics. Though only a cleric in minor orders, he wasappointed Canon of Lombez (1335), papal ambassador to Naples (1343),prothonotary apostolic (1346), and archdeacon of Parma (1348). Thesepositions secured to him a competent income, and, at the same time,brought him into touch with libraries and influential men.

The ruin of Italy and Rome, caused in great measure by the absence ofthe Popes during their residence at Avignon, roused all the patrioticinstincts of Petrarch, and urged him to strive with all his might forthe restoration of the ancient glory of his country. Hence in hispolitics he was strongly nationalist, and hence, too, he threw thewhole weight of his influence on the side of Cola di Rienzi, when in1347 the latter proclaimed from the Capitol the establishment of theRoman Republic. Nor did he hesitate to attack the Popes, to whom hewas indebted so deeply, for their neglect of Rome and the PapalStates, as well as for the evils which he thought had fallen uponItaly owing to the withdrawal of the Popes to Avignon. He himselfstrove to awaken in the minds of his countrymen memories of the pastby forming collections of old Roman coins, by restoring or protectingwherever possible the Pagan monuments, and by searching after andcopying manuscripts of the classical writers. In poetry, Virgil washis favourite guide. As a rule he wrote in Italian, but his writingswere saturated with the spirit of the early Pagan authors; while inhis pursuit of glory and his love for natural, sensible beauty, hemanifested tendencies opposed directly to the self-restraint,symbolism, and purity of the Middle Ages. His longest poem is/Africa/, devoted to a rehearsal of the glories of ancient Rome andbreathing a spirit of patriotism and zeal for a long lost culture, butit is rather for his love songs, the /canzoni/, that he is bestremembered.

Petrarch, though a Humanist,[4] was no enemy of the Christianreligion, nor did he imagine for a moment that the study of the Paganclassics could prove dangerous in the least degree to revealedreligion. It is true that his private life did not always correspondto Christian principles of morality, and it is equally true that attimes his patriotism led him to speak harshly of the rule of the Popesin Italy and Rome; but he never wavered in his religious convictions,and never recognised that Pagan literature and ideals should be judgedby other than current Christian standards.

The example of Petrarch was not followed, however, by several of thelater Humanists. His friend and disciple, Boccaccio (1313-75),imitated his master in his love for the classics and in his zeal forclassical culture, and excelled him by acquiring, what Petrarch hadfailed utterly to acquire, a good knowledge of Greek. Like Petrarch,he was assisted largely by the Popes, and took service at the papalcourt. But his views of life and morality were coloured by Paganismrather than by Christianity. Many of his minor poems are steeped inindecency and immorality, and reflect only too clearly the tendency totreachery and deceit so characteristic of the Italian rulers of hisday; while the /Decameron/, his greatest work, is more like theproduction of a Pagan writer than of one acquainted with Christianethics and ideals. He delighted in lampooning the clergy, particularlythe monks, charging them with ignorance, immorality, and hypocrisy.Such a line of conduct was not likely to recommend the apostles of thenew learning to the admirers of Scholasticism, nor to create andfoster a friendly alliance between the two camps. Yet, personally,Boccaccio was not an enemy of Christianity, and never aimed, as didsome of the later Humanists, at reviving Paganism under the guise ofpromoting literature. He was unshaken in his acceptance of theChristian revelation, and, as the years advanced, he began to realisethe evil of his ways and the dangerous character of his writings.Strange to say, it was to a body of the monks, whom he delighted inattacking, that he bequeathed the valuable library which he hadbrought together with such labour.

Had the Humanists contented themselves with advocating merely a returnto classical studies, and had the Scholastics recognised thatphilosophy was not the only path to culture, it might have beenpossible to avoid a conflict. But, unfortunately for religion, therewere extremists on both sides. On the one hand, some of the laterHumanists, influenced largely by the low moral tone of the age, aimedat nothing less than the revival of Paganism, pure and simple; while,on the other, not a few of the Scholastics insisted strongly thatPagan literature, however perfect, should have no place in Christianeducation. Between these two conflicting parties stood a large body ofeducated men, both lay and cleric, who could see no irreconcilableopposition between Christianity and the study of the classics, and whoaimed at establishing harmony by assigning to the classics the placein education willingly accorded to them by many of the Fathers of theChurch.

But the influence of this latter body could not effect areconciliation. A large section of the Humanists openly vindicated forthemselves freedom from the intellectual and moral restraints imposedby Christianity. Laurentius Valla[5] (1405-57) in his work, /DeVoluptate/, championed free indulgence in all kinds of sensualpleasures, attacked virginity as a crime against the human race, andridiculed the idea of continence and self-denial, while in his ownlife he showed himself a faithful disciple of the Epicurianism that hepropounded in his writings. His denunciations, too, of the Popes asthe usurping tyrants of Rome in his work on the Constantine Donationwere likely to do serious injury to the head of the Church in hisspiritual as well as in his temporal capacity. But bad as were thecompositions of Valla, they were harmless when compared with the booksand pamphlets of Beccadelli, the Panormite, who devoted himself almostexclusively to what was indecent and repulsive. Poggio Bracciolini inhis work, /Facetiae/, and Filelfo, though not equally bad, belong tothe same category. In the hands of these men the Renaissance hadbecome, to a great extent, a glorification of Pagan immorality. Theirbooks were condemned by many of the religious orders, but withoutavail. They were read and enjoyed by thousands, in whom the wholesalecorruption prevalent in Florence, Siena, and Venice, had deadened allsense of morality.

A large number of the later Renaissance school were Christians only inname. If the great body of them were judged by the heathen figures andphraseology with which their works abound, they could hardly beacquitted of Pagan tendencies; but in case of many of them theseexcesses are to be attributed to pedantry rather than to defectionfrom the faith. In case of others, however, although they were wary intheir expressions lest they might forfeit their positions, Christianteaching seems to have lost its hold upon their minds and hearts.Carlo Marsuppini, Chancellor of Florence, Gemistos Plethon, the well-known exponent of Platonic philosophy, Marsilio Ficino, Rinaldo degliAlbizzi, and the members of the Roman Academy (1460), under theleadership of Pomponius Laetus, were openly Pagan in their lives andwritings. Had the men in authority in Italy been less depraved suchteaching and example would have been suppressed with firmness; or hadthe vast body of the people been less sound in their attachment toChristianity, Neo-Paganism would have arisen triumphant from thereligious chaos.[6]

But not all of the Humanists belonged to the school of Valla,Beccadelli, Poggio, and Marsuppini. The Camaldolese monk, AmbrogioTraversari, his pupil Giannozzo Manetti (1431-59), a layman thoroughlydevoted to the Church, and the first of the Humanists to turn hisattention to the Oriental languages, Lionardo Bruni, so long ApostolicSecretary at the papal court and afterwards Chancellor of Florence,Maffeo Vegio (1407-58), the Roman archaeologist, who in his work oneducation endeavoured to combine classical culture with Christianrevelation, Vittorino da Feltre, a model in his life and methods forChristian teachers, Pico della Mirandola, Sadoleto, and Bida, were allprominent in the classical revival, but at the same time thoroughlyloyal to the Church. They were the moderate men between the PaganHumanists and the extreme Scholastics. Their aim was to promotelearning and education, and to widen the field of knowledge by theintroduction of the ancient literary masterpieces, not at the expenseof an abandonment of Christianity, but under the auspices and insupport of the Catholic Church. Following in the footsteps of Origen,St. Gregory, St. Basil, and St. Augustine, they knew how to admire thebeauties of Pagan literature without accepting its spirit or ideals,and hence they have been called the Christian Humanists.

The revival of Greek in Italy, where Greek literature was practicallyunknown, is due in great measure to the arrival of Greek scholars, whowere induced to come by promises of a salary and position, or whotravelled thither on political or ecclesiastical missions. Of thesethe principal were Manuel Chruysoloras engaged at work in Florencefrom 1396, Cardinal Bessarion (1403?-72) who came westward for theCouncil of Florence and ended his days in Venice to which hebequeathed his library, Gemistos Plethon (1355-1450) the principalagent in the establishment of the Platonic academy at Florence, Georgeof Trebizond, Theodore Gaza, Lascaris, Andronicus Callistus, andothers who fled from Greece to escape the domination of the Turks.With the help of these men and their pupils a knowledge of Greek andof Greek literature was diffused through Italy, and in a short timethroughout the Continent. Everywhere collections of Greek manuscriptsbegan to be formed; agents were sent to the East to buy them whereverthey could be discovered, and copyists and translators were busy atwork in all the leading centres of Italy. The fall of Constantinoplein 1453 tended to help the Greek revival in the West by the dispersionof both scholars and manuscripts through Italy, France, and Germany.

Humanism owes its rapid development in Italy not indeed to theuniversities, for the universities, committed entirely to theScholastic principles of education, were generally hostile, but ratherto the exertions of wandering teachers and to the generous support ofpowerful patrons. In Rome it was the Popes who provided funds for thesupport of Humanist scholars, for the collection and copying ofmanuscripts, and for the erection of libraries where the greatliterary treasures of Greece and Rome might be available for thegeneral public; in Florence it was the de' Medici, notably Cosmo(1429-64) and Lorenzo the Magnificent (1449-92), by whose exertionsFlorence became the greatest centre of literary activity in Europe; inMilan it was the Viscontis and the Sforzas; in Urbino Duke Federigoand his friends; and in Ferrara and Mantua the families of d'Este andGonzaga. Academies took the place of universities. Of these theacademy of Florence, supported by the de' Medici and patronised by theleading Greek and Italian scholars, was by far the most influentialand most widely known. The academy of Rome, founded (1460) byPomponius Laetus, was frankly Pagan in its tone and as such wassuppressed by Paul II. It was revived, however, and patronised bySixtus IV., Julius II., and Leo X. Similar institutions were to befound in most of the Italian States, notably at Venice and Naples. Innearly all these cities valuable manuscript libraries were beingamassed, and were placed generously at the disposal of scholars.

Another important aid to the popularisation of the works of the Greekand Latin writers was the invention of printing and its introductioninto Italy. The first printing press in Italy was established at theBenedictine monastery of Subiaco, whence it was transferred to Rome.From this press were issued editions of the Latin classics, such asthe works of Lactantius, Caesar, Livy, Aulus Gellius, Virgil, Lucan,Cicero, and Ovid. Aldo Manuzio, himself an enthusiastic student ofGreek literature, settled at Venice in 1490, and established aprinting press with the intention of bringing out editions of theprincipal Greek authors. His house was the great centre for Greekscholars from all parts of Italy, and from the Aldine Press wereissued cheap and accurate editions of the Greek classics. Later onwhen Florence and Milan were disturbed by the invasion of CharlesVIII. of France (1483-98), and when Naples was captured by theSpaniards the Humanist movement found a generous patron in Leo X., ascion of de' Medici family. From the press founded by Leo X. manyclassical texts were issued till the pillaging of the city by theimperial troops in 1527 dealt a death blow to the revival in Italy.

That there was no opposition between the study of the classics and theteaching of Christianity is evidenced by the friendly attitude adoptedby the Papacy towards the Humanist movement. The Avignon Popes,Benedict XII. (1334-42) and Clement VI. (1342-52), heaped honours andemoluments upon Petrarch and provided him with the means of acquiringmanuscripts and of meeting scholars likely to assist him. A similarattitude towards the movement was adopted by Urban V. (1362-70). Theleading classical scholars such as Coluccio, Salutati, FrancescoBruni, Lionardo d'Aretino, etc., were employed at the Papal court, andthe apostolic college of secretaries became one of the greatestcentres for the propagation of Humanism. The troubles that fell uponthe Church during the Great Western Schism diverted the attention ofthe rival Popes from literary pursuits; but as soon as peace had beenrestored by the Council of Constance Martin V. (1417-31) assembledaround him in Rome many of the ablest classical scholars, and viedwith his cardinals in his protection of the Humanist movement. EugeneIV. (1431-47) was, if anything, more favourable, but yet hissympathies did not blind him to the dangerous tendencies of therevival as manifested in the books of men like Beccadelli.[7]

With the election of Nicholas V. (1447-55)[8] the triumph of Humanismat Rome seemed secure. The new Pope was himself one of the party. As atutor in Florence he had been brought into contact with the greatliterary men of the time and had become an ardent student of theclassics, nor did his enthusiasm lose any of its ardour when heascended the Papal throne. His aim was to make Rome the intellectualas well as the religious capital of the world, and with this object inview he invited to his court the most distinguished scholars of theage, and bestowed upon not a few of them, such as Albergati,Capranica, and Caesarini the rank of cardinal. That he fullyrecognised the advantages which religion might derive from the revivalof letters, and that he aimed at employing the services of theHumanists in defence of Christianity is evident from the works towhich he directed the attention of scholars. The texts of theScripture, the translations of the Greek Fathers, and the preparationof critical studies on the Lives of the Saints were amongst the worksrecommended to his literary friends. At the same time he did notproclaim war upon the less orthodox of the Humanist school. Men likeValla, Poggio, Filelfo, and Marsuppini were treated with friendlinessand even with favour. Whether such a line of conduct was dictated byprudence and by the hope of winning over these scholars to a betterunderstanding, or whether his anxiety for the success of his ownliterary schemes blinded him to the serious excesses of such leadersit is difficult to say; but, at any rate, it serves to show the greatliberty enjoyed by literary men at this period even in the very cityof the Popes.

As a means of ensuring to Rome the most prominent place in therevival, agents were dispatched to Greece, Turkey, Germany, France,and even to Sweden and Norway, to hunt for manuscripts. No expense wasspared to secure everything that could be purchased or to have copiesmade where purchase was impossible. In order to preserve thesetreasures and make them available for scholars the Vatican Library wasundertaken by orders of the Pope. Though long before this time thelibrary of the Popes was of considerable importance, yet on account ofthe immense number of volumes produced by Nicholas V. he is generallyregarded as the founder of the Vatican Library. The number of volumeswhich it contained at the time of his death is variously estimated atfrom one to nine thousand. The works of the Fathers of the Church, andthe Scholastics and Canonists were well represented.[9]

After the death of Nicholas V. the Pagan side of the Humanist movementbecame more and more apparent. Pius II. (1458-64), who, as AeneasSylvius, was well known as a clever writer of the Humanist school,seems as Pope to have been decidedly suspicious of his former friends.His own private library was filled with Christian authors, and carewas taken to show favour only to those classical scholars whosewritings were above reproach. Yet the cares of his office and thepromotion of the crusade on which he had set his heart prevented himfrom taking the necessary steps for the purification of his court,and, as a result, many of the members of the College of Abbreviatorswere allowed to remain in office though they were really Pagan atheart. Paul II. could not tolerate such a state of affairs. Hepromptly abolished the College of Abbreviators, suppressed the RomanAcademy, and arrested its two prominent leaders, Pomponius Laetus andPlatina.

If Paul II. erred on the side of severity some of his successors wentto the other extreme of laxity. The period of the political Popes,from Sixtus IV. to Julius II. (1471-1513), was marked by a seriousdecline in the religious spirit, nor can it be said that the policy ofthe Popes was calculated to check the downward tendency. Theirattention was occupied too much by the politics of the petty ItalianStates to permit them to fulfil the duties of their high office; and,as a consequence, the interests of religion were neglected. Sixtus IV.adopted the friendly attitude of Nicholas V. towards the Renaissance.The College of Abbreviators was restored, the Roman Academy wasrecognised, and Platina was appointed librarian. The manuscripts inthe Vatican Library were increased, more ample accommodation wasprovided, and every facility was given to scholars to consult thepapal collection. Hence it is that Sixtus IV. is regarded generally asthe second founder of the Vatican Library.

The revolutions and wars, caused by the invasion of Italy by theFrench and the Spaniards during the closing years of the fifteenthcentury and the early portion of the sixteenth, dealt a serious blowto Humanism in Florence, Milan, Venice, and other Italian centres. Butthe misfortunes of those cities served to strengthen the movement atRome. Julius II. (1503-13) proved himself a generous patron ofliterature and in a special manner of art. Men like Giuliano daSangello, Sansovino, Bramante, Michael Angelo, and Raphael wereinvited to Rome and induced to devote their genius to the service ofreligion and the glory of the Papacy. On the death of Julius II. in1513 the complete triumph of the Humanist movement in Rome was assuredby the election of Giovanni de' Medici who took the name of Leo X.(1513-21).[10] As the son of Lorenzo the Magnificent, to whom Florenceowes its literary renown, and as the pupil of the celebratedHumanists, Poliziano and Marsilio Ficino, he was committed almost ofnecessity to the Humanist movement. Scholars and artists flocked toRome from all sides to greet the new Pope and to assure themselves ofhis favour and protection. Under the new regime literary merit was theprincipal qualification sought for in candidates aspiring to thehighest ecclesiastical honours. The Roman University was reorganised;the search for manuscripts was renewed with vigour; a new college forthe promotion of Greek studies in Rome was founded, and the servicesof Lascaris and Musuro were secured; and artists like Raphael andBramante received every encouragement. Humanism was at last triumphantin Rome, but, unfortunately, its triumph was secured at the expense ofreligion. Nor was Humanism destined to enjoy the fruits of the victoryfor a lengthened period. The outbreak of the Reformation and thecapture of Rome by the soldiers of Charles V. turned the attention ofthe Popes to more pressing concerns.

The Renaissance movement in Germany is due largely to the influence ofItalian scholars and to the teaching of the Brothers of the CommonLife in their school at Deventer.[11] The close political relationsexisting between the German States and the cities of Northern Italy,the mission of Petrarch to the court of Charles IV., the interminglingof German and Italian scholars at the councils of Constance, Florence,and Basle, and the exertions of Aeneas Sylvius, afterwards Pius II.,during his term of office as Chancellor of Frederick III., helpedlargely to promote the study of the classics in Germany, especiallywhen the invention and development of the art of printing had solvedthe difficulty of procuring manuscripts. As in Italy, Humanism owesmuch of its success to the generosity of powerful patrons such as theEmperor Maximilian I., Frederick Elector of Saxony and his kinsman,Duke George, Joachim I. of Brandenburg, and Philip of the Palatinate,Bishop John von Dalberg of Worms, and Archbishop Albrecht of Mainz;and as in Italy the academies were the most powerful means ofdisseminating classical culture, so also in Germany learned societieslike the /Rhenana/, founded by Bishop Dalberg, and the /Danubiana/ inVienna, were most successful in promoting the literary propaganda.

But, unlike the Italian, the German revival was assisted largely bythe universities. Basle, Erfurt, Heidelburg, and Leipzig showedunmistakably their sympathy towards the movement, and in a short timethe programmes of university studies in nearly all the leading centreswere modified in accordance with the new ideas of education.Scholasticism was obliged to make way for the classics and naturalscience. Cologne, alone in Germany, refused to abandon its old system,and, though not unfriendly to the classics, as is evident by thepresence of Ortwin Gratius on its list of professors, still it showeditself highly distrustful of the tendencies of some of the Humanistleaders. Yet German Humanism had little, if anything, in common withthe flagrant irreligion and immorality of the Italian school. With oneor two exceptions German Humanists never assailed revealed religion assuch, but attacked instead the prevailing educational system, whichthey held to be responsible for the widespread ignorance and generaldecline of the religious spirit. Many of the leading German scholarswere exemplary in their moral character and in their loyalty to theChurch, and few, even of those who were regarded as hostile, showedany sympathy with Luther once they understood that he aimed at revoltrather than reform.

Some of the greatest of the German Humanists differed from theirItalian contemporaries also in the fact that they turned theintellectual revival into scientific channels, and made the study ofthe classics subservient to mathematical and astronomical research.Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1400-64), George Peurbach of Vienna (d.1461), John Muller of Konigsberg (1436-76), better known by his Latinname Regiomontanus, and the great churchman and astronomer Copernicus(1473-1543) belonged to this section, which prepared the way formodern scientific developments. With these men religion and sciencewent hand in hand.

On the purely literary side the most famous of the German Humanistswere Conrad Celtes (1459-1508) the most active of the promoters of theclassical revival beyond the Alps and one of the earliest of theGerman poets; Pirkeimer (1470-1528), who hoped for great things fromthe Lutheran movement at first, but having realised its real natureremained loyal to the Church; Mutianus Rufus (1471-1526), a canon ofGotha and at the same time a well-known free-thinker; Grotus Rubeanus(1480-1504), who at first favoured Luther; Jakob Wimpheling (1450-1528), and Johannes Trithemius (1462-1516), the learned historian andabbot of Sponheim; Ulrich von Hutten (1488-1523), and Johann Reuchlin(1455-1522).

Of these the most important from the point of view of ecclesiasticalhistory are von Hutten[12] and Reuchlin. The former was born in theyear 1488 and was sent for his education to the monastery of Fulda,from which he fled with very little mental equipment except a lastinghatred and distrust for all monks and ecclesiastics. As a wanderingstudent he visited the leading centres of learning in Germany andNorthern Italy, where he was particularly remarkable for his dissolutelife, his ungovernable temper, and his biting sarcasm. Takingadvantage of the rising spirit of unfriendliness between the Teutonand the Latin countries, he posed as a patriot burning with love forGermany and the Germans, and despising the French, the Italians, andin particular the Pope. Against the monks and theologians he directedhis bitterest satires, to the delight of many, who did not foresee thedangers of such attacks at a time when the German nation generally wasgrowing less friendly to the Papacy.

A dispute, which broke out about the destruction or suppression ofJewish books, afforded him a splendid opportunity of venting hisspleen against the Church. A converted Jew of Cologne namedPfefferkorn advocated the suppression of all Jewish religious booksexcept the Old Testament, as the best means of converting his formerco-religionists. The Emperor, Maximilian, was not unwilling to listento such advice supported as it was by the universities of Cologne,Mainz, and Erfut. Reuchlin, a professor of Heidelberg and himself awell-known Hebrew scholar, opposed such a policy as bad in itself andas injurious to the proper understanding of the Old Testament. A warmcontroversy thereupon ensued. The Dominicans of Cologne espoused thecause of Pfefferkorn, while the Humanists, scenting in the attack uponJewish literature an onslaught directed against the entire literaryrevival, supported the contentions of Reuchlin. It was a war betweentwo opposing schools--the Theologians and the Humanists; and,unfortunately for the Theologians, they had selected their groundbadly, and were but poorly equipped for a battle in which victory wasto be decided by popular opinion.

Reuchlin was summoned to appear before the Inquisitor to answer forthe views put forward in his /Augenspeigel/ (1511), and was condemned.He appealed to Rome, and the Bishop of Speier was ordered toinvestigate the case. The result was the acquittal of Reuchlin (1514),but his adversaries, having objected to the mode of trial, the casewas transferred once more to the Roman courts. Meanwhile thecontroversy was carried on in Germany with great bitterness. Reuchlinpublished a volume of sympathetic letters[13] received by him from theleading scholars of Germany, and Erasmus issued a new edition (1515)of his /Praise of Folly (Encomium Moriae)/ in which he ridiculedespecially the monks and theologians.

But the book which was most damaging to the opponents of Humanism wasbeyond doubt the /Epistolae virorum obscurorum/. It was a workconsisting of two volumes, the first brought out by Grotus Rubeanus in1514, and the second mostly from the pen of Urich von Hutten (1517).Like Reuchlin's work it purported to be a collection of lettersaddressed by the theologians to Ortwin Gratius, the champion ofCologne university and, indeed, of the whole Scholastic party. It wasfull of bitterness and vulgarity, but, as a humorous caricature of thetheologians, their arguments and modes of expression, it wascalculated to make them ridiculous especially in the eyes of theuniversity students. Against an attack of this kind serious argumentswere unavailing, and, unfortunately, there was no apologist oftheology capable of producing a reply couched in a strain similar tothat of the /Epistolae/. Gratius himself did undertake the task in his/Lamentationes obscurorum virorum/, but without success, andundoubtedly in the eyes of the general public the victory rested withthe Humanists. The whole controversy was extremely unfortunate,because it helped to blind many to the real issues at stake when theLutheran movement began. By it the Theologians and Humanists weredivided into two hostile camps, with the result that the latter wereinclined to support Luther against their own former opponents and invindication of the liberal policy which they had advocated; while theTheologian, having been discredited as narrow-minded obscurantists inthe eyes of a large body of university men, were handicapped seriouslyin a struggle with Luther even though their struggle was forfundamental religious principles.[14]

The most remarkable of the men, who, though not Germans, were closelyidentified with German Humanists, was Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1535).[15] He was born at Rotterdam, was sent to school with theBrothers of the Common Life at Deventer, entered a monastery of theCanons Regular attracted by its library rather than by its rule, andleft it after two years to become secretary to the Bishop of Cambrai.He studied classics at the University of Paris, and after hisordination as priest by the Bishop of Utrecht he became a tutor to anEnglish nobleman. Later on he paid a visit to England, where hereceived a warm welcome from scholars like Fisher, Bishop ofRochester, Colet, Dean of St. Paul's, and Sir Thomas More, and wherehe was honoured by an appointment as Professor of Greek in Oxford. Butthe fever of travel was upon him. He returned to Paris, made a briefstay at Louvain, and started out to visit the leading literary centresof Italy, notably Bologna, Venice, and Rome, in the latter of which hewas well received by Julius II.

On the accession of Henry VIII. he returned to England and lecturedfor some time at Cambridge. Later on he removed to Basle and settleddown to the work of preparing editions of the New Testament and of theFathers. The triumph of the Reformation party in Basle drove him for atime to seek a refuge in Freiburg, but he returned to die at Basle in1536.

In his wanderings Erasmus was brought into contact with the leadingscholars of France, England, Germany, and Italy, and was thoroughlyacquainted with the lights and shadows of the Renaissance movement. Inhis knowledge of Greek he was surpassed by few of his contemporaries,and in the purity and ease of his Latin style he stood without aserious rival. Like many others of the Humanist school he delighted inattacking the ignorance of the monks and Scholastics, and indenouncing the abuses of the age, though, as was the case with most ofthe literary reformers of the time, his own life as an ecclesiasticwas far from exemplary.

Yet Erasmus himself was never an enemy of Christianity, nor did hedesire the overthrow of ecclesiastical authority. He did, indeed,advocate reform, and in his advocacy of reform he may have beencarried too far at times, but in his heart Erasmus had little sympathywith doctrinal changes. Ignorance he believed to be at the root of thedecline of religion, and hence he would have welcomed a completechange in the educational system of the Church. Instead ofScholasticism he advocated study of the Scriptures and of the earlyFathers, and in order to prepare the way for such a policy he devotedhimself at Basle to the task of preparing an edition of the NewTestament and of the Greek Fathers. He was on terms of the closestintimacy with the leading Humanists of Germany, and shared all theircontempt for scholastic theologians and much of their distrust of thePope and the Roman Curia. Hence the sympathy and encouragement ofErasmus were not wanting to Luther during the early days of his revoltand before the true object of the movement was rightly understood; butonce Erasmus realised that union with Luther meant separation from theChurch he became more reserved in his approval, and finally took thefield against him. In his work, /De Libero Arbitrio/, he opposed theteaching of Luther on free will, and before his death he received abenefice from Paul III. which he accepted, and an offer of acardinal's hat which he declined. His life as an ecclesiastic wascertainly not edifying, and his hatred of ignorance, antiquatededucational methods, and abuses may have led him into excesses, buthis theology was still the theology of the Middle Ages rather thanthat of the German Reformers.

In France the earliest of the Humanists were Nicholas of Clemanges andGerson, both rectors of Paris University, and both well-knowntheologians. They were specially active in putting an end to the GreatWestern Schism, but in doing so they laid down certain principles thatled almost inevitably to Gallicanism. The influence of these two mendid not, however, change the policy of Paris University. For yearsFrance lagged behind in the classical movement, and it was only in theearly portion of the sixteenth century that French Humanism madeitself felt.

The movement gained ground by the exertions of individuals and ofliterary societies, by the results of the activity of the printingpress, and the protection of influential patrons at the Court ofFrancis I. (1515-47). Paris University became more friendly to theclassics, and eminent scholars like Lascaris and Aleandro were invitedto lecture on Greek. The College of St. Barbe became a great classicalstronghold within the university, and the movement began to develop sorapidly as to excite the jealousy and suspicions of the theologians.This unfortunate division was rendered more acute by the foundation ofthe College de France in 1529. It was handed over entirely to theHumanistic party in spite of the opposition of the more conservativeschool, and served as a centre for all kinds of literary,philological, and antiquarian researches.

The most eminent of the French Humanists were Budaeus (1467-1540),regarded in his own time as but slightly inferior to Erasmus, GermanusBrixius (Germain de Brie), Canon of Notre Dame and translator ofportion of the works of St. John Chrysostom, Stephen Poncher, Bishopof Paris and advocate of the Humanist party at the Court of FrancisI., the Dominican, William Petit, Robert (1503-59) and Henri (1528-98)Estienne (Stephanus) to whom we are indebted for the two monumentalworks, /Thesaurus Linguae Latinae/ and /Linguae Graecae/, Scaliger(1540-1609) the well-known authority on chronology and epigraphy, andthe philologist and classicist Isaac Casaubon (1559-1614).

In France there was a sharp rivalry from the beginning between theScholastics and the Humanists. The university was divided intoseparate camps. The college of St. Barbe was opposed by the MontaigueCollege, the rector of which was the leader of the Scholastic party.The Humanists regarded the Theologians as antiquated, while theTheologians looked upon their opponents as supporters of theReformation movement. In case of a few of these, as for exampleLefevre d'Etaples,[16] Gerard Roussel, and others, these suspicionswere fully justified; but in case of many others their faith wassound, and however much they may have wavered in life they preferredto die at peace with the Church. To this latter section belongsMarguerite of Valois,[17] sister of Francis I. She was a patroness ofthe Humanists and Reformers in Paris and was opposed undoubtedly tomany Catholic practices; but it is not so clear that she wished for areligious revolution, and at any rate it is certain that she died aCatholic. This rivalry between the Theologians and Humanists and themisunderstandings to which it gave rise are largely responsible forthe rapid development of Calvinism amongst certain classes of Frenchsociety.

The classical movement in England is due largely to Italianinfluences, though the visit of the Greek Emperor Manuel in 1400, andthe subsequent visits of Greek envoys and scholars must havecontributed not a little to awaken an interest among English studentsin Greek studies. Individual Englishmen began to turn towards thegreat centres of Italian Humanism, and to return to their own countryimbued with something of the literary zeal of their Italian masters.Of these the two who, more than others, contributed to give Greek andLatin a good standing in the schools of the country were WilliamSelling and William Hadley, both Benedictine monks of Canterbury. Theystudied at Bologna, Padua and Rome, and were brought into contact withPolitian and other distinguished Humanists. Selling was recognised asan accomplished Greek scholar, and on his return he set himself toremodel the course of studies at Canterbury so as to ensure for theclassics their proper place. The influence of Canterbury and of PriorSelling helped very much to spread the classical revival in England.

Selling's most remarkable pupil was Thomas Linacre (1460-1524), whowent to Oxford after having completed his early education atCanterbury, and was chosen Fellow of All Soul's College. Later on heaccompanied his old master to Italy, where he had an opportunity ofmastering the intricacies of Latin style from Politian, the tutor ofthe children of Lorenzo de' Medici, and of Greek from DemetriusChalcondylas. He turned his attention to medicine and received adegree both at Padua and Oxford. His position at the courts of HenryVII. and Henry VIII. gave him an opportunity of enlisting thesympathies of the leading ecclesiastical and lay scholars of his dayin favour of the literary revival. In his later years he was ordainedpriest and held some important ecclesiastical offices. Otherdistinguished scholars and patrons of the revival in England wereGrocyn, a companion of Linacre at Oxford and in Italy and afterwardslecturer on Greek at Exeter College, Oxford; John Colet (1467-1519),Dean of St. Paul's, the friend of Budaeus, Erasmus, Linacre, andGrocyn, and founder of St. Paul's School; William Lilly, appointed byDean Colet as first master in this school; Fisher (1459-1535) Bishopof Rochester; and Sir Thomas More (1480-1535).

The Humanist movement in England, unlike the corresponding movement inItaly, was in no sense hostile to religion or to the Catholic Church.Many of its leaders desired reform, but not a single one of theprominent scholars of the period showed any sympathy with Luther'srevolt. The very founders of the revival in England, Selling, Hadley,Linacre and Grocyn, were ecclesiastics whose faith was beyondsuspicion; Colet died as he had lived, thoroughly devoted to theChurch; while Fisher and Sir Thomas More sealed their loyalty to theancient faith with their blood.[18]

The revival in Spain owes much to the patronage of Queen Isabella andthe exertions of Cardinal Ximenez (1436-1517). The leadinguniversities, Seville, Alcala, and Salamanca, were not unfriendly, andthe whole educational system was remodelled in favour of the classics.Cardinal Ximenez devoted himself to the preparation of the Polyglotedition of the Bible, the New Testament portion of which was printedso early as 1514, and the whole work was published in 1522. Theleading Humanist scholars were Lebrixa, or as he is called in LatinLebrissensis, Nunez, and Ludovico Vives (1492-1540), the latter ofwhom was deemed by his contemporaries not unworthy of being comparedwith Erasmus and Budaeus.

The Humanist movement and the general revival of literary, scientific,philological and historical studies to which it gave birth were not inthemselves anti-religious, nor did they find in the Catholic Church adetermined opponent. Such studies, on the contrary, might havecontributed much to promote a more enlightened understanding oftheology, and more especially of the Scriptures, a fact which wasunderstood thoroughly by the ablest ecclesiastics of the time. InItaly, Germany, France, and England, bishops and abbots vied withsecular princes in their patronage of scholars, while the influence ofthe Popes, notably Nicholas V., Sixtus IV., Julius II., and Leo X. wasentirely in favour of the Humanist party.

Yet, while all this is true, the Humanist movement did much,undoubtedly, to prepare men's minds for the great religious revolt ofthe sixteenth century. Springing into life as it did at a time whenthe faith of the Middle Ages was on the wane, and when many educatedmen were growing tired of the cold formalism and antiquated methods ofthe Schoolmen, it tended to develop a spirit of restless inquiry thatcould ill brook any restriction. The return to the classics recalledmemories of an earlier civilisation and culture opposed in manyparticulars to the genius of Christianity, and the return of naturetended to push into the background the supernatural idea upon whichthe Christian religion is based. But the revival did more. The studyof the classics brought into prominence serious problems regarding theauthenticity, age, and value of certain writings and manuscripts, andby so doing it created a spirit of criticism and of doubt for whichthe Theologians of the day were but poorly prepared. In a word, it wasa period of transition and of intellectual unrest, when new ideals ineducation were endeavouring to supplant the old ones, and when neitherthe friends of the old nor of the new had distinguished clearlybetween what was essential in Christianity and what was purelyaccidental.

In such a time it was to be expected that ardent Humanists, filledwith their new-born zeal for classical studies, should advance toorapidly, and by confounding religion with the crude methods of some ofits defenders should jump to the conclusion that a reconciliationbetween the revival and religion was impossible. Nor should it be amatter of surprise that the Theologians, confident in the strength oftheir own position and naturally suspicious of intellectual novelties,were not inclined to look with favour on a movement which owed itsinspiration largely to Pagan sources. Moderate men, on the contrary,whether Humanists or Scholastics, aimed at a complete reconciliation.They realised that the great literary and scientific revival could domuch for the defence of religion, and that the Pagan classics must beappraised according to Christian standards.

But this work of reconciliation was rendered very difficult by theattitude of extremists on both sides. Many of the Italian Humanists,as has been shown, were Christians only in name. In their writings andin their lives they showed clearly that they were thoroughly imbuedwith the spirit of Paganism. Such men merited severe condemnation, andit is to be regretted that the Popes, particularly Sixtus IV. and LeoX., did not adopt a firmer attitude towards this section of theItalian school. But before judging too harshly the friendly relationsmaintained by Sixtus IV. and Leo X. with the Italian Humanists, it iswell to remember that the age in which they lived was noted for itsgeneral laxity and for the decline of a proper religious spirit, thatthe Pagan tone and Pagan forms of expression used by these writerswere regarded as exhibitions of harmless pedantry rather than as clearproofs of opposition to Christianity, that most of these writers werealways ready to explain away whatever might appear objectionable intheir works, and that, finally, mildness in the circumstances may havebeen deemed the best policy. The attitude of the Popes at any rateprevented an open conflict between the representatives of the twoschools in Italy until the outbreak of the Reformation and theinvasion of Rome put an end to the danger by destroying the Humanistmovement.

In Germany and France there were few traces of an anti-Christiantendency amongst the supporters of the new learning. But in bothcountries, more especially in the former, the supporters of the newlearning criticised severely the ignorance of the monks andTheologians, and took little pains to conceal their contempt for theScholastic methods of education. They blamed the Popes for theirneglect of the true interests of the Church, and held them responsiblein a large measure for the general decline of religion. According tothem the study of theology must be reformed so as to give a moreprominent place to the Scriptures and the writings of the earlyFathers; the development of the internal spirit of religion asdistinct from mere external formalism was to be encouraged, and manyof the existing practices might be discarded as superstitious. Suchviews tended naturally to excite the opposition of the Theologians andto unsettle the religious convictions of educated men who watched thestruggle with indifference.

In this way the ground was prepared for a complete religious revolt.Luther's movement was regarded by many as merely the logical sequenceof Humanism, but that the Humanists themselves were not willing toaccept this view is clear from the fact that once the earlymisunderstandings had been removed, and once the real issues wereapparent, most of the Humanists in Germany and France remained true tothe Church. Instead of regarding Luther as a friend they looked uponhim as the worst enemy of their cause, and on the Reformation as thedeath-knell of the Renaissance. ----------

[1] Sandys, /History of Classical Scholarship/, 2nd edition, 1906. Rogers, /L'Enseignement des lettres classiques d'Ausone a Alcuin/, 1905. Gougaud, /Les Chretientes Celtiques/, 1911, chap. viii. (An excellent bibliography.) Esposito, /Greek in Ireland during the Middle Ages/ (/Studies/, i., 4, 665-683).

[2] Monnier, /La Renaissance de Dante a Luther/, 1884.

[3] Guirard, /L'Eglise et la Renaissance/, chap. iii.

[4] Nolhac, /Petrarque et l'Humanisme/, 1892.

[5] Mancini, /Vita di Lorenzo Valla/, 1891.

[6] Pastor, /History of the Popes/, i., pp. 12-33.

[7] Pastor, op. cit., p. 24.

[8] Muntz, /Les arts a la cour des Popes pendant le XVe. et le XVIe. siecle/, 1878-9.

[9] Muntz-Fabre, /La Bibliotheque du Vatican au XVe. siecle/, 1887.

[10] Pastor, op. cit., vol. vii. Conforti, /Leone X. ed il suo secolo/, 1896. Roscoe, /Life and Pontificate of Leo X./, 1883.

[11] Delprat, /Die Bruderschaft des gemeinsamen Lebens/, 1840.

[12] Strauss, /Ulrich von Hutten/, 2 auf., 1871 (Eng. Trans., 1874).

[13] /Clarorum virorum Epistolae latinae graecae et hebraicae/, 1514.

[14] Janssen, /History of the German People/, iii., pp. 44-79.

[15] Capey, /Erasmus/, 1901.

[16] /Lefevre d'Etaples son influence sur les origines de la reforme Franc./, 1900.

[17] Lalanne, /Memoires de Me. de Valois/, etc., 1858.

[18] On the Humanist movement in England, cf. Gasquet, /Eve of the Reformation/, 1900, chap. ii. Seebohm, /Oxford Reformers/ (Colet, Erasmus, More), 1867. Einstein, /The Italian Renaissance in England/, 1902.

(b) Political and Social Condition of Europe.

See the works of Pastor, Janssen and Gasquet cited in section (a). /The Cambridge Modern History/, vol. i (gives an excellent bibliography). Hergenrother-Kirsch, /Handbuch der Allgemeinen Kirchengeschichte/, Bd. 2 (pp. 996-1002). Ranke, /Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation/, 1844 (Eng. Trans. by Austin, 1845-7). Idem., /Geschichte der Romanischen und Germanischen Volker/ (1419-1514). Kaser, /Deutsche Geschichte zur Zeit Maximilians I./ (1486-1519), 1912. Cherrier, /Histoire de Charles VIII./, 1868. Prescott, /Ferdinand and Isabella/, 1887. Busch-Todd, /England under the Tudors/, 1892-5. Hunt-Poole, /The Political History of England/, vol. v., 1910 (chap. v.).

The struggle between the Papacy and the Empire, ending, as it did, inthe downfall of the House of Hohenstaufen, put an end to the oldconception of the universal monarchy presided over by the Emperor andthe Pope. A new tendency began to make itself felt in Europeanpolitics. Hitherto the feudal system, on which society was based, hadserved as a barrier against the development of royal power or theformation of united states. Under this system the king was sometimesless powerful than some of his nominal subjects, and was entirelydependent upon the good-will of the barons for the success of anyaction he might take outside his own hereditary dominions. This wasthe real weakness of the system, and so long as it remained the growthof Nationalism was impossible.

Gradually, however, by the exertions of powerful sovereigns the powerof the barons was broken, the smaller states were swallowed up in thelarger ones, and the way was prepared for the rise of the nations ofModern Europe. In France the policy of centralisation begun in thethirteenth century, was carried to a successful conclusion in the daysof Louis XI. (1461-83). The English provinces, Aquitane, Burgundy, andBrittany, were all united to form one state, knowing only one supremeruler. In Spain the old divisions disappeared almost completely withthe union of Castile and Aragon under Ferdinand (1479-1516) andIsabella the Catholic (1474-1504), and with the complete destructionof the Moorish power by the conquest of Granada (1492). In England theslaughter of the nobility in the Wars of the Roses left the way readyfor the establishment of the Tudor dominion. As part of the samemovement towards unification Henry VIII. was declared to be King ofIreland instead of Feudal Lord, and serious attempts were made toinclude Scotland within his dominions. Inside the Empire similartendencies were at work, but with exactly opposite results. Theinterregnum in the Empire and a succession of weak rulers left theterritorial princes free to imitate the rulers of Europe bystrengthening their own power at the expense of the lower nobility,the cities, and the peasantry; but, having secured themselves, theyused their increased strength to arrest the progress of centralisationand to prevent the development of a strong imperial power.

As a direct result of this centralisation tendency and of the increasein royal authority that it involved, the rulers of Europe initiated acampaign against all constitutional restrictions on the exercise oftheir authority. The feudal system with all its faults was in somesenses wonderfully democratic. The sovereign was dependent upon thedecisions of the various representative assemblies; and though thelower classes had little voice except in purely local affairs, yet therights and privileges of all classes were hedged round so securely bywritten charters or immemorial usage that any infringement of themmight be attended with serious results. In England the Parliament, inSpain the Cortes, in France the States General, and in Germany theDiet, should have proved a strong barrier against absolute rule. Butthe authority of such assemblies was soon weakened or destroyed. Underthe Tudors the English Parliament became a mere machine forregistering the wishes of the sovereign; the Cortes and States Generalwere rarely consulted in Spain and France; and, though the Dietretained its position in the Empire, it was used rather to increasethe influence of the princes than to afford any guarantee of libertyto the subject.

In bringing about such a complete revolution the rulers were assistedlargely by the introduction of the Roman Code of Justinian.[1]According to the principles of the Roman Code the power of thesovereign was unlimited, and against his wishes no traditional customsor privileges could prevail. Such a system was detested especially bythe Germans, who clung with great pertinacity to their own nationallaws and customs; but the princes, supported by the universities,carried through the reform on which they had set their heart. Theysucceeded in strengthening their own power and in trampling down therights guaranteed to their subjects by the old Germanic Code, while atthe same time they were untiring in their resistance to imperialreforms, and were unwilling to do anything to increase the power ofthe Emperor.

As a result of the development of arbitrary rule the lower classes hadgreat reason to complain of the increase of taxation and of thedifficulties of obtaining justice in the ordinary courts of law. Theywere ready to listen to the advice of interested leaders, who urgedthem to band together in defence of their rights against theusurpation of land owners and kings. As a result nearly every countryin Europe found itself involved in a great struggle. The Peasants' Warin Hungary (1514), the revolt against Charles V. in Spain (1520), theresistance of the Flemish Communes, led by Ghent, to the ordinances ofthe Dukes of Burgundy, the discontent of the lower classes in Francewith the excessive taxes levied by Louis XI., and the secretassociations which prepared the way for the great uprising of thelower classes in Germany (1524), were clear indications thatoppression and discontent were not confined to any particular countryin Europe.

With all these political developments the interests of religion and ofthe Church were closely connected. Even though it be admitted that inthemselves there is no real opposition between Nationalism andCatholicism, yet in the circumstances of the time, when nationalrivalry was acute, the dependence of the Holy See upon any particularnation was certain to excite serious jealousy. From that time nationsbegan to regard the Pope as an ally or an enemy according to the sidehe favoured instead of looking to him as a common father, andconsequently the danger of a conflict between national patriotism andloyalty to the Head of the Church was rendered less improbable. Thisfeeling was increased by the residence of the Popes at Avignon, whenthe Holy See was so completely associated with the interests ofFrance, and by the policy pursued by Sixtus IV. and his successors inregard to the Italian States. Nowhere, however, was this opposition tothe Papacy manifested more clearly than in Germany. This was duepartly to the growing feeling of antipathy between the Teutonic andthe Latin races, partly to the tradition of the great struggle of thethirteenth century in which the Emperors were worsted by the Popes,and partly also to the discontent excited amongst all classes of theGerman people, lay and cleric, by the taxations of the Curia. Theattitude of the three ecclesiastical electors in 1455, the complaintsof the clergy in 1479, and the list of /Gravamina/ presented toMaximilian in 1510 were harbingers of the revolution that was to come.

Besides, the growth of absolutism in Europe was likely to provedangerous to the liberties of the Church. Rulers, who aimed atsecuring for themselves unlimited authority, were not blind to theimportance of being able to control the ecclesiastical organisation,and to attain this result their legal advisers quoted for them themaxims of the old Roman Code, according to which the king was thesource of all spiritual as well as temporal power. Their predecessorshad usurped already a strong voice in the appointments to benefices,but now civil rulers claimed as a right what those who had gone beforewere glad to accept as a privilege. Hence they demanded that the HolySee should hand over to them the nomination of bishops, that it shouldmodify the old laws regarding exemption of ecclesiastical propertyfrom taxation, trial of clerics, and right of sanctuary, and that itshould submit its pronouncements for the royal /Exequator/ before theycould have the force of law in any particular state. The PragmaticSanction of Bourges (1438) and the Concordat wrung from Leo X. byFrancis I. of France in 1516, the Concordat of Princes in 1447, andthe new demands formulated by the Diet of the Empire, the Statutes of/Provisors/ and /Praemunire/ in England (1453), and the concessionsinsisted upon by Ferdinand and Isabella in Spain (1482), were clearproofs that absolutism was destined to prove fatal to the liberty ofthe Church and the authority of the Holy See.

Finally, the universal discontent of the masses, and the great socialrevolutions of the first quarter of the sixteenth century were likelyto prove dangerous to ecclesiastical authority. In all revolutions themost extreme men are certain to assume control at least in the earlierstages of the movement, and their wildest onslaughts on Church andState are sure to receive the applause of the crowd. But there wasspecial danger that these popular outbreaks might be turned into anti-religious channels at a time when so many of the bishops were secularprinces, and when the Church appeared to be so closely identified withthe very interests against which the peasants took up arms. In thesecircumstances it was not difficult for designing men to push forwardtheir plans of a religious reform under guise of a campaign forliberty and equality.[2] ----------

[1] /Cambridge Modern History/, ii., p. 176. Janssen, op. cit., Eng. Trans., ii., chap. ii.

[2] Janssen, op. cit. Eng. Trans., vols. i.-iii. Pastor, op. cit., Eng. Trans., vols. i.-iii.

(c) The Religious Condition of Europe.

Pastor, op. cit. Janssen, op. cit. Creighton, /History of the Papacy from the Great Western Schism to the Sack of Rome/, 2nd edition, 1897. Ranke, /Die Romische Papste im 16 und 17 jahrhunderten/ (xxxvii-xxxix), 1900 (Eng. Trans., 3 vols., 1866). Haller, /Papsttum und Kirchenreform/, 1904. Mansi, /Sacrorum Conciliorum Collectio/, 1900. Hefele, /Conciliengeschichte/ 2 auf. 1873-90 (Eng. Trans. in part, French Trans.). Imbart de la Tour, /Les origines de la Reforme/, ii., 1909. Thomas, /Le Concordat de 1516/, 1910. Ullman, /Reformatoren vor der Reformation/, 1866 (Eng. Trans. by Menzies, 1855).

The withdrawal of the Popes from the capital of Christendom and theunfortunate schism, for which their residence at Avignon is mainlyresponsible, proved disastrous to the authority of the Holy See. TheAvignon Popes were Frenchmen themselves. Their cardinals and officialsbelonged for the most part to the same favoured nation. They weredependent upon the King of France for protection, and in return, theirrevenues were at times placed at his disposal in order to ensurevictory for the French banners. Such a state of affairs was certain toalienate the rulers and people of other nations, especially of Germanyand England, and to prepare the way for a possible conflict in thedays that were to come.

The Great Western Schism that followed upon the residence at Avignondivided Christian Europe into hostile camps, and snapped the bond ofunity which was already strained to the utmost by political andnational rivalries. Sincere believers were scandalised at thespectacle of two or three rival Popes, each claiming to be thesuccessor of St. Peter, and hurling at his opponents and theirsupporters the severest censures of the Church. While the variousclaimants to the Papacy were contending for supreme power in theChurch, they were obliged to make concession after concession to therulers who supported them and to permit them to interfere in religiousaffairs, so that even when peace was restored and when Martin V. wasuniversally recognised as the lawful Pope, he found himself deprivedof many of the rights and prerogatives, for which his predecessorsfrom Gregory VII. to Boniface VIII. had struggled so bravely.

Nor was this all. In their efforts to bring about a reunion, anddespairing of arriving at this happy result by an agreement among thecontending Popes, many honest theologians put forward principles,which, however suitable to the circumstances of the schism, wereutterly subversive of the monarchical constitution of the Church. Theymaintained that in case of doubtful Popes the cardinals had the rightto summon a General Council to decide the issue, and that allChristians were bound to submit to its decrees. In accordance withthese principles the Council of Constance was convoked, and, elatedwith the success of this experiment, many of the more ardent spiritsseemed determined to replace, or at least, to limit the authority ofthe Popes by the authority of General Councils summoned at regularintervals. The Pope was to be no longer supreme spiritual ruler. Hisposition in the Church was to be rather the position of aconstitutional sovereign in a state, the General Council being for thePope what modern Parliaments are for the king.

Fortunately for the Popes such a theory was completely discredited bythe excesses of its supporters at the Council of Basle, but it servedto weaken the authority of the Holy See, and to put into the hands ofits opponents a weapon which they were not slow to wield whenevertheir personal interests were affected. Henceforth appeals from thePope to a General Council, although prohibited, were by no meansunfrequent.

Yet in spite of all these reverses, had the Church been blessed with asuccession of worthy Popes burning with zeal for religion, free todevote themselves to a thorough reform, and capable of understandingthe altered political and social conditions of the world, the Papacymight have been restored to its old position. But unfortunately thePopes from Nicholas V. to Leo X. were not the men to repair the damagethat was done, or to ward off impending danger. The calamities thatthreatened Europe from the advance of the Turks, and the necessity ofrousing its rulers to a sense of their responsibilities occupied alarge share of their attention; while the anxiety which they displayedin the miserable squabbles of the Italian kingdoms, sometimes out ofdisinterested regard for the temporal States of the Church, as in thecase of Julius II., more frequently from a desire of providingterritories for their unworthy relations, left them little time tosafeguard the general well-being of the Church. In case of some ofthem, too, if one may judge them by their actions, the progress ofHumanism seemed to be nearer to their hearts than the progress ofreligion.

In his personal life Nicholas V. (1447-55) was not unworthy of hisexalted position, but the necessity of repairing the damage that hadbeen done by the unruly assembly at Basle, which arrogated to itselfthe authority of an independent General Council, the removal of thelast obstacle to the Turkish invasion of Europe in the fall ofConstantinople, and the importance of securing for Rome a pre-eminentposition in the great classical revival, engaged all his energies tothe exclusion of necessary reforms. Calixtus III. (1455-58) was tooold to do much, yet, notwithstanding his advancing years and theindifference of the European rulers, he threw himself into thestruggle against the Turks, aiding and encouraging Hungary and Albaniain their resistance, and it is due largely to his efforts that thevictorious advance of Mahomet II. was checked by the overthrow of hisforces at Belgrade (1456). Pius II.[1] (1458-64), though in his youthnot the most exemplary of the Humanist school, devoted himself withearnestness and zeal to the duties of his sacred office. He publisheda Bull retracting all the attacks which he had made against the Papacyin his capacity as secretary to the /Concilabulum/ at Basle. He sethimself to study the Scriptures and the early Fathers in place of thePagan classics, and he showed his approbation of the ChristianHumanists. But he was unable to undertake the work of reform. In viewof the danger that still threatened Europe he convoked an assembly ofthe princes at Mantua to organise a crusade against the Turks, butthey turned a deaf ear to his appeals, and, at last weary of theirrefusals and indifference, he determined to place himself at the headof the Christian forces for the defence of Europe and Christianity. Hereached Ancona broken down in spirits and bodily health, and diedbefore anything effective could be done. Paul II. (1464-71), whosucceeded, made some efforts to purify the Roman Court. He suppressedpromptly the College of Abbreviators who were noted for their greedfor gold and their zeal for Paganism, and closed the Roman Academy. Onaccount of his severity in dealing with the half Christian Humanistsof the Curia he has been attacked with savage bitterness by Platina,one of the dismissed officials, in his /Lives of the Popes/,[2] butnobody is likely to be deceived by scurrilous libels, the motives ofwhich are only too apparent. The worst that can be said against PaulII. is that he was too fond of appointing his relatives to highpositions in the Church; but in mitigation of that it is well toremember that his reforms had raised up so many enemies against him inRome, and disaffection was so rife amongst even the highest officialsof his court, that he may have deemed it prudent to have relativesaround him on whom he could rely.

Sixtus IV. (1471-84) was the first of the political Popes, Leo X.being the last. They are so called on account of the excessiveinterest they displayed in Italian politics of the period, to theneglect of the higher interests with which they were entrusted. Mostof them, with the exception of Alexander VI., were not positivelyunworthy men, but they were too much concerned with secular pursuitsto undertake a reform of the gross abuses which flourished at the verygates of their palace. The papal court was no worse and very littlebetter than the courts of contemporary rulers, and the greed formoney, which was the predominant weakness of the curial officials,alienated the sympathy of all foreigners, both lay and cleric.

Julius II. (1503-13) did, indeed, undertake the difficult task ofrestoring the States of the Church that had been parcelled out intopetty kingdoms by his predecessors, but his policy soon brought himinto conflict with Louis XII. of France. Louis demanded that a GeneralCouncil should be convoked, not so much out of zeal for reform as froma desire to embarrass the Pope, and when Julius II. refused to complywith his request the king induced some of the rebellious cardinals toissue invitations for a council to meet at Pisa (Sept. 1511). Most ofthe bishops who met at Pisa at the appointed time were from France.The Emperor Maximilian held aloof, and the people of Pisa regarded theconventicle with no friendly feelings. The sessions were transferredfrom Pisa to Milan, and finally to Lyons. As a set off to this JuliusII. convoked a council to meet at Rome, the fifth Lateran Council (May1512), for the threefold purpose of healing the French schism, ofproscribing certain doctrinal errors, and of undertaking the work ofreform. The earlier sessions were taken up almost entirely with theschism, and before the work of reform was begun Julius II. passedaway.

He was succeeded by the young and learned John de' Medici, son ofLorenzo the Magnificent of Florence, who took the name of Leo X.(1513-21). Like his father, the new Pope was a generous patron of artand literature, and bestowed upon his literary friends, some of whomwere exceedingly unworthy, the highest dignities in the Church.Humanism was triumphant at the Papal Court, but, unfortunately,religion was neglected. Though in his personal life Leo X. could notbe described as a deeply religious man, yet he was mindful of his vowsof celibacy, attentive to the recitation of the divine, office,abstemious, and observant of the fasts of the Church. As a secularruler he would have stood incomparably higher than any of thecontemporary sovereigns of Europe, but he was out of placeconsiderably as the head of a great religious organisation.Worldliness and indifference to the dangers that threatened the Churchare the most serious charges that can be made against him, butespecially in the circumstances of the time, when the Holy See shouldhave set itself to combat the vicious tendencies of society, thesefaults were serious enough.

The defeat of the French forces at Novara (1513), and the loyalty ofthe other rulers of Europe to the Holy See induced Louis XII. ofFrance to make peace with the new Pope, and to recognise the LateranCouncil. But on the accession of Francis I. (1515-47) a freshexpedition into Italy was undertaken; the Swiss troops were overthrownat Marignano (1515) and Leo X. was obliged to conclude a Concordat[3]with the French King. By the terms of this agreement France agreed toabandon the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, while the Pope bestowedupon Francis I. and his successors the right of presentation to thebishoprics and abbacies in his dominions. The work of reform, whichshould have claimed special attention at the Lateran Council, wasnever undertaken seriously. Some decrees were passed prohibitingplurality of benefices, forbidding officials of the Curia to demandmore than the regulation fees, recommending preaching and religiousinstruction of children, regulating the appointment to benefices,etc., but these decrees, apart from the fact that they left the rootof the evils untouched, were never enforced. The close of the LateranCouncil synchronises with the opening of Luther's campaign in Germany,for the success of which the Council's failure to respond to therepeated demands for reform is to a great extent responsible.

In any scheme for the reform of the abuses that afflicted the Churchthe reformation of the Papal Court itself should have occupied theforemost place. At all times a large proportion of the cardinals andhigher officials were men of blameless lives, but, unfortunately, manyothers were utterly unworthy of their position, and their conduct washighly prejudicial to religion and to the position of the Holy See.Much of the scandalous gossip retailed by Platina in his /Lives of thePopes/, and by Burcard[4] and Infessura[5] in their /Diaries/ may beattributed to personal disappointment and diseased imaginations, buteven when due allowance has been made for the frailty of humantestimony, enough remains to prove that the Papal Court in thefourteenth and fifteenth centuries was not calculated to inspirestrangers to Rome with confidence or respect. Such corrupt and greedyofficials reflected discredit on the Holy See, and afforded somejustification for the charges levelled against them of using religionmerely as a means of raising money.

The various taxations,[6] direct and indirect, levied by the Popesduring the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries helped to give colour tothese accusations. It ought to be remembered, however, that the Popescould not carry on the government of the Church, and support the largebody of officials whose services were absolutely necessary, withoutrequiring help from their subjects in all parts of the world. Duringthe residence of the Popes at Avignon additional expenses wereincurred owing to the necessity of providing residences for themselvesand their court, and, at the same time, the rebellions and disordersin the Papal States put an end to any hope of deriving any revenuefrom their own temporal dominions. On their return to Rome money wasrequired to repair the palaces that had gone into ruin, and to enablethe Popes to maintain their position as patrons of art and literature,and as the leaders of Europe in its struggle against the forces ofIslam.

For this last purpose, namely, to organise the Christian forcesagainst the Turks, the Popes claimed the right of levying a fixed taxon all ecclesiastical property. The amount of this varied from one-thirtieth to one-tenth of the annual revenue, and as a rule it wasraised only for some definite period of years. Even in the days whenthe crusading fever was universal, such a tax excited a great deal ofopposition; but when Europe had grown weary of the struggle, and whenthe Popes could do little owing to the failure of the temporal rulersto respond to their appeals, this form of taxation was resentedbitterly, and the right of the Popes to raise taxes in this way offecclesiastical property was questioned by the ecclesiastics affectedas well as by the temporal rulers. England and France took measures toprotect themselves; but in Germany the absence of any strong centralauthority, and the want of unity among the princes made it difficultto offer any effective resistance to these demands. In 1354, 1372,1459, 1487, and in 1500, the German bishops protested strongly againstthe attempts of the Pope to levy taxes on ecclesiastical property.

But in addition to these extraordinary levies there were manypermanent sources of revenue for the support of the Papal Court. Inthe first place from the time of Boniface IX. annats, which consistedof a certain proportion of the first year's revenue, were to be paidby all clerics on whom a minor benefice was conferred by the Holy See.In case of the major benefices, bishoprics and abbacies, the /servitiacommunia/ and the /servitia minuta/ took the place of annats. The/servitia communia/ was a fixed sum the amount of which depended uponthe annual revenue of the See or abbey, and was divided between thePope and the cardinals of the Curia. The /servitia minuta/, amountingto about 3 1/2 per cent. of the /servitia communia/, was given to thelower officials, who prepared the letters of appointment. The revenuesof vacant Sees and the property of deceased bishops were also claimedby the Holy See. From England the Pope received yearly the Peter'sPence, and from all countries that acknowledged his feudaljurisdiction he was entitled to a definite annual tribute.

Furthermore, the reservations[7] of benefices were another fruitfulsource of revenue. The policy of reserving benefices to the Holy Seemight be defended, on the ground that it was often necessary in orderto counterbalance the interference of secular rulers in regard toecclesiastical appointments, and that it afforded the Pope aconvenient means of rewarding officials whose services were requiredfor the government of the Church. But the right of the Pope to reservebenefices was abused during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,and gave rise to constant friction with the civil and ecclesiasticalauthorities in different countries of Europe. Reservations, instead ofbeing the exception, became very general, and, as a result, the eyesof all ambitious clerics were turned towards Rome from which theyhoped to receive promotion, whether their immediate superiors deemedthem worthy or unworthy. Such a state of affairs opened the way to themost serious abuses, and not unfrequently to disedifying wranglesbetween rival candidates, all of whom claimed to have received theirappointments from Roman officials.

Intimately connected with papal reservations were expectancies orpromises given to certain persons that they would be appointed tocertain benefices as soon as a vacancy would occur. Such promises ofappointment were unknown in the Church before the twelfth century, butlater on they became very general, and led to most serious abusesduring the residence of the Popes at Avignon and during thedisturbances caused by the Great Western Schism. Expectancies wereadopted as a means of raising money or of securing support. Variousattempts were made to put an end to such a disastrous practice, as forexample at the Councils of Constance and Basle, but it was reservedfor the Council of Trent to effect this much needed reform.

Again the custom of handing over benefices /in commendam/, that is ofgiving some person the right of drawing the revenues of a vacantbenefice for a certain specified time, was highly prejudicial to thebest interests of religion. Such a practice, however justifiable incase of benefices to which the care of souls was not attached, wasentirely indefensible when adopted in regard to bishopric, abbacies,and minor benefices, where so much depended upon personal activity andexample. The person who held the benefice /in commendam/ did nothingexcept to draw the revenue attached to his office, while the wholework was committed to an underpaid vicar or representative, who wasobliged often to resort to all kinds of devices to secure sufficientmeans of support. Again though plurality of benefices was prohibitedby several decrees, yet during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuriesnothing was more common than to find one individual holding, by virtueof a papal dispensation, two, three, six, ten, and possibly morebenefices to most of which the care of souls was attached. Such astate of affairs was regarded as an intolerable scandal by rightminded Christians, whether lay or cleric, and was condemned by decreesof Popes and councils; but as exceptions were made in favour ofcardinals or princes, and as even outside these cases dispensationswere given frequently, the evils of plurality continued unabated.

Again, the frequent applications for and concessions of dispensationsin canonical irregularities by the Roman congregations were likely tomake a bad impression, and to arouse the suspicion that wholesomeregulations were being abandoned for the sake of the dispensation feespaid to the officials. Similarly, too, complaints were made about thedispensations given in the marriage impediments, and the abusesalleged against preachers to whose charge the duty of preachingindulgences was committed. Furthermore, the custom of acceptingappeals in the Roman Courts, even when the matters in dispute were ofthe most trivial kind, was prejudicial to the local authorities, whilethe undue prolongation of such suits left the Roman lawyers exposed tothe charge of making fees rather than justice the motive of theirexertions.

The disturbances produced by the schism, and the interference of thestate in episcopal elections helped to secure the appointment of manyunworthy bishops. Even in the worst days of the fifteenth andsixteenth centuries a large proportion of the bishops in the differentcountries of Europe were excellent men, but a large percentage also,especially in Germany, were thoroughly worldly. They were more anxiousabout their position as secular princes or proprietors than about thefulfilment of their sacred duties. Very often they were sprung fromthe nobility, and were appointed on account of their family influencewithout any regard to their qualifications, and, as a rule, the dutiesof visitation, of holding synods, and even of residing in theirdioceses, were neglected. Besides, even when they were anxious to dotheir best, the claims of the lay patrons and the papal reservation ofbenefices made it difficult for them to exercise proper disciplinarycontrol over their clergy. In many cases, too, the cathedral chapterswere utterly demoralised, mainly owing to outside influence in theappointment of the canons. The clergy as a body were very far frombeing as bad as they have been painted by fanatical reformers or bythe followers of Luther. The collections of sermons that have comedown to us, the prayer books for the instruction of the faithful, thecatechisms, the compilations from the Holy Scriptures, the hymns,theological works, and especially the compendiums prepared for the useof those engaged in hearing confessions, give the lie to the charge ofwholesale neglect[8]; but, at the same time the want of sufficientcontrol, the interference of lay patrons in the appointments tobenefices, the absence of seminaries, and the failure of theuniversities to give a proper ecclesiastical training, produced theirnatural effect on a large body of the clergy. Grave charges ofignorance, indifference, concubinage, and simony were not whollygroundless, as the decrees of various councils sufficiently testify.

Many causes contributed to bring about a relaxation of discipline inmany of the religious orders. The uncanonical appointment of abbots,the union of various abbacies in the hands of a single individual, thecustom of holding abbacies /in commendam/, and the wholesale exemptionfrom episcopal authority for which many of the religious orderscontended, are sufficient to account for this general relaxation. Thestate of the various houses and provinces even belonging to the sameorder depended largely on the character of the superiors, and hence itis not fair to judge one country or one province, or even one house,by what happened in other countries, provinces, or houses. Hencearises the difficulty of arriving at any general conclusion about thereligious houses. It is safe, however, to say that with the exceptionof the Carthusians all the older orders required reform. From thebeginning of the fifteenth century attempts were made to restore theold discipline in the Benedictine communities and with considerablesuccess. The Carmelites were divided into two main branches, theCalced and the Discalced; the Franciscans were divided into three mainbodies, the Conventuals, the Observants, and the Capuchins; theDominicans made various efforts to restore the ancient disciplineespecially from about the beginning of the fifteenth century; whilemany of the Augustinians who were determined on reform established newcongregations, as for example, the Discalced Augustinian Hermits, whospread themselves over France, Spain, and Portugal. In addition,various new congregations, amongst them the Oblates founded in 1433 bySt. Francisca Romana, and the Hermit Brothers in 1435 by St. Francisof Paula, were established to meet the necessities of the age.[9]

Unfortunately the endless disputes between the religious and secularclergy[10] at this period tended to distract the attention of bothfrom their spiritual work, and to give rise to considerable disorderand discontent. On the one side, men like the Paris professor, JohnPoilly and Richard Fitzralph, Archbishop of Armagh, were too extremeand seemed inclined to leave to the religious orders no place in theministration of the Church, while on the other, some of the religious,such as the Franciscan, John von Gorrel, wished to assert forthemselves complete independence of episcopal control. Variousattempts were made by Boniface VIII., Benedict XI., Alexander V., JohnXXII., Calixtus III., Sixtus IV., and by the Councils of Constance andBasle to settle these disputes, but without much permanent result. Itwas only in the eleventh session of the Fifth Lateran Council (1516)that Leo X. promulgated the decrees, which in substance hold good atthe present time, fixing the relation between the bishops and theregular clergy.[11]

Many of the fanatical preachers anxious for reform were guilty ofundoubted exaggeration in the pictures which they painted of clericallife at the time, as were also not a few of the Humanists, anxious tocast ridicule on their opponents. But even when all due allowance hasbeen made for these exaggerations in such works as the /OnusEcclesiae/[12] of Bishop Berthold, the rhymed sermons of one of thegreat Franciscan opponents of Luther, Thomas Murner (1475-1537), whichbecame popular in Germany under the titles of the /Narrenbeschworung/and the /Schelmenzunft/, Faber's /Tractatus de Ruinae EcclesiaePlanctu/, the /Encomium Moriae/ of Erasmus, the Dialogues of St.German in England, the /Narrenschiff/ of Sebastian Brant, and thepetitions of the Spanish Cortes, enough remains to convince anyreasonable man that a reform of the clergy was an urgent necessity.

For many years the cry of reform of the Church in its head and membershad been heard in nearly every country of Europe. The justice of sucha demand was admitted universally, but the difficulties in the waywere so great that no Pope cared to risk a generous scheme of reform.Most of the abuses of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries might betraced back to the decline of the papal power during the Avignon exileand the Great Western Schism. When peace was restored to the Church,and when the Popes might have done something for the revival ofecclesiastical discipline, the advocates of the conciliar theoryblocked the way by their extravagant attacks on the Papacy, and bytheir attempts to destroy the supremacy of the Holy See under theguise of reforming the Roman Curia. Besides, it was impossible tocarry through any effective measures for the removal of abuses withoutattacking what were regarded as vested interests, and the holders ofthese interests were determined not to yield without a struggle. Thecardinals wished to restrict the rights of the Pope; the bishopswished to reform the cardinals and the Papal Court; the Paris doctorswished to reform the bishops and the regular clergy; while the regularclergy traced all the evils in the Church to the indifference andneglect of the secular priests. Unfortunately there was no man endowedwith the foresight and the courage of Gregory VII. to put his fingerupon the real cause of the downfall, namely the slavery of the Church,and to lead a campaign for the independence of the spiritual power,particularly for the restoration of free canonical elections.

At the Council of Constance everybody recognised the necessity ofreform, but the jealousies of the various nations, the opposition ofthe interests concerned, and the fear of provoking a new schism, madeit impossible to do more than to adopt temporary expedients, which, itwas hoped, might give some relief. Decrees concerning exemption fromepiscopal authority, the union of benefices, simony, tithes, and theduties of the clerical state were promulgated in the fourteenthsession, and the other questions, upon which the different nationscould not agree, were to be regulated by Concordats with the Holy See.The Concordat with the German nation dealt with canonical election,appeals to Rome, annats, indulgences, dispensations, and thelimitation of excommunication; the English Concordat insisted on theright of England to be represented in the college of cardinals andcontained clauses dealing with indulgences and dispensations; theConcordant with Castile regarded the number of cardinals, thereservation and collation of benefices, annats, /commendams/, appeals,and indulgences; by the Concordat with France it was arranged thatowing to the wars in which France was engaged the annats and othertaxes payable to the Holy See should be reduced considerably. Measuressuch as these were utterly inadequate even had they been observed tothe letter, but in reality complaints were made frequently, especiallyin Germany, that they were disregarded.

The Council which met in Siena (1524) was entirely unrepresentative,and was dissolved without having accomplished anything. But greathopes were expressed that the Council of Basle would formulate andcarry out a thorough scheme of reform. Unfortunately, however, thesehopes were doomed to disappointment. An extreme section, hostile tothe Papacy and determined to weaken its position, dominated theCouncil, and made it impossible to do the work for which the assemblyhad been convoked. Though the council held its first session in 1431,nearly four years passed before any reform decrees were issued. Theydealt with concubinage, excommunication, the abuse of interdicts, andthe abolition of annats and other taxes payable to the Holy See. Theviolence with which the Council assailed Eugene IV., and the fear of anew schism alienated many who were anxious for reform, but who werenot willing to attack the essential prerogatives of the Pope. Theclergy of France met at Bourges in 1432, and with their consent thePragmatic Sanction of Bourges was published by the king in 1438.According to this edict annats were retained, but were reduced to one-fifth of the amount formerly paid, and most of the reformatory decreesof Basle were adopted for use in France. Germany was desirous ofreform, but at the same time unwilling to break with the Holy See, andhence the German nation remained neutral in the disputes betweenEugene IV. and the Council. Finally Germany returned to itsallegiance, and the Concordat of Vienna was signed in 1448, accordingto which the right of the Pope to make appointments to benefices inthe Empire and the amount of the fees to be paid to the Curia wereregulated. This agreement was not regarded with favour in some partsof Germany, and complaints were made frequently by the princes thatthe terms of the agreement were not observed by the Roman officials.England also took steps to protect itself by the Statutes of/Provisors/ and /Praemunire/ (1453). These statutes rendered null andvoid all collations, reservations or provisions of benefices made bythe Holy See in England, and forbade all appeals to the Roman tribunalon questions which could be settled before English tribunals.

During the pontificate of Nicholas V., Calixtus III., and Pius II.,very little was done for reform. The fear that if another GeneralCouncil were convoked the disgraceful scenes of Basle might berepeated, and the dangers which threatened Europe from a Turkishinvasion, seem to have paralysed the Popes, and to have prevented themfrom taking effective measures to abolish evident abuses. Paul II.did, indeed, take action against the Pagan Humanists who barelyconcealed their antipathy to Christianity even in the city of thePopes, but he took no steps to remove the influences which had madesuch a state of affairs possible. As a rule at each successiveconclave the cardinal electors pledged themselves that whichever ofthem should be elected would undertake certain measures, some of whichmight have redounded to the good of the universal Church, others ofthem merely to the advantage of the sacred college itself; but theseelection agreements were always quashed, and the evil was allowed toincrease without check. From the election of Sixtus IV. the tendencywas steadily downwards, till in the days of Alexander VI. the Papacyreached its lowest point. At a time when even people indifferent toreligion were shocked by the state of affairs at the Roman Court, itis no wonder that a zealous and holy ecclesiastic like the greatDominican Savonarola[13] should have denounced these abuses in nouncertain language, and should have warned Alexander VI. of theterrible judgment in store for the Church unless some steps were takento avert the indignation of an offended Almighty. The threats andwarnings of Savonarola were, however, scoffed at as the unbridledoutbursts of a disappointed fanatic, and the cry for reform was putaside as unworthy of attention.

Julius II. (1503-13) was personally above reproach, but thecircumstances of his time allowed him very little opportunity toundertake a generous plan of reform. The recovery of the Papal Statesthat had been frittered away by his predecessors in providingterritories for their family connections, the wars in Italy, and theschemes of Louis XII. forced the Pope to play the part of a soldierrather than that of an ecclesiastic, and delayed the convocation ofthe General Council to which right-minded Christians looked for somerelief. Louis XII., taking advantage of this general desire,forestalled the Pope by inducing some of the cardinals to summon aGeneral Council to meet at Pisa (September 1511). The assembly met atPisa and adjourned to Lyons, but the feeling of loyalty to the Popewas too strong for Louis XII., and the assembly at Lyons could counton very little support outside France. Julius II. determined to summona General Council to meet in Rome for the reformation of the Church.This, the Fifth Lateran Council, as it was called, was opened in May1512, but the earlier sessions were devoted almost entirely to thecondemnation of the French schism, the decrees of the /Conciliabulum/at Lyons, and the Pragmatic Sanction. Before the work of reform couldbe taken in hand Julius XII. died (1513), and the young cardinaldeacon, John de' Medici, ascended the papal throne under the title ofLeo X.

From the new Pope, if one were to judge him by his antecedents, adevelopment of classical learning and art might be expected ratherthan a renewal of religion. Personally Leo X. was not a wicked man. Onthe contrary in his private life he was attentive to his religiousduties, but he was indifferent and inclined to let things shape theirown course. The Lateran Council did, indeed, undertake the restorationof ecclesiastical discipline. It condemned abuses in connexion withthe bestowal of benefices, decreed the reformation of the Curia,especially in regard to taxes, defined the position of the regulars inregard to the bishops of the dioceses in which their houses weresituated, ordered the bishops to enforce their censorship over bookspublished within their jurisdiction, and approved of the Concordatthat had been arranged between Leo and Francis I. (1516).

Such reforms as these were so completely inadequate that they failedto give satisfaction to the host of clerics and laymen who desired athorough reform. The news that the Council was dissolved in March 1517without having grappled with the urgent reform of the Church in itshead and members, sent a thrill of dismay throughout the Christianworld, and secured for Luther the sympathy of many when a few monthslater he opened his campaign at Wittenberg. It was thought at firstthat he aimed merely at the removal of abuses, and in this work hecould have counted upon the active co-operation of some of the leadingGerman ecclesiastics, who showed themselves his strongest opponentsonce they realised that he aimed not so much at reform as at thedestruction of the Church and of all religious authority. ----------

[1] Weiss, /Aeneas Silvius als Papst Pius II./, 1897. Boulting, /Aeneas Silvius, Orator, Man of Letters, Statesman, and Pope/, 1908.

[2] /Vitae Pontificum Romanorum/, etc., 1479.

[3] Thomas, /Le Concordat de 1516/, 1910.

[4] Burcadus, /Diarium Innocen. VIII. et Alex. VI./, Florence, 1884. /Diarium sive rerum urbanarum Commentarii/ (1483-1506), 1883-5.

[5] Infessura, /Diario d. Citta di Roma/, 1890.

[6] Tangl, /Das Taxwesen der papstlichen Kanzlei/, 1892. Samaran et Mollat, /La fiscalite pontificate en France du XVe siecle/, 1905. Kirsch, /Die papstlichen Kollektorien in Deutschland wahrend des 14 Jahr/, 1894.

[7] Lux, /Constitutionum Apostolicarum de generali beneficiorum reservatione ab anno 1265 ad an. 1378/, etc., 1904.

[8] Cf. Gasquet, /Eve of the Reformation/, chap. ix. Janssen, op. cit., Eng. Trans., vol. i., pp. 9-86. Leclerc, /Memoire sur la predication au XIV. siecle/ (/Hist. Litter. de France/, tom. xxiv.).

[9] Helyot, /Hist. des ordres monastiques/, 8 vols., 1714-19. Henrion, /Allgem. Geschichte der Monchsorden/, 1855.

[10] Paulus, /Welt und Ordensklerus beim Ausgange des 13 Jahrh/, etc., 1901.

[11] Raynaldus, /Annal. an./ 1515, 1516.

[12] Published in 1524.

[13] Lucas, /Fra Girolamo Savonarola/, 1906. O'Neill, /Jerome Savonarola/, 1898.