Page images



The tension had just reached its highest point when the death of Charles V., on September 21st, 1558, put an end to the difficulty with regard to his abdication. An end to the whole unhappy dispute was very much to be desired, all the more so as the highly influential Gropper pointed out the dangers which a refusal to acknowledge Ferdinand would entail.1 It was only the uncatholic attitude of Maximilian, the principal cause of the scandal, which caused Paul IV. to persist in his protest. Before the obsequies of Charles V. were held, on December 12th, the Pope warned the Cardinals and ambassadors that by holding funeral solemnities, the authority of the Holy See in the question of the abdication of the Imperial would be prejudiced, and a right would be indirectly deduced from it.2 The nuncios were at the same time instructed to communicate this protest to the Kings of France and

Constance decisions.

GRAUERT has, with his usual thoroughness, shown in the Histor. Jahrb., XVI., 519, and in the Histor.-polit. BL, CXX., 643 seq., how the Protestants at that time brought the name of Dante into the ecclesiastical and political dispute.

1 See SCHMID, Kaiserwahl., 29 seq. The supposition put forward here that a more conciliatory tone prevailed at the Curia is confirmed by the *Avvisi of October 22 and 29, 1558 (Cod. Urb. 1038, p. 346, 348. Vatican Library).

2 See RIBIER, II., 774; MASSARELLI, 328; FIRMANUS, 574; SCHMIDT, Zeitschr. für Gesch., VIII., II. Concerning the rejection of the ambassador, Juan Figueroa, sent to Rome by Philip II. in November, see MASSARELLI, 327; LAEMMER, Melet., 208 seq.; *Avviso di Roma of December 10, 1558 (loc. cit. Vatican Library) ; REIMANN, Streit, 329 seq.; SCHMID, Kaiserwahl, 32. Concerning the adjustment of this matter, hitherto unknown, B. Pia reports to Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga from Rome, on July 19, 1559: *Fu hieri quasi all'improviso fatta congregatione inanzi a N.S. nell'anticamera dell'inquisitione per la cosa del s. Don Giov. Figheroa, il quale con molta lode che la S. S. disse di lui et col voto dei cardinali fu rimesso et admesso nella gratia di S. B. et per ambasciatore della Mtà Catt. (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). The incident which led to the holding of the requiem for Charles V. at S. Giacomo in Rome, on March 4, 1559, is treated in the Annales de S. Louis, IX., 265 seq.

Poland, as well as the non-recognition of Ferdinand. This was the answer to Vargas' intimation that Ferdinand intended to submit the dispute to the Electors.1 A sharp brief to the King of the Romans had already been drawn up,2 when the fall of the Pope's nephews caused the dispute to recede into the background; no settlement, however, was arrived at, in spite of a renewed Spanish attempt at mediation.3 Fortunately no further steps were taken by the Pope, for a serious vindication of the law in this secular question against the Empire would have had the worst possible effects upon even the spiritual rights of the Holy See.

It is natural that no one should be willing to part with any rights he may possess, and therefore, from a purely human point of view, Paul IV. cannot be blamed if, as the representative of an eminently conservative authority, he would not abandon the ideally thought out relationship between the two powers, and the position held by the Holy See in the Middle Ages. Paul IV., however, should have realized that the interests of the Church in Germany would not be served by his clinging to the medieval idea of the Imperial dignity, and the pressing of claims, the granting of which must have the effect of driving the Hapsburgs into the closest union with everything hostile, and even into close alliance with the Protestant states of the Empire. How great was the danger that lay in this course of action, may best be understood from

1 See SCHMID, Kaiserwahl, 31 seq.

2 It is in the *Vat. 6216, p. 301 (Vatican Library). Cf. SCHMID, loc. cit. 33-34, who rightly concludes that it was never sent.

3 Cf. REIMANN, Streit, 314 seq. In the Histor. Zeitschr., XXXII., 268 seq., MAURENBRECHER maintains that Paul IV. at last declared that he was prepared to refrain from official proceedings in the matter, and would settle it amicably, and gives as his authority the report of F. v. Thurns in SICKEL, 27 seq., which, however, refers to Pius IV.

Cf. BUCHOLTZ, VII., 461.



the hopes which the innovators built on the Papal opposition to the head of the Empire, who, in spite of everything, was still the most important support of the Church in Germany.1

1 See JANNSEN-PASTOR, IV.,14-16 69 seq.


MARY THE CATHOLIC AND the Legation of Cardinal POLE.

THE reproach of unwise severity, which may, with justice, be brought against Paul IV. in his dealings with Ferdinand I., has also been made with regard to his attitude towards the Kingdom of England. In this case, however, the blame may be said to be only partly justified.

In the second week after the coronation of Paul IV., on June 6th, 1555, the "obedientia" embassy, which had been appointed in the time of Julius III., arrived in Rome.1 An honourable reception was accorded to the ambassadors, Thirlby, Bishop of Ely, Edward Carne, and Viscount Montague, by the members of the Pope's household, the Cardinals, and the Roman nobility. The difficulty arising from the fact that in the letters of credence, the royal title was used with regard to Ireland, was overcome by the Pope's raising Ireland to be a kingdom by a bull of June 7th.2 Then the public consistory was held on June 10th, 1555, in which the representatives of England made the solemn "obedientia" in the Sala Regia of the Vatican. The Bishop of Ely, in his speech, drew special attention to the repeal of the anti-papal laws by Parliament, and begged for reunion with the Church. Paul IV. answered graciously, praised the zeal of the sovereigns and of Cardinal Pole, and reminded his hearers that he had himself been in England as a collector of Peter's Pence, and had thus become acquainted with the generosity of the English people. He ordered that a special service of thanksgiving should be held in the church of S. Maria in Aracoeli. There was a

1 Cf. Vol. XIII. of this work, p. 288. Thirlby's diary during his journey as ambassador is printed in HARDWICKE, State Papers, I., 62-102.

2 Bull. VI., 489 seq.; cf. BELLESHEIM, Gesch. der Kirche in Irland, II., 108.


361 banquet to the ambassadors on the same day, and a magnificent illumination of the Castle of St. Angelo in the evening.1

Joyful demonstrations of this kind seemed to be justified, in so far as England was now once more officially united to the Holy See. Nevertheless the future of the Church there was by no means assured. An active party was at work in England, and was making use of every means, not only to drive the Catholic religion once more out of the country, but also to undermine the authority of Queen Mary, its principal supporter.

The rebellions of Northumberland and Wyatt had been, to a great extent, the work of the Protestants.2 The calumnies and fables related concerning the Spaniards and the Spanish marriage were originated by the same party. When the revolts failed, the battle against the queen was continued by pamphlets. Even in the time of Henry VIII., the Imperial ambassador, Chapuys, could report that the invectives of the German Lutheran preachers were nothing in comparison with the abuse of their English co-religionists, whose printed pamphlets now went to the greatest lengths in the insults which they hurled at the queen and her ministers. These publications were circulated everywhere; one such, which bristled with aspersions on her Majesty and her ministers, and threatened her with the worst in the event of Philip's arrival, was even found, in April 1554, on the table of the royal kitchen.5

The principal question dealt with in these writings was the lawfulness of women being in possession of the supreme power. While the preachers had nothing to say against the sovereignty of Lady Jane Grey, in Mary's case they found it to be against the Word of God and the laws of the land, that the supreme power over men should be in the hands of a woman. Mary's

1 Cf. MASSARELLI, 273, 274, 275; COGGIOLA, Farnesi, 76; PAGLIUCCHI, 134.

2 See Vol. XIII. of this work, p. 265.

3 See Ibid. 261 seq.

4 GAYANGOS, V., 1, n. 26, p. 83.

5 BREEN in the Dublin Review, CXVII., 118.

« PreviousContinue »