Page images
PDF
EPUB

THE

PRINCIPAL CANDIDATES.

57

In consequence of the many different parties in the Sacred College, the Romans were prepared for a long conclave, but the general opinion was that the representatives of the Catholic reform party, Carafa, Morone and Pole had once more the best prospects of success.1

The decision was again on this occasion in the hands of the neutrals, for the Imperial party, led by Santa Fiora and Madruzzo, was only twenty strong, while the French had at most only fifteen votes, and they were not even united, as their most distinguished members, Cardinals d'Este, du Bellay and Alessandro Farnese, all had quite different objects in view.2

Cardinal d'Este had already done everything in his power, even before the beginning of the conclave, to secure the tiara at last. He met with the greatest opposition, however, on the part of the Imperialists, for the Emperor objected to the elevation of Este to the Papal throne as heartily as Henry II. desired it. Duke Ercole II., in particular, worked on behalf of his brother, Cardinal d'Este; he had come to Rome to pay homage to Marcellus II., and was still staying there. Both of the brothers sought, above all, to win the favour of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, who stood so high in the estimation of all the members of the Sacred College that a great deal depended upon his influence.3

1 See the *report of U. Gozzadini of May 7, 1555 (loc. cit.) and the letter of Ippolito Capilupi of May 9, 1555 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). Cf. the reports in L. LATINIUS, Lucubr. II., 32; RIBIER, II., 609; Legaz. di Serristori, 354; COGGIOLA, Conclave, 68 seq., 79 seq.; Segmüller, Wahl Pauls IV., 3; MASIUS, Briefe, 201. The opinion of REUMONT (III., 2, 513) that no one had thought of Carafa being elected, is quite erroneous. Atanagi says expressly in his letter of May 1: "Teatino è in maggior predicamento di tutti" (TARDUCCI, 73). Carafa is mentioned even in the " Pasquille " as the most likely candidate; see PadigLIONE, La Bibl. del Museo naz. di S. Martino, Naples, 1876, 308. 2 Cf. the report of Avanson in Ribier, II., 612.

3 Cf. the numerous contemporary reports in COGGIOLA, Conclave, 81 seq. Concerning the intrigues of Este see also the Portuguese report in SANTAREM, XII., 425.

Farnese's candidate was his friend Pole, from whom he looked for the advancement of his family interests. When Farnese had started from France for the conclave of Marcellus II. he had succeeded in winning over even Henry II. for the English Cardinal, but he had arrived too late in Rome on that occasion. All the more eagerly, then, did he now wish to promote Pole's candidature, since he was also agreeable to Philip II. and the Emperor.1 He remained true to him even though immediately before the beginning of the conclave instructions arrived from the French king that he should work in the first place for Este.2 The intrigues of the two Este brothers to win over Farnese by tempting promises and an agreement about an alliance between the two families were also unsuccessful. In the same way an attempt of the Este to win over, through Cosimo I., the Cardinals of Julius III., to their side proved vain.3 The prospects of the Cardinal of Ferrara were thus practically destroyed even before the beginning of the conclave.

The candidature of Pole also soon proved to be impossible. The fact that he was still in England, and that they did not care to elect an absentee, stood in his way on this occasion as it had done at the last election, and it soon became apparent that some of the Imperialists, as well as the French, were opposed to him. In this Cardinals Carpi, Alvarez de Toledo and Carafa were especially prominent, as they doubted Pole's orthodoxy, and accused him of erroneous opinions as to certain controverted points of faith, such as the doctrine of justification. This, which had already destroyed Pole's chances in the conclave of Julius III., was not without effect on this occasion also, even though the accusation was by no means proved.

1 See SAGMÜLLER, Papstwahlen, 211; COGGIOLA, Conclave, 209 seq. 2 Farnese had counter-representations made to Henry II. through his agent in Paris; see CARO-FARNESE, Lettere, II., 188 seq.; SÄGMÜLLER, loc. cit. 215.

3 See the reports in COGGIOLA, Conclave, 83 seqq., 205 seqq.

4 See the reports in COGGIOLA, Conclave, 212 seqq.; cf. RIBIER, II., 610 and the report of the Portuguese ambassador concerning

CANDIDATURE OF CARAFA.

59

The candidate with the best prospects of success, therefore, was the Dean, Cardinal Carafa, whose orthodoxy could be as little called in question as his distinguished qualities and his blameless life, although he was generally feared, if not hated, by the worldly Cardinals, such as Este and Santa Fiora, on account of his great severity. Some of the stricter Cardinals also took offence at his peculiar character and abrupt manner.1 The fact that the other candidates had no chance of success was in his favour, as was the goodwill of the reform party and of the French. Henry II. had placed Carafa second among his favoured candidates; the Emperor, on the other hand, had given instructions to the Spanish party to prevent the election of this man, whom he had never liked.3 Juan de Mendoza, who was the ambassador-extraordinary for the obedientia" of Charles V. to Marcellus II., is said to have gone so far as to tell Carafa to his face that he might as well give up all thoughts of the tiara, as the Emperor had excluded him. To this Carafa made the dignified answer that the the conclave dated Rome, June 18, 1555, in the Corpo dipl. Port., VII., 414. Coggiola (loc. cit.) emphasizes the fact that Carafa bona fide doubted the orthodoxy of Pole, but that the other two Cardinals were only actuated by selfish motives.

[ocr errors]

1 See L. Firmani Diaria caerem. in MERKLE, II., 509.

2 See the report of Avanson in RIBIER, II., 612.

3 The statement of PETRUCELLI (II., 94), that the Imperial ambassador, Juan Manrique, had instructions to exclude Carafa, but was not to make the fact public except in case of need and at the right moment, seems quite worthy of belief (see SÄGMÜLLER, Papastwahlen, 212 seqq.) Manrique informed the Imperialist Cardinals of the wishes of Charles V., and named the four candidates of Philip II. and the Emperor (see his letter of May 15 in Druffel-Brandi, IV., 674 seqq.); a number of the Imperialist Cardinals did not act in accordance with this communication, of which fact Manrique bitterly complained (see his letter of May 24 in DRuffel-BrandI, IV., 674, n. 3, and a second letter from Manrique to Charles V., dated Rome, May 25, 1555, in which he says: *Hemos acordado el Camarlengo e yo de embiar una viva voz presente a todo lo que passo en conclavi. [The ambassador was Lottino; see RIBIER, II., 612; BROWN, VI., 1,

Emperor could not prevent his election if God wished it, and that in such a case, he would have the advantage of having only God to thank for his elevation.1

It was of decisive importance that Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, in view of the difficulties which made the election of Pole impossible, showed himself more and more favourable to Carafa, and at last used all his influence and skill on his behalf.

Any united action on the part of the Imperialists was prevented by the fact that Cardinals Alvarez de Toledo and Carpi were working with the greatest energy for their own election. These ambitious men, however, were soon obliged to give up their hopes, as they did not possess the support of Farnese, and, in addition, had a dangerous rival in the person of Morone. Farnese absolutely refused to favour these candidates; thereupon the Camerlengo, Guido Ascanio Sforza di Santa Fiora, the acknowledged leader of the Imperialist party, and Madruzzo, turned their attention to one of the Cardinals of Julius III., the very distinguished Puteo, who was eminent alike for his learning and his moral life, and who, although he was a Provençal by birth, was nevertheless

n. 130; COGGIOLA, Conclave, 472; Nonciat., II., 582 seqq.]) After a short account of the course of the election, Manrique especially accuses Alvarez de Toledo and Carpi (cf. infra n. 2) and praises Lottino, *el qual es persona que a estado en los dos conclaves y en dambos a servido quanto a podido de bien y solicitamente y ingeniosamente (Archives at Simancas, Leg. 882, n. 30). 1 See CIACONIUS, III., 824; RIESS, 6, n. 14.

2 Cf. the reports in COGGIOLA, Conclave, 460 seqq., and Corpo dipl. Port., VII., 414 seq. B. Pia reported on May 18, 1555: *La prattica di Morone va strettissima da questa sera in qua et in banche le sue polize sono andate a 40 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). The fault of Cardinal Alvarez de Toledo and Carpi is sharply commented on by Manrique in the *letter to Charles V. on May 25, 1555, mentioned above: *Estos dos fueron los que hizieron todo el danno y dieron el exemplo y comensaron a romper los nostros (Archives at Simancas, loc. cit.) Cf. also Pacheco's letter in DRUFFEL-BRANDI, IV., 674.

CARDINAL PUTEO.

61

devoted to the Emperor, so that he appeared to be agreeable to all parties.1 Not only all the Imperialists, but also the older neutral Cardinals declared themselves in favour of Puteo. Finally, Madruzzo informed Farnese of this plan, pointing out that Pole was made impossible by his absence while Morone and Carpi had been excluded by the French, and Carafa by the Spaniards. The shrewd Farnese would not, however, make any promise; he declared that he must, at anyrate, await the arrival of Cardinal Bourbon; otherwise he considered Puteo very worthy of the triple crown, though he would prefer Pole.

While the twenty-five Cardinals who had been won over to the cause of Puteo were making preparations for the elevation of their candidate to the throne of St. Peter, without the agreement of the French, great excitement prevailed among the rival party. This group, which had assembled in the Pauline Chapel, consisted, apart from the Frenchmen, du Bellay, Armagnac, Guise, and Lenoncourt,2 of Cardinals d'Este, Giulio della Rovere, Capodiferro, Dandino, Sermoneta, Innocenzo del Monte, Nobili, Mignanelli, and Ranuccio Farnese. Their fears were further increased when it was rumoured that Alessandro Farnese had gone over to the side of Puteo. This, however, was not the case; on the contrary,

1 For the following cf. the description by Panvinio in MERKLE, II., 268 n. who received very accurate information from those who had taken part in the conclave; his account was later confirmed by the letter of the Bishop of Pola to Duke O. Farnese on May 23, 1555, published by COGGIOLA (Conclave, 466 seqq.) The decisive part taken by Farnese in the election of Paul IV. had already been emphasized by SEGNI (Storie fiorent., IV., 898). The report of Lucretio Tassone to the Marchese Sigismondo d'Este, published by MOTTA in the Miscell. d. stor. Lomb., Castello Sforzesco, 1903, 112 seq., maintain quite erroneously that Este had been the principal person in deciding the election in favour of Carafa; there is not even mention of Farnese in this biassed account!

2 Lenoncourt had arrived in the conclave on May 22; cf. MASSARELLI, 265 and COGGIOLA, Conclave, 467.

« PreviousContinue »