THE HUSSITE MOVEMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF CONSTANCE, 1409-1418
Questions before the Council of Constance—The Hussite Movement—Its
Political Aspect—Exodus of Germans from Prague—Hus at the Council of
Constance—Parties at Constance—Hus imprisoned—Attacks on John
XXIII.—His flight—Triumph of Sigismund—Deposition of John XXIII.—The
Council during Sigismund’s absence—Sigismund’s journey—Dissensions
in the Council—Election of Martin V.—Dissolution of the Council.
The Council of Constance, like that of Pisa, had two very [Sidenote:
Questions before the Council of Constance.] obvious questions to
consider: (1) the restoration of unity; and (2), if the reforming party
could have its way, the reform of the Church in its head and members.
But circumstances forced the Council to consider a third question, which
had never been even touched in the discussions at Pisa. This was
reformation in its widest sense: not merely a constitutional change in
the relations of Pope and hierarchy, but a vital change in dogma and
ritual. This question was brought to the front by the so-called Hussite
movement in Bohemia. The fundamental issues involved were those which
have been at the bottom of most subsequent disputes in the Christian
Church. How far was the Christianity of the day unlike the Christianity
to be found in the record of Christ and His Apostles? And the
difference, if any, was it a real and necessary difference consequent on
the development of society, or was it the result of abuses and
innovations introduced by fallible men? The orthodox took their stand
upon the unity and authority of the Church. The Church was the true
foundation of Christ and the inheritor of His spirit. Therefore what the
Church believed and taught, that alone was the true Christian doctrine:
and the forms and ceremonies of the Church were the necessary aids to
faith. The reformers, on the other hand, looked to Scripture for the
fundamental rules of life and conduct. Any deviation from these rules,
no matter on what authority, must be superfluous, and might very
probably be harmful.
The Hussite movement was older than Hus, and it was [Sidenote: The
Hussite movement.] partly native and partly foreign in its origin. The
first impulse to religious reform is to be found, in Bohemia as in
England, in the dissensions between the parish clergy and the mendicant
orders. The latter, being in immediate dependence upon the Papacy, were
not subject to the ordinary authority of the bishops, and soon learned
to consider themselves superior to the parish clergy. The bishops
usually supported their own dependants, while the friars often found a
powerful ally in the Pope. One result of this long-standing quarrel was
that the people learned to question the authority of their
ecclesiastical superiors. Wherever it is necessary or possible to take
one of two sides, a certain amount of thought and independence is called
into exercise by the choice. This first questioning spirit among the
Bohemians was taken advantage of by a series of reforming teachers in
the fourteenth century, of whom the best known are Konrad Waldhäuser,
Milecz of Kremsier, and Mathias of Janow. These men attacked the
degradation of the Church, the vices of monks and friars, the wealth and
worldliness of the higher clergy. But it was not until the rise of Hus
that there was any system in the demand for reform, or any cohesion
among the reformers. And the systematic teaching of Hus was for the most
part derived from the great English teacher, John Wyclif. It was a rule
in the University of Prague that Bachelors of Arts might not deliver
their own lectures, but must expound the teaching of distinguished
professors either of Prague, Paris, or Oxford. The marriage of Anne of
Bohemia, Wenzel’s sister, with Richard II. led to considerable
intercourse between England and Bohemia. Many Bohemian students, notably
the friend and disciple of Hus, Jerome of Prague, completed part of
their course in Oxford, and returned to their native land carrying with
them Wyclif’s treatises, or the record and recollection of his oral
teaching. Wyclif, like the Bohemian reformers, had begun by quarrelling
with the friars and denouncing the vices of the clergy. The disputes
with the Avignon Popes had led him on to attack the extreme claims of
papal authority: and gradually he had come to question some of the most
prominent dogmas of the Church, notably that of transubstantiation. Hus
was at first reluctant to accept all the conclusions of Wyclif, but he
advanced step by step in the same direction, and in the end it was as
the avowed disciple of the English reformer that he became the leader of
a religious party in Bohemia.
But it is important to remember that the Hussite movement had a secular
as well as an ecclesiastical side. Bohemia [Sidenote: Political aspect
of the Hussite movement.] was a Slav state, and for centuries there had
been a conflict between Slavs and Germans. At one time the Slavs had
advanced along the southern shores of the Baltic almost as far as the
North Sea. But, harassed by the attacks of the Magyars, they had been
unable to hold their own, and had gradually been subdued or driven
eastwards by German influences, represented by the Dukes of Saxony, the
Margraves of Brandenburg, the Hanseatic League, and finally the
crusading order of the Teutonic Knights. At the end of the fourteenth
century this steady eastward advance of the Germans met with a severe,
and to some extent a permanent, check. No doubt the chief agency in
effecting this was the success of the Jagellon kings of Poland in their
war with the Teutonic Order. But the Hussite movement belongs to the
same Slav reaction, and for a time contributed almost as directly as
Polish victories to assure the successful resistance of the Slavs. Hus
himself, born of humble parentage in the village of Husinec, was
profoundly imbued with popular sympathies, and lost no opportunity of
identifying himself and his teaching with the national cause. And in
this aim he was served by events in the University of Prague, where he
early rose to a distinguished position. Founded in the days of Bohemian
ascendency under Charles IV., the University had from the first
attracted a large number of German teachers and students, and had become
far larger and more distinguished than any purely German university.
Like the Paris University, on which it had been modelled, it was divided
into four nations—Bohemians, Poles, Bavarians, and Saxons. After the
foundation of a Polish university at Cracow, the Polish nation at Prague
had come to be composed mainly of Germans from Silesia, Pomerania, and
Prussia. Thus to all intents and purposes the University was composed of
two nations, Germans and Bohemians, of whom the former had three times
as much power as the latter. In all questions which were decided by the
vote of the nations, the Germans had three votes to one, and as offices
went in rotation to the four nations, they had three turns to the
Bohemian one. As the divergent interests of Slavs and Germans became
accentuated by political and religious differences, the inferiority of
the Bohemians in their own University became more and more of a
grievance. It was on religious questions that the quarrel was most
embittered. The majority of the orthodox party in the University
consisted of Germans, and they denounced the growth of Wycliffite
heresy. A German teacher brought forward a number of propositions which
had been attributed to Wyclif and condemned by a Synod in London. In
spite of the opposition of Hus and his Bohemian supporters, the majority
in the University voted that the doctrines were heretical, and
prohibited their teaching. Wenzel, who was at this time supporting the
rebellious cardinals, was anxious that his intervention should not be
weakened by the charge of the prevalence of heresy in his dominions, and
was at first inclined to support the majority. But when he applied to
the University for their approval of the Council of Pisa, he found the
Bohemians ready to acquiesce, while the Germans were mostly on the side
of the Roman Pope. At this moment the so-called ‘contest of the three
votes’ was at its height, and Hus had adroitly come forward as the
champion of the cause of his fellow-countrymen. In the hope of
forwarding his ecclesiastical policy, Wenzel was induced to intervene in
the University quarrel. In January 1409 he issued an edict that
henceforth the Bohemians should have three votes and three turns in
office, while the foreign nations were only to have one between them.
The Germans protested vigorously, and as they failed to obtain redress,
determined to leave Prague. The roads were crowded with the emigrants,
and it was reckoned that on one day two thousand Germans took their
departure.
The exodus of the Germans from Prague is an important [Sidenote: Exodus
of the Germans from Prague.] historical event. For sixty years Prague
had been the capital of Germany, partly as the residence of the Emperor,
and partly as the seat of the leading University. With the students had
come German traders, who had made Prague a commercial as well as an
intellectual centre. All this came to a sudden end in 1409. Prague lost
its prominence among German towns. Other universities were strengthened
by the addition of the exiles from Bohemia; and a large number of them
founded a new university at Leipzig. Germany received a great
intellectual impulse, which was strengthened rather than weakened by the
loss of a general centre. And for Bohemia the consequences were no less
important. The German element in the country received a blow which was
fatal to its further development for two centuries. At the same time the
great dam which had hitherto impeded the spread of the new religious
doctrines was removed. The rapidity with which the people received the
Wycliffite or Hussite teaching shows not only that the soil was already
well prepared for the seed, but also the strength of the national
antipathy to foreigners.
With the departure of the Germans, all opposition to the recognition of
the Council of Pisa by Bohemia came to an end. But the religious dispute
was as far from a settlement as ever. Although the people were inclined
to regard Hus as the champion of the national cause, there was still a
large orthodox party among the upper classes, and the clergy were
resolutely opposed to doctrinal reform. Alexander V. issued a bull
ordering the Archbishop of Prague to put down heresy, and Wyclif’s
writings were publicly burned. Hus appealed from the Pope ill-informed
to the Pope when he should be better informed. In 1412 the quarrel was
envenomed. John XXIII. had proclaimed a crusade against Ladislas of
Naples, and endeavoured to raise money by the sale of indulgences. Hus
protested against such an iniquity as vigorously as did Luther a century
later, and the papal bull was burned in the public square. Riots broke
out in Prague, and Bohemia seemed to be on the verge of civil war.
Wenzel could only obtain a temporary truce by persuading Hus to retire
for a time into the country. Meanwhile Sigismund had succeeded in
inducing John XXIII. to summon a General Council, and anxious to pacify
his future kingdom, he invited Hus to attend. The reformer’s friends
warned him of the danger he would run in accepting the invitation, but
Hus was eager to state his opinions before an assembly of Christendom,
and on receiving a promise of [Sidenote: Hus invited to Constance.] a
personal safe-conduct from Sigismund, he arrived in Constance on
November 3, 1414.
The Council of Constance is one of the most notable [Sidenote: The
Council of Constance.] assemblies in the history of the world. In the
number and fame of its members, in the importance of its objects, and
above all, in the dramatic interest of its records, it has few rivals.
It is like the meeting of two worlds, the old and the new, the mediæval
and the modern. We find there represented views which have hardly yet
been fully accepted, which have occupied the best minds of succeeding
centuries: at the same time, the Council itself and its ceremonial carry
us back to the times of the Roman Empire, when Church and State were
scarcely yet dual, and when Christianity was co-extensive with one
united Empire. At Constance all the ideas, religious and political, of
the Middle Ages seem to be put upon their trial. If that trial had ended
in condemnation, there could be no fitter point to mark the division
between mediæval and modern history. But the verdict was acquittal, or
at least a partial acquittal; and the old system was allowed, under
modified conditions, a lease of life for another century. It must not be
forgotten that there were great secular as well as ecclesiastical
interests involved in the Council. Princes and nobles were present as
well as cardinals and prelates. The Council may be regarded not only as
a great assembly of the Church, but also as a great diet of the mediæval
empire.
The man who had done more than any one to procure the summons of the
Council, and whose interests were most closely [Sidenote: Parties at
Constance.] bound up in its success, was Sigismund, King of the Romans
and potential Emperor. He was eager to terminate the schism, and to
bring about such a reform in the Church as would prevent the recurrence
of similar scandals. But his motive in this was not merely disinterested
devotion to the interests of the Church. He wished to revive the
prestige of the Holy Roman Empire, and to gratify his own personal
vanity, by posing as the secular head of Christendom and the arbiter of
its disputes. More especially he wished to restore the authority of the
monarchy in Germany, and to put an end to that anarchic independence of
the princes, of which the recent schism was both the illustration and
the result. In pursuing this aim he was confronted by the champions of
‘liberty’ and princely interests, who were represented at Constance by
the Archbishop of Mainz and Frederick of Hapsburg, Count of Tyrol. The
archbishop, John of Nassau, had been prominent in effecting and
prolonging the schism in the Empire. He was a firm supporter of John
XXIII., and had no interest in attending the Council except to thwart
the designs of the king, whom he had been the last to accept. Frederick
of Tyrol was the youngest son of that Duke Leopold who had fallen at
Sempach in the war with the Swiss. Of his father’s possessions Frederick
had inherited Tyrol and the Swabian lands, and the propinquity of his
territories made him a powerful personage at Constance. His family was
the chief rival of the House of Luxemburg for ascendency in eastern
Germany, and he himself seems to have cherished a personal grudge
against Sigismund. To these enemies Sigismund could oppose two loyal
allies, the Elector Palatine Lewis, who had completely abandoned the
anti-Luxemburg policy pursued by his father Rupert, and Frederick of
Hohenzollern, the most prominent representative of national sentiment in
Germany, who had already given in Brandenburg an example of that
restoration of order which he wished Sigismund to effect throughout his
dominions.
Of the clerical members of the Council the most prominent at the
commencement was the Pope John XXIII. He had been forced by his
difficulties in Italy to issue the summons, but as the time for the
meeting approached he felt more and more misgiving. His one object was
to maintain himself in office; but he was conscious that neither
Sigismund nor the cardinals would hesitate to throw him over if he stood
in the way of the restoration of unity. He therefore allied himself with
Sigismund’s opponents, the Elector of Mainz and Frederick of Tyrol, and
spared no pains to bring about dissension between Sigismund and the
Council.
The assembled clergy may be divided roughly into two parties: the
reformers, and the conservative or ultramontane [Sidenote: Clerical
parties.] party. The reformers were not in favour of any radical change
in the Church. They were if anything more vehemently opposed than their
antagonists to the doctrines of Wyclif and Hus. Such reform as they
desired was aristocratic rather than democratic. They had no intention
of weakening the authority of the Church; but within the Church they
desired to remove gross abuses, and to strengthen the hierarchy as
against the Papacy. Their chief contention was that a General Council
has supreme authority, even over the Pope, and they wished such councils
to meet at regular intervals. By this means papal absolutism would be
limited by a sort of oligarchical parliament within the Church. The
conservatives, on the other hand, consisting chiefly of the cardinals
and Italian prelates, had no wish to alter a system under which they
enjoyed material advantages. Their object, as it had been at Pisa, was
to restore the union of the Church, but to defeat, or at any rate
postpone, any schemes of reform.
The Council was opened on November 5, but the meeting was only formal,
and no real business was transacted for a month. Meanwhile Hus had been
followed to Constance by the representatives of the orthodox party in
Bohemia, who brought a formidable list of charges against the reformer.
John XXIII. at once saw in this an opportunity for embroiling the
Council with Sigismund. Adroitly keeping himself in the background, he
allowed the cardinals to take the lead in the matter. They summoned Hus
to appear before them, and in spite of his protest that he was only
answerable to the whole Council, they committed [Sidenote: Hus
imprisoned.] him to prison. The news that his safe-conduct had been so
insultingly disregarded reached Sigismund as he was starting for
Constance after the coronation ceremony at Aachen. He arrived on
Christmas day, and at once demanded that Hus should be released. The
Pope excused himself, and threw the blame on the cardinals. To the
king’s right to protect his subject the cardinals opposed their duty to
suppress heresy. In high dudgeon, Sigismund declared that he would leave
the Council to its fate, and actually set out on his return journey. The
Pope was jubilant at the success of his wiles. But Sigismund’s friends,
and especially Frederick of Hohenzollern, urged him not to sacrifice the
interests of Germany and of Christendom for the sake of a heretic. This
advice, and the feeling that his personal reputation was staked on the
success of the Council, triumphed. Sigismund returned to Constance, and
Hus remained a prisoner. From this moment John XXIII. began to despair.
The Pope’s position became worse when the Council, copying the procedure
of the universities, began to discuss matters, [Sidenote: Attacks on
John XXIII.] not in a general assembly, but each nation separately. This
deprived John of the advantage which he hoped to gain from the numerical
majority of Italian prelates attending the Council. Four nations
organised themselves: Italians, French, Germans, and English. Over the
last three John XXIII. had no hold whatever. To his disgust they treated
him, not as the legitimate Pope, whose authority was to be vindicated
against his rivals, but as one of three schismatic Popes, whose
retirement was a necessary condition of the restoration of unity. When
he tried to evade their demand, they brought unanswerable charges
against his personal character, and threatened to depose him. He tried
to disarm hostility by declaring his readiness to resign if the other
Popes would do the same. His promise was welcomed with enthusiasm, but
neither Sigismund nor his supporters were softened by it. In spite of
the vehement protests of the Elector of Mainz that he would obey no Pope
but John XXIII., the proposal was made to proceed to a new election.
John had to fall back upon his last expedient. If he departed from
Constance he might throw the Council into fatal [Sidenote: The Pope’s
flight.] confusion: at the worst he could maintain himself as an
Antipope, as Gregory and Benedict had done against the Council of Pisa.
His ally Frederick of Tyrol was prepared to assist him. Frederick
arranged a tournament outside the walls, and while this absorbed public
interest, the Pope escaped from Constance in the disguise of a groom,
and made his way to Schaffhausen, a strong castle of the Hapsburg count.
For the moment John XXIII. seemed not unlikely to gain his end.
Constance was thrown into confusion by the news of [Sidenote: Triumph of
Sigismund.] his flight. The mob rushed to pillage the papal residence.
The Italian and Austrian prelates prepared to leave the city, and the
Council was on the verge of dissolution. But Sigismund’s zeal and energy
succeeded in averting such a disaster. He restored order in the city,
persuaded the prelates to remain, and took prompt measures to punish his
rebellious vassal. An armed force under Frederick of Hohenzollern
succeeded in capturing not only John XXIII. but also Frederick of Tyrol.
The latter was compelled to undergo public humiliation, and to hand over
his territories to his suzerain on condition that his life should be
spared. No such exercise of imperial power had been witnessed in Germany
since the days of the Hohenstaufen, and Sigismund chose this auspicious
moment to secure a powerful supporter within the electoral college by
handing over the electorate of Brandenburg to Frederick of Nürnberg
(April 30, 1415). He thus established a dynasty which was destined to
play a great part in German history, and ultimately to create a new
German Empire.
The unsuccessful flight of John XXIII. not only enabled Sigismund to
assume a more authoritative position in the Council and in Germany: it
also sealed his own fate. The Council had no longer any hesitation
[Sidenote: Deposition of John XXIII.] in proceeding to the formal
deposition of the Pope (May 29, 1415). As the two Popes who had been
deposed at Pisa had never been recognised at Constance, the Church was
now without a head. But instead of hastening to fill the vacancy, the
Council turned aside to the suppression of heresy and the trial of Hus.
On three occasions, the 5th, 7th, and 8th of June, Hus was heard before
a general session. No point in his teaching excited greater
animadversion than his contention that a priest, whether Pope or
prelate, forfeited his office by the commission of mortal sin. With
great cunning his accusers drew him on to extend this doctrine to
temporal princes. This was enough to complete the alienation of
Sigismund, and after the third day’s trial he was the first to pronounce
in [Sidenote: Execution of Hus.] favour of condemnation. The last
obstacle in the way of the prosecution was thus removed, and Hus was
burned in a meadow outside the city walls on July 6, 1415.
With the death of Hus ends the first and most eventful period of the
Council of Constance. Within these seven or eight months Sigismund and
the reforming party, thanks to [Sidenote: The Council during Sigismund’s
absence.] the division of the Council into nations, seemed to have
gained a signal success. Sigismund had purchased his triumph by breaking
his pledge to Hus, and for this he was to pay a heavy penalty in the
subsequent disturbances in Bohemia. But for the moment these were not
foreseen, and Sigismund was jubilantly eager to prosecute his scheme.
Warned by the experience of its predecessor at Pisa, the Council of
Constance was careful not to put too much trust in paper decrees. John
XXIII. was not only deposed, but a prisoner. Gregory XII. had given a
conditional promise of resignation, and had so few supporters as to be
of slight importance. But Benedict XIII. was still strong in the
allegiance of the Spanish kingdoms, and unless they could be detached
from his cause there was little prospect of ending the schism. This task
Sigismund volunteered to undertake, and he also proposed to avert the
impending war between England and France, to reconcile the Burgundian
and Armagnac parties in the latter country, and to negotiate peace
between the King of Poland and the Teutonic Knights. It would indeed be
a revival of the imperial idea if its representative could thus act as a
general mediator in European quarrels. The Council welcomed the offer
with enthusiasm, and showed their loyalty to Sigismund by deciding to
postpone all important questions till his return. And this decision was
actually adhered to. During the sixteen months of Sigismund’s absence
(July 15, 1415, to January 27, 1417) only two prominent subjects were
considered by the Council. One was the trial of Jerome of Prague, which
was a mere corollary of that of Hus, and ended in a similar sentence.
The other was the thorny question raised by the proposed condemnation of
the writings of Jean Petit, a Burgundian partisan who had defended the
murder of the Duke of Orleans. The leader of the attack upon Jean Petit
was Gerson, the learned and eloquent chancellor of the University of
Paris. But so completely had the matter become a party question, and so
great was the influence of the Duke of Burgundy, that the Council could
not be induced to go further than a general condemnation of the doctrine
of lawful tyrannicide; and Gerson’s activity in the matter provoked such
ill-will that after the close of the Council he could not venture to
return to France, which was then completely under Burgundian and English
domination.
It is impossible to narrate here the story of Sigismund’s [Sidenote:
Sigismund’s journey.] journey, though it abounds with illustrations of
his impulsive character and of the attitude of the western states
towards the imperial pretensions. It furnished conclusive proofs, if any
were needed, that however the Council, for its own ends, might welcome
the authority of a secular head, national sentiment was far too strongly
developed to give any chance of success to a projected revival of the
mediæval empire. As regards his immediate object, Sigismund was able to
achieve some results. He failed to induce Benedict XIII. to abdicate,
but the quibbles of the veteran intriguer exhausted the patience of his
supporters, and at a conference at Narbonne the Spanish kings agreed to
desert him and to adhere to the Council of Constance (December 1415).
But Sigismund’s more ambitious schemes came to nothing. So far from
preventing a war between England and France, he only forwarded an
alliance between Henry V. and the Duke of Burgundy, and though he may
have done this in the hope of forcing peace upon France, the result was
to make the war more disastrous and prolonged.
When Sigismund reappeared in Constance (January 27, [Sidenote:
Dissensions in the Council.] 1417), he found that the state of affairs
both in Germany and in the Council had altered for the worse. Frederick
of Tyrol had returned to his dominions and had been welcomed by his
subjects. The Archbishop of Mainz had renewed his intrigues, and an
attempt had even been made to release John XXIII. With the Elector
Palatine, formerly his loyal supporter, Sigismund had quarrelled on
money matters, and it seemed possible that the four Rhenish electors
would form a league against Sigismund as they had done against Wenzel in
1400. Still more galling was his loss of influence in the Council. The
adhesion of the Spanish kingdoms had been followed by the arrival of
Spanish prelates, who formed a fifth nation and strengthened the party
opposed to reform. The war between England and France had created a
quarrel between the two nations at Constance, and the French deserted
the cause they had once championed rather than vote with their enemies.
Sigismund could only rely upon the English and the Germans: and the
question which agitated the Council was one of vital importance. Which
was to come first, the election of a new Pope, or the adoption of a
scheme of ecclesiastical reform? The conservatives contended that the
Church could hardly be said to exist without its head; that no reform
would be valid until the normal constitution of the Church was restored.
On the other hand, it was urged that no reform was possible unless the
supremacy of a General Council was fully recognised; that certain
questions could be more easily discussed and settled during a vacancy;
that if the reforms were agreed upon, a new Pope could be pledged to
accept them, whereas a Pope elected at once could prevent all reform.
Party spirit ran extremely high, and it seemed almost impossible to
effect an agreement. Sigismund was openly denounced as a heretic, while
he in turn threatened to imprison the cardinals for contumacy. But
gradually the balance turned against the reformers. Some of the leading
German bishops were bribed to change their votes. The head of the
English representatives, Robert Hallam, Bishop of Salisbury, died at the
critical moment, and the influence of Henry Beaufort, the future
cardinal, induced the English nation to support an immediate election.
It was agreed that a new Pope should be chosen at once, and that the
Council should then proceed to the work of reform. But the only
preliminary concession that Sigismund and his party could obtain was the
issue of a decree in October 1417, that another Council should meet
within five years, a second within seven years, and that afterwards a
Council should be regularly held every ten years.
For the new election it was decided that the twenty-three cardinals
should be joined by thirty delegates of the Council, six from each
nation. The conclave met on November 8, and three days later their
choice [Sidenote: Election of Martin V., Nov. 11, 1417.] fell upon
Cardinal Oddo Colonna, who took the name of Martin V. Even the defeated
party could not refrain from sharing in the general enthusiasm at the
restoration of unity after forty years of schism. But their fears as to
the ultimate fate of the cause of reform were fully justified. Soon
after his election Martin declared that it was impious to appeal to a
Council against a papal decision. Such a declaration, as Gerson said,
nullified the acts of the Councils of Pisa and Constance, including the
election of the Pope himself. In their indignation the members made a
strong appeal to the Pope to fulfil the conditions agreed upon before
his election. But Martin had a weapon to hand which had been furnished
by the Council itself. It was the division into nations that had led to
the fall of John XXIII., and it was the same division into nations that
had ruined the prospects of reform. The Pope now drew up a few scanty
articles of reform, which he offered as separate concordats to the
French, Germans, and English. It was a dangerous expedient for a Pope to
adopt, because it seemed to imply the separate existence of national
churches; but it answered its immediate purpose. Martin could contend
that there was no longer any work for the Council to do, and he
dissolved it in May 1418. He set out [Sidenote: Dissolution of the
Council, May, 1418.] for Italy, where a difficult task awaited him.
Papal authority in Rome had ceased with the flight of John XXIII. in
1414. Sigismund offered the Pope a residence in some German city, but
Martin wisely refused. The support of his own family, the Colonnas,
enabled him to re-enter Rome in 1421. By that time almost all traces of
the schism had disappeared. Gregory XII. was dead: John XXIII. had
recently died in Florence: Benedict XIII. still held out in his fortress
of Peniscola, but was impotent in his isolation.