CHAPTER IV

FROM THE TREATY OF MADRID TO THE TREATY OF CRESPI

Treaty of Madrid--League of Cognac--Sack of Rome--Medici driven

from Florence--Battle of Aversa--Treaty of Barcelona--Peace of

Cambray--Charles crowned Emperor--Diets of Spires and

Augsburg--League of Schmalkalde--Zwingle in Switzerland--Peace of

Nuremberg--Barbarossa of Algiers--Renewed war between Charles and

Francis--Truce of Nice--Revolt at Ghent suppressed--The

Anabaptists at Münster--Diet of Ratisbon--Campaign of

1542--Treaties of Crespi and Ardres.

§ 1. _Treaty of Madrid and League of Cognac._

| Behaviour and difficulties of Charles after the

| victory of Pavia.

Charles maintained the same imperturbable composure at the news

of his good fortune as he had displayed in the days when defeat

seemed to stare him in the face. He forbade all public rejoicing. He

attributed all to God, and protested that his only desire was for a

lasting peace, so that he might turn the arms of Christendom against

the Turk. But he had before asserted that the only hope of peace lay

in the submission of France, and he had not changed his mind. Yet

how was that submission to be effected? War was at the moment out

of the question. Charles had no money, and even the payment of the

troops was in arrear. The Peasants’ War still continued in Germany,

and Ferdinand could not help. Henry VIII. might perhaps have been

prevailed upon to invade France, if the Emperor would have recognised

his claim to the French throne; but Charles did not wish to see

England thus aggrandised, and refused all definite promises. Wolsey

therefore had his way, and, in August, concluded a treaty of alliance

with the Regent of France, in which Henry, in return for an annual

pension, promised to demand the liberty of the King on honourable

terms. Italy was forming a league of self-defence, and Clement, though

still full of promises, was known to be playing double. France,

although she had lost an army and her King, was still France, and was

determined to resist invasion to the last penny in her purse, and the

last drop of her blood. War then was not to be thought of; nor did

Charles’ prospects of gaining his end by treaty seem much better. His

demands that Burgundy and Artois should be ceded to him, and that

Bourbon should hold Provence independently of France, were indignantly

rejected. To the mutilation of their territory, the French would not

submit, and the French King declared that he would sooner die in

captivity than buy his freedom by such dishonour. Francis, however,

had not the strength of character of his rival, and presently began to

pine for freedom. Hearing that it was proposed to send him a prisoner

to Naples, he prevailed upon Lannoy to send him to Spain instead

(June), for he hoped much from a personal interview with Charles. He

did not understand the man with whom he had to deal. Nothing is more

remarkable than the tenacity, often amounting to obstinacy, with which

Charles clung to a decision once made. He looked upon his claims to

Artois and Burgundy as just; Burgundy especially was the cradle of

his race, and had been wrongly taken from his grandmother, Mary of

Burgundy; it should be restored to him. In vain Francis and the French

envoys pleaded for some abatement of his demands. Charles remained

unmoved: he even refused to see the King of France until a serious

attack of fever threatened the prisoner’s life. The news that Clement

and the Italians were making a league with France, that Francesco

Maria Sforza of Milan, his own creature, was turning against him; the

attempt of Morone, the Milanese chancellor, to corrupt the honour

of his best general Pescara--an attempt which Pescara,[46] urged by

feelings of loyalty or self-interest, betrayed to his master--all this

had no effect on Charles. Morone was seized, Sforza was declared to

have forfeited his dukedom, and was besieged, in his citadel, by the

imperial troops.

Francis, having recovered from his serious illness, tried to escape;

but the plan was betrayed. There was nothing for it but to abandon

Burgundy; and to this course the queen-mother, Louise of Savoy, now

urged him. Francis accordingly yielded; but, asserting that he alone

could obtain the consent of his people to the cession, offered to

leave his two eldest sons as hostages, and promised to return to

captivity if that consent could not be obtained. Charles was most

unwilling to grant even this, and was supported by his chancellor

Gattinara, who predicted the result. The condition of Italy was,

however, desperate. Pescara died on December 3, urging his master

almost with his last breath to make peace with France, if he would

save Italy; all his other counsellors were of the same opinion.

Charles accordingly gave way, and consented to the Treaty of Madrid.

| The Treaty of Madrid. Jan. 14, 1526.

By this treaty Francis was to cede Tournay, to ‘restore’ Burgundy in

full sovereignty, to surrender all claims on Italy, as well as the

suzerainty over Flanders and Artois. He was to withdraw his protection

from his allies, pay the debt incurred by Charles to England in the

late war, and aid him against the Turk. The Duke of Bourbon was to

regain his forfeited possessions, and to receive besides the Duchy

of Milan. In ratification of the treaty, Francis promised to marry

Eleonora, the widowed Queen of Portugal, sister of the Emperor, and

left his sons as hostages for the fulfilment of the treaty. The treaty

was not, however, worth the paper it was written on. Although Charles

had made Francis swear on the honour of a knight, and on the gospel,

to fulfil the compact or return to captivity, no sooner was the latter

free again than he repudiated it. The day before he signed it, he had

protested to his own ambassadors that he would not consider promises

thus extorted from him as binding, and gave them notice that he did

not mean to keep it. We are astonished to find that this conduct

excited no surprise in Europe. Wolsey actually urged Francis to take

this course, and Clement absolved him from his oath.

| The League of Cognac. May 22, 1526.

The release of the French King, therefore, served but to encourage

the enemies of Charles, and, on May 22, the Pope, Francis, Sforza,

Venice, and Florence concluded the Holy League of Cognac, under the

‘protection of Henry of England.’ Sforza was to be confirmed in his

possession of Milan; all Italian states were to be restored to the

position they held before the war; Charles was to release the young

French princes for a sum of money, and pay his debt to England within

three months. The Leaguers proclaimed their desire to secure a lasting

peace. Charles and all other princes were therefore offered the

opportunity of joining the League. But if the Emperor refused, he was

to be driven not only from the Milanese, but from Naples, which was

then to be held by the Pope on payment of a yearly revenue to France.

Charles was now threatened by a coalition more formidable than any

previous one. Nor was this all. His army was in a mutinous condition

from want of pay and food, and in danger from the determined hostility

of the Italians. Colonna, and Pescara, two of his best generals, were

dead, while Bourbon had quarrelled with Lannoy, the viceroy of Naples.

In Hungary, Solyman was on the point of winning the battle of Mohacs

(August 28, 1526)--a victory which was to give him the larger part of

that country; Francis was negotiating with this enemy of Christendom,

and even Venice declared she preferred to be the vassal of the Turk

rather than of the Emperor.

| Milan capitulates to the Imperialists. July 24, 1526

Fortunately for Charles, the members of the League were not hearty

in the common cause. Francis seemed determined to make up for the

dreary days of imprisonment, and spent his time in hunting and other

pleasures. He expressed the most admirable sentiments as to the

necessity of immediate action, and made use of the League to try and

extort easier terms from Charles, yet did nothing. Wolsey had no

intention of openly breaking with Charles, and prevailed on Henry

VIII. to decline the office of Protector of the League. The Divorce

Question had already arisen, and if this influenced Wolsey to prevent

a reconciliation between Pope and Emperor, it also gave him strong

reasons for not needlessly irritating Charles. Finally, the Duke of

Urbino, the commander of the Venetian army, either from incompetence,

or from a disinclination unduly to extend the power of the Pope,

failed to prosecute the war with vigour. The Imperialists, therefore,

were able to concentrate their efforts on the citadel of Milan, and

on July 24, Sforza was forced to capitulate. The Colonnesi, headed

by the Cardinal Pompeio, now rose, and were supported by Don Hugo de

Monçada, the successor of Pescara. On August 22, they pretended to

come to terms; but no sooner had Clement dismissed his troops, than

Monçada and the Cardinal, rivalling the perfidy of Francis, appeared

before the walls of Rome with the army of the Colonnesi. The citizens,

assured that the Colonnesi only came to deliver them from the tyranny

of the Pope, and threatened with destruction if they stirred, offered

no resistance; the papal palace, the houses of the cardinals and

ambassadors, were sacked; the Church of St. Peter was rifled, and the

Host profaned; and Clement, utterly defenceless, was obliged to submit

to the terms dictated by the victors (September 21). He promised to

recall his troops from Lombardy, to make a four months’ truce with the

Emperor, and to pardon the Colonnesi. The news, however, of the taking

of Cremona by the army of the League inspired him in an evil moment to

break his promises. He sent his troops to ravage the territories of

the Colonnesi, and deprived Cardinal Pompeio of his dignities.

| The sack of Rome. May 6, 1527.

Monçada had told the Emperor to disavow his attack on Rome. This

Charles did, but at the same time warned the College of Cardinals that

if anything befell Christendom, it would be the fault of the Pope who,

in thus joining the League, ‘had sought the satisfaction of his own

desires rather than the honour of Christ and his people’s good.’ The

Emperor also despatched six thousand Spanish troops to Italy, and bade

Ferdinand send eight thousand Germans under Frundsberg. In November,

this enemy of the Papacy crossed the Alps with an army, levied mostly

from the robber fastnesses of Germany, in which there were many

Lutherans. By the end of December, he had reached Piacenza, in spite

of the feeble attempts of the forces of the League to check him. At

the same time Lannoy landed at St. Stefano, in Tuscany, with the

levies from Spain. Clement was now ‘in such a condition that he did

not know where he was,’ says an eye-witness. At one moment he haggled

over terms of peace with Lannoy, at another he threatened him and his

troops with excommunication. Finally, however, on the 15th of March,

he made an eight months’ truce. This did not, however, save him.

Frundsberg had in February been joined by Bourbon with the troops from

Milan. Their first idea had been to attack Florence. Hearing, however,

that the city was prepared to resist, and was protected by the army

of the League under the Duke of Urbino, Bourbon turned on Rome,

declaring that his troops were mutinous and were dragging him there.

As he advanced, his army was swelled by Italians bent on plunder. On

the 6th of May, after being twice repulsed, the fortifications of

the Eternal City were carried, though Bourbon fell, and Rome was for

eight days in the hands of the spoiler. She had suffered much from the

barbarians of old, but probably never did she suffer such brutality as

now at the hands of Christians. The death of Bourbon, and the absence

of Frundsberg, who had been left mortally sick at Bologna, removed

the only men who might have restrained the fury of the soldiery.

The Spaniards excelled in cruelty, the Lutherans in blasphemy and

sacrilege. They sacked and plundered without discrimination of friend

or foe. ‘There is not,’ says a contemporary, ‘a house in Rome, not

a church or monastery, either of Romans or of foreigners, great

or small, which has not been sacked.’ ‘Cardinals,’ says another,

‘bishops, friars, priests, old nuns, infants, dames, pages, servants,

the very poorest, were tormented with unheard-of cruelties, often

three times over: first by the Italians, then by the Spaniards,

afterwards by the lance-knights. Lastly, the villainous Colonnesi

came, dying of hunger, and ravaged what the other soldiers had not

deigned to take.’ The sack of Rome may well be said to close the

period of the greatness of Italy. No longer was she to be the leader

of the new learning and of art.

| Henry VIII. allies himself with Francis. April-May,

| 1527.

| Conference at Amiens. August, 1527.

Meanwhile, the unfortunate Pope lay besieged in the Castle of St.

Angelo. He might have escaped while the city was being sacked; yet

he delayed, trusting that the army of the League would hurry to his

support. It came, indeed, at last; but the Duke of Urbino, declaring

that he was not strong enough to attack, retreated, and, on June 7,

Clement was forced to capitulate. He promised to pay the sums of money

demanded, surrendered six towns as securities, and consented to remain

a prisoner, with his thirteen Cardinals, until the first instalment

should be paid. Some now advised the Emperor to take the lands of the

Papacy and reduce the Pope to his spiritual functions; or, at least,

‘to keep the see apostolic so low that he might always dispose of it

and command it.’ But though Charles declared the sack of Rome to be

the judgment of God, he was probably sincere in regretting it,[47] and

even had he wished to proceed to extremities, he was in no position

to do so. Indeed, the capture of the Pope promised to bring him as

little advantage as that of the King of France had done. The news of

the sack of Rome had at last aroused the pleasure-seeking Francis,

and caused England to change her policy of masterly inactivity. To

this, Wolsey was driven by his imperious master. Henry VIII. was

now bent on divorcing Queen Catherine, the aunt of Charles; it was

therefore of importance, not only to gain the support of Francis, but,

if possible, to earn the gratitude of the Pope. Accordingly, by the

treaties of April 30, and May 29, Henry abandoned his claim to the

French throne in return for a perpetual pension; the infant Princess

Mary was betrothed to the second son of the French King; and England

promised to furnish Francis with money for his Italian campaign. In

the following August, Wolsey held a conference at Amiens with the

French King. It was agreed that, during the captivity of the Pope, no

Bull derogatory to the interests of either King should be admitted

into their territories, that the Churches of France and England

should be administered by their bishops, and that the judgments

pronounced by Wolsey in his legatine and archiepiscopal courts should

be enforced, notwithstanding any papal prohibition. The contracting

parties also decided that the Pope, being in captivity, should be

asked to intrust his power to another, who should take steps to meet

present necessities. Wolsey even suggested that he himself should be

appointed papal Vicar. The pretext for these strange proposals was the

fear that Charles might use the spiritual powers of his prisoner to

their disadvantage, but there is little doubt that Wolsey also hoped

in this way to obtain authority for an immediate settlement of the

divorce question.

| The French again enter Italy. July 30.

Meanwhile, a new French army under Lautrec had invaded Italy, and

shortly secured the whole of Lombardy except Milan itself, which was

stoutly defended by Antonio de Leyva. Had Lautrec concentrated all his

efforts on the city, as he was urged to do by Sforza and the Duke of

Urbino, it must have fallen; for Leyva had but a handful of men, and was

short of money and supplies. Leyva, however, it was known, would fight

to the last; and Lautrec, unwilling to weaken his force by so desperate

an encounter, turned southward to the relief of Clement (October 1527).

The position of the Pope was indeed a pitiable one. Money he had none,

and, without the payment of his ransom, he could not regain his freedom.

Rome, meanwhile, continued to be the victim of the merciless soldiers.

The Duke of Ferrara had seized Reggio and Modena; and even the

Venetians, although the allies of the Pope, had occupied Ravenna and

Cervia, under the pretext that they did it to save those cities from

falling into Ferrarese hands.

| Medici again driven from Florence. May 17, 1527.

Worse than this, the Florentines had in May risen once more against

the Medici, driven the Pope’s two cousins, Alessandro and Ippolito,

from the city, and re-established a Republic under the veteran Nicolo

Capponi. Clement had sacrificed the interests of the Church in his

attempt to strengthen the temporal power and to aggrandise his family,

and this was the result. Before Lautrec reached Rome, however, the

Pope had at least regained his freedom. Charles realised that he was

gaining nothing by keeping Clement in captivity; he earnestly wished

to make peace with him, and to proceed to the extirpation of heresy.

He had therefore ordered Monçada to try to come to terms, warning him

at the same time to beware that he was not tricked, as he himself had

been, by Francis.

| Clement comes to terms with Charles, Nov. 26. But

| flies to Orvieto, Dec. 6.

Accordingly, on November 26, the following agreement was made. The

Pope was to pay a certain sum of money at once, and to promise more.

He undertook not to oppose the Emperor’s designs on Italy; he granted

him a ‘cruzada’ from the ecclesiastical revenues of Spain, and half

of the ecclesiastical tithes of Naples; Ostia, Civita-Vecchia, and

Civita Castellana were to be left in Charles’ hands as guarantees, as

well as five of the cardinals; the Pope was to be freed on the 7th of

the following month. On the preceding night, afraid lest he might even

yet be kept a prisoner, he fled in disguise to the papal stronghold of

Orvieto.

| Critical condition of the Imperialists in Italy.

Even so, the affairs of Charles were going ill. Florence, although

she had expelled the Medici, did not abandon the League. Leyva still

held Milan, but warned Charles that ‘God did not work miracles every

day,’ and that, if not speedily relieved, his troops, though they

would not surrender, would be starved. Genoa had been once more won

for the French by Andrea Doria. Lannoy, the viceroy of Naples, had

just died of the plague, and the imperial army, which had marched,

under the Prince of Orange, to the relief of Naples, was surrounded by

the French army under Lautrec. Naples seemed doomed, and Francis was

jubilant.

| Francis quarrels with Doria.

Yet, as had been the case at every important crisis of this long

struggle, the French, when most confident, were nearest defeat.

Although the troops of the Emperor were ill paid and ill fed, and,

on that account, insubordinate and ready for plunder, they were

decidedly superior to those of Francis, both in powers of endurance

and on the battlefield. They had hitherto been outnumbered, but their

endurance had been wearing out their enemies, and they were soon to be

in a position to meet them in the field. The fate of Naples depended

on the command of the sea, and this was now in the hands of Andrea

Doria and his nephew Filippino. Andrea Doria had taken the lead in

the revolution which had recently restored Genoa to the French. He

soon repented of his deed. Not only did Francis personally affront

him by refusing to pay him properly for the use of his galleys, and

by denying him the ransom of the prisoners he had taken, but he also

touched his patriotism by neglecting Genoa, and attempting to set up

Savona, which the French had lately gained, as her commercial rival.

On Doria’s remonstrance, Francis sent a Breton to take command of the

French fleet in the Mediterranean, and even thought of having the

Doge arrested. Doria accordingly listened to the tempting offers of

the Prince of Orange, and, on the 4th of July, ordered his nephew to

sail from Naples. His departure at once enabled the city to provision

itself from Sicily, and the danger of famine was removed. At this

critical moment, the French army, which had also suffered from want

of supplies, was attacked by a severe outbreak of the plague. To this

Lautrec, with several of his officers, fell a victim, and the army

was so decimated that the Marquis of Saluzzo, who succeeded him in

command, determined to retreat to Aversa (August 28).

| Battle of Aversa, Aug. 28. The French evacuate

| Naples.

| The French finally driven from Genoa. Oct. 28.

| Battle of Landriano. June 20.

As the French attempted to execute this movement, the rear-guard,

under Pedro Navarra, was overtaken by the enemy, and forced to

surrender. The Prince of Orange, following up his success, pursued

the retreating foe, and forced them to capitulate at discretion.

The Marquis of Saluzzo remained a prisoner in his hands with Pedro

Navarra, both to die shortly afterwards. The rest of the army were

allowed to return to their homes under promise not to serve for the

present against the Emperor. Doria now sailed to Genoa, and raised

the city against the French. On the 28th of October, the governor

Trivulzio was forced to capitulate, and Doria was successful in

establishing a government which, if somewhat oligarchical, at least

protected the city from those violent party factions which had torn

it for years, and secured its independence until the year 1796. Doria

then reduced Savona, and the French were driven from the Ligurian

coast. In Lombardy the struggle continued for a while. Here Leyva, who

still held Milan, was opposed by the troops of the League, commanded

by Sforza, the Duke of Urbino with the Venetian troops, and the

Count de St. Pol with the new levies from France. The armies of the

League, after retaking Pavia, had surrounded Milan, but hesitated

to attack the formidable Leyva. In the following June, the Count de

St. Pol, as he rashly attempted to make a diversion on Genoa, was

surprised by Leyva, who had received information of his movements, and

was completely routed at Landriano (June 20). The besieging armies

retreated, and Milan was saved.

Charles was not yet complete master in Italy. Asti and Alessandria

were still in the hands of the French. Lodi, Cremona, and Pavia

were held by Sforza; the Republic at Florence still kept out the

Medici, and Venice yet clung to the eastern coast of Apulia. Further

resistance on the part of the League was, however, hopeless, unless

supported by its more important members, and these were soon to

abandon it. England had never intended to act as a principal in the

war, and was certainly unable to do so at present: she was weakened by

a serious outbreak of the sweating sickness, and the attention of her

King was absorbed in the matter of the divorce.

| Clement and the Emperor reconciled at the Treaty of

| Barcelona.

Still more fatal to the cause of the League was the final

reconciliation of Clement with the Emperor. The real desire of

Clement, since his escape from Rome, had been to maintain his

neutrality until peace was declared. This, however, was difficult,

besieged as he was by the importunate agents of the League, and of

Charles. Moreover, Clement cared chiefly for the temporal interests

of the Papacy and the aggrandisement of his family. To regain the

possessions of which he had been robbed, to re-establish the Medici in

Florence--these, rather than the freedom of Italy, or the overthrow

of heresy, were his aims. As these were not to be gained from the

League, the Pope decided after much hesitation to come to terms with

the Emperor, the more so, because the ultimate success of Charles

seemed certain. Nor can it be denied that, for once, Clement’s private

interests coincided with those of the Church, for reconciliation with

Charles offered the only hope of making head against the formidable

Luther. His only apprehension was that Charles would put into effect

his threat of summoning a General Council, a threat which he had

enforced by his promises to the Diet of Spires in June 1526. On this

point, the Emperor’s agents succeeded in allaying the fears of the

Pope, and no mention of a Council was made in the treaty which was

concluded at Barcelona on the 29th June, 1529. By that treaty the Pope

promised to invest Charles with the kingdom of Naples, and to crown

him Emperor. Charles undertook that the places seized from the Papal

States by the Duke of Ferrara, and by Venice, should be restored; he

also promised to re-establish the Medici in Florence. Finally, they

both agreed to turn their united forces against the infidel and the

heretic. Yet the treaty was to lead to another schism. On the 16th of

July, Clement, yielding to the wishes of Charles, revoked the powers

he had given to Wolsey and Campeggio to try the question of Henry’s

divorce in England, and cited the cause to Rome. Wolsey’s dream of

gaining papal sanction was broken, and soon Henry was to take the

matter into his own hands and cast off the papal supremacy.

| Peace of Cambray. August 3, 1529.

Meanwhile, negotiations for peace between the Emperor and Francis

had been going on. The rivals had, however, challenged each other

to single combat the year before, and their honour did not suffer

them personally to correspond. The negotiations, therefore, had been

conducted by two women--Margaret, Governess of the Netherlands, the

aunt of Charles, and Louise of Savoy, the mother of the French King,

both of whom were anxious for peace. Francis had been most unwilling

to grant the terms demanded, yet he was in no condition to continue

the war, and the reconciliation of Pope and Emperor forced him to

abandon his scruples, and sign the Peace of Cambray, or Women’s Peace,

August 3, 1529.

The French King was indeed freed from the necessity of ceding

Burgundy, and regained his sons, who had been left hostages in the

hands of Charles, in return for a sum of money. The other terms were,

however, sufficiently humiliating. Not only did Francis surrender all

claims to Italy, and to the overlordship of Artois and Flanders; but

he had also to abandon his allies; he even undertook, if necessary, to

force the Venetians to disgorge the conquests they had lately made on

the Neapolitan coast, and this in the face of his solemn engagement

on the honour of a King to include them in any treaty which he might

make. Francis, it must be confessed, rated a King’s word rather low.

The marriage, first arranged at the Treaty of Madrid, was ratified; it

was hoped that if Eleonora, the widowed sister of Charles, were wedded

to Francis, the family tie might serve to heal the personal enmity of

these two sovereigns, whose rivalry had plunged Europe into an eight

years’ war.

| Charles leaves Spain for Italy. August, 1529.

| Settlement of Italian affairs.

Before the negotiations had been brought to a successful issue,

Charles had left Spain. It was his earnest desire to finish the war

himself, and to receive the imperial crown from the hands of the Pope.

It was at Piacenza therefore that he finally ratified the treaty.

Italy was now at the mercy of Charles. He was, however, wise enough

to adopt a conciliatory policy towards all her States, except the

Republic of Florence. Venice was indeed forced to surrender to Charles

her conquests on the east coast of Naples, and to restore Ravenna and

Cervia to the Pope, but was not further punished. To Francesco Maria

Sforza was left the duchy of Milan, with the exception of Monza, which

was granted to Antonio de Leyva, Charles’ brave general, and of the

citadels of Milan and Como, which Charles kept in his own hands.[48]

This policy had its reward. By a treaty of December 23, 1529, Venice

and Sforza joined the Pope in contracting a defensive alliance with

Charles; while Savoy was strengthened as an outpost against France

by the acquisition of the county of Asti. The affairs of Florence

had yet to be settled. Charles would gladly have found some middle

course. But the Florentines refused to readmit the Medici even as

private citizens, and Clement insisted that they should be restored

to power. The city, strengthened by the fortifications designed by

Michael Angelo, and defended by the militia formed after the advice

of Machiavelli, stood an eight months’ siege, during which the Prince

of Orange, Charles’ general, was killed. No one, however, came to the

aid of the unfortunate Republic, which was forced to accept as Duke,

Alessandro, the cousin of the Pope, who had married Margaret, the

illegitimate daughter of the Emperor.[49]

| Charles crowned Emperor at Bologna. Feb. 23, 1530.

Meanwhile, on February 23, Charles had been crowned Emperor at Bologna

by the Pope, and on the following day, the anniversary of his birth,

and of the victory of Pavia, had received the iron crown of Italy.

During this long war, which had lasted eight years, we find the same

story repeated again and again. Thrice the French seemed on the point

of success, only to experience a crushing reverse which snatched from

them all they had gained. The imperialist armies, whether composed

of Germans or of Spaniards, ill paid and ill fed, often broke out in

mutiny, and disgraced their feats of arms by plunder and atrocities

of all kinds; yet no sooner were they called upon to meet the enemy

than they proved themselves superior whether in defensive or offensive

operations; while they were also, as a rule, better led.

Francis, after his capture at Pavia, never appeared in the field

again, and although infinitely better supplied with money from his

subservient people than was Charles, he was too careless and too fond

of pleasure to make full use of his advantage. As for Charles, he

had taken no active part in the campaigns at all. Absent in Spain,

surrounded by difficulties which the vastness of his Empire entailed

upon him, and ever in grievous need of money, it seemed sometimes as

if he were forgetful of the war, and neglectful of his soldiers. Yet

under this callous exterior there was a determination and fixedness of

purpose which nothing could shake, and which, if it sometimes appeared

to be sheer stupidity, yet succeeded in the end.

| Solyman invades Hungary. May, 1529.

| Siege of Vienna raised. Oct. 14, 1523.

While the armies of Charles had thus been engaged in winning Italy

from his Christian rival, Vienna seemed likely to fall into the hands

of the infidel. In May, 1529, Solyman the Magnificent had allied

himself with the Hospodar of Moldavia, and with John Zapolya, Waivode

of Transylvania, the inveterate enemy of the Hapsburgs, and had

invaded Hungary. His pretensions knew no bounds. ‘As there is but one

God in Heaven, so must there be but one lord on earth, and Solyman

is that lord,’ he proudly asserted, a boast which he hoped to carry

into effect by reducing the dominions of the Emperor in Germany. The

Austrians, afraid to trust the fidelity of the Hungarian forces, had

been unable to meet the Turk, and retreated from the country. Solyman,

in possession of the sacred crown of Hungary, which was handed to him

by an Hungarian bishop, passed on into Austria, and on the 20th of

September laid siege to Vienna. But divided though Germany was, it was

not so lost to shame as to allow the Crescent to be established on the

walls of the Austrian city. The Reformers, although irritated by their

treatment at the hands of the second Diet of Spires (cf. p. 198),

answered to the appeal of Ferdinand and to the injunctions of Luther.

Vienna was bravely held; and Solyman, threatened by the levies which

were coming to its aid, was forced to retreat after a fruitless siege

of twenty-four days (October 14). Vienna indeed was saved, but Hungary

was held by Zapolya, and Croatia and Bohemia threatened.

§ 2. _Progress of the Reformation in Germany._

| The Diet of Spires, Aug. 1526, and the Recess.

In the midst of the troubles of the Italian campaign, and in the

face of the hostility of the Pope, any decisive action against the

Reformers had been out of the question. It was at least necessary to

procrastinate. Accordingly, at the Diet of Spires (Aug. 1526), the

Emperor had promised, through his representatives, that a General

Council should be summoned, but that, meanwhile, the penal clauses

of the Edict of Worms should be enforced. At the same time, he had

warned Clement VII. that if the Christian republic should suffer in

consequence of a Council not being summoned, the blame must fall on

him. At the Diet itself, the Catholics found themselves in a majority

in all the chambers, except that of the imperial cities, yet they were

not prepared to advocate extreme measures. The _Recess_[50] declared

that, until a Council should meet, each state should, in matters

appertaining to the Edict of Worms, ‘so live, rule, and conduct itself

as it shall be ready to answer to God and his Imperial Majesty.’ It is

a mistake to hold that the Reformers were thereby authorised to set on

foot their new ecclesiastical organisations. The concession was purely

provisional, and they were to answer to the Emperor for what they did.

None the less, the Elector of Saxony and Philip of Hesse proceeded

to establish their Lutheran churches, and to appropriate monastic

property for the purpose--a policy which was soon followed by others,

especially by Albert of Prussia, who, in 1525, had already secularised

the estates of the Teutonic knights, and converted his mastership into

a dukedom.

Thus the Diet of Spires makes an important advance in the history of

the Reformation. If, on the one hand, it was now clear that Germany

was not to belong exclusively to the Lutherans, on the other, a great

impulse was given to the principle of territorialism (_cujus regio,

ejus religio_), upon which eventually the ecclesiastical settlement of

Germany was to be based. Three years later, the position of affairs

had materially altered. The marked advance of the Reformed opinions

had excited the apprehensions of the Catholics, while the successes

of the Emperor in Italy, and his reconciliation with the Pope, had

strengthened their cause. The rapid growth of the Zwinglian opinions

in the south of Germany, opinions which were wholly distasteful to

Luther, had weakened the Evangelical party, and the rash appeal to

arms on the part of Philip of Hesse, to resist a supposed conspiracy

against those who thought with him, had irritated the Princes.

| Second Diet of Spires. Feb. 1529.

| Meeting at Schmalkalde. Dec. 1529.

This reaction of opinion expressed itself in the second Diet of

Spires. The Recess of 1526 was revoked, all further innovations

were forbidden, and the ‘sect’ of the Zwinglians was refused

all toleration. The minority, indeed, here earned their name of

‘_Protestants_’ by the protest they issued against these decrees--a

protest which was signed by John, Elector of Saxony, Philip of Hesse,

George, Margrave of Brandenburg, Ernest of Luneburg, Wolfgang of

Anhalt, and fourteen imperial cities. But the protest was rejected by

both Diet and Emperor; and so evident was it that Charles only waited

for an opportunity to take decisive action, that a meeting was held at

Schmalkalde, at which the lawfulness of resistance was discussed, to

be abandoned, however, for the present in deference to the scruples of

Luther.

| Charles at the Diet of Augsburg. June, 1530.

When on June 30, 1530, Charles, after eight years’ absence, met

the Diet of Augsburg in person, the moment seemed to have arrived

for a final settlement of his difficulties. Italy was at his feet;

Francis had at last accepted his terms; the Pope had promised to

join with him in suppressing heresy, and had crowned him Emperor;

and, if Hungary was in the hands of Solyman, Germany at least was

free from his attack. The Protestants, conscious of their weakness,

desired reconciliation. This was strongly advocated by Melanchthon,

and breathed in every line of the ‘Confession of Augsburg’ which was

presented to the Diet, at the request of Charles that the Protestants

would express their thoughts in writing. In this famous Confession,

the doctrine of Justification was stated in qualified terms; the

paying of honour to the Saints was not entirely forbidden; although

reasons were given why the Lutherans had permitted the Cup to the

laity, the marriage of the clergy, and the secularisation of Church

lands, and had rejected vows and private masses, no definite assertion

was made as to the number of the Sacraments, or on the question of the

papal power; while the decision of other contested questions was to be

left to the verdict of a General Council. The tone of the document was

avowedly defensive, and its aim was rather to show that the Lutheran

doctrines were not heretical than to attack those of the Church.

| The Recess of Augsburg.

| Reorganisation of the Imperial Chamber. Nov. 19, 1530.

The original intention of Charles had been to act as a mediator, and

to settle the religious dissensions by fair and gentle means. He

had asked the Evangelical party for an expression of their views.

He now wished that their opponents should bring forward a distinct

charge against the Reformers which would allow him to assume the part

of an umpire. But the Catholics in the Diet refused; they declared

that they had nothing new to propose, and accordingly prepared a

confutation in which, indeed, they made some approach towards the

Lutheran view of the doctrine of Justification, but in other respects

insisted on the old doctrines, and demanded that the Protestants

should return to the unity of the faith. The Emperor now abandoned

the _rôle_ of a mediator, and attempted to overawe the recalcitrants

with threats. Alarmed, however, by the determined though respectful

attitude of the Protestant princes, the Diet made one more attempt at

reconciliation, and a small committee was appointed. On the question

of dogma there seemed some chance of agreement, and a General Council

might possibly have broken down the opposition of the Protestants.

But, though this was earnestly desired by the Emperor, the Pope had

no idea of complying with his wish; while on questions relating to

the constitution and the practice of the Church, reconciliation

was probably hopeless. These the Catholics regarded as of Divine

institution; the Protestants, on the other hand, looked upon them

as the work of men, and therefore capable of modification. Erasmus

in his letters bitterly complains of the want of moderation on both

sides; yet this is not the only occasion where attempts at compromise

on serious religious issues have failed. Eventually, Charles adopted

the views of the majority, and the Recess of Augsburg proclaimed his

intention of enforcing the Edict of Worms. The Protestants were given

till the ensuing April to consider whether they would voluntarily

return to the Catholic Church. After that date, measures were to be

taken for the extirpation of their sect. But although the majority

of the Diet had thus shown themselves hostile to the Reformers,

they hesitated to put arms into the hands of the Emperor with which

he might enforce the Edict; rather they proposed to make use of

the Imperial Chamber for the purpose. This court was accordingly

reorganised and increased in number; assessors suspected of Lutheran

tendencies were admonished, and the Chamber was ordered to enforce the

Recess.

| Formation of the League of Schmalkalde. Dec. 22,

| 1530.

In answer to this, the Protestant princes and city deputies met

at Schmalkalde on December 22, 1530. They appointed procurators

to watch their interests before the Imperial Chamber; they agreed

to protect each other from any attempt on its part to enforce the

Recess of Augsburg, and after much debate decided that resistance

was lawful even to the Emperor himself, should he appeal to arms.

Hitherto Luther and the theologians had preached the doctrine of

passive obedience. But the civilians brought forward arguments to

prove that the power of the Emperor was limited by law. His title was

not hereditary, but elective; he had granted capitulations at his

election; if, therefore, he acted illegally, he might be resisted.

Convinced by these arguments, Luther gave way, and was followed

by most of those present, with the exception of the Margrave of

Brandenburg and the city of Nuremberg. Thus originated the League of

Schmalkalde, which was definitely formed in March 1531 and finally

organised in the ensuing December. Its members were to be represented

in a Diet. They promised to furnish contributions to a common fund,

and intrusted the supreme command of their forces to John, Elector

of Saxony, and the Landgrave Philip of Hesse. The formation of the

League of Schmalkalde marks a new period in the struggle. In spite

of the scruples of Luther, the movement had become a political one.

Henceforth Germany was to be divided into two hostile camps, each with

its centre of unity, and the Protestants had taken measures for their

common defence, by arms if necessary.

| Zwingle.

The next crucial question was, whether this League should include all

those both in Switzerland and in Upper Germany, who had embraced the

views of Zwingle. Although it may be doubted whether this Reformer

would ever have been heard of had it not been for the impulse given to

the cry for Reform by the appearance of Luther, yet the two movements

were to a great extent independent of each other, and, from the

first, presented essential points of difference. The son of the

‘Amtmann’ of the village of Weldenhaus, near St. Gall, Zwingle was

born in 1484, a few weeks after Luther. He had in early life been

influenced by the literary movement of the Humanists, and was well

versed in the classics. Chosen as curate of the congregation of Glarus

in 1506, he had accompanied his countrymen on some of the Italian

expeditions, notably on that which ended so disastrously at Marignano,

and henceforth never ceased to warn his fellow-citizens against the

demoralising influences of this mercenary system of warfare.

| Zwingle curate at Zurich. 1519-1525.

It is, however, with his call to be curate at Zurich (1519-1525) that

his career as a Reformer began. Starting, like Luther, with a crusade

against the abuse of indulgences, he soon began to take up different

ground. While Luther did not deny the Real Presence, Zwingle looked

upon the Sacrament merely as a festival of commemoration, and pressed

the Lutheran view of Justification to its logical conclusion--the

doctrine of election and the denial of man’s free will. Luther was

willing to accept anything which could not be proved contrary to

his interpretation of Scripture; Zwingle would accept nothing but

what he found there. Luther had a deep reverence for the Universal

Church, and only left it after a struggle; Zwingle based the right

of each congregation to independent action in matters religious on

the republican organisation of the village. Luther had attempted

to keep religious questions apart from politics, and, when finally

driven from this position, threw himself on the side of authority

as represented by the Princes. The religious ideas of Zwingle were

intimately connected with a scheme of establishing a more thorough and

representative democracy in Switzerland, in which the Forest Cantons

should lose their privilege of holding as many votes in the Federal

Diet as the other and larger Cantons. By the close of the year 1530,

the opinions of Zwingle had not only been accepted by the Cantons of

Zurich, Basel, Bern, and Schaffhausen, and by many of the country-folk

of Appenzell, Glarus, and the Grisons, but had spread among many

of the towns of southern Germany, notably those of Constance, Ulm,

Augsburg, and Strasburg.

| Temporary union between the followers of Luther and

| Zwingle soon comes to an end.

| Reaction against Zwingle in Switzerland.

| The battle and the second Treaty of

| Cappel. Oct. 1531.

Common danger had for a moment drawn the adherents of these two

Reformers together, to protect themselves against the Recess of

the second Diet of Spires. But permanent union between such widely

divergent views was scarcely possible. Philip of Hesse, who was

himself inclined towards the opinions of Zwingle, had attempted

to effect a reconciliation at his castle of Marburg in 1529. The

attempt failed--Luther showing the most uncompromising hostility to

the Zwinglian doctrine concerning the Sacraments--and shortly after,

Zwingle had to face a reaction in his own country. Like so many

reformers, he was wrecked on the shoal of politics. The Forest Cantons

had from the first been the resolute opponents of the new teaching,

not only because they were strongly Catholic, but because Zwingle’s

political reforms, if carried out, would destroy the position they had

hitherto enjoyed in the Federal Diet. His political views also lost

him adherents in those Cantons that were in favour of his doctrinal

position. The Hapsburgs cleverly fostered these divisions; war ensued,

and finally at the battle of Cappel, the army of Zurich, which alone

stood by him to the last, was defeated, and Zwingle himself was

slain (October, 1531). By the second Treaty of Cappel it was agreed

that each Canton was free to retain its own creed. In the ‘Common

Bailiwicks,’ the religion was to be decided by the majority. But no

force was to be used, and the city Cantons were to abandon their

foreign alliances.

Switzerland was now definitely divided into Catholic and Protestant

Cantons. The Catholics regained lost ground, and secured seventeen out

of twenty-nine votes in the Diet. The Evangelical party held Zurich,

Bern, Basel, and Schaffhausen; while Thurgau, Glarus, and Appenzell

were divided. All hope that Switzerland would support the Protestants

of Germany was now over; nevertheless the cities of southern Germany,

deprived of their Swiss allies, were forced to join the Lutherans

and to swell the numbers of the League of Schmalkalde. Thus, by the

commencement of the year 1532, the position of the Protestants in

Germany had improved.

| Charles prevented by European difficulties from

| taking action against the Protestants.

| The Peace of Nuremberg. July, 1532.

Had Charles’ hands been now free, doubtless he would have appealed

to the arbitrament of the sword. But here again his political

necessities stood in his way. The peace with France was by no

means secure; nay, Francis was even intriguing with the League of

Schmalkalde. Solyman was again threatening to invade his dominions.

Spain, as usual, complained of his absence. In Africa the piracies

of Barbarossa demanded his attention. Nor could Charles depend on

the unqualified support of the Catholic princes. In June, 1531, he

had with difficulty secured the election of his brother Ferdinand as

King of the Romans by five of the Electors. But the election had been

protested against by John of Saxony, and he was joined by the two

Dukes of Bavaria and others, who, despite their Catholic sympathies,

dreaded to see the power of the Hapsburgs increased. Disappointed

in his hopes of settling the religious difficulty the Emperor was

forced to procrastinate. At the Peace of Nuremberg (July 1, 1532),

he promised to suspend the proceedings of the Imperial Chamber until

the convocation of a General Council; while at the Diet of Ratisbon,

which followed, he undertook, in the event of such a Council not being

convoked by the Pope within six months, to summon a general assembly

of the Empire for the settlement of the religious difficulties.

Charles was at least rewarded by the loyal support of the Protestants

against the Turk. His army, recruited by Spaniards, Italians, and

Netherlanders, was the largest force he had ever led, and Solyman,

repulsed by the brave defenders of Güns, retreated without having

dared to fight a pitched battle. Yet the Emperor was in no position

to make use of his victory. The affairs of Italy and of Spain

imperatively demanded his presence. Accordingly, in the autumn

of 1532, he crossed the Alps, to be involved again in European

complications, and for seven other years Protestantism was left

unmolested.

| Death of John, Elector of Saxony, 1532.

Shortly after the Peace of Nuremberg, John the Steadfast of Saxony

died. He had gone much further in the direction of Protestantism

than his brother, Frederick the Wise, whom he had succeeded in 1525.

Frederick had never wholly broken from Rome; John had been one of

the leaders in the League of Schmalkalde, and had organised an

Evangelical Church within his territories. Yet, to the last, he tried

to maintain a moderate line of policy, and hoped to find a place for

the protestant churches without breaking up the Empire, or departing

from the obedience of the Emperor. With no remarkable intellectual

gifts--corpulent and somewhat slow-witted,--the simplicity and

honesty of his character, and the courage with which he clung to his

convictions, make him something of a hero; and there is, perhaps, no

one to whom Luther and the Protestants of Germany owe more than to

this plain and single-hearted man.

§ 3. _European complications and the fortunes of the Protestants,

from 1532 to the Treaty of Crespi._

| The European complications of Charles.

At no time during the career of Charles V. are the contradictions

and difficulties which surrounded him better illustrated than during

the period from 1532 to the Treaty of Crespi. Had his claims been

less extensive he might have been more successful; but the very

magnificence of his pretensions prevented the complete realisation of

any one of them. As head of the Holy Roman Empire, it was his duty to

defend the unity of the Church, to put down heresy, and to support

the papal authority. Yet his position as King of Germany forced him

to postpone the suppression of heresy to the imperative necessity of

gaining the support of the Protestants against the Turk; while his

claims on Italy brought him into constant conflict with the Pope.

As King of Germany, it was his aim to increase the royal authority

and suppress the tendencies towards disruption, and, as ruler of

the Austrian territories, to further the family interests of the

Hapsburgs; but both these aims incurred the hostility of many even of

the Catholic princes. As King of Spain and master of Italy, it was

incumbent on him to secure his dominions and the Mediterranean from

the piratical incursions of the Moors. Yet here and everywhere, he was

constantly being thwarted by his persistent rival, Francis I., who

not only intrigued with the Pope against him, but, while persecuting

the Reformers at home, entered into alliances with the Protestants of

Germany, the schismatic King of England, and even the Infidel himself.

| The struggle with Barbarossa. June-August, 1535.

With the actual events of this period we must deal very briefly. They

are not in themselves of great importance. Scarcely any new question

is involved, with the exception of that of Africa, and the position

of European affairs is not very materially altered. Charles had

for the moment checked the attack of the Moslems from the East. He

was now forced to turn his attention to their movement in the

south-west. By the conquests of Ferdinand the Catholic, the Spaniards

had acquired possessions on the north African coast from Melilla to

Tripoli, and reduced the rulers of Algiers and Tunis to the position

of vassals. Since 1510, however, the Spaniards had met with many

reverses, especially since the rise of the two Barbarossas. These two

men, sons of a Greek or Albanian renegade, had made themselves masters

of Algiers. Huroc, the elder, was slain in 1518, but Hayraddin, his

younger brother, interfered in the dynastic disputes of Tunis, and,

in 1534, added that country to his kingdom. To gain the support of

Solyman, he had consented to hold his conquests of him, and, in

1533, received the command of the Turkish fleet. Meanwhile his own

ships had been threatening the Mediterranean, harrying the coasts of

Spain and Italy, and carrying off Christians to the slave-markets of

Africa and the East. This rise of a new Mahometan power in Africa, a

power with which Francis was not ashamed to coquet, demanded instant

attention. Charles, therefore, having renewed his alliance with the

new Pope, Paul III. (Farnese), and settled as far as was possible the

affairs of Italy, passed on to Spain. Thence, with a fleet under the

command of Andrea Doria, and an army which was not only recruited

from various parts of his dominions, but was joined by the Knights

of Malta, he sailed for Africa (June, 1535), nominally in support

of Muley-Hassan, one of the claimants to the kingdom of Tunis. The

expedition proved a brilliant success. Solyman could send no help,

and Francis was either afraid or ashamed to aid. The harbour of

Goletta was taken by storm, and the army of Barbarossa defeated on the

field. The Christian prisoners in Tunis rose against their captors,

and Barbarossa was forced to evacuate the country, which was granted

to Muley-Hassan under the suzerainty of Spain (August, 1535). But

though the expedition caused a great stir and increased the reputation

of the Emperor, it did not materially improve his prospects in Europe.

| The intrigues of Francis.

Francis had never intended to keep the Treaty of Cambray, and

was determined to attempt the recovery of the duchy of Milan at

least. He had accordingly been long intriguing, both in Germany

and Italy. To gain the support of Clement VII. he had consented to

marry his second son, Henry of Orleans, to Catherine de’ Medici, on

condition of a principality being granted to the Duke in Italy, a

principality which might possibly include Milan; but the death of

the Pope (25th September 1534) had disappointed him of his hopes in

this direction. Francis had also opened negotiations with the members

of the League of Schmalkalde--who, however, refused to support one

who persecuted the Protestants in his own kingdom--and had made a

commercial treaty with Solyman, in which the plan of a joint attack

on the Milanese was mooted. Francis had then begun an unsuccessful

intrigue with Francesco Sforza, and, on the execution of his secret

agent Maraviglia, had declared war against that Prince. To reach the

Milanese it was necessary to pass through the dominions of the Duke

of Savoy. Since the days of Charles VIII. of France, Savoy had been

friendly to France, and had given free passage to her troops. But the

present Duke, Charles III., had married Beatrix of Portugal, sister of

the Emperor’s wife, and now refused such passage. Francis therefore

determined to occupy Savoy and Piedmont. At the same time he supported

the Calvinists of Geneva, who were in rebellion against the Duke of

Savoy and their bishop, and stirred up the Swiss of Bern to invade the

district of Vaud.

| Death of Sforza. Oct. 24, 1535.

At this moment, the death of Sforza of Milan (24th October 1535),

altered the position of affairs. He was the last direct descendant

of the House, and Milan accordingly fell to Charles as suzerain. The

Emperor, who had only just concluded the expedition against

Barbarossa, was anxious to gain time, and amused the King with

negotiations. Francis demanded Milan for Henry, Duke of Orleans, his

second son. Charles offered to grant it to the Duke of Angoulême, the

third son of the French King, on condition of his marrying an Austrian

princess.

| The French cross the Alps and occupy Turin. April,

| 1536.

| Charles makes an unsuccessful attack on

| Provence. July-Sept. 1536.

Meanwhile the French had crossed the Alps by the Pass of Susa, and

occupied Turin (April, 1536). Charles now threw off the mask. He

denounced the King as a faithless man, the ally of heretic and

infidel, and challenged him to personal combat, suggesting that

Burgundy and Milan should be the prize of victory. On this being

refused, Antonio de Leyva crossed the Sesia at the head of the

imperial troops (May, 1536). The Marquis of Saluzzo, who commanded

the French army in Piedmont, deserted to the Emperor, and Charles,

neglecting to secure Turin, pressed on into Provence in the hopes of

bringing Francis to a decisive engagement. The French, contrary to

their usual practice, adopted a Fabian policy. They devastated the

country as they retired, and threw themselves into strong positions

at Avignon and Valence. Unable to storm these places, the imperial

army began to suffer from want and disease, to which de Leyva himself

succumbed (September 10, 1536). Charles, despairing of success, was

forced to evacuate the country (September 23), and retired to Spain

‘to bury there his honour which he had lost in Provence.’

| Campaigns in Picardy, Languedoc, Artois, and

| Piedmont.

| Solyman defeats Ferdinand at Essek. Oct. 1537.

| Revolt of Ghent, 1537.

The attack of the Imperialists on Picardy and Languedoc had been

equally unsuccessful, although, during the campaign in Picardy,

Francis lost Robert de la Marck, ‘Le Jeune Aventureux,’ the military

companion of his youth, and the author of the Memoirs which bear his

name. In 1537, the French invaded Artois. The war in Piedmont still

continued, and Solyman, in pursuance of his recent treaty, sent

Barbarossa to attack the coasts of Naples, while, shortly after,

he invaded Hungary in person, and defeated Ferdinand[51] at Essek

(October 8). This alliance of the French with Solyman excited the

indignation of Europe. Paul III., who had hitherto adopted a neutral

attitude, now intervened as mediator. Francis was not unwilling to

treat, and Charles had nothing to hope from a continuance of the

war. The Lutherans were daily gaining strength; the attack of the

Moslem was threatening the imperial hold on Naples; while in the

north, the people of Ghent had risen against the taxes imposed by the

Regent of the Netherlands (1537).

| The Truce of Nice. June 18, 1538.

Accordingly, a truce for ten years was made at Nice (June 18,

1538). By that truce the Peace of Cambray was confirmed. The rivals

abandoned their allies, and each was to retain the conquests they

had made. Thus the Duke of Savoy was made the scapegoat. Savoy and

two-thirds of Piedmont were retained by Francis, the Swiss henceforth

occupied the district of Vaud, and the Emperor held the rest, with the

exception of Nice, which alone was left to the unfortunate Duke. A

conference at Aigues Mortes followed (July 1538), at which Francis,

hoping to gain by conciliation what he had failed to attain by arms,

adopted a most friendly attitude towards Charles. The Marshal de

Montmorency, who had gained a great reputation in the campaign of

Provence, urged the King to ally himself with Charles, and even

suggested a joint invasion of England, where the anti-papal measures

of Henry VIII. and the execution of Bishop Fisher and Sir Thomas More

had excited much discontent. Although Francis stopped short of this,

he turned a deaf ear to the petition for aid which the citizens of

Ghent sent him, and shortly after gave the Emperor a free passage

thither through France.

| Charles suppresses the revolt at Ghent. Feb. 6, 1540.

On the approach of Charles, the city, disappointed in its expectation

of French assistance, submitted (February 6, 1540), to pay dearly

for its rashness. Fourteen of the leading citizens were executed,

the civic privileges were forfeited, a heavy fine was levied, and a

garrison admitted within the walls. This completed the ruin of the

ancient city, whose commercial supremacy, with that of Bruges, had

already passed to Antwerp in consequence of the revolution in the

routes of commerce caused by the discovery of the way round the Cape.

| Advance of Protestantism in Germany.

Now for a moment it appeared as if King and Emperor would lay aside

their long rivalry and unite to resist both heretic and Turk. That

Charles entertained such an idea is not to be wondered at. Solyman,

encouraged by the French alliance, was menacing Hungary once more, and

Barbarossa was still threatening the Mediterranean from Algiers. Nor

was the danger less at home. Protestantism had made notable advances

since the Peace of Nuremberg, 1532. In 1534, Duke Ulrich of Wurtemberg

was restored to his duchy, from which he had been driven by the

Suabian League in 1519, and which had been granted to Ferdinand,

Charles’ brother. The restoration was effected by Philip of Hesse, who

defeated the troops of Ferdinand at the battle of Laufen (May 1534),

but it was also approved of by John Elector of Trèves, who, although

Catholic, was glad to see the House of Hapsburg humbled. Duke Ulrich

forthwith established Protestantism in his duchy; the University of

Tübingen became the stronghold of the Reformers, and a wedge was

driven into the phalanx of Catholic states in South Germany.

| The Anabaptists at Münster, 1534.

| George, Duke of Saxony, and Joachim I., Elector of

| Brandenburg, die and are succeeded by Henry and

| Joachim II. 1535-1539.

In the north, indeed, the outbreak of the Anabaptist revolution at

Münster, under John of Leyden, in the spring of 1534, had threatened

to compromise the Lutheran party. This fanatic, who united unbridled

licentiousness with strange religious views, attempted to establish a

kind of socialistic state of which he proclaimed himself prophet and

king. But only the most heated partisanship could find any connection

between the views of Luther and of this wild fanatic. As had been

the case with the Peasants’ Revolt, Philip of Hesse, one of the most

prominent of the leaguers of Schmalkalde, rallied to the cause of

order. John of Leyden was executed, his followers dispersed, and

Münster restored to its bishop, 1535. Purged from any complicity

with the Anabaptists by the suppression of the revolt, the Lutherans

continued to make fresh converts in the north of Germany. In the year

1535 Joachim I., Elector of Brandenburg, and in 1539 George, Duke of

Saxony, of the Albertine branch of the house, both staunch Catholics,

died. Of their successors, Henry of Saxony actually embraced the

Lutheran creed, and Joachim II. adopted a conciliatory policy; while

his younger brother John, Margrave of the Neumark, became a devoted

adherent of the new opinions. Many other smaller princes followed,

and, by the close of the year 1539, the only important Catholic

states were those of Austria, Bavaria, the Palatinate, the Duchy of

Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, and the three ecclesiastical Electorates;

moreover, the Elector of Cologne, Herman von der Wied, was known to be

wavering. Shortly after, both he and the Elector-Palatine embraced the

Protestant cause.

| Charles anxious for a free hand, makes unsuccessful

| advances to Francis.

The crisis demanded instant action. But this was impossible unless the

neutrality of France could be secured. Charles accordingly offered the

hand of his eldest daughter to the third son of Francis, who, by the

death of the dauphin during the campaign in Provence, had now become

the Duke of Orleans. He promised to cede to the Duke Franche-Comté

and the Netherlands, if Francis, on his part, would grant to him the

duchy of Burgundy, abandon all claim to Milan and to the suzerainty

of Flanders, and restore the conquests in Savoy and Piedmont to the

Duke of Savoy. This would have meant the revival of the old dukedom of

Burgundy, but as a fief of the Empire, and it is doubtful whether in

any case Francis would have acquiesced in the final loss, not only of

his conquests in Piedmont, but also of Milan. In short, the claims on

Italy prevented any agreement. After tedious haggling as to whether

the Duke of Orleans should have instant possession, and whether the

territories should revert to Charles in the event of the Duke’s death

without issue, Charles invested Philip, his son, with the duchy of

Milan (October 1540), and Francis determined to appeal to arms once

more.

| Attempted reconciliation with Protestants at Diet of

| Ratisbon, 1541.

With the prospect of war before him, the Emperor recognised the

impossibility of using force against the Protestants. Reconciliation,

if possible on the basis of comprehension, was the only alternative;

and for that purpose he summoned the Diet of Ratisbon, in the

spring of 1541. For a moment the chances of reconciliation seemed

bright. There had risen of late in Italy a party of reform, led by

Reginald Pole, then a fugitive from England, the Venetian Contarini,

at this moment the papal legate in Germany, and Morone, Bishop of

Modena. This group of literary men, who represented the reaction

against the sceptical spirit which had dominated Italy during the

days of Leo X., approached very closely to Luther’s views on the

doctrine of Justification, and were as eager as he to reform the

abuses which disfigured the Church of Rome. Even Paul III. declared

himself desirous of doing something. At Ratisbon, a conference

of theologians was held, under the presidency of Granvelle, at

which Melanchthon, Bucer, and Dr. Eck,[52] Luther’s old opponent,

appeared, and an agreement was come to on three of the articles of

controversy--Original Sin, Redemption, and Justification. In the

Diet itself, the majority of the Electors and of the deputies of

the cities declared themselves in favour of this agreement, and

Pole rejoiced at the approach of peace and concord. But these hopes

were not to be realised. In the Chamber of Princes the opposition

was very formidable. The Pope insisted that his supremacy and the

Romish view of the Sacraments should be accepted, and Luther could

not bring himself to believe in the sincerity of the Catholics. Even

if the question had been untrammelled by political considerations,

it is very doubtful whether any satisfactory conclusion could have

been arrived at, and politics could not be excluded. Reconciliation

with the Protestants would make Charles too powerful, as master of a

reunited Germany, not to meet with strenuous opposition, both within

and without the Empire. Francis and the Pope brought their intrigues

to bear on the Princes, many of whom were jealous of Hapsburg

influence and dreaded the loss of their political privileges. In vain

did the Emperor suggest that the articles on which the theologians

had agreed should be accepted for the present, and that, with regard

to others, differences of opinion should be tolerated on either

side. The agreement was rejected by the Chamber of Princes, much to

Charles’ indignation. Thus failed the last chance of a reconciliation

between the two religious parties--wrecked on political rivalries--a

reconciliation which might have altered the history of Germany and

even of Europe. Yet, even so, the Protestants gained much. Charles,

anxious for their support during the coming struggle, issued a

declaration by which the enforcement of the Recess of Augsburg was

still further delayed. Those who had secularised ecclesiastical

property were permitted to retain it until the final settlement;

Lutherans were to be admitted as assessors to the Imperial Chamber;

and, until the meeting of a General Council, no one was to be

prevented from adopting Lutheranism. So confident were the Protestants

in the strength of their cause, that when the Duke of Brunswick

attempted, contrary to this Recess, to force the decisions of the

Imperial Chamber on Goslar, he was driven from his duchy by the League

of Schmalkalde (summer of 1542), and the Catholics thus lost the only

important lay principality which they held in Northern Germany.

| Francis again declares war. July 1541.

While Francis had been doing his utmost to perpetuate the religious

divisions in Germany, he had been diligently preparing for war. The

Marshal Montmorency, who had advocated friendship with Charles,

was disgraced; alliances were eagerly sought for; and finally, the

assassination of the French agent as he was passing through the

Milanese on his way to Constantinople (July 3, 1541), gave the French

King a decent pretext for breaking the truce of Nice. War, however,

was not actually declared till 1542. During the interval Charles

suffered two disasters at the hands of the Mahometans. In Hungary,

Solyman, marching to the support of the son of Zapolya (who had died

in 1540), inflicted a crushing defeat on Ferdinand at Buda (July 30,

1541), and in October, an expedition which the Emperor led in person

against Barbarossa in Algiers failed, chiefly owing to wild weather on

the African coasts.

| Attempts of Francis to obtain allies.

The attempts of Francis to procure allies were not very

successful. Henry VIII., at this moment engaged in the war with

James V. which ended in the defeat of the Scots at Solway Moss

(December), was in no humour to support the French, their allies.[53]

Moreover, the old cause of quarrel between the English King and the

Emperor, arising out of the divorce of Catherine of Aragon, had been

in part removed by her death, and all idea of an English alliance

with the Protestants had been abandoned with the divorce of Anne of

Cleves and the fall of Cromwell in 1540. Henry therefore declined

the offers of Francis, and renewed his alliance with Charles. The

Protestants of Germany, satisfied with the concessions of the

Emperor, remained quiet. The Pope, Paul III., adhered to his policy

of neutrality. Solyman, the Kings of Denmark and of Sweden, and the

Duke of Cleves, were therefore the only allies of France. Of these,

Christian III. of Denmark was irritated by the support which Charles

had given to the claims of the Palatinate branch of the Wittelsbach

family on his throne; Gustavus Vasa, of Sweden, by the favour Charles

had shown to a revolt of his peasants; while the Duke of Cleves

disputed the claim of the Emperor to the reversion of Gueldres, in

virtue of the will of Charles of Gueldres, who died without children

in 1538.

| Campaign of 1542.

Francis, contrary to his usual strategy, refrained from directly

attacking the Milanese, and, while he acted on the defensive in

Piedmont, devoted his chief attention to the Netherlands and

Rousillon. The results of the first campaign, 1542, were not

important. Luxembourg was gained, only to be lost, and the invasion of

Rousillon was foiled by the resistance of Perpignan. Nevertheless, at

the beginning of the year 1543, the position of Charles was serious

enough. Solyman was master of most of Hungary and was preparing for a

decisive stroke; Barbarossa was on the point of joining the French in

an attack on Piedmont; the Pope, angry at the refusal of Charles to

invest his grandson, Ottavio Farnese, with Milan, at his concessions

to the Protestants, and at the demand for a General Council, was

leaning towards France; Denmark had closed the Sound to German ships;

moreover, it was very doubtful whether Philip of Hesse, and John

Frederick of Saxony would allow the Duke of Cleves to be overthrown,

more especially as the Duke was the brother-in-law of John Frederick,

and was known to have strong Protestant sympathies.

| Henry allies himself with Charles. Feb., 1543.

The Emperor, however, succeeded in his negotiations with England. On

the death of James V. of Scotland, in 1542, the regent, Mary of Guise,

had rejected all the advances of the English King, and continued

the French alliance. Henry accordingly turned again to Charles. By

the treaty of February 11, 1543, Emperor and King agreed to demand

that Francis should give up his alliance with the Turk, indemnify

the Empire for the sums it had incurred in the Turkish war, and, as

security for the debts he owed the King of England, hand over Boulogne

and other towns. If Francis refused these terms, the allies engaged

themselves to pursue the war till Burgundy should be restored to

Charles, and England had made good her ancient claim to Normandy and

Guienne, and to the crown of France.

| The military events of 1543.

| Diet of Spires, Feb. 1544. Charles gains assistance

| of the Empire against France.

| Success of the Imperialists.

In May, Charles hastily left Spain, and arrived in Germany. He secured

the neutrality of John Frederick of Saxony, entered the territories

of the Duke of Cleves, and forced him to resign his pretensions to

Gueldres (August). In September the joint attack of Barbarossa and

the Count of Enghien, at the head of the French troops, on Nice, was

foiled by the approach of Doria with the Spanish fleet and the army

of Milan. Francis had not even the consolation of success to requite

him for the odium he incurred by his alliance with the infidel. In

Hungary, indeed, the advance of Solyman was unchecked, and by the end

of August nearly the whole of that country had been conquered. But

even this success cost Francis dear. At the Diet of Spires, held

in February 1544, Charles denounced the King of France as an enemy

to Christendom. He informed the Protestants of the offers which

Francis had made in 1539 to assist him against them if he would cede

Milan, and therewith made further concessions with regard to the

religious question. He promised that a general _free_ and Christian

Council should be summoned, and that, if the Pope delayed, he would

next year call a Diet for the final settlement of the religious

question. The Protestants expressed their horror at the unholy

alliance with the Turk, and once more the Emperor secured the aid of

the Empire in his struggle with the French. At the same time, Denmark

abandoned the French alliance. Francis was now threatened by a serious

combination. In Piedmont, indeed, the Count of Enghien won a decisive

victory over the Marquis de Guasto and the army of Milan at Cerisoles

(April 11). But in June, the Imperialists, after reducing Luxembourg,

invaded Champagne and advanced as far as the Marne, while the English

landed on the coast. Had Henry kept his engagement and co-operated

with Charles in a combined attack on Paris, the capital might have

fallen. Intent, however, on his own schemes, he delayed to lay siege

to Boulogne, which did not surrender till September. Indignant at

this breach of faith, anxious to break the dangerous alliance between

Francis and the Turk, and to have a free hand to deal with the

Protestants in Germany, Charles, who was, moreover, in serious want of

money, now offered peace.

| Treaty of Crespi. Sept. 18, 1544.

Francis, largely owing to his intemperate mode of life, was seriously

ill. His mistress, Madame d’Estampes, feared that on his death all

influence would pass to her hated rival, Diana of Poictiers, once

the mistress of the King, now all powerful with the Dauphin. She

was therefore anxious to secure for Orleans, the second son, an

independent sovereignty. He was at enmity with his brother, and might

be of service to her in the future. She therefore urged the King

to accept the Emperor’s terms. Francis listened; and on September

18, 1544, the Treaty of Crespi ended the last war between the two

rivals. All conquests made since the truce of Nice were to be

abandoned. The Emperor renounced his claims on Burgundy, and Francis

gave up his own upon Naples, as well as the suzerainty of Flanders and

Artois. The Emperor further promised to the Duke of Orleans, either

the hand of his daughter, with the Netherlands and Franche-Comté,

or that of his niece, the daughter of Ferdinand, with the duchy

of Milan. Charles retained the right of deciding which of these

two marriages should be carried out; and, on the completion of the

compact, Savoy and Piedmont were to be restored to the Duke Charles

III. Finally, the rivals engaged themselves to unite in defending

Christendom against the Turk, and in restoring peace and unity to the

Church.

| Treaty of Ardres, June 7, 1546.

Henry, complaining bitterly of the Emperor’s desertion, continued his

war with Francis till the summer of 1546. He then promised to restore

Boulogne to Francis within eight years on the payment of a sum of

money, and of the perpetual pension already promised in 1525 and 1527.

The marriage of Orleans, from which the French King hoped so much,

was prevented by the death of the Duke (September 1545). Francis was,

indeed, no longer bound to surrender his conquests in Piedmont and

Savoy, but these were poor compensation for four exhausting wars,

which cost France, it is said, 200,000 men.

| Death of Francis I. March 31, 1547.

Francis survived the Peace of Crespi two years and a half, but these

years are only noticeable for the persecution of the Huguenots in

France, which will be treated of hereafter. On March 31, 1547, he

succumbed to a disease which was the result of his careless life,

just when he was preparing to intervene once more in the affairs of

Germany. Few kings of France were so popular during their lives,

or have retained such a place in history; yet it may be doubted

whether Francis deserved his reputation. His character, though

not wanting in some superficial attractiveness, was shallow and

utterly wanting in high principle. His generosity led him into

gross extravagance. His gallantry was spoilt by an entire absence

of refinement and morality. His chivalry and his love of manly

sports and of the chase, even his literary and artistic tastes,

though praiseworthy in themselves, he shares with many a worthless

character. Nor is it easy to see how he benefited his country, except

by his patronage of art and literature, and by founding the College

of France for the study of languages and science. No doubt his reign

is marked by a great outburst of Renaissance architecture, of which

the Louvre and some of the ‘châteaux’ on the Loire are the best

examples. In literature, Rabelais; in painting, the two Clouets; in

sculpture, Jean Goujon, have earned a European reputation; while of

foreigners, the painters, Leonardo da Vinci and Andrea del Sarto,

and Benvenuto Cellini, the metal-worker and sculptor, were welcomed

at the court. It may, however, be questioned whether this artistic

revival was due to royal patronage, and at least in the more serious

business of government and administration, the name of Francis is

associated with no important measure of reform. During his reign, the

sale of offices became the custom, the corruption of royal officers

increased, and the taxes grew. The independence of the Gallican

Church was destroyed by the Concordat. The Estates-general were only

twice summoned, and gained no further privileges. The nobles, it is

true, were kept in check and amused in the foreign wars, or at the

court; they lost much of their power, which was transferred to the

bureaucracy; but in losing this they lost also their usefulness;

they retained their privileges, they swelled the factions of the

court, and formed a turbulent class which was to disturb France for

many a year. The lower classes rose, indeed, to some prominence in

the service of the State; but they were only powerful as servants

of the King, and as members of a bureaucracy which strangled all

local life and constitutional liberty. In short, during the reign of

Francis the absolutism of the crown increased, without that beneficial

administration which alone can justify it. Nor is his foreign policy

any more worthy of praise. It may be true that he foiled the attempt

of Charles to establish the universal supremacy of the Spanish

Hapsburg monarchy in Europe, yet we can scarce forgive him for his

alliance with the Porte. When we recall his cruel persecutions of

the Huguenots at home, it is difficult to justify his support of the

Lutherans in Germany. Jealous of the ascendency of Charles, he plunged

his country into war as carelessly as a knight of old entered the

lists, and, in spite of the lessons of the past, he grasped after

the bauble of a kingdom beyond the Alps, and neglected to strengthen

or extend the true frontiers of his country. A good captain of a

division, rather than a general: a pleasant, clever, but wicked man,

and a bad King, ‘Le roi galant homme’ left behind him an absolute

monarchy, unchecked and unsupported by any constitutional system, an

encumbered revenue, a heavy debt, a corrupt government, an immoral

court, a factious nobility, and a nation flushed with the lust of

war, and disturbed by religious discord. The troubles which came on

France after the King’s death are in part at least attributable to his

policy, and yet it is these very troubles which, by contrast, have led

historians to judge more favourably of his reign than it deserves.

FOOTNOTES:

[46] On the question of Pescara’s motives, cf. Baumgarten,

_Geschichte Karl V._, ii. 453.

[47] On Charles’ responsibility for the sack of Rome,

cf. Armstrong’s _Charles V._, i. 172.

[48] On Francesco’s death in 1535, the duchy was annexed by the

Emperor.

[49] On the assassination of Alessandro, 1537, Cosimo of the

younger branch of the Medici became Duke.

[50] The Recess (_Reichsabscheid_) was the collection of the

Decrees of the Diet which had received the assent of the Emperor

(_Reichsschlüsse_).

[51] Ferdinand had been recognised as King of Hungary after the

death of Lewis at Mohacs (cf. p. 184). But his claim was opposed

by Zapolya, Woivode of Transylvania, who was supported by

Solyman.

[52] Eck, however, had opposed it throughout. Granvelle the

chancellor, Gropper and Pflug, two Catholic divines, were in

favour of it.

[53] James had married (1) Magdalen, daughter of Francis I.; (2)

Mary of Guise.