[833] Chron. Augustens. ann. 1260 (Freher. et Struv. I. 546-7).
[834] Michel, Théat. Franç. au Moyen Age, p. 23.
[835] Guillel. de Nangis ann. 1299.
[836] Cæsar. Heisterbach. Dial. Mirac. Dist. XII. c. xx. xxi.
[837] Chron. Casinens. Lib. III. cap. xxxix.
[838] Concil. Hammaburg. ann. 1406 (Hartzheim VI. 2).
[839] Constit. Sicular. Lib. III. Tit. 25 c. 1.
It is possible that Frederick’s legislation may have attracted
attention to the irregularities of the Neapolitan church, for in 1230
Gregory IX. addressed an encyclical letter to the prelates of that
kingdom “præsertim super cohabitatione mulierum;” and two years later
he deemed it necessary to repeat his admonitions.—Raynaldi Annal. ann.
1230 No. 20.
[840] Baluz. et Mansi I. 211.
[841] Specul. Saxon. Lib. III. art. 45.
[842] Richstich Landrecht, Lib. II. c. 25.
[843] Michelet, Origines des Loix, p. 68. This popular phrase gives
point to the story told by Henri Estienne of a German ambassador to
Rome, to whom, on his farewell audience, the pope gave a message to
his master, commencing, “Tell our well-beloved son”—The honest Teuton
could not contain himself at what he took to be a flagrant insult, and
he interrupted the diplomatic courtesies with an angry exclamation that
his noble master was not the son of a priest.—Apol. pour Herodote, Liv.
I. chap. iii.
[844] This admirable prelate, after enjoying the episcopate for
twenty-seven years, was at length deposed in 1274 by Gregory X., at
the council of Lyons, in consequence of his excesses “præsertem de
deflorationibus virginum, stupris matronarum et incestibus monialium”
(Chron. Cornel. Zanfliet, ann. 1272). For some details of his excesses,
see the epistle addressed to him by Gregory X. in Hardouin, Concil. T.
VII. p. 665. As Gregory had been archdeacon of Liége, he was probably
familiar with the subject. Henry’s promotion to the see of Liége was
part of the policy of Innocent IV. in elevating William of Holland,
his brother, to the imperial throne as a competitor to Frederic II. By
special dispensation Henry had enjoyed the see for ten years before he
was ordained to the priesthood, and after his degradation he infested
the bishopric for twelve years, until his death, one of his exploits
being the killing of his successor, John of Enghien.—Hist. Monast. S.
Laurent. Leodiens. Lib. V. c. 69 (Martene Ampl. Collect. IV. 1105).
[845] Concil. German. ann. 1225 c. 5 (Hartzheim III. 521). This council
was assembled to check the prevalent vices of concubinage and simony,
and its elaborate provisions show how fruitless previous efforts had
been.
[846] Gudeni Cod. Diplom. II. 36.—Not a few testaments of this kind are
preserved.
[847] Concil. Fritzlar. ann. 1246 can. xi. (Hartzheim III. 574).
[848] Concil. Coloniens. ann. 1260 c. 1.
[849] Concil. Mogunt. ann. 1261 can. xxvii. xxxix. (Hartzheim III.
604, 607). The latter canon is very prolix and earnest, and inveighs
strongly against the “cullagium,” or payment exacted by archdeacons and
deans for permitting irregularities. The authorities apparently grew
gradually tired of attempting the impossible. In 1284 the council of
Passau, in a series of long and elaborate canons, contented itself with
a vague threat of prosecuting priests who publicly kept concubines, and
with prohibiting them from ostentatiously celebrating the marriage of
their children.—Concil. Patav. ann. 1284 can. ix. xxxi. (Ibid. pp. 675,
679).
[850] Synod. Olomucens. ann. 1342 cap. viii. (Hartzheim IV. 338).
[851] Synod. Wratislav. ann. 1416 § 1 (Hartzheim V. 153).
[852] Concil. Melfitan. ann. 1284 c. v. (Martene Ampl. Coll. VII.
285-6).
[853] Giannone, Apologia cap. XIV.—Ancarono gave his name to one of
the most celebrated colleges of law in Bologna.—Bruni Vita Gabrielis
Palæoti c. 4 (Martene Ampl. Coll. VI. 1390).
[854] Gobelinæ Personæ Cosmodrom. Ætat. VI. c. 92, 93.—How utterly
monastic discipline was neglected in Germany is shown by the fact that
a century earlier, in 1307, a council of Cologne found it necessary
to denounce the frequency with which nuns were seduced, left their
convents, lived in open and public profligacy, and then returned
unblushingly to their establishments, where they seem to have been
received as a matter of course.—Concil. Colon. ann. 1307 c. xvii.
(Hartzheim IV. 113). That this had little effect is proved by a
repetition of the threats of punishment, three years later (Concil.
Colon. ann. 1310 c. ix.; Hartzheim IV. 122). In 1347, John van Arckel,
Bishop of Utrecht, was obliged to prohibit men from having access to
the nunneries of his diocese, in order to put an end to the scandals
which were apparently frequent (Hartzheim IV. 350). In 1350, the
Emperor Charles IV. felt called upon to address an earnest remonstrance
to the Archbishop of Mainz concerning the unclerical habits of his
canons and clergy who spent the revenues of the church in jousts and
tourneys, and who, in dress, arms, and mode of life, were not to be
distinguished from laymen (Ibid. IV. 358). How little was effected
by these efforts is manifest when, in 1360, William, Archbishop of
Cologne, was obliged to refute the assertions of those monks and nuns
who alleged in their defence that custom allowed them to leave their
convents and contract marriage (Ibid. IV. 493).
[855] Henke, Append. ad Calixt. pp. 585-6.
[856] Trithem. Chron. Hirsaug. ann. 1128.—Platina sub Honor. II.
[857] Arnulphi Lexoviens. de Schismate cap. iii. (D’Achery I. 156).
[858] Anacleti Antipapæ Epist. X. (Martene Ampliss. Collect. I. 702).
[859] Matt. Paris ann. 1251.
[860] Matt. Paris Hist. Angl. ann. 1253.—The same author preserves a
legend that when Innocent IV. heard of the death of Grosseteste, he
ordered a letter to be prepared commanding Henry III. to dig up and
cast out the remains of the bishop. The following night, however,
Grosseteste appeared in his episcopal robes and with his crozier
inflicted a severe castigation on the vengeful pope, who thereupon
abandoned his unchristian purpose.—Ibid. ann. 1254.
[861] Portions of Petrarch’s descriptions are unfit for transcription;
the following, however, will give a sufficient idea of his experience.
“Veritas ibi dementia est, abstinentia vero rusticitas, pudicitia
probrum ingens. Denique peccandi licentia magnanimitas et libertas
eximia, et quo pollutior eo clarior vita, quo plus scelerum eo plus
gloriæ, bonum nomen cœno vilius, atque ultima mercium fama est....
Taceo utriusque pestis artifices, et concursantes pontificum thalamis
proxonætas.... Quis, oro, enim non irascatur et rideat, illos senes
pueros coma candida, togis amplissimis, adeoque lascivientibus animis
ut nihil illuo falsius videatur quam quod ait Maro ‘Frigidus in
Venerem senior.’ Tam calidi tamque præcipites in Venerem senes sunt,
tanta eos ætatis et status et virium capit oblivio, sic in libidines
inardescunt, sic in omne ruunt dedecus, quasi omnis eorum gloria non
in cruce Christi sit, sed in commessationibus et ebrietatibus, et quæ
has sequuntur in cubilibus, impudicitiis: ... atque hoc unum senectutis
ultimæ lucrum putant, ea facere quæ juvenes non auderent.... Mitto
stupra, raptus, incestus, adulteria qui jam pontificalis lasciviæ ludi
sunt,” etc. (Lib. sine Titulo Epist. xvi.).
In his VII. Eclogue Petrarch describes the cardinals individually.
Their portraits, though metaphorically drawn, correspond with the
general character of the above extracts. See also the Lib. sine Titulo
Epistt. vii. viii. ix.
[862] Nic. de Clamengiis de Ruina Ecclesiæ cap. xvii.—Cf. Theod. a Niem
Nemor. Union. Tract. VI. cap. xxxvi. xxxvii.
[863] Quod dominus Johannes papa cum uxore fratris sui et cum sanctis
monialibus incestum, cum virginibus stuprum, et cum conjugatis
adulterium et alia incontinentiæ crimina, propter quæ ira Dei descendit
in filios diffidentiæ commisit.... Item quod dictus dominus Johannes
papa fuit et sit homo peccator, notorie criminosus de homicidio,
veneficio, et aliis gravibus criminibus quibus irretitus dicitur
graviter diffamatus, dissipator bonorum ecclesiæ et dilapidator
eorundem, notorius simoniacus, pertinax hæreticus et ecclesiam Christi
notorie scandalizans. Item quod dictus Johannes Papa XXIII. sæpe et
sæpius coram diversis prælatis et aliis honestis et probis viris
pertinaciter, diabolo suadente, dixit, asseruit, dogmatizavit et
adstruxit, vitam æternam non esse, neque aliam post hanc, etc.—Concil.
Constantiens. Sess. XI.
Even supposing some of these special charges to have been manufactured
for the purpose of effecting the desirable political object of getting
rid of the objectionable pontiff, yet the profound conviction of his
vileness, evinced by the proffering of such accusations, is almost
equally damaging.
[864] Theod. a Niem de Vit. Joann. XXIII.
[865]
Leno vorax, pathicus, meretrix, delator, adulter,
Si Romam veniet, illico, cretus erit.
Pædico insignis, prædo furiosus, adulter,
Exitiumque Urbis, perniciesque Dei,
Gaude prisce Nero, superat te crimine Sixtus,
Hic scelus omne simul clauditur et vitium.
Steph. Infessuræ Diar. Rom. ann. 1484 (Eccard. Corp. Hist. II. 1941).
[866]
Innocuo priscos æquam est debere Quirites.
Progenie exhaustam restituit patriam.
(Sannazarii Epigram. Lib. I.)
[867]
Spurcities, gula, avaritia, atque ignavia deses,
Hoc, Octave, jacent quo tegeris tumulo.
(Marulli Epigram. Lib. IV.)
[868] Sannazaro, as was meet in a Neapolitan, hated Alexander
cordially, and was never weary of assailing his wickedness. The
relations between him and his daughter Lucretia were a favorite topic—
Ergo te semper cupiet Lucretia Sextus?
O fatum diri nominis! hic pater est?
(Sannazar. Epigr. Lib. II.)
Humana jura, nec minus cœlestia,
Ipsosque sustulit Deos:
Ut silicet liceret (heu scelus) patri
Natæ sinum permingere,
Nec execrandis abstinere nuptiis
Timore sublato simul.
(Ibid.)
The well-known epigram of Pontanus tersely describes another of his
vices—
Vendit Alexander sacramenta, altaria, Christum.
Emerat ille prius, vendere jure potest.
[869] In comparing the labors of the pope with those of St. Paul, St.
Bernard exclaims, “Numquid ad eum de toto orbe confluebant ambitiosi,
avari, simoniaci, sacrilegi, concubinarii, incestuosi, et quæque
istiusmodi monstra hominum, ut ipsius apostolica auctoritate vel
obtinerent ecclesiasticos honores, vel retinerent?”—De Consideratione
Lib. I. c. iv.
[870] According to St. Bonaventura, this scandalous doctrine was
frequently taught.—Libell. Apologet. Quæst. I.
[871] Dial Mirac. Dist. XII. c. xix.
[872] Hali Meidenhad. (Early English Text Society, 1866.) The author
at times trenches closely on Manichæism. It is true that he revives,
with some variation, the ancient computation of the relative merits of
the various conditions of life—“For wedlock has its fruit thirtyfold in
heaven, widowhood sixtyfold; maidenhood with a hundredfold overpasses
both” (p. 22); but while he thus faintly disavows an intention to
revile marriage, he again and again alludes to it as wicked and impure
_per se_. “Well were it for them, were they on the day of their bridal
borne to be buried.... If thou askest why God created such a thing to
be, I answer thee: God created it never such; but Adam and Eve turned
it to be such by their sin, and marred our nature” (p. 8).
Virginity he asserts to be the highest attribute of humanity, and
in heaven virgins are the equals of angels and the superiors of
saints.—“Maidenhood is a grace granted thee from heaven.... ’Tis a
virtue above all virtues, and to Christ the most acceptable of all”
(p. 10). “To sing that sweet song and that heavenly music which no
saints may sing, but maidens only in heaven.... But the maiden’s song
is altogether unlike these, being common to them with angels. Music
beyond all music in heaven. In their circle is God himself; and his
dear mother, the precious maiden, is hidden in that blessed company of
gleaming maidens, nor may any but they dance and sing” (pp. 18-20).
As for matrimony and maternity, nothing can redeem them in the eyes of
the ascetic.—“All other sins are nothing but sins, but this is a sin
and besides denaturalizes thee and dishonoreth thy body. It soileth
thy soul and maketh it guilty before God, and, moreover, defileth thy
flesh.... Now what joy hath the mother? She hath from the misshapen
child sad care and shame, both, and for the thriving one fear, till
she lose it for good, though it would never have been in being for the
love of God, nor for the hope of heaven, nor for the dread of hell”
(p. 34).—But I dare not follow him in his more nauseous flights of
imagination.
This is by no means a solitary example. The same pious obscenity is to
be found, for instance, in some of Abelard’s theological speculations
addressed to Heloise and her nuns, as in his solution of her 42nd
problem.
[873] Ayenbite of Inwyt, p. 328 (Early English Text Soc. 1866). This
is a translation made in 1340 of “Le Somme des Vices et des Vertues,”
written in 1279 for Philippe-le-Hardi, by Laurentius Gallus. The author
is not a whit behind his brother ascetics in extolling the praises of
virginity.—“Vor maydenhod is a tresor of zuo grat worth thet hit ne
may by be nonen y-zet a pris ... vor maidenhod aboue alle othre states
berth thet gretteste frut” (Ibid. p. 233-4). The legend would seem to
be suggested by a somewhat similar story narrated by Gregory the Great
(Dialog. Lib. III. cap. 7).
[874] Theophili Alexandrin. Commonitor. can. v. (Harduin. I. 1198).
[875] Innocent. III. Regest. Lib. XVI. Epist. 118.
The curiously artificial standard of morals thus created may be
estimated from the case of the archdeacon of Lisieux, who refused to
accept an election to the see of that place on account of his inability
to maintain the purity requisite for the episcopal office. Vanquished
at length by the importunity of his friends, he was consecrated, and
resolutely undertook to abandon his evil habits. The unaccustomed
privation brought on a fearful disease, but though assured that his
life would prove a sacrifice if he persisted in his resolution, he
resisted all entreaties, and refused to purchase existence by sullying
his position. He thus fell a martyr to a tenderness of conscience which
had not prevented him from indulgence while filling the responsible
position of archdeacon.—Girald. Cambrens. Gemm. Eccles. Dist. II. cap.
xi.
[876] Graviore autem sunt animadversione plectendi, qui proprias filias
spirituales, quas baptizaverint vel semel ad confessionem admiserint,
violaverint.—Constit. Synod. Gilb. Episc. Circestrens. ann. 1289
(Wilkins, II. 169). Cf. Synod. Cenomanens. ann. 1248 (Martene Ampl.
Coll. VII. 1375). Concil. Remens. ann. 1408 cap. 21 (Ibid. VII. 418).
Concil. Salisburg. XXX. can. de Confess. (Dalham, Concil. Salisburg. p.
155.)
Abelard (Sermo XXIX.) in a passage which, though addressed to the
virgins of the Paraclete, is hardly quotable, asserts the frequent
corruption of nuns by their spiritual directors. See also St.
Bonaventura, Tractatus quare Fr. Minores prædicent, (Romæ 1773, p. 431)
and Gerson, who retorts the charge on the friars, in his Tract. de
Reform. Eccles. in Concil. Constant. cap. x. (Von der Hardt, T. I. P.
v. p. 93). Cf. Marsilii Patav. Defens. Pacis P. II. cap. xvii.—Synod.
Andegavens. ann. 1262 cap. x.; ann. 1291 cap. 1; ann. 1312 cap. 1
(D’Achery I. 727, 735, 742). Similar allusions are unfortunately too
frequent, and, as we shall see hereafter, are to be found until a
recent period.
[877] In 1398, Cardinal Peter d’Ailly, Bishop of Cambrai, speaks of
the manner in which his clergy lived with their concubines as man
and wife, and brought up their children without concealment in their
houses—“tenentes secum in suis domibus suas concubinas, et mulieres
publice suspectas, in scandalum plurimorum cohabitant simul copulati,
eisdem domo, mensa, et lecto, residendo, acsi essent vir et uxor
matrimonialiter conjuncti: proles super terram gradientes ex hujusmodi
suis concubinis susceptas una cum eisdem in suis domibus publice secum
habendo et tenendo”—(Hartzheim VI. 709).
[878] Prout testatur nimia de plerisque regionibus clamans Christiani
populi corruptela, quæ cum deberet ex sacerdotalis antidoti curari
medelis, invalescit proh dolor! ex malorum contagione quod procedit a
clero.—Chron. Augustens. ann. 1260.
[879] According to Thomas of Cantinpré, this occurrence took place
at Paris, in a synod held in 1248, and Satan explained his candor by
saying that he was compelled to it by God.—(Hartzheim IX. 663.)
[880] Inter alia dixit quod prælati faciebant ruere totum mundum....
Unde monuit eos quod ipsi se corrigerent ... alioquin dixit se dure
acturum cum ipsis super reformatione morum.—Harduin. VII. 692.
[881] Clerici et presbyteri ... maxime per fetidum peccatum luxuriæ
seipsos et alios pertrahunt ad infernum.—Concil. Parisiens. ann. 1323
can. iii. (Martene Ampl. Coll. VII. 1289).
[882] Petri de Herentals Vit. Gregor. XI. ann. 1375 (_ap._ Hecker,
Epidemics of the Middle Ages, London, 1845, p. 153).
[883] “Swiche preestes be the sones of Hely ... hem thinketh that they
be free and have no juge, no more than hath a free boll, that taketh
which cow that him liketh in the toun. So faren they by women; for
right as on free boll is ynough for all a toun, right so is a wicked
preest corruption ynough for all a parish, or for all a countree.”
[884] Li Gieus de Robin et de Marion (Michel, Théatre Français au Moyen
Age, p. 129).
[885] Wright’s Edition, p. 491, l. 1359.
[886] Monumenta Franciscana, pp. 602-4.
This testimony concerning the Franciscans is not confined to heretics
and laymen. Early in the fifteenth century, a council of Magdeburg
took occasion to reprove them for the dissolute and unclerical mode
of life of which they offered a conspicuous example. It appears that
they dignified with the name of “Marthas” the female companions who, in
primitive ages, were known as “agapetæ,” and who had latterly acquired
among the secular clergy the title of “focariæ”—“et in domibus suis
frequenter soli cum mulieribus quas ipsorum _Martas_ (ut eorum verbis
utamur) habitare non verentur.”—Concil. Magdeburg, ann. 1403 Rubr. de
Pœnis. (Hartzheim V. 717.)
On the other hand, in the “Creed of Piers Ploughman,” a Franciscan
attacks the Carmelites—
They been but jugulers,
And japers of kynde;
Lorels and lechures,
And lemans holden.
* * * * *
And that wicked folk
Wymmen betraieth,
And begileth hem her good
With glaverynge wordes,
And therwith holden her hous
In harlotes warkes.
Wright’s Edition, pp. 453-4.
[887] This was written in answer to an attack on celibacy by Guillaume
Saignet, entitled “Lamentatio ob cœlibatu sacerdotum, sive Dialogus
Nicænæ Constitutionis et Naturæ ea di re conquerentis.”—Zaccaria,
Storia Polemica del Celibato Sacro, Præf. p. xiv.
[888] Vel inexperti forte erant hi doctores quam generale et quam
radicatum sit hoc malum, et quod deteriora flagitia circa uxores aut
filias parochianorum et abominationes horrendæ in aliis provenerint
apud multas patrias, rebus stantibus ut stant, si quærentur per tales
censuras arceri. Scandalum certe magnum est apud parochianos curati
ad concubinam ingressus, sed longe deterius si erga parochianas suas
non servaverit castitatem.—De Vita Spirit. Animæ Lect. IV. Corol. xiv.
prop. 3.
[889] De Statu. Relig. Lib. I. (Giannone Apolog. cap. 14).
[890] There is a tradition that the Abbey of Montariol lost its
sovereignty over the inhabitants of the village of that name in
consequence of a revolt caused by the monks exacting this feudal
right in all its odious cynicism, in place of receiving a payment
in commutation as was frequently done. A lively controversy has
arisen over the exactness of this tradition, and the Abbé Marcellin,
in his edition of Le Bret’s _Histoire de Montauban_ seems to me to
have successfully proved its falsity. He admits, however, that in
his researches on the subject he has found one case in which an
ecclesiastic undertook to enforce his rights to the letter; and the
President Boyer, writing in the sixteenth century (Decisiones, No.
17 Decis. 297) asserts that he had seen the proceedings of a lawsuit
in which “Rector seu curatus parochialis prætendebat ex consuetudine
primam habere sponsæ cognitionem” (Eschbach, Introduction a l’Étude
du Droit, § 174). In some remote portions of France the tribute
was still exacted “en nature” by temporal seigneurs as late as the
sixteenth century, as appears from documents printed by MM. Mazure
et Hatoulet (Fors de Béarn, p. 172). Velly (Hist. de France, Paris,
1770, T. III. p. 325) quotes from Laurière a document of 1507 which,
in recounting the privileges of the barony of Saint-Martin states that
the Comte d’Eu has the “droit de prélibation” there, and Boutaric
(Droits Seigneuriaux, Toulouse, 1775, p. 650) remarks that he has
met nobles who pretended to possess the right, but that it had been
abolished by the courts. In 1854 M. Bouthors, in his “Coutumes locales
du bailliage d’Amiens,” chanced to allude to a custom by which the
episcopal officers until 1607 exacted a tribute from newly married
couples for permission to pass together the first three nights after
the wedding—a custom growing out of the old _droit de marquette_. This
aroused the ire of the faithful, and M. Louis Veuillot wrote a treatise
in which he emphatically denied that such a right had ever existed,
and a lively controversy arose on the subject. M. Lagréze (Hist. du
Droit dans les Pyrénées, Paris, 1867, p. 390) has examined the matter
thoroughly and the proof which he accumulates of the existence of the
right is indisputable, though he denies that it was ever claimed by
ecclesiastics.
[891] See the _Taxæ Sacræ Pœnitentiariæ_, a tariff of prices for
absolution in the Roman curia for all infractions of human and divine
law, of which more hereafter.
Heretically inclined reformers did not hesitate to accuse the clergy of
thus speculating in the power of the keys and the sins of the people—
The power of the apostles
Thei pasen in speche,
For to sellen the synnes
For selver other mede.
And purliche _a pœna_,
The puple asoyleth,
And _a culpa_ also,
That they may katchen
Money other money-worth,
And mede to fonge;
And ben at lone and at bode,
As burgeises useth.
Thus they serven Sathanas,
And soules bygyleth,
Marchaunes of malisones,
Mansede wrecches.
Creed of Piers Ploughman, l. 1417-32.
[892] The curious confusion of vice with religion, fostered by mediæval
sacerdotalism, is well illustrated by the complaint which Erasmus puts
in the mouth of the Virgin—“Et nonnumquam ea petunt a virgine quæ
verecundus juvenis vix auderet petere a lena, quæque ne pudet literis
committere” (Erasmi Colloq. Peregrinatio Religionis). The existence
of such inconsistencies is one of the unfathomable mysteries of human
intelligence.
[893] Anon. Cartusiens. de Religionum Orig. cap. 17-19 (Martene Ampl.
Coll. VI. 40-46).
[894] See Lecky’s History of Rationalism.
[895] Videlicet castitatem, obedientiam ... atque vivere sine
proprio.—Statut. Ord. S. Johan. Hierosol. Tit. I. § 1 (Lünig Cod. Ital.
Diplom. T. II. p. 1743).
[896] Thus Cap. LV.: “Hoc enim injustum consideramus ut cum fratribus
Deo castitatem promittentibus fratres hujusmodi in una eademque domo
maneant.” Cap. LVI. and LXXII., by the latter of which even the kiss of
a mother was denied them, render evident the extreme asceticism which
was proposed by the founders of the order (Harduin. T. VI. P. II. pp.
1142, 1146).