Louis Alemand

ON BL. LOUIS ALEMAND, ARCHBISHOP OF ARLES AND CARDINAL,

AT SALON NEAR THE STONY FIELDS IN PROVENCE.

A.D. 1450.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Louis Alemand, Cardinal archbishop of Arles, at Salon near the Stony Fields in Provence (Bl.)

BY J. S.

§ I. Louis inscribed among the Blessed by a pontifical Bull: his cultus, and his Office, long intermitted, afterwards resumed: the present state of his relics.

[ ] Being about to illustrate the Life, the character and the deeds of the blessed Cardinal Louis Alemand, Bl. Louis Alemand I see that I must beware of both extremes. First, of course, I must beware lest I contradict his beatitude, made manifest by God through miracles and approved by the judgment of the Apostolic See, although in other respects I may be unable to approve his various deeds. For we are not ignorant that many have been inscribed in the Calendars of the Saints, and many crowned in heaven with a glory distinguished even above others, about whose grave sins there can be no doubt. Again, none the less must I beware lest, on account of the title of Blessed granted to Louis, I slip into that other extreme of wishing to praise and approve all his deeds, since it is agreed that even Saints have been men liable to errors, and that several of them fell into errors grave and dangerous enough, and sometimes also

not without fault. But the divine goodness, which made Paul from a persecutor of the Church into an Apostle, which raised up Peter after his grievous fall, which brought not a few from among publicans and harlots to a lofty degree of sanctity, which enlightened the thief upon the cross — the divine goodness, I say, so wisely governs its elect that those of them whom it permits to stray for a time from the right path, it brings back by its infinite mercy into the way of truth. Hence in Christians we consider less what they were in the first or in the middle course of their life, than what they were at the end. And the end of this Blessed was certainly most praiseworthy; nay, praiseworthy also was his beginning, and, so far as we can know, by far the greatest part of his life was praiseworthy. And so, if we shall see him straying for a time from the right way, we ought to reflect that this is common to him with many others, even if perchance he erred not without fault, but that his earlier and later merits brought it about that he shone with miracles after his death, and was inscribed by lawful authority in the number of the Blessed.

[2] Certainly Pope Clement VII inscribed Louis Alemand in the Calendars of the Blessed together with Bl. Peter of Luxemburg, inscribed among the Blessed by Clement VII, by a pontifical bull given in the year 1527, on the 9th day of April. This bull has already been published by us under Bl. Peter of Luxemburg at the 2nd of July, §4. Wherefore it pleases us to transfer hither only a few things that pertain to Bl. Louis. First the Pontiff affirms that there had long been a great affection of devotion of the faithful of Christ, and chiefly of the city … of Arles, towards Louis Alemand, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church and archbishop of the church of Arles, whose body rests in the church of Arles, and that the people not only of the said city but also of other parts had run together to him as to a protector. Secondly he asserts that it is no wonder if he is made illustrious by miracles, since, as the assertion of trustworthy men has it, he showed himself an imitator of Jesus Christ so far as he could. And this he proves, because Louis passed a celibate life, chaste and inviolate, … having trampled upon the allurements of this worldly life, although he was born of an illustrious stock. Thirdly he says that René king of Sicily, under whom Provence lay, was beneficent towards the church of Arles on account of the miracles of Louis; and that the canons, on account of the singular virtues of Louis, … and also his fastings, prayers, vigils and very many works pleasing and acceptable to God, desired that it might be permitted them to transfer his body to a more convenient place in their church, and to venerate and honour him as Blessed. Fourthly the Pontiff grants that it be lawful for the canons to transfer the body of Louis to a more convenient place, and to honour and venerate him as Blessed. Fifthly and lastly the Pontiff subjoins this restriction concerning both Blessed: We do not, however, intend on that account that the same Peter and Louis have been enrolled in the catalogue of the Saints, until, the due solemnities being observed which are wont to be observed in the canonization of Saints, their canonization shall have been arrived at, etc. These things about that Pontifical bull, which may be seen entire in the place assigned, suffice for our purpose.

[3] [a twofold chapel and an Office of his cultus. The Office, afterwards long omitted,] Further, this Pontifical permission having been received, the body was raised and translated. But the Acts of this elevation and translation, if any were then composed, have long since perished, as I gather from the Acts composed at the recent visitation of the body, of which I shall presently treat. An Office also was composed and added to the old Breviary of Arles under John Ferrier archbishop of Arles, who occupied that chair when Clement permitted the cultus of Bl. Louis, and who died in the year 1621, his brother's nephew of the same name succeeding him in the archbishopric. Afterwards, however, the said Office was for a long time passed over. Hence Saxius in his Pontificium Arelatense, under Bl. Louis, writes thus about the spreading of his cultus after his beatification: And a chapel was built for him at Arles and at Hautecombe (in Savoy), his patronage being invoked as that of a confessor bishop in our very ancient Breviary in these words: "On the day on which there died the blessed Louis Alemand, Cardinal of Arles, of glorious memory, a semi-double Office is made with first and second Vespers, and let everything be said from the common of a confessor bishop" — that is, except the collect and the lessons of the second nocturn. In the Annotations to Saxius this little note is added about that Breviary: The ancient Breviary of Arles, composed by bishop Ferrier in the year 1501, and purged of errors and restored by Ferrier the nephew in 1547. In the year 1501 the Office could not yet be inserted into the Breviary; but it was afterwards added at the end of it. Nevertheless it was thereafter omitted, nor could I find it in the proper Offices of Arles, of which we have two printed in the 17th century. Hence Saxius adds: But why the Office of so great a Cardinal was intermitted, I do not know. Yet it must needs be restored by the care, zeal and diligence of bishop Gaspar, who is to hold a provincial synod this year. So Saxius about the year 1629; but the said Office was not so soon resumed.

[4] Nevertheless it was resumed in the 17th century, with perhaps a slight alteration, is resumed in the year 1670, whose collect and fixed on the Sunday before the feast of the Dedication of St. Michael the archangel, so that it should be said in perpetuity on that day with a double rite. Such was transmitted to us in the year 1752 by the care and diligence of the most courteous lord Joseph Antony de Brantes, treasurer and penitentiary of the metropolitan church of Avignon, with these annotations: The Office of blessed Louis Alemand, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, archbishop of Arles, noted in the old Breviary of Arles in the time of archbishop Ferrier, now intermitted for a century, was, at the instance of the chapter of Arles, restored by the most illustrious and most reverend lord D. Francis Adhémar de Monteil de Grignan, archbishop of Arles, approved by the provincial synod, and thereafter to be celebrated every year on the Sunday before the feast of the Dedication of Saint Michael the archangel, in the holy church of Arles alone, under the rite of a double of a confessor bishop, by a decree given on the 19th day of April of the year 1670. Everything is said from the common of a confessor bishop except the collect and the three lessons of the second nocturn, which I shall give. The collect is this: O God, who by the merits and intercessions of blessed Louis, Thy confessor and bishop, dost deign to raise the dead, to enlighten the blind, to restore to the lame their step and to the deaf their hearing; grant in Thy mercy that all who implore his help may obtain a saving effect. Through our Lord, etc.

[5] Lesson IV. Louis Alemand, born among the people of Bugey of an illustrious family, and three lessons conspicuous for holiness of manners, famous for knowledge and learning, held the first dignity among the canons and counts of Lyons. Afterwards, having been made bishop of the Magalonenses, that is, of Montpellier, after the departure of John of Embrun to Pisa, he was called to the care and administration of the church of Arles. Soon he was created Cardinal priest under the title of Saint Cecilia by Martin V, the supreme Pontiff, in the same year. He accomplished so much with Louis the Third, king of Naples and count of Provence, with the highest authority and favour, that the king ratified all the concessions of the emperors and kings of Arles made for the benefit of the church of Arles. Called into Italy, he obtained the legateship of Bologna. Thence he betook himself to the council of Basel, summoned by Martin V.

[6] Lesson V. He was most tenacious of ecclesiastical discipline; in place of a summary of his Life a most keen defender of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary, and he took care that the feast of that same conception should thereafter be celebrated in the Church with the highest honour on the sixth of the Ides of December. Having deserved well of Nicholas V, the supreme Pontiff, he was sent into Lower Germany, performing the office of a legation. He bore many labours for the reconciling of the Church's peace. Returning to Arles, he was most highly commended for the liberality poured out upon sacred buildings. For at his own cost and expense he built the chief part of the mother church, which is called the holy of holies, raising very ample vaults, with other smaller ones between them, and nine chapels on this side and that. He enclosed a silver casket, noble with the relics of Saints, chiefly of St. Trophimus, which Gasbert had dedicated, and ordered it to be shown before the people each year on the feast of St. Trophimus. He excelled in the greatest charity towards the poor, and led an angelic life.

[7] are recited. Lesson VI. At last the Man blessed on every side passed to heaven at Salon on the Crau, on the fifteenth day of the Kalends of October, in the sixty-ninth year of his age, in the one thousand four hundred and fiftieth year of salvation. His body was translated to Arles, whither almost the whole province hastened to celebrate his obsequies. For twenty-three cities are counted which, besides priests, Religious and common people, were present at this celebration. His tomb shone with so great a glory of miracles that, as Pope Pius II the supreme Pontiff relates, from every quarter there was a frequent concourse of the infirm in hope of health. He restored sight to the blind, their step to the lame, speech to the dumb, hearing to the deaf, and raised the dead. Moved by these miracles, Pope Clement VII enrolled Louis Alemand together with Peter of Luxemburg in the number of the Blessed, and permitted him to be venerated and invoked as Blessed in the church of Arles. His bones, brought up out of the underground tomb, were honourably laid in a small casket, and to this present day are piously and devoutly venerated by the faithful of Christ. Thus far the Office, in which everything has been studiously passed over which pertains to the controversies of the council of Basel with the supreme Pontiff.

[8] From the visitation of the relics, made in the year 1752, it appears Further, to give a fuller notice about the Blessed's relics, the visitation of the body will be of use, made in the year 1752 by the most reverend lord abbot James de Grille d'Estoublon, Doctor of Sacred Theology and vicar general of the archbishop of Arles, in the presence of the most eminent lords James Henry de Grille de Robiac, prefect of the sacristy, and John Joseph Harenboure, treasurer of the metropolitan church of Arles, who had been deputed by the chapter to be present at the opening of the casket, entrusted to the aforesaid vicar by the most illustrious lord John James Chapelle de Jumelhac, archbishop of Arles: for it was accurately set down in the Acts what was found in the casket, and the Acts themselves, fortified with the archbishop's seal and confirmed by the subscribed name of all the aforesaid, were transmitted to us by the lord de Brantes praised above, at whose request the visitation of the relics was made. From these Acts, therefore, written in French, I shall briefly gather those things which will seem sufficient for our purpose.

[9] that the relics are in good condition, and were raised in the year 1632, First, the relics are preserved in a gilded wooden casket. Secondly, when the casket was opened, there was found beneath a board, and a red band sealed at its four ends with the seal of James du Forbin de Janson, archbishop of Arles, who obtained that dignity in the year 171[ ]. And when the seals had been broken, which were found entire, they found nearly all the relics wrapped in cotton and in silken cloth, and most of the bones well preserved, especially the head, to which six teeth still adhere. Thirdly, in the casket they found three sets of Acts of as many visitations. The first, written on parchment, were those of John Jaubert de Barrant, archbishop of Arles, which were begun on the 19th day of November and finished on the 30th of November,

in the year 1632. For when the praised archbishop had found the relics without any written testimony by which their genuineness might have been established, he wished to inquire into their genuineness by another way. For first he ordered digging to be done diligently down to the bottom in that place where by the evidence of the epitaph the Blessed's bones had formerly been found, to see whether other bones also might be found there which could render the genuineness of these doubtful. And when no others had been found, he called in a skilled physician, lord Nicholas de Valleriole, who, after a diligent examination of the bones, asserted that all were of one body. These inquiries having been completed, the praised archbishop ordered the casket in which the Blessed's bones were contained to be exposed with great solemnity above the high altar to the public veneration of the faithful on the 30th day of November until the end of Vespers, after which he himself, with the chief ecclesiastics and a long train of suppliants accompanying, carried the casket back to its place.

[10] The second Acts were those of Francis Adhémar de Monteil de Grignan, [visited in the year 1655, translated into another shrine in the year 1666 and afterwards often inspected.] who had succeeded the preceding archbishop. He in the year 1655 wished to visit the sacred bones of Bl. Louis, and found everything as his predecessor had found it. The third Acts were written under the same archbishop in the year 1666, on the 23rd day of May, and composed by order of Stephen Francis de Gerard, canon of the metropolitan church and vicar general of the archbishop. From these it appears that the sacred relics of the Blessed were then translated from the former shrine into another, gilded, which seems to be the present one. Besides these Acts, three other testimonies authentically written were found in the same casket in the year 1752. The first was given in the year 1676, on the 10th day of March, by John Baptist Adhémar de Monteil de Grignan, who was then coadjutor of the archbishop, and afterwards was his successor. He testifies that he had visited the aforesaid relics. The two others are of James de Forbin de Janson, who in the former, which was given in the year 1714, on the 25th day of August, testifies that he had given some portion of the relics of Bl. Louis Alemand to the bishop of Montpellier; and in the second, which is read as given in the year 1740, on the 20th day of December, the praised archbishop states that another portion of the Blessed's relics was given by him to the bishop of Pistoia, suffragan of the archbishopric of Florence. These things certainly suffice for us to understand that the cultus of Bl. Louis was lawfully begun; then, however, intermitted, and again resumed, and continuing to this day.

[11] Baillet at the 16th of September, under Bl. Louis Alemand, writes well enough about the beginning of his cultus. Baillet's inept observations But he adds that it was intermitted through the scruples of those who were too much troubled by what he had done for the council of Basel against Eugenius IV. Baillet is an admirable author, who was able without an authority to learn the cause of the intermitted cultus, which Saxius himself, whom he praises in the margin, professes not to know. For Saxius writes only this about the intermitted cultus: But why the Office of so great a Cardinal was intermitted, I do not know. Yet it must needs be restored by the care, zeal and diligence of bishop Gaspar. These words were an invitation to Baillet to inquire whether the Office had not been resumed; not to invent a cause of the intermission unknown to the men of Arles themselves, and more than a whole century past. Baillet is no happier at the beginning of the Life of Bl. Louis, where he says that scarcely any difficulty is made at this time against Bl. Louis Alemand's being numbered among the Saints of the first Order. To prove this inept observation, he afterwards affirms that he was numbered among the Saints of the first order by Canisius in his Martyrology, notwithstanding the Pontiff's prohibition forbidding the title of Saint to be given to Bl. Louis before he should have been canonized. He adds that Andreas Saussay did not dare the same, but by him he was only inscribed among the Blessed.

[12] are refuted: the memory of the Blessed in some Martyrologies. But nothing is emptier than these observations, nothing falser. I have not been able to find any martyrologist by whom Bl. Louis is honoured with the title of Saint. Canisius, or rather the German Martyrology, which is commonly praised under his name, in both the edition of the year 1573 and that of the year 1599, does not even strictly grant him the title of Blessed, but has only this: Likewise the blessed memory of Louis, archbishop of Arles and Cardinal. Saussay adorns Louis with a longer eulogy, and names him Blessed more clearly, and proves the title with these words: He is buried in the metropolitan church of Arles, where he shone with so many miracles that, roused by the multitude of them, Pope Clement VII, by a diploma given at Rome, enrolled him in the number of the heavenly ones under the name of beatitude, and decreed that he should be honoured, together with Bl. Peter of Luxemburg, with the honours with which the Blessed are wont to be venerated, his venerable body being raised from its underground resting-place to the inmost bosom of the basilica. Castellanus in his Universal Martyrology commemorates him in this manner: At Salon on the Crau in Provence, blessed Louis Alemand, archbishop of Arles, Cardinal of the title of St. Cecilia. The author of the manuscript Florarium Sanctorum had gone before them all, but without the title of Blessed, since he has it thus: Likewise of Louis, Cardinal of Arles. This last announcement shows that after the death of our Blessed there was a great reputation of his sanctity, since that author wrote in Belgium in the year 1486, that is, only thirty-six years after the Blessed's death.

§ II. The Acts of the Blessed to be given from a manuscript: certain other writers who have treated of him.

[ ] Such a Life of the Blessed as there is, to be published from a manuscript: We know of no ancient Life of Bl. Louis Alemand published in print hitherto; no ancient Acts of the Blessed could at this time be found in the archives of the church of Arles, as the most diligent investigator lord Joseph Antony de Brantes, already praised, wrote to us — by whose diligence we received the things which have just been said about the cultus and relics of the Blessed, together with the old epitaph, which will be given in its place. Nevertheless in the Bull of Clement VII mention is made of Annals of his life, so that it must be believed that something was written about the deeds and miracles of Bl. Louis before the year 1527, in which that Pontifical Bull was given. I have indeed in hand such a Life of the Blessed as there is, drawn out of a manuscript of Rouge-Cloître, which is a priory of Regular Canons in Brabant. These Acts were probably written in the same 15th century in which Bl. Louis died, and certainly before the year 1527, in which Louis was inscribed among the Blessed: for no mention is made of that matter in the Acts. The author seems either to have been present at the council of Basel, or to have learned the deeds of Bl. Louis at that council from someone who had been there: for while in all the rest he is quite meagre, he dwells chiefly upon those things about the Blessed's character which were known at Basel, commending his charity and patience above the rest, and illustrating them with several examples. But about the controversies which flourished between the council and Pope Eugenius, he preferred to keep deep silence rather than to bring forward his own judgment. For he so praises Louis that he does not by even a word condemn the deeds of Eugenius IV or of the council of Basel. He also relates various miracles wrought after the Blessed's death, which I have not yet seen related in particular by any other, although many speak in general about the miracles of Bl. Louis. I shall publish these Acts as worthy of belief, but less full, and in some things less accurate, because the author probably wrote in Belgium, and did not take care to seek out so diligently all those things which could have been better investigated at Arles.

[14] Among the writers whose Works have been published in print, the chief writers who have treated of him: the first place for the Life of our Blessed is owed to Æneas Silvius Piccolomini, who afterwards, raised to the supreme pontificate, was called Pius II. For he saw our Louis for many years at the council of Basel, and was able to observe and consider his character. It must indeed be noted that Pius II was greatly displeased with the little works which, while living at Basel, he wrote against the authority of the Supreme Pontiff and for the authority of the council, and that all these were retracted by him in the Bull which Labbe published in volume 13 of the Councils, column [ ]. In this also he abundantly retracts everything that had been written against Eugenius IV, when he confesses that he came to Basel young and inexperienced in the year 1431, and believed to be true the things which were said by slanderers against Eugenius. Yet he retracted nothing of what he brought forward in commendation of the character of Bl. Louis: but rather confirmed it, when he said: As much as we grasped, so much did we defend or attack: we have lied in nothing, we have reported nothing out of favour, nothing out of hatred. What therefore he said about the character of Louis is to be believed true, since in these matters he could less easily be deceived. Concerning Bl. Louis mention is also made from time to time in the History of the Council of Basel, written by Augustine Patrizzi, canon of Siena, to whom Baillet in the critical table at this day adds certain other writers, defenders of the council of Basel. But more useful to us will be the Pontificium Arelatense of Peter Saxius, who in it records many things about our Blessed; as also the Work of Louis Doni d'Attichy, which he entitled Flores Historiæ sacri collegii S. R. E. Cardinalium, in which likewise a good many things about our Blessed are collected. These two, however, are not contemporaries of the Blessed, since both flourished in the 17th century, that is, almost two centuries after the Blessed's death. There are found also other writers of the same century, whom in the course of our work we shall name in their places.

[15] Among the most recent writers, Baillet, already mentioned several times, has put together in his own style a fuller Life of Bl. Louis Alemand. some of the most recent writers. But he wrote in such a manner that he not obscurely seeks from Louis's beatitude a patronage for those who presume to set themselves stubbornly against the decrees of the Roman Pontiffs. But that attempt is empty, since the Blessed changed his mind. There are found also other most recent writers who have believed, or at least contended, that the beatitude of Bl. Louis Alemand is useful for exalting the authority of councils above the authority of the Roman Pontiff, or for excusing those who refuse to hear the voice of the supreme Pastor of the Church and to obey his commands. But they seem to reason scarcely less ridiculously than one would argue who from the sanctity of Paul the Apostle should contend either that the Jewish synagogue was to be preferred to the Christian church in the earliest times, or should seek patronage and excuse for the persecutors of the Church. But these things, which are to be treated briefly in their place, we do not yet handle. Meanwhile we believe that what has been said about the writers suffices, although many more have treated of the Blessed in each century since his death: for we shall name in their places all whose works we shall use.

§ III. The Blessed's country, birth, various dignities, offices and deeds up to the council of Basel.

[ ] The Blessed's noble stock, Concerning the birth and country of blessed Louis, the Acts have it that he was born of a noble stock on the borders of France and Savoy. This is true, but not sufficiently distinct. But the writers of the 17th century went off into various opinions about these matters. Peter Monod in his Amedeus Pacificus, number 76, sufficiently hints

that he is bringing forward a new opinion, where he speaks thus about the country of our Blessed: The French, with the Italians not refusing, claim the birth of so great a Man for themselves. Yet there is a constant report among the Subalpine people of Saluzzo that he is their own countryman, from the town of St. Michael at the Val Maira, in which town there is a hamlet and likewise a tower which take their name from the Alemanni. And they relate that the most noble family of the Alemanni arose out of Germany, which they call Alemannia (whence too the name clung to them), and that they settled in those parts while the Ottos held wide dominion in Italy. Louis's father was named Anthony, whose brother Francis lived at Arles, where also his nephew Louis laid the first foundations of a better learning. So he. But others disagree. Louis Doni d'Attichy, bishop of Autun, and Peter Saxius in the Pontificium Arelatense, depart far from these; but they rightly agree with one another. Saxius, who wrote a little after Monod and some years before Doni d'Attichy, has it thus: The birthplace of Louis Alemand was Arbent, a township among the people of Bugey, near the monastery of St. Claude, archbishop of Besançon. Peter was his father, of the illustrious family which ruled over Arbent; and his mother was the sister of Francis de Conzié, who besides Louis bore Hugonin, lord of Arbent…

[17] his country, parents, brothers. There is also another noble family of the Alemands in France, whom today they call the Dauphinois. He who published the bishops of Cahors judges that both families have the same stock. That another family of the Alemands exists among the Subalpine people of Saluzzo … is a report in the town of St. Michael at the Val Maira, where there is a hamlet and a tower which takes its name from the Alemans. It is agreed that a most eminent family settled in those parts while the Ottos held wide dominion in Italy. But although in different provinces different families of the Alemands survive, yet the one of Bugey gave Louis to the men of Arles. With these the praised Doni agrees as to substance, and for that reason I do not adduce his words. But Samuel Guichenon in his History of Bresse and Bugey, which was written in French about the middle of the 17th century, agrees with Saxius only as to the country, and not as to the Blessed's father and mother. For in part 3, page 3, he agrees that Louis was born at Arbent in Bugey, and refutes the opinion of some who had said that he was born in the county of Burgundy, as also Monod, who had attributed Louis to the people of Saluzzo. But the Blessed's father he calls neither Peter nor Anthony; but declares that he was called John Alemand. And he says that his mother was Mary de Châtillon, and that they were joined in matrimony on the 2nd day of September of the year 1374. And he further attributes to them four children, namely Peter, John, Walter and Louis. This opinion appears more probable than the rest, because the praised writer seems to have examined the genealogies more than the others, and brings forward some proofs. But those genealogical trifles do not so much concern the honour of Bl. Louis that it should be pleasing to dwell on them longer. Wherefore I only add the words of Denis of Sainte-Marthe, who follows Guichenon, in volume 1 of the Gallia Christiana, column 582, writing thus about the beginnings of Louis: Louis was born about the year 1390 of the parents John Alemand, lord of Arbent in the district of Belley, and of Montgeffon (in the county of Burgundy according to Guichenon), and Mary de Châtillon de Michaille.

[18] As regards the year of the Blessed's birth, it is commonly fixed about 1390, He seems to have been born in the year 1381 or 1382, and not without some foundation. For since it is agreed that he died in the year 1450, and the Pontiff in the Bull of beatification says that he died in the sixtieth year of his age or thereabouts, from these things it seems to be gathered that he was born about the year 1390. Yet I doubt whether that opinion does not err by some years: nay rather I scarcely doubt that it errs by a good many years. Certainly in the lessons of the Office Louis is said to have died in the sixty-ninth year of his age. For if this is true, he was born in the year 1381 after the 16th of September, or in the year 1382 before the aforesaid day. If now we look to other things which bring greater or less probability for the one opinion or the other, all probability will stand for the lessons of the Office. According to Guichenon his parents were joined in matrimony in the year 1374, so that it is more probable that Louis, who is reckoned fourth among the children, was born after about seven or eight years, that is in the year 1381 or 1382, than after sixteen years, especially since Walter, the third among the brothers, is said by Guichenon to have been already a canon of Lyons in the year 1390. There are added Louis's own offices, which hint that he was probably given to the world before the year 1390. For in the year 1418 we shall see him created bishop of Maguelonne, after he had already held various ecclesiastical offices. He would therefore have been created bishop at the age of twenty-eight; which is indeed not incredible, if certain records are brought forward; yet less probable when there is doubt about his age on other grounds. Besides, the Blessed was at the council of Constance, which began in the year 1414; and at that of Pisa, which was begun in the year 1409, as we shall see in its place. He would therefore have been already at a council when he was not yet twenty years old, if he had been born in the year 1390. Lastly, greater credit seems here to be given to the Office of Bl. Louis than to the Pontifical Bull; both because the author of the Office does not seem likely to have departed from the bull unless he had had sure reasons for a greater age of the Blessed, and because the Bull itself hints that inquiry was not exactly made into the Blessed's age, when it says "the sixtieth or thereabouts." And so I judge it more probable that the Blessed was born in the year 1381 or 1382 than about 1390.

[19] After the studies which the praised Monod at number 16 writes were completed at Arles, in his youth he is a canon of Lyons, most others being silent about that matter, or perhaps even before his studies were fully completed, most writers hold that a canonry at Lyons was given to Bl. Louis. Baillet asserts that Louis obtained that benefice by the resignation of his brother Walter, perhaps on no other foundation than that Walter is said by Guichenon to have been a canon of Lyons in the year 1390. And of the canonry itself I find no other foundation than the assertion of Saxius and of others who have followed Saxius. Monod in his Amedeus Pacificus, page 176, writes different things about Louis's youth, but perhaps less true, speaking thus: And thereafter he applied himself to books with such zeal that he was deservedly reckoned among the most learned of that age: whence it came about that Amadeus, Cardinal of Saluzzo, wished to have him among his household, and he shone among a few at Avignon in the pontifical court. These things are not very probable, especially what is said about Louis's stay among the household of Amadeus, Cardinal of Saluzzo. But what is said about the court of Avignon, where Peter de Luna the antipope was living, whom France for some time honoured as the true Pontiff, is not altogether improbable. More certain, however, is what he presently subjoins: He at first honoured Peter de Luna, as did almost all the French, and afterwards deserted him when he shuffled. This was common to our Blessed with other Saints. Louis Doni also records another dignity attributed to blessed Louis by the judgment of others, thus: Frizon, Robert, and Aubéry (and after them Baillet) add that the administration of the monastery of Tournus of the Order of St. Benedict, in the diocese of Chalon, was granted to him. Denis of Sainte-Marthe believed the same in his archbishops of Arles; but afterwards, in volume 6 of the Gallia Christiana, column 799, that error is retracted, and is said to have arisen from a confusion of our Louis with Louis de Palude. Whether it is not equally from some confusion that in the praised Sainte-Marthe's catalogue of the archbishops of Arles he is said to have been precentor of Valence before his episcopate, I leave to others to inquire.

[20] [he is present at the council of Pisa, and afterwards at that of Constance as a doctor:] Nevertheless before his episcopate Bl. Louis held certain other offices, being called in his Life master and doctor of decrees. As a doctor also he was present at the council of Constance, and probably also at that of Pisa. Certainly he says in Æneas Silvius On the Council of Basel, book 1, at the end, that he was present at both, where our Louis said that he had been at Pisa and at Constance, and had never seen a session more quiet or more devout than that one — namely the Basel session of which he was speaking. The same Louis earlier, in Æneas, folio 13, addresses the men of Basel thus: The memory of the council of Constance is recent, where very many of us were, and I too, who was not yet a Cardinal nor a bishop, but only a doctor, etc. How much Louis did in the said councils is not clear, so that it is not necessary to weave a history of those councils. That of Pisa was held in the year 1409 on account of the schism of the Church, which had two Pontiffs, namely Gregory XII, who is commonly acknowledged as the true Pontiff, and Peter de Luna, who called himself Benedict XIII and is held for an antipope. Both were deposed in that council, and Alexander V was elected Pope. Nevertheless the deposed did not acquiesce, and some doubted whether the deposition was lawful, and consequently whether the election of Alexander was canonical. And so after the council of Pisa there were three Pontiffs instead of two. For this cause in the year 1414 and the following years the council of Constance was held, where the schism was almost removed, two yielding the pontificate, and Peter de Luna being deposed, who nevertheless never would submit. Bl. Louis at the time of the council of Pisa was about twenty-seven or twenty-eight years old according to our chronology; and at that of Constance thirty-two or a little more. He was therefore present at many proceedings instituted against doubtful Pontiffs; whence perhaps it came about that he believed the same things to be lawful against Eugenius IV, a certain Pontiff.

[21] Denis of Sainte-Marthe in volume 2 of the Gallia Christiana, column 754, numbers Louis among the secular abbots of St. Peter of Les Tours, he becomes abbot of St. Peter of Les Tours, then bishop of Maguelonne, in the diocese of Le Puy, where on the 1st day of March of the year 1417 he had as vicar Peter de Crotis, canon of the cathedral church. The other benefices which he held when in the year 1418 he was created bishop, we shall presently see. Saxius indeed sets no other dignity before his episcopate except the canonry, writing thus in the Pontificium Arelatense, column 330: He held his first dignity as canon and count of Lyons: whence he rose to a higher grade. Since indeed he was conspicuous for nobility of birth and holiness of manners, he was consecrated bishop of Maguelonne by Francis de Conzié, legate of Avignon (and then archbishop of Narbonne). But in volume 6 of the Gallia Christiana, column 798, this is read about the beginning of the bishopric of Maguelonne and about the dignities of Bl. Louis that preceded it: In the place of Peter deceased, Louis, doctor of decrees, was created bishop of Maguelonne. He had been canon and precentor of the church of Narbonne, and was warden of that of Lyons, and abbot of St. Peter of Les Tours, when he was promoted by Martin V by a bull given at Geneva on the 10th of the Kalends of July, in the 1st year of his pontificate (this is 1417). The Blessed was then, according to our chronology, in the thirty-sixth or thirty-seventh year of his age; and that is more probable than that he was only about twenty-eight years old, as would follow from the opinion of those who about the year

1390 have written that he was born. Some writers have attributed to Bl. Louis not the bishopric of Maguelonne but that of Saint-Malo in Armorican Brittany. But that error has already been sufficiently refuted by others, and had taken its origin from the mere similarity of the name. And it could arise the more easily inasmuch as the bishopric of Maguelonne was less known in the 17th century: for before the middle of the 16th century the see was transferred by Pope Paul III from the city and island of Maguelonne, which is wholly girt about on every side by the sea, to a city not far distant and situated on the mainland, which is called Mons Pessulus or Montpellier.

[22] Further, the praised authors in volume 6 of the Gallia Christiana observe [which church he governed by vicars, residing at the Pontifical court as vice-chamberlain.] that Louis never lived at Maguelonne during the time of his bishopric, but was at Florence in the Pontifical court of Martin V, while he substituted vicars for himself to govern the bishopric. Louis, therefore, elect of Maguelonne, they say, living at Florence in the Roman curia, where he held the place of Francis archbishop of Narbonne, the Pope's chamberlain, who was engaged in parts overseas, since he could not himself go in person to his church, appointed Peter, abbot of Aniane, and others as vicars general on the 8th day of March in the year 1419, who in his absence should govern the church of Maguelonne. He obtained some privileges for the university of Montpellier from the supreme Pontiff, at whose side he always sat, on the 16th of the Kalends of January of the year 1422, which are recited at greater length in Gariel. When the plague was raging at Pavia, and it had pleased the fathers that the place of the council should be changed and that they should be transferred to Siena, Martin ordered Louis to make an agreement with the ambassadors of Siena about receiving the Fathers and safeguarding the liberty of the council, to which he was planning to betake himself together with the assembly of the Cardinals. The bull was given at St. Mary Major on the Ides of August, in the sixth year of his pontificate, that is, in the year 1423. These last things are taken from Odoricus Raynaldus in the Ecclesiastical Annals at the year 1423, number 3, where part of the bull is recited. Martin V was indeed planning to hold a general council at Siena and to go to Siena; but the plan of going came to nothing. And about Louis's deeds in the bishopric of Maguelonne, this at last is subjoined in the Gallia Christiana: He carried into execution the sentence pronounced by Francis archbishop of Narbonne, the Pope's chamberlain, and absolved Reginald, abbot of Saint-Guilhem, from the excommunication and the other censures which he had incurred, by an instrument given at Rome at St. Mary Major on Friday, the 10th of the month of September, in the year 1423, Indiction 1.

[23] Created archbishop, Concerning Louis's translation to the archbishopric of Arles the same writers have it thus: And Louis a little afterwards, on the 3rd of the Nones of December of the same year, was taken up to the metropolitan see of Arles by Martin V, as appears from the consistorial Acts. This date agrees with what Denis of Sainte-Marthe says, who in volume 1, column 582, in the archbishops of Arles observes that Louis in an instrument made on the 10th of September of the year 1423 is called only bishop of Maguelonne; but that he had been elected to Arles before the 19th day of January of the following year. Then he subjoins: In the archives of Arles no instrument bears his name before the 6th day of June of the year 1425. In the year 1426, on the 9th of the Kalends of July, he is created Cardinal of the title of St. Cecilia by Pope Martin V. These dates are to be followed for the chronology, certainly as to the years, even though Saxius believed that he was created archbishop and Cardinal in the same year.

[24] and afterwards Cardinal It is pleasing, however, to hear Saxius celebrating the praises of the Cardinal-elect. Illustrious, he says, in birth, illustrious in genius, illustrious in holiness, illustrious in dignity, he became most illustrious in the purple, and was commonly known as the Cardinal of Arles. And that he accomplished much with Louis III, king of Naples and count of Provence, with the highest authority and favour, is testified by the diploma which he obtained for the benefit of the church of Arles, by which the king ratified the concessions of the emperors and kings of Arles made for the benefit of that same church, as regards cities, castles, townships, privileges, liberties, what they call franquesiæ or immunities, and other estates which the bishop of Arles and the church possess in the province of Arles. Concerning the day on which our Blessed was created Cardinal with eleven others, Raynaldus in the Annals at the year 1426, number 26, and Oldoinus in the enlarged Work of Ciaconius, volume 2, column 841, agree. For both write that those twelve Cardinals were created in the year 1426, on the 24th day of May.

[25] and legate of Bologna: he has care of the council of Siena, Of Louis's deeds in the cardinalate Saxius brings forward only this before the council of Basel: Louis our bishop, called into Italy, obtained the legateship of Bologna. Sainte-Marthe speaks thus: Louis was besides legate of Bologna and Apostolic vice-chamberlain. But he seems to have been vice-chamberlain before the cardinalate. The praised Oldoinus, column 842, concerning the offices held by Louis in Italy, observes that it is said by Ciaconius that he was made vice-chamberlain and prolegate of Bologna before the cardinalate. And he adds: Whatever be the case, it is certain that the dignity of the cardinalate with the title of St. Cecilia was conferred upon him by Martin, and that being called into Italy he performed by the order of the same Martin the office of legation at Bologna: thence, at the bidding of Martin himself, he betook himself to Basel to the synod which Martin had summoned in the last year of his pontificate. But in these things some are uncertain, others have arisen from error. It is uncertain first whether Bl. Louis was called into Italy by Martin V, since he rather seems to have remained in Italy from the beginning of the bishopric of Maguelonne until the cardinalate, nay until the council of Basel, unless perchance he set out for a short time to the city of Arles: about which nothing is established.

[26] It is uncertain secondly whether he was prolegate of Bologna He was not present at Basel from the beginning. or legate; and whether he held this office before or after obtaining the cardinalate. Several affirm that he was legate; to whom is added the ancient Epitaph, to be given towards the end of the Commentary, in which, however, the legateship of Bologna is placed before the cardinalate. But it seems false, first, that Louis was sent by name by Martin V to the council of Basel, since that council had already been summoned by Martin from the year 1424, in the bull by which he confirms the decree of the council of Siena, passed concerning the holding of a general council at Basel after seven years. That bull may be seen in Raynaldus at the year 1424, number 5. It is also false that Louis set out for the council from the legateship of Bologna; since he departed secretly from Rome after the council had long been begun, as we shall see. Sainte-Marthe records this about him before the council: In the year 1430, on the 4th of the Ides of March, he (Bl. Louis) subscribed certain statutes pertaining to the dignity of the Cardinals, after the election of Eugenius IV, who also confirmed them before he was crowned. But these things without doubt were done in the year 1431, in which Eugenius IV was created Pontiff: but according to the custom of those times the year 1430 was still running on the 12th day of March of the year 1431, on which the business was done.

§ IV. Louis's deeds at the council of Basel, at which he was not present from the beginning, but afterwards had the chief authority.

[ ] [The council of Basel, at once setting itself against Eugenius, had long been begun,] On the same 3rd day of March of the year 1431, on which Eugenius IV was elected Pontiff, the council of Basel ought to have been begun, according to what had been decreed at Constance and afterwards at the council of Siena. Alexander, abbot of Virzeliacum, or rather of Vézelay in Burgundy, was present at Basel on that same day, and testified to his presence by an instrument made before many witnesses, which may be seen in Martène, volume 8 of the Amplissima Collectio, page 2. This was such a beginning as that famous council had. Nevertheless in the same year more came little by little. Among these was Julian Cesarini, Cardinal of St. Angelo, president of the council, long since named by Martin V, and afterwards confirmed by Eugenius IV. And so the first session of the council was held in the same year, in the month of December, with only a few present, and among them very few bishops. In the same month of December Pope Eugenius IV dissolved the council of Basel: he recalls his legate Cardinal Julian, and publicly summons another council to be held at Bologna after a year and a half, says Augustine Patrizzi in his History of the council of Basel, published in Labbe, volume 13 of the Councils, from which I shall always cite it. The first reason for the dissolution is given in the same place, column [ ]: that the Fathers had come together at Basel in a small number, not more than ten, although the prescribed time of seven years (from the council of Siena) had elapsed eight months before; and that it did not seem fair that laws should be prescribed for the universal Church by so few bishops. The other reasons may be seen in the same place. This was the beginning of the controversies which flourished between Eugenius IV and the council of Basel: for the men of Basel, although in truth few, at once opposed themselves to the dissolution, and in the year 1432 held various sessions, in which almost everything is directed to exalting the authority of the council above the Pontiff himself, whom, as also the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, they summoned to the council with the threat of penalties. Bold counsels, of course, pleased the Fathers of Basel, though they would probably have accomplished more if they had followed more peaceful and moderate ones. But I do not wish to dwell on these things, since in the year 1433 peace was made between Eugenius IV and the Fathers of Basel, Eugenius revoking the decree of the council's dissolution; and since Bl. Louis Alemand, of whom alone we are treating, was not present at the council before the peace made with Eugenius, or at least came only when the concord was being negotiated.

[28] when Bl. Louis, having secretly left Rome, For about the coming of Louis, Cardinal of Arles, we are informed from the Letter of Philip, duke of Milan, which Martène published in volume 8 of the Amplissima Collectio, column 620. The Letter was given in the year 1433, on the 21st day of July, when the Cardinal of Arles was living at Genoa, that he might come to the council. And Philip, who writes this to the Fathers of Basel, was an enemy of Eugenius, and for that very reason greatly favoured the council, as this very Letter clearly shows. And what Philip relates about our Louis I transfer hither: But that I may share with you, he says, the things which I have touching the good of the aforesaid council, I signify to you that the most reverend lord Cardinal of Arles lately arrived at my city of Genoa half-naked and almost alone; so much so indeed that when he arrived, he moved all who saw him to great pity *. He himself asserts that, whereas he had often asked leave of the supreme Pontiff to betake himself to that sacred council, and the Pontiff had always denied it him, there arrived in these last days a swift galley of my magnificent city of Genoa in the Roman channel; and when notice of it had been given him, he resolved to depart from Rome altogether; and when he had already gone out of the city under a certain other pretext, he sent back, etc. But as he was making his way to the galley, it happened that he was set upon by certain men near the Tiber, whom he thinks to have been of the household of the Cardinal degli Orsini. But since he had an excellent horse, he began to flee, although both he and the horse fell in the course, not without injury to one of his knees. And as the horse wandered this way and that, he began

to walk on foot alone, trying to draw near to the galley; and when he had not found it as quickly as he would have wished, he hid himself in certain thickets, awaiting the divine grace, and to see whether he might perceive anything of the galley.

[29] and carried by ship to Genoa, comes to it in the year 1433. And at last it came about that some of the crew, leaving the galley and seeking the lord Cardinal himself upon the bank, raised, as is usual, their voices and shouts, because he was nowhere to be seen; and when he at first doubted * lest they might be others seeking him on behalf of the supreme Pontiff, after he had recognized the crew he made a sign, whereupon four at once came up to him and carried him on their shoulders across the Tiber, the water of the river reaching even to the throats of those who carried him. When therefore he had been brought back into the galley, and was sufficiently astonished at the dangers in which he had been, since the master of the galley said that it was not safe enough to stay there longer, they resolved, etc., to withdraw and to make for Genoa, which they reached in four days. Finally the aforesaid lord Cardinal will at once go to that council, intending with all zeal and mind to attend to the business to be done there. From his coming, I doubt not, that holy synod will receive singular comfort and joy, nor indeed unworthily, since he is himself a most wise Prelate and of the greatest reverence: whose presence will indeed adorn and increase the council not a little, and will give great favour and support to the business to be done. Thus far duke Philip; from whose Letter it is certain that Bl. Louis was not at the council in the first two years, but came in the year 1433, when peace was being negotiated. But whether he deserted the Pontiff and came to the council because he thought that he ought to obey the council, which was summoning all under grave penalties, or for some other cause, we can hardly divine.

[30] But about the Cardinal of Arles I find nothing in the History of the council [When a controversy arose about the place, Eugenius transfers the council to Ferrara:] so long as the sessions were in any way peaceful and quiet. But in the seventeenth session, held in the month of January of the year 1437, a sharp contention arose, because a city had to be chosen to which the Greeks should come to treat with the Fathers of the council about establishing concord between the Latin and the Greek Church. The Greeks were unwilling to come to Basel, nor to Avignon which had already been proposed to them, nor into Savoy; but they desired that some city of Italy should be designated for the treating of the union. Pope Eugenius was of the same opinion as the Greeks. When therefore, at the request of the Greek legates that some city of Italy should be designated, the matter had been proposed, the council was split into two factions. For one part was unwilling to concede anything to the Greeks beyond the places already offered, namely Basel, Avignon and Savoy. About these Augustine Patrizzi, column [ ], speaks thus: A great part of the Fathers withdrew, which was hostile to the Pontiff and by no means wished a council in Italy. This faction consisted for the most part of the common sort; although they had as their leader the Cardinal of Arles and some other prelates. In what manner this faction increased its number, he explains in these words: They gather clerics from everywhere: priests come in troops from the neighbouring towns and cities, and also most of those who in the city were serving the Fathers; and assembling in the church in their gowns, they cast the votes that were bidden. The opposite party, which wanted Florence and Udine in Friuli, or some other city, to be offered to the Greeks, is thus described by the same author: On the other side were the Cardinals of St. Sabina, who is also called of St. Angelo, and of St. Peter ad Vincula, and very many other worthy prelates, yet they were far outnumbered. This discord in the twenty-sixth session brought forth two contrary decrees, as may be seen in the same place. And the session is noted as held on the 4th of the Kalends of June of the year 1437. And of those decrees Pope Eugenius approved the one which transferred the council into Italy, as the Greeks desired. And so, since it was rightly agreed between the Greeks and the Pontiff about holding a council in Italy, it was first summoned at Ferrara, and thither the Greeks came with their emperor John Palæologus and with the patriarch of Constantinople.

[31] Meanwhile the men of Basel, or the greater and worse part of the council, But the men of Basel again begin to act against Eugenius, when they had understood that Eugenius favoured the Greeks' desire and the part of the council that agreed with them, in the twenty-sixth session, which is the twenty-seventh in Patrizzi, returned to accusations and to processes against Pope Eugenius, though Julian, Cardinal of St. Sabina, president of the council, forbade it and protested. Nor did the men of Basel hurl their brute thunderbolts only against Eugenius, but also against the synod which he convoked at Ferrara, the one at Basel being dissolved. Again under the gravest threats they summon all the Cardinals to Basel, and forbid those present there to depart. They attempt to draw the princes, and among them the emperor Sigismund, to their side. But the emperor, however much he had before greatly favoured the council, gave an answer worthy of his piety, expressed thus in Patrizzi, column [ ]: To these things the emperor replies that he hears with the greatest distress these new seditions arising between the Pontiff and the council: he exhorts them to conduct themselves more maturely in so great a matter, and not to do those things which will bring forth division and schisms, than which nothing more ruinous can befall the business in hand: they found the Church of God at peace: … the Fathers ought to remember their own profession, since they proclaim that they have come together for this end, that they may amend the manners of the Christian people, drive out heresies, and compose the minds of those at variance: they must beware lest they bring forth contrary effects, so that they who promise that they will unite the Greeks should divide the Latins and themselves, etc. The Greeks themselves had seen how little they could hope from such a council, and had rejected the legates of the council sent to Constantinople, and were sailing to Italy with the Pontiff's men. And when this was announced at Basel, says Patrizzi, column 1550, namely that they had set sail from Greece with the Pope's legates, various opinions and many contentions were stirred among the Fathers. He adds that Cardinal Julian in a public speech tried to recall them to concord with Eugenius; but, as the same author testifies, the tale was told in vain to obstinate minds. The men of Basel persist in their opinion, and seem unlikely to suffer the council to be held except in the place chosen by themselves.

[32] and as Eugenius's legates depart with many others, Louis is elected president. But that stubbornness of the men of Basel brought it about that the Pontifical legates and all the Cardinals, with one exception, departed from Basel. Concerning this matter Patrizzi, column [ ], has it thus: But Julian, Cardinal of St. Sabina, called of St. Angelo, when he saw the men of Basel obstinate in their purpose of deposing the Pontiff, departed from Basel on the 5th of the Ides of January (of the year 1438). And the Fathers, an assembly having been called, create as president, with full power, Louis, Cardinal of Arles, who was the only Cardinal remaining in the council. About the same man, as president of the council, Æneas Silvius in his Commentaries on the council of Basel, book 1, folio 2, speaks thus: In the midst of all and in the first place, as judge of the faith and moderator and arbiter of the whole disputation, was Louis, Cardinal and archbishop of Arles, a prelate distinguished both by many virtues and especially brave and constant. Under this President the men of Basel proceeded no less energetically or moderately against Pope Eugenius and those adhering to him than they had done before. I know indeed that these things do not make for the Blessed's glory; yet I judge that nothing must be dissembled, but that everything, so far as Louis had a part in it, must be briefly touched upon. And so the men of Basel brought forward various propositions as truths of the faith to be defined in the council. Æneas Silvius in his Commentaries on the deeds of the council of Basel, book 1, folio 2, sets out eight proposed at once. The first three were general, which the praised Æneas expresses in these words: It is a truth of the Catholic faith that a sacred general council has power over the Pope and over any other whatsoever. The second is: A general council lawfully assembled the Roman Pontiff cannot, without its own consent, either dissolve or transfer or prorogue for a time by his own authority, and this is of the same truth. The third: He who pertinaciously opposes himself to these truths is to be reckoned a heretic. That these propositions gave occasion to many contentions is clear from the same author.

[33] He relates, folio 10, that various legates of the princes asked that the decision be deferred. When eight articles against Eugenius had been proposed for definition, He recites in summary the speech of the archbishop of Palermo, trying to persuade to delay with many arguments, to whom many others adhered. And among other things he said that the decisive vote must be given to bishops alone, and that others had only a consultative vote, and that a scandal would arise on this occasion if a matter of faith should reach its conclusion without bishops. To be brief, he strongly insisted that the ambassadors of the princes should be awaited, who had set out for Mainz to the assembly of the princes. The ambassadors of the princes who were present also agreed, and, as if by a conspiracy formed, says Æneas, they sounded in one opinion, intending to hinder the conclusion with all their strength. Then, against the opinion of all these, Louis Alemand urged in a long speech the definition of the said articles; about which Æneas Silvius, folio 11, speaks thus: And when very many had been heard, … Louis, Cardinal of Arles, the most constant of all men and born for the governing of general councils, took up again the words of all the speakers who had spoken. Presently he tried to show that the ambassadors of most of the princes had been present at the examination of the articles, in order to prove that there was no need to wait longer. But these words of Louis offended the archbishop of Milan: From the territory of the duke of Milan the archbishop of Milan was present: who although he is not an ambassador, yet how great and of what kind a prelate he is held to be, you are not ignorant. For Æneas subjoins: And when he had spoken thus, the archbishop, moved for a while, said: You hold the president's place no better, man of Arles, than I hold that of the ducal ambassador. And he went on to provoke him with more words. But the Cardinal, being most patient of injuries and by no means to be provoked to any contention, said: This is what I wanted just now. For if the archbishop is an ambassador, no complaint at all remains to his duke, who had his ambassador at the discussion of the business. This slight contention, which Louis prudently composed by his patience, contributed much to the commending of his patience, and for that reason has been observed by me.

[34] As regards now the composition of that long speech, and a grave contention arose, Louis made a long speech, which most sharply stings his adversaries, especially the bishops, it is fitter for moving the minds of the moderately learned than for solving the difficulties raised, and abounds more in profane erudition than in sacred. To the objection of the archbishop of Palermo about not permitting the decision of matters of faith by the votes of the multitude, he answers thus: Yet let the man of Palermo himself remember that this is not a new manner of proceeding. The council itself gave itself its order of proceeding from the beginning, nor did it ever afterwards change it: and this at other times pleased you, man of Palermo, when the multitude followed you: now, because it does not follow, it displeases you. But the decrees of councils are not, like the wills of men, changeable. Know besides that those very bishops who agree with you in word do not agree in mind, etc. He adds very many other things, little pertinent to the matter. But that in that council the votes of the lower order frequently prevailed, many sayings of the Orator

hint. For at folio 13 he speaks thus: However it be, I judge it the work of God on this occasion that the lower orders were admitted to decide. For the Lord has now revealed to little ones those things which He hid from the wise. Behold, you see the zeal, the constancy, the uprightness, the magnanimity of these lower orders. Where now would the council be, if the bishops alone and the Cardinals alone had had a vote? Where now the authority of councils, etc.? The answer is brief. For the council would have been assembled at Ferrara, and afterwards at Florence, under its head, and would not have stirred up a schism at Basel. A little afterwards he says again: But the bishops, whom alone the man of Palermo wishes to have a vote — you see how few of them are with us; and those very men who are present are by no means strong enough to break through iniquity by virtue: they dread the earthly face of the powerful, and set a scandal in their own nimbleness. You have heard today the votes of the prelates, you have heard that all said that they acquiesced in the king's will, none in God's, etc. These things show sufficiently how few bishops the Cardinal of Arles had favouring him in that controversy — whose whole speech stings his adversaries more than it proves his cause.

[35] and received with great applause, he concludes for the first three; Nevertheless the Orator did not lack the applause of flatterers, as Æneas relates at folio 14 in these words: When the man of Arles had made an end of speaking, all with eyes fixed upon him betrayed their admiration by their amazement: then they began to praise, this man his memory, that man his learning: that he was the one man who would most worthily preside; who both knew how to confute objections and (as befits a president) showed himself impenetrable to insults. Yet even so the business was not yet finished. But all who adhered to the man of Palermo opposed themselves most vehemently. Nor was the affair without violence, says the author, since neither were the President's orders received, nor was the customary order in the conduct of business kept. The man of Arles indeed ordered the articles to be decreed to be read out; but the man of Palermo interrupted in this manner: You, he said, Fathers, despise our prayers, you despise kings and princes, you despise prelates. But beware lest, while you look down upon all, you be looked down upon by all. You wish to conclude, but it is not for you to conclude. We are the greater part of the prelates, we make the council, to us it belongs to conclude: and I in the name of the prelates conclude that the matter must be postponed. This was a true and by no means an inept speech. Yet John of Segovia wished to refute it in a longer speech, who, after not a few inept and false things, concluded in this manner, addressing the President: Wherefore if you go hence without a conclusion, know that you will render an account of this matter at the strict judgment of God. In the same manner very many others named at folio 16 pressed the man, and so hard did they press him that they would not let him recover his spirit. I pass over the insults, the threats, the tumults, and many other things, that we may see by what art our Louis extricated himself, and in what manner he concluded for the establishing of three articles out of the eight. He judged that cunning must be used, says Æneas, and in order to compose the tumult for a while, he said: I have new letters from France. Thus he obtained silence, and having spoken somewhat about the letters, and returning little by little to the business, he suddenly added that he was concluding for the three propositions in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And having said this, rising up glad and eager, he withdrew, highly approved and praised by all the men of his party. And some kissed him, others the hems of his garments, and very many following him greatly commended his prudence, who, although by origin a Frenchman, had nevertheless on this day surpassed the Italians, men of the highest cunning. Yet the common opinion of all was that this was the work of the Holy Spirit rather than of the man of Arles himself. Thus Æneas Silvius, afterwards taught better things.

[36] Another act remained, to be finished with like or even greater haste. The decree had to be drawn up and approved. [then for the decree made about them, without waiting for the legates, who are most gravely indignant,] But the ambassadors of the princes, having returned from the assembly of Mainz, had determined to hinder the decree. The decree having been drawn up and approved by the particular committees, all are called together, even the ambassadors of the princes, for the approval of the decree on the ninth day of May of the year 1439. But the legates, as Æneas observes at folio 16, were detained in the choir of the church, and there it was being discussed whether any peace could be had. Seizing this opportunity, the Cardinal of Arles, having read out those things which were to be read before the congregation, concluded according to custom, while the ambassadors of the princes were still remaining in the choir, as Æneas Silvius testifies, whose testimony certainly cannot be suspect. But the ambassadors, when they understood that they had been so far deceived, not only filled the whole church with complaints, but also said that the conclusions which were made in that manner were void, and inveighed most bitterly against the Cardinal president. The archbishop of Milan, turning to insults, said of the man of Arles that he was the man who fed a flock of copyists and schoolmasters, and settled a matter of faith with them, calling him a second Catiline, to whom all the desperate and the lost fled: and that he was their chief, and with them governed the church; and that in the greatest matter of all he did not listen to great prelates and to the ambassadors of great princes. The man of Palermo stung no less sharply, saying that they were not of God, since they did not hear the words of God; and that they hated the light, because they did evil; and that at last evil men are known by their evil fruits. He added truly that he feared lest conclusions of this kind should be revoked, as the fruits of a bad tree. I pass over other things disputed more subtly by others against the conclusions that had been made.

[37] The President meanwhile was silent. But when all had spoken, he tried in a modest speech to appease them all [and whom he tries in vain to appease by a speech. When the legates depart, he carries through the rest:] and to refute the sayings of some. But to the man of Milan, says Æneas at folio 17, because he saw him too much disturbed and too greatly moved, he answered nothing, lest perchance from grave words graver ones should be stirred up. At the end of his speech, turning to the multitude, he begged the Fathers to be of good courage, because he would never abandon them, even if he had to die; that he had given his faith to the council and wished to keep it, and that neither the threats nor the entreaties of anyone could cast him down from his purpose; that he would be ready for everything which the sacred council should command him, etc. The speech being finished, contentions arose again, and the shouts and protests of the ambassadors were so great that the decree could not be read. But amid these things the man of Arles suddenly rose, as it seemed, about to withdraw with the multitude of the Fathers. But since the man of Palermo and the other legates wished to remain alone in the church, he sat down again with his own people; and the legates, after their protests were finished, went away. And the man of Arles, obtaining silence by their withdrawal, having read out everything which he judged necessary, at the request of the promoters concluded, and having made an end dismissed the assembly. To these things Æneas Silvius, at that time the greatest admirer and praiser of the council, adds: Twice therefore (namely before the coming of the legates, and again after their departure) did the man of Arles conclude amid great difficulties; since neither the matter nor the form could be concluded without a struggle: and each conclusion was miraculous, and beyond the hope of all, obtained either by the industry of the man of Arles or by the gift of the Holy Spirit. So he. But the outcome taught the contrary, and a building which lacked a foundation could not long stand.

[38] That every form might seem to be observed for the said three propositions, a session had to be summoned. About this there was again a grave altercation between the man of Palermo, to whom the remaining ambassadors of the princes adhered, and Louis the president, who had the multitude of the lower order in his favour. [a session summoned for the same articles and held peaceably, the princes' legates being unwilling to attend.] And he prevailed, so that the session was held on the Saturday, the sixteenth of May (in the Acts this session is the thirty-third), and he sharply stung the man of Palermo, because he seemed to have become the defender of Eugenius, who had before been most hostile to him. He added that, if Eugenius thought against those (general propositions), it was more just that the Pope should be corrected than that the truth should be let go. This saying is certainly specious; but the legates and the other prelates were not assured of the truth, and therefore they were unwilling to be present at the session, which they could not hinder. Nevertheless the legates came to the choir and asked for certain conditions on which they would come to the session. Among these was that the first proposition alone should be declared defined. But not obtaining this condition, they withdrew. Yet let us hear whom our Louis had present at the session, and thence we shall gather by what authorities he prevailed in everything. No prelate of Aragon was present, and none at all from the whole of Spain. From Italy only the bishop of Grosseto and the abbot de Dona… From the two other nations (the French and the German) the mitred (that is, bishops or abbots) were only twenty. And so according to Æneas, who was himself present, there were bishops and abbots together twenty-two, of whom probably not even ten were bishops. For the man of Grosseto was only a bishop created by the council, and perhaps some others were such. But the others lay hid at home, having faith in their heart but not in their mouth, says the author, who not rarely accuses some of thinking one thing and speaking another, and the man of Arles himself frequently kept saying this. But judgment about things that lie hid in men's hearts will more rightly be left to God. Notwithstanding the absence of most of the bishops, yet all the benches were full of proctors of bishops, archdeacons, provosts, priors, priests, and doctors of divine and human law, whom I judged to be either four hundred or certainly more, says Æneas, and he observes that they were always most unanimous. But what is wonderful is what he sets down before this, a deed of the man of Arles for filling the places of the bishops. The man of Arles had foreseen what would happen, and ordered very many relics of Saints to be sought out through the whole city, and, being carried in the session by the hands of priests, to hold the place of the absent bishops: which thing greatly increased devotion, etc. That was as novel as many other things done in the same council. For the rest, the session was held peaceably, and the decree promulgated with none contradicting, because all were absent who would have wished to contradict. Æneas also adds that two of the princes' legates, namely the Imperial and the French, excused themselves for their absence in the following congregation, and that each said that he had stayed away only because they had a mandate about composing peace, not because they doubted about the truth of the propositions to be defined. And the man of Arles gave them thanks for this declaration.

* i. e. compassion

* i. e. he feared

§ V. Continuation of Louis's deeds at the council of Basel down to the end of the schism.

[ ] The three propositions having been established as truths of the faith in the assembly of the men of Basel, not long afterwards those Fathers proceeded to the condemnation of Pope Eugenius. But Æneas Silvius did not narrate that act with its attendant circumstances, perhaps because, being stricken with the plague, The legates of the princes ask in vain that the men of Basel he was not present at those proceedings. Certainly the pestilence about that time afflicted the men of Basel most gravely, as we shall see: and Æneas himself also writes that he suffered from it. About the beginning of that pestilence Augustine Patrizzi, column [ ], has it thus: In the month of March of the year 1439 the plague began to creep through Basel. And when the same author had thereafter briefly narrated the contentions that arose among the men of Basel over the eight propositions, of which the first three were at length approved by the multitude

as we have seen, he subjoins, at column [ ], the demands of the legates of the princes that the men of Basel should abstain from a process against the Pontiff, which were proposed on the 23rd day of May, in the year 1439. But the Fathers, after much debate, answered on the 13th day of June that neither was it lawful for them, nor was it useful to the commonwealth, that the judgment against Eugenius should be postponed, etc.

[40] They tried to prove this by some arguments, as may be seen in the same place, column [ ], should abstain from a judgment against Eugenius: where also follows what the men of Basel did after the legates' demands had been rejected. An assembly therefore being called, they order those to whom the matter had been entrusted to prepare everything for completing the judgment, and by common consent they approve five other conclusions, which they called truths of the faith, the legates now being silent, on the 9th of the Kalends of July (that is, on the 23rd day of June) of the same year, and they resolve by a public edict to cite Pope Eugenius to hear sentence on the 7th of the Kalends of the same month, that is, on the 27th day of June. The five propositions then approved are found in Æneas Silvius, folio 2. The first of these makes Eugenius a repugner of the truths of the faith, because he had transferred the council of Basel; the second makes him repentant, because he revoked the edict of translation; the third makes him inexcusable in error; and the fourth makes him relapsed into an error already revoked, because he transferred the council again; the fifth at last makes him pertinacious in error and consequently a heretic.

[41] The thirty-fourth session, therefore, was held on the said 25th day of June of the year 1439, but they pronounce a sentence of deposition against the Pontiff. and in it Eugenius IV is declared cast down from the pontificate, as contumacious, disobedient, rebellious, a violator of the canons, a disturber of the peace, a scandalizer of the Church, a simoniac, a perjurer, incorrigible, a schismatic, a deviator from the faith, a pertinacious heretic, etc., etc. In this session, says Patrizzi, thirty-nine mitred prelates were present among bishops and abbots, and of the lower Order not fewer than three hundred. Pope Eugenius was then most usefully occupied at Florence in the council, where the Greeks submitted themselves to the Roman Church on the 7th day of the following July. But that very council the men of Basel had already before declared illegitimate. And when the condemnation of Eugenius was finished, they send legates to the princes to inform them of the cause of the deposition, and to bid that a decree of this kind be accepted by all. They certainly knew how to command, if there had been any who were willing to obey. But the time was now coming in which those who seemed to despise all should be despised by all. For the princes did not cease to hold Eugenius for the true and lawful Pontiff. Their anxieties Patrizzi briefly declares, column [ ], in these words: But the men of Basel, having by their decrees cast Eugenius down from the pontificate, were more and more distressed day by day, since the plague was raging exceedingly at home, and Eugenius was sharply assailing them from abroad, especially now that the union of the Greeks had been accomplished. And the said pestilence bred a doubt among the men of Basel whether it were not more advisable to proceed at once to the election of a Pontiff than to wait sixty days. Nevertheless the opinion prevailed which urged that they should wait sixty days.

[42] Meanwhile the plague raging at Basel destroys many of the council itself, How greatly the pestilence raged, and in what manner Louis Alemand bore himself in that calamity, Æneas Silvius sets forth in book 2, folio 20, writing thus: And when now the Dog-star was burning up the barren fields, the plague raged more widely on every side, and the disease growing hotter day by day — it is incredible how many souls it sent down to the grave. It was horrible to see funerals carried out through the streets hour by hour, and always either the Lord's Body or the Sacrament of extreme unction to be at the crossroads; and everywhere lamentation, everywhere groaning to be heard. In the whole city no house lay open that was free of mourning… The common townsfolk fell without number: and as the leaves of the woods fall in the first cold of autumn, so the bodies of the young expired. And so great was the force of the disease that, on seeing someone now glad and strong in the street, after an hour you would hear that he had been buried at the tenth hour. And now there were so many funerals of the dying that places of burial were lacking… For which cause the Fathers were so terrified that no blood now reddened in their faces. Then he narrates the death of Louis the prothonotary and of Louis, patriarch of Aquileia, whom he often presented as hostile to Eugenius, and calls them two pillars of the council. Presently he adds the death of others, of whom one was in Switzerland, another at Strasbourg, a third at Speyer, a fourth in Hungary, a fifth in Bohemia on behalf of the men of Basel; and he subjoins: And both within the council and without there was everywhere fear and trembling. Finally he enumerates in general many who died in the council, and some also of the household of the Cardinal of Arles himself.

[43] and many urge Louis to withdraw: which he refuses to do. And presently, at folio 21: But in those days in which the plague was more fervid, and in which more than a hundred funerals appeared daily, great entreaties were made to the man of Arles that he should withdraw to some neighbouring country place: and the voice of all his household or attendants was the same: What are you doing, revered Father? Flee at least this waning of the moon: save your head, by whose safety we are all saved; by whose perishing also we all perish. But if the plague overwhelm you, to whom shall we flee? Who will govern us? Who will be the leader of this faithful army? Already the poison has crept into your chamber, already your secretary, and already your chamberlain, has met death. Consider the danger, and save yourself and us. But neither the entreaties nor the funerals of his household could bend him, since he preferred to save the council at the peril of his life than to save his life at the peril of the council. For he knew that if he withdrew, few would have remained, and fraud could easily have been committed in his absence. He adds that others too remained by his example; and from that perseverance at the peril of life he infers that the Fathers at Basel sought the truth of the faith rather than their own advantage. Perhaps he would have inferred more rightly that they were warned by God through that savage pestilence to examine more closely whether the things they were attempting were just and pleasing to God. Meanwhile they went on; but, as Patrizzi has it, column [ ], on the eleventh of the Kalends of August thereafter, when the plague was raging more sharply, the counsel of the man of Arles was that they should cease from assembly and conciliar acts until the end of September, and that the election of a new Pontiff should be deferred to the Kalends of November. But that counsel had no effect: and the men of Basel went on with their business.

[44] But when they had sent legates to the assembly of the princes which was being held at Mainz, they obtained nothing against Eugenius. And Eugenius in the council of Florence sharply struck the men of Basel by a bull given on the 4th day of September of the year 1439, Eugenius condemns the men of Basel: and they by which they and their truths are condemned, and he declares them excommunicated and deprived of every dignity, honour and benefice, etc. Patrizzi, who narrates these things, column [ ], observes that the Fathers were affected with great distress, and had recourse to an apology. There were those who demanded that the Pontiff's decree should be condemned by public consent as a heretical pamphlet. But, John of Segovia dissuading, although it seemed otherwise to the man of Arles, the matter was deferred to another time. On this I observe that twice in succession action was taken against the counsel of the Cardinal of Arles, whose authority at that time seems to have been somewhat diminished, as will also appear from what follows. Let us hear Patrizzi: Then in the month of October, when the time fixed by the men of Basel for substituting a Pontiff was at hand, many came to Basel to the council from the neighbouring places, and especially from the principality of Savoy, such as the archbishop of Tarentaise, etc. This accession of the Savoyards made the Cardinal suspect, as we shall see. Letters of the emperor also are brought forward, sharply complaining of Eugenius's deposition, and asking that they should not proceed to the election of another. But the Cardinal of Arles said that they must hasten and delay no longer, says Patrizzi, and take counsel for the Church and for the purity of the faith and for the authority of general councils, and fear no one; that he was ready even to lay down his life for the defence of the Church. To this counsel the others acquiesced, and everything was being prepared for the election.

[45] First three are chosen by the council, the Scottish abbot, they prepare everything for the election of a new Pontiff, about which Louis John of Segovia, and Thomas of Courcelles. These were to be the electors of the Pontiff, but before that they had to choose in secret other electors up to that number that, besides the Cardinal, who was the only one, the others together should be thirty-two. None of those three was a bishop, and the Cardinal grieved that he too was excluded from the power of nominating the other electors. He saw therefore, too late, that he had given too much authority to the lower Order. Wherefore the Cardinal of Arles, going to the assemblies or deputations, complained that it was unjustly imputed to him that the multitude from Savoy had come for the new election by his contrivance, as though he wished to use their votes for the election, etc.… And that he grieved that the Fathers did not fully trust him; that whereas it had been the custom for presiding Cardinals to be admitted by all the deputations into the consultations, he had been scorned like a dog and not admitted in the choosing of electors — and he recalled his services in defence of the council. Turning at last to the image of the Crucified, he swore with a great oath that he desired no Pontiff except one through whom the state of the Church might be preserved: and that a powerful man must be chosen, so that he might be able to maintain himself by himself: otherwise it was all over with the Church. After this, in the thirty-seventh session, laws were framed for the coming election, and at last the electors were publicly declared in the congregation which was held on the 29th of October.

[46] Æneas Silvius observes, book 2, folio 22, that the curiosity of all to hear the naming of the electors was remarkable. shows much anxiety and solicitude. About Louis he notes this: But the Cardinal of Arles, anxious in so great a matter and occupied with many affairs, came somewhat later than the time required, and offered to all, not without wonder, the spectacle of being awaited. Yet he, as he sat down on the benches, having first excused his delay, said: Today a great matter is transacted: on the nomination which will presently be disclosed the state of the Church hangs. If the three men to whom you have committed the business have acted well, I confess indeed * that I have come somewhat late: but if ill, I am here too soon. Which words he pronounced both with a trembling voice and with a pale face, and out of the abundance of his heart. And having so spoken, sad of aspect, troubled in mind, and threatening of eye, he was a terror to all, and showed so great a sorrow of mind that very many wept with him, who learn their own condition from his brow. The author adds that the cause of so great a trembling was that the Cardinal feared lest the chief prelates had been passed over in the election. Hence, when he had learned the nomination of them all, the Cardinal's mind was cheered, he says at folio 23, which up to that hour had remained trembling and stupefied, nor could he be persuaded that a nomination of that kind was being made. But when he saw bishops and abbots taken up in great number, and the nations which were in the council honoured in equal proportions, he recovered both the vigour of his mind and the colour of his brow. And being made glad, he cheered the assembly also with his serene countenance, which, while he showed sadness, could not but be sad. Yet the Cardinal could not fear lest he himself should be excluded, because he was an elector by his own right, he says at folio 22, as all the Cardinals would have been, if any had been willing to come. First therefore of all the electors the Cardinal

was the man of Arles, a man both of unconquerable constancy and of incomparable prudence, to whose virtue I should not hesitate to ascribe whatever was done in the council, because neither would the prelates have persevered without him, nor would the shadow of any prince have protected them. So Æneas, who afterwards entered the conclave with him, yet not as an elector.

[47] [The Cardinal, having performed the divine service and taken the oath, enters the conclave with the electors,] On the following day, the 30th of October, the Cardinal of Arles performed the divine service, and gave communion to all the electors, says Patrizzi, column [ ]. Then in the thirty-eighth session some laws were promulgated, chiefly for the election. All these being confirmed by public decree, first the man of Arles and then the other electors took the oath, as it had been drawn up on other occasions. Æneas Silvius at folio 23 greatly praises the piety of Louis distributing the sacred communion to each. Which thing, he says, he performed so orderly, so solemnly, so devoutly, that of those who saw it no one held back his tears, save he who had a breast either of stone or of iron. His oath he expresses thus: I, he said, most reverend Fathers, before my Lord Jesus Christ, whose most sacred body I, an unworthy sinner, have just now eaten, and to whom in the dread and great final judgment I shall render an account of all things done by me, promise, swear and vow that in this business of the election, to which we are now sent by the council's will, I shall seek nothing else than the salvation of the Christian people and the good of the universal Church. And it shall be my care to take pains that the authority of general councils be not made light of, that the Catholic faith be not assailed, and that the Fathers persisting in the council may not be crushed. This I shall seek, this I shall solicit, to this I shall bend all my strength: in this matter I shall do nothing for my own sake or for that of my friends: but I shall look only to God and to the profit of His Church. With this mind, with this intention, with this heart in short, I take the conciliar oath. And his speech was both vivid and terrifying, and moved the minds of all who stood by. Then, when the others also had sworn, on the same day Louis entered the conclave, whose chambers had been assigned to each by lot, clothed in pontifical ornaments and blessing the people, the others following in a long order. And having entered the conclave, in the chapel which had been prepared for the celebration of Masses, before the altar and before the very standard of Christ, with bended knees and bared head he offered prayers to God and blessed both the house and its inhabitants. And so, having laid aside their copes and mitres, each betook himself to the place where he recognized his own name. So Æneas, who entered at the same time as clerk of ceremonies.

[48] What Louis on the following day recommended to the electors, Æneas being silent, Patrizzi at column 1578 sets forth in these words: on the next day he exhorts them to elect a powerful man: But on the next day, before the votes were entered upon, the Cardinal of Arles exhorted his colleagues in many words to elect as Pontiff some man powerful in birth and riches, who could provide for the Church's necessity: otherwise everything would come to nothing: that there was need of great and ready money to the amount of forty thousand pieces; and of such a Pontiff as would receive the Fathers within his own dominion and could defend them from their adversaries. But Æneas at folio 24 relates many things about the order of the conclave, and among others he observes about the food that it was forbidden to bring more than one dish to each, so that one of the two meat dishes was taken away if two were found to have been brought. And when this had happened to the archdeacon of Cracow, and when it was answered to him as he complained about it that the same thing had befallen the Cardinal, Æneas relates that the archdeacon answered thus: What! You match me with the Cardinal, a Frenchman, sparing, without a belly, or (to speak more truly) not a man. I am lodged next to him by my ill fortune: the transparent curtain shows me everything he does: nor have I yet seen him either drink or eat: and, what is more troublesome to me, he passes sleepless nights and sleepless days… He is always either reading or transacting business: he has no care less than that of his belly. I have nothing in common with him: I am a Pole, he a Frenchman: my stomach burns, his is cold: to him fasting is health, to me it is death. I, unless I eat much and sleep much, shall soon give out. To him everything is the contrary. Let the French fast, and let the Poles eat. At which saying he turned them all to laughter. From these sayings of the witty Pole various writers commend the sobriety of Louis in food and sleep, and his wonderful frugality.

[49] But as regards the election, since there were also many Savoyards among the electors, Amadeus, duke of Savoy, is elected at last: and Louis, the head of them all, was himself born in the dominion of the duke of Savoy, we do not wonder that many votes at once from the beginning conspired upon Amadeus, duke of Savoy, although he was a layman and inexperienced in ecclesiastical matters. For the electors wanted a powerful man, and spoke in such a manner as though the Church would be sufficiently provided for if only they could defend themselves through their own Pontiff against Eugenius. Some, however, objected, as Æneas testifies at folio 25, and said that hands must not be quickly laid upon a layman, because it would seem to all like a monstrous thing that a prince of the world should be summoned to the Roman pontificate: which thing would too much derogate from ecclesiastical men, as though they had none fit for so great a dignity. Others judged a man who had been married and had offspring unfit for the priesthood. Others asserted that the Roman Bishop ought to be a doctor of law and eminent in much learning. These reasoned well in a bad cause, as some at Basel always did. But others saw that it was all over with their council unless they elected a man who could protect it by his power, and said that such was Amadeus, duke of Savoy, who has one foot in Italy and the other in France; to whom almost all the princes of Christendom are either related by blood or favourable by friendship, and how great his virtue is we have already related above, says someone in Æneas at folio 26. And so we ought not to wonder that the Fathers of Basel, who did many wonderful things, agreed upon Amadeus by twenty-six votes (in Æneas at folio 26) on the Nones of November, and that he, who was at once a prince and a hermit, ascended by a single leap to the pontificate of the men of Basel and of the Savoyards. I should certainly wonder if this had been done elsewhere; but weary with wondering at the deeds of the men of Basel, I can wonder at their deeds no more. Further, since out of thirty-three electors only twenty-six had given their votes to duke Amadeus, the man of Arles, says Patrizzi, column [ ], exhorts those seven who had not elected Amadeus that they too should elect Amadeus. And they, answering that it was enough if they approved the election, refused to make another election. The election being completed, … the man of Arles in the name of his colleagues reported all that had been done, and again in the name of all elected Amadeus, duke of Savoy, as Roman Pontiff, etc.

[50] Louis is head of the legation sent to Amadeus: he accepts the papacy The election thus made the men of Basel confirmed in the thirty-ninth session. Then they send legates, twenty-five in number, to Amadeus, to announce the election in the council's name and to require his consent, as Patrizzi testifies, column [ ]. The chief of the legation was the Cardinal of Arles. Now Amadeus was at Ripaille, … and there together with ten other noble men he wore the hermit's habit, and was called dean of the knights of St. Maurice, without, however, having abdicated the dukedom. The duke-hermit came forth to meet the legates, learned of the election and of the conditions proposed to him. About these he showed some difficulty, chiefly about the oath which was required. Nevertheless he consented to everything more easily than could have been believed of a man loving solitude, and, having received the pontifical vestments, he received the blessing from the man of Arles and the Fisherman's ring, etc. On the next day they set out from Ripaille to Thonon, where Amadeus, now called Felix, laid aside the beard which he had kept until then. And on the day of the Epiphany (of the year 1440), the sacred rites having been celebrated, the man of Arles delivered an oration in which he discoursed much about the virtues and the most noble birth of the elected Amadeus. He then, at Louis's request, gave up the dukedom to his son, and did other things less pertinent to us. He then by letters ordered Louis to preside over the assembly of Basel. But these letters did not please the men of Basel. For Patrizzi, column [ ], has it thus: The letters of Felix after this, in which he had entrusted the legateship and the presidency of the council to the Cardinal of Arles, when read in the assembly did not please, and were destroyed and erased from the registers, and again granted in other words.

[51] [and afterwards is crowned at Basel. Louis, sent as legate with others to the assembly of the princes,] On the 24th day of July of the year 1440 Amadeus, the antipope Felix, was crowned at Basel on a platform raised of timber before the doors of the church, and consecrated as Roman Pontiff, the Cardinal of Arles acting in the place of the bishop of Ostia, says Patrizzi, column [ ], where there is more about these matters. Æneas Silvius, however, narrates the whole pomp more fully in his Letter to John of Segovia, which the curious may see. For I do not undertake to write the whole history of the council of Basel or of the schism, but only the deeds of Louis Alemand. In the year 1441 Louis, with another whom Felix had called Cardinal, came to the diet of Mainz, where John of Segovia was already before him, as Cardinal and legate of Felix. In what manner Louis was there received with the others, Patrizzi sets forth, column [ ], in these words: A little afterwards the Cardinal of Arles, as legate a latere, together with John of Freising, whom they called Cardinal of St. Martin, came to Mainz. The princes send John Lysura to him: they assert that they would honour the man of Arles as a true Cardinal if he would lay aside the insignia of a legation, and that they would hear him with a fair mind, and the others too, if he would leave his cross, and the others their Cardinal's habit, at home. This answer of the princes by no means pleased Louis and his companions, whom the princes did not hold for Cardinals, as neither Louis for a legate, because they did not hold Felix for the true Pontiff.

[52] Nevertheless at last they resolve to yield. Therefore on the 9th of the Kalends of April the Cardinal of Arles, is received less well, and is forced to return with nothing done. leaving his cross at home, came with some of his colleagues and with the households of his Cardinals, whom also he had left at home, to the place of the assembly, where first he himself said many things, and Thomas of Courcelles his colleague more, about the supreme power of councils, about the council's right judgment against Eugenius, and about the lawful and necessary election of Felix. After these, the legates of Pope Eugenius were likewise heard, not without great applause of the princes, since they seemed to have repelled their adversaries' objections excellently, says Patrizzi. The same author observes, column [ ], that John of Segovia was chosen by the men of Basel, our Louis being passed over, to answer the arguments of Eugenius's legates; and that he, having left his Cardinal's habit at home, disputed much before the princes as a private man for the cause of the men of Basel. But even though he had been chosen to speak because he was strong in learning and elocution, the legates of Eugenius, as prevailing by their cause, declared that those truths of theirs which they so greatly extolled were false follies, condemning and deriding all their deeds as iniquitous and foolish. And the men of Basel, asking to be heard after this, were no longer admitted. And so to return

to Basel with nothing accomplished was all they could do.

[53] In the year 1442 Patrizzi again records some things about our Louis, column [ ]. [Likewise sent as legate to Frankfurt to the emperor Frederick, he obtains nothing for Felix:] First, when the men of Basel were sending legates to the emperor Frederick with a synodal letter, and it had been composed by the man of Palermo, the said Letter did not please. But at the urging of the Cardinal of Arles, Æneas of Siena produced another form, which was approved by all, and even by the man of Palermo himself. The letter seems to have been vehement against Eugenius, so far as appears from the summary. More must be said about the assembly of Frankfurt, to which the emperor was hastening, and to which there were designated by the men of Basel as legates the Cardinal of Arles, and the man of Palermo, and John of Segovia, called Cardinals, who in the month of May took their journey down the Rhine at the feast of Pentecost. Then at column 1600: The legates of Basel meanwhile … on the sixth of the Kalends of June put in at Frankfurt by ship, and were received very kindly by the citizens, yet not as Apostolic legates, and were ordered to leave the insignia of their legation at home. On the same day the emperor Frederick entered Frankfurt… And he forbade the men of Basel to come out to meet him for honour's sake. After some days the men of Basel went to the emperor, and having delivered the letters of the council and of Felix, commend their cause, the man of Palermo speaking, etc. The emperor answered that he desired peace, and bade them wait until he should have returned from Aachen, whither he was going to be crowned; and that meanwhile they should set forth their cause before those whom he should appoint for this work in his own name and that of the princes. This the men of Palermo and Segovia did. But the Cardinal of Arles, when he had given thanks to the emperor, offered himself as a companion of the emperor's journey, asserting that he as archbishop of Arles was a prince of the empire, and that it belonged to him to set the crown upon the emperor, because his predecessor of Arles had done so on another occasion. What the emperor Frederick answered to this the author does not add, but after two days he departed, and the man of Arles followed him. After the disputations held at Frankfurt, the men of Basel obtained nothing for their Felix. Afterwards, however, the emperor came to Basel, but was unwilling to enter the city unless the men of Basel would first promise that they would consent to another council. This promise being received, he entered, with Louis at his side accompanied by another Cardinal of Felix, and he saw Felix, and approached him; yet he did not venerate him as Pontiff.

[54] certain private causes tried in the council: Amadeus's efforts vain. Private causes also were tried in the council, as Patrizzi relates, column [ ], where he observes that the man of Arles with others urged with great care that John Baccheistein should not pursue the judgment of his cause, but in vain. Others wished that there should be four presidents: which, by the exertion of Felix and of the Cardinal of Arles, was not admitted. There was then another contention in the year 1443 among the men of Basel about the church of Freising, and it was concluded against the opinion of our Louis, as may be seen at column [ ]. Then the fervour of the men of Basel languished: for the ambassadors of the king of Aragon, among whom the chief was the man of Palermo, were recalled, and Felix himself had already before them departed from Basel to Lausanne, whither at last those also removed who had remained at Basel, until by the order of the emperor Frederick they were compelled to depart. Æneas Silvius, whom we have seen before most devoted to the council of Basel, but who, having left Basel, had betaken himself to the emperor Frederick and had there changed his mind, in his Work On the State of Europe, chapter 38, speaks thus about the efforts of the antipope Felix: He had negotiations with Charles king of France, with Alfonso king of Aragon (who was then an enemy of Pope Eugenius), with Philip duke of Milan, and with several others, about the receiving of his authority: all of which came to nothing. The emperor Frederick too was with him at Basel; but he went away secretly in the dead of night, lest he should seem to have adored an idol. * Reverence to him, as to the Vicar of Jesus Christ, was shown only by his own subjects, and by the Swiss peoples, and the men of Basel, and the men of Strasbourg, and those who obeyed Albert duke of Bavaria. There was also great hope of obtaining Germany, since six prince-electors had entered into a league to this effect, that unless Eugenius should grant their demands (and they demanded things utterly to be denied), they would pass over into the obedience of Amadeus, whom they called Felix. But when Frederick had overturned their counsels, and had ordered those who were living at Basel under the name of a synod to depart, despairing of a better outcome, and Charles king of France intervening through his legates, he gave peace to the Church, and being reconciled to Nicholas the supreme Pontiff, having laid aside the name of Pope, he retained the honour of the cardinalate, in which a little afterwards he died, not without the reputation of a good man — a happy prince, and too happy, had he not disfigured his old age with ecclesiastical titles. So he, who before had so greatly extolled both the council of Basel and the election of Felix.

[55] [Peace began to be negotiated before the death of Eugenius; but it was concluded two years afterwards,] Further, it concerns our purpose less to inquire laboriously by what steps concord was arrived at. Let it suffice to have said that concord was already being negotiated before the death of Eugenius IV, who in the year 1447, on the 23rd day of February, died piously — Æneas Silvius, legate of the emperor Frederick, being then at Rome, who narrates at length the death of Eugenius and the election of Nicholas V in an Oration delivered to Frederick in the same year, which Baluze published in volume 7 of the Miscellanea, page 525 and following; and that the conditions of peace were arranged by the intervention of Charles VII king of France with other princes. Writers add that an assembly was held at Lyons to arrange the conditions of peace, and it seems certain that the foundations of the peace were laid there, although no one has given a full and detailed account of that assembly. That our Louis was the chief man in that assembly on the side of Felix and those adhering to him appears from Monstrelet, a writer of that time, whom various authors cite. His words may be seen in Colonia's Histoire littéraire de Lyon, volume 2, page 388. Felix abdicated the name of Pope on these conditions, that he should be a Cardinal and Apostolic legate in Savoy, that is, in the whole dominion where he had been held for Pontiff. Our Louis, who on account of the schism had been deprived of all his dignities, was restored to all his former rights. So too were all the others who had adhered to the schism restored to their former rights.

[56] Yet it was not granted to Felix that all those whom he himself had called Cardinals should have that dignity. [Amadeus at last lays down the papacy, and the men of Basel dissolve their assembly.] Raynaldus teaches this at the year 1449, number 7, in these words: As regards Amadeus's pseudo-cardinals, Stephen Infessura reports that Nicholas came to no agreement with them; but that he wished them to submit themselves to the pontifical judgment. This is sufficiently gathered from what Æneas Silvius writes in chapter 38 On the State of Europe in this manner: John of Segovia, a Spaniard, illustrious in character and learning, who while he equalled the highest teachers of theology in learning, had received the eminence of the cardinalate from Amadeus while the latter called himself Pope; and afterwards, consenting to the union, was set by Nicholas the supreme Pontiff over the church of Caesarea, the title of the cardinalate being laid aside; and hidden away among the highest mountains, content with a little monastery, he translated and refuted the Koran. Some, however, of those whom Felix had created Cardinals, Nicholas adorned with the purple, as Raynaldus observes; but not all. That by force of the conditions admitted some were left in that dignity, St. Antoninus hints in part 3, title 22, chapter 12. It was also agreed between Pope Nicholas and Felix that all censures and other processes made on occasion of the schism should be revoked, as was done on both sides, and indeed by Felix with such display as though he had been Pontiff. At last on the 7th day of April of the year 1449 Felix abdicated the pontificate in the assembly of the men of Basel. The men of Basel likewise wished to conclude their doings with honour. And so they held a second session at Lausanne to abrogate the censures and the other processes made against Eugenius and others, and to confirm certain other things. In the third session they elected Nicholas V as Pope, as if the See had been vacant; in the fourth they create Amadeus Cardinal bishop of Sabina. These decrees of the men of Basel, who did all these things at Lausanne, would not have been necessary; but they doubtless seemed useful for utterly extinguishing the schism.

[57] Edmond Martène in the preface to volume 8 of his Amplissima Collectio gave a far fuller account of the council of Basel, The true verdict upon the council of Basel. which he concludes at page 46 with these words: And thus was the end of the schism, and at the same time of the council of Basel, which for about nineteen years (nay eighteen) brought forth few goods and infinite evils, through party zeal and lack of the reverence due to the supreme Father. It had its champions, who wrote in its defence: Æneas Silvius, secretary of Domenico Capranica, and afterwards bishop of Siena, Cardinal, and at last Pope Pius II, who while Eugenius was still living acknowledged his error and asked pardon: and Antony (nay Nicholas) of Palermo, endowed with the purple by Felix, who himself also cast off the purple, "and being gravely sick at Palermo, complained often about his nephews, by whose counsel and impulse he suffered himself to be carried away with the schismatics in the council of Basel," as Rocco Pirri relates in his Sicilia sacra, volume 1, page 165. Nicholas, archbishop of Palermo, died in the year 1445, that is, before Eugenius IV and before the end of the schism. The little work therefore which he wrote in defence of the deeds of the men of Basel was composed in the time of the schism, not afterwards, as some seem to have believed.

perhaps quidem*

perhaps adiit*

§ VI. Various judgments of various men upon the deeds of Bl. Louis with the men of Basel: those are refuted who deny that he repented of his deeds in the council.

[ ] St. Antoninus censures the men of Basel with a sharp pen: Saint Antoninus, bishop of Florence, most excellent in theological learning and in wonderful holiness of life, who flourished in the times of the council of Basel and was able to consider everything at leisure, paints all the deeds of the men of Basel in black colours in part 3, title 22, chapter 10. For in §4 he observes first that there were many Cardinals at Basel when the council was dissolved by Eugenius by Apostolic authority, and the legate recalled from that presidency. They, however, he says, stopped their ears, not hearing the voice of the Lord, but, that assembly being made a conventicle having no force except as a synagogue of Satan, by the authority of their own rash presumption they began to cite Eugenius to come to the council, being urged to this by the duke of Milan, who bore his pontificate ill because he did not favour him. And after a few things, which for brevity's sake I omit, he continues thus: Those therefore who were assembled at Basel, … pursuing their rashness, having deposed Eugenius from the papacy, set up for themselves as an idol the aforesaid duke of Savoy called Amadeus, whom, having become an apostate, they named Felix. Who was enthroned, not in the See of Peter, but of Lucifer, who set his seat towards the North. He adds certain things against the chief authors of the schism, and especially against the legates of the king of Aragon, then hostile to Eugenius. Then he subjoins: And in this manner Basel

brought forth a basilisk… And this schism lasted down to the times of Nicholas the Fifth, etc. About the end of the schism and the submission of Amadeus the same author treats briefly in chapter 12. But the words given suffice for understanding the mind of St. Antoninus about the deeds of the men of Basel. Our Louis, after whose death he wrote, he does not accuse more than the rest, nor does he excuse him, but includes him in the general censure.

[59] Monod thinks that our Louis erred out of zeal, Now to this censure of St. Antoninus almost all the writers who have since treated of these matters deservedly subscribe. Yet I would not heap up many, since above all the rest Louis himself seems to have condemned his own deeds against Eugenius, as I shall prove below against certain most recent writers. Peter Monod in his Amedeus Pacificus bends all the powers of his wit to snatch Amadeus, gravely censured by St. Antoninus, from the stain of crime. But about his promoters, at page 170, he does not dare to bring so favourable a judgment. And about our Louis he begins to treat by name at page 175 in this manner: The chief (of Amadeus's promoters) who presents himself is Louis Alemand, Cardinal of the title of Saint Cecilia, commonly called of Arles, whom I the more gladly rescue from reproaches inasmuch as it is more religious to defend by a pious plea those who are consecrated and inscribed among the Saints. For although it is now well known that he erred in the things which he did against Eugenius, yet I would venture to affirm that there was more of zeal than of offence in his actions. Then at page 177: What set him at odds with Eugenius I do not find, unless that the Man, being most tenacious of ecclesiastical discipline, could not bear that by Eugenius's indulgence towards his own people those laws should be loosened upon whose framing the synod of Constance had so earnestly laboured. The conjecture is uncertain, since it is not shown what laws of the synod of Constance Eugenius permitted to be loosened. The other reason which is added is drawn from the slanderous tongues of many, by which Eugenius's reputation was torn, as though Louis had believed them too much. But not even this pleases me, because Louis could have had Eugenius's character abundantly known to him, having been long enough at Rome with him. Then he heaps up many things in the Blessed's praise, to be given later.

[60] Spondanus at the year 1438, number 11, writes the following about Bl. Louis Alemand: Spondanus's conjectures, and Attichy, heaping up many That man of Arles indeed was distinguished by Apostolic legations and other things excellently done, and conspicuous for great piety, learning and religion, and austerity of life (as the eulogies of very many authors, which the authors of the Amedeus Pacificus and of the Additions to the Lives of the Pontiffs of Ciaconius have collected into one, show); but whom either some grudge (asserted by several, though not so well proved), or a zeal not according to knowledge, and too great a readiness to believe calumniators, had drawn back from Eugenius and had hardened in the defence of the council of Basel, which he believed to be lawful — certainly its chief support after the departure of all the other Cardinals and of the other chief prelates… But that he washed away by penitence the guilt of the schism that arose hence, is given us to understand from his holy end, etc. With these things Attichy, already praised above, altogether agrees, who collected various things from various authors to this effect. First he says: Louis, Cardinal of Arles (he was among the men of Basel), was like a most splendid sun of wisdom among lesser stars, but yet, by reason of human weakness, suffered an eclipse. Then, having set out some deeds of Louis in the assembly of the men of Basel, he continues thus: But what was the cause of so great a spite in him against Eugenius, and whence flowed those grave enmities which he maintained with that Pontiff, is doubtful. Certainly Cardinal Torquemada calls him an enemy of Eugenius the supreme Pontiff, because, he says, he had not been able to obtain from him, according to his insatiable ambition, that he should succeed his uncle in the office of Apostolic chamberlain. Aubéry adduces from Alanus Carterius another cause not unlike this, namely that, whereas he had been appointed chamberlain of the Holy Roman Church by Pope Martin, he was removed from that very office by Eugenius. But I with Saxius, Victorelli and Spondanus judge it more probable that our Louis was not goaded by hatred or by any grudge, nor was in the gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity against Eugenius, as many have thought; but that perhaps he was deceived by too great a credulity given to the calumniators of that Pontiff, and led by some perverse zeal to defend the acts of the council of Basel, of which he had himself been president and leader, and which he believed lawful — and since we are wont to bear most ill * that those things should be rescinded which have been established by us, or have once seemed just, since every man abounds in his own sense: or because the Man, being most tenacious of ecclesiastical discipline, could not bear with an even mind that those laws upon whose framing the synod of Constance had so greatly toiled should be loosened or relaxed, as it seemed to him, by Eugenius, through an error perhaps of fact, which can befall a Roman Pontiff.

[61] together: all these acknowledge that he erred and repented. It was therefore, as I think, an ill-ordered love of justice rather than a desire of revenge that drew him, since the above-mentioned Æneas Silvius, a weighty and eye-witness testimony (although he too was then blinded by the same zeal and disease of defending the conventicle of Basel), relates that Cardinal Louis was of such perseverance in the purposes once undertaken for the cause of religion, as he thought, that although the pestilence was raging at Basel, by no entreaties or counsels of friends, nor by the funerals of his own household continually set before his eyes, could he be bent to depart from it or to seek the country for some days or months, and that he preferred rather at the peril of his own life to preserve the integrity of the council, which he knew would be dissolved if he departed, than to consult his life and the health of his body at the cost, as he judged, of the council itself and of the Church. But his manifold virtue shone forth not in this alone, but also in many other things, which, but that they were done in a bad cause, seem altogether worthy of admiration, and should be handed down by a faithful pen to the memory and imitation of posterity; although perhaps his cause was not bad before God, who in good faith adhered to a council otherwise then unlawful. Then he praises the conclave, which in truth was excellently ordered, and subjoins: But that we may return to our Louis… Yet he erred, and that most perilously and most ruinously, when, after Pope Eugenius's decree about the translation of the council, while the Cardinals and very many others and the prelates of the churches were departing from Basel, he alone almost remained — by whose authority chiefly, therefore, that whole rabble of men held together, which otherwise would of its own accord have slipped away and been scattered. Wherefore he not undeservedly paid the due penalties, when, being struck by Eugenius with the sacred thunderbolt, he was stripped of every ecclesiastical benefice and dignity, as the chief author and standard-bearer of the Basel faction. But … when Felix of his own accord laid down the apostolic dignity … by the counsel of our Louis, who had before carried the pontifical tiara to him as far as Ripaille, … he was received into favour by Pope Nicholas V, and restored to his former dignity, so that no remnants or traces of the schism might survive. Thus far Attichy, from whom for brevity's sake I have omitted not a few things.

[62] Perhaps Louis came to the council only to obey its summons, If anyone should now ask of me the cause which drove Louis into such great contentions against Eugenius, and at last into a foul schism, I shall say frankly that I do not sufficiently know the cause. For all, or certainly most, of the things which have hitherto been brought forward seem to have been produced out of mere conjectures. If, however, it be permitted to add my own conjectures also, from the manner of proceeding which Louis used and at the same time from the assertions of contemporary authors, I shall say that Louis seems to have been deceived by an appearance of good and carried away by excessive zeal. I would not indeed altogether deny that he was little content with Eugenius, since this is asserted by some authors of that time. But I would not concede to those writers that Louis leapt to arms against Eugenius out of a lust for revenge, since they could not see into the Man's intention, and his sanctity compels us to abstain from such a thought. That Louis was not content with Eugenius is in any case shown by his clandestine flight, by which, Eugenius forbidding him in vain, he rushed away to the council. He indeed often asked leave of Eugenius to go to the council, but it was always denied him, as was said at number 28. This refusal, repeated several times, could of itself alone bring it about that he should be less well affected towards Eugenius, nay, that he should think less well of him, especially since he seems to have been of this opinion, that he believed obedience should rather be given to the council summoning him than to Eugenius holding him back. For both the flight itself and all his deeds afterwards in the council seem altogether to prove that Louis was persuaded that the power of a general council is greater than the power of the supreme Pontiff, and that the Pontiff ought to obey the council, not the council the Pontiff. Such an opinion he could have imbibed little by little at the council of Pisa and more at that of Constance, at which he had been present as a young man. For there the authority of a council over doubtful Pontiffs had been confirmed: and perhaps he did not sufficiently notice how great a difference there is between doubtful Pontiffs and the one and undoubted Vicar of Christ.

[63] Since therefore he had the greatest estimation of the authority of a general council [and was defending the council's authority: doing which he went beyond the bounds:] and of the obedience to be rendered to it, but a lesser one of the authority of the supreme Pontiff than the keys given to Peter and the command of Christ require, by which He committed to him His sheep to be fed, he could not but bear it most ill that leave to go to the council was denied him by Eugenius, and the flight itself shows this. And he seems to have undertaken his flight to the council with no other intention than that he might obey the council and defend the authority of councils, if Eugenius should persist in wishing to dissolve the council of Basel. Hence afterwards he had nothing more frequently in his mouth than that even blood must be shed for the authority of a general council. And so he wished with excessive fervour to defend the opinion which he had deeply impressed upon his mind from the disputations at the councils of Pisa and Constance, nay, he defended it with the utmost contention and pertinacity even to the deposition of the Pontiff and the election of another — even, I say, to schism. This certainly was no light fault, nor lacking great rashness, as those saw well enough who excelled the rest in learning in the council, such as were the man of Palermo, Louis the Roman, and others mentioned in Æneas Silvius, book 1 On the Deeds of the Men of Basel, folios 10 and 11. But our Louis, who seems to have been less steeped in theological learning than in the reading of many books, as can easily be gathered from the things which he disputed on various occasions, had so hardened himself in his opinion that he could neither sufficiently understand the arguments of those who disputed against him, nor noticed that that assembly of the men of Basel, when he himself presided, could no longer be held for a general council; and at last he did not fear to offend the legates of all the princes by urging the deposition of Eugenius. Such darkness had arisen for a Man too fervid for his own opinion.

[64] But the unhappy outcome of such great undertakings

was able to open the eyes of a Man otherwise by no means bad. but he acknowledged his error, and corrected his ill deeds by penitence. He saw at last that a foul schism had been kindled in the Church, and that his own Pontiff, whom perhaps he had hoped would be quickly acknowledged by all, just as Martin V had been after the council of Constance, was disapproved by almost the whole world. He saw not a few of those who had been among the chief men in the council subject not to his Felix but to the supreme Pontiff, and Felix's purple even cast off by some. Hence he could see that his own deeds were disapproved; he could examine his own doings by a serious and tranquil scrutiny, and at last acknowledge and bewail their rashness. Nor is it to be doubted that he did so, as I shall show against some who deny it. Wherefore about the penitence of Bl. Louis the praised Attichy writes thus: Nor is it easy to explain how great labours he underwent, repenting of his past fault, for the care of the Church's dignity and tranquillity and for the quieting of the schism. Nay rather, like a second Peter, the prince of the Church for Christ, remembering the things which had been committed by him at Basel against the Lord and against His Christ Eugenius, though perhaps in ignorance, and going over his years in the bitterness of his soul, he wept bitterly, and striving to wash away and expiate his offence with tears of penitence and with good works, he left the Roman curia, in which he had once held the first place, and bidding farewell to the pomps and business of the world, betook himself into his own diocese of Arles, there thenceforth to perform the duties of a good shepherd. For indeed, giving himself to fastings, prayers and almsgivings to the poor, whom he himself frequently served in the hospitals, etc. Thus far Attichy, with whom the diploma of beatification agrees, inasmuch as it commends the Blessed's fastings, prayers and vigils. And about the labours undertaken to extinguish the schism utterly, Saxius speaks in this manner: Nor is it easy to explain what labours he bore for the reconciling of the Church's peace and for the abolishing of the schism. Denis of Sainte-Marthe in volume 1 of the Gallia Christiana, column 584, discourses thus about Louis's penitence: But that he washed away by penitence the guilt of the schism that arose hence, is given us to understand from his holy end, etc. This argument alone would suffice, even if all the others were lacking. I pass over other writers who agree about the penitence of Bl. Louis, that we may examine the arguments of those who would prefer that he died in that opinion which he followed at the time of the council of Basel.

[65] Against those who deny the Basel schism and the penitence of Bl. Louis, Baillet, Noël Alexandre, and others deny the penitence of Bl. Louis, and contend that he died in that opinion which he had followed at the time of the council of Basel. We perceive without difficulty what those writers have before their eyes, while they strive to maintain that opinion, as wonderful as it is improbable. They would like to find among the Blessed someone who steadfastly set himself against the decrees of the Roman Church and never changed his mind, not even in death — as if the rebellious sons of the Church would have nothing further to fear once they had contrived by a few futile little arguments to produce some Blessed like themselves in rebellion. But so inept and frivolous are the reasons by which Alexandre contends to free the men of Basel from the stain of schism, and by which he denies the penitence of Louis Alemand, that I wonder that such things could be written by a man otherwise learned. For he confesses that neither was the deposition of Eugenius just, nor the election of Felix canonical, and yet even so in volume 8, dissertation 8, article 7, he affirms that the men of Basel were not schismatics properly so called. And with what futile arguments he uses, we shall presently see, when I shall have briefly shown that the men of Basel were in truth schismatics.

[66] it is shown that the men of Basel were in truth schismatics, First, St. Antoninus, eminent in theological learning and in sanctity, whose words I gave at number 58, did not doubt that the men of Basel were schismatics, whose assembly he calls a conventicle, and Felix an idol, saying that he sat not in the See of Peter but of Lucifer. Secondly, Eugenius IV, whom Alexandre acknowledges as the undoubted Pontiff, in a public session of the council of Florence, which Alexandre confesses to be ecumenical, gave the constitution Moyses, in which he has this about the men of Basel: We also decree and declare that all and each of the aforesaid have been and are schismatics and heretics. Those were not empty thunderbolts, but it is a declaration of the supreme Pontiff in an ecumenical council. Thirdly, the words of St. Thomas, which Alexandre himself cites, clearly show that the men of Basel were schismatics. For St. Thomas in the Secunda Secundæ, question 39, article 1, has it thus: But the unity of the Church is regarded in two things, namely in the connection or communication of the members with one another, and again in the ordering of all the members of the Church to one head… And this head is Christ Himself, whose place in the Church the supreme Pontiff holds. And therefore they are called schismatics who refuse to be subject to the supreme Pontiff, and who refuse to communicate with the members of the Church subject to him. But it is certain and manifest that the men of Basel refused to be subject to Eugenius IV, whom the whole Church venerated as a certain and undoubted Pontiff, as they themselves also acknowledged Eugenius to be such before the deposition. It is equally certain that the men of Basel refused to communicate with the members subject to Eugenius, since they excommunicated the council of Florence and others adhering to Eugenius. I pass over other arguments, because the schism of the men of Basel is clearer than that it need be proved by more.

[67] But the answers which Alexandre gives are so weak and that they cannot be sufficiently excused by good faith, that similar ones could be brought forward for almost all schismatics. First he has recourse to good faith, by which he excuses them, because they believed that they had a right against Eugenius, and that he was in truth blameworthy. But by the same argument, if anyone wished to be malicious, he will excuse all schismatics and heretics: for there was none of them who did not allege for his opinion some semblance of reason or argument. But, to abstain from odious comparisons, does not St. Paul say in Acts 26: And I indeed had thought that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth, which also I did at Jerusalem, etc. Did Paul then, on account of that opinion of his by which he began to persecute the Church, believe that that persecution was without sin and that he did well? But here in many places he confesses his sin. And so not every ignorance, not every sort of opinion about the uprightness of an action, exempts the evildoer from sin; nor will the rebellious sons of the Church be excused on the supreme day of judgment, even if by a few frivolous reasonings they have at last persuaded themselves that they are not bound to obey the decrees of the supreme Pastor and Vicar of Christ on earth. For in so grave a matter as is rebellion against the supreme Pontiff, one must not proceed lightly or rashly, nor at once follow the opinions of any doctors whatsoever, which not rarely pride and pertinacity have dictated rather than true reason. Wherefore it is altogether incredible that all the men of Basel proceeded always in so good faith in so long a rebellion against an undoubted Pontiff and against the council of Florence, that they sinned in nothing by excessive contention, in nothing by rashness, in nothing by proud contempt of the supreme Head, in nothing by pertinacity; so that no doubt arose in them about the just reason of proceeding thus, none about their right, none about the equity of their cause, none about the power they arrogated to themselves, none about the truth of the crimes fastened upon Eugenius, none about the necessity of deposing the Pontiff and electing another. I should certainly not easily believe that the ignorance of all and each of them in rending the Church was greater than was once that of Saul in persecuting it. Yet let us suppose that there were some among them who always believed in good faith that everything was being done rightly and lawfully: they would at least have been material schismatics, as the theologians speak.

[68] Alexandre's second reason is that the men of Basel threw back upon Eugenius the crime of schism objected to them. or by the other reasons What, I ask, can be said more inept for excusing them? For all heretics and schismatics have done that: the Jansenists do it even today, who by no means hesitate to object Pelagianism or Semipelagianism to their Catholic adversaries. Alexandre's third reason is equally inept, namely that no fixed formula, such as is wont to be proposed to schismatics, was proposed to the men of Basel when they returned to the unity of the Church, and that the processes made against them were abolished, and honour restored to all, nay that Nicholas was even elected Pontiff by them, as if the See had been vacant. I answer that by all these things it is only proved that Nicholas dealt mercifully with them, so that no seeds of schism might remain. I shall readily believe that the injustice of their cause was not equally clear to all the men of Basel. Hence many would not have assented to the concord if Nicholas had wished to proceed harshly and according to the rigour of discipline. Wherefore he used mercy towards them, as the Church has frequently done on other occasions, so that the schism might be utterly abolished: and this in fact he obtained. Hence St. Antoninus, to whom the mind of Pope Nicholas could have been excellently known, in title 22, chapter 12, writes thus about the end of the schism: But after two years (from Nicholas's taking up of the pontificate) or thereabouts, having returned to himself (Felix), and being exhorted by others, renounced through his proctors before Nicholas himself all right which he had or pretended to have in the papacy, certain agreements being applied, namely that Amadeus himself should remain a Cardinal and legate in that region; and that some also of his Cardinals, who were most learned men, should continue in their dignities, and other prelates in their sees. To all which Nicholas, the true Pontiff, with the Cardinals acquiesced for the good of peace and for the removal of the Basel schism: which ceased altogether. With Antoninus agrees Giannozzo Manetti, likewise a contemporary witness, who asserts that Nicholas used so great a kindness that he dissolved both the assembly of the men of Basel and the schism. For in the Life of Nicholas V, published in Muratori, volume 3 of the Writers of Italy, part 2, column 922, he affirms that Nicholas achieved this by his virtues, that he dissolved and destroyed the schism now long inveterate, the aforesaid Amadeus, the chief man of that council, acknowledging and confessing his errors, and repenting, and adhering, as was fitting, to his Holiness. For he had of his own accord created him a Cardinal of the Roman and Catholic Church, when he acknowledged the old errors of his faithlessness: which he had judged in his wisdom would be the sole, the only and the certain remedy for dissolving that council, and a fitting and suitable antidote for a dissolution of that kind, etc.

[69] adduced by Alexandre. Fourthly Alexandre says that it is not proved that the men of Basel were in truth schismatics from the fact that they were often called schismatics before the peace was made. I answer that they were condemned as schismatics by Eugenius IV in the ecumenical synod of Ferrara and Florence. But, he says, the Gallican church, and the Most Christian king, and other princes who communicated with the synod of Basel to the very end, would then have been guilty of schism. I answer that some princes did much to compose peace between the men of Basel and the supreme Pontiff; but that I do not wish to investigate whether some did not deal too softly with the men of Basel. At least the deposition of Eugenius and the election of Felix were disapproved by the princes, and therefore it is certain that the princes did not assent to the schism of the men of Basel. This Eugenius IV and Nicholas V praised in Charles VII, king of the French,

and Nicholas praised even more (as the fifth, equally frivolous objection has it) the labours of Charles VII, which he at last began to expend diligently and happily for utterly removing the schism and restoring peace to the Church. The whole of what Alexandre has hitherto brought forward, and with which he has filled three pages, is reduced to the good faith of the men of Basel, which is always asserted in various ways and never proved. Wherefore I pass to his last argument: for that alone concerns our purpose.

[70] Sixthly, therefore, he says that the sanctity of Louis Alemand, approved by miracles, forbids the men of Basel to be called schismatics. In vain are the miracles and the beatitude of Louis objected, A wretched piece of reasoning indeed, since it is agreed that many have sinned and yet afterwards turned out Saints. Among the Saints of the first class we have Paul, though he himself says in 1 Timothy 1, verse 15: Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am the first. And Louis did not shine with miracles in the council, but after he had destroyed all the things that had been ill built there. But Alexandre contends that Louis never repented of his deeds in the council of Basel, and he contends the same about Felix, who laid down the papacy by the counsel of our Louis. And in order to maintain so improbable an assertion, he uses a negative argument, and says that no witness of that penitence is brought forward. But I have already adduced two contemporary witnesses for the penitence of Felix, praised at number 68, namely St. Antoninus and Giannozzo Manetti, both of whom affirm in express words the penitence of Felix or Amadeus. And the penitence of Louis the epitaph itself hints, where is read: He entered devoutly and in Catholic wise upon the way of all flesh. What that word "in Catholic wise" signified among the men of Arles when Bl. Louis died, we shall easily understand if only we notice that the men of Arles at the time of the schism always adhered to the Roman Pontiffs, and consequently at that time shrank from the men of Basel and their Pope Felix.

[71] Indeed in the year 1440 Louis was not only stripped by pontifical sentence of the archbishopric of Arles and of his other dignities: since he repented of the deeds at Basel. but a vicar also was appointed in the church of Arles by the Pontiff; and René, king of Sicily and count of Provence, took care that the pontifical sentence should be carried into execution, as Raynaldus testifies in the Annals at the year 1440, number 3. Hence, when Louis wished to visit his church, he was received most ill by the men of Arles, as the Life has it at number 8. Hence the men of Arles in the two epitaphs of Louis, each of them long enough, make no mention at all of Louis's deeds at Basel, condemning them not obscurely by their very silence, as is done also in the Bull of beatification and in the lessons of the Office. Wherefore the men of Arles, who at the time of the schism turned away from Louis, and who honoured him at his obsequies with a wonderful concourse, when they observe that he died "in Catholic wise," sufficiently clearly hint that he did not die in those opinions which he had defended at the time of the schism. This also shines forth from the Blessed's own deeds. I therefore pass over other testimonies of writers, of which we have no need at all, since the facts themselves speak. And the facts clearly show that Louis was of a far other mind when he persuaded Felix to submit himself, and himself submitted to Nicholas V, than he had been in the heat of disputation against Eugenius IV.

[72] First, it is certain that Nicholas V thought no otherwise about the things which had been disputed between the men of Basel and Pope Eugenius than Eugenius himself had thought, and that Eugenius's deeds were approved by Nicholas, but the machinations of the men of Basel condemned in the gravest words. This we have not only from conjecture, nor do we say it because Nicholas was Eugenius's disciple and successor; but also from Nicholas's own letters, given partly to Charles king of the French, partly to all the faithful, which Harduin published in volume 9 of the Councils. In all of them he speaks excellently of Eugenius, and in the fourth, column [ ], he even calls him his predecessor of holy memory. And in the second, to all the faithful, he writes strongly against the men of Basel and their Pope Felix, and at column [ ] speaks thus: How full of dangers and how horrible is the monstrousness of schismatics, … the perdition of those souls teaches, who … having entered upon the way of all flesh, slip down into the foul abyss. Against whom, although by Pope Eugenius IV of happy memory, our predecessor, and by the sacred and ecumenical synods of Ferrara, Florence and the Lateran, very many processes both general and special were held, containing various penalties and sentences, which we will to remain in their force and to be held as expressed in these present letters, etc. Then to all Eugenius's decrees, which are confirmed by the words cited, he adds a new penalty against Felix and his supporters, and does not hesitate to address Amadeus with the words "a notorious schismatic, heretic, excommunicate," etc. From these things it is clear that Nicholas was no less strong against schismatics than Eugenius had been, whom in this Letter he even surpasses. It is clear besides that the constitution Moyses was confirmed by Nicholas, by which are condemned the propositions of the men of Basel, which they had decreed as truths of the faith and had set as a foundation for condemning Eugenius. And so the men of Basel, who had held Eugenius for a heretic because he did not admit those fictitious truths of the faith, either had to change their opinion, or could not hold Nicholas for a Catholic.

[73] that they did not persist in their errors, Now let the studious reader attend and consider whether the men of Basel could submit themselves to Pontiff Nicholas, or elect that same man Pontiff, unless they cast off those foolish truths of the faith which had been the foundation of the whole rebellion against the Pontiff. If they were of the same opinion in which they had been before, if they believed Eugenius a heretic, they likewise judged Nicholas a heretic, because he thought the same. If they believed Felix the lawful Pontiff, they had to hold Nicholas for a schismatic. In what manner, therefore, could they without the gravest crime persuade Felix to yield up the pontificate by right in favour of Nicholas, a man (as they are feigned to have believed) heretical and schismatical? Was it perhaps lawful, for the good of peace, to urge Felix to hand over the pontificate to a heretic and a schismatic? Then how could the men of Basel praise Felix's cession? How could they elect Nicholas Pontiff, if, clinging to their truths of the faith, they believed him a heretic and a schismatic? Wherefore the opinion of Noël Alexandre and of certain others is equally destitute of every foundation and probability, who contend that their errors were not acknowledged by the men of Basel, and were not corrected because they at last saw that they had done ill. For they would have added a most grave prevarication to their schismatical opinion if, persisting in their former opinion, according to which Nicholas was a heretic, they had nevertheless even so elected him. For they were bound not only to be subject to the supreme Pontiff Nicholas, but also to correct the errors of their understanding contrary to the Church's unity, and to bring their minds into captivity to the obedience of faith. Not only, I say, ought they to obey Nicholas, but also to believe that they did rightly in obeying him as supreme Pontiff: for no one acts rightly unless he acts according to his conscience.

[74] And so, since the men of Basel did everything contrary to what had been done in the council against Eugenius, according to which they could not obey Nicholas. and wished all that had been done against him to be held as not done; and since they took care that due obedience should be restored to Nicholas, who faithfully trod in Eugenius's footsteps, it is by no means to be doubted that they saw that they had acted ill, and therefore corrected their ill deeds because they understood that they were bad. Thus we by no means doubt about the penitence of a thief when we know that a great sum of money which he had taken away by theft has been restored to its owner. No more do we doubt that a slanderer has seen that he acted ill, if we perceive that he has laboured strenuously to repair, so far as could be done, another's reputation injured by his slanders. For whenever anyone corrects his errors, he is believed to do it because he has seen that he erred. So the men of Basel, who corrected their errors before the whole world and amended their ill deeds, must be believed to have done it because they saw that they had erred and done ill. So certainly must we judge about Felix, about our Louis, and about the greater part of them. Yet I would not deny that there were perhaps some among them who had changed neither their opinion nor their mind, and who would not have consented to the concord and the dissolution of their assembly if they had been able to hinder the matter. About such, if there were any, I certainly do not dispute: I am dealing solely with those by whose work the concord was entered upon and obedience restored to the supreme Pontiff.

[75] Alexandre, however, contends that it is more advisable and more true to assert What Alexandre conjectures, that Louis did not repent, that Louis, Cardinal of Arles, did not repent … of his deeds in the synod of Basel, because he was persuaded that he had done nothing to repent of. I should certainly wish that I could with sufficient probability judge that Bl. Louis was in the council without any fault. Nay, I also gladly acknowledge that all those things which he committed in the council that were to be repented of seem to have proceeded from ignorance. But I say again that not every ignorance excuses one who acts ill. Wherefore I should prefer to commit to God the judgment about our Blessed's ignorance; nor would I venture to judge how far it could excuse his rash and schismatical actions. This I hold for certain, that that ignorance profited Bl. Louis for the more easily obtaining pardon from the divine mercy. But Alexandre's saying seems to me to lack all judgment — that he did not repent, because he was persuaded that he had done nothing to repent of. For even if he had gone on believing, as perhaps he had believed in the fervour of action, that everything had been justly done against Eugenius, he saw at least that all those things had gone up in smoke. He saw that almost nothing good had been done in the council. He saw that countless evils had arisen from the schism which they had brought in by acting against Eugenius, and no light loss of souls. And so, unless he had had a heart harder than stone, he could not but deplore so great a loss of souls. But let us hear whence he believes that Louis was persuaded that he had done nothing to repent of.

[76] He brings forward for that improbable opinion the decree of Lausanne, is altogether improbable and destitute of foundation: by which the men of Basel elected Nicholas Pontiff, because in that decree they do not by even a word hint that they had proceeded ill; but rather the men of Basel praise their own deeds, as may be seen in Raynaldus at the year 1449, number 5. I answer that the humility of all the men of Basel was not so great that they should have wished, after the example of St. Augustine, to make a public confession of their errors and ill deeds — just as many others know and grieve that they have sinned, who nevertheless would not wish to make their sins manifest to the world by a public writing. Wherefore less attention must be paid to the words of that decree than to the submission itself, and to the dissolution of the assembly of Lausanne which followed a little afterwards. For they could not submit themselves to Nicholas if they had believed him a heretic; they could not but believe him a heretic if they went on defending as such their truths of the faith, which were the foundation of all their ill deeds. Wherefore, since they submitted themselves to Nicholas, or rather since they elected him Pontiff, which they could not do unless their opinion were changed, they saw that their foundation was ruinous: they saw that Eugenius had been wrongly cast off, and Amadeus wrongly elected. They saw that many troubles had been stirred up by them in the Church,

about which the authors of the submission could not but grieve. The penitence, therefore, which they dissembled in words, they betrayed by deed. So they dissembled that the pontificate of Nicholas V was held by them for lawful before their own election of him, when they as it were elected him. But, the liberty of electing another being taken from them, they showed clearly enough that that was not an election strictly so called, which is not made without liberty, but rather an acknowledgment of a Pontiff previously elected.

[77] because the decree of the men of Basel's submission by no means proves it. If anyone should now ask why the men of Basel so greatly dissembled their penitence when they came to the obedience of Pontiff Nicholas, the answer will be easy, namely that they might spare their modesty and their honour so far as could be done. That it might be lawful for them to do this, Nicholas V permitted, both that he might remove the ruinous schism and that no remnants of the schism should remain. For it is indeed credible that some of the men of Basel, once they had acknowledged their errors, were of a spirit generous enough to make a public confession of them. But since in a multitude of men many weak are always found, and since in that assembly some probably still clung to their former errors, and others only doubted about their right, the Pontiff could not hope that all would submit themselves with unanimous consent if in the decrees by which they had to come to obedience they had been obliged openly to acknowledge and publicly to confess their errors. It was rather to be hoped that, once the assembly was dissolved, each would take care for his own salvation, and would ponder in the bitterness of his soul to what storms and waves they had exposed the universal Church. Giannozzo Manetti, cited at number 68, hints that Nicholas used this policy; and it is probable that the authors of the concord, among whom our Louis was the first, were moved by the same reason so to frame the decrees of their submission — unless perhaps these too wished to spare their honour as far as they could. However that may be, Bl. Louis sincerely submitted himself to Pontiff Nicholas, and is said to have borne many labours to extinguish the schism utterly.

read: cum ægerrime*

§ VII. The Blessed's deeds after the council until his death: his blessed death, burial, epitaphs, miracles.

[ ] The asserted legation of the Blessed into Lower Germany is uncertain: Of Bl. Louis's deeds after the peace of the Church was restored, few have become known. Saxius, when he had said that Louis was restored by Nicholas to the Cardinal's dignity, of which he had been deprived by Eugenius, subjoins: Thereafter he was sent into Lower Germany, performing the office of a legation, and was detained on the journey and robbed of his horses, his pack-mules and his provisions. Nor is it easy to explain what labours he bore for the reconciling of the Church's peace and for the abolishing of the schism. These discords being quieted and extinguished, he returned to Arles. Attichy has the same, and the second lesson of the Office also agrees about the legation; but it does not add that he was despoiled on the journey. Nevertheless I am compelled to doubt whether that legation into Lower Germany is held sufficiently established, since I find nothing about it in the older writers, and in the Acts too there is deep silence about that legation. Nay rather our Acts at numbers 7 and 8 are in some sort contrary. For there Louis is said to have been despoiled of his goods in the legation undertaken for the men of Basel to Frankfurt to the emperor Frederick, whom he even followed as far as Aachen, when he was returning from Mainz to Basel. That opinion, therefore, about a legation entrusted to Louis by Nicholas V could have arisen out of some confusion, and it seems to be held, at the least, as doubtful.

[79] The Office, praised in the Commentary at number 6, [but at the time of the council he collected documents for the immaculate conception,] celebrates the Blessed's piety in asserting the immaculate conception of the most blessed Virgin, and attributes to him that the feast of the Conception was instituted on the sixth of the Ides of December. To this purpose Spondanus in the Annals at the year 1435, number 12, writes the following: In the Acts of Navarre there is extant a mandate of the council (of Basel, which in the year 1435 was lawful), given on the tenth of the Kalends of June of the present year to Louis, Cardinal of Arles, who was present: by which, after the narration of the disputations which had been held before the delegates of the council appointed for treating of matters of faith, concerning the Conception of the most blessed Virgin — whether her soul, in the instant of its infusion into the body, was preserved from original sin or not — he enjoined that he should diligently see to it that through all the libraries and every archive of universities, churches, monasteries, and of kings and princes, search should be made for whatever books, writings, acts, deliberations, decisions, conclusions, public or private of any kind, made in the general schools and elsewhere on this matter or in any way pertaining to it; and that these should be extracted and brought to the synod, so that, aided by them, it might be able to decide and define this question. And that Cardinal Louis performed this diligently is understood from the declaration made four years afterwards in the thirty-sixth session.

[80] Again at the year 1439, number 38, Spondanus writes [which the men of Basel decreed at the time of the schism should be defended by all.] that the decree on the immaculate Conception was framed in the thirty-sixth Session, and observes that this at least of good was performed by them, that they might not be said always to act ill. From the Decree itself, in Labbe, volume 12 of the Councils, column 622, I transfer some things hither. It is observed that the question had long been disputed on both sides. Then it is subjoined: But we, having diligently examined the authorities and arguments which now for several years have been alleged in public reports on the side of each doctrine before this holy synod, and having also seen very many other things upon this matter and weighed them with mature consideration, define and declare that that doctrine which holds that the glorious Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, by the singular grace of the divine Godhead preventing and working, was never actually subject to original sin, but was always immune from every original and actual fault, and was holy and immaculate, is to be approved, held and embraced by all Catholics, as pious and consonant with the ecclesiastical cult, with the Catholic faith, with right reason, and with sacred Scripture; and that it is henceforth lawful for no one to preach or to teach the contrary. Renewing besides the institution concerning the celebrating of her holy Conception, which both by the Roman and by the other churches is celebrated on the sixth of the Ides of December by an ancient and laudable custom, we decree and ordain that the same feast be honoured with festive praises on the aforesaid day in all churches, monasteries and convents of the Christian religion, under the name of the Conception, etc. Thus far the men of Basel, whose decree had no force, because they were schismatics when they framed it. Spondanus thinks, however, that by that decree the men of Basel obtained that the plague by which they were most gravely afflicted should cease, as in fact it then ceased. And none the less, he says, so great also was the force of this Basel decree confirming that ancient doctrine, that — as we have found observed somewhere — immediately afterwards, by a palpable proof, the most grave plague which, as we have seen, was violently raging was abated throughout the whole city, nay even ceased. But about the feast of the immaculate Conception of the most blessed Virgin many things have been collected by Benedict XIV, happily reigning, in his Italian Work On the Feasts of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which Michael Angelo de Giacomellis rendered into Latin, part 2, number 184 and following.

[81] The Blessed's munificence towards the church of Arles: Further, about the munificence of the Blessed, who was most highly commended for the liberality poured out upon sacred buildings, Saxius records this: At his own cost and expense he levelled to the ground the middle part of the mother church, and that in which the Holy of holies stood towards the East, because they smacked of antiquity, so that, being pulled down, they might be raised anew with ampler spaces and in a more excellent form. And the church was built and shaped, very ample vaults being raised, with other smaller ones between them, and nine chambers, which we call chapels, being built on this side and that; and in the apse or upper curve of the chief vault, under which the principal altar is placed, he set up a pastophorium, that is, a chamber or inner room (as Jerome explains it), in which with great worship and reverence he enclosed a casket skilfully wrought in silver, which Gasbert (archbishop of Arles, in the year 1341) had dedicated, noble with the ashes of Saints and especially of Trophimus, to be shown every year on the vigil of the day which is sacred to St. Trophimus. For while the people look on, those sacred ashes are let down by ropes from the topmost shrine to a stage raised at the steps of the altar, and offer in their very descent a spectacle not so much pleasing as pious, venerable, and to be celebrated in perpetual memory. And presently: There are also other things which testify to the munificence and liberality of so great a Man. For he adorned the castle of the city of Salon with various buildings, and he made illustrious the episcopal palace which is at Arles with halls and various storeys. Attichy gives the same from Saxius. From so many buildings constructed or adorned it is also in some measure gathered that the Blessed, when the Church's concord was restored, was not much absent from his own church, which he had before rarely seen, living as he did at the Roman court, or in the legateship of Bologna, and at last at Basel and Lausanne.

[82] his pious death at Salon, and the translation of his body to Arles: Other deeds of the Blessed Saxius does not commemorate, but says only in general: What is the highest thing, he led an angelic life, and excelled in the grace of miracles. Of miracles, I think, he speaks after his death, and thus has many agreeing with him, since I find nothing anywhere about miracles in his lifetime. And so Saxius presently comes to the Blessed's death, and recites part of a hymn in which mention is made of the extreme unction given to the Blessed, of the place of his death, and of his body quickly translated to Arles. I subjoin the words: And blessed on every side, he died at Salon on the Crau in the year 1450: and he was translated to Arles, as appears from the sacred and solemn song in his praise:

Here labouring in his last hour, The Sacrament of Unction He was pleased should be given him, And in the Minors' Order's Convent at the castle of Salon His end was a happy one.

Quickly his body, as was fitting, Being translated to Arles, Was by the clergy and the people Received with honour.

Salona, or Salon, where here as also in the Office the Blessed is said to have died, is a town of Provence between Aix and Arles, as Baudrand has it in his Lexicon, who also observes that it is situated near the Stony Fields, a little region of Provence covered with stones, which is now commonly called la Crau. For this reason it is called by some Salon on the Crau, and by us Salon near the Stony Fields. A little afterwards Saxius observes that the death of Bl. Louis is placed at Hautecombe in Savoy by the author of the Amedeus Pacificus from an old tradition. But that opinion, although Saxius does not refute it, appears altogether improbable, because that place is too far distant from Arles. For it is not probable that the Blessed, after he had come to his church and had begun to build many things there, should have withdrawn further away. Or at least, for us to believe that, greater authority is required than is brought forward for that opinion against the consent of all the others. I should readily believe that our Louis was at some time at Hautecombe among the Cistercians; but I should rather suspect that this happened after the men of Basel had withdrawn to Lausanne, or when peace was being negotiated; for then he was less far from that place, and was often at leisure from business.

[83] About the Blessed's obsequies, with a great concourse of peoples

celebrated, his obsequies honoured by a very great concourse: his epitaph, the praised Saxius has it thus: And almost the whole province hastened to Arles for the celebration of his obsequies. For twenty-three cities are counted which by their priests, Religious and common people were present at the procession or at the celebration of the obsequies. The Office has the same, and Attichy. And Saxius subjoins: His venerable bones were laid up at the right horn of the altar, with this sepulchral inscription:

"All things of men hang by a slender thread, And by a sudden fall the things that were strong come to ruin.

Whence, as it pleased God, in the year one thousand four hundred and five times ten, and on the sixteenth day of the month of September, the reverend father and lord in Christ Louis of good memory, priest Cardinal of the most holy Roman Church of the title of St. Cecilia, commonly called of Arles, well-deserving administrator of this sacred basilica, and a prince of praiseworthy life and honourable conversation, being called to a greater tribunal, entered devoutly and in Catholic wise upon the way of all flesh. Pray for him, that his soul may rest in peace." This epitaph is certainly sober and far from base flattery. Nay, the authors, who had not adhered to the Basel schism, seem to indicate some fear about the soul of the deceased by those words: Being called to a greater tribunal. But they praise his honourable manners and praiseworthy life, and carefully observe that he died devoutly and in Catholic wise. But those who had received Louis ill in the time of the Basel schism, as is read in the Life at number 8, and who everywhere keep the deepest silence about his deeds at the council of Basel because they disapproved them, would not have observed that he died "in Catholic wise" unless they had known that he had repented of his deeds in the time of the schism, as I have already observed before. From that wonderful concourse at Louis's obsequies it is likewise gathered that Louis's penitence was known in Provence. For since in Provence they had shrunk from the Basel schism, they would not have run together with so great eagerness to the obsequies of a Man whom they had formerly held for a schismatic, unless it had been established that his mind was changed.

[84] a second epitaph. Another epitaph, or at least the chief part of it, Denis of Sainte-Marthe published in volume 1 of the Gallia Christiana among the documents, page 103. That very thing the lord de Brantes, praised above, transmitted to us from a manuscript, noting that it is found in the manuscript book of the metropolitan Chapter of Arles, marked B, before the first leaf. It is written in rude and faulty verse, such as I subjoin:

The marble (elsewhere: this stone) shows to what dead flesh tends: For he is made ashes, being now touched by the wound of death. From a thousand years, four times a hundred, and fifty Louis Alemand, born [] of the world, is exiled [], Here entombed, leaping into the highest heaven, An excellent Doctor, and bishop of Maguelonne, For a long time bearing the place [*] of the Pope's chamberlain, Translated from Maguelonne to this basilica [*], And granted to Bologna by the Pope as a worthy legate, Adorned with the title of Saint Cecilia at Rome [*], Cardinaquelatus, afterwards raised to the summit, For whose soul, I pray, pour forth your prayers. Despise, mortal comrades, all fleeting things, Seek this second Adam, not this tearful world, And whoever shall have sought Him will be greatly blessed.

The reader sees that various readings are noted in the margin, because it was variously copied out, perhaps because the script was difficult to read. Then let the studious reader observe that the Blessed's offices and dignities were diligently expressed in the epitaph, while his deeds in the council of Basel are omitted. If the men of Arles condemned the deeds at Basel with so great a hatred that they would make no mention of them, and yet asserted without doubt that Louis was translated into the highest heaven, we can by no means doubt that they knew that the deeds at Basel had been condemned by Louis himself. If therefore no one speaks openly about Louis's penitence — not even Clement VII in the Bull of beatification, as Noël Alexandre objects — this was done because all preferred to condemn the acts of Basel by silence rather than to commemorate both those acts and the Blessed's penitence.

[85] In the year 1451 or 1452 inquiry began to be made into the miracles, The praised Sainte-Marthe, after giving the epitaph, at once subjoins these words: In the year 1451, on the 19th of January and the following days, inquiry was made into the miracles which he had wrought in various places. And the Acts of this inquiry are preserved in the archives of the cathedral church. About the inquiry begun in the year 1451, on the 19th day of January, I readily believe Sainte-Marthe, because the Blessed began to shine with miracles at his very burial; unless, however, the date of the inquiry is expressed in the old style, by which the year began from Easter, and thus the inquiry was begun on the 19th day of January of the year 1452, that is, one year and four months after the Blessed's death. But whether the inquiry was begun in the year 1451, and four months after Louis's death, or in the year 1452, I doubt whether the Acts of that inquiry are even now preserved in the archives of the cathedral church. Certainly it was written to us in the year 1752 that, besides those things which had been transmitted to us, nothing else could be found in the archives either of the archbishopric or of the chapter, although the most illustrious lord archbishop John Joseph had ordered everything to be most diligently searched out, that it might be transmitted to us. And so, although we sought those Acts even in searching the Roman libraries, we could obtain nothing of those miracles beyond the few which are read in the Acts to be published. Nevertheless let us see what writers say in general about the miracles of Bl. Louis.

[86] The first of those who have become known as a witness of the miracles of Bl. Louis is Æneas Silvius, which were wrought at his tomb, as various writers writing thus in his book On the State of Europe, chapter 38: At Arles, at the tomb of Louis, Cardinal of St. Cecilia, bishop of that city, whom we saw presiding at Basel in the assembly of the Fathers, a great reputation of miracles has arisen, and a frequent concourse of the infirm from every side in hope of health. From him others could draw. Take, that I may be briefer, an enumeration of these from Attichy at number 12, where after the words of Æneas already given he continues thus: To almost the same sense, nay even in the same words, Philip of Bergamo: "Louis," he says, "of Arles, a most learned and most eloquent man, who presided over the synod of Basel by the consent of all the Fathers in these times, when he had published many little works (which, as I judge, perished through hatred of the schism, says Attichy), and indeed worthy ones, died not without a great reputation of sanctity: and for that reason a great reputation of miracles has arisen at his tomb, and a great concourse of the sick." I certainly doubt whether the assertion of the man of Bergamo about the writings of our Louis is true, since I find nothing about his writings in others. Saxius, however, as well as Attichy, suspects that they perished through hatred of the schism. If they really perished, I should believe that Louis himself destroyed them, so far as he could. Attichy continues: Werner, a contemporary of those times, but infected, as I think, with the poison of the schism, for which he strives in vain to win authority from the sanctity of our Cardinal: "Louis Alemand," he says, "bishop of Arles, a man of holy life and wonderful patience, and a singular pillar of the council of Basel, over which he long presided, shines with many miracles." On this it must be observed that Werner Rolewinck, a Carthusian by profession, was by no means a schismatic; but that he doubted whether the council of Basel acted rightly or wrongly against Eugenius. For, having related the schism, he subjoins: The cause was novel enough, and not seen before these times, because the council of Basel deposed Eugenius, the sole and undoubted Pope, etc. And these words are rather those of one disapproving the machinations of the men of Basel than of one approving. More may be seen in him at the year 1434, folio 88 on the back.

[87] I return to Attichy, who continues thus: Which (words of Werner) Philip de Lignamine repeats in almost the same words. testify, and the Bull of beatification. Paradin also calls him incomparable in knowledge, and most celebrated for the miracles he wrought. Lambert Vanderburch and John Chenu in their History of the Prelates of Gaul write that he was of admirable sanctity and erudition, and testify that he shone with miracles. As also George Garnefelt, an alumnus of the Charterhouse of Cologne: "I find," he says, "in the book of the benefactors of our Minors that Louis Alemand the Cardinal, commonly called of Arles, shone with miracles after his death." He adds finally Andreas Saussay, who acknowledges Louis as having fallen in the assembly of the men of Basel and as penitent for his error. And the preceding writers Saxius also lists, and the author of the Amedeus Pacificus, except Garnefelt, in whose place is added Nostradamus in his History of Provence, whose words Monod at page 179 recites thus: Louis Alemand the Cardinal, archbishop of Arles, a man of holy life and unheard-of patience, a singular pillar of the most celebrated council of Basel, over which he long presided, illustrious for the fame of many and great miracles. With these things about the miracles and virtues of the Blessed the bull of Pope Clement VII, by which he is inscribed among the Blessed, is consonant.

[88] For the rest, Baillet not only wonderfully triumphs in these matters The follies of Baillet are hissed off. but also insults Catholics who stand for the authority of the council of Ferrara and Florence, as though it could not stand together with the beatitude of Louis. But I do not judge it necessary to refute a man whom I find stumbling at almost every step. Baillet committed so many manifest errors and inept exaggerations in the Life of Bl. Louis that their multitude deterred me from correcting him wherever he errs. And to his triumphs I have abundantly answered when I showed that all Louis's deeds against Eugenius were destroyed by that very man, since he wished all to be held as not done; and since he took care that the whole Church should submit itself to Nicholas, who showed himself like Eugenius in acting against the men of Basel, and even surpassed Eugenius in his Letter to all the faithful, in Harduin, volume 9, column [ ]. Louis therefore was either penitent for the past, or a prevaricator. But I have found many penitents inscribed among the Blessed, no prevaricators. Wherefore the rebellious sons of the Church, who wish to persist in their pertinacity to the end, have no hopes of attaining eternal salvation, if they have only such hopes as they strive by inept reasonings to fashion for themselves out of the beatitude of Bl. Louis. Let them hear the voice of the supreme Pastor, to whom Christ committed His sheep to be fed, that they may deserve to be truly numbered among the sheep of Christ. By one step of humble obedience they will come nearer to blessed eternity than by a thousand reasonings, by which they labour in vain to impose silence upon a conscience unwilling and crying out against them.

elsewhere: exultat*

elsewhere: satus*

elsewhere: vice*

elsewhere: basilica*

elsewhere: Romanæ*

LIFE

By an anonymous author,

From a manuscript of Rouge-Cloître.

Louis Alemand, Cardinal archbishop of Arles, at Salon near the Stony Fields in Provence (Bl.)

BHL Number: 5032

By an anonymous author.

PROLOGUE.

The reason for writing. It is the glory and honour of almighty God to commend to the ears of the faithful, by reciting it in writings, the virtuous manner of life of His elect, so that all to whom the lamp of their deeds, set upon the candlestick of recognition, shall have sent forth the rays of its light, may take pains to climb to the sublime exercises of the virtues. Being about to write, therefore, I undertake a narration after the manner of a tragedy for the profit of all the faithful who shall read it; where it will evidently appear how powerfully and how prudently the most blessed and most patient man Louis, priest Cardinal of the holy Roman Church, all

the darts of the most wicked enemy overcame with the shield of patience; and moreover what the devil could not do by himself, he perpetrated through most wicked men; as will appear from the many reproaches and insults which this most holy Man willingly bore, and, together with the holy protomartyr Stephen, he prayed for those who persecuted him ^a.

ANNOTATION.

add sed* ("but")

quæ*

CHAPTER I.

The Blessed's birth, dignities, various deeds, death and burial.

The Blessed's country and dignities down to the council of Basel: Blessed Louis the Cardinal was sprung from a noble stock on the borders of France and Savoy ^a; and from the time of his boyhood he was imbued with virtues and the best manners; and being given over to the study of letters, he advanced so far that, having been made master and doctor of decrees, he was worthily ordained and raised, in the magnificent manner, first as archbishop of the church of Arles, and thereafter also as priest Cardinal of the Roman Church of the title of Saint Cecilia.

[3] He, after the departure of the lord Julian ^b, Cardinal of St. Angelo, with several other prelates, is president of the men of Basel, flourishes in virtues, was appointed, for the consolation of the most sacred synod of Basel representing the universal Church, on account of the greatness of his mind and the constancy of his faith, to preside there; even as unto the end of that sacred council he persevered as a most faithful Athlete of Christ and of the Church amid many dangers and labours and temptations for seventeen years ^c. For he was as a father to all who dwelt at Basel, sound of body, pleasing in look and in address, spread abroad in charity, unremitting day and night in holy exercise, singular in patience, sober and just, shunning the speech and the sight of women. He was sparing in sleep, since indeed he rested scarcely three hours in the night, so that those who obeyed him and sang the divine praises with him — which he also read reverently and distinctly — being wearied in these and other offices, wondered at his readiness.

[4] He left no one, so far as it could be done, without consolation, in mercy, liberality, gentleness, and often wept over the want of the afflicted, not sparing himself that he might profit others by counsel and help. He gave alms to very many both publicly and privately, and with a generous hand assisted doctors and religious men who otherwise, on account of the taking away of their goods and benefices by reason of the decrees and mandates of Pope Eugenius and of the princes, would have withdrawn out of fear or on advice. All these he fed and consoled, testifying to great and small that through many tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of heaven. He was also very magnificent in the grace of hospitality, so that none in that time was like him. He kept discipline among his household. To slanders or insults, brought upon him by very many and even by his subjects, he answered not with biting words, but kindly and without outcry with pleasing and seemly ones, or kept silence for the edification of the bystanders, nay he softened them with services and kindnesses. From this some, even in the council, sometimes said: My lord, why do you bear the injuries inflicted by such unworthy men? To whom he answered, with eyes raised on high, in this manner: Lord Jesus Christ, the zeal of Thy house hath eaten me up, and for this I call it a joy willingly to bear for Thy sake.

[5] He also laboured sincerely and fervently with all his strength for the bringing back of the Bohemians ^d and of the Greeks, with zeal to unite the Greeks to the Church, and for the bringing back of the Greeks especially he liberally bestowed much of his own substance; nay he pledged the most precious jewels and the vestments and dalmatics of his pontificate, and moreover excellent books and codices together with silver vessels, received money, and spent it for these ends; and for such great benefits he bore many insults and losses, because their mind remained feigned and hardened, for they came to and departed from the sacred council of Basel with a double heart ^e.

[6] in patience under injuries, In his abbey at Frankfurt, before the lord emperor Frederick and the electors of the empire and the other princes, he made manifest ^f and preached the justice and truth of the most sacred synod. There too, being smitten with public injuries by the detraction of rivals, he made no answer. Whereupon a certain prelate, not able to bear or to endure the insult offered him, but rebuking his patience, said to the reviler that he had uttered false statements. Whom blessed Louis restrained, saying: Ought I not to endure verbal injuries, when they inflicted upon Jesus, whose cause is at stake, not only words but dire blows? Grave ambushes too were laid for him as he was returning from Mainz towards Basel, and for the other ambassadors ^g: for two counts with four hundred armed retainers pursued them, and took captive and despoiled forty and more prelates and clerics in a certain wood on this side of Strasbourg, and shut them up in towers, and humbled them for ten days, where also the prophecy of John in the Apocalypse was again fulfilled, who says: Behold, the devil is about to cast some of you into prison, and you shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death.

[7] which he bore with wonderful mildness, as is shown by various At last, stripped of all their goods, by God's favour they were let go, especially because he who was sought was not among them. For they thought that they had taken with the rest the lord Louis of Arles, who was reckoned at ten thousand; but their savage malice was frustrated, God disposing all things and protecting His Servant: for while the others went before and were captured, it happened that the lord of Arles was a little and for a short while delayed in the town where he stayed. Nevertheless they carried off all his jewels and utensils together with those of the others whom they despoiled, as they found them in the company. And the citizens of the town did not permit him to go out until they had withdrawn, and until the consuls and citizens of Strasbourg had come with many spearmen, by whom, under their safe conduct, with those who had been with him — not without huge fury and boldness on the part of the aforesaid enemies pursuing and often offering violence — he was at last with great fear brought safe into the city of Strasbourg. Then, stripped of all his goods, returning to Basel, he bore it with even mind in pious patience for the hope of things to come, giving thanks to God, who does not forsake those who hope in Him. But when the Church of God assembled at Basel wished to punish all those persecutors with the spiritual sword, and to bind them with the sentence of excommunication, and to denounce them to all the faithful of Christ, he, pious and merciful, forgave the offence ^h and the injury with all kindness; nay he besought them suppliantly on their behalf, that neither they nor their followers should be bound by the Church with a formidable sentence, on account of the penitence which he hoped would come from them. And thus the Fathers of the sacred council, overcome by his many entreaties, ceased from the prosecution, leaving the injury to God.

[8] Besides, being deprived of his church by the lord Pope Eugenius, and the king of France also seizing ⁱ his goods and offering threats, examples. The Blessed's death and burial. so that his full patience might be shown, he in humility commended his cause much to God. By the citizens too and inhabitants of his bishopric, whom he had come out of pious love to visit for some days, he was dishonourably received, some mocking him, some baring their hinder parts against him. He, clasping his hands, said: May almighty God have mercy on you, my brothers and sons; and yielding to their fury, he withdrew thence. Yet they afterwards did great penance for this and for other evils. At length, after many ^k struggles and crowns of patience, on the 16th day of the month of September at Salon, in the convent of the friars Minor, he rested in the Lord with a blessed end, and on the next day was carried into his cathedral church, and entombed on the side of the great altar; and then his obsequies were honourably performed, as was fitting.

ANNOTATIONS.

CHAPTER II.

The Blessed's miracles after death.

[ ] Benefits On the day of the said burial a certain priest of Arles was present at the obsequies: who, whereas he had long before been suffering from fever, reported on the word of truth that thereafter he had no fever.

After a few days the men of Saint Amantius ^a, who

which place belongs to the temporality * of the said Church of Arles, wishing to celebrate the obsequies of the said Father, and not having at hand the wax necessary for this, received tapers on loan and had them weighed, that they might return them and pay for what should have been consumed: and they caused the said tapers to burn from the beginning of the obsequies to the end for the space of two hours and a half. When the office was finished, the tapers being weighed again, were found to weigh as much, and some more, than they had done before the lighting.

When the host of the Mutton inn ^b of Arles had entered a certain chamber of his house, he found the bed on fire, and could not put it out, but commended his house to God and to the blessed Virgin and to the said lord Cardinal, on bended knees and devoutly: and forthwith the said fire ceased and went no further, although there was a strong wind and a stiff north wind. For this reason he promised to keep a lamp burning before his tomb for a whole year.

[10] and miracles A certain matron of Arles, a paralytic, walking with crutches *, and hearing of the miracle of the wax done in the place of Saint Amantius, vowed herself to God and to the said lord Cardinal: and on a certain day she betook herself to the church, and there beside his tomb had Mass celebrated to the praise of God and of the said Cardinal. When it was finished, she prostrated herself devoutly upon the tomb; then after a little space she rose up whole: and leaving her supports behind, she went home unharmed, giving thanks to God and to His servants.

Another, for ten weeks contracted in his limbs and altogether helpless, was brought to the tomb, and a vow being made, rose up healed and went away by himself. The like also happened to another.

A certain woman had suffered a certain infirmity for several years, so that at times she was deprived of sight; and by night she dreamed thus, that if she should commend herself to God and to the lord Cardinal she would be relieved; but making nothing of that dream, as one who had heard of no miracles wrought by him, she put it off for eight days. Afterwards, remembering the dream, and promising a head of wax, she commended herself to the lord Cardinal. Which done, she at once received health.

[11] by the patronage A boy of two years, suffering from fevers, lost his pulse, closed ^c and put on the colour of death, so that he was thought by men to be dead. But his mother, weeping, had him carried to the church and laid upon the tomb of the Man of God. Which done, with a multitude of people present and seeing it, he suddenly began to sweat, then to recover his pulse and the colour of life, and in the same connection was restored to health.

When a certain girl, not yet three years old, suffered for seven days from so great a flux of the bowels that her life was despaired of, her parents vowed her to God and to His Servant, promising him a waxen image if their daughter should be restored to health: and she straightway began to be better, and a little afterwards was restored to her former health.

Another girl, deaf for twelve years, being brought to the sepulchre of the Man of God, received her hearing.

A certain other man was freed from the gout.

Three madmen are restored to their right minds.

From the plague also and the epidemic some are freed.

A girl also, dumb for ten years, received speech.

There was a certain man at Arles so contracted and helpless that he could not walk without supports, nor with his hands put anything to his mouth. He commended himself, and his parents likewise, to God and to His Servant: and being carried by them upon the tomb, he lay there a little while, but after a short interval of time rose up whole.

[12] A certain smith of that same city lay for nine weeks in bed helpless, of Bl. Louis and sick in body, and so contracted that he could not endure to be touched in any part of his body: and for this reason he had a rope tied above his bed, by means of which he turned himself with great labour from one side to the other. At last, commending himself to God and to His Servant, he had himself carried upon the tomb of the Man of God, and lay there for some interval of time, and at last rose up unharmed, a multitude of people seeing it and giving thanks.

The daughter of a certain man was most gravely sick, having an abscess under the armpit, and being despaired of by all; being commended by her mother to God and to the Man of God, and brought to the tomb, and resting a little while, she at last, with many seeing it, recovered.

A certain man had pestilential fevers and an abscess, and his life was despaired of: he neither slept nor ate for three days and nights. At last on the third night his father, lying alone in his chamber prostrate on the ground, vowed his son to God and to the lord Cardinal, promising to give one taper for him if he should recover health: and the vow being made, he went out of the chamber and found his son lying by the fire, who had already begun to sleep. And asking the hour at which he had begun * to sleep, he learned that it was the same hour at which he had made the vow. And after this sleep the fevers left him, and the said abscess burst, so that within two days he was in all ways healed.

[13] Another, for six weeks so contracted and helpless in one arm conferred upon various persons that it could not be moved at all, came to the aforesaid tomb, and laid himself upon it, praying devoutly: and he rose thence whole, in the presence of many putting his arm above his head and turning it round about in sign of his health.

A certain inhabitant of Arles, for twelve days unable to support himself on one side and on his legs, a vow being made, was led to the tomb and prostrated, and after a little rose up whole.

A certain man of Carpi ^d, lacking sight in his left eye, having heard of the miracles of the Man of God, betook himself to Arles: and upon his sepulchre, on bended knees, he prayed for the space of an hour, and received his sight, many being present, who gave thanks to God and to His Servant.

A certain man of sixty, blind for two years, a vow being made, was led to the church, and there having confessed, had Mass celebrated at the altar beside the tomb of the Man of God, and completed a novena, within which he wholly recovered his sight.

Another, of Avignon, having been blind for three years, and moreover so contracted and helpless that he could not move himself, a vow having been made about visiting the sepulchre and fulfilled, recovered the former soundness of his sight.

[14] are recounted. A certain man of Arles, seventy years old, wholly bereft of light for four years, came by another's leading to the sepulchre of the Man of God; and having confessed his sins, stood upon his tomb for two days, prostrating himself devoutly at intervals: and on the third day he recovered his sight, the bishop and several others being present.

A certain boy of Arles, four years old, playing upon a beam after the manner of boys, fell upon a certain stone flight of steps ^e: and being taken up for dead, and carried by his grandmother and his sister upon the sepulchre of the Man of God, rising within the space of one hour, he returned with them whole to his father's house.

A certain man, after play, being invited to supper, felt himself after supper much oppressed in the stomach, and straightway lost his speech, and was for some days neither eating nor drinking. He, recalling how great miracles God works through His Servant, commended himself to him, promising that if he should receive health he would visit his tomb naked, keeping silence, and neither eating nor drinking. This vow being made, he vomited up a morsel of sponge mixed with black hairs, and was at once cured.

[15] A certain woman, going out of the city into a garden of hers outside the walls, and taking with her a two-year-old daughter and two other little ones, left them beside a certain well; and while the mother was intent upon gathering edible herbs, her little daughter fell into the well. When the mother learned this, having no help, she went down into the said well by the aid of a certain pole, and drew to herself the said daughter, drowned and dead; until persons came up who drew the mother and daughter out of the well, and stripped them of their clothes and clad them in warm linens. But when this profited the daughter nothing, the mother vowed her to God and to His Servant, and presently she breathed again and recovered.

A certain man, a leper for four years, and on that account dwelling apart in a wood: to whom it occurred in sleep that he should vow himself to God and to the lord Cardinal, of whom nevertheless he had heard nothing. He, addressing a man passing by on a certain day and asking whence he came, received from him the answer that he came from the holy body. And inquiring from what body, he heard that it was from the body of the lord Cardinal, which was buried in the church of Arles. Having heard this, and mindful of his dream, he devoutly vowed himself to the holy body, and after three days began to be healed, so that the scales fell from his face and hands: whereupon he returned home whole, giving thanks to God, who with His Only-begotten Son and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, three and one, for infinite ages of ages. Amen.

ANNOTATIONS.

* i. e. of the temporal lordship

* i. e. crutches

* i. e. began