famous old soldier, Guido de Montefeltro, a former enemy of the Popes, but now reconciled and passing the evening of his days in a cloister. The veteran declined to take the field, told Boniface that the place could not be captured by force of arms, but advised him, as a means of obtaining it, to promise much and perform little. The Pope but too faithfully obeyed the

that Boniface had absolved Guido for his wicked counsel before it was given. This did not save him from hell, since

"No power can the impenitent absolve."

Dante makes Guido, in the midst of the flames, relate circumstantially the fatal seduction by which "the chief of the new Pharisees" misled him, having given bim the promise of impunity. Another not at all flattering allusion to Boniface is in Parad. xxvii., 22; and elsewhere (Inf. xix., 52). Dante condemns him to hell. In the last passage, the spirit in hell mistakes Dante for Boniface, who, at the date of the poet's vision, was not dead. It is the same Canto in which Pope Nicholas V. is doomed to a like fate, and in which, in allusion to the pretended gift of Constantine to Pope Sylvester, the poet exclaims:

"Ah, Constantine! to how much ill gave birth,

Not thy conversion, but that plenteous dower
Which the first wealthy father gain'd from thee."

In regard to Ferreto, Muratori, as Wiseman truly states, adds a note to Ferreto's account of Guido, in which the critic questions the truth of the story. He observes: Probosi hujus facinoris narrationis fidem adjungere nemo probus velit. quod facile confinxerint Bonifacii æmuli," etc. In the Annali d'Italia, Vol. XI., p. 648, the same critic expresses his doubt of the truth of the anecdote respecting Guido, though he quotes G. Villani (Istor. Fiorent., lib. VIII., c. 6) to the effect that Boniface was troubled by no scruples when there was something to be gained. Muratori also suggests that the story of the advice of Guido may have arisen from the subsequent events,—namely, the breach of faith with the Colonnas. This last fact he appears not to reject. Although it is called in question by Wiseman, it rests upon strong evidence. In the proceeding before Clement VII., after the death of Boniface, the Colonnas averred that they had been cheated in the manner described. The proofs are given in Sugenheim, p. 208. The circumstances are stated by G. Villani, Lib. VIII., c. 64. Villani wrote soon after the event. See also, Fleury, Hist. Ecclesiast., Tom. XVIII., p. 240. Considering the manner in which the anecdote, as to the advice of Guido, is given by Dante, even though his Ghibelline hostility to Roniface, as Muratori observes, impairs the value of his testimony,-and con-idering, also, the other authorities in its favor, we are hardly justified in rejecting it as false. It is believed by Sugenheim, by Milman (Latin Christianity, Vol. VI., p. 228), by Schröckh, (Kirchengeschichte, Vol. XXVI., p. 531),-who supports his opinion by an argument-andy others. Schwab, in the Roman Catholic Theologische Quartalschrift (No. 1, 1866), admits that Wiseman, as well as Toste, the Catholic biog rapher of Boniface, in their attempted vindication of him, are biased by excited feelings consequent on the injustice which they suppose him to have suffered.

iniquitous counsel. This perfidy still further exasperated the great family which he was seeking to extirpate. It was Sciarra Colonna who, in connection with William of Nogaret, the emissary of Philip the Fair, made an attack upon the person of the old Pope, then staying in Anagni, and inflicted such injuries that he died on the 11th of October, 1133. The Papacy, brought under French influence, was now tranferred to Avignon.* Contrary to a common idea, the residence of the Popes in France did not result in the weakening, but rather in the temporary restoration of their power as secular Princes. This unexpected result was due to several causes. The local dynasties which had risen to power in Italy in the course of the last half of the thirteenth century, were divided amongst themselves; and the Pope could skillfully avail himself of their mutual jealousies and conflicts, by turning one against another. Moreover, the close connection of the Papal feudatories, the Kings of Naples of the house of Anjou, with their liege, gave him a strong ally. And finally, the Pontiffs in Avignon played anew the part of their predecessors who, in the contest with the Hohenstaufen Emperors, had taken the attitude of friends and protectors of the Italian municipalities in their pursuit of freedom. By means of Cardinal Albornoz, the able Spaniard, the Popes succeeded, while personally absent from Italy, in recovering and reuniting nearly the whole of their former cities and territories. They even succeeded in using for their own ends the eloquence and popularity of Cola di Rienzi. At a time when Rome was filled with anarchy and violence, through the nobles who sallied from the strong-holds which they had built in the city, to engage in bloody fights in the streets, this political and religious enthusiast became the author of a successful revolution, in which he installed himself as tribune, compelling the nobles to surrender their fortresses, and restoring order. Unhappily he quickly betrayed an unbalanced character, and by his costly pomps and shows disgusted the people, caused the Pope to declare against him, and was at length driven from Rome. Arrested a few years later by the

Avignon was afterwards, in 1348, bought by the Papal See of Joanna, Queen of Naples and Countess of Provence. Venaissin was presented to the Pope in 1273, by King Philip III.

Emperor Charles IV., he was sent to Avignon, and having been detained for a while in custody by the Pope, he returned to Rome in company with Albornoz, and materially aided the latter in conciliating the popular favor. But his vanity and self-indulgence excited renewed hostility against him, and in 1354 he was assassinated.

Hardly were the Popes back again in Rome, before they threw away the great prize which the energy and sagacity of Albornoz had won for them. They set about the business of depriving the cities in their domain of the privileges which had been wisely conceded to them by Albornoz; and, in order to crush republicanism more effectually, they even attempted to rob the Tuscan towns of their independence. The result was that the Papal subjects broke off anew their allegiance, which Albornoz had regained with so much painstaking. If the Popes retained, and even recovered, their temporal power during their residence in Avignon, the effect of the great schism, lasting from 1378 to the Council of Constance in 1417, a period in which two and sometimes three Popes were struggling to supplant each other, was quite the opposite. In the cities of the Papal kingdom the old dynasties revived and new ones sprung up; towns and territories were ceded to nobles in fief, so that the exhausted papal treasury might have a new source of income; to the old Republics within their domain, as Rome, Perugia, and Bologna, the Popes found it necessary to grant a degree of republican freedom, that almost amounted to independence, and like privileges were even granted to cities that had never before enjoyed them. In short, the Papal kingdom was dissolved and broken up in this eventful period which was equally detrimental to the temporal and spiritual dominion of the Roman Bishops. The steps by which subsequent Pontiffs, beginning with Nicholas V., who became Pope in 1447, regained by degrees, through patient and prudent efforts, the inheritance which the folly of their predecessors had lost, we cannot attempt, in this brief sketch, to relate.

V.

As we approach the beginning of the sixteenth century, we come to a period of moral degradation in the Papacy,

having no example save in the tenth century, when harlots disposed of the sacred office. "The governments of Europe," says Ranke, "were stripping the Pope of a portion of his privileges, while at the same time the latter began to occupy himself exclusively with worldly concerns."* To found an Italian kingdom for his own family, to carve out principalities for his own relations, was the darling object of his ambition. This shameful era may be said to begin with Sixtus IV., Pope from 1471 to 1484. He conceived the plan of founding a State in Romagna for his nephew, or, if we may believe Macchiavelli's assertion, his natural son, Jerome Riario. Opposed in his schemes by Florence, he entered into the foul conspiracy for assassinating Lorenzo and Julian de Medici, which was concocted by the Pazzi. In the midst of the solemn service of the Mass, at the signal given by the elevation of the Host, a fierce attack was made upon them; but while Julian fell, Lorenzo escaped. The speedy execution, without the forms of a trial before an ecclesiastical tribunal, of the priests who had been engaged in this murderous attack, afforded the Pope a pretext for venting his chagrin at its failure by launching his spiritual thunders against Florence and its ruler. He joined Ferdinand of Naples in making war upon Lorenzo, whose consummate boldness and skill in drawing off Ferdinand from the alliance saved him from ruin. Next, Jerome coveted Ferrara, held in fief by the house of Este; and the Pope, in alliance with Venice, turned his arms in that direction; but the Pope, seeing that they were to gain nothing, deserted Venice and excommunicated her. Vexation at his inability to subdue this Republic hastened his death. Innocent VIII. "sought with a still more profligate vileness to exalt and enrich his seven illegitimate children :" and for this end carried on two wars against Ferdinand, King of Naples. But the crimes of Sixtus and of Innocent, shocking as they were, were less than those of the most flagitious of all the Popes, Alexander VI. To give riches and crowns to his five illegitimate children, and especially to his favorite son, Cæsar Borgia, he exerted all his energies. His court afforded a spectacle of

* Ranke, History of the Popes of Rome during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Vol. I., p. 45,

luxury and unbounded sensuality. Alexander sided with Naples against the invader, Charles VIII. of France, and then, for a price, deserted his ally. In 1495, he joined the Emperor and the King of Spain, in order to drive the French out of Italy. Not getting enough from Naples to satisfy him, he joined Louis XII. of France, granting the latter a divorce from his wife, and receiving, among other benefits, armed assistance for Cæsar Borgia, who made war upon the principal vassals of the Church and carved for himself a dominion out of their territories. To forward the interests of this monster of cruelty and perfidy, Alexander was ready to throw away even the show of truth and decency. At length the poison which the Pope had mixed for a rich Cardinal whom he wanted to rob, he drank himself by mistake, and died on the 18th of August, 1503.

Julius II. differed from his immediate predecessors in being free from their personal vices and in not aiming to exalt his own relations. His aim was to build up and extend the states of the Church. In this he attained to great success. He satisfied his family by obtaining for them, by peaceful means, the patrimony of Urbino. He expelled Cæsar Borgia from his dominion and seized upon it. He brought Perugia and Bologna under the direct rule of the Papal See. Unable to induce the Venetians to retire from the territories of the Holy See on the coast, he organized the league of Cambray, and compelled them to surrender this portion of the dominions of the Church. He gained possession of Parma, Piacenza, and Reggio, and of all the region lying between Piacenza and Terracina. He had established his sway over all the territories of the Church and consolidated them into a kingdom. He only failed in a second great end which he had set before him,that of expelling the foreigners, or, as he expressed it, of driving out the barbarians" from Italy. In truth, in reaching the object of his ambition, he had been obliged to bring in foreign intervention, and had done his part in paving the way for the great evils that were destined to flow from it.

66

In their efforts to preserve the fair inheritance which Julius II. had left to them, his successors were obliged to involve themselves in the intrigues and conflicts of European politics, and especially in the long contest between France and Austria