We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
The power that impelled Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini from his first insignificant clerkship at the Council of Basel to the height of papal dignity resided less in himself than in the cross-currents of fifteenth-century European politics through which he moved. The particular currents that Aeneas Sylvius exploited were those emanating from German resistance to Rome, from the Hauspolitik of the Hapsburgs, from the entrenched Hussitism of Bohemia, and in general from the cultural differential between backward-Gothic Central Europe and the new life of Renaissance Italy. Amply endowed with energy and the kind of rich but not first-rate talent that never has to sacrifice effectiveness to an original vision of truth, Aeneas carefully made himself useful to the dignitaries of Basel, to the Council's pope, then to the Emperor Frederick III, and finally to the Roman papacy. His good style, facetious imagination, and worldliness helped him throughout his career, and when it became possible for him to look forward to high office in the church he experienced a mild spiritual conversion and took the necessary holy orders; as Bishop first of Trieste (1447), then of his own Siena (1449), he served both the Emperor and the Roman Pope; in 1456 his service to both parties was rewarded with the dignity of Cardinal Priest of Santa Sabina, and in 1458, on the death of Calixtus III, he was elected to the papacy.
1. The standard source for Aeneas Sylvius' life is still Georg Voigt's great Enea Sylvio de' Piccolomini als Papst Pius der Zweite, und sein Zeitalter, 3 vols. (Berlin, 1856–1862–1863);Google Scholar I cite it as “Voigt.” Some new material is added by Pastor, L., Geschichte der Päpste, I (9th ed.; Freiburg im Br., 1926) 347–354Google Scholar, and passim; II (1925), 2–289;Google Scholar I cite it as “Pastor.” Voigt is often criticized as unduly harsh (e.g., Pastor, I 347 n. 4 ); my own reading of Aeneas' works leads me to agree with Voigt on almost every point.
2. Voigt, I, 341; II, 218. One of Aeneas' competitors for the papacy in 1458 suggested that if elected, Aeneas might, for all anyone knew, transfer the Curia to Germany (Pastor, II, 10).
3. A letter of 22 December 1456, cited by Voigt, II, 214.
4. Voigt, II, 218; cf Kallen, G., Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini als Publizist (Köln, 1939), p. 17ff.Google Scholar, for the meaning of Aeneas' role in Germany in the 1440's.
5. The Epistola de ortu et auctoritatt imperii romani has been edited by Wolkan, R., Der Briefwechsel des Eneas Sylvius Piccolomini, II, Fontes rerum Austriacarum, 2 Abt., LXVII (1912), 6–24Google Scholar; Kallen, op. cit., has reprinted this edition, with commentary and translation. The work is in the form of a letter to Frederick III, dated 1 March 1446.
6. Epistola de ortu…, Wolkan, II, 14:Google Scholar “ sicut in spiritualibus Romano pontifiei singuli patriarche primatesque ceterique pontifices et prelati subjecti sunt, quamvis et hoc aliquando Greei negarint, et adhuc perfidum Hussitarum genus inficietur, sic et Romano principi temporales quoslibet liquet esse subjectos.”
7. Ltr. of 25 Nov. 1448, Wolkan, II, 72. Another of Aeneas' arguments in the Epistola de ortu…, that the prince as head of the mystical body of the state, must sacrifice his life for the state if necessary, has been cited as a prime example of the secularization of the idea of “corpus mysticum,” by Kantorowicz, Ernst, “Pro patria mori in Medieval Political Thought,” AHR, LVI (1951), 490f.Google Scholar But the passage cited here from the 1448 letter reminds us that the older concept, of the Church as the Mystical Body, had not been extinguished, and that indeed the same man might regard both Church and State as mystical bodies. At any rate, even though Aeneas may legitimately be cited to show the existence of an idea in his time, he should not be taken seriously as a protagonist of such an idea: he was above all an opportunistic literary man, willing to work both the laical nd ecclesiastical sides of the boulevard, as expedience might dictate. There is moreover an equivocation in the concept of the Church as a mystical body—it is manifest in Aeneas' suggestion that one of the body's limbs might decay—but even the word “mystical” (meaning “figurative”) is equivocal, for the identity that it points to may be either objective or subjective, an identity of essence or one merely of metaphor. With Aeneas Sylvius it is safer to suppose a literary rather than a philosophical or metaphysical understanding of such terms.
8. Pastor, II, 64; there are other explicit and rather pathetic references in the speech to Urban II, Clermont, and the heroes of the First Crusade.
9. In addition to the already cited works by Voigt, and Pastor, , Palacký, F.'s classic Geschichte von Böhmen, IV, i & ii (Prague, 1857–1860)Google Scholar, may be consulted; I cite it as “Palacký.” R. Urb´nek's Vék Podeêbradsk, 3 vols., in the series, Ceské dêjiny, ed. Novotný, V. III, i, ii, iii (Prague, 1914–1918–1930)Google Scholar, is the modern standard work for the period in question (up to c. 1460), within the framework of Bohemian history; I have therefore used it (cited as “Urbftnek”) for background information in preference to the various German studies published since Paiacký.
10. Historia bohemica, ch. 1; there is no modern or standard edition; for the manuscripts and early printed editioas, see Palacký, , Würdigung der alten böhmischen Geschichtschreiber (Prague, 1830), p. 234ff.Google Scholar
11. Hist. boh., preface (in the form of a dedicatory letter to King Alfonso of Aragon).
12. Voigt, II, 331. And see the interesting discussion of early Bohemian history in a letter of 21 May 1445, ed. Wolkan, I, i, FRA, 2. Abt., LXI (1909), No. 170.
13. In the History of the Council of Basel (a ltr. to Cardinal John Carvajal, 1450, ed. Wolkam, II, 164ff.)Google Scholar, in his oration of 1455 (see below), etc.
14. Voigt, II, 317, puts it well: “The one pervasive tendency in Aeneas' historical works is to entertain the reader and offer him aesthetic delight. A part of the truth is unconditionally sacrificed to a smooth form, lively narrative, brilliant diction.” Cf. Kallen, op. cit., p. 34f.
15. Perhaps the most incisive discussions of the relation between the factual and the literary in the Histo,-la hohemica are those by Pekař, J., “Jan Žižka, I. žižka u Eneáŝle Sylvia,” ^eský ë a s o p i s historickg, XXX (1924), 413–432Google Scholar; also, Žižka a jeho doba, I (Prague, 1927), 160–8, and II (1928), 119ff.Google Scholar Pekat argues, in general, that Aeneas used valuable source material, that many of even his more dubious statements are based on truth, and that his misstatements or distortions are the result of haste or stylistic manipulation, rather than of a deliberate intention to lie.
16. In his De educatiune puerorum, a letter addressed to King Ladislav Postumus, February 1450 (Wolkan, II, 144).Google Scholar
17. See Palacký, , Wiirdigung, pp. 234–7Google Scholar, for the many MSS, printed editions, and translations.
18. The statement was made by Fantino dde Valle in an address to King George of Podêbrady, before a Diet of the realm, on 9 August 1462; it is reported in The Commentaries of Pius II, Bk. X, trans. Gregg, F. A., Smith College Studies in History, XLIII (1957), 624.Google Scholar
19. See Kraus, A., Husitství v literatu^e, zejména nêmecké, I (Prague, 1917), 138 ff.Google Scholar Cf. Peka^, , ĈĈH, XXX (1924), 429f.Google Scholar
20. Jose^ Pekaf, in his articles cited above (where most of the contrary opinions are referred to). Cf. Palaek^, , Würdigung, p. 237ff.Google Scholar, for an old but still important critical discussion. F. M Bartoš is the leading contemporary anti-Sylvian: see his “Žižka v dê jepisectví,” Sbornik Žižküv, ed. R. Urb´nek (Prague, 1924), p. 170ff.;Google ScholarBartoŝ', Ene´ŝ Sylvius (Prague, 1925)Google Scholar has not been available to me.
21. See Pekař, op. cit.
22. Aeneas uses the classical vocabulary: “Sequebantur Joannem clerici fere omnes, aere alieno gravati, sceleribus ac seditionibus insignes, qui rerum novitate evadere poenas arbitrabantur” (Hist. boh., eh. 35). Re thus fixed the character of Hussitism as a social revolution for future historians; a fact not taken into account by one modern scholar, who, seeing the abovequoted words in the fifteenth-century Polish historian John Dlugosz, mistakenly thought they were original with him (Scblauch, Margaret, “A Polish Vernacular Eulogy of Wycliff,” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, VIII (1957), 57Google Scholar n. 3; this interesting article is seriously marred by a total inattention to modern Czech scholarship bearing on its subject, an inattention the more puzzling in that it lacks the usual linguistic justification).
23. Hist. boh., ch. 35. Briefly summarized, the articles are: the pope is equal to other bishops; there is no distinction among priests; the priest's power depeuds on his good life, not his office; there is no Purgatory; it is useless to pray for the dead; images of God and the saints are to be destroyed; benedictions of water and of palms are ridiculous; mendicant orders were invented by demons; priests should be poor and live on alms alone; anyone may freely preach the word of God; no capital sin may be tolerated, even to avoid a greater one; those guilty of mortal sin have neither secular nor ecclesiastical power and should not be obeyed; confirmation and extreme unction are not sacraments; confession made privately to God is sufficient, aurieular confession is superfluous; baptism can be performed with river water; the dead may be buried in any ground at all; God's temple is the whole world, not particular buildings; sacerdotal vestments and vessels are unnecessary; the priestcan consecrate the Lord's body at any time and place, and give it to those who wish it; in this ceremony only the words of institution need be said; saints' suffrages are of no use and it is pointless to seek them; it is a waste of time to say canonical hours; saints' days are not to be observed, every day but Sunday is a work-day; fasts instituted by the Church are of no merit.
24. For a discussion of this subject see my “Hussite Radicalism and the Origins of Tabor 1415–1418,” Medievalia et Humanistica, X (1956), 106Google Scholar n. 2.
25. Würdigung, p. 247f.; Hist, boh., ch. 50.
26. See my “Hussite Radicalism,” pp. 109–116, and passim.
27. The text in Wolkan, II, 164ff.
28. See Palacký, IVv, i, 264ff.; Urbánek, III, ii, 499ff.
29. In Wolkan, III, i, FRA, 2. Abt., LXVIII (1918), 22–57 (ltr. of 21 Aug. 1451).
30. Voigt, II, 29ff., 55; Urbánek, III, ii, 513.
31. Aeneas says he and George spoke of many things, of which he has reported only those bearing on ecclesiastical matters; moreover his report has given the meaning rather than the exact words of the conversation (Wolkan, III, i, 36). For a critical analysis of what Aeneas does give, see Urbánek, III, ii, 514ff., esp. 519ff. TJrbanek believes that Aeneas presented George as more yielding than he would in fact have been.
32. Wolkan, III, i, 30; the statement might well be added to Kantorowicz's “Pro patria mori” collection, op. cit., p. 490ff.
33. The inflexible policy is characterized by Voigt, II, 169; it was being applied by the then legate for Germany and Bohemia, Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, for whose position see Palacký, IV, i, 263, 294f. What Aeneas himself writes of his report, that it contains things important for Rome to know and consider (Wolkan, III, i, 22, 36), suggests what effect his description of George and of the conversation was supposed to have.
34. For these points see Wolkan, III, i, 35, 31, 36. Elsewhere Aeneas recalls his impression of George at this time: “Quem cum nos longo sermone de communione calicis tentavissemus, magis deceptnm quam pertinacem invenimus” (cited by Palacký, IV, i, 119 n. 117).
35. Wolkan, III, i, 36.
36. ibid., p. 26.
37. For Tabor's organization in this period see Maeek, J., Tábor v husitském revoluônim hnutí, I (Prague, 1952; 2d ed.; 1956)Google Scholar, ch. vi. Cf. Urbánek, III, iii, 650f.
38. Wolkan, III, i, 25.
38a. The typical Hussite sermon was in fact the postil, or exposition of biblical material in the form of a systematic commentary.
39. Loc. cit.
40. ibid., p. 36f.; see note 42 below.
41. Cited by Palacký, IV, i, 459, n. 376.
42. The elimination of saints' altars and of masses for the dead, and indeed of all services except those performed at the Bingle altar, meant that only a few priests were needed—others passed into the life of the laity. (For these aspects of Taboritism see Nejedlý, Zd., Dêjiny hvsitského zpêvu za válek husitských (Prague, 1913), pp. 133–167,Google Scholar esp. p. 157.) This circumstance would have reinforced the union between clergy and laity, and may have accounted for the Latin-educated laymen that so impressed Aeneas: one guesses, in view of the Hussites' largescale use of Czech alongside of Latin in their treatises, that the true layman at Tabor would not have known Latin. For the clergy-laity relationship, cf. also Urbánek, III, iii, 650f.
43. Wolkan, III, i, 25.
44. See my “Chiliasm and the Hussite Revolution,” Church History, XXVI (1957), 44, 47, 53–5, 58f., 62.Google Scholar It may be guessed that as the common funds, administered by the clergy, were supplemented and then replaced in the secular life of most of the community by a more regular and normal economic system, their use would have been increasingly restricted to the marginal poor and, above all, to the clergy itself. Since the Taborites on principle did not assign the clergy independent or individual incomes, the institutionalization of the common funds for this purpose would have been an obvious step.
45. See Urbánek, III, ii, 528 n. 2, for interesting details about Aeneas' visit to Jindrichuv Hradec.
46. In 1462, debating the question of the Compacts with George of Podêbrady's representatives (see below), Pius II had a book brought out which he said he had received from Papouŝek, and which contained the materials mentioned. In the Historia hohemica of 1458, c. 52, he referred to Papouŝek as a good and learned man whom he had met in Jindřichův Hradec (Neuhaus). See Urbánek, III, iii, 53 n. 1; Palacký, IV, ii, 221.
47. It is printed by Höfler, K., Geschichtschreiber der husitischen Bewegang in Böhmen, III, FRA, 1. Abt., VII (1866), 158–162.Google Scholar
48. For a discussion of such lists and their currency in Bohemia see my “Hussite Radicalism,” p. 114, n. 7.
49. Actually they had begun earlier: in 1462 Pius II told the Bohemian envoys that while on this mission he had been moved to tears by the sight of all the ruined churches and cloisters left by the Hussite (i.e., above all, the Taborite) armies (Palacký, IV, ii, 226).
50. In the following discussion I conflate Aeneas' accounts of both his visits to Tabor, Wolkan, III, i, 23–7, 36–57.
51. Wolkan, III, i, 50f.
52. It seems necessary here, if sense is to bo preserved, to change Wolkan's “nobis” to “vobis.”
53. The Social Teachings of the Christian Churches, trans. Olive Wyon, I (New York, 1931), 364.Google Scholar (For Tabor's individualism, cf. note 80, below.)
54. Urbánek, III, ii, 529f., does suggest that Aeneas' account of his disputation with the Taborites was intended to show the Curia that he could hold up his end in a theological debate. I would simply add to this probability my own impression of a genuine reaction to Taboritism.
55. Wolkan, III, i, 23.
56. ibid., p. 25.
57. ibid., p. 56.
58. Wolkan gives the last sentence so: “… precipue apud eos Waldenses habeutur, uniu Christi vicarii et apostolice sedis capitales inimici, frena superioritatis abjiciunt libertatemque predicant; necessarium est, ut omnes errores admittant.” I follow what I take to be the meaning and structure, as well as the reading of some earlier editions, in putting a period between “inimici” and “frena” in supposing the subject of the three verbs following to be the Taborites.
59. Grundmann, H., “Freiheit als religiöses, politisehes mid personliches Postulat ha Mittelalter,” Historische Zeitschrift, CLXXXIII (1957), 23–53.Google Scholar The idea that there is always a “latent will to freedom” (p. 52), and that privileged liberty was not so much opposed to freedom in general as rather derived from it, runs counter to what has become the usual understanding of medieval liberty, but Grundmann's argument, supported by much evidence, is attractive.
60. Wolkan, III, i, 24.
61. ibid., p. 56.
62. ibid., p. 27.
63. ibid., p. 28.
63a. Cf. the decree against heresies of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215 (Mansi, XXII, 986): “Exeommunicamus Ct anathematizamus omnem heresim extollentem se adversus hanc sanctam orthodoxam catholicam fidem, quain superius exposuimus, condemnantes universos hereticos quibuscumque nominibus censeantur, facies quidem habentes diversas, sed caudas ad invicem colligatas, quia de vanitate conveniunt in idipsum” Thus all heresies “come to the same thing” because they have a common psychological and moral root (vanity), and they are all opposed to the “holy orthodox catholic faith;” only the names are varied. The piquant image (“caudas ad inviceiu colligatas”) is doubtless drawn from Judges xv, 4: “[Samson] cepit trecentas vulpes, caudasque earum iunxit ad caudas …” which in turn points to the Song of Songs ii, 15: “Capite nobis vulpes parvulas, quae demoliuntur vineas.” This last text was currently applied to the heretics, e.g. by Innocent III (Migne, Patr. lat., CCXIV, 698; cited by Grundmann, H., Religiöse Bewegungen im Mittelalter (Berlin, 1935), p. 100Google Scholar n. 55, with a further ref erence to his “Der Typus des Ketzers in mittelalterlicher Anschauung,” Kultur- und Universalgeschichte, Festschrift für Walter Goetz (1927), p. 100.
64. In his bull citing George of Podébrady to appear in Rome to answer to charges of heresy, etc. (see below), ed. Cugnoni, J., “Aeneae Sylvii Piccolomini…opera inedita,” Atti della R. Accademia dei Lincei, CCLXXX (1882. 3)Google Scholar (Classe di scienze morali, storiche filologiche, VIII), 465.
65. Paiacký, IV, i, 263ff.; Urbáuek, III, ii, 548ff. According to Aeneas, he had influenced the pope to send Capistrano to Germany (Urbánek, bc. cit.).
66. Urbánek, III, ii, 551, 567 f.; cf. Palacký, IV, i, 294 n. 243. Cf. the texts published by Palncký, , Urkundliche Beitrdge sur Geschichte Böhmens … im Zeitabter Georgs von Podiebrad (1450–1471, FRA, 2. Abt., XX (1860), 29, 49.Google Scholar
67. The commission is printed in (Wolkan, III, i, 79–82; soon after, Hungary was added to this province (Voigt, II, 55).
68. The powers are granted in a number of papal letters, all dated 18 April (Wolkan, III, i, 83–94). The purpose of the appointment is stated in the papal commissions, at much length.
69. Wolkan, III, i, 103.
70. See Palacký, IV, i, 289ff.
71. Wolkan, III, i, 362–4.
72. ibid., pp. 363, 365, 369f., 385.
73. ibid., p. 377. ble to reunion with Rome. One recalls Aencas' earlier plaint, “who seduced the Bohemians, if not theologians” (see note 98, below).
84c. Muratori, p. 217.
84d. ibid., pp. 228f., 217.
84e. ibid., p. 217.
84f. The impression of 1451 has already been noted. On 7 June 1453 Aeneas wrote to Carvajai: “Gubernator Bohemic navem quo nilt impellit, regnum ex arbitro ducit, pacem tenet, jus reddit, omnibus terrori est” (Wolkan, III, i, 173). On 22 January 1454 he wrote to George of Podbbrady: “Unum tanien adhuc restat vestra virtute consiioque dirigendum. Nondum quietem spiritualia negocia tenent, nondum clerus vester ecclesic Romane consentit… Sed neseio, quis hoc perficere possit nisi vestra singularis et oculatissima eircumspeetio, que ut temporalia optime direxit sic et spintualia perfectc posse disponere non dubitatur” (Wolkan, III, i, 426). Other pnssagcs could also be cited.
84g. See note 34, above; cf. Urbánek, III, ii, 526.
84h. On 1 June 1454 Aenens reported to Carvajal: “Gubernator tectum ducit consilium suum, non tamen sine suspitione apud Hussitas habetur” (Wolkan, III, i, 491).
84i. Muratori, p. 229.
85. For Roman-Bohemian relations after 1455 see Voigt, III, 425 ff.
86. See Urbánek, III, iii, 98.
87. Pastor, I, 754ff., discusses the coronation-oath, about which there has been some controversy.
88. See the joyful letter of Calixtus III to George of Podêbrady, 22 February 1458, ed. Palacký, , Urk. Beitr., FRA, 2. Abt., XX, 127f.Google Scholar
89. Voigt, II, 170f.
90. Voigt, II, 190f.
91. Voigt, II, 197ff.
92. Pekař, , ^ifka a jeho doba, I, 167.Google Scholar
93. For example, Nicholas Konáě's translation of 1510 changes the original's “arch-heretics” into “loyal sons of the church” (Kraus, A., Husitství v literatuřc, I (Prague, 1917), 138).Google Scholar
94. Voigt, III, 451f.
95. Pastor, II, 171f.
96. Loc. cit.
97. For this whole episode see Palackt, IV, ii, 207–234; Pastor, II, 173 ff. The apparent rashness of Pius' act poses a problem; see Palacký's suggestion (p. 235), that the Pope simply did not understand the depths of religious sentiment.
98. One recalls that Aeneas Sylvius, in his letter De educatione puerorum, 02 1450 (Wolkan, II, 139)Google Scholar, had suggested that the reason Plato gave for excluding poets from the Republic would serve just as well to exclude philosophers and theologians: “what error in faith has issued from anyone but theologians?… who seduced the Bohemians, if not theologians?” As pope he repudiated his more scandalous early works, but his intellectual temperament and capacities remained what they had been.
99. Ed. J. Cugnoni, op. cit., pp. 461–470.
100. ibid., p. 463.
101. Sec note 46, above.
102. Cugnoni, op. cit., p. 461.
103. ibid., p. 462.
104. Loc. cit.,
105. ibid., p. 463.
106. Loc. cit.
