INTRODUCTION THE GREAT SCHISM AND THE SCHOLARLY RECORD

Joëlle Rollo-Koster and Th omas M. Izbicki

Th e Great Schism or Triple Schism (1378–1417) has a long record of historiographic opinions, many tied to confessional suppositions. Th e predominant opinions, however, derived from Roman Catholic circles. Conciliarists tended to emphasize not the legitimacy of one papal line, that of Rome, Avignon, or Pisa but the role of the Council of Constance (1414–18) in authoritatively reuniting the Church. Even papal apolo- gists, beginning with the Dominican cardinal Juan de Toquemada (1388–1468), were reluctant to draw a conclusion about which line was legitimate. Such a judgment might have proven divisive, especially in the period of the Council of Basel (1431–49), which challenged a legitimately elected pope, Eugenius IV (1431–47). Torquemada argued that the decree Haec sancta of the Council of Constance, enacted in 1415, was not an act of a true general council, because the council only became licit when the three obediences of the Schism assembled at Constance. Torquemada admitted that Eugenius IV might have thought Gregory XII (1406–15), his uncle, was true pope; but the thrust of his argument remained that no choice between the obediences was use- ful to the Church.1 Only later would this stance be changed, favoring convocation of the council by the Roman claimant, Gregory, as the legitimization of the Constance assembly by the true pope. Th e rewrite favoring Rome was especially the work of 19th-century Roman Catholic writers, but it predominated in most writings until the middle of the 20th century. Even then, as Francis Oakley has observed, the Annuario pontifi cio listed the Pisan popes, Alexander V (1409–10) and the fi rst John XXIII (1410–15), as legitimate popes until 1947, during the reign of Pope Pius XII.2

1 Th omas M. Izbicki, “Papalist Reaction to the Council of Constance: Juan de Torquemada to the Present,” Church History 55 (1986), 7–20. 2 Francis Oakley, Th e Conciliarist Tradition: Constitutionalism in the Catholic Church, 1300–1870 (Oxford, 2003), pp. 254–55. 2 joëlle rollo-koster and thomas m. izbicki

Th e convocation of the Second Vatican Council caused a rethinking of ideas about the origins of conciliarism, one most oft en associated with the work of Brian Tierney.3 Even then, the historiography of the Schism was little aff ected by new currents in the fi eld of historical ecclesiology. Th e most vexing problem in assessing the Schism remained that of judging the conclave that elected the archbishop of Bari, Bartolomeo Prignano, who chose to reign as Pope Urban VI (1378–89). Th e tumul- tuous situation in Rome at that time could lead scholars to judge the election of Urban coerced, legitimating the later choice of Cardinal Robert of Geneva as Pope Clement VII (1378–94). Th e time between the conclave in Rome and the fl ight of the cardinals, when they peti- tioned Urban for favors, could lead to the opposite conclusion, that only his violent conduct drove the Sacred College to choose a new pontiff . Until recently, the balance of the scholarship has favored the latter interpretation.4 New approaches, including analysis of the customs surrounding papal elections, cast light even on this controversy from time immemorial.5 Th is is refl ected in our collection of studies. Likewise, there are other, less “political” issues that were largely ignored by historians until much later times. Th e cultural and even the pastoral impacts of ecclesiastical division began being addressed in depth only on the 6th centennial of the outbreak of the Schism.6 Th is need to look beyond ecclesiastical politics and polemics, as interesting as they are, to other issues is refl ected too in the diversity of topics covered in our own collection. Th is includes taking up vernacular sources and the viewpoints of less exalted persons, to set alongside the pronouncements of theologians and jurists.7 Breadth of coverage is the aim throughout this collection. Th e time covered extends past the early years of the Schism to its termination at Constance. Th e broadest range of experiences is presented, center and

3 Brian Tierney, Foundations of the Conciliar Th eory: Th e Contributions of the Medieval Canonists from Gratian to the Great Schism (Cambridge, 1955). 4 Th e diffi culty of separating fact from party plea and self interest is emphasized by John H. Smith, Th e Great Schism 1378 (New York, 1970), p. 135. 5 See, most recently, Joëlle Rollo-Koster, Raiding Saint Peter: Empty Sees, Violence and the Initiation of the Great Schism (1378) (Leiden, 2008). 6 See the articles on curial society, humanism, religious sentiment, and art in Genèse et débuts du grand schisme d’Occident: Avignon, 25–28 septembre 1978: Colloque inter- national tenu à Avignon, 25–28 septembre 1978, ed. Michel Hayez (Paris, 1980). 7 See, most recently, Renate Blumenfeld-Kosinski, Poets, Saints, and Visionaries of the Great Schism, 1378–1417 (University Park, 2006).