Bellarmine · Apologia pro Responsione sua · Apology for His Answer to the Book of James, King of Great Britain, Entitled Triplici Nodo Triplex Cuneus
Chapter 16: The Five Histories the King Calls Feigned, with the Answer
Our translation, from the Latin of the Opera Omnia (Paris: Vivès, 1870–74), vol. XII, Apologia pro Responsione sua ad Librum Jacobi Magnae Britanniae Regis, an apology of 1609. The Latin source text is public domain; this English rendering is released with the site. Scripture quotations follow Bellarmine's Vulgate citations, rendered in Douay-Rheims wording where he quotes exactly. Click “Show the Latin” for the original (raw OCR of the scan; scanning errors remain — the scan itself is the authority).
There follow the histories which the king calls feigned, with the answer.
The first feigned history, page 70
It was certain that he, Henry IV, died of a natural disease.
Confutation. “It was not certain, since some historians write otherwise, that he died in chains, either of hunger or of the filth and squalor of the prison. Read the Fasciculus Temporum at the year 1094, Laziardus in the Epitome of Universal History, chapter 198, Paul Lang in the Chronicle of Zeitz at the year 1105, and Jacob Wimpheling in the Epitome of German Affairs, chapter 23.”
Answer. I said, in the place noted, that it was certain Henry IV was not killed by the sword or by poison, but died of a natural disease; where a natural disease is opposed to the sword and to poison, whether that natural disease was contracted from drunkenness, or from hunger, or from too much walking, or from too long detention in prison, or from luxury and pleasures, or from the filth and squalor of the prison. Therefore, since no historian relates that Henry IV was killed by the sword or by poison, the truth of the history I adduced stands. But besides this it is certain also that Henry IV died not in chains, nor of the filth of a prison, nor of hunger, but of a natural disease, at Liège in the year 1106, while he still had soldiers and was secretly planning to make war on his son. See the historians at the year 1106: Godfrey of Viterbo, the Addition to Lambert of Aschaffenburg, Dodechin in the addition to Marianus Scotus, Sigebert in his Chronicle, Syffrid the priest in his Epitome, the Abbot of Ursperg, Otto of Freising and others. Moreover the Fasciculus Temporum, Paul Lang and the few who say that he died in prison were either deceived by the fact that they knew Henry had been in prison but did not know, or did not remember, that he had escaped; or else they say he died in prison because the city of Liège, which was almost the only one left him out of the whole Empire, was reckoned as a prison.
The second feigned history, page 83
In order to deserve to be absolved from it, the bond of excommunication, he, Henry IV, of his own accord cast himself down to that humiliation.
Confutation. “The historians testify that Henry IV humbled himself so far not of his own accord, nor for fear of the Pope’s excommunication, which he judged invalid, but for fear of losing his kingdom and his life. Lambert of Aschaffenburg at the year 1077, the Abbot of Ursperg at the year 1075, Platina in Gregory VII, the author of the Life of Henry IV, Bruno in the History of the Saxon War, Cuspinian in Henry IV, Sigonius on the kings of Italy, book 9, Laziardus in the Epitome of Universal History, chapter 193.”
Answer. I said that Henry IV cast himself down to that humiliation of his own accord, because he came not led by force but by his own will, as all the historians cited, and very many others, testify. And that he came to the Pope in order to be loosed from the bond of excommunication, as indeed he was absolved, the same historians are witnesses. And that he desired to be absolved from excommunication so that he might not lose his kingdom is most true, for the princes of Germany had already decreed to deprive him of the kingdom if he remained a whole year under excommunication. But these things do not conflict with each other, nor do they make the history I related a fiction; for the same historians say both, that Henry came of his own accord from Germany into Italy to the Pope, and with the greatest humility sought and received absolution from excommunication; and that the chief reason why he sought absolution with such labour and humility was that he might not be stripped of his kingdom.
The third feigned history, page 83
This history, of Alexander III treading with his foot on the neck of Frederick Barbarossa, is of doubtful credit.
Confutation. “But it is not of doubtful credit among the historians, since none denies it and many affirm it, as Nauclerus, Jacobus of Bergamo, Pietro Giustiniani, Papirius Masson, Alfonso Chacón, Girolamo Bardi.”
Answer. He is not guilty of a feigned history who says that some history is of doubtful credit, but he who relates a false history; unless we wish to abuse words. But besides this, the historians the king cites are recent ones; the ancients wrote nothing of the kind. Moreover Romuald, Archbishop of Salerno, who was present and described everything most accurately, relates that Frederick prostrated himself with his whole body at the feet of Pope Alexander, and was at once raised up by the Pontiff most kindly and with tears; which the same is related by Roger, an author of the same age, in the English annals. But, says the king, many write of that matter and no one denies it. I answer that this argument is conclusive when the ancients affirm and no one of that time or later denies; but when only recent writers affirm, it is no wonder if the ancients do not deny what they could not divine would be invented by the moderns.
The fourth feigned history, page 83
What else did Frederick fear, except excommunication?
Confutation. “But that Frederick feared excommunication alone no ancient historian writes; that he feared above all the loss of empire and dominion very many testify: Martin of Poland at the year 1166, Platina in Alexander III, Laziardus in the Epitome of Universal History, chapter 212, Nauclerus, generation 40, Jacob Wimpheling in the Epitome of German Affairs, chapter 32.”
Answer. What Frederick feared he himself teaches in the speech he made at Venice before the Pontiff and a very great multitude of nobles, which Cardinal Baronius reports from Romuald, Archbishop of Salerno, in volume 12 of the Annals, page 714; where he openly professed that he acknowledged his error and the schism of which he had been the author, and that he feared and hated nothing more than separation from the Church. The same is plain also from the fact, for he was not allowed to enter Venice until he had first been absolved from excommunication. But when the Pontiff had ordered him to be absolved by the Bishops of Ostia, Porto and Palestrina, then at last the Doge of Venice went out to meet him and brought him into the city of Venice with great honour and public rejoicing. Nor indeed do the historians alleged testify to the contrary; for when they say that he feared to fall from the empire, by that very fact they are held to say that he feared the excommunication, through which, unless he were absolved in good time, he might have lost the empire.
The fifth feigned history, page 88
Add that Cuspinian, in the story of the Turk’s brother removed by poison, is unsupported by the testimonies of other historians.
Confutation. “The same history has been handed down to memory by very many other most celebrated historians. See Francesco Guicciardini, book 2 of the History of Italy; Paolo Giovio, book 2 of the History of His Own Times; Sabellicus, Ennead 10, book 9; the Continuator of Palmieri at the year 1494.”
Answer. The historians cited do indeed relate that the Turk’s brother died at Naples or at Gaeta, for they vary even about the place; but that he died by poison Sabellicus calls into doubt. And that poison was given by the Pontiff’s authority, or with his knowledge, as some say, none affirms. The Continuator of Palmieri says there was a suspicion; Guicciardini, that it was believed; Giovio, that there was a rumour; Sabellicus, that there were those who believed it: this is what they committed to writing. But these are not the testimonies of historians, whose task it is to relate truly what was done, but the opinions or suspicions of men, who are not seldom deceived in suspecting or opining. Certainly Onofrio Panvinio, in his notes on Platina, writes that the Turk’s brother died of a natural disease.
Show the Latin (Vives edition, OCR)
CAPUT XVI. Sequuntur Historiae , quas rex ementitas dicit cum responsione. Prima Historia ementita pag. 70. Constabat eum (Henricum 1Y.) naturali morbo extinctum fuisse. Confutatio. « Non constabat quandoquidem historici nonnulli aliter scribunt, eum in vinculis mortuum fuisse vel fame, vel pudore, situ¬ que carceris, lege Fasciculum temporum ad annum 1 094. Lazia dum Epitome univers. hist cap. 198. Paulum Langium in Chronico Citizensi ad ann i a 1105. Jacobum Wim- phelingium i i Epitome rerum Germanica¬ rum cap. 23. » Responsio. Dixi in loco notato, constare Henricum IY. non fuisse occisum gladio, aut veneno, sed naturali morbo extinctum, ubi opponi¬ tur naturalis morbus, gladio, et veneno, si¬ ve is morbus naturalis contractus sit ex cra¬ pula, sive ex inedia, sive ex nimia deambu¬ latione, sive ex nimia detentione in carcere, sive ex luxu, et deliciis, sive ex pcedore si¬ tuque carceris. Quare cum nullus historicus referat, Henricum IV. fuisse occisum gladio, aut veneno , constat veritas historiae, quam adduxi. Sed praeterea constat etiam Henri¬ cum IV. non in vinculis, nec pcedore carce¬ ris, aut fame, sed naturali morbo defunctum Leodii anno 1106. cum adhuc milites habe¬ ret, et bellum filio occulte movere vellet, vide historicos ad annum 1106. Godefridum Yiterbiensem, Additionem ad Lambertum Schaphnaburgensem, Dodechinutn in addi¬ tione ad Marianum Scotum, Sigebertum in Chronico, Syffridum presbyterum in Epito¬ me, Abbatem Urspergensem, Othonem Fri- singensem, et alios. Porro Fasciculus tem¬ porum, Pautui Langius, et pauci, qui dicunt illum obiisse in carcere, vel decepti sunt ex ea quod Henricum in carcere fuisse noverant, elapsum autem ignorabant, aut non recor¬ dabantur: vel certe dicunt obiisse in carcere, quia civitas Leodiensis, quse fere sola illi erat ex toto Imperio, pro carcere computa¬ batur. II. Historia ementita pag. 83. A quo (vinculo excomunicationis) ut ab¬ solvi mereretur, ad istam humilitatem se ip¬ se (lienricus 1Y.) sponte dejecit. Confutatio. <t Henricus IV. non sponte, nec metu ex¬ communicationis Papae, quam invalidam censuit, sed metu amissionis regni, et vitae, sese in tantum humiliasse testantur histori¬ ci. Lamb. Schnphnab. ad annum 1077. Ab¬ bas Ursperg. ad annum 1075. Platina in Gregurio VII. Auctor vitae Henrici IV. Bru- no in historia Belli Saxonici, Cuspinianus in Hernico IV. Sigonius de regibus Italiae 200 APOLOGLE CAP. XVI. lib. ix. Laziardus in Epitome hist. univers. cap. 193. » Responsio. Henricum IY. sponte se ad illam humilita¬ tem dejecisse dixi, quoniam non vi adductus, sed propria voluntate accessit ; ut omnes ci¬ tati historici, etalii permulti testantur. Acces¬ sisse autem ad Papam, ut a vinculo excom¬ municationis solveretur, ut etiam absolutus fuit; iidem historici testes sunt. Quod autem ab excommunicatione absolvi desideravit, ne regnum amitteret, verissimum est, jam enim principes Germanice decreverant, eum regno privare, si annum integrum in excommuni¬ catione perseveraret. Sed ista non pugnant inter se, neque efficiunt, ut conficta sit historia, quam retuli, iidem enim historici utrumque dicunt, et Henricum sponte ex Germania in Italiam ad Papam venisse, et summa humilitate absolutionem ab excom¬ municatione petivisse, et accepisse : et eam fuisse potissimam causam, cur absolutionem tanto labore, et humilitate quaesierit, ne re¬ gno spoliaretur. III . Historia ementita pag. 83. Ilsec historia (Alexandri III. Friderici Bar- barossee cervicem pede conculcantis) est du¬ biae fidei. Confli latio. « At non est dubiae fidei apud historicos; cum nullus neget, multi affirment, ut Nau¬ clerus, Jacobus Bergomensis, Petrus Justini¬ anus, Papirias Missonus, Alphonsus Giacco- nus, Hieronymus Bardus. » Responsio. Confictae historiae reus non est, qui histo¬ riam aliquam dubiae fidei esse dicit : sed qui falsam historiam narrat; nisi vocabulis abuti velimus. Sed praeterea historici quos rex citat, recentiores sunt : antiqui enim ni¬ hil tale scripserunt. Porro Bomualdus ar- chiepiscopus, Salernitanus, qui interfuit, et omnia accuratissime descripsit, Frideri- cum narrat toto corpore procubuisse ad pe¬ des Alexandri Pontificis, mox autem a Pon¬ tifice cum lachrvmis benignissime subleva¬ tum, quod idem narrat Rogerius ejusdem aetatis auctor in annalibus Anglicis. At, in¬ quit rex, multi rem illam scribunt, ne¬ mo negat. Respondeo, argumentum hoc concludere quando veteres affirmant, et nul¬ lus ejus temporis, aut posterioris negat : sed quando soli recentiores affirmant non est mirum, si veteres nou negent quod divinare non potuerunt a recentioribus, confingendum fuisse. m IV. Historia ementita pag. 83. Quid aliud Fridericus timuit, nisi excom¬ municationem ? Confutatio. « At Fridericum timuisse solam excom¬ municationem nullus autiquus historicus scribit : sed imperii, et dominii amissionem potissimum timuisse testantur plurimi, Mar- tinus Polonus ad annum 1166. Platina in Alexandro III. Laziardus in Epitome hist. universalis cap. 212. Nauclerus generatione 40. Jacobus Wimphelingius in Epitome re¬ rum Germaniae cap. 32. » - Responsio. Quid Fredericus timuerit, docet ipse in oratione, quam habuit Venetiis coram Pon¬ tifice, et maxima Procerum multitudine, quam ex Romualdo Salernitano Archiepisco- po refert Cardinalis Baronius tom. 12. anna¬ lium pag. 714. ubi aperte professus est, agnoscere se errorem suum, et schisma cu¬ jus auctor fuerat, et nihil magis timere, et odisse, quam ab Ecclesia separationem. Idem etiam constat ex facto, nam permissus non est Yenetias ingredi, nisi antea ab ex¬ communicatione absolutus esset. Sed cum eum Pontifex per Episcopos Ostiensem, Por¬ tuensem, et Pramestinum absolvi j ussisset ; tum demum dux Venetorum illi obviam pro¬ fectus est : eumque in urbem Venetiarum magno cum honore, et publica laetitia intro¬ duxit. Neque vero historici allegati con¬ trarium testantur, cum enim dicant, eum timuisse, ne ab imperio caderet, hoc ipso censentur dicere, timuisse excommunicatio¬ nem, per quam, nisi mature absolveretur, imperium amittere potuisset. APOLOGLE GAP. XVII. 201 V. Historia ementita pag. 88. Adde Cuspianum (in haere de Turcse fra¬ tre veneno sublato) aliorum historicorum te¬ stimoniis destitui. Confutatio. t Eadem historia a plerisque aliis celeber¬ rimis historicis memorise prodita est. Yide Franciscum Guicciardinum lib. n. hist. Ital. Paulum Jovium lib. n. hist. sui temporis, Sabellicum Ennead. 10. lib. ix. Continuato- rem Palmerii ad annum 1494. » Responsio. Historici citati narrant quidem fratrem Turcse periisse Neapoli, vel Cajetse, nam et de loco variant, sed periisse veneno Sabel¬ licus in dubium revocat. Venenum autem datum auctore, vel non ignorante Pontifice, ut aliqui loquuntur, nullus affirmat. Suspi¬ cionem fuisse dicit Palmerii continuator ; Guicciardinus, creditum fuisse ; Jovius, fa¬ mam fuisse; Sabellicus, fuisse, qui crederent : litteris mandarunt. Ista vero non sunt histo¬ ricorum testimonia, quorum est res gestas vere narrare, sed opiniones, vel suspiciones hominum, qui non raro suspicando, vel opi¬ nando falluntur. Certe Onuphrius Panuinius in annotationibus ad Platinam, Turcse fra¬ trem naturali morbo periisse scribit.