Part 15 (1/2)
Wolsey, on his part, was secretly negotiating with Louise of Savoy during her son's imprisonment in Spain. In August, 1525, a treaty of amity was signed, by which England gave up all its claims to French territory in return for the promise of large sums of money to Henry and his minister.[475] The impracticability of enforcing Henry's pretensions to the French crown or to French provinces, which had been urged as excuses for squandering English blood and treasure, was admitted, even when the French King was in prison and his kingdom defenceless. But what good could the treaty do Henry or Francis?
Charles had complete control over his captive, and could dictate his own terms. Neither the English nor the French King was in a position to continue the war; and the English alliance with France could abate no iota of the concessions which Charles extorted from Francis (p. 168) in January, 1526, by the Treaty of Madrid.[476] Francis surrendered Burgundy; gave up his claims to Milan, Genoa and Naples; abandoned his allies, the King of Navarre, the Duke of Guelders and Robert de la Marck; engaged to marry Charles's sister Eleanor, the widowed Queen of Portugal; and handed over his two sons to the Emperor as hostages for the fulfilment of the treaty. But he had no intention of keeping his promises. No sooner was he free than he protested that the treaty had been extracted by force, and that his oath to keep it was not binding.
The Estates of France readily refused their a.s.sent, and the Pope was, as usual, willing, for political reasons, to absolve Francis from his oath. For the time being, consideration for the safety of his sons and the hope of obtaining their release prevented him from openly breaking with Charles, or listening to the proposals for a marriage with the Princess Mary, held out as a bait by Wolsey.[477] The Cardinal's object was merely to injure the Emperor as much as he could without involving England in war; and by negotiations for Mary's marriage, first with Francis, and then with his second son, the Duke of Orleans, he was endeavouring to draw England and France into a closer alliance.
For similar reasons he was extending his patronage to the Holy League, formed by Clement VII. between the princes of Italy to liberate that distressful country from the grip of the Spanish forces.
[Footnote 475: _L. and P._, iv., 1525, 1531, 1600, 1633.]
[Footnote 476: _L. and P._, iv., 1891.]
[Footnote 477: _Ibid._, iv., 2039, 2148, 2320, 2325.]
The policy of Clement, of Venice, and of other Italian States had been characterised by as much blindness as that of England. Almost without exception they had united, in 1523, to expel the French from Italy.
The result was to destroy the balance of power south of the Alps, (p. 169) and to deliver themselves over to a bondage more galling than that from which they sought to escape. Clement himself had been elected Pope by imperial influence, and the Duke of Sessa, Charles's representative in Rome, described him as entirely the Emperor's creature.[478] He was, wrote Sessa, ”very reserved, irresolute, and decides few things himself. He loves money and prefers persons who know where to find it to any other kind of men. He likes to give himself the appearance of being independent, but the result shows that he is generally governed by others.”[479] Clement, however, after his election, tried to a.s.sume an att.i.tude more becoming the head of Christendom than slavish dependence on Charles. His love for the Emperor, he told Charles, had not diminished, but his hatred for others had disappeared;[480] and throughout 1524 he was seeking to promote concord between Christian princes. His methods were unfortunate; the failure of the imperial invasion of Provence and Francis's pa.s.sage of the Alps, convinced the Pope that Charles's star was waning, and that of France was in the ascendant. ”The Pope,” wrote Sessa to Charles V., ”is at the disposal of the conqueror.”[481] So, on 19th January, 1525, a Holy League between Clement and Francis was publicly proclaimed at Rome, and joined by most of the Italian States.[482] It was almost the eve of Pavia.
[Footnote 478: _Sp. Cal._, ii., 610.]
[Footnote 479: _Ibid._, ii., 619.]
[Footnote 480: _Ibid._, ii., 707.]
[Footnote 481: _Ibid._, ii., 699, 30th Nov., 1524.]
[Footnote 482: _Ibid._, ii., 702-11.]
Charles received the news of that victory with astonis.h.i.+ng humility.
But he was not likely to forget that at the critical moment he had been deserted by most of his Italian allies; and it was with fear and trembling that the Venetian amba.s.sador besought him to use his (p. 170) victory with moderation.[483] Their conduct could hardly lead them to expect much from the Emperor's clemency. Distrust of his intentions induced the Holy League to carry on desultory war with the imperial troops; but mutual jealousies, the absence of effective aid from England or France, and vacillation caused by the feeling that after all it might be safer to accept the best terms they could obtain, prevented the war from being waged with any effect. In September, 1526, Hugo de Moncada, the imperial commander, concerted with Clement's bitter foes, the Colonnas, a means of overawing the Pope. A truce was concluded, wrote Moncada, ”that the Pope, having laid down his arms, may be taken unawares”.[484] On the 19th he marched on Rome.
Clement, taken unawares, fled to the castle of St. Angelo; his palace was sacked, St. Peter's rifled, and the host profaned. ”Never,” says Casale, ”was so much cruelty and sacrilege.”[485]
[Footnote 483: _Ven. Cal._, iii, 413.]
[Footnote 484: _Sp. Cal._, ii., 898.]
[Footnote 485: _L. and P._, iv., 2510.]
It was soon thrown into the shade by an outrage at which the whole world stood aghast. Charles's object was merely to render the Pope his obedient slave; neither G.o.d nor man, said Moncada, could resist with impunity the Emperor's victorious arms.[486] But he had little control over his own irresistible forces. With no enemy to check them, with no pay to content them, the imperial troops were ravaging, pillaging, sacking cities and churches throughout Northern Italy without let or hindrance. At length a sudden frenzy seized them to march upon (p. 171) Rome. Moncada had shown them the way, and on 6th May, 1527, the Holy City was taken by storm. Bourbon was killed at the first a.s.sault; and the richest city in Christendom was given over to a motley, leaderless horde of German, Spanish and Italian soldiery. The Pope again fled to the castle of St. Angelo; and for weeks Rome endured an orgy of sacrilege, blasphemy, robbery, murder and l.u.s.t, the horrors of which no brush could depict nor tongue recite. ”All the churches and the monasteries,” says a cardinal who was present, ”both of friars and nuns, were sacked. Many friars were beheaded, even priests at the altar; many old nuns beaten with sticks; many young ones violated, robbed and made prisoners; all the vestments, chalices, silver, were taken from the churches.... Cardinals, bishops, friars, priests, old nuns, infants, pages and servants--the very poorest--were tormented with unheard-of cruelties--the son in the presence of his father, the babe in the sight of its mother. All the registers and doc.u.ments of the Camera Apostolica were sacked, torn in pieces, and partly burnt.”[487] ”Having entered,” writes an imperialist to Charles, ”our men sacked the whole Borgo and killed almost every one they found...
All the monasteries were rifled, and the ladies who had taken refuge in them carried off. Every person was compelled by torture to pay a ransom.... The ornaments of all the churches were pillaged and the relics and other things thrown into the sinks and cesspools. Even the holy places were sacked. The Church of St. Peter and the papal palace, from the bas.e.m.e.nt to the top, were turned into stables for horses....
Every one considers that it has taken place by the just judgment (p. 172) of G.o.d, because the Court of Rome was so ill-ruled.... We are expecting to hear from your Majesty how the city is to be governed and whether the Holy See is to be retained or not. Some are of opinion it should not continue in Rome, _lest the French King should make a patriarch in his kingdom, and deny obedience to the said See, and the King of England find all other Christian princes do the same_.”[488]
[Footnote 486: Buonaparte's _Narrative_, ed.
Buchon, p. 190, ed. Milanesi, p. 279; _cf._ Gregorovius, _Gesch. der Stadt Rom._, viii., 568 _n._, and Alberini's _Diary_, ed. Drano 1901 (extracts are printed in Creighton, _Papacy_, ed.
1901, vi., 419-37).]
[Footnote 487: Cardinal Como in _Il Sacco di Roma_, ed. C. Milanesi, 1867, p. 471.]
[Footnote 488: _Il Sacco di Roma_, ed. Milanesi, pp. 499, 517.]