BONIFACE VIII, POPE. — Benedetto Caetani, Supreme Pontiff from 1294 to 1303, was born in Anagni between 1220 and 1230 to noble parents. Having gone to Rome at a young age, he soon displayed an uncommon inclination for legal studies. His rapid rise in curial circles was certainly due to his lively intellect and tireless activity, as early as 1264 he is found in England in the retinue of the cardinal legate Ottobono Fieschi, the future Adrian V. Later, in 1280, he successfully concluded with Cardinal Matteo Rosso degli Orsini the negotiations initiated in Germany by Bishop Niccolò of Tripoli for resolving the dispute over the dominion of Provence between Rudolph of Habsburg, King of the Romans, and the Angevins of Naples. Created a cardinal deacon of S. Nicola in Carcere by Pope Martin IV the following year, he was entrusted by the same pontiff two years later with the difficult task of preventing the concerted and scandalous duel between Charles of Naples and Peter III of Aragon, who had become irreconcilable enemies after the Sicilian Vespers of 1282, which had driven the Angevins from the island and secured it for the Spaniards. When both sovereigns died in 1285, the combined diplomatic efforts of Cardinals Caetani and Gerardo da Parma easily led their successors, Charles II of Anjou and Alfonso III of Aragon, to conclude the Treaty of Tarascon in 1291, not without the intervention of Philip IV the Fair, an open protector of the former. This agreement was glorious for the papacy and very advantageous to Charles II, who, after so many defeats, obtained full freedom for himself and his sons and found himself undisputed lord of Sicily, but it was too humiliating for the victorious Aragonese and the disappointed islanders for the pact to be truly constructive and lasting. Caetani was promoted to the presbyterial title of SS. Sylvester and Martin in the same year. From then on, besides being an eminent jurist, he began to distinguish himself among the other members of the Sacred College for his evident diplomatic skill, as well as for many other qualities. He did not, however, attain the tiara until after the resignation of Celestine V (q.v.) in 1294. It was precisely Caetani who, when the inexperienced pontiff, desirous after only five months of returning to his longed-for hermit’s life, asked his advice about the lawfulness and advisability of a possible resignation, did not hesitate to encourage and comfort him, without resorting to those artifices of which he was later so unjustly accused and which the chronicler Villani so readily believed.
Thus, after the famous resignation on 13 December 1294 in Naples, in the conclave convened there ten days later according to the Gregorian provisions restored by Celestine V, few ballots were needed to proclaim Cardinal Benedetto Caetani pope by a large majority of votes (24 December), who took the name Boniface VIII. This was therefore an absolutely canonical and regular election, achieved without the simoniacal intrigues to which Dante alludes.
The fundamental aims of the new pope were to restore the complete freedom of the Church and to pacify the Christian people. He immediately demonstrated a profound and jealous love for the independence of the papacy by freeing himself from the insinuating influence of the Angevins by transferring himself at once to Rome, where the solemn coronation took place on 23 January 1295, and where he also issued the first measures aimed at restoring the splendor of the Eternal City, a splendor much diminished by so many wretched vicissitudes. He nevertheless remained faithful to the traditional relations of good friendship with the Angevins, who continued to defend Guelf interests against the immoderate imperial enthusiasms of the Ghibellines. In this sense must be viewed and judged many of the most controversial episodes in the history of Boniface’s pontificate, especially the events concerning the defense of the Angevin dynasty in the Kingdom of Sicily, the struggle against the Colonna family, and the conflict with Philip IV, King of France. As regards the first, we recall that, having already absorbed much of the pope’s work while he was still a cardinal, it continued to preoccupy him throughout his pontificate, since in 1291, upon the death of Alfonso of Aragon, succeeded by James II, who entrusted Sicily to his younger brother Frederick, Boniface found it impossible, under the terms of the Treaty of Tarascon, to satisfy both the Aragonese and the Angevins. After laborious and lengthy negotiations, however, he was able to conclude in Anagni in 1295 a treaty similar to the first, by which, while freeing Aragon from the French threat justified by King Philip with alleged rights of representation against the occupation of Sicily granted by the Holy See, James renounced dominion over the islands of Corsica and Sardinia, over which the pope disposed as lord. It remained, however, to induce the young Frederick to renounce the Sicilian crown; and Boniface nearly succeeded in this at a meeting in Velletri, with the vague hope of splendid marriages and uncertain imperial succession. But against all these efforts arose the fierce opposition of the Sicilians, who were firmly opposed to French rule, so much so that they forced the prince to have himself crowned in Palermo in 1296 in defiance of the pope, the Angevins, and even his own brother James II, who, urged by the pontiff, waged war against Frederick while he lived in Palermo with their common mother Constance, daughter of King Manfred. Indeed, it was Boniface who had negotiated the marriage of James II to Blanche, daughter of Charles II of Anjou, and two years later, in 1297, in the presence of the Aragonese in Rome, had granted him the promised investiture of Sardinia and Corsica, naming him moreover standard-bearer and admiral of the Church and thus putting him in a position to personally lead all the land and sea forces for the recovery of Sicily in favor of his father-in-law and to the detriment of his brother Frederick III, who had in the meantime been excommunicated by the pope.
Yet, although the famous admiral Roger of Lauria abandoned Frederick and transferred the fleet to the service of the Angevins, the intrepid monarch, with the support of his loyal Sicilians, so valiantly sustained the unequal struggle against the coalition that he wore down the King of Aragon in 1299. And when the latter, urged by the pope, resumed the war the following year, and at Boniface’s invocation Charles of Valois, the unfortunate peacemaker of Florence, came from France in support of the Angevins, Frederick did not falter and resisted until the Peace of Caltabellotta in 1302. The pope also gave, not without hesitation, his consent to the peace, hoping that, according to the letter of the agreements, Sicily would at Frederick III’s death definitively return to the French dynasty, which not only did not happen but, on the contrary, a century later the Aragonese drove the Angevins even from the Kingdom of Naples.
The intervention of Charles of Valois proved, as noted, to be no more fortunate with regard to Florence, torn apart by adverse and irreconcilable factions. The Bianchi had already been severely struck by the first papal legate, Matthew of Acquasparta, a former general of the Franciscans, who clearly inclined toward the Neri; but matters worsened when the French prince and condottiere, openly siding with the Neri in 1302, did not hesitate to expel the Bianchi from Florence. This misfortune involved, as is well known, Dante himself, who sided with the latter and later took his revenge on Acquasparta, Valois, and above all on Boniface in his immortal poem. The same heated conflicts between Guelfs and Ghibellines that tore
Many flourishing districts and cities of Italy repeatedly frustrated the efforts patiently and generously made by B. to secure the longed-for pacification. Thus, while in his desire to promote new agreements for the liberation of the Holy Land, B. succeeded in bringing about an accord between the powerful maritime Republics of Venice and Genoa, in the latter everything came to naught because of the stubborn enmities between the Guelphs of the Grimaldi and the Ghibellines of the Doria and Spinola. More fortunate was the Pope in the dispute with the future Emperor Albert of Austria, who in 1298 had defeated the weak Adolph of Nassau and in 1302 the very prince-electors. Indeed, B. knew how to make his influence effectively felt by recognizing him, albeit belatedly, but on terms very favourable to the Church. This did not happen, however, in the case of the Hungarian monarchy, when the papal arbitration in favour of the protégé Charles Robert of Naples was not accepted.
But the pontificate of B. was marred by tragic events owing to the rebellion of the Colonnas and the struggle with Philip IV, King of France. The former is connected with the hostile attitude of the Franciscan Spirituals, who in turn aimed to depose the Pope. The resignation of Celestine V, an almost unique event in history, gave rise to doubts in the minds of many contemporaries about the legitimacy of that division between the Pope and the Church of Christ, His mystical spouse. Moreover, the humble and retiring gesture was bound to displease not only the Angevin court, which had so much expected from the inexperienced hermit of Isernia, but also all those who shared the mystical views of the latter regarding the government of the Church, so that many soon came to regret the compliant and humble conduct of Celestine in comparison with the unyielding justice and iron intransigence of his successor. The first voices about the alleged illegitimacy of B. spread precisely in the milieu known as the Spirituals among the Friars Minor, in which the mystical and popular poet Jacopone da Todi stood out, while the best mind among them, Olivi, did not at all share such an erroneous opinion. This view, however, found ardent and obstinate defenders in Ubertino da Casale and others, who could not forgive B. for suppressing the exemption already granted by Celestine V to the Marches Spirituals.
The direct responsibility for having aroused a wave of resentment against the Pope lies with the Colonna cardinals Giacomo and Pietro, who did not hesitate even to exploit to their advantage the pitiable case of the imprisonment and death of the resigning Pope. It is well known that B., rightly fearing that the wicked would take advantage of the simplicity of the humble hermit, ordered the abbot of Montecassino to bring him to Rome. After a vain attempt to escape, the old man was seized and taken to Anagni in the presence of the Pope, who had him guarded in the nearby fortress of Fiumone, where in a poor cell he piously expired on 19 May 1296, not by violent death as was falsely asserted, among others, by the Colonnas. Between Colonna and Caetani there is no trace of any real antagonism before that year. And the two cardinals Giacomo and Pietro had given their vote to Caetani in the Neapolitan conclave. Yet among the Colonnas Cardinal Giacomo was so domineering that he considered himself entitled to enrich his nephews, not least Cardinal Pietro and the impetuous Stefano, with the administration of the common property, to the great detriment of his brothers, who, discontented and resentful, appealed to B. Thus the Pope found himself compelled to take sides in this most delicate family affair and ordered Cardinal Giacomo to cease administering his brothers’ patrimony, thereby alienating the two cardinals and their supporters. B. moreover suspected that a family so closely tied to the Aragonese of Sicily, against the interests of Charles of Anjou, protected by the Church, might use its power to act counter to papal policy.
When then Stefano, whether out of greed or in revenge against him, dared to seize along the Appian Way, near Rome, the gold and silver of the papal treasury that B. himself was sending from Anagni to the city, the Pope summoned the two cardinals to appear before him on 4 May 1297. Since they had kept their distance for some time, and even though they did appear, they showed no repentance, B. ordered papal garrisons to occupy their strongholds, especially Palestrina, Colonna and Zagarolo, and further demanded the return of the stolen treasure and the surrender of the guilty Stefano. But all in vain. And six days later, with the bull *In excelso throno*, he declared the said cardinals deposed, perhaps because even then he had wind of the plots woven against the legitimacy of his papal election. It seems, on the other hand, evident that the two cardinals had been aware of the contents of the severe bull as early as 9 May, for on the morning of 10 May, *ante solis ortum*, i.e. a few hours before the publication of the papal document, they dared to launch from Lunghezza on the Aniene the first libel countersigned by Jacopone himself and other Spirituals, in which the Apostolic See was declared vacant on account of the invalidity of Celestine’s resignation, and consequently B. as an intruder, not without an appeal to a future general council to provide for the widowhood of the Church. The Colonnas reiterated all this in Palestrina with a new libel drawn up on 11 May and published on 16 May, followed by a third on 15 June. Swift and fully justified was the Pope’s reaction. On 23 May, indeed, the bull *Lapis abscissus* thundered forth the excommunication against the rebels, confiscated their goods and banished them from the State of the Church; to these penalties was added, the following year, a virtual crusade preached by Cardinal Acquasparta, and the related forces were entrusted by B. to the command of Landolfo Colonna. One after another the Colonna fortresses fell, and finally Palestrina itself; and while there is no proof of the fraud and counsel of Guido da Montefeltro of Dantean memory, we know that the two cardinals, who had barricaded themselves there, having asked for forgiveness, obtained from B. only absolution from the censures, but not the restoration of their dignity and goods. As for the naive Jacopone, who moreover composed biting poetic invectives against the Pope, he had to atone for his faults during a five-year imprisonment in the Castello di S. Pietro. Palestrina, then razed to the ground, yielded its name to the Civitas papalis built in the plain.
More fateful for B. proved the conflict with France, despite his love for that nation and for the ruling dynasty in Naples. In the very year of his election, the Anglo-French war flared up again, and by reason of alliance or friendship treaties many nations were drawn into the fray. The Pope, grieved by so much calamity, which indefinitely postponed the realization of the Crusade to the Holy Land, intervened as a mediator of peace, sending at the beginning of 1295 his legates, the cardinals of Albano and Palestrina,
They negotiated a truce between EDWARD of England and PHILIP IV the Fair, a truce soon broken through the fault of the latter. The worst of it was that the two sovereigns, lacking funds to sustain so bitter a war, laid hands on tithes and other ecclesiastical revenues; wherefore some French bishops begged the Pope to remedy so grave an abuse. BONIFACE replied with the bull CLERICI LAICOS of 25 Feb. 1296, in which, after deploring the excesses of lay power against church property and the culpable compliance of ecclesiastics in this matter, he launched an ipso facto excommunication against those who, without apostolic licence, granted to laymen anything from sacred patrimony under any pretext; with the same censure he then struck laymen of any rank, even royal or imperial, who without prior permission of the Holy See exacted such tributes or donations. These decrees in the end merely repeated those of the Lateran ecumenical councils; but these were little observed, and on the other hand were not formulated with such rigour and severity, especially regarding civil authority. King EDWARD took offence and sought to react, but finally yielded to right before the firmness of the English episcopate; thus the constitution of BONIFACE entered into force in that realm and elsewhere, though not in France. King PHILIP, stung to the quick and seeing a rich source of revenue closed to him, immediately retaliated by forbidding the export of money and other precious objects, thereby striking indirectly at the economy of the Roman Curia, sustained by contributions from the whole world. The Pope judged it prudent to show greater favour to the king, especially as many malcontents claimed that feudal dues, justly owed to the monarch, were included in the papal prescriptions; so with the new bull INEFFABILIS he declared such an interpretation erroneous and, as regards voluntary gifts, allowed them to be bestowed by the clergy, and in case of great necessity, at the judgment of the king and the state, ecclesiastical tributes might be exacted even without apostolic faculties. Thus, for a time, harmony between PHILIP and the Holy See was restored, and BONIFACE could present himself as arbiter for concluding an Anglo-French armistice; and with the war in Sicily temporarily suspended, he could announce in a nearly general peace the first Jubilee of the Holy Year of 1300, which brought to the Eternal City an unprecedented multitude of the faithful from all the world.
Yet given PHILIP’s haughty character and his scant scruple in ecclesiastical matters, fresh clashes with the zealous and energetic Pope were to be expected, although BONIFACE was straining every effort to exalt the French princes of Anjou and Valois, and although with the canonization of ST LOUIS, grandfather of the king, celebrated in Aug. 1297, he had given splendid proof of affection for that nation. A new occasion for conflict arose in 1301 with the imprudent appointment of BERNARD SICARD, bishop of Pamiers, who was little pleasing to the king because of a prior dispute. The bishop was to repeat to the monarch the grave complaints of the Holy See regarding continual infringements of canon law on ecclesiastical immunity and tithes in France. Against this worthy legate, who had fearlessly delivered the perilous papal mandate, PHILIP proceeded as against one guilty of lèse-majesté, having him imprisoned by the archbishop of Narbonne and demanding his deposition by the Pope. The latter, deeply displeased, in Dec. of the same year issued the bull SALVATOR MUNDI, communicated to the king with another, NUPER EX RATIONALIBUS CAUSIS, wherein he declared the privileges lately granted null and void and demanded immediate satisfaction for the affront. In the letter AUSCULTA FILI he admonished the monarch paternally yet sternly to show himself a more worthy son of the Church. These letters and the summons to French prelates and doctors to come to Rome for the reform of so many abuses and the defence of ecclesiastical liberty in that nation incensed the sovereign and his court to the utmost, while PIERRE DE FLORENTE and then GUILLAUME NOGARET urged PHILIP to extreme measures. Instead of the bull AUSCULTA FILI, publicly burned, another forged one was circulated in which the Pope was made to speak in coarse and harsh terms to the king. At the same time an answer from PHILIP was put about, enormously irreverent toward the Pontiff. In Apr. 1302 the monarch summoned a parliament of the three estates at Paris, and there PIERRE DE FLORENTE and others maliciously accused BONIFACE of tyranny toward France, succeeding in winning nobility and bourgeoisie completely to the king’s side to defend what they called the liberty of the nation. The prelates and clergy, without going to the extremes of the other two estates, also yielded to the sovereign’s demands, afterwards recommending to the Pope greater benevolence toward their country. More serious still was the tenor of the nobility’s letter to the Sacred College, in which PHILIP’s complaints against the Roman Curia were justified. BONIFACE answered the ecclesiastics with the bull VERBA DELIRANTIS FILIAE, upbraiding their lack of zeal for the interests of the Church; to the nobility’s letter the cardinals replied in defence of the Pope’s conduct in the dispute, and BONIFACE echoed this in the consistory of Aug. and in the Council of Oct. of the same year 1302. Memorable meanwhile was the Roman synod, where despite King PHILIP some French prelates attended, and there was issued one of the most famous documents in history, the bull UNAM SANCTAM, perhaps the work of AEGIDIUS ROMANUS, setting forth and clarifying Catholic doctrine on the unity of the Church under one head, on spiritual and temporal power—this latter subordinate to the former in earthly matters—and finally on the obedience owed by all the faithful to the Roman Pontiff.
Yet though this document was naturally directed to the whole Church and without any particular aim, it was received with hostility at the French court, where after PIERRE DE FLORENTE’s death GUILLAUME NOGARET had acquired enormous influence, a bitter enemy of BONIFACE, and on whom the two Colonna cardinals then sheltered by PHILIP easily played. NOGARET therefore proposed that an assembly of French prelates and nobles declare BONIFACE an intruder and urge the summoning of an ecumenical council. And indeed in June 1303 the meeting of the Louvre took place, where GUILLAUME DU PLESSIS presented twenty-nine articles against the Pope, containing accusations of heresy, immorality and superstition. The outcome of this unworthy scene was a demand for a general council, subscribed to by a large part of the episcopate, the university and other corporations in accordance with King PHILIP’s wishes. BONIFACE, in the consistory held in Aug. at Anagni, rejected all the calumnies and errors with which the French charged him, justifying his conduct by love for truth and the liberty of the Church; regarding those appealing to a council he issued a series of punitive measures, while at the same time preparing the bull of excommunication and deposition of the monarch, which was to be published on 8 Sept., had not the infamous sacrilegious assault at Anagni intervened the day before—a deed which even DANTE unflinchingly stigmatized.
The Nogaret and Sciarra Colonna, indeed, gathered armed men among the Italian Ghibellines, presented themselves on the 7th of the said month at the gates of Anagni, and after having stormed the papal castle, took possession of the head of the Church, who received them clad in sacred vestments with admirable calm and dignity. It cannot be proven that Colonna laid hands on the person of the Pope; nonetheless, he was detained with the threat of being taken to France, until, three days later, the people of Anagni rose against the invaders and restored his freedom. Boniface, struck by the grave outrage suffered, returned to Rome a few days later, where on 11 October of the same year he died piously and not despairingly, as his enemies later claimed, who did not refrain from persecuting even his memory. It is the king of France, above all, who bears the greatest responsibility for having arranged everything so that the Anagni Pope might be condemned by the too compliant Clement V, who, among other things, allowed the hearing of Boniface’s accusers, the initiation of a sort of shameful trial at the ecumenical Council of Vienne, albeit limited to the rehabilitation of the Colonnas, the canonization of Celestine V, and, for the king, the immortal declaration of a papal statement that he had acted in good faith in the Bonifacian affair. Boniface’s bulls against the king were erased from the papal register.
History, far more just and dispassionate, has now judged Boniface a most worthy pontiff, endowed with great talent and uncommon wisdom, an intrepid and steadfast defender of the freedom of the Church, though one cannot, of course, admire certain imprudent acts and words, the primary cause of the shipwreck of noble but perhaps anachronistic designs. — See Pl. CIX.