Times of Crisis In Christendom’s Story

Press, Volume CX, Issue 32394, 5 September 1970, Page 4

Times of Crisis In Christendom’s Story

The Bad Popes. By E. R. Chamberlin. Hamish Hamilton. 310 pp. Bibliography. Index. (Reviewed by F.D.) According to the “Annuario Pontificio,” there are 262 names in the list of lawful Popes. E. R. Chamberlin has selected seven of these and he calls them “the Bad Popes.” He does not make it clear what he means by the epithet. Leo X and Clement VII were not bad men though they were bad Popes. It all depends on what gossip one accepts how far one considers Alexander VI a bad man. The same could be said of Boniface VIIL All would agree that Urban VI was at least partly deranged. All would agree that in any company John XII and Benedict IX would be considered bad. Chamberlin is not unaware of the difficulties of his task. In an appendix on sources, he describes quite honestly the impossible position in which he finds himself when almost all the information we have on John XII comes from the pen of his credulous archenemy. The juiciest tales in the book are usually the stories that circulated among the political enemies of these controversial men. From time to time, Chamberlin tries to sift the gossip. More often, he selects the matter that fits his interpretation of the character. It makes a better story. It makes a poorer history. It might be unfair to suggest that the author is looking for film rights. Certainly, any of the tales would make a film producer’s mouth water. Marozia, the Pope-maker, could be brought from the obscurity of the Dark Ages to take her place with Charlemagne. Boniface at Anagni, surrounded by de Nogaret’s ruffians. Urban reciting his prayers within screaming distance of his tortured Cardinals, Clement and the Sack of Rome—these have a dramatic and pictorial quality that will surely be noticed by the film industry. Chamberlin's colourful prose already provides the script

Here, however, lies the main disqualification of the book as scholarly history. The author cannot resist using superlatives when comparatives are called for. John Xll’s “sexual hunger was insatiable.” The same Pontiffs “avarice was insatiable.” The Pope’s power in the Dark Ages is described as if the Papal monarchy had already appeared in history. The splendour that came with the Renaissance is attributed to the papal court long before that era. Resentment at papal taxation becomes a feature of

articulate Europe only when it becomes palpable and that is from the days of John XXII not Boniface VIII whose crime, like that of Charles I of .England, was that he wanted to conserve what had been, against the tide of the powerful people who wanted change.

Chamberlin shows genuine understanding of Renaissance politics but plunges into the controversial field of motive without hinting to his readers that serious historians have queried what he confidently accepts. Alexander VI, tall and handsome, able and tolerant, completely devoted to his four children by the one mother, pursued his political and dynastic aims with Machiavellian lack of scruple. This is a credible picture—and a tragic one at the heart of Christendom on the brink of revolution. Is it necessary to perpetuate the scurrilous allegations that fed the hostility of his enemies? The main limitation of the book lies in confident assertion where scholarly historians only hazard opinions. However, it also has errors of fact. Where Lopez speaks of the greatest battles of the Dark Ages as involving “a few thousand men, a few hundred dead,'.’ Chamberlin describes the carnage as if the primitive chronicler was a statistician. The author speaks of the coming of the Renaissance like an old-time

humanist: “Europe emerging from the sleep of centuries.” Julius II is presented as following immediately’ on Alexander VI. There is no hint of that reforming party in every conclave to which Barraclough attests. Farnese is considered a libertine until he became Paul 111, whereas he was prominent in the reform movement for 20 years before that event. Chamberlin speaks of Caesar Borgia as giving up the priesthood whereas the man teas never even in minor orders. Indeed, most of the Curial Cardinals were in the same category and this is part of the explanation of the era.

For all its faults, this book must not be dismissed as unscholarly rubbish. It vividly re-creates times of terrible crisis in the story of Christendom. It is well produced and well illustrated. A few misprints will be readily recognised, “Gregory VII” for “Gregory XI” being the most puzzling. No matter how kindly we interpret the sources on which Chamberlin relies, these are shocking episodes in the long story of the Papacy. They bring to mind Macaulay’s remarks in his preface to von Ranke’s “History of the Popes.” Speaking of the Roman Church, he says: “When we reflect on the tremendous assaults which she has survived, wc find it difficult to conceive in what way she is to perish."