SCHLEGEL
541
SCHLEGEL
adds in 1412, can only result from stubborn opposi-
tion cither to the unity of the Church, or to an article
of faith. Tliis is the pure doctrine of the Angelic
Doctor (cf. Tshackert, "Peter von Ailli", appendix
32,33).
(3) Most modern doctors uphold the same ideas. It suffices to quote Canon J. Didiot, dean of the fac- ulty of Lille: "If after the election of a pope and before his death or resignation a new election takes place, it is null and schismatic; the one elected is not in the Apostohc Succession. This wa-s seen at the beginning of what is called, somewhat incorrectly, the Great Schism of the West, which was only an apparent schism from a theological standpoint. If two elec- tions take place simultaneously or nearly so, one ac- cording to laws previously pas.sed and the other con- trary to them, the apostolicity belongs to the pope legally chosen and not to the other, and though there be doubts, discu-ssions, and cruel divisions on this point, as at the time of the so-called Western Schism, it is no less true, no less real that the apostolicity exists objectively in the true pope. What does it matter, in this objective relation, that it is not mani- fest to all and is not recognized by all till long after? A treasure is bequeathed to me, but I do not know whether it is in the chest A or in the casket B. Am I any le.ss the posse.s.sor of this treasure?" After the theologian let us hear the canonist. The follow- ing are the words of Bouix, so competent m all these questions. Speaking of the events of this sad period he says: "This dissension was called schism, but in- correctly. No one withdrew from the true Roman pontiff considered as such, but each obeyed the one he regardiid as the true pope. They submitted to him, not absolutely, but on condition that he was the true pope. Although there were several obediences, nevertheless there was no schism properly so-called" (De Papa, 1,461).
(4) To contemporaries this problem was, as has been sufficiently shown, almost in.soluble. Are our lights fuller and more brilliant than theirs? After six centuries we are able to judge more disinterestedly and impartially, and apparently the time is at hand for the formation of a decision, if not definitive, at least better informed and more just. In our opinion the question made rapid strides towards the end of the nineteenth century. Cardinal Hergenrother, Blio- metzriedcr, Hefele, Ilinschius, Kraus, Bruck, Funk, and the learned Pastor in Germany, Marion, Chenon, de Beaucourt, and Denifle in France, Kirsch in Swit- zerland, Palma, long after Rinaldi, in Italy, Albers in Holland (to mention only the most competent or illustrious) have openly declared in favour of the popes of Rome. Noel Valois, who a.s.sumes authority on the question, at first considered the rival popes as doubtful, and believed "that the solution of this great problem was beyond the judgment of history" (I, 8). Six years later he concluded his authoritative study and reviewed the facts related in his four large vol- umes. The following is his last conclusion, much more explicit and decided than his earlier judgment: "A tradition has been established in favour of the popes of Rome which historical investigation tends to confirm". Does not this book itself (IV, 503), though the author hesitates to decide, bring to the support of the Roman thesis new arguments, which in the opinion of some critics are quite convincing? A final and quite recent argument comes from Rome. In 1904 the "Gerarchia Cattolica", basing its argu- ments on the date of the Liber Pontificalis, compiled a new and corrected list of sovereign pontiffs. Ten names have disappeared from this hst of legitimate popes, neither the popes of Avignon nor those of Pisa being ranked in the true lineage of St. Peter. If this deliberate omission is not proof positive, it is at least a very strong presumption in favour of the legiti- macy of the Roman popes Urban VI, Boniface IX,
Innocent VII, and Gregory XII. Moreover, the
names of the popes of Avignon, Clement VII and Bene-
dict XIII, were again taken by later popes (in the six-
teenth and eighteenth centuries) who were legitimate.
We have already quoted much, having had to rely on
ancient and contemporary testimonies, on those of
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries as on those of
the nineteenth and even the twentieth, but we shall
transcribe two texts borrowed from writers who with
regard to the Church are at opposite poles. The first
is Gregorovius, whom no one will suspect of exagger-
ated respect for the papacy. Concerning the schis-
inatic divisions of the period he writes: "A temporal
kingdom would have succumbed thereto; but the
organization of the spiritual kingdom was so wonder-
ful, the ideal of the papacy so indestructible, that this,
the most serious of schisms, served only to demon-
strate its indivisibihty" (Gesch. der Stadt Rom im
Mittelalter, VI, 620). From a widely different stand-
point de Maistre holds the same view: "This scourge
of contemporaries is for us an historical treasure. It
serves to prove how immovable is the throne of St.
Peter. What human organization would have with-
stood this trial?" (Du Pape, IV, conclusion).
D'AcH^RY, Spicilegium (Paris, 1723) ; Baluze, Vita paparum avenionensium (Paris, 1693) ; Bliemetzrieder, Das Generalkonzil im orossen abendldndischen Schisma (Paderborn, 1904); Idem, Die Komilsidee unter Innocens VII u. Konig Ruprecht von der Pfalz (1906); Idem, LiUerarische Polemik zu Beginn des Grossen Schismas (Vienna and Leipzig, 1909); Bouix, Traclatus de papa (Pans, 1869); Brax.n, The Schism of the West and the Freedom of Papal Elections (New York, 1895) ; Chronica Karoli VI, by a monk of Saint-Denis; Collection de documents inedits sur I'histoire de France, ed. Bellagdet (Paris, 1839-52); Chroniques de France, ed. Paulin (Paris. 1836-40); Cleman'gis, 0pp. omnia (Leyden, 1613); Creighton, A History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation. I. The Great Schism. The Council of Con- stance (London, 1882); De.vifle, Die UniversitSten des Mittel- alters (Berlin, 1885) ; Ide.m, La desolation des eglises, des monastires et des hdpiiaux durant la guerre de Cent ans (Paris, 1899) ; Denifle AND Chateuain, Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis (4 vols., Paris, 1890 — ); Dcpuy, Hist, du Schisme d'Occident 1378-1 .',20 (Paris, 1654); Ehrle, Martin de Alpartils Chronica actitatorum temporibus Domini Benedicli XIII (Paderborn, 1906); Faces, Hist, de saint Vincent Ferrier (Paris, 1893; 2nd ed., Louvain, 1901); Gatet, Le grand Schisme d'Occident (2 vols., Paris, 1889); Gerson, Opera, ed. Richer (Paris, 1606), ed. Ellies-Dupin (.Antwerp, 1706); von der IIardt, Rerum Concilii (Ecumenici Conslantiensis, I, II (Frankfort and Leipzig, 1697-1700); In- dex by Bohnstedt (Berlin, 1742); von der Hardt, Herman ton der Hardt und sein Sechs (Paderborn, 1889) ; Hefele, Con- ciliengesch., French tr., Goschler and Delarc, X-XI (Paris, 1869), ed. Leclercq (1911); Hefele, Beitrdge zur Kirchengesch. (1864); Jahr, Die Wahl Urbans V/ (Halle, 1892); Jepp, Gerson, Wicliff et Huss (Gottingen, 1857); Kaiser, KSnig Karl V. v. Frankreich u. die grosse Kirchenspaltung (Munich, 1904) ; Kneer, Die Entstehung der conciliarien Theorie zur Gesch. des Schismas u. der Kirchenpolitiken (Rome, 1897); Idem, Kardinal Zaharella (Munster, 1901); Locke, The Age of the Great Western Schism (Edinburgh, 1897) ; Maimbourg, Hist, du grand Schism,e d'Occi- dent (Paris, 1722); Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et am- plissima collectio (Florence, 1759; Paris, 1910); Mart^ne and Durand, Veterum scriptorum et monuTnentorum historicorum, dogm/iticorum, moralium amplissima Collectio (Paris, 1724-33); Mart^ne, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum (Paris, 1717); Niem, De schismate libri III, ed. Erler (Leipzig, 1890) ; Niem, Nemus unionis (Basle, 1566); Rastoul, L'unite religieuse pendant le grand Schisme d'Occident (Paris, 1904); Salembier, Petrus de Alliaco (Lille, 1886); Idem, Le grand Schisme d'Occident (4th ed.. Pans, 1902); tr. The Great Western Schism (London, 1907); It. tr. (Siena, 1903); Span. tr. (Madrid, 1902); Idem, Deux conciles inconnus au temps du grand Schisme (Lille, 1902); Scheuffgen, Beitrdge zu der Gesch. des grossen Schismas (Freiburg, 1889); Schwab, Johannes Gerson, Professor der Theologie u. Kanzler der Unitersitat Paris (Wurzburg, 1858) ; Sorbelli, De moderno ecclesice schismate. Trattato di Vincenzo Ferrer (Rome, 1900); SoucHON, Die Papstwahlen in der Zeit des grossen Schismas (Brunswick, 1899); Tschackert, Peter von Ailli (Petrus de Alliaco). Zur Gesch. des grossen abendldndischen SchisTnas u. der Reformconcilien von Pisa u. Konstanz (Gotha, 1877) ; Valois, La France et le grand Schisme d'Occident (Paris, 1896-1902).
Louis Salembier.
Schlegel, Friedrich von, poet, writer on aesthet- ics, anrl literary hi.storian, the "Messias" of the Romantic School, b. at Hanover, 10 March, 1772; d. at Dresden, 12 January, 1829. Of the two brothers Schlegel, who are regarded as the real foun- ders of the Romantic School, Friedrich the younger is the more important. The outward life of the "Messias" of the Romantic School, as Rahel named
