Calixtus III. died on August 6, 1458. On August 10 the cardinals entered into conclave. The wealthy cardinal of Rouen, though a Frenchman and of exceptionable character, seemed certain to be elected. Aeneas has told us in a passage of his own history of his times, long retrenched from that work but printed clandestinely in the Conclavi de ’ Pontifici Romani, by what art, energy, and eloquence he frustrated this false step. It seemed but meet that the election should fall upon himself: no other candidate appears to have been seriously thought of; nor, although the sacred college probably included a few men of higher moral standard, had it any on the whole so worthy of the tiara. It was the peculiar faculty of Aeneas to accommodate himself perfectly to whatever position he might be called upon to occupy; it was his peculiar good fortune that every step in life had placed him in circumstances appealing more and more to the better part of his nature, an appeal to which he had never failed to respond. The party pamphleteer had been more respectable than the private secretary, the diplomatist than the pamphleteer, the cardinal than the diplomatist; now the unscrupulous adventurer and licentious novelist of a few· short years ago seated himself quite naturally in the chair of St Peter, and from the resources of his versatile character produced without apparent effort all the virtues and endowments becoming his exalted station. After allying himself with Ferdinand, the Aragonese claimant of the throne of Naples, his next important act was to convene a congress of the representatives of Christian princes at Mantua for joint action against the Turks. His long progress to the place of assembly resembled a triumphal procession; and the congress, a complete failure as regarded its ostensible object, at least showed that the impotence of Christendom was not owing to the pope. On his return from the congress Pius spent a considerable time in his native district of Siena, and has described his delight and the charms of a country life in very pleasing language. He was recalled to Rome by the disturbances occasioned by Tiburzio de Maso, who was ultimately seized and executed. The papal states were at this time greatly troubled by rebellious barons and marauding condottieri, but these evils gradually abated. The Neapolitan war was also terminated by the success of the pope’s ally Ferdinand. In July 1461 Pius canonized St Catherine of Siena, and in October of the same year he gained what at first appeared to be a most brilliant success by inducing the new king of France, Louis XI., to abolish the pragmatic sanction, by which the pope’s authority in France had been grievously impaired. But Louis had expected that Pius would in return espouse the French cause in Naples, and when he found himself disappointed he virtually re-established the pragmatic sanction by royal ordinances. Pius was also engaged in a series of disputes with the Bohemian king and the count of Tyrol, and the crusade for which the congress of Mantua had been convoked made no progress. The pope did his best: he addressed an eloquent letter to the sultan urging him to become a Christian; he succeeded in reconciling the emperor and the king of Hungary, and derived great encouragement as well as pecuniary advantage from the discovery of mines of alum in the papal territory. But France was estranged; the duke of Burgundy broke his positive promise; Milan was engrossed with the attempt to seize Genoa; Florence cynically advised the pope to let the Turks and the Venetians wear each other out. Pius was unawares nearing his end, and his malady probably prompted the feverish impatience with which on June 18, 1464, he assumed the cross and departed for Ancona to conduct the crusade in person. It seemed certain that the issue of such an enterprise could only be ridiculous or disastrous. Pius II.’s good genius again stepped in, and rendered it pathetic. He was suffering from fever when he left Rome. The crusading army melted away at Ancona for want of transport, and when at last the Venetian fleet arrived the dying pope could only view it from a window. He expired two days afterwards, August 14, 1464, in his death as in his life a figure picturesque and significant far beyond the wont of Roman pontiffs. He was succeeded by Paul II.

Pius, indeed, regarded as a man and not merely as an historical personage, is the most interesting of all the successors of St Peter. It is easy to take his character to pieces, but the aroma of something exquisite lingers around every fragment. He had a healthy, sincere, loving nature, frank and naive even in his aberrations and defects, which seem after all sufficiently venial. The failings of other popes have most frequently been those of the priest, and therefore in the true sense of the term inhuman. It is a refreshing transition to the faults of the adventurer, the diplomatist, the man of letters and pleasure. The leading trait of Pius’s character was his extreme impressionableness. Chameleon-like he took colour from surrounding circumstances, and could always depend on being what these circumstances required him to be. As, therefore, his prospects widened and his responsibilities deepened, his character widened and deepened too; and he who had entered upon life a shifty adventurer quitted it a model chief shepherd. His virtues were not only great, but the most conspicuous were those especially characteristic of the finer natures. While he vied with any man in industry, prudence, wisdom, and courage, he excelled most men in simplicity of tastes, constancy of attachments, kindly playfulness, magnanimity, and mercy. As chief of the church he was able and sagacious, and showed that he comprehended the conditions on which its monopoly of spiritual power could for a season be maintained; his views were far-seeing and liberal ∙, and he was but slightly swayed by personal ends. He is especially interesting as the type of the scholar and publicist who wins his way by intellectual strength, foreshadowing the age to come when the pen should be mightier than the sword; and no less as the figure in whom the mediaeval and the modern spirit are most distinctly seen to meet and blend, ere the latter definitively gains the mastery.

Pius was a versatile and voluminous author, one of the best and most industrious of his period. His most important work is his Commentaries of his own Times, published in 1584 under the name of Gobelinus, to whom it has been ascribed, but who was in fact only the copyist. It appears to have been altered to some slight extent by his secretary Campanus. Numerous passages suppressed at the time of publication have been recently published in the Transactions of the Accademia de’ Lincei by Signor Cugnone, together with other inedited works. Pius’s Commentaries are delightful reading, and their historical value is very great. “Pius II., says Creighton, “is the first writer who attempted to represent the present as it would look to posterity, who consciously applied a scientific conception of history to the explanation and arrangement of passing events.” His Epistles, which were collected by himself, are also an important source of historical information. The most valuable of his minor historical writings are his histories of Bohemia and of the emperor Frederick III., the latter partly autobiographical. He sketched geographical treatises on Europe and Asia, and in early and middle life produced numerous tracts on the political and theological controversies of his day, as well as on ethical subjects. Pius was greatly admired as a poet by his contemporaries, but his reputation in belles lettres rests principally upon his Eurialus and Lucretia, which continues to be read to this day, partly from its truth to nature, and partly from the singularity of an erotic novel being written by a pope. He also composed some comedies, one of which alone is extant, and as yet only in MS. All these works are in Latin. Pius was not an eminent scholar: his Latin is frequently incorrect, and he· knew little Greek; but his writings have high literary qualities, and will always be prized as vivid and accurate reproductions of the spirit of a very remarkable age.

All the chief authorities for Pius’s life are sifted and condensed in the admirable biography by Voigt (3 vols., Berlin, 1856-63). Professor Creighton, in his masterly History of the Papacy during the Reformation (vol. ii., London, 1882), has given the English reader the substance of Voigt's narrative, while preserving a full independence of judgment.

During the insurrectionary movements which followed upon the election of Gregory XVI. to the papal chair, headed byMenotti and the two Napoleons—Charles Louis (afterwards emperor of the French) and his brother— Archbishop Mastai did his best to protect the insurgents. He disapproved of the reactionary policy of the new pope, and strongly resented the oppressive rule of the Austrians. When Napoleon (against whom sentence of death had been pronounced) fled to Spoleto, the archbishop, to whom he applied for help, obtained for him the services of an officer who conducted him beyond the frontier to a place of safety. In the following year (1832) he was translated to the bishopric of Imola, and a few years later was elected a cardinal, being reserved in petto in the consistory of 23d December 1839, and proclaimed cardinal 14th December 1840. It was not until overcome by the persuasion of others that Gregory XVI. consented to bestow this dignity on his future successor. He is said to have expressed his conviction that Mastai’s liberal tendencies and impulsive disposition unfitted him for power, and that if he should ever become pope he would be the ruin of the church. During the tenure of his bishopric at Imola, Mastai gained additional reputation by the foundation of various philanthropic institutions and marked simplicity of life.

On the death of Gregory XVI., he repaired to Rome, and on the evening of 16th June 1846 was elected to the papal chair as Pius IX., having chosen this name out of respect for his predecessor in the see of Imola, Pius VII. His election, at the final scrutiny, proved to be unanimous, the cardinals Patrizzi and De Angelis throwing all their influence in his favour. On the following morning, when it was too late, the Austrian ambassador received instructions from his Government to veto the new pope’s election.

Pius’s first act in his new capacity was to proclaim a general amnesty for political offences, whereby thousands of unhappy beings who had dragged out weary years in prison or in exile, ignorant, many of them, even of the offences with which they were charged, were restored to society. With genuine catholicity of feeling he visited and relieved even the poor Jewish population in the city. He authorized the construction of railways, organized a civil guard, and considerably modified the restrictions on the press. In order to develop further reforms he instituted a commission largely composed of laymen; and in 1847 he brought forward his scheme of a Consulta, or council of state, designed to assist him in the general temporal government. But, notwithstanding these concessions, the supreme power remained in the hands of ecclesiastics, and no measure passed by the council could acquire validity until it had been examined and approved in a conclave of cardinals. Hence, although both Mazzini {q.v.) and Garibaldi were among his avowed supporters, the liberal party were still far from satisfied. His policy was regarded, on the one hand, with extreme dissatisfaction by Austria, and on the 17 th July 1847 that power sent a force of 1500 men into Ferrara, where she was entitled by the treaty of 1815 to maintain a garrison. To this direct menace Pius replied by counter demonstrations and an indignant protest, but hostilities were ultimately averted. His policy was viewed with not less dislike at the court of Naples, but by the rest of Italy and throughout Europe he was at this time regarded as the champion of the national rights of his countrymen. Such was the posture of affairs when the revolution in Paris (February 1848) fanned into flames the already smouldering elements of insurrection throughout Europe. The Austrians were driven out of Milan; a republic was proclaimed in Venice (see Italy, vol. xiii. pp. 488-89); and a “free Italy” became the general cry. At first Pius, who felt but little sympathy with the views represented by the son of Philippe Égalité, seemed disposed to head the movement. He dismissed his state-secretary, Gizzi, an irresolute and timorous politician, and appointed Cardinal Ferretti in his place. On 14th March 1848 appeared the Statuto Fondamentale, a more complete scheme for the reorganization of the temporal government of the papal states. By this two deliberative assemblies were created,—the first, the high council, the members of which were to be nominated by the pope himself for life; the second, the council of deputies, to be elected by the people, and to be entrusted with the chief voice in all questions relating to taxation. Over both these bodies, however, the college of cardinals retained the supreme authority; without its consent no measure could acquire legal validity. Liberty of the press was promised, but the ecclesiastical censorship was to be retained. A new ministry was formed, which, with two exceptions (Antonelli and Morichini), was composed of laymen. But at this juncture Pius began to waver. Although he had hitherto shown no sympathy with the Jesuits, he endeavoured to protect them against the measures now brought forward with a view to their expulsion, and when his general, Durando, crossed the Po without his orders, and denounced the Austrians as “the enemies of the cross of Christ,” he disowned, in an allocution (29th April), all intention of participating in an offensive war for the purpose of rectifying the boundaries of Italy, and at the same time disavowed all complicity in the schemes then in agitation for creating an Italian federal republic, with himself as the nominal head. This apparent desertion of the national cause, at a time when the public mind had been roused to the highest pitch of excitement by the course of events at other centres, created an irreparable breach between Pius and the people. His new chief minister, Mamiani, who wished to see him a constitutional monarch, advocated further concessions— the handing over of the political government to the new assemblies and a responsible ministry. But after the Austrian successes in the north and Radetsky’s entry into Milan (5th August), Mamiani was dismissed, and his place was filled by Count Rossi, the French ambassador, a statesman of signal ability and intrepid character, but of conservative views. On the 15th November 1848, as Rossi was alighting at the steps of the house of assembly, he was assassinated in broad daylight. It was an ominous symptom of the prevailing temper of the capital that this atrocious act elicited no expression of disapproval in the assembly, and drew forth no marks of sympathy with the victim’s family. Two days later a numerous mob, largely composed of disbanded soldiers, assembled in the square of the Quirinal, and proffered fresh demands, at the same time intimating their intention, if these were not conceded, of commencing a general massacre of the inmates, excepting only the pope himself. After his secretary, Palma, had been shot by a bullet, Pius, in order to avert further bloodshed, made the requisite concessions, and assented to the formation of a new ministry, while he himself was made a virtual prisoner. On the 24th November he effected his escape, with the connivance of the French Government, to Gaeta, disguised as a dependant of Count Spaur, the Bavarian minister. Thus terminated what has been described as “the first and only attempt of a pope to govern in a liberal spirit.”

From Gaeta he published a formal protest against the violence to which he had been subjected, and whereby his latest enactments had been extorted from him, at the same time declaring all measures decreed in Rome during his absence null and void. Gioberti, the Sardinian minister, endeavoured without success to gain his concurrence in a new scheme for the formation of an Italian federation of princes. In the following February it was resolved in a consistory of cardinals to appeal to the chief Catholic powers (France, Austria, Spain, and Naples) for their aid in bringing about the re-establishment of the temporal sovereignty. About the same time (3d February 1849), as if to mark his undisturbed sense of his spiritual supremacy, Pius himself addressed an encyclic to the superior Catholic clergy throughout the world, enjoining that on appointed days of the year the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception B.V.Μ. should be preached throughout their dioceses. The decisive defeat of the Sardinian forces at Novara by Radetsky (23d March 1849) encouraged the papal party now to demand that Pius should be reinstated at Rome without any conditions being attached to his restoration. This demand created a divergence of opinion among the above-named powers; eventually General Oudinot landed at Civita Vecchia with 10,000 French soldiers, and De Tocqueville, the French minister for foreign affairs, sought to induce Pius to resume his sovereignty on the basis of the Statuto Fondamentale. This he resolutely refused to do, and after the occupation of Rome by Oudinot’s forces he was permitted to return (12th April 1850) unfettered by any condition whatever.

Pius returned an altered man in relation to his state policy, in which, in fact, he was from this time guided almost entirely by Antonelli. A certain profession of a design to reform abuses was indeed made, but the former ecclesiastical ascendency in the government was re-established, while the pope entered into the closest relations with the Jesuit party. Notwithstanding his specious disclaimers of any desire to take revenge for the past, the Documenti Officiali, published in 1860, prove that little mercy was shown to those who were suspected of disaffection. As, however, the continuance of the French occupation relieved him from any anxiety with respect to the maintenance of order, Pius was enabled to devote his attention chiefly to the objects which undoubtedly lay nearest to his heart,—the more complete definition of Roman dogma and the enhancement of the prerogatives of his office. In this direction his views had never been characterized by any liberality, as is sufficiently shown by his encyclic of 9th November 1846, his letter to the archbishop of Cologne (3d July 1847), and his allocution of 17th December 1847, in which all the modern tendencies to a more philosophic interpretation of doctrine are visited with unqualified condemnation. He now proceeded skilfully to avail himself of the reaction that began to set in, especially in Germany and in England, after the repression of the revolutionary movements, by taking, as the burden of his allocutions, the essential connexion between political innovation and freedom of scientific or religious thought. The activity of the Jesuits was studiously encouraged; the “beatification” of several eminent deceased members of their order was proclaimed; and lives of the saints, full of marvellous and legendary incidents, were widely circulated among the poorer laity. A combination of circumstances, at this period, largely contributed to the success of these efforts both in Europe and in America. By the bull “Ineffabilis Deus” (8th December 1854) the doctrine of the immaculate conception was formally “defined,” as a dogma binding on the acceptance of all the faithful, and in pamphlets favourable to the assumptions of the curia it was pointed out that the supreme pontiff had thus defined the doctrine without recourse to any council. In 1862 the canonization of six hundred and twenty missionaries, who had met with martyrdom in Japan some two centuries and a half before, was made the occasion of an imposing ceremonial. In a letter (llth December 1862) to the archbishop of Munich, the teaching of Frohschammer, a distinguished professor of philosophy in the university in that city, was singled out for severe reprobation. The famous encylic Quanta cura, and the Syllabus, or list of prevalent errors calling for especial reprobation, appeared in December 1864.

The war between France and Austria and the treaty of Villafranca (8th July 1859; see Italy, vol. xiii. p. 490) seemed at one time likely to result in placing the temporal power on a basis somewhat resembling that indicated in Gioberti’s pamphlet of 1843, and the ultramontane party waited with lively expectation the assembling of the congress. Among the inhabitants of the Romagna themselves, however, discontent with the political administration was intense. The papal rule had become almost as oppressive as that at Naples; and the prisons of Rome were filled with inmates against whom no more definite charge could be brought than that of suspected disaffection towards the Government. The manner in which the currency had been tampered with was alone sufficient to produce the gravest discontent, and the lira papalina was eventually accepted at the money-changers’ only at a heavy loss to the holder. When, in the spring of 1857, Pius visited central Italy, it was observed that, while in other provinces he was greeted with enthusiasm as the pope, in his own dominions he was received with sullen coldness. A pamphlet published at Paris in December 1859 (ascribed to imperial inspiration), after describing the condition of the Romagna, openly raised the question of the continuance of the temporal power, and suggested that it would at least be desirable that it should be restricted to the capital itself. Pius replied in an encylic issued on the 19th of the ensuing January—a document since widely known as his Non Possumus. His obstinacy proved of no avail. The Romagna was occupied by Sardinia, and the Central-Italian states shortly afterwards formed themselves into a league to prevent its reoccupation by the pontifical forces. Antonelli rejoined by raising a motley force, composed of French, Belgians, Bavarians, and Irish, who were placed under the command of Lamoricière, an able French officer who had seen active service in Algiers. There can be no doubt that, in making this apparently hopeless effort, the curia was deluded by the belief that, if matters proceeded to extremities, France would intervene in its behalf. After a stubborn resistance at Ancona, the superior forces of Sardinia prevailed, and in September 1860 the whole of the States of the Church, with the exception of the patrimonium Petri (see Popedom), were annexed to the kingdom of Victor Emmanuel.

From the reduction of Ancona to the year 1870 Pius was maintained in Rome only by a French garrison. The emperor of the French was reluctant to appear altogether to desert the papal cause, while Cavour was unwilling, in like manner, to proceed to extremities. After the capture of Garibaldi at Aspromonte, however, Victor Emmanuel felt himself strong enough to put in a formal claim for Rome; and it was eventually arranged, by the convention of 15th September 1864, that the French should withdraw from the city before the end of 1866. This stipulation was duly observed, and on the 11th December 1866 the last of the French forces quitted the capital. The engagement was, however, virtually violated by the entry, in the following year, of the Antibes legion, and for some time longer the French soldiery continued to ward off both the daring assaults of Garibaldi and the more insidious approaches of Ratazzi. In this manner, at the outbreak of the war of 1870, France had come again to be looked upon as the ally of the papacy; and the overweening claims put forward by Pius in convening a general council to proclaim the dogma of Papal Infallibility were generally interpreted as in a certain sense correlative with the aggressive designs of France on Protestant Germany. The dogma was decreed in the Vatican on the 18th July, but not without strenuous opposition on the part of some of the most distinguished members of the Catholic episcopal order, who, at the same time, were staunch supporters of the temporal power (see Old Catholics). At nearly the same time the occupation by the French came definitively to an end. Their forces were withdrawn from Civita Vecchia at the outbreak of the war, when the Due de Gramont announced that his Government relied on the convention of 1864, whereby Italy was bound not to attack the papal territory. That territory being now, however, again exposed to the dangers of revolution, Victor Emmanuel, on receiving the tidings of the battle of Gravelotte, notified to Pius that “the responsibility of maintaining order in the peninsula and the security of the Holy See” had devolved upon himself, and that his army must enter the pontifical dominions. This intimation was received by Pius with demonstrations of the liveliest indignation, but the appearance of the Sardinian troops was hailed by his own subjects with enthusiasm. On arriving outside Rome, General Cadorna summoned the garrison to surrender, and after a short bombardment the white flag was hoisted. On the following day (21st September 1870) the Zouaves, some nine thousand in number, after receiving, as they stood massed in the square of St Peter’s, the pontifical blessing, marched out of Rome, and the temporal power of the pope had ceased to exist.

For the rest of his days Pius IX. remained unmolested at the Vatican, while the king resided at the Quirinal. The pontiff was virtually a prisoner; and his position, although viewed with comparative indifference in Rome, was regarded with not a little sympathy by the Catholic world at large. The tribute of Peter’s Pence was revived in order to supply, in some measure, the loss of his alienated revenues; and numerous pilgrimages, in which distinguished and wealthy individuals took part, were made to St Peter’s from all parts of Catholic Christendom, and especially from England. His advanced years, fine presence, dignified demeânour, and elasticity of spirits (unbroken by his adverse fortunes) combined to invest both the person and the office of the pope with a kind of fascination for devout minds, which those about him well understood how to turn to the best advantage. Occasionally, however, his naturally impetuous temper still manifested itself. The complicity of the Roman Catholic clergy with the Polish insurrection of 1863 had been punished by Russia with excessive rigour, and, on receiving the Russian deputies who came to offer the customary felicitations on New Year’s Day 1866, Pius so far forgot the proprieties of the occasion as to himself address them in terms of reproach. A suspension of diplomatic relations ensued; and Russia now eagerly availed herself of the pretext afforded...

Before Ghislieri could return to his episcopate, Pius IV. died, and on January 7, 1566, he was elected to the papal chair with duly attendant prodigies, his coronation taking place on his birthday, ten days later. Fully alive to the necessity of restoring discipline and morality at Rome to ensure success without, he at once proceeded to reduce the cost of the papal court, compel residence, regulate inns, expel prostitutes, and assert the importance of ceremonial. In his wider policy, which was characterized throughout by a stringency which tended to defeat its own ends, the maintenance and increase of the efficacy of the Inquisition and the enforcement of the canons and decrees of the Tridentine council had precedence over all other considerations. The prudence of Commendone alone saved him at the commencement of his pontificate from trouble with Germany, as in the general diet of the empire at Augsburg (March 26, 1566) Pius saw a threatened invasion of his own supremacy and was desirous of limiting its discussions. In France, where his influence was stronger, he directed the dismissal of Cardinal Odet de Coligny and seven bishops, nullified the royal edict tolerating the extra-mural services of the Reformers, introduced the Roman catechism, restored papal discipline, and strenuously opposed all compromise with the heretics—his exertions leading up in no small degree to the massacre of St Bartholomew. In the list of more important bulls issued by him the famous bull “In Ccena Domini” (1568) takes a leading place; but amongst others throwing light on his character and policy there may be mentioned his prohibition of quaestuary (February 1567 and January 1570); the condemnation of Michael Baius, the heretical professor of Louvain (1567); the reform of the breviary (July 1568); the denunciation of the dirum nefas (August 1568); the banishment of the Jews from the ecclesiastical dominions except Rome and Ancona (1569); the injunction of the use of the reformed missal (July 1570); the confirmation of the privileges of the Society of Crusaders for the protection of the Inquisition (October 1570); the prohibition of discussions concerning the miraculous conception (November 1570); the suppression of the Fratres Humiliati for alleged profligacy (February 1571); the approbation of the new office of the Blessed Virgin (March 1571); the enforcement of the daily recitation of the canonical hours (September 1571); and the purchase of assistance against the Turks by offers of plenary pardon (March 1572). His antagonism to Elizabeth was shown, not only in the countenance lent by him to Mary Stuart and those who sought in her name to deliver England “ex turpissima muliebris libidinis servitute,” but in the publication of a bull, dated April 27, 1570, excommunicating Elizabeth and releasing her subjects from their allegiance. His energy was in no respect more favourably exhibited than in his persistent and successful endeavours to form a general league against the Turks, as the result of which the battle of Lepanto (Oct. 7, 1571) was won by the combined fleet under Colonna. Three national synods were held during his pontificate— at Naples under Cardinal Alfonso Caraffa (whose family had, after inquiry, been reinstated by Pius V.), at Milan under Carlo Borromeo, and at Mechlin. His death took place on May 1, 1572, and he was canonized by Clement XI. on May 24 th 1712. He was succeeded by Gregory

The name of Pius VI. is associated with many and often unpopular attempts to revive the splendour of Leo X. in the promotion of art and public works,—the words “Munificentia Pii VI. P.Μ.,” graven in all parts of the city, giving rise amongst his impoverished subjects to such satire as the insertion of a minute loaf in the hands of Pasquin with that inscription beneath it. He is best remembered in connexion with the establishment of the museum of the Vatican, commenced at his suggestion by his predecessor, and with the attempt to drain the Pontine Marshes. In the latter undertaking large sums were expended to such small purpose that the phrase “Sono andate alie paludi Pontine” passed into a proverb applied to funds employed in extravagant projects. The chief result was the restoration of the Appian Way by the removal of the additions of Trajan and Theodoric with later accumulations, and the erection of a new viaduct to Terracina upon the original road of Appius Claudius.