Thadæus of Suesse, representative of the emperor Frederick II. at the council of Lyons, and zealous defender of the rights of that prince, appealed publicly from this council to a future general and œcumenic council. One of the causes which might, according to Tournely, lead several bishops into error, but which will appear very strange at the present day, was, that they imagined the empire really was a feudatory of the court of Rome. It is the sovereign pontiff, they say, who crowns the emperor; he has then a particular and special right over the empire; he can depose the head of it for a serious matter. Frederick, in his letters to the kings of France and England, mentions and combats strongly this ridiculous prejudice, and the foolish pretensions of the popes. Gregory IX., in a letter addressed to Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, informs him that Frederick is engaged by oath to go to the Holy Land, abandoning, if he failed in his promise, his states and his person to the sovereign pontiff. According to this, the fathers might believe that the deposition was a consequence of the penalty the prince had incurred as a perjurer. We must refer to the ages in which these questions were agitated to appreciate the influence they had upon events.
[277] This great incident in the life of Louis IX. is differently, and indeed more strikingly, related by most French historians. “When he felt himself better, to the great astonishment of all, he ordered the red cross to be affixed to his bed and his vestments, and made a vow to go and fight for the tomb of Christ. His mother, and the priests themselves, implored him to renounce his fatal design. It was all in vain; and scarcely was he convalescent than he called his mother and the bishop of Paris to his bedside, and said to them, ‘Since you believe that I was not perfectly myself when I pronounced my vows, there is my red cross, which I tear from my shoulders; I return it to you: but now, when you must perceive that I am in the full enjoyment of all my faculties, restore to me my cross; for He who is acquainted with all things, knows also that no kind of food shall enter into my mouth until I have again been marked with His holy sign. ‘It is the hand of Heaven,’ cried all who were present; ‘its will be done.’” (Bonnechose).—Trans.
[278] English readers should acknowledge a familiar acquaintance in this excellent mother and good queen: she is the Lady Blanche of Shakespear’s King John.—Trans.
[279] See in our Appendix this fact related by Matthew Paris.
[280] It is Matthew Paris who furnishes us with information relative to this attempt to persuade St. Louis. This is the chronicler that throws most light upon the events of that period; such as the council of Lyons, the quarrel of Frederick and the pope, and the crusade of the king of France. We also find some details in William of Nangis, in Joinville, and in the Ecclesiastical Annals of Raynaldi.
[281] Que loyauté ils porteraient à sa famille, si aucune malle chose avenait de sa personne au saint veage d’outremer.
[282] We do not observe that this worthy penitent opened his hand and relaxed his grasp whilst living; death-bed repentances and posthumous restitutions are very suspicious affairs.—Trans.
[283] These calamities were but a portion of God’s great law of cause and effect—they were begun in error and ended in failure. What connection is there between Louis’ just government of his kingdom and his mad and foolish expeditions to the East?—Trans.
[284] Il ne voulut oncques retourner ses yeux vers Joinville, pour ce que le cœur lui attendrit du biau chastel qu’il laissait, et de ses deux enfants.
[285] Concerning the departure of Saint Louis, and the facts that follow consult William of Nangis, William of Puits, Matthew Paris, Sanuti, &c.