The Cardinal Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church was Cardinal Ludovico Scarampi Mezzarota Trevisano. He was born in Padua in 1401, of "low and obscure lineage", where he studied medicine and natural science, obtaining a doctorate from the University of Padua in 1425. His early successes in papal service were in the military sphere. It is said that he was one of Pope Eugenius' many physicians [Gaetano Marini, Degli archiatri ponttifici Volume primo (Roma 1784), xxix, 142-143 ]. In 1435 he was appointed Bishop of Trau, and in 1437 he became Archbishop of Florence. He was appointed Patriarch of Aquileia in 1439. In 1440 he was created Cardinal with the titulus of San Lorenzo in Damaso. He was again successful in the military sphere in 1440, aiding the Papacy and Florence against Niccolò Piccinino the captain of the Lombard League. As Legate of the March of Ancona he freed the March of Ancona from the clutches of Francesco Sforza. In the last months of Pope Eugenius' life he was in charge of all of the castelli and fortified places under papal control. He was named admiral of the papal fleet in 1455, and fought the Turks in the eastern Mediterranean (1455-1459), on account of which he did not participate in the Conclave of 1458. He did participate, and received some votes, at the Conclave of 1464 that elected his enemy, Pietro Barbo [Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores III. 2, p. 1027]. He was nonetheless promoted Cardinal Bishop of Albano in 1465, and died in that year in Rome. He was buried in his titular church, S. Lorenzo in Damaso. [Cardella III, 95-98; Moroni, Dizionario storico-ecclesiastica 45, 12-14]
The Magister Sacri Palatii was Fr. Jacobus Aegidii, OP, of Valencia, appointed by Nicholas V in 1452; died ca. 1465 [J. Catalano, de magistro sacri palatii apostolici (Romae 1751), pp. 95-97; J. Catalano, Sacrarum Ceremoniarum sive rituum ecclesiasticorum ... Libri tres (Romae 1750), I, p. 17]. At the command of Calixtus III, he wrote the Office for the Feast of the Transfiguration, August 6. He is likely to have been one of the Custodians of the Conclave.
The Marshal of the Holy Roman Church and Guardian of the Conclave was Pandolfo Savelli. (G. Moroni, Dizionario storico-ecclesiastica 42, 279-280; G. Bourgin, 216 and n.8). He was the son of Giovanni Battista Savelli, who, in his Will (October 11, 1445), calls himself della Santita di Nostro SIgnore il Papa e della corte di Roma marescalco. Pandolfo died during the Pontificate of Paul II (1464-1471).
Pope Calixtus had already devoted most of his brief reign, 1455 to 1458, to preparing a Crusade to save Europe from the Turkish menace. Though the princes of Europe did not receive his proposals with enthusiasm, he was able to build a financial base for military and naval operations through the imposition of tithes and the grant of indulgences. Though these measures won him no popularity, he was able to help equip a fleet, over which he placed Cardinal Luigi Scarampi, a talented military figure. The fleet was able to win a notable victory at Lesbos in August, 1457. Likewise his contributions to the Emperor and the King of Hungary helped to beat the Turks at Belgrade in July of 1456. Neither of these successes meant a real strategic advance, however, and Europe stood in as great a danger at his death in 1458 as it had on his accession in 1455.
When Pius II came to the papal throne, he was eager to continue the efforts of Calixtus III. The princes of Europe, on whom Pius would have to depend for money and manpower, were engaged in their own power struggles, and did not wish to continue to expend their resources for the sake of a distant threat, when there were much more dangerous ones closer to home. England had just lost Aquitaine to France (1453), for example, and there was justifiable fear in France that they would seek to recover it. The Duke of Brittany, moreover, was intriguing with the King of England [Georges Chastellain, Chronique Book VI ch. 104 (ed. Baron Kervyn de Lettenhoven Tome V (Bruxelles 1864), pp. 77-79]. Milan [Duke Francesco Sforza, at left] was worried about the aggressiveness of Venice in the Po Valley, coming ever closer to the Milanese homeland, and at the same time Sforza was expanding up the Po Valley toward Genoa, encouraged by the revolt of the Genoese against the French in 1461. He finally captured Genoa early in 1464 from Doge Paolo Fregosi (the future Cardinal and current Archbishop), putting an end to Rene of Anjou's hopes of joining with the Duke of Calabria against Ferdinando I. Sforza had designs as well on the south side of the Po. Ferrante I had just taken control of Naples, against the wishes of Calixtus III, who raised up the Angevin dynasty to recover it—in the name of the Papacy, of course. Ferrante was cooperating with the condottiere Piccinini to harass Sigismondo Malatesta, whose expansion in the Marches threatened his ambitions and the lands of the Papacy both. Sigismondo was allied with Venice, as well, and was being used to limit the ambitions of Francesco Sforza. Ferrante was allied by marriage and by treaty with Francesco Sforza, and Louis XI of France was making constant efforts to separate the two. Pius was finally induced to excommunicate Sigismondo Malatesta as a heretic, and Piccinini entered the service of Francesco Sforza. It was left to Pius II to placate Ferrante and regularize the situation—but that necessary adjustment brought him into conflict with Louis XI of France Louis and his successors had continual ambitions in the Italian Peninsula, well into the next century. True, Louis XI promised the pope 70,000 men, which were to be led by Duke Philip the Good of Burgundy and Brabant (who had taken a solemn vow to participate), but these never materialized. Louis had agreed to finance his crusade, however, and purchased Picardy and Amiens to provide Philip with funds. This financial transaction caused great offense to Philip's son Charles (Charles the Bold), who joined one of Charles de Berry's conspiracies. Philip, however, was actually more interested in acquiring the Rhenish Palatinate than on fighting the Turks; he had purchased Namur in 1429 and Luxembourg in 1443. Philip was extremely good at finding stumbling blocks and arguing for delays to participating in Pius' crusade [see e.g. Baronius-Theiner 29, sub anno 1459 no. 52, p. 202]. In the meantime Louis' greatest threat was his own brother, the ambitious Charles, Duke of Berry, who conspired with the Burgundians and others to replace his brother on the throne of France (the League of the Public Weal).
What really interested Christians, nobility and commoners alike, was the reform of the Church. In the previous half-century there had been one confrontation after another between an unrepentant Papacy, with its Curia and its nepotism and its arrogance and its avarice, on the one hand; and the forces which wanted to restrain, limit, or cancel the pretensions of the popes, on the other. One Church council after another had addressed the issues at great length, Constance (1414-1418), Basel (1431-1448), Ferrara (1438) and Florence (1439-1442). The response from the Papacy had always been weak, temporizing, and deliberately distracting. Pope Eugenius was suspended by the Council of Basel (which he had recognized) on January 24, 1438; on June 25, 1438 he was deposed by the Council. In October, the Council proceeded to draw up a plan to elect a new pope. Felix V (Amadeus of Savoy) was elected on November 5; he accepted on December 14, and was crowned on July 24, 1440. Another schism had begun, and it continued until the dissolution of the Council of Basel in April, 1448, and the abdication of Felix V on Apil 7, 1449. In the meantime the Germans held a number of conferences, and eventually sent an embassy to Rome in 1447, the leading Orator of which was Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, the Archbishop of Siena and former secretary of both Frederick III and Eugenius IV. He carried a list of demands (Pragmatic Sanction of the Germans, 1447).
The French government was seriously annoyed at the Papacy over the handling of the Angevin claim to the Kingdom of Naples. In his last weeks, Calixtus III had rejected Ferrante I, and flirted with supporting the French contender. When Pius II succeeded Calixtus III, it was clear to him that it was essential to repair the relationship with the powerful kingdom to the south. This was especially important, since Pius wanted Ferrante to participate in his planned Crusade. Ferrante, however, had no reason to be accommodating, and many good reasons to hold himself in readiness against nearer threats, Sigismondo Malatesta and King Charles VII of France. Ferrante was interested in expanding his power in the Marches at the expense of Malatesta and Bologna. On February 9, 1459, after intense diplomatic negotiations, Cardinal Latino Orsini crowned King Ferrante I as King of Sicily [Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores 23, 232; Baronius-Theiner 29, sub anno 1459 no. 9, p. 182]. Needless to say, the French were furious [Baronius-Theiner 29, sub anno 1459 no. 68, p. 210]. The result was an invasion of Italy by the French (1460-1464), and a conspiracy by some of the barons of Naples (1459-1462) to overthrow Ferante (The Conspiracy of the Barons). Ferrante won both struggles, only increasing the Angevin rage. King Charles VII died on July 23, 1461, but that put French affairs in the hands of his crafty son. Louis XI. French aims had not changed.
King Charles had been alienated from the Papacy already, for other reasons. News of the doings of the Council of Basel kept arriving in France, and the decrees of the Council on various aspects of Church reform, especially reform of the Papal institution and the Roman Curia, were most pleasing. They offered the prospect of curbing papal pretensions to a universal monarchy, returned the power of electing bishops to the traditional local electoral bodies, limited the right of appeal to the pope outside of the Church in France and the King, and curtailed the power of the pope to extract money from the local churches virtually at will. A council of the clergy of France was summoned by King Charles VII to meet at Bourges; both the Pope and the Council of Basel sent legates [Claude Fleury et al., Histoire ecclesiastique 22 (Paris 1726, Book 107, nos. xcix-cv, pp. 200-207]. The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, July 7, 1438, accepted many of the decrees of the Council of Basel, and, with the sanction of King Charles VII, after presenting them to Parliament, enshrined them in French law. First and foremost, they called for regular General Councils [Isambert, Jourdan & Decrusy, pp. 14-16]:
Quapropter hoc edicto perpetuo sancimus, decernimus atque ordinamus, ut amodo generalia concilia celebrentur: ita quod primum a fine hujus concilii in quinquennium immedietate sequens; secundum vero, a fine illius immediate sequentis concilii in septennium; et deinceps de decennio in decennium, perpetuo celebrentur in locis que summus pontifex per mensem ante finem cujuslibet concilii, approbante vel consentiente concilio, vel in ejus defectum, ipsum concilium deputare et assignare teneatur, ut sic per quamdam continuationem sepmer aut concilium vigeat, aut per termini pendentiam exspectetur...
This provision alone challenged the right of the Papacy to rule alone without the oversight of the rest of the Church. And to make the point even clearer, another provision stated that the authority of a General Council comes from Christ himself, not from his Vicar, who is also subject to its rulings:
ipsa synodus in Spiritu sancto legitime congregata, generale concilium faciens et ecclesiam militantem representans, potestatem a Christo habet immediate: cui quilibet cujuscunque status, conditionis vel dignitatis, etiamsi papalis existat, obedire teneatur in his que pertinent ad fidem et extirpationem dicti schismatis, et in generalem reformationem ecclesiae Dei in capite et in membris.
The Conciliar Theory had become embodied in French law, and it was a potent weapon to use against a recalcitrant pope. When Louis XI came to the throne in 1461, he immediately opened negotiations with Pius II. On November 27, 1461, Louis sent a letter to the Pope, announcing that he was revoking the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges. He also sent an embassy, led by the able and loyal, and newly appointed Cardinal, Jean Jouffroy, which arrived in Rome on March 13, 1462 [C. Eubel, Hierarchia catholica editio secunda (Munster 1912), p. 33 no. 218]. Once the ceremonies of the elevation of Cardinal Jouffroy and Cardinal Louis d'Albret were completed, Jouffroy got down to business. He let it be known to Pius that the revocation was actually conditional, upon the settlement of the issue of Naples in favor of the French candidate. It was true that Louis had written a letter revoking the Sanction, but that letter had not been registered with the Parliament of Paris, and therefore the Sanction was still part of French law. Another attempt to revoke the Sanction took place in 1467, through the efforts of Cardinal Jean Balue, but the Parliament refused to register the revocation [Philippe de Commignes II, p. 66 ed. Lenglet du Fresnoy]. Pius II was hardly prepared to reverse himself and depose (or attempt to depose) Ferdinand of Naples to meet the French conditions, and therefore Louis was not prepared to cooperate in Pius' crusade or in any other papal business in France. The Papacy faced another struggle like that between Philip the Fair and Boniface VIII. The French embassy was followed immediately by a Neapolitan embassy, which further embarassed the Pope, who was inextricably caught in the middle. Pius could only reply that he was prepared to act as a mediator in bringing about a peaceful solution: Ait Pontifex placere sibi inter contendentes de regno, inducias modis convenientibus fieri, in eum finem, ut illis durantibus, aut amicabili tractatu, aut iudicio lis sopiretur. Atque in hunc sensum pluribus verbis scripta cedula ad regem missa est, ut si vellet de tempore et de modis, convenire posset.
On October 22, 1463, Pius issued a bull, summoning all of Christianity to join him in a crusade against the Turks [Epistola 411 in the collection of Gueynard, Lyon 1518]. In part he wrote that he would participate personally:
Hunc maiora promittemus: et quando aliter excitare christianorum torpentia corda non valemus: nosipsos periculis obiectabimus nostrumque caput adversus thurcos offeremus in bellum" et quantum nobis ecclesia Romana et patrimonium beati Petri ministrare poterit: tantum pro fide catholica protegenda exponemus et profundemus in hoc itinere. Nec soli proficiscemur in hostes. Clarissimo genere natus et amabilis deo princeps Philippus Burgundie dux in hanc expeditionem venturum se offert: non stone delecta militum manu et exercitu valido. Potentis et clari Venetorum ducis christofori mauri ingens et formidanda classis superioribus mensibus in greciam navigavit: totamque fere Peloponnensum vi atque armis eripuit hosti. Ischumenque poninsulo qui sex milibus pasuum inter duo maria patet undecim (ut aiunt) diebus excitatis: muris ac turribus clausit: memorabile factum: et inter preclara veterum opera numerandum. Hec eadem classis (ut promissum est) nobis non deerit. Spondent quoque et ceteri Italie potentatus pro sua religione et in commune bonum affectione precipua tam sancto digna poere auxilia....
Exemplo nostro quam plurimos invitare studemus. Sequentur et nos venerabiles fratres nostri sancte romane ecclesie cardinales quemadmodum ad hoc ipsum qui validi sunt sponte se obtulerunt. Sequere et episcopi complures et alii minoris ordinis sacerdotes et clerici: non oraturi tantum: verum etiam pugnaturi cum res ipsa postulaverit. Expertas quoque bellorum et robustissimas militum cohortes et fortia pectora iuvenum ex agris ecclesie ducemus ad prelium: qui nobis oratione pugnantibus ferro pugnent. Abimus extenso dominice crucis vexillo....
He received an immediate and apparently enthusiastic reply from Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan [Epistola 406 in the collection of Gueynard, Lyon 1518]:
Literas tuas, beatissime pater, ut gravissimas et ornatissimas ita ardentissimi de siderii plenas christianeque reipub. studiosas non minori delectatione et dolore summa tamen cum reverentia uti par est legi atque accuratissime perlegi....
... Verum in epistole modum excedam: ad eam partem me conferam unde omnis litterarum tuarum videtur oriri intentio. Portatur me sanctitas tua: ac multis et quidem robustissimis teque ipso dignissimis argumentis suadet pia atque iusta arma pro salute publica in machometem monstrum spurcissimum capere: magnanimique Philippi imitari exemplum.
But, it turned out, that, as with many replies to the Pope's call, that the participation was conditional and the time of fulfilment was indefinite. On February 6, 1464 Pius II had left Rome to go to Siena, where he expected to take medical treatment at the baths of Petrioli (April 4-30). He returned to Rome May 19.
Pius II was determined to lead his crusade against the Turks/Muslims in person. Pius left Rome on June 18, 1464, and entered Ancona on July 18, 1464 [Campano, "Vita Pii II", in Muratori RIS III. 2, 990 Voigt III, p. 718].
On August 1, 1464, Cosimo de' Medici died.
With the Pope on the Crusade were five Cardinals—Scarampi, the Chamberlain S.R.E.; Barbo of S. Marco; Roderigo Borgia the Vice-Chancellor; Ammannati-Piccolomini; Fortiguerra; and Eroli. A sixth, Cardinal Gonzaga of Mantua, travelling by sea from Mantua arrived in Ancona on August 15 [Rafael Caymus to Otto Simoneta, August 15, 1464: Pastor, Acta inedita, p. 330].
On August 11, the Archbishop of Milan informed Francesco Sforza that the Pope was gravely ill, and probably would not survive more than two or three days. He expressed the belief that the Cardinals would stop at Fabriano on their way to Rome to hold the Conclave (an idea of Orsini), which would have much less pressure on them than a Conclave in Rome. He also notes that the Doge of Venice arrived in the neighborhood of Ancona on the 12th, with twelve galleys (others say 20 or 24). Five cardinals were sent to greet the Doge formally, and the Archbishop of Milan had a friendly reception from him [Pastor, Acta inedita, no. 203, p. 327 (August 13, 1464)].
On August 12, Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa died at Todi, but the news did not reach Ancona until the day after the Pope had died.
On August 14, the Venetian fleet arrived inside the harbor of Ancona, and though the Pope was weak, he wanted to see the pageantry of the official arrival, and he therefore had himself carried to one of the windows of his apartment that faced the harbor and the sea, where he remained for some time. But eventually he began to be overcome by his illness, and left the window. Because the plague was raging in the March of Ancona and in the neighborhood of the city itself, access to and from the papal residence was not encouraged [See Pastor III, p. 361]. Fever was also endemic in the Fleet. The Doge was scheduled to have an audience on the 15th, but it was postponed to the next day with the hope that God would grant the Pope the strength. From hour to hour, however, he got worse and worse.
Since it was the Vigil of the Feast of the Assumption, and it was the custom of the pope to celebrate Solemn Vespers on that day, the Pope wanted to be present for the service. But Pius was unable to do so, though the Cardinals carried out the Service nonetheless. After the ceremony, realizing that his last hour was upon him, Pius summoned the Cardinals to his bedchamber, and though he was almost unable to speak and clearly on the edge of death, he spoke in gasps to them, making his profession of the Catholic faith and begging their pardon for any offenses he had committed against them. Cardinal Ammannatii-Piccolomini, who was present constantly during these last days, preserves the Pope's address in Book I of his Commentarii (p. 359). The reply to the speech was given by Cardinal Bessarion, primus Cardinalium. Finally the Pope blessed them, and each cardinal kissed his hand. He asked for the Sacrament to be brought, which was done by Cardinal Ammannati-Piccolomini, and he received Holy Communion and the Last Rites. It grew dark, and, around the first hour of the night (It was now August 15) a number of the cardinals returned to their residences.
August 15, which was the Feast of the Assumption, arrived. Only Cardinal Ammannati-Piccolomini, the Pope's nephew Andrea, his secretary and consanguineus Georgius (or Gregorius) Lollius, and several of the Pope's personal staff remained. Prayers for the dying were read, and, about the third hour of the night, while following the prayers, Pius finally died. [The date of August 15 is given by Paul II, in his Electoral Manifesto, Cum Felicis, in Baronius-Theiner, no. 59, p. 411; Rafael Caymus to Otto Simoneta, in a letter dated Anchone XV augusti 1464 hora XX (Pastor, Acta inedita p. 330-331); Campano, "Vita Pii II," in Muratori, RIS III. 2, 991]. Pius was fifty-eight years and nine months old.
The Cardinals met in congregation immediately after the Pope's death to decide where to hold the Conclave, and to fix a date for the departure of the Pope's body for Rome. Cardinal Barbo was ill, as was Cardinal Borgia. There was not a great deal they could do, especially in the absence of the Cardinal-Bishops and particularly Bessarion, the senior cardinal. Gossip was already running the rounds as to papabili. Roverella of Ravenna, Angelo Capranica, Juan Carvajal, and Calandrini of Bologna are named by Caymus, but this was merely the ignorant babble of writers of dispatches [Rafael Caymus to Otto Simoneta, in a letter dated Anchone XV augusti 1464 hora XX (Pastor, Acta inedita p. 330)].
When the day dawned, the body of Pius II was carried to the Cathedral of S. Ciriaco, next door to the Episcopal Palace, and placed on a bier. The usual absolutions were performed by the Cardinals. The praecordia were entombed there in the cathedral [Campano, "Vita Pii II," in Muratori RIS III. 2, 991; Pastor quotes the inscription, III, p. 372 n., which says XIX Kls. Sept. Pii II. praecordia tumulantur, that is, on the 14th—an obvious mistake].
Immediately after the Requiem, the Doge of Venice, Cristoforo Moro, was received by the Cardinals in congregation. Cardinal Barbo was ill, and had to be carried to the meeting. Cartdinal Borgia, too, was ill. [Letter of Rafael Caymus to Otto Simoneta, August 15, 1464]. The Doge frankly admitted that the chances of a successful crusade were much diminished by the Pope's death, and charged the Cardinals to elect a pope who would go forward with what had been begun, or else give him financial support for the wars already underway thanks to the urging of the Church. In reply the Cardinals offered him clear expectation (non incerta spes) of a subsidy. They asked him whether he would be in Ancona on the next day, and then he was escorted back to his ship. The Cardinals then met again, and did give him provisionally the triremes which had been gathered, unless the new pope decided to revoke the decree, or if he decided to carry out the plan of Pius II. They also voted to send Matthias of Hungary the money that had been collected by Pius for the war.
On August 16, the Doge of Venice took ship for home [Voigt III, p. 722; cf. Pastor III, p. 373, who makes it the night of the 18th]. He disbanded the Venetian fleet almost immediately.
When the dignitaries had departed, the Cardinals turned to the matter of electing a pope, and some agitated that he should be chosen in Rome. They pointed out that the cardinals who had not made the journey would have great difficulty in assembling in Ancona, and that besides, the Conclave should be held where the Roman Curia was. Others pointed to Canon Law (the Constitution of Gregory X, approved by the II Council of Lyon), which stipulated that the Conclave should take place in the same city where the pope died, and therefore argued that they must hold the Conclave in Ancona. And, if they had known and wished to bring it up, they could point to the election of Pope Calixtus II at Cluny in 1119, with perhaps half-a-dozen of the forty-three living cardinals being present It is known that Scarampi and Barbo were enemies, and it may be conjectured that Scarampi did not believe he could get the kind of election he wanted in a city in which the Doge of Venice and his fleet lay in the harbor. The fact was that the majority of cardinals had not followed the Pope to Ancona, and were still in the neighborhood of Rome. And there were no suburbicarian cardinal-bishops among them. Those who wanted a Conclave at Ancona would never be able to assemble a majority of the Sacred College. One might have had an electoral problem like the one in 1241-1242, when the cardinals at Anagni and the cardinals in Rome refused to meet with each other for more than seven months. And the possibility of Schism was still strong in the air. With the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, which was again being agitated by Louis XI, France was on the cusp. The denial of the pope's right to appoint to benefices, the call for the free election of bishops and abbots, the limitation on appeals outside the kingdom, and the superiority of the General Council to the Pope—all were again being asserted.
The final decision may have been influenced by relatively recent events. At the beginning of 1459, when Pius II had been about to set out for the Conference of Mantua, he held a consistory and discussed with the Cardinals what would have to happen if the pope should die at some distance from Rome. Pius would be taking only six of his cardinals with him, and the rest and the Roman Curia would be left behind in Rome. The result of their discussions was a decree signed by the Pope. It stated that, should the Pope die at some city farther from Rome than Florence, they should bury him in the Cathedral in that city, or in the nearest cathedral to the place where he had died. The Conclave, however, would not take place in the place where he died (and for this purpose he suspended the Constitution of Gregory X on that point), but in Rome. The Cardinals who were in the Curia in Rome were to wait thirty days for the others to arrive if the death had taken place beyond Florence, but only fifteen days if it had taken place nearer than Florence; but the Conclave was to take place in Rome. These special arrangements were not to create a precedent. Nonetheless, the Cardinals in Ancona appear to have followed those instructions. The praecordia of Pius II were buried in the Cathedral in Ancona, and his body was to be returned to Rome, where the Conclave would take place. It is a nice question in Canon Law as to whether the decree of 1459 was still in force in 1464, considering that it had not previously been used, and apparently had not been cancelled. Cardinal Ammannati [Commentarii, Book I, p. 362] says that the ultimate reason for preferring Rome was tradition:
Patres ad legendi curam Pastoris conversi, Romae legendum esse constituebant: non modo quia collegae nonnulli propter senium venire Anconam ipsi non poterant, sed magis quia sacris legibus ad id cogebantur, electionem fieri oportere dictantibus, ubi Romana est curia. Curiam porro Romanam causarum tribunal appellant, quod Pius ad leniendos de abitu suo Romanorum animos, apud eos reliquerat.
That is not, of course, what Canon Law or the constitutions on the election of a pope required. It was the special concession of Pius II.
The funeral cortege reached Rome on the seventh day from setting out from Ancona [August 23?]. The body of Pius II was taken to St. Peter's Basilica and buried in the Chapel of S. Andrew, which had been decorated under Pius' orders. The Funeral Oration was made by Giovanni Antonio Campano, who had been made Bishop of Cotrone by Pius II in 1462 and in the same month translated to Teramo (1463-1477) [Novaes, Intrtoduzione, pp. 252-253, who wrongly gives the name of the Bishopric as Cortona]. The memorial of Pius II was erected in S. Andrea della Valle in 1614.
A Congregation was then held at the palace of the Cardinal Camerlengo, Luigi Scarampi, Patriarch of Aquileia. The first matter at hand was where in Rome to hold the Conclave. Some wanted to hold in inside the City proper, at the Minerva. This had been the venue in 1431 and in 1447. The majority believed that it should take place at the Vatican, as was the old custom, and as had happened in 1455 and 1458. The problem with the Vatican, however, was that the Castel S. Angelo was not in the hands of the Cardinals, and it was essential for the security of the Vatican Palace and the Leonine City. It was currently held by Antonio, Duke of Amalfi and Count of Celano, the nephew of Pius II (through his agents), and he was at Celano in the territory of the Marsi. It was feared that the garrison was favorable to the Orsini, whose following was strong in the Borgo and around S. Peter's—a consideration which made some cardinals nervous. It was also feared that Antonio, who was the son-in-law of the King of Aragon, might not hand the Castel S. Angelo over to the next pope, if the pope were not to the liking of King Ferdinand. Other fantastic scenarios were put forward by the other side. It was finally decided by majority vote to hold the Conclave in the Vatican Palace.
When Pius II died there were twenty-nine living cardinals. Conrad Eubel, Hierarchia catholica II editio altera (Münster 1914), p. 14, n. 5, provides a list of nineteen cardinals who participated in the Conclave of 1464, plus Pietro Barbo; and seven cardinals who were absent (He omits Pierre de Foix, Bishop of Albano; Dénes Szécsi, the Legate in Hungary, and Bernardus Eruli of Santa Sabina—the last of whom was present). Jacobus (Giacomo, Jacopo) Ammannati-Piccolomini, in Book II of his Commentarii (pp. 368-370), gives the names of nineteen cardinals who took part in the Conclave, of which he himself was one; he omits the name of Pietro Barbo. He states: Convenere Episcopi quatuor, Presbyteri duodecim, Diaconi tres, which is misleading. There were thirteen cardinal priests, including Cardinal Bernardo Eruli. The total number, then, was twenty. The letter of Rafael Caymus of August 15, 1464 [Pastor, Acta inedita no. 205, p. 331] states: serano XX in conclave.
Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa died at Todi on August 12, 1464, three days before the death of Pius II. Evidently Cardinal Nicholas' death was not yet known in Ancona. It became known on the 16th apparently [Pastor III, p. 371].
A list of the Cardinals, present and absent is given by Onuphrio Panvinio (Epitome, pp. 326-327), who lists nineteen cardinals present and six absent, a total of (he says) twenty-seven—which is bad arithmetic. Petruccelli (I, p. 286) states that twenty cardinals entered Conclave; but he includes Francesco Albescola della Rovere, OFM, who did not become a cardinal until 1467, but who was elected Minister General of the Franciscans at their General Chapter in Perugia on May 20, 1464, less than three months before Pius II's death [See Luke Wadding, Annales Minorum Volume XIII, p. 345, 427].
The observation of the Novendiales began on August 16, and therefore concluded on August 24. Niccolo della Tuccia, however, says that the exequies were carried out on August 27 [l' essequie furno fatte li 27 d'agosto, ove furno la maggior parte de' Cardinali (p. 209 ed. Orioli; p. 269 ed. Ciampi)], while Paolo dello Maestro says that the Conclave began on August 22 [p. 104 ed. Pelaez: recordo io Pavolo che nello ditto millesimo a dii 22 di agosto li cardinali si misero in conchiave in palazzo, e furo venti cardinali]—both of whom are certainly wrong.
On Friday, August 24, another of the straggler cardinals arrived— Francesco Gonzaga — who had been ill in Ancona [letter of Cardinal Gonzaga to the Marquis of Mantua, August 25, 1464: Pastor p. 3 n.], and there may have been one or two others for whom the Cardinals were waiting. Such, in fact, is the report of J. A. Ferrofinus [Pastor IV, p. 4 n. 3, apparently carrying the date of August 29, from the State Archives of Milan; the date Pastor gives may be wrong, a misreading of the ms., or a misreading of his notes; the correct date must be earlier than August 29]: Heri sera da le xxiii a le xxiv li revm Sri cardinali intrarono in conclave numero xix. che'l rev. card. de Theano [Niccolò Fortiguerra] nondum venit et S. Sisto [Juan de Torquemada, OP] propter infirmitatem nondum e venuto o rectius stato portato fin a questo matina si che adesso sonno xxti." I base my remark that Pastor has made a mistake in dating because of another dispatch which he quotes, from the same source, J. A. Ferrofinus [Pastor IV, p. 7, n. 1 (State Archives of Milan)], also written on August 29, 1464, Communis est opinio che'l rev Monsig. S. Sisto, quale questa matina fu portato al conclave, piu non debia tornare ad casa essendo aut coreato pontifice aut posto in sepultura, adeo est senex et infirmis. The second letter states that Cardinal Torquemada was carried into the Conclave on the morning of the 29th, while the first indicates that he was still being awaited late that afternoon. Notice that he was carried into the Conclave on the morning of the 29th —the Conclave was already in progress. Cardinal Barbo, it may be remarked, also had to be carried into the Conclave on his bed (according to the account of his biographer, Cannesius [p. 32]), since he was ill with fever—though he had participated in all of the funeral ceremonies of Pius II.
The customary oration pro pontifice eligendo was given at St. Peter's on August 25, 1464 by Dominicus de Dominicis, Bishop of Torcello (1448-1464) [Gregorovius VII.1 p. 220, n. 1, cites ms. Vat. 4589: Ep. Torcellani ad Card. oratio pro elect. S. Pont. habita Rome in bas. S. Petri VIII. Kal. Sept: A. D. 1464; cf. Ludwig Pastor, IV, p. 7 n. 3, who prefers another ms. that reads v. Cal. Sept. (August 28) to the two that read viii. Kal. Sept. (August 25)]. In either case, the oration must have been given on the day on which the Mass of the Holy Spirit was sung in the presence of the Cardinals in S. Peter's, following the conclusion of the Mass.
The Conclave of 1464 was enclosed, however, on Monday, August 27 (sexto calendas Septembris), according to Cardinal Ammannati-Piccolomini (p. 367) or on August 28, according to a source quoted by Eubel [II, p. 14 n.4]; and by Stefano Infessura [p. 67 ed. Tommasini]. This seems to be confirmed by a dispatch of Johannes Arrivabene of August 27, who notes [in Pastor's translation, p. 6], "The negotiations regarding the Papal Election are being carried on in every direction in secret and with great zeal. God grant that the Holy Spirit, and not human passions, may preside!." Ten bishops were selected to act as the inner Custodians of the Conclave; the ambassadors (Oratores) of kings and princes were the second line of Custodians; the third was composed of military officers, led by the Marshal of the Conclave. The Cardinals may have been in no hurry at all to be enclosed. It was Rome, after all, at the height of the summer, and several of their body were already ill. Much of their pratticà could be done before the enclosure, saving themselves much inconvenience.
The Cardinals seemed in no hurry to begin voting. Cardinal Ammannati-Piccolomini wrote, in a letter to Francesco Sforza, Duke of Milan (September 1, 1464) that the twelve "older cardinals" in attendance, that is those cardinals who had been created before the reign of Pius II, had held a private meeting, and decided that they would vote for nobody except one of themselves. This, of course, froze out those cardinals in attendance—eight in number—who had been created by Pius II.
The next day, Tuesday, August 28 (or the 29th), was spent in writing Electoral Capitulations, or as Cardinal Ammannati-Piccolomini so delicately puts it, formandis legibus impendere ad sanam Pontificum administrationem maxime necessariis. These capitulations were the object of extensive discussions, especially in the light of demands made in the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438) and the representations of the German nation to Eugenius IV in 1437. As usual, though, the Cardinals were primarily concerned with their own rights and privileges, and they wanted to put limitations on a pope's ability to touch their status, individually and collectively, without their consent. They also were vexed over the fact that Pius II had spent most of 1459 in Mantua, and most of 1460 in Siena, and that he actually intended to go on crusade personally. The extent of the disagreement about the Capitulations can be judged from the new Pope's immediate decision to annul what he had signed and sworn to (making himself a manifest perjurer), and to rewrite them to suit himself. Only when these original Capitulations were finished, and accepted by vote, and signed by everyone, were the Cardinals ready to proceed to electing a Pope.
On Werdnesday, August 29, in the morning, Cardinal Juan de Torquemada, who was seriously ill, was carried into the Conclave on his bed. That brought the number of electors up to twenty, and the number needed to elect up to fourteen.
On Thursday, August 30, the Cardinals were finally ready to conduct a vote. The meetings for the scrutiny took place in the Capella S. Nicolai (later, after redecoration, called the Capella Paolina). There would be a scrutiny in writing and an accessio. Ammannati-Piccolomini remarks that, in his and his seniors' memories, it was unheard of that a pope was elected by votes on the scrutiny alone. However, on this occasion, twelve votes were cast for Cardinal Pietro Barbo in the first scrutiny, and, with two votes yet to be counted, suddenly all the Cardinals present acceeded to Cardinal Barbo. Cardinal Ammannati-Piccolomini remarks that sine ulla contentione rem transigi contigisset. At that point Cardinal Bessarion, addressing each cardinal in order, asked him whether he agreed to the election (num ea placeret electio). When he received a universal affirmative, he then addressed Cardinal Barbo:
Patres hi te in Pontificem elegerunt, et ego omnium nominibus rursum te eligo.
This. anyway, is the story of Cardinal Ammanati-Piccolomini, who was present, and who was no friend of Pietro Barbo.
Ludwig Pastor [IV, p. 11] has another version of what happened, derived from a dispatch of Johannes Petrus Arrivabenus (Giovanni Pietro Arrivabene) to the Marquis of Mantua, which he discovered in the Gonzaga Archives in Mantua. The dispatch, which was written on September 1, 1464, alleges that Cardinal Scarampi had seven votes, d'Estouteville nine votes, and Pietro Barbo eleven votes on the first (and only) scrutiny; he obtained three more votes on the accessio, which gave him the number needed for election. Two points may be made about Arrivabene's information: (1) that he gathered it second-hand, and may not have cared very much to be precise; and (2) that diplomats sometimes shape their reports to protect the feelings of their patron, by misrepresenting the actual statistics to suggest that the contest was more in favor of the patron's candidate than it actually was. This happened with the English diplomats in Rome both in 1521 and 1523. It is, in fact, a matter of a single vote on the scrutiny.
Pastor writes, "Scarampo had seven votes, d'Estouteville nine, and Pietro Barbo eleven." The votes reported by Arrivabene, however, do not have to indicate equal or massive support for either Scarampi or d'Estouteville. The cardinals were obviously using a preference poll, in which a single cardinal could list his first, and second, and maybe even his third choice. Thus, a total number of 27 votes from 19 cardinals on the first (and only) scrutiny indicates that that was the method. Only seven (or eight) of these votes need be first choices of some other candidate than Barbo—perhaps (for the sake of argument) three for Scarampi and four for d'Estouteville; the rest of their votes would be second- or third- place votes. And it may be noted, if any trust is placed in the Mantuan dispatch, there were no second-place votes for Barbo. This produces a very different picture from the one presented by Pastor and his dispatch. But the scenario of Pastor must be rejected, explicitly contradicted as it is by the eyewitness report of Cardinal Ammannati-Piccolomini in so extraordinary a manner. It was four cardinals who wanted to accede to Barbo, not three, and Barbo had twelve votes on the scrutiny, not eleven..
Petruccelli (I, 287) relates the following version of events, though without providing sources:
La république de Venise, qui avait besoin de l' aide de l' Eglise dans la guerre qu' elle soutenait contre le Turc, sans repousser le camerlingue, sujet de la république, appuyait de préference le cardinal de Saint-Marc, Barbo. Le duc de Milan et Ferdinand de Naples, quoique moins satisfaits et plus incertains du caractère de ce cardinal, l' aident de leurs votes, pour plaire à Venise. Côme de Médicis, qui plus que tout autre
se méfiait de Barbo, resta neutre. Ce fut tout ce que la seigneurie vénitienne put obtenir de cet ancien hôte, qui, dans son exil à Venise, avait pu juger Pierre Barbo. Toutes ces influences pesèrent sur le conclave, dès la première heure. Le roi Ferdinand, cependant, désirait principalement Orsini. Le cardinal de Rohan se mettait en avant de nouveau, malgre l' opposition dissimulée de Louis XI, qui préférait Saint-Eusèbe et Saint-Marcel, plus souples, moins zélés. Les viellards préféraient Bessarion; Côme de Médicis, le cardinal de Saint-Grisogone; et le duc de Milan, della Rovere ou Gonzaga. Ces opinions divergentes, toutefois, s' emoussaient et n' amoindrissaient pas Saint-Marc. Personne ne le repoussait, et Venise le désirait.
On passa donc les deux premiers jours à se sonder, à discuter et ensuite à rédiger et à jurer le compromis que l' on lira plus loin. Le cardinal Borgia s' eclipsait. Il ne se sentait pas encore assez riche pour se mettre sur les rangs. Piccolomini, le neveu de Pie II, fut attiré par le camerlingue à donner son vote à Saint-Marc. Ce camerlingue avait commencé par le repousser, se portant lui-mème candidate. Puis il avait transigé et s' etait effacé comme les autres. La pratique de Saint-Marc, donc, face comme les autres. La pratique de Saint-Marc, donc, avançait. Les plus obstinés contre lui étaient Carvajal, Rohan, Saint-Laaurent in Lucina et Saint-Marcel. Le troisième jour, cependant, au premier tour de scrutin, Saint-Marc réunit douze votes. Cela n' étonna personne. Il lui manquait deux voix pour être élu. A l' accès, quatre cardinaux se lèvent: Santa Croce, Santa Sabina, Orsini et Torre Cremata. Alors Bessarion, pour faire les choses en règle, les interroge. Ils donnent tous leur vote à voix haute. Sur quoi Bessarion s' écrie, «:Et moi, he vous donne le mien de nouveau, cardinal de Saint-Marc.» Les cardinaux dissidents se lèvent tous, entrainés par la nécessité. Barbo était pape. Mais les formalités n' étaient pas encore toutes remplies.
It is laughable to imagine that so canny and practical a politician as Francesco Sforza would support the twenty-year-old Cardinal Gonzaga [right] for pope. It would have been the greatest scandal of the Renaissance had he won, and would probably have led to schism; it may even have started the Reformation a half-century early. The notion that Sforza was also supporting della Rovere is equally stupid, since della Rovere was not yet a cardinal, only the Master General of the Friars Minor. That Francesco Sforza was supporting Barbo "pour plaire à Venise" is equally unlikely, in the light of continued unfriendly relations between Venice and Milan. It is conceivable, however, that Sforza—knowing that Venice controlled the Conclave—would support Barbo in preference to Scarampi, but that would be because Scarampi was more vigorous than Barbo, more practiced in the arts of war, and more likely to cause trouble for Milan than Barbo. The Venetians knew all this, and in addition did not want a Scarampi who might adopt Pius II's plan to sail with the fleet as a Crusader. That would put Venice under the command of the Pope, and force them to commit their navy, which they were most reluctant to do. As to the notion that Cosimo de' Medici remained neutral, that may have been a truth of sorts. He and the Florentines had tried several times to get their bishop, Johannes Neroni, made a cardinal by Pius II, without success. It is hardly likely that their opinion would matter much in a papal election, especially since they were lukewarm to the idea of the Crusade against the Turk. And Medici's opinion, as a private citizen, would have been negligible in Rome.
It must be noticed as well that Petruccelli (or his source) says, on the one hand, that Barbo received twelve votes on the scrutiny (not the eleven votes in Pastor's account), but, on the other, that he still needed two votes to be elected. The number 14 implies that there were at least 20 cardinals present. But Petruccelli states that there were twenty cardinals present, including "Cardinal" della Rovere, who is so highly thought of by Francesco Sforza. His mathematics, therefore, is not correct. There would have been twenty-one The number 14 and well as the four accessio votes is also found in the otherwise worthless account, the widely-disseminated Conclavi de' pontefici romani, or Histoire des conclaves, from the pen of Gregorio Leti (See Christophe II, p. 115 n. 2 for a list of the major errors); Leti compensates for his paucity of facts by a circumstantial account of what probably had to happen according to the ceremonial requirements of the event. But Leti probably had a conclavist narrative to work from, as he did with many other Conclaves, and one of them may be the source of the number 14. But Petruccelli (or his source) appears to be attempting to deal with Leti's number, and he can only do this with the addition of the non-Cardinal della Rovere to bring the number of cardinals up to 20. But, as we have seen, the number 20, which is the correct number, was already in circulation. It was, for example, spread to Milan by Rafael Caymus in his letter of August 15, 1464 [Pastor, Acta inedita no. 205, p. 331]. In fact, up until the arrival in Rome of Cardinal Torquemada on the morning of August 29, the number of cardinals in Conclave was 19, and the number needed to elect was 13. The Cardinals, in fact, waited for Torquemada, and a scrutiny did not take place until the morning after his arrival in conclave.
Once he had accepted the Election, The Electus was then required to sign the Electoral Capitulations again, which he did, and swore the required oath (a second perjury, as it soon developed, and perhaps a case of fraud as well).
When asked which papal name he wished to use, Barbo replied, "Formosus"—which caused considerable consternation. There had been a previous pope named "Formosus" (891-896), but his administration had been so contentious that he had been dug up from his grave nine months after his death, and put on trial by orders of his competitor and successor, Pope Stephen VI. The word "formosus", which means "handsome" was also thought to be unseemly, though not inappropriate. It did, however, draw attention to Barbo's obvious vanity. Barbo gave way and chose "Marcus" instead. But S. Mark was the patron saint of Venice, and some cardinals thought that this might be taken as an unlimited pledge of support of the Serene Republic by the Papacy, which would cause a great deal of trouble with (among others) Francesco Sforza of Milan. So finally he settled on "Paulus II".
Paul II was crowned, according to Stefano Infessura [Diaria rerum Romanorum, p. 67 ed. Tommasini], on September 16, 1464, a Sunday: A dì 16 di settembre fo coronato Papa Paolo, et gi ad santo Joanni pontificalmente. Eubel [II, p. 14, n.4] quotes a source from the Vatican Archive which places the coronation on September 16 as well. Cardinal Ammannati says it was on September 19, a Wednesday. Panvinio (p. 328) makes the date V. Idus Septembris (Sunday, September 9), and states that it was Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia, the Archdeacon, who performed the coronation, on the steps before S. Peter's Basilica.
The records of the Apostolic Camera [Müntz, Les arts à la cour des Papes pendant le XVe et XVIe siècle. II, p. 124-126] indicate that the festivities in connection with the coronation of Paul II cost 23,329 florins.
Pii Secundi Pontificis Max. Commentarii rerum memorabilium quae temporibus suis contigerunt, a R. D. Ioanne Gobellino Vicario Bonnen. iamdiu compositi, et a R. P. D. Francisco Bandino Picolomineo Archiepiscopo Senensi ex vetusto originali recogniti, quibus hac editione accedunt Jacobi Picolominei Cardinalis Papiensis, qui Pio Pont. coaevus et familiaris fuit, Rerum Gestarum sui temporis, et ad Pii continuationem commentarii luculentissimi: eiusdemque Epistolae perelegantes, rerum reconditarum (Francofurti: in Officina Aubriana 1614). Pius Secundus, Epistole et varii tractatus Pii secundi pontificis maximi: ad diversos in quadruplici vite eius statu transmisse noviter impresse feliciter incipiunt (Lugduni: Stephanus Gueynard, 1518). Georg Voigt, "Die Briefe des Aeneas Sylvius vor seiner Erhebung auf den päpstliche Stuhl," Archiv fur Kunde österreichischer Geschichts-Quellen 16. 4 (Wien 1856), pp. 321-424 [Voigt, Archiv].
Giovanni Antonio Campano, "Vita Pii II Pontificis Maximi," Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores Tomus III, pars ii (Mediolani 1734), 969-992 [Campano was made Bishop of Cotrone by Pius II in 1462 and in the same month translated to Teramo (1463-1477), according to Novaes, Intrtoduzione, pp. 252-253, who wrongly gives the name of the Bishopric as Cortona. Campano also gave the Funeral Oration for Pius II at Siena in 1464]. Johannes Antonius Campanus, Omnia Campani Opera (Venetiis: Bernardum Vercellensm, iussu Domini Andreae Torresano de Assula s.d. [ca. 1502]), xcv-c. Bartholomeo Platina, "Vita Pii II" in his Historia, pp. [extremely critical of Paul II]. Michael Cannesius, "Pauli II p.m. Vita", in Muratori, Rerum Italicarum Scriptores III. 2, pp. 993-1022. [Cardinal Ammannati-Piccolomini is a major source of facts; fawningly uncritical and apologetic]. Cardinal Angelus Quirini (1680-1755), "Vindiciae," in Michael Cannesius, Pauli II Veneti Pont. Max. Vita, ex codice Angelicae Bibliothecae desumpta, praemissis ipsius sanctissimi pontificis Vindiciis adversus Platinam, aliosque obtrectatores (Romae 1740), pp. ix-lxxx [Two Venetians try to heroize a fellow Venetian. Quirini was S.R.E. Bibliothecarius from 1730-1755].
Giuseppe Coletti, "Dai diari di Stefano Caffari," Archivio della Società Romana di storia patria 8 (1885), 555-575. M. Pelaez, "Il Memoriale di Paolo di Benedetto di Cola dello Maestro dello rione di Ponte," Archivio della r. società Romana di storia patria 16 (1893), 41-130. A. de Tummulillis, Notabilia temporum (edited by C. Corvisieri) (Roma 1890), p. 122.
Bartolommeo Platina, Historia B. Platinae de vitis Pontificum Romanorum...que ad Paulum II Venetum ... doctissimarumque annotationum Onuphrii Panvinii (Cologne: apud Maternum Cholinum 1568), 294-295. Bartolommeo Platina, Historia B. Platinae de vitis pontificum Romanorum ...cui etiam nunc accessit supplementum... per Onuphrium [Panvinium]... et deinde per Antonium Cicarellam (Cologne: Cholini 1600) 295-307. [Gregorio Leti], Conclavi de' pontefici romani (1667) 39-43. Bartolommeo Platina ed altri autori, Storia delle vite de' pontifici Tomo Terzo ( Venezia: Domenico Ferrarin 1765) 358-373. Onuphrio Panvinio, Epitome Pontificum Romanorum a S. Petro usque ad Paulum IIII. Gestorum (videlicet) electionisque singulorum & Conclavium compendiaria narratio (Venice: Jacob Strada 1557) 298-306; 311-312. [Gregorio Leti], Il Cardinalismo di Santa Chiesa Parte terza (1668), pp. 115-135. [Gregorio Leti], Conclavi de' pontefici romani (1667), 45-58; (Cologne: Lorenzo Martini 1691) I, 84-110 [highly inaccurate in its facts]. [Gregorio Leti], Histoire des conclaves 3rd edition (Cologne 1703) 2 vols. Lorenzo Cardella, Memorie storiche de' cardinali della Santa Romana Ecclesia Tomo III (Roma: Pagliarini 1793) 1-136. Stefano Infessura, Diario della citta di Roma (a cura di Oreste Tommasini) (Roma 1890).
Ludovicus Pastor, Acta inedita historiam pontificum Romanorum praesertim saec. XV, XVI, XVII illustrantia. Ungedruckte Akten zur Geschichte der Päpste Erster Band: 1376-1464 (Freiburg im Breisgau 1904).
Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (July 7, 1438): Isambert, Jourdan & Decrusy (editors), Recueil des anciennes lois françaises Cinquième livraison, 1438-1483 (Paris 1825), no. 110, pp. 3-47. Noel Valois, Histoire de la Pragmatic Sanction de Bourges sous Charles VII (Paris: Picard 1906). J.-D. Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 31, 283-288.
Pragmatic Sanction of the Germans (1447): Christoph. Guilelmus Koch, Sanctio Pragmatic Germanorum illustrata (Argentorati: Typis Rollandi et Jacobi, 1789).
Mathieu d'Escouchy, Le chronique de Mathieu d'Escouchy (ed. G. du Fresne de Beaucourt) Tome Second (Paris 1863).
Cesare Baronius, Od. Reynaldi, et Jac. Laderchi, Annales Ecclesiastici (edited by Augustinus Theiner, Orat.) Tomus vigesimus nonus (1454-1480) (Barri Ducis 1876) [Baronius-Theiner] [His narrative depends almost entirely on Cardinal Ammannati-Piccolomini].
G. Constant, "Les maîtres de cérémonies du XVIe siècle: leurs Diaires ," Mélanges de l' École français de Rome 23 (1903), 161-229; 319-344. Mario Pelaez, "Il memoriale di Paolo di Benedetto di Cola dello Maestro dello Rione di Ponte, " Archivio della Societa romana di storia patria 16 (1893), 41-130.
F. Petruccelli della Gattina, Histoire diplomatique des conclaves Volume I (Paris: 1864), 273-283. Francesco Cancellieri, Notizie istoriche delle stagioni e de' siti in cui sono stati tenuti i conclavi nella città di Roma... (Roma 1823) 12-15. Georg Voigt, Enea Silvio de' Piccolomini als Papst Pius der Zweite, und sein Zeitalter Dritte Band (Berlin:Georg Reimer 1863). J. B. Sägmüller, Die Papstwahlen und die Staaten von 1447 bis 1555 (Tübingen: H. Laupp 1890), pp. 92-97 [based on Cardinal Ammannati and Ludwig Pastor]. Ferdinand Gregorovius, The History of Rome in the Middle Ages (translated from the fourth German edition by A. Hamilton) Volume 7 part 1 [Book XIII, Chapter 3, parts 2 and 3] (London 1900). Ludwig Pastor, History of the Popes (tr. R.F. Kerr) third edition, Volume III (1906), 348-374; Volume IV (1894), 3-35.
Anna Maria Corbo, Paolo II Barbo: dalla mercatura al papato, 1464-1471 (Edilazio 2004). Roberto Weiss, Un umanista veneziano: Papa Paolo II (Venice & Rome, 1958). Roberto Weiss, Medals of Pope Sixtus IV (Parker & Son, 1961). Anna Maria Corbo, Pio II Piccolomini. un papa umanista (Edilazio 2002).
J.-B. Christophe, Histoire de la papauté pendant le XVe siècle Tome premier (Paris 1863) 93-96; 116-119. William Cornwallis Cartwright, On the Constitution of Papal Conclaves (Edinburgh 1878) 154-157 [accessio]. Mandell Creighton, A History of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation. Vol. II: The Council of Basel—the Papal Restoration, 1418-1464 (London: Longmans 1882). P. A. Kirsch, "Die reservatio in petto bei der Cardinalscreation," Archiv für katholisches Kirchenrecht 81 (1901) 421-432. W. Schürmeyer, Das Kardinalskollegium unter Pius II, (Berlin 1914).
On Cardinal Jean Jouffroy (Johannes Godefridus); Charles Fierville, Le cardinal Jean Jouffroy et son temps (1412-1473). Étude historique (Paris: Hachette 1874). His "Ad Pium Papam II, de Philippo Duce Burgundiae Oratio" (1460) survives; see: Baron Joseph Kewrvyn de Lettenhove, Chroniques relatives a l'histoire de la Belgique sous la domination des ducs de Bourgogne (Bruxelles 1876), v-xi, 117-206. Also an Oration spoken to Nicholas V in Consistory on March 2, 1448; in Fierville, pp. 248-254.
On Cardinal Bessarion: Henri Vast, Le Cardinal Bessarion (1403-1472) (Paris 1878). On Cardinal Scarampi: P. Paschini, Lodovico cardinal camerlengo (Roma: Facultas theologica Pontificii Athenaei Lateranensis, 1939). On Cardinal d'Estouteville, Marguerite Mollier, Le cardinal Guillaume d' Estouteville et le Grand VIcariat de Pontoise (Paris: Plon 1906). On Cardinal Gonzaga: D.S. Chambers, A Renaissance cardinal and his wordly goods: the inventory of Francesco Gonzaga (1444-1483) (London 1992). D.S. Chambers, "Francesco 'cardinalino' (c. 1477-1511): the son of cardinal Francesco Gonzaga," Atti e memorie della Accademia Virgiliana di Mantova 48 (1980), pp. 5-55. On Cardinal Capranica: P. Simonelli, La famiglia Capranica nei secc. XV-XVII (Roma 1973), pp. 1-6.
On Count Everso and the fight with the Orsini: Vittorina Sora, "I conti di Anguillara dalla loro origine alla 1465. Everso conte di Anguillara" Archivio della r. Società romana di storia patria 30 (1907), 53-118.
On Francesco Sforza's career, see: Ermolao Rubieri, Francesco Primo Sforza, narrazione storica Volume secondo (Firenze 1879). Giovanni Benadduci, Della signoria di Francesco Sforza nella Marca, e peculiarmente in Tolentino (Tolentino 1892).
Selections from records of the Apostolic Chamber referring to French cardinals contain a number of important entries: G. Bourgin, "Les cardinaux français et le diaire caméral de 1439-1486," Mélanges d' archeologie et d' histoire 24 (1904), 277-318.
On the Spanish in Rome: J. Ruis Serra, "Catalanes y Aragonenses en la corte de Calixto III," Analecta sacra Tarraconensia 3 (1927) 193-330. On Naples: José Ametller y Vinyas, Alfonso V de Aragón en Italia, y la crisis religiosa del siglo XV Tomo II (Gerona 1904). E. Pontieri, Per la storia del regno di Ferrante I d'Aragona re di Napoli: Studi e ricerche (Napoli 1969).
Alberto Guglielmotti, Storia della marina pontificia nel Medio Evo Volume secondo (Firenze 1871).
Eugène Müntz, Les arts à la cour des Papes pendant le XVe et XVIe siècle. Deuxième partie. Paul II, 1464-1471 (Paris: Thorin 1879). Carol M. Richardson, Reclaiming Rome: Cardinals in the Fifteenth Century (Leiden/NY: E.J.Brill, 2009) [Brill Studies in Intellectual History, 173].