Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/245

 POLE

203

POLE

prospect of success. He met in fact with rebuffs from both French and Spaniards, and eventually had to take refuge with the Cardinal Bishop of Liege. After ijeing recalled to Rome, he was present in the spring of 1538 at the meeting between Charles V and Francis I at Nice. Meanwhile Pole's brothers had been arrested in England, and there was good reason to believe that his o%vn life was in danger even in Vene- tian territory from Henry's hired assassins (cf. Pastor, op. cit., V, 685). Pole then set himself with the pope's approval to organize a European league against Henry. He met Charles at Toledo in Feb., 1539, but he was politely excluded from French territory, and after learning the sad news of his mother's martyrdom, he was recalled to Rome, where he was appointed leg- ate to govern from Viterbo the district known as the Patrimony of St. Peter. His rule was conspicuously mild, and when two Englishmen were arrested, who confessed that they had been sent to assassinate him, he remitted the death penalty and was content to send them for a very short term to the galleys.

In 1542 Pole was one of the three legates appointed to preside over the opening of the Council of Trent. Owing to unforeseen delays the Fathers did not actu- ally assemble until Dec, 1545, and the English cardi- nal spent the interval in writing his treatise " De Con- cilio". At the second session of the Council, 7 Jan., 1546, the impressive "Admonitio Legatorum ad Pa- tres Concilii " (see Ehses, "Cone. Trid.", IV, 548-53) wasdraftedby Pole. For reasons of health he was com- pelled to leave Trent on 28 June, but there seems to be good evidence that his malady was real enough, and not feigned, as some have pretended, on account of the divergence of his views from those of the majority upon the question of justification (Pastor, op. cit., V, 578, note 3). None the less before the Diet of Ratisbon he undoubtedly had shared certain opinions of his friend Contarini in this matter which were afterwards repro- bated by the Council (ibid., V, 335-37). But at that period (1541) the Council had not spoken, and Pole's submission to dogmatic authority was throughout his life absolute and entire. It is possible that an exagger- ated idea of those errors produced at a later date that bias in the mind of Caraffa (Paul IV) which led him so violently to suspect Pole as well as Morone (q. v.) of heretical opinions.

On the death of Henry VIII, Pole with the approval of Paul III made persistent efforts to induce the Pro- tector Somerset and the Privy Council to treat with the Holy See, but, while these overtures were received with a certain amount of civility, no encouragement was given to them. Paul III died 10 Nov., 1549, and in the conclave which followed, the English cardinal was long regarded as the favourite candidate. Indeed it seems that if on a particular occasion Pole had been willing to present himself to the cardinals, when he had nearly two-thirds of the votes, he might have been made pope "by adoration". Later the majority in his favour began to decline, and he willingly agreed to a compromise which resulted in the election of Cardinal Del Monte (Julius III). On the votes given for Pole, see "The Tablet", 28 Aug., 1909, pp. 340-341.

The death of Edward VI, 6 July, 1553, once more restored Pole to a very active life. Though the car- dinal was absent from Rome, Julius III at once ap- pointed him legate in England, and Pole wrote to the queen to ask her advice as to his future procedure. Both Mary's advisers in England and the Emperor Charles V, who was from the first anxious to marry the new queen to his son Philip, considered that the coun- try was not yet ready for the reception of a papal legate. Julius, by way of covering the credit of his en- voy in the delays that might possibly ensue, entrusted Pole with a further commission to establish friendly relations between the Emperor Charles and Henry II of France. All this brought the cardinal a good many rebuffs, though he was courteously received in Paris.

Charles V, however, deliberately set himself to detain Pole on the continent until the marriage between Mary and Philip had been concluded (see Mary Tu- dor). Eventually Pole was not allowed to reach Dover before 20 Nov., 1554, provision having previ- ously been made that holders of church property should not be compelled to restore the lands that they had alienated. A great reception was given to the legate upon his arrival in London, and on 30 Nov. Pole, though not even yet a priest, formally absolved the two Houses of Parliament from the guilt of schism. Owing to Pole's royal descent and his friendship with the queen, he exercised a considerable indirect influ- ence over affairs of state and received a special charge from Phihp to watch over the kingdom during his ab- sence. On the other hand, the cardinal does not seem to have been at all anxious to add to his responsibili- ties, and when Archbishop Cranmer was deprived, he showed no great eagerness to succeed him in his func- tions as archbishop. Still a synod of both convoca- tions was held by him as legate in Nov., 1555, which passed many useful decrees of ecclesiastical reform, rendered necessary by the disturbed condition of the Church after twentj' years of separation from Roman authority. On 20 March, 1557, Pole was ordained priest, and two days after he was consecrated arch- bishop, while he solemnly received the pallium on the feast of the Annunciation in the Church of St. Mary- le-Bow, delivering an address which is still preserved.

With the persecutions which have cast so regretta- ble a shadow over Mary's reign Pole seems to have had little to do (Dixon, "Hi.st. of the Ch. of Eng.", IV, 572). " Three condemned heretics from Bonner's dio- cese were pardoned on an appeal to him ; he merely en- joined a penance and gave them absolution" (ibid., 582). The cardinal was now somewhat infirm, and his last days, Uke those of his royal mistress, were much saddened by fresh misunderstandings with Rome, due mainly to the impetuous tcnii>iT and bitter anti-Spanish feehng of Paul IV. As a Neapolitan, ■ Paul was bent upon driving the Spaniards out of Naples, and war broke out in Italy between the pope and King Philip. The pope made an alliance with France, and Philip set deliberately to work to impli- cate England in the quarrel, whereupon Paul with- drew his legates from the Spanish dominions and can- celled the legation of Pole. Although the tension of this state of affairs was in some measure remedied by concessions on the part of the pope, which were wrung from him by the success of Philip's arms, the cloud had by no means completely lifted, aggravated as it was by the pope's perverse conviction of Pole's doctrinal un- soundness, when the cardinal in Nov., 1558, con- tracted a mortal sickness and died a few hours after Queen Mary herself.

Throughout liis Ufe Pole's moral conduct was above reproach, his sincere piety and ascetical habits were the admiration of all. "Seldom", writes Dr. James Gairdner, than whom no one is more competent to pronounce judgment, "has any life been animated by a more single-minded purpose". As compared with the majority of his contemporaries, Pole was conspicu- ously gentle, both in his opinions and in his language. He had the gift of inspiring warm friendships and he was most generous and charitable in the administra- tion of his revenues.

An oarly life of Pole was written by his secretary Beccatelli. It may be found printed in QciRlNl's great collection, Epistolx Reginaldi Pali el aliorum ad se (5 vols., Brescia, 1744-57); upon these materials was founded the History of the Life of Reginald Pole by Philipps (Oxford. 1764). which still retains its value. A more modern biography is that of " Martin Haile" (Miss Mary Hallf), The Life of Reginald Pole (London. 1910); compare also ZiMMERMANN, Cardinal Pole (Freiburg, 1893); Antony, The Angelical Cardinal (London, 1909); Lee, Reginald Pole (London, 1888) ; an admirable account of Pole by Gairdner is given in Did. Nat. Biog.; on the other hand the Life of Pale in Hook'8 Archbishops of Canterbury (London, 1860-84) is disfigured by conspicuous anti-Catholic animus. Much useful supplementary information is furnished by the Monumenta Concilii Tridentini,