# On Papal Conclaves/Appendix/Appendix A
### APPENDIX A.

It may perhaps be thought by some that Mr. Bergenroth has been hasty in giving credence to the existence of so astounding a dispensation, on the mere testimony of a posterior Spanish State-paper, however grave its nature may be. But in a collection of documents drawn from the Vatican Records, edited by their Keeper, Father Theiner, printed in the Vatican Palace, and issued with the imprimaturof the Court of Rome, we possess irrefragable evidence of two Papal utterances in the matter of marriages, which certainly fall very little short of this dispensation in laxness of morality. They are to be found in the Vetera Monumenta Poloniæ, 4 vols. folio, Rome, 1864. The first case is that of Casimir the Great of Poland (1333–70), who married Anne, daughter of the Duke of Lithuania, and, on her death, Adelaide of Hesse, who, 1336, returned to her father, being indignant at her husband.s infidelities. Casimir then became enamoured of his cousin, Hedwig, daughter of Henry Duke of Sagan, and, though Adelaide was alive, went through a marriage ceremony with her. At first he vainly sought, through his nephew, Louis of Hungary, to get a dispensation from Rome. For a while Urban V. would not hear ​thereof. What argument induced him to yield in the end is unknown; but that the marriage between Casimir and Hedwig came to be recognised by him as valid, during Adelaide's lifetime, is now proved by a Brief from Urban V. to Casimir, certifying that the charge brought against the latter, of having forged the dispensation for his marriage, was unfounded, and which Brief is printed in Vet. Mon. Pol. vol. i. p. 649. In it the Pope writes:—'Cum itaque, sicut accepimus ab aliquibus tuæ celsitudinis emulis famam Regii nominig denigrare conantibus, tam in judicio quam extra judicium, minus veraciter asseratur certas apostolicas litteras per quas tecum fuisse dispensatum dicebatur, quod cum dilectâ in Christo filiâ nobile muliere . . . . natâ dilecti filii nobilis viri Henrici ducis Zaganiensis . . . . matrimonium contrahere posses, falso fuisse tuo nomine fabricatas, nos ad famam ipsius tui nominis conservandam omnem infamiam, si quâ forsan contra celsitudinem tuam occasione premissorum, a quibus te reputavimus insontem, foret exorta, velut frivolam, et inanem tenore presentium penitus abolemus, ita quod nihil ex prædictis contra excellentiam tuam in judicio vel extra in perpetuum possit objici vel opponi.' While the term matrimonium is conclusive of the light in which the tie between Casimir and Hedwig was considered by the Pope, it is remarkable, that though certifying to their authenticity, he guards himself against expressing approval of these same 'litteras prædictas.'
The second case given is that of an authorization to Alexander Duke of Lithuania, and ​afterwards King of Poland, to put away his wife, merely because she belonged to the Eastern Church, in direct violation of his solemn oath when wedding her, that he never would subject her to any compulsion on account of their difference in faith. At p. 288, vol. ii. of the Mon. Pol. will be found a Brief from Pope Alexander VI., with date 8th June 1501, in which we read,—'Declaravit orator tuus quod cum nohilem Helenam in uxorem tuam acciperes, per medium oratorum tuorum patri ejusdem inter cetera pollicitus es, quod etiam juramento forte dictornm oratornm sub nomine tuo confirmatum extitit, nunquam eandem compulsurum ad ritum Romanæ ecclesiæ suscipiendum.' This promise the Pope commends Alexander for having observed during five years, but as in spite of his indulgence the said Helena persisted in remaining an obstinate schismatic he absolves him from his pledge ('Non obstantibus promissionibus et juramentis prædictis, qui bus te nullatenus teneri tenore præsentium declaramus'). The Duke is directed, however, once more to seek the effect of kind persuasion to induce his wife to fall away from the 'pessima Ruthenorum secta,' but if she still proves recalcitrant, then the Bishop of Wilna 'eandem Helenam a cohabitatione thori tui separet, et aliis maritalibus obsequiis privet, ac penitus a te dimoveat.' But in spite of this Papal authorization there was a practical difficulty about effecting this repudiation. Helena was the daughter of the powerful Duke of Muscovy, who was likely to resent an affront to his child in a manner the force of Poland might be unable to defy. ​Accordingly, Duke Alexander, who had meanwhile succeeded to the throne of Poland, deemed it prudent to defer repudiation, at least until the death of his father-in-law, who was advanced in years, and applied to the reigning Pope, Julius II., to sanction a postponement of his persecuting zeal. This request Julius granted in a Brief, also given by Theiner, vol. ii. p. 319, which, from its ingenuous language, is the most astonishing Papal document we know. Without circumlocution, the Pope gives expression to the purely secular consideration that weighed in his decision,—'Considerans quod, . . . . illius pater Moscoviæ dux præfatus, qui tibi finitimus dicionis amplitudine ac viribus est potentior, iniquo id ferens animo, facile rursus belia et damna intollerabilia tibi ac terris regnicolisque ejus inferre posset;' the Pope graciously listens to the King's humble request that, by apostolical kindness, he might be indulged to put up with his wife ('uxorem præfatim tollerandi') until the death of the already decrepit Duke of Muscovy, or some other opportunity, by God's favour, should render repudiation free from risk ('donee per obitum dicti Moscoviæ ducis, qui jam etate decrepitus est, vel per aliam aliquam occasionem, dispensante Altissimo opportunitas offeratnr aliter in hac parte providendi'). Accordingly, Pope Julius assents, under certain provisos, to his retaining Helena as his wife until such time as he can send her away without fear of unpleasant consequences ('uxorem tuam velut hactellus tollerare et habitare cum eâdem libere et licite valeas, nec ad ipsam dimittendam tenearis, donce aliqna opportuna occasio aliter ​in hâc parte deliberandi, ut premittitur offeratur'). Of course, in all these practical dissolutions of marriage, the Church which pronounces marriage a sacrament never professes to dissolve this, but always puts forward some flaw which it is the duty of canonists to invent as the ground for declaring ipso facto null and voill the contract in question. This may be distinctive of the ability of the doctors, but does not remove the immorality of the proceeding. It would be desirable, however, to see the original text of the dispensations in the cases of Henry of Castile and Casimir of Poland, and so to judge by what quibble acts were justified which, so far as we can judge, are infinitely more outrageous than the concession to grave expediency once made by Luther, and which Romanists are never tired of hurling at his head. See also Geschichte Polens in Heeren and Ukert's Collection, vol. xi. p. 332, for some criticisms on Theiner's documents.