Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a24a7d3f5cf2b179

Jump to content

Talk:1334 conclave

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 year ago by RMCD bot in topic Move discussion in progress

Trollope

[edit]

The following statement is attributed to Trollope, with a reference: "A common practice at the time was for Cardinals to vote for a Cardinal who was not considered a real possibility for the papacy on the first ballot, in order to see how the other Cardinals were leaning. However, this time, an unusual thing happened: every Cardinal except Cardinal Fournier independently voted for Fournier. The Cardinals had not planned this, so the accession of the obscure Fournier on the first ballot was an entirely accidental affair." Trollope does not say that at all. In fact, he has only the anecdote (from Villani) about the Cardinal de Comminges; he did not investigate this conclave, and cannot be considered an authority. I do not know who the source of the quotation is, but, since the Conclave lasted a week, it is very unlikely that Fournier was elected on the first ballot. No source I know of so states.

Trollope appears not to be aware that, at this time, a scrutiny (ballot is not quite the correct word) was not the secret paper ballot we know of today. In 1334, each cardinal, in order of seniority, beginning with the cardinal-bishops, rose and stated aloud whom he "elected". That being the case, the election of Fournier cannot have been "an entirely accidental affair".

In general one needs to be careful with Trollope. He was a protestant, and, as his work indicates, rather unacquainted with the details of Catholic practices. His principal source for this period was the notorious Gregorio Leti, a 17th century Catholic critic who turned protestant and became a propagandist for Protestantism and against Romanism (i.e. the ultramontane tendency). His was a popular book, not a scholarly one. Vicedomino (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

See the remarks of Alexander Graf von Hübner (1872). The Life and Times of Sixtus the Fifth. Vol. Volume I. Longmans, Green. pp. 18–20. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help)
--Vicedomino (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)Reply
Clarify Trollope please.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)Reply
He's in the "Books and articles" section. --Vicedomino (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2025 papal conclave which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. RMCD bot 17:15, 8 June 2025 (UTC)Reply