Talk:1334 papal conclave

Trollope
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)


 * See the remarks of


 * --Vicedomino (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Clarify Trollope please.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 * He's in the "Books and articles" section. --Vicedomino (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)