AdamEaston.info

When in 1377 Gregory XI died suddenly and unexpectedly in Rome the cardinals moved to elect a new pope but they were obliged to do so in Rome, traditional home of the papacy and in the eyes of a populace who felt it was high time that there should be an Italian pope based in the Holy City, rather than yet another Frenchman idling away his days in the opulent splendour of Avignon. The cardinals split into factions and could not agree amongst themselves who should be the new pope so they took the unusual step of looking for a candidate who was not a cardinal.

The choice fell upon the austere reformer the Archbishop of Bari, Bartholomew Prignano. Eventually all agreed to elect him and he took the title Urban VI. The cardinals were happy, the Roman mob delighted and everyone exuded confidence in a job well done. Cardinals petitioned for new benefices and cash from the new pope and life seemed ready to return to normal.

Urban however had other ideas. Determined to make his mark he set about offending as many of those who had supported him as he could manage. The French cardinals rapidly tired of this erratic behaviour and retired to Agnani where eventually they declared the election had been unduly influenced by the Roman mob and was thus invalid. Electing a Frenchman, Clement VII as their pope they filed off back to Avignon and refused to recognise Urban.

The church was scandalised and several investigations undertaken into what had gone wrong. Adam Easton had been present with the cardinals throughout the events of 1377 and he became a central witness to the two main enquiries on behalf of the kingdom of Aragon and the Kingdom of Castille. Every time the pro Clement cardinals tried to make their excuses, they kept tripping over the testimony that Adam had given as we see below:

The Cardinal of Florence was asked to explain how come Adam Easton, monk of Norwich had seen a letter from the good cardinal to the Emperor saying that the election of Urban VI was free and fair. His reply was just a little unconvincing....

Ad sextum inquirendum respondeo quod verum fuit quod feci litteras scribi imperatori mandante Barens. qui sciebat me multum notum esse imperatori; verumtamen fuit et est quod scripsi unam cedulam manu mea propria quam secrete inclusi in ipsis litteris per quam imperatori notificavi quod non adhiberetur fiduciam illis que gesta erant nisi quatinus expediret quia negotium aliter se haberet et ut in brevi ipsum informarem. Et peto quod cedula mea manu propria scripta michi ostendatur. Similiter peto quod exibeantur littere quas eidem imperatori scripsi facta electione Dom. Nos. Clementi pape vii asserendo ipsum esse vere romanum pontificem. Quarum primas portavit decanus Visgradensis ambaxiator imperatoris predicti, et secundus portavit episcopus Wratislaviensis.

Next up was the Cardinal of Poitiers, Agrifolio and an old friend of Adam's. He too had to deal with Adam's assertion that he had written to the Emperor in similar terms to the Cardinal of Florence, but also that Adam had stayed with him, knew him well and had been presented to Urban VI by Agrifolio, thereby implicitly recognising the legitimacy of the new pope. His responses (see items 7,8 and 9 for the parts that deal specifically with Adam) once again lack conviction and hardly countermand Adam's testimony:

Ad primum interrogatorium respondit dictus Cardinalis de Agrifolio se habere notum dictum Franciscum Petri qui erat familiaris suus, non tamen commensalis, sed non recordatur dictus dominis cardinalis predicta verba unquam dixisse. Ymmo tenet firmiter non dixisse nec etiam ipse consuevit nec alii domini cardinali publicare seu dicere esto quod essent vera.

Ad secundum interrogatorium respondit quod contenta in dicto interrogatorio sunt totaliter falsa et mendosa nec de tota illa die dominis cardinalis vidit dictum Franciscum Petrum.

Ad tertium interrogatorium respondit se non recordari predicta dixisse nec credere ea dixisse nec etiam dictus Franciscus Petri qui ut predicitur non erat familiaris commensalis suus, positus fuerat in rotulo suo quod scriverit dictus ipse cardinalis nec dictus rotulus fuit oblatus usquequo dictus dominis cardinalis fuit in Anagnia nec postea vidit ipse dominum dictum Franciscum nec dictum rotulum.

Ad quartum interrogatorium respondit in sua conscientia quod ante ingressum conclavis non dixit nec dici fecit verbum aliquid de eligendo predictum dominus Barensis vel aliquem alium dicto dominus sct. Petri nec alicui alii nisi prout in depositione per eum tradita superius continetur nec etiam ipse unquam fuit in domo dominus sct. Petri.

Ad quintum interrogatorium respondit quod nunquam ipse procuravit quod dictus scutifer soorius suus qui vocabatur Bertrandus de Veyraco mitteretur ad imperatorem pro nunciando sibi electionem dicti dominus Verum est tamen quod tempore felicis recordationis dominus Gregorii nuncii imperatoris pro sequebantur in curia Romana confirmationem fieri de electione in regem Romanorum facta de filio imperatoris qui erat rex Bohemie et causa ista commissa fuerat per dominus Gregorium ipsi dominus de Agrifolio et quia tempore mortis dicti dominus Gregorii dicta confirmation nundum facta erat licet causa esset conclusa et dictus dominus Gregorius iam se disponeret ad ipsam confirmationem fiendem et ut ipse dominus de Agrifolioaudiverat suggestum fuerat imperatori quod ipse dominus de Agrifolio fuerat culpa de nimia tarda dicte confirmationis ipse dominus procuravit sociare dictum Bertrandum tanquam sibi fidum cuidam milita Neapolitano qui mandato Bertrandus portabat nova dicte electionis ad dictum imperatorem et scripsit ipse dominus unam litteram imperatori informando eum de diligentia et directione quas ipse dominus adhibuerat circa expeditionem confirmationis predicte committendo credentiam circa informationem predictam dicto Bertrando de Veyraco et mandavit ipsi Bertrando quod si absque dicto milite Neapolitano loqui posset secrete cum imperatore informaret eum de impressione quo dominis cardinalibus facta fuerat in electione dicti Barensis ex relatu dicti Bertrandi quam postea habuit dictus miles Neapolitanus scrivit tantum facere quod ipse Bertrandus dicto imperatori non potuit loqui ad partem nec eum informare de impressione predicta.

Ad sextum interrogatorium respondit dictus dominis cardinalis quod ipse bene cognoscenat dictum Christoforum Gallina sed quod predicta verba nunquam dixit.

Ad septimum interrogatorium respondit quod ipse bene cognoscebat dictum magistrum Adam qui erat satis sibi familiaris sed quod nunquam dixit dicta verba nec recordatur etiam ipsum introduxisse ad dominus barensiensis pro faciendo sibi reverentiam tamen si fecit fecit ad eiusdem magistri instantiam et ut dixit non est verum quod ipse rtinuerit dictum magistrum ad dormiendum in domo sua quia sibi nunquam fuerit consuetum ad dormiendum in domos sua aliquos retinere.

Ad octavum interrogatorium respondit se nunquam dixisse verba predicta dicto magistro Adam nec alicui alii addends eciam quod falsissimum est quod ordinatum fuerit illo tempore in Anglia Cardinales Gallicos non recipere ibi sua beneficia nam ipse dominus recipiebat in Anglia tunc pacifice et quiete de beneficiis que ibi habebat tria milia florenorum annuatim vel circa et dominus Pictavensis circa duo milia et dominus Albanensis circa quinque milia et dominus Ursinis circa duo milia et dominus sct. Eustachii magnam pecunie quantitatem et quam plures alii cardinalis Gallici.

Ad nonum interrogatorium respondit quo ad ambaxiatam dicti bertrandi de Veyraco ut superam in idem interrogario quo ad litteras de quibus fit mention respondit se in conscientia sua nunquam de Anagnia nec de Roma scripsisse ratione predicta episcopis Alamanie nec ut dixit habebatin totam Alamaniam notum aliquem prelatum nisi dominis Maguntinensem qui tunc erat remotus ab imperatore bene per xx dietas.

archivo segreto vaticano ARM LIV volume 16