BCCCAP00000000000000000000821

WILLIAM OF VAUROUILLON, O.MIN. 305 But we are thus anticipating an affair that was to bring Vaurouillon much grief and which does not reflect glory either on the Observants or on the Province of Touraine, the affaire Cháteau– roux. This deserves more attention than can be given ít in the space of this article, yet at least the overall picture must be sketched 78 . The story begins about 1438, when, with the authority of William da Casale, Minister General, Guy II de Chauvigny, Viscount of Brosse, introduced a reform and installed Nicholas Gui ( Guidonis) as guardian 79 • His ancestors had, according to tradition, brought the first friars to France with the blessing of Saint Francis himself, and founded the earliest convent in France at Cháteauroux. Through the years the family had remained the protector and defender of this cradle of Franciscanism. It is not surprising then to find this pious lord so intensely interested in the spiritual welfare and regular observance of the convent. Nonetheless, reports of this reform are confusing and even contradictory, depending on which party is narrating past history! In the decision made at París 1454 the Observants are said to have lived in the convent since 1438; moreover, the Observants were in such peaceful possession of Cháteauroux in 1446 that John de Maubert intended to hold a general congregation of the Ultramontane family there after Easter. Pius II (28 April 1460) seems to corroborate their continued presence: ipse guardianus [i.e., Nicholas Guidonis] et alii fratres ... sub reformatione regulari et Observantia praedicta eatenus deguissent. Yet both Nicholas V (Callistus III) and Pius II (1460) imply also that sorne Conventuals continued to live in the house 80 • In contrast, rehearsing the question in 1461, Pius II states that Yvo Fabri motu proprio et specialiter conventum reformavit, and that only after Yvo's death did his successor in office, Peter n.774, p.398b). On 7 August 1461 the same Pontiff speaks of an appeal made by the minister provincial, who is apparently William and not a new incumben! (ibid., n.937, p.488b). 78 There is an interesting piece on Chi\teauroux by Fr. Raoul de Sceaux, O.F.M.Cap., Le couvent des Cordeliers de Chdteauroux, in Etud.Franc. n.s. 2(1951) 187-212. The pages de– voted to Vaurouillon (198-203), however, suffer from an inexact chronology and lack of at– tention to sorne details. 79 Nicholas V, Sane (27 March 1453) and Exhibita siquidem (8 March 1455), in Bull. Franc. n.s. I, n.1647, 1810, p.820s, 894s. It is evident that, by reason of the death of thc Pope, 24 March 1455, the second document was not promulgated. It was issued, with no cha11ges save in the name of the pope, by Callistus III, 22 January 1456 (Bull.Franc. n.s. II, n.120, p.65). See also Pius II, Sic decet, 28 April 1460 (ibid., n.774, p.396b-397a). so For the Paris decision, cf. Archiv.Nat. X1A 84, f.167v. See the !etters of Maubert in J. GoYENS, O.F.M., Trois lettres inédites de fr. lean Maubert, in Arch.Franc.l-list. 5(1912) 85-88. A fourth Ietter is to be found ibid. 2(1909) 448-450; and further details ibid., 38(1945) 16-22. See the preceding note for the pontifical documents. This version, that the convent was Teformed by the Count's initiative, is repeated by Pius II in Iustis et rationabilibus (18 May 1462), when the convent was definitively given to the Observants (Bull.Franc. n.s. II, n.1016, p.530b).