BCCCAP00000000000000000000835

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 Chateau– roux. This deserves more attention than can be given it 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 Chateauroux. 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 Paris 1454 the Observants are said to have lived in the convent since 1438; moreover, the Observants were in such peaceful possession of Chateauroux 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 some 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 incumbent (ibid., n.937, p.488b). 1s There is an interesting piece on Chateauroux by Fr. Raoul de Sceaux, O.F.M.Cap., Le couvent des Cordeliers de Chateauroux, in Stud.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 some details. 70 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 the 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. X~A 84, f.167v. See the letters of Maubert in J. GOYENS, O.F.M., Trois lettres inedites de fr. Jean Maubert, in Arch.Franc.Hist. 5(1912) 85-88. A fourth letter 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 reformed by the Count's initiative, is repeated by Pius II in Justis et rationabilibus (18 May 1462), when the convent was definitively given to the Observants (Bull.Franc. n.s. II, n.1016, p.530b).