uflirms, with more semblance of truth, that Adrian coiitined himself to deniaiuling Arnold's degradation, so that he might be delivered over to the secular power. According to the author of a j)oem recently discovered (and he seems to be well mformed), Ar- nold wlien brouglit in siglit of the gallows faced his death courageously. When urged to recant his teachings, he answered tliat he had nothing to with- draw, and waa ready to suffer death for them. He a-sked only for a brief respite to pray and beg Christ's pardon for his sins. After a short mental prayer he gave him.self up to the executioner, and offered his heiul to the noose. After hanging from the gallows for a short time, his body was burned, and the ashes thrown into the Tiber, for fear", says one chron- icler, " lest the people might collect them and honour them a.s the ashes of a martyr".
"Forger of heresies", "sower of schisms", "enemy of the Catholic Faith", "schismatic", "heretic", sucn are the terms used by Otto of Freisingen, by the author of the " Histona Pontificalis", by the .\bbot of Clairvaux, by Eugenius III, and Adrian IV to stigmatize Arnold. Given the vagueness of these characterizations, it is not ea.sy to specify the dog- matic errors into which the innovator fell. Otto of Freisingen echoes a rumour according to which Ar- nold held offensive views on baptism and the I'Ai- charist. His contemporaries (notably St. Bernard, who pursued so bitterly the "squire" of Abelard) lay nothing of the kind to his charge. The abbot of Clairvaux in one of his letters accuses Arnold of being " an enemy of the Cross of Christ". But must we conclude from this that .\rnold was a follower of Pierre de Bruys, who condemned the adoration of the Cross? It is much more probal)Ie that the words of St. Bernard are to be taken broadly or in a met- aphorical sense. In reality it was in practical mat- ters that Arnold showed himself inimical to the teachings accepted at his time. He began by con- demning the abuses occasioned by the wealth of the churchmen, an act which in itself placed him in the class of true reformers; St. Bernard and Gerhoh de Reichersperg said the same thing. But Arnold did not stop at this; he went so far as to deny the very principle of proprietary right as claimed by the ('hurcn, and thereby a-ssailed the temporal power of the papacy. " -Ml earthly possessions belong to the prince; the pope should relinquish the government of Rome; bishops, priests, and monks can own noth- ing without incurring the penalty of eternal damna- tion. " On all these various points the innovator, to say the least, was plainly guilty of temerity. .Vnd since he clashed with a hierarchy that was not pre- pared to sanction his views, he ended by questioning its authority. According to him, the Church had become corrupt in the persons of covetous and simo- niacal priests, bishops, and cardinals, and was no longer the true Church. "The pope", he says, "is no longer the real Apostolicus, and, as he does not exemplify in his life the teachings of the .Apostles, there is no obligation of reverence and obedience towards him. " The unworthy clergy lose the right of administering the sacraments, and the faithful need no longer confess to them. It is sufficient that they confess to one another. If it be true, as stated by the anonymous author of the poem above quoted, that .\mold had fallen into these errors, the schis- matical and heretical character of his teachings re- mains no longer doubtful. His disciples, i. e. those whom the thirteenth-century documents call the Arnoldists, or .XrnaUlists, taught other errors no less serious, for which, however, Arnold cannot justly be heUl responsible.
For the original authorities conceminK Arnold, ar« IlUtoria Ponlilicalu (the author of which jh probably John of Sai.is- Bl'RY^ in Man. Grrm. Hilt. (fol.. Hnnover, 1808). XX. 537. 838: Otto of Fhkisinokn. «<•«(<! FrulrriH imvrrntnri: II, 20-23. in Mm. Orrm. Hit!., XX, 306. 307, 403. 404; Uun-
THER, Lit/urinut, vernosi 202-348, in P. i., CCXII, 389-371; Genta per imprralortrm Fridericum Barbam Rubeam in partibm Lombardie tt lUilif, fragment of an anonymouH p<jein, pub- lished by K. MoNACi in Archixio dcUa tocirtii rumurui di tturia patri/i (Rome, 18781, I, 400-474; .Xnnatet Auuuntani Minvrci. in Mon. Uerm. tliat., X, 8; Bono, Vita Ihidrinni IV, in UucHEM.NK. l.Uiir pontiftcalit (Pans, 1889), II, 390; Uttrrt Iff Eutieniua III, in Haku.mub, AnntiUa eccUtijutu-i (ad. ann. 1148. No. 38); Geriiuii of KKlriiF.RHPERG. De Inimtiuiitiont Antifhrinti, I, xlii; e<l. SrHEiaEi.liKROER (187.1), I, 87-89; 8t. Bernard, Epitt., clxxxix, cxcii, cxcv, cxovi, in J'. L., CLXXXII, 354-357. 358, 359, 301-362, 303, 304; Lttltr of Wfttzki.. the diNciplo of Arnold, and an anont/mous letter [possibly Ahnoi.d'h] in MARxfcNE and Dcrand, Vtterum Bcriptorum et monumrntorum . . . ampliasivui rnttectio (I'arifl, 1724), II, 554-557, 309, 400; Anon., CommenUiire dea cauf hirHiques, inserted in lIiiQuccn»'rt tiumma Decreti. 1211-15, xxix of Cause 23, quest. 4. cf. Tancn*. Hialoire dea tritiunaux de i'lnquviition (Pans, 1893), 450, note 2; Bitonacohso of Mir.AN (end of twelfth century). Vita hcneticonim, in P. L., IX'IV, 791-792; Sciai.ciiiN. Arnold von Ureacia (Zurich. 1872); Benvicenni, Arnntdu da Bretcia, eondennato a morte per ordine di papa Adriano IV (Florence, 1873); Giehe- URECiiT, Arnold von Bntcia (Munich, 1873; Italian transla- tion by Odouki, Brescia, 1877): de Castro, AmaUlo da Breacia e la rirolurione romana del Xllo areola (Leghorn, 1875); G. Gaooia, Amaldoda Breaeui (Brescia. 1882); E. Vacandard, Amauld de Brvacia, in the Revue dea queat. hiator. (Paris. 1884), XXXV, 62-114; cf. Vie de Saint Bernard (Paris, 1895), II, 235-245, 257, 258, 407-409): F. Torro, Lereaia nel medio evo (Florence, 1884), 231-250; and Quel ehe nun ei nelta Ditina Commedia, o DonU e lereaia (BoloKna, 1899); Hausrath, Arnold von Bretria (LeipiiK, 1891); Michele di Polo, Due novatori del Xllo aecolo (Florence, 1894). 79 sqq.; E. Couba, / rwstri proUatanti: Avanti la Riforma (Florence, 1895), [, 173 sq.; Fechtrui', Arnold von Breacia in KirchenUz., I, 1419-20; DEtrrecn, Arnold von Breacia in Re'itencyelopiidie fur proleal. Theoloaie und Kireht (3d ed., I-eipjig, 1897), II, 117-122; Vernet, Amaud de Breacia in Di<:t. de th/ol. cath. (Paris, 1903), I, 1972-75. For other lesa important references see: Chevalier, Repertoire dea aourcce hiat, du moyen t'tge (2d ed.. 320, 321).
Amoldi (or di Arnoldo), Alberto, an Italian sculptor and architect, b. at Florence, fourteenth century. In 13G4, he made for the church of Santa Maria del Bigallo, in Florence, the colossal group of the Blessed Virgin and Child with two angels (at- tributed by an error of Vjisari to Andrea Pisano). Arnoldi worked at this group from 1359 to 1364. As architect, he directed the works of the cathe- dral of Florence about 13.58.
CicooNARA, Storia della acultura; Peumorks, Italieniache Forachunnen; Biographie (/frUrale (Paris, 180G).
Thomas II. Poole.
Amoldi, Bartholomaus, usually called I'singen, after his birthplace, an Augustinian friar, teacher of Luther, and with him inmate of the Augustinian monastery at Erfurt; b. in H()3; d. at Wiirzburg, 9 September, 1.532. He received his master's de- gree in 1491 and was promoted to the doctorate of divinity in 1.514 (Jurgens, Luther, I, 4.30, Leipzig, 1S4G). For thirty years he filled the chairs of philosophy and theology at the Erfurt University, and with Jodocus Tnittfotter was its most illustrious teacher (Kampschulte, Die I'niversitat Erfurt, I, 46, Trier, 1S.5S). He stood in high repute for holiness of life (OeWette, I, 19; Walch, XXI, 532), rare in- tellectual endowments, and unswerving loyalty to the Church (Krauso, Helius Eobanus Uessius, I, 339, 352, Gotha, 1879). He enjoyed the favour of the younger humanists (Eoban, De laud, et pra-con. inch Gymn;us. lit. ap. Erphordiam, A. a. b. Erph., 1.507), wa.s lauded as a dialectician and logician, and was Luther's teacher in both these branches (Kolde, Die deutscho Aupnstiner Congr., 245, (5otha, 1879). Luther had an alTectionate regard for him (DeWette, I, 38, 2.56; Walch, XXI, .5,52) and after the Heidelberg Disputation (ilay, 1518) travelled in his company from Wiirzburg to Erfurt, during which ho made ineffectual efforts to wean him from his ecclesiastical allegiance (ib., I, 112). In 1.521, during the uprising of the mob against the priest- hood and the pillaging of their property, he boldly denounced the rioters from the pulpit (Paulus, Der .\ugusfiner Monch Joh. Iloffmeistcr, 125, Freiburg, 1891). In 1522 he delivered a series of