The Papal Prince. One body and two souls: the papal monarchy in early modern Europe 0521322596

Citation preview

The Library SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY AT CLAREMONT

WEST FOOTHILL AT COLLEGE AVENUE CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA 91711

THE PAPAL PRINCE One body and two souls: the papal monarchy in early modern Europe

Se

a

A

La ee)

pl

slo

PAOLO

ee

el ec! elem

i

PRODI

translated by Susan Haskins

The right of the University of Cambridge to print and sell all manner of books was granted by Henry VHI in 1534.

The University has printed and published continuously since 1584.

CAMBRIDGE New York

UNIVERSITY

PRESS

Cambridge New Rochelle Melbourne

Sydney

n

Da

Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge The Pitt Building, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1RP 32 East 57th Street, New York, NY 10022, USA 10 Stamford Road, Oakleigh, Melbourne 3166, Australia Originally published in Italian as Il sovrano pontifice, un

corpo e due anime: la monarchia papale nella prima età moderna and © 1982 by Società Editrice Il Mulino, Bologna, by arrangement with Eulama, Rome First published in English by Cambridge University Press 1987

English translation © Susan Haskins 1987 Printed in Great Britain by the University Press, Cambridge British Library cataloguing in publication data Prodi, Paolo The papal prince, one body and two souls: the papal monarchy in early modern Europe. 1. Papacy — History — 1447-1565 2. Papacy — History — 1566-1799 I. Title II. Il sovrano pontifice, un corpo e due anime. English

262’.13'09024

BX955.2

Library of Congress cataloguing in publication data Prodi, Paolo. [Sovrano pontefice. English] The papal prince: one body and two souls: the papal monarchy in early modern Europe / by Paolo Prodi: translated by Susan Haskins.

p.

cm.

Translation of: Il sovrano pontefice. Bibliography: p. Includes index.

ISBN 0 521 32259 6 2. Papal States — History.

1. Popes — Temporal power — History. I. Title.

BX1810.P8413 1987 262'.132 —dc19 87-17207

CIP

ISBN 0 521 322596

Theology Library

SCHOOL OF THEOIL OCY AT CLAREMONT California VN

Contents

Preface 1

page vii

A.new monarchy: from the patrimony of St Peter to the principality

1

2

The sovereign: prince and pastor

del

3

Power and image

37

4

The legal system: canon law and civil law

59

5

Government machinery between politics and religion

79

6

Priesthood and political magistracy: clergy and laity

7

State reason and Church reason: Tridentine reform and the case of Bologna

123

The exercise of primacy and foreign policy

15%

8

»

102

Last, but not final, considerations

182

Notes

186

Bibliography

cui

Index

283

4 ui nea

Preface

When one goes further into largely unexplored areas of research in which, after years of work, the grey areas still predominate, one can either give up making one’s findings available, and confine oneself to making marginal notes on the separate pieces of research — or try to trace an outline, even an approximate one, of what has been discovered, knowing that many elements will soon be superseded and disputed, and that the work's usefulness will actually consist in having provoked the critics, and through them, further research. In the present case, however, it is far more necessary to define the ultimate objective of the study (even though one is quite aware of not having reached it) and also the explicit boundaries which have been imposed on the research. The object of this study is to try to understand some aspects of the relationship between spirituality and temporality in the concrete exercise of power, from around the mid-fifteenth century to the mid-seventeenth. We hope that the selection of this period will be justified in the course of this research. It is not our intention to take the conventional approach to the history of theological or political dogma. For our purposes, references to the mass of studies on the theological or political history of modern Europe will the be purely instrumental; even less is this study intended as an outline of State. Papal the of or curia Roman ofthe institutional history ofthe papacy, within The reader will know the basic historical background but the gaps if we even filled, be cannot picture, complete a this, which at present hinder is achieved be should What this. as such should like them to be, by a study ed constrain have to seem which aspects the identification of some of those s that even the latest studies, forcing them to adopt anachronistic approache our of widening a to way the point can lead nowhere. If this study aim. its knowledge, it will have achieved of analysis is The point of view which can put in focus the various levels vii

viii

The Papal Prince

twofold. On the one hand, there is the development of the papacy’s new monarchical shape after the end of the conciliar crises and, on the other, the concrete exercise of power on the universal Latin Church during the decline of the medieval respublica christiana and the overpowering ascent of the political system of the modern states and of the new economy. The interest of the first of these two approaches lies in the definition of the papacy's monarchical ideals, not so much in the writings of the best-known theorists — theologians and canonists — but as the practice found in the customs of the Roman court, in the literature, art and in other modes of expression, in particular in the recovery ofa classical model which was no longer regarded as competitive and foreign, but as intrinsic to the new Rome of the popes. The development of this model seems entirely parallel to the one which was taking place, more or less contemporaneously, in the other European states, and often preceded them on the way to exalting the personal power of the princes. At a second, and rewarding, level is the research into the consequences of this process with regard to law and the institutions of the Roman curia, in the government of the Church and of the State. Further . ecclesiastical centralisation and its corollaries — politicisation, enlargement of bureaucracy, and abuses — seem to be Rome's traditional response to the problems posed by the centrifugal forces which threatened it. The efforts towards reform in capite et in membris, proclaimed and continuously restated during the whole of this period, one after another came to nothing because of these underlying institutional tendencies, and certainly not through individual moral weakness nor the abuses on which so much of traditional historiography still dwells. The end of the process is the assertion of a hierarchical and clerical dimension which stresses the separation of the Church from lay society — leaving the traditional symbiosis of the preceding period — and at the same time, absorbing the methods of a secularised society. The new discipline tends to produce within the Church, well beyond the individual’s conscious perspectives, an external face, a hierarchy, and an organisation as distinct as possible from those of the secular society, but in some ways reflections of them, with the clericalisation of many spheres of the Christian life previously independent. An essential point in understanding this process seems to be the double role, the two-dimensional character — at the same time spiritual and temporal — of papal sovereignty over the universal Latin Church and its own lordship, the Papal State. It is well known that the popes of the second half of the fifteenth century and of the sixteenth were viewed in this double aspect by contemporary observers from Machiavelli to Paruta. But what has been almost entirely neglected is the significance of this symbiosis at the level of internal structures, in the Roman curia and in the provinces and dioceses of

Preface

SETE

the Papal State, both from a religious and civil point of view; what remain equally unresearched are the repercussions that this symbiosis had externally, in the general framework of European society, before and after the Reformation. From the mid-fifteenth century, the papacy was aware that the principal guarantee of its independence in the new European State system lay in the formation and growth of its own State. From these years, the temporal sovereignty, transforming itself into a principality, took on an importance which it had never had in the life of the Church and of Rome, becoming a capital city and a magnet capable of attracting a notable part of

the Peninsula’s intellectual and economic strength. Because of its internal

contradictions, the Roman principality could not and did not know how to change itself into a modern state on the lines of the other secular states, but its presence in the western world of the early modern period is far from being passive and secondary as a large part of traditional historiography would lead us to believe. The inquiry which we shall try to develop presumes a fuller historical cycle in which the long-term elements of continuity, through the Renaissance, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, prevail over the elements of change from one to another of these phases — at least with regard to the most widespread historical interpretations. Both in the development of ecclesiastical structures and discipline and in the efforts to assert State authority — it is possible to see a continuity, certainly not without its contradictions, but consistent as a reply to the problems facing the modern

papacy. Now that this long period of research is at an end, I should like to express my thanks to those to whom I owe so much. These come at three levels, the first of which is my family: from the ‘wide’ family in which I grew up to the one which is made up of my wife Adelaide, and my children Giovanni Andrea, Marta, Gabriele and Mario. At a second level are those friends whom I met when I first began this project, from the great scholars such as Hubert Jedin and Delio Cantimori (to mention only two names from among the many to whom I am personally indebted), to those I have worked with, not and to my pupils and students; to all those who have always given me even and, also but , knowledge cultural and stimuli of only their wealth I should more important, a sense of the dignity and value of our profession.

and also like to thank the institutions in which I have worked in Bologna the especially and Trent, in manico Italo-Ger Storico Rome, the Istituto DC, on Washingt in Scholars for Center onal Woodrow Wilson Internati ideas which which, with a fellowship for 1978-9, allowed me to work on the stimulating highly in years, few previous the in I had been developing My disposal. my at Congress of Library the surroundings and with

CHAPTER

cae

ONE

A new monarchy: from the patrimony of St Peter to the principality

. . .Multo igitur et melius et sanctius regitur populus, qui sub bono sacerdote, quam qui sub bono laico gubernatur: potest enim hic aliquando sacerdotibus a adversari, qui non sunt ei circa sacramenta subiecti. [lle qui preest omnibus, gerere bellum quod est, se ipso dissentire non potest. Neque illud impedimento aut sententiam sanguinis dicere sacerdotes prohibitos’ asseris. Hec enim Sed possunt per alios exercere, quemadmodum nec reges per se omnia gerunt. urbium ibus magistrat alia rum, provincia rectoribus alia ducibus, belli alia ad excommittunt ... Quod si plereque civitates subiecte sacerdotibus o patrimoni in odum quemadm videntur, terminium quodammodo deducte fideles parum subditi quia vel accidit, id novimus; Ecclesie non paucas Pontifices fuerunt, novitatibus ac seditionibus gaudentes; vel quia summi .* . . unt converter abusi potestate, regium imperium in tyrannidem (Piccolomini, b, p. 581)

are almost The history of the Church of Rome and that of the papacy systems in entirely left out of accounts of the origins of political and social ding the Europe. Much has been said about a conspiracy of silence surroun rise given have papacy in early modern Europe; 1 the gaps in our knowledge is ruled far better and more in * So a people which is under the government of a good priest a good layman. My reason for under is which one than s principle religious with accordance conflict with priests who are into come time, to time from can, ruler lay saying this is that the above all men, can hardly is he as far so in not bound to him by oaths. But the priestly ruler, to take part in war or be at odds with himself. And if you argue that priests are forbidden out through the carried be can tasks these for matter; not does this death, to sentence a man s. On the themselve task every perform not do kings as way agency of others, just in the same l rulers, provincia their to some chiefs, military contrary, they entrust some matters to their rule of priests appear to be reduced the under states some if But es. magistrat city to others of the Church in the same position. almost to extinction, we also know not a few in the care loyal and take pleasure in radical little too are subjects This happens either because the power and transformed a royal power plotting, or because the supreme Pontiffs misuse their

into a tyrannical one.

2

|

The Papal Prince

to distortions in the various attempts to reconstruct the phenomenon in its

entirety. We can do no better therefore than turn to the introduction of Leopold von Ranke’s admirable history of the popes in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, where some 150 years ago he justified his argument. Rather than approach the subject from the angle of the papacy's influence on the contemporary world, by then in irreversible decline, he dealt with its development and function in the sphere of world history, in the most decisive periods of its evolution: . decisive metamorphoses are examined, in the power of the popes, in their principles, propensities and aspirations; above all, it isthe Church's influence which has undergone the major changes. For the observer, the most interesting thing is to scrutinise these transformations. Here is made manifest a general historical theme of the comprehensive development of world history.?

In the context of world history, the papacy maintains its importance not only in the Middle Ages, its period of uncontested power, but even more so in the period of crisis in the realpolitik of emerging nation states and the aftermath of the Reformation. Von Ranke’s theme should be taken up and restated today. Research into the interrelationships between the Church of Rome and the medieval political world during the formation of the modern states was notably extended in the last few decades. The same cannot be said, however, for the present period. It is now almost a commonplace to say that the medieval papacy opened the road to the modern State by leading the way to the modern concept and exercise of sovereignty, and towards a concentration of power and bureaucracy. It is a view which certainly needs refinement and qualification; nevertheless, the fruitfulness of the argument, from its first coherent expression in J. N. Figgis’s writings at the beginning of this century down to its most recent formulations, is undeniable. The thesis has been further enriched by widening the scope from the level of political thought to discussion of organisation and bureaucratic techniques.? Without entering into this vast question (some aspects of which will be touched upon in the course of this inquiry), it is enough to remember Kantorowicz's splendid formulation: Under the pontificalis maiestas of the pope, who was styled also ‘Prince’ and ‘true emperor’, the hierarchical apparatus of the Roman Church tended to become the perfect prototype of an absolute and rational monarchy on a mystical basis, while at the same time the State increasingly showed a tendency to become a quasi-Church or a mystical corporation on a rational basis . . .*

Today, it is more or less accepted that the prototype for the modern State. It has already the first hierarchy of courts with positive procedure into the West; it rationalised for

Church of Rome served as a been noted that it introduced written laws and uniform the first time the system of

cue

eee

Galli

RA) CARA

sli it

È

Pri ì

. A new monarchy: from the patrimony of St Peter to the principality

3

imposing and collecting taxes, and initiated the practice of anticipating revenue by the sale of offices; it had the first foreign minister, the first diplomatic corps and the first standing mercenary army, and so forth.° It has also been stated that the symbiotic growth between the political and ecclesiastical bodies did not end in the Middle Ages but continued into more recent times, despite the papacy’s having lost its leading role. H. O. Evennett advances the parallel between the contemporaneous regrouping of the Catholic world of the Counter-Reformation and the reorganisation of the states. Both were spurred on by the same historical causes, which arose not from yague similarities in inspiration but rather | from a development of precise and homogeneous administrative methods and new organs of government for the exercise of power.° This is merely scratching the surface of areas still to be explored. Even the latest studies yielding new perspectives for the interpretation of the Counter-Reformation as a modernising process seem to be restricted to more explicitly sociological aspects. Thus, explanation of the institutional characteristics more properly inherent in the exercise of power is ignored.” Some interesting research has been done in the sphere of political thought in relation to the development of the modern concept of sovereignty and of State.* Political and institutional analysis of the papacy from the early Renaissance to the end of the CounterReformation has, however, been almost entirely neglected. At the end of his thought-provoking outline of medieval papal government, Walter Ullmann reiterates his theory that in the fifteenth century the papacy brought an end to itself by renouncing its universal mission and by reducing itself to a purely political power.’ Although a fascinating argument, it is a somewhat simplistic one in its tendency to interpret the phenomenon as a purely degenerative process. It is here that the significance of this ‘suicide’ should be examined in connection with the history of Europe. The importance of the institutional transformation of the in papacy, which is indisputable, and which takes place in this period clearly been now until has states, merging relation to the dynamic of the underestimated. Why? It has recently been stressed that the popes of the early modern period of should not be regarded as Italian ‘princes’ and that the transformation had have ily necessar must lity principa their temporal rule into a modern of the repercussions which reached far further than the internal wars unconeven , remained however has Peninsula.!° The dominant opinion ed one of sciously, Burckhardtian. Here the Renaissance papacy is consider under its us anomalo ist, protagon the the major states of the Peninsula, y have certainl would it dt, various aspects; and, according to Burckhar not had it, g attackin in tion, become secular of its own accord if the Reforma of origins the trace to simple fairly is forced it to assume new functions.!! It

4

The Papal Prince

this historical assumption back to the early interpretations of Machiavelli and Guicciardini; it is perhaps useful to reread the passage in the latter’s History of Italy on the metamorphosis of the Renaissance papacy: With these foundations and with these means directed at terrestrial power, little by little the health of the soul and divine precepts were consigned to memory, and all their [the popes’] thoughts turned to wordly greatness. Using spiritual authority only as an instrument and ministry of temporal life, they began to appear as secular princes rather then pontiffs. No longer were they the caretakers and dispensers of the sanctity of life, no longer did they spread religion, no longer did they turn with zeal and charity towards their neighbour but, with armies and wars against Christians, treating sacrifices with bloody hands and thoughts, they accumulated treasures, new laws, new ways and new snares to collect money from everywhere; to this end using spiritual ammunition reagrdless, to this end shamelessly selling sacred and profane objects.!?

Leaving aside the purely moral judgement, Guicciardini’s lucid analysis contains many of the questions still at the root of our inquiries. These concern elements which determined the transformation of the temporal dominion of the pontiffs into a principality, and the structures which from within steered the development which led to the consequences (in foreign and fiscal policies, etc.) that Guicciardini indicates. He also discusses the use of spiritual power as a political instrument, its importance and the effects thereof in the wider perspective of the Church and the western world. Contemporaneously, the debate could only be dominated on one side by the

tragic moral crisis which cast all traditional values in doubt, and, on the other, by the drama of the end of Italy’s freedom, which put the blame on the papacy for the unification, placing the Peninsula in a secularly inferior position with regard to the new monarchies. Even modern scholarship has failed to shake off the old attitudes which conditioned it until today, also adding all the tensions arising from the process of national unification.!3 Von Ranke’s warning has remained unheeded while Church historians have shown this evolution from very different points of view as a cross between reforming effort and the corruption which had accumulated on the late medieval structures of the papacy and the Church. The polemic has always been dominated by the Reformation and by the reply which the Church of Rome gave, anticipating or confined by events, to the urgent need for renewal.}* The insistence on abuses and on the war against abuses as a pivot of historical reasoning demonstrates a lack of historiographical vision and an interpretative split between civil and ecclesiastical history which has prevented a true understanding of the problem. At the beginning of this century, Johannes Haller had already suggested that the reform of the Church should be regarded as essentially political rather than moral in the new relationship between the Catholic Church and the emerging national

; . A new monarchy: from the patrimony of St Peter to the principality

5

states. But the warning seems to have been largely disregarded. 15 Even the latest discussions, however open to the most modern requirements of institutional and structural investigation, still seem to give in to a dualistic situation in which political and religious questions come into contact but do not blend in this mysterious phenomenon which continues to be Rome in modern Europe.?®

The government of the lands held legitimately by the papacy posed no problem during the Middle Ages, and there was at the time no reason for placing a negative judgement on the specific question of papal sovereignty. This idea is put forward by Peter Partner at the end of his recent study of the lands of St Peter at the end of the Middle Ages: the Papal State became a cause for scandal only in the modern period.!” By extension, we can say that it was precisely with the transformation of the papal possessions into a principality that the popes’ temporal sovereignty became a historical problem whose solution is important in order to understand some aspects of our political and ecclesiastical evoluticn. This may help us to see why the temporal State of the popes never entered the great historiographical deliberations on ‘State-building’, the establishment of the modern State in Europe; it appeared as a historical left-over, even by then marginal to the political and social developments of the West, and of no interest to historical _ reflection. The problem of its relevance, its active role, was not considered precisely at the most sensitive moment of the growth of the concentration of power. Even in quite recent surveys, it is possible to learn that the Reformation destroyed the typically medieval dualism of the powers and that afterwards, with the full expansion of State sovereignty put forward by Hobbes, there was no longer room for obedience to a foreign potentate such as the Pope of Rome.!® As has already been pointed out, historians still favour the simplification already popular at the end of the last century, which tends to identify the Catholic world with the feudal and universalistic residues opposing the concept of the development of the modern State embodied in the Reformation.” To widen the scope of this discussion, it may be useful to start by rereading Max Weber’s well-known passages on the relationship between political and hierocratic power.?° In Europe, for a variety of reasons, there was no triumph of the monist society which prevailed elsewhere with the identification of political and hierocratic power in either a cesaro-papistor theocratic form. In the West, the alliance between the political and hierocratic powers reached a peak twice: in Charlemagne’s empire, as in certain periods of greatest strength in the Holy Roman Empire, and then again later — on the one hand, in the few examples of Calvinist theocracy,

6

The Papal Prince

and, on the other, in the great unitarian Catholic states of Spain, and particularly in Bossuet’s France.?! Otto Brunner has linked the question with the growing split between the spiritual and political spheres in the modern State,??and E.W. Bockenforde has associated it with the secularising process of western civilisation.?* Within the various elements of this wide framework, it is possible to single out the papacy’s contribution as a territorial princedom to the process of absorption of the religious sphere into society within the power of the new State. Both the Anglican and Lutheran states of the Reformation and the great Catholic monarchies deployed weapons against the Church of Rome’s universalistic claims which the papacy itself, in its capacity as a territorial principality, had already drawn up, forced by a historical logic which carried on into the fifteenth century until the definitive disintegration of the respublica christiana as a society embracing all men and all the kingdoms of the Church. The states also inherited from the papacy the auctoritas docendi to become absolute protagonists, which was entirely beyond their traditional scope of action. Spiritualia and temporalia were assimilated and fused in the new states, not only from a jurisdictional point of view but more particularly in the religious and cultural integration of their subjects, as a political and governing principle, until the affirmation of the cuius regio eius et religio rule in the whole of Europe, Catholic and reformed, at the end of the wars of religion.** At this point, it is useful to bring in the question not of the papal monarchy in a general and undefined way, as the prototype of the absolute modern State, but of the papal principality as a prototype in which some tendencies of the management of power made themselves known in a dialectical relationship, on occasions ahead of its own time, with the evolving states on the one hand, and with the papacy’s persistent primatial call, even after the universalistic crisis, on the other. To avoid any misunderstanding, it should be emphasised that the Papal State is not presented here as a model of the process of the growth of the modern State — this would perhaps be paradoxical — but in order to understand some of its elements which were tried out as a prototype but which were superseded because of the internal contradictions between the old and new by other more fitting and homogeneous realities of the new relationships of power and consensus. None of the authors who dealt with the subject of the papacy’s victory over conciliarism in the mid-fifteenth century, and the links between the victory and the confirmation of the ideology of absolute monarchy in the next century has linked the papal restoration with the transformation of the lands of St Peter into a principality; even if some of the latest studies manage

la Si

ms

|

all

__. A new monarchy: from the patrimony of St Peter to the principality

7

to establish a close comparison of the two phenomena, the interrelationships have not been carefully examined.?5 The dominant tendency is to continue to consider the question purely from an ideological point of view in which the ideas of the canonists and theologians are reflected at a political level: on the one hand the royalists’ assertion of the non-dependence of the sovereign on whatever external authority, and of his capacity as lawgiver;26 and, on the other, the growth of the ‘corporate theory’ — the interpretation of the conciliar movement as a coherent development which had its roots in classical canonics, in the social and pluralistic concept of Church organisation, rather than as a crisis brought about by external factors.?7 Reference has been made to this huge question purely to stress the way in which the papacy’s victory over the conciliar movement towards the middle of the fifteenth century has been regarded either as an ideological triumph of the monarchical principle which emerged victorious from its war against the subversive attacks affecting the entire ecclesiastical and political body,?8 or as the consequence of the papacy’s rejection of any attempt to reform, and its alliance, instead, with the princes. Thus, the papacy achieved a brief and splendid Indian summer before its overturn by the new power, the demon which it had itself helped to arouse.?° According to Walter Ullmann, these alliances led to the formation of a new ‘establishment’ as a defence against the mounting tide of popular forces: princes and popes joined together against the threat of the same forces, of the ‘populace’ who wished to share power in the Church and State, of the third emerging state, and of the new urban classes.3° These theories are not wholly acceptable today. What is certainly missing is some consideration of the aspects inherent to ‘State-building’, the building of government structures between the Middle Ages and the early modern period. This lacuna leads to a Manichean division between the reforming progressive forces on one side, and reactionary forces on the other, clashing in both ecclesiastical and political spheres. It is true, however, that from Eugenius IV onwards, the popes consistently and actively contributed to the extension of sovereign power into Church matters, and not because they were forced to it by an organic jurisdictional policy on the part of the princes. An important piece of recent research concerning Germany has shown that papal concessions were not made under the stimulus of the increasingly powerful princes desirous of placing themselves outside Church influence, but because the Renaissance popes chose to abdicate their traditional defence of Church liberty in order to defeat the conciliar movement’s attempt to render the papacy a constitutional monarchy tied to the strict observation of the reforming legislation

of the general councils.5!

8

:

The Papal Prince

According to the latest and all-embracing survey of the history of the Church by K.A. Fink, which overturns the old hypothesis of the papacy’s ‘solstice’,32 the decisive break between the Middle Ages and the modern period came in the mid-fifteenth century. Successful with the concessions to the princes, Rome then withdrew into the Church State, which was confirmed as one of the five Italian principalities; its rejection of any reforms led to the Protestant Reformation. The Papal State assumed the function, therefore, as it had never previously done, of representing the Church (‘Reprasentanz der Kirche’) and the popes became governors of a territory developing from feudal state to signoria, in line with the other Italian states.33 The ‘papal monarch’ alters radically in its evolution, and it is impossible to agree either with the old apologists’ theory of a continuity which in reality did not exist,3¢ or with those studying the development of absolutism in Europe as regards the role of the dominant classes, who see in this turning-point only the sign of the papacy’s schizophrenic course. These latter authors admit the papacy’s influence on the development of the ideology of sovereignty in the assertion of monarchical power over the universal Latin Church, but ignore its active participation in the construction of a specific state in a concrete dialectical relationship with the contemporary political situation.?> With regard to the Papal State ‘als Reprisentanz der Kirche’, this formula at least has the advantage of overcoming the total lack of connection between the levels of the universal government of the Church and its temporal sovereignty which dominate traditional historiography. There is no doubt, however, that it is an ambiguous and uncertain formula and that every effort should be made to clarify the historical links between the two levels without being restricted merely to observing the papacy’s global supremacy, in almost quantitative terms, in its preoccupation with temporal rather than spiritual government.

A point of departure for these questions may be the following: does the importance and place of temporal dominion within the papacy change in the mid-fifteenth century with the papacy’s victory over the conciliar movement? Does this change bring about a different awareness, implicit or explicit, of the papal ‘monarchy’? How has the Roman curia changed, when taken as the concrete historic body uniting the organs placed in the service of the two ‘souls’ contained in the papacy’s actions? In order to make sense of this confusion, it may be more useful not to regard the emerging contradictions simplistically as the antithesis between a ‘universalism which is merely theoretical in the papacy of the restoration period due to its loss of all authority over the various churches, and the papacy’s real concerns with the government of the Papal State.*°In the first place, the actual crisis of papal universalism came into collision with a

i

ee a

AS,

—_. A new monarchy: from the patrimony of St Peter to the principality

9

historical cycle which was much larger and more complex, and which cannot be seen as having ended in the second half of the fifteenth century; in the second place, the concentration of papal interest in the government of the State cannot be considered as an alternative to the exercise of universalism, but as an attempt to make this survive in the new historical circumstances of the era of principalities and monarchies. The effects this may have had on the government of the universal Latin Church are a problem to be examined in the long term, as well as understanding how much the proclamations of universalism following the old medieval outlines symbolise in the Renaissance and in the period of the CounterReformation a residue from the past, in opposition by then to the papacy’s new outlook. Although this may contradict the ideas of the author of the latest survey of the history of the Papal State in the early modern period,*’ the evolution of the patrimony of St Peter into signoria and State, already initiated in the fourteenth century and put into crisis by the problems of universalism which struck the papacy in the fifteenth century, was resumed by the popes in that century, beginning with Martin V, and was clearly manifest in midcentury with Nicholas V’s pontificate. This is not to deny that periods of development alternated with phases of regression, and that the papacy's temporal policies gave way under the pressures of the old feudal and town powers, and the new divisive tendencies arising from within. Subsequent developments in the concentration of power will emerge later; for the moment, it is enough to note that the phenomenon of the change of St Peter’s patrimony into the Church State ‘als europàischer Machtfaktor’ — as it has been described by Walsch3% — has been fulfilled, and as such is perceived clearly by contemporary thought. In the golden age of the medieval papacy, temporal power not only was not a protagonist, but was almost entirely absent from the great debates on the origins of law and power, the elaboration of the great canonical studies, and the daily life of the institutions. Universal perspectives were constantly under scrutiny, along ‘with relationships with the Empire and with the emerging state unities. Even Innocent III’s constitution Per venerabilem of 1202, the basic text for the development of the debate on sovereignty, stated merely that the papacy’s temporal jurisdiction was to be exercised exceptionally externally and not only, as was usual, over the Church's patrimony ‘super quo plenam in temporalibus gerimus potestatem’.*? There was no problem with regard to the legitimacy of a power which was similar to so many others, which had become stratified over the centuries, and whose borders themselves were indefinable, either physically or juridically, in the complexity of the European feudal system. Under pressure of the growing monarchical power and the Avignon

10

The Papal Prince

crisis, temporal power then gained its own place in political thinking in terms of libertas ecclesiae, on the basis of a criterion of opportunity, formulated clearly by Agostino Trionfo, one of the major defenders of papal power; in discussion with Marsilio da Padova, to whom the location of the papal throne made no difference, Trionfo declared, ‘In nulla enim patria potest uti tanta libertate et tanta iurisdictionis potestate nec tantam pro populo christiano facere utilitatem sicut Roma et in patrimonio beati Petri; residendo enim in alia patria supponit se dominio regum vel principum.’*° Even pro-royalist writers who took part in the debate on the constitutum Constantini in order to limit the range of papal universal powers, recognised that the Donation was limited to the particular lands of the patrimony: ‘Imperator Constantinus’, wrote Jacques de Revigny, ‘dedit Ecclesie romane quamdam provinciam ut haberet in ea utrumque brachium’;*? Petrus Jacobi justified restricted territorial possessions in order to guarantee spiritual independence — ‘bonum est Ecclesiae habere aliquid’.*? Alberico da Rosciate appears to limit the Donation, specifying the list of territories of the dominion: ‘. . . donatio facta per Constantinum Ecclesie romane in persona beati Silvestri de civitate romana, Romandiola, Marchia anconitana et patrimonio beati Petri . . .’.43 Belief in the validity of the Donation of the territories remains after concern with the inherent problems of universal power diminishes at the end of the conflicts between pope and emperor; but it is as a secondary proof of a possession which comes to the popes from history, from the rights of the people, from the real practice of sovereignty, and summarised by Baldo as follows: ‘Ergo tales provinciae et civitates subsunt Domino Papae de iure gentium, secundum naturalem rationem, et istam partem teneo.’** The playful quip of the Venetian ambassador Girolamo Donato to Alexander VI (‘show me, Your Holiness, the Donation of the patrimony of St Peter and on the reverse you will find the concession to the Venetians of the Adriatic sea’) is the true manifestation that by this time the problem of the Papal State was soundly based in a political reality which no longer needed a foreign support. As has already been recognised, *° it is important to place the coniitagian of the Donation of Constantine recorded by Lorenzo Valla in 1440 in its exact historical framework. Without denying his more profound theological and political thought, it is clear that he was influenced not only by the conflict between Alfonso d’Aragon, with whom the humanist takes sides, and Eugenius IV, but also by the knowledge that he was helping in the development of an entirely new approach. Valla’s invective is well known and has left its traces in Italian political thought of the following centuries, beginning with Guicciardini:47 Sileo, quam sevus, quam vehemens, quam barbarus dominatus frequenter est sacerdotum. Quod si antea ignorabatur nuper est cognitum ex monstro illo atque

;

A new monarchy: from the patrimony of St Peter to the principality

11

portento Joanne Vitellesco cardinale patriarcha, qui gladium Petri, quo auricolam Malcho abscidit, in christianorum sanguine lassavit, quo gladio et ipse periit.*

Here it is necessary to emphasise that the reference to the ferocious military campaigns of Cardinal Vitelleschi is only one example of Valla’s repeated warnings about the new papal policy, the new tyranny (‘adversus novam pape tyrannidem')*8: the ‘recentes pontifices’ have abandoned the wisdom and holiness of the past to become oppressors of the populace and protagonists of an entirely worldly and cruel power. In the final harangue, Valla denounces ‘nec amplius horrenda vox audiatur: partes ecclesie, partes contra ecclesiam, ecclesia contra Perusinos pugnat, contra Bononienses.

Non contra christianos pugnat ecclesia, sed papa . . .’*° ‘It is not the Church which fights for the submission of cities and lands to the government of Rome, but the pope.’ Valla’s observation of this institutional split sheds more light on the problems of the new epoch than does even the bombastic invective. The period of the wars between the Guelphs and Ghibellines has retreated into a past which from now on seems remote (even if, as usual, the language of the past is used to mask new realities), while under the figure of the pope, the State is seen revealed as a new concentration of the power which Valla rejected and condemned as a tyranny.

The words of Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini (the future Pius II), which appear as the epigraph to this chapter, would seem to be perfectly consistent with this new viewpoint. They were written in 1453, during the period immediately following the fall of Constantinople, when for some time Piccolomini had put aside his conciliar thesis in order to fall in with the victorious papacies of Eugenius IV and Nicholas V. His political thought had already found its most mature expression in 1446 in the epistolary tract De ortu et auctoritate Imperii Romani, which was dedicated to the Emperor Frederick II, in which the modern concept of sovereignty had been defined with a clarity which rendered Piccolomini truly a precursor of the theorists of the next century, and which in its ingenious definition implied the passage from concern with power of a theological nature to a political level of thinking — ‘princeps qui caput est mystici reipublice corporis’.5° In the tract which most closely concerns us, a dialogue between Aeneas Silvius himself, Bernardino da Siena and Pietro da Noceto (Nicholas V's the rule of the priests * Tshall say nothing about how savage, how violent and how barbaric in that monster and often is. For if this was not known before, it has recently been recognised of Peter (with sword the wearied who , Vitelleschi Giovanni Patriarch horror the Cardinal himself also he which by sword a , Christians of blood which he cut off Malchus’s ear) in the perished.

12

The Papal Prince

secretary),>! the discussion dwells briefly on temporal power and the Donation of Constantine. All the interlocutors seem to agree that the constitutum is merely a forgery. The Emperor Constantine could not have made, and in fact did not make, the Donation which had been attributed to him. However, this is not of the slightest importance because the donations of the kings of France are certainly genuine but, on the other hand, the dominions may have claims to legitimacy, being a matter of peaceful and recognised secular possession, quite apart from the donations, though these are indubitably historically documented up till the Countess Matilda of Canossa’s last deeds in favour of the papacy. At this point, the question arises as to whether it is lawful for the pope, in his role as vicar of Christ and successor to Peter, to accept the donations and become a temporal lord. This leads to the central dichotomy: on the one hand, the assertion of the pope’s pastoral power over all the princes and Christian peoples as saviour (‘verum etiam christianos reges et principes coercere debet, si declinantes a lege divina et aberrantes ab utero matris ecclesie falsa locuti, subiectos populos in precipitium trahunt’,52— in which there is in essence the theory of indirect power); and, on the other, the concept of the clergy’s right to rule directly over temporal life, as Christ had not condemned all forms of management of power but only those in which power becomes exploitation, and subjects are oppressed, as had happened and still happened among the pagans. Here in fact is the possibility of Christian exercise of sovereignty as a ministry of God, a service for the benefit of the subjects:>? Quidam vero sunt reges, sed admodum pauci, qui reipublice presidentes, omnia quecunque agunt, ad eorum, qui sibi commissi sunt, utilitatem referunt, obliti commodorum suorum, qui cives veluti filios amant, et tanquam ministri Dei, multitudinem sibi creditam iustis legibus et optimis moribus regunt.*

Government as a service has not only not been condemned by Christ, but is the greatest task that man can achieve. The union within the same person of the priestly instructio and regal preceptio is the best state — ‘Multo igitur et melius’. The government of a good priest is better than that of a good layman because the union of instructio and prescriptio guarantees the greatest concentration of consistency of power, an authority which cannot gainsay itself and therefore avoids all conflict (‘ille qui preest omnibus a se ipso dissentire non potest’); all contradictions are removed by delegating to

* There are indeed kings, but only a few, who in ruling their state do absolutely everything with consideration for the benefit of those who are entrusted to them, forgetting their own interests — they love their citizens as if they were their children, and rule the many placed under their protection like ministers of God, with just laws and excellent morals.

oa A new monarchy: from the patrimony of St Peter to the principality

13

_ the layman specific rules which cannot be exercised directly by the priest, such as those relating to the army and penal jurisdiction.** At the end of the passage just quoted, Piccolomini applies this theory to the actual situation of the Church State, obviously linking it with Valla’s argument: it is true that many of the Church’s cities and lands are badly governed and almost in ruins, and, apart from distant historical reasons, this may be due to the faithlessness of the subjects or to the popes’ historically undeniable degeneration into tyranny. This reference is important as it gives concrete weight to the argument; the pope’s temporal sovereignty is defended not merely as something secondary or necessary to defend the Church’s freedom, but for itself as a new kind of power in which the State, on the basis of Christian ideology, takes care of all mankind, with a fullness of participation which is entirely novel in relation to traditional theocratic theories. Before leaving Piccolomini and finding him a few years later as Pius II, pope and sovereign (within, as it has been recorded, the limits of his weakness and foolishness), it may be interesting to reread an earlier page from his conciliarist period, in the light of what has just been said. In his commentaries De gestis concilii Basiliensis, he recounts the discussions which preceded the election as pope of Amedeo, Duke of Savoy (Felix V): the objections of his opponents to the fact that he was a layman, who in addition was married and had offspring, as well as the arguments of his supporters. The latter not only defended the good personal habits and deeply religious life of their candidate, but also explained the historical usefulness of the election as pope of a lay prince who could, with the help of his sons, persevere with the war against those who attacked the Church from all sides in order to render it a slave:55 ... En quid mali hoc est habere Romanum antistitem potentes filios, qui patrem contra tyrannos iuvare queant? ... Nudumne hominem eligemus, qui nostris principibus magis derisui quam venerationi habeatur? Non sunt hodie secula quae virtutem respiciant. ‘Probitas’, ut est apud satyricum, ‘laudatur et alget’. Pauper locutus est et dicunt: ‘Quis et hic?’ Bona est equidem virtus, sed multum interest ad nostrum propositum an in potente sit, an in paupere. Vobis eligendus est gubernator qui non solum consiliis sed etiam viribus navim regat . . . Saepius ego illorum opinioni assensus fueram, qui expedire dicebant temporale dominium ab ecclesia secerni. Opinabar namque et sacerdotes Domini ad divina mysteria reddi expeditiores, et principes seculi erga clerum fieri obedientiores. Nunc autem didici quoniam ridiculosa est sine potentia virtus, nec aliud est Romanus pontifex sine patrimonio ecclesiae quam regum et principum servus.* able to come to their * So what is wrong with a Roman pontiff having powerful sons, who are man, who would be father’s aid against tyrants? ... Or do we choose a defenceless are no societies today considered with more contempt than reverence by our rulers? There

14

The Papal Prince

A strange consistency appears to emanate from this page between the Piccolomini hostile to Eugenius IV and the Piccolomini pope: beyond his own person, between the emerging tendencies in the Basle meeting and the ideas which the victorious papacy was to put into practice on becoming a principality. To seek for the roots of the papal nepotism of the following decades and centuries within the Council of Basle may seem curious, but the passage on the whole seems significant enough: Pius II himself a few years later gave concrete expression to the use of his family in order to strengthen the structure. of the Papal State. Von Ranke quoted parts of the passage cited above at the beginning of his chapter on the extension of the Church State and the temporal policy of the popes at the beginning of the sixteenth century:59 but, because of the indirect nature of the sources at his disposal, he attributed it to an anonymous speaker at the Council of Basle. The fact that Piccolomini himself so vigorously refers us to this debate, lends an unexpected importance to the quote. Another entirely different but complementary implication of Felix V’s election and fall is relevant and also throws much light on developments in the following centuries. In the act of renouncing the papacy and in his submission, Amedeo of Savoy was not only accorded true cardinal dignity but was also nominated perpetual papal vicar in his own dominions, thus becoming spiritual head as well as temporal sovereign, as Piccolomini himself noted a few years later in an account written after Basle in which the figure of Amedeo (‘ecclesie moriendo quam vivendo utilior’) was now opportunistically put in an entirely negative light.57

The deliberations of the theorists who supported papal power in its victory over conciliar ideology are of minor interest here. Only indirectly do we sense from them the new climate gradually asserting itself over the question of papal temporal sovereignty. In his conciliar phase (especially in De concordantia catholica, book 11, chapter 29), Niccolò da Cusa appears to express reservations about the bounty of worldly possessions, which actually came out of Basle and against which Piccolomini was to argue in which pay regard to virtue. ‘Decency’, as the satire goes, ‘is praised and neglected.’ A poor man speaks, and they say: ‘Who is this?’ Of course virtue is good, but for our purpose it matters greatly whether it resides in a powerful man or a poor one. You must choose a steersman who will control the ship not only by wisdom but also by strength. . . Frequently I too agreed with the opinion of those who said it was expedient to separate temporal power . from the Church. For I supposed both that the priests of the Lord were readier to be restored to the divine mysteries, and that the rulers of the world were becoming more obedient towards the clergy. Now, however, I have learnt that virtue without power is ridiculous, and that a Roman pontiff without the patrimony of the Church is nothing but a slave of kings and princes.

eo~ (a

Fee ee a weo

o”

wee)

F . }

il

ol

RT

ty

eae

i

:

|

~ A new monarchy: from the patrimony of St Peter to the principality

15

the dialogue quoted above. Da Cusa restricted himself, however, to the usual suggestion of delegating to lay officials those functions which were inappropriate for priests. He later upholds papal absolutism whilst theorising over the monarchical power of the papacy (as in his letter to Rodrigo Sanchez de Arévalo in 1442), not on the basis of a theocratic position, but of a persistent parallel between the pope’s powers in spiritual matters and the absolute power of the prince in his kingdom.5® As has been noted, this parallel is the recurring theme of Juan de Torquemada’s Summa de ecclesia of 1449 in which the analogy between pope and sovereign sustains the entire discussion, and henceforth places it quite outside the usual theocratic lines | even if it does not push it to the point of elaborating the theory of indirect power.5° The same parallel, this time between pope and emperor, is to be found in the Monarchia of Antonio Roselli, the teacher of the young Piccolomini in Siena. Within a framework which is still unclear, though profoundly universalistic, the affirmation of the need for monarchical power seems inseparable from the conviction that the independence of the two powers, spiritual and temporal, was a historical necessity.9° Paradoxically, the most significant references are to be found in Domenico De Domenichi, the theorist who takes up and develops the traditional theocratic concept of papal superiority over the entire earth. The pope is dominus mundi, and could have exercised his power regardless of the Donation of Constantine (which in any case was a restitution) ‘nisi quod non expediebat ecclesie tantis se implicare negotiis’; the problem is one of convenience:®! temporalis Et sic sequitur, quod non expediret ecclesie habere execucionem note sunt potestatis universaliter. In aliquibus autem terris propter causas que ium spiritual impediunt non racionabiliter sibi reservat, que cum non multa sint pocius vel fit ut ia, particular ur exerceant alios administracionem et presertim, si per fieri deberet.*

the According to De Domenichi, the pope’s authority does not infringe a only retained sovereignty of the princes as, historically, the papacy had cuiuslem limited temporal power, ‘Ideo conservat iurisdictionem tempora illius extra que et non turbat illam, ex quo a se abdicavit executionem sibi eciam aliqua terras, quas sibi reservavit’;°? and again: ‘Temporalia bus, principi aliis retinuit, postea aliorum administracionem commisit to hold executive temporal * And so it follows that it may not be appropriate for the Church mentioned, the Church, reasons the for indeed, , countries some In state. every power in not great in number, are powers such Since herself. for power quite rightly, keeps temporal this is especially so if the details they do not impede the administration of spiritual affairs, and they usually are, or as they of administration are taken care of by some other person, as ought, more usually, to be.

16

The Papal Prince

quorum unus preest alteri et unus operatur mediante alio, et hoc modo dignitates servat et iurisdicciones iam distinctas se dicit nolle disturbare.’93 De Domenichi’s treatise De potestate papae et termino eius, written in 1456 and therefore after the end of Nicholas V’s pontificate, already experiences the effect of the political maturity which had taken place in the mid-fifteenth century. It is not for nothing that De Domenichi emphasises the pope’s explicit pledge not to disturb the sovereignty of Spain, France and England, recording the particular episode of which he was direct witness, when assurances of absolute independence from the Empire were given by the popes to the King of Castile’s ambassadors.9* Already, in these pages, there is a universe without empire where papal sovereignty, almost like a historical act of donatio in reverse, not only does not attack the princes’ power but justifies it, and where, therefore, direct and limited domination which the papacy maintains, becomes truly — even from the angle of the legitimation of sovereignty — the prototype of modern State division.

CHAPTER

TWO

* The sovereign: prince and pastor

And for the danger that may arise to religion, by the subjects tolerating of a heathen or erring Prince, it is a point of which a subject is no competent judge; or if he be, the Pope’s temporal subjects may judge also the Pope’s doctrine. For every Christian Prince, as I have formerly proved, is no less supreme Pastor of his own subjects, than the Pope of his . . . This is true; for Christian Kings are no more but Christ’s subjects: but they may, for all that, be the - Pope’s fellows; for they are supreme pastors of their own subjects; and the Pope is no more but King and Pastor, even in Rome itself. (Hobbes, Leviathan, p. 382)

The basic theory put forward in the previous chapter is that from the middle of the fifteenth century the popes did not become merely temporal princes, lords of an Italian state in the process of consolidating itself. This transformation involved the papal machinery in its entirety and brought with it more general consequences in relation to European State-building. Perhaps the most apt expression of this approach is still that of Gregorovius in his history of the city of Rome where he wrote that by their a transformation into secular lords, the Renaissance popes had founded by meant he what explain not did us ‘Tempelstaat’.! Naturally Gregorovi in > this description, and would certainly have been unable to do so up conjures and e suggestiv however, is, term terminology used today. The at the that fusion of elements which was being achieved, and which is the V, Nicholas under that, notes us centre of this inquiry. Gregorovi epoch splendid most its entered Italy, in papacy, in its assumption of power of pastoral as a secular ecclesiastical principality and its darkest period also noted he and ;? pope-king first the as Christianity; he defined Sixtus IV of the State, Papal the with ip that the problem of the Church's relationsh Catholic Roman this with nation European powers, and lastly of the Italian ‘Tempelstaat’, became acute under Julius iA

47,

18

,

The Papal Prince

During the period of the Church’s greatest power, on the eve of the Reformation, the ‘Tempelstaat’ appears as a monster with many heads which neither theological or political thinking can classify. Awareness of the contradictory position into which these latest events had put the papacy was certainly widespread, and it has been noted how much these contradictions helped in the eruption and eventual success of the Reformation.» They are well known — the secularisation, and therefore the corruption of the Roman curia; the increasing Italianisation of all the structures, from the actual person ofthe pope to the college of cardinals, and to the bureaucracy; the supremacy of political over religious interests; the use of spiritual power in the service of temporal interests; and the conduct of an unscrupulous international policy in which war became the norm in the pope’s pursuit of purely temporal interests. Leaving aside these arguments, the most extreme of which is found perhaps in the Julius exclusus attributed to Erasmus, a satirical characterisation of Julius II as condottiere,® it may be useful for our thesis to discover within Rome itself and the papacy, in the explosion of tensions and the religious break of the sixteenth century, some attempt at a deeper analysis and some Ha of movement capable of facing the new situation. Those signs are not to be found in the follow-up to the conciliar movement. Traces of conciliarism survived into the mid-fifteenth century and were not entirely eliminated by Pius II’s well-known bull Execrabilis of 1460, which condemned every appeal to the Council against papal decisions; however, the growth in power of the states rendered any plan for an ecclesiastical constitution entirely obsolete; the weakness of those plans is particularly obvious during the abortive Pisa-Milan Council when the strength of conciliar theories already seemed to be reduced even before being crushed from above by the agreement put into effect through the reconciliation between Francois I and Leo X in 1516.” On the other hand, plans for reform drawn up in Rome from the midfifteenth century show a basic weakness, from those of Domenico De Domenichi and Niccolò da Cusa to those drawn up officially by a commission on the orders of Alexander VI.’ These were allowed only to give sectoral directives and remained allied to the old curial system even while the new Papal State bureaucracy was in full development in quite the opposite sense, and the new fiscal requirements entirely overcame the traditional organisation of the central ecclesiastical institutions. Some aspects of these attempts at reform will be dealt with later; for the moment,

we should note only the fact that in them the problem is not expressed in new and historically accurate terms, and that above all the problem of the significance which the State had assumed within the more general question of the papal monarchy is not present. Even the famous Libellus ad Leonem X,

AA >" RIONI Bo ss

NT =.

é

The sovereign: prince and pastor

19

| which can rightly be regarded as the greatest expression of the move towards reform in the years preceding the Lutheran Reformation, contained only a moral exhortation to the pope: that rather than concern himself with the subjection of cities and territories to the earthly Church, he should dedicate himself to the universal care of the souls of the faithful entrusted to him by Christ.? This approach can also be found in the most sensitive representatives of the Catholic reform movements which prepared the Council of Trent, at least in those few who dealt with the problem. Zaccaria Ferrerio’s memorandum to Hadrian VI on his election to the papacy in 1522 contains a paragraph, ‘de moderanda temporali ecclesiae ditione’, in which the entire theological debate hinges on the fact that the Christian cannot live forever on earth.!° It was, however, a spiritual exhortation, linked more to the traditional assertions of the Early Fathers than to a theological and historical deliberation on the present moment, and is a far cry from the concept of the ‘tenant’ Church vigorously developed in all its consequences by Grotius in the next century.!! The fullest expression of this attitude of the Catholic reformers is possibly the one contained in the discourse addressed to Clement VII in 1529 by Gasparo Contarini, the future cardinal, at that moment Venetian am-

bassador to Rome: With regard to Church matters, I shall speak freely to you. Do you not think, Your Holiness, that the good of Christendom is this little temporal state which the Church has acquired. Before it was a state, it was the Church and the best Church. The Church is the university of all Christians. This state is like the state of a prince of Italy attached to the Church. Therefore, Your Holiness, you must principally obtain the Christians, good of the true Church, which consists in the peace and tranquility of state. temporal the and postpone for now everything in connection with

Contarini describes the Papal State as ‘attached’, as an accessory to the Church. The definition reflects the most important point to be found in Catholic thought before the Council of Trent; and its logical consequence is the platonic exhortation to the pope to deal more with spiritual affairs and less with those of the State — to be more a pastor than a prince. An as anonymous reform memorandum issued during Pius IV’s reign reads follows: nt and It seems that he would be better occupied less with worldly governme the after look to time more find may he that particularly with that of Rome, so of office the him for because flock, his of matters spiritual the universal good and }3 prince. of that than important more is shepherd

to the The same ideas can be found in the political thinking of those close service to its papacy, and actually bound, however much against their will, continually dini, Guicciar co Frances of case the is in the State. This

20

The Papal Prince

wavering, like Machiavelli, between recognition of the polital rise of the papacy, and loathing of the ‘wicked tyranny of priests’.!* In his advice to Clement VII, Guicciardini saw the office of the Papal State as a guarantee of papal independence in the face of Charles V’s imperial hegemony, which sought to appropriate it in order to subject the papacy to his power: The Church's state is great and beautiful and not to be scorned by one who seeks to have everything: it is to be believed that he will want to take away the temporal and to reduce the popes to the condition in which they were when their election and all their power depended on the emperors.!*

On the other hand, Guicciardini himself, warning the pope of the dangers of war, explains the subsidiary role of temporal lordship in almost the same words as Contarini: And this circumspection is much more fitting toa Roman pontiff, whose main care is spiritual; nor is he given temporal power unless it be subsidiary and supportive to that; so that he is allowed to fight to defend himself and the authority of the apostolic . see from danger, but I do not know whether this has sufficient justification when he does it in order to regain the Church’s ta states, except where the interests of religion or Christian faith are involved.

These notes should be seen in the context of Guicciardini’s political thinking with regard to the State, and show remarkable intuition. His political ideas can perhaps be reconsidered in the light of the ‘Tempelstaat’ set up by the papacy neither as an ephemeral creation of the Renaissance nor as a casual experience on the part of their author, but as the first example of a new concentration of power hitherto unknown in the world of politics: _ It is impossible to keep states acting according to a right conscience, as they are all violent by nature, from those of the republics inside the country to those outside, and I do not exempt the emperor and priests, whose violence is double as they violate us with temporal and spiritual arms.!7

Some aspects of this question will be enlarged upon later. At this stage, it may be useful to consider the evolution which took place in relation to the union of the two powers within the physical person of the pope: between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries he metamorphoses into a figure of the double-headed Janus in which the new political ‘monster’ is embodied. The Papal State can no longer be regarded as the lands of St Peter in the Middle Ages (simply as the territory ‘in quo utrumque gladium, sive utramque exercet, spiritualem et temporalem potestatem Principis et Papae’):1® it implies a transformation of the person of the pope himself. Nor does the category of ‘subsidiariness’, manage to contain the pressure of the new political situation in a period in which State fragmentation and the battle for power in Europe rendered the Papal State in particular a protagonist with a

A

AT a ere,

pA

SA Ne (a

n \

TI o

>

The sovereign: prince and pastor

21

life of its own: symbiotically linked with the papacy, it has not only characteristics analogous to those of other political bodies but also a capacity to influence the other, spiritual, sphere in the exercise of the Church’s primacy. Until further analysis is available, perhaps the easiest method of understanding the development of the political aspects of the pope is to follow the reports of the Venetian ambassadors to Rome, in which acute observation of the situation goes hand in hand with a first attempt at political reflection. The first step in this direction is to be found in the report written in 1558 by Bernardo Navagero, on his return from his ambassadorship in Rome. Here the double figure of the pope is still seen within the framework of moral and spiritual decline commonly held by the spokesmen of Catholic reform: Today, I want to speak of a prince who is non-hereditary, but elected, and not by an excited multitude, nor by some few, but by a defined number of people, as they are cardinals; of one not like the other princes who are elected heads of some nations and states, of one who a little earlier was a private citizen and who had himself made master not only of the state which the Church has, as if he was a natural and hereditary prince; but who, as pope and vicar of Christ, becomes head of all Christendom. Therefore he can be regarded in two ways: as prince with the state which he has, and as pope with his authority. In the first way, I see him as master of Rome. . . If we want to look upon the pope, not as pope with state but as head of the Christian religion, he is certainly head of all Christians . . . if the popes wished to imitate Christ and those early fathers, they would be more terrible to the world with excommunications and with their spiritual weapons than they are presently with the leagues, with the armies and with temporal weapons; which not many years ago, they began to take up quite openly wae

From Alvise Mocenigo’s account of 1560 onwards, the argument about the double figure of the pope becomes a common feature in all the reports, so much so that their nineteenth-century editor decided to leave out the preambles which were described as monotonous ‘repetitions’.2° The distinction between the two figures of the pope is, in fact, central to the entire analysis of the diplomats. The report of Paolo Paruta, who returned from Rome in 1595 after an ambassadorship of thirty-eight months, and which can be seen as a full political treatise on the papacy at the end of the sixteenth century, began with the customary formula: ‘The pope of Rome can be looked upon as being two persons; that is, as head and universal pastor of all Christendom, and in the Catholic and apostolic church as vicar of Christ and true successor of Peter; and closely related, as temporal prince who holds state in Italy . . .'2! Paruta’s analysis of the development of the papal monarchy is discussed below. In the accounts of the Venetian ambassadors of the following century, the

22

The Papal Prince

political person of the pope occupies increasing space until it at times overturns the concept of the ‘subsidiariness’ of the State, as in Giovanni Mocenigo’s report of 1612: ‘I have said that there is in the pope absolute power in temporal government, to which papal authority is added.’?2 This priority ultimately puts into question the traditional division itself, which, even if it remains valid at a theoretical level, no longer corresponds to the historical situation of a Rome which continues to be a ‘great school’ in diplomacy and the art of governing.? In his account of 1627, Pietro Contarini observed that the pope’s spiritual and temporal authority were indistinguishable and ‘even if by nature and on the basis of the principles, there were no connection between them, yet still they perform so in unison that when one deals with the other, the second always stirs’.2* The confusion between spiritual and temporal power is shown as one of the reasons for the decline of the papacy (‘and no one wants to recognise that the church of God non est defendenda more castrorum’)?° in the 1664 account of Pietro Basadonna, who describes papal absolutism and the impotence of the cardinals, and even speaks metaphorically of a structural change in the barque of St Peter: . . . and if it was good once that the universal church made use of subjects taken from all the nations of Christendom, to get information about the different needs and customs, and to propagate the faith in every place, now that the spiritual principality has been united to the temporal one, it is necessary to change the laws of the apostolate in politics; and in order that the barque of St Peter be able to resist the ebb and flow of the world, and make itself skilful in merchandising — the direction in which it is heading at the moment — it is not enough that it be made of straight timbers; it is necessary to put in curved ones as well and to reconstruct a quite different barque from the first one.?6

‘To change the laws of the apostolate in politics’: these analyses of the Venetian ambassadors are clearly not objective judgements in politology — one only need think of the complex and often hostile relationships between the papacy and Venice during this century. Nevertheless, on the whole, they appear to witness a widespread feeling in the political circles related to the Church of Rome and, as we shall see later, in ecclesiastical diplomacy. Even the most popular texts concerned with the subject of Rome in the mid-

seventeenth century such as Lunadoro’s Relatione della corte di Roma (published in 1641 and issued in several editions and versions in the whole of Europe) to a great extent follow the scheme drawn up by the Venetian ambassadors. References to particular events or improvised appraisals may

vary from obsequious respect to the most insolent malice, but the inextricable interweaving of religious and political planes, and the presence of State problems, and of the relations between the states in the position of the Holy See in Europe?’ can be found at the root of each account.

ie es

;

The sovereign: prince and pastor

23

The Venetian reports are also at the base of the first deliberation on the Church State as a subject of separate study, in Giovanni Botero’s Discorso, published first in 1599. It is thought-provoking but prudently avoids any mention of the constitutional nature and political direction of the Papal State.28 A few years later, Traiano Boccalini depicts the papacy as the imaginary state of Laconia which, threatened by the universalistic claims of the prince of Macedonia (Spain), helps the oppressed king of Epirus (France), thereby escaping being surrounded. This allegorical tale of the policies of Sixtus V and Clement VIII in connection with Philip II and Henry IV may be taken as a sign of the by now inextricable entanglement which characterises the papacy’s actions in the eyes of shrewd observers.?? In Boccalini’s Pesa de’ Stati di tutti i principi e monarchie d'Europa fatta da Lorenzo de’ Medici, another work which served as a textbook to the entire seventeenth century, 3° there is a page whose ambiguity renders it worthy of quotation as it reflects the same approach as that of Machiavelli (chapter XI of The Prince) with regard to the ecclesiastical principalities, centred on the mystery of the interference of spiritual power in political matters: Through ancient and most rightful prerogative the weighing was begun by the aristocratic monarchy of the Apostolic See, whose temporal state was put onto the scales, and whereas the weight of the past fifteen years was six pounds, now it was found to be seven and a half, and everyone knew that the addition of the most noble dukedom of Ferrara had caused this rise. Then a veil was raised and the sacred double-edged sword appeared, between the divinity of spiritual and temporal authority, resplendent as the brightest sun, the weapon sent to the popes from the highest skies; and because something which is so highly esteemed cannot be weighed by scales of human judgement, it was singlemindedly honoured by all, admired and adored.

We should therefore contemplate, at least for a moment, this ‘sacred doubleedged sword’, and return later to the consequences for the internal structure of the Papal State, and for the relationships with other states endowed only with a single-edged sword. Here our purpose is to note the growing awareness of the increasing importance of the temporal State in the theoretical thinking concerning the papacy’s activity. There are many other examples in this vein. Considering the problem in another light, it may be useful to question whether the expansion of the Papal State had any consequences, or at any rate some dialectical connection with the development of the more properly theological doctrine relating to the pope’s temporal power, after the mid-fifteenth century authors mentioned above. This point should be considered not, indeed, in order to tackle the problem of the pope’s power in temporalibus (which is too complex and difficult to be dealt with here) but to attempt to understand whether in the discussion which accompanied the

24

The Papal Prince

full ripening of the doctrine of indirect power in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, until and beyond Bellarmino's ratification, there are implicit hints about the pope as sovereign in the narrow sense, relative to the particular principality of which he is lord. The problem itself has not been dealt with explicitly, and this element is ‘important. The impression given is that the increasing presence of the State. is one of the factors which contributed to the development of the doctrine of indirect power and the forsaking of persistent residues of the theory of universal monarchy, of the pope’s vicarious power also in temporalibus in the entire world, a theory which still had supporters even at the beginning of the seventeenth century, although these appear out of date and outside the Roman curial circles.31 An interesting element can be found in the argument about the legality of the war against the invading pope, even to his eventual murder. Francisco de Vitoria takes up and develops Tomaso de Vio’s suggestion in his general thesis that the pope is not the master of the world and even less so of the lands of the infidels (‘quod quamvis quilibet licite possit occidere papam invasorem se defendendo: tamen nulli licet Papam propter omicidium punire poena mortis’);3? in the pope there is no power mere temporalis because Christianity put an end to the concept that civil power was a necessary extension of religious power. Not even the

emperor is lord of the world, and the evidence of this — and therefore of the absolute independence of particular kingdoms — lies in the very existence of the Papal State, of the Church’s patrimony which is not subject to the emperor. If the emperor had been lord of the world by divine right, he would not have been able to rid himself of this lordship with a donation to the pope (‘si qua fuit’, he says in another passage),*? and there could be no other legitimate title of valid possession on this earth. *4 The use of the Donation of Constantine as a prop to the theory of the independence of the modern states is highly interesting and it is only surprising that it has not been pointed out before. These were not theoretical discussions restricted to academic circles; we know, for example, of the intervention of Gattinara at the Council of Castiglia in July 1526 on precisely the problem of the legality of the war against the pope as temporal sovereign in defence of Spanish interests.*° This was on the eve of the sack of Rome and hence one of the crucial turning-points in European politics; it is not, however, within our scope to follow the complex events of the relations between Charles V and the papacy in those decades:3°we can only note that the first lucid proposition of the double role of the pope as head of the Church and sovereign is elaborated on by the Catholic powers consistently with their ‘raison d’Etat’. Further elements do not seem to derive from the political thought of the other great Spanish theologians. Even Domingo de Soto confirms that

ye RN

pet.

oan,

Fs

J

ae

i

The sovereign: prince and pastor

25

Christ had not wished to be king of the world and therefore did not even transmit this power to either the pope or the emperor: only the Turk can claim and believe himself to be the master of all, against all human and divine right.*” Luis de Molina explicitly states that he does not wish to discuss the lands of the Church of Rome in which the pope is sovereign equal with all the other kings and princes.3* More interesting, even if more implicit, is the argument of Francisco Suarez. Having by now formulated a mature and organic theory of indirect power and therefore denying the ‘pope’s power to issue laws of a temporal nature outside the territory in which he himselfis lord, Suarez specifies that those laws ‘enim non obligant universum Orbem, sed illos tantum qui temporaliter sunt sub Ecclesiae . dominio, ac iurisdictione civili . . . unde etiam possunt tales leges Pontificis non admitti in aliis territoris . . .’.2° Im another passage, where he deals with the problem of the possible union of ecclesiastical and civil power in one person, Suarez believes he is declaring two opposed errors — there are those who like Henry VIII claimed to unite in the person of the king even spiritual power (‘qui voluit unumquemque Regem temporalem esse summum Pontificem in regno suo’) and those who think that temporal government does not agree with the pope and clergy in general. Catholic truth, according to Suarez, is empirical and possibilist: the two powers are not necessarily separated or united (‘Nihilominus veritas catholica est, potestates has nec necessario esse coniunctas, nec necessario separatas’) and history shows that the Church has lived for centuries without temporal powers but it has also legitimately exercised them for several centuries; the advantages of this union are certainly greater than the disadvantages:*° .. « tum quia verisimile est, iustitiam rectius esse administrandam per huiusmodi principes; tum etiam quia coniunctio illarum potestatum in eadem persona multum deservire potest ad maiorem pacem, et unionem, et ut temporale regimen ad spirituale melius referatur; tum etiam quia hoc conciliat maiorem reverentiam erga ecclesiasticum principem, qui etiam melius poterit resistere hostibus fidei, si potestatem habet temporalem, ut experientia comprobatum est.*

Piccolomini’s thesis on the advantages of the union of the two powers in the hands of the Church arises again therefore a century and a half later in the context of seasoned absolutism and of the wars of religion. On the one hand, the full laicisation or politicisation of the reasoning which leads to by rulers * ... then, because it is probable that justice could be administered more equitably do much to of this kind: then, too, because the union of these powers in the same person can to be better serve the cause of greater peace and unity and enable temporal government ruler of the related to the spiritual; then, too, because this promotes greater respect for the he has temporal Church, who indeed will be better able to resist the enemies of the faith if power, as has been proved by experience.

26

The Papal Prince

this formulation is obvious. The assertion is entirely free of any theological grounds and based only on considerations of a political nature, on the need to strengthen internal power and the war against heresy. On the other hand, Suarez, and with him all the other theorists of the papacy’s indirect power at the time of the Counter-Reformation, find themselves in contradiction with regard to the implicit acknowledgement of the problem arising for the states from the persistence of a power external to them and unassimilable.4! From another point of view, this seems to confirm the opinion that, for Suarez, the subordination of the states to the Church does not derive from the intrinsic nature of the Church, but from extrinsic relationships.*? This observation is extremely important in the understanding of the dualistic development of the Church-State relationship in the early modern period, and the Papal State cannot be regarded as extraneous from this process as it has been until now. It is interesting to see the same argument indirectly in Roberto Bellarmino, the greatest theorist of the doctrine of the pope’s indirect power in temporal matters, but it is only because the existence of the Papal State is questioned by his opponents that he is forced, reluctantly, to take a position. In the Controversiae, Bellarmino fundamentally deals only with the two extreme theses, the theocratic one on the supreme sovereignty of the pope over the entire world, and its opposite which denies any political power to the pope, in order to support the middle road view that there should be power of indirect intervention exceptionally where spiritual welfare is concerned and because the problem of salvation affects all mankind. It is well known that Bellarmino’s approach found obstacles in Roman circles right up to Sixtus V's decision — which was not put into action — to add the former’s text to the Index.*? Only in the last two chapters is Bellarmino concerned to show the legality of the pope’s temporal lordship and more generally the compatibility between pastoral and political power in the same person. After the Old Testament examples — the recourse to the Old Testament and exclusion of the New Testament is interesting — of the prince-priests such as Melchizedek, Moses, and so forth, two reasons are given on a rational level: ecclesiastical and political power are not opposed ‘utraque bona, utraque a Deo, utraque laudabilis, et una alteri servit’, and can therefore coexist in the same person. Secondly, the guises in which sovereignty manifests itself are so diverse, in peace and in war, although embodied in the same person of the sovereign, as to make clear the possibility of a joint episcopal and political government in the same person.** The most interesting argument is however in the last ‘ex experientia’:*° Nam etsi absolute forte praestaret, pontifices tractare solum spiritualia, et reges temporalia; tamen

propter malitiam temporum

experientia clamat, non solum

The sovereign: prince and pastor

27

utiliter, sed etiam necessario, et ex singulari Dei providentia donatos fuisse pontifici aliquos principatus: si enim in Germania episcopi principes non fuissent, nulli ad hanc diem in suis sedibus permansissent. Sicut ergo in Testamento veteri diu fuerunt pontifices sine imperio temporali, et tamen ultimis temporibus non poterat religio consistere et defendi, nisi pontifices etiam reges essent, nimirum tempore Machabaeorum; ita quoque accidisse videmus Ecclesiae, ut quae primis temporibus ad maiestatem suam tuendam temporali principatu non egebat, nunc eodem ‘necessario indigere videatur.*

The ‘malitia temporum’ returns us therefore to history, and in direct connection with Piccolomini’s assertions a century and a half before — to the effect that within history the union of spiritual and temporal power in the same person becomes not only lawful but appropriate and necessary. Bellarmino does not seem to have understood the major importance of this observation, but it is logical that his French and Anglican critics would refer to it. In the De auctoritate papae in defence of the jurisdiction of the popes over the Church, William Barclay upholds the importance of the pope’s temporal sovereignty as the source of his power in ecclesiastical jurisdiction; not as first bishop but as prince, and therefore participant of the sovereignty, the pope has a particular position and an authority which exempts him from the powers of other sovereigns, but does not however allow him to be different and superior to other princes.*° It is possible to see therefore why Bellarmino in his reply accused Barclay of having changed the cards on the table, transferring the argument from the level of spiritual power, which confers on the pope superiority over the princes with regard to the supernatural, to the level of the pope’s temporal principality:*” Non enim quaestio potestate spirituali, rebus temporalibus, Barclajus autem ut

alem..

nostra est de principatu temporali summi pontificis, sed de et apostolica, quam nos dicimus extendi ad disponendum de et de ipsis regnis, et imperiis in ordinem ad finem spiritualem. hoc refellat, disputationem transfert ad principatum tempor-

.T

* For, even if there should happen to be an absolute state, popes conduct only spiritual business and kings temporal. But, because of the degeneracy of the times, experience urges that it is not merely useful, but actually necessary and in accordance with the special care of if God that some states should have been handed over to the Pope. In Germany, for example, bishops were not princes, none would have kept their sees to this day. We see the same thing happening in the Old Testament: for a long time priests were without temporal authority but, in the end, religion could not stand firm and be defended unless priests were kings. This to was certainly true in the time of the Maccabees. We see exactly the same thing happening which the Church as happened in time past: initially, it did not lack the temporal authority was necessary for guarding its own position, but now it does appear to lack it. but his of the supreme pontiff, + For our argument does not concern the temporal sway power goes as far as spiritual and, indeed, apostolic power. Our argument is that this and empires with a view to ordering temporal affairs, and the affairs of kingdoms themselves, this, transfers the point at achieving a spiritual end. Barclay, however, in order to refute issue to the temporal sphere . . .

28

é

The Papal Prince

What temporal power was Barclay discussing, Bellarmino wondered. Indirect power was entirely dependent on the apostolic mission handed on by Peter and was not concerned with the temporal sovereignty which the Church has historically, based on the concessions of pious princes.*® At this latter level, Bellarmino reiterated, the pope was a prince like the rest, and like them had to retain his lordship even by means of war if need be. Julius II was to be praised for the reconquest of the lands of the Church, and his action was in accord with his predecessors’ example.*? The question which the Jesuit theologian does not deal with is the interweaving between the two spheres in historical reality, in that ‘malitia temporum’ which he himself had put forward as justification of the papacy’s direct temporal rule over a specific territory as an indispensable condition of the exercise of spiritual power at that time. The problem of the modern State is excluded, and it is natural that this should be at the centre of the dispute which James I raised against Bellarmino. The pope’s claims, according to James I, were a threat directed at the very core of sovereignty and were dangerous for the entire new structure so that the Jesuits (‘Jesuits are nothing but Puritan-papists’) were dangerous subverters on a par with the most radical extremists.5° Bellarmino’s amazement at this accusation is perhaps a key to understanding the problem: ‘. . . quod vero rex puritanos cum jesuitis comparet, omnino mirabile est, cum puritani anarchiam, jesuitae monarchiam ecclesiasticam pro viribus defendant’.* In reality, the ecclesiastical monarchy is truly as detrimental to sovereignty as Puritan anarchy; James I had written that the pope could not impose his rule over other people’s kingdoms: For in all the Scripture, especially in the New Testament, I never read of Pontifex Maximus. And the Pope must be content in that style to succeed according to the law and institution of Numa Pompilius and not to S. Peter, who never heard nor dreamed of such an Office. >?

The great battle for the institution of the modern State was played out under the cross-fire of quotes from the Old and New Testaments, and it was a battle which was inextricably political and theological. We should emphasise here that the pope’s temporal sovereignty, embodied within a defined state and in a court introduced into the political game of the new Europe, is an active protagonist which does not coincide with the traditional universalistic claims which kept being revived, however wearily.53 Thomas Hobbes expressed the idea most clearly. It should be reiterated, however, that we are not discussing here Hobbes’s thinking on the State-Church relationship, his demonstration of the need to reconstitute ecclesiastical power within civil power by the achievement of the unity which is the chief merit of The Commonwealth. Hobbes’s explanation

i

i ae

Ray

nN

(ie. (aa

The sovereign: prince and pastor

22

of the Papal State is, however, relevant. He in fact often returns to the papal dominion in order to express his own full acknowledgement of the pope’s sovereignty within the boundaries in which he exercises civil power, and to trace from the example of the union of the two powers within the pope the model or prototype of the new sovereign: the pope’s power outside his own civil dominions, if it ever exists, is only that of a schoolmaster; the pope’s decrees in cases where he is not a secular sovereign cannot be laws, and his jurisdiction does not exist outside the territories in which he has secular sovereignty.5* The contrast between the pope's state and the other states, between the pope and other princes is continually emphasised; the reference to the pope principally as ‘foreign prince’ is due particularly to the conjunction between spiritual and temporal power within its own dominions, which each state worthy of such title should achieve in order to fulfil its own greatest aims.55 The passage quoted as an epigraph at the beginning of this chapter contains one of the most significant points of Hobbes’s argument: that Christian princes are no less the supreme pastors of their own subjects than the pope is of his, and as such they are companion-colleagues (‘fellows’) of the pope who as such is ‘king and pastor’ of Rome. In the famous last paragraph of Leviathan where Hobbes compares the Church of Rome with fairyland, describing the pope as the living spectre of the dead Roman empire, the argument returns to the statement that the pope’s claims are absurd and oppressive, and outside his own civil dominion.56 The Papal State is the only real body in this ghost of spiritual power. Hobbes’s fear that the spirit of Rome might return, having wandered

over the distant lands of China, Japan and India, to reassert its claim to a spiritual power as distinct from and superior to the civil power of the State almost prophesies a new epoch, of which only some contradictory though disquieting signs have hitherto been seen.57

Some aspects and concrete examples of the presence of the Papal State in the State-Church relationship and the clerical—lay relationship of the early modern period will be discussed later. With regard to the internal build-up of the Catholic Church, we should consider whether the Council of Trent makes way for a theological and canonical consideration of the question of the pope’s temporal sovereignty other than the ideas which appear in the controversies over indirect power in temporalibus. Here one is faced with a silence which is significant in itself, and a change in perspective is to be found only around the middle of the seventeenth century, in the organised theories of the canonists, spurred by the evolution of political thought which we have attempted to show above. There is no mention of the pope’s role as temporal sovereign in the Council or in the succeeding debate on the

30

The Papal Prince

pope’s powers in the Church and in civil society: the Papal State is the focus of interest even during the conciliar period — as we have attempted to show elsewhere. *8 It is clear, however, that the Council never considered the papacy as a political body, and took care to deal only with the problems which arose from the new historical situation. This may help to explain the mediocrity of the debate on the reform of the princes: outdated, worn-out universalistic attitudes, limited to declarations of principle with no other practical consequences, surface time and again, while a reality which at this point had developed through the tensions and concordatory agreements, with the defence of the Roman curia’s politico-economic interests and concessions to the princes of extended powers in the government of provincial churches, is scarcely touched upon.°*? Even the debate on the relationship between pope and bishops in the management of the universal Latin Church which began in the Council made no reference to the problem of the pope’s double figure.°° Only Marc’Antonio De Dominis, in defending episcopal might in the face of papal absolution, stresses that the problem should not be seen only in the pope—bishop relationship, but in the change taking place within the Church of Rome itself, ‘Ecclesia sub romano pontifice non est amplius Ecclesia, sed respublica quaedam humana, sub Papae monarchia tota temporali’,°! andputs forth interesting observations on the secularisation and politicisation of the court of Rome in its entirety, and of the various basic institutions such as embassies, nunciatures, and the bureaucracy of the traffic in benefices. Several similar observations are made by Paolo Sarpi who not only attacks the ‘papato-totato’ — that is, papal absolution or totalitarianism in the government of the Church — but primarily considers the historical evolution and the politicisation imposed by the pope’s existence as temporal sovereign on the institutions of the Church of Rome.®? One need only refer to Sarpi’s consultation written in 1623 on the question as to whether it is lawful to militate under a heretical prince or one of a different religion. Italy's problem is central to the argument: as the papacy tried to regain its lost powers in the universal Latin Church, in the Peninsula, and on a political level, it did not hesitate to ally itself with the Turks or heretics, under Julius II and Paul IV. The question is now radically characterised by State pluralism.93 The papacy’s evolution as a political body throws new light, with regard to the by now classic interpretation, on the origins of modern jurisdictionalism in the sixteenth and first decades of the seventeenth centuries. This will become evident when examining State-Church relationships. For the moment, it is important to point out that even on the doctrinal level the growth of awareness of the pope’s dual role as king and shepherd, as prince -and head of the Church, has not been adequately traced from a theological and canonistical point of view.

|

LADA Ù

The sovereign: prince and pastor

31

Even the great Counter-Reformation canonists are entirely silent on these questions. Their outlook is still that of the classic canonical collections, of the decrees in which there are no distinctions with regard to the person of the pope or the authority and law emanating from him. The papal lordship seems to be an insignificant appendix of the government of the universal Latin Church, and canon law is still regarded as undifferentiated, in its local base and in its Roman apex, without taking account of either the directives coming from the pope as sovereign on a territorial basis, nor the particular laws developed on a concordatory basis.95 Neither the traditional treatises which followed the scheme of decrees nor the new treatises which raised the new papal absolutism confronted the problem of the distinction between spiritual and civil jurisdiction, leaving everything concerned with temporal sovereignty ambiguous. Among the many examples which could be cited, it is perhaps enough to note Domenico Toschi, Agostino Barbosa and Prospero Fagnani. The first — who before becoming cardinal and an influential candidate of the papacy held several administrative and judiciary posts in the Papal State®® — raised the ‘plenitudo potestatis’ according to old-school theocratic terms and, after pointing out the double role of the pope in the Church (as head of the universal Latin Church and bishop of Rome) added only:97 Aliam etiam administrationem habet circa temporalia; quia quaedam bona sunt patrimonii Ecclesiae, et in istis Papa contrahit tanquam publica persona: habet etiam bona patrimonii proprii, et in istis contrahit tanquam privata persona . . .

Amplia, quia circa temporalia potest item dici in rege, vel principe seculari, quia habet administrationem triplicis patrimonii, nempe patrimonii reipublicae, item patrimonium rerum fiscalium . . .*

This concerns the application to the pope of the traditional doctrine of the common law on taxation and on the public person of lay kings which Toschi imbued with great political content in a following conclusio with the significant title ‘Papa in temporalibus Ecclesiae romanae est imperator, et supra Imperium’:98 Papa in temporalibus Ecclesiae romanae acquisitis est absolutus dominus, et supremus, ita quod non habet maiorem, neque aequalem, neque alium recognoscere potest in honore, vel iurisdictione, aut maioritate, quia imo Imperator tenetur iurare fidelitatem romanae Ecclesiae . . . Amplia quia regnum beati Petri, et illius patrimonium est liberum, et plus liberum ab imperiali iurisdictione quam

*

The pope possesses, in addition, another administrative function in temporal affairs: for certain goods are in the care of the Church and these the pope deals with in his role of public person. He also possesses goods which belong to his own estate, and these also he deals with in his role as a public person . . . Moreover, since he is entitled to be called a king in temporal affairs, or secular prince, since he controls affairs in three areas, the state and also fiscal affairs...

32

The Papal Prince

liberum regnum Francorum ... Amplia, quia omnes civitates et universitates habentes aliquam iurisdictionem potest supremus princeps in suo dominio privare, quia permissive ab eo dicuntur habere, et multo magis in statu Ecclesiae, quia Papa ‘ est princeps

principum,

et dominus

dominantium;

ideo potest confirmare

et

revocae statuta, tollere, et dare iurisdicionem, prout sibi placet.*

Even here there is nothing new, only statements based on early commentators, especially Baldo; even the raising of absolute power in temporal matters seems still to rely — although with an indubitably secular emphasis — on power and the spiritual dignity of the pope, without calling for new doctrinal ratification. Agostino Barbosa (1590-1649), departing from the most exhaustive theocratic formulations, leaves the entire argument unclear about the relationship between the pope’s temporal and spiritual jurisdiction even where, as in the elaboration of the roles of the cardinal legates, the consequences of the new changes on the institutional level are obvious. He notes merely that the lower-ranking functionaries dispatched by the pope to govern a city or province, without the ecclesiastical authority of legates or nuncios, are allowed only to exercise their jurisdiction ‘quoad regimen civitatis’.©? We shall see later the great controversy arising out of the connection between civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the Papal State, particularly in relation to the Tridentine decree (session XXIV, chapter 20) which removed the bishops from judging the first instance legal cases. Here it is interesting to consider the constitutional aspect where, even in Barbosa, there is no distinction between the temporal or spiritual spheres, between ecclesiastical or civil government, in the figure of the pope or in any of his representatives. The position of Prospero Fagnani (1588-1678) with regard to the pope's temporal sovereignty is even more closed as it is also linked formally to the old scheme of decrees without any reference to modern politics, and is limited to the lands of the Empire and those of the Church. In this framework, the directions of the Council of Trent and of the new papal constitutions are introduced without any attempt to weld them together or to reconcile differences. There are only a few hints to the fact that the laity is submitted to canon law only in the Church’s territories,7° and that the pope * In the temporal affairs of the Roman Church, the pope is absolute lord and supreme. This is the case because he has no one greater than himself or, indeed, equal to him, nor may he accord recognition to anyone in office or legal authority or prestige, because even the emperor is bound to swear loyalty to the Church of Rome . . . Moreover, he possesses the kingdom of Blessed St Peter and his possession is free and, indeed, freer from the legal authority of the emperor than is the free kingdom of France . . . Moreover, the supreme prince can bring within his own sphere all states and universities which have any judicial authority, for the prince of princes and the lord of lords has this authority. For this reason he can confirm and annul statutes, rescind and confer legal authority just as he pleases.

hi hi pia ipl i Re La:

‘

ata \

p

x4 The sovereign: prince and pastor

33

is not allowed to interfere in civil law (unless the question of sin is involved) in territories in which he does not have temporal jurisdiction.’? Giovan Battista De Luca (1614-83) is the first to provide an entirely new outlook and an attempt to create an organic and coherent systematisation of the institutional situation of the Church of Rome. De Luca practised as a lawyer and judge of the rota for many years before becoming cardinal and he maintained an entirely isolated and prominent position in Roman circles in the second half of the seventeenth century; he also contributed in an exceptional way to the popularisation of juridical science in the vernacular and to its connection with the development of political thought.7? Some of his themes with regard to law and legislation in the Papal State will be discussed later. Here, it is his institutional approach which is under scrutiny, the definition of the plurality of the figures formally present in the single physical person of the pope and their consequences in government structure. De Luca discusses these ideas most organically in the first two discourses of his well-known Relatio Romanae curiae:’? they are to be found in every page of his vast work in the attempt to give continuity to a political and juridical structure whose cracks were already manifest, in De Luca's eyes, well before the eighteenth-century denunciations. Having first exposed the derivation of the ‘modernorum principum sedes residentiales’ from the glorious ‘curia’ of ancient Rome and the rebirth from its glorious ashes of the still more glorious ‘romana curia christianae reipublicae, ejusque capitis summi pontificis domini nostri Jesu Christi unici ac supremi vicarii, habentis totum mundum pro territorio, totumque humanum genus in spiritualibus, ac in temporalibus habitu subjectum’, De Luca proclaims the thesis that a quadruple person is embodied in the Roman curia:74 Cum autem papa, cujus imperii aula, seu curia ista dicitur, quadruplicem pluries

enunciatam gerat seu repraesentet personam, unam scilicet jam enunciatam Christi

vicarii generalis, et episcopi Ecclesiae universalis; alteram patriarchae Occidentis; tertiam episcopi particularis Romanae civitatis . . . et quartam demum imperatoris,

vel principis temporalis urbis, illiusque Italiae temporalis ditionis, quae sub utriusque mediati, ac immediati Status ecclesiastici nomine explicatur.*

The peculiar problem of the Roman curia derives from the fact that different and distinct formal manifestations of power are combined in its body ‘ob or a curia) carries out or fulfils a * The pope, however (whether his authority is called a court in time past is that of the identified role One ways. different four in role which is worked out role of the

the second is the vicar-general of Christ and bishop of the universal Church; cy of the Roman state and eastern patriarchy; the third is the role of the particular episcopa the temporal sphere of and city the of prince temporal or emperor the of the fourth, finally, a direct and indirect of heading the under ed interpret be to are Italy itself. Both of these ecclesiastical State.

34

The Papal Prince

diversas personas formales, quae in una eademque persona materiali repraesentantur’:”5 it is possible to speak not only of different juridical persons but also of different curias ‘diversamque speciem, seu naturam habeant’; in most of the problems concerning civil government or the diocese of Rome, universal papal authority is not involved;’¢ in actual fact, however, the curias were tightly interwoven and formed a ‘mixture’ not only with regard to ecclesiastical matters but also those concerning temporal dominion ‘solumque ipsorum negotiorum qualitas, vel natura hanc distinctionem docet’.”” De Luca was trying to explain a mixture which had earlier favoured the concentration of power but now, in a period of mature absolutism, emerged anomalous with regard to the curias of the secular princes. The latter, consisting of the entire populace and of the magistrates, form a body of which the king is the head and the others the members, all of whom contribute in different ways ‘ad ipsius reipublicae mysticum corpus efformandum’; not thus in the Roman curia which is formed by the pope alone who derives his power, as far as the universal Latin Church is concerned, not from the people nor from the republic, but directly from God; for this reason, the body-head analogy does not apply to Rome where all the magistrates and collaborators are ‘famuli’ of the sole lord, of the sole existing incarnation of power.”® The second discourse returns therefore to the pope’s physical person, in which more persons coexist; ‘plures in papa consideratur personae distinctae’, repeats De Luca, illustrating the four persons described above.”? With regard to the fourth of these persons, the lay prince, the basic principle is that if there is no deliberate will to involve papal authority. all civil matters (even those concerning the exemption and immunity of the clergy) are dealt with as in any other secular principality; the sole problem which arises in practice, in fact, rather than in law is to establish when the popemonarch desires deliberately to impose his papal and apostolic authority as well.8° Having only practical purposes in mind, De Luca does not pursue the academic discussions of theologians and canonists about the person of the pope as prince and temporal lord. He notes the problem of the origin of the papal dominion, and, after reviewing all the different theses, declares

himself in favour of the thesis concerning the voluntary submission of the populace abandoned by the eastern Empire and left in prey to the barbarians. In any case, the outcome is that the ecclesiastical State is totally independent of any other power. The pope regarded as territorial sovereign, ‘tanquam regem diversum ab altera persona summi pontificis’ must not be confused with the successor of Peter. This distinction has fundamental consequences: while the pope-vicar of Christ cannot be limited in his own spiritual power, the pope-king is made subject, as far as temporal

The sovereign: prince and pastor

|

35

government is concerned, to the deliberations of his predecessors (the problem is especially acute for Pius V’s bull de non infeudando, which in particular limits sovereign power), and to the conditions or electoral treaties set up by the college of cardinals:8! ... dum ita id redolere videtur quemquam contractum qualificatum, seu conditionalem, per quem prophana respublica per collegium cardinalium, tanquam per _temporalem

senatum

repraesentata,

in eum

transfert prophanum

principatum,

diversum ab usu clavium, quae per organum electorum, iuxta catholicae fidei praecepta, ex operatione Spiritus Sancti immediate recipit a Deo. . . Hinc proinde,

manifesto laborant aequivoco moderni, et praesertim aliqui morales, qui unam personam, vel potestatem cum altera confundentes, pariformiter in utraque, easdem adhibent rationes, vel terminos, super potestate disponendi de officiis, ac redditibus, ac aliquas faciendi elargitiones coniunctis, dum alia sunt ea, quae ad unum, et alia quae ad alterum principatum pertinent.*

Basically — and this is developed in the third discourse on papal elections — while the cardinals, according to De Luca, have no power as such within the government of the universal Latin Church, and no participation in the pope’s power in pastoral matters, the ratio needs to be radically different with regard to the temporal principality: Cum papa consideratur, tanquam princeps temporalis, regulandus iure aliorum principum temporalium; hinc sequitur ut habitualis potestas resideat penes rempublicam, cuius princeps dicitur maritus, vel primus minister et regulator: et per consequens ut eo naturaliter, vel civiliter mortuo, ipsa reassumat suae potestatis exercitium.

With De completed. spurred on anomalous

Luca’s elaboration, our thesis appears to be confirmed and The Papal State, which in the middle of the fifteenth century was by the new papal ideology, two centuries later appears as an element in the European panorama. Its political justification

The grounds of the contract look as though they are qualified and conditional. Through the agency of the College of Cardinals, acting as though it were a temporal senate, the temporal he state hands over to him temporal power, which is different from pontifical power, which the of precepts the with accordance in body, electoral the through God, receives direct from Catholic faith, by the workings of the Holy Spirit. Modern commentators, and especially or some moral philosophers, clearly fall into error at this point. They mix up the one role They function with the other. They adduce the same theoretical justification in both cases. revenues use the same terminology whether they are describing the power to confer office or belong to or the conferring of benefits, when in fact some belong to one function and some the other aspect of the prince’s authority. which + When the pope is considered as a temporal prince, he must be guided by the law hands of governs other temporal princes. Hence, it follows that in fact power resides in the the State of which the prince is called the husband, or the first minister and overseer. repossesses Consequently, when he dies of natural causes, or in time of peace, the State herself of the exercise of her own power. *

- 36

The Papal Prince

could be found only by evocation of its historical roots and empiricalpolitical causes, as shown by Bellarmino. The assertion of its autonomous juridical life, founded in the definition of the double person of the pope, showed a clear contradiction which has only been sharpened and not mitigated by the renewal of the universalistic activities of the Church of Rome in the Counter-Reformation: inside, the ‘mixture’ (according to De Luca’s definition) of the two souls within a single political body; outside, an anomalous position with regard to the international framework because of a similar superimposition of the levels of universal spiritual action and of State policy which no dialectical distinction manages to overcome. In these two centuries, the other states carried on the line that the papacy itself had helped to bring about, to more coherent consequences, enveloping the ecclesiastical organisation within the polis, and gave the first solid basis to the omnipotence of sovereignty. In Rome, the attempts at reform, like those directed by Innocent XI in the second half of the seventeenth century with De Luca’s cooperation, are the external and manifest demonstration of the rift, by now a reality in spite of every effort to reconcile the two figures of ‘episcopus particularis Romanae civitatis’ and ‘imperatur Urbis’8? which led to a grave malady within State and society as well as within the ecclesiastical body. Any attempt at religious restoration results in suffering, in an increase of economic malaise, and in the debasement of the State; the responsibility and conditioning of the temporal government obscure every desire, however heart-felt, to return a religious and spiritual aspect to the authority of the pope of the universal Latin Church.

CHAPTER

THREE

Power and image

Nevertheless, amongst these reflections on the state and the temporal powers of the Church, one should not omit what pertains to the form of government and to the description of the particular administration of that state: in fact consideration of this element is crucial because the greatest and most secure foundation of every state depends on it. The pope rules the entire ecclesiastical state with supreme authority and with pure and absolute imperiousness, and everything depends upon his single desire. So that truly it can be said to be a royal government, and of a kind most free from other obligations and ties of law and particular regulations, to which the different royal states are perhaps subject through the great authority which councils, parliaments, barons, or populace hold over them, following the customs and privileges of different provinces. But the pope with great and absolute authority orders and grants every matter, without using any other counsel, unless he wishes to, nor does he receive any hindrance from any contrary constitution; as I have seen in my experience in many very important transactions and matters which have occurred in my time at that court, it is thus in matters precisely pertinent to that state, as in gifts of money made to various princes, the purchase of castles, soldiers sent into Hungary, and other such things. This authority of the popes has been increasing for some years already and ’ becoming merely a monarchy... (Paolo Paruta, report from Rome, 1595, in Alberi, 11/4, p. 412)

the What has been said hitherto about the importance of the presence of be would period State in the papal monarchy in the early modern papacy the of meaningless if the concrete development of the political body set out. In redid not correspond with the ideological layout which has been the period cover ality, this correspondence seems quite clearly to exist and to century h under consideration, from the mid-fifteenth to the mid-seventeent in pment develo and it is possible to identify in this period a span of organic a7,

38

The Papal Prince

the construction of an absolute State which seeks to obtain and carry out that unity of prerogatives which characterises the new concept of sovereignty. The fact that in the succeeding period it entered a regressive course which soon led to its being considered one of the worst governed states in Europe is a different matter, and it is hoped that this study will contribute to the understanding of those further developments also. It is, however, a fairly common historiographical mistake, to be found in a large part of the literature until now — particularly in Italy, where it is still, even unconsciously, linked to the great battles of the Risorgimento — to interpret the whole history of the Papal State of the modern period in terms of the decay which characterised the period of its decline. This also appears to be the approach of the latest survey of the history of the Papal State during the early modern period: the various pontificates are considered one after the other and the conclusion reached that the Church's late-sixteenth-century temporal institutions differ only slightly from those of the first decades of the fifteenth century, and that, contrary to Delumeau’s thesis, which is taken up by the present writer, there was no effective progress towards centralisation and the construction of an absolute State with any modern characteristics.! Delumeau’s thesis is known well.? Albornoz’s dream of an Italian state subject no longer nominally, but effectively, to the pope became reality only in the sixteenth century. Delumeau summarised the successes of the popes in the extension of external frontiers and in the reduction of the internal autonomies, from the reconquest of Bologna and Romagna by Julius II to the capture of Ferrara in 1498; he outlined the anti-feudal policies of the popes which in 1567 found their cornerstone in Pius V’s bull de non infeudando. Delumeau did not deny the existence of banditry but saw it as a revolt against the advance of the State and of the city on the country; he noted the existence of a relatively developed and specialised bureaucracy, with the result that the Papal State of about 1600 does not appear backward in relation to the other European states regarding the concentration of authority. By then, Rome had become a real capital, which, apart from its great attraction on a social and economic level,? exercised a specific political role comparable to the one exercised later by Versailles in France, and transformed the rebellious Roman aristocracy into courtly nobility. A modern system of levies and public debit was set up, also for the contingencies which arose from the fiscal necessities dictated by the resumption of the papacy’s universalistic activities. A coherent system of food offices, transport and postal organisation was established. Comparing the Papal State to Holland, Delumeau concluded that the reasons for the sclerosis were not to be sought in the administrative structures (which were far more centralised and stronger than those of the United Provinces) but in the economic and social spheres:

Power and image

i

ov

if the Papal State had added an active agriculture and industry to its excellent position in central Italy, and to the splendour of its capital, the unification of Italy would have taken place well before the nineteenth century.

Although this almost paradoxical conclusion concerning the Papal State’s hypothetical role as agent of national unification is to be rejected, for its anti-historicity as well as for the rigid and artificial distinction which it establishes between the politico-administrative and socio-economic spheres (Delumeau himself overcame this distinction in his examination of the relationship between the universal policies of the popes and the fiscal weight imposed by them on the State), the theories concerning the development of centralisation in the Papal State at the beginning of the early modern period are thought-provoking and could yield much on closer examination. Work of this nature has been started in the discussion by the present writer of the central organs of government,* but the preliminary research still necessary in each of the fields inevitably concerned with it is so vast that a proper history of the development of centralisation in the Papal State cannot be dealt with by any single one. This, however, is not the scope of the present work — even a simple, more in-depth, examination of Delumeau's thesis is useful in understanding some of the aspects of the papacy's history in general in the concrete exercise of its power. If, on the one hand, it is stated that the papacy did not manage to construct a mature modern State, this is merely the truth. But an attempt to do so took place, and is not only itself worthy of the historian’s attention, but is also an important element for the understanding of the construction of the modern State in general. On the other hand, the construction of this State would not have been without significance or consequences for the universal government of the Church, both with regard to the Reformation and the papacy’s adoption of its universalistic policy in the Counter-Reformation. Research should not be limited to the financial and fiscal aspects, however important these may be: it is necessary to gather together all the structural aspects of a body whose two ‘animas’ are in the process of irreversible estrangement precisely during this period. So that misunderstandings may not occur, it is perhaps useful to recall briefly the vexed problem of the new monarchies and the origins of the absolute State, not in order to embark on a discussion but merely to say that, when speaking of the development of absolutism, reference is made to the transitional phase leading to the modern State in which the structures which characterise the new organisms in their full maturity (in particular, a centralised bureaucracy, a foreign policy based on the balance of the forces in the European ‘concert’ and on permanent diplomacy, and a stable army), were taking shape in war and at the same time in symbiosis with the

40

The Papal Prince

elements which were a feature of the preceding political system and which characterised the subdivision of power.° It is well known that the Italy of the signorie and of the regional states preceded the great northern monarchies in these innovations, even if the phenomenon seems to have been insufficiently examined by the German historians who developed the historiographical approach most fully concerning the question of ‘Staatsbildung’ or State-building.® This opened up the controversies about the precise dating of the phenomenon, which have contributed a good deal to the muddle: should we consider that the absolute State did not exist before the seventeenth century, or can we consider that some of its fundamental characteristics were already visible in the sixteenth or even the fifteenth centuries?” As some recent studies have shown,* there can be no doubt that in the Italian political laboratory of the fifteenth century, the fabric of the new State structures was in the process of advanced development, and that the papacy was actively involved in this construction. It is also true, and thematically relevant to the political body of the papacy, that Italy’s advantage in this field — owing to economic and cultural causes which cannot be discussed here — was transformed into a boomerang when these mechanisms were transplanted into the fuller and more powerful political unities of the rest of Europe. . The revival of Burckhardtian perceptions — the Italian Renaissance State as a work of art — in the light of the new perspectives opened up by structural investigations has also to include the popes in their process of becoming Italian princes. From the mid-fifteenth century, there is a visible continuity in the papacy’s policy towards constructing the State, which certainly is not to deny the obvious fluctuations (which state did not have them at this period?), but rather includes them in the long cycle which represents the duration of this experience. The Papal State is certainly a monarchy sui generis, which is not only elective, but whose election is based on neither aristocracy nor an oligarchy within the State, but on a college in which the external factors have a decisive influence, and one which determines not only a ‘spoils system’ in the passage between pontificates (redistribution of power and riches, of which the phenomenon of nepotism — as we shall see later — forms a part), but also notable fluctuations in the trends of general policy. However, these elements, which have a disruptive influence in themselves, are balanced by specific cohesive elements which are made up of the glorification of the sacral character of the State and the use of spiritual power as a support to political initiative. It has already been noted that between the councils of Basle and Trent, the popes concentrated their efforts on the restoration of temporal power within their own State; but, since as a temporal power within the European system the papacy could only be a third-class power, it could therefore overcome the crisis only by renouncing

Power and image

41

competition with the other powers.’ By defining itself as an absolute monarchy ‘of a kind most free from other obligations and ties of law and particular regulations’, as Paolo Paruta referred to it in the passage quoted at the beginning of this chapter, the papacy took part in the general European flow towards the construction of the modern State. Even with the renewal of universalistic spiritual action after the Council of Trent, this did not occur without leaving quite visible traces in both the papacy’s structures themselves and in the entire political system in which it took an active part until its gradual demise from the mid-seventeenth century. This chapter sets out to trace the external projection of the papal monarchy into the State in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. The subsequent chapters will deal with aspects more directly concerned with the link between spiritual and temporal power. Guicciardini is a significant source for the identification of the historical identity of this policy and its continuity. In his description in the Storia d’Italia of Leo X's efforts to continue Julius II’s policy of strengthening and extending the State, he ends by declaring that nepotism is not the explanation of its coherence and

continuity: ‘not only when Giuliano his brother and Lorenzo his nephew, for whose exaltation he was thought to have had this covetousness, were still alive, but even after their death — from which it is easy to see that the ambition of the popes has been incited by nothing but itself’. 10 The passage merits a second look, both for a reappraisal of nepotism and for the definition of the new concept suggested by the word ‘ambition’, meaning the new sense of the ‘State’ which in general moulded the popes after the middle of the fifteenth century. Again, at the end of the sixteenth century, Giovanni Botero’s discussion of the State as ‘firm domination over peoples’ and of ‘raison d’état’ as ‘knowledge of the means capable of founding, preserving and extending such domination’ has the Papal State particularly in mind, even if the study of the sources of Botero's political ideas has still to be done: Botero advises the princes not to wage war on the Church on the basis of the negative experience which has overcome all — Milan, Florence, Naples and Venice, ‘whose wars with the Church have been expensive and profitless’ because (and here in the first edition is the sentence which was subsequently deleted in the later editions for being too daring) ‘the Church never loses its reasons and, even if one pope disguises them, the next one the takes them up again and revives them’.!! Naturally, the conviction ‘that good the of because not itself ecclesiastical state keeps and maintains other institutions, or any of those internal matters which usually make the who one no is there because but states and empires secure and durable, in everywhere found be to is 1 it’, wants or must dare to do anything against and Botero to Machiavelli from thought sixteenth-century Italian political pope as head even Paruta himself. But whether it is through the figure of the

42

’

The Papal Prince

of Catholicism or the actual balance of power between the Italian states, papal domination on the whole still seems to be endowed with a vital energy —threatened by the shortcomings we have shown, certainly, but only in an as yet distant future. Undoubtedly the state which Paruta and Botero could see, and which showed signs of a deep internal imbalance, had nothing to do with the conglomerate of disjointed and fragmented possessions inherited by the popes of the first half of the fifteenth century, and on which they built one of the foundations in the battle against conciliarism.!* If the results are still unclear in the period of Eugenius IV (1431-47), too tightly constricted between conciliarism and the citizens’ and seigneurial feudal autonomies, the features of the pope-king are quite visible in his successor Nicholas V (Tommaso Parentuccelli, 1447-55), in the essential elements to be developed in very different ways by his successors. Nicholas V’s main concern was the consolidation of the State: an interest in Italian affairs, which made him the main protagonist of the developments which resulted in the Italian League and in the Peace of Lodi, also dominated his concordatory policy which found its focal point in the Treaty of Vienna. Nicholas V now appeared rather as a member of the Italian and European political system than as an authority superior to the states, using all the instruments offered by the new political techniques from diplomacy to the development of an efficient administrative and fiscal bureaucracy. As

has been rightly observed, under Nicholas V the papacy politicised itself in its interaction with the other Italian states and Europe in the sense that it appropriated the State’s principles of action in their most advanced form, something which could not be abandoned for centuries by his successors without compromising the very life of the papacy.!* As a recent and splendid study has shown, Nicholas V, ‘governor, priest and builder’, is not only the first pope of the Renaissance, the Maecenas and art lover, but also the one who, through using his knowledge of the Italian seigneurial system, pursued with hitherto unknown vigour his ideal of constructing a state with a programmed policy which was to be a model for the popes and also for the European sovereigns in the following centuries. !> But as it would be impossible to mention all his activities and those of his successors, we shall at least try to summarise and give examples of the elements which seem most characteristic in this construction. — The monarchical ideology referred to earlier did not remain abstract but embodied itself in the person of the pope, in his physical and public being. As an example, we can consider the most symbolic occasion, the procession of Corpus Domini of 17 June 1462 in which Pius II played the role of the director of a monarchy’s truly disconcerting stage set. Paraphrasing the

; agi ci Ali

Power and image

43

arrival of God in psalm 23, verse 7 (‘levata capita vestra et elevamini portae eternales et introibit rex gloriae. Quis est iste rex gloriae? Dominus fortis et potens . . .’), actors pretending to prevent his entry demand, ‘Who is this King Pius?’, while others dressed as angels reply, ‘The lord of the world’, playing on the fact that the pope carried the sacrament in the procession. !* But if this scene is quite exceptional, the new ideology of sovereignty permeated the pope’s daily life with entirely different characteristics from those of the medieval period. And the ‘Papstbild’ is greatly transformed with regard to the universalistic celebration of the medieval ‘plenitudo potestasis’ where, in every case, the spiritual element was still supreme and found justification of its superiority over secular power precisely in the distinction of those two levels and not in their symbiosis.!” It is the theological language itself which has been changed. There is nothing new in the stale continuation of ecclesiological polemics, with the followers of conciliarism in favour of the papal monarchy, and to the detriment of the universal Latin Church, but in the use, often mediated through a new interest in the Old Testament, of the terms of Renaissance political dialogue at a religious and ecclesiological level, as has been acutely noted in connection with Giles of Viterbo.!8 Sacred Rome and profane Rome are continually superimposed and juxtaposed in the figure of the pope-king rather than in the waning synthesis of the Holy Roman Empire: and this even seems the most apt basis for understanding Savonarola’s case.!° In an oration of 1507, glorifying Emanuel of Portugal's victories in Asia, Giles presents perhaps the best example of this kind. Christianity had found its golden age, historically and politically, with Julius Il in the submission, after the fruitless attempts of his predecessors, of the cities and rebellious subjects, as well as in the war against the infidels; there is no distinction between religious and political spheres, and in fact political action becomes a means to achieve the

restoration of the Church:?° Quapropter sentio antecessoribus tuis tamen tuo tempore cornu David [psalm robur suum.*

i

corroboratum a te templum, cum video rebelles civitates parere noluisse, diu sacerdotum praecepta contempsisse, Deum recordatum David et omnis mansuetudinis eius, illuc produxisse 131] iusisseque colla subdere pedibus tuis et recepisse tandem

This approach should be considered from a more historiographical point of view than it has been until now, in the appraisal of the demands for reform — rebellious * For this reason, I feel that the Church has been strengthened by you. For I see that decrees of the despised year, a many for and, predecessors your obey to states were unwilling forth the Horn priests, but in your time God remembered David and all his mercy and has led at length of David [psalm 131] and has placed the necks of his enemies beneath your feet and recovered his strength.

44

The Papal Prince

of which Giles was an advocate — in order to understand its intrinsic weakness and its contradiction with regard to the supporting ideology of the pontificate. In the same way, a more extensive study along these lines could make a notable contribution to the understanding of the ideological continuity between the Renaissance, Counter-Reformation and baroque papacies. The wars against the new heretics were part of a general view which had little or nothing to do with medieval repression but had deep roots in Italy. One of the most fascinating aspects and a subject for truly interdisciplinary research is the impact of this ideology on literary and artistic Rome of the Renaissance and baroque period. Countless fragments of this great picture exist and many pieces interlink, but the impression is as yet vague. Research into the sacred oratory, literature and. visual arts, although remarkable from purely qualitative and quantitative points of view, has not yet analysed the connection between these and the image the papacy desired to project. A glimpse of this relationship can be provided. With regard to the sacred oratory, a perfect example comes from a recent investigation into the sermons given at the papal court from 1450 to 1521.21 Here it is simply noted that there is a coincidence between the date at which the documentary material began to be tracked down and the pontificate of Nicholas V. In reality, this coincidence reveals something far more profound about the public function of the sermons within the Roman apparatus; furthermore, the literary analysis immediately testifies to the break with medieval tradition. But further study is certainly needed to widen the purely literary and humanistic angle, linking it with the evolution of the institutions. In other areas, as in the one relating to the papacy’s intervention in the literary and artistic fields, the witnesses are legion, but it is still necessary to go back to the somewhat antiquated sources of material provided by Pastor, Rodocanachi and Miintz.?? Nevertheless, the potential of exploration into this field is indicated by recent exemplary studies on the ideological significance of the frescoes of the Sistine chapel, of the period of Sixtus IV and of about eighty years later, in Pius IV’s casino. The return to scenes from the Old Testament, and in particular the glorification of Moses, are seen as part of the primacy’s new ideology, and testify to its continuity beyond the Renaissance, in a narrow sense, into the Tridentine papacy.?3 Apart from the strictly ecclesiological aspect and the theories which formed its basis, we should look more carefully at the political importance of this new figure of the pope-king which, apart from St Peter, was embodied in Moses as the leader of the Hebrew people in the entire extension of power from the religious to the political sphere. A single example can provide a clue to this argument: Raphael’s Expulsion of Heliodorus from the Temple

Power and image

45

_expresses not a sacred message but clearly presents, as has been recently pointed out, the celebration of the expulsion of the Bentivoglio, lords of Bologna, from the city at the hands of the papal army: ‘The temple becomes a symbol of the States of the Church, the Bentivoglio are seen as profaning the temple; this is the papal version of the conflict. Art is here fulfilling the function of propaganda, just like the modern poster.’24The emphasis placed on Old Testament figures even during the period of the CounterReformation may explain the continuity and persistence of a papacy which not only reiterates its primacy over the universal Latin Church but also relays a more complex and composite message in which the royal element even physically assumes an identity which cannot be reduced to the previous characteristics of the Petrine vicariate or of the Donation of Constantine, despite the fact that there is constant reference to these foundations. During the same period, the return to and the re-assimilation of classical antiquity provide us with a similar argument, although linked strictly to the above thesis, and one which is historically sound. An image which consistently and coherently gave a face to the new papal reality manifests itself from the representation of the new golden age begun under Nicholas V?5 to the exaltation of Paul III through episodes from the life of Alexander the Great,?6 to Innocent X’s reference to Aeneas in the midseventeenth century?” — to give examples only from studies which have come out in the last few years. Statues erected in the main towns of the Papal State during the fifteenth century, from Julius II to Sixtus V, show the physical incarnation of the new direct and regal power of the popes, differing entirely from Boniface V’s medieval model — even if a few elements are retained — to take on the appearance of the modern signoria.?8 This change, as one moves from the iconographical representation to the symbolical, can be seen in its earliest phase in Nicholas V’s decision to abandon the family arms, which naturally varied from pope to pope, whilst retaining thesymbol of the fisherman, and to adoptinstead the crossed keys of St Peter as permanent standard of the Holy See.?° A similar course can be traced in the evolution of papal ceremonial and liturgy. ‘Door of History’ is the title of a recent study of fifteenth-century papal ceremonial;?° in reality it is quite difficult to perceive changes in symbols and ceremonies whose basic function in the process of the legalisation of power is to appear immutable. However, after Nicholas V’s papacy, papal ceremonial assumed greater importance and became more secular, astonishing Catholic Reformation exponents who were concerned in recovering antique traditions; until Nicholas V’s reign, the liturgy is still pastoral with the celebration of mass and the preaching by the pope himself as bishop of Rome. Slowly and with remarkable continuity, the liturgy becomes even more solemn and rigidly structured, with the pope

46

The Papal Prince

celebrating only three times a year, and not preaching but merely assisting. Roman ceremonial becomes more an occult science strictly allied to the mystery of power, which not even the Catholic Reformation’s pastoral efforts managed to change.*! Under Urban VIII (1623-44), at the end of our period, papal ceremonial also reached its definitive formulation, ending thus its creative task but continuing to play until today its not indifferent role in the government of the universal Latin Church.*? It is clear that these transformations are linked to the emergence of the sovereign figure, as is particularly evident in the coronation ceremonies and the taking office of the newly elected pope, even if the few most recent studies continue to regard them only at an ecclesiological level in connection with the papacy’s triumph over the councils.** From the midfifteenth century, the development of the ceremonies concerned with the assumption of power, their gradual detachment from the religious roots of the election of the bishop of Rome, and the secularisation already evident in the time of Pius II (but which greatly increased in the following decades and century) make, as has already been noted, ** the rise of the new pope a quite different occasion from the splendid medieval papacy of Innocent III. Even here it is a matter of history still to be written, in which the memoirs of brilliant men like Francesco Cancellieri play a radical part,55 to be thoroughly investigated and expanded in the light of the latest historiographical approach, to show the structures of continuity of papal

power. Some idea of the importance of the physical symbols of power can be given without going into the discussion concerning the restoration of the ‘trionfi’ in Renaissance Rome, the theatrical processions which grew in political importance as the representation of power in the period from the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation and baroque age, and which served as.a model for all the new European courts. Even the evolution recorded here is not a break with the past. As a symbol of the pope’s universal power, the tiara had centuries before superseded the mitre as the symbol of episcopal and spiritual power, and had already taken its definitive form of the ‘triregno’ papal tiara in the fourteenth century.37 From the midfifteenth century onwards, however, it assumed not only a major presence but a new life, more separated from its imperial-Constantinian roots, and linked more closely with the concrete weight of sovereignty. Its splendour and richness consequently increased — as much to serve as security in the worst moments of papal finances — as did its use. Even its transformationis significant: with the fabulous model commissioned by Julius II, it also lost its traditional tiara shape to take on a unified design of a new type. ** Even if his successors went back to the characteristic three crowns — which was understandable in the effort to reassert universalism after the shake-up of

Power and image

47

the Reformation — it would be difficult to avoid seeing the assertion of a monarchical principle more strictly allied to territorial sovereignty.

When we consider the full panorama of the court as well as just the person of the prince and his personal symbols of power, the imbalance in our knowledge becomes almost absurd. On the one hand, there is an almost endless series of studies — too many to acknowledge here — on the most varied aspects of the courts of the Renaissance and baroque popes but no attempt to estimate their political significance. On the other hand, a few recent studies have posed the problem of the court as an instrument of consensus in the assertion of the modern State, alongside the other instruments pointed out in earlier literature — such as the standing army, bureaucracy, organisation of the treasury, and diplomacy — but have not considered the Roman court, even though it appears an admirable model for the great European monarchies in the building of their own power apparatus.5° As has recently been observed, there is no study of the Renaissance papal court: And yet between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Rome gives rise to a prototype, in a strictly semiotic sense, a cultural typology which was to serve as a model of excellence for the whole of Europe of the ancien régime: the European discussion about the court and about the courtier has its matrix in this Rome . . .*°

The historiography which has dealt with the problems of the papacy in the Reformation period has also contributed to such distortions. Bound up in the definition of the process of secularisation as a mass of abuses (sometimes considering these as marginal manifestations of a deeper reality and sometimes basing the proof of the papacy’s decline on them), the historiography has been unable to comprehend the political exigencies which gave way to the formation of the Renaissance court of the sovereigns of the Papal State, and the historical value of this process. In the second half of the fifteenth century, the Roman court developed, more in line with the Italian signorie than with the curial tradition of the medieval papacy, into the greatest and most important court of Europe. And so it remained until it was overtaken by other emerging centres, a school of politics and diplomacy, ethical behaviour and etiquette, of fashion and manners, and of literary and artistic taste. Rome became a city-court which founds its unique inspiration in being a capital. And it was certainly capital the ofmore than just the Papal State even if, during our period, the weight of only Italy, of rest the State and the halo, established in a certain sense by ally, increased in proportion to its losses on the universal plane. Paradoxic and exalting of effect however, the religious centrality of the papacy had the . city-court the by exasperating the social and political phenomenon created

48

The Papal Prince

In 1580, in the full swing of the Counter-Reformation therefore, Montaigne saw Rome as ‘une ville toute cour et toute noblesse’ in which ‘l’oisiveté ecclésiastique’ led to parasitism and a complete neglect of its productive development, and where national differences went unnoticed because of the presence of so many foreigners: ‘chacun y est comme chez soi’.* To understand the transformations which took place under the impulse of Tridentine reform, we need therefore to look not only at a few high points such as the courts of Leo X or Paul III,*? but at the historical role of the court politically over the entire period up to the splendid baroque ceremonial. The political functions are those aimed at the sublimation of sovereignty, and at the exaltation of the sovereign’s charisma (in this case, the question of holiness obviously took on interesting aspects even in the reflections on the other European monarchies). There were also the functions directed at transforming the State’s powerful aristocratic class into a courtly nobility, and at attracting the nobility of the other Italian regions to Rome; and those aimed at weaving the network of economic and social conduct and interests for the consolidation of consensus. It is an area of research which still has to be established, but even at this level there is evidence enough to measure the slow, continuous progress achieved in constructing the State, and to identify the elements which prevented this organism from achieving the maturity of other European monarchies. This was because of the contradictions which became evident in the process of forming the basis and consensus, the secularisation of the ecclesiastical structures being interwoven with the clericalisation of the dominant class. Here we return to the question of the curia, which should not be identified with the court but which was born of it. We shall return to this in the discussion of the organs of government and of bureaucracy. Certainly, while the court remained a fundamental point of reference for Italian and European politics, the emergence of a clerical bureaucracy from the ‘prelatura’, or body of prelates, in Counter-Reformation Rome, eradicated the symbiosis between the clergy and laity which had been typical of the Renaissance curia, as has been noted recently,*? without managing to

resolve the problem either of religious reform or of the formation of a ruling class capable of sustaining the weight of the State. It produced instead a hybrid which characterised seventeenth-century Rome, and which carried with it, despite some splendid exceptions, the germs of decline. An undeniable result is the transformation of the provincial seigneurial aristocracy and the Roman baronage into a courtly society, as a class relieved of true political power, a transformation which perhaps constituted the most consistent thread of the policies of Nicholas V and Paul II. This involved all the popes — first with the disappearance of the institution of papal vicar, and of the self-governing signorie derived from it, and then with the

19 si prati ul _*

Son x

Power and image

49

elimination of pockets of autonomy which remained within the body of the Papal State itself** — and its final drama was played out in the political waning of the Colonna family with the capture of the fortress of Palliano in 1542. The testimonies of Machiavelli and Guicciardini are well known and represent only the acme of a process which encompasses the entire essence of the State. 45 It is not within the scope of this book to examine individual episodes; there is no question about the general development of this process, which went even further in the following period of the Counter-Reformation. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Traiano Boccalini made a survey of the great Roman families, wittily noting that their ancient power was unrecognisable as the popes had known how to reduce ‘the poppies, high as cypresses already, to the humble lowness of dwarfish violets’.46 Naturally, this was all achieved with great concessions on an economic level and in terms of prestige and social privilege — to the detriment, therefore, of the development of a productive bourgeoisie — as well as with a network of matrimonial policies of the great papal and cardinal families, not without some bearing on the development of the ecclesiastical institutions of the

following centuries. A similar argument could be made in relation to the victorious battles against the city autonomies, the best-known of which are the cases of Bologna and Perugia, but which should be studied in detail for each of the papal territories, noting the daily advances of Roman centralism.*” In this regard, we should not confuse the concessions of financial and organisational autonomy, dictated by the interest of the city patriciate, with a renunciation of the expansion of State sovereignty, as far as it is possible to speak of State sovereignty in the sixteenth century.*® A page from Guicciardini on Julius II’s behaviour towards Bologna after the conquest may shed some light: In which, even though the pope set up the new magistrates on the example of the ancients, and in many ways preserved signs and images of liberty, all the same he basically submitted it [Bologna] entirely to the obedience of the Church: liberal as he was in granting many exemptions, he laboured, as he had done in all the other cities, to make the people enamoured of ecclesiastical overlordship.*?

Asa papal governor himself, Guicciardini was one of the great protagonists of this policy; his action with regard to the submission of the clerical class will be examined later. For the present, his own observations will be a sufficient survey of a general direction. This is true even for the city of Rome, where the communal institutions were subjected to increasing pressure by a process which gradually emptied them of all effective power in favour of

50

'

The Papal Prince

the authority of the papal governor and of other offices and tribunals until

their total annihilation in the seventeenth century. °° In Rome, the effort to repress autonomy was accompanied by an increased boost to its role as capital, as mentioned earlier, and therefore by a direct and active involvement in the process of centralism itself. Rome’s decadence in the early fifteenth century, its almost tumultuous growth demographically, socially and economically in the next century and its total urban renewal are too well known to discuss here: at the end of the sixteenth century, the city was truly a world capital which served as a model for the great monarchies.51 The fact that it was then overtaken, and its brilliance as a great capital checked in the course of the seventeenth century while other capitals grew in every respect, is related not so much to the situation of the Church of Rome in its universalistic role — even the great blow of the Reformation seems to have had little bearing at this level — as to the crisis of the Papal State and Italian decline. However, the relationship between city and State, between Rome and the pope as sovereign, has remained unexplored. One can, nevertheless, note the political message contained in the testament of Nicholas V.°? The adverse fortunes of the pontiffs are inherited from the past, states the pope, through the lack of fortifications, particularly in Rome: Has quidem et veteres ac recentes persequutiones Romani Pontifices, nullo unquam, ut jure existimamus et credimus, tempore pertulissent, si novis et inexpugnabilibus munitionibus se, praesertim intra Urbem, protexissent.*

The pain caused by the recent conspiracy by Porcari in 1453 —a last, and at this point, pathetic attempt to restore republican liberty — is still evident; for this reason, the first concern of the cardinals was to complete the fortifications started by Porcari: ut successores nostri externorum tumultuum, domesticarumque persequutionum penitus omnino expertes, dominicum gregem ... tamquam veri

animarum pastores, diligentius atque liberius salubribus cibariis alere, et per hunc modum aditum in viam salutis aeternae traducere possint et valeant.'

The Rome of Nicholas V was the mother of modern Rome and also midwife to the modern city. This statement, the basis of Westfall’s splendid book which has already been referred to several times,53 is extremely * The Roman pontiffs, as we rightly think and believe, would never have had to endure both

past and present attacks if they had protected themselves, especially inside the city itself, __with new and impregnable fortifications. | Hence, it may be that our successors may be totally free from the uprisings of foreign nations and the attacks of indigenous peoples . . . they may have power and strength like true

pastors of souls to nurture more carefully and freely Our Lord's flocks on healthy food, and so by this means lead them into the way of eternal salvation.

Power and image

DI

appealing and we can do no better than to turn to his specific analysis of urban Rome between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries.5* What we should emphasise here is the connection between the popes’ urban policy and the construction of the State, which does not appear to have been included by Westfall.55 The fortification of the Vatican, the reconstruction and deployment of the military and police at Castel Sant’Angelo, the opening of the great network of urban roadways, the incentive to build the hundreds of palaces of the new courtly nobility and prelates are all aspects of

a development which certainly did not exist in the mindsof Nicholas V and his successors, but which drew its coherence from the link with a new reality of the State conceived as public order and as a monopoly of the interventions for the earthly and eternal well-being of its subjects. Behind the city-paradise there are not only vague vistas of geometrical harmonies but the new ideas of the Renaissance policy which the popes had taken up and developed with striking continuity from Nicholas V to Sixtus IV, to Leo X, Sixtus V, and Urban VIII, to quote only a few, and whose presence still physically dominates Rome today. The appeals made by Nicholas V on his deathbed quoted above refer to the two concrete finalities of the new sovereignty: public order and the wellbeing of subjects (leading ultimately to life eternal). There are therefore two instruments used in achieving these ends, the army and the fortifications on the one hand, and a policy directed at expanding the scope of the State’s interference in public life on the other. From the second half of the fifteenth century, the army becomes one of the pope’s main concerns and one of the main financial onuses of the apostolic camera.5° Without going too deeply into this interesting question, which still requires further study,*” we can say that the political turning-point of the mid-fifteenth century is directly linked to the formation of a permanent army of 8,000 to 10,000 men, one of the largest organised armies in the Italian political system following the Peace of Lodi, with the setting up of a new organisation system and a supreme command permanently assigned to a nephew of the pope — a gonfalonier or captain-general of the Holy Church, the first great examples of which are Pier Luigi Borgia with Calixtus III (1455-8), Antonio Piccolomini with Pius II (1458-64), and Girolamo Riario with Sixtus IV (1471-84). There was also a bureaucracy assigned to the ecclesiastics or clergy of the camera acting as commissioners,’* with an increasing involvement of the great families (in the commanding posts) as well as the

subjects of the State.5° At the end of the fifteenth century this organisation was already showing obvious signs of weakness, but this cannot be described as a decline before the sack of Rome in 1527. The crisis of the papal army therefore became

52

The Papal Prince

part, with some additional contradictions, of the more general Italian military crisis of the Renaissance, dependent in its turn on the Peninsula’s institutional and political crisis.°! The weakness certainly became more chronic, given the general period of peace which Italy enjoyed after the last jolts of the mid-century, and its distance from the epicentre of the conflicts, while during the Counter-Reformation papal military expenditure tended to assume the form of subsidies to the warring Catholic powers.®? The specific contradictions, exacerbated to bursting-point by the renewed universalistic actions of the Counter-Reformation, and which are most obvious in the disintegration of the papal army, added to the Italian crisis. On the one hand, in fact, the Papal State was incapable of following to its conclusion the ‘national’ logic which was at the root of successive developments in other European states. On the other hand, the lack of an army, not only asa force but also as an instrument of social integration of the small nobility and of the bourgeoisie, was one of the most important causes of an institutional crisis which slowly became insoluble. The high military posts, starting from captain-general and gonfalonier of the Church, gradually lost their political significance, becoming more and more the instrument of courtly enrichment and a link between the interests of the lay members of the great families and the ecclesiastical apparatus. From the end of the sixteenth century — one should not however forget the powerful army drawn up by Clement VIII in 1597-8 for the recovery of Ferrara and the efforts of Urban VII and Innocent X in 1640 in the battle for Castro— the papal army seemed to be in decline and its role restricted to internal affairs, so that when Italy became once again, during the eighteenth-century wars of succession, the theatre of war, the Papal State was almost at the mercy of the great European forces which had by then completed their transformation into

— national armies.63

Similar observations can be made about the papal navy, which evolved along with the army, particularly from the mid-fifteenth century under recurring Turkish and corsair threat, from the primitive forms of a ‘mercenary’ navy to an organic State organisation under Alexander VI, until its definitive characteristics of a permanent naval squadron were reached towards the end of the sixteenth century.* But possibly the most important sector from our point of view — concerned not so much with development as with the arrest or decline of potentialities — is the fortifications. It has recently been noted®> that the development of modern European fortifications, centred on the new architectonic form of the corner rampart, and dictated by the new artillery techniques, occurred in central Italy between the mid-fifteenth and mid-sixteenth centuries. The constructions — such as Ostia, the rebuilt Castel Sant'Angelo, Civitacastellana, Nettuno, Civitavecchia and the fortresses of the Marche and Romagna, to cite just a few —

Power and image

53

reveal a striking continuity and show how Nicholas V’s appeals were accepted by his successors, who used the most expert architects of the time. With regard to the figure of the pope-king, it is perhaps useful, rather than to itemise the documentation, to recall the impassioned description given by Pius II in book V of his Commentarii of the military expedition undertaken in 1461 in the Roman countryside against the powerful nobles, the Savelli. The new mortars which the pope had had made (and apparently had affectionate feelings toward — the first had been called Silvia, the second Vittoria after his mother, the third Aeneas) had worked brilliantly: ‘ac tum primum in agro romano quid bombardae possint cognoverunt’.66 The Papal State was unable to become one of the great European powers, but the aim of building and consolidating the pope’s sovereign power within the State seems undoubtedly to have been achieved after a century of hard-won successes, with the total loss of military power by the signorie, the great baronial families and the cities. Of course, it is impossible to say that victory over the unruly feudal nobility was complete and without compromise. Neither can one say that a chronic problem of public order did not persist in the Papal State, or claim that the State held a complete monopoly of power: the continual, often fruitless, battle against banditry and brigandry which occupied the period under examination as an endemic plague with extremely crucial moments, testifies to the contrary.®’ But the banditry and brigandry may only have been further evidence of the end of the ancient particularistic order, and of the final reaction — especially serious in the countryside — against the growing penetration of the State into social life, and the new fiscal taxes imposed solely for the upkeep of the new State machine. Research has still to be undertaken in the development of police action in the narrow sense — i.e. public order and crime prevention in the Papal State of the early modern period. Traces of it are plentiful, however, from general legislation to the powers conceded from time to time to cardinal legates and governors, to general and particular proclamations made by the latter; and to numerous testimonies of the action of officials and magistrates in the organisation of the penal and prison system.®* Some aspects will be touched upon later, particularly with regard to the secular—clerical relationship in the Papal State (hence, also in connection with law and crime prevention). What concerns us here is the consolidation of State control through the assertion of its presence in checking deviant behaviour or behaviour considered as such — in the first place, the refusal of sovereignty and its concrete manifestations, the offence of lése majesté — and in the appropriation of areas originally the domain of the feudal-seigneurial world, of city autonomy, or of ecclesiastical authority.

54.

The Papal Prince

From this point of view, we should stress that up till now, while the Counter-Reformation in the Catholic countries in general caused complex problems with the renewed demands for ecclesiastical autonomy (even if these conflicts then ended up in favour of the State), the consequence of its passage in the papal lands was a remarkable expansion of State power, into whose service the new instruments were put unhindered. This was the case with the more general tools of modernisation — for example, parish registers for births, marriages and deaths, the organisation of sacramental visiting, of catechism classes for children, and the new public help systems such as the foundation of great hospitals for beggars and other charitable institutions? — and with those more specifically in charge of the control of media of thought and print, of schools and universities,”° and also — to give more marginal, but possibly not entirely negligible examples as proof of the construction of the modern State — with the organisation of public accounting and of the archive system,7! and the definition of the role of the notary public.7? To summarise, the hypothesis which is put forward here is as follows: independently from the creations of the papal institutions in their secular development, and taking for granted their early degeneration and increasing inferiority as regards the structures which were growing in other parts of Europe, the Papal State of the early modern period may have represented an essential link for European politics — and certainly one which should be considered — in the chain which led to State intervention in vital sectors of human existence previously considered entirely outside the political sphere. _ It concerns the shift from the pietas, from charity, to the concern with public well-being, with help — and obedience — which has, as one of its means of implementation, the double figure of the pope. In 1625 the De pietate romana was published in Rome, by a naturalised Dutchman, and Roman lawyer, Theodor Ameyden. Dictated by contingencies — both on account of the jubilee year and because of its apologetic aims — it is also significant in the context ofthis argument. While the first three parts discuss the corporal and spiritual works of charity and the ‘reliquam universam in Deum pietatem’, the fourth and last, ‘polyticam Urbis administrationem complectitur’, and the justification of this insertion is formulated thus:7? Ad pietatem spectare polyticam reipublicae administrationem, vel ex eo convincitur, quod charitatem potissimum concernit in proximum, alteram pietatis partem: hinc legem a charitate proximi alienam, non solum dicimus iniustam, sed impiam; quia videlicet offensio proximi nequit esse absque laesione pietatis. In optima civitatis administratione urbs Roma coeteras omnes antecedit respublicas. Summa rerum apud romanum pontificem, qui cum duplicem gerat personam patris,

Power and image

SA

sive pastoris communis totius Ecclesiae catholicae, et principis dominii immediate Ecclesiae subiecti . . .*

The argument then returns to the figure of the pope-king, the image of a sovereign pope who, because of his own particular and double role, is in a position to face the needs which have surfaced from the historical context, and to provide a model at precisely the period in which the discussion about the new dimensions and roles of the State was emerging all over Europe. The State’s expansion and interference into more general sociological and economic spheres has been better, if only partially, chronicled. The discovery and exploitation of the Tolfa alum mines are a specific case which cannot be discussed at length here. But their importance with regard to the papacy of the period under consideration is not only economic, as a. considerable source of revenue, but also political. It concerns the strong links with the financial world which arose from the exploitation of the mines, as well as the hope founded on this discovery of rendering the Papal State one of the economic poles in the development of Europe, and the entry into the papacy of an entirely secularised revenue, which was modern and introduced as a means of capitalistic development.”* It is important, above all, to consider the development of the food policy and grain supply, and the building of the street infrastructures, gates and aqueducts. Delumeau has provided the basic elements with regard to the second half of the sixteenth century for the city of Rome, including the entire network of communications, transport and economic links radiating out from the capital.’° Research into the decades before and after, and into the economic and social life of the province could show the points of initiation and decline, the periods of strength and weakness in a political and economic cycle which was certainly not backward, and in certain directions perhaps ahead of the interventions which developed in the great monarchies north of the Alps, despite the fact that inherent within it were elements of weakness and contradiction which were to lead to an early decline.”® These indications are fundamental to our argument concerning the vast problem of papal finances, which is not only important in itself, but also for * This part looks at good works in relation to the political administration of the State. The burden of the argument.is that the State is particularly concerned with charity which is the second part of religious practice. Hence, we call a law which is uncharitable not merely unjust but also irreligious since, clearly, the hurt of one’s neighbour entails the hurt of one’s religion. The city of Rome outstrips all other States in the excellence of its State administration. In summary, the Roman pontiff fulfils a double role of pastor or rather shepherd of the whole community of the Catholic Church as well as the role of the prince of the dominions immediately subject to the Church.

56

ate

The Papal Prince

its direct repercussions in the relationship between temporal and spiritual power in the papal monarchy. Fortunately, since such well-researched studies exist, from Bauer’s classic ones”” to more recent ones,”® it is unnecessary to go over the same ground. With the beginning of the construction of the State, there is a parallel and gradual overturning of the financial structures of the papacy from the mid-fifteenth century. The income of the State, previously almost negligible compared with traditional dues and new kinds of taxation owing to Rome from the universal Latin Church,’”? now became one of the mainstays of the papal finances. The development of this sector, on the one hand the result of the new religious and political situation, was on the other, itself necessarily to influence politics and the entire management of the papacy, emphasising the interest and commitment in the principality and often subordinating to those needs the initiatives in truly ecclesiastical and religious fields — a fact which seems to have escaped Church historians.8° The Reformation, with the disaffiliation of many countries from the Church of Rome, and the heavy cuts imposed by the State on the contributions to the papacy owed by the clergy in the countries which remained Catholic, emphasise the shift of the financial barycentre and, paradoxically, the very secularisation of the structures. If, at the end of the Middle Ages, money from the various regions of Europe flowed into Rome, a hundred years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, the movement had reversed, and it was the Papal State — and to a certain extent the rest of Italy also— which bore part of the weight of the new universalistic initiative of the Counter-Reformation papacy. One of the significant consequences of this was the emphasis on the economic decline of the papal lands themselves precisely because many of the resources squeezed out of the State were used for external purposes, and prevented a situation in which fiscal pressure led to an economically flourishing and enterprising ruling class.81 Even the measures adopted in order to cope with the new budgetary requirements were not without consequence in relation to the papacy’s action. They basically took two forms. In the first place, a permanent direct tax was introduced — alongside increasingly heavy indirect taxes — which was centred on Paul IIl’s so-called ‘triennial subsidy’ of 1543, which in reality became permanent.®? We shall see later some aspects relating to the imposition of fiscal burdens on the clergy of the State; for the moment, we should stress the need to link research into fiscal levying in the Papal State in the early modern period with the general development not only of taxation, but more specifically of the fiscal consciousness or ‘spirit of taxation’ in the European awareness. The influences on the modern State83 of the already complex fiscal machinery of the medieval Church have been referred to earlier: it is however impossible to ignore entirely the new spur

Power and image

57

given by the papacy in its State form from the beginning of the second half of the fifteenth century. The union of temporal and spiritual power allowed the Papal State in this sector far greater daring precisely when the pope was restating a kind of supreme monopoly, at least at a moral level, of the concessions of fiscal levying still regarded as unjust and therefore being justified with arguments such as the upkeep of the sovereign and his entourage, for which in fact different and specific incomes existed.** Another technical instrument put in operation at the same time as taxation from the mid-fifteenth century onwards, was the massive expansion of the papacy’s public debt. This has been much studied®> from the early sporadic forms of the sale of offices, as a means of anticipating income, to the foundation and sale of entire colleges guaranteed on old and new ecclesiastical taxation or on new fiscal levying. This had begun with the college of seventy ‘abbreviatori’ of the apostolic letters founded by Pius II in 1463; more than 2,000 offices were sold in the period of Leo X and the practice reached its greatest expansion at the end of the century, in the full flourish of the Counter-Reformation, under Sixtus V, up till the most modern form of public debt with the foundation of the ‘monti’ (the first, called ‘della fede’, was set up in 1526) as a preventative capitalised sale of the specific income of the papacy.89 Discussion of some. aspects of these institutions which touch directly on the relationship between spiritual and temporal power will be found in later chapters. But it may be useful to emphasise from now on the element formed by the continuity of the phenomenon from the Renaissance to the post-Tridentine period, when the system of the sale of offices reached a critical stage not only in Rome but also in the whole of Europe. Not the proposals of the reformers in the Catholic camp, nor the Reformation or Counter-Reformation managed to hinder the development of a cycle which involved both the double personality of the pope — as head of the Church and as sovereign — and the body of the curia with joint concrete interests, inside and outside Rome. The importance of the State was a truly determining factor for the papacy, conditioning it either in a positive sense, as a source of income, or in a restrictive sense as an incentive towards the secularisation of the ecclesiastical apparatus and for the clericalisation of the State apparatus. The development of the pope’s absolute power and centralisation was embodied in his person, in his political and religious identity during the whole period under consideration. It is perhaps interesting in this context to have another look at the figure of Nicholas V and at the very incisive summary which Giannozzo Manetti gave of his pontificate:87 annis in Namque diu assiduus Nicolai pontificis labor continuis pontificatus sui m, frementiu aque circumqu bellorum solutione ecclesiastici aeris alieni, in sedatione

58

:

The Papal Prince

in urbium perditarum recuperationibus, in schismatum abolitionibus, in novis oppidorum aedificationibus, in quotidianisque eorum munitionibus, ac reparationibus, in caeremoniarum pontificalium praeparationibus, in congregationibus, in transcriptionibus, compositionibusque librorum, in doctorum hominum praemiis ac donationibus, in exornationibus denique omnium, quae vel ad conservandam Romane Ecclesiae auctoritatem, vel.ad exaugendam Sedis Apostolicae dignitatem aliquatenus pertinere ac spectare videbantur, districtius occupabatur . . .*

In the first place, Manetti, who knew the pontiff's concerns only too well, listed the payment of ecclesiastical debts, followed by the war and internal peace, urban activities and the fortification of the city and other daily matters, civil, cultural and religious — an apparent hotchpotch, but one which gives an almost visible idea of the daily life of a pope in the early modern period. From Nicholas V to Urban VIII, the picture changes little, its colour provided by the various characters and more or less worldly appearances linked to the change in religious and cultural climates. The figure of the pope-king is not only a jurisdictional concept but a daily concrete reality which the faithful subjects in the first place have to take into account in the development of the monarch’s absolute power. Thus, as was usual with regard to the Renaissance popes, even towards the end of the period examined in this study, the good Catholic saw the pope as a monarch who, like other monarchs, had made his way towards the concentration of power. Urban VIII (as Ameyden reflected on the former’s death in one of the most interesting testimonies of Catholic Rome in the first half of the seventeenth century) was ‘princeps potius videri voluit quam pontifex, rector quam pastor. Hinc calumniai illi obiectae non paucae, quarum praecipua quod totus politicus omni lege careret.’*® The pope is seen as an absolute sovereign in a literal sense — absolved by every law, and a purely political figure. And if some faithful subject were to forget this, he might meet the fate of the scholar Giovan Camillo Zaccagni, who was beheaded in 1649 for lése majesté, based on Julian law, for having stated that the prefect of the food office in Rome ‘used rules which would not have been used in Turkey’.8? * Pope Nicholas in the years of his pontificate, laboured continuously: he paid off the Church’s debts; he composed peoples at war and the insurrections of surrounding neighbours; he recovered cities which had been lost; he routed out schisms; he built new towns; he looked to the day-to-day fortification of them and their repair; he attended to the preparations which appertain to the ceremonial of the papacy in respect of conferences, copying and composing learned works, endowing and subsidising learned men. In a word, he concerned himself with the adorning of every matter which appeared to relate in any way either to preserving the authority of the Roman Church or increasing the dignity of the Apostolic See . . .*-

CHAPTER FOUR

The legal system: canon law and civil law

Ista vero mixtura utriusque ecclesiasticae et temporalis supremae potestatis

in eadem persona aliquas in huius Principatus regimine producit singularitates, quae in aliis principatibus non permittuntur, neque juridice practicari possunt absque Apostolica auctoritate, et concessione; unde propterea quando sine tali auctoritate practicantur, illicita, et de facto potius quam de jure censeri debet praxis; puta quod aliquibus gabellis, aliisque oneribus personalibus vel mixtis subjiciantur Ecclesiae et personae Ecclesiasticae, quamvis in dignitate constitutae, quae sine dubio in aliis Principatibus illis non subjacent, cum similibus ecclesiasticam immunitatem, et libertatem concernentibus, et quibus conqueri solent ministri aliorum Principum, ac etiam scandalum concipiunt aliqui, illud efformando dilemma, quod aut justum, et rationabile est, ut ecclesiastici contribuant in supportatione publicorum onerum, et indigentiarum, aut non; si non est justum, et rationabile, utique non debet id Pontifex practicare in ejus Principatu, cum ipse debeat esse aliorum exemplar, et magister in pietate et justitia colendis; et si est, tunc idem permittere debet aliis Principibus . . .* (De Luca, e, xvi, p. 8, Commentaria ad constitutionem Innocentii x1 de

statutariis successionibus . . ., I, no. 7)

the same * Indeed, the mingling of both sorts of supreme power, spiritual and temporal, in in other person produced some oddities in the ordering of this state which are not permitted and leave. So states. Indeed, legal matters cannot be carried on without apostolic authority they are illicit when, as sometimes happens, such affairs are practised without authority, Church and the that think to we Are jure. de than rather facto de as construed and ought to be be subject to ecclesiastical personnel, though secured in their public position, should they are ‘ taxations and burdens, either personal or communal, which in other principates The servants of freedom? and immunity Church confusing here not we Are to? subject not block out of this other princes are wont to complain and some others devise a stumbling should contribute by dilemma, namely: either it is just and reasonable that clerical personnel

and reasonable, the undertaking public duties and the relief of the poor, or, if it is not just himself, be an should, he since domains, temporal his in it practise to not pope ought if it is just, he And justice. and conduct religious example and take a lead in cultivating should make the same concession to other princes . . .

59

60

2

The Papal Prince

The question of the evolution of the juridical structure of the Papal State in the modern period has scarcely been touched upon in recent years. This concerns the fact of whether, and how, a system of public law took shape in the papal dominions, parallel with the growth of the State structures, and what consequences this had in an organism as complex as the papal monarchy. Nevertheless, the problem needs investigating before we can proceed in at least three directions: the study of the development of the Roman

institutions as juridical-administrative organs in their concrete

dynamism; understanding the role played by the papacy in the setting up of the modern State; and understanding also the transformation in the Church’s laws themselves which took place in the following centuries. Little or nothing can be gleaned from the works most directly concerned with the structure of the Papal State or the best-known manuals on the history of Italian law. We have to return to the old Storia della legislazione italiana by Vito La Mantia! to find an organic outline concerning Rome and the papal dominion; in the last decades there have been only a few references in the classic manuals of Del Giudice, Besta? and Leicht? and a few pages of Marongiu, who merely observes the lack of literature dealing with the Papal State, relating this to the assertion that spiritual government was of more concern to the popes than the government of the State. This is - obviously rather simplistic, but it is nevertheless clear that the only works which exist on the magistracy of the Papal State and on the Roman curia,5 and which are still regularly consulted, have not examined the juridical framework in which these structures operated, and its evolution. With regard to the wider problem of the formation of the modern State, conclusions about the juridical structure have been drawn far too hastily by the most reliable international historiographers through overlooking the ‘phenomenon’ formed by the papal monarchy. This disregard should perhaps be included within the context of the even greater neglect of Italy’s complex role from the Middle Ages to the modern period in the evolution of State structures. As has been so clearly shown, the ‘unifying monotheism’ of the modern State® can be fully understood only with a knowledge of the long and complicated history which led to the medieval legal structures being superseded by the new State public law with legislative monopoly. On the other hand, the papacy’s role cannot be limited to the influence exercised by classical or post-classical canon law on the formation of the modern concept of sovereignty, seen in relation to both the assertion of absolute power and the recognition of fundamental laws.’ It should instead

be considered in its interaction with the State reality which developed within the Church of Rome itself. If the assertion of national and State law over local and customary law, and over Roman and canon universal law,

The legal system: canon law and civil law

61

represents the dominant element in the legal world of the sixteenth century,® the Renaissance papal principality certainly took part in this process in order to guarantee its own survival and, at the same time, found itself in contradiction with its universalistic tradition. It is interesting, therefore, to discover whether, as it appears, the same phenomenon took place in the Papal State as occurred in other Italian states in the first formation of modern law;? it is above all necessary to understand the consequences of the unique development of this contradictory process within the papal monarchy, both at the more general level of the European legal system, and at the specific level of the canonical structure. This lack of interest in the double nature of the papal monarchy is one of the negative features of even the latest and apparently most enlightened surveys of the history of the institutions and canon law.!° While it was quite easy for the medieval age to derive its legal foundations from within the canonical system which was then at its zenith, during the following period, in which it is essential to understand the impact between classic canon law and the new legal realities, the same interpretative schemes can no longer be: applied. The subject of the setting up of the law in the Church State of the modern period has been entirely unexplored, according to the recent Handbuch edited by H. Coing, which also contains references to the research available.11 Moreover, the course of research on modern papal law was infected in the beginning with the equivocal notion, created by Carlo Calisse, of ‘common papal law’. Beginning with the general problem of the western assertion, from the beginning of the fifteenth century, of common law based on Justinian law, Calisse noted that in the Church’s patrimony, the law was subject to a particular restriction and subjection with regard to the rules of canon law which, in the mixed praxis of temporal and spiritual power of the Roman tribunals, contributed to the formation of a new jurisprudence, a new legal source which could be defined precisely as ‘papal common law’.}2 The idea was taken up by Giuseppe Ermini, in what is still a useful bibliographical guide,!? in such a way as to mean ‘not simply

common law administered in the state of the Church, but rather that wide branch of common law which, ratione materiae, receives its supreme regulation from the pope, and its application from the papal tribunals’. This shows a misunderstanding of a definition which takes as its basis what, in the legislative and jurisprudential activity typical of Rome of the modern period, was actually a combination of matters concerning temporal government of the dominion and matters relating to the Church's universal discipline; it does this in order to assert the existence of a hypothetical common papal law which in reality can be neither Church law — since it would then identify itself in canon law or in a part of it— nor law common to

more countries, endowed as it is with particular and unitary characteristics and therefore concerning only the territories subject to the temporal dominion of the Church of Rome. This misconception prevents true understanding of the central phenomenon of these centuries, the differentiation — within the same juridical structures of the papacy, and in a combination which contains and develops the germs of the crisis to come — between the legislative and disciplinary activities of the universal Latin Church (in which the popes were increasingly to come to terms with the new State realities) and the popes’ State activities. The pope is canonical legislator of the universal Latin Church but at the same time, as Renaissance prince and potentially absolute sovereign, he asserts himself as secular law-giver to the same degree as other princes and sovereigns. The process of centralisation, already confirmed by the medieval papacy, continues on the first level (that of canonical legislation)

with a tendency to maintain in Rome not only the creation but also the interpretation of the Church’s disciplinary rules. It has been noted that the influence of modern State law makes itself felt, along with the influence of Roman law, until the eventual promulgation — at the beginning of the twentieth century — of the Codex Iuris Canonici in imitation of the already matured models of codification. !* It may, however, be useful to investigate how much and how the State activity of the papacy itself — in a complex - relationship of rivalry with and imitation of foreign states — contributed to the decline of the pluralistic tradition which allowed new rules to come into being which were more consistent with the life of the Church, in the universal Latin Church, and in the particular churches. While the French and royalist roots of opposition to the universal validity of the canonical rules are well known, the papacy’s contribution to an awareness of the possibility of a restricted canon law placed under political authority is perhaps less well known. Canon law — maintains the jurist Charles du Moulin (1500-66) — is invalid ‘nisi in locis in quibus papa est princeps et dominus temporalis’;!> this is not an insignificant clause but the establishment of an actual historical process, parallel with what happened at the more general level of the awareness of power, as was noted in the preceding chapter. Here what is of interest is the stress on the second level (secular lawgiving) which, however inappropriately, can be called papal-State law, to distinguish it from papal-canon law which concerned the Church. The canonists of the early modern period can shed little light for us, and to have some idea of the new situation we need to consider the intricate web of the jurists’ consilia and court judgements. '® The treatise writers who continued to refer to the outline of the ‘decretales’, although intending to innovate,

were without the conceptual wherewithal needed to understand and

The legal system: canon law and civil law

63

rationalise the new elements which emerged: if this has already been difficult in regard to the relationship between the classic compilations and the new discipline sanctioned for the Church by the Tridentine decrees and the papal constitutions, it is even more problematic to set up a discourse on the questions of temporal government when the antiquated concepts themselves of ‘lands of the Church’ and of ‘lands of the Empire’, on which the entire argument hangs, correspond to structures which are already defunct. This at least is the impression given by a first reading of some of the great treatises by authors who might be thought to have been spurred on by their contact with daily life through long careers spent within the administrative and the papal magistracy. Some examples are Cardinal Domenico Toschi — an influential papal candidate who was also an important governor of the city of Rome — Agostino Barbosa, Prospero Fagnani, and other contemporary treatise writers. Evident in their writings is a more or less conscious rejection of an obvious state of affairs which jeopardised the entire system on which their legal world was based, even if in practice they set out in quite different directions. Canon law for them is paramount in relation to civil law; in so far as he is the pope, the pope is universal law-giver; the Roman tribunals judge cases which can come from any of the regions of Christendom. The particular situation of the lands subjected to the Church seems to consist only in the fact that, by enjoying secular power in them, the pope had greater power actually to impose a rule which was valid universally even if ignored. Giovan Battista De Luca, whose thinking has already been introduced into the discussion of the distinction of the pope’s different juridical personalities, is the mid-seventeenth-century writer with the clearest awareness of this historical process in the final phase of its maturation around the middle of the eighteenth century. It is impossible to do justice here to this extraordinary jurist, who has been wrongly neglected by traditional historiography, even by the more reliable scholars, perhaps because of his unclassifiability within the traditional models of curialists and anticurialists, or perhaps on account of the objective difficulty presented by analysis of his extensive work. Recently, however, greater interest has been shown, and a comprehensive treatment of De Luca will be found in Aldo Mazzacane’s forthcoming study.!” A well-known lawyer who came late to the career of prelate and cardinal, endowed with an immense moral and intellectual authority over the forensic world of Rome of the second half of the seventeenth century, De Luca was also Innocent XI’s influential counsellor, and employed by him to study the reform of the curia. need He fell into disgrace at the end of his life for reasons which still inspirational the when e comprehensibl clarification, but which are entirely tomes, principles of his thought are understood. Author of eighteen weighty

_ 64

The Papal Prince

Theatrum veritatis et iustititiae,1* brilliant populariser in the vernacular of the juridical concepts whose arcane Latin had been up till then so jealously maintained, De Luca, a cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, was quoted with admiration by Pietro Giannone and Carlantonio Pilati,!° to name only two of the monstres sacrés of the Italian eighteenth century; we can also understand the cause of so much admiration if we remove the encrustations and ideological distortions which still prevent many historians of the Enlightenment from understanding the seventeenth-century roots of later developments. The passage by De Luca quoted as an epigraph at the beginning of this chapter is a significant point of departure for a short discussion based

substantially on references to works which deserve a far more precise and deeper analysis. The combination of spiritual and temporal power in the same person of the prince brings forth some peculiarities in the Papal State, and particularly the possibility of ‘acts of command’ on the ecclesiastical world which no other prince could afford. Hence the objection discussed by De Luca at the end of the passage quoted above: if this is unjust, the pope cannot practise it in his principality; ifit is just, he must also allow the other princes to do it. This web of contradictions is now manifest and inescapable: in claiming a territorial principality, the papacy had helped to develop a process of concentration of power which could not be halted and which was to contradict the principles of canon law themselves as a ruling by its nature not subject to any jurisdiction. In another chapter which is perhaps one of the most important for an understanding of his general approach, De Luca lists the various types or levels of law (divine law, natural law, the law of the peoples [lex gentium], Roman and canonic common law, State legislation, statutes and customary law), and points out that it is far more difficult for a jurist to function in present times than it was in ancient Rome, where ‘unica lex habebatur ab eodem legislatore edita, ideoque non habebatur magna legum, ac Principum diversitas, qualis hodie habetur’.?° The difficulty, however, does not consist only in the variety of laws and in the greater complexity of the subjects themselves (for example, the inherent problems posed by contemporary exchanges and usuries), but in the multiplicity of the princelegislators, for which reason not only are the jurists of one state unaware of the law of other states, but within the single city each field requires specialist qualification.?! This specialisation of abilities is less possible in Rome than

elsewhere because of the double figure of the pope-prince:?? Magis autem, quam alibi, in Romana curia, in judicibus et defensoribus, seu de jure respondentibus, ista magna difficultas dignoscitur; dum ob utriusque, pontificii, et temporalis principatus unionem in uno principe; et consequenter, ob utrijusque fori

DPR, AN, "L'A 4%

ra

ore

4

The legal system: canon law and civil law

65

competentiam, ac unionem in uno tribunali, in omnibus praemissis, ac aliis adeo inter se diversiis materiis, ad utrumque forum respective pertinentibus, et quae cum adeo diversis legibus, civilibus, canonicis, theologicis, feudalibus, et municipalibus regulandae sunt; adeout frequenter, in una eademque hora, de jure respondere oporteat super omnibus adeo diversis juribus, velmateriis, dum alibi (ut praemissum est), ad eas tantum materias judicum et advocatorum peritia retringitur, quas agunt illa tribunalia in quibus tanquam judices vel advocati versantur.*

With regard to the Papal State, therefore, there are two kinds of canon law, one common and one established by the pope as prince of a particular state, even if these two laws cannot be distinguished because their formal origin is identical:?% Alterum est jus canonicum, etiam registratum in Decretalibus vel in Bullario, quod conditum sit a papa tanquam principe temporali Status ecclesiastici; ut (exempli gratia) prae caeteris est illud circa formam testandi etiam in prophanis coram parocho, et duobus testibus; sive est constitutio Aegidiana cum similibus. Et tunc istud dicitur jus canonicum, id est pontificium, eo quia pontifex illud ordinaverit, sed non est jus canonicum commune pro toto Orbe, et Ecclesiae universali, ut est

alterum factum a papa tanquam papa; et sic comparative dicitur potius jus particulare huius principatus. Sed non per hoc dicendum erit jus municipale, vel statutarium exorbitans a jure communi, adeout cum regulis statutorum metiri debeat. Ac propterea error esset manifestus, ita regulare Bullas et Constitutiones, ac ordinationes apostolicas editas pro temporali regimine Status ecclesiastici immediati, eo modo quo regulantur statuta particularia singularum civitatum, quamvis ejus pontificis confirmationem habeant; ut pariter error est, ita regulare statuta particularia, vel consuetudines aliquarum civitatum subditarum Regno Neapolitani vel magni Ducatus Hetruriae, eo modo quod pragmaticas, et constitutiones ipsius regis, vel magni ducis pro universo regno, vel ducatu respective,

cum similibus.Ì

i

It is not a matter of stating that civil law is subject to canon law in the Papal State, even if this assertion cannot be considered entirely * This great difficulty, however, is discernible to a greater extent in the Roman law courts It than elsewhere, in so far as it concerns both judges, defenders and those answering cases. occurs because there is united in one prince both priestly and temporal authority. be a Consequently, in the law court, these two powers may conflict or there may though which, points on made be to have rulings cases, all In court. law convergence in one under differing amongst themselves, yet pertain to both sorts of court and which may come Hence, it different sets of legislation, civil, canonical, theological, feudal and municipal. frequently happens that in one and the same hour, judgement has to be given in every case, in even though there may be differences of content or on points of law, whilst elsewhere, of jurists and another court, the same case (as it has been referred) is engaging the skill the cases as are lawyers from another point of view. Hence, the same people conduct engaged in judging and advocacy. or in the bullaria + One of the sorts of law is canon law which is even identified in the decretals ecclesiastical state. An because it originates from the pope in his role as temporal prince of an of a parish priest example of this might be the custom of evidence being taken in the presence

inaccurate,24but of taking note, as De Luca lucidly points out in the passage above, of the fact that a canonical State law exists ‘quod ita potius remanere videtur jus civile, seu temporale pontificis, tanquam regis, seu principis temporalis ejus temporalis dictionis’.25 The theory, already illustrated, of the diverse and various persons formally coinciding in the physical person of the pope, is naturally at the root of this representation of the law, of the pope’s legislative capacity. This was developed particularly in the Commentaria to Innocent XT's bull Pastoralis officii of 18 November 1680 on the legality and validity of the statutary rules contemplating the exclusion of women and those in the religious life from inheriting property.*° The passage quoted at the beginning of the chapter concerning the singularity of the pope’s power with regard to that of the other princes, given the authority which he also has over the ecclesiastical world, comes from the first paragraph of De Luca’s commentaries. The jurist then attempts to find specific justifications for this uniqueness in the quite understandable fear that the secular princes would take strength from his reasoning to attack ecclesiastical immunity. The pope can force the clergy to take on tasks which derive from the religious and universal duties of the papacy, something not entirely feasible with regard to the other princes. The fact remains that the relationship between the pope-prince and his own State, which represents a consolidated juridical unity where the separate cities and lands are no longer titular of any power, is at the centre of the entire argument: ‘sub nomine Status ecclesiastici venit solum illa ditio inferius describenda, quae est sub omnimodo gubernio, imperio, et jurisdictione papae’.?7 Not only the cities but also the feudal lords have lost within the Papal State the political and juridical power they possessed previously, so that the traditional formula which distinguishes between ‘direct State’ and ‘indirect State’ is now meaningless as the entire territory of the State is under the direct overlordship of the pope.?® We have referred and two witnesses in cases concerning non-religious matters. Another example would be the Egidian constitution and others like it. So this is what is called canon law, that is, papal law, because the pontiff has made a ruling. But even so, canon law is not universal throughout the whole world and the whole Church as is the second sort of law which is made by the pope in his role as pope. The law which stems from the pope in that capacity as prince is called comparative rather than particular law. But, it ought not on this account to be called municipal or state law divorced from common law to such an extent that it ought to be set alongside statute law. Clearly, mistakes have crept in at this point. Bulls and constitutions give guidance as do apostolic ordinances issued at the temporal direction of the ecclesiastical state, in the same way as the particular requirements of individual states are’ regulated although they have been confirmed by the pontiff. A similar sort of mistake occurs where guidance is given by particular statute law or the customary usage of some states, subject to the king of Naples or the great duke of Etruria; these are merely pragmatic requirements of an individual king or of a great duke for his whole kingdom, or for a dukedom, respectively, together with other similar examples.

\

The legal system: canon law and civil law

67

elsewhere to the problem of the decline of the city and feudal autonomies in the Papal State, but here what is of interest is the fact that for De Luca the decline is the condition for the assertion of a homogeneous juridical order which does not require the agreement of the subjects — the pope, unlike the other princes, drawing his power only from God — but which has to act for the benefit of the subjects, following the actual words of the papal bull: ‘ad eorumdem subditorum commoda, utilitates, quietem et felicitatem’ —this last word is, however, significantly added by De Luca himself.?? Given this picture, within every modern principality (‘quoniam quilibet principatus intra suos limites habetur pro imperio’) there can be no normative differences with regard to a question relating to the general well-being, as the one specifically considered here of hereditary succession.*° And related to the well-being of subjects is the restriction of immunity and of privileges of clerics and churches, foreseen by the papal bull and without which the law would be useless: such a limitation has to be upheld and defended against those fervently in favour of the clergy’s immunity both because it is founded on the double power of the pope and therefore unassailable even following canonical regulations,3! and because it does not affect the ecclesiastics directly; the restriction of the privileges of clerics and the religious is the condition for arriving at a common advantage, the growth of the family’s prosperity and therefore the State's:?? .. «ubi qualitas, quae adjicitur, honestum, ac rationabilem habeat finem, ut scilicet bona conserventur in agnationibus et familiis, atque ita respublica hominibus repleatur, et fiat maioris existimationis, et potentiae, quae in copia, et divitiis

istae populorum vere consistit, non autem in thesauris reconditis in arciis, quoniam et resunt divitiae mortuae consumptioni subiectae, illae autem, sunt vivae,

nascentes, ideoque consumptioni, et dissipationi adeo non sunt subiectae.*

The legitimacy of the rules excluding the religious and the churches from the inheriting is thus justified on the basis of evaluations of great interest on examine to purpose our ‘dead riches’ and ‘living riches’ of the State. It is not the depth and modernity of De Luca’s legal thinking, only to emphasise that not the argument was devised in Rome in the years around 1680. It is parasitic other and surprising that resistance, in defence of immunity g privileges, was strong enough to put aside the most lucid reformin the in State Papal proposals. In De Luca’s eyes, the legal regulations of the le intention. For example, * ... where the condition which is added has a fair and reasonab and so the state may be that goods may be preserved between relations and families in resources and power which is increase an be may there and members with ed replenish Treasure hidden in coffers is really an increase in the resource and wealth ofthe inhabitants. are alive and reborn however, goods, other Those n. like dead resources subject to corruptio and for this reason do not moulder away and vanish.

68 .

The Papal. Prince

second half of the seventeenth century appeared to be endowed with remarkable potential for modernity — with regard to the process of statisation and homogenisation of the rules — and were not condemned to regression without hope of rescue. In the mid-seventeenth century, this process is jeopardised in relation to the progress achieved within the Papal State itself in the preceding century. The growing assertion of the principle of ecclesiastical immunity ended by putting into question the symbiosis of spiritual and temporal power which itself formed the basis of legal regulations. An illustration which may help in understanding the problem is a particular case, concerning the dowry of a Roman girl, which dragged on for a century before the Roman lawcourts, judged by the camera and rota, from the 1560s to the 1660s; De Luca was the protagonist, as defending lawyer in the last phase, producing significant arguments.33The background to the case is summarised as follows: a high prelate, Prospero di Santacroce, nuncio in France and then cardinal, had

become betrothed to a niece with a dowry of 5,000 scudi. He had then retracted the betrothal, referring back to the statutes of Rome approved by Clement VII which placed the dowry maximum at 2,000 scudi.34 The focal point of the dispute is that the statutes of Rome thus approved could be considered a law of the pope as such — and then even the ecclesiastics would of necessity have been subject to them, and therefore even Santacroce — or otherwise the approval of the statutes did not involve the pope’s legislative authority in a full sense, which would have meant that the clergy would therefore have been exempt from these statutory regulations. So, while in a first phase the rota was favourable to the former interpretation, in the last and seventeenth-century phase, under the pressure of those who supported ecclesiastical immunity, it aligned with the latter hypothesis; one is inclined to see in this, following De Luca’s opinion as a lawyer, an extremely interesting evolution of a constitutional kind which attributed the entire problem of the State’s juridical regulation to the passage from the old praxis of the rota to the new:35 Et quamvis pro hac parte adduceretur decisio individualis in Romana dotis 21 februarii 1567 coram Robusterio, ubi in specie dicitur, hoc statutum antiquum, locum etiam habere in dotibus per clericos et ecclesiasticos constitutis; nihilominus ultra dubitationem, quae habita fuit de legalitate dictae decisionis quae circumfertur manuscripta; cum illa fundetur in opinione, quam tenebat Rota antiqua, quod scilicet omnia Statuta Urbis tanquam papalia comprehenderent etiam ecclesias et ecclesiasticos; placuit sequi opinionem modernam, non negantem potestatem, sed se fundantem in deficiente voluntate papae non ampliandi per suam confirmationem naturam Statutorum laicalium, nisi in expressis.* * On this point a particular decision was adduced, stemraing from a case concerning a Roman girl’s dowry, heard on 21 February 1567 in the presence of the judge Robusterius. There the

E)

¥

The legal system: canon law and civil law

69

For De Luca, therefore, following the doctrine ofthe ‘old’ rota, the statutes of Rome had become, with Clement VII's consent, papal law, as testified by the insertion of the bull of approval in the Bollario amongst the other apostolic constitutions, the punishment of excommunication inflicted on transgressors and other rules directly concerned with clerical discipline.*° But a restricted interpretation would, above all, in a state such as the papal one, have rendered the law totally ineffective.>” In praesenti autem clarior ac fortior verborum generalitates adesse videbatur, dum disponitur ita servari debere ab omnibus cujuscumque status, gradus, qualitatis, et praeminentiae, cum ejusmodi verba praesertim ultimum circa praeminentiam, juxta loquendi stylum adjici soleant pro comprehensione etiam cardinalium, et fortius ex qualitate civitatis, ejusque incolarum, ob quam de necessitate dicendum videtur talem voluntatem invenisse; cum enim principatus sit ecclesiasticus ac

electivus cadens in solis clericis, sequitur exinde nullam fere in Urbe adesse domum, tam magnatitiam, et domicellariam quam nobilem, imo etiam mediocris qualitatis, quae non curet habere clericum; quinimo inverso more aliarum civitatum, ut plurimum primogeniti atque capita domorum vitam ecclesiasticam assumunt; unde propterea si papae intentio non fuisset, etiam clericos et praelatos sub hujusmodi lege comprehendere, illa fuisset de vento, numquam fere verificabilis, cum nulla pene adsit puella, quae non habeat fratrem, patruum, vel alium conjunctum clericum, a quo, legem fraudando, excessiva dos constitui posset, et nihilominus hujusmodi observantia adeo enixe praecipitur, quod excluditur quaecumque via etiam indirecta, ibi, per alcun modo, o via diretta o indiretta.* matter is gone through in detail to the effect that this old law has authority in cases dealing with dowries laid down for clergy and ecclesiastics. Nevertheless, beyond a doubt, it is the written commentaries which surround the judgement which are interesting from a legal point of view. Although it was opined as the old rota used to hold that, of course, all the statutes of the city should apply as well to churches and clergy on the grounds that they were papal statutes, yet it was decided to follow modern opinion which, while it does not deny the pope’s power, nevertheless, bases itself on the absence of intention on the part of the pope of increasing by his own seal of approval the nature of law statutes except on particular matters. * At the present time, however, there appears to be a consensus that the interpretation of the judgement should be more defined and more restricted. It is argued that the ruling ought to be adhered to by all men of whatever class, rank, condition or eminence, since this way of designating a man’s condition is customarily followed especially if he is eminent, right up to the rank of cardinal, according to the type of state and its inhabitants. Such a way of speaking appears to have been found to be necessary. Therefore, when the state is an ecclesiastical one or one which is elected but falls under clergy alone, it follows at once that there is almost no house in the city so great or family so noble or, indeed, of such ordinary quality that it does not take care to have a clerical member. Indeed, we find that the custom of other states is turned on its head so that for the most part, first-born sons and heads of houses take up the ecclesiastical life. It follows that if the intention of the pope were not to include priests and prelates under this type of law, it would have been empty and almost never of any effect since there is practically no girl who does not have a brother, uncle or other relation as a priest from whom, by cheating the law, an excessive dowry could be demanded. Nevertheless, the observance of this sort of law is with great difficulty enforced because any road whatsoever, whether direct or indirect, is blocked.

70

The Papal Prince

In the sixteenth century, the rota and curia were therefore of the strong opinion that even the clergy were subject to the statutes of Rome as papal laws, contrary to ‘modern’ opinion.** The sentiment emanates from this case as well as from others. Intensive research will be needed to verify the validity of this concept in the vast area of judicial judgements, particularly those of the Roman rota, but it is interesting to have it stated here as it has implications at the institutional level which until now have never been studied. Under the Renaissance popes, the union of the two powers led to a development of a State juridical rule in the modern sense, which deteriorated with the Counter-Reformation despite the attempts of the popes, in particular Pius V and Sixtus V, to strengthen State power with the explicit intervention of the apostolic legislative authority. In the mid‘ seventeenth century, this balance was definitively shattered, probably under the spur of the battle for the protection of ecclesiastical immunity in the other states, to which we shall return later, and of the internal forces in favour of privilege. The formation of a modern juridical system was arrested and thus began the regression which in the next century was clearly visible to all observers. In this situation, the lack ofa clear distinction in the Bollario itself between the laws regarding the universal Latin Church and those concerning the principality, a distinction still called for by De Luca himself,3? assumes extraordinary importance. Such a distinction, possibly originating during the Renaissance, would in the next century have exploded the contradictions of a system which found by now the reasons for its own survival only in ambiguity and in superimposition, in combination and not in separation. Much research has still to be done into the development of the legislative and judicial organisation of the Papal State between the fifteenth and seventeenth centuries. The first step is obviously to ascertain whether a process of legislative homogenisation — if not of unification — had really begun by the second half of the fifteenth century in the various territories which up till then had each undoubtedly kept its own particularities and organisations. The general impression is that this process was begun, and that the development of political and administrative centralisation was accompanied by efforts to build a common organisation along with or anticipating the one that was taking place contemporaneously in other European states.*° The central point is the extension, with Sixtus IV’s bull Etsi de cunctorum of 30 May 1478, to the entire Papal State of Cardinal Egidio Albornoz’s 1357 constitutions for the Marca Anconitana.*! Leaving aside any more profound analysis of the complex problem of the constitutional nature and of the evolution of the Constitutiones Aegidianae in the following

centuries,4?we can reject any doubts about the constant desire of the popes

The legal system: canon law and civil law

A

from Sixtus IV on to make it the principal instrument for the process of homogenisation. Confirming the extension of the validity of the Constitutiones Aegidianae to the entire State in 1538, Paul III recalled Sixtus IV’s decision, and the will similarly expressed by Leo X in the fifth Lateran Council, while making clear the problems of actually putting it in practice.*? An exact hierarchy ofrules seems to have been consolidated under Sixtus V, at least with regard to penal law: papal constitutions, statutes approved by the popes from Paul IV onwards (we have already seen what this approval means with regard to the statutes of Rome): ‘quod si ea valide non extiterint, debeant judicare, procedere, absolvere, condemnare, et sententias ferre juxta tenorem constitutionum Provinciae Marchiae. . .’; the proclamations and edicts published locally were to be observed only in the remaining cases.44 These proclamations and edicts are not an amorphous or immobile subject but a kind of creation of law evolving in a precise direction during these centuries, and whose evolution has still to be scrutinised. Beginning with the phase of occasional issues of proclamations in the earlier part of our period, by the peripheral authorities (legates, vice-legates or governors), it continues with the formulation, towards the mid-sixteenth century, of ‘general proclamations’ in which the new legate or governor recapitulated the principal rules of public order in an almost programmatic manner, until the issue in 1599 of the proclamation which the cardinal-nephew Aldobrandini published for the entire State — and which then formed the model for the whole of the next century — to guarantee the uniformity and clarity of the rules, ‘it being very sensible that the peoples subjected to the same prince govern themselves with as similar laws as they can and many laws having become, with time, unnecessary, and many others incapable of seeing to things which happen’.** The study of the process of homogenisation of law has to take place therefore in a complex framework. And certainly not as a precodification nor even a one-way consolidation (with the extension of the Egidian constitutions or in some other way), but as a constant activity of the State at several levels, from the pontifical constitutions to control of statutes, the utilisation of the rules of the Egidian constitutions, and the issue of proclamations and edicts by the central government, legates and governors. A brief preliminary examination, of the bulls and collections of proclamations and edicts, shows there to have been a vigorous attempt in this direction, at least until the mid-seventeenth century, to overcome local legislative particularism. This is a vast area which needs to be studied. The success of these efforts, as for all the states of the early modern period, should in fact be measured firstly on the basis of the removal of the lawproducing autonomies, and principally great landed estates, cities, and the

72

The Papal Prince

ecclesiastical world. This last point will be discussed more fully later, when the focal point will be the position of the clergy in this government. The present hypothesis is that until defensive action caused by jurisdictional controversies with the other states in the early seventeenth century sacrificed immunities, the Church certainly seemed to be in a far weaker position with regard to the Papal State than were the other states. As regards feudality in the papal dominion, historical research could refute the widely held beliefin the persistence ofits autonomous powers of jurisdiction during the modern period, and show that between the mid-fifteenth and mid-seventeenth centuries, the continuous and consistent action on the part of the popes, almost unequalled among the other Italian states, resulted in its gradual removal, from a political and juridical point of view. Pius V’s bull Admonet nos of 29 March 1567, containing the prohibition — and also committing his successors to oath-taking by the cardinals in conclave and also by the newly elected pope — to transfer any of the State’s lands or cities even as a form of fief or vicarship concession,*° is not an isolated fact but is at the centre of a long process of anti-feudal legislation which consistently carried on dismantling the juridical and political bases of feudalism from the last decades of the fifteenth century.*” Examples can be found from Paul Il’s bull of 1 March 1467, Ambitiosae cupiditatis to Innocent VIil’s Decet Romanum Pontificem of 7 May 1492, and more locally restricted interventions such as that of Clement VII against the feudality of the countryside around Bologna,*® up till the establishment of the ‘congregation of barons’ by Clement VIII as a kind of bankruptcy court with the seizure of goods to guarantee the creditors’ interests against feudal lords.*° In the last stage, Urban VIII's brief dated 17 May 1639 states that a passage of property by selling or giving away, does not automatically transfer the title and jurisdiction connected to the land.5° From the mid-seventeenth century, the concessions of titles of rank becomes an honorific act entirely divorced from any attribution of feudal rights, and based on possessions of an allodial nature or on fictitious entitlements. Leaving aside the individual stages of the decline of the feudality of the Papal State, and also the related problem of this phenomenon in the context of the general European process which has been inaccurately called

‘refeudalisation’, but which would be better defined as a process of aristocraticisation related to a new development of landed property,*!the fact remains that there is an undeniable decline, in a period of little less than two centuries, of the political and juridical power of the old feudal nobility of the Papal State as a class. Not entirely contradictory with this line of development are both the rise and power of a new courtly nobility into which the old families were inserted in various ways into the new papal and cardinal families, and the formation of great patrimonies and coagulations

The legal system: canon law and civil law

73

of interest which in real life scorned the new State organisations by both the protection of banditry in all its forms, and the advancement of a system of privileges and imbalances which made consolidation within the new organisation impossible. Nor do there seem to be contradictions between this internal anti-feudal policy (through which the elimination of ‘mediate subiectae’ lands is sought) and the external reaffirmation of feudal rights coming to the papacy from outside the State, from the old medieval organisation. >? Examination of the juridical works and of the collections of judgements confirms this tendency. Domenico Toschi, for example, discussing the entry ‘barons’, develops the classic argument about the possession or not of the attributes of sovereignty as a basic distinction, noting Bartolo’s discourse on the ‘regalia’ possessed by the Roman barons from time immemorial as belonging to a remote past without any link with the present, ‘... et loquitur in baronibus de Romania habentibus castra, et terras liberas in dioecesi Sabinensi, qui neque Ecclesiam Romanam respectu temporalium recognoscebant ab immemorabili, sed hodie omnes sunt suppositi’.>? A few decades later, when discussing the extension of Pius V’s bull on the prohibition against enfeoffment, De Luca declared that the barons and small landowners of the Papal State, contrary to what had taken place elsewhere, were in reality for the major part aliodial proprietors:54 . . + pro maiori parte non possidentur cum investitura feudali, et ex titulo veri et proprii feudi, unde propterea subiaceant legibus, servitiis et oneribus feudalibus sed potius possidentur ex titulo allodii, ad instar aliorum bonorum indifferentium, adeout nullum praestetur fidelitatis iuramentum, neque praestetur aliquod servitium personale, vel reale, vel aliqua adsit investitura, eiusque renovationis obligatio, neque successio restricta est ad agnatos intra certos gradus, cum aliis oneribus, et servitutibus quibus feuda subiacent; ideoque maioris reputantur valoris, longeque magis aestimantur, ut pluries advertitur in dicta sua sede de feudis disc. 19 et in aliis.*

The traditional doctrine of the indirect State and direct State is developed more fully by De Luca in the de feudis discourses,** but he frequently reaffirms that feudal law is important in the Papal State not only because * The greater part do not have possession as a result of a feudal grant and in accordance with a feudal title, which is a true and proper one, where they might be subject to laws and feudal tasks and duties. On the contrary, they have their powers in accordance with a title of allodium which is the same as saying that they need not care about the goods of other people; so no oath of allegiance controls them nor have they any duties of personal service nor is there any investiture of title. There is no need to renew their possession nor is the succession restricted to relations within certain classes with other duties and services to which feudal titles are subject. For this reason, they are considered to have more power and to be more greatly prized — a fact which is often mentioned in the writings de feudis Chapter 19 and elsewhere.

(3774.

The Papal Prince

of the paramountcy of canon law, but also because there is in general a presumption in favour of allodiality with regard to feudality, contrary to what was taking place in the neighbouring kingdom of Naples. The reasons shown are political — the need to consolidate an elective principality which would otherwise be too weak, fear of the easy passage to full sovereignty, etc.56 The bulk of the argument seems however to be contained in the passage quoted above — that the economic hegemony of the new landed aristocracy was no longer interested in withdrawing itself into the straitjackets of feudal law and preferred henceforth, pressed and protected by the new State organisation, to move about in the looser areas of proprietary law, although connected by institutions such as the majorat, the property subject to a fideicommissum in the service of the assertion and of the protection of family patrimony. The process also appears to expand consistently with regard to the city autonomies and the development of political concentration discussed in the preceding chapter. On the one hand, the pre-existing statutes were subjected to the approval of the State central or local authorities, whose consent was binding even for the proclamation of new statutory laws;>’ on the other, reforms were introduced, beginning in the first decades of the sixteenth century, by means of apostolic constitutions which made changes in the statutory rules without the clutter of preliminary consultation. ** The most important aspect is the formation of a new legislative platform of general regulations in the field of penal justice, civil justice and commercial law, which made the statutory regulations redundant without resorting to formal abolition. The gradual extension of State intervention in, for example, the monopoly of police and the preservation of public order, in the fiscal and food office policies, town-planning, and in the development of road networks, slowly became established in a new organisation which still had hazy outlines but in which the old municipal law was merely a reflection. This is not to say that even on the normative level, as has already been noted for the politico-administrative sphere, municipalisms had come to an end: they were to be a great obstacle even in the eighteenth-century attempts at reform, and remained thus until the decline of the Papal State. The successes were paid for perhaps with the consolidation of economic power in the hands of a city patriciate always prompt to barter the ancient liberties, maintaining when possible their external appearances, with a series of privileges — a high price which it would perhaps have been possible to pay if it had not been necessary to add to it the other, far greater, price of ecclesiastical privileges. *? Examination of the judicial apparatus seems to show more clearly than analysis of normative organisation the points of friction and confusion

The legal system: canon law and civil law

|

ho

which led to the system being paralysed, and which were not to be found at the boundary with the feudal or city autonomies, but at that between State and Church. These conflicts and contradictions will be examined later; here we need only say that an accumulation of judicial organs of State and Church gave rise to competition and permanent conflict between them.9° One of the most interesting studies would be into the historical rise and fall of the judiciary organs of the Papal State in the period under examination. The hypothesis put forward is that until around the end of the sixteenth century, until the pontificates of Gregory XIII and Sixtus V, the activities of the judiciary organs linked to the universal role of the pope — the court of the Inquisition can be regarded as its greatest expression — had contributed to the strengthening of State power, but that in the following period they started a process of gradual and progressive disarticulation of the State apparatus under the pressure of the extension of the Counter-Reformation papacy’s universal undertakings.°! The turning-point can perhaps be seen particularly in the well-known reform brought about by Sixtus V with the bull Immensa aeterni Dei of 22 January 1588, the constitution of fifteen stable cardinal congregations appointed to the various sectors of the government of the Church and State.°? Some of these congregations were endowed, by their very nature or by superimposed attributions, with jurisdictional powers, for which reason they set themselves up as supreme tribunals, rivals for competence, with important consequences. On the one hand, the traditional tribunals of the Roman curia (in the first place the rota and apostolic signature) were to a great extent deprived of power;®? on the other, it became impossible to remove the Papal State from the authority of the new congregations whose competence it wished to confirm — as far as ecclesiastical affairs were concerned — with regard to all states, and there was a decline of all usual tribunals, in particular that of the camera and of the peripheral tribunals, whose powers in the preceding century had increased enormously as those of the local and municipal tribunals had

diminished.°*

In this context, a place of particular consequence goes to the tribunal of the Sacra Rota about whose activities during the modern period we know almost nothing, despite — or perhaps because of — the huge quantity of

material which has come down to us.°°Almost a symbol of continuity, ifnot immobility, throughout the history of western civilisation, now in the period under consideration, however, the tribunal undergoes a profound change. From having once been the supreme court for Christian ecclesiastical cases, it becomes the supreme court of the Papal State, without changing its formal structure, parallel with the assertion of the other State of the supreme tribunals.9 De Luca himself, for decades a lawyer and judge

76

The Papal Prince

rota, reveals the nucleus of this process. According to him, the rota maintains its competences for both civil and ecclesiastical cases as a court of the pontiff as pope and prince. But®” Antiquiori

autem tempore, maior erat numerus causarum spiritualium, seu ecclesiasticarum, quam profanarum, ex ea ratione, quod illae de prima specie pertinent ad universum orbem; de altera vero ad hunc solum principatum temporalem Ecclesiae; moderno vero tempore, longe maior est numerus causarum profanarum, seu temporalium Urbis et Status ecclesiastici, ac etiam earum quas accidentaliter forus ecclesiasticus producit ratione clericorum, aliarumque personarum ecclesiasticarum, quamvis de sua natura profanae sint; spiritualium etenim causarum notabilem diminutionem, plura accidentia produxerunt . . .*

Among the reasons for the transformation of the rota into. a mainly civil law-court, De Luca lists the estrangement from the Church ofRome ofmany regions of Europe, the princes’ policy against the appeals to tribunals outside their own territory, and the very clear legislation regarding

benefices:© . . .et quarto fortius, erectiones tot congregationum, praesertim Concilii Tridentini, et rituum, ac etiam episcoporum et regularium, et ecclesiasticae immunitatis, quae

summarie et extraiudicialiter multas decidunt causas, prius in Rota forma iudiciali disputari solitas. Unde propterea, ut decisionum rotalium, mearumque adnotationum lectura docet, omnium minor est pars causarum spiritualium, quae forensi more tractentur.!

It would be interesting to study the effect on the life of the Catholic Church of the disappearance or weakening of the traditional judiciary practice guaranteed by complex procedural and trial regulations in favour of an extra-judiciary procedure as removed from the life of the medieval Church as that of the new cardinal congregations. However, it is also of * In older times, however, there was a larger number of spiritual or ecclesiastical cases than temporal ones, because the former, at first glance, are relevant to the whole world, but the latter only to this particular temporal domain of the Church. In modern times, however, by far the greater number of cases are temporal ones or concerned with the temporal affairs of the city and the ecclesiastical temporal power. There are too some cases which the ecclesiastical court gives rise to, as it so happens, because clergy or other ecclesiastical personnel are involved and not because they are, of their true nature, temporal cases. And it

has come about that an increase in cases has brought about a remarkable lessening of the spiritual ones. AR f ... and fourthly, and more strongly, the separation of so many Church congregations,

especially after the Council of Trent; there has been too a growth of different ritual practices . and even of bishops and rulers, a growth in ecclesiastical exemption which decides many cases summarily and out of court when previously they used to be argued in the rota according to judicial form. Hence, as a reading of the rota’s verdicts and my own notes show, the number of cases concerning spiritual matters which are handled in the law-courts has decreased.

\

The legal system: canon law and civil law

bth

interest to study how the great experience of the Roman rota flowed back into State and civil life. This may explain the sophistication reached by the Roman tribunals in the seventeenth century and the presence of such great jurisprudential knowledge and experience as that revealed in De Luca’s works. However, the superimpositions and confusions already referred to continued to grow and to become entangled in the tribunals and congregations; the commissions and projects for the reform of the Roman courts which continued to succeed one another into the second half of the seventeenth century and into the eighteenth had no effect on this situation.9? As in other areas, but perhaps with more disruptive effects, if the mixture within one judiciary system of duties relating to the universal Latin Church and to the State started by favouring the concentration of power, it ended by rebelling against the papacy itself, and paralysing its capacity to move towards a modern administration of justice and preventing the growth of a juridical science such as the one upheld by De Luca, based on concrete judiciary procedures rather than outdated abstract models. This inquiry could be extended to the peripheral tribunals dependent upon legates, governors or the camera, beginning with Rome itself and extending to the furthest province. A first glance seems to confirm the hypothesis that the municipal tribunals were gradually relieved of their judiciary power in the field of criminal law — certainly in the first place — and also in civil areas. There were no formal measures of abolition or suppression, but instead a slow corrosion through competition with the State tribunals which had the support of political power and the monopoly of strength.”° Two phases may be distinguishable in this connection: the first, up to the last decades of the sixteenth century, in which the process starts with extraordinary energy, to the detriment of the local episcopal tribunals; we shall see later the discussion which opens in connection with the twentieth decree of reform of the Council of Trent which established the authority of the diocesan ordinaries in cases of first instance. Subsequently, the direct call to the Roman congregations made even this peripheral growth of the judiciary apparatus critical so that by the mid-seventeenth century the contrary degenerative process, in favour of ecclesiastical privileges upheld by some congregations rather than of the local communities, seems henceforward manifest and irreversible. The basis of the hypothesis now put forward is thus that the legal system — both at the normative and judiciary levels — reflected the papacy’s dual aspects, a combination which, if it at one time showed the way to absolutism and centralisation, reverberated at a second instance against the power which had kindled it. As long as temporal dominion represented a secondary appendix to the papacy, the Papal State could be

78

The Papal Prince

considered as substantially homogeneous to the other Christian regions, with no determining features derived from the pope’s right autonomously to dispose of temporal power in order to impose the observance of canon law. When temporal dominion came into being in the State, the replacing of theocratic doctrine with the assertion of the theory of indirect power led, at the level of law, to a parallel process of division between universal canonical organisation and State canonical organisation whose contradiction was destined to increase and erupt. This was precisely because the papacy took up its universal role in the Counter-Reformation without renouncing its new ‘anima’ as a state and therefore found itself in an increasingly anomalous position with regard to the process of vertical organisation and rationalism which by this time was under way in all the other western organisations.

The ambiguous and bi-frontal character of the Holy See in the assembly of the European peoples of the modern period raises problems not only of a politico-religious nature in the historical dynamic of alliances, of wars and peaces made, but also touches on the deepest problems of the institutional organisation favouring the development of a process of unification, or at least of the superimposition of universal, canon law with a particular, or State, law. It has certainly been shown that this took place as a reaction in the face of secular pressure from the new monarchies to develop national Churches dependent on them. It is also true that, with its assumption of a monarchical form, the papacy showed the other princes the way towards secularisation which was then taken up consistently by other states, but only lastly by the Papal State itself. The Renaissance Papal State could have exercised a specific function not only as a transmission link of the ‘Gottesgnadentum’ in the monarchical principle, but also as the first example — dissociating itself almost entirely from every monistic principle in a hierocratic or cesaro-papist sense — of a legal system in which positive law and right begin to separate, although with contradictions and difficulty.” If it is true, as Max Weber noted, that one of the determining characteristics in the development of western medieval society was the dualism between canon law and secular law, these difficulties can be one of the most interesting points for the understanding of a growing process which is often described too simplistically.7

CHAPTER ei Ee e

ie eee

FIVE

to)

Government machinery between politics and religion

What

is the difference

between

ecclesiastical

peoples

and others?

the

punishments, tributes, imprisonments, tortures and oppression are the same

for all. Therefore we all walk down one road; and thus the princes believe that the papacy is the same as their rule, and obey it to make use of it, and not to serve it; and this happens because we use God and do not serve God. And in so doing faith is lost. (Campanella, a, p. 44)

After the brief account of problems relating to juridical organisation, our analysis should turn to the implications which the presence of the State had for the evolution of the government and administrative organs of the papacy of the Renaissance and Counter-Reformation. Von Ranke's theories about the ‘newness’ of the papacy of the early modern period should now be developed and broadened here, particularly in the context of the new possibilities now presented by the history of the structures and institutions. This has not been done before now; and a ‘conspiracy of silence’ has already been mentioned also which excluded the papacy from the great debate on the development of modern Europe.' In reality, the reason for this silence is quite understandable. On the one hand, even the most observant confessional historiography, whether Catholic or Protestant, has undervalued these aspects, if for different reasons, in favour of an interpretation emphasising the elements of continuity in the Church’s structures which the Reformation battled with, or which faced the reforming initiatives culminating in the Council of Trent. This leads to the somewhat narrow approach of regarding the abuses or theological uncertainty of the medieval Church as the cause of a reformation portrayed as the one true bridge across epochs in both its revolutionary aspect and reformatory experience. On the other hand, the historiography concerned with the genesis of modern

79

80

;

The Papal Prince

European society has been too preoccupied with the models of the great monarchies and the problems of the German principalities to take note of what occurred in Italy with the crisis of the signorie or, a fortiori, to regard the papacy as anything more than a mere onlooker in the political arena. Without denying the disruptive effect ofthe Reformation and, in its way, the Council of Trent in relation to the medieval Church, we can concur that these events should be regarded as links between the epochs but also as elements of a cycle from an institutional angle. From this point of view, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation had to face new characteristics which were already vital, and the splits and wrenches provoked by them appear to have been reabsorbed in a historical evolution which had its own developmental logic, which can be defined as schematising the modernisation process, beyond every moralising or moral appeal against the ‘abuses’ and beyond the attempts to ‘reform’ with nostalgic references to a distant past.? ‘The passage quoted from Campanella at the beginning of this chapter? illustrates the as yet embryonic concept of all — both papacy and princes — ‘walking down one road’, the obligatory route of the organisation of power in the modern State, and of the formation of a unique kind of subject of the State. The princes’ belief that the papacy. was ‘the same as their rule’ was also an important perception which should be examined more closely, particularly in relation to the role of model or instrument which the papacy played in the political dynamics of the early modern period, even towards those who gave it their obedience ‘in order to make use of it’. The fact that the papacy did not then manage to follow the dynamic evolution of the modern State has its own historical explanation. Also in connection with the structures of government, we should emphasise that this study does not attempt to provide a consistent history of the papal institutions. This is not yet possible, given the actual state of research — for general information we still need to turn to Spizzichino and to Del Re — but even if it were, our intention is merely to establish a startingpoint in the understanding of the problem which developed during this period between the structures of the government of the Church and the State structures, using what is already known, and without aiming to create an entire picture.* The decline of the college of cardinals as the papacy’s senate constituted one. of the first phenomena. This cannot be regarded from a purely internal

viewpoint within the ecclesiastical institutions, but as part of the development of the territorial principality and the trend of modern State monarchies to free themselves from the restrictions originating in the

Government machinery between politics and religion

81

representative organs and to develop personal forms of government; there was moreover the specific dynamic imposed on an elective monarchy, such as the papal one, by the new forms in the exercise of power. In his 1595 report on the state of the Roman court which continues the passage quoted at the beginning of the third chapter on the assertion of papal absolutism, Paolo Paruta defines the already secular process of the removal of power _ from the college of cardinals before speaking of the extinction of the powers of municipal magistratures in Rome and in the provinces: In the earlier periods, the cardinals used to be made participants by the popes in the greatest transactions which took place in that government, which they dealt with ‘ by voting in consistory, taking decisions, and publishing those decisions as taken, they said, de consensu fratrum. But already for some years, that is, during the pontificate of Pius II up till now, this restriction has progressed so far that in the consistory at the moment, nothing except the distribution of churches takes place ... Nor does the College discuss any public transaction, nor does it receive the notices which are sent daily by the ministers of the Apostolic See resident with princes except rarely, and then matters of little importance. It discusses more important matters only when they have already become known to almost everybody.5 And even if the pope communicates some of his thoughts to the College, he does so rather to inform them than to ask for advice. Should he perhaps at some time seek it, or rather look as if he is seeking it, there is seldom anyone who dares to proffer anything but praise of the pope’s proposals, trying to flatter rather than to advise freely. Because each of the cardinals is desirous every day to earn thanks for himself and for others, and sees the pope manoeuvring to keep this supreme authority for himself alone and not wanting counsel from others, no one wishes to damage himself by opposing him, heeding little the public matter in question. However, there are many cardinals who dislike seeing themselves stripped of every authority in the private conferences and, one can say here, of almost every liberty.®

Paruta’s diagnosis appears accurate even in its historical definition. From the mid-fifteenth century— from Pius II's pontificate, he says’ — until the end of the sixteenth century, a radical transformation took place in the relationship between the pope and the college of cardinals; in strong contrast to the earlier traditions, the pontiffs’ government became increasingly personal while the cardinals lost not only their authority but also their ‘liberty’. At this point, it is useful to consider the principal lines of development of this evolution and their consequences on the management

of the State. The theological and canonical doctrines, which from the twelfth to the fifteenth centuries tried to give a theoretical and rational arrangement to the figure of the cardinalate,* will not be discussed. What is relevant here is that all the authors constantly reiterated the idea of the college of cardinals as a ‘senate’ of the universal Latin Church. It has been regarded by all the

82

The Papal Prince

canonists as pars corporis papae, inseparable and indistinguishable from the pope because it shared his responsibilities as the organ of co-government. There is thus no doubt that above all the organs of pure administration or judiciary, the college proved from the Gregorian reform onwards to be the supreme organ of synthesis on which the papacy’s universal endeavours were based. Naturally, as a consequence, and at the same time an indispensable premiss, from the twelfth century on, the question arose of the universalisation of the college: the universal Latin Church had to be reflected in the college in order that the latter represented it by and in the pontiff. The representatives in it of the different Christendoms, of the emerging nations of Europe, become increasingly numerous therefore, parallel with the increase of the college’s importance. The papacy and college of cardinals were still indissolubly united in the crisis of the schisms and of the different obediences which replaced the medieval political and ecclesiastical world. Under these circumstances, the college seemed to show its own qualities. Attacked by conciliar episcopalism in its extremism, it survived, even when almost destroyed in the divided Church. Thus also, when the unity of the Church was re-established on conciliar grounds at Constance, there was no attempt to change the position of the cardinals which was in the process of being created in the last centuries alongside the pontiff, even in the framework of the new structure of the Church which centred on the regular and frequent assembly of the general councils. At Constance, only reformatory measures were taken which guaranteed the college’s exercise of its role fully and skilfully. The college of cardinals, with the reuniting of the obediences, still had a determining role in the re-establishment of the unity of the Church with the election of Martin V. In the following concordats with the various nations, decreed by Martin V, the first point was still De numero et qualitate dominorum cardinalium:? in these, and in all the college of cardinals’ reformatory projects which followed in the fifteenth century, it was stated that the cardinals had to be chosen in a proportional manner by every part of Christendom on, above all, the criteria of doctrine and moral endowments; that sufficient and independent private incomes were to be given to the cardinals; and that the latter had to be able to exercise their consititutional function of co-government, in particular in the res arduae.}© No reform was however truly begun, and the traditional function of the

cardinalate senate declined unimpeded from the middle of the fifteenth century. The restoration of the papacy and particularly its political ascent resulting frorn the reorganisation of the State, and its definition as a principality, produced a profound change in the college’s situation. From the doctrinal point of view, the monarchical concept of the Church and papacy tended to exclude any autonomous participation by the cardinals in

Government machinery between politics and religion

83

the exercise of government in the universal Latin Church. As has been noted, this is a complete reversal of tendencies, which was achieved in a few years, with regard to the doctrine prevalent until that date.!! But this also corresponded to a change in the institutional situation of the Renaissance cardinals: the cardinals depended increasingly on the papacy and lived only in its reflected light. Their appointment was uniquely in the pope’s hands. The vote of the cardinals, first considered necessary for the approval of the proposals of appointment, became less important decade by decade until the pope merely communicated in consistory the names of those whom he had already chosen. The appointments themselves were then often determined either by direct nepotism or opportunism of a politico-familial nature. The cardinalate senate thus gradually lost the doctrinal and practical base of its power created by international ‘representation’ and became increasingly less representative of the nations and more Italian. It is interesting to note that neither the Protestant Reformation or the Tridentine Reformation affected a trend which led to the Italian representation forming more than eighty per cent of the entire college at the end of the ‘sixteenth century, a percentage destined to continue even into the following centuries. !? On one side, therefore, the senate of the cardinals lost its role as organ of synthesis between the Holy See and the various parts of Christendom, and, on the other, the massive presence of Italians was strictly allied to the increasing importance of the Papal State which was at the centre of the Italian political system. ‘ The presence of the State made itself known not only with regard to nationality but also to the number and to the criteria used in the choice of cardinals. The number increased gradually, from the Council of Constance in which it was fixed at twenty-four, until the pontificate of Sixtus V who in 1586 established it at seventy. This was important both because the rising number itself led to the political and economic power of the cardinals being weakened, and because it was put into effect with numerous appointments on the part of single pontiffs who in this way guaranteed themselves a solid favourable majority.!* In order to maintain this majority, the popes of the early sixteenth century did not then hesitate to exert pressure which even took the form of lawsuits and convictions both for the great crime of lése majesté and for minor offences of corruption and embezzlement, something which was unheard of in relation to cardinals in the preceding centuries. iy The promotions to the cardinalate of members of the great Italian families become increasingly frequent; in the course of the sixteenth century, there 8 appeared 8 Carafa cardinals, 7 Gonzaga, 4 Colonna, 4 Farnese, 7 Medici,

Della Rovere, etc.!5 Another criterion for making choices which went alongside the latter in held the this period was the promotion to the cardinal dignity of those who

84

The Papal Prince

highest bureaucratic positions in the Roman curia. This occurred for two reasons — in the first place, the papacy introduced into the college expert and trusted collaborators, accustomed to carrying out orders, and therefore more manipulatable. Furthermore — given the venality of offices, which will be discussed later — the promotion of curial dignitaries left the more important offices vacant which could then be resold with profit to the papal finances.!¢ The college of cardinals naturally sought to oppose this decline by restating its own authority particularly by means of electoral ‘capitulations’.1”7 Apart from the discussion on the historical validity and the binding power of the capitulations, it is important to note their internal crisis in the period under consideration. Gradually losing their value of programmatic commitment at the ecclesiastical and political levels, they became a kind of corporative demand, tending to guarantee specific privileges to the college of cardinals as well as to the pope; half of all the income belonged to the college of cardinals, and without the cardinals’ approval the pope would have been unable to fulfil any important government acts.!8 If these stipulations had been observed, the Church State would have become an oligarchy, but this was not to be. Even if the stipulations were repeated in 1458 before Pius II’s election, !9 in 1464 before Paul II’s election — the pope would have been unable to transfer lands, declare war or conclude peace without the approval of the college?°— and in 1471 by Sixtus IV,?! the stipulations lost any real politico-ecclesiastical value in the second half of the fifteenth century to become simply a shareout of small individual favours among the cardinals.?? The theory of the papacy as a monarchy and the transformation of the Papal State into a principality were incompatible with this kind of constitutionalism: the cardinals depended increasingly on the pope, and the external splendour which they gained during the Renaissance and their own patronage was paid for with the loss of their political influence.?* The college of cardinals was therefore subject to a double transformation during the Renaissance. It became politicised, as a consequence of nepotism, the growing concern with familial power and enrichment, and worldliness; and it also lost all effective autonomous political power by becoming a courtly aristocracy dependent on the pope as prince. Paolo Cortese raised this new ideal of Church aristocracy in his De Cardinalatu, published in 1510, a work which has been considered in the light ofits close links with Castiglione’s Courtier, but which is interesting also for measuring the degree of fusion achieved in the full Renaissance by the papacy’s ecclesiastical and State structures, from the point of view both of ideology and as model of behaviour.”* Although the Catholic Reformation and the Council of Trent did not lead

a

Beat

e elie

a

Government machinery between politics and religion

85

to a basic rupture of these tendencies even with regard to the college of cardinals, they did bring about notable changes. They achieved reforms on a disciplinary and moral level, and they removed abuses arising out of the accumulation of benefits. They also delineated the new figure of the cardinal as ‘prince of the Church’ — typical of the baroque period — who, whilst maintaining the splendour and dignity of the court, unlike his | predecessors rejected the worldliness, luxury and taste for what was profane, and thus showed himself to be an ecclesiastical dignity.?5 This _ ‘Verkirchlichung’, to use Jedin’s expression, does not imply the elimination of the college’s politicisation but should be seen as part of the general process of clericalisation of the Papal State apparatus as well as of the general movement of the Counter-Reformation. Nor did it oppose the subordination of the college of cardinals to the papacy, which in fact was encouraged and achieved. Sixtus V’s bull of 3 December 1586, which restructured the entire college, fixing the number of members at seventy — after the ‘ancients’ who advised Moses in the government of God’s people — raised the function and dignity of the cardinal and welcomed a great many of the reform projects with regard to the criteria of choice and the lives of those elected; it was, however, out of touch with reality as the college of cardinals had already lost its role as ‘senate’.26 The most important decisions were taken by the popes, or by their direct collaborators, and presented to the college in the consistories only when they had already been definitively resolved. This did not mean a lessening of ‘power’ in the cardinal dignity — the loss of the collegial and senatorial role appears to have been compensated for by the acknowledgement of the cardinalate as the apex of an administrative career both in the curia and in the Papal State.?7 Consistories were assembled less often from the beginning of the last decade of the sixteenth century. While the normal frequency was two or three meetings a week, in the first half of the seventeenth century the average was around two meetings a month, decreasing in the following centuries, and taking on the aspect of an episodic and rare phenomenon. Furthermore, the consistory convocations themselves were devoted to purely formal consultations or ceremonies rather than dealing with the great problems of the Church State. Popes considered as more authoritarian, such as Pius V and Sixtus V, had warned of the danger in this development for the work of strengthening the State, and had solemnly committed their successors to obtaining the approval of the college for some of the greatest political decisions, such as the one considered in the bull De non infeudando, or the one related to the utilisation of treasure accumulated by Sixtus V in Castel Sant'Angelo.?* These were isolated decisions which had, however, a particular value which could be defined as ‘constitutional’, because to the college was assigned the greatest guarantee

The Papal Prince

86

It is not of continuity of the State both territorially and patrimonially. the than rather State the ed concern ns unimportant that these functio Church. were In the mid-sixteenth century, the various centres of political power could n situatio the and s cardinal of college therefore already outside the radical only become aggravated in the following decades. How did such a the ing discuss Before curia? Roman the of e change occur in the structur should we State of y secretar the of origins the role of cardinal-nephew and were consider first the source of the congregations of cardinals. The latter ioners commiss limited were ng beginni the in new governing bodies which They within the consistory for examining specific important problems. central become to s cardinal of college the from gradually became removed ve liaison organs between politics and administration, to reach their definiti of s branche various the of ment manage the on form as ministries, taking ional institut parallel A pope. the on nce depende administration, in direct development corresponds with the absolute concepts of the exercise of power in the ecclesiastical and civil spheres. As modern governments developed from crown councils in absolute states, a similar process took place in the Roman curia with the subdivision of duties and specialisation of the various ministries.° Until the mid-sixteenth century, there is a clear distinction between the offices of the curia the administration— and the college of cardinals as such _ as senate — even if the cardinals often were or became those who held the highest curial positions. This distinction becomes meaningless with the formation of the cardinal congregations which were set up as temporary commissions, particularly during Paul II’s pontificate, for the government of the Church but also for the reform of the curia and for the control of State administration. *° Existing within the college of cardinals, they were created only to deal with minor questions and to prepare major ones with a view to their discussion in consistory. The first permanent congregations subsequently came into being, beginning with the Inquisition which was set up in 1542: its members — appointed and temporary, according to the pope’s wishes — were responsible directly to the pope for the particular sector to which they were assigned, with the exclusion, or almost, of the competence of the consistory. Paul IV’s nephews’ disgrace was the occasion for the institution

in 1559

of a first State

council

or ‘consulta

di Stato’,

a

congregation entrusted with removing the various abuses in the government and with forming the highest jurisdictional body for all cases from every province of the dominion.*? In effect, the activities of the ‘consulta’ appeared very uneven in the following decades since the real power was in the hands of the cardinal-nephews.*?

Government machinery between politics and religion

87

Within a few decades, almost the entire activity of the popes’ spiritual and temporal government passed through the cardinal congregations and was ‘no longer mediated by consistory consultation.?3 When Sixtus V radically restructured the curia with the bull Immensa aeterni Dei of 22 January 1588, organising it in a co-ordinated system of fifteen congregations, he did no more than lead to complete maturation — with great determination and political acumen — a process of transformation which was already under way.34 It is not our purpose to analyse the functions of the single congregations here; suffice it to say that the intermingling, even in the order in which they were enumerated, of the congregations concerned with temporal dominion — food supplies, navy, ‘reliefs’, university, roads— bridges—waters, and ‘consulta’35 — and those in charge of Church affairs, was the manifestation of a symbiosis permeating every aspect. A few years later, in 1592, Clement VIII set up the congregation De bono regimine — which will be discussed later with regard to administration — to regulate and control the ‘Buon regime’, i.e. the economic life of the communes, of the local communities of the State.3 Other minor fixed congregations were created in the following decades — while temporary congregations continued to exist for contingent defined problems — but the basic framework of the government of the Papal State was to remain for centuries the one set up on Sixtus V’s orders. A few years after their constitution within the government system, the congregations no longer represented a political organ in a proper sense, that is as bodies endowed with a certain authority and in which directives and decisions were elaborated. If they contributed to the decline of the consistory, removing its competence over individual sectors, the congregations did not, however, replace the consistory but followed its crisis, and became bureaucratic organs. Once again, it is a Venetian ambassador, Giovanni Dolfin, who outlines this institutional development in 1598: The entire temporal and spiritual government is at the present moment very different from what it was in the past, because in other times they advised on great matters of State, and all the rest, in consistories with the cardinals, otherwise they committed the affairs to the congregations of cardinals because they would decide what seemed best to them; but now the consistories are used for nothing other than communicating with the collation of the churches and making public the resolutions of every kind made by the Pope; and the congregations, from that of the Inquisition — which is maintained with decorum and reduced every week — to all the others, even that of the Regulars and of the Bishops, are mere appearance; because, even though they work it out in one way, the Pope does it in another; and as to the most important things, such as helping the princes, sending ambassadors, nominating military leaders, finding money, imposing hardships and such things, he never consults anyone . . .*”

88

The Papal Prince

Giovanni Jedin’s thoughts at the end of his biography of the curial cardinal al Ricci (1497-1574) are particularly useful for understanding the historic first process which led to the decline of the cardinals’ senate. Ricci was . cardinal lastly and nuncio, treasurer, then increased in It concerns the decades in which the college of cardinals, much category. Its tic bureaucra curial highest the in more and more number, changed have claims ional constitut its and on, corporati us autonomo an as influence the of n oppositio the definitively come to an end. No pope trembles any more before men of main the in composed now is This most powerful cardinals in consistory. who have been proved in the service of the offices of the curia or in the nunciature, who are valid counsellors and indispensable instruments of papal policy, but who no longer appear an autonomous centre of power. The new regulation of Sixtus V, who a transformed the cardinal congregations into stable institutions, and with this into *® evolution. this d sanctione ly definitive has y, magistrac

The college of cardinals thus lost its senatorial character at the end of the sixteenth century, remaining only as an electoral body of the pontiff (which led to interest in the conclaves in the following decades, documented in the many reports scattered in the libraries of Europe), and as the whole body of the greatest dignity of the Roman curia. This was to be important in the following centuries not only for the life of the Church — it lacked a collegial body which presided over the synthesis of the various components of government, and could also be the medium between the various churches and the Holy See— but also for the management of the State, whose political responsibility was entirely in the hands of the pope and his closest collaborators. *? The connection which arose from the development of the college was no longer between the papacy and the provincial or national churches but between the papacy and the sovereigns, i.e. the states, in a network of interests in which it was no longer possible to separate spiritual matters from questions of the balance of power in Europe. The figure of the cardinal ‘protector’ developed during this period which, from being reporter and defender of major beneficiary affairs, the appointments in a particular country which had to be discussed in consistory, became increasingly a true and proper political representative of the State, not of the Church, to which it was bound.*° The terminal point of this course is well summarised in the squabble between Urban VIII and the Spanish Cardinal Borgia in the consistory of 8 March 1632; the pope imposed silence on the cardinal who defended the actions of the king of Spain and who accused him of procrastinating:4! Loquerisne uti cardinalis, an uti orator? Respondit ille: uti cardinalis, et parva interposita mora: et uti orator, interrumpens Suam Sanctitatem loquentem, quae

tac

P ”

A x

Government machinery between politics and religion

89

dixit ut sequitur: cardinales in consistorio secreto non loquuntur palam nisi praecedente nostra licentia super materia, vel interrogati, et cum petimus consilium quod etiam sequi non tenemur. Tu ut orator non habes locum in hoc consessu, nam hic oratorum principum nullae sunt partes, sed te audivimus et audiemus in loco qui oratoribus convenit . . .*

The cardinal ‘protector’ allied himself therefore, despite Urban VIII's protests, with the orator or official ambassador to Rome as agent within the curia and the college, and thus contributed to the deterioration of the government’s decision-making process and to the development of factions or parties directly dependent on one or the other power. In reaction the popes tended to use in the government only those most intimately linked by ties of kinship or patronage. Gradually the decision-making power of the college of cardinals decreased, and pressure was concentrated on the single real power which still remained at the college, the election of the new pontiff. The history of the conclaves, which from the second half of the sixteenth century and throughout the following century attracted increasing interest and gossip in the whole of the European political arena, should now be reconsidered from the angle of institutional history. It should be seen in the context of the problems arising from an elective monarchical system in which the various powers remaining in the papacy’s sphere of influence took part.*? If the removal of the senatory function of the college of cardinals had originally seemed to favour the process of the concentration of power in the person of the pope, it then in fact became an element of weakness in the papacy itself even at a political level, transforming the Papal State into the passive object of a political game which found its unique motives of interest in the vacant see and in the period of the conclave. With the development of the State, external political pressures fell on to the college of cardinals, and the barrier which the popes had wanted to erect with it, as a defence of their autonomy, broke down. When the popes strengthened their personal and absolute government, also in reaction to pressures, the entire action concentrated on the conclave and the so-called right of exclusion. The right, still in practice until this century, enabling the greater powers to exclude specific candidates from election to the papacy, had its origin — apart from the juridical formalisations — in this long historical-constitutional process.*? * Are you speaking as a cardinal or as an orator? He replied, ‘As a cardinal’ and then after a | short pause ‘and as an orator’, interrupting his Holiness while speaking, who then spoke as follows: ‘In the secret consistory cardinals do not speak openly unless our leave has been given, or else in answer to a question and when we are asking for advice— which, even so, we are not bound to follow. As for you, as an orator you have no standing in this gathering, for

here there are no parts for principal orators but we have heard you and will hear you in a place in which it is appropriate for orators to speak.’

90

:

The Papal Prince

discussion of the Leaving aside the vast literature on the conclaves, a may help in see vacant the in ls cardina powers of the college of thesis, the our of centre the at is which understanding the subject State. The the of and Church the of ms proble simultaneous existence of , and pontiffs various the from came which dispositions for conclave reform the med confir * 1562,* r Octobe 9 of s eligendi In in particular Pius IV’s bull to college the of city incapa al juridic the to medieval tradition with regard the of y vacanc the during tion legisla and ction exercise the power of jurisdi shed the Apostolic See, but at the same time — and this was new — they establi tions prohibi c specifi with State al tempor the to college’s powers with regard the in V Pius as such — lves themse popes The and protective regulations.*5 and lands, ’s Church the ing enfeoff from tion prohibi bull containing the Castel Sixtus V’s proscription against the use of the treasure kept at of the uity contin the of tee guaran a itself college the Sant’ Angelo — made a ped develo Thus . another to cate pontifi one from e State in the passag even ing pope-k the of lity persona double d the guishe distin concept which with regard to the senatorial role of the college of cardinals: in acts which concerned temporal government rather than the ‘power of the keys’ — theorised later by G. B. De Luca — the college exercised the functions proper to the representative assemblies of all other political bodies:*9 Cum papa consideratur, tanquam princeps temporalis, regulandus iure aliorum principum temporalium; hinc sequitur ut habitualis potestas resideat penes rempublicam, cuius princeps dicitur maritus, vel primus minister et regulator: et per consequens ut eo naturaliter, vel civiliter mortuo, ipsa reassumat suae potestatis exercitium. Sed quoniam istud impossibile est explicari per universam rempublicam, omnesque populos, hinc proinde, de generali principatuum consuetudine, illud transfusum est in aliquem senatum ... Idque adaptabile est collegio in comitiis coadunatis pro electione principis; ideoque in hac parte eius potestas latius patet.*

These references should be adequate to suggest the awareness of the problem arising from the continuity of the State in the elective papal monarchy which existed even at the level of elaborating juridical theory. If, in fact, the new bodies and machinery set up by the Renaissance papacy had solved, at least partially, the question of the unity of government with every pontificate, they did not solve, but rather aggravated, the tensions which * When the pope is considered as a temporal prince, he must be guided by the law which governs other temporal princes. Hence, it follows that in fact power resides in the hands of the State of which the prince is called the husband, or the first minister and overseer. Consequently, when he dies of natural causes, or in time of peace, the State repossesses

herself of the exercise of her own power. But since this exercise of power cannot be diffused through the whole State and all the people, it follows, in accordance with the general custom, that it is transferred to a senate . . . and it is adapted to a college for election, set up for the choice of a prince, and so in this respect, the power is more widely spread.

~

Government machinery between politics and religion

9

periodically erupted at transfers of the pontificate, and which became increasingly incompatible with the modern State’s need for continuity. This argument naturally ties up with the political use of nepotism and with the development in Rome of the new figure of the prime minister. It is not our intention to discuss nepotism in Rome in the early modern period in connection with the origins and development of the papacy’s new government body, which did not merely fortuitously take the name of secretary of State. Much information has come to light in the last decades, despite the fact that some basic problems still need research in the area of institutional history.*” Our hypothesis is that until now the importance of the Papal State in this transformation has been undervalued. Nepotism is traditionally presented as a product of the secularised papacy of the Renaissance in two phases: the so-called ‘great’ and ‘small’ nepotism; ‘great’ nepotism being the nepotism directed at the creation of true and proper signorie (Herrschaftsfunktion) until the first decades of the sixteenth century; and ‘small’ nepotism being that in existence in the subsequent period, under the pressure of the changed political situation in Italy and of the Council of Trent, and aimed at the self-aggrandisement and social ascent (Versorgungsfunktion) of papal families.*® However, in addition, recent research has considered the permanent role of nepotism as an expression of a pietas involving popes and clergy of the most varied periods in a relationship with relatives and fellow-citizens,*° or as a method of consensus through involvement of elites and hangers-on in a system of government and power typical of the pre-industrial period.5° These investigations have remarkably enriched the earlier picture but may lead to over-emphasising the a-temporal and a-institutional components with regard to a situation which has, however, to be studied more fully in its concrete historical-political dynamic. This nepotism has been studied in the context of an elective monarchy which found itself having to deal in new terms with the question of power, and which did not have other methods of guaranteeing the centralisation and control of the developing administrative and military apparatus. The point of crisis was naturally at the transfer from one pontificate to the next. If, however, in the first phase of the period the very continuity of the State seemed to be questioned each time the Apostolic See became vacant, in the mid-seventeenth century a spoils system existed which was not so far removed from the succeeding nonhereditary, presidential type of transmission of power.5! the formal This does not mean that the analysis should be restricted to the ructed reconst which essay recent a juridical aspects. The critics of formal from State stical ecclesia the history of the supervision over the management of documents of appointment of nephews at the height of

92

i

The Papal Prince

the Roman curia’s affairs were entirely correct. However, we should ascertain the part played historically by papal nepotism in the centralis and formal ation of power during a transitionary phase in which the technically mature figure of the secretary of State did not exist. The latter by did not evolve until after the crisis and end of nepotism sanctioned 1692. June 22 of Innocent XII’s well-known bull Romanum decet Pontificem This transitional phase corresponded, for the entire bureaucratic apparatus, with the sale of offices. From the mid-fifteenth century until the mid-seventeenth century, a coherent evolution took place out of which the secretariat of State developed and became a mixed body: a bureaucratic organ in the development of a body of secretaries, splitting up continuously as it evolved into various forms and denominations, and going from the entirety of the functionaries of the curia to complete dependence on the

pope. As a political organ, it found its indispensable pivot in the figure of the ‘cardinal-nephew’.5* It is impossible to outline for this period an autonomous superintendent figure in the ecclesiastical State other than a secretary of State who was charged more specifically with the management of diplomatic affairs and the general government of the Church.5* The superintendence was a form of general delegation by the pope concerning the direct treatment of every matter and not a specific office. It took on ‘characteristics similar to those of the prime minister whose figure was emerging in other European states ofthe time, but also had the double-faced nature typical of the papal institutions.55 One can understand that in actual historical circumstances there were double functions, internal dialectics, superimpositions and personal conflicts because of the popes’ need to find alternatives when there were difficulties in their relatives carrying out the role of governing — the popes had recourse to adoption, for instance, if they either had no nephews, or could not trust those they had.5° It is difficult, however, to deduce from this a dualism in the government body during the entire period, which is in fact characterised by the continuous effort to concentrate power, and which until the full ripening of the process saw its political essence in the figure of the cardinal-nephew. The fact that the latter was inappropriately called cardinal ‘padrone’, and that the powers of the State government, from the functionaries to the congregations of the consulta and of the Buon Governo, became increasingly subservient to him, confirms the existence of a State problem, of the construction of the State above every other concern, which is precisely the centre of the discussion of the development of the papal institution in these centuries.

A basic aid in understanding the institutional development comes from De Luca who dedicated two chapters of his Relatio Romanae to the cardinal superintendent-general ‘seu primo ministro papae’ and to the secretary of

(e A)

ae

ri LI

Government machinery between politics and religion

93

State respectively.57 Observing that the figure of the superintendent did not appear in the hierarchical order of the papal magistracies and the curia, and sometimes did not exist even in the regimes of a few pontificates, De Luca explained his appearance with what took place in the secular states in which the old offices were relievedof their power in favour of persons entirely dependent on the sovereigns’ desires and trusted by them to be completely reliable in administrating relationships with inferior magistracies and other princes. On the basis of this practice — ‘ut hodiernorum temporum, ac Principum praxis docet’ — the pope had begun to choose a blood-relation, who was given the name of cardinal-nephew and, where this was impossible, even an outsider who was co-opted into his own family:58 Huius primi ministri munus . . . principaliter versatur circa regimen dominii seu principatus temporalis, ideoque dicitur superintendens generalis Status ecclesiastici, unde propterea subscribit literas, aliasque provisiones, quae nomine Papae dantur, pro dicti principatus temporalis regimine, et administratione, tam per Secretarium status, quam etiam per congregationes Consultae, et Boni Regiminis, et alias, quae pro eodem temporali gubernio erectae sunt, ut infra in singulis magistratuum et congregationum rubricis. Bene verum quod etiam (licet rarius) se ingerit circa ea quae maiorem principatum ecclesiasticum, seu pontificium, concernunt. Non quidem circa usum clavium, ac mere spiritualem administrationem, ut (exempli gratia), sunt collationes beneficiorum . . . sed circa ea quae concernunt politica, ac etiam aliqua civilia, cum regibus et princibus, eorumque vicariis et magistratibus maioribus, ac etiam cum ipsius Apostolicae Sedis legatis, et nunciis, aliisque ministris; et quandoque cum episcopis, et metropolitanis, pro Papae placito, ac arbitrio.*

The figure of the secretary of State, a trusted prelate and sometimes himself a cardinal, whom De Luca describes in the first lines ofthe following discussion, was not conspicuously different and had characteristics and functions similar to those of the cardinal-nephew:5° * The duty of this first servant lies chiefly in overseeing the household or the temporal principate. For this reason, he is called the superintendent-general ofthe ecclesiastical State.

In this role, he signs letters and other orders which are issued in the pope's name on behalf of the administration of what is termed the temporal principate and its executive. He does this both by reason of his role as secretary and also through the authority of the congregations of

the Consulta and the Bonum Regimen, and also in other ways which have been set up for the same temporal government in so far as they come under the particular rules of the magistrates and the congregations. It is quite true also, though it happens fairly rarely, that he interests himself in those matters which concern the large ecclesiastical principate, or the papal one. He does not, indeed, concern himself with the use of the power of the keys and the purely spiritual administration as, for example, in the allotment of benefices. But he does concern himself with those matters which are political and, too, with some civil matters which concern kings, princes, their representatives, the more important magistrates, and also with ambassadors from the Apostolic See itself, the nuncios, and sometimes with bishops and metropolitans, in accordance with the pope’s decree and judgement.

94

The Papal Prince

Officio cardinalis nepotis, de quo agitur disc. praecedenti, proximum est illud Secretarii Status, quod in plerisque cum eo symbolizat, in eo praesertim quod non est

in ordine ierarchico officialium, ac magistratuum Papae, et Romanae

Curiae, et

tamen est summae confidentiae et auctoritatis, magnamque in Curia figuram facit, atque de facto, secundum locum occupare videtur, in iis quae concernunt politicam, ac etiam in parte civilem utriusque Status administrationem, dum graviora negotia maioris confidentiae cum regibus, et principibus, ac etiam cum legatis, et nuntiis

apostolicis, per hoc organum iunctum cum altero cardinalis nepotis pertractantur; et quandoque etiam in civilibus, et ecclesiasticis negotiis, ordinariis locorum, vel gubernatoribus aliisque officialibus et magistratibus Status ecclesiastici, oracula et mandata Papae explicantur.*

Apart from the problem of the obvious, though changing, symbiosis between superintendent and secretary of State, out of which, with the end of nepotism, there emerged the secretariat of State (not through a change in role with regard to its earlier phase or by juridical formalisation, but through a consolidation of the regular routine), it is interesting to note its effect on the government of the universal Latin Church. For the first time, the use of the keys stands out, that is, spiritual power conceived in a strictly juridical-canonical sense which was left to the traditional bodies of the curia (chancellery, datary, etc.) or to the new congregations dealing with spiritual matters, from ‘political’ subjects which were extended to include the relationships with legates and nuncios, as well as with the other states, and even the relationships with bishops and metropolitans. (In addition to the example of the collation of benefices, De Luca in the passage above speaks of the Church’s stores and dispensations.) i It is therefore possible to reformulate the general hypothesis from another angle. The Counter-Reformation can be seen as a development in which the weight of the State or, perhaps, of ‘politics’ in a general sense, held and increased its importance in the new historical circumstances, rather than as a reversal of the exercise of papal power in the Renaissance. The ecclesiasticisation or clericalisation of the apparatus is neither tantamount to a spiritualisation — radical reform in the religious sense — nor to crude personal or familial exploitation but, on the contrary, to a complex process

* The post of secretary of State is closest to the office of cardinal-nephew, about which I wrote in a previous chapter. In most matters he has a similar symbolic status. In particular, he has no place in the order of the hierarchy of officials and magistrates of the pope and the Roman

curia, and yet he is the possessor of the pope’s confidence and his authority; he makes a great figure in the curia and, in fact, he is seen to hold the second place in those matters which concern the body politic and also, partly, in the civil administration of both states. It is through this man’s office joined with a second, namely the cardinal-nephew, that the more

important business, even ambassadors and apostolic nuncios, are handled. Sometimes, too, the messages and orders of the pope are explained in civil and ecclesiastical business, both to ordinary men and rulers, and to some officials and magistrates of the ecclesiastical State.

ol

Government machinery between politics and religion

95

of modernisation in an attempt to adapt to the actual political body striving for continuity in changing general circumstances. In this sense, we can extend to the entire chronological span Guicciardini’s comment on the last years of Leo X and the policy of strengthening the State started by the last pontiffs: .. not only when Giuliano his brother and Lorenzo his nephew, for whose exaltation he was thought to have had this covetousness, were still alive but even after their death — from which it is easy to see that the ambition ofthe popes has been incited by nothing but itself.9°

If this policy could still be ambiguous and hidden under the powerful Medici and Farnese popes, with the mid-sixteenth-century crisis it became an explicit line of conduct directed externally against imperial and Spanish domination in Italy and, internally, towards strengthening the State structure, leaving little or no room for the aspirations of autonomous familial politics. In an order for Girolamo Capodiferro, envoy to the king of France, Julius III declared himself as having no territorial ambitions for his old brother or his little nephew: ‘and so we think we can conveniently accommodate both him and the Cardinal de Monte, if not as princes, as gentlemen, if God gives us some days of life'.9! ‘If not as princes, as gentlemen’: this was the turning-point between what was once described as ‘great’ and ‘small’ nepotism, but which would be better understood in its continuity in terms of the growth of the State in the new international framework. With regard to the central problem of this inquiry — the relationship between spiritual and temporal power — a consequence was the politicisation of all the curial governing bodies within a State logic which tended to exclude from decision-making the bodies which were more specifically in charge of spiritual government. It was the ‘gentlemen’, the popes’ nephews or purchasers of the curia’s venal offices, who decided and controlled every initiative as partners in an undertaking whose stake was no longer autonomous political power but enrichment and the remuneration of invested capital, rather than as holders of autonomous, or potentially so, political powers. ‘Petrus Aldobrandinus ipse est Camera’, replied Clement VIII (‘verbum sane despoticum et insolens', who following Theodor Ameyden, the source for the information) to those occasion the on hew criticised the waste of public money by the cardinal-nep the of his .legation to France in 1600.° Personal identification with patrimonial a of and institution should be seen as the assertion of a concept fact that procedure of government,°? but what should be pointed out is the unrealistiremained this occurred not within a papal government which of a political cally the same from Martin V to Urban VIII, but in the sphere conorganism which right through the process of patrimonialisation period. modern structed its own monarchical reality in the early

DG oe nse

The Papal Prince

By the seventeenth century, the camera appeared as the politicoadministrative body of the State in which the truly ecclesiastical roles of government appeared only as an accessory supplement. Thus De Luca explained the fact that the post of chamberlain and financial secretary to the pope was regarded as a venal office of the highest patrimonial content, contrasting with the other traditional offices such as vice-chancellorship, penitentiary and the vicarship, which remained allied to the pope’s spiritual function and were not therefore to be sold or bought:® Istud vero officium principaliter est temporale, seu prophanum papae, tanquam principis temporalis, pro administratione Camerae, seu fisci laicalis, quamvis accessorie, et consecutive aliqua quoque annexa sit administratio alterius fisci ecclesiastici, seu papalis; ideoque longa differentia est inter istud officium, et dicta aliavtria’s i)

Thus we return to the central and still unresolved problem of the relationship between the ‘spiritual’ and ‘temporal’ incomes of the papacy in the early modern period. While in the last decades our knowledge of the papacy’s balance accounts has become much greater with the investigation into the increase of the popes’ public debt from the mid-fifteenth century through the sale of offices and the subsequent setting up of the ‘monti’, and with the research into the increase of taxes in the Papal State, and while we have a much better idea of the technical and fiscal problems related to this transformation,®>the lack of research in the institutional field still hinders understanding of the relevance of this transformation at the more general level of the political and religious history of the papacy. The gradual . increase in the significance of the State in the papal income undoubtedly had a double effect: first of increasing the importance of an attention to the problems of the State, and then of exploiting the State itself for purposes, both of ecclesiastical policy in general — resulting from the CounterReformation — and of patrimonialisation, in contrast with the modernisation programmes which had just begun. But the question we should then ask — which for the time being must remain unanswered — is whether the traditional distinction between spiritual and temporal incomes can still be considered valid or whether instead the ‘mixture’ which occurred at an institutional level does not in fact prevent any kind of distinction, with profound consequences both on the ecclesiastical as well as political planes. The confusion which spreads from the fiscal level to central theological and * Indeed, this office is mainly a temporal or secular one which belongs to the pope as a secular

prince. It is concerned with the administration of the camera or the law treasury, though there is conjoined to it the administration of the other ecclesiastical treasury, or the papal

one; and for this reason there is a great difference between this office and the three others mentioned.

i ATI

Government machinery between politics and religion

97

political questions, and in some way to the identity of the papacy itself, appears especially evident in the works of the commission set up by Urban VIII in 1642-3 to go into the problem of the moral licitness of the pope’s personal disposal, in favour of his own family or for other purposes, of the incomes themselves: ‘ut in praxi nosci possit, quid summus pontifex ex omnibus fructibus, proventibus et emolumentis, quae percipit, libere sibi acquirat’.°® The continuous efforts of the consultants of the commission tended to distinguish, with interesting observations, between the incomes of the State, which the pope could dispose of in the same way as the other sovereigns (not counting the specific duties imposed on him by Christian charity) and the ecclesiastical incomes tied to precise spiritual purposes. But the failure of the commission’s proposals — basically advising restriction of nepotistic donations — proved the impossibility of resolving the basic problem: the system was now so integrated that the long-established rules of canon law condemning simony were no longer sufficiently clear. The main point of this short incursion into the question of papal revenue is not to presume to shed new light on the economic or fiscal position of the Papal State, the incomes, outgoings budgets or accountancy procedures, but to suggest that the institutional transformation, some features of which could already be clearly perceived, led to a new link between spiritual and temporal power, a new ambiguity which was reflected in both the management of the Church and the government of the State, and even penetrated the deepest ideological cores. The datary was without doubt the central organ of this transformation process. During the period under scrutiny, it broke away from the camera, becoming an autonomous finance office whose revenue the pope could personally use unrestrictedly.9” What is significant here is not only the development of a form of personal government but also the importance acquired by this organ which dominated both Church and State from a central position. ‘The pope’s private purse’, as it was described by the Venetian ambassador Giovanni Soranzo, the datary provided for papal familial and nepotistic needs as well as much of the papacy’s extra expenses; along with the revenue coming in from the settlements (the sums received in exchange for concessions of various kinds, and for the dispensations from the rules of canon law), there was a growth in revenue from the sale of offices, which was the monopoly of the datary itself, while the interests taxed on this kind of public debt were paid by the camera.°* Confronted by the double-faced nature of the datary, even the early proposals of the Catholic Reformation, attempting to put a stop to the curia’s abuses at the beginning of Paul III’s pontificate, recognised the basic need to distinguish in its running concessions — or ‘settlements’ — between what was temporal would in nature, depending on the pope as prince and for which he

The Papal Prince

98

therefore have been able to receive financial recompense, and what was spiritual, for which profit would have been simoniacal and therefore illegal according to the most elementary moral principles:°? Compositiones, quae expediuntur a Datario, pater optime, quantum colligere potuimus, tribus quibusdam summis generalibus continentur. Nam quaedam negotia sunt, quae pertinent ad te tanquam harum provinciarum principem, quae neque ex re data, neque ex potestate, qua dantur, queant dici spirituales, sed omnino

sunt temporales; illa vero negotia, quae spiritualia, quia fiunt potestati spirituali et a Papa ut Papa, non autem ut principe, sunt in duplici genere . . . In primo genere omnes convenimus, scilicet quod, quamvis si res per se consideretur satius esset, principem officia omnia et gratias omnes gratis concedere, nihilominus si laborat angustia aeris, quo eget ad impensas imperii ac maiestatis loci, quem tenet tuendae, non putamus

esse contra legem quampiam,

neque divinam

neque naturalem,

dummodo nihil iniuste propterea fiat, si in earum rerum concessionibus, quae non ut Pontifex, sed ut Princeps facit, aliquod sibi lucrum comparet . . .*

In reality, attempts to reform the datary in the Tridentine and CounterReformation period failed to impose a distinction; on the contrary this became increasingly difficult and basically impossible to do even through the progressive clericalisation of the State apparatus. The mystery which still surrounded the datary’s style and procedure in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and which De Luca mentions,7° should be studied as one of the central cores of the papacy’s ‘arcanum imperii’. In vain did Theodor Ameyden argue in defence of the publication of his De Stylo Datariae, the manual on datary practices, that he had written it to defend the datary ‘from the lies of those who speak ill and the enemies of this court’:7! the work continued to be condemned and the silence imposed on it made itself felt until the last period of the Papal State, when the datary was already in full decay, together with the huge integrated system of State and ecclesiastical public debt, created and developed throughout the preceding centuries.’ The conclusion of these brief observations of the institutional side of the * The settlements which are made by the datary, Holy Father, as far as we are able to compute them, are locatable under three general headings. There are certain expenses which concern you in your role as prince of these provinces. They cannot be thought of as spiritual concerns, either according to their subject-matter,. or as regards your power, but they are completely temporal affairs. Then there are those matters which are spiritual matters, since they come into being as a result of your spiritual power and as a result of the pope being pope, not as a result of his being a prince. These are oftwo kinds. . . the first kind we all agree: if the matter is considered on its own, it would be reasonable to think that the prince should freely concede all duties and all favours; nevertheless, if he is oppressed by shortage of funds so that he cannot pay the expenses of the Empire and uphold the dignity of the position of which he is guardian, we do not think that it is against any law whatsoever either divine or human (provided only that nothing is done unjustly) if he takes some money for himself in settlement of those expenses which he is responsible for, not as pontiff but as prince.

Government machinery between politics and religion

99

papal finances also relates to the central problem of this study. The papacy had a particular role in the early modern period in the development of the State and also in the sector of tax regulations and fiscal machinery. As Jean Delumeau suggests,7* the reasons why this machinery was unable fully to mature in a modern sense were both cause and effect of the weakness of the economic and social fabric of the State. The basic ambiguity which had been able to facilitate a process of centralisation of power then became a grave liability when the raison d’étre of the new government bodies called for the rationalisation and clarity of the apparatus in the construction of a modern State. In the mid-seventeenth century, the ‘miseries of the ecclesiastical State’, which had declined in only a few decades from its previous glory, appeared to the most attentive observers to correlate with and depend on the process of centralisation which had found its own contradictory conclusion and failure in the clerical exploitation of the State itself.’* In this regard, it may be useful to have another look at De Luca’s works. In his Tractatus de officiis venalibus vacabilibus Romanae Curiae, written on the occasion of a legal case which had arisen in connection with the price of repayment when the college of apostolic secretaries was suppressed, he stated that the abundance of venal offices in Rome arising from the double figure of the pontiff (‘occasione utriusque sacri et prophani principatus’, he had written in another text)75 ought to have led to a distinction between offices relevant to temporal government and those relevant to spiritual government, but that in reality they were inextricably entangled:79 Commendabile quidem esset, ut haec officia aliam reciperent veram, ac totalem divisionem, quod scilicet alia essent pertinentia ad pontificium principatum ‘spiritualem, et alia ad alterum principatum temporalem, juxta nimium frequenter insinuatam istorum principatuum distinctionem, ac diversitatem. Verum quidem insensibilis usus diversam induxit consuetudinem adeout illa officia, quae principaliter sunt temporalia ad temporalem principatum pertinentia, participent de multibus pertinentibus ad spiritualem, et e contra illa officia, quae principaliter pertinent ad principatum spiritualem, participent de multibus pertinentibus ad temporalem.*

Having reviewed the various types of office (prelatial, intermediate and popular) and the nature of the prices for them (as an advance payment of profits, etc.), De Luca raises the question of the possible charge of simony, some other exact and * It would be nice indeed if these expenses could be allocated into the pontiff as spiritual prince, concern them of some course, of because, division, complete power, though diverse and and others belong to his temporal rule, and these two sorts of usage has introduced a distinct, are fairly frequently mixed up. However, little by little are mostly temporal ones are which expenses those that so thinking, of way different in many matters which relate categorised as the temporal state's spiritual aspect; they share to the temporal.

100

The Papal Prince

particularly for the offices which in practice were the antechamber of the cardinalate and which, made vacant through the appointment of the titular to the purple, were immediately resold, with great profit to the papal finances, by the datary; given the acknowledgement of the ‘blend’ of temporal and spiritual, De Luca could base his defence only on the fact that the total expenses which the pope had to face in his spiritual government were far greater than the income coming from the Church and that it was therefore not a case of simony, of exploitation of spiritual incomes for temporal purposes, but a contrary problem, of exploitation of the Papal State to the needs of the universal Latin Church:77 .. adeout tute dici valeat idem, quod superius dictum est de proventibus et emolumentis dispensationum matrimonialium, ut neque obolo Papa participet, etiam in eis, quae ad eius victum, et substentationem necessaria sunt, cum haec suppeditentur a redditibus principatus temporalis, ex quibus etiam in notabili summa supplere oportet pro solvendis dictis annuis debitis mere papalibus, et spiritualibus; unde propterea sine dubio, longe majus est illud aurum, quod Sedes et Camera apostolica pro Ecclesia et fide catholica profudit, et transmisit pro huismodi oneribus, et impensis extra Italiam, quam sit illud, quod retrahit ex praemissis, aliisque emolumentis, et proventibus mere pontificiis, et spiritualibus, non solum ex regionibus ultra montes, sed etiam ex ipsamet Italia.*

According to De Luca, experience showed that selection based on careers gave good results; and he recalls the great pontifis who had come out of the rota or camera. The price paid was only for the incomes allied to the office itself and would have been the same even if the prospect of being promoted to acardinalate had not existed. Even with regard to the concessions made to relatives and collaborators, continued De Luca, the weight fell on the Papal State and not on the Church:78 Attamen in substantia, spectatoque effectu, hujusmodi liberalitates, et munificentiae practicatae fuerunt cum aliquo praejudicio populorum Status Ecclesiastici, ex redditibus, ac proventibus istius principatus temporalis, ex quibus suppleta fuerunt illa onera alterius principatus spiritualis quae cum huiusmodi officiorum pretio adimpleri debebant, adeout fuerit quid pro quo; integrum tamen relinquo locum * ... in this matter we may safely infer the same sorts of things are true as we mentioned above about the provision and paying of marriage portions. The pope does not derive somuch asa penny for his food and necessary expenditure since these are supplied from the taxes of the temporal state. Moreover, it is quite right that the said annual expenses, which are purely papal and spiritual, should be met in this way. It is quite another matter with the gold which

the Holy See and apostolic camera spends on behalf of the Church and the Holy Catholic faith

and hands over for expenses and payment outside Italy. These expenses, I say, are quite

different from those which the pope claws back from what is sent to him and from other incomings, and from sources which belong to him purely in his role as pope and which are spiritual resources derived not only from the regions beyond the Alps, but even from Italy itself.

Government machinery between politics and religion

101

veritati, an et quomodo id practicari potuerit, cum meum non sit super his manus

apponere.*

The question of the exploitation of the State for the upkeep of the Church’s universal activities, or in a nepotistic sense, is not part of the present thesis, and nor is the quantitative verification of this judgement based on the heavy financial debit of the papacy’s spiritual government, even if we are intuitively inclined to corroborate the bulk of De Luca’s appraisal. A judgement of the cash flow which continued to make its way to Rome, to private dignitaries for the payment of beneficial revenues, pensions, etc., would be quite different.”? What is important to grasp here is the politico-juridical core of the argument, that during the modern period, it was the State which bore the weight of the Church and not the other way. round, as in the past, and that this implied not only an overturning of the ideological justifications which — even if never expressly recognised — were the substratum of the daily actions of the papacy, but also an institutional transformation of the entire system of government. * But in substance and observable result, generosities and largesse of this kind were practised with some bias on the part of the peoples of the ecclesiastical State from their taxes and the provisions of the pope’s temporal principate. It was from that source that those expenses of the spiritual principate were supplied; since these expenses ought to have been paid for by the sale of offices, it was simply a matter of a quid pro quo. However, I leave the whole matter open as to whether and how this could be effective, since it is not for me to dabble in such affairs.

CHAPTER

SIX

fo

Priesthood and political magistracy: clergy and laity

magistratum ... Nonnulli relicto ministerio pascendi animas sibi creditas fateor. Nam me ignorare tur, iustifice politicum gerunt. Id qua ratione ibus, et saecular negociis i implicar militant Deo qui Apostolus prohibet eos dit Basilium reprehen acriter 11 cap. Registr. 7 lib. s Gregoriu Sanctus et praetoriis quendam episcopum, qui veluti unus de laicis in causis forensibus ad solium aliqui antur assumeb saeculi occupabatur. Olim ex iudicibus aliqui ad rint descende fastigio li episcopa ab vero episcopale ... quod nec legitur, nec sciam, quod veteres, apud m, gerendu atum magistr politicum

est instare verbo et immerito: quale enim est, et quorum proprium munus

ii satellitibus orationi, et quorum manus ad benedicendum consacratae sunt, ?* praesint us hominib necandis stipati, torquendis et (Roberto Bellarmino, in Laemmer, b, p. 376)

was The entire judiciary and administrative apparatus of the Roman curia highest naturally influenced by the development which occurred at the level of government and by the growing importance of the State. At the same time, the quantitative and qualitative importance of peripheral administration grew in the various provinces. It was not merely a matter of an expanding presence of the State apparatus — which is undeniable despite the souls of those who * Some undertake political office and relinquish the task of nurturing such conduct. For have been entrusted to them. I confess that I cannot see how they justify and St Gregory, affairs, secular in involved be to God for fight who those forbids the Apostle Basil, who, as Bishop certain a criticises fiercely book, in the second chapter of his seventh praetorian cases. In former though he were a layman, was wont to busy himself in legal and but in ancient times, some laymen were promoted from the bench to the episcopal throne heights of the the from descended any that read not do we know, I authors, so far as ofa carry-on is it episcopacy to a political magistracy and this is quite right too. For what sort hands are that the same man whose proper duty is to lead by word and speech, and whose at the torture and consecrated to bless, should go surrounded by courtiers and be present

killing of men?

102

Priesthood and political magistracy: clergy and laity.

103

some recently expressed reservations, and the lack of up-to-date inform~ ation — but of its new articulation in a strictly centralising form. Appointments to the most responsible positions in administration gradually became independent of the practice which had tended to render them in some way a parallel system to that of a benefice, when they had been regarded mainly as rewards for services rendered or for relatives. Personal motivations were still taken into account, however, and were in fact strengthened by the pope’s intervention in the appointments in an increasingly direct way. But the framework in which an appointment was decided became more and more political, and its duration tended to be ad tempus and not unspecified; the controls increased both during the exercise of office and in the form of audits after the cessation of the office. Professional qualifications of functionaries became higher both with regard to academic accomplishments at the outset of their career — usually the degree ‘in utroque iure’ — and experience gained in earlier offices. Salaries became a central element in the relationship between the functionary and the State, tempered in the early period by the practice of the sale of offices, the importance of which has already been referred to, but which had only a slight bearing on the daily life of the bureaucratic body, consisting mainly of a primitive form of public debt. These characteristics render the papal monarchy comparable with the European states in this complex and still undefined period of the establishment of public structure, which cannot, however, be studied fully in the present work." For the time being, it is important to understand the particular blend of spiritual and temporal in the Roman bureaucratic apparatus which distinguishes it from other systems, and to look at the changes which new structures triggered off within the body of the traditional ecclesiastical government. Although there has in fact been much interest in the relationship between the development of the medieval papal bureaucracy in its classic period — particularly in the years of the Avignon papacy — and the development of the apparatuses of the modern State, until now the question of the changes which took place within the bureaucratic body of the papal monarchy after the middle of the fifteenth century, or at least of their political and ecclesiological significance, has not been looked into. This also includes the more specific problem of the interrelationships between this new ‘blended’ body and the general development of the European bureaucratic apparatuses.” y As a departure point, we can take a passage from an extremel to no Bellarmi Roberto Cardinal by d presente confidential memorandum the Pope Clement VIII in September-October 1600.* This deals with was it that fact the and phase, ed develop phenomenon in its already fully with Bellarmino himself who made the indictment is surprising enough

ti

104

The Papal Prince

nces: the denunciation regard to so many common historiographical refere politics and religion in the of the breakdown in the relationship between tradition could not have modern Church with regard to the. patriarchal or a De Dominis, even been more clear and decisive in the writings of a Sarpi cal view and in iologi if it does not result in the reversal of the eccles the best magisamong from ‘ heterodoxy. Bishops had once been chosen the clergy, among trates; now the political magistrates were chosen from instruwas this and , the pope made use of bishops in civil government was which hood, priest the mental in the frequent and profound warping of sive oppres ably inevit its placed in the service of power even in

manifestations.

to minimise the In his reply to the indictment, the pope attempted se they have ‘becau problem, and defended the choice of bishops as legates the bishops’; of charge in more authority with the princes, and they are and State court the of however, it is above all an awareness of the needs cally histori as als propos which leads him to judge Bellarmino’s reform lisclerica the , decline unfeasible.4 From the beginning of the Papal State’s phenorative degene ation of civil government appeared to be the new es. It is interesting menon characterising the papal rule of the last centuri the neo-Guelph by n here to read the description of the change writte n. The neoelectio IX’s Leopoldo Galeotti in the surge of hope raised by Pius separating of lity Guelph expectations were based precisely on the possibi from the n lisatio clerica the new and somewhat untraditional process of general history of the papacy: ished from the In the time of Machiavelli and Guicciardini, the Church was distingu which means subjects, own its ng governi in Italian states for the little part it took to the innate lly essentia , situation this es; themselv allowing them to govern of ruin gradual did ecclesiastical principalities, is now entirely changed. Not only and extend ively progress power communal powers take place, and sovereign tible with the expand, but there was also an attempt at centralisation incompa the temporal lli, Machiave by of thought never ng present system and, somethi governclerical ly exclusive government of Rome has been for many years now an ment ...°

of Galeotti then juxtaposed the attempt at centralisation with the process clericalisation which had been the reason for the failure of modernisation. the Apart from the neo-Guelph ‘dream, this seems basically to agree with new a us is present hypothesis: that the clericalisation of the State apparat magnified was and period, modern the of typical was phenomenon which it. If at first by the Counter-Reformation, even though it had appeared before to it seemed to facilitate the development of central government, it was later the ing prevent State, modern the of ction constru stop the process of

Priesthood and political magistracy: clergy and laity

105

creation of the civil servant class as a basic component of the new political . relationship.® We should now rid ourselves of the misunderstanding which has permeated the entire historiography which from Déllinger onwards came after the end of papal temporal power: that the clericalisation of the State apparatus which took place in the sixteenth century and which was | asserted by the Counter-Reformation popes, particularly Sixtus V, simply meant the fusion of the State and Church hierarchies within the papal territories.’ Moritz Brosch states explicitly that in this new situation the bishop of a city even managed 'to become governor of it, taking into his hands both spiritual and temporal power, justice and policing, the care of souls and finances.* Later scholars have naturally not been so naive as to believe this but, all the same, a somewhat simplistic conception seems to persist, whereas the process was in reality far more complex and fraught with: tensions. In the next chapter, we shall see some examples of these interweavings, but it will be useful to have a look first at some characteristics of this evolution.

The State bureaucracy asserted itself independently from the ecclesiastical hierarchy, creating a parallel system and not, at least formally, a ‘blended’ one, even if at the highest levels, especially in relation to the cardinal legates, the offices provided for by the old canon law were used with entirely new contents. Paolo Sarpi understood this aspect well, in fact drawing from it reasons for denouncing the pope’s abuse of power and for pleading similar powers for the other states. As pope, in the city of Rome, he has his vicar, and in the subject cities the archbishops, bishops and other ecclesiastical rectors; as prince he has his own ministers, governors, judges and others, who, even though some are priests, do not carry out their jobs as priests, and many are also laymen. Now if any churchman, priest or monk commits a great sin, we do not want the bishops or those who rule the church to punish them, but the governors and judges, etc.?

We shall return to the rest of the passage in connection with the subjection of the clergy to penal law in the Papal State. For the moment, we should like to emphasise Sarpi’s definition, which has too often been overlooked, that the bureaucratic apparatus of the Renaissance Papal State, however clericalised, drew its own principles and its own daily routines from the State. This did not imply that spiritual weapons and power were not used, but that their use took place within the framework of service to the State, and in a political logic, not in an undifferentiated blend of spiritual and physical in the carrying out of daily principles and routines. Papal government functionaries, churchmen or laymen, exercised their roles ‘not as priests’ but had authority even over priests, thus leading to the

106

The Papal Prince

development of bureaucratic State power which can be seen less clearly in other political unities in which resistance of the ecclesiastical body is still strong. Along with Bellarmino’s indictment, there is an obvious exploitation of the clerical with regard to the political of which there are no precedents in the administrative history of the papacy. If this is true, historians have to analyse further the attacks which were made against the secularisation of the Roman curia in order to understand the institutional implications of this process, apart from the moral indictment. ‘In partem sollicitudinis pontificiae non sunt amplius episcopi vocati, sed rerum temporalium officiales’: this exclamation can be heard not only from Marc’ Antonio De Dominis, !° but also, in quite similar terms, from orthodox and non-orthodox observers alike, between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, even as they argued among themselves as did De Dominis and Bellarmino. If the latter’s opinion was destined to remain a secret between the pope and himself, De Dominis, in his denunciation of the secularisation of the papacy and curia (‘iam Ecclesia Romana in curiam versa est saecularem’),!! naturally included this theme in his own ecclesiological framework precisely as a defence of the episcopal structure, but put forward some interesting observations which hint at the confusions which had recently taken place within the Church institutions:!? Postremis demum temporibus legationes romanae, et nunciaturae ad avaritiam, ad ambitionem, et ad sola negotia terrena, et temporalia expeditae sunt, et expediuntur. Legationes sane ordinariae Piceni, Romandiolae, Bononiensis, Ferrariensis, Avinionensis, et si quae sunt similes, sunt praeturae provinciales, vel

praefecturae, et proconsulatus, non ecclesiasticae pro rebus ecclesiasticis legationes, ut omnibus reipsa notum est et manifestum. Nuntii vero Papae nunc dierum apud imperatorem, reges, et potentatus christianos eodem penitus loco sunt, quo regum legati in curiis principum saecularium, pro a nimirum saecularibus potissimum tractandis, et indagandis commorantes.

Leaving aside the question of the legates, which will be dealt with later but which is interesting when seen in the context of internal and external politics, we are presented with the new figure ofthe cardinal legate placed as a State functionary at the head of the administration of the most important provinces of the State. Here, a classical figure of canon law is used for ends

* Finally, in most recent times, Roman ambassadors and nuncios were, and are, equipped for greed and ambition and for earthly and temporal business alone. Indeed, the ordinary

ambassadors of Piceno and Romagna and of Bologna and of Ferrara and of Avignon and others of the same ilk are praetorian provinces or else prefectures and proconsular ones, not ecclesiastical ones concerned with ecclesiastical affairs, as is absolutely plain and obvious to

all. Indeed, the pope’s messengers are now daily in the presence of the emperor, kings and Christian potentates and are on the same footing as the legates of kings in the courts of

secular princes, hanging about the better to handle and engage in secular affairs.

Priesthood and political magistracy: clergy and laity

107

which are entirely different from the original ones. Its early development took place in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, particularly in the great legations of the Avignon period, but it was more fully developed between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, strongly allied to the development of the cardinal dignity which has already been referred to.!5 The figure of the cardinal legate, in its role as the acme of peripheral administration, becomes the prototype for the understanding of the at Church-State ‘blend’ which pervades papal bureaucracy at every level Catholic the of proposals the beginning of the modern period. The Reformation called only for greater morality and the appointment of legates and other functionaries to be for a determined period of time — two or three with years — rather than for life, following the example of other states for demands the century, similar requirements.!* In the seventeenth even practice, in out carried rationalisation and moralisation were far from if they were formally acknowledged regulations, but what did win through seems clearly was a State apparatus which, despite being clerical, exceptional with regard to traditional law.!5 of Church An examination of an earlier process of nationalisation an idea give may century teenth institutions which existed from the mid-fif was re structu Church The . isation of the complex phenomenon of secular rise to wishing anyone of career the modified to suit new requirements, and trative adminis early h throug route in the papacy’s service took a mixed cs, nunciatures, offices, clericates, lesser governorships, small bishopri variants possible, the all with etc., greater governorships, cardinalates, us examples Numero fortune. or ip, according to ties of family and friendsh !6 but lack of ration, conside under exist of such courses during the centuries ent form perman the to on evoluti research prevents a precise tracing of their social ing concern rules rigid of they assumed in the seventeenth century ment, commit l financia tion, origin, professional and cultural prepara to see a more profound and promotion, etc.!7 Our information allows us which from the midsurface the continuous structural process beneath m, transforming organis ratic fifteenth century shaped the entire bureauc in which the and career, and the fundamental principles of selection nce. importa presence of the State had a determining ixteenth century, between It has recently been noted that from the mid-s the popes’ origin changed even the pontificates of Paul III and Julius II, chosen on the basis ofa r longe radically. After this date, they were no protection of the popes the from or consensus deriving from family power in the curia and were r caree a had and princes, but in almost every case occurred later among it e befor , educated in legal studies.'*Even the popes (civil servants), !? all te’ ‘Beam as the other monarchs, regarded themselves they reached the since de, attitu l the more so because of their menta

108

The Papal Prince

cardinalate and papacy by ascending one by one the steps of a difficult career between Church and State. De Luca also noted, in his defence of the validity of curial selection even with the sale of offices, that the popes of his time had either come from the court of the rota (Clement VIII, Gregory XV and Innocent X), or the court of the camera (Paul V, Urban VIII and Innocent XI);?° others had their origins in administrative or diplomatic careers (such as Fabio Chigi or Alexander VII, an example of a recently studied career) even if they did not pass through the great courts. This clearly had consequences not only for internal careers but also for administrative procedures. Further research will demonstrate whether the ecclesiastical routes in a career were subordinate and functional to the more properly governmental ones. Episcopal appointments to. the minor sees appear to have the value of intermediate stages or of indispensable prerequisites for further ascent (for the appointment as legate, for example), while even appointments to the greater sees often appear to be blind alleys into which anyone who had not stood the test in his office, or anyway did not agree with the reigning pope and his entourage, was diverted. The most cynical example is perhaps the one referred to in a dispatch of July 1585 from the Venetian ambassador Lorenzo Priuli. Sixtus V had thrown the entire responsibility of the hanging of an innocent young man on to the shoulders of the governor of Rome, ‘[the pope] has said he wants to relieve [the governor of Rome] from the office soon, but would first give [the governor] a bishopric’.?? This is not to deny the fact that from the mid-sixteenth century, and with the Counter-Reformation, there was a turn towards the clericalisation of the apparatus in recruitment, in reserving the most important offices for those who had received holy orders, and also in the increasingly sharp distinction between clergy and laity on the ideological-cultural level as well as on the legal and behavioural one. While at the beginning of the sixteenth century the distinctive characteristics of the lay courtier seem to have stifled the ecclesiastical element in the curia and in the periphery, the model proposed by the Council of Trent clearly marks out the ruling clerical class from the lay component.?? This change became part of the fuller process of formation of the State apparatus, without upsetting it and in fact developing some of its own potential, though it also introduced disquieting elements which produced the degenerative situation of the following century. From the second half of the fifteenth century, the clericalisation of the administrative apparatus was necessary, in view of its expansion, in order.to

overcome the earlier seigneurial and eee system, which was still resistant and persistent. The most significant example perhaps in this first period is that of Rodrigo Sanchez de Arévalo, who was appointed by Paul II immediately after his

Priesthood and political magistracy: clergy and laity

109

election as castellan of Castel Sant’Angelo; he was also the author of a ~ handbook, De castellanis et custodibus arcium et castrorum. The cardinals had obtained the promise of the appointment of an ecclesiastic to this key post for the safety of the State, and the elected pope accepted this fact, asking the new castellan to swear an oath which became a model for all those who from now on took on similar positions in the papal fortresses.*? The pledge not to concede the major jurisdictions and magistracies to laymen was confirmed in the chapters of the following conclaves.?4 These agreements were certainly not always respected by succeeding popes, but it is hard to deny that the need established in them constituted the dominant element of subsequent development. Clerical privilege was to exercise an essential double role. On the one hand, it impeded the fragmentation of power and supported the elective character of the papal monarchy, preventing the assertion of the hereditary principle at all levels of the State. Nepotism was thus greatly reduced and took on its true aspect of exception and outlet with regard to the dominant trend. The privilege also allowed the widespread application of the spoils system in the passage from one pontificate to another. On the other hand, it was judged, and was in fact, indispensable in guaranteeing the unitary principle of sovereignty with regard to every subject, clerical and secular, without destroying the fundamental justification of power. It is possible to identify some elements of this development in the great theories which relate to public order, fiscal taxation, and the use of spiritual weapons. The clericalisation of the administration became necessary in order to submit clergy and laity to the new requirements of the modern State. In its competition with other states, the Papal State was laid open by the CounterReformation to the problem of clerical immunity as well, and this was to be the beginning of the end: not because of the clerical office and even less of its moralising activity — which never affected the principle of State reason — but © because of the obvious contradictions between the exigencies of the Church’s revived universalistic initiative and the insuppressible internal requirements of the State. In order to understand this important theme, it may be useful to have a look at some examples. Part of the struggle for State monopoly of power within the political body and over its subjects, was the daily effort to maintain public order. It may seem trite to reiterate this point, but many of those who deny the existence of a process of construction of the modern State in the early modern period set off are unaware ofits cost and duration, and of the reactions which were by what can now be defined as the first great nationalisation in European at the history. Without going into these general themes, we should look the specific problem of the Papal State, the routine it followed when facing — law traditional immunity of the clergy, in particular — with regard to penal

110

!

The Papal Prince

concerning the ability of State functionaries to prosecute criminal clerics and to penetrate into sacred places against the right of sanctuary. To reply to this, it would be necessary to have a series of studies on the powers in criminal matters of those responsible in State administration (envoys, governors, podesta, etc.), on the changes in them introduced by the middle of the fifteenth century, and also on the exceptional powers given from time to time, and the effectively daily police routine.?5 The prevalent belief that the Papal State of the early modern period was a state of priests which defended priests’ privileges, resulting in anarchy and disorder, can be dismissed on the grounds of the various soundings which have already been made. Apart from the judgement on the outcome — and the history of every European country shows how difficult the construction of the modern State was — it appears possible to identify an uninterrupted series of measures succeeding one another in coherent progression until the end of the sixteenth century, starting with the appointment of Niccolo da Cusa as vicar ‘in temporalibus’ for the Papal State in 1459, on the occasion of the departure of Pius II for the Congress of Mantua.”° These were aimed at strengthening the government’s powers, particularly those of the envoys and vice-legates, of the judge of the camera, and of the governors over the clergy.?7 The clericalisation of the administrative frameworks had a basic political justification. Contemporaries were well aware of the changes under way even if they did not understand the true reasons, like Lorenzo Campeggi when he spoke in his memorandum to Hadrian VI (‘de depravato statu Ecclesiae’) of the great powers which the governor of Rome had acquired in the last decade:?8 De Urbis quoque gubernatore quae persona est ecclesiastica non parum multa etiam

cogitanda essent. Qui ab elapsis non multis temporibus multas occupavit sibi et in civilibus et in criminalibus facultates per inconsideratas Pontificum concessiones, quod legitimis suis temporibus minime agebat.*

Even in this case the reform movement, without being aware of it, came up against a new and overbearing political reality rather than the corruption and abuses of a decadent medieval papal apparatus. Guicciardini’s correspondence forms a remarkable witness to the attempts of a papal lay functionary to assert the State’s authority over the clergy: the authorisations contained in the appointment briefs to the various governments,?° and the request to grant even when lay, necessary pardons, *° the imprisonment and execution of evil priests and monks with * Very great consideration should be given to the governor of the City in relation to his ecclesiastical status. For this man has acquired for himself great powers after no great lapse of time in both civil and criminal affairs (by the imprudent concessions of the pontiffs) since he did not confine himself to his legitimate temporal affairs.

Priesthood and political magistracy: clergy and laity

111

subsequent requests for absolution,*! the plea — which was granted — for a letter with special powers over the clergy,*? and the authority to papal | confer benefices and to intervene in other purely ecclesiastical spheres.** The substance of Guicciardini’s continuous correspondence with Rome in this connection can be summed up in a sentence contained in a dispatch of 13 May 1525: ‘I do not see how Romagna can be governed without having authority over the clergy.’?4 Guicciardini’s case is not paradigmatic, as it was exceptional in its moral strength and in the political intelligence of its protagonist — in all likelihood, the normal functionaries refrained from entering into competition with the powerful force of the clergy in the daily exercise of power — but the agreement with the central government under the various pontiffs is neither occasional nor episodic and forms an advanced position in a much fuller process. Guicciardini himself, looking back over his long experience under different popes (‘. .. having as a minister of my rank, served longer and in greater matters the Apostolic See than perhaps any other man today in Italy’), expressed the belief that even

the newly elected Paul INI would have considered him had he worn the

prelate’s habit and not civil clothes: And for this same reason, and for no other, I do not remember ever having wanted to Iwould have a career other than the one I have, because if I had worn the ‘roccecto’, have would I and me, use to deigned have would Holiness Your that have hoped been been confident to act in such a way that perhaps Your Holiness would not have same the used have would I because less satisfied at the end than your predecessors, faith and ways I used with them, which would be nothing other than diligence, integrity . . .35

the opporGuicciardini’s political shrewdness therefore acknowledges provincial of head the at laymen not and tunity to place prelates development governments, not as submission to clericalisation but as a to the matters stical ecclesia or l spiritua ing subject of ty based on the necessi nt of Romagna, State. A few years later, it was actually a prelate preside as Guicciardini and Giovanni Guidiccioni (1500-41) who, on the same lines at his disposal, with equal conviction but with greater power and means action to subject the took up in his correspondence the problem in taking anarchy and unrest. clergy which was necessary if there was to be an end to which has already Guidiccioni’s career is another example of the argument humanist and scholar, a been mentioned: with a degree ‘in utroque’, a brone, legate to the judge under Cardinal Farnese, bishop of Fossom general of the papal army emperor, president of Romagna, commissioner end of his life, governorfor the reconquest of Palliano and finally, at the rdini’s experience: ‘Tf general of the Marca.2° He refers directly to Guiccia brief, in criminalibus soli Deo you look, you will find that Guicciardini had a

112

i

The Papal Prince

reddere rationem tenetur. It would be good to find it and through that to give me one of the same tenor; because it is necessary if I have to remain here.'37 His title of prelate allowed him however not only to proceed with greater agility in criminal actions but also to intervene even further into ecclesiastical affairs, particularly with regard to taking possession of benefices and pursuing conflicts, even with those who had strong curial protection. In a disagreement over competence with the vicar of Cardinal Niccolò Gaddi, bishop of Fermo, it was Annibal Caro, a collaborator and friend, who presented Guidiccioni with a picture ofthe situation which may help clarify the political implications of the problem: [He] says that the cardinal has the fullest privileges to indict in the case of priests, even crimes of blood, and it seems to him very strange and unusual that your Lordship made a proclamation that no one could take possession of benefices without your permission, something that they want to be a prerogative of the bishopric, especially since the cardinal has the power of pardoning. To this I replied that Your Lordship did the same in Romagna, and that it was also done by others, and that the vice-legate of Bologna, who is lord in spiritualibus of that province, never took possession without a mandate from the president; not to damage the Ordinary, but to prevent scandals. Indeed, the ordinary profits from it, and I recalled what Your Lordship did at Lonzano, if Iremember rightly, in order to give powers to the vicar of Rimini. However, they continue to think that this is a new thing and damaging to the bishopric. With regard to proceedings against priests in criminal cases, I could say nothing other to the Monsignore than that I had seen the cardinal’s privileges, and that at first sight it seems right to me that the governor should interpose himself there, seeing that in these places disturbances can and usually do come from priests as well as others, and that all the earlier governors behaved like this too. . .38

From the mid-sixteenth century, new developments and conflicts arose from the demands of the Catholic Reformation, but no reversals or changes in the actual exercise of power took place. In the correspondence of Monsignor Monte Valenti, governor of Perugia in 1574-5, we find the same theme and continual reassertion of the State’s competence in criminal spheres even where priests were involved, and even though the tensions deriving from the Tridentine rulings on the competence of ecclesiastical

courts had already manifested themselves. 9 In fact, from Pius V to Sixtus V

(the early years of Gregory XIII were perhaps weaker, but certainly not his last years), this line was upheld and consolidated for the purposes of the struggle against banditry. It is interesting to note the contemporary assessment of the Papal State’s attitude towards the clergy and how this helped to bring about the change in the last decade of the century, beginning with Gregory XIV’s bull Cum alias nonnulli of 24 May 1591, ‘De immunitate ecclesiastica quibusdam

Priesthood and political magistracy: clergy and laity

113

exceptis casibus inviolabiliter observanda’.*° The first hint of the connec‘ tion between the internal problems of the Papal State and the resumption of

jurisdictional controversies on the specific themes of ecclesiastical immunity is to be found in a reference in the autobiography of Cardinal Antonio Santori in 1590, and concerns the preparation of the text of a bull on ecclesiastical immunity, ‘since the secular princes have taken upon - themselves too much authority, under the pretence of pursuing the bandits, following the desire of Sixtus V ...’.41 Although there is no concrete evidence, these problems of internal politics and public order may well have pushed Sixtus V to a more pliable position with regard to the question of immunity to the point of abolishing the same congregations set up by his predecessor to deal with the problems of Church jurisdiction.4? When in 1593, Paolo Paruta, a shrewd diplomat, asked the pope for the removal of Pietro Cedulini, bishop of Lesina, and author of innumerable abuses, he recalled ‘the severity which was used, particularly in this ecclesiastical state, against those who in some way prevented the carriage of justice and Sixtus V’s bull which condemned them to capital punishment’.*? Gregory XIV’s bull referred to his predecessors’ concessions to the princes and in cancelling them it declared that they had been misused to the detriment of ecclesiastical immunity, and recalled traditional canon laws. No direct reference to the Papal State was made in the bull, and only in Alessandro Ambrosino’s commentary, which was published several times and had an important influence on the curialism of the entire seventeenth century, was the question indirectly approached in chapter 18, which dealt with ‘De casibus in quibus laicus de delictis clericorum cognoscere possit.’** The pope alone was able to delegate a layman to judge clerical cases, even criminal ones. He could not, however, make a general law which subjected the clergy to laymen as this would have been contrary to divine law, but could individually commit spiritual and ecclesiastical, even criminal, cases to a layman, as in this particular case power was not of order but of jurisdiction and therefore delegatable by anyone who held the plenitudo potestatis.

Even the greater canonists of the period seemed to avoid the problem. Domenico Toschi refers to it only once when he defines the right of sanctuary and the sacred places where this right existed; amongst them have to be included the palaces of bishops and cardinals, but he adds, ‘sed hoc procedit extra urbem Romanam, quia in ea non observatur’.*5In Rome, therefore, the right of sanctuary appeared explicitly more restricted than that claimed by the Church in its other territories with the reasonable justification that, if the right of sanctuary were granted to the bishops’ and cardinals’ palaces in Rome, it would be impossible to deal with the question of public order, as Agostino Barbosa stated in his treatise: ‘animadvertentes

114

The Papal Prince

huismodi privilegium hac tempestate non servari in Urbe Roma, ut consulatur bono publico, et delinquentes puniantur, qui vix puniri possent si huiusmodi privilegium in Urbe servaretur’.*® The jurists’ ambiguity is matched from the 1620s by the ambiguous legal procedures of the new congregation of the Immunity. The proclamations which were the most difficult to sustain — that the clergy were entirely exempt from all lay authority — were counteracted by the procedure of the Papal State by which the governors were able to proceed against clerical persons ‘iubente Sanctissimo’ or ‘ex segretaria status iussu sanctissimi’. The inherent contradiction went unnoticed. There were so many cases that they could not be recorded individually in the collection: ‘Gubernatori saepe datur facultas examinandi, etiam et carcerandi, ac procedendi quoad personas

ecclesiasticas tam

saeculares

quam

regulares,

item ministros

religionis Hierosolimitanae’; ‘De ordine Sanctissimi saepe datur gubernatori facultas procedendi contra personas ecclesiasticas et alias exemptas.’*” The contradiction in this disparity of treatment was clearly understood by those who saw the acquisition of authority over the clergy, which the pontiff already enjoyed on the basis of his double role, as indispensable for the assertion of sovereignty. What this might have meant in the development of the legal controversies will be shown later. It is interesting to quote the remarks of Paolo Sarpi following on from the passage given earlier in the chapter with regard to the personal situation of the clergy in the Papal State: We have seen Torre di Nona, the Savella court, the Torrone of Bologna and other secular prisons full of executed priests and monks and, what is important, likewise in the pontificates of Sixtus and Clement, hanged monks have been seen in the clothes of their order, without being defrocked. These things were certainly necessary and right, otherwise the Church State would not live in peace. However, the other states are not without this need: and if it pleased Your Holiness to measure the others’ needs with the measure which you use and have given to yours, you would not damn the princes who punish the priests who do not live as priests . . . I know the reply which will be given, and this is that the pope has the two qualities related above: that of a prince and of a pontiff; as prince, seeing it to be necessary for the good government of the temporal state that with his lay arm the great crimes of the clergy are punished, asks permission of himself as pontiff . . .48

A study of royal immunity and, more generally, of the economic situation of the clergy in the Papal State, especially in relation to fiscal taxation of all kinds, lays the foundation for research into personal immunity. The subject has been little studied and one can therefore only put forward some suggestions. From the second half of the fifteenth century, the clergy were subject to a fiscal levy as great or greater than the one placed on the laity by the central government (the relationship with local communities, in which

Priesthood and political magistracy: clergy and laity

115

the traditional immunity obviously managed to maintain and assert itself, is not taken into account here), apart from the exceptions and privileges of the superior prelates which were not different, however, from the analogous privileges of the high nobility and of the high clergy in other European states.

It has been pointed out that the Catholic states of the early modern period | collected more through taxes on the clergy than the Protestant states did by confiscating Church goods.*? If this is true, one can add perhaps that the papacy even in this displayed an exemplary role. The principle which comes to mind is again that of the pope’s double persona, to which is added the theological-moral justification that the profits thus extracted serve not only the State but also the needs of the universal Latin Church.5° These are somewhat undefined references which need precise verification, because on the fiscal level, which is of its nature already complex at this period, we have an even more complicated relationship between canon and State laws, which often keep their old names but have entirely new contents and effects, as Infessura recorded in his Diario at the end of the fifteenth century.°! Numerous constitutions and decrees in the two centuries under discussion testify to the submission of the clergy to the various taxes common to all, and specific taxes or ‘tithes’ on the revenue of Church goods are periodically added to these.5? Even Paul III's constitution which instituted the triennial subsidy in 1543, and which was destined to become a direct State tax, began:5* Decens esse censemus, ut ii qui speciale privilegio donati, caeteros antecellunt, in supportatione onerum, illos diuvent, qui forte inferiores existunt; praesertim dum urgens necessitas imminet, et exinde publica utilitas resultare dignoscitur.*

The taxes which fell in particular on the Italian secular and regular clergy in the following decades seem to want to put this principle into practice. Gregory XIII ended one of his addresses to consistory in 1576 on the financial difficulties which were nearing bankruptcy by suggesting the setting up of a tithe on the entire Italian clergy: ‘Unde, cum nolit amplius gravare subditos status ecclesiastici, cogitavit gravare clerum . . .'5* These are only a few references which, though they cannot claim to be fully documented, may provoke more systematic research. At the end of the century it was again Paruta who was struck by the severity with which the treasury pursued the Roman clergy and the entire Church State,55 and who expressed to the pope himself — who agreed with * Our opinion is that it is only right that those who have been endowed with special privileges, and who take precedence over the rest, should lend their aid to others who, as it happens, when pressing may be their inferiors, in the payment of taxes. This is especially true necessity looms; and from such conduct, public benefit is seen to accrue.

aS

eaters

The Papal

Prince

him — his opinion that Church riches (consisting of churches, monasteries and religious associations) were far greater in Venice than in Rome and the Papal State.5° Sarpi broadened the question to include the need to limit Church property and property in mortmain, and noted as examples the prohibitions placed by Pius V and Clement VIII on the excessive extension of certain Church possessions at the expense of lay property. If the pope as prince had taken these measures as necessary for the public good, then it had to be possible for all the states, and the usual justification that the popeking could ask of himself, as pontiff, permission to put taxes and restrictions on Church property was not valid.57 Neither the most quoted great curial canonists nor the practice of the congregation of the Immunity are of great value in this respect. The jurists are silent, and the collection of the congregation’s deliberations under the heading ‘ecclesiastics’ only enumerates amongst other achievements:*® (8)

Ecclesiastici non sunt subiecti oneribus, nec ordinariis, nec extraordinariis impositis in favorem principis . . .

(28)

Ecclesiastici, dato chirographo Sanctissimi compraehensivo ecclesiasticarum, sunt compraehensi in datio carnis . . .

personarum

(29)

Ecclesiastici tenentur ad subsidium triennale iuxta bullam s.m. Pauli II, in qua sunt specifice nominati . . . [etc.}*

De Luca gives a fundamental explanation of the relationships between immunity, personal and actual, and the Papal State. In a recent study of jurisdictionalism before Giannoni in the kingdom of Naples, it was noted that De Luca held a quite original position which, far from getting into line with the curialists, questioned the usefulness of the congregation of the Immunity, condemned the excessive zeal of the curials, and placed the principle of public order and common good before any other special interest.5° The argument is fully developed in the Relatio Romanae Curiae, disc. 17: ‘De Sacra Congregatione iurisdictionis et immunitatis ecclesiasticae’. Referring again to the institution of the congregation by Urban VII — in which regard there is a strange lack of officially written documentation — he maintained that the congregation of bishops was discussing the same subjects earlier ‘minus clamorose’ but to greater advantage, so that even with good and fervent clerics ‘remanet quaestio, quae vere problematica est, habens hinc inde probabilia argumenta, an huius Congregationis erectio, *

(8) Ecclesiastics are not subject to taxes either of the ordinary or extraordinary kind

imposed by the favour of the prince . . . (28) Ecclesiastics are included in the payment ecclesiastical persons has been issued by his (29) Ecclesiastics are bound by the three-yearly tax III, in which they are specifically mentioned

for meat once the complete list of Holiness. in accordance with the bull of Pope Paul by name . . .

e Rici es | po SAR

È

i* 7

\

Priesthood and political magistracy: clergy and laity

—

LTT,

ecclesiasticae immunitati ac iurisdictioni proficua vel praeiudicialis flterkt:;90 Sentences such as these may explain the problems De Luca had to undergo despite his extraordinary scientific and professional success. But it is important to note that beneath all this lies the experience of the Papal State. Speaking of the court of the master of the roadways (Relatio, disc. 38, ‘De tribunali aedilium, seu magistrorum viarum’), De Luca stated that one of the great advantages of the Papal State lay in the fact that only there were the clergy subjected to every contribution without any possibility of claiming exemption, as spiritual.and temporal power were concentrated in a single hand:9! Non audiuntur autem in hoc tribunali illae quaestiones, quae in aliis orbis catholici . partibus audiri solent, occasione ecclesiasticae immunitatis realis, an scilicet clerici, aliaeve personae ecclesiasticae, et immunes, teneantur ad contributiones, et collectas, quae indicuntur pro refectione pontium, et viarum; et de quibus in suis respective sedibus agitur, quoniam, ob existentiam utriusque gladii in una manu, vel nunquam vel nimium raro de his in Urbe et in reliquo Statu ecclesiastico disputari contingit, dum ex pontificiis decretis nulla dignoscitur differentia inter ecclesiasticos et saeculares in huiusmodi taxis et contributionibus. Adeout licet istud tribunal sit in sui origine ac natura saeculare, attamen, ut de aliquibus aliis supra advertitur, admixtam habet aliquam ecclesiasticam potestatem, quae exerceri videtur a camerario, sive a preside qui sunt personae ecclesiasticae.*

This argument, which was already on its own account somewhat disturbing with regard to the traditional way of looking at the relationships between the clergy and laity in the Church State, was doctrinally thoroughly investigated by De Luca in another treatise, in some observationes which were not directly connected with legal practice.®? It was right that the clergy were dealt with in a different way from laymen because of their different roles and importance, but the abuses had to be fought so that the difference was not transformed into privilege. Immunity had no place in the Church States in which the two powers were concentrated:°? * We donot, in this tribunal, hear those questions which are wont to crop up in other parts of the Catholic world. We do not, for example, hear a question argued of whether a case involves true ecclesiastical immunity, or whether the man is in fact a cleric, or, in the case of ecclesiastical personages, whether they are immune butliable to contribution, or whether the contributions have been collected which are laid down for the repair of bridges and roads and for other matters which are listed in their own particular areas. Such questions do not arise because both swords are in the hand of one man. Hence, it happens never or very rarely, that disputes of this kind arise in the city or the rest of the ecclesiastical state. In accordance with papal decrees, no difference is seen between ecclesiastical and secular in this type of tax and contribution. Hence, though this tribunal is in its origin and nature a secular one (as we mentioned above, when considering these matters), nevertheless, it has some tincture of ecclesiastical power which appears to be exercised by the camerarius, or

else by a president who is drawn from ecclesiastical personnel.

118

The Papal Prince

.. « cum ista sola ratione attenta non deberet ecclesiastica immunitas locum sibi vendicare, quando utraque. potestas penes eumdem principem, vel rectorem resideat, ut sacra pagina veteris testamenti, tunc sequi docet ac etiam in aliquibus principatibus, et ditionibus, in illa praesertim temporalis dominii Ecclesiae, ac etiam in tribus ecclesiasticis electoribus Germaniae aliisque praelatis utramque spiritualem et temporalem, tam cum clero quam cum populo potestatem habentibus

praxis docet.*

The clergy, continued De Luca, should not suffer taxation in addition to the other burdens they had to bear, and should enjoy their free state, but were not to take advantage of their situation to profit and trade at the expense of those laymen who had to pay taxes and lose by the illegal competition of the immune clergy. But then, he wondered, is it right that the clergy of the Papal State should bear fiscal burdens which the clergy in other states would not?* Scandalum superficiales concipere solent, quod in temporali Ecclesiae ditione pontifex, ab utriusque saecularis et regularis, cleri personis, gabellas aliaque laicalia onera quasi pariformiter a laicis exigat, aliis veto principibus interdicat, quasi quod ita violare sit regulam ab omni divino ac naturali et humano iure statutum, ut quisque iuris in alio statuit, in se ipso statuere debeat, vel ut eademipse mensura metiri debeat, cum qua alios metitur. Verum, qui solam rerum callent superficiem, eorum error, ac ineptia hic est, quoniam pontifex in propria temporali ditione, pro

illis fidei et catholicae reipublicae indigentiis ac oneribus ecclesiasticos gravat, pro quibus iustum ac rationabile foret ubique eosdem gravari, abstinet autem in aliis, ex apostolica tamen concessione eos gravant singuli respective principes pariformiter pro regionum qualitate; ideoque irrationabilitas et ineptia dignoscuntur, ita generaliter ac in abstracto id considerare atque stylum redarguere, cum potius rationis et aequitatis fomentum id habeat, eam eiusdem pontificis praeiudiciali restrictione, ut id, quod ab omnibus exigere potest, contextus sit ab illis tantum exigere qui in eius temporali ditione vivunt.*

De Luca’s dialectical abilities seem incapable of resolving the discrepancies he enumerates. But it is possible to draw some important conclusions from these passages: the clergy are essentially subjected to the same fiscal treatment as the laity in the Papal State;°° this is feasible in so far as spiritual and temporal power are in the hands of the same authority;9 it Ecclesiastical immunity from taxation ought not to defend itself solely on the grounds that it is ecclesiastical when both powers are in the hands of the same prince or ruler, as the sacred text of the Old Testament teaches. Moreover, common practice urges those who have power to treat the cleric in the same way as the layman in other principates and spheres of rule and in the temporal household of the Church and even in the three electorates of Germany and the other states where temporal and spiritual are united. + On the face of it, this practice might constitute a scandal because the pope, in his temporal jurisdiction over the Church, exacts taxes and burdens from both secular and regular priests,

*

Priesthood and political magistracy: clergy and laity

L729

was not shocking that the pope made his subject clergy pay taxes but forbade the princes to do so because he was forced to make the burdens of the government of catholicity fall on his subjects, which would in theory have to be equally divided. At the end of these reflections on the question of immunity, it seems possible to corroborate the hypothesis that with the transformation of the _ papal dominions into a modern principality, the State’s interference in ecclesiastical spheres takes on new and pressing forms, enabling us to confirm — at first sight, a paradoxical term, contradicting the developments which were to follow — that the Papal State, thanks to the concentration of the two powers in the hands of a single sovereign, is the forerunner of laicisation and does not find within the ecclesiastical structure those obstacles common to all other Catholic states. Precisely because it represented, even in everyday life, a bivalent power, the papal government had greater authority over its subjects than did that of other states, and was therefore envied and imitated by these. This image began to be modified at the end of the sixteenth century, and even more so after the 1620s, with the beginnings of the activities of the congregation of the Immunity. This occurred not only as a result of the jurisdictional muddle and the uncertainty of law, but also because of the fact that the uncompromising and over-conscientious defence of ecclesiastical immunity in territories of the other states, especially in Italy, where the confrontations were easier and the situations similar, brought to light the contradictions of internal politics in which patronal privilege rather than traditional canonic immunity tended to have the upper hand in the effort to build the modern State structure. A last point should be touched upon: the use of spiritual weapons in the construction of the State. In addition to what has been said already, the pope monopolistically possessed and used weapons which were still valid at the beginning of the modern period, even if by now they were outworn and just as he does from laymen, but he forbids this practice to be followed by other princes. In doing this, he appears to violate the rule set by all divine and human law, that whatever each man decrees for another he should hold to for himself or he should be subject to the same measure with which he measures others. But those who take this superficial view are mistaken and their mistake resides in this: the pontiff levels taxes on ecclesiastics in his own temporal domain to pay for the needs and expenses of the faith and Catholic commonwealth. It would be just as reasonable to levy those taxes on ecclesiastics everywhere but he refrains from doing this in other areas. Individual princes, however, each in their respective principates do levy taxes of this kind in accordance with the apostolic decree and in the conformity with the needs of their particular region. Hence, it is for this reason that practice is seen as unreasonable and unfair when it is considered in theory and in general outline, though it may have a remedy of reason and justice when it is remembered that it is by the restraint of the same pontiff that tax, which could be demanded from all, is allowed to be extracted only from those who live in his temporal domain.

120

The Papal Prince

useless to any sovereign: excommunication and interdict. This is a vast theme, which is to a great extent still virgin territory, and not the domain of the present work.®” Spiritual weapons have always been used by the Church of Rome even in its defence of temporal interests, and the attack on papal sovereignty has been associated till the end of the papal dominion — and even later — with heresy.98 We should like to suggest that from the midfifteenth century, these spiritual weapons take on a specific political value, secondary and subsidiary, but not insignificant, in the attempt to construct the Papal State, with regard to the use of coercion and material strength, in both foreign policy and internal politics, and concerning public order or fiscal laws. This takes into consideration the fact that the boundaries between foreign policy and internal politics were not clearly defined, particularly at the beginning of the period, and were clarified decade by decade along with the gradual construction of the State. The use of condemnation was resumed during the period under consideration, both in general terms, following the usual formulas, and from time to time in specific confrontations with the European powers, the Italian signorie and unruly feudatory vassals. It was repeated in the solemn process of public condemnation of heretics and enemies of the Church, which traditionally took place each Holy Thursday before Easter, and which was summarised in the bull In coena Domini®? with the excommunication of the invaders of the lands of the Church. The review of the acts of interference during the second half of the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries, made some decades ago by Gotwald, is enough, despite its superficiality, to give an idea of the continued use of these weapons by the Renaissance popes.”° Recent research has enlarged our knowledge of the political and economic effects of their use in confrontation, particularly with Florence and Venice,”! and has also emphasised the importance the weapons still had at a political and economic level, as well as the perverse consequences that their use had at the ecclesiastical level. These instruments gradually came to be regarded as being entirely separate from the religious problem in itself and the mediation of the clergy for ceremonies and daily life diminished.” What still has to be considered is the effect the Papal State’s presence as the prominent representative of the policy of balance between the Italian states and in the wars of Italy had on the reception and interpretation of its policies, which seemed increasingly more concerned with its position as a more or less autonomous political power in the international arena than with the papacy.”3 The last great act in this sense was the projected bull of excommunication and deposition of Philip II by Paul IV following the war and invasion of the Papal State.”* The subsequent excommunications and interdicts were linked more to Church events, such as the deposition of

Ì

Priesthood and political magistracy: clergy and laity

21

Elizabeth I, or to jurisdictional controversies not directly connected with international policy. The Peace of Chateau Cambrésis essentially defined the space taken up by the Papal State in the Italian and European framework of the following centuries, and the division consolidated by the Reformation rendered these spiritual weapons fragmented or dangerous to the inter-state conflicts and the policy of European balance. The application of excommunication and interdict within the Papal State continued however, and has yielded much scope for research. Their use from the mid-fifteenth century against unruly feudal vassals and vicars, beginning with Pius II’s epic battle against the Malatesta — ‘perfidious rebels to God and the apostolic faith’ — is well known, The identification of a political enemy as an enemy of the faith had never before been so complete and subordinate to the exigency of a power which had to use every instrument at its disposal. As Pius II said to Francesco Sforza’s envoy, if the equipment were not enough ‘and if we cannot defend ourselves with temporal weapons, we shall defend ourselves with spiritual ones, which perhaps will do more harm than one thinks'.75 Whether these interventions indicate any new development or merely the continuation of the secular struggle already taking place between the feudal and small town autonomies on one side and the papacy on the other is however still very uncertain at this period. In this sense, the excommunications proclaimed in 1641 during the war for the recovery of Castro are only a late epilogue to a now entirely expended cycle, when both spiritual and temporal weapons seemed exhausted.’° Spiritual weapons appeared to be secondary to a coercive strength which manifested itself primarily in the army, new arms, equipment, and financial support. The new element was the use of spiritual weapons, of excommunication and interdict, in neither exceptional nor episodic circumstances, nor to serve private interests, as happened in the cases of England, and of the Franche-Comté,77 but in support of the public element, or State authority in its daily dealings with its subjects; nor was it an extraordinary and exceptional use as it had hitherto basically always been, but incorporated into any initiative of the authority, taking part almost automatically in every threat or infliction of punishment, alongside threats or penalties of temporal law. We can get some idea of the constant relationship between spiritual coercion and political purpose from the apostolic constitutions regarding the Papal State included in the Magnum Bullarium Romanum, the constitutions and edicts noted by Theiner, and the volumes of the Regesti di bandi editti e notificazioni. At times, the outline is clear, as for example in Gregory XIII’s constitution Non sine gravi of 7 December 1584 against smuggling and related crimes: ‘ut quos legum, poenaque corporalis timor non retinet, saltem gladii spiritualis fulgor a malo deterreat’.78 It is almost

22

The Papal Prince

always mentioned only in connection with the power given to the legates and governors in general to have recourse to ecclesiastical censorship and therefore to absolve penitents from excommunication and interdict once the intended political, administrative and financial results were obtained. The need to use spiritual weapons and absolution from imposed censorships was — as Guicciardini’s experience shows — to be a justification for favouring the clergy in appointments to the most important administrative posts. This is not to say that the use of spiritual weapons was restricted to cases of public interest in the Papal State. There are examples, even if the question has not yet been studied, of the infliction of spiritual punishment being related to the private interests of eminent and privileged persons,7? but the use of excommunication and interdict was an instrument which was basically used to assert public authority in this period, and in every case was a sovereign monopoly in the papal monarchy. One should not forget Guicciardini’s maxim, referring to viclence as the basis of State power and to the double violence of ecclesiastical domination which he knew so well after so many years of faithful service.8° A more detailed analysis of the combined use of spiritual and temporal weapons by the early modern popes could lead to greater understanding of the source of the violence which was embodied in the modern State of the following centuries and its constant tendency towards monopolising all forms of coercion.

CHAPTER

SEVEN

+ State reason and Church reason:

Tridentine reform and the case of Bologna

Dignetur Sanctitas Vestra decernere, quod gubernatores et quicumque magistratus civitatum Sedi Apostolicae subiectarum se non intromittant in his, quae ad iurisdictionem episcopalem spectant, sicut accidit in aliis civitatibus Sedi Apostolicae non subiectis, ne earum episcopi sint deterioris conditionis quam alii episcopi civitatum eidem Sedi non subiectarum.* (‘Episcoporum petitiones de impedimentis residentiae tollendis’, in Concilium Tridentinum, iv, p. 483)

At this point, it may be useful to understand the situation of the ecclesiastical structures within the Papal State as well as to consider the combined use of spiritual and temporal power within the papal monarchy. This approach would have seemed paradoxical in the eyes of traditional historiography: the ‘government of priests’ then meant clerical domination and therefore submission of the State to the Church, the removal of all jurisdictional stresses and of the obstacles which the Church found itself facing from the other states of the early modern period. The truth is slightly more complex. The case of Bologna in the post-Tridentine period illustrates the problems of a diocese in the papal dominions in its efforts to carry out the conciliar decrees of reform. Recent studies confirm that Bologna was not an isolated case and that in other provinces and dioceses the Papal State’s desire to remove all autonomy from ecclesiastical organisation and the latter’s resistance gave rise to conflicts and tension which either were stifled or became chronic.! The conclusion of this process seems, however, even if * May it please your Holiness to decree that rulers and those who hold magistracies of State subject to the Apostolic See should not emigrate into those states which are under the jurisdiction of a bishop, as happens in other states which are not subject to the Apostolic See, so that their bishop should not be in a worse state than other bishops of those states which are not subject to that same see.

123

124

The Papal Prince

it is outside the period dealt with in this chapter, quite different from the one which was to develop in the secular states in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; in the papal dominions, a solution to this problem was found in the even greater clericalisation of the State apparatus, almost as a second ecclesiastical structure superimposed over the first, provoking the crisis which was not only political but also social, cultural and religious.

The roots of the problem are to be found in the Middle Ages, and here, unlike for the modern period, we have reliable sources, at least with regard to the institutional picture. Innocent III’s formula (‘Nusquam melius ecclesiasticae consulitur libertati quam ubi Ecclesia Romana

tam in tem-

poralibus quam in spiritualibus plenam obtinet potestatem’)? seems appropriate for the Papal State’s role towards the Church at the beginning of the thirteenth century, in the period of the first structuring of the public apparatus. Temporal power was used to assert Church freedom and spiritual power exercised by papal representatives only in so far as it was necessary as a support to the administration itself: ‘in fulcimentum et auxilium temporalis iurisdictionis dumtaxat et non in aliis’. The theoretical distinction of levels corresponded with a dualism of the administrative and jurisdictional systems: rectors of provinces had below them two separate judges ‘in spiritualibus’ and ‘in temporalibus’, and when rectors themselves were laymen, they were to have a rector ‘in spiritualibus’ alongside them, titular of a power which they could not exercise.? The distinction was still upheld even when granting the greatest powers, such as those of the ‘legati a latere’, who were endowed by the Avignon popes with the greatest powers in Italy, in order to re-establish the law. The granting of the fullest legal powers over the ecclesiastical world to papal representatives, which was definitively acknowledged in the Albornéz constitutions‘ of 1357, was allied to the appointment of vicar-general in the temporal sphere, with powers similar to those of a viceroy.5 This extension and concentration of temporal and spiritual power in the hands of one person is to be found nowhere else in Europe between the thirteenth and end of the fourteenth centuries, and it gives much scope for study. The case of the duchy of Spoleto suggests that spiritual jurisdiction was increasingly delegated to the pope’s temporal representatives under the pressure of daily exigencies, of the pressing problems of public order, and of the increase itself in clerical petitions to civil authority against their superior ordinaries or the laity.® If, following the political crisis during the schism and the increased frequency of a new type of papal vicar, similar to the imperial one, which disrupted earlier State regulations and entrusted power to legal persons or to lords who came from local elites,” the concentration of power in the hands of the same person had necessarily to cease, with its transformation

Biel aden

State reason and Church reason

125

into a principality from the mid-fifteenth century, the State’s interference in ecclesiastical matters at diocesan and subdiocesan levels took on new aspects along with the widening of the sphere of power and assertion of centralisation. When definite, if isolated, tendencies surfaced in Catholic reform circles towards a renewal of religious life and discipline, it was the bishops of the Papal State who denounced the ‘impedimenta’ which arose in their pastoral activities caused by the political authorities. In a collection of ‘Episcoporum petitiones de impedimentis residentiae tollendis’, presented to Paul III in December 1540, apart from the general demands to remove privileges, exemptions and abuses, attention was drawn in point 17 to the particularly difficult situation of the bishops in the papal territories with regard to the political authorities.® Paul III considered the demand, quoted at the beginning of this chapter, justified; he had welcomed it, if only conditionally, in point 37 of the reform bull ‘in favorem ordinariorum’, Superni dispositione consilii, which in fact was never promulgated.? It was then included in canon 20 of the reform of the twenty-fourth Tridentine session on the ordinary jurisdiction of bishops in cases of first instance which were relevant to the ecclesiastical court:!° Legati quoque, etiam de latere, nuntii, gubernatores ecclesiastici aut alii, quarumcumque facultatum vigore, non solum episcopos in praedictis causis impedire, aut aliquo modo eorum iurisdictionem iis praeripere aut turbare non praesumant, sed nec etiam contra clericos aliasve personas ecclesiasticas, nisi episcopo prius

requisito eoque negligente, procedant; alias eorum processus ordinationesve nullius momenti sint, atque ad damni satisfactionem partibus illati teneantur.*

Some years after the Council of Trent, in 1570-1, yet another long list of ‘impedimenta’ was compiled which paralysed the episcopal government in the diocese of Bologna. Remarkably similar to the pre-Tridentine lists, it showed that the Council itself had basically achieved very little. The ‘impedimenta’ were divided up into particular lists: ab Urbe, a principibus circumvicinis, a legato vel gubernatore, a regimine Bononiae, ab hospitalibus et piis locis, a canonicis, a regularibus. Several fundamental ‘impedimenta’ in the memorandum were denounced as deriving from the Holy See and from representatives ofthe papal government. Episcopal jurisdiction was diminished with the dispatching of special commissioners entrusted with ecclesiastical matters, with the

* Ambassadors too, even ‘legati a latere’, messengers, ecclesiastical rulers and others of whatever position shall not presume either to hinder bishops in named cases or overturn or upset a bishop’s jurisdiction in any way. They shall not proceed against clergy or ecclesiastical personnel unless the bishop shall first have requested the case and then allowed it to drop. In other respects, their procedures and orders shall have no effect and they shall be liable to be fined.

126

The Papal Prince

removal from the bishop’s attributions of the collation of benefices and of cases in the first instance, with the continuous intervention of legates and governors into matters which were entirely religious and concerned with Church discipline, and proceedings against priests and, finally, with direct interventions against the bishop and his officials. Ab Urbe The commissioner for the church’s property in perpetual lease has been sent, which is not only prejudicial to the bishops’ court but against the councils of Trent and Ravenna, there being already in Bologna designated judges and a court erected, as you know, and confirmed with an apostolic brief. The same commissioner has been appointed above the holy legates which de iure et consuetudine is a task for the bishop as protector of Christ’s poor. From time to time commissions for the collation of benefices go to persons other than the bishop, which is greatly prejudicial, as was the case at Gaggio . . . Cases of first instance are removed from the church court and the entire rota is given as an adjunct to the vicar; this is in contradiction to the council; one of the synodal judges, or one of the rota or others to be decided in agreement with the vicar is to be given as an adjunct. They often entrust the governors and legates with matters which should be the entire responsibility of the ordinary, as was lately the observance of the proclamation of Lent of which they wrote even to the judge of the Torrone, and at other times the matter of the Jews which they entrusted to the governor, sending also an ad hoc commissioner et similia. At other. times, the governor was allowed to send the general proclamation | concerning the visits to the monasteries of nuns, walking in church, observance of feastdays, and other matters which are the responsibility of the ordinary. At other times, they used to entrust si in evidentem to different learned persons matters damaging to the churches, notice of which the ordinary had on few occasions; we do not want those in Romie to grant them unless they first hear the ordinary’s advice. At the other times, benefices are regrouped to the great prejudice of the bishop and city, as recently happened with the parish of Pontecchio.

A legato vel gubernatore. They send proclamations which contain ecclesiastical matters appropriate to the ordinary, such as matters concerning the monasteries and walking in church. They send proclamations to celebrate feastdays which are not included in the bishop’s proclamation, even to the churches of nuns which are subject to the bishop. They allow the singers and actors to also sing on holy days against the bishop's orders. To recite plays and perform shows also on holy days. To mask themselves on the night of the Epiphany, and also on the first day of Lent. They have the bell of S. Petronio rung for the dead against the bishop's orders. They allow begging in holy places. They dispatch proclamations on subjects, even when unimportant, in which ecclesiastical persons are also concerned, furthermore with corporal punishments.

}

State reason and Church reason

127

They dispatch summonses to ecclesiastical persons for unimportant matters, without the bishop knowing, and again go against the bishop. They allow criminal citations to be posted up on the doors of the churches. They commit church cases to secular judges, and even to the judge of the Torrone. They make decrees at times against the episcopal court such as, for example, the recent one of the qualification for taking an oath. They often hinder the bishop's vicar. They often submit things to be printed and some things printed to be sold, which is the duty of the bishop and of the Holy Inquisition. Not only do they summon priests for information curiae secularis and examine them, but also often imprison them. At times they give safe conduct to those outlawed by the bishops’ courts as they did recently to Gasparone delle Agochie. At times they start the processions without waiting for the bishop.

The situation was exacerbated by the arrival at the end of 1566 of a new governor, the Genovese Giovan Battista Doria, replacing Francesco Bossio

who had been Borromeo's vice-legate during his Bolognese legation.!! The entire period of his governorship, which ended in January 1570, was characterised by a violent opposition to the bishop’s labours. It was not a personal opposition but one based on different attitudes towards the relationship between spiritual and secular government. Like all governors at the beginning of their tenure, Doria prepared a ‘general proclamation’ in which, particularly in points 3, 4 and 5 (on discipline and silence in churches, on cloistered nuns, and on the observance of holy days), he referred to questions about which Paleotti had already made his feelings known in his first year of episcopal activity. Paleotti then wrote to Cardinal Alciati, head of the congregation of the council, to have the opinion of the congregation on the discrepancy between Doria’s proclamation — which by chance had fallen into his hands before being published — and the Tridentine regulations. At the same time he wrote to the pope, saying that, even if the governor’s attitude was understandable in the pre-Tridentine period, it no longer was now that the bishop was present and personally governed his flock: From the time I came to this see, which Your Holiness was pleased to give me, I have worked to arrange various things according to what God has allowed me and particularly what you have established, thus concerning devout behaviour in churches, observance of holy days, and the regular discipline of the nuns and other similar matters. It has pleased His Divine Majesty with the holiest example of Your Holiness to assist these good works, which you may hear about from everybody here. Now since these orders, praise God, have gone well, it seems that a desire to make other provisions with different punishments or means can only be detrimental. And Monsignore the governor having intended to publish a certain proclamation concerning these matters, influenced, I believe, by the example of

ZO

i

The Papal Prince

some of his predecessors who, before the council and in the absence ofthe ordinaries, had interfered in episcopal matters, it seems right to unburden my conscience and make it known to Your Holiness so that you can order what you judge appropriate, because I think that this is ultimately unprofitable, perhaps even repugnant to the decrees of the council. I submit to the holy congregation, and to what it will seem fair to Your Holiness to order me . . .!?

Despite Paleotti’s opposition, the governor published the proclamation. The former’s letters remained unanswered and doubts arose in curial circles as to Paleotti’s loyalty and obedience towards the Holy See and the papacy. Acknowledging the growing distrust, Paleotti wrote to Cardinal Morone, who after collaboration in the council had become his main point of reference for the gravest problems of his episcopate, asking for his advice and openly expressing his attitude in the confrontations of Pius V’s pontificate, averring his personal devotion and admiration, but his discontent with the behaviour of the pope’s ministers and with the way in which the bishops were treated by the latter, without any regard for their dignity: On the other hand I cannot deny that some of his ministers, by their malicious reports, groundless fancies, or whatever, give me little reason to be pleased with them, and this is nothing new, but ever since I took up this see they have continuously persevered in so doing, therefore I was not greatly pleased by the interpretation which has been put on my letters on those proclamations. I have been here without ever receiving a reply to my letters in three months; now the same is happening again with many of my letters. It is true that for a time now I have refrained from writing as much as I could. Even so to some others I have received harsh replies, as can be seen and read. I do not wish to mention that every report which is made there concerning me or my administration is immediately interpreted negatively, without even asking me about it, as if Iwere here only to do bad actions, and where in other cities the bishop is consulted to obtain information about the citizens, here the bishop always has to defend himself, and yet he is never asked information himself. When I wrote of the proclamations or of similar matters, I did it purely as my duty and as advice, and when I remember I have done it I feel the comfort in my soul of having discharged my duty in bringing matters to notice, and entrusting the decision with every humility to superiors . . .13

The situation worsened during the second half of 1567 and the first months of the following year. The governor not only made legal pronouncements such as those contained in the proclamation which was issued, but also translated these into damaging measures for the jurisdiction of the. episcopal court as well as for the bishop’s authority itself. By April 1567, the

episcopal notary who had drawn up the visiting acts had been imprisoned for reasons unknown; in the succeeding months, orders for the imprisonment of clergy, seizure of Church estate and payments followed, as well as

State reason and Church reason

129

the arrogation of cases from the ecclesiastical court by the civil ones, prohibitions to ministers of the episcopal curia from proceeding in ecclesiastical and spiritual matters, permission to enter nuns’ monasteries despite their being enclosed, and proclamations of processions (a not entirely formal matter, involving the collection of alms for monasteries and holy places linked mainly to the processions). In March 1568, taking part with interest in the start of the jurisdictional wrangles in Milan, the bishop of Bologna confided to Borromeo the appalling situation in which he now found himself: ... do not abandon me with your holy orations, moment, not only because of this ordinary burden, also because of other matters which in a thousand and I should like only to serve His Divine Majesty in me as long as I can and to his satisfaction.!*

for my need grows with every too great for my shoulders, but ways try to keep me from here, this place to which he has calied

The following May, Paleotti went to the provincial council at Ravenna: on his return, he found that the decrees and enforcements against the clergy had increased and he was prevented from applying the same decrees of the provincial council. While informing the metropolitan and archbishop of Ravenna, Giulio Della Rovere, of this, and asking for news of the relationship in that diocese between the diocesan ordinary and the president of Romagna, the representative of the papal government, and requesting his intervention with the curia, as in the previous year, he. submitted the matter to the congregation of the council. At first, he informed Cardinal Alciati ofthe situation in Bologna in order that he should refer it to the congregation, and brought it up in discussion. Alciati suggested that he seek a compromise with the governor; Paleotti wrote again on 9 July, reporting the failure of his attempt to compromise: the governor had not accepted the two proposed solutions, i.e. not to make particular mention in proclamations of ecclesiastics, using general words covering everything, or to publish proclamations which were specifically against the clergy emanating from the episcopal curia, ‘saying that his predecessors [had] done otherwise and that this was an attempt to hinder the government of this city’; it was necessary for the congregation to know that the bishop had no desire to obstruct civil government ‘being enough for me to have made known what happens to me concerning episcopal jurisdiction and the decrees of the Holy Council, and submitting freely in the rest to what would be ordered to me, since I press only for what I think is my duty in this, as Iwant to believe that Monsignore the governor does to maintain his office and authority’. The ensuing silence of the congregation was accompanied by the governor’s continuing to maintain secular power, and Paleotti’s calling for Tridentine reform without a single step forward being

130

(3

The Papal Prince

made in the matter. The bishop wrote again to Cardinal Alciati at the end of June, again putting forward the general problem and sending the congregation a series ofquestions compiled along the lines ofecclesiastical tribunals so that he could receive replies more easily: Ut tollantur omnes occasiones quae saepe contingunt, disputandi inter officiales Ill.mi episcopi Bononiensis

et R.mi

gubernatoris,

et ne iurisdictiones

invicem

confundantur, atque omnia quiete peragantur, supplicatur declarari ab Ill.mis DD.VV an infrascripta pertineant ad auctoritatem D. Gubernatoris, pro ut R.ma D.sua pretendent et facit: 1. Quia precipit quandoque aliquos dies publice festificare, qui non sint de precepto ecclesiae, nec de consuetudine civitatis, etiam ad instantiam monialium, et ignorante vicario et quandoque etiam contra prohibitionem factam ab eodem 2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

7.

vicario. Fiunt citationes et executiones contra regulares et clericos sub variis poenis, et

vocantur ad tribunalia secularia, non admonito prius ipso vicario episcopi, qui eodem modo cogeret illos ad satisfaciendum, id quo de iure tenentur si esset premonitus; fiunt etiam citationes et protestationes de mandato gubernatoris contra personam Ill.mi episcopi, illo nullo modo premonito. Fiunt proclamata et banda, ex diversis causis et plerique levibus contra ecclesiasticas personas et quandoque apponuntur poenae etiam corporales. Dat quandoque facultatem quaerendi elemosinas per dioecesim Bononiensem sine licentia vicarii mandando eas colligi sub diversis poenis pro personis, et locis subiectis episcopo et eo inconsulto. Committit causas ecclesiasticas appellationum interpositarum a sententia vicarii auditoribus suis laicis, et causas etiam introducendas contra clericos et quandoque advocat commissas, in inhibet et alia huiusmodi multa. Affiguntur citationes pro causis criminalibus, etiam ubi agitur de poena mortis, valvis parochialium ecclesiarum in dioecesi, in quibus solebantur apponi tantum bullae indulgentiarum et iubilei et similes. Permissi fuerunt saepe recitatores comediarum, circulatores, prestigiatores et cingari, et alii similes tam festivis quam aliis diebus reclamante etiam vicario.*

Included with the document was a short autograph note by Paleotti, showing his line of defence in the case which he put before the congregation: * So that there may be eliminated the current opportunities for conflict between officials of the bishop of Bologna and the secular ruler, and so that their spheres of jurisdiction should not be confused and so that all matters might be contracted in tranquillity, it is desired to be known whether the points made below relate to the power of the temporal governor as he affirms:

1 Thathe prescribes certain days tobe religious feastdays which are not soin accordance with ecclesiastical law or in accordance with the custom of the state: that he does this at the instigation of the monks without the vicar's knowledge and sometimes even against the

prohibition made by the same vicar.

f

2 Citations and executions are made against the regular clergy and clerics which carry a variety of penalties; they are summoned before secular courts without the representative

State reason and Church reason

131

Advertatur ad bullam Pii 4 in qua reducit omnes facultates, privilegia et mare magnum et similia ad limites concilii Tridentini. Et consideretur pro dubiis quae transmittuntur.*

It was a reference to the bull In principis apostolorum sede of 24 February 1565 which symbolised the highest point in the papacy’s adherence to the Council of Trent with the quashing of all Pius IV’s acts and those of his predecessors, in favour of any person or body going against the Council’s regulations. !* In reality this adherence was certainly weakened by Pius V’s later bull of 16 May 1567 Etsi mendicantium ordines in which the Dominican pope restored a large part of earlier privileges and exemptions to the mendicant orders.!6 In fact, even if it only concerned the relationship between bishops and regulars, in reality it was the first grave blow inflicted in general on the bishops’ powers as they had been set out in the Council of Trent. It is quite easy, therefore, to see why Rome's reaction towards Paleotti’s demands was even stiffer than it had been a year earlier. Rome did not remain silent, resorting to insinuations and distrust, but moved to direct reproof for the appeal to the congregation of the Council, and openly approved the governor’s actions. This occurred both in a conversation between the cardinal-nephew Bonelli and Paleotti’s agent in Rome, Luigi Amorini, in early June 1568, and in a letter from Bonelli to Governor Doria, ‘which is a eulogy on the governor’s merit and virtue with regard to these proclamations, saying that Our Lord would like him to have the same and of the bishop having previously been informed since he would compel them to make reparation under whichever law they were bound if he had been warned. Citations and complaints are actually made by order of the ruler against the person of the bishop without his having been notified. 3 Proclamations and banns are issued in a diverse number of cases, for the most part on trivial issues against ecclesiastical persons and, on occasion, physical punishment has been meted out. 4 On occasion, a licence for collecting alms throughout the diocese of Bologna has been given without leave of the vicar. Diverse penalties have been attached and the licence has been issued in places subject to the bishop and without his consultation, 5 He commits to his own juries of laymen ecclesiastical cases where the appellants have been deprived of the opinion of the vicar. He reserves for himself cases which are to be introduced against clergy even when they have reached the committal stage, and prevents them going forward and much else of this kind. 6 Citations for criminal cases, even those involving the death penalty, are put up on the doors of parish churches in the diocese on which, normally, only papal bulls dealing with indulgences and jubilees and other similar matters are put up. 7 Permission has often been granted to comedians, wandering players, soothsayers and other such like persons to enter the city, not only on festival days, but on others as well, even when the vicar has protested. Let notice be taken of the bull of Pius the Fourth in which he reduces all powers, privileges and the great sea to the bounds indicated in the Council of Trent. And let consideration be given about any doubtful cases which might be handed on.

132

The Papal Prince

greater authority than his predecessors, and that he can proclaim what he wants and that his worth will be remembered . . .’, as the bishop told his agent, enclosing a long letter to send personally to Cardinal Bonelli, and having subjected it to Morone’s judgement. In this letter, the bishop tried above all to clear the air of any suspicion of personal disharmony over the dispute between himself and Doria, who had on the other hand received minor orders and ordination as a priest from Paleotti himself. It was a ‘difference of opinion, such as occurs every day in every college and congregation in the world’, which was worsened by the governor’s final acts against the clergy and by the failure to arrive at any compromise. The bishop, answerable for his powers to the Council of Trent and the recent provincial council of Ravenna, turned to the congregation of the Council, after having informed the metropolitan, not rebelliously, but in order to know what had to be done in the execution of his duty: . . .and your most illustrious Highness should consider how many times until now I have written to you, and to the sacred congregation, in matters entirely pertaining to my jurisdiction, sometimes concerning the religious, sometimes priests and nuns, sometimes the ‘S.ri Quaranta’, sometimes other matters, and you can see that I have always proceeded in the same way. Now I cannot see why similar offices should be represented and judged negatively as attempts at deceit, for this will make the bishops desperate and a prey of secular persons and magistrates, without their being able to defend their rights, and I cannot believe that this is the intention of Our Lord because, when a bishop writes to His Holiness or to the sacred congregation of matters taking place, as I have done, I cannot see what is wrong in that and why he should not be greatly commended even if he were to be mistaken in what he claimed... 17

The situation may have appeared complicated a year earlier, though confined mainly to opposition in Bolognese circles, which hindered reform at every step without entirely paralysing it, and was provoked by the ministers but without involving Pius V’s responsibility. Now, however, with the above-mentioned precise clear papal position, any appeal to the congregation and, by this means, to the Council of Trent, was quite impossible. This not only meant problems between spiritual and temporal power, but also removed any effective authority and power from the bishop over the clergy and faithful, preventing any reform whatever. Opposers to reform, seeing that Rome still declared that the bishop was wrong, became more daring: ‘perceiving that my authority continues to diminish, they act even more badly’, wrote Paleotti,1® adding that he no longer knew what to say or do and that he found himself incapable of any action: ‘. . .Iwould add that the matters here of our church, both material and spiritual, are just as in the beginning, as if the Council had never taken place . . .’ ‘As if the Council had never taken place’: Paleotti was to use almost the

oa Pe

is

,

State reason and Church reason

133

same words some days later in the letter, already referred to, to Carlo Borromeo. In this he stated, along with his analysis of the disastrous financial situation, the basic impossibility of any reform action (‘every day they return to Rome, and I don’t know what to do about it, because I feel as though my arms have been cut off, or where else to proceed further in the reform; seeing the way I am treated, they become more daring and grab any cunning device’). He therefore proposed to go to Rome to solve these problems. Borromeo's positive reply — he had always declared himself to be against Paleotti’s leaving the see, however temporarily — was motivated by the fact that the bishop’s trip to Rome might be useful not only for the Church in Bologna but for the reform of the universal Latin Church: . ..wecan hope that your going will profit not only your own church in particular, but the universal one of the other resident bishops, since Our Lord will hear from you of the many impediments and disturbances which they suffer in carrying out their offices, and will be made aware of the truth which perhaps until now has been kept hidden from him by indirect methods.

At the end of July, with Borromeo’s approval and Morone’s repeated solicitations, the bishop of Bologna requested permission from the pope to go to Rome at the end of the summer, and then to return to his see before the beginning of Lent in 1569. Pius V set up a commission to study the problem, which consisted of the bishop of Bologna and cardinals Alciati and Giovan Paolo Chiesa, but reserving the definitive settlement to himself. On these bases, Paleotti wrote to Borromeo, stating that his approach was not limited to Bolognese matters only, that one could hope to arrive at a clarification of the relationship between the two powers which would be useful not only for the bishops of the Church State but also for all the bishops in the secular states.!° The principles to which Paleotti was appealing in his defensive approach were substantially those he had already expressed in the application dispatched from Bologna to the congregation of the Council, and presented with the greatest force in a short memorandum: the legates’ powers were traditionally very wide ranging, even with regard to ecclesiastical and spiritual cases, but those of the governors had always been regarded as limited to temporal government; even if they could have been interpreted more widely before, they now had to be exercised within the boundaries set by the Council of Trent: Sed quomodocumque eorum facultates olim se habuerint et illi eas exercuerint, clarum est ex concilio Tridentino eas contra ordinationes in causibus ibi expressis non admitti, nisi specialiter Sanctitas Sua deroget concilio Tridentino, quod loquitur in speciem de facultatibus quae illis concedi solent, et illas moderatur. Ad haec accedit

134

The Papal Prince

bulla Pii 4 de anno 1565 martii, redigens omnia privilegia, facultates et similia ad limites Concilii, prout in ea.*

To prove this statement, Paleotti put forward the explicit condition placed in the powers granted to Borromeo years before, on his appointment as legate of Bologna, to exercise them ‘iuxta tamen decreta concilii Tridentini quibus nullatenus intendit derogare’. The bishop was to return to the question of the powers of the papal legates later: at this point, he did not think that even the restriction of powers in the terms fixed by the Council could be discussed — at least, theoretically — as, however, was to happen later. He wanted the office of governor to be clarified as being temporal and its limits well specified in relation to the Council of Trent. This approach differed from the one which Pius V had wanted to adopt. In fact, we should note that the pope had, not without motive, already excluded from the judgement on this the congregation of the Council, the body which was constitutionally competent to judge matters concerning the implementation of the Council of Trent. The setting up of a special consultative commission and the arrogation to itself of the final decision were a clear manifestation of the desire not to put the question forward in general terms, but on a more particularly juridical-political level. Early in February 1569, having heard the controversial points put forward by the three cardinals, Pius V expressed his own decision, not on the level of principles, but of compromise, moving to a great extent towards Paleotti’s demands, but attempting to keep the problems within the limits’of the case presented by the Bolognese controversy. The document which the commission gave to the pontiff and which was drawn up in twenty-one points, Consideranda pro episcopis et gubernatoribus in statu ecclesiastico, with Pius V’s decisions expressed ‘viva voce’ in the margin, was the outcome — at least, theoretically, since in reality matters pursued a different course — of Paleotti’s Roman mission, and is also the key to understanding the pope’s position with regard to the problems which were put forward: Indictio ad episcopum, executio spectat ad utrumque

1

Videretur convenire, quod gubernatores in statu ecclesiastico non possint iubere ullos dies publice festificari qui non sunt de precepto ecclesiae, sed hoc spectet ad episcopum.

* But as to how their former powers were interpreted and how they, themselves, carried them out, it is clear from the Council of Trent that those powers which are against the standing orders set out in those cases are not to be admitted except where His Holiness especially emends the Council of Trent, on the grounds that he is pronouncing on a particular power which customarily has been conceded to them. There is, in addition, the bull of Pius IV of March 1565 which brings all privileges, powers and similar matters within the limits of the Council.

State reason and Church reason

135

Quod in civilibus non fiant ad illis citationes

Servetur Concilii decretum; nisi in causis de-

nec executiones contra ecclesiasticas personas, nisi requisito prius episcopo et eo neglig-

legatis ei a papa

ente, iuxta decretum Concilii. Remittatur ad episcopum nisi in casibus iure permissis

atque

Quod in criminalibus possint procedere contra clericum si inveniatur in habitu laicali in crimine, donec constet legitime eum talem clericum esse qui gaudeat privilegio fori, et tunc remittatur ad episcopum.

in

atrocioribus

‘Quod citationes criminales valvis ecclesiarum.

In causis haeresis, ecclesiasticis et mixtis possunt affigi in aliis non

non

affigantur

possunt

Quod proclamata et banna generalia quae ab

In respicientibus universale gubernium comprehendantur etiam ecclesiastici de consensu episcopi, et in exequendo in particularibus ban-

iis fiunt non nominent ecclesiasticas personas,

aut si illae nominandae sunt, addatur de consensu episcopi, et in procedendo deinde servetur decretum concilii de quo supra.

norum executio remittatur episcopo. Tamen

clarius S.mo Possunt

laicis

intelligendum committi

ad

a Causa appelationum

etiam

gubernatori Servetur Concilii

ecclesiasticarum si sint

ab iis committendae, committentur deputatis in synodo iuxta decretum Concilii.

referendum

In causis

decretum

ecclesiasticis

non

inhibeant,

nec

advocent commissas, aut alia ratione se inger-

ant, nisi post diffinitivam iuxta Concilium et quatenus id habeant in facultatibus. Placet, nec episcopus ipse id committat nisi pro pauperibus civitatis et dioecesis

Non possint dare licentiam questuandi alicui, nec colligendi elemosinas per civitatem aut

Episcopus etiam datam ab illis rescindat; in aliis diebus gubernatores eos non admittant

Diebus festis non dent licentiam recitandi commedias nec circulatoribus, nec prestigiatoribus aut similibus. De aliis diebus

Servetur consuetudo

dioecesim episcopo.

sub

quocunque

pretexto

inscio

cogitetur.

10

Gubernatores qui non sunt episcopi non benedicant incensum in missa, nec circulum faciant cum canonicis.

136

The Papal Prince ll

Facultates quae illis concedi solent, declaretur expresse quod intelliguntur reductae ad limites Concilii iuxta bullam Pii 4 ut non liceat illos excedere, nisi specialiter aliud mandaverit Sanctitas Sua iuxta negocia occurrentia.

Ad fenestras quandocunque volent; intus autem conveniant cum guber-

12

Episcopi possint semel singulis mensibus visitare omnes carceratos, ingrediendo carceres cum

praesentia

aliquorum

ipso gubernatore,

seu

et providere ne carceratis

desint necessari temporalibus. Placet

sacerdotum

religiosorum, quorum aliqui sint deputati ab

natore

13

in

spiritualibus

et

Coniunctim episcopi et gubernatores moderentur

excessus

pomparum,

et

superfluum

luxum populorum in victu et vestitu. Placet

14

Processiones publicae in quibus convocatur clerus non indicantur a gubernatoribus sed ab episcopis, et gubernatores ipsi ab episcopis invitati ad eas accedere debeant nisi ex legitimo impedimento.

15

Moneantur

etiam

gubernatores

ut

quo

frequentius possunt sacris concionibus, et divinis officiis in ecclesiis intersint, quoniam . illorum exemplo et magistratus civitatis et reliquus populus ad religionem magis excitatur.

Placet

16

Item moneantur ut ab episcopis requisitis in

his quae spectant ad inducendos bonos mores in populo et corrigendos abusus, seu ad augendam devotionem, pietatem, cultum divinum et religionem, operam suam et auxilium

prompte efficaciterque impertiant. De ingressu nihil caveatur; de capiendo prout de iure

17/

Executores et biroarii gubernatorum non ingrediantur ecclesias cum sclopis, balistis, et armis hastatis; nec etiam aliquem capere aut detinere possint nisi in casibus iure permissis, aut de speciali mandato S.mi D.Nostri.

Permittitur inspici, sed non exhumari, nisi de licentia episcopi

18

Corpora occisorum quae iam sunt illata in ecclesiam, non possint de mandato gubernatorum expoliari aut detegi pro inspiciendis vulneribus minusque exhumari nisi de licentia episcopi.

ee

ee

ee

as Anatomia

Ù haec

State reason and Church reason nullo

19

modo permittatur Servetur concilii

decretum

Servetur bulla

137

Pro facienda etiam anatomia corporis humani, causa studiorum, requiratur licentia episcopi.

20

Non liceat gubernatoribus celebrare missas nec in palatio nec in alio loco non consecrato, nisi prius visitetur et approbetur ab ordinario.

21

+Causae hebraeorum et excessus pertineant ad forum episcopi iuxta bullam S.mi D.Nostri, nec gubernatores in his se ullo pacto interponant.

22

Quae

dicta sunt de gubernatoribus,

eadem

locum habeant in quibuscunque aliis. officialibus secularibus, nisi specialiter aliud in mandato habeant a S.mo D.Nostro. Consideretur etiam an adhibenda sit aliqua distinctio inter gubernatores et vicelegatos et an episcopi qui sunt cardinales debeant frui aliquo maiore privilegio cum sint corporis papae et praesertim quando resideant. De praecedentia etiam inter eos consideretur quod observandum sit.* * Indictment is the concern of the bishop, execution is the concern of both.

1 Let it be agreed that, because rulers in ecclesiastical States cannot decree that any day should be celebrated as a public festival which is not so designated by decree of the Church, this matter shall be the concern of the bishop.

Let the decree of the Council be kept except in the cases delegated to him by the pope.

No citations or executions should be issued in civil cases unless there is first a referral to the bishop and he passes it over, in accordance with the decree at Council.

Let referral be made to the bishop except in cases permitted by law and more serious offences.

In criminal cases it is allowed to proceed against a priest if he is found to be wearing secular clothes at the time of the crime. This procedure should be considered legitimate since he is that sort of priest who rejoices in the privilege of the market place; so then let this case be referred to the bishop.

In cases of heresy and ecclesiastical and mixed cases, notices can be affixed to church doors. In other cases they cannot be.

Criminal citations should not be affixed to the doors of

In cases which affect the rule of the whole State, ecclesiastical personnel, too, may be included pro-

Proclamations and banns proclaimed in public which come from rulers, should not name ecclesiastical personnel or, if they must be named, the bishop must agree and the procedure must be in accordance with the Council as set out above.

vided the bishop agrees and the execution of banns shall be sent up to the bishop to be carried out in detail. However, this should be understood more clearly by reference to the bull.

church buildings.

138

The Papal Prince

They can be committed even by laymen for referral to the ruler.

In a case involving the calling of ecclesiastical personnel, if they are to be committed, let them be so by deputies in synod in accordance with the decree of the Council.

Let the decree of the Council be adhered to.

In ecclesiastical cases, let them neither prevent nor bring forward cases which have started or embroil themselves for any other reason, except after one defined by the Council and as far as they have power.

It is decided that the bishop himself may not procure a committal unless on behalf of poor citizens and a poor diocese.

Let them not give leave to tax anyone or collect alms throughout the State or diocese on any excuse whatsoever without the bishop’s knowledge.

The bishop may rescind even cases passed by them; on other days rulers may not allow them.

On festal days leave should not be given for playing comedies or for strolling players or for conjurers or the like. On other days, care must be taken.

Let the custom be adhered to.

10 Rulers who are not bishops, may not bless incense in the course of the Mass or make the round with the canons.

11 It should be clearly set out that those powers which are customarily conceded to them should be interpreted as reduced within the limits of the Council in accordance with the bull of Pius the Fourth: that they are not allowed to exercise them unless His Holiness shall have given special leave according to the business as it crops up. Outside whenever they want: inside, however, let them meet with the ruler.

12 Bishops may be allowed to visit all prisoners once each month by entering prisons in the presence of other priests and members of religious orders. Some of these may be designated by the ruler himself and they can make sure that the prisoners lack nothing in the matter of necessities for both body and soul. ‘

It is agreed.

13 Let rulers and bishops jointly act to modify the excesses in public processions and the superfluous luxury of the populace in food and apparel.

It is agreed.

14 Public processions to which clergy are invited ought not to be set up by lay rulers but by bishops. And lay rulers themselves should be invited by bishops and lay rulers ought to attend them unless for some legitimate excuse. 15 Lay rulers, too, should be reminded to take part in religious meetings and public worship in church more frequently than they do because, by their example, the city’s magistrates and the rest of the populace are the more urged to

practise their religion.

It is agreed.

16 Let the rulers also be reminded that they should offer their help and resources promptly and effectively when at the bishops’ request they concern themselves with stimulating upright behaviour amongst the populace and correcting abuses or set themselves to increase devotion, piety, worship and religion.

In the matter of entering,

17 The governors, executioners and police may not enter

y

State reason and Church reason

139

no caveat: in the matter of arrest, it shall be according to the law.

churches with clubs, missiles or spears; nor shall they be allowed to arrest anyone or detain them except as is permitted by the law or in accordance with the special regulation of His Holiness.

Inspection is allowed but exhumation is not unless the bishop gives his leave.

18 The bodies of men who have been slain and which have already been carried into a church, may not be despoiled or undressed by order of the governor so that their wounds can be inspected, nor may they be dug up except if the bishop give his leave.

Dissection of corpses is, by

19\o Dissecting human corpses for study purposes should have

no means, allowed.

the bishop’s permission.

Let the decree ofthe Council be adhered to.

20 Rulers may not celebrate Masses in a palace or any other unconsecrated place unless it has first been visited and approved by the ordinary.

Let the bull be adhered to.

21 Cases involving the Jews and their expulsion are the concern of the bishop, according to the bull. Rulers should not, therefore, interfere in these matters on any excuse.

22 Whatever has been laid down for governors, shall hold good in whatever secular duties they may perform, unless they have some special order in accordance with a mandate.

Consideration should be given, too, to the question of whether there should be any distinction between rulers and deputies, and whether bishops who are cardinals ought to enjoy a larger degree or privilege when they belong to the pope's family, and especially when they shall be in residence. Consideration, too, should be made concerning what precedents ought to be observed amongst these different sorts of people.

The bishop of Bologna could not be enthusiastic about the results, but merely moderately satisfied. Essential points such as, for example, those relating to the necessary revaluation of the role of synod judges, and the right of sanctuary, were resolved negatively. And there was no reply to point 11 which implied the general assertion of the subordination of the governors’ powers — in effect, of all the authorities of the secular Papal State, except for the pontiff and his legates — to Tridentine regulations. Following the approach by Pius V, even these latter decisions failed to touch on the general problem of the relationship between bishops and secular authority by making only acknowledgements and particular concessions. This was basically the impression Paleotti gave Borromeo on the eve of his departure from Rome: he no longer spoke of the problems of the bishops in the Papal State, or even more generally of the resident bishops, as he had done in his earlier letters: instead he declared himself satisfied with the pope’s attitude towards him, the special powers for reform which he had received with special briefs, and the clarification of controversial points with the governor which gave hope of greater tranquillity in the future. Unfortunately, even this hope was soon found to be groundless. On his return to Bologna, and on the pope’s orders, the bishop sent the governor a

140

;

The Papal Prince

document which reported in fourteen points Pius V’s decisions, leaving out matters which were still unresolved, ambiguous or out of date, as he wrote sending copies of the document to Alciati and Chiesa. The governor’s attention was certainly not focussed on the details: he denied any validity to the document, putting forward specific approvals received directly from Rome.

At this point, the bishop felt that he was being personally attacked, and almost mocked. He wrote to Alciati and Chiesa, informing them of what had happened and asking them to act immediately, as guarantors of the papal resolutions, to remove the unbearable scandal. He informed Cardinal Morone of what had taken place, asking for his intervention on the strength of his authority and prestige — with an indirect reminder of the role of president which Morone had had at Trent — to defend his episcopal authority and clarify the reasons for papal opposition. He also demanded clarification directly from Pius V: ‘> . . should this be Your Holiness’s wish, I will be silent and only beg you to make very clear how I should do things in the future, which I shall always obey; even if this is otherwise I beg you humbly to make that provision which is expected of your wisest judgement . .2°Tf the tone of the letter to the pope was strong but at the same time humble and devoted, the short note which he addressed to the person responsible for the concrete government of the Church State and of the ecclesiastical policy of the papacy, the cardinal-nephew Michele Bonelli, revealed the bishop of Bologna’s spiritual stress with a force which could be fully expressed only in a deeply felt and scourging call to Christian charity: Of the manner in which Mons. the governor has behaved towards me, despite the decrees of the council and orders expressed by Our Lord, Your Most Illustrious Holiness will be informed by the most illustrious Cardinal Chiesa and, because some say that this comes from letters of Your Illustrious Holiness that encouraged the said monsignore in his ways, I beg you for Christian charity, if for no other reason, to clarify the fact well to me, helping me to understand whether you regard mein a bad light, and in this case I am prepared to defend my actions, otherwise to decide so that I can exercise my office with the authority and dignity it requires.?!

Even this approach had no effect. Cardinal Morone was able to do nothing: despite his personal authority and prestige, his position during the pontificate of the Ghislieri pope - who had been head of the Holy Office during his long imprisonment in Castel Sant’ Angelo and the court case for heresy under Paul IV — was isolated, without any possibility of influencing the most important deliberations. The appointment of the cardinals Alciati and Chiesa as guarantors of the agreements set up by the pope turned out to be entirely unsuccessful as all authority had been removed from the constitutionally competent ecclesiastical body, the congregation of the

State reason and Church reason

141

- Council, and in its place not another body but singular persons were designated who were incapable, through their own positions, not only of autonomous deliberations, but also of any direct intervention into the matter. Paleotti wrote again to the cardinals in the following June that the governor continued deliberately to ignore the validity of the papal decisions ‘and in a certain way he laughs at them’. The only possibility lay in pleading the bishop’s case to Cardinal Bonelli and the pope. Whether this ever took place is unknown; if it did, it certainly had no effect whatsoever. Paleotti’s last attempt was therefore to ask for the intervention of someone in whom Pius V had the greatest trust, one of the few persons who could directly influence the pope, Nicolo Ormaneto, the Roman reformer and collaborator of Borromeo. If this case does not touch the heart of Your Lordship, and does not obtain from Our Lord permission so that I can exercise my office with the necessary dignity, and ina clear way so that every day I do not have to argue, and therefore my reasons are esteemed so low without my being able to understand the reason, I do not know what to do at the see, I am astonished that provision is not made for similar matters, as I don’t ask anything but what is right.??

No undertaking, not even the latter, managed to change the situation or even bring about some clarification. Brought to a final decision, Paleotti no longer thought of renouncing his church but decided on a passive course which allowed him to survive. He had done all he could to defend episcopal rights — as he wrote to various people in July 1569 — but they had been violated against all that was right. He could only see this as one of God's mysterious plans, in whose providence, and through the advice of spiritual persons, he decided totally to entrust himself without taking any further initiative. He repeated these ideas several times to Cardinal Alciati, who continued to support him and to encourage him to go ahead with his case. Finally, he confessed that even in the event of his rights being acknowledged — something in fact impracticable — the governor could always make life impossible for him, as in daily pastoral work it had always been necessary to have something to do with him, especially in the years of poverty and misery for the people like this one particularly: for this reason, the bishop judged it better to ‘drink this, even if [it was] bitter’. The ‘bitter’ drink which the bishop of Bologna had to swallow often in the following years was so painful to bear that he was often forced to leave his passive position to defend his remaining authority, despite his previous assertions. One. of the most significant occasions was the dispatch from Rome of apostolic commissioners with special powers as, for example, the case of the commissioner sent by the apostolic camera to revise the alienation and concessions in perpetual lease of Church property. It is not

142

The Papal Prince

within the scope of this work to discuss the problem of the impoverishment of Church property and its transfer into secular hands in the pre-Tridentine period, both through alienations partially or entirely falsified, and with locations ad longum tempus often changing into continued ownership: corruption and nepotism tending to turn Church property into familial patrimony had provoked a systematic plundering of the Church’s possessions.23 The Council of Trent had posed the question, inflicting excommunication on those who usurped Church property, and had entrusted the provincial councils to set up a method by which they could put into practice the revision of rents in perpetual lease which had occurred in the last thirty years.24 On this basis, the provincial council of Ravenna instigated a tribunal in each diocese to revise similar transfers, which was to consist of the vicar-general, a canon elected by the chapter of the cathedral, and a priest elected by the clergy.”° Despite the strong opposition to this decision from lay circles, Paleotti, following the deliberations of the provincial council in the next diocesan synod called in June 1569, set up a tribunal which immediately began its difficult task. In May 1570 Pius V confirmed the powers of this judging college, with an appropriate brief containing the explicit power of reviewing all the alienations and similar transfers in perpetual lease. Strengthened by this papal approval, the judges took a new step in their activity, ordering denunciations and inflicting penalities. At this point, in total contradiction to the ratification which had been granted, Antonio Ghini, an extraordinary commissioner judge, was sent by Rome and, on the basis of the concessions made by the pope to the fabric of St Peter, arrogated to himself all the material and cases relative to the revisions, putting himself above the tribunal which had already been set up, despite the bishop’s attempts to avoid this new attack on his authority. Adjustment of the relationship between the two jurisdictions, that of the episcopal tribunal and of the commissioner, was confirmed by Paul V in September 1570 with the concession to the commissioner of all the cases which had not already been begun in the episcopal court. Proceedings against those clerical judges took place in May 1571, and led to the avocation of all cases by the same commissioner. It was perhaps because Bologna had been the only diocese in which an integral attempt had been made to put Tridentine regulations into effect even in this sphere that the experiment had been thwarted, and episcopal initiative was transformed into a new kind of State fiscality. Another problem which arose in the relationship between bishop and papal government in the last years of Pius V’s pontificate grew out of a particular case directly concerning Paleotti’s pastoral government, the refusal by a cathedral canon to obey reform regulations. In 1566, the bishop

State reason and Church reason

143

had already tried to bring back to the see the Bolognese clerics who were staying in Rome with minor charges in the curia, as they were, amongst other things, some of the people most prepared, and the diocese lacked the money to employ other foreign collaborators. Giovan Francesco Cannobio . was one of the former, from one of the most influential Bolognese families and with strong support from Rome, who returned to Bologna at around this time — perhaps only in 1569, since there is no other mention of him before that date — to take the lead in the clergy’s opposition to the bishop. The scandal blew up when Paleotti, having gathered the canons together in the bishopric on 25 November 1569, informed them that, on the basis of the Tridentine principles and the particular decree of the provincial council at Ravenna,?6 the canon-priests had to celebrate solemn mass themselves with convenient shifts on the principal feastdays; the other canons not constituted in the presbyterial rule would have performed the roles of ministers of the celebrant: Cui R.mo D.no concorditer ab omnibus fere responsum: quatenus humana fragilitas patitur. Quare R.dus D. Joannes Franciscus Canobius post haec, caeteris canonicis tacentibus, appellavit se ad S.mum D.N. et petit copiam a Caesare Beliosso curiae episcopalis Bononiae notario de praedictis omnibus, coram testibus dicta die rogato.*

The Liber secretus of the chapter shows that Cannobio’s isolated opposition was then adopted by the chapter the next day with a sudden change of opinion; the majority decided to lodge an appeal against the bishop's ruling. Facing opposition, the bishop had his lawyer read the brief in which Pius V had conceded to him the previous January the fullest powers to reform, also over the chapters, which Paleotti had until then not enforced for the sake of peace. As a result of this brief, the canons submitted, but with protests and discontent. Cannobio alone presented the appeal against the bishop’s precept to the governor, Doria, who, though it concerned a case which was not only ecclesiastical but was also one of reform, set a hearing to discuss it. This meant the end of the truce which Paleotti had arranged in his relationship with the governor. As on other occasions, he informed the congregation of the Council, referring to Cardinal Alciati: I thought that similar things had to be reviewed by Our Lord or by the congregation of the council appointed by him, and it seems strange enough that a judge of the governor should be judge and reviser of the things done by acardinal bishop in his see in so far * To which the reply from almost all present, in agreement with the Roman Lord was: as human frailty permits. Because of this, the Reverend Lord C. Giovan Francesco Cannobio and sought afterwards, since the other canons were silent, appealed to our most Holy Lord, all concerning Bologna, of Bishop the of court the of notary assistance from Cesare Beliosso, the stated day. the above-mentioned, nominating him in the presence of witnesses on

144

The Papal Prince

in execution of matters of the council, who has the fullest brief from Your Holiness to be able to correct, reform, etc.; nonetheless, if this is just, or as His Holiness wishes, I will obey. I wanted to inform Your Most Illustrious Signoria about it so that you can advise me what to do, because I will obey.?7

On 17 December, the day fixed for the audience, the governor decided to accept the appeal, but recognised the competence of the congregation of the Council to which he referred the case, asking however that the bishop suspend any action. Informing Cardinal Morone of this in a letter, Paleotti rightly put forward the problem of the governor’s being unable to arbitrate between the bishop, the Roman congregations, and the pope. This would have meant entirely removing the clergy from the ordinary’s authority; willing to put up with the rest, he could not remain silent about this. In addition to what had been happening, an order from Cardinal Bonelli was sent to the governor to open a judiciary inquest on a chaplain of the bishopric concerning a charge entrusted to him by the bishop. Again, things had gone too far. It was insupportable, wrote Paleotti, ‘that a bishop and his house chaplains should be brought to public courts, and among their own people, under suspicion of lying’. To Bonelli, he wrote that, if nothing else, it was customary to proceed with a certain amount of respect towards a cardinal; with others he justified having to defend his work as a matter of conscience, forced upon him by other people’s malfeasances; he firmly asked for immediate measures from the pope: In my church here where I am I want as much as I can, in pursuance of my duty, to obtain the help of God and to be useful to these souls, carrying out the holy orders of Your Holiness. Now, if I cannot correct one of my canons who alone out of all the others is disobedient and moreover it has been implied throughout the palaces and city that I and my house priests are forgers, I do not know how I can function in this place, as Your Holiness could learn from Mons. di Bagnarea [U. Locato], and I beg Your Holiness (commending to you the dignity of your bishops)?® to preserve this episcopal dignity that I have received from you, and which may God long Cherishesmsce

This time, measures were taken, immediately, in the particular case of the refusal of Canon Cannobio. Through the intervention of Monsignor Locato, commissioner for the Holy Office, a papal brief was sent from Rome, ordering Cannobio particularly to obey the law on the celebration of masses. There was nothing else for the rebellious canon to do but to ask pardon on 23 December, at first privately from the bishop and then in full chapter. Thanking Locato, whose intervention with the pope had brought about this retraction, Paleotti expressed the hope that this was the beginning ofa new period in which the protection by the Roman authorities of the bishop’s labours would open the possibilities of reform. But it was

State reason and Church reason

145

quite clear to him that the matter could not be settled by resolving this particular case only. He wrote to Locato, in a minute for a letter which was probably never sent, analysing the difficulties he had experienced in his episcopal administration: This I believe happened because, for some time now, I have been grieving about many similar things, merely clerical, that I cannot carry out my functions and that the governor gives permission to celebrate days not officially considered feastdays and permission to have on the feastdays shows of tumblers, of gypsies who go around the countryside and kill the poor, and of many other things. For this reason, they wrote to Rome that I wanted to be master of Bologna and this lie was suggested so nicely that up till now, whenever I have tried to do something in my administration to which the governor has been opposed, I have always been rebuffed, so that I believe that I can say with truth that perhaps there has never been another bishop or cardinal with less authority from his superiors than I have been during that governor’s tenure, and I don’t know why. Considering, moreover, that I left Rome, where I believe, had it pleased Your Holiness, I could have stayed, as so many other cardinals have, and chose instead to remain here with the intention and desire, as God knows, to serve him, and my soul, and Your Holiness, yet I see things forever getting worse, since often when advising something for the public good, which would seem the bishop's duty, it has always been regarded that I say it out of spite and with the aim of having another governor sent here, as though it matters very much to me whether it is this or that governor dummodo annuntietur Christus 30

In effect, whoever was the temporal representative of the Holy See was a relatively unimportant matter. What struck terror into the heart of Rome was the idea that the bishop wanted to ‘be master of Bologna’, in the same way that Madrid feared that Borromeo had similar designs towards Milan, . and accordingly attempts were made to lessen his authority and prestige. It was not for nothing that Paleotti then wrote to Monsignor Castelli, the archbishop of Milan’s right arm, ‘so that Your Holiness can see that there are great obstacles not only among the secular [states] but also in the church’s lands as the bishop cannot carry out his office, but I hope that God will help us .. .’.3? In January 1570 Giovan Battista Doria was relieved of his role of governor by the arrival in Bologna of the new cardinal legate Alessandro Sforza. The bishop shared the city’s hopes for a good start in the new government. There were, in fact, to be no great problems between Cardinal Sforza, his vice-legate, Alticozzo Alticozzi — exercising the functions of the earlier governor — and the bishop. But the basic difficulties still remained. Paleotti hoped to obtain a definitive clarification when the Bolognese Ugo Buoncompagni succeeded to the papal throne after Pius V. After the conclave of May 1572, the bishop of Bologna stayed on in Rome until mid-

146

The Papal Prince

October to follow, along with Borromeo, the first steps of the new pontificate from close quarters. There are several hints in various letters which suggest their joint actions with regard to reform. During these months Paleotti attempted to phrase the question of episcopal powers in a new and allembracing manner. He received new full powers to reform against privileges and dispensations; but, as he was aware of the limited usefulness of these concessions, his principal objective was to get a clear papal decision on the controversial jurisdictional points. His attempt however failed again. Following a verbal agreement with Gregory XIII, the bishop compiled a memorandum of twenty-five points to support ecclesiastical jurisdiction which was sent, every point backed up with references to legislation and canonic treatise, in December 1572 to Cardinal Alciati who — in accordance with the agreement — sent it to the pope with his own opinion on each point. The text of the points submitted to Gregory XIII’s judgement corresponded, only in the second half, from the fifteenth point onwards, to the one submitted in 1569 to Pius V, with regard to holy days, the posting up of bills on the doors of churches, proceedings against clerical personages, etc. The general approach and the whole of the first half were different, however. The first half centred on the problem of the privilegium fori, which was regarded from an entirely jurisdictional point of view as the right of the ecclesiastical court to judge all cases connected with ecclesiastical persons, even if ‘mixed’ or concerning profane subjects. While in the memorandum presented to Pius V all the problems were directly concerned with pastoral matters, here the aim was mainly to obtain the delimitation of the two spheres of jurisdiction from the point of view of a trial or a court, as can be gathered from reading the first fourteen points: Ad tollendam in posterum omnem occasionem dissensionis et altercationis inter episcopos bononienses et gubernatores quoad eorum iurisdictiones et unicuique ius suum tribuatur, ac pax et concordia inter eos et eorum officiales perpetuo servetur, supplicatur Sanctitati Vestrae ut velit declarare quae pertineant ad cuiusque forum et praesertim articulos infrascriptos super quibus saepe oritur disputatio, dicitur enim pro parte episcopi haec omnino comprehendi super eius iurisdictione:

1 2

Quod clericus si est reus conveniatur a laico nisi in foro ecclesiastico etiam pro bonis patrimonialibus et prophanis. Quod clericus etiam si est actor conveniat laicos in foro ecclesiastico tantum pro causis civilibus quam criminalibus stante inveterata consuetudine ultr centum annos.

i

3. Si clericus et laicus sint actores et conveniant laicum unum vel plures super causa civili individua tunc causa cognoscatur in foro episcopali. 4 Si clericus et laicus sint rei tunc coram iudice ecclesiastico tantum conveniantur quando causa est civilis et individua.

‘State reason and Church reason

147

Quod clericus spoliatus a laico possit semper pro causa restitutionis spolii coram episcopo convenire spoliatorem. Quod laici tenantur episcopum adire pro obtinenda absolutione a iuramento et coram ipso etiam litigare occasione dictae absolutionis obtentae, sive agatur de validitate iuramenti super contractu adhibiti, vel ad dicti contractus iurati, vel observationem sive ad eiusdem rescissionem. Quod laici non prohibeantur prorogare iurisdictionem episcopi. Quod coloni episcopatus Bononiae non possint alio foro conveniri quam in foro episcopali pro causis civilibus stante consuetudine immemorabili. Quod in causis civilibus fori servetur preventio.

10

Quod familiares et ministri episcopi non possint conveniri nisi coram episcopo,

qui possit aliis magistratibus in eorum causis inhibere eosque cogere ut ad episcopi forum remittantur.

11 12

Quod condemnati in foro episcopali ab alio non valeant affidari per salvum conductum nisi de consensu episcopi. Quod clerici beneficia obtinentes vel incedentes in habitu clericali et privilegio fori guadentes iuxta concilium sess. 23 c. 6 non possint cogi sine licentia episcopi per laicum ad testificandum in causa criminali ubi etiam sanguinis poena non irrogatur, et tanto magis si dicta sanguinis poena veniret irroganda.

13 14

Quod ordinario non detur in adiunctum Rota vel alii iudices, qui non sint ecclesiastici sed si opus sit eidem dentur assessores. Quod episcopus procedat contra concubinarios tam clericos quam laicos nec non contra concubinas clericorum, ac etiam contra quascumque meretrices

ratione peccati et publicae honestatis.*

* In order to eliminate in future all occasions for quarrelling and altercation between bishops and rulers as far as their shared jurisdiction is concerned, and so that peace and harmony should arise between them and their officers, we beg your Holiness to settle what matters relate to which law court and especially with regard to the points written below over which there is often a dispute. On the part of the bishop it is affirmed that these matters are completely contained within his jurisdiction: 1 If a priest is a defendant he shall not be called to court by a layman unless it is to an ecclesiastical court, even if the affair concerns the laws of inheritance and secular affairs in general. That if a priest is a plaintiff he may summon laymen to an ecclesiastical court in both civil and criminal cases, in accordance with the ancient custom which stretches back more than a hundred years. If a priest and a layman are the parties in a case and they are meeting one layman or several in a particular civil case, then the case may be heard in an episcopal court. If a priest and a layman are defendants, then let them appear before an ecclesiastical court, only in so far as the case is a civil one and concerns particular points. for the When a priest is robbed by a layman, it must be that the assessment for damages robbery takes place before an episcopal court. Laymen must approach the bishop to obtain absolution from an oath and they must, whether too, conduct their case before a bishop as to the occasion of the said absolution,

it is the point at issue is about the validity of the oath taken for a contract or whether of keeping that about whether an oath for a contract was sworn or whether it is a matter oath or of breaking the same.

148

. The Papal Prince

A close look at these points gives the impression that, having lost any hope of obtaining a better rapport and collaboration between religious and civil administration in the Papal State, Paleotti had shifted to the tensions in relations already appearing in the jurisdictional fields between bishops and other state sovereigns. Somehow, he managed to convince himself that even the Church State was a lay state and that therefore there was nothing else for him to do than to take refuge in defending his own sphere of influence and jurisdiction, which was defined well in precise casuistry. The association between Paleotti and Borromeo (who had returned from the first grave conflicts with the Spanish government) must have had some bearing on this change. Even though there is no precise proof of Borromeo’s intervention in the preparation of the memorandum, it is known that the two bishops discussed the more general problems of the Church and their churches in particular. But Gregory XIII, just as he gave no support to Borromeo in 1573 in the renewal of the conflict which opposed him to the new Spanish governor Luis Requesens, would even less take up a position with regard to the points proposed by the bishop of Bologna, even though

these had been almost all — with certain modifications — confirmed by the authority of Alciati, the greatest Roman canonist. Clarification was still quite impossible even with the new pontiff, although for different reasons: Paul V’s rigidity and centralism was succeeded by Gregory XIII's flexibility and diplomacy, but the latter was determined to seek an accord through negotiations with the secular states which could guarantee ecclesiastical autonomy and jurisdiction. In this sense, any formal decision taken within the Papal State could have been 7 Laymen should not be prevented from proroguing the bishop's jurisdiction. 8 The inhabitants of the bishopric of Bologna should not be allowed to be brought to trial

in any court other than the episcopal court for civil cases in accordance with the custom

of time immemorial.

9 In civil cases, prevention of the court should be adhered to. 10 The members of a bishop’s household and his servants ought not to be able to be summoned to appear except before the bishop. He can prevent other magistrates taking these cases and constrain them to be sent up to the bishop’s court. 11 Those found guilty in a bishop’s court ought not to be freed by anyone else’s safe conduct without the agreement of the bishop. 12 Priests in possession of benefices or going about in clerical garb and enjoying the privilege of the court in accordance with the Council, session 23 c.6, ought not to be able to be forced without the bishop's permission by a layman to testify in criminal cases, even where the death penalty is not demanded and much more so where the death penalty is demanded. 13

14

The ordinary ought not to be allowed to add to the rota or to other juries if these are not

ecclesiastical ones, but if there is a need,he may be allowed assessors. The bishop should proceed against concubines, both clerical and lay and against the concubinage of priests and against prostitutes, should there be any, on the grounds of their sin and for the sakeof public decency.

Sve

le

TRA)

Ù

Ve

Ro

wi,

State reason and Church reason

149

compromising as it could have been a full and unconditional acknowledgement of the bishops’ autonomy following the Tridentine canons (which was doubtless regarded as dangerous for the internal politics of the Papal State), or could have smothered and restricted ecclesiastical autonomy, and therefore it could easily have become a dialectical weapon in the hands of the diplomats of the secular states to show that the pope truly ran his own territory with a policy entirely similar to or more advanced than their own.*? Silence was the only way open to the pope in the Bolognese problems whilst he tried to intervene case by case without generalising the problem at a jurisdictional level. Intervening case by case proved to be more complex and uncertain than in the earlier period as Buoncompagni’s Bolognese origins presumed a network of links between the latter and the ruling class of the city which could in practice have made the exercise of the bishop’s authority more difficult. The bishop of Bologna had some years’ respite before the controversy with the public authority arose again because of the nomination as governor, at the end of 1576, of his close friend, Giovanni Battista Castagna, the future Urban VII.53 On his arrival, the latter spent an evening with Paleotti, and the bishop must have expressed his great delight at his friend’s appointment, believing it to be the will of God for the reconciliation of conflicts and the beginning of a truly new period for the spiritual and temporal government of Bologna; he in fact wrote in these terms some days later, sending Castagna some of his thoughts concerning the person and role of the governor. He begged him to accept them, however feeble, as they were based on experience, and he ended with a statement about the principle of divine illumination which permeated all the good there was in human experience and reason; this must have appealed particularly to Castagna, as he attempted to re-establish cooperation between the temporal and spiritual powers, sharing as he did with Paleotti a humanist education. Besides, if we truly wish to think of how much good and truth there is in this world, everything springs from that inexhaustible vein of divine wisdom, spread through the different mines of intelligence and human intellect, which, as they discover in some place a fruitful rivulet, are duty bound to offer it to the rightful master of the treasure, and to his ministers as his co-workers in the great administration of this world.

The idea of building up records (‘memoriali’) had already been under discussion in episcopal circles and would have served as a spiritual guide for the governors’ actions, but these had remained on a purely theoretical level,

150

The Papal Prince

as images of an ‘ideal governor’, in practice non-existent. Now this, ideal had the possibility of becoming a reality, in the person of the new governor. Castagna’s ‘Memoriale’ was in six parts. Della persona sua: holiness and a life of private and public devotion, without confusing the two spheres (he would appoint a confessor ‘who must neither meddle in the running of affairs nor in advising unless in some way charity necessarily required it’), and setting up a council of experienced persons. Della sua famiglia and Del palazzo: the care of morality and the religiosity of relatives and ministers, struggle against corruption and abuses, and the special care of the imprisoned poor. Del governo della citta— Bologna ought to be able to be an example to every secular governor in the world; there would be few proclamations but those few should be observed rigorously and absolutely justly, without any partiality with regard to the nobility: “With the SS.ri Quaranta and other gentlemen always proceed with politeness and respect, but in the facts do not lack a regard to justice, the greatest being that there are many who are unwilling to pay their debts’; the concern with the reform of the Studio, with restriction of luxury and of holidays, with safeguards in the time of plague and also with the crisis which loomed over a fundamental sector of the economic life of the city, threatening unemployment and misery: ‘Look carefully into the matters of the wool guild which is a principal member of this city, through which endless poor people feed themselves, but which is often cheated subtly and under the cloak of gentility, even though the merchants have their statutes and provisions, and penalties’; a single point refers to the jurisdictional problems, which could be easily solved — it was said — in a climate of harmony and collaboration: ‘That his [the governor’s] officials always have good relationships with those of the ecclesiastical court, and that some cases which have ecclesiastical implications, even though they have to be judged by his own court, should, before acquittal, be referred for the bishop’s benediction . . .’. Del governo della diocesi: to fight against the bandits who infest the mountains, to oblige the podestàs to live in, and personally visit, the most important places: ‘Serious work of great piety, aiming to alleviate the burden of the peasants to some degree if it is possible, since they sue each other a good deal and are much aggrieved* and therefore it is a serious matter to deal with.’ The last part, Delle cose di Roma spettanti al suo governo sums up in a few sentences sad personal experiences: Assume for certain that not only all your actions but other matters that you have neither done nor thought of will be continually written of to Rome, and that the good will be diminished and the ill, when there is some, exaggerated; and that there will continually be flux and reflux of terrible records and the most vehement flow of rubbish, so that in this tempestuous high sea, fixing your eyes on the heavenly

State reason and Church reason

151

north, you must not lose yourself, but as a firm rock which is not broken by the adverse waves, but more or less deflects them, you have to rely on your Lord who has put you in this government, to raise you from shipwreck, safe and happy, and ‘ lead you to eternal peace, for which you will give thanks to God.

In reality, Castagna was unable to withstand the ‘adverse waves’ and _ little more than a year afterwards, was replaced — apparently on the charge of weak government — in 1578. Matters worsened rapidly after his substitution, leading to a break between the bishop of Bologna and the Holy See. The last years of Gregory XIII’s pontificate were characterised by the resumption of strong, even if useless, action, particularly in attacking brigandage and the widespread anarchy in various territories of the Church’s State.35 Paleotti had already noticed the worsening and spread of banditry and asked for immediate measures to restore public order which was almost non-existent. But the measures which were undertaken were certainly not in the direction he had hoped for. A cardinal legate, Pier Donato Cesi, who had already been vice-legate in Bologna under Borromeo, was sent to the city with official powers similar to those of his predecessors, full even in the sphere of Church affairs but containing a conditional clause which specified that the Tridentine rules should not be departed from within them. However, apart from these official powers, registered in the chancellery of the Regiment of Bologna, Cesi also received other special powers, granted by papal letters, consisting mainly in the power of proceeding directly against ecclesiastical persons and in deciding jurisdiction between the two courts; that is in the attribution of the case to the authority to whom or by whom it had been opened, without any consideration for the subject itself of the case or for the persons involved.3° Paleotti wrote a strong protest to the cardinal-nephew Filippo Buoncampagni in Rome. If in the past he had renounced his own rights in individual cases, he could not stay silent in face of an act which in practice amounted to abolishing ecclesiastical jurisdiction, against Tridentine regulations. He — referred to the Council, asking them to ‘seek a remedy so that I can exercise this office in the future with some more dignity and more fruitfully perhaps than I have until now’; the legate had rejected every responsibility, showing the papal letter, ‘that letter which His Most Illustrious Lordship has put into practice well, arresting, bringing in publicly between cops [sbirri] and imprisoning various priests at various times, depending on the circumstance, without my knowing anything about it’; dispositions for feastdays were modified and wanton comedies were allowed against the bishop’s wishes; the latter had no power to reform certain monasteries of ‘uncorrectable nuns’ or to punish insolent and seditious canons; every attempt at

152

:

The Papal Prince

reform over the years was at risk as the general opinion was that Rome did not support the bishop: . it seems that there is a universal belief that my episcopal affairs are so little favoured there that anyone who wants to do ill seems to grow stronger every day, perhaps with the feeling that there they [the affairs] have little credit; which, since this can easily have come about through some fault of mine, I shall be very grateful if you will advise me of any matter in particular, so that I may correct whatever is necessary.”

Paleotti sent Borromeo a copy of his letter to Buoncampagni, and one of his attempts at compromise, ‘So that it would be clear that one needed in criminal jurisdiction to observe what was for the ecclesiastical, what was for the secular court’, in order to have the authoritative opinion and support of the archbishop from Milan. In the enclosed document, in six points, he asked that the power of the legate be brought again ‘ad terminos concilii Tridentini’; by private letter the pope would have been able to confer the power of proceeding against, imprisoning and punishing ecclesiastical individuals, ‘but also the bishop had to be informed of it, to know what happened to his priests’; a cleric caught in flagrante could be arrested by secular power, but then should be delivered into the hands of the ecclesiastical court, unless otherwise authorised by the pope’s special order; permission should be requested from the ecclesiastical court to summon members of the clergy as witnesses, which would have to be granted when there was no irregularity; ‘in the great case’, the special inquiry into the misdeeds of Count Girolamo Pepoli, arranged with a papal brief, the legate would have been able to make use of extraordinary powers, as an exception to ordinary powers. These suggestions received Borromeo’s full approval, but this did not help much as they were scarcely considered in Rome, and even provided the spur to a definitive settlement of the question. Resorting to a captious argument over the nature of the legate as bishop — in fact he was bishop of the diocese of Narni — and above all with the reference to the pope’s wishes, Buoncompagni’s short, dry letter in reply was in practice nearly an arbitrary act: Since Signor Cardinal Cesi is also an ordinary to His Holiness, it does not seem right that there should be any difference between the secular court and ecclesiastical one; and you ought to be content with this and you ought to be all the more so because you have been assured by His Illustrious Lordship that he has that letter from His Holiness’s own hand in this particular, deeming everything to have been done for good and not to take away your dignity and reputation. **

The clericalisation of the State apparatus was thus referred to explicitly by the cardinal-nephew to justify the removal of power of the ordinary ecclesiastical hierarchy.

AAT

RT

e

State reason and Church reason

159,

Further letters, similar to the one on jurisdiction, rejected other requests on minor points put forward by Paleotti to Buoncompagni. Nothing remained for Paleotti therefore but to unburden himself again to Borromeo over the _impedimenta of the bishops of the Church State: . . and in truth, they could have satisfied me with just one negative letter since that is what they [letters] have all been. Your Illustrious Lordship sees what can happen | when there are two heads or, to express it better, where there is a bishop with the mitre only, without the crosier. I do not however wish to fall short in or abandon my episcopal office in any way in anything that I am able to perform, intending next September, if it please God, to transfer to Rome for three or four months.*?

The bishop of Bologna saw his position in the Church State as bishop with the mitre only and without the crosier, a far more complicated role than that of the bishops of the secular states in which the separation of the jurisdictions could bring a restriction and compression of episcopal authority, but not its removal from within, as happened with the reconciliation of temporal and spiritual power in the hands of the papal legates: with the passage of time, the problem, instead of weakening, had become more clearly defined, and was to take on increasingly sharp contours in the last two decades of Paleotti’s episcopate. Fra Felice Peretti da Montalto was elected to the papal throne as Sixtus V in the conclave of 1585. If this pope’s approach was radically opposed to the ideals which inspired Paleotti with regard to the government of the universal Latin Church, they were the more so with regard to the government of the Papal State in the links with episcopal jurisdiction. The extraordinary powers granted with special letters by Gregory XIII to Cardinal Cesi were generalised and incorporated into the official powers conceded by Sixtus V to the cardinal legates Antonio Maria Salviati (May 1585), Enrico Gaetani (August 1586), and Alessandro Peretti da Montalto (October 1587). Above all, the principle of prejudice between the two courts and the competence of the secular tribunal on all the gravest cases for which capital punishment could be inflicted were asserted. This meant the entire abolition of ecclesiastical jurisdiction since all the cases, in practice, under pretext or for reasons of gravity, were arrogated by secular ministers: it was no longer a question of particular abuses of power, but of a complete and general abrogation of the Tridentine rules. Paleotti’s protests and references to the Council and protests were in vain. These were submitted on the occasion of the appointment of the legate Gaetani and, a

few years later, becauseof the repeated arbitrary behaviour of the vicelegates Ottavio Bandini and Annibale Rucellai during Cardinal Montalto’s second embassy. ; Nearly a year after Paleotti’s death, when Clement VIII passed through

154

;

The Papal Prince

Bologna in November 1598, a ‘Memorandum of many matters which we should like Our Lord to take care of on his coming to Bologna for the preservation of archiepiscopal jurisdiction’ was written by the succeeding archbishop. This memorandum made the situation at the end of the sixteenth century so clear that it is useful to let the document speak in its entirety. First, it is assumed that at the time of the holy memory of Pius V and Gregory XIII in the briefs of the powers granted to the Bolognese legates, this stipulation was always placed at the end: ‘Volumus autem quod per praesentes nihil quod praedicto concilio Tridentino repugnet, vel ordinariis locorum in aliquo preiudicet, tibi concessum censeatur, prout concedere non intendimus. Nulli etc. Datum etc.’ When, then, the insolence of the outlaws began to grow, the power enabling proceedings against the clergy of every sort and in other matters properly within the scope of ecclesiastical jurisdiction was likewise increased, by Gregory XIII at the end of his pontificate and by the holiest pope Sixtus V, as can be seen in the briefs sent above. Now that, thanks to God, this plague of outlaws has ended, we beg Our Lord to reduce all the powers of the new legations ad terminos et decreta concilii Tridentini, putting in the above-mentioned clause Volumus, seeing that, the powers being what they are, the legates and vice-legates claim to be vicars-general of Your Holiness, and therefore proceed in every case against the priests without distinction, whether they [the priests] are defendants or witnesses, having them arrested, even in their own churches, by the police, who lead them tied like dogs through the public streets of the city and surrounding country and through the piazzas, in the greatest contempt for the clerical habit and for archiepiscopal jurisdiction, and to universal scandal and great damage for the souls, the care of which is impossible to provide, all this taking place without the ordinary knowing. Furthermore, when it happens that some defaulter of the Court seeks asylum in the churches, they seize him there, contravening the bull on ecclesiastical immunity and a letter written on top of that on the order of Our Lord by the very good Signor Card. Alessandrino: these two cases show a bad example to the princes of the surrounding states by whom, it seems, the clergy are treated better and the immunity observed more than in the church state. Although each year they appoint the synodal judges in the diocesan synod, to whom in conformity with the sacred council of Trent the appeals of the ecclesiastical cases have to be committed, yet they always commit them to their own judges, or to some of the judges of the rota who are mere laymen; they still allow the appeals from every interlocutory decree in civil cases which they take away from the ordinary even in the first instance. Which results in a greater expense for the litigants and small reputation for clerical jurisdiction. They interfere with the setting up of new feasts, apart from those which have been fixed in the calendar, something which becomes very damaging to the craftsmen and poor of the city, and in prejudice of clerical jurisdiction, the setting up of feasts being a concern for the ordinary, following the Council.

State reason and Church reason

155

They also claim authority in the monasteries of nuns, sometimes placing in them married women or widows, because of lawsuits, without the participation of the ordinary, which results in much confusion; they also sign permissions to go and speak to the nuns. They sometimes give permission to the poor, who are quite often unworthy of it, to beg alms in the churches and through the city and diocese, also arranging sometimes that they are recommended at the sermons and masses. And, besides, they give permission to have fairs and markets against the archiepiscopal edicts and to work on feastdays, when they are asked for, allowing games in the piazzas and public ways on feastdays by tumblers and comedians, while divine offices are being said, and greatly disturbing these. They have orders, proclamations, warnings and summons read and posted up in the churches and sacristies; matters which are against divine worship and prejudicial to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which then remains scorned, to which we beg Our Lord immediately to apply special and useful remedies.

At this point, it may be interesting to make a comparative analysis of the powers granted to the legates and governors of the Church State in the various periods before the Council of Trent and after its end. This in itself would need a full independent study, but some fundamental outlines can be traced from the collected documentation and by considering the powers given by the popes to legates during the entire sixteenth century. During the century, the representatives of the papal government maintained powers which were extended not only in temporalibus but often also in spiritualibus. In the years immediately following the Council, the volumus clause — which is discussed in the document quoted above — was put before the usual final formulas of briefs, reducing the powers granted within the limits of the decrees of the Council and with the declaration of the bishops’ rights. This did not in fact prevent abuses and non-observance of the Tridentine rules, but equally contained a strong and unequivocal statement of principle. The clause was later abolished, or at least removed as a solemn juridical proclamation and left purely as an interpolated clause in the text of the powers ‘non derogando sacri concilii Tridentini decretis in legatione tua’, an empty formula which had no true effect given the specific controls granted in the powers themselves in derogation of and against the Council of Trent. ‘The powers being what they are, the legates and vice-legates claim to be vicars-general of Your Holiness’, it was said in the 1598 memoriale quoted above. This is the central core of the problem: in reality, the legates’ claims had a solid juridical basis. The representatives of the government acted on the strength of a double power, temporal and spiritual, received from the pope: it was not for nothing that the actual titles of the briefs granting the powers referred to the cardinal as ‘nostro et apostolicae sedis de latere legato ac pro nobis et Romana Ecclesia in spiritualibus et temporalibus generali

156

The Papal Prince

vicario’, a formula which, in force at the beginning of the sixteenth century and then abandoned for some decades, was systematically taken up again in the second half of the century.

The authority of the bishops in the Church State was therefore of necessity weaker than that of the bishops subjected to sovereigns. The latter could in fact be prone to pressures and external restrictions — but the bishops of the Church State saw themselves divested from within of all pastoral power, even at the level of spiritual jurisdiction. By subordinating the episcopal and purely ecclesiastical authorities to the rigid laws of temporal dominion, the papal government in a certain sense placed itself at the head of the secularisation process of the modern State, using instruments which no other sovereign could deploy, and arrived at a control of the religious life which no other political organisation was able to achieve at the end of the sixteenth century. This was certainly paid for by a basically equivocal position, with the use of ecclesiastical juridical instruments and spiritual weapons in the conduct of State affairs, which were purely political.

CHAPTER

EIGHT

+

The exercise of primacy and foreign policy

. . .in the last audience on Saturday, His Majesty could not stop himself from referring to me in the discussion, that priests should not take part in political matters, and I believed that it was said for me, because recently I have been acting in accordance with the orders of Your Eminence, but I do not know how one can avoid touching on politics, if today matters of religion are all reduced to politics, and I have orders, and must keep an eye on those matters of religion... (Gasparo Mattei, a nuncio with the emperor, to Cardinal Francesco Barberini, Regensburg, 16 October 1640: Repgen, c, 1/1, p. 453, n. 234)

From the mid-fifteenth century on, the presence of the State modified the papacy’s very essence and its actions in the exercise of its function as leader of the western Church, considerably influencing its institutional characteristics and the mechanisms controlling its relationships with the local churches. Until today, this change seems to have been largely undervalued by the historiography which has emerged from the eighteenth-century controversies between Church and State. The reasons for this seem fairly obvious and can therefore be schematically summarised. On the one hand, the ‘Roman confessional theses’ have strenuously attempted in a consistently secular way, to show the continuity of the medieval papacy with that of modern times, in order to claim, in face ofthe new emerging powers, the autonomy of the ecclesiastical body which could find its own barycentre only in a papacy fixed motionless to the scheme of the christiana respublica; on the other hand, those writing from the standpoint of the State have found the image of immobility extremely useful for the development of the anti-curial argument, an image which, in the framework of the progress of the West, carried with it the rival’s historical condemnation. It is no surprise that these postulations continued to dominate even the latest and bestknown historiography, particularly in Italy; the ethical-political impli-

1357

158

The Papal Prince

cations of the opposing arguments still carry so much weight that by sheer inertia they continue to dominate contemporary interpretations as well as

the historiographical debate concerning concepts and exegeses. The Church/State relationship of the early modern period should be reevaluated now, neither simply nor any longer as a relationship of dissimilitude dominated by conflicts of power and of jurisdiction, nor even by compromises between two different and alternative entities, but as a far more complex relationship in which the modern State, while in the process of construction, permeated the institution of the Church and transformed it even in its most impermeable core, the papacy, and in its turn was profoundly affected, taking from the Church some characteristics which were to be essential for its successive development. Even those who have analysed the papacy’s history with regard to the secularisation of policies see it, for the period from the mid-fifteenth to the mid-seventeenth century, as being only passively involved in its secularisation and in the process of losing its spiritual leadership which ended at Westphalia.! The European order which resulted from the settlement — it has been stated — confirmed the end of Christianity and the birth of catholicity as a new form of spiritual and monarchical organisation which no longer coincided with western civilisation in its entirety, and which implicitly or explicitly accepted and absorbed the process of secularisation;? what has not been studied enough is the institutional value of a transformation which is not merely cultural, and one in which the papacy desired an active role, at least until Westphalia. In recent studies on the formation of the modern State, the traditional and simplistic thesis which regarded the Reformation as the unleashed and explosive element for the destruction of Christianity and the formation of the new centres of power? has shown itself as obsolete, and the concrete signs of State-building, of renewed government action, and of the increase in State interference have begun to be studied not only in relation to the Protestant or reformed countries, but also with regard to the countries which had remained Catholic.* Historiography is now attempting to understand the divarification between the Catholic powers of the south and the states of the north in a second phase (nation-building) rather than a first (State-building): in the south, the supra-national character of the Catholic Church hindered the process of assertion of national identities at a cultural and political level.5 But, even from this angle, the traditional image of a papacy which became

more worldly during the Renaissance, and which reacquired its sense of spiritual mission under the Reformation, and with the Council of Trent became the spiritual leader of the Counter-Reformation, appears to-weigh still more heavily. The excessive emphasis on the Reformation and the Council of Trent has led to favouring a periodisation® which overshadows

The exercise of primacy and foreign policy

159

the constants of the fuller span of institutional development, and presents the papacy of the Renaissance and Counter-Reformation too strongly in contrast, so that there is no clear vision and understanding of the end of the baroque period. The reconsideration of the process of reorganisation of the Catholic Church in the early modern period in parallel and in connection with the contemporaneous development of the states, which was put forward and indicated by Evennett,” can only be accompanied by a revaluation of the traditional concept of the Church/State relationship as being substantially diverse. To this end, we should examine not only the problem of the papacy’s worldliness, the Reformation and the Catholic counter-offensive, but also seek to understand the importance to the Church and papacy of the innermost structures, and the growth of the modern State, and, vice versa, how the former influenced the evolution of the State. This question has been discussed with regard to the new presence of the Papal State and to the pope’s double figure: it is our intention to offer some thoughts about the connections between the papacy, consolidated states and local churches within this framework. This does not mean that the construction or reconstruction of the Papal State was the cause of the disorder which set off the crisis of the universalism of medieval Christianity in the relationships between the papacy and local churches; but it was certainly not by chance that the papacy accepted and assimilated the new State reality, and nor did it rise out of a corruptive process and worldly degeneration, but was fundamental and determinant for the entire subsequent history from the mid-fifteenth century on. ‘Here matters of state are discussed differently by the intelligent: wrote Julius III to the nuncio Pietro Camaiani in September 1552, about the different forecasts of the emperor’s future movements.’ This was during perhaps the most dramatic decade of the history of the papacy and of the Papal State? and certainly right in the middle, chronologically and structurally, of the evolution which will be traced here. Those ‘intelligent’ in matters of State appear to constitute not a secondary element in Rome, but a bridge between conservative curialists and spiritual reformers, and between the papacy of the Renaissance and that of the CounterReformation. Quite apart from the men and their ethical-political culture, some structures or instruments were built from the early fifteenth century which literally overturned earlier Church organisation between centre and periphery, and which were also to remain determining factors in subsequent centuries. These were the concordats and the nunciatures. The origin and development of the concordatory system and of the permanent nunciatures were in fact related to the papacy’s new political dimension from the second half of the fifteenth century and were not substantially

+ 160.

The Papal Prince

replaced but only reorientated and corrected by the new course which opened with the Council of Trent, which did not deny the earlier process. Modern concordats (individual agreements between political and spiritual power in the Middle Ages before the fifteenth century cannot be regarded as concordats in the present meaning of the word) are the price paid by the papacy for its victory over the conciliar movement:!° the ‘dangerous alliance’ with the princes sketched out in the last years of Eugenius IV and carried to full maturation by Nicholas V and Pius II (who had previously been a protagonist of this policy as Eugenius IV’s trusted man) was based on diplomacy and concordatory concessions. !! Beyond the traditional idea of these agreements, which presents them both ideologically and in the propaganda as concessions emanating in one direction, from the renewed plenitudo potestatis of the Roman pope, the new system of agreements had a disruptive effect on the old orders, both political and

religious, and introduced innovations which were then to become the basis of developments of a different nature, which were also dramatically opposed, in the next century. Until the mid-fifteenth century the princes’ desire to extend State jurisdiction into Church affairs was restricted in the _ complex game of the balances of power. It was the popes who, beginning with Eugenius IV and in contrast with their earlier role, strongly contributed to the extension of State control into Church matters in their efforts to overcome conciliar and constitutional-representative tendencies. !” However, this transition did not occur solely as a result of the papacy’s defensive strategy against the challenges of the emerging classes}? but from the efforts of papacy and princes together towards the construction of the modern State, though not yet consciously formulated as such. The figure of the pope-king and the new weight of the Papal State have not yet been sufficiently considered in this context. The papacy, rather than being prey to a schizophrenic progress, which on the one hand made it more worldly, transforming the popes into Italian princes, and on the other defended its traditional universalistic spiritual authority, made a consistent and determined choice for a fusion of political and religious power; this not only served as a model to the other princes but was in a certain sense proposed and offered through the concordats with the objective of maintaining through mediation between the State and local churches its universalistic function in a political world by.now irrevocably polycentric. This turning-point was identified by Sarpi a century and a half later in the Trattato delle materie beneficiarie, as a conclusion of his reflections on the concordats from the mid-fifteenth century until that of 1516 between Leo X and Frangois I, which is so central for the whole of modern history: ... In such a way that, since so many popes from 1076 until 1150, by the excommunication of vast numbers of people and deaths of countless, fought to

The exercise of primacy and foreign policy

161 |

prevent the princes from conferring bishoprics and from giving the elections to the chapters; Pius II and five of his successors, on the other hand, have fought to prevent the chapters of France from carrying out the elections and to give them to the king; and Leo X has finally achieved this. Thus change of interests brings change and reversal of doctrine.!4

It is important here to emphasise that the interpretation of the structural centrality of the concordatory instrument, the precision of the chronological setting (the struggle to give the elections to the king of France anticipated by a few years only the pontificate of Pius II), the awareness that the ecclesiastical discipline of the countries which had remained Catholic, even after the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, is still dominated by this ‘overturning of alliances’ which profoundly changed the pact-makers themselves. It is necessary to wait until the development of the Episcopalian doctrine and of regalism in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries for a critical re-examination of the concordats of the fifteenth century, putting the State-Church relationship, consolidated in the previous centuries, into a critical situation, and preparing the division which would lead to the contemporary lay State.!5 Jemolo had already warned against the uniform and incorrect interpretation of the complex and dynamic development of jurisdictionalism, emphasising the radical difference between ancient or confessional jurisdictionalism and a modern or lay one;?° the fact remains, however, that the insistence on the jurisdictional controversies of the period of the ancien régime, which can be explained through the political tension towards the entire emancipation of the State in the following period, ended in distorting a large part of the historiography which often understood merely what lay on the surface without penetrating the underlying meaning. Only the most recent discussions of the Church’s importance in the construction of the modern State, alongside the cultural and linguistic structures, seem to have — opened up the possibility of reconsidering the problem and in particular the significance of the concordatory system in the modern period.*” John B. Toews has already begun in this direction with his studies of the 1448 Vienna concordat and of Sixtus IV’s relationship with the Empire, shedding new light on the politicisation of the papacy in the second half of the fifteenth century.!8 The conclusion of his first work is, briefly, that the concordat with Frederick III, preceded a year earlier by the concordat with the German princes and developed later in other similar accords, radically broke the earlier canonical system, from its origins and by its nature universal and internal to the Church, with the creation of a new law, a new discipline based on an accord ofa pact type which was similar to the accords stipulated between two secular sovereign states, despite the cover of ideology used by the papacy. Toews saw the development of this pheno-

- 162

The Papal Prince

menon in more general terms in the later actions of Sixtus IV: in the process of the by now irrepressible interchange with the new political realities, the papacy politicised itself, acquiring and assimilating characteristics and principles of its interlocutors, and presenting itself increasingly, under the spur of events, as a partner on the same level as the other states, forced to use the diplomatic instrument and to adapt itself to this even if the juridicalformal and ecclesiological framework was not a matter for dispute. Without going into the history of the concordats of the early modern period until 1516, we can add that this evolution would have been impossible without the presence of the Papal State and the double figure of the pope as head of the Church and territorial prince. Or it may be more apt to say that it is impossible to divide these aspects which were historically a unique organic process. Ingenuously, but with a naivety which is typically Anglo-Saxon and libertarian with regard to the ‘establishment’, a not too recent study has stated that in ‘a period of ‘‘power politics’, when the popes were reduced to diplomacy for securing the spiritual rights of their subjects, the Papal State gave them an acknowledged standing-ground outside the nations, from which they negotiated the Concordats in the form

of treaties between sovereign States’.!9 In a more profound scrutiny of the internal history of the Church, Hubert Jedin noted at the beginning of his history of the Council of Trent?° that diplomatic relations and international law were set up through the concordats and that the papacy had paid a high price for its alliance with the princes and its victory over the conciliar movement: the modern State was the true winner. We can add that this is true only if the papacy and modern State are not depicted as being drawn up on opposite sides, or at any rate as foreign to each other. The game is more complex, and while the papacy became more secularised, the State became more ecclesiastical, taking on not only the power and ideology but also many of the functions which had previously been reserved to the Church. This occurred not only through concessions extorted through pressure and force, but also by a process of osmosis which modified the internal structures of the great historical protagonists. This does not, and should not, imply an underestimation of the pressures which the papacy was to undergo, particularly in the course of the sixteenth

century, and of its difficult situation in a relationship of forces which was increasingly thrown out of balance. Confronting the schism with England, the skilled and experienced diplomat, Girolamo Aleandro, wrote an extremely interesting confidential letter to Rome, in which he stated that in order to maintain primacy every effort should be concentrated on keeping the friendship of the princes who had remained faithful to Rome, leaving to them all that was possible, to safeguard the essentials.

The exercise of primacy and foreign policy

163

. . .even if some of those favours are not very useful to the court, and, times being what they are, there is threat of ruin on every side, Your Holiness must not however be too thrifty in conceding [the favours] because, provided that the majesty of your primacy in matters of importance stays intact, all those favours of lesser importance with the passing of time will return to pristine form . . . To which effect there is no better way in the world than to concede to the princes and to these lords some favours, especially of the kind which do not contravene the common law, and do as one with an infected limb who, if he is wise, allows it to be cut off, even if with the greatest suffering, to keep the rest.?!

A sense of the Catholic counter-attack and Counter-Reformation is already manifest in these words. Aleandro’s letter seems to be especially significant for an understanding of the survival and continuity of the alliance with the princes, and of the concordatory instrument in the new era, and also for its chronological placing. It may also be useful to have a look at the origins of permanent nunciatures; the concordats in fact are merely the tip of the iceberg of daily diplomatic work supporting the new relationship. Much has been written about the origins of the permanent nunciatures, the fixed diplomatic representations set up by the papacy at the end of the fifteenth century in the most important European courts.?? It is only recently that the significance of this innovation in the evolution of political and ecclesiastical institutions has begun to be studied. The figure of the nuncio had existed in the medieval ecclesiastical discipline between the appointed envoys but then really only as a messenger, a bearer of the pope’s thoughts, without administrative or judicial power,?? unlike other examples of proxy of authority by the pope on the basis of canon law (such as judges delegated to judge on specific cases, legates and, above all, the legates a latere, thus defined through the range of power delegated to them as vicars, representing the person of the pope). The fall into disuse of the institution of legates (they remained fixed practically only in the internal administration of the Papal State) and the rise in importance of the nuncio have been justly regarded as an aspect of the passage from the medieval world to the modern one.?4 The increasing resistance of the new political organisms to papal power, and therefore to its legal representatives and procurators, led to the latter's decline and to the development of the institution of the nuncio, which was more harmless and less feared. This diagnosis has been confirmed by the latest research into the papacy’s the victory over the conciliar movement25 and into the papal presence in century;?° imperial territories and diets of the second half of the fifteenth other examples can also confirm this analysis. a What should also be added to our hypothesis is that it was not only new the from matter of the papacy’s withdrawing in the face of aggression

164

The Papal Prince

centres of power, but also of a choice replete with institutional and ecclesiological implications. The figure of the nuncio in early modern Europe is not so much the powerless continuation of the medieval papal representative as the expression of one subject of the new international

order, even if it had particular characteristics. It was a subject with a preliminary and indispensable role within a sovereign state. This is a radical change even at a more ecclesiastical level. The organic relationship between the Church of Rome and the local churches, typical of the classical canonical system, exalted by papal centralism in the thirteenth century, was overthrown by this new direct link between popes and princes of which the nuncio became the daily author. The latter certainly had direct links with the ecclesiastical world of the State in which it worked (the geopolitical definition was even an overthrow of medieval Church rule), and also fiscal and jurisdictional powers, but always within the framework of the bond between pope and sovereign. When the bond was replaced by tensions, through opposition from the sovereign himself, of parliaments, or of the bureaucratic-administrative ruling classes,2” the situation became unclear, both at the ideological as well as at the formal juridical level, through a variety of situations arising from ancient Church discipline. Tridentine reform was to attempt to remould an organic ecclesiastical relationship, but real difficulties and opposition to the acceptance of the Council's decrees by the various states bear witness to the inexorable process which was already too far advanced. The new papal centralism of the Counter-Reformation was to move resolutely only at a sectorial and specialist level (along the lines of the draft which would find its organisational expression in the cardinal congregations, in rites, bishops, regulars, etc.), but could not and had no desire — given the mistrust of the solutions which would have re-evaluated the bishopric with regard to papal primacy — to discuss the new politicoecclesiastical order which developed from the mid-fifteenth century.?8 The purpose of these general observations is not to define the procedure of birth and development of individual nunciatures but to comprehend the direction of the system as such. In a few states there was a gradual fusion with the antique figure of the collector, entrusted with the collection of various tributes owed to the Apostolic See;?° in other states, the political meaning is dominant from the start, as in Venice, where from 1486 — while the collector's office continued almost autonomously — the nunciature developed in line with the problems of Italian political balance.*° The documents of the papal envoys of the Renaissance are impregnated with a political tension which culminated in the wars of supremacy in Italy.*! An important example from Venice (where in 1513 Pietro Bibiena, brother of the celebrated scholar and cardinal, was nominated as a lay nuncio),?? which can serve as a model for innumerable

The exercise of primacy and foreign policy

165

other cases, is possibly that of Giulio de’ Medici’s instructions for the nuncio Altobello Averoldi, who was sent to Venice in 1517. Given the importance of the Serenissima, the pope . . . has decided to keep one of his nuncios at the aforesaid Signoria withdraw and negotiate more comfortably in any eventuality benefit, and to preserve the love and faith that is between His above-mentioned republic, and thus he has elected you as such

in order to grant, to the common Holiness and the instrument . . .33

The specific contents of the mission then follow: the danger from the ‘Turks and — the true objective — the war undertaken by Leo X against the duchy of Urbino. Italian diplomacy can basically be seen as a laboratory in which the European institutions of the following centuries were developed in advance with the contribution of the new professionalism of the jurists; 34 the papacy was one of the protagonists in this process, a process not only of technical transformations but also involving a new vision of the political system in which the ‘common benefit’, mentioned in the instruction quoted above, was certainly not identified in Christianity as a supranational and superstate element, but within the balance of power as the unique instrument for achieving peace. In the second half of the fifteenth century, Rome was the seat of the papal curia and also the residence of the head of the Italian League, and the diplomatic centre of the whole of Europe. For this reason, the series of diplomatic dispatches from the ambassadors accredited to the papal court is the most important documentation for studying the international politics of this period.35 It has been calculated that in the decade 1490-1500 well over 243 diplomats were accredited to Rome, as against the 161 accredited to the court of the Emperor Maximilian, the 135 accredited to the king of France, and the 100 to Milan, etc.3* There were naturally far fewer papal envoys (60 nuncios against Maximilian’s 138, France’s 159 and Milan’s 165),3” a fact which should corroborate Rome’s political centrality in the Europe of that period. The minor powers aspired to have permanent representatives with the greater powers who, on the contrary, were suspicious of and hindered the new figure of the resident ambassador, regarding him still too much as a spy.*® A parallel development had previously taken place with the permanent diplomatic representations of the states to Rome. There is, unfortunately, little information on this score, but the English example? illustrates how the earlier figure of the procurator in the Roman curia, which had developed from the thirteenth century, radically evolved in the second half of the fifteenth century, giving way to the resident ambassador as representative of a sovereign state in another sovereign state. At the end of the century the position of the ambassador to Rome is incontrovertible,

166

i

The Papal Prince

even in the punctilious rules of ceremonial, and international politics appears inextricably allied to the ecclesiastical links with the papacy, which occurred through the secularisation of papal politics, and through England's participation in the game of international negotiations in which the papacy played a determining role. An extremely interesting question, outside the scope of this study, is how this then influenced, along with the developing figure of the cardinal protector,*° the growth of the Anglican schism: our observations can perhaps assist in a historical understanding of the not entirely passive role played by the papacy in its gestation. The rise and early development of the nunciatures took place in a Renaissance Rome which was to remain, at least up until the midseventeenth century, the great ‘school’ of diplomacy and of the art of ruling, as the Venetian ambassadors continued to stress, inviting the Republic to send the best people there.*! The word ‘school’ of course suggests values no longer applicable, but at the same time it is evidence of the historical function of the papacy in the formation of European political order. ‘Under Alexander VI, Julius II and Leo X, the popes’ civil sovereignty, following the course of the European monarchies, showed the strength ofits virility . . .’, wrote Giulio Audisio, professor of the papal university of La Sapienza in the nineteenth century, defending ecclesiastical diplomacy. To Audisio, the nunciatures were not born of the Council of Trent but had existed earlier; the Church’s diplomacy had preceded and inspired that of the secular states,42 a merely theoretical and baseless argument. More recent apologetical historiography has presented the nunciatures as the fruit and basically religious instrument of the Catholic Reformation, a view which has perhaps contributed to the distortion of the recent debate on the usefulness of the acts of the nunciatures and of their publication for the history of the Church in the early modern period.*? Apart from the need to specify and distinguish the nunciatures’ activity country by country, it is clear that the institutional and political continuity of papal diplomacy between the Renaissance and Counter-Reformation gives much scope for development. Its bi-frontal character, in which the double personality of the sovereign — pope and temporal prince — is faithfully reflected in the changed historical circumstances,** has never been discussed. Above all, even in the full Renaissance, there are always present in the action of papal diplomats motivations, methods and particular aims which cannot be regarded as identical with those of the other secular states, and concerning ecclesiastical discipline or the use of ecclesiastical power. The openness and ingenuousness with which political and religio-ecclesiastical ends were jointly but distinctly pursued makes analysis of the relationship between the two aspects in this period particularly interesting. The examples are legion but one will serve the present purpose — the chapters of the peace concluded

es

The exercise of primacy and foreign policy

167

in 1486 between pope, king of Naples, dukes of Milan and Florence, which were formally divided between articles concerning religious affairs (‘quoad spiritualia et libertatem ecclesiasticam’), and those concerning political matters, the problems of Italian political balance.*5 The Protestant Reformation clearly destroyed this naive distinction, forcing the papacy to confuse the two spheres, to disguise political motivations with ideology, and conversely to defend its own religious authority with political instruments. In a study of the Church and politics during Clement VII's pontificate, from 1523 to 1534, it has been stated that for decades the duties of the head of Christendom had been reduced to political matters and that, while the

Reformation had changed the entire frame of reference, the papacy had been unable to alter its course, and that only with Paul III and the Catholic Reformation would a new and more religious era begin in the history of the papacy.*® According to the thesis developed here, the period from the Reformation to the close of the Counter-Reformation was precisely characterised by the fusion and penetration of the two aspects, religious and political, which had hitherto always been regarded as separate. To follow a chronological development, a first period may perhaps be identified, up to the last years of Paul III’s pontificate and to the opening of the Council of Trent, in which papal diplomacy was pledged to defend and broaden, with bribery and concessions, the coalition of the German princes who had remained faithful or in some way linked with the Church of Rome. The papacy failed to recoup the territories which had by now defected, but achieved some deceleration in the conflict which had begun some decades before.” In the meantime, the European political arena had changed dramatically. Rivalry between Charles V and Frangois I paralysed the papacy, preventing the formation of a blockade of the Catholic powers, and placing the Papal State on the periphery. The sack of Rome by imperial troops in 1527 was only one episode, more allied, perhaps, to the past than to a future, in which the great powers were more concerned to extend their own indirect influence on the Roman curia than to prevent the predominance of rival powers in it. The years of change can be defined as between 1545 and 1560, between the opening and the last phase of the Council. The threat of Charles V’s universal ‘monarchy’ made the political function of the Papal State all the more important in its weakness, which, from having once been an obstacle to Italy’s unstable liberty, now became its defender, while papal diplomacy was pledged to prevent Italy becoming again the ‘stable of barbarians’.*® Parma’s crisis, that of Siena, and finally Paul IV’s conflict with Spain put an end to any illusions of the Papal State having any possible political weight in Europe. The reversal lay, perhaps, for papal diplomacy, in the fact that the religious crisis (in 1555 the Augustinian confession had received its

168

The Papal Prince

definitive recognition in the Empire) became a means of permanent blackmail at a political level. In 1552, for example, the nuncio Camaiani was given the task of making the emperor understand the reasons which forced the pope to make peace with France — a lack of funds: ‘Rome being thrown into confusion by the sack and full of fear and impoverished, with the entire Church State diminished and defenceless’; ‘the third consideration is that His Holiness sees the whole of France becoming very Lutheran, and with this claim that the pope is an enemy of the king having to sell castles and the property of the Church, and those very churches themselves’.*? The separation from Rome was seen in reality to have arisen more from the concentration of the Church’s power in the hands of the king than from the spread of heresy, as described by Julius III to Henri II of France in a splendid letter in which he asked the latter to leave the protection of the rebel Ottavio Farnese: . . + You give elective benefices which I do not. . . You place tithes on the churches as you please. You order the cardinals and bishops as you think fit and as it pleases you. No matrimonial cases, benefices, nor spiritual cases ever come into this court. Finally, you are more than pope in your kingdoms. You are loved, honoured and respected by me and shall always be if you so wish. I do not know for what reason you wish to become schismatic . . .59

A third period of papal diplomacy runs from the end of the Council of Trent, 1564, to the early years of the seventeenth century. The nuncios’ activity often appears to be religiously inspired, and dominated by a concern to put Tridentine reform into effect, although from a centralising Roman angle. Nuncios sometimes came from origins quite different from a traditional bureaucratic career — men close to Borromeo such as Giovan Battista Castelli"? or Cesare Speciano®? — while for particularly sensitive missions, clergy outside the normal diplomatic channels began to be used, as, for example, the Jesuit priest Antonio Possevino.53 The Papal State, although offering financial and at times even military support, seemed to perform no more than a supporting role, at least directly, in the battle against heresy. The figure of the pope-king was intentionally overshadowed in the effort to assert the new papal universalism. This did not, however, mean a loss in importance of the political component, or a radical change in papal initiative, which continued to be polarised in the relationship with the states, and the presence of whose State was a determining factor in all its activity. ; All possible concessions continued to be made to the princes who ha remained faithful to Rome. Spanish hegemony left little room for autonomous initiatives and the basic principle, the political directive, can be summed up in a phrase from the instruction given to the nuncio to Naples in 1566: ‘a

The exercise of primacy and foreign policy

Co

Tex)

change in religion means a change in the State’. In other words, the idea recurring often in the correspondence of the nuncios of the various sees in the following decades was that the alliance with the papacy was the surest way to defend power against religious and political rebellion. An entirely ‘spiritualist’ interpretation of papal diplomacy in this period is therefore impossible. The nuncio Castelli, overwhelmed by the events of the wars of _ religion in France in 1582, asked to be replaced as he was ill and particularly since he was not good at his new duties — ‘I certainly know that, with the war coming, I could not serve Your Holiness, because in this case it would be necessary to have a nuncio of strong complexion, used to handling negotiations of peace and war.’>* In this Tridentine period the nuncios’ role was still political at the core despite its preoccupation with problems within the Catholic world, with its disciplinary reinforcement, and with keeping the status quo. War was called for from outside in order to alter a situation which was already established and crystallised in the alliance between the pope and Spain, as Paolo Sarpi explained clearly: In Italia, ubi fons et origo vitae papae et Jesuitarum, Scipio imitandus, qui bello africano Annibalem ex Europa traxit. Donec aut in Italia ecclesia alicubi reformetur, aut bello libertati via aperiatur, papae vires semper constabunt . . . The other Italian princes are all servile, through fear or for money. I do not believe that the state will ever be changed, if religion is not changed; but with war at both the gates of Italy, I do not see any tendency towards this; on the contrary, the old [disposition] becomes more and more established.°°

War was to come, even if its developments were certainly inconsistent with Sarpi’s omens. The last period of papal commitment in grand politics, under Gregory XV and particularly under Urban VIII, was characterised by the powerful attempt of the counter-offensive of the Catholic powers, but precisely in this phase the contradiction between the papacy’s religious and political interests came to a head, contributing not a little to the definitive defeat of the peace of Westphalia. Papal diplomacy failed to identify itself with the positions of the Empire, as basically the logic which persisted in it was a State one, through which the independence of the Papal State and the question of balance in Italy weighed against more religious concerns.57 The events of Valtellina, Mantua and Monferrato’s war of succession, and the battle of Castro are the different episodes of this increasing schizophrenia which ultimately led to entire impotence. Even at the innermost level of the diplomatic machinery, it looked like a recovery of the Renaissance approach — the use of the clergy was reduced and almost eliminated58while the career of the nunciature resumed its central position as a step towards the highest position of the State and of the curia’s central administration. *?

170

The Papal Prince

This periodicisation (in its simplification and schematism) of the phases of papal diplomacy between the mid-fourteenth and mid-seventeenth centuries allows us to put forward the thesis of the basic institutional continuity of papal diplomacy and of the importance which the presence of the Papal State had in this context. It does not appear that papal diplomacy had, as has been stated, a ‘reversal of trend’ with the Counter-Reformation;® it is quite true that in the post-Tridentine period, the nuncio took on provinces in the religious sphere which clearly differentiated him, at the juridical level also, from his medieval embodiment (one need only remember the powers granted to the nuncios by the post-Tridentine popes at a jurisdictional and Church discipline level, powers which were developing but were also in contradiction with the traditional canonical procedure),°! but it was never denied that in essence he was the representative of one sovereign to another. The statement from Gasparo Mattei’s letter quoted at the beginning of this chapter (‘today matters of religion are all reduced to politics’) is at the same time a model and symbolic of the situation precisely because in the nuncio’s report the problem was seen dramatically but from within, without any hint of denunciation or polemic. Externally, the denunciation and polemic developed the same thesis in an anti-papal sense, as in De Dominis’s works:°® Nuntii vero papae nunc dierum apud imperatorem, reges, et potentatus christianos eodem penitus loco sunt, quo regum legati in curiis principum saecularium, pro negociis nimirum saecularibus potissimum tractandis, et indagandis, commorantes. Ac certe, si optime eos nomine

cores

insigniamus,

sunt oratores,

sin vero

explora-

ae

Apart from the specific question of the organisation of papal diplomacy, we can say that by means of the concessions made by the popes to the princes, formalised or otherwise in concordats, and by means of the nuncios’ daily work, a process was triggered off in the Renaissance which was merely speeded up by religious division and by the action of the Counter-Reformation. An examination of the Church-State relationship beginning with the Council of Trent and the opening of the jurisdictional controversies risks not fully understanding the route towards the construction of the new political system, of the new political order and its implications in the internal life of the Church. The process should, of course, be analysed in the different areas. The * Indeed the pope’s messengers nowadays at the courts of the emperor, of kings and of Christian rulers, are in the very same position as the ambassadors of kings at the courts of secular rulers, staying there in order to carry out and investigate matters of an extremely

worldly kind. And certainly, if we are to designate them by the most suitable name, they are speakers, but in actual fact spies. . .

The exercise of primacy and foreign policy

n

171

particular situation of Italy, for example, which had seemed ‘suburban’ to the papacy even before the mid-sixteenth century, as Cardinal Jacopo Sadoleto declared in 1536 in one of his speeches to Paul III, denouncing the turmoil of rebellion and anti-Roman hatred which by now was pervading all the other European nations, has not yet been examined:°* Ipsa nimirum Italia, que vestro imperio ecclesiasticeque ditioni circumiecta undique omnis et pene tota suburbana

est, vestrum

multis in locis imperium,

vestram

iurisdictionem potestatemque detrectat.*

The times of Machiavelli were long since past: in Counter-Reformation Italy, the presence of the Church State was generally accepted and seen even as a guarantee of independence of the small regional areas which had long been established in a geopolitical situation.9* The barycentre of European politics in the first decades of the seventeenth century was by now outside the Italian peninsula, and the European powers were not interested in modifying its territorial organisation but only in gaining such influence over the papacy as to allow political exploitation of this hegemony. This is

all known. What are less well known are the forms of expression of Italy's

‘suburbanity’ to Rome at a political level, as well as at the culturalideological, juridical and economical levels. Even at the more political level, it would be a mistake to see a clear line of distinction between the Papal State and the rest of the world — Italy could be shown as a grey intermediate zone in which not only a particular Church discipline and a particular doctrinal control applied,95 but a system of interrelations at various levels had also been introduced which made it an entity endowed with particular characteristics. The process of the Italianisation of the papal bureaucracy and the college of cardinals as well as of the papacy itself led to a welding of interests within the Italian ruling class which only eighteenth-century reforms managed to break up partially.°° More generally, approaching this phenomenon in pure CounterReformatory terms risks compromising a better understanding of what Italy was without the bishop of Rome. If a foreign pope were elected, Italy, the queen of nations, would be subjected to slavery; ‘to elect a French pope would mean betraying your country, Italy . . .’. These appeals of Cardinal Piccolomini in the conclave which led to his election as Pius [in 145897 are not only the result of humanist rhetoric but also project their shadow in the following centuries with developments which the religious division and the new order of European powers seemed merely to accelerate. For Italy, cal authority and is * Indeed Italy, herself, which is subject to your power and ecclesiasti rule, your jurisdiction almost wholly an appendage of the city, in many areas threatens your and power.

172

The Papal Prince

papacy is its only patrimony while on the opposite side, as Sarpi noted with clear realism,®* the curia wanted to extract from Italy what it had taken from the whole of Europe before the Reformation and schism. All the Italian princes could well be profoundly influenced in their internal policies by Rome ‘from whom they can at any moment obtain good and bad’.® But it is also true that the papacy often tried, with greater or less success, to act as interpreter of the politico-diplomatic plans of the Italian princes. At the end of protracted negotiations with the king of France for the dispatch to Avignon of a contingent of Italian troops, the nuncio Antonio Maria Salviati declared that he did not regret having written openly ‘in those terms which become a Christian and an Italian’.”° The boundaries between State and Church reason are less and less clear and tend, if not to coincide at least to mingle within Italy’s own confines, as the cardinal-nephew Scipione Borghese wrote to the nuncio of Flanders when the conflict with Venice broke out. Our Lord has a precise duty to keep the authority of the Apostolic See and the purity of religion in Italy with weapons, since it has not been possible to reduce the Republic of Venice to repentance with the offices . . .71

Discussion of the conflict between the Holy See and Venice would require much time but the above indications will, it is hoped, be enough to question the most recent interpretations — such as W. J. Bouwsma’s thesis — which tend to place papal universalism (which remained basically unchanged in its hierocratic continuity from Boniface VIII to the Counter-Reformation) in opposition to Venice’s new and Renaissance ‘republicanism.”? What in reality one seems to observe is a rivalry between states, open and manifest in the Renaissance era with its culmination in the battle of Agnadello, and, in the second half of the sixteenth century and early seventeenth century, more underground, and involved in the complex international picture. This certainly does not imply that religious and ecclesiastical motivations were merely a pretext which obscured natural conflicts between two states, as is suggested in many of Sarpi’s pages,”? but it is not even clear that Venice acted entirely for reasons of State, or the papacy entirely for Church reasons. The latter defends rights and powers which, rather than being linked to universalism, seem restricted to purely Italian matters with no application, or almost none, to the other Catholic states, and more to do with the interweaving of political hegemony than with a resumption of abstract principles. Rome, wrote Sarpi,74 was trying to make up for the loss of power north of the Alps with an increase of pressure on Italy; ‘operam dare ut intensive in Italia acquirant quod alibi extensive amittunt, omnibus ad id artibus, omni studio adhibito, et omnia ad spiritualitatem et religionem revocantes’. To greatly extend our knowledge, we should

‘it rem i Pa

a

vw

The exercise of primacy and foreign policy

173

perhaps try to comprehend that part of the power which the papacy had delegated, or was delegating, to the other Catholic powers, and which was incorporated as an essential instrument for the construction of the modern State; the papacy in fact had reserved, or tried to reserve to itself in Italy, even outside the Papal State, ecclesiastical jurisdiction and doctrinal control, from episcopal elections to the allocation of the more important benefices. Ifit is true at a certain level that from 1559 on, the pact between Rome and Spain became the basis of the system of the Counter-Reformation,75 it should perhaps be pointed out that the new hegemony proposed by the Catholic kings, although practised anti-heretically, was always rejected both because of the Spanish regalism which managed to incorporate within the monarchy even the new Tridentine legislation and to absorb CounterReformation Catholicism as the supreme raison d’état,76 and because of the continual rivalry beneath the surface of Italian internal politics. Spain ‘ wished to possess Italy particularly to dominate the papacy, proclaimed Traiano Boccalini’”” and the papacy on its side again managed to find moments of clear international initiative only when, as through the absolution of Henri IV or in Richelieu’s time, it managed to make use of the rivalry between France and Spain and to play one off against the other. The same thing occurred with regard to the other Catholic power, the Hapsburgs — there was constant distrust from the beginning of the sixteenth century, when the papacy, opposed to the Empire through fear of its hegemony in Italian internal policies, decided to favour, or at least not to hinder, the spread of the Reformation up to the Thirty Years War. It was probably through the Empire’s weakness that the papacy was able to manage in a direct way, by means of nuncios and religious orders, the Catholic restoration in the countries north of the Alps, giving it an entirely different tone from the one it had in other countries.”® For historical reasons France was the country in which the new ambiguous relationship between the papacy and the new states showed itselfin its more interesting connotations. It has already been said that the post-Tridentine Gallican Church remained founded on the 1516 concordat; the spirit of reform permeated it widely but modified in it neither institutionally nor in the ideological basis which found in Bossuet, after centuries of maturing, the most coherent formulation of the centrality of the monarchical and State principle.”? What is perhaps less well known is how great a part State reason had played in the relationship between the sovereigns of France and central Italy from the pragmatic sanction to the crisis of the Council of Pisa, to the concordat and to the policies of Richelieu and Mazarin. Italy's financial and military resources depended to a large extent on Rome as did,

174

The Papal Prince

in different circumstances, the definitive predominance of the hegemony of the opposing powers, the Empire and Spain. For more than a century and a

half, a continuous and subtle diplomatic game was played which used league and counter-league for the most diverse and often secret aims, in which nuncios to Paris and ambassadors to Rome of the king of France conducted ‘une guerre larvée’ which, even if it only rarely led to warlike episodes, politically dominated the entire period under consideration, and spread beyond.®° You must not — said the instruction for the envoy charged with a particular mission to Rome in 1617-198! — deal with the pope ‘comme successeur de Saint Pierre, pour choses ecclésiastiques, mais pour argent et choses purement seculiéres, comme avec souverain de Rome’. The distinction between pope and king of Rome as juridically different persons played an important part not only in diplomacy but also in doctrine and general outlook. The lawfulness of the war against the pope as temporal sovereign was not discussed, even by those who saw in the Catholic and Roman religion the foundation of monarchical power; disputes over the pope’s indirect or direct power were increasingly disregarded, as Francois de Sales wisely counselled, exalting the pope as ‘supreme pastor’ but without ‘disputing that particular authority which he has over the princes’,82 and premises were created for the apparent paradox of the socalled ‘Gallican Jesuits’, exalters of the pope’s spiritual authority but perfectly aligned in loyalty towards absolute monarchy.®? If in polemics in the period of the wars of religion the Catholic faith was regarded as the monarchy’s main bulwark against the heretics in the eyes of the theorists of the alliance between throne and altar,§*in the same way, political concerns were still supreme over every other consideration. Not only this, but the pope as temporal sovereign seemed to constitute a paradigm and model of the fusion between political and religious interests which was valid and applicable without substantial variants in other national contexts. When the nuncio Castelli referred to Rome in connection with his impotence concerning the parliament’s interference which had prevented him from exercising any jurisdictional authority, he wrote that, if matters continued in this direction, ‘almost all power will be removed which the Holy See has over those who are not under its temporal dominion’.85 The sentence can also be interpreted as an echo of the way in which Paris perceived the kind of power the pope exercised over his subjects in temporal overlordship, and on the basis of which similar powers were claimed by the French state. A similar situation was also to be found in schismatic England. The Anglican Church had its origins in Rome, as has been shown,86 in particular with the emergence of the double figure of Wolsey as papal legate and chancellor of the kingdom, the acme of spiritual and political power.

Li

— The exercise of primacy and foreign policy

foi

Still during the reign of Henry VIII, few Englishmen objected to the pope’s primatial and spiritual authority: the war against Rome was basically a war against a foreign prince, whose political and diplomatic links with England had always been close and complex, whose interference in national affairs had always been feared.8” Quite apart from the strange ‘interlude’ of sympathy and semi-official negotiations between Charles I and Urban VIII,88 there are signs that in England, even during the secularly hostile relationship between the courts of Rome and London at the height of the doctrinal polemics, a settlement based on the acknowledgement of the pope’s sovereignty not as a supranational authority but as a model of a State-Church relationship was not rejected. Maximilien de Béthune, later duc de Sully, referred to one of his conversations with James I when the king had declared his intention not to persecute the Catholics ‘and having on this occasion long talked to him of the pope, the king praised Your Holiness as a temporal prince, and said to him that if a way were found to be reconciled with Your Holiness he would willingly agree to it, as long as he could remain head of his Church’.®? There is no contradiction in the fact that the Jesuits who defended the papacy were regarded by the English as Machiavelli’s heirs, as amoral ‘politicians’ for whom ethical principles were worthless compared with reasons of State.°° The image of the Italians as masters of duplicity and political evil for the whole of Europe during the early modern period is not a purely moralistic judgement but implies a precise enough judgement of a paternity, born of both the Renaissance and the Counter-Reformation, which was rejected but which was equally acknowledged to be an integral part of historical reality. Never, we might say, did papal politics, after the failure to apply spiritual weapons in the excommunication of Henry VIII and Elizabeth, openly show characteristics which can be defined as modern, those of Realpolitik: there is nothing of medieval universalism in the papacy’s actions, only a continued attempt to form coalitions which managed to upset the balance which had been created between continental Europe and England. Peace was dangerous as it put one to sleep, warned the instruction of Giovan Francesco Guidi di Bagno, sent as nuncio to the Spanish Low Countries in 1621 with the task of keeping an eye on Holland and England as well?! — ‘it seems that even more can be obtained through the advantage of weapons than through the art of peace’ — and it was added for his successor, the nuncio Fabio di Lagonissa, in 1627, ‘as it seems that this moment is very opportune for reintegrating our holy religion into such a kingdom by means of weapons’.°? The attempt to distinguish ‘matters political’ from ‘matters spiritual’, proclaimed time and again in the instructions and nuncios’ dispatches,?? was obviously thwarted particularly on the chessboard of

e

176

The Papal Prince

Europe in which the consolidation of the religious break left no room for intermediate positions. In 1619 Lucio Sanseverino, nuncio to the Low Countries, was ordered to watch Holland: The knowledge of the affairs of the political state of those same Hollanders can be very important for religious matters also, therefore you would do well to report anything whatever worthy of note of their plans, since their power and even more their temerity have already grown so great that one sees nothing of moment occur, particularly in Germany and France, without their agreement. And even though their navy seems to be entirely directed towards the Indies, there is suspicion nevertheless that they want to meddle in the Mediterranean again, and in that case we should be forewarned so that the navy of the Church’s State can be fortified against their invasions.?4

This passage is an exceptional example of the method of papal diplomacy, for its concise view of the war for predominance on the transoceanic chessboard, and finally for the particular concern with the Papal State as a Mediterranean state. A discussion of this last point would obviously be extremely long; only a few indications can be given here. At the beginning of the period under consideration, we find the popes pledged to defend the eastern and Mediterranean frontier of Christianity against the Turks after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Little more than a century and a half later came the threat of the Atlantic powers, the Low Countries and England. The shock which resulted from the fall of Constantinople was certainly not a secondary phenomenon in the development of the Renaissance papal monarchy — the revival of the crusading spirit, already taken up by Eugenius IV in parallel with the council of union in Florence,°5 became the true banner of Pius II’s pontificate and the only ideological basis still of great value in Christendom for the reassertion of the new universalism.” Even if its politico-military outlet had been almost nonexistent, the importance of the idea of crusade in Europe in the second half of the fifteenth and early part of the sixteenth century should not be underestimated: likewise, one should not ignore fear and terror of the Turks as a fundamental aspect of the Christian and particularly Italian outlook, particularly after Otranto had been taken in 1480.%” It has been suggested that the fall of Constantinople helped to postpone the break-up of European Christianity for some years.°* The papacy’s tireless efforts to form against Islam a league of Christian princes, of which it would have been the natural leader, were certainly alive only in sermons and rhetorical speeches (outside the diplomatic chambers) and came to nothing in the face of economic interests and the internal rivalries of the West. Nevertheless they were a most interesting attempt to give a valid ideological basis to the new figure of the pope-prince: only in an expedition against the infidel could

The exercise of primacy and foreign policy

7A

these two terms, which in themselves were contradictory in political, civil and religious life, find their internal cohesion and satisfy Christianity’s public conscience. Thus, for the popes from Pius II on, the crusade was both a religious ideal and a political necessity, and even became a pretext for avoiding the urgent need for Church reform, with a dramatic acceleration which found its climax during Leo X’s pontificate.?? _ Anew and different restatement of the idea of crusade was arrived at by an actual league between the Catholic states (the political leadership of which Pius V gave up in order to be its charismatic leader) and by the battle of Lepanto,‘°° only after the religious disintegration, the Catholic revival and the shift of the political barycentre to outside Italy. Lepanto certainly cannot be said to have formed a new course for the papacy’s role in Europe. Two years later, Venice had already left the league and made peace with the enemy while in its turn accusing the pope of tolerating the trade of weapons between the Papal State and Turkey.!°! Towards the end of the century, military action was resumed during Clement VIII’s pontificate, but with more failures, the only result being to favour Hapsburg expansionism and the thrusts to the east of the Polish aristocracy. By now, the papacy had almost lost its position on its eastern and Mediterranean frontier as well. Holy war was discussed less frequently, despite the continued Turkish threat throughout most of the seventeenth century, and the question of territorial expansion took priority over religious incentives.!°2 The transposition of the idea of crusades from the West to the East, from the Turks to the heretics, had, however, already failed with the defeat of the invincible Spanish armada a few years after Lepanto. It is thus possible to find not only continuity in the institutional instruments, such as concordats and the nunciatures, used by the papacy of the early modern period, but also a continuous line which was adopted consequent to the acceptance of the principle of the Papal State’s insertion into the new international community, and consistent with the situation that was emerging. After the first period of the consolidation of the State and of a basically aggressive policy, up till Julius II and Leo X, this approach could only have been one of neutrality: a heterodoxical word — as it has rightly been said with regard to the papal position in the negotiations for the peace of Westphalia!°? — for the supreme head of the Church, and inconceivable in a Christian universe. But the idea of pope as ‘neutral prince’, used by the nuncio Fabio Chigi with regard to his situation as papal representative, was not his invention; it was the result of both a process of cultural and political secularisation and also of the institutional development of the papacy as a territorial sovereignty in the last two centuries. Apart from earlier individual positions within the Italian political balance (in which the pope, being one of the greater powers if not the greatest, found

178

The Papal Prince

it extremely difficult to be natural), after the opening of hostilities between Charles V and Francois I the choice of the ideology of neutrality, rather than its practice, became the daily bread of the directives and activities of the nuncios. There are hundreds of examples in the correspondence of the various courts — even when the particular problems of balance in Italy in the earlier period are excluded — from Girolamo Riario’s mission to Ferdinand I at Innsbruck in 1525,1°* onwards. The dispatches of Rodolfo Pio, Paul IIl's nuncio to France in 1535-7, and the instructions he received from Rome, demonstrate the entire spectrum in which word and concept were used. The pope ‘can and has to be neutral, and father to all’;1°5 only if the king of France decided to move against England, ‘only this serious matter can make His Holiness leave his neutral [position]’;1°° the concession of legation to Cardinal di Lorena was impossible as it would show that the pope ‘was no longer neutral’;!°” The projected marriage between the pope’s nephew Ottavio Farnese and the daughter of the emperor was rejected as the pope ‘will never do or think of something which is against his attitude of neutrality’,1°8 and when notice of the projected marriage was confirmed, the nuncio despaired as Paul III’s neutrality was credible no longer.!°° These are only a few examples from the dispatches. The kind of hangman’s rope situation into which the pope had to put himself to claim the role of ‘father of all’ was one of an increasingly precarious and uncertain neutrality. The only pope to try to avoid this process was Pius V who took up the medieval theocratic doctrine but at the cost of the total rejection of the historical reality, as contemporary political observers noted. Pius V, even though he does not in any way understand the reasons of state as one who speaks of it differently from all others, nevertheless still takes little advice. . . He wants all the princes to bring everything down to the spiritual rather than the temporal, as he has said to me many times, having the opinion that his authority extends over all states, and that he can command in almost absolutely everything; in which regard he referred me one day to St Thomas. . .119

An attempt was made to introduce the theocratic principle within diplomatic activities during Pius V’s pontificate. Giovan Antonio Facchinetti, the nuncio to Venice, made a speech in which the political demands arose from the premise that Christ as ‘true spiritual and temporal king of the universe . . . left Peter as His vicar and his successors as true kings of the spiritual and temporal’.!!! This brief attempt was soon shattered in the face of a quite different political reality which the papacy itself had helped to construct. Statements of this kind no longer appear in the later correspondence of the Counter-Reformation nuncios. The theory was to evolve towards the cautious formulation of indirect power and in

The exercise of primacy and foreign policy

179

diplomatic practice and, if another aspect is to be added to the two traditional ones now attributed to the pontiff — those of head of the Church and of prince — it is that of ‘mediator’. It was thus, in fact, that the pope’s position in the Counter-Reformation world was described by the Venetian ambassador Giovanni Correr on his return from Rome in 1581: The pope, in my judgement, can be considered in three ways: first as head of the Church and master of spiritual matters; then as prince master of his own state; and lastly as a prince who in this political government common to all can intervene in different matters as mediator among the others. As head of the Church he can do much good by way of tithes, confiscation of Church property, and other spiritual concessions, which are of much use. As special prince, he can do what others do, helping with money, people and other matters as he wishes. As mediator then, having an equal relationship with everyone, and his authority not being suspected by anyone, can he freely put himself between the princes to reconcile them. . . .1!2

The same principle is confirmed not only by outside observers but also in the directives of papal diplomacy of the following decades, with an increasing limitation to the Catholic areas. The pope remained ‘father and mediator’, ‘equally loving all the Catholic princes and who will do everything to keep peace among them and to unite them together against the infidels’.!!3 This was to lead both to the Westphalia negotiations and the preventative clause against the papal protest, the ensuing development up to Nijmegen, and finally to the definitive rejection of the papacy from the great international arena.!!4 The view that there was continuity between the papacy’s declared mediating role of the seventeenth century and medieval universalism, deriving from the doctrine of ‘plenitudo potestatis’, is incorrect: in accepting the State role, the papacy was forced to assume an entirely different position in which it collaborated actively in the construction of the modern system of balance at the cost of raising contradictions which involved Church and State in the following centuries. As far as the Papal State was concerned, the necessary route of its temporal sovereignty

in the international context was from neutrality to impotence. The papal lands were already to become the decoy, the zone of encampment and battle, of the various Catholic powers during the eighteenth-century wars of succession long before the French revolution and the Napoleonic invasion.1!5 Apart from reflections at a general level concerning the secularisation of politics and ofthe new international relationships, we should perhaps try to the understand the consequences of the process in the development of overcome to help should tions State-Church relationship. These considera as the dominant idea which regards the jurisdictional controversies merely one on curia (papacy/ poles ve alternati a war between two opposing and the hand and the State on the other) without comprehending in depth

180

The Papal Prince

social, cultural and institutional interchanges which occurred, and without a grasp of how far the papacy became State in this period, and how far the State became Church. A passage from Girolamo Vendramin, one of the minor so-called theologians of the Venetian Republic, in the controversy of the interdict may shed some light on this question. In the dedication to the college of cardinals of his Disquisitiones of 1606, Vendramin simply maintained (with an example referring to the prohibition of ecclesiastical bodies from acquiring further property) that Venice had only imitated measures already taken by the pontiff:116 Venetae reipublicae leges sanctissimas, aiunt, ansam tanti furoris romano pontifici praebere, quippe quae libertati Ecclesiae, ac summorum pontificum decretis, repugnent, ac contradicant: quae verba? quae blasphemiae? Venetae leges, rationi consentaneae, ex naturae legibus depromptae, sacris scripturis innixae, sanctorum patrum auctoritate roboratae, Ecclesiae libertati, aut summorum pontificum decretis contra dicere aut repugnare? . . . Conciliari haec non possunt. Idem omnino statuunt Veneti et Pontifices; pontificum decreta sancta indicantur, Venetorum blasphemiae et anathemata?*

The development of the iura circa sacra in the modern State found in the papacy an enemy which both jurisdictionalists and curialists defensively helped to depict abstractly and a-temporally in antiquated terms, !2” or the protagonist of those concessions concerning Church matters which often rendered the Catholic principalities a model of the Church-State relationship for the Lutheran states, given the fullness of the powers concentrated in the sovereign’s hands. !!8 The papacy was also the protagonist of an internal and external policy which could only influence profoundly the development of other states through action and reaction. In the Principe cristiano pratico, De Luca, whom Jemolo does not cite and oddly does not refer to (he would perhaps have destroyed the sketch of the two opposing teams of curialists and jurisdictionalists), clearly stated that he did not wish to deal with the pope as spiritual head and that there was no need for a special treatment of his temporal sovereignty: ‘however to the pope, and to the other afore-mentioned prelates, and others, who possess

* The most sacred laws of the republic of Venice, they say, drive the Roman pontiff into a mighty fury because they impugn and contradict the freedom of the Church and the decrees of the supreme pontiffs. What words are these? What blasphemies? Can the laws of Venice, which are consonant with reason, which are rooted in natural law, which are closely bound up with sacred scripture, which are strengthened by the authority of the sacred fathers, contradict or impugn the liberty of the Church or the decrees of the supreme pontiffs? . . . This is inconsistent. The Venetians and the popes have, in all places, made the same laws. Can the decrees of the pontiffs be called sacred, those of Venetians blasphemous and anathema?

The exercise of primacy and foreign policy

181

temporal dominions in style and figure of princes, apply mutatis mutandis those things which are generally said of the other secular princes, without the interference of spiritual matters’.1!° It was precisely in this contradiction that the papacy’s active participation in the building of the modern State in those decades was exhausted: it was a crossroads at which the Roman pontificate, in its desire to maintain the Church of Rome in its supranational role, was unable to choose either of the two roads, whether integral political secularisation, or to abandon a sovereignty which the system of the balance of power made increasingly indispensable.

»

De

Last, but not final, considerations

Si pontifices dumtaxat pontificia agerent, dormientibus oculis nos ipsos totos ipsis committeremus; sed quia iam pontifices saecularia et laica ultra quam laicaliter prosequuntur, oculos aperimus et nobis prospicimus diligenter.* (De Dominis, b, p. 36)

Finally, it is impossible in this work to come to any true and proper conclusions. This has already been pointed out in the introduction and is a result of the methodology adopted. The promise of the original hypothesis summarised in De Dominis’s sentence which is quoted above! has, however, been fulfilled: that in the early modern period, the papacy helped to bring a sense of awareness to the State-builders in European politics. The papacy itself was not merely a huge residue from the preceding period which the new organisms had to confront and destroy in order to assert themselves in their battle against every universalistic order; nor was it simply the creator of an abstract theory of ‘plenitudo potestasis’, of a sovereignty of which others would then take possession in different historical contexts. It was the active element in the laicising process which led to the new political synthesis. The European system of states was constructed out of the ruins of the respublica christiana, and the papacy, which had indubitably been part of this ruin — the greatest and most impressive monument among the debris — actively contributed to the development of the new system. Perception of this induced von Ranke to take an interest in the history of the papacy and to see it beyond the confessional arguments, as an

* Provided the popes do nothing but conduct their papal office, let us totally commit ourselves to them with our eyes closed. But since now popes engage in secular and lay affairs beyond even the laity themselves, we open our eyes and take careful notice for ourselves.

182

Last, but not final, considerations

183

indispensable element in our understanding of the development of the West in its entirety. The major part of the questions implicit in this approach have not however been developed by later historiography, and the reasons are to be sought both on the methodological front (through the scant attention given to the papacy and Italy by those who carried the discussion of the history of institutions and social discipline north of the Alps), and on the ideological front (the lay-Catholic diatribe acting perfectly as blinkers, prevented Italian historiography in particular from having a wider perspective). Until now we have therefore adhered to the eighteenthcentury arguments which began the historiographical discussion, and have restricted ourselves to considering the externals of the State-Church relationship or the aspects of an ideological battle far removed from the evolution of the historical reality in order to interpret the dialectic between State and Church in the modern period. In his Di una riforma d’Italia, Carl Antonio Pilati (1733-1802) determined ‘to be able to push the pope’s authority, both ecclesiastical and temporal, within the boundaries of the Roman state’. This was neither a facile slogan nor a revolutionary programme resulting from eighteenth-century enlightenment, but rather the perception (with the coupling of ecclesiastical/temporal authority within the Papal State as in all states) of an already secular historical process which in Italy had not been able fully to mature (as it had elsewhere in the most differing forms, from the Anglican and Gallican Churches to Spanish or Hapsburg regalism) but which had paradoxically one of its roots in the papacy and in the Roman State itself.2 The delimitation and development of Papal State authority in the territories of central Italy were not peripheral but an element in the process which led to the new redistribution of power and gave a new face to the Church of modern times and to the relationship between politics and religion. It has not been the task of this first exploration to study consequences and developments. These may be listed as follows: the incapacity of the Papal State to accept the logic of the national State both internally— with regard to the emerging classes — and externally, in the increasingly difficult game of the balance of power; its decline; the somewhat pathetic and ever more abstract attempts to modernise the papacy, separating the ecclesiastical government from State administration;* and, finally, the defeat of the Risorgimental illusion that it would have been enough to dismantle the external structures of the Church State to wipe out its presence in Italy; and the opening of religious wounds, ideal and political, which have continued up till the present day. The presumption which has led me on is that a more profound examination of the problems only suggested or referred to here

184

The Papal Prince

can bring greater understanding of even these subsequent developments and reduce many ambiguities. Thus also, as far as the exercise of the primatial and universal role of the papacy of the last centuries is concerned, the various theses, for the most part by jurists lacking a historical grounding, concerning the Holy See’s sovereign personality in international law, appear to need reviewing. The sovereign personality seems neither a legacy of the medieval papacy of Boniface VIII (the latter was victor of the duel with the Empire) nor a consequence of the sixteenthcentury religious break, but resulted from the papacy’s ambiguous inclusion in the early formation of the European State system. The papacy entered into this system with well-defined initiatives and structures which played a decisive role, at least up until Westphalia, even if the initiatives and structures were already showing their weaknesses by the middle of the following century.* The development of the Jus publicum ecclesiasticum from the end of the seventeenth century, which profoundly changed the canonist tradition in its exaltation of the Church as societas perfecta and of canon law as the primary rule, already had before it the new model of the State, in which it claimed the right to participate. >° Within this framework, the popes’ temporal power, with its sovereign characteristic, became, even in the period of its decline and also after its actual end, an integral part of an ecclesiology which tended to defend in a certain way the Church’s rivalry with the State rather than its divergence from it. In the sixth edition of his work, in 1874 (a few years after the end of the Papal State and first Vatican Council), von Ranke, despite the fact that he did not modify his approach, explicitly reviewed his starting-point, expressed forty years earlier, that the papacy no longer exercised any essential power over the present, and stated that a new period had opened in the latter’s history.° With the end of the Papal State, in effect not only was it shown that the papacy could survive but also that it might continue to be a component in world history, in the sense already expressed by von Ranke himself, independently from the coexistence of both structures, ‘Church’ and ‘State’, within the papacy’s one body. What have certainly continued to exist, however, are the two ‘souls’, the application of the papacy’s State structures to the ecclesiological sphere, which remained supreme even after the end of the Papal State, up until Pius XII’s concordats and until the second Vatican Council, even if, at a theoretical level, the take-over could be said to have occurred with the shift from Pius IX's theory of the theological necessity of the Papal State to the more recent reductive approach.’ In fact the most interesting phenomenon to follow the end of the popes’ temporal power has perhaps been, as noted in a recent essay,® the Church’s reappropriation of the concept of sovereignty which it had passed on to the secular states centuries earlier. Research into these changes, which

Last, but not final,

considerationsee re ee

ay ae 185

continue to this day with the discussion over the reform of the codex of canon law and the project of the Church’s constitutional law (the so-called ‘lex fundamentalis’), could be extremely important at the political as well as ecclesiological level. Even for an outside observer with scientific motivations, there is, ecclesiologically, a visible split between the structures inherited from the centuries of the modern period and the new perspectives of the particular or local churches, which are quite different from the territorial churches which arose out of the Reformation or Counter-Reformation. Politologically, new perspectives have been opened up through awareness of the crises of the modern State and concern with the social sphere for its own sake, no longer from a retrospective and medieval point of view. With the period of the Counter-Reformation behind us, we are‘also leaving the era of the modern State as an expression of political individualism and monopoly of power and juridical rule.? It is therefore easier for us to understand than for our precedessors, not simply through refinement of the methodology of inquiry, the process which occurred in the modern period, of the secularisation of the Church and clericalisation of the State. With the end of the respublica christiana, temporalia and spiritualia have tended to fuse, within and without the temporal dominion of the popes, in the emerging power of the modern State,!°and, with the secularisation of the State, religion has _ been fully integrated into the political system to form a hierarchical and complete unity.!! A reflection on the recent past can help us to feel less constricted and to experience in new forms the dualism between religion, as the absolute expression of individual and collective conscience, and the organisation of, or battle for, power. This duality has never ceased even in the tensions and decline of the last centuries, and in its dialectic it still forms one of the fundamental supports which Christianity has given and continues to give to human civilisation.

w

IT

Notes

I

QO N

A new monarchy

The theme has been taken up recently by Reinhard (j), p. 779. Von Ranke, p. 9. Figgis (b). For the latest evaluation, see Quaritsch (particularly pp. 51-67) and Wyduckel (especially pp. 88-104). Kantorowicz, p. 194. Mattingly, in Figgis (b), pp. xiii—xiv: It was this basic assumption of all medieval political theory which made it intelligible, as, indeed, it made it inevitable, that the medieval Church should foreshadow and, as it were, recapitulate in advance the development of the modern state. Thus in'the Latin West, the Church had the first organised hierarchy of courts with positive written laws, standardised pleadings, and regular channels of appeal. It had the first rationalised system of tax collection and disbursement and was the first to initiate the practice, so common among the early modern monarchies, of anticipating its revenues by the sale of offices. It had the first foreign office and diplomatic corps. It had the first standing mercenary army, which rallied around the first flag displayed on a European battlefield which was not a personal, feudal ensign, but the abiding symbol of a permanent, immortal State. And naturally it confronted, sooner or later, just about all the major constitutional problems which later beset the territorial States.

Evennett, p. 93. N

Bossy; Reinhard (e) (f) (g) (h). Quaritsch, pp. 95-107; Skalweit; Stolleis; Weihnacht. The annotation in this latter work (pp. 121-3), that Giovanni Botero's Discorso intorno allo Stato della Chiesa became one of the strong points in the spread of the term ‘state’ in Germany by the end of the sixteenth century may have some significance. Ullmann (g), pp. 331-2: It was not the Reformation that set the seal on the medieval papacy, but the papacy itself | in the fifteenth century when the institution receded into the background and its place was taken by a succession of individuals who were no more than wealthy Italian princelings and whose qualification for the office was, by any standard, open to doubt.

10 Bouwsma (b), pp. 44-8. 186

Notes to pages 3-7

187

11 Burckhardt, pp. 118-47. Very little had come from Richard’s vindicatory summary (c) which had attempted only to exaggerate the ‘beneficent’ effects (p. 440) of the political action of the Renaissance papacy. Thomson brilliantly presents the papacy’s problems during the Renaissance in a work in which the question of the Papal State in relation to the institutional and administrative system of the Church of Rome is however never put forward. 12 Guicciardini (a), I, p. 380 (book tv, chapter 12). 13 Gilbert (b); Prosperi (d), pp. 161-75. 14 See, for example, the essays of E. Iserloh, J. Glazik and H. Jedin in vol rv of H. Jedin, Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte. For the distortions which may have arisen from the view of the Church's history seen obsessively through Reformation eyes, see Oakley (d), p. 11. 15 Haller, pp. 478-9. 16 Rom in der Neuzeit, particularly H. Lutz's introduction, p. 17. 17 Partner (d), p. 446. 18 Passerin d’Entrèves, pp. 132-40. 19 Hexter (b), pp. 33-4. 20 M. Weber, 1/2, pp. 688-726 (Politische und hierokratische Herrschaft). See Murvar’s lucid comment on this. Zi M. Weber, 1/2, pp. 713-14. 22 Brunner (b), pp. 160-86 (‘Von penne zum monarchischen Prinzip’). 23 Boéckenforde (a) and (b). Bendix’s well-known book is impoverished by the lack of this perspective. 24 Oakeshott, p. 280: And what came into view, more or less clearly, were states in each of which temporalia and spiritualia were assimilated to one another not merely jurisdictionally but substantively, governments seriously concerned with the religious and cultural integration of their subjects and armed with a by no means contemptible apparatus of control. The Moderator of Christendom having been deposed, his place was not left vacant; the rulers of states became the guardians of education and religious belief and practice even where their agents in the undertaking were, for the time being, priests and pastors.

25

The growth of temporal power was realised through principally religious agents: Dumont, p. 12. Oakley (b), p. 84: These years were distinguished by the progressive transformation of the papal states into a strong Italian principality, by the growth in prestige of the papal court as a center of humanist enlightenment and artistic patronage, and by the strengthening within the Church of the high-papalist interpretation of the papal monarchy.

26 Without entering the immense historiographical production on the question, it is enough to remember the works of Buisson, Maccarrone, Mochi-Onory, Ullmann, Watt, Wilks. The latest analysis, which fits the phenomenon into the more general movement of rationalisation which precedes modern planning processes is to be found in Miethke, where (p. 598) Innocent IV's quotation by Bodin is recorded to show the necessity of not seeing the development of a

188

Notes to pages 7-10

theory solely in connection with its contemporaneous function but also in a secular light): ‘At Innocentius IV pont. rom., iuris utriusque peritissimus, summam illam sine legibus solutam potestatem definiit’. For a Marxist critique of these discussions in western historiography see Baszkiewicz. 27 For the latest summary see Alberigo (d). Tierney (a) is also extremely important.

28 P. Ourliac’s explanation is typical in this sense, in Fliche—Martin’s well-known Histoire de l’Eglise, x1v. 29 A. Black, p. 129: After 1450, the medieval papacy enjoyed an Indian summer . . . the next century was to see princely and state interest capturing control of large sections of church life organization; it was to see loyalty to the idea of the universal church punished as high treason. Both Reformation and Counter-Reformation relied heavily on royal power and patronage. In preferring royalism to conciliarism the fifteenth-century papacy contracted a dangerous alliance.

30 Ullmann (g), p. 312; (i), p. 315. 31 Stieber, pp. 346-7. 32 Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, 111/2, pp. 587-8; cf. Ourliac (a) for the ‘solstice’ theme. 33 Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, 1311/2, p. 630. For example Ourliac-Gilles, pp. 52-4. 35 Anderson, pp. 145-6. 36 Oakley (d), p. 74: The substance of power over the provincial churches having passed out of their hands, the popes of the restoration era — however grandiose their theoretical position as supreme pontiffs of the universal church and however much men paid lip service to that position — concentrated their attention increasingly on pacifying and protecting their own Italian principality.

37 Caravale—Caracciolo. The first of the two authors argues at length against Delumeau’s theses (b) which have been taken up by the present author (Prodi, g), regarding the development of centralism in the Papal State; the above observation refers to this. This work remains in any case fundamental for basic information about the Papal State, and for all the factual and bibliographical elements which have not been included in this present work.

38 Walsch (a) and (b). 39 Friedberg (b), 11, p. 716 (1v.17.13). For the debate which arose from this wellknown decree with regard to the acknowledgement of the original sovereignty

41

of the king of France, cf. Mochi-Onory, p. 271. Quoted in Eckermann, p. 121. . Maffei, p. 114.

Ibid., pp. 156-7. 43 Ibid., p. 180. Ibid., p. 199.

45 Ibid., pp. 345-6. 46 Gaeta (a), pp. 131-66 where the ‘Roman pontificate had already entirely passed on into the Church State and started off wholly at the political level’ is

Notes to pages 10-17

47 48 49 50

51

52

53 54

‘ 55 56

189

discussed and the ‘declaration of the transformation which had taken place of the Church into Church State’ (pp. 138-9 and 156-7). Cf. also Di Napoli, pp. 265-72. Valla, p. 162. Ibid., pp. 166-7. Ibid., pp. 175-7. Piccolomini (c). For the political thought in De ortu see Battaglia, pp. 58-64; Quaritsch, p. 38; Toews (e); Schmidinger (b), pp. 20-4. See Diener for Aeneas Silvius’s passage from the rows of supporters of Basle to Eugenius IV. For the following link between Pius II and the Empire in the report of his elections see Strnad (c); Toews (a). Piccolomini (b); the text of the ‘tractatus’ (without a title) is on pp. 550-615, and the introduction by the editor, G. Cugnoni, on pp. 321-2. Cf. Zippel, pp. 339-42. Piccolomini (b), p. 577. Battaglia (p. 63) is acute in his assessment of the passage analysed here, but without entirely understanding its innovative value. Piccolomini (b), p. 579. Ibid., p. 581 (see the full passage at the beginning of this n See Oakeshott, p. 221, for the fusion of political power with the auctoritas docendi in the modern State. Piccolomini (e), pp. 242-55; the passage quoted above is on pp. 248 and 250. Von Ranke, pp. 40-1. Pius Il’s words are also referred to by Lord Acton (p. 34) in 1860 in his defence of the Papal State as an indispensable element in the papacy's freedom. He also supports, along von Ranke's lines, the theory that the papal possessions formed ‘a real monarchy’ for the first time under Julius II

(p. 26). SU Piccolomini (c), p. 227, from the 1450 letter to Cardinal Juan Carvajal. 58 Sigmund, especially pp. 184, 261-80, 290-1. 59 Jedin (c); Maccarrone, pp. 260-1; A. Black's appendix (pp. 162-72) quotes some passages from book 11 of Torquemada’s Summa. Eckermann, p. 117: ‘Innerhalb seines geistlichen Gebietes ist der Papst fiir Roselli der theokratische, absolute Souveràn, der seine Kirche regiert, wie der Kaiser das Reich.’ See also Maccarrone, p. 266. 61 De Domenichi, pp. 211 and 231; cf. Jedin (g) and Maccarrone, pp. 267-9. 62 De Domenichi, p. 243. 63 Ibid., p. 250. Ibid., p. 245. 2

The sovereign: prince and pastor

Gregorovius, 111, p. 3. The classic pages in Creighton, book v, vols. rv-v, ‘The Italian Princes 1464-1518’, are still interesting for the traditional image of the secularised papacy of the Renaissance: ‘The epoch traversed in these volumes is one of the most ignoble, if not the most disastrous in the history not only of the Papacy, but of Europe . . .’ (from the preface to vol. Iv, p. vi). Cf. Bosl (b), p. 994.

190

WwW

Notes to pages 17-19 Gregorovius, III, p. 51. Ibid., p. 133. Ibid., p. 408: ‘die Frage nàmlich nach dem Verhaltnis der Kirche zum Kirchenstaat, der Staatsgewalten Europas und endlich der italianischen Nation zu diesem katholisch-ròmischen Tempelstaat’. See, for example, R. H. Murray, pp. xvi—xvii: Popes like Alexander VI or Leo X were much more the head of an Italian State than the head of the Church. Why should an Englishman, a Frenchman or a German be at the mercy of such foreigners, such mercenary foreigners? . . . the Popes, from Sixtus IV to Leo X, aimed at the creation of Papal States; and they were right from their point of view, to pursue such an aim. For on the possession of such States depended the permanence of the Papacy. It gave, however, a fatal advantage to the reformer, for he could — and did — argue that contributions taken from his native land, be it England, France and Germany, were supporting Italian dreams of conquest. The College of Cardinals, the Curia, the Popes — were they not all essentially Italian in their outlook? Since Julius II, with the single exception of Adrian VI, all the Popes have been Italians. The possession of States placed the Popedom in a contradictory position. They were apostles of peace who were constantly forced to go to war in order to defend their property.

Gebhardt, pp. 377-95; Schatti, pp. 28-9; McConica with J. O’Malley’s comment (pp. 480-2); Gilbert (c), pp. 111-17. Oakley (a), p. 688: ‘in the early years of the sixteenth century the conciliar theory, despite its previous history, was becoming increasingly irrelevant to the question of ecclesiastical reform, whether conceived in Protestant or in Catholic terms’. Baumer, pp. 261-6; Todescan. Celier (a) and (b): Ehses; Haubst. There is no trace of the problems of the State in the discussions and reform decrees of the fifth Lateran Council (Minnich). For a perspective of all the reform projects between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, see Jedin (b), book 1. See D’Amico for a clear idea of the comprehensive extent of the curia reform projects in which anxiety over religiosity and moral cleanliness were inconsistent with a conscience adjusted to the political situation. Published in Annales Camaldulenses, edited by G. G. Mittarelli and A. Castadoni, vol. Ix; in particular column 619: Ex hac

vero,

Beatissime

Pater,

suppurtatione

ea

exoritur

summa,

tuae

scilicet

amplitudinis munus esse, si Christi vestigia imitari, eiusque beneplacitis in hac ab eo tibi tradita potestate inhaerere volueris, non civitates, et castra terrenae huius Ecclesiae potestati subiicere; sed tuis manibus Christo Domino puros commissarum tibi ovium animos offerre, ut illa citius perficiatur Ecclesia, quae in coelis vivis, aeternisque construitur ex lapidibus. Cum itaque summi pontificis cura, minima quidem circa terreni imperii dilatationem, maximam vero circa humanarum omnium creaturarum salutem versanda sit: iam alta sublimis mentis tuae consideratione te prospexisse credimus, universam hanc omnium in terris degentium multitudinem, cui tu et praeesse, et non minus prodesse debes, ex diversa, multiplicique hominum varietate constare . . .

10 Concilium Tridentinum, xu, p. 29. ll Grotius, pp. 81—2: ‘Agit ergo in terris Ecclesia non ut municeps sed ut inquilina: inquilinis autem Imperium non debetur . . .’

12 Dittrich, p. 43. Cf. Prosperi (a), p. 90. 13 Dollinger (b), m1, p. 237.

Notes to pages 20-1

191

14 See the well-known ricordo (Guicciardini, b, p. 265, no. 124): I have always naturally wanted the ruin of the church state, and were it not for the

respect I owe two popes that fortune willed me to admire and for whose greatness I have

laboured, I would love Martin Luther more than myself, because I would hope that his sects would ruin or at least clip the wings of this wicked tyranny of priests.

The critical edition of the text of the ricordo (Guicciardini, d, p. 33, no. 28) can perhaps help us to understand the ‘church state’ as referring in general to the clerical condition (and its vices), and not to the ‘State’ of the Church which in fact (as ‘grandness’ of the popes) does not identify with the ‘wicked tyranny of priests’ even if it is deeply woven into it. Guicciardini historicises the reflection in the Storia d'Italia (Guicciardini, a, 111, p. 257, book x1, chapter 8) with regard to Julius II, not therefore one of the two Medici popes in whose service he had been, but the predecessor: He would certainly have been worthy of the greatest glory if he had been a secular prince, or if that care and attention which he had to exalt the Church in temporal grandeur with the arts of war he had had to exalt it in spiritual matters with the arts of peace: and yet, he was, above all his predecessors, of clearest and most honoured memory; particularly compared to those who, the true words of the matters having been lost, and the distinction to weigh them correctly being confused, judge that it is more the ’ popes’ duty to add, with the weapons and blood of Christians, empire to the apostolic see than to strive, with the good example of life and with correcting and healing erroneous customs, for the health of those souls for which they exalt that Christ had made them his vicars on earth.

15 Guicciardini (b), p. 173. 16 Ibid., p. 199. LZ Guicciardini (d), p. 57, no. 48; another edition: ‘and I do not except priests from this rule, the violence of whom is double, because to hold us under they use temporal and spiritual weapons’. 18 De Vergottini (c), 11, pp. 115-25. LS Alberi, 11/3, pp. 373 and 376. 20 Alberi, 11/4, pp. 123, and 209. Thus began Mocenigo (p. 23): Most Serene Prince, I return from a court where a prince reigns still, who alone in this world has two kinds of dominion: one, with which he is greater and superior to all the princes of Christendom, and the other in which he is a great deal less than many others. These form the pope’s temporal and spiritual dominion; having to speak on which, I shall begin, as is appropriate, from the kind which belongs to the spiritual, as the most noble part, as the spirit is nobler than the body; and then I shall speak of the other. In spiritual matters the pope is a prince above princes; he is adored as the vicar of Jesus Christ, commands all Christendom, and for his end uses weapons which cut boldly, as they are sentences of privation of states, curses, excommunications, and finally they loosen and bind souls; which is the greatest power which God has ever given at any time to men in this world. With this dominion, the popes used in the past to have much greater authority . . .

It would be useful to have some proper research done on the manuscripts ofthe reports. Even the edited passages allow a complex and inconsistent picture to emerge: G. Correr’s report of 1581 in fact injects the theme of a third figure of the pope as ‘mediator’ destined to develop, as will be shown, in the following

peeps

Notes to pages 21-4 decades (see chapter 8, below, p. 179); In G. Gritti’s report of 1589, the two kinds of temporal government are separate — the first is that of the State, the second Church property in the whole of Christendom (p. 335): The temporal state can be divided into two parts: one comprises the jurisdiction which the pope holds in the distribution of bishoprics, abbeys, priories, titles, and so many other kinds of ecclesiastical benefices in the provinces and kingdoms of all Christian princes to those he likes most; truly singular authority and superiority, since in this way he comes to be master not only of his state, but also of a large part of those which are owned by the other Christian princes . .

21 22. 23 24 25 26 DI

28

29 30 31

Alberi, 11/4, p. 359. Barozzi—Berchet, 111/1, p. 98. Ibid., p. 188 (Renier Zeo, 1623); 11/2, p. 98 (Giovanni Giustinian, 1651). Barozzi—Berchet, 11/1, p. 193. Ibid., p. 357 (Alvise Contarini, 1635). Barozzi—Berchet, 11/2, p. 271. Lunardoro, La giusta statera.. .; Li tesori. It is enough to think of Gregorio Leti’s publicist activity, and of the interest it arose in European public Spiga: On Leti’s immense publicist work, see Barcia. Botero (a), pp. 145-84, where it only says (p. 154), ‘This piane and greatness of the church state is doubled by the boundless authority of the prince. The pope, as head of religion, is dispenser of sacred matters, master of the Church revenue, supreme judge of the universe .. .’ For Botero, see Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (henceforth DBI), x11, pp. 352-62 (L. Firpo). Boccalini, 1, pp. 136-41 (fascicle 1, report 38). For Boccalini, see the article in DBI, x1, pp. 10-19 (L. Firpo); Jedin (a); Cremer; Cozzi (a). Boccalini, 111, p. 35 (fascicle m1, report 12). For example, the two treatises of Francesco and Tommaso Bozio. For the latter, see P. Craveri in DBI, x, pp. 568-71; for the attribution of the treatise of Francesco to Tommaso, see Bertelli, pp. 169-71, and Mastellone. The conclusion of book of De iure status . . . is summarised in the thesis (p. 36): ‘ab ecclesiastico dominio contineri eminenter aliorum dominia’ and similar expressions are in the De temporali Ecclesiae . . . (for example, on p. 94): Ex religione itaque, quo concludamus totam hanc rationem, constat, saeculares principes omni ex parte subiectos, etiam naturali iure sacerdoti, et propterea tribuenda est Ecclesiae in rebus omnibus suprema hierarchia, et monarchia, et episcopus erit caput Ecclesiae suae supremus hierarchia, et monarcha.

On post-Tridentine ecclesiology in general, see Alberigo (b). The shrewdest perception of the vast distance between the positions of Leo X (as an expression of the new papacy of the modern period) and the theocratic princes of Boniface VIII's Unam sanctam was put forward by Figgis (a), pp. 144-7. The decisions of the congregations and curial practices in this field have still to be researched. It would be interesting to follow the line of argument which developed in the seventeenth century over the pope’s ‘treasury’ in the world in competition with that of the State, a doctrine defended by De Luca (e, 11, pp. 242-6, disc. 149) on the death of a sacristan from Parma, who died without leaving a will:

Notes to pages 24-6

193

Verum ubi de iure territoriali episcopi dubitari posset, adhuc respectu clericorum extra «controversiam remaneret ius territoriale papae in toto mundo cum iure fisci quoad personas

ecclesiasticas,

ac etiam quoad saeculares

in causis ecclesiasticis, et spiri-

tualibus, cum sola quaestio cadat quoad personas saeculares in rebus et negotiis mere temporalibus, iuxta omnino veram et apud catholicos, non controvertendam . . . quam circa

annum

1650

formiter

canonizavit

atque

omnino

tenendam

censuit

sacra

congregatio universalis inquisitionis, damnando atque haereticam declarando propositionem, ex ignorantia forte magis quam studiose et ex malitia, deductam in quadam anonima scriptura quod papae iurisdictio etiam quoad personas et causas ecclesiasticas esset in personis abque territorio.

32 Vitoria, 11, p. 101. See Hamilton for a general summary of the political thinking of the Spanish theologians referred to here. i 33 Vitoria, 11, p. 64. 34 Ibid., p. 321: Et praeterea patrimonium Ecclesiae (ut fatentur ipsi iuristae, etiam Bartolus) non est

subiectum imperatori. Quod si omnia essent subiecta imperatori iure divino, ex nulla donatione imperatorum, nec alio titulo potuissent eximi ab imperatore; sicut nec papa

potest quenquam eximere a potestate papae. Item nec regnum Hispaniae est subiectum imperatori, nec Francorum .

.

35 Mager, p. 476. 36 Lutz (b), (c), (f). 37 Soto, pp. 300-6 (book tv, quaestio4, article 1, ‘Utrum hominum quispiam totius sit orbis dominus’, and article 2 ‘Utrum imperator sit dominus orbis’). 38 Molina, I, p. 77 (vol. 1, tract 11, disputation 29): ‘. . . nos non loqui de terris Romanae Ecclesiae . . . In eiusmodi namque terris summi pontifices habent supremam potestatem, non secus ac reges in suis propriis regnis ut Innocent.

III capitem per venerabilem . . .’ (see Costello on Molina's political thinking).

39 Suarez (a), pp. 128-9 (book m1, chapter 6). Ibid., p. 242 (book Iv, chapter 10). 41 Ibid., p. 244 (book rv, chapter 11), in contradiction, it seems, with what was said a few pages earlier, states this nice distinction between the Old and New Testaments: ‘et ideo olim cura religionis, vel pertinebat ad potestatem regiam, vel cum illa coniungebatur in eadem persona, vel illi subordinabatur: nunc autem cura religionis specialiter pastoribus Ecclesiae commissa est’. Canavan, pp. 363-4. It is the person of the sovereign who, in so far as he is baptised, is incorporated into the Church entirely and is indistinguishable from his functions. The same cannot be said for the State as an institution that is by its nature secular and not set up for a religious purpose. On the consequences of the theory of indirect power in the approach to the Church-State relationships of the modern period, see Figgis (b), p. 207 for an acute observation: But, there is another aspect, and this must have struck the Pope. If the Pope’s power in politics be only indirect, the civil power must have its own existence assured by rights other than Papal; it is in idea independent. Moreover, the Pope may interfere to protect his own subjects, but so may the ruler of any independent community, not as head of the whole organisation of which the civil State is but a part . . . In a word, the relations of Church and State are international; the Pope is no longer the head of one great community, of which the kingdoms are the provinces.

i 0

194

Notes to pages 26-8

43 See Journet (a), pp. 145-68; Murray; Sturzo, pp. 259-65; Tromp. The reference is to the fifth book of Bellarmino’s De romano pontifice (1, pp. 433-46), ‘De temporali, dominio et potestate eiusdem pontificis’. For the fact that Bellarmino's book was not put on the Index, and for the entire discussion of the potestas indirecta, see De Mattei, pp. 211-20 and 238-45. Bellarmino, 1, pp. 444—5, chapter 9 (in chapter 10 objections are rejected which recur in his opponents’ writings, based on the New Testament and on the De consideratione by St Bernard): ‘Non pugnare cum verbo Dei, ut unus homo sit princeps ecclesiasticus et politicus simul.’ 45 Ibid., p. 445. 46 Barclay, p. 75 (chapter 15): Yea that not so much as the Pope himselfe, is excluded and free from this temporall subiection for any other reason, but because that by the bountie of kings he hath been made a king himselfe, I meane a civill Prince, acknowledging no man for his superior in temporalties, and thus much doth that most eager patron of Ecclesiastike Jurisdiction. . . Wherefore not because he is cheefe Bishop, and spirituall father of all Christians, is he therefore exempted from temporall subiection, but because he possesseth a temporal principality, which is subiect to none. ES,

Thus again on p. 184 (chapter 34): The Pope hath no greater authoritie over Christian princes temporall, then he had before he was a temporall Prince himselfe. But before he was a temporall Prince, he had no temporall authoritie over them any way. Ergo, neither hath he now any over them.

On this argument relating to the pope’s indirect power in these early decades of the seventeenth century, see Martimort, pp. 64-70. 47 Bellarmino, v, p. 62 (‘Tractatus de potestate S. Pontificis in rebus temporalibus adversus G. Barclaium’, chapter 17). 48 Ibid., p. 63. 49 Ibid., p. 53 (chapter 11): ‘Hos igitur clarissimos, sacrosque viros Julius II imitatus, eorumque virtutem, et diligentiam aemulatus partim armis propriis,

50

51 52

53

partim auxilio foederatorum regum ecclesiasticam ditionem, fere totam amissam, magno labore recuperavit.’ James I, p. xii (introduction by C. H. McIlwain). See D'Avack; Oakley (c). For the argument on the oath of obedience, see the entire documentation in the appendix of Suarez’s edition (b). Bellarmino, v, p. 129 (‘Apologia . . . pro responsione sua ad librum Jacobi M. Britanniae regis cuius titulus est triplici nodo triplex cuneus'’). James I, p. 109 (‘triplici nodo triplex cuneus. Or an apologie for the oath of allegiance’). The Papal State is understandably absent in Campanella's call for an ‘armed papacy’ as the only possibility for the realisation of the universalistic concept in the West (Campanella, b, pp. 119-20 and 193-4): ‘... Papatus maioritas armata utilissima est christianis principibus dominatione temperatis, quoniam ipsorum discrepantias aequat, arbiter est pacis bellique iusti, et arma sua exercet pro illis qui iniuriam patiuntur . . .’ It was easy for Hugo Grotius to answer, recalling that history taught that the popes had given rise to, rather than appeased, the wars between the Christian princes, with the last case of the

i Notes to page 29

195

war of Mantua, and that the only safeguard of the European states lay in the balance of power: Edicta pontificum si quid valent, in invalidos accipitres. Quod non pridem res christiana sacerdotalis obstitit, sed Germanos impedierunt Hispanos, plane ut Turcam Persa et Tartarus.

valent: capiuntur muscae, transvolant sub unum venit imperium, non vis suae discordiae, Germania Gallos, Gallis (Campanella, (b), p. 242, no. 45.)

Hobbes, p. 362 (chapter 42): And therefore the second conclusion, concerning the best form of government of the Church, is nothing to the question of the Pope’s power without his own dominions. For in all other commonwealths his power, if he have any at all, is that of the schoolmaster only and not of the master of the family.

Ibid., p. 373: The commands of civil sovereigns are on all sides granted to be laws: if any else can make a law besides himself, all commonwealth, and consequently all peace and justice must cease; which is contrary to all laws both divine and human. Nothing therefore can be drawn from these, or any other places of Scripture, to prove the decrees of the Pope, where he has not also the civil sovereignty, to be laws.

Disputed cases are never between pope and bishops: But this whole dispute, whether Christ left the jurisdiction to the Pope only, or to other bishops also, if considered out of those places where the Pope has the civil sovereignty, is a contention de lana caprina: for none of them, where they are not sovereigns, has any jurisdiction at all.

The bishops receive the jurisdiction they have from their sovereigns: And as for that cause they have not their authority de iure divino; so neither hath the Pope his de iure divino, except only where he is also the civil sovereign. ~

Again in these same pages, it is stated that the pope has jurisdiction only ‘in his own dominions, or in the dominions of any other prince that hath given him that power’. On the development of the State’s ‘decisionist’ doctrine until Hobbes, see Schnur, who however does not take into consideration this aspect of the problem. A re-examination of the Machiavellian Italian influence on seventeenth-century English political thought could also be fruitful; ifit is true, as F. Raab wrote (p. 263) that in the sixteenth century the basis of English thought was still Christian, and in the seventeenth century the link was reversed and religion was the instrument of politics, and that Machiavelli ‘assisted materially at the birth of modern politics in England’, it is equally true that in English public opinion, Machiavelli appeared the embodiment of a way of thinking, and of an Italian political reality which had found its barycentre in Rome. For the problem in general, see Praz, pp. 97-151. 55 Hobbes, chapter 42. A few examples; p. 374: the pope has no jurisdiction ‘in the dominion of any other prince’; p. 377: ‘When it is said, the Pope hath not, in the territories of other states the supreme civil power directly . . .’; p. 383: it has been necessary to discuss Bellarmino’s ideas to a great extent, but this would have been much briefer had he been a private citizen ‘and not [as] the champion of the Papacy against all other Christian Princes and States’; p. 400

196

Notes to pages 29-31

(chapter 44): if the Church of Rome has the power of defining heresies, this can give birth to ruptures ‘between the political designs of the Pope, and other Christian Princes’. 56 Ibid., p. 458 (chapter 47): To this end, and such like resemblances between the papacy, and the kingdom of fairies may be added this, that as the fairies have no existence, but in the fancies of ignorant people, rising from the tradition of old wifes, or old poets: so the spiritual power of the Pope, without the bounds of his own civil dominion, consisteth only in the fear that seduced people stand in, of their excommunications; upon hearing of false miracles, false traditions, and false interpretations of the Scripture.

DI Ibid., p. 459: But who knows that this spirit of Rome, now gone out, and walking by missions through the dry places of China, Japan and the Indies, that yield him little fruit, may not return, or rather an assembly of spirits worse than he, enter, and inhabit this clean swept house, and make the end thereof worse than the beginning?

58 Prodi (j). 59 Alberigo (e). Ibid., (c). 61 De Dominis (a), in the introduction, pages unnumbered. Similar expressions, in which the aspect overcomes the moral judgement by arriving at a political identification, are frequent in this work, as for example on p. 609: Iam Ecclesia romana in curiam versa est saecularem . . . Et tamen nos episcopi, atque

metropolitani, non sine magna stultitia, nihilominus sponte etiam, nostra propria, et ordinaria negocia ad romanam curiam transmittimus; in qua non papa, non cardinales sed harpiae secretarii mercenarii gubernant ecclesiam universalem: papa enim cum cardinalibus in rebus temporalibus, tanquam longe maioris momenti, occupantur; divina et ecclesiastica parvi pendunt.

De Dominis (b), pp. 62-3: ‘In partem sollicitudinis pontificiae, non sunt amplius episcopi vocati, sed rerum temporalium officiales.’

62 Several allusions in Sarpi (d), for example in the letter to J. Leschassier of 13 May 1608: ‘Id olim a curia facile praestabatur, cum eius potestati a multis regionibus obediretur; nunc, in paucis cognita, velut antiperistasi intenditur, ut curiales tanta ex Italia, quanta olim ex Europa tota corradere velint’ (p. 13). 63 Sarpi (f), pp. 1224-75, with the conclusion: Nam si ad costituendum, quis iusto aut iniusto titulo dominetur, aliorum opiniones sequendae sint, eorum praesertim quorum interest, ad paucos principes orbis imperium redigeretur, et iamdudum unicus esset papa temporalis, et unicus rex spiritualis; nisi potius unus tantum idemque monarcha et spiritualis et temporalis.

Jemolo, in particular pp. 12-19 of the introduction, maintains that the roots of jurisdictionalism are not in the sixteenth century as within the Italian reform movement there was a complete lack of desire to change the State-Church: relationship. 65 For an overview of post-Tridentine problems, see Prodi (i). 66 For a first outline of biographical research, see R. Govoni's thesis ‘Il cardinale D.T. (1535-1620)' (Facoltà di Magistero dell’Università di Bologna, 1964-5).

Notes to pages

31-4

197

67 Toschi, vi, pp. 27-8 (article ‘papa’, concl. 40: ‘Papa quibus titulis nominetur et qualis esse debeat’). The general theory was recalled earlier, vol. 111, p. 550 (concl. 382): the princes have three kinds of possessions or patrimonies, nempe patrimonia reipublicae prout sunt castra, iurisdictiones, civitates, pedagia, et similia, quae spectant ad publicam dignitatem, et ad rempublicam . . . Secunda species patrimonia, et ista proveniunt ex confiscationibus, et mulctis . . . Tertia species sunt

bona propria, et singulare, seu particulare patrimonium, quod princeps ex sua probitate, vel prospera fortuna, vel etiam haereditario titulo habet . . . Extende, quod dictum est de triplici patrimonio regum, et principum, procedere etiam in papa.

68 Toschi, vi, p. 40 (article ‘papa’, concl. 74). 69 Barbosa, 1, pp. 81—90 (book 1, chapter 5). On Barbosa, see J. F. Schulte, 111/1, pp. 746-7.

70 Fagnani, I, p. 21 (1, ‘De constitutionibus’, can. 1, no. 92): the faithless are not placed under canons ‘nec mirum, nam nec laici fideles in mere temporalibus, et prophanis ligantur constitutionibus canonicis, nisi in terris Ecclesiae . . .' On Fagnani, see J. F. Schulte, 11/1, p. 458. VA! Fagnani, II, p. 268 (111, ‘De testamentis’, can. 10, nos. 13-14): ‘in aliis vero casibus ubi peccatum non imminet papa non potest infringere leges humanas quoad forum civile in locis ubi iurisdictionem temporalem non habet, cum potestates distinctae sunt...’

72 For De Luca, see below, chapter 4, pp. 63ff. HS; De Luca (e) xv/2, ‘Relatio romanae curiae forensis eiusque tribunalium et congregationum’ (there are 47 discourses in over 170 pages in folio); disc. 1: ‘Circa proemialia, super significatione scilicet vocabuli curia; et ex quibus romana curia constituatur; et de aliis generalibus, ad materiam eiusdem curiae et curialium’; disc. 2: ‘De papa, circa eius potestatem, ac personas, quas gerit’. The pope’s election, the consistory of cardinals and the various offices, congregations, and tribunals of the curia are discussed in the following

discourses. 74 Ibid., xv/2, p. 220 (disc. 1, no. 7). 75 Ibid., p. 221 (disc. 5, no. 8). 76 Ibid., p. 221 (disc. 1, no. 9): Potissime vero quia, licet dictae personae, vel respective curiae, inter se diversae sint,

diversamque speciem seu naturam habeant, adeout in plerisque, in quibis, uti princeps

temporalis, vel uti episcopus particularis statuit, pontificiam auctoritatem interposuisse

non censeatur, ut in suis sedibus, iuxta casuum contingentias pluries advertitur.

if Ibid., p. 221 (disc. 1, no. 9). The empirical approach was developed by De Luca

in (d) where it is stated that the argument made with regard to the princes in general was valid for the pope, disregarding his spiritual role: ‘that, however, to the pope and to the other subject prelates, and similar who possess temporal dominions in the same way as princes, these matters apply in the same way as to the other secular princes, without any mixture of spirituality’ (pp. 49-50), see below, chapter 4, note 29. 78 Ibid., p. 221 (disc. 1, no. 13): Non sic vero in curia romana, quae tota constitui dicitur per solum papam, qui non a

st

198

Notes to pages 34-40 populo, vel a republica, sed a Deo immediate, in iis quae ad Ecclesiae universalis regimen pertinent, potestatem métitur. Ideoque huius curiae tribunalibus, et magistratibus, nomen non congruit membrorum, quae idem corpus cum capite aeque efforment, sed potius nomen

famulorum,

vel ministrantium ei, qui unicus est dominus,

ac pater-

familias...

79 Ibid., p. 222 (disc. 2, no. 1): Retento eo, qui absque dubio in iure compatibilis est, pro respectuum diversitate, plurium personarum formalium concursu, in eadem persona materiali, ut in praecedenti discursu advertitur, plures in papa considerantur personae distinctae: una scilicet papae et episcopi Ecclesiae universalis; alia patriarchae Occidentis; tertia episcopi romani; et quarta principis saecularis Status ecclesiastici.

80 Ibid., p. 223 (disc. 2, no. 12): Circa quartam personam principis, ac domini temporalis Status ecclesiastici immediati ac mediati, quoties de superius enunciata voluntate non constat, interponendi scilicet etiam pontificalem auctoritatem, tunc in papalibus legibus, ac ordinationibus praefatum temporale dominium, vel regimen concernentibus, generaliter procedunt omnia ea, quae de iure statuta sunt in quolibet principe laico, super exemptione vel immunitate clericorum aliarumque ecclesiasticarum personarum a foro, et legibus ac oneribus laicalibus. Ideoque omnes questiones desuper cadentes facti ac voluntatis potius, quam iuris dicuntur, an scilicet alteram papalem, et apostolicam auctoritatem interponere, et commiscere voluerit . . .

81 Ibid., p. 224 (disc. 2, nos. 22-4). 82 Ibid., p. 231 (disc. 3, no. 40). 83 Neveu. 3.

Power and image

Caravale—Caracciolo. The first part of this volume, written by Caravale: see in particular, pp. 352-6. Delumeau (b). In reality this thesis had already been put forward, although not extended, by the most sound Italian historiography of the preceding generation; see, for example, Ercole, pp. 349-53: The formation in the lands of the Church, of a strong and compact unitary state, subject not only to the high sovereignty but to the direct government of the pontiff, could only happen in the sixteenth century, when, as it has already been noted, the people of every civitas had, tacitly and expressly, renounced their own right and, between the renunciation of the people and the rebirth of feudalism, monarchical despotism was

consolidated and spread.

i

It is useful to note that the spade-work achieved by Delumeau's earlier study (a) is at the root of this thesis. Prodi (g). wal

The vast bibliography concerned with the question will not be discussed here. The most balanced and penetrating summary is Cohn's introduction. Russell Major’s well-known argument with regard to Chabod, Trevor-Roper and Vives's theses on the Renaissance monarchy as the modern State is especially important. Tilly has an interesting view. The lack of analysis of the Italian institutional situation is especially clear in ‘La croissance’. See also Ferguson

Notes to pages 40-2

199

(a) and (b), Strayer, Anderson, and Poggi. The latest criticism in Malettke (b) and Strnad (d). With regard to the most studied case, France — apart from the studies already known, such as those of Mousnier (b), Guénée and Knecht — see Harding's new angle, focussed on the evolution of provincial governments. This lack is apparent in the classic works of Brunner (b), Hintze, and Oestreich, and is also clear in anthologies such as H. H. Hofmann's. Oestreich, pp. 179-97 (reprint of the study ‘Strukturprobleme des europàischer Absolutismus’). See, for example, Rusell Major's discussion in Harbison, p. 17. A recent review of this in Stieber, pp. 410-37. Burke, p. 229: It is likely that the bureaucratic elements developed in Italy earlier than in other parts of Europe. The concept of ‘state’ was more likely to develop in a city-republic, where there was no individual person to focus loyalties . . . It seems as reasonable to speak of a ‘revolution in government’ in Renaissance Italy as in Tudor England. Burckhardt's language has an old-fashioned ring today, but in his chapter on ‘the state as a work of art’ he put his finger on the same salient features of political organisations as Max Weber did, and noted their early development in Italy. To the (limited) extent that the bureaucratic mode of domination had developed, it is useful to speak of a ‘Renaissance state’.

10 ll 12 iS

14

. For the general picture in Italy, see the classic but still valid approach given to the problem by Astuti, Chittolini, and Fasano-Guarini. With regard to other useful studies, see the well-known one on Florence by Martines in which (p. 331) the reference to Burckhardt's thesis on Italy as the West's political laboratory is quite clear. Ferguson (b), p. 165. Guicciardini (a), Iv, p. 280 (book xvi, chapter 3). Botero (b), p. 108. Alberi, 11/4, p. 397 (Paolo Paruta’s report of 1595). On the situation of the Papal State in the late Middle Ages, see De Vergottini, Dupré Theseider, Ermini, Guiraud, Jones, Larner, Partner (b), Vasina (a), Waley. For up-to-date bibliography see Walsh (a) and (b), Caravale-Caracciolo and Vasina (b). If Pastor’s History of the Popes appears rarely in this and the following chapters, it is not because the extraordinary collection of information which it contains has been underestimated, but rather because reading and re-reading it is regarded as one of the invisible foundations to the argument which is being developed here. See Toews’s stimulating conclusions in (d), p. 284: Both during and after Nicholas’ pontificate the papacy, in its interaction with the states of Europe, gradually acquired many of the characteristics and political operative principles of those states, either by imitation or initiation. The issue was rarely one affecting ecclesiastical dogma. It was much more a question of accommodation to current political pressures in the interests of maintaining a historic identity. For Nicholas this accommodation meant the consolidation of the patrimony of St Peter as a state, though the patronage of culture constituted a part of this commitment, it did not play the determining role which its tangible splendor suggested. Only as later popes accepted Nicholas’ basic operative principle were their reigns crowned with some degree of success. In choosing to function as a fifteenth-century state they also agreed to pay the

200

Notes to pages 42-3 price of being such a state. Whenever a pope chose to confine or subvert the papacy’s capacity as a Renaissance state, its fundamental stability was in jeopardy.

Pleyer has already brought to light the fact that the State was at the centre of Nicholas V’s concerns and that this had constituted a decisive turn in the papacy’s history. 15 Westfall. 16 Piccolomini (d), Iv, p. 551 (in book vin of the Commentarii). Pius IL is a central figure in the passage from the theorisation of the papal monarchy to its political embodiment as sovereign (see Totaro’s introductory observations). The fact that the Commentarii were not published between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, despite plans for publication, until the 1614 edition in Frankfurt (Piccolomini, a) may mean that embarrassment could have been caused by the prominence given in them to the aspect of principality; this deserves further study. 174 Schmidinger (a), p. 129: Schliesslich erweist sich aber gerade die ‘mittelalterliche’ Richtung im Portrat seit Nikolaus V (1447-55) stark genug, von der Renaissancebewegung, eine kirchenfreundliche Richtung abzuspalten, die dem Papstum dienstbar wird und es mit allen seinen Mitteln im Sinne der Zeit, wenn auch nicht gerade heilig, so doch gewaltig, wornehm und majestatisch macht.

18 O'Malley (b), particularly pp. 126-7: Giles habitually speaks of the Church in terms which, though in some cases mediated through Scripture, ultimately were borrowed from politics. The Church is queen, kingdom and empire, the apostles are princes. The most direct identification occurs when Giles speaks of the senate and people of Rome as synonymous with the Roman and Christian religion.

19 Cf. Weinstein. An interesting theme and one with important reflections on this question concerns the conflict between Florence’s glorious civic myth and Rome's emerging one. See De Roover, pp. 87-100 (for the fourteenth-century precedents of the relations between Florence and the papacy, see Brucker and Trexler). On the more specific question of the influence of Florence on the new lines of papal policy in the time of Nicholas V, see Westfall, p. 84. 20 O’Malley (c), pp. 265-322. In the preceding pages, Giles had mentioned the endeavours carried out by Eugenius VI and his successors for the papacy’s political power, with a strong emphasis on the continuity, even amongst failures, of the various pontificates; and in the final peroration (pp. 337-8) he recalls the submission of Perugia and Bologna alongside the splendours of the war against the infidels, the only common problem being subjection to the pope-king’s power: . Nam cum tria sint genera eorum qui gubernandi sunt — alii principibus obtemperant semper; alii, quod quandoque non paruerint, veniam petunt; nonnulli nec parent nec

veniam petunt unquam — optimi principis est primis quidem pacem, secundis veniam

dare, alios bellica necessitate domare. Tu haec tria assecutus, ter publicas supplicationes statuis.

Cf. also O'Malley (a) and (d).

Notes to pages 44-6

201

21 O'Malley (e). J. Arthos’s observations on an early description of this research, in Trinkhaus—Oberman, pp. 481-2, are still interesting (‘The Ambiguities of Pope Julius and his Rome’): ‘. . . Julius, by all the testimony, and by the evidence of his bequests, counted more on the glory of the papacy than of his family. The buildings, the paintings and sculptures, the tiara were the future of the Church. It was not only power he wanted for the papacy, it was glory.’ 22 The image of a historical cycle characterised by efforts to build the State and to bring about its ideological justification comes out of Rodocanachi, with all its well-known limitations; Miintz (a) was the first to collect together the fragments of cultural interference but his work has not been pursued further. 23 See Ettlinger, whose central thesis is summarised in the conclusion (p. 117): In the political field this demand could no longer be seriously maintained, but since the pontificate of Pius II the popes were supreme again within their Church. The pictures of the Sistine Chapel — and it is significant that they include papal portraits — celebrate this victory of the monarchical principle of the conciliar heresy.

24 25 26 27. 28

See also Smith, p. 92: Sixtus IV had celebrated the victory of the monarchical papacy — ‘the emphasis on Moses in the Casino's decoration suggests that this thinking was still very much alive during the pontificate of Pius IV’. ‘Burke, p. 165. Schroter. Harprath. Preimesberger. Butzek: philologically laborious but of great interest also since, despite not being up to date on the question of the Papal State (and in general on the origins of the modern State), it comes to conclusions which perfectly match the theme dealt with here of the passage from the ‘Ehrenstatuen’, still anchored to the communal autonomies, to the ‘Herrschaftsmonumente’, the manifestation of the new central power (see in particular the summary on pp. 323-31).

I 29 Westfall, pp. 20ff. 30 Wasner. This is in fact a good collection of documentation but one which

contains no interpretative investigation. See also Dykmans.

ai Nabuco, introduction. This research had as its starting-point a letter from

Guglielmo Sirleto to Carlo Borromeo in 1575 (the jubilee year and in full postTridentine reformation), in which the question is posed of the change in papal ceremonial after Nicholas V and of the end of pastoral liturgy in the Renaissance. 32 Nabuco, p.43. The aim of the research is the comparative study ‘de nos pompes papales, qui datent de la Renaissance, et de la liturgie romaine encore pastorale, qui se maintint jusqu'au temps de Nicolas V et peu après’. It should

be added that Nabuco did not perceive the political elements implied by these observations. 33 Schimmelpfennig (a) and (b). 34 Ibid. (b), p. 250; Stieber, p. 333. of 35 Cancellieri. A similar argument should be developed regarding the evolution no which for see, empty the to related those the funeral rites and generally of

202

Notes to pages 46-8

references have been found. Elze's essay is a good example with regard to the medieval precedents and methodology. 36 Payne; Mitchell, especially for the entry into Rome of Julius II after the victorious campaign for the recovery of Bologna in 1507 (pp. 9 and 114-15): ‘And in the case of Rome and the States of the Church, nearly all state occasions were ecclesiastical ones as well. In the triumphal return of Pope Julius Il in 1507, secular and religious motifs are quite inextricably tangled in the artistic and dramatic presentations.’ The argument should be further extended from the extraordinary manifestations to the evolution of the annual celebrations such as the carnival which from Paul II on, far from being a mere demonstration of becoming worldly, takes on the aspect of a political instrument used to extinguish the remaining flames of the municipal spirit; Rodocanachi (a), p. 151. Strong gives special attention to the ecclesiastical legacy which was a feature of the ‘liturgy of State’ of the early modern period (pp. 21-2), but entirely passes over papal Rome in his summary of the ‘theatre of power’. As does Frances Yates. 37 Schramm, |, particularly on pp. 62-3. Strangely enough, Hartung paid no attention to the evolution ofthe papal tiara in his study of the crown asa symbol of power at the end of the Middle Ages. ; 38 Muntz (b), who believed (for example, p. 311) that the changes were not symbolic but only the evolution of taste — there are strong reasons for doubting this statement (dating from the end of the last century) even if we lack documentation necessary for the development of the new hypothesis. See Miglio, pp. 121-53 for the importance of Paul II’s pontificate in the use of the tiara: On the new political use of the traditional gifts of the golden rose and sword annually given by the pope to personalities in the Christian world, see Cornides (particularly pp. 65-6). 39 Elias; Kruedener; Reinhardt; Strong, who also speaks ofa ‘liturgy of state’, heir to the medieval Church celebrations (pp. 21-2). From 1978 the volumes have been issued edited by the ‘Europa delle corti’ study centre which has proposed an interdisciplinary approach to the theme: interesting essays on methodological introduction by A. Tenenti, A. Stegmann and C. Ossola are to be found at the beginning of vol. 1. Quondam, p. 167, no. 42. Montaigne, pp. 284 and 302. On the ‘villa’ as the new social and urban pole of the courtly nobility, see Coffin. On which we have the old studies of Ferrajoli (a) and Dorez which could perhaps be useful today. On the need for an analysis of the intellect ual world which coagulates within the papal court between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries — see also De Caprio and Quondam. Lee’s short study of Sixtus IV’s court appears to contain nothing new. For the precedin g period, see Guillemain for a remarkable study of the papal court at Avignon ; here the ° question of the parallel development of the papal court and of those of the emerging nations is raised (pp. 697-723).. 43 Prosperi (c) for the entire discussion on the Roman courtier; see also the classic essays of Cantimori (b) and Dionisotti (pp. 55-8), ‘Chierici e laici”.

Notes to page 49

203

44 Apart from Delumeau (b), already cited, see, as examples of recent scholarship which have shed light on some aspects of this policy, Trame and Mallett (a). 45 Apart from the well-known eleventh chapter of The Prince, ‘Nevertheless, if anyone should inquire of me how it is that the Church has achieved such grandeur, in so far as, up to Alexander's time, the Italian potentates, and not only those who called themselves potentates but every baron and lord, even the most minor, regarded it as nothing, and now a king of France trembles before it .. .’ Machiavelli, p. 37), in chapter 30 of the Istorie fiorentine, he discusses the granting of the patrimony of the Church to the signori, as vicars, Machiavelli comments ‘which up till Alexander VI kept the Church weak; which, in our times, with the ruin of their descendants gives [the Church] back its authority’ (Machiavelli, p. 403). The subject is resumed similarly in Guicciardini’s Storie fiorentine, chapter 24, as an estimate of Alexander VI’s pontificate: . . . his successes were often greater than his plans; and, beginning with Rome, once he had destroyed the wretched Orsini, Colonna and Savelli, and those Roman barons who were in the habit of being held by other pontiffs, he was the most absolute lord of Rome as no other pope had been; with the greatest of ease, he obtained the signorie of Romagna, the Marches and of the duchy; and as he made a very beautiful and powerful state, the Florentines feared it greatly, and the Venetians mistrusted it, and the king of France admired it. Having put together a good army, he showed how great was the power of a pope when he had a brave captain whom he could trust; finally he even became the. balance of the war between France and Spain; in fact he was more wicked and happier than perhaps any other pope had been for centuries’ (Guicciardini, e, p. 352).

Similar expressions are to be found in the Storia d’Italia with regard to the following pontificates of Julius Il and Leo X. With regard to the former: He would certainly have been worthy of the greatest glory if he had been a secular prince, or if that care and attention which he had to exalt the Church in temporal grandeur with the arts of war he had had to exalt it in spiritual matters with the arts of peace: and yet, he was, above all his predecessors, of the most illustrious and honoured renown; particularly compared to those who, the true words of the matters having been lost, and the distinction to weigh them correctly being confused, judge that it is more the popes’ duty to add, with the weapons and blood of Christians, empire to the apostolic see than to strive, with the good example of life and with correcting and healing erroneous customs, for the health of those souls for which they exalt that Christ had made them his vicars on earth. (Guicciardini, a, 111, p. 257)

In 1521 Leo X, arbitrator of Italian politics, courted by France and by the Empire (book xiv, chapter 1), ‘tranquilly possessed and with the greatest obedience the very large state of the Church, and Rome and the whole court was placed in great abundance and joy, in full authority over the state of Florence, a powerful and very rich state in those times . . . (Guicciardini, a, IV, p. 78). i 46 Boccalini (fasc. 11, report 27), 11, p. 83; and (in the following report 52) adds that the popes ‘. . . not only severely mortified the arrogant Perugians, the disorderly Spoletans, the turbulent Romagnolans, the seditious Ascolans, the bloody Marchigians, but even the Roman families were punished in some way, who were frightened by the sight of a bogey; for those reasons, the subjects of

204

47

48

49 50

51 52

53

54

Notes to pages 49-51 the Church state thought they lived in very tranquil peace’ (Boccalini, 111, p. 155). For a survey of the relationship between the popes and the nobility of the State, see Mistruzzi, Pericoli, C. Weber, pp. 12-22; and Chapter 4, below, pp. 71. Black's latest investigations (d) into Perugia are extremely useful. For Bologna and Romagna, see De Benedictis, Fanti, Giacomelli, Melandri and Tocci. For the Marches, Molinelli, Paci, Anselmi and Zenobi (a). For the specific discussion on the ‘chapters’ of Nicholas V with the city of Bologna, see Orlandelli and Bartolotti. For the Papal State parliaments, see Cecchi and Marongiu (a), pp. 256-63, 359-69 and 425-9. There has been a remarkable development in recent years in the studies on papal provincial administration in the Church State which adds to our knowledge substantially and will shortly have to be recognised (see among others R. Volpi, Le regioni introvabili: centralizzazione e regionalizzazione nello Stato pontificio, Bologna, 1983). Colliva (a) and Verardi Ventura seem to come up against this inaccurate view when they state that the entire constitutional life of Bologna for three and a half centuries developed from Nicholas V’s chapters and from the pacts which were stipulated in 1447 between the pope and Bologna, and that this ‘resulted therefore in blocking the process of becoming a state’ (Colliva, a, p. 20). Dal Pane was more cautious in this direction, p. 191. Guicciardini (a), 11, p. 181 (book vu, chapter 3). Rodocanachi (b); the conclusion is that in the mid-seventeenth century (p. 332) ‘l’administration capitoline n'existait plus que de nom, et par la seule vertu de résistance a l’anéantissement qu’ont les institutions anciennes’. In 1634 Gigli noted unhappily in his diary (p. 144), ‘the majesty of the Roman people is reduced to this end’; Gigli’s diary is particularly interesting as a witness to the frustration of the old city ruling class. Other reports on the city of Rome are to be found in the general histories by Paschini (a), Pecchiai, Petrocchi (b). See Del Re (a), (c), and (e) for research on the particular institutions. See Delumeau’s conclusions (a). Manetti, pp. 952-3; Miglio, pp. 21-2 and passim; cf. also Frutaz, and Rodocanachi (c) who ends his discussion on the decline, at the end of the sixteenth century, of the great importance which Castel Sant’ Angelo had had in the preceding period as the pivot of papal power, with the following words (p. 186): ‘Le salut du Saint Siège ne dépendait plus du Chateau Saint-Ange; les ennemis du dehors ne menagaient plus la ville et il n’y avait plus dans Rome de parti assez puissant pour inquiéter la papauté.’ The activity of Rodrigo Sanchez de Arévalo under Paul II in the 1460s is particularly important in this evolution; see Laboa, pp. 81-127, and Trame, pp. 121-2. Westfall, p. ix. On the more general level of political thought, but without reference to the concrete growth of the State, see H. Bauer. oe Benevolo, chapter 2. See Esch who emphasises the inexplicable factor of the Roman Renaissance, in the turning-point of the mid-fifteenth century, with an economics-orientated explanation: ‘Die Kunst der Renaissance ist in Rom als Hofkunst von Anfang an und wird es nicht erst . . Denn nun gehorst Rom

"Ra

Notes to pages 51-2

205

dem Papst, und er ergreift es: auch der Papst wird zum Fiirsten und formt seine Umwelt nach seinem Bilde.’ For seventeenth-century building policy, see Scavizzi (a) and (b). 55 Westfall, for example, on p. 20: ‘Nicholas’ settling into the Vatican represented the pope’s turning from the temporally oriented Church that Dante had excoriated; St Peter’s was just as Constantinian as the Lateran, but its authority was Petrine and apostolic rather than imperial and associated with the bishopric of Rome.’ The separation from the Lateran can be judged in fact as separation from a dominant imperial ideology and from the episcopal role; this does not, however, mean separation from temporal power but, on the contrary, the State’s relationship of power of a new kind with the city and territory.

56 See the latest studies by Mallett (b) passim, and G. Lutz (b). The latter essay contains the only attempt to summarise the developments of the papal army up until 1667; see this also for bibliographical references. af For the structure of the papal army, we have only Da Mosto’s old studies; from archival documentation it seems certain that research would yield fruitful results in this particularly neglected area. 58 See, to quote only one example of the importance and modernity of the new organisational modules, the motivation of the powers already granted in 1431 by Eugenius IX to Giacomo Caldera, the commissioner for the military expedition in Campania: Nos esse condignum et utile extimantes in dicto exercitu ecclesie ecclesiasticam hinc personam, et prelatum maxime nobis fidum, prudentem et in agendis expertum, qui voluntatem et conceptus nostros intelligens et aliorum consilia, qui nobis consulunt et assistunt, illa communicet, cum quibus communicanda cognoverit, ita ut [sperantes] in deo et in nostra iusticia intentum nostrum celeriter consequamur . . . (Theiner, I, pp. 301 and 304)

The commissioners’ powers were then extended by Calixtus III in 1455 and in 1461 by Pius II (Theiner, 111, pp. 392 and 416) with a development which is well worth studying. We can already correct in every case G. Lutz's statement (b, p. 173) which sees this presence documented only from the beginning of the seventeenth century. 59 Mallett (b), pp. 216—24. It is significant that the papacy had at the same time recourse to the Swiss Guard not only as a fortuitous mercenary army, but asa stable body, a faithful and strong guarantee in the face of the continuous hostile moves attempted by the aristocracy of the Papal State, Rodocanachi (f), p. 35. Mallett (b), p. 256: The pope still had an army, but it was small, its components fluctuated, its traditions were few; it had been able to do little to save Rome from sack by the imperialists in 1527. While it would certainly be wrong to end a history of Italian warfare in the Renaissance in 1494, it would be equally wrong to try to continue it beyond 1530.

61 See the conclusions of Pieri’s classic work. 62 Albrecht (b).

206

Notes to pages 52-5

63 See the final pages of G. Lutz (b). For Benedict XIV’s awareness of the situation

65

66

67 68 69

70 Tt

72 73

in the mid-eighteenth century, cf. also Prodi (m). The Guglielmotti volumes contain much information and could be resumed apropos of Braudel’s Mediterranean suggestions, and in their turn could introduce new elements in the relative argument. Hale; Hale-Highfield-Smalley (pp. 466-94, essay by J. R. Hale, ‘The early development of the bastion: an Italian chronology c. 1450-c. 1534’). Piccolomini (b), pp. 524—5. Stefano Infessura’s diary (p. 134) reveals interesting testimony on the artillery as the protagonist of the war against the barons under Sixtus IV’s pontificate: ‘. . . and whereas in other periods the holy apostles aimed to win over the people to the faith and Christian devotion with miracles, preaching and the sign of the holy cross, they now conquer them with bombardments and cerebottane and other instruments of battle’. Carocci, pp. 147-52. See Paglia on this last point. On this subject in general, see Bossy and Reinhard (g). There is nothing on the Papal State in particular. It is interesting to note that recent studies seem to reverse earlier common agreement over the backwardness of the Papal State’s institutions in contrast to those north of the Alps with regard to the organisation of welfare, giving new elements in the understanding both of the influence exerted by the Roman institutions in their expansion in the early modern period and of the later decline. See the volume Timore e carità, in particular E. Cheney’s essay on the reports of the English travellers. Rotondò; Prosperi (d); Prodi (j). Laemmer (a) (appendix 1: ‘Memorie storiche degli archivi della S. Sede’, G. Marini), pp. 440-57; Sickel, 1, pp. 12-17; Duca—A. S. Familia, which contains Sixtus V’s legislative texts which show a clear awareness of the politico-State significance of the measures for the reorganisation of the archives; A. Lodolini. Grisar (b). Ameyden (a), p. 194. The following observation (p. 202) is interesting in the light of what has been said above concerning the decadence and insignificance of the old papal military offices of the seventeenth century: ‘. . . Caeterum, quia urbs Roma, omnium communis parens, pietate potius quam armis rem

gerit, parum praefati ministri in munere habent negotii, licet ex maiestate sit, eos in omne tempus substinere’. See Romani for the question of the number of pilgrims to Rome in the jubilee years. 74 Delumeau (c) (also, earlier, Barbieri). On the role of the European and Italian capital in Rome between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, see, amongst others, Bullard, De Roover, Poliakov, Schulte, Gilbert (c).

i 75) Delumeau (a). 76 On the much-discussed problem of the economic decline and Italian ‘failure’ which includes the development of the Papal State, see Hohenberg—Krantz (particularly for C. Cipolla’s remarks and the wide bibliographical view) and Santosuosso (a). On the more general problems of the ideological origins of the economical and fiscal policy of the European states, see Muller-Armack's classic study, which does not however look closely at Italy, and notes only that

Notes to pages 56-7

207

in the Papal State, as in the German principalities, every attempt towards ‘State-building’ fails because of the supremacy of the ecclesiastical hierarchy and rejection of the innovations introduced by the Reformation (p. 143); the conclusion (pp. 145-6) is that Italy remained closed for centuries in its stagnation, excluded from any mercantile development, until Cavour arrived, a descendant of a Huguenot family . . . 77 C. Bauer (a) and (b). 78 Caracciolo; Caravale (b); Grisar (a); Monaco (b), (c), and (d); Partner (a), (c), (f); Reinhard (c) and (d). See Basini, pp. 47-59, for a summary of the situation of the Papal State within the picture of the public finance of the Italian states. BS: Lunt (a), 1, particularly pp. 14-15: The principal source of additional income which the Camera was able to utilize was

supplied by the States of the Church. In the second half of the fifteenth century the papacy, by depriving lords and communes of the practical independence they had long enjoyed, made itself again the effective ruler of the patrimony. The recovery of political authority resulted in a notable increase of the revenue . . . The interest of the Camera centered to a corresponding extent in the administration of this Italian state. As a consequence it lost something of the universal aspect which had given it such prominence in the fourteenth century.

80 81

82

83 84

- and again on pp. 57-60. Hofmann, pp. 309-24, from his research into the chancellery, lays a different emphasis on the effort of the apostolic camera, between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, to weigh the cost of the papacy’s political undertakings on Christendom and not on the State, a position which was to be reversed a few decades later. Partner (f), in particular pp. 58-9. This is the central argument in Carocci, whose interesting hypothesis, even if not developed in depth, can still be useful for research in this field. Cf. also Palermo. An example is the dispatch of Cardinal Tolomeo Gallio, in Gregory XIII’s name, to the nuncio at Graz, Germanico Malaspina, in reply to pressing demands for subsidies for the Archduke Charles: ‘Therefore I say again to Your Lordship that Our Lord has never refused nor refuses to help His Highness and he would sooner let the temporal matters of the Church state suffer and subtract from his own ease than that His Highness should lack where he has true need . . .’ (Nuntiaturberichte, Sonderreihe: Grazer Nuntiatur, 11, p. 303). For the taxes of the Papal State in the modern period, see Delumeau (a), II, pp. 824-43; Monaco (b) and (d). For the medieval situation, see Lunt (a), I, pp. 57-60. Little research has been done into the local reality for which there are only a few probes in Rotelli, Caravale (a), and Moschetti (the last in particular on pp. 227-53). Favier. Mann, pp. 38-50. In the early modern period, the basic idea is still that the application of fiscal taxation was an accessory with regard to the sovereign’s financial-patrimonial system; in connection with this question the clause in the bull ‘in coena Domini’ condemning the princes who ‘in terris suis nova pedagia imponunt vel prohibita exigunt’, ought to be reviewed (see Prodi, a, p. 477, for the example relating to the duke of Milan, Massimiliano Sforza).

208

Notes to pages 57-61

85 The reference is to the general studies shown in the preceding pages and particularly to Delumeau (a), 11, pp. 751-824; and Piola Caselli. The summary and the most up-to-date bibliography is in Partner (f). For the doctrine of the sale of offices in medieval canon law, particularly interesting for the contribution given by the Church structure to the development of this institution, see Lefebvre (a). It has already been emphasised (Swart, pp. 82-6) that Rome was ahead of the European states in organising the system of the sale of offices even from the thirteenth century; what has still to be investigated more thoroughly is the relationship between the increase of the offices themselves from the beginning of the second half of the fifteenth century and the new State dimensions of the papal monarchy. On the sale of offices in general, see Mousnier. 86 Monaco (a). 87 Manetti, p. 957. 88 Bastiaanse, p. 359. 89 Gigli, p. 329.

4

The legal system

La Mantia, 1, pp. 461-532. There are references also in Pertile, 1 (passim), and in Del Giudice, pp. 45-51. Menestrina's is still the only specific work onaaa lawsuits. Besta, pp. 174-5. Leicht, pp. 255-6. Marongiu (b), pp. 288-96; it should however be pointed out that the bibliography given at the end of this work reflects the gap in our knowledge and is also somewhat slapdash. Spizzichino; Del Re (b). The ‘paternity’ of Moroni’s famous Dizionario is still visible in these works. Astuti, 1, p. 76 (preliminary considerations). This fundamental study is a solid infrastructure for understanding questions which will merely be alluded to in the present work. Apart from the works already cited in Chapter tisee Ourliac (b) and (c) on the Church’s basic laws as models for the secular monarchies. Piano Mortari (a), in particular chapter 5, pp. 131ff. For the French example consult the copious bibliography of Piano Mortari (b); Gaudemet. Piano Mortari (c), p. 65, at the beginning of his analysis of various Italian states, suggests that a similar phenomenon ‘would be fully visible even if our aim were to reconstruct the history of the Papal State at that time’. On the earlier historical maturing of the question of humanistic culture see Ascheri (b), who concludes that in Italy and in Rome political power and social forces failed to link up and carry forward the new historico-juridical project: Hence the failure of the meeting between humanism and law, the permanence of medieval common Roman-canon law, the most suitable for a political world which lacked initiative and innovative programmes, yielded to conservatism and was accustomed to making policies daily, in order simply to survive, to last.

Notes to pages 61-3

10 ll

12 13 14

209

Whilst agreeing with the final failure of this process, we should be wary of disregarding its experience which had important results despite the fact that these found fertile ground in which to mature fully only beyond the Alps. In any case, it is impossible to say that medieval common Roman-canon law continued to dominate the Italian scene without problems in the early modern period. Lefebvre-Pacaut—Chevailler. Coing, 11/2; the part concerning Italy (and thus the Papal State, pp. 135-45) is by F. Ranieri; other reports are contained in the same volume in Ascheri’s study (a, pp. 1134-42) on legal literature and the collections of consilia. Calisse; Carloni Mocavero. Ermini (f), xm. See Prodi (i) for an introduction to this theme. For the more general question of the reciprocal contributions between canon law and civil law in the modern period, see Prosdocimi (b). It is also useful to remember here the utopian proposal put forward by Campanella for a universal codification on a canonical base, consequent to the union of all the Italian princes with Rome: Therefore all the Roman and common laws must first be made to cease, and no longer be. printed, and only the canon [ones] authorised, and add what is lacking, and then make a brief deuteronomy of all the Decrees, Decretals, Sextus, Clementinae and Extravagantes in vernacular, in order that not so much time and glosses are needed to study it, and that the people are not deceived by legal sophistry. (Campanella, c, p. 163)

Campanella (d) propounds the same idea, pp. 158-9: Item et leges civiles abrogabuntur, canonicae solum in usu erunt, sed non tot codicibus, ut sunt repetitae et saepe abrogatae ab aliis pontificibus, ab aliis stabilitae et tot bullis confarcinatae, et codicibus multis sparsae et glosis adumbratae, sed reducentur in breve Deuteronomium facile ut quilibet subito eas intelligat, et non sint nobis frenum, sed doctrina.

15 Thireau, p. 300. 16 See Riesenberg; Ascheri (a); Gorla. 17 For the moment, it is still necessary to resort to fragmentary references: J. F. Schulte III/1, pp. 487-8; N. Del Re in Novissimo Digesto Italiano, v, p. 420; Coing 11/1, pp. 233, 264-5 (where references to the editions of De Luca’s works are to be found) as well as Rapolla’s old biography. With regard to the questions under consideration here, little seems to be added by Ermini’s recent essays (i), (j), (k) on various aspects of De Luca’s juridical teaching; the conclusions of the second of these essays, which present De Luca as defender ‘of the greatest Roman papal power against every reductive attitude inspired by king, princes and lords, so frequent during his time’ (p. 443) are quite off the mark. According to La Mantia (p. 711), De Luca fell into disgrace both on account of his originality as well as for ‘his adherence to the opinions about the Gallican Church’s ancient privileges’. Cerchiari defines him as the bitter enemy of the rota (1, p. 132; 11, pp. 436-7) and noted (11, p. 189) the passage in a rota diary which made evident on the day of De Luca’s death, 5 February 1683, the ill-will ofthe curials against him: ‘Vir subtilis, sed inquieti ingenii: qui, dum cuncta ad normam suit Theatri efformare ac reformare ardenter studuit, in ipso

;

oeEal

210

Notes to pages 64-6

efformandi et reformandi ardore implanctus decessit: felicior si ad tantam dignitatem numquam evectus fuisset.’ Interesting and more complex perspectives are opened up in Neveu's article on the reform of Innocent XI: De Luca as moving spirit of the commission set up by the Odescalchi pope and because of this, the true and widespread hatred towards him in Rome shown at his death. 18 A summary outline of the eighteen books or volumes of the Theatrum (e) may be useful to the reader (of which the Dottor volgare, a, is the transposition in the vernacular): 1: ‘De feudis et bonis iurisdictionalibus’; 11: ‘De regalibus’; 111: ‘De iurisdictione et foro competenti’; Iv: ‘De servitutibus praedialibus, usufructu et utroque retractu’; v: ‘De usuris et interesse’ (in which part 4 is particularly interesting with regard to the curia: ‘De societatibus officiorum’); vi: ‘De dote’; vil: ‘De donationibus’; viti: ‘De credito et debito’; rx: ‘De testamentis’; x: ‘De fideicommissis, primogenituris et maioratibus’; xt: ‘De legatis’; x1: ‘De beneficiis ecclesiasticis’; x11: ‘De iurepatronatus, de pensionibus ecclesiasticis’; xIv: ‘De regularibus et monialibus’; xv: ‘De iudiciis et iudicalibus’ (part 1, ‘De iudiciis et de praxi curiae Romanae’; part 2, already quoted, ‘Relatio Romanae curiae forensis’); xvi: ‘Repertorium seu index generalis totius Theatri'; xvi: ‘Tractatus de officiis venalibus vacabilibus Romanae curiae’; xvi: ‘Commentaria ad constitutionem Innocentii XI de statutariis successionibus’. 19 Giannone, p. 373 (in the introduction to the Istoria civile ‘... who... has shown countlessly not from other causes the many blunders of our authors to be derived if not from the ignorance of legal history . . .’) and p. 1101 (letter to Carlo Giannone, 24 August 1726): for a full evaluation see, of course, Ricuperati. Pilati (a), p. iii (cf. Venturi (b), 11, p. 259). 20 De Luca (e), xv/1, p. 108, disc. 35, no. 2. 21 Ibid., p. 110, disc. 35, no. 8: Hodie vero tanta est diversitas, quod non solum peritissimi ac primarii professores unius civitatis, vel principatus, quodammodo irrisione digni sunt apud professores alterius; sed quod magis est, in una eademque civitate illi professores, qui in aliquibus tribunalibus versantur, peritissimi quidem sunt in illis materiis, quae in iis tribunalibus aguntur, prorsus autem inexpertis in aliis.

22, 26 24 25

Ibid., p. 110, disc. 35, no. 10. Ibid., p. 111, disc. 35, no. 24. Fagnani, 1/1, p. 641, (de pactis, can. 1, nos. 25-30). Ibid., p. 113, disc. 35, no. 37. De Luca confirms the idea of the superiority of Papal State law in his work of vulgarisation (a, pp. 91-2): ‘the law of the principality prevails over common law’. As a matter of theoretical interest, we could take as an example the subjection of Jews of the Papal State to canon-State law: with the development of the State, the traditional exemption of the Jews from canon legislation was overturned and led to an ambiguous situation, from tolerance during the Renaissance to repression by the popes of the Counter-Reformation from Paul IV on (see Rodocanachi, a, especially pp. 308-9; Milano, pp. 236-92: Poliakov, pp. 241-69). 26 De Luca (e), xvi.

Notes to pages 66-7

PAIA

were __eoors_mtgrg1.1t1 nm rr tt€€@

27: De Luca (e) xvr/2, p. 11, no. 11. 28 Ibid. . « « Illa verba status tam immediati quam mediati adiici solent respectu illorum oppidorum, castrorum et locorum, quae iure minoris feudi proprii vel improprii possidentur per barones et domicellos, quorum dominium est tantum utile, magisque subordinatum alto et directo dominio quod pleno iure est penes papam, adeout tanquam perpetuorum gubernatorum figuram potius quam feudatariorum facere, vel personam gerere dicantur, ac propterea talia loca dici non possunt dismembrata a principatu, et constituere diversam et separatam ditionem, et sic quaedam mediatio impropria, cuius

tamen mentio fieri solet ad dirimendam omnem questionem, quae forte antiquioribus temporibus vigere solebat, quando huiusmodi barones aliquam de facto sibi assumere solebant maiorem licentiam . . .

29 De Luca (e), xvmi/5, p. 29, no. 1. Further research into the treatment which De Luca gives this theme in his vernacular works would be interesting: in the Dottor volgare the point of departure is the discussion of the fact that a jurist has to deal with the political themes: ‘They are politics and law, the two wheels with which the chariot ofthe republic must drive at any time’ (p.8) and politics do not resolve themselves in State reason; in the Principe cristiano pratico it is pointed out that the discussion ‘will be mainly about civil government, and economic rather than political’ (p.45), and therefore what is interesting is not the secrets of State reason but fiscal policy and economics (tax and duty, mines, fairs and markets, agriculture, etc.), cultural policy, etc. On De Luca's political reflections, see De Mattei, pp. 8, 161, 186 and passim. 30 Ibid., xvi1/8, p. 33, no. 6: Sed in una eademque ditione, imo in una eademque provincia, vel uno eodemque gubernio ex pluribus eiusdem ditionis, atque inter civitates vel oppida adiacentia dare unius eiusdemque haereditatis tot varias formas, et species successionis, id tam ex dispositione iuris quam in sensu naturali et communi

usu monstruosum

ac prorsus

improbabile videtur.

31 Ibid., xv/1 p. 34, no. 1: Quoniam nonnulli, forte nimium zelatores motivarunt, dispositionem, de qua in $ antecedentibus, super comprehensione ecclesiarum, et personarum, ac rerum ecclesiasticarum sub hujusmodi statutis, esse praejudicialem ecclesiasticae immunitati, aperiendo odium saecularibus potestatibus idem in eorum ditionibus faciendi, idcirco judicatum fuit opportunum, ad quamdam superabundantiam, omnemque dubitandi occasionem dirimendam, in hoc $ declarate, quod non statuentium, vel statutorum potestati id referendum sit, sed Apostolicae, et Pontificiae dumtaxat auctoritati, qua concurrente omnis ecclesiasticae immunitatis, et libertatis laesio cessat, quoniam ob utriusque gladii spiritualis, et temporalis conjunctionem in isto Principe concurrentem,

multa ei conceduntur, quae aliis Principibus, unum habentibus denegantur . . .

tantum gladium temporalem

32 Ibid., xv/2, p. 38, no. 13; and again, p. 39, nos. 19-20: Urgent quoque binae rationes ... Una scilicet quod ita conservantur familiarum nobilitas, decus et splendor . . . Et altera magis viva, magisque congrua et convincens est ratio, quae concernit non solum iustitiam et aequitatem privatam concurrentium ad

successionem, sed etiam publicam utilitatem, beneque regulatum regimen principatus vel reipublicae . . .

2

Notes to pages 68-71 33 34 55 36

Ibid., (e) vi, pp. 29-33 (disc. 22). Biographical notices.on Prospero di Santacroce in Lestocquoy-Duval-Arnould. De Luca (e), vi, p. 30 (disc. 22). Ibid., p. 31 (disc. 22): Idem quoque evidenter comprobat modus registrationis dictae legis, quoniam statuta, sive antiqua sive moderna, quae leges populi ac senatus dici possunt, habent propria volumina, in quibus inserta sunt, contradistincta a bullis et constitutionibus apostolicis, quae etiam editae pro regimine status seu principatus laicalis, sive pro aliquo eiusdem

status loco, in bullario et inter alias apostolicas constitutiones registrantur; atque ita de hac lege practicatum fuit . . . Clarius et inconvincibiliter ex duplici alia circumstantia contenta, non in ipsius papae confirmatione, sed in ipsis reformationibus materna lingua ordinatis quae populo referuntur: una nempe, quod inobservantibus infligitur poena excommunicationis, quae absque dubio per populum, sive per ipsum papam consideratum tanquam principem saecularem infligi non poterat . . .

37 38

Ibid., p. 31 (disc. 22). Ibid., p. 32 (disc. 22): ‘. . . quod tunc Rota et Curia constanter tenebant, ut statuta Urbis tanquam papalia indistincte omnes obligarent etiam ecclesiasticos, ideoque ad regulandam voluntatem contrahentium attendenda est opinio, que tunc tenebatur, non autem opinio moderno tempore tenta .. .’. 39 For example in (e), xv, ‘Relatio romanae curiae’, (pars. 2, disc. 27, no. 3): Item aliqua maior eorum, ad quos pertinet, applicatio ex zelo desideranda videtur circa impressionem Bullarii, ut scilicet bene distinguerentur illae constitutiones, quae respiciunt principatum ecclesiasticum, seu regimen Ecclesiae universalis, ab illis quae respiciunt principatum temporalem, segregando eas quae non sunt in usu vel moderatae...

The quesion, which had remained unresolved, was taken up by G.A. Sala (p. 75) in his Piano di riforma presented to Pius VII, after the wave of revolution; he reaffirms the need to separate ‘spiritual’ from ‘temporal’ in order to halt the State’s decline, which was already visible on all levels: For the last, it would be convenient, in the acts concerning temporality, always to proceed with forms different from those which are used for ecclesiastical aims. In the ‘Bollario’ one comes across so many bulls relating to the public levies, to the statutes of guilds and colleges and other things which have nothing to do with spiritual matters. What has this title to do with it: Servus servorum Dei, or the absolution of the censures . . . When the supreme Pope acts as head of the Church, he has to speak as pope; when he perpetuates acts of sovereignty he has to speak as prince.

A useful note on the bullaria and the collections thereof is in Stickler (a), pp. 300-5 (where, however, the questions referred to here do not arise). La Mantia, pp. 461-533. 41 Theiner, 111, pp. 494-7 (note 417). See Colliva (b), pp. 352-7; Erler, pp. 57-66; Marongiu (c); Ermini (1). See again La Mantia, pp. 462-5. ; 43 Bull Offcii nostri debitum of 28 July 1538 in Magnum Bullarium Romanum, 1v/1, pp. 159-60. Only the successive additions introduced in 1544 by Cardinal Rodolfo Pio di Carpi have their validity restricted to the Marca. Cf. Colliva (b), pp. 487-8; Coing, 11/2, pp. 139-40.

Moria

N

Notes to pages 71-4

45

47 48

49 50 51 52 53

54

213

Bull Ad romanum pontificem decet of 15 March 1589 in Magnum Bullarium Romanum, v/1, pp. 50-1; the specific aim of the bull is to reserve to the apostolic camera all the possessions of condemned persons. Cf. La Mantia, p. 463; Coing 11/2, p. 136; however, we stress the importance of the clause in the bull regarding the need for papal approval of local statutes. La Mantia, pp. 513-16. A special survey has been made by S. Stagni. For a brief survey, Prodi (g), pp. 749. See the work already quoted on p. 203, note 46. Cf. the essays by A. De Benedictis and A. Giacomelli in the vol. Famiglie senatorie, particularly pp. 16 and 57-8. Clement VII's constitutions in Saccus, Il, pp. 324-7: the dismemberment of the jurisdiction in favour of private persons is incompatible with public good: ‘Nos igitur publicum privato commodo praeferendum esse censentes ...’. On the inconsistency of the feudal phenomenon in the Bologna area at the end of the ancien régime, see Fasoli. Guicciardini’s testimony in (c), xvi, p. 36 (letter to Bartolomeo Lanfredini, from Bologna, 28 July 1533) is interesting, concerning the resistance of a feudatory (perhaps Cornelio Pepoli) to the arrest of one of his agents, ‘and this because he has in his fantasy of making a kingdom of that small jurisdiction of his’; for this ‘I decided to make clear at the same time to him and to anyone that he who is here for our lord is master of all, and has to be obeyed, and particularly in matters which concern the interest of the prince or the public.’ ‘On this congregation, see also Del Re (b), pp. 358-60. Theiner, 111, pp. 582-3 (note 452): Magnum Bullarium Romanum, vi/2, pp. 187-8. For a general view and the large bibliography, cf. Hohenberg-Krantz; Wallerstein. Aretin, pp. 60, 67. Toschi, 1, p. 296 (under the entry ‘barones’, note 28) where previously it had been written, ‘Declara quia comites, duces, marchiones recognoscentes alios superiores immediatos sunt abusive dicti tales, ideo aequiparantur praesidibus et magistratibus, non autem principibus absolutis.’ De Luca (e), xvi1/20, p. 54, no. 5. Even if some feudal characteristics still remain ‘nihilominus iste est quaedam feudalitas impropria et remota’; the limitations set by the pope also bound the clergy through the pope’s already

defined double authority. 55 Discourses 1, 2, 4, 5, 49, 63, 73 and 83, of De Luca (e), 1, are particularly interesting. It is obvious however that De Luca, as in the last discourse (p. 205), clearly distinguishes between non-existent jurisdiction and power (or highhandedness) which in fact the barons really exercised: ‘Potentiae siquidem ac reverentiae ratio non consistit in actuali iurisdictione in vassallos, quia stante pontificis eiusque officialium summa vigilantia, non datur in Statu ecclesiastico illa concussio, et potentia quam barones in aliis regionibus exercent . . Ni 56 Ibid., 1, p. 30 (disc. 5). The same argument is confirmed in De Luca's works of in vulgarisation, e.g. (d), p. 638: as far as feudatories and barons are concerned, prince the to subordinate fact in is jurisdiction the Papal State ‘their power and

214

57 58

59

61

62 63

Notes to pages 74-6 and to his courts, with the appeals and recourses, so that they have in practice the same functions as governors and magistrates . . .’. See above, p. 213, note 44. La Mantia, pp. 495-500 and 515-17. A glance at De Vecchis’s collection and the recent one of the Regesti gives an adequate idea of the quantity of interventions. Patriziati, in general. For the significant example of the Marche, Zenobi (b). The question of the reduction in number of tribunals and of the clarification of the reciprocal competences seems to concern the entire Roman seventeenth‘century juridical scene, and to have produced a mass of discussions and unrealised projects. There is continual denunciation of juridiciary ills in De Luca, who often calls for the reduction in their number ‘sive ut vulgo dici solent apothecas claudere’ (e, xv/1, p. 192, disc. 47, no. 47). The activity of the Roman inquisition has never been studied, for example, from the visual angle of the Papal State and Italian politics: it is true that the language of Pius V’s documents is still medieval and universalistic (see the constitution Si de protegendis of 1 April 1569, noted in the appendix to Jacobus de Simanca in the Tractatus universi iuris, x1/2, pp. 207-8; cf. Ullmann, a, p. 94), but this should be considered in the concrete reality of symbiosis between the inquisitors and the politico-juridical authorities, which tends to outline three different areas, with increasingly marked boundaries between them: the Papal State, Italy, and the countries north of the Alps. A similar argument can be made for the index of prohibited books and the supervision of the press, etc. (cf. Prodi, j). For a summary, see Del Re (b), pp. 19-25 and passim; Prodi (g), pp. 107-14. La sacra congregazione (in particular C. Lefebvre's essay); Salerno, pp. 347-9; Lefebvre-Pacaut-Chevailler, pp. 153-80. These treatments however do not appear to take in the historical importance of this change in the administration of the law in the universal Latin Church (cf. Prodi, i).

Spizzichino, chapters 12-13. 65 Cerchiari; Ermini (f) and (h); Stickler (a), pp. 338-44; Lefebvre (b); Lefebvre—Pacaut—Chevailler, pp. 173-8; Coing 11/2, pp. 1134-42 (M. Ascheri): bibliography in Del Re (b), pp. 592-6. Lastly Hoberg (b). 66 Gorla, pp. 492-500: the provincial rotas of the following cities developed along with this transformation: Perugia (1530), Bologna (1535), Avignon (1566), Macerata (1589), and Ferrara (1599).

67 De Luca (e) xv/2, ‘Relatio romanae curiae’, p. 325 (disc. 32, no. 61). An interesting example comes from Cerchiari (1, p. 159). A new kind of legal case brought work and glory to the rota from the last decades of the fifteenth century: ‘causae, nimirum, illarum servitutum quas Sixtus IV invexit in fundiariam proprietatem baronum romanorum,

in agro romano consisten-

tem, quae hodie vulgo audiunt usi civici . . .’. 68 Ibid., p. 325 (disc. 32, no. 62): Hinc evidenter quoque elucet, eiusdem ignari vulgi exteri, vere irrisione digna ineptia, quae stultitiae vel fatuitatis speciem redolet, opinandi scilicet, quod .Rota et Curia

Notes to pages 77-81

215

romana solum ecclesiastica, et spiritualia negotia tractet, non autem saecularia, ideoque

eius professores nullam, vel modicam habeant civilis facultatis peritiam. Dum non reflectunt ad negotia saecularia ipsius romanae civitatis, quae omnium forte civitatum Europae est ditior, ac alia quae producit adeo considerabilis principatus saecularis, qui plures habet conspicuas civitates . . .

69 On these attempts in addition to De Luca (e), xv/1, passim, and, in particular, disc. 47 (see note 60); Menestrina, pp. 21-37. 70 Apart from the general literature shown in the preceding notes, see for example, for the Capitoline court and the other courts of the city of Rome, Rodocanachi (b), pp. 266-84. 71 Brunner (b), pp. 160-86 (a study in which the papacy’s historical function is not even taken into consideration, even with regard to the relationship between law and the science of law). 72 M. Weber, 1/2, pp. 480-1. This naturally does not touch on the discussion of the medieval roots of the relationship between post-Gratian canon law and the foundation of the new State laws. Cf. Brunner (a), p. 151; Legendre, pp. 30-2 and passim.

5

Government machinery between politics and religion

See chapter 1, note 1. Reinhard (j) expresses in new and attractive terms the relationship between continuity and renewal in the papacy of the Renaissance and Counter-Reformation. See also Partner (f), pp. 17-18. On the general problem of modernisation, but without specific reference to the institutional-State reality, see Reinhard (g). Letter to Paul V, Naples, September 1606. L. Pasztor has recently pointed out the entire lack of work reconstructing the papacy’s administrative policy and the activity of the curia itself and its organs, but even his summary yields no new perspective and ignores the relationship between Church and State government. We should emphasise that it is not our intention to discuss the curia’s mechanisms organically: references to some of these (such as the camera and the datary) will be functional to the problem against which they are set. This remark recurs in Paruta’s dispatches during the years of his ambassadorship to Rome. Thus, for example, in the dispatch dated 28 November 1592, concerning Henri IV’s pardon: However many of these lord cardinals continue to complain openly that, this affair being of greatest moment and concerning most important matters for the Apostolic See, nothing has ever been communicated to their college in the many consistories which have been held after this treatment began; refusing in this way every counsel, not only with little esteem for that order, but with evident injury to public matters, for which in times so hard and in such doubtful and confused matters, it could only be useful to have the opinion of more counsellors . . . (Paruta, 1, p. 24).

Alberi, 11/4, pp. 413-14. Paruta then continues, noting the defence of the college’s constitutional rights, a useless attempt against the development of the government’s personal and absolutist rule by Cardinal Gabriele Paleotti, also

216

Notes to pages 81-3 author of De sacri consistori consultationibus, published in Rome in 1592. On this entire question see Prodi (c), I, chapters 16 and 17, pp. 425-526. Pius II's stiff reply to Cardinal Cusano who had rebuked him on the creation of the cardinalate of 18 December 1461 as being done on the basis of political motivation, without any regard for the reform of the curia, can be taken as a point of departure: Cardinalis est ea consulere, quae putat reipublicae convenire. Si auditur consilium, gratias agere Deo quia recte consuluit: si reicitur, suam potius, quam Principis, gratiam

accusare; et semper deliberata probare et iuvare. Temerarium est, suum iudicium aut Principi, aut maiori parti praeferre. . . (Piccolomini, b, p. 534); cf. Sigmund, pp. 297-8.

Alberigo’s study (c) is devoted to examining the theological and canon doctrines. See also Tierney (a), pp. 681-4 and passim. Mercati, I, p. 45: . qui de omnibus partibus christianitatis proportionaliter quantum fieri poterit assumantur, ut notitia causarum et negotiorum in Ecclesia emergentium facilius haberi possit, et aequalitas regionum in honoribus ecclesiasticis observetur . . . sint autem viri in scientia, moribus et rerum experientia excellentes, doctores in theologia aut in iure canonico vel civili, praeter almodum paucos qui de stirpe regia vel ducali, aut magni principis oriundi existant in quibus competens litteratura sufficiat .. .

10 For the reform projects, but also more generally for the entire history of the cardinalate between the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Jedin's study Vorschlage und Entwiirfe zur Kardinalsreform, is now in Jedin (h), pp. 118-47. 1] The most influential theorist of the new tendency is Teodoro De’ Lelli who begins his treatise, written in 1464, by dedicating it to Paul II: ‘Contra supercilium eorum, qui plenitudinem -potestatis Christi vicario divinitus attributam ita cardinalibus communicata censent, ut Romanum pontificem nec ardua quaeque sine eorum consilio et consensu asserunt posse disponere.’ Cf. Sigmuller (c). For the similar situation taken on by the canonist Antonio Roselli, see Eckermann, pp. 118-19. 112 Details of this process in Jedin (b), p. 134, and in Delumean (a), p.219. An entire study of the social composition of the college of cardinals in the modern period has still to be undertaken and should prove to be most interesting; useful but still imprecise data for the sixteenth century are given in Baumgarten (b). Tables on the composition of the college and the regional origins in the various cardinalate creations are to be found in Reinhard (f), pp. 102—3. An interesting view of the sociological composition and interrelations of the curia through a study of the cardinalate coats of arms is in Reinhard (i). A parallel Italianisation takes place, from the mid-fifteenth century, at all the lower levels of the curial bureaucracy (Hofmann, pp: 238-42). When considering the question ofthe link between Latin and the vernacular in the sixteenth eentury, the political importance of the increasing Italianisation in the language used by the curia in its daily life (for example, the correspondence between the nuncios and Rome, the instructions themselves of the popes to the nuncios, and the relationship between the central government, the cardinal-legates and the governors, etc.) should also perhaps be borne in mind.

Notes to pages 83-4

ZIA

13 Baumgarten (b), p.10. Among the most numerous appointments were those of Martin V in 1426 (15 cardinals), Eugenius IV in 1439 (17 cardinals), Alexander VI in 1493 (19 cardinals), Leo X in 1517, immediately after the failure of the conspiracy organised against him by some members of the college (31 cardinals), Pius IV in 1565 (23 cardinals), Gregory XIII in 1583 (19 cardinals). 14 Particularly important for the development outlined here, but not an isolated phenomenon, is the repression which followed the conspiracy against Leo X; the execution of Cardinal Petrucci and the pardon granted at the last minute to cardinals Riario and Sauli affected the behaviour of the college in the following decades (cf. Ferrajoli, b; Winspeare). And in accusing Cardinal Accolti of embezzlement, Paul III was to remember the earlier suits against cardinals under Julius II, Leo X, Hadrian VI (Baroni, p. 148). From this point of view, we should also reconsider Julius II’s condemnation of the schismatic cardinals who adhered to the Council of Pisa: in his doctrinal reconstruction, Ullmann (h), pp. 177-93, has disregarded the importance of the political moment with a consequent lack of understanding of the concrete historical relationship between pope and cardinals. MS) Baumgarten (b), p. 9. 16 Thus the ambassador Giacomo Soranzo judges the promotion of cardinals in

1565 (in Alberi, 11/4, pp. 133-4):

. . . it could be said that in this last promotion the cardinalates were sold, His Holiness having gained more than 300,000 scudi. Since it became known that the easiest way to get the [cardinal's] hat is by having priesthoods and the ‘auditorato’ of the camera, priesthoods which used to be sold for 11 or at the most 20,000 scudi, now are more than

300,000 . . .

On the opposition in consistory to this type of appointment, cf. Prodi (c), 11, pp.

I

446-9. Lulvès (a), pp. 212-35; (b), pp. 455-83; Ullmann (b). On the first electoral

capitulation of 1352 see E. Pasztor, pp. 216-20. It is strange that there is no reference to the problem of the papal capitulations in volumes such as the one edited by Vierhaus; the latter’s own essay on electoral capitulations in the ecclesiastical states of the Empire, and that by A. Marongiu on the capitulations and monarchical power in the sixteenth century, would have found the opportunity for a more profound investigation into their own theses in the

analysis of the situation in Rome. 18 Pastor (a), 1, pp. 290-1. From the thirteenth century, the cardinals had obtained the right to a percentage of the most important revenues of the Holy See (Kirsch; Baumgarten, a). The abolition of this practice in the fifteenth century is one of the most interesting aspects for understanding the college of cardinals’ subjection to the pope, on whom alone the revenues of the cardinals came to depend rather than on the concessions of the various sovereigns.

the 19 Ibid., 11, pp. 8-9. One of Pius II’s reform projects made it necessary to have 130. p. (b), Jedin cf. war; of initiation the cardinals’ consensus for 20 Ibid., p. 283.

218

Notes to pages 84-6

21 Mannucci, pp. 73*—9*; see clause no. 9 (p. 86*): after the prohibition to alienate or enfeoff Church territories without the unanimous consensus of the consistory, it was proclaimed, with bitter awareness of the growth of the State, ‘Noviter vero acquisita in Tuscia, Marchia et Romandiola et ubicumque nullo modo unquam alienabit, sed tenebit sub ditione et protectione immediata Romanae Ecclesiae.’ Ullmann (h) has recently included in this framework Julius II’s war with the cardinals who, following the secret meeting at Pisa, were simply condemned as schismatics: the pope disregarded the obligations, confirmed even after his election, and ‘adopted a veritable retrograde policy which showed him a mixture of a crafty and at times violent renaissance prince and a wily medieval pope’ (p. 178). 22 Schtirmeyer, p. 35 and passim. 23 Jedin (b), pp. 133-5. Cf. Chambers (b), pp. 289-313, and an interesting exemplary study by the same author: (c), pp. 21-58. See also Hausmann. 24 Paschini (b), pp. 41-7; Dionisotti (‘Chierici e laici’), pp. 47-73; Cantimori (b). The third and last book of De cardinalatu, ‘Politicus’, is important for the observation put forward in the text, where through a large number of traditional commonplaces and exempla an unconscious fusion (neither an approach nor a superimposition) of profane and religious elements can be seen which need to be further analysed. (The other books are entitled respectively ‘Ethicus et contemplativus’ and ‘Oeconomicus’.) 25 Birkner; Jedin (b), pp. 143-4. 26 The text of the bull Postquam verus is in Magnum Bullarium Romanum, 1v/4, pp. 279-85. A testimony (which has recently been published) is also in Scipio Di Castro’s ‘instruction’ written for the duke of Terranova, Spanish ambassadorial candidate to Rome, around 1580-1: This court is dominated by a ‘mixed’ prince, since as well as being an ecclesiastic he also enjoys a great state in the temporal life and because of one of these elements he then makes himself arbiter of all, and thus it is necessary to see to it that no prince, either temporal or spiritual, opposes him. In time past, the pope governed this ecclesiastical monarchy together with the cardinals, and those cardinals had to be satisfied just as the pope himself, because they took part in all government; now all is changed, and only the pope governs, and the cardinals are left with nothing but appearances . . . (Di Castro, p.

148)

The resumption of the Machiavellian theme with regard to the characteristics of the ecclesiastical principalities in the age of the Counter-Reformation seems to me far from insignificant and not, as the editor believes, merely ironical. 27 Evennett, pp. 108-9; Prodi (g), pp. 87-114. For the general questions of the Tridentine and post-Tridentine cardinalate see Antonovics’s well-informed review, pp. 301-28. 28 Theiner, 111, p. 543: if the future pope was to refuse to swear an oath not to enfeoff or alienate the Church's territories, the cardinals had to exert strong pressure on him. For Sixtus V’s rules about the use of the treasure of Castel Sant'Angelo, see Pastor (a), x, pp. 92-5. , 29 Cf. Carocci, pp. 103-12. These pages, which examine the congregations as a political question and as administrative offices, contain some interesting, if

Notes to pages 86-7

219

fragmentary, ideas, which render an organic study of this theme all the more desirable. For the insertion of this problem into the more general discussion of the transformation of the European aristocracy from autonomous pressure groups to control force strictly linked to the central power, cf. Rabb. This early exploration gives the impression that further research into the evolution of the Roman structures could be extremely useful for the history of the European institutions of the early modern period in their entirety. 30 For a brief review of the cardinalate congregations for the reform of the Church set up by Paul HI, Julius III, Paul IV and Pius IV, see Romita, pp. 13-50. 31 Pastor (a), vi, pp. 459-60. Susta speaks of a ‘Verfassungsreform’ of the Church State under Paul IV with the involvement in the government of the more influential curials through the new deliberately executive body ‘ut maior securitate negotia expediantur’ (pp. 552-3) with a process of centralisation which was also extended to peripheral administration: the council of State was dissolved on Paul IV’s death and under his successors government returned into the hands of the nephews. 32 From the report of Giacomo Soranzo (1565): the cardinal-nephew Borromeo oversaw all affairs of State and twice weekly ‘took consultation with ten of his learned servants’; from Paolo Tiepolo’s report on Gregory XIII’s pontificate

(1576): He shares the government of matters State are given into the care of two being enough, he has added to them whom all affairs are considered, and

in this way, that those which belong to the Church cardinals, his nephews . . . the two nephews not a congregation of four principal prelates . . . with then are referred to him . . . (Alberi, 11/4, p. 248).

33 From Paolo Tiepolo’s report of 1578: Some cardinals have particular offices in the curia, and The remainder of cardinals are employed by the pope to advise him, since having appointed different congregations in accordance with their professions and the experience which they have . . . in such a way that, the pope having heard someone’s demand, either decides himself, when the need arises, or puts the affair in the hands of whichever congregation suits him, and then resolves it himself, after having listened to whichever opinion of the cardinals pleases him most . . . In this way therefore the pope governs this machine of the Christian world with less anxiety and with more security, making use of the most practised and knowledgeable men in Christendom, if it is true that the election of the cardinals is always made with this aim.

34 Magnum Bullarium Romanum, 1v/4, pp. 392-401; cf. Pastor (a), x, pp. 181-93.

Brief historical summaries on individual congregations (together with others on various offices and courts) are in Del Re (b); with the lack of deeper historical research, the latter work is indispensable. 35 This concerns the consulta set up by Paul IV — as has been noted — which was in thus rendered stable, maintaining its role as supreme jurisdictional body pp. b, Re, Del (cf. forum civil, criminal and mixed cases relevant to the secular

168-71). 36 Del Re (b), pp. 178-82; Pastor (a), XI, p. 586; Carocci, pp. 161-6. 37 Alberi, 11/4, p. 460. The Relazioni (Barozzi-Berchet) of the following century continuous corroborated this diagnosis in several instances, emphasising the

a

220

Notes to pages 88-90 process of the removal of power from the cardinal congregations: thus Marco Venier in 1601 (11/1, p. 32), Francesco Contarini in 1609 (11/1, pp. 89-90: ‘In short the cardinals have no authority, they are neither called nor used, but — and this was unheard of until now — all is assumed by the present pope, without any regard or respect to the decrees, canons or councils’); Giovanni Nani in 1640 (111/2, pp. 24-5: ‘If the pope’s will has ever been absolute, it is now at present: everyone else is excluded from taking part in matters, which are all referred to the pope to decide them, to the nephew to manage them, and to some minister to carry them out . . .’); Nicolò Sagredo in 1661 (11/2, p. 234: ‘But the popes’ power has become absolute; the present pope has held only one congregation of State in seven years, and it will probably be the first and last, since he laughs at it even to this day . . .’); Pietro Basadonna in 1664 (11/2, p. 256).

38 Jedin (d), p. 347. 39 A summary of the functions of the consistory in the seventeenth century is to be found in discourse 5 of De Luca’s ‘Relatio romane curiae’, the text of which should be returned to for a more profound discussion. The same subject is also discussed by De Luca in II cardinale della S. R. Chiesa practico. Nell’ozio Tusculano della primavera dell'anno 1675. Con alcuni squarci della relazione della Corte circa le congregazioni e le cariche cardinalizie, Rome, 1680; one gets the impression, however, that De Luca’s vernacular works add very little to his Latin juridical texts and, further, are dominated by a certain fear or by conscious selfcensorship which tends to eliminate any too obvious positions, tolerable in the recherché language to the professionals, but not adapted to the public, and too easily subject to censorship. Wodka; Chambers (a); Wilkie; Strnad (a); Fokcifisky; Stelzer. Laemmer (b), pp. 244—5 (from the consistorial diaries). The cardinal-nephew Barberini had rebutted Cardinal Borgia's following clarification that he meant . to speak as cardinal-protector: ‘Ad protectorem non spectat hoc officium, sed versatur tantum in tuendis nationalibus ecclesiis, et illis proponendis, cum vacant.’ For the history of the conclaves we still have at our disposal only the narrations contained in Pastor (a), Petrucelli Della Gattina’s polemic compilations, and the partial studies — already out of date — of Sigmiiller (a) and Herre. 43 Sagmiiller (b); Wahrmund; Pivano. A new history of the conclaves carried out with an institutional slant could well shed light on the jus exclusivae as one of the manifestations of this participation of the great powers in the functioning of the papal elective monarchy. The text is in Magnum Bullarium Romanum, 1v/2, pp. 145-8. 45 Cf. Spinelli, p. 233. 46 De Luca (e), xv/2, ‘Relatio romanae curia’, p. 231 (disc. 3, no. 40). The theme is taken up again in 111/1, ‘De iurisdictione et foro competenti’, pp. 229-31 (disc. 116) on the jurisdiction and power of the college during the vacant see; it is necessary to start by reflecting on the four formal persons who coincide in the pope’s material person in order to understand why the college of cardinals is not comparable with a capitol or a senate with regard to the first person (the

Peete in Te eS

ak

A

Notes to page 91

47

48 49 50 51

221

vicar of Christ) but that it can be with the other three (the patriarch of the West, bishop of Rome, secular prince of the territories of the Church). We have to return to Reinhard’s research (c) and (e) also, for the actual panorama of studies on nepotism. As far as the secretary of State is concerned, after the old studies of Ancel, Térne and Richard (b), there has been a good deal of progress in the last decades with the investigations of Kraus (a), (b), (c), Hammermeyer, Semmler and Jaschke. On the development of this theme with regard to German historiography, cf. Schreiber. On the spread in Europe of the terms ‘council of State’, ‘secretary of State’, etc., see Mager, pp. 473-85, where however there is no reference to the papacy. We still lack a study of the political functions exercised by the nephews, beginning with Calixtus III, or systematically with Pius II who did not only, firstly, discuss the problem (see above, Chapter 1, pp. 13ff.), but also made Antonio Piccolomini and the other nephews among the principal instruments in the consolidation of the State, see Ady (a), p. 205: ‘Antonio and the numerous Piccolomini who held the fief and manned the fortresses of the Church were a source of strength and not of weakness to the Papacy. Nepotism was used by Pius II as a means of supplying a nonmilitary power with its chief requisite, loyal and efficient captains. . .’; cf. also Strnad (b), p. 206: on Pius II’s departure from Rome in June 1464, the cardinalnephew is nominated governor-general of the entire Papal State, ‘in absentia sanctissimi domini nostri alme urbis et civitatum ac locorum Sancte Romane Ecclesie subditorum in guvernationem constituitur’. Reinhard (e). Ibid. (a). Ibid. (h). Fortheendofthe fifteenth century, Mallett (a), p. 55, who does not distinguish the stages of the whole evolution of the phenomenon, remarks: ‘There thus arose a spoils system which, although it helped temporarily to strengthen papal authority and to bring stability in each individual pontificate, led to a disastrous discontinuity right through the papal administration at the death of each Pope.’ The most acute observer of this situation at the beginning of the seventeenth century seems to be Traiano Boccalini, who disguises his observations on the Papal State by speaking of it as the imaginary elective monarchy of the Laconici, or drawing a parallel with the contemporary reality of Poland: see in particular ragguagli 38 and 94 of the first centuria (Boccalini, I, pp. 137-40 and 353-4): ‘. . . The principality of the Laconici, as is known very well by Your Majesty, is elective, in which the bordering princes have always had more power than he who has dominated there’ (p. 138); cent. II, ragg. 74 (Boccalini, 11, pp. 252-4); cent. 111, ragg. 57 and 68 (Boccalini, 111, pp. 167-8 and 207). An actual example which is highly significant, of the situation of the nephews in Italian politics at the end of the pontificate, is in the dispatch of the nuncio of Savoy to Pius V’s cardinal-nephew to make the duke the natural protector of his house: which, since it could not establish itself in a more secure place than this, could with the support of Your Highness not only grow and preserve itself, but defend itself also in future

222

Notes to pages 92-5 times against the persecutions of envy, which normally accompany the lords nephews of the popes. . . And such safety scarcely can be hoped for from the other princes of Italy, who, because of the proximity and power of the Apostolic See, from which they can at any hour receive either good or evil, are forced to change affections with change in the times, and for their convenience could scarcely do otherwise; very often therefore their friendship is proved in happy circumstances, when there is no need, but not in adversity, as daily experience shows. (Nunziature d'Italia, di Savoia, 1, p. 261, Vincenzo Lauro to Michele Bonelli, Turin, 11 May 1570).

Paul IV’s pontificate, with the lawsuit against the nephews and their conviction under his successor, is certainly a turning-point, but the consolidation of the new forms seems to have occurred particularly under Gregory XIII, whose policy has been defined as a neutral interval between nepotism as a founder of states and that of riches (Karttunen, p. 60): a concept to be taken up and also to be extended in the sense that Gregory XIII’s pontificate (together with that of his predecessor Pius V in a different way) seems fundamental in the affirmation of nepotism as an instrument of government. Ban Laurain-Portemer (b), with Reinhard’s critique (e), pp. 171—3, and the answer in Laurain-Portemer (c). 53 Still central to our knowledge of this evolution in one of its most interesting phases is the ‘Information del secretario et secretaria di N. Signore et di tutti gli offitii che da quella dipendono del sgr. Giovanni Carga. 1574’, published in Laemmer (a), pp. 456-68. For Carga, see Sickel, 1, pp. 104-8. 54 This is basically the thesis sustained by Laurain—Portemer. Around 1570, State affairs were being structured in an autonomous organisation which had its point of political coagulation in the cardinal-nephew, the ‘superintendent of all’, as Carga described him (Laemmer, a, p. 465): The third dismemberment was initiated and made some progress many times, but in the present pontificate and never again beyond what is necessary to the good government of the church state, which the auditors of the Consulta look after, and in the presence of Monsignore, Most Illustrious Holy Sixtus [cardinal-nephew Filippo Buoncampagni] who is superintendent of all, they decide everything that the secretary carries out . . .

55 For the figure of the ‘prime minister’ in general, see Bérenger (a); Maravall, 1, pp. 454-5; Strayer, pp. 94-5. For Spain we have Keniston’s well-written biography of Charles V’s secretary, Francisco de Los Cobos, exemplary for its demonstration of a profound institutional transformation which takes place without the formal establishment of the office of prime minister. For France, see Sutherland. 56 The observations of Jaschke and Semmler are fundamental. For the rivalry between secretary of State and cardinal-nephew under Urban VIII, see Repgen (c), p. 282. DI De Luca (e), xv/2 (discs. 6 and 7). 58 Ibid., p. 242 (disc. 6, nos. 6-7). 59 Ibid., pp. 242-3 (disc. 7, no. 1). 60 Guicciardini (a), Iv, p. 280 (book xvi, chapter 3). 61 Pieper (b), p. 169 (April 1553). See also from the same period the dispatch of the nuncio Pietro Camaiani to the Del Monte pope, from Speyer, 9-11 October 1552

(e

-

Notes to pages 95-6

223

(Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, 1, x11, pp. 146-7: the pope has to take advantage of the contrast between the Empire and France, And while they are intent on breaking their heads, Your Holiness would have time to attend to your own business, and to put together some money to be able to defend the ecclesiastical state in any exigency and to add to your supreme spiritual power temporal arms and reputation, being able also easily with the same means to benefit and exalt the most illustrious house of Del Monte . . .

Seventy years later, Paul V's thinking, basically identical but clearer and better formulated, was thus referred to in the dispatch of the Venetian ambassador Girolamo Soranzo of 26 January 1619: the pope has decided to leave great riches in his house: he is however extremely resolute that he should not enter into claims of state or princedoms, but plans to leave his [family] as great and very rich private citizens, so that they can compare with and exceed the Colonnesi and Orsini; until now, he has not been seen to have a higher aim. (Brosch, b, 11, p. 369, n. 1.)

62 Bastiaanse, p. 320. 63 Partner (f), p. 62. De Luca (e), xv/2, ‘Relatio romanae curiae’, p. 253 (disc. 11, no. 2). For the camera and general financial organisation of the papacy at the end of the “Middle Ages, see Barraclough; Favier; Gottlob; Hoberg (a); Lunt (a), 1, pp. 3-56. In general Del Re (b), pp. 295-309 (bibliography, pp. 601-4) and Felici; for the early modern period Carocci, pp. 57-101. The latter uses a ‘Report ofthe affairs of the apostolic camera’ dedicated to the newly elected pope Gregory XIV (and written therefore between December 1590 and 1591, in the Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Arm. I, chapter 18, no. 922, ff. 1-8), a more thorough analysis of which would be extremely interesting, as its opening words show: ‘Holy Father, Your Holiness knows that as the supreme popes to help their spiritual authority have instituted the supreme penitentiary with the other officials of the penitentiary, thus to govern the State and temporal jurisdiction, they have erected the tribunal of the apostolic camera, which is composed of . .’ Research still has to be done into the functions of fiscal government and of jurisdiction of the camera in the modern period in relation to the provincial treasuries and to the general depository. A particularly exemplary study in this direction is Penuti’s on Sixtus V's ‘economical visits’. Much information is naturally to be found in the inventories of the central funds (such as those by Goeller, b; A. Lodolini; E. Lodolini, a), and of the provincial treasuries (E.

Lodolini, b). At the beginning of this century, Fumi concluded his introductory researches into the treasuries of Perugia, having spoken also of the institution of the ‘visitors’, clergy of the camera sent by Julius II to inspect the provincial treasuries, p. lxiv: ‘The inventory of the registries of the apostolic camera of Perugia which is published here gives us the history of the transformation of the Perugian state into a province of the Church State . . .’ Other information comes from the studies on local finances already quoted above in Chapter 3, note 78. For the treasury and general depository, other than the volumes already cited by A. Schulte and De Roover, see the chapter relating to the

224

65 66 67

68 69

70

Notes to pages 96-9 functions of depositories in Bullard’s biography of Filippo Strozzi, pp. 91-118. For the penitentiary and chancellery, a summary and bibliography are in Del Re (b), pp. 261-91 and 596-601; for the former, Goeller (a) in particular and, for the latter, Hofmann (a) offer extremely interesting elements for continuing what is referred to here. See above, Chapter 3, note 85. Grisar (a), p. 267. See above all Celier (c), Litva and Storti. The first, however, is limited to the question of the genesis while the last gives much information and a good bibliography but does not pose any real historical problem; Litva is more interesting but deals only with specifically technical and financial aspects and does not go further into the institutional themes. Aldea’s research with regard to Spain (in particular Zapata’s memorandum on the abuses of the datary in 1607, appendix pp. 217-33) is indispensable for an understanding of the function of the datary (as of many other aspects of papal government) in the seventeenth century. Litva, p. 156. Concilium Tridentinum, xu, p. 209 (from the ‘Consilium quattuor delectorum a Paulo III super reformatione S. R. Ecclesiae’, written by Gasparo Contarini, previously published in Déllinger (b), 11, pp. 209-10). When after a few decades Paul IV attempted a radical reform of the datary, Cardinal Giovanni Morone wrote triumphantly of it to Reginald Pole, who was absent through his legation (Rome, 31 March 1556, in Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, 1, xv, p. 317): ‘Nor are doves sold any longer in God's temple and that ‘gratis accepistis, gratis data” is used for His Holiness, I know that you will have the greatest comfort of it.’ De Luca (e), xv/2, ‘Relatio romanae curiae’, pp. 247-9 (disc. 9): ‘De Datario et aliis Datariae officialibus’); stressed here above all is the novelty of the affairs run by means of this traditional body ‘quae omnia moderna sunt’ (no. 6): Moderna vero sunt fere omnia negotia, quae ad Datariam pertinent. Siquidem praefatae dispensationes, tam matrimoniales, quam aliae (aliquibus gravissimis et insolitis casibus exceptis) usque ad recentia tempora Pii IV, adeout, unius tantum saeculi decursus accedat, concedebantur per organum Poenitentieriae . . . Ac etiam modernus est usus venalium, vel gratuitarum concessionum aliquorum officiorum Romanae curiae, (nos.

8-10)

71 Bastiaanse, pp. 75-95 and 267-8. What subsequently took place is complex and still obscure: it dragged on from shortly after 1630 (the years of the writing of the Tractatus) until its publication in Venice in 1654 (Ameyden, b) without papal permission, which the author, as a papal subject, was obliged to have: thence followed imprisonment and persecution, which seem incomprehensible without a royal charge, even if inexplicit, of having divulged ‘arcana imperii’. 72 Storti, pp. 15-30. Here also appears Morone’s remark about the datary (x1x, p. 110) that that ministry ‘has always remained in a certain sense secret in its fundamental theories and in its practice’. 73 Delumeau (b), p. 410.

ig

Notes to pages 99-103

225

74 See for example the memorandum published in Déllinger (b), 111, pp. 446-53 (appendix vi); cf. Galeotti, pp. 85-93; Déllinger (a), p. 541; Pastor (a), x1v/1, pp. 330-1.

75 De Luca (e), v, p. 221 (book v, part 4, disc. 12: ‘De origine seu introductione

76 77

78 79 .

contractus societatis officiorum in Romana curia’). See Reinhard (d) for the huge question of the sale of offices in the court of Rome, and Prodi (d) for a small but interesting case. Ibid., xvII, p. 6 (disc. 2). Ibid., p. 12 (disc. 4: ‘An huiusmodi officiorum venalitas, et respective vacatio per promotionem ad cardinalatum, eorumque dispositio aliquam redoleant simoniacam labem vel aliam trupitudinem seu rem illicitam’, no. 6). According to De Luca, the papacy’s debts during this period ‘ex causa fidei contractis’ amounted to 94 million scudi with a 400,000 scudi annual interest (De Luca (e), xv, pp. 281-3, ‘Tractatus de locis montium non vacabilium Urbis’, chapter 6: ‘De montibus, quibus Camera et Sedes Apostolica reperitur gravata, ex causa christianae et respectivae catholicae fidei, vel Ecclesiae universalis.’) Ibid., p. 13 (disc. 4, no. 12). Partner (f) has recently drawn attention to the cash flow towards dignitaries and private persons, with the conclusion that the revenue received by the curials on the whole exceeded the papal ones (pp. 60-1). For the oldest arguments about the ‘money which goes and comes from Rome’, see Marchetti who, against the arguments of the ‘febroniani’, defends the popes from the charge of having enriched themselves at the expense of the universal Latin Church whereas the Papal State was what had truly been sacrificed, which cannot be considered as a ‘great benefit’ (p. 221) to the pope; see also Coppi.

6 Priesthood and political magistracy For an impressive exposition of the questions relating to the administration of the Papal State other than the general works which have already been cited, see in particular Carocci; though weak in research method, it presents stimulating and valuable problems and indicates important memoranda and documents concerning the papal administration which should be taken up and studied systematically. One of the reasons for its weakness is having as the point of departure the problem ‘of the influence which the reform in capite had on the administration of the Church State’ (p. 8): in reality, if the hypotheses which emerged here have some foundation, the Catholic reform and CounterReformation certainly were influential but were only two elements interacting with other factors. Rietbergen’s latest study (a), based on some instructions for governors and administrators of the Papal State of the second half of the sixteenth century, is also appealing as a line of research but contains several errors, and for our purposes it would be better to refer to a good edition of fundamental archival material than attempt to synthesise, which as yet is not possible. For local administration (the case of Romagna), see Casanova, whose up-to-date bibliography is recommended.

226

Notes to pages 103-7 See Tilly, in particular pp. 48 and 63 (in the introductory essay by Tilly) and pp. 456-7 (from W. Fisher and P. Lundgren’s essay, ‘The recruitment and training of administrative and technical personnel’). As an example, a reconsideration which is not purely formal, as in Laurain-Portemer, of Mazarin’s career from his service at the papal court to that of the French court would be significant. Laemmer (b), pp. 367-80: ‘De officio primario summi pontificis ad Clementem VII ...; see Jaitner's acute observations on this memorandum and on Clement’s notes. Jaitner, p. 391. Galeotti, p. 149. The theory wasLei in an earlier paragraph (pp. 66-85) entitled ‘Transformation of the papal sovereignty into clerical government’; the turning-point is seen in Paul IV’s pontificate, with the expulsion of the nephews: ‘Then began that transformation of temporal sovereignty into clerical government, which went on to its achievement . . .’ Serviteurs du Roi; Vives, pp. 237ff; Aylmer (a) and (b); Fischer and Lundgren’s article in Tilly, pp. 456-61. Dollinger (a), pp. 532-8. Brosch (a), p. 292: Wenn eine Stadt zugleich Sitz eines Bisthums war, so stand der Bischof nicht nur der Diézesanverwaltung vor; er hatte als Governeur die ganze Regierung in Handen. . . kurz

er war der Herr tiber Gut und Blut seiner Diézesanen, und hatte tiber deren zeitlichen Gehorsam wie tiber deren ewiges Heil zu machen. Die Gesamtheit der ihm iibertragenen Functionen bildete ein Mischlingsganzes, in welchem Profanes und Geistliches, Justiz und Polizei, Seelsorge und Geldwirtschaft untereinander gemengt waren.

Sarpi (b), 11, p. 226 (‘Considerazioni sopra le censure della santità di papa Paulo V’). 10 De Dominis (b), pp. 62-3. 11 De Dominis (a), p. 609. Ecclesiastical matters are left in the hands of mercenary secretaries: . et tamen nos episcopi, atque metropolitani, non sine magna stultitia, nihilominus sponte etiam, nostra propria et ordinaria negocia ad romanam curiam transmittimus; in

qua non papa, non cardinales, sed harpyae secretarii mercenarii gubernant Ecclesiam universalem: papa enim cum cardinalibus in rebus temporalibus, tanquam longe maioris momenti, occupantur; divina et ecclesiastica parvi pendunt.

12 De Dominis (a), pp. 761-2. 13 For the medieval organisation of the Papal State provinces, the powers of the legates and of the rectors, see Ermini (c) and (e); De Vergottini (c), 11, pp. 134-9; Waley; Glenisson-Mollat; Paravicini Bagliani. It seems however that even for this period there is much to be clarified concerning the relationship between the powers ‘in spiritualibus’ and ‘in temporalibus’: here we should like only to establish the existence of an institutional dualism which disappears in the following epoch on which, we should stress yet again, no studies have yet been made. The question of the concessions of the apostolic vicarship to the great seigneurial families (De Vergottini, b) is naturally quite different and not to be confused with the vicarial institution borrowed even for the Papal State from canon discipline and included in a centralised structure (on which see Mollat).

Notes to pages 107-8

ai OH

14 Concilium Tridentinum, xu, p. 15 (Lorenzo Campeggi, memorandum to Hadrian VI ‘de depravato statu ecclesiae’): Circa autem modum gubernandi, quae sub ecclesiastica ditione immediate sunt, multa equidem occurrunt, quae maximo indigent tum consilio tum rerum usu. Et primum quidem ordinariae legationes hae sunt: Avenionensis, Patrimonii, Perusinae, Marchiae et Bononiensis. Optime consultum de his videbitur, si nec perpetuae nec ad alicuius vitam fiant aut tribuantur, sed ad biennium tantum . . . Hoc idem in omnibus arcium et urbium oppidorumque praefectis et gubernatoribus nec non ceteris officialibus per ecclesiastica loca deputandis, ut non ultra quam ad biennium concedatur, id quoque hominibus probis . . .

15 Lunadoro, pp. 221-2: His Holiness still declares also in secret consistory the cardinal-legates of the cities and provinces subjected to the Holy Apostolic See, which are Avignon, Bologna, Ferrara, Romagna, Marca, Umbria, the patrimony of St Peter, Campagna, Marittima and Sabina. Neither cavalcades or ceremonies accompany the declaration of these legates and they go into the legation when they wish, and they also enjoy that title and emoluments, if they stay in Rome, which are given to them for three years, with a brief from His Holiness; but usually they have confirmation [of their office] for as long as they want.

The lower functionaries were naturally appointed not by the pope directly but with patents at a lower level (see Lunadoro, pp. 384-7, in a ‘Note of all the governments, power and commissioners which are granted by the Sacra Consulta at a time . . .’). For the ambiguous position of the canonists, see Barbosa, 1/1, pp. 81-90 (book 1, chapter 5). 16 Some more important examples: Paschini (b); Jedin (d); Reinhard, particularly (b) and (h); Repgen (d); Strnad (b). The fullest biographical information is to be found in the volumes of the various collections of nunciature dispatches. An interesting testimony to the mixture of the politico-administrative and ecclesiastical careers, among the numerous that could be cited, is that of Camillo Borghese (the future Paul V) who, when vice-legate of Bologna in 1588, talked of his aspiration to a bishopric with a view to a future appointment as nuncio (Reinhard, b, p. 358): ‘I should be content with a church in some honest place, because I would thus be able to think of a nunciature which would satisfy me a great deal more than having to manage the police.’ 17 The problem has been put well methodologically, but only in outline, in Bercé. An extremely good piece of investigation for its impeccable methodology and its scope is C. Weber’s for the last decades of the Papal State: even though it is out of our chronological period, it supplies valid suggestions and indications for considering the problem even for the earlier centuries.

18 Reinhard (f), p. 99. 19 Riess, p. 424, had glimpsed the same transformation at a different level, with the start in the mid-sixteenth century, under Paul IV, of a new period all over Europe, ‘in der Papste und die Kaiser eigentlich nur wie Beamte der ihnen anvertrauten Organisationen, aber nicht mehr wie eigenwillige Leiter der entscheidenden Bewegungen und Kaémpfe walteten und wirkten’. 20 See above, pp. 99-100. The recurring charge was that the career was conditioned by the patrimonial investment which was put into effect: as De

228

21 22 23

24

Notes to pages 108-11 Dominis in (b), p. 29, had already written, if Camillo Borghese had not bought the ‘auditorato’ of the camera at a very high price, he would never have become cardinal or pope. Brosch (b) 11, p. 269. Cf. above, Chapter 3, p. 49. Cf. above, Chapter 3, note 52. On Sanchez de Arévalo see also Jedin (f). It is evident from the title itself of Pagliucchi’s old text that the appiontment of bishops to castellans constituted a fact which characterised an entire epoch from 1464. For example in the capitulations of the 1484 conclave: Item promitto, voveo et iuro, ut supra, quod in spirictualibus et temporalibus, que graviora sunt et magni momenti,

statum

Ecclesiae quoquo

modo

concernentibus,

nullam iurisdictionem aut administrationem promittam aut dabo, quovis quesito colore, cuiquam hominum, laico vel seculari, cuiuscumque conditionis aut dignitatis existat. (Burchard[us], 1, p. 37)

29 Some doctoral theses have examined the case of Bologna but these should be taken up in a systematic way; see Pasquali—Ferretti; Stagni.

26 Meuthen, p. 31; the text of the bull of appointment (11 January 1459) on pp. 143-6, where the question is raised of the relationship with the formulas of the Avignon period resumed in new political and institutional circumstances; Cusano is the first vicar-general who in the appointment bull received, apart from more properly politico-military offices, also the task of reforming the Roman clergy. Pius II seems, however, to be aware of a necessary distinction between the two powers which can be deduced from his discourse in consistory before leaving for the crusade in which he declared his desire to leave a ‘spiritual’ legate as well as a ‘temporal’ legate ‘with such government and provision that the country should remain in peace and honesty’ (Pastor, b, pp. 228-9, Otto Del Carretto and Agostino De Rubeis to Francesco Sforza, 25 October 1463). 27 A first examination of the documents published in Theiner, 111, and indicated in the Regesti, gives a glimpse of what might be found through systematic research. 28 Concilium Tridentinum, xi, p. 14. 29 Guicciardini (c), I, p. 270, Leo X’s brief of appointment to a commissioner for Modena and district, 5 April 1516, . in dicta civitate eiusque comitatu et districtu commissarium nostrum facimus, constituimus et deputamus, dantes tibi plenam harum serie auctoritatem, facultatem, arbitrium et potestatem ea omnia faciendi, gerendi et exequendi quae ad reformationem dictae civitatis nec non ad pacificum et tranquillum statum eiusdem cognoveris expedire; etiam si inobedientes discolos facinorosos et quibusve delictis obnoxios capere, carceribus mancipare, mulctare privare atque etiam aliquo supplicio affici facere opus esset, in quo nullam te irregularitatem incursurum decernimus et declaramus . . .

A similar brief for the government of Reggio, dated 27 December 1516: Guicciardini (c), I, p. 327. 30 Guicciardini (c), 1, p. 285 to Lorenzo de’ Medici, Modena, 20 July 1516: Illustrissime atque Excellentissime Domine. My last was ofthe 16th of the present month, and today Ihave one from Your Excellency of the 18th and from that I understand that in

Notes to pages 111

229

the resolution made about pardoning the bandits and the condemned, it is in fact Iwho should pardon them, but in order that it doesn’t become customary to give such tasks to laymen, the brief will be directed to the governor of Bologna. I think I have so much service with Your Excellency and trust that I believe I can speak freely and say what feel. The matter of pardons because of its nature is something that can be dealt with by laymen, because there is nothing spiritual concerned; they are banishments and condemnations of secular persons, in which, for sure, no ecclesiastical responsibility is involved, since they concern bandits, murderers and criminals; and as there is a lay governor here, I can see no reason or custom to prevent entrusting him with the matters pertaining to this government. The former governor was a layman, and had nothing’ other than minor orders; he had been married, and none the less, by virtue of the ordinary authority ofthe government, and without any particular commission from Our Lord, he pardoned all those matters he thought right to pardon. I have not pardoned anyone until now, but if I had done so, there would not have been anyone here who would have doubted that this was included in the authority given me.

The brief for the pardon followed, on Guicciardini’s request, dated 22 July 1516 (Guicciardini, c, 1, p. 287. Another brief dated 20 May 1520 is for Reggio: HI, p: 137): 31 Ibid., 11, p. 59, to Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici, Modena, 10 February 1517, a request to be able to intervene against a delinquent priest: ‘if he were secular I know what I would do, but as he is a priest I prefer not to have the ‘responsibility; but this I know, that the nature of the case and of the man merit the gravest punishment, and I know that it would be offering great sacrifice to God to extinguish that evil’ (the order arrived from Rome and Guicciardini proceeded, sending troops to set fire to the priest’s houses). Guicciardini (c), 11, _p. 303 to Cardinal Giulio de’ Medici, Reggio, 8 July 1518: three men belonging to the Bebbi band which had been terrorising the Apennines had been taken and immediately executed. Fate would have it that of those three taken, two were priests, although the most important did not have holy orders: men of evil lives who besides this case had done many dishonest things in those pillagings during the last year. I have been very perplexed about the way I ought to deal with them, it seeming on one hand best to have respect for them, on the other that if I was not acting even against priests, too much reputation would be lost and it would appear that a case of so much importance was being created very lightly and in a way that would encourage all the others to consider similar acts; whereas the need of this poor city is to have matters managed with dread and to make example of some, since otherwise it is impossible to stop such rage: these are difficult decisions to take, but in the end I acted this way, judging that anything is better than to let this poor region be preyed upon.

The absolution arrived immediately: ‘I thank the Holiness and Your Most Reverend Signoria for the absolution from censorship’ (Guicciardini, c, 11, p. 309, reply to same 21 July 1518). 32 Similar cases occurred for every government, arousing understandable resistance in the circle of the Roman curia: It seems very strange to me that Sanctiquactro [Cardinal Lorenzo Pucci] makes difficulties in absolving me for the executions made contra clericos; if necessary, do speak of this to Our Lord, who I do not believe wants to let me be censured and the absolution not to be given to me. It would be enough for me in futurum to be able to proceed usque ad

230

Notes to pages 112-13 penam sanguinis exclusive, i.e. to capturé and torture, otherwise my wings are clipped. (Guicciardini, c, vini, p. 40, to Cesare Colombo, Ravenna, 20 May 1525)

This time, also, the brief was to arrive in full, more than Guicciardini himself had hoped for (Guicciardini, c, vini, pp. 71 and 72, to same, Faenza, 23 and 28 June 1525) and he was able to proceed without delay: I do not interfere in the spiritual or ecclesiastical affairs of the bishop of Cesena; only if the priests perpetrate acts of violence on others do I punish them; and if the responsibility for this were left to the vicar, it would not be a good thing; I do have the authority according to my briefs, and if I did not have this authority, I would need to get it for the sake of the city’s peace; and I do the same in Ravenna and in the whole of Romagna. (Guicciardini, c, vill, p. 109, to same, 20 September 1525)

33 Guicciardini (c), 1, p. 299, to Cardinal Ippolito d’Este, Modena, 1 September 1516: the intervention for taking possession of a parish had taken place on the pope’s express command, ‘and if I had not had such an order I would not have interfered in benefice matters’. We omit numerous other cases in the correspondence of similar interventions in purely ecclesiastical matters. When Guicciardini was appointed governor of Bologna he was in practice if not by right given the power to grant benefices, even ifthe decrees were written by the chancellor who was a cleric: He has also had the right to grant benefices, which usually belongs to other governors, but is not given to me because I am a layman. But the cardinal told me that he has given it to him with the order that he is the writer, but I am the spirit, that is, that he has to act only according to my orders and that if he does not he will remove him. And if his intentions were otherwise it would do me an injustice, because for the reputation of the government, and to be able to recompense those Bolognesi who deserve it, it is necessary that these matters depend on the governor . . . (Guicciardini, c, xv, p. 69, to Bartolomeo Lanfredini, Florence, 17 June-1531)

Ibid., vini, p. 37, to Cesare Colombo, Ravenna, 13 May 1525. 35 Ibid., xvIr, p. 311, to Roberto Pucci, 16 January 1535. 36 See the biographical preamble to Guidiccioni (a) and the introduction to Guidiccioni (b). Gasparo Contarini’s almost contemporary letters during his legation in Bologna in 1542, published by Casadei, are far less interesting from our point of view. 37 Guidiccioni (b), p. 123, to Giovanbattista Bernardi, Forlì, 14 March 1540. 38 Ibid., (a), pp. 457-60. Annibal Caro to G. Guidiccioni, Rome (undated, but July

1541).

39 Valenti, for example pp. 71, 72 and 75. Cf. C.F. Black (d). Magnum Bullarium Romanum, v/1, pp. 271-3.

41 Santori (a), p. 197. Alberi, 11/4, p. 304 (report of Lorenzo Priuli, 1586): Sixtus V ‘is [a] pope who does not so easily embrace suits with princes, rather to escape them he has abolished the congregation of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as I wrote in its time, and hopes to be able in this way to conclude matters with greater facility . . .’. 43 Paruta, 11, p. 4 (dispatch of 11 September 1593). Ambrosino, p. 151, chapter 18, no. 1: ‘Summus pontifex potest delegare iudici seculari. causas etiam criminales clericorum.’ The Papal State is never

Notes to pages 113-15

Se

mentioned; in chapter 21 (pp. 249-50) it is only indicated that once in Rome the lay familiars of cardinals enjoyed immunity whilst now they were subject to the judges like everyone else. 45 Toschi, ni, p. 4 (concl. rx, no. 12, item ‘Ecclesia’). 46 Barbosa, 1, p. 75 (book 1, chapter 4, note 80). Fagnani, 1m, p. 648 (‘de immunitate ecclesiastica’, chapter 9) quotes the sentence reported by Toschi and refers to one of Julius III's bulls ... qua cavetur ut iudicibus causarum capitalium, et quibuscumque aliis iustitiae praefectis, et ministris quacumque viae, et plateae, aedes, et domos ad requirendos, capiendos, et debitis poenis afficiendos facinorosos homines diu, noctuque liberae, et apertae sunt. Idque locum habeat non solum in baronibus, domicellis, comitibus, ducibus et principum oratoribus, sed etiam in episcopis, archiepiscopis, patriarchis, et S.R.E. cardinalibus.

47 48 49 50 Sil

This was the bull Cum civitates of 22 September 1552 (Magnum Bullarium Romanum, 1v/1, pp. 297-8): it is unnecessary to mention the fact, since it is well known that the right of sanctuary in Rome was an acute problem during the whole epoch considered here. What is of interest is the same consideration applied to the houses of the higher clergy. Ricci under ‘gubernator’, note 20, and p. 358, note 3. -Sarpi (b), 11, pp. 226-7. Cohn, pp. 16-18. See above, Chapter 5. Infessura, p. 131 (under the year 1484): ‘ And even also the pope imposed a tithe on the priests and on the churches of Rome and outside Rome; however, it did not have the effect of a tithe, because the count imposed this tax on the priests and the churches as he wished, paying no regard to anything other than what, even with difficulty, he was able to extort; and he wanted that under the name of tithe; and the collector of this in Rome was ordained the bishop of Cervia, commissioner Achille Marescotti of Bologna.

52 Even in this regard, we have only Theiner’s catalogue from the Magnum Bullarium Romanum and the Regesti, but a more systematic investigation is required. See ‘also Delumeau (a), pp. 824-43. 53 Magnum Bullarium Romanum, tv/1, p.225 (it is worth noting that every Church censure was inflicted on defaulting subjects).

54 Santori (b), p. 199. 55 Paruta, 11, p. 343 (dispatch of 18 June 1594): The taxes on the clergy of the Church State continue to be imposed with great severity, as these ministers who deal with this and draw advantages from this forgive nobody; and one sees no inclination in the pope to listen to complaints, since he wants this rigour to serve as an example or as greater evidence of his will in other states . . .

Ibid., 11, p. 59 (dispatch of 18 February 1595): the pope’s mind is fixed on tithes . . which he presses so much that he has this week published an edict notifying the Roman clergy, under pain of grave proceedings against anyone who does not obey, that at the end of the next four days, all debtors for these tithes already due must have made the entire payment that they owe to the camera.

232

Notes to pages 116-19

56 Ibid., 11, p. 142 (dispatch of 18 December 1593): ‘. . . which things I said one ought to esteem all the more, comparing them to those I saw in Rome, since, as it was entirely clear to everyone, those of Venice were vastly superior. Which the pope did not deny; but not replying to anything concerning Rome, said that the same that I had told him about Venice could be seen in Florence’; to the observation that a large part of the Church of Rome’s possessions had been laicised, ‘the pope replied that the evil condition of the times had led to this’. 57 Sarpi (b), 11, pp. 211-12: Clement VIII had forbidden the house of Loreto to buy further furnished properties: ‘Some reply rightly that Pope Clement made such a law as a temporal prince, having requested permission to do so from himself as pope.’ 58 Ricci, p. 271. 59 Lauro, pp. 120-5. De Luca (e), xv/2, p. 274 (no. 8). De Luca continues (no. 9), attributing a large part of the difficulties to the excessive zeal of those mainly responsible in the congregation, which left a strong prejudice even if later on the practice. mellowed and was modified: Potissime quia bonus quidem, sed forte indiscretus vel asper zelus aliquorum, qui circa initia eam regebant, aliqua produxit inconvenientia praeiudicialis, atque asperitatis, vel nimium exactae et exorbitantis defensionis opinionem impressit apud saeculares (quae pro hodierna praxi vere erronea est)...

61 Ibid., xv/2, p. 351 (no. 7). 62 Ibid., xv/3: ‘Conflictus legis et rationis, sive observationes in iis legalibus - propositionibus, quae rationi repugnare videntur vel illa carere.’ 63 Ibid., p. 488 (no. 239). Ibid., p. 489 (no. 241: ‘Clericos et ecclesiasticos in temporali Ecclesiae ditione publica supportare onera laicalia, quae alibi non supportant, an iustum et rationabile sit’). 65 Another statement in this connection is in De Luca (e), x1v/4, pp. 311-13 (disc. 48, ‘De exemptionibus et franchitiis a taxis et contributionibus pro refectionibus pontium viarum, quibus in Urbe competant, et quomodo intelligi debent’): ‘. . . quoniam immunitati ecclesiasticae, utpote iuris divini pontificia potestas non derogat, et quamvis contrarium doceat in hoc principatu praxis in dohanis, et gabellis, aliisque publicis oneribus, quod etiam ecclesiae, et personae ecclesiasticae eis supponi solent, attemen id provenit ex rationibus latius ponderatis disc. 56 De regalibus . . .’. 66 This subject is taken up by De Luca (e) in some discourses (in particular 55, 56 and 57) of book 11, ‘De regalibus’, concerning some lawsuits arising from the devolution of Ferrara to the Holy See: the pope can tax the clergy, who are taxfree under the secular prince, if he explicitly wants to, this being the only condition: Nihilominus totum id gestum fuit a papa tanquam rege, seu principe saeculari, ob reduplicationem personarum in eo concurrentem, de qua inc. cum inter de elect. in fin. et c. licet de foro competenti. Unde nisi appareat, actum papali etiam, et ecclesiastica auctoritate gerere voluisse, cum utriusque gladii mixtura, tunc gesta tamquam a

Notes to page 120

253

domino temporali Status ecclesiastici non capiunt clericos et ecclesiasticos, non quidem

ex defectu potestatis, sed voluntatis . . .

(no. 55, p. 89)

The pope cannot remove immunity, it being of divine right, but can moderate it ‘quasi quod subsidium ex huiusmodi gabellis resultans redundet in beneficium reipublicae catholicae, ac servitium Ecclesiae universalis; atque haec est unica ratio ob quam plures gabellae temporales Status ecclesiastici etiam a clericis et ecclesiasticis exiguntur’ (no. 55, p. 90); ‘In plerisque Status ecclesiastici gabellis ex pontificibus diplomatibus statutum est, eas indistincte solvi debere per omnes etiam clericos saeculares vel regulares, quorumvis ordinum etiam mendicantibus, quibuscumque privilegiis non obstantibus . . .’ (no. 57, p. 91). 67 For an overall view, apart from the various items in dictionaries, see Hyland and Logan for want of sufficiently exhaustive and up-to-date studies. 68 Steccanella, particularly chapter 14 of the second part (pp. 370-82): ‘The Holy See has always taken advantage of spiritual weapons in defence of its temporal dominion.’ Here Baronio’s statement is also noted (p. 382): ‘Transire in haeresim obstinatam occupationem iurium S. R. Ecclesiae, et haereticum esse discendum ...’. 69 Morone, Lx, pp. 222-8; Pastor (a), vii, pp. 606-8; Dictionnaire de droit canonique, 11, 1937, pp. 1132-5; Pfaff. The political significance of the solemn . reading of the bull in Rome did not escape Montaigne (p. 293) who attended it

in 1580: Le jeudi-saint au matin, le pape en pontifical se met sur le premier portique de SaintPierre, au second étage, assisté des cardinaux, tenant, lui, un flambeau a la main. La, d'un còté, un chanoine de Saint-Pierre lit à haute voix une bulle latine ou sont excommuniés une infinie sorte de gens, entre autres les huguenots, sous ce propre mot, et tous les princes qui détiennent quelque chose des terres de l’Eglise; auquel articles les cardinaux de Médicis et Caraffe se riaient bien fort . . .

(they were in the process of debating with the duke of Florence over some boundary territories). 70 Gotwald. This study is on the use of papal censures after the ‘papal reaction’ of 1450 up until Julius II; it would be useful to take up and complete the survey there, which is copious but fragmentary; the conclusion is that censures were used for spiritual or ecclesiastical motives (heresy, discipline of the clergy, etc.), but above all for political aims: even if they had little effect as far as the princes were concerned, they had more with regard to the less powerful (pp. 82-3). rg For Florence, see Martines, pp. 301-9, and above all Trexler; the political component in Savonarola’s excommunication and sentence has been discussed by Weinstein with observations which can link up with the synthetic pp. picture presented here for the problems of the Papal State (in particular, sentence the 121ff: pp. especially Seneca, (a); 171-2). For Venice, see Bouwsma the use of on Venice in 1509 was certainly one of the most notable examples of subsequent the on position II’s Julius aims. political for censures Church allies’ concession of Venice’s absolution is interesting: facing his French and spiritual between ing distinguish objections, he defended his decision, was arms temporal with them prosecuting for reason temporal weapons: ‘The

234

Hed 73

74 75; 76 77 78 79

80

Notes to pages 120-5 different; to this aim [using temporal weapons] since he had in his heart to persevere with the league of Cambrai, he was ready to go along with the others’ (Guicciardini, a, 11, p. 318, book vim, chapter 13). Bouwsma (b), pp. 48-50. Gilbert (a), p. 31: ‘On the other hand, conflict with the Church State could be equally damaging, for the Popes could employ the weapon of the interdict which the Florentines feared for material rather than spiritual reasons . . .’ The text In supereminenti iusticiae Throno, published in Dollinger (b), 1, pp. 218-27, merits further analysis. Pastor (b), p. 178 (dispatch of Otto del Carretto to Francesco Sforza, 28 October 1462); cf. Jones, pp. 220-39. Gigli, pp. 200-1. On the earlier excommunication of Cesare d’Este for the recovery of Ferrara in 1597-8, see Barbiche. Logan; Febvre. Magnum Bullarium Romanum, 1v/4, pp. 84-5. For example, Guicciardini’s objection (c), 11, p. 245, in the dispatch to Giulio de’ Medici, Reggio, 1 February 1518, on the interdict placed on Reggio by the vicelegate of Bologna for the protection of the possessions of the Gozzadini family: ‘I would be very pleased that the interdict proceeded against anyone who has erred, but to place it on so many other innocent [people], as well as not being fair, adds to the evil inclination and mood of this city.’ See above, Chapter 2, note 17. 7

State reason and Church reason

Note It has been considered necessary in this chapter to re-edit some pages already devoted to this problem in chapter 14 of Il card. G. Paleotti (Prodi, c, pp. 323-88), excluding the notes of archival reference and the parts more strictly concerned with the particular situation of Bologna: the reader should read the above for more researched documentary information. 1 For Perugia see Black (d), pp. 534-5. Cf. De Vergottini (c), 11, p. 118. Ermini (e). Glenisson-Mollat, introduction; Mollat (a). N OPW Ermini (e), p.627. Book 111 of the Constitutiones deals with the jurisdiction of the representatives of the papal government in spiritual matters; in chapter 1, this innovation is justified on the basis of political necessity, of the good of the Church, and of the orders, or at least of papal ‘tolerance’ (cf. Colliva, b, p. 607). Reydellet-Guttinger, pp. 95-6: the rectors write often to Avignon to obtain the renewal of delegations ‘quomodo jurisdictio spiritualitatis expiraverat, propter quod, nisi renoveretur de novo, ducali curie magnum poterat periculum imminere’. De Vergottini (b); Partner (d), pp. 327-65. co Concilium Tridentinum, Iv, p. 483. Concilium Tridentinum, 1v, pp. 494-5: ‘Quodque nostri et dictae Sedis etiam cum facultate legati de latere nuntii de his, quae ordinariis competunt, aut etiam

Notes to pages 125-44

AA lt 12 13 14 15

235

legati, etiam de latere, necnon gubernatores et quicumque alii magistratus civitatum et locorum nobis et eidem Sedi immediate subiecti de his, quae ad iurisdictionem episcopalem spectant, se intromittere nequeant . . .’ Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, pp. 748-9. Cf. Katterbach, p. 97. G. Paleotti to Pius V, 10 May 1567. G. Paleotti to Cardinal Giovanni Morone, 7 June 1567. G. Paleotti to Carlo Borromeo, 3 March 1568. Magnum Bullarium Romanum, vu, pp. 277-9 (the bull is also appended to the various editions of the Tridentine decrees): ‘quod eadem omnia et singula privilegia, exemptiones,

immunitates,

facultates, dispensationes,

conserva-

toriae, indulta, confessionalia, mare magnum et aliae gratiae in his omnibus et singuli, in quibus illa statutis et decretis concilii huiusmodi contrariantur, ipso iure revocata, cassata et annullata, ac ad ipsius concilii terminos atque limites reducta sint et esse censeantur; nec quicquam adversus ipsa decreta et statuta,

quominus ubique et apud omnes observentur, in aliquo suffragari posse, sed ea perinde haberi et reputari debere, ac si numquam emanassent, auctoritate apostolica,

16 LZ 18 19

tenore

praesentium,

declaramus,

ac

etiam

statuimus

et

ordinamus . . .'. Magnum Bullarium Romanum, vi, pp. 573-84. G. Paleotti to Cardinal Michele Bonelli, June 1568. G. Paleotti to Monsignor Alfonso Binarino, 3 July 1568. G. Paleotti to Carlo Borromeo, from Rome, 8 January 1569: Since I have been here, I am frequently distressed, and pointlessly, by the many

aggravations to and usurpations of episcopal jurisdiction by the governors of His Holiness in the Church State against the decrees of the council and apostolic bulls; and finally it has pleased His Holiness to commit to two cardinals and to myself to consider this matter together here . . . I have put some thoughts together on this, concerning what happened in fact with our governor with the purpose that, on the basis of these and

others which will be added, a clear order can be made by Our Lord of what has to be observed in the entire Church State, so that the continual argument going on between these governors and the bishop can be stopped, it being also hoped that a similar rule could not be other than of benefit to the other bishops in the secular states . . .’

20 21 22 23 24

G. Paleotti to Pius V, 4 May 1569. G. Paleotti to Cardinal Michele Bonelli, same date. G. Paleotti to Nicolò Ormaneto, 11 June 1569. Cf. Cipolla, pp. 317-27. Session xx1 de ref., can. 11; Session xxv de ref, can. 13 (Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, pp. 717, 767-8). 25 Mansi, xxxv, pp. 637-9: ‘De rebus ecclesiasticis non usurpandis ac male alienatis recuperandis’. 26 Concilio Tridentino, Session xxiv de ref. can. (Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, pp. 742-3); Concilio Ravennatense De Dignitatibus et canonicis, chapter 4 (Mansi, xxxv, p. 626-7). 2 G. Paleotti to Cardinal Francesco Alciati, 10 December 1569. 28 Words deleted in the minute.

236

Notes to pages 144-58

29 17 December 1569. 30 G. Paleotti to Monsignor Umberto Locato, 21 December 1569. 31 G. Paleotti to Monsignor Giovan Battista Castelli, 19 December 1569; cf. Prodi (b) and (f). 52 On Gregory XIII’s policy in particular with regard to dealings with Spain, see Catalano (b), pp. 195-240; Prodi (b), pp. 195-240. 33 See Prodi (c), I, pp. 64-6. 34 In the minute, subsequently deleted: ‘oppressed, I do not say unjustly’. 35 Pastor (a), Ix, pp. 775-84. 36 On the powers and authority of the legates and governors of Bologna in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, see the theses of M. Ferretti and A. Manfredini. 37 G. Paleotti to Cardinal Filippo Buoncompagni, 15 November 1581. 38 Filippo Buoncompagni to G. Paleotti, 22 November 1581. 39 G. Paleotti to Cardinal Carlo Borromeo, 29 November 1581.

8 The exercise of primacy and foreign policy For the best-known analyses, see Hill, 11, pp. 295ff; Eckardt, pp. 34-158; after Westphalia (p. 157): ‘The papacy withdrew into the shadows, into obscurity, from which it did not stand out until after the French revolution.’ The reason for the pope’s temporal sovereignty was justly understood as the source of the conflicts with the court of Vienna, but not developed in itself (p. 76): ‘the fundamental factor in explaining the ill between the courts of Rome and Vienna lay, however, in the fact that Urban VIII, like his predecessors, had the idea that he must rule independently as a political prince, as ruler of the Papal States, in order that he might be independent as religious head of the Church’. Dupront (a) and (b). For a recent formulation of this traditional Roman Catholic approach see Giacchi, whose proposals on the growth of the ‘lay State’ have been expressed in earlier articles. Cohn, pp. 10-11. S. Rokkan, in Tilly, ‘Dimensions of state formation and nation-building: a possible paradigm for research on variations within Europe’, p. 581: The Counter-Reformation brought about a fateful fusion of secular and religious powers

in the ‘crusading empires’ of the South. The break with the Roman Church brought

about an even greater fusion in the Northern states, particularly in the Lutheran monarchies . . . But there was one essential difference. In the North the state churches became major agencies of nation-building, in the South the Catholic Church retained its supraterritorial character and acted as a brake on all efforts to build up strong national identities. In fact the Reformation was as much a revolt against Latin as against the Pope and the Curia; the break with Rome not only nationalized religion, it legitimized the national vernacular standards as languages of worship as well as of statecraft.

Tilly notes, however, the anomalous case of France, which succeeded in forming the nation-State without breaking with Rome, even at the cost of worsening State—Church tensions.

Notes to pages 158-63

237

See the periodisation in the works of A. A. Strnad and B. Roberg in Rom in der Neuzeit. Evennett, pp. 89-94; see above, Chapter 1, p. 3. Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, 1, x11, p. 129. See H. Lutz (b). O 0 O N For a general view of the problem concerning the origins of concordats, see Bertrams: De Bernardis; Stickler (b); and Mercati’s collection. However, we still lack a sufficiently solid framework of information. 11 A. Black, pp. 124-9. 12 Neal, p. 281; Stieber, pp. 345-6: fo) 4

In a reversal of their historic role, it was the popes, beginning with Eugenius IV, who greatly contributed to the extension of princely control over ecclesiastical affairs in the fifteenth century . . . Determined to defeat this program at all cost, Eugenius IV and his successors turned to the secular princes and offered them extensive privileges in ecclesiastical matters. They did not do so because they were confronted with secular princes who had become more powerful and more determined to emancipate themselves from the spiritual tutelage of the church. Instead, the Renaissance popes surrendered the papacy’s traditional championship of.the ‘liberty’ of the church because they were determined to defeat the attempt of the conciliar movement to transform the papacy into a constitutional monarchy which would be bound to the strict observance of the reform legislation of general councils.

For an understanding of the subversion which took place in the ecclesiastical structures from the mid-fifteenth century, see Frank’s fundamental essay on the tension which then grew above all as a consequence of concordatory policy — for the disposal of conciliarism — between ‘Kirchengewalt’ (as the spiritual government of the Church) and ‘Kirchenregiment’ (as the management of Church possessions and external structures): the former became clerical while the latter became secularised, beginning the process which was to lead to the episcopalist theories of the reformed churches and to the regalism of the countries which had remained Catholic. 13 Ullmann (g), pp. 312-13: ‘The issue, in brief, was nothing else but the preservation of the status quo against the new and rapidly rising groups, classes and sections of the people — the effective rise of the third estate . . .’ 14 Sarpi (e), p. 98. 15 Raab; Alberigo (b). Naturally, we shall not deal with the vast subject of the conflicts of jurisdiction (see Friedberg, a; Ruffini; Jemolo — with F. Margiotta Broglio’s very full bibliographical appendix; Caron), but add that even on this level the new awareness of the Papal State’ s presence could perhaps lead to new and interesting ways of seeing old problems. For the particular example of Milan in the second half of the sixteenth century, see Prodi (b) and (f).

16 17 18 19 20 21

Jemolo, pp. 309-10. Tilly's introduction, especially pp. 48-9, is methodologically important. Toews (b) and (c). Hoare, p. 146. Jedin (e), 1, p. 29 (n.b. Italian translation). Nunziature di Venezia, 1, pp. 167-8 (Girolamo Aleandro to Pietro Carnesecchi, 7 February 1534).

238

Notes to pages 163-6

22 From the studies between the end ofthe nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth (Pieper, a; Richard, a; Biaudet) to Mattingly’s theories on the subject (b). For a historico-juridical summary of papal representation in general, see Walf; cf. also Prodi, (e), pp. 128-39; (g), pp. 127-37. The collection of archival material and of editions are in Halkin. While the present work was in the process of being written, Blet (d) was published: as in one of his preceding specific studies (c), the author does not seem to have sufficiently evaluated the importance of the Papal State and of the pope’s double nature in the development of papal diplomacy in the early modern period. Valuable references are contained in the various series of issues of the dispatches of the nunciatures, see Nuntiaturberichte-und Nuntiaturforschung; for more interesting particular cases, Venice and Naples, see respectively Gaeta (b) and (c) and Villani. The latest bibliography is in Rottstock. 23 Schmutz. 24 Schmutz, p. 457. DS Stieber, p. 347. 26 Toews (c), pp. 13-14. 27 The example of the abolition of the nunciature in Flanders is interesting for the final phase of the period: Brulez. 28 Cf. Prosdocimi (b); Prodi (i); Alberigo (e). 29 The example of Naples is significant where the political importance remains unquestionably secondary (given the absence of a sovereign and the dependence of the kingdom from Spain) with regard to the other attributions (Villani, pp. 285-7). 30 Gaeta (b), pp. 11-16. SI For example, see Prodi (a). 32, Gaeta (b), pp. 36-7. 33 Ibid., p. 176. 34 Martines, pp. 311-85 (chapter 8). 35 Ilardi, pp. 87-94. 36 Hoflechner (final lists). 57 HOflechner; see also Mattingly (b), p. 105. 38 Cf. Prodi (e), pp. 50-5. 59 Behrens. Cf. Chapter 5 above, p. 88. 41 See, for example, Renier Zeno (1623) and Giovanni Giustinian (1651) in Barozzi-Berchet, 11/1, p. 188; 111/2, p. 87. Audisio, p. 442 (this was published in Rome in Italian in 1864 as Idea storica e razionale della diplomazia ecclesiastica). On Audisio, see DBI, tv, pp. 575-6 (by F. Corvino). 43 Nuntiaturberichte und Nuntiaturforschung. H. Lutz is correct (p. 161) to query one of my earlier rather simplistic statements about the ineffectualness of the acts of the nunciatures as a means of understanding the development of the religious life; the statement may be valid but has to be seen in the framework ofa deeper analysis of the institutional importance of the nunciatures. The letter from Cardinal Reginald Pole to Julius III on the problems of his next

a

Notes to pages 166-8

239

landing in England as cardinal-legate, sent by the pontiff (Brussels, 23 October 1554, in Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, 1, xv, pp. 219-20) is useful for its reflection of the double character of the pope in his representatives: With regard to the points put forward, before my entering, I said that I have three persons, one private, as a man of that country, another, as ambassador of a great prince, the third, as legate sent to restore the religion (though it would be convenient after such along delay to enter as legate), nevertheless when it seems thus expedient, I could on the first entry leave off that third person and enter as ambassador of Your Holiness without the emblems and ceremonies of the legation.. .'

45 46 47 48

49

50

For the debates which took place in the Paris parlement in the early seventeenth century about the equalising of the person of the nuncio with that of the other diplomatic agents, and for Rome’s opposition to this tendency, see Blet (c), pp. 2344. Carusi, p. Ciii. Miiller, pp. 272-3: ‘Die Aufgaben eines geistlichen Hauptes der Christenheit litten unter dieser Verstrickung in das politische Geschaft.’ See McClung Hallman. Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, 1, xm, p. 96 (the nuncio Camaiani to Cardinal Del Monte, 22-3 August 1552). For papal diplomatic activity in the difficult years after 1550, see Pieper (b); Lutz (b); Riess. Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, 1, xu, p. 295 (Cardinal Del Monte to Camaiani, 13 April 1552). Acta Nuntiaturae Gallicae, vi, pp. 521-6 (4 September 1551). Previous to the passage quoted in the text, the pope had remembered that not even in the period of the greatest tensions between his predecessors and the king of France had diplomatic relations been suspended by a unilateral act, as they had been now: You have removed your ambassador from here. You have removed the cardinals and prelates whom I was rightly able to keep here. You have sent my nuncio away, which is something which your glorious father did not do to Pope Leo, who took away the state of Milan from him, of which he was the peaceful possessor, nor to Pope Hadrian who made the league against him.

51 See G. Fragnito’s entry in the DBI, xx1, 1978, pp. 722-6. In his correspondence as nuncio in France (1581-3, published in vol. vit of the Acta Nuntiaturae Gallicae), Castelli often mentions an archangel which leads the pope (e.g. p. 219, to Cardinal T. Gallio, 22 November 1581: ‘. . . but Our Lord has an archangel, who governs him, who does not allow him to do anything other than the greatest service to God’). 52 Mosconi (a) and (b). There is, however, very little serious research on Speciano and other protagonists of post-Tridentine papal diplomacy; a recent interesting inquiry into another protagonist, Fabio Mirto Frangipani, is in Lynn Martin.

53 Caccamo; Cozzi (b). A problem in itself, but connected, is that of the role played by the counsellor-confessors of the princes during this period (see, for example, Bireley for Maximilian of Bavaria, especially p. 226): they appear to have hada central function in mediating between the needs of the Counter-Reformation and those of State reason.

240

Notes to page 169

54 Villani, pp. 531-4 (instruction for Monsignor Cipriano Pallavicino, May 1566) where in the difficult times and perverse examples of France, Germany and England, ‘nothing can be of more use to that kingdom than holding religious matters in as great esteem and veneration as possible, since change in religion means change in state, the which veneration cannot go together with the usurpation of apostolic authority . . .’. The same ideas are more fully argued in the instructions given by Pius V to the bishop of Fiesole, Pietro Camaiani, sent to Spain a few months later (Serrano, 1, pp. 356-60, September 1566) and reaffirmed in a later letter, written in the pope's name by the cardinal-nephew Michele Bonelli, which was (with the call to Philip II to intervene directly in Flanders, abandoning every ‘pretence’ and every illusion of being able to pacify the State ‘and to reduce it to political obedience, tolerating for the rest the wickedness and licentiousness of the subjects in religion’) perhaps the most significant document of the principles which guided the papal initiative in this period: The princes flee from serving God, and fear to place their trust in him, cuius nomen est omnipotens, and divine justice leads them to serve their subjects, ponere firmamentum suum formidinem, et errare in invio et non in via. They wanted to put religion and the affairs of God qui caput est omnis principatus et potestatis under their feet; and by necessity everything has turned upside down, so that every rule is already upset, every duty exhausted, the Christian principalities unhappily reducing themselves to democracies, or rather to a horrible and universal anarchy, . . . [the carrying out of the Council of Trent as the only remedy for rooting out heresy] of which it seems that the world today is full, and [which] grows when ecclesiastical discipline is lacking, which deficiency, the temporal princes will realise, but too late and to their detriment, will damage them. (Serrano, 11, pp. 52-64, Cardinal Michele Bonelli [Alessandrino]to G.B. Castagna, 6 March 1567)

55 Acta Nuntiaturae Gallicae, vit, p. 427 (G. B. Castelli to Cardinal T. Gallio, 6 November 1582). A somewhat desolate and almost contemporary reflection of

a nuncio regarding the results of Spanish repression in the Low Countries is to be found in Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, Sonderreihe, Grazer Nuntiatur, 11, p. 152, Germanico Malaspina to Cardinal T. Gallio, from Stablo, 20 June 1583: And these abominable scandals carried out by the soldiers give birth to endless miseries, since among the peoples who are conquered hatred for the royal name does not cease but in fact grows, but also they are not disposed to embrace the Catholic religion, which their experience makes more hateful since they are not treated by Catholics as Christians, and not even as rational creatures.

56 The first passage is part of a letter to Francesco Castrino of 16 August 1611, the second from a letter to Jéròme Groslot de l’Isle of 29 March 1617 (Sarpi, a, 11, p.211:1,p.281);thethemerecurs on several other occasionsin Sarpi’s letters. Cf. Cozzi (c), pp. 268-70. 57 Albrecht (a) (the instruction for the nuncio Carlo Carafa, dated 12 April 1621 and published in the appendix, pp. 106-33, is one of the most important documents for an understanding of the diplomatic action of the CounterReformation, together with Carafa's later ‘Relatione’; Repgen (c), especially pp. 185-7; Kraus (d).

Notes to pages 169-71

58

241

Albrecht (a), p. 23, recounts an interesting declaration made in 1627 by Urban VIII to the Venetian ambassador, on the death of the celebrated Capuchin diplomat, Padre Giacinto: ... he had never willingly seen brothers engaged in the needs or affairs of princes; he had always managed to keep them far away from them with decrees and orders, and dedicated only to the cult of God, not imitating in this the manner of his predecessors, who had used men of this kind to deal with important matters of state, meaning Brother Giacinto in the time of Gregory . ..

59 See the biographies of Guido Bentivoglio (Belvederi), Giovan Francesco Guidi di Bagno (G. Lutz, a), Fabio Chigi (Repgen, d), and of Francesco Albizzi (Ceyssens).

Thus C. H. Carter, ‘The ambassadors of early modern Europe: patterns of diplomatic representation in the early seventeenth century’, in Mattingly (a), pp. 271-2.

61 For France see Blet (c), where the insistence on continuity seems too unilateral. It is obviously impossible to refer to other examples which could be constructed on the basis of the documentation of the nunciatures. 62 De Dominis (a), pp. 761-2 (continuing the passage quoted in Chapter 6, p. 106). 63 Concilium Tridentinum, xu, p. 114. Galasso, pp. 113-40. 65 On the general problems at the beginning of the period, see Hay, pp. 1-8; Alberigo (a). On individual questions: Prodi (i), (j); Rotondò. For the Po states, see Prosperi (b). An interesting approach to this question would be that of the praxis of benefices and of taxation of the clergy: Italy’s particular regime seems to emerge clearly from Pius II onwards, but this is an impression born of the brief examination of documentation which should be analysed far more deeply. See Friedberg (a), pp. 654-728; Ruffini, pp. 219-79; and the subject Bénéfices en Italie, in Dictionnaire de Droit canonique, 11, pp. 522-96 (G. Cornaggia Medici) which is another solid basis for research still to be carried out, with the

exception of Erba’s study on Piedmonte, a limited area, however, and — as has already been noted — further removed from Rome's influence (see above, Chapter 5, note 51).

66 Prodi (m), p. 456, where Benedict XIV’s assertion of the historical pact which existed between the papacy and the Italian nobility (letter to Cardinal de Tencin, 19 April 1743) appears: The pope would be as a simple archbishop with his vicars, chancellors, examiners and similar officials, if he did not have the nobility of Italy who served him in Rome and outside Rome, supporting its military service with its own money, and consecrating its » life to serve him: to take the due reward away from such would not only ruin the country, but would also be an infraction of a silent pact . . .

From this point of view also, the change in public opinion between the beginning and end of the sixteenth century should be examined with regard to the papacy’s responsibility in the political division of Italy: from Machiavelli’s well-known accusations to the acceptance of the division as a positive reality in Scipione Ammirato (pp. 36-47, in the discourse: ‘Se vero è che la Sede Apostolica tenga l’Italia divisa’).

242

Notes to pages 171-2

67 Piccolomini (d), 1, pp. 98-101. ~ 68 The diagnosis of Italy’s particular situation emerges frequently in the Sarpi correspondence, but particularly lucidly in the letter to Leschassier of 3 May 1608: ‘Id olim a curia facile praestebatur, cum eius potestati a multis regionibus obediretur; nunc, in paucis cognita, veluti antiperistasi intenditur, ut curiales tanta ex Italia, quanta olim ex Europa corradere velint’ (Sarpi, d, Pane) 69 Nunziature di Savoia, 1, p. 261 (the nuncio Vincenzo Lauro to Cardinal Michele Bonelli, 11 May 1570). 70 Acta Nuntiaturae Gallicae, x111, p. 700 (to Cardinal Tolomeo Gallio, 3 November 1577). The pope had also offered the king of France help against the Huguenots in the preceding years, even in the name of the other Italian princes (xu, p. 85: Salviati to Cardinal Gallio, 31 May 1574): ‘His Holiness offers to Your Majesty not only what he himself can do but also every assistance from the other princes of Italy, whom His Holiness is sure he will be able to provide for a similar requirement and need of Your Majesty.’ The French king preferred, however, the dispatch of subventions rather than Italian troops: ‘They replied that the Italian foot-soldiers were not suitable for their present need; and that they would have preferred many Switzers.’ The nuncio replied: I suggest, however, that His Holiness, having the full knowledge of the Italian nation, could perhaps think that, for what has to be done, the Italian soldiers could be of as good service to Your Majesty as any other. Had he given 4,000 [soldiers] it is possible that he would have done it with less trouble than spending money to pay others, because the pope would have had the advantage of dealing with his own subjects rather than with others. (x1, p. 641: Salviati to Cardinal Gallio, 30 May 1577)

71 Nonciature de Flandre, x11, p. 9 (8 January 1607). 72 Bouwsma (b), passim and in particular pp. 48 and 293-338. See also Santosuosso’s objection to this thesis: (b), p. 154; for the political and financial links between Rome and Venice in the early sixteenth century, see Gilbert (c). 73 Sarpi (c), p. 179 (from the treatise ‘on the office of the inquisition’, November 1615): ‘This invention, if well coloured with religion, aims to make the court of Rome patron in Italy of merchandise coming from beyond the Alps just as three hundred years ago it brought under its control the merchandise of the Levant with even less excuse’, Sarpi (e), p. 175 (‘History of the interdict’); the pope opened the conflict with Venice over the question of the sea-trading in the Adriatic: But [the pope] having been answered that every prince orders his subjects that which serves the convenience of his state without looking at what goes on in the others ./. . the pope realised that this attempt still seemed difficult to achieve, having no ostensible excuse to make it appear allied to spiritual matters. For which reason, immediately something happened to make this attitude possible to justify on spiritual grounds, other reasons were abandoned entirely for that one.

On the links between Venice and Rome, see Stella (where the interesting report of the nuncio Alberto Bolognetti of 1581 is published); Prodi (h); and Cairns. 74 Sarpi (f), p. 1246 (from the ‘Quaestio quodlibetica an liceat stipendia sub principe religione discrepante merere’).

Notes to pages 173-4

243

75

Platzhoff, pp. 1ff Aldea; Rouco Varela; Santos Diez. For diplomatic documentation, the most important collection is still Serrano’s concerning the pontificate of Pius V. Philip II’s refusal to Pius V’s request to send a nuncio to the New World is extremely significant also from the more general point of view of the links between Rome and Spain in the modern period: the ecclesiastical organisation of America remains entirely subject to the monarchy without any possibility of Rome attaching its own umbilical cord (cf. Prodi, 1, pp. 283-4). 77 Jedin (a). Among Boccalini’s many anti-Spanish pages is the ‘Short and useful discourse written by an Italian and Catholic gentleman to Italy, for the benefit, health and conservation of all the states of that [country]’ (111, pp. 293-9) against the ‘Spanish and Catholic foxes’, the ‘impudent barbarous customs of these pseudo-Catholics’,

76

. + + the prince so pious that, having entered armed into the temple of God, put his hand in the sanctuary, dispersed the treasure, usurped the election and authority of the high priest, and lastly made himself terrible to everyone, wants to seal his undertakings with the acquisition ofthis little Italy, it being the see ofthe Vicar of Christ, which he wishes to be subordinate to him, since it is a power that in his little circuit has the capacity to oppose the monstrous machines of his vainglory.

78 Schellhass; Rottstock; see Bireley for Bavaria; for the general picture of the ‘relationship between the Hapsburgs and the papacy in the CounterReformation, see Evans. Interesting also in this regard is the already quoted instruction of 1621 for Carlo Carafa, nuncio to the emperor (Albrecht, a, p. 123): ‘for the ancient emulation of power between the popes and the emperors which was never extinguished in fact, butrather declined in a distrustful and suspected union, the last Caesars have let heresy grow vigorously, and have depressed papal authority . . .’. 79 Martin (a) and (b); Martimort; Blet (b). The conclusions in this last study are ambiguous and unsatisfactory (p. 279): ‘Ainsi l’esprit du concile de Trente avait pénétré les structures du concordat de Bologne; et la réforme catholique s'était opérée moins par une modification des institutions que par une transformation des esprits.’ On Bossuet’s absolutism see Fumagalli Carulli where, however, adequate historical perspective is lacking. 80 Martimort, in particular pp. 103-8. Among the many examples, the discourse of the nuncio to Paris to the queen to dissuade France from anti-Spanish war initiatives which would have annoyed the pope, ‘in the end the authority ofthe popes being so great and their forces so powerful, aligning themselves with one of two princes gives him the victory . . .’ (Acta Nuntiaturae Gallicae, x11, p. 156: A.M. Salviati to Cardinal Filippo Buoncompagni, 16 July 1572).

81 Pozzo di Borgo-Mouton-Brady, p. 276. 82 Savio, pp. 130-3 (text of the letter to Cardinal Scipione Borghese of 2 June

1612). In other letters of spiritual direction during the same period, Frangois de Sales took up the theme of the necessary alliance between spiritual and temporal power with regard to the respective autonomies: in which Therefore, the king and all the sovereign princes have a temporal sovereignty temporal no ask they which for and interfere cannot Church the and pope the

244

Notes to pages 174-7

—

recognition. So that everything can be said in two words, the pope is absolute sovereign pastor and spiritual father and the king is absolute sovereign prince and temporal lord. The authority of the one is not contrary to the other’s, but in fact they support each other... (de Sales, 11, p. 761, to the wife of President Brulart, March 1612)

83 84 85 86 87

Blet (a). Gambino. Acta Nuntiaturae Gallicae, vit, p. 292 (to Cardinal T. Gallio, 29 March 1582). See above, p. 88, and in particular Wilkie. Elton (b), p. 109: Few Englishmen had any objection to the pope's original spiritual supremacy, and many rather enjoyed the discomfiture of the Church at the hands of its own champion, but none in an age when temporal nationalism first became a fully realised doctrine wanted to see an Italian prince interfere in their affairs . . .

On the persistence in England of the earlier ecclesiastical discipline see Heal-0'Day; O’Day-Heal; Houlbrooke. For the relationship with Rome, see

Meyer (b). 88 Albion. For the preceding illusion of a reconciliation during the last part of Clement VIII's pontificate, see Meyer (a). 89 Acta Nuntiature Gallicae, 1v, p. 513 (Innocenzo del Bufalo, nuncio to Paris, to Cardinal Pietro Aldobrandini, 30 July 1603). Clancy, chapter 7 (‘Political atheism’), pp. 159ff; Praz, pp. 136-51. 91 Cauchie—Maere, p. 112. 92 Ibid., p. 150. 35 The outline in the following instruction for the nuncio Giovan Guidi di Bagno (1 May 1621) who was sent to Flanders recurs with every possible variation: I will also begin to explain that there are three arguments which are usually proposed before the good ministers of the Apostolic See in the countries north of the Alps: spreading the Catholic religion; putting it on its feet again and maintaining the authority of the Apostolic See, together with the jurisdiction and ecclesiastical discipline, and obtaining peace and union between the Catholic princes . . . (Cauchie-Maere, p. 107)

95 96 97 98 99

Ibid., p. 91. Valentini. Matanic¢; Gaeta (d). Delumeau (d), pp. 262-72. Schwoebel, p. 23. Setton, p. 367: In the later fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries the popes were tending to become like other Italian princes . . . But in some ways the fall of Constantinople and the growing Turkish peril exercised as beneficent an effect upon the papacy as did, later on, the whole movement of the Counter-Reformation and the Council of Trent. (p. 407)

The crusade was at the same time a religious ideal and political necessity: For the papacy the crusade meant, to be sure, the diversion of Venetian, French, German

or Spanish arms and money from the Italian scene to. the Turkish Levant, but it also meant the protection of the Christian in central Europe and throughout the Mediterranean.

Notes to pages 177-8

245

For Erasmus and Christian attitudes towards the war against the Turk in the early sixteenth century, see Margolin. 100 Benzoni (b) (especially the essays by F. Braudel, C. Dionisotti and H. Jedin). 101 Nunziature di Venezia, x, p. 409, the nuncio G. A. Facchinetti to Cardinal T. Gallio, 21 February 1573: the doge complained to the nuncio that irons, arquebuses and hemps were being shipped to Turkey, and despite the strict orders that His Holiness had given about this, it was going on uncontrolled more than ever. I believe that it would be good, for the fact in itself and to take away from Venetian ‘supracomiti’ the excuse to visit and detain the ships hired by subjects of the Holy Church, if Your Illustrious Holiness would consider sending an order to Ancona which would remedy this wickness, which is against the bull In coena Domini.

Sarpi (f, p. 1264), defending the legality of military alliances with states of different religions, notes the reply which Paul IV had given in 1557 to those who reproached him for having recruited troops made up of heretics: ‘Nobis licitum fuisset, imo laudabile, Turcos, Mauros et Judaeos ad defensionem nostra accire’ and comments: ‘Nec dubium est quin ad tractandum cum Turcis mandarit.’ There is an interesting connection between the question of the impium foedus and the origins of the respublica christiana in the high Middle Ages (Vismara).

102

103

Rainer; Caccamo; Bartl; Tamborra; see also the last author's article in Benzoni (b) (‘Dopo Lepanto: lo spostamento della lotta antiturca sul fronte terrestre’), pp. 371-91. Dupront (a), pp. 82-3; two centuries of laicisation weigh in the political culture of the nuncio Fabio Chigi with a process of desacralisations which are implied, if not already explicit: Plus gravement, définition complexe et du ròle de la papauté et de son attitude, il y a la neutralita, mot hétérodoxe au plus haut chef et inconcevable dans un univers de Chrétienté. Cela va si loin que dans le parler cursif des nonces entre eux, di Bagno pourra hativement écrire du papa ‘principe neutrale’. Sécularisation grandissante, où il semble bien que le vocabulaire de la politique moderne ait puissamment concouru a l’independence de l’autorité spirituelle romaine.

The effort to present the pope as neutral prince is certainly the constant element which characterises Fabio Chigi’s entire labours: on this, see Incisa della Rocchetta, passim. Benedict XIV’s lament, almost a century after Westphalia, when papal neutrality had already been transformed into tragic impotence, was: ‘we were prepared to be martyrs for Christ's faith, but not for neutrality’ (letter to Cardinal de Tencin of 24 August 1743, quoted in Prodi, m,

p. 456). 104 Miiller, p. 281: in his dispatch to Jacopo Sadoleto of 17 January 1525 the nuncio refers to his attempts to persuade Ferdinand I ‘that His Holiness still persists in his neutrality, in which from the beginning he decided to persist, and which principle was proper to a vicar of Christ’. 105 Baroni, p. 128: Rodolfo Pio to Ambrogio Ricalcati, 16 March 1535. 106 Ibid., p. 231: A. Ricalcati to R. Pio, 3 August 1535. 107 Ibid., p. 239: A. Ricalcati to R. Pio, 17 August 1535. 108 Ibid., p. 625: A. Ricalcati to R. Pio, 6 April 1537.

246

Notes to pages 178-83

}

109 Ibid., pp. 642-3: R. Pio to A. Ricalcati, 25 April 1537. 110 . Alberi, 11/4, p. 179 (report of Paolo Tiepolo, 1569). 111 Nunziature di Venezia, vini, p. 145, G. A. Facchinetti to Cardinal Michele Bonelli, 14 December 1566. In Facchinetti’s dispatches, the conflict emerges above all with regard to the publication of the bull In coena Domini and to the concession by the pontiff of the title of ‘grand-duke’ of Tuscany to Cosimo de’ Medici. On this latter point, which is extremely interesting for the question of principle involved in this papal appointment, see Bibl. On the position of Pius V in the jurisdictional controversies, see Bendiscioli. 112 Alberi, 11/4, p. 284. 113 Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, Die Kélner Nuntiature, v11/1, p.29 (instruction for the nuncio to Cologne, Pier Luigi Carafa, June 1624) and p. 112 (Cardinal Francesco Barberini to P. L. Carafa, 21 December 1624). 114 Rietbergen (b). eit For the situation in the mid-seventeenth century, and for Benedict XIV’s tragic awareness of this, see also Prodi (m). 116 Goldast, 11, p. 456. On G. Vendramin see Benzoni (a), pp. 64-7. ii? The reference is of course to the writers of the opposing factions analysed in Jemolo. 118 Dreitzel, pp. 364—92; Hiittl. 119 De Luca (d), pp. 49-50. At the end of this work, the author (p. 714) explains that he has not dealt with the jurisdictional controversies as the factiousness of the opposed parties had not yet made the times ripe: . . . however if aman should come into the world with an intellect which is clear, purged and dispassionate, and whose writing is so able that in these controversies he could establish a middle course, honest, right, and reasonable so that both the powers could concur . . . it would be the most glorious work . . .

Last, but not final considerations De Dominis (b), p. 36, from the ‘Republicae Venetae admonitio ad Caesarem Baronium S. R. cardinalem contra ipsius paraenesim’. Pilati (b), p. 12, in ch. 1 ‘Of the pope and canonical laws’ in which it is maintained that the growth of the pope’s authority over the universal Latin Church is historically dependent on the growth of temporal sovereignty and that the first step to be carried out by the Italian states is to escape papal authority and canon laws. On Pilati, see Venturi (b), 11, pp. 250-325 and passim. Carlo Sebastiano Berardi wrote in the same years (p. 113): ‘The power of the Roman curia, as restricted to the temporal government of the Papal State, is not concerned with defining anything in the states of others.’ Berardi’s (1719-68) theses, already referred to by Jemolo and more recently published, seem more contradictory even if interesting, in that along with the regalism and argument against the ‘mixture’ of court and Church in Rome of the last centuries, there is an entirely out-of-date juridical culture: the attempt to distinguish ‘canon laws’ from the ‘curia laws or reason’ (pp. 82-90 and

Sa at aie ea 4

v

aes

:

“

Notes to pages 183-5

3

4

5 6

247

passim), the latter restricted to the subjects of the pope’s temporal dominion, has not been sufficiently researched. On Berardi, see F. Margiotta Broglio’s article in DBI, vi, 1966, pp. 750-5. For du Moulin’s identical thesis, see above, Chapter 4, note 15. See above all G. A. Sala’s project, recently republished (cf. de Sande, p. 60 and passim) and Ara. A parallel study on the decline of the Papal State and of the German ecclesiastical principalities between the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries would be extremely interesting; cf Hiittl. Cf. also H. Lutz (a). Dal Pane’s work on the attempts at reform in the eighteenth-century Papal State is still useful even if it does not consider the earlier development. The insupportable weight of the State in the exercise of apostolic primacy is a basic element in understanding Benedict IV’s greatness, in whose letters the joint presence of the two persons (sovereign and pope) and the superimposition of the structures already indicate a piercing and tragic awareness; see Prodi (m) and, for some witnesses, Caraccioli, pp. 196-208. For the following apologetic interpretation, cf. for example Mostaza, p. 13: ‘Rupta saec. XVI unitate religiosa et ethnarchia christiana, statuuntur apud S. Sedem permanentes legationes principum, et Summus Pontifiex pergit feliciter in sua missioni internationali per nuntios et alios legatos apostolicos . . .’ See Corecco, pp. 85-6. Compare the ‘Vorrede’ of the first edition, Berlin, 1834 (with the note included in the second edition, Berlin, 1838, pp. xvii-xviii: only a reference to the fact that the events of the last years had not changed the historical perspective) with that contained in the sixth edition, Leipzig, 1874, where to the wellknown phrase ‘die Zeiten, wo wir etwas fiirchten kònnten, sind voriiber' (the times have passed in which we were right to fear) is added the famous note (p. xi) in which von Ranke states that after forty years from the first edition everything has changed, war has again flared up and has opened up a new period in the history of the papacy. See Cantimori’s observation in the Italian edition, pp. xviii—xix: but greater attention could perhaps be given to ‘dass eine neue Epoche des Papsttums eingetreten ist’, which does not seem to relate so much to the resumption of war, with the Kulturkampf, as to the end of the Papal State and to the first Vatican Council: the change in the work's title itself (no longer Die ròmischen Papste, ihre Kirche und ihr Staat in sechzehnten und siebzehnten Jahrhundert but Die rémischen Pàpste in den letzten vier Jahrhunderten), not only with the chronological extension up until the present but also with the deletion of the terms ‘Kirche’ and ‘Staat’ as the two elements which formed the institutional characteristics of the papacy, clearly shows von

Ranke’s awareness of the problem. 7 From Steccanella (who summarises the articles which appeared in ‘Civilta Cattolica’). For an overall view of the positions in the historical moment of the end of the Papal State, see Martina; for the subsequent ecclesiastical reflection, see Journet (b), pp. 578-609 (‘La cité pontificale’). 8 Pottmeyer, pp. 388-408. 9 Dempf, p. 514.

248

Notes to page 185

10 Oakeshott, see above, p. 187, note 24. 11 Schmitt (a) and (b), particularly 1, pp. 49-66; Dumont; Bockenforde (a) and (b); Oestreich, pp. 179-97 (reprint of the earlier work Strukturprobleme des europdischen Absolutismus). The latest review of the debate in nineteenth- and twentieth-century German historiography in Heckel (b, pp. 160-3) is particularly interesting from our point of view.

+

Bibliography

This section has no claims to being a comprehensive bibliography; it is intended to amplify the information contained in the footnotes and to list those works referred to in this study. General sources, dictionaries and encyclopaedias are excluded. The editions listed here, unless in brackets, are those consulted or cited by the author. Translations into English, with place and date of publication, have been added where appropriate. Page references in the endnotes refer to editions studied by the

author. Acta Nuntiaturae Gallicae, vols. -x1v, Rome and Paris, 1961-77. Acton, Lord, ‘On the states of the church. A short history of the temporal power from Constantine to Pius IX', Portsmouth, 1940 (reprint from The Rambler, March 1860). Ady, C.M., (a) Pius II, the Humanist Pope, London 1913; (b) Italian Renaissance Studies. A tribute to the late C. M. Ady, ed. E. F. Jacob, London, 1960. Alberi, E. (ed.), Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al senato, series 11, vols. 111 and Iv, Florence, 1846 and 1857. Alberigo, G., (a) I vescovi italiani al concilio di Trento (1545-1547), Florence, 1959; (b) Lo sviluppo della dottrina sui poteri della Chiesa uni versale: momenti essenziali tra il XVI e il XIX secolo, Rome, 1964; (c) Cardinalato e collegialità . . . Studi sull’ecclesiologia tra l'XI e il XIV secolo,

Florence, 1969; (d) Chiesa conciliare. Identità e significato del conciliarismo, Brescia, 1981; (e) ‘La riforma dei principi’, in Il Concilio di Trento come crocevia della politica europea, Bologna, 1979, pp. 161-77. Albion, G., Charles I and the Court of Rome, Louvain, 1935. Albrecht, D., (a) Die deutsche Politik Papst Gregors XV. Die Einwirkung der papstlichen Diplomatie auf die Politik der Hauser Habsburg und Wittelsbach 1621-1623, Munich, 1956; fiir (b) ‘Zur Finanzierung des Dreissigjahrigen Krieges. Die Subsidien der Kurie XIX hichte, Landesgesc Bayerische fur Zeitschrift Kaiser und Liga 1618-1635’, in (1956), pp. 534-67.

249

a” 250

ya?

aes ee

GS

DI

eS ion

A

Re Bt

La

wer (a

eee

The Papal Prince

Aldea, Q., Iglesia y Estado en la Espanadel siglo XVII, Santander, 1961. Ambrosino, Alexander, Commentaria in bullam Gregorii XIV de immunitate et libertate ecclesiastica, legum civilium sacrorum canonum studiosis non minus utilia, Parma, 1608, 1612, etc., (edition used, Bracciano, 1633). Ameyden, Theodorus, (a) Die pietate romana, Rome, 1625; (b) Tractatus de officio et iurisdictione Datarii et de stylo Datariae, Venice, 1654. Ammirato, Scipione, Opuscoli, vol. 11, Florence, 1637. Ancel, R., ‘La secrétaire pontificale sous Paul IV’, in Revue des questions historiques, LXXIX (1906), pp. 408-70. Anderson, P., Lineages of the Absolute State, London, 1974. Anselmi, S. (ed.), Economia e società: le Marche tra XV e XX secolo, Bologna, 1978. Antonovics, A. V., ‘Counter-Reformation Cardinals: 1534-1590’, in European Studies Review, 11 (1972), pp. 301-28. Ara, A., Lo statuto fondamentale dello Stato della Chiesa (14 marzo 1848). Contributo ad uno studio delle idee costituzionali nello Stato pontificio nel periodo delle riforme di Pio IX, Milan, 1966. | Aretin, O. von, ‘L'ordinamento feudale in Italia nel XVI e XVII secolo e le sue ripercussioni sulla politica europea’, in Annali dell'Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento, Iv (1978), pp. 51-94. Ascheri, M., (a) ‘Rechtsprechungs- und Konsiliensammlungen’ (Erster Abschnitt: Italien), in Coing, H. (ed.), Handbuch, vol. 11/2, Munich, 1976, pp. 1113-221; (b) ‘Giuristi, umanisti e istituzioni del Tre-Quattrocento: qualche problema’, in Annali dell'Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento, 111 (1977), pp. 43-73. Astuti, G., Lezioni di storia del diritto italiano, La formazione dello Stato moderno in Italia, vol. 1, Turin, 1967. Audisio, G., Idée historique et rationnelle de la diplomatie ecclésiastique, Louvain, 1865. Aylmer, G.E., (a) The King's Servants. The civil service of Charles I 1625-1642,

London, 1961; (b) The State’s Servants. The civil service of the English republic 1649-1660, London and Boston, 1973. Baker, D. (ed.), Schism, Heresy and Religious Protest, Cambridge, 1972. Barbiche, B., ‘La politique de Clément VIII a l'égard de Ferrare en novembre et décembre 1597 et l’excommunication de César d'Este’, in Mélanges d’archéologie et d'histoire, LXxIv (1962), pp. 289-328. Barbieri, G., Industria e politica mineraria nello Stato Pontificio dal '400 al '600, Rome, 1940. Barbosa, Augustinus, luris ecclesiastici universi libri tres (edition used, Lyons, 1650, in 2 vols.). Barcia, F., Bibliografia delle opere di Gregorio Leti, Milan, 1981 (Istituto di Scienze politiche G. Solari, University of Turin). Barclay, William, De potestate papae: an et quatenus in Reges et Principes seculares jus et imperium habeat, Paris, 1609. Baroni, P. G. (ed.), La Nunziatura in Francia di Rodolfo Pio (1535-1537), Bologna,

1962. Barozzi, N., and Berchet, G. (eds.), Relazioni degli Stati europei lette al Senato dagli ambasciatori veneti nel secolo XVII, 10 vols., Venice, 1856-79.

LP

ME Su

Bibliography

251

Barraclough, G., Papal Provisions. Aspects of Church history constitutional, legal and administrative in the later middle ages, Oxford, 1935. Bartl, P., ‘““Marciare verso Constantinopoli”. Zur Tiirkenpolitik Klemens VIII’, in Saeculum, xx (1969), pp. 44-56. Bartolotti, M., ‘Sui capitoli di Niccolò V per la città di Bologna nella storia del conflitto con il governo centrale’, in Annali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell’Università di Macerata, 1n-1v (1970-1), pp. 511-38. Basini, G. L., Finanza pubblica ed aspetti economici negli Stati italiani del Cinque e del Seicento, Parma, 1967. Bastiaanse, A., Teodoro Ameyden (1586-1656). Un neerlandese alla corte di Roma, The Hague, 1967. Baszkiewicz, J., Pavistwo suwerenne w feudalnej doktrynie politycznej do poczatkow XIV w, Warsaw, 1964. Battaglia, F., Enea Silvius Piccolomini e Francesco Patrizi. Due politici senesi del Quattrocento, Florence, 1936. Bauer, C., (a) ‘Studi per la storia delle finanze papali durante il pontificato di Sisto IV’, in Archivio della Società Romana di Storia Patria, Lx (1927), pp. 319-400; (b) ‘Die Epochen der Papstfinanz’, in Historische Zeitschrift, cxxxvm (1928), pp. 457-503 (also in Gesammelte Aufsdtze - zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte, Freiburg, 1965, pp. 112-47); (c) ‘Studien zur spanischen Konkordatsgeschichte des spàten Mittelalters. Das spanische Konkordat von 1482’, in Gesammelte Aufsdtze zur Kultur-geschichte s, 43-97. Spanien x1 (1935), pp. Bauer, H., Kunst und Utopie; Studien iiber das Kunst- und Staatsdenken in der Renaissance, Berlin, 1965. Baumer, R., Nachwirkungen des konziliaren Gedankens in der Theologie und Kanonistik des friihen 16. Jahrhunderts, Miinster, 1971. Baumgarten, P. M., (a) Untersuchungen und Urkunden tiber die Camera Collegi Cardinalium fiir die Zeit von 1295-1437, Leipzig, 1898; (b) ‘Von den Kardinélen des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts', in Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Kultur des sechzehnten und siebzehnten Jahrhunderts, fasc. 2, Krumbach, 1926. Behrens, B., ‘Origins of the office of English resident ambassador in Rome’, in The English Historical Review, xLIX (1934), pp. 640-56. Bellarmino, Roberto, Opera (edition used, Venice, 1731), 5 vols. Belvederi, R., Guido Bentivoglio e la politica europea del suo tempo 1607-162 1, Padua, 1962. Bendiscioli, M., ‘Pio V Ghisleri e le lotte giurisdizionali per l'applicazione del Concilio pp. di Trento’, in San Pio V e la problematica del suo tempo, Alessandria, 1972,

47-61. and Bendix, R., Kings or People. Power and the mandate to rule, Berkeley, Los Angeles London, 1978. Benevolo, L., Storia dell’architettura del Rinascimento, 2nd edn, Bari, 1973. (1970), pp. ctio hiv Benzoni, G., (a)‘I “teologi minori” dell’interdetto’, in ArcVeneto, 31-108; Lepanto, Florence, (b) (ed.) Il Mediterraneo nella seconda metà del '500 alla luce di

1974.

a

252,

The Papal Prince

Berardi, Carlo Sebastiano, Idea del governo ecclesiastico, eds. A. Bertola and L. Firpo, Turin, 1963 (Testi inediti o rari 6). Bercé, Y. M., ‘Carrière politique dans l’Etat pontificale au XVIle siècle’, in Journal des

Savants, 1965, pp. 645-52. Bérenger, J., ‘Pour une enquéte européenne: le probleme du ministeriat au XVIIe siècle’, in Annales, xx1x (1974), pp. 166-92. Bertelli, S., Ribelli, libertini e ortodossi nella storiografia barocca, Florence, 1973. Bertrams, W., Der neuzeitliche Staatsgedanke und die Konkordate des ausgehenden Mittelalters, 2nd edn, Rome, 1950. Besta, E., Fonti del diritto italiano dalla caduta dell'impero romano sino ai tempi nostri, 2nd edn, Milan, 1950. Biaudet, H., Les nonciatures apostoliques permanentes jusqu'en 1648, Helsinki, 1910. Bibl, V., Die Erhebung Herzog Cosimos von Medici zum Grossherzog von Toskana und die kaiserliche Anerkennung (1569-1576), Vienna, 1913 (Archiv fiir 6sterreichische Geschichte, 103). Bireley, R., Maximilian von Bayern, Adam Contzen S.J. und die Gegenreformation in Deutschland 1624-1635, Gottingen, 1975. Birkner, J., ‘Das Konzil von Trient und die Reform des kardinalkollegiums unter Pius IV’, in Historisches Jahrbuch, Lv (1932), pp. 340-55. Black, A., Monarchy and Community. Political ideas in the later conciliar controversy 1430-1450, Cambridge, 1970. Black, C. F., (a) ‘Commune and the papacy in the government of Perugia 1488-1540’, in Annali della Fondazione italiana per la storia amministrativa, 1v (1967), pp. 163-91; (b) ‘The Baglioni as tyrants of Perugia, 1488-1540’, in The English Historical Review, LXxxv (1970), pp. 245-81; (c) ‘Politica e amministrazione a Perugia tra Quattrocento e Cinquecento, in Storia e cultura in Umbria nell'età moderna (secc. XV--XVIII), Atti del Convegno di studi umbri, Gubbio 12-22 maggio 1969, Perugia, 1972, pp. 101-16; (d) ‘Perugia and papal absolutism in the sixteenth century’, in The English Historical Review, xcvi (1980), pp. 509-39. Blet, P., (a) ‘Jésuites Gallicans au XVIIe siécle?’, in Archivum Historicum Societatis Jesu, Xxx1x (1960), pp. 55-84; (b) ‘Le concordat de Bologne et la réforme tridentine’, in Gregorianum, xLv (1964), pp. 241-79; (c) ‘Le nonce en France au XVIle siècle. Ambassadeur et délégué apostolique’, in Révue d'Histoire diplomatique, Lxxxvu (1974), pp. 233-58; (d) Histoire de la répresentation diplomatique du Saint Siége des origines à l’aube du XIXe siècle, The Vatican, 1982 (Collectanea Archivi Vaticani, 9). Boccalini, Traiano, Ragguagli di Parnaso e scritti minori, new edition, ed. L. Firpo, Bari, 1948. Bockenforde, E. W., (a) ‘Die Entstehung des Staates als Vorgang der Sakularisation’, in Sakularisation und Utopie, Erbracher Studien. E. Fortshoff zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart, 1967, pp. 35-94; (b) ‘Zum Verhaltnis von Kirche und Moderner Welt. Aufriss eines Problems’, in Studien zum Beginn der modernen Welt, ed. R. Koselleck, Stuttgart, 1977.

Bibliography

253

Bosl, K., (a) ‘Die Reformation. Versuch einer Bestimmung ihres historischen Ortes und ihrer Funktion in Gesellschaft und Kultur Europas’, in Zeitschrift fiir Bayerische Landesgeschichte, xxx1 (1968), pp. 104-23; (b) ‘Papstgeschichte als Problem historischer Theorie und Methode’, in Zeitschrift

fiir Bayerische Landesgeschichte, xxx1 (1970), pp. 986-95. Bossy, J. A., ‘The Counter-Reformation and the people of Catholic Europe’, in Past and Present, xLvII (1970), pp. 51-70. i Botero, Giovanni, (a) ‘Discorso intorno allo Stato della Chiesa’, in Dell’uffitio del cardinale, Rome, 1599; (b) Della Ragion di Stato. Con tre libri delle cause della grandezza della città . . ., ed. L. Firpo, Turin, 1948. Bouwsma, W. J., (a) ‘The Venetian interdict and the problem of order’, in Archiwum historii filoxofii i mysly spolecznej, x11 (1966), pp. 127-40; (b) Venice and the Defense of Republican Liberty. Renaissance values in the age of the Counter-Reformation, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968. Bozio, Francesco, De temporali ecclesiae monarchia et iurisdictione, vol. 1, part 1, Rome, 1601. Bozio, Tommaso, De iure status sive de iure divino et naturali ecclesiasticae libertatis et potestatis, Rome, 1600. Brosch, M., (a) Julius II, und die Griindung des Kirchenstaates, Gotha, 1878; (b) Geschichte des Kirchenstaates, 2 vols., Gotha, 1880-2. Brucker, G. A., Florentine Politics and Society 1343-1378, Princeton, 1962. Brulez, W., ‘La crise dans les relations entre le Saint Siége et les Pays-Bas au XVIIe siècle (1634-1637)', in Bulletin de l'Institut historique Belge de Rome, xxvut (1953), pp. 63-104. Brunner, O., (a) Land und Herrschaft. Grundfragen der Territorialen Verfassungsgeschichte Osterreichs im Mittelalter, Darmstadt, 1975; i (b) Neue Wege der Sozialgeschichte, 2nd edn, Gottingen, 1968. Buisson, L., Potestas und Caritas. Die papstliche Gewalt im Spatmittelalter, Cologne and Graz, 1958. Bullard, M. M., Filippo Strozzi and the Medici: favour and finance in sixteenth-century Florence and Rome, Cambridge, 1980. Burchard[us], Johann, Liber notarum ab anno 1483 usque ad annum 1506, ed. E. Celani, 2 vols., Città di Castello, 1907-14. Burckhardt, J., La civiltà del Rinascimento in Italia, Italian ed., Florence 1927 (English translation, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, Oxford, 1944). Burke, P., Culture and Society in Renaissance Italy 1420-1540, London, 1972. Butzek, M., Die kommunalen Reprdasentationsstatuen der Pàpste des 16. Jahrhunderts in Bologna, Perugia und Rom, Bad Honnef, 1978. Caccamo, D., ‘La diplomazia della Controriforma e la crociata: dai piani del Possevino alla “lunga guerra” di Clemente VIII’, in Archivio storico italiano, cxxvill (1970), pp. 255-81. Cairns, C., Domenico Bollani Bishop of Brescia. Devotion to Church and State in the Republic of Venice in the sixteenth century, Nieuwkoop, 1976. Calisse, C., ‘Intorno al diritto comune pontificio’, in Atti del II congresso nazionale di studi romani, vol. 111, Rome, 1931, pp. 54-07.

254

ries

3

The Papal Prince

Campanella, Tommaso, (a) Lettere, ed. V. Spampanato, Bari, 1927; (b) Aforismi politici con sommario e postille inedite integrati dalla rielaborazione latina del De Politica e dal commento di Ugo Grozio, ed. L. Firpo, Turin, 1941; (c) Discorsi ai principi d'Italia, ed. L. Firpo, Turin, 1945; (d) Articuli prophetales, ed. G. Ernst, Florence, 1977. Canavan, F., SJ, ‘Subordination of the State to the Church according to Suarez’, in Theological Studies, x11, (1934), pp. 354-64. Cancellieri, F., Storia de’ solenni possessi de’ Sommi Pontefici . . ., Rome, 1802. Cantimori, D., (a) ‘L'utopia ecclesiologica di M. A. De Dominis’, in Problemi di vita religiosa in Italia nel Cinquecento, Padua, 1960, pp. 103-22; (b) ‘Questioncine sulle operette progettate da Paolo Cortesi’, in Studi. . . in onore di T. De Marinis, vol. 1, Verona, 1964, pp. 273-80; see also Storia della letteratura italiana, vol. 1v, Milan, 1966, pp. 16-17. Caraccioli, L. A., La vie du pape Benoit XIV, Prosper Lambertini, Paris, 1783. Caracciolo, A., ‘I bilanci dello Stato ecclesiastico fra XVI e XVII secolo: una fonte de alcune considerazioni’, in Méthodologie de l'histoire et des sciences humaines. Mélanges en I’honneur de F. Braudel, vol. 11, Toulouse, 1973. Carafa, Carlo, ‘Relatione dello stato dell’Imperio e della Germania fatta dopo il ritorno della sua nuntiatura appresso l'Imperatore, 1628’, ed. J. G. Miller, in Archiv fiir Kunde òsterreichischer Geschichtsquellen, xxx (1860), pp. 101-449. Caravale, M., (a) La finanza pontificia del Cinquecento: le province del Lazio, Naples, 1974; (b) ‘Entrate e uscite dello Stato della Chiesa in un bilancio della metà del Quattrocento’, in Per Francesco Calasso, Rome, 1977, pp. 167-90. Caravale, M., and Caracciolo, A., Lo Stato Pontificio da Martino V a Pio IX, Turin, . 1978 (Storia d'Italia, ed: G. Galasso, 14). Carloni Mocavero, C., ‘Il diritto comune pontificio e le sue caratteristiche’; ‘Potere centrale e autonomie locali negli Stati della Chiesa’; ‘I tribunali negli Stati della Chiesa’, in Osservatore Romano, respectively 27 July, 21 October and 27-28 December 1962. Carocci, G. P., Lo Stato della Chiesa nella seconda metà del sec. XVI, Milan, 1961.

Caron, P. G., L'appello per abuso, Milan, 1954. Carusi, E. (ed.), Dispacci e lettere di Giacomo Gherardi nunzio pontificio a Firenze e a Milano (11 sett. 1487 — 10 Ott. 1490), Rome, 1909. Casadei, A. (ed.), ‘Lettere del cardinale Gasparo Contarini durante la sua legazione di Bologna (1542), in Archivio storico italiano, cxvi (1960), pp. 77-130, 220-85. Casanova, C., Comunità e governo pontificio in Romagna in età moderna, Bologna, 1981. Catalano, G., (a) ‘La ‘Monarchia utriusque potestatis” nel capitolo XVII del XVII del libro IV delle Costituzioni Egidiane’, in Diritto ecclesiastico, Lxxx (1969), pp.

211-26;

>

|

(b) Controversie giurisdizionali tra Chiesa e Stato nell'età di Gregorio XIII e Filippo II, Palermo, 1954. Cauchie, A., and Maere, R. (eds.), Instructions générales aux nonces de Flandre 1596-1635, Brussels, 1904. Cecchi, D., Il Parlamento e la Congregazione provinciale della Marca di Ancona, Milan, 1965 (Archivo FISA, 2).

Bibliography

255

Celier, L., (a) ‘Alexandre VI et la réforme de l'Eglise’, in Mélanges d’archéologie et dhistoire de l’Ecole francaise de Rome, xxv (1907), pp. 65-124; (b) ‘L’idée de réforme a la cour pontificale du concile de Bale au concile de Latran’,

in Révue des questions historiques, LXXXVI (1909), pp. 418-35; (c) Les dataires du XVe siècles et les origines de la daterie apostolique, Paris, 1910. Cerchiari, E., Capellani Papae et Apostolicae Sedis, auditores causarum Sacri Palatii Apostolici, seu Sacra Romana Rota ab origine ad diem usque 20 Septembris 1870, 4 vols., Rome, 1919-21. Ceyssens, L., Le cardinal Francois Albizzi (1593-1684), Un cas important dans l’histoire du Jansénisme, Rome, 1977. Chabod, F., ‘Esiste uno Stato del Rinascimento?’, in Scritti sul rinascimento, Turin, 1967,pp. 591-623. Chambers, D. S., (a) Cardinal Bainbridge in the Court of Rome 1509-1514, London, 1965; (b) ‘The economic predicament of Renaissance cardinals’, in Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, vol. 111, Lincoln, 1966, pp. 289-313; (c) ‘The housing problems of Cardinal Francesco Gonzaga’, in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, xxx1x (1976), pp. 21-58. Chittolini, G., (ed.), La crisi degli ordinamenti comunali e le origini dello Stato del Rinascimento, Bologna, 1979. Cipolla, C. M., ‘Une crise ignorée: comment s’est perdue la propriétée ecclésiastique dansl’Italie du Nord entre le XIe et le XVIe siècle’, in Annales, 11 (1947), pp.317-27. Clancy, T. M., Papist Pamphleteers. The Allen—Person Party and the Political Thought of the Counter Reformation in England, 1572-1615, Chicago, 1964. Coffin, D. R., The Villa in the Life of Renaissance Rome, Princeton, 1979. Cohn, H.J. (ed.), Government in Reformation Europe 1520-1560, London, 1971. Coing, H. (ed.), Handbuch der Quellen und Literatur der neueren Europdischen Privatrechtsgeschichte (Veroffentlichung des Max-Planck-Instituts fur europàische Rechts-geschichte), Munich, 1973ff. Colliva, P., (a) ‘Bologna dal XIV al XVII secolo: ‘governo misto” or signoria senatoria?’, in Storia dell’Emilia-Romagna, vol. 11, Bologna, 1977, pp. 13-34; (b) Il cardinale Albornoz, Lo Stato della Chiesa, Le ‘Constitutiones Aegidianae’ 1353-1357, Bologna, 1977. Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, eds. G. Alberigo, P.-P. Jannou, L. Leonardi and P. Prodi, 2nd edn, Freiburg in Breslau, 1973. Concilium Tridentinum, Diariorum, actorum, epistolarum, tractatuum nova collectio, ed. Gorres-Gesellschaft, Freiburg im Breslau, 1901 ff. Coppi, A., Discorso sulle finanze dello Stato pontificio dal sec. X VI al principio del XIX, Rome, 1855. Corecco, E., Theologie des Kirchenrechts. Methodologische Ansùtze, Trier, 1980. Cornides, E., Rose und Schwert im papstlichen Zeremoniell von den Anfangen bis zum Pontifikat Gregors XIII, Vienna, 1967. Cortesio, Paolo, De cardinalatu, Castro Cortesio, 1510. Costello, F. B., The Political Philosophy of Luis de Molina S.J. (1535-1600), Rome,

1974. leriferte di Cozzi, G., (a) ‘Traiano Boccalini, il cardinale Borghese ela Spagna, secondo

256

The Papal Prince

un confidente degli Inquisitori di Stato’; in Rivista storica italiana, Lxvu (1956), pp. 230-54; (b) ‘Gesuiti e politica sul finire del 500. Una mediazione di pace tra Enrico IV, Filippo II e la sede apostolica proposta dal p. Achille Gagliardi alla repubblica di Venezia’, in Rivista storica italiana, Lxxv (1963), pp. 477-537; (c) Paolo Sarpi tra Venezia e l'Europa, Turin, 1979. Creighton, M., A History of the Papacy from the Great Schism to the Sack of Rome, 6 vols., London, New York and Bombay, 1897; xerox reprint, New York 1969. Cremer, A., ‘Traiano Boccalini als Kritiker Bodins’, in Quellen und Forschungen, Lv-LVI

(1976), pp. 229-50.

i

‘La croissance de l’Etat moderne (XVe-XVII siécles). Colloque du Centre d’études supérieures de la Renaissance, Tours, mai 1975’, in Revue d'histoire diplomatique, LXXXIX (1975), pp. 193-375.

Dal Pane, L., Lo Stato Pontificio e il movimento riformatore del Settecento, Milan, 1959. D'Amico, J. F., ‘Papal History and Curial Reform in the Renaissance. Raffaele Maffei’s ‘Brevis Histoire’ of Giulius II and Leo X’, in Archivum Historiae Pontificiae

xVi (1980), pp. 157-210.

Da Mosto, A., (a) ‘Ordinamenti militari delle soldatesche dello Stato romano del secolo XVI’, in Quellen und Forschungen, vi (1904), pp. 82-133. (b) ‘Milizie dello Stato romano (1600-1797)', in Memorie storiche militari, x (1914), pp. 19-580. D’ Avack, L., La regione dei re, Il pensiero politico di Giacomo I, Milan, 1974. De Benedictis, A., ‘Governo cittadino e riforma amministrativa a Bologna nel ’700’, in Famiglie senatorie e istituzioni cittadine a Bologna nel Settecento, Bologna, 1980, pp. 9-54. De Bernardis, L. M., ‘Il diritto canonico territoriale tra il Concilio Vaticano II e la riforma del codice”, in Ius populi Dei. Miscellanea in onore R. Bidagor, Rome, 1972, vol. 11, pp. 27-42. De Caprio, V., ‘Intellettuali e mercato del lavoro nella Roma medicea’, in Studi romani, xXIX (1981), pp. 29-46; ‘L'idea umanistica romana (1513-1527), ibid., pp. 321-35. De Domenichi, Domenico, Domenicus de’ Dominici und seine Schrift ‘De potestate pape et termino eius’, ed. H. Smolinsky, Minster, 1976. De Dominis, Marc’, Antonio, (a) De repubblica ecclesiastica libri X, London, 1617. (b) Scritti giurisdizionalistici inediti, ed. A. Russo, Naples, 1965. Del Giudice, P., Storia del diritto italiano, vol. 11: Fonti: legislazione e scienza giuridica dal sec. XVI ai nostri giorni, Milan, 1923; reprinted 1969. Del Re, N., (a) La curia capitolina, Rome, 1954. (b) La curia romana. Lineamenti storico-giuridici, Rome, 3rd edn, 1970. (c) Monsignor Governatore di Roma, Rome, 1972. (d) ‘Prospero Farinacci giureconsulto romano (1544-1618)’, in Archivio della Società romana di storia patria, xcvi (1975), pp. 135-220. (e) Il vicegerente del Vicariato di Roma, Rome, 1976. De Luca, Giovanni Battista (a) Il dottor volgare, ovvero Il Compendio di tutta la legge civile, canonica, feudale, e municipale . . . moralizzato in lingua italiana per istruzione e

Bibliography

257

comodita maggiore di questa provincia, 15 vols., Rome, 1673. (b) Il cavaliere e la dama, Rome, 1675. (c) Il cardinale della S.R. Chiesa pratico . . ., Rome, 1680. (d) Il principe cristiano pratico . . ., Rome, 1680. (e) Theatrum veritatis et iustitiae, vols. -xvI, Rome, 1669-73 (later ed, used. 18 vols., Venice, 1734). Delumeau, J., (a) Vie économique et sociale de Rome dans la seconde moitié du X Vle siècle, 2 vols., Paris, 1957-9; (b) ‘Les progrés de la centralisation dans l’Etat pontifical au XVIe siècle’, in Revue historique, ccxxvi (1961), pp. 399-410; (c) L’alun de Rome XVe-XIXe siècle, Paris, 1962; (d) La peur en Occident, XIVe-XVIIIe siécles, Paris, 1978. De Mattei, R., Il pensiero politico italiano nell'età della Controriforma, vol. 1, Milan and Naples, 1982. Dempf, A., Sacrum Imperium. La filosofia della storia e dello Stato nel Medioevo e nella Rinascenza politica, Messina and Milan, 1933. De Roover, R., The Rise and Decline of the Medici Bank, Cambridge, Mass., 1963. De Sande, A. van, La curie romaine au début de la restauration. Le probléme de la continuité dans la politique de restauration du Saint-Siège en Italie, 1814-1817, The Hague, 1979. De Vecchis, P. A. (ed.), Collectio constitutionum, chirographum et brevium Romani Pontificis pro bono regimine universitatum ac communitatum Status ecclesiastici . . ., 3

vols., Rome, 1732-48. De Vergottini, G., (a) ‘Il papato e la comitatinanza nello Stato della Chiesa (sec. xIII-XV)', in Studi storici in memoria di L. Simeoni, vol. 1, Bologna, 1953, pp. 73-162 (now in Scritti di storia del diritto italiano, vol. 1, Milan, 1977, pp. 123-204; (b) ‘Note per la storia del vicariato apostolico durante il secolo XIV’, in Studi in onore di C. Calisse, vol. 1, Milan, 1939, pp. 341-65 (now in Scritti di storia del diritto italiano, vol. 11, Milan, 1977, pp. 584-612); (c) Lezioni di storia del diritto italiano: il diritto pubblico italiano nei secoli XII-XV, 3rd edn, Milan, 1959. Di Castro, Scipio, La politica come retorica, ed. R. Zapperi, Rome, 1978. Diener, H., ‘Enea Silvio Piccolominis Weg von Basel nach Rom', in Adel und Kirche. G. Tellenbach zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. J. Fleckenstein and K. Schmid, Freiburg im Breslau, 1968. Di Napoli, G., Lorenzo Valla. Filosofia e religione nell’umanesimo italiano, Rome, 1971. Dionisotti, C., Geografia e storia della letteratura italiana, Turin, 1967. Dittrich, F., Regesten und Briefe des Cardinals G. Contarini (1483-1542), Braunsberg, 1881. Dollinger, J.J.I., (a) Kirche und Kirchen. Papsttum und Kirchenstaat, Munich, 1861: (b) Beitràge zur politischen, kirchlichen und Cultur-Geschichte der sechs letzten Jahrhunderte, vols. 1-11, Regensburg, 1862-3; vol. 11. Vienna, 1882. Dorez, L., La cour du pape Paul III, d'après les registres de la Trésorerie secrete, 2 vols., Paris, 1932. Dreitzel, H., Protestantischer Aristotelismus und absoluter Staat, Die ‘Politica’ des

\

258

The Papal Prince

Henning Arnisaeus (ca. 1575-1636), Wiesbaden, 1970. Duca, S., and A. S. Familia, S. (eds.), Enchiridion Archivorum Ecclesiasticorum . . ., The Vatican, 1966. Dumont, L., ‘La conception moderne de l’individu. Notes sur sa genèse, en relation avec les conceptions de la politique et de l’Etat à partir du XIIe siècle’, in Esprit, February 1978, pp. 3-39. Dupré Theseider, E., Roma dal comune di populo alla signoria pontificia (1252-1377), Bologna, 1952 (Istituto di Studi Romani, Storia di Roma, x1). Dupront, A., (a) ‘De la chrétienté a l'Europe: la passion westphalienne du nonce Fabio Chigi’, in Forschungen und Studien zur Geschichte des westfalischen Friedens, ed. M. Braubach, Miinster, 1965, pp. 49-84; (b) ‘La papauté et l’église catholique au XVIle siècle’, (xeroxed, 130 pp.), ‘Cours de Sorbonne’, n.d. Dykmans, M., ‘Le cérémonial de Nicolas V’, in Revue d’Histoire Ecclésiastique, Lx11 (1968), pp. 365-78; pp. 785-825. Eckardt, C. C., The Papacy and World Affairs as Reflected in the Secularisation of Politics, Chicago, 1937. Eckermann, K., Studien zur Geschichte des monarchischen Gedankens im 15. Jahrhundert, Berlin, 1933. Ehses, S., ‘Der Reformentwurf des Kardinals Nikolaus Cusanus’, in Historisches Jahrbuch, xxx1 (1911), pp. 274-97. Elias, N., Die hòfische Gesellschaft. Untersuchungen zur Soziologie des Kénigtums und der hòfischen Aristokratie, 2nd edn, Neuwied and Berlin; 1975. Elton, G. R., (a) The Tudor Revolution in Government, Cambridge, 1953; (b) England under the Tudors, London and New York, 1960. Elze, R., ‘‘*Sic transit gloria mundi’’: la morte del papa nel medioevo’, in Annali dell'Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento, 111 (1970), pp. 23-41. Erba, A., La Chiesa sabauda tra Cinque e Seicento. Ortodossia tridentina, gallicanesimo savoiardo e assolutismo ducale (1580-1630), Rome, 1979. Ercole, F., Dal comune al principato. Saggi sulla storia del diritto pubblico del rinascimento italiano, Florence, 1929. Erler, A., Aegidius Albornoz als Gesetzgeber des Kirchenstaates, Berlin, 1970. Ermini, G., (a) ‘La libertà comunale nello Stato della Chiesa. Da Innocenzo HI all’Albornoz (1198-1367). Il governo e la costituzione del comune’, in Archivio della Società romana di storia patria, xLIX (1926), pp. 5-126; (b) I parlamenti dello Stato della Chiesa dalle origini al periodo Albornoziano, Rome, 1930; (c) ‘Trettori provinciali dello Stato della Chiesa da Innocenzo III allo Albornoz’, in Rivista di storia del diritto italiano, 1v (1931), pp. 29-104; (d) ‘I giudici provinciali della monarchia pontificia nel medioevo’, in Studi economico-giuridici pubblicati per cura della Facoltà di Giurisprudenza della R. Universita di Cagliari, xvi (1931), 13-pp. extract; (e) ‘Stato e Chiesa nella monarchia pontificia dei secoli XIII e XIV’, in Rivista di storia del diritto italiano, v (1932), pp. 583-629; (f) Guida bibliografica per lo studio del diritto comune pontificio, Bologna, 1934; (g) ‘Caratteri della sovranita temporale dei papi nei secoli XIII e XIV’, in Zeitschrift

‘ Bibliography

"0950

der Savigny-Stiftung fiir Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistiche Abteilung, xxvii (1938), pp. 315-47; (h) ‘La giurisprudenza della Rota Romana come fattore costitutivo dello “ius commune” ', in Atti del IV congresso nazionale di studi romani, 4, Rome, 1938, pp. yoy

57-67; (i) ‘Il principio “‘Quod omnes tangit etc.” nello Stato della Chiesa del Seicento (secondo il pensiero di G. B. De Luca)’, in Rivista di storia del diritto italiano, xLIx (1976), pp. 297-300; (j) ‘Potestà del papa nel '600, secondo G. B. De Luca’, in Nuova rivista storica, Lx1I (1979), pp. 434-43; (k) ‘La curia romana forense del secolo XVII nella relazione di G. B. De Luca’, in Archivio storico italiano, cxxxvm (1980), pp. 41-57; (1) ‘Validità della legislazione albornoziana nelle terre della Chiesa dal Trecento al codificazione del secolo XIX’, in El cardenal Albornoz y el Colegio de Espania, vol. 1v (Studia Albornoziana, 35), Bologna, 1977, pp. 81-102. Esch, A., ‘Uber den Zusammenhang von Kunst und Wirtschaft in der italienischen Renaissance’, in Zeitschrift fiir Historische Forschung, vini (1981), pp. 179-222. Ettlinger, L. D., The Sistine Chapel before Michelangelo. Religious imagery and papal primacy, Oxford, 1965. Evans, R. J. W., The Making of the Hapsburg Monarchy 1550-1700. An interpretation, Oxford, 1979. Evennett, H. O., The spirit of the Counter-Reformation (The Birkbeck lectures in ecclesiastical history given in the University of Cambridge in May 1951), published posthumously with postscript by J. Bossy, Cambridge, 1968. Fagnani, Prospero, Ius canonicum seu commentaria absolutissima in quinque libros Decretalium, (edition used, Venice, 1699, which resumes the 1661 Rome edition, 5 vols and 1 vol. index). Famiglie senatorie e istituzioni cittadine a Bologna nel Settecento, Bologna, 1980. Fanti, M., ‘Bologna nell’età moderna (1506-1796)’, in Storia di Bologna, Bologna, 1978, pp. 197-282. Fasano-Guarini, E. (ed.), Potere e società negli stati regionali italiani del ‘500 e '600, Bologna, 1978. Fasoli, G., ‘Feudi, feudatari, feudisti bolognesi del XVIII secolo’, in Bollettino del Museo del Risorgimento di Bologna, v (1960), pp. 485-96. Favier, J., Les finances pontificales a l'époque du Grande Schisme d’Occident, 1378-1409, , Paris, 1966. Febvre, L., ‘Un ‘‘abuso” e il suo clima sociale: la scomunica per debiti in Franca Contea’, in Studi su riforma e rinascimento, Turin, 1966, pp. 205-31. Felici, G., La reverenda camera apostolica; studio storico giuridico, Rome, 1940. Ferguson, W. K., (a) Europe in Transition, 1300-1520, Boston, 1962; (b) Renaissance Studies, 2nd edn, New York, 1970. Ferrajoli, A., (a) Rotulus familiae Leonis X. Il ruolo della corte di Leone X (1514-1516),

Rome, 1911; (b) La congiura dei cardinali contro Leone X, Rome, 1919-20. Ferretti, M., ‘Legati, vicelegati e governatori a Bologna nel Cinquecento’ (postgraduate thesis, Facoltà di Magistero, University of Bologna, 1967-8).

a

260

The Papal Prince

Figgis, J. N., (a) Churches in the Modern-State, London, 1913; (b) Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius, Cambridge, 1916 (reprinted with an introduction by G. Mattingly, New York, 1960). Fokcifisky, H., ‘Le relazioni concistoriali nel Cinquecento’, in Archivum Historae Pontificiae, xvi (1980), pp. 211-62. Frank, I. W., ‘Kirchengewalt und Kirchenregiment in Spatmittelalter und frither Neuzeit’, in Innsbrucker Historische Studien, 1 (1978), pp. 34-60. Friedberg, E., (a) Die Grenzen zwischen Staat und Kirche und die Garantien gegen deren Verletzung, Tùbingen, 1872; xerox reprint, Aalen, 1962; (b) Corpus iuris canonici, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1879; xerox reprint, Graz, 1959. Frutaz, A. P., Il torrione di Niccolò V in Vaticano, Rome, 1956. Fumagalli Carulli, O., ‘I fondamenti religiosi dell’assolutismo in Bossuet’, in Studi in onore di G. Balladore Pallieri, vol. 1, Milan, 1978, pp. 190-264. Fumi, L., (a) Inventario e spoglio dei registri della tesoreria apostolica di Perugia e Umbria dal R. Archivio di Roma, Perugia, 1901; (b) Inventario e spoglio dei registri della tesoreria apostolica della Marca, Fano, 1904. Gaeta, F., (a) Lorenzo Valla. Filologia e storia nell'umanesimo italiano, Naples, 1955; (b) ‘Origini e sviluppi della rappresentanza stabile pontificia in Venezia (1485-1583), in Annuario dell'Istituto storico italiano per l'età moderna e contemporanea, IX-x (1957-8), pp. 3-281; (c) Un nunzio pontificio a Venezia nel Cinquecento, Girolamo Aleandro, Venice and Rome, 1960; (d) ‘Sulla ‘‘lettera a Maometto” di Pio II’, in Bullettino dell'Istituto storico per il medio evo e Archivio Muratoriano, LXI (1965), pp. 127-227. Galasso, G., Potere e istituzioni in Italia. Della caduta dell'Impero Romano ad oggi, Turin, 1974. Galeotti, L., Della sovranità e del governo temporale dei papi, Capolago, 1847. Gambino, L., ‘Regno di Francia e papato nella polemica sul Concilio di Trento (1582-1584)’, in Il pensiero politico, vi (1975), pp. 133-59. 4 Gaudemet, J., ‘Les tendences 4a l’unification du droit en France dans les derniers siécles de l’ancien régime (XVIe-XVIIle)", in La formazione storica del diritto moderno, Florence, 1977, vol. 1, pp. 157-219. Gebhardt, G., Die Stellung des Erasmus von Rotterdam zur Romischen Kirche, Marburg, 1966. Giacchi, O., ‘Alle origini dell’assolutismo: la frattura della società europea e lo Stato pacificatore’, in Studi in onore di G. Balladore Pallieri, vol. 1, Milan, 1978, pp. 274-88. Giacomelli, A., ‘Carlo Grassi e le riforme bolognesi del Settecento’, in Quaderni culturali bolognesi, x-x1 (1979). Giannone, Pietro, Opere, eds. S. Bertelli and G. Recuperati, Milan and Naples, 1971.

Gigli, Giacinto, Diario romano (1608-1670), ed. G. Ricchiotti, Rome, 1958. Gilbert, F., (a) Machiavelli and Guicciardini. Politics and history in sixteenth-century Florence, Princeton, 1965. i (b) ‘The historian as guardian of national! consciousness: Italy between Guicciardini and Muratori', in National Consciousness, History, and Political Culture in Early-Modern Europe, ed. O. Ranum, Baltimore, 1975, pp. 21-41; (c) The Pope, his Banker and Venice, Cambridge, Mass., 1980.

Bibliography

|

261

Glenisson, J., and Mollat, G., L’administration des états de l'Eglise au XIVe siècle. Correspondance des légats et vicaires généraux: Gil Albornoz et Androin de La Roche 1353-1367, Paris, 1964. Goeller, E., (a) Die pdpstliche Poenitentiarie von ihrem Ursprung bis zu ihrer Umgestaltung unter Pius V, 2 vols., Rome, 1907-11; (b) ‘Untersuchungen ùber das Inventar des Finanzarchivs der Renaissance-papiste (1447-1521)’, in Miscellanea F. Ehrle, vol. v, Rome, 1923, pp. 227-72. _

Goldast (von Haiminsfeld), Melchior, Monarchia S. Romani Imperii, 3 vols., 1611-14; xerox reprint, Aalen, 1960. Géllner, C., Die Tiirkenfrage in der 6ffentlichen Meinung Europas im 16. Jahrhundert, Bucharest and Baden-Baden, 1978. Gorla, G., ‘I tribunali supremi degli Stati italiani fra i secoli XVI e XIX quali fattori

della unificazione del diritto nello Stato e della sua uniformazione fra Stati’, in La formazione del diritto moderno, vol. 1, Florence, 1977, pp. 447-532. Gottlob, A., Aus der Camera Apostolica des XV Jahrhunderts. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Papstlichen Finanzwesens und des endenden Mittelalters, Innsbruck, 1889. Gotwald, W., Ecclesiastical Censure at the end of the Fifteenth Century (Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, 45), Baltimore, 1927. Graham, R. A., Vatican Diplomacy. A study of Church and State on the international plane, Princeton, 1959. Gregorovius, F., Geschichte der Stadt Rom im Mittelalter vom V, bis zum XVI. Jahrhundert, ed. W. Kampf, 4 vols., Munich, 1978. Grisar, J., (a) ‘Papstliche Finanzen, Nepotismus und Kirchenrecht unter Urban VIII’, in Xenia Piana, Rome, 1943, pp. 205-366 (Miscellanea historiae pontificiae, VII,

14); (b) ‘Notare und Notariatsarchive im Kirchenstaat des 16. Jahrhunderts', in Meélanges Tisserant, vol. rv, The Vatican, 1964, pp. 251-300. Grotius, Hugo, De imperio summarum potestatum circa sacra, Lutetiae Parisiorum,

1647. Guénée, B., ‘Ya-a-t-il un Etat des XIVe et XVe siécles?’, in Annales, xxvi (1971), pp. 399-406. Guglielmotti, A., (a) La guerra dei pirati e la marina pontificia dal 1500 al 1560, Florence, 1876; (b) Storia della marina pontificia nel medio evo dal 778 al 1499, Rome, 1886-93. Guicciardini, Francesco, (a) Storia d'Italia, ed. C. Panigada, 5 vols., Bari, 1929 (English language edition, The History of Italy, trs. and ed. S. Alexander, New York 1969); (b) Scritti politici e ricordi, ed. R. Palmarocchi, Bari, 1933 (English language edition, Maxims and reflections, trs. M. Domandi, New York, 1965); (c) Carteggi, eds. R. Palmarocchi and P. C. Ricci, 17 vols. (Fonti per la storia d'Italia), Rome, 1943; (d) Ricordi, critical edition by R. Spongano, Florence, 1951; (e) Storie fiorentine dal 1378 al 1509, ed. A. Greco, Novara, 1970.

Guidiccioni, Giovanni, (a) Opere, Florence, 1867; (b) Le lettere, ed. M. T. Graziosi, 2 vols., Rome, 1979. Guillemain, B., La cour pontificale d'Avignon (1309-1376). Etude d'une société, Paris, 1962; reprinted Paris, 1966.

262

The Papal Prince

Guiraud, J., L’état pontifical après le grand schisme. Etude de géographie politique, Paris, 1896. Hale, J. R., Renaissance Fortification: Art or Engineering’, London, 1978. Hale, J.R., Highfield, J.R., and Smalley, R. (eds.), Europe in the Late Middle Ages, London, 1965. Halkin, L. E., Les archives des nonciatures, Brussels and Rome, 1968 (Bibliothéque de l'Institut Belge de Rome, 14). Haller, J., Papsttum und Kirchenreform. Vier Kapitel zur Geschichte des ausgehenden Mittelalters, Berlin, 1903; reprinted Berlin, 1966. Hamilton, B., Political Thought in Sixteenth-Century Spain. A study of the political ideas of Vitoria, De Soto, Suarez and Molina, Oxford, 1963. Hammermeyer, L., ‘Grundlinien der Entwicklung des papstlichen Staatssekretariats von Paul V. bis Innozens X. (1605-1655)’, in Rémische Quartalschrift, Lv, (1960), pp. 157-202. Harbison, E. M., ‘Action and conviction in early modern Europe’, in Essays in Memory of E. M. Harbison, ed. Theodore K. Rabb and J. E. Siegel, Princeton, 1969. Harding, R. R., Anatomy of a Power Elite. The provincial governors of early modern France, New Haven and London, 1978. Harprath, R., Papst Paul III, als Alexander der Grosse, Das Freskenprogramm der Sala

Paolina in der Engelsburg, Berlin, 1978.

i

Hartung, F., ‘Die Krone als Symbol der monarchischen Herrschaft im ausgehenden Mittelalter’, in Corona Regni. Studien tiber die Krone also Symbol des Staates im spateren Mittelalter, ed. M. Hellmann, Weimar, 1961. Haubst, R., ‘Der Reformentwurf Pius des Zweiten’, in Rémischen Quartalschrift, xL1x (1954), pp. 188-242. Hausmann, F. R., ‘Die Benefizien des Kardinals Jacopo Ammannati—Piccolomini. Ein Beitrag zur 6konomischen Situation des Kardinalats im Quattrocento’, in Romische Historische Mitteilungen, x111 (1971), pp. 27-80. Hay, D., The Church in Italy in the Fifteenth Century, Cambridge, 1977. Heal, F., and O'Day, R. (eds.), Church and Society in England: Henry VIII to James I, Hamden, Conn., 1977. Heckel, M., (a) Staat und Kirche nach den Lehren der evangelischen Juristen Deutschlands in der ersten Halfte des 17. Jahrhunderts, Munich, 1968; (b) ‘Sakularisierung. Staatskirchenrechtlicher Aspekt einer umstrittenen Kategorie’, in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fiir Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung, LXvI (1980), pp. 1-163 (in a shortened version with the title ‘Das Sakularisierungsproblem in der Entwicklung des deutschen Staatskirchenrechts’, in Cristianesimo, secolarizzazione e diritto moderno, ed. L. Lombardi Vallauri and G. Dilcher, Baden-Baden and Milan, 1981, pp. 873-937). Herre, P., Papsttum und Papstwahl im Zeitalter Philipps II., Leipzig, 1907; reprinted Aalen, 1973. Hexter, J., (a) ‘Il principe e lo stato’, in Studies in the Renaissance, 1v (1957), pp. 113-38; | (b) Reappraisals in History, London, 1961; (c) The Vision of Politics on the Eve of the Reformation: More, Machiavelli and Seyssel, New York, 1973.

Bibliography

263

Hill, D. J., A History of Diplomacy in the International Development of Europe, 2 vols., New York, 1905-6. Hintze, O., Stato e societa, translation and introduction by P. Schiera, Bologna, 1980 (see, in particular, the essays ‘Il commissario e la sua importanza nella storia generale dell’amministrazione’, and ‘Essenza e trasformazione dello Stato moderno’). Hoare, F. R., The Papacy and the Modern State. An essay on the political history of the Catholic Church, London, 1940. Hobbes, Thomas, Leviathan or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil, ed. M. Oakeshott, Oxford, 1946. Hoberg, H., (a) ‘Die Finnahmen der apostolischen Kammer am Vorabend der Glaubensspaltung’, in Hundert Jahre Deutsches Priesterkolleg bei Campo Santo Teutonico, 1876-1976, ed. E. Gatz (R6mische Quartalschrift Supplementheft, 35), Rome, 1977, pp. 69-85; (b) ‘Die Tatigkeit der Rota am Vorabend der Glaubensspaltung’, in Miscellanea in onore di Mons. M. Giusti, vol. 11, The Vatican, 1978, pp. 1-32; (c) Rémische Kurie. Kirchliche Finanzen. Vatikanisches Archiv. Studien zu Ehren von H. Hoberg, ed. E. Gatz, 2 vols., Rome, 1979. Hoflechner, W., ‘Anmerkungen zu Diplomatie und Gesandtschaftswesen am Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts’, in Mitteilungen des Osterreichischen Staatsarchivs, xxX1I (1979), pp. 1-23. Hofmann, H. H. (ed.), Die Entstehung des modernen souverdnen Staates, Cologne, 1967. Hofmann, W. von, (a) Zur Geschichte der papstlichen Kanzlei vornehmlich in der zweiten

Halfte des 15. Jahrhunderts, Berlin, 1904; (b) Forschungen zur Geschichte der kurialen Behérden vom Schisma bis zur Reformation, vol. 11, Rome, 1914. Hohenberg, P. M. and Krantz, F. (eds.), Transition du feudalisme à la société industrielle: l’échec de l'Italie de la Renaissance et des Pays Bas du XVIle siècle, Montreal, 1975. Houlbrooke, R., Church Courts and the People during the English Reformation, Oxford,

L979: Hiittl, L., ‘Geistlicher First und geistliche Fiirstentiimer im Barock und Rokoko. Ein Beitrag zur Strukturanalyse von Gesellschaft, Herrschaft, Politik und Kultur des alten Reiches’, in Zeitschrift fiir Bayerische Landesgeschichte, xxxvi (1974), pp. 3-48. Hyland, F. E., Excommunication. Its nature, historical development and effects, Washington, 1928. Ilardi, V., ‘Fifteenth-century diplomatic documents in Western archives and libraries (1450-1494)’, in Studies in the Renaissance, IX (1962), pp. 64-112. rin 2 Incisa Della Rocchetta, G., (ed.), La nunziatura di Fabio Chigi (1640-1651), vol. parts, Rome, 1943-6. Rome, Infessura, Stefano, Diario della città di Roma [1303-1497], ed. O. Tommasini, 1890; xerox reprint, Turin, 1960. Jaitner, K., ‘De Officio primario summi pontificis. Eine Denkschrift Kardinal Kurie (see Bellarmins fiir Papst Clemens VIII. (Sept.—Okt. 1600)’, in Rémische Hoberg, c), vol. 1, pp. 377-403.

264

The Papal Prince

James I, The Political Works of James I, ed. C. H. McIlwain, Cambridge, 1919; reprinted New York, 1965. Jaschke, H., ‘‘“Das persénliche Regiment” Clemens VIII. Zur Geschichte des papstlichen Staatssekretariats’, in Romische Quartalschrift, Lxv (1970), pp. 133-44. Jedin, H., (a) ‘Religion und Staatsraéson. Ein Dialog Trajano Boccalinis tiber die deutsche Glaubensspaltung’, in Historisches Jahrbuch, L111 (1933), pp. 305-19; (b) ‘Vorschlage und Entwiirfe zur Kardinalsreform’ (Analekten zur Reformtatigkeit der Papste Julius III. unter Pauls IV., 3), in Romische Quartalschrift, xLm [1935], pp. 87-128; (c) ‘Juan de Torquemada und das Imperium romanum’, in Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum, x11 (1942), pp. 247-78; (d) ‘Kardinal Giovanni Ricci (1497-1574)’, in Miscellanea Pio Paschini, vol. 11, Rome, 1948-9, pp. 269-358; (e) Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, Freiburg, Basle and Vienna, 1949, 4 vols. in 5 bound vols.; (f) ‘Sanchez de Arévalo und die Konzilsfrage unter Paul II’, in Historisches Jahrbuch, LXXMI (1954), pp. 95-119; (g) Studien tiber Domenico de’ Domenichi, Mainz, 1957; (h) Kirche des Glaubens-Kirche der Geschichte, Ausgewahlte Aufsatze und Vortràge, Freiburg, Basle and Vienna, 1966; (i) Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte, ed. H. Jedin, Freiburg, Basle and Vienna, 1973,

7 vols. in 10 bound vols.; (j) Il Concilio di Trento come crocevia della politica europea, ed. H. Jedin and P. Prodi, Bologna, 1979 (Annali dell'Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento, Quaderno 4). Jemolo, A. C., Stato e Chiesa negli scrittori politici italiani del '600 e del '700, ed. F. Margiotta Broglio, 2nd edn, Pompei, 1972. Jones, P. J., The Malatesta of Rimini and the Papal State, A political history, Cambridge, 1974. Journet, C., (a) La jurisdiction de l’Eglise sur la Cité, Paris, 1931; (b) L’église du Verbe Incarné, 2 vols., 3rd edn, Bruges, 1962. Kantorowicz, E., The King’s Two Bodies. A study in medieval political theology, 3rd edn, Princeton, 1973. Karttunen, L., Grégoire XIII comme politicien et souverain, Helsinki, 1911. Katterbach, B., Referendarii utriusque signaturae a Martino V ad Clementum IX et praelati Signaturae supplicationum a Martino V ad Leonem XIII, The Vatican, 1931. Keniston, H., Francisco de los Cobos, Secretary of the Emperor Charles V, Pittsburg, 1958. Kirsch, J. P., Die Finanzverwaltung des Kardinalkollegiums im XIII. und XIV. Jahrhundert, Miinster, 1895. Knecht, R. J., Francis I and Absolute Monarchy, London, 1969. Kraus,A., (a) ‘Die Sekretàre Pius II. Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungsgeschichte ala alien Sekretariats', in Romische Quartalschrift, L111 (1958), pp. 25-80; (b) ‘Secretarius und Sekretariat. Der Ursprung der Institution des Staatssekretariats und ihr Einfluss auf die Entwicklung moderner Regierungsformen in Europa’, in Romische Quartalschrift, Lv (1960), pp. 43-84;

Bibliography

265

(c) Das papstliche Staatssekretariat unter Urban VIII, 1623-1644, Rome, Freiburg and Vienna, 1964; (d) ‘Die auswàrtige Politik Urbans VIII. Grundziige und Wendepunkte’, in Mélanges E. Tisserant, vol. rv, The Vatican, 1964, pp. 407-26. Kruedener, J., Baron von, Die Rolle des Hofes im absolutismus (Forschungen zur Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte), Stuttgart, 1973. Laboa, J.M., Rodrigo Sanchez de Arévalo alcalde de Sant’ Angelo, Madrid, 1973. Laemmer, H., (a) Monumenta Vaticana historiam ecclesiasticam sec. XVI illustrantia . . » Freiburg, 1861; (b) Melematum Romanorum Mantissa, Regensburg, 1875. La Mantia, V., Storia della legislazione italiana, vol. 1: Roma e Stato Romano, Turin, 1884.

Larner, J., Lords of Romagna, Romagnol society and the origins of the Signoria, London, 1965. Laurain-Portemer, M., (a) ‘Le statut de Mazarin dans l’église. Apercus sur le haut clergé de la Contre-Réforme’, in Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes, cxxvit (1969), pp. 355-419; cxxvI (1970), pp. 5-80; (b) ‘Absolutisme et népotisme. La surintendence de l’état ecclésiastique’, in Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes, cxxx1 (1973), pp. 487-568; (c) ‘Ministériat, finances et papauté au temps de la réforme catholique’, in Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartes, cxxx1v (1976), pp. 396-403. Lauro, A., Il giurisdizionalismo pregiannoniano nel Regno di Napoli. Problemi e bibliografia (1563-1723), Rome, 1974. Le Bras, G., Prolégomènes, vol. 1 of the Histoire du droit et des institutions de L’Eglise en Occident, ed. G. Le Bras, Paris, 1955. Lee, E., ‘Jacopo Gherardi and the court of Pope Sixtus IV’, in Catholic Historical Review, LXv (1979), pp. 221-37. Lefebvre, C., (a) ‘Les juristes du Moyen Age et la vénalité des charges’, in Miscellanea historica in honorem Leonis Van Der Essen, Brussels and Paris, 1947, pp. 273-85; (b) ‘La procédure du tribunal de la Rota Romaine au XVIle siècle d’aprés un manuscrit inédit’, in L’année canonique, v (1957), pp. 143-55. Lefebvre, C., Pacaut, M., and Chevailler, L., L’époque moderne (1563-1789). Les sources du droit et la seconde centralisation romaine (Histoire du droit et des institutions de l’Eglise en Occident, xv, 1), Paris, 1977. Lefèvre, J., Documents relatifs a la jurisdiction des nonces et internonces des Pays-Bas pendant le régime espagnol (1563-1706), Brussels and Rome, 1943. Legendre, P., L’amour du censeur, Paris, 1974. Leicht, P. S., Storia del diritto italiano. Le fonti, 4th edn, Milan, 1956. Lestocquoy, J., and Duval-Arnould, L., ‘Le cardinal Santa Croce et le Sacré Collège en 1565’, in Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, xvi (1980), pp. 263-96. Litva, F., ‘L'attività finanziaria della dataria durante il periodo tridentino’, in Archivum Historiae Pontificae, v (1967), pp. 79-174. Lodolini, A., L'Archivio di Stato di Roma. Epitome di una guida degli archivi dell’amministrazione dello Stato pontificio (Istituto di Studi Romani), Rome, 1960. Lodolini, E., (a) L'archivio della S. Congregazione del Buon Governo (1592-1847). Inventario, Rome, 1956 (Ministero dell'Interno. Publication of the State Archives,

XX);

266

The Papal Prince

(b) ‘I registri delle Tesorerie provinciali dello Stato Pontificio (1397-1816) nell’ Archivio di Stato di Roma’, in Studi in memoria di F. Melis, vol. 1, Naples, 1978, pp. 431-9. Logan, F. D., Excommunication and the Secular Arm in Medieval England. A study in legal procedure from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century, Toronto, 1968. Lulvès, J., (a) ‘Papstliche Wahlkapitulationen. Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungsgeschichte des Kardinalats’ in Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und

Bibliotheken, x11 (1909), pp. 212-35; (b) ‘Die Machtbestrebungen des Kardinalkollegiums gegentiber dem Papsttum’, in Mitteilungen des Instituts fiir dsterreichische Geschichtsforschung, xxxv (1914), pp. 455-83. Lunadoro, Girolamo, Relatione della corte di Roma e de’ riti da osservarsi in essa, e de’ suoi Magistrati con Ia loro distinta giurisdittione, Bracciano, 1646 (2-vol. edition, ed. F. A. Zaccaria, Rome, 1774, from an earlier edition of 1641). Lunt, W., (a) Papal Revenues in the Middle Ages, 2 vols., New York, 1934; (b) Financial Relations of the Papacy with England 1327-1534, Cambridge, Mass., 1962 (Studies in Anglo-Papal Relations during the Middle Ages, 11).

Lutz, G., (a) Kardinal Giovanni Francesco Guidi di Bagno, Politik und Religion im Zeitalter Richelieus und Urbans VIII, Tibingen, 1971 (Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom, 34); (b) ‘Das papstliche Heer im Jahre 1667. Apostolische Kammer und Nepotismus, ____rémisches Militàrbudget in der friihen Neuzeit’, in Archivum Historiae Pontificiae,

xIv (1976), pp. 163-217. Lutz, H., (a) ‘Leopold von Ranke e il papato’, in Rivistadi storia della chiesa, xvi (1962), pp. 439-50; (b) Christianitas afflicta, Europa, das Reich und die pdpstliche Politik im Niedergang der Hegemonie Kaiser Karls V. (1552-1556), Gottingen, 1964; (c) ‘Papsttum, europàische Staatenwelt und Kirchenreform um die Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts’, in Jahres- und Tagungsbericht der Gòrresgesellschaft 1964, Cologne, 1965, pp. 13-26; (d) ‘Die Bedeutung der Nuntiaturberichte fiir die europàische Geschichtsforschung und Geschichtsschreibung’, in Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, L111 (1973), pp. 152-67; (e) Ragione di Stato und christliche Staatsethik im 16. Jahrhundert. Mit einem Textanhang: Die Machiavellikapitel aus Kardinal Reginald Pole’s ‘Apologia ad Carolum Quintum Caesarum’, Munster, 1976; (f) ‘Carlo V e il Concilio di Trento’, in Il Concilio di Trento come crocevia della politica europea, Bologna, 1979, pp. 33-64. Lynn Martin, F., ‘Fabio Mirto Frangipani and Papal Policy in France. The case of an independent-minded nuncio’, in Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, xvii (1979), pp. 197-240. Maccarrone, M., Vicarius Christi, storia del titolo papale, Rome, 1952. Machiavelli, Niccolò, Opere, ed. E. Raimondi, Milan, 1969. Maffei, D., La donazione di Costantino nei giuristi medievali, Milan, 1964; reprinted 1969.

Bibliography

267

Mager, W., Zur Entstehung des modernen Staatsbegriffes, Wiesbaden, 1969. Magnum Bullarium Romanum. Bullarum Privilegiorum Romanorum Pontificum amplissima collectio . . ., 13 vols., and further 9 of the continuatio, Rome, 1739-1857; xerox reprint, Graz, 1964-6. Major, J. R., Representative Government in Early Modern France, New Haven and London, 1980. Malettke, K., (a) ‘Fragestellungen und Aufgaben der neuen AbsolutismusForschung in Frankreich und Deutschland’, in Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht, xxx (1979), pp. 140-57; | (b) (ed.), Amterkduflichkeit: Aspekte sozialer Mobilitàt im europdischen Vergleich, Berlin, 1980.

Mallett, M., (a) The Borgias. The rise and fall of a Renaissance dynasty, London, Sydney and Toronto, 1969; È (b) Mercenaries and their Masters. Warfare in Renaissance Italy, London, Sydney and Toronto, 1974. Manetti, Giannozzo, ‘Vita Nicolai’, in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, vol. 111, part 2, Mediolani, 1734. Manfredini, A., ‘Legati, vicelegati e governatori a Bologna nel Seicento’, (postgraduate thesis, Facoltà di Magistero, University of Bologna, 1968-9). Mann, F. K., Steuerpolitische Ideale. Vergleichende Studien zur Geschichte der 6kononhischen und politischen Ideen und ihres Wirkens in der 6ffentlichen Meinung 1600-1935, Jena, 1937. Mannucci, U., ‘Le capitolazioni del conclave di Sisto IV, 1471’, in Romische Quartalschrift, xx1x (1915), pp. 73-80. Mansi, D., Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima Collectio ... Curantibus Ludovico Petit ... et Ioanne Baptista Martin, 59 vols.; xerox reprint, Graz, 1960-1. Maravall, J., Estado moderno y mentalidad social (siglos XV a XVII), 2 vols., Madrid,

1972. Marchetti, G., Del denaro straniero che viene a Roma, e che ne va per cause ecclesiastiche calcolo ragionato, Rome, 1800. Margolin, J.-C., ‘Erasme et la guerre contre les turcs', in Il pensiero politico, x11 (1980), pp. 3-38. Marongiu, A., (a) Il parlamento in Italia nel medioevo e nell'età moderna. Contributo alla storia delle istituzioni parlamentari dell'Europa occidentale, Milan, 1962; (b) Storio del diritto italiano. Ordinamento e istituto di governo, Milan, 1977; (c) ‘Il cardinale Albornoz e la ricostituzione dello Stato pontificio’, in Studia Albornotiana, x11 (1972), pp. 461-80. Martimort, A. G., Le gallicanisme de Bossuet, Paris, 1953. Martin, V., (a) Le gallicanisme et la Réforme catholique. Essai historique sur l'introduction en France des décrets du Concile de Trente (1563-1615), Paris, 1919;

reprinted Geneva, 1975; (b) Les origines du gallicanisme, 2 vols., Paris, 1939. Martina, G., ‘La fine del potere temporale nella coscienza religiosa e nella cultura dell’epoca in Italia’, in Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, 1x (1971), pp. 309-76.

268

The Papal Prince

Martines, L., Lawyers and Statecraft in Renaissance Florence, Princeton, 1968. Mastellone, S., ‘Tomasso Bozio, teorico dell’ordine ecclesiastico’, in Il pensiero politico, x111 (1980), pp. 186-94. Matanic¢, A., ‘L'idea e l’attività per la crociata antiturca del papa Pio II (1458-1464)’, in Studi francescani, Lx1 (1964), pp. 382-94. Mattingly, G., (a) From the Renaissance to the Counter-Reformation. Essays in honour of

Garrett Mattingly, ed. C. H. Carter, London, 1966; (b) Renaissance Diplomacy, London, 1970 (reprinted from first ed. 1955). McClung Hallmann, B., ‘Practical aspects of Roman diplomacy in Germany, 1517-1541’, in Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies, x (1980), pp. 193-206. McConica, J.K., ‘Erasmus and the ‘“‘Julius’’: a humanist reflects on the Church’, in Trinkhaus and Oberman, pp. 444-76. Melandri, R., Ravenna nel '500. Note di vita sociale e amministrativa, Ravenna, 1973. Menestrina, F., ‘Il processo civile nello Stato pontificio’, in Rivista italiana per le scienze giuridiche, xii (1907); see also F. Menestrina, Scritti giuridici vari, Milan, 1964, pp. 3-138. Mercati, A., Raccolta di concordati su materie ecclesiastiche tra la S. Sede e le autorità civili, 2 vols., 2nd edn, Rome, 1954. Meuthen, E., Die letzten Jahre des Nikolaus von Kues, Cologne, 1958. Meyer, A. O., (a) ‘Klemens VIII. und Jacob I. von England’, in Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, vit (1904), pp. 268-306; (b) England and the Catholic Church under Queen Elizabeth, English translation from original German, Rome, 1914; reprinted with introduction by J. Bossy, London, 1967. Miethke, J., ‘Geschichtsprozess und zeitgenossisches Bewusstsein. Die Theorie des monarchischen Papsts im hohen und spateren Mittelalter’, in Historische Zeitschrift, ccxxvi (1978), pp. 264-99. Miglio, M., Storiografia pontificia del Quattrocento, Bologna, 1975. Milano, A., Storia degli ebrei in Italia, Turin, 1963. Minnich, N. H., ‘Concepts of reform proposed at the Fifth Lateran Council’, in

Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, vit (1969), pp. 163-251. Mistruzzi di Frisinga, C., ‘La nobiltà nello Stato Pontificio’, in Rassegni degli archivi di stato, xxuI (1963), pp. 206-44. Mitchell, B., Italian Civic Pageantry in the Renaissance. A descriptive bibliography of triumphal entries and selected other festivals for state occasions, Florence, 1979. Mochi-Onory, S., Fonti canonistiche dell'idea moderna dello Stato, Milan, 1951. Molina, Luis de, De justitia et jure, vol. 1, Coloniae Allobrogum, 1759 (first edition, 1593). Molinelli, R., Un’oligarchia locale nell'età moderna, Urbino, 1976. Mollat, G., (a) ‘Origine de la fonction de vicaire général au temporel dans les Etats de l'Eglise (1346-1348)’, in Comptes rendus des séances de I'Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres, Paris, 1966, pp. 164-8; (b) ‘Albornoz et l'institution des vicaires dans les Etats de l’Eglise’, in Studia Albornotiana, x11, Bologna, 1973, pp. 345-54. Monaco, M., (a) ‘Il primo debito pubblico pontificio: il Monte della Fede (1526)’, in Studi romani, vii (1960), pp. 553-69;

Bibliography

|

269

‘ (b) La situazione della Reverenda Camera Apostolica nell'anno 1525. Ricerche d'archivio. (Un contributo alla storia delle finanze pontificie), Rome, 1960; (c) Il ‘De officio collectoris in Regno Angliae’ di Pietro Griffi da Pisa (1469-1516), Rome, 1973; (d) Le finanze pontificie al tempo di Paolo V. La fondazione del primo banco pubblico di Roma (Banco di S. Spirito), Lecce, 1974. Montaigne, M. de, Journal de voyage en Italie, ed. C. Dedeyan, Paris, 1946. Moroni, G., Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica, 103 vols., Venice, 1840-61. Moschetti, G., I] catasto di Macerata e la bolla ‘Ubique terrarum' di Paolo IVdel 18 Maggio 1557, Naples, 1978. Mosconi, N., (a) La nunziatura di Spagna di Cesare Speciano 1586-1588, Brescia, 1961; (b) La nunziatura di Praga di Cesare Speciano (1592-1598), 5 vols., Brescia, 1966-7.

Mostaza, M., ‘Sanctae Sedis personalitas internationalis in decretalibus et in iure gentium’, in Acta Congressus Iuridici Internationalis . . ., vol. 111, Rome, 1936, pp.

77-93. Mousnier, R., (a) La vénalité des offices sous Henri IV et Louis XIII, Rouen, 1945; 2nd edn, Paris, 1971; (b) Les institutions de la France sous la monarchie absolue 1598-1789; vol. 1: Société et état, Paris, 1974. Miller, G., Die rémische Kurie und die Reformation 1523-1534. Kirche und Politik wahrend des Pontifikats Clemens VII, Giitersloh, 1969. Miiller-Armack, A., Genealogie der Wirtschaftsstile, Die Geistesgeschichtlichen Urspringe der Staats- und Wirtschaftsformen bis zum Ausgang des 18. Jahrhunderts, 3rd edn, Stuttgart, 1944. Miintz, E., (a) Les arts a la cour des papes pendant le XVe et le XVIe siècle. Recueil de documents inédits tirés des archives et des bibliothéques romaines, Paris, 1897; reprinted, 1963; (b) La tiare pontificale du VIIIe au XVIe siècle, Paris, 1897. Murray, J. C., ‘St Robert Bellarmine on the indirect power’, in Theological Studies, 1x

(1948), pp. 491-535. Murray, R. H., Political Consequences of the Reformation. Studies in sixteenth-century political thought, London, 1926. Murvar, V., ‘Max Weber’s concept of hierocracy: a study in the typology of Church-State relationships’, in Sociological Analysis, xxvin (1967), pp. 69-84. Nabuco, J. (ed.), Le Cérémonial apostolique avant Innocent VIII. Texte du manuscrit Urbinat latin 469 de la Bibl. Vat. établi par F. Tamburini, introduction by J. Nabuco, Rome, 1966. Neal, F. W., The Papacy and the Nations. A study of concordats 1418-1516, University of Chicago, 1944. Neveu, B., ‘Episcopus et princeps Urbis: Innocent XI réformateur de Rome d’aprés des documents inédits (1676-1689)’, in Rémische Kurie, (see Hoberg, c), vol. 11, pp.

597-633. _ Nonciature de Flandre: correspondences des Nonces de Flandre, published by the Institut Belge de Rome, vol. x11: Correspondence du nonce Decio Carafa archevéque de Damas (1606-1607), ed. L. van Meerbeeck, Brussels and Rome, 1979. Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland nebst erginzenden Aktenstiicken. I. Abteilung:

270

;

The Papal Prince

1533-1559, vols. xv, Gotha, Berlin and Tiibingen, 1892-1981; 2. Erganzungsbande, Tiibingen, 1963-9; II. Abteilung; 1560-1572, vols. -vui, Vienna, Leipzig and Graz, 1897-1967; III, Abteilung: 1572-1582, vols. 1-v, Berlin, 1892-9; IV. Abteilung: 17. Jahrhundert, vols. un, Berlin, 1895-1913; Die Kélner Nuntiatur, vols. I-vit, Paderborn, Munich and Vienna, 1969-80; Sonderreihe: Grazer Nuntiatur, vols. 11, Vienna, 1973-81. ‘Nuntiaturberichte und Nuntiaturforschung. Kritische Bestandsaufnahme und neue Perspektiven.’ With essays by H. Lutz, G. Miller, H. Jedin, G. Goetz and G. Lutz, published by the Deutschen Historischen Institut in Rome, 1976 (extract from Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, Lu, 1973, pp.

m5 2-275;

Nunziature d’Italia secoli XVI-XVII, in Fonti per la Storia d’Italia, published by the Istituto storico italiano per l’età moderna e contemporanea, Rome; di Napoli (1962 ff, nos. 56, 101, 109); di Savoia (1960, no. 44); di Venezia (1958 ff, nos. 32,45, 65, 85, 86, 117, 118). Oakeshott, M., On Human Conduct, Oxford, 1975. Oakley, F., (a) ‘Almain and Major: Conciliar theory on the eve of the Reformation’, in The American Historical Review, Lxx (1964-5), pp. 673-90;. (b) Council over Pope? Towards a provisional ecclesiology, New York, 1969. (c) ‘Jacobean political theology. The absolute and ordinary powers of the king’, in Journal of the History of Ideas, xx1x (1968), pp. 323-46; (d) The Western Church in the later Middle Ages, Ithaca and London, 1979. O’Day, R., and Heal, F. (eds.), Continuity and Change. Personnel and administration of the Church in England 1500-1642, Leicester, 1976. Oestreich, G., Geist und Gestalt des friihmodernen Staates, Berlin, 1969. O'Malley, J., (a) ‘Giles of Viterbo: a reformer’s thought on Renaissance Rome’, in Renaissance Quarterly, xx (1967), pp. 9-11; (b) Giles of Viterbo on Church and Reform: a study in Renaissance thought, Leiden, 1968; (c) ‘Fulfillment of the Christian Golden Age under Pope Julius II: text of a discourse of Giles of Viterbo, 1507’, in Traditio, xxv (1969), pp. 265-338; (d) ‘Man’s dignity, God’s love and the destiny of Rome: a text of Giles of Viterbo’, in Viator, 111 (1972), pp. 411-13; (e) Praise and Blame in Renaissance Rome: rhetoric, doctrine and reform in the sacred orators of the papal court c. 1450-1521, Durham, NC, 1979. Orlandelli, G., ‘Considerazioni sui capitoli di Niccolò V coi bolognesi’, in Rendiconti della Accademia nazionale dei Lincei. Classe di scienze morali, storiche e filologiche, series VIII, IV (1949), pp. 454-73. Ourliac, P., (a) ‘Les sources du droit canonique au XV siècle: le solstice de 1440’, in Etudes d’histoire du droit canonique dédiés a G. Le Bras, 2 vols., Paris, 1965, vol. 1, pp. 293-305 (see also, with other essays, in P. Ourliac, Etudes d’histoire du droit médiéval, Paris, 1979); (b) ‘La notion de loi fondamentale dans le droit canonique des XIVe et XVe siécles’, in Théorie et pratique politiques a la Renaissance, pp. 121-31; (c) ‘Souveraineté et lois fondamentales dans le droit canonique du XVe siécle’, in Etudes d’histoire du droit médiéval, Paris, 1979, pp. 553-65.

Bibliography

27k

Ourliac, P., and Gilles, H., La période post-classique (1378-1500). La problématique de l'époque, les sources . . ., Paris, 1971 (Histoire du droit et des institutions de l’Eglise en Occident, 13). Paci, R., Politica ed economia in un comune del ducato di Urbino: Gubbio tra '500 e '600, Urbino, 1966. Paglia, V., ‘La pietà dei carcerati’, Confraternite e società a Roma nei secoli XVI-XVII, Rome, 1980. Pagliucchi, P., I castellani del Castel S. Angelo di Roma, vol. 1/2: I castellani vescovi (1464-1566), Rome, 1909. Palermo, L., ‘Ricchezza privata e debito pubblico nello Stato della Chiesa durante il XVI secolo’, in Studi romani, xx1 (1974), pp. 298-311.

Paravicini Bagliani, A., ‘Eine Briefsammlung fiir Rektoren des Kirchenstaates (1250-1320), in Deutsches Archiv, xxxv (1979), pp. 138-208. Partner, P., (a) ‘Camera Papae: problems of papal finance in the later Middle Ages’, in Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 1v (1953), pp. 55-68; (b) The Papal State under Martin V. The administration and government of the temporal power in the early fifteenth century, London, 1958; (c) ‘The ‘budget’ of the Roman Church in the Renaissance period’, in Italian Renaissance Studies. A tribute to the late Cecilia M. Ady, London, 1960, pp. 256-78; (d) The Lands of St Peter: the papal state in the Middle Ages and the early Renaissance,

Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1972; (e) Renaissance Rome 1500-1559. A portrait of a society, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1976; (f) ‘Papal financial policy in the Renaissance and Counter-Reformation’, in Past and Present, (1980), no. 78, pp. 18-62. Paruta, Paolo, La legazione di Roma di Paolo Paruta. Dispacci 1592-95, ed. G. De Leva, 3 vols., Venice, 1887. Paschini, P., (a) Roma nel Cinquecento, Bologna, 1940; (b) ‘Una famiglia di curiali nella Roma del Quattrocento; i Cortesi’, in Rivista di storia della chiesa in Italia, x1 (1957), pp. 1-48. Pasquali, M., and Ferretti, M., ‘Cronotassi critica dei legati, vicelegati, e governatori di Bologna dal secolo XVI al XVII”, in Atti e memorie della Deputazione di storia patria per le provincie di Romagna, xxm (1972), pp. 117-302. Passerin d’Entrèves, A., The Modern Notion of the State, Oxford, 1965. Pastor, L. von, (a) History of the Popes (several English editions but Italian edition most up to date), Storia dei papi dalla fine del Medio Evo . . ., vols. xvi, Rome, 1943-62; (b) (ed.) Ungedruckte Akten zur Geschichte der Pàpste vornehmlich im XV., XVI. und XVII. Jahrhundert, Freiburg im Breslau, 1904 (only one vol. published). Pasztor, E., ‘Funzione politico-culturale di una struttura della Chiesa: il cardinalato’, in Aspetti culturali della societa italiana nel periodo del papato avignonese, Todi, 1981, pp. 197-226. Pasztor, L., ‘L’histoire de la curie romaine, problème d'histoire de l’Eglise’, in Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique, Lx1v (1969), pp. 353-66. Patriziati e aristocrazie nobiliari, ed. C. Mozzarelli and P. Schiera, Trent, 1978. Payne, R., The Roman Triumph, London, 1962.

Die,

The Papal Prince

Pecchiai, P., Roma nel Cinquecento, Bologna, 1948 (Storia di Roma, xI11). Penuti, C., ‘Aspetti della politica economica nello Stato pontificio sul finire del '500: le “visite economiche” di Sisto V’, in Annali dell'Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento, 11 (1976), pp. 183-202. Pericoli, F., L’abolizione della feudalita negli Stati della Chiesa (series of articles in Osservatore Romano, 1956: 14, 16, 18 March; 24, 27, 30 June; 1, 4 July). | Pertile, A., Storia del diritto italiano dalla caduta dell’Impero romano alla codificazione . + revised and amended second edition, Turin, 1892-1903, 9 vols.; xerox reprint, Bologna, 1965-6. Petrocchi, M., (a) La politica della Santa Sede di fronte all'invasione ottomana (1444-1718), Naples, 1955; (b) Roma nel Seicento, Rome, 1970 (Storia di Roma, xiv). Petrucelli Della Gattina, E., Histoire diplomatique des Conclaves, vols. -1v, Paris, 1864 (vol. 1 for second half of sixteenth century). Pfaff, K., ‘Beitrage zur Geschichte der Abendmahlsbulle vom 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert’, in Rémische Quartalschrift, xxxvu (1930), pp. 23-76. Piano Mortari, V., (a) Ricerche sulla teoria dell'interpretazione del diritto nel secolo XVI, vol. 1: Le premesse, Milan, 1956; (b) Diritto romano e diritto nazionale in Francia nel secolo XVI, Milan, 1962; (c) Gli inizi del diritto moderno in Europa, Naples, 1980. Piccolomini, Aeneas Silvius (Pius II), (a) Commentarii . . . quibus hac editione accedunt Jacobi Piccolominei . . ., Frankfurt am Main, 1614; (b) Opera inedita, ed. G. Cugnoni, in Atti della R. Accademia dei Lincei, series 111, vu,

Rome, 1883, pp. 319-686; (c) Der Briefwechsel des Eneas Sylvius Piccolomini, ed. R. Wolkan, Vienna, 1909-18

(Fontes Rerum Austriacarum, 61, 62, 67, 68);

i

(d) The Commentaries of Pius II, trans. F. A. Grag, ed. L. C. Gabel (Smith College Studies in History, xxl, XXV, XXX,.xXxV, XLII), Northampton, Mass., 1937-57; (e) De gestis concilii Basiliensis commentariorum libri duo, ed. D. Hay, W. K. Smith, Oxford, 1967; (f) Enea Silvio Piccolomini, papa Pio II. Atti del convegno per il quinto centenario della morte e altri scritti, ed. D. Maffei, Siena, 1968. Pieper, A., (a) Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der stiindigen Nuntiaturen, Freiburg im’ Breslau, 1894; i (b) Die papstlichen Legaten und Nuntien in Deutschland, Frankreich und Spanien seit der Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts, vol. 1, Munster, 1897. Pieri, P., Il Rinascimento e la crisi militare italiana, Milan, 1952. Pilati, Carlo Antonio, (a) Ragionamenti intorno alla legge naturale e civile, Venice, 1766; (b) Di una riforma d'Italia, ossia dei mezzi di riformare i più cattivi costumi e le più perniciose leggi d'Italia, [Coira], 1767 (edition used, Paris, 1796, year Iv). Piola Caselli, F., ‘Aspetti del debito pubblico nello Stato pontificio: gli uffici vacabili’, in Annali della Facoltà di scienze politiche dell'Università di Perugia, x1 (1973), pp. 98-170. Pivano, S., ‘Il diritto di veto “jus exclusivae”’ nell’elezione del pontefice’, in Studi in onore di V, Scialoja, Turin, 1905 (59-page extract). Platzhoff, W., Geschichte des europdischen Staatensystems 1559-1660, Munich and Berlin, 1928.

Bibliography

273

Pleyer, K., Die Politik Nikolaus V, Stuttgart, 1927. Poggi, G., The Development of the Modern State: a sociological introduction, Stanford, 1978. Poliakov, L., Les banchieri juifs et le Saint-Siége du XIIIe au XVIle siècle, Paris, 1965. (English translation, Jewish Bankers and the Holy See from the Thirteenth to the Seventeenth Century, London, 1978.) Pottmeyer, H. J., Unfehlbarkeit und Souverdnitdt. Die papstliche Unfehlbarkeit im System der ultramontanen Ekklesiologie des 19. Jahrhunderts, Mainz, 1975. Pozzo di Borgo-Mouton-Brady, C., ‘Dénis Simon de Marquemont archevéque de . Lyon et cardinal (1572-1626). La carrière d’un prélat diplomate au Saint Siège au début du XVIle siècle’, in Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, xv (1977), pp. 265-94.

Praz, M., Machiavelli in Inghilterra, Florence, 1962. Preimesberger, R., ‘Pontifex Romanus per Aeneam praesignatus. Die Galleria Pamphilij und ihre Fresken’, in Rémisches Jahrbuch fiir Kunstgeschichte, xvi (1976), pp. 221-87. Prodi, P., (a) ‘Relazioni diplomatiche fra il ducato di Milano e Roma sotto il Duca Massimiliano Sforza (1512-1515)’, in Aevum, xxx (1956), pp. 437-94; (b) ‘San Carlo Borromeo e le trattative tra Gregorio XIII e Filippo II sulla giurisdizione ecclesiastica’, in Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia, x1 (1957), pp.

195-240; (c) Il Cardinale Gabriele Paleotti (1522-1597), 2 vols., Rome, 1959 and 1967; (d) ‘Operazioni finanziarie presso la corte romana di un uomo di affari milanese nel 1562-63’, in Rivista storica italiana, Lxxm (1961), pp. 641-59; (e) Diplomazia del Cinquecento. Istituzioni e prassi, Bologna, 1963; (f) ‘Charles Borromée, archevéque de Milan, et la papauté’, in Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, Lx11 (1967), pp. 379-411; (g) Lo sviluppo dell’assolutismo nello Stato pontificio, vol. 1 (only vol. published), Bologna, 1968; (h) ‘Organization and structure ofthe Venetian Church', in Renaissance Venice, ed. J. R. Hale, London, 1973, pp. 409-30; (i) ‘Note sul problema della genesi del diritto della Chiesa post-tridentina nell’etamoderna’, in Legge e Vangelo, Brescia, 1972, pp. 191-223; (j) ‘Storia sacra e controriforma. Nota sulle censure al commento di Carlo Signonio a Sulpicio Severo’, in Annali dell'Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento, m (1977), pp. 75-104; (k) ‘La sovranità temporale dei papi e il Concilio di Trento’, in Il Concilio di Trento come crocevia della politica europea, ed. H. Jedin and P. Prodi, Bologna, 1979, pp. 65-84; a (1) ‘Nuove dimensioni della Chiesa: il problema delle missioni e la “conquist XV-XVII, secoli nei chiesa della spirituale dell’America”’, in Problemi di Storia

Naples, 1979, pp. 267-93; Paolo (m) ‘Carità e galateo: la figura di papa Lambertini nelle lettere al marchese interMagnani 1743-1748’, in Benedetto XIV (Prospero Lambertini). Convegno 445-71. pp. 1982, nazionale di studi storici, vol. 1, Cento (Ferrara), Trento (1 563)’, Prosdocimi, L., (a) ‘Il progetto di “riforma dei principi’ al Concilio di in Aevum, x1 (1939), pp. 1-64; opa dei secoli (b) ‘Il diritto canonico di fronte al diritto secolare nell’Eur

274

The Papal Prince

XVI-XVIII’, in La formazione storica del diritto moderno in Europa, vol. 1, Florence, 1977, pp. 431-46. Prosperi, A., (a) Tra evangelismo e controriforma: G. M. Giberti (1495-1543), Rome, 1969; (b) ‘Le istituzioni ecclesiastiche e le idee religiose’, in Il Rinascimento nelle corti padane. Società e cultura, Bari, 1977, pp. 125-63; (c) ‘Libri sulla corte ed esperienze curiali nel primo ’500 italiano’, in La corte e il

‘cortegiano’, vol. 11, Rome, 1980, pp. 69-91; (d) ‘Intellettuali e chiesa all’inizio dell'età moderna’, in Storia dell’Italia. Annali, 1v, Turin, 1981, pp. 159-252. Quaritsch, H., Staat und Souverdinitàt, 1, Frankfurt-am-Main, 1970. Quondam, A., ‘Un’ assenza, un progetto per una ricerca sulla storia di Roma tra 1465 e 1527’, in Studi romani, xxvit (1979), pp. 166-75. Raab, F., The English Face of Machiavelli. A changing interpretation 1500-1700, London and Toronto, 1964. Raab, H., Die concordata nationis germanicae in der kanonistischen Diskussion des 17. bis 19. Jahrhunderts. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der episkopalistischen Theorie in Deutschland, Wiesbaden, 1956. Rabb, Theodore K., The Struggle for Stability in Early Modern Europe, New York and Oxford, 1976. Rainer, J., ‘Discorso dello stato dei confini col Turco (anno 1581)’, in Mélanges E. Tisserant, vol. v, The Vatican, 1964, pp. 277-98. Ranke, L. von, Storia dei papi, Florence, 1965, foreword by d. Cantimori. (Various English translations.) Rapolla; G., Del card. G. B. De Luca . . . monografica storica, Portici, 1889. Regesti di bandi, editti e Notificazioni relativi alla città di Roma ed allo Stato Pontificio, 7 vols., Rome, 1920-58. Reinhard, W., (a) ‘Papa Pius. Prolegomena zu einer Sozialgeschichte des Papsttums’, in Von Konstanz nach Trient. Beitràge zur Kirchengeschichte von den Reformkonzilien bis zum Tridentinum. Festgabe A. Franzen, ed. R. Baumer, Paderborn, 1972, pp. 261-99; (b) ‘Amterlaufbahn und Familienstatus. Der Aufstieg des Hauses Borghese 1537-1621’, in Quellen und Forschungenaus Italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken, Lu (1974), pp. 328-427; (c) Papstfinanz und Nepotismus unter Paul V. (1605-1621). Studien und Quellen zur Strucktur und zu quantitativen Aspekten des papstlichen Herrschaftssystems, vol. 11, Stuttgart, 1974; i (d) ‘Staatsmacht als Kreditproblem. Zur Struktur und Funktion des friihneuzeitlichen Amterhandels’, in Vierteljahrschrift fiir Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 1x1 (1974), pp. 289-319; (e) ‘Nepotismus. Der Funktionswandel einer papstgeschichtlichen Konstante’, in Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte, Lxxxvi (1975), pp. 145-85; (f) ‘Herkunft und Karriere der Papste, 1417-1963. Beitràge zu einer historiscHien Soziologie der ròmische Kurie', in Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome, xxxvII (1976), pp. 87-108; (g) ‘Gegenreformation als Modernisierung? Prolegomena zu einer Theorie des

Bibliography

275

konfessionellen Zeitalters’, in Archiv ftir Reformationsgeschichte, Lxv1 (1977), pp. 226-52; (h) Freunde und Kreaturen. ‘Verflechtung’ als Konzept zur Erforschung historischer Fiùhrungsgruppen. Rémischen Oligarchie um 1600, Munich, 1979; (i) ‘Sozialgeschichte der Kurie in Waffenbrauch und Siegelbild. Ein Versuch tiber Devotionswappen friihneuzeitlicher Kardinàle', in Rémische Kurie, (see Hoberg, c), vol. 11, pp. 741-72; (j) ‘Reformpapsttum zwischen Renaissance und Barock’, in Reformatio Ecclesiae. Festgabe E. Iserloh, Paderborn, 1980, pp. 779-96. Reinhardt, V., ‘Der papstliche Hof um 1600’, in Europdische Hofkultur im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert (Wolfenbiitteler Arbeiten zur Barockforschung, 10), Hamburg, 1981, pp. 709-15. Repgen, K., (a) ‘Kaiser und Reich als Idee und Wirklichkeit fiir das Papsttum im Zeitalter der Reformation’, in Jahres- und Tagungsbericht der Gérresgesellschaft, 1958, Cologne, 1959; (b) ‘Finanzen, Kirchenrecht und Politik unter Urban VIII. Eine unbekannte Denkschrift aus dem Friihjahr 1632’, in Rémische Quartalschrift, Lv1 (1961), pp. 62-74; (c) Die Rémische Kurie und der Westfalische Friede. Idee und Wirklichkeit des ‘ Papsttums im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, vol. 1, part 1, Tùbingen, 1962; (d) ‘Die Finanzen des Nuntius Fabio Chigi. Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte der romischen Fiihrungsgruppe im XVIII. Jahrhundert’, in Geschichte, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Festschrift Cl. Bauer, Berlin, 1974, pp. 229-80. Reydellet-Guttinger, Charles, L’administration pontificale dans le duché de Spolète (1305-1352), Florence, 1975. Ricci, Pietro Andrea, Synopsis decreta et resolutiones Sac. Cong. Immunitatis super controversis iurisdictionalibus complectens, Praeneste, 1707. Richard, P., (a) ‘Origines des nonciatures permanentes’, in Revue d'histoire

ecclésiastique, vit (1906), pp. 52-70, 317-38;

i

(b) ‘Origines et développement de la Secrétairerie d’Etat Apostolique (1417-1823)’ in Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, x1 (1910), pp. 56-72, 505-29, 728-54; (c) ‘La monarchie pontificale jusqu’au Concile de Trente’, in Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, xx (1924), pp. 413-56. Ricuperati, G., L'esperienza civile e religiosa di Pietro Gianone, Milan and Naples, 1970. Riesenberg, P., ‘The Consilia literature: a prospectus’, in Manuscripta, vi (1962), pp.

3-22. 16. Riess, L., Die Politik Pauls IV. und seiner Nepoten. Eine weltgeschichtliche Krisis des 1965. Vaduz, reprinted 67); Studien, hen (Historisc 1909 Berlin, Jahrhunderts, a 16thRietbergen, P. J., (a) ‘Problems of government. Some observations upon co’”’, Ecclesiasti Stato dello eluoghi century “‘Istruttione per li governatori delle città 173-201; pp. (1979), XLI Rome, te Instituut in Mededelingen van het Nederlands in The Peace of (b) ‘Papal diplomacy and mediation at the peace of Nijmegen’, Amsterdam, al, Nijmegen, 1676-1678-79. International Congress of the Tricentenni 1980, pp. 29-96. à Rome, Paris, 1891; Rodocanachi, E. P., (a) Le Saint Siége et le juifs. Le ghetto Paris, 1901; papauté, la sous Rome de les (b) Les institutions communa

276

3

The Papal Prince

(c) Le chateau Saint-Ange. Siéges, prisonniers, transformations, Paris, 1909; (d) Histoire de Rome de 1354 à 1471: l’antagonisme entre les Romains et le Saint-Siége, Paris, 1922; (e) Histoire de Rome: une cour princière au Vatican pendant la Renaissance. Sixte IV — Innocent VIII — Alexandre VI, Paris, 1925; (f) Histoire de Rome: le pontificat de Jules II, 1503-1513, Paris, 1928; (g) Histoire de Rome: le pontificat de Leon X, Paris, 1931; (h) Histoire de Rome: les pontificats d’Adrien VI et de Clément VII, Paris 1933. Romani, M., Pellegrini e viaggiatori nell'economia di Roma dal sec. XIV al XVII, Milan, 1948. Romani, M. A. (ed.), Le corti farnesiane di Parma e Piacenza 1545-1622, vol. 1, Rome, 1978. Rom in der Neuzeit. Politische, Kirchliche und kulturelle Aspekte, ed. R. Elze, H. Schmidinger, H. Schulte-Nordholt, Vienna and Rome, 1976 (see particularly the following essays: A. A. Strnad, ‘Papsttum, Kirchenstaat und Europa in der Renaissance’; F. Roberg, ‘Rom und Europa im Zeitalter der katholischen Reform’; G. Lutz, ‘Rom und Europa wahrend des Pontifikats Urbans VIII’). Romita, F., ‘Le origini della Sacra Congregazione del Concilio’, in La Sacra Congregazione del Concilio . . . studi e ricerche, The Vatican, 1964, pp. 13-50. Rotelli, C., ‘La finanza locale pontificia nel Cinquecento. Il caso di Imola’, in Studi

storici, 1x (1968), pp. 107-44. Rotondò, A., ‘La censura ecclesiastica e la cultura’, in Storia d'Italia, vol. v, Turin, 1973, pp. 1399-1492. Rottstock, F., Studien zu den Nuntiaturberichten aus dem Reich in der zweiten Halfte des XVI. Jahrhunderts. Nuntien und Legaten in ihrem Verhdltnis zu Kurie, Kaiser und Reichsfiirsten, Munich, 1980. i Rouco Varela, A. M., Staat und Kircheim Spanien des 16. Jahrhunderts, Munich, 1965. Ruffilli, R., ‘Le istituzioni cittadine dell’Emilia-Romagna pontificia’, in Atti del convegno storico di Bagni di Lucca (8-10 maggio 1975), Bologna, 1977, pp. 109-19. Ruffini, F., Relazioni tra Stato e Chiesa, ed. F. Margiotta Broglio, Bologna, 1974. Saccus, P. C., Statuta civilia et criminalia civitatis Bononiae, 2 vols., Bologna, 1735-7 (a third volume consists of V. Saccus’s Observationes politico-legales ad Statuta Bononiae, Bologna, 1747). Sacra (La) Congregazione del Concilio. Quarto centenario della Fondazione (1564-1964). Studi e ricerche, The Vatican, 1964. Sagmiller, J. B., (a) Die Papstwahlen und die Staaten von 1447 bis 1555 (Nikolaus V. bis Paul IV.). Eine kirchenrechtlich-historische Untersuchung tiber den Anfang des staatlichen Rechtes der Exklusive in der Papstwahl, Tubingen, 1890; (b) Die Papstwahlbullen und das staatliche Recht der Exklusive, Tùbingen, 1892; (c) (ed.) Zur Geschichte des Kardinalates. Ein Traktat des Bischofs von Feltre und Treviso Teodoro de'Lelli tiber das Verhdltnis von Primat und Kardinalat, Rome, 1893 (supplement to Rémische Quartalschrift). Sala, Giuseppe Antonio, Scritti, ed. G. Cugnoni, Rome, 1882-8, 4 vols. (Piano di riformais in vol. rv, pp.45—234; reprinted Rome, 1980, with additional notesby M. Pieroni Francini).

Bibliography

DTT:

Salerno, F., ‘Problemi costituzionali nelle vicende storiche della Curia romana’, in Rivista italiana per le scienze giuridiche, series 111, x (1959-62), pp. 327-97. Sales, Francois de, Tutte le lettere, Italian edn., 3 vols., Rome, 1967. Santori, Giulio Antonio, (a) ‘Autobiografia di mons. G. A. Santori cardinale di S.

Severino’, ed. G. Cugnoni, in Archivio della R. Società romana di storia patria, x11 (1889), pp. 327-72; (b) ‘Diario concistoriale’, ed. P. Tacchi-Venturi, in Studi e documenti di storia del diritto, vols. xx11I—xxv, Rome, 1902-4. Santos Diez, J.L., Politica conciliar post-tridentina en Espaîta. El concilio provincial de Toledo de 1565. Planteamiento juridico canonico, Rome, 1969. Santosuosso, A., (a) ‘The Italian crisis at mid-sixteenth century: a matter of shift and decadence’, in Canadian Journal of History, x1v (1975), pp. 147-64; (b) ‘The moderate Inquisitor. Giovanni della Casa’s Venetian nunciature 1544-1549’, in Studi Veneziani, N.S, 11 (1978), pp. 119-210. Sarpi, Paolo, (a) Lettere ai protestanti, ed. M. D. Busnelli, 2 vols., Bari, 1931; (b) Istoria dell'interdetto e altri scritti editi ed inediti, ed. M. D. Busnelli and G. Gambarin, 3 vols., Bari, 1940; (c) Scritti giurisdizionalistici, ed. G. Gambarin, Bari, 1958; (d) Lettere ai gallicani, ed. B. Ulianich, Wiesbaden, 1961 (Veròffentlichungen des Instituts f. Europ. Geschichte Mainz, 26); (e) Scritti scelti, ed. G. Da Pozzo, Turin, 1968. (f) Opere, ed. G. and L. Cozzi, Milan and Naples, 1969. Savio, P., ‘Lettere di San Francesco di Sales sulla controversia delle libertà gallicane', in Aevum, 1x (1935), pp. 79-136. Scavizzi, C. P., (a) ‘Considerazioni sull'attività edilizia a Roma nella prima metà del Seicento’, in Studi storici, 1x (1968), pp. 171-92; (b) ‘Le condizioni per lo sviluppo dell'attività dedilizia a Roma nel sec. XVII: la

legislazione’, in Studi romani, xv (1969), pp. 160-71. Schatti, R., Erasmus von Rotterdam und die Rémische Kurie, Basle, 1954. Schellhass, K., Der Dominikaner Felician Ninguarda und die Gegenreformation in

Stiddeutschland und Osterreich 1560-1583, 2 vols., Rome, 1930 and 1939.

Schimmelpfennig, G. B., (a) Die Zeremonienbiicher der Rémischen Kurie im Mittelalter, Tubingen, 1973 (Bibliothek des Deutschen Historischen Instituts in Rom, 40); (b) ‘Die Kronung Pius II.’, in Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archi ven und Bibliotheken, Liv (1974), pp. 192-270. Schmidinger, H., (a) ‘Das Papstbildnis in der Geschichtsschreibung des spàteren Mittelalters’, in Rémischen Historische Mitteilungen, 1 (1956-7), pp. 106-29; (b) Romae regia potestas. Staats- und Reichsdenken bei Engelbert von Admont und E. S. Piccolomini, Basle, 1978. Schmitt, C., (a) Rémischer Katholozismus und politische Form, Munich, 1925; (b) Politische theologie [I], Vier Kapitel zur Lehre von der Souveranitaét, Munich and . Leipzig, 1922; 2nd edn, 1934; Theologie, politischen Jeder Erledigung der Legende Die 11, Theologie Politische (c) Berlin, 1970. and judgesSchmutz, R. A., ‘Medieval papal representatives: legates, nuncios

278

The Papal Prince

delegate’, in Studia Gratiana, xv (1972), pp. 441-63. Schnur, R., Individualismus und Absolutismus. Zur politischen Theorie vor Thomas Hobbes (1600-1640), Berlin, 1963. ' Schramm, P. E., Herrschaftszeichen und Staatssymbolik. Beitràge zu ihrer Geschichte vom dritten zum siebzehnten Jahrhundert, 3 vols., Stuttgart, 1954-6. ; Schreiber, G., ‘Das papstliche Staatssekretariat’, in Historisches Jahrbuch, LXXxIX (1960), pp. 175-98. Schròter, E., ‘Der Vatican als Hiigel Apollons und der Musen. Kunst und Panegyrik von Nikolaus V. bis Julius II’, in Rémische Quartalschrift, Lxxv (1980), pp. 208-40. Schulte, A., Die Fugger in Rom 1495-1523. Mit Studien zur Geschichte des kirchlichen Finanzwesens ihrer Zeit, vol. 11, Leipzig, 1904. Schulte, J. F., von, Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts von

Gratian bis auf die Gegenwart, vol. 111, Stuttgart, 1875-80; xerox reprint Graz, 1956. Schiirmeyer, W., Das Kardinalskollegium unter Pius II, Berlin, 1924; reprinted Vaduz, 1965. Schwoebel, R., The Shadow of the Crescent: the Renaissance image of the Turk (1453-1517), New York, 1967. Semmler, J., Das papstliche Staatssekretariat in den Pontifikaten Paulus V. und Gregors XV. 1605-1623, Rome, Freiburg and Vienna, 1969 (supplement to Rémische Quartalschrift). Seneca, F., Venezia e papa Giulio II, Padua, 1962. Serrano, L., Correspondencia diplomatica entre Espana y S. Sede durante el pontificado de S. Pio V, vol. 1v, Madrid, 1914. ‘Serviteurs du Roi. Quelques aspects de la fonction publique dans la société francaise du XVIle siècle’, in XVII siècle (1959), nos. 42-3 (monographical number). Setton, K. M., ‘Pope Leo X and the Turkish peril’, in Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, cx111 (1969), pp. 367-424. Seyssel, Claude de, La monarchie de France et deux autres fragments politiques, ed. J. Poujol, Paris, 1961. (English translation, The Monarchy of France, ed. Donald R. Kelley, New Haven and London, 1981.) Sickel, T. von, Rémische Berichte, 5 vols., Vienna, 1896-1902. Sigmund, P. E., Nicholas of Cusa and Medieval Political Thought, Cambridge, Mass., 1963. Skalweit, S., Der ‘moderne Staat’. Ein historischer Begriff und seine Problematik, Opladen, 1975 (Rheinisch-Westfalische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Geiteswissenschaften, Vortrage, G. 203). Smith, G., The Casino of Pius IV, Princeton, 1977. Soto, Domingo de, De iustitia et iure libri decem, Salamanca, 1556. Spinelli, L., La vacanza della Sede Apostolica dalle origini al Concilio Tridentino, Milan, 1930. Spizzichino, J., Le magistrature dello Stato Pontificio (476-1870), Lanciano, 1930. Stagni, S., ‘Il problema dell'ordine pubblico nei bandi dei legati, vicelegati e governatori di Bologna nel secolo XVI’. (post-graduate thesis at the Facoltà di Magistero, University of Bologna, 1970-1). Steccanella, V., SJ, Il valore e la violenza della dichiarazione pontificia sopra il dominio temporale della S. Sede, Rome, 1864. Stella, A., Chiesa e Stato nelle relazioni dei nunzi pontifici a Venezia. Ricerche sul

Bibliography

279

giurisdizionalismo veneziano dal XVI al XVIII secolo, The Vatican, 1964. Stelzer, W., ‘Zum Kardinal-Protektorat der deutschen Nation am Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderts’, in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fiir Rechtsgeschichte. Kanonistische Abteilung, Lxxxvi (1969), pp. 461-6. Stickler, A., (a) Historia iuris canonici latini . . .; 1: Historia fontium, Turin, 1950; (b) ‘Der Konkordatsgedanke in rechtsgeschichtlicher Schau’, in Osterreichisches

Archiv fiir Kirchenrecht, vii (1957), pp. 25-38. Stieber, J. W., Pope Eugenius IV, the Council of Basel and the Secular and Ecclesiastical Authorities in the Empire: the conflict over supreme authority and power in the Church, Leiden, 1978. Stolleis, M., Arcana Imperii und Ratio Status. Bemerkungen zur politischen Theorie des

friihen 17. Jahrhunderts, Gottingen, 1980. Storti, N., Lastoriae il diritto della Dataria apostolica dalle origine ai nostri giorni, Naples, 1969. Strayer, J. R., On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State, Princeton, 1970. Strnad, A. A., (a) ‘Aus der Friiheit des nationalen Protektorats der Kardinàle', in Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fiir Rechtsgeschichte, Kanonistische Abteilung, LXXXI (1964), pp. 264-71; (b) ‘Francesco Todeschini-Piccolomini. Politik und Mazenatentum im Quattrocento’, in Rémische Historische Mitteilungen, vi-1x (1964—5 and 1965-6), pp.

100-425;

~

(c) ‘Johannes Hinderbachs Obedienz-Ansprache vor Papst Pius II. Papstliche und kaiserliche Politik in der Mitte des Quattrocento’, in Rémische Historische Mitteilungen, x (1966-7), pp. 43-183; (d) ‘Von der Staatsràson zu den Menschenrechten. Politische, rechtliche und sozio-dkonomische Aspekte des ‘‘Absolutismus’’’, in Innsbrucker Historische Studien, 11 (1979), pp. 211-88. Strong, Sir Roy, Splendour at Court: Renaissance spectacle and the theatre of Rome, London, 1973. Sturzo, L., Church and State, New York, 1939. Suarez, Francisco, (a) Tractatus de legibus ac Deo legislatore in decem libros distributus, Lyons, 1619 (the splended critical edition in the Corpus hispanorum de pace, is still incomplete); (b) De iuramento fidelitatis, vol. 11, Madrid, 1978 and 1979. Susta, J., Der Versuch einer Verfassungsreform im Kirchenstaat unter Paulus IV., Innsbruck, 1901 (Mitteilungen des Instituts f. ésterr. Geschichtsforschung, VI. Supplement). Sutherland, N. M., The French Secretaries of State in the Age of Catherine de Medici,

London, 1962. Swart, K., Sale of Offices in the Seventeenth Century, The Hague, 1948. Tamborra, A., Gli stati italiani, l'Europa e il problema turco dopo Lepanto, Florence, 1961. Theiner, A., (ed.), Codex diplomaticus dominii temporalis S. Sedis. Recueil de documents pour servir a l'histoire du gouvernement temporel des états du saint-Siége extraits des archives du Vatican, 3 vols., Rome, 1861-2; xerox reprint Frankfurt-am-Main, 1964. les Thireau, J. L., Charles du Moulin (1500-1566). Etudes sur les sources, la méthode,

280

The Papal Prince: “

idées politiques et économiques d'un juriste de la Renaissance, Geneva, 1980. Thomson, J. A. F., Popes and Princes 1417-1517. Politics and policy in the late medieval church, London, 1980. Tierney, B., (a) Foundations of the Conciliar Theory. The contribution of the medieval canonists from Gratian to the Great Schism, Cambridge, 1955;

(b) Church Law and Constitutional Thought in the Middle Ages, London, 1979 © (variorum reprints).

Tilly, C., (ed.) The Formation of National States in Western Europe, Princeton, 1975. Timore e carità. I poveri nell'Italia moderna. Atti del convegno ‘Pauperismo e assistenza negli antichi stati italiani (secoli XV--XIX)', Cremona, 1982. Tocci, G., ‘Le legazioni di Romagna e di Ferrara dal XVI al XVIII secoli’, in Storia dell'Emilia Romagna, vol. 11, Bologna, 1977, pp. 65-99. Todescan, F., ‘Fermenti gallicani e dottrine anti-conciliariste al Lateranense V. Un capitolo della teologia politica del secolo XVI’, in Cristanesimo, secolarizzazione e diritto moderno, ed. C. Lombardi Vallauri and G. Dilcher, Baden-Baden and Milan, 1981, pp. 567-609. Torne, P. O. von, Ptolémée Gallio cardinal de Come. Etude sur la cour de Rome, sur la secrétairerie pontificale et sur la politique des papes au XVIe siècle, Helsinki, 1907. Toews, J. B., (a) ‘Dream and reality in the imperial ideology of Pope Pius II’, in Medievalia et Humanistica, xvi (1964), pp. 77-93; (b) ‘Pope Eugenius IV and the Concordat of Vienna (1448). An interpretation’, in Church History, xxiv (1965), pp. 178-94; (c) ‘Pope Sixtus IV and the empire: a study in the politicization of the later fifteenth-century papacy’, in Canadian Journal of History, 1 (1966), pp. 1-21; (d) ‘Formative forces in the pontificate of Nicholas V, 1447-1455’, in The Catholic Historical Review, LIV (1968), pp. 261-84; (e) ‘The view of empire in Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (Pope Pius II), in Traditio, XXIV (1968), pp. 471-87. Toschi, Domenico, Practicarum conclusionum iuris in omni foro frequentiorum, 8 vols., Lyons, 1634. Totaro, L., Pio II nei suoi Commentarii, Bologna, 1978. Trame, R. M., Rodrigo Sanchez de Arevalo, 1404-1470: Spanish diplomat and champion of the papacy, Washington, 1958. Trevor-Roper, H., ‘The general crisis of the seventeenth century’, in Crisis in Europe 1560-1660, London, 1965. Trexler, R. C., The Spiritual Power. Republican Florence under interdict, Leiden, 1974. Trinkhaus, C., In our Image and Likeness: humanity and divinity in humanist thought, 2 vols., London, 1970. Trinkhaus, C., and Oberman, M. A., The pursuit of holiness in late medieval and Renaissance religion (Papers from the University of Michigan conference), Leiden, 1974. Tromp, S., ‘De evolutione doctrinae potestatis indirectae R. Pontificis in res temporales’, in Acta Congressus Juridici Internationalis ..., vol. itt, 1936, pp. 95-107. Ullmann, W., (a) Medieval Papalism. The political theories of the medieval canonists, London, 1949;

Bibliography

281

(b) ‘The legal validity of the papal electoral pacts’, in Ephemerides Iuris Canonici, x11 (1956), pp. 246-78; (c) The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages. A study of the ideological relations of clerical to lay power, 2nd edn, London, 1962; (d) The Individual and Society in the Middle Ages, London, 1967. (e) ‘Juristic obstacles to the emergence of the concept of State’, in Annali di storia del diritto, x1I—x111 (1968-9), pp. 43-64; (f) ‘The medieval papal courts as an international tribunal’, in Virginia Journal of International Law, x1 (1971), pp. 356-71; (g) A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, London, 1972; (h) ‘Julius II and the schismatic cardinals’, in Studies in Church History, 1x (1972)

(Schism, heresy and religious protest), pp. 177-93; (i) Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages, 3rd edn, London, 1973; (j) Law and Politics in the Middle Ages, Ithaca, NY, 1975. (k) The Papacy and Political Ideas in the Middle Ages, London, 1976. Valenti, Monte, ‘L’epistolario di Mons. Monte Valenti da Tevi governatore di Perugia e dell'Umbria (1574-1575)’ in Bollettino della R. Deputazione di storia patria per l'Umbria, xxx (1935), m-xvi, pp. 1-210. Valentini, G., ‘La crociata da Eugenio IV a Callisto III. Dai documenti d'Archivio di Venezia’, in Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, x11 (1974), pp. 91-123. Valla, Lorenzo, De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione, ed. W. Setz, Weimar,

1975. Vasina, A., (a) I Romagnoli fra autonomia cittadina e accentramento papale nell’eta de Dante, Florence, 1965; (b) ‘Il periodo avignonese nella storiografia italiana degli ultimi decenni’, in Aspetti culturali della societa italiana nel periodo del papato avignonese, Todi, 1981, pp. 9-48. , Venturi, F., (a) ‘Elementi e tentativi di riforma nello Stato pontificio del Settecento’

vols. in Rivista storica italiana, txxv (1963), pp. 778-817; Settecento riformatore, 1, Turin, 1972-9. (b) Settecento riformatore, vols. 1-111, Turin, 1972-9.

one Verardi Ventura, S., ‘L'ordinamento bolognese dei secoli XVI-XVII. Introduzi governo il stato, Lo asio: Archiginn dell’ Biblioteca della B1114 ms. del all'edizione LKXIV e i magistrati di Bologna del cavalier Ciro Spontone’, in L’archiginnasio, (1979), pp. 181-425. , GotVierhaus, R., (ed.) Herrschaftsvertràge, Wahlkapitulationen, Fundamentalgesetze

tingen, 1977. in Annuario Villani, P., ‘Origine e carattere della nunziatura di Napoli (1523-1569)’, pp. (1957-8), IX-X anea, contempor dell’Istituto storico italiano per l'età moderna e 283-539. a’, Milan, 1974. Vismara, G., Impium Foedus. Le origini della ‘respublica christian 1933-5. Madrid, vols., 3 as, Teologic nes Releccio de, co Vitoria, Francis XVI y XVII’, in XI Congrès Vives, V. J., ‘Estructura administrativa estatal en los siglos 1960. lm, international des sciences historiques, Stockho ae) der katholischen Staaten Wahrmund, L., Das Ausschliessungs-Recht (Jus exclusiv Vienna, 1888. hlen, Papstwa den bei Spanien und ich ésterreich, Frankre

282

The Papal Prince

Waley, D.P. The Papal State in the Thirteenth Century, London, 1961. Walf, K., Die Entwicklung des papstlichen Gesandtschaftwesens in dem Zeitabschnitt zwischen Dekretalenrecht und Wiener Kongress (1159-1815), Munich, 1966. Wallerstein, I., The Modern World System, 1: Capitalist agriculture and the origins of the European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century; 11: Mercantilism and the Consolidation of the European World Economy 1600-1750, 2 vols., New York, 1974 and 1980. Walsch, K., (a) ‘Papsttum, Kurie und Kirchenstaat im spAteren Mittelalter: Neue Beitrage zu ihrer Geschichte’, in Romischen Historische Mitteilungen, xvi (1974), pp. 205-30; (b) ‘Zum Patrimonium Beati Petri im Mittelalter’, in Rémischen Historische Mitteilungen, xvI (1975), pp. 193-211. Wasner, F., ‘Tor der Geschichte. Beitrage zum pàpstlichen Zeremonienwesen im 15. Jahrhundert’, in Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, vi (1968), pp. 113-62. Watt, J. A., ‘The theory of papal monarchy in the thirteenth century’, in Traditio, xx1 (1964), pp. 179-317. Weber, C., Kardindle und Pralaten in den letzten Jahrzehnten des Kirchenstaates. EliteRekrutierung, Karriere-Muster und soziale Zusammensetzung der kurialen Fiihrungsschicht zur Zeit Pius IX (1846-1878), 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1978. Weber, M., Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der Verstehenden Soziologie, ed. J. Winckelmann, 2 vols., 5th edn, Tiibingen, 1976. (English translation, Economy and Society: an outline of interpretive sociology, ed. Roth and Wittich, Berkeley and London, 1979). Weihnacht, P.-L., Staat. Studien zur Bedeutungsgeschichte des Wortes von den Anfangen bis ins 19. Jahrhundert, Berlin, 1968. Weinstein, D., Savonarola and Florence: prophecy and patriotism in the Renaissance, Princeton, 1970. Westfall, C. W., In This Most Perfect Paradise, Alberti, Nicholas V and the Invention of Conscious Urban Planning in Rome, 1447-1455, Pennsylvania State University Press, 1975. Wilkie, W. E., The Cardinal Protectors of England: Rome and the Tudors before the Reformation, Cambridge, 1974. Wilks, M. J., The Problem of Sovereignty in the later Middle Ages: the papal monarchy with Augustus Triumphus and the publicists, Cambridge, 1963. Winspeare, F., La congiura dei cardinali contro Leone X, Florence, 1957. Wodka, J., Zur Geschichte der nationalen Protektorate der Kardindle in der ròomischen Kurie, Innsbruck, 1938; reprinted 1967. Wyduckel, D., Princeps legibus solutus. Eine Untersuchung zur friihmodernen Rechts-

und Staatslehre, Berlin, 1979. Yates, F. A., Astraea. The imperial theme in the sixteenth century, London and Boston, IS. Zenobi, B. G., (a) Ceti e potere della marca pontificia. Formazione e organizzazione della piccola nobiltà fra ‘500 e '700, Bologna, 1976; (b) Dai governi larghi all'assetto patriziale. Istituzioni e organizzazione del potere nelle città minori della Marca dei secoli XVI-XVII, Urbino, 1979. Zippel, G., ‘E. S. Piccolomini e il mondo germianico. Impegno cristiano e civile dell’umanesimo’, in La cultura, xtx (1981), pp. 267-350.

Index

absolute monarchy, ideology of, 6-7, 41, 42-4 absolutism: development of, 39-40; and the legal system, 77-8 administrative appointments: clericalisation of, 102-10, 122

administrative structures: in the Papal

State, 38, 124 Albornoz, Cardinal Egidio, 70 Albornoz, Gil Alvarez Carillo, 38 Alciati, Cardinal, 127, 129, 130, 133, 140, 141, 143, 146, 148 Aldobrandini, Cardinal, 71 Aleandro, Girolamo, 162-3 Alexander VI, Pope, 10, 18, 52, 166 Alexander VII, Pope, 108 Alfonso d’Aragon, 10 Alticozzi, Alticozzi, 145 Amadeo, Duke of Savoy (later Pope Felix V), 13-14 ambassadors: papal, 106, 165-6; Venetian, 21-3, 37, 87, 97, 108, 166, 179; see also diplomacy

Ambrosino, Alessandro, 113 Ameyden, Theodor, 54, 58, 95, 98 Amorini, Luigi, 131

aristocracy: transformation from feudal to courtly, 48-9, 53, 66-7, 72-4 army, papal, 51-2 Audisio, Giulio, 166 Averoldi, Altobello, 165 Bagno, Giovan Francesco Guidi di, 175

Baldo, 10, 32 Bandini, Ottavio, 153

banditry (brigandry), 38, 53, 73, 112, 151 Barberini, Cardinal Francesco, 157

Barbosa, Agostino, 31, 32, 63, 113-14 Barclay, William, 27-8 Bartolo, 73 Basadonna, Pietro, 22 Basle, Council of, 14, 40 Bauer, C., 56 Beliosso, Caesar, 143 Bellarmino, Roberto, 24, 26-7, 28, 36, 102, 103, 104, 106 Besta, E., 60 Béthune, Maximilien de (later Duc de Sully), 175 Bibiena, Pietro, 164 bishops: appointments of, 108; authority in the Church State, 156; in civil government, 104, 105; and government in Bologna, 123-56; and the pope, 30 Boccalini, Traiano, 23, 49, 173 Bockenforde, E.W., 6 Bologna, 49, 112; expulsion of the Bentivoglio, 45; problems of episcopal government in, 123-56 Bonelli, Cardinal Michele, 131-2, 140, 141, 144 Boniface V, Pope, 45 Boniface VIII, Pope, 172, 184 Borghese, Scipione, 172 Borgia, Cardinal, 88-9 Borgia, Pier Luigi, 51 Borromeo, Carlo, 127, 129, 133, 134, 139, 141, 145, 146, 148, 151, 152, 168 Bossio, Francesco, 127 Bossuet, Jacques Bénigne, 6, 173 Botero, Giovanni, 34, 41, 42 Bouwsma, W.J., 172 brigandry (banditry), 38, 53, 73, i Brosch, Moritz, 105

283

284 |

Index

Brunner, Otto, 6 Buoncampagni, Filippo, 151-3 Buoncompagni, Ugo, 145, 149 Burckhardt, J., 3 bureaucracy: clericalisation of, 84, 102-10, 124; and the college of cardinals, 84; Italianisation of, 18, 171; in the Papal State, 38, 39 . Calisse, Carlo, 61 Calixtus III, Pope, 51 Camaiani, Pietro, 159, 168 camera (papal treasury), 96, 97, 100

Campanella, Tommaso, 79, 80 Campeggi, Lorenzo, 110 Cancellieri, Francesco, 46

Colonna family, 49 conciliar movement, 14-15, 18, 30, 42, 43;

papal victory over, 6-7, 8, 160, 162, 163 conclaves, reform of, 89-90 concordats, 159-62, 177 consistories, 85, 87 Constance, Council of, 82, 83 Constantine, Donation of, 10, 12, 15, 24, 45 Constantinople, fall of (1453), 176 Contarini, Gasparo, 19, 20 Contarini, Pietro, 22

corporate theory, 7 Correr, Giovanni, 179 Cortese, Paolo, 84 Counter-Reformation, 158-9, 163; and

Church/State relationships, 36, 108, 167,

Cannobio, Giovan Francesco, 143, 144 canon law, 185; and civil law, 59-78 Capodiferro, Girolamo, 95 cardinal congregations, 75, 76, 86 cardinal legates, 106—7 cardinal-nephews, 86, 92-4, 95 cardinals, college of, 35, 80-91, 171 Caro, Annibal, 112

171; and Spain, 173 courts, papal, 47-8; and the origins of the popes, 108 curia, Roman, 33-4, 48, 165; and

Castagna, Giovanni Battista, 149, 150-1

datary, the, 97-8, 100 De Domenichi, Domenico, 15-16, 18 De Dominis, Marc Antonio, 30, 104, 106,

Castel Sant'Angelo: castellanship of, 108-9 Castelli, Giovan Battista, 145, 168, 169,

174 Castiglia, Council of, 24 Castiglione, Baldassare, Count, 84 Catholic Church (Church of Rome); in Hobbes, 29; and the modern State,

158-9 Cedulini, Pietro, Bishop of Lesina, 113 centralisation: and clericalisation, 104—5; development of, 38, 39; and the legal system, 62, 70, 77-8 ceremonial and liturgy, papal: evolution of, 45-6 Cesi, Pier Donato, 151, 152, 153

Charlemagne, 5 Charles I, King of Great Britain, 175 Charles V, Emperor, 20, 24, 167, 178 Chateau Cambrésis, Peace of, 121 Chiesa, Giovan Paolo, 133, 140, 141 Chigi, Fabio, 108, 177 cities, loss of autonomy, 49-51, 66-7, 74 civil law, and canon law, 59-78 civil servant, pope as, 107-8; see also bureaucracy Clement VII, Pope, 19, 20, 95, 167 Clement VIII, Pope, 23, 52, 68, 69, 72, 87, 103, 108, 116, 153-4, 177 Coing, H., 61 collectors, and nunciaries, 164 college of cardinals, 35, 80-91, 171

diplomacy, 165-6; secularisation of, 18, 106 Cusa, Niccolò da, 14-15, 18, 110

170, 182 Del Giudice, P., 60 Della Rovere, Giulio, 129

De Luca, Giovanni Battista, 33-5, 36, 180; on the college of cardinals, 90; on ecclesiastical immunity, 116-18; on government officials, 92-4, 96; on the legal system, 63-70, 73-4, 75-6, 77; on the origin of the popes, 108; on papal finances, 98, 99-101 Del Re, N., 80 Delumeau, J., 38-9, 55, 99 diplomacy, papal, 163-81; see also ambassadors Dolfin, Giovanni, 87 Dollinger, J.J., 105 Donato, Girolamo, 10 Doria, Giovan Battista, 127, 131, 143, 145 Du Moulin, Charles, 62 economy, and state intervention, 55-7 Elizabeth I, Queen of England, 121, 175

England: and the papal schism, 162-3, 174-5 episcopal government, see bishops Erasmus, 18 Ermini, Giuseppe, 61

Eugenius IV, Pope, 7, 10, 11, 14, 42, 160, 176

Index

285

Evennett, H.0., 3, 159 excommunication 120-2; and usurpation of Church property, 142

income, papal, 56, 96-7

Facchinetti, Giovan Antonio, 178 Fagnani, Prospero, 31, 32-3, 63 Farnese, Ottavio, 168, 178 Ferdinand I, Emperor, 178 Ferrerio, Zaccaria, 19 feudalism: anti-feudal policies, 38, 72, 73; feudal law, 73-4

feudal nobility, see aristocracy

Innocent III, Pope, 9, 46, 124 Innocent VIII, Pope, 72 Innocent X, Pope, 45, 52, 108 Innocent XI, Pope, 36, 63, 66, 108 Innocent XII, Pope, 92 interdicts, 120-2 Italian League, 42, 165 È Italianisation, of administrative structures,

Figgis, J.N., 2 finances, papal, 55-7, 96-101; taxation of

Italy, 171-3

Infessura, Stefano, 115 inheritance laws: exclusion of clergy from, 67

18, 171

the clergy, 114-19 Fink, K.A., 8

fiscal levying: in the Papal State, 56—7 foreign policy, 157-81 | fortifications, development of, 52-3 France: diplomats, 165; and papal concordats, 160-1; and the Papal State,

6, 173-4 Francois I, King of France, 160, 167, 178 ‘Frederick II, Emperor, 11 Frederick III, Emperor, 161

Jacobi, Petrus, 10

James I, King of Great Britain, 28, 175 Jedin, Hubert 85, 88, 162 Jemolo, A.C., 161, 180 Julius II, Pope, 17, 18, 28, 30, 38, 41, 43,

45, 46, 49, 107, 166, 177 Julius III, Pope, 95, 159, 168 juridical structure, of the Papal State, 59-78 Kantorowicz, E., 2

Gaddi, Niccolò, 112 Galeotti, Leopoldo, 104 Gattinara, 24 Ghini, Antonio, 142 Giannone, Pietro, 64, 116 Giles of Viterbo, 43-4 Gotwald, W., 120 government machinery, 79-101 Gregorovius, F., 17 Gregory VIII, Pope, 75, 146, 148, 149, 151 Gregory XIII, Pope, 115, 121, 153, 154 Gregory XIV, Pope, 112-13 Gregory XV, Pope, 108, 169 Grotius, Hugo, 19 Guicciardini, Francesco, 4, 10-11, 19-20, 41, 49, 95, 104, 110-11, 122 Guiddiccioni, Giovanni, 111-12 Hadrian VI, Pope, 19, 110 Haller, Johannes, 4 Henry II, King of France, 168 Henry IV, King of France, 23, 173 Henry VII, King of England, 25, 175 heretics, public condemnation of, 120 Hobbes, Thomas, 5, 17, 28-9 Holland, 38, 175-6 Holy Roman Empire, 5, 173

immunity, ecclesiastical, 68-70; and penal law, 109-12; and taxation, 113-19

Lagonissa, Fabio di, 175 La Mantia, Vito, 60

legal system, 59-78; see also penal law legates, 106; powers of, 155-6, 163 Leicht, P.S., 60 Leo X, Pope, 41, 48, 51, 57, 71, 95, 160, 161, 165, 166, 177 Lepanto, battle of, 177 Libellus ad Leonem X, 18-19 Locato, Monsignor, 144, 145 Lodi, Peace of, 42, 51 Lorena, di, Cardinal, 178 Lunadoro, Girolamo, 22 Machiavelli, Niccolò, 4, 20, 23,41, 49, 104 magistracy, political: and the clergy, 102-22; municipal, 18 Manetti, Giannozzo, 57-8 Marongiu, A., 60 Martin V, Pope, 9, 82, 95 Matilda, Countess of Canossa, 12 Mattei, Gasparo, 157, 170 Maximilian, Emperor, 165 Mazzacane, Aldo, 63 mediator, pope as, 179 Medici, Giulio de’, 165 Middle Ages: and papal sovereignty, 5, 8, 124; and universalism, 159, 175, 179 Mocenigo, Alvise, 21

286

Index ~

Mocenigo, Giovanni, 22 Molina, Luis de, 25 mornarchy, see absolute monarchy Montaigne, M. de, 48 Montalto, Alessandro Peretti da, 153 Montalto, Fra Felice Peretti da (later Pope Sixtus V, see Sixtus V), 153 Morone, Cardinal, 128, 132, 133, 140, 144 Moses, 26, 44, 85

municipal tribunals, 77 Mintz, E., 44 nationalisation, of Church institutions, 107 Navagero, Bernardo, 21 Navy, papal, 52 nepotism, 14, 40, 41, 83, 84, 91-4, 97, 101, 109; and the papal army, 51 neutrality, papal, 177-8 Nicholas V, Pope, 9, 11, 16, 17, 42, 44, 45, 48, 50, 51, 53, 57-8, 160 nobility, see aristocracy Noceto, Pietro da, 11-12 nunciatures, 159-60, 163-6, 177

Pisa, Council of, 173 Pisa—Milan Council, 18 Pius II, Pope (formerly Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, see Piccolomini), 46, 53, 81, 84, 110, 161, 171; and conciliarism, 18, 160; and the crusade against the Turks, 176, 177; and the ideology of the sovereign, 42-3; and nepotism, 14, 51; and the sale of offices, 57; and spiritual weapons, 121 Pius IV, Pope, 19, 44, 90 Pius V, Pope, 112; anti-feudal policies, 38, 72, 73; and the Catholic league, 177; and Church property, 116; and the college of cardinals, 85; and episcopal

jurisdiction, 128, 131, 133, 134, 139, 140, 141, 142, 146; and sovereign power, 35 Pius IX, Pope, 104, 184 Pius X, Pope, 70 Pius XII, Pope, 184 Porcari, 50 Possevino, Antonio, 168

\

offices, sale of, 57, 96, 97, 100, 103, 108 Old Testament, examples of: prince-priests, 26, 27, 44, 45 Ormaneto, Nicolo, 141

power: and image, 37-58; physical symbols of, 46; political and hierocratic, 5-6; theory of indirect power, 24, 26, 28, 78 primacy, exercise of, 157-81 prime minister, office of, 91, 92 Priuli, Lorenzo, 108

Padova, Marsilio da, 10 Paleotti, bishop of Bologna, 127-8, 129-34,

procurator, in the Roman curia, 165 public debt, 57, 96, 97

139-46, 148, 149, 151-3

public order, maintenance of, 53, 109

Parentuccelli, Tommaso, see Nicholas V, Pope Partner, Peter, 5

Paruta, Paolo, 21, 37, 41, 42, 81, 113, 115-16 ‘Pastor, L. von, 44 Paul II, Pope, 71, 84, 86, 108, 111

Paul III, Pope, 45, 48, 97, 107, 167, 171, 178; anti-feudal legislation, 72; and episcopal jurisdiction, 125; and taxation, 56, 115 Paul IV, Pope, 30, 71, 86, 120, 140, 167 Paul V, Pope, 108, 142, 148-9 penal law, 71; and ecclesiastical immunity, 109-12; and episcopal government, 147-8, 154; subjection of clergy to, 105 Pepoli, Conte Girolamo, 152 Perugia, 49, 112 Philip II, King of Spain, 23, 120

Piccolomini, Aeneas Silvius (later Pope Pius II, see Pius II), 11, 13-14, 15, 25-6,

27 Piccolomini, Antonio, 51 Pilati, Carl Antonio, 64, 183 Pio, Rodolfo, 178

Ranke, Leopold von, 2, 4, 14, 79, 182, 184 Raphael, 44-5 Ravenna, provincial council at, 129, 132,

142, 143 Reformation: and Church/State relationships, 6, 158, 167 Requesens, Luis, 148 Revigny, Jacques de, 10 Riario, Girolamo, 51, 178 Ricci, Giovanni, 88 Rodocanachi, E.P., 44 Romagna, 112 Rome, 38; art and literature in, 44-5; diplomats, 165-6; papal domination of,

49-51; right of sanctuary in, 113; sack of, 51, 167, 168; statutes of, 68-70; and urban policy, 50-1 Rosciate, Alberico da, 10 Roselli, Antonio, 15 Rucellai, Annibale, 153 Sacra Rota, tribunal of, 75-6 Sadoleto, Cardinal Jacopo, 171 Sales, St Francois de, 174

287

Index Salviati, Antonio Maria, 153, 172 Sanchez de Arévalo, Rodrigo, 15, 108-9 sanctuary, right of, 113, 139 Sanseverino, Lucio, 176 Santacroce, Prospero di, 68 Santori, Antonio, 113

Trent, Council of, 19, 79, 80, 170; and the clericalisation of the State, 108; and the college of cardinals, 84—5; and concordats, 162; and the CounterReformation, 158-9; and episcopal government, 125, 131, 132, 133-4, 154;

Sarpi, Paolo, 30, 104, 105, 114, 116, 160, 169, 172 Savonarola, Girolamo, 43 secretary of State, office of, 924 . secularisation: of the Church, 185; of politics, and the papacy, 158; of the Roman curia, 18, 106; of the State, 156 sermons, at the Papal court, 44 Sforza, Alessandro, 145 Sforza, Francesco, 121 Siena, Bernardino da, 11 simony, 97, 99-100 Sixtus IV, Pope, 17, 44, 51, 70, 71, 84; and the Holy Roman Empire, 161-2 Sixtus V, Pope (formerly Fra Felice Peretti da Montalto, see Montalto), 23, 26, 45, 51; and the clericalisation of the State, 105, 108; and the college of cardinals, 85, 87, 90; and episcopal jurisdiction, 153, 154; and the juridical structure, 70, 71, 75; and the struggle against banditry, 112, 113 Sixtus X, Pope, 57, 83 Soranzo, Giovanni, 97 Soto, Domingo de, 24-5 sovereign, pope as 17-36, 42-7 Spain, 6, 173 Speciano, Cesare, 168 spiritual weapons, use of: and the construction of the State, 119-22 Spizzichino, J., 80 State: clericalisation of State apparatus, 102-10, 122, 152-3, 185; construction of an absolute state, 37-58; modern concept of, and the papacy, 2-3; see also bureaucracy state intervention: and the legal system, 74; in the Papal states, 53-7, 158 Suarez, Francisco, 25, 26 superintendent-general, office of, 92-4

taxation, 56, 96, 99; common law on, 31;

and ecclesiastical immunity, 114-19 Theiner, A., 121 tiara, as symbol of pope’s power, 46 Toews, John B., 161-2 Torquemada, Juan de, 15 Toschi, Domenico, 31-2, 63, 73, 113

and the juridical structure, 76, 77; and nepotism, 91; and nunciatures, 160, 166; and papal diplomacy, 167, 168; and temporal sovereignty, 29-30, 32, 40, 41; and usurpation of Church property, 142 tribunals: municipal, 77; of the Roman curia, 75-6, 77

Tridentine reform, 48, 83, 98, 129-30, 164, 168 Trionfo, Agostino, 10

Turks: alliance with, 30; crusade against, 176-7 Ullmann, Walter, 3, 7 unification of Italy, 4, 39 universalism, papal, 8-9, 10, 46-7, 168, 172; and the medieval Church, 159, 175,

179 Urban VII, Pope (formerly Giovanni Battista Castagna, see Castagna), 149

Urban VIII, Pope, 51, 58, 95, 108, 116; anti-feudal legislation, 72; and the papal army, 52; and papal ceremonial, 46; and papal diplomacy, 169, 175; and papal income, 97; quarrel with Cardinal Borgia, 88-9

Valenti, Monsignor Monte, 112 Valla, Lorenzo, 10, 11, 13 Vendramin, Girolamo, 180 Venice: Venetian ambassadors to Rome,

21-3, 37, 87, 97, 108, 166, 179; nunciaries in, 164-5; and the Papal State, 172, 177, 180 Vienna, Treaty of, 42 Vienna, concordat (1448), 161 Vio, Tomaso de, 24 Vitelleschi, Cardinal, 11 Vitoria, Francisco de, 24

Walsch, K., 9 wars, 174; and diplomacy, 168-9 Weber, Max, 5, 78 Westfall, C.W., 50-1 Westphalia, peace of, 158, 169, 177, 184 Wolsey, Cardinal Thomas, 174 Zaccagni, Giovan Camillo, 58

È THEOLOGY LIBRARY

* GLAREMONT, CALIF.

x

9441568

a

agi

dn ©

fra Di

PAST e viI tec

bi

Prodi, Paoloe The papal prince =: one body and two souls : the papal monarchy in early modern Europe / by Paolo Prodi $5 translated by Susan HaskinSe —

Cambridge Cambridge Ke

287

[Cambridgeshire ] ; New University

De

35

Translation Bibliography:

24

cme

of: pe

Il

Press,

sovrano

York:

1987. pontefice.

249-232

Includes indexe ISBN 0-521-32259-6 power--Historye 1» Popes--Temporal I. Prodi» States--Historye 2e Papal IIe Englishe pontefice. Sovrano Paolos Title IIle Englishe ponteficee Sovrano

)

05 OCT 88

16577588

CSTMxc

87-17207

si RAN R

Ny

BOs

REN

PPP

RR RY x

ae

SERIALI

;Nè . mye Pt, TOO

tat

NI i

ON

o

> q à

al

ext

ar È

SORA

È

: 3 SI tana

ih

sie

È

:

pate

3

atts

Di

di

7 sets

Suini

shee

oU

aie tetye!, Busine Tes

i

a ie si Ber

7

AS

fess

ci

ci

SIRIA. gi

|

sE î

e

Mi suo

i

Nee

x

dr

î

a

PAIR

Ù eat Mou NUORA N *

dre

ao

estan OR Ia ie

One

PA

Pah LÀ

”

A

Ù

ay va

eRe

;

mask

getti

SO CISA

N,

ai

pate N

AA

Leet athae,

x

NO

ays x:

ORC

AMANO

ike

‘ Ri

dep)

rat Neer ees

yar aye

Tie