The Roman Inquisition: A Papal Bureaucracy and Its Laws in the Age of Galileo 9780812207644

Citation preview

The Roman Inquisition

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 1

8/27/12 11:46 AM

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 2

8/27/12 11:46 AM

THE ROM A N INQU ISITION A Papal Bureaucracy and Its Laws in the Age of Galileo

Thomas F. Mayer

universit y of pennsylvania press phil adelphia

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 3

8/27/12 11:46 AM

A volume in the Haney Foundation Series, established in 1961 with the generous support of Dr. John Louis Haney. Copyright © 2013 University of Pennsylvania Press All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations used for purposes of review or scholarly citation, none of this book may be reproduced in any form by any means without written permission from the publisher. Published by University of Pennsylvania Press Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-4112 www.upenn.edu/pennpress Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Mayer, Thomas F. (Thomas Frederick), 1951– The Roman Inquisition : a papal bureaucracy and its laws in the age of Galileo / Thomas F. Mayer. — 1st ed. p. cm. — (Haney Foundation series) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8122-4473-1 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Inquisition—Italy—History—16th century. 2. Inquisition— Italy—History—17th century. 3. Catholic Church. Congregation Romanae et Universalis Inquisitionis. 4. Criminal procedure (Canon law)—History—16th century. 5. Criminal procedure (Canon law)— History—17th century. 6. Italy—Church history—16th century. 7. Italy—Church history—17th century. I. Title. II. Series: Haney Foundation series. BX1723.M38 2013 272'.209032—dc23 2012028352

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 4

8/27/12 11:46 AM

contents

Introduction

1

Chapter 1. The Roman Inquisition’s Operations

9

Chapter 2. The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

38

Chapter 3. The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

76

Chapter 4. The Professional Staff

110

Chapter 5. Inquisition Procedure: The Holy Office’s Use of Inquisitio

155

Conclusion

206

Appendix

217

List of Abbreviations

227

Notes

231

Selected Bibliography

359

Index

367

Acknowledgments

383

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 5

8/27/12 11:46 AM

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 6

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Introduction

Ignorance and prejudice shroud few institutions as they do the Inquisition.1 About the prejudice there is probably little more to be done than about any other kind. About the ignorance there is hope. For a simple start, historians can abandon their predecessors’ seriously distorting tendency to lump together into a single entity the numerous medieval inquisitions and their major early modern successors, one of which, the subject of this book, the Roman Inquisition, had branches that bore only a family resemblance to each other. The target of mob action from at least the sixteenth century and of polemics from at least the seventeenth, until recently “the Inquisition” or most of what was known about it concerned the Spanish variety, one of three early modern versions (the Portuguese is the third) and a major element in the black legend of the evils of Spain and Spanish Catholicism.2 About the Roman Inquisition, the most important of these versions, for a long time little more was known than could be gleaned from the study of a handful of important cases, especially Galileo’s, reinforced by fairly regular use of published inquisitorial manuals.3 Then in the 1990s, scholarship turned a corner. The decade began with the publication of a collection of John Tedeschi’s articles, some of which had originally appeared almost thirty years earlier, and ended with the opening of the Archive of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1998.4 In between came Francisco Bethencourt’s The Inquisition: A Global History, 1478–1834 and Francesco Beretta’s doctoral thesis on Galileo’s trial.5 Together, these set the stage for an assault on the fastnesses of the Roman Inquisition’s archives. A framework had been built, and the documents were at last available with which to flesh it out and test its soundness.6 In addition to the Vatican’s robust refusal to admit more than a handful of scholars to the Congregation’s records at any time—the reading room still seats only twelve—a number of other prejudices and omissions in historical scholarship made, and still make, study of the Roman Inquisition difficult. 1

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 1

8/27/12 11:46 AM

2

int ro du c t io n

One major problem is that its status as chief guardian of the faith automatically means that issues of personal belief enter in, and usually not to the Inquisition’s advantage. Its defenders have often done more harm than good. Another serious distortion arises from that fact that its “victims” have always attracted most interest.7 The existence of victims presupposes victimizers, men who abused power and procedure, not to mention prisoners. Unfortunately, next to nothing was known about either how the Inquisition’s power developed or its procedures. Thus another difficulty arose. The study of bureaucracy and law has not been much in favor for a generation. Just when the Inquisition’s own bureaucratic and legal documents became available, the opportunity to profit from them was largely missed. Instead most studies continued to run along the old tracks laid down by those seventeenth-century polemics, perhaps especially in the study of Roman censorship.8 Further, the history of early modern law and lawyers, canon and civil, is much less well served than is that of their medieval predecessors.9 The excellent theoretical and historical reconstruction of Western law in the central Middle Ages in Harold J. Berman’s Law and Revolution had no sequel, or rather, the sequel concentrated on Germany and England and the impact of the Protestant Reformations.10 It seems nothing of legal or constitutional consequence happened in the home of what Berman in the subtitle of his first volume called “the western legal tradition.” Berman might be forgiven for shying away from Italy, given the complexities of its legal landscape that almost defy description much less analysis.11 The sheer quantity of legal publication, the subject of intense interest by the Inquisition, combined with the often gnomic discourse and system of reference in which it was couched, presents another deterrent.12 If we confine our attention simply to Rome and the papacy, much of the administrative and constitutional history needed to provide context for any individual papal judicial organ has not been done. Rome has had no Geoffrey Elton, for good or ill.13 Instead, historians have thought themselves forced back on antique and usually anachronistic handbooks designed to serve inhabitants of the Roman bureaucracy at various moments, and therefore by definition not safely used in other periods.14 Thus any study of the Roman Inquisition as what it was, a legal institution, was almost fatally handicapped at the outset. I took this situation as provocation. Already in my work on one of the more famous sixteenth-century “victims” of the Inquisition, Cardinal Reginald Pole, I had in the back of my mind to get at what the men who pursued him thought they were doing on their own terms, however morally repulsive we might find them. I discovered that much of the responsibility for Pole’s

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 2

8/27/12 11:46 AM

int ro du c t io n

3

troubles could be laid at his feet, especially the extraordinarily ill-chosen decisions to leave his seat among the cardinals directing the Inquisition, not to campaign for the papacy, and then abandon Rome altogether, leaving the field clear to his enemies.15 My interest in the Inquisition piqued, I turned my attention to another of its most famous victims, perhaps its most famous, Galileo. I soon discovered that the same approach in black-and-white terms that bedeviled study of Pole and his allies obtained in Galileo’s case. Anyone who argued Galileo might bear some responsibility for his fate or made mistakes in his trial had automatically to be a defender of the Inquisition. There was no third option. I determined to find one. Hence this book. It began as the introductory chapter to a study of Galileo’s trial. I intended through it to describe how the Roman Inquisition worked only in sufficient detail to make sense in legal terms of that neuralgic episode. In order to determine what was illegal, immoral, or improper, I had to establish what was legal, moral, and proper, always to the degree possible in seventeenth-century terms. Detecting an abuse demanded knowing what should have happened. Were John Tedeschi and Paul Grendler right in the judgment that the Inquisition dispensed “legal justice” and was “a fair-minded tribunal,” if not by our standards?16 This assignment turned out to be much larger than I anticipated, and as a result that chapter became not just a single book but two; the second will treat the Inquisition as a political institution in its Italian context, specifically its relations with Venice, Florence, and Naples, including full treatment of a half-dozen highly significant cases. Quantity of material turned a small project into a large one. My analysis of Galileo’s trial, which will now make a third volume, depended on a changed angle of vision, away from it as an unicum to one among many, and from him as heroic protagonist and victim (a construction as oxymoronic as it is durable) to the men who put him on trial and the procedures they used. That is, the point of view changed from a single figure and a narrow corpus of sources to an approach in terms of process and prosopography, drawing on a much wider range of evidence. This changed perspective draws on the work of the last generation that has dramatically improved our understanding of how the Roman Inquisition went about its business, especially the pioneering efforts of Tedeschi, Andrea Del Col, Adriano Prosperi, Massimo Firpo and Dario Marcatto, Guido Dall’Olio, Christopher Black, more recently and among the most important Francesco Beretta, and most recently of all Ugo Baldini, Leen Spruit, and their team, the first volume of whose researches appeared in 2009.17 Together

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 3

8/27/12 11:46 AM

4

int ro du c t io n

with a similar volume of writing about the medieval inquisitions as both institutions and procedures, especially the contributions of Edward Peters, H. A. Kelly, Mark Gregory Pegg, and Christine Ames, we have a much better grasp of the Inquisition’s functioning and how it changed over time.18 Much of this new work remains concerned with the substance of cases before the Inquisition, not its procedures. Yet as Del Col so aptly puts it, we cannot hope to get to closer grips with the institution without knowing the rules that governed it, which requires studying a “congruo numero” of processi.19 As Del Col also stresses, the Inquisition was designed to produce flexiblility as both procedure and institution, and a great deal depended on the personality and experience of the individual inquisitor.20 Bethencourt, too, emphasized the importance of people, in particular factions within and power struggles outside the Inquisitions and the significance of establishing “the real actions of the agents involved in important historical processes.”21 Like Del Col, he called for further attention to “the institutional configuration of the Roman Inquisition.”22 Beretta singled out a key dimension of the institution and its men, its jurisprudence.23 Bethencourt proposed a fourfold “new model of research”: “rites and etiquette, organizational forms, strategies of action and systems of representation.” I have not been much concerned with the first or the fourth of these, in part because they concern the Inquisition’s public face and in part because trying to pursue them inside the institution encounters insuperable problems of evidence, as Bethencourt admitted in the case of the Roman Inquisition’s “emblems.”24 There is no information, aside from occasional decrees about seating arrangements, “quasi-liturgical” papal entrances (about which we know only the fact, nothing about their form), and apparently endemic conflict over precedence among the consultors reflected in the order of their names in the decree registers. The manuals give some attention to internal ritual, but it is hard to know how far to trust their accounts. Bethencourt’s second and third approaches, which he quickly collapsed into one another, are vital. He rightly insisted that “forms of organization . . . are fundamental,” and proposes to treat the “tribunals . . . as systems which imposed operating rules on their agents, but which also constituted spaces of conflict,” which means “we need to know about the persons who made these tribunals work.”25 Above all, Bethencourt observed the lack of attention to the Cardinal Inquisitors, a situation remedied somewhat by the work of Pierre-Noël Mayaud and addressed in Chapters 2 and 3 below. He also nodded in the direction of the “intellectual sphere” in the form of a brief

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 4

8/27/12 11:46 AM

int ro du c t io n

5

discussion of provincial inquisitors’ education and experience, but not their writing or their patronage.26 Although not raised in his initial discussion, Bethencourt’s attention to the institution’s “‘plasticity’” is of the first importance. What he said of the Inquisition in general holds equally true for the Roman variant. It had neither “a set form or an immutable jurisdiction,” and its functions “varied in time and space.”27 As a consequence, “practice was frequently ahead of or at odds with the law.”28 Despite the great value of Bethencourt’s book, it suffers from some of the same problems as its less enlightened predecessors and underscores the necessity of the study of procedure and jurisprudence proposed by Beretta and Del Col. One of the most damaging is Bethencourt’s assertion that all early modern inquisitions “shared the same juridical basis, the same set of doctrines and the same penal procedure.”29 Perhaps worse, he lists without objection the Dutch Protestant Philip van Limborch’s charges about the “unfairness of the Inquisition’s [sic] procedures,” especially the last two, that “there were no independent lawyers to assist the accused; and condemnations could result from the testimony of a single witness.”30 The first of these sets of claims holds only at such a high level of generalization as to be almost meaningless, and the second are either not true or true only with heavy qualification, as Tedeschi and others have pointed out in the past and as I demonstrate in more detail in Chapter 5. And as I shall show in my second volume, it is not the case that the Roman Inquisition “rarely intervened in the political arena in Italy, except in the papal states.”31 As often, new approaches depend in part on new sources. It is impossible to use the traditional source Del Col privileged, the processi, in the case of the central Roman tribunal because of the almost complete destruction of its trial dossiers. The best we can do is study the few survivors, including Galileo’s, most of which wandered into other archives, as well as undertake comparative study of how local inquisitions worked, as Del Col has done in the case of Udine; Giovanni Romeo and Pierroberto Scaramella in Naples; Grendler, Brian Pullan, Pier Cesare Ioly Zorattini, and Anne Schutte for Venice; Adriano Prosperi for Florence; Oscar di Simplicio for Siena; and Albano Biondi for Modena—to cite just a few examples.32 But historians can do much better than make the best of a bad situation. Instead, we have an excellent source intended to record procedure and jurisprudence generated by the Roman Inquisition itself, the decree registers. Bringing their value to historians’ attention is one of Beretta’s greatest contributions to date, along with his attempt to reconstruct the Roman Inquisition’s archive.33 It is not too much to say that using these records has revolutionized our understanding of the institution.34

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 5

8/27/12 11:46 AM

6

int ro du c t io n

Procedure conceived as a dynamic process entails attention to the men who apply, adapt, even invent it. Bethencourt, Beretta, and others began to dig into the preparation of the Roman Inquisition’s personnel, Beretta making specific reference in his point about the necessity of studying jurisprudence to Gian Garzia Millini, sometime the Inquisition’s secretary and previously an auditor of the Rota, the Roman supreme court.35 Millini is not the only one of Galileo’s judges (among them the secretary in 1615–1616, and two of those who condemned him) to have left enough of their legal opinions to give us an idea of their accomplishments. Another may have written a manual on procedure that circulated widely in manuscript. The first of these have never been looked at, to my knowledge. A few records survive of Urban VIII’s own practice as prefect of the Segnatura di Giustizia, as well as some of his and his nephew Francesco Barberini’s legal notes, all also unconsulted. An approach in terms of procedure and personnel brings a wide range of other new sources to bear, beginning with the vast Barberini archives in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Diplomatic repositories, especially in Florence, Venice, and Modena, have been poorly exploited when it comes to the Inquisitors. Antonio Favaro dug out material of direct relevance to Galileo, but the sometimes almost daily reports from ambassadors in Rome and the newsletters, the avvisi, that supplemented them, gossipy and unreliable as they no doubt are, have not been used to reconstruct the careers of the other principal figures involved. Wolfgang Reinhard’s prosopographical online database of early modern cardinals, “Requiem,” scratches the surface of possibility, mainly using Venetian reports.36 Finally, I have used a substantial number of printed contemporary sources in order to explain the Inquisition’s jurisprudence within the context of civil and canon law. All but the last of these have come into fairly general use in the last fifteen or twenty years, but not usually in combination. The effect of using all of them is to make possible an in-depth portrait of the most powerful papal organ in administrative, legal, political, and, yes, even antimythological terms. Above all, I have tried to put questions to my most important source, the decree registers, that they can answer. As both judicial and administrative records in origin, among the most valuable evidence to be had from them concerns the Inquisition’s personnel, some of whose careers can be followed closely before being filled out in yet more detail from other sources. Equally valuable, the registers allow a careful reconstruction of the Inquisition’s procedure, its “style,” which could change almost literally from one moment to the next. Reversing the approach followed until recently, I began with the

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 6

8/27/12 11:46 AM

int ro du c t io n

7

Inquisition’s own records and only later turned to the manuals for inquisitors that existed in a complex relationship to the Congregation’s actions. Finally, the registers were intended to serve as a fund of precedents, both procedural and jurisprudential. Previous work (and in truth this book) has only scratched the surface of what the registers contain about how the Inquisition developed and applied its law. Chapters 1–4 concern how the Roman Inquisition managed its business and the men who did that. Chapter 1 provides a general overview of how the Roman Inquisition developed after its (re-)foundation in 1542. It recounts how it became the pope’s favorite tool, which he might put to just about any end. Its evolution as a corporate body with a highly articulated bureaucracy is traced over about a century. Uniquely among Roman congregations its sole head was the pope, and perhaps even more uniquely there is little sign of corporate resistance to the papal will, as there is, at least occasionally, in the case of the consistory, for example. The second half of the chapter discusses how the Roman Inquisition generated and maintained its records, with particular attention to the decree registers and their uses and limitations. The heart of the book is Chapters 2, 3, and 4, on the men who worked the Inquisition. In Chapters 2 and 3, I study a sample of Cardinal Inquisitors, beginning with those men involved in both phases of Galileo’s trial. In addition to their origins, both social and geographical, their education, economic status, and careers in the church before becoming Inquisitors, I have to the degree possible tried to give an account of their patronage and intellectual interests. Although some of their most prominent number were theologians, the large majority were lawyers, many of whom had practiced in other papal courts or made careers as bureaucrats or governmental agents. Most of their names are recognizable, at least to experts. The same cannot be said of the men studied in Chapter 4, the backbone of the Inquisition, its professional staff. I cast my net more widely here, beyond those officials who came into direct contact with Galileo, tracing over nearly the entire period covered by this book the careers of the commissaries, assessors, fiscals, notaries, and other (at first glance) more minor officials. One result is a clear view of the steady rise in status of these officials and their offices, especially the first two, who made the Inquisition bicephalic. Another more unexpected result is the way Urban VIII managed almost totally to dominate both the cardinals and their officials as no pope before him had done. The last chapter concerns trial process and attempts to reconstruct how the Roman Inquisition conducted its cases. It contains the most detailed

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 7

8/27/12 11:46 AM

8

int ro du c t io n

account of the institution’s judicial procedure currently available, beginning with the appearance of the new tool of inquisitio, developed intensively from about the time of Innocent III in the early thirteenth century. The description is based above all on canon law and its commentators with as much help from the decree registers as possible. Beyond them, I draw on inquisitorial manuals and miscellaneous documents from the Inquisition’s archives. Following up a passing remark by Tedeschi, I try to put the development of inquisitorial procedure in a more general context of civil law criminal procedure and jurisprudence, although given the present state of knowledge the result can be no more than a first sketch.

A Note About Terminology “Inquisition” is a confusing label because it means at least three things, only two of which are usually relevant here: (1) the corporate body of the Roman Inquisition, often officially known as the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, including its satellite tribunals throughout Italy; and (2) a procedure, common to all civil law systems but developing into an increasingly distinctive form in the hands of the Sacred Congregation. A third meaning of the term, the loosest, used to describe any Inquisition, perhaps especially the Spanish Inquisition, will be avoided here. Thus “Roman Inquisition” refers to the entire apparatus of the Sacred Congregation and its satellites; “Inquisition” with a capital “I” refers to one of those satellites; and “inquisition” with a small “i” means the procedure. “The Congregation” means the corporate body that by the beginning of the period covered here had just recently evolved out of the cardinals originally deputed individually by Paul III and who had therefore issued decisions in all of their names, and “Inquisitor” with a capital “I” means one of these cardinals; “inquisitor” with a small “i” means any inquisitor not a member of the Sacred Congregation. I have not used the term to apply to the Inquisition’s officials. The English translation of the terms processus and processo causes confusion. The two mean both a trial and the documentation thereof. I shall use “trial” in the first sense, rather than using the odd-sounding term process. An Inquisition trial (see Chapter 5) differs from one at common law in beginning the moment a dossier is opened. It thus includes the “pretrial” investigation usually kept distinct in common law from the trial proper.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 8

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Chapter 1

The Roman Inquisition’s Operations

The Congregation of the Holy Office and Its Component Parts The Roman Inquisition belonged to the pope. Gregory IX originally created it, Paul III revived it, Paul IV and Pius V (both former Inquisitors, Pius also having served as commissary) made it a fearsome institution. It reflects better than any other papal institution the long-term tendency to concentrate power in the pope’s hands. It gave him his most effective institutional means of exercising that power. Unlike older central organs, the Inquisition could take cognizance of nearly any kind of case and be put to nearly any purpose. Its predecessors, especially the three papal courts of the Segnature di Grazia and Giustizia and the Rota as well as the once powerful consistory, the regular meeting of all the cardinals with the pope, had precise and complicated procedures and well-defined areas of competence. Perhaps for that very reason they had gone into eclipse in direct proportion to the expansion of papal prerogatives. The Inquisition’s constantly evolving procedures and jurisprudence instead of steadily ossifying it made it a more and more flexible instrument. Its powerful drive to centralization served the same end. Of course, as its processes, both administrative and judicial, became more complicated and its volume of business increased exponentially, it did slowly become more hidebound. But as a direct outgrowth of papal plenitudo potestatis it constantly underwent renewal through the pope’s personal intervention. If we can believe one avviso, Urban VIII had no doubt on this score. Citing his harsh treatment of Cardinal Pio as an example to those ministers of princes who would try to limit his authority, he laughingly continued that even without a formed process—which he acknowledged was probably impossible in Pio’s case—“it was enough for him [Urban] to know the truth of the facts, not 9

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 9

8/27/12 11:46 AM

10

c ha pt er 1

caring that he [Pio] appear judicially.”1 Unlike in the case of many other central papal organs, we find little evidence of the Inquisition as a body resisting papal wishes. This may be in part an artifact of record keeping, combined with the strict secrecy the pope to a remarkable degree managed to impose. Still, the minute examination that ambassadors and newsletter writers applied to the Inquisition produced little sign of corporate objections to the papal will. Yes, they do report all the usual pressures—faction, personality, politics, economics—coming into play. Despite them, the record shows the popes remaining firmly in control and much more often than not getting their way. Conflagrations like those in the consistories of January 1615 that led Paul V to walk out after Inquisitor Paolo Emilio Sfondrato sharply criticized his building on the Quirinal seem only rarely to have happened in the Holy Office except during the period of tense relations with Spain beginning in late 1630.2 The nearest occasion otherwise was the probably spirited discussion over the new title of eminenza that Urban assigned to the cardinals in the same year.3 Again, the Roman Inquisition belonged to the pope. This does not mean that popes could simply impose their will on the Inquisition. Those competing pressures demanded that they too stoop to negotiation and compromise. Yet the fact that all the members of the Inquisition were direct papal appointees gave the pope enormous resources to dominate it. Some cardinals virtually had to be made Inquisitors, but if they failed to behave themselves, the pope could find ways to marginalize or neutralize them, even the most obstreperous, even Gaspar Borja y Velasco, caricature of the haughty Spanish grandee, even former cardinal nephews like both Aldobrandini brothers, Sfondrato and Ludovico Ludovisi, all of whom at one time or another found themselves forced into exile. The personality of the pope, his training and experience, thus become vital to understanding how the institution worked. It does not bear thinking about the consequences should he really be bored by the Inquisition, as it was alleged Urban VIII sometimes was, leading him to rush through meetings.4 In order to understand how the popes dominated the Inquisition, we need to examine how it worked, before turning in Chapters 2–4 to a more detailed study of its membership, including the popes. When he promulgated Licet ab initio in 1542, Paul III established and deputed (constituimus & deputamus) six cardinals as “general commissaries and general and very general Inquisitors.”5 Perhaps significantly he gave this new body no name. Pius IV continued to call its members “deputies.”6 Their full title in the early seventeenth century remained almost the same: “by divine

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 10

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Roman Inquisition’s Operations

11

mercy cardinals of the holy Roman church general inquisitors against heretical pravity in the whole Christian republic, specially deputed by the holy apostolic see” (“miseratione divina S.tae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalibus, adversus haereticam pravitatem in universa Republica Christiana Inquisitoribus generalibus a Sancta Sede Apostolica specialiter deputatis”).7 They thus individually remained the pope’s deputies even while the institution underwent the professionalization and bureaucratization typical of papal government in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.8 The key moment came in Sixtus V’s overhaul of the chief organs of papal power in 1588.9 He established the basic system in use until the early twentieth century and in broad outline even yet. It resembled that common in other contemporary European governments by which a set of councils acted for the monarch. Sixtus called his “congregations.” This is a revealing term, since its basic meaning is “meeting.”10 By applying it to his new bodies, the pope tried to routinize the ad hoc nature of papal government. He succeeded only to a degree, in no small part because the popes’ own drive to autocracy interfered. The most powerful of their congregations, the Inquisition, typifies the outcome. Although within about thirty years it became a corporate body, a permanent institution with a professional staff directed by an increasingly professional set of cardinals, and in that sense the routinization project worked perfectly, the Sacred Congregation remained an organ designed to work as much as possible at the level of the individual case, thereby enshrining the principle of spontaneity and preserving the original sense of “congregation.”11 The popes therefore could and did use their new tool in just about any way that pleased them, whatever the rules might say. Since the pope was its head, the Congregation remained directly subject to the papal will in a way different from any other congregation. The cardinal taken as “capo” by the outside world was merely its most senior member, who presided over meetings when the pope did not attend. Urban VIII graphically undercut any possible independence both by appointing almost no one but Barberini loyalists to the Congregation (see especially Chapter 4) and also by ordering in 1628 that it cease to meet by itself in the palace of the senior member and instead assemble in the Dominican general’s apartments at Santa Maria sopra Minerva.12 The appointment of local inquisitors perhaps most clearly illustrates papal dominance of the Congregation. This task had once fallen to the general congregations of the Dominicans and Franciscans, and then in the case of the first to their vicar-general, before in theory being transferred to the Congregation.13 Both bodies still appeared to take a hand, but in fact the decision fell to the

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 11

8/27/12 11:46 AM

12

c ha pt er 1

pope.14 One reason is that inquisitors’ appointments did not expire if they had them directly from the pope.15 The language of the Dominican general chapter of 1592 is instructive: “approbamus,” says the general, the appointment (by whom not said) of various inquisitors.16 As another illustration, when in 1615 the Congregation proposed (not appointed) new inquisitors for Parma and Cremona, Paul V rejected both, moving the nominee for Parma to Cremona and ordering the cardinals to try again in the first place.17 On another occasion, Paul rejected all nominees and ordered “maturius considerari.”18 In 1617 the Congregation had better luck, having its nominee to Faenza approved.19 But an earlier occupant of that post had been chosen by Cardinal Agostino Galamini alone at Paul’s command.20 Galamini took an anomalous hand in other appointments, partly as a Dominican and partly as a papal favorite. Thus in 1616 the pope rejected an applicant for inquisitor of Avignon and directed Galamini to find someone better.21 The following year he was involved in negotiations for the replacement of the inquisitor of Bergamo. His report supported the removal of the holder and then he was asked to write privately to a possible candidate to see whether he would take the post.22 While it can be difficult to discern clear patterns to the workings of the Congregation’s meetings, matters concerning inquisitors were almost always handled in the secret part of meetings with the pope, suggesting that they were regarded as of peculiar interest to him.23 Thus the pseudo-Calderini Tractatus novus aureus et solemnis de haereticis was right that the pope appointed inquisitors (as well as that they were friars).24 Inquisitors held office by either a breve (major tribunals) or a letter patent (secondary ones), the first requested by the assessor from the secretariat of breves.25 A few examples of each have come to light, including a letter patent for the inquisitor of Pisa, a breve for Michelangelo Seghizzi to Milan, one for the inquisitor of Florence, and a third for an inquisitor of Venice.26 Naturally, all the contrary forces of early modern government were mixed up in inquisitors’ appointments. One of the best-documented cases may be that of Desiderio Scaglia and Federico Borromeo, archbishop of Milan, except that we have only Scaglia’s side of the correspondence in which he fawningly asked Borromeo for help becoming commissary general and thanked him four years later when he finally got the post.27 A funeral oration alleged that Scaglia had originally attracted attention while Niccolò Sfondrato, the future Gregory XIV, was bishop of Cremona.28 Another example is a change of inquisitor in Florence. The grand duke had been trying to get rid of the incumbent, a partisan of Inquisitor Ferdinando Taverna, since November 1613. The holder tried

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 12

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Roman Inquisition’s Operations

13

to cooperate with the grand duke, but Rome refused to allow him to resign.29 When the grand duke proposed to replace him with the inquisitor of Siena, Taverna objected, and his candidate eventually won. Exactly the same thing happened in reverse when the grand duke was balked just a little later in his effort to remove the inquisitor of Pisa.30 As in Florence, there were constant struggles over the appointments of inquisitors in Venice and its territory, although the Serenissima got its way more often than the grand duke did. A well-documented instance concerns the replacement of the inquisitor of Padua in 1627. The Inquisition’s secretary Cardinal Ottavio Bandini along with the commissary backed the candidate who was initially chosen, the Dominican general another, but the Venetian ambassador beat all of them and arranged the appointment of a third man.31 The tensions were especially acute in the wake of the Interdict, with the nuncio trying to have various inquisitors reinstated, at the same time as he managed a number of proceedings against those who had written in favor of Venice.32 Contrariwise, the Venetians often tried to get rid of obstructive inquisitors, as happened at Udine, for example, in 1608, this case resulting in another success.33 In response, the Congregation ordered the new inquisitor to Rome “in order to give him instructions about how he ought to conduct himself in exercising the office” (“pro danda ei instructione quomodo se gerere debeat in officio exercendo”).34 In 1614 the nuncio had to talk the Senate into accepting a new inquisitor for Belluno, and in response the Venetians proposed five nominees for Udine, which had continued to be a point of disagreement.35 Unusually, Paul V told the Venetian ambassador that he did not want to decide the appointment without consulting the Congregation, and it took two months to settle the issue, apparently without much more consultation with the Venetians.36 At the same time, there were difficulties over an inquisitor for Crema.37 In short, it was rare for an inquisitorial appointment to go smoothly in Venetian territory. As in these cases in his role as cardinal nephew (secretary of state), Scipione Borghese, although never a member of the Congregation, took a big hand in other appointments of inquisitors, where he acted solely as dispenser of papal patronage. Scaglia managed to transfer his allegiance from Borromeo to Borghese, gaining appointment as inquisitor of Milan as a result.38 At about the same time as the grand duke lost to Taverna, Borghese promised to satisfy the prince of Castiglione’s request to have “Giacinto” made inquisitor of Verona, a move the Congregation resisted.39 Similarly, he had been involved in the successful nomination to Faenza just mentioned, but several further

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 13

8/27/12 11:46 AM

14

c ha pt er 1

requests from the winner to move to Milan or even to be made commissary did not succeed.40 Future duke of Mantua Vincenzo Gonzaga’s recommendation for inquisitor of Ferrara arrived too late to effect the appointment in November 1619.41 Some inquisitors did not need recommendations, their offers to serve being accepted!42 One of the most important signs of the Congregation’s corporate nature was its secretary, an office established in 1564.43 He was assisted by a deputy, another cardinal. This doubling was intended to groom a successor, a nice indication at the very top of the Inquisition’s approach of learning by doing. The secretary seems to have received agendas for meetings the pope did not attend, suggesting that he conducted them while the most senior cardinal presided, but the evidence is late, and practice may have changed. There is no indication of who drew up the agenda, although as we shall see earlier this fell to the assessor.44 The secretary’s principal job was the Congregation’s correspondence. While he wrote a substantial part of his letters on Saturday, usually incorporating orders handed down by the pope on the previous Thursday, they might be written at any time, often the next day after a meeting or even the same day.45 The volume of correspondence was impressive. To take three successive days at random from one of the three register volumes of the Congregation’s correspondence preserved in the Vatican Library, thirty-four letters went out on the first occasion, forty on the second, and thirty-four again on the third.46 The letters could be written in the name of all the cardinals or the secretary alone.47

The Professional Staff The Principal Officers The Congregation was assisted in both types of meetings, but not in the same way, by four officers: commissary, assessor, fiscal proctor, and notary (one titular assisted by a fluctuating number of sub-notaries). The commissary and the assessor had the most important positions.48 The precise hierarchy between them was as obscure to the notary as it is to us.49 Sometimes one came first in order of precedence, sometimes the other. Then again, on occasion the notary seems not to have been certain which was which or even to have known their names. The commissary belonged on top, since as his title indicates, he literally was the Congregation, capable of doing in its name anything it could for itself.50 This explains why he received all letters directed to it during a sede

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 14

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Roman Inquisition’s Operations

15

vacante.51 As a result, he usually took precedence over the assessor unless a particular assessor, perhaps in league with the notary, managed to have himself listed first. The inquisitorial manual in BAV, Barb. lat. 1502 makes the assessor subordinate to the commissary, saying the assessor assisted him in forming process and that he drew up the sentence as instructed by the commissary after the second had drawn the “errors and heresies” out of the trial record.52 Cardinal Girolamo Casanate, himself an assessor, agreed that he assisted the commissary.53 The assessor might be described as the head of the Inquisition’s bureaucracy, in a sense doubling its cardinal secretary.54 He was responsible for shepherding cases through, including presenting the summarium to the judges at its conclusion.55 In practice, this delineation broke down, and the assessor and the commissary shared many of the same tasks. Again, the Inquisition was in the early stages of bureaucratization, and as a result the descriptions of particular functions within it remained fluid. Just about any officer could be assigned just about any task.56 Still, the commissary had overall charge of the proceedings, especially the interrogations of the accused, although much of this activity was in fact delegated to lower-ranking officers.57 Francesco Beretta likens him to a “juge instructeur.” He was always a Dominican and by order of Paul V always from the Lombard province.58 He was assisted by his socius (socio in Italian), literally companion, or official substitute, also always a Dominican. The assessor also had an assistant, identified sometimes as his secretary. A 1605 grant allowed him to “keep some youth about him, who may serve in writing as needed in the Holy Inquisition’s business”; in 1621 he was ordered to find another such, and the record of the oath by a third is recorded on 2 February 1633.59 The fiscal proctor is the third of the important members of the permanent staff.60 The office developed in the Iberian Peninsula by the late fifteenth century and entered Roman practice via the Madrid articles of 1561 and Peña’s scholia to his edition of the Directorium inquisitorum. In effect, the fiscal stood for the merger of the older process of accusation with that of inquisition by denunciation and thereby allowed the inquisitor or in the case of Rome the Congregation to return to the role of impartial judge.61 He formally laid the charges (including those originating with the master of the sacred palace, that is, cases of censorship) and assisted the commissary in making the process.62 He functioned as a judge, which enabled him to request citations of suspects and of witnesses, force an accused, a reus, to answer, take part in interrogations and torture, and give an opinion about sentence, although not join in passing it. Above all, he was the publicus denunciator.63 Despite all the instability in the

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 15

8/27/12 11:46 AM

16

c ha pt er 1

precedence assigned in the attendance lists, the fiscal nearly always came last. This may be because his office had almost become redundant. It had arisen originally with the decline of accusation by private individuals as a mode of laying charges.64 Instead, the fiscal stepped in literally in place of those individual accusers as representative of the community, almost in the role of what we would call prosecuting attorney. But in the Roman Inquisition’s system, the commissary, representing the Congregation and behind it the pope, increasingly usurped that position of representation, and the fiscal’s role became largely formal. Cesare Carena, fiscal of the Holy Office in Cremona, went so far as to say that although his principal qualification was “perfect knowledge of the law” (iuris perfectam cognitionem), he did not attend meetings or have a vote.65 He still laid the charges and may even have drawn them up in the sense of drafting the document containing them, but they were formulated elsewhere and on other authority.66 As a result, the fiscal became a floating agent, free to fill many roles. Thus he often joined an Inquisitor in the early stages of a case or might be dispatched to the countryside to form a process.67 In March 1613, the fiscal joined together with Cardinals Sfondrato and Taverna, the commissary, and the summista to make process against those who had made off with the prohibited books in Francisco Peña’s library.68 He had something to do with taking care of prisoners, he might be ordered to exact a fine, or to review an edict sent by a local inquisitor, or even to censure a book.69 Under Commissary Vincenzo Maculano, he might conduct interrogations, a serious violation of the rules precisely because of his office of prosecutor and also because he could not administer oaths.70 Finally, the notary performed nearly the most vital role, since it was his job to oversee the Congregation’s records and make them usable for future consultation. The Repertorium inquisitorum neatly defined the office and summed up its responsibilities.71 A notarius was a public servant, sometimes called notary, sometimes tabellio, sometimes tabellarius, although the second of these may not have been correct, since papal notaries were not so identified in England.72 His job was threefold: to write the acta as instructed and authorized by the judge, being sure to add the date and place of writing; to give copies to the parties; and to keep the original acts himself. According to a decree, any copies he made had to be drawn up as authentic, public instruments.73 The Repertorium also incorrectly thought that only notaries could be commissioned to examine witnesses. Nominally the notary worked under the secretary’s control, but for the majority of the time, he seems to have been left to his own devices. The first two of these officers were supposed to attend

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 16

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Roman Inquisition’s Operations

17

all phases of all meetings, while the fiscal and notary were excluded from the secret part.74 One final part of the Inquisition’s secretariat is only poorly understood: the scribe or scribes who wrote the secretary’s official letters. At this point little more can be done than to note the problem and suggest impressionistically that the secretary did not use any of the men known to have served as the Inquisition’s notaries, almost certainly none of the chief notaries. The importance of the secretary’s assistant/s emerges forcefully from the mess an inexperienced clerk might make: for example, Pietro Benessa in the secretary of state’s office, who butchered the order to the nuncio in Florence to summon Galileo to Rome.75 A fifth official was almost as important as the notary and was much better qualified.76 This was the summista.77 He “applied himself in the examinations of accused persons and forming processi and provided for himself a suitable person who makes the index of the processi and the names of them [the persons against whom processi had been made] and makes the summaries of the processi” (“incumbat examinibus Reorum, et formandis processibus, et provideatur de persona idonea quae conficiat indicem processuum, et nominatorum de eis, ac conficiat summaria processuum”).78 In other words, he took testimony, reduced it to writing, and then drew up the document on which judgment rested. His work therefore lay at the base of the Inquisition’s entire operation.

The Consultors Two bodies of consultors assisted the permanent staff. The first of these, which probably arose in 1564 at the same time as the office of secretary and other institutional changes, included among others minor officials of the Holy Office.79 Its members appeared at every meeting albeit, like the fiscal and notary, with different roles depending on whether the pope was also present; they also held a more or less regular weekly meeting by themselves, usually on Monday. These assemblies are thinly documented, and none of their records are known to survive.80 I have found only one reference to their existence in the decree registers, an order of 1630 that the proctor reorum was to attend them.81 By the later seventeenth century, Monday meetings had been fully formalized and included consideration of the entire case right through to proposed sentence.82 Their purpose was to prepare the assessor for the Wednesday meetings with the

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 17

8/27/12 11:46 AM

18

c ha pt er 1

cardinals.83 These consultors represented a broad range of practical experience, from newly minted local inquisitors to the dean of the Rota. The maximum number was twelve, of whom four were civil lawyers and four canonists.84 It is possible that under Urban VIII the lawyers attended more assiduously than the other consultors and therefore came to dominate meetings even more than these proportions would suggest, although more work needs to be done on this question.85 The edge conceded to them was probably intended to provide a check especially on local inquisitors, most of whom were not lawyers, rather than on members of the Congregation, most of whom were. Slots among the consultors were reserved for members of particular orders; for example, they always numbered one Conventual Franciscan, perhaps because they staffed a few if disproportionately important local tribunals including Florence.86 The largest group from any single order always came from the Dominicans, who sometimes almost constituted a majority of attendees.87 A strict hierarchical protocol governed the consultors’ placement. By order of Urban VIII, they were to sit in order of dignity by age, and apostolic protonotaries, despite the ceremonial importance of their status, never really took precedence based on status alone.88 The second, separate group was composed exclusively of theologians, who never as a group attended meetings of the parent body, instead submitting their opinions to it in writing. Its members began to be called qualifiers by 1620.89 Like the parent body, they numbered twelve.90 As in the case of the Congregation, this group gradually acquired a corporate identity and became known as the congregatio qualificatorum.91 It was nevertheless possible to confuse the two groups of consultors, as happened when Papirio Silvestro was deputed a qualificator when the label certainly means consultor, as his dispute over precedence with the new substitute fiscal Alessandro Boccabella reveals.92 They could meet whenever necessary and reported to the commissary, who may also have presided over their meetings.93 If the eleven (not twelve) men who signed the suspension of Copernicus were theologian consultors, as seems likely, then seven of their number were also consultors of the Congregation, five of them ex officio: the master of the sacred palace; the Dominican general; the commissary and his socio; and the holder of the slot for the Franciscan Conventual.94 Two others were Benedetto Giustiniani, SJ and the Theatine Raffaele Rastelli, the second of whom was certainly later a consultor. Too little is known about a third signer, the Cassinese Michele da Napoli, to exclude him confidently from the list. Thus it looks as if the theologian consultors were nearly identical to the theologians among the main body of consultors and barely a separate body.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 18

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Roman Inquisition’s Operations

19

If this speculation is correct, it is no surprise that the theological consultors had a great deal of power, especially of course in the suspension of Copernicus, as well as that “personnel questions” could interfere with judgments.95 The only example known of the second is the case of the censure of Marco Giustiniani in 1614, which Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino, SJ, harshly criticized. The matter was important, concerning relations within Christendom between Roman and Greek Christians and between both and the Turks. The panel was the same kind of hybrid as assembled to judge Copernicus’s book, including men who were certainly never more than theologian consultors (Peter Lombard, Tomas de Lemos, Gregorio Nuñez Coronel, and Angelo Palazzo, ThD). As in Copernicus’s case, the signatories also included some of the major functionaries among the Holy Office’s consultors: Giacinto Petronio, master of the sacred palace; Rafael Riphoz, Dominican vicar-general; Commissary Andrea Giustiniani and his socio Francesco Maddaleni Capiferro, later secretary of the Index; Agostino da Castelfidardo, proctor-general of the Conventual Franciscans; and Rastelli. Bellarmino flatly called three of the censure’s articles “false and the cause of great scandal” (“falsa et causa magni scandali”) and cited Lombard’s opinion to show that he had not accepted the decision. Bellarmino claimed that his fellow Jesuit Giustiniani, who had been absent and had not signed the decision, agreed with him. Then most unusually Bellarmino stepped well outside the realm of theology and added that “Raphael Theatinus” (Rastelli) had told him that those who signed had done so out of fear of the commissary, who had authored the censure.96 This singleton glimpse inside the congregation of theologians reveals not only a “personnel” problem, but also the role of faction and the inclination of powerful officials to abuse their position.97 It would be well to keep the possibility raised by this instance in mind when studying the rest of the Inquisition. Already under Paul V the consultors did not always have much to do in meetings with the pope. Congregations at Cardinal Sfondrato’s palace often did not involve them at all.98 When they did come they sometimes might as well have stayed at home. Compare the meeting of 6 February 1631, for example, to that without Paul V of 12 February, which the consultors entered after just one item of business.99 In another with him just a little later, they did nothing whatsoever.100 Something similar began to happen even in meetings the pope did not attend. Thus that of 6 October 1632 had an unusual amount of secret business, and that of 28 September 1633 transacted three pages’ worth before the consultors entered.101 It seems that both Urban and the Congregation were feeling their own power more and more over time.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 19

8/27/12 11:46 AM

20

c ha pt er 1

The Congregation’s Meetings In theory but not always in practice, the Congregation met twice a week, on Wednesday and Thursday, probably in the morning.102 When the volume or urgency of business demanded it, the cardinals could assemble at other times, including Saturday.103 Such extraordinary occasions often left no trace in the decree registers.104 The regular Wednesday session included only the cardinals and staff, while on Thursday the pope also attended.105 The second of these is known as a coram; the first will be called a “non-coram.”106 Both meetings had an opening secret phase, of the cardinals alone or the cardinals and the pope, in both cases together with the commissary and assessor.107 The fiscal and notary were not supposed to attend, not entering until the rest of the consultors did (the “public” phase), but this was another rule popes could and did ignore.108 Many corams had an opening third phase attended by the cardinals alone, often to consider a single case, before the pope’s ceremonial entry.109 There were also informal meetings both before and after the regular sessions, often of great consequence, including the passing of sentence.110 It has been claimed that meetings and especially their phases can be distinguished by the particular kinds of business with which they dealt. Corams have been understood to end with a capital sentence, and the secret phase handled “delicate questions” of process or politics, while the second dealt with the more advanced stages of instruction of a process and with licenses to read prohibited books.111 Only the assertion about licenses to read is nearly correct; I have found a single instance of such a grant in the secret session.112 The first point is false, and the second generalization appears to me to stretch the evidence violently. Corams do not invariably end with a capital condemnation.113 When they do conclude with a sentence by the pope, it is almost never explicitly identified as capital.114 To judge from the decree registers, the Roman Inquisition might almost never have condemned anyone to death.115 An order of corporal punishment at the end of a coram, especially consignment to the galleys, is fairly common, but still not a constant.116 On several occasions a sentence to the galleys is commuted into imprisonment, release under bond, or even a conditional dismissal.117 A coram might end with no more than a “serious warning” (gravis monitio), an order to treat a prisoner kindly in an effort to convert him, or even a mere procedural move.118 The description of the division between phases of meetings in terms of topics considered also needs fine-tuning, if not an overhaul. Political matters did indeed tend to be confined to the secret part of a coram, along with

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 20

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Roman Inquisition’s Operations

21

business forwarded by nuncios, but such topics could also be considered in the nonsecret session. Beyond this, regularities are hard to detect, except that potentially embarrassing matters, especially the misbehavior of regulars and clergy, tended to fall in the secret session. But for this fact, I would be tempted to conclude that the distinction between the two parts of the meeting was largely ceremonial. Several examples illustrate the point. In the coram of 22 August 1619, the topics discussed in the secret part were the following: an abjuration in the Minerva; faculties to absolve repentant heretics; a censure to be sent to a bishop; a letter from a bishop in a polygamy case; a sentence in another such; a problem with firearms; an order about sponte comparentes, heretics who appeared spontaneously before the Inquisition; and boys being converted to heresy. In the “public” half, the topics were these: a case of holy orders; a precept to appear in the Holy Office; faculties to the inquisitor of Malta; the interminable problem of how to handle the English Benedictines; and a sentence in a French case. Only in the last were the consultors’ opinions solicited.119 In the coram of 29 August, the business in the first part concerned the following: a letter from the inquisitor of Florence reporting a case of three nuns who went over to a demon and had intercourse with it, one of whom had a book of necromancy, no action taken; a letter from the inquisitor of Turin that a Genevan printer was publishing a lot of canon law; the nuncio in Naples was ordered written about an imprisonment; a group of Calvinists were to abjure; and a censure by Bellarmino on Raymond Lull was to be put to the consultors and, if they agreed, to be sent to the nuncio in Spain (marked for insertion but no indication of why out of place). After the consultors entered, the first case concerned a woman who had become a nun after she thought her husband dead and he had then committed polygamy; a dispensation for a Scots noble who had killed in war allowing him to enter religion; a Polish case of consanguinity; faculties to the nuncio in Flanders, including a license to read prohibited books; and a sentence against an imprisoned magician to abjure de levi with a warning not to sin again. Only on the first and last were the consultors heard.120 Finally, the coram of 29 September.121 In the closed session: the cardinals were asked their opinion about whether the prince of Moldavia should be allowed to eat meat and attend schismatic churches; the general of the Carmelites was allowed to assign an imprisoned friar to another house (added after the notary’s signature on p. 352); a Spanish case of miracles was to be secretly investigated; a dispensation was given to a man forced to live with heretics; a man pretending to be an Observant Franciscan was ordered to enter the novitiate; on the petition of the Crucisignatores of Milan asking

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 21

8/27/12 11:46 AM

22

c ha pt er 1

that the bishop of Lodi (Michaelangleo Seghizzi, former commissary) be appointed to negotiate a dispute in place of former Inquisitor Taverna, they were ordered to await the election of their new prior; the inquisitor of Milan’s expedition of a firearms case with a 200 scudi fine was approved; a new inquisitior for Rimini was appointed; and a dispute about the calendar was discussed, but no action was taken.122 The “public” meeting almost exclusively concerned faculties and licenses to read, to the bishop of Carpentras, to an Austrian abbot, to a Capuchin going to Savoy, to absolve from heresy, for missionaries to England, as well as a testamentary case “in partibus haereticorum.” The final act reported but did not sentence a case of invoking demons.

Particular Congregations One final type of congregatio hovered midway between the sense of meeting and that of settled body. Known as a congregatio particularis in Latin, it arose in the same way as the Congregation itself, in an act of papal will. A congregatione or congregazione particolare (the Italian translation) was equivalent to what we might call an ad hoc committee, assigned to consider a “detail” (particolare). It usually numbered several cardinals as well as consultors and members of the professional staff, and sometimes persons not formally part of the Holy Office. These frequently used ad hoc assemblies emphasized the importance of the issue but also revealed “the game of dissimulation in which it was less clear if the responsibility for an act was to be attributed to the pope or to the congregation.”123 They could be put to many different purposes. Three examples will suffice for Paul V’s reign. In 1611 a dispute over a piece of property for a new church was referred to Cardinals Gian Garzia Millini, Maffeo Barberini, Alessandro Peretti (Sixtus V’s nephew), and Luigi Capponi, only the first an Inquisitor. At about the same time, once more Millini with Taverna and one other cardinal were to review the duke of Modena’s pretensions to Camacchio.124 In the next year, a particular congregation (which does not appear in the decree registers) considered a dispensation allowing the princess of Tuscany to marry an unnamed prince of England as requested by her grandmother the Grand Duchess Dowager Christina.125 This congregation’s messenger, Ulpiano Vulpi, would shortly become a consultor to the Holy Office. The committee of Cardinals Sfondrato, Bellarmino, Millini, Galamini, Felice Centini, “and two others” denied the dispensation.126 At least this last case obviously belonged to the Holy Office, as did all its members, since Prince Henry was a heretic.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 22

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Roman Inquisition’s Operations

23

Although all early seventeenth-century popes deputed such congregations, Urban appears to have made heavier use of the device than his predecessors. One of the most important such and the one with the broadest powers thus far unearthed was assigned to handle the would-be papal assassin Giacinto Centini, nephew of Inquisitor Centini. It got a full panoply of documents granting it authority to act without regard to any laws or procedures, including even the normally jealously guarded stilus Sancti Officii and was subject only to God, Urban, and his successors.127 Whether all particular congregations had similar written grants of authority has not yet been determined.128 Urban deputed another in 1630 to act in much the same way as that against Centini. Cardinals Marzio Ginetti, Guido Bentivoglio, Laudivio Zacchia, Berlinghiero Gessi, and Fabrizio Verospi were to pursue to sentence a case against a priest, a nun, and another woman. The priest was executed and the two women given lighter punishments. Urban approved the congregation’s sentence two weeks after it was proposed.129 He used a variant of this approach on a Jesuit in 1635, deputing six cardinals to consider the matter and then naming only two to supervise two consultors who tried the case, before one of those cardinals reported the result to the Jesuit general in the assessor’s presence; the commission and judges may have done their work in only three days.130 Particular congregations might also intervene against authors. Thus one composed of the Congregation’s present secretary Cardinal Borghese, future secretary Cardinal Arrigoni, and possible sub-secretary Bellarmino was appointed in the middle of the protracted case of Juan de Roa or Roa Dávila, OSA, whose De iuribus principalibus defendendis et moderandis, published in Madrid in 1591, was censured on five points.131 Their job was to decide “about the manner of expediting the case” (“super modo expediendi causam”).132 Much the same thing happened to another writer, Girolamo Vecchietti, whose work went for renewed censure to Secretary Millini, Desiderio Scaglia, and Francesco Barberini along with “qualifiers” in 1628.133 Probably in 1626 Urban deputed a particular congregation unrecorded in the decree registers to deal with a book by the bishop of Chartres, Léonor d’Éstampes de Valençay; its members were Bandini, Millini, Galamini, and Scipione Cobelluzzi.134 Urban used several particular congregations in the same way Paul had in the case of the proposed English marriage, especially for the German duke Wolfgang Wilhelm von Neuburg and for the duke of Mantua, both beginning in 1630 and still running three years later. Urban handled both cases with a mixture of particular congregations, the Inquisition, and ad hoc negotiations with one or two trusted advisors. In short, the pope used whatever means he

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 23

8/27/12 11:46 AM

c ha pt er 1

24

thought likely to work. The duke of Mantua’s agent Paolo Bombini arrived in Rome shortly before 20 November 1632, when he presented a memo to Urban.135 He immediately entered into tri-corner negotiations with the pope and his theologian, Agostino Oreggi.136 The Venetian ambassador also intervened on the duke’s behalf. After several months in which Oreggi took the leading role, Urban decided in early February that the matter had to go before the Congregation.137 Both that body and a particular congregation considered the dispensation. The Venetian ambassador’s description of the situation applies more generally: In this congregation there is both good and bad, good because there are included rather well-inclined and authoritative men and nearly all of these Padre Bombini wanted, besides their meeting infallibly twice a week leads one to hope for a quick resolution. Bad, because they proceed with extreme rigor in silence, and there are broad excommunications for those who repeat anything at all that is dealt with in the congregation, whence one can only with difficulty use the weapon of defense to resolve doubts [or legal questions] and difficulties. Cardinal Borja also attends even though he and the Spanish ambassador have used hard words with Bombini.138 Bombini was allowed to appear before the Congregation several times, an unusual grace, as well as talk to each cardinal individually.139 Despite a number of further references in the Venetian ambassador’s correspondence to discussions in the Congregation, the case does not certainly appear in the decree registers until the end of June.140 Then the dispensation was in the hands of a particular congregation composed of Cardinals Zacchia, Verospi, and F. Barberini along with the commissary and assessor.141 A week later, Urban was said to be mulling how to please Bombini.142 Throughout, the particular congregation, apparently under F. Barberini’s presidency, met regularly.143 The case had still not been decided by the end of 1633. The German dispensation took a similar course, even though the circumstances were different, in that the duke had already married his second wife two years before he sought it.144 The proposed dispensation first appears in the decree registers when a particular congregation composed of Cardinals Scaglia, Antonio Barberini, Sr., Zacchia, Verospi, and Ginetti recommended denying it on the grounds that it was against the stilus Sancti Officii because Wolfgang Wilhelm had a child from his second marriage and was expecting

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 24

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Roman Inquisition’s Operations

25

another. Therefore Urban ordered Cornelius Motman, holder of the imperial slot among the auditors of the Rota, who exercised a loose patronage over the duke’s affairs, the general of the Jesuits (for whom the duke had a special fondness after his conversion from Lutheranism), and the nuncio in Cologne to dissuade him.145 Refusing to take no for an answer, the duke tried again a month later when Cardinals Gessi and Giovanni Battista Pamphili, the future Innocent X, joined the congregation.146 Only on 20 March 1631 does the case appear again, when Urban ordered the nuncio in Cologne to warn the duke viva voce and to put nothing in writing.147 By early June another particular congregation had been appointed, this time under Borja’s presidency. Its members included Cardinals Bentivoglio, Scaglia, Antonio Barberini, Sr., Zacchia, Pallotta, Verospi, Ginetti, F. Barberini, and Ludovisi (out sick) as well as the assessor. It met once before again recommending denial.148 Nevertheless, it was rumored in July that although the particular congregation had reported in a coram, no decision had been made.149 A week later the Venetian ambassador wrote that the duke’s agent was complaining that the Congregation refused to explain why it would not grant the dispensation, expecting “blind obedience.”150 Two weeks later Urban ordered the nuncio to tell the duke to find another among the numerous noble women of Germany with whom to “copulate.” The duke’s reply was once more referred to a particular congregation a month later.151 In January 1632 yet another particular congregation (A. Barberini, Sr., Verospi, Gessi, and Ginetti, the core of the Barberini cardinals on the Congregation) meeting in Barberini’s rooms in the Vatican palace declared void the duke’s marriage, using a dispensation from the apostolic vicar of Holland. Urban approved on 15 January and ordered Verospi to reprimand the duke via his agent.152 The next month an extraordinary coram on a Saturday (without leaving any evidence in the decree registers) considered the dispensation again.153 Almost a year later, the duke was still trying, sending a gentleman to the pope.154 The case’s handling differed from the Mantuan one only in that there were no trilateral negotiations with Oreggi, and, of course, the duke did just as he pleased, whatever the pope and the Inquisition said. This does not matter to the story of how the institution worked. The central role of various particular congregations, in this instance not much more than temporary committees, does. These two particular congregations were atypical of those appointed by Urban, in that ordinarily his included fewer cardinals and more staff than Paul V’s. For example, one of 1624 numbered Bellarmino’s protégé EudaemonJohannes, then rector of the Greek College in Rome, along with the master

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 25

8/27/12 11:46 AM

26

c ha pt er 1

of the sacred palace, the Dominican general, the assessor, commissary, fiscal, and two consultors but only three cardinals. Often, as in this case, the congregation finished its work quickly, in less than three weeks (20 June to 4 July).155 Sometimes Urban set up congregations containing no cardinals, as for example that to consider the new exchange rate proposed by the Genoese in 1626, which also, perhaps unsurprisingly given the topic, took much longer to report, although still only six months.156 Another financial matter, a new tithe in Spain, required consideration in early 1629 by a much more high-powered panel: Cardinals Millini, Scaglia, Zacchia, Cesare Monti, and F. Barberini, with Vulpi, Datary Maraldo, and two canonists, along with Oreggi.157 Then again, the vexed question of translation of the Bible into Serbo-Croatian was worth only two cardinals, albeit two of Urban’s most trusted, Scaglia and Verospi.158

The Decree Registers A trial before the Roman Inquisition or one of its satellite tribunals was supposed to be a straightforward and, in theory anyway, quick proposition. As indicated by the few surviving processi, a handful of volumes of sentences and most important the almost intact series of decree registers, it was often neither, precisely because of the flexibility built into the institution.159 Hence the need to keep careful track of what happened in order to have guidance available when yet another irregularity arose. Beginning about 1573 the Roman Inquisition began to keep regular registers of its decreta, the decisions made in its meetings.160 All such were supposed to be entered into carefully kept, comprehensive volumes. In fact, not everything discussed made it into them.161 Therefore the silence of the registers does not mean that nothing happened, but rather that some actions were noted instead in the accused’s dossier or nowhere at all. The twin problems of completeness and order are more severe in the case of many other central papal organs. The secretariat of state poses probably the worst situation, closely followed by that created by the closing of bull registers in the mid-sixteenth century, and even the reasonably carefully kept records of the secretariat of breves have lacunae. Nevertheless, in the case of the Roman Inquisition, many acts either never made it to their proper spot or did so in garbled form.162 It was evidently possible for entire processi to be misdirected and possibly lost. In 1630 Assessor Alessandro Vittrici had to seek an order that dossiers coming to Rome be marked as destined for the Inquisition or the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars.163

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 26

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Roman Inquisition’s Operations

27

The way the Congregation generated its registers exacerbated the problem of keeping track of its actions.164 First, the Roman Inquisition quickly became the complicated entity we have just considered, all parts of which threw up mountains of records, except, curiously, for the professional consultors who were ordered to give their opinions orally.165 It might seem that this was a means of preserving secrecy, except that we know that the notary and assessor recorded what they said, often in highly abbreviated form.166 Therefore oral presentation may have been meant to save time. It cannot have improved the quality of the deliberations. Second, because the notary was excluded from the secret part of the Congregation’s meetings, any decisions made in it had to be noted by the assessor, who then had to pass his jottings to the notary. This system virtually guaranteed that mistakes would make their way into the record. We can watch the process and better grasp where the errors came from on the basis of three surviving sets of agendas generated for corams. These were drawn up the previous day by the assessor and given to the pope. The most important of these was kept by Mario Filonardi and covers his tenure as assessor from 1616 until 1624. His register of agendas survives more or less intact for about four years.167 There are two similar volumes preserved by Peña, dean of the Rota and consultor, apparently for his own reference as precedent books.168 Filonardi’s register consists of 705 folios.169 Most of the agenda are headed “Beat.me Pr.” plus some variation of the form of words “the next day in the Congregation of the Holy Office in the presence of your holiness the underwritten [matters] will be dealt with” (“Die crastina in Congregatione S.ti Officii coram St.o V. agetur de infrascriptis” [fo. 1r]). The content ranges from neatly written entries, some of which look despite the rule as if they were written by Notary Andrea Pettini (e.g., the very first on fo. 1r for 2 April 1616), to others that resemble the double columns with corrections found in the rough notes in some of the late sixteenth-century decree “registers” (e.g., fos. 5r–6r) to the minute of an entire coram on 27 July 1617 signed by Pettini that somehow wandered away from the registers where it is also found (fos. 103r–4v) to agenda addressed not to the pope but to Cardinal Bellarmino (fos. 246r–v and 296r–7v). Many single agenda but by no means all have brief notes of actions taken or orders given, usually on the dorse but also in the margin. The meaning of even the longest of these must have presented a challenge to the notary and suggests that at least some of his communication with the assessor was oral, beyond that about the Congregation’s secret proceedings. Some of the volume from about the middle is not properly a register at all but contains among other

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 27

8/27/12 11:46 AM

28

c ha pt er 1

things Filonardi’s rough notes to be passed to the assessor, as the title “Resolutioni della Congregatione di S. Offitio” added in pencil on the dorse of fo. 140 indicates, or a number of attendance lists in most of which Filonardi paid no attention to precedence, leaving that to the notary to sort out (e.g., fo. 470r), letters of denunciation (e.g., fo. 477r), draft citations (e.g., fos. 605r–6r), a number of single sheets that look like agenda items in their raw state (e.g., fo. 687r), and even an original censura by the theologian consultants of 9 December 1614 (fo. 697r). While Filonardi may not be responsible for the confusion of the surviving volume, his handling of the register underscores that the assessor shares some of the blame for sloppiness and errors of both commission and omission in the decree registers. The register proper also reveals two last highly interesting procedural points. First, some of the items in the decree registers do not appear in the agendas, for example the appointment of several new inquisitors on both 28 July and 4 August 1616, an inflammatory case of the murder of a consultor in Lugo, a denunciation of attacks on local inquisition officials, and an equally delicate decision not to torture the archbishop of Lacedemonia, Chrysantos Lascaris.170 Interestingly enough, on the first occasion the decree register contains an order to the legate of Ferrara, which does not appear in the agenda, to explain why his men invaded the premises of the inquisitor of Romagna.171 Thus there was slippage in both directions. Second, after it had been drawn up, the agenda could be changed, sometimes radically, by the addition—always at the head—of especially important matters, for example, two successive meetings in November 1616 (fos. 45r–48r), both of them originally fair copies. The decree register does not, alas, indicate where the impetus for the changes came from, whether from the pope, the cardinal secretary, or the assessor himself. I have found one scrap of evidence that the pope sometimes set the agenda.172 Third, the competence of the notaries varied.173 To judge from the state of their records, some were barely literate, and nearly all worked in such a way as to make their lives as easy as possible. In 1624 the notary and the archivist were granted a raise, but only on condition that they show up to work.174 The assessor was supposed to check the notary’s records, but there is little evidence that he actually did.175 This situation may well be another point at which the Inquisition’s parsimony caught up to it, since its notaries were supposed to serve gratis, nor were they to claim any fees for making copies of processi or examining witnesses.176 They were also prohibited from doing other business, and since they were supposed to be laymen, they could not live off ecclesiastical benefices.177 This rule was fairly often violated, and it appears that the

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 28

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Roman Inquisition’s Operations

29

Inquisition itself may have done so. One Giovanni Antonio Tommasi, “Italo Greco de loco Scematiae dioci. Hidruntinae [Otranto],” was allowed to take orders by the Greek rite in 1627.178 It seems likely that this was the Inquisition’s long-time notary of the same name (see Chapter 4). In practice, the notaries were paid, if only by the Congregation’s grace, so they could never be sure (1) whether they would get their money or (2) how much they would get.179 On one occasion when a notary did receive fifty scudi, neither the proctor of poor prisoners nor the summoner (mandatarius, without whom no case could formally begin or witnesses be examined) received anything.180 This cannot have helped esprit de corps. On only one occasion have I found across-the-board bonuses, and even then the notaries and sub-notaries were given dramatically less then their superiors on the permanent staff: the assessor 120 scudi; commissary 96 scudi; fiscal (the grasping Carlo Sincero) 60 scudi; the summista 48 scudi; a “secretary” the same amount; the notary 36 scudi; the archivist 24 scudi; and three substitute notaries 16 scudi each.181 The matter of payment was so difficult that it had to be handled by the pope.182 Thus the records, like all other Inquisition business, had to be handled as cheaply as possible. However lazy or incompetent, the notaries appear to have created their registers in three steps.183 First, they took notes during the meetings they were allowed to attend. Those that were gathered into notebooks and therefore survive are usually sloppily kept, with large chunks of information not recorded. Second, the notaries drew up another set of notebooks, apparently working from rough notes and more importantly memory, as well as the information passed to them by the assessor about what had happened in the secret session. Finally, at some unknown later time (possibly considerably later, when memory could no longer have helped much), those notebooks were recopied into registers, and most of the notes on which they were based were probably destroyed, although it is dangerous to generalize much about which records were preserved and which not, given the havoc visited on the Inquisition’s archives first by Napoleon’s troops and then by the Roman republicans in 1848–1849.184 Sometimes, the notebook stage must have been skipped, and the registers constructed from loose pages of notes. This seems the only way to explain the jumbled date order of some entries.185 That someone other than the original recorder drew up the final register is suggested by the treatment of an entry in 1607 noting that “Ego Quintilianus Adrianus” was not present because of ill health, which is put in the third person in the (probably earlier) companion register for 1606–1607.186 As here, there are often two registers covering the same year or years. The exact relationship between them is

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 29

8/27/12 11:46 AM

30

c ha pt er 1

difficult to work out, except that the notaries seem to have kept to themselves the cleanest and most complete copy, but there is no regularity to whether they kept the single- or multiyear volume.187 The notaries and other members of staff (like Peña), as well as the cardinals themselves, also took their work home with them.188 Of these records, many fewer survive than of those preserved in the Congregation’s archive. Even had every last register been properly preserved, the record would be incomplete. A study of the registers in ACDFSO:DSO 1597–1598 and 1597– 1598–1599, together with the notes for 1598 alone on which they are based, will illustrate the scale of the problem of the registers’ relation to what happened in meetings. The register for 1597–1598 contains 195 folios plus a number of blanks at the end. According to the cover it extends from 31 July 1597 to 26 February 1598, but the first entry is actually dated 35 [sic] July 1597 and the last 23 December 1598, with a gap from 20 May to 23 September (fos. 138v–9r) but as presently bound with no indication that anything is missing. To fo. 121r it consists of rough notes, all crossed out; after that point it becomes a fair copy. Rough notes and fair copy overlap from at least 21 January 1598 (1597–1598, fo. 99v/1598, fo. 208r). The rough notes are always shorter than the fair copy (e.g., 1598, fo. 268r vs. 1597–1598, fo. 122r). The expansion is mostly boilerplate.189 1597–1598–1599 is much larger, containing 1,029 pages, with a few blanks at the end; it also has two earlier foliations. There are major variations between it and the notes in 1598. Take for example the simple matter of different sequences of information in the entries for 23 June 1598 (fos. 293r–94v vs. pp. 377–80) or in more detail for 11 June, where the first entry in the notes comes fourth in the register, the first and second in the register are on the second folio of the notes, the second rough entry is ninth in the write-up, and the final text is the same, but at the cost of deleting much of the original rough note. A chart of the sequence of entries for 25 June 1598 graphically illustrates the situation (see Appendix Table 1). As will be seen, in addition to the usual changes in the order of cases, three of those in the notes never made it into the register, including at least one that must have been a real proceeding, since the suspect was imprisoned (Alessandro Musculeo); one case (Arcangelo de Perugia) is entered twice in very different form in the notes, and, perhaps more serious, another in the register does not appear in the notes. Like most registers, 1597–1598–1599 also contains a number of corrections from unknown sources. See, for example, two entries concerning Giacomo Menochio. In the first the identification of a book is made more precise: “Quo ad concedendum unum volumen operum Menochii *cum additionibus impressum Coloniae [added]

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 30

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Roman Inquisition’s Operations

31

Presidi Senatus Mediolani, S.mus noluit modo concedi, sed prius corrigi” (p. 721). In the second, the same thing happened to the place of publication: “Ex volumine Consiliorum Menochii ultimo impressum Coloniae *seu Francoforti [inserted above] lectis literis Inq.is Mediolani datis 7. huius” (p. 729). Even the best-kept registers always contain entries with serious mistakes. Thus, for example, 1610 and its companion 1610–1611 are missing the name of an accused in the same entry, and the second has another with an ellipsis where a surname should be.190 Errors in names abound. 1597–1598–1599 is missing the given name of the nuncio to the emperor (p. 765), the surname of a suspect (p. 810), and once again the accused’s entire name (p. 813). 1608/1608–1609 have different names for the accused (Anelli, Antonelli, and “Scotellini,” added later), and the first has a full identification missing in the second (both p. 364 vs. fo. 177r), but then for turnabout 1608 adds the date of a letter missing in 1608–1609, as well as moving to a different place a crucial phrase that a probably Arab woman captured by a knight of Malta had been converted, the reason she was subject to the Inquisition. The same pair of volumes have two substantially different entries about a book ordered suspended:191 “Literis Inquisitoris Anconae datis die 10.a huius rescribatur, ut suspendat librum Thobiae Paurmeisteri Akochstet etc de Jurisd.ne Imperii Romani” (ACDFSO:DSO 1608, p. 362) vs. “Literis inquisitoris Anconae datis 10.a huius, rescribatur ut suspendat librum, cui titulus D. Thobiae Paurmeisteri Akochstet in delich (?) et Tillingae Iuris Cons. Aulae Caesare Comitis de Jurisd.ne Imperii Romani libri duo etc donec expurgetur” (ACDFSO:DSO 1608–1609, fo. 175v). In 1626, two of five entries on fo. 84r–v are missing critical information, and an act concerning the grand duke of Tuscany’s depositary on fo. 105r lacks his surname and all the numbers involved, as well as the given name of one of the merchants in the case. Similarly, the text of an indulgence condemned as false is missing, as is that of a nuncio’s letter referred to in a coram.192 In common law, such mistakes would be enough to void an indictment. We cannot say whether the now mostly lost original acts contained the same errors, but it seems not impossible, since at least some of the time the notary must have been working from them. These errors are nonetheless comparatively trivial. The mysterious appearance of a new Inquisitor without previous notice is not. This certainly happened in the case of Millini and, if we can trust the avvisi, also of Galamini. Thus Millini crept into the meeting of 19 December 1607, and although according to an avviso Galamini supposedly took his oath on 14 September and immediately began to attend meetings, the decree register has him being

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 31

8/27/12 11:46 AM

32

c ha pt er 1

sworn in only on 16 November (also reported in another avviso).193 Somewhat the same thing befell Taverna, who first appears on 14 April 1605, the day Aldobrandini (but not Taverna) swore his oath, but not certainly again until three years later.194 The attendance lists more generally must often be used with care, since when they are not simply omitted altogether they are frequently corrected, put in the wrong place, deleted and redone, or otherwise corrupted.195 Missing acts, even entire meetings, are yet more serious failings, of which the Congregation was aware. Thus the original precept to Cesare Cremonini in 1598 is known only from a failed attempt to get a copy of it from the inquisitor of Padua in 1604, nor do the registers contain another precept to a Capuchin friar who was condemned for violating it.196 Neither is the decision reported by Secretary Pompeo Arrigoni in the case of the Collateral of Naples in 1605. It instructed a notary to record that senior official’s abjuration and send an authentic copy to Rome.197 Other cases begin in medias res. For example, the order on 28 November 1630 to give a precept to the Reformed Observant Franciscan Fra Innocenzo of the convent of S. Pietro in Montorio appears from nowhere.198 This case quickly became one of the numerous points of contention between Urban and the Spanish, one of whose most important churches in Rome was San Pietro. The precept forbade Innocenzo to receive visitors, leave the house, or talk to anyone other than his fellow friars. This event made the avvisi shortly afterward, on 14 December, when the writer linked it to Urban’s fear of prognostications of his death, and it does appear that Innocenzo, however holy his life, had engaged in prophesying. Cardinal Borja, then still the ordinary Spanish ambassador, objected to the order on various grounds, especially that Innocenzo brought in most of S. Pietro’s alms. Urban lost his temper and told Borja it was an abuse to venerate a living person as a saint (it was), and then ordered Borja in particular not to visit Innocenzo, leaving the voluble Spaniard stunned.199 Innocenzo remained a bone of contention (he would contribute to difficulties for Cardinal Scaglia in February 1631), but neither the first exchange between Urban and Borja, which almost had to have taken place in a meeting of the Congregation, nor any of the rest appear in the registers. A week later another avviso described what happened more precisely, saying that Borja had begun by defending Innocenzo at length. When Urban observed that he knew Borja’s weakness for Innocenzo’s “oracles,” Borja shot back that they were better than “the counsels and thoughts of Padre [Tommaso] Campanella,” then high in Urban’s favor in part because of his skill in astrology. Urban had the last word by threatening

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 32

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Roman Inquisition’s Operations

33

Borja with excommunication.200 None of this made it into the register.201 It seems that Pope Urban used his power to manipulate the Congregation’s rec­ ords and suppress a highly sensitive moment. He apparently did the same thing earlier in 1630 in a case also involving astrology and predictions of his death that almost brought down Assessor Vittrici and threatened Inquisitor Scaglia. It concerned the rector of Scaglia’s titular church, San Carlo al Corso, the Bolognese priest Giovanni Battista Pari Dalla Torre, a necromancer who had seduced a woman and was caught as he was celebrating Mass on her breasts. At San Pietro 9 June 1630 Pari Dalla Torre abjured various sexual offenses and, worse, predicted and apparently trying to cause Urban’s death before being executed the next morning. All the avvisi stress the Inquisition’s involvement.202 Something similar probably also happened in another case of astrology and predictions of Urban’s death in 1627.203 For what this is worth, Urban certainly altered the record in the consistorial acta in the case of Borja’s notorious protest against the pope’s policy of official neutrality in March 1632. In the next consistory, Urban is alleged to have tried to placate Borja, at whom he had literally screamed on the first occasion. The pope’s written reply existed in a single copy in the keeping of Cardinal Ginetti, an Inquisitor and one of the most loyal Barberini dependents.204 Only a year later did it emerge that a blank page had been ordered left in its place in part because the pope did not want an official copy of Borja’s action registered. In the interval, Francesco Barberini had become vice-chancellor, the officer responsible for keeping consistory records, and he was inclined to leave the page blank because Urban had said things against the king of Spain that Barberini thought impolitic and best left “hidden.” As the newsletter writer concluded “it stands continually in the pope’s power to alter or reduce [in importance] those things that he had then decided.”205 Thus Urban’s pious assertion that he would do anything to satisfy the Venetians short of altering the record rings a little hollow.206 Paul V appears to have directed a similar manipulation—this time of the Inquisition’s record—in the case of a libel on him called Novissimus homo. The Venetian ambassador reported very circumstantially on Bellarmino’s handling of it, actions that left no trace in the decree registers.207 One more example comes from the height of the plague in Florence in 1630–1632. The grand duke’s ministers commandeered various “holy places” as plague houses, especially the Theatine convent. The nuncio reported at enormous long length, usually stressing the Inquisition’s importance.208 On several occasions he specifically referred to correspondence from the Congregation.209 And yet there is no trace of this in the decree registers. In fact, there is almost

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 33

8/27/12 11:46 AM

34

c ha pt er 1

nothing about Florence at all at this moment, nearly the only exception being a letter about its inquisition’s finances of 26 March, and another of the next day about possessed nuns.210 It is no surprise that acts are missing, given the casualness with which many were added either after a session had ended or when the notary happened to come across his notes or when the assessor finally got around to passing on his.211 One of the worst examples is a case marked for insertion at the foot of fo. 172v of ACDFSO:DSO 1629 but not entered until fo. 174v, after a blank space and the beginning of the next meeting. Orders passed on by the secretary to the assessor after a meeting ended are often crammed in at the foot of a page: for example, that for the torture of all suspects in a prison-break.212 Instances of cases squeezed in after the fact abound.213 Nor is there any regularity to how or whether acts of particular congregations were recorded. Usually they do not make it into the registers (for example that known from the avvisi to have been held before Cardinal Pinelli on 28 May 1610), where they probably do not belong, but sometimes they do.214 Once acts were recorded, they had to be authenticated. How notaries performed that task changed over time. By the fourteenth century, it had been established that the notary’s mere signature validated an act, since he was a public official.215 Oaths and signatures of witnesses were no longer required to prove authenticity. The notary’s signature alone authenticated the Inquisition’s records, using the formula “in mei [presentia], etc.”216 There is little evidence (given how few processi survive, nor will there ever be) for the further observation that the notary authenticated a dossier by signing a piece of paper wrapped around it.217 The processi now in Trinity College Dublin are authenticated by his signature at the bottom of the cover sheet.218 Nor did the inquisition of Venice authenticate its files in this fashion. There the notaries signed as inconsistently as in Rome, although usually they did not head each interrogation “in meique.”219 Just where the notary signed the decree registers was also uncertain. Quintiliano Adriani, the Inquisition’s notary at the beginning of the seventeenth century, signed virtually every act in his first register twice, once at the end of the attendance list and again at the end of the session. His successors were much more inconsistent. Andrea Pettini apparently signed the entry for 16 April 1608 (ACDFSO:DSO 1608, p. 161), but not the copy in 1608–1609, fo. 75v, which corroborates the theory that the notaries kept one of the volumes with them while the other was deposited in the archives as the official record. Thereafter his signature does not appear again regularly (but not invariably)

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 34

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Roman Inquisition’s Operations

35

until p. 358.220 The signature on p. 293, “Andreas de Pettinis Sanctae Inquisitionis Universalis Romanae Notarii,” is in a different hand from other such and also spells his name differently, so it may be autograph. His fair register for 1610 again has signatures throughout. By 1614 he had begun sometimes to sign additions to the acta, although not corrections, with the formula “Idem Andreas notarius.”221 His practice remained inconsistent.222 So was that of his successor Giovanni Antonio Tommasi. His register for 1625 has a few signatures scattered through it, plus the formal signature at the end in the style Pettini had used. The following year he adopted what one lawyer called the common opinion that a general signature validated a whole processo (arguing against Bartolo), or in this case a whole volume unless there were changes in the acta the notary should sign in order to avoid suspicion of falsification.223 This principle may explain Adriani’s practice of signing the attendance lists because they were especially vulnerable to corruption.224 That the notary’s own signature guaranteed the record’s authenticity and not that of any of his substitutes emerges from the formula he sometimes used: “I being absent through ill health” (“me autem absente per malam valetudinem”).225 The Congregation must have had some kind of repository for its records almost from the first, to judge from the survival of the decree registers, but the decree formally establishing an archive dates only from 1593.226 As we shall see, one member of the Inquisition’s secretarial staff was called archivist. The archive is referred to from time to time in the registers, for example when searches of it were ordered, sometimes without results, or a copy of Licet ab initio was added to it in 1607 (it is worth noting this small gap in the Congregation’s own records).227 Later that year another bull was found and ordered put in the archive.228 It may seem incredible, but another against Raymundus Lull could not be found, and Abraham Bzowski, continuator of Baronio’s Annales ecclesiastici, had to be asked for his notes about it.229 One of the most important sections of the archive concerned finance. Already in 1580, inquisitors were ordered to send their accounts every six months, and by the end of 1603 the archive held at least one volume detailing the Inquisition’s balance sheet.230 In 1612, accounts of all inquisitors in Italy were ordered to be archived.231 Another section held condemned books along with censures on them, which also could not always be found.232 That is, eventually it held condemned books. Peña took quite a collection home with him, which was recovered only after his death.233 The same thing happened with other records, including the correspondence register in BAV, Barb. lat. 6334 or Peña’s or Cardinal Casanate’s or Assessor Pietro Paolo Febei’s notes, although the first of these may have

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 35

8/27/12 11:46 AM

36

c ha pt er 1

been a copy, and the others possibly not quite official documents. The situation became so bad that Gregory XV decreed that immediately on the death of any Inquisitor, consultor, or official, all papers of the Holy Office in their hands were to be collected.234 Like the rest of the institution, the Inquisition’s archive evolved constantly. In 1629 an order to (re-)create it was tacked on to a sentence, and six years later the archive was ordered transferred from the “old palace” to the new one.235 It seems maintaining a comprehensive archive represented another counsel of perfection. The final difficulty in keeping accurate records arose because most of the Congregation’s business was done at a distance and therefore beyond even the loose supervision exercised over the notaries in Rome. Instead, the Congregation had to act on written reports from local inquisitors, which were probably generated in much the same complicated and vulnerable fashion as the Congregation’s own records. At least as far as can be seen from the central records, as well as those surviving for a few local tribunals, especially Venice, local inquisitions had the same structure of professional officials and consultors as the Sacred Congregation and therefore likely worked according to similar rules causing similar problems.236 Any decision handed down in Rome was based on a paper trail winding its way in from and back out to the provinces, often over a protracted period of time. Nor must we assume that every case had such a trail. Several instances have turned up of delations that an inquisitor refused to put into writing.237 Beyond the decree registers, records rapidly thin out, making it difficult to gauge how well orders were carried out. Some documents were probably destroyed almost as soon as they were created, perhaps including the agendas distributed in advance of meetings. Many more were lost thanks to Napoleon, including virtually all processi. Thus we know very little about how they should look. 238 We might hope that the same degree of basic uniformity seen in the numerous surviving examples from the Venetian and Modenese inquisitions would obtain in Roman files, but we have no way of knowing.239 Several large sixteenth-century Roman processi survive, especially those edited by Massimo Firpo with the collaboration of Dario Marcatto and Sergio Pagano: for Cardinal Morone, Pietro Carnesecchi, and Vettor Soranzo.240 Given the rapid pace of the Inquisition’s evolution between the 1560s and the 1610s, it is unwise to use any of these as models. In short, although the Inquisition had lots of rules, and regularities can be observed in its procedure, it was also full of almost infinite variations and subtleties, and the rules were constantly subject to reinterpretation. The

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 36

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Roman Inquisition’s Operations

37

complete process by which the Congregation managed its decision making is obscure and likely to remain so. While most of the steps in a trial can be traced through the decree registers, and in many cases we know who took them, the unusual moves are likely to be better documented than the normal course. For instance, we often see the intervention in a processo of particular congregations, but we do not know that this happened regularly in all cases. To say of any act in a Holy Office case that it was illegal or improper is an almost meaningless statement. As the ambassadors to the pope never tired of complaining, it could be hard to predict what the Inquisition might do, and almost impossible to discern the principles behind its actions.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 37

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Chapter 2

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

In this chapter and the next, I offer a prosopographical study of a group of Inquisitors, originally those involved in significant ways in Galileo’s trial.1 These men represent a majority of Inquisitors between about 1610 and 1635.2 They are divided between cardinals created before and after Urban VIII’s election in 1623, the first group being mainly the creatures of Paul V. In order to try to understand their actions, I offer statistical evidence about patterns of attendance, followed by thumbnail sketches of their careers, to show as much of each man’s personality as possible, before turning at the end of the next chapter to regularities across the group. In addition to the standard details of their careers, including economic status, I have tried to track their writing, together with their patronage of writers and, to a degree, artists. To anticipate two of the conclusions of this study, Inquisitors appointed before Urban became pope were generally better prepared than those who took office after that point, and they followed no single career path. The manner in which the Inquisition kept its records compounds the difficulties in reconstructing the Inquisitors’ careers. The first and the last moment in an Inquisitor’s tenure are the worst documented. In several cases an Inquisitor’s initial oath is not recorded, and in almost every case the end of a man’s period in office is passed over in silence; the notary was much more likely to note the death of a staff member than of one of the Congregation. That a number of Inquisitors, including probably Lorenzo Magalotti and Agostino Galamini and certainly Felice Centini, left Rome more or less permanently without giving up office makes matters worse.3 We are usually left to conjecture that the appearance of a new name and disappearance of an old one signify the end of a career. 38

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 38

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

39

We have almost no indication of how Inquisitors were chosen and only one case with evidence from the parties involved. This is the selection of Magalotti, Urban VIII’s right-hand man.4 In April 1625 he wrote Francesco Barberini, then on legation in France, that Scipione Borghese, Paul V’s cardinal nephew, had asked to be added to the Congregation and that Urban was thinking about it. He added that he himself would like to join.5 Borghese’s suit did not succeed, but almost exactly a year later, on 30 April 1626, Magalotti took the Inquisitor’s oath, serving for barely two years before his exile to Ferrara.6 As usual, his departure left no indication that he had ceased to be an Inquisitor. His exile does represent a perfect case of faction and nepotism at work, since it arose principally because Magalotti had objected to the promotion to the cardinalate of Antonio Barberini, Jr., and the marriage of Taddeo Barberini, causing both Antonios to want to remove him.7 Despite the Congregation’s power and prestige and the apparent care with which the popes chose its members, not all nominees lived up to expectations. The Roman Inquisition enshrined the principle of accountability, except when it came to the cardinals. Whatever may have happened in practice, every member of staff and every local inquisitor knew he could be called on the carpet for even a minor infraction, especially to do with finances.8 Interagency rivalry could also enter in, with nuncios sometimes denouncing inquisitors.9 Nevertheless, perhaps because they were still the pope’s deputies, and therefore by extension solutus legibus, as was the pontiff, the cardinals do not seem to have been held to the same standard either in theory or in practice. Unfortunately, the records do not give us much sense of how seriously most Inquisitors took their jobs. We can catch hints from the speed with which they executed individual assignments, especially censures of books, but frequently a task assigned might never have been carried out as far as the records indicate. Suffice it to say, the cardinals who exercised the greatest authority in Congregation, above all the secretary and his number two, also show up most frequently and tend to have the most to do.

Attendance Patterns of attendance at congregations give some idea of how seriously the cardinals took their positions. Attendance can be distressingly spotty, so much so that the real father of the Roman Inquisition, Paul IV (reigned 1555–1559), established that two cardinals constituted a quorum, out of a usual total of

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 39

8/27/12 11:46 AM

40

c ha pt er 2

about ten or a dozen.10 (In an emergency, a single cardinal could order an imprisonment.)11 Pius IV set the number at eight and then seven, in the first instance explicitly because ten was too many.12 Pierre-Noël Mayaud’s study of the Congregation’s evolution considered attendance in global terms (see Appendix Table 2).13 The statistics here are more precise and often produce substantially different results. Thus secretaries Pompeo Arrigoni and Gian Garzia Millini both attended much more assiduously than Mayaud thought (see Table 3).14 Mayaud’s statistics for the two Barberini cardinals who served as secretary are also suspect. Antonio, Sr., in post from late 1629 to late 1633 or early 1634 appeared twice at 98 percent of corams (meetings with the pope), once at 95 percent, and once (1632) at only 68 percent, a number I have yet to explain, instead of Mayaud’s blanket 91 percent. His nephew Francesco’s attendance in the same period was the worst of any cardinal’s in my sample, with a high of 50 percent in 1632, making Mayaud’s 67 percent almost as misleading as his number for Paolo Emilio Sfondrato. Sfondrato, whom Mayaud gave the global number of appearance at 54 percent of corams, actually attended any number between almost never (1610, when he was in his see of Cremona or otherwise out of Rome) and 90 percent (in 1612). Of the Barberini loyalists (Berlinghiero Gessi, Marzio Ginetti, Fabrizio Verospi—about whom we agree almost exactly—and Laudivio Zacchia), the first three are reasonably well captured by Mayaud, but the last is not. Instead of 82 percent attendance at corams overall, he appeared at never less than 87 percent between 1630 and 1633, with a high of 95 percent in both 1630 and 1631, before his record plummeted to 8 percent in 1634, almost certainly a sign of disgruntlement with the direction of Urban’s pontificate if not of Zacchia’s disgrace. Curiously, Mayaud does his fellow Jesuit Roberto Bellarmino a small disservice, at least for the period from 1605 to 1616. Mayaud gives him only a 91 percent rating, obscuring his perfect attendance in four years, plus 98 percent in another.

Inquisitors’ Careers The Secretaries and Their Deputies The difficulty of establishing tenure arises even in the case of the most important members of the Congregation, its secretary and his deputy, neither identified as such in the decree registers. The situation is a little better than that of ordinary Inquisitors, since secretaries were supposed to be appointed by breve,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 40

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

41

while the others apparently were not.15 I have studied the four secretaries who ran the Congregation from 1605 to early 1634: Arrigoni (1605–mid–1612); Millini (certainly from May 1613–1629); Antonio Barberini, Sr. (1629–1633/4); and Francesco Barberini.16 Each secretary had an unofficial number two, as Millini was to Arrigoni, perhaps from the moment he became an Inquisitor in December 1607.17 Millini seems to have had three assistants: Fabrizio Verallo from late 1615 until he was replaced by two Florentines in succession, Giovanni Battista Bonsi and Ottavio Bandini.18 If Fuligatti’s life of Bellarmino can be trusted, Bandini may have acted as substitute secretary almost from the time of his appointment as Inquisitor, at least that is one way to explain Bellarmino writing him on 16 April 1621 asking to resign from the Congregation.19 The Latin adaptation of the first life of Bellarmino of 1631 says that he asked Bandini to intercede with the pope to grant him the grace “of coming no longer to two congregations of cardinals: Examination [of bishops] . . . and the Holy Inquisition” and dates the letter by implication March.20 Then again, Bellarmino may have applied to Bandini because of his standing with the pope. There is evidence from Tommaso Campanella’s case that Antonio Barberini, Sr., also acted as deputy to Millini.21 Barberini’s own sub-secretary or sub-secretaries remain to be identified, although it is possible that Ginetti held the post (see below). Pompeo Arrigoni (secretary 1605–1612) Pompeo Arrigoni (1552–1616) was described as “a grain of pepper, wise, prudent,” although “of a fierce nature” and a “hard-head.”22 From his processus of admission as an auditor of the Rota, we know that his Roman family met the minimum standards of wealth and status (200 scudi p.a. income and a carriage), but Arrigoni’s sister left a huge legacy of 150,000 scudi to the Aracoeli in 1629.23 His own income as a cardinal was a comparatively modest 12,000 scudi in 1605, to which he added another 5,500 scudi the next year (a consolation prize from Paul V after he beat Arrigoni for the papacy), and once he became archbishop of Benevento, he drew another 6,000 scudi p.a., at least in theory.24 Like all secretaries of the Inquisition, he received 200 scudi per month salary.25 Arrigoni began in service to Cardinal Odoardo Farnese and earned a law degree at Padua.26 He took up his first professional post in Rome in 1584 as a consistorial advocate on the king of Spain’s nomination, one of whose agents in Rome he became; he remained a strong Spanish partisan.27 As such he was involved with Francisco Peña first in 1587 in a planned “Liber septimus” of the Decretals, and then in the following year in the canonization of Diego

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 41

8/27/12 11:46 AM

42

c ha pt er 2

d’Alcalà; Arrigoni gave the oration proposing the case.28 He became an auditor of the Rota on 20 December 1591 just after Millini and held office until he was promoted cardinal in 1596, a much shorter term than Millini’s.29 He took a leading role in the pontificates of both Clement VIII and Paul V (as well as the short-lived Leo XI whose election he secured), the second two of whom he served as datary.30 The post was particularly valuable because it gave daily access to the pope.31 More important for present purposes, he became Camillo Borghese’s deputy secretary once the future Paul V took over the Inquisition in 1602.32 The two had been made cardinals at the same time and probably joined the Inquisition together shortly thereafter.33 They cooperated closely from at least late 1597.34 Arrigoni’s active tenure as secretary extended from 18 May 1605, the date of his appointment, to about June 1612.35 In addition to ordinary business he carried on a heavy correspondence with the nuncio in France, Maffeo Barberini (the future Urban VIII), conceding him powers to absolve under strict conditions and ordering him to send a copy of a processo he had formed against the bishop of Verdun.36 Arrigoni also continued to deploy his expertise de auxiliis in the long-running dispute about the action of grace in salvation.37 He maintained the Inquisition’s prerogatives against the master of the sacred palace by investigating and quickly revoking a license to read Machiavelli that official had granted.38 His tenure as secretary contradicts the story that Arrigoni was disgraced in late 1607.39 The Venetian ambassador, from whose dispatches the tale may ultimately derive, was forced to admit that when Arrigoni left for his archdiocese of Benevento in late December 1607 he would probably come back soon.40 The ambassador dismissed Arrigoni’s claim that he had resigned the datary because the job was too much work, but it was not a sinecure, and Arrigoni had many other responsibilities.41 If Arrigoni really had been disgraced, it is odd that he kept the much more important office of secretary as well as receiving that of prefect of the Congregation for the Council of Trent.42 The ambassador treated this exchange as a strictly financial transaction, and to a degree it was, but the importance of the second position emerges from the effort another Inquisitor, Gessi, later put into the job.43 Already in April 1608, Arrigoni returned from Benevento in part because the work of the Congregation for the Fabric of San Pietro had stalled without him.44 In November of that year, the Venetian ambassador explained Arrigoni’s “exile” by the pope’s wish to free himself of Spanish tutelage. He supported his theory with the news of the unexpected creation of five new cardinals.45 This interpretation is plausible,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 42

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

43

but it explains too much.46 From his first trip in 1607, Arrigoni spent part of virtually every year for the rest of his life in his diocese; in his absence, Millini substituted for him as secretary.47 Far from disgraced, Arrigoni was setting a standard of episcopal residence for a cardinal. Among other benefactions to his see, he rebuilt its cathedral.48 More than that, his diocese was an enclave of papal territory in the kingdom of Naples and therefore a place needing a strong hand. He spent nearly all of 1610 in Benevento, but when he returned to Rome in January 1611, he was busier than ever.49 His workload became so heavy that summer on the Congregations of the Inquisition, Council, Acque, Strade, and San Pietro that he could not get away to his villa in Frascati, nor did he go to Benevento.50 By that time he had become the most senior inquisitor in Pietro Aldobrandini’s absence and Sfondrato’s illness, so he had to take on the extra burden of hosting meetings of the Congregation in his palace in Campo de’ Fiori.51 By early 1612 he had been added to yet another congregation, about Germany.52 Then his health betrayed him.53 He attended no meetings of the Inquisition in 1613 (he may have stayed in Benevento, where he had gone on 18 November 1612), only seven in 1614, the last on 5 November, and then never again. He was seen in Rome on several occasions between April and September 1615, but when he left for Torre del Greco in October it was to die.54 Gian Garzia Millini (secretary ca. 1612–1629) Gian Garzia Millini or Mellini (1562–1 October 1629) comes across as a much more substantial figure than Arrigoni, in part because of a biography by a nephew, in part because he was even more active in the office than Arrigoni and held it for substantially more time.55 And many observers liked him, unlike his “hard-head” predecessor, and praised his capacity.56 The Venetian ambassador flattered him by saying that although he was another Spanish partisan, were he to be elected pope, Italy would gain. This was because he was almost without peer for intelligenza and experience.57 Others (including defensively his nephew) stressed his circumspection, which could be taken for “doubleness.”58 An observer of Urban VIII’s conclave conceded that Millini had lots of legal experience, but his “perplexity” (perplessità) of character and “slowness in reaching a resolution,” together with the “artifice” he used to avoid giving offense, counted against him.59 Millini served as secretary of the Inquisition for almost a quarter century in total, eighteen years in his own right after a half-dozen as Arrigoni’s subsitute.60 His tenure highlights a number of the office’s and the institution’s facets, from the importance of

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 43

8/27/12 11:46 AM

44

c ha pt er 2

political context, the role of patronage, and its flexibility to how its “style” affected practice. Like Arrigoni, Millini was a Roman, but, unlike his predecessor, came from an old noble family.61 One of their palaces, part of which survives, gave its name to a street, Via di Tor Millina, where the family owned a concentration of property.62 Millini with his brothers built a huge new palace around the corner from the other in Piazza Navona, some of which was incorporated into Palazzo Pamphili.63 It was grand enough to be rumored as going to Antonio Barberini, Jr., at Millini’s death.64 His will as printed by his nephew Decio Memmoli says almost nothing about property, but other sources say he left a legacy of 80,000 scudi to another nephew, quite apart from whatever his brother Settimio got.65 An avviso put Millini’s income from monastic sources at his death at 4,700 scudi.66 Memmoli’s claim that his uncle lacked resources to dispense much patronage may therefore be open to doubt.67 As often happened, his family’s prominence meant a period of exile, during which Millini was born in Florence.68 His father and brother Mario continued the family tradition of soldiering, his father in the grand duke’s service.69 Other members of Millini’s family doubtless helped to forward his career, perhaps especially his brother Pietro, a consultor of the Holy Office.70 On his mother’s side Millini was a nephew of the short-lived Urban VII under whom he apprenticed in law, as well as of the Verallo cardinals, one of whom would become his deputy secretary.71 Millini’s epitaph calls the pope his “as if teacher” (“quasi praeceptor”).72 This informal, practical education was probably more important than the university training Millini may have lacked, despite the claim in his processus that he took a Iuris utriusque doctor (doctor of both laws, civil and canon; IUD) 20 September 1584.73 Like Arrigoni, his first office was consistorial advocate under Sixtus V.74 The date is unknown, but given the brevity of Sixtus’s reign and the fact that Millini became an auditor of the Rota in 1591, immediately after Sixtus’s reign ended, he must have been Arrigoni’s colleague as both advocate and auditor.75 We do not know which if any canonizations he promoted as advocate, but he later worked with Peña on Carlo Borromeo’s celebrity case (made a saint in 1610). In 1596 Millini parlayed his legal experience into the beginnings of a diplomatic career by serving as datary on a legation to Poland and again for Pietro Aldobrandini in 1600–1601 about Henry IV’s marriage negotiations.76 His legal and diplomatic sides continued to run in tandem in 1605, when he was added to the Segnatura di Grazia and given his first independent nunciature, to Spain.77 During it, as did many other nuncios, he executed orders from the Inquisition.78 Shortly

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 44

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

45

before leaving Spain, he became bishop of Imola, a nearly pro-forma tenure of barely a year.79 In 1608 he was legate a latere to Emperor Rudolf.80 More important, Millini had just become an Inquisitor.81 He first appears as Arrigoni’s substitute in an order of 31 January 1608 in the case of Cesare Cremonini.82 In addition to ingratiating himself further with the Borghese by passing along to Cardinal Nephew Scipione the welcome news from his barber that one of the Aldobrandini cardinals was about to die, Millini cultivated the Florentine establishment in general and Maffeo Barberini (the future Urban VIII) in particular.83 He united both operations when with Barberini he assisted at Pope Paul’s consecration of his nephew as archbishop of Bologna.84 Millini’s efforts paid off with appointment as vicar of Rome on or shortly before 14 August 1610.85 Similarly, when he resigned Imola, the pope gave him 1,000 scudi in pensions to compensate.86 The pope’s favor may also explain how the Inquisition could allow him to expedite in the vicar’s court the case of Giacomo Mellini, a canon of S. Lorenzo in Damaso and almost certainly his relative.87 In 1614 Millini became archpriest of Santa Maria Maggiore, Paul V’s favorite, site of his magnificent tomb.88 Among Millini’s numerous other responsibilities was membership (and possibly the prefecture) of the new Congregation of Propaganda Fide, as well as of the Consulta.89 The depth of information about Millini allows us occasionally to come closer to him than to many other Inquisitors. Above all, he was busy. He made a habit of holding docket-clearing meetings in his palace—in September.90 The best indication of how much he had to do comes from the volume of his secondary obligations. We can get an idea of how large it was from a sheaf of his correspondence with the nuncio in France in 1624 and 1625, which allowing for losses—suggested by the disorder of the present file—probably originally included on average one letter every month.91 Although Memmoli exaggerated a little when he said Millini sat on all particular congregations, he does appear on many, beginning with one to settle Sfondrato’s dispute with his former diocese of Cremona (which also included the Spanish Cardinal Antonio de Zapata y Cisneros); naturally, any such dealing with Germany, for example, in early 1612 and another in early 1613 about the new emperor’s obedience (on which he joined Bellarmino); about lifting the ban on Francisco Suarez’s writings; one of the numerous jurisdictional disputes in Milan; a new patriarch for Venice; Girolamo Vecchietti’s writings (see Conclusion); a batch of licenses to read heretical books; how to dispose of heretics’ property in the Valtellina; and the Jesuits in England.92 The best studied such congregation is that concerning Mary Ward’s religious foundation. Ward stressed how deeply

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 45

8/27/12 11:46 AM

c ha pt er 2

46

involved Millini was, quoting him as saying he had set twenty-five spies on her.93 In this case, he probably acted as head of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, not as an Inquisitor, and some of the other particular congregations may also not have been subgroups of the Inquisition, but the line between competencies is almost impossible to draw. Memmoli further stressed Millini’s capacity for work, much of which, like Winston Churchill, he did in bed, as well as the degree to which he was always prepared for meetings, going to the extraordinary length of demanding that his staff also be prepared.94 His depth of advance work probably made him move slowly, especially “when the quality of the material or of the persons interested were great.”95 He was similarly cautious as vicar of Rome, consulting his officers before making any important decisions. Where possible, he aimed for compromise in advance of condemnation. Nevertheless, once he made up his mind, he moved quickly and made the congregations on which he served do the same, demanding that the discussion stick to the point instead of wandering off into high-flown verbiage. Perhaps most interesting, Memmoli stressed the care with which he handled all business, never trusting his memory, formidable though it was, instead reading and rereading the documents. This was especially true when he served as secretary. Memmoli’s passage deserves quotation in full, especially because it has been taken as a species of documentary record: He used an extraordinary and diligent accuracy in matters of the Holy Office, especially once it fell to him to write letters [i.e., after he became secretary], since the style of that court being different from the others, he thought that neither the experience nor the learning that he had acquired would suffice, and therefore he began to study with great understanding the old decrees and the rules of the letters of many years. And he so freely [thoroughly] mastered the cases pursued, that the oldest cardinals instead of giving him advice took it from him. He paid attention besides to the decisions that were taken in order that should the assessor, who was responsible for “extending” the decrees [writing them out formally], not well have understood the Congregation’s meaning, he could let him know. Nor was he satisfied with the substance of the decree if he could not also explain it. And certainly neither more knowledge nor more understanding could be wished, since in his time happened many cases difficult in subject and delicate for the quality

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 46

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

47

of persons, whence they demanded that zeal for religion and justice not be unaccompanied by great prudence and dexterity [destrezza].96 Whether he was as scrupulous in keeping an eye on the assessor as Memmoli said is open to doubt. He almost certainly was not in 1616.97 He did develop at least one close relationship with an officer of the Inquisition. Memmoli recounts Commissary Ippolito Maria Lanci visiting Millini on his deathbed and reminiscing about the jokes they had shared; Lanci sang Mass at Millini’s exequies at Santa Maria sopra Minerva.98 Millini did indeed learn how to write a dexterous letter. Some of those to the duke of Modena are impossible to interpret as anything other than a verbal nudge and wink. Take this example: My desire to serve your highness in the matter that you have deigned to charge me with again so efficaciously goes in proportion to the care that your highness has of it. It can be said with truth that your highness has no servant that precedes [i.e., outdoes] me here [or, in this regard]. His holiness has ordered again that the expedition of the same matter be seen to with all diligence, which I never fail to solicit, and I pray God to be able to give your highness at this moment the signs that I must of my devotion, as I have always done in all that which will depend on my will.99 As Memmoli was forced to admit, Millini knew how to “dissimulate,” but prudently, not duplicitously.100 It was wise of Memmoli to put the point like that, since placed in context, this coded letter shows Millini allowing the duke to interfere in an Inquisition case. The pope had issued a decree in late 1605 and again in early 1606 that no recommendations were to be allowed, nor were cardinals to intercede for the accused.101 Arrigoni, acting on the pope’s instructions, ordered the inquisitor of Bologna in 1606 not to take recommendations of a suspect.102 In this letter Millini both took a recommendation and promised to intercede. The pope’s prohibition may not have been raised to a general principle yet, but it shortly would be, certainly by the late 1620s.103 This was not the first nor the last time Millini had helped the duke. He had acted in exactly the same way in both 1617 and 1618, again without giving any clue in writing what he was talking about. Everything passed viva voce with the duke’s agent.104 When writing the duke’s brother Cardinal d’Este, Millini once or twice named names (letters of 4 March and 22 April 1623), but his last letter

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 47

8/27/12 11:46 AM

48

c ha pt er 2

(of 21 November 1626) to the duke promising to expedite a case matches the first for opacity.105 This makes an especially revealing moment, since on that very day Millini wrote another official letter to the duke refusing to help him break the secrecy of the Holy Office in Modena.106 Millini’s special status with the duke comes out in an autograph note added to another of the Congregation’s letters promising to take up a matter proposed by “Principe Nicolò” at the next meeting.107 Given all this emphasis on Millini’s subtlety, it comes as a surprise to find him speaking bluntly to the Venetian ambassador about Cremonini. He did so for the simple reason that he agreed with the pope and Cardinal Borghese that Cremonini was the next thing to the Antichrist. Although Millini refused to give the ambassador specifics about the case before he spoke to the pope, he freely condemned Cremonini’s De coelo as full of “bad doctrine” and “bad things, contrary to religion and Christian piety,” and concluded by rejecting a request for detailed corrections of the book. The whole thing needed correction, “because ‘bad concepts’ were scattered in every part of it.”108 Like his patron Pope Paul, Millini was not especially fond of Venice or Venetians. His correspondence with the nuncio Giovanni Battista Agucchi is reasonably circumspect, as the papacy continued to try to repair the damage done by the Interdict, but whenever the chance arose, both Millini and his papal master let their negative attitude show.109 The Serenissima’s ambassador had no doubt where Millini’s political allegiance lay: he was stoutly Spanish, “tutto Spagnuolo.”110 Despite this fact, he kept the favor of Pope Urban, no friend of Spain. At one point, Urban used him, probably in his capacity as vicar of Rome, to defuse the dangerous situation that arose out of a brawl between Spaniards and the sbirri of Rome that threatened to bring down one of Urban’s pets, Ginetti, who had given Urban a misleading report on the incident that made it look as if the Spanish ambassador had been involved. (Then again, it could be that Urban managed the entire affair to try to discredit the ambassador, whom he wanted sent home, and when the plan backfired, hid behind Ginetti.) An ad hoc group of two Spanish cardinals, one of them Urban’s later nemesis Gaspar Borja (also an Inquisitor), the French and Tuscan ambassadors, and one other cardinal met with Millini to try to find a way to keep the affray out of the hands of the governor of Rome.111 The congregation held its first meeting on 9 September in Millini’s house, keeping no record of its discussions.112 The Spanish ambassador complained in early October that it was doing nothing, perhaps another reflection of Millini’s deliberation.113 After further difficulties in January 1628, Urban tried to settle the case himself,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 48

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

49

before giving Verospi a chance to try.114 Millini may have had to step aside not because of Urban’s impatience but because the kidney stones that eventually killed him were already putting him out of action. He missed a number of Congregation meetings in early 1628.115 Despite Venetian antipathy to him, according to Memmoli Millini numbered among his friends the dean of the Rota, the Venetian Giovanni Battista Coccino (an auditor from 1600 and Peña’s successor as dean until his death in 1641, with whom Millini would therefore have had a working relationship, since the dean sat as consultor ex officio), who cherished the hope that competent lawyers would be appointed to his court.116 Had Millini been one? Thanks to the survival of a number of his opinions as an auditor, we can begin to develop an idea of what kind of lawyers staffed the Congregation of the Holy Office. Opinions differed about Millini. His nephew, while insisting that he was a great success as an auditor, also defensively noted that his “opinions were short but nevertheless substantial.” They rested on “a great foundation in natural reason, and to that he accommodated his learning [or opinions, dottrine].” His reasoning was so cogent that he sometimes brought the entire Rota around to his singular view.117 The bloody-minded might interpret Memmoli to have said that Millini invented his decisions. This, no doubt, is a point about which his possible lack of university training hurt him. To judge from his collection of Rota decisions, Prospero Farinacci would have agreed. Whereas he included dozens by Verospi, Millini’s fellow Inquisitor, and a substantial number by temporary assessor Alessandro Boccabella, he selected a grand total of five by Millini, the first two seven years apart.118 It is almost as if he put them in only for appearances. They are all, as we would expect from Memmoli, short, one less than one column long, all with few citations, perhaps another indication that Millini lacked formal legal training, or that he was as impatient regarding academic legal learning as Giovanni Battista De Luca, and therefore anathema to the citation-obsessed Farinacci.119 Other publishers shared Farinacci’s views. While it was common for collections of decisions by individual auditors to be published, often during their lifetimes, sometimes almost as soon as they were handed down, Millini’s had to wait until twenty years after his death.120 Of these decisions, 449 were printed in Venice by the Guerigli house, but published by the same man who had printed Memmoli’s life five years earlier, which leaves a strong odor of vanity publication.121 Toward the end of his biography, Memmoli summed up his subject as “eminent in canon and civil law,” but not well versed in theology. He had to struggle a little to find other marks of distinction (not including the cardinal’s

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 49

8/27/12 11:46 AM

c ha pt er 2

50

fondness for children’s games), since Millini was not interested in language (although he wrote good Latin and Italian), nor did he know much about ancient history, preferring modern. What he knew of theology and ancient history, he picked up from Bellarmino, with whom he served on a number of congregations and to whom he was united in friendship and mutual esteem.122 Memmoli thought it a good idea to bring Millini into Bellarmino’s penumbra almost a dozen years after the second’s death. He also neatly highlighted the centrality of law to Millini’s career—to the exclusion of many other interests— and to the institution he headed.123 Memmoli did note that Millini had work done on his titular church, the family chapel, and his houses. At Santi Quattro Coronati, Millini was responsibile for a new reliquary, a new lower altar, and the apse frescoes by Giovanni di San Giovanni (Giovanni Mannozzi), for which Memmoli himself may well have drawn the program. The work was begun in 1621 and finished by 1624.124 Giovanni also worked on the Millini chapel in Santa Maria del Popolo, which has been called one of the major artistic projects of the 1620s.125 Millini paid for its completion in his will. His bust and that of his nephew Urbano are by Alessandro Algardi.126 Millini’s Deputies: Fabrizio Verallo, Giovanni Battista Bonsi, and Ottavio Bandini At least three deputy secretaries served with Millini: his relative Fabrizio Verallo or Veralli, Giovanni Battista Bonsi, and Ottavio Bandini.127 The first of these (1566/1570–1624) was close enough to Millini to stay with him when he returned from a nunciature to Switzerland, and Millini then helped him to find a palace of his own.128 He was educated by the Jesuits before taking a law degree at Perugia. Clement VIII gave him the largely honorary title of referendarius utriusque signaturae, which did, however, qualify him to practice in both courts.129 There is considerable evidence about his tenure as inquisitor of Malta from 1600 to 1605, at which point he became a consultor of the Holy Office.130 Made a cardinal in November 1608, he took his Inquisitor’s oath on 25 February 1609.131 When Maffeo Barberini went to his see of Spoleto in 1610, Verallo became prefect of the Segnatura di Giustizia.132 He took over temporarily as secretary from Millini in late 1615, although he himself was hobbled by gout and had to miss several meetings.133 That is about the biggest mark he left. The same Venetian ambassador who praised Millini thought little of him.134 He appears most often in the records dealing with financial matters, an important but not prestigious responsibility.135 He did exercise two protectorates, of the Observant Franciscans and of Ireland, which occasionally

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 50

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

51

generated business for the Inquisition.136 As protector of the Servites from 1611 to at least 1614, Verallo continued efforts to control the damage wrought by Paolo Sarpi and Fulgenzio Micanzio.137 More frequently than Millini, he sang Mass on important ceremonial occasions, including the anniversary of Paul V’s election in 1612.138 Like Millini at his titular church and Arrigoni in Benevento, he restored—in rather violent fashion—the church of his commendatory abbey of Sant’Agnese in Rome, as well as the family chapel in his titular church of Sant’Agostino.139 Verallo seems to have been more socially acceptable than weighty and not in the league of his ancestor Girolamo Verallo, one of the more important cardinals in the mid-sixteenth century.140 Not all secretaries or deputy secretaries were men of consequence. Bonsi (1554/1560–4 July 1621) was. Son of Domenico Bonsi, a grand ducal secretary, like Arrigoni he took an IUD at Padua, one of the best places to do so.141 Thereafter he practiced law in Rome, but perhaps not in the papal courts, since there is no record of him holding any of the requisite offices.142 Almost from the beginning of his career he was a French client, originally of Marie de Medici, and held several French benefices, especially the bishopric of Béziers from 1598. After helping to negotiate Henri IV’s marriage to Queen Marie’s relative Maria de’ Medici, perhaps along with Millini, he became a naturalized French subject and the new queen’s almoner. From 1608 he resided in the French court. When he was promoted to cardinal in 1611, he received the red hat from the French king. Bonsi came back to Rome in June 1615.143 Galileo claimed in 1633 to have talked to him about his case.144 Despite one of the better records of attendance, he did not make much of an impact on the Sacred Congregation, even as deputy secretary, perhaps because Millini was such a hard worker. There is also little sign of him doing anything much for Florence, despite his distinguished Medicean credentials. Sometime protector of France, Bonsi suffered from the political changes there in the late 1610s. His efforts to have Richelieu made cardinal in 1620 failed, but in the conclave of Gregory XV he brought the French faction around to Ludovisi.145 He died shortly afterward. Despite income, mostly from France, of at least 12,000 scudi per annum, Bonsi also had to contend with financial problems in his last years. Nevertheless, he managed to leave an estate of 100,000 scudi.146 Like Millini, Bonsi’s replacement Cardinal Bandini (1558–†31 July/1 August 1629) makes a substantial figure, even if it might have been harder to say of Millini what was said of him: “he is a refined courtier and this makes him shine in everything.”147 The only significant advantage Millini has over Bandini is Memmoli’s life. Then again, Bandini could counter it with a miracle.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 51

8/27/12 11:46 AM

52

c ha pt er 2

While Bandini was legate of the Marches the Capuchin saint Serafino da Montegranaro had cured his gangrenous leg.148 He and Millini were on one of the same sides, since Bandini was a leader of the Florentine cardinals, but he was thought to be a partisan of France, from which he drew a pension.149 Although they were about the same age, Bandini got started in Rome at a much earlier point of his life than Millini. His father, a wealthy banker, seems to have been permanently established there, and Bandini may therefore have been in effect a Roman. Although supposedly an anti-Medicean, he first appears in the record at the age of sixteen delivering in San Giovanni dei Fiorentini in Rome one of the numerous funeral orations for Grand Duke Cosimo I in 1574.150 Five years later he received the honorary title of protonotary apostolic.151 Perhaps the law degree that Millini may have lacked also helped Bandini’s career to progress more rapidly. From 1581 until 1588 he was a referendary of both signatures.152 Eight years later he was promoted cardinal along with Arrigoni.153 While Millini spent his early career as cardinal in diplomacy, Bandini continued to serve as governor of various papal territories as he had begun to do ten years before his promotion.154 By the beginning of Paul V’s reign, Bandini belonged to two powerful congregations, the Consulta and Bishops and Regulars.155 And then he virtually disappears. This may have been because he was a client of the Aldobrandini, the family of the previous pope.156 By the end of Paul’s reign he had switched allegiance to the Ludovisi.157 Under the Ludovisi pope Gregory XV, Bandini became one of the most influential cardinals.158 In the conclave of Urban VIII, he carried the Ludovisi standard and thus butted heads with the Borghese contender Millini.159 Despite this, Urban consulted him regularly, although a Venetian ambassador said he did so only for appearance’s sake.160 Bandini became an Inquisitor on 10 March 1621, setting a record in this sample for the interval between promotion as cardinal and appointment of twenty-five years.161 His service as sub-secretary created an anomalous situation, since he, unlike Verallo, was senior to Millini, in fact the most senior Inquisitor at his death. Millini and Bandini shared another such office, taking turns presiding over the new Congregation of Ecclesiastical Immunities set up in 1628, as well as alternating in the chair at sessions of Propaganda Fide.162 The evidence does not allow us to say whether they were cooperating or competing. On several occasions, they jointly received an inquisitorial task.163 Bandini was a hardworking Inquisitor, getting his share of particular congregations, especially that about the bishop of Chartres on which Millini also served.164 His moment of greatest glory as an Inquisitor may have been Marcantonio De Dominis’s trial, despite Desiderio Scaglia gaining most of the credit.165

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 52

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

53

Bandini left evidence of more patronage of learned men than Millini, including more significant dealings with Galileo, albeit before he became an Inquisitor. Galileo made some of his sunspot observations during one of his regular visits to Bandini’s vigna on the Quirinal (most of the rest of those in attendance on these occasions were probably Bandini’s relatives), as the preface to the book that got him in trouble, Istoria e dimostrazioni intorno alle macchie solari, revealed, and as Vincenzo Viviani chose to single out in his biography of Galileo.166 Furthermore, Bandini’s nephew Piero Dini was among those enlisted to help Galileo in 1615–1616.167 Galileo was just one of Bandini’s clients.168 The cardinal dispensed more patronage than Millini, perhaps because he may have been substantially better off.169 Three dedications of books have come to light. The first is a collection of madrigals published in Rome in 1582 and in Venice in 1585.170 The second, an explanation of the new Gregorian calendar by the Florentine polymath Ugolino Martelli, provides the biographical detail that Bandini had a house in Lyon in the early 1580s and held the abbey of Casanuova.171 The third, De salubri potu dissertatio, dates from forty years later and is by Bandini’s physician, Francesco Scacchi.172 Bandini played a reasonably important role in Roman cultural life both as member of several academies and also through his secretary, Girolamo Aleandro the younger (1574–1629), who moved from his service into that of the Barberini.173 That Bandini was the only Florentine on the Congregation for most of his career, during which there were at least five Florentine cardinals to chose from, and even after a Florentine pope took office, underscores the grand duke’s usual lack of influence in the institution. The contrast between Bandini and the largely ineffectual Luigi Capponi, the socially acceptable Florentine cardinal, highlights the same point.174 Bandini was also not afraid to stand up to Urban. When the pope tried to announce the marriage of his nephew Taddeo and Anna Colonna in consistory, Bandini as dean of the college of cardinals refused to allow him to do so. Urban had to override Bandini’s opposition.175 Antonio Barberini, Sr. (secretary 1629–late 1633 or early 1634) Immediately on Millini’s death, Urban appointed his youngest brother, Cardinal Antonio, Sr. (1569–1646), to the secretaryship.176 Barberini was a Capuchin, a strict Franciscan. Even among his order, Cardinal Antonio stood out. According to a seventeenth-century life by another Capuchin, in his early days he was known for his excessive rigor and often found himself at odds with the friars under his governance.177 The same author claimed to have direct testimony that Barberini was “of a rather bilious nature, and often went into

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 53

8/27/12 11:46 AM

54

c ha pt er 2

a rage for every little thing” only to apologize later.178 Warden of the convent of San Gimignano, he made his entrance to Urban’s papacy by walking to Rome, mostly at night to minimize even further the chance that he might be recognized. After he arrived, he was content to wait in an antechamber for two hours until someone realized who he was.179 He spent the vast majority of the day in religious observances. As protector of his order, he authored a fair amount of correspondence, but after Urban’s death it emerged that much of it had been written by two other Capuchins without consulting him.180 However much credence we give these tales, there is no doubt that Barberini was a different manner of Inquisitor from his predecessors. According to a prognostication for a future conclave, perhaps in 1629, he “has always been kept away from public business, nor has he abstained from publicly blaming his nephews’ actions. It cannot be denied that his intention is holy, but having lived as much in the cloister as in the [papal] palace with the rigor of religious discipline, he has kept that austerity of manner that in him are really such crudities [savageries or wildnesses] that they often make him intractable especially when his indiscreet zeal is triggered.”181 According to his Jesuit biographer, “nothing better marked him out than his deep self-denial.”182 By his will he left orders that Savonarola’s “Triumphus crucis” and meditation on Psalm 51 Miserere be published; the first entry in the will specified his epitaph as “Hic iacet pulvis cinis et nihil,” which even other Capuchins thought a bit much.183 While other cardinals’ secretaries may provide ideas about their masters, the only such known for Cardinal Antonio serves only to underline his complete lack of interest in either the secretary or his writing. This was the poet and dramatist Francesco Bracciolini (1566–1645), who served during most of Antonio’s tenure as archbishop of Senigallia, complaining the whole time. A long-time client of the Barberini and formerly secretary to Maffeo, his appointment probably came because Francesco Barberini, to whom Urban originally assigned him, could find no post for him.184 The Venetian ambassador in his relazione given immediately after the new cardinal arrived in Rome had little to say about Antonio, Sr., except to note his rigor.185 He was and remained a Capuchin, always wearing his robes under his cardinal’s habit and forcing the appointment of one of his confreres as consultor to the Holy Office even though the Conventual Franciscan slot was already filled.186 He invested a great deal of energy in the order, and despite his biographers’ insistence on the scrupulosity with which he fulfilled his strict vow of poverty, he managed to build a number of convents, including one on the Quirinal not far from his nephews’ massive new palace.187 It may be

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 54

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

55

historically illegitimate to blame him for the rather grotesque crypt beneath the church he founded in Rome, Santissima Concezione at the bottom of Via Veneto, but the crypt’s relentless memento mori, along with the church’s drab, dark interior, probably well capture his piety. In short, Antonio Barberini, Sr., had the makings of a fanatic.188 By the time Antonio, Sr., became secretary he had five years of experience as an Inquisitor, having joined the Congregation shortly after being named a cardinal on 7 October 1624. For more than three of those he had divided his time between Rome and his diocese of Senigallia.189 Within three weeks of his arrival in office as secretary, Barberini set out to clean house, seizing the opportunity presented by an accident to Commissary Lanci to shove him unceremoniously aside and replace him temporarily with one of the Barberini’s most loyal clients, Vincenzo Maculano.190 This action fits the Venetian ambassador’s report just about now. Antonio, Sr., wrote the ambassador, has Urban’s “anger, is impetuous and zealous” and tends to rush things.191 The fact that no subsecretaries have been identified may further indicate Barberini’s determination to run his own ship. Cardinal Antonio’s rigorous treatment of Lanci served as a harbinger of his tenure. His involvement in the second phase of Galileo’s trial equally well captures his attitude as secretary. Wherever possible, the letters he drew up used harsher language than the Congregation’s decrees.192 The best example is his missive to the inquisitor of Florence of 1 January 1633 embodying an order given the previous day. The decree read: that the pope and the Sacred Congregation in no wise can nor ought to tolerate these kinds of subterfuges; and in order to verify whether he is really not in condition to come to Rome without endangering his life, the pope and the Sacred Congregation will send there a commissary with physicians who will visit him and make a certain and sincere report of the state in which he is; and if he should be in such a state that he can come, he [the commissary] will imprison him and send him in irons; if indeed for reasons of health and danger of life the sending must be deferred, immediately after he recovers and the danger has ceased, he will be imprisoned and sent even in irons. The commissary and physicians will be sent at his expense, since he could have come when he was ordered and refused to obey.193 This is strong language, but Cardinal Antonio managed to improve on it with the phrases in italics:

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 55

8/27/12 11:46 AM

c ha pt er 2

56

By this Congregation of the Holy Office it has been very badly understood that Galileo Galilei did not promptly obey the precept given him to come to Rome, and he must not excuse his disobedience by the season, because it has come to this weather through his own fault. And he does most badly trying to palliate matters by pretending to be ill, since the pope and these cardinals my lords do not wish in any manner to tolerate these pretenses [fintioni], nor his dissimulating [about] his coming here. Therefore your reverence will say to him that if he does not immediately obey, a commissary with physicians will be sent to take him, and conduct him to the prisons of this supreme tribunal, even bound with irons, since up until this moment he has abused this Congregation’s kindness, for which he will be condemned to pay all the expenses [of the commissary and physicians] that will be incurred to that effect. You will execute what has been imposed on you.194 The final order to the inquisitor is more forcefully put than even Barberini usually did.195 Zdenko Šolle reasonably judges Antonio Galileo’s most active enemy among the Inquisitors, and the characterization of him as a “poorly educated, zealous, pious monk [sic], who was however a devoted and staunch instrument of his brother” may come close to the mark.196 Venetian ambassador Giovanni Pesaro’s judgment in 1632 seems reasonable despite his antipathy to Rome. He thought Antonio still lived like a Capuchin, “exercises his anger vigorously and the passion that he learned amongst the friars [nella frateria, a condescending term].”197 Pesaro’s successor Alvise Contarini also stressed Cardinal Antonio’s anger and not much else, except his animosity to his nephew Francesco.198 Francesco Barberini (secretary 1634–?death) 199 All in all, not an especially impressive tenure. Francesco Barberini’s career as Inquisitor and secretary is at first glance even more underwhelming.200 We have seen that his attendance is at the bottom of the scale before he became secretary and, although it improved thereafter, never came near the record of a Millini or a Bandini. Francesco (1597–1679) differs from his uncle principally in that vastly more is known about him, partly because he was a cardinal for almost sixty years and held nearly every major office open to a porporato. Oldest son of Urban’s brother Carlo, Francesco had gone through the Collegio Romano before studying law.201 A cultured man like his papal uncle, Francesco

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 56

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

57

had become a member of the Academy of the Lincei on 30 September 1623.202 He spent much of his career in diplomacy, first on two failed legations in the 1620s and then as cardinal nephew. In his absences from Rome, Antonio, Sr., took over for him, bizarrely enough.203 He took his oath as an Inquisitor on 29 May 1624, even before his uncle, just as he had become a cardinal before him in 1623.204 The biggest problem in understanding Francesco is separating him from Urban. Lots of commentators thought the nephew was no more than the uncle’s mouthpiece, and Leopold von Ranke concluded that during the first decade of Urban’s pontificate the younger man bore responsibility for absolutely nothing.205 Similarly, at least until his rustication to Ferrara in May 1628, Secretary of State Magalotti had a substantial hold over Francesco.206 According to a Venetian ambassador, despite Urban’s efforts to involve him, Barberini was content to leave everything to Magalotti.207 Even after his cousin’s ejection, Barberini allegedly continued to be “fascinated” by him.208 Francesco seems to have cultivated the impression of docility, even if virtually every observer described his personality differently. But all agreed how smooth he was, always leaving his interlocutors with good words and the impression that he would do everything possible on their behalf.209 A Venetian ambassador shortly after his promotion reflected on both sides of Francesco, calling him “of most handsome appearance and most gentle manners, he seems a living portrait of modesty” who made it appear that whatever he said was heartfelt. “He has such an admirable manner, that he lets no one leave him discontented and it really is like that since there is such sweetness in his dealings, that even when he refuses favors, he nonetheless captures the spirits of everyone who turns to his intercession.”210 One of that ambassador’s successors sounded as if he had fallen completely under Francesco’s spell. In a relazione apparently innocent of irony, he said: “I would have to have a golden pen and the voice of a seraph” to describe his “exquisite manner and equally his most loveable, decorous and serene appearance, with unmatched sincerity and candor of spirit.” No surprise that his life was “not only not reprehensible, but without blame.”211 In other words, he was the consummate courtier. One school of observers thought him lazy and always looking for any means to avoid taking action. At first glance, his pathetic attendance record as an Inquisitor would seem to bear them out. The strongly biased free-thinking gossip Gregorio Leti, although suggesting (no doubt facetiously) that the Barberini faction would be wise to make him pope at the time of Alexander VII’s election, emphasized Barberini’s disinclination to make decisions.212 The

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 57

8/27/12 11:46 AM

58

c ha pt er 2

Venetian ambassador just quoted at the end of his long encomium concluded that Francesco’s second fault was “little application not to say aversion to business,” which led him either to refuse audiences altogether or to discuss affairs while his mind was elsewhere.213 Ambassador Pesaro, who clearly did not care for Barberini at all, agreed about his distaste for business. Instead, he loved his “pile of books” and his collection of ancient medals, which he would much rather discuss. Then he added a straw in the wind that points toward the second school of commentators: “He becomes excited about his wishes and sustaining his own decisions.”214 The Venetian obedience mission in 1625, although generally much more charitable to the cardinal, whom they thought “well-disposed to everyone” and “of a pleasant nature,” agreed with Pesaro that he “willingly flees public business” but “sometimes sticks in his own opinions.”215 Others pushed this much further, thinking that he wished to have complete domination. There is a chronological dynamic to his drive to dominate. As late as 1629, it was still said that “his nature [is] distant from negotiations [negozii], especially those that required great application.”216 And then Francesco made a clever choice and became prefect of the congregation of Sanità set up to protect Rome against the plague. This was the ideal route to real power under the valetudinarian Urban. Barberini took the job seriously, at one point issuing no less than eleven orders on a single day, a total that would have looked good for some Holy Office sessions.217 The newsletter writers were thus right when they thought they saw a change early in 1630 when Francesco acted as if he were “patrone assoluto” in slicing off a piece of Cardinal Ludovisi’s garden for Antonio, Sr.’s new convent on the Quirinal.218 His drive to control came out especially in his attitude to his younger brother Antonio, Jr. Their inveterate hostility is a constant, including clashes over the Inquisition, even though the younger man was never a member.219 In May 1631 an avviso emphasized how much Francesco was enjoying “the whole domination” of the secretariat of state and papal patronage.220 At the end of that year a major dispute between Francesco and Antonio, Jr., over a court case in which the younger man had tried to interfere led Urban to back Francesco, who “has fallen in love with dominating and does not wish associates.”221 Francesco was succeeding in “trying to dominate and laugh at his [Antonio’s] acts.”222 Cardinal Francesco began to act more and more like his uncle Antonio specifically in the Inquisition. Thus in late 1631 he took over the case of the excommunication of the Collateral of Naples and committed it to two Barberini soldiers, one of them his own auditor. He declared null the process formed by

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 58

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

59

the Inquisition’s experienced commissary in Naples.223 This moment is especially important because in so doing Francesco apparently confronted Urban, who had just finished screaming at Borja in consistory that the Collateral deserved everything he got. Francesco also took on one of the best lawyers among the Inquisitors, Verospi, whom Urban used as his point man in the case.224 Despite universal praise of the nuncio for brokering the deal, Urban remained angry and did his best to ignore it.225 At the same time, Giacinto Petronio, the experienced vicar-general of the Inquisition in Naples who had excommunicated the Collateral, defended himself by asserting that he had acted on Francesco’s orders.226 Cardinal Francesco used any means to his ends, sidestepping the Inquisition via the nuncio, the nuncio via the Inquisition, and happily using both to go around his uncle. If matters are as they appear, he had indeed learned how to dominate, bearing out Giovanni Pesaro’s emphasis on how much he enjoyed fighting with Urban.227 Yet the possibility remains that this is all a carefully organized charade, another moment in the Barberini soap opera designed to preserve the family’s power by leaving no one responsible (could Francesco really have told Urban off, especially in a case in which the pope’s antagonist was his worst enemy?).228 Perhaps as a sop to Verospi’s pride, when he complained six months later about a property dispute, Barberini ordered the clerk of the Apostolic Chamber hearing the case not to proceed.229 Proper procedure seems to have meant little to Cardinal Francesco. At this point, the cardinal did not yet combine the post of secretary of the Inquisition with the enormously lucrative one of vice-chancellor of the church, which he took up within about a year of each other in 1632–1633, and the second of which Urban allegedly had to order him to take.230 He did not replace Antonio, Sr., as secretary until December 1633 at the earliest.231 Together the two offices gave him a base from which to attempt to control Rome.232 Judging from the steadily increasing volume of his correspondence as secretary of state, he now used that central office to the same end.233 By 1635 and the last Venetian relazione about him in our period, he had become a workaholic like no other papal nephew. Yet his efforts to break free of Urban appear to have failed. The ambassador thought him completely dominated by the pope, whom he saw every day for two hours not to discuss business but solely to learn what his uncle wanted him to say. Francesco suffered from low self-esteem, thought the ambassador, alleging by implication that this came from his education by the Reformed Franciscans (although the ambassador may have been mistaken on this point). If he is right, Francesco and Antonio,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 59

8/27/12 11:46 AM

60

c ha pt er 2

Sr., both had the same problem.234 But maybe the ambassador’s powers of penetration were not as great as he thought. Five years later an extraordinary envoy called Francesco “director of things” at the same time as he described him otherwise in terms similar to those always used, stressing his modest demeanor, piety, and virtue.235 He also said revealingly that (1) Francesco alleged that he could not change Urban’s mind and (2) all congregations, including implicitly the Sacred Congregation of the Inquisition, had become window dressing, since between the two of them Urban and Francesco decided everything. Francesco’s patronage helped solidify his position.236 One of his most important clients was the Oratorian Orazio Giustiniani, his anima and consultor of the Inquisition. It is likely that Francesco patronized another consultor, Filippo Fabbri.237 Even if he did not provide much tangible gain to Giustiniani, Barberini passed out a great deal of other largesse, a direct function of his enormous wealth. His annual income in 1630 even before he became vice-chancellor may have been as much as 100,000 scudi.238 Although recent scholarship tends to assign responsibility for the building of the family’s massive new palace on the Quirinal principally to his younger brother Taddeo, contemporary observers almost always called it Francesco’s work.239 Since the two split the living quarters, Taddeo having the north end and Francesco the south, it would probably be safest to call the honors even. Francesco’s half included an imposing library, overseen by Lucas Holstein. Francesco also collected paintings, if not on the scale that Antonio, Jr., did, and busts of himself. Among the numerous books dedicated to him were two manuscript treastises on inquisitorial procedure by Cardinal Scaglia’s nephew Deodato, “La prattica di procedere con forma giudiciale nelle cause appartenenti alla Santa Fede” and “La Theorica di procedere tanto in generale quanto in particolare nei casi appartenenti alla S. Fede”; and he owned other inquisitorial manuals and documents.240 Naturally, he received a number of other dedications, some of which may provide clues to the scale of his ambition.241

The Other Inquisitors Before 1623 The rest of my sample contains another dozen Inquisitors. They break down into three groups: the balance of the panel dealing with Galileo in 1616, including Ferdinando Taverna, Sfondrato, and a pair of friars, Galamini and Centini; one Spaniard, Antonio de Zapata y Cisneros; three cardinals added to

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 60

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

61

the Congregation between the two phases of the trial (Borja y Velasco, Scaglia, and Guido Bentivoglio); and the Barberini loyalists who together with Cardinals Antonio, Sr., and Francesco provided a majority of the Congregation in 1632–1633 (Zacchia, Gessi, Ginetti, and Verospi). I shall save for last perhaps the most important of all these, Roberto Bellarmino, who remained a dominant presence—either alive or dead—throughout. Two Northerners: Ferdinando Taverna and Paolo Emilio Sfondrato Of these two, Sfondrato was more important, since he was for a long time head of the Congregation of the Index and had been Gregory XIV’s cardinal nephew when he in effect ran the papacy.242 Both were significant to Galileo beyond their participation in his trial, Sfondrato as signer of the suspension of Copernicus in 1616, Taverna as one of the cardinals on Galileo’s list of Inquisitors to whom he had spoken then.243 Both came from Milan and were about the same age as Bandini. Sfondrato (1560–1618) was an Inquisitor by 17 February 1600 and a few months later a member of the Index.244 Taverna (1558–1619), still a consultor when Sfondrato took office, wins the prize for most irregular entry to the Congregation.245 The problem may have been caused because his nomination straddles the end of Clement VIII’s pontificate and the beginning of Paul V’s. He first appears in the decree registers in 1605 on the day Pietro Aldobrandini took his oath, and one observer put him on the Inquisition at about that time.246 He attended two more meetings, the last one on the day his breve of appointment as legate of the Marches came through, 25 May.247 He stayed in the Marches until late 1606 and shortly after his return reappeared in meetings of the Holy Office, certainly by 3 January 1607.248 Taverna’s career mirrors Bandini’s, except for its beginning. His uncle, Ludovico, sometime governor of Rome and then bishop of Lodi who would finally resign it to Commissary Michelangelo Seghizzi in 1616, helped to begin Taverna’s ascent by calling him to Cardinal Odoardo Farnese’s attention; he was later an Aldobrandini client.249 He took a law degree in 1588 and became a referendary three years later and a consultor of the Inquisition by 1594.250 Various administrative posts in the provinces preceded his appointment as governor of Rome in 1599. As such, he was thought to be both a good criminal lawyer and too rigid.251 The notorious proceedings against Beatrice Cenci (defended by Farinacci) took place during his tenure, and similar rigor in the case of one of Cardinal Borghese’s relatives led to Taverna’s quick exile to Ascoli as soon as Borghese became pope.252 Yet Paul relented and brought him back as

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 61

8/27/12 11:46 AM

62

c ha pt er 2

an Inquisitor, no doubt in part because of his competence. Although himself a “poor cardinal” (or perhaps precisely because of this), with an income of only 3,000 scudi, who yet tried to restore Palazzo Colonna and build a villa at Frascati (he failed in the second), Taverna specialized in financial matters as an Inquisitor.253 One of the more important of his interventions concerned some of the Holy Office’s own property.254 In this case (the even more urgent one of how to reduce expenses) and others he acted with Verallo.255 A report from him led to an order to archive all accounts from all inquisitors in Italy.256 Like all Inquisitors, Taverna received several books for review, one of them the already suspended legal treatise by Tobias Paurmeister, De jurisdictione Imperii Romani libri duo, just published in Hannover and banned two months later on his report.257 More important, he had the censure of Francisco Suarez’s De potestate ecclesiastica and was also involved in the hunt for the prohibited books in Peña’s library.258 This assignment came while Taverna was on a trip to Milan in early 1613 that Paul allowed him to take despite heading the particular congregation about the dispute between the papacy and Modena.259 In spring 1615 he and Bellarmino examined a book about why the duke of Neuburg converted to Catholicism.260 He was high enough in the pope’s favor to sing Mass before him in the Sistine Chapel for the Purification of Mary in 1616.261 Shortly thereafter, he left for his bishopric of Novara, where he died.262 As always, the Holy Office concerned itself with his will, including protracted negotiations about the disposition of his corpse.263 Sfondrato is one of the most difficult cardinals to understand.264 It may be that we know too much, much of it seemingly contradictory. Thus we have the opinion that he lead an “exemplary life” as a satellite originally of Filippo Neri (he is supposed to have lived as a teenager in the Oratorian mother house of Santa Maria in Vallicella), but also the report that he hosted a sumptuous banquet served on “plates of Venetian gilt” that amazed the guests.265 Or that he gave the impression of having “a scrupulous conscience” at the same time that he lived in one of the grandest palaces in Rome for the last seven years of his life and spent large amounts of money on his titular church and the patronage of religious art.266 As a Lombard, he took the lead in the campaign to build their new “national” church in Rome, S. Carlo al Corso.267 Bentivoglio accused him of greed for offices in his early career, and his income varied from 19,000 to 30,000 scudi, both highly respectable sums.268 Battista Ceci’s thumbnail portrait, drawn early in Paul V’s reign, gets one dimension of Sfondrato exactly right. He was “a man of his opinion, who had a rather high evaluation of himself.”269 The Venetian ambassador agreed, calling Sfondrato “a free man,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 62

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

63

[and] zealous,” who on two occasions in January 1615 sharply criticized Paul V. First, when Sfondrato refused to stop talking to the pope about peace negotiations, Paul walked out on him.270 Then, he faulted the pope for his expenditure on the Quirinal Palace and transferring all business there, which was hurting the Vatican Palace and San Pietro. This time Paul replied, if slightly beside the point, by criticizing Sfondrato for being away from Rome for years at a time.271 The cardinal had not backed Borghese in 1605, trying to make Bellarmino pope instead.272 The reason he was away was that for just about three years he resided as bishop of Cremona.273 He cooperated exceptionally closely with its inquisitor and among other acts of piety built a new Capuchin convent (which did not make the owners whose shops were torn down to make way for it happy).274 Almost as soon as he returned to Rome, he received the suburbicarian cardinalatial see of Albano.275 Like most bishops of such dioceses, Sfondrato commuted, while taking his responsibilities seriously enough to preach what one observer thought a great sermon to its clergy on taking possession.276 While it may be that his time in Cremona and then Albano was a species of exile, by 1613 he had again become one of the most powerful cardinals as the most senior Inquisitor, head of the Index—however dim his view of that body’s standing—and of the new Congregation of Rites.277 By early 1616 he had added the prefecture of the Congregation for the Council.278 His effectiveness may have been hampered by his frequent illnesses, and his attendance as an Inquisitor is terrible except in 1612, but there were few cardinals who had a more solid appearance of power. One of Two Spaniards: Antonio de Zapata y Cisneros Spain seems always to have had a member of the Congregation of the Holy Office, as apparently also did France (the Empire did not). Two of the Spaniards fall into my sample. The first, Antonio de Zapata y Cisneros (8 October 1550–27 April 1635), son of the count of Barajas, studied canon law at Sal­ amanca.279 He served as inquisitor of Toledo and Cuenca before becoming bishop in succession of Cadiz (1587) and Pamplona (1596) and archbishop of Burgos (1600). He renounced the last when promoted cardinal in 1604. The following year Philip III sent him to Rome to replace Francisco Dávila, an Inquisitor and protector of Spain. He took his oath as Inquisitor 27 January 1606.280 His tenure in Rome stretched to mid–1617; in 1611 he temporarily acted as Spanish ambassador. One appearance at the coram of 13 June 1624 is the only record of his attendance at the Congregation after July 1617; it may be a ghost. When he ceased to act as an Inquisitor, Borja replaced him, a rare

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 63

8/27/12 11:46 AM

c ha pt er 2

64

instance of a documented succession of one cardinal to another. Zapata’s disappearance from Rome did not mean he left the Holy Office behind. Instead, in late 1616 he had become viceroy of Naples. One of his first acts was to try to find a way to transfer Campanella to Rome using the authority of his new office.281 In 1627 Zapata took a bigger step yet, returning to Spain as inquisador mayor and taking up again his post in the council of state.282 He served for only three years before requesting replacement on the grounds of age, and Urban immediately acceded to his request.283 Apparently the papal permission did not produce the expected results, since Zapata was still inquisador when he issued a new Index in 1632.284 He often clashed with the Suprema, the council in charge of the Spanish Inquisition.285 Zapata was one of the wealthier cardinals. In 1605 his pensions allegedly amounted to 34,000 scudi, half from the king of Spain, but another accounting in the following year gives only 15,000, still a substantial sum.286 He lived in various palaces in Rome, apparently all rented, including P.zzo S. Lorenzo in Lucina and P.zzo de Cupis in P.zza Navona. In 1613 the Decreta identify him only as living in the neighboring rione Arenula (modern Regola), and two years later a trial of Duke Sforza’s palace on the Quirinal (the site of the future Palazzo Barberini) failed when Zapata fell ill and therefore returned to his former residence in rione Parione, perhaps P.zzo de Cupis.287 Two Friars: Agostino Galamini and Felice Centini Galamini (1552–1639), a Dominican, and Centini (1562–1641), a Conventual Franciscan, became cardinals and Inquisitors at virtually the same time in late summer 1611. Like Bonsi and Taverna, they were on Galileo’s conversation list of 1616. They took very different paths to this eminence. While Centini was no more than regent of his order’s Collegio Bonaventura in Rome and, before jumping all the way from consultor to Inquisitor, looks to have backed into a consultor’s slot because no other Conventual Franciscan could be found, Galamini had reached both the summit of his order’s hierarchy and had served an apprenticeship as provincial inquisitor, commissary in Rome, and master of the sacred palace. In short, he was one of the two best prepared Inquisitors in this sample.288 From Brisighella in the province of Ravenna, he came of humble origins but was related to a former Dominican general.289 He entered the Dominicans in Meldola and then followed the usual course of profession and novitiate (both in nearby Faenza) and reader in various houses.290 His first post as inquisitor was in Brescia and then Piacenza. Except in his will, none of

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 64

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

65

this is documented until as inquisitor of Genoa in 1599 he became inquisitor of Milan.291 Among his first acts was an edict encouraging denunciations especially for necromancy.292 Then following the path that his successors Seghizzi and Scaglia would also take, he came to Rome in 1604 as commissary.293 In 1607 he became master of the sacred palace and in the following year was elected Dominican general at Paul V’s wish.294 As such, he presided over a general chapter in France in 1611 and then conducted an extensive visitation of the province.295 He was made cardinal and added to the Congregation while still there.296 It typified his behavior that he both refused public entries on his trip back to Rome and to wear his cardinal’s habit.297 On his arrival, he went immediately to the pope to receive the red hat.298 He also accepted Paul’s present of 4,000 scudi plus a pension of 1,600 more.299 Eighteen months later he received a license to testate, meaning that from early in his career as a cardinal he intended to accumulate property.300 In 1620 his income was 7,075 scudi.301 Despite a decent-sized household (he left legacies to twenty-seven named servants), he saved enough to give his general heir, Propaganda Fide, more than 100,000 scudi.302 As Inquisitor, Galamini was often called on to find or assess candidates to head provincial inquisitions.303 It is possible that he acted occasionally as Millini’s deputy; at least on several occasions they either were the only cardinals in attendance or were jointly given the kind of order the secretary usually executed.304 He was centrally involved in cases involving ideas, especially those of Cremonini and Campanella, together with Galileo’s initial investigation. We do not know what he made in 1615 of Campanella’s “Atheismus triumphatus,” but we have the decree register’s summary that four years later he found that Cremonini’s “Apologia” took insufficient account of the Fifth Lateran Council’s canon on the soul’s immortality.305 In the second case, he offered his opinion on top of Bellarmino’s and Scaglia’s. This is curious, since by then certainly Bellarmino and probably Scaglia had greater stature than he. It may be that he was given a chance to express his views out of courtesy for his earlier involvement.306 Even odder, by then Galamini had left Rome, but we do not know where he went (the summaries of his letters in the decree registers lack the expected place of writing).307 It may have been to his first diocese of Recanati, although he does not seem to have taken as much interest in it as Arrigoni did in Benevento. This changed in April 1620 when Galamini received Osimo, where he spent most of the rest of his life, usually appearing in Congregation only at the time of conclaves, even though so far as we know he remained an Inquisitor until his death.308 Unfortunately, we know nothing

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 65

8/27/12 11:46 AM

66

c ha pt er 2

about the circumstances of his departure from Rome. Had his rigidity caused trouble? Did he feel an overwhelming pastoral impulse? The second alternative seems unlikely, given how high profile his career had been until that point. Despite his withdrawal (disgrace?), Galamini remained a favorite of the commentators. They were all unanimous in praising his learning (some specifying that it was scholastic), goodness, piety, and zeal for religion, one Venetian ambassador going so far as to call him “in the highest degree worthy of the papacy, if his goodness and learning were accompanied by better understanding of the things of the world.”309 And then they all added words to the effect that “everybody thinks that were he to be pope he would be another Pius V.” His rigor had gotten him into trouble with the Spanish while inquisitor of Milan and allegedly with Cardinal Borghese when he refused a second abbey, since legally he could have only one.310 Everybody agreed that he was a French cardinal, one observer explaining this by his geographical origins.311 Later in his career, he was called “a great preacher, theologian, full of piety and of zeal for religion,” who took care of his diocese and belonged among the “spiritual cardinals.”312 In other words, a zealot. By contrast to Galamini, few commentators thought well of Centini, certainly not the Venetian ambassador, who described him as “a mere abortion of Paul V.” The pope, desperate for theologians, had promoted Centini on the strength of a discussion of one case, only to discover that the new cardinal had nothing other than “lettere fratesche” (a minimal education) to his credit. Centini was such a nonentity that no one remembered him being in the conclave of Gregory XV!313 Two years later another ambassador thought “he pleases no one,” except Cardinal Borghese, who had tried to make him pope when Urban was elected.314 The anonymous “Conclave dell’anno 1623” listed him fourth among five Borghese candidates but otherwise said only that he was not well known either before or after the conclave and distinguished only by a resemblance to Sixtus V.315 In 1629, on one of the occasions when Urban was thought to be dying, Centini’s lack of distinction became an advantage, since it meant he had no enemies.316 Centini’s may be a case when the Venetian relazioni need to be taken with a grain of salt, not least because he became a cardinal with Bellarmino’s backing, and the two seem to have been linked by genuine mutual admiration.317 By Centini’s report, he had known Bellarmino first in Naples and then in Rome, during which time Bellarmino often attended theological disputations while Centini was regent. Bellarmino was impressed enough to nominate Centini as consultor.318 Even so, it took three months for the pope to agree.319 It was only after he became a consultor

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 66

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

67

that his order elected him proctor-general, perhaps with the benefit of a little papal pressure, as had happened in Galamini’s election as Dominican general.320 Among Centini’s first acts as consultor was to approve the nomination of Lelio Marzari as inquisitor of Florence.321 In 1612, Centini joined Bellarmino and Galamini (with whom he often worked) on a new congregation of theologians, but we do not know its purpose.322 Paul thought well enough of him to invite him to view some of the work being done for the Capella Paolina.323 In addition to being a Borghese client, Centini also early on ingratiated himself with Maffeo Barberini, as he continued to do after he became pope, as well as with his family.324 Among the few clues to the quality of his intellect or education is his donation of three Greek manuscripts to the Vatican Library shortly after he became a cardinal, and Filippo Fabbri’s praise of him as a great Scotist and debater.325 Despite being bound by a similar vow of poverty as Galamini, Centini seems to have reveled in the gifts showered on him after promotion. In addition to large cash presents, allegedly amounting to 40,000 scudi, Cardinal Gonzaga gave him a coach and horses.326 His income would eventually amount to about 10,000 scudi, putting him somewhere in the middle of the college of cardinals.327 Shortly afterward, he was made bishop of Mileto and consecrated by the pope himself.328 Like Millini, he spent about a year in his diocese.329 He had barely returned to Rome before he became bishop of Macerata, where he spent most of the rest of his life.330 Shortly after his arrival, he held a synod, the constitutions of which were published in 1616.331 He was not there as continuously as has been implied, nor did he return to Rome as infrequently as Galamini.332 He put in an extended residence from his reappearance in the Inquisition’s meeting of 27 October 1615 until 15 February 1618.333 He may have returned to Rome already in late 1614; at least a diarist said he had been added in December to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars.334 He attended nearly all meetings of the Inquisition during the conclave of Gregory XV and again beginning immediately after, but not during Urban VIII’s until April of 1624.335 He was again in Rome from 6 February 1625 until 4 June 1626.336 At the end of April 1633, when his nephew got into trouble, Centini returned to Rome and stayed for about a year, last attending the Congregation on 16 March 1634.337 Centini’s host in 1633 was Cardinal Borja (1580–1645), one of the most potent of Inquisitors, sometime Spanish ambassador to the pope.338 He may have hoped to make his return permanent by opting for the suburbicarian see of Sabina in December 1633, but Urban refused to release him from Macerata.339 It was rumored that Urban and “the palace” were not

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 67

8/27/12 11:46 AM

68

c ha pt er 2

happy about Centini’s open ambitions for the papacy, although these reports may have been extrapolations from his nephew’s troubles more than a reflection of his own goals.340 It could also be that his decision to cast his lot with Cardinal Antonio, Jr., did him no good at this juncture.341 He probably never made it back to Rome despite a steady stream of fawning letters to Urban and his nephews even after the execution of his own nephew. During his last stay in Rome, Galileo’s trial represented only a small part of his activity as Inquisitor, which drew once more on his theological expertise, including heading a large particular congregation of theologians in September 1633 that may have reported to the Holy Office.342 And then came permanent disgrace by his nephew Giacinto’s fall. Thus, last among their other commonalties, Galamini and Centini were both Inquisitors who simply disappeared from the Congregation without giving up their posts. One of the Most Experienced Inquisitors: Desiderio Scaglia Almost as thoroughly Spanish as Borja, Desiderio Scaglia (1567/1568–1639) probably falsified his origins in order to demonstrate his allegiance.343 Scaglia was a northerner, from the Venetian city of Brescia.344 When he first appears regularly, that is his sobriquet, and in 1607 the Congregation twice granted him leave to return there, “his country.”345 Scaglia did not glory in the fact. In the Rome of Paul V being a Venetian subject was a positive negative, and the Spanish partisan Scaglia pretended instead to be from Cremona in the duchy of Milan. It was not easy to obscure his origins, but he did eventually succeed in being called Cardinal Cremona.346 The Venetian ambassador reported Scaglia making up various excuses for his change of origin.347 In 1626 he ordered a volume of Ottavio Rossi’s letters either burned or at least expurgated because two of them called him Brescian.348 Like Galamini, Scaglia was a new man, by some accounts the son of a laundress and a barber, and there is more than a little condescension in many of the reports about him.349 Thus objections were made against him in his first conclave for his lowly origins, habits, and appearance.350 The Dominican Scaglia won promotion as cardinal and then Inquisitor at the very end of Paul V’s reign through Millini’s good offices and without Cardinal Borghese’s help, one of the clearest instances of both how powerful Millini was and how patronage worked within the Inquisition.351 Another sign of its effect was Scaglia’s letter to Federico Borromeo immediately after he became commissary promising the archbishop that “I am here entirely in your lordship’s service.”352 Like Millini and the duke of Modena, Scaglia also

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 68

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

69

took recommendations from Borromeo, which he passed on to the Congregation.353 Scaglia betrayed his patron Millini almost immediately in the conclave of Urban VIII by running against him under Ludovisi’s standard. When the effort failed, Ludovisi denounced Scaglia for turning his back on “his country, his friends and his benefactors.” The reporter went on to allege more seriously that Scaglia had tried to prevent Urban’s election by losing a vote tally; a prognostication for a conclave in 1637 later embroidered this into Scaglia having swallowed the schedula.354 Scaglia’s ambition put the rest of his career in Rome under a cloud. A Venetian ambassador insisted that Urban never forgot Scaglia’s attempt to prevent his election and disliked him so much that he told all his nephews and the cardinals he created never to elect a friar as pope. Nevertheless, by 1629, when Urban first fell seriously ill, Scaglia had recovered standing with the rest of the college of cardinals, in part because of his suavity and gift for friendship, so much so that it was thought that Borghese might make him his faction’s first candidate.355 Like the Venetian ambassador, this anonymous observer made much of Scaglia’s interpersonal skills and his successful use of his office of Inquisitor and of preacher to ingratiate himself with powerful patrons, especially Cardinal Borghese and possibly Ludovisi.356 A Spanish observer agreed about Scaglia’s success with “all the potentates of Italy” and with the Venetian and French ambassadors, despite his strong Spanish allegiance.357 This report also noted Scaglia’s acquisitiveness. He amassed a large fortune and both built up a collection of art and lived in several impressive, well-situated palaces.358 He used his patronage to make up with the Barberini and Urban, and the trick seems to have worked. In July 1632 he gave the pope a painting of the cavalcade when Taddeo Barberini took possession of the prefecture of Rome, possibly that now in Palazzo Braschi, and possibly also its companion piece showing one of Urban’s own processions.359 Like many others, Scaglia also tried poetry as a means to curry Urban’s favor.360 Another contemporary prognostication emphasized his “more than ordinary knowledge of good letters” in both prose and verse combined with scholastic learning that made one forget that he had been a friar. Scaglia published several pieces, but it is probably not true that he wrote love madrigals.361 Among his authentic works is a canzone, “Affetto estatico alle Stigmati di San Francesco” (1606), and a translation of several Spanish lives of early Jesuits, published just as he became a cardinal in 1621.362 The Congregation also licensed him to publish a book about recent events in Portugal in 1614, but I have not been able to identify it.363

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 69

8/27/12 11:46 AM

70

c ha pt er 2

The qualifications as an Inquisitor that gave Scaglia’s work authoritative status also saved him from Urban, who relied heavily on him, perhaps in the expectation that Scaglia would do his bidding in an effort to alleviate the pope’s hostility. Scaglia was as well prepared for the office of Inquisitor as his fellow Dominican and commissary Galamini, Galamini’s experience as master of the sacred palace being offset by Scaglia’s greater seasoning as provincial inquisitor.364 Soon after his appointment, he received his first book to censure, by Giulio Cesare Lagalla, a professor at Rome’s La Sapienza who had been one of the participants in Galileo’s telescope demonstration on the Janiculum in 1611. The work could have been De immortalitate animorum ex Aristotelis sententia, published by the Camera Apostolica in 1621, naturally with the Holy Office’s approval, but Lagalla had also submitted others, only one of which appeared in print, in Heidelberg in 1622.365 Scaglia’s censures have not been found. He himself disappeared from the Congregation for much of 1623, including the time of Urban’s conclave. As of 14 June he was in his bishopric of Como, whence he had to return almost immediately for the conclave.366 Nevertheless, he missed meetings from 29 March until 3 October.367 Was he keeping his head down? In 1625 he regularly participated in the Congregation’s meetings with Urban about the Immaculate Conception of Mary.368 Scaglia continued to receive books to review, including Greek books published in Sicily, Girolamo Vecchietti’s writings (see the Conclusion), and Petronio’s about the Inquisition’s rights as well as the Theatine Andrea Molfetti’s “De praxi et stilo S. officii,” which was deemed to be full of errors.369 On the strength of Scaglia’s report, Urban suspended its printing and issued a general decree that “books in any manner containing the practice and mode of proceeding in the Holy Office against the crime of heresy are not to be printed without the license and authority of this Holy Congregation” (“libri aliquo modo continentes praxim et modum procedendi in S. Off.o contra delictum haeresis non imprimend[i] sine licentia et auctoritate huius Sacrae Cong. nis”).370 Scaglia’s dealings with his Ordensbruder Abraham Bzowski about later volumes of his continuation of Cesare Baronio’s Annales ecclesiastici may have given him occasion to pass to Bzowski the account of Marcantonio De Dominis’s end and perhaps even a copy of his Sui reditus ex Anglia consilium exponit (printed in Rome in 1623), which Bzowski printed in toto.371 The particular congregation charged to review a book about “Christ’s human nature” that managed to report in only three weeks included Scaglia.372 And he had particular charge of the case of the so-called lamine of Granada, pseudo-apostolic writings found in the hills above the city at the end of the sixteenth century,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 70

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

71

over which the papacy displayed extraordinary concern.373 It appears that he may have been able to read English; at least he reported on a book by Matthew Kellison, dean of the English College at Douai, which was ordered translated into Italian or Latin.374 He certainly developed expertise in matters English and was on the particular congregation dealing with Mary Ward.375 The Most Accomplished Author: Guido Bentivoglio As Spanish in allegiance as Scaglia was, so Guido Bentivoglio (1577–1644) was French. Given his geographical origins in the Ferrarese nobility, he was also pro-Venetian.376 An older brother led the Este militia in defense of the duchy against Clement VIII’s troops.377 By that time Bentivoglio had nearly completed his education at Padua both under the noted rhetorician Antonio Riccoboni and in law, in which (like Millini) he was privately tutored before taking an IUD in 1600.378 He also had private lessons from Galileo.379 From early in his career, Bentivoglio showed notable diplomatic skills, when, for example, he used an approach via Cardinal Bandini to Clement’s cardinal nephew Pietro Aldobrandini (both later Inquisitors) to apologize for his brother’s actions.380 After entering the pope’s service, he began a long diplomatic career as nuncio to Flanders, where he remained until 1615 before moving to Paris until 1621.381 Then he was promoted cardinal at the same time as Scaglia, becoming an Inquisitor a little later.382 With another older brother, Bentivoglio tried to establish the family in Rome in the duke of Altemps’s former palace on the Quirinal for which his brother paid the outrageous sum of 55,000 scudi.383 It is now part of P.zzo Rospigliosi. The official biography, as they nearly almost always do, stressed that he had almost nothing himself despite his great wealth.384 This is even less true than usual. Among his possessions was a large collection of paintings, including a Van Dyck portrait of himself (frequently engraved) and a bust by François Duquesnoy.385 He regularly attended meetings of the Accademia degli Umoristi, with Francesco Barberini among many others.386 Bentivoglio became much better known as a writer than Scaglia or any other Inquisitor in our period. His reputation rested first on his Relazioni about Flanders, France, and other places (first edition 1629, with many republications) and then on his posthumous Memorie (1647). Galileo’s friend Giovanni Ciampoli thought him equal to the ancients as a historian.387 Bentivoglio met with less success as an Inquisitor, as his mediocre attendance record indicates. It never rose above 82 percent of corams, and in the years I sampled he came but rarely to non-corams. He did attend those about

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 71

8/27/12 11:46 AM

c ha pt er 2

72

the Immaculate Conception of Mary in 1625 and naturally was called on in some French cases.388 Although it appears that he should have been junior to Scaglia, he was treated as the most senior Inquisitor, and as such he was not afraid to stand up to Cardinal Francesco, perhaps over the dispensation for the duke of Mantua’s marriage.389 He did serve, apparently as head, of at least one reasonably important particular congregation that led to the execution of a priest and torture of a nun, and he came first (before Scaglia) in the list of cardinals given special powers to deal with Giacinto Centini.390 In his Memorie, although blaming Galileo for his condemnation, he claimed to have tried to help him as much as he could.391 As did many other Inquisitors, he served on other congregations, among them that for the Council of Trent.392 Dean of the college of cardinals at Urban’s death, he was thought likely to succeed him but died during the conclave.393 He was buried in the same neighborhood church as Bandini, San Silvestro al Quirinale. A Dominating Presence: Roberto Bellarmino I have saved for last the most important of all these cardinals, Roberto Bellarmino (1542–1621). Pillar of the Jesuits, controversialist extraordinaire, the most respected theologian in Rome, called “the greatest theorist of the Counterreformation,” and a lodestone to many of the other Inquisitors who scrambled to wrap themselves in his mantle, Bellarmino has attracted an enormous literature.394 Here I shall largely confine my attention to him as an Inquisitor.395 As Peter Godman has brought out—with some exaggeration, given his failure to offer a comparison to other Inquisitors—Bellarmino was an exceptionally hard worker, a fact borne out by his attendance record with its three perfect years. It may be that he served as sub-secretary.396 His authority became so great as an Inquisitor that largely on the strength of his approval Farinacci could publish Tractatus de haeresi, even though he thereby violated the Inquisition’s secrecy.397 By the time Bellarmino became a consultor to the Inquisition before 6 February 1597, he had served an apprenticeship as consultor to the Index.398 He served as consultor to the Inquisition for only a little over two years before his promotion as cardinal on 3 March 1599.399 Shortly there­after, he became an Inquisitor. Almost immediately, the Congregation began to draw on his experience as a consultor, assigning him a Capuchin’s “libellus de vita spirituale” for censure.400 Soon, he illustrated the near absurdity of some of the Congregation’s work by submitting a report on Mercator’s atlas that led to its banning.401 His presence produced a procedural novelty when he along with the congregation of theologian consultors jointly undertook a censure

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 72

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

73

and on another occasion decided a prisoner’s fate.402 One of the first orders to Bellarmino was to warn (“quod moneatur”) another Capuchin preacher.403 Control of errant religious, especially his fellow Jesuits, became one of Bellarmino’s specialties.404 He was assigned to censure the work of the theologians Juan Azor, Enrico Henriquez (1536–1608), and Carlo Mastrilli († 16 August 1624), entering the later stages of the second two cases.405 Henriquez’s had begun before 1597, and it was not until 1601 that Bellarmino was ordered to censor his Summa theologiae moralis, again in early 1602.406 Finally in October 1603 its sale was allowed, provided the printer did not say the Congregation approved its corrections.407 Mastrilli was denounced by the inquisitor of Milan in 1597 for his preaching and the publica fama (public report) that he had already been before the Inquisition.408 Bellarmino’s investigation proceeded a little further on another denunciation from a Dominican, but then went into remission until the cardinal, again along with the theologian consultors, was assigned to review an unnamed book.409 Nothing ever came of this censure. When Mastrilli’s trial picked up in earnest in 1603, it was on the strength of the second denunciation in 1598. Then he was “ordered” (praecipiat) not to preach similar sermons.410 This order turned out to be an interim measure, since his case was ordered expedited—moved to sentence—in June. Asked if he wished to mount a defense, he made a wise choice of advocate, his fellow Jesuit Benedetto Giustiniani, one of Bellarmino’s closest collaborators.411 In September the pope ordered him dismissed after an admonitio from Secretary Borghese.412 In 1607, Mastrilli was again in trouble, possibly more serious, since the denunciation came from Giulio Mazarini, future Cardinal Mazarin. Bellarmino was ordered to speak to the Jesuit general, and there the matter disappears.413 Even while in exile in Capua, where Clement VIII sent him at the end of his reign for speaking too freely, Bellarmino remained in touch with the Congregation, seeking and receiving permission for his close collaborator Eudaemon-Johannes, a Cypriot Jesuit, to read Calvin’s Institutio in order to confute it.414 Once back from Capua almost as soon as Paul V was elected, Bellarmino set back to work vetting Jesuit books, this time Martín del Rio’s Disquisitionum magicarum libri sex.415 Bellarmino also took an interest in the scriptures, both Christian and Islamic, reviewing an unidentified work by the Spanish Orientalist Benito Arias Montano as well as a translation of the Koran before it went to another cardinal.416 As we have seen, he also censured Cremonini’s Apology, somewhat unusually for him in tandem with Scaglia. And he tried to exercise control over the irrepressible Kaspar Schoppe, Campanella’s

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 73

8/27/12 11:46 AM

74

c ha pt er 2

partisan, whose license to read heretical books came “at the judgment of the illustrious lord Bellarmino,” and whether he would later be allowed to come to Rome was left up to Bellarmino as well.417 Bellarmino, creator of what Franco Motta calls a “political theology,” concerned himself with it throughout his career as an Inquisitor, above all in the case of Venice, on one occasion reporting a censure on an unidentifed book about the Interdict.418 Six weeks later his own book on the “excommunication” of Venice was ordered sent to all inquisitors.419 In 1613 he turned to the Capuchin Cherubino da Udine’s Speccio [sic] di Confessori e penitenti, which had been printed in 744 copies in Venice. The nuncio had burned them all. Cherubino appealed to Rome with no better result. Bellarmino twice judged it impossible to correct the book, since it contained “the erroneous doctrine of Master Paolo [Sarpi] of Venice, Servite” (“doctrinam erroneam Mr.i Pauli de Venetiis Ord. servorum”).420 This censure also reflected Bellarmino’s interest in politically sensitive manuals for penitents. In early 1611 he had censured such a book reported by the inquisitor of Genoa (and noted manualist) Eliseo Masini as published despite a precept to its Dominican author not to do so. The book had appeared originally at Genoa and then had been reprinted at Tortona. On Bellarmino’s report, it was ordered prohibited pending correction, and all copies were to be gathered up.421 Bellarmino also handled French political books, among them a “libro de ecclesiastica et politica potestate” to do with the Sorbonne and Parlement of Paris, and another judged to be Gallican.422 As a natural extension of his controversy with James I and of his Society’s deep involvement in England, Bellarmino many times concerned himself with English subjects and their books. For example, in 1605 he was assigned to prepare Anthony Cave for a secret expedition of his case and then to absolve him; three years later he made an interim report on William Alabaster, and in 1609 he censored the first part dealing with Thomas More of the Carthusian Maurice Chauncy’s [Historia] Martyrum Angliae (first published 1550) in one of its later adaptations, possibly of Milan (1606) or Würzburg (1608).423 Although himself not always entirely respectful of the Inquisition’s secrecy, Bellarmino got one last top-secret case directly from Paul V.424 This was the allegedly fat book Novissimus homo, an attack on the pope and his government that was being handled “with great silence by order of the pope specially by Bellarmino” (“con gran silentio d’ordine del Papa spetialmente a Belarminio”).425 A week later, the Venetian ambassador, the sole source for this episode, had managed to learn that the book could not have been more damaging if its author had lived in court for years. He also claimed to know of

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 74

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623

75

an exchange between Bellarmino and other cardinals in which some of them had objected that it was a good idea to remind the pope of his duty (this point sounds as if it could have come from Sfondrato), to which Bellarmino replied: “I do not know what to say. I remember many times when many things were taken badly (con poco gusto), and have accomplished nothing. You know, my lords, what should be done.” Bellarmino paused for a while before adding: “Our duty”; and then after another interval, “sighing, he added: to live and let live.”426 Bellarmino, who had once written advice to the pope to listen more carefully to the cardinals, and who has been called a defender of their rights against the pope, seems to have learned his lesson.427 So much for the Inquisitors before Urban VIII’s election. Before less than a decade of his pontificate had passed, the composition of the Congregation had changed dramatically.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 75

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Chapter 3

The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

The vast majority of the cardinals considered in Chapter 2 were promoted by Paul V. Things had changed by the time Antonio Barberini, Sr., became secretary in 1629. He together with Francesco and the Barberini “creatures,” literally, those cardinals created by Urban, made up a majority of the Congregation of the Holy Office. In addition to designated lawyer Fabrizio Verospi, the other three were lawyers as well: Laudivio Zacchia, Berlinghiero Gessi (both promoted in January 1626), and Marzio Ginetti (promoted with Verospi in August 1627). All but Verospi had in strict succession been maestro di camera to Urban, the official who controlled access to the pope. That single fact manifests as well as any other how much Urban wanted to dominate the Inquisition. So do patterns of declining attendance. In place of the runs of nearperfect appearance for a number of cardinals noted in the previous chapter, in this group only two or three approach that standard: especially the pope’s brother Antonio and two other Barberini creatures, Ginetti and Zacchia, and then only for a few years. The numbers otherwise are substantially lower than for cardinals before 1623 and often show even steeper declines after the early 1630s (see Appendix Tables 4 and 5).

Berlinghiero Gessi At least one of these four was probably deeply grateful to Urban for his appointment, the long-overdue Gessi (1564–1639).1 It is difficult to say why his 76

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 76

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

77

promotion took so long. It is unlikely to have been his “rather gloomy” temperament, although it could have been his attention “to his own good,” both noted by a Venetian ambassador.2 Urban’s preferred biographer, Andrea Nicoletti, called him a “prelate full of merits and virtue/s” (“prelato pieno di merite e di virtù”) in the small circle of those who dined with the pope.3 Yet in 1629 the fact that the Barberini disliked him recommended him to others, perhaps including Gregory XV’s cardinal nephew Ludovico Ludovisi; he was also judged “of sufficient education,” with more than enough experience in difficult jobs that had ruined many other careers, including governor of Rome.4 By 1637 he was considered with Zacchia one of the two likely Barberini candidates should Urban die.5 The best guess about the delay in promotion is that he was too valuable in other capacities. A distant relative of Gregory XIII, he came from a legal dynasty and got off to the usual quick start by taking his law degree in 1583 in his native Bologna before becoming vicar-general to an uncle in Rieti and then holding the same office back home.6 Another uncle, an auditor of the Rota, called him to Rome, where he became a referendary in 1594. It may also be that Ottavio Bandini, then vice-legate of Bologna, helped Gessi move.7 He began as civil lieutenant of the vicar of Rome and in 1601 moved up to vicegerent.8 He was also secretary of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars.9 Paul V sent him in 1607 as nuncio to Venice for eleven years during the crucial post-Interdict phase. As the length of his tenure suggests, he enjoyed a good deal of success, despite his service as secretary of the congregation that had caused the Venetians the most trouble.10 When he returned to Rome it was as governor and then maestro di casa to Gregory XV, a post in which Urban confirmed him. After the papal seizure of Urbino, he served as its governor for three years until his promotion and continued to have loose charge of the former duchy’s affairs.11 At the same time, he replaced Urban as vice-prefect of the Segnatura di Giustizia.12 As governor of Urbino, he came to the Inquisition’s attention in the arrest of Marchese Giulio della Rovere, a cadet of the former ruling house.13 He took his oath as Inquisitor the same day as Verospi, 10 October 1629, when he also became secretary of the Congregation of Ecclesiastical Immunities.14 By late 1632 he had joined the Congregation for the Council as well as many others.15 To judge from his collection of Trent’s decrees with the cardinals’ interpretations of them in BABo, MS A 572, he may have become that congregation’s secretary.16 In 1631 he joined the Congregation of Rites.17 Gessi did not write much, but he had a license to read history, philosophy, mathematics, “and all other sciences” and allegedly left a poem on Nicholas

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 77

8/27/12 11:46 AM

78

c ha pt er 3

Pieresc’s death.18 He was active in the Academy of the Umoristi, and his secretary, Antonio Bruni, frequently performed before it and published poetry while in Gessi’s service.19 Perhaps significantly, he was linked closely to Bandini’s and then Francesco Barberini’s secretary Girolamo Aleandro the younger.20 As a poor cardinal, Gessi had little patronage and could afford only a painted portrait as his monument in Santa Maria della Vittoria, albeit by Guido Reni.21 As an Inquisitor, Gessi took part in most important cases, from Mary Ward’s to the duke of Neuburg’s dispensation, including Guido Bentivoglio’s particular congregation that led to the execution of a priest.22 Frequently he joined the other Barberini creatures, for example, in a case involving the Jesuits in 1631 and another to determine which of the prohibited books found in their house in Naples they might be allowed to keep.23 Urban used him regularly to keep an eye on the Society of Jesus. At about the same time as his intervention in Naples, he and Commissary Vincenzo Maculano alone were assigned to examine a memorandum from the Jesuits in Transylvania.24 In 1635 Urban added him to another particular congregation about a Jesuit whose prosecution was handed over to sub-assessor Alessandro Boccabella and a consultor, under the direction of Verospi and Ginetti.25 And he was on the original panel trying Giacinto Centini before he, Verospi, and Ginetti took charge.26 He last attended the Congregation on 10 March 1639.27 By his will of 2 February he left a few pictures, directions about his memorial chapel, a total of less than 5,000 scudi plus luoghi on several monti, and a statue of John the Baptist to his physician, Paolo Zacchia, almost certainly a nephew of Laudivio and sometime physician to the Inquisition, and named Maculano among his executors.28

Laudivio Zacchia As Gian Garzia Millini had his rivalry with Bandini, Gessi had his with his coeval Zacchia (1565–1637), who had to wait exactly as long for promotion. In Zacchia’s case, the delay was blamed on his being a Ludovisi partisan, which led him to be “buried” under Paul V.29 Zacchia had one of the more unusual careers for an Inquisitor. For a start, he came from Liguria and had not only been married, but his daughter also outlived him, putting him at a disadvantage in the papal sweepstakes.30 Through his mother and wife he was related to Julius III and Gregory XIII.31 Service to the Aldobrandini for at least two

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 78

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

79

decades helped his career under Clement VIII, especially after his much older brother Paolo Emilio became a cardinal in 1599.32 His first important office in Rome was general commissary of the Apostolic Chamber in the same year. Five years later he moved up to pro-treasurer, the first of at least three times he held the post.33 Aldobrandini patronage gained him the bishopric of Montefiascone in 1605; Cardinal Pietro consecrated him.34 Building on that base, he served as vice-legate of Viterbo and then of the Patrimony.35 He may also have been the first Aldobrandini candidate in the conclave of Paul V.36 Another lawyer (IUD Pisa), Zacchia was described as “of moderate education” and very good at negotiations, if slow.37 He was also thought “a completely artificial man” and consumed by ambition for the papacy.38 After his Pauline “burial,” Urban restored Zacchia as pro-treasurer and pro-collector of the Apostolic Chamber and handed him the problem of papal debt.39 Finance did not exhaust Zacchia’s expertise. Like Gessi, he had served as nuncio to Venice, also sending a steady stream of reports to Rome.40 One of the high points of his tenure came when he prevented the Venetians from erecting a monument to Paolo Sarpi.41 Zacchia probably owed his ingratiation with the Barberini to his attachment to Lorenzo Magalotti.42 Magalotti gave him important assignments, including joining him and Millini on a particular congregation about a new patriarch of Aquileia in 1627.43 This assignment might well have rankled with Gessi. Any favor to Zacchia annoyed him.44 As former nuncios, they had to cooperate when the Inquisition undertook a review of all issues between the republic and the papacy as well as deciding how Urban should respond to the huge dispute over precedence that blew up between the Venetian ambassador and Urban’s nephew Taddeo, the newly invented prefect of Rome.45 Their competition intensified throughout 1633 as they expected Urban to die, the papal court preferring Zacchia and Urban making cardinals who would favor his selection.46 As Inquisitor, Zacchia continued to draw on his credentials in finance. Thus among his first assignments in 1628 was to join Commissary Ippolito Lanci in reviewing inquisitors’ accounts.47 Shortly thereafter, he had to adjudicate a dispute about quotidian distributions among the canons of Lisbon, a brilliant illustration of how far the Inquisition’s arm might stretch.48 Later the same year, he joined Millini and Gessi (mistakenly called a cardinal) on a particular congregation about heretics’ property in the Valtellina.49 When a dispute arose between the Inquisition and the Apostolic Chamber, it naturally fell to Zacchia to report on it.50 In June 1630 the Congregation assigned him another financial case.51

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 79

8/27/12 11:46 AM

80

c ha pt er 3

Shortly before, Zacchia had resigned Montefiascone to his nephew, whom he had consecrated.52 This was only in part an instance of nepotism. Zacchia had held the bishopric for twenty-five years, the clear record for a largely nonresident Inquisitor. He summoned two synods, one in 1622, the other in 1628, but other than on the second occasion, after Urban’s election he left the see in the care of his nephew as vicar.53 Whereas Urban sometimes used the obligation of episcopal residence to get rid of cardinals, in Zacchia’s case it served him as leverage to force Zacchia to resign his see.54 The pope may have regretted his action, since Zacchia immediately set about plotting to replace him, stealthily visiting one of the leading Spanish cardinals (but not Gaspar Borja), which automatically made him “not loved by Casa Barberiniana.”55 In April 1633 Zacchia leaked the news that Urban had fallen ill, which naturally annoyed the pope.56 By the end of the year, Zacchia had openly defied Urban by asking to reopen a decision made in the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. Zacchia’s proposal was most unusually put to the vote, and Urban lost.57 This success upset Zacchia’s fellow “old cardinals,” including Gessi, but oddly enough increased his standing with the Barberini.58 In tandem with Urban, in 1632 Zacchia erected two memorial plaques on opposite sides of the chancel in his titular church of S. Pietro in Vincoli, to Agostino Steuco and Giulio Clovio, both former canons of the basilica. He remained in good enough repute with Urban that even after his death, when one of his nephews was caught trying to extort money from Maculano, apparently with a threat to sell the Inquisition’s secrets, Urban ordered the nephew (once proved to be such) to be punished only by fine and exile from Rome “ob honorem familiae.”59 How well Zacchia did economically as a cardinal and Inquisitor is not known, except that he or an immediate relative could afford a magnificent bust by Alessandro Algardi, and his inventory includes paintings.60 Nor is he known to have written anything, although he had at least two licenses to read prohibited books before he became an Inquisitor.61

Fabrizio Verospi By contrast to Zacchia, about whose residences in Rome we know nothing, Fabrizio Verospi’s family palace in Via del Corso is splendidly documented. Although he shared the occupancy with his older brother, the building was frequently identified as his. It contained a set of frescoes by Francesco Albani

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 80

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

81

as well as a famous collection of antiquities.62 Albani’s work, painted right at the time Galileo’s trial began and perhaps commissioned by Verospi, may have embodied heliocentric themes.63 Verospi (1572­–1639) was another Roman, a little younger than Gessi and Zacchia.64 A pupil first in the Collegio Romano, Verospi then studied law at Rome and Perugia, taking his degree from Gessi’s university, Bologna, before becoming a referendary in 1594.65 Like Zacchia, he benefited from Aldobrandini patronage, gaining first several provincial governorships and then the financial office of commissary to Cardinal Chamberlain Pietro Aldobrandini.66 He must have had dealings with Zacchia both because of their common patron and also because they held papal financial offices. Like Bandini, Verospi made part of his reputation by a funeral oration, in his case for Giovanni Francesco Aldobrandini, general of the church.67 Eventually he had a falling-out with Pietro Aldobrandini over an inhibition Verospi issued as auditor against an order Aldobrandini had made as chamberlain; the breach was not repaired until after he became a cardinal, and only after it had worsened.68 Alfonso Chacón claimed he was a clerk of the Chamber, and an avviso writer called him treasurer in 1608.69 It was once thought that he would buy the second post.70 Called poorer than the other cardinals—how accurately is another question—Verospi had a reputation for greed.71 He made his first killing by selling his office of auditor of contradictory letters for 8,000 scudi more than he had paid.72 He later caused a scandal by convincing a professor at La Sapienza to testate involuntarily, leaving him 12,000 scudi.73 At nearly the same time, Verospi complained about his share of the Ludovisi spoils, and later in 1633 he asked for but was denied a piece of the Borghese leavings.74 The Venetian ambassador thought his disappointment in what Urban gave him led Verospi to seek out chances to “reprove” the pope.75 In 1612 he took up his most important post to date when he became an auditor of the Rota. He had prepared by studying informally with Dean Francisco Peña since at least the date of his nomination the previous December.76 The news came out already in August while Verospi, “prelato di Consulta,” was still negotiating a dispute with the grand duke about water rights.77 Peña became Verospi’s patron, himself conducting the examination of witnesses in his admission process, and Verospi took over Peña’s caseload.78 Verospi formally took office on 26 October 1612 and held the post for sixteen years, about as long as Millini had.79 Prospero Farinacci had a much higher opinion of him as an auditor than of Millini. He printed eighty-one of Verospi’s decisions

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 81

8/27/12 11:46 AM

82

c ha pt er 3

covering a little more than three years from 14 January 1613 until 18 March 1616.80 This is only a small sample of the total. The collection in BAV, Barb. lat. 1612, which may have been prepared for publication, contains 460 of them, the last dated 3 April 1623. Giovanni Ferro praised him as auditor in his Teatro d’imprese (1629).81 Two of his nephews succeeded him in office, one becoming a cardinal.82 Verospi makes a better showing as auditor than Pompeo Arrigoni or Millini, at least if the standard is breadth and depth of legal learning. His decisions are much longer than Millini’s, and often stuffed with citations. One of the first contained references to fourteen civil and canon lawyers, most of them the standards but also including the more obscure Bartolomeo da Saliceto, Jacopino da San Giorgio, and Jacopo da Arena.83 In another case, he cited some of the same star lawyers but added many more later scholars, among them his contemporary Giacomo Menochio and a number of late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century professors, among them Filippo di Corte, Jr., Paolo Ruini da Monte Pico (fl. 1493), Alberto Bruni (†1541), Marco Antonio Natta, Antonio Gabrieli († 1555), including his consilia, and others.84 Very familiar with Rota jurisprudence, Verospi also regularly drew on Trent’s decrees.85 Verospi decided cases on whatever evidence seemed appropriate, including witness testimony (SRRD 4:1: 109–10) and documents (SRRD 4:1, pp. 108–9), but best of all was a confession against interest, which could not be revoked (SRRD 4:1, pp. 134–35 and 3, p. 709). He usually followed the normal lawyer’s procedure of “cum distinctione,” splitting a problem into its parts.86 Flexibility was one of the hallmarks of Verospi’s mind. More important than the mound of opinion in the first case cited above, in it Verospi upheld a previous Rota decision, rejecting the objection that the court should not multiply sentences and affirming the principle that the Rota could depart from its style when necessary especially when the church would suffer otherwise.87 Similarly flexible but going in the opposite direction, he judged irrelevant the fact that property left by Cardinal Marco Sittico Altemps had come from the church. What mattered was that the pope had legitimated his heir and granted a faculty to testate.88 Verospi displayed the same attitude in establishing dominium. On the one hand, a tacit confession did not prove ownership, said Verospi when ruling against the chapter of San Pietro.89 On the other hand, 350 years of prescription did.90 As here, Verospi often rested his decision on establishing the date of an action.91 Verospi could also apply unusual solutions. For example, in a provision to a canonry in Brescia disputed between the pope and the bishop, which had led Verospi originally to sequester the benefice, he

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 82

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

83

confirmed the Rota’s decision against usual practice to issue letters remissoriae, citing among other sources a Rota decision of 1610.92 In general and unsurprisingly, Verospi ruled in favor of the pope wherever possible. Thus he issued judgment for him in a disputed presentation to the Spanish archdeaconry of Béjar.93 Much more important, Verospi affirmed the pope’s right to erect a new cathedral in consistory de plenitudine potestatis, upholding earlier decisions by another auditor and himself, especially because the pope had discussed the matter thoroughly in consistory and therefore had full knowledge, leading to the principle that the records of consistory were to be treated “tamquam matrix,” that is, as an authentic record, a Rota decision of 1601 non obstante.94 Thus as far as Verospi was concerned, Borja’s protest in 1632 never happened, since Urban succeeded in preventing it from entering consistory’s record.95 Then again, when the record upheld a lay claimant in a dispute with the pope over the right of patronage to a benefice, Verospi found for the layman.96 Verospi was quick to defend the Rota and himself, any number of times upholding his own decisions, and frequently, if not universally, affirming earlier Rota decisions.97 Even better, he once upheld a Rota decision on the basis of the decision itself and the fact that the processus was in order.98 Sometimes he appealed to law and “universal custom”; sometimes he let a local statute cancel jus commune.99 Along with flexibility went independence almost from the beginning, Verospi not always confirming his predecessor Peña’s decisions.100 Once he rejected Peña’s argument that the definition of a collegiate church mattered to the decision, instead judging that the key point was the length of time the institution had been a collegiata, supporting his dismissal of the case by citations inter alia to Niccolò de’ Tudeschi (Panormitanus; a canonist) and Paolo de Castro (a civilian).101 Within his first year, he was prepared to reverse a decision by the former auditor Lorenzo Bianchetti, the recently deceased cardinal of Bologna, an Inquisitor, and one of Farinacci’s favorite jurists.102 Nor was he intimidated by the mighty, deciding a case against Duke Cesarini in June 1613.103 In the same session he canceled a mandate from the auditor of the Chamber on the strength of earlier Rota decisions. This case invalidated a sentence on the narrow grounds that it had not been published on the day of issue.104 He quickly reversed other judgments by the auditor of the Chamber, including one in favor of Duke Alessandro Sforza.105 Verospi had a low opinion of the Apostolic Chamber. In another case in which the pope had somehow made three provisions to the same benefice, and one of the claimants had gotten a writ de capiendo and a declarative judgment from the Chamber, another appealed to the Rota, which annulled

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 83

8/27/12 11:46 AM

84

c ha pt er 3

the second, a judgment that was in turn appealed to the Rota, and the third claimant sought the benefice as beneficium litigiosum from the pope when one of the first two died, followed by yet another claimant provided by the bishop, Verospi affirmed the Rota’s decision to relax the supplicatio for the third claimant because the Chamber case did not make the benefice litigiosum.106 In short, the Chamber barely counted as a court. Although Verospi fearlessly split hairs, including deciding that sons counted as relatives, and on another occasion unraveling the meaning of filiae, nepotes, and related terms, he did not stickle over legal niceties.107 In effect he used his principle of the importance of a confession to override the lack of a notary’s signature in concluding that a document was authentic, adducing the further ground that it came from the proper archive.108 In what appears a partially contradictory decision, in a case between a house of Benedictine nuns and their order over revenue, he ruled for the nuns despite the fact that their proctor did not have a special mandate to collect it, rejecting an objection to the form of the proctor’s general mandate on the grounds that the notary had recorded it in that fashion.109 And in a case that seems almost directly to contradict the last, he ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a disputed benefice in Città Castello on the grounds that the defendant’s proctor had only a general mandate, although Verospi was careful to establish the facts of the case on witness testimony and publica fama, citing Felino Sandeo and Pierre Rebuffi, the two great late fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century experts on the law of benefices.110 He decided another benefice case partly on the question of the validity of the notarial instruments involved, including according to notarial practice in the Marches.111 In 1617 Verospi acquired the post of datary of the Penitentiary, but, despite the backing of the cardinal of Savoy and strong qualifications, failed to get the datary itself a few years later, early in Urban’s pontificate.112 Shortly after that disappointment he undertook his only diplomatic mission, an extraordinary nunciature to Vienna to rescue Cardinal Klesl, with a coda three years later when he escorted Klesl to Rome.113 Urban made him governor of Umbria in 1623.114 Nicoletti claimed that Verospi had earned Urban’s friendship quite early by his learning, and it may be that his family already enjoyed Barberini patronage by the beginning of the seventeenth century.115 However this may be, Verospi’s real patron among the Barberini was not the pope but his brother Carlo, general of the church. According to the Venetian ambassador, Carlo had Verospi unexpectedly made cardinal in 1627 despite many better-qualified candidates and the open hostility of Florence and Cardinal Scipione Borghese among others.116 The Florentines in particular were said to

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 84

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

85

be so annoyed by Verospi’s behavior during water negotiations that they had extracted a firm promise from Urban not to promote him.117 Carlo entrusted to Verospi the negotiations for his son Taddeo’s marriage to Anna Colonna, and the new cardinal managed to please all parties, Constable Colonna joining Carlo in backing his candidacy as cardinal.118 The Venetian ambassador quickly took back his criticism of Verospi, calling him “one of the better heads that the sacred college of cardinals has,” a good friend (including possibly to Venice) and a worse enemy (especially to Spain), and perhaps Magalotti’s successor as secretary of state.119 Other commentators agreed about his intellectual and literary prowess, as well as more doubtfully his integrity.120 He rose steadily in Urban’s favor, it being rumored in early 1631 that he would take over a reduced Congregation of Rites.121 At some point he did assume the prefecture of the Congregation for the Council.122 It looks as if Verospi played the roles of both designated critic and designated lawyer. The Venetian ambassador cast Verospi as a thorn in Urban’s side and even more Cardinal Francesco’s, saying of Verospi that “he speaks rather freely in everything,” including to the pope. On this occasion, Verospi had warned Urban that he was risking war in Italy. In order to avoid that, Verospi thought he should turn a disputed matter over to the cardinals. Cardinal Francesco could think of nothing to say, and nothing happened. Verospi, annoyed, openly criticized the cardinal nephew.123 Except for one big favor F. Barberini did him, the two seem never to have gotten along, a vital point in understanding the functioning of the Inquisition. The failure of its best lawyer and its highest-profile member to cooperate seems likely to have caused a good deal of trouble. Francesco had tried to prevent Verospi’s promotion, and it would not have helped their relationship if Verospi had really been a contender to replace Magalotti when the secretariat of state went to Cardinal Francesco.124 He may have tried to patch things up in June 1632, when he settled a property dispute between Verospi and his former supporter Constable Colonna by ordering the clerk of the Chamber hearing the case not to proceed with it.125 It is more likely that Barberini was trying to damage Colonna than help Verospi. But Urban could not do without him. The pope at least once turned to him as counsel, significantly in the midst of a heated dispute with the Spaniards over Naples. Urban had shouted at Borja before turning the discussion over to Verospi but not before calling the Spaniards’ lawyer “ignorant,” which must have made Verospi’s job easier.126 Thus it causes no surprise that as Inquisitor Verospi received most of the same significant assignments as Zacchia, often joining their fellow Barberini

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 85

8/27/12 11:46 AM

86

c ha pt er 3

creatures Gessi and Ginetti. As the Rota did, the Congregation also subrogated cases of dead Inquisitors to new men. After taking his oath on 10 October 1629 at the same time as Gessi, Verospi inherited some of his workload from the redoubtable Millini, including the case of Giulio della Rovere, in which he joined Zacchia (substituting for the equally formidable Bandini).127 With Zacchia, Ginetti, and Scaglia, he joined the particular congregation about the duke of Neuburg’s dispensation headed by Antonio Barberini, Sr. In early 1632 Urban ordered Verospi to communicate its negative decision to the duke’s agent.128 Verospi with Zacchia and Francesco Barberini also sat on a particular congregation about the duke of Mantua’s dispensation.129 Again with Scaglia, Verospi inherited the interminable job of approving a translation of the Bible into Serbo-Croatian. Joined by Urban’s theologian Agostino Oreggi after his promotion, they picked some of the most learned consultors to advise them, including the Franciscan historian Luke Wadding and the Jesuit Terenzio Alciati.130 The particular congregation under Antonio Barberini about an offending Jesuit, on which Gessi had sat, also included Verospi, who with Ginetti had charge of directing the verdict.131 Of course he was on the special panel to prosecute Giacinto Centini and equally naturally with Gessi and Ginetti brought the case to sentence.132 He probably last attended the Congregation on 27 October 1638.133 Despite his brains and literary pretensions, Verospi is not known to have written anything other than the funeral oration, nor has much of his literary patronage come to light. The man he took with him as Latin secretary on his second mission to Vienna, Ludovico Aureli, dedicated to Verospi Delle rebellioni de’ Boemi contro Matthia e Ferdinando Imperadori (Rome: Zanetti, 1625), and Verospi had a license to read the hotly contested Thesaurus politicum.134 The most recent student, Sabina Brevaglieri, puts Verospi, on rather weak evidence, in the circles of the Lincean Academy via Cassiano Dal Pozzo and Giovanni Ciampoli, as well of the Umoristi and Maurizio of Savoy’s academy.135 Ciampoli wrote Verospi’s nephew Girolamo a letter from exile several years after Verospi’s death claiming to have “enjoyed . . . a singular prosperity in the grace of Lord Cardinal Verospi,” but by then Ciampoli would have claimed friendship with the devil if that would have brought him back to Rome.136

Marzio Ginetti The last of the Barberini Inquisitors is Marzio Ginetti (1585–1671), who had capped his previous career by becoming the first prefect of the Vatican Palace,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 86

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

87

another sign of the inflation of titles under Urban.137 At his promotion he was reputed “more a maestro di casa than a politician.”138 According to a Venetian ambassador, Urban regarded him as his fourth nephew.139 He was often the only non-Barberini cardinal to accompany Urban and his brother Cardinal Antonio, for example, on a visit to Cardinal Antonio’s new Capuchin convent.140 A papal prognostication described him as “Urban’s Benjamin and Sant’Onofrio’s [Antonio, Sr.’s] Achates,” that is, the second half of two pairs of best friends.141 The same ambassador later reported that Urban had defended making him vicar of Rome in succession to Millini on the strength of twenty years’ service, during which Ginetti had never once contradicted him. Even the papal court thought his principal qualification was his ability to “applaud his [Urban’s] clever ideas and adulate him.” The ambassdor drew some of the sting from his judgment by noting that Ginetti had “the most genteel manners and ultra-sharp perspicacity [he was good at anticipating Urban’s wishes], [and was] indefatigable, learned in law.”142 As the ambassador had earlier noted, Ginetti had the gift of “standing well with everyone.”143 Almost as important, Urban had promoted him as a slap in the face to the Spanish immediately after Ginetti had managed mistakenly to throw suspicion on the Spanish ambassador in a fracas between some of his servants and the sbirri, the case that Millini had to try to defuse.144 Urban listened to Ginetti even on matters in which he had no expertise, among them a hydrological project.145 Ginetti came from Velletri but was educated at the Collegio Romano before taking his law degree in Rome. He came up through the papal bureaucracy, probably beginning with the sinecure office of an abbreviator in the Chancellery, which he surrendered at his promotion.146 Paul V made him a referendary and then president of both segnature as well as his privy chamberlain. His second most important patron was the strongly Spanish Odoardo Farnese.147 It speaks to Ginetti’s social skills that he remained a Farnese client as late as 1630.148 Urban continued him in his domestic office and gave him in addition the key position of secretary of the Consulta, in which role he seriously annoyed the Venetians.149 He moved to prefect (and only cardinal member) of the similar Congregation dei Confini in another move by Urban to circumvent the bureaucracy.150 Ginetti certainly took with him the Venetian case he had formerly superintended in the Consulta, coming into conflict with Francesco Barberini over it.151 In keeping with the concentration of power under Urban, Ginetti had no sooner become an Inquisitor in late April or early May 1629 (his oath is not recorded) than he was added to four other congregations.152 Despite Ginetti’s

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 87

8/27/12 11:46 AM

88

c ha pt er 3

complete lack of credentials (in the view of the Venetian ambassador), it was thought he would become secretary of state.153 He continued to cross swords with Cardinal Francesco, the Venetian ambassador using him as a conduit to complain to Urban about him as secretary of state.154 This makes at least two Inquisitors at least some of the time at odds with Francesco. Ginetti sometimes joined the other, Verospi, on particular congregations.155 Despite his original reputation, he was one of three cardinals (Francesco among the other two) on a particular congregation about war in August 1630.156 He, Francesco, and the other Barberini creatures made up a new particular congregation on the same subject appointed in September.157 All of them also joined a congregation about Germany (that is, about the war in another theater) in mid–1632.158 Cardinal Antonio Barberini, Jr., tried to get rid of Ginetti several times, his best weapon being a charge of corruption.159 For a time, he did not come close to succeeding because Urban continued to regard Ginetti as his most reliable cardinal. It was he whom Urban used to try to suppress Borja’s protest.160 And then in July 1633 Urban turned on him. A comment that the papal armeria needed more light led Urban to reply that the problem could be easily solved, since the damage done to the Rota’s meeting room could be repaired by transferring the court to Ginetti’s apartment, which the pope ordered him to vacate. Antonio, Sr., tried to protect him; Antonio, Jr., to finish his destruction; Francesco could not decide. Ginetti refused to leave without an explicit order, which was taken as a serious mistake.161 Although he did go home to Velletri for a few days, his disgrace proved temporary. By December, when Antonio, Sr., stepped down as secretary of both the Holy Office and the Congregation for Bishops and Regulars, the second went to Ginetti.162 Ginetti had the best attendance record of the Barberini creatures as an Inquisitor (see Appendix Table 4). Naturally, he was involved in Mary Ward’s case with his fellow Barberini loyalists Gessi and Zacchia, Cardinal Antonio, Sr., and Scaglia.163 That same group got other special assignments, including that of a priest and various women, all of whom stood in danger of being relaxed to the secular court, as the priest was in a trial lasting barely a month.164 With Verospi, Ginetti joined another particular congregation with Cardinal Antonio, Sr., in October 1631.165 It is just possible that he was deputy secretary, at least in May 1632 he passed on an order from Cardinal Antonio.166 Naturally, he served on the particular congregation about Neuburg’s marriage dispensation.167 Zacchia, Verospi, and Gessi served with Ginetti on one about the Jesuits, and all but Gessi on another about some kind of readings in the Holy Office.168 He and Zacchia, “specially deputed in his case” (“specialiter in eius causa deputatis”),

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 88

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

89

inherited Della Rovere’s proceedings.169 On 16 October 1630, he, Verospi, and Scaglia were the only cardinals, plus a reduced complement of consultors, left to deal with a full docket.170 At the end of 1633 Scaglia, Gessi, Ginetti, Niccolò Riccardi, Maculano, and Boccabella were ordered to decide which prohibited books found among the Jesuits in Naples were to be allowed.171 Of course, he served on Giacinto Centini’s panel, ultimately only with Verospi and Gessi.172 In another particular congregation in 1635 of Cardinal Antonio, Verospi, Ginetti, and two others against a Jesuit, Urban deputed two judges under Verospi and Ginetti’s direction with Ginetti to report the result to the Jesuit general.173 Ginetti made much out of his position. Several commentators noted his reputation for greed at the same time as they stressed how modestly he lived, without the usual cardinal’s household.174 His family also profited, one of his brothers serving first as a captain of papal troops and then as Carlo Barberini’s sergeant major, before also becoming vice-castellan of Castel Sant’Angelo with a dispensation not to reside.175 Nevertheless, despite its wealth and exalted if fairly recent social status, the family did not succeed in acquiring a suitable Roman palace until after Ginetti’s death.176 It took almost as long for his most significant piece of patronage to take form, his and his nephew’s funeral chapel in Sant’Andrea della Valle, directly across the nave from the Barberini chapel, not completed until the early eighteenth century.177 Ginetti used his status as protector of the Theatines, to whom the church still belongs, almost literally to steal the chapel from two other influential Barberini insiders, the Spada and Cerri families.178 The architect was Carlo Fontana, and the chapel was among his masterpieces.

An Overmighty Inquisitor: Gaspar Borja y Velasco Like the majority of cardinals, most Inquisitors were Italian. One of the most significant exceptions was the Spaniard Gaspar Borja y Velasco (1580 or 1582– 1645).179 He studied theology at Alcalá de Henares and sang his first Mass in a Jesuit church in Madrid before coming to Rome in 1604. Made a cardinal by Paul V in 1611 as a favor to his father, the sixth duke of Gandia, grandson of Francisco Borja, SJ, he became an Inquisitor six years later, replacing his fellow Spaniard Antonio de Zapata y Cisneros.180 By then he was also temporary Spanish ambassador to the pope (appointed 27 February 1616), a post he took up permanently in 1631 and out of which he was forced with great difficulty in late 1634.181 This alone made his position anomalously powerful. Despite

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 89

8/27/12 11:46 AM

90

c ha pt er 3

that, a Venetian ambassador speaking in 1623 thought him “the most modest Spaniard Spain could produce” (“il più modesto spagnuolo che possa produrre la Spagna”) who “speaks well extemporaneously [or perhaps to the case] [and] is of the sweetest nature” (“parla molto bene al caso, [and] è di dolcissima natura”).182 For a while in 1620 he served as viceroy of Naples.183 In Rome, he was protector of the Empire by 1619, at the outset of the Thirty Years’ War, and was among the members of Propaganda Fide at its founding with Maffeo Barberini and Millini.184 When he became bishop of Albano in 1630, Antonio Barberini, Sr., consecrated him.185 In January 1632 he got the archbishopric of Toledo and a pension of 40,000 ducats.186 Never a very assiduous Inquisitor, between 1630 and 1632 (one of my two sampling periods) Borja never attended more than 70 percent of corams and a much lower number of Wednesday meetings (see Appendix Tables 4, 5, and 6). His attendance at corams was always much the higher number, twice either approaching or reaching 90 percent (1624 and 1629). On average, he made it to 47 percent of non-corams. In his first year as Inquisitor he attended 23 of 63 meetings (37 percent) after his appointment, almost half (11) of them corams, they in turn representing only half of the total of 22 that took place after he joined the Congregation. His attendance could improve when important subjects were under discussion, for example in late 1625 when the Immaculate Conception of Mary was on the agenda.187 Otherwise, he attended only 63 of 105 meetings that year (60 percent). Just because he did not take the obligation of attendance very seriously did not mean that Borja could not try to use the Congregation’s meetings to make trouble, some of it almost on the scale of his notorious “protest” in early 1632, which badly poisoned the political atmosphere. Borja is an anomaly on the Congregation since usually the popes managed to keep such “overmighty subjects” out of it altogether. His presence well illustrates Spain’s power in early seventeenth-century Rome. Neither Paul V nor Urban VIII was happy about the situation, but neither could find an effective way to neutralize Borja.188 Friction became almost permanent beginning in early 1630 and continued almost unabated until Urban finally forced him out of Rome. Borja frequently made trouble in consistory, for example in May 1630, when his proposal, which like Urban’s was not approved, led to “high words” with the pope.189 In August, Borja talked so much in another consistory that none of the other cardinals got a chance.190 After Borja became ordinary ambassador, things got worse, even after Urban tried to calm matters by proposing Borja himself as archbishop of Seville.191 The Spanish, for their part, also tried to defuse the situation by sending an extraordinary ambassador, with

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 90

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

91

whom Borja did not get along. This unusual situation gave Urban the chance regularly to refuse Borja audiences as ambassador, including an especially ceremonious entry in July 1632 from which Borja was excluded altogether. At the same time, Urban gave him a pension of 30,000 scudi (perhaps that on Seville, meaning that all Urban did was endorse the deal, not raise the cash himself ) and “a thousand other favors” on condition that he take up his bishopric.192 At the same time, the aftermath of his protest spilled over into a coram during which Urban apparently most irregularly granted Borja an audience.193 Through the summer of 1632 the pope and Cardinal Francesco tried to drive a wedge between Borja and a special Spanish ambassador, Borja regularly arriving for an audience with fifty carriages (the other ambassador used a mere five), intending to be received as ambassador while Urban insisted that he be admitted only as a cardinal.194 A month later the two Spanish ambassadors had begun to cooperate, and Borja was claiming (as may have been true) that his faction had secured Urban’s election.195 Urban and Borja continued to spar into the early winter, the principal issues being a general league against the heretics and a proposed tax on the Spanish clergy.196 In February 1633, Borja told the Venetian ambassador in frustration that Urban “had such confidence of being immortal, that it makes it licit for him to hope and attempt everything.”197 By April Urban and Borja seemed to be nearing a deal, which might help to explain Urban’s extraordinary action of altering the record of the consistory in order to remove Borja’s protest.198 Meanwhile, Cardinal Francesco continued to try to separate Borja and the other Spanish ambassador.199 And then occurred a really bizarre moment involving papal censorship. The day after Galileo’s sentence, Cardinal Francesco used it in an audience with Borja to demonstrate the rigor of papal control of the press after Borja complained about the publication of an anti-Spanish libel in Bologna.200 Urban agreed to its suspension. A couple of months later in the context of another big dispute with Borja over the arrest of a thief in one of his rented houses at S.ti Apostoli, leading to a threat by Borja to bring one hundred soldiers from Naples to guard it, Urban refused to lift the ban on the offending book because the author went beyond its current political purpose to maxims “which are contrary to the Christian law.”201

Commonalities Roberto Bellarmino’s presence either real or virtual is one of the constants in the history of the Inquisition throughout our period. The Inquisitors almost

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 91

8/27/12 11:46 AM

92

c ha pt er 3

fell over one another in their haste to associate themselves with him. Some of these ties probably existed, for example Centini’s, and it is likely that we can trust the assertion by one of Bellarmino’s biographers that Sfondrato was “his most loving [friend].”202 Others seem more of a stretch, perhaps especially Bentivoglio’s claim in his Memorie to “closeness” with Bellarmino.203 Scaglia’s testimonial during the first processo for Bellarmino’s canonization is almost equally formulaic in its praise of his “simplicity” and “prudence and knowledge [or understanding] of political matters.” But he went on to claim close contact with his fellow cardinal shortly before his death apparently on Inquisition business when Bellarmino confided that he meant to reduce the size of his household in order to continue to give alms.204 Similarly important is the officially sanctioned saintly presence of Filippo Neri, most obviously in Sfondrato’s case, but also in that of consultor Orazio Giustiniani and assessor Alessandro Vittrici, as the most obvious examples.205 As strong a constant as the theologian Bellarmino is the lawyer Francisco Peña. The link is closest in Verospi’s case, whom Peña both tutored and then patronized, but Arrigoni and Millini also had ties to him, and his edition of Nicolau Eymeric’s Directorium Inquisitorum looms large at least in the background of Inquisition practice and jurisprudence (see Chapter 5). Given how many of the Inquisitors were lawyers, Peña’s prominence is natural. By Pierre-Noël Mayaud’s count, twelve Italian Inquisitors were referendaries (six in my sample), four auditors of the Rota (three of mine), and two were both (Arrigoni and Millini, both also the only two consistorial advocates).206 Mayaud further noted that thirteen Italians—not counting Taverna and Millini, about whom he was uncertain—studied law; since Taverna certainly had a law degree, Millini may have, and Sfondrato studied privately, the total should be at least sixteen (thirteen of my sample).207 Mayaud speculated that most of these lawyers would have brushed up on theology, and, as we have seen, this conjecture holds up reasonably well on the strength of anedcotal evidence about Millini consulting Bellarmino, for example. The three auditors followed careers reasonably typical for such men with one or two large anomalies. Arrigoni took only five years to move from auditor to cardinal, as against the other two’s somewhat above average fifteen, thirteen being normal in the seventeenth century.208 He and Verospi went directly to cardinal, as happened in the case of 70 percent of auditors, while Millini instead followed a path more typical of Inquisitors and served as nuncio first; Verospi remained an auditor during his extraordinary nunciature.209 Millini was also odd man out on the score of age, being more than ten years younger than

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 92

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

93

normal at nomination; the other two came close to the average age of fortyone. Only on the score of interval between law degree and nomination as auditor are all three seriously off the norm. If Millini had a degree, the interval in his case and Arrigoni’s was + 7 years and Verospi’s + 18, both well off the average 15 years.210 Verospi could have served as the poster child for one final constant among the auditors, Urban’s marked tendency to follow nepotistic policies in their case, if not strictly familial ones. Two of his nephews followed him into the Rota.211 We have already several times run into faction as a constant in the Inquisition’s functioning, for example, in the battle between the Ludovisi and Barberini partisans. Big political factions are difficult to miss and only what we should expect in a body as important as the Inquisition within a court as sharply divided as the pope’s. Another level of faction is harder to get at, micro-faction and personality conflict.212 Patterns of attendance provide the best if still almost evanescent indication of its presence.213 Thus Sfondrato almost never came to meetings held at Pietro Aldobrandini’s palace, and Bellarmino skipped all those held at Antonio Zapata’s in 1613. Zapata, however, did not play turnabout and instead came to nearly all those at Bellarmino’s house. The next year the pattern intensifies as both Bellarmino and Zapata missed almost all the meetings the other hosted, and Sfondrato also ceased to come to Bellarmino’s palace (he attended less than half the total number of meetings in 1614). Verallo, whose overall attendance was even worse than Sfondrato’s that year, also failed to appear at any of Zapata’s sessions. In 1615 Zapata missed only six of sixteen meetings at Aldobrandini’s palace. Bellarmino again missed the couple of meetings Zapata hosted, but all fell in the middle of a run of seven straight absences. By 1616 the Aldobrandini effect on Zapata had largely disappeared, and no other interaction replaces it. The year 1617 was a banner year in which six of ten Inquisitors attended at least eighty-eight meetings, meaning we once again have no evidence from attendance of rivalry. None of the years in the rest of Paul’s pontificate came close to that level of assiduity, but they also failed to show any obvious indications of feuding. That is, until 1621, the last year of Bellarmino’s life, when he managed to drag himself to only 25 of 71 meetings, not including any of the numerous ones held at Bandini’s palace. The next marked interaction comes in 1626, when Bandini hosted no fewer than 54 meetings. Antonio Barberini, Sr., missed every one of them. Although Antonio, Sr., was in Senigallia for nearly all of 1627, he still managed to avoid appearing at any of the numerous meetings at Bandini’s palace. From 23 June onward, so did Borja. In 1628 we lose the helpful indicator

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 93

8/27/12 11:46 AM

94

c ha pt er 3

of meetings held at the most senior Inquisitor’s residence when Urban ordered all non-corams moved to the Minerva. A number of other similarities mark my sample, although overall few strong patterns emerge. Thus there were ten bishops (not counting cardinal bishops), nine of whom resided, two of them (Arrigoni and Agostino Galamini) at the end of their careers, one (Centini) both early and late, the others all early and for short periods, in Millini’s case scant weeks. This situation seems to arise from an intersection between a belief that such experience was good preparation for an Inquisitor combined with Trent’s decree that bishops had to reside. Similarly, seven of these men held high papal office (two governors of Rome, one vicegerent, three financial officers), and nine of them served on other congregations, seven of them as prefects, reflecting the increasing concentration of power in papal Rome. The numbers of those who came up through the ranks of governorships and diplomatic service are about equal (five and four), but only two did both, Verospi and Zacchia. As against the baker’s dozen of lawyers, there are only five theologians, but no one professionally trained in both disciplines. Unsurprisingly, four of those five were religious, charitably allowing Antonio Barberini, Sr., a credential in a discipline he probably never studied formally. More surprisingly, not many had previous experience in the Inquisition, only three serving in provincial posts and only four as consultors, only one also as an official, Scaglia. Similarly, Galamini is the only master of the sacred palace to have become an Inquisitor in the period covered by this book. It is worth emphasizing that most of the Inquisitors had to learn their job while doing it. Few of them had previous experience in the Roman Inquisition. It is difficult to say anything synoptic about economic status since there is good data about annual income for only six of the twenty, and it ranges from Gessi, who could afford no more than a painted funeral monument, to Sfondrato’s annual income of 30,000 scudi. Other evidence often also makes income figures appear seriously misleading. Naturally, there is a strong interaction between those with higher incomes and the amount of patronage they could exercise, Sfondrato being an excellent example. So far as is now known, however, none of these men could finance artistic work on a level anywhere near that of a cardinal nephew like Scipione Borghese or Pietro Aldobrandini. Nor did most of them do much intellectual work outside their professional commitments that might have fitted them to exercise discriminating patronage. Only six are known to have written anything: three lawyers, two poets, and one historian, Bentivoglio.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 94

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

95

One last commonality marked some Inquisitors, four certainties and possibly a couple of others: attendance at or perhaps membership in at least one Roman academy, the Umoristi in particular.214 The evidence about these bodies is thin. Fortunately, the Umoristi is one of the best documented by the survival both of its first statutes and an “official” membership list together with evidence in books by its members. One of the most important instances of this second category occurs in Giacomo Filippo Camola’s life of Giambattista Marino, published in 1633. He gives as members in the first decade of the seventeenth century Antonio Querenghi, followed by inter alia Gessi’s secretary Bruni, Cassiano Dal Pozzo, Francesco Barberini’s secretary, Bandini’s secretary Aleandro, and Virginio Cesarini.215 Alas without any dates, the second, “official,” catalogue probably covers virtually the academy’s whole existence.216 If not quite a list of everyone who was anyone, among its members were several men who also belonged to the Lincean Academy, including Ciampoli, Cesarini, Sforza Pallavicino, and Francesco Barberini, a number of religious, and no less than Maffeo Barberini.217 This last name is otherwise undocumented, despite the best efforts of several historians to associate him closely with the Umoristi.218 The avvisi allow the addition of the names of Inquisitors Bentivoglio and Gessi to the attenders, and perhaps Bandini and Scaglia, whose secretary is also supposed to have been a member.219 Bandini certainly witnessed the performance of a gypsy fortune-teller at Cardinal Deti’s competing academy shortly after its establishment.220 He is recorded again at Deti’s academy (with Bellarmino) in 1609, at Alfonso Gonzaga’s in 1621, and at Cardinal Ludovisi’s in 1622. On this last occasion Pope Gregory XV himself watched from a side chapel, and both Niccolò Riccardi, the man who licensed Galileo’s Dialogue for publication, and also Consultor Ulpiano Vulpi’s secretary, Girolamo Maricucci, attended.221 When the Umoristi celebrated Aleandro’s exequies Francesco Barberini paid for the decorations, which included pictures by Pietro da Cortona, among them four “paintings of the sciences of which he was gifted, that is, theology, canon and civil law, history and poetry” (“quadri delle scienze de’ quali era [Aleandro] dotato ciò’è Teologia, legge Canonica, et Civile Historia, et Poesia”).222 Lack of evidence makes it harder to say a lot about what the Umoristi did. Nevertheless, the academy’s interest in drama is apparent.223 Although a little silly, a statistical analysis of a miscellaneous volume of its papers dating from before 1611 shows six main themes, with religious oration leading the way in numbers but poetry taking up the greatest number of pages.224 Poetry (or literature more generally) remained the academy’s central interest. Gessi’s

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 95

8/27/12 11:46 AM

c ha pt er 3

96

secretary Bruni tried to aim its taste in a “modernist” direction when he served as censor in 1623. That is, he led Marino’s “friends” against the more conservative “friends” of Alberto Tassoni, among them Querenghi.225 The placing of Marino’s Adone on the Index in 1627 marks a turning point for the academy.226 Urban, who preferred a more austere poetic style than Marino’s exuberance, no doubt had a hand in the banning.227 Thereafter, although still home to satire from time to time, the Umoristi became less original.228 Although in keeping with their earlier religious bent, the oration in praise of the brandnew Florentine saint Andrea Corsini in 1629 represented a straw in the wind of this more conservative direction.229

The Heads of the Holy Office: The Popes Paul V The pope from whom Bellarmino learned to trim his sails, Paul V (1550–1621), might have earned the respect Bellarmino denied his predecessor Clement VIII, the man who banished him to Capua. Paul, the former Camillo Borghese, had been secretary of the Inquisition before his election in 1605, and Bellarmino had worked closely with him on several cases. Paul V’s father, Marcantonio Borghese, had distinguished himself as a defense attorney, before crossing the aisle into papal service and eventually becoming dean of the college of consistorial advocates.230 Among his clients was Cardinal Giovanni Morone, one of the Inquisition’s most important sixteenth-century targets.231 Marcantonio had moved the family from Siena to Rome, making them arrivistes and explaining the gigantic “Romanus” after Paul’s name on the façade of San Pietro. The future Pope Paul studied at Perugia, where he probably took his law degree. Like many other Inquisitors, he appeared as a referendary in 1572. After a stint as vice-legate of Bologna, he succeeded his dead brother Orazio as auditor of the Chamber in 1591 (an office his father had bought for 60,000 scudi).232 Clement VIII sent him as nuncio to Spain in 1593 in which mission he did not succeed as well as Millini would. On 27 June 1596 he became an Inquisitor and soon secretary.233 If Abraham Bzowski can be trusted, he must have served the Inquisition as consultor before that, since his cardinalate was said to be partly a reward for his service to it.234 By 1600, with an income of 15,000 scudi, Borghese had moved among the “rich cardinals.” Shortly before his election as pope, he bought what became the grandiose

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 96

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

97

Palazzo Borghese.235 Once on the throne, he gave free rein to his brother and his nephew Scipione to amass property.236 Scipione’s annual income eventually reached 180,000 scudi.237 He collected four palaces plus a magnificent villa at Frascati, while Paul undertook a massive rebuilding of the Quirinal Palace to which Sfondrato and others objected, as well, of course, as his chapel in Santa Maria Maggiore.238 Paul was not above using the law to fill his treasury, as he did in the condemnation of Federico Cesi’s cousin, Marchese Riano, despite his status as a subject of the grand duke and the intercession of numerous cardinals, another relative Bartolomeo among them. Paul almost immediately commuted Cesi’s original death sentence for harboring a “bandit” (who was executed) into a fine of 30,000 scudi, which the pope used to pay for building at the Quirinal.239 It is always hard to get at the personality of a pope, and Paul V’s case poses special difficulties. He lacks Urban VIII’s massive official biography.240 Instead he has a similarly massive but probably almost completely useless panegyric by Magno Perneo, a short manuscript of the same sort in BAV, Barb. lat. 2670, the only even vaguely useful part of which is a description of Paul’s elegant appearance, and an equally short printed biography by Bzowski.241 Bzowski was a serious historian of the church, but his biography has little more value than Perneo’s. Its labored comparison to other popes numbered V typifies Bzowski’s approach.242 He does include the detail that Borghese ordered both the Inquisition and the master of the sacred palace to be hard on heretical books. He also insisted that Paul always carefully took expert advice, especially from the cardinals, before making any decision.243 A Lucchese ambassador at the beginning of Paul’s reign agreed, and oddly enough so did the anti-papal gossip Gregorio Leti, saying that Paul was not as “rash” as Gregory XV “but would wisely consider the good and evil that might come of ” an action.244 The ambassador said that Paul “was reputed a person not to raise his thoughts to great things,” and his Tuscan counterpart insisted that Paul had no intellectual interests whatsoever and hated innovation.245 An anonymous relazione from shortly before his election described him as “of mediocre intelligence” (“d’ingegno mediocre”).246 In the immediate aftermath of the Index’s decree of 5 March 1616 suspending Copernicus, Ambassador Piero Guicciardini stressed to Florence how dangerous Rome was for Galileo especially under a pope “who abhors learning and these clever men, and cannot stand to listen to these novelties and subtleties.” Everybody tried to accommodate their ideas to the pope’s and if they had any brains, said the opposite of what they thought. Anyone who dabbled in matters “astrological or philosophical” would find himself

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 97

8/27/12 11:46 AM

98

c ha pt er 3

in serious trouble, again because Paul was such an anti-intellectual blockhead, and everybody tried to imitate him. Thus all the cardinals tried to act like “fatheaded ignoramuses,” in Guicciardini’s crude phrase.247 A later allegation that Paul and other popes before Urban had not worried about astrology to the degree that Urban did contradicts Guicciardini’s view and suggests the need for caution in adopting it.248 A good bit of Guicciardini’s venom arose from his own prejudices, especially against Galileo, and his report seriously misrepresents Paul. The Venetian ambassadors provided some of the closest observations of him, beginning with the obedience mission in 1605, and they at least partially contradict Guicciardini. Insisting on his “innocent and pure” life and his “exemplary customs,” as well as his severity and austerity, the ambassadors twice underlined the new pope’s fondness for the law (on which he spent all his time before his election) and his predilection for the strictest possible interpretation of it. Instead of drawing on custom and his predecessors’ actions, Paul almost always decided “on the rigor of legal terms.”249 He aimed to preserve “spiritual greatness [or grandeur]” (grandezza spirituale) at all costs and to restore the church “in its wholeness” (nella sua integrità).250 In short, the pope was “most rigorous, severe and inexorable” and took advice from no one, not even his brothers, with whom he ate dinner every night, or even Arrigoni in matters outside the datary.251 He listened to one or two opinions from the cardinals, but his thirty-five years as a lawyer left him with the habit of making his own decisions, which he then announced d’improvviso in consistory. He passed out few rewards after his election, and the cardinals not only expected little more, but they also feared him.252 The speed with which he came to decisions, for example, on the necessity of episcopal residence—a constant of his papacy—caused great confusion.253 Since he was also taciturn and “always serious” (“sempre sul serio”), it was impossible to know what he intended to do before he did it.254 Paul’s sober side comes out in his distancing himself from Carnival, attending to his devotions instead, and spending much time with Bellarmino.255 If we can trust Bzowski, he constantly meditated on death, again like Bellarmino.256 One of the Venetian obedience ambassadors, Francesco Contarini, returned as resident after the Interdict, which Contarini claimed Paul levied without taking any advice at all, nor had he even announced it until the breve was already drawn up.257 Unsurprisingly, Contarini’s relazione made many of the same points as the obedience mission had, while changing the earlier report to say that the pope treated everyone in kindly fashion and never gave a straight answer.258 Contarini’s successor’s relazione emphasized the

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 98

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

99

pope’s kindness even more.259 A later ambassador stressed Paul’s “peaceful and languid manner of negotiating.”260 Since, according to Contarini, the pope also gave his nephew Scipione everything, the court did not think much of him.261 Again, he never asked the cardinals’ advice, and they were left without authority. Everything depended on him, and he defended his views “most sharply” (acerimamente). Contarini, whose relation dates from 1609, went beyond the earlier report when he asserted that Paul made all decisions in despite “of the decrees, the canons and the councils.”262 He often reported his handling of the pope by letting him vent his anger first before turning to the point at issue.263 Abstractions may not have appealed to Paul’s legal mind, but Ambassador Contarini observed that Paul loved talking about architecture and involved himself minutely in both his funeral chapel and the rebuilding of the Quirinal.264 Contarini’s report suggests that we should at least discount the low opinion of Paul’s intellect manifested by Ambassador Guicciardini. Similarly, Bzowski made much of Paul’s rebuilding of Rome, including the completion of San Pietro under Carlo Maderno, the inventor of baroque architecture.265 Among his numerous public works, the restoration of Trajan’s aqueduct, including the building of the impressive Fontanone on the Janiculum, stands out. His splendid funeral chapel in Santa Maria Maggiore, his favorite basilica, which he substantially reworked, makes Paul appear quite a sophisticated patron. One of the artists he employed, Ludovico Cigoli, was a good friend of Galileo and celebrated his telescopic discoveries by painting a macular moon in the chapel’s cupola.266 The ambassadors had their own reasons—among them factional allegiances in Venice—for saying what they did, which helps to explain some of the apparent contradictions in their views. Other evidence supports their majority judgment of Paul’s impulsiveness. Two excellent examples are the occasions on which he removed his brother as general of the papal galleys without warning and off-handedly ordered the construction of a new gate into the Borgo so that his carriage would not have to take a short detour.267 His fourth creation of cardinals in 1608 was also said to have come without prior notice.268 Likewise, if not quite as precipitously, he ordered a new street built from Trajan’s column to the Quirinal at a cost of 14,000 scudi.269 It may be significant that this initiative nearly coincides with the condemnation of Copernicus and may point to what really interested Paul. In addition to Paul’s up-to-date patronage of artists and architects, the evolution of the Vatican Library during his pontificate suggests a deep love of books.270 Although it is difficult to tease out how much of this development

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 99

8/27/12 11:46 AM

100

c ha pt er 3

is directly due to his intervention and how much to his nephew Scipione’s (Cardinal Librarian from 1608 until his replacement by the learned Scipione Cobelluzzi, also an Inquisitor), there is no mistaking the size and importance of the pope’s donation of both Latin and Greek manuscripts, numbering at least 1,000 in total, and there are more manuscripts that probably should have gone to the Library now in the Vatican Archives, as well as others that wandered into the Barberini Latini MSS in the Library.271 Included in the donation was a large portion of Peña’s library, which Paul had ordered kept in Rome in order to choose its best books.272 Of course Paul concerned himself with prohibited books (many of which Peña had acquired through his service to the Inquisition), ordering that those found in the Vatican Library be transferred to the Holy Office.273 But he also objected to the Index’s wholesale condemnations and tried to work out a more rational policy of censorship.274 Nor was he above using an administrative measure to end (or try to) an intellectual dispute, as he did in December 1611 when he halted the long-running feud over grace (de auxiliis) by simply prohibiting any further discussion.275 It is significant that Paul assigned enforcement of the ban to the Inquisition. Francesco Beretta is entirely correct about his activist and personal direction of the Inquisition, and Franco Motta is likely to be right that Paul’s funeral monument in the Capella Paolina was arranged to pay homage to Pius V and Sixtus V, “two great papal inquisitors.”276

Urban VIII There is no ambiguity at all about Urban VIII’s view of himself as Inquisitor in chief.277 The lintels of two doors on opposite sides of the loggia on the piano nobile of the Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio, one inscribed with his name, the other with Pius V’s, make the point graphically. Although also a lawyer like Paul, Urban, the former Maffeo Barberini (1568–1644), had never been any kind of inquisitor. Instead, he had served on the Index, one of only two congregations to which Paul appointed him.278 It was in that capacity that he might have had—but in the event did not—an impact on the decision to suspend Copernicus. He later claimed the decree would never have been issued had he been pope.279 Although they were both impressively avaricious social climbers, unlike Paul, Urban was famous as a man of letters and, also unlike Paul, wellknown outside of Rome thanks to his successful nunciature to France in the early part of the century. Like Paul converting his Sienese family into a Roman

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 100

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

101

one, Barberini continued the transformation of his family from its rustic origins by changing his heraldry from three horseflies—representing the family’s original name, Tafano—to three bees by the time he returned from Paris in 1607. Capitalizing on exile from Florence by transferring to Ancona, his immediate ancestors had become reasonably wealthy.280 As in Paul’s case, it was a move to Rome and into the ecclesiastical hierarchy that definitively made the family’s fortune. The move had begun in the sixteenth century; Barberini’s great-uncle, Antonio Barberini, was murdered there, as his monument in San Giovanni dei Fiorentini attests. Orphaned at the age of three, Urban got his start in Rome from his uncle Francesco, treasurer of the Apostolic Chamber, who tutored him, introduced him to Rome at the age of twelve in 1580, and bought him various offices, first abbreviator of the Parco Maggiore and then the much more important post of a cleric of the Apostolic Chamber in 1593.281 He also left Maffeo a large estate in cash and real estate, including the house in Via dei Giubbonari in which he lived until he became a cardinal and which remained in the family despite their best efforts to get rid of it.282 When he fled the so-called Casa Grande, Barberini lived first in Palazzo Salviati across the piazza from the Collegio Romano and then in Palazzo Madruzzo in the Borgo (now in Via della Conciliazione).283 Before he came to Rome permanently, Barberini studied at the Jesuit College in Florence and at Pisa, including poetry with Aurelio Orsi.284 His identity as a poet, as a user of language, remained central, so much so that his nephew Cardinal Francesco allegedly became worried by the perception that his uncle spent all his time composing poetry and associating with poets.285 He did indeed write a lot of poetry. Among his more mature work is an ode from shortly before he became pope, praising Galileo’s telescopic discov­eries. Those who emphasize the importance of Barberini’s patronage of learned men make a great deal of this composition, but they do not always stress that “Adulatio perniciosa” said nothing of Galileo’s cosmology or any other of the controverted issues surrounding him.286 By the time he became pope in 1623 Urban’s poetry had become exclusively pious, including a number of hymns. One of the bridges between his two styles of poetry may have been another ode on Bellarmino’s De ascensione mentis in Deum, which had been published during the first phase of Galileo’s trial.287 Despite its highly classicized language and imagery, the ode praised Bellarmino as a guide “above the stars” (“super astra”), putting its author among those who thought cosmology distinctly inferior to soteriology. Among Urban’s hymns is a long one to Countess Matilda of Canossa, written in the early 1630s.288 At about the

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 101

8/27/12 11:46 AM

102

c ha pt er 3

same time Urban had her body stolen from Mantua and brought to Rome for reinterment in San Pietro in a monument for which he paid.289 Urban’s highhanded dealing with the duke of Mantua in this case came back as a precedent for the Florentines against pressing the point of a monument to Galileo.290 It speaks volumes about Urban’s view of his papacy, especially about his notion of the relations between secular and religious authority. Paul V was not the only seventeenth-century pope who hoped to emulate Gregory VII, Matilda’s protégé. Neither Urban’s hymn to Matilda nor any of the rest of his poetry broke new ground.291 Giorgio Spini dismissed all of it as “of an insupportable banality” (“di una banalità insopportabile”).292 Urban’s jealousy of his literary skills oddly enough seems to have entered into his management of the Inquisition. Assessor Vittrici (appointed in 1627) bought Urban’s favor with a fancy presentation manuscript of some of Orsi’s poems.293 Like his uncle Francesco, Barberini made his career via the law. He rose fast, attracting—and then eventually losing—Aldobrandini patronage.294 He, like Bentivoglio, was part of Cardinal Pietro’s entourage at the rendition of Ferrara in 1598.295 He also early associated with Alessandro Ludovisi, the future Gregory XV (p. 60). Among his numerous assignments were several involving the water supply of Rome (e.g., pp. 49 and 69). Barberini’s first big break came when Clement VIII appointed him nuncio to France in 1604, toward the end of his reign.296 According to Nicoletti, Arrigoni tricked Paul V into confirming him in the office (p. 98). Among his tasks was a vigorous defense of the papacy during the Venetian Interdict (pp. 119–48), although it is unclear how much responsibility he had for the decision to send Cardinal Joyeuse to Venice on the mission that finally averted war (p. 148). Already then, Barberini tried to follow a policy of strict censorship, leading to conflicts with the French crown, which, although otherwise well inclined to him, rejected most of his efforts (pp. 221–22). From Paris, he also advised Paul on both the controversies de auxiliis (“una questione inestricabile”) and the Immaculate Conception of Mary (pp. 289–329). Paul rejected Urban’s advice to allow both sides to continue to publish on the first but without arguing for either as true (pp. 330–31). Paul V promoted Barberini on 11 September 1606—without knowing much about him—as a favor to France (Nicoletti), and according to Cardinal Antonio Caetani, Jr., less for his merits than as a counterbalance to the Spanish client Millini promoted at the same time.297 Paul added him almost immediately to the Index and to the Congregation for the Fabric of San Pietro, headed by Arrigoni. There he quickly alienated the pope by defending Michelangelo’s original Greek-cross plan for the church against Paul’s favored

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 102

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

103

architect Maderno’s scheme to convert it into a Latin cross.298 After a stint as bishop of Spoleto (1608–1617), where he resided for only about a year, Barberini briefly became prefect of the Segnatura di Giustizia in 1610 (p. 381) allegedly through the patronage of Cardinal Cinzio Aldobrandini, the less-favored of Clement’s nephews.299 A Venetian ambassador later described the post as reserved for cardinals of “intelligence and capacity,” and stressed Urban’s qualifications, rooted in his knowledge of the law and the precision of his intellect.300 In August 1611 he was sent as legate to Bologna, choosing his cousin Lorenzo Magalotti as vice-legate.301 Magalotti would remain one of his closest servants until his exile to Ferrara (pp. 395, 399). It is highly significant that Barberini recommended him to Scipione Borghese because he could “rul[e] his actions in conformity with my will, and to the discipline with which he will go to execute it” (“regolando le sue attioni conforme al mio volere, et alla disciplina con la quale verrò istruendolo” [p. 399]). Almost as significant, Urban tried to bring his vicar-general from Spoleto with him only to have the Bolognesi drive him back to Rome (p. 409). He was probably Giuseppe Anselmi, who became a consultor of the Inquisition shortly after Urban’s election.302 Barberini left Bologna under a cloud after a comparatively short two-year tenure, having annoyed Paul by allowing Florentine troops to pass through papal territory, and apparently also because of his harsh criticism of some Bolognese students.303 Paul’s cardinal nephew never trusted Barberini, allegedly because he refused to take several bribes (pp. 383–84). Given Barberini’s notorious avarice giving him an income of more than 30,000 scudi before he became pope, this tale either is untrue or indicates a real hostility between the two.304 These two facts, combined with Barberini’s opposition to Paul over San Pietro, may explain his relative obscurity for the rest of that pontiff’s reign. Gregory XV, by contrast, appointed Barberini to a number of particular congregations before adding him in 1622 to Propaganda Fide.305 He also became a major cog in Rome’s cultural universe as a member of the Umoristi and, after his election, center of his own circle of literary men at the papal villa in Castel Gandolfo.306 Urban was chosen pope in 1623. As in the case of many of his other achievements, he backed into the post. His was the first conclave conducted under the controversial rules laid down by Gregory XV, which among other things banned recommendations by princes and election by acclamation. The conclave opened with no less than fifteen candidates divided between two large factions (Borghese controlling twenty-six votes, and Ludovisi with twenty-four, only eight of them his uncle’s creatures, forcing him to ally with

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 103

8/27/12 11:46 AM

104

c ha pt er 3

Aldobrandini, Roberto Ubaldini, and Ludovico Capponi) and a handful of independents, including Maurizio of Savoy who should have headed the French faction, but despite the length of the conclave, no real French cardinals appeared for it; the strongly pro-French Bentivoglio is more plausibly assigned to the independents than to Borghese’s alignment.307 Barberini was nobody’s first choice, or even close. Instead, Millini, backed by Borghese perhaps for the cynical reason that the Ludovisi really hated him or perhaps to keep the papacy out of the other leading contender Bandini’s hands, led in the first scrutinium with all the Borghese votes. Millini hoped for the support of Federico Borromeo, the leading independent and as nephew of San Carlo one of the cardinals with the most numen, but he insisted on abiding strictly by the new bull. The rumor that Galamini would be elected, if it ever had any substance, then went the rounds, but his refusal to forward his own candidacy wrecked his chances. He is very unlikely ever to have been a serious candidate, since neither of the grand factions supported him, and Borja was strongly opposed. Unsurprisingly, Borja, the leader of the Spanish cardinals, became one of the arbiters—perhaps the sole arbiter—of the conclave. According to Cardinal Caetani, a leading member of Ludovisi’s faction and directly involved in the discussions, whom Nicoletti said persuaded Ludovisi and Aldobrandini to support Barberini with the argument that their only hope for further promotion was to elect a young cardinal who could outlive all the other papabili, Borja was almost single-handedly responsible for swinging the election to Barberini.308 When Borghese’s belated effort in early August to revive Millini failed, Urban was elected instead, but not until a first try for him broke down over Borghese’s last-ditch resistance (he dragged himself from his sickbed for one vote) and also refusal to release enough votes to conclude the election. The first Venetian ambassador to deal with Urban, a holdover from his predecessor, came away impressed. Although admitting that Urban liked to talk, perhaps too much, his conversation was always erudite and witty and full of his deep knowledge of both poetry and politics. In fact, Urban was so sure of himself that he was likely not to listen to the cardinals, especially because they were all partisan and he was determined to secure “the universal peace of Christendom,” a phrase that became a mantra of his pontificate, along with his insistence that he was “the common father” of Christendom.309 More important, even this favorably inclined ambassador noted early in his relazione that the cardinals served only “to make a magnificent corona around the pope’s person” (“a fare gran pomposa corona alla persona del Pontefice”).310 His successor noted that Urban kept all important matters to himself, leaving

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 104

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

105

the cardinals no mode of consultation.311 In this Urban returned to the path of steadily increasing concentration of power in the pope’s hands that had accelerated under Clement VIII before slowing a little during Paul’s reign.312 It reached such a point that consistorial advocates were ordered to put forward false canonizations so that Urban would not be left by himself in consistory.313 Similarly, the pope had to order cardinals to attend chapels, only to affect surprise when a cardinal he had tried to ban from Rome appeared at the next.314 Some took his self-assurance as a sign that he was a testardo (hardhead), and he had pushed the limits of acceptable behavior as prefect of the Segnatura di Giustizia not only by refusing to listen to counterarguments once he had made up his mind but by becoming angry and replying sharply to them. At least his anger passed quickly.315 This sort of behavior continued to characterize Urban. The Venetian obedience mission also emphasized both his anger and how quickly he got over it.316 It, too, thought Urban rather full of himself and out for glory. At the same time, he conducted business “with ambiguity” and obsessed over details, either because he was new in the job or because he was trying to trick others into revealing their opinions. Either way, it gave him “wonderful artifice.” In “ordinary conversations” he was full of good words, but in “sharp” matters he showed “a great obscurity and rigidness.” In everything, he possessed “an inflexible spirit.” Unsurprisingly, the ambassadors stressed that he listened to no one, not even those he nominally consulted.317 The first regular ambassador under Urban seconded most of these points, adding that his penchant for talking protracted congregations, in which he took up all the time instead of allowing the conduct of business. The ambassador quoted a cardinal as saying Urban did not actually give audiences, since he spent the whole time talking. Unlike the other observers, this one thought Urban very indecisive except in matters he brought up himself. In those, he was inflexibly stubborn. He also insisted on controlling all business. The only adviser to whom he might listen was Magalotti, probably because he excelled at accommodating himself to the pope’s wishes.318 This ambassador’s two successors said much the same, beginning with the pope’s quick anger and equally quick recovery, vainglory and overweening self-confidence. The first of them added that Urban’s other defect after too high an opinion of himself was the quickness of his intellect, which led him to think of all the angles to a problem, leaving him incapable of deciding the best action. His refusal to take advice led to two other problems, a further paralysis of decision making and constant changes of mind.319 Both these later ambassadors also stressed Urban’s equestrian skills, one of them saying he rode so well that he could be mistaken for a soldier.320

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 105

8/27/12 11:46 AM

106

c ha pt er 3

The Venetian ambassador in the early 1630s would have agreed. He began his relazione with the blunt statement that papal government had become “absolutely monarchical.” Urban was still a great talker, but now he often backed up his arguments “with the motions of the heavens, which he understands very well, even though he has prohibited their study to anyone else with great censures.” In addition to his perennially favorite topic of conversation, poetry, he enjoyed talking only about fortifications, and instead of the writings of Blessed Lorenzo Giustiniani (the founder of the Cassinese Benedictine Congregation) that Paul V had kept under his table, Urban had nothing but poems and drawings of fortresses. He was still egotistical, still refused to take advice, still highly intelligent and lacking in judgment, still determined to win every argument, still intolerant of contradiction. Only the exaltation of his family interested him.321 The Venetians captured most of the hallmarks of Urban’s papacy and personality: his spectacular aggrandizement of his family, the equally spectacular failure of his policy of official neutrality in the Thirty Years’ War, his penchant for hard work, and, above all, his anger, stubbornness, and strong inclination to go his own way.322 Urban’s concern for his own relatives is notorious, even without Leti’s sarcasm that made nepotism the defining characteristic of his pontificate.323 As pope, he made three close relations cardinals (Antonio, Sr. and Jr., and Francesco, the first and last almost immediately) plus his first cousin Magalotti. His older brother, Carlo, became general of the church, to be succeeded by his son Taddeo. Taddeo was also chosen to propagate the lineage after his marriage to a daughter of Constable Colonna, one of the richest of the Roman barons (and unlike most of them not in financial difficulties). He eventually became duke of Palestrina, as the Barberini followed earlier popes’ precedent and intruded themselves into the old feudal nobility. Urban also made him prefect of Rome, perhaps the best instance of both the pope’s nepotism and his absolutist tendencies. Despite overwhelming advice not to take that action, Urban plowed ahead. It was bad enough that the hereditary holder had been the duke of Urbino, whose duchy Urban had just stolen out from under the grand duke; worse, he gave Taddeo precedence over nearly everyone besides himself. Needless to say, in a society as obsessed with hierarchy as seventeenth-century Rome, this went over poorly with other princes, most of whom instructed their ambassadors to refuse to yield to Taddeo.324 This produced a number of incidents, some of which became so serious as to come to the brink of war, especially with the grand duke, which naturally became a major irritant in Roman-Florentine relations. Urban remained unfazed. His determination to

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 106

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

107

advance his family had one other direct consequence for Galileo as a function of the pope’s obsession with astrology. When Galileo came to Rome in 1630 to ask the imprimatur for his Dialogue, his visit was announced in a newsletter as that of a great astrologer who had predicted that Anna Colonna Barberini would have a son and that both Urban and the child’s father, Taddeo, would die.325 The first of these came true almost immediately on 1 June.326 The rest of the prognostication proved almost as false as its assignment to Galileo almost certainly was: the infant son, not the father, died. Still, even as near a miss as this would have upset the astrology-addicted and then seriously paranoid Urban, who had barricaded himself in Castel Gandolfo.327 His now fairly wellknown campaign against astrologers would be launched shortly, but it is less well-known that the Inquisition had already begun to pursue them three years earlier in a case that left no trace in the decree registers.328 Urban’s workaholic conduct, specifically of the Inquisition, is of greatest interest. In a word, Urban took it over from the first and ran it nearly however he pleased. As one of his biographers, perhaps Federico Ubaldino, put it, “in the Congregation of the Holy Office, although he had no experience of its negotiations, as soon as he saw its manner of operating, he learned not only how to conduct its business, but also to control it.”329 As we shall see, Inquisition procedure was intended to be flexible. Just as Urban redefined and pushed to its limits papal nepotism, so he did proper procedure. It is not too much to say that he presided over the Inquisition as an absolute autocrat. His wishes had the force of law, no matter how illegal they might seem in light of the Congregation’s precedents. The phenomenon of declining attendance that appeared in the case of consistory and papal chapels also affected the Congregation, most dramatically in the cases of Bentivoglio (whose total attendances sank from 64 in 1630 to 12 in 1634) and Zacchia (from 72 to 21, before recovering in 1635) and to a degree of Scaglia (82 in 1630, an average of 61 over the next three years, with a slight rebound to 66 in 1634) (see Appendix Table 3). The total number of attendances by my group of Inquisitors shows a similar pattern (see Appendix Table 7). Urban’s autocratic ways affected the Inquisition markedly. The fact that he treated it as steadily more of a rubber stamp may help to explain why Cardinal Francesco did not at first use it to increase his power. The situation became so bad that Urban had to order Barberini’s anima, consultor Orazio Giustiniani (a future cardinal), to attend meetings.330 One reason why Urban may have been able to browbeat the Congregation was a change in its age. While the average age at appointment of those men made Inquisitor before Urban’s election is either forty-eight or forty-nine

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 107

8/27/12 11:46 AM

108

c ha pt er 3

(because of uncertainty about two birth dates), Urban’s appointees plus one of Gregory XV’s (Scaglia) averaged at least five years younger, a difference of more significance in the seventeenth century than now, given lower life expectancies (see Appendix Table 8).331 (The average wait for appointment to the Congregation for those cardinals not immediately added to it is about the same for the two samples.) It seems Urban cared less than his predecessors about seasoned Inquisitors.332 Then again, it could be argued that he wanted them to hold office longer, as they did on average for almost eight years more than their predecessors, or enter when more vigorous and therefore become more experienced and enthusiastic members of the Congregation, except that his handling of it says quite otherwise. Younger men would be more beholden to him. He wanted no Sfondratos among his Inquisitors. Urban’s unconcern with legal niceties in the case of the Inquisition is of a piece with his general attitude, at least if we believe the avvisi. One accused him of having made up his mind about the case of a Roman noble before the Rota had a chance to hear it, “to the wonder of the Court,” and another of deliberately appointing a lightweight to it in order to demonstrate the end of its importance.333 He acted in similar fashion in cases involving two cardinals, perhaps significantly both caught up in Borja’s protest. Although the pope eventually as much as admitted that the proceedings against Cardinal Pio (which seem to have concerned real estate) had been trumped up, he also allegedly said that he intended the prosecution to set an example for ministers of princes (Borja, in the lead) and that it mattered not whether legalities were observed. No processo was necessary. It was enough that the pope knew Pio’s guilt.334 A year later Urban tried to do the same thing and prejudge Cardinal Torres’s pension case before the Segnatura di Grazia. This time, however, when Torres privately showed him an instrument from Gregory XV he was forced to back down and allow the court to vote.335 The pope had better luck in August 1632 when he successfully browbeat the Segnatura into condemning the duke of Zagarola, Cardinal Ludovisi’s close relative.336 Thus by the early 1630s, almost a century into its existence, the Roman Inquisition had become perhaps the most direct expression of the pope’s plenitudo potestatis. In proportion as Urban’s control increased and the Inquisitors became more and more his men, so their age at appointment and experience decreased. While there was no clear path to advancement, most of them were always lawyers, all of whom had served the pope either in law, government, or his court. Urban’s men were much more willing than earlier Inquisitors to execute his orders in irregular fashion, especially through congregazioni

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 108

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Sacred Congregation Under Urban VIII

109

particolari charged to punish high-ranking malefactors, even if the principal evidence was the pope’s mere word. The Inquisition became one if not the central organ in the creation of papal “absolutism.” Whatever that word might mean, one important aspect of it was the recruitment of men who would obey implicitly and the marginalization of those, like Borja, who would not. Urban may not have succeeded in striking a balance among the European states, but his determination to be master in his own house came to nearly complete fruition in the Inquisition. For all the political use he made of the Roman Inquisition, in marriage dispensations above all or in attacks on recalcitrant nobility, Urban often completely ignored political considerations when naming its members—Verospi in the face of determined Florentine opposition, for example. In fact, the grand dukes might well have complained about their treatment both in and by the Inquisition, since for only a few years was there ever more than one Florentine cardinal on it, during the brief overlap of Magalotti’s and Bandini’s tenure; to call Antonio Barberini, Sr., a Florentine would be a gross exaggeration, whatever his geographical origins. Except for sub-secretary Bandini, no Florentine exercised much influence over the institution. At least Florence did better than Naples, which seems never to have had an Inquisitor. The old and new Roman nobility, Millini or Verospi again, exercised much more control (under the pope) than any other Italians. The Venetians, of course, never came close to having a member. Despite Urban’s determination to control the Inquisition at whatever political cost, he did not succeed in expelling faction from it. Grand political faction as in Borja’s case might have gone, reinforced by Urban’s apparent failure to add another Spanish cardinal in Borja’s place, but not “micropolitical” faction, as in the rivalry between Francesco Barberini and Verospi. It may be that Urban encouraged such rivalries as a means of cementing his control. His fostering of Zacchia’s candidacy to replace him at the same time as he seems to have tried to undermine it might provide evidence for this proposition. It certainly does for Urban’s willingness to manipulate the cardinals of the Congregation.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 109

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Chapter 4

The Professional Staff

The Roman Inquisition’s professional staff provided its backbone, especially the four major officials: the commissary, assessor, notary, and fiscal. Unlike the cardinals, most of these had serious training before taking up their jobs in Rome. As with the cardinals, a historical evolution meant that by the early 1630s the principal qualification had become loyalty to one or the other of the Barberini, including of course Urban VIII. Except for the fiscal, who remained Carlo Sincero throughout our period, all three of the other offices were held by men substantially more poorly prepared than their predecessors. The most striking case is that of Pieto Paolo Febei, who became assessor, chief legal officer, without any previous experience as an inquisitor. The man he replaced, Alessandro Boccabella, had at least served as a consultor, although he too had little other requisite training, taking a law degree only at the last moment. The anomaly of Commissary Vincenzo Maculano, appointed in late 1633, who was much better known and much more successful as a military engineer than as a theologian, sets the seal even more dramatically than changes in the cardinals on the evolution of the Inquisition into the pope’s personal tool. The study of these officials also illustrates better than that of the Inquisitors the play of faction and patronage in the Roman Inquisition.

The Commissary The professional staff usually but not always attended meetings much more assiduously than the cardinals and took on the lion’s share of the Roman Inquisition’s work. Its most important member was the commissary, the Congregation’s literal stand-in.1 He had overall charge of its proceedings. Always a 110

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 110

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

111

Dominican from the Lombard province, he was also always a trained theologian, although he might also have been educated in other fields. The commissary’s office was more highly routinized than the assessor’s in that a common pattern of experience led to it. The commissaries usually had much more practice as inquisitors than did the cardinals of the Holy Office, much of it coming in the same provincial postings. The five men in the period from 1610 to 1633 nevertheless had substantially different individual qualifications, including training in geometry and mathematics, at least to judge from Maculano’s case, and perhaps even astronomy, as Ippolito Lanci may have had.

Andrea Giustiniani (1610–1615) The first of the commissaries, Andrea Giustiniani (1570–1617), came from the republic of Genoa, born at Ajaccio on Corsica, and was almost certainly a member of the large and powerful Giustiniani family, one of whose members, Benedetto, was then a cardinal. In addition to his family name, his position as regent of the Greek College at the time of his appointment as commissary supports the same contention, since the Giustiniani were originally Venetians from one of the Greek islands. His new post was known by 27 November 1610, and he took the oath a week later.2 He had studied in Rome and made his profession at Santa Maria sopra Minerva in 1591. Master of studies there in 1600, he became head of the Greek College in 1607. Probably about the time he became commissary, Paul V also made him “examiner of bishops to be promoted” (“examinator episcoporum promovendorum”).3 There may have been an attempt to make him master of the sacred palace in 1612.4 He was not above taking advantage of his office as commissary, according to no less an authority than Roberto Bellarmino, who dissented strongly from the censure in 1614 of one Marco Giustiniani, which he alleged Andrea had forced through.5 A likely relative, Benedetto Giustiniani, SJ, also objected. Long-time consultor of the Inquisition, Benedetto was among the signatories of the suspension of Copernicus (see below). Orazio Giustiniani, a similarly long-serving consultor and close confidant of Cardinal Francesco Barberini, may also have been a relative (see below), and Andrea’s brother Benedetto, a Dominican, was certainly vicar of the Inquisition in Cremona in 1626.6 All in all, it was quite a dynasty. One of the high points of Andrea’s tenure was the order to censure the work of the Sorbonne Gallican André Duval, De suprema Romani Pontificis in ecclesiam potestate disputatio quadripartita, published in 1614.7 His reward was

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 111

8/27/12 11:46 AM

112

c ha pt er 4

the bishopric of Isola in Calabria to which he was provided on 24 November 1614 and consecrated by the Inquisition’s secretary Giovanni Garzia Millini.8 He signed his last known sentence on 20 February 1615.9

Michelangelo Seghizzi (1615–1616) The second commissary is possibly the most reviled in history because of the part he played in the first phase of Galileo’s trial. Michelangelo Seghizzi it was who, in company with Cardinal Bellarmino, issued the precept from which most of Galileo’s later troubles derived.10 It is tempting to view his position as similar to Assessor Boccabella’s, since he held the office of commissary for by far the shortest tenure in the seventeenth century, barely eighteen months. The next shortest holder lasted three years, and that was Agostino Galamini, who had a meteoric rise as one of Paul V’s favorite Dominicans. The longest hung on almost as long as Francesco Albizzi did to the assessor’s post, and the average duration was just over nine years.11 Whatever the reason for the brevity of Seghizzi’s occupancy, it cannot have been incompetence. According to his epitaph, Seghizzi was “the hammer of heretics in [or of ] the faith.”12 This sounds a little like Febei glorying in his brief moment as assessor, but unlike Febei, Seghizzi was superlatively well prepared to do the job of commissary. Like many of his fellows, Seghizzi (1565–1625) became a Dominican at a young age, fourteen.13 He studied at Bologna before taking his master of sacred theology at forty from the Dominican General Xavierre, who ex officio frequently sat as a consultor to the Holy Office during Deodato Gentile’s commissariat.14 Seghizzi had the great advantage of studying under Gentile, to whom he became socius on 10 October 1601.15 Shortly afterward, he moved north as inquisitor of Cremona, appointed 20 August 1603.16 Among his first assignments was the investigation of the former inquisitor’s accounts. Seghizzi eventually cleared him.17 Quite a bit of Seghizzi’s time in Cremona was taken up by correspondence about his or former officials. In May 1604 he confronted a permanent problem of the Inquisition at all levels: how to pay its personnel. Often, they were told to serve gratis unless the Congregation saw fit to give them a little something.18 Seghizzi tried to get his fiscal “some recognition” (“aliqua recognitio”).19 This and Seghizzi’s continued protection of his fiscal, Vitale Vitali, turned out to be a mistake, since he was later convicted of malversation by Bishop Cesare Speciano, acting on orders from Rome and in tandem with Seghizzi in a case of expropriation of a convicted heretic’s property.20

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 112

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

113

The same man who accused Vitali, Francesco Ferrari, brought charges against Seghizzi as well. More than one inquisitor faced such denunciations. Initially, the Congregation dismissed those lodged against Vitali and ordered Ferrari himself proceeded against.21 It took the case against Seghizzi more seriously. On the strength of Ferrari’s denunciation of 28 October 1605, on 23 November it ordered Bishop Speciano to open a secret investigation while at the same time ordering Seghizzi to “preserve and defend the rights of the office.”22 The bishop apparently found more problems than the particular instance of financial impropriety Ferrari had raised, since Seghizzi was ordered not only to deposit all money he took in, but also not to receive women in his room or visit noble women outside the convent—Giovanni Battista Tubicini’s daughter in particular—and, oh yes, eat in the refectory. None of this came from Ferrari’s denunciation, which the bishop was also to investigate.23 Seghizzi defended himself in a letter of 26 January when he was sent an order of 1597 about staying in the convent and conducting Holy Office business there.24 Six weeks later, the order to the bishop was repeated.25 A month after that, acting on letters from all three parties—bishop, inquisitor, and complainant—the Congregation instructed the bishop to warn Ferrari to cease his machinations.26 Instead, Ferrari took his complaint to the Dominican provincial of Lombardy.27 On 31 May 1606, on the basis of two reports from Seghizzi, the Congregation ordered Ferrari proceeded against for false witness.28 A month later, again on two letters from Seghizzi, the inquisitor was ordered to investigate his client Vitali.29 In August, the case was taken away from Seghizzi and given to the bishop.30 Rome was moving fast. In the first two instances, the most recent letter from Cremona it had received was dated just two weeks earlier, and even during the August lull only three weeks had gone by before it fired back another order. The bishop remained in charge, although the Congregation defended Seghizzi by telling him to be sure to note Ferrari’s animus.31 Then in June 1607, Vitali was ordered to Rome under caution of 2,000 scudi, a device the Inquisition often used, and the bishop was to send his processo; instead, in September, Seghizzi and not the bishop (who had probably died in the interval) forwarded the most important part of the file, the summarium, on which judgment ordinarily rested.32 So it did now. The Congregation proposed sentence barring Vitali from holding the office of notary in inquisition or ecclesiastical cases.33 Just at this moment, the bishopric changed hands. The new holder was Cardinal Paolo Emilio Sfondrato, an Inquisitor.34 By December Vitali had been imprisoned in Rome.35 Assigned a defense in January, in March after the

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 113

8/27/12 11:46 AM

114

c ha pt er 4

consultors were heard he was sentenced almost exactly as originally proposed with exile from Cremona tacked on, and given a precept on both scores.36 Vitali remained in prison whence he repeatedly asked for rehabilitation and just as repeatedly had his petition denied on Seghizzi and Sfondrato’s joint recommendation.37 Finally, in January 1610, with Seghizzi providing a testimonial, Vitali was apparently rehabilitated to act in ecclesiastical cases but not those before the inquisition.38 He also succeeded in having his exile canceled, again on the strength of letters from Sfondrato and Seghizzi.39 Eventually he seems to have been at least temporarily rehabilitated in toto, even though Sfondrato’s successor as bishop refused to admit him to practice, as did Seghizzi’s replacement as inquisitor, the future Cardinal Desiderio Scaglia.40 Curiously but entirely in keeping with what one would expect from both the records and the Inquisition’s manner of proceeding, in May 1612, the last time Vitali appears in the decree registers, he was once more denied rehabilitation.41 We can track one other case during Seghizzi’s tenure almost blow by blow through the decree registers, the prosecution of Ippolito Roma, apparently for homicide, but why Seghizzi took the case is unknown; it is most likely that the murdered man was among his familiars, who were protected by Pius V’s bull of 1 April 1569, Si de protegendis, which assigned attacks on them to the inquisition (and allowed them to carry arms for defense).42 On 21 April 1605 the case was ordered “expedited,” that is, moved to judgment; two months later Roma was assigned a proctor, the summarium was ordered to be copied on 5 July, and he was sentenced to imprisonment on 7 September, when the former vicar of the inquisition in Cremona was also barred from office.43 Roma appealed to the Congregation, and it responded by ordering Seghizzi first to investigate Jacopo Roma, and then to see that Ippolito served his sentence and that 150 or 200 scudi of his fine were applied to the fabric of the Dominican convent, apparently in Cremona.44 Roma refused to pay and was condemned to the galleys.45 Eventually his fine was ordered to be given to the father of the man he murdered, a peculiar version of ecclesiastical wergild.46 Roma died almost immediately. His widow’s constant requests for remission of his fine were repeatedly denied.47 Seghizzi generated a large volume of business for the Congregation, often leading it to enunciate general principles. For example, in early 1605 he was told “when there are sufficient evidences to inquire, although not sufficient for purgation through torture, officials in expeditions of cases may accept honoraria according to the form of fees then sent. The inquisitor and vicar may not accept anything for gifts or sentences according to the decree of our illustrious

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 114

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

115

lords” (“quod quando adsunt sufficientia inditia ad inquirendum, quamvis non sufficient ad torturam, vel ea tormentis purgentur, possint officiales in expeditionibus causarum accipere onoraria iuxta formam taxae tunc missae. Inquisitor et vicarius pro sportulis aut sententiis nihil possint accipere iuxta decretum Ill.mi D.ni Nostri”).48 And while Seghizzi, like most inquisitors, saw Rome quash his share of cases, it upheld some of the harsher sentences he handed down.49 Thus in 1607 mercy was denied to four men sent to the galleys, the worst punishment short of death.50 One of them—important enough to have the Congregation hear his appeal at its next meeting—eventually won commutation of his sentence into serving a hospital.51 Another year later, his rehabilitation was left up to Seghizzi and Sfondrato.52 Seghizzi often suffered fraught relations with the bishop during the first part of his tenure. We have seen the bishop report a number of damaging charges against Seghizzi, and Seghizzi only too happily followed suit. Thus in a big case beginning in mid–1607 he managed to have three other Dominicans condemned to exile, one of whom the bishop had wanted to serve as his vicar, as well as a fourth friar, Pietro Martire Lotteri, who may be the same as Master Pietro Martire da Brescia, who had been brought in by the bishop to form the process against Vitali.53 All certainly appear in his trial.54 When Seghizzi appointed a new consultor after properly asking permission to do so, the bishop induced the Congregation to have him explain why he had chosen the man he did.55 Seghizzi was often also at loggerheads with the Spanish political authorities about whether his familiars could carry firearms or the podestà had the authority to license legal proceedings, including those of the inquisition.56 It is highly significant that Seghizzi and Bishop Sfondrato, even though he was a Spanish client, cooperated well, since when Sfondrato returned to Rome in 1610 he would have made an ideal patron. Instead of carping about consultors, Sfondrato let Seghizzi without fuss name Sfondrato’s auditor along with two other men to the post, a decision announced in a joint letter from bishop and inquisitor.57 Decisions were often left to both of them, for example, whether to hold an abjuration for blasphemy in public or to remit a sentence.58 On 21 July 1609 Seghizzi was promoted to Milan, the highest ranking provincial inquisition and with Venice the most difficult, with Naples not far behind.59 Less than two weeks later Scaglia recommended him to Federico Borromeo, stressing “the close friendship since our earliest youth” between them.60 Unlike in Venice, where the nuncio and inquisitor acted in concert, there was no resident papal diplomat in Milan, and its archbishop had his own ideas about how to do things. As soon as he arrived, Seghizzi picked up where

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 115

8/27/12 11:46 AM

116

c ha pt er 4

he had left off in Cremona, asking for advice from the Congregation.61 Thus in November he was written that the fact of a suspect’s spontaneous appearance did not lessen “the seriousness of the abjuration, and he should expedite a sponte comparens according as he judged just, since he was not obliged to follow the consultors’ opinions” (“gravitate abiurationis, ac expediat sponte comparentis prout iustum censuerit, cum non teneatur sequi opinionem consultorum”).62 A much more important point of general relevance concerned how to prosecute and punish women accused of malefice.63 Seghizzi was denied permission to build a special “witch prison” at the same time as he and the Congregation wrestled with the problem of how to pay for the inquisition’s ordinary one. He wanted to construct the new jail to hold the fifteen women he had condemed to imprisonment, but was told in no uncertain terms that the sentence “does not please” and was ordered to commute it, if necessary in consultation with Archbishop Borromeo. Seghizzi evidently dragged his feet, since he had to be ordered again to negotiate with Borromeo a month later. Not that Borromeo proposed a lenient solution. He suggested turning the women over to secular authorities to be imprisoned.64 Seghizzi learned his lesson. As bishop of Lodi, he asked the Congregation for more instructions about how to deal with such cases and was sent “Instructio pro formandis processibus in causis strigium, sortilegiorum, et maleficorum,” which was once thought to be Scaglia’s work.65 The Congregation elaborated another procedural point to him in January 1610 “that when he imposes monetary fines, he should inform the Sacred Congregation, having sent the summarium of the process with the consultors’ opinions” (“ut quando imponit mulctas pecuniarias, certioret sacram congregationem, misso summario processus cum vota consultorum”).66 It may seem odd that the Congregation would order Seghizzi to take account of the consultors when levying a fine but not when deciding how to handle an abjuration, but this is a sign of the Congregation’s heightened sensitivity on the score of financial penalties.67 Seghizzi, too, again got into trouble over finances, accused of misapplying a fine, but this time the Congregation cleared him and examined one of his accusers, we do not know with what result.68 It did, however, prevent Seghizzi from retaliating against the other complainant, then in his prison.69 The year before, Seghizzi had been questioned about his accounts after Inquisitor Taverna reviewed them.70 Seghizzi also received lots of instruction about procedure, including how to publish edicts, to be sure only his vicar received denunciations and that he had the inquisitor’s authority to sign a file (making it a legal document), and to post local vicars only in places where the bishop already had one, a

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 116

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

117

rule derived at one remove from Trent.71 In May 1612 Seghizzi was ordered sent Paul IV’s bull about preserving secrecy, a perennial concern of the Congregation, although its dispatch was delayed.72 Again as he had in Cremona, Seghizzi tried to take care of his staff, with similar lack of results: Rome rejected a raise he proposed for the consultors.73 He did succeed in having Giacomo Tinti da Lodi made his vicar.74 The decree register records neither the end of Seghizzi’s tenure nor Scaglia’s deputization to replace him in Milan.75 The promotion of its inquisitor to commissary in Rome was the usual move.76 Missing the changing of the guard in two such important posts is a good indication of how poorly the registers could be kept. We know by inference that Seghizzi was nominated commissary, apparently in November or early December 1614, because he asked for Tinti as his socius and his request was approved on 2 January 1615; to judge from this coincidence as well as several others, it is likely that it was standard practice for the commissary to name his own substitute.77 Both took the oath of office on 25 February.78 Two days later Seghizzi issued his first sentence, a week after his predecessor’s last one.79 After almost exactly a year in office came the precept to Galileo. At least it looks as if Seghizzi knew how to administer it, since he he had been ordered to apply a similar procedure and “gravely warn” (“graviter monere”) a Cassinese Benedictine monk in 1612.80 Two months later in 1616, the aged bishop of Lodi was allowed to resign his diocese to Seghizzi (keeping a large pension for himself ).81 Seghizzi was examined as to his fitness at the Quirinal Palace two days after the resignation and called “elect” in the Inquisition’s records the next day.82 On 26 June he was consecrated in Santa Maria Maggiore by Cardinal Millini with one of its consultors and Seghizzi’s fellow Lombard Ulpiano Vulpi assisting.83 Seghizzi last appears as commissary on 5 October.84 Seghizzi’s reluctance did not cause the delay between elevation to Lodi and leaving Rome; rather bad weather prevented his successor from arriving until 1 October.85 His boyhood friend Scaglia took his oath the same day Seghizzi left. Seghizzi’s “dismissal” is included among some miscellaneous notes the notary added after his signature, followed by another signature as “the same notary” in order to authenticate the record of these further actions.86 Interestingly enough, Scaglia’s socius, Deodato Seghizzi da Lodi, had already taken office on 7 September.87 He must have been Seghizzi’s relative. Even better for Seghizzi, his own socius, Tinti, became inquisitor of Casale in August 1616 and a year later moved to Como.88 The fact that Scaglia did not name his socius, together with Tinti’s appointment and Seghizzi’s own to his hometown see,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 117

8/27/12 11:46 AM

118

c ha pt er 4

makes it look as if these were bribes intended to induce him to make way for Scaglia. In any case, it is unlikely that he was somehow disgraced for his role in Galileo’s precept. Scaglia repaid the favor by recommending Deodato Seghizzi to Federico Borromeo.89 Deodato’s appointment may have been irregular, but it still served to launch his career on the usual track. Three years later he left the post of socius to take up that of inquisitor in Pavia and in 1624 moved to Mantua.90 At least two other lodigiani appear on the staff of a local inquisition as vicars, Aurelio da Lodi in Ancona (1604) and Antonio da Lodi in Ferrara (1620).91 This pattern suggests residual clout for Seghizzi as it demonstrates the importance to recruitment of family and geographical ties.

Desiderio Scaglia (1616–1621) By the time he replaced Seghizzi as commissary, Scaglia had been following in his predecessor’s footsteps for a long time. Little is known of his early years, except that he became a Dominican at Cremona (a fact that should probably be taken with a grain of salt given his success falsifying his geographical origins, which was traced in Chapter 3), where he may have taught; his will said he had been professed for fifty-four years, meaning he came late to the order, at about age eighteen (ca. 1585).92 He certainly moved from Brescia to Cremona between 1592 and 1595.93 He followed the usual path of promotion through the Dominicans, including teaching theology in Cremona after studying in Bologna. A funeral oration by a man who knew Scaglia in Parma said that he had attracted the attention of the bishop of Cremona, Niccolò Sfondrato, the future Gregory XIV.94 His first big step up may have come as personal theologian to Ranuccio Farnese; he was certainly a preacher in the court of Parma by the mid–1610s.95 That he was one of the most famous theologians and preachers of his day is possible but not well documented, except for Sfondrato’s emergency use of him to preach Lent in Cremona in 1609; Sfondrato may perhaps have known Scaglia through his uncle Pope Gregory.96 Scaglia seems to have begun as inquisitor in Pavia without previous training, although the funeral oration gave his first post as Tortona.97 He may, like his successor in Cremona, have been prior of a convent.98 Denunciations dogged Scaglia even more than they did Seghizzi. Eighteen months after his arrival the Congregation ordered the inquisitor of Milan secretly to investigate one, but the case was quashed when the accuser could not be found after only a week or two of looking for him.99 A year later, he was reported again by

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 118

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

119

Fra Agostino da Pavia for having published madrigals under a pseudonym. The inquisitors of Bologna and Faenza were ordered to send copies of the processi that the friar mentioned.100 The first of these orders, dated two days after the Congregation’s decree, survives and requests copies not only of the processo but also of the sentence against Scaglia.101 By 3 October a copy of the book had been found and was consigned to Inquisitor Pinelli for censure. It had appeared under the name of Francesco Scaglia at Casale Monferrato in 1600 from the press of the ducal printer.102 The Congregation took the charges against Scaglia more seriously than those against Seghizzi, perhaps because they involved publication. They were also plausible, since Scaglia wrote poetry.103 Nevertheless, on reports from Bologna and Faenza it decreed “for now nothing shall be done” on 5 December.104 The Congregation acted wisely, since the charge was probably trumped up. Although a shadowy figure, there does seem to have been a Francesco Scaglia who did indeed write madrigals, although the evidence likely comes from this book.105 Undeterred, Fra Agostino stayed on the attack, and the next year the Congregation made one of its typically evenhanded decisions: the Dominican general was to remove Agostino from the convent in Pavia, and the commissary was to warn Scaglia not to attend convivia (just the sort of occasions on which madrigals would be required).106 In late 1610 after Scaglia had moved to Cremona, two more denunciations came in, one from Pavia, a more worrying one from Francisco Peña.107 On the bishop’s report, the Congregation ordered Archbishop Borromeo to investigate the first extrajudicially while at the same time warning the bishop not to collect information without consulting Rome and to send it immediately once gathered.108 On letters from the archbishop and Scaglia it was decided on 9 August to await Sfondrato’s return to Rome and his report on how Scaglia had conducted himself in Cremona.109 Nothing further seems to have happened, perhaps because Sfondrato apparently recommended Scaglia as inquisitor of Cremona to replace Seghizzi.110 Peña’s denunciation seems to have concerned financial improprieties, at least if it is connected to the order in October to him to examine Scaglia’s account of what he had done with a large fine.111 The result is unknown, but we can guess Scaglia was cleared. The denunciations nonetheless continued. A hostile climate between bishop and inquisitor no doubt contributed. The biggest dispute concerned the bishop’s attempt in 1612 to append his signature to inquisition decrees at the same time as he issued orders about its business without consulting Scaglia. A week later the bishop was unceremoniously ordered to cease and desist. A month after that,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 119

8/27/12 11:46 AM

120

c ha pt er 4

Scaglia’s complaint that he was still interfering in Holy Office trials produced a similar order from Rome. Another month later Scaglia reported an agreement between his vicar and the bishop’s.112 By the middle of 1613, he and the bishop were jointly proceeding against royal ministers. They were sternly ordered not to do so without the Congregation’s authority.113 Just at this point the denunciations against Scaglia hit their peak. The Congregation reacted with varying degrees of seriousness. Some it brusquely dismissed.114 It tried that tactic in the case of Agostino Guaschi’s attack on both Scaglia and the inquisitor of Pavia, but Guaschi persisted and managed to have voided a “prohibition of gaming” against him in Pavia, at which time he was also warned (monito) against blaspheming, both serious offenses and often found in tandem.115 One of the stickiest cases snaring Scaglia arose at the end of his tenure in Cremona. Beginning in February 1614, it involved his vicar in Soresina, Camillo da Piazza or Piazza da Nico, who was apparently also his notary.116 The matter was serious, the treatment of a fugitive—or possibly two—charged with homicide and adultery.117 It seems once again to have arisen from bad blood with the bishop, who not only imprisoned the man but put him in leg irons. Scaglia tried to defend Piazza, but the bishop was ordered to report the case. The two investigated jointly. Denied bond, Piazza was brought to Rome (where Scaglia had earlier asked his case to be heard) and imprisoned in Tor di Nona.118 His case was entrusted to the Inquisition’s summista, Camillo Giudici, who in April 1615 was allowed to torture Piazza both “sharply” and at his discretion. After an hour’s torture, and with Piazza still standing in the negative, as the phrase went, he was ordered released on a 200 scudi bond and exiled. He may have been “rehabilitated” to Rome, whence he asked and was granted leave to return home in October, after which visit he had immediately to go into exile.119 He was still exiled in December 1617.120 Scaglia deserves high marks for persistence. Just about then he tried to send Piazza back to Soresina as vicar!121 Scaglia’s record of taking care of his staff was only a little better than Seghizzi’s. While he did manage to get money for his notary, in rapid succession his fiscal was denied a license to read Bodin, and his nominee for vicar was rejected, and he was ordered to appoint another man.122 After more than five years in Cremona, Scaglia stealthily moved to Milan. We find a new inquisitor named in Cremona on 4 December 1614, but the act makes no mention of Scaglia. By 2 January 1615 Scaglia had been deputed to Milan and was in post by 14 July.123 Milan was a consolation prize when

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 120

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

121

Cardinal Nephew Scipione Borghese failed to get him made commissary.124 Scaglia had already in 1610 brazenly asked Borromeo to help him get that job.125 Scaglia left little sign of his presence in Milan, except for being told that he had too many armed familiars.126 During the first three years of his tenure as commissary Scaglia did not make much more of a mark.127 It was only in early 1619 that his profile rose markedly. Then jointly with Bellarmino he entered the case of Cesare Cremonini. They judged that Cremonini’s “Apology” for De coelo did not take enough account of the Fifth Lateran Council’s decree about the immortality of the soul, nor did he sufficiently confute Aristotle, as he had been ordered to do in 1614. Pope Paul ordered the censures sent to the Dominican Cardinal Galamini and the inquisitors of Venice and Padua for their reactions.128 Cremonini promised to take account of them in part 3, yet to be written, but Paul demanded that he be ordered to do so.129 In September 1619 Scaglia was assigned to censure Cremonini’s corrections of De coelo and De quinta coeli substantia about both the soul’s mortality and the world’s eternity.130 Meanwhile in early August, he and Bellarmino were once again paired in an important case, Marcantonio De Dominis’s De republica ecclesiastica.131 On their approval, the University of Padua was allowed to publish both its censures of it.132 A year later, Scaglia alone reviewed a Servite’s reply to De Dominis, and Bellarmino looked over the censures sent from the University of Louvain.133 Later, Scaglia joined him, and their censures went off to the nuncio, who was to persuade the Louvainists to observe them; both were to consider the university’s responses in November 1620.134 Scaglia stayed on the watch, checking over Hypochrisis Marci Antonii De Dominis, which had been published anonymously, and the reprint was to take account of his corrections, which he prepared in about two months.135 Scaglia later offered a testimonial in the first canonization process for Bellarmino, and his close association with that highly revered cardinal cannot have hurt his career.136 On 17 February 1621 Scaglia became an Inquisitor, a little more than a month after he was made cardinal, a not uncommonly rapid promotion.137 And he had really arrived. On 4 March he is called “Cremonensis.”138

Ippolito Lanci (1621–1632) Scaglia’s promotion so shortly before Paul V died gave rise to an extraordinary situation. His successor as commissary, Ippolito Lanci, was deputed on 14

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 121

8/27/12 11:46 AM

122

c ha pt er 4

January but did not swear his oath until 31 March.139 In the meantime, on 2 March the new pope approved Lanci’s deputization.140 He does not enter the attendance lists until 6 April, perhaps because only then did he come from Milan, once he was sure he had the job; then he is listed among the consultors and after the assessor, changing the former order of precedence.141 Lanci was older than either of his predecessors when he took office, probably about fifty, but otherwise his career resembles theirs. It is possible that he was a relative of a former master of the sacred palace, Giovanni Battista Lanci, who died on 15 April 1598, although their birthplaces (probably Acquanegra Cremonese for Ippolito and Reggio Emilia for Giovanni Battista) are about 100 kilometers apart.142 It is more likely that he was a cousin of another master of the sacred palace: Niccolò Riccardi.143 The fact that Lanci lost office in late 1632 just at the moment when Riccardi first met trouble over the licensing of Galileo’s Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems suggests a link of at least clientage between them. The same kind of obscurity surrounds Lanci’s origins as Scaglia’s, with some sources making him a Brescian, and thus a Venetian subject. He is supposed to have taught theology at Brescia and Bologna and to have been regiense in the Lombard province, which may mean the same thing.144 Vincenzo Maria Fontana claimed that Lanci was theologian to the Dominican Cardinal Berneri, who is also supposed to have been Scaglia’s relative.145 If both are true, then Scaglia may well have had a hand in Lanci’s appointment. If so, that may help to explain his survival as commissary long after his original patrons had left the scene. Wherever precisely he came from and whoever his relatives were, it looks likely that once again both geography and blood played a role in his advancement. He had followed Seghizzi as inquisitor of Cremona, which suggests that Seghizzi may have given him a leg up.146 Like both Seghizzi and Scaglia, he was inquisitor of Milan when appointed commissary, but he had held that office for a much shorter time than either, only about eighteen months.147 He had quickly gotten himself into a serious controversy with the archbishop and had to be reprimanded by the Congregation. This was in part a face-saving move, since the Congregation also approved his zeal in trying to control the press, the principal point at issue with Borromeo.148 Lanci continued to engage in the same kinds of activities as commissary as Scaglia had, but under Urban his workload became heavier. A trivial instance occurred when the Congregation met on a Saturday, and Lanci had to take notes in the assessor’s absence.149 He also often passed on orders after the Congregation’s formal meetings ended.150 Lanci joined special congregations: for example, in 1624, one made up of Cardinals Millini (secretary); Scipione

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 122

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

123

Cobeluzzi (papal librarian and one of the most authoritative cardinals under both Paul and Urban); Scaglia; the commendatore of the Ospedale del Santo Spirito (a lucrative post regularly given to a consultor who was also a lawyer); the master of the sacred palace, Niccolò Ridolfi; the assessor, Mario Filonardi; the pope’s almoner and personal theologian, Agostino Oreggi; Fiscal Sincero; Riccardi; and an outsider, the Cypriot Eudaemon-Johannes, rector of the Greek College of Rome and Bellarmino’s satellite.151 He also got new jobs, including a number of extrajudicial investigations as Urban bent the Inquisition’s procedures to his own ends.152 He was thought to have expertise in economics, on one occasion reporting how to find the money to finish the Holy Office’s palace, and on another serving on a congregation considering a Genoese proposal about exchange rates.153 In 1628 with Cardinal Zacchia he was to review various inquisitors’ accounts.154 He also issued a number of orders in the Congregation’s name.155 Although Lanci does not seem to have been much involved in De Dominis’s case, he stood right in the middle of Tommaso Campanella’s. When Urban became pope he gradually reopened the proceedings that had begun in 1598. In mid–1626, Bellarmino’s censures on some of Campanella’s large output of works were dusted off (Bellarmino died in 1621), and Urban ordered Campanella better treated. Lanci was to see that he was still closely imprisoned and could not communicate with the outside world, while Scaglia was to pick up where Bellarmino left off “so that the author can be questioned about the suspect passages.”156 Similarly, Lanci managed the case of Girolamo Vecchietti, described in the Conclusion. By the time it was winding down, so was Lanci’s tenure. Right at its beginning, he had been relieved of duty and allowed to leave Rome because of illness.157 This license must have caused some difficulty for the Inquisition’s proper functioning, since his socius, standing in for him as his office demanded, was nevertheless not allowed to attend secret meetings and never came to corams.158 In late 1629 Lanci had a serious accident, and his enemies thought they saw their chance. The mishap may have been just that, but the opportunity arose from the loss of Lanci’s principal patron, Cardinal Millini, who died on 1 October. Lanci visited him on his deathbed, revisiting the jokes they had told one another (which, by the way, sheds a somewhat different light on the Inquisition than the popular grim view).159 He sang the Mass at Millini’s exequies at Santa Maria sopra Minerva. The new secretary, Urban’s brother Antonio Barberini, Sr., wrote Lanci from Castel Gandolfo, commiserating with him about his fall but also informing him that his socius, Maculano, would replace him on Urban’s orders. The notary was defeated by what to do

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 123

8/27/12 11:46 AM

124

c ha pt er 4

with this extraordinary order and simply tipped Cardinal Barberini’s letter into his register, the only such instance I have come across, noting on its wrapper that the order had been executed in the presence of witnesses.160 The notary, for one, thought something odd had happened. Maculano appeared as vicecommissarius only once or twice before Lanci apparently returned on 27 November, certainly on the 29th.161 He was quick to move to protect himself, ousting Maculano as his socius and replacing him with Tommaso Gastaldi da Alassio.162 By 5 December he was back on top in order of precedence.163 Lanci was comfortably enough in control in April 1631 to offer a lot of criticism (“multa dixit”) of the Jesuit Melchior Inchofer’s Epistolae B. Mariae Virginis ad Messanenses veritas vindicata when it came back from the qualifiers.164 The letter was condemned by both the Index and the Inquisition, but its author was still a powerful force and would gain in standing over the next several years until he produced the quasi-official defense of Galileo’s condemnation, Tractatus syllepticus.165 Lanci must have thought his position secure if he could confront Inchofer. Urban had brought Lanci back into his confidence, using him in a way that became increasingly common, as part of a secret particular congregation designed to bring a case to sentence, this time of a priest, a nun, and other religious who were to be executed.166 Lanci and Fiscal Sincero were centrally involved, and apparently largely on their opinions the priest was relaxed to the secular arm, and the nun tortured about her accomplices and sentenced to be beaten and imprisoned.167 It is explicitly stated that the pope based his sentence on Lanci’s report. And then Lanci’s health failed him again. In the first half of June 1630 neither he nor Sincero attended meetings, and from 12 June until 25 September Lanci was away from Rome, replaced by Gastaldi.168 After his return, Lanci had a hand in two more particular congregations, one about Mary Ward’s “Jesu­ itesses” and another about real Jesuits.169 Although he handed down a sentence on 3 July 1632, his nephew had already been licensed on 31 May to come to Rome to assist him in his illness.170 The timing is suspicious, since it coincides almost exactly with Assessor Alessandro Vittrici’s replacement by Boccabella. This moment reflects the steely detemination of the Barberini to put their loyalists into all important posts, even if they were not up to the job.171 Although the newsletter writer did not apply that carping remark to Boccabella, he could have, as we shall see. Reporting Lanci’s removal in November 1632 (not officially completed until the following month), the same writer offered four possible explanations of it, three of which are relevant here, as is another offered later, that is, that Lanci had talked too freely.172 First, he was unitissimo with Vittrici,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 124

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

125

whom he had defended vociferously. Second, Cardinal Antonio Barberini, Jr., had taken revenge on Lanci after the commissary had balked Antonio of a candidate as inquisitor. Finally, an explanation in terms of faction. Lanci was a Ludovisi creatura allied with the Spanish contingent led by Cardinals Borja and Roberto Ubaldini. Therefore he could not be trusted to handle the processi likely to be lodged against all of them in the wake of Borja’s protest in May 1632 against Urban’s offical policy of neutrality in the Thirty Years’ War.173 That Urban meant to use the Inquisition in such fashion is a little unlikely, but the rest of this factional analysis of Lanci and Vittrici’s end is more than plausible. Gregory XV’s short reign cast a long shadow over the Inquisition, which Urban could not fully control until the early 1630s. This factional interpretation was amplified later to include Lanci’s allegiance to his order’s General Niccolò Ridolfi as well as the blood relationship of both to Riccardi.174 The Tuscan ambassador offered almost exactly the same analysis, blaming Lanci’s removal on being “a dependent of Ludovisi,” that is, a client of Gregory XV’s leftover cardinal nephew, then in disgrace and, even worse for Lanci, on the point of death, which came on 18 November.175 The ambassador confirmed the report that Lanci rejected a bishopric, insisting he wanted no compensation for his dismissal, and no more than to be left alone to retire to the convent of Santa Sabina on the Aventine. When he refused the usual douceur, his masters tried a decent pension in return for a promise not to leave Rome, in order to prevent leaks and to have him handy in case they chose to punish him.176 He did not go without a fight, believing up until the moment of his final dismissal in late December that he would be confirmed in the job.177 There is one last interpretation of Lanci’s fall: he was forced out to make way for Galileo’s prosecution. As he had told Galileo’s favorite student, Benedetto Castelli, in October 1632, he meant to write in defense of Copernicus and did not think the issue should be settled on the basis of scripture.178 Castelli called him “di molto garbo” (roughly, “an adroit operator”). Since he was also an experienced inquisitor, who wrote two books about inquisitorial practice, he posed too serious an obstacle to Urban’s plans.179 He had to go. He died in Santa Sabina in 1634.180 None of these explanations of his end are mutually exclusive.

Vincenzo Maculano (1632–1639) Maculano (1578–1666) did not earn the job on qualfications superior to those of Lanci, to whom he probably owed his appointment as socius in 1623.181 He

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 125

8/27/12 11:46 AM

126

c ha pt er 4

came from Firenzuola d’Arda in the duchy of Parma, as did an earlier commissary of the Holy Office, Alberto da Tragagliolo or Drago, also called Berto da Firenzuola.182 His father was a notary and tax collector and possibly, like his brother, also a military engineer.183 Maculano became a Dominican in Pavia in 1594 and then studied at Bologna, not only the usual law and theology but also mathematics and geometry.184 He gained the requisite administrative experience as prior in various places.185 In one of them he got into trouble and thereby came to Cardinal Nephew Borghese’s notice. His priory of Santa Croce in Bosco Marengo (near Alessandria and founded by Pius V) was visited in 1618 on Borghese’s authority.186 Maculano complained, and Borghese told him to obey at the same time that he comforted Maculano that he would take care of him.187 Apparently at least disciplinary proceedings arose, against which the duke of Parma tried to protect Maculano. Borghese assured the duke that Maculano would not suffer by them. 188 Five years later Maculano came to Rome at the relatively advanced age of forty-five. Until this moment, he had not been on the fast track, unlike Scaglia, whom he may have known while both were in the duchy of Parma. Maculano’s performance as socius would not seem to have singled him out either. Not even as assiduous in attending as Seghizzi had been, Maculano appeared at only twenty of fifty-five meetings and held the job for barely six months before, like Scaglia, being sent to Pavia as inquisitor.189 It will bear emphasis that he had much less than the usual amount of training as such. How then to explain these two rapid promotions? The cause is likely to have been Urban VIII’s election, which preceded Maculano’s summons to Rome by only a few months. We do not know what about Maculano caught Urban’s eye, but we can guess that it was his prowess as a military engineer. He was described as “in addition to sacred letters . . . very expert in architecture and fortification.”190 With more venom if not necessarily less truth, Gabriel Naudé called him a “man more versed in fortifications than in matters of theology or of the Holy Office.”191 No doubt but that a grasp of how to construct fortresses was an unusual qualification for an inquisitor. Maculano had barely arrived in Pavia when he was granted leave to go to Genoa for three weeks to practice his craft, followed by another month in January 1625.192 He went there regularly throughout his tenure of Pavia, if he was not indeed permanently in residence in the Ligurian capital.193 He is also supposed to have worked for Odoardo Farnese in Piacenza at the same time on a project almost as big as his next one in Genoa.194 He served there principally as a consultant on the construction of the massive Mura Nuove as well as other fortifications.195 The problem of the

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 126

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

127

commute was solved by his appointment to succeed Eliseo Masini as inquisitor in Genoa on 26 August 1627.196 Two months after taking up the post, his replacement in Pavia reported that the Holy Office’s building there was falling down. It seems the engineer/architect Maculano was too busy in Genoa to take care of his own headquarters.197 He was ordered to defend himself, but there is no sign he ever bothered. It is likely that his absence negatively affected the local inquisition’s functioning.198 Maculano did handle a few cases in Pavia, among them the arrest of the notary of the inquisition of Piacenza for carrying a gun (he succeeded in inducing the podestà to return the firearm); three cases of “magnetic baptism,” in the last of which Maculano tried but failed to have Urban’s sentence commuted almost as soon as it was handed down; and several cases of solicitation in the confessional.199 Pavia was also a major watching post for prohibited books coming from the north, as well as a printing center. Although Maculano was much less vigilant than Scaglia had been on the first score, he did handle one case of a local publication. It involved a book by a Somaschan friar that the bishop had licensed. Maculano was inclined to mercy. He persuaded Urban to allow the last of his magnetic baptizers to go to Perugia after his eye fell out (!), although Maculano did not gain commutation of the sentence to house arrest. Similarly, he tried several times to have a friar’s sentence commuted before finally succeeding. This was normal; it was rare to have the Congregation or even more the pope grant such a request the first time. Maculano also asked mercy for what may have been the friar’s co-conspirators, without success.200 Maculano left little sign of his presence as inquisitor in Genoa, either. Only about a half-dozen entries in the decree registers concern him.201 Even while holding the post, he had already gone to Rome by 21 February 1629, when he appears among the consultors. He probably stayed there until his appointment as proctor-general of the Dominican order, on the strength of which he continued to sit as a consultor of the Holy Office, although this was not always the case.202 The appointment as proctor lay in the hands of the Dominican general Ridolfi, at least in theory.203 By now if not earlier, Maculano had also become a Barberini client. In late 1629 he accompanied Antonio Barberini, Jr., on his legation to northern Italy. On this trip, Maculano also served Antonio’s father, Carlo, general of the church and Urban’s brother, for all of whom he inspected the fortifications at Ferrara and the “Forte Urbano” in Castelfranco Emilia, about which he also reported to Francesco Barberini.204 Maculano and Cardinal Antonio visited Genoa in April 1630, and he was once

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 127

8/27/12 11:46 AM

128

c ha pt er 4

again allowed to go back there in early 1631.205 And he returned once more in early 1632 by which time he had become a trusted political adviser to his correspondent in Rome.206 Identified only by the unhelpful patrone, it was probably Cardinal Francesco.207 While there Maculano continued to involve himself in Holy Office business.208 Once in Rome, Maculano improved his prospects by much more frequent attendance at the Congregation’s meetings than when he was socius.209 The prospect of imminent advancement seems to have caught his attention. It came quickly. While Ridolfi was away from Italy in late summer 1631, Urban appointed Maculano vicar-general of the Dominican order.210 This favor made enemies, probably including Ridolfi, and in April 1632 Maculano, shortly after he returned to Rome, begged his “patron” for protection.211 Maculano and Ridolfi had descended to open warfare by April 1633. Ridolfi tried to block the election at the general chapter in Bologna of the provincial of Lombardy, a friend of Maculano’s for forty years.212 In order to do so, he had sent denunciations to Antonio Barberini, Sr., in his capacity as head of the Congregation for Bishops and Regulars, but Antonio was also, of course, Maculano’s superior as secretary of the Inquisition. Maculano, with Inquisitor Francesco Barberini’s full backing, confronted the general with the election results, and Ridolfi replied that he would rather resign than confirm them. Since Francesco used as his messenger “Mons. Tornielli,” almost certainly Antonio Tornielli, about to become vicegerent of the vicar of Rome and a consultor to the Inquisition since 1628, and Ridolfi sat as general in meetings of the Congregation of the Holy Office, the atmosphere in them must have been tense.213 Maculano eventually helped to destroy Ridolfi at the general chapter of 1642, held fittingly enough in the suburbs of Genoa.214 Maculano launched his attacks on the vulnerable Ridolfi from a new base of power in the Inquisition. Perhaps after one last trip to Genoa, where he may have built a prison, he took the oath as commissary on 22 December 1632.215 It was an odd occasion, since this was the date of the semi-annual prison visitation at which the commissary did not normally appear. Someone needed Maculano in office. As commissary, Maculano continued to act as military engineer, supervising the efforts of “Sig. Floriano.” This was Pietro Paolo Floriani, then engaged in Ferrara.216 And apparently still while commissary, Maculano both took part in the campaigning of 1636 in Piedmont and also worked on fortifications on Malta beginning in 1638, perhaps in tandem with Floriani.217 On 7 July 1639 Maculano left office, replacing Riccardi as master of the

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 128

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

129

sacred palace.218 The move may have been his idea; at least Cardinal Francesco apologized to him for having forgotten to take care of it.219 Both of them were much more interested in the Forte Urbano, on which Maculano worked in May and June.220 Much of the rest of Maculano’s career is difficult to reconstruct, since he dated most of his correspondence only by the day of the week.221 Nevertheless, he continued to be involved in fortifications even after becoming a cardinal in 1641.222 To his credit are the walls Urban built on the Janiculum for the War of Castro (dated 1643 on the stemmata in them) as well as work on Castel Sant’Angelo.223 In early 1642 he was made archbishop of Benevento, succeeding Urban’s close friend Agostino Oreggi, but, unlike Inquisitor Pompeo Arrigoni, seems never to have resided in or possibly even to have visited the place.224 A prognostication for a future conclave after the “long empire of the Barberini” (“lungo imperio de’ Barberini”) characterized Maculano as more favorable than most to them, since they “had raised him from nothing” (“haverlo sollevato da niente”). On the plus side, he had few relatives. Although his subject, Maculano owed the duke of Parma no loyalty, because the duke had never given him anything. On the negative, he came from nothing, was recently promoted, and—even more interesting—was said to lack experience in ecclesiastical matters. But he had made some money “etiam con industria rusticale” (apparently meaning actual agricultural work).225 He was nevertheless still among the principal papabili thanks to Antonio Barberini, Jr.’s backing.226 Unfortunately, he had made a new and much more formidable enemy, Assessor Albizzi who helped to block his candidacy several times in part by spreading the rumor that Maculano had been investigated by the Holy Office.227 Maculano and Albizzi were both members of the Congregation. As the disputes between Maculano and Albizzi and Ridolfi underscore, faction is not an element to be overlooked in studying the Inquisition. This generalization holds right down to its lowest levels.

The Assessor The Filonardi Family Dynasty (1597–1624) While little is known about the procedure for appointing assessors other than that nominations were sometimes entertained, the post had quickly become a desirable one, enough so to stay in the hands of the Filonardi family for

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 129

8/27/12 11:46 AM

130

c ha pt er 4

three generations.228 They came from Bauco in Lazio (now Boville Ernica [Ferentino]) and had begun to build up their power in Rome in the sixteenth century with their first cardinal, Ennio. He died too early (1549) to have been directly responsible for the family’s arrival as assessor, although his nephew of the same name who succeeded him as bishop of Montefeltro could have provided the springboard.229 The first of the family’s assessors, Marcello, was promoted from fiscal on 2 July 1597 and shortly thereafter received a summary of his first big case, Giordano Bruno’s.230 He probably owed his promotion to his patron, Camillo Borghese, the future Paul V, who had become an Inquisitor the year before and would certainly nominate him to a canonry of San Pietro in 1604.231 Loyalty to Spain also played a part in the family’s success. The leader of the Spanish cardinals in Rome, Antonio de Zapata y Cisneros (who was also an Inquisitor), allegedly quipped after some number of them had been promoted “are there more Filonardi?” as if they would get something, too.232 He was in a position to know, since he was among their patrons. It must have been his doing in part that the very junior Paolo Emilio joined a panel of important lawyers (among them the new dean of the Rota) as executors of Dean Peña’s will.233 According to an avviso reporting his death, Marcello rejected promotion as cardinal, a step up fairly frequently taken, on the grounds that he was too old, and asked preferment for his nephews instead. One, Filippo, became a cardinal and as such associated with the most powerful of his fellows, and he and his three brothers became bishops, laying claim in the process to Aquino (about thirty kilometers southeast of Boville Ernica) as a species of family benefice.234 On 10 November 1610, one of these brothers, Paolo Emilio, took the oath as Marcello’s coadjutor with right of succession.235 Just about two years later a third, Ennio Filonardi, became bishop of Ferentino, about twenty-five kilometers west of Boville Ernica.236 In addition, Filippo and his brother Mario each served a stint as vice-legate of Avignon, Mario for almost fifteen years, after which, like Paolo Emilio, he became a nuncio.237 On Marcello’s death in June 1614, Paolo Emilio replaced him as assessor, swearing the oath on 2 July.238 Not much is known of his earlier career, except that he was educated in the Collegio Romano, winning a prize in rhetoric.239 His four-year apprenticeship prepared him exceptionally well for the job, as seems to have been the intention. As an avviso of 1611 put it, “on the said day [Thursday 19 May] in the congregation of the Holy Office held before His Holiness [Filonardi] was admitted for the first time and he intervened then constantly in order to teach himself how to exercise his [office] well” (“In detto giorno nella congregatione del S.to Uffitio tenuta avanti S. S.tà fu intromesso

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 130

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

131

[Filonardi] per la prima volta e ci interverrà poi del continuo a fine di instruirsi bene essercitar il suo”).240 This may explain how his brother, Cardinal Filippo, secured the residue of Peña’s library after the Holy Office collected the banned books in it.241 Another avviso of about the the same time reported that his promotion was tied to Cardinal Filippo’s, and this seems to be the case.242 His transition into office as assessor was not easy. The fiscal, Carlo Sincero, tried to take advantage of the month’s interval between Marcello’s death and Paolo Emilio’s formal assumption of the office and almost literally fought him for control of record keeping. On successive days, 11 and 12 June, first Sincero and then Paolo Emilio took notes until in the course of the meeting of 18 June Paolo Emilio finally shouldered Sincero aside.243 In 1615, perhaps for much of the year to judge from the amount of money he was paid for doing the assessor’s work, Sincero officially substituted for his rival.244 Even though the second was assessor, he was usually identified in the attendance lists as “utriusque segnaturae referendarius,” which he became on 18 December 1614.245 Since at any one time there could be as many as 162 such referendaries, men admitted to practice in the twin papal courts of the Segnature di Giustizia and di Grazia, this suggests, as does the Filonardi dominance of it, that at this moment the office of assessor was not yet regarded as terribly important.246 It also confirms the common identification of the post as that of a judge (giudice).247 Paolo Emilio had unofficially been announced as archbishop of Amalfi in late January, papal provision coming on 10 February, at which time he was allowed to continue as assessor when in Rome.248 Paolo Emilio’s nephew took over for him in the session of 2 March, although his uncle was allegedly back for the coram the next day in which Bellarmino delivered his report on Galileo’s precept.249 On 5 April his brother the cardinal consecrated him in Santa Maria Maggiore, Paul V’s favorite basilica, when the avviso writer again noted that he had been allowed to keep the assessorat. Two weeks later Paolo Emilio got the real prize when he became nuncio to Naples. Traveling with his brother Alessandro, bishop of Aquino, he apparently had arrived already on 7 May.250 In addition to conducting official business, he acted in effect as Maffeo Barberini’s business agent.251 He died back in Rome and was buried in the family chapel in S. Carlo ai Cattinari.252 Paolo Emilio certainly had plans for the future. He had been in contact with the grand duke several times in 1615, and he was granted a license to read heretical books when he left Rome that was renewed at least once more.253 His biographer, although admitting that the evidence is thin, claims that Paolo Emilio scrupulously executed his instructions as nuncio.254

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 131

8/27/12 11:46 AM

132

c ha pt er 4

In contrast to Paolo Emilio’s long apprenticeship, his brother and successor Mario served as his coadjutor for less than two months before taking over as assessor, holding the post for eight years.255 He had already begun doing the work in early April, apparently with some irregularity, since the note of his activity was added by the notary after he authenticated the record of the session by his signature.256

Cesare Monti (1624–1627) When Mario, the last of the Filonardi to hold the office, left for Avignon in 1624, Cesare Monti (1593–1650) replaced him.257 His tenure was short before he followed the career path mapped by Paolo Emilio and went off as nuncio to Naples.258 Two years later after two successful extraordinary missions to Spain, Monti became a cardinal, outdoing both his Filonardi predecessors.259 This jump would become fairly common, two of Monti’s seventeenth-century successors, Albizzi and Girolamo Casanate, taking it.260

Alessandro Vittrici (1627–1632) Monti’s successor casts the office of assessor in a new light for several reasons. While most of the occupants, Monti included, are now little more than faceless, if well-documented, lawyers, Alessandro Vittrici appears as a more rounded figure. His appointment and perhaps especially his dismissal also show even more graphically than the first Filonardi’s the pope’s resolve to staff the Inquisition with his own men. The pope in question was Urban VIII, who at a stroke raised Vittrici from obscurity. Unlike the Filonardi, Vittrici bursts on the scene in 1624 when without previous announcement Urban ordered him, apparently simultaneously with his appointment as consultor, to attend corams. Two months later the pope assigned him to help examine suspects. The papal decree is entered in the register quite separately from any meeting, emphasizing its extraordinary status.261 In October 1625 Vittrici appears as “assistant of the summista” (“coadjutor summistae”).262 After a two-and-a-halfyear apprenticeship, Vittrici became assessor on 29 March 1627, a much bigger jump than Marcello Filonardi’s from fiscal.263 What qualified him beyond on-the-job practice? Vittrici was a lawyer, although we have no details of his degree, and as

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 132

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

133

late as the time of his first addition to the Congregation’s staff he was still married.264 Family helps to explain his career, despite his father never being more than wardrober to Gregory XIII. Although he seems to have made a good thing out of the office, Girolamo Vittrici’s appeal to Pope Gregory was the fact that he had been one of St. Filippo Neri’s penitents for thirty-five years.265 The family chapel in the Chiesa Nuova (the first on the right from the door) literally enshrined that status. Its altarpiece was also by Caravaggio, of whom Girolamo was perhaps the most important collector. His son inherited most of his collection, including “La Zingara.”266 Alessandro gave nearly the whole group of paintings to Innocent X in gratitude for being made governor of Rome, or, more crudely, as a bribe for the office.267 Girolamo had at least as strong a connection to Urban VIII as to Gregory. His wife was the niece of Urban’s poetry teacher Aurelio Orsi.268 Alessandro capitalized on that relationship by dedicating to Urban a collection of Orsi’s poetry with a dedicatory verse by himself.269 The peculiar nature of Vittrici’s appeal—piety, poetry, and pictorial connoisseurship—does not need emphasis. There is one more distinctive point to Vittirici’s career, a straw in the wind indicating the direction of Urban’s policy. In early 1630 Vittrici was added to Urban’s pet congregation of Propaganda Fide and just about a year later to the Congregation of Rites.270 As his pontificate wore on, Urban increasingly relied on a restricted group of men to do the most important work. Vittrici was one of the first of these. That status did not prevent his abrupt disgrace in July 1632.271 An avviso of 17 July reported Vittrici’s removal “with very rigorous words,” a situation made worse when Vittrici rejected Francesco Barberini’s offer of the bishopric of Ripa Transona as insufficiently lucrative. Although the newsletter writers often expressed surprise at an officeholder’s removal, in this case the circumstantial detail given suggests that the move really was unexpected. Vittrici was said to have been equally exceptionally well thought of by the Barberini and good at his job, so much so that two months earlier he had been rumored as secretary of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars (which went to another functionary of the Inquisition whom the writer thought much less qualified) and maybe even cardinal. The newsletter writer explained Vittrici’s fall just as he would Lanci’s primarily in terms of faction. Unlike in Lanci’s case, he cited chapter and verse, claiming that Vittrici had been with Borja for six hours the night before his protest. There was, as always, another possible cause. Vittrici “enjoyed” astrology, which had led him to be excluded from the case of “Prete Barbone” among whose papers many of Vittrici’s letters were found.272 Finally, Vittrici’s troubles were put down to the machinations of Ludovisi’s former

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 133

8/27/12 11:46 AM

134

c ha pt er 4

secretary, who had entered Cardinal Francesco’s service, and connected to the secretary’s campaign against General Ridolfi.273 Not even the support of the Congregation and of Urban himself could save Vittrici.274 The pope did get Vittrici a better bishopric, Alatri, and may have tried to make him governor of Campagna.275 Thence he wrote letters to two of Urban’s nephews, Prefect of Rome Taddeo and Cardinal Francesco, including Christmas greetings.276 The end of his career was once again a little odd, as he came back to Rome to the relatively low-ranking post of governor’s vicar-general and only then received a canonry of San Pietro, which usually came early in one’s career, before becoming governor himself in 1647. He died in 1650.277

Alessandro Boccabella, Vice-Assessor and Auditor of the Rota (1632–1639) Vittrici exited so unceremoniously that no successor had been lined up. His replacement took office on 13 July but only as vice-assessor. This was Alessandro Boccabella (1593–1639). Two weeks later he was called assessor, but with no notice of a formal appointment.278 He is much more commonly given the title of substitute, and never more than that after his return to office in July 1636.279 The avviso reporting his appointment called it interim, emphasizing instead his nomination as auditor of the Rota.280 In whatever capacity, he lasted barely six months, being permanently replaced already on 26 January 1633 (see below). Another notice of his appointment backhandedly complimented Boccabella on his prowess as a theologian, while pointing out his lack of legal qualifications. His friend, the gossip Teodoro Amayden, in his obituary for Boccabella agreed, calling him a “professional theologian” and only secondarily a lawyer.281 As often, credentials came second to the more important assets of social status and the right patron. Members of an old Roman family that once had many monuments in the church of Santa Rita near the Campidoglio and still has one close to the altar in the Aracoeli, his parents were well enough off to keep both servants and a carriage, recently become the most obvious sign of high social status.282 Patronage helped even more. Cardinal Francesco pushed through Boccabella’s nomination as auditor against Urban’s candidate, Francesco’s own general auditor Antonio Cerri, a major power behind the throne.283 Other avvisi stressed Boccabella’s lack of preparation as a lawyer, which he was desperately trying to make good, since it interfered with doing the assessor’s job.284 Boccabella’s weak credentials caused much more trouble to his

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 134

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

135

nomination to the Rota than his functioning as assessor, at least according to the avvisi.285 But did he really not have the right preparation? Two points say he did. First, although he originally joined the Inquisition’s staff in 1624 as a member of the congregation of theologian consultors, he next appears in the records as a substitute for the long-serving fiscal Carlo Sincero. On 8 March 1627 Boccabella took his oath of secrecy.286 Thus he was indeed probably trained as a theologian, but he had also served a five-year apprenticeship as a legal officer of the Inquisition. Second, he had a law degree from La Sapienza, the University of Rome, where he would later teach the subject to a son of his successor whose biography gloried in the link.287 These points are less conclusive than they sound, since the record of the degree is exceedingly odd (it may have been a dummy designed to qualify him for office), and teaching law, especially at La Sapienza, might well not have meant much.288 The short (maybe no) interval between degree and nomination is also highly unusual.289 Nevertheless, the more optimistic notice of Boccabella’s nomination to both offices—assessor and auditor—may have got it right when it emphasized that “he is such a good theologian and has such experience and ability that one hopes for the best outcome.”290 Boccabella’s career illustrates better than just about any other how much the Barberini demanded loyalty of their men and how little established modes of doing business in Rome concerned them. The same avviso said Boccabella was best qualified by how well he agreed with Cardinal Francesco “and because he breathes utter devotion.”291 He owed his entire career to the Barberini. Only slightly more than three months after his appointment as sub-fiscal, he was given an extra ten scudi a month, an action the penny-pinching Holy Office did not take casually. This time it executed a proposal relayed from Pope Urban by Cardinal Francesco, the cardinal nephew, but a man who at that point had nothing officially to do with the Inquisition.292 Less than a month later, again on Urban’s direct order, Boccabella, somewhat like Vittrici shortly before, was most unusually admitted to the secret part of the Congregation’s meetings, even though the real fiscal was almost never allowed into them, certainly no ordinary consultor was, and even Boccabella’s attendance is never officially recorded.293 Aside from constantly jockeying for precedence with other consultors, even managing sometimes to have himself put into the attendance list ahead of the man whose nominal deputy he was, Boccabella did not leave many obvious signs of his presence in Inquisition meetings—few consultors did—aside from several highly significant appearances on particular congregations.294 The

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 135

8/27/12 11:46 AM

c ha pt er 4

136

first came in 1629, when he is first linked to one of Urban’s favorite Inquisitors, Scaglia. The other members of this small panel were Urban’s almoner and personal theologian, Oreggi; Cardinal Laudivio Zacchia; and another consultor, Abbot Ilarione Rancato.295 A year later Boccabella again joined Scaglia and Oreggi on a particular congregation ordered to examine the small topic of the “human nature of Christ.” The other members were Borja, Guido Bentivoglio, Antonio Barberini, Sr., and one other consultor. Incredibly enough, they issued their report barely three weeks later.296 Boccabella was also busily ingratiating himself both with Commissary Lanci and with Cardinal Antonio Barberini, Jr.297 In December 1630 Boccabella joined a much larger commission dealing with a much smaller point, what to do about Ward’s “Jesuitesses.”298 Boccabella came to act as Urban’s personal agent with Ward and her flock, no doubt in his capacity of secretary of the Congregation for England.299 This was also one of several occasions on which he worked closely with Riccardi.300 In February 1631 along with Vittrici, Boccabella was added to the Congregation of Rites, continuing the trend to concentrate such posts in fewer and fewer hands.301

Pietro Paolo Febei, “der Assessor ohne Eigenschaften” If he had no other claim to be assessor, Boccabella had a weak one on the strength of his experience coming up through the Inquisition’s ranks. Even this is not true at first glance of the man who replaced him on 26 January 1633. On that date, Pietro Paolo Febei, “noble of Orvieto, deputed new assessor of the Holy Office, took the usual oath of silence according to the formula handed to him.”302 Unlike Boccabella’s stealthy entry, Febei’s arrival is about as fully heralded as any official’s ever was. And yet his tenure left almost no mark on the records, membership of only a single particular congregation, albeit an important one. It concerned the marriage dispensation the duke of Mantua needed to keep (barely) his duchy.303 Otherwise, beyond the formulaic record of his attendance at congregations, we know of Febei as a professional inquisitor only for his probable role in preparing the summarium on which Galileo’s sentence rested. We have a great deal of information about Febei (1585–1649), unlike Boccabella, before he became assessor, thanks mainly to the survival of a large part of his family’s archive, and his ties to the Barberini.304 The son of two cousins, he began his legal education in his hometown before undertaking further

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 136

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

137

studies at Pisa and Bologna, where he may have taken his doctorate.305 For a time he taught in Orvieto, and in 1620 he briefly held the newly created post of the comune’s secretary.306 A well-qualified lawyer, Febei yet knew nothing about how the Holy Office worked. Lacking experience like Boccabella’s, he had been a criminal judge for almost twenty years, getting most of his training from his uncle Giulivio Cartari in various tribunals in the papal states.307 Cartari’s father was a close friend of Urban’s uncle Francesco, which allowed him to introduce Febei to the future pope.308 As soon as Urban was elected, he brought Cartari to Rome as fiscal general, making it easy for the uncle to promote his nephew’s career. In 1624 Febei also came to Rome, along with his wife and six or seven children, to become criminal judge on the Campidoglio.309 Then back out to the provinces to Ferrara before taking up his most important post so far as auditor of the Torrione in Bologna (for about eighteen months between 1627 and 1629), responsible for the whole territory of that major papal legation.310 This appointment also represented the fruition of his uncle’s strategy of introducing him to the Barberini. He seems to have owed the job especially to Urban’s brother Carlo.311 Meantime, Febei’s wife had died, allowing him, like Vittrici, to enter the clergy—as he had always insisted he really wanted to do—and incidentally making him eligible for higher office.312 In early 1629 Febei returned to Rome and replaced his uncle as fiscal general, equivalent to chief prosecutor in the city courts (granted, under papal control), the closest he ever came to filling the assessor’s job description.313 Although Febei does not appear to compare well to a recent former fiscal, one of the most famous defense attorneys of the day, Prospero Farinacci, he did execute one assignment to Urban’s entire satisfaction. The pope put him in charge of the prosecution, in the governor of Rome’s court, of Abbot Orazio Morandi, an astrologer who had predicted Urban’s death.314 Although Morandi died before this irregular proceeding could run its course, Febei fully rewarded Urban’s faith in him. He knew how to do what the pope wanted, whatever the legal niceties. That is what qualified him to become assessor. It also suggests that there was some truth to the rumor that Lanci had to go in order to prepare for proceedings against important targets. Once in the post Febei feverishly learned by doing. The resulting handbook he drew up, a few pieces of which survive, does not inspire confidence. It rests entirely on the basic canon law any student would have known and on one of the least helpful manuals for inquisitors (at least according to the most recent historian to study it), the Repertorium inquisitorum.315 It looks especially embarassing by comparison with Assessor Girolamo Casanate’s

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 137

8/27/12 11:46 AM

138

c ha pt er 4

similar work, two fat volumes stuffed with citations.316 Febei did have one other qualification: he looked like a lawyer. In fact, in Orvieto they called him “Bellafaccia,” “Pretty Face,” and the portrait bust erected by his son Francesco Maria on his cenotaph in Santa Anastasia al Palatino in Rome makes him quite handsome.317 His epitaph is brief and singles out his status as “ex-assessor of the Holy Office” and bishop of Bagnoregio.318 The second appointment crowned his brief and inglorious career in Rome. He last appears as assessor on 12 July 1635, three days after becoming bishop.319 He reached his diocese ten days later.320 This was an unusually rapid departure for an ex-official of the Holy Office.321 Perhaps as his biographer, his nephew the antiquarian Carlo Cartari, insisted, Febei loved his new job and made an exceptional bishop, residing in his see except for a few months at the beginning of Innocent X’s pontificate, no doubt when he made one last stab at further advancement in Rome. As ordered, he founded a seminary shortly after his arrival in February 1636.322 But Cartari also let slip that his diocese was so poor that Febei had to pay for music in the cathedral out of his own pocket.323 It also had only one bell in the cathedral tower—the populace was devastated when it fell and broke in 1640—and three years later Febei still had not scraped up the money to recast it.324 Bagnoregio had not yet suffered the devastating earthquake of 1695 that put both the cathedral and the episcopal palace permanently out of commission, but it was terra incognita even to Febei’s relatives in Orvieto, a scant twenty-three kilometers away. One of them criticized Febei’s plan to go into a monastery there in order to recuperate his health, saying (incorrectly) that it had none.325 Febei amused himself writing two enormous legal textbooks. The surviving pieces of one of them, on criminal law, do nothing to reassure us about his competence. He followed an unusual method, transcribing a case at length and then raising questions about it, almost as if he were back in the lecture hall in Orvieto. Such a book would have had only limited use.326 Neither his bishopric nor these texts furthered his chances to get his career back on track; the fact that he apparently meant to dedicate the book to an auditor of the Rota shows how far his hopes had faded by 1640. At least twice more Febei was disappointed, first when he was said to be heading to Naples as nuncio, only to have the holder of the office stay in place, and second when Cardinal Francesco told Febei’s son Francesco Maria that his father would be made (like Vittrici) governor of Rome in 1643, only to see him lose out to Cardinal Antonio, Jr.’s candidate at the last moment, a scenario supported by Cartari’s premature letter of congratulations to Francesco Maria.327

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 138

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

139

Nevertheless, Febei did manage to set the stage for his family’s fortune.328 Francesco and Taddeo Barberini, above all the second, took care of his sons, especially Francesco Maria.329 Febei may have left his own advice to Francesco Maria about how to get ahead, the anonymous “Modo da guidarsi nella [papal] Corte,” which probably dates from mid–1641.330 After long service on several Roman congregations, including as secretary of Propaganda Fide, Francesco Maria became a wealthy man through the post of Commendatore dell’Ospedale dello Santo Spirito in Sassia.331 That office gave him the means to buy for his family several adjoining houses outside Porta Santo Spirito and immediately adjacent to the huge granary the Barberini had built (both lay in the path of the road put through in 1940 to serve the new Galleria Principe Amadeo di Savoia) as well as to refurbish a grand palace in Orvieto.332 He also ostentatiously demonstrated both his piety and filiopietism in Santa Anastasia by erecting monuments for himself and his father and by building a chapel full of relics dedicated to Carlo Borromeo and Filippo Neri. (To be fair, his great-uncle Giulivio had been Carlo’s nephew Federico Borromeo’s criminal vicar in Milan for many years, so Francesco Maria had a solid family tie to demonstrate.)333

Boccabella Redivivus A week after Febei left Rome, his successor, the erudite Francesco Albizzi, took the oath of office.334 For much of the first four years of his tenure, Boccabella acted once more as subsitute assessor. He was usually identified in the attendance lists as auditor of the Rota and put high in precedence, sometimes first, even though the dean of the Rota, also a consultor, should have outranked him.335 That dean, Giovanni Battista Coccino, as well as Peña, also a consultor, were always called by their title in the Rota. These two points indicate that at least in terms of status if not actual power a member of the Rota outranked an official of the Holy Office. The gestation of Boccabella’s appointment as auditor is both exceptionally complex and also well documented. Rumors of his nomination preceded by a few days the papal motu proprio of 20 July 1632.336 The next phase occurred quickly when the Rota met to discuss the document, as the holders of its imperial and Spanish slots informed a newsletter writer.337 In order to discuss his nomination, the pope had to extend the Rota’s term, but originally only for Giovanni Giacomo Panziroli’s nomination, with the Ultramontane auditors (perhaps including Cornelius Motman) making a big fuss over having to consider Boccabella, as well as forcing Cardinal Francesco

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 139

8/27/12 11:46 AM

140

c ha pt er 4

to send word that the pope wished the same privilege extended to Boccabella.338 Consequently, Boccabella’s examination began on 6 August.339 And then to the law books in order to avoid embarrassing Boccabella’s patron Cardinal Francesco, who “always puts forward subjects of little worth,” the newsletter writer added gratuitously. According to him, a major face-saving campaign was launched by which Boccabella would be shipped off to a bishopric in order not to damage the Rota’s reputation. Or maybe he was going to be made a cardinal, giving rise to a major disagreement between Francesco (who really wanted Orazio Giustiniani but would settle for Boccabella) and his uncle (who wanted Oreggi promoted).340 His nomination was allegedly still in doubt in January when Francesco and Antonio, Jr., fell out (again) over Panziroli, Boccabella not being so much as mentioned.341 Panziroli’s process moved along steadily, as he went through his required conclusion, a defense of various legal propositions, before 12 January. An avviso stated as a virtual certainty shortly thereafter that Boccabella would get the bishopric of Narni and be sent as nuncio to Portugal.342 That was wrong. A little more than a month after Panziroli did so, Boccabella went through a two-part demonstration of his qualifications as a lawyer. Both took place in the Cancelleria palace. First, he publicly defended printed propositions before a crowd of cardinals, auditors, consistorial advocates, and others.343 Two weeks later came his private performance before the cardinal vice-chamberlain, Francesco Barberini.344 The next day his processus was formed when testimony was heard from three witnesses.345 On 14 March he was “admitted,” and on 11 April he finally took over his predecessor’s caseload.346 His first published decision is dated 22 June 1633.347 He held office until death. Boccabella’s move to the Rota underscores the temporary nature of his appointment as assessor, as it does the casual disregard of the Barberini for established procedures. The ordinary step was from auditor to Inquisitor, as happened to Millini or Fabrizio Verospi, for example. The coincidence of the completion of his admission process within a month of Febei’s arrival as assessor suggests that this move may not have been settled on until the last moment, exactly as in the case of Vittrici’s removal. The Barberini seem to have managed from crisis to crisis. Despite losing the assessor’s post, it was rumored several times, especially the safest time—after his death—that Boccabella was to be a cardinal.348 What he may have lost in prestige he made up in hard work. Not only did he remain deputy assessor until his death, but he was also secretary of the Congregation for England, as we have seen, as well as “Corrector Poenitentiariae” as substitute for Prospero Fagnani from 1631.349 As deputy assessor, his remit seems to have extended to handling enciphered

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 140

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

141

documents for at least one nunciature.350 A file of his letters allows us an unusual view of how busy those clerical servants the Barberini especially trusted could be.351 Between keeping the agenda for Inquisition meetings, juggling its calendar around attacks of gout, and keeping up with the gagliarda Rota, he had his hands full.352 He last appeared as “pro assessor” on 17 December 1637, although his tenure seems to have begun to wind down in June, when he offered an opinion as if from a private person and expressed his willingness to attend any of the Holy Office’s meetings.353 He last weighed in as a consultor on 14 April 1639 and died on either 22 or 29 May 1639.354

Francesco Albizzi (1637–1654) Albizzi (1593–1684) officially took over on 22 December 1637.355 He continued in office for a total of twenty years until made a cardinal in 1654.356 He is described as “the most impressive personality of the Roman Inquisition in his day.”357 He produced two enormous compendia of Inquisition jurisprudence and procedure, part of which appeared the year before he died, and the other and more popular section posthumously. The first is De inconstantia in iure admittenda, vel non. The other, more strictly focused on procedure, is De inconstantia in iudiciis tractatus, published in both Rome and Amsterdam. Casanate, too, although his tenure as assessor was within normal limits (1668– 1673), was a much more substantial figure than the earlier assessors, leaving a library that still exists, the core of the Biblioteca Casanatense in Rome.358 Between the two of them, they graphically demonstrate how the status of the assessor’s office and of the Inquisition in general went up quickly over the course of the seventeenth century.

The Fiscal: Carlo Sincero (1607–1641) Sincero had worked his way up through the ranks. By 1599 he was archivista, which might be thought a vital role but seems to have ranked below the substitute notaries. Sincero’s first appearance typifies his behavior throughout his tenure: he asked a special grace for ill health but settled for extra “provision” (more money) instead; he remained archivist until promoted to summista and is last seen once more being given extra money. 359 Four years later he was deputed to pursue a case.360 The next day he is described in terms that make it

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 141

8/27/12 11:46 AM

c ha pt er 4

142

likely that he was still the summista, responsible for drawing up processi. Four days later he swore the oath of a consultor.361 When the chief notary took a leave of absence, Sincero prepared documents in his place.362 On 6 March 1607, he became fiscal, an office he had filled temporarily for the previous few weeks.363 He last appears in the records on 10 October 1641, when a substitute was appointed because of Sincero’s old age.364

The Notary The Adriani (Late Sixteenth Century–1607) Unlike in the case of both the assessor and the commissary, we know who named the final officer, the notary. That fell to the cardinal secretary.365 Unfortunately, we know little about the notaries and their assistant sub-notaries beyond the bare details of their tenure of office. An anecdote in Giacomo Fuligatti’s life of Bellarmino casts a dark light on at least one of the holders, who came to see the cardinal because he could not die quietly on account of all the evil deeds he had committed as notary.366 At the end of the sixteenth century Flaminio Adriani held the post, to be succeeded within a year or two by Quintiliano Adriani, perhaps his nephew or son.367 Since attendance lists are spotty this early and do not begin regularly until 26 April 1604, it is hard to be more precise about the point of transition between them. By then, Quintiliano began missing many meetings, until he was finally granted leave to go home for six months. Adriani had the distinction of having his nephew and sub-notary prosecuted for fraud and theft, committed while serving as his sub-notary, perhaps in part another consequence of the Inquisition’s penny-pinching.368 The nephew, Girolamo Meoli of Monte Santo in the march of Ancona, had forged various documents in order to steal 2,000 scudi.369 He fled to Constantinople (where his skills as a forger once again stood him in good stead and got him out of prison), and Peña lodged action for damages, first against Adriani and then against his estate.370 Meoli gained a safe conduct back to Rome in 1610 but ended up in Naples instead, where he was eventually imprisoned. Part of the problem running him down was that he had attached himself to the English ambassador in Constantinople, and another was the usual jurisdictional battles between the viceroy and papal agents.371 Before the end of 1612 he was shipped to Rome under heavy guard. His arrival coincided with that of the notary of the Holy Office in Padua, come to testify against him.372 For some reason, that

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 142

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

143

notary finally gave his deposition in Pisa in January 1613. Meoli was examined once in March, and shortly thereafter the nuncio in Venice was asked to check with the former bailly in Constantinople to see what he knew about Meoli. Luckily for him, the nuncio could not, since the bailly was at his villa. Meoli was still under investigation in October, when various writings were sought in Naples and Spain, if necessary.373 Then in January 1614 he escaped, an event possibly again made easier by the Inquisition’s tightfisted ways.374 Its prison warden was in trouble for debt, and early in 1616 his property would be auctioned.375 Paul V’s reaction to Meoli’s flight was to post an enormous reward of fifty scudi and to order the torture of anyone who might have been involved.376 The tactic worked, since Meoli was executed in front of the Inquisition’s prison (which not specified, but probably Tor di Nona) on 18 November.377 Fraud and other malpractice by Inquisition notaries, both in Rome and in the provinces, were persistent problems (see the case of the notary in Cremona, Vitale Vitali, above). Another former sub-notary found himself in Tor di Nona in 1624.378

Andrea Pettini da Forlì (1607–1624) Adriani was replaced during his final illness by one of his deputies, Andrea Pettini da Forlì, who officially became notary on 5 December 1607.379 At first, he put the minimum of effort into his job. His rough registers are much sloppier than Adriani’s, their attendance lists are always as short as possible, and he never gave officials’ names.380 It appears that he did not even usually sign the acts, leaving that to a substitute.381 He also hired an impressive number of sub-notaries, some of whom were paid for their work.382 His performance improved for a time in 1610—perhaps a function of the appearance of both a new commissary and a new assessor—when he produced an excellent fair register that not only gives the cardinals’ full titles but even notes when they entered a session if not present from the beginning, and he eventually was induced to sign in person, although in 1614 he switched back to his shorthand attendance list, perhaps because that new assessor, P. E. Filonardi, was no longer supervising him closely enough.383

Giovanni Antonio Tommasi (1624–post–1644) Pettini’s successor, Giovanni Antonio Tommasi, had long training first as substitute notary and then as archivist before taking over on Pettini’s death on

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 143

8/27/12 11:46 AM

c ha pt er 4

144

24 April 1624.384 He did only a little better, signing his first register somewhat more frequently than Pettini until he too decided that one signature per volume at the end sufficed, and infrequently recording the consultors’ attendance. Every once in a while in 1626 he signed individual entries.385 By that summer, Tommasi frequently went out sick and was replaced by at least two substitutes, Felice Marioni, archivist, who was officially deputed to replace him, and he in turn by Tommaso Federici, called simply “cler[icus]. rom[anus]” (Roman cleric).386 Federici did much better than Marioni (well enough to earn a raise in 1628), but he still put Sincero at the head of the attendance list for a coram, which is probably a mistake, and constantly changed the hierarchy of the consultors.387 Both details may be clues to the Congregation’s functioning, especially the second, since it may mean that the assessor noted the consultors’ names in the order they arrived for the meeting, and then rearranged them later into the proper sequence, or that ordinarily the assessor (or the notary) read the names off a prepared list on which the attendees had been marked. Marioni continued to keep much of the registers for 1627 and 1628, often without recording attendance and cutting some reasonably large corners.388 One of the most egregious instances occurs at the end of the annual list of graces, where he simply noted that many other petitions were denied.389 Not until 1629 did Tommasi permanently take over again. The register for the whole of that year is in his hand. And he picked up right where he left off. An entry on fo. 67r of five lines that contains only about fiften words, the rest being left blank, is only the reductio ad absurdum. The same holds for 1630, 1631, nearly all 1632, and 1633.390 Tommasi’s performance did improve over time, and those two registers are much better kept than his earlier volumes. He remained notary until at least 1644.391 The fact of Tommasi’s improvement makes it likely that most of the defects in the records should be blamed on the notary, because the same man, Vittrici, was assessor until mid–1632, at which time there might have been odd doings in his office, as we have seen.

The Summista: Camillo Giudici (1607–1636) Almost as important as the notary was the summista, the man who “was responsible for examining accused persons, and forming processi, and is provided a suitable person who makes the index of trials and names of those and makes the summaria of the processi” (“incumbat examinibus Reorum, et formandis

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 144

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

145

processibus, et provideatur de persona idonea quae conficiat indicem processuum, et nominatorum de eis, ac conficiat summaria processuum”).392 In other words, he took testimony and reduced it to writing. As we saw in the case of Camillo da Piazza, the summista might have complete charge of a proceeding, including torture. His work therefore lay at the base of the Inquisition’s entire operation. Luckily, one summista, Camillo Giudici (de Iudicibus), served for a long time, and his career allows us to document what else the summista did. Giudici’s tenure began at nearly the same time as Sincero’s, which suggests a link between them.393 From Leonissa in the diocese of Spoleto, it is also possible that he enjoyed the patronage of Maffeo Barberini, who became its archbishop about the time Giudici first appears.394 He, like Sincero, was a lawyer, perhaps taking his degree after beginning to work for the Holy Office.395 The decreta call him referendary, but I have not been able to confirm this.396 Rather than delegating work on the index of processi included in his job description, he undertook it himself, although he failed to finish the job.397 Instead, it was given to Pettini, who received fifty scudi contingent on completing the work.398 Unfortunately, we have no idea whom other than Pettini Giudici deputed to draw up those indices, nor even with much precision when they were constructed. It is safe only to say that they postdate the closure of the registers.399 Unsurprisingly, given that the job was delegated by one of the lowest-ranking if probably hardest-working consultors, the indices contain many mistakes. Giudici also traveled for his work. En route to supervise one case, he stoppped in Perugia to report on another of magic.400 Similarly, in 1611 he was dispatched to Montefiascone to help form a process against unnamed women, at which time Sincero was ordered to do the same thing.401 Giudici stayed in post almost as long as Sincero, disappearing without official notice from the decree registers after 20 August 1636.402

The Consultors Lawyers The fiscal and summista ranked with the second tier of consultors. Early on it is easier to see what this body as a whole did, since in the later sixteenth century the notary’s rough notes in which he recorded the individual consultor’s opinions sometimes survive. Often they were monosyllabic, but they could be quite extensive. Bellarmino distinguished himself by the substance of his.403

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 145

8/27/12 11:46 AM

146

c ha pt er 4

Over time, these opinions came to matter less and less, until by the early 1630s the consultors’ presence in corams became almost purely ceremonial. Even if we cannot always say much about what the consultors did, we can get a pretty good idea of what kind of men they were, sometimes a very good idea. One of the best examples is Ulpiano Vulpi. A native of Como, he used his status as referendary of both segnature as a springboard to higher office. We do not know exactly what he did to earn the position before, on 11 March 1609, he was provided to the see of Chieti but was either too busy or too uninterested to be consecrated (by Cardinal Nephew Borghese) until 1612.404 In 1611 he undertook an extraordinary nunciature to Spain; on his return he was said to be going to govern Bologna.405 The next year he settled a boundary dispute that future Inquisitor Verospi could not.406 In 1613 he was made vicar of the pope’s basilica of San Giovanni in Laterano, a post he held until at least 1617.407 He became a consultor on 5 February 1614, taking his oath at a meeting in Bellarmino’s palace.408 When Scaglia arrived as commissary in late 1616, Vulpi was among the first people he saw.409 He acted, as most junior consultors did, as auditor of the Inquisition’s property at Concha, one of the major sources of its revenue.410 A few months later he was appointed secretary of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars.411 When Cardinal Taverna died in 1619, Vulpi succeeded him as bishop of Novara.412 Almost at the beginning of Gregory XV’s reign, he was made datary and in September 1621 granted the privileges of a papal familiar.413 According to Gaetano Moroni, he was also secretary of breves to Gregory and was about to be disgraced when Urban was elected and confirmed him in both positions.414 These contentions have not been confirmed, but by September 1627 he served as Urban’s maggiordomo, as which he died on the night of 10 March 1629.415 Vulpi did well enough in Rome to build himself a palace in Como and to have the prized sculptor Alessandro Algardi cast his bust, now in the Museo Poldi Pezzoli.416 Vulpi also took care of his own. He brought a number of fellow Comaschi to Rome, including at least one lawyer, and had his nephew Pietro Vulpi made his coadjutor and then successor in Novara.417 These links of patronage are graphically illustrated by his tomb. His marker is now only a few feet away from that of his fellow Lombard Ottavio Tornielli in S. Carlo ai Cattinari, the church that also contains the Filonardi family chapel. Tornielli, a canon of San Pietro by Cardinal Borghese’s patronage, as his epitaph proudly proclaims, almost has to have been a relative of another consultor whom Vulpi almost has to have helped into office, Antonio Tornielli (1579–1650).418 He came from Novara and served as inquisitor on Malta before

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 146

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

147

being made civil lieutenant of the vicar of Rome and then his vicar-general and succeeding Vulpi as secretary of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars.419 He remained vicar-general until 1636, when he replaced Vulpi’s nephew as bishop of his hometown. Antonio Barberini, Sr., consecrated him.420 He is buried in the Aracoeli.421 One more lawyer rounds out this sketch. The Florentine Giuseppe Anselmi (ca. 1590–18 May 1630) got his start so far as we know in service to Maffeo Barberini as his vicar-general in Spoleto.422 Another referendary, he became a consultor in 1625, by which time he was also preceptor general of the Ospedale dello Santo Spirito.423 He attended congregations infrequently, also true of more than a few other lawyer consultors.424 He died and was buried at the Santo Spirito property of La Mantiana, and his exequies were celebrated two weeks later at the Minerva, as was usual for Holy Office personnel.425

Theologians Marcantonio Cappello It is easier to sketch a typical lawyer consultor than a theologian. Again, these officers were not coextensive with the separate group of theologian consultors (called qualifiers from at least 1621, perhaps to avoid confusion), although a few of the first group also belonged to the second. A couple of examples will illustrate the variegated careers that theologian consultors might have. One was Marcantonio Cappello. A Conventual Franciscan and doctor of theology, he was the public reader in metaphysics at Padua when he published Controversiae tra il sommo Pontefice Paolo V.o e la serenissima Republica di Venetia in defense of Venice. On the report of Benedetto Giustiniani (see below) and the vicar of the inquisition in Padua, the book was banned.426 Cappello was one of the first to succumb to papal blandishments and abandon Venice, despite Venetian efforts to prevent him.427 He was put on trial in Rome, as nearly all the so-called minor theologians were, and gave valuable evidence against Paolo Sarpi and his close friend and future biographer Fulgenzio Micanzio. The trial ended in his abjuration de vehementi and the repudiation of his book.428 Cappello recovered rapidly. In 1610 he published Adversus pretensum primatum ecclesiasticum Regis Angli liber in quo Iacobi Regis & eius Eleemosynarii confutantur scripta in Bologna. He was also licensed to print a reply to Lancelot Andrews’s Tortura torti, but oddly not to disseminate it; no copy has been found.429 In 1615 he asked to be made a consultor, and the pope allowed him

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 147

8/27/12 11:46 AM

148

c ha pt er 4

to work on an ad hoc basis, but apparently only for the Index.430 It was not until 1625 that he became a regular consultor at the request of his order and in irregular fashion, since its slot was already occupied by another man named Cappello (see below).431 Filippo Fabbri Another professor at Padua also became a consultor albeit temporarily, Filippo Fabbri (Philippus Faber). The Scotist Fabbri (1564–1630) hailed from Faenza and first came to notice in Rome by denouncing Cremonini in 1608.432 A dozen years later he wrote a reply to De Dominis that the Inquisition at first refused to license.433 Apparently it was not swayed by Fabbri’s dedication of the second edition of his Disputationes theologicae librum primum (Venice: Bartolomeo Ginami, 1619) to Cardinal Centini.434 After review by Cardinal Cobelluzzi, the book was allowed but seems never to have been published.435 Two years later, Fabbri sought and received help from the Holy Office for the publication of his De restitutione (full title: Disputationes theologicae de restitutione et extrema-unctione) (Venice: Marco Ginami, 1624), which the inquisitor in Venice had declined to license.436 This emboldened Fabbri to try again to have his reply to De Dominis published, this time censured by Scaglia, but despite blunt orders to the inquisitor in Venice to pass the book, it never appeared either.437 Despite his lack of success in replying himself, Fabbri remained vigilant, reporting in 1629 that De Dominis’s history of the Council of Trent (really Paolo Sarpi’s work) was for sale in Venice.438 Meanwhile, he had been appointed to the Conventual Franciscan slot among the consultors, an appointment rescinded for some reason.439 He had already published several major works and would shortly bring out Adversus impios atheos disputationes quatuor philosophicae (Venice: Marco Ginami, 1627), dedicated to Francesco Barberini both on the title page and in the dedication letter. Fabbri was among the most learned of the theologian consultors.440 Orazio Giustiniani As was Orazio Giustiniani (ca. 1577–1649), the third example. Giustiniani was born on Crete and was probably a relative of Cardinal Giustiniani, who provided for his education. He became an Oratorian in 1614 and was among the principal promoters of the canonization of Filippo Neri, the order’s founder. He was a consultor of Propaganda Fide by 1627, when he was proposed for a secret mission aimed at reuniting the Greek and Latin churches through the somewhat peculiar means of condemning the patriarch of Constantinople as

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 148

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

149

a Calvinist.441 Giustiniani became an Inquisition consultor in 1630 shortly before Fabbri died. At nearly the same time, he was made keeper of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.442 Near the end of his life he would become cardinal librarian.443 While his biographer gloried in the second, he mentioned the first only in general terms, perhaps because it was not of much significance.444 An avviso expressed amazement that he had received such a small promotion, given how much Cardinal Francesco thought of him.445 He probably owed his appointment as consultor to Barberini, who had used him in his synod at Farfa; Giustiniani would later be described as the cardinal’s anima.446 Barberini was alleged to have wanted to make him a cardinal in 1632, a title he did not gain for another thirteen years, perhaps significantly not until after the end of Urban’s pontificate.447 In 1634 the pope had to order him to attend Holy Office meetings.448 He left three volumes of notes on the Inquisition’s decisions, in addition to a manuscript treatise, “De iustitia et iure.”449 His most important published work is an edition of the acts of the Council of Florence. It was not exactly ecumenical in tone, since it blamed the fall of Constantinople on divine vengeance. Agostino Oreggi The final example is Agostino Oreggi (1577–1635). Probably from Santa Sofia in the Tuscan part of Romagna, Oreggi studied theology at the Collegio Romano, where he may have attracted Bellarmino’s attention.450 He then studied law at La Sapienza and took his ThD and IUD on the same day.451 Perhaps at this point Bellarmino allegedly named him “his permanent theologian” (“suum perpetuo theologum”). The cardinal got him a canonry of Faenza, and while there he attracted Maffeo Barberini’s patronage, moving into his service as theologian while Barberini was legate of Bologna and learning Greek from him.452 Oreggi continued as Urban’s personal theologian and almoner before becoming a consultor by 1 February 1624.453 He also served as consultor to the Congregation of Rites and to Propaganda Fide along with Orazio Giustiniani.454 He was certainly among the best-published consultors. Identifying himself on the title page as Urban’s almoner and dedicating the work to the pope, Oreggi published his first book in 1629, De Deo uno tractatus primus (Rome: Rev. Camera Apostolica, 1629). It was reprinted with an additional part the following year.455 The next year Oreggi published Aristotelis vera de rationalis animae immortalitate sententia accurate explicata (Rome: Camera Apostolica, 1631; IT\ICCU\BVEE\033430), which his nephew Niccolò Oreggi disputed at the Collegio Romano on 14 April 1633.456 Despite its subject matter, it did not

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 149

8/27/12 11:46 AM

c ha pt er 4

150

directly attack Cremonini. His Opera appeared posthumously in four volumes in 1637 in Rome.457 He also founded a small dynasty in the Inquisition, his nephew Bartolomeo Oreggi following him first as almoner and canon of San Pietro and than as consultor by 1636, still in 1644.458 Thus, from this sample, the consultors who were theologians look to have been learned men, the lawyers more usually men of business.

The Body of Theologian Consultors The separate body of theologian consultors usually lurks in the shadows. While it is not entirely clear how regular consultors were appointed, there is no doubt that the pope named these men, at least some of the time on nominations.459 It was this group, called a “Congregatio qualificationis in Sancto Officio,” possibly reinforced for the occasion, that gave the opinion in 1616 on the Sunspot Letters that in effect damned Galileo.460 On 19 February 1616 the panel received copies of the book.461 In the early morning of 23 February it held a meeting at which two propositions were tabled “to be censured”: “that the sun is the center of the world and consequently immovable by local motion” and “that the earth is not the center of the world nor immovable, but that it moves by itself, including by a daily motion.” The theologians handed down their brief opinion the next day. On the first point, “everybody said the aforesaid proposition was foolish and absurd in philosophy and formally heretical, in that it expressly contradicts the opinions of Holy Scripture in many places according to the proper sense of the words and the common exposition and sense of the holy fathers and doctors of theology.” The second proposition did not fare much better. Again unanimously, the theologians decided that it had the same philosophical status as the first and theologically was “at least erroneous.”462 Eleven experts signed the opinion: 1. Peter Lombard (1554–1625), archbishop of Armagh and primate of Ireland (not to be confused, as incredibly enough has sometimes happened, with his twelfth-century namesake, one of the inventors of scholastic theology), a prolific writer and almost as well-regarded a theologian in Rome as Bellarmino, his comrade-in-arms against James I.463 2. Giacinto Petronio (ca. 1580–1648), Dominican, master of the

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 150

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

151

sacred palace (1614–1622), later Urban VIII’s principal agent in the effort to entrench the Roman Inquisition in the Spanish kingdom of Naples and very unhappy in the job;464 a Borghese client.465 3. the Aragonese Rafael Riphoz (ca. 1554–1621), the no. 3 man in the Dominican hierarchy on the cardinal nephew’s recommendation, which probably qualified him as a consultor, as which he served until he became bishop of Elna (Perpignan) in 1618/1619466 4. Seghizzi. 5. Girolamo da Casalmaggiore in Cremona diocese, whose surname was Cappello (†1643), Conventual Franciscan, consultor of the Holy Office, appointed just about a year earlier; once regent of his order’s studium in Bologna; consultor for eleven years until he was made bishop of Termoli.467 6. Tomás de Lemos (1555–1629), OP, one of the most distinguished Spanish theologians of the early seventeenth century and a major figure in the dispute about grace (“De auxiliis”) between the Dominicans and the Jesuits;468 one of Riccardi’s teachers and a consultor since at least 1608; 469 served as such on a panel like Galileo’s considering Campanella’s Atheismus triumphatus.470 7. Portuguese Augustinian Gregorio Nuñez Coronel (1548–1620), another member of the papal commission about grace and a consultor by this time for almost twenty years471 8. Benedetto Giustiniani (ca. 1550–1622), SJ, a protégé but perhaps not a relative of Cardinal Benedetto, once Cardinal Bonifacio Caetani’s theologian as well as Cardinal Bandini’s teacher at the Collegio Romano, deeply involved with Bellarmino in responding to Venetian attacks on the Interdict in 1606;472 when censuring Francesco Patrizi’s Nova de universis philosophia in 1592 he had thought that the earth’s movement was not against scripture and that the question should be left to philosophers;473 in addition to a long list of printed books, author of “De legitima Rom. Pont. electione libri sex ad auream constitutionem S. D. N. Gregorii XV qua canonica in posterum Summos Pont[ifices]. eligendi forma praescribitur”;474 just before this panel met, he had succeeded on a second try at being made papal preacher.475

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 151

8/27/12 11:46 AM

c ha pt er 4

152

9. Raffaele Rastelli (†1632), Theatine, doctor of theology and also a lawyer, about whom little is known before this moment beyond a sketch of his teaching career and the assertion that he served as qualifier in Rome for fifteen years; he later lost that post and experienced other troubles with the Inquisition over his books; he became bishop of Capri at the advanced age of sixty-eight.476 10. Michele da Napoli, a Cassinese Benedictine and the most obscure of the lot.477 11. Jacopo Tinti, Seghizzi’s socius. It is hard to miss the Dominicans’ dominance of this panel, with five members. All but one (Lombard) of the total belonged to a religious order. The only other obvious pattern is that six of the seven men whose date of birth is approximately known came from the same immediately post-Tridentine generation. If this panel of theologian consultors is at all representative in its composition, that group may have been faceless but that did not make it undistinguished.

Francisco Peña, Consultor and Dean of the Rota One last consultor looms over the rest in importance, Francisco Peña (1540– 1612), not least for his vast legal learning, writing (including an incomplete manual of inquisition procedure), and editing, the second two of which activities will be considered in more detail in the next chapter).478 Born at Villaroya de los Pinares near Saragossa, he studied at Valencia, taking an MA in 1571 and probably also a ThD. In 1573–1574 he lectured on Justinian’s Digest at Bologna. Although this was the lowest-ranking lecture in its law faculty, it usually led to an IUD, as it apparently did in Peña’s case.479 By his own testimony Peña studied with Ludovico Segni (†1584) and Ferrante Vezza (†1586).480 When he came to Rome is unknown, although he may have been made a referendary of both Segnature in 1568 and practiced as such from at least 1569.481 The Spanish ambassador later said he had arrived in 1577, and his steady publishing there beginning the next year supports this evidence.482 In 1582 he was a member of the commission that produced a new edition of the Decretum and was also involved in that of the Decretals published two years later. In 1587 he worked under Cardinal Domenico Pinelli, sometime Inquisitor, on an edition of the so-called Liber septimus, another name for the Constitutiones Clementinae.483

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 152

8/27/12 11:46 AM

The Professional Staff

153

The next year the king of Spain nominated him auditor of the Rota, and he took office in October. He remained auditor until promoted dean in 1604, a post he held until his death. In between, he was named a consultor of the Inquisition in 1606, although the pope had sought his advice on several earlier cases before it.484 Among the cases Peña oversaw was one of peculation against Scaglia when he was inquisitor of Pavia.485

Conclusion As in the case of the cardinals on the Congregation of the Holy Office, it is difficult to find much common ground among its officials, beyond the broad division into lawyers and theologians and the dominance of three orders: Dominicans far out front in terms of numbers and because of their permanent tenure of the office of commissary as well as nearly all provincial tribunals, Franciscans (mainly Conventuals), and Jesuits, who wielded influence far out of proportion to their numbers because of Cardinal Bellarmino and his protégé Oreggi. A high level of education is another constant, especially among the congregation of theologian consultors, but this is not invariably true of the rest of the staff, including some consultors to the Congregation, Felice Centini, perhaps, and the notaries, who as good as had no education as far as we know. The large majority of the professionals published books or left writing in manuscript, including many manuals of inquisition procedure, most of them left unfinished and unpublished. Another regularity is that service to the Congregation often led to advancement to bishoprics, less often to the cardinalate, although many members of the staff either had cardinals in their immediate family or were closely linked to one or more. Geography and family relations had a lot to do with recruitment and promotion. Relative longevity of tenure characterizes most of the professional staff, with the signal exceptions of Commissary Seghizzi, Assessor Febei, and perhaps Notary Flaminio Adriani. Despite a number of complaints about future commissaries while training in the provinces, the professional ethics of most of the professional staff seem to have been relatively high, with the glaring exception of several of the notaries and their deputies. Again as in the case of the cardinals, the most marked pattern to the professional staff is the decline in their qualifications the farther we go into Urban’s reign. In inverse proportion as their preparation sank, so factional struggles over their appointments and removals increased. That the pontificate

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 153

8/27/12 11:46 AM

154

c ha pt er 4

of Urban VIII really did mark a nadir for the institution is suggested both by the relatively higher caliber of men serving under Paul V, himself formerly secretary of the Roman Inquisition, and the much higher prestige of the office of assessor later in the century, aided it is true by the distinction of one of Urban’s appointments, Albizzi, who may yet have originally been reluctant to serve. The three years during which his office was filled by the probably not well-qualified Boccabella may mean that a career in the Inquisition was not particularly sought-after under Urban. Certainly, a comparison of the credentials of Commissary Maculano to those of his immediate predecessor Lanci, or of those of Boccabella to even his immediate predecessor, Vittrici, suggests the same point. As important as was Urban’s role in the factionalization and declining quality of the professional staff, his brother Antonio, Sr., and his nephews Francesco and Antonio, Jr., also contributed on both scores, with Antonio forcing Maculano into office and Francesco doing the same for Boccabella. That such men were much more prepared to do the papal bidding than some of their predecessors had been might therefore come as no surprise.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 154

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Chapter 5

Inquisition Procedure: The Holy Office’s Use of Inquisitio

Adriano Prosperi has noted that the “obscurity” of the Inquisition’s rules dominates the institution’s historiography.1 This perception contains some truth: the rules did indeed become complex, and it is likely the vast majority of defendants had little idea what they might be. Nevertheless, rules there were, and although hedged in by ramparts of sometimes impenetrable commentary and subject to constant modification, the Roman Inquisition’s trial process can be fairly clearly explicated. That trial process was rooted in canon law, beginning with the legislation of Innocent III.2 Innocent treated inquisitio as a straightforward procedure that could be summed up in the 8th canon of the Fourth Lateran Council, Qualiter et quando 2.3 The pope meant it to apply to the investigation of any excessus, not just heresy, including those of superiors. According to it, an inquisitio had to begin per clamorem et famam, that is, through a public outcry or at least strong rumors that an offense had been committed by a particular person. The fama substituted for the accuser in the older process of accusatio. The proceeding took place in the defendant’s presence unless he had contumaciously absented himself, and began with the reading of the substance of the charges against him, including the names of the witnesses who had brought the fama to the judge’s attention. The object was to give the defendant the means to defend himself through exceptiones et replicationes legitimae, objections to and questions for the witnesses. Naming them avoided the danger of defamation; allowing exceptions or exclusions of testimony made false witness difficult. Anyone who concealed a notorious offense was subject to prosecution through both accusatio and inquisitio as well as denunciatio. The canon 155

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 155

8/27/12 11:46 AM

156

c ha pt er 5

spelled out that a caritativa monitio (charitable warning) had to precede the last, just as, once more, an inquisitio demanded a prior clamosa insinuatio. It concluded by saying that proceedings should be “moderate” according to the formam iudicii sententiae (“form of the judgment’s sentence”), this last leaving an unfortunate silence, since there were no rules on this score, precisely because inquisitio had developed recently. This is just one of the “real puzzles which Innocent III and subsequent commentators did little to solve.”4 Innocent’s successors, including the Inquisition, constantly adapted rather than slavishly followed his model. Four centuries of accumulated jurisprudence, both practical and theoretical, left the procedure by the early seventeenth century with only a family resemblance to its ancestor. I intend here to put the Inquisition’s particular adaptation in the context of the more general procedure. Both had adopted three changes from Innocent’s model of particular significance: the reduction or elimination of the requirement of publica fama, the omission of witnesses’s names, and the laying of charges only after the suspect had been questioned and the process formed.5 That last modification had the effect of making the object of prosecution not only crimes committed in the past but also potentially at least heterodox statements made in the present under interrogation. All had become part of the procedure of inquisitio, no matter in what court. All have been described as abuses. In the case of the Roman Inquisition this is in part to beg the question of whether the procedure of inquisitio as a direct extension of papal plenitudo potestatis was bound by canon law, and even better whether the pope was.6 In general the answer seems to be yes; certainly commentators on inquisitorial procedure continued to refer regularly to the canons. By the same token, canon law itself came to be seen, as it had already by Innocent’s day, as the pope’s law. This situation meant that a principle came to apply such that no pope could put a later occupant of his office under an unalterable legal restraint. A glance at the way Boniface VIII changed Innocent’s legislation suffices to make the point, as we shall see. Rather than making an invidious comparison to earlier standards, if we wish to determine the quality of the Inquisition’s justice, which may or may not be a historical issue, it would be more useful to compare it to systems of law contemporary with it, a task that has barely begun. Once invented, inquisitio spread to the other principal system of law derived from the Romans, civil law. Both laws, of course, covered both criminal cases and suits between parties. Any division between the two is almost arbitrary and certainly of little significance to most commentators, who drew freely on the structure of suits between parties in whatever court when

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 156

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

157

discussing criminal jurisdiction, secular, canonical, and inquisitorial, even the most learned and sophisticated like Francisco Peña. The situation is impossible to keep neat and tidy, except in very broad outline. There seems to have been a powerful drive for a single model of procedure. Thus, for example, the litis contestatio, roughly, the challenging of the action, or the moment at which jeopardy would attach in a criminal case and a feature originally of suits between parties, was regarded as yet a part of both secular and canonical criminal proceedings and as an element of inquisitio. Since my object is to come as close as possible to what Peña and his contemporaries thought they were doing, I will try as far as is consistent with some kind of clarity to allow them to proceed as they did. The Roman Inquisition drew on nearly anything as its fontes iuris. In addition to other kinds of substantive law, the names of the great medieval jurists, both canonist and civilian, occur as frequently in inquisitorial manuals as they do in other law books.7 Like other papal courts, the Inquisition attended especially closely to the decisions of the papal “supreme court,” the Rota. The Rota’s jurisdiction, although reduced from its originally wide remit, was still broad in the early seventeenth century. As Peña, its dean and one of the most influential early seventeenth-century consultors of the Inquisition put it, the Rota was “the best mistress in judgments” (“optima . . . in iudiciis . . . magistra”).8 The Roman advocate Quintiliano Mandosio, editor of the Repertorium inquisitorum, put the same point more orotundly: “the Rota speaking, all other tribunals fall silent” (“Rota loquente caetera tribunalia obmutescunt”).9 Several of the Cardinal Inquisitors in our period had learned their craft as its auditors (judges).10 It is possible that the Rota’s practice underlay the manner in which the Inquisition managed its case load.11 Early on, there are traces of the Inquisition following a procedure like that of the Rota, in which cases were assigned to an individual auditor, called a ponens, who drew up an opinion and submitted it to his peers for decision but did not himself cast a vote.12 Originally in 1557, Inquisition cases were assigned to four cardinals, one of whom with the commissary “heard, took cognizance of, and intervened in the examination” (“audirent, cognoscent, & examini interveniret”) before reporting to the pope.13 In that same year Paul IV gave certain cases to only two cardinals.14 A decree of 1564 cemented the principle that cases went to one cardinal deputy “by turn.”15 A commentator (and probably consultor) on Marcantonio De Dominis’s case agreed that this procedure remained in use.16 The decree registers contain many assignments to single cardinals, but also a number to two or, less frequently, more, often involving censures on books.17

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 157

8/27/12 11:46 AM

158

c ha pt er 5

Further, canonist and civilian commentary on the Rota’s actions frequently served to elucidate Inquisition procedure. Sigismondo Scaccia, for example, explicitly compared civil, criminal, and “heretical” pleadings using the Rota as a yardstick.18 In this chapter, I have tried both to sketch the Inquisition’s procedure as it was by the time of Galileo’s trial and to give an idea of some of the ways this nexus of canon law, civil law, and Rota jurisprudence acted on the Inquisition’s development.19 As for the Rota, a mixture of rule and custom governed Inquisition proceedings—its “style.” Unlike the Rota’s basic procedure, which had been fixed in the fourteenth century and did not evolve much thereafter, the Inquisition’s changed constantly and gradually became sui generis. As Francesco Beretta well says, it was “sufficiently open and dynamic” to grasp the reality of continual change “between legislation, doctrine, jurisprudence and custom.”20 Nevertheless, it rested on a “solid body of rules,” as Andrea Errera put it.21 The eminent late seventeenth-century canonist Giovanni Battista De Luca threw up his hands when trying to define its style, except to say piously “it is certain and undoubted . . . that the style is . . . peaceful and benign, full of all greater charity and circumspection.” But he prefaced that remark by referring to his discussion of the general style of the Roman curia, the stylus Romanae curiae, which he at least thought the Inquisition’s still closely resembled.22 Part of the reason the Inquisition’s style defies definition is how rapidly its procedures mutated. As we saw in Chapter 1, the institution was designed to produce flexibility and innovation. The emphasis commentators placed on the prudence required of an inquisitor makes the same point. Nicolau Eymeric, for example, wrote that “there are many things in this case, which ought to be expedited rather with prudence than by the rules of the laws” (“cum plurima sint in hac causa, quae prudentiae potius quam legum regulis debeant expediri”).23 While this quotation put prudence above law, an earlier section of Eymeric’s Directorium Inquisitorum was titled “Prudence is more necessary than art” (“Prudentiae est potius quam artis [necessarium]”),24 a formulation his fellow manualist Cesare Carena quoted.25 And although Peña eventually wrote a lengthy hypothetical account of an interrogation, he originally said that nearly everything about it should be left to the judge’s prudence.26 Another obstacle to our grasp of the Inquisition’s slippery style is the sheer volume of legislation and jurisprudence bearing on it. From its refoundation in 1542, the Roman Inquisition put a lot of effort into developing a jurisprudence, a set of principles by which it acted. At the most basic level, canon law remained its law, but the two increasingly became no more than cousins, in

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 158

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

159

large part because canon law properly speaking continued to follow a procedure much closer to its Roman and civil law ancestors than did the Inquisition. Yet both worked according to precedent almost as much as common law still does. Combined with a steadily more imposing pile of cases, the information an inquisitor needed to master grew exponentially. The Inquisition addressed this need a little slowly. Only in the early seventeenth century did it attempt to prepare local inquisitors through on-the-job training in Rome, as we saw in the previous chapter. Before that, unofficial manuals filled the gap. Originally short and designed for local circumstances, in the course of the fourteenth century they became more elaborate and might be intended to cover an entire country’s Inquisition, as in the case of the most famous of them, Eymeric’s Directorium for the kingdom of Aragon. As edited at the end of the sixteenth century by Peña, who also edited a number of other inquisitorial manuals and contributed to two late sixteenth-century authoritative editions of canon law, it came as close as anything to being the official handbook of the Roman Inquisition.27 One of the most experienced Inquisitors, Desiderio Scaglia, owned a manuscript of the work, which he sent to Federico Borromeo, along with another of Zanchino Ugolini’s De haereticis.28 Peña thought it necessary to defend Eymeric’s work as based on a profound knowledge of the law rather than “raw practice” (“rudem praxim”).29 It appears that Peña began editing the book already while a junior law professor in Bologna; at least he apparently claimed to have had access to its inquisition’s archives, and he either found in it or had communicated to him from it the best manuscript of Eymeric’s book, dating from the mid-fifteenth century.30 Peña had further help in his editing from the Inquisition, including Assessor Pietro Dusina and Commissary Tommaso Zobbi, and in the preface to the work he thanked master of the sacred palace Paolo Costabili, former inquisitor of the Este dominions.31 He was also given access to the Inquisition’s archive.32 Peña’s own “Introductio, sive Praxis Inquisitorum” never got beyond two books of a projected five, nor did those two make it into print, despite being edited to the point where they could have been published by the author of what should perhaps be taken as one of if not the most authoritative manual, Prospero Farinacci, long-time fiscal of Rome.33 Although he was a secular criminal judge with no experience as a heresy inquisitor, he claimed and probably had the unofficial approval of the Sacred Congregation or at least one of its leading members, Roberto Bellarmino.34 Bellarmino’s biographer emphasized that Farinacci’s work depended on the cardinal’s patronage for its publication. Originally, Farinacci’s request for prepublication review

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 159

8/27/12 11:46 AM

160

c ha pt er 5

had been rejected, because the author was only “one who dealt with criminal questions about arrests, processi, tortures, and the condemnation of evil-doers” (“trattatore di quistion criminali intorno a catture, a processi, a tormenti, e condannatione di malfattori”), but Bellarmino intervened and asked the pope to allow the Inquisition to review the book, in part because he did not want to have to do all the work.35 Farinacci emphasized Bellarmino’s role in his dedication of the book to Paul V and the Congregation.36 Peña and Farinacci together deserve much more attention than they have received, especially the second, not least for his frequent comparisons between Inquisition and civil law practice.37 Peña, too, thought civil law and canon law directly relevant to the Inquisition, as well as frequently citing Rota decisions (including his own) and canonist writings along with Inquisition decrees.38 In addition to a number of earlier printed manuals that continued in use, Farinacci’s would shortly have a competitor written by a long-time inquisitor in Genoa who had also served in Rome, Eliseo Masini’s Sacro arsenale (first edition, 1621), and later in the century several major works were added to the inquisitor’s shelf, including Cesare Carena, Tractatus de modo procedendi in causis S. Officii (Cremona: Marcantonio Belpieri, 1636; IT\ICCU\MILE\004092), together with its often-reprinted later version, Tractatus de officio sanctissimae Inquisitionis et modo procedendi in causis fidei (Cremona: Marcantonio Belpieri, 1641; IT\ICCU\BVEE\032052), and above all Francesco Albizzi’s De inconstantia in iure.39 Although many manuscript manuals are anonymous, it seems likely that professional inquisitors or their staff also compiled them. Some have been overlooked that certainly were, among them two by Roman assessors, one distinguished (Girolamo Casanate, later a cardinal), one considerably less so (Pietro Paolo Febei), both consisting of collections of decrees.40 Three commissaries also wrote manuals, only one of which survives. It was restricted almost entirely to cases of malefice.41 All the published manuals and many of those in manuscript were intended for use in satellite tribunals and are often helpful for Congregation practice only for comparisons to it or by implication. In any case, they suffered from two inherent problems. First and most serious, the Roman Inquisition insisted that its trials be kept strictly secret. That secrecy is one of the institution’s most notorious dimensions, yet it took more than a decade after its refoundation to be put in place.42 An unidentified bull of Paul IV (see below) first established the principle shortly to be reinforced under Pius IV, but not in the second instance by papal action. Instead the Inquisitors themselves decreed that “all those deputed to the Congregation of the Holy Office give an oath of fidelity,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 160

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

161

of keeping silence and maintaining the secrets of the Office, of holding secret all that is done or said in the present and all other congregations [meetings] of the Holy Inquisition and of not revealing or speaking or talking about what is said and done concerning the Office of the Holy Inquisition, except among those of the Congregation, under pain of major excommunication lata sententia, from which they may not be absolved except by the supreme pontiff or his successsor.”43 The principle might be pushed to great lengths, as when the cardinals were forbidden to inform their absentee members about what they had done.44 The main reasons given for strict secrecy include the protection of witnesses and the defendant’s reputation, plus the necessity of moving quickly against suspects.45 We may reasonably suspect that Paul IV had another motive—the desire to keep his fast-and-loose approach out of the public eye.46 Anyone involved in a trial before the Inquisition swore an oath of secrecy, and all depositions ended with such an oath.47 As Antonio Barberini, Sr., put it in 1626, writing the nuncio in Naples, “Il segreto è l’anima del negotio.”48 The secretary was referring to the importance of enciphering correspondence, but the point also held in general. As John Tedeschi observes, maintaining such stringent secrecy presented difficulties. In 1628 all new Cardinal Inquisitors were ordered to be instructed in the decrees especially about secrecy.49 Provinical inquisitors posed a particularly leaky problem. On 1 January 1609 a special agent of the Congregation was ordered to Florence to administer a precept to its inquisitor “of observing secrecy under pain of excommunication latae sententiae, from which he cannot be absolved, except by his holiness” (“de servando secretum sub poenae excommunicationis latae sententiae, a qua non possit absolui, nisi a S.te Sua”), especially about revealing names of witnesses.50 In late 1611 and early 1612 at the pope’s behest, the Congregation issued a series of orders to provincial inquisitors on the score of secrecy. First they were all to swear the oath on entry to office and send an authentic instrument of it to Rome.51 In late December, Secretary Pompeo Arrigoni repeated a similar order, and the Congregation issued another decree to the same effect.52 In May 1612 Paul IV’s bull was first ordered sent to Inquisitor Michelangelo Seghizzi in Milan, but on mature consideration it was checked over by the Congregation before being dispatched.53 One of the triggers behind this burst of activity may have been a major leak by one of the most respected members of the Congregation, Cardinal Bellarmino. He had written his Jesuit general about a book under discussion in the Inquisition and included another cardinal’s opinion about it.54 Bellarmino made indiscretions something of a habit; at least we know of one

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 161

8/27/12 11:46 AM

162

c ha pt er 5

instance in which he reported to his superiors on the Congregation’s actions, and another in which the Venetian ambassador claimed to have intelligence from him about its handling of another book deeply offensive to Paul V.55 Small wonder that maintaining secrecy caused the problems it did. It certainly made it difficult to publish a guide about how to conduct investigations. This difficulty was addressed by suppressing any information that might identify a particular case and speaking as much as possible in generalities. As a further reflex of its policy of secrecy, the Inquisition seems unofficially to have prohibited the publication of manuals claiming to represent Roman practice, although it bent that quasi-prohibition seriously in the case of Farinacci’s book. It was almost impossible to remedy the second and more serious problem in the manuals. The fact that the Roman Inquisition worked not just by precedent but also by case law meant that such books might rapidly go out of date. At the least, there would be slippage between them and current practice.56 Peña’s notes to Eymeric’s Directorium, added a century and a half after the work was written, illustrate the point.57 Large as those differences were, they arose during a relatively quiet period in the Roman Inquisition’s history, which was barely thirty years old when the second edition of Eymeric’s book appeared. By the time of Galileo’s trial, the Roman Inquisition had accumulated seventy-five years of cases.

Summary Procedure All criminal trials in civil and canon law, including those before the Inquisition, proceeded in broadly similar ways according to the ordo iuris (order of the law), itself remarkably similar to the more general ordo, which covered all kinds of cases, including civil suits.58 All these had plenary and summary versions, both of which most courts used.59 Some commentators thought any case investigated per inquisitionem (see below) automatically meant summary procedure, among them the influential sixteenth-century Neapolitan jurist Pietro Follerio (“sed si proceditur per inquisitionem, proceditur summarie nulla terminorum observatione requiritur”).60 More importantly, Eymeric, inquiring “of the manner of proceeding and continuing a trial in a case of the faith” (“De modo prosequendi & continuandi processum in causa fidei”), immediately declared “it is proceeded in a case of the faith summarily, simply and plainly, without the rumbling of advocates and judges and the form of judgment [i.e., normal judicial procedures]” (“in causa fidei proceditur summarie, simpliciter,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 162

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

163

& de plano, absque advocatorum, & iudiciorum strepitu, & figura [iudicii]”). Peña, although making it sound in his comment (scholion 112, p. 218) as if there might be an alternative by asking “whether in investigations it may be proceeded summarily and plainly, etc. Can inquisitors proceed simply and plainly?” (“An in negotijs summarie & de plano procedi possit, &c. Possunt inquisitores procedere simpliciter & de plano”), answered by discussing only what might be omitted from a trial and in his own manual implicitly rejected anything but summary procedure by failing to cover either of the two phases that it was not supposed to include, the libelli oblatione and litis contestatio. Eymeric and Peña were quoting Boniface’s notorious phrase in Statuta (Sext 5.2.20), “simpliciter et de plano, sine advocatorum et iudiciorum strepitu, et figura iudicii.”61 In fact, nearly those words came from Alexander IV’s Cupientes ut inquisitionis negotium, which had specifically allowed summary procedure for inquisitors, followed by Urban IV’s Licet ex omnibus (20 March 1262).62 As a result of Boniface’s expansion of this legislation and subsequent developments, especially Clement V’s Saepe contingit (Clem. 5.11.2), the Inquisition proceeded exclusively summarily. The interpretation of Boniface’s words exercised large numbers of jurists right from the first.63 Peña reflected the majority opinion when he described the “magnum & singulare  . . .  privilegium” (“the great and singular privilege”) conferred by them, which meant that a judge “is not compelled to observe all order of proceedings” (“non cogitur omne ordine iudiciarium servare”). This may sound like and has often been taken as a license to ignore the rules, but following the Gloss on this passage, Peña and nearly everyone else continued by saying, “what may be omitted from the order of law may not therefore vitiate the process” (“quid omissum sit ex ordine iuris, non propterea processus vitietur”), which Peña further explained signified that no substantial part of a trial could be omitted, including appeals from interlocutory sentences (e.g., a decision to torture) and “legitimate defenses . . . which seem to all to be conceded rather by nature than [positive] law.”64 As he concluded, “the sum of this disputation is that the ordo and solemnities required by the law are not observed by necessity [necessario] yet those cannot be omitted which touch the substance of the case, that is, those without which the business can be dealt with neither justly nor rightly.”65 Or as Luigi Lacché puts it, summary proceeding occupied a middle ground between a formally correct trial and one fully extraordinary, for example, under martial law.66 Saepe contingit allowed (but did not demand) omission in summary proceedings of Peña’s first stage, the libelli, and stipulated that his second, the litis

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 163

8/27/12 11:46 AM

164

c ha pt er 5

contestatio, should not be held at times when it would interfere with legally allowed (again, not demanded) obligations on feast days, and in practice both came to be at least severely devalued.67 As did Peña, most commentators took the second as countenancing the omission of the litis contestatio altogether, rather than its circumscription.68 Both stages were derived from suits between parties as adapted to criminal proceedings, the libelli being the presentation of written evidence, including the charge during the investigative phase before the decision to proceed to the trial proper, and the litis contestatio the moment at which the judge began to hear the evidence.69 The second had come to be identified with the entry of a plea in a criminal case, since it had originally been the moment when the party being sued replied to the charge against him. Peña thought these two points settled, referring especially to the Summa Tabiena of Giovanni Cagnazzo (Cagnazzi or Cagnacci da Taggia), Luigi Carerio’s Tractatus de haereticis, the Repertorium inquisitorum, Francesco Squillace’s De fide catholica, and one of the works of the Valencian inquisitor Juan de Rojas (†1577), Singularia iuris, as well as the consilia of Oldrado da Ponte and the Perugian jurist Pier Filippo Corneo, and finally Gonzalo García de Villadiego’s De haereticis.70 Cagnazzo, inquisitor of Bologna for nearly twenty years, who knew and cooperated with Heinrich Krämer and took over much of his Malleus maleficarum into his own book, wrote the Summa in competition with his fellow Dominican Silvestro Prierias.71 Cagnazzo began from Saepe contingit along with Giovanni d’Andrea’s gloss. He also excluded “exceptions, appeals, and delays intended to frustrate” (“exceptiones, apellationes, & dilationes frustatorias”) and “disputes of parties, advocates, and proctors” (“partium, advocatorum, & procuratorum contestiones”) and restricted “witnesses’ superfluous quarrels” (“iurgia testium superflua”), paraphrasing Statuta. While stressing that the judge was to move as quickly as possible, Cagnazzo yet made clear that speed did not mean sacrificing “necessary proofs” (“probationes necessariae”), defensiones, and citation, among other essential moments. Nothing “substantial” could be skipped, especially nothing rooted in natural law.72 The obscure Carerio in his nonetheless often-reprinted book agreed that although “the order of law even in substantial matters is not required” (“ordo iuris etiam in substantialibus non requiratur”), that did cover those parts iuris naturalis, including citation and defense.73 The Repertorium, which dated originally from 1494 and took on its definitive form as edited by Mandosio, argued that both unnecessary stages had once been part of a trial begun by accusation but were not found in heresy cases.74 Abbreviated procedure did not mean violation of justice, especially since the inquisitor should also take

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 164

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

165

authoritative advice. The entry for ordo iudiciarius in the last of the works Peña recommended (which he also edited), Rojas’s Singularia, began by saying it was almost required.75 Like everyone else, Rojas quickly qualified that with Boniface’s Statuta, drawing further on many sources Peña would also cite. Peña did not use one of the most lucid and influential discussions of summary procedure, the work of another Neapolitan jurist, Roberto Maranta, Tractatus de ordine iudiciorum intitulatus Speculum aureum et lumen advocatorum (editio princeps apparently Venice: De Tortis, 1540), intended especially as a textbook and reprinted numerous times.76 Maranta applied the canonist principle in Boniface’s Statuta to any prince not recognizing a superior, basing himself on the canonist Hostiensis (Enrico da Susa) and the civilian Bartolo da Sassoferrato, defining the phrase sine strepitu, etc. to mean “all the solemnities of the positive law having been removed . . . such that the case can be decided only according to the mere ius gentium” (“sublatae omnes solemnitates iuris positivi . . . adeo quod solum decidi potest causa secundum merum ius gentium”), allowing the judge “to follow the sole truth leaving out the order of the law” (“sequi solam veritatem obmisso ordine iuris”) (p. 153). He, too, identified the libelli and litis contestatio as the unnecessary phases that distinguished plenary from summary judgment (pp. 152, 158, followed by a thirty-page list of kinds of summary cases). He went Peña one better by insisting that divine law demanded that neither the citatio nor proof could be omitted. The object was for the judge to reduce delay as much as possible, by, for example, “excluding dilatory exceptions” (“praeclusivus exceptionum dilatoriarum”) as well as “frustrating exceptions and appeals” (“exceptiones, & appellationes frustratorias”) (pp. 155, 268). It must be emphasized that Maranta did not say, any more than Peña, that all exceptions were excluded, only those designed to protract matters. The conclusion of the case was up to the judge, who could decide how much weight to give testimony, declare an accused contumacious without the litis contestatio, and “hand down a sentence [that did] not conform to the libellus” (“ferri sententia non conformis libello”) (p. 157). The key element in determining the manner of proceeding was whether the judge acted ex mero officio (“by his mere office”) (p. 269). Maranta’s fellow Neapolitan and editor, Follerio, explained further in another widely reprinted work that such a procedure entailed the omission of libelli, basing himself on the canonists Hostiensis and Niccolò de’ Tudeschi (Panormitanus) and the fifteenth-century civilian Angelo Gambiglioni, whose De maleficiis both Follerio and Maranta cited often, as did Peña, although Follerio still thought it safer to use them if there were any chance of murkiness.77

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 165

8/27/12 11:46 AM

166

c ha pt er 5

In Follerio’s view, summary procedure had four termini: (1) examination of the suspect leading to the laying of charges; (2) reply to them and defense including exceptions, together with the promoter’s (or fiscal’s in those courts that had one) request to examine the reus, “an act similar to the litis contestatio” (“actus similis contestationi litis”); (3) the repetitio; and (4) rejoinders to the evidence produced. Follerio identified all of these elements as substantiales in urbe (“substantial elements in Rome”) (pp. 142–43).78

An Inquisitio Begins Originally, Innocent III required that an inquisitio begin per clamorem et famam; his decree had, of course, been officially published—again—in 1582.79 Eymeric put the point clearly when introducing the modum inquisitionis: “It is when there is no accuser nor denouncer, but fama troubles some city or place that someone said or did something against the faith, and the rumor has come to the inquisitor’s ears frequently born by publica fama and a noisy notification. Then the inquisitor inquires not at the instance of a party, but ex officio. This is indeed the common and used mode of proceeding” (“est quando non est aliquis accusator, nec denuntiator, sed fama laborat in aliqua civitate vel loco, quod aliquis dixit vel fecit aliqua contra fidem, & clamor ad aures inquisitoris pervenit pluries publica fama deferente, & clamosa insinuatione producente: Et tunc inquisitor inquirat non ad instantiam partis, sed ex officio. et hic est etiam communis & usitatus modus procedendi”) (p. 311). Two centuries after Eymeric, Follerio’s position that antecedent defamation was required before an inquisitio could be launched still reproduced Innocent’s. He insisted that even the pope could not open an inquisitio without it, citing another piece of Innocent’s legislation, Licet Heli (X.5.3.31).80 Maranta agreed that “the suspect must be well marked by publica fama for that crime [of heresy] . . .  .For precedent fama sustains the place of the accuser . . . otherwise the judge could not inquire” (“inquirendus sit valde notatus per publicam famam de illo crimine . . .  .Nam fama praecedens sustinet vicem accusatoris . . . alias iudex inquirere non posset”).81 But then he began to chip away at this bulwark. Although Maranta reiterated that a judge must have evidence of fama from worthy persons, he could proceed without it if he had sufficient evidence or was acting on an official’s denunciation or the prince’s order, although the prince had to say explicitly that he had based himself on fama and not on a request from a party (p. 272). Follerio and Maranta’s contemporary

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 166

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

167

Giulio Claro, another commentator Peña frequently cited, agreed, bringing in another of Innocent’s decrees, Cum oporteat (X.5.1.19), by which the pope had ordered an inquisition on the strength of a denunciation by two cathedral canons.82 Follerio’s reference to Felino Sandeo’s opinion that the pope was assumed to be fully informed and did not therefore need fama when delegating a case (as he did all those tried by the Inquisition) explains how this requirement came to be dispensed with (p. 76). Carerio agreed that a special inquisition demanded fama except when “formed by the mandate and conscience of the prince” (“formata de mandato, & conscientia principis”), a point made with numerous references to Maranta, nor was fama required in heresy cases.83 In his long list of exceptions to the requirement of publica fama, Maranta included one that allowed the judge to proceed without it if he already had the suspect before him and he did not object to the inquisitio.84 Giulio Claro agreed.85 The deemphasis of fama arose from practice. Claro, like Follerio, knew perfectly well that Qualiter et quando required it. “But certainly whatever the law may be, practice teaches the complete contrary, which is commonly observed” (“Sed certe quicquid sit de iure, totum contrarium docet practica, quae communiter observatur”; Book 6, q. 6, p. 72). He added that he had never seen an investigation opened by diffamatio but rather through “a complaint, a denunciation or otherwise” (“neque ego unquam vidi fieri aliquem processum qui inciperet ab huiusmodi diffamatione: sed semper praecedit querela, vel denunciatio, vel aliter aperitur via iudici ad inquirendum”; point repeated on same page: “Sed in specie, contra certam personam, nunquam vidi practicari, ut nulla praecedente querela vel denunciantione, assumantur huiusmodi informationes super diffamatione”) (p. 73). Claro tried but failed to reject the common exception for heresy into which “because of the enormity of the crime violent suspicion suffices to inquire,” arguing that a complaint or a denunciation or inquiry into fama “should be required,” since otherwise inquisitors could dream up whatever charge they liked, “which in no case must be said” (“propter delicti ipsius enormitatem . . . sufficit ad inquirendum vehemens suspicio. . . . Credo tamen, quod ultra ipsam suspicionem, adhuc requiratur querela vel denuntiatio, prout in aliis criminibus: alias darentur nimis latae habenae inquisitoribus, si possent ex suo capite contra omnes inquirere, nulla notificatione, vel querela, vel diffamatio praecedente, sed ex sola suspicione tantum, quod nullo modo est dicendum”). Ultimately, Claro had to concede that unlike in other crimes where evidence was needed before an inquiry could be opened, “violent suspicion” was after all enough in

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 167

8/27/12 11:46 AM

168

c ha pt er 5

heresy cases.86 In his manual’s discussion of how an inquisitio could be opened, first general and then special, Peña stressed the necessity of following proper form; without it, a processus formed per inquisitionem was void. He agreed that a precedent outcry (clamor or diffamatio) was absolutely required for a special inquisition, citing Qualiter et quando 2 directly from the acts of the Fourth Lateran. Farinacci added further emphasis in his tag “An inquisitio in the crime of heresy may never be formed without precedent fama” (“Inquisitio in crimine haeresis nunquid formari possit fama non precedente”).87 This was not Peña’s final word. He first noted qualifications on the principle before substituting—much more strongly—the principle Claro had grudgingly admitted. “Because of the gravity of the crime [of heresy, the inquisitor] can and must proceed even if defamation has not preceded; legitimate arguments and presumptions suffice to inquire” (“Propter criminis gravitatem [the inquisitor] potest et debet procedi etiam si non precedat diffamatio, sufficiunt enim ad inquirendum legitima argumenta, et praesumptiones”), citing a long list of authorities beginning with Cardinal Zabarella.88 Thus it would seem that the weakening of Innocent’s legislation once more begun by Boniface VIII in Postquam (1298) had taken hold.89 In fact, this is not the whole story. In addition to the downplaying or omission altogether of infamy, as Maranta’s and Claro’s positions indicate, denunciation had largely replaced a precedent outcry. The third alternative, initiating a trial ex officio was not well thought of, and the Inquisition only rarely used it. The reason may have been that many commentators continued to insist that an inquisitio demanded fama. Claro had no doubt (p. 73). He was rejecting Gambiglioni’s opinion, as did even more strongly one of the characters in Gambiglioni’s dialogue De maleficiis: “No judge may ever be of such audacity when he inquires against a certain person about a crime, even by his mere office, as to form his inquisition without precedent infamy of the offense.”90 Although the Roman Inquisition’s procedure was still modeled on inquisitio, Peña, followed by Carena, thought heresy cases most often began by denunciation, rendering infamy in practice—whatever its status in theory—unnecessary, although Peña had earlier said that the Inquisition used both denunciation and via inquisitionis “very frequently,” which supports the contention that denunciation and ex officio proceedings tended to merge.91 Masini gave denunciation as in practice the only mode of opening an investigation.92 Peña adopted Cardinal Hostiensis’s definition of denunciation: “A denunciation is a delation of some crime put to a competent judge, without inscription,93 for a penance to be performed or a legal punishment imposed,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 168

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

169

or both” (“Est autem denuntiatio alicuius criminis apud competentem iudicem, sine inscriptione, iacta delatio ad penitentiam peragendam, vel aliam poenam legitimam imponendam, vel etiam ad utrumque”).94 It was probably the most important phase of any trial, but especially one by the Inquisition. It is only a small exaggeration to say that it was much safer to stay out of the Inquisition’s hands in the first place than to try to escape its clutches once a proceeding had begun. Thus the crucial phase of an inquisitorial trial came right at the beginning (or even better, a step before the beginning), certainly not later than the initial investigative phase, before charges had been formulated. Once an indictment was in place, things became much more difficult for the defendant. The jurists gave a lot of attention to denunciation, which Follerio explained was equivalent to litis contestatio with the judge as accuser, although he also assigned that role to the fiscal as publicus denunciator.95 Fourteenthcentury commentator Antonio da Budrio wrote one of the most detailed discussions of Innocent III’s decretal Novit [X.2.1.13], De denunciatione evangelica (“On evangelical denunciation”), as the rubric called it, to which other lawyers frequently referred. Novit laid down that “manifest” crimes required denunciation to a judge followed by regular process. Such a denunciation required a precedent monitio (warning). Da Budrio treated a judicial denunciation as one of four kinds, following Giovanni d’Andrea, the others being canonical, regular, and evangelical.96 The first three were relatively straightforward and applied respectively if roughly to anyone (but especially the laity), to the clergy, and to those under religious obedience (monks, nuns, friars, and the like). Follerio considered only three kinds of denunciation—evangelica, regularis, and canonica—the last of which, following Guillaume Durand, the Speculator, he made equivalent to an accusation, intended to produce penance and punishment separately. Maranta specified that it applied to officeholders.97 It differed from accusation, since it contained equity and could not initiate an inquisition, which needed praecedente infamia & clamosa insinuatione, while canonical denunciation instead demanded a charitativa monitio (charitable warning) before the denunciation.98 Opinions about acceptable forms of denunciation varied. In a scholion to Eymeric, Peña allowed a denunciation to be given in person, with or without witnesses, or in writing.99 In his manual, he flatly ruled out as a mode of denunciation “fraternal correction,” basing himself on Spanish sources, especially a tract by Bernardino de Arévalo, De correctione fraterna (Medina del Campo: Francisco del Canto, 1557).100 Basing himself on Aquinas’s “Quaestiones

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 169

8/27/12 11:46 AM

170

c ha pt er 5

disputatae de correctione fraterna,” which Peña also cited, Arévalo took a narrow view, saying fraternal correction applied mainly in cases offending against a particular person, and a few others, and was never used in crimes against God. Peña condemned as “occultatores Haereticorum” (“concealers of heretics”) anyone who used fraternal correction as an excuse not to denounce suspects.101 Farinacci agreed with Peña thus far. Peña began with Hostiensis’s definition as delation to a judge in one of three modes: evangelical, canonical, and judicial.102 Ordinarily, there was nothing more for the denunciator to do. Peña stressed the gravity of a denunciation, offering the general principle that in the Inquisition “no denunciation is to be contemned” (“nullius denunciatio contemnenda est”), citing Pope Alexander IV’s canon In fidei favorem, De haeret. in the Sext and arguing that anyone could be denounced.103 Farinacci instead accepted da Budrio’s quadripartite scheme, albeit in reverse order beginning with evangelical denunciation, and referred to Rojas and Luís de Páramo for further discussion.104 In question 197 he returned to the issue under the guise of monitio evangelica but still in the context of denunciation.105 Following Novit—the decretal da Budrio had commented—he dispensed with such a monitio when the crime was public and delay dangerous. Rojas, following Aquinas more closely than Arévalo, insisted such a warning could not be omitted, and Farinacci endorsed Martín del Rio’s opinion to the same effect. Farinacci therefore rejected Peña’s view—to which he referred— that monitio was unnecessary especially when there was no hope that it would work. In a treatise dedicated to Paul V, Bartolomeo Ugolini, then archpriest of Barbiano in the diocese of Rimini and later bishop-elect of Bertinoro, more or less agreed, if with less detailed discussion. In cases where the denunciator could not prove his accusation, he was limited to a monitio.106 In theory, the Inquisition refused to entertain anonymous denunciations, but this was a principle both more honored in the breach and also almost entirely taken back. Five years before enunciating it, the Congregation ordered an anonymous denunciation of the inquisitor of Cremona pursued.107 At almost the same time as the principle was laid down (and making reference to it!), Cardinal Nephew Scipione Borghese twice wrote the nuncio in Venice to heed such letters.108 One of the most complete surviving Inquisition trials began with a whole series of anonymous denunciations.109 Similarly, a case against a reader in philosophy at Padua began with an anonymous tip and was pursued at first extrajudicially before turning into a formal proceeding.110 In early 1612 an anonymous denunciation of men singing songs about sodomy was to be investigated.111 Urban VIII made it a regular practice to accept

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 170

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

171

anonymous delations: twice in 1624, in 1625, 1626, 1627, and 1628, as well as one against Galileo’s host in Siena on his way home in 1634.112 The Inquisition’s penchant for accepting denunciations by letter gave Farinacci pause, since that violated civil law practice, but he deferred to Peña’s opinion that it was allowable in heresy cases.113

The Processo Informativo or Preliminary Investigation In the investigative phase of a trial, the processo informativo, the inquisitor established whether the charges merited pursuit. To judge from the sample of cases in TCD, MS 1232, which consist only of denunciations, the decision not to proceed was fairly common. Similarly, the decree registers contain quite a few entries “nihil fiat” (“let nothing be done”).114 As Peña stressed, basing himself in part on a Rota decision, inquisitors should not act hastily in opening a processo without examining the denunciator about whether his charge belonged to Inquisition jurisdiction.115 If there were any doubt, the inquisitor should seek expert opinion. Farinacci agreed that an inquisitor should not presume heresy in cases of uncertainty, but disagreed with Peña that the Inquisition should not take cognizance of cases of sorcery not involving manifest heresy.116 If the case did fall within the Holy Office’s mandate, the inquisitor should summon a notary and take both the witness’s testimony and his oath per extensum.117 The effect of that oath was not entirely clear, especially whether it meant that the suspect could be compelled to answer. The situation is further confused by the lack of a term to distinguish questioning during the processo informativo from that after charges had been laid, interrogatio being used for both. Ordinarily, witnesses would be examined before the suspect was questioned. Peña gave a number of general rules for an examination “iuxta receptum S.tae Inquisitionis stilum” (“according to the Holy Inquisition’s received style”), but he added that it was Roman practice to reexamine a witness two or three days after his original deposition before arresting the suspect.118 If problems arose in the interrogations, the denunciator and witnesses should be reexamined (fo. 124v/p. 50). Once completed, a deposition was read to the witness (fo. 143v/pp. 64–65) who could not thereafter change his testimony according to Sandeo and a Rota decision (fos. 144v–45r); the notary was to record the reading (fo. 145r). Among Peña’s general rules was one that all witnesses always had to swear to tell the truth (fo. 127r), and in Rome they

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 171

8/27/12 11:46 AM

172

c ha pt er 5

always swore again at the beginning of each session, even though they were “continuing another interrupted examination” (continuativum alterius examinis interrupti) (fo. 128v). Most commentators thought the truth-telling rule covered the suspect as well, even if that meant incriminating himself, despite a well-established tenet of canon law that “no one is obliged to betray himself ” (nemo tenetur prodere seipsum).119 The oath raised another serious issue that Follerio among others discussed at length, whether questioning a suspect could take place before the laying of charges.120 Beginning from Baldo (as reported by Pietro d’Ancarano in his commentary on Sext c. 1 De confessione), who had given two justifications for demanding answers in the investigative phase, “either to the preparation of the judgment and such interrogation is of the nature of the case . . . or toward laying the foundation of the judgment . . .  and similarly one is obliged and compelled to answer because of the necessity of the ordo iudiciarius” (“aut ad preparationem iudicii, & talis interrogatio est de natura causae . . . aut sit ad inchoationem iudicii . . . & similiter debet & cogitur quis respondere, propter necessitatem ordinis iudiciarii”), he argued for the necessity of such questioning. Follerio rejected the authority of nemo tenetur prodere seipsum in the form of a canon in the Decretum (C. 33 q. 3, Dist. 1 De penit. dictum post c. 87, § 6): “a sinner is not obliged to betray himself in public, because in a judgment by accusation or inquisition he does not betray himself but is betrayed by the accuser or fama” (“peccator non tenetur se prodere in publicum, quia in iudicio accusationis aut inquisitionis non prodit se sed proditur ab accusatore aut fama”). If, however, there were no infamia aut indicia (infamy or evidence), it was best not to compel a suspect to reply according to the same canon. Follerio adduced Giovanni Antonio San Giorgio (†1509) in support of his position, apparently arguing that because the litis contestatio was part of a criminal proceeding, therefore a suspect could be compelled to answer, but in fact he meant, as San Giorgio had said, that either fama or an accuser took the place of the contestatio, as did the suspect’s response to questions.121 San Giorgio also explicitly agreed in a very short entry that Follerio did not cite that suspects could be compelled to testify against themselves under oath but not until charges had been filed.122 Nevertheless, San Giorgio also allowed questioning before “the inquisitio had been formed,” when the suspect had to answer.123 For the other side Follerio cited Juan Bernal Diaz de Luco, saying that “the judge cannot interrogate the accused or investigated [person] before a copy of the inquisition has been given to the investigated.”124 Once again Follerio taught a little sloppily, since San Giorgio had also held that position, at

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 172

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

173

least some of the time.125 Against Bernal Diaz, Follerio cited de’ Tudeschi on De confessione, who had argued that in ex officio inquisitions the suspect had to answer when the matter was “notorious or [in]famous,” just as was the case in suits between parties. Bartolo thought the same, although both he and de’ Tudeschi were talking about suits over benefices. More, the answers had to be true; it was not enough for the suspect to say “I believe.” Raising an objection from Neapolitan secular practice, which allowed a suspect both to deny and to change his answers without committing perjury, Follerio returned to C. 33 q. 3, Dist. 1 De penit. dictum post c. 87, § 6. Was not a lie to save oneself from death a venial sin? No, said Aquinas, a defendant who refused to answer whether he had committed the crime of which he was accused thereby sinned mortally (Secunda secundae 1. 79 dist. 1), a citation Follerio may have taken from San Giorgio. Finally, Follerio recurred to him and Bernal Diaz before concluding “and so [as San Giorgio said] it is practiced every day” (“Et ita quotidie practicatur”).126 Whatever his earlier qualifications, San Giorgio had concluded the practice was licit, answering the question “whether the suspect should be held to answer whether he had committed the crime of which he is accused or not” (“Utrum reus teneatur respondere, an crimen de quo impetitur commisserit vel ne”) with a rejection of nemo se prodere “because in a case of inquisitio the sinner or criminal does not betray himself by his own will, but he is betrayed by precedent fama” (“quia in causa inquisitionis peccator vel criminosus non prodit se sponte, sed proditur a fama praecedente”). Bernal Diaz, the only gainsayer Follerio could find, had based himself on Spanish law that forbade the interrogation of clerics under oath immediately after capture. He stretched that law to cover laymen as well. Beyond that he referred to Aquinas and Cardinal Cajetan. He concluded that “since then the captive who committed a crime is not obliged to betray himself [quoting nemo se tenetur prodere] unless something of the aforesaid precedes [his capture, i.e., semiplena probatio de delicto, expressa indicia, or infamia (“semi-full proof of the crime,” “express evidence,” or infamy)], it well followed that otherwise it is not good that the judge interrogate him, since he would force the captive to reveal himself in that case where he is not held [to do so], and he would sin by defaming himself, just as would any other” (“Cum enim captus qui delictum commisit non tenetur se prodere, nisi praecedat aliquid de praedictis, bene sequitur quod aliter non bene interrogat iudex eum, cum cogat captum revelare seipsum in casu ubi non tenetur, & peccaret seipsum diffamando, sicut alium quemcumque”). The judge would also sin by coercing testimony. Bernal Diaz ended with two conclusions. Referring again to Spanish law, he couched the

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 173

8/27/12 11:46 AM

174

c ha pt er 5

first in both metaphorical and blunt terms: “Certain temerarious judges therefore err most openly (who in crocodilian manner delight in human blood) who immediately after the arrest making no distinction of persons exact an oath of telling the truth of the offense from captives, since they are often captured on light evidence” (“Errant ergo apertissime termerarii quidam iudices [& qui crocodili more humano sanguine delectantur] qui statim post capturam nullo facto personarum discrimine a captis omnibus de veritate delicti iuramentum exigunt, cum saepius laevia quaedam indicia causam praestiterint capturae”). His second conclusion rested the same point on rules about canonical purgation.127 His conclusions were forcefully put, but legally weakly grounded, since they were irrelevant in this context.128 Follerio might also have cited Claro. He began by noting that it was the usual practice throughout Italy to administer the oath to a suspect, despite the prohibition on self-incrimination. Initially he objected strongly that this was to invite perjury, and therefore in instances where it was to be feared the oath should not be given. Nevertheless, as he always did, Claro ended by deferring to practice in places where the oath was exacted no matter what.129 Given his opening statement about its universality, he immediately rendered his objection from perjury null. Flaminio Cartari (1531–1593), a member of a noble Orvietan family and both a relative of Assessor Febei and father of his first important patron, in a treatise dedicated to interrogations that Peña often cited built on Follerio as well as frequently noting Peña’s scholia to Eymeric. He began by arguing that it had become usual to question a suspect in an inquisitio, including one begun ex officio, because it was necessary to punish the guilty and absolve the innocent as quickly as possible.130 The object was to get the truth, by divine law, but if there were insufficient evidence, then the judge could not interrogate (“si de corpore delicti non constaret, ligatae sunt manus iudicis, ut reum interrogare non posset”; p. 5). When there was no previous evidence, the court might not try to extort a confession, Cartari noted, citing Roman law about torture, but the fiscal could still try to bring the suspect to help incriminate himself (ibid.). Although Cartari first wrote that absent previous evidence the suspect was not “obligated to accuse himself; and he can rightly elude the interrogator by using obscure words and ambiguous speech,” immediately after and using the same source, he turned that on its head, saying: “just as rightly interrogated he is obliged to betray himself, nor can he elude the interrogating judge by obscurity of words and ambiguous speech (“& iniuste, non praecedentibus scilicet indiciis, reus a iudice interrogatus respondere non tenetur . . . nec ille tenetur

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 174

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

175

detegere se ipsum, iureque potest verborum obscuritate, & amphibologia interrogantem eludere. . . . Prout iuste interrogatus tenetur seipsius detegere, nec iure potest verborum obscuritate, & amphibologia iudicem interrogantem eludere”; pp. 5–6). He referred to his lengthy discussion later for “the many ways” in which a suspect could be forced to testify. In short, the suspect could not refuse to answer, and it was now “customary” not to allow the suspect to deny the charge and proceed to witnesses, instead continuing to examine the suspect, citing the fifteenth-century jurist Mariano Sozzini, the elder (p. 9). The suspect also could not refuse to answer on the grounds that there had been no precedent diffamatio; here Cartari cited both San Giorgio against earlier opinions on Qualiter et quando and Claro (“Item, nec reus poterit dicere, nolle respondere, quia non praecedit diffamatio de crimine . . . reus super ipso crimine iudici respondere teneatur”) (p. 10). Cartari was no friend of the defense, and it is not therefore surprising to find him taking a hard line against suspects. It is in the case of Sebastiano Guazzini, criminal lieutenant of the Auditor of the Camera at this time and author of a large manual dedicated to instructing advocates for the defense.131 Guazzini devoted his Defensio 20 to examinations of suspects.132 The first question concerned whether to administer an oath in criminal cases. The negative opinion rested on Guazzini’s version of the canonical prohibition on selfincrimination, “cum non cogatur propriam turpitudinem detegere,” drawing on the Neapolitan Benedictine Alfonso Villagut’s Practica canonica criminalis (1585), frequently the only source Guazzini cited in favor of the suspect or defendant. He cited a much longer list of authorities supporting the oath, beginning with Bartolo and ending with Scaccia, who claimed “the practice” (practica) had arisen out of fear of perjury. Guazzini, after citing more theologians and canonists in favor, thought administering the oath had become common “to all Italy,” drawing in part on Cartari. As a result, a suspect denying a crime sinned mortally, as did an advocate advising such behavior. Even Villagut agreed on this score. If there were no evidence, then self-incrimination was not required, and the suspect was safe even in foro conscientiae. The suspect still could not deny the plain truth, but he need not respond in such a case, despite having taken an oath, and could appeal or protest, noted Guazzini, citing the inquisitor Cagnazzo out of context.133 If the suspect did not answer, then he could not be held to have confessed (p. 322). In his article about litis contestatio (Defensio 20, c. 18), after concluding that it was no longer necessary, Guazzini warned the judge that defendants were not obligated to reply to positiones (charges) in any criminal case by implication before they

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 175

8/27/12 11:46 AM

176

c ha pt er 5

had entered a plea, except according to the custom in Bologna. Instead, the judge should proceed per modum interrogationum.134 If a suspect refused to answer during the informative phase, Peña thought he could be tortured about the factum principale and “substantial circumstances” or if he maintained his innocence or pretended insanity, but the inquisitor had to consult experts before torturing an evasive suspect without giving a term for a more precise response (fo. 140v), all points Farinacci accepted (fos. 141r, 141v, and 142v).135 Guazzini, too, although insisting that there could be no interrogation before the corpus delicti and indicia had been assembled, and citing “Nemo teneatur turpitudinem suam detegere,” still thought the suspect obligated to answer in face of the evidence, under torture if necessary.136 He had already said that a suspect could not be punished for perjury, but it did increase the case for torture (319). Cartari and many others agreed, especially when facing evasive answers.137 Both Peña and Farinacci followed Baldo’s opinion that a suspect giving such “and to be sure [using] doubtful [words, such as] ‘I do not know,’ ‘I do not remember,’ ‘I have forgotten’ and similar” (“et dubia nempe nescio, non recordor oblitus sum aut similia”) could also be tortured, especially in the Inquisition, since its evidence was always so good (fo. 141r). Those pretending insanity were eligible for torture because the inquisitor was not after the truth, merely an answer (fo. 142v). Cartari agreed with both points.138 Peña thought the Inquisition more lenient than secular courts, since it gave suspects a chance to reflect before torturing them (fo. 143r). Masini was among the few who disagreed about torturing a suspect who persistently refused to admit the fact alleged against him. If warnings failed, there was nothing to be done except “remit everything to God” (“rimetterassi il tutto a Dio”).139 Peña considered settled the once-controversial question whether the defendant should learn the witnesses’ names with a flat “under no circumstances.”140 He first developed that view in a scholion to Eymeric, who had noted that popes had pronounced in various ways, citing especially Boniface VIII’s Statuta that the names should not be revealed if doing so presented any danger to the witnesses, but if the danger ceased, publication was licit, a view Eymeric had endorsed.141 The Malleus reproduced Eymeric’s position while leaning a little more toward secrecy, as well as endorsing Eymeric’s view that the advocate could know the names.142 Peña instead based himself on two conciliar pronouncements, one from Narbonne (ca. 1244), as well as quoting Eymeric against himself.143 The names were not to be revealed, not even if the defendant asked for them secundum iuris ordinem in order to prepare his

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 176

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

177

defense.144 Besides, a breve of Pius IV, Cum sicut, which Peña printed in an appendix to the Directorium, declared that danger from the defendant was assumed to be permanent.145 In the next scholion Peña added that it might even be mortal sin to publish the names and was certainly “most imprudently” (“imprudentissime”) done, even “all danger ceasing” (“omni periculo cessante”), because that would contravene “so many decrees of popes, and against the received custom of the Holy Office, which although it is not adorned by any law, because the custom is laudable, approved and legitimately prescribed [i.e., it arose by prescription] and introduced, it has the force of law” (“tot decreta Pontificum, & contra receptam sacri officij consuetudinem: quæ quamvis nulla lege niteretur; quia tamen consuetudo est laudabilis, approbata, & legitime præscripta atque inducta, vim legis habet”).146 Peña’s discussion settled the issue of the legality of omitting witnesses’ names, whatever Innocent III might once have said.147 Whether the suspect or witness was under oath, according to Peña three things had to happen before the initial (or any subsequent) deposition ended: he or she was to read the whole transcript, sign or make his or her mark and swear the oath of secrecy “sub praecepto,” and, finally, the notary had to certify that everything had been done properly.148 He gave a form for questioning the witness consisting of thirteen points, ranging from his demographic information to pressing on his motives.149 Establishing the validity of a denunciation meant examining other witnesses. Their depositions were called constituti.150 Just about anyone could take them, the socius of the commissary, the notary, the fiscal, or someone specially deputed to do the job.151 In his scholia to Eymeric, Peña emphasized how important testimony was, and therefore demanded that inquisitors impress on a witness the seriousness of the matter and make certain that he had not offered to testify for any “illicit or unjust reason.”152

Citation After the preliminary investigation, the suspect received a citation, at which moment the processo proper began, although in the sense of a dossier it was already open.153 A citation was absolutely required, whether or not considered part of the trial, since, as Sebastiano Vanzi, sixteenth-century criminal lawyer and participant in the council of Trent, explained, it was a part of the defense that was rooted in the ius gentium and divine law, and Guazzini and Carena

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 177

8/27/12 11:46 AM

178

c ha pt er 5

agreed.154 Scaccia explained that it was needed in any proceeding that threatened to harm a party.155 Its absence nullified the sentence.156 Maranta gave one of the most exhaustive discussions of citatio, containing 131 numbered sections, calling it de iure naturali & est species defensionis.157 Vanzi, following Lanfranco da Oriano, claimed the original citation was God’s summons to Adam in the garden of Eden (it was not just inquisitors who could draw on extremely ancient precedents, as when Páramo identified God as the first inquisitor).158 Canonists did not entirely agree, some of them, including de’ Tudeschi and Filippo Decio, thinking that notorious cases did not require a citation.159 Innocent IV, by contrast, had flatly declared a citation “always necessary.”160 Even those who thought otherwise still considered it best to issue one to be certain the sentence would hold.161 The Paduan canonist and leading conciliarist Francesco Zabarella thought citation essential to legal process.162 Peña agreed, following Eymeric in making an exception only in a case where the suspect’s flight was feared.163 Vanzi insisted that the citation had to observe all the requisite solennitates, including the reason for it and the place and time (p. 337), but the Inquisition omitted the reason except when citing an absent suspect by letter.164 Guazzini thought a citation had three parts—the judge’s commission, “execution of the citation, and report of the messenger” (“executio citationis, & relatio nuncii”)—without which it was void.165 Peña added a fourth, the “form.”166 If it lacked clarity such that the cited person could not prepare a defense based on it, it had no force (p. 339).167 The messenger delivering it had to have proper written credentials (p. 358), and Vanzi thought it best to use a notary so that he could immediately draw up an authentic instrument as well as delivering one (pp. 378–79). Carena left out the executio.168 Masini, speaking of citation of witnesses, included it, emphasized that the notary should sign the report, and gave the form.169 Canonists thought citation by itself was enough to open and make permanent a trial, against the civilians’ view that litis contestatio was also required.170 Giovanni d’Andrea enumerated four kinds of citation, viva voce, per literas, per edictum, and realiter, meaning the defendant was captured.171 Others collapsed these into two, “verbal” and “real,” the second again meaning the suspect’s apprehension.172 Verbal citations in turn were also of two types, personal and ad domum (at the house), although the second of these tended to become increasingly formal and was often replaced by a citation affixed in a public place.173 Guazzini thought it needed to be “copiously” affixed to church doors.174 In Rome, the Inquisition used those of San Pietro, the Palazzi del Sant’Ufficio and the Cancelleria, as well as others in Campo de’ Fiori.175 Da

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 178

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

179

Budrio thought citation ad domum not binding in serious cases, and Maranta rejected it in criminal matters.176 At least some authoritative sources thought a personal citation was required before an excommunication could be issued.177 Scaccia disagreed that a “real” citation equaled his other three kinds (per literas, edictum, and proclama [sic]), since, unlike them, a “real” citation could not initiate process in a heresy case.178 A citation in a criminal case need not be written, although by custom it should be (pp. 81–83). In heresy cases, by contrast, a verbal citation was not commonly thought necessary; cases of contumacy certainly required a written document. Scaccia referred to Eymeric for its form.179 A citation was a species of precept according to some commentators or contained one according to others.180 One final question about citation concerned the number of times it had to be done, the majority of canonists arguing for three. Domenico da San Gimignano explained that the rule applied only when the defendant could not be found; if he replied to the first citation but refused to appear, a declaration of contumacy need not await further citation.181 Sandeo, one of the most respected late fifteenth-century canonists and an auditor of the Rota, also said three, except in summary cases, which required only one. He agreed with Domenico that a defendant who acknowledged a citation but refused to appear got no more, nor was more than one required in notorious cases, nor when the cited person hid, was a tyrant, or “terrible person.”182 Domenico was typical in arguing that a citation needed to allow a proper interval for appearance, the length of which was a matter of opinion.183 Da Budrio added that citation by edict, the weakest form, certainly could not be peremptory and had to be repeated twice more.184 Masini, too, gave the number three.185 Marcantonio de Dominis’s case shows a particularly careful handling of citation, including to hear sentence, one of the three moments for which it was needed according to da Budrio (besides summoning suspects and hearing witnesses).186 On 20 April 1617 the form of a monitorium to him, a document containing but not identical to a citation, was read, and Paul V ordered it published, at first only in manuscript.187 A copy dated the same day, signed by Secretary Millini and countersigned by notary Andrea Pettini, has a note at the end saying that on 2 May 1617 the citation was affixed by Francesco Chierici, papal and Inquisition messenger.188 On 6 December on Chierici’s written report that he had cited De Dominis, the fiscal pronounced him contumacious and ordered him cited again “by monitorial and citational letters” (“literis monitorialibus et citationalibus”). Six days later Chierici reported the second citation, Fiscal Sincero again asked a declaration of contumacy, and a

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 179

8/27/12 11:46 AM

180

c ha pt er 5

third citation was ordered.189 Sincero fell ill and was temporarly replaced by summista Camillo Giudici before the third citation was reported on 17 January 1618, when “after the said report was made in the same meeting and before the aforesaid excellent lords, etc. Reverend Camillo Giudici, IUD deputed for this case, appeared and asked a declaration of contumacy against Marcantonio not appearing and he obtained through the same excellent lords that the same [De Dominis] be cited for the fourth and last time after superabundant delays” (“successive facta dicta relatione comparuit in eadem congregatione & coram praefatis Ill.mis D.mis etc. Rd. Camillus du Iudicibus [Giudici] IUD ad id deputatus, et in contumacia d. Marci Antonii non comparentis petiit, et obtinuit per eosdem Ill.mos D.mos mandari ipsum citari *4.o 4.a [ab. del. “3.o p. 4.a”] ultima [aft. del. “& dilatione”], et superabundanti dilationes”). This highly unusual fourth citation (the notary had to correct the “third” he originally wrote), together with the extra delay allowed, was an indication of how gently the Inquisition handled De Dominis, perhaps because he was then in England and well out of its reach. Two days later the fourth citation (“quarto pro quarta ultima”) was reported as almost the last act of the meeting, followed by “Lord Camillo Giudici special deputy for this case asked a declaration of contumacy against Marcantonio not appearing and obtained through the same excellent lords that the same [De Dominis] be cited to [hear] sentence” (“D. Camillus de Iudicibus adhaec specialiter dep.s et in contumacia d. Marci Antonii non comparentis petiit, et obtinuit, per ill.mos D.mos mandari eundem Marc.m Ant.m citari ad sententiam”). After De Dominis failed to appear, on 15 March Chierici reported his citation on the previous day to hear definitive sentence.190

Capture Only once evidence had been assembled could an arrest—better “capture” or “real citation”—be made; this stage might come very near the beginning of the investigation if it had begun with evidence presented.191 At whatever moment, the inquisitor had to be careful about imprisoning anyone, since that act alone “inflicts more grievous reputation” (graviorem irrogat famam).192 While in other courts imprisonment was commonly made equivalent to conviction, Peña stressed that this was not the case in the Inquisition, nor did prison-breaking necessarily provide a presumption of heresy.193 A “low” person could be arrested on the strength of a single witness and without consulting the Congregation, but not a noble (fos. 80v–82r). Drawing an analogy to the

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 180

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

181

numerous jurists who thought a single witness sufficient to allow torture, Peña noted that although the original delator usually did not count as a witness, in Inquisition cases he could, a point supported with numerous citations (fos. 84v and 86r). Ordinarily, an arrest without consulting experts took place only if the suspect posed a flight risk, as Eymeric had thought (fos. 91r and 92r). The inquisitor had to be absolutely certain he had enough evidence.194 Either the fiscal (the usual Roman practice) on the strength of the libellus (meaning the testimony of witnesses thus far examined) or the inquisitor could demand a suspect’s arrest, but both should act only with the experts’ advice, as was the practice in the Spanish Inquisition.195 If an arrest was required, it had to be done by mandate, an express order. Peña added that it could be carried out with violence by the inquisitor’s armed servants if necessary, but he thought it much better to use stealth or overwhelming numbers to subdue a suspect (fos. 95v and 100r). Peña offered conflicting opinions about whether a suspect’s property should be either sequestered or inventoried at the time of arrest, deciding in the affirmative if the evidence of guilt was strong. Farinacci disagreed (fos. 100v–101r and 102v). Peña was particularly concerned about books and even more so about those about magic (fo. 103r). He also disagreed with Eymeric and others that a suspect who fled and had been banned and excommunicated could be captured or killed by any private individual, much preferring action by a court.196

Interrogation Peña’s extensive treatment of interrogation bears out well Paul F. Grendler’s judgment that “The heart of inquisitorial procedure was shrewd and persistent questioning.”197 The first session, which, like all the others, had to be done viva voce, demanded detailed treatment largely following Eymeric (fos. 110v–16v, 144r).198 Five kinds of questions should be asked, and as always Peña stressed that the notary had to record everything: whether the suspect knew the cause of his arrest (if he professed ignorance, the inquisitor could accuse him of lying); his relatives; place of residence; profession and other demographic data; whether he confessed and received the Eucharist, an especially important question; and, finally, whether he had mortal enemies (fo. 110v). Amplifying this schema, Peña added that the suspect should be interrogated about his religious ideas, his life and education, whether he had ever been in court especially the Inquisition’s, and whether he was excommunicated, before

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 181

8/27/12 11:46 AM

182

c ha pt er 5

turning again to the question about confession and the Eucharist, failing to do either giving a strong indication of guilt, a point with which Farinacci disagreed (fo. 115v). In his next chapter, Peña offered a detailed discussion of the second interrogation, to which Farinacci objected that it was impossible to give a “certain form” for it, referring to his Tractatus q. 181 no. 9 (fo. 116v). In a long note, Farinacci did agree that normally the judge objected to a suspect’s initial statement of Catholic belief in order to learn whether his act had been repeated, as a means of establishing intention (fo. 118v), but he later added another long note that judges had to be careful not to “extort” a confession when accusing a suspect of lying, since that would render his confession null, citing his Practica (fo. 124v). Both Peña and Farinacci thought it was up to the judge to decide how many times to question a suspect, as was the number of monitiones given him to tell the truth before the fiscal proceeded (fo. 119v–20r/ pp. 46–47). Roman practice dictated three such warnings and repeating interrogations as rapidly as possible (fos. 120v–21r/p. 47). A suspect, who should always be seated, should be examined within three days of capture and be both treated and questioned “benignly” (fos. 127v and 129v).199 It was usual outside Rome to have two “religious persons” present at interrogations as witnesses (fos. 129v–30r), a requirement possibly obviated in the main tribunal by the greater professionalism of its staff. Peña also spelled out what to avoid in interrogation. The inquisitor should not promise immunity (Farinacci referred to his Practica for what could be offered a witness in civil law pleadings) or question the suspect over another crime for which he had no evidence or ask leading questions, and especially never interrupt a confession even if that meant prolonging the session beyond normal limits.200 Peña suggested earlier that the judge descend gradually from the general to the specific as a means of avoiding suggesting answers.201 Peña noted the extensive controversy over the promise of leniency, about which he raised two questions: was a promise allowed, and did it obligate the inquisitor?202 He answered that it depended on what kind of promise and when during the trial it was made. In general, he thought judges could offer to remit only penalties within their powers, and such a promise had to be observed, especially if it led to a confession. Peña admitted it was hard to give a suspect the benefit of the doubt without lying to him.203 The notary was once more enjoined to get everything in the language the suspect used even if it meant finding an interpreter, as the Holy Office often did, as well as recording all the inquisitor’s questions. Later Peña appeared to contradict himself on whether the inquisitor could introduce another offense, saying he should not do so without evidence

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 182

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

183

“legitimately” obtained, arguing against Neapolitan jurist Tommaso Grammatico’s view that a judge could ask any question at all, a view to which Farinacci also strenuously objected, citing the section “De tortura” in his Practica (fos. 136r–40r/pp. 55–61). Peña endorsed Eymeric’s notion that a judge could pursue an extraneous matter brought up by the suspect. He stressed at length the importance of avoiding even the appearance of a leading question, especially one subtly suggesting that there might be a way out for the suspect, the danger of which practice Farinacci underscored. 204 In his manual, by contrast, Peña insisted that the judge had to press the witness (including the defendant) to be sure he had understood the questions and had answered to the point. Farinacci disagreed, writing that “this form of interrogating the defendant or witnesses has in itself a tacit suggestion,” that is, contained leading questions.205 Cartari, too, prohibited leading questions.206 Beretta is thus correct that at no point were they allowed, but the ban’s frequent repetition probably indicates that the rule was more honored in the breach.207 For a change, Galileo’s processo provides evidence more broadably applicable. The inquisitor of Florence asked any number of leading questions in his interrogation of Galileo’s pupil Attavanti.208 It is not true as Beretta alleges that the inquisitor could not engage in trickery (p. 188).209 Peña, commenting on Eymeric, had no doubts whatsoever: inquisitors should always expect to be tricked and could therefore use almost any stratagem in the interests of justice, now including false promises of clemency.210 Eymeric discussed ten kinds of heretical skullduggergy followed by a corresponding list of ten “cautions” against them:211 (1) equivocations (per verborum aequivocationem); (2) per conditionis adiectionem: if God wills, so I believe; (3) per questionis sue interrogationis retorsionem: what do you (the inquisitor) believe?; (4) per verborum fictam admirationem: why do you ask that? Do you think me a Jew?; (5) per verborum tergiversationem: a response beside the point of the question; (6) per verborum manifestam translationem: changing the point; (7) per sui iustificationem: I am just an ignorant person; (8) by pretending physical infirmity (per sui corporis fictam debilitationem); (9) by pretending to be insane or imprudent (per fatuitatis seu imprudentiae simulationem); and (10) by acting in a saintly fashion (per palliatae sanctitatis conversationem). The “Cautelae inquisitorum contra haerecticorum cavillationes & fraudes” began by insisting that the defendant stick to the point; a jailor was allowed to tell the prisoner that the judge was a merciful person, if that were not true and the judge could himself at first appear to be so; if a heretic denied what the judge knew to be true from witness testimony, they could be

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 183

8/27/12 11:46 AM

184

c ha pt er 5

confronted face-to-face, a point Peña repeated in the case of a convicted but unconfessed heretic, but in this case lest he be executed on false testimony; the inquisitor could pretend to have information that contradicted the defendant’s testimony, but had to be careful not to claim to know details the defendant did not.212 Counter-subterfuge number 5 is one of the most revealing. Eymeric suggested that the inquisitor display compassion for the recalcitrant heretic, telling him: “I will expedite you and your case and you will not remain thus a captive since you are in delicate health and can easily become ill.”213 Of course, it was unlikely that the defendant knew what “expedite” meant; as we shall see, the experts had difficulties. Peña distinguished two kinds of cautelae: reprehensible, deceptive ones and “praiseworthy and legal” ones directed by reason aiming solely at the truth.214 Into this category fell the promise of mercy, even if insincere. As he usually did, Eymeric described the controversy on this point before concluding that it was “safer” to have the suspect confirm his confession after he had learned that the promise of mercy was fraudulent!215 Scaccia, a former inquisitor who also held various government posts, went further, allowing a judge to ask ambiguous questions in response to ambiguous answers and use “cautions, fictions, and lies” (“cautelis, fictionibus, & fallaciis”) depending on the end, including promises of leniency.216 A pertinacious heretic could be questioned over and over, and experts consulted about the kinds of questions to ask and the mode of forcing a confession, that is, what kind of torture to use. “Aliqui probi viri” (“some upright men”) could be brought in to reason with the defendant. Or a person pretending to be a confederate could be jailed with him or her and masquerade as one of the sect who had confessed out of fear.217 Cartari, who literally wrote the book on interrogation, made much use of Peña’s scholia, including quoting his “cautions” verbatim, and frequently emphasized the art of prudent questioning.218 He advised the judge to concentrate on getting answers to one question at a time (16). He agreed with Scaccia that the law allowed all manner of sophistry against delinquentes, including false promises of impunity, especially by inquisitors, who had more power to offer mercy than did secular judges (18; cf. 21). This latitude was especially useful when the evidence was strong, since it was against “public utility” to leave crime unpunished (19), a justification at least as elastic as ragione di stato. Besides, if a judge was allowed to torture to get the truth, so much more could he employ “tempting and invented words” (“verbis blandis & fictis”) (20).

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 184

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

185

Litis Contestatio Despite Saepe and the fact that strictly speaking the litis contestatio could have had a place in criminal trials only in a proceeding begun by accusation, since otherwise there was no adversarial party with whom to contend, many commentators, including writers of inquisitorial manuals, continued to speak not only as if it did, but as if it were the pivotal moment.219 Maranta hinged a criminal trial on it.220 Follerio gave one of the clearest explanations, making it the moment at which a negative plea was entered, in so doing claiming to capture the “style of the Roman court” and of the episcopal court of Salerno as established by him at the direction of Archbishop Girolamo Seripando. In place of the litis contestatio, “information having been collected, articles are formed from everything found (the defendant having first been examined), and articles having been formed, the information presented by the promoter of the court, and the defendant cited to see the presentation of the articles or chapters . . . and to gainsay them” (“capta informatione, formantur capitula ex omnibus repertis [reo prius examinato] & formatis capitulis, illa producuntur per promotorem curiae, & citatur reus ad videndum praesentationem articulorum, seu capitulorum . . . & ad dicendum contra; & hoc secundum stilum Romanae curiae”) (p. 80). Follerio raised the question “whether litis contestatio is necessary in an inquisitio,” beginning from Gambiglioni’s opinion that it was not, because there was no accuser. Follerio disagreed, saying that even in ex officio proceedings the defendant had to contest the charges, which amounted to the litis contestatio, again according to the styles of Rome and Salerno.221 He made the same case later, disputing Ottaviano Vestri’s argument in his manual of Roman court practice, concluding that the citation of the defendant to answer the accusation was “a certain act similar to the litis contestatio” (“fiat quidam actus similis contestationi litis”).222 In making this point, he tacitly criticized Maranta as well, even though Maranta had also explained the significance of the moment at which the litis contestatio would have occurred at the end of the principium iudicii (the beginning of the judgment), and assigned the subsequent acts the same force in a summary as in a plenary proceeding.223 Carerio agreed with Follerio, considering the litis contestatio at least functionally part of proceedings, the moment in an inquisition when the cited suspect appeared to answer the charge.224 Earlier, Bernardo da Como, after saying that the litis contestatio had no place in heresy cases because they proceeded summarily, nevertheless defined it as the phase in which “in the judge’s presence the narration and the subsequent response [were] made,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 185

8/27/12 11:46 AM

186

c ha pt er 5

either denying or confessing” (“apud iudicem facta narratio, & subsecuta responsio, sive negando, sive confitendo”).225 Guazzini, in his manual for defense attorneys, first published in 1614, devoted a whole chapter to the litis contestatio in criminal trials (Defensio 20, c. 18), arguing to begin with that it came between questioning the suspect and his response, including in inquisitorial proceedings in the papal state. He quoted Scaccia as well as Follerio and added two other opinions that it occurred the moment the suspect was first examined or even when his name arose in the first place, before adding the opinion of the Tuscan jurist Pietro Caballo (†1616) that “the examination of the suspect is in the place of the litis contestatio” (constitutum rei est loco litis contestationis).226 Guazzini spelled out the moment’s significance as meaning “the suspect became a defendant (“[r]eus . . . inter reos”) only after “lis contestatur.”227 He further disputed the opinion that litis contestatio did not arise when the suspect was questioned in the processo informativo in an inquisition, since that procedure had become standard practice in the Curia Romana. Nor could he see how questioning a suspect could avoid giving rise to litis contestatio: “fiat contestatio litis ex ipso processu informativo secuta iudicis interrogatione, ac etiam secuta responsione negativa,” calling this opinion “in everyone’s mouth, even notorious.”228 But then he took it all back on the authority of Farinacci and Scaccia. Since all criminal cases were now handled summarily, they did not require litis contestatio. Cartari, after discussing some of the differing opinions, concluded that the defendant’s answer to the judge’s interrogation induced litis contestatio” (“responsio rei ad iudicis interrogationem litis contestationem inducit”).229 Peña, although never paying this much attention to the litis contestatio, did sometimes write as if it continued in force.230 In short, the litis contestatio marked the moment when charges were levied and answered. The first alone received attention. As had Innocent in Qualiter et quando 2, all commentators from Eymeric forward skipped the suspect’s plea, even though, as Guazzini noted, it changed the suspect into a defendant.231 It had simply disappeared. Even a consultant for the defense like Guazzini failed to discuss pleading.232 Commentators went straight from the interrogations during the investigative phase to how to conduct the defense, a question presupposing that the suspect had denied the charges. The information thus far collected, although in part taking the place of the libellus in plenary proceedings, was still called that.233 On its basis, the fiscal drew up the charges, at which point the process was said to be formed. In giving rules for the fiscal, Peña drew heavily on the Speculator, stressing that the articles

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 186

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

187

should be plain and to the point. Farinacci added a monster note on the second count (fos. 177r–82r). Waiting until the trial was this far advanced to lay the charges is another “abuse” of Innocent III’s procedure, which specified that they were to be read to the suspect at the outset.234 Vanzi still agreed with Innocent, calling the causae cognitio the “foundation and beginning of the entire judgment” (fundamentum et initium totius iudicii), although as always there were exceptions in which it was not necessary.235 In the section of his treatise treating reasons for nullification ex defectu processus, he based himself on de’ Tudeschi and insisted that “It agrees with natural reason that someone first ought to know about what he will be judged and therefore it used to be said that the causae cognitio descends from natural law” (“Naturali namque rationi convenit ut quis prius cognoscat id super quo iudicare [sic; recte iudicari] debet et propterea dici consuevit quod causae cognitio a iure divino descendit”). Vanzi continued that the cognitio had to precede the formal opening of proceedings (the acta), against the practice of many contemporary judges who pronounced sentence not only without the cognitio but on the basis of a record that had nothing in it. It was better to go slowly in the interests of justice. He conceded that it was best to assume that a prelate’s sentence rested on cognitio causae, but the speed with which a trial had been conducted often cast doubt on that assumption.236 Follerio made a similar point in his discussion of the libelli. He began with Baldo’s opinion that it was unnecessay to observe all the legal solemnities in an inquisitio, especially not libelli, because they were designed to prevent an accuser from acting out of malice, which a judge could never do. Further, no law demanded their use, and a crime would go unpunished if the judge, knowing of it but not its details, could not proceed. Baldo then alleged that a special inquisitio as a subset of a general was also not bound by place or time, citing Licet Heli, in which Innocent III allowed an investigation into simony and similar offenses without spelling out the details. Qualiter et quando applied only in general not specific cases. Follerio replied that Innocent had set inquisitio parallel to accusation and denunciation, so all three required the libellus, rejecting Baldo’s opinion. It must contain the causa. Then again, when the judge proceeded ex mero officio the libellus became unnecessary. If, however, there was too much doubt about the content of charges such that the reus could not defend himself, then it should be spelled out at his request. Follerio saw no difference between accusation, civil actions, and inquisitio. If the libellus was required in civil suits in order to decide whether “to concede or to contend” (“cedere vel contendere”), then it was even more

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 187

8/27/12 11:46 AM

c ha pt er 5

188

necessary in an inquisitio, where the danger was greater (“Cum in hoc nullam video differentiae rationem posse assignari inter accusationem, causas civiles, & inquisitionem. Nam si cum agitur, civili actione debeat taliter concipi, & declarari libellus, quod reus sciat, & deliberare valeat: an velit cedere vel contendere . . . multo fortius idem dici debet in inquisitione, ubi maius periculi vertitur”).237 Unlike the other two deviations, suppressing witnesses’ names and much downplaying the necessity of publica fama, I have not found much discussion of justifications for delay in bringing charges. Eymeric simply assumed that the inquisitor would develop them on the basis of interrogations of the suspect.238 Peña did the same thing.239 Cartari blandly asserted that it was the general practice to question suspects without charging them or giving them copies of the evidence against them.240 Claro, although once giving a sample opening of an inquisitio in which the judge immediately told the suspect the reason he was under investigation, deferred to practice in the face of the law and agreed with Cartari.241 Guazzini made no objection.

The Repetitio: Questioning Witnesses for Both Prosecution and Defense Now began the first phase of the defense. As Peña rather grandly put the point, “in this forum as if in a war the fiscal proctor and the defendant contend” (“In hoc foro quasi in bellico certamine contendunt Procurator Fiscalis et Reus”).242 Although it was often not explicitly recorded, a decretum of 20 October 1562 did order a repetitio before proceeding to sentence.243 Follerio’s opinion that in case the reus refused to defend himself or have a defender, the judge should do it for him did not overstate the indispensability of this phase. Every part of the defense was de substantia.244 The first step was the repetitio, or reexamination of all previously heard witnesses, plus those now put forward by the defendant, for which he or she would need a copy of the dossier to prepare questions.245 In order to protect witnesses, their names and any details by which they might be identified were omitted, including the precise date they had testified.246 Above all, Peña thought that the judge had to be careful in the repetitio not to harm the defense (fos. 203v–4r). As Farinacci explained in De testibus, any witness heard in a summary proceeding should be reexamined in order to remove fears of subornation, citing inter alia de’ Tudeschi and Sandeo.247 Peña, who said the defendant should “immediately be given a copy of the

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 188

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

189

articles” (“incontinenti . . . sibi dari copiam articulorum”), endorsed the common opinion that without the repetitio witnesses’ testimony meant nothing.248 Peña thought the reus had to be shown the articles if he wanted a repetitio, or to prepare a defense if not (fo. 168r/pp. 82–84) (Farinacci agreed); he included a form of the act taken from a Holy Office register (fo. 169r–v). It gave the reus three days to prepare interrogatories (fo. 170r). Farinacci’s summary heading weakened this a little by saying only that it was usual for witnesses to be reexamined if the defendant wished, but he agreed with Peña about the necessity of giving the reus a copy of proceedings according to Roman custom.249 Peña left it to the judge’s discretion how long to give the defendant to draw up his questions, saying again that if he failed to do so, the judge should act anyway. Farinacci commented, “there is no doubt” (“nulla enim dubitatio”), citing a Rota decision first (fo. 194r). Guazzini agreed with Peña on both points, citing Farinacci and Maranta for the second.250 Farinacci appended a huge marginal note of authorities—including Giacomo Menochio but not himself—on the importance of the repetitio in summary proceedings (fo. 151r); Peña added two Rota decisions, including one of his (fo. 151r–v). Carerio thought torture could not be administered without a repetitio.251 He, Guazzini, and many others allowed defense witnesses to be heard right up to the moment of sentencing.252 Peña later cited the relatively obscure Filippo Franchi as saying the judge need not explicitly admit the defendant’s articles, adducing a Rota decision, especially in the Roman tribunal, where it was assumed that if there was no repetitio, the defendant yet wished to mount a defense (fo. 262r). Peña further assumed that an advocate or proctor would be involved, and thought it best to conduct the repetitio in his presence (fos. 149v and 150v). He added that even if the reus remitted the defense to the inquisitor’s judgment, it was safest to throw it back to his counsel (fo. 151v). Peña put no serious limitation on what could happen in the repetitio, stressing the importance of the Inquisition’s practice of adding the clause “except for objections against persons and their testimony, which the defendant can always use in his defense” (“salvis exceptionibus contra personas, et dicta quas semper ponere poterit Reus in suis defensionibus”).253 The inquisitor should conduct the repetitio especially carefully, and if the phase of litis contestatio had been passed, the testimony of dead or absent witnesses was allowable, as Jacobo (or Diego) Simancas had argued (fo. 156r), and as did Guazzini (p. 24); Farinacci bluntly objected that they were not allowable, because they had not been cited (fo. 154v). Peña discussed at length how to draw up interrogatoria, often following the Speculator. Farinacci usually emphasized his

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 189

8/27/12 11:46 AM

190

c ha pt er 5

agreement (fos. 182r–88v). If they contained any defects, the judge was to supply them (fo. 190r). Like Guazzini, Peña thought the judge should handle the repetitio and could not commit it to anyone other than his commissary—Peña because the matter was so important; Guazzini more prosaically, since the fiscal could not administer an oath to witnesses.254 After all this attention, it causes a little surprise when Peña announced that the Holy Office commonly proceeded without interrogatoria (fo. 190v).255 Instead, he gave fourteen rules allegedly governing how the judge should conduct a repetitio without questions from the defendant, all of which Farinacci strongly approved (fos. 191r–99v); in fact half of them returned to the interrogatoria. In their place, the defendant’s proctor or advocate should use the fiscal’s articles as a “mirror” of the interrogation. In keeping with the general limits on the defense’s latitude of action, should his agents introduce any superfluities or impertinences the inquisitor could revise the questions and always say when accepting testimony: “saving [sparing] the law of irrelevancies” (“salvo iure impertinentium”) (fo. 192r). Yet, in cases of doubt, relevance should be assumed. Any witnesses attacking other witnesses or hiding the truth should be rejected. Even after the judge’s questioning ex se, Peña thought it the “healthier counsel” (“sanior consilio”) to let the reus present another set of questions for a second examination even if that protracted the trial, especially in cases where the judge did not use the reus’s interrogatoria, an action not legally invalid, Peña again citing the Rota (fo. 195r–v). The judge was not to omit any question, in order not to invalidate the repetitio. If the advocate or proctor handed in questions without formally alleging the nullity of earlier exams, the “most common” opinion held that they should not be omitted (fos. 196r–7v). Once again, the judge was enjoined to supply defects in the interrogatoria. In order to prevent lying, he should conduct the questioning himself in both summary and plenary proceedings and also in the repetitio; Peña amplified the point in his first observatio. As in the earlier examinations, the inquisitor could ask only about the content covered in the interrogatoria. In his second observatio, Peña warned the judge to watch for discrepancies from earlier testimony incorporated in the articuli, since the Rota gave more weight to the repetitio. When it came time to reexamine witnesses, Peña thought the fiscal should give them the defense’s questions in advance (fo. 267r). The judge could add to them and should guard against “cleverness and caution of whatever advocates and proctors, trying to weaken the witnesses’ testimony” (“astutiam, et cautelam quorundam Advocatorum, et Procuratorum studentium infringere dicta testium”) (fos. 273v–74r). The fiscal was to end every interrogation by

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 190

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

191

asking the defendant’s reputation (fo. 274v) and how the witness knew it (fo. 275r). He should not ask whether it were possible that the defendant were a heretic, since most witnesses would not understand (fo. 275v). Peña then gave an eleven-folio sample repetitio (fos. 276r–86v). Only once the whole interrogation was over should the reus receive a copy of the processo defensivo, following the Rota’s procedure (fo. 286v). The reason was in part that the judge could admit new testimony, both for and against, right up to the moment of sentence (fos. 296r–97r).

Advocates In addition to abbreviating a trial, summary procedure also apparently reduced the role for attorneys, sine advocatorum . . . strepitu. But as we have just seen, that did not mean the exclusion of attorneys or legal maneuvers, just their “rumbling,” as Carerio explicitly pointed out, a rule, by the way, that also covered judges.256 Just what part advocates played offers an excellent illustration of the slippage between practice and theory, as well as of the range of opinion on nearly any point to do with the first. Peña strongly endorsed the Spanish custom of appointing an “advocate or advocates” once the suspect had been warned three times to tell the truth, and allowed the appearance of a proctor in some cases—for example, to make excuses for an absent suspect.257 His editor Farinacci, on the other hand, bluntly said: “The rule is . . . that in the crime of heresy when it is proceeded against a heretic an advocate or proctor is not admitted” (“Regula sit . . . quod in crimine haeresis quando contra haereticum proceditur Advocatus seu Procurator non admittitur”).258 The reason was that he could be called a defender of heretics and would be defamed and lose his practice (nos. 54–56, p. 672). Farinacci noted that some claimed a sentence issued without an advocate was void (no. 59, p. 673), but replied that both canon and civil law excluded a defense attorney (no. 62, p. 673). He pushed the point: not merely “advocacy is prohibited, but even supplicating” (“advocare prohibitum sit, sed etiam supplicare”) (no. 64, pp. 673–74). Lawyers could not defend accused heretics even in cases not involving heresy (no. 65, p. 674) or in extrajudicial cases (no. 69, p. 675), and the same held for notaries writing acts for heretics (no. 67, p. 674). Yet he took some of this back when he said that an inquisitor could undoubtedly license the admission of advocates, who could nevertheless not talk during examinations (no. 77, pp. 676–77). Naturally, any such had to be upright and learned (no. 78, p. 677).

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 191

8/27/12 11:46 AM

192

c ha pt er 5

Farinacci took views just as extreme in his own work. He only grudgingly allowed that heretics might have advocates, and they could do almost nothing to defend the accused.259 Carena also made it appear that they could do little more besides induce their client to tell the truth, observe secrecy, and keep their interventions short.260 The same conclusion has been reached on the basis of the Sext’s description of summary procedure as “de plano absque advocatorum & subditorum strepitu.” Basing himself on a single statement by Masini, Beretta assigns the advocate “a secondary role” and makes it appear that there were exceedingly strict limits on what an advocate could do—little more than challenge witness testimony on the facts.261 As H. A. Kelly pointed out more accurately more than twenty years ago, Boniface’s pronouncement has been misunderstood in its original context, and canonists never construed it so narrowly.262 And as Tedeschi showed, by the seventeenth century advocates had acquired an important role.263 Tedeschi’s contention has support from many commentators. The highly respected Milanese jurist (and object of the Inquisition’s attention) Menochio, for example, discussed the circumstances under which a proctor could appear for a defendant in a criminal case, including one proceeding by inquisitio. He could not if corporal punishment or perpetual imprisonment were possible penalties (he could if the punishment were to be financial), including in “private” crimes, nor when the crime was public and there was “infamia publica,” nor when it would make the sentence “wasted” (elusoria). A proctor could appear for an absent defendant, including if imprisoned, to lodge a claim of innocence, when he was the defendant’s administrator, to lodge exceptions, to allege nullity of the process, or when punishment was “arbitrary” (arbitraria), in short in any circumstance not prohibited.264 Later in the seventeenth century, De Luca included advocates practicing before the Inquisition among those in the Roman curia more generally, as he did in the case of proctors.265 Among other consequences, this meant that the Inquisition’s limits on their freedom of action were not peculiar to it either. De Luca applied one of the central limits—the injunction to brevity, meaning speaking without oratory and the piling up of citations, and instead sticking to the point—to all advocates practicing in the Roman curia.266 The strongest apparently distinctive restraint on their action was the prohibition against defending an accused they knew to be guilty lest they defend heresy themselves, but De Luca again said much the same thing about lawyers taking on cases they knew to be unjust. In fact, lawyers were not needed then, since the matter was clear. They should appear only when the facts were ambiguous.267 The limitation of their fees to

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 192

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

193

what was customary they also had in common with all Roman advocates.268 Nor did the stricture about defending heresy mean quite what it appeared to say, or at least, many jurists did not endorse it. Carerio put the point simply, thereby rejecting many citations against their use: proctors and advocates were allowed if it was not certain the defendant was a heretic.269 Practice tells a similar story, and advocates could have a major impact.270 For example, Tommaso Campanella’s advocates drew up the list of defense questions to be put in the repetitio and at least helped to compose a written defense.271 They could also engage in various procedural maneuvers as well as intervene at sentencing by presenting evidence leading to a reduced penalty.272 In his notorious sixteenthcentury case, Cardinal Morone had a whole battery of defense attorneys.273 It is not entirely clear how advocates were chosen. Eymeric claimed that he always accepted defendants’ nominees, which Peña made into a question whether those nominees rather than members of the Inquisition’s own staff should serve. In another place he asserted, as the summarium put it, “if the defendant demands another proctor, it is usual to concede him another proctor from just cause” (“Si Reus alium postulat Procuratorem, solet concedi Procurator alius ex iusta causa”) (fo. 156v). The reus needed counsel in order to decide whether he wanted a repetitio and how to respond to the charges, which Peña put in legalese as “according to the style of the supreme tribunal [of the Inquisition] . . . in which regularly proctors and advocates are not conceded to accused persons, except when [i.e., after] the fiscal proctor has produced articles against them and in order to conduct the repetitio” (“iuxta stylum Supremi Tribunalis . . . in quo regulariter non solent concedi Reis Procuratores, et Advocati, nisi quando Procurator Fiscalis contra eos productus est Articulos ut repetantur”), which happened only after the informative phase had ended, including the full examination of the reus. “For then when the plenary judgment is not formed a proctor or advocate is needed in order to prepare legitimate defenses” (“Tunc enim cum Iudicium plenarium inchoatur ad parandas legitimas defensiones opus est consilio Procuratoris, vel Advocati”) (fos. 156v–57r). Despite the existence of the official procurator pauperum, “if the defendant should demand another proctor be conceded to him, the supreme senate [the Congregation] usually for cause indulges and concedes him, so long as the man is an upright lawyer and both cultivator of justice and lover of truth” (“si Reus alium Procuratorem sibi concedi postulet, Supremus Senatus ex causa indulgere, et concedere eum solet, dummodo sit vir probus Iurisperitor et Iustitiae cultor, et veritatis Amator”) (fo. 157v).274 It is nevertheless clearly not the case that nominees were automatically accepted, and

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 193

8/27/12 11:46 AM

194

c ha pt er 5

there is substantial evidence that Peña’s second possibility often held true.275 In a letter of 1626, Secretary Giovanni Garzia Millini alleged that “the usual [practice] in the tribunal [of the Inquisition] is that the defendant nominate at least three advocates, and one of these is then chosen by the inquisitor” (“il solito del tribunale è che gli rei nominino tre avvocati almeno, et uno di essi sia poi eletto dall’inquisitore”).276 On at least four occasions in the decree registers the Congregation did indeed allow a defendant to propose defense counsel, in two cases engaging in a long negotiation over whom to appoint, even going so far as to try to “persuade” a prisoner that the ordinary proctor was suitable, before granting those requests.277 On the other hand, on another occasion, a request from Portugal for specific attorneys (and famous ones at that, Farinacci and Laerzio Cherubini) was twice denied.278 There is also evidence that the advocates were often if not usually members of the Inquisition’s own staff, functionaries of the procurator reorum.279 Thus there may be a little stretching of the truth in Cardinal Albizzi’s later statement that even if a prisoner did not want an advocate (and he or she could have only one), the Congregation always assigned one and always granted requests for particular attorneys; it is worth emphasizing that Albizzi’s claim directly contradicted that of his fellow cardinal and canonist De Luca.280 The absence of libelli also meant that the lawyers might have difficulty entering exceptions against the evidence, objections of various kinds that might abort proceedings, a practice that could protract a civil or canon law trial almost interminably.281

The Defense Proper Once the repetitio had ended, Peña thought a copy of both it and the fiscal’s articles should go to the defendant in order to decide “cedere vel contendere,” leaving it up to the defendant to decide whether to repeat his denial of the charges.282 His advocate should demand expedition and ask for a copy for the defense (fo. 245r). This step was vulgarly called the publicatio testium, “the publication of witnesses,” the moment after which in ordinary criminal proceedings no more testimony could be heard, although it did not have that effect in the Inquisition (fo. 245v).283 The depositions were to be written out exactly as given, one at a time so that the reus could respond to each in detail (fo. 247r–v). The Inquisition turned over the copy of the dossier without or with a term for defense of five or six days. Peña’s limit was more generous than Simancas’s three, less generous than Galileo’s eight (fo. 250r; see fo. 298v). In

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 194

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

195

practice, the length of time allowed varied widely. If the defendant did not confess, he considered with his counsel “exceptions and defenses which he thought it expedient to propose and prove against the witnesses and their testimony” (“exceptiones, et defensiones, quas contra testes, et eorum testimonia proponere atque probare sibi expedire putaverit”), since it was useless to give him a copy of the processo if he had no chance to consult an advocate (fo. 250v). The two needed to think hard about “legitimate exceptions and proofs” (“legitimas exceptiones, et probationes”), meaning extensions were possible; Farinacci thought as many as four.284 The reus was to receive pen and paper and consult his counsel in the inquisitor’s presence (fo. 251r). Peña added observations on the necessity of giving a copy of the processo, especially because failing to do so would “endanger their [the suspects’] innocence and the witnesses’ safety [salus]” (fo. 252r). Peña’s next chapter considered how to lodge exceptions and other defenses. The best move entailed denying the facts alleged by offering an alibi and proving the defendant’s good life, including evidence of his positive reputation and a list of witnesses to it (fos. 253v–54r; an example of an attack on the fiscal’s evidence follows on fos. 255r–56v, and then another eleven folios of discussion of how to confront his case, fos. 256v–66v). In sum, the defense’s articles, which should be in the vernacular, “should exclude or minimize the crime” in three ways: “First by denying the fact; second by exceptions against witnesses; third by the good life and customs of the defendants” (“debet excludere vel minuere delictum . . . primo super negando factum; secundo super exceptionibus contra Testes; tertio super bona vita et moribus Reorum”) (fo. 261r–v). Peña suggested several other defenses, including inebriation or mouthing someone else’s opinion (fo. 264v), or old age or youth. If the defendant could not deny the fact, then his advocate should raise “legitimas defensiones, et exceptiones” (fo. 265r). Peña elsewhere helpfully observed that the defense “very frequently” consisted of allegations of enmity between witness and defendant (fo. 187v). At the moment of notification that he would offer a defense, the defendant could ask expedition of his case (fo. 298v). It might also happen that the defendant confessed, which some thought meant he could renounce his defense.285 Peña disagreed, and the decree registers bore him out, according to Albizzi.286 In only one case was no defense possible: notorious crimes.287 One form of defense was supposed to be rigorously excluded, recommendations of defendants by outside authorities, that is, not character witnesses but efforts to intercede for clients. Already in late 1605 Paul V, followed by

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 195

8/27/12 11:46 AM

196

c ha pt er 5

the Congregation in early 1606, decreed that such could not be accepted.288 At the same time as the pope’s order, the Congregation decreed that the rest of the cardinals were to be warned in the next consistory not to intercede for accused persons, and inquisitors to ignore any such act.289 Possibly this same decree (or perhaps yet another at this same time) was renewed in an order of 12 February 1628 refusing recommendations “of any person whatsoever” (“di persona alcuna”).290 How seriously the defense was taken varied. Important trials almost always included it, but to judge from the decree registers it seems often to have been omitted in less significant ones. The formula “decreed that having been given defenses (i.e., having been allowed to mount a defense), the defendant is to be tortured and if nothing arises, abjure de vehementi” (“decretum, ut datis defensionibus torqueatur, et si nihil superveniat, abjuret de vehementi”) certainly makes it appear unimportant.291 In fact, this is a notarial truncation of the full formula, which reads: “given defenses, if nothing results to his [the defendant’s] advantage, he is to be tortured for the ultimate truth, words, actions, accomplices, and intention, and if nothing emerges, abjure” (“datis defensionibus, si nihil ad eius favorem resultaverit, torqueatur pro ult. ver. usu, complicibus, et intentione, si nihil emergat, abjuret”).292 Nevertheless, in the case of Cherubino da Verona the order for his defense could have been nothing other than formulaic, since he had already been ordered relaxed to the secular arm two weeks before.293 Frequently decrees to torture make no mention of a defense being granted, but this may be because the cases were notorious.294 In any case, absent the dossiers it is usually impossible to say whether a defense had in fact been mounted.

Expeditio After the defense came the expeditio in three phases: the drawing up of the summarium, its transmission to the consultors for their opinion, and the Congregation’s decision, including the proposed sentence.295 Usually the drafting of the summarium fell to the assessor, but the summista might also do it.296 The Congregation worked throughout almost exclusively from written material, in the first stage mainly that which it generated itself; nothing was supposed to come from the defendant until charges had been laid. In fact, a defendant might bombard the Congregation with memoranda. Nevertheless, at the point of the expeditio, the only thing it or the

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 196

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

197

consultors saw was the summarium. On its basis the experts issued a strictly advisory opinion.297 The state of the records does not allow us to say how often it was followed. The decreta often make it appear as much a formality as the grant of a defense.298 As in the case of the expeditio, other moments of a trial than the sentence might produce a summarium. For example, a summarium of the contents of the Inquisition’s files against Cesare Cremonini was read on 30 January 1608, leading to an order the next day for an extrajudicial intervention by Secretary Millini.299 The liminal moment of the expeditio was crucial. Peña referred to it as “expedition of the case through a lawful sentence” (“causae expeditionem per sententiam legitimam”) (fo. 299v), that is, “moving the trial along by means of an interlocutory sentence,” making the second an extension of the first. Unfortunately, Peña never wrote book 4 of his “Introductio,” which was to cover it in detail (fo. 323r). This is a major loss, since no commentator before him treated the expeditio as a separate phase, and it had never been an explicit part of Roman or civil law pleadings. All the sources to which he referred discussed only the consultors’ intervention.300 Farinacci as good as ignored this section of Peña’s manuscript. Eymeric described the expeditio repeatedly in his sample sentences, most clearly in the ninth case, which included a long section saying that “since we want the present case to be terminated by the due end, [and] the solemn counsel of experts both in theology and canon and civil law whom we ordered to meet; and having had the aforesaid counsel and carefully digested it and all and singular its acts and enactments, and having seen and diligently discussed the merits of the trial and all and singular its acts and enactments” the inquisitor had proceeded to expedite the case (“Sane cum vellemus præsentem causam fine debito terminare, solemne consilium tam in theologiæ facultate, quàm in iure canonico, & civili peritorum, iussimus congregari; & habito prædicto consilio maturo pariter & digesto in & super omnibus & singulis actis & actitatis; ac visis & diligenter discussis processus meritis, & omnibus & singulis actis & actitatis”) (p. 359); and he always added a formula like “the merits of the case having been diligently discussed with the good counsel of legal experts” (“processus meritis diligenter discussis cum bono consilio in iure peritorum”) as well as theologians (p. 363). Canon law used the verb expedire to refer to the moment, without treating it as a discrete action.301 Charles Du Fresne Du Cange defined expeditio as “promulgation of the end of cases by the judge’s order” (“promulgatio decursus causarum ex iudicis ordine”), which must mean that it was in use as a technical term, but the definition is so vague as to apply to almost any moment in a

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 197

8/27/12 11:46 AM

198

c ha pt er 5

trial.302 The popular early seventeenth-century Lexicon iuridicum of Johann Kahl spoke only of an expeditio libelli, aside from any number of classical military usages.303 In his edition of Bernardo da Como’s Lucerna inquisitorum, Peña quoted a decree of Pius V reserving to the Inquisition the cognitio causae and expeditio of a case also pending in a secular court.304 Eymeric also several times referred to the action of expediting, as did Peña himself in his commentary on the Directorium.305 The same verb could apply to any kind of legal action including in the Inquisition’s vocabulary, and to the issuing of various documents, among them breves.306 Fortunately, at the end of book 2 Peña at least sketched what Beretta calls “the most delicate phase from a theological and canonical point of view.”307 The expeditio would seem to be an instance of the continuing evolution of the Inquisition’s terminology if not its underlying procedure. But there might still be at least one intervening action before sentence, one more interrogation, for example.308 Galileo’s case sheds a little light on the speed with which expedition could happen. Ambassador Francesco Niccolini, an attorney formerly practicing in the papal courts, did not know whether Galileo’s case could be expedited (lo potessero spedire) in a few hours (literally “two hours”), which might mean holding him overnight. The ambassador had asked a “quick and favorable expedition.”309 By contrast, almost five months elapsed between the decree of expedition and sentence in Ippolito Roma’s case.310 The essence of the expeditio was the consultors’ intervention. Peña described their role in chapter 59, entitled “Before the sentence is handed down inquisitors discuss the trial with consultors and a day having been established they give their opinions” (“Antequam sententia proferatur inquisitores communicant processum cum Consultoribus, et constituto die suffragia proferunt”).311 The inquisitor proposed the petition for expedition to the consultors at which point the defendant’s attorney (Peña said proctor) “shall give his information to the inquisitors and also the consultors” (“det suas informationes inquisitoribus et etiam Consultoribus”) (fo. 299v). Farinacci’s summary said the consultors should consider everything important (fos. 300r, 0v), and his remarks agreed, against those who thought that unnecessary. The consultors gave their opinions in order according to custom, since no law governed the sequence (fo. 301v). The Inquisition followed a strict (if less than pellucid) hierarchy, the consultors speaking in reverse order of status.312 Each should spell out his reasoning without interruption (fo. 302r). Only the fiscal was excluded from giving an opinion, since he was acting ex parte (fo. 302v). As always, the notary was to get everything down, whether given in writing or viva voce (fo. 302v).313

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 198

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

199

After the consultors delivered their opinions, the cardinals proposed judgment in the third key moment of the expeditio and then passed it.314 In some cases, they could act alone; in others the pope had either to endorse or reject their recommendation. Beretta insists that all sentences were an act of the papal magisterium, but there is debate about this claim.315 Sentences made in the pope’s presence were issued in the name of the cardinals and signed only by them. “The cardinals sign sentences given against whomever, except bishops, even if the definitive decree was made in his holiness’s presence. 28 May 1556. So even decrees made in the presence of his holiness are put under the lord cardinals’ names as Pius V established 19 March 1566” (“Adscribunt [“Cardinales” assumed, since the entry is in the section “Cardinales Congregationis S. Inquisitionis”] sententias contra quoscumque [praeter episcopos] latas, ac si decretum diffinitivum factum fuerit coram S.te [sic] Sua 28 Maii 1556. Ita etiam decreta facta coram S.te [sic] Sua ponantur sub nomine dd. Cardinalium ut statuit Pius V. 19 Martii 1566”).316 Yet another decree from 1556 reads more fully “that . . . all and whatever kinds of acts and any decrees, even promulgations of sentences including definitive even should they be handed down by the pope in congregation, for whatever reasonable causes are noted by me the notary under the name of the most excellent lord cardinals . . . such that . . . these kinds of decrees and whatever other acts including definitive sentences are put under the names of the lord cardinals. And definitive sentences, even when they are handed down by the pope, yet they are drawn up and formed under the names of the aforesaid reverend men and ought to be signed by them, except in the cases of bishops and other higher prelates, in which his holiness has declared his intention” (“quod . . . omnes, et quicunque alii actus, et decreta quaecunque, etiam prolationes sententiarum, etiam diffinitivarum, etiam quod a S.te sua in Congregatione fierent, tam ea rationabilibus ex causis mota [sic] quod per me Notarium annotentur sub nomine Ill.morum et R.morum D.norum Card.ium Inquisitorum generalium . . . ita quod huiusmodi . . . decreta, et quicunque alii actus, sententiae etiam diffinitivae sub nominibus praefatorum R.morum D.norum Cardinalium ponantur. Et sententiae diffinitivae, etiam quod per Sanctitatem suam proferantur, tamen concipentur et formentur sub nominibus praefatorum R.morum et per eosdem subscribi debeant; exceptis causis episcoporum, et aliorum superiorum Praelatorum, in quibus S.tas Sua declaravit mentem suam”).317 Then again, an anonymous seventeenth-century commentator turned these decrees on their head and said that “the Inquisitors represent the person of the supreme pontiff more perfectly than the representatives of other princes because

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 199

8/27/12 11:46 AM

200

c ha pt er 5

the Inquisitors proffer the sentence with [his] authority and speak the law.”318 I have found only one instance of a definitive sentence signed by the pope, against De Dominis probably for contumacy.319 The commissary alone signed the sentences preserved in TCD, MSS 1230–33 and at least one is signed only by his socius, probably because the cases were relatively minor.320 The commissary alone signed Fulgenzio Manfredi’s first sentence, perhaps in an effort to draw some of the sting from his condemnation as “vehemently suspected,” since at that time Manfredi was cooperating with papal authorities, and the cardinals the second sentence, which led to his execution.321

Termination and Sentence Condemnation could take the form of a decree or a definitive sentence, according to “Avvertimenti per formare le sentenze nel Tribunale del S. Offizio” and Peña, who perhaps absentmindedly included the possibility of an interlocutory sentence.322 It is worth noting that a sentence could mean an acquittal, even if the Inquisition never declared anyone innocent.323 The first outcome, a decree, arose if the suspect sustained torture and was suspected only of heresy. It was the usual treatment of false witnesses under the bull Si de protegendis spelling out penalties for anyone interfering with the Holy Office (fo. 594r). Cases of “manifest heresy,” requiring a public abjuration, needed a sentence instead. Although the writer stressed that it was hard to give general rules about them, since many cases presented singular features (fo. 594v), he nevertheless sketched a broad outline. Sentences were usually in Italian. The first section contained the narrativa (narratio in Latin) based on the processo (fo. 595v). It should contain the corpo delitti unless it could not be found, an extraordinary admission (fo. 596v). The crimes should be described in detail with their circumstances; for example, in a case of magic (one of the writer’s principal concerns) “it is necessary to narrate exactly the quality of the experiment” (“bisogna esattamente narrare la qualità dell’esperimento”), and the same held true for blasphemies and heretical propositions (fo. 597r). However, if neither place nor time aggravated the crime, they could be left out (fo. 598r–v). Evidence of mala fama, or the general belief that the defendant committed the crime, was needed even if obtained extrajudicially (fo. 600r). A detailed account of the reo’s imprisonment had to be included, and if he were contumacious, so did details of efforts to secure his appearance (fos. 600v and 601r). By contrast, a full summary of his interrogations was not necessary (fo.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 200

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

201

601r). If the suspect had denied the charges and then confessed, that should be stated (fo. 601v). The repetitio might need to be described, and the defense should be noted along with torture, but without specifics (fos. 603r–4r). Follerio said that in this section “we will narrate the matter clearly” (rem dilucide narrabimus).324 It was mandatory to say that the case had been proposed in Congregation and that the consultors had been heard. To judge from Galileo’s sentence, this was a purely formal statement, making no reference to the content of the consultors’ opinions. Naturally, the abjuration and absolution had to be included and the punishment spelled out before the penance at the end (fos. 605r–7r). A public reading of the sentence should contain the narration and the confessed crimes de verbo ad verbum, according to one manual.325 This was not quite all a sentence needed. Eymeric gave a formula reserving to inquisitors the right to modify or even lift it in any way they saw fit whenever they saw fit.326 Giordano Bruno’s, Manfredi’s two, and De Dominis’s sentences all closed with a similar broad reservation to the Congregation of the right to modify the entire sentence.327 Manfredi’s first sentence also had a clause allowing the Inquisition to change his punishment. Galileo’s had both.328 Either a specific or a general reservation was not mandatory, to judge from Pietro Carnesecchi’s sentence in 1567, which contained neither.329 Peña insisted that it was part of the inquisitors’ privilege that their jurisdiction did not cease with the sentence, leaving them free to modify it in whatever way they saw fit.330 His principal authority was a consilium of Guy Foulques (Clement IV), which Peña edited and presented to Ferdinando Taverna, later an Inquisitor, while he was still governor of Rome.331 Some commentators thought the sentence was not part of the acta, which may explain why the Inquisition kept them in separate files.332 Modes of terminating a trial were complex. Eymeric listed thirteen, followed by Masini and Carena.333 As in all canon law trials, the sentence was diffinitiva, final, and no appeal might be lodged.334 Peña commenting on Eymeric allowed an appeal only from an interlocutory sentence; he advised inquisitors that unless they were exceptionally learned, they should seek advice about whether even that appeal was frivolous.335 Masini said no condemned persons might appeal, since it served only to aid the innocent.336 This state of affairs did not make all commentators happy. Vanzi, in particular, noted a number of reasons why an appeal might still be granted, even if the sentence had been handed down by the maximus magistratus. Likening the cardinals (although not the Inquisitors specifically) to the praetorian prefect when in Rome or consuls when outside it, Vanzi thought their sentences could be nullified on

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 201

8/27/12 11:46 AM

202

c ha pt er 5

the grounds that they failed to observe proper process.337 A sentence by the pope acting as universal ordinary could also be amended. If he acted ex plenitudine potestatis but violated those parts of a trial rooted in natural law, denying a defense and omitting cognitio causae or the citatio, the sentence could be “impugned” in natural although not in positive law.338 Vanzi acknowledged that the ordo iuris did not bind the cardinals in consistory, making cases before them especially dangerous. Nevertheless, if the prince or the pope failed to say explicitly that he was acting out of plenitude of power, his sentence could be “impugned, corrected and reformed” by what amounted to equity, although Vanzi did not use that word.339 It does not appear that in practice the Roman Inquisition allowed many appeals. I noted only four references to such in the decree registers, possibly all to the same appeal. If so, they all concerned an appeal from a precept, that is, an interlocutory not a definitive sentence.340 It may be that appeals, like sentences, were filed separately, but the registers should still have at least mentioned them.

Abjuration and Punishment Juan de Rojas succinctly defined the nearly last step, abjuration, as “the solemn detestation of some kind of heresy, with the assertion of Catholic truth and the obligation, oath and punishment vallata of remaining in the Christian faith.” Solemn meant public, although Rojas allowed that an abjuration de levi might be private, as had Eymeric, depending on the degree of suspicion.341 The punishment clause meant that if the penitent relapsed he could not avoid death.342 Its object, as of the other three abjurations, was to restore the heretic to the church. Abjurations differed in part by the location, but the first could also be public, depending on circumstances and the degree of scandal, as Carena put it.343 Contrariwise, a special dispensation could allow the second to be private. Once again, there might be a rule, but practice might well find ways around it. The kind of penance imposed varied among the three. Worst, if a person abjured de vehementi and then returned to heresy, that made him a relapsus. The most important element in the formula of abjuration was expression of Catholic faith. Next, according to Eymeric and Rojas, but not Peña, the penitent had to name the article of belief against which he had transgressed. As Eymeric put it, “the Catholic article contrary to that heresy of which he is vehemently suspected is to be spelled out” (“Explicetur articulus

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 202

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

203

catholicus contrarius illi heresi, de qua vehementer est suspectus”).344 Cagnazzo, too, thought the abjuration had to include the specific article of the faith offended against.345 Rojas gave a similar sample formula in which the penitent swore that he believed all the church did, named the article he had violated, spelled out his heresies, abjured them, each specifically, and acknowledged that he would be subject to the penalty for a relapsus if he espoused any of them in the future.346 Umberto Locati (1503–1587), inquisitor in Pavia and Piacenza before becoming commissary and Pius V’s confessor, gave a variant form allegedly used in the Holy Office (although he may have meant a local tribunal) that also includes the specific article offended against, introduced by specialiter.347 Peña agreed about the degree of specificity required when the pentitent abjured and denied (abiuro et abnego) all his errors.348 Rojas added that the penitent also had to forswear all heresies.349 In the 1625 edition of his book, Masini gave four sample formulas for abjuration de vehementi.350 All of them omitted the second requirement earlier in force, as did Manfredi’s abjuration in 1608 and Galileo’s in 1633, both of which otherwise closely resemble Masini’s specimens.351 Despite the heroic efforts of Eymeric and other commentators to distinguish between the three kinds of abjuration, in practice it can be almost impossible to see differences. Thus a number of abjurations in the decree registers of what should have been the most serious degree of heresy, de formali, seem almost to have been pro forma; at least they produced no consequences beyond complete rehabilitation, for example, of a crowd of English seamen in Rome or of a number of individual Englishmen sponte comparentes (which usually produced more lenient treatment) in 1601, or another in 1602 who was freed in less than a month and given a job.352 Against Eymeric, Carena thought of abjuration as a form of punishment.353 After the abjuration, the penitent was absolved and readmitted to the Church. Then “successive & incontinenti” his penance was imposed.354 Abjurations might take place in a number of venues, ranging from San Pietro to a meeting of the Congregation.355 Punishment took a wide variety of forms, from “salutary penances” alone through the galleys to the rarely applied death sentence. Nearly every sentence included “salutary penances” of one kind or another.356 Rojas thought even abjuration de vehementi merited only incarceration for a term or an order to go on a pilgrimage or to carry a candle, or the like. He also thought financial penalties were possible as well as exile.357 Imprisonment was quite common, including “perpetual,” and it was usually explicitly indicated as punishment (in poenis).358 Carena gave an extensive list of punishments, beginning with

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 203

8/27/12 11:46 AM

204

c ha pt er 5

imprisonment and including the galleys, fustigatio (a beating), relegatio (confinement to a particular place, but not a prison), exile, confinement in a monastery, fines, wearing a penitent’s habit, hearing Mass in forma poenitentis, fasting, and so on.359 Examples of all these and others can be found in the decree registers.360 Peña gave a long list of conditions governing imprisonment.361 The problems of peculation arising from monetary fines and the consequent damage to the Inquisition’s reputation led to a decree in 1625 and another in 1632 not to impose them.362 Finally, sentences were regularly, perhaps even usually, commuted, save for the very worst offenders, even if requests for commutation seem rarely to have been granted on first hearing.363 In some cases, commutation was immediate, for example in the substitution of a term of imprisonment equivalent to that in the galleys originally imposed.364 In others, the process was more drawn out.365 Cardinal Scaglia gave it as usual to commute a sentence for the serious offense of solicitation in the confessional.366 By Peña’s day, perpetual imprisonment was “often” commuted to confinement in a monastery, and lifted altogether if it posed a danger of death to the convict’s relatives, apparently through loss of his support.367 He agreed with Simancas that even an “irremissible” prison sentence should be commuted after eight years.368 The very last act might be publication to the outside world of the sentence; publication was also the technical term for its promulgation within the Congregation.369 Even when a sentence was published in the first sense, no one was to get or keep a copy of it.370 Other decrees contradicted these two, as did the provision ordered in Galileo’s case that his be widely disseminated to inquisitors in order for them to read it to mathematicians and philosophers.371 Copies of all sentences from local tribunals were supposed to go to Rome.372

Conclusion Although in broad outline descended from Innocent III’s legislation, by the late sixteenth century the Roman Inquisition’s notion of inquisitio had diverged in important ways from its ancestor. The four most serious changes concerned (1) how the proceeding began, (2) when charges were laid, (3) whether the suspect/defendant could know the names of witnesses against him, and (4) the replacement of plenary by summary action. The first, which had originally demanded evidence of publicly bad reputation about a specific offense, came to be replaced by a denunciation, taken in and kept secret. While Innocent

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 204

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Inquisition Procedure: The Use of Inquisitio

205

expected that a suspect would immediately learn the allegations against him, these were not revealed in later Roman practice until halfway through the trial. In the meantime, the suspect was put at high risk of incriminating himself, perhaps indeed could not avoid doing so by an oath forcing him to tell the truth even against interest. The third point, an originally emergency measure designed to protect witnesses from danger, had become permanent as a result of papal legislation. Finally, the speedier and more flexible summary proceedings encouraged the Inquisition to innovate and constantly modify its style. Although commentators insisted that summary proceedings could not prejudice the defense, in fact the omission of libelli must have contributed to justifying withholding the charges, at the same time as the devaluation of the litis contestatio helped to obscure the defendant’s chance to deny them. After these interventions and with the deviations just noted, an inquisitio was left with eleven main steps: (1) the opening of a file through either denunciation or less commonly the judge’s own action; (2) the investigative phase (the processo informativo); (3) citation of the suspect; (4) capture, if necessary; (5) the laying of and response to charges; (6) the repetitio of all witnesses, both for the prosecution and now for the defense, answering questions set by both, the second aided by an advocate; (7) the defense proper, when the advocate could raise objections against witnesses and attempt to demonstrate the defendant’s good reputation; (8) the expeditio or moving of the case to sentence, in the Inquisition’s practice relying on the opinions of its professional consultors; (9) termination and sentence; (10) abjuration; (11) punishment. The principal motor behind the development of this procedure was papal action, beginning with Boniface VIII, who tilted the scales against defendants in all summary criminal proceedings, including, of course, heresy cases.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 205

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Conclusion

In this book, I have recounted the evolution of the Roman Inquisition from about 1590 to 1640 as the most direct institutional expression of papal will. Originally aimed by Paul III at the threat from northern European heretics, already in the 1550s Paul IV, its motive force from the beginning, turned it more frequently against his enemies. In those first couple of decades of the institution’s existence, both purposes coexisted, in part because the Inquisition had yet to develop its own “style,” or customary procedure, and neither of those popes had trained as a lawyer. From the time Sixtus V reorganized the Roman congregations in 1588 and gave the Inquisition precedence over all others, the Congregation and the popes steadily built up more and more law and jurisprudence at the same time as they kept the institution as flexible as possible. Its professional staff, a bureaucracy of about a dozen members, one of the larger such for a papal congregation, did not greatly hinder that flexibility, probably because those men were papal appointees, serving at pleasure. The two most important, the theologically trained commissary, the direct representative of the Congregation in the same way that its members stood in for the pope as his deputies, and the assessor, always a lawyer, jointly directed its operations. Despite its “style,” the pope might intervene at any point through either or both officers. Unlike many other papal congregations, the Inquisition had broad judicial powers. As in the pairing of commissary and assessor, theologians and lawyers, the second often in the majority among both cardinals and consultors, together reached decisions and drafted sentences. Throughout they followed the already old procedure of inquisitio. As had happened repeatedly since its invention in the thirteenth century, often through papal action, the Inquisition continued to modify, adapt, and streamline the procedure. Originally 206

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 206

8/27/12 11:46 AM

co nc lu sion

207

intended to guarantee a defendant the best possible trial, it gradually became an instrument with which to strip the accused of safeguards, including forcing him to testify against himself and possibly undergo torture and interrogation at length before charges had been lodged. Nevertheless, the safeguards remained in place, at least in theory. In both dimensions, the practical and the theoretical, the Inquisition followed the broader evolution of Italian justice from the early fifteenth century forward. Nonetheless, compared to what happened in many secular tribunals, as commentators on the Inquisition’s procedure and jurisprudence often observed, Roman justice stood out. It played a role in the evolution of “human rights” that has been completely overlooked. The evolution of inquisitio depended directly on the degree to which any given pope tried to dominate the Inquisition. To say of any vicar of Christ that he controlled the Inquisition more than another may sound redundant, but there are marked differences in how closely the popes followed the rules and the style. A pope like Paul V, long-time Inquisitor and the Inquisition’s secretary for six years, might occasionally indulge his propensity for snap decisions, as in the censoring of Galileo’s Sunspot Letters in 1616, but more often at least tried to follow its style. Popes who were never Inquisitors, Clement VIII and Urban VIII, in particular, showed its procedures much less respect. In all cases, the popes did not demand much previous experience as a qualification for an Inquisitor. Only a handful of the cardinals had training in the Inquisition, and unsurprisingly, the popes made heavy use of them, perhaps especially Roberto Bellarmino and one of his protégés, Desiderio Scaglia, both theologians. Similarly, an equally small group of Inquisitors had practiced in the Rota, only three important ones, but here we find a distinct chronological dynamic in the popes’ handling of such men. Whereas two former auditors served for long periods as secretaries before Urban VIII’s election, Pompeo Arrigoni and Gian Garzia Millini (including for six years under Urban), the only auditor Urban appointed, Fabrizio Verospi, never became secretary, Urban preferring instead to lean heavily on his unqualified brother Antonio Barberini and scarcely better prepared nephew Francesco. Papal patronage shows the same pattern. While all popes no doubt appointed men they considered loyalists, before Urban’s election in 1623 it is much harder to find the tight links between both cardinals and members of the professional staff and their papal patrons that appear relatively soon thereafter. In rapid succession after the death of Secretary Millini in 1629, Urban replaced him with Antonio Barberini, Sr., the assessor with two strict Barberini clients in succession, one of them with no experience in any branch of

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 207

8/27/12 11:46 AM

co nc lu sio n

208

the Inquisition, and in late 1632 completed his housecleaning with the most poorly prepared commissary during this period, Vincenzo Maculano. Whereas all earlier commissaries had distinguished, if sometimes checkered, careers as functionaries of the Inquisition before appointment, especially Michelangelo Seghizzi and Scaglia, both of whom in addition to assiduously exercising Rome’s orders were criticized for financial irregularities and consorting with women, Maculano’s curriculum vitae was only checkered. What counted to Urban was service to the Barberini, not competence. Nevertheless, the Inquisition had rules, lots of them. In Chapter 5 I described its trial process and sketched some of the ways it did or did not fit into the context of Roman, canonistic and civil law proceedings. One of the more interesting points to emerge is the large role played by Neapolitan jurisprudence (Follerio, Maranta, Villagut, Grammatico, Carerio), as well as that of the Spanish Inquisition, both certainly fostered if not introduced by the erudite Spaniard Francisco Peña.

Four Examples of How the Inquisition Managed Its Trials It must be stressed that the Inquisition created a procedure to give it maximum flexibility. Whatever the rules might say, in any particular case just about anything might happen, especially when the pope took an interest. Given this state of affairs, a sketch of the course of several proceedings will help to pull this discussion together and illustrate how the system worked. It would be well to say at the outset that there was no such thing as a typical trial, and although there were lots of precise rules, they governed primarily (or perhaps even exclusively) the satellite tribunals and did not bind the Congregation or even more the pope. These sketches will also reveal the limits but also the possibilities of the evidence largely derived from the decree registers. The first case is that of Juan de Roa or Roa Dávila (1552–ca. 1630). His case extended for almost twenty years and probably longer. Although its general course is regular enough, it still has pronounced oddities, most of them directly connected to the interventions of a particular congregation or congregations. It is also hard to miss his deference to the Inquisition, including an attempt to change his colors during the Interdict crisis, as it is the Congregation’s and the pope’s success in reining in a subject of the king of Spain, in part through a process of negotiation, even if the defendant got little of what he wanted.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 208

8/27/12 11:46 AM

co nc lu sion

209

The lawyer and ex-Jesuit Roa got into trouble by defending royal jurisdiction against ecclesiastical. Proceedings in Rome may have begun shortly after his De iuribus principalibus defendendis came out in 1591. Camillo Borghese, future secretary of the Inquisition and pope, and nuncio in Spain when the book appeared, thought a confutation was needed. His successor Bonifacio Caetani, later also an Inquisitor, had Roa captured by 4 October 1593, intending to try him before his tribunal, but not for his book. Instead he was brought up on criminal charges, including accusations of sodomy. More than forty witnesses were eventually heard before he was sentenced in Madrid on 5 February 1595. Roa appealed to Rome, where he seems to have arrived some time in 1595. He proposed to write a defense of his book and later claimed to have been completely exonerated by the Inquisition, and his book removed from the Index!1 We pick up his case in Rome with what is probably the end of its first phase, the proposal on 19 June 1597 to “rehabilitate” him to the Girolamite house of S. Onofrio on the Giancolo as prison under a caution of 1,000 ducats. Two weeks later he “requested” such rehabilitation, and on 10 July the sentence was confirmed. In November he appeared before the Congregation with his “Retractationum de concursu iurisdictionis ecclesiasticae et laicae,” and in the coram the next day the pope ordered the book reviewed and allowed Roa to go out “with a precept not to talk to anyone” (“cum praecepto de neminem alloquando”) or to say anything about his case, and gave him fifty scudi.2 In February 1598 he was allowed to leave S. Onofrio.3 In July a list of his creditors was ordered given to Cardinal Sfondrato and a supersedeat in all other cases, an illustration of the Inquisition’s principle that its proceedings took precedence over those of any other court, including a criminal case pending in the Apostolic Chamber.4 On 2 September 1598 the Congregation condemned Roa’s books to be burnt except for copies to be kept in the Holy Office. This seems to have been getting slightly ahead of things, since Roa did not request expedition until 1 July 1599, so the burning order should probably be regarded as an interlocutory sentence, a temporary one in the midst of proceedings. In response to Roa’s request the first particular congregation in his case was convened. Although the committee had decrees by 17 August, on 1 December Roa again appeared to ask justice, that is, the conclusion of his case.5 And then the maddening deficiencies of the record crop up. He disappears for six months, until surfacing as his name only on Monday, 1 May 1600.6 This is a note in an agenda in the notary’s notebook, as is the record of the unusual meeting the next day, Tuesday, that appointed another particular congregation.7 Thus both

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 209

8/27/12 11:46 AM

210

co nc lu sio n

these entries may refer to the particular congregation’s business. The meeting schedule returned to normal on the following Thursday, 4 May, when we have both the notary’s notes and the decree register. Following the reading of the propositions censured by the committee and after the consultors gave their opinions (surviving in notes), the pope condemned Roa as a heretic, silenced him, and again ordered his book burned.8 Then physical damage and an inaccurate index cause the thread to be lost until almost the moment in November 1601 when Secretary Borghese was commissioned to deal with Roa’s request to return to Spain.9 Five years later Roa was denied an authentic copy of his processo saying he had not abjured, but at almost the same time he was given a copy of his sentence!10 Encouraged by this small victory, in September 1606 Roa tried to have his book reviewed again, only to be denied. Meantime, Roa took advantage of the Interdict crisis to draft another book about Venice and the liberty of the church, which was assigned for censure to Cardinal Anselmo Marzato.11 Then silence for almost eight years, when Roa’s request to publish “de auxiliis” received the reply “stet in decretis”; in other words, he remained silenced.12 The final notice of him thus far unearthed comes not from the decree registers but from an avviso of 1 August 1615 noting that he had been imprisoned for unknown reasons.13 The second specimen case, again involving an author, lasted a much shorter time. The man in question was Girolamo Vecchietti (1556–1640 or 1557–1644), in whose trial particular congregations also intervened.14 The theologian Vecchietti, of a Florentine family transplanted to Cosenza, who described himself as “ab Aegypto” on the title page of his self-published De anno primitivo ab exordio mundi ad annum iulianum accomodato et de sacrorum temporum ratione (Augsburg: [printed by Andreas Aperger], 1621), was not easy to persuade, although great efforts were made.15 The special treatment may have had something to do with Medici patronage, since Girolamo and his more famous brother Giovanni Battista had traveled to the Near East on Grand Duke Ferdinando I’s behalf; the evidence of continuing protection at the time of Girolamo’s trial is thinner.16 His case is notable for leniency as well as the irregular measures studding it; the extraordinary efforts to persuade him will bear remembering. Vecchietti’s case began irregularly, with an order in the non-coram of 14 August 1622 to Scaglia to inform Vecchietti “extrajudicially” of the errors in his already banned book that had been reported by the archbishop of Naples, Cardinal Carafa. A month later Carafa said he was having two sarsinos

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 210

8/27/12 11:46 AM

co nc lu sion

211

of the book burnt.17 In the meantime, it appears Vecchietti may have been imprisoned, at least he gave the first of eighteen known (but lost) defensive memos to the Inquisition’s commissary on 9 September. Often Vecchietti had a chance to discuss his memos with the commissary or the assessor and sometimes could give them directly to the pope at the Quirinal Palace.18 His book is supposed to have been placed on the Index on 2 December 1622.19 Vecchietti evidently did not take Scaglia’s hint, for on 12 July 1623 the propositions “judicially extracted” from his book were sent to the “theologian qualifiers,” and he was meanwhile judicially ordered to cease and desist.20 If the dates are correct, the next two actions against him took place at unusual times, the first on Friday, 17 May 1624, and the next on Saturday, 22 June. First, a decision about whether he should be interrogated based on the consultors’ opinions was tabled, before it was made on the second date.21 Much more negotiation transpired in Vecchietti’s case than Roa’s. In August he apparently accepted the censures before being asked again in April 1625 whether he would do so.22 It seems he did not, since on 11 June the Congregation ordered copies of the writings he had sent made and given to the theologians. In September perhaps those same writings, now identified as a letter to Pope Urban VIII, were subjected to more censures. In the following week’s coram, the theologians rejected Vecchietti’s astronomically grounded claim that Christ eating lamb before his Passion was not a matter of faith, and Marcantonio Cappello, sometime defender of Venice against Paul V become ardent partisan of Rome, was ordered to persuade Vecchietti to submit. When the censures came through in October it was the turn of the Cistercian abbot Ilarione Rancato, later to be a consultor, to try to bring Vecchietti around. If he remained pertinacious and rejected Rancato’s suasions, he was to be shown the censures judicially, sworn, shown his errors and “fiat causa”—in other words, on the grounds of his pertinacity tried as a heretic.23 Despite that threatening move, yet another compromise was put to Vecchietti in November, after he had given Urban another memo.24 He probably submitted two more in 1625.25 By April 1626 Vecchietti had been imprisoned, perhaps for the first time, yet more opinions had been solicited, and Cappello ordered to write up the criticisms that he had already published in Paris.26 In the December prison visitation, Vecchietti handed over another memo.27 On 2 August 1627 Vecchietti gave the assessor another memo and a second on Thursday 18 November at the basilica of Santi Apostoli in P.zza Colonna.28 As in Roa’s case, the Inquisition tried to protect Vecchietti’s finances during his imprisonment through the offices of the nuncio to Florence. On 24 November

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 211

8/27/12 11:46 AM

212

co nc lu sio n

1627 the qualifiers’ (consultors’) opinions were officially reported in order to end his case.29 A month later Vecchietti handed over another memo at a much better than usually attended prison visitation, and after the catalogue of prisoners was read two days later Urban ordered his case “sollicitari.”30 And that seems to be what the pope meant. It may seem incredible, but he was not done with persuasion. Vecchietti responded with memos on 9 January and 17 April 1628, the second the Easter prison visitation attended only by Millini, Gaspar Borja y Velasco, and Scaglia.31 On 25 May 1628 after a medical report that Vecchietti was sane, the pope “as much as is in him,” and wishing to exhaust every possible remedy, ordered the theologians to try again and meanwhile asked his new favorite, Campanella, erstwhile archheretic and Vecchietti’s fellow prisoner in Rome, to see what he could do.32 How Campanella fared we do not know, but it cannot have been well, since a special congregation got the qualifiers’ opinions “de novo” in June. On 17 August 1628 they were to be confirmed, “the aforesaid Girolamo for the reasons in the decree having to excuse him” (“praedictum Hieronimum ex causis in Decreto deducendis excusandis”), Scaglia was to “extend” the decretum (that is, draw it up) based on those opinions and refer it (bring it before the pope) and induce Vecchietti to revoke his ideas. Vecchietti responded on 30 August 1628. Perhaps suffering the rigors of prison described by Gian Vittorio Rossi, including chains, he asked faculties to testate in October but was told to await the outcome.33 In January 1629 the commissary acted as go-between with Vecchietti’s relative Theodosio Parisi, OFM, perhaps in another effort to bring him to see reason.34 Vecchietti remained in prison, some of the time suffering from delirium, until he was “rehabilitated” to house arrest on 14 November 1630 under a precept not to speak about the Last Supper.35 It may be that he violated this precept; at least he was once again incarcerated as of December 1631, but he does not appear on the prison visitation list of 1633, and no order for his release has been found.36 An avviso of 30 April 1633 says he had been let go after seven years in prison.37 He is said to have died in retirement at either eighty-three or eighty-four, not the least put out by the condemnation of his book.38 Throughout, Urban treated Vecchietti with respect, perhaps because of his previous papal service, their common credentials as learned Florentines, his official status as theologian, and the favor shown Vecchietti by the grand duke, as well as his age. Not much more is certainly known about Vecchietti, except that he was among the executors of the Florentine linguist G. B. Raimondi and is supposed to have stayed in the

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 212

8/27/12 11:46 AM

co nc lu sion

213

East for eighteen years.39 He is also supposed to have gone twice to Egypt on the orders of Clement VIII.40 Two cases of preachers conclude my examples. In addition to the ongoing surveillance lasting almost fifteen years, the element of negotiation seen in Vecchietti’s case reappears in both, along with a fairly typical gradual rehabilitation, accompanied in the second case by a move to another order, together with both defendants’ persistence (also seen in Vecchietti’s case) but which was in none of them construed as the dangerous pertinacity, one step away from a worse degree of heresy than that for which the second preacher was condemned. There is also no missing the common element that all three were theologians. The first concerned Carlo Mastrilli, a Jesuit reported by the inquisitor of Milan in September 1597 for having used “certain imprudent metaphors . . . in a sermon and the publica fama that he had been conducted into the Holy Office” (“quasdam comparationes . . . in Concione parum prudentes, et publicam famam exortam quod esset ducentus in sancto officio”).41 By January 1598 the required second denunciation had come in, from Fra Gregorio, a Dominican.42 The case then apparently hung fire for five years. By that time Mastrilli had gone to Spoleto, and its bishop and the Jesuit general were ordered to have him brought to Rome.43 Two weeks later his examination had been completed, and on 30 January 1603, after the consultors’ opinions were heard, he was allowed to go to Ancona to preach on condition that he return immediately to Rome. He was also ordered (praecipiat) not to preach about the subjects under investigation, and the general was warned not to give him a new assignment. In effect, his case was suspended. On 1 May after a memorial from him was read, he was assigned a defense, and on 4 June the case was expedited because of his poor health. The next day he was judicially asked whether he wished to mount a defense, and if so, the censures would be discussed and his case expedited. On 2 July he asked for his fellow Jesuit Benedetto Giustiniani as his advocate; the next day the pope granted his request, and a copy of the censures was ordered to be given to him. This was a mistake, since he should only have gotten the propositions, not the censures, as happened on 31 July.44 A week later a copy of Mastrilli’s processo went to Giustiniani. Although the term is never spelled out, he received eight days to prepare a defense before the consultors gave their opinions on 4 September. On 13 September, after his defense, he was interrogated, and five days later the pope ordered him released “a previous admonition to him having been made by Cardinal Borghese, as far as he [Mastrilli] knows, with the highly unusual declaration that he is not

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 213

8/27/12 11:46 AM

214

co nc lu sio n

suspected of heresy by his holiness” (“praevia admonitione sibi ab Ill.mo D. Cardinali Burghesio facienda, prout ipse scit, cum declaratione quod non est suspectus de haeresi apud S. S.”). On 23 October he was ordered to be given a copy of the decree of expedition. He or his advocate objected to its form, but the pope refused to change it.45 Nothing more is known of what then happened, but in October 1607 Mastrilli was denounced again when Bellarmino was ordered to speak to the Jesuit general.46 And there, far too typically, the record ends. The other preacher’s troubles are much better and somewhat less typically documented and have more in common with Vecchietti’s case. On 1 May 1603, acting on information received from the vicegerent of Rome, the pope ordered the observation of Jacopo (or Giacomo) Vacchedano, “concionator ecclesiae S.ti Eustachii,” to see whether he had talked a wife out of obedience to her husband. An interim report three weeks later produced a demand for more investigation. We next find Vacchedano listed in the prison visitation of 22 December with no explanation of how he got there.47 On 21 October 1604 on the pope’s order, he was prohibited from preaching or writing on theology and two weeks later abjured de vehementi and remained imprisoned. He was apparently sent off to the monastery of Cava at his request, the abbot of which was ordered on 7 July 1605 to prevent Vacchedano from teaching his followers about “the spiritual life.”48 On the petition of two of his biological brothers in early 1606, the abbot was allowed to let him go out of the monastery if he wished, but his request to be released was denied on 29 March. In December Vacchedano was rehabilitated to his hometown of Brindisi, but his brother objected, so he was offered Otranto or Taranto instead, choosing the second.49 Eighteen months later he petitioned to be allowed to move and was asked to name a place. After Naples was rejected, apparently he went nowhere at all.50 Finally on 3 June 1609 he was allowed the freedom of Naples, its suburbs, and, sometimes, Caserta, before the bishop of which he was ordered to appear monthly.51 A year later, he was given the freedom of the entire kingdom but still not allowed to return to Rome.52 Little by little Vacchedano got most of what he wanted. In October he was allowed to stay in Rome under a precept “not to preach publicly and privately” (“non concionetur publice, ac privatim”). In 1611 he was first allowed to hear poor people’s confessions at Santo Spirito and then on 13 October had his preaching license restored.53 In January 1612 Millini was to recommend him to the general of the Discalced Carmelites, although not as a preacher.54 A little more than a year later, he was fully rehabilitated.55 Then he disappears until

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 214

8/27/12 11:46 AM

co nc lu sion

215

March 1618, when he requested the return of writings taken in 1604. Whether he got them back did not matter much, since he last appears on 10 April being denied a license to write and print “res spirituales.”56 Even less is known about Vacchedano than about Vecchietti or Mastrilli. In 1598, describing himself as ThD and IUD, he published a Lent sermon given in the Dominican church of Santa Sabina on the Aventine in Rome, but there is no indication he belonged to the order.57

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 215

8/27/12 11:46 AM

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 216

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Appendix

Table 1. Sequence of Entries in Notes and Register for 25 June 1598 (pp. 381–84; fos. 295v–6r) Rough notebook (sequence)

Register (no. in sequence)

Marco Benedetto Notaio Sertonioa Stephanina Langusca Sebastiano Roccatagliata (license to move) Antonio Tavaras Enrico Veno Alessandro Musculeo (brief ) Ludovico de Guavara Antonio de Mendozza (name only) Isabetta Segna Francisco Sanchez Arcangelo de Perugia (del.) Francesco q. Fiorentini Nauzonii De impressione letaniam Antonio Tagliatela x Electorum ac magistratum [of where?] Cesare Cremonini Girolamo Zancaglioni Simona uxoris . . .  Arcangelo de Perugia

9 8 10 -13 12 -11 -17 14 -16 1 2 3  Contra [blank] de Levaldisio 4 5 6 7 15

Source: Register for 25 June 1598, fos. 295v–6r, pp. 381–84. a. Sertonio and Musculeo were imprisoned as of 12 December. ACDFSO:DSO 1597–98–99, p. 535.

217

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 217

8/27/12 11:46 AM

218

a ppendix

Table 2. Percentage of Meetings Attended by Cardinal Inquisitors Name

Wednesday Thursday

Pietro Aldobrandini Pompeo Arrigoni Ottavio Bandini A. Barberini, Sr. F. Barberini Roberto Bellarmino Guido Bentivoglio Gaspar Borja Felice Centini Agostino Galamini Berlinghiero Gessi Marzio Ginetti G. G. Millini Desiderio Scaglia Paolo Emilio Sfondrato Ferdinando Taverna Fabrizio Verallo Fabrizio Verospi Laudivio Zacchia Antonio Zapata

57 69 78 75 46 87 44 27 94 94 54 84 75 77 61 70 66 77 54 54

66 74 82 91 67 91 76 63 95 (1611 and 1633 only) 95 56 92 84 77 54 78 66 76 82 70

Source: Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 286–88. This table contains Mayaud’s results for my entire sample, including those cardinals discussed in Chapter 3.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 218

8/27/12 11:46 AM

a ppendix

219

Table 3. Attendance by Year, Inquisitors in 1615–1616 Name Non-coram Coram

Percentage

Arrigoni 36/60 71/89 40/63 3/69 53/61 43/70 0/66 5/47a Bellarmino 67/73 80/89 52/63 60/69 53/61 54/70 57/66 66/72b 64/68 51/69 Bonsi 26/30c 44/68 58/69d 57/64 50/65 Centini 54/60f 33/36g 35/37h 7/7i 68/68 Galamini 4/8 67/70 24/26j 5/5k 66/69 68/68 Millini 61/69 47/61 55/70 60/66 71/72 48/69l 67/68 Sfondrato 3/93 48/89

60/94 (1605) 80/100 (1606) 63/90 (1607) 4/0 (1610) 87/87 (1611) 61/53 (1612) 0/0 (1613) 11/18 (1614) 92/100 (1605) 90/95 (1606) 83/100 (1607) 87/100 (1610) 87/98 (1611) 77/79 (1612) 86/92 (1613) 92/100 (1614) 94/89 (1615) 74/89 (1616) 87/82 (1615) 68/74 (1616) 84/88 (1617) 89/95 (1618) 77/92 (1619) 90/100 (1612) 92/90 (1613) 95/100 (1614) 100/91 (1615) 100/97 (1616) 50/100 (1611) 96/97 (1612) 92/94 (1613) 100/100 (1614) 96/94 (1615) 100/100 (1616) 88/100 (1610) 77/100 (1611) 79/92 (1612) 91/97 (1613) 99/100 (1614) 70/77 (1615) 99/100 (1616) 3/3 (1605) 54/50 (1606)

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 219

31/33 22/22 38/42 0/38 39/44 20/38 0/39 3/17 29/29 21/22 42/42 38/38 43/44 30/38 36/39 34/34 31/35 31/35 14/17 26/35 32/36 37/39 35/38e 31/31 18/20 14/14 10/11 34/35 7/7 37/38 16/17 2/2 33/35 35/35 38/38 44/44 35/38 38/39 33/34 27/35 35/35 1/33 11/22

8/27/12 11:46 AM

220

a ppendix

8/63 12/42 1/69 0/38 7/61m 8/44 49/70n 24/38 51/66o 24/39 7/16 at Bellarmino’s palace 33/72p 17/34 21/69q 5/35 13/68r 2/35 Taverna 34/63 34/42 50/69 34/38 36/61 37/44 52/70 32/38 31/66 21/39 67/72 34/34 61/69 32/35 15/20s 14/14 Verallo 55/69 34/38 38/61 32/44 35/70 18/38 33/66 17/39 32/72 17/34 53/69 30/35 51/68 31/35 Zapata 54/80 11/18 42/63 35/42 26/69 24/38 25/61 31/44 42/70 24/38 45/66 20/39 57/72 32/34 55/69 29/35 26/68 26/35

13/29 (1607) neg. (1610) 11/18 (1611) 70/90 (1612) 72/62 (1613) 46/50 (1614) 30/14 (1615) 19/6 (1616) 54/81 (1607) 72/89 (1610) 59/84 (1611) 74/84 (1612) 47/54 (1613) 93/100 (1614) 88/91 (1615) 75/100 (1616) 80/89 (1610) 62/72 (1611) 50/47 (1612) 50/44 (1613) 44/50 (1614) 77/86 (1615) 75/89 (1616) 68/61 (1606) 67/83 (1607) 38/63 (1610) 41/70 (1611) 60/63 (1612) 68/51 (1613) 79/94 (1614) 80/83 (1615) 38/74 (1616)

Numbers in the first two columns are number of meetings attended/total number of meetings. Percentages are attendance at non-corams/at corams. All percentages rounded up to nearest whole number; total number of meetings may vary depending on date of appointment as Inquisitor. a He reappeared 17 July but is gone permanently before the end of the year. b The only meetings he missed were at Zapata’s palace. c He first attended on 21 July. d Since he was very junior in 1616, a few more years were included to give a more representative view. e On three occasions he entered with the pope and Borja. f He was in residence in Mileto from 31 October. g He attended fifty-one meetings total after his return from his diocese of Mileto on 26 June (ACDFSO:DSO 1613, p. 295), shortly after Galamini left for Recanati. h He was probably in his diocese of Macerata from 25 June 1614.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 220

8/27/12 11:46 AM

a ppendix

221

i He returned from Macerata 27 October. j He attended forty-three meetings total. He is unaccounted for from 13 June 1613 until 4 December 1614, when he was probably in his diocese of Recanati and Loreto, to which he was provided 1 February 1613 (HC 4: 293). k He returned on 4 December. l He was sick from 1 October, when Verallo temporarily replaced him; he attended the noncoram of 16 December. m All were after 9 November. n All were at his own palace. o Forty-one were at his palace. pThirty of these were at his own palace. q Seventeen of these were at his palace. r Twelve of these were at his palace, plus one prison visitation. s He last attended 19 May.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 221

8/27/12 11:46 AM

222

a ppendix

Table 4. Attendance by Year, Inquisitors in 1632–1633 Name

Non-coram Coram Percentage

A. Barberini 46/53 40/41 (secretary) 44/52 43/44 39/52 26/38 44/55 36/38 43/52 35/38 F. Barberini 1/53 19/41 (secretary) 1/52 17/44 2/52 19/38 7/55 13/38 40/52 24/38 Bentivoglio 31/53 33/41 17/52 34/44 22/52 31/38 15/55 23/38 5/52 7/38 Borja 32/53 29/41 4/52 31/44 0/52 22/38 1/55 5/38 0/52 15/38 Gessi 29/53 21/41 32/52 35/44 36/52 33/38 43/55 28/38 20/52 20/38 Ginetti 41/53a 32/41 41/52 40/44 39/52 35/38 47/55 36/38 46/52 34/38 Scaglia 46/53 36/41 30/52 30/44 34/52 28/38 37/55 24/38 37/52 29/38 Verospi 35/53 29/41

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 222

87/98 (1630) 85/98 (1631) 75/68 (1632) 80/95 (1633) 83/92 (1634) Average: 82/90 2/46 (1630) 2/39 (1631) 4/50 (1632) 13/34 (1633) 77/63 (1634) Average: 20/46 58/80 (1630) 33/77 (1631) 42/82 (1632) 27/60 (1633) 10/18 (1634) Average: 34/63 60/70 (1630) 8/70 (1631) 0/58 (1632) 2/13 (1633) 0/39 (1634) Average: 14/50 55/51 (1630) 62/78 (1631) 69/87 (1632) 78/74 (1633) 38/53 (1634) Average: 60/69 77/78 (1630) 79/91 (1631) 75/92 (1632) 84/95 (1633) 88/89 (1634) Average: 80/89 87/88 (1630) 58/68 (1631) 64/74 (1632) 67/63 (1633) 71/76 (1634) Average: 69/74 66/70 (1630)

8/27/12 11:46 AM

a ppendix

34/52 28/44 42/52 29/38 46/55 31/38 44/52 32/38 Zacchia 33/53 39/41 38/52 42/44 29/52 34/38 20/55 33/38 18/52 3/38

223

65/64 (1631) 81/76 (1632) 84/82 (1633) 85/84 (1634) Average: 76/75 62/95 (1630) 73/95 (1631) 58/89 (1632) 36/87 (1633) 35/8 (1634) Average: 53/75

Numbers in first two columns are number of meetings attended/total number of meetings. Percentages are attendance at non-corams/at corams. All percentages rounded up to nearest whole number; total number of meetings may vary depending on date of appointment as Inquisitor. The basic pattern of attendance in 1634 repeats itself in 1635, except that Borja attended only one meeting, and Zacchia returned to his earlier level of assiduity. Three attendance lists for are illegible or missing. a. He did not attend after 23 October, at which point he had missed only three meetings.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 223

8/27/12 11:46 AM

224

a ppendix

Table 5. Attendance in Earlier Years, Inquisitors in 1632–1633 Name Yeara

Number of meetings attended

A. Barberini 1625 55 1626 32 1628 51b 1629 85 F. Barberini 1624 29 1625 7 1626 4 1628 31 1629 27 Bentivoglio 1622 40 1625 33 1626 4 1628 53 1629 61 Borja 1617 23 1618 42 1619 47 1620 14 1621 16 1622 45 1624 70 1625 63 1626 52 1628 41 1629 52 Gessi 1629 13/19 after appointment Ginetti 1629 49/60 after appointment Scaglia 1621 88 1622 90 1624 96 1625 93 1626 80 1628 84 1629 77 Verospi 1629 17/19 after appointment Zacchia 1626 37/56c 1628 72 1629 77 a. Some years were excluded (e.g., 1627) because of excessively faulty attendance lists. b. All were after 25 May. c. All were after his appointment on 7 July.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 224

8/27/12 11:46 AM

a ppendix

225

Table 6. Gaspar Borja’s Attendance at Inquisition Meetings Year General Coram Percentage 1618 1619 1620 1621 1622 1624 1625 1626 1627 1628 1629

42/103 47/103 14/29a 16/80 45/104 70/105 63/105 52/98 33/96 41/93 52/91

20/39 41/48/51 30/38 46/64/79 28/39 48/97/72 14/37 20/88/39 28/35 43/62/80 40/45 67/57/89 39/46 60/62/85 31/41 53/60/76 24/42 34/72/57 29/40 44/70/73 36/40 57/69/90

Second column shows the number of meetings attended against the total; third the same statistic for corams; and fourth, the percentages of general attendance, coram attendance, and corams as a percentage of the total number of meetings. All percentages rounded up to nearest whole number. a. Absent most of the year as viceroy of Naples.

Table 7. Total Number of Attendances of Inquisitors in Sample by Year 1629 496 1630 613 1631 539 1632 500 1633 494 1634 452

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 225

8/27/12 11:46 AM

226

a ppendix

Table 8. Age at Appointment as Inquisitor and Length of Tenure

Age when made Inquisitor

Age when Tenure as promoted Inquisitor

Creations through 1621, mostly of Paul V (N = 11) Arrigoni 44 20 Bandini 63 38 8 Bellarmino 57 22 Bonsi 55/61 51 12 Centini 53 26 Galamini 63 24 Millini 45 44 22 Sfondrato 40 30 18 Taverna 47/49 46 4 Verallo 39/43 15 Zapata 56 54 29a Average 52/53 18.1 Average interval between promotion and appointment 7.2 Creations by Gregory XV and Urban VIII, 1621–1633 (N = 9) A. Barberini 55 22 F. Barberini 37 26 55?b Bentivoglio 44 23 Borja 35 22 30c Gessi 66 63 13 Ginetti 44 41 44? Scaglia 54 18 Verospi 47 45 10 Zacchia 41 8 Average 47 25.9 Average interval between promotion and appointment 6.4 a. Uncertain whether he remained an Inquisitor after becoming Inquisador mayor of Spain in 1627. b. His and Ginetti’s tenures after the end of Urban’s pontificate have not been traced. c. Uncertain whether he remained an Inquisitor after his permanent return to Spain in 1635.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 226

8/27/12 11:46 AM

A b b r ev i at i o n s

ACDF Archivum Congregationis Doctrinae Fidei, Rome ACDFSO Archivum Congregationis Doctrinae Fidei Sanctum Officium, Rome ACDFSO:DSO  Archivum Congregationis Doctrinae Fidei Sanctum Officium, Rome, Decreta Sancti Officii. NB. In multiple citations of this source in the same note, only the year of subsequent volumes is given after initial reference. ACDFSO, St. st. Archivum Congregationis Doctrinae Fidei Sanctum Officium, Rome, Stanza storica AdS Archivio di Stato ARSI Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu, Rome ASMod Archivio di Stato, Modena ASMod:AE Archivio di Stato, Modena, Cancelleria Ducale, Avvisi dall’Estero. NB All volumes are divided into fascicles by month; these are not indicated unless an avviso is misfiled; all are also unfoliated. ASR Archivio di Stato, Rome ASV Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Vatican City Seg. Stato, Nunz. Segretaria di Stato, Nunziatura ASVe Archivio di Stato, Venice ASVe:SDR Archivio di Stato, Venice, Senato Dispacci Roma BABo Biblioteca del Archiginnasio, Bologna BAV Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Vatican City Barb. lat. MSS Barberiniani latini Borg. lat. MSS Borghesiani latini Urb. lat. MSS Urbinates latini 227

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 227

8/27/12 11:46 AM

228

a bbrev iat io ns

Vat. lat. MSS Vaticani latini BC Biblioteca Casanatense, Rome Cadène, “Collectio” Félix Cadène, “Collectio decretorum responsorumque S. Officii,” Analecta ecclesiastica: Revue romaine 2, 3, 4 (1894, 1895, 1896): 318–21, 360– 62, 407–12, 493 95 and 32–33, 79–82, 115–22, 167–69, 262–63, 297 302, 352–54, 457–65, 94–98 and 76–83, 123–28, 179–92, 273–77, 361–66, 421, 462–65 DBI  A. M. Ghisalberti, ed., Dizionario biografico degli italiani (Rome: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia italiana, 1960–); the Treccani website (www.trecani.it) does not produce stable URLs for its articles DSI Adriano Prosperi, with John Tedeschi and Vincenzo Lavenia, Dizionario storico dell’Inquisizione, 5 vols. (Pisa: Edizioni della Nazionale, 2010) Antonio Favaro, ed., Le opere di Galileo Galilei, 20 EN  vols. (1890–1909; repr. Florence: G. Barberà, 1933) HC  Patrice Gauchat, ed., Hierarchia catholica medii et recentioris aevi, 4 vols. (Münster: Regensburger Bibliothek, 1935) ICCU Istituto Centrale per il Catalogo Unico, Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientale; numbers are to catalogue entries MOPH  Socii Instituti Historici Fratrum Praedicatorum, ed., Monumenta Ordinis praedicatorum historica, 30 vols. (Rome: Institutum historicum Ordinis fratrum praedicatorum, 1896–) “Requiem” The database of cardinals established by Wolfgang Reinhard. url is usually http://www2.hu-berlin.de/ requiem/db/suche.php?function= b_ausgabe&grabm alID=768&PHPSESSID=bebf5bc2ee3fbbe0c54414b3f b5609fc. QE  Jacques Quétif and Jacques Échard, Scriptores ordinis praedicatorum recensiti, notisque historicis et criticis illustrati, 2 vols. (Paris: Ballard and Simart, 1721) SRRD  Sacrae Rotae Romanae Decisionum recentiorum a

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 228

8/27/12 11:46 AM

a bbrev iat ions

TCD

229

Prospero Farinaccio j.c. Romano selectarum, pars prima [-partis decimae nonae tomus secundus], 19 vols. in 25 (Venice:  Paolo Balleoni, 1716) Trinity College Dublin

NB References to printed books are assumed to be to pages unless folio/s given. References to MS sources specify page or folio.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 229

8/27/12 11:46 AM

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 230

8/27/12 11:46 AM

notes

Introduction 1. Edward Peters, Inquisition (New York: Free Press, 1988), chaps. 5­–10. 2. Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998); John Edwards, The Spanish Inquisition (Stroud: Tempus, 1999); Lu Ann Homza, ed., The Spanish Inquisition, 1478–1614: An Anthology of Sources (Indianapolis: Hackett, 2006); Francisco Bethencourt, The Inquisition: A Global History, 1478– 1834, trans. Jean Birrell, rev. English ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); see Introduction and 364–86 in Bethencourt for the polemics. 3. Thomas F. Mayer, “The Status of the Inquisition’s Precept to Galileo (1616) in Historical Perspective,” Nuncius 24 (2009): 61–95. 4. John Tedeschi, The Prosecution of Heresy: Collected Studies on the Inquisition in Early Modern Italy (Binghamton, N.Y.: MRTS, 1991). 5. Francesco Beretta, “Galilée devant le Tribunal de l’inquisition” (Th.D. thesis, Universitè de Fribourg, 1997). 6. See also Adriano Prosperi’s authoritative summary in DSI, 2: 815–27. 7. As was still the case in the monumental editions of Inquisition trials by Massimo Firpo and Dario Marcatto, beginning with Il processo inquisitoriale del Cardinal Giovanni Morone, 6 vols. (Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per l’Età Moderna e Contemporanea, 1981–95). 8. E.g., Gigliola Fragnito, La Bibbia al rogo: La censura ecclesiastica e i volgarizzamenti della Scrittura (1471–1605) (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1997). 9. For a start primarily on private law, see Hans Coing, ed., Handbuch der Quellen und Literatur der neueren europäischen Privatrechtsgeschichte: Neuere Zeit, 1500–1800; Das Zeitalter des Gemeinen Recht, 3 vols. (Munich: Beck, 1976–1988); Guido Kisch, Erasmus und die Jurisprudenz seiner Zeit (Basel: Helbing and Lichtenhahn, 1960) and Gestalten und Probleme aus Humanismus und Jurisprudenz: Neue Studien und Texte (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969); Mario Ascheri, Un maestro del “mos italicus”: Gianfrancesco Sannazari della Ripa (1480c.– 1535) (Milan: Giuffré, 1970); and Ascheri, Ingrid Baumgärtner, and Julius Kirshner, eds., Legal Consulting in the Civil Law Tradition (Berkeley, Calif.: Robbins Collection, 1999). It is symptomatic that much of Ascheri’s other work concerns the Middle Ages. Interest in the history of canon law falls off even more steeply after the end of the fifteenth century. 231

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 231

8/27/12 11:46 AM

232

not es to pag es 2–4

10. Harold J. Berman, Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1983); Berman, Law and Revolution II: The Impact of the Protestant Reformations on the Western Legal Tradition (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003). 11. For a short but lucid sketch, see Julius Kirshner, “A Critical Appreciation of Lauro Martines’s Lawyers and Statecraft in Renaissance Florence,” in The Politics of Law in Late Medieval and Renaissance Italy: Essays in Honour of Lauro Martines, ed. Lawrin Armstrong and Julius Kirshner (Toronto: University of Toronto Press), 7–39. 12. Bethencourt, The Inquisition, 69, noticed “the central role of Italian juridical output” but does not follow up his observation. 13. Perhaps the closest is Paolo Prodi, much of whose work operates at a rather high level of generalization. See especially Il sovrano pontefice: Un corpo e due anime; la monarchia papale nella prima età moderna (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1982). 14. Ugo Baldini and Leen Spruit, eds., Catholic Church and Modern Science: Documents from the Archives of the Roman Congregations of the Holy Office and the Index, 4 vols., Fontes Archivi Sancti Officii Romani (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2009), “Introduction,” 50, on the commissary’s two (instead of the correct number of one) assistants, drawing on William Humphrey, Urbs et Orbis or the Pope as Bishop and as Pontiff (London: Thomas Baker, 1899), 412. 15. Thomas F. Mayer, Reginald Pole, Prince and Prophet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). 16. Tedeschi, Prosecution of Heresy, 8; Paul F. Grendler, The Roman Inquisition and the Venetian Press (1540–1605) (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1977), 56. 17. Andrea Del Col, L’inquisizione in Italia (Milan: Mondadori, 2006); Adriano Prosperi, Tribunali della coscienza: Inquisitori, confessori, missionari (Turin: G. Einaudi, 1996) and L’inquisizione romana, letture e ricerche (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2003); Guido Dall’Olio, Eretici e inquisitori nella Bologna del Cinquecento (Bologna: Istituto per la Storia di Bologna, 1999); Christopher F. Black, The Italian Inquisition (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009). Beretta has published an enormous number of articles, among them “Urbain VIII Barberini protagoniste de la condamnation de Galilée,” in Largo campo di filosofare: Eurosymposium Galileo 2001, ed. José Montesinos and Carlos Solís Santos (La Orotava, Spain: Fundación Canaria Orotava de Historia de la Ciencia, 2001), 549–73; “Le siège apostolique et l’affaire Galilée: Relectures romaines d’une condamnation célèbre,” Roma Moderna e Contemporanea 7 (1999): 421–69; and “Galileo, Urban VIII and the Prosecution of Natural Philosophers,” in The Church and Galileo, ed. Ernan McMullin (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005), 234–61. 18. Peters, Inquisition, chaps. 1–4; Henry Ansgar Kelly, Inquisitions and Other Trial Procedures in the Medieval West (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001); Mark Gregory Pegg, The Corruption of Angels: The Great Inquisition of 1245–1246 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001); Christine Caldwell Ames, Righteous Persecution: Inquisition, Dominicans, and Christianity in the Middle Ages (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), to name only a few English-language titles.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 232

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 4–5

233

19. Del Col, L’inquisizione, 118. 20. Ibid., 119, 126–28, 133. See also Vittoria Fiorelli, I sentieri dell’inquisitore. Sant’Uffizio, periferie ecclesiastiche e disciplinamento devozionale (1615–1678) (Naples: Guida, 2009), 33, 34, 46, 52, 55. 21. Bethencourt, The Inquisition, 1–2. 22. Ibid., 23. 23. Beretta, “Galilée,” 135. 24. Bethencourt, The Inquisition, 114. 25. Ibid., 29–31. Cf. Fiorelli, I sentieri, 33, 40, referring to both the cardinals of the Congregation and its professional staff. 26. Bethencourt, The Inquisition, 154. 27. Ibid., 51. 28. Ibid., 67. 29. Ibid., 2. 30. Ibid., 6. A more minor mistake is his claim that the Congregation met at the Dominican convent of Santa Maria sopra Minerva from an early date, when that became the site of one of the weekly meetings only in 1628 (48). 31. Bethencourt, The Inquisition, 323. 32. Among Del Col’s numerous articles, see especially “Organizzazione, composizione e giurisdizioni dei tribunali dell’Inquisizione romana nella repubblica di Venezia (1500– 1550),” Critica storica 25 (1988): 244–94 and “I processi dell’Inquisizione come fonte: Considerazioni diplomatiche e storiche,” Annuario dell’Istituto storico italiano per l’età moderna e contemporanea 35–36 (1983–1984): 29–49, together with L’inquisizione nel Patriarcato e diocesi di Aquileia 1557–1559 (Trieste: Edizioni dell’Università di Trieste, 1998); and with Giovanna Paolin, “La banca dati dei processi e la ricostruzione completa dell’attività del Sant’Ufficio di Aquileia e Concordia,” CROMOHS, n. 11, 2006, http://www.cromohs. unifi.it/11_2006/paolindelcol_banca.html; Giovanni Romeo, “Per la storia dell’Sant’Ufficio a Napoli tra ‘500 e ‘600: Documenti e problemi,” Campania Sacra 7 (1976): 5–119; Romeo, “Una città, due Inquisizioni: L’anomalia del Sant’Ufficio a Napoli nel tardo ‘500,” Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 24 (1988): 42–67, and a number of books; Pierroberto Scaramella, Le lettere della Congregazione del Sant’Ufficio ai tribunali di fede di Napoli 1563–1625 (Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2001); Grendler, The Roman Inquisition; Brian Pullan, The Jews of Europe and the Inquisition of Venice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983); Anne Jacobsen Schutte, Aspiring Saints: Pretense of Holiness, Inquisition, and Gender in the Republic of Venice 1618–1750 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001), chap. 1, “The Roman Inquisition in Venice,” 26–41; Oscar di Simplicio, Autunno della stregoneria: Maleficio e magia nell’Italia moderna (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2005); Albano Biondi, “Lunga durata e microarticolazione nel territorio di un ufficio dell’Inquisizione: Il ‘Sacro Tribunale’ a Modena (1292–1785), Annali dell’Istituto Storico Italo-Germanico in Trento 8 (1982): 73–90. Singling out these historians is invidious, and I apologize to many others whose names could have been listed. 33. Francesco Beretta, “Le procès de Galilée et les archives du Saint-office: Aspects

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 233

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 5–11

234

judiciaires et théologiques d’une condamnation célèbre,” Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 83 (1999): 441–90; Beretta, “L’archivio della Congregazione del Sant’Ufficio: Bilancio provvisorio della storia e natura dei fondi d’Antico Regime,” in L’inquizione romana: Metodologia delle fonti e storia istituzionale, ed. Andrea Del Col and Giovanna Paolin (Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2000), 29–58; reprint Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 37 (2001): 119–44. 34. The process is ongoing. The initial rush into the ACDF as much as ignored the decree registers, and Bethencourt delivered himself of the extraordinary claim that the Roman Inquisition’s archives contain no “significant” “decisions on trials.” Bethencourt, The Inquisition, 330. 35. Beretta, “Galilée,” 35. 36. http://www2.hu-berlin.de/requiem/db/suche.php?function=b_ausgabe&grabmal ID=768&PHPSESSID=bebf5bc2ee3fbbe0c54414b3fb5609fc.

Chapter 1. The Roman Inquisition’s Operations 1. “Ancorche non si sia formato processo alcuno in questa Causa, et che non si potesse formare, ad ogni modo il Papa se ne rideva, allegando, che a lui bastava di sapere la verità del fatto, non si curando, che apparisca giuditialmente.” Avviso of 23 November 1630 in ASMod:AE, 137. 2. Simeon Contarini-doge in ASVe:SDR, f. 72, fos. 193v–94r, 246v–47r. 3. Avviso of 19 June 1630 in BAV, Urb. lat. 1100, fo. 365r. 4. Avviso of 1 March 1631 in ASMod:AE, 138. 5. “[N]ostros, & Apostolicae Sedis in omnibus, & singulis Reipublicae Christianae Civitatibus . . . super negotio Fidei, Commissarios, & Inquisitores Generales, & generalissimos . . . constituimus, & deputamus.” Laerzio Cherubini and Angelo Maria Cherubini, eds., Magnum bullarium romanum, a beato Leone magno usque ad S. D. N. Benedictum XIII, 15 vols. (Luxembourg: André Chevalier, 1727–58), 4:1, 211. See also DSI 2: 906 and passim; “Congregazione del Sant’Uffizio,” DSI 1: 389–91. The best treatment of the Congregation’s evolution is Pierre-Noël Mayaud, “Les ‘Fuit congregatio sancti officii in . . . coram . . . ’ de 1611 à 1642: 32 ans de vie de la Congrégation du Saint Office,” Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 30 (1992): 231–89. 6. Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 237–38. 7. ACDFSO:DSO 1616, p. 98. By 1632 they had become simply “generales inquisitori.” 1632, fo. 180r. Mayaud (“Fuit congregatio,” 239) is thus wrong to see a change in status in 1611, when, he says, the Congregation began to be called “Sancta Inquisitio,” enshrined by 1625 in the phrase “Fuit congregatio Sancti officii.” The second claim is repeated in “Urbano VIII, papa,” DSI 3: 1617. The evolution—if there is one—is more complicated. Thus in 1611 we still frequently find “Congregatio S.ti Officii,” e.g., 13 July and 29 December (1610–1611, fos. 351r and 465r), and it still occurs in 1627 (e.g., 1627, fos. 137r and 222v). In 1626 “praedictae S. Inquisitionis” occurs at least once (1626, fo. 147r) along with “cong.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 234

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 11–12

235

S. Rom et un.lis Inquisitionis” (1627, fo. 1r). Nor does it make any difference whether the meeting was a coram, the same style of “S. Officii” being used for both (e.g., the successive coram and non-coram in 1627, fos. 42v and 44r). As a comparatively minor point, there is at least one more formula for the Congregation’s meetings that Mayaud does not note, “habita fuit congregatio,” which a substitute notary used in 1626 (1626, fo. 147r), perhaps borrowing it from the Index, where it appears no later than 1621. ACDF, Index, Diari, 3, fo. 54v (I owe this reference to Leen Spruit). 8. Paolo Prodi, Il sovrano pontefice: Un corpo e due anime; La monarchia papale nella prima età moderna (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1982). 9. Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 242–43, who also (241) singles out Pius V’s presiding over its meetings as pivotal; see Andrea Del Col, L’inquisizione in Italia (Milan: Mondadori, 2006), 512. 10. Francesco Beretta, “Galilée devant le Tribunal de l’inquisition” (Th.D. thesis, Universitè de Fribourg, 1997), 24. 11. Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 239. 12. 14 September. ACDFSO:DSO 1628, fo. 156v; cf. BAV, Urb. lat. 1098 II, fo. 510r. Christopher F. Black, The Italian Inquisition (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009), 24 speaks of meetings in the palace of “a dominant cardinal.” He also cites a decree of 1593 that all meetings be held at the “Apostolic Palace” (presumably the Vatican) or the Quirinal, but I have not confirmed it. If it was issued, it was almost immediately ignored. Rainer Decker, Witchcraft & the Papacy: An Account Drawing on the Formerly Secret Archives of the Roman Inquisition, trans. H. C. Erik Midelfort (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2010), 86 makes it appear that the Congregation often met at the Minerva during the time it held non-corams at the senior member’s palace, but this is not the case. 13. Francisco Peña, “In quaestiones centum et triginta super practica officii inquisitionis observatio” in Nicolau Eymeric, ed. Francisco Peña, Directorium Inquisitorum (Rome: G. Ferrari, 1587), 536. Michael M. Tavuzzi, Renaissance Inquisitors: Dominican Inquisitors and Inquisitorial Districts in Northern Italy, 1474–1527 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 16, says direct papal intervention had earlier been “extraordinary.” The popes also claimed control over the staff of local inquisitions, especially vicars, but extending to consultors. It was decreed in 1610 that an inquisitor could choose a vicar only with the Congregation’s approval, but this was once more a smoke screen for papal action. BC, MS 2631, fo. 300r (Cadène, “Collectio,” 3: 459, no. 732). See, for example, the papal permission to the inquisitor of Genoa (who had terrible trouble getting his candidates through; see, e.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1616, p. 247) to name a vicar (1612, p. 303) and its opposite, the denial of a new vicar to the inquisitor of Florence in 1615 (1616, p. 75). Peña, 539, claimed that when the pope appointed a vicar he had an inquisitor’s privileges. 14. See Cesare Carena’s later statement “Hodie tamen a dictis Generalibus [of the two orders] . . . non eliguntur Inquisitores, sed immediate a Sanctissimo Domino nostro,” quoted in John Tedeschi, The Prosecution of Heresy: Collected Studies on the Inquisition in Early Modern Italy (Binghamton, N.Y.: MRTS, 1991), 157.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 235

8/27/12 11:46 AM

236

not es to pag e 12

15. Francisco Peña, Scholion 76 to part 2, p. 196 in Directorium Inquistorum (Rome: In aedibus Populi Romani, 1578). 16. MOPH 10: 342–43. 17. ACDFSO:DSO 1615, p. 80 18. Ibid. 19. ACDFSO:DSO 1617, pp. 256, 259. 20. ACDFSO:DSO 1608, pp. 430, 436. 21. ACDFSO:DSO 1616, p. 71. 22. ACDFSO:DSO 1617, pp. 72, 169. 23. E.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1619, pp. 349–52, 410–12 (removal of four inquisitors at the same time), and 418–22 (their replacement plus appointment of four more inquisitors). See the exception of 29 July 1615, when a new inquisitor was named to Pisa by the Congregation. 1615, p. 360. Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 233, notes the need for an exhaustive study to determine patterns. 24. Tractatus novus aureus et solemnis de haereticis: Clarissimi famosissimique iuriscons. domini Ioannis Calderini (Venice: Ad candentis Salamandrae insigne [Damiano Zenaro], 1571), fo. 50r. An anonymous inquisitorial manual, by contrast, still innocently thought their superiors nominated inquisitors. BAV, Barb. lat. 1369, p. 128. 25. Cesare Carena, Tractatus de officio Sanctissimae Inquisitionis, et modo de procedendi in causis fidei (Bologna: Jacopo Monti, 1668), 15. For an example of the assessor’s request, see ASV, Segretaria dei brevi, Reg. 667, fo. 2r. Girolamo Casanate several times recorded decrees saying that heads of important inquisitions were appointed by a breve “sub annulo piscatoris” (e.g., BC, MS 2104, fo. 44r for Florence). As for the hierarchy of important and secondary, it is easy enough to see how Rimini, Como, and even Asti could fall into the second category, but not Turin, all of which got only letters patent. ACDFSO:DSO 1629, fo. 82r; 1631, fo. 160r; 1628, fo. 136v. The inquisitor of Malta was another who got a breve. Frans Ciappara, “‘A Spy of Marquis Tanucci’: Inquisitor Antonio Maria Lante,” Melita Historica: Journal of the Maltese Historical Society 13 (2001): 209–20, 209. Tavuzzi, Renaissance Inquisitors, 16, theorized that all inquisitors were appointed by breve and says that all those he has examined are identical except for the pope’s name and date. Francisco Bethencourt, The Inquisition: a Global History, 1478–1834, trans. Jean Birrell, rev. English ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 153 spoke more vaguely of “a letter” of appointment. 26. 16 June 1616: “Paolo Sfondrati vescovo di Albano e di S. Cecilia, Pietro Aldobrandini del titolo di S. Maria di Trastevere, Roberto Bellarmino del titolo di S. Maria in Via Lata, Antonio Zapata del titolo di S. Balbina, Giovanni Garsia Millino del titolo dei SS. Quattro Coronati, Fabrizio Verallo del titolo di S. Agostino, Giovanni Bonsi del titolo di S. Clemente, fra Agostino Galamini del titolo di S. Maria in Aracoeli e fra Felice Centino d’Ascoli del titolo di S. Girolamo degli Illiri, detti preti cardinali, inquisitori contro l’eresia, nominano fra Angelo di Ravenna, maestro di teologia dell’ordine dei Minori Conventuali, inquisitore generale nella città di Pisa” (AdS Ravenna, Convento di S. Francesco di Ravenna, Capsa XXIII, fasc. II, no. 007, autograph signatures from http://www.archivisias.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 236

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 12–14

237

it/scheda_pergamene.asp?FiltraPergamene=342914, accessed 5 May 2009); ASV, Segretaria dei brevi, Reg. 446, fo. 1r; Reg. 337, fo. 277r–v; Reg. 667, fo. 2r. All three use basically the same language. Seghizzi’s preserves the full course of its issuance. It was requested 23 July 1609 by the assessor in a letter to Scipione Cobelluzzi, the secretary of breves, announcing that “La Santita di Nostro Signore, et gl’Ill.mi S.ri Car.li della Cong.ne del Santo Ufficio han [sic] deputato Inquisitore di Milano” Seghizzi, with the order to expedite the breve in the form of that of two years ago that his predecessor gave Filonardi and have it ready next Saturday if possible (ASV, Segretaria dei brevi, Reg. 446, fo. 2r). Notes on the wrapper on fo. 7v reported both “1607 perquisatur” and that Paul approved the grant on 24 July. Another note on fo. 8v specified: “Similis fuit expeditum pro Magistro Innocentio Granello eiusdem Ordinis Mense Augusto 1607.” It was signed by Cardinals Aldobrandini and Arrigoni, the datary, and countersigned by Cobelluzzi, with the usual notes about expedition on papal approval. Apostolic vicars, who often acted as de facto inquisitors, were also appointed by breve. See, e.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1626, fo. 113r, breve in ASV, Segretaria dei brevi, Reg. 715, fo. 301 (see ASV, Indice 767 II, fo. 299r), and 1628, fo. 141v ordering a breve that has not been found. 27. See three letters from Desiderio Scaglia to Federico Borromeo in Fiorenza Rangoni, Frà Desiderio Scaglia Cardinale di Cremona: Un collezionista Inquisitore nella Roma del seicento (Rome: Self-published, 2008), 259, 262. 28. Guidobaldo Benamati, I concorrenti porporati (Perugia: Angelo Bartoli, 1639), 10, quoted in Rangoni, Scaglia, 308. 29. ACDFSO:DSO 1614, p. 34; 1615, p. 31; 1615, p. 282. 30. Christian Wieland, Fürsten, Freunde, Diplomaten: Die römisch-florentinischen Beziehungen unter Paul V. (1605–1621) (Cologne: Böhlau, 2004), 365–67. 31. ASVe:SDR, f. 96, fos. 156r and 170r. 32. ASV, Seg. Stato, Venezia, 38, fos. 69v–70r and fo. 8v for his success in the cases of Vicenza and Brescia. 33. ASV, Seg. Stato, Venezia, 38, fos. 394v and 395r and ASVe:SDR, f. 60, fos. 75v–76r. 34. ACDFSO:DSO 1608, p. 489. 35. ACDFSO:DSO 1614, pp. 9 and 44; ASVe:SDR, f. 70, fo. 265v. 36. ASVe:SDR, f. 70, fo. 304v and f. 71, fo. 40r. 37. ASVe:SDR, f. 71, fos. 17v, 18r, and 20r. 38. Borghese-Scaglia, Rome, 14 February 1615, Biblioteca Angelica, MS 1228, fo. 148r, printed in Rangoni, Scaglia, 22n. 39. S. L. Forte, “I Domenicani nel carteggio del card. Scipione Borghese, protettore dell’ordine (1606–1633),” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 30 (1960): 351–416, 378, nos. 123, 127. 40. Ibid., 406, nos. 97, 115–16. 41. Ibid., 410, no. 118; ACDFSO:DSO 1619, pp. 418–22. Since Gonzaga’s nominee had already left the post in Rimini, he may have wound up with nothing. 1619, pp. 349–52. 42. E.g., Silvestro Ugolotti requested and was granted a transfer from Venice to Brescia. ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 124r.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 237

8/27/12 11:46 AM

238

not es to pag es 14–15

43. BAV, Barb. lat. 1502, p. 25A. 44. ACDFSO, St. st. LL-5-g, fos. 62r–3v docketed “Sancti Officii, Em.mo et R.mo D. Card. Barberino, pro die Mercurii 15 Maii 1659 coram Em.mis.” 45. For Saturday as the usual day of correspondence, see Francesco Beretta, “Giordano Bruno e l’Inquisizione romana: Considerazioni sul processo,” Bruniana & Campanelliana 7 (2001): 15–49, 26. For both points, see the correspondence from Secretary Pompeo Arrigoni to the inquisitor of Bologna in BABo, MS B 1863 G., unfoliated, compared to the decree registers, e.g., for 1606. In that year meetings and letters showed the following rhythm: 5/7 and 19/21 January (both corams), 31 January/1 February (non-coram; Tuesday and Wednesday), 10/11 February (non-coram; Friday and Saturday), 28 February (same day, Tuesday), 2/4 March (should have been coram; Thursday and Saturday), 16/18 March (coram; but also a meeting on Saturday), 30/31 March (Thursday/Friday), 30 March/1 April (coram), 13/15 March (coram), 11/12 May (coram), 18/19/20 May (coram followed by Friday meeting; the matter was urgent, the publication of a concliairist writing in Venice), 8/9/10 June (coram followed by Friday meeting), 27 June (same day, Tuesday), 27/29 July (coram), 10/11/12 August (coram followed by Friday meeting), 17/20 August (a most unusual Sunday session, again about Venice), 30 August/2 September (Wednesday and Saturday), 14/16 September (coram), 23 September (same day, Saturday, about burning a banned book), 28/30 September (non-coram), 12/14 October (non-coram), 26/28 October (non-coram), 15 November (same day, Wednesday), 22 December (same day, Friday, including a letter announcing Arrigoni’s departure from the secretaryship). 46. BAV, Barb. lat. 6334, fos. 106v–15r, 115r–25r, 125r–32v. 47. For a letter on behalf of the cardinals (“per ordine di questi miei Ill.mi et R.mi Card.li Colleghi”) see 7 January 1606, and in the secretary’s name that of 31 March 1606, both in BABo, MS B 1863 G, unfoliated. 48. Cf. DSI 1: 351–52 (commissary) and 107 (assessor). 49. Peña had no doubt that commissaries held the principem locum. Eymeric, ed. Peña, Directorium (1587), 404. 50. For this idea of representation, see Thomas F. Mayer, Thomas Starkey and the Commonweal: Humanist Politics and Religion in the Reign of Henry VIII (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 135–37. 51. BC, MS 2631, fo. 316v (Cadène, “Collectio,” 3: 464, no. 855). 52. BAV, Barb. lat. 1502, pp. 25C and 65A: the commissary “desumat errores et haereses ex processibus, et R.P.D. Assessor format sententias quae postea Comm[issarius] iuxta dictam formam tradendam, seu praescribendam proferre, et promulgare debeat et non alias.” 53. BC, MS 2631, fo. 315v; almost exactly the same entry is on fo. 322v (Cadène, “Collectio,” 3: 463). 54. Beretta, “Galilée,” 35 with reference to Mayaud about the secretary. This doubling has led to the frequent mistake of assigning the Congregation’s correspondence to the assessor. See, e.g., Decker, Witchcraft & the Papacy, 86. 55. Beretta, “Galilée,” 55. I have not confirmed this. 56. Beretta, “Galilée,” 186, as much as concedes the point when he later says the commissary, fiscal, and assessor might have drawn up the charges.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 238

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 15–16

239

57. Nicolau Eymeric, Directorium Inquisitorum, ed. Francisco Peña (Rome: In Aedibus Populi Romanorum, 1578), 288; and Camillo Campeggi’s additio to “De modo procedendi,” in Zanchino Ugolini, De Haereticis . . . Tractatus Aureus (with Additions by Camillo Campeggi and Jacobo Simancas, and Notes by Honorato Figuerola) (Rome: In Aedibus Populi Romani, 1579), 66. 58. Beretta, “Galilée,” 54. 59. A grant of 13 July 1605 to the assessor “apud se tenere possit aliquem iuvenem, qui serviat in scribendo in negocii Sanctae Inquisitionibus sibi occurrentibus.” ACDFSO:DSO 1604­–1605, fo. 333r; see also BC, MS 2653, fo. 23r; for 1621, BC, MS 2653, fo. 26v; and for 1633, a note that “Agostino filius Scipionis Musca of Senigalli, inserviens R. p. d. Petro Paulo Phoebaeo Assessori,” swore his oath of secrecy (ACDFSO, St. st. Q-1-e, fo. 4r, from the series of Libri Extensorum). The Rubricella, fo. IIIv calls him Febei’s secretary. 60. Cf. DSI 2: 607. 61. Andrea Errera, “Modello accusatorio e modello inquisitorio nel processo contro gli eretici: Il ruolo del procurator fiscale,” in Claudia di Filippo Bareggi and Gianvittorio Signorotto, L’inquisizione in età moderna e il caso milanese (Rome: Bulzoni, 2009), 151–208. 62. “Procurator fiscalis S. Officii promoveat causas vertentes coram R. P. Sacri Palatii Aplci. Magistro.” BAV, Barb. lat. 1502, p. 82A. Beretta, “Galilée,” 57, says he went through the process and noted all points advantageous to the accused, citing Peña’s “Introductio.” For his role in trials, see Chapter 5. For the master, see DSI 2: 956–58. 63. Pietro Follerio, Canonica criminalis praxis (Venice: Heirs of Bartolomeo Rubini, 1583), 58–59. For more on denunciation, see Chapter 5. 64. Eymeric, Directorium (1578), 283. 65. Carena, Tractatus, 34. Carena is wrong on both the second points, but his error demonstrates how the office had sunk in status relative to the commissary. 66. According to the Instructio seu praxis inquisitorum Francisci Pegnae appended to Carena, the fiscal produced the “articles.” Carena, Tractatus, 397. 67. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fo. 131r; 1610–1611, fo. 412r. 68. ACDFSO:DSO 1613, pp. 134–35. 69. ACDFSO:DSO 1614, p. 126; 1625, fo. 23v; 1629, fo. 154r; 1630, fo. 185r. 70. Twice in 1635, on the second occasion in tandem with Commissary Maculano’s socius. TCD, MS 1232, fo. 81r/72r and fos. 81r­–88v. For the usual practice, at least in Cremona, see Carena, Tractatus, 34. 71. Repertorium Inquisitorum pravitatis haereticae . . . correctionibus, & annotationibus . . . Quintilliani Mandosii, ac Petri Vendrameni decoratum & auctum (Venice: Damiano Zenaro, 1575), 562–66. See also Peña, Scholia to Directorium inquisitorum, part II, no. 22, pp. 133–35. 72. C. R. Cheney, Notaries Public in England in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 3–4. 73. “Item decreverunt [the cardinals], quod de cetero omnes, et singulae scripturae unus processus, et causae, quae debeant produci in alio processu, et causa, producantur

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 239

8/27/12 11:46 AM

240

not es to pag es 17–18

in forma publica, et authentica, non autem per simplicem copiam, et subscribantur per Notarium dicti S.ti Officii.” BAV, Barb. lat. 1502, pp. 79 D–80A. 74. BAV, Chigi N. III 84, fo. 63r. 75. See Thomas F. Mayer, “The Roman Inquisition’s Precept to Galileo (1616),” British Journal for the History of Science 43, 3 (2010): 327–51. 76. Beretta thinks that the notary’s young assistant was “probably” the summista, but the identity of the only known holder of that office, Camillo Giudici, who was sent on a highly important mission barely a year after appointment and would be a Iuris utriusque doctor (IUD) no later than eighteen months after that suggests otherwise. Beretta, “Galilée,” 55. For Giudici, see ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fo. 87r; 1608, pp. 439 and 446; 1610, fo. 14v; and Chapter 4 below. 77. For the term summista, see ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 162r. 78. ACDFSO:DSO 1615, p. 97. 79. “Quod R.mus Card.lis deputatus si voluerit, assumere possit aliquem ex consultoribus, arbitrio suo, per S.tem suam deputatis circa processus consultationes.” Decree of 18 June 1564 in BAV, Barb. lat. 1502, p. 24B. Ludwig von Pastor, “Allgemeine Dekrete der römischen Inquisition aus den Jahren 1555–1597,” Historisches Jahrbuch 33 (1912): 479–549; reprinted as extract paginated 1–71, 25. 80. “Dichiaratione di concistori” (BAV, Chigi N. III 84, fo. 63r) refers most explicitly to a Monday meeting without the cardinals, together with the related book published in 1629 cited in Christoph Weber, Die ältesten päpstlichen Staatshandbücher: Elenchus congregationum, tribunalium et collegiorum Urbis, 1629–1714 (Rome: Herder, 1991), 23. The “Dichiaratione” dates from sometime in 1596 or early 1597 before Marcello Filonardi became assessor and probably before the death at almost exactly the same time of master of the sacred palace Bartolomeo da Miranda or da Mirandola (QE 2: 321; the index gives both names); Filonardi and Bartolomeo’s replacements took office within two weeks of each other in July 1597 (ACDFSO:DSO 1597, fos. 492r, 505v). Assuming a mistake in Mirandola’s name as Paolo (who was never master, nor does he appear in any capacity in QE), all the officials listed in the “Dichiaratione” were in post as of 4 April 1596 (BAV, Chigi N. III 84, fo. 62v; 1596, fo. 382r). A third similar text in Vienna also discusses a Monday (or more frequent) meeting of the consultors alone. Luigi Firpo dated it to the first quarter of 1610. Luigi Firpo, “Una relazione inedita su l’Inquisizione romana,” Rinascimento 9 (1958): 97–102, 99. 81. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 182r–v. 82. Vincenzo Maria Fontana, Sacrum theatrum dominicanum (Rome: Niccolò Angelo Tinassi, 1656), 538, quoted in Beretta, “Galilée,” 69 and in Francesco Gheri, Index Tribunalium Congregationum, aliorumque congressum, qui in urbe fieri solent (Rome: Camera Apostolica, 1644), 65, adding the detail that they assembled in the commissary’s rooms. 83. Giovanni Battista De Luca, “Relatio curiae romanae,” in Theatrum Veritatis & Iustitiae (Rome: Heirs of Corbelletti, 1669–73), 80. 84. BC, MS 2631, fo. 114v; Cadène, “Collectio,” 3: 82. 85. Several examples of unbalanced panels are the corams of 15 June and 6 July 1628 (for both, seven of twelve consultors were lawyers) (ACDFSO:DSO 1628, fos. 103v, 115r)

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 240

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to page 18

241

and the non-coram of 20 August 1631 when seven of eleven consultors and officials were lawyers. 1631, fo. 143v. The most unbalanced thus far found occurred in the coram of 20 July 1628 when six of nine consultors were lawyers. 1628, fo. 124v. 86. See the entry saying a Conventual Franciscan was needed in ACDFSO:DSO 1608–1609, fo. 339v. The next occupant was also a Conventual. 1610–1611, fo. 412r. See also Girolamo Lunadoro, Relazione della Corte di Roma (Rome: Rossi, 1728), 34; De Luca, “Relatio curiae romanae,” 79. 87. E.g., on 20 April 1616 three of seven consultors present were Dominicans. ACDFSO:DSO 1616, p. 166. 88. “Consultores debent sedere in locis earum dignitatis, secundum eorum anzianitatem, Prothonotar.us non gaudet privilegiis prothonotarium nisi incedat in habitu, sed si est solitum, quod sedeant iuxta ansianitatem, non immutetur stylus.” ACDFSO, St. st. E 4-b, fo. 16r and BC, MS 2631, fos. 2r and 113r; Cadène, “Collectio,” 3: 82, no. 307. 89. I first found the term in November 1620. ACDFSO:DSO 1620, p. 432. Beretta claims it did not come into use for another decade. Francesco Beretta, “L’affaire Galilée et l’impasse apologétique: Réponse à une censure,” Gregorianum 84 (2003): 169–92, 178; and see below. 90. Andreas Eudaemon-Johannes, “Epistola de relapsu, morte poenaque M. Antonii de Dominis,” in Libri duo de duobus apostatis sive duae praenenses, ed. Georg Stenghel (Ingolstadt: Gregor Hänlin, 1627), 560. 91. By 1627. ACDFSO:DSO 1627, fo. 9r; and see Beretta, “Galilée,” 63. 92. ACDFSO:DSO 1627, fos. 48r and 60v and “Deinde” clauses passim. 93. Raffaele Rastellius’s censura addressed to Andrea Giustiniani as commissary (BAV, Vat. lat. 6539, fos. 109r–v). The bodies of theologians who met under Scaglia’s presidency in the cases of Marcantonio De Dominis and Tommaso Campanella were probably ad hoc panels, rather than the congregation of theologian consultors. Eudaemon-Johannes, “Epistola de relapsu,” 560. See also Eleonora Belligni, “Sentenza e condanna postuma di Marcantonio de Dominis,” Il Pensiero Politico 33, 2 (2001): 265–94, 288. A similar body met in 1627–1628 to consult about Campanella’s “Atheismus triumphatus,” but to judge from its membership (it contained only the master and one other consultor) it was probably also not the formal body of theologian consultors. Germana Ernst, “Cristianesimo e religione naturale: Le censure all’Atheismus triumphatus di Tommaso Campanella,” Nouvelles de la République des Lettres 1–2 (1989): 137–200, 141, and 149. On another such occasion it was specified that the theologians were special deputies, only one of them a regular consultor of the Inquisition. ACDFSO, St. st. O-3-g, fos. 96r–98r, 3 December 1630. For meeting times, some of the censurae on Cesare Cremonini’s “De Caelo” are headed “in Congregatione MM. PP. Theologorum habita Palatio S. Officii die p.o (?) Julii 1617,” which would have been Saturday if the date is correctly deciphered (BAV, Vat. lat. 6539, fos. 79r–85r, mostly ill.); another note on fo. 145v reads “1607 Die xv. Junii [Friday] Habita fuit congregatio RR. PP. Theologorum in Palatio Sancti Officii”; and one of their meetings about De Dominis took place on St. Ignatius’s Day, 31 July 1624, a Wednesday. Eudaemon-Johannes, “Epistola de relapsu,” 560.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 241

8/27/12 11:46 AM

242

not es to pag es 18–20

94. Sergio M. Pagano, ed., I documenti vaticani del processo di Galileo Galilei (1611– 1741), 2nd ed., vol. 69 of Collectanea Archivi Vaticani (Vatican City: Archivio Vaticano, 2009), 43–44. 95. Beretta, “Galilée,” 130–31. 96. X.-M. Le Bachelet, Auctarium Bellarminianum: Supplément aux oeuvres du cardinal Bellarmin (Paris: Beauchesne, 1913), 625–26 from ARSI, Fondo Bellarmino, 6, fos. 212–16, two copies. 97. The point about personnel arises from Beretta’s wondering whether the two Giustiniani were related. They probably were, since both were from Genoa, but the Giustiniani were a huge clan. See ARSI, Rom. 55, fo. 28r for Benedetto’s origin and ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fo. 212v for Andrea’s. Whether either was a close relative of the powerful and wealthy Cardinal Benedetto Giustiniani cannot be certainly established. The Venetian ambassador called Benedetto the cardinal’s protetto but did not comment on their relationship. Francesco Contarini-doge, 6 September 1608, in ASVe:SDR, f. 60, fo. 2r. It does not help that there was a third Benedetto, a Dominican also from Genoa. MOPH 11: 364. Andrea Giustiniani may have taken such a hand in the issue because the family was originally from Chios before migrating to Venice and then sending a branch to Genoa that eventually transferred to Rome. 98. E.g., not on 5, 10, 12, or 26 September 1612 or on 10 November (ACDFSO:DSO 1612, pp. 412–15, 420–27, 421–33, 450–56, and 522–38). They also but much less frequently did not travel to Arrigoni’s palace, e.g., 19 September (ibid., pp. 439–45). Distance cannot have been the issue, since Arrigoni lived in Campo de’ Fiori and Sfondrato in Via Giulia, both about equidistant from the Vatican and the Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio. Perhaps they were staging a species of strike. 99. ACDFSO:DSO 1631, fos. 25v­–6v and 28r. 100. Ibid., fo. 129­r. 101. ACDFSO:DSO 1632, fo. 151v–52v; 1633, fos. 166v–67v. 102. Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 253. A meeting time is only rarely recorded in the registers. The most authoritative evidence for the morning comes from a single reference in Assessor Mario Filonardi’s register. ACDFSO, St. st. L 3-e, fo. 13r. See the avviso of 29 January 1611 (BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 93r) and another of 10 December 1611, calling a morning coram “la solita congregatione” (ASMod:AE, 134); other avvisi put the meetings before lunch (BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 104r–v; Urb. lat. 1080, fo. 286r; Urb. lat. 1084, fo. 2r). 103. E.g., 12 August 1606 (ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607), 19 May 1612 at Arrigoni’s palace with an enormous agenda and only three other cardinals, Millini, Galamini, and Centini, all of them unsurprisingly workhorses (1612, pp. 208–18), or 1 October 1622 (1622, p. 289). These meetings were usually used to clear a backlog. Cf. Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 246, noting the frequency of extra meetings in 1612–1615, hypothesizing that this may have been due to the assessor’s inefficiency. In fact, the Congregation could meet any time it chose. See, e.g., the Friday meeting, 16 September 1633, of particular interest since a congregazione particolare the previous Monday also addressed the matter under discussion. Avviso of 17 September 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139. Several Tuesday meetings are recorded, including 8 March (1633, fo. 44r) and 3 September 1633 (ASMod:AE, 139).

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 242

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 20–21

243

104. E.g., that of either 7 or 14 February 1632. Avviso of 14 February 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. This was an unusual meeting, since it was a coram, a very rare occurrence on a Saturday. 105. Francesco Beretta, “Rilettura di un documento celebre: Redazione e diffusione della sentenza e abiura di Galileo,” Galilaeana 1 (2004): 91–115, 97. Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 246 says meetings with the pope fell exclusively on Thursday, but this is not true. He is also not correct that only seven Thursday meetings were suppressed under Paul V, but he is that Urban missed many more than his predecessor. 106. See Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 240, for the meaning of coram. 107. If other business were more pressing, the secret phase could be canceled, as it was on 30 October 1625. ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 182v. According to the anonymous “Dichiaratione di concistori” (BAV, Chigi N. III 84, fos. 61–91), fo. 63r and Firpo, “Una relazione inedita,” 98, all officials left before decisions were made, and then returned to receive orders. 108. Paul V on one occasion ordered the fiscal with the commissary and the assessor to consider a case at the next congregatione secreta. ACDFSO:DSO 1616, p. 251. Similarly, Urban VIII ordered that Alessandro Boccabella, a mere consultor, be admitted to the secret discussions. 1628, fo. 115v; and see below, p. 135. The summista and the commissary’s socio were not supposed to attend corams. Handbook of 1629 in Weber, Die ältesten päpstlichen Staatshandbücher, 23. 109. See, for example, the three-part coram of 3 October 1619. ACDFSO:DSO 1619, pp. 360–61. Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 247 calls it an “almost liturgical” entrance. 110. E.g., “post egressum” Cardinal Sfondrato announced Paul V’s decree banning any writing “de auxiliis” (ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fo. 444r); ibid., fo. 453r (four cases); 1612, pp. 50 (four cases considered), 101, and 252; 1613, pp. 52 and 71; 1616, p. 242; 1627, fo. 197r–v. Cf. the 21 May 1627 note of a privata audientia between Urban and Cardinals Bandini, Millini, and Francesco Barberini about a license to the governor of Milan to read heretical books (fo. 87r). 111. Beretta, “Rilettura,” 97. 112. Public: ACDFSO:DSO 1619, pp. 352, 371, 388, 412, and 421. Secret: 1620, p. 8. 113. For examples, see ACDFSO:DSO 1619, pp. 321–24 (case to be reported); 349–52 (no action taken); 352 (case referred); 361 (last two entries are faculties to absolve from heresy); 411 (prohibited books to be burned); 1620, pp. 8–10 (no sentences); 17–19 and 88 (two meetings ending with an abjuration de formali); 125 (order to torture before proceeding); 150 (no sentences); and 205 (case dismissed with “cautione iuratoria”). 114. I have found only a handful of instances. One of these makes it appear that even here the sentence may ultimately have been commuted. The condemned “tradatur curiae saeculari, supersedeatur tamen in executione sententiae.” ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 101r. Among the small number of others is the order for Fulgenzio Manfredi’s relaxation to the secular arm. 1610–1611, fo. 94r. 115. Other sources, including the archive of San Giovanni Decollato, the confraternity assigned to accompany convicts to execution, yield ten names between 1599 and 1640, plus another sixteen in an index to other accounts in that archive no longer in existence, a total of twenty-six, or barely .6 executions per year. Domenico Orano, Liberi pensatori bruciati

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 243

8/27/12 11:46 AM

244

not es to pag es 21–24

in Roma dal XVI al XVIII secolo: Da documenti inediti dell’Archivio di stato in Roma (Rome: Tip. dell unione cooperativa editrice, 1904), nos. LXXV–LXXXIV and 118–19. The archive has lacunae of 1594–97, 1604–1612, 1621–1625, 1632–1638 (xii), a list that does not correspond exactly to the inventory on the previous page. Rainer Decker derives from Orano the total of thirty-five for the same period, which yields the only slightly higher average of just under .9. He also gives comparative numbers for executions ordered by other Roman courts, on average almost fifteen per year. Witchcraft & the Papacy, 133. 116. E.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1619, p. 419; 1620, pp. 97, 107, and 116. 117. E.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1620, p. 136 and 1626, fo. 146v–7r. 118. ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fos. 112v and 30r–v and 1626, fo. 122v (kindly treatment). 119. ACDFSO:DSO 1619, pp. 304–7. 120. Ibid., pp. 311–15. 121. Ibid., pp. 349–52. 122. Crucisignatores (Crocesignati) were members of a confraternity serving the Holy Office. See DSI 1: 432. 123. Maria Teresa Fattori, Clemente VIII e il Sacro Collegio 1599–1605: Meccanismi istituzionali ed accentramento di governo (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 2004), 326–28, quotation at 328. 124. BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fos. 333r and 580r. 125. The principals were Henry Frederick (eldest son of James I) and Caterina de’ Medici (sister of Grand Duke Cosimo II). Paul F. Grendler, The University of Mantua, the Gonzaga, and the Jesuits, 1584–1630 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009), 103–4, which does not mention this proposed dispensation. 126. BAV, Urb. lat. 1080, fos. 459r, 465v, 505v, 508v–9r, 517r, 520v, and 548v. 127. ACDFSO:DSO 1634, fo. 60r–v; and see Chapter 5 below. 128. A search of some of the indices to the breve registers in the ASV produced no results. 129. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fos. 67v, 70v, 72v, 79v. 130. ACDFSO:DSO 1635, fos. 29v and 31r. 131. ACDFSO:DSO 1598, fo. 226r and 1597–1598–1599, pp. 760 and 772; and see below for both these cases. 132. ACDFSO:DSO 1600–1601, fo. 61v. They could not agree, and the matter had to be referred to the pope. For the meaning of “expediting,” see Chapter 5 below. 133. ACDFSO:DSO 1628, fo. 99v. 134. Andrea Nicoletti, “Della vita di Papa Urbano Ottavo e della Guerra di Castro,” in BAV, Barb. lat. 4731, 797–817. For the bishop’s tenure, see HC 4: 135. 135. ASVe:SDR, f. 105, fo. 430v. 136. Avviso of 27 November in ASMod:AE, 138 and ASVe:SDR, f. 106, fo. 9r. 137. ASVe:SDR, f. 106, fos. 27r–v, 50r, 193r, and 230v. 138. “In questa Congregatione vi è del bene, e del mali, del bene, perchè vi sono inclusi soggetti assai inclinati, e d’auttorità, et quasi tutti quei medesimi chi desiderava il Padre Bombino, oltre chi ridducendosi infallibilmente due volte la settimana se ne può sperare pur cellere rissolutione: Del mali, perchè si camina con sommo rigore nel silentio, et vi sono

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 244

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 24–26

245

scomunichi grandi a redire cosa alcuna di quello, che in essa Congregatione si tratta, onde si potrà mallamente usar l’armi da diffesa, rissolver i dubbij, e li difficoltà; v’intervenne anche il Card. Borgia, sebene egli et l’Amb.r di Spagna hanno fatto dei repplicamente al Padre Bombino.” ASVe:SDR, f. 106, fo. 231r–v. 139. ASVe:SDR, f. 106, fos. 286r and 301v. 140. ASVe:SDR, f. 107, fos. 38r, 200r, 220r–v, and 310r. The avvisi also regularly report developments that are not reflected in the decree registers. 141. ACDFSO:DSO 1633, fo. 112r, major damage to first half. 142. ACDFSO:DSO 1633, fo. 116r. 143. Avviso of 9 July 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139. 144. http://www.hdbg.de/cgi-bin/portraitgalerie/show.pl?file=data%2fbilddatenbank. data&id=69&listtemp=templates%2fframe_ausschnitt_person.htm, accessed 3 March 2010. 145. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 158v. On 13 February 1631 the Congregation ordered that the duke’s letter forwarded by Motman was to be ignored. 1631, fo. 30r. 146. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 173v. 147. ACDFSO:DSO 1631, fo. 51v. 148. Avviso of 11 June. ASMod:AE, 138 and ACDFSO:DSO 1631, fo. 102r. 149. Avviso of 26 July in ASMod:AE, 138. 150. ASVe:SDR, f. 104, fo. 493r. 151. ACDFSO:DSO 1631, fos. 146v and 166r. 152. ACDFSO:DSO 1632, fos. 12v and 13r. 153. Avviso of 14 February 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. 154. Avviso of 1 January 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139. 155. ACDFSO:DSO 1624, fos. 98v and 105v. 156. ACDFSO:DSO 1626, fos. 67v and 184v. 157. BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 I, fo. 93r. 158. ACDFSO:DSO 1633, fo. 21r and 1634, fo. 106r. See Chapter 5. 159. See especially Tedeschi, “The Dispersed Archives of the Roman Inquisition,” in Prosecution of Heresy, 23–45; Francesco Beretta, “L’archivio della Congregazione del Sant’Ufficio: Bilancio provvisorio della storia e natura dei fondi d’antico Regime,” in L’inquizione romana: Metodologia delle fonti e storia istituzionale, ed. Andrea Del Col and Giovanna Paolin (Triest: Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2000), 119–44; reprint Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 37 (2001): 29–58. It seems not to have been noticed that the reason the Inquisition kept its sentences in separate registers may be because they did not belong to the acta of a case. Although the following discussion applies directly only to the decree registers, it could be extended to the rest of the Inquisition’s records as well. 160. Collections of decreta include entries dating from the refoundation, e.g., the one in the Archivio di Stato in Rome cited by Pastor, “Allgemeine Dekrete,” 6. The first in the ACDFSO dates from 1548. As always, the vicissitudes of the archive might have led to the appearance that it took a while to establish regular registers. 161. Beretta, “L’archivio,” 121. He demonstrated the point at greater length in an article

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 245

8/27/12 11:46 AM

246

not es to pag es 26–27

about Giordano Bruno’s trial. Beretta, “Giordano Bruno,” 15–49, 24–26. The decreta were left incomplete despite complaints from Cardinal Secretary Camillo Borghese, the future Paul V. (23–24). 162. Again, French depredations probably had an impact on the secretariat of state. The decision to close the registers of bulls leaves them scattered about the miscellaneous volumes of papal acts, which are indexed only by year, making it a difficult enterprise to find any particular bull. The published collections are idiosyncratically selected, and none of the editors gave references to their originals in such a way as to allow them to be found. See Cherubini and Cherubini, Magnum bullarium romanum; Charles Cocquelines, ed., Bullarum privilegiorum ac diplomatum romanorum pontificorum amplissima collectio (Rome: Girolamo Mainardi, 1745; repr. Graz: Akademischen Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, 1964–65); and the most modern of the three major editions (which does the worst job citing sources), Magnum Bullarium Romanum (Turin: Sebastiano Franco and Enrico Dalmazzo, 1857–). I am grateful to Nelson Minnich for discussion of this point. For the breves, see ASV, Segreteria dei brevi, Reg. 337, which has a note at the front of five missing numbers. When Galileo’s strong supporter Giovanni Ciampoli lost his post of secretary for breves to princes, he took all the breves he had written with him and Urban had to send an express after him to get them back. Avviso of 4 December 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. 163. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 42v, decree of 6 March. 164. Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 256 points to errors of date and cardinal’s titles but found only thirty of each, nor is he correct that normally those titles were given a full line each. 165. Two decrees of 1603 in BC, MS 2631, fos. 133 and 264 (Cadène, “Collectio,” 3: 82, no. 302); see BAV, Borg. lat. 548, p. 205. 166. The measure taken in 1615 and again in 1620 that in expediting cases the consultors should give their opinions orally probably was intended to preserve secrecy. BAV, Borg. lat. 548, p. 205. For typical notes of vota, see ACDFSO:DSO 1597, fos. 467r and 481v–82r and 1600, fo. 25v. They disappear later. 167. 1616–1617 are on fos. 1r–136r and 1618–1619 begins on fo. 141r, although it is harder to say where it ends, perhaps about fo. 470r in September 1619. 168. ACDFSO, St. st. L 3-e, “Registro di Mons. Mario Filonardi, assessore del S. Uffizio (1616–24),” according to the inventory. Despite appearing in this place, it has not previously been studied to my knowledge. Peña’s two volumes are now Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli Vittorio Emanuele III, Fondo Brancaccio I.B.2. and I.B.7. The first has indications of his ownership. Both belonged to Cardinal Francesco Maria Brancaccio, named in late 1633, and an Inquisitor as of 1638 (ACDFSO:DSO 1638, fo. 53r) as well as a member of the Congregation of the Index (DBI 13: 774–75, missing his service as Inquisitor). They begin in 1603 and total about 3,000 entries. Registers 1605, 1607, and 1609 are missing, and the remaining years all have long gaps; the last, 1616, contains only one entry. Vincenzo Spampanato, “Nuovi documenti intorno a negozii e processi dell’Inquisizione (1603– 1624),” Giornale critico della filosofia italiana 5 (1924): 97–137, 216–61, 346–401, 97–100,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 246

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 27–29

247

100n for the coverage. Most have a note addressed to the pope including the phrases “die crastina” or “in proxima congregatione” (222 and 223), but none of the texts Spampanato printed indicates the time of the meeting, as he claimed (100). He also somewhat misleadingly chose to call them ruoli. Although frequently cited, they also have not been studied in and of themselves. I am grateful to Pierroberto Scaramella for discussion of them. It is a mystery how these volumes escaped the scrupulous attention to Peña’s library after his death. See below. They did suggest that the Inquisition was both less than fully in control of its own records and also less than fully worried about the fact. 169. Fo. 706r to the end on fo. 876v is a draft treatise on the Inquisition, the title of which might be “Institutiones seu praxis sanctae inquisitionis liber (?) primus,” which could be Peña’s work. The explicit probably gives the date of completion as 23 September, but the year is illegible. 170. Cf. ACDFSO, St. st. L 3-e, fos. 19r (attack), 23r–24v (28 July), 25r–26r (4 August), and 29r–30r (18 August) to ACDFSO:DSO 1616, pp. 290 (attack), 312–13 and 315 (28 July), 329–30 (4 August), and 353 (18 August). Perhaps not by coincidence, the agenda for 18 August also contains no notes of actions taken. I have not found the beginning of Lascaris’s case and therefore do not know the charges, but on 26 July 1616 he was sentenced by the pope to imprisonment and eventually to abjure de vehementi in the pope’s presence and suffer suspension from archiepiscopal functions (1616, p. 304). Little is known about him except that he died in Rome 27 October 1636 (HC 4: 213). 171. ACDFSO:DSO 1616, p. 290. 172. ACDFSO, St. st. LL–5-g, fo. 241v, address to Secretary Santoro probably of proceeding pamphlet “mandate dalla S.ta di N. S.re al XXIX di Luglio MDII” with note of receipt by him. 173. See discussion of individual notaries below. 174. ACDFSO:DSO 1624, fo. 108r. 175. E.g., ACDFSO:DSO Copia 1605, p. 836, when he was ordered to check whether a summary agreed with its processo. The fact that such an order had to be given suggests that the assessor did not regularly perform this task. 176. As decreed in 1609. BC, MS 2631, fo. 383v (Cadène, “Collectio,” 4: 182, no. 1270). 177. ACDFSO:DSO 1603 Copia, fos. 81v–82r and Extra, 3, 50, 8. Cf. Cheney, Notaries Public, 77. 178. ACDFSO:DSO 1627, fo. 23r. 179. On one occasion, a sub-notary was denied a “subvention” for poverty, but the Congregation did dangle the hope before his eyes that it might do better later. ACDFSO:DSO 1603, fo. 177v/Copia, fo. 183r. 180. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fo. 463r. 181. ACDFSO:DSO 1621, pp. 255–56. 182. ACDFSO:DSO 1603 Copia, fo. 244r. 183. Beretta, “L’archivio,” 122 notes the survival of the notary’s rough record for the sixteenth century, but not the phases leading from them to the registers. 184. See note 153 above and for the Roman republicans Silvestro Gherardi and

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 247

8/27/12 11:46 AM

248

not es to pag es 29–32

Giacomo Manzoni, Thomas F. Mayer, “The Status of the Inquisition’s Precept to Galileo (1616) in Historical Perspective,” Nuncius 24 (2009): 61–95, 69. 185. The date sequence in January 1631 is especially confused, leaving two meetings on 7 January no matter how it is construed: 7 [feria 3.a]; 6 [feria 5.a; probably really of 16 January because a coram, and thus far out of order]; and again 7 [feria 3.a, both sic]. Despite having the same date, the two entries for 7 January do not concern the same meeting. ACDFSO:DSO 1631, fos. 6r, 8v, and 10v. Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 256 noted that Tommasi made many more errors in dates than his predecessors, but still underestimated the scale of the problem. 186. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fo. 59v and 1606–1607, fo. 266v. See the similar note on 1607, fo. 64v, also made third person in 1606–1607, fo. 270v. 187. This section rests mainly on a study of ACDFSO:DSO 1600–1601 and 1601, but the conclusions from it can be replicated in many other cases where duplicate registers survive. Both appear to be fair registers in different hands, although 1600–1601 is not as neatly written. Signatures appear only on 1601, and only it has attendance lists, although 1600–1601 occasionally notes some attenders (e.g., fo. 78r). Both have indices at the front. Much of January 1601 in 1600–1601 is badly damaged, as against only a little damage at the end of 1601, which may mean the two volumes were kept in different places. Most often the single-year volumes seem to have stayed with the notary, but cf. 1608–1609, fo. 499v, which has notes in the margin about later action. 188. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fo. 131r, decree of 22 July and 1610–1611, fo. 391v, decree of 14 September 1611 concerning a manuscript Cardinal Bernerio had censured that was to be sought from his heirs. 189. For example, the notes read in one case “Viti San Viti lectis literis datis Neapoli 10. huius, decretum quod veniat ad deponendum in hoc s. officio” where the fair copy has “Viti San Viti, lectis literis ipsius datis Neapoli x. supradicti mensis Ill.mi et R.mi D.ni Card.les generales inquisitores denunciaverunt et ordinaverunt quod dictus Vitus veniat ad deponendum in hoc s. officio.” 190. ACDFSO:DSO 1610, fo. 89v; 1610–1611, fo. 111v and fo. 19r. 191. Neither entry is entirely legible; difficult places have been read with the help of later entries about the same book. 192. ACDFSO:DSO 1615, p. 419 and 1628, fo. 102v. 193. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fo. 274r (Millini); BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fos. 631v and 633r; 1610–1611, fo. 435; BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 773r (Galamini). 194. ACDFSO:DSO 1604–1605, fo. 277v and 1608, p. 386. 195. See, e.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1614, pp. 93, 170, 222, 292, and 536; 1615, pp. 333, 522, and 567; 1616, pp. 319, 376, 487, and 512; 1617, pp. 356, 362, 384, and 451; 1618, pp. 159 and 197; 1620, pp. 58 and 82; or the shorthand attendance formula “Assistenti R. P. Com.i Genli., D. Proc.ri Fiscali, ac aliis consultoribus S. officii” in 1626, fo. 145v; Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 256 signaled Tommasi’s errors in recording cardinals’ attendance. 196. ADCFSO:DSO 1604–5 Copia, p. 194 (Leen Spruit, “Cremonini nelle carte del Sant’Uffizio romano,” in Cesare Cremonini: Aspetti del pensiero e scritti, ed. E. Riondato and

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 248

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 32–33

249

Antonino Poppi [Padua: Academia Galileiana, 2000], 193–204, 194–95); 1604–1605 Copia, p. 256; orig. fo. 113r–v completely illegible (Spruit, “Cremonini,” 195); 1627, fo. 83v. 197. ACDFSO:DSO Copia 1605, pp. 723–24. 198. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 192r. 199. Avviso of 14 December in ASMod:AE, 137. 200. BAV, Urb. lat. 1101, fo. 12r; virtually the same entry in ASMod:AE, 137, fasc. December 1630, printed in Luigi Amabile, “L’andata di Fra Tommaso Campanella a Roma dopo la lunga prigiona a Napoli,” Atti dell’Accademia di scienze morali e politiche di Napoli 20, 8 (1886): 1–51, 40. For Scaglia, see the avviso of 22 February in ASMod:AE, 138, fasc. February 1631, unfoliated. 201. Nor did either Urban’s complaint on 23 May 1630 about breaches of the Inquisition’s secrecy especially by the Spanish, or Borja’s complaint in the congregation of 20 March 1631 about Constable Colonna’s insult to him—the second perhaps because it was not Holy Office business. Avvisi of 25 May 1630 and 22 March 1631 in ASMod:AE, 137 and 138. 202. Giacinto Gigli, Diario di Roma, ed. Manlio Barberito (Rome: Carlo Colombo, 1994), 1: 192–93, ASMod:AE, 138 in the course of a report of Vittrici’s disgrace, and two avvisi printed in Rangoni, Scaglia, 32n, where she gives his surname as Barbone, actually a sobriquet derived from his huge beard. See also the brief treatment in Peter Rietbergen, Power and Religion in Baroque Rome: Barberini Cultural Policies (Boston: Brill, 2006), 347–48. 203. The Venetian ambassador reported that two astrologers had been imprisoned by the Inquisition, one of whom had predicted the pope’s death. ASVe:SDR, f. 96, fo. 147v, 5 June 1627. I found no reference to such a case in the decree registers between April and September. 204. Avviso of 3 April 1632; ASMod:AE, 137. 205. See the Venetian ambassador’s dispatch of 23 April 1633 in ASVe:SDR, f. 107, fos. 198v–99r for the later developments. A newsletter writer judged “che di continovo, sta in potere del Papa di alterare, et di sminuere quelli, che all’hora haveva determinato.” Avviso of 9 April 1633; ASMod:AE, 139. Barberini and Urban got their way; at least the protest is not found in any of the various versions of the consistorial acta, especially that coming from Barberini’s own office in ASV, Acta vicecancellarii 18, nor is it in either copy in BAV, Barb. lat. 2889, fos. 109r–10r or BAV, Barb. lat. 2933, fo. 193r–v. Then again, with the decline of the consistory’s importance, the acta rarely contain anything more than provisions to bishoprics, the rubber-stamping of which had become the consistory’s nearly exclusive business by the early seventeenth century. Fattori, Clemente VIII, passim, especially 49. 206. Dispatch III of 28 August 1632 in ASVe:SDR, f. 105, fo. 161v. 207. Simeon Contarini-doge, 14 and 21 February 1615, both in the second dispatch of that date. ASVe:SDR, f. 72, fos. 294v and 307r–v. The book was probably but not certainly the Supplicatio ad imperatorem of Giacomo Antonio Marta, published in early 1613 in London and known by its author’s pseudonym as Novus homo, but it may also have been one of the incompletely identified sequels. Wolfgang Reinhard, “Papst Paul V. und seine Nuntien im Kampf gegen die Supplicatio ad Imperatorem und ihren Verfasser Giacomo Antonio Marta 1613–1621,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte (1969): 190–238; Paul F. Grendler,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 249

8/27/12 11:46 AM

250

not es to pag es 33–34

“Giacomo Antonio Marta: Antipapal Lawyer and English Spy, 1609–1618,” Catholic Historical Review 93, 4 (2007): 789–814, 804–10; W. Brown Patterson, King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 119–20. Marta had already been in trouble with the Index in 1610 over his Tractatus de iurisdictione at the same time as he had been imprisoned and examined by the Inquisition in the trial of Duke Cesarini and Settimo Radicino. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fos. 24r, 26r, 28r, 39v. 208. BAV, Barb. lat. 7301, fos. 33r–53r, almost the exclusive subject of his dispatches; the same content in ASV, Seg. Stato, Nunz. Firenze 20, fos. 1vff., a duplicate register of deciphers of correspondence from Florence. 209. ASV, Seg. Stato, Nunz. Firenze, 20, fos. 1v and 6r. 210. ACDFSO:DSO 1631, fos. 54r and 55v–56r. 211. For insertions, see, e.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1633, fos. 25v–26v, 101r, 193r–v, and 214v– 16r and the preliminary discussion in Beretta, “Rilettura,” 278–79n. The most egregious instance of the assessor or his assistant handing over his notes tardily comes on 13 April 1616, when the notary had to find room to enter no less than seven cases “ex relatione D. Coadiutoris RPD Assessoris.” ACDFSO:DSO 1616, pp. 155–57. 212. ACDFSO:DSO 1614, p. 57 and 1617, p. 277. 213. ACDFSO:DSO 1615, pp. 327, 490, 533 (a case added in the right margin, ending “Approbo And.as Notarius”), 546 (a sentence scribbled at the foot of the page), and 549 (a marginal note having nothing to do with either case in the main text); 1616, pp. 80 (an entry crammed in above Pettini’s signature that Relatione della Corte di Roma fatta l’anno 1611 dal Conte Girolamo Lunadori, cav.re dell’habito di S.to Stefano had been committed for censure), 252–53 (where two cases were added after the signature without a further signature), 311 and 358 (both an added case with second signature); 1617, pp. 45 and 204 (cases squeezed in after the signature); 1618, pp. 367 (case jammed in above “idem notarius”) and 402 (one case added with signature and another without); and so forth. 214. BAV, Barb. lat. 6344, fo. 96r (Pinelli) and ACDFSO:DSO 1635, fo. 46v. See also the four sample trials considered at the end of the Conclusion below. Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 255–56, reads significance into the inclusion of the minutes of particular congregations, but the registers give no indication of this. 215. The principal locus for discussion of the notary’s responsibilities was X.2.19.11. Enrico Da Susa (Hostiensis) grudgingly conceded that most commentators by then thought the notary’s record equivalent to the testimony of two witnesses, since he was sworn. In primum [-sextum] Decretalium librum commentaria, 5 vols. (Venice: Giunti, 1581), 2, fos. 79v–82r. By the fifteenth century Francesco Accolti made the notary’s transcript superior to witnesses’s testimony and no longer thought their signatures required. In primi, secundi, & quinti Decretal. titulos commentaria . . . Vincentii Godemini exornata & aucta (Venice: Giunti, 1581), fos. 73r–76v, also commenting Quoniam contra. 216. Beretta, “Galilée,” 59. His further suggestion that this was against normal diocesan practice is probably not true; at least those diocesan notarial records I have seen (admittedly from consistory courts in England) used the same device. See, e.g, Devon Record Office, EDRC 855, fos. 13r, 18v, 61v, 74v. Jane Wickersham tells me she has seen

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 250

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 34–36

251

similar authentications on diocesan records in Venice. This is unsurprising, since the notariat worked to remarkably uniform rules all over Europe. See Geoffrey Barraclough, Public Notaries and the Papal Curia: A Calendar and Study of a Formularium notariorum curie from the Early Years of the Fourteenth Century (Rome: Proceedings of the British School at Rome, 1934) and Cheney, Notaries Public. 217. Beretta, “Galilée,” 172. 218. E.g., TCD, MS 1232, fo. 9r. 219. See, e.g., the various unfoliated fascicoli in ASVe, Sant’Uffizio, b. 82, especially that of Fra Benvenuto Rossini, which uses the formal denunciation against him as the dossier’s wrapper. 220. Thus his signature appears on pp. 365, 370 373, 376 (not on fo. 184r, which does not have a list of officials), 379 (not on fo. 180v), 396, 400, 405, 411, 417, 422, 428, 434, 438, 444, 447, 452 (22 October; not on ACDFSO:DSO 1608–1609, fo. 220r, where the list of officials is), 456, 463, 469, 480, 488, not on 491, again on 496, 500, 506, 511, 514, 517, 522, 525, 529, 532, 539, and 544. 221. E.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1614, p. 118. 222. See, e.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1618, p. 402, where his “idem” signature is added to a case jammed in after the end of the session and then another below without the signature. 223. Giovanni Battista Ferretti on Quoniam contra, in Repetitionum in universas fere Iuris canonici partes, materiasque sane frequentiores (Venice: Luca Antonio Giunti, 1587) 3: fo. 379r, no. 136. 224. E.g., throughout his register for 1601. 225. ACDFSO:DSO 1603, fo. 262r/Copia, fo. 260r. 226. BAV, Barb. lat. 1502, p. 77D; Pastor, “Allgemeine Dekrete,” 52. Cf. p. 30A, a decree that all processi were to be kept in the Holy Office, followed by another about secrecy. 227. ACDFSO:DSO 1602, fo. 2r/Copia, p. 4; 1607, fo. 59r. 228. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fo. 213v. 229. ACDFSO:DSO 1619, pp. 332–33. 230. BAV, Vat. lat. 10945, fos. 74v and 74r (decree entered twice). 231. ACDFSO:DSO 1612, p. 15. 232. ACDFSO:DSO 1627, fo. 98v; for a missing censure, 1606–1607, fo. 45r. 233. ACDFSO:DSO 1615, pp. 343–44 and 348. 234. ACDFSO:DSO 1623, p. 197. 235. ACDFSO:DSO 1629, fo. 136v and 1635, fo. 99v. 236. Every inquisition had a vicar and a notary (one of them in Milan served for at least twenty years; ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 140r) and most probably a fiscal (as in Bergamo; 1626, fo. 17v–18r). Probably all had consultors. The major posts of Cremona and Milan certainly did (1627, fo. 65r and 1606–1607, fo. 427r) along with the minor ones of Faenza, Ancona, and Rimini (1625, fo. 26r). And probably all had armed familiars, the number of whom caused problems nearly everywhere, from Milan to Romagna (1606–1607, fo. 427r; ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 26r and 1627, fo. 137r for Romagna). 237. E.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fo. 63r.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 251

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 36–39

252

238. Beretta does better than the rest by referring to the small clutch of surviving processi for this period in TCD, MSS 1230–32, but these are short and concern minor matters. Large numbers are also incomplete, and many pages seem to be missing even when the foliation is continuous; see, e.g., the tag on MS 1231, fo. 209v, which does not refer to the following folio. 239. See the brief description of the Modenese archive in Tedeschi, Prosecution of Heresy, 66–67, and for Venice see Indice 303 in the Sala di Consultazione of the Archivio di Stato. 240. Massimo Firpo and Dario Marcatto, eds., Il processo inquisitoriale del Cardinal Giovanni Morone (Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per l’Età Moderna e Contemporanea, 1981–95); Firpo and Marcatto, eds., I processi sotto Paolo IV e Pio IV (1557–1561), 1, I processi inquisitoriali di Pietro Carnesecchi (1557–1567) (Vatican City: Archivio Segreto Vaticano, 1998); Massimo Firpo and Sergio Pagano, eds., I processi inquisitoriali di Vittore Soranzo (1550–1558): Edizione critica (Vatican City: Archivio Segreto Vaticano, 2004).

Chapter 2. The Sacred Congregation: Inquisitors Before 1623 1. In alphabetical order they are Arrigoni, Ottavio Bandini, Antonio and Francesco Barberini (both Senior), Bellarmino, Guido Bentivoglio, Giovanni Battista Bonsi, Gaspar Borja y Velasco, Felice Centini, Carlo Conti, Galamini, Gessi, Ginetti, Millini, Scaglia, Sfondrato, Ferdinando Taverna, Verallo, Verospi, Zacchia, and Antonio Zapata y Cisneros. 2. I did not track all cardinals during this period, because my research was originally limited to Galileo’s trial. Even had I done so, the numbers would be too small to produce statistically significant results. 3. Pierre-Noël Mayaud, “Les ‘Fuit congregatio Sancti Officii in . . . coram . . . ’ de 1611 à 1642: 32 ans de vie de la Congrégation du Saint Office,” Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 30 (1992): 231–89, 280, noticed the problem. His invention of official-looking terminology with which to label it (cardinals “absentes ab urbe”) is not particularly helpful. 4. I have not included him in my sample because of his brief tenure. 5. 3 April 1625. BAV, Barb. lat. 8729, fos. 15v and 17r. This letter throws up several mysteries, not least why Magalotti told Barberini any of this, since Francesco was not as yet an Inquisitor and, even if he had been, would have been the Congregation’s most junior member. Perhaps Magalotti was merely keeping his patron informed. 6. ACDFSO:DSO 1626, fo. 71v. Magalotti had reached Bologna on the way to Ferrara by 24 May 1628. BAV, Barb. lat. 8729, fo. 88r. 7. BAV, Barb. lat. 4676, fos. 14v–15r. 8. Andrea Del Col, L’inquisizione in Italia (Milan: Mondadori, 2006), 518; see below for particular cases of financial misdeeds. 9. E.g., the nuncio in Florence reported on 23 April 1612 that the inquisitor of Pisa had failed to report a false pope there passing out dispensations. ASV, Seg. Stato, Nunz. Firenze, 15B, fo. 173v.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 252

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to page 40

253

10. “Duo Cardinales d. Cong.nis aliis absentibus totam Congregationem repraesentant.” BAV, Borg. lat. 548, p. 131, undated. For the number of cardinals, see Giovanni Battista De Luca, “Relatio curiae romanae,” in Theatrum veritatis & iustitiae (Rome: Heirs of Corbelletti, 1669–73), 79; “Congregazione del Sant’Uffizio,” DSI 1: 390. 11. BC, MS 2653, fo. 16r, a decree from 1564. 12. BAV, Barb. lat. 1502, pp. 187–94, motuproprio of 2 August 1564 printed in Ludwig von Pastor, The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages, vol. 16, trans. and ed. R. F. Kerr (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1928), app. 37; decree of 18 June 1564 in Ludwig von Pastor, “Allgemeine Dekrete der römischen Inquisition aus den Jahren 1555–1597,” Historisches Jahrbuch 33 (1912): 479–549; reprinted as extract paginated 1–71, 25. 13. Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio.” Mayaud studied attendance in global terms. Absence signified the rather crude measure of missing ten weeks or more in a single year, and in some cases, Felice Centini for example, he studied attendance in only a couple of years, giving a misleading impression about the duration of an Inquisitor’s career (289). Centini actually attended nearly all sessions in 1617 and 1625 and at least some in 1618, 1621, and 1624. Worse, when attendance lists are either missing or seriously corrupted, he “imagined” what they might have been (234). That he confined his attention only to meetings on Wednesday and Thursday will also have introduced small inaccuracies. Mayaud was especially interested in whether there was a difference in attendance at non-corams (Wednesday) and corams (Thursday). There was, but Mayaud’s synoptic approach obscures important chronological rhythms. My results are usually substantially different. Only in the single case of Agostino Galamini do Mayaud’s and my figures come close. Mayaud has Galamini at 95 percent of corams, while I tracked him over his six-year tenure as coming to 100 percent in three years, 97 percent in one, and 94 percent in the other two. 14. Pompeo Arrigoni attended only 74 percent of corams according to Mayaud. Over the entire course of his tenure, this may be true, but Arrigoni was not even in Rome for the better part of four years out of the eleven he served as Inquisitor. When he was in the city regularly, his attendance at corams is dramatically better: 94 percent (1605); 100 percent (1606); 90 percent (1607); and 87 percent (1611). The exception of 1612, when he came to only 53 percent, is explained by illness in the first part of the year and his departure for Benevento in November. Avvisi of 8, 15, and 25 February and 17 November in BAV, Urb. lat. 1080, fos. 106v, 132v, 184r, 655v. He missed all the Congregation’s February meetings. For the same years, he appeared in 60, 80, 63, 87, and 61 percent of non-corams, which puts him in the middle of the pack (see Appendix Table 3). Millini did better than Arrigoni on Mayaud’s showing but still only appeared at 84 percent of corams. By contrast, for the seven years I tracked in detail, 1610–1616, he attended all meetings in three of them, 92 and 97 percent twice in the other three. Thus Mayaud’s unfavorable comparison of Millini to his sub-secretary Ottavio Bandini, with his “astonishing” attendance at 51 weeks of meetings, is both inaccurate and unfair. Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 250. Like Millini, any number of other cardinals achieved 100 percent attendance. In 1615 alone did his number dip to 77 percent (see Table 3). The reason was illness. BAV, Urb. lat. 1083, fos. 493r, 539r, 548r, 555r–v. He made only one meeting from 1 October to the end of the year.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 253

8/27/12 11:46 AM

254

not es to pag e 41

15. A search of the indices to thirty years of breve registers in the ASV turned up no breves for ordinary inquisitors. These indices are at least as reliable as most such, which suggests that if there ever was any paperwork, it did not go through the secretariat of breves. 16. Since the secretary’s formal appointment only rarely appears in the records, and only one breve before Francesco Barberini’s has been found, these dates are imprecise. Arrigoni: ACDFSO:DSO 1605, fo. 291v (appointment); Antonio Rotondò, “Nuovi documenti per la storia dell’‘Indice dei libri proibiti’ (1572–1638),” Rinascimento (1963): 145–211, 191–92 for Millini’s first letter; Millini: ibid. and 1629, fo. 171v; Antonio Barberini: ibid. (appointment on or before 3 October 1629; Millini died on 1 October [BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 II, fos. 525v, 591v, 634r–5r, and 637r–v]); and see the next note. 17. There is also some evidence that Bellarmino served as sub-secretary to both Arrigoni and Millini; see below. Silvano Giordano, ed., Le istruzioni generali di Paolo V ai diplomatici pontifici 1605–1621 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2003), 1: 209, followed by “Requiem,” incorrectly makes Millini an Inquisitor only from 1616. 18. Millini for Arrigoni: ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fo. 274r; BABo, MS B 1863 G., nos. 99 (letters of 3 January 1608) and 226; 1608, p. 60 (order to write a letter of 31 January 1608); and see the previous note; Verallo for Millini: BAV, Urb. lat. 1083, fo. 539r (order to inquisitor of Florence, 7 November 1615) (Michele Cioni, I documenti Galileiani del S. Uffizio di Firenze [Florence: Giampiero Pagnini, 1996], no. VIII; EN 20: no. 1140bis), the end of his tenure is uncertain; Bonsi: delivery of a papal order after the meeting on 30 August 1618 (ACDFSO:DSO 1618, p. 305), on 9 January 1620 (1620, p. 20), and another on 7 January 1621 (1621, p. 18); Bandini: the strongest indication is a letter written 1 July 1625 “per ordine di quest’Ill.mi miei Ss.” (ACDFSO, St. st. N 3-f, first fascicle, fo. 6r), another of 17 January 1628, probably to the inquisitor of Parma (ibid., fo. 5r–v), and a third to the duke of Modena of 24 December 1624 (ASMod, Cancelleria Ducale, Carteggio con principi esteri, b. 1320A/41 [Bandini], unfoliated), together with a post-meeting order typical of those given by the secretary on 8 July 1625 (ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 119v); on 22 and 23 October 1625 Bandini was one of only two cardinals faced with a full docket (1625, fos. 177v, 179v). The fact that Bandini’s fat busta in Modena contains only one letter about Inquisition business while Millini’s has about a dozen suggests that Bandini may have filled in as secretary for only a short time. Unfortunately, the best-documented stretch of Bandini’s possible tenure is among the worst-covered of Millini’s, which could, of course, mean he was out of commission. 19. Giacomo Fuligatti, Vita del cardinale Roberto Bellarmino della Compagnia di Giesù (Rome: Heirs of Bartolomeo Zannetti, 1624), 326. 20. Vita Roberti Bellarmini a Iacobo Fuligatto Italicè primùm scripta: A Silvestro Petra Sancta Latine reddita, & aucta, atque in hac secunda editione a mendis primae repurgata (Antwerp: Ex officina Plantiniana Balthasaris Moreti, [1626]), 527–28. 21. Antonio Barberini, Sr.-Antonio Diaz, nuncio in Naples, 4 June 1626. Luigi Amabile, Frà Tommaso Campanella nei Castelli di Napoli, in Roma ed in Parigi (Naples: Morano, 1887–88), 2, “Documenti,” 23; Amabile, “L’andata di Fra Tommaso Campanella a Roma dopo la lunga prigiona a Napoli,” Atti dell’Accademia di scienze morali e politiche di Napoli

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 254

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 41–42

255

20, no. 8 (1886): 1–51, no. 1, 33–34, incorrectly giving the source (without folio reference) as ASV, Nunz. Napoli, 26, instead of 326. 22. Battista Ceci, “Relatione di Roma nel principio del pontificato di Paolo V,” in BAV, Urb. lat. 837, fo. 424v; A. Enzo Baldini, Puntigli spagnoleschi e intrighi politici nella Roma di Clemente VIII: Girolamo Frachetta e la sua relazione del 1603 sui cardinali (Milan: Franco Angeli, 1981), 111. For Arrigoni’s correspondence as secretary with the inquisition in Bologna, see Christopher F. Black, The Italian Inquisition (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009), 116–17. Cf. DSI 1: 101. 23. Avviso of 10 March 1629 in BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 I, fo. 142r–v. Christoph Weber and Michael Becker, Genealogien zur Papstgeschichte (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1999– 2002), 3, 47, give his mother’s surname as Tari, but it appears to be Zara in ASV, S. R. Rota, Processus in admissione auditorum, b. 1, no. 44. It is read as Tara in http://www.fiu. edu/~mirandas/bios1596.htm#Arrigoni, and as Taro by Gauvin Alexander Bailey, Between Renaissance and Baroque: The First Jesuit Paintings in Rome, 1564–1610 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 204 and 339, noting that Arrigoni completed his uncle’s decoration of the Trinity chapel in the Gesù (see plates 90–93). 24. http://www2.hu-berlin.de/requiem/db/, accessed 8 July 2008. 25. BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 II, fo. 661r. 26. Ceci, “Relatione”; DBI 4: 320–22. He also studied at Perugia and Bologna. 27. DBI 4: 320. 28. Johann Friedrich von Schulte, Die Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur der canonischen Rechts (Stuttgart: Verlag Ferdinand Enke, 1875), 2: 71; Relatione della canonizatione di San Diego di Alcala di Henares . . . che fece . . . Papa Sisto Quinto alli 2 di Luglio 1588: Con la relatione dell’illustriss. . . . Card. Marco Antonio Colonna . . . Et oratione di Pompeo Arigone . . . (Rome: Pacifico Pontio, 1588; repr. Milan); Pompei Arigonij consistorialis et regi catholici advocati Oratio de vita & miraculis b. fratris Didaci, qua regis nomine canonizari postulatur, habita Romae in consistorio publico, die XXV Iunij anno 1588 (?Rome, [1588]); Oratione di Pompeo Arrigone avocato concistoriale . . . della vita, et miracoli del beato f. Diego di Alcala di Henares . . . Recitata in Roma . . . alli 25 giugno . . . MDLXXXVIII . . . (Venice: in contrà di Santo Antonino, 1588); Di S. Diego de S. Nicolo del Puerto, o, de Alcala di Henares, dell’ordine di S. Franc. dell’Osservanza, canonizatione, da Sisto V à 2. Luglio; brevemente descritta dal D. Franc. Pegna. Relatione, del cardinale M. Antonio Colonna, à 20 Giugno; Oratione, di Pompeo Arigone, avvocato consistoriale & del re cattolico, à 25. Giugno; Risposta, di Antonio Boccapadulo, secretario di S. Santità. MDLXXXVIII (Rome: Francesco Zannetti, in piazza di Pietra, 1588; also an edition in Spanish). 29. ASV, S. R. Rota, Processus in admissione auditorum, b. 1, no. 44, Hermann Hoberg, “Die Antrittsdaten der Rotarichter von 1566 bis 1675,” Römische Quartalschrift 48 (1953): 211–24, 217, 218, and HC 4: 5. 30. His breve of appointment in April 1605 is supposed to be in ASV, Segretaria dei brevi, Reg. 396, fo. 1r and another in 395, fo. 111r; cf. ASV, Indice 761, fo. 2v; and see DBI. 31. Relatione della corte di Roma, ed. Romulo Lunadoro ([Padua]: Paolo Frambotto, 1635), 30.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 255

8/27/12 11:46 AM

256

not es to pag es 42–43

32. Pierroberto Scaramella, Le lettere della Congregazione del Sant’Ufficio ai tribunali di fede di Napoli 1563–1625 (Triest: Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2001), 351. Borghese was already acting as Santoro’s subsitute on 13 January 1601 (ACDFSO:DSO 1601, fo. 46r). 33. Borghese first appears as an Inquisitor on 27 June 1596 (ACDFSO:DSO 1596, fo. 210r), but I have not found the beginning of Arrigoni’s tenure. 34. ACDFSO:DSO 1597, fo. 596v; 1597–98–99, p. 577. For further cooperation between Borghese and Arrigoni, see 1597–98–99, pp. 635, 772, and 802; 1600, fo. 61v (the case of Juan Roa on the expedition of which both worked with Bellarmino); 1600–1601, fos. 29r, 91r, 96v, 340v–41r, 360r, and 360v; 1601, fos. 104v, 119v, and 241v; 1602, fo. 297v (two moments in Juan Molina’s case), etc. 35. ACDFSO:DSO 1605, fo. 291v, an unusually detailed record including the place (the pope’s apartments in the Vatican) and the name of a witness, Marcello Filonardi, the assessor. His first letter to Naples is 4 June 1605, the last 16 June 1612. Scaramella, Le lettere, 402 and 430. 36. BAV, Barb. lat. 8782, fos. 63r–v and 64r. 37. BABo, MS A. 572, fo. 376r. 38. ACDFSO:DSO 1608, pp. 244 and 251, actions of 7 and 12 June respectively. 39. DBI, resting entirely on secondary sources. He did indeed lose at least part of the office of datary but not until a year or maybe two after his alleged disgrace. He may have then been no more than pro-datary, the only title he was given already in June 1607. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fo. 149v. From the decree registers Arrigoni missed meetings from 28 December 1607 to 30 May 1608 (1608, pp. 1 and 228). 40. The ambassador first reported the loss of the datary on 15 September, mistakenly saying it would go to Millini, a claim he repeated with more confidence three months later. Francesco Contarini-doge; ASVe:SDR, f. 58, fos. 79r–v and 346v. He was wrong both about the timing and the new holder. It is possible that Arrigoni remained pro-datary, since it is otherwise hard to account for his signature on Michelangelo Seghizzi’s breve of appointment as inquisitor of Milan on 31 July 1609. ASV, Segretaria dei brevi, Reg. 446, fo. 1r. 41. Arrigoni signed many breves, e.g., ASV, Sec. Brev. Reg. 595, fos. 228r–29v. 42. According to Decio Memmoli, Vita dell’eminentissimo Signor Cardinale Gio. [sic] Garzia Mellino Romano (Rome: Giovanni Paolo Rocchetti, 1644), 27, Millini would also have held both secretaryships had it not been for his competitors’ resentment. 43. Francesco Contarini-doge; ASVe:SDR, f. 60, fos. 113r–14r; and for Gessi, see below, p. 77. 44. Francesco Contarini-doge; ASVe:SDR, f. 59, fos. 86r and 145v. 45. Ibid., fo. 100r–101r. 46. It also overlooks Paul’s extraordinary favor to Millini, who was at least as strong a Spanish partisan as Arrigoni. See below. 47. See his official announcement of the handover in a letter to the inquisitor of Bologna of 22 December 1607 in BABo, MS B 1863 G, unfoliated. He returned by 14 May 1608. In 1609 he left two months earlier on 12 October (ibid.; Giovanni Mocenigo-doge; ASVe:SDR, f. 62, fo. 59v). Luigi Firpo, “Una relazione inedita su l’Inquisizione romana,”

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 256

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 43–44

257

Rinascimento 9 (1958): 97–102, 99, and 100, noted the substitution. Arrigoni’s return to Rome in April 1608 may well be tied to Millini’s dispatch as legate to Rudolf II. See below. 48. Gaetano Moroni, Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica da S. Pietro sino ai nostri giorni (Venice: Tipografia Emiliana, 1840–61) 3A: 27–28. 49. BABo, MS B 1863 G, unfoliated. He was back in Rome by 7 January 1611, although unable to attend the Congregation because of illness. BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 24r. 50. Avviso of 3 September 1611 in ASMod:AE, 134. 51. BAV, Urb. lat. 1080, fo. 296r; ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fo. 331v. His palace was called “dell’Orologio.” J. A. F. Orbaan, ed., Documenti sul barocco in Roma, Miscellanea della R. Società di Storia Patria 6 (Rome, 1920), 242, in p.zzo Capoferrati “ad dextram relicto redeundum est in Campum Florae . . . in ruinis Theatri Pompeiani” on the street going from Palazzo Massimi “per il Paradiso” (243n); cf. the unusually precise identification of his residence in 1612 (218). Ordinarily the Inquisitors’ palaces were located only by rione. 52. BAV, Urb. lat. 1080, fo. 72r. 53. The Venetian ambassador reported on 19 May 1612 that ill health had prevented him from working with Millini. ASVe:SDR, f. 67, fo 158r. 54. BAV, Urb. lat. 1083, fos. 165r, 379r, 483v, and 539r. 55. He signed as Millino, e.g., a letter to the duke of Modena of 17 February 1618 in ASMod, Cancelleria Ducale, Carteggio con principi esteri, b. 1394/134 (Millini), unfoliated. Ludwig von Pastor based his biography of Millini almost entirely on Memmoli. Pastor, The History of the Popes, vol. 25, trans. and ed. Ernest Graf (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1937), 320–21. The date of Millini’s death is often mistakenly given in secondary sources (e.g., “Requiem”) as 2 October. His monument gives the earlier date (Vincenzo Forcella, Iscrizioni delle chiese e d’altri edificii di Roma dal secolo XI fino ai giorni nostri, 14 vols in 7 [Rome: Tip. delle scienze matematiche e fisiche, 1869–84], 1: 382, no. 1468), as do a number of avvisi (BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 II, fos. 525v, 591v, 634r–5r, and 637r–v). See also DSI 2: 1045. 56. BAV, Barb. lat. 4675, fo. 40r. 57. Nicolò Barozzi and Guglielmo Berchet, eds., Relazioni di Roma, Relazioni degli stati europei lette al Senato dagli ambasciatori veneti, ser. 3, Italia (Venice: Naratovich, 1877), 3:1, 167. 58. BAV, Barb. lat. 4676, fo. 17r–v. The anonymous commentator was forced to concede that Millini took first place among Paul V’s cardinals. 59. “Conclave dell’anno 1623 nel quale messa la prima volta in uso la Bolla della Elettione publicata da Gregorio XV. fu creato sommo Pontefice Il Card. Maffero Barberino detto Urbano VIII,” in BAV, Barb. lat. 4724, fos. 7v–8v. 60. He first appears as secretary 31 May 1613. Rotondò, “Nuovi documenti,” 191–92. 61. See the lineage in Memmoli, Mellino, 7–9. 62. http://www.romaspqr.it/ROMA/Torri/Torre_mellini.htm, accessed 3 March 2008. 63. The palace appears in the anonymous painting of Piazza Navona of ca. 1630 in the Museo di Roma at Palazzo Braschi. I am grateful to Stephanie Leone and Louise Rice for discussions of this building.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 257

8/27/12 11:46 AM

258

not es to pag e 44

64. See the Modenese ambassador’s dispatch of 2 September 1630 in ASMod, Cancelleria ducale, Ambasciatori Italia Roma, 1629–32, fo. 350v and unfoliated decypher. 65. Memmoli, Mellino, 50–52; BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 II, fos. 525v, 591v, 634r–35r and 637r–v. The notarial copy of the will is in ASR, 30 Not. Cap., Uff. 31, S. Spada, vol. 125, fo. 824v, according to Jennifer Montagu, Alessandro Algardi (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press in association with J. Paul Getty Trust, 1985), 2: 438. 66. BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 II, fo. 661r. The financial details in these reports are not always reliable. 67. Memmoli, Mellino, 59. 68. Alfonso Chacón, Vitae et res gestae pontificum romanorum et S. R. E. Cardinalium, ed. Agostino Oldoino (Rome: Filippo and Antonio De Rubeis, 1677–78), 4: cols. 404–6, incorrectly gives his birthdate as 1572. According to Memmoli, Mellino, 55, confirmed by the avviso reporting his death in BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 II, fo. 661r, he was almost sixty-seven when he died in 1629. 69. Giordano, Istruzioni generali, 1: 206–9; and for his brother Mario, see, e.g., avviso of 13 February 1630 in ASMod:AE, 137. He was probably also in the grand duke’s service. ASV, Seg. Stato, Nunz. Firenze, 14A, fo. 326v. 70. See, e.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1600, passim. Pietro was also nuncio to Spain in the early 1590s. Giordano, Istruzioni generali, 1: 206; Christoph Weber, Die päpstlichen Referendare 1566–1809: Chronologie und Prosopographie (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 2003), 2: 739. 71. http://www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1606.htm#Millini; Giordano, Istruzioni generali, 1: 206–9. The Venetian ambassador claimed Millini was related to Paul V. Francesco Contarini-doge; ASVe:SDR, f. 59, fo. 172r. 72. Forcella, Iscrizioni, 1: 382, no. 1468. 73. Emmanuele Cerchiari, Capellani Papae et Apostolicae Sedis; Auditores Causarum Sacrii Palatii Apostolici seu Sacra Romana Rota ab Origine ad Diem usque 20 Septembris 1870. Relatio Historica-Iuridica (Rome: Typis polyglottis vaticanis, 1870–1921), 3: 121, incorrectly cited as vol. 2 by Weber, Die päpstlichen Referendare, 2: 739, followed in “Requiem” (article by Wolfgang Reinhard). It was possible to acquire a law degree without studying at a university. See Paul F. Grendler, The Universities of the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002), 180–86. 74. Chacón, Vitae, 4: cols. 404–6; Memmoli, Mellino, 10, probably from his epitaph. 75. 26 June 1591, replaced 2 April 1607. Hoberg, “Antrittsdaten,” 217 and 218. The beginning of his tenure is incorrectly given as 1 February 1591 in http://www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/ bios1606.htm#Millini; Giordano, Istruzioni generali, 1: 206–9. This may be the date of the motuproprio, which is largely insignificant. 76. Giordano, Istruzioni generali, 1: 206–9. 77. Ibid. Memmoli, Mellino, 12, stressed how much the Spanish thought of him, and another commentator called him “confidentissimo” of Spain. BAV, Barb. lat. 4676, fo. 17r–v. See also BAV, Barb. lat. 4675, fo. 40r. 78. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fo. 242r.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 258

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to page 45

259

79. Millini was provided to Imola on 7 February 1607. Giordano, Istruzioni generali, 1: 207. He resigned the bishopric in 1611, and it went to a nephew in 1619. HC 4: 209. 80. He missed the Congregation’s meetings from 8 May to 13 November. ACDFSO: DSO 1608, pp. 197 and 489. For the legation, see Pastor, History of the Popes, 26: 274ff. For Millini’s time in Prague, see Memmoli, Mellino, 16–25. It was on this mission that Memmoli became Millini’s secretary (15). 81. The date of his appointment to the Holy Office is unknown but came before 19 December 1607. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fo. 274r. The Venetian ambassador made it contemporaneous with his promotion to cardinal on 15 December, adding that he would replace Arrigoni as datary. Francesco Contarini-doge; ASVe:SDR, f. 58, fo. 346v. The first point is inexact, since Millini was promoted on 11 September 1606 while in Spain, but probably true in substance, since he did not receive his title until 7 January 1608; the second is a misunderstanding of the motive for Millini’s appointment, in order to substitute for Arrigoni as secretary, not datary. 82. ACDFSO:DSO 1608, p. 60. 83. ASV, Fondo Borghese III 42b, fo. 39r. BAV, Barb. lat. 6344, fo. 19r reported that Millini went to a banquet with Barberini and Cardinal Capponi, and see fo. 116r about his attendance with Cardinal Bianchetti at the baptism of four Jews. 84. BAV, Barb. lat. 6344, fo. 210r. 85. BAV, Barb. lat. 6344, fos. 126v–27r and 140r. One of his duties was visiting the Collegio Romano, which he did religiously, the first time on 28 December 1610 (BAV, Barb. lat. 6345, fo. 3r), coming back six months later with the pope (BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 501r). Millini was careful to pass word of his appointment immediately to the powerful Cardinal d’Este. ASMod, Cancelleria Ducale, Carteggio con principi esteri, b. 1394/134 (Millini), unfoliated, letter of 14 August 1610. Rotondò, “Nuovi documenti,” 192, incorrectly says Millini wrote these letters as auditor of the Rota. They all postdate his appointment as secretary. 86. BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 499r. His brother also gained by Borghese patronage, being made captain of cavalry in Bologna. BAV, Urb. lat. 1080, fo. 397r. 87. ACDFSO:DSO 1613, p. 311. 88. F. Cerasoli, “Diario di cose romane degli anni 1614, 1615, 1616,” Studi e documenti di storia e diritto 15 (1894): 263–301, 269. 89. BAV, Urb. lat. 1080, fo. 345r (Consulta); BAV, Urb. lat. 1098 I, fo. 38r (Propaganda Fide). 90. ACDFSO:DSO 1616, pp. 377, 381, and 388. The meeting of 19 September 1619 should have been a coram but was moved to P.zza Navona where the Congregation met again the following week. 1619, pp. 337–43 and 344–48. 91. ACDFSO, St. st. N 3-f, first fascicle, fos. 3r (11 May 1624), 78r (7 June), 77r (22 June), 76r (12 July), 75r (20 July), 90r (30 August), 4r (7 October), 70r (14 November), 79r (16 November), 74r (30 November), 92r (24 January 1625), 213r (3 May), 93r (21 September), and 212r (15 November), as well as a number of others with little significant content. 92. BAV, Barb. lat. 6344, fo. 93v; BAV, Urb. lat. 1080, fo. 72r; ASVe:SDR, f. 68, fo. 185v;

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 259

8/27/12 11:46 AM

260

not es to pag es 46–47

ASVe:SDR, f. 72, fos. 209r, 263r, and 282r; ibid., fo. 231r; Cerasoli, “Diario di cose romane,” 287; ASVe:SDR, f. 96, fos. 68r and 233r; ACDFSO:DSO 1628, fos. 99v, 113v, 123v, and 205v. Georg Lutz, “Roma e il mondo germanico,” in La corte di Roma tra cinque e seicento: “Teatro” della politica europea, ed. Gianvittorio Signorotto and Maria Antonietta Visceglia (Rome: Bulzoni, 1998), 425–60, 452, calls him “perhaps the best expert” in Rome on Germany. 93. Josef Grisar, Maria Wards Institut vor römischen Kongregationen (1616–1630) (Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1966), 133n. Millini had been suspicious of Ward and her “sisters” almost from the first. Ursula Dirmeier, ed., Mary Ward und ihre Gründung: Die Quellentexte bis 1645 (Münster: Aschendorff, 2007), no. 308 and 1: 635. 94. Memmoli, Mellino, 32 and 38. 95. Ibid., 33–34. 96. Ibid., 32. 97. Thomas F. Mayer, “The Roman Inquisition’s Precept to Galileo (1616),” British Journal for the History of Science 43 (2010): 327–51. 98. Memmoli, Mellino, 54. 99. “Il mio desiderio di servire V. A. nel negotio che si è degnata di incaricarmi di nuovo così efficacimente cammina a proportione della premura, che V. A. ci ha, pottendo dire con verità, che V. A. non ha nissun servitore, che mi avanzi in questa parte. S. S.ta ha ordinato di nuovo, che si attenda con ogni diligentia all’espeditione del stesso negotio, la quale io non lassaro di sollicitare, et prego il Sig. Dio di potere dare a V. A. in questa congiontura i segni, che gli devo della mia devotione, come haveva sempre in tutto quello, che dependera dalla volonta mia.” Millini-duke of Modena, Rome, 19 January 1619 II, in ASMod, Cancelleria Ducale, Carteggio con principi esteri, b. 1394/134 (Millini), unfoliated. 100. Memmoli, Mellino, 59. See Mauro Pesce, “L’indisciplinibilità del metodo e la necessità politica della simulazione e della dissimulazione in Galilei dal 1609 al 1642,” in Disciplina del corpo, disciplina dell’anima, ed. Paolo Prodi (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1995), 151– 74; reprinted in Pesce, L’ermeneutica biblica di Galileo e le due strade della teologia cristiana (Rome: Storia e Letteratura, 2005), 197–213. 101. BAV, Vat. lat. 10945, fo. 27r, quoting decrees of 8 December 1605 and 11 February 1606. Urban VIII repeated this stricture in 1628 and allegedly again in 1630. BC, MS 2631, fo. 25; Cadène, “Collectio,” 3: 79, no. 250. “Neque commendationes eorum qui voce vel scripto instant pro expeditione quando non sint praejudicialis causis (1630, fo. 51; 1620, fo. 124).” BC, MS 2631, fo. 91r; Cadène, “Collectio,” 3: 79, no. 253, “fol. 57 1630”; and ACDFSO, St. st. E 4-b, fo. 19r, repeated in several forms. There is nothing of this in ACDFSO:DSO 1630 on fo. 51 or 57. 102. Letter of 1 February 1606. BABo, MS B 1863 G., no. 6. 103. See, e.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1628, fos. 25r and 206v; and the decree of 12 February 1628 (possibly misdated) renewing that of 27 January 1606 (the decree Arrigoni sent to Bologna), quoted in BAV, Vat. lat. 10945, fo. 27r. 104. Letters of 3 August, 10 September 1617 and 17 February, 21 April, 22 May, 2 June 1618 in ASMod, Cancelleria Ducale, Carteggio con principi esteri, b. 1394/134 (Millini), unfoliated.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 260

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 48–50

261

105. The duke was less bashful in asking for help than Millini was in agreeing to give it, probably because the rules did not bind him. See, e.g., his recommendation to Millini of Padre Michelangelo Cerri, under investigation in Reggio. Minute of letter of 14 December 1619 in ASMod, Cancelleria Ducale, Carteggio con principi esteri, b. 1394/134 (Millini), unfoliated. 106. BAV, Barb. lat. 6334, fo. 327v, another copy on fo. 333v. 107. BAV, Barb. lat. 6334, fo. 323v. The letter announced the decision not to pursue the case against Luigi Masetti, perhaps a relative of the duke’s agent with whom Millini had earlier dealt in Rome, and probably therefore reflects another recommendation. 108. ASVe:SDR, f. 72, fos. 8v–9v. 109. See A. Zanelli, “Le relazioni di Venezia e Urbano VIII durante la nunziatura di G. B. Agucchia,” Archivio veneto ser. 5, 14 (1933): 153–206 and 16 (1934): 148–269, also published in book form (Venice, 1934), passim. 110. Simeon Contarini-doge; ASVe:SDR, f. 72, fo. 183r. 111. ASVe:SDR, f. 97, fos. 16v–17v. 112. Ibid., fo. 41r. 113. ASVe:SDR, f. 97, fo. 99v. 114. Ibid., fos. 340r, 358r–59r and 373r; ASVe:SDR, f. 98, fo. 8r. 115. Memmoli, Mellino, 48. 116. Ibid., 53–54. Alessandro Gnavi, “Carriere e curia romana: L’uditorato di Rota (1472–1870),” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome 106 (1994): 161–202, 186; Cerchiari, Capellani papae, 3: 332–33. For Coccini’s pious hope, see avviso of 1 January in ASMod:AE, 139. One wonders whether there might not be a little of the fairy tale about Memmoli’s assertion, since Coccino was not made a consultor until 1628, almost at the end of Millini’s career. ACDFSO:DSO 1628, fo. 83v. Millini kept contact with the auditors by banqueting them every year. BAV, Urb. lat. 1084, fo. 64r. 117. Memmoli, Mellino, 53–54. 118. SRRD 3: 130–31 and 177–78; 2: 30–31, 81–82, 91. 119. Ettore Dezza, Accusa e inquisizione dal diritto comune ai codici moderni, vol. 1 (no more published) (Milan: Giuffré, 1989), 65–69. 120. Decisiones sacrae rotae romanae coram Eminentissimo Cardinali Millino . . . ad ill.mum nobilissimumque virum dominum Don Alphonso dela Torre et Verna, ed. Giovanni Paolo Rocchetti (Venice: Guerigli, 1649). 121. All the twenty-nine decisions I checked are also in the manuscript collections of Rota decisions in BAV, Barb. lat. 1516, 1518, 1519, 1537. 122. Memmoli, Mellino, 60, 62. 123. Little is otherwise known of Millini’s patronage, which means he does not compare well to Arrigoni, for example. Memmoli claimed that his uncle out of modesty refused permission for his arms to appear on Della vita, chiesa e reliquie de’ Santi quattro coronati (Rome: Luigi Grignani, 1628; IT\ICCU\RMLE\020082); I used the reprint (Rome: Niccolò and Marco Pagliarini, 1757), iii. One wonders whether he deliberately chose a vigna on Monte Mario to avoid the conspicuous artistic consumption in Frascati, on the Quirinal or even on the Janiculum.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 261

8/27/12 11:46 AM

262

not es to pag es 50–51

124. [Decio Memmoli], Della vita, 17–18; see also Memmoli, Mellino, 30; Odoardo H. Giglioli, Giovanni di San Giovanni (Giovanni Mannozzi), 1592–1636 (Florence: n.p., 1949), 57–58, drawing on Memmoli’s book. For the frescoes, since restored, see plates XXXVII–XLVI. 125. Giglioli, Giovanni di San Giovanni, 56–57. 126. Rudolf Wittkower, Art and Architecture in Italy, 1600–1750, rev. Joseph Connors and Jennifer Montagu (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1999), 89; Oreste Ferrari and Serenità Papaldo, Le sculture del seicento a Roma (Rome: U. Bozzi, 1999), 316; Montagu, Alessandro Algardi, 2: 437–38, dates it 1637. 127. See the elogium to “Urbani VII consanguinei sui” beneath Verallo’s bust in Santo Agostino. Ferrari and Papaldo, Le sculture, 12. 128. Orbaan, Documenti, 129 and 130. Verallo ended up buying Palazzo Giustini in Piazza Colonna on the site where the Galleria Sordi now is. BAV, Barb. lat. 6344, fo. 39r. See Howard Hibbard, “Della Porta on Roman Architects,” Burlington Magazine 109 (1967): 713–14, 713. For his dates see http://www2.hu-berlin.de/requiem/db/ suche.php?function=p_ausgabe&kaID=223 (1566), http://moro.imss.fi.it/lettura/Lettura WEB.DLL?AZIONE=UNITA&TESTO=Eb3&PARAM=1549–566333–50540&VOL= 20&RADIO=B (1570), both accessed 5 March 2009. 129. http://www2.hu-berlin.de/requiem/db/suche.php?function=p_ausgabe&kaID=223 (1566) and http://moro.imss.fi.it/lettura/LetturaWEB.DLL?AZIONE=UNITA&TESTO= Eb3&PARAM=1549–566333–50540&VOL=20&RADIO=B, both accessed 5 March 2009; Giordano, Istruzioni generali, 1: 229–30; Bruno Katterbach, Referendarii utriusque signaturae a Martino V ad Clementem IX et praelati signaturae supplicationum a Martino V ad Leonem XIII, Studi e Testi 55 (Vatican City: Biblioteca apostolica vaticana, 1931), 229 (referendary 1594–1603). 130. ACDFSO:DSO 1600–1601, fo. 78r–v, 8 June 1600; 1604–5 Copia, p. 764, 23 July 1605. 131. HC 3: 11; ACDFSO:DSO 1609, pp. 81–82. 132. BAV, Barb. lat. 6344, fo. 102r. 133. For his appointment, see ACDFSO:DSO 1609, pp. 81–82. An avviso of 31 October 1615 said he had been made secretary. BAV, Urb. lat. 1083, fo. 539. He had missed every meeting in that month but one (1615, pp. 471–99), and in 1616 he missed five more at the end of January and early February (1616, pp. 44–71). See also ASVe:SDR, f. 74, fo. 256v; BAV, Urb. lat. 1084, fo. 64r. He signed letters concerning Galileo in November 1615. Cioni, Documenti Galileiani, no. VIII; EN 20: no. 1140bis. 134. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 165. 135. E.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1609, p. 345; 1610–1611, fos. 80v, 138v, 218r, and 226r. 136. He is identified as the Franciscan’s protector in two breves of 1618. ASV, Segretaria dei brevi, Reg. 948, fos. 191r and 196r. For Ireland, see ACDFSO:DSO 1617, p. 162. 137. BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 558r; ASVe:SDR, f. 71, fo. 274r. 138. BAV, Urb. lat. 1080, fo. 357r and fo. 604v (for 3rd Advent). See also BAV, Barb. lat. 6344, fo. 65r.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 262

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 51–52

263

139. Maria Barbara Guerrieri Borsoi, “I restauri romani promossi dal cardinale Fabrizio Veralli in Sant’Agnese e Santa Costanza e la Cappella in Sant’Agostino,” Bollettino d’Arte 137–38 (July–December 2006): 77–100. 140. He had enough social cachet to associate with the duchess of Acquasparta, Federico Cesi’s mother. BAV, Urb. lat. 1080, fo. 53v. 141. http://moro.imss.fi.it/lettura/LetturaWEB.DLL?AZIONE=UNITA&TESTO= Eb3&PARAM= 250–327565–30131&VOL=20, accessed 5 March 2009. 142. “Requiem.” 143. He arrived on 27 June and was added to the Congregation on 21 July. Cerasoli, “Diario di cose romane,” 290; ACDFSO:DSO 1615, 351. Probably misreading the entry in EN 20: s.n., DBI, followed by “Requiem,” incorrectly gives 30 June as the date of the second event. 144. Sergio M. Pagano, ed., I documenti vaticani del processo di Galileo Galilei (1611– 1741): Nuova edizione accresciuta, rivista e annotata, Collectanea Archivi Vaticani 69 (Vatican City: Archivio Vaticano, 2009), 68. 145. “Requiem.” 146. Klaus Jaitner, ed., Die Hauptinstruktionen Gregors XV. für die Nuntien und Gesandten an den Europäischen Fürstenhöfen 1621–1623 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1997), 2: 447 and 1: 447. 147. A. Enzo Baldini, Puntigli spagnoleschi e intrighi politici nella Roma di Clemente VIII: Girolamo Frachetta e la sua relazione del 1603 sui cardinali (Milan: Franco Angeli, 1981), 135. The first death date is from his monument (Forcella, Iscrizioni, 4: 51, no. 122); the second in ACDFSO:DSO 1629, fo. 133v, an avviso in BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 II, fo. 464v, and HC 4: 4. 148. http://www.fraticappuccini.org/pubblicazioni/notiziario_frati/2008_04.pdf, accessed 10 May 2009. 149. See, e.g., the nuncio’s cypher of 16 September 1602 about the close ties between Bandini and the grand duke. ASV, Seg. Stato, Nunz. Firenze, 14, fo. 292r, decypher in 14A, fo. 335r, wrapper including date of decypher on fo. 336r. For his Francophilia, see http:// www2.hu-berlin.de/requiem/db/suche.php?function=p_ausgabe&kaID=11, accessed 10 May 2009. 150. Octavio Bandinii Oratio in obitum . . . Cosmi Medicis magni Etruriae ducis habita Romae in aede divi Joannis Baptistae, XIII. Kal. Julii (Florence: Giunti, 1574), dedicated 19 July 1574 to Bandini’s cousin Lorenzo Strozzi by the publisher. For his anti-Medici stance together with some quiet skepticism about it, see Irene Polverini Fosi, All’ombra dei Barberini: Fedeltà e servizio nella Roma barocca (Rome: Bulzoni, 1997), 39. The entry on “Requiem” treats his political attitude as fact and also mistakenly puts the oration in the Medici church of San Lorenzo in Florence, which would be utterly bizarre. 151. DBI 5: 718 records the fact but not the date. Antonio Favaro assigned it to 1579. http://moro.imss.fi.itlettura/LetturaWEB.DLL?AZIONE=UNITA&TESTO=Eb3&PAR AM=144–305470 28132&VOL=20&RADIO=B, accessed 20 May 2009. “Requiem” gives both DBI and 1579 without a source.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 263

8/27/12 11:46 AM

264

not es to pag es 52–53

152. Katterbach, Referendarii, 157, 179, 211. 153. HC 4: 4. 154. “Requiem.” 155. Ceci, “Relatione”; BAV, Urb. lat. 837, fo. 463r–v. 156. “Requiem.” 157. Maria Teresa Fattori, Clemente VIII e il Sacro Collegio 1599–1605: Meccanismi istituzionali ed accentramento di governo (Stuttgart: Hiersemann, 2004), 94. Bandini supposedly became Cardinal Pietro’s enemy according to the nuncio in Florence, dispatch of 9 December 1602, in ASV, Seg. Stato, Nunz. Firenze, 14A, fo. 343r. This report is open to doubt, since Bandini does not seem to have suffered any consequences—unlike Bellarmino—during the last three years of Clement VIII Aldobrandini’s papacy, and in 1611 Bandini entertained Galileo in company with Aldobrandini. Galileo–Virginio Orsini, 8 April 1611. EN 11: no. 510. 158. ASVe:SDR, f. 87, fo. 470r, 3 December 1622. 159. BAV, Barb. lat. 4669, fo. 221r; BAV, Barb. lat. 4676, fo. 17r–v. According to the account of the conclave by Cardinal Antonio Caetani, Jr., many cardinals voted for Millini in order to keep Bandini out. BAV, Urb. lat. 856, fo. 18v. 160. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 235. 161. ACDFSO:DSO 1621, p. 64. 162. BAV, Urb. lat. 1098 I, fos. 11r and 38r for Propaganda Fide. 163. E.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1621, p. 258. 164. BAV, Barb. lat. 4731, fo. 797r. It predated Cardinal Cobelluzzi’s death in 1626. 165. ACDFSO:DSO 1621–1622, fo. 258v. He allegedly favored De Dominis. “Memorie intorno la vita di PP. Urbano cavate dall’originale di Mon. Herrera al quale S. Ma. le dettava,” BAV, Barb. lat. 4901, fo. 47r. 166. EN 5: 81–82, and Vincenzio Viviani’s life of Galileo. Ferdinando Flora, ed., Vincenzio Viviani, Vita di Galileo (Milan: Rizzoli, 1954), 42. 167. See, e.g., Galileo–Dini, 16 February 1615, in EN 5: 291–95. 168. EN 11: no. 510; see also nos. 513, 708, 939; and 12: nos. 1115, 1371, 1655, 1735. 169. For his vigna, see David R. Coffin, The Villa in the Life of Renaissance Rome, Princeton Monographs in Art and Archaeology (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1979), 190–92. His income is given as about 12,000 scudi per year in 1605, but only 10,000 in the following year. http://www2.hu-berlin.de/requiem/db/suche.php?function=p_ ausgabe&kaID=11, accessed 5 May 2009. In 1602, a relative left him 30,000 scudi. ASV, Seg. Stato, Nunz. Firenze, 14, fo. 240v. Among other acts of patronage, he gave the ground on which Borromini’s San Carlino was built. Orbaan, Documenti, 203. For his family chapel and funeral monument, see Maria Grazia Bernardini, “La cappella Bandini a San Silvestro al Quirinale, “ in Domenichino, ed. Claudio M. Strinati (Milan: Electa, 1996), 318–29, who notes there is no evidence Bandini was the patron of Domenichino’s work. The chapel was originally built by Bandini’s father. 170. I musici di Roma e il madrigale: Dolci affetti (1582), introduction and transcription by Nino Pirrotta; Le gioie (1589), introduction and transcription by Giuliana Gialdroni, ed.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 264

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 53–54

265

Nino Pirrotta ([Lucca]: Libreria musicale italiana, 1993); Dolci affetti: Madrigali a cinque voci de diversi eccellenti musici di Roma; Novamente ristampati. (Venice: Heirs of Girolamo Scotto, 1585). 171. Ugolino Martelli, La chiave del calendaro [sic] Gregoriano (Lyon: [François Conrardo], 1583), title page dedication and viii. Martelli claimed to have been “most lovingly and courteously received” by Bandini “in your house in Lyon the other day.” 172. Rome: Alessandro Zanetti, 1622. It is dedicated to Bandini on the title page, which has a tiny portrait of him as well as his arms. The long gap between the second and third of these titles suggests that there are more to be found. 173. The chronology of Aleandro’s career is obscure. According to Gian Vittorio Rossi, like Aleandro a member of the Academy of the Umoristi (Piera Russo, “L’Accademia degli Umoristi: Fondazione, struttuttura e leggi; Il primo decennio di attività,” Esperienze letterarie 4, 4 (1979): 47–61, 50), Aleandro became Bandini’s secretary shortly after he came to Rome and served for almost twenty years. Pinacotheca imaginum illustrium, doctrinae vel ingenii laude, virorum (Cologne or more likely Amsterdam: Josse Kalcovius, 1645–48), 1: 46. The DBI entry http://www.treccani.it/Portale/elements/categoriesItems.jsp?pathFile=/ sites/default/BancaDati/Dizionario_Biografico_degli_Italiani/VOL02/DIZIONARIO_ BIOGRAFICO_DEGLI_ITALIANI_Vol02_001119.xml, accessed 19 March 2008, claims Aleandro also served the Barberini for twenty years, which would mean his tenure began not later than 1609. This is possible, since a draft preface to Galileo’s Istoria e dimostrazioni intorno alle macchie solari appears to give the name of Bandini’s secretary in 1611 as “Omero T . . .  .” EN 5: 81–82. 174. DBI 19: 67–69. 175. Giovanni Pesaro-doge, 9 October 1631. ASVe:SDR, f. 97, fo. 104r. 176. ACDFSO:DSO 1629, fo. 171v. His breve is dated a week later. HC 4: 19, citing ASV, Segretaria dei brevi, Reg. 941, fo. 508r. 177. He was a “rigido e puntuale osservatore per se stesso delli Statuti della Religione, così era parimenti [sic] rigido con i sudditi volendo che dal suo esempio quelli si regolassero . . . pareva ch’eccedesse in troppo rigore,” and as a result the provincials “spesso” had to move his subordinates. Alberto da Santa Rufina, “Il Card. Antonio Barberini, Cappuccino, in un manoscritto del ‘600,” L’Italia Francescana 45, 46 (1970, 1971): 31–43, 98–109, 359–74, 419–35, 35. 178. Santa Rufina, “Barberini,” 98. 179. Ibid., 38–39; Andrea Nicoletti, “Della vita di papa Urbano VIII e la Guerra di Castro,” in BAV, Barb. lat. 4731, p. 589. 180. Santa Rufina, “Barberini,” 422–23. For his official acts, most of them formulaic assents to requests, see Vincenzo Criscuolo, ed., I Cappuccini e la Congregazione romana dei vescovi e regolari, vol. 8, 1624–1629, Monumenta historica ordinis minorum Capuccinorum 26 (Rome: Istituto Storico dei Cappuccini, 1999); vol. 9, 1630–1640, Monumenta historica ordinis minorum Capuccinorum 28 (Rome: Istituto Storico dei Cappuccini, 2004), ad indices. 181. “[È] stato tenuto sempre lontano dal negotio publico, ne si è astenuto di biasmare

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 265

8/27/12 11:46 AM

266

not es to pag es 54–56

publicamente alle volte l’attioni del Nepote. Non si può negare che l’intentione non sia santa, ma essendo vissuto tanto nel Claustro, quanto nel Palazzo con rigore di disciplina religiosa, ha conservato quella austerità di maniere, che in lui son veramente tanto selvaggie, che lo rendono spesso intrattabile, particolarmente quando se gli accende quel suo zelo indiscretto.” BAV, Barb. lat. 4675, fo. 70r. 182. Chacón, Vitae, 4: cols. 531–37. 183. See the abstract of his will in the anonymous life in Santa Rufina, “Barberini,” 431 and 435; Chacón, Vitae, 4: col. 536. Nicoletti apparently corrupted this into the claim that he gave Savonarola’s book to Propaganda Fide, although he may have meant a copy of the 1497 edition. BAV, Barb. lat. 4731, p. 593. The first Roman edition resulted from Barberini’s bequest. DBI. The work was not especially popular, appearing in only seven editions in the seventeenth century. Girolamo Savonarola, Prison Meditations on Psalms 51 & 31, intro., ed., and trans. John Patrick Donnelly (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1994), 22. 184. Michele Barbi, Notizia della vita e delle opere di Francesco Bracciolini (Florence: Sansoni, 1897), 100–106; DBI, which says nothing of his service with Cardinal Antonio. 185. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 152–53. 186. BAV, Barb. lat. 4731, p. 591; ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fos. 187v–88r. 187. Santa Rufina, “Barberini,” 106ff. It was on the site now occupied by a nineteenthcentury building, formerly the Casa generalizia of the Suore di Santa Maria Riparatrice. Moroni, Dizionario, 4: 109–10, also claimed that Antonio, Sr., gave the Congregation of Propaganda Fide the enormous sum of 240,000 scudi during his life and in his will. This is not as impossible as it sounds. His fellow friar (albeit Dominican) and Inquisitor Agostino Galamini may have left 100,000 scudi to the same congregation. See below. 188. The editor of the seventeenth-century life describes him as having a “carattere non bello . . . pieno di complessi” and “rigido, di un rigore quasi patalogico,” “un asceta da far paura.” Santa Rufina, “Barberini,” 32. 189. He first appears—without the usual note that he had sworn the Inquisitor’s oath—the same day Alessandro Boccabella became a qualifier, 27 November 1624. ACDFSO:DSO 1624, fo. 183v. He was provided to Senigallia 26 January 1625 and last wrote thence on 6 April 1628. He had returned to Rome permanently by 25 May. HC 4: 19; 1628, fos. 70r and 90r. Although his biographies say he stayed in his diocese straight through for varying amounts of time, he shuttled between it and Rome. 190. ACDFSO:DSO 1629, unfoliated leaves between fos. 177 and 178. See Chapter 4. 191. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 261–62. 192. Because we do not know who wrote the secretary’s letters, it is possible that it was the scribe who intensified the orders. 193. ACDFSO:DSO 1633, fo. 6r; EN 19: 281–82; Pagano, Documenti vaticani, 189. 194. Favaro dated this letter and its companion 10 January, despite two indications in the text of the correct date; cf. Cioni, Documenti Galileiani, 28–29 dated correctly. Egidi’s reply of 8 January (Pagano, Documenti vaticani, 62–63) reinforces the date of Barberini’s letter. 195. See, for example, the closing of the letter announcing Galileo’s sentence, which says: “Così dunque eseguirà.” EN 20: no. 2565bis*.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 266

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 56–57

267

196. Zdenko Šolle, Neue Gesichtspunkte zum Galilei-Prozess (mit neuen Akten aus Böhmischen Archiven), Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften PhilosophischHistorische Klasse 361 (Vienna: Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1980), 34, 38. 197. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 334. 198. Ibid., 369. 199. The end of his tenure postdates 1640, the terminus of my research. The DBI article (6: 172–76) has him in office after 1648. 200. Cf. DSI 1: 134–35. 201. See the life in the second volume of his client Nicoletti’s biography of Urban VIII in BAV, Barb. lat. 4731, p. 39, and his Jesuit biographer Agostino Oldoini in Chacón, Vitae, 4: cols. 525–30. The DBI says nothing on this score. 202. Federico Cesi-Galileo, 30 September 1623, in G. Gabrieli, “Il carteggio linceo della vecchia accademia di Federico Cesi: 1603–1630,” Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei, Memorie della Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche et Filologiche 6, 7/1–4 (1938): 1–1446 (reprinted as single vol. in 1996), 814. Many sources give the date of his admission as 1 October. 203. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 215. The ambassador added that Antonio knew nothing of the world. 204. ACDFSO:DSO 1624, fo. 86r. 205. Quoted in DBI. 206. Andreas Kraus, Das päpstliche Staatssekretariat unter Urban VIII 1623–1644, Röm­ ischer Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde and Kirchengeschichte Supplement­ heft 29 (Rome: Herder, 1964), 71–78; Nicoletti in BAV, Barb. lat. 4731, p. 597. 207. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 214. 208. He was “fascinato affatto dell’artificii di quel artificiossimo Card.le [Magalotti].” “Discorso del futuro conclave in caso che venisse a morte Urbano VIII,” in BAV, Barb. Lat. 4676, fo. 15r. 209. See the Lucchese ambassador’s dispatch of 17 March 1633. Amedeo Pellegrini, “Relazioni inedite di ambasciatori lucchesi alla corte di Roma (sec. XVI–XVII),” Studi e Documenti di Storia e Diritto 22 (1901): 181–238, 217. See also the characterization in Francesco Herrera’s notes for a life of Urban that “Ildebrandino [sic; Aldobrandini] è cupo, e Barberino finge con lui, e con Magalotti, e con altri, perche al Nipote del Papa cosi conviene.” BAV, Barb. lat. 4900, fos. 42r and 42v. For Herrera’s authorship, Kraus, Das päpstliche Staatssekretariat, 172–73. Gregorio Leti, Il nipotismo di Roma, or, the History of the Popes Nephews from the Time of Sixtus the IV to the Death of the Last Pope Alexander the VII: In Two Parts / Written Originally in Italian in the Year 1667; and Englished by W. A. [William Aglionby] (London: Printed for John Starkey, 1669), 110, stressed Barberini’s “abundance of fair promises.” 210. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 152. 211. Ibid., 263. 212. Leti, History of the Popes Nephews, 110.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 267

8/27/12 11:46 AM

268

not es to pag es 58–59

213. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 265. 214. Ibid., 331. 215. Ibid., 235–36. 216. “[L]a natura del Card.le Francesco [è] lontana da negotii, e da quelli in particolare che richiedono grand’applicatione.” “Discorso del futuro conclave in caso che venisse a morte Urbano VIII,” in BAV, Barb. lat. 4676, fo. 14v. 217. On 22 June 1633, perhaps significantly the day of Galileo’s sentencing. BAV, Barb. lat. 5628, fos 278r–79v. BAV, Barb. lat. 5626 and 5627 contain other correspondence from this congregation. 218. Avviso of 16 February 1630 in ASMod:AE, 137; see also the avviso of 6 June 1629 locating the convent “a capo le case.” BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 I, fo. 336r–v. 219. Leti rested his interpretation of Urban’s reign on the conflict among his three nephews. 220. Avviso of 18 May 1630 in ASMod:AE, 137. 221. Avviso of 7 December 1630 in ASMod:AE, 137. 222. Avvisi of 18 and 25 January 1631 in BAV, Urb. lat. 1101, fos. 56r and 70r, the second also in ASMod:AE, 138. 223. Avvisi of 25 October and 1 November 1631 II, both in ASMod:AE, 138. 224. Avviso of 11 October 1631 in ASMod:AE, 138. 225. Avvisi of 6 and 27 December 1631 in ASMod:AE, 137. 226. Avviso of 27 December 1631 in ASMod:AE, 137. Petronio, former master of the sacred palace, who had signed the suspension of Copernicus, had been “minister” of the Inquisition in Naples since 1622 and would apparently die in the post, despite increasingly desperate requests for recall. 227. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 331. 228. This was Leti’s interpretation, describing the family’s approach as sending ambassadors “d’Herode, à Pilato, da Pilato, Caifasso.” Gregorio Leti, Il nipotismo di Roma: O, vero relatione delle raggioni che muovono i pontefici, All’aggrandimento de’nipoti, Parts I [–II] (n. p.: n. p., 1667), 2: 111. 229. Avviso of 27 June 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. A year later, Ricciulli was in Rome, rumored to have great prospects as an inquisitor or nuncio. Avviso of 2 July 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139. 230. Avviso of 27 November in ASMod:AE, 138. 231. Francesco Barberini’s breve of appointment for life is dated 9 December 1633. ASV, Segretaria dei brevi, Reg. 948, fo. 277r–v, cited in Kraus, Das päpstliche Staatssekretariat, 278, with date of 1632, and 10n, from the same source with correct date. Rainer Decker, “Entstehung und Verbreitung des römischen Hexenprozeininstruktionen” in Hubert Wolf et al., eds., Inquisition, Index, Zensur: Wissenkulturen der Neuzeit in Widerstreit (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2001), 159–76, 162, mistakenly makes him secretary in 1628, citing a letter in the register volume BAV, Barb. lat. 6336, fos. 255v–56r, which does not identify the officeholder. 232. For the vice-chancellorship, granted 24 November and confirmed 9 December

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 268

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 59–60

269

1632, see ASV, Segretaria dei brevi, Reg. 948, fos. 207r–8r and 209r–10r. At more or less the same time he also became archpriest of San Pietro (3 October 1633; ibid., fos. 279r–v, etc.) and legate of Urbino (1 January 1633; ibid., fos. 265r–66r, etc.). Barberini had been acting as vice-chancellor after Cardinal Ludovisi’s departure for Bologna in 1628. BAV, Urb. lat. 1098 II, fo. 534r. 233. I have examined several hundred volumes of diplomatic correspondence in the MSS Barberiniani latini, and there are at least several hundred more, to judge from the “Inventarium librorum latinorum MSS. Bibliothecae Barberinae redactum et digestum a. D. Sancte Pieralisi,” in the BAV, Sala Manoscritti, Etichette Rosse 335–55 with an unnumbered appendix volume by Alessandro Pieralisi, and the appendix “Inventario dei carteggi diplomatici” covering Barb. lat. 6559–9807 but not the codices above that number, together with other works, especially the list in Joseph Semmler, “Beiträge zum Aufbau des päpstlichen Staatssekretariat unter Paul V (1605–1621),” Römische Quartalschrift 54 (1959): 40–80, 12–38. 234. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 371. 235. Ibid., 3:2, 34 and 26, for the unimportance of all congregations. 236. Serious work is only just beginning. See Peter Rietbergen, Power and Religion in Baroque Rome: Barberini Cultural Policies (Boston: Brill, 2006); and many of the essays in Lorenza Mochi Onori, Sebastian Schutze, and Francesco Solinas, eds., I Barberini e la cultura europea del Seicento: Atti del Convegno internazionale (7–11 dicembre 2004) (Rome: De Luca, 2008). 237. For both, see Chapter 4 below. 238. DBI 6: 172. 239. E.g., avvisi of 22 February and 5 July 1631 in ASMod:AE, 138. For the usual attribution, see Patricia Waddy, Seventeenth-Century Roman Palaces: Use and the Art of the Plan (New York: Architectural History Foundation and Cambridge University Press, 1990), 283–90. 240. The dedication of the apparently unique complete copy in BAV, Barb. lat. 4615 is dated 10 January 1637. John Tedeschi, The Prosecution of Heresy: Collected Studies on the Inquisition in Early Modern Italy (Binghamton, N.Y.: MRTS, 1991), 231–32. There are other pieces in BAV, Barb. lat. 4544, also dedicated to Barberini and with Deodato’s autograph signature, and in BAV, Barb. lat. 5317. Andrea Errera, Processus in causa fidei: L’evoluzione dei manuali inquisitoriali nei secoli XVI–XVIII e il manuale inedito di un inquisitore perugino (Bologna: Monduzzi, 2000), 269. Unfortunately, it is not in the Vatican Film Library, and the closure of the real Vatican Library made it impossible to consult it. Francesco’s other Inquisition materials are BAV, Barb. lat. 1369 (a decree register that may have come from Marcello Filonardi), 1502 (“Decreta generalia Sancti Officii et non nullae [sic] literae apostolicae non impressae”), and 6334 (“Registro delle lettere della sacra congregatione scritte a diversi l’anno 1626”). See P. H. Jobe, “Inquisitorial Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana: A Preliminary Handlist,” in The Inquisition in Early Modern Europe, ed. G. Henningsen and J. Tedeschi (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1986), 33–53, 40, 40–41, 42. In fact, 1502 has no indication of provenance. Jobe did her work mainly in the Vatican Film Library, making some of the other descriptions in need of amendment.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 269

8/27/12 11:46 AM

270

not es to pag es 60–62

241. For a list of most of the dedications of printed books to Barberini, see Chacón, Vitae, 4: cols. 525–30, with additions in Pastor, History of the Popes, 29: 577. Some of the manuscript treatises addressed to him, taken from Pieralisi’s catalogue, include (numbers only): BAV, Barb. lat. 274, 299, 306, 932–33, 1233, 1313, 1876, 1895, 3305. Given their subject matter, a number of others may well have been sent to the cardinal, e.g., 1319 on the vice-chancellor’s office, and therefore perhaps its companions in 1320 and 1321 by the same author on similar subjects. 242. Herman H. Schwedt, “Sfondrati, Paolo Emilio,” http://www.bautz.de/bbkl/s/s3/ sfondrati_p_c.shtml, accessed 15 May 2008. 243. Pagano, Documenti vaticani, 68. 244. ACDFSO:DSO 1600–1601, fo. 23r. Schwedt, “Sfondrati,” says he became an Inquisitor already in 1591. “Requiem” gives an “as of ” date of August 1606, citing ASV, Fondo Borghese III 42b, fo. 145r, the printed citation of the Venetian priest Giovanni Marsilio. The chaos of the decree registers before 1600 leaves in doubt the actual date of Sfondrato’s appointment. For the Index, see Gigliola Fragnito, La Bibbia al rogo: La censura ecclesiastica e i volgarizzamenti della scrittura (1471–1605) (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1997), 221. His life dates are precisely known from his funeral monument in his titular church of Santa Cecilia in Trastevere, which records that he died at the age of 57 years, 10 months, and 25 days. 245. He appears as a consultor as of 4 June 1596, still as of January 1602. ACDFSO:DSO 1596, fo. 195v; 1602, fo. 276v. 246. ACDFSO:DSO 1604–1605, fo. 277v. Ceci, “Relatione”; 1604–1605, fo. 461v. Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 287, has no entry for Taverna’s appointment. 247. ACDFSO:DSO Copia 1604–5 1604–1605, pp. 655 and 660. 248. His breve of appointment is dated 24 May 1605 (ASV, Segretaria dei brevi, Reg. 592, fo. 25r–v). “Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church,” http://www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/ bios1604.htm#Taverna, accessed 23 June 2008, gives the date as 24 November 1604 and says he kept the post until 23 October 1606. For his reappearance, see ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fo. 3r. 249. “Requiem.” 250. E. Carusi, “Nuovi documenti sui processi di Tommaso Campanella,” Giornale critico della filosofia italiana 8 (1927): 321–59, 331. He was still a consultor in mid–1596. ACDFSO:DSO 1596, fo. 195v. 251. Ceci, “Relatione,” fo. 431r. 252. “Requiem.” 253. ACDFSO:DSO 1609, pp. 352 and 504; 1610–1611, fos. 150v–151ar; 1610–1611, fo. 226r; 1612, pp. 45, 51, and 198; 1613, p. 390. He rented Palazzo Colonna from 1612 until he left Rome. Orbaan, Documenti, 206; BAV, Urb. lat. 1084, fo. 37r. For Frascati, see Orbaan, Documenti, 219–20. Allegedly Borghese gave Taverna his villa, which Taverna then sold for 20,000 scudi. Cerasoli, “Diario di cose romane,” 274. 254. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fos. 59v–60r and 61r. 255. Ibid., fos. 218r and 226r. 256. ACDFSO:DSO 1612, p. 15.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 270

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 62–63

271

257. ACDFSO:DSO 1608, pp. 386 and 477. The book does not appear in SC Indicis in the ACDF. 258. ACDFSO:DSO 1612, p. 295. 259. ASVe:SDR, f. 68, fo. 187r. He did not return until 6 June. BAV, Urb. lat. 1081, fo. 233v. 260. ACDFSO:DSO 1615, p. 199. 261. BAV, Urb. lat. 1084, fo. 52v. 262. Avviso of 28 May in BAV, Urb. lat. 1084, fo. 207r; ACDFSO:DSO 1617, p. 148. 263. E.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1619, p. 346. 264. His middle name is Emilio, not Camillo, as it is sometimes given. 265. Ceci, “Relatione,” fo. 421r; BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 793r; “Cardinals,” http:// www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1590.htm#Sfondrato, accessed 3 July 2008, for Santa Maria. 266. Ceci, “Relatione,” fo. 421r. Then known as Palazzo Acquaviva, his last residence is now Palazzo Sacchetti, via Giulia no. 66. BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 558v; Orbaan, Documenti, 224. For his patronage of Stefano Maderna, sculptor of the realistically martyred Santa Cecilia, which Sfondrato incorporated into one of his two funeral monuments in Santa Cecilia, see Antonia Nava Cellini, “Stefano Maderno, F. Vanni e G. Reni a S. Cecilia in Trastevere,” Paragone 20 (1969): 18–41. He also paid for the gilded roof of Santa Maria Nova. Orbaan, Documenti, 231. For some of his other patronage, see the bibliography in Schwedt, “Sfondrati.” 267. BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 825r; Urb. lat. 1080, fo. 84r. 268. Schwedt, “Sfondrati”; “Requiem.” 269. Ceci, “Relatione,” fo. 421r. 270. Simeon Contarini-doge; ASVe:SDR, f. 72, fos. 193v–194r. 271. Ibid., fos. 246v–247r. 272. Pastor, History of the Popes, 25: 32. 273. He left for his see in late October 1607 and returned in 1611, perhaps not until early summer. Francesco Contarini-doge; ASVe:SDR, f. 58, fo. 185v; BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fos. 93v and 588v. He resigned Cremona in July 1610. BAV, Barb. lat. 6344, fos. 108r and 112r; and see “Requiem,” citing a number of documents in ASV, Fondo Borghese III. Both Schwedt, “Sfondrati” and “Cardinals” incorrectly say he did not reside in Cremona, but the evidence especially of the decree registers demonstrates he did. 274. BAV, Barb. lat. 6344, fos. 89r and 118r. 275. BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 588v. 276. Avviso of 5 November 1611 in ASMod:AE, 134. 277. ASVe:SDR, f. 70, fo. 151r–v; BAV, Urb. lat. 1081, fo. 262v. Peter Godman, The Saint as Censor: Robert Bellarmine Between Inquisition and Index (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 174, quotes Sfondrato’s letter to Bellarmino of 24 February 1615 as expressing his “disenchantment” with the Index, but this is not quite what Sfondrato said; he wrote that no congregation was worth staying in Rome to attend (“la isperienza mi ha mostrato che si fa tanto poco in questa Congregatione dell’Indice per varii rispetti . . . che mi pare al fine che né questa né altra Congregatione mi habbia da levare, per quanto si può, dalla residenza”), emphasis added.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 271

8/27/12 11:46 AM

272

not es to pag es 63–64

278. Avviso of 13 February 1616 in ASMod:AE, 134. 279. Basic biographical information drawn from Silvano Giordano, ed., Istruzioni di Filippo III ai suoi ambasciatori a Roma 1598–1621, Pubblicazioni degli Archivi di Stato 45 (Rome: Ministero per i beni e le attività culturali, 2006), 93, http://www2.hu-berlin.de/ requiem/db/suche.php?function=p_ausgabe&kaID=322, accessed 4 August 2008. 280. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fo. 17v. “Requiem” misdates this event to 2 January. 281. ACDFSO:DSO 1616, pp. 494–95. Giordano, Istruzioni, 93, says he did not become viceroy until 1620, giving 16 December as the date he took possession. 282. ASV, Segretaria dei brevi, Reg. Brev. 722, fo. 158 acc. Indice 767 II, fo. 353v, dated February 1627; ACDFSO:DSO 1627, fo. 147r. 283. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 113v. 284. Henry Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1998), 116. He is also supposed to have issued an Index as viceroy of Naples, but I have not confirmed this. 285. Kamen, The Spanish Inquisition, 140. 286. “Requiem.” 287. ACDFSO:DSO 1613, p. 457; an avviso of 22 July 1615 in Orbaan, Documenti, 234. 288. I have not been able to find either the MS biography (probably a funeral oration) by A. da Forlí, “Relatione della vita, bontà e merito dell. Em.mo S. Card. Araceli” (18 February 1640), which is probably in Bologna somewhere to judge from the citation in Alfred Baudrillart et al., eds., Dictionnaire d’histoire et de geographie ecclésiastique (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1912–), 19: cols. 703–6, or the doctoral thesis by R. Mei-Gentilucci, “Il domenicano A. Galamini, cardinale d’Aracoeli,” summarized by I. Taurisano in Memorie domenicane 70 (1953): 46–51, who gives no location (it is most likely to have been done for the Pontificia Università S. Tommaso d’Aquino), or to see another life by Paolo da Scio, “Vita del card. Agostino Galamini,” in Ravenna, Bib. Classense, MS 648, written in 1655. The day of Galamini’s death is undocumented, except that it must postdate a codicil to his will of 25 August 1639 (BAV, Barb. lat. 6021, fo. 64v) but was probably still in that year, since his will was printed then, Testamento della b. m. dell’eminentiss. e reverendiss. F. Agostino della s.r. chiesa card. d’Araceli vescovo di Osimo (Rome: Propaganda Fide, 1639; IT\ICCU\RMLE\025138, a copy in the Alessandrina). Sources disagree about the date of his birth and his age at death. HC 4: 12 gives eighty-six and 1639; Zedler (quoted in “Cardinals,” http://www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1611.htm#Galamini, accessed 5 June 2008), ninety and 1639; Chacón, Vitae, 4: cols. 428–29, eighty-three, after twenty-eight years as a cardinal, which would be 1639 and give a birthdate of 1556; and QE 2:1: 364a gives 1562 and refers to his will for his death. “Requiem” gives 1551 for his birth and the impossible death date of 1623. I have used the manuscript of his will in BAV, Barb. lat. 6021, fos. 43v–70r. 289. Baudrillart et al., ed., Dictionnaire, 19: cols. 703–6. 290. Vincenzo Maria Fontana, Sacrum theatrum dominicanum (Rome: Niccolò Angelo Tinassi, 1656), 451. His will clinches both questions of where he was professed and where he did his novitiate. He left the house at Faenza a number of religious paintings

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 272

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 65–66

273

and his library. He also seems to have done business with Cardinal Ginetti; at least he bequeathed several luoghi on monti in Velletri, Ginetti’s hometown. BAV, Barb. lat. 6021, fos. 47r­–v and 48v–49r. 291. Fontana, Sacrum theatrum domincanum and ADCFSO:DSO 1597–98–99, p. 854. 292. http://www.storiadimilano.it/Repertori/cronologia_streghe.htm, accessed 3 June 2008. 293. He took his oath 28 October 1604. ACDFSO:DSO Copia 1604–1605, p. 444. 294. He was master as of 17 October 1607 (ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fos. 230r and 418v) until 24 May 1608, although he continued to attend Inquisition meetings after he became general, as was normal if the general were in Rome (ACDFSO:DSO 1608, p. 224). For the generalate, Francesco Contarini-doge, 24 May 1608; ASVe:SDR, f. 59, fo. 224r. 295. Fontana, Sacrum theatrum dominicanum, 451. 296. BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fos. 570v and 572r; HC 4: 12. 297. BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 710r. 298. Ibid., fo. 748v. 299. Ibid., fos. 763v and 846v. 300. BAV, Barb. lat. 6021, fo. 43v. 301. “Requiem.” 302. “Requiem,” quoting ASR, FSV 463, Cap. 1, fo. 2r and BAV, Barb. lat. 6021, fo. 63v, the second of which, however, says nothing about the amount Propaganda received. 303. E.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1616, p. 71; 1617, p. 169. 304. ACDFSO:DSO 1615, p. 427; 1616, p. 237. 305. ACDFSO:DSO 1615, p. 280; 1619, p. 147, printed in Leen Spruit, “Cremonini nelle carte del Sant’Uffizio romano,” in Cesare Cremonini: Aspetti del pensiero e scritti, ed. E. Riondato and Antonino Poppi (Padua: Academia Galileiana, 2000), 193–204, 201, but with errors: “postscriptam” for “praescriptam,” and the inquisitor of Venice inserted in the margin is omitted. 306. Spruit, “Cremonini,” 200. 307. ACDFSO:DSO 1619, pp. 207 and 277. 308. ACDFSO:DSO 1621, p. 44 (most meetings around the time of the conclave of Gregory XV); 1623, pp. 254, 293 (1623, more sporadically between 30 August and 19 October at the time of Urban’s election). For Osimo, “Requiem”; HC 4: 104. 309. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 167–68. He was a “huomo di gran bontà, e di lettere scholastiche ma che nel maneggio delli carichi della sua religione essendosi mostrato alquanto rigido, e terribile, e d’animo affettionato a Francesi.” BAV, Barb. lat. 4676, fos. 19v–20r. 310. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma,. 3:1, 243. In his report on Urban VIII’s conclave, Cardinal Antonio Caetani, Jr., noted that the Spanish feared Galamini would be another Sixtus V. BAV, Urb. lat. 856, fos 1r–50v, 4v. In the related text in BAV, Barb. Lat. 4724, fo. 12r this fear is transferred to Centini. 311. BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 577v. 312. BAV, Barb. lat. 5340, fo. 41v.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 273

8/27/12 11:46 AM

274

not es to pag es 66–67

313. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 166. The papal prognostication in BAV, Barb. Lat. 4676, fos. 20v–21r used similar language. 314. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 242. Yet he seems not to have attended Holy Office meetings during the conclave. See below. 315. BAV, Barb. Lat. 4724, fo. 6r. “Requiem” says Sixtus and his grandnephew Cardinal Montalto supported Centini in his early days, and this is possible. They all came from the Marches. 316. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 274. 317. Felice Ciatti, “Annales Ordinis Fratrum Minorum Conv.” (Arch. dei SS. 12 Apostoli, cod. 106), fo. 36, cited in F. A. Benoffi, “Memorie minoritiche dal 1560 al 1776,” Miscellanea Franciscana 33 (1933): 75–106, 98n. 318. Daniele Bartoli, Della Vita di Roberto Cardinal Bellarmino (Rome: Niccolò Angelo Tinassi, 1678), 479, citing Centini’s deposition in Bellarmino’s process for canonization. Giuseppe Fabiani, “Il Cardinale Felice Centini, O.F.M. Conv. († 1641) e i Nipoti Maurizio, O.F.M. Conv. e Giacinto,” Miscellanea francescana 1 (1957): 558–95, 562, cites a few testimonials to Centini’s learning (one from a student, another from a good friend in Ascoli) and rightly says there is room for uncertainty about how good a theologian he was. Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 265, ignored Fabiani’s caution and made Centini an important Scotist. 319. The need to fill the Conventual Franciscan slot was noted on 30 April. Centini was not deputized until 13 August and swore his oath six days later. ACDFSO:DSO 1608–1609, fo. 339v; 1609, pp. 314 and 335. 320. http://www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1611.htm#Centini, accessed 5 March 2008. His successor as proctor also became a consultor (ACDFSO:DSO 1614, p. 59), but such does not appear to be a regular occurrence. 321. Marzari’s name is corrected to Lelio from Alessandro in ACDFSO:DSO 1608– 1609, fo. 481r, but not 1609, p. 473. 322. ASVe:SDR, f. 68, fo. 38v. 323. Avviso of 23 June 1612 in BAV, Urb. lat. 1080, fo. 416r–v. 324. See the correspondence in BAV, Barb. Lat. 8704, at least eighty-two letters to Maffeo Barberini, his brother Carlo, and other Barberini beginning in 1611; and in Barb. Lat. 8782, fos. 42r–61r. Most of these are patronage letters. 325. Jeanne Bignami-Odier, La Bibliothèque Vaticane de Sixte IV à Pie XI, Studi e Testi 272 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1973), 101; Giacinto Cantalamessa Carboni, Memorie intorno i letterati e gli artisti della città di Ascoli nel Piceno (Ascoli: Luigi Cardi, 1830), 124, citing Fabbri’s Disputationes theologicae librum primum (Venice: Bartolomeo Ginami, 1619). 326. BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fos. 587v, 589r, 605r, 650r. 327. “Requiem.” 328. BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 671v. 329. BAV, Urb. lat. 1080, fo. 633r; 1081, fo. 263r. 330. He was licensed to go to Macerata before 5 July 1614. ASVe:SDR, f. 71, fo. 179r. It is possible that this was a species of banishment, since he had already been ejected from his

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 274

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 67–68

275

rooms in the papal palace in January. ASVe:SDR, f. 70, fo. 267r. He may still have been in Cardinal Baronio’s former suite in the Tor dei Venti where he was originally lodged. BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 724r. Not much is known of his housing otherwise except that he rented Palazzo Maffei “sotto M. Cavallo” [the Quirinal] in 1612 and an Aldobrandini palace “Delle Cornacchie” in 1633. BAV, Urb. lat. 1083, fo. 296r; Barb. lat. 6353, fo. 126v. The second may have been in via Pozzo delle Cornacchie, because there was an Aldobrandini palazzo between “Puteus Cornicum” and the Pantheon, newly bought in 1596 from Cardinal Gesualdo. Orbaan, Documenti, 65n. The first has not been identified. 331. http://193.205.127.54/SebinaOpac/Opac?action=documentview&sessID= 03C51 5E7DF975A2F0D7B88D1FF50C964@125c004&docID=1, a photocopy in the Biblioteca Comunale in Macerata; no original has yet been located. 332. Fabiani, “Centini,” 567. 333. ACDFSO:DSO 1615, p. 499; and attendance lists compiled by the author. 334. Cerasoli, “Diario di cose romane,” 275. He is documented on Bishops and Regulars in 1617. “Requiem.” He is also supposed to have been a member of the Congregation of the Index. Ibid. 335. ACDFSO:DSO 1621, pp. 44ff.; 1623, p. 247; 1624, fo. 67r. 336. ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 28r; 1626, fo. 93r. 337. ASVe:SDR, f. 107, fo. 222r; BAV, Barb. lat. 6353, fo. 126v; ACDFSO:DSO 1634, fo. 53v. 338. Borja had done Centini other favors, including recommending his nephew Giacinto for a papal governorship in 1620 and a post in Naples in 1621. “Requiem.” 339. Avviso of 3 December 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139. 340. Avviso of 14 May 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139. 341. See the correspondence in BAV, Barb. Lat. 8704, beginning on fo. 107r. It may be that the two had cooperated in the major case of Antonio Labia. See avvisi of 20 and 27 August 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139. 342. Avviso of 17 September in ASMod:AE, 139. 343. Far the best study is Fiorenza Rangoni, Frà Desiderio Scaglia Cardinale di Cremona: Un collezionista inquisitore nella Roma del seicento (Rome: Self-published, 2008). I am grateful to the author for sending me a copy. She gives his birthdate as 1568. See also DSI 3: 1390–91. 344. A local Brescian historian, Mons. Fé, quoting a seventeenth-century Brescian historian, Ottavio Rossi, claimed to be able to name the spot—Vicolo s. Paolo no. 288— where Scaglia was born to a barber and a laundress. Agostino Zanelli, “Di alcune controversie tra la Repubblica di Venezie e il Sant’Officio nei primi anni del pontificato di Urbano VIII,” Archivio veneto ser. 5, 6 (1929): 186–235, 197n, quoting Storia, tradizione e arte nelle vie di Brescia, 6, 31–32. The story also appears in Teodoro Amayden’s typically scurrilous account. Other sources claim his father was noble. His nephew Deodato’s father, Scaglia’s father’s brother, seems to have been a long-distance merchant. http://www2.hu-berlin.de/ requiem/db/suche.php?function=p_ausgabe&kaID=304, accessed 23 July 2008; for the father’s brother, see Brendan Dooley, Morandi’s Last Prophecy and the End of Renaissance

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 275

8/27/12 11:46 AM

276

not es to pag es 68–69

Politics (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2002), 130–31, who mistakenly applies the information to Scaglia himself instead of his nephew. He is supposed to have been a relative both of the Dominican cardinal Girolamo Bernerio and of Scipione Cobelluzzi, who was secretary of the breves, a member of Paul V’s household, and made a cardinal shortly before Scaglia arrived; both were also Inquisitors. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Girolamo_Bernerio; http://www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1621.htm#Scaglia, both accessed 3 November 2008. I have not been able to confirm either claim. On geographical grounds, they seem unlikely, since Cobelluzzi was from Viterbo and Bernerio from Ascoli Piceno. A blood relation between Cobelluzzi and Bernerio is plausible; the first certainly served as the second’s auditor. DBI 26: 433. 345. “De Brixia,” e.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1616, p. 429; 1606–1607, fo. 253r; 1607, fos. 42v and 196r. His nephew Deodato was certainly from Brescia. HC 4: 238. 346. He is first given that title on 4 March. ACDFSO:DSO 1621, p. 61. He became a Cremonese in the “official” biography in Chacón, Vitae, 4: cols. 460–61. Scaglia’s success in having himself called Cardinal Cremona has caused some confusion with Pietro Campora, the bishop of Cremona from 1621 to 1643, a cardinal from late 1616, and also an Inquisitor from 6 May 1620 (1620, pp. 160–61). HC 4: 13. I have never seen Campora called Cardinal Cremona. 347. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 170. 348. Rangoni, Scaglia, 65–68. 349. Ibid., 13n, citing a chronicle and a local historian. 350. BAV, Urb. lat. 856, fo. 5r–v. 351. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 242; “Conclave dell’anno 1623 nel quale messa la prima volta in uso la Bolla della Elettione publicata da Gregorio XV. fu creato sommo Pontefice Il Card. Maffeo Barberino detto Urbano VIII,” in BAV, Barb. lat. 4724, fo. 8v. He was promoted 11 January 1621 and joined the Congregation on 17 February. HC 4: 14; ACDFSO:DSO 1621, p. 44. See also Rangoni, Scaglia, 71–72, who, however, misreads an avviso to give Scaglia the nonexistent post of “teologo del Sant’Uffizio.” 352. Letter of 15 October 1616, printed in Rangoni, Scaglia, 263. He made good on his promise, as manifested in numerous other letters to Borromeo, e.g., those on 264. 353. See the letters of 15 May 1621 and after about Borromeo’s librarian in Rangoni, Scaglia, 265–67. 354. BAV, Barb. lat. 5340, fos. 44v–45r, heeded advice to Louis XII about Rome at the beginning of Urban’s reign; BAV, Barb. lat. 4675, fo. 84r. A Venetian relazione of 1625 made similar charges. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 242. According to BAV, Barb. Lat. 4724, fo. 67v, there was indeed one ballot missing the first time Urban was elected, which led him to demand a new vote. Amayden included the tale of the swallowing in his brief life of Scaglia. Rangoni, Scaglia, 297. 355. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 275. 356. BAV, Barb. 4676, fos. 21v–22r. 357. P. H. Criado, “Los agentes de la Inquisición española en Roma durante el siglo XVII,” in J. P. Villanueva, ed., La Inquisición española: Nueva visión, nuevos horizontos

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 276

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 69–70

277

(Madrid: Siglo Veintiuno de España, 1980), 243–56, 254, quoted in Tedeschi, Prosecution of Heresy, 212. 358. Fiorenza Rangoni, “‘In communis vita splendidus et munificus’: La collezione di dipinti del cardinale di Cremona Desiderio Scaglia,” Paragone Arte 52, 3rd ser. 35 (611) (2001): 47–100. 359. Avviso of 3 July 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. 360. See the poem dedicated to Urban in BAV, Barb. lat. 2081, fo. 39r, printed in Rangoni, Scaglia, 296. 361. For his denunciation for writing madrigals, see Chapter 4. 362. “Affetto estatico alle Stigmati di San Francesco,” in Silvestro da Poppi, Sette canzoni in lode del Serafico P. S. Francesco, etc. (Florence: Giovanni Antonio Caneo & Raffaello Grossi, 1606); reprinted in Giorgio Forni, ed., Rime sacre tra cinquecento e seicento (Bologna: il Mulino, 2007), 176–85, not in Rangoni, Scaglia; Del Flos Sanctorum, o libro delle vite de’ Santi—Parte II nella quale si contengono le vite di molti Santi d’ogni stato comunemente detti Stravaganti, con l’aggiunta della Vita di S. Ignazio di Loyola della Compagnia di Gesù e d’alcuni altri suoi Beati Compagni: Di nuovo in lingua Castigliana nella nostra italiana diligentemente tradota da Desiderio Scaglia Cardinale di Cremona (Milan: Giovanni Battista Bidelli, 1621). 363. ACDFSO:DSO 1614, pp. 521–22. The work thought to be Scaglia’s most famous, the “Instructio pro formandis processibus in causis strigum, sortilegiorum, et maleficiorum,” is almost certainly not by him. See Decker, “Entstehung und Verbreitung,” 161–65, criticizing Tedeschi, Prosecution of Heresy, 205–27. Decker allows the possibility that Scaglia wrote a different work on the same subject. The “Instructio” exists in numerous manuscripts in part because the Congregation treated it as an official text and regularly ordered its dissemination. 1629, fo. 28v. 364. See Chapter 4 for a detailed account of Scaglia’s experience prior to his promotion. 365. ACDFSO:DSO 1621, pp. 130–31; Italo Gallo, “Filosofia e scienze negli albori del seicento: Giulio Cesare Lagalla tra Aristotele e Galilei,” Rassegna Storica Salernitana 3 (1986): 55–75, 64, 73. 366. Rangoni, Scaglia, 75. 367. ACDFSO:DSO 1623, pp. 209, 115, 283; see also the mostly undated correspondence from Como in ibid., 271–82. 368. BAV, Barb. lat. 1039, fos. 1r, 1v, and 2v. 369. ACDFSO:DSO 1628, fos. 44r, 140r, 146v. Apparently the man’s name should be Molfesio or Molfese (1573–1620). Antonio Francesco Vezzosi, I scrittori de’ cherici regolari (Rome: Propaganda Fide, 1780), 2: 68–71; http://opac.provincia.ra.it/SebinaOpac/Opac? action=search&thAutEnteDesc=Molfese%2C+Andrea+%3C1573–1620%3E&startat=0, accessed 30 November 2011. Vezzosi’s list of his unpublished works does not include any such title. 370. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 192r. 371. ACDFSO:DSO 1628, fo. 200v; Abraham Bzowski, Annalium ecclesiasticorum post illustriss. et reverendiss. Caesarem Baronium, 17 (Cologne: Boëtzer, 1625), 172–74.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 277

8/27/12 11:46 AM

278

not es to pag es 70–72

372. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fos. 117v and 130r. 373. See “Relatione delle Lamine di Granata [Granada] e della dottrina loro; di alcune qualificationi di essa; de gli ordini, et instruttioni date a nuntii di Spagna per trattare con sua Maestà, e suoi ministri; de’ Brevi sopra ciò spediti; e di tutto quello che è seguito fino alli X. Febraro 1638. Fatta dal Cardinale di Cremona,” in BAV, Barb. Lat. 4558, a fancy fair copy intended for the pope. Pieralisi misidentified the author as Cardinal Campora. For the lamine, see DSI 2: 868–69. 374. ACDFSO:DSO 1629, fo. 187v. The book is likely to have been A Treatise of the Hierarchie and divers Orders of the Church against the Anarchie of Calvin (Douai: Gerard Pinchon, 1629), which contained Gallican propositions. 375. Vita E, fos. 38v­–39r in Dirmeier, Quellentexte, 4: 36–37; Ingoli-nunzio Carafa, 9 March 1630 (no. 1020). 376. The Venetian ambassador regularly reported trading favors with Bentivoglio, e.g., ASVe:SDR, f. 99, fo. 263r and f. 100, fos. 43r (calling him “vero figliuolo de cotesta S.ma Rep.a”) and 98r. 377. DBI 8: 634. 378. Ibid. “Requiem” has him studying under Pietro Pomponazzi, who had died nearly a century earlier. 379. Guido Bentivoglio, in Memorie e Lettere, ed. Costantino Panigada (Bari: Laterza, 1934), 97. 380. DBI. 381. For both, see the summary in DBI 8: 635–36. 382. ACDFSO:DSO 1621–1622, fo. 227r. 383. Orbaan, Documenti, 259–60. 384. Chacón, Vitae, 4: cols. 454–56. 385. The Van Dyck is in the Galleria Palatina, Florence. The bust has not been seen publicly since early in the twentieth century. See photos at http://www.artandarchitecture. org.uk/images/conway/685bdd2f.html, accessed 15 August 2008. 386. E.g., BAV, Barb. lat. 6353, fos. 279v, and 137r. 387. DBI lists the editions. Bentivoglio returned the favor by trying to help Ciampoli after his exile from Rome. Domenico Ciampoli, “Monsignor Giovanni Ciampoli, un amico del Galileo,” in Nuovi studi letterari e bibliografici (Rocca San Casciano: Licinio Cappelli, 1900), 5–170, 86, and 95. 388. BAV, Barb. lat. 1039, fo. 1r; ACDFSO:DSO 1628, fos. 10v and 23v. 389. Scaglia and Bentivoglio were promoted in the same consistory, making their cardinalates of the same age, and Scaglia appears as an Inquistor almost six months before Bentivoglio took his oath, but Bentivoglio mysteriously usually got precedence. Scaglia’s oath is not recorded. Perhaps the confusion at the end of Paul V’s reign delayed his formal admission until after Bentivoglio’s. The DBI calls him “presidente” of the Inquisition in 1628–1635 (“Requiem” makes this into his “Leitung” of the institution and then the nonexistent “prefect”). His own identification of his status is more modest. In Bentivoglio, Memorie, 97, he said only that he had held “un luogo di supremo inquisitore generale”

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 278

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to page 72

279

(emphasis added). For his “remonstration” to Barberini in February 1633, see ASVe:SDR, f. 106, fo. 274r–v. The notice of his death in the parish register of Santi Vincenzo e Anastasio in Trevi called him “cappo [sic]” of the Inquisition. Rangoni, Scaglia, 88. 390. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fos. 67v, 70v, 72v, 79v; for Centini, 1634, fo. 60r–v. 391. Bentivoglio, Memorie, 97. 392. ACDFSO:DSO 1632, fo. 169r. 393. DBI; Chacón, Vitae, 4: cols. 454–56. 394. For some of the relatively recent literature, see Franco Motta, “Bellarminiana,” Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 33 (1997): 131–60, especially 149–60 for his handling of Galileo and scripture. Motta labels him the “maggior teorico della Controriforma” (149). Among the latest contributions are Motta’s own Bellarmino: Una teologia politica della Controriforma (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2005) and Stefania Tutino, Law and Conscience: Catholicism in Early Modern England, 1570–1625 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), chaps. 5 and 6, together with her forthcoming edition of Bellarmino’s writings on natural law. The old biography by James J. Brodrick, Robert Bellarmine, Saint and Scholar (London: Burns & Oates, 1961), a reworking of a book first published in 1928, is still the best. 395. For a start on Bellarmino’s activities in both the Congregation of the Index and the Inquisition, see Godman, Saint as Censor, together with the harsh review by Gigliola Fragnito, “Gli affanni della censura ecclesiastica,” Rivista Storica Italiana 114 (2002): 584–600. Godman barely scratches the surface of Bellarmino’s efforts as censor. Even the narrow angle of vision adopted here draws on only a sample of his enormous activity as Inquisitor. It was not at all unusual for him to report on two cases and be assigned another, as happened in the meeting of 29 October 1614. ACDFSO:DSO 1614, p. 519. I have emphasized Bellarmino’s role as censor, but he also had to deal with his share of other business, for example, reporting on Chrysantos Lascaris, whom the Congregation decided would be spared torture because he was an archbishop. ACDFSO:DSO 1616, pp. 346 and 353; and above. See also DSI 3: 1334–35. 396. Among the indications is the post-meeting order to him and Arrigoni in 1605 to write a letter (ACDFSO:DSO 1605 Copia, p. 797) and perhaps even better his own letter to Paul V in 1611 written “di casa,” reporting on the Holy Office’s discussions. ARSI, Opp. NN 243.I, fo. 47r. His reply of 22 May 1614 refusing to help a supplicant whom Arrigoni had first rejected may support the same conclusion. ARSI, Opp. NN 241, fo. 272r–v. 397. See Chapter 5 below. 398. ACDFSO:DSO 1597, fo. 412v, the date of which is illegible. Godman, Saint as Censor, 175, reads it as 5 February; passim for Bellarmino as consultor to the Index. 399. “Requiem.” 400. ACDFSO:DSO 1597–98–99, p. 736. 401. ACDFSO:DSO 1597–98–99, p. 770. At least the atlas in question was probably the revision published in 1595 by Mercator’s son, Atlas sive cosmographicae meditationes de fabrica mundi et fabricati figura (Cologne: Gerhard Kremer the elder, 1596; VD16 K 2334; www.vd17.de which incorporates VD16), although it could have been its two partial predecessors published before Mercator’s death in 1594, Galliae tabule geographicae (Cologne:

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 279

8/27/12 11:46 AM

280

not es to pag es 73–74

Gerhard Kremer the elder, 1585; VD16 ZV9208) and Italiae, Sclavoniae, et Graeciae tabule geographice (Cologne: Gerhard Kremer the elder, 1589; VD16 ZV 9209). 402. ACDFSO:DSO 1600–1601, fo. 77r; 1601, fo. 107r. 403. ACDFSO:DSO 1597–98–99, p. 715, 12 July 1599. 404. E.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1597–98–99, p. 793; 1600–1601, fo. 17r. 405. ACDFSO:DSO 1600, fo. 36v; 1600–1601, fo. 194v. 406. ACDFSO:DSO 1601, fo. 276r; 1602, fo. 289r. 407. ACDFSO:DSO 1603 Copia, fo. 237r. 408. ACDFSO:DSO 1597, fo. 556r. For Mastrilli’s case, see the Conclusion. 409. ACDFSO:DSO 1602, fo. 290v. 410. ACDFSO:DSO 1598, fo. 208r; 1603, fos. 12r, 21v, and 26r. 411. Fuligatti, Vita del Bellarmino, 58; see Chapter 4 below. 412. ACDFSO:DSO 1603, fos. 124v, 128v, 146v, 150v, 175v, 178v, 202v, 211v, 214v. 413. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fo. 426v. 414. ACDFSO:DSO 1604–5 1604–1605; Copia, pp. 54 and 531. The Congregation also stipulated that it had to approve Eudaemon-Johannes’s work, putting the point with unusual subtlety, saying the Inquisitors would “libenter videbunt opus Patris Eudemonii antequam imprimatur.” For him, see Fuligatti, Vita del Bellarmino, 58–59. 415. ACDFSO:DSO 1604–1605; Copia, pp. 697–98. It was published in many editions, most recently in Lyon in 1604. 416. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fo. 138v, 9 August 1606. The book may have been In XXXI Davidis psalmos priores commentaria (Antwerp: Plantin by Jean Moret, 1605), Novum Testamentum Graece: Cum Vulgata interpretatione Latina Graeci contextus lineis inserta . . . Ben. Ariae Montani Hispalensis ([Antwerp]: ex officina Commeliniana, 1602), In unum et triginta Psalmos comentaria (Antwerp: n.p., 1605), or possibly his polyglot Bible, first published in 1572 in Antwerp and reprinted many times. See the bibliography of Montano’s publications in Bernard Rekers, Benito Arias Montano (1527–1598) (London: Warburg Institute, University of London, 1972), 187–90. 417. ACDFSO:DSO 1604–1605; Copia, p. 816; 1617, p. 73. 418. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fo. 107r. 419. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fo. 131r; and see the letter of the day before in BABo, MS B 1863 G, unfoliated. The book was probably either Risposta del Card. Bellarmino a due libretti: uno de’ quali s’intitola risposta di un dottore di theologia, ad una lettera scrittagli da un reverendo suo amico, sopra il breve di censure dalla Santità di Paolo V. publicate contra li signori venetiani; et l’altro, trattato, & resolutione sopra la validità delle scommuniche di Gio. Gersone theologo & cancellier parisino, tradotto dalla lingua latina nella volgare con ogni fedeltà in opusculi due (also in Latin as Responsio Card. Bellarmini ad libellum, cuius inscriptio est, Tractatus, & resolutio circa valorem excommunicationum, Iohan. Gersonis theologi, & cancellarii Parisiensis, both published in Rome by Guglielmo Facciotto in 1606) or Risposta del Card. Bellarmino al trattato de i sette theologi di Venetia, sopra l’interdetto della Santità di Nostro Signore Papa Paolo Quinto; Et all’oppositioni di F. Paolo Servita, contra la prima scrittura dell’ istesso cardinale (also in Latin as Responsio Card. Bellarmini ad libellum inscriptum Responsio

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 280

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 74–76

281

doctoris theologi, ad epistolam sibi scriptam à Reverendo amico suo, de monitorio censurarum a Sanctitate Pauli V. promulgatarum contra dominos venetos, also published by Facciotto). There are other editions and possibilities. 420. ACDFSO:DSO 1613, pp. 68, 107, 140, 204, 258, 289, 340, 346 (two notes of the book’s assignment to Bellarmino in the same session), 364, and 391–92. I have been unable to locate a copy. Cherubino may have been the same as Cherubino de Cherubinis who was involved with Fulgenzio Manfredi, and perhaps also the Capuchin of the same name being pursued along with Ippolito Averoldi in the wake of the Interdict. 1606–1607, fos. 232v–33r; 1608, p. 334. He had not been singled out as worthy of attention in Gessi’s instructions. Gino Benzoni, “I ‘teologi’ minori dell’Interdetto,” Archivio Veneto 101, 5th ser. 126) (1970): 31–108, 47–48. 421. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fo. 225v; 1610, fo. 273r; 1610–1611, fos. 302r and 306r. Despite the specificity of the title Orationi, et devotissime meditationi pro confessari [sic], I have been unable to identify the book. In this case, as in Cherubino’s, the Inquisition did its work well. 422. ASVe:SDR, f. 67, fo. 25v; ACDFSO:DSO 1614, p. 602. 423. ACDFSO:DSO 1604–1605; Copia, p. 648; 1608, p. 163; 1608–1609, fo. 403v; 1609, p. 304. For Martyrum Angliae, see A. F. Allison and D. M. Rogers, eds., The Contemporary Printed Literature of the English Counter-Reformation Between 1558 and 1640, 2 vols. (Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1989 and 1994), 1: 35, nos. 237 and 238. 424. See above, p. 72, 161–62, for Bellarmino’s violation of secrecy; and Chapter 1 for more on Novissimus homo. 425. Simeon Contarini-doge, second letter of 14 February 1615 in ASVe:SDR, f. 72, fo. 294v. 426. Simeon Contarini-doge, second letter of 21 February 1615 in ASVe:SDR, f. 72, fo. 307r–v. 427. Klaus Jaitner, “De officio primario summi pontificis: Eine Denkschrift Kardinal Bellarmins für Papst Clemens VIII (Sept./Oct. 1600),” in Römische Kurie, kirchliche Finanzen, vatikanisches Archiv: Studien zu Ehren von H. Hoberg, ed. E. Gatz (Rome: Università Gregoriana, 1979), 377–403; and Motta, Bellarmino, 595 and 599 (quoting Bellarmino’s autobiography).

chapter 3. the sacred congregation under urban viii 1. Gessi’s so-called autobiography gives his birthdate as 14 October 1564. BAV, Barb. lat. 2552, fos. 82­r–85v, fo. 82r. The correct year is in Alfonso Chacón, Vitae et res gestae pontificum romanorum et S. R. E. cardinalium, ed. Agostino Oldoino, SJ, 4 vols. (Rome: Filippo and Antonio De Rubeis, 1677–78), 4: cols. 545–46; Silvano Giordano, ed., Le istruzioni generali di Paolo V ai diplomatici pontifici 1605–1621 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2003), 1: 190 (1564). http://www2.hu-berlin.de/requiem/db/suche.php?function=p_ ausgabe&kaID=340, accessed 18 August 2010, mistakenly gives 1563. I have used the most

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 281

8/27/12 11:46 AM

282

not es to pag es 77–78

common spelling of his given name, Berlinghiero, also given as Berlingerio, Berlingero, and Berlinghero. 2. Nicolò Barozzi and Guglielmo Berchet, eds., Relazioni di Roma, Relazioni degli stati europei lette al Senato dagli ambasciatori veneti, ser. 3, Italia (Venice: Naratovich, 1877), 3:1, 276 and 277 from 1629. 3. Andrea Nicoletti, “Vita di Urbano VIII e la Guerra di Castro,” BAV, Barb. Lat. 4731, pp. 193–94. 4. BAV, Barb. lat. 4676, fos. 23v–24r. 5. BAV, Barb. lat. 4675, fo. 87v. 6. He no doubt helped to secure a license to read the decrees of Trent for his brother Camillo, also a lawyer and senator of Bologna. ACDFSO:DSO 1633, fo. 18r; DBI 53: 474. For his many lawyer relatives, see http://www2.hu-berlin.de/requiem/db/suche. php?function=p_ausgabe&kaID=340, accessed 18 August 2010. 7. DBI 53: 474. 8. Ibid., 475. 9. Giordano, Istruzioni generali, 1: 190–93. 10. DBI 53: 475. 11. ASVe:SDR, f. 104, fo. 450v; avviso of 2 August 1631 in ASMod:AE, 138. 12. http://www2.hu-berlin.de/requiem/db/suche.php?function=p_ausgabe&kaID= 340, accessed 18 August 2010. 13. ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fos. 121r, 129r, 131r, 138r. Gessi had twice to be warned about not violating the seal of the confessional. 14. ACDFSO:DSO 1629, fo. 175r–v; BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 II, fo. 648v. 15. ACDFSO:DSO 1632, fo. 169r. “Requiem” says he is attested on Trent from 1629 and lists other memberships. 16. Gessi’s ownership of the volume is suggested by letters to him from Millini and Cardinal Lancellotti (fos. 175r and 228r–v), along with his signature on a note of 4 December 1632 on fo. 375r. Other volumes in the Archiginnasio may have come from him, among them A 567, which opens with a “Tractatus de dignitate et potestate Cardinalium” (Giuseppe Mazzatinti et al., Inventari dei manoscritti delle biblioteche d’Italia [Florence: Olschki et al., 1890–], 32, 4); A 568, including “Trattato delle Cause spettanti al Santo Offizio”; A 569, Bentivoglio on “Guerre di Fiandra,” etc.; A 570 (mostly Venetian materials); A 571 (Germany, Urban VIII, etc.). 17. ASVe:SDR, f. 104, fo. 3v. 18. ACDFSO:DSO 1626, fo. 48v; BAV, Barb. lat. 1996, fos. 8r and 10r, headed “Del Berlingiero Gessi.” It is among a collection of such verse by the Umoristi and includes an apparent reference to Nicholas Peiresc as “Galileo Ulisse.” It needs no saying how interesting it would be if the poem is really by Gessi and dates from the time of Peiresc’s death in 1637. The volume containing his “autobiography” also has fragments of other writings, apparently by him, among them “In libros de vita Urbani VIII . . . Praefatio” (BAV, Barb. lat. 2552, fos. 67r–69r, formerly 306), “Caput primum” (fos. 70r–77v) and “Secundum”

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 282

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 78–79

283

(fos. 78r–80r). BAV, Barb. Lat. 1311 has Gessi’s commentary on Urban’s constitution “Super prohibitione investiturarum” according to Pieralisi’s catalogue. 19. Avvisi of 13 August and 29 November 1631 in ASMod:AE, 138. One of his works of “bellissime poesie” (Avviso in BAV, Urb. Lat. 1100, fo. 762v) was published as Le Tre Gratie in Rome by Ottavio Ingrillan in 1630 (Worldcat OCLC: 4566854). For Bruni, see the sketch in M. De Filippis, “Antonio Bruni, 1593–1635,” Modern Language Journal 20, 3 (December 1935): 151–57, which does not consider Le Tre Gratie. I have not been able to see Mario Ridola, Antonio Bruni: Seicentista salentino e il suo mondo poetico (Lecce: Scorrano, 1955). Before leaving Bologna, Gessi had helped to found the Academy of the Gelati there. DBI 53: 474. Gessi probably recruited Bruni while governing Urbino after the death of Bruni’s former patron the duke. Giacomo Filippo Camola, Breve racconto del Sig. Cavalier Marino (Rome: Mascardi, 1633), 22–23. 20. Camola, Marino, 28. 21. ASVe:SDR, f. 96, fo. 180r. 22. Ursula Dirmeier, ed., Mary Ward und ihre Gründung: Die Quellentexte bis 1645, 4 vols., Corpus Catholicorum 45–48 (Münster: Aschendorff, 2007), 3: 155n1; ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fos. 173v and 67v. 23. ACDFSO:DSO 1631, fo. 57r; 1633, fo. 21v. 24. ACDFSO:DSO 1633, fo. 21r. 25. ACDFSO:DSO 1635, fo. 29v. 26. ACDFSO:DSO 1634, fos. 60r–v and 98r, separate entry from coram of that date. 27. ACDFSO:DSO 1639, fo. 45r. 28. Edvige Aleandri Barletta, “Il testamento del Cardinale Berlingiero Gessi e la Capella della Ss. Trinità in S. Maria della Vittoria,” Commentari 21 (1970): 145–52, 149–51. For Paolo Zacchia’s consultation by the Congregation, see ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 119v; for his life, DSI 3: 1711. 29. BAV, Barb. lat. 4676, fo. 22r–v. 30. Antonio Zacchia Rondinini, Memorie della famiglia Zacchia Rondinini: Cenni storici e biografici; Documenti (Bologna: L. Parma, 1942), 24, says he was born in Castel Vezzano; “Requiem” in Genoa, despite citing Zacchia Rondinini. 31. “Requiem.” 32. BAV, Barb. lat. 4676, fo. 22r–v. In October 1601 he and his brother witnessed the sale to Cardinal Pietro Aldobrandini of the duke of Urbino’s palace on the Corso when Zacchia was called Aldobrandini’s “Schatzmeister.” Jörg Garms et al., eds., Quellen aus dem Archiv Doria-Pamphjli zur Kunsttätigkeit in Rom unter Innocenz X (Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Hermann Bohlaus Verlag, 1972), nos. 470 and 471, 112–13, where he is mistakenly called first Lod. and then Landivius [sic]. Ten years later he was in Naples negotiating a purchase for Aldobrandini. BAV, Barb. lat. 6344, fo. 199v; Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 30r. 33. Klaus Jaitner, ed., Die Hauptinstruktionen Gregors XV. für die Nuntien und Gesandten an den europäischen Fürstenhöfen 1621–1623 (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1997), CCLXVII.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 283

8/27/12 11:46 AM

284

not es to pag es 79–80

34. HC 4: 247; Zacchia Rondinini, Famiglia Zacchia Rondinini, 25. 35. http://www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1626.htm#Zacchia, accessed 4 January 2008. 36. DBI 2: 111, s.n. Aldobrandini, Pietro. 37. Chacón, Vitae, 4: cols. 544–45; BAV, Barb. lat. 4676, fo. 22r–v. 38. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 276–77. 39. http://www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1626.htm#Zacchia; Amedeo Pellegrini, “Relazioni inedite di ambasciatori lucchesi alla Corte di Roma (Sec. XVI–XVII),” Studi e documenti di storia e diritto 22 (1901): 181–238, 209–10. He held office for only a year. Zacchia Rondinini, Famiglia Zacchia Rondinini, 35. “Requiem” says Urban “renewed” Zacchia’s office, but it seems unlikely that he could have held it while away from Rome (it was not a sinecure), and it seems to have been an annually elected post he held again in 1634. HC 4: 247. Some of his correspondence as pro-treasurer is published in Zacchia Rondinini, Famiglia Zacchia Rondinini, 171ff., from the family’s archive. See also ASVe:SDR, f. 98, 348v–49r for a “congregation” about money with Carlo Barberini and two functionaries at Zacchia’s palazzo in 1628. 40. His correspondence is in the Barberini archive, BAV, Barb. lat. 7633, 7636, 7637. Some of it is published in Zacchia Rondinini, Famiglia Zacchia Rondinini, 119–63. There are apparently copies in the Zacchia Rondinini archive, if it still exists. 41. Zacchia Rondinini, Famiglia Zacchia Rondinini, 140–62. 42. BAV, Barb. lat. 4676, fo. 22r–v. 43. ASVe:SDR, f. 96, fo. 68r. 44. Avviso of 5 November 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139, two copies. 45. ASVe:SDR, f. 104, fos. 238r–v and 605v; avviso of 27 September 1631 in ASMod:AE, 138. 46. Avvisi of 26 November 1633 and 3 December 1633, both in ASMod:AE, 139, fasc. November 1633. 47. ACDFSO:DSO 1628, fo. 58r. 48. Ibid., fo. 96v. 49. Ibid., fo. 123v. 50. ACDFSO:DSO 1629, fo. 81r. 51. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 100r. 52. HC 4: 247; BAV, Urb. Lat. 1100, fo. 297v. He had permission to resign already before 23 February; fo. 103r. 53. Giancarlo Breccola, “I sinodi della diocesi di Montefiascone,” Biblioteca e Società 43, nos. 3–4 (November 2001): 46–48, 46–47. The synod in 1628 lasted only one day, 8 November. Zacchia went to his diocese at the end of September 1628, returning to Rome at the end of November but at least some of that time he was in Genoa. BAV, Urb. lat. 1098 II, fos. 501r and 538v; ACDFSO:DSO 1628, fos. 169r and 193r; ASVe:SDR, f. 99, fo. 239v. 54. Avviso of 21 December 1630 in ASMod:AE, 137. 55. Avviso of 23 November 1630 in ASMod:AE, 137. 56. Avviso of 2 April 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139. 57. Avviso of 3 September 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 284

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 80–81

285

58. Avvisi of 3 September 1633 and 26 November 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139. This could be a moment when the avvisi do not deserve full confidence. 59. ACDFSO:DSO 1638, fos. 180v, 185v, and 203r; 1639, fo. 14v. Zacchia last attended the Congregation on 1 July 1637, before his death at the end of August 1637, fo. 103r. 60. The bust is in Berlin-Dahlem, Staatliche Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz, inv. no. 2765. See Jennifer Montagu, Alessandro Algardi (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press in association with J. Paul Getty Trust, 1985), 2, cat. no. 181, 446–47, pl. 155 and 1, pl. 196 (detail); for the inventory, Diane de Grazia and Erich Schleier, “St. Cecilia and an Angel: ‘The Heads by Gentileschi, the Rest by Lanfranco,’” Burlington Magazine 136, 1091 (February 1994): 73–78, 73. 61. ACDFSO:DSO 1619, p. 104, a renewal of an earlier license for another three years. 62. Sabina Brevaglieri, Palazzo Verospi al Corso (Milan: Libri Schewiller, 2001), 50. It is now Banca Unicredit, the former Credito Italiano, via del Corso 374. For the frescoes, chap. 3, especially 96ff. and 30–31 for the antiquities. 63. Brevaglieri, Palazzo Verospi, 100, who dismisses the possibility on the weak grounds that the frescoes would have been in a “position too dangerous and exposed.” This overlooks the much more dangerously exposed (and much later) ceiling fresco of “Divine Wisdom” in Palazzo Barberini, which is even more obviously heliocentric than anything Albani painted. John Belden Scott, Images of Nepotism: The Painted Ceilings of Palazzo Barberini (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1991), fig. 3. For an attempt to reinterpret this fresco as unthreatening, see David Wootton, Galileo: Watcher of the Skies (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2010), 195–96. 64. Chacón, Vitae, 4: cols. 560–61; Jaitner, Hauptinstruktionen, 327, gives 1571 for his birth. 65. Chacón, Vitae, 4: cols. 560–61. 66. Giordano, Istruzioni generali, 1: 231. 67. It was printed in 1602. Brevaglieri, Palazzo Verospi, 28–29. 68. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 277–78; ASVe:SDR, f. 97, fo. 420r. The damage was fixed by late September 1628. ASVe:SDR, f. 99, fos. 98v–99r. 69. Chacón, Vitae, 4: cols. 560–61; J. A. F. Orbaan, ed., Documenti sul barocco in Roma, Miscellanea della R. Società di Storia Patria 6 (Rome, 1920), 109. http://www.fiu. edu/~mirandas/bios1627.htm#Verospi, accessed 5 June 2007, gives the precise date of his appointment as 12 December 1611, but the entry has only one source, and it cannot contain this information. 70. BAV, Urb. lat. 1083, fo. 421v. 71. “Requiem,” citing ASVe:SDR, f. 107, fo. 530r. 72. F. Cerasoli, “Diario di cose romane degli anni 1614, 1615, 1616,” Studi e documenti di storia e diritto 15 (1894): 263–301, 291. He held the office for at least thirteen years (he is called auditor on the title page of his oration for General Aldobrandini) and made a splendid profit. 73. Avviso of 4 December 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. 74. Avvisi of 8 January 1633 and 22 October 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 285

8/27/12 11:46 AM

286

not es to pag es 81–83

75. “Requiem,” quoting ASVe:SDR, f. 107, fo. 530r. 76. Avviso of 10 December 1611 in ASMod:AE, 134. Paul nominated him on the twelfth. Emmanuele Cerchiari, Capellani papae et apostolicas e sedis; auditores causarum sacrii palatii apostolici seu sacra Romana Rota ab origine ad diem usque 20 Septembris 1870. Relatio historica-iuridica (Rome: Typis polyglottis vaticanis, 1870–1921), 2: 137, citing “Adm. Paulo V, no. 5”; misdated 1612 in Christoph Weber, Die päpstlichen Referendare 1566–1809: Chronologie und Prosopographie (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 2003), 3: 970. 77. BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 586r. Verospi failed to settle the dispute, and Ulpiano Vulpi, later a consultor of the Inquisition, had to step in and finish the job. Ibid., fos. 758r and 781v. This was Verospi’s second such commission, the first of which in 1610 met with success. BAV, Barb. lat. 6344, fo. 174r. 78. ASV, S. R. Rota, Processus in admissione auditorum, b. 1, no. 54. For his subrogation for Peña, see, e.g., SRRD 2: 314–15. 79. Hermann Hoberg, “Die Antrittsdaten der Rotarichter von 1566 bis 1675,” Röm­ ische Quartalschrift 48 (1953): 211–24, 219, 220. He took part in the formal opening of the Rota on 1 October. BAV, Urb. lat. 1080, fo. 598v. The end of his tenure dates from his promotion as cardinal on 30 August 1627, as the title page of a volume of his decisiones dates it (BAV, Barb. lat. 1612; see also ASVe:SDR, f. 96, fo. 375r), although his replacement did not take his oath until 1 December 1628. Hoberg, “Antrittsdaten,” 219. 80. SRRD 4:1: passim, with more in 4:2 and a few others in 4:3. The majority of these are also in BAV, Barb. lat. 1517 and 1612. Barb. lat. 1513, 1514, 1516, 1519, and perhaps 1515 (the last of which I have not been able to see) also contain decisions by Verospi. The precise relationship between these volumes remains to be worked out. 81. Quoted in Brevaglieri, Palazzo Verospi, 28. 82. Hoberg, “Antrittsdaten,” 220 and 221; Alessandro Gnavi, “Carriere e curia romana: L’uditorato di Rota (1472–1870),” Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome 106 (1994): 161–202, 193–94. Urban’s grant of Verospi’s auditorat to the first of these nephews was thought an extraordinary grace. ASVe:SDR, f. 97, fo. 24r. 83. SRRD 2: 314–15. In other decisions, Verospi cited the consilia of the unknown “Surd.” who appears in none of the standard dictionaries of legal citations. 84. SRRD 2: 339–40. 85. E.g., SRRD 4:1: 122–23, which also used Rota decisions. 86. E.g., SRRD 1: 527. 87. SRRD 2: 314–15. 88. SRRD 1: 570–72. When other Altemps heirs objected, Verospi simply reaffirmed his own decision. SRRD 2: 458–59. Verospi signed the manuscript of this decision in BAV, Barb. lat. 1519, fos. 42r–48v. 89. SRRD 4:1: 160. 90. SRRD 3: 651–52. 91. See, e.g., SRRD 4:1: 112–13. 92. SRRD 3: 695 and 2: 534 for the sequestration on 21 May 1615. 93. SRRD 2: 438–39.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 286

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 83–85

287

94. SRRD 2: 447–48. 95. See above, p. 33. 96. SRRD 4:1: 155–56. 97. E.g., SRRD 2: 385–87 for two of his own together with earlier Rota decisions, including one by Peña; or SRRD 4:1: 155, 3: 682–83. 98. SRRD 2: 507. 99. SRRD 1: 539 and 553–54. 100. Many of his early decisions affirmed Peña’s, e.g., SRRD 4:1: 106–7 and 1: 393, but another of 3 June 1613 partially reversed him. SRRD 4:1: 111–12. 101. SRRD 1: 590. 102. SRRD 1: 472; Gnavi, “L’uditorato di Rota,” 191; “Requiem.” 103. SRRD 4:1: 113. 104. SRRD 4:1: 113–14. 105. SRRD 4:1: 116. 106. SRRD 4:1: 141–42. 107. SRRD 2: 370–72; BAV, Barb. lat. 1513, fos. 174r–75v, both in January 1614. 108. SRRD 4:1: 137–38. 109. This decision too is replete with citations to Rota decisions, Pierre Rebuffi (the sixteenth-century expert on benefices), Pietro da Ancarano, and others, and to support his point about the form of the notarial act, along with one famous legist, Bartolo, and three canonists of repute, Panormitanus, Alessandro Tartagna, and Sandeo, and maybe at a stretch Pierpaolo Parisio, who had been one of the legates to the first session of Trent, Verospi adduced many others whom it would be charitable to describe as not very well known, among them Jacopino da San Giorgio, “Cisanen.” (another whom I have failed to identify), Alberico da Porta Ravennate, “Verall.” [?himself ], Jacopo Puteo, Pietro Boerio, and Antonio Capicio (†1545). SRRD 2: 476­–77. 110. SRRD 2: 565–66. The contradiction here may be more apparent than real. The law of mandates was almost mind-bogglingly complex. 111. SRRD 1: 620–21. 112. Cerchiari, Capellani papae, 2: 137–38; Brevaglieri, Palazzo Verospi, 29. 113. Giordano, Istruzioni generali, 1: 231–32. 114. http://www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1627.htm#Verospi, accessed 5 June 2007. 115. Brevaglieri, Palazzo Verospi, 28–29. 116. ASVe:SDR, f. 96, fos. 375r and 376v. 117. ASVe:SDR, f. 97, fos. 42r, 42v, and 56v. Verospi went so far as to return Borghese’s gift of 1,000 scudi. Perhaps by means of further bribery, Borghese quickly “sweetened” Verospi. Ibid., fo. 170v. 118. ASVe:SDR, f. 97, fo. 99r; Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 277–78. 119. ASVe:SDR, f. 98, fos. 216v and 288r–v. An avviso reported a good instance of Verospi’s behavior as an enemy. In the case of a man who had assaulted a sbirro and— claiming Verospi’s protection—had come before the Consulta, the other members expected Verospi to defend his client. Instead, Verospi mercilessly attacked him, and he wound up

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 287

8/27/12 11:46 AM

288

not es to pag es 85–86

with a ten-year sentence to the galleys. Verospi turned on him allegedly because of a failed marriage negotiation. Avviso of 19 July 1631 in ASMod:AE, 138. 120. For example, a papal prognostication that said “noto è il valore nelle lettere, conosciuto il senno, e la resolutezza ne’ governi, sperimentata l’indefessa toleranza, e sagace prudenza ne’ piu ardui negotii, parti tutti, che congionte con somma attitudine, et integrità . . . intrepidamente se ne camina col solo riguardo della giustizia, essempio raro in questi tempi,” concluding that “per se stesso uno de maggiori del Collegio.” BAV, Barb. 4676, fo. 24v. The “Relatione de’ cardinali papabili fatta al princ. del a. 1630,” in Boncompagni Cod. C. 20 (now in the ASV), quoted in Ludwig von Pastor, The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages, vol. 29, trans. and ed. Ernest Graf (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., 1938), 159, is probably another version of this text. 121. Avvisi of 15 and 22 February 1631 in ASMod:AE, 138. He was certainly added to the congregation on 15 January. BAV, Urb. lat. 1101, fo. 33r. 122. At his promotion, according to http://www.gcatholic.com/hierarchy/data/ cardU08–1.htm#18191 and http://www.vaticanhistory.de/vh/html/klerus.html, both accessed 5 May 2007; not until 1636 in Giordano, Istruzioni generali, 1: 232, all without sources. 123. Verospi was “inimico dichiarito de’ Spagnuoli, che ha talento d’impeto, e che parla assai libero in tutto, ha detto al Papa nell’ultima Congregatione del Santo Officio, che questi brighe con la Republica andavano troppo avanti, che si trattava d’impegnar la Sede Apostolica in una guerra; che sarebbe bene communicar alcuna cosa a qualche Cardinale, che potesse maneggiarli per divertire i pericoli communi dell’Italia.” Urban seemed favorable, but Cardinal Francesco, “soprafatto da una Mole cosi grandi, non seppe, che rispondere; onde Verospi restò poco contento, come, che anche per altro parli assai liberamente dele debolezze dell’istesso Barberino.” ASVe:SDR, f. 106, fos. 261v–62r. 124. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 277–78. 125. Avviso of 27 June 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. 126. Avviso of 11 October 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. 127. ACDFSO:DSO 1629, fo. 175r–v; 1629, fo. 198r; 1630, fo. 94r. 128. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 158v; 1632, fos. 12v and 13r. 129. ACDFSO:DSO 1633, fo. 112r, major damage to first half. 130. ACDFSO:DSO 1633, fo. 21r; 1634, fo. 106r. 131. ACDFSO:DSO 1635, fos. 29v and 31r. 132. ACDFSO:DSO 1634, fos. 60r–v and 98r. 133. ACDFSO:DSO 1638, fo. 171r. 134. http://www.maremagnum.com/index.php?option=com_ricerca&task=risult& desiditem= 22527878, accessed 5 May 2007; Giovanni Battista Vermiglioli, Biografia degli scrittori perugini e notizie delle opere loro, 1:1 (Perugia: Tipografia F. Baduel; presso Vincenzo Bartelli and Giovanni Costantini, 1828), 70, for Aureli. For the license (for which edition not said), see ACDFSO:DSO 1627, fo. 20v. 135. Brevaglieri, Palazzo Verospi, 99. 136. Ibid. Brevaglieri notes without a complete reference another letter from Ciampoli

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 288

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 87–88

289

to Girolamo Verospi in 1636, which is probably that referred to by Domenico Ciampoli, “Monsignor Giovanni Ciampoli, un amico del Galileo,” in Nuovi studi letterari e bibliografici (Rocca San Casciano: Licinio Cappelli, 1900), 5–170, 78, as to Verospi himself. 137. http://www2.hu-berlin.de/requiem/db/suche.php?function=p_ausgabe&kaID= 128, accessed 9 May 2008. 138. Fulvio Testi­–[Cesare d’Este], 13 October 1627, in Lettere, ed. M. L. Doglio (Bari: Laterza, 1967), 115–16. Testi also assigned Ginetti responsibility for managing Taddeo Barberini’s marriage, but he was a much less practiced observer than those who said Verospi had handled the arrangements. 139. ASVe:SDR, f. 96, fo. 376v. 140. BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 I, fo. 336r–v. For other such occasions, see BAV, Urb. Lat. 1100, fos. 429v and 515r. 141. BAV, Barb. lat. 4675, fo. 66r. 142. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 268–69, noting that Ginetti was of “gentilissimi costumi e d’accortezza sopraffina, indefesso nelle fatiche, erudito nelle scienze legali.” 143. ASVe:SDR, f. 98, fo. 304r. 144. ASVe:SDR, f. 97, fo. 16v. For the affair, see p. 48 above. 145. ASVe:SDR, f. 97, fo. 247v. 146. ASVe:SDR, f. 97, fo. 56r–v. 147. Chacón, Vitae, 4: cols. 558–59. 148. BAV, Urb. lat. 1100, fo. 602v. 149. BAV, Urb. lat. 1093, fo. 899r; ASVe:SDR, f. 96, fos. 269r, 315v, 337v, 353v–54v and f. 97, fos. 180r–v, 187r–88r, and 217v. The ambassador concluded that he had been utterly useless as secretary. ASVe:SDR, f. 97, fo. 24r. 150. See the printed order establishing the Congregation enclosed in ASVe:SDR, f. 100, fo. 180v. 151. ASVe:SDR, f. 100, fos. 341v–42r, 350v, 404r, 410r, 421r; f. 101, fo. 46v. 152. ACDFSO:DSO 1629, fo. 82r; BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 I, fo. 284r; and Urb. lat. 1099 II, fo. 665v. See “Requiem” for a list of his memberships in numerous other Congregations. 153. ASVe:SDR, f. 97, fo. 313r and f. 98, fo. 192r. 154. ASVe:SDR, f. 102, fo. 50r. 155. Ibid., fo. 178r. 156. Ibid., fo. 451r. 157. BAV, Urb. lat. 1100, fo. 561v. 158. BAV, Barb. lat. 6352, fo. 65r. 159. Avviso of 7 December 1630 in ASMod:AE, 137; 27 November 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. 160. ASVe:SDR, f. 107, fos. 198v–99r. 161. Avviso of 30 July 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139. 162. Avviso of 17 December 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139. 163. Dirmeier, Quellentexte, 3: 155n1.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 289

8/27/12 11:46 AM

290

not es to pag es 88–89

164. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fos. 67v, 70v, 72v, 79v, 18 and 25 April, 1 and 16 May. 165. ACDFSO:DSO 1631, fo. 187v. 166. ACDFSO:DSO 1632, fo. 74r, 4 May. 167. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 158v. 168. ACDFSO:DSO 1631, fos. 57r, 26 March 1631 and 146r, 21 August 1631 (the text is damaged). 169. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fos. 114v–15r. 170. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fos. 165v­‑68r. 171. ACDFSO:DSO 1633, fo. 5v. 172. ACDFSO:DSO 1634, fos. 60r–v (Copia, pp. 196–97) and 98r, a separate entry. 173. ACDFSO:DSO 1635, fos. 29v and 31r. 174. Gregorio Leti, Il cardinalismo di Santa Chiesa divisa in trè parti ([Amsterdam]: [Daniel Elsevier], 1668), 2: 156f. See also BAV, Vat. lat. 8354, fo. 251v, quoted in “Requiem.” Patrizia Cavazzini, “The Ginetti Chapel at S. Andrea Della Valle,” Burlington Magazine 141 (1999): 401–13, 401n, quotes a Venetian relazione to the same effect about his greed. 175. BAV, Barb. lat. 6303, fos. 36r, 37v, and 41r; BAV, Barb. lat. 6307, fos. 15r and 47r; avviso of 26 May 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. 176. Cavazzini, “Ginetti Chapel,” 402. 177. Ibid., 410. 178. Ibid., 402; BAV, Urb. lat. 1100, fo. 290r. 179. Although chronologically a creature of Paul V, I have treated Borja in this chapter because of his status as Urban’s principal antagonist. 180. http://www2.hu-berlin.de/requiem/db/suche.php?function=p_ausgabe&kaID= 112, accessed 5 March 2009; Quintin Aldea Vaquero, Tomás Marín Martínez, and José Vives, eds., Diccionario de historia eclesiástica de Espana (Madrid: CSIC, 1972–75), 1: 279– 80; Chacón, Vitae, 4: cols. 430–31; ACDFSO:DSO 1617, pp. 192 and 195, 22 May. 181. Aldea, Diccionario 1: 279–80; Pastor, History of the Popes, 28: 281. For the date of Borja’s original appointment as ambassador, see the avviso of 27 February 1616 in BAV, Urb. lat. 1084, fo. 83r. 182. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 166. 183. Aldea, et al., Diccionario 1: 279–80. 184. Pastor, History of the Popes, 27: 132 and 135. 185. http://www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1611.htm#Borja, accessed 9 September 2008. 186. Aldea, et al., Diccionario 1: 279–80, http://www2.hu-berlin.de/requiem/db/ suche.php?function=p_ausgabe&kaID=112, accessed 7 October 2008. 187. BAV, Barb. lat. 1039, fos. 2v, 1r, and 1v, avvisi of 20 and 30 October and 13 November. 188. For Borja’s protest and the pope’s efforts to control him, see Auguste Leman, Urbain VIII et la rivalité de la France et de la maison d’Austriche de 1631 à 1635, Mémoires et Travaux Publiés par des Professeurs des Facultés Catholiques de Lille 16 (Lille and Paris: R. Giard and É. Champion, 1920), 230–35. 189. ASVe:SDR, f. 102, fo. 235r, dispatch of 25 May 1630.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 290

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 90–91

291

190. Ibid., fo. 486v, dispatch of 17 August 1630. 191. Avviso of 19 January 1632 in BAV, Barb. lat. 6352, fo. 21r. 192. ASVe:SDR, f. 105, fos. 41r, 58v, and 59r, dispatches of 24 July 1632 II and 31 July 1632. 193. Ibid., fo. 74r, dispatch of 31 July 1632, 5th letter. 194. Ibid., fos. 93r–v, 120r, and 139r, dispatches of 14 August I and II and 28 August 1632. 195. Avviso of 28 August in ASMod:AE, 138; ASVe:SDR, f. 105, fo. 201r, dispatch of 18 September 1632. 196. ASVe:SDR, f. 105, fos. 402v and 428r, dispatches of 13 and 20 November 1632; ASVe:SDR, f. 106, fo. 28r, dispatch of 4 December 1632. 197. ASVe:SDR, f. 106, fo. 283r, dispatch of 19 February 1633. 198. ASVe:SDR, f. 107, fo. 198r, dispatch of 23 April 1633. For this episode, see Chapter 1. 199. ASVe:SDR, f. 107, fo. 257r, dispatch of 7 May 1633. 200. “È uscito un libro . . . col titolo come nell’accluso foglio [missing]. Mostra d’essere stampato in Bologna, ma la carta da sospetto che sia stampato altrove. In alcuni luoghi l’Autore inserisce delle maledicenze contro la Corona di Spagna, per la qual cosa Nostro Signore havea già ordinato al Ill. [S. Beretta; Sig. Pieralisi] Cardinal Legato che si riformasse [informasse Pieralisi] se veramente era stampato in Bologna e che vedesse perch’è stata data licenza di stamparlo contenendo le suddette cose. Un ordinario dopò è stato anche ordinato che si supprimase [supprimano Beretta Pieralisi] tutti gli esemplari. Dopò fatte queste diligenze venne (? Beretta) [è venuto Pieralisi] hieri [alli 22 Pieralisi] il [Sig. Beretta Pieralisi] Card. Borgia all’udienza di Nostro Signore et ha portato uno di questi esemplari dolendosi che si sia permessa in Bologna la stampa d’esso, e S. B. ha risposto che tiene ragione, e che [non Beretta Pieralisi] si doveva permettere ma che [missing Pieralisi] quelche si poteva fare già S. B. l’haveva [aveva Pieralisi] fatto, *ch’è de’ [che è Pieralisi] dar ordine che si supprimase [supprimano Beretta Pieralisi] gli esemplari del che *l’Eminenza e restato sodisfatto [è stato sodisfatto il Sig. Cardinale Pieralisi]. Io ne dò parte a V. S. acciò se [ne Pieralisi] vagli di [not in Beretta] questa notizia nella meglior [meglio Pieralisi; miglior Beretta] maniera che le parera e perche non si meraviglia [maraviglino Pieralisi meraviglino Beretta] costà che alle volte per inavvertenza di chi ha cura di rivedere i libri da stamparsi, scappi qualche cosa indegna di stampa, si serva dell’esempio del Galileo il quale havendo composto un libro del moto della terra, fù ammesso alla stampa dal Maestro del Sacro Palazzo, e stampato. Nel quale sono stati poi trovati errori grave che hanno obligato la S. Cong.re del S. Uff.o non solo a supprimere i libri, ma a chiamar lo stesso Autore a [in Pieralisi] Roma per disdirsi come ha fatto.” Francesco Barberini-Cesare Monti, nuncio in Madrid, Rome, 23 June 1633. BAV, Barb. lat. 6228, fos. 91r–92v, printed in Sante Pieralisi, Urbano VIII e Galileo Galilei (Rome: Propaganda Fide, 1875), 138–39; and as a discovery— because Pieralisi did not cite his source and made some small errors in his text—in Francesco Beretta, “Urbain VIII Barberini protagoniste de la condamnation de Galilée,” in José Montesinos and Carlos Solís Santos, eds., Largo campo di filosofare: Eurosymposium Galileo 2001

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 291

8/27/12 11:46 AM

292

not es to pag es 91–95

(La Orotava, Spain: Fundación Canaria Orotava de Historia de la Ciencia, 2001), 549–73, 572; cf. the extract of the undated minute in EN 15: no. 2561, from BAV, Barb. lat. 8370, fo. 107r. Sergio M. Pagano, ed., I documenti vaticani del processo di Galileo Galilei (1611–1741): Nuova edizione accresciuta, rivista e annotata, Collectanea Archivi Vaticani 69 (Vatican City: Archivio Vaticano, 2009), 235–36n, identifies the book as Jacopo Gaufrido (born Jacques Godefroy, executed 1650, a councillor of the duke of Parma), Protrita impietas sive odiorum in Francos extincta pernicies (Bologna: Clemente Ferroni, 1633). See also Pagano’s next note. 201. Avviso of 13 August 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139. This moment remains to be clarified. The avviso gave the title of the book replied to as Gesta francorum per impios (“nel quale si rispondeva alla scrittura intitolata (Gesta Francorum per impios) [() sic]) and claimed the French ambassador objected to its suspension, which makes no sense. Gesta francorum was published in 1632 as the work of Loys de Cruzamont in “Rhenopoli.” Both author and place were false, the writer being Antoine Brun (1599–1654), later French ambassador to the Netherlands, and the place probably Orléans. See VD17 12:139780Y and 12:644124Z; WorldCat OCLC 257946875, 257063031, 48708356. I used the copy in the Cambridge University Library, Rare Books, Mm.15.53. It attacks France for entering a league with the Turks, support of Geneva, and pacts with the Netherlands and Sweden (17–20). 202. Daniele Bartoli, Della vita di Roberto cardinal Bellarmino (Rome: Niccolò Angelo Tinassi, 1678), 329. 203. Quoted in DBI. 204. Bartoli, Bellarmino, 329. The testimonial is dated 15 March 1674 [sic]. 205. For Vittrici and Giustiniani, see Chapter 4. 206. Pierre-Noël Mayaud, “Les ‘Fuit congregatio Sancti Officii in . . . coram . . . ’ de 1611 à 1642: 32 ans de vie de la Congrégation du Saint Office,” Archivum Historiae Pontificiae, 30 (1992): 231–89, 267. 207. Ibid., 265. 208. Gnavi, “L’uditorato di Rota,” 180. 209. Ibid., 181. Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 267, found that almost half the Inquisitors had either served as nuncios or had experience outside Rome. 210. Gnavi, “L’uditorato di Rota,” 185–86. 211. Ibid., 193. 212. Wolfgang Reinhard, “Amici e creature: Politische Mikrogeschichte der römischen Kurie im 17. Jahrhundert,” Quellen und Forschungen aus Italienischen Archiven and Bibliotheken 76 (1996): 308–34. 213. The following statistics are drawn from the decree registers for the respective years. I am sketching impressions, not aiming at precision. Mayaud, “Fuit congregatio,” 249, observed the phenomenon that the oldest cardinal (by date of creation) had “quelque sorte d’obligation” to attend regularly, but his example of Sfondrato in 1613 was poorly chosen. 214. Mario Biagioli, Galileo, Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993), 254–62, pointed to the academies’ importance. 215. Camola, Marino, passim.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 292

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 95–96

293

216. Piera Russo, “L’Accademia degli Umoristi: Fondazione, struttuttura e leggi; Il primo decennio di attività,” Esperienze letterarie 4, 4 (1979): 47–61, 56. 217. The list, Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana, MS. Ital. XI.LXI (6792), fos. 159r–64v, is printed with mistakes of omission and orthography in Michele Maylender, Storia delle accademie d’Italia, with preface by Luigi Rava (Bologna: A. Forni, 1926–30), 5: 375–80. For the deficiencies of Maylender’s text, see Russo, “L’Accademia degli Umoristi,” 56. 218. E.g., Laura Alemanno, “L’Accademia degli Umoristi,” Roma Moderna e Contemporanea 3 (1995): 97–120, 111. 219. Bentivoglio appeared in 1629 (BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 I, fo. 268r), twice in 1631 (BAV, Barb. lat. 6351, fos. 198r and 233r–v), and twice more in 1633 (BAV, Barb. lat. 6353, fo. 137r and 279v), on most of these occasions with Francesco Barberini. Gessi is recorded on the second occasion in 1631. For Scaglia, see Fiorenza Rangoni, Frà Desiderio Scaglia Cardinale di Cremona: Un collezionista inquisitore nella Roma del seicento (Rome: Self-published, 2008), chap. 3. 220. BAV, Barb. lat. 6344, fo. 199v. 221. Biagioli, Galileo, Courtier, 255 and 258–59. Riccardi, correctly identified by his sobriquet of “Padre Mostro,” was mistakenly called Giovanni Battista. For Vulpi, see Chapter 4 below. 222. See the avviso of 27 December 1631 in BAV, Barb. lat. 6351, fo. 233r–v. 223. Saverio Franchi, Drammaturgia romana: Repertorio bibliografico cronologico dei testi drammatici pubblicati a Roma e nel Lazio (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1988– 97), passim; Alemanno, “L’Accademia degli Umoristi,” 102. 224. Alemanno, “L’Accademia degli Umoristi,” 102–5. 225. Russo, “L’Accademia degli Umoristi,” 53. On 60n she gives another man as censor in 1623. 226. Alemanno, “L’Accademia degli Umoristi,” 113. 227. Peter Rietbergen, Power and Religion in Baroque Rome: Barberini Cultural Policies (Boston: Brill, 2006), 100ff. For Urban’s poetry, see Jolanta Wiendlocha, Die Jugendgedichte Papst Urbans VIII. (1623–1644): Erstedition, Übersetzung, Kommentar und Nachwort (Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter, 2005); and see below. 228. Alemanno, “L’Accademia degli Umoristi,” 114 and 116–17. 229. BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 I, fo. 268r. At least one other academy might have attracted Inquisitors, that of Andrea Capranica, at which Tommaso Campanella recited an oration in praise of the Colonna in 1632. BAV, Barb. lat. 6352, fos. 197v–98r. At another meeting earlier in that year the topic was “l’ordine del Mondo.” Ibid., fo. 71v. 230. Abraham Bzowski, Paulus V. Burghesius P.O.M. (Rome: Stefano Paulini, 1626), 3. 231. DBI 12: 598–600. 232. Volker Reinhardt, “Paolo V,” in Enciclopedia dei papi (Rome: Istituto della Encic­ lopedia Italiana, 2000), 3: 277–92, 278. 233. ACDFSO:DSO 1596, fo. 210r. Reinhardt, “Paolo V,” 279, calls him the Inquisition’s “capo,” but he was never its most senior member, nor was the secretary ever called that.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 293

8/27/12 11:46 AM

294

not es to pag es 96–98

234. Bzowski, Paulus V, 5. 235. Ibid., 279. 236. Volker Reinhardt, Kardinal Scipione Borghese (1605–1633): Vermögen, Finanzen und sozialer Aufstieg eines Papstnepoten (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1984). 237. Reinhardt, “Paolo V,” 281. 238. Jack Wasserman, “The Quirinal Palace in Rome,” Art Bulletin 45, 3 (1963): 205– 44, 232–38; Tracy Lee Ehrlich, Landscape and Identity in Early Modern Rome: Villa Culture at Frascati in the Borghese Era (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Howard Hibbard, The Architecture of the Palazzo Borghese (Rome: American Academy in Rome, 1962). 239. Francesco Contarini-doge, 12 July, 27 September, 4 October, 1 November 1608, in ASVe:SDR, f. 59, fos. 342r–43r; f. 60, fos. 33v–34r, 43v–44r, and 72r. Cesi’s was only one of a half-dozen such secret processi pursued at the same time against similarly important subjects, among them Virginio Cesarini’s father the duke. Francesco Contarini-doge, 16 August 1608, in ASVe:SDR, f. 59, fos. 403r–4r. 240. Paul V is also less well served than Urban VIII in more recent historiography. As for Urban, the only attempt at a comprehensive survey of his reign is Pastor, History of the Popes, vols. 28 and 29. Very useful on both his patronage and his image of himself and his pontificate are a number of studies of his building at Santa Maria Maggiore, among them Klaus Schwager, “Die architektonische Erneuerung von S. Maria Maggiore unter Paul V.,” Römisches Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca Hertziana 20 (1983): 239–312; Gerhard Wolf, “Regina coeli, facies luna, ‘et in terra pax’: Aspekte der Ausstattung der Cappella Paolina in S. Maria Maggiore,” Römisches Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca Hertziana 27/8 (1991/92): 283–336; and especially Steven F. Ostrow, Art and Spirituality in Counter-Reformation Rome: The Sistine and Pauline Chapels in S. Maria Maggiore (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996). 241. “De gloria Pauli V,” in BAV, Barb. lat. 3282–89, which is probably about 5,000 folios long. I have not been able to see the manuscript. I judge its likely value on the basis of Perneo’s guide to Rome for the holy year of 1625 in BAV, Barb. lat. 3260, which is almost completely lacking in concrete information. 242. Bzowski, Paulus V, 6–7. 243. Ibid., 58 and 80. 244. Pellegrini, “Relazioni inedite,” 203–4; Gregorio Leti, Il nipotismo di Roma, or, History of the Popes Nephews from the Time of Sixtus the IV to the Death of the Last Pope Alexander the VII: In Two Parts / Written Originally in Italian in the Year 1667; and Englished by W. A. [William Aglionby] (London: Printed for John Starkey, 1669), 71. 245. Piero Guicciardini-Cosimo II, 4 March 1616. EN 12: no. 1185. 246. A. Enzo Baldini, Puntigli spagnoleschi e intrighi politici nella Roma di Clemente VIII: Girolamo Frachetta e la sua relazione del 1603 sui cardinali (Milan: Franco Angeli, 1981), 110. 247. Piero Guicciardini-Cosimo II, 4 March 1616. EN 12: no. 1185. 248. Avviso of 20 July 1630 in ASMod:AE, 137. 249. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, vol. 3:1, 58. 250. Ibid., 63.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 294

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 98–100

295

251. Ibid., 62. 252. Ibid., 62 and 59. 253. Ibid., 60. 254. Ibid., 58 and 59. 255. ASVe:SDR, f. 68, fo. 249r; avviso of 29 February 1611 in ASMod:AE, 134. 256. Bzowski, Paulus V, 82. 257. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 88. William V. Hudon makes this a piece of Paul’s misguided attempt to revive the legalism of medieval popes like Gregory VII and Innocent III. “Paul V (1605–21),” in Frank J. Coppa, ed., The Great Popes Through History (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2002), 373–80, especially 376. 258. Reinhardt, “Paolo V,” 290, makes this into a general comment on Paul’s cultural policy, in which he refused “a prendere posizioni troppo decise.” There is considerable room for doubt about the justice of this observation. 259. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 95. 260. Simeon Contarini-doge; ASVe:SDR, f. 72, fo. 310r. 261. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 87. 262. Ibid., 89. 263. E.g., ASVe:SDR, f. 67, fo. 116r. 264. ASVe:SDR, f. 70, fo. 306r. 265. Bzowski, Paulus V, 49 [recte 65]–68; Howard Hibbard, Carlo Maderno and Roman Architecture, 1580–1630 (London: Zwemmer, 1971). 266. Steven F. Ostrow, “Cigoli’s Immacolata and Galileo’s Moon: Astronomy and the Virgin in Early Seicento Rome,” Art Bulletin 78 (1996): 218–35; and Sara Elizabeth Booth and Albert Van Helden, “The Virgin and the Telescope: The Moons of Cigoli and Galileo,” in Galileo in Context, ed. Jürgen Renn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 193–216. 267. Francesco Contarini-doge, 8 December 1607, in ASVe:SDR, f. 58, fo. 320r; and avviso of 24 December 1611 in BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 881r. 268. Francesco Contarini-doge, 24 November 1608, in ASVe:SDR, f. 60, fo. 98r; cf. HC 4: 11. 269. Avviso of 9 March 1616 in BAV, Urb. lat. 1084, fo. 98r. 270. Hudon, “Paul V,” 377, says he “had a background as a serious scholar,” but it would be hard to support the claim. 271. Jeanne Bignami-Odier, La Bibliothèque Vaticane de Sixte IV à Pie XI, Studi e Testi 272 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1973), 101–2, 119–20. 272. BAV, Urb. lat. 1080, fo. 600r. The careful administrator Paul is also responsible for the establishment of the Vatican Archives in 1612. Bignami-Odier, Bibliothèque, 104–5. 273. ACDFSO:DSO 1608, p. 59. Some of Peña’s manuscripts, initially deposited in the Vatican Library, were transferred to the Holy Office in 1657. Bignami-Odier, Bibliothèque, 120. 274. Massimo Bucciantini, Contro Galileo: Alle origini dell’affaire (Florence: Olschki, 1995), 144, quoting Francesco Ingoli’s letter to Cardinal Bonifazio Caetani, 15 March 1614 in

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 295

8/27/12 11:46 AM

296

not es to pag es 100–101

Archivio Caetani, Fondo Generale, 63591. Reinhardt disagrees, finding no sign of a coherent attempt by Paul to control thought or anything else. “Paolo V,” 290. 275. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fo. 444r. 276. Francesco Beretta, “Le procès de Galilée et les archives du Saint-Office: Aspects judiciaires et théologiques d’une condamnation célèbre,” Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 83 (1999): 441–90, 473; Franco Motta, Bellarmino: Una teologia politica della Controriforma (Brescia: Morcelliana, 2005), 611. Again Reinhardt disagrees, seeing “un comportamento ampiamente moderato” in the Inquisition’s attitude to heresy. “Paolo V,” 290. Hudon, “Paul V,” 378, agrees with Reinhardt about Paul’s “moderate operation of the Holy Office.” 277. See the brief entry in DSI 3: 1616–17. 278. Pierre-Noël Mayaud, La condamnation des livres coperniciens et sa révocation à la lumière de documents inédits des Congrégations de l’Index et de l’Inquisition, Miscellanea Historiae Pontificiae 64 (Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1997), 25–26, 28–31; Georg Lutz, “Urbano VIII,” in Enciclopedia dei papi, 3: 298–321, 302, misses his tenure. 279. Among other sources for the story about Cardinal Barberini and Copernicus, see “Memorie intorno la Vita di PP. Urbano cavate dall’originale di Mon. [apparently Francesco] Herrera al quale S. Ma. le dettava,” in BAV, Barb. lat. 4734, fo. 245v. 280. Lutz, “Urbano VIII,” 298 and 301. 281. Ibid., 298; BAV, Barb. lat. 4730, pp. 12, 17, and 29, the first volume of Andrea Nicoletti’s life, which continues through Barb. lat. 4739. It is far the most detailed biography, albeit of uneven coverage. It was commissioned by Francesco Barberini but not completed until after his death in 1679. Subsequent references are to page only once the volume has been cited. Barberini held office as abbreviator from 13 October 1588 to 19 October 1596 and as auditor from 24 October 1593 to 7 December 1599. BAV, Barb. lat. 4900, fo. 14r. 282. BAV, Barb. lat. 4730, pp. 39, 50, and 56. Nicoletti makes Francesco’s movable property worth 200,000 scudi, while Lutz, “Urbano VIII,” 298 and 301, and Rietbergen, Barberini Cultural Policies, 67, give 100,000—either an enormous sum. Francesco’s will is in BAV, Archivio Barberini, nr. 176, fos. 1r–39v. 283. Lutz, “Urbano VIII,” 301. Palazzo Madruzzo or dei Penitenzieri was much more conveniently located and much larger, but it may not necessarily have been more comfortable. Pia Kehl, “Il palazzo dei Penitenzieri in Borgo,” in Laura Dal Prà, ed., I Madruzzo e l’Europa 1539–1658: I principi vescovi di Trento tra papato e impero (Trent: Provincia Autonoma; Milan: Charta, 1993), 705–9; Luigi Spezzaferro, “I Madruzzo a Roma: Spunti e appunti sulla committenza di una dinastia di cardinali,” in ibid., 683–93. Barberini may have had some as yet undiscovered connection to the Madruzzo. Among his acts of patronage was the building of a Rosary chapel (dedicated in 1620) in the porch of Sant’Onofrio near the foot of the Janiculum, in which church the Madruzzo had their funeral chapel. Luigi Spezzaferro, “La cappella Madruzzo in S. Onofrio al Gianicolo,” in ibid., 695–703. The link may run through Galileo’s sometime supporter Giovanni Battista Agucchi, who may have been involved in the design of the Madruzzo chapel (702). 284. Wiendlocha, Jugendgedichte, 223–24.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 296

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 101–103

297

285. Avviso of 20 November 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. 286. Maphaei S.R.E. Card. Barberini postea Urbani PP. VIII. Poemata, ed. Joseph Brown (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1726), 179–82. I am grateful to Peter Walker for assistance using the copy in the Library of Trinity College, Hartford. 287. Poemata, 166–68. 288. Rietbergen, Barberini Cultural Policies, 105. 289. Avvisi of 9 and 16 July 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139. 290. Ambassador Niccolini-Giovanni Battista Gondi, 25 January 1632. EN 18: no. 4196. 291. Urban’s juvenile poetry has recently received scholarly attention. See Wiendlocha, Jugendgedichte and my review in Sixteenth Century Journal 39 (2008): 319–21. His teacher Orsi remains largely unstudied. For the rest of Urban’s output, see especially the survey by Maria Castagnetti, “I poemata e le poesie toscane di Maffeo Barberini, I: Stampe e problemi di cronologia,” Atti dell’Accademia di Scienze, Lettere e Arti di Palermo ser. 4, 39, no. 2 (1979–80): 283–388 and the extensive discussion in Rietbergen, Barberini Cultural Policies, 97–144. I am grateful to Dario Del Pupo for several conversations about Urban’s vernacular poetry. 292. Giorgio Spini, Galileo, Campanella e il “divinus poeta” (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1996), 43. 293. The volume is entitled “Caprarola Aurelii Ursi Epigrammatis illustrata” and has a dedicatory verse by Vittrici. “Ursus Apes dominas, qui carminis auctor aderat,/O utinam nostros duceret ille dies./Nollet Farnesiam versu iam dicere molem;/ Ast VRBANE tua dona refusa manu./Tu largiris avis, ornant quae dona nepotem,/ A te, quam cupiat, qui modo plura capit./ Num canere haec Vrsus valeat? tua Maxime Vatum/ Sunt tantum numeris facta canenda tuis.” BAV, Barb. lat. 1794, frontispiece. 294. BAV, Barb. lat. 4728, fos. 323r, 345r. 295. BAV, Barb. lat. 4730, p. 47. Subsequent references in the text. 296. Lutz, “Urbano VIII,” 299. 297. Cardinal Antonio Caetani, Jr.’s report on Urban’s conclave in BAV, Urb. lat. 856, fo. 31v. 298. Lutz, “Urbano VIII,” 302. 299. BAV, Urb. lat. 856, fo. 32v. Caetani, who seems to have had reservations about Barberini, also alleged that he was given Spoleto to keep it away from Michelangelo Tonti in order to prevent him from becoming a cardinal. Nevertheless, according to Nicoletti, who claimed to be giving Caetani’s own words, he helped to engineer Urban’s election. BAV, Barb. lat. 4728, fo. 310r. 300. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 146, 148. 301. For his actions as legate, see Nicole Reinhardt, Macht und Ohnmacht der Verflechtung: Rom und Bologna unter Paul V; Studien zur frühneuzeitlichen Mikropolitik im Kirchenstaat (Tübingen: Bibliotheca academica, 2000), passim. 302. ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 88r. Anselmi was certainly Urban’s vicar as of 1617 (correspondence in BAV, Barb. lat. 8898, according to Sala Manoscritti, Etichetta Rossa 371,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 297

8/27/12 11:46 AM

298

not es to pag es 103–107

280). He died in 1630 at thirty-nine (see his funeral monument in the church of Santo Spirito in Sassia), which would make him a little young in 1611, unless Barberini followed the common practice of appointing a vicar who was a sort of apprentice. 303. Tommaso Contarini-doge of Venice, 23 March, 27 July, and 3 August 1613, in ASVe:SDR, f. 69, fo. 47r; f. 70, fos. 44v and 53v. 304. Rietbergen, Barberini Cultural Policies, 77. 305. Lutz, “Urbano VIII,” 302. 306. Ibid. Lutz says Urban began going to his private villa at Castel Gandolfo in 1617 and later transformed it into the papal residence. Lutz confuses the Villa Barberini with the papal palace, both now part of the papal compound. According to the plaques over the second’s main entrance, Paul V began work on it. 307. There are a number of accounts of the conclave. Mine is a synthesis of Cardinal Caetani’s in BAV, Urb. lat. 856, fos. 1r–50v; “Conclave dell’anno 1623,” in Barb. lat. 4724, fos. 7v–8v; Barb. lat. 4669, fos. 218r–26r; and Nicoletti’s brief account in BAV, Barb. lat. 4728, fos. 309r–13v. See also the summary in Lutz, “Urbano VIII,” 302–3. 308. BAV, Urb. lat. 856, fos. 27r, 30r, and 46r–v; BAV, Barb. lat. 4728, fo. 310r. 309. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, 3:1, 148. 310. Ibid., 157. 311. Ibid., 212. 312. Fattori, Clemente VIII, passim. 313. Giovanni Pesaro-doge, 1 February and 3 May 1631, in ASVe:SDR, ff. 103, fo. 370v and 104, fo. 169v. 314. Avviso of 1 January 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139. 315. Barozzi and Berchet, Relazioni di Roma, vol. 3:1, 149. 316. Ibid., 226. 317. Ibid., 226 and 234. 318. Ibid., 211–12 and 214. 319. Leti also harped on this point in his often witty fashion, e.g., Il nipotismo, 165 (History of the Popes Nephews, 111). 320. Leti, Il nipotismo, 260–61 and 329–30. 321. Ibid., 355 and 366–68. 322. For Urban’s foreign policy, see especially Leman, Urbain VIII. 323. Leti, Il nipotismo, 164–66; History of the Popes Nephews, 110. 324. The Venetians were especially annoyed. See the extensive treatment in the dispatches from Rome of 1631 and after: e.g., dispatch of 11 June 1633 saying the grand duke’s renewed order to his ambassador to grant precedence to Taddeo Barberini was heard “with the amazement of the whole [papal] court.” ASVe:SDR, f. 107, fo. 395r–v. The grand duke had already conceded the point in 1631. Giovanni Pesaro-doge, 13 September 1631, in ASVe:SDR, f. 104, fo. 592v. 325. Unsigned avviso of 18 May 1630 in ASMod:AE, 137, in same hand as other avvisi signed by Antonio Badelli; printed with small errors in punctuation in Luigi Amabile, “L’andata di Fra Tommaso Campanella a Roma dopo la lunga prigiona a Napoli,” Atti

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 298

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 107–112

299

dell’Accademia di Scienze Morali e Politiche di Napoli 20, 8 (1886): 1–51, 39–40; EN 14: no. 2009. 326. The child rejoiced in the name Carlo Maria Filippo Giuseppe Francesco Gasparo Baldassar Melchior Niccolò. BAV, Urb. lat. 1100, fos. 328r and 354v. 327. Avviso of 11 May 1630 in ASMod:AE, 137. 328. Angelo Contarini-doge, 5 June 1627, in ASVe:SDR, f. 96, fo. 147v. 329. “Nella congregatione del Santo Offitio, non havendo egli prattica di gli negotii subito che la prima volta vidde il modo che si teneva, imparò non solo a tractare i negotii di essa, ma anco a reggerla.” BAV, Barb. lat. 4900, fo. 43r. 330. ACDFSO:DSO 1634, fo. 117v. 331. Removing the outlier Gessi from the second group reduces its average to 45.3. 332. To be certain, we would need a demographic survey of the college of cardinals to see whether its average age might have declined between these roughly two generations. 333. The rumored nomination of one Muti was said to demonstrate “il tracollo alla riputatione di questo Tribunale” of the Rota. Avvisi of 2 February 1630 and 30 March 1630 in ASMod:AE, 137. In the event, Muti was not appointed. Cerchiari, Capellani papae, 2: 152. 334. “Ancorche non si sia formato processo alcuno in questa Causa [Pio’s], et che non si potesse formare, ad ogni modo il Papa se ne rideva, allegando, che a lui bastava di sapere la verità del fatto, non si curando, che apparisca giuditialmente.” Avviso of 23 November 1630 in ASMod:AE, 137; see also the avvisi of 16 November and 28 December 1630. 335. Avvisi of 11 and 25 January and 1 February 1631 in ASMod:AE, 138. Even more galling for Urban, he was forced to apologize to Cardinal Ludovisi. None of this affects Urban’s intention to act illegally. 336. Avviso of 28 August 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138.

chapter 4. the professional staff 1. For a list, see Andrea Del Col, “Commissario del Sant’Uffizio, Italia,” DSI 1: 351–52. 2. Avviso of 27 November 1610 in BAV, Barb. lat. 6344, fo. 199r; ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fo. 212v. 3. HC 4: 209; QE 2: 405. 4. ACDFSO:DSO 1612, p. 248. 5. See Chapter 1. 6. Antoine Touron, Histoire des hommes illustres de l’ordre de St Dominique, 6 vols. (Paris: Babuty [and Quillau], 1749), 5: 11–13. 7. There are two copies of his censures in BAV, Barb. lat. 1030 (fair copy) and Barb. lat. 915, along with those of Cardinal Bellarmino. 8. HC 4: 209. 9. TCD, MS 1230, fos. 109r–10r. 10. Thomas F. Mayer, “The Roman Inquisition’s Precept to Galileo (1616),” British Journal for the History of Science 43, 3 (2010): 327–51.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 299

8/27/12 11:46 AM

300

not es to pag es 112–113

11. Innocenzo Taurisano, Hierarchia ordinis praedicatorum (Rome: Manuzio, 1916), 78. 12. Ferdinando Ughelli, Niccolò Coleti, ed., Italia sacra (Venice: Sebastiano Coleti, 1717), 1: cols. 686–87. 13. Unless otherwise attributed, the information about Seghizzi’s early career comes from ibid., the original edition of which (1643–1662) is the source of the entry in Vincenzo Maria Fontana, Sacrum theatrum dominicanum (Rome: Niccolò Angelo Tinassi, 1656), 545. His birth name was Massimo. Nearly all printed sources following Ughelli agree that he was born in 1585, but see the note of his age as fifty-one when provided to Lodi in 1616 (ASV, Archivio Concistoriale, Acta Miscellanea 97, fo. 893, cited in HC 4: 216). Maria Grazia Casali, archivist of the diocese of Lodi, kindly confirmed the inferential date of 1565 from sources I have not been able to see. The year 1565 is almost certainly correct, given that Scaglia and Lanci both became commissary at forty. That Seghizzi could have been a provincial inquisitor at eighteen also seems highly unlikely. 14. ACDFSO:DSO 1601, fos. 232r, 234r, 236r, 239v, 241r, 244r. For Gentili, General Xavierre, and Seghizzi, see Fontana, Sacrum theatrum dominicanum, 545. Degree recorded in MOPH 11: 74. 15. ACDFSO:DSO 1601, fo. 213r. For Gentile, see DSI 2: 648–49. Seghizzi’s attendance record as socius is not quite as good as his predecessor, who had attended thirty of sixty-nine meetings immediately before Seghizzi’s appointment. He hit about the same level in 1602 (51/104), but in 1603 only twenty-five of eighty. The socius never attended corams, and there seem to have been complicated rules governing when else he was supposed to appear, but so far as I am aware, no one ever formalized them. Seghizzi’s likely age when appointed fits with the fact that Niccolò Riccardi was about the same age (thirty-nine) when he temporarily became socius in 1624. Ambrogio Eszer, “Niccolò Riccardi, O.P., ‘padre Mostro’ (1585–1639),” Angelicum 60 (1983): 428–57; ACDFSO:DSO 1624, fo. 116v. 16. ACDFSO:DSO 1603, fo. 188v/Copia fo. 192v. According to the decrees, Seghizzi should have served as socius for a minimum of three years before getting his own post, but this rule was rarely observed. “Patris Commissarii socii non eligantur Inquisitores, nisi completo triennio in s. Officio,” dated 31 May 1594. Cadène, “Collectio,” 4: 83; I was unable to trace the original in BC, MS 2631. 17. ACDFSO:DSO 1603 Copia, fo. 234r–v; 1604–1605 Copia, p. 156. 18. See, e.g, the order to the notary in 1609 to serve without compensation, including for writing up the processo. BC, MS 2631, fo. 383v (Cadène, “Collectio,” 4: 182, no. 1270). 19. ACDFSO:DSO Copia 1604–1605, pp. 226–27. 20. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fos. 116v, 141v, and 160r; 1606, fo. 244v; 1606–1607, fo. 188v. 21. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fos. 94v–95r; 1606, fo. 115r. 22. ACDFSO:DSO 1604–1605, fo. 441r–v; Copia, p. 971. 23. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fos. 1v–2r; 1606, fo. 7r. 24. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fo. 27v; 1606, fo. 36v. 25. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fo. 30v.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 300

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 113–115

301

26. Ibid., fo. 45r. 27. Ibid., fo. 57v; 1606, fo. 73r–v. 28. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fos. 94v–95r; 1606, fo. 115r. 29. Ibid., fo. 116v. 30. Ibid., fo. 141v. 31. ACDFSO:DSO 1606, fo. 244v; 1606–1607, fos. 188v and 199r. 32. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fos. 147r–v and 342v. 33. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fo. 217r. 34. He was provided on 3 September 1607 (HC 4: 167) and moved out of Rome quickly. He thanked the pope for the office on 6 October and paid a courtesy visit to the Venetian ambassador before leaving two weeks later. Francesco Contarini-doge; ASVe:SDR, f. 58, fos. 150v and 185v. 35. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fo. 396v. His name appears in the prison visitation of 22 December. Ibid., fo. 467r. 36. ACDFSO:DSO 1608, pp. 39, 100, and 129. 37. Ibid., pp. 143, 385, and 461; 1608–1609, fo. 260r; 1608, p. 537. 38. ACDFSO:DSO 1610, fo. 9r. 39. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fos. 62r and 103v. 40. Ibid., fos. 106v, 150r, 169v (Sfondrato’s continuing refusal to support rehabilitation. It does not appear formally in the decree registers, although it is referred to on 13 October 1611, when he was allowed to exhibit the document); 1611, p. 450; 1610–1611, fo. 422v. 41. ACDFSO:DSO 1612, p. 210. 42. The text is often reprinted, e.g., in Jacobo Simancas, De catholicis institutionibus (Rome: In Aedibus Populi Romani, 1575), 519–21; see the full discussion in Francesco Albizzi, De inconstantia in iure admittenda, vel non (Amsterdam: Jean Antoine Huguetan, 1683), 227–34. 43. ACDFSO:DSO 1604–1605, fo. 283v; Copia, pp. 695, 727, 836–37. 44. ACDFSO:DSO 1604–1605; Copia, pp. 409, 920. 45. ACDFSO:DSO 1606, fo. 12r. 46. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fos. 95v and 116v. 47. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fo. 158v, and again and again, e.g., 6 March 1607 (1607, fos. 60v–61r). 48. ACDFSO:DSO 1604–1605, fo. 261r; Copia 1604–1605, pp. 599–600. 49. See, e.g., the “nihil fiat” ordered by the Congregation on a denunciation reported by Seghizzi. ACDFSO:DSO 1608, p. 423. 50. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fos. 419r. 425v; 1607, fo. 265r; 1608, p. 6. 51. ACDFSO:DSO 1608, pp. 199 and 253–54. 52. ACDFSO:DSO 1609, p. 275. 53. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fos. 164r and 36v (request for one of them to serve as vicar); 1606–1607, fo. 441r; 1607, fo. 252r; 1608, p. 4. For Pietro Martire, see 1607, fos. 63v–64r; 1606–1607, fo. 160r. This was not the only instance of intraorder strife involving Seghizzi. See also the denunciation of him and Scaglia by Omobono da Cremona, OP, sentenced by

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 301

8/27/12 11:46 AM

302

not es to pag es 115–117

Seghizzi in 1609, claiming fraud by the inquisition’s vicar and notary. Once again the Congregation protected Seghizzi, although it may never have managed to recapture Omobono. 1610–1611, fo. 424r; 1612, p. 303; 1613, pp. 189 and 398. 54. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fo. 43v. 55. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fos. 182r and 190v. 56. ACDFSO:DSO Copia 1604–1605, p. 204; 1609, p. 12. See also the case of the interference by the prince of Bozzoli (who may have been the powerful Gonzaga cadet of that title) and his vicar in Holy Office business. 1608, pp. 509–10. 57. ACDFSO:DSO 1608, p. 48; 1608–1609, fo. 20r. 58. ACDFSO:DSO 1608, p. 557. 59. ACDFSO:DSO 1608–1609, fo. 397v; 1609, p. 291. The Milanese inquisition sat in the convent of Santa Maria delle Grazie, site of Leonardo’s “Last Supper.” 1612, p. 271. 60. Letter of 3 August 1609, printed in Fiorenza Rangoni, Fra’ Desiderio Scaglia Cardinale di Cremona: Un collezionista inquisitore nella Roma del seicento (Rome: Self-published, 2008), 257. 61. Although there is probably nothing unusual about the volume of traffic he sent to Rome, it still makes an impressive total. See the typical run of letters of 22, 29, and 31 October (ACDFSO:DSO 1613, pp. 543, 557, 612), 5, 6, 13 November (possibly two letters or at least two big cases; 1613, p. 563), and 4 December 1613 (1614, p. 3). 62. ACDFSO:DSO 1608–1609, fo. 492r; 1609, p. 498. 63. Although the word maleficium is usually translated “witchcraft,” there is enough doubt about its meaning to prefer the direct English cognate. 64. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fos. 223v, 294v, 318v, 376v. 65. See Rainer Decker, “Entstehung und Verbreitung des Römischen Hexenprozein­ instruktionen” in Hubert Wolf, et al., eds., Inquisition, Index, Zensur. Wissenkulturen der Neuzeit in Widerstreit (Paderborn: Schöningh, 2001), 159–76, 161–65. 66. ACDFSO:DSO 1610, fo. 19r. 67. See, for example, the decree requiring consultation of the Congregation before levying fines. BC, MS 2631, fo. 293v (Cadène, “Collectio,” 3: 354, no. 673). 68. ACDFSO:DSO 1613, pp. 30, 97, and 120. The accusation by one Matteo da Milano, OP, came at long distance from Padua. He was examined in Rome, which makes it appear he may have gone there to pursue his denunciation. 69. Seghizzi had proposed to proceed against the imprisoned Giulio Borri’s bond. ACDFSO:DSO 1613, p. 214. 70. ACDFSO:DSO 1612, p. 198. 71. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fos. 77v–78r and 76v. 72. ACDFSO:DSO 1612, pp. 206, 209, and 240. 73. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fo. 53r. 74. Ibid., fos. 323v and 352r. For him, see DSI 3: 1573–75, almost entirely devoted to his handling of the Jews of Modena. 75. ACDFSO:DSO 1615, p. 9. 76. S. L. Forte, “I Domenicani nel carteggio del card. Scipione Borghese, protettore

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 302

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 117–118

303

dell’Ordine (1606–1633),” Archivum fratrum praedicatorum 30 (1960): 351–416, 410, nos. 115 and 116. 77. ACDFSO:DSO 1615, pp. 2 and 9; see the almost exact coincidence in time between Vincenzo Maculano’s appointment on 22 December 1632 and that of a new socius a week later. 1632, fo. 195r; 1633, fo. 2r. Similarly, Ippolito Lanci’s first socius, Costantino Testi, was sworn in on 14 April 1621, two weeks after Lanci took his oath. 1620, p. 106. After a difficult assignment as commissary of the Holy Office in Calabria (from late 1624; 1624, fo. 168r) he reappears as socius on 30 July 1625 (1625, fo. 129v) and apparently remained in office until 1628 when be was made bishop of Campagna, proposed by Scaglia. BAV, Urb. lat. 1098 I, fo. 45r; HC 4: 131 (incorrectly saying his name should be Testa). Undoubtedly the most dramatic sign of a strong link between commissary and socius is that between Desiderio Scaglia and his last socius, Abundio Lambertenghi da Como. Lambertenghi was appointed on 2 January 1620, a little more than a year before the end of Scaglia’s tenure. 1620, p. 13. Barely a month after Scaglia became an Inquisitor, Lambertenghi made the unprecedented and probably unique jump from socius to inquisitor of Milan. 1621, p. 99; 1621–1622, fo. 36v. 78. ACDFSO:DSO 1615, pp. 98 and 99. Tinti then appeared twice in rapid succession as a witness, a fact known only from the lucky survival of a few processi from this period now in Trinity College Dublin. 79. TCD, MS 1230, fos. 113r–14r, 109r–10r. 80. ACDFSO:DSO 1612, p. 96. 81. BAV, Urb. lat. 1084, fo. 197r, giving the total amount of the pensions reserved as if they went to the holder, Ludovico Taverna, bishop since 1579 (HC 3: 220). In fact, 500 scudi were set aside for a person to be named later. The bishop drew a total income of 5,800 scudi. HC 4: 216. 82. Avviso of 25 May 1616 in BAV, Urb. lat. 1084, fo. 204r; ACDFSO:DSO 1616, p. 208. 83. Avviso of 29 June in BAV, Urb. lat. 1084, fo. 252v. 84. ACDFSO:DSO 1616, p. 410. 85. Letter of 15 October 1616, printed in Rangoni, Scaglia, 263. 86. ACDFSO:DSO 1616, p. 413. 87. ACDFSO:DSO 1616, p. 369. 88. ACDFSO:DSO 1616, p. 329; 1619, p. 419. In 1626 he was transfered to Modena. BAV, Barb. lat. 6334, fos. 22v–23r. 89. Rangoni, Scaglia, 20, who confuses Deodato with Seghizzi. 90. ACDFSO:DSO 1619, p. 419; 1624, fo. 106v. For the stipulation that a socius could not become an inquisitor until he had served three years, see Cadène, “Collectio,” 4: 83, no. 1080, citing decrees of 31 May 1594 and 21 March 1596, neither of which I could locate in his manuscript sources. 91. ACDFSO:DSO Copia 1604–1605, p. 309; 1620, p. 23. 92. Fontana, Sacrum theatrum dominicanum, 545. Francesco Arisi in his notoriously inaccurate Cremona literata printed a document from the lost archives of the Dominicans of

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 303

8/27/12 11:46 AM

304

not es to pag es 118–120

Cremona recording Scaglia’s profession there in 1584; the funeral oration by Guidobaldo Benamati, who knew Scaglia in Parma, also said Cremona. Rangoni, Scaglia, 14; Benamati, I concorrenti porporati (Perugia: Angelo Bartoli, 1639), 10, quoted in Rangoni, Scaglia, ibid., 308. 93. Rangoni, Scaglia, 14. 94. Benamati, I concorrenti, 10, quoted in ibid., 308. 95. Rangoni, Scaglia, 15, citing three canzoni by Benamati dedicated to Scaglia “predicatore” and printed in 1616. Benamati made his career in Parma; 55–56. 96. Lorenzo Cardella, Memorie storiche de’ cardinali della Santa romana chiesa (Rome: Pagliarini, 1792), 6: 213; Rangoni, Scaglia, 17. 97. Benamati, I concorrenti, 7, quoted in Rangoni, Scaglia, 306. 98. Appointed 4 February 1605. ACDFSO:DSO Copia 1604–1605, p. 567. 99. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fos. 163v and 188v. 100. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fo. 196v; 1606–1607, fo. 385v. 101. BABo, MS 1863-B, fo. 81r, quoted in John A. Tedeschi, The Prosecution of Heresy: Collected Studies on the Inquisition in Early Modern Italy (Binghamton, N.Y.: Medieval and Renaissance Texts and Studies, 1991), 212 and 224; and Rangoni, Scaglia, 19, who could not confirm the denunciation from the registers in the Dominican archives. She also hypothesizes incorrectly that it was part of a fitness review for the new inquisitor. The archivio of the convent of S. Domenico in Bologna has undergone the usual vicissitudes, but Guido Dall’Olio tells me it may still contain records of this processo. 102. There is a copy in the Newberry Library, Bonaparte 5002. I am grateful to Paul Gehl for information about it. 103. Rangoni, Scaglia, 285–89. 104. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fo. 264v. The decree does not say whether any processi were included in the reports, but probably not. 105. See the citations in Tommaso Nappo and Paolo Noto, Indice biografico italiano (Munich and New York: K. G. Saur, 1993), s.n., none of which I have been able to see. In the preface, the author provides circumstantial evidence placing himself in the household of Zorzi Zen in Verona and apparently also of Alberto Pompei. The edition also includes two laudatory verses to the author by members of the Accademia degli’Illustri at Casale. 106. ACDFSO:DSO 1608, p. 445. 107. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fos. 232r and 255v. 108. Ibid., fo. 341v. 109. Ibid., fo. 370r. 110. ACDFSO:DSO 1609, p. 323. 111. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fos. 424v–25r. 112. ACDFSO:DSO 1612, pp. 269 and 277, 320–21, and 370–71. 113. ACDFSO:DSO 1613, pp. 334–35. 114. As on 9 July 1612. ACDFSO:DSO 1612, p. 300. 115. ACDFSO:DSO 1613, pp. 145, 376, 390, and 498. 116. ACDFSO:DSO 1614, p. 101. 117. Ibid., p. 492; 1615, pp. 172–73.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 304

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 121–122

305

118. Ibid., pp. 112, 126, 166, 492, and 497. 119. ACDFSO:DSO 1615, pp. 184–85 (torture), 470–71, and 484–85. 120. ACDFSO:DSO 1618, p. 2. 121. Forte, “I Domenicani,” 403, no. 74. 122. ACDFSO:DSO 1612, pp. 303, 106, 159, and 370. 123. ACDFSO:DSO 1616, pp. 9 and 290. 124. See Borghese’s letters to Scaglia of 27 December 1614 and 14 February 1615. Biblioteca Angelica, MS 1228, fo. 148r, printed in Rangoni, Scaglia, 269 and 22n. 125. See two letters of October printed in Rangoni, Scaglia, 259. 126. ACDFSO:DSO 1616, pp. 290 and 312–13. 127. I have not tracked Scaglia’s and Ippolito Lanci’s careers as commissaries with quite as much care as Seghizzi’s and Vincenzo Maculano’s, since they were not directly involved in Galileo’s trial. 128. ACDFSO:DSO 1619, p. 147, printed in Leen Spruit, “Cremonini nelle carte del Sant’Uffizio romano,” in Cesare Cremonini: Aspetti del pensiero e scritti, ed. E. Riondato and Antonino Poppi (Padua: Academia Galileiana, 2000), 193–204, 201, with some errors. 129. ACDFSO:DSO 1619, p. 255; Spruit, “Cremonini,” 201. 130. ACDFSO:DSO 1619, p. 334; Spruit, “Cremonini,” 201–2, without identification of Scaglia. 131. ACDFSO:DSO 1618, p. 279. 132. Ibid., p. 308. 133. ACDFSO:DSO 1619, pp. 362 and 444. 134. ACDFSO:DSO 1620, pp. 133 and 400. 135. Ibid., pp. 159 and 213. The work was attributed to Joseph Creswell but was really by his fellow English Jesuit John Floyd (1572–1649) writing under the pseudonym of Fidelis Annosus Verimentanus. It was published in Antwerp in 1620. See Anthony F. Allison, “The Later Life and Writings of Joseph Cresswell, SJ (1556–1623),” Recusant History 15 (1979–81): 79–144, 128; Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Creswell. http://www.oxforddnb. com/view/article/9772, accessed 2 June 2008. There may be some cause for doubt about this attribution, since a person representing himself as the Jesuit Creswell wrote the Congregation from Brussels on 10 July 1620 and was ordered on 6 August to send “folia quae successive indici imprimentur.” ACDFSO:DSO 1620, p. 285. 136. Daniele Bartoli, Della vita di Roberto cardinal Bellarmino (Rome: Niccolò Angelo Tinassi, 1678), 474–76. Scaglia singled out Bellarmino’s political sagacity in addition to his sincerity and prudence. 137. ACDFSO:DSO 1621, p. 44; HC 4: 14. 138. ACDFSO:DSO 1621, p. 61. 139. ACDFSO:DSO 1621, p. 23 (1621–1622, fo. 9v); 1621–1622, fo. 34r (1621, p. 91). Antonio Favaro, who had access to the decree registers, mistakenly dated the beginning of Lanci’s tenure to 27 January 1621, http://moro.imss.fi.it/lettura/LetturaWEB.DLL? AZIONE=UNITA&TESTO=Eb3&PARAM=785–430743–39166&VOL=20&RADIO=B, accessed 9 January 2007.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 305

8/27/12 11:46 AM

306

not es to pag es 122–124

140. ACDFSO:DSO 1621, p. 57. 141. Ibid., p. 99. 142. ACDFSO:DSO, 1598, fo. 261r. It is also possible that Lanci was from Acquanegra sul Chiese (MN). Either would make him a Lombard, but still not a Brescian. 143. The evidence is complicated. In 1634, the inquisitor of Cremona was licensed— quite extraordinarily—to come to Rome to help Lanci, “his uncle” (“eius avunculi”), who was then dying. He is later identifed both as Pietro Martire “de Acquanegra” and as Pietro Martire Riccardi. ACDFSO:DSO 1634, fos. 95v (Copia, p. 314) and 153r (Copia, p. 509). Pietro Martire had earlier been socius before becoming inquisitor in Reggio. 1624, fo. 134v; 1625, fo. 124r. When he was appointed socius the notary probably confused him with Niccolò Riccardi, possibly because they were related. 1624, fos. 116v and 131v. Niccolò was from Genoa, but his family ties stretched far enough afield for him to be a cousin of the Florentine ambassador’s wife, for example. 144. Johann Heinrich Zedler, ed., Grosses vollständiges Universal-Lexicon aller Wissenschafften und Künste (Halle and Leipzig: J.H. Zedler, 1732–54), 16: 198, citing Andrea Rovetta, Bibliotheca chronologica illustrium virorum provinciae Lombardae Sacri Ordinis Praedicatorum (Bologna: Longi, 1691). 145. Fontana, Sacrum theatrum dominicanum, 450. 146. ACDFSO:DSO 1615, pp. 416–17. 147. He was appointed 21 November 1619. ACDFSO:DSO 1619, p. 419. 148. ACDFSO:DSO 1620, pp. 319, 337, 347, 357, 380, 387­–88, 397, 415. The final solution was to leave all as it had been. 149. ACDFSO:DSO 1622, p. 289. 150. ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fos. 119v, 156r, and 162r. 151. ACDFSO:DSO 1624, fo. 105v. 152. E.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 16v. 153. ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 117r; 1626, fo. 184v. It is unclear why currency manipulations concerned the Holy Office. This may be another instance of Urban’s tendency to use whatever instrument lay to hand. 154. ACDFSO:DSO 1628, fo. 58r. 155. E.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1626, fo. 156r. 156. ACDFSO:DSO 1626, fo. 121r: “ut si per locis suspectis interrogari Auctor possit.” 157. ACDFSO:DSO 1621–1622, fo. 227r. 158. ACDFSO:DSO 1622, p. 253. 159. Decio Memmoli, Vita dell’eminentissimo Signor Cardinale Gio. [sic] Garzia Mellino Romano (Rome: Giovanni Paolo Rocchetti, 1644), 54; BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 II, fos. 525v, 591v, 634r–35r, and 637r–v. 160. The notary noted on the wrapper “25 Octobris 1629 Adm. R. P. Fr. Hippolitus Maria Lancius ord: Praedicator. Sac. Theologiae Magr., et Com.s generalis sancti Officii vigore retroscriptarum literarum sibi scriptarum ab Ill.m [sic] Card.le S. Honuphrii datum ex Castelcandulfo 22. huius substituit in eius locum Magr. Vincentium a Florentiola ord: Praedicat. sacrae Theologiae Magistrum Procuratorem g.nalem d. ordinis iuxta formam,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 306

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 124–125

307

et tenorem p.tarum literarum super quibus Act. Romae in Palatio S. Officii in mansionibus superioribus eiusdem P. Com.i Presentibus Thomae de Federicis Romano, et Jo. Lupo Asten. testibus.” ACDFSO:DSO 1629, unfoliated leaves between fos. 177 and 178. 161. ACDFSO:DSO 1629, fos. 191r, 192v, 200v, and 202v. 162. Ibid., fo. 200v. Gastaldi was quickly promoted to inquisitor of Mantua (on 12 December 1630; ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 200r), which may have been a move against Lanci. The fact that Gastaldi was replaced by Lanci’s (and Riccardi’s) nephew Pietro Martire Riccardi, himself replaced in 1634 (1634, fo. 153r), and Gastaldi apparently was left with nothing argues for this interpretation. 163. ACDFSO:DSO 1629, fo. 204v. 164. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fos. 57v and 68r. 165. Melchior Inchofer, Tractatus syllepticus, in quo, quid de terrae, solisque motu, vel statione, secundum S. Scripturam, & sanctos patres sentiendum, quave certitudine alterutra sententia tenenda sit, breviter ostenditur (Rome: Ludovico Grignani, 1633). For a translation and commentary, see Richard J. Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial (Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 2006). The best biographical study is Thomas Cerbu, “Melchior Inchofer, ‘un homme fin & rusé,’” in Largo campo di filosofare: Eurosymposium Galileo 2001, ed. José Montesinos and Carlos Solís Santos (La Orotava, Spain: Fundación Canaria Orotava de Historia de la Ciencia, 2001), 587–611. 166. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 67v. 167. Ibid., foot fo. 70v and fos. 72v and 79v. I have not traced the opening of the case and do not therefore know the charges. The priest’s name was Giovanni Battista Parri from Fossombrone, and the nun (actually a Franciscan tertiary) was Angela Magnana from Fiano Romano. She remained in prison in December 1630. The case involved eight suspects in total. Ibid., fos. 88r and 206. 168. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fos. 89v, 91v, 94r, 94v, 97r, and 155v. He spent at least some of the time in Perugia. Ibid., fo. 140v. 169. ACDFSO, St. st. O-3-g, fos. 96r–98r; Ursula Dirmeier, ed., Mary Ward und ihre Gründung: Die Quellentexte bis 1645, Corpus Catholicorum 45–48 (Münster: Aschendorff, 2007), 3: 110 (congregation headed by Scaglia); ACDFSO:DSO 1631, fo. 57r, apparently under Zacchia’s presidency. 170. TCD, MS 1232, fo. 355r; ACDFSO:DSO 1632, fo. 95v (Copia, p. 314). 171. Avviso of 5 November 1631 in ASMod:AE, 138. 172. Avviso of 4 December in ASMod:AE, 138. 173. Avviso of 13 November 1632 in ASMod:AE, 137. The fourth cause concerned Lanci’s assistance to Antonio Labia. 174. Avviso of 1 January 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139. 175. 26 December 1632; AdS Florence, Archivio Mediceo del Principato, 3352, unfoliated; and DBI 57: 463. 176. Avviso of 20 November 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. It appears that Lanci did try to get some compensation in the form of promotion for his former socius, Gastaldi. He was promised the next inquisitorship, but he still had nothing after three vacancies went to

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 307

8/27/12 11:46 AM

308

not es to pag es 125–126

other men. ACDFSO:DSO 1634, fos. 102v, 153r, 157v; 1635, fo. 20r (Genoa, which would have been the next step from Mantua, as it had been for Eliseo Masini). 177. Avviso of 1 January 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139. 178. EN 14: no. 2316. It and other sources, e.g., Domenico Berti, Il processo originale di Galileo Galilei, new and enlarged edition with “Avvertenza” (Rome: Carlo Voghera, 1878), 289, misidentify the commissary to whom Castelli spoke as Maculano. Stillman Drake even went so far as to make Lanci the villain and also quite incorrectly added that the engineer Maculano was “hardly a mathematician,” and cited “some evidence, though at present tenuous” that Lucas Holstein meant Lanci when he blamed Galileo’s downfall on the commissary. Stillman Drake, Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), 343 and 454. See also Vincenzo Ferrone and Massimo Firpo, “From Inquisitors to Microhistorians: A Critique of Pietro Redondi’s Galileo eretico,” Journal of Modern History 58 (1986): 485–524, 503; Geoffrey Cantor and John Hedley Brooke, “The Contemporary Relevance of the Galileo Affair,” http://www.giffordlectures.org/Browse.asp ?PubID=TPRECN&Volume=0&Issue=0&ArticleID=6, accessed 9 September 2008; John Brooke, “Science and Religion: Lessons from History?” Science 282, 5396 (11 December 1998): 1985–86, 1986. 179. The books, “Praxis brevis pro inquisitoribus procedendi in causis fidei” and “Summa brevis casuum per se ad S. Officium spectantium,” are cited in Zedler, UniversalLexicon, probably drawing on Rovetta. Neither work has been found. 180. See his memorial slab in the church. The inscription is reproduced in Vincenzo Forcella, Iscrizioni delle chiese e d’altri edificii di Roma dal secolo XI fino ai giorni nostri, 14 vols. in 7 (Rome: Tip. delle scienze matematiche e fisiche, 1869–84), 7: 311. When the church was restored in the early twentieth century, a wit put his and Maculano’s slabs right next to each other. 181. ACDFSO:DSO 1623, fo. 325v. 182. QE 2:1: 622b–23a; see 343 for Tragagliolo, which mistakenly said he came from Florence, probably through a confusion of Firenzuola d’Arda with Firenzuola in Tuscany on the frontier of the papal states. Vincenzo Marchese, Memorie dei più insigni pittori, scultori e architetti domenicani, 4th ed. (Bologna: Tipografia Pontificia Mareggiani/Gaetano Romagnoli Editore, 1879), 459. 183. DBI 67: 132. 184. Alfonso Chacón, Vitae et res gestae pontificum romanorum et S. R. E. cardinalium, ed. Agostino Oldoino (Rome: Filippo and Antonio De Rubeis, 1677–78), 4: cols. 607–10; Touron, Histoire, 5: 449–58. 185. Fontana, Sacrum theatrum dominicanum, 40. 186. Letter from Maculano to Borghese 16 June 1618, autograph. ASV, Fondo Borghese I 691, fo. 169r. 187. ASV, Fondo Borg. II 488, fo. 10v. 188. ASV, Fondo Borg. II 488, fo. 176r; abstract in Forte, “I Domenicani,” 386; ASV, Fondo Borg. II 488, fo. 454r, abstracted in Forte, 389, as “SS. Illma gli dice che il P. Vincenzo da Firenzuola O.P. sarà trattato con giustizia nell’esame della sua causa.”

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 308

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 126–128

309

189. ACDFSO:DSO 1624, fo. 106v. 190. BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 II, fo. 777r. 191. “[H]omme plus versé ès fortifications qu’en matière de théologie ou de saint Office, quoiqu’il en soit maintenant commissaire.” Lettres à Jacques Dupuy (1632–1652), ed. P. Wolfe (Edmonton: University of Alberta Press, 1982), 76, cited in DBI 67: 133–34. 192. ACDFSO:DSO 1624, fo. 148v; 1625, fo. 5r. 193. 2 October 1625, leave for two weeks’ absence (ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 167r); 13 November 1625, a month (fo. 189v); 10 December, another month (fo. 204r)—in other words he was probably absent throughout October, November, and December (since the inquisitor is usually not identifed by name, and he was always ordered to appoint a substitute, we cannot be sure that he was not permanently absent); 12 February 1626, another two weeks on undated request from Genoa (1626, fo. 28r), encapsulated in a letter of 14 February in BAV, Barb. lat. 6334, fo. 36v; 16 April, eight or ten days (1626, fo. 63v); and 18 June “Reipublicae Genuae lecto memoriali S.mus concessit licentiam fratri Vincentio a Florentiola Inq.ri Papiae eundem Genuam ibique manendi per mensem pro servitio dictae Reipublicae, proviso Off. ne patiatur detrimentum ob illius absentiam” (fo. 103v; and letter to Maculano of 20 June in BAV, Barb. lat. 6334, fo. 164r). 194. According to unidentified local chronicles cited in L’Emilia Romagna paese per paese; Enciclopedia dei comuni d’Italia (Florence: Bonechi, 1987), 2: 329, “Tremila e più operai furono adibiti a tali lavori presieduti dal Cavaliere Rho, maestro di campo, e dal Maculani, il quale abitava nel chiostro di S. Giovanni in Canale,” but I have found no documentary proof of the claim. For the convent, see http://www.comune.piacenza.it/english/history/medioevo.asp, accessed 7 June 2008. The duchess of Parma certainly gained his services in April 1626. See BAV, Barb. lat. 6334, fo. 77r, a letter of 4 April allowing Maculano to work for her for ten days. 195. http://www.fortidigenova.com/genovamura/capitolo3.html, accessed 7 June 2008; and Marchese, Memorie, 462–66, citing archival documents including Maculano’s correspondence dated July and August 1625, May 1626, July 1628, June 1629. 196. ACDFSO:DSO 1627, fo. 155r. 197. Ibid., fo. 204r. 198. Andrea Del Col, L’Inquisizione in Italia (Milan: Mondadori, 2006), 517, demonstrating the impact of a local inquisitor’s presence or absence. 199. Gun-carrying official: ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fos. 72v and 89v; magnetic baptism: fo. 169v; failed commutation: 1626, fos. 50v and 52v/106r–v; solicitation: 1625, fo. 172v–73r and 1626, fo. 131v. 200. ACDFSO:DSO 1626, fos. 152v and 188r, 107r and 198r–v, 151v and 202r–v, and 202r–v. 201. ACDFSO:DSO 1628, fos. 168r, 179v, 185r, 190r, 200v, 205r. 202. ACDFSO:DSO 1629, fos. 38v and 165r. 203. DBI 67: 133 says Urban gave Maculano the appointment without citing a source. 204. BAV, Barb. lat. 6468, fo. 1r, autograph; Barb. lat. 6043, fo. 17r. 205. BAV, Barb. lat. 6468, fo. 4r; ASVe:SDR, f. 102, fos. 64v–65r, 23 March 1631.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 309

8/27/12 11:46 AM

310

not es to pag e 128

206. BAV, Barb. lat. 6468, fo. 20r; avviso, possibly in Maculano’s hand, enclosed in the last according to the docket or wrapper, fo. 21r–v; fo. 26r (about the Spanish ambassador and the likely allegiance of Genoa to Spain in the event of war); and fo. 27r (a letter about Holy Office business, defending himself in the event of an untoward result). The correspondent’s identity as Cardinal Francesco is supported by the letter of 20 February 1632 (fo. 24r) in which Maculano said that he could not give “Panziroli” advice. This was Francesco’s client Giovanni Giacomo, then a main cog in the secretariat of state and his maggiordomo. He would be illegally admitted auditor of the Rota at Cardinal Francesco’s demand at the same time as Alessandro Boccabella. Andreas Kraus, Das päpstliche Staatssekretariat unter Urban VIII 1623–1644 (Rome: Herder, 1964), 30–31; BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 II, fo. 720v. Maculano also reported to him; e.g., BAV, Barb. lat. 6468, fo. 26r. 207. Two letters from him to Maculano thanking him for news from Genoa survive, one responding to one of Maculano’s “patron” letters of 12 February. BAV, Barb. lat. 6263, fos. 17r and 20r, 28 February (replying to BAV, Barb. lat. 6468, fo. 20r); 6 March 1632, possibly replying to Maculano’s of 20 February (BAV, Barb. lat. 6468, fo. 24r). 208. Carlo Brizzolari, L’Inquisizione a Genova e in Liguria (Genoa: E.R.G.A., 1974), pl. 17, “Capitoli di lettera del P. Fra Vincenzo de Fiorenzola di Genova il primo di Marzo 1632,” identified only as coming from the AdS in Genoa. 209. After his return in July 1630 he attended nearly all corams and a substantial number of other sessions. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fos. 108v, 109v, 113v, 118r, 119r, 121v, 122v, 125v, 127r, 130v, 131v, 133v, 138r, 138v, 141v, 142v, 145v, 146v, 150r, 151r, 154v, 155v, 159r, 161v, 163r, 164v, 174v, 177r, 179r, 179v, 183r, 184r, 193r, 197r, 200v, 205r. By contrast, he missed meetings on 16, 23, and 30 October, 21 and 27 November, 4, 11, 18, and 23 December (1630, fos. 166r, 169r, 171r, 187v, 188v, 194r, 198r, 202r, and 206r). His record in 1631 is not quite as good. He attended on 2, 7 [sic], 9, 16, 23, 29, 30 January; 5, 6, 12 (when second on list), 13, 19, 20, 26, 27 February; 6, 12, 13, 19, 20, 26, 27 March; 2, 3, 9, 10, 14, 23, 24, and 30 April; 1, 14, and 28 May; 4, 5, 11, ?12, 25, 26 June; 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17, 30 July; 6 November; 10, 16, 30 December (both as Dominican vicar-general) (1631, fos. 5r, 9v, 10v, 13v, 18r, 19r, 22v, 24r, 26v, 28r, 31v, 33r, 36v, 37v, 40r, 43v, 44v, 48r, 49r, 52r, 53r, 56r, 57v, 61v, 62v, 66v, 67v, 69r, 73r, 74v, 77v, 84v, 92r, 94v, 98r, 99v, 103r, 106v, 110v, 111v, 115v, 117v, 121r, 122r, 125r, 130r, 190v, 209r, 214v; 1632, fo. 2v). Maculano missed meetings on 7 [sic] and 22 January; 3 March; 7 and 21 May; 17 June; 23, 24, 31 July; 5, 7, 13, 14, 20, 21, 27, 28 August; 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, 18, 25 September; 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 22, 29, 30 October; 5, 12, 13, 19, 20, 26, 27 November; 2, 10, 11, 18, 23 December (1631, fos. 6r, 15r, 41r, 79r, 88v, 104r, 126r, 129r, 133v, 134v, 137v, 138v, 142v, 143v, 148r, 148v, 152v, 154r, 157r, 158r, 162r, 163r, 166v, 170v, 172r, 174r, 175r, 178r, 179r, 181r, 183v, 187r, 188r, 191v, 195r, 196v, 199v, 201r, 203v, 205r, 209r, 213v, 217v, 218v). 210. BAV, Barb. lat. 6468, fo. 19r. The pope allegedly used extraordinary means, appointing Maculano by breve “contra tutti li soliti.” Avviso of 13 November 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. 211. “Adesso è tempo di diffendermi dalle calunnie che fanno l’ultime nove.” The docket says he sought help against “altri frati.” Avviso of 29 April 1632 in BAV, Barb. lat. 6468, fo. 28r.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 310

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 128–129

311

212. It is possible that this was Maculano’s nephew Prospero Bagarotti, at some point Dominican provincial. DBI 67: 133. 213. BAV, Barb. lat. 6468, fos. 38r, 40r, 41r. For the lawyer Tornielli, who had a career much like Febei’s, see BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 II, fos. 588r and 667r; ACDFSO:DSO 1633, fo. 167r; and HC 4: 262 for his appointment as bishop of his hometown of Novara. 214. Francesco Beretta (DBI 67: 133) says Maculano’s motive was the wish to make his nephew Bagarotti general, but this seems unlikely. There was a disputed election, and Maculano’s nephew may have been the majority candidate, whom Touron does not name; he says the other was Michel Mazzarin. Urban was forced to depose Ridolfi by a breve and annul the election. Touron does not say who was then chosen and makes Tommaso Turco Ridolfi’s canonically chosen successor at the Rome chapter in 1644 (Touron, Histoire, 5: 311, 316). The Dominican acta give Tommaso da Roccamora as general in 1642, Turco in 1644. MOPH 12: 75 and 99. Bagarotti did not attend in 1642 (hardly anyone did) but did in Rome as inquisitor of Bologna. QE 2: xx gives Mazzarin and Roccamora as the two men elected in 1642. It has no entry for Maculano’s nephew. 215. ACDFSO:DSO 1632, fos. 185r and 195r. 216. BAV, Barb. lat. 6468, fos. 35r, 36r, and 39r (9, 14, and 24 April 1633); see also fo. 53r (11 May 1633); Marchese, Memorie, 469. 217. BAV, Barb. lat. 6468, fos. 58r–59v and 65r. For Maculano’s work on the Santa Margherita (or Firenzuola) Lines, see http://www.bormla.gov.mt/default. asp?selMMSec=0&selMMCat=52, accessed 5 July 2008. For Floriani on Malta, see Alessandro Bonnici, “Due secoli di storia politico-religiosa di Malta nel fondo Barberini latino della Biblioteca Vaticana,” Melita Historica: Journal of the Malta Historical Society 4 (1967): 229–56, 251. His letters thence from October 1635 to July 1636 are in BAV, Barb. lat. 6697, fos. 63r–95r; letters to him, Barb. lat. 6702; and see also the letter of 5 April 1632 from Francesco Barberini to him about Ferrara (Barb. lat. 6263, fo. 27v). 218. ACDFSO:DSO 1639, fo. 112r. This was the same path followed by an earlier commissary, Andrea Giustiniani. 1610–1611, fo. 212v; 1612, p. 248. 219. BAV, Barb. lat. 6468, fo. 78. 220. BAV, Barb. lat. 6468, fos. 77r and 79r. 221. His correspondence does not include either ACDFSO, St. st. N 3-e or -g, listed as containing such in DBI. Both concern the Jesuits, the first especially their use of Thomas Aquinas, recently made official theologian of the Society. 222. BAV, Barb. lat. 6468, fo. 120r. 223. See the topographical bird’s-eye view of Rome showing the walls and Porta S. Pancrazio, naming Maculano as the architect (American Numismatic Society, inventory no. 1886.28.9); Ludwig von Pastor, The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages, vol. 29, trans. and ed. Ernest Graf (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1938), 362; Marchese, Memorie, 471–72; and his epitaph in Joachim Joseph Berthier, L’Église de S. Sabine a Rome (Rome: Roma, 1910), 440; and in Forcella, Iscrizioni, 7: 320. 224. HC 4: 113. 225. BAV, Barb. lat. 4675, fos. 64r–65v.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 311

8/27/12 11:46 AM

312

not es to pag es 129–130

226. Touron, Histoire, 5: 449–58. 227. DBI 67: 133–34. 228. The only scrap of information about how assessors were chosen is the note of the nomination of two candidates in 1599 in the middle of Marcello Filonardi’s tenure. ACDFSO:DSO 1597–1598–1599, p. 781. The notice that Giovanni Battista Coccino, dean of the Rota, was nominated as assessor in 1628 must be a garbled version of his appointment as consultor. ASVe:SDR, f. 98, fo. 288v; Urb. lat. 1098 I, fo. 258r; ACDFSO:DSO 1628, fo. 83v. 229. http://www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/bios1536.htm#Filonardi, accessed 20 August 2010. 230. ACDFSO:DSO 1597, fo. 492r; Angelo Mercati, Il summario del processo di Giordano Bruno, Studi e Testi 101 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1942), 29. Filonardi had been fiscal since at least early 1594. E. Carusi, “Nuovi documenti sui processi di Tommaso Campanella,” Giornale Critico della Filosofia Italiana 8 (1927): 321–59, 331. 231. Mercati, Il summario, 29n. Borghese first appears as an Inquisitor on 27 June 1596. ACDFSO:DSO, Decreta 1596, fo. 210r. The surviving registers at this date do not record when cardinals took their oath. Borghese became secretary in May 1602, after serving as number two to his predecessor, Giulio Antonio Santoro. Pierroberto Scaramella, Le lettere della Congregazione del Sant’Ufficio ai tribunali di fede di Napoli 1563–1625 (Triest: Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2001), 351; 1601, fo. 46r. 232. F. Cerasoli, “Diario di cose romane degli anni 1614, 1615, 1616,” Studi e Documenti di Storia e Diritto 15 (1894): 263–301, 272. 233. Avviso of 14 August 1612; BAV, Urb. lat. 1080, fo. 530v. 234. Cerasoli, “Diario di cose romane,” 272. The newsletter entry may be even less reliable than such often were. Marcello’s thanks for Filippo’s appointment to Aquino in succession to his uncle Flaminio made it into the Decreta. ACDFSO:DSO 1608, p. 515. Filippo was followed in turn by his brother Alessandro. HC 4: 91. The cardinal was identified as a Farnese client, but there is no sign of their patronage directly to Paolo Emilio. BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fo. 578r. Their castle in Boville Ernica is said to have Farnese (and Della Rovere) heraldry. http://www.turismoinciociaria.it/artedett.aspx?id=17, accessed 21 July 2008. For Filippo’s social ties among other cardinals, see, e.g., BAV, Urb. lat. 1083, fo. 412v (a banquet by the cardinal nephew in 1615 including Secretary Millini among the guests) or BAV, Urb. lat. 1084, fo. 16v (another banquet with a similarly stellar guest list). On 18 May 1616 he sang Mass for the anniversary of Paul V’s election and joined Millini and his fellow Inquisitor Fabrizio Verallo in the Corpus Christi procession. BAV, Urb. lat. 1084, fos. 194v and 224v. 235. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fo. 200v; BAV, Barb. lat. 6344, fo. 199r. He gave his first votum on 7 December. 1610–1611, fo. 215r. 236. BAV, Urb. lat. 1080, fo. 624r. Ennio was proposed in consistory by the secretary of the Inquisition, Cardinal Millini (ibid., fo. 664r). He died in 1636. HC 4: 186. 237. http://moro.imss.fi.it/lettura/LetturaWEB.DLL?AZIONE=UNITA&TEST O=Eb3&PARAM= 572–392426–35940&VOL=20&RADIO=B, accessed 8 March 2007.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 312

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 130–131

313

Mario was buried 19 August 1644 in the family chapel in S. Carlo ai Cattinari (BAV, Vat. lat. 7900, fo. 84v). 238. ACDFSO:DSO 1614, pp. 283, note at foot of page, and 319; Cerasoli, “Diario di cose romane,” 273. 239. The book he was awarded is now in the Biblioteca Braidense in Milan. It is illustrated and described at http://www.braidense.it/bookbinding/uk/t062_en.htm, accessed 8 March 2007. 240. Avviso of 21 May 1611. BAV, Urb. lat. 1084, fo. 378v. 241. ACDFSO:DSO 1615, pp. 343–44 and 348. 242. Undated but after 17 August 1611. BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fos. 575v and 578r; BAV, Urb. lat. 1082, fo. 362r. 243. ACDFSO:DSO 1614, pp. 284, 288, 293, 294. 244. Ibid., p. 126. 245. Giuseppe Beltrami, Notizie sui prefetti e referendari della Segnatura Apostolica desunte dai brevi di nomina (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1972), no. 94. 246. Christoph Weber, Die päpstlichen Referendare 1566–1809: Chronologie und Prosopographie (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 2003), 1: 24, citing a list from 1609. 247. Cerasoli, “Diario di cose romane,” 273. 248. The previous occupant’s death was confirmed only on 20 January, and three days later it was known that Paolo Emilio would get the bishopric. BAV, Urb. lat. 1084, fos. 36r, 34r, 52v, and 63v. (The avvisi are not bound in strict date sequence.) 249. Sergio M. Pagano, ed., I documenti vaticani del processo di Galileo Galilei (1611– 1741): Nuova edizione accresciuta, rivista e annotata, Collectanea Archivi Vaticani 69 (Vatican City: Archivio Vaticano, 2009), 177. 250. BAV, Urb. lat. 1084, fos. 136r, 156v, 186v, and 197v. 251. See BAV, Barb. lat. 7466, unfoliated. Much of his official correspondence as nuncio is lost. On the basis of what survives, DBI 47: 830 says he respected “così fedelmente le istruzioni politiche” and that he did an excellent job as nuncio. The entry does not mention his tenure as assessor. 252. Ughelli, Italia sacra, 7: col. 253. Although otherwise completely redone, the first chapel on the left of the high altar retains Filonardi heraldry in its impost blocks. The family’s palace in what is now Largo Argentina was in the parish. J. A. F. Orbaan, ed., Documenti sul barocco in Roma, vol. 6 of Miscellanea della R. società di storia patria (Rome, 1920), 250. 253. He seems to have been in contact with the Florentine government in early 1615 and certainly with Grand Duchess Maria Magdalena in late 1616, sending her a relic from Naples and also being consulted in an attempted assassination of the grand duke. AdS, Florence, Archivio Mediceo del Principato, 1354, fos. 256r and 313r; ibid., 6081, fo. 363circa [sic], found at http://documents.medici.org/document_details.cfm?entryid=10541&retur nstr=orderby=SendName@is_search=1@result_id=0, accessed 3 March 2009. For the assassination, see AdS Florence, Miscellanea Medicea, Inventario, 149. http://www.archiviodistato.firenze.it/nuovosito/fileadmin/template/allegati_media/libri/miscellanea_medicea/

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 313

8/27/12 11:46 AM

314

not es to pag es 131–133

MMedicea_Inventario.pdf, accessed 3 March 2009. ACDFSO:DSO 1616, p. 167; 1623, p. 144. 254. DBI 47: 829–30. There is a copy of his instructions in the Folger Shakespeare Library, MS Strozzi I 64, fos. 115r–122r. 255. ACDFSO:DSO 1616, p. 95; 1624, fo. 152r. 256. ACDFSO:DSO 1616, pp. 155–57. 257. ACDFSO:DSO 1624, fo. 152r. 258. ACDFSO:DSO 1627, fo. 64r. 259. Promoted on 19 November 1629. HC 4: 23. 260. For both, see below, p. 141. 261. ACDFSO:DSO 1624, fos. 143r and 179r. 262. ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 168r. 263. ACDFSO:DSO 1627, fo. 58v. 264. Lothar Sickel, “Remarks on the Patronage of Caravaggio’s ‘Entombment of Christ,’” Burlington Magazine 143, 1180 (July 2001): 426–29, 429. He was not a referendary or a member of the Rota. He also does not seem to have been a relative of the referendary Antonio Vittorio, who died in 1623. Bruno Katterbach, Referendarii utriusque signaturae a Martino V ad Clementem IX et praelati signaturae supplicationum a Martino V ad Leonem XIII, Studi e Testi 55 (Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1931), 153 and 262; Weber, Die päpstlichen Referendare, 3: 985; Christoph Weber and Michael Becker, Genealogien zur Papstgeschichte (Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 1999–2002), 4: 980. 265. Antonio Cistellini, San Filippo Neri: l’Oratorio e la Congregazione oratoriana; Storia e spiritualità (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1989), 1: 162n. 266. The present painting is a reproduction. 267. Lothar Sickel, Caravaggios Rom: Annäherungen an ein dissonantes Milieu (Emsdetten/Berlin: Edition Imorde, 2003), according to http://www.sehepunkte.de/2004/04/ 4940, accessed 3 July 2007. 268. Sickel, “Remarks,” 427. 269. The volume is entitled “Caprarola Aurelii Ursi Epigrammatis illustrata” and has a dedicatory verse by Vittrici: “Ursus Apes dominas, qui carminis auctor aderat, / O utinam nostros duceret ille dies. / Nollet Farnesiam versu iam dicere molem; / Ast VRBANE tua dona refusa manu. / Tu largiris avis, ornant quae dona nepotem, / A te, quam cupiat, qui modo plura capit. / Num canere haec Vrsus valeat? tua Maxime Vatum/ Sunt tantum numeris facta canenda tuis.” BAV, Barb. lat. 1794, frontispiece. 270. BAV, Urb. lat. 1100, fo. 128r; Urb. lat. 1101, fo. 64v. 271. His tenure as assessor may have come under threat already in 1628 when the dean of the Rota was nominated to his office. The dean was a Venetian, and the report comes from the Venetian ambassador, so there may be no more than wishful thinking to it. ASVe:SDR, f. 98, fo. 288v. The odds that Urban would have made a Venetian anything important in the Inquisition are less than zero. 272. ASMod:AE, 138, fasc. July 1632, unfoliated. There is no sign of the case in the decree registers, but Vittrici’s disappearance from meetings between 6 June and 19

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 314

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to page 134

315

September 1630 makes the story in the avviso appear plausible. For the case, see Chapter 1 above. 273. Avvisi of 28 and 31 July 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. Ludovisi’s former secretary also targeted Vittrici’s close associate Giovanni Battista Raimondi, a clerk of the Camera Apostolica who helped Vittrici financially after his disgrace. Avvisi of 17 and 24 July 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. 274. Avviso of 24 July 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. 275. Avviso of 28 August 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. Vittrici passed his examination for Alatri 31 August 1632, or rather was spared examination on Urban’s orders. Avviso in BAV, Barb. lat. 6352, fo. 151r; another of 4 September in ASMod:AE, 138. His appointment went through consistory on 6 September (avviso of 8 September in ASMod:AE, 138), and although he did not after all become governor, he received an abbey worth 100 scudi and a pension of another 200 to allow him to maintain his style (avvisi of 6 and 13 November in ASMod:AE, 138). For the bishopric, see also HC 4: 74, which dates his provision 20 September. 276. Five letters between 1637 and 1644 are in BAV, Barb. lat. 8866, fos. 1r–5r. 277. Gaetano Moroni, Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica da S. Pietro sino ai nostri giorni (Venice: Tipografia Emiliana, 1840–61), 99, 141. 278. ACDFSO:DSO 1632, fos. 107r and 115r. Boccabella does not appear on Kraus’s list of assessors, which has a gap from 1627 to 1635, but he is elsewhere called “Protokollführer” as of 1632. Kraus, Das päpstliche Staatssekretariat, 278, citing BAV, Barb. lat. 8943, fo. 4[r]. 279. ACDFSO:DSO 1636, fo. 118v. He is mistakenly called assessor as of 8 October 1633 in Ugo Baldini and Leen Spruit, “Nuovi documenti galileiani degli archivi del Sant’Ufficio e dell’Indice,” Rivista di storia della filosofia 56 (2001): 661–99, 691, 694. The Tuscan ambassador Niccolini, a lawyer who had practiced in the papal courts, always called Boccabella assessor. See, e.g., EN 14: no. 2347. A handbook of 1629 called him “profiscal.” Christoph Weber, Die ältesten päpstlichen Staatshandbücher: Elenchus congregationum, tribunalium et collegiorum urbis, 1629–1714, Römische Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde und Kirchengeschichte 45, Supplementheft (Rome: Herder, 1991), 23. 280. Avviso of 17 July 1632 in BAV, Barb. lat. 6352, fos. 98v–99r. For the auditorat, see below, pp. 139–40. 281. “[P]rimo canonico di San Pietro e doppo Auditor di Rota per avanti di professore Theologo consultor di San Offitio et appresso legista insigne honor di quel tribunale.” Teodoro Amayden, La storia delle famiglie romane, ed. C. A. Bertini (Rome: Collegio Araldico, 1914), 1: 184–85. 282. ASV, S. R. Rota, Processus in admissione auditorum, b. 1, no. 67; quoted in extenso by Emmanuele Cerchiari, Capellani papae et apostolicae sedis; auditores causarum sacrii palatii apostolici seu sacra Romana Rota ab origine ad diem usque 20 Septembris 1870; Relatio historica-iuridica (Rome: Typis polyglottis vaticanis, 1870–1921), 2: 153. For Santa Rita, the former S. Biagio de Mercatello or in Campitello, see Mariano Armellini, Le chiese di Roma dal secolo IV al XIX, 3rd ed. (Rome: Nicola Ruffolo, 1942), 671–75. It is incorrectly

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 315

8/27/12 11:46 AM

316

not es to pag es 134–135

identified as S. Giovanni in Mercatello in Giacinto Gigli, Diario di Roma, ed. Manlio Barberito (Rome: Carlo Colombo, 1994), 326. Both S. Biagio and S. Giovanni were demolished, and S. Biagio, by then rededicated to S.ta Rita da Cascia, was rebuilt in via Montanara; it is now deconsecrated. Boccabella was buried in the church of the nuns of Santa Anna “dei Falegnami o dei Funari,” which was demolished in 1887 for the opening of Via Arenula (Gigli, Diario, 10 n. 2). The main fifteenth-century family palace has been incorporated into or replaced by Palazzo Massimo di Rignano poi Colonna in Piazza Aracoeli. Guide Rionali di Roma: Campitelli, ed. Carlo Pietrangeli (Rome: Fratelli Palombi, 1975–76), 1: 66. They had another near S. Salvatore in Campo, which to judge from Boccabella’s burial place, may have been where he lived. A. Proia and P. Romano, Arenula (Rione Regola): Roma nel Cinquecento (Rome: Tipografia Agostiniana, 1935), 51. It has not been identified. Like S.ta Anna, it may have been destroyed. For the family, see also Amayden, Storia, 1: 181–85. The brief biography of Boccabella in Kraus, Das päpstliche Staatssekretariat, 278, must be used with care despite its extensive grounding in the MSS Barberiniani latini of the BAV. Kraus drew a number of doubtful inferences from them, e.g., that the minutes in Barb. lat. 8115–19 and 8121 are probably connected to Boccabella’s work in the Inquisition (ibid., 30), but 8115, correspondence with the nuncio in France, is not in his hand, nor does it have much to do with the Inquisition; 8116 is almost certainly also not in his hand: e.g., it has a distinctive magiscule S not in the autograph letters in Barb. lat. 8943, e.g., fo. 5r. 283. Avviso of 17 July 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. Instead, Antonio’s son Carlo, an eventual cardinal, received Boccabella’s canonry. Avviso of 17 July 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. Kraus, Das päpstliche Staatssekretariat, 30, correctly connects Boccabella’s move to the Rota to his leaving a canonry of San Pietro but misdates it 19 March 1631. This is a misreading of a correction in the manuscript (BAV, Vat. lat. 10171, fo. 95r) of the last digit, almost certainly to 3, which agrees with all other sources. The article on Carlo Cerri in DBI 24: 8 also misdates his move to 1631 from a different source than BAV, Vat. lat. 10171. Boccabella received the canonry on 17 September 1629 (ASV, Segretaria dei brevi, Reg. 754, fos. 714r–15v), confirmed by an avviso of 22 September that he had taken possession (BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 II, fo. 617v). Kraus’s source, Vat. lat. 10171, a catalogue by Jacopo Grimaldi and Giuseppe Costerrno, “Descendentiae cappellanii sacrosanctae Vaticanae Basilicae,” from Sixtus IV forward, transcribed in 1829 and apparently an index to something else, misdates this event 18 September. 284. Avviso of 23 October 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. 285. If one avviso writer had been correct that Boccabella replaced Prospero Fagnani on the Rota, well might his deficit have worried him, since Fagnani was an exceptionally learned canonist. Avviso II of 17 July 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. In fact, Boccabella replaced another Barberini soldier, Luca Antonio Virile or Virili, who had been made a cardinal in November 1629. 286. ACDFSO:DSO 1624, fo. 184r; 1627, fo. 46r. The notary invented various titles for Boccabella, including “subfiscali” (1628, fo. 120v) and “profiscale” (1628, fo. 197v). His title was unstable. Twice in October 1629 he was called mere “consultore.” 1629, fo. 175r. 287. ASV, S. R. Rota, Processus in admissione auditorum, b. 1, no. 67; ASR, Archivio

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 316

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 135–136

317

Cartari-Febei [hereafter ASR:ACF], 141, fo. 311r; cf. the draft in 140, fo. 279r. The writer, the antiquarian Carlo Cartari, identified Boccabella as “Auditore di Ruota et Prelato come di somma integrità, così molto accetto ad Urbano Ottavo, et al Cardinal Francesco Barberini.” 288. It is dated 1 September 1629 (anno 7) but is found in the volume for August 1632. The docket on fo. 778v reads “Pro N. Creatio in I. U. Doctorem” rather than giving the usual note of supplication and expedition, and the only signature is the secretary’s, M. A. Maraldo (ASV, Segretaria dei brevi, Reg. 789, fo. 777r–v). There is nothing about an IUD in February or March 1627 in ASV, Indice 767 II. A dummy degree seems to have been given in the case of one of Urban’s maestro di camera in order to send him as nuncio to France. Avviso of 9 March 1630 in ASMod:AE, 137. 289. On average, fifteen years separated IUD and entrance into the Rota, and in the seventeenth century the wait was two years longer. Boccabella did come close to the median age of forty-two at nomination. Alessandro Gnavi, “Carriere e curia romana: L’uditorato di Rota (1472–1870),” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome 106 (1994): 161–202, 185–87. 290. “[È] Theologo così buono, et ha tanta esperienza e capacità, che si spera ottima riuscita.” Avviso of 17 July 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. 291. “[P]er essere conforme di genio a Barberini, e perche spira tutta devotione.” Avviso of 17 July 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138. 292. ACDFSO:DSO 1628, fo. 100v. 293. Ibid., fo. 115v. The syntax does not leave it absolutely clear that the pope initiated this action: “D. Alexander Boccabella Romanus fuit admissus in Cong.bus S. Officii secretis facto prius verbo cum S.mo.” 294. ACDFSO:DSO 1627, fos. 60v (dispute with his fellow consultor Papirio Silvestri, which Boccabella won on the grounds of age, not seniority), 61r, and 65v (put in attendance lists after the lowly summista, the man who wrote up the Inquisition’s processi, Camillo Giudicei, who had, however, been in post for years). The same thing happened again in 1629. 1629, fo. 213r. On 24 January and again on 7 [6 in Copia] February 1629 Boccabella scored a small victory when he was given precedence over Carlo Sincero. 1629, fos. 18v and 28v. 295. ACDFSO:DSO 1629, fo. 160r–v. 296. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fos. 117v and 130r. 297. Letter to Antonio Barberini, Jr., called patron, 31 August 1630. BAV, Barb. lat. 8943, fo. 1r. 298. ACDFSO, St. st. O-3-g, fos. 96r–98r, printed in Dirmeier, Quellentexte, 3: 110. As canon of S. Pietro (along with Riccardi, Lanci, Maculano, Oreggi, et al.) he appears as the second to last consultor on 3 December 1630; Dirmeier, Quellentexts, no. 1114, 110 and 112. Dirmeier calls him Alessandro Giovanni-Battista and gives his dates as ca. 1593–1639, citing Hermann Hoberg, “Die Antrittsdaten der Rotarichter von 1566 bis 1675,” Römische Quartalschrift 48 (1953): 211–24; and Sebastianus Tromp, “Primi secretarii sacrae congregationis concilii,” Gregorianum 40 (1959): 523–31, 531, whose source calls him only Alexander without further identification. 299. See, e.g., Boccabella’s actions of 9 March (Dirmeier, Quellentexte, no. 1428; cited

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 317

8/27/12 11:46 AM

318

not es to pag es 136–137

by name in Vita I of Ward [4: 121]) and 16 March 1634 (no. 1429) or the report 27 August 1635 that the assessor [?Albizzi] and Boccabella had talked with “English women” (ACDFSO:DSO 1635, fo. 147r; printed in Dirmeier, Quellentexte, no. 1470). 300. For another dealing with books concerning the neuralgic dispute “De auxiliis,” see ACDFSO:DSO 1631, fo. 162r–v. 301. Avvisi in BAV, Urb. lat. 1101, fo. 64v; 1 February 1631 in ASMod:AE, 138; both calling him Carlo. 302. ACDFSO:DSO 1633, fo. 17v; BAV, Barb. lat. 6353, fo. 267r. 303. ACDFSO:DSO 1633, fo. 112r, major damage to first half. 304. The Archivio Cartari-Febei is only vaguely organized, and as a result any particular piece of paper can be hard to identify for future reference. 305. Much of the early information about Febei comes from various biographical notices by his nephew Carlo Cartari, reinforced where possible by other sources. The longest biography is ASR:ACF, b. 139, fos. 226r–54v with a fair copy in b. 141, fos. 218r–64r; citation here to b. 139, fo. 226r–v. For his law degree, see “Notitie circa la persona del S. P.P. Febei, cavate dalle lettere del S. Domenico, e sig. P. Paolo Febei, dall’anno 1607 al 1624,” in b. 139, fo. 252r–v. 306. ASR:ACF, b. 139, fo. 252r–v. In a booklet of decrees proposed by the Consiglio Generale of Orvieto in 1613, Febei was listed (six of seven) among “dottori di leggi e nostri concittadini.” ASR:ACF, b. 58, unnumbered. 307. ASR:ACF, b. 139, fo. 227v. Probably another uncle was Antonio “Foebeo” of Orvieto, provincial of the Dominicans’ Roman province. MOPH 11: 205, 253, and 321. See also letter of 11 May 1621 mentioning him from Pompeo Febei in Orvieto to Giulio Cartari (ASR:ACF, b. 19, fo. 5r), and Antonio’s opinion about some monastic property in ASR:ACF, b. 2, unfoliated. Pompeo Febei was probably Pietro Paolo’s cousin. See his correspondence with Giulio Cartari in ASR:ACF, b. 19. Much of it concerns business, including dealings with various Barberini. 308. ASR:ACF, b. 139, fo. 228v. 309. ASR:ACF, b. 141, fo. 223r; b. 139, fo. 229r. 310. Giulivio Cartari had held the post during Maffeo Barberini’s legation and again shortly before Febei got it. ASR:ACF, b. 139, fo. 228v. 311. He thanked Carlo for the succession to his uncle on 13 January 1629. BAV, Barb. lat. 9686, fo. 21r; a pencil note on fo. 1r gives his tenure of the office. He was certainly replaced by 14 February 1629. Ibid., fo. 22r. Francesco Beretta, “Galilée devant le Tribunal de l’Inquisition” (ThD, Universitè de Fribourg, 1997), 304, identifies these letters as all to Carlo Barberini, but at least one on fo. 6r is to Cardinal Antonio Barberini, Jr. 312. ASR:ACF, b. 141, fo. 220v. 313. ASR:ACF, b. 139, fo. 229v; BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 I, fos. 94r and 105r. For the office, see Laurie Nussdorfer, Civic Politics in the Rome of Urban VIII (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992), 85. 314. On 17 July 1630 Urban ordered Febei “nostro et della Camera apostolicha [sic] Procuratore fiscale” with Antonio Fidi, first criminal lieutenant, and Fulvio Passarini, chief

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 318

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 137–138

319

notary of the governor of Rome, to search Morandi’s rooms and elsewhere. Fidi was to judge the case with Febei’s assistance “a suo arbitrio” in examinations and “da giudice et notaro competenti etiam ministri del Santo Officio.” Antonio Bertolotti, “Giornalisti astrologi e negromanti in Roma nel secolo XVII,” Rivista Europea 5, 3 (1878): 466–514, 479– 81. A letter from one of the accused to Febei suggests that he and not Fidi took control of the prosecution. Ibid., 498. 315. Andrea Errera, Processus in causa fidei: L’evoluzione dei manuali inquisitoriali nei secoli XVI–XVIII e il manuale inedito di un inquisitore perugino (Bologna: Monduzzi, 2000), 93–94. Errera’s judgment probably does not take account of how many inquisitors actually used the book, among them possibly Casanate, whose library may have included the copy now in the Biblioteca Casanatense. 316. ASR:ACF, b. 131, unfoliated. Casanate’s compilation is BC, MSS 2103–4. See also his “Collectio Decretorum,” collected while he was assessor (MSS 2631—closely related to MS 2103—and 2653), largely but not completely published in Cadène, “Collectio.” 317. ASR:ACF, b. 141, fo. 220v. 318. “Petrus Paulus Phoebeus. Patritius Urbevetanus. Post Varia Apostolica Sedis Munia. Ex Assessore Sanctissimae Inquisitionis. Episcopus Balneoregiensis. Obiit Prid. Non. Aug. Anno. MDXLIX.” 319. ACDFSO:DSO 1635, fos. 116r and 116v (license to read heretical books); HC 4: 108. 320. BAV, Barb. lat. 8867, fo. 67r. 321. Commissary Seghizzi, for example, stayed in Rome for nearly half a year after being made bishop of Lodi; see p. 117 above. 322. Febei–Taddeo Barberini, 13 February 1636, in BAV, Barb. lat. 8867, fo. 69r. The volume consists mainly of letters of compliment to Taddeo, prefect of Rome, together with a few such to Francesco Barberini. 323. ASR:ACF, b. 141, fos. 224v–25r. 324. BAV, Barb. lat. 8867, fos. 84r and 85r. 325. Pompeo Febei from Orvieto–Giulio Cartari, 7 November 1627, in ASR:ACF, b. 19, fo. 198r–v. 326. According to notes by an eighteenth-century descendant sent to Girolamo Mazzuchelli, Febei left in manuscript “Discursus et positiones legales in quatuor libros institut­ ionum,” “Methodus theoricae et praxis canonicae,” “Methodus theoricae et praxis civilis,” “Methodus theoricae et criminalis,” all together in more than twelve volumess, unfinished, as well as “Trattato sopra la dottrina christiana sermone e omelie dette nella chiesa di Bagn­ orea” (BAV, Vat. lat. 9278, fo. 66r–v). Giulio Cartari sent Febei’s sermons to “Padre [Agostino] Oldoini” in 1681, apparently for his “Ateneo Etrusco,” a projected companion to his Athenaeum romanum (1676), Athenaeum Augustum (1678), and Athenaeum ligusticum (1680). ASR:ACF, b. 141, fo. 196r–v. Febei’s title was “Methodus Theoricae, et Praxis Civilis in sex partes distributa ex optimis cum Veteribus, ac Recentioribus, tum etiam Recentioribus, ac Recentissimis Authoribus, praecipe totius Orbis Rotae Auditoriis a Petro Paulo Phoebeo I.U.D. Urbevetane Episcopo Balneoregiensis compacta.” ASR:ACF, b. 138, fo. 240r. The

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 319

8/27/12 11:46 AM

320

not e to pag e 138

table of contents on fo. 241r includes the following: I. “De his, qui per se in iudicio agere possunt”; II. “De his, qui per se in iudicio agere non possunt”; III. “De his, qui nec per se, nec per alios in iudicio agere possunt,” which also covers (3) “de excommunicato” and (4) “de heretico”; then follows a covering letter dated from Bagnoregio 24 January 1640, signed “Petrus Paulus Phoebeus” (fo. 242r–v), as well as another to Mercurial Merlin, auditor of the Rota, Bagnoregio, 2 July 1640, saying his “consobrino” Carlo Cartari had asked him to honor Febei, perhaps by accepting the work’s dedication (fo. 243r). The rest of the volume includes a section headed “De abortu,” probably in Febei’s hand on larger paper, the same size as much of “Theoricae, et Praxis Criminalis” also probably by Febei: “De abortu tit. 2 in liber primus” (both draft and fair copy with corrections, following the same method as for sheep-stealers below), “De veneficis titul. 2” (with additions and corrections, much of the fascicolo blank), “De abigeis [apparently sheep-stealers (!)],” book 1, tit. 1 (fair copy with corrections, another fair copy with autograph marginal corrections, which begins with a case from “Campitolio” of 1623, transcript followed by quaestiones, including what kind of evidence counts, whether confession proves the crime and its punishment [autograph draft of this section on a single page in ASR:ACF, b. 155, unfoliated]); another section, “De bannito capto, Titul. 1” (partially autograph and separately foliated in a fascicolo containing the first page of “De latronibus,” which appears in at least three versions, all containing at least some fair copy, same method). Then follows an alphabetical list of authorities, which may or may not be part of the same work: “A” through “S,” each in separate gathering (most of which are blank) of various sizes, which frequently refers to “Cartari” (no citations under “C”) but also Giacomo Menochio, De arbitrariis, “B” is all Baldo degli Ubaldi and Bartolo da Sassoferrato, but also Didacus [Diego Covarruvias], two of six citations under “H” refer to Hostiensis [Enrico da Susa], three more to Menochio (two of them to De arbitrariis) under “J”; other sources include Luis de Molina, De iustitia et iure, and the theologian Martín Navarro, a favorite of lawyers. “N” is all consilia by “Natta,” probably Marco Antonio, sometimes confused with Giorgio, an important servant of Bonifacio III Paleologi, marchese di Monferrato at the end of the fifteenth century and lecturer at Pisa and perhaps also Pavia. Alfred Franklin, Dictionnaire des noms, surnoms et pseudonymes latins de l’histoire littéraire du Moyen Age (1100 à 1530) (Paris: Librairie de Firmin-Didot, 1875), 46; cf. DBI 12: 128–31 (for Paleologi); and the brief entry at http://edit16.iccu.sbn.it/web_iccu/imain.htm. Marcantonio († 1568), a professor at Pavia, published a large number of consilia in multiple editions in both Italy and Germany, as well as theological works. For the first, see, e.g., IT\ICCU\TO0E\020579, IT\ICCU\RMSE\056464, and IT\ICCU\TO0E\113122, and for some of the second, the short notice in DBI, http://www.treccani.it/Portale/elements/categoriesItems.jsp?pathFile=/sites/default/BancaDati/Dizionario_Biografico_degli_Italiani/ Italiani_M_Z/BIOGRAFIE_-_EDICOLA_N_147227.xml, accessed 3 September 2010. One of his repetitiones made it into Repetitionum in universas fere Iuris canonici partes, materiasque sane frequentiores (Venice: Luca Antonio Giunti, 1587), 6, fo. 89v, no. 47. Cardinal Millini cited his consilia several times in his Rota decisions. Decisiones sacrae rotae romanae coram Eminentissimo Cardinali Millino...ad ill.mum nobilissimumque virum dominum Don Alphonso dela Torre et Verna (Venice: Guerigli, 1649), nos. 16 and 21. Other of Febei’s

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 320

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 138–139

321

works left in manuscript include (1) a fragment of “Statutorum Urbisveteris libri secundi commentari,” the title page of which says it contained ninety-four titulos, “A Petro Paulo Phoebeo I. C. Ubevet. in Patria sua interprete Matutino, et causarum patrono” (i.e., some of his law lectures); the text is probably autograph but more carefully written than some other such, and what appears to be an index goes at least to no. 267 (ASR:ACF, b. 131, fos. 39–88); (2) “Resolutiones criminales curiae Turroni Bononiae,” two fascicoli (16 April–25 November 1627 and 26 November 1627–2 May 1628), mostly in the same hand, probably Febei’s, followed by “Var. Resolutionum lib. 4.a” (ASR:ACF, b. 131, unfoliated); (3) “Liber primus Consultationum, et Rerum Iudicatarum in generale curia totius provinciae Umbriae a me Petro Paulo Phoebeo IUD Urbevetano Ill.mi et R.mi D. Francisci Vicecomitis nob. Medionalensis [sic] V.S. S.D.N. Papae Referendarii eiusdem Provin. Umbriae Vicelegati Ill.mi et R.mi D. Francisci Boncompagni nob. Bononiensis S. r. e. Diaconi Card.lis Perusiae, et Umbriae de latere legati Auditore a die 5. Aprilis 1622 usque ad diem 31 Julii eiusdem anni”; each case, is headed with date and type, this section also includes decrees, some minutes signed by him, as well as breves from Visconti, there is an index at the end with a limp card rear binding. Febei seems sometimes to have followed Rota-like procedure including presentation of dubia there followed by a bundle of Rota decisions 1609–1620, probably in Febei’s hand, with no obvious order or principle of selection, imperfect and then come decisions coram Gabriele Paleotti 1556–1557, as well as much material collected or written later about the Rota, including early sixteenth-century documents (ASR:ACF, b. 155, unfoliated). 327. ASR:ACF, b. 139, fo. 230r and insertion on 229v; Carlo Cartari-Giovanni Paolo and Francesco Maria Febei, 29 July 1643 (ASR:ACF, b. 58, unnumbered). 328. Although the family had been established in Orvieto since the thirteenth century, Febei is its first member identified by name in G. B. di Crollalanza, Dizionario storico blason­ico delle famiglie nobili e notabili italiane (reprint ed., Bologna: Forni, 1965; first published, 1886), 1: 395. 329. 22 December 1633, two almost identical letters of thanks for a new grace to his son (BAV, Barb. lat. 8867, fos. 72r and 73r; addressed “Em.na,” no docket; second, “Ecc. mo” and docket); ibid., fo. 74r, addressed “Ill.mo,” docket; ibid., fo. 75r, add. “Ill.mo,” docket. Febei’s other lawyer sons were Giovanni [Giacomo in draft] Paolo, IUD in Rome and his father’s vicar in Bagnoregio, then maestro di camera to Cardinal Poli, and finally archpriest of Orvieto; Carlo, governor of various places in the papal states, especially Sutri; and Giovanni Battista (born 1624), civil judge in Bologna, then auditor of the nunciature of Spain before ending as bishop of Acquapendente (1683), who is also supposed to have published various works, including Compendium Prosperi Farinacci cum additionibus. I have not been able to confirm this, but he did publish two brief legal opinions, Votum illustrissimi, & excellentissimi I.U.D. d. Io. Baptistae Phoebei Bononiae auditoris generalis in causa fideicommissi de Principibus alias de Medico (Bologna: Giacomo Monti, 1664; IT\ ICCU\UBOE\071395) and Votum illustrissimi d. Io. Baptistae Phoebei causarum civil. Civitatis Bonon. dignissimi aud. generalis. In causa verten. inter d. Valerium Fasaninum actorem ex una, et vener. Opus Mendicantium litisque consortes reos conventos ex altera (Bologna: Heirs

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 321

8/27/12 11:46 AM

322

not es to pag es 139–140

of Vittorio Benazio, 1664; IT\ICCU\UBOE\088160). The Farinacci work may refer to an edition of his very popular collection of Rota decisions. ASR:ACF, b. 139, fos. 227r and 219r–224v; BAV, Vat. lat. 9278, fo. 67r; ASR:ACF, b. 141, fo. 209r. 330. ASR:ACF, b. 57, unfoliated. If it could be demonstrated that this is Febei’s work, it would prove that he remained well connected and very much au courant, but it is almost equally likely that the work is by Giulio Cartari. 331. For him see Marina Carta, “Il commendatore Francesco Maria Febei committente e letterato,” Il veltro 2002 (January–August): 143–63, incorrectly claiming that he became a cardinal; Fabio Barry, “‘Building History’: The Baroque Remodellings of Sant’Anastasia al Palatino,” Storia dell’arte 95 (1999): 45–103, 60–67. 332. ASR:ACF, b. 47, unfoliated, acts about Febei house in Rome, 1639–1771, separate fascicolo. 333. ASR:ACF, b. 139, fo. 226r–v. 334. ACDFSO:DSO 1635, fo. 117v. 335. ACDFSO:DSO 1633, fos. 42r, 46v, 47v, 51r; and 20 September 1633, when he was mistakenly moved among the cardinals. Ibid., fo. 163r. 336. ASV, S. R. Rota, Miscellanea, 2, fo. 295r; cf. Hoberg, “Antrittsdaten,” 202; Cerchiari, Capellani papae, 2: 153 and 3: xii–xiii for the source. 337. Avviso of 4 August in ASMod:AE, 138. 338. Avviso of 7 August in ASMod:AE, 138. 339. Cerchiari, Capellani papae, 2: 152; Hoberg, “Antrittsdaten,” 202, makes the inquis­ itio synonymous with the whole processus and says it took three months. 340. Avvisi of 23 and 30 October and 13 November in ASMod:AE, 138. 341. Avviso of 1 January in ASMod:AE, 139. The dean, Coccino, wasted his time suggesting that someone qualified should get the post. 342. Avvisi of 12 January and undated 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139. 343. “Il S. Alessandro Boccabella Romano eletto Aud.re di Rota ha publicato le sue Conclusioni di legge in stampa per sostenerle martedi prossimo [22 February] nella Sala della Cancellaria [sic].” Avviso of 19 February 1633 in BAV, Barb. lat. 6353, fo. 279v. “Nella sala della Cancellaria [sic] . . . doppo pranzo il Sig. Alessandro Boccabella Romano nuovo Auditore di Rota sostenne le sue conclusioni legali egregiamente alla presenza del sacro Collegio, Auditori di Rota, Avvocati Concistoriali, Prelati, et nobiltà” (fo. 285v). See Cerchiari, Capellani papae, 1: 93, for this moment when the candidate put forward seven propositions to defend; and an instance in 1628 noted in BAV, Urb. lat. 1098 I, fo. 85v. The conclusiones probably took the form of a broadsheet, often illustrated, very few of which survive. I am grateful to Louise Rice for discussion of this point. 344. “Mons. Boccabella nuovo Auditore di Ruota martedi [8 March 1633] sostenne sue conclusioni segrete nelle stanze del S. Card.le Barberini alla presenza di S. E. come V. Canc. re.” BAV, Barb. lat. 6353, fo. 110v; avviso of 9 March 1633 in ASMod:AE, 139. See Cerchiari, Capellani papae, 1: 94–98, for these disputations both public and private, which no one could avoid, not even the famous late fifteenth-century canonist Felino Sandeo after twenty years of teaching and publishing.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 322

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 140–141

323

345. ASV, S. R. Rota, Processus in admissione auditorum, b. 1, no. 67; quoted in extenso by Cerchiari, Capellani papae, 1: 153, who dates this 9 March, but I could not find a date on the filza. 346. 11 April 1633, “reassumptio causarum,” replaced 9 December 1639. Hoberg, “Antrittsdaten,” 220. 347. SRRD 6: 314. 348. Gigli, Diario, 319; ACDFSO:DSO 1633, fo. 163r. 349. Tromp, “Primi secretarii,” 531. Boccabella’s substitution for Fagnani as secretary may account for Badelli’s confusion that Boccabella was replacing Fagnani on the Rota, an impossibility since Fagnani was never an auditor. Avviso of 17 July 1632 II in ASMod:AE, 138. 350. See the docket (perhaps in Francesco Barberini’s hand) on BAV, Barb. lat. 7694, fo. 5v, dated 14 March 1637, “S.to Offitio,” “Mons Boccabella si compaiaccia di rimandarsi questa con l’altra cifre con dar l’ordine che si osservi cosi per l’avenire.” Another letter a week later about the same case does not mention Boccabella’s involvement (fo. 21r). 351. The file is BAV, Barb. lat. 8943, identified in Beretta, “Galilée,” 303, as from Boccabella to Francesco Barberini, but this is not true of many of them, beginning with the first, which from its reference to the addressee’s arrival in Perugia must be to Antonio Barberini, Jr., who stopped there in mid-July on the way back from his legation and left for Rome about mid-September (BAV, Urb. lat. 1100, fos. 435r and 559v). Further, Boccabella frequently refers to the “Cardinal Patrone” as another person, e.g., fos. 5r and 8r; on fo. 9r he asks the addressee (“V.S.”) to speak to a cardinal; most are addressed to “V. S. Ill.ma,” which cannot be a cardinal after Urban decreed the adoption of the title “eminenza” in 1630 (see above, p. 10); fo. 10r refers to Cardinal Barberini (which might also be Antonio, Jr.) in the text while calling the addressee “eminenza”; fo. 13r contains the instruction to give the enclosed “all’eminentissima Sig. Card. Patrone”; fo. 14r has the same turn of phrase, and a loose sheet after fo. 14v is addressed to Boccabella’s fellow bureaucrat and close friend Antonio Ferragallo, and there are two other wrappers of letters to him after fo. 20r. 352. BAV, Barb. lat. 8943, especially fos. 5r, 6r, 7r, 9r, 10r, 11r, 15r, 17r–v, 18r, 23r, 24r, 26r, 28r. 353. ACDFSO:DSO 1637, fo. 188v; BAV, Barb. lat. 8943, fo. 26r, probably to Francesco Barberini. 354. ACDFSO:DSO 1639, fo. 64v. Cerchiari, Capellani papae, 2: 153, gives 22 May as his death date, from a manuscript source and therefore probably correct; 29 May in Gigli, Diario, 319. 355. ACDFSO:DSO 1637, fo. 189v. 356. De inconstantia in iure admittenda, 82. The full title of the second book is De inconstantia in judiciis tractatus Francisci tit. S. Praxedis S.R.E. presbyteri cardinalis Albitii, in quo agitur, quando judicibus liceat inconstantibus esse in judiciis proferendis . . . Additis decisionibus S. Rotæ Romanæ, præsertim recentissimis, nullibi antea impressis et coronodis, seu appendicis loco responsum R. P. D. Marcelli Severoli (Rome: Francesco Antonio Galleri, “ad signum Navis,” 1698).

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 323

8/27/12 11:46 AM

324

not es to pag es 141–143

357. Rainer Decker, “Albizzi, Francesco,” http://www.historicum.net/themen/hexenforschung/ lexikon/personen/art/Albizzi_France/html/artikel/908/ca/573192ba24/, accessed 4 July 2008. Karen Liebreich paints an unflattering potrait of Albizzi in Fallen Order: Intrigue, Heresy, and Scandal in the Rome of Galileo and Caravaggio (New York: Grove Press, 2004), chaps. 14, 15, 18. She also gets most of the assessor’s job description wrong on 161. 358. DBI 21: 145. 359. ACDFSO:DSO 1597–1598–1599, p. 751. He had asked for a retroactive raise of three scudi per month, covering at least four years, but was sternly given fifty scudi “for this time only.” Copia 1604–1605, p. 499. Another request for subvention was referred to the pope. 1607, fo. 27v. He is often noted as receiving bonuses later in his career, e.g., in 1607 (1607, fo. 163r) and again in December 1610 (1610–1611, fo. 232v); in 1612 he was given the fantastic sum of sixty scudi “for straw,” probably meaning in place of the literal straw all the lower-ranking Inquisition officials received every December (1612, p. 13); in the course of 1613 he got an extra fifty scudi but came right back in January 1614 for another forty (1613, pp. 101 and 448; 1614, p. 59); in 1615 he got his by then usual sixty scudi plus another eighty for the “extraordinary work” he had put in during Filonardi’s absence (1616, p. 3). This was still not the record. In 1625 he was given 100 scudi “una vice tantum” (1625, fo. 1r). 360. ACDFSO:DSO 1603, fo. 251r/Copia, fo. 250v. 361. Ibid., fo. 255r/Copia, fos. 254r and 256r–v. 362. 13 May 1605. ACDFSO:DSO Copia 1604–1605, p. 195. 363. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fos. 60v and 48v. Favaro’s entry on Sincero in EN 20: s.n. is uncharacteristically sloppy. He says Sincero does not appear before 1606 and misdates his ascension to fiscal to 1609. 364. ACDFSO:DSO 1641, fo. 152v. 365. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fo. 421v. 366. Giacomo Fuligatti, Vita del cardinale Roberto Bellarmino della Compagnia di Giesù (Rome: Heirs of Bartolomeo Zannetti, 1624), 304. 367. ACDFSO:DSO 1598, fo. 235v; 1601, passim. 368. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fo. 225v. 369. Enclosure in Francesco Contarini-doge, 2 June 1608, in ASVe:SDR, f. 59, fos. 264r–65r. 370. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fo. 225v; 1608, pp. 76 and 514; 1609, p. 326; 1608–1609, fos. 412v and 502r; 1610–1611, fo. 144v. Unfortunately, the name of the sub-notary who had his plea of poverty rejected in 1603 is unknown. 1603, fo. 177v/Copia, fo. 183r. 371. ASVe:SDR, f. 59, fos. 264r–65r; ACDFSO:DSO 1608–1609, fo. 371r; 1610–1611, fo. 304v; 1612, pp. 364, 390–91, 417, 434, 471, 496, and 508. 372. ACDFSO:DSO 1612, pp. 561 and 571. 373. ACDFSO:DSO 1613, pp. 18, 118, 129, 233, and 522. 374. ACDFSO:DSO 1614, p. 33. 375. Ibid., pp. 400–401; 1616, p. 55. 376. ASVe:SDR, f. 70, fo. 269r; ACDFSO:DSO 1614, p. 257. 377. Cerasoli, “Diario di cose romane,” 284.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 324

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 143–145

325

378. ACDFSO:DSO 1624, fos. 160v and 165r. 379. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fos. 206v and 264v. His is probably the new hand that appears fairly regularly at the first point in the register. 380. See especially ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fo. 443r, where he deliberately skipped the officials’ attendance. 381. Cf. the signature on ACDFSO:DSO 1608, p. 293, “Andreas de Pettinis Sanctae Inquisitioni Universalis Romanae Notarii,” which is not only in a different form than usual, but also in another hand, and spells his name differently than the other such. 382. The known substitutes are Santi de Ferentillo (ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fo. 192v), Giovanni Antonio Tomassi and Achille Belmesseri (fo. 212v), the first of whom succeeded Pettini and the second of whom probably left office in 1614 (1614, p. 75), and Benedetto Alessandroni (?) (1616, p. 165). 383. ACDFSO:DSO 1610, fos. 8r, 13v, and 111v; 1614, p. 292. 384. He was a sub-notary from at least 1610 to 1615. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fo. 212v; TCD, MS 1230, fo. 293v. He is known to have been archivist in 1619. 1619, p. 142; 1620, p. 1. For his promotion to notary, see 1624, fo. 69r. 385. ACDFSO:DSO 1626, fos. 116r, 117v, 120v, and 122v. 386. Ibid., fos. 143r and 151r. The hand changes at fos. 132v, 143r, back to the first on fo. 151r, when Marioni was reported as ill, on fo. 159r on Federici’s entry, Marioni probably took over again on fo. 241v, before Tommasi still signed at the end of the volume. On 7 January 1626 Federici was made sub-notary. 1626, fo. 5v. 387. ACDFSO:DSO 1628, fo. 10v. For Sincero’s misplacement, see, e.g., 1626, fos. 162v and 167v. He was still sub-notary in early 1632, had retired by 1634, and was still alive in 1635. 1632, fo. 42v; 1634, fo. 37r; 1635, fo. 125v–26r. 388. ACDFSO:DSO 1627, fo. 7r. 389. Ibid., fo. 11v. 390. For typically defective entries, see ACDFSO:DSO 1633, fos. 91v and 136r (two acts missing nearly all their content) or a note of Cardinal Scaglia’s important censure on a Hebrew book printed in Venice, which has a large blank right in the middle of it, amounting to about half the total space it occupies (fo. 158v). See also another entry about a censure on a book missing all essential details on fo. 81r. 391. Francesco Gheri, Index Tribunalium Congregationum, aliorumque congressum, qui in urbe fieri solent (Rome: Camera Apostolica, 1644), 66. Beretta, “Galilée,” 66, says he remained in office until 1654. And he kept on producing odd entries. One of the worst is that in the middle of a non-coram of 20 September 1635, adding: “S.mus [the pope] concessit.” ACDFSO:DSO 1635, fo. 162v. 392. ACDFSO:DSO 1615, p. 97. For the term summista, see 1625, fo. 162r. 393. He was ordered to attend the congregation of consultors on 7 April 1607. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fo. 87r. 394. HC 4: 321. ACDFSO:DSO 1624, fo. 148v. About this time, not long after Urban’s election, Giudici’s regular sobriquet emphasized that he came from the diocese, e.g., fo. 152r.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 325

8/27/12 11:46 AM

326

not es to pag es 145–147

395. He is first called IUD on 13 January 1610. ACDFSO:DSO 1610, fo. 14v. 396. ACDFSO:DSO 1609, fo. av; there is no entry in Weber, Die päpstlichen Referendare, nor does he appear in the printed list of 1609 reproduced on 194–97. 397. On 20 March 1610, Paul V ordered Giudici, “compilatori summariorum processuum, ut accedat ad habitandum in s.to officio, et prosequatur indicem processuum, alias providebitur de alio.” ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fo. 48v. 398. Ibid., fo. 463r. 399. The evidence is thin. For example, the marginal addition “da Chiusi” to ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 192r is inserted into a blank in the index at the front of the volume. The cross-reference on fo. 192r, “Vide vol. 1251. Vol. Extens.,” may have been added when the index was made. 400. ACDFSO:DSO 1608–1609, fo. 243r; 1608, pp. 502 and 508. 401. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fos. 387r–v and 412r. 402. ACDFSO:DSO 1636, fo. 132r. 403. Peter Godman, The Saint as Censor: Robert Bellarmine between Inquisition and Index (Leiden: Brill, 2000), passim. 404. HC 4: 332; BAV, Urb. lat. 1080, fo. 332v. He resigned after only three years but kept the title as a courtesy. 405. BAV, Urb. lat. 1079, fos. 427r and 439v. 406. BAV, Urb. lat. 1080, fos. 362r, 381r, 426r, and 449v. 407. BAV, Urb. lat. 1081, fo. 319v; ACDFSO:DSO 1617, p. 215. 408. Cerasoli, “Diario di cose romane,” 266. 409. Scaglia–Federico Borromeo, Rome, 15 October 1616, printed in Rangoni, Scaglia, 263. 410. ACDFSO:DSO 1617, p. 320. 411. Cerasoli, “Diario di cose romane,” 277. 412. HC 4: 262. 413. HC 4: 262n. 414. Moroni, Dizionario, 19: 135; Weber, Die päpstlichen Referendare, 3: 986. 415. ASVe:SDR, f. 97, fo. 24r; ACDFSO:DSO 1629, fo. 45v; BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 I, fo. 143r. 416. http://www.altomedioevolombardo.it/html/mcomo.htm; http://www.museopoldipezzoli.it/ PP_italiano/museo/collezioni/scultura/scultura.htm, both accessed 5 February 2008. 417. BAV, Barb. lat. 6344, fos. 80r and 85r; HC 4: 262. 418. http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/btorn.html, accessed 9 March 2008. 419. BAV, Urb. lat. 1099 II, fos. 588r and 667r (incorrectly calling him a Neapolitan); Moroni, Dizionario, 29: 249. 420. HC 4: 262. 421. Moroni, Dizionario, 29: 249. No monument or inscription appears in Forcella, Iscrizioni.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 326

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 147–148

327

422. BAV, Barb. lat. 8898, e.g., fo. 280r; BAV, Sala manoscritti, Etichetta Rossa 371, 280. His funeral monument notes his origins. 423. See his monument in S.to Spirito in Sassia, Rome; ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 80r. 424. His appearances included 26–27 November; 4 and 23 December 1625 (ACDFSO: DSO 1625, fos. 196r, 197v, 202v, and 210v); 29 December 1626 (1627, fo. 1v); 16 June; 21 (prison visitation) and 23 December 1627 (1627, fos. 101r, 220v, and 223v); 9, 16, 23, and 30 March; 13, 17 (prison), and 27 April; 3, 25 May; 6, 14, 27 June; 5, 6, 20 July; 2, 3, 9, 10 August 1628 (1628, fos. 46r, 50v, 55r, 61r, 70v, 71r, 77v, 78v, 92r, 97r, 101r, 108v, 111r, 115r, 124v, 129v, 132v, 134r, 136v). Vincenzo Giustiniani, yet another referendary, made consultor in October 1626 (1626, fo. 188v), showed a similarly erratic pattern of attendance in 1626 and 1627, although it improved in 1628. 425. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 80r; BAV, Urb. lat. 1100, fos. 278v, 298r, and 315v. 426. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fo. 9r. 427. ASVe, Consiglio dei Dieci, Parti Roma, registro 1607, fos. 54v–55r. 428. ACDFSO:DSO 1607, fos. 127v, 135v, 140v, 151r, 165r. For the minor theologians, see Gino Benzoni, “I ‘teologi’ minori dell’interdetto,” Archivio veneto 101, 5th ser., no. 126 (1970): 31–108. 429. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fo. 121v. Lancelot Andrewes, Tortura torti, sive ad Matthaei Torti librum responsio (London: R. Barker, 1609), reply to Nicholas Sander, De origine ac progressu schismatis anglicani. See my article in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Cappello’s book against the almmer and Adverius may be the same title. 430. ACDFSO:DSO 1615, p. 243. 431. ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fos. 187v–88r. 432. Vincenzo Spampanato, “Nuovi documenti intorno a negozii e processi dell’ Inquisizione (1603–1624),” Giornale critico della filosofia italiana 5 (1924): 97–137, 216–61, 346–401, 226. Spampanato’s brief biography contains at least one mistake, saying Fabbri turned down an invitation to become a consultor in 1630, when that is actually when he was replaced. See ACDFSO:DSO 1630 Copia, p. 543. Spampanato claims Fabbri served as vicar of the Holy Office in Padua and as his order’s provincial in 1625. 433. ACDFSO:DSO 1620, pp. 217 and 309. 434. Giacinto Cantalamessa Carboni, Memorie intorno i letterati e gli artisti della città di Ascoli nel Piceno (Ascoli: Luigi Cardi, 1830), 124. Fabbri had praised Centini as a great Scotist and debater. 435. ACDFSO:DSO 1621, pp. 153 and 256. Cobelluzzi’s censures do not appear in ACDF, S. C. Indicis. 436. ACDFSO:DSO 1623, p. 191. 437. ACDFSO:DSO 1624, fo. 168v; 1625, fos. 88v and 94v. 438. ACDFSO:DSO 1629, fo. 217v. 439. For the appointment, see ACDFSO:DSO 1626, fo. 175r–v, decree of 24 September 1626; BAV, Barb. lat. 6334, fos. 275r and 332v–33r, Fabbri’s appointment on 26 September and the appointment of the inquisitor of Florence instead on prob. 21 November.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 327

8/27/12 11:46 AM

328

not es to pag es 148–150

440. For discussion and a list of his works, see http://scholasticon.fr/nomenF.htm, accessed 29 September 2008. 441. ACDFSO:DSO 1629, fo. 185r. The patriarch was Cyril Lucar or Lucaris (1572– 1638), who had received an envoy from Geneva the previous year. http://www.ccel.org/s/ schaff/encyc/encyc03/htm/ii.11.xvii.htm, accessed 21 August 2010. 442. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 83r; BAV, Urb. lat. 1100, fos. 315r–v and 339r. 443. DBI 57: 354–56. Information in this paragraph not given another source comes from this article. 444. “Nella consultoria del S. Offitio era stimatissimo il suo voto fondato in (?) dottrina, prudenza, e carità.” Fioravante Martinelli in BAV, Vat. lat. 8231, fos. 344r–51r. 445. Avviso of 25 May 1630 in ASMod:AE, 137. 446. Anon., “Modo da guidarsi nella Corte,” in ASR:ACF, b. 57, unfoliated. 447. Avviso of 13 November 1632 in ASMod:AE, 138; DBI 57: 355. 448. ACDFSO:DSO 1634, fo. 117v. 449. Both are in the Biblioteca Valicelliana. DBI. 450. He is identifed as “a S. Sophia” in HC 4: 24; and Gian Vittorio Rossi [Janus Nicius Erythraeus], Pinacotheca imaginum illustrium, doctrinae vel ingenii laude, virorum (Cologne [or more likely Amsterdam]: Josse Kalcovius, 1645–48), 1: 40. Gianalfonso Oldelli, Dizionario storico-ragionato degli uomini illustri del canton ticino (Lugano: Francesco Veladini, 1807), 1: 126–27, claims he was from Bironico in what is now Switzerland, providing details about his family and describing a portrait of him there. Oldelli probably meant his immediate family came from there recently, since he added that his father was an architect who practiced in Tuscany. 451. Georg Josef Eggs, Purpura docta, seu Vitae, legationes . . . S. R. E. cardinalium, desumpta ex A. Ciaconio aliisque scriptoribus (Munich: Remy, 1714), 6: 353–54. 452. Hugo Hurter, Nomenclator literarius recentioris theologiae catholicae (Innsbruck: Wagner, 1903–11), 1: 259–60. Hurter mistakenly said Oreggi also studied law at the Collegio Romano, but it was not then part of the course. I owe this information to Paul Grendler. 453. ACDFSO:DSO 1624, fo. 25r. 454. Moroni, Dizionario, 49: 87–88; for Propaganda Fide as of 4 June 1629, see Acta S[acrae] C[ongregationis] de Propaganda Fide Ecclesiam Catholicam Ucrainae et Bielarusjae spectantia (Rome: PP. Basiliani, 1955), 1: 79. 455. IT\ICCU\RAVE\016127. 456. Aristotelis vera de rationalis animae immortalitate sententia accurate explicata ab Augustino Oregio . . . Quam disputandam proponit Nicolaus Oregius in Collegio Romano Societatis Iesu. Anno Domini 1633. Mense Aprilis die 14. hora 21 (Rome: Typographia Vaticana, 1633; IT\ICCU\BVEE\052408). For Niccolò, see Weber, Die päpstlichen Referendare, 3: 776. Oreggi’s book had a second, expanded edition in 1632, also published by the Camera Apostolica; I read the copy in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, A.gr.b. 742. I am grateful to John Frymire for examining a copy of the first edition; I also examined that in the British Library, General Reference Collection 519.a.26. 457. IT\ICCU\CFIE\020250.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 328

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 150–151

329

458. ACDFSO:DSO 1636, list of consultors; Gheri, Index, 66; Weber, Die päpstlichen Referendare, 3: 776. 459. ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 144r; 1626, fo. 151r. 460. In addition to the description in Galileo’s dossier (Pagano, Documenti vaticani, 43–44), two of the panel’s members were identified as theologian consultors in other sources: a petition from one of them asking to be restored as such (“ad suum munus qualificatoris Sancti Oficii” and allowed “accedatur generalis eiusdem congregationis”), together with the identification in similar terms of another about whom almost nothing else is known. ACDFSO:DSO 1621, p. 264; 1617, p. 160. 461. Pagano, Documenti vaticani, 42. 462. Ibid., 42–43. 463. See the lives at http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/16953, and http://www. pgil-eirdata.org/html/pgil_datasets/authors/l/Lombard,P/life.htm, both accessed 7 June 2008. One of the most thorough treatments of the sources for Lombard’s life is by Margaret Lantry at http://www.ucc.ie:8080/cocoon/doi/rlti?section=N1014E, accessed 7 June 2008. 464. ACDFSO:DSO 1614, p. 446 and passim; 1622, pp. 245 and 249; HC 4: 238; and, e.g., 1630, fo. 196v, where he is called “Ministrum huius S. Officii Neapoli.” He was apparently replaced by 1634. 1634 Copia, p. 92. The decree registers contain an enormous amount of correspondence from him, sometimes five or six letters at a sitting. See, e.g., 1630, fos. 12v–15r or 1631, fos. 4­ r–5r. Twice in 1623 he begged Cardinal Borghese to honor his promise to ask the newly elected Urban to restore him as Master. Forte, “I Domenicani,” 415, no. 149; 416, no. 150. He had hoped to be made a cardinal, but Millini outmaneuvered Petronio’s relative Cardinal Leni and had his client Scaglia promoted instead in January 1621. “Conclave dell’anno 1623 nel quale messa la prima volta in uso la Bolla della Elettione publicata da Gregorio XV. fu creato sommo Pontefice Il Card. Maffeo Barberino detto Urbano VIII,” in BAV, Barb. lat. 4724, fos. 7v–8v. 465. Forte, “I Domenicani,” 360. 466. Ibid., 354 and 370; ACDFSO:DSO 1615, p. 578; 1619, p. 266; HC 4: 181–82. 467. ACDFSO:DSO 1615, pp. 150 and 249; for the end of his tenure, see the Congregation’s letters of 26 September and probably 21 November 1626 (BAV, Barb. lat. 6334, fos. 275r and 332v–33r ); he was provided to the see 16 November 1626, † 13 July 1643 (HC 4: 334). 468. Hurter, Nomenclator, 1: 268–70. For his involvement in the controversy “De auxiliis,” see at least BAV, Barb. lat. 1058–79, 1085. 469. Eszer, “Riccardi,” 429; ACDFSO:DSO 1608, p. 109. 470. Carusi, “Nuovi documenti,” doc. 88; cf. Vito Angiuli, Ragione moderna e verità del Cristianesimo: L’Atheismus triumphatus di Tommaso Campanella (Bari: Levante, 2000), 64–65. 471. Hurter, Nomenclator, 1: 152–53. His appointment as consultor on 4 June 1598 is in ADCFSO:DSO 1597–1598–1599, p. 361; 1598, fo. 286r. The end of his tenure has not been found. 472. Augustin de Backer, Bibliothèque des écrivains de la Compagnie de Jésus, 2nd ed.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 329

8/27/12 11:46 AM

330

not es to pag es 151–152

(Liége and Paris: A. de Backer; C. Sommervogel, 1869), 1: cols. 2150–51; almost exactly the same entry in Carlos Sommervogel, ed., Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus, nouvelle édition (Brussels and Paris: Picard and Schepens, 1890–1900), 3: cols. 1489–91. De Backer lists another Jesuit of the same name, son of the doge of Genoa, but distinguishes him somehow from this man. He was called Cardinal Giustiniani’s “protetto” when he was first nominated as papal preacher in 1608 (see note 401). Whether he was a relation of either Andrea Giustiniani, formerly both commissary of the Inquisition and master of the sacred palace (ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fo. 212v; 1612, p. 248), or Orazio Giustiniani is unknown. 473. Francesco Beretta, “Orthodoxie philosophique et Inquisition romaine au 16e–17e siècles: Un essai d’interprétation,” Historia philosophica 3 (2005): 67–96, 86, citing A. L. Puliafito Bleuel, Nova de universis philosophia: Materiali per un’edizione emendata (Florence: Olschki, 1993), xxxii. 474. BAV, Barb. lat. 1638. 475. Francesco Contarini–doge, 6 September 1608, in ASVe:SDR, f. 60, fos. 2r and 15r; avviso of 4 November 1615 in BAV, Urb. lat. 1083, fo. 545r. 476. Antonio Francesco Vezzosi, I scrittori de’ cherici regolari (Rome: Propaganda Fide, 1780), 2: 207–8, assigning him an IUD; and Giuseppe Silos, Historiarum clericorum regularium [libri duo] (Rome: Mascardi, 1650), 2: 640–41. ACDFSO:DSO 1621, pp. 192 and 264 (recall); 1624, fos. 96r and 157r (denials of licenses for two different books, the second because it dealt “de auxiliis”). For Capri, HC 4: 133, in which he died in August 1632; the act of provision assigned him an IUD. According to Vezzosi, Rastelli did succeed in publishing two books, De regimine principis libri tres (Naples, n.d.; Vincenzo Franchi, 1629; IT\ICCU\ BVEE\029558 describing him as “collegii Neapolitani ordinario”) and Brevi censurarum in genere tractatus (Rome: Bartolomeo Zannetti, 1620, possibly a typo for 1610, as in IT\ ICCU\CFIE\019696). ICCU mistakenly gives the date of his death as 1663. 477. I have seen reference to him only twice in the decree registers, ACDFSO:DSO 1617, p. 160 and 1620, p. 289, both times called a theologian consultor. The Cassinese may have had a slot reserved for their order; at least on another occasion one of them was appointed a qualifier at the order’s request. 1626, fo. 151r. See also “Llull, Ramon,” DSI 2: 927–28, for his involvement with B. Giustiniani in censoring Llull’s work in 1617–1619. 478. For the best treatment of Peña’s career, see Agostino Borromeo, “A proposito del Directorium inquisitorum di Nicholas Eymerich e delle sue edizioni cinquecentesche,” Critica storica 20 (1983): 499–547, 508ff. Any information not otherwise identified comes from this article. See also DSI 3: 1186–89. 479. Emile Picot, Les français italianisants au XVIe siècle (Paris: Champion, 1907), 2: 163–64. 480. “[A]sseruit mihi quandoque Bononiæ summo iure dicens veriore esse Ludovicus Segnius præceptor, legum interpres publicus” (Francisco Peña, Scholia to Nicolau Eymeric, Directorium Inquistorum [Rome: In aedibus Populi Romani, 1578], scholion 22, 135); “admonebat me audiente Bononiæ Ferrantes Vetius preceptor, Iurisconsultus insignis, publicus iuris interpres in gymnasio Bononiensi,” Scholion 29, 140. Borromeo notes neither.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 330

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 153–157

331

481. Weber, Die päpstlichen Referendare, 3: 807. As Borromeo notes, this may refer to a man of the same name. 482. Borromeo, “Directorium,” 508. 483. Ibid., 509. 484. 2 November 1606, Peña, “sacri Palatii causarum auditor et decanus,” made consultor (ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fo. 188v); for his earlier interventions, see, e.g., 22 March 1601 (1601, fo. 81v; 1600–1601, fo. 229r) and 16 November 1605, when he censured a law book (Copia 1605, p. 958). 485. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fos. 255v, 424v–25r.

chapter 5. inquisition procedure: the holy office’s use of inquisitio 1. Adriano Prosperi, Tribunali della coscienza: Inquisitori, confessori, missionari (Turin: Einaudi, 1996), 195. 2. Henry Ansgar Kelly, “Inquisition and the Prosecution of Heresy: Misconceptions and Abuses,” Church History 58 (1989): 439–51; Kelly, “Thomas More on Inquisitorial Due Process,” English Historical Review 123, 503 (2008): 847–94, esp. 853–54. Although Francesco Beretta is surely right that, while vital, the decreta described in Chapter 1 are insufficient to reconstruct any individual trial in the absence of its dossier “or at least sentence,” the decree registers nevertheless allow a more complete discussion of how the Inquisition did its business than previously available. Francesco Beretta, “Giordano Bruno e l’Inquisizione romana: Considerazioni sul processo,” Bruniana & Campanelliana 7 (2001): 15–49, 26. 3. X 5.1.24; Emil Friedberg, ed., Corpus iuris canonici (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1879–81), 1: col. LXXVIn2, cols. 745–47. 4. Kelly, “Inquisition,” 447. 5. Throughout proceedings the term used for the accused person is reus. I have translated it as “suspect” before and “defendant” after the laying of charges. 6. See especially Kelly, “Inquisition,” 449–50; Kelly, “Inquisitorial Due Process and the Status of Secret Crimes,” in Kelly, Inquisitions and Other Trial Procedures in the Medieval West (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), no. II, 411, 416, 422. 7. This produced the usual mountains of citations that can cause difficulty in discerning general principles in medieval and early modern legal texts. Andrea Errera, Processus in causa fidei: L’evoluzione dei manuali inquisitoriali nei secoli XVI–XVIII e il manuale inedito di un inquisitore perugino (Bologna: Monduzzi, 2000), 203. 8. BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fo. 221v. For Peña, see the previous chapter. 9. Quintiliano Mandosio, Tractatus de monitoriis (Rome: Giorgio Ferrari, 1581), fo. 26v. 10. See Chapter 3 above. 11. Only a handful of decrees have been found bearing on the issue. One of 27 September 1593 laid down that all decrees were to be reread in the next meeting; another of 28

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 331

8/27/12 11:46 AM

332

not es to pag es 157–158

April 1622 or 1624 ordered that in the first meeting of each month the cardinals report the status of cases. BAV, Barb. lat. 1502, p. 81C; BC, MS 2631, fo. 134r; 2653, fo. 26v, dated 28 April 1622, and fo. 144r (Cadène, “Collectio,” 4: 82, no. 1058). In 1626 it was ordered that all decrees issued in the first meeting of the month be read again to see whether execution was needed. ACDFSO:DSO 1626, fo. 81r. 12. For Rota procedure, see Egon Schneider, Die römische Rota: Nach geltendem Recht auf geschichtliche Grundlage, vol. 1, Die Verfassung der Rota (Paderborn: Schöningh, 1914); Angela Santangelo Cordani, La giurisprudenza della Rota romana nel secolo XIV, Università di Milano, Pubblicazioni dell’Istituto di Storia del diritto italiano 26 (Milan: A. Giuffré, 2001), 31–32; and Charles Lefebvre, “La procedure du tribunal de la Rote romaine au XVIIe siècle d’apres d’un manuscrit inédit,” L’Année Canonique 5 (1957): 143–55. 13. A decree of 1557. BC, MS 2631, fo. 82r (Cadène, “Collectio,” 2: 495, no. 227). 14. Ludwig von Pastor, “Allgemeine Dekrete der römischen Inquisition aus den Jahren 1555–1597,” Historisches Jahrbuch 33 (1912): 479–549; reprinted as extract paginated 1–71, 23. 15. “Quod causae non commissae tam praesentes, quam futurae in Congregatione inter ipsos septem deputatos per turnum distribuantur, et facta distributione ad deputatum processus deferatur.” Decree of 18 June 1564 in BAV, Barb. lat. 1502, p. 24B (ibid., 26). See also the motuproprio of 2 August 1564 in BAV, Barb. lat. 1502, pp. 187–94, printed in Ludwig von Pastor, The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages, vol. 16, trans. and ed. R. F. Kerr (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1928), app. 37, 479. 16. Andreas Eudaemon-Johannes, “Epistola de relapsu, morte poenaque M. Antonii de Dominis,” in Libri duo de duobus apostatis sive duae praenenses . . .  , ed. Georg Stenghel (Ingolstadt: Gregor Hänlin, 1627), 558. 17. See, e.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1609, p. 504 (one cardinal); 1625, fo. 196r; 1626, fos. 25r and 187v (two); 1628, fos. 44r, 113v, and 205v (three). It is possible that some of the third group were actually congregationes particulares. 18. Sigismondo Scaccia, Tractatus de iudiciis causarum civilium, criminalium et haereticalium, Liber primus (Frankfurt: Heirs of Palethenianus and Hartmann Palthenius, 1618). For him, see DSI 3: 1389–90. 19. I thus go a little way to remedy the neglect of the “influence of civil lawyers on the judicial procedures of the Holy Office” noted by John Tedeschi, The Prosecution of Heresy: Collected Studies on the Inquisition in Early Modern Italy (Binghamton, N.Y.: MRTS, 1991), 73n. 20. Beretta, “Bruno,” 21. 21. Errera, Processus in causa fidei, 202. 22. Giovanni Battista De Luca, “Relatio curiae romanae,” in Theatrum veritatis & iustitiae (Rome: Heirs of Corbelletti, 1669–73), 80. See also “Stile del Sant’Uffizio,” in DSI 3: 1487. 23. Nicolau Eymeric, ed. Francisco Peña, Directorium inquisitorum (Rome: G. Ferrari, 1587), 535. For Eymeric, see DSI 2: 568–70. 24. Eymeric, Directorium (1587), 429. 25. Cesare Carena, Tractatus de officio sanctissimae inquisitionis, et modo de procedendi in causis fidei (Bologna: Jacopo Monti, 1668), 246.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 332

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 158–159

333

26. Francisco Peña, Scholia to Directorium Inquistorum (Rome: In aedibus Populi Romani, 1578), scholion 19, p. 130; scholion20, p. 132; and scholion 33, p. 145. Unless otherwise noted, all scholia cited are on book 3 of the Directorium. 27. Agostino Borromeo, “A proposito del Directorium inquisitorum di Nicholas Eymerich e delle sue edizioni cinquecentesche,” Critica Storica 20 (1983): 499–547; Tedeschi, Prosecution of Heresy, 55; both emphasize that Peña’s work had no official status. 28. See the letter of 24 October 1609 in Fiorenza Rangoni, Frà Desiderio Scaglia Cardinale di Cremona: Un collezionista inquisitore nella Roma del seicento (Rome: Self-published, 2008), 258 and 21, describing MS C28 inf. of the Biblioteca Ambrosiana. 29. Scholion 48, p. 159. The vehemence of Peña’s defense suggests Eymeric had many detractors. For Peña’s activity as a censor, see Peter Godman, The Saint as Censor: Robert Bellarmine Between Inquisition and Index (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 90ff., with the cautions of Gigliola Fragnito, “Gli affanni della censura ecclesiastica,” Rivista Storica Italiana 114 (2002): 584–600. 30. He referred to a rescript of Innocent IV “que [sic] vidimus authentica in archivo inquisitionis Bononiesis.” Scholion 112, p. 218. For his status as professor, see the travel narrative of Nicholas Audebert, in Emile Picot, Les français italianisants au XVIe siècle, 2 (Paris: Champion, 1907), 164; Borromeo, “Directorium,” 508. 31. “In his omnibus non modo hortatorem, verum & coadiutorem habuimus ob singularem suam benignitatem F. Paulum Constabile sacri Palatij Magistrum, cui magna cura & labor etiam fuit, ut quam emendatissimus liber prodiret in lucem.” Preface, unfoliated. The two Inquisition functionaries were mentioned several times elsewhere in the text: Scholion 20 to book 2 (p. 48), Zobbi answering in person a question about the use of confessors; and two scholia to book 3, 55 (p. 171), both Dusina and Zobbi providing information about abjurations de levi, apparently in person, and 42 (p. 153), Dusina answering by letter a question about Roman practice on the score of appeals from lower tribunals. Costabili is the most substantial figure of the three and had been a member of the commission for the reedition of Gratian’s Decretum along with Peña. Friedberg, CIC, 1: col. LXXVIn. 32. “Et dum hec scribo Rome anno Domini 1578. die 12. mensis Octobris, consulens in sacrosancto universalis Romanae Inquisitionis officio formulas abiurationis de levi, inveni hanc generalem detestationem omitti quandoque solitam, quandoque vero apponi.” Scholion 55, p. 171. 33. “Introductio, sive Praxis Inquisitorum,” which was first published in an appendix to Cesare Carena’s manual and also survives in three or possibly four manuscripts. Peña’s partially autograph copy of the “Introductio” is in BAV, Reg. lat. 388, no longer consultable; one of two presentation copies (to Paul V and to assessor Mario Filonardi, both in 1605; Borromeo, “Directorium,” 518, also noting two other manuscript works on the Inquisition by Peña) is BAV, Barb. lat. 1544. P. H. Jobe, “Inquisitorial Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana: A Preliminary Handlist,” in The Inquisition in Early Modern Europe, ed. G. Henningsen and J. Tedeschi (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1986), 33–53, 41. A third is BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fos. 1r–369v, a postuhumous fair copy with the subtitle “Instructio, seu Praxis Inquisitorum adiectis Argumentis, indice, summario,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 333

8/27/12 11:46 AM

334

not es to pag es 159–160

et addictionibus non inutilibus Prosperi Farinacii Iurisconsulti Romani.” As the title indicates, it has marginalia by Farinacci throughout, but not in 1544, e.g., fos. 7r, 14v, and 21r, often referring to Farinacci’s De haeresi, which appeared in 1616 (see note 36); Jobe says his comments are “slighting,” but there is no basis for that judgment. Farinacci could have started work after Peña’s death in 1612; the terminus ad quem is 1618, the year Farinacci died (Borromeo, “Directorium,” 518, who says the work is incorrectly titled “Instructio,” but the main title is “Introductio”; Jobe, “Inquisitorial Manuscripts,” 39–40; Errera, Processus in causa fidei, 251–55). Because it incorporates both Farinacci’s ideas and Peña’s, I have preferred 1367 to 1544. ACDFSO, St. st. D 2-a, mentioned by Errera (255), is an eighteenthcentury copy according to the unpublished “Inventario” of the ACDFSO. It is possible that ACDFSO, St. St. L 3-e, fos. 706r–876v, titled “Institutiones seu praxis sanctae inquisitionis liber (?) primus” and dated at the foot of fo. 876v some time in the sixteenth century (the last two numerals are illegible), is a part of Peña’s work, but I have not been able to examine the manuscript carefully. 34. Kenneth Pennington has called Farinacci “The most important criminal lawyer of the medieval and early modern period.” http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/ PenningtonTortureEssay.htm#_ftnref107, accessed 5 May 2009. 35. Daniele Bartoli, Della vita di Roberto cardinal Bellarmino (Rome: Niccolò Angelo Tinassi, 1678), 219–22; cf. the 1631 ed., 419–20. Bartoli quoted the deposition of a witness in Bellarmino’s first process for canonization. 36. Prospero Farinacci, Tractatus de haeresi (Lyon: Jacques Cardon and Pierre Cavellat, 1621), fo. 4r. Bartoli, Bellarmino, 220, quoted part of this passage but never actually said Bellarmino read the book, as Beretta claims. Francesco Beretta, “Galilée devant le Tribunal de l’Inquisition” (ThD thesis, Universitè de Fribourg, 1997), 27. 37. Beretta, “Bruno,” leans heavily on Peña’s work; Farinacci’s book appears several times in his thesis. Luigi Firpo, Il processo di Giordano Bruno, ed. Diego Quaglioni (Rome: Salerno, 1993), 7, claimed that inquisitorial procedure was “ben nota” from Farinacci’s work (together with Peña’s and Masini’s), and Tedeschi, Prosecution of Heresy, 54, agrees it was widely read, but I have found few citations to it in scholarship about the Inquisition. Farinacci expected the work to be popular enough to print 480 copies. Niccolò del Re, “Prospero Farinacci giureconsulto romano (1544–1618),” Archivio della Società Romana di Storia Patria 98 (1975): 135–220, 206–8: the act of sale in 1618. The license for a 1618 edition of the Tractatus to be published in Venice (after a printer there had tried to launch a pirated edition) is in ASV, Segreteria dei brevi, Reg. 560, fos. 102r–4v; see also Del Re, “Farinacci,” 206–8; DSI 2: 579. 38. For a Rota precedent, see, e.g., BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fos. 56r and 221v for one of his own; canonists are cited throughout. For papal decrees in several corams, see fos. 139r–v, 252r–v. 39. Masini served as socius of the commissary in Rome from 13 April 1605 (date of oath; he began acting a week earlier) until at least 29 August 1607. ACDFSO:DSO 1604–1605, fos. 272r and 275r (Copia 1604–5, pp. 621 and 627); 1607, fo. 197v; entry destroyed in 1606–1607, fo. 386v. He was appointed to Genoa on 22 April 1609 and served until his death in 1627. 1608–9, fo. 332v; 1609, p. 148; 1627, fo. 155r. He came back to Rome for a time in 1621, perhaps

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 334

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 160–161

335

in order to secure permission for publication of his book. 1621, pp. 154, 175. For some of the publication history of his Arsenale, see Tedeschi, Prosecution of Heresy, 52 and 54; for his time as inquisitor in Ancona in 1608, see Christopher F. Black, The Italian Inquisition (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009), 104–9; see also DSI 2: 1006. For Carena, see Gabriele Cornaggia Medici, “Cesare Carena, giurista cremonese del secolo XVII,” Archivio storico lombardo ser. 6, 9 (1930): 297–330, who speculated that he may also have been in Rome but cannot have been a functionary of the Congregation; Tedeschi, Prosecution of Heresy, 55 (who says the first edition is 1631); DSI 1: 272–73; and for Albizzi Rainer Decker’s article, http://www.historicum.net/ themen/hexenforschung/lexikon/personen/art/Albizzi_France/ html/artikel/908/ca/573192ba24/, accessed 8 March 2010, DBI 2: 23–26; DSI 1: 29–30. For the earlier manuals, see Tedeschi, Prosecution of Heresy, 52; Errera, Processus in causa fidei, passim. 40. Casanate’s “Collectio diversorum decretorum sancti Officii Urbis a Sacra Congregatione Eminentissimorum diversis temporibus aeditorum, quae novissime ordine alphabetico digesta sunt” is in BC, MS 2631, and a rougher version is in 2103–4, with a note on the frontispiece of the first “Fuerit ad usum d.ni Card.lis Casanate dum adsessorem [sic] agebat S. Officii opus hocce est seculi XVII medietatis.” For him, see DBI 21, http:// www.treccani.it/Portale/elements/ categoriesItems.jsp?pathFile=/sites/default/BancaDati/ Dizionario_Biografico_degli_Italiani/VOL21/DIZIONARIO_BIOGRAFICO_DEGLI_ ITALIANI_Vol21_010663.xml, accessed 8 March 2010. Febei’s repertorium is in ASR:ACF, b. 131, unfoliated. See previous chapter. 41. Desiderio Scaglia’s “Prattica per procedere nelle cause del Santo Uffitio” survives in numerous manuscripts and has been edited from one of them in Alfonso Mirto, “Un inedito del seicento sull’Inquisizione,” Nouvelles de la République des Lettres 1 (1986): 99–138. The two lost works are by Stefano Vicari, “Praxis brevis de modo procedendi in sancto officio in causis fidei,” according to QE 2:1: 424a, and by Ippolito Lanci, who allegedly wrote two (478). 42. See also “Segreto,” DSI 3: 1408–1409. 43. Decree of 25 January 1560; Pastor, “Allgemeine Dekrete,” 24. 44. Decree of “11 Feb. 1610 fo. 75.” BC, MS 2653, fo. 15v. 45. Tedeschi, Prosecution of Heresy, 132, giving no citation for the last point. 46. Ibid., XIII, speaking of “flagrant abuses.” 47. For the advocate’s oath, see Albizzi, De inconstantia in iure, 213. Masini gave a similar text for consultors and other officials. Eliseo Masini, Sacro arsenale, ovvero prattica dell’officio della S. Inquisizione ampliata (Genoa: Giuseppe Pavoni, 1625), 300; Masini, Sacro arsenale, ovvero prattica dell’officio della S. Inquisizione, with additions by Tommaso Menghini and Giovanni Pasqualone (Rome: Nella Stamperia di S. Michele a Ripa, 1730), 396. For the oath at the end of a deposition, see, e.g., Galileo’s first interrogation in 1633 in Sergio M. Pagano, ed., I documenti vaticani del processo di Galileo Galilei (1611–1741): Nuova edizione accresciuta, rivista e annotata, Collectanea Archivi Vaticani 69 (Vatican City: Archivio Vaticano, 2009), 72. 48. “Secrecy is the soul of the business,” Letter of 15 May 1626, quoted in Pierroberto Scaramella, Le lettere della Congregazione del Sant’Ufficio ai tribunali di fede di Napoli 1563–1625 (Triest: Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2001), XXVn.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 335

8/27/12 11:46 AM

336

not es to pag es 161–163

49. Decree of 13 January 1628, cited by Cadène, “Collectio,” 4: 81 as from “fo. 10,” but I have not found it in the source he usually reproduced or in the decree registers. 50. ACDFSO:DSO 1609, p. 7; 1608–9, fo. 266v. 51. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fo. 425v. See the specimen of one such formally notarized oath in ASVe, Sant’Uffizio, b. 153a, unfoliated. 52. Tedeschi, Prosecution of Heresy, 164 n. 37; BAV, Vat. lat. 10945, fo. 83r, which also refers to two similar decrees of 1610 and 1620. 53. ACDFSO:DSO 1612, pp. 206, 209, and 240. 54. Bellarmino-Claudio Acquaviva, 21 September 1611. ARSI, Opp. NN 243.I, fo. 51r. 55. ARSI, Opp. NN 246, fos. 100v–101r; Simeon Contarini-doge, 14 February II, 21 February II, in ASVe:SDR, f. 72, fos. 294v, 307r–v. 56. As Beretta, “Galilée,” 173, well says, the manuals omit some of the most important steps in a trial. 57. E.g., Scholion 31, p. 141, about detecting hidden heretics and replacing Eymeric’s attempt to define heresy with a much simpler definition; or scholion 36, p. 148, saying two of the six modes of giving the accused a copy of the processo were obsolete. 58. Compare the account of criminal and inquisitorial procedure given here to the description of the ordo (1) for canon law trials in the work of the fourteenth-century jurist Pietro d’Ancarano, Super Clementinas facundissima commentaria (Bologna: Societatem typographiae Bonon., 1580), 288–98, giving the stages as citation, libellus, deliberation, reus comparet, litis contestatio, positiones, articuli, terminus ad probandum, probationes, interrogations, end of the case, sentence; and (2) primarily for suits between parties in Sebastiano Vanzi, Tractatus de nullitatibus processuum ac sententiarum (Venice: Francesco Bindoni, 1556 [1555]), 394–411. 59. Andrea Del Col, L’Inquisizione in Italia (Milan: Mondadori, 2006), 768–69, introduces a little confusion by referring to cases of sponte comparentes as tried by summary procedure, a terminology followed by Black, Italian Inquisition, 62, who unfortunately stretches the misleading label further on 58 to cover other kinds of cases; DSI 4: 1474–75. These cases might better be called abbreviated or perhaps extraordinary. See also the brief treatment of summary procedure in James A. Brundage, The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession: Canonists, Civilians and Courts (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 449–50. 60. Pietro Follerio, Canonica criminalis praxis (Venice: Heirs of Bartolomeo Rubini, 1583), 68. 61. Statuta, De haereticis in Sext 5.2.20 in Friedberg, CIC, 2: 1078. Lanfranco da Oriano explained sine . . . figura iudicii as meaning all that was required was a narratio of facts without any proposed conclusion (judgment). Repetitio on Saepe contingit, in Repetitionum ad constitutiones Clementis V. ad nonnullasque Extravagantes [libri], 6 (Cologne: Gymnicus, 1618), 172. The additiones provide an extensive bibliography of discussion of summary jurisdiction. See also Kelly, “Inquisition,” 443. 62. Thomás Ripoll and Antonin Brémond, eds., Bullarium ordinis FF. Praedicatorum (Rome: Girolamo Mainardi, 1729–1740), vol. 1, 1225–1280, 273, 417–19. The first was frequently reissued. 63. Ludovico Carerio, Tractatus de hareticis, in Practica causarum criminalium (Lyon:

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 336

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 163–164

337

Guillaume Rouille, 1562), fo. 266v, was atypical in merely quoting them. Saepe contingit began by saying “the meaning of which words [simpliciter & de plano, etc.] is disputed by many and how to proceed is doubted” (“de quorum significatione verborum a multis contenditur, & qualiter procedi debeat, dubitatur”). 64. For interlocutory sentences, see Sigismondo Scaccia, Tractatus de sententia et re judicata (Lyon: André Jacques and Matthieu Prost, 1628), 385. 65. Scholion 112, p. 218. 66. Luigi Lacché, “Ordo non servatus: Anomalie processuali, giustizia militare e specialia in Antico Regime,” Studi Storici 29 (1988): 361–84, 367–68. 67. Friedberg, CIC, 2: lxxxviii, emphasis added. It is worth pointing out that this canon applied only to papal judges delegate. 68. See, e.g., the opinion expressed in Lanfranco da Oriano’s repetitio on Saepe contingit (167). He later (169) added a citation from Roman law to support the point while concluding that such action was licit if allowable in “ordinary” (plenary) proceedings. Lanfranco ultimately rejected the opinion originally stated, holding that both the libellus and the litis contestatio were still required in the interests of safety, and judges could still do the first on holidays, but not the parties to a suit, an opinion he later emended to allow even them to omit festal obligations imposed by positive law (ob necessitates hominum) (170–71, 172). 69. See the representative definition by the Toulouse jurist Pierre Gregoire: “Libellus itaque est, certa petitio, seu intentio actoris, vel accusatoris, in iudicio scriptis concepta, & proposita.” A scholion spelled out that the libellus had a place in both civil and criminal cases, and another said that in summary proceedings the judge can verbally give the reus the petition, citing Lanfranco on Saepe contingit. A criminal libellus accusatorius contained the details of the alleged crime, and the names of the accused and the proposed judge. Pierre Gregoire, Omnia ad ius pontificium spectantia, vol. 1 (Lyon: Jean Pillehotte, 1612), 416. 70. “Squillace” is Francesco Arceri (Franciscus Arcerius, Franciscus de Arceriis), bishop of Squillace 1418–1476. Luigi Accattatis, ed., Uomini illustri delle Calabrie, 1 (Cosenza: Tipografia municipale, 1869), 163–64. His book is variously titled beginning with an incunable Tractatus fidei (Naples: Francesco del Tuppo, 1475–78 ); it was included in Tractatus universi iuris (Venice: Ziletti, 1584–86), 14 and frequently cited, e.g., by Farinacci, De haeresi (1616). For Rojas, see Borromeo, “Directorium,” 516. 71. Johannes Dietterle, “Die summae confessorum (sive de casibus conscientiae) von ihren Anfang an bis zu Silvester Prierias, III,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 28 (1907): 399–431, 401–6, giving four editions of the Summa after the editio princeps of 1515; there are a total of ten in ICCU, not including the edition I used (see next note). For his career, see Michael M. Tavuzzi, Renaissance Inquisitors: Dominican Inquisitors and Inquisitorial Districts in Northern Italy, 1474–1527 (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 109–17; for Krämer, Tamar Herzig, “Heinrich Krämer e la caccia alle streghe in Italia,” in Dinora Corsi and Matteo Duni, eds., “Non lasciar vivere la malefica”: Le streghe nei trattati e nei processi (secoli XIV–XVII) (Florence: Università di Firenze, 2009), 167–96, 189–90. 72. Giovanni Cagnazzo, Summae Tabienae [libri] (Venice: Martino Rubino, 1572), 2: 127.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 337

8/27/12 11:46 AM

338

not es to pag es 164–167

73. Carerio, Tractatus de haereticis, fos. 269v–70r. About the only thing known of the author is that he came from Reggio di Calabria. His book gives no autobiographical information, other than the undated dedication to a Neapolitan privy councillor. The brief entry in DSI 1: 273 adds nothing. The edition of the Practica I used may not be identical to Peña’s, since he claimed it contained an extended treatment of the ordo iuris, which mine does not. 74. Repertorium inquisitorum pravitatis haereticae . . . Correctionibus, & annotationibus . . . Quintilliani Mandosij, ac Petri Vendrameni decoratum & auctum (Venice: Damiano Zenaro, 1575), 586–87. Mandosio’s additiones referred to Gonzalo, Ugolino Zanchini, and Eymeric. See also the entry for libellus on 516. Errera, Processus in causa fidei, 93–94, thinks the treatise’s organization by key words made it impossible to use for procedure. 75. Juan de Rojas, Singularia iuris in favorem fidei haeresisque detestationem, Tractatus de haereticis (Venice: Francesco Ziletti, 1583), sigg. 105v–7v. Unsurprisingly, Peña often referred to Rojas in his “Introductio.” 76. Roberto Maranta, Speculum aureum et lumen advocatorum praxis civilis, ed. Pietro Follerio, with notes by Ludovico Alferio (Venice: Giovanni Antonio Bertano, 1586). The work has 121 hits in WorldCat and at least 44 editions (DBI). Written in 1520–25 according to Maranta’s account, it was published only later by his son at the urging of Paduan jurist Marco Mantova Benavides. It has been called “una sorta di provvidenziale filo d’Arianna forense” (DBI). On its intended use as a textbook, see, for example, pp. 1, 306. 77. The dedication to Follerio, Praxis is dated 1560, the preface 1559, although the work was finished in 1557. It records twenty hits in ICCU. The DBI says the editio princeps is Venice 1561. Follerio, sometime archiepiscopal auditor of Salerno (Praxis, 80) came from a family of lawyers in San Severino. A number of his manuscripts were in the library of the pivotally important Inquisitor Guglilelmo Sirleto, who probably met Follerio while the latter was in Rome in at least 1574–77, negotiating disputes between the pope and Naples. He died before 1590 (DBI). 78. Maranta, Speculum aureum, 274, added one more difference, thinking that an inquisition for heresy did not require spelling out all the details of the alleged crime. 79. See, e.g., Carerio, Tractatus de haereticis, fo. 268v. Beretta offers the fullest previous discussion of the Inquisition’s trial process in “Galilée,” chap. 4, drawing mainly on Peña and Carena. Cf. also the brief sketch in “Processo,” DSI 3: 1257–63, esp. 1262; and “Diritto comune e inquisitio ex officio,” 1: 493–95. My discussion is confined to “special inquisition.” For the difference, see, e.g., Peña, BAV, Barb. lat., 1367, fos. 35v–36r, pp. 37–38. 80. Follerio, Praxis, 61. 81. Maranta, Speculum aureum, 271. 82. Giulio Claro, Practica criminalis canonica, book 5 of Receptarum sententiarum opera omnia (Geneva: Alexandre Pernet, 1625; dedication to Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle dated 1560), q. 6, no. 8, 73–74. 83. Carerio, Practica criminalis, fo. 22r–v. See also De haereticis in Practica, fo. 270r. 84. Maranta, Speculum aureum, 272. 85. Claro, Practica, q. 6, no. [9], 74.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 338

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 168–169

339

86. Claro, Practica, q. 6. nos. 1, 72, 3 and 7, 73. Claro complained that the first principle was commonly violated in practice. 87. BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fos. 32v–41v/1544, pp. 34–43. Among the numerous authorities Peña cited was the relatively obscure Filippo Franchi. For inquisitio as procedure, see Eymeric, Directorium (1578), 284–85 with Peña’s scholion 16, pp. 126–27. 88. BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fo. 41v/1544, p. 43, emphasis added. 89. Kelly, “Inquisitorial Due Process,” 411. 90. “Nemo iudex unquam sit tantae audaciae, quando inquirit contra certam personam de maleficio, etiam ex suo mero officio, ut formet inquisitionem suam, nisi praecedente infamia de delicto.” Angelo Gambiglioni, De maleficiis tractatus (Venice: Ad candentis salamandrae insignis [Damiano Zenaro], 1578), fo. 10r. 91. In his own manual, expanding Eymeric’s words, Peña spoke of denunciation as “communis, receptus, et usitatus” before adding that it was more “initiativus quam completivus totius processus” (BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fos. 28r and 42v; 1544, pp. 28 and 44); the earlier quotation comes from his scholion 13, p. 124. Carena, Tractatus, 242. For the merger, see Henry Ansgar Kelly, “Inquisitorial Due Process and the Status of Secret Crimes” in Inquisitions and Other Trial Procedures in the Medieval West (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), II, 407–8. Beretta, “Galilée,” 167, uses Carena as his sole support for the proposition. This is another point where the evidence may be too thin to support either contemporaries’ or Beretta’s generalization. 92. Masini, Sacro arsenale (1730), 44. 93. “An engagement which a person, who makes a solemn accusation of a crime against another, enters into, that he will suffer the same punishment, if he has accused the other falsely, which would have been inflicted upon him had he been guilty.” John Bouvier, A Law Dictionary, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: Deacon & Peterson, 1854), 1: 641. 94. Peña, Scholion 16, p. 126. 95. Follerio, Praxis, 57. See also Maranta, Speculum aureum, 302–3; DSI 1: 467–69. 96. Antonio da Budrio, Super librum primum-quintum Decretalium commentarii (Venice: Giunti, 1578), 3, fos. 17v–21r. For d’Andrea see Domenico da San Gimignano, Super Decretorum volumine commentaria (Venice: Giunta, 1578), fo. 164r. Cardinal Zabarella, Budrio’s contemporary, said the four types were “commonly” given. Francesco Zabarella, Super primo [–quinto] Decretalium subtilissima commentaria cum additionibus, summariis, ac reportorio Domini Ioannis Thierry Lingoniensis (Venice: Luc’Antonio Giunti, [1602]), 2: fo. 5v. The fourfold scheme represented the addition of one (“regular”) to Enrico da Susa’s original three, which Peña still cited (BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fo. 28r–v; 1544, p. 29). 97. Maranta, Speculum aureum, 303. 98. Follerio, Praxis, 59–60. 99. Peña, Scholion 15, p. 126. 100. Chapter 6 is titled “Denunciandos esse haereticos non praemissa fraterna correctione.” BAV, Barb. lat. 1544, p. 17; BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fo. 17r; cf. Farinacci’s summarium to the text in ibid., fo. 16v: “Argumentum Denunciandos esse Haereticos non premissa [sic] fraterna correctione”; “Denunciandi et revelandi sunt Haeretici nulla praecedente

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 339

8/27/12 11:46 AM

340

not es to pag es 170–171

monitione pluribus rationibus de quibus num. 2”; “Denunciandi et revelandi an sint haeretici praecedenti fraterna monitione, quando firmiter existimatur per monitionem secretam, posse eos paenitentes ad fidem redire num. 3 et 4.” See also ibid., fos. 17v and 18r; for Aquinas, fos. 18v–19v (1544, pp. 18–19); and for Arévalo, fo. 21r (1544, p. 20). 101. BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fo. 20v; 1544, pp. 20–21. 102. Ibid., fo. 28r–v; 1544, p. 29. 103. Ibid., fo. 31r/1544, p. 32 and fo. 32r/1544, p. 33. The canon is Sext 5.2.5 in Friedberg, CIC, 2: col. 1071. 104. Rome (1616), q. 185, no. 60, 274; and 1621, 139. Parámo, sometime inquisitor of Sicily, wrote De origine et progressu Officii Sanctae Inquisitionis published in Madrid in 1598. Edward M. Peters, Inquisition (New York: Free Press, 1988), 266. 105. Rome (1616), q. 197, no. 39, 667–68. 106. Bartolomeo Ugolini, Tractatus de officio et potestate episcopi (Bologna: Bartolomeo Cocchi, 1609); De monitoriis cum poena excommunicationis ad delicta invenienda, 93–95. 107. Decree of 5 March 1603. ACDFSO:DSO 1603 Copia, fo. 51r. 108. Scipione Borghese-Berlinghiero Gessi, 2 August 1608, Rome (ASV, Seg. Stato, Venezia, 39, fo. 130v) and 2 May 1609 (fo. 239r–v). 109. ACDFSO:DSO 1608, pp. 203, 306, 310. See my forthcoming The Roman Inquisition on the Stage of Italy for this case of Rodrigo Alidosi. 110. 29 January 1609, anonymous denunciation of Gianbattista Magnavino of Montagnana (ACDFSO:DSO 1609, p. 46; 1608–1609, fo. 284r–v); 26 February 1609, the inquisitor of Padua on his report of “extrajudicial attestations,” ordered to collect informationes secretly (1609, p. 84); 21 May 1609 the inquisitor sent a deposition against Magnavino begging “servari secretum ob periculum imminens testibus” (1608–1609, fo. 353v; 1609, p. 195); 30 July 1609 the inquisitor was ordered to observe Magnavino’s life (1608–1609, fo. 405v). 111. Decree of 4 February. ACDFSO:DSO 1612, p. 62. 112. 18 April and 6 November 1624 (ACDFSO:DSO 1624, fos. 67v and 172v); 17 April 1625 (1625, fo. 69r); 3 June 1626 (1626, fo. 91r); ?15 September 1627 (1627, fo. 162r); 10 June 1628 (BAV, Vat. lat. 10945, fo. 62r); 1 February 1634, anonymous denunciation of the archbishop of Siena for defending Galileo (1634, fo. 26v; Copia, p. 85; not in EN 19, but cf. the letter in Processo, printed in XXIV.b, 90 (EN 19: 393; Pagano, Documenti vaticani, 146–47); and see another instance of 29 January 1611 in BAV, Vat. lat. 10945, fo. 62v. 113. BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fos. 61v–63v/1544, pp. 7–10. 114. ACDFSO:DSO 1600–1601, fo. 143v; Copia 1604–1605, p. 332; 1606–1607, fos. 188v (because a witness could not be found) and 443r; 1607, fo. 264v; 1608–1609, fo. 483r; 1612, pp. 254 (a case depending from an anonymous denunciation) and 300; 1613, p. 145; 1614, p. 442; 1615, p. 422 (in a case from April 1613); 1619, pp. 360 and 389 (two decrees by the pope); 1625, fo. 85v; 1629, fo. 34r (raised as a possibility after investigation of other suspects in the late stage of a trial of the principal accused); 1631, fo. 107v. 115. See also Beretta, “Galilée,” 168.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 340

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 171–175

341

116. BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fos. 79v and 80r. Peña gave a good deal of attention to magic and sorcery, often using them as an example of a mode of questioning. 117. Ibid., fos. 54v–55v and 56r/1544 II, pp. 1–2. 118. BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fos. 71r–73v and 74v/1544, pp. 24–25. 119. See Richard H. Helmholz, “Origins of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: The Role of the European Ius Commune,” New York University Law Review 65 (1990): 962. 120. Follerio, Praxis, 140–42. 121. Follerio gave the citation as “ca. de accusatione 1. q 8 col. 37,” as Flaminio Cartari once did before correctly changing “1” to “2” in Theoricae et praxis interrogandorum reorum libri IV, 5th ed. (Bracciano: Andrea Fei, 1639; ed. prin. Venice: Zenari, 1590), 10; the correct citation is In primam [-secundam] Decretorum partem commentaria (Venice: Giunti, 1579), 1, fo. 110r no. 90 to C. 2. q. 8. I am grateful to Giorgio Caravale for sending me a copy of this text. For San Giorgio, see J. F. Schulte, Geschichte der Quellen und Literatur des canonischen Rechts, 3 vols. (Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke, 1875–80), 2: 338–41. 122. San Giorgio, Commentaria, fo. 110v, no. 93. The rubric is almost as long and makes the entry sound more substantial than it is: “Inquisitione formata reus debet respondere inquisitioni de veritate cum iuramento. Et si inquisitus negaverit, quid agat iudex” (fo. 102r). 123. San Giorgio, Commentaria, fo. 110r, no. 89. 124. Follerio, Praxis, 140. 125. San Giorgio, Commentaria, fo. 109v, no. 86. Later, when repeating the points about confession and renunciation of defense, he also reiterated that “Sciendum est insuper, quod ista exhibitio capitulorum, super quibus intendit inquirere iudex, fieri debet ante formatam inquisitionem.” Ibid., fo. 109v, no. 87. 126. Follerio also referred to San Giorgio’s discussion in his Practica criminalis, which I have not been able to see. 127. Juan Bernal Diaz de Luco (1495–1556), Practica criminalis canonica, 4th ed., rev. author (Lyon: Guillaume Rovilly, 1561; editio princeps, Lyon 1543), 269–70. C. Gutiérrez, Españoles en Trento (Valladolid: CSIC, 1951), 587–606, 598; other works listed, 606–7 n. 1126. Peña frequently cited this work, but not this passage. 128. Helmholz, “Self-Incrimination,” at note 69, makes it appear that Vanzi held a similar position, but in fact he was talking about the causae cognitio, not the oath, which he barely mentioned. Sebastiano Vanzi, Tractatus de nullitatibus processuum et sententiarum (Spier: Elias Helmbach, 1604), 530; and see below. 129. “Mihi certe haec practica [of giving the oath regardless] nunquam placuit: est enim manifesta occasio periurii . . .  .Tamen (quicquid sit), non auderem in practica recedere a commune observantia.” Claro, Practica, q. 45, no. 9, 158. Helmholz, “Self-Incrimination,” at note 86, again overstates Claro’s case, overlooking his final position. 130. Cartari, Praxis, 3–10. 131. Sebastiano Guazzini, Tractatus ad defensam inquisitorum carceratorum, reorum et condemnatorum (Lyon: Antoine Valançol, Germano Nanty and Claude Langloys, 1672;

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 341

8/27/12 11:46 AM

342

not es to pag es 175–177

editio princeps probably Rome: Andrea Fei, 1614 [Tedeschi, Prosecution of Heresy, 169]), 1:2, 20. Guazzini is described on the title page as from Città Castello, “in Romana curia causarum criminalium advocatii primari, & postea locumtenentis criminalis Auditoris Camerae.” See DSI 2: 740–41. 132. Guazzini, Tractatus, 318. 133. Cagnazzo did allow an appeal when a suspect or defendant was questioned in violation of the ordo iuris, but that statement came immediately after the standard one that a suspect could not deny the truth, and nothing was said about an oath. Summa summarum quae Tabiena reformata dicitur [Bologna: Benedetto Faelli, 1520], fos. 17v–18r, no. 11. 134. These discussions suggest that Helmholz’s conclusion (“Self-Incrimination”) that “the privilege [against self-incrimination] did not then [in the sixteenth century] have an absolute character” may be a little optimistic. More often than not, commentators did not allow it at all or so qualified it as to make it disappear. 135. For the difficulties of detecting pretensed insanity, see Peña’s scholia 24 and 25, pp. 136ff. For the consensus that a vacillating witness could be tortured, see Kelly, “Misconceptions,” 445. 136. Guazzini, Tractatus, 1:1, 321. 137. Cartari, Praxis, 57. 138. Ibid. and 65. 139. Masini, Sacro arsenale (1625), 31. 140. BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fos. 135r, 60r–v, 247v, and 249v, the last two citations with reference to the copy of the processus given in the defensive phase. For the issue, see Kelly, Inquisitions, II, 52n. 141. Eymeric, Directorium (1578), Part III, q. 75, 405. 142. Heinrich Krämer and Jacob Sprenger, Malleus Maleficarum, ed. and trans. Christopher S. Mackay (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006 and 2009), 1: 605 (III, qq. 9, 11). 143. For Narbonne, see Kelly, “Inquisition,” 444. 144. Scholion 129, pp. 252–53. He also had Costabili’s help to demonstrate that the decretal Cum negotium that Eymeric had earlier cited was not Innocent VI’s, but rather the work of the vastly more authoritative Innocent IV. 145. 1 November 1561, to the inquisitor of Avignon, taken from the Inquisition’s archive. Literae apostolicae diversorum Romanorum pontificum pro officio sanctissimae Inquisitionis, ab Innoc. III Pont. Max. usque ad haec tempora (Rome: In aedibus populi romanorum, 1579), 105–6, attached to the 1578 edition of Directorium. 146. Scholion 130, p. 253. Peña also cited the Repertorium Inquisitorum as well as Simancas. 147. See also Kelly, “Inquisition,” 444, and “Inquisitorial Due Process,” 422, who once more labels the omission of names an abuse and never allows it more than the status of a legitimate consuetudo (the same word Peña used), although he also calls the omission “permanent law” on 443. He does not cite Pius’s motu proprio. Kelly also suggests that the “abuse” may have originally been a local Iberian one that passed into canon law through a

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 342

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 177–178

343

note to the 1582 edition of the Corpus iuris canonici that cited the Repertorium inquisitorum first published in Valencia. The fact that Peña’s sources, published four years earlier, did not include that book casts doubt on the suggestion. 148. BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fos. 56r–57r/1544 II, p. 3. 149. BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fo. 59v. Farinacci endorsed all of Peña’s points, often citing his Praxis et theoricae criminalis libri duo (Frankfurt: Palthenius, 1597) and Tractatus de testibus (Frankfurt: Palthenius, 1598). 150. Beretta, “Galilée,” 183–84, who says the word denotes both the suspect and his testimony and implies that he had been imprisoned. Cartari, Praxis, 3, defined the term “vulgarly” as “because the beginning of the examination begins thus.” This of course begs the question of what the word meant in itself. Thomas Cooper’s Thesaurus linguae romanae et britannicae (1584) defined it as “Ordeined: appointed: determined: setled [sic].” http:// archimedes.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/toc/dict?step=entry;head=constitutus;dict=d00 2;inword= constitutus; back=http%3A%2F%2Farchimedes.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de%2Fcgibin%2Ftoc%2Fdict%3Fstep% 3Dtable%3Bword%3Dconstitutus%3Blang%3Dla, accessed 8 March 2010. 151. ASVe, Sant’Ufficio, b. 82, fasc. 6 (socius); Repertorium inquisitorum, 562–66 (notary); Masini, Sacro arsenale (1625), 27 (fiscal); ACDFSO:DSO 1621–1622, fo. 194r (special deputation to the summista). 152. Scholion 18, pp. 127, 132. 153. Scholion 18, p. 129; BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fo. 86v. This moment was also sometimes referred to as cognitio causae, another step derived from civil suits, although that term could also apply to the earlier decision that the case belonged to the Inquisition. Adolf Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1953), 383. The decree registers do not often explicitly record cognitiones. For one case involving Peña, see ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fo. 429v; 1606, fos. 241v–42r. 154. Vanzi, De nullitatibus (1556), 332–33; Guazzini, Tractatus, Defensio 9, 1:1, 237; Carena, Tractatus, 244. This point was almost universally granted. See, e.g., the frequently cited Quintiliano Mandosio, Consiliorum sive responsorum [libri] (Venice: Heirs of Francesco Ziletti, 1587), fo. 85r, no. 4, following Baldo. Despite the title of his book, Vanzi’s concern was not for the defense, but rather that the plague of nullification cease. Vanzi held the posts of lieutenant of the auditor general of the Camera Apostolica (possibly the same position Guazzini occupied) and auditor of the Rota. From Rimini, he became bishop of Orvieto in 1554 on the resignation of Cardinal Girolamo Simoncelli. He attended the last session of the Council of Trent, where he acted as one of its four diffinitors, and died in 1571. See the three-part article by Antonio Montanari at http://riministoria.eklablog.com/ sebastiano-vanzi-vescovo-e-giurista-a5811326, accessed 8 October 2011; Willem van Gulik and Conrad Eubel, eds., Hierarchia catholica medii et recentioris aevi (Münster: Regensberg, 1923), 3: 323. De nullitatibus had twenty-four editions before 1625. http://digilander.libero. it/montanariantonio/ilrimino/2011/vanzischedadue.html, accessed 8 October 2011. 155. Scaccia, De iudiciis (1618), 273–77. 156. Ibid., 65. Carerio, De haereticis, fo. 273r, agreed.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 343

8/27/12 11:46 AM

344

not es to pag es 178–179

157. Maranta, Speculum aureum, 303–28. 158. Vanzi, De nullitatibus (1556), 332–33; Lanfranco, Repetitio on Saepe contingit, 172. 159. Filippo Decio on X.1.29.24 in In Decretalium volumen perspicua commentaria (Venice: Giunti, 1593), fo. 175v, no. 127, citing de’ Tudeschi. Cf. da Budrio, Super librum primum-quintum Decretalium commentarii, 7, fo. 75v, comment on X.5.27.5. 160. Comment on X.3.2.8 in In quinque decretalium libros, necnon in decretales . . . editas, quae modo sunt in sexto decret. lib. insertae . . .  commentaria doctissima (Venice: Bernardino Maiorini, 1570), fo. 210r. 161. Da Budrio, Super librum primum-quintum Decretalium commentarii, 1, fo. 114r. His final opinion in a more extended discussion on X.3.2.7 (5, fos. 7r–16v, fo. 13r–v) is unclear. Da Budrio elsewhere said a citation was required in the case of an accusation (4, fo. 22r) and in his comment on X.2.28.5 seems to plump for citation no matter what (4, fo. 134v). 162. Comment on X.1.33.8 in Zabarella, Decretalium commentaria, 1: fo. 315r. 163. Scholion 18, p. 129; Eymeric, Directorium (1578), 286. 164. Scholion 44, p. 155; Eymeric, Directorium (1578), 310. 165. Guazzini, Tractatus, Defensio 9, 1:1, 239. 166. Eymeric, Directorium (1578), 376. 167. See also Lanfranco on Quoniam contra [2] (Repetitionum in universas fere Iuris canonici partes, materiasque sane frequentiores [libri] (Venice: Luca Antonio Giunti, 1587), 3, fos. 227v [sic]–28r, fo. 243r, no. 60. 168. Carena, Tractatus, 244. 169. Masini, Sacro arsenale (1625), 119. 170. Giovanni Nicoletti da Imola, In primum [- tertium] decretalium commentaria (Venice: Domenico Nicolini, 1575 [1574]), commentary on X.1.29.19 (1, fos. 207v–8r); Pierpaolo Parisio, “Repetitio on Quoniam contra,” in Repetitionum, fos. 222r–27v [the fos. are mixed up; actually sixteen in number], fo. 226v. 171. Giovanni d’Andrea, attributed to, Ordo iudiciarius (Venice: Egidio Regazola, 1573), 17–18. See also Henri Boich, In quinque Decretalium libros commentaria (Venice: Heirs of Girolamo Scotti, 1576 [1575]), 1: 342–43. 172. Bartolomeo Ugolini, Tractatus de censuris summo pontifici reservatis (Venice: Heirs of Girolamo Scoti, 1609), 321, a text Farinacci cited. 173. Mandosio, Consiliorum . . . volumen primum, fo. 142r, nos. 2–3. 174. Guazzini, Tractatus, Defensio 9, 1:1, 241. 175. ACDFSO:DSO 1617, p. 472. 176. On X.3.4.11. Da Budrio, Super librum primum-quintum Decretalium commentarii, 4, fos. 22v–23r. Maranta cited in Guazzini, Tractatus, Defensio 9, 1:1, 242. 177. Repertorium inquisitorum, 111–14, one of the most comprehensive discussions. 178. Scaccia, De iudiciis (1618), 65–74 and 93–94. 179. Sigismondo Scaccia, Tractatus de iudiciis causarum civilium, criminalium et haereticalium, Liber primus (Venice: Giovanni Battista and Giovanni Bernardo Sessa, 1616), fos. 58r–59r.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 344

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 179–182

345

180. Giovanni Battista Ferretti on Quoniam contra [10] in Repetitionum, 3, fos. 366v– 80v, fo. 371, no. 42; Ugolini, De censuris, 321. Mandosio, De monitoriis, fos. 4v–5r, made citatio, mandatum, and praeceptum more or less equivalent. See also the extended discussion of citatio in Follerio, Praxis, 110–21. 181. Da San Gimignano, Super Decretorum, comment on C.5.q.2.c.2, fos. 231v–32r and on C.12.q.2.c.21, fo. 328v. 182. Comment on X.1.29.24 in Felino Sandeo, Commentariorum... ad quinque libros decretalium pars prima [-tertia] [libri] (Venice: Società dell’Aquila che si rinnova, 1600– 1601), 1, fo. 203v. 183. Da San Gimignano, Super Decretorum, comment on C.5.q.2.c.2, fo. 232r, no. 1. 184. Da Budrio, Super librum primum-quintum Decretalium commentarii, 4, fos. 22v– 23r, comment on X.3.4.11. 185. Masini, Sacro arsenale (1625), 127. 186. Da Budrio, Super librum primum-quintum Decretalium commentarii, 4, fo. 22r, on X.2.20.4. For De Dominis’s case, see my forthcoming The Roman Inquisition on the Stage of Italy and DSI 1: 451–53. 187. ACDFSO:DSO 1617, pp. 150 and 153. For the definition of a monitorium, see Mandosio, De monitoriis, fo. 5r. 188. ACDFSO, St. st. L 3-e, fos. 619r–21r, also fo. 626r, an undated fair copy of De Dominis’s excommunication for contumacy. 189. ACDFSO:DSO 1617, pp. 472, 482. 190. ACDFSO:DSO 1618, pp. 32, 37, 97–98. It may be a coincidence, but the lapse before De Dominis was judged contumacious is nearly the period of a year Carerio recommended, although he thought only two citations necessary. Carerio, De haereticis, fos. 270v, 273r. 191. “Arrest” meant confinement to a certain place. Peña, Scholion 41, p. 152. 192. BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fo. 83r. Masini, Sacro arsenale (1625), 316, agreed that the mere fact of imprisonment carried “notabile infamia.” Peña put the same points as “ex sola captura non modice fama laedatur.” Scholion 18, p. 129. He also thought a judge should not imprison anyone for a light offense, including blasphemy. BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fos. 78v–80v. 193. Scholion 47, p. 158. 194. Eymeric, Directorium (1578), 286; Scholion 18, p. 129. 195. Scholion 18, p. 129; BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fo. 94r–v. 196. Scholion 48, p. 158. 197. Paul F. Grendler, The Roman Inquisition and the Venetian Press (1540–1605) (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1977), 52. 198. In Scholion 19, pp. 130–31 Peña had painted with much broader strokes. 199. Peña earlier gave the figure of ten days. Scholion 19, p. 131. Carena, Tractatus, 246, emphasized the importance of treating the suspect humanissime. 200. Carena, Tractatus, 246–47. 201. Scholion 19, p. 130.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 345

8/27/12 11:46 AM

346

not es to pag es 182–185

202. Scholion 29, pp. 139–40. 203. Scholion 27, p. 138. 204. Scholion 16, p. 127. 205. “Haec forma interrogandi Reum, aut Testes tacitam in se habet sugestionem [sic], ut dixi in meam Practicam q. 83 no. 92.” BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fo. 61r. 206. Cartari, Praxis, 24. 207. Beretta, “Galilée,” 187. See also Tedeschi, Prosecution of Heresy, 131 and 164. For one example of repetition, see future commissary Ippolito Lanci’s defense against the charge in ACDFSO:DSO 1618, p. 301. 208. Pagano, Documenti vaticani, 39–42. 209. Antonio Beltrán Marí, Talento y poder: Historia de las relaciones entre Galileo y la iglesia católica (Pamplona: Laetoli, 2006), especially on 548ff., makes the point at length on the basis of Eymeric’s text. 210. Scholion 20, p. 133; Eymeric, Directorium (1578), 288, immediately after stressing the importance of the inquisitor’s prudence. 211. Eymeric, Directorium (1578), 289–93. 212. Scholion 67, p. 187. He added that such dangerous confrontations never took place in Rome “nisi re cognita” and never with more than one witness at a time unless they were the accused’s accomplices (188). 213. Eymeric, Directorium (1578), 292. 214. Scholia 23, p. 136; 26, pp. 137–38; 27, pp. 138–39. 215. Eymeric, Directorium (1587), 435–38. 216. Scaccia, De iudiciis (1618), fos. 154v–55r. For him, see DSI 3: 1389–40. 217. Eymeric, Directorium (1587), 434. 218. Cartari, Praxis, 61–63; for prudence, see, e.g., 11. 219. Follerio drew the conclusion that “litis contestatio is not to be done in criminal cases, in a judgment by accusation,” since it consisted of denying or confessing the contents of the libellus. Follerio, Praxis, 140–42. For its original function, see Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary, 566; see the similar discussion as applied to English canon law courts in R. H. Helmholz, The Oxford History of the Laws of England: The Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from 597 to the 1640s (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 326. See also Joseph Georg Wolf, Die litis contestatio im römischen Zivilprozeβ (Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller, 1968); Steffen Schlinker, Litis contestatio: Eine Untersuchung über die Grundlagen des gelehrten Zivilprozesses in der Zeit vom 12. bis zum 19. Jahrhundert, Studien zur Europäischen Rechtsgeschichte 233 (Frankfurt/M: Klostermann, 2008). The civilian Baldo, quoted in Maranta, Speculum aureum, 375, called the litis contestatio “the cornerstone of the whole judgment” (“lapis angularis totius iudicii”). 220. Maranta, Speculum aureum, 268. 221. Follerio, Praxis, 79–80. Eymeric apparently cited another decree to the contrary (“tamen omittere non poterit litis contes. vel aliud substantiale, quod etiam de consensu partium omitti non posse”). Directorium (1578), 142. I have not been able to identify it. 222. The ordo iuris in criminalibus was “citabitur reus, ad contestandam litem super

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 346

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 185–188

347

accusationem; qui si fuerit in fortiis curiae, de plano procedetur ad dictam litis contestationem. . . . Et ita servatur de stilo in Romana curia.” Eymeric, Directorium (1578), 142. 223. Maranta, Speculum aureum, 128 and 155. 224. Carerio, Practica causarum criminalium, fo. 270r–v; see also fo. 23v. An annotatio to Bernardo da Como, Lucerna Inquisitorum haereticae pravitatis (Rome: Bartholomeo Grassi, 1584), 74, quoted Carerio as if he had said the litis did not belong to heresy proceedings. 225. Da Como, Lucerna, 74. 226. Guazzini, Tractatus, Defensio 20, 1:1, 322. For Caballo, see Emanuelle Gerini, Memorie storiche d’illustri scrittori e di uomini insigni dell’antica e moderna Lunigiana (Massa: Luigi Frediani, 1829), 2: 249–51. His most important work was Resolutionum criminalium centuriae (editio princeps, 1613), which I have not been able to see. 227. Guazzini, Tractatus, Defensio 20, 1:1, 322. 228. Guazzini, Tractatus, 1:1, 338. 229. Cartari, Praxis, 6. 230. At one point, Peña wrote that after the litis contestatio the testimony of a dead or absent witness was allowable, and titled a chapter “An testes ante litem contestatam sint repetendi.” BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fos. 156r and 214v. 231. Eymeric, Directorium (1578), 309–10, moved from the form of citing a contumacious defendant to thirteen modes of ending a process. Both Peña and Masini went directly from the charges to the repetitio; BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fo. 148r; Sacro Arsenale (1625), 108; (1730), 234. Beretta, “Galilée,” 193, also does not discuss the plea. 232. Guazzini, Tractatus, 1:2, 20. 233. BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fo. 94r. 234. Kelly, “Inquisition,” 449; Kelly, “Inquisitorial Procedure,” 416 and 421n. 235. Vanzi, Tractatus (1604), 530. 236. Ibid., 571–74. 237. Follerio, Praxis, 78–79. 238. Eymeric, Directorium (1578), 285–86. 239. “Et sic prudens inquisitor interrogabit, & formabit sibi articulos, secundum materiam, de qua est accusatus.” Peña, Scholion 19, p. 131, emphasis added. 240. Cartari, Praxis, 60. 241. Claro, Practica, q. 6, no. 22, 75; q. 45, no. 8, 158. 242. BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fo. 253r. This formulation is probably a vestige of the litis contestatio. 243. BAV, Barb. lat. 1502, p. 22A. 244. Follerio, Praxis, 81. 245. Guazzini, Tractatus, 1:2, 21; Carena, Tractatus, 279. See also Follerio, Praxis, 81, who insisted that the act of giving the reus a copy of the articles was de substantia. See the summary of this phase in Beretta, “Bruno,” 39, drawn from Peña. He does not treat it in his thesis. Masini’s discussion in Sacro arsenale is not a great deal of help. His obvious remark that the accused’s mere denial would not suffice, and witnesses were therefore required

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 347

8/27/12 11:46 AM

348

not es to pag es 188–192

is typical. Most of his attention was devoted to handling the processo and the manner of summoning witnesses. Part IV concerns the repetitio. Many manuals said nothing about it, which suggests it might have been a fairly recent development. See, e.g., Zanchino Ugolini, De haereticis . . . Tractatus aureus (with additions by Camillo Campeggi and Jacobo Simancas, and notes by Honorato Figuerola) (Rome: In aedibus Populi Romani, 1579), “De modo procedendi,” 46–49; and Campeggi’s additio referring in general to Eymeric, Cagnozzi, Gambiglioni, Follerio, Simancas, Peña’s Scholia, etc. (50). 246. BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fos. 247v, 248r, 248v. 247. “De testium repetitione facienda” (quaestio 66, part 8), dated 29 January 1593 (308), in Prospero Farinacci, Praxis et theoricae criminalis, pars secunda De testibus (Lyon: Jacques Cardon, 1631), 298–303, 302. Farinacci made a similar point later when noting that if the accused were not contumacious, witnesses first examined for the court’s information had to be heard again (392). Further, a repetitio was always possible in an ex officio proceeding (299–300). 248. Former inquisitor Campeggi noted an exception in the case of a “reus varius vel vacillans” (additio to Ugolini, De haereticis, 64); and see Carerio, Practica causarum criminalium, fo. 54r. 249. Witnesses in “iudicio summario regulariter non probant, nisi fuerint repetiti in plenario parte citata, et super interrogatoriis ab eadem parte datis.” BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fos. 150v and 148v; Farinacci, De testibus (1631), 298–303, 303, citing Maranta. In writing of a “party,” Peña once worked by analogy to civil suits. 250. Guazzini, Tractatus, 2, 22 and 24. 251. Carerio, Practica causarum criminalium, fo. 90v. 252. Ibid., fo. 76r; Guazzini, Tractatus, 2, 21. 253. Peña gave a long discussion of adding the clause in BAV, Barb. lat. fos. 154r–56r; see, further, fos. 152r and 153v. 254. Guazzini, Tractatus, 21; Peña, BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fo. 198r–v. On 24, Guazzini appeared to contradict himself. 255. References to a repetitio are comparatively rare in the decree registers. For several examples, see ACDFSO:DSO 1603 Copia, fo. 45r; 1610–1611, fo. 39v. One of the dossiers in TCD, MS 1232, fo. 453r/416r records an accused refusing a repetitio. 256. Carerio, Tractatus de haereticis, fo. 271r. 257. Scholia 34, p. 136; 48, p. 159. 258. Q. 197, § 3 in Prospero Farinacci, Tractatus de haeresi (Rome: Andrea Fei, 1616), 671. Peña also thought both proctors and advocates could appear against both the opinion that they were rarely used and advocates “sufficed” and also Spanish practice. Scholion 34, p. 136. 259. Tractatus, 197. 260. Carena, Tractatus, 36. 261. Beretta, “Galilée,” 193–95, but he goes very quickly over this phase and advocates, since neither entered into Galileo’s case. 262. Kelly, “Inquisition and the Prosecution of Heresy,” 443. Farinacci also appeared

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 348

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 192–194

349

to lump together advocates and proctors, the second of whom appeared in place of a suspect instead of along with him, as advocates might. See Kelly, Inquisitions, xiv. That a lawyer as learned as Farinacci assimilated the two suggests that the distinction Kelly made had become attenuated. 263. Tedeschi, Prosecution of Heresy, 137–38, citing inter alia Eymeric, who also duly quoted Boniface’s bull. 264. Giacomo Menocchio, De arbitrariis iudicum quaestionibus et causis libri duo (Venice: Heirs of Girolamo Scoti, 1613), 1: 106–23; cf. the much shorter treatment in 2: 530. 265. De Luca, “Relatio curiae romanae,” discursus 14, 80. For proctors, see discursus 46, 254–58. 266. “Advocatus, omnino effugere debet superfluas verbositates, atque stricte, & breviter insistere, super illis solidis motivis, ad quae in substantia causae pondus, vel cardo difficultatis restringatur,” since superfluities served only to cloud the judge’s understanding. De Luca, “Relatio curiae romanae,” discursus 46, 236–37. He pointed out that a consistorial advocate who tried to promote a cause of sanctification in the manner of a hagiographical preacher would be laughed out of court. The necessity of brevity takes up most of two pages of the entry on advocates and recurs throughout the article (227–62). It included omitting debates in utramque partem about the merits of particular legal opinions and piling up citations, which he called “nauseativus” (238). 267. Decree of 18 June 1564, in Pastor, “Allgemeine Dekrete,” 25. De Luca, “Relatio curiae romanae,” discursus 46, 240–41. Advocates should also discuss cases candidly with their clients. 268. De Luca, “Relatio curiae romanae,” discursus 46, 243. 269. Carerio, Tractatus de haereticis, fos. 270v and 271r. 270. See the extended discussion in Follerio, Praxis, 207–19. 271. See my forthcoming The Roman Inquisition on the Stage of Italy. 272. Tedeschi, Prosecution of Heresy, 138 and a long note on 172–74; Urban’s decree of 29 December 1633, shortening a sentence to the galleys from ten to seven years. ACDFSO:DSO 1634 Copia, p. 17. 273. Massimo Firpo and Dario Marcatto, eds., Il processo inquisitoriale del Cardinal Giovanni Morone, 6 vols. (Rome: Istituto Storico Italiano per l’Età Moderna e Contemporanea, 1981–95), 2: 1130–31. 274. The advocatus pauperum was another borrowing from the practice of the Roman curia. De Luca, “Relatio curiae romanae,” discursus 46, 249. 275. Tedeschi, Prosecution of Heresy, 170 n. 66, who slightly misinterprets Peña’s point by saying he “vigorously supports” Eymeric. 276. BAV, Barb. lat. 6334, fo. 56v, 7 March 1626. Tedeschi makes this a general principle, but from the context it is possible that Millini was referring to a practice peculiar to the inquisition in Bologna; it is also worth noting that in the same letter the secretary rejected a nominee advocate because he was a servant of the duke of Modena. 277. ACDSFSO:DSO 1597, fo. 513v (for Roman baron Prospero Colonna, who received a light punishment and the satisfaction of seeing actions taken both against his

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 349

8/27/12 11:46 AM

350

not es to pag es 194–196

bishop—apparently the archbishop of Naples and a cardinal—and also the powerful auditor of the Apostolic Chamber); 1626, fo. 100v; 1630, fos. 198r, 57r, and 66r. 278. ACDFSO:DSO Copia 1604–1605, pp. 349, 354, 449, 454. 279. ACDFSO:DSO 1627, fo. 163r. Although it may seem startling that the possibility even arose, the Congregation had several times to declare that consultors could not act as advocates. 1601, fo. 89r; 1607 Copia, unfoliated, a letter to the inquisitor of Bologna of 10 February 1607. 280. Albizzi, De inconstantia in iure, 212. For a statement of the rule of a single advocate, see a decree of 11 December 1630. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 198r. 281. D’Andrea, Ordo iudiciarius, 23, discussed three kinds of exceptions: dilatoria, which were to be raised before the litis contestatio (against the judge, his jurisdiction, the other party’s proctor, the time of citation), peremptoria (after that stage), and anomala (those that fit neither of the other categories, of which D’Andrea gave no examples). 282. BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fo. 244v–45v. It may be significant that Rolandino de Passageriis in his widely used Summa artis notariae (Lyon: Sebastian Onorati, 1559), 600–601, had applied Peña’s “cedere, vel contendere” to the libelli oblatione. 283. Carerio, Practica causarum criminalium, fo. 76r. 284. Here as elsewhere I have preferred to use a term both closer to the original and legally more precise, in this case “exception” instead of “objection.” 285. Carerio, Practica causarum criminalium, fo. 76r. 286. Scholion 34, pp. 145–46; Albizzi, De inconstantia in iure, 216. 287. E.g., Carerio, Tractatus de haereticis, fo. 274r; Ugolini, De haereticis, 61. 288. Decrees of 8 December 1605 and 11 February 1606 according to “Anima del Sant’Offitio spirata dal Sopremo Tribunale della Sacra Congregazione raccolta dal Padre Predicatore F. Giacomo Angarano da Vicenza l’anno del Signore M.DCXLIV,” in BAV, Vat. lat. 10945, fo. 27r. I have confirmed the coram of 8 December but not found this decree in the register. 289. ACDFSO:DSO 1604–1605 Copia, p. 989. 290. Decree of 27 January 1606 ordered renewed in a letter to the inquisitor of Venice of 12 February 1628. BAV, Vat. lat. 10945, fo. 27r. 291. ACDFSO:DSO 1603 Copia, fo. 256v. Much more work is needed on the extensive rules governing the use of torture. For a start, see Peña, Scholion 118 to Eymeric’s quaestio 61, “De quaestionibus seu de tormentis,” as the rubric put it; Masini, Sacro arsenale, part VI; Carena, Tractatus, 288–306. See also “Tortura,” DSI 3: 1594–95. One of the more important rules bound a local inquisitor not to apply torture without consulting the congregation “quando tempus id permittit.” 1617, pp. 55, 103, and 161. Sometimes the Congregation ordered what torture to use. 1619, p. 355. 292. ACDFSO:DSO 1629, fo. 47r, emphasis added. 293. ACDFSO:DSO 1597–1598–1599, pp. 749, 761, and 766–67. 294. ACDFSO:DSO 1621–1622, fos. 170v–71r; 1622, p. 58; 1625, fos. 20v, 43v, 114r, 118r–v, 121r, and 127r. 295. Borromeo, “Directorium,” 516 n. 63.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 350

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 196–198

351

296. Beretta, “Galilée,” 198. 297. Carena, Tractatus, 30. Carena had served as a consultor in Cremona and perhaps also in Rome (unpaginated page at front of volume). Beretta says a unanimous decision carried great weight, including with the pope. Beretta, “Galilée,” 207. 298. See, e.g., the typical formula in the sentence of several blasphemers in Lodi: “proposita causa, relato processus summario . . . et auditis votis [of the consultors] decretum ut Bassianus [one of the suspects] torqueatur pro praevia responsione habenda super praemissis.” ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 82v. 299. ACDFSO:DSO 1608, pp. 55 and 60; Leen Spruit, “Cremonini nelle carte del Sant’Uffizio Romano,” in Cesare Cremonini: Aspetti del pensiero e scritti, ed. E. Riondato and A. Poppi (Padua: Academia Galileiana, 2000), 1: 193–204, 196. 300. E.g., Ugolini, De haereticis, who said that inquisitors should consult lawyers, because they usually did not know the law (102), although an additio emphasized that their opinion was only consultative (103–4). 301. E.g., “donec auditis probationibus et discussis causa sine diffugio terminetur, quum utrique sit melius taliter expediri, quam manere taliter impeditos.” X.2.13.11. 302. Charles Du Fresne Du Cange, Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, ed. G. A. Louis Henschel et al., 3 (Paris: L. Favre, 1884), 370, definition 5. 303. Johann Kahl, Lexicon iuridicum iuris caesarei: Simul et canonici: Feudalis item, civilis, criminalis: Theoretici ac practici (Geneva: Sumptibus Caldorianae Societatis, 1612), cols. 1039–40. 304. Da Como, Lucerna, 158. 305. Eymeric, Directorium (1578), 91, 120, 205, 329, 341, 404. Peña: “Voco autem substantialia illa, sine quibus iudicium non potest iuste expediri” (Scholion 112, p. 218); “Et si omnino requiratur per sententiam expediri, fiat sibi, etc” (Scholion 54, p. 169); see also Scholion 77, p. 198. 306. “Si S.mo placuit potest expediri” was the formula. ASV, Segretaria dei brevi, Reg. 596, fos. 477r–78v. See three instances covering other kinds of documents in the decree registers: “expediri monitorium, in quo damnens ad triremes perpetuos;” “expediti contra ipsum monitorium, in quo damnetur ad poenam ultimi supplicii” (ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 95v); “et mandarunt expediri literas patentes” (1629, fo. 82r). See also Sandeo’s comment on Eam te (X.1.3.17) (Commentariorum [libri], 1: fos. 84r–89r): “Commissio facta per verbum Praecipio operat, quod actus non potest per alium expediri.” 307. Beretta, “Galilée,” 196. Tedeschi does not treat expeditio in his summary of procedure. 308. See two decrees from 1625, one of 23 January in the case of “Baptistini Proteggii da Carpineto carcerati in S. Off. Placentiae ob blasphemias” (ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 20v), the other of 9 May, “Bassiani Cariselli carcerati in S. Off.o Laudae ob blasphemias et obloquutiones in spretum confessionis” (1625, fo. 82v). 309. Francesco Niccolini-Andrea Cioli, 9 April 1633, Rome, in EN 15: no. 2461. 310. See the previous chapter. 311. See also his extensive discussion in Scholia, 131–33, 254–56.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 351

8/27/12 11:46 AM

352

not es to pag es 198–201

312. As of 20 May 1597 the assessor was also bishop of Cortona and therefore came first in the list of officials and gave his votum last (ACDSFSO:DSO 1597, fos. 467r and 481v– 82r). See also, e.g., the vota on 1600, fo. 26v. For confusion about the precise hierarchy, see, e.g, an instance of the commissary giving his opinion one before Assessor Filonardi, appointed the same day, same order 3 July (1597, fo. 494r, 497r), while the commissary continued to be listed above the assessor in the attendance lists (e.g., fo. 499r). 313. For examples of his rough notes and their conversion into register copies, see Chapter 1, pp. 27–28. 314. Beretta, “Galilée,” 201 and 207. For the consultors basing their opinions only on the summary, see decrees of 1615 and 1620 in BAV, Borg. lat. 548, p. 205. 315. Beretta, “Galilée,” 214; Francesco Beretta, “Le procès de Galilée et les archives du Saint-Office: Aspects judiciaires et théologiques d’une condamnation célèbre,” Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 83 (1999): 441–90, 486. See his exchange with Bruno Neveu and Pierre-Noël Mayaud, “L’affaire Galilée et la tentation inflationiste: À propos des notions d’hérésie et de magistère impliquées dans l’affaire,” Gregorianum 83 (2002): 287–311; and Beretta, “L’affaire Galilée et l’impasse apologétique: Réponse à une censure,” Gregorianum 84 (2003): 169–92. See also Alfredo Damanti, Libertas philosophandi: Teologia e filosofia nella lettera alla Granduchessa Cristina di Lorena di Galileo Galilei, Temi e testi 71 (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 2010), 121–22n. 316. BAV, Borg. lat. 548, p. 128; cf. BAV, Barb. lat. 1502, pp. 10–11; and BC, MS 2653, fo. 15r. 317. BAV, Barb. lat. 1502, pp. 10–11; marginal reference to 31B–C (1566 much of same text; cf. BAV, Borg lat. 548, p. 128; and BC, MS 2653, fo. 15r). It is dated 1556. 318. “Più perfettamente gl’inquisitori rappresentano la persona del Sommo Pontefice che i rappresentanti quella del Principe perché gl’Inquisitori proferiscono la sentenza con l’auttorità [sic] et ius dicunt.” ACDFSO, St. st. UV [sic] 11, fos. 90r–91v, quoted in Irene Fosi, La giustizia del papa: Sudditi e tribunali nello Stato Pontificio in età moderna (RomeBari: Laterza, 2007), 50, without identification of writer. 319. 15 March, “et facta instantia per d. Carolum Sincerum procuratorem fiscalem S.ti Officii, Sanct.mus suam (?) tulit, et pronunciavit sententiam, quam mihi facto consignavit manu Sanc.tis suae subscriptam ? & publicandam, prout ego illam alta, & intelligibili voce legi, et publicavi.” ACDFSO:DSO 1618, pp. 97–98. 320. TCD, MS 1233, fo. 4r, a case from 1650. 321. Richard Gibbings, Were “Heretics” Ever Burned Alive at Rome? A Report of the Proceedings in the Roman Inquisition against Fulgentio Manfredi: Taken from the Original Manuscript Brought from Italy by a French Officer, and Edited, with a Parallel English Version and Illustrative Additions (London, Dublin: Petheram, University Press, 1852, 1853), 7–8 and 51–53. 322. BC, MS 2653, fos. 594r–608r; BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fo. 303v. 323. See, e.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1604–1605 Copia, p. 899; for decrees about innocence, see 11 December 1613 (Cadène, “Collectio,” 4: 183, no. 1299) and [n.d.] 1603 (189, no. 1408). 324. Follerio, Praxis, 214. The discussion covered 213–16.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 352

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to page 201

353

325. BAV, Borg. lat. 548, p. 679. 326. Eymeric, Directorium (1578), 329. This power no doubt arose from the pope’s to do the same thing, which even Vanzi had to admit. Vanzi, De nullitatibus (1556), 68. 327. After a string of verbs of command, the sentences concluded: “in questo et in ogni altro miglior modo e forma che di ragione potemo e dovemo.” Firpo, Processo Bruno, 343; Gibbings, Fulgentio Manfredi, 20 and 51; Eleonora Belligni, “Sentenza e condanna postuma di Marcantonio De Dominis,” Il Pensiero Politico 33, 2 (2001): 265–94, 280. 328. The punishment clause read “Riservando a noi facoltà di moderare, mutare, o levare in tutto, o in parte le sodette pene, e penitenze”; and the general one as Bruno’s did. Pagano, Documenti vaticani, 164–65. Giacinto Centini’s sentence on 2 April 1635 contains neither. M. Rosi, “La congiura di Giacinto Centini contro Urbano VIIII,” Archivio della società romana di storia patria 22 (1899): 347–71, 368. The final clauses of the coeval sentences of two of the friars involved in his conspiracy are too highly abbreviated (at least in their published form) to say which if either clause they contained. Antonio Bertolotti, “Giornalisti astrololgi e negromanti in Roma nel secolo XVII,” Rivista Europea 5, 3 (1878): 466–514, 512, 514. 329. Massimo Firpo and Dario Marcatto, eds., I processi inquisitoriali di Pietro Carnesecchi (1557–1567) (Vatican City: Archivio Segreto Vaticano, 1998–2000), 2:3, 1378–79. 330. “Retinentes nobis ex certa scientia & expresse, quòd possimus libere dictam sententiam, seu penitentiam mitigare, aggravare, commutare, &c. Hoc est insigne inquisitorum privilegium, ut etia post sententiam pronuntiatam iurisdictio eorum in eadem causam non expiret.” Scholion 62, p. 179. 331. It and the dedication dated 24 December 1598 come at the end of BAV, Barb. lat. 1367, fos. 372r–73r, 373r–94r. See Borromeo, “Directorium,” 517n. 332. Feretti, Repetitionum, 3, fos. 369r–v; Jacopo Cagnaceno, in Repetitionum, 3, fos. 384v–85r; both commenting on Quoniam contra (X.2.19.11). Other lawyers disagreed. Lanfranco da Oriano, in Repetitionum, 3, fo. 240v, no. 16, for example, thought the sentence should be included; and Pierpaolo Parisio cited a number of authorities for the same view. Parisio, Repetitio on “Quoniam contra,” in Repetitionum, 3, fo. 224v. 333. (1) Absolution (Scholion 50, p. 161); (2) “solum diffamatus” (“De secundo modo finiendi processum in causa fidei per purgationem canonicam,” according to Scholion 51, p. 162; cf. no. 7); (3) “quaestionibus & tormentis supponendus” (Scholion 53, p. 165); (4) “suspectus de haeresi leviter” (Scholia 55 and 56, pp. 169 and 173); (5) “ . . . vehementer” (Eymeric, Directorium [1578], 317–22; Scholion 57, p. 174); (6) “ . . . violenter” (Scholion 58, p. 175); (7) “diffamatus . . . & suspectus insimul” (Scholion 60, p. 177; cf. no. 2); (8) “confessus haeresim & paenitens, & non relapsus probabiliter (Scholia 61–62, pp. 178–81); (9) “ . . . sed relapsus veraciter” (Scholion 63, p. 181); (10) “impenitens sed non relapsus” (Scholia 51, p. 162 and 64, p. 183); (11) “confessus . . . impaenitens atque relapsus certitudinaliter” (Scholion 51, p. 162); (12) “non confessus, sed convictus” (Scholia 51, p. 162; 66, p. 185; 68, p. 188); (13) “convictus . . . sed fugitivus” (Scholia 51, p. 162 and 69, p. 190). These do not correspond exactly to the following discussion. Eymeric, Directorium (1578), 311–34. Masini, Sacro arsenale (1625), 183; Carena, Tractatus, 304–6. See the long list of authorities cited in

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 353

8/27/12 11:46 AM

354

not es to pag es 201–204

Peña, Scholion 55 to part 2, p. 169, among whom he singled out Juan de Rojas in the first article of his Singularia iuris, fos. 1rff., much of which Peña incorporated into his discussion. 334. Kelly, “Inquisition,” 445, offers evidence that Innocent III interpreted this point to mean only frivolous appeals, but concedes that Boniface VIII threw out most of that protection, even if his decree seems to have been ignored in fourteenth-century practice. 335. Scholion 39, p. 151; Eymeric, Directorium (1587), 456. 336. Masini, Sacro arsenale (1625), 314. See also Carena, Tractatus, 320. 337. Vanzi, De nullitatibus (1556), 60–61. 338. Ibid., 65. 339. Ibid., 68. 340. Appeal against a precept issued in Cremona, first lodged 7 September 1604, without indication of whether it was allowed, probably leading to a decree 6 October that no further such were to be granted (ACDFSO:DSO Copia 1604–1605, pp. 371, 421); possibly the same appeal was denied again on 5 November and on 15 December (pp. 462, 1005). 341. Eymeric, Directorium (1578), 317. 342. Rojas, Singularia iuris, fos. 2r, 3r, and 4r. 343. Peña, Scholion 55, p. 170; Carena, Tractatus, 310. 344. Eymeric (1578), 317–18. 345. Cagnazzo, Summa Tabiena (1572), 2: 119. 346. Rojas, Singularia iuris, fo. 5r. 347. Umberto Locati, Praxis iudiciaria Inquisitorum (Venice: Damiano Zenaro, 1583), 510. See Tedeschi, Prosecution of Heresy, 55 and 88; Prosperi, Tribunali, 204. 348. Scholion 55 to part 2, p. 171. See also Carena, Tractatus, 311. 349. Rojas, Singularia iuris, fo. 3r. 350. Masini, Sacro arsenale (1625), 203–18; not in the 1621 or 1639 editions. 351. Gibbings, Fulgentio Manfredi, 23. 352. ACDFSO:DSO 1619, p. 361; 1601, fos. 45v and 152v; 1602, p. 432. There are many other cases of such abjurations. 353. Carena, Tractatus, 309. 354. Masini, 1639 ed., cited in Franz Reusch, Der Process Galilei’s und die Jesuiten (Bonn: Eduard Weber, 1879), 137. 355. Masini, 1625 ed., 207. In an additio dated 1567 Campeggi noted that in Rome the sentence followed the abjuration, while other places reversed the order. Ugolini, De haereticis, 253. 356. See, e.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1626, fo. 6r–v. 357. Rojas, Singularia iuris, fos. 6v–7r. 358. E.g., ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 199r. 359. Carena, Tractatus, 315–19. 360. ACDFSO:DSO 1626, fo. 131v; 1627, fo. 100v (galleys); 1621–1622, fo. 230r; 1632, fo. 126r (fustigatio); 1617, p. 343; 1618, p. 2 (exile, the second case as a grace); 1609, p. 431; 1624, fo. 198v (confinement in a convent); 1619, p. 351; 1625, fo. 119v (fine); 1608–1609, fos. 456r and 473v (fasting).

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 354

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 204–210

355

361. Peña, Scholion 116, pp. 221–24. 362. ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 84v; 1632, fo. 129r. See Chapter 4 for Michelangelo Seghizzi’s troubles over fines when inquisitor of Cremona. 363. Firpo, Processo Bruno, 53. 364. ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 15r. 365. Galileo asked for commutation of his sentence from relegation to Villa Medici “to a similar place in Florence” on 30 June 1633. Although he was immediately allowed to exchange Siena for Villa Medici, a move to Florence was not granted until 1 December. Pagano, Documenti vaticani, 104; ACDFSO:DSO 1633, fos. 110v­–11r (EN 19: 284; Pagano, Documenti vaticani, 195) and fo. 204r (EN 19: 285–86; Pagano, Documenti vaticani, 199). 366. Mirto, “Un inedito,” 113. 367. Peña, Scholion 65, p. 184. 368. Peña, Scholion 116, p. 224, for an “irremissible” sentence. See also Scholion 117. 369. Beretta, “Galilée,” 277. He neglects to say that this step was unusual. 370. See the general decree of 1602 in BC, MS 2653, fo. 465r (Cadène, “Collectio,” 4: 277, no. 1550) and, e.g., the specific refusal to a convict by the pope of a copy of his sentence in ADCFSO:DSO 1600–1601, fo. 60r. 371. BAV, Barb. lat. 1502, pp. 39D (ordinaries to get a copy of the sentence), 42B (convicts to get both it and their abjuration), and 83B (inquisitors to get a copy of both against their subjects). 372. Masini, Sacro arsenale (1625), 308.

conclusion 1. Juan Roa Davila, in De regnorum iustitia: O el control democratico; Critical bilingual edition, ed. with the collaboration of J. M. Perez Prendes and Vidal Abril Luciano Perena (Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Instituto Francisco de Vitoria, 1970), xxiv, xxv, xxvi–xxvii, and xxx–xxxi. 2. ACDFSO:DSO 1597, fos. 487r, 497v, 503v–4r, 591v–92r, 593r. Roa was in constant financial difficulties. 3. ACDFSO:DSO 1598, fo. 229v. 4. Ibid., fo. 31r; 1597–1598–1599, pp. 415 and 445; 1598, fo. 329r. 5. ADCFSO:DSO 1597–1598–1599, pp. 520, 702, and 849. 6. ADCFSO:DSO 1600, p. 76; or 1600–1601, fo. 30v. 7. ACDFSO:DSO 1600–1601, fo. 61v. 8. ADCFSO:DSO 1600, p. 80; 1600–1, fo. 64r–v. 9. ADCFSO:DSO 1600–1601, fo. 232v. 10. Ibid., fos. 48r and 50r. 11. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fos. 155v–56r and 172r. 12. ACDFSO:DSO 1614, p. 185.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 355

8/27/12 11:46 AM

356

not es to pag es 210–211

13. BAV, Urb. lat. 1083, fo. 399r. Roa Davila, De regnorum iustitia, xxxi, says he was confined to Rome but left at liberty there until he died shortly before 1630. 14. Dates from http://opac.khi.fi.it/cgi-bin/hkhi_de.pl?t_idn=gt12894053, accessed 3 March 2010. 15. I have used the copy dedicated to James II [sic] of England in the Cambridge University Library. The offending passage is on 42–44. Most of the large folio volume consists of detailed tables of concordances of dates. 16. On 13 March 1622 the Tuscan ambassador in Madrid acknowledged the arrival of Vecchietti’s books, no doubt copies of De anno primitivo, but recommended patience until they produced the desired effects. http://documents.medici.org/document_details.cfm?en tryid=8488&returnstr=orderby%3DSendPlace%40result_id%3D13000, accessed 2 March 2010. 17. ACDFSO:DSO 1621–1622, fos. 234v and 244v. Sarsinos may be my mistranscription or a misspelling by the notary of sarcinas, originally the Latin for a Roman soldier’s pack, and in Neapolitan a bundle. I am grateful to Pierroberto Scaramella for this suggestion. 18. The memo elicited by his second summons is dated only “il martedì dei XXVII.” See the description of Biblioteca Laurenziana, MS Pluteo 89 Sup. 36 in Angelo Maria Bandini, Giuseppe Menabuoni, and Carlo Gregori, Catalogus codicum Latinorum Bibliothecae Mediceae Laurentianae (Florence: n. p., 1778), cols. 316–18. I have not established the present segnatura or seen the original. Some of Vecchietti’s notes give only a day, and many with month dates lack the year. The decree registers make no reference to any of them, although they do note other submissions that have apparently not survived. 19. Hugo Hurter, Nomenclator literarius recentioris theologiae catholicae (Innsbruck: Wagner, 1903–11), 3: col. 813. 20. ACDFSO:DSO 1623, p. 242. 21. ACDFSO:DSO 1624, fos. 80v and 101v. 22. Ibid., fo. 130v; 1625, fo. 72r. 23. ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fos. 102r, 152r, 160r–v, and 167v. Cappello may have been a consultor of the Index, although he never succeeded in becoming one to the more powerful congregation. 1615, p. 243. 24. The memo is dated 4 November (Bandini, Menabuoni, and Gregori, Catalogus, cols. 316–18); ACDFSO:DSO 1625, fo. 198v, 27 November. 25. On 13 and 18 July, the first directly to Urban at the Quirinal, the second for delivery to him there. Bandini, Menabuoni, and Gregori, Catalogus, cols. 316–18. 26. ACDFSO:DSO 1626, fos. 55v and 58v. An avviso of 30 April 1633 said he had been in prison for seven years. Quoted from Biblioteca Corsiniana, MS 1768, in Luigi Amabile, Frà Tommaso Campanella e la sua congiura, i suoi processi e la sua pazzia: Narrazione con molti documenti inediti politici e giudiziari, con l’intero processo di eresia e 67 poesie di ‘Frà Tommaso’ fin’oggi ignorate (Naples: Morano, 1882), 1: 415n. See the reference to Cappello’s strictures in Leone Allacci, Apes urbanae, ed. Michel-Pierre Lerner (Lecce: Conte, 1998), 136. Allacci, noting the book’s proscription, quoted Cappello’s judgment that “in Theologicis nihil ferme reperies, quod non insigni aliqua labe aspersum sit: Astronomica saepe

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 356

8/27/12 11:46 AM

not es to pag es 211–213

357

videas errare toto coelo: in Chronologicis peccata innumerata, nihil singulare.” Cappello’s De caena Christi suprema, deque praecipuis vitae eius capitibus Dissertatio adversus AEgyptium authorem anni primitivi appeared in Paris in 1625 from the press of the royal printer C. Morel. 27. Borgia, Scaglia, and Ludovisi were the only cardinals present. Bandini, Menabuoni, and Gregori, Catalogus, cols. 316–18. This agrees with the decree register. 28. Ibid. There was a coram on this date, but there is no indication that it was held anywhere other than the usual place. ACDFSO:DSO 1627, fo. 201r–v. 29. ACDFSO:DSO 1627, fo. 204r; for his finances, see also 1628, fo. 26r. 30. Bandini, Menabuoni, and Gregori, Catalogus, cols. 316–18; ACDFSO:DSO 1627, fo. 224r, 23 December 1627. 31. Bandini, Menabuoni, and Gregori, Catalogus, cols. 316–18. The cardinals’ attendance is again born out by the decree register. 32. “Lecto summarie memoriali Hieronymi Vecchietti, necnon attestatione Medici asseren[tium]. illum esse mentis compostum S.mus quantum in se est, volens omne remedium adhibere cum Hieronimo Vecchietto, ut ab eius opinione circa comestionem Agni factam a Christo in ultima Cena Decrevit, ut nomine Theologos sibi benevisos a quibus considerabitur propositio et Interim mandavit dari commoditatem, ut cum frate Thoma Campanella de hoc alioqui possit.” ACDFSO:DSO 1628, fo. 91r. 33. Ibid., fos. 99v, 140r, 167v. Gian Vittorio Rossi [pseud. Janus Nicius Erythraeus], Pinacotheca imaginum illustrium, doctrinae vel ingenii laude, virorum (Cologne or more likely Amsterdam: 1645–48), 1: 197. 34. ACDFSO:DSO 1629, fo. 14r. 35. ACDFSO:DSO 1630, fo. 182r. 36. ACDFSO:DSO 1631, fo. 218v; 1633, fo. 51v. 37. Quoted in Amabile, Campanella e la sua congiura, 1: 415n. 38. Rossi, Pinacotheca, 1: 196–98, claiming first-hand knowledge of his and his brother’s trips and emphasizing his valetudinarianism and cheery personality (and implicitly accusing him of pederasty!). 39. http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http:// www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/ supp4/Italy_iii.html, accessed 3 March 2010; J. A. F. Orbaan, ed., Documenti sul barocco in Roma, Miscellanea della R. Società di storia patria 6 (Rome, 1920), 287. 40. Rossi, Pinacotheca, 1: 196. 41. ACDSFSO:DSO 1597, fo. 556r. There is no entry for Carlo in Carlos Sommervogel, ed., Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus, Nouvelle édition (Brussels-Paris: Picard and Schepens, 1890–1900), but see that in vol. 5, cols. 713–15, for his older brother Gregorio. He was described as spiritoso and inclined to arms in his student days until a tearful conversion led him to beg for admission to the Jesuits. A century after his death in 1624 he was remembered as a famous preacher. G. S. Remondini, Della nolana ecclesiastica storia (Naples: Giovanni Di Simone, 1744), 3: 323–26. Jennifer D. Selwyn, A Paradise Inhabited by Devils: The Jesuits’ Civilizing Mission in Early Modern Naples (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 73, 77, 100, 111. For publica fama, see the previous chapter.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 357

8/27/12 11:46 AM

358

not es to pag es 213–215

42. ACDFSO:DSO 1598, fo. 208r. 43. ACDFSO:DSO 1603, fo. 12r. 44. Ibid., fos. 12r, 21v, 26r, 96r, 124v, 128v, 146v, 150v, and 175v. 45. Ibid., fos. 178v, 202v, 213r/Copia, fo. 214v, 241r/Copia, fo. 248v, and 245v. 46. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fo. 426v. 47. ACDFSO:DSO 1603 Copia, fos. 104r, 118r–v, and 279v. 48. ACDFSO:DSO 1604–1605 Copia, pp. 443, 459, 716, and 730. 49. ACDFSO:DSO 1606–1607, fos. 10r, 56r, 218v, 220r, and 247v. 50. ACDFSO:DSO 1608, pp. 152 and 246; 1608–9, fo. 336r; 1609, p. 154. 51. ACDFSO:DSO 1608–1609, fos. 366r–v and 384v–85r. 52. ACDFSO:DSO 1610–1611, fo. 64r. 53. Ibid., fos. 191r, 266v, 414r. 54. ACDFSO:DSO 1612, pp. 48–49. 55. ACDFSO:DSO 1613, p. 170. 56. ACDFSO:DSO 1618, pp. 101, 133. 57. De quadragesimo ieiunio, die Cinerum ad Sanctissimum Dominum nostrum Clementem VIII pont. max. concio habita in Basilica S. Sabinae in Monte Aventino anno 1598. a Iacobo Vacchedano Brundisino sacrae theologiae, & iuris utriusque doctore (Rome: Luigi Zanetti, 1598).

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 358

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Selected Bibliography

Manuscripts Bologna, Biblioteca del Archiginnasio, MSS A. 572 and B 1863 G Dublin, Trinity College, MSS 1230–33 Florence, Archivio di Stato, Archivio Mediceo del Principato, 1354, 3352 Modena, Archivio di Stato, Cancelleria Ducale Ambasciatori Italia Roma, 1629–32 Avvisi dall’Estero, 134, 137, 138, 139 Carteggio con principi esteri, b. 1320A, 1394/134 (Millini) Naples, Biblioteca Nazionale, Fondo Brancaccio, I.B.2 and I.B.7 Rome, Archivio di Stato, Archivio Cartari-Febei, MSS 2, 19, 47, 57–58, 131, 139–41, 155 30 Not. Cap., Uff. 31, S. Spada, vol. 125 Rome, Archivum Congregationis Doctrinae Fidei Sanctum Officium, Decreta Sancti Officii, 1597–1637; Stanza storica, E 4-b, L 3-e, LL 5-g, N 3-e, -f, -g, O 3-g, Q 1-e Rome, Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu, MSS Rom. 55 and Opp. NN 241, 243.I, 246 Rome, Biblioteca Casanatense, MSS 2103–4, 2631, 2653 Vatican City, Archivio Segreto Vaticano Acta vicecancellarii 18 Fondo Borghese II 488, III 42b S. R. Rota, Processus in admissione auditorum, b. 1; Miscellanea, 2 Segretaria dei brevi, Reg. 337, 395–96, 446, 595, 667, 754, 789, 941, 948 Segretaria di Stato, Venezia, 38; Nunz. Firenze, 14, 14A, 15B, 20; Nuna Napoli, 326 Vatican City, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana: MSS Barberiniani latini 915, 1030, 1039, 1058–79, 1085, 1311, 1367, 1369, 1502, 1512–14, 1516, 1518–19, 1537, 1544, 1612, 1638, 1794, 1996, 2552, 2889, 2933, 3260, 4544, 4558, 4615, 4669, 4675–76, 4724, 4728, 4730–39, 4900–4901, 5317, 5340, 5626–28, 6021, 6228, 6263, 6303, 6307, 6334, 6336, 6344–45, 6351–53, 6468, 6697, 6702, 7301, 7466, 7633, 7636–37, 7694, 8115–9, 8121, 8231, 8370, 8704, 8729, 8782, 8866–67, 8898, 8943, 9686 Borghesiani latini 548 Chigi N. III 84 Urbinates latini 837, 856, 1079–84, 1098 I, 1099 I and II, 1100–1101 Vaticani latini 6539, 7900, 9278, 10171, 10945 359

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 359

8/27/12 11:46 AM

360

bibl io g r a ph y

Venice, Archivio di Stato Consiglio dei Dieci, Parti Roma, registro 1607 Sant’Ufficio, b. 82, 153a Senato Dispacci Roma, 58–60, 62, 67–72, 74, 87, 96–100, 102–7

primary sources D’Ancarano, Pietro. Super Clementinas facundissima commentaria. Bologna: apud Societatem typographiae Bonon., 1580. D’Andrea, Giovanni attributed to. Ordo iudiciarius. Venice: Egidio Regazola, 1573. Albizzi, Francesco. De inconstantia in iure admittenda, vel non. Amsterdam: Jean Antoine Huguetan, 1683. Anon. Repertorium Inquisitorum pravitatis haereticae . . . correctionibus, & annotationibus . . . Quintilliani Mandosii, ac Petri Vendrameni decoratum & auctum. Venice: Dam­iano Zenaro, 1575. Anon. Repetitionum in universas fere iuris canonici partes, materiasque sane frequentiores. 6 vols. Venice: Luca Antonio Giunti, 1587. Barozzi, Nicolò, and Guglielmo Berchet, eds. Relazioni di Roma. Relazioni degli stati europei lette al Senato dagli ambasciatori veneti, ser. 3, Italia. Vols. 3:1, 3:2. Venice: Naratovich, 1877. Bartoli, Daniele. Della vita di Roberto cardinal Bellarmino. Rome: Niccolò Angelo Tinassi, 1678. Budrio, Antonio da. Super librum primum-quintum Decretalium commentarii. 4 vols. Venice: Giunti, 1578. Bzowski, Abraham. Paulus V. Burghesius P.O.M. Rome: Stefano Paulini, 1626. Cadène, Félix. “Collectio decretorum responsorumque S. Officii.” Analecta ecclesiastica: Revue romaine 2, 3, 4 (1894, 1895, 1896): 318–21, 360–62, 407–12, 493–95; 32–33, 79–82, 115–22, 167–69, 262–63, 297–302, 352–54, 457–65, 494–98; 76–83, 123–28, 179–92, 273–77, 361–66, 421, 462–65. Cagnazzo, Giovanni. Summa summarum quae Tabiena reformata dicitur. Bologna: Benedetto Faelli, 1520. ———. Summae Tabienae [libri]. 2 vols. Venice: Martino Rubino, 1572. Carena, Cesare. Tractatus de officio Sanctissimae Inquisitionis, et modo de procedendi in causis fidei. Bologna: Jacopo Monti, 1668. Carerio, Ludovico. Tractatus de haereticis. In Practica causarum criminalium. Lyon: Guillaume Rouille, 1562. Cartari, Flaminio. Theoricae et praxis interrogandorum reorum libri IV. 5th ed. Bracciano: Andrea Fei, 1639. Carusi, E. “Nuovi documenti sui processi di Tommaso Campanella.” Giornale critico della filosofia italiana 8 (1927): 321–59.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 360

8/27/12 11:46 AM

bibl io g r a phy

361

Cerasoli, F. “Diario di cose romane degli anni 1614, 1615, 1616.” Studi e Documenti di Storia e Diritto 15 (1894): 263–301. Chacón, Alfonso. Vitae et res gestae pontificum romanorum et S. R. E. cardinalium. Ed. Agostino Oldoino. 4 vols. Rome: Filippo and Antonio De Rubeis, 1677–78. Claro, Giulio. Practica criminalis canonica. Book 5 of Receptarum sententiarum opera omnia. Geneva: Alexandre Pernet, 1625. De Luca, Giovanni Battista. “Relatio curiae romanae.” In Theatrum veritatis & iustitiae. Rome: Heirs of Corbelletti, 1669–73. Decio, Filippo. In Decretalium volumen perspicua commentaria. Venice: Giunti, 1593. Diaz de Luco, Juan Bernal. Practica criminalis canonica. 4th ed., rev. author. Lyon: Guillaume Rovilly, 1561. Dirmeier, Ursula, ed. Mary Ward und ihre Gründung: Die Quellentexte bis 1645. 4 vols. Münster: Aschendorff, 2007. Eymeric, Nicolau. Ed. Francisco Peña. Directorium Inquisitorum. Rome: G. Ferrari, 1587. ———. Directorium Inquisitorum. Rome: In Aedibus Populi Romanorum, 1578. Favaro, Antonio, ed. Le opere di Galileo Galilei. 20 vols. 1890–1909. Reprint Florence: G. Barberà, 1933. Farinacci, Prospero, ed. Sacrae Rotae Romanae Decisionum recentiorum . . .  , pars prima [-partis decimae nonae tomus secundus]. 19 vols. in 25. Venice: Paolo Balleoni, 1716. ———. Tractatus de haeresi. Rome: Andrea Fei, 1616; another ed., Lyon: Jacques Cardon and Pierre Cavellat, 1621. Firpo, Luigi. “Una relazione inedita su l’Inquisizione romana.” Rinascimento 9 (1958): 97–102. Follerio, Pietro. Canonica criminalis praxis. Venice: Heirs of Bartolomeo Rubini, 1583. Forte, S. L. “I Domenicani nel carteggio del card. Scipione Borghese, protettore dell’ordine (1606–1633).” Archivum Fratrum Praedicatorum 30 (1960): 351–416. Friedberg, Emil, ed. Corpus iuris canonici. 2 vols. Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1879–81. Fuligatti, Giacomo. Vita del cardinale Roberto Bellarmino della Compagnia di Giesù. Rome: Heirs of Bartolomeo Zannetti, 1624. Gambiglioni, Angelo. De maleficiis tractatus. Venice: Ad candentis salamandrae insignis. [Damiano Zenaro], 1578. Gauchat, Patrice, ed. Hierarchia catholica medii et recentioris aevi. 4 vols. Münster: Regensburger Bibliothek, 1935. Giordano, Silvano, ed. Le istruzioni generali di Paolo V ai diplomatici pontifici 1605–1621. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2003. Guazzini, Sebastiano. Tractatus ad defensam inquisitorum carceratorum, reorum et condemnatorum. Lyon: Antoine Valançol, Germano Nanty and Claude Langloys, 1672. Katterbach, Bruno. Referendarii utriusque signaturae a Martino V ad Clementem IX et praelati signaturae supplicationum a Martino V ad Leonem XIII. Studi e Testi 55. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1931. Leti, Gregorio. Il nipotismo di Roma, or, the History of the Popes Nephews from the Time of Sixtus the IV to the Death of the Last Pope Alexander the VII: In Two Parts / Written

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 361

8/27/12 11:46 AM

362

bibl io g r a ph y

Originally in Italian in the Year 1667; and Englished by W. A. [William Aglionby]. London: Printed for John Starkey, 1669. ———. Il nipotismo di Roma: O, vero relatione delle raggioni che muovono i pontefici, All’aggrandimento de nipoti. Parts I [–II]. N.p., n.p., 1667. Locati, Umberto. Praxis iudiciaria Inquisitorum. Venice: Damiano Zenaro, 1583. Mandosio, Quintiliano. Consiliorum sive responsorum [libri]. Venice: Heirs of Francesco Ziletti, 1587. ———. Tractatus de monitoriis. Rome: Giorgio Ferrari, 1581. Maranta, Roberto. Speculum aureum et lumen advocatorum praxis civilis. Ed. Pietro Follerio, notes Ludovico Alferio. Venice: Giovanni Antonio Bertano, 1586. Masini, Eliseo. Sacro arsenale, ovvero prattica dell’officio della S. Inquisizione ampliata. Genoa: Giuseppe Pavoni, 1625; also 1621, 1639. ———. Sacro arsenale, ovvero prattica dell’officio della S. Inquisizione, with additions by Tommaso Menghini and Giovanni Pasqualone. Rome: Nella Stamperia di S. Michele a Ripa, 1730. Memmoli, Decio. Vita dell’eminentissimo Signor Cardinale Gio. [sic] Garzia Mellino Romano. Rome: Giovanni Paolo Rocchetti, 1644. Nicoletti da Imola, Giovanni. In primum [- tertium] decretalium commentaria. 4 vols. Venice: Domenico Nicolini, 1575 [1574]. Orbaan, J. A. F., ed. Documenti sul barocco in Roma. Miscellanea della R. società di storia patria 6. [Rome, 1920]. Pagano, Sergio M., ed. I documenti vaticani del processo di Galileo Galilei (1611–1741). 2nd ed. Collectanea Archivi Vaticani 69. Vatican City: Archivio Vaticano, 2009. Peña, Francisco. Scholia to Nicolau Eymeric, Directorium Inquistorum. Rome: In aedibus Populi Romani, 1578. Quétif, Jacques, and Jacques Échard. Scriptores ordinis praedicatorum recensiti, notisque historicis et criticis illustrati. 2 vols. Paris: Ballard and Simart, 1721. Rojas, Juan de. Singularia iuris in favorem fidei haeresisque detestationem, Tractatus de haereticis. Venice: Francesco Ziletti, 1583. Rossi, Gian Vittorio [pseud. Janus Nicius Erythraeus]. Pinacotheca imaginum illustrium, doctrinae vel ingenii laude, virorum. 3 vols. Cologne or more likely Amsterdam: Josse Kalcovius, 1645–48. San Gimignano, Domenico da. Super Decretorum volumine commentaria. Venice: Giunta, 1578. San Giorgio, Giovanni Antonio. In primam [-secundam] Decretorum partem commentaria. 2 vols. Venice: Giunti, 1579. Sandeo, Felino. Commentariorum... ad quinque libros decretalium pars prima [-tertia] [libri]. 2 vols. Venice: Società dell’Aquila che si rinnova, 1600–1601. Santa Rufina, Alberto da. “Il Card. Antonio Barberini, Cappuccino, in un manoscritto del ’600.” L’Italia Francescana 45, 46 (1970, 1971): 31–43, 98–109, 359–74, 419–35. Scaccia, Sigismondo. Tractatus de iudiciis causarum civilium, criminalium et haereticalium,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 362

8/27/12 11:46 AM

bibl io g r a phy

363

Liber primus. Venice: Giovanni Battista and Giovanni Bernardo Sessa, 1616; Frankfurt: Heirs of Palethenianus and Hartmann Palthenius, 1618. Scaramella, Pierroberto. Le lettere della Congregazione del Sant’Ufficio ai tribunali di fede di Napoli 1563–1625. Triest: Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2001. Socii Instituti Historici Fratrum Praedicatorum, ed. Monumenta Ordinis praedicatorum historica. 30 vols. Rome: Institutum historicum Ordinis fratrum praedicatorum, 1896–. Spruit, Leen. “Cremonini nelle carte del Sant’Uffizio romano.” In Cesare Cremonini: Aspetti del pensiero e scritti, ed. E. Riondato and Antonino Poppi. Padua: Academia Galileiana, 2000. 193–204. Ugolini, Bartolomeo. Tractatus de censuris summo pontifici reservatis. Venice: Heirs of Girolamo Scoti, 1609. Vanzi, Sebastiano. Tractatus de nullitatibus processuum ac sententiarum. Venice: Francesco Bindoni, 1556 [1555]. ———. Tractatus de nullitatibus processuum et sententiarum. Spier: Elias Helmbach, 1604. Weber, Christoph. Die päpstlichen Referendare 1566–1809: Chronologie und prosopographie. 3 vols. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann, 2003. Zabarella, Francesco. Super primo [-quinto] Decretalium subtilissima commentaria cum additionibus, summariis, ac reportorio Domini Ioannis Thierry Lingoniensis. Venice: Luc’Antonio Giunti, [1602].

secondary sources Alemanno, Laura. “L’Accademia degli Umoristi.” Roma Moderna e Contemporanea 3 (1995): 97–120. Benzoni, Gino. “I ‘teologi’ minori dell’interdetto.” Archivio Veneto 101, 5th ser. 126 (1970): 31–108. Beretta, Francesco. “L’archivio della Congregazione del Sant’Ufficio: Bilancio provvisorio della storia e natura dei fondi d’Antico regime.” In L’inquizione romana: Metodologia delle fonti e storia istituzionale, ed. Andrea Del Col and Giovanna Paolin. Triest: Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2000, 119–44. Reprint Rivista di Storia e Letteratura Religiosa 37 (2001): 29–58. ———. “Galilée devant le Tribunal de l’inquisition.” ThD thesis, Universitè de Fribourg, 1997. ———. “Giordano Bruno e l’Inquisizione romana: Considerazioni sul processo.” Bruniana & Campanelliana 7 (2001): 15–49. ———. “Le procès de Galilée et les archives du Saint-office: Aspects judiciaires et théologiques d’une condamnation célèbre.” Revue des Sciences Philosophiques et Théologiques 83 (1999): 441–90. Bethencourt, Francisco. The Inquisition: A Global History, 1478–1834. Trans. Jean Birrell. Rev. English ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 363

8/27/12 11:46 AM

364

bibl io g r a ph y

Bignami-Odier, Jeanne. La Bibliothèque Vaticane de Sixte IV à Pie XI. Studi e Testi 272. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1973. Black, Christopher F. The Italian Inquisition. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009. Borromeo, Agostino. “A proposito del Directorium inquisitorum di Nicholas Eymerich e delle sue edizioni cinquecentesche.” Critica storica 20 (1983): 499–547. Brevaglieri, Sabina. Palazzo Verospi al Corso. Milan: Libri Schewiller, 2001. Cerchiari, Emmanuele. Capellani papae et apostolicae sedis; auditores causarum sacrii palatii apostolici seu sacra Romana Rota ab origine ad diem usque 20 Septembris 1870; Relatio historica-iuridica. 3 vols. Rome: Typis polyglottis vaticanis, 1870–1921. Del Col, Andrea. L’inquisizione in Italia. Milan: Mondadori, 2006. Del Re, Niccolò. “Prospero Farinacci giureconsulto romano (1544–1618).” Archivio della Società Romana di Storia Patria 98 (1975). Errera, Andrea. Processus in causa fidei: L’evoluzione dei manuali inquisitoriali nei secoli XVIXVIII e il manuale inedito di un inquisitore perugino. Bologna: Monduzzi, 2000. Fontana, Vincenzo Maria. Sacrum theatrum dominicanum. Rome: Niccolò Angelo Tinassi, 1656. Ghisalberti, A. M., ed. Dizionario biografico degli italiani. Rome: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia italiana, 1960–. Gnavi, Alessandro. “Carriere e curia romana: L’uditorato di Rota (1472–1870).” Mélanges de l’École Française de Rome 106 (1994): 161–202. Godman, Peter. The Saint as Censor: Robert Bellarmine Between Inquisition and Index. Leiden: Brill, 2000. [Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1977.] Grendler, Paul F. The Roman Inquisition and the Venetian Press (1540–1605). Helmholz, Richard H. “Origins of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination: The Role of the European Ius Commune.” New York University Law Review 65, 962 (1990). Hoberg, Hermann. “Die Antrittsdaten der Rotarichter von 1566 bis 1675.” Römische Quartalschrift 48 (1953): 211–24. Hurter, Hugo. Nomenclator literarius recentioris theologiae catholicae. 3 vols. Innsbruck: Wagner, 1903–11. Kelly, Henry Ansgar. Inquisitions and Other Trial Procedures in the Medieval West. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001. Kraus, Andreas. Das päpstliche Staatssekretariat unter Urban VIII 1623–1644. Römischer Quartalschrift für christliche Altertumskunde and Kirchengeschichte Supplementheft 29. Rome: Herder, 1964. Mayaud, Pierre-Noël. “Les ‘Fuit congregatio sancti officii in . . . coram . . . ’ de 1611 à 1642: 32 ans de vie de la Congrégation du Saint Office.” Archivum historiae pontificiae 30 (1992): 231–89. Mayer, Thomas F. “The Roman Inquisition’s Precept to Galileo (1616).” British Journal for the History of Science 43, 3 (2010): 327–51. ———. “The Status of the Inquisition’s Precept to Galileo (1616) in Historical Perspective.” Nuncius 24 (2009): 61–95.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 364

8/27/12 11:46 AM

bibl io g r a phy

365

Pastor, Ludwig von. “Allgemeine Dekrete der römischen Inquisition aus den Jahren 1555– 1597.” Historisches Jahrbuch 33 (1912): 479–549; reprinted as extract paginated 1–71. Prosperi, Adriano. Tribunali della coscienza: Inquisitori, confessori, missionari. Turin: Einaudi, 1996. Prosperi, Adriano with John Tedeschi and Vincenzo Lavenia, eds. Dizionario storico dell’Inquisizione. 5 vols. Pisa: Edizioni della Nazionale, 2010. Rangoni Gal, Fiorenza. Frà Desiderio Scaglia Cardinale di Cremona: Un collezionista inquisitore nella Roma del seicento. Rome: Self-published, 2008. Rietbergen, Peter. Power and Religion in Baroque Rome: Barberini Cultural Policies. Boston: Brill, 2006. Tedeschi, John. The Prosecution of Heresy: Collected Studies on the Inquisition in Early Modern Italy. Binghamton, N.Y.: MRTS, 1991. Vezzosi, Antonio Francesco. I scrittori de’ cherici regolari. Rome: Propaganda Fide, 1780.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 365

8/27/12 11:46 AM

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 366

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Index

Inquisition means Roman Inquisition. Surnames beginning with prepositions have usually been indexed under the substantive element, except for most medieval authors and later ones who lack surnames, who are found under their given names abjuration, 202, 354n355; kinds of, 203 academies, Roman, Inquisitors as members of, 95 Accolti, Francesco, 250n215 accusatio, 155 Acquapendente, bishopric of, 321n329 Adriani, Flaminio, Inquisition notary, 142 Adriani, Quintiliano, Inquisition notary, 34, 142 advocate, defendant’s, 190–92, 349n266, 350n279; how chosen, 193 advocates, of Consistory, 92 age, average, of Inquisitors at appointment, 107 Agostino da Castelfidardo, Inquisition consultor, 19 Agucchi, Giovanni Battista, 48, 296n283 Alabaster,William, 74 Alatri, bishopric of, 134 Albani, Francesco, 80 Albano, bishopric of, 63, 90 Alberico da Porta Ravennate, 287n190 Albizzi, Francesco, cardinal, Inquisition assessor, 112, 132, 139, 141, 194

Alciati,Terenzio, SJ, 86 Aldobrandini, Cinzio, cardinal, 103 Aldobrandini, Giovanni Francesco, general of the Church, 81 Aldobrandini, Pietro, cardinal, Inquisitor, 32, 44, 61, 71, 79, 81, 93, 102, 104, 218, 237n26, 283n32 Aleandro, Girolamo, the younger, 53, 78, 95, 265n173 Alessandroni (?), Benedetto, substitute Inquisition notary, 325n382 Algardi, Alessandro, 50, 80, 146 Amalfi, archbishopric of, 131 Amayden, Teodoro, 134 Ancona, 213 Andrews, Lancelot, Tortura torti, 147 Anselmi, Giuseppe, Inquisition consultor, 103, 147, 297n302 Antonio da Lodi, Inquisition vicar in Ferrara, 118 appeal, 209; against sentence, 201 aqueduct, Trajan’s, rebuilding by Paul V, 99 Aquinas, Thomas, “Quaestiones disputatae de correctione fraterna,” 170 Aquino, bishopric of, 130 Arcangelo de Perugia, 217 archive, of Inquisition, 35 archivist, of Inquisition, 28, 141 Arévalo, Bernardino de, De correctione fraterna, 169 Arias Montano, Benito, 73

367

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 367

8/27/12 11:46 AM

368

index

Arrigoni, Pompeo, cardinal, secretary of Inquisition, 23, 32, 40, 41–43, 44, 45, 47, 51, 65, 92, 93, 94, 98, 102, 129, 161, 207, 218, 226, 237n26, 238n45, 242n103, 253n14, 256n34, 257n51, 261n123, 279n396; attendance record, 219 assessor, of Inquisition, 14, 27, 28 Asti, inquisitor of, 236n25 astrology, 32, 33, 97, 107, 133, 137, 249n203 attendance, at Inquisition meetings, mode of recording, 144 attendance, of Inquisitors, 39, 76, 90, 218–25 Aureli, Ludovico, Delle rebellioni de’ Boemi contro Matthia e Ferdinando Imperadori (1625), 86 Aurelio da Lodi, Inquisition vicar in Ancona, 118 Averoldi, Ippolito, 281n420 Avignon, inquisitor of, 12; vice-legate of, 130 Azor, Juan, SJ, 73 Badelli, Antonio, writer of avvisi, 298n325 Bagarotti, Prospero, 311nn212 and 214 Bagnoregio, bishopric of, 138, 321n329 Baldo degli Ubaldi, 176, 219n346, 320n326 Bandini, Ottavio, cardinal, secretary of Inquisition, 13, 23, 41, 51–53, 41, 50, 71, 77, 78, 93, 95, 104, 109, 151, 218, 226, 243, 253n14, 263n149, 264nn157 and 169, 265n173; attendance record, 218 Barberini, Antonio, great-uncle of Urban VIII, 101 Barberini, Antonio, Sr., cardinal, secretary of Inquisition, 24, 25, 40, 41, 53–56, 76, 86, 87, 90, 93, 94, 109, 123, 128, 136, 147, 161, 207, 218, 226; attendance record, 222, 224 Barberini, Antonio, Jr., cardinal, 39, 44, 58, 60, 68, 88, 125, 127, 129, 136, 140 Barberini, Carlo, Urban VIII’s brother, general of Church, 56, 84, 106, 127, 137, 284n39 Barberini, Francesco, uncle of Urban VIII,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 368

101, 137 Barberini, Francesco, cardinal, secretary of Inquisition, 6, 23, 24, 25, 26, 33, 39, 40, 41, 54, 56–60, 71, 78, 85, 86, 87, 91, 95, 109, 111, 127, 128, 133, 134, 135, 139, 140, 148, 218, 226, 243n110, 288n123, 293n219, 296n28; attendance record, 222, 224 Barberini, Taddeo, prefect of Rome, 39, 53, 60, 69, 79, 85, 106, 134, 139 Bartolo da Sassoferrato, 165, 173, 287n109, 320n326 Bellarmino, Roberto, SJ, cardinal, Inquisitor, 19, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 33, 40, 41, 45, 50, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 72–75, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 101, 111, 112, 121, 123, 131, 145, 146, 149, 151, 153, 159, 160, 161, 207, 214, 218, 226, 254n17, 256n34, 264n157; attendance record, 219; De ascensione mentis in Deum, 101 Belluno, inquisitor of, 13 Belmesseri, Achille, substitute Inquisition notary, 325n382 Benedetto, Marco, 217 Benessa, Pietro, 17 Benevento, archbishopric of, 43, 129 Bentivoglio, Guido, cardinal, Inquisitor, 23, 25, 61, 62, 71–72, 78, 92, 94, 95, 104, 107, 136, 218, 226, 278nn376 and 387, and 389 287n387; attendance record, 222, 224; Memorie (1647), 71 Bergamo, inquisitor of, 12 Bernal Diaz, Juan, de Luco, 172–73 Bernardo da Como, 185; Lucerna inquisitorum, 198 Bernerio, Girolamo, OP, cardinal, 122, 276n344 Bertinoro, bishopric of, 170 Béziers, bishopric of, 51 Bianchetti, Lorenzo, cardinal, 83, 259n83 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, evolution under Paul V, 99; keeper of, 149 Bishops and Regulars, Congregation of, 26, 46, 52, 67, 77, 80, 88, 128, 146, 147

8/27/12 11:46 AM

index bishops, Inquisitors as, 94 Boccabella, Alessandro, Inquisition deputy assessor, 18, 49, 78, 89, 112, 124, 134–36, 139, 140, 154, 243, 266n189, 315n279, 316nn 183 and 285, 317nn 289 and 294, 323n351 Boerio, Pietro, 287n109 Bologna, inquisitor of, 47; legation of, 103; vice-legate of, 96 Bombini, Paolo, agent of duke of Mantua, 24 Boniface VIII (Benedetto Caetani), pope, 163, 354n334 Bonsi, Giovanni Battista, cardinal, Inquisitor, 41, 50, 51; attendance record, 219 books, censorship of, 74, 91, 97, 100, 158; decree about licensing of by Urban VIII, 70 Borghese chapel, Santa Maria Maggiore, 97, 99 Borghese, Marcantonio, lawyer, father of Paul V, 96 Borghese, Orazio, 96 Borghese, Scipione, cardinal, 13, 39, 45, 66, 68, 69, 84, 100, 103, 121, 126, 146, 170 Borja y Velasco, Gaspar, cardinal, Inquisitor, 10, 24, 25, 32, 33, 48, 59, 63, 67, 68, 80, 85, 89–91, 93, 104, 109, 125, 133, 136, 212, 218, 220, 226, 275n338; attendance record, 222, 224, 225; protest of, March 1632, 33, 83, 88, 108, 125 Borri, Giulio, 302n69 Borromeo, Carlo, cardinal and archbishop of Milan, 44 Borromeo, Federico, cardinal and archbishop of Milan, 12, 13, 68, 104, 115, 119, 121 Boville Ernica (Ferentino), 130 Bozzoli, prince of, 302n56 Bracciolini, Francesco, 54 Brancaccio, Francesco Maria, cardinal, Inquisitor, 246n166 Brindisi, 214 Bruni, Antonio, 78, 95, 96 Bruno, Giordano, sentence of, 201 Bruns, Antoine, Gesta francorum per impios,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 369

369

292n201 Budrio, Antonio, da, 169, 170, 179 Burgos, archbishopric of, 63 Bzowski, Abraham, OP, 35, 70, 97, 98, 99, 360 C. 33 q. 3, Dist. 1 De penit. dictum post c. 87 § 6, 172, 173 Caballo, Pietro, 186 Cadiz, bishopric of, 63 Caetani, Antonio, Jr., cardinal, 102 Caetani, Bonifacio, cardinal, 151, 209 Cagnazzo (Cagnazzi or Cagnacci da Taggia), Giovanni, Summa Tabiena, 164, 203, 342n133 Camola, Giacomo Filippo, Breve racconto del Sig. Cavalier Marino (1633), 95 Campanella, Tommaso, OP, 32, 123, 193, 212, 293n229; “Atheismus triumphatus,” 65 Campeggi, Camillo, 348n248, 354n355 Campidoglio, criminal judge of, 137 Campora, Pietro, cardinal, bishop of Cremona, Inquisitor, 276n346 Capicio, Antonio, 287n109 Cappello, Marcantonio, Inquisition consultor, 147, 211; Adversus pretensum primatum ecclesiasticum Regis Angli liber in quo Iacobi Regis & eius Eleemosynarii confutantur scripta, 147; Controversiae tra il sommo Pontefice Paolo V.o e la serenissima Republica di Venetia, 147 Capponi, Luigi, cardinal, 22, 53, 104, 259n83 capture (arrest), of suspect, 180–81 Capua, bishopric of, 73 Capuchin order, 53 Caravaggio (Michelangelo Merisi), 133 Carena, Cesare, Inquisition fiscal in Cremona, 16, 158, 168, 177, 178, 192, 201, 202, 351n297; Tractatus de modo procedendi in causis S. Officii, 160; Tractatus de officio sanctissimae Inquisitionis et modo procedendi in causis fidei, 160

8/27/12 11:46 AM

370

index

Carerio, Luigi, Tractatus de haereticis, 164, 185, 189, 191, 193 caritativa monitio, 156 Carnesecchi, Pietro, sentence of, 201 Cartari, Carlo, 138 Cartari, Flaminio, 174, 176, 183, 184, 186, 188 Cartari, Giulivio, 137, 318n310 Casale, inquisitor of, 117 Casanate, Girolamo, OP, cardinal, Inquisition assessor, 15, 132, 141, 160, 319n315 case management, of Rota and Inquisition compared, 157 Caserta, 214 Castel Gandolfo, 103, 107, 123, 298n306 Castel Sant’Angelo, 129; vice-castellan of, 89 Castelli, Benedetto, 125 Cava dei Tirreni, abbey of, OSB, 214 Cave, Anthony, 74 Centini, Felice, cardinal, Inquisitor, 22, 23, 38, 60, 64, 66–68, 92, 94, 148, 153, 218, 226, 253n13, 273n310, 274n315, 275n338, 327n434; attendance record, 219 Centini, Giacinto, 23, 72, 78, 86, 89, 275n338, 353n328 Cerri, Antonio, 134 Cerri, Michelangelo, 261n105 Cesarini, Virginio, 95 Cesi, Paolo Emilio, marchese di Riano, 97 Chamber, Apostolic, papal financial department, 79, 83, 96, 101, 209 Chancellery, papal, abbreviator of, 87 charges, delay in bringing, little discussion of, 188; laying of, 156, 187 Chauncy, Maurice, [Historia] Martyrum Angliae, 74 Cherubini, Laerzio, 194 Cherubino da Udine, Speccio [sic] di Confessori e penitenti, banned, 74 Cherubino da Verona, 196 Chierici, Francesco, papal and Inquisition messenger, 179 Chieti, bishopric of, 146 Ciampoli, Giovanni, 71, 86, 95, 246n162,

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 370

278n387 Cigoli, Ludovico, 99 citation, 177–79; kinds of, 179; number required, 179 Claro, Giulio, 167, 174, 188 Clement VIII (Ippolito Aldobrandini), pope, 50, 105, 207, 213 Clovio, Giulio, Lateran canon, 80 Cobelluzzi, Scipione, cardinal, Inquisitor, 23, 100, 123, 148, 237n26, 276n344 Coccino, Giovanni Battista, dean of Rota, 49, 139, 261n116, 312n228 cognitio causae, 343n153 Collateral of Naples, Inquisition case of, 58–59 Colonna, Anna, 53, 107, 85 Colonna, Prospero, 349n277 commissary, of Inquisition, 14–15 Como, 146; bishopric of, 70; inquisitor of, 117, 236n25 Concha, Inquisition holding of, 146 Confini, Congregation dei, 87 congregation, definition of, 11; distinction between secret and non-secret parts, 20; kinds, 14, 20; of theologian consultors, of Inquisition, 72; particular, of Inquisition, 22, 46, 52, 70, 72, 78, 79, 88, 109, 122, 124, 136, 242n103; Urban VIII’s use of, 23; secret phase canceled, 243n107; Thursday (corams) held without pope, 243n105 Constantinople, 142 Consulta, papal congregation, 45, 52, 81, 87, 287n119 consultors, of Inquisition, 17, 145; intervention in expeditio crucial, 197, 198; opinions given orally, 27; theologians among, 18 Contarini, Alvise, Venetian ambassador to Rome, 56 Contarini, Francesco, Venetian ambassador to Rome, 98 corams (Inquisition meetings with pope), 20

8/27/12 11:46 AM

index Corneo, Pier Filippo, 164 Corrector Poenitentiariae, office of, 140 correspondence, of Inquisition, 14 Corsini, Andrea, 96 Cortona, Pietro da, 95 Cosenza, 210 Costabili, Paolo, master of the sacred palace, 159, 333n31 Council of Trent, Congregation for the, 42, 63, 72, 77, 85 Covarruvias, Diego, 320n326 Crema, inquisitor of, 13 Cremona, bishopric of, 63; inquisitor of, 12, 112, 119, 122 Cremonini, Cesare, 32, 45, 48, 65, 73, 148, 150, 197, 217; “Apologia,” 65; De coelo, 48, 121; De quinta coeli substantia, 121 Creswell, Joseph, SJ, 305n135 Cuenca, inquisitor of, 63 Cum oporteat (X. 5.1.19), 167 Cum sicut, breve of Pius IV, 177 Cupientes ut inquisitionis negotium (decreee of Alexander IV), 163 d’Éstampes de Valençay, Léonor, bishop of Chartres, 23 d’Este, Ippolito, cardinal, 47 Dal Pozzo, Cassiano, 86, 95 datary, papal, 146 Dávila, Francisco, cardinal, 63 de auxiliis, dispute about, 42, 100, 102, 151, 210, 243n110, 318n300, 329n468, 330n476 De Dominis, Marcantonio, 52, 179; De republica ecclesiastica, 121; Hypochrisis, 121; sentence of, 201; Sui reditus ex Anglia consilium exponit (1623), 70 De Luca, Giovanni Battista, cardinal, 49, 158, 192, 194 Decio, Filippo, 178 decree registers, of Inquisition, 5, 6, 7, 26–37 Decretals, commission for new edition, 152 Decretum, of Gratian, commission for new edition, 152

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 371

371

defense, term for, 194 Del Rio, Martín, SJ, 170; Disquisitionum magicarum libri sex, 73 Della Rovere, Marchese Giulio, 77, 86, 89 denunciation, 155; anonymous, 170; definition of, 168; evangelical, 169; kinds of, 169; replaces fama, 168 deposition, conclusion to, 177 Deti, Giovanni Battista, cardinal, academy of, 95 “Dichiaratione di concistori,” date of, 240n80 Dini, Piero, 53 diplomats, papal, Inquisitors as, 94 Discalced Carmelites, general of, 214 Domenico da San Gimignano, 179 Dominican order, 11, 128, 153 Duquesnoy, François, 71 Durand, Guillaume, the Speculator, 169, 189 Dusina, Pietro, Inquisition assessor, 159, 333n31 Duval, André, De suprema Romani Pontificis in ecclesiam potestate disputatio quadripartita (1614), 111 Ecclesiastical immunities, Congregation of, 52, 77 economic status, of Inquisitors, 94 Elna, bishopric of, 151 England, Congregation for, 140 Eudaemon-Johannes, Andreas, SJ, rector of Greek College, Rome, 25, 73, 123 ex officio proceedings, rarely used by Inquisition, 168 exceptions and defenses, allowed to defendant, 195 expeditio, of Inquisition case, 196­–99 Eymeric, Nicolau, Directorium Inquisitorum, 92, 158, 162, 166, 176, 183, 188, 197, 198, 201, 202, 346n221, 347n231; Francisco Peña’s notes to as indication of changes in procedure, 162 Fabbri, Filippo, OFM, Inquisition consultor, 60, 67, 148, 327n432; Adversus impios

8/27/12 11:46 AM

372

index

Fabbri, Filippo, (cont’d ) atheos disputationes quatuor philosophicae (1627), 148; Disputationes theologicae de restitutione et extrema-unctione (1624), 148; Disputationes theologicae librum primum (1619), 148 Fabric of San Pietro, Congregation for the, 102 faction, in Inquisition, 85, 88, 93, 109, 125, 129, 133 Faenza, 12, 148 Fagnani, Prospero, 140 fama, 156, 166, 200; originally initiated inquisitio, 155; not required in heresy cases, 167 (Ludovico Carerio and Giulio Claro), 168 (Francisco Peña); required in heresy cases (Prospero Farinacci), 168 family, role in recruitment of Inquisition professional staff, 153 Farinacci, Prospero, 49, 61, 72, 81, 83, 137, 159, 160, 162, 168, 170, 171, 176, 181, 182, 183, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 194, 195, 197, 198, 333–34n33, 334n37, 343n149,348n247, 361 Farnese, Odoardo, cardinal, 61, 87, 126 Farnese, Ranuccio, cardinal, 118 Febei, Antonio, OP, 318n307 Febei, Carlo, 321n329 Febei, Francesco Maria, 138, 139 Febei, Giovanni Battista, 321n329 Febei, Pietro Paolo, Inquisition assessor, 136–39, 160, 318n306, 319n326 Febei, Pompeo, 318n307 Federici, Tommaso, Inquisition archivist and sub-notary, 144, 325n386 Ferentillo, Santi de, substitute Inquisition notary, 325n382 Ferentino, bishopric of, 130 Ferrari, Francesco, 113 Ferro, Giovanni, Teatro d’imprese (1629), 82 Fidi, Antonio, 318n314 Fifth Lateran Council, decree on soul’s immortality, 121

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 372

Filonardi chapel, S. Carlo ai Cattinari, Rome,131 Filonardi, Alessandro, 312n234 Filonardi, Ennio, bishop of Ferrentino, 312n236 Filonardi, Ennio, cardinal, 130 Filonardi, Filippo, cardinal, 130, 131, 312n234 Filonardi, Flaminio, 312n234 Filonardi, Marcello, Inquisition assessor,130 Filonardi, Mario, Inquisition assessor, 27, 123, 130 Filonardi, Paolo Emilio, Inquisition assessor, 130, 131 finances, Inquisition’s concern with, 35, 39; defendant’s, protected, 211; of Inquisition, 62, 79, 112, 123; of Inquisitors, 41, 44, 51, 53, 60, 62, 64, 65, 67, 69, 71, 78, 80, 81, 89, 91, 96 fines, monetary imposed by Inquisition, 116; problems of, 204 fiscal proctor, of Inquisition, 15, 190 Florence, inquisitor of, 12, 235n13; relations with Inquisition, 33, 109 Floriani, Pietro Paolo, 128 Floyd, John, SJ, 305n135 Follerio, Pietro, 162, 165, 166, 169, 172, 173, 185, 187, 201, 338n77, 347n245 Fontana, Carlo, 89 Fontanone on Trajan’s acqueduct, built by Paul V, 99 Forte Urbano in Castelfranco Emilia, 127 Foulques, Guy (Clement IV), 201 Fra Agostino da Pavia, accuser of Desiderio Scaglia, 119 Fra Innocenzo, Reformed Observant Franciscan, precept to, 32 Franchi, Filippo, 189 Franciscan order, 11, 153, 262n136 fraud, by Inquisition functionaries, 143 Galamini, Agostino, cardinal, Inquisitor, 12, 22, 23, 31, 38, 60, 64–66, 67, 94, 104, 112, 121, 218, 220ng, 226, 253n13,

8/27/12 11:46 AM

index 266n187, 272n288, 273n310; attendance record, 219 Galileo (Galileo Galilei), 53, 55, 64, 71, 72, 355n365; abjuration of, 203; Istoria e dimostrazioni intorno alle macchie solari (1613), 53; sentence of, 201 galleys, condemnation to, 204 Gambiglioni, Angelo (Angelo da Verona), 165, 168, 185 Gastaldi da Alassio, Tommaso, socius of Inquisition commissary, 124, 307nn 162 and 176 Genoa, inquisitor of, 65, 127 geography, role in recruitment of Inquisition professional staff, 153 Gessi, Berlinghiero, cardinal, Inquisitor, 23, 25, 40, 42, 76–78, 79, 80, 86, 88, 89, 94, 95, 218, 226, 219n293, 282n13, 283n19; attendance record, 222, 224 Giacomo, Giovanni, 310n206 Ginetti, Marzio, cardinal, Inquisitor, 23, 24, 25, 33, 40, 41, 48, 76, 78, 86–89, 218, 226, 273n290, 289n138; attendance record, 222, 224; chapel of, Sant’Andrea della Valle, Rome, 89 Giovanni d’Andrea, 164, 169, 178, 350n281 Giovanni di San Giovanni (Giovanni Mannozzi), 50 Girolamo da Casalmaggiore, Inquisition consultor, 151 Giudici (de Iudicibus), Camillo, Inquisition summista, 120, 145, 180, 246n76, 326n397 Giustiniani, Andrea, Inquisition commissary, 19, 111–12, 242n97 Giustiniani, Benedetto, cardinal, 151, 242n97 Giustiniani, Benedetto, OP, 242n97 Giustiniani, Benedetto, SJ, Inquisition consultor, 18, 73, 111, 151, 213 Giustiniani, Benedetto, Inquisition vicar in Cremona, 111 Giustiniani, Lorenzo, 106 Giustiniani, Marco, 19, 111

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 373

373

Giustiniani, Orazio, Inquisition consultor, 60, 92, 107, 111, 140, 148 Gonzaga, Alfonso, academy of, 95 Gonzaga, Vincenzo, duke of Mantua, 14 governors, papal, Inquisitors as, 94 Grammatico, Tommaso, 183 Granada, lamine of, 70 Greek College, Rome, 111 Gregoire, Pierre, 337n69 Gregory XV (Alessandro Ludovisi), pope, 36, 95, 103 Guafrido, Jacopo, Protrita impietas sive odiorum in Francos extincta pernicies, 292n200 Guaschi, Agostino, accuser of Desiderio Scaglia, 120 Guavara, Ludovico de, 217 Guazzini, Sebastiano, 175, 177, 178, 186, 188, 189, 190 Guicciardini, Piero, Tuscan ambassador to Rome, 97 Henriquez, Enrico, Summa theologiae moralis, 73 Henry Frederick, prince, eldest son of James I, 244n125 Holstein, Lucas, 60 Hostiensis (Enrico da Susa), cardinal, 165, 168, 170, 250n215, 320n326 “human rights,” Inquisition’s role in evolution of, 207 Imola, bishopric of, 45 imprisonment, used as punishment by Inquisition, 203 In fidei favorem (Sext.5.2.5), 170 Inchofer, Melchior, Epistolae B. Mariae Virginis ad Messanenses veritas vindicata, 124; Tractatus syllepticus, 124 Index, Congregation of, 63, 100, 102 Innocent III (Lotario dei Conti di Segni), pope, systematizes inquisitio, 155, 187, 354n334 Innocent IV (Sinibaldo Fieschi), pope, 178

8/27/12 11:46 AM

374

index

Kahl, Johann, Lexicon iuridicum, 198 Kellison, Matthew, 71 Klesl, Melchior, cardinal, 84 Krämer, Heinrich, Malleus maleficarum, 164

law degrees, of Inquisitors, 92 law, sources of in Inquisition, 157 Lemos, Tomas de, Inquisition consultor, 19, 151 leniency, promise of to defendant, whether allowed, 182 Leonissa, 145 Leti, Gregorio, 57, 97 libelli, 165; presentation of, omitted in summary procedure, 163 Liber septimus or Constitutiones Clementinae, commission for new edition, 152 Licet ex omnibus (decree of Urban IV), 163 Licet Heli (X.5.3.31), 166, 187 Lincean Academy, 95 litis contestatio, 157, 165, 172, 175, 185, 186, 346n219; omitted in summary procedure, 164 Locati, Umberto, 203 Lombard, Peter, archbishop of Armagh, Inquisition consultor, 19, 150 Lotteri, Pietro Martire (Master Pietro Martire da Brescia?), 115 Louvain, University of, censures on Marcantonio De Dominis, 121 Ludovisi, Ludovico, cardinal, 10, 25, 77, 103, 125; academy of, 95

La Mantiana, 147 Labia, Antonio, 275n341, 307n173 Lagalla, Giulio Cesare, book by censured, 70 Lambertenghi, Abundio da Como, socius of Inquisition commissary, 303 Lanci, Giovanni Battista, master of sacred palace, 122 Lanci, Ippolito Maria, Inquisition commissary, 47, 55, 79, 121–25, 133, 136, 137, 154, 306n143, 307n176, 308n178, 335n41, 346n207 Lanfranco da Oriano, 178, 337n68, 353n332 Langusca, Stephanina, 217 Lascaris, Chrysantos, archbishop of Lacedemonia, 28, 247n170, 279n395

Macerata, bishopric of, 67 Machiavelli, Niccolò, license to read revoked, 42 Maculano, Vincenzo, Inquisition commissary, 16, 55, 78, 80, 89, 123, 124, 125–29, 154, 208, 308n178 Maddaleni Capiferro, Francesco, Inquisition consultor, secretary of Index, 19 Maderno, Stefano, sculptor, 99, 103, 271n266 Magalotti, Lorenzo, cardinal, Inquisitor, 38, 39, 57, 79, 85, 103, 105, 106, 109, 252nn 5 and 6 Magnana, Angela, 307n167 Magnavino, Gianbattista, 340n 110 malefice, and women, 116

Innocent X, pope. See Giovanni Battista Pamphili inquisitio, procedure of, changes in by seventeenth century, 156; elements of, 155; initiation of, 166; summary of steps in, 205–6 Inquisition, as bureaucracy, 15; secretary of, 14 inquisition, local, papal control of staff, 235n13; staff of, 251n236 Inquisitor, breve of appointment for, 12; letter patent of appointment for, 12; as papal deputies, 11; number of, 40; selection of, 39; tenure of in the records, 38 “Instructio pro formandis processibus in causis strigium, sortilegiorum, et maleficorum,” 116, 277n363 interrogation, of suspect, 181 interrogatoria, defendant’s, encouraged, 190 Isola in Calabria, bishopric of, 112 Jesus, Society of (Jesuits), 45, 73, 78, 88, 124, 153, 214

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 374

8/27/12 11:46 AM

index Malta, 146; inquisitor of, 50, 236n25 mandate, required for capture of suspect, 181; jurisprudence of, 84 Mandosio, Quintiliano, 157 Manfredi, Fulgenzio, abjuration of, 203; sentence of, 200, 201, 281n420 Mantova Benavides, Marco, 338n76 manuals, of inquisition procedure, 4, 153, 159 Maranta, Roberto, Tractatus de ordine iudiciorum intitulatus Speculum aureum et lumen advocatorum, 165, 166, 169, 178, 185, 189 Marches, legate of, 61 Maria Magdalena, grand duchess of Florence, 313n253 Maricucci, Girolamo, 95 Marioni, Felice, Inquisition archivist and sub-notary, 144 Marta, Giacomo Antonio, Supplicatio ad imperatorem, 249–50n207 Martelli, Ugolino, 53 Mary, Immaculate Conception of, 70, 72, 90, 102 Marzari, Lelio, inquisitor of Florence, 67 Marzato, Anselmo, cardinal, 210 Masetti, Luigi, 261n107 Masini, Eliseo, 74, 127, 168, 178, 201, 347nn231 and 245, 334n39; Sacro arsenale, 160 Mastrilli, Carlo, SJ, 73, 213 Matilda of Canossa, countess, praised by Urban VIII, 101 Matteo da Milano, OP, 302n6 Maurizio of Savoy, cardinal, 104 Mazarini or Mazarin, Giulio, cardinal, 73 Mazzarin, Michel, OP, 311n214 Medici, Caterina de’, sister of Grand Duke Cosimo II, 244n125 Medici, Ferdinando I, de’, grand duke, 210 Medici, Maria de’, queen of Henry IV of France, 51 Mellini, Giacomo, canon of S. Lorenzo in Damaso, 45

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 375

375

Memmoli, Decio, author of life of Cardinal Millini, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50 Mendozza, Antonio de, 217 Menochio, Giacomo, 30, 82, 189, 192, 320n326 Meoli, Girolamo, of Monte Santo, Inquisition sub-notary, 142 Micanzio, Fulgenzio, 51, 147 Michele da Napoli, Cassinese OSB, Inquisition consultor, 18, 152 Milan, inquisitor of, 65, 115, 120, 122 Mileto, bishopric of, 67 Millini, Gian Garzia, cardinal, secretary of Inquisition, 6, 22, 23, 26, 31, 40, 41, 43–50, 51, 52, 53, 65, 67, 68, 69, 79, 87, 90, 92, 93, 94, 102, 104, 109, 112, 117, 122, 123, 179, 194, 197, 207, 212, 214, 218, 226, 234n312, 243n110, 253n14, 256nn40 and 42, 257nn53, 55 and 58, 258n71, 259nn79, 81, 83 and 85, 260n93, 261nn105 and 107, 276n349, 320n326, 329n464, 349n276; attendance record, 219; chapel of, Santa Maria del Popolo, 50; decisions as auditor of Rota, 49; patronage of, 261n123 Millini, Mario, 44 Millini, Pietro, Inquisition consultor, 44 Millini, Settimio, 44 Modena, duke of, interference in Inquisition cases, 47 Molfetti, Andrea, “De praxi et stilo S. officii,” 70 Molina, Juan, 256n34 monitio, 169, 170 monitorium, definition of, 345n187 Montefeltro, bishopric of, 130 Montefiascone, 145; bishopric of, 79, 80 Monti, Cesare, cardinal, Inquisition assessor, 26, 132 Morandi, Orazio, abbot of S.ta Prassede, 137 Morone, Giovanni, cardinal, 96, 193 Motman, Cornelius, auditor of Rota, 25, 139 Mura Nuove, of Genoa, 126

8/27/12 11:46 AM

376

index

Musca, Agostino di Scipio, Inquisition assessor’s servant, 239n59 Musculeo, Alessandro, 217 Naples, 142, 214; nuncio to, 131 Narni, bishopric of, 140 Natta, Giorgio, 320n326 Natta, Marco Antonio, 320, 320n326 Nauzonii, Francesco q. Fiorentini, 217 Navarro, Martín, 320n326 Neapolitan jurisprudence, importance in evolution of Inquisition procedure, 208 necromancy, 65 Neri, Filippo, 62, 92, 133, 148 Neuburg, Wolfgang Wilhelm von, duke, 23, 78, 86, 88 Niccolini, Francesco, Tuscan ambassador to Rome, 198, 315n279 Niccolò de’ Tudeschi (Panormitanus), 165, 173, 178, 187, 188, 287n109 Notaio Sertonio, 217 notaries, of Inquisition, 16, 27, 28, 142, 198 Novara, 146; bishopric of, 62, 146 Novissimus homo, libel on Paul V, censored by Roberto Bellarmino, 74 Novit (X.2.1.13), 169, 170 nuncio to France, Urban VIII as, 102 Nuñez Coronel, Gregorio, Inquisition consultor, 19, 151 oath to tell the truth, 171 Oldrado da Ponte, 164 Omobono da Cremona, OP, 301n53 ordo iuris in criminalibus, 346n222 Oreggi, Agostino, Inquisition consultor, cardinal, Inquisitor, 24–25, 86, 123, 129, 136, 149; Aristotelis vera de rationalis animae immortalitate sententia accurate explicata (1631), 149; De Deo uno tractatus primus (1629), 149 Oreggi, Bartolomeo, Inquisition consultor, 150 Oreggi, Niccolò, 149

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 376

Orsi, Aurelio, 101, 133 Orvieto, 136; bishopric of, 343n154 Osimo, bishopric of, 65 Ospedale dello Santo Spirito in Sassia, Rome, commendatore of, 139 Otranto, 214 Padua, inquisitor of, 13, 121; university of, censures on De Dominis, 121 Palazzo, Angelo, Inquisition consultor, 19 Palazzo (all in Rome): Borghese, 97; de Cupis in P.zza Navona, 64; “Delle Cornacchie” (Aldobrandini property), 275n330; del Sant’Uffizio, 100; Giustini in Piazza Colonna, 262n128; Madruzzo or dei Penitenzieri, 101, 296n283; Maffei, 275n330; Massimo di Rignano poi Colonna in Piazza Aracoeli, 316n282; Millini in Piazza Navona, 44; Quirinal, 63, 97, 99; Rospigliosi, 71; Sacchetti, 271n266; Salviati, 101; S. Lorenzo in Lucina, 64; Verospi, Via del Corso, 80 Paleotti, Gabriele, cardinal, 321n326 Pallavicino, Sforza, cardinal, 95 Pallotta, Giovanni Battista, cardinal, 25 Pamphili, Giovanni Battista, cardinal, later pope Innocent X, 25, 133 Pamplona, bishopric of, 63 Panormitanus: See Niccolò de’ Tudeschi Panziroli, Giovanni Giacomo, 139 papal office, Inquisitors as holders of, 94 Parámo, Luis de, 170, 178 Parco maggiore, abbreviator of, 101 Pari Dalla Torre, Giovanni Battista, necromancer, 33 Parisi, Theodosio, OFM, 212 Parisio, Pierpaolo, 287n109, 353n332 Parma, inquisitor of, 12 Parri, Giovanni Battista, 307n167 Passarini, Fulvio, governor of Rome’s chief notary, 318n314 Patrimony (of Peter), vice-legate of, 79 Patrizi, Francesco, Nova de universis

8/27/12 11:46 AM

index philosophia, 151 patronage, of Inquisitors, 50, 53, 60, 69, 71, 78, 80, 86, 95, 261n123, 264n169, 271n266 Paul III (Alessandro Farnese), pope, 10, 206 Paul IV (Gianpietro Carafa), pope, 157, 206 Paul V (Camillo Borghese), pope, secretary of Inquisition, 12, 13, 23, 33, 42, 61, 63, 90, 96–100, 130, 143, 154, 179, 207, 209, 210, 213, 256n34, 295n272, 312n231; building by, 99 Paurmeister, Tobias, De jurisdictione Imperii Romani libri duo, 62 Pavia, inquisitor of, 118, 126 Peiresc, Nicholas, 282n18 Peña, Francisco, Inquisition consultor, 15, 16, 27, 30, 35, 41, 44, 49, 62, 81, 92, 100, 119, 130, 139, 142, 152–53, 157, 158, 159, 160, 163, 164, 165, 168, 169, 170, 171, 174, 176, 177, 178, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 208, 235, 239, 339n91, 345nn 192, 198 and 199, 347nn230 and 231, 348n258, 351n305; draws on canon and civil law and Rota decisions, 160; “Introductio, sive Praxis Inquisitorum,” 159 Penitentiary, datary of, 84 Peretti, Alessandro, Cardinal Montalto, 22 Perneo, Magno, 97 personality conflict, among Inquisitors, 93 Perugia, 145 Pesaro, Giovanni, Venetian ambassador to Rome, 56, 58 Petronio, Giacinto, master of sacred palace, 19, 59, 70, 150 Pettini, Andrea, da Forlì, Inquisition notary, 27, 34, 143, 145, 179 Piazza or Piazza da Nico, Camillo da, Inquisition vicar in Soresina, 120 Pietro d’Ancarano, 172, 287n109 Pinelli, Domenico, cardinal, 152 Pio, Carlo Emmanuele, Sr., cardinal, 9, 108

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 377

377

Pisa, inquisitor of, 12, 13, 236n23 Pius IV (Gianangelo de’ Medici), pope, 10 Pius V (Michele Ghislieri), pope, 198 plea, suspect’s, omitted from discussion, 186 plenitudo potestatis, of pope, relation to inquisitio and canon law, 156 Pole, Reginald, cardinal, 2 pope, role in Inquisition, 206 Portugal, nuncio to, 140 Postquam (Sext 5.1.1), 168 preachers, Inquisition’s interest in, 213 precept: to Cremonini, a Capuchin friar and Fra Innocenzo, 42; to Dominican, not to publish, 74; of disability to hold office and exile, 114; to Galileo, Seghizzi and, 117; to observe secrecy at end of interrogation, 177; citation equivalent to, 179; appeal from, 202, denied, 354n340; not to speak to anyone, 209; not to speak about the Last Supper, 212; “not to preach publicly and privately,” 214; equivalent to citatio and mandatum, 345n180 Prierias, Silvestro, master of the sacred palace, 164 privy chamberlain, papal, 87 procedure, divergence of Inquisition’s from canonical, 159; drive to single model of, 157; summary: 162; omissable elements in, 164; stages omitted, 163 processo informativo, 171 proctor, defendant’s, 190, 192 procurator pauperum, 193 professional ethics, of Inquisition professional staff, 153 professional staff, of Inquisition, compensation of, 29 Propaganda Fide, Congregation of, 45, 52, 65, 90, 103, 133, 139, 148, 149, 266n187 Pseudo-Calderini, Tractatus novus aureus et solemnis de haereticis, 12 punishment, by Inquisition, 203 Puteo, Jacopo, 287n109

8/27/12 11:46 AM

378

index

qualifications, of Inquisition professional staff, decline in, 153 Qualiter et quando 2 (X.5.1.24), 155, 167, 186 Querenghi, Antonio, 95, 96 questions, leading, not allowed in interrogations, 183 Radicino, Settimo, 250n207 Raimondi, Giovanni Battista, 212, 315n273 Rancato, Ilarione, Inquisition consultor, 136, 211 Rastelli, Raffaele, Inquisition consultor, 18, 152, 330n476 Rebuffi, Pierre, 287n109 Recanati, bishopric of, 65 recommendations, of defendants, excluded, 195 records, of Inquisition, authentication of, 34 referendaries, of both Segnature, 131 Reni, Guido, 78 Repertorium inquisitorum, 16, 157, 164 repetitio, 188, 201, 348nn247 and 255; copy to be given to defendant, 194 Riccardi, Niccolò, master of sacred palace, 89, 95, 122, 123, 125, 136, 151, 300n15 Riccardi, Pietro Martire, 306n143, 307n162 Riccoboni, Antonio, 71 Ridolfi, Niccolò, master of sacred palace, Dominican general, 123, 125, 127, 128 Rimini, inquisitor of, 236n23 Ripa Transona, bishopric of, 133 Riphoz, Rafael, Inquisition consultor, 19, 151 Rites, Congregation of, 63, 77, 133, 136, 149 Roa or Roa Dávila, Juan de, OSA, 23, 208– 10, 256n34 Roccatagliata, Sebastiano, 217 Rojas, Juan de, Singularia iuris, 164, 170, 202, 203 Roma, Ippolito, 114, 198 Roma, Jacopo, 114 Rome, civil lieutenant of vicar of, 147; fiscal of, 137; governor of, 77, 134, 138; vicar of, 45, 77

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 378

Rossi, Ottavio, 68, 275n344 Rossini, Benvenuto, 251n219 Rota, papal court of, 157, 207; auditors of, 49, 81, 92, 134, 139, 153 sacred palace, master of, 129 Saepe contingit (Clem. 5.11.2), 163 San Carlino (San Carlo alle Quattro Fontane), church of, Rome, 264n169 San Carlo ai Cattinari, church of, Rome,146 San Carlo al Corso, church of, Rome, 62 San Gimignano, Capuchin convent of, 54 San Giorgio, Giovanni Antonio, cardinal, 172, 173 San Giorgio, Jacopino da, 287n109 San Giovanni in Laterano, basilica of, Rome, 146 San Pietro, basilica of, Rome 102, 203 San Pietro in Vincoli, basilica of, Rome, 80 San Silvestro al Quirinale, church of, Rome, 72 Sanchez, Francisco, 217 Sandeo, Felino, 167, 179, 188, 287n109 Sanità, congregation of, 58 Sant’Agnese, church of, Rome 51 Sant’Onofrio, church of, Rome, Rosary chapel in built by Maffeo Barberini, 296n283 Sant’Onofrio on the Giancolo, Girolamite convent, Rome, 209 Santa Anastasia al Palatino, church of, Rome, 138 Santa Anna “dei Falegnami o dei Funari,” church of, Rome 316n282 Santa Cecilia, basilica of, Rome, 271n266 Santa Croce in Bosco Marengo, convent of, 126 Santa Margherita (or Firenzuola) Lines, Malta, 311n217 Santa Maria della Vittoria, church of, Rome, 78 Santa Maria in Vallicella, Oratorian mother house, Rome, 62

8/27/12 11:46 AM

index Santa Maria Maggiore, basilica of, Rome, 131 Santa Maria sopra Minerva, Dominican convent of, Rome, 11, 111 Santa Maria sopra Minerva, church of, Rome, 233n30 Santa Rita (S. Biagio di Mercatello), church of, Rome, 134, 315n282 Santa Rita da Cascia, church of, Rome, 316n282 Santa Sabina, Dominican convent of, Rome, 125 Santa Sofia, Romagna, 149 Santi Apostoli, basilica of, Rome, 211 Santi Quattro Coronati, church of, Rome, 50 Santissima Concezione, church of, Rome, 55 Santoro, Giulio Antonio, cardinal, 312n231 Sarpi, Paolo, 51, 74, 79, 147 Scacchi, Francesco, De salubri potu dissertatio, 53 Scaccia, Sigismondo, 158, 175, 178, 179, 184, 186 Scaglia, Deodato, 60 Scaglia, Desiderio, cardinal, Inquisitor, 12, 13, 23, 24, 25, 26, 32, 33, 52, 68–71, 73, 86, 88, 92, 95, 107, 114, 118, 136, 159, 204, 207, 211, 212, 218, 222, 226, 278n389, 335n41; “Affetto estatico alle Stigmati di San Francesco” (1606), 69 Scaglia, Francesco, madrigalist, 119 Schoppe, Kaspar, 73 scribes, assistants to notary of Inquisition, 17 secrecy, form of Inquisitor’s oath of, 161; Inquisition’s, 117, 160; Inquisitors ordered to observe (1628), 161; problem for provincial inquisitors, 161; reasons for, 161 secretaries, of the Inquisition, 40 Seghizzi, Deodato, da Lodi, 117 Seghizzi, Michelangelo, Inquisition commissary, bishop of Lodi, 12, 22, 112–18, 151, 161, 208, 237n26, 300n15, 319n321 Segna, Isabetta, 217

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 379

379

Segnatura di Giustizia, 6, 50, 77, 87, 103, 105 Segnatura di Grazia, 44, 87, 108 Segni, Ludovico, 152 Senigallia, archbishopric of, 54 sentence, in Inquisition cases, 199–200, 245n159, 354n355; commutation of, 204; interlocutory, 337n64; not part of acta, 245n159 Serafino da Montegranaro, OFMCap, 52 Seripando, Girolamo, cardinal, archbishop of Salerno, 185 Sfondrato, Paolo Emilio, cardinal, Inquisitor, 10, 16, 19, 22, 40, 43, 45, 61, 62–3, 92, 93, 94, 97, 113, 114, 115, 119, 209, 218, 226, 270n244, 271nn 266 and 277; attendance record, 219 Sfondrato, Niccolò, bishop of Cremona and pope (Gregory XIV), 12, 118 Sforza, Alessandro, duke, 83 Si de protegendis, bull about interference with Inquisition, 114, 200 Silvestro, Papirio, Inquisition consultor, 18, 317n294 Simancas, Jacobo (or Diego), 189 Simoncelli, Girolamo, cardinal, 343n154 Sincero, Carlo, Inquisition fiscal, 29, 110, 123, 124, 131, 135, 141, 142, 144, 145, 179, 180, 317n294; salary of, 324n359 Sirleto, Guglilelmo, cardinal, Inquisitor, 338n77 Sixtus V (Felice Peretti), pope, 11, 206 socius, of Inquisition commissary, 15, 126, 303n77, 306n143 sorcery, and Inquisition, 171 Sozzini, Mariano, the elder, 175 Speciano, Cesare, bishop of Cremona, 112, 113 Spoleto, 213; archbishopric of, 145 Squillace, Francesco [recte Francesco Arceri, bishop of Squillace], De fide catholica, 164 Statuta (Sext 5.2.20), 163, 176 Steuco, Agostino, Lateran canon, 80 Strozzi, Lorenzo, 263n150

8/27/12 11:46 AM

380

index

style, of Inquisition, 46, 158, 193 stylus Romanae curiae, compared to Inquisition’s, 158 Suarez, Francisco, SJ, 45; De potestate ecclesiastica, 62 subrogation, of Inquisition cases, 86 summarium, of Inquisition cases, 196 summista, of Inquisition, 17, 141, 196 suspect, questioning of before laying of charges, 172, 176

Torrione in Bologna, auditor of, 137 Tortona, inquisitor of, 118 torture, 176, 189, 350n291 Tragagliolo or Drago, Alberto da, also called Berto da Firenzuola, Inquisition commissary, 126 trickery, allowed in interrogation, 183 Turco, Tommaso, OP, Dominican general, 311n214 Turin, inquisitor of, 236n25

Tagliatela, Antonio, 217 Taranto, 214 Tartagna, Alessandro, 287n109 Tassoni, Alberto, 96 Tavaras, Antonio, 217 Taverna, Ferdinando, cardinal, Inquisitor, 12, 13, 16, 22, 32, 60, 61, 62, 92, 116, 146, 201, 218, 226, 270n253; attendance record, 220 Taverna, Ludovico, bishop of Lodi, 61, 303n81 tenure, of Inquisitors, average length of, 108; of Inquisition professional staff, 153 Termoli, bishopric of, 151 Testi, Costantino, socius of Inquisition commissary, 303n77 theologian consultors, of Inquisition, 135, 150 theology, Inquisitors’ training in, 92 Thesaurus politicum, 86 Tinti, Giacomo, da Lodi, socius of Inquisition commissary, 117, 152, 303n78 Toledo, archbishopric of, 90; inquisitor of, 63 Tomassi, Giovanni Antonio, substitute Inquisition notary, then notary, 29, 35, 143, 325n382 Tommaso da Roccamora, OP, Dominican general, 311n214 Tonti, Michelangelo, cardinal, 297n299 Tornielli, Antonio, vicegerent of vicar of Rome, Inquisition consultor, 128, 146 Tornielli, Ottavio, 146 Torres, Ludovico de, cardinal, 108

Ubaldini, Roberto, cardinal, 104, 125 Ubaldino, Federico, 107 Ugolini, Bartolomeo, 170 Ugolini, Zanchino, De haereticis, 159 Ugolotti, Silvestro, 237n42 Umbria, governor of, 84 Umoristi, Accademia degli, 71, 78, 86, 95, 103 Urban VII (Giovanni Battista Castagna), pope, 44 Urban VIII (Maffeo Barberini), pope, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 18, 22, 24, 25, 32, 38, 39, 42, 43, 45, 48, 52, 57, 67, 69, 75, 76, 77, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91, 93, 95, 97, 99, 100–109, 126, 131, 132, 133, 135, 145, 146, 149, 151, 154, 170, 207, 211, 286n82; as head of Inquisition, 107; desire to dominate Inquisition, 76; nepotism of, 106; personality of, 105; poetry of, 101 Urbino, governor of, 77

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 380

Vacchedano, Jacopo (or Giacomo), 214–15 Valtellina, 45, 79 Van Dyck painting, 71 Vanzi, Sebastiano, 177, 178, 187, 201, 202, 343n154, 353n326 Vatican Palace, 63; prefect of, 86 Vecchietti, Giovanni Battista, 210 Vecchietti, Girolamo, 23, 45, 70, 123, 210–13; De anno primitivo ab exordio mundi ad annum iulianum accomodato et de sacrorum temporum ratione, 210

8/27/12 11:46 AM

index Venice: Inquisition’s relations with, 48, 74; inquisitor of, 12, 13, 121, 148; nuncio to, 77, 79, 143 Veno, Enrico, 217 Verallo, Fabrizio, cardinal, Inquisitor, 41, 50, 93, 218, 226, 262n128, 312n234; attendance record, 220; chapel of, Sant’Agostino, Rome, 51 Verallo, Girolamo, cardinal, 51 Verospi, Fabrizio, cardinal, Inquisitor, 23, 24, 25, 26, 40, 49, 59, 76, 78, 80–86, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 109, 146, 207, 218, 226, 286n77, 287nn 109, 117 and 119, 288n123; attendance record, 222, 224; decisions as auditor of Rota, 82–84 Verospi, Girolamo, 86 Vezza, Ferrante, 152 Vicari, Stefano, 335n41 vicars apostolic, appointment by breve, 237n26 vice-chancellor of the church, office of, 59 Villa Medici, Rome, 355n365 Villadiego, Gonzalo García de, De haereticis, 164 Villagut, Alfonso, Practica canonica criminalis, 175 Villaroya de los Pinares, 152 Virile or Virili, Luca Antonio, 316n285 Vitali, Vitale, Inquisition fiscal in Cremona, 112, 114 Viterbo, vice-legate of, 79 Vittorio, Antonio, 314n264

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 381

381

Vittrici, Alessandro, Inquisition assessor, 26, 33, 92, 102, 124, 132, 315n273; chapel of, Chiesa Nuova, Rome, 133 Vittrici, Girolamo, 133 Vulpi, Pietro, 146 Vulpi, Ulpiano, Inquisition consultor, 22, 26, 117, 146 Wadding, Luke, OFM, 86 Ward, Mary, 45, 71, 78, 88, 124, 136 witnesses, examination of in processo informativo, 171; examination of to be conducted by judge, 190; names, omission of, 156; names, whether to be revealed to defendant, 176 writers, Inquisitors as, 94 Xavierre, Jerónimo, Dominican general, 112 Zabarella, Francesco, cardinal, 178, 339n96 Zacchia, Paolo Emilio, cardinal, 79 Zacchia, Laudivio, cardinal, Inquisitor, 23, 24, 25, 26, 40, 76, 77, 78–80, 81, 85, 86, 88, 94, 107, 109, 123, 136, 218, 226, 284n53, 285n59; attendance record, 223, 224 Zacchia, Paolo, MD, 78 Zagarola, duke of, 108 Zancaglioni, Girolamo, 217 Zapata y Cisneros, Antonio de, cardinal, Inquisitor, 45, 63, 64, 93, 130, 218, 226; attendance record, 220 Zobbi, Tommaso, Inquisition Commissary, 159, 333n31

8/27/12 11:46 AM

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 382

8/27/12 11:46 AM

Acknowledgments

Ed Muir has had a lot to do with this book. In part I began it in response to his challenge a few years ago that it was too early to write the history of the Inquisition in Italy. Under the guise of studying Galileo, I persuaded Ed to support my application for fellowships, two of which he helped secure. I am equally grateful to my other referees for this project at various times, Diana Robin, Brad Gregory and Price Zimmermann. I chose to take a grant from the American Academy in Rome that could not have provided a better situation, geographically (just up the hill from the archives of the Holy Office), intellectually, psychologically, and nowadays gastronomically. Friends who helped me through what might otherwise have been a lonely year, since my wife and daughter had to stay in the States, include Paul Arpaia and Monica Calabrito, Erik Gustafson, Dan McReynolds, Jorie Woods, Elaine Reiter, and Alan Berger, among many others. The director and president, Carmela Vircilio Franklin and Adele Chatfield-Taylor pushed me to get on with publishing my findings as well, of course, as providing the resources to make that possible. Marina Lella, the director’s secretary, was always ready to help with practicalities. The fellowship from the American Academy allowed me to spend a year in the Inquisition and Vatican archives. I am grateful to the staff of both for much assistance. The only fly in the ointment, the closure of the Vatican Library, was largely compensated by the resources in law books of other Roman libraries, especially the Casanatense, to whose staff I am exceptionally grateful. The loss of access to the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana’s manuscripts was almost entirely made good by the resources of the Vatican Film Library of St. Louis University, cheerfully put at my disposal by its director Gregory Pass, deputy director Susan L’Engle, and woman-of-all-work Barbara Chanell. Consulting some of the materials specifically needed for this book was made possible by the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies there and its director Thomas Madden, which gave me an NEH fellowship that allowed me to return to the US for three weeks in the middle of my Roman year. Theresa Harvey provided every possible facility to make my stay comfortable and productive. Eamon Duffy and

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 383

8/27/12 11:46 AM

384

ac k now l edg m e nts

Magdalene College Cambridge supported three weeks of research in Lord Acton’s incomparable collection of books housed in the Cambridge University Library. Through his Lutheran Academy of Scholars, Ronald Thiemann, perhaps the only theologian with whom I can actually have a conversation, gave me two weeks at Harvard where I gutted the Houghton and Law Libraries. Not least on the score of resources, of time more than money, John Smedley, my editor and publisher at Ashgate, generously rearranged the publication schedule of The Correspondence of Reginald Pole. The good folk of the Jesuit Historical Institute in Rome (Tom McCoog, Jim Pratt, Steven, and Hélène) gave me a place to work during the lunchtime closures of the Vatican archives. Closer to home, Jeff Abernathy, former dean of Augustana College, offered constant encouragement, including putting his money where his mouth was on several occasions, among them a sabbatical leave. This book results directly from the constant badgering of my colleague Steve Warren, who regularly greeted me with remarks of the sort, “why should I keep writing if Tom Mayer isn’t?” My most senior colleague, Van Symons, has valued my scholarly work since the day I arrived on campus twenty-five years ago, even when almost no one else did. In my usual maverick fashion, I have often gone my own way in both researching and writing this book, but both would have been much more difficult without the counsel of John Tedeschi and Andy Kelly; Kelly read Chapter 5 twice. Paul Grendler read the entire draft and made many useful suggestions. Wietse de Boer generously answered hard questions about Milan, as did Anne Schutte and Jane Wickersham about Venice. Dario Del Pupo read enough of Urban VIII’s vernacular poetry to pronounce it uninteresting. Paul Gehl contributed a photocopy of a book allegedly by Desiderio Scaglia. Pierroberto Scaramella and Fiorenza Rangoni very kindly sent me copies of their books. My old friend Ralph Keen, in addition to always lending an ear to complaints (provided I reciprocated), greatly facilitated this and my other work over the last fifteen years by standing surety for faculty borrowing privileges at the University of Iowa Library. My hosts at the Università di Torino, Massimo Firpo, the Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Adriano Prosperi, and the Università di Roma Tre, Giorgio Caravale, provided both hospitality and enthusiastic audiences. The team at the University of Pennsylvania Press could not have done a better job. Jerry Singerman confirmed his status as dean of academic press editors. The outside readers, Chris Black and Andy Kelly, gave me the best comments I have had in almost twenty-five years. Caroline Winschel and Alison Anderson handled the nuts and bolts of contracting and production with consummate skill.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 384

8/27/12 11:46 AM

ac k now l edg me nts

385

I have mentioned my wife and daughter, Jan Popehn, and Molly MayerPopehn. It is a truism that without their support and more important tolerance this book would not exist. Poor Molly has often acted as my research assistant, a role my wife used to fulfil until she wised up. Jan has instead provided inspiration, if not intellectual, then the more significant emotional. Both have already had other of my books dedicated to them. This is the first that goes to both.

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 385

8/27/12 11:46 AM

13390-The Roman Inquisition (Mayer) 386

8/27/12 11:46 AM