\ •*:*
HISTORY OF THE POPES
VOL. XV
PASTOR'S HISTORY OF THE POPES
THE HISTORY OF THE POPES. Translated from
the German of LUDWIG, FREIHERR VON PASTOR. Edited, as to
Vols. I.-VI. by the late FREDERICK IGNATIUS ANTROBUS, and,
as to Vols. VII.-XXIV. by RALPH FRANCIS KERR, of the
London Oratory. Vols. XXV.-XXXIV. by Don ERNEST GRAF,
of Buckfatt Abbey, and Vols. XXXV.-XXXVI. by E. F.
PEELER.
Vols. I. and II.
Vols. III. and IV.
Vols. V. and VI.
Vols. VII. and VIII.
Vols. IX. and X.
Vols. XI. and XII.
Vols. XIII. and XIV.
Vols. XV. and XVI.
Vols. XVII. and XVIII.
Vols. XIX. and XX.
Vols. XXI. and XXII.
Vols. XXIII. and XXIV.
Vols. XXV. and XXVI.
Vols. XXVII. to XXIX.
Vols. XXX. to XXXII.
Vols. XXXIII. and XXXIV.
Vols. XXXV. and XXXVI.
1305-1458
1458-1483
1484-1513
1513-1521
1522-1534
1534-1549
1550-1559
A.D. 1559-1565
A.D. 1566-1572
A.P. 1572-1585
1585-1591
1592-1604
1605-1621
1621-1644
1644-1700
1700-1740
A.D. 1740-1774
A.D.
A.D.
A.D.
A.D.
A.D.
A.D.
A.D.
A.D.
A.D.
A.D.
A.D.
A.D.
A.D.
The original German text of the History of the Popes is published
by Herder & Co., Freiburg (Baden).
T H e
HISTORY OF THE POP
FROM THE CLOSE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
DRAWN FROM THE SECRET ARCHIVES OF THE VATICAN AND OTHER
ORIGINAL SOURCES
FROM THE GERMAN OF
LUDWIG, FREIHERR VON PASTOR
EDITED BY
RALPH FRANCIS KERR
OF THE LONDON ORATORY
VOLUME XV
PIUS IV. (1.559-1565)
LONDON
ROUTLEDGE & KEGAN PAUL LTD
BROADWAY HOUSE: 68-74 CARTER LANE, E.G. 4.
ST LOUIS, MO.: B. HERDER BOOK CO.
15 & 17 SOUTH BROADWAY.
1951
First published in England 1928
Reprinted 1951
DEDICATED
TO HIS DEAR FRIEND
STEPHEN EHSES
PRELATE, DR. PHIL. ET THEOL.
DIRECTOR OF THE ROMAN HISTORICAL INSTITUTE OF THE
" GORRES-GESELLSCHAFT "
WITH SINCERE ESTEEM
BY
THE AUTHOR
Fluctuare potest, demergi nequaquam [Ecclesia],
Pius IV. to Girolamo Priuli, Doge of Venice, December 3oth, 1560.
(Papal Secret Archives. Arm. 44, t. 10, n. 420).
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
LUND HUMPHRIES
LONDON • BRADFORD
CONTENTS OF VOLUME XV.
PAGE
Collections of Archives and Manuscripts referred to in
Volumes XV. and XVI. . . . vii
Complete Titles of Books frequently quoted in Volumes
XV. and XVI. . . . . . ix
Table of Contents ...... xxv
List of Unpublished Documents in Appendix . . xxxvi
Pius IV, 1559-1565
Author's Preface ..... xxxvii
Introduction ... . xxxix
The Conclave of 1559 . . i
Previous Life and Character of Pius IV. The beginning
of his Pontificate . . . . .66
The Pope's Relatives. Charles Borromeo. Diplomatic
Relations with the Princes ... 94
The Fall of the House of Carafa . . 131
Negotiations for the re-opening of the Council of Trent . 179
The Mission of Commendone and Delfino to Germany . 216
Final preparations for the re-opening of the Council • . 241
Re-opening of the Council of Trent. Sessions XVII. to
XXII. . . . . .264
The Mission of Morone to Ferdinand I. at Innsbruck, 1562-
1563 . . . . . -299
Concluding Sessions of the Council of Trent . . 328
Significance of the Council of Trent . . . 366
Appendix of Unpublished Documents . . -379
Index of Names . . . . - • 431
COLLECTIONS OF ARCHIVES AND
MANUSCRIPTS REFERRED TO IN
VOLUMES XV. AND XVI.
AREZZO — Library of the Con-
fraternita di 5. Maria.
AUXERRE — Library.
BASLE — Library.
BERLIN — State (formerly Royal]
Library.
BOLOGNA — State Archives.
- University Library.
BREGENZ — Museum Archives.
CARPENTRAS — Library.
CARLSRUHE — Library.
CITTA DI CASTELLO — Graziani
Archives.
COLMAR — State Library.
COMO — Serbelloni-Busca Ar
chives.
CORTONA — Library.
FAENZA — Communal Archives.
FLORENCE — National Library.
State Archives.
FOLIGNO — Seminary Library.
GALLESE — Altemps Archives.
GENOA — University Library.
HOHENEMS — Archives of the
Hohenems family (Wald-
burg-Zeil).
INNSBRUCK — Vice-regal Ar
chives.
University Library.
LONDON — British Museum.
MANTUA — Episcopal Archives.
Gonzaga Archives.
MILAN — Ambrosian Library.
Trivulziana Library.
MODENA — State Archives.
MONTPELLIER — Library.
MUNICH — State Library.
NAPLES — State Archives.
- Brancacciana Library.
National Library.
- Oratorian Library.
- Library of the Societb
di storia patria.
OSSEGG — Convent Library.
PARIS — Archives of Affaires
etr anger es.
- National Archives.
— National Library.
PARMA — Palatine Library.
PISTOIA — Forteguerri Library.
PRAGUE — Nostitz Library.
ROME —
(a) Archives :
the Boncompagni.
the Colonna.
the Fabbrica di S.
Pietro.
the Spanish Embassy.
Consistorial1, of the
Vatican,
the Papal Secret
(Secret Archives of
the Vatican)
of the State.
Under Pius X. included in the Papal Secret Archives.
vii
viii ARCHIVES AND MANUSCRIPTS IN VOLS.' XV & XVI.
(b) Libraries :
Altieri.
Casanatense.
Chigi.
Corsini.
Vallicelliana.
Vatican.
Vittorio Emanuele.
SAN SEVERING (The Marches)-
Communal Library.
SIMANCAS — Archives.
STOCKHOLM — Library.
UPSALA — Library.
VENICE — State Archives.
Library of St. Mark.
VIENNA — State Archives.
Court Library.
- Liechtenstein Library.
- Rossiana Library.
VITERBO — Chapter Library.
VOLTERRA — Guarnacci Liorary.
COMPLETE TITLES OF BOOKS QUOTED IN
VOLUMES XV. AND XVI.
Albert, E. Le relazioni degli ambasciatori Veneti al durante
il secolo decimosesto. 3 series. Firenze, 1839-1855.
Alessandri, P. d'. Atti di San Carlo riguardanti la Svizzera e
suoi territorii nei process! di canonizzazione. Locarno, 1909.
Amabile, L. II. S. Officio della Inquisizione in Napoli. Vol. I.,
Citta di Castello, 1892.
Ambros, A. W. Geschichte der Musik. Vol. II., III., 3rd ed. ;
Vol.. IV., 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1881-1893.
Ancel, R. La secretairerie sous Paul IV. Paris, 1906.
Le Vatican sous Paul IV. Contribution a 1'histoire du
palais pontifical. Rev. Benedictine, Jan., 1908, pp. 48-71.
La disgrace et le proccs des Carafas d'apres des documents
inedits 1559 a 1557. Maredsous, 1909.
Nonciatures de France. Nonciatures de Paul IV. (with
the last years of Julius III. and Marcellus IL). Vol. I., Non
ciatures de Sebastiano Gualterio et de Cesare Brancatio
(Mai 1554-Juillet 1557), ire et 2ine partie ; Paris, 1909,
1911.
Anquetil. L'esprit de la Ligue ou histoire politique des troubles
de France pendant le XVI. e et XVII.e siecle. Nouv. edit.,
Vol. I. Paris, 1818.
Archivio della Societa Romano, di storia patria. Vols. I. et seqq.
Roma, 1878 seqq.
Archivio storico dell'Arte, publ. par Gnoli. Vols. I. et seqq. Roma,
1888 seqq.
Archivio storico Italiano. 5 series. Firenze, 1842 seqq.
Archivio storico Lombardo. Vols. I. et seqq. Milano, 1874 seqq
Archivio storico per le provincie Napolitane. Vols. I. ct seqq.
Napoli, 1876 seqq.
Aretin, C. M., Freiherr V. Bayerns auswartige Verhaltnisse seit
dem Anfang des 16 Jahrhunderts. Vol. I. Passau, 1839.
Armand, A. Les Medailleurs Italiens des XV.e et XVI.e siecles.
Vols. IL, III. Paris, 1883, 1887.
Armellini, M. Le chiese di Roma dalle loro origini sino al secolo
XVI. Roma, 1887.
Arte, L'. Continuation of the Archivio storico dell 'Arte. Roma,
1898 seqq.
A strain, A., S.J. Historia de la Compania de Jesus en la Asistencia
de Espana. Vols. L, II. Madrid, 1902, 1905.
Atti e Memorie della r. deputaz. di storia patria per la prov.
dell' Emilia. Prima serie 1-8 ; Nuova Serie, i seqq. Modena,
1863 seqq.
ix
X COMPLETE TITLES OF BOOKS
Aumale, Due d'. Histoire des Princes de Conde. 8 vols. Paris,
1869-1895.
Baguenault de Puchesse, G. Jean de Morvillier, eveque d'Orleans.
Paris, 1870.
Balan, P. Storia d'ltalia. 6 vols. Modena, 1882.
Baluze, S. Miscellanea ; ed. Mansi. 4 vols. Lucca, 1761.
Baraccomi, G. J. Rioni di Roma. Terza ristampa. Torino-
Roma, 1905.
Bartoli, A. Cento Vedute di Roma antica. Firenze, 1911.
Bartoli, D. Dell' Istoria della Compagnia di Gesu. L' Italia,
prima parte dell'Europa. Libro primo e secondo (Opere,
Vol. 5). Torino, 1825.
Bascapb .(Carolus a Basilicapetri). De vita et rebus gestis Caroli
S.R.E. Cardinalis tituli S. Praxedis archiepiscopi Mediolan-
ensis libri septem. Brixiae, 1602. (Used for the version
given in the Acta ecclesice Mediolan. 3 vols., Brixiae, 1603).
Baschet, A . La Diplomatic Venetienne. Les princes de 1'Europe
au XVI.e siecle . . . d'apres les rapports des ambassadeurs
Venetiens. Paris, 1862.
Baum, A. Theodor Beza. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1843, 1851.
Bdumer, S. Geschichte des Breviers. Freiburg, 1895.
Baumgartner, A. Geschichte der Weltliteratur. Vol. VI. : Die
italienische Literatur. Frieburg, 1911.
Bdumker, W. Palestrina. Freiburg, 1877 (a contribution to the
history of the reform of Church music in Italy in the i6th
century).
Beccadelli, L. Monumenti di varia letteratura, tratti dai Mano-
scritti di Msgr. L. B., ed. Morandi. Bologna, 1797-1804.
Beccari, C., S.J, Rerum Aethiopicarum Scriptores occidentales
inediti saeculo XVI. ad XIX. Vols. V. and X. Romae,
1907, 1910.
Bietrdge zur Geschichte Herzog Albrechts V. und der sog. Adels-
verschworung von 1563. By Walter Goetz and Leonhard
Theobald. (Brief e und Akten zur Geschichte des 16 Jahr-
hunderts mit besonderer Riicksicht auf Bayerns Fiirstenhaus.
Vol. VI.). Leipzig, 1913.
Bekker, Ernst. Maria Stuart, Darnley, Bothwell. (Giessener
Studien aus dem Gebiet der Geschichte, Vol. L). Giessen,
1881.
- Elisabeth und Leicester, 1560-1562. Giessen, 1890.
Bellesheim, A. Geschichte der katolischen Kirche in Schottland
von der Einfiihrung des Christentums bis auf die Gegenwart.
Vol. II., 1560-1878. Mainz, 1883.
- Wilhelm Kardinal Allen (1532-1594) und die englischen
Seminare auf dem Festlande. Mainz, 1885.
Geschichte der katolischen Kirche in Irland. Vol. II.,
1509-1690. Mainz, 1890.
Benigni, U. Die Getreidpolitik der Papste. Ed. G. Ruhland.
Berlin, 1898.
Benrath, K. Die Reformation in Venedig. Halle, 1887.
Berliner, A. Geschichte der Juden in Rom von den altesten
zeiten bis zur Gegenwart. 2 vols. Frankfurt a. M., 1893.
QUOTED IN VOLS. XV. AND XVI. xi
Bertolotti, A. Artisti Lombard! a Roma nei secoli XV., XVI. e
XVII. Studi e ricerche negli archivi Roman! . 2 vols.
Milano, 1881.
- Artisti Bolognesi, Ferraresi ed alcuni altri in Roma.
Bologna, 1885.
- Artisti subalpini in Roma. Mantova, 1885.
- Martiri del libero pensiero e vittime della santa Inquisi-
zione nei secoli XVI., XVII., e XVIII. Roma, 1891.
Biaudet, H. Les nonciatures apostoliques permanentes jusqu'en
1648 (Annales Academiae scientiarum FennicaR. Series B.,
Vol. II., i). Helsinki, 1910.
Bicci, Marco Ubaldo, Notizia della famiglia Boccapaduli patrizia
Romana. Roma, 1762.
Bobadilla, Nic. Alph. de, Gesta et scripta (Monum. hist. Soc. Jesu).
Matriti, 1913.
Boero, G. Vita del P. G. Lainez. Firenze, 1880.
Bonanni, Ph. Numismata Pontificum Romanorum. Vol. II.
Roma, 1699.
Bondonus, Lud., de Branchis Firmanus. Diaria Caerimonialia :
Merkle, Cone. Trid. II., Frib. Brisg., 1911, pp. 518—571.
Borgatti, M. Castel di S. Angelo in Roma. Roma, 1890.
Borgia, Sanctus Franciscus, quartus Gandiae dux et Societatis
Jesu praepositus generalis tertius (Monum. hist. Soc. Jesu).
Vols. IV., V. (1565-1572). Matriti, 1910, 1911.
Brosch, M. Geschichte des Kirchenstaates. Vol. I., Gotha,
1880.
- Geschichte Englands. Vol. VI., Gotha, 1890.
Brown, Rawdon, Calendar of State Papers relating to English
affairs (Venice and North Italy). Vols. VI., VII. London,
1873-1890.
Bucholtz, F. B. Geschichte der Regierung Ferdinands I. 9 vols.
Vienna, 1831-1838.
Bullarium Diplomatum et Privilegiorum Summorum Rcmanorum
Pontificum. Taurinensis editio. Vol. VI. Aug. Taurin.,
1860 ; Vol. VII. Neapoli, 1882.
Burckhardt, J. Geschichte der Renaissance in Italien. 5th Ed.,
Esslinger, 1912.
Die Kultur der Renaissance in Italien. 2 vols., loth Ed.
by L. Geiger. Leipzig, 1908.
Burnet, G. The History of the Reformation. 7 vols. London,
1865.
Buschbell, G. Reformation und Inquisition in Italien um die
Mitte des 16 Jahrhunderts. Paderborn, 1910.
Calenzio, G. Document! inediti e nuovi lavori letterarii sul
Concilio di Trento. Roma, 1874.
Cambridge Modern History. Vol. III. The Wars of Religion.
Cambridge, 1904.
Cancellieri, F. Storia dei solenni Possessi dei Sommi Pontefici.
Roma, 1802.
Canisii, Beati Petri, Epistulae et Acta. Collegit, etc. O. Brauns-
berger, S.J. Vols. I.-V. Frib. Brisg., 1896-1910.
Cantti, G. Gli Eretici d'ltalia. 3 vols. Torino, 1864-1866.
Xll COMPLETE TITLES OF BOOKS
Carcereri, L. Giovanni Grimani Patriarca d'Aquileia imputato
di eresia e assolto dal Concilio di Trento. Roma, 1907.
Cardella, L. Memorie storiche de 'cardinal! della S. Romana
chiesa. Vol. V. Roma, 1793.
Caro, A. Lettere colla vita dell' autore scritta da A. F. Seghezzi.
3 vols. Milano, 1807.
Caruso, Giambatt. Discorso istorico-apologetico della Monarchia
di Sicilia pp. G. M. Mira. Palermo, 1863.
Cecchetti, B. La repubblica di Venezia e la corte di Roma nei
rapporti della religione. 2 vols. Venezia, 1874.
Charriere, E. Negotiations de la France dans le Levant. (Collect.
des docum. ine"d. pour 1'hist. de France, Vols. L, II.). Paris,
1848.
Chattard, G. P. Nuova descrizione del Vaticano. Vols. I.-III.
Roma, 1762-1767.
Ciaconius, Alph. Vita et res gestae Pont. Romanorum et S. R. E.
Cardinalium . . . ab A. Oldoino (S.J.) recognita. Vol. III.
Romae, 1677.
Cibrario, L. Lettere di Santi, Papi, Principi, etc. Torino, 1861.
dementi, F. II Carnevale Romano nelle cronache contemporanee.
Roma, 1899.
Condavi de' Pontefici Romani. s.l., 1667.
Condivi, A. Das Leben des Michelangelo Buonarroti. Vienna,
1874.
Constant, G. Rapport sur une mission scientifique aux archives
d'Autriche et d'Espagne. (Nouv. Arch, des Missions scientif.
et litter. Vol. XVIII.). Paris, 1910.
Contarini, N. Antichita di Roma. Venezia, 1569.
Coppi, A. Discorso sopra le finanze di Roma nei secoli di mezzo.
Roma, 1847.
Corpo diplomatico Portuguez . . . desde o seculo XVI., pp. L. A.
Rebello da Silva, Vols. VIII., IX. Lisbon, 1886 seq.
Correspondance de Babou de la Bourdaisiere, eveque d'Angouleme.
Reims, 1859.
Correspondance du cardinal Granvelle ; publ. p. Poullet et Plot.
12 vols. Bruxelles, 1878-1896.
Correspondencia de Felipe II. con sus embaj adores en la Corte de
Inglaterra 1558 a 1584. Vols. IV., V. (Coleccion de docu-
mentos ineditos para la historia de Espafia, Vols. 91, 92).
Madrid, 1888.
Correspondencia diplomatica entre Espafia y la Santa Sede
durante el pontiricado de s. Pio V. por D. L. Serrano. 3 vols.
Roma, 1914.
Cramer, L. La Seigneurie de Geneve et la maison de Savoie de
1559 a 1603. 2 vols. Geneve, 1912.
Cupis, C. de. Le vicende dell'agricoltura e della pastorizia nell'-
agro Romano e 1'Annona di Roma. Roma, 1911.
Cyprianus, E. Tabularium ecclesiae Romanae saeculi decimi sexti,
in quo monumenta restituti calicis Eucharistici totiusque
concilii Tridentini historiam mirifice illustrantia continentur.
Francofurti et Lipsiae, 1743.
Daelli, G. Carte Michelangiolesche inedite. Milano, 1885.
QUOTED IN VOLS. XV. AND XVI. xiii
Degert, A. Proces de hint eveques fran^ais suspects de Calvin-
isme : Rev. des quest, hist., Vol. 76, Paris, 1904, pp. 61-108.
Dejob. L'influence du Concile de Trente sur la litterature et les
beaux-arts. Paris, 1884.
Dembinski, B. Wybor Piusa IV. Abhandlungen der Krakauer
Akademie, Vol. XX., Krakau, 1887, pp. 190-304.
- Rzym i Europa przed rozpoczciem trzeciego okresu
soboru trydenckiego. Krakow, 1891.
Dengel, J. Geschichte des Palazzo di S. Marco. Leipzig, 1909.
Desjardins, A. Negociations diplomatiques de la France avec la
Toscane. Doc. recueillis par G. Canestrini. Vols. I. seqq.
Paris, 1859 seqq.
r, J. Geschi
Vol. III., 1516-1648. Gotha, 1907.
Dierauer, J. Geschichte der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft.
Dispacci di Germania : Ed. by the Histor. Kommission der
Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vols. I. -1 1 1.,
ed. by Turba. Vienna, 1889-1895.
Dollinger, J. J. Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte. 2 vols
Regensburg, 1843.
— Kirche und Kirchen. Miinchen, 1861.
— Beitrage zur politischen, kirchlichen, und Kulturgeschichte
der sechs letzten Jahrhunderte. Vols. II., III. Regensburg,
1863-1882.
Ungedruckte Berichte und Tagebiicher zur Geshichte des
Konzils von Trient. 2 vols. Nordlingen, 1876.
Duhr, B., S.J. Jesuitenfabeln. Freiburg, 1904.
- Geschichte der Jesuiten in den Landern deutscher Zunge
im 16 Jahrh. Vol. I. Freiburg, 1907.
Duruy, G. Le Cardinal Carlo Carafa (1519-1561). Paris, 1882.
Eder, G. Die Reform vorschlage Kaiser Ferdinands I. auf dem
Konzil von Trient. Miinster, 1911.
Egger, H. Romische Veduten. Vienna and Leipzig, 1911.
Ehrenberg, H. Urkunden und Aktenstiicke zur Geschichte der
in der heutigen Provinz Posen vereinigten ehemals polnischen
Landesteile. Leipzig, 1892.
Ehrle, F., S.J. Roma prima di Sisto V. La pianta di Roma Du
Perac-Lafrery del, 1577. Roma, 1908.
Ehses, S. Concilium Tridentinum. Vols. IV., V., VIII. Frib.
Brisg. 1904-1919.
Die letzte Berufung des Trienter Konzils durch Pius IV.,
29 November, 1560. Kempten, 1913.
Der Schlussakt des Konzils von Trient. Koln, 1914.
Ein papstlicher Nuntius am Rhein vor 350 Jahren :
Vortrage und Abhandlungen der Gorres-Gesellschaft zur
Pflege der Wissenschaft im Kathol. Deutschland. Koln,
1917, pp. 39—44.
Eichhorn, A . Der ermlandische Bischof und Kardinal Stanislaus
Hosius. 2 vols. Mainz, 1854-1855.
Eisler, Alex. Das Veto der katholischen Staaten bei der Papst-
wahl. Vienna, 1907.
Elkan, A. Ph'lipp Marnix von St. Adelgonde. Leipzig, 1910-
1911.
XIV COMPLETE TITLES OF BOOKS
Epistolce PP. Paschasii Broeti, Claudii Jaji, Joannis Codurii et
Simonis Rodericii Soc. Jesu. Matriti, 1903.
Epistolce P. Alphonsi Salmeronis Soc. Jesu, nunc primum editae.
Vols. I., II. (1536-1585)- Matriti, 1906-1907.
Escher, Konrad, Barock und Klassizismus. Leipzig [1910].
Fantuzzi, Giov. Notizie degli Scrittori Bolognesi. 9 vols.
Bologna, 1781-1794.
Flamini, F. II Cinquecento (Storia lett. d'ltalia). Milano
[1903]-
Fleming, David Hay. Mary Queen of Scots from her Birth to
her Flight into England. London, 1897.
Fontana, B. Renata di Francia, duchessa di Ferrara. 3 vols.
Roma, 1889-1894.
Forbes-Leith, W., SJ. Narratives of Scottish Catholics under
Mary Stuart and James VI. Edinburgh, 1885.
Forcella, V. Iscrizioni delle chiese e d'altri edifici di Roma dal
secolo XI. fino ai giorni nostri. 14 vols. Roma, 1869-1885.
Forneron, H. Histoire de Philippe II. Vol. I. Paris, 1881.
Fouqueray, H. Histoire de la Compagnie de Jesus en France.
Vol. I. (1528-1575). Paris, 1910.
Frere, W. H. The English Church in the Reigns of Elizabeth
and James I. London, 1904.
Friedberg, E. Die Grenzen zwischen Staat und Kirche und die
Garantien gegen deren Verletzung. Tubingen, 1872
Friedldnder, W. Das Casino Pius IV. Leipzig, 1912.
Gachard, L. P. Correspondance de Philippe II. sur les affaires
des Pays-Bas. Vol. I. Bruxelles, 1848.
- Correspondance de Marguerite d'Autriche, duchesse de
Parme, avec Philippe II. Vol. I. Bruxelles, 1867.
Gams, P. B. Die Kirchengeschichte von Spanien. 3 vols., 2nd
ed. Regensburg, 1879.
Gamucci, B., di S. Gimignano. Le antichita della citta di Roma.
2 ediz. corr. da T. Porcacchi. Venetia, 1569.
Garampi.G. Saggi di osservazioni sul valore delle antiche monete
pontificie. Con appendice di documenti. S.l.et a. [Roma,
1766].
Gatticus, J. B. Acta caeremonialia S. Romanae Ecclesiae ex MSS.
codicibus. Vol. I. Romae, 1753.
Gaudentius, P. Beitrage zur Kirchengeschichte des 16 und 17
Jahrh. Bedeutung und Verdienste des Franziskaner-Ordens
im Kampfe gegen den Protestantismus. Vol. I. Bozen,
1880.
Gaye, E. G. Carteggio inedito d'artisti dei secoli XV., XVI. e
XVII. 3 vols. Firenze, 1840.
Geymuller, H. von. Michelangelo Buonarroti als Architekt.
Miinchen, 1904.
Giannone, P. Istoria civile del regno di Napoli. Ediz. accresciuta
di note critiche, etc. Vol. IV. Venezia, 1766.
Giornale Storico della letteratura Italiana. Vols. I. seqq. Roma-
Torino-Firenze, 1883 seqq.
Giuliani. Trento al tempo del Concilio. Trento, 1888,
QUOTED IN VOLS. XV. AND XVI. XV
Giussano, G. P. Vita di S. Carlo Borromeo. Roma, 1610.
Goiter, Emil. Die papstliche Ponitentiarie von ihrem Ursprung
bis zu ihrer Umgestaltung unter Pius V. 2 vols. Rome,
1907, 1911.
Gori, F. Archivio storico, artistico, archeologico e letterario della
citta e provincia di Roma. Vols. I. -IV. Roma e Spoleto,
1875-1883.
Gothein, E. Ignatius von Loyola und die Gegenreformation.
Halle, 1895.
Gothein, M. Geschichte der Gartenkunst. Vol. I. Jena, 1914.
Gotti, A. Vita di Michelangelo Buonarotti narrata con 1'aiuto
di nuovi documenti. 2 vols. Firenze, 1875.
Gotz, W. Briefe und Akten zur Geschichte des 16 Jahrhunderts.
Vol. V., Beitrage zur Geschichte Herzogs Albrechts V. und des
Landsberger Bundes, 1556-1598. Miinchen, 1898.
Grimm, H Leben Michelangelos. 2 vols. 5th ed. Berlin,
1879.
Grisar, H. Die Frage des papstlichen Primates und des Ursprungs
der bischoflichen Gewalt auf dem Tridentinum : Zeitschrift
fur kathol. Theologie, 1884, Innsbruck, pp. 453 seq., 727 seq.
Jacobi Lainez disputationes Tridentinae. 2 vols. Oeni-
ponte, 1884.
Guettee. Histoire de 1'Eglise de France. Vol. VIII. Paris, 1853.
Guglielmotti, Alb. La guerra dei pirati dal 1500 al 1560. 2 vols.
Firenze, 1876.
- Storia delle fortificazioni nella spiaggia Romana. Roma,
1880.
Guhl, E. Kiinstlerbriefe. Vol. I. Berlin, 1880.
Guidus, Ant. De obitu Pauli IV. et conclavi cum electione Pii
IV. : Merkle, Cone. Trid. II., Frib. Brisg., 1911, pp. 605-632.
Guillemin, J. J. Le cardinal [Charles] de Lorraine, son influence
politique et religieuse au i6e siecle. [Reims], 1847.
Gulik-Eubel. Hierarchia Catholica medii sevi. Vol. III. Mon-
asterii, 1910.
Hammer, J. von. Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches. . . Vol.
III. Pest, 1828.
Hansen, J. Rheinische Akten zur Geschichte des Jesuitenordens,
1542-1582. Bonn, 1896.
Hauser, H. Les sources de 1'histoire de France. Vol. II., Paris,
1909.
Heidenhain, A . Die Unionspolitik Landgraf Philipps von Hessen
I557~I562. Halle, 1890.
Helle, Ph. Die Conferenzen Morones mit Kaiser Ferdinand I.
(Mai, 1563) und ihre Einwirkung auf den Gang des Trienter
Konzils. Bonn, 1911.
Henner, K. Beitrage zur Organisation und Kompetenz der
papstlichen Ketzergerichte. Leipzig, 1890.
Henry, P. Das Leben Johann Calvins. 3 vols. Hamburg,
1835-1844.
Hergenrother, J. Katholische Kirche und christlicher Staat.
Freiburg, 1872.
Herre, P. Papsttum und Papstwahl in Zeitalter Philipps II.
Leipzig, 1907.
XVI COMPLETE TITLES OF BOOKS
Hilgers, J., S.J. Der Index der verbotenen Biicher. Freiburg,
1904.
Hilliger, B. Die wahl Pius' V. zum Papste. Leipzig, 1891.
Katharina von Medici und die Zusammenkunst zu Bayonne
(1565) : Historisches Taschenbuch, 6th series, Vol. XI.
Leipzig, 1892, pp. 239-317-
Hinojosa, R. de. Felipe II. y el conclave de 1559. Madrid, 1889.
Los despachos de la diplomacia pontificia en Espana.
Vol. I. Madrid, 1896.
Hinschius, P. System des katholischen Kirchenrechts. Berlin,
1869.
Him, J. Erzherzog Ferdinand II. von Tirol. Geschichte seiner
Regierung und seiner Lander. Vols. I., II. Innsbruck,
1885, 1887.
Historisch-politische Blatter fur das katholische Deutschland. Vols.
1-164. Miinchen, 1838-1919.
Historisches Jahrbuch der Gorres-Gesellschaft. Vols. 1-39. Miin-
ster und Miinchen, 1880-1919.
Holtzmann, R. Kaiser Maximilian II. bis zu seiner Thronbes-
teigung. Berlin, 1903.
Hosack, John. Mary Queen of Scots and her Accusers [1542-
1570]. Edinburgh, 1869.
Huber, A. Geschichte Oesterreichs. Vol. IV. Gotha, 1892.
Hubert, F. Vergerios publizistische Tatigkeit. Gottingen, 1893.
Hubner, A. von. Papst Sixtus der Fiinfte. 2 vols. Leipzig,
1871.
Hume, M.A.S. Calendar of Letters, Despatches and State
Papers . . . England and Spain. Vol. I. (i 55^-1567) .
London, 1892.
Janssen, J. Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang
des Mittelalters. Vols. I.-III., igth and 2oth ed. Freiburg,
Jorga, N. Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches. Vol. III.
Gotha, 1910.
Karttunen, L. Antonio Possevino. Lausanne, 1908.
Kassowitz, J. B. Die Reformvorschlage Kaiser Ferdinands I.
auf dem Konzil von Trient. Vienna, 1906.
Katholik, Der. Zeitschrift fur kathol. Wissenschaft und Kirch-
liches Leben. Vols. I. seqq. Strassburg and Mainz, 1820-
1919-
Kervyn de Lettenhove. Relations politiques des Pays-Bas et de
1'Angleterre. Vols. II.-IV. (1559-1567). Bruxelles, 1883-
1885.
Kirchenlexikon oder Enzyklopadie der kathol. Theologie und ihrer
Hilfswissenschaften. By H, J. Wetzer and B. Welte. 2nd
ed. 12 vols. Freiburg, 1882-1901.
Kluckhohn, A. Briefe Friedrichs des Frommen, Kurfiirsten von
der Pfalz (1559-1576). 2 vols. Braunschweig, 1868-1872.
Knopfler, A. Die Kelchbewegung in Bayern unter Herzog
Albrecht V. Miinchen, 1891.
QUOTED IN VOLS. XV. AND XVI. Xvii
Korzeniowski, J. Excerpta ex libris manuscriptis Archivii Con
sist. Roman! MCCCCIX-MDXC . . . collecta. Cracovise,
1890.
Kraus, F. X. Geschichte der christlichen Kunst. 2 vols. 2nd
ed. by /. Sauer. Freiburg, 1908.
Kretzschmar , Joh. Die Invasionsprojekte der katholischen
Machte gegen England zur zeit Elisabeths. Leipzig, 1892.
Kross, J. Kaiser Ferdinand I. und seine Reformationsvorschlage
auf dem Konzil von Trient : Zeitschrift fur kathol. Theologie,
1903, Innsbruck, pp. 455 seqq., 621 seqq.
Krutli, J. K. Die Eidgenossischen Abschiede, aus dem Zeitraume
von 1556 bis 1586. Der amtlichen Abschiedesammlung,
Vol. IV., part 2. Bern, 1861.
Labanoff, Prince Alex. Lettres, Instructions et Memoires de
Marie Stuart. Vols. I. -VII. London, 1844 seqq.
Lacomblet, Th. J. Urkundenbuch fur die Geschichte des Niederr-
heins. Vol. IV. Diisseldorf, 1858.
Laderchi, J. Annales Ecclesiastici. Vols. 35-37. Bari Ducis,
1881-1883.
Lagomarsini, see Pogiani.
Laemmer, H. Zur Kirchengeschichte des 16 und 17 Jahrhunderts.
Freiburg, 1863.
Meletematum Romanorum mantissa. Ratisbonae, 1875,
Lanciani, R. Storia degli scavi di Roma. Vols. I .-IV. Roma,
1902-1910.
The golden Days of the Renaissance in Rome. London,
1907.
Lauchert, F. Die italienischen literarischen Gegner Luthers.
Freiburg, 1912.
Laugwitz, Bartholomaus Carranza, erzbischof von Toledo. Kemp-
ton, 1870.
Lavisse, E. Histoire de France. Tome VI. Paris, 1904.
Le Bret, J. F. Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig. Riga,
I775-
Legazioni di A. Serristori, ambasciatore di Cosimo I. a Carlo V. e
in corte di Roma con note di G. Canestrini. Firenze, 1853.
Le Plat, J. Monument, ad hist. Concilii Tridentini. 7 vols.
Lovanii, 1781-1787.
Letarouilly , P. Le Vatican et la basilique de St. Pierre de Rome.
Paris, 1878-1882.
Lettere de'principi. 3 vols., 3rd ed. Venezia, 1570-1577.
Lettres de Catherine de Medicis, publ. par La Fernere et Baguenault
de Puchesse. Vol. IV. Paris, 1891.
Leva, G. de. Giovanni Grimani Patriarca d'Aquileja (Atti del R.
Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti : 5th Series, Vol.
7). Venezia, 1881.
Lingard, John. A History of England. Vols. VII., VIII. Lon
don, 1838.
Literarische Rundschau . . . Aachen-Freiburg, 1875 seqq.
Litta, P. Famiglie celebri Italiane. Disp. 1-183. Milano e
Torino, 1819-1881.
Lessen, see Masius.
VOL. XV. b
Xviii COMPLETE TITLES OF BOOKS
Lowe. Die Stellung des Kaisers Ferdinand I. zum Trienter Konzil
vom Oktober 1561 bis Mai 1562. Bonn, 1887.
Mackowsky, H. Michelanjolo. Berlin, 1908.
Maffei. Vita di S. Pio V. Roma, 1712.
Manareus, O., S.J. De rebus Societatis Jesu commentarius.
Florentiae, 1886 (privately printed).
Manfroni, C. Storia della Marina Italiana dalla caduta di Con
stantinopoli alia battaglia di Lepanto. Roma, 1897.
Manutius, P. Epistolae. Venetiis, 1573.
Marcks, E. Die Zusammenkunst von Bayonne. Das franzo-
siche Staatsleben und Spanien in den Jahren, 1563-1567.
Strassburg, 1889.
- Gaspard von Coligny. Vol. I. Stuttgart, 1892.
Marini, G. Degli archiatri pontifici. Vols. I., II. Roma, 1748.
Martene et Durand. Veterum scriptorum . . . collectio. 9 vols.
Paris, 1724 seqq.
Masius, Andreas. Brief e des A. M. und seiner Freunde (1538-
1573), ed. by Lossen. Leipzig, 1886.
Massarelli, A. Diarium septimum, ed. Merkle, Concil. trid. II.
Frib. Brisg., 1911, pp. 245-363.
M aurenbrecher , W. Archivalische Beitrage zur Geschichte des
Jahres 1563. Leipzig, 1889.
Mayer, J. G. Das Konzil von Trient und die Gegenreformation
in der Schweiz. 2 vols. Stans, 1901, 1903.
Mazzuchelli, G. M. Gli scrittori d' Italia. 2 vols. Brescia, 1753
seq.
Meaux, de. Les Luttes religieuses en France au XVI.e siecle.
Paris, 1879.
Meister, A . Die Geheimschrift im Dienste der papstlichen Kurie
von ihren Anfangen bis zum Ende des 16 Jahrh. (Quellen
und Forschungen aus dem Gebiete der Geschichte, Vol.
XL). Paderborn, 1906.
Melanges d'archeologie et d'histoire (Ecole fra^aise de Rome).
Vols. I. seqq., Paris, 1881 seqq.
Mendofa, Pedro Gonzalez de. Lo sucedido en el concilio de Trento :
ed. Merkle, Cone. Trid. II. Frib. Brisg, 1911, pp. 633-721.
Mergentheim, Leo. Die Quinquennalfakultaten " pro foro ex-
terno." 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1908.
Merki, Ch. L'amiral de Coligny : La maison de Chatillon et
la revolte protestante, 1519-1572. Paris, 1909.
Merkle, S. Concilii Tridentini Diariorum, Pars I. et II. Frib.
Brisg., 1901, 1911.
Merlet, L. Le Cardinal de Chatillon. Paris, 1884.
Meyer, A. O. England und die katholische Kirche unter Elisa
beth Rome, 1911. [English transl. by J. R. McKee (cong.
orat.)].
Mignet. Histoire de Marie Stuart. Vols. I.., II. Paris, 1851.
Mitteilimgen des Instituts fur osterreichische Geschichtsforschung.
Vols. L, seqq. Innsbruck, 1880 seqq.
Mocenigo, Luigi. Relazione di Roma, 1560 : in Alberi, Vol. IV.,
Firenze, 1857.
Monumenta Ignatiana, Series I., Sancti Ignatii de Loyola Epistolae
QUOTED IN VOLS. XV. AND XVI.
et Instructiones, 12 vols., Matriti, 1903-1911 : Series IV.,
Scripta de Sancto Ignatio, Vol. I., Matriti, 1904.
Moran, Francis. Spicilegium Ossoriense. Vol. I., Dublin, 1874.
Moroni, G. Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastico. 109
vols. Venezia, 1840-1879.
Muller, Th. Das Konklave Pius' IV., 1559. Gotha, 1889.
Muntz, E. Histoire de 1'art pendant la Renaissance : Italic.
3 vols., Paris, 1889-1895.
Musotti, F. Sommario del Concilio Tridentino (in Ddllinger,
Berichte und Tagebiicher II., Nordlingen, 1876, pp. 1-50).
Nadal,H.,S.J. Epistolaeab anno 1546 ad 1577. 4 vols. Matriti,
1898-1905.
Narducci, H. Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum in Bibliolhcca
Angelica. Romae, 1893.
Neher, S. J. Kirchliche Geographic und Statistik. 2 vols.
Regensburg, 1864.
Nolhac, P. de. La Bibliotheque de F. Orsini. Paris, 1887.
Novaes, G. de. Storia de'pontefici. Vol. VII. Roma, 1822.
Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland. Ed. by W. Friedensburg.
Vols. I.-VI. and VIII -X. Gotha, 1892-1908.
Opitz, Th. Maria Stuart. 2 vols. Freiburg, 1879.
Orano, D. Liberi pensatori bruciati in Roma dal XVI. al XVIII.
secolo. Roma, 1904.
Pagliucchi, P. I. Castellani del Castel S. Angelo di Roma. Vol.
I., pars 2, I Castellani Vescovi (1464-1566). Rcma, 1909.
Palandri, E. P. Les Negociations politiques et religieuses entie
la Toscane et la France (1544-1580). Paris, 1908.
Pallavicini, Sf. Istoria del Concilio di Trento. 3 vols. Rcma,
1664.
Panvinius, O. De creatione Pii IV. papae : in Merkle, Cone. Trid.
II., Frib. Brisg., 1911, pp. 575-601.
Paris, L. Negociations, lettres et pieces diverses relatives au
regne de Francois II. Paris, 1841.
Pastor, L. von. Allgemeine Dekrete der Romischen Inquisition
aus den Jahren 1555 bis 1597. Freiburg, 1912.
Paulus, N. Hexenwahn und Hexenprozess vornehmlich im 16
Jahrh. Freiburg, 1910.
Petramellarius, J. A. Ad librum O. Panvinii de summis pontif.
et S.R.E. cardinalibus a Paulo IV. ad dementis VIII.
annum pontificatus octavum continuatio. Bononiae, 1599.
Petrucelli delta Galtina, F. Histoire diplomatique dcs Conclaves.
Vol. II., Paris, 1864.
Philippson, M. Philipp II. von Spanien und das Parsttum :
Hist. Zeitschrift, 1878, Miinchen, pp. 269-315, 419-457.
- Westeuropa in Zeitalter Philipps II., Elisabeths und
Heinrichs IV. Berlin, 1882.
Histoire du regne de Marie Stuart. 2 vols. Paris, 1891.
Phillips, Geo. Kirchenrecht. Vols. I.-VIL, Regensburg, 1845-
1872 ; Vol. VIII., part i by F. H. Venng, 1889.
Picot. Essai historique sur 1'intiuence de la religion en France
pendant le XVll.f siecle. Vol. I,, Louvain, 1824.
XX COMPLETE TITLES OF BOOKS
Pierling, P. La Russie et le Saint-Siege. Vol. I., Paris, 1896.
Pio IV. e Felipe II., 1563-1564 (Coleccion de libros espanoles
raros y curiosos ; Vol. XX.), Madrid, 1891.
Piot, see : Correspondance du card. Granvelle.
Pirenne.H. Geschichte Belgiens. Vol. III. (1477-1567) ; Gotha,
1907.
Planck, G. J. Anecdota ad historiam concilii Tridentini per-
tinentia. Gottingae, 1791-1818.
Platzhoff, W. Die Theorie von der Mordbefugnis der Obrigkeit
im 1 6 Jahrh. (Historische Studien, No. 54), Berlin, 1906.
Plan. Leone Leoni. Paris, 1886.
Pogiani, Julii. Sunensis epistolae et orationes olim collectae
ab Ant. M. Gratiano, nunc ab Hier. Lagomarsinio e Soc.
Jesu adnotationibus illustratae ac primum editae. Vols.
I. -IV., Romae, 1762-1768.
Polenz, G. v. Geschichte des franzosischen Calvinismus., Vols.
II., III., Gotha, 1859.
Pollen, J. H., S.J. Papal negotiations with Mary Queen of
Scots, 1561-1567. (Scottish Hist. Society, Vol. 37), Edin
burgh, 1901.
Portioli, Attilio. Lettere inedite di Bernardo Tasso. Mantova,
1871.
Poullet, see : Correspondance du card. Granvelle.
Prat, J. M. Maldonat et 1'universite de Paris au XVI.e siecle.
Paris, 1856.
Prescott, W. H. History of the reign of Philip II. 3 vols.,
Leipzig, 1856-1859.
PsalmcBus, Nicol. Fragmenta de Concilio Tridentino : ed.
Merkle, cone. Trid. II. Frib. Brisg., 1911, pp. 721-881.
Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Bibliotheken und
Archiven. Vols. I. seqq. Rome, 1898 seqq.
Ranke, L. von. Franzosische Geschichte. 2nd ed. Stuttgart,
1856.
- Englische Geschichte. Vol. I. Berlin, 1859.
Die romischen Papste in den laetzten vier Jahrhunderten.
Vols. L, III., 8th ed. Leipzig, 1885.
Raynaldus, O. Annales ecclesiastici, vols. XIV., XV. Lucae,
1755-1756.
Real-Enzyklopddie fiir protest, Theologie und Kirche : Ed. by
J. J. Herzog. 23 vols., 3rd ed. by A. Hauck. Leipzig,
1896-1909.
Reimann, E. Unterhandlungen Ferdinands I. und Pius IV.
iiber das Konzil im Jahre 1560 und 1561 : Forschungen zur
deutschen Geschichte, vol. VI. Gottingen, 1866, pp. 585-626-
- Die Sendung des Nuntius Commendone nach Deutsch-
land im Jahre, 1561 : Forschungen zur deutschen Geschichte,
vol. VII. Gottingen, 1867, pp. 228-280.
Reinhardt-Steffens, Die Nuntiatur von Giov. Bonhomini, 1579-
1581. Introduction: Studien zur Geschichte der katholischen
Schweiz im Zeitalter Carlo Borromeos. Solothurn, 1910.—
Documents, vol. I. : Aktenstiicke zur Vorgeschichte der
QUOTED IN VOLS. XV. AND XVI. xxi
Nuntiatur, 1570-1579 ; die Nuntiaturberichte Bonhominis
und seine Korrespondenz mit Carlo Borromeo aus dem
Jahre, 1579. Solothurn, 1906.
Relacye. Nuncyuszow Apostolskich i innych os6b o Polsce od
roku 1548 do 1690. Ed. E. Rykaczewski. Vol. I. Berlin-
Posnan, 1864.
Renazzi, F. M. Storia dell' universita degli studi di Roma, delta
la Sapienza. 2 vols. Roma, 1803-1804.
Reumont, A. von. Die Carafa von Maddaloni. Vol. I. Berlin,
1851.
Beitrage zur italienischen Geschichte. 6 vols. Berlin,
1853-1857-
- Geschichte der Stadt Rom. Vol. III. Berlin, 1870.
Geschichte Toskanas. ist. part. Gotha, 1876.
Reusch, H. Der Index der verbotenen Biicher. 2 vols. Bonn,
1883-1885.
Revue historique. Paris, 1876 seqq.
Revue des questions historiques. Paris, 1866 seqq.
Ribier, G. Lettres et Memoires d'Estat . . . sous le regnes de
Francois I., Henri II. et Fra^ois II. 2 vols. Paris, 1666.
Ricci,C. Geschichte der Kunst in Nord-Italien. Stuttgart, 1911.
Rieger-Vogelstein. Geschichte der Juden in Rom. 2 vols.
Berlin, 1895-1896.
Riess, L. Die Politik Pauls IV. und seiner Nepoten. (His-
torische Studien, 67). Berlin, 1909.
Riezler, S. Geschichte Bayerns. Vol. IV. Gotha, 1899.
Ripoll-Bremond. Bullarium ordinis Praedicatorum. Vol. V.
Romae, 1733.
Ritter, M. Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Gegen re
formation und des Dreissigjahrigen Krieges (1555-1648).
Vol. I. (1555-1586), Stuttgart, 1889.
Rocchi, E. Le piante iconografiche e prospettive 'di Roma del
secolo XVI. colla riproduzione degli studi originali autogran
di A. da Sangallo il Giovane per le fortincazioni di Roma, etc.
Torino-Roma, 1902.
Rodocanachi, E. Le Saint-Siege et les Juifs. Le Ghetto a Rome.
Paris, 1891.
Les Institutions communales de Rome sous la Papaute.
Paris, 1901.
- Le Capitole Remain antique et moderne. Paris, 1904.
— Le chateau Saint- Ange. Paris, 1909.
Rohault de Fleury. Le Latran au Moyen-age. Paris, 1877.
Romische Quartalschrift. Rome, 1887 seqq.
Rosi, M. La riforma religiosa e 1' Italia nel secolo XVI. Catania,
1892.
La riforma religiosa in Liguria e 1'eretico umbro Bartolomeo
Bartoccio. (Atti della Societa Ligure di storia patria, vol. 24) .
Genova, 1894.
Ruble, A. de. Antoine de Bourbon et Jeanne d'Albret. 4 vols.
Paris, 1897.
Saftien, K. Die Verhandlungen Kaiser Ferdinands I. mit Papst
Pius IV. iiber die fakultative Einfiihrung des Laienkelches in
einzelnen Teilen des deutschen Reiches. Gottingen, 1890.
XX11 COMPLETE TITLES OF BOOKS
Sdgmuller, J. B. Die Papstwahlbullen und das staatliche Recht
der Exklusive. Tubingen, 1892.
Sala, A. Documenti circa la vita e le gesta di S. Carlo Borromeo.
3 vols. Milano, 1857-1861.
S aimer on, see : Epistolae P. Alph. Salmeronis.
San Carlo Borromeo nel terzo centenario della canonizzatione.
Periodico mensile, Nov. 1908 al Dicembre 1910.
Santori, G. A., cardinale di S. Severino : Autobiografia, ed.
G. Cugnoni : Archivio della R. Soc. Rom. di storia patria.
Vol. XII. Roma, 1889.
Sarpi [Pietro Soave Polano], Historia del concilio Tridentino.
4 H. Ed. Geneva, 1660.
Schdfer, H. Geschichte Portugals. 5 vols. Hamburg, 1836-1854
Schelhorn, J.'G. Ergotzlichkeiten aus der Kirchenhistorie und
Literatur. 3 vols. Ulm, Leipzig, 1762-1764.
Schiemann, Th. Russland, Polen und Livland bis zum 17 Jahr-
hundert. Vol. II. Berlin, 1886.
Schmid, J. Die deutsche Kaiser und Konigswahl und die romische
Kurie in den Jahren 1538-1620 (Historisches Jahrbuch der
Gorres-Gesellschaft, vol. VI.). Miinchen, 1885.
Segesser, A. P. von. Ludwig Pfyffer und seine Zeit. 2 vols.
Bern, 1880-1881.
Sentis, F. J . Die " Monarchia Sicula." Freiburg, 1869.
Serafini, C. Le Monete e le bulle plumbee pontificie del Medag
liere Vaticano. Vol. I. Roma, 1910.
Serristori, see : Legazioni.
Sickel, Th. Zur Geschcihte des Konzils von Trient. Vienna,
1872.
— Romische Berichte I.-V. : Sitzungsberichte der Weiner
Akademie der Wissenschaften, vols. 133, 136, 141, 143, 144.
Vienna, 1893-1901.
Sismondi, S. Geschichte der italienischen Freistaaten im Mittel-
alter. 16 vols. Zurich, 1824.
Skibniewski, S. L. Corvin von. Geschichte des Romischen Kate-
chismus. Rom-Regensburg, 1903.
Soldan, M. G. Geschichte des Protestantismus in Frankreich.
Vol. I. Leipzig, 1855.
Soranzo, Giacomo. Relazione di Roma, 1565 : in Alberi, II., 4.
Firenze, 1857, PP- 129-160.
Soranzo, Girolamo. Relazione di Roma, 1563, in Alberi, II., 4.
Firenze, 1857, pp. 67-120.
Spicilegio Vaticano di documenti inediti e rari estratti dagli
archivi e dalla bibl. della Sede Apost. Vol. I. Roma, 1890.
Spillmann, J., S.J. Die englischen Marty rer unter Heinrich VIII.
und Elisabeth (1535-1583). 2nd Ed. Freiburg, 1900.
Steinherz, S. Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland (1560-1572).
Vols. L, II., IV. Vienna, 1897-1914.
Brief e des Prager Erzbischofs Anton Brus von Miiglitz,
1562-1563. Prag, 1907.
Steinmann, E. Die Portratdarstellungen des Michelangelo.
Leipzig, 1913.
Stevenson, J. Calendar of State Papers. Foreign Series. Elisa
beth, 1558-1565. Vols. I. -VII. London, 1863-1870.
Stimmen aus Maria-Laach. Freiburg, 1871 seqq.
QUOTED IN VOLS. XV. AND XVI. xxiii
Studi e documenti di storia e diritto. Pubblic. periodica dell'
Accad. di conferenze storico-giuridice. Roma, 1880 seqq.
Susta, J. Pius IV. pred pontifikaten a na pocatku pontifikatu.
Praha, 1900.
Die romische Kurie und das Konzil von Trient unter
Pius IV. 4 vols. Vienna, 1904-1914.
Swoboda, H. Das Konzil von Trient, sein Schauplatz, Verlauf und
Ertrag. Vienna, 1912.
Sylvain. Histoire de St. Charles Borromee. 3 vols. Milan, 1884.
Synopsis Actorum S. Sedis in causa Societatis Jesu, 1540-1605.
Florentiae, 1887 (for private circulation only).
Tacchi Venturi, P., S.J. Storia della Compagnia di Gesu in
Italia. Vol. I. Roma, 1909.
Taja, Agostino. Descrizione del Palazzo Apostolico Vaticano.
Roma, 1750.
Theiner, A. Schweden und seine Stellung zum Heiligen Stuhl
unter Johann III., Sigmund III. und Karl IX. 2 vols.
Augsburg, 1838.
- Vetera Monumenta Poloniae et Lithuania . Vol. II.
Romae, 1861.
- Acta genuina Concilii Tridentini. 2 vols. Agram, 1874.
Theologisches Liter aturblatt. Von Prof. F. H. Reusch. 1-12
Jahrg. Bonn, 1866-1877.
Thode, H. Michelangelo urtd das Ende der Renaissance. 5
vols. Berlin, 1902 — 1908.
Thompson, J. W. The Wars of Religion in France, I559-I576-
Chicago, 1909.
Tiepolo, Paolo. Relazione da Roma in tempo di Pio IV. e di
Pio V. : in Alberi, II., 4, Firenze, 1857, pp. 169-196.
Tiraboschi, G. Storia della letteratura Italiana. 10 vols.
Modena, 1772 seqq.
Titi, Filippo. Descrizione delle pitture, sculture e architetture
esposte al pubblico in Roma. Roma, 1763.
Tomassetti, Gius. La Campagna Romana antica, mediaevale e
moderna. Vols. I., II. Roma, 1910.
Torne, P. O. von. Ptolemee Gallic, Cardinal de C6me. Etude
sur la Cour de Rome, etc. au XVI.e siecle. Helsingfors,
1907.
Tresal, J. Les engines du schisme Anglican. Paris, 1908.
Tubingen Theologische Quartalschrift. Tubingen, 1819 seqq.
Turba, see : Dispacci di Germania.
Turgenjew, Alex. Historica Russiae Monumenta. Petropoh,
1841-1848.
Uebersberger, H. Oesterreich und Russland seit dem Ende des
15 Jahrhunderts. Vol. I., 1488-1606. Vienna, 1906.
Vaissette. Histoire de Languedoc. Vol. V. Paris, 1745.
Vasari, G. Le vite de'piu eccellenti pittori, scultori ed archi-
tettori. Ediz. di G. Milanesi. Firenze, 1878 seqq.
Venuti, R. Numismata Romanorum Pontificum a Martino V.
ad Benedictum XIV. Romae, 1744.
XXIV COMPLETE TITLES OF BOOKS
Verga, Ettore. II municipio di Milano e 1'Inquisizione di Spagna
1563. Milano, 1897.
Vertot. Histoire des chevaliers de St. Jean de Jerusalem. 5
vols. Paris, 1727.
Voss, W. Die Verhandlungen Pius' IV. mit den Katholischen
Machten iiber die Neuberufung des Tridentiner Konzils in
Jahre 1560. Leipzig, 1887.
Wahrmund, L. Das Ausschliessungsrecht (jus exclusivae) bei
den Papstwahlen. Vienna, 1889.
Wiedemann, Th. Geschichte der Reformation und Gegenre-
formation in Lande unter der Enns. 4 vols. Prag, 1879-
1884.
Wotschke. Geschichte der Reformation in Polen. Leipzig, 1911.
Wymann, E. Kardinal Karl Borromeo in seinen Beziehungen
zur alten Eidgenossenschaft. Stans, 1910.
Zakrzewski. Powstanie i wzrost reformacyi w Polsce. Lipsk,
1870.
Zaleski, K. S. Jesuici w Polsce. Vols. I., IV. Lwow, 1900-
1905-
Zeitschrift, Historische. Ed. by H. v. Sybel. Miinchen, 1859
seqq.
Zeitschrift fiir katholische Theologie. Vols. 1-44. Innsbruck,
1877-1920.
Zeitschrift fiir Kirchengeschichte. Ed. by Brieger. Gotha,
1877 se(H-
Zinkeisen, J . M. Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches in Europa.
Gotha, 1840 seqq.
TABLE OF CONTENTS OF VOLUME XV.
CHAPTER I.
THE CONCLAVE OF 1559.
A.D. PAGE
1559 Popular outburst at the death of Paul IV. . i
Reaction against the dead Pope ... 2
Cardinal Morone released from prison and reinstated 3
Hatred of the Carafa, who are deprived of the rights
of citizenship .... 4
The Cardinals take the part of the Carafa ; Carlo
Carafa recalled and reinstated . . 5
Obsequies of the late Pope 5
The Cardinals go into conclave ... 6
The number of electors present in Rome . 6
Paul TV.'s attempt to exclude Morone and Este . 7
Este's hopes of the tiara .... 8
The wishes of the French Government . . 9
The aims of Philip II. . . .10
The candidates supported by Spain . . n
The representatives of Ferdinand I. and Philip II. n
Policy of the Duke of Florence . . . 12
Peculiar party conditions in the conclave . 13
Decisive influence of the party of Carafa . 14
Personal aims of Carlo Carafa ; he is supported by
Farnese ..... 15
Unsuccessful attempt to elect Carpi by acclamation 16
The election capitulation . . . .16
The first scrutiny . . . .17
Difficulty of deciding upon a candidate . . 18
Morone offers to withdraw ... 20
The French attempt to elect Tournon . . 20
Divisions in the Spanish party . . . 22
The candidature of Gonzaga . . . 23
Arrival of the Spanish Ambassador, Francisco de
Vargas ..... 25
His feverish activity .... 26
Failure of the Franco- Spanish alliance . . 27
Selfish aims of the party leaders . . . 27
Coolness between Vargas and Sforza . . 28
Application for further instructions to Philip II. 29
Fresh attempt to elect Gonzaga ... 29
Affairs at a standstill in the conclave . . 30
Indignation in Rome ; the Conservators complain
to the Cardinals . . . .31
XXV
XXVI TABLE OF CONTENTS.
A.D. PAGE
Non-observance of the enclosure . . . 31
Philip II. is unwilling to give definite instructions 32
Complete indecision in the conclave ; the ballots
a mere matter of form ... 32
Impatience of Carafa 33
Who approaches the French party • • 34
Vargas, on his own responsibility, gives bribes to
Carafa ..... 35
Philip II. shatters the hopes of Carafa, but decides
against Gonzaga . . . .36
The indiscretion of Vargas . . . 37
Carafa makes overtures to the French party . 38
And seems to hold the election in his hand . 40
Este believes that his time has come . . 41
Desperation of Vargas . . . .41
Unhealthy conditions in the conclave . . 42
Disturbances in the city . . . .43
An attempt made to ensure the enclosure . 44
Interference by the ambassadors ; Vargas rebuked
by the Dean, du Bellay ... 45
Dignified message from Philip II., disclaiming all
wish to interfere .... 45
Popular fear of a French Pope . .46
Carafa goes over to the' side of Spain . . 47
The candidature of Gonzaga again put forward . 47
Attempt to elect Carpi .... 48
Alliance of Carafa and Sforza ... 49
The Spaniards and Carafa attempt the election of
Pacheco ..... 50
Weariness of the electors . . . -53
Panvinio's account of the last days of the conclave ;
the decision lies between Cesi and Medici . 54
Sudden turn of affairs 55
The candidature of Medici the only course possible 56
Guise agrees to this 57
And at length Alfonso Carafa gives his consent . 58
Activity of the Duke of Florence . . .59
The election of Medici practically assured . 60
The election of Cardinal Medici (Dec. 25th) . 61
He takes the name of Pius IV. . 62
Displeasure of Philip II. with Vargas . . 63
CHAPTER II.
PREVIOUS LIFE AND CHARACTER OF PIUS IV. THE
BEGINNING OF HIS PONTIFICATE.
The Medici of Milan ; not related to the celebrated
Florentine family .... 66
1519 The parents of Pius IV. ; death of his father . 67
Gian Angelo studies jurisprudence at Pa via . 67
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXVii
A.D. PAGE
1521 His elder brother, Gian Giacomo, becomes Castellan
of Musso, and the terror of the neighbourhood 68
1526 Gian Angelo goes to Rome on a diplomatic mission 69
1529 The family fortunes decline ; Gian Giaccmo out of
favour with the Emperor ... 70
1531 The " Musso War " . . .71
1532 Gian Giacomo loses his possessions ; he enters the
service of the Emperor . . . 72
Gian Angelo returns to Rome ; he obtains the
favour of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese . 73
1534 Who is elected Pope as Paul III. . . 73
1539 Advancement of Gian Angelo ; Governor of Fano
and Parma ; Commissary with the Papal troops 74
1545 A matrimonial alliance arranged with the Farnese 74
Slow advancement of Gian Angelo ; his disappoint
ment ; a hard but salutary school . . 75
He becomes Archbishop of Ragusa . . 76
1547 Vice-legate of Bologna .... 77
1549 Gian Angelo created Cardinal ... 77
1550 His influence in the conclave which elected Julius III. 77
J553 He is held in high esteem by the new Pope, and
made Bishop of Cassano and of Foligno (1556) 78
His knowledge of canon law . . . 78
1555 He is not in favour with Paul IV., and opposes the
war with Spain . . . .79
His relations with the Pope grow more strained . 80
1558 Cardinal Medici leaves Rome . . .81
His close relations with Cosimo I., who sees in him
the future Pope . . . .81
" The Father of the poor " . . . 82
1559 He is elected Pope ; joy of the Romans . . 83
1560 Personal appearance of Pius IV. . . 84
His extraordinary activity ... 85
State of his health; his daily life . 87
His general friendliness and affability
His knowledge of literature and canon law, but
lack of deep theological knowledge . . 89
His statesmanship, and grasp of business matters 90
His good relations with the ambassadors ; a great
contrast to Paul IV. . . . 91
Special value attached by the Pope to the friend
ship of Venice 92
CHAPTER III.
THE POPE'S RELATIVES. CHARLES BORROMEO. DIPLOMATIC
RELATIONS WITH THE PRINCES.
Few Popes have had so many relatives as Pius IV. 94
The family of Hohenems .... 94
The family of Borromeo . . . -95
The Serbelloni * . 96
XXV111 TABLE OF CONTENTS.
A.D. PAGE
1560 The Pope's special love for the Borromei ; Charles
Borromeo summoned to Rome ; a memorable
day for the Church .... 96
Rapid promotion of Charles Borromeo ; he is created
Cardinal ..... 97
He becomes Archbishop of Milan, and Secretary
of State ..... 98
The marriage of Federigo Borromeo and Virginia
della Rovere ..... 99
Cosimo I. in Rome ; disappointment of his ambitions 100
Promotion of the Serbelloni nephews . . 101
Jealousy of the Hohenems and Serbelloni of the
Borromei ..... 102
Mark Sittich von Hohenems created Cardinal, but 103
The Pope's affections centred in the Borromei . 104
His choice of Charles as Secretary of State a brilliant
success, and a decisive factor of his reign . 105
Dissatisfaction of the diplomatists and officials . 105
Unimposing personality and excessive reserve of
Borromeo ..... 105
The ambassadors come to appreciate him better . 106
Early days of Borromeo ; his studies and purity of
life . . . . . .107
His early talent for administration . . 108
The Pope bestows many important and lucrative
offices on Borromeo, but he remains simple and
unassuming . . . . . 109
His assiduity and hard work at the Secretariate . no
The whole of the diplomatic correspondence passes
through his hands . . . .Ill
His recreations . . . . .112
Magnificence 'of his household, and pride in his
family . . . . .112
1561 Federigo Borromeo Captain-General of the Church 114
1562 Sudden death of Federigo Borromeo . . 114
Charles Borromeo resolves to renounce all worldly
ambitions . . . . .116
1563 He receives Holy Orders . . . .117
And adopts a stricter manner of life . . 118
The Pope and the Court displeased at the change 118
1564 Ascetic life of Borromeo ; he reduces his state, and
devotes himself to penance . . . 119
His exemplary life causes general admiration . 121
Pius IV.'s esteem for Cardinal Morone . . 122
His sense of statesmanship shown in his treatment
of the princes . . . .123
1560 He recognizes the Imperial dignity of Ferdinand I. 124
And fills the nunciatures left vacant by Paul IV. 125
He again allows the carnival festivities, and limits
the power of the Inquisition . . . 126
And mitigates the decrees of Paul IV. . . 127
But by no means breaks off the work of reform . 128
Improved condition of the city . . . 129
TABLE OF CONTENTS. xxix
A.D. PAGE
CHAPTER IV.
THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF CARAFA.
Hatred of the Carafa in Rome . . . 131
Renewed arrogance of Cardinal Carlo ; his schemes
for the restoration of the family fortunes . 133
Pius IV. looks with favour upon his hopes . 134
The enemies of the Carafa ; Colonna, Sforza, Mad-
ruzzo and Gonzaga . . . 135
1559 The former crimes of the family are renewed during
the last days of Paul IV. . .136
The murder of Marcello Capece at Soriano . 137
The murder of the Duchess of Paliano (August) . 138
1560 Pius IV. decides to take action against the Carafa 138
Accusations against the two Carafa Cardinals . 139
Attitude of Philip II. ; his growing hostility to the
Carafa ...... 140
Secret activity of the enemies of the Carafa . 141
Carlo Carafa blind to his danger . . 142
The Duke of Paliano returns to Rome (June) . 143
Arrest of the two Cardinals and the Duke . 144
Pius IV.'s statement to the consistory . . 145
General approval of the Pope's action . . 146
Pallantieri and Federicis entrusted with the trial. 147
The charges against the Carafa . . . 147
The opening of the trial (July) . . . 148
Carlo Carafa's trust in Philip II. . . 149
His arrogant behaviour at the trial . . 150
His imprisonment made more severe ; he is charged
with compromising relations with the Turks
and heretics . . . . .151
The trial draws to an end (September) . . 152
The complicity of the Cardinal in the murder of the
Duchess . . . . .153
The charges proved, but the trial is conducted in
a very biased way . . . .154
The advocates of the Carafa . . . 155
Many persons intercede on their behalf . . 156
1561 Consistory to decide the sentences . . 158
Written confession of the Duke of Paliano (January) 159
Arrest of Cardinal Rebiba (February) . . 161
Creation of new Cardinals (February) . . 162
The intervention of Philip II. now the only hope of
the Carafa . . . .164
Embarrassment of the king, but he refuses to inter
vene ..... 165
The consistory of March 2nd ; enumeration of the
crimes of the Carafa . . . .166
The sentence pronounced (March 4th) ; Carlo
Carafa, Paliano, d'Alife and Cardine con
demned to death t , 167
XXX TABLE OF CONTENTS
A.D. PAGE
Complete conversion of Giovanni Carafa . . 167
His farewell letter to his son . . .168
The execution of Carlo Carafa . . .171
The execution of Paliano, d'Alife and Cardine . 171
Cardinal Alfonso reinstated, but leaves Rome . 173
Philip II. contrives to escape odium . . 175
The conduct of Pius IV. not above reproach . 176
His own explanation of his motives . . 177
An effective blow at the old nepotism . . 177
CHAPTER V.
NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE RE-OPENING OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.
1559 Pius IV. declares his intention of re-opening the
Council . . . . .180
1560 Difficulty of securing the support of the princes . 180
The attitude of Ferdinand I. at first favourable . 180
Divergent views among the princes become apparent 181
Philip II. 's reluctance to commit himself . ,.. 182
The attitude of the Emperor and France . 183
Fear of a national council in France . . 184
Eagerness of Pius IV. to carry on the work of reform 185
He emphatically declares his intention of summoning
the Council before the assembled ambassadors 186
Philip II. expresses his agreement . . 187
France continues to make difficulties . . 188
Hesitating attitude of Ferdinand I. ; he expresses
his objections in a memorandum . . 189
This practically negatives the idea of a Council . 1 89
The Imperial ambassador, Arco, in Rome. . 193
Diplomatic shrewdness of Pius IV. . . 194
His replies to Spain, France and the Emperor . 195
Delfino sent to Ferdinand I. . . . 196
The Pope's answer to the Emperor's memorand.um 197
Prospero Santa Croce and Philip II. . . 198
France refuses to change her attitude . . 199
Determination of the Pope . . . 200
Philip II. insists on the Council being declared a
continuation of the previous assembly . 201
The Pope decides to summon the Council at all costs 202
Pius IV. inspired by his high office . . 203
Delfino in Vienna .... 205
Ferdinand I. continues to make difficulties . 206
Divergent views among the Cardinals . . 207
The advice of Delfino .... 209
The Emperor and France agree to the summoning
of the Council to Trent . . . 210
The Pope orders the drafting of the bull of con
vocation .... 211-
Jubilee indulgence proclaimed . 211
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXxi
A.D, PAGE
The bull of convocation (November 29th) . 213
Copies of the bull sent to the prices . . 214
The word " continuation " avoided . . 215
CHAPTER VI.
THE MISSION OF COMMENDONE AND DELFINO TO GERMANY.
1560 The Council evidently a continuation of the former
assembly at Trent . . . .216
The bull of convocation taken to France by Abbot
Niquet . . . . .217
Giovanni Commendone chosen to take the bull to
the Emperor, and to the princes of north
Germany ..... 218
Delfino chosen to go to the princes of south Germany 218
1561 The two nuncios have an audience with Ferdinand I. 220
The Emperor's advice to the nuncios . . 221
They visit the Diet of the princes assembled at
Naumburg ..... 222
Their invitation to the Council meets with an in
sulting rejection . . . .223
Commendone at Leipsic and Magdeburg . . 226
He proceeds to Berlin ; the Elector Joachim II. of
Brantienburg . . . .280
Hildesheim, Paderborn and Miinster . . 228
Commendone visits the Elector of TrSves . 229
Commendone in Cologne . . . .231
He goes to the Netherlands . . . 232
Proposed visit to Denmark . . . 233
And to Sweden ..... 234
He receives orders to return to Rome . . 236
And visits Nancy, Metz, Mayence and Nuremberg
on his way . . . . . 237
Commendone in Bavaria . . . .237
Delfino in south Germany . . . 238
His conversation with Vergerio . . . 239
Duke Albert of Bavaria .... 240
Neither mission crowned with much success . 240
CHAPTER VII.
FINAL PREPARATIONS FOR THE RE-OPENING OF THE COUNCIL.
1561 Ferdinand I. accepts the Council in principle . 241 *
But raises many difficulties . . . 242
The legates for the Council appointed . . 243
Cardinal Gonzaga, the senior legate, an excellent
choice ..... 244
Puteo, Simonetta. Hosius and Seripando his col
leagues ..... 245
XXXii TABLE OF CONTENTS.
A.D.
Officials of the Council appointed . 246
Indecision of the Emperor . 248
Difficulties about the bull in Spain . 248
Philip II. insists on a declaration of " continuation " 249
The Emperor continues to defer his decision 250
Papal envoys sent to Russia and Poland . 251
Welcome zeal of the King of Portugal 251
Gonzaga and Seripando make their solemn entry
into Trent (April i6th) 252
Very few bishops present in Trent 252
Raverta as nuncio in Spain 253
A secret " bull of continuation " sent to Philip II. 253
Who orders the Spanish bishops to prepare to go to
Trent . . 253
Ferdinand I. still refuses to name a fixed date 254
The Italian bishops ordered to go to Trent 254
Nevertheless, the prelates assemble very slowly . 255
France and the Emperor still delay 256
The Emperor's representatives chosen (December) 257
Cardinal Mark Sittich to be legate instead of Puteo 257
Arrival of Cardinal Simonetta at Trent . 258
The Pope's instructions : " The Council must be
opened as soon as possible." . 258
The Pope's orders as to the work to be taken in hand 259
The legates decide to postpone the opening until
January
Discussions as to procedure
1562 The first General Congregation held (January) i5th
Demands of the Spanish bishops . . .263
CHAPTER VIII.
RE-OPENING OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. SESSIONS
XVII. TO XXII.
1562 The solemn opening of the Council (January i8th) 264
The envoys received
Demands of the representatives of the Emperor .
The XVIIIth Session of the Council (February 26th)
Further demands of the Imperial envoys . 269
The Pope orders the Council to proceed to the dis
cussion of questions of dogma
Arrival of more envoys . • 27*
The controversy as to the divine origin of the duty
of residence .
The Papal primacy affected by this question
Divergent views and heated discussions .
The question referred to the Pope
Interference on the part of the envoys
The French envoys demand a postponement
The XlXth Session of the Council (May uth) . 277
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXxiii
A'D- , PAGE
The Pope reserves his decision as to residence . 278
The Pope's articles of retorm . . .279
Further legates suggested . . . .280
The Pope rebukes the legates for their want of unity 281
Danger of a dissolution . . . 282
The XXth Session of the Council (June 3rd) ! 284
Communion under both kinds discussed . 285
The reform libellum of Ferdinand I. . .* 286
The demand for the chalice for the laity . . 289
The XXIst Session of the Council (July i6th) . 290
The decrees on Communion . . . 290
Reform decrees . . . . 290
Dissensions among the legates . . . 2gi
Gonzaga determines to ask for his recall . 292
Reconciliation of the legates . . -293
Philip II. orders the Spanish bishops to withdraw
their demands . . . .294
Discussion of the question of the chalice for the
laity. . 295
Impressive speech by Lainez . . 2-96
The XXIInd Session of the Council (September lyth) 297
The decree on the Mass . . . .297
CHAPTER IX.
THE MISSION OF MORONE TO FERDINAND I. AT INNSBRUCK.
T562-3.
1562 The reform libellum of Ferdinand I. . . 299
The Spaniards press the ius divinum of the episcopate 301
Able speech of Lainez against this. . . 301
Arrival of the French prelates (November 23rd) . 303
Important position taken by Cardinal Guise 303
The question of the episcopal office ; . 305
Danger to the Papal supremacy . . .306
The next Session repeatedly postponed . . 307
1563 French reform proposals .... 308
Ferdinand I. again intervenes with fresh demands 308
Cardinal Guise at Innsbruck . . . 309
Suggested coalition of the Catholic powers to
dominate the Council . . . 309
Death of Cardinal Gonzaga (March 2nd) . . 310
Death of Cardinal Seripando (March I7th) . 311
Reform demands of the Emperor . . 312
Pius IV. is inclined to suspend the Council . 313
Imperative need of coming to an understanding
with the Emperor . . . .314
Morone to go to the Imperial court . . 315
Morone and Navagero appointed legates to the
Council ..... 315
Morone 's pre-eminent qualities for this office . 316
VOL. XV. C
XXXiv TABLE OF CONTENTS.
A D. PAGE
Morone arrives in Trent (April loth), and at once
sets out for Innsbruck
He at once opens negotiations with the Emperor .
He realizes the good intentions of Ferdinand . 318
The advisers of Ferdinand put difficulties in his way 319
But Morone's skill and personality bring the negotia
tions to a successful conclusion . - 321
A full agreement reached on most points
Morone leaves Innsbruck (May I3th) . 323
Satisfaction of the Pope at Morone's success
Disgust of the enemies of Rome . . 325
Return of Morone to Trent . . 327
CHAPTER X.
THE CONCLUDING SESSIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.
1563 Better relations between the Pope and Philip II. . 328
Vargas is replaced by Requesens . • 328
The " right of proposition " at the Council . 33°
The episcopate and the primacy . . 332 -
Lainez defends the rights of the Holy See (June i6th)
The Spanish bishops and the episcopal power . 334
Change of front on the part of Cardinal Guise 335
The XXIIIrd Session of the Council (July 1 5th) . 336
Decree on Holy Orders and the hierarchy of the
Church ... -
The education and training of priests
The close of the Council in sight . 339
The reform of the princes demanded . 34° '
Usurpations of authority by the civil power 34°
A draft of reform decrees presented to the envoys.
A storm of protest from the powers 343
The demands of Ferdinand I. . - 344
Courageous reply of Morone . . • 345
French protests . •
Difficult position of the legates . . 347
Outburst on the part of du Ferrier, the French
envoy . ...
Indignation in the Council
Cardinal Guise in Rome . 35°
He is treated with great honour by the Pope, and
an understanding is reached . 35 1
Pius IV. and the election of Maximilian as King
of the Romans . 35 1
Ferdinand I. agrees to the closing of the Council .
The legates instructed to hasten the proceedings . 353
Proposals for the reform of the Sacred College 354
The XXIVth Session of the Council (November I ith) 355
Decree on Matrimony • 355
Reform decrees , - • • 35°
TABLE OF CONTENTS. XXXV
A.D. PAGE
General wish to end the Council . . . 357
Spain alone holds back .... 358
The reform proposals modified . . . 359
News of the grave illness of the Pope . . 361
Decision to hold the last session at once . . 361
The XXVth and last Session of the Council (Decem
ber 3rd) ..... 362
Dogmatic and reform decrees . . -363
Decree on indulgences . . . .364
The close of the Council of Trent . . 365
CHAPTER XI.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.
The Council had accomplished a mighty work . 366
No restoration of unity of faith . .366
The breach now complete, and a new epoch begun 367
Clearing up of the religious position . . 367
The Holy Scriptures not the only source of faith . 368
The decree on Justification . . .368
The decrees on the Sacraments and the Mass . 369
The primacy of the Roman See assured but not
defined ..... 370
Condemnation of the doctrines of the reformers . 371
The episcopate and the duty of residence . . 372
The formation of a good clergy . . . 374
Removal of abuses . . . . 375
The Christian family . . . -376
The secular princes and absolutism . . 377
The secular priesthood . . . • 37&
The Council a boundary line and a landmark . 378
LIST OF UNPUBLISHED DOCUMENTS
IN APPENDIX.
ix-x.
XL
I. The Scrutinies in the Conclave of Pius IV.
II. Francesco di Guadagno to the Duke of Mantua
III. The Dispatches of Marcantonio da Mula
IV. Cardinal C. Carafa to the Duke of Paliano
V. Consistory of 7th June, 1560 .
VI. Giov. Battista Ricasoli to Cosimo I., Duke of
Florence .....
VII. Avviso di Roma of 8th June, 1560
VIII. Motuproprio of Pope Pius IV. concerning the
trial of the Carafa ....
Marcantonio da Mula to Venice
Marcantonio da Mula to Venice
XII. Francesco Tonina to the Duke of Mantua
XIII. Consistory of 3rd March, 1561
XIV. Francesco Tonina to the Duke of Mantua
XV. Pope Pius IV. to Hannibal von Hohenems
XVI. Marcantonio da Mula to Venice
XVII. Francesco Tonina to the Duke of Mantua
XVIII. Avviso di Roma of 8th March, 1561 .
XIX. Francesco Tonina to the Duke of Mantua
XX. Avviso di Roma of 6 December, 1561
XXI. Avviso di Roma of 13 December, 1561
XXII. Avviso di Roma of 20 December, 1561
XXIII. Avviso di Roma of 10 January, 1562 .
XXIV.-XXXIII. Reforming Activity of Pius IV. from
February to May, 1562
XXXIV. Francesco Tonina to the Duke of Mantua
XXXV. Francesco Tonina to the Duke of Mantua
XXXVI. Francesco Tonina to the Duke of Mantua
XXXVII. Onofrio Panvinio as Biographer of Pius IV.
PAGE
382
386
390
392
393
393
394
396
401
401
402
4°3
403
403
404
406
407
409
409
410
410
411
411
414
414
414
415
XXXVI
AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
AT the present time the attention, not only of Catholics, but
of the whole world, is more than ever directed to the Holy
See, which stands out as the one solid rock amid the subversive
and anarchical tendencies of our day. For the proper under
standing of this, the most ancient, yet still so vigorous inter
national power, it is above all necessary fully to understand
her historical development. To set this forth, since the close
of the Middle Ages, in accordance with the facts drawn from
the best authorities, and in the most objective form possible,
is the task to which I have set myself. For the latter half
of the XVIth century I have had to make use of unpublished
documents to an even greater extent than in the preceding
volumes, since the subject which had to be treated in many
ways resembled fallow land, which has first to be broken up
with the plough before its actual cultivation can be begun.
I have been actively occupied in procuring, examining and
preparing all the documents available in Archives, and also
in taking the fullest advantage of the immense amount of
literature which is to be found in so many publications. The
material increased to such an extent in this method of dealing
with it that the original plan of uniting the closely related
pontificates of Pius IV. and Pius V. had to be abandoned, and
a division made. Both volumes were almost completed when
the international war broke out and rendered their publication
impossible. The literature which has since appeared, though
not amounting to very much, has been added.
The dedication of the present volume to the eminent
historian of the Council of Trent may serve as a remem
brance of the twenty-five years which we spent in the Eternal
City in close fraternal research and happy mutual labour in
the same field. It is also, however, an expression of gratitude
xxxvii
xxxviii AUTHOR'S PREFACE.
for the furtherance of my work by many valuable hints and
suggestions drawn from the literary remains of our mutual
friend, Professor Anton Pieper, who died so prematurely,
and whose vast researches afforded important matter, especi
ally for Pius V.
In spite of being cut off from Rome by the war, the past
five years could nevertheless be utilized for the continuation
of the History of the Popes, as the extracts from archives had
long been collected. The difficulties resulting from the cir
cumstances of the times were, however, very great, yet, in
spite of this, it was possible to bring the description of the
pontificates of Gregory XIII., Sixtus V., Clement VIII., Paul
V., and Gregory XV. in all essential points, to completion, so
that future volumes will follow closely upon one another.
Should God grant me further life and health I may therefore
hope for the happy completion of this work, to which I have
devoted my powers since my youth. May it contribute to
the resumption of relations with foreign scholars, so rudely
broken off by the storms of war. Historical science cannot
forego such an interchange of thoughts and ideas without
suffering grave and lasting damage.
PASTOR.
Innsbruck, Oct. 27th, 1919.
INTRODUCTION.
THE restoration of ecclesiastical life in the XVIth century
arose, as it had done in the days of Gregory VII., from within
the Church herself, but with this difference, that the first
incentive thereto was not given by the Holy See and the hier
archy, as had been the case in the Xlth century, but by various
individuals inspired by God. These, clinging fast to the
precious treasure of the old faith, and firmly maintaining
obedience to lawful ecclesiastical authority, worked, with
burning zeal and unwearying diligence, first for their own
sanctification, and only afterwards for the radical reform of
their contemporaries. It is true that their endeavours for
reform could only take firm root and permeate the whole
Church when the Apostolic See took them in hand, and this
turn of affairs, made possible by the agency of the great Popes
of the houses of Farnese and Carafa, took place under the
fourth and fifth Pius.
The foundation of a Catholic reformation was laid by the
Council of Trent, which also pronounced so clearly in matters
of dogma. The completion of the Council was the work of
Pius IV., who, in spite of the greatest difficulties, succeeded
in once more opening this general assembly of the Church, on
which, in the midst of the great apostasy from Rome, all the
hopes of the faithful were fixed.1 With unwearied patience
the Pope held fast to the Council, and steered it with the
greatest sagacity through renewed troubles both from within
and without, until he was at last able to bring it to a happy
conclusion. A clever and sagacious man, he again limited the
Inquisition to its proper sphere, and at once renewed the
1 Cf. the pamphlet composed under Pius IV. *De consolatione
ecclesiae, in the Graziani Archives at Citta di Castello, Istruzioni I.,
102.
xxxix
xl INTRODUCTION.
diplomatic relations with the Imperial court which had been
broken off by his impetuous predecessor.
Though personally inclined to a more secular course of
action, Pius IV., by his confirmation of the decrees of the
Council, by his appointment of a special congregation to see
to the carrying out of those decrees, as well as by his continu
ation of other important undertakings, such as the re
arrangement of the Index, the compilation of a Catechism,
and the reform of important liturgical books, proved his com
prehension of the tasks of the Church, and won an ever last
ing name by his work for Catholic reform. By confirming
the decrees of the Council, he for the first time gave to the
various regulations a legal sanction, while only by his care in
enforcing their execution could the written law be introduced
into active life, and the renewal of the ecclesiastical state be
inaugurated.
In this manner the Apostolic See proved itself to be, even
under a Pope in whose character there were many faults, a
solid foundation and a safe place of refuge for the renewal of
the prosperity of the Church. Without his intervention the
entire reform work of Trent would have remained in the con
dition in which the canons of the previous sessions were at the
time of the new assembly of the Council in 1562 ; that is to
say, still awaiting execution because they had not as yet been
confirmed by the Holy See.1
Pius IV. also continued with much greater success than his
predecessor the regeneration of the Roman Curia, and the
reform of its tribunals and scholastic institutions. It was,
it is true, of extreme importance in this respect that his
xThe prelates assembled in Trent complained in 1562, " non
havendo anco quel che si decret6 intorno alia riforma (in the
years 1546 and 1547) qualunque si fosse conseguito effecto alcuno "
(the legates on April gth, 1562, in SUSTA, Kurie, II., 79). The
Pope replied that there was nothing to be astonished at, the
Fathers of the Council themselves knew, " che i concilii che non
sono fmiti ne approbati dai papi, non obbligano altrui ad obser-
vargli, ne S. Su poteva sforzargli " (ibid., in).
INTRODUCTION. xli
nephew and Secretary of State, Charles Borromeo, stood at his
side as his assistant and adviser, a man who, like Gaetano di
Tiene, Ignatius Loyola and Philip Neri, embodied the spirit
of Catholic reformation in its purest form.
The carrying out of the decrees of the Council and the
abolition of the manifold abuses which had taken such deep
root during the period of the Renaissance naturally could not
be the work of a single pontificate. It was therefore of the
utmost importance that the right man, in the person of Pius
V. (1566 — 1572), should have ascended the throne of St. Peter
to carry into effect the reform plan of the Council of Trent,
and to awaken new life in every part of Catholic Christendom.
In his person the Papacy became the representative and the
director of the Catholic reformation. This son of St. Dominic,
a man who was on fire with consuming zeal for the purity of the
faith., and of morals, and one who was absolutely unyielding
when ecclesiastical affairs and the rights of the Church were
in question, knewr neither fear nor consideration for worldly
interests. Without the faults and weaknesses of Paul IV.,
he yet saw eye to eye with him in so many matters that his
adherents in Rome could joyfully proclaim that the Theatirie
Pope had risen again.1 Their jubilation was well founded.
Like Paul IV., who with iron hand had demolished deeply
rooted, inveterate, and apparently ineradicable abuses, Pius
V. courageously took up the difficult task of reform, and fear
lessly devoted to it all his powers and all his holy zeal.
The spiritual affinity with Paul IV., whom Pius V. venerated
in many respects as' a father,2 shows itself in no small degree
in the manner in which he fulfilled his task of guarding the
treasure of faith in the Church and of protecting her against
the assaults of the religious innovators. The means he
employed in so doing were entirely in keeping with the char
acter of a time when force and compulsion were used to
subdue spiritual revolt, the strongest measures seeming all
1 SANTORI, Autobiografia, XIII., 379.
2 See the letter to King Sebastian of Portugal of October 27,
1567, in LADERCHI, Annales eccl., 1567, n. 17.
xlii INTRODUCTION.
the more necessary as the attacks of the innovators were
always increasing in violence.
In the new and ever extending form of Protestantism
founded by Calvin there existed a far more dangerous, sys
tematic and consistent enemy than in Lutheranism, which
was now growing torpid, and was being torn to pieces by
disputes within itself. Calvinism, with its rigid organization,
its harsh doctrines, its demand for the bloody extermination
of Catholics,1 and its propaganda, was fanning to fever heat
the lust of Protestantism to attack the old Church. An
international monument was thereby called into being to
such an extent that Geneva became almost a second Rome,
and Calvin another Pope, who carried on a correspondence in
every direction with the whole of Europe. In Germany and
Scandinavia, Protestantism in its Lutheran form had already
gained a firm footing, and Calvinism therefore threw itself
with all its force upon the west of Europe, in order completely
to annihilate the Catholic Church beyond the Alps. Together
with the Germans, the Romans, as well as the Slavs and Mag
yars were always being more and more involved in the religious
changes, and led into opposition to the Papacy. A third form
of Protestantism had at the same time arisen in England,
in the Episcopal State Church. The one point on which the
reformers were agreed was the complete subjection and
eradication of Catholic worship, the practice of which was in
many places, especially in England, Ireland, Scotland, Den
mark and Sweden, even punishable by death.
The Catholics were, therefore, carrying on a war of self-
preservation when they sacrificed everything to prevent the
1 Calvin, in his endeavcurs to suppress the Catholic Church
in foreign countries as well, repeatedly demanded that those
remaining true to the old faith should be put to the sword. See
also the passage quoted by PAULUS (p. 250) in his book Protestant-
ismus und Toleranz im 16 Jahrhundert (Freiburg, 1911), and also
the letter addressed to England in the Corp. Ref., XLL, 81, in
which the sentence occurs : All Catholics who will not renounce
their superstition, " merentur gladio ultore coerceri, cum non
in regem tantum insurgant, sed in Deum ipsum."
INTRODUCTION. xliii
inroads of Protestanism, or to drive it out where it had already
obtained a footing. Pius V., who opposed the enemies of the
Church with all his power, did not live to see the issue of the
embittered struggle.
Whilst this most violent battle was being fought within
the limits of Christendom, the Church was at the same time
being threatened by the gravest danger from without by
Islam, the inveterate enemy of the name of Christ. The
Papacy has a special claim to glory for having, even at this
moment of greatest trouble, kept true to its old tradition of
being the guardian and shield of Christendom and its civiliza
tion against the approach of danger from the east.
Even during the period of the Renaissance the Holy See
had preserved the ideal of the Crusades with regard to the
increasingly threatening attack of the infidel, and, in propor
tion to its material power, had done far more towards the
repulse of the terrible enemy than any other power in Europe.1
From Nicholas V. to Paul III. most of the Popes had taken the
lead whenever it was a question of protecting or defending
Christendom and the civilization of the west against the power
of Islam.
The Holy 'See was the originator and the active supporter
of all the coalitions directed against the Turks,2 while all the
attempts to rouse Christendom to a common enterprise against
the infidel found in it a warm ally. Even during the stormy
period of the apostasy from the faith, Paul III. succeeded in
1538 in forming a league between the Emperor and Venice
to avert the Turkish danger. It was only when the powerful
maritime Republic concluded a peace with the Porte in 1540,
that other grave religious and political troubles arose for the
Popes, and drove the thought of the Crusades into the back
ground.3
Twenty-five years now passed without any concerted attack
1 See previous volumes of this work.
8 The opinion of HERRE, Europaische Politik im Cyprischen
Krieg, I., Leipsic, 1902, 30.
3 See Vol. XI. of this work, p. 272.
Xliv INTRODUCTION.
having been made by the Christian states upon the enemy
in the east. Even during this time, however, Spain and the
Knights of Malta had received valuable help from the Holy
See in their resistance to the pressure of the Turks in the
Mediterranean. Pius IV. shared in the successful re pulse, of
the dangerous Turkish advance on Malta in 1565. The saintly
Pius V., in spite of his advanced years, employed all his strength
with youthful vigour to secure a victory for the Cross over the
Crescent.1 While the French government maintained its
former friendly relations with the Porte, and Elizabeth of
England concluded a treaty with the infidels, in the interests
of commerce and for the sake of making common cause with
them in the struggle against Catholic Spain, the Pope, alone
in the midst of a Europe torn asunder by political rivalries and
religious hatred, unselfishly kept in view the great purpose of
protecting the west and its civilization against the might of
Islam.2 As his ecclesiastical policy reminds us forcibly of
the days of the Middle Ages, so do his attempts at a Crusade, a
purpose to which he devoted himself with the same fiery zeal
as that which once armed the nations of Europe for the deliver
ance of the Holy Sepulchre. Great as the difficulties were he
never lost courage ; to realize the dream of Pius II. was his
constant aspiration, and he was destined in the end to
attain a brilliant success, for, after overcoming indescribable
difficulties, he succeeded in uniting such opposing elements
as the Spanish King and the Republic of St. Mark in a great
combined undertaking against the Turks, and became thereby
the saviour of Europe. The glorious victory of Lepanto,
which saved southern Europe from being overrun by Islam,
and the beautiful basin of the Mediterranean from being
transformed into a Turkish lake, and inaugurated the downfall
1 Fachinetti, the nuncio in Venice, says in his report of October
28, 1570 : "If the Pope had been a native of Venice, he could
not have done more." VALENSISE, II vescovo di Nicastro poi
papa Innocenzo IX. Nicastro, 1898, 88
2 See E. PEARS in the Eng. Hist. Rev., 1893, No. 31, pp.
439 seq.
INTRODUCTION. xlv
of the fleet of the infidels, till then considered invincible, was
his work.
The jubilation with which the western world received the
news of the crushing defeat of the dreaded enemy of Christian
civilization, was reflected on the Papacy which was being so
violently challenged and insulted by the religious innovators.1
Great, however, as were the merits of Pius V. with regard to
the repulse of the Turkish danger, and these assure him for
ever a place of honour among the Popes, the real significance
of his pontificate lies in the sphere of affairs within the Church.
Acts of the highest importance, such as the compilation of the
Roman Catechism, the reform of the Breviary and Missal,
and the Congregation of the Index, are indissolubly associated
with his name. But above all, it is as the reformer of eccle
siastical life that he stands out in majestic grandeur. The
influence which he exercised over his contemporaries in this
direction, both at home and abroad, and on the development
of the Church, has been justly described as immeasurable.2
That which the noblest spirits had prayed for and ardently
desired since the close of the Middle Ages, namely, the reform
of the Church in its head and in its members, was accomplished
by him with an iron will and a holy zeal which shrank before
no difficulties. Everywhere, wherever he found it necessary,
he laid his reforming hand, in Germany as in Switzerland, in
France as in Poland, but above all in Rome itself. His decrees
are more numerous and far-reaching even than those of Paul
IV. The Papal court, as well as the whole Curia, was reformed,
the Penitentiary completely transformed, and nepotism swept
away. The College of Cardinals, the episcopate, the secular
clergy, the religious orders both of men and women, and the
laity itself, experienced the zeal with which the aged Pontiff
carried on his work of reformation.
Whoever investigates the reign of Pius V. in the light of the
1 Instances of such insults outside the time of Pius V. in JANNSEN
PASTOR, VI. 15-16, 45 seq. Cf. also Katholik, 1887, II., 59-
2 RANKE, Papste, I., 234, and MUNTZ, Hist, de 1'Art pendant
la Renaissance, III., 242, Paris, 1805, agree in this opinion.
Xlvi INTRODUCTION.
original documents must come to the conclusion that this
Pope was one of those great spirits to whom their own interests
are as nothing, but the object for which they are striving is
all in all. In his eyes, his temporal sovereignty was of very
secondary importance in comparison with his office of supreme
pastor of the Church. The renewal of all the faithful in Christ
was the only aim he followed ; all worldly and political inter
ests were far from his mind, and the salvation of souls alone
filled his heart. Again and again he repeated that he felt
responsible before God for the souls of the whole world, and
that he must therefore keep in view nothing but the leading
back of those who were straying from the truth, the conversion
of sinners, and the reformation of the clergy.1
Pius V., like the great Popes of the golden age of medieval
days, presented to the world the noble spectacle of the suc
cessor of St. Peter, amid the appalling dangers threatening
them from without, watching over the eternal interests of
the new converts in distant lands with the same care as he
devoted to the oppressed Catholics in the different countries
of Europe. He was indefatigable in sending to the bishops
of the Old as well as the New World, apostolic words of
admonition and encouragement, in consoling the missionaries
as far off as in Abyssinia, and in caring for the newly converted
Moors in Spain, as carefully as he looked after the needs of
oriental lands. His pastor; J love embraced without distinction
all the peoples of Europe : Romans and Germans, as well as
Slavs. From the height of Peter's throne, he cast the eye of
an unwearying shepherd over the whole world, and nothing
of importance escaped his sight. Wherever he perceived any
deviation from doctrine or ecclesiastical discipline, he inter
vened to warn or to reprimand, imposing everywhere the
strictest standard, and vigorously combating every infringe
ment of ecclesiastical liberty. He greatly valued Philip II.
as a supporter of the Church, but that did not prevent him from
opposing the national church policy of that egotistical ruler,
1See the letter of Pius V. to Philip II. of January 8, 1567, in
the Corresp. dipl., ed. SERRANO, II., 7, Madrid, 1914.
INTRODUCTION. xivii
while he was also capable of making his will and his position
effective even hi the case of his most faithful and best fellow
workers in the cause of reform and renewal. When the
legislation of the Jesuits did not appear to him quite to coincide
with that of St. Thomas, he at once took decisive steps and
changed what his predecessors had allowed. The Capuchin,
Pistoja, who was in other respects highly esteemed by the
Pope, must have had a painful surprise when he ventured to
submit a memorandum concerning matters with which he had
nothing to do.1 Free from every trace of favouritism for
persons or institutions, and free from passing moods or un
regulated passions, Pius V. weighed all questions solely in
accordance with ecclesiastical doctrine and canon law. In all
his actions he stood out as the embodiment of the Catholic
spirit ; he devoted the revenues of the Apostolic See, which
so many of the Renaissance Popes had used for the enrichment
of their relatives or for the piosecution of worldly aims,
exclusively to the defence of the ancient faith. His reign was
in all respects a contrast to the outwardly brilliant but worldly
period of the Rovere, Borgia and Medici Popes. This saintly
Pontiff, by his simple and ascetic life, made expiation, as it
were, for all those points in which his predecessors had been
found wanting.
Peter Canisius has justly described it as a special dis
pensation of Divine Providence that in Pius V. a man was sent
to the assistance of the Church, who with holy assiduity
entered the lists on behalf of the faith, and sought the reno
vation of Christendom with burning zeal. 2 As a Pontiff whose
whole thoughts and aspirations were fixed far beyond earthly
interests, on the imperishable blessings of eternity, he begins
that line of pious and able Popes, worthy of all reverence, who
JHe suspended him from saying mass and preaching, " non
li parendo conveniente, che questi ch'hanno cura delle cose
spiritual!, vogliono ancora governare le temporal!." *Avviso
di Roma, June 14, 1570, Urb. 1041, p. zgob, Vatican Library.
2 See CANISII Epist, V., 197. Cf. BRAUNSBERGER, Pius V.,
2, Freiburg, 1012.
Xlviii INTRODUCTION.
led the Catholic reformation and restoration from victory to
victory. A great part of what was accomplished by his
successors, Gregory XIII. and Sixtus V., was a direct conse
quence of his glorious achievements.
CHAPTER I.
THE CONCLAVE OF 1559.
THE wild outburst of hatred indulged in by the populace,
during the course of which Paul IV. closed his eyes in death
on August i8th, 1559, reached its climax and its conclusion
in the exciting scenes which took place two days later. The
statue of the hated reformer of morals lay in pieces, the
coat-of-arms of the Carafa was everywhere torn down, and the
prisons of the demolished buildings of the Inquisition lay
empty.1 On the morning of the 2ist the fury of the people
*See Vol. XIV. of this work, pp. 414 seqq. The quantity of
original matter concerning the vacancy in the Papal throne and
the conclave of Pius IV. is very great. The most important
sources are : (i) The Diary of Ludovicus Bondonus de Branchis
Firmanus (in MERKLE, IT., 518-31), who was present in the
conclave as Master of the Ceremonies (MERKLE, ex). (2) Antonius
Guidus, De obitu Pauli IV., et conclavi cum electione Pii IV.
(MERKLE, II., 605-32) ; Guido was in the conclave, probably as
conclavist of Cardinal Gonzaga (ibid., cxxxv). Cf. also SUSTA,
Pius IV., 165-6. (3) Onuphrius Panvinius, De creatione Pii IV.
Papae (MERKLE, II., 575-601). Panvinio first entered the conclave
December 24, 1559 (ibid., cxxvi., 577), and was therefore an
eye-witness of the closing scenes. Merkle gives extracts from
a second edition of Panvinio in the annotations, p. 332 seqq.
(4) The *Lists of the scrutinies collected by Panvinio in the
Court Library, Munich (see Appendix, No. i).
Besides these we have the exceedingly copious diplomatic
reports and correspondence, (i) the reports of the Spanish
ambassador, Francisco de Vargas to Philip II. from September 27
to December 29, 1559, in DO'LLINGER, Beitrage, I., 265-328.
Other sources from Simancas in MILLER, Konklave Pius IV., and
HINOJOSA, Felipe II. y el conclave de 1559, Madrid, 1889. (2)
Reports from the French side in RIBIER, II., 824-42. Cf. the
account of a French Cardinal made use of by RUBLE (Le traite de
VOL. XV. I
2 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
seemed to be appeased, and quiet was once more restored in
the city.
There was, however, still no lack of less violent manifes
tations against the hated Carafa. Ascanio della Corgna, who
had been forced to fly before the anger of Paul IV.,1 returned
Cateau-Cambresis, 100 seq., Paris, 1889. (3) The correspondence
from the archives of the Dukes of Florence and Ferrara (Modena)
used by PETRUCELLI, II., 119-70, and by SUSTA, Pius IV., 123 seqq.
(4) extracts from the correspondence of Ferdinand I. and his
ambassador in Rome, Francis von Thurm, in SICKEL, Konzil,
1-14, in S. BRUNNER in the Studien und Mitteilungen aus dem
Benediktiner-und Zisterzienserorden, VI., 2 (1885), 173-8, 387'99,
and in WAHRMUND, Ausschlieszungsrecht, 82-6, 257-65. (5) The
*letter to the Duchess of Urbino, probably written by the confessor
of Card. Giulio della Rovere (Vat. 7039, Vatican Library, and
State Library, Vienna, 6012) first used by DEMBINSKI, p. 292.
(6) The *reports of the Mantuan agents in the Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua, which are for the first time made use of in the present
work.
The importance of this long conclave also appears clearly in
the great number of monographs devoted to it. The most note
worthy of these is the work composed in the Polish language by
DEMBINSKI, Wybor Piusa IV., from archival material from
Florence, Vienna and Rome, published in the transactions
of the Cracow Academy, XX. (1887), 190-304; this had
remained unknown to all German investigators of the
conclave. MULLER'S book, Das Konklaves Pius' IV., 1559,
Gotha, 1889, is very thorough, but he knows nothing of the
treatise used by Dembinski. Susta has, however, made use of
it in his monograph (Pius IV.) written in the Czech language,
which deals at considerable length with the vacancy and the
conclave (pp. 100-52). Susta has unfortunately not been taken
any notice of in any of the later descriptions of the conclave.
Of these the following are worthy of mention : RUBLE, loc. cit.
(often insufficient, see ANCEL, Disgrace, 66 ; DEMBINSKI, Rzym, I.,
237 seq.) ; WAHRMUND, Ausschlieszungsrecht, 77-88 ; SAGMULLER.
Papstwahlbullen, 46-109 ; HERRE, Papstum und Papstwahlen
33-64 ; EISLER Veto bei der Papstwahl, 52 seq. ; RIESS, Politik
Pauls, IV., 379-98.
1 Cf. Vol. XIV. p. 133, of this work.
RELEASE OF MORONE. 3
from banishment on August 2ist, and was again able to appear
in the streets of Rome as a prince. Marcantonio Colonna, who
had been declared an outlaw by the dead Pope, and compelled
to forfeit his estates in favour of Giovanni Carafa,1 likewise
reappeared in the Eternal City on August 2ist. The people
went to meet him, and received him with the liveliest signs
of joy. Colonna had regained all his former possessions,
with the exception of Paliano, but he assured the Cardinals
on August 22nd that he was prepared to obey the commands
of the future Pope.2
The supreme senate of the Church also allowed it to be
clearly seen that it was not in all matters of one mind with
its deceased head. Cardinal Morone was, to the great satis
faction of the whole court,3 released from his prison in the
Castle of St. Angelo, in accordance with the decision of the
majority of the Sacred College, and, contrary to the decree of
Paul IV.,4 he also received back the passive right of election
in the approaching conclave.5 The Cardinals dealt otherwise
with Alfonso Carafa. This prelate, whom his uncle had
appointed President of the Apostolic Camera, and, as such,
1 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, pp. 100, 105, in, 121, 167.
2 Panvinius in MERKLE, II., 335 n. 2., MASSARELLI, ibid., 336 ;
Gumus, ibid., 608. *Report of G. Aldrovandi dated Rome,
August 23, 1559 (State Archives, Bologna).
3 G. Aldrovandi lays emphasis on this in the above mentioned
*report of August 23.
4 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, pp. 302 seq.
5 BONDONUS, 518 ; Panvinius in MERKLE, II., 334 n. According
to MASSARELLI, 334, Morone was set at liberty on August 20.
This is, however, incorrect. In the codex of the Seminary Library,
Foligno, the importance of which is made clear by our remarks
in Vol. XIV., p. 468, of this work, the note is written on the margin
of the statement of opinion of A. Massa, p. 115, that " die lunae 21
Augusti secundum hanc inform ationem " was fixed as the day
that Morone was to be set at liberty, and the work was at once
set on foot. Thirteen of the Cardinals were in favour of his
being freed, and eleven against it (PANVINIUS, 334), Puteo was
among the latter on formal grounds ; see SUSTA, Pius IV., 112,
n, 2.
4 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
had given him equal rights with the Cardinal Camerlengo1
during the time of the vacancy in the Holy See, found that he
could make no use of these rights. At his first" attempt to do
so, he met with strong opposition from the Cardinal Camer
lengo, Sforza, of whose opposition the Sacred College fully
approved.2 It was Sforza, too, a violent opponent of the
Carafa, who on August 23rd read to the assembled Cardinals
a letter of Ascanio della Corgna, containing bitter accusations
against the late Pope and his nephews,3 and it would seem that
not a single voice was raised in favour of the Pontiff who had
barely closed his eyes in death.
A fresh incentive was given to the hatred against the Carafa
when, just at this moment, news was spread of the shocking
occurrences which had taken place in the family of the Duke
of Paliano. Giovanni Carafa had, on the confession, under
torture, of a supposed paramour of his wife, killed him with
twenty-seven thrusts of a dagger. On August 29th the
wretched wife followed her supposed seducer into death ; in
spite of her pregnancy, she was strangled by her own brother
and another relative. The Roman people saw in this family
tragedy a Divine judgment on the Duke, who had had so little
reverence for the honour of women.4
Under such circumstances, a speech which Ascanio della
Corgna made on the Capitol on August 3oth against the Carafa5
was bound to make a doubly deep impression. On the follow
ing day, August 3ist, a popular vote declared the whole of
the Carafa family, with the exception of the two Cardinals,
deprived of their civil rights as Roman citizens, and begged,
in the presence of the former mighty Carlo Carafa, permission
of the Sacred College to drive the Duke of Paliano, Giovanni
1 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 216.
2Gumus, 607; MASSARELLI, 336.
3 Panvinius in MERKLE, II., 335, n. 2.
4 Cf. *Avviso di Roma dated August 12, 1559 (Urb. 1038,
p. 6gb, Vatican Library). See details concerning this case infra
cap. IV.
5 Panvinius in MERKLE, II., 337.
CARLO CARAFA REINSTATED. 5
Carafa, and his family out of his towns of Gallese and Soriano
and from all the States of the Church.1
This arrogant demand was received with indignation by the
Cardinals. When Pirro Taro, the Conservator of the city,
again appeared on September ist, with the representatives
of the people, to receive the answer to their request, Cardinal
Carpi, in the absence of the Dean, du Bellay, gave them a
severe reprimand on account of the recent excesses, and, at
the same time, he forbade them to take any proceedings on
their own authority, and, in fatherly terms, gravely admon
ished them to keep the peace, and to think of the public weal.
Taro, in his reply, sought to make excuses for the people by
expatiating on the burdens of the war and the heavy taxes
during the late pontificate, and the encroachments of the
Carafa.2 The College of Cardinals had already taken the part
of the Carafa family when Count Giovanni Francesco Bagno
had attempted to take possession of the little town of Monte-
bello, of which he had been deprived by Paul IV. in favour of
Antonio Carafa ; on August 26th the Cardinals had forbidden
the Duke of Florence to afford any assistance to Count Bagno.3
However, all the signs of favour, as well as of hostility, which
the Carafa family received, were of little account in comparison
with the fact that, in virtue of a decree of the Sacred College,
Carlo Carafa was recalled from banishment and again put in
possession of all the rights of a Cardinal. In view of the mere
fact of the great number of his adherents, the prediction of
the French ambassador in Venice that Cardinal Carafa would
play but an unimportant part in the coming conclave,4
appeared to be altogether illusory.
The regulation of the canon law that after the death of a
Pope the nine days obsequies should be commenced at once, and
1GuiDUs, 609. *Report of Camillo Capilupi dated Rome,
Sept. 2, 1559 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
»GUIDUS, 610. *Report of C. Capilupi of Sept. 2, 1559 (Gon
zaga Archives, Mantua).
8 GUIDUS, 609.
4 Francis de Noailles to the Cardinal of Lorraine, August i,
1559. RIBIER, II., 825.
6 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
be followed on the tenth day by the opening of the conclave,
was once more not exactly observed on this occasion. The
solemn services for the repose of the soul of Paul IV. were only
begun on August 23rd, and lasted, with breaks on the inter
vening Sundays and holidays,1 till September 4th. On the
following day, after the Mass of the Holy Ghost and the usual
sermon, preached on this occasion by the well-known humanist,
Giulio Pogiano,2 the Cardinals went into the Vatican for the
conclave,3 although no one had the least idea that this was
to last for three months and twenty-one days.
Many of the Cardinals who were not present in Rome
arrived in the Eternal City4 even before the conclusion of the
obsequies, so that on the morning of September 5th thirty-
five voters, and on the evening of the same day, yet another
five were able to repair to the conclave5 ; Armagnac and
Capizuchi remained in the city on account of illness.6 After
the beginning of the election proceedings several more Cardinals
arrived in Rome. The original number of forty electors had
lOn August 25, 27 and 29, and Sept. 3 (PANVINIUS, 336 seqq.}.
A. payment for " Michele Grecco Luchese pittore per pitture
per le esequie di Paolo IV," is entered on August 21 in the *Conto
delli Olgiati depositarii de denari spesi in sede vacante di Paolo IV.
(State Archives, Rome).
2 BONDONUS, 518. The oration is printed in POGIANI Epistulae,
I., 310 seq.
3 See the plan of the conclave (contemporary print of A. Bladus)
in the Papal Secret Archives, XL, 122 (also in the State Archives,
Florence, C. Strozz., I., 229, see SUSTA, Pius IV., 116).
4 On August 1 8, Carlo Carafa, on the 21, Corgna, on the 24,
du Bellay and Crispi, on the 25, Alessandro Farnese and Simon-
celli, on the 28, Rovere, on the 29, Cicada, Innocenzo del Monte,
Gaddi and Armagnac, on the 30, Mercurio (Mamertinus, cf.
MERKLE, II., 628, 38). Cristoforo del Monte, Madruzzo and
Este, on the 31, Gonzaga ; on an unknown date, Lenoncourt and
Capodiferro. Panvinius in MERKLE, 335-7.
6 Namely Cueva, Medici, Cristoforo del Monte, Ricci and
Capodiferro. Panvinius, loc. cit., 339 n.
• Ibid.
NUMBER OF CARDINALS IN CONCLAVE. 7
been increased by September 28th to forty-seven,1 but by
October I2th it had fallen to forty-four,2 in consequence of
illness, though it had risen to forty-eight3 by the 3ist of the
month. Capodiferro died on December 1st, and Dandino
on the 4th, while du Bellay and Saraceni returned to the city
on the advice of their physicians.4 At the actual election,
therefore, only forty-four voters took part. Seven Cardinals
remained absent from the conclave altogether ; these were,
beside the Spaniard Mendoza and the Portuguese Prince Henry,
the five Frenchmen, Givry, Vendome, Odet de Chatillon,
Meudon, who died in November, and Charles of Lorraine who,
with his brother Francis, was acting as Regent for the king,
who was a minor. Cardinal Consiglieri had died on August
25th.5
In order to maintain public order 400 men had been levied
for the defence of the Capitol by the magistrates, on August
23rd, and on the 24th 3,000 additional soldiers and 300 cavalry
were appointed to guard the city. G
Long before the beginning of the conclave attention had
been directed to the approaching Papal election from many
different quarters. Paul IV. had especially sought to exclude
two Cardinals from attaining to the supreme dignity ; the
highly respected Cardinal Morone, whose faith, in the opinion
of the Pope, was not above suspicion, and the wealthy Cardinal
Ippolito d'Este, who had great experience in everything
connected with diplomacy, but who was completely unworthy.
1 Armagnac arrived on September 7, on the 8, Tournon, on the
u, Truchsess, on the 14, Strozzi and Guise, on the 18, Ranuccio
Farnese, on the 28, Capizuchi. BONDONUS, 519 seqq.
2 On September 20, Armagnac left the conclave, Capizuchi
on October 2, and Simoncelli on the 12. BONDONUS, 519 seqq.
3 By the arrival of Bertrand on October 25, and the return of
Simoncelli, Armagnac and Capizuchi on October 20, 30, and 31.
BONDONUS, 524 seqq.
4 Ibid., 526 seqq. Capodiferro died in the conclave, and Dandino,
who had left it on December i, in the city.
6 MASSARELLI, 335 ; BONDONUS, 518.
6 GUIDUS, 609.
8 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
In his decrees concerning the Papal election, Paul IV. had
especially these two Cardinals in mind/ and when he had
Morone arrested and Este banished2 he was in no small degree
led to this step by the fear that one of them might reach the
Papal throne.3 He detested Este on account of his simoniacal
attempts to gain possession of the tiara. He had even
attacked the Cardinal of Ferrara, declaring him to be a Simon
Magus,4 in the very conclave from which he came forth as
Pope, and on the second anniversary of his election he admon
ished the Cardinals to allow God to appoint the Pope, and not
to choose one who had bills of exchange to the value of from
100,000 to 200,000 scudi in his pocket, and could grant benefices
worth from 50,000 to 60,000 scudi, like that Simon Magus
whom they all knew.5 At the same time Paul IV. 's own
nephew, Cardinal Carafa, was secretly working, with French
support, even during his uncle's lifetime, for the elevation of
Este.6
The Cardinal of Ferrara had already been the candidate of
France at three Papal elections, 7 and after the death of Paul
IV. he was more than ever certain, to continue to be so, as he
was connected by marriage with the most powerful French
statesmen, the family of Guise.8 He himself strove with great
energy to attain the Papal dignity, although he had small
prospect of success, on account of his unworthiness.9 His
1 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 220.
2 Ibid, pp. 101, 289.
3 Ibid, pp. 291, 302 seq.
4 Panvinius in MERKLE, II., 268, col. i.
5 Navagero on May 29, 1557, in BROWN, VI., 2, n. 907, p. 1123
seq. ; cf. Navagero on March 20, 1557, ibid, VI., 3. App . n.
159., p. 1659.
6 Navagero on May 30, 1556, in BROWN, IV., i, n. 500.
7 Cf. Vols. XIII., p. 20, XIV. pp. 2, 57, of this work.
8 Cf. Lettres de Catherine de Medicis, I., 123 seq.
9 *" La notte seguente (September 17) Ferrara cominci6 a esser
dietro alle sue prattiche gagliardamente e per tutto il giorno
seguente non resto di tempestare benche ogn'homo conoscessi
rimpossibilita " (enclosure in cypher). Thus Francesco di
THE AIMS OF FRANCE. 9
boundless riches, the favour of the princes, and the splendour
of his illustrious family were all as much in his favour as his
personal qualities. According to Guidus he was possessed
of a truly terrible vigilance, of incredible persistence, and had
besides an unusual charm of manner, which won for him all
he desired.1 In order not to injure his own prospects he was
clever enough to arrange that only those Cardinals should be
put forward as candidates of whose election there was no
possible chance, and, on the other hand, that those who en
joyed the favour of many supporters should remain in the
background. It was he who was chiefly responsible for the
long duration of the conclave.
The French government wished Cardinal Tournon to be the
next Pope, should Este's election not be possible, and after
him, Cardinal Gonzaga ; there were, besides, several other
Cardinals, such as Pisani, Armagnac, and du Bellay, who
would not have been displeasing to the French. Carpi, on
the other hand, was to be absolutely barred as a candidate.2
It was feared that he would, as Pope, endeavour to get back
the lost principality of Carpi for his family, and thus give rise
to political complications.3 In other respects, France no
longer had the same interest in the election as on former
occasions. After the death of Henry II., on July loth, 1559,
Francis II., who was a minor, had ascended the throne, arid
the regency of the two Guise brothers had to contend with such
difficulties in their own country that, for the time being,
Guadagno to the Duke of Mantua on September 20, 1559 (Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua). " Ferrara no entra en el juego, sino es en
contradecir a Carpo." Vargas to Philip II. on September 28,
1559, in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 269. Concerning Este cf.
Requesens to Philip II., on January 5, 1665, ibid., 582.
1 GUIDUS, 622.
"Francis II. to his ambassador in Rome on August 27, 1559,
in RIBIER, II., 830.
8 MULLER, 60. Fr. v. Thurm to King Ferdinand on November 3,
1559, in WAHRMUND, 260 : " timet Carpensem Ferrariensis
propter jura, quae super oppido Carpi praetendit." Carpi lost
his principality as early as 1527.
10 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
France could not think of new conquests in Italy. In addition
to this, French statesmen had come to the conclusion, since
the last Franco- Spanish war, that it would be much better for
France to give up the policy of seeking for territory in Italy.1
The instructions for the French ambassador in Rome, accord
ingly, were to the effect that if none of the proposed candidates
could be pushed through, it would be well to support someone
else, irrespective of nationality, provided that he were worthy
of the dignity, and free from ambition.2
Spain, too, no longer thought of conquests in Italy. The
aims of Philip II. were to preserve peace in his own dominions,
and to strengthen the Catholic Church against the new doc
trines, and, if only for the latter reason, he was deeply inter
ested as to who should obtain the tiara. When Philip
appointed Don Juan de Figueroa as his ambassador in Rome,
shortly after the war with Paul IV., he impressed upon his
envoy that his most important task would be his procedure
at the next Papal election.3 However anxious Philip may
have been that no one should be elected to the Papal throne
who would begin a new war with Spain, Figueroa was never
theless instructed not to endeavour, in the first place, to gain
influence in the conclave in any political sense or from a
political point of view. The king was much more anxious
to have a Pope " who would be zealous for the service of God,
and for the well-being and pacification of Christendom, who
would eradicate religious errors and disputes, and prevent
their spread, and who would devote himself to the urgently-
needed work of reform, and who would preserve Christendom,
and especially Italy, which had been so sorely tried by the war,
IMULLER, 32.
2 So writes Francesco di Guadagno to the Duke of Mantua,
Rome, September, 16, 1559 : *" Giovedi (September 14) sera
entrorno in conclavi li revmi Ghisa et Strozzi, con ordine, dicono,
di non havere rispetto ne a Francesi ne a Imperial! ma solo a far
un homo da bene et che sia atto a tal carico." (Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua) .
3 * Instruction for Figueroa on September 25, 1559 (Simancas
Archives). Extract in MULLER, 84.
CANDIDATES OF SPAIN. II
in peace and unity." Should a candidate possess all these
qualities, then his readiness to represent the actual interests
of Spain was not to weigh too much in the balance. As
desirable candidates Philip then indicated Carpi, Morone,
Puteo, Medici and Dolera. Morone and Dolera; who had only
recently been elevated to the cardinalate, had little prospect
of being elected, and were only mentioned out of courtesy.
Este and all Frenchmen were to be excluded.1
As far as Figueroa was concerned, these instructions had no
importance, since Paul IV. would not accept him as ambassador
on account of a former interference on his part in the rights
of the Inquisition.2 When at length the Pope was willing
to receive him, and Philip repeated his orders in an Instruction
of July I3th, 1559, 3 Figueroa died on July 28th, 1559, at
Gaeta. The king then appointed Francisco de Vargas, his
former representative in Milan. He sailed from Antwerp on
August 3ist, and reached Rome on September 25th.4
Figueroa 's instructions were also to be followed by him,
although he applied them in a much more arbitrary manner.
Count Francis von Thurm,5 hitherto the representative of
Ferdinand, King of the Romans, in Venice, arrived in Rome
on August 28th as his ambassador. In this office, Thurm
can hardly be said to have represented an independent policy, G
but rather to have followed that of Vargas.7
1 MULLER, 84 seq. There appears no reason to doubt Philip's
sincerity, HERRE, 33 seq, Cf. also SUSTA, Pius IV., 79.
2 MULLER, 40 seq.
3 MULLER, 85 ; cf. 59, n. i. As to the date see HERRE, 41, n. i.
4 MULLER, 41; Concerning Vargas see CONSTANT, Rapport,
1 86 seq.
6 Concerning him see CONSTANT, Rapport, 2 seq.
6 Ferdinand remarked that he had never directly (liberamente)
proposed anyone to the conclave, but only expressed a wish,
" che eleggano un homo da bene." Giacomo Soranzo on Decem
ber 2, 1559, in TURBA, III., 125 n.
7 SICKEL, Konzil, i seqq. S. BRUNNER in Studien und Mitteilun-
gen aus dem Benediktiner-und Zisterzienserorden, VI., 2 (1885),
173 seqq.
12 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Duke Cosimo of Florence, on the other hand, secretly
endeavoured to obtain a great influence over the proceedings
of the conclave. It was not enough for him that his two
envoys, Bongianni Gianfigliazzi and Matleo Concini, were
present in Rome, but he also sent Bartolomeo Concini there,
who was initiated into all the secrets of his policy. Two of
his agents, one of them the adroit Lottino, were admitted to
the conclave as supposed attendants on Cardinals.1 Cosimo
tried himself to win over the electors to his plans by letters,
and not everyone had the courage, like Cardinal Dandino, to
reject these letters,2 or to answer, like Cardinal Scotti, that
the Duke should attend to the affairs of his dominions and
leave the Papal election to the Cardinals.3 For some years
the Medici family had been connected by marriage with that
of Este, and it is easy to understand that Cardinal d'Este
should now have sought to approach the Duke, and that this
ambitious Prince of the Church should have endeavoured to
win over this powerful ally to the support of his long-cherished
designs on the tiara. Cosimo pretended to accept his proposals ,
but his concurrence was not sincere.4 He also promised his
assistance to the Queen-Mother, Catherine de' Medici, when
she begged for his support for Este, but at the same time he
offered his services to the Spanish king against the Cardinal,5
1 SUSTA, Pius IV., 127. MULLER, 62 seq.
2 PETRUCELLI, 144.
3 *Avviso di Roma of September 9, 1559 (Urb. 1030, p. 79,
Vatican Library).
4 Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga of Mantua, with whom Este had
entered into an alliance for mutual support even before the
conclave of Marcellus II., also appears to have been a party to
the agreement ; there is reason to believe that a formal compact
was even made, according to which the Duke and Gonzaga were
to work for the candidature of Este, while the Duke and Este
were to render a similar service to Gonzaga. Should, however,
neither of the said Cardinals gain the tiara, they were all three to
promote the candidature of Medici. These very conditional
promises were, from the nature of such transactions, of very
little value. MULLER, 55 seq.
5 MULLER, 63 seq. ; cf. also SUSTA, Pius IV., 142 seq.
PARTIES IN THE CONCLAVE. 13
and, as a matter of fact, in the conclave he left Este in the
lurch and worked directly against him.1 According to Cosimo's
view, Cardinal de' Medici was, as a matter of course, the only
possible candidate,2 but this preference, which was well known
in the conclave from the first, rather prejudiced than helped
the Cardinal in the eyes of many, for a Pope who had at
his command the whole influence of the powerful Florentine
Duke was to be dreaded.3 Cosimo, however, refrained from
openly influencing the Cardinals during October and Novem
ber ; it was only towards the end of the conclave that he
interfered decisively.
The peculiar party conditions existing among the electors
made it possible for diplomacy to play an important part in
the election, to an even greater extent than was usually the
case. It is to be ascribed to the confusion and the obstacles
which were constantly being raised in this way that the Papal
throne remained unoccupied for more than four months.
The Cardinals were divided into three almost equal parties.
The French interests were under the skilful direction of Car
dinals Ippolito d'Este of Ferrara and Louis de Guise, and were
represented by Cardinals Tournon, du Bellay, Armagnac,
IMULLER, 57, 62.
8 Cosimo to Concini on September 21, 15 59, in PETRUCELLI, 129.
" Quelli che piu di tutti sono in predicamento per il giudicio
comune sono Carpi, Puteo, Morone et Medeghino," wrote Fra
Taddeo Perugino to the Archbishop of Salerno as early as August
25, 1559 (SusxA, Pius IV., 123). Navagero recognised Medici
as the candidate most likely to be successful as early as 1558
(see ALBERI, I., 3, 413).
3 *" Medici e molto favorite dal Duca di Firenze, il cui favore
in luogo di giovamento gli noce (cf. the statement in SUSTA,
Pius IV., 127, n. 2), perche la grandezza di quel Duca e molto
temuta di tutta questa corte et si dubita che havendo un papa
creatura sua et tanto piu della natura di Medici che sarebbe troppo
grande." Capilupi on September 2, 15 59 (Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua). Concerning Puteo Capilupi writes that he was held
" in molta consideratione "in spite of the hostility of Este and
Farnese.
14 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Lenoncourt, Bertrand and Strozzi ; the Italians Pisani, Cesi,
Cristoforo del Monte, Simoncelli and Sermoneta for the most
part adhered to this party, and to a less reliable degree, Crispi,
Capodiferro and Dandino.1 To these sixteen French partisans
were opposed seventeen adherents of Spain. Their leader
was Ascanio Sforza di Santa Fiora, as well as the Bishop of
Trent, Cristoforo Madruzzo. These two were followed by
Truchsess, Cueva, Pacheco, Carpi, Morone, Puteo, Ricci,
Coigna, Mercuric, Cornaro, Cicada, Saraceni, Medici, Gonzaga
and Rovere.2
According to the person put forward as candidate, these
party relations were more or less altered, but each of the two
parties was strong enough to prevent the election of an
undesirable candidate, although neither could of itself produce
the necessary majority of two-thirds of the votes. The
decision lay therefore with a third party, that of Cardinal
Carlo Carafa. The thirteen Cardinals created by the deceased
Pope, with the exception of Strozzi and Bertrand, all belonged
to it, that is to say, the two relatives of Paul IV., Alfonso and
Diomede Carafa, the three members of religious orders in the
Sacred College, the Dominican Ghislieri, the Franciscan
Dolera, and the Theatine Scotti, and, in addition, Rebiba,
Capizuchi, Reumano, Gaddi and Vitelli. All these were
thoroughly ecclesiastically-minded men, which made it all the
more surprising that they should have allied themselves to
such an unworthy person as Carlo Carafa. The party of the
Carafa was also soon strengthened by Alessandro Farnese and
his three adherents, his brother Ranuccio Farnese, Savelli and
Innocenzo del Monte.3
A letter written in October, 1559, by the Duke of Paliano,
is characteristic of the position of the Carafa family at the
1MiJLLER, 70 seqq.
2 Ibid., 76 seqq.
3 Ibid., 90 seqq. A. Farnese assures the king of his devotion
in letters of September 4 and 5, which are addressed to Arding-
hello in Spain. After the election he justified his conduct in the
conclave to the Spanish king, and excused himself at the French
court. CARO, III., 265 seqq., 273 seqq.
PARTY OF THE CARAFA. 15
election. " It is not of the least consequence," writes Giovanni
Carafa to his brother, " who will be Pope, the only thing that
is of importance is that he who is chosen should realize that
he owes the dignity to the Carafa. This house does not enjoy
any favour with the Spanish or French kings, and everything
therefore depends on securing the favour of the future Pope, as
otherwise the ruin of the family is assured."1 Carlo Carafa
had completely broken with the French at the beginning of
the conclave, and was inclined to favour the Spaniards. He,
as well as his nephew, the Cardinal of Naples, entered the
conclave with the idea of voting for Carpi, or, should his
election prove impossible, for Gonzaga.2 As a reward for his
services in the conclave Carlo Carafa expected to receive from
Philip II. an Italian principality, which would compensate
his family for the forfeited Paliano.
Carafa's chief adviser was Alessandro Farnese, who had
already taken part in three conclaves, and had acquired a
great deal of experience. Even before the death of Paul IV.
Carafa had addressed himself to Farnese, from Civita Lavinia,
his place of banishment, and placed himself and the thirteen
votes of the Cardinals created by the late Pope at his disposal
for the approaching conclave ; with their united efforts they
intended to elevate a Cardinal who would show himself
grateful to the houses of Farnese and Carafa for his election.3
Farnese did not appear to take a prominent part in the con
clave, but in spite of this, his influence as an adviser seems to
have been very important, and it was especially he who
" with incredible skill and trouble "4 held the Carafa party
together at a critical moment.
Among the forty e^ctors who entered the conclave on
September 5th, only eleven favoured the French. The oppos
ing party therefore thought to make use of their majority at
1 ANCEL, Disgrace, 66 seq.
2 Alfonso Carafa, the Cardinal of Naples, *writes to this effect
to his father, the Marquis of Montebello, on October n, 1559
(Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
3 PANVINIUS, 576-7.
4 " incredi-bili arte et labore " ; ibid., 580,
l6 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
once on the evening of the following day, by electing Cardinal
Carpi as Pope, by paying him general homage and without
having recourse to formal voting, thus bringing the conclave
to a speedy conclusion.1 This plan came to nothing owing
to the disunion of the Spanish party. Their leader, Sforza,
was secretly opposed to Carpi, even though he was the principal
candidate of the Spaniards, and had allowed himself to be
drawn into a secret agreement by Este, by which he promised
to prevent Carpi's election, while Este was to work on behalf
of Medici or Gonzaga, who both also belonged to the Spanish
party.2
The attempt, therefore, to elevate Carpi suddenly was
bound to be unsuccessful, and they had to content themselves
with allowing the conclave to proceed in the usual manner.
The customary election capitulation was drawn up and read
aloud on the evening of September 8th.3 It contained,
besides the declarations constantly recurring in such docu
ments, distinct allusions to the pontificate of the late Pope.
The Cardinals, accordingly, had to swear that they would
undertake no war, and that they would punish in a fitting
manner the outbreaks which had taken place while the pro
ceedings in connection with the vacancy in the Papal throne
were being conducted. The reform of the Church and the
Curia, as well as the carrying on of the Council, was also
earnestly enjoined on the Cardinal who should be elected.4
On September gth the bull of Julius II. was sworn to.5
1 BONDONUS, 519.
2 Conclavi de' Pontifici Romani, s.l. 1667, 160 seqq. The
report of the " Conclavi " is supported by statements in trust
worthy sources (MULLER, no seq.}. Sermoneta declared himself
very decidedly against Carpi ; see **Caligari's letter of September
12, 1559 (Papal Secret Archives).
3 BONDONUS, 519.
*DEMBINSKI, Wybor Pi usa IV., 289-304, in the extract in
RAYNALDUS, 1559, n. 37 seq. LE PLAT, IV., 612 seq. Cf. SICKEL,
Konzil, 12 seq., and the analysis in MULLER, 100 seq. See also
Quellen und Forschungen des Preuss. Instit., XII., 226.
5 BONDONUS, 519.
THE FIRST SCRUTINY. 17
On the same day the voting began, but at first, at any rate,
was not taken seriously. Este wrote on the nth that they
were not as yet thinking seriously of getting a Pope elected,
and that there was hardly anyone as yet who would allow
himself to be voted for.1 The want of unanimity and decision
in the conclave was so great that a large number of aspirants,
some twenty or more, could natter themselves with hopes
of receiving the tiara.2 The Spanish party also thought it
well to wait for further indications of the wishes of Philip II.
It therefore frequently happened in the early days of the con
clave that a considerable number of votes were given to a
Cardinal whom no one seriously wished to become Pope, for
the sole purpose of showing him honour. On September nth
Cueva received seventeen votes, on the I3th Lenoncourt had
eighteen, on the I4th the Cardinal-Infante of Portugal had
fifteen and five accessits* In the case of Cueva they very
narrowly escaped an unpleasant surprise. The Imperial
ambassador had been collecting votes for him, so that at
length thirty-two Cardinals had given him their promise as a
joke, and without realizing the importance of their action.
Cueva would have been elected Pope, against the will of the
whole conclave, had not a fortunate chance revealed the
mistake shortly before the decisive moment.4 There was
great excitement during the night of September 24th when a
similar danger came to light. Cornaro had obtained for his
^ETRUCELLI, 132 Seq.
2MuLLER, 109. Miiller counts 14 Cardinals "whose candida
ture had been seriously mentioned." *Scoperti 19 che tutti si
stimano papabili, il che mette discordi et controversia grande
fra loro. Avviso di Roma of September 16, 1559 (Urb. 1039,
p. 83 b, Vatican Library).
3 See the *List of scrutinies (State Library, Munich) in Ap
pendix No. i. GUIDUS, 612 ; BONDONUS, 519 seq. Bondonus
gives 1 8 votes to Cueva. According to the *Avviso di Roma of
September 16, 1559 (Urb. 1039, p, 83b), he had had 17 and 7
accessits, " e se per caso Ferrara non scopriva la tram' a Farnese,
lui riusciva papa " (Vatican Library).
4 GUIDUS, 612 seq. Vargas, in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 266-7.
VOL. XV.
l8 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
uncle, Pisani, the only Cardinal of Leo X. who was still
alive, the votes of thirty-seven electors, though, when the
matter threatened to become serious, they withdrew their
promises.1
Several more seriously intended attempts and proposals
were made during the first weeks of the conclave by the Spanish
party, but their very endeavours clearly showed to what
straits they were reduced in order to find a candidate against
whom no objection could be raised. At the beginning of the
voting Pacheco was the most prominent, having received
fifteen votes2 at the first scrutiny and a still greater number
after September 22nd.3 Pacheco, however, was a Spaniard,
and the Italian Cardinals did not wish for him as Pope on
that account. After him Puteo received most votes in the
early days, but he had, as later events showed, the powerful
party of the Carafa against him.4 Carpi, after the futile
attempt of September 6th, fell into the background at the
scrutinies in a marked way, so that of the Spanish candidates
there only remained Medici, whom Duke Cosimo repeatedly
and emphatically described as the only possible candidate.5
Since 1556 he had had the election of this man, in whom he
hoped to find an accommodating tool for his political plans,
in view, and had been secretly working for him,6 and now he
championed him almost too openly.7 Medici was supported
by Philip II., the Queen-Mother, Catherine de' Medici, also
showing herself, against all expectations, to be well disposed
:Gumus, 613 seq.
2 *List of the scrutinies (State Library, Munich) in Appendix
No. i.
3 Ibid., and BONDONUS, 520 seq.
4 MULLER, 141 seq.
5 See the letter to Concini of September 21, 1559, quoted
supra p. 13, n. 2, and that to Lottino of September 24, 1559, in
SUSTA, Pius IV., 125.
6 Cf. SUSTA, Pius IV., 66 seq., 76 seqq.
7 Cf. the ""Letter of Caligari of September 12, 1559 (Papal
Secret Archives).
CANDIDATURE OF CARPI. IQ
towards him.1 In the conclave Farnese and the Carala
favoured him,2 while the French had no objection to his
being elected. From the very beginning of the election
proceedings, Medici was treated by his colleagues with such
distinction that his elevation to the Papal throne was expected
on the evening of September Qth,-3 but he had a dangerous
opponent in the powerful and cunning Este, who distrusted
him on account of his favourable prospects, and who would
not renounce his own candidature, however unlikely it may
have appeared ; his aim was to prolong the conclave, the
better to gain time for his intrigues. On September i6th and
the following Sunday there was active canvassing for Medici.4
In order to bring pressure to bear on Este in favour of Medici,
Farnese acted as though he wished to support Carpi, his most
dreaded opponent. Consequently Carpi, who in the first
week of the conclave had managed to get at mort five or six
votes, received all of a sudden fourteen and sixteen.5 On the
afternoon of September 2oth it was generally believed that the
idea of his elevation by general homage was really intended,
many of the Cardinals assembling together, as if with this
purpose, in the Pauline Chapel. His opponents, however,
were also present, and persisted in remaining far into the
night, so that Carpi's favourable prospects again disappeared.6
1 *Avviso di Roma of September 23, 1559 ; " Ma si ragiona,
che Medici habbia d'esser propost' a tutti per li molti favori,
che li sono sopragionti contra 1'opinione di tutti della Regina di
Franza." (Urb. 1039, p. 85, Vatican Library).
2C/. the **Letter of Caligari of September 12, 1559 (Papal
Secret Archives).
3 *Avviso di Roma of September 9, 1559, loc. cit., p. 79.
4 Guadagno on September 20 to the Duke of Mantua ; see
Appendix No. 2.
5 *List of the scrutinies (State Archives, Munich) in Appendix
No. i.
6 BONDONUS, 520. *Guadagno to the Duke of Mantua on
September 20, 1559 (see Appendix No. 2). Guadagno expressly
states what Miiller (p. 114) only calls a conjecture, that the whole
scene was staged only to make an impression on Este : ' ' Farnese
per paura la sera fece mezo segno di voler andare ad adorare
Carpi per far risolvere Ferrara."
20 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
The Spaniards, however, could not this time put forward
their most able man, Morone.1 As was currently reported
in Rome, the Cardinals in the conclave had once more investi
gated Morone 's case, and this had resulted in an acquittal.
When, on the suggestion of Carafa, Vitelli allowed himself
to raise an objection, saying that he had on the preceding day
carefully studied Morone 's case and had found many remark
able things in it, he received a sharp answer from Carpi, in
which he was supported by Gonzaga.2 Morone, nevertheless,
resolved to make a declaration to the College of Cardinals on
September xyth, through the Dean, du Bellay, thanking them
for their decision in his case, and for their efforts on his behalf
with Paul IV. and the princes. As, however, several persons
were not willing to see him take part in the election, he begged
them to permit him to withdraw from the conclave. Du
Bellay would not grant this request, and as the majority of the
Cardinals persisted in their decision of acquittal, Morone
withdrew his proposal ; this unselfishness on his part did not
fail to increase the esteem in which he was held.3
After the endeavours of the Spanish party had proved
unavailing, the French made an attempt to elevate the
esteemed and generally respected Cardinal Tournon. It is
true that the Italians did not wish for a Frenchman, but many
promised a vote of honour, and therefore Tournon received,
for the scrutiny of September 22nd, a definite promise from
some twenty-eight Cardinals and a conditional one from about
four others.4 Then they thought of the plan of only naming
1 ' ' Moron f u restituido a voz activa y passiva pero non se
habla, ni hablara del a causa de lo sucedido," writes the Spanish
ambassador, Vargas, on October 3, 1559, to Philip, in DO"LLINGER
Beitrage, I., 27.
2 *Avviso di Roma, September 16, 1559 : " Monsignor, se voi
1'avete studiat'hieri, io 1'ho studiato 30 anni fa, che so quant 'e
huomo da ben il Morone e non e d'essere trattato com'e stato "
(Urb. 1039, p. 836, Vatican Library).
3*Avviso di Roma of September 23, 1559 (Urb. 1039, p. 86b,
Vatican Library).
« Guise on September 27, in RIBIER, II., 833.
CANDIDATURE OF TOURNON. 21
Tournon on twenty-four voting papers, after which the re
mainder of his friends, as if suddenly inspired, were to agree
to the election, and thereby carry other Cardinals with them.
The votes which were still wanting to make up the necessary
thirty-one were to be supplied by those who had only promised
their help in case of need. The only thing that brought this
cleverly thought-out plan to grief was the fact that it had come
to the ears of Carafa. In order to frustrate it he caused the
rumour to be spread about that he and his whole party would
also vote for Tournon. The consequence was that many of
those who esteemed Tournon, but, nevertheless, did not wish
to see him Pope, now drew back. Only fifteen voting papers
contained his name, and it did not help matters when, in
accordance with the previous arrangement, du Bellay, Armag-
nac, Crispi, Strozzi and an unknown voter subsequently
declared themselves for him. No one dared to do anything
further for Tournon, for fear of driving Carafa to declare
himself for Pacheco, who in the same scrutiny had received
eighteen votes and one accessit.1 This very excited session
had only proved that the French were as little able as the
Spaniards to elect a Pope by their own power. Nothing could
now be done but to make the election possible by an arrange
ment between the two parties ; the former alliance between
Este and Sforza now had to come into force.
After the vain attempt in favour of Tournon, the two leaders
of the French party, Este and Guise, held a conference with
iGumus, 613 ; Conclavi, 159. The number of 15 votes and
5 accessits is certain from the "List of scrutinies (State Library,
Munich; see Appendix No. i), BONDONUS, 520; GUIDUS, 613;
the account in the Conclavi is wrong at any rate in this point,
which is not very clear in Guidus. Guardagno *writes on Septem
ber 23, to the Duke of Mantua : " Hiera mattina si fecion prattiche
per Tornone, i Francesi dicevon di havere 34 voti, ma dentro
facevono conto che non havea piu di 23 o 24, et in scrutinio di
poi non hebbe piu di 21, per il che pare che i Francesi si sieno
levati in collera, ne voglion sentir piu parlare di Papa, et dicon,
che li Italiani non mantengon la fede, e si dubita che le cose non
vadina in lungo " (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
22 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
du Bcllay and Tournon, and it seemed to them as if Gonzaga
were the man most likely to unite the votes of the French and
Spaniards upon himself. The Cardinal of Mantua was out
wardly supposed to be a member of the Spanish party, but
he had also been designated as an acceptable candidate by the
French king. After consulting together for several days the
leaders of the French party went to Sforza on September 25th
and begged him to propose a Cardinal from his party for
election. Sforza in his turn named Gonzaga. To attempt,
however, to effect his elevation in the usual manner, by secret
ballot, appeared too uncertain, and it was therefore decided
to summon the Cardinals immediately to the Pauline Chapel
and to declare Gonzaga Pope by paying him general homage.1
This attempt, undertaken with hardly any preparation, not
only failed completely, but also led to a division of the Spanish
party. Only nine Cardinals of that party joined the thirteen
of the French assembled in the Pauline Chapel, the others
declining to obey their leader Sforza. Whi'e Este, Guise,
Sforza and Sermoneta were endeavouring to collect more
votes, Madruzzo thought to attain their object in a simpler
manner by crying out that Gonzaga was already Pope, and
that he had the necessary number of votes. Only two Car
dinals, however, allowed themselves to be moved by this to
join Gonzaga ; most of them remained inaccessible, barred
in their cells till all was over. Farnese had in the meantime
assembled his party in the Sistine Chapel ; his brother
Ranuccio, who was ill at the time, got out of bed and placed
himself, wrapped in a fur mantle, at the door of the chapel,
in order to let no one go over to their opponents. The ex
hortations of Farnese and Carafa to hold out obtained a bril
liant success for their party.2
1RlBIERr II., 834.
2 Guidus, 614 seq., Bondonus, 520. Santa Flora and Madruzzo
to Philip II. on September 25, 1559, in PETRUCELLI, 136 seq.
" *Se non era la furia di Trento, le cose succedevan felicissamente
. . . Ferrara. Ghisa, Santa Fiore et Sermoneta eron intorno ad
alcuni altri che vi mancavano a complir il numero che si ricer^a,
quar.do Trento troppo amorevole et frettoloso comincio 6 a gridare:
CANDIDATURE OF GONZAGA. 23
In reality the attempt to elevate Gonzaga showed the dis
union of the Spanish party as well as the strong cohesion of
that of Carafa. Even the Frenchman, Reumano, who owed
his dignity of Cardinal to Paul IV., remained loyal to Carafa,
and to the threats of his indignant countrymen answered
that he would rather lose the whole of his property than break
his pledged word.1 Cardinal Vitelli made excuses to Gonzaga
for having kept in the background at the elevation of a friend,
by referring to the obligations which bound him to Carafa.2
Very probably this attempt on behalf of Gonzaga was not
seriously meant by Este. According to his agreement with
Sforza, both were to take steps either for Medici or for Gonzaga.
Together with Sforza, Este decided in favour of Gonzaga
because the latter would probably have more difficulty than
Medici, and pressed for an immediate attempt for the Cardinal
of Mantua, as the candidature of the more dangerous opponent
would then be almost without any prospect of success.3
In spite of this first failure by Gonzaga, however, his
adherents remained loyal to him. The party leaders, Este
and Guise, Sforza and Madruzzo, mutually pledged themselves
to vote for no one else till all hope of his success had dis
appeared. Even then they wished to keep together, and work
in common for the election of the Pope.4 Farnese and
Mantova, Mantova, Papa, Papa. Et non vi essendo il numero,
Farnese et Caraffa hebbon tempo a non lasciare svolger quell:
pochi che mancavano, et a proporre Pacheco in competentia
come fece." Guadagno to the Duke of Mantua on September 27,
1559 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
iGuiDUS, 615. 2Ibid., 614. 'MiiLLER, in seqq.
* Este and Guise to the French King on September 27, 1559 ;
Guise to Charles and Francis de Guise on September 27, 1559,
m RIBIER, II., 833, 835. " *Ghisa, Ferrara, Trento et Santa
Fiore, capi di questa lega, hanno promesso et giurato di non v
mai dar il voto loro ad altri, che hanno sottoscritto cedole di
lor mano." Guadagno to the Duke of Mantua on September 27,
1559 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). Also *Avviso di Roma, c
September 30, 1559 ; the four leaders have given their pledge to
Mantua, even if they should have to remain ten years in the
conclave (Urb. 1039, p. 87b, Vatican Library).
24 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Carafa, however, were just as firmly resolved on the other
hand, to exclude Gonzaga from the Papacy at all costs.1
Both parties were almost equally strong,2 and in view of
JEste and Guise wrote on October 18, 1559 (in RIBIER, II.,
835), that Carafa and Farnese sought to keep their adherents
together by holding out to them hopes of the tiara, and by pro
curing for them at the voting 18, 20 or 22 votes to keep this hope
alive. This, however, only relates to the days which immediately
preceded October 18 ; on October 12 Ghislieri received 20 votes ;
on the 13, Ranuccio Farnese 21 ; on the 16, Gaddi 14 ; on the 17,
Savelli 22. Cf. *Lists of the scrutinies (State Library, Munich,
in Appendix No. i).
2 Gianfigliazzi writes at the end of September to the Duke of
Florence that the Farnese-Carafa party had 25 Cardinals, and
that of Gonzaga 22 (PETRUCELLI, 130). The so-called neutrals
are here reckoned among the opponents of Gonzaga. According
to Guadagna (*Letter of October 4, 1559, Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua), du Bellay, Tournon, Armagnac, Lenoncourt, Guise,
Este, Madruzzo, Sforza, Sermoneta, Morone, Medici, Puteo,
Capodiferro, Cicada, Pisani, Cornaro, Cristoforo del Monte,
Mercurio, Rovere, Corgna, Simoncelli, Strozzi and Gonzaga
himself are all for the Cardinal of Mantua. Against him are,
according to Guadagno : Alessandro and Ranuccio Farnese,
Savelli, Carpi, Saraceni, Carlo Carafa, Scotti, Vitelli, Gaddi,
Rebiba, Ghislieri, Diomede Carafa, Alfonso Carafa, Innocenzo
del Monte, Reumano, Capizuchi and Dolera. At the name of
Dolera there is the remark : " andra a Mantova non mancando
piu di 2 voti." The neutrals are Pacheco, Ricci, and Crispi,
Truchsess, Cesi, Dandino and Cueva. Guadagno says of Truchsess,
Cesi and Dandino : " andranno in Mantova," and of Cueva :
" andra in Mantova mancando il suo voto." A list which the
Imperial ambassador, Francis von Thunn, encloses in a letter
to Ferdinand I. on September 30, 1559 (published by S. BRUNNER
in the Studien und Mitteilungen aus dem Benediktiner-imd Zister-
zienserorden, VI., 2, 388 (1885), differs in the following respects
from Guadagno's list : To the list of friends of Gonzaga it adds
Saraceni, Cueva and Cesi, but omits Medici and Mercurio (Cueva
was, according to BONDONUS, 50, among the opponents of Gonzaga
at the attempted homage on September 25; of. MULLER, 135).
In the list of the opponents of Gonzaga, Saraceni and Innocenzo
FRANCISCO DE VARGAS. 25
the obstinacy with which they opposed one another, it seemed
as if the election would be indefinitely prolonged. In the
meantime Spanish diplomacy interfered in the most incon
siderate manner with the proceedings of the election, and the
confusion was thus increased to the highest degree.
The Spanish ambassador, Francisco de Vargas,1 had arrived
in Rome on September 25th, and he presented himself before
the Cardinals on the following day.2 In his person a diplo
matist of no ordinary skill and obstinacy appeared upon the
scene. It annoyed Vargas to hear in Italy that since Clement
VII. no staunch adherent of Charles V. had ever gained the
tiara, whereas, on several occasions, a Cardinal who had been
excluded by the Emperor had succeeded in so doing.3 Vargas
del Monte are missing. Thurm also reckons Medici, Innocenzo
del Monte and Mercuric among the neutrals, but not Cesi and
Cueva. A *third list in the Avvisi di Roma of October 7, 1559
(Urb. 1039, Vatican Library) counts 20 friends of Gonzaga ; these
are the Cardinals given as his friends by Guadagna with the
exception of Morone, Medici and Mercurio. Among the opponents
of Gonzaga this third list reckons all those quoted by Guadagno
as opponents and neutrals, and in addition, Medici and Mercurio.
Morone is not mentioned at all in this list. According to Vargas
(letter of November 5, 1559, in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 290)
Sforza, Madruzzo, Morone, Cicada, Cornarb, Mercurio, Corgna,
and Puteo, among the Spanish party voted for Gonzaga.
1 Vargas, a zealous adherent of Ruy Gomez, had in spite of
Alba's opposition, been appointed principally on the recom
mendation of Granvelle (HINAJOSA, 49; SUSTA, Pius IV., 129
seq.}. Susta gives in this connection an able picture of the
diplomatist Vargas. CONSTANT, Rapport, 186 seq. gives the best
account of his life, quoting much literature in connection with it.
2 Vargas to Philip II., on September 27, 1559, in DOLLINGER,
Beitrage, I., 267. Philip's letter to the Cardinals on September
9, 1559, which Vargas communicated to them on September 27,
is printed in SAGMULLER, 93 seq., cf. HERRE, 44. Extract from
Vargas' speech before the Cardinals and du Bellay's reply in
GUIDUS, 615.
3 Vargas to Philip II., on January 31, 1560, in DOLLINGER.
Beitrage, I., 330.
26 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
made up his mind that this should not be the case under
Philip II., and he therefore developed a feverish activity in
order to influence the election in the Spanish interest.1 He
proceeded to do this with an incredible want of consideration .
All the other ambassadors preserved at least the outward
usages of decorum, but the zeal of Vargas knew no bounds.
Scarcely a night passed that he did not enter the conclave
by a window or a breach in the wall, in order to work on the
Cardinals by promises and threats, often remaining there till
daybreak.2 He himself wrote to the king,3 on November
5th, 1559, that he had taken more trouble about the conclave
than in all his former missions together, and that if he did not
succeed in gaining his end, he believed it would prove his
death.
Vargas was not satisfied with the whole tendency and
development of the proceedings so far. His opinion was that
if the Cardinals who had Spanish sympathies would only unite
among themselves they would not need the support of the
adherents -of the French party,4 and that it wab a matter of
honour on their part to bring the election to an end in the
Spanish sense without the help of a person so " hated by God
and the Spanish king as Este."5 The candidature of Gonzaga
was also not approved of by Vargas, because it was a principle
of Spanish policy that scions of Italian princely families should
be kept from the tiara, so as not to endanger the peace of
Italy,6 and for the same reason he was at first opposed to
Medici, as being a dependent of Cosimo I.7
1 MCLLER, 196, 198.
2 Mocenigo in ALBERI, II., 4, 45. Cf., SUSTA, Pius IV., 131.
3 In DOLLINGER, I., 289.
4 Vargas on November 6, 1559, in DOLLINGER, I., 291.
5 Ibid., 292.
6 Mocenigo (in ALBERI, II., 4, 32^ writes that it was easier to be
Pope if one did not belong to the nobility, but was of humble
origin. The Duke of Alba gave it as his opinion with regard to
Gonzaga that the rule that a man of noble birth was no use as
a Pope was so general that there were hardly any exceptions to it.
HINAJOSA, 64; HERRE, 43. ' SUSTA, Pius IV., 130.
THE NEW ALLIES. 27
At his first conference with Sforza, during the night of
September 27th, Vargas put forward his views with great
emphasis. In reply to his misgivings about Gonzaga, Sforza
said that his candidature had no prospects of success, but
that they must nevertheless appear to support him.1 It was
indeed a fact that neither Vargas nor Sforza dared openly to
oppose a member of the powerful princely house of Mantua.
Sforza appeared to be ready to enter into the alliance proposed
by Vargas, and during the night of October 2nd, the three
party leaders, Farnese, Carafa and Sforza held a meeting, at
which they were reconciled and mutually promised to work
in the interests of Philip's candidate.2
The Franco- Spanish alliance, the fruit of three weeks of
endeavour and experience, seemed therefore to have been
abandoned ; the business of the election had to be undertaken
once more from the very beginning, and on quite new principles.
The only drawback was that these principles were not clearly
established ; the new party was wanting in unity. Each
of the three leaders, Farnese, Sforza and Carafa, wished the
election to be decided by himself alone, so that he might
benefit to the fullest extent from the gratitude of the newly-
elected Cardinal.3 It was related of Carafa that half a day
before the attempted elevation of Gonzaga, he had also con
ceived the plan, but quite independently of the French, of
taking up the cause of Gonzaga, but had immediately changed
his mind on learning that others had already taken the matter
in hand, so that he himself would only play a secondary part
in the elevation of that Cardinal.4
The new allies were not even of one mind with regard to the
candidate they wished to support. In their first discussion
during the night Vargas had dissuaded Sforza from assisting
1 Vargas on September 28 and October 23, 1559, in DOLLINGER,
I., 269, 272 ; MULLER, 137.
2 Vargas on October 3, in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 271.
3 Vargas on October 18 and November 5, ibid., I., 280,
288.
4 GUIDUS, 615.
28 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Carpi and Pacheco, and had recommended Puteo and Medici.1
At the meeting between the three leaders, however, Farnese
and Carafa had definitely refused to support Puteo,2 and
remained, as they had been before, in favour, in the first
instance, of Carpi and Pacheco.
The uncertainty of the position was very much increased
by the fact that when Sforza entered into this new compact
he did not immediately break off his former understanding
with the French. He could not very well do this, for among
the adherents who had remained faithful to him at the time
of the rupture in the Spanish party were many personal friends
of Gonzaga, whom he dared not offend,3 and he was, moreover,
afraid that if he deserted the French, Carafa would at once
join them and bring the election to a conclusion without his
help.4 Sforza, therefore, worked with the French for Gonzaga
and with his new allies for Carpi and Pacheco, but he was not
sincere with either party, and, since his double dealing could
not remain concealed he lost the confidence of his own party
as well as of the French.5 A coolness between Sforza and
Vargas was also growing from day to day. Sforza, as well as
Madruzzo, was justly indignant at the arrogant manner in
which the ambassador sought to force his views on them.6
The confusion was so great, as Madruzzo wrote to Philip II.
on October 2oth, that it could not have been worse.7
In order to find a way out of this state of confusion the
divided Spanish party had, above all, to become clear as to
their attitude towards Gonzaga. No information on this
point was to be obtained from Vargas, for his instructions on
this very matter were insufficient.8 They had, therefore, to
1 Vargas on September 28, in DOLLINGER, L, 269 seq. ; MULLER,
140.
2 Vargas on October 3, in DOLLINGER, L, 271.
3 MULLER, 146. 4 Ibid, 145. 5 Ibid., 143, 147.
6C/., SlJSTA, PlUS IV., 131. 'WAHRMUND, 82.
8 MULLER, 129. " De cuantas cartas tenia Don Juan Figueroa
para en sede vacante, no me he podido aprovechar de ninguna,"
writes Vargas on November 5, 1559, in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I.,
289.
CANDIDATURE OF GONZAGA. 2Q
apply directly to the Spanish king. Towards the end of
September a number of letters from Gonzaga's friends, as well
as from his opponents in the Spanish party, were addressed
to Spain, in order to obtain thence a decision as to this crucial
question.1 Farncse wrote to the king that if Gonzaga
became Pope, Philip could see to it that the Spaniards were
not driven out of Italy. Sforza, on the other hand, com
plained of Farnese to the king, saying that he opposed the
Cardinal of Mantua for private reasons, although he well knew
the loyalty of the latter to Spain ;2 the alliance with the French
could not be evaded, and he begged Philip to order the Spanish
Cardinals to support Gonzaga. He bitterly complained of
the insubordination of his party and of Pacheco in particular.3
Pacheco, on the other hand, whom Philip had expiessly
designated as an acceptable candidate, made accusations
against Sforza, and said that he had left him in the lurch.4
Gonzaga himself sent an express messenger to Philip, but
when he was in Florence he was induced by Duke Cosimo to
return.5 Cosimo also addressed himself to the Spanish king
on September 2Qth ; he explained that a Franco-Spanish
alliance was the only way of settling the election, and in order
to maintain it he appeared to support Gonzaga, but in reality
the only person for whom it would be possible to obtain the
tiara was Medici.6
Gonzaga's friends also sought to obtain letters of recom
mendation for him from other courts. The King of France
answered in the most courteous terms, saying that if he were
a Cardinal he would personally cross the Alps to be able to give
his vote for Gonzaga.7 King Ferdinand wrote, at the request
of the Duke of Mantua and the Imperial ambassador, Francis
IWAHRMUND, 82, 260 seq. MULLER, 130 seqq.
*WAHRMUND, 261.
3 MULLER, 130 seq.
4 Ibid., 131.
5 Ibid., 135.
6 Ibid., 132.
7 WAHRMUND, 261,
30 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
von Thurm, to Cardinals Madruzzo, Truchsess and Morone
that they should support the candidature of Gonzaga.1
Considering the means of communication of that time, an
answer from Spain could not be expected to arrive in Rome
in less than four weeks so that, as September had passed without
any result as far as the election was concerned, the like was to
be expected in October. The parties, as Curzio Gonzaga wrote
to Mantua on October 4th, were standing firmly opposed to
one another ; the business of the election could only proceed
when an answer had been received from the Catholic
King,2
The great consideration extended to the princes gave much
scandal in Rome, and indeed throughout the whole of Italy.
The Conservators of the city appeared before the Cardinals on
October 4th and reproached them for seeking instructions
from abroad, thereby quite misunderstanding their own
dignity and position.3 They begged them to hasten the
election as much as possible, since public security in Rome
was so greatly endangered by the long duration of the conclave
that honest people were no longer sure of their lives. Then
the Conservators endeavoured to justify the people for an
occurrence which had taken place during the preceding night.
The day before, some persons belonging to the French embassy
had shot a gentleman-at-arms of the prefect of one of the
districts in the open street because the said prefect had
deprived one of their number of a prohibited weapon without
regard for the French privileges. In revenge for this the
people had, during the following night almost stormed and
burned down the dwelling of the French ambassador.4 The
Conservators concluded by declaring that if a Pope were not
speedily given to the city they would make use of the authority
1 Letter of October 14, 1559, -n S. BRUNNER in the Studien
und Mitteilungen aus dem Benediktiner-und Zisterzienserorden,
VI., 2, 389 (1885) ; WAHRMUND, 260. Cf. Giacomo Soranzo on
October 20, 1559, in TURBA, III., 107.
2 *Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.
3 GUIDUS, 617.
., 616.
COMPLAINTS OF THE ROMANS. 31
to which they were entitled, and prevent the Cardinals from
communicating with the outside world by letter.
The Cardinal-Dean, du Bellay, dismissed the Conservators
with a sharp reproof on account of their arrogant language
and the excesses of the previous night. The complaints were,
however, only too well justified, and other remonstrances were
not wanting regarding the general insecurity in Rome.1 The
want of order in the conclave itself was so great that the Vene
tian ambassador, Mocenigo, wrote in 1560 that it was the
most open and free of which there was any record.2 On
October 2nd four Cardinals were appointed,3 who were to
confer with the ordinary commission of Cardinals concerning
a reform of the conclave. They did indeed make various
regulations,4 but, as Bondonus says, although these were well
conceived nobody paid any attention to them.5 The windows
and breaches in the walls by which Cardinals and conclavists
communicated with the outside world were indeed closed,
but were very soon opened again,6 and no lasting improvement
of the conditions took place.
As a matter of fact, no exhortations or regulations for
reform could have much success as long as the evil was not
grasped at the root, and the secular princes deprived of all
1 The *Avviso di Roma of September 23, 1559, announces
that many murders take place by day and by night (Urb. 1039,
p. 85. Vatican Library). Cardinal Cueva spoke to the same effect
in an address to the conclave on November 12 (Gurous, 619) :
" Lites non legibus, sed gladiis et caedibus diffiniebantur ' com
plained the Conservators on November 3. GUIDUS, 618. Cf.
SUSTA, Pius IV., 135.
2 MOCENIGO, 43. Cf. DEMBINSKI, Wybor Piusa IV., 260;
SUSTA, Pius IV., 134 See ibid, concerning the abuses in the
matter of wagers as to who should be Pope ; many conclavists
made these for their own personal gain.
3 They were Madruzzo, Este, Scotti and Carafa. BONDONUS,
521-
4 BONDONUS, 522; GUTDUS 617.
5 BONDONUS, 522.
6 MOCENIGO, loc. cit.
32 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
influence in the Papal election. Nobody, however, had the
courage to take a step of such decisive importance, for the
favour of so powerful a monarch as Philip II. must be retained
for the Church. Nothing else was therefore possible but to
suffer as before the intercourse with the ambassadors, and to
await with patience the decision of the Spanish king as to the
candidature of Gonzaga which had been asked for.
Philip II. was in no hurry with his reply. It appeared to
him impossible to declare himself in favour of Gonzaga, yet
to pronounce against him, the member of so highly esteemed
a princely family, was both distasteful and dangerous.1 He
therefore postponed his answer from week to week, hoping
perhaps that the Cardinals would understand his silence, and
at length decide as he wished without express instructions
from him. This, in fact, was what actually took place.
The conclave remained for a few weeks completely un
decided as to the election. As a matter of form, the daily
voting took place, and Pacheco regularly received from seven
teen to twenty-two votes, and Cueva from twelve to eighteen.2
Cardinals of whose actual elevation no one was really thinking,
often received an unusual number of votes, merely as a com
pliment, as, for instance, Saraceni, who on October 5th and
7th had sixteen and nineteen votes, Rebiba on the 6th no less
than seventeen, and Ghislieri at a later date twenty. To
Cardinal Ranuccio Farnese, whose name is otherwise only
occasionally mentioned, twenty-one votes were given on
October isth, merely because it was the anniversary of his
grandfather's election. Similar surprises occurred every
day.3
In the midst of the tedious monotony of the almost sus
pended proceedings, a little excitement was caused by a
striking remark made by Cardinal Medici, who, in conversation
with Cardinal Truchsess said : "As regards the Germans, we
iCf. Tiepolo to the Signoria of Venice, Toledo, December n;
1559, in BROWN, VII., n. 117.
2 Cf. the *List of scrutinies (State Library, Munich) in Appendix;
No. i.
»Cf. ibid.
IMPATIENCE OF CARAFA. 33
should have to summon a Council, to see if some concessions
could not be made to them with regard to the marriage of
priests and Communion under both kinds." Such words in
the mouth of a Cardinal in whom many saw the future Pope ,
caused Truchsess such great scandal that he considered it his
duty to bring it to the notice of the electors, and as it gave rise
to considerable comment, he drew up a written report of his
conversation with Medici on October I3th and another in
November.1 The whole affair, however, injured the Cardinal
of Augsburg rather than the reputation of Medici.2
The weary waiting for a reply from Philip at length seemed
to the Cardinals a burden too great to be borne. The patience
of the hot-blooded Carafa was the first to give way ; he feared
that his adherents might not, in the end, withstand the tempta
tions of the opposite party during this long delay. 3 On October
nth, he declared to Cardinal Sforza that if he did not break
off his alliance with the Spaniards within four days, he would
himself separate from him, and, in conjunction with the
French, raise Cardinal Tournon to the Papal throne ; he could
easily bring about this result with the seventeen votes of which
he had command and those of the French. Sforza begged
for a delay until October I7th, and this Carafa allowed him.4
In the face of this threat, Vargas thought that he ought to
delay no longer in taking a definite step against Gonzaga,
and he therefore wrote to Madruzzo, the special friend of
the latter, saying that it would be as well to refrain from
supporting Gonzaga any longer, as, under the present circum
stances there was no hope of his candidature being successful.5
1 Too much curtailed in SICKEL, Konzil, 17 seqq, 20, cf. 84 seq. ;
complete in Urb. 847, Vatican Library. Cf. SUSTA, Pius IV.,
133 n. i.
2 Cf. MULLER, 151 seqq. Several days before the election
Truchsess was reconciled to Medici ; ibid. 224 seq.
3 Vargas on November 5, 1559 in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 284.
4 GVIDUS, 617 seq. Vargas on October 13, 1559, in DOLLINGER,
I., 274.
6WAHRMUND, 261. Vargas on October 13 and 18, 1559, in
DOLLINGER, 1., 275, 276 ; MULLER, 149.
VOL. XV, 3
34
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Madruzzo, however, would not give up the support of Gonzaga.
He answered the ambassador by saying that he could not
understand how he could express himself in such terms about
so good a friend of Spain ; at the same time he wrote to Philip
II. that the Cardinal of Mantua deserved the Papacy a hun
dred times, and that he could be of more use to the world as
Pope than all the others together.1
The rest of the Spanish supporters of Gonzaga had pledged
themselves, with Sforza, to wait until October lyth for the
courier from Spain, and on that day they extended the period
by yet another eight or ten days. Sforza only gave way to
the importunity of Carafa to the extent that he did not renew
the promise of his friends, as far as he himself was concerned.2
This slight concession naturally did not satisfy Carafa.
He now approached the French who, at his overtures, at once
despatched a courier to the French king ; the hostility of
Carafa towards Sforza in the meantime increased from " hour
to hour." He complained to Vargas that Sforza was his
enemy, and wished to destroy him and his house ; the King
of Spain would sacrifice the Carafa without scruple to please
a Pope elected according to the proposals of Sforza. He would
therefore support Farnese, as he had promised, and repudiate
Gonzaga, and for the rest, in spite of his earnest desire to serve
Philip, he would adopt a neutral attitude between the parties.
The ambassador sought to dissuade him, but in vain ; Carafa
adhered to his resolution.3 Este was jubilant at this success ;
he now threw off his mask, canvassed for votes for himself,
made extensive offers and promises, as was his wont, and gained
ground hour to hour.4
Such was the position of affairs when at last, on October
27th, a letter from King Philip arrived. It bore the dates
of October 8th and gth, and contained nothing concerning
Gonzaga's candidature, but, instead, news which could not
have arrived more inopportunely for Vargas. With regard
1 Letter of October 20, 1559, in WAHRMUND, 82 seq.
2 Vargas on October 18, 1559, in DOLLINGER, I., 279 seq.
3 Vargas on November 5, 1559 ibid., 282 seqq.
4 Vargas, ibid., 285.
VARGAS BRIBES CARAFA.
35
to the dispute concerning the possession of Paliano,1 which
was still going on, Philip chose just this moment to come to
the decision that Paliano should be restored to its former
owner, Marcantonio Colonna ; not a syllable as to any in
demnification for the Carafa was to be found in the letter.2
Vargas naturally endeavoured to keep this unlucky news
secret, but the courier was aware of the orders which he had
brought and informed everybody of the interesting news.
Carafa was almost in despair.3 He complained aloud that
the king thought nothing of him, that he was insulting him
at the very moment he was rendering him a great service.
Vargas was likewise in great perplexity. He took the greatest
pains in personal conversation, and also through the inter
vention of friends, either to deny the contents of the dispatch
entirely, or to represent the order as being founded on sup
positions which were now obsolete. As Carafa, who had to
assist so many of his adherents, was in pecuniary difficulties,
Vargas, " as a kind friend " felt moved to offer him from
2000 to 3000 scudi, while the Viceroy of Naples, at the instiga
tion of Vargas, sent an order for 4000 scudi, which he, again
purely out of " friendship " wished to lend the Cardinal.
Carafa accepted these gifts, and, naturally, could not im
mediately separate himself from Spain.4
Cardinal Sforza criticised Vargas' procedure at this time
very sharply in a letter to the secretary of the Spanish am
bassador, Ascanio Caracciolo. He would appeal to the king,
as judge .between himself and Vargas, writes the leader of the
Spanish party. It was really too disgraceful that they should
have to try to gain their ends by offers of money. They
could have been just as successful without bribes, and without
acting in any way contrary to the king's wishes, as by making
use of such means. Carafa was not by any means an im
portant person ; it would have been of far greater importance
lCf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 212.
2Vargas on November 3, 1559, in DOLLINGER, I., 285 seq.
3 Cf. DEMBI^SKI, Wybor, 239,
* Ibid., 286-7.
36 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
to keep on good terms with the influential Gonzaga than to
gain over Carafa, without any advantage to themselves, and
by such disgraceful measures.1 Moreover, according to
Duke Cosimo's opinion, Este, not Carafa, was the person
about whom they ought to trouble themselves. Should they
succeed in inducing the former to give up his hopes of the
tiara, then affairs would come right of themselves ; on the
other hand, if they could not succeed in doing this, then they
were only pouring water into a sieve.2
In reality, however, whether he wished it or not, Carafa
was obliged to keep in with Spain, because it was only from
Philip that he could expect an Italian principality, and not
from the French, who had no power in Italy ; it was also
very doubtful if Carafa's whole party would join him in
throwing themselves into the hands of the French.3
The decision of Philip II. regarding the possession of Paliano
had shown that he was of the same opinion as Sforza and
the Duke of Florence with regard to the importance of Carafa,
and Vargas' report from Rome did not succeed in making him
change his mind. To the oft -repeated request of the am
bassador that Philip would authorize him to make promises
to Carafa, he answered nothing further on October 26th4
than to say that the former pension of 12,000 scudi5 granted
to Carafa should be continued.
Several days before, on October 2oth, Philip had finally
given his decision with regard to the candidature of Gonzaga
for the Papacy.6 It was to the effect that the election of
the Cardinal of Mantua was at all costs to be prevented.
The ambassador, however, was to let no one know this, though,
1 Letter of November 7, 1559, in PETRUCELLI, 147.
2Cosimo I. to Concini on November 4, 1559, in PETRUCELLI,
145 seq. Cf. SUSTA, Pius IV., 143.
3M€TLLER, l6l.
4 Ibid., 1 68.
5C/. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 213.
6MuLLER, 136. According to Vargas, Philip's dispatch was
on October 23 (DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 296) ; the 23rd was the
day of the departure of the courier (MULLER, 206).
INDISCRETION OF VARGAS. 37
in case of extreme need, he might inform Sforza. In other
respects, however, Vargas was to show himself very attentive
to Gonzaga, and to assure him of Philip's great esteem.1
The king, moreover, was not wanting himself in fair words.
He regretted to learn, he wrote to the Duke of Mantua, that
his ambassador should have shown such opposition to Cardinal
Gonzaga ; he could not, indeed, order anyone to vote for
him, but should he be elected it would give him great pleasure.2
While Philip was proceeding with the greatest caution with
regard to the influential Gonzaga, his ambassador was acting
less guardedly in Rome. In a second letter, of October 27th,
the king had again referred to Gonzaga 's exclusion, but this
time without renewing the order to work secretly towards
this end. It happened, by accident, that this second letter
was the first to reach Rome, the first, that of October 2Oth,
only arriving on November igth, while the second was received
as early as the nth.3 Vargas was extremely glad at the
arrival of this message, the coming of which had been already
announced from Mantua and Florence. The news caused the
greatest excitement in the conclave. During the night of
November i2th, Vargas arranged with Sforza that Gonzaga
must be informed of Philip's decision, so that he might give
up all further attempts to obtain the tiara.4 This, however,
was by no means in accordance with Philip's wishes, and he
afterwards sharply reprimanded Vargas for having, by his
want of prudence and lack of diplomacy, left him to contend
with the whole of Italy, while there was no end to the com
plaints which Gonzaga himself and his relatives, the Dukes
of Mantua and Urbino, had addressed to him concerning his
ambassador.5
Gonzaga, wearied by the long waiting for Philip's answer,
had himself withdrawn his candidature a few days previously,
on November 8th, though without the secret endeavours
136.
2 Ibid., 175.
3 Vargas on November 30, 1559, in D&LLINGER, I., 294.
4 Vargas on November 30, 1559, ibid., 294 seq.
6 Philip to Vargas on January 8, 1 560, in MULLER, 206.
38 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
on his behalf having in the meantime come to an end, although
now the hopes of his friends naturally sank very considerably.
Gonzaga received Sforza's communication with calmness
and dignity ; the manner, too, in which he had a short time
before, made his renunciation of his candidature before the
Cardinals, was calculated to raise him in everybody's esteem.1
Vargas' plans seemed to have been crowned with success
by the retirement of Gonzaga. Sforza had broken with the
French, and the unity of the Spanish party had been outwardly
restored. The Spaniards could now set to work with reunited
forces to secure victory for a candidate of their own. On
November I4th they agreed to make an attempt next with
Carpi's candidature, and proceeded to do so at once. The
French, however, proved to be so exceedingly opposed to this
plan, that Carafa, with Madruzzo, Farnese and Sforza, told
them, on November igth, that any further attempts would
prove fruitless. Carpi received this announcement " like
a saint ; " they must not delay the conclave on his account,
he said, he did not wish to stand in the way of the most worthy
man.2
In Vargas' opinion, the Spaniards should now have con
centrated on Pacheco. They were, however, unable to do so,
for, in the meantime, the unity of the Spanish leaders, which
had only been maintained with considerable difficulty, was
again broken by the withdrawal of Carpi.
During the night of November I2th, when Sforza was in
formed of the exclusion of Gonzaga, a discussion had also
taken place between the Spanish ambassador and Carafa,
during which Vargas showed the Cardinal a letter in which
Philip spoke of the latter with great appreciation, and assured
him of the continuance of the pension of 12,000 scudi which
had been previously granted him. Carafa had answered
1 Vargas on November 30, 1559, in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I.,
294 ; GUIDUS, 619.
2 Vargas, loc. cit. 295; GUIDUS, 620. On November n, Carpi
had 5 votes, on the 17 and 18 he had 12, but they soon sank again.
See *List of scrutinies (State Library, Munich) in Appendix
No. i.
VARGAS AND THE FRENCH PARTY. 39
that he wished for something more ; on account of the honour
of his house, he expected from the king the title of prince
for his brother. Vargas could only reassure him by enlarging
on the magnanimity and generosity of his master, " a half
word from whom was of greater value than all the promises
and assurances of other princes."1 Soon afterwards, in order
to offer an equivalent to the offers of the French,2 he made
Carafa general assurances and promises,3 and finally, after
repeated deliberations with the most important members
of the Spanish party, he had recourse to the grave measure
of exceeding his authority and giving Carafa a written promise
of the desired reward. At the same time, however, he im
pressed upon him that it would prove far more advantageous
for him to leave everything to the royal generosity of Philip.4
All these efforts, however, were in vain. The French were
actively soliciting the friendship of Carafa at the same time
as Vargas, and their leader, Este, was, as described by Philip's
ambassador, the most formidable opponent in negotiations
of that kind, that had ever been seen.5 The French, moreover,
did not need to limit themselves to vague promises with little
security behind them. Catherine de' Medici had, at their
request, addressed a nattering letter to Carafa in which she
expressly assured him that all promises made to him and
his house would be certain to obtain the approval of the French
court.6 Catherine's letter arrived about the same time as
that of the Spanish king. Carafa, therefore, declared to the
French that he was for the moment bound by his promise
for Carpi ; on the very day, however, that Carpi withdrew
from his candidature he would retire from his adherence to the
1 Vargas in DOLLINGER, I., 297.
2 They are said to have already offered him the Marquisate of
Saluzzo (on the French-Italian frontier) and 30,000 ducats in
silver, as well as the promise of all his benefices in Italy. Gian-
figliazzi, in PETRUCELLI, 121 ; cf. 130. MULLER, 147.
3 Vargas, loc. cit.
* Ibid., 299 seq.
5 " el mas terrible hombre que se ha visto ; " ibid., 297.
6 MULLER, 169 seq.
40 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Spanish party. On the night of November 26th he made a
detailed declaration to this effect before Pacheco, Madruzzo,
Farnese and Sforza, and repeated it even more fully on the
following night in the presence of Vargas. Now as before,
he assured them, his own wishes led him to serve the Spanish
king ; he would, however, pledge himself to nothing, and
would not be bound by any exclusion on the part of the powers,
but would give his vote to the candidate who, in hb opinion,
was the best for Spain.1 Carafa, therefore, did not dare to
break completely with his former friends ; indeed he com
plained that Sforza no longer invited him to the meetings
of the Spanish party.2 He wished to make the Spaniards
realize the value of his friendship by his separation from them.
Should the king really prove unwilling to grant Carafa's
wishes after this experience, then he intended to go over
entirely to the side of the French, and with their assistance
to elevate a Cardinal from whom he might hope for something
for his house.3 He had Carpi, Reumano and Dolera in view.4
It also pleased him to be regarded by both Spaniards and
French as the arbiter of the conclave and to be paid court to
by them ; at this time he was filled with such arrogance that
people hardly ventured to address him.5
It was true that Carafa now had the election in his hand ;
to whichever side he, with the sixteen votes of his party of
firm adherents should incline, there it seemed that the decisive
power must lie.
The altered state of affairs found expression in the fact
that the candidates of the French party now seemed to come
into prominence in the conclave, while previously there had
only been question of the endeavours of the Spaniards on
behalf of the Cardinals who were agreeable to them. Gonzaga's
adherents took fresh courage, while Este, in particular, thought
1 Vargas loc. cit., 300 seq.
2 Ibid., 307.
a MULLER, 172 seq.
4 Vargas, loc. cit., 301.
5 Ibid. Cf. also the *letter of Tonina of January 1 5, 1 561, quoted
in Chapter IV., p. 132, n. 2 infra (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
ESTE'S HOPES OF SUCCESS. 41
that his own time had come. On the evening of November
3oth he wished homage to be paid to him as Pope. Great
excitement thereupon arose in the conclave ; only Sforza
remained calm and made reply to the agitated Carpi that
there was a great deal of noise, but that the danger was,
nevertheless, very slight, and that Vargas would be able to
write to Philip II. that he had averted a great danger.1 Ac
cording to Vargas' report, Sforza and the others were half
dead from fear ; nobody had attempted any resistance until,
in answer to his entreaties and appeals, Este's opponents had
again pulled themselves together.2 Vargas remained standing
half the night at a breach in the wall of the conclave ; they
were pursuing a false course, he called out to the Cardinals,
1 Petrucelli 152. *Hier dopo magnare il Ferrara radoppio
tanto le sue prattiche che si erano sentite li giorni innanzi che
fece paura a tutto '1 mondo di havere di riuscire hier notte papa,
et non solamente a quelli di fuora, ma a quelli di drento, et fu
di tal sorta la paura, che molti della contraria parte stavano tanto
sbigottiti, che erano per andarvi, vedendo il Carafa andarci :
pensando che tutti li suoi anche vi andassero, et vedendo anche
che una buona parte della fattione del Camerlengo ci andava,
ancora che lui stesso non ci andasse, pero havevano paura, che
venendo la cosa alia stretta, che ci andasse. Li ministri cattolici
furono al conclave et vi stettero fino a 6 hore, Trento si porto
valorosamente acci6 si scostasse parte de' Carafeschi che furono da
cinque o sei et cosi la cosa si quieto, ancora che havesse 27 voti.
Non perse pero speranza perch e questa mattina in scrutinio ha
fatto un altro rumore, et se dubitava che questa notte non volesse
fare piii sforzo che hier notte. Per6 ci sono avvisi del conclave
di 3 hore di notte di questa sera, che dicono che non solo si e
fatto poco, ma niente, et secondo il tenore di questo avviso pare
che Ferrara voglia renovare le prattiche di Mantova et la oppinione
di molti e che lo faccia pensando che Farnese per liberarsi della
paura del Mantova andasse in lui. Dandino is ill, and S. Giorgio
is likely to die, di modo che la fattione di Ferrara si sminuisse et
bisognera si risolva. — Juan Antonio de Tassis a Mad. Margherita
d'Austria reggente di Fiandra (State Archives, Naples, C. Fames,
763).
2 Vargas in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 305.
42 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
if they flattered themselves by remembering that Charles V.
had shown the greatest favour to the very men who had
formerly been his opponents, but that now they were living
in a new world. Should Este become Pope, then war, vexation
and schism would be inevitable, as he was openly purchasing
the tiara in the most shameful manner.1
It is probable, however, that Carafa had only supported
Este in this attempt in the hope that thereby Sforza would
be forced to the election of Este's rival, Carpi. As several
who had at first promised Este their votes did not now keep
their word, Carafa also drew back, so that the Cardinal of
Ferrara had far less than the required number of votes. His
friends, however, did not relax their efforts on his behalf,2
and Este spoke to Duke Cosimo of Florence as late as December
3rd in very optimistic terms about his election.3 He only
really abandoned hope in the concluding days of the conclave.
The principal, reason why Este could no longer put off his
open canvassing for the tiara was that his two most zealous
adherents, Cardinals Capodiferro and Dandino, were sick
unto death and were given up by the physicians.4 Many
other Cardinals were also seriously threatened in their health
by the long confinement in the bad air of a closed apartment,
over crowded with people.5 The consequences of the long
1 Ibid., 306.
-The highest number of votes gained by Este was at the
beginning of December (on the i and 4) but they never exceeded
12 or 13. See *List of- scrutinies (State Library, Munich) in
Appendix No. i.
3 PETRUCELLI, 151.
4 GUIDUS, 623.
5 " Deinde (November 30) fuerunt intromissi 12 fachini, qui
deberent purgare conclave, in quo fetor erat insupportabilis,
et multi cupiebant exire timentes aliquam contagiosam infirni-
itatem" (BONDONUS, 526). The *Avvisi of December 2 (Urb.
1039, p. io5b, Vatican Library) notes that many were ill in the
conclave. "Gran puzzone e in conclavi " : December n, ibid.
p. io6b. " Dentro hay muchos enfermos " : Vargas on November
29, 1559, in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 303. Cf. MULLER, 201 ;
SUSTA, Pius IV., 144.
DISTURBANCES IN THE CITY. 43
vacancy were also every day making themselves more un
pleasantly felt eutside the conclave. The scarcity in the city
was constantly increasing,1 while disputes were now settled
by the sword instead of by proper legal means.2 General
indignation prevailed at the delay in the election.3 On
November I2th the treasurers informed the Cardinals that
they could raise no more money to pay the troops.4 The
number of soldiers was then reduced, but the officials of the
Apostolic Camera soon complained that the money was not
sufficient even for the reduced number.5 It caused a great
sensation when several Protestants from Carinihia and
Switzerland took advantage of the prevailing lawlessness
to steal into the city in monks' habits and to disseminate
their doctrines in sermons and disputations.6 The Romans
felt that their honour was attacked by this occurrence, when
it was reported that the foreign preachers had explained that
the destruction of the buildings of the Inquisition, at the
death of Paul IV., was a sign that there existed leanings
towards the false doctrines among the Roman people. They
loudly called for the intruders to be handed over to the people
for judgment, so that they might vindicate their orthodoxy.7
There was no lack of exhortations to the Cardinals to come
to a decision at last. Cardinal Cueva, for example, made an
earnest speech on November i2th, immediately after the
voting, in which he laid stress on the disastrous consequences
of the dragging on of the conclave.8 The Conservators of the
1Gumus, 621 (on November 27).
2Gumus, 618. Cf. supra p. 31, n. i.
3 Cf. DEMBINSKI, Wybor, 260.
4 GUIDUS, 619.
5 BONDONUS, 528. According to the *accounts in the State
Archives, Rome, the total expenses for the conclave amount ed to
60,000 ducats ; the mercenaries cost 40,118 ducats. See SUSTA,
Pius IV., 144, n. 2.
6 GUIDUS, 618.
7 Ibid., 618 ; jf. 619, 624.
8 GUIDUS, 619. Pacheco blamed, so it was stated in Rome
(*Avviso di Roma of Novemver 18, 1559, Urb. 1039, p. 102,
44 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
city again made their appearance and renewed their former
complaints on November 27th.1 On this occasion they were
listened to to such an extent that some eighty,2 or according
to another report, as many as a hundred and twenty3 con
clavists were expelled from the enclosure. On November
3oth Fabio Cordelia, a Doctor of Law, was appointed Master
of the Conclave ; he had to see that the order for reform with
regard to the meals of the Cardinals did not remain a dead
letter.4 To the Governor of the Borgo was assigned the duty
of seeing that all the rooms adjoining or underneath the con
clave were kept closed, so that communication with outside
might be lessened.5
Representatives of foreign princes frequently appeared
before the conclave to urge speed in the election. The ambas
sador of the King of France thus appeared on November I4th,6
and on the 25th the Imperial ambassador, Francis von Thurm.7
Vargas had already, on September 2yth and again on October
I3th, addressed the Cardinal in carefully prepared speeches,
while on December 8th he reappeared before them with a
letter from his king,8 and admonished them anew as to the
Vatican Library) Carafa very much on account of his " strani
trattati " ; he said to him, which pleased most people very much :
" che tal cose non eran'a far in conclavi, ne tra cardinali, et che
molto si maravegliava della sua presontion et audatia con tanto
poco respetto al grado ch'hora teniva et al sacro collegio "
1 GUIDUS, 621.
2 BONDONUS, 526.
3 GUIDUS, 622. According to the *Avviso di Roma of Decem
ber 2, 1 559, 60 conclavists were expelled on Wednesday, November
29, and many others on the 30 (Urb. 1039, p. 105, Vatican Library).
4 BONDONUS, 526. Bondonus remarks on December 5 : " obser-
vatum, quod pro Illmis non intromitteretur nisi unum ferculum."
5 Ibid., 526, 529 (on December i and 20^.
6 Ibid., 525.
7 Ibid., 526 ; WAHRMUND, 262 ; SUSTA Pius IV., 140.
8 Of November 16, which reached Rome on December 4. It
is printed in WAHRMUND, 84 seqq. Cf. MULLER, 182 SAGMULLER,
100.
EXTERNAL INTERFERENCE. 45
necessity of concluding the election at the earliest possible
moment. The Cardinal Dean, du Bellay, answered him, and
took the opportunity of including several unpleasant truths
in his remarks. He drew attention to the fact that the cause
of the delay was to be attributed, for the most part, to the
unjustifiable influence which was being exercised from outside ;
as soon, he continued, as the Cardinals were allowed full
liberty, the election would quickly be settled, but that it was
quHe useless to exhort the Cardinals in public to the greatest
possible haste, and then in secret to do everything possible
to drag on the election to an interminable length. l
Du Bellay had given utterance to these hints in a rather
irritated manner,2 and Vargas, therefore, naturally endeav
oured, with the support of Pacheco and Farnese, to defend his
sovereign from all shadow of blame.3 To this defence du Bellay
answered that the Cardinals who were unwilling to obey orders
were threatened on the part of the Spanish court with, the loss
of their revenues, whereupon Pacheco twice called out in a
loud voice that this was not true.4 Then followed the delivery
of the royal message, which was drawn up in dignified terms.5
The king, it was stated, did not wish to interfere in the election
in any way likely to hinder it ; it was not his business to lay
down rules to the Cardinals for the election ; they must only
keep in view the service of God, and choose, without any con
sideration for him, the candidate most likely to be useful in
the present parlous condition of the Church. Du Bellay
answered Vargas' defence in courteous terms, but did not fail
to express the hope that deeds might correspond to words.
1 " Si quid nunc ab ipsis peccaretur, tolerabilius videri debeat,
quod non magis ipsorum culpa accident, quam eorum, qui sese in
electicnis negotio, quod ad eos nulla ex parte pertineret, immiscere
tarn sollicite vellent. Nihil enim intra parietes conclavis dissidii
esse, quod non extrinsecus importaretur." GUIDUS, 624.
a" non sine stomacho prolata." GUIDUS, 624.
3 Ibid.
4 MULLER, 182 seq. Cf. in order to appreciate the accusation,
ibid., 199, and MERKLE, II., 624, n. 5.
5 WAHRMUND, 84.
46 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Farnese, on the other hand, declared that Philip's conduct
required no justification, and that du Bellay had not, in the
closing words of his speech, spoken in the sense of the whole
Sacred College.1
On the same day, December 8th, on which Vargas delivered
this message, the French made an attempt to elevate Reumano
to the Papal throne.2 A little time before they had been
working for Tournon, while Cesi and Pisani had also been
spoken of about the same time.3 None of these, however, had
any prospect of success. The candidature of a native of
France, as both Reumano and Tournon were, was exceedingly
unpopular with the people of Rome. The days of Avignon
had not yet been forgotten, and it was feared that a Frenchman
might remove the seat of the Papacy from Rome. When a
rumour got abroad on the night of December 8th, that
Reumano had nearly been elected, the people rushed to the
Capitol and threatened to ring the tocsin, and quiet was not
restored till news arrived that Reumano would not be elected.4
The French candidates also met with enemies within their
own party. Este had not yet given up his own hopes and was
secretly working against his own party.5 Carafa, too, was
now only apparently on the side of the French, but in reality
he had again been approached by the Spaniards, and had gone
over to them.
Vargas, to whom the friendship of Carafa meant everything,
was now awaiting, with the greatest anxiety, the royal con
firmation of the extensive promises which he had taken upon
1Gumus, 625.
2 GUIDUS, 625 seq. According to the *Avviso di Roma of
December n, 1559 (Urb. 1039, p. 106, Vatican Library), work
was being carried on for Reumano even during the night of the
10, and on the n, but they did not succeed in getting together
27 votes. Vargas on December 12, in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 310.
3 PETRUCELLI, 154 seq. Tournon said : " non volere che per
lui s'allonghi il conclave per un giorrro." *Avviso di Roma of
December n, 1559 (Urb. 1030, p. 106, Vatican Library).
4 GUIDUS, 626; PETRUCELLI, 154,
5 MULLER, 190,
CANDIDATURE OF GONZAGA. 47
himself upon his own responsibility, to make to Carafa. When
no such authority had arrived by the beginning of December,
and a complete breaking away on the part of Carafa seemed
imminent, he thought that he might venture to do independ
ently what he believed had only been omitted in Spain through
a failure to understand the real state of affairs. He therefore
drew up a document making extensive concessions to Carafa ,
and communicated the contents to the ambitious Cardinal,
as having been really written by Phillip.1 Carafa was at once
won over to Philip's side, although he declared that he could
not immediately pass over to the Spanish party, but must
wait for a fitting opportunity.
Carafa was, however, soon forced to throw off the mask by
the force of circumstances. The French had been planning
the election of Gonzaga since the beginning of December.
Carafa had promised Cardinals Guise, Este and Madruzzo,
even before the attempted elevation of Reumano, to support
Gonzaga with seven votes,2 and thereby assure his election ;
he requested, however, a further delay in order, in the
meantime, to honour and please several of his adherents by
making apparent attempts to secure their election.3 Finally,
on December I4th, he definitely agreed to give his support
to the Cardinal of Mantua. On the isth it was generally
expected in the city that, in a very short time, a decision
in favour of Gonzaga would be made ; Madruzzo and others
had already had their silver removed from the conclave so
that it might not disappear in the usual plundering after the
election.4
1 Vargas on December 12, 1559 in DOLLINGER, Beitrage I.,
309 : " Accorde sin dar parte a persona formar un capitulo,
corns que V.M. me lo escribia."
2 " con sette voti : " *Curzio Gonzaga to the Castellan of
Mantua on December 15, 1559 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua) ;
" con seis de sus votos : " Vargas on December 14, 1559, in
DOLLINGER, I., 314.
3 *Curzio Gonzaga, loo. cit. According to Curzio the attempt
for Reumano was only a pretence.
4 Vargas, loc. cii.
48 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
The old opponents of Gonzaga, Farnese, Sforza and the
adherents of Carafa had not been idle. On the morning of
the decisive day, Carafa asked for a further delay from Este
and Guise until the afternoon ; soon afterwards the whole
conclave resounded with the cries of " Carpi ! Carpi ! " and
the latter was proclaimed Pope by many Cardinals instead of
Gonzaga. The French, however, were not unprepared.
Carafa had let it be understood that he was only planning
an apparent attempt on behalf of Carpi, but the French were
not deceived ; they had, in any case, a more than sufficient
number of votes ready for the exclusion of Carpi. They
assembled in a compact body in the Sistine Chapel and mocked
at Carafa 's vain efforts.1 On the following night there arose
lThe reports in BONDONUS, 528, GUIDUS, 626 seq., of Vargas,
loc. cit., and Curzio Gonzaga do not agree in all points. The
account we have given agrees in all essentials with the hitherto
unpublished *letter of Curzio Gonzaga (see supra p. 47, n. 3) :
. . . gia piu di otto giorni sono Carafa havea dato la fede sua con
quelle maggior parole che dir si possono in simili negotii, al cardinale
di Guisa, a quello di Ferrara et a quello di Trento di venir in
Mantua con setti voti et di facto papa, perche tanti erano anche di
soverchio. Ora per questo si tenea la cosa franca, ne si aspettava
altro che il giorno determinato, perche Carafa havea tolto tempo
di voler dare qualche sodisfattione ai cardinali dalla sua fattione,
et cosi se fece quella sborita di Reumani, come dee sapere ; final-
mente parendo a questi rev11" Francesi, che quest' uomo la tirasse
piu in lungo di quello che bisognava, commincioron a dubitare
et a restringer il negotio et a pregarlo a volerle ormai dar fine,
tal che esso non sapendo piu come tirarla in lungo, disse che il
di seguente, che fu ieri, cioe il XIV di questo, senza fallo 1' espediria
et che 1' allongava questo poto di piu per dar un poco di sodisfatione
a Carpi et per vedere di vincere un altro voto delli suoi, il che
intendendo quei signori dubitarono maggiormente, pur non ne
fecero vista, parendoli pur gran cosa che costui, che fa tanta
professione di cavaliere, volesse mentire a questo modo. Con
tutto ci6 per giocar piu cautamente che poterono, si risolsero di
mettersi in mano 1' esclusione di Carpi per ogni caso che potesse
occorrere, havendo osservato che il buon Carafa era stato alia
cella di Carpi et che si havevano fatto un mondo <ii carezze et
ALLIANCE OF CARAFA AND SFORZA. 49
a heated altercation between Carafa and Guise,1 and Carafa
entered into a formal alliance with Sforza, backed up by his
signature, by which the two party leaders promised to work
in union with each other, and Carafa agreed that he would no
longer promote the election of the Cardinals excluded by
accoglienze. — In somma, venuto il di et 1' hora prefissa al termino
nostro, il buon Carafa and6 a trovar Ghisa et Ferrara et li disse,
che li parea meglio a tardar la cosa sin dopo cena a fine che Farnese
non sturbasse qualche cosa. Intanto si trattava e da Farnesi
e della banda Carafesca 1' adoratione di Carpi et in un tratto
s' udi una voce per il conclave : Carpi ! Carpi ! con una plena
di cardinal! alia volta della sua cella, et il buon Carafa, scoperto
1' assassinamento se ne era andato cola per eondurlo in cappella.
Gaddi et Vitelli della fattione Carafa c' haveano tramato la cosa
di Mantova et impegnata la lor fede a Ghisa et Ferrara, sentendo
il rumore et mandati a chiamrae da Carafa per non mancar alia
fede loro si risolsero di non ci volere andare per modo alcuno,
talche Carafa li and6 a trovare alia cella et quivi gittandolesi in
ginocchio li cominci6 a pregare che non volessero mancare all'
obbligo che li haveano et alia fedelta che gli erano obligati di
portare, ne per ben che li pregasse e scongiurasse mai ci volsero
andare, et si dice anche che vennero a brutte parole et che Vitelli
havendoli Carafa detto che 1' assassinava, gli rispose che mentiva.
In somma non ci fu mai ordine che ci volessero andare, anzi per
farsi piu fort', si ritirarono alia fattion francese, la quale si stava
con 1' esclusione di XXVI voti beffandosi et irridendosi di cosl fatta
sbragata. Ultimamente dicono che Guisa disse di brutte parole
a Carafa chiamandolo indegno di casa sua et traditore con molte
vilanie et che esso non li rispose altro che : Signori, non mi toccate
nell' onore. Vero e che non si pu6 ancor sapere ben la cosa precisa,
perch e vien da varii variamente detta, ma senza dubbio questo
ch' io le scrivo io, e tenuto per certo. Indescribable excitement
prevailed in the conclave ; Carafa is said to have wept the whole
night through. (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
1 *Avviso di Roma of December 16, 1559 : " si dissero molte
villanie et tali che li facchini in ponti a pena potrebbono dirsi
peggio. . . . Cose in vero vergognose et indegne a quella con-
gregatione " (Urb. 1039, p. io8b, Vatican Library). Gf. BON-
DONUS, 528.
VOL. XV. 4
50 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Philip ; he also gave the French a plain refusal to work with
them.1
After the defeat of Gonzaga, the French took up the cause
of the aged Pisani ; the Spaniards, on the other hand, were
most anxious to attempt the elevation of Pacheco, for Philip
had written, as early as October 27th, that he would prefer
him to anyone else.2 Full of hope, therefore, they met together
for the voting on the morning of December i8th. As Capodi-
ferro and Dandino were dead, and du Bellay had left the con
clave on account of illness, the French party had only thirteen
Cardinals left, and were no longer of themselves capable of
excluding Pacheco. The Spaniards, moreover, had succeeded
in getting so many votes for him, that they believed they had
one or two more than the necessary number.3
In order that no one should prove unfaithful in secret to
the Spanish candidate, Carafa proposed at the beginning of
the scrutiny that the votes should be given in an unusual and
open form.4 Displeased at this suggestion, the acting dean,
Tournon, declared that such a course would be uncanonical
and would invalidate the election. Farnese, however, at once
replied that nothing but unanimity among the Cardinals was
required for a Papal election, and that it was of no importance
in what manner that was secured.5
Carpi then rose to put an end to the discussion and praised
the merits of Pacheco in the most glowing terms, then noisily
overturning the table which stood before him, he went up
to the latter and greeted him as Pope by kissing his foot.
Carafa, Sforza, Farnese and many others6 followed him ; the
sick Cardinals, Ghislieri and Saraceni, also came from their
cells, led by Alfonso Carafa, to strengthen Pacheco 's party.7
1 Vargas in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 315.
2 Vargas on November 30, 1559, ibid., 295.
3 Vargas on December 21, 1559, ibid., 318.
4Thurm, in a letter of September 23, to Ferdinand, puts this
proposal in the mouth of Farnese. WAHRMUND, 263.
5 GUIDUS, 628.
«GUIDUS, 628; cf. PETRUCELLI, 157.
7 BONDONUS, 529,
CANDIDATURE OF PACHECO. 51
Even a Frenchman, Cardinal Reumano, took part in this
rendering of homage, and when he was asked why he gave his
vote to a man who had lately refused to give him his, he
replied : " Pacheco acted quite rightly in not supporting a
man who was unworthy, whereas he had no reason for refusing
his vote on that account to one who was worthy."1 Savelli,
on the other hand, took no part in this paying of homage, as
he thought it was unfitting for a Roman to assist in elevating
a foreigner without necessity.2
In the meantime a loud knocking was heard at the door of
the conclave ; it was said that Cardinal du Bellay had come
back and was demanding admission. This was, however,
only an unworthy and quite unnecessary attempt to disturb
the election,3 for when Pacheco 's adherents were counted,
they were found to number only twenty-seven, three votes
being still wanting for the necessary majority of two-thirds.4
Four Cardinals, on whom the Spaniards had counted with
certainty, Corgna, Mercuric, Cornaro and Savelli, withdrew
at the critical moment. Vargas was especially angry with
Corgna, as he believed that if he had voted for Pacheco, the
others would certainly have followed him.5 Corgna thought
it necessary to justify his and Mercurio's attitude towards the
election of Pacheco, in a letter to Philip II.6
1GuiDus, 629.
2GuiDus, 628. THURM, loc. cit., 264.
3 BONDONUS, 529.
4 According to BONDONUS, 529, Pacheco received 27 votes
(Pacheco to Philip II. on December 19, in MULLER, 214 n.) and
28 according to Giulio de Grandis, Bishop of Anglona, in PETRU-
CELLI, 157. Vargas, on the other hand, writes on December 21
" le adoraron hasta veinte y seis de modo que le faltaban tres "
(in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 318). Alessandro Farnese writes
to Spain on December 29 that the Cardinals of Philip's party
had not all voted for Pacheco because he was not an Italian
(oltramontano) . CARO, III., 269.
5 Vargas on December 20, 1559, in DOLLINGER, L, 318.
6 Corgna to Philip II., on December 20, 1 559 (Borghese Archives,
now in the Papal Secret Archives in Rome, Ser. I, n. 206, p. 123
52 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
In the afternoon they again tried to elevate Pacheco by a
general act of homage, but this time the number of votes was
less than in the morning.1 His adherents, however, did not
give up hope. Vargas, at the suggestion of Sforza and
Farnese, endeavoured during the night to win back Mercurio
to the Spanish party. Then Guise hurried on to the scene
and reprimanded the ambassador for interfering in the election.
seqq.) ; cf. MULLER, 218. Tiepolo to the Venetian Senate, Toledo,
January 30, 1560, in BROWN, VII., n. 127. He would willingly
have voted for Pacheco, writes Corgna (p. 124), " se non havessi
giudicato et per la natura sua tarda et per esser vecchio et mal
sano et per qualche altra causa che io restaro di dire a V.M., che
fusse poco atto a poter reggere a tanto peso quanto richiede il
bisogno de' tempi presenti et le miserie in che truova la povera
et afflitta Chiesa. — Nel corso poi di questa negociacione le cose
si sono trattate d' un modo che a me non e mai piacciuto, havendo
veduto le passioni prevalere al debito et all' honesto. — Finalmente
si e venuto al punto di proporre le cose di esso Paceccho et fra
molti che non vi hanno consentito, non e parso ne al card, di
Messina, ne a me d'adherirli, parte per le cause suddette, a parte
per il modo che si e tenuto. Dalla qual risolutione essendosi
alterati non solamente il card. Paceccho, ma Vargas ambascia-
tore di V. M. et vedento non potere colle persuasioni a indurci a
questo consenso, si son volti alii protesti, havendo esso Vargas
minacciato Ascanio mio fratello et il povero card, di Messina,
veramente huomo dabbene, di farli levare tutte 1* entrate, che
hanno sottoposte a V. M., come se in questo havesse a operarsi
contro la conscienza propria per timore della pefdita di heni
temporali. . . . Rendasi pur certa V. M., che se bene le siamo
devotissini et veri servitori, non possiamo per6 credere, che ella
sia per desiderare da noi piu oltra di quello, che la conscienza et
la ragion ci detta." Vargas (on December 21, in DOLLINGER,
Beit rage, I., 322) denies that he had threatened a Cardinal with
the withdrawal of his benefices, " sino que es invencion de Perosa,
por lo que Ascanio so hermano le escribio de suyo, cuando andaba
lo de Ferrara."
1Thurm in WAHRMUND, 264. According to Thurm (ibid.) it
was " the general opinion " that Sforza, Carafa and Farnese were
not in earnest about Pacheco, but that they made a show before
Vargas and Pacheco as a proof of their Spanish leanings.
WEARINESS OF THE ELECTORS. 53
A long altercation, kept indeed within the bounds of courtesy,1
now took place between the two, owing to which Vargas'
attempts to win over Mercurio were seriously hampered.
When the ambassador had retired, Guise sent for a workman
and had the opening in the wall by which Vargas was in the
habit of communicating with the Cardinals walled up.?
Vargas' endeavours also proved vain in other directions.
The last hopes of the Spanish party of being able to decide
upon a Pope of themselves, and by their own power, was
shipwrecked with the failure of the candidature of Pacheco.
It had become clear that the only way of reaching a decision
was by coming to an understanding with the French.3 By
this time most of the Cardinals were so weary of the whole
affair that, as Vargas said, they would have elected a piece
of wood as Pope, if only to bring matters to an end.4 On
December 22nd and the following days the leaders of the
Spanish and French parties arranged meetings in order to
agree upon a common candidate.5 The decision soon lay only
between Cesi, who had hitherto not been proposed or rejected,
and that Cardinal whom the far-seeing had from the first
looked upon as the only possible Pope, Medici.6
1 " citra indignationem tamen, immo cum summa benevolentia "
(GuiDUS, 629) ; " con todo tiento de ambas partes " (Vargas in
DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 321). According to Thurm " nonulli
et communiter omnes " asserted that Guise had said to Vargas
that he ought to be thrown into the Tiber for having exceeded
his authority. WAHRMUND, 264.
2 GUIDUS, 628 seq. BONDONUS, 529. Cf. Vargas in DOLLINGER,
I., 320 seq., 321 seq. It is not improbable that they had had a
window walled up before Vargas' eyes as early as the middle of
November. MULLER, 198. Cf. as to this SAGMULLER, 71, n. i ;
MERKLE, II., 529, n. 3.
8 Cf. SUSTA, Pius IV., 144.
4 Vargas on December 20, 1559, in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 317.
Concerning Concini's impatience, see his satirical letter of Decem
ber 1 6, 1559, in DEMBINSKI, Wybor, 260.
6 Giulio de Grandis, Bishop of Anglona, on December 23, in
PETRUCELLI, 158.
6 Concerning Medici's prospects cf. supra pp. 13, 23 seq., and
Vargas loc. tit., 279, 319.
54 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
We possess exact details of the last days of the conclave
from the pen of Panvinio, who was present at the actual
election as an eye-witness, and who also reports as to other
matters as the result of exhaustive enquiries.1 At the begin
ning of the conclave Cardinal Diomede Carafa had asked
Farnese to allow Panvinio to act as his conclavist ; Farnese,
however, was of the same opinion as many others, and believed
that the conclave would last such a short time that it was
hardly worth Panvinio's while to allow himself to be shut
up there.2 When Christmas, however, was approaching, and
many confessors were summoned to the conclave in prepara
tion for the feast, Farnese arranged that Panvinio should also
come in on December 24th.3
Panvinio found the Cardinals by no means in expectation
of an election. Carpi, whom he visited first of all, said to him
that if a Pope were not elected on that day or the next, he
very much feared that the conclave might last for another six
months.4 The negotiations of the party leaders had by this
time brought about the result that the decision now lay
between Cesi and Medici, but in other respects very great
difficulties lay in the way of both of them.5 The Spaniards
were on the side of Medici, while the French were more inclined
to Cesi, although they were not actually averse to Medici.
Carafa 's party could not agree among themselves ; the
influential Cardinal Vitelli was decidedly in favour of Medici,
while the Cardinal of Naples was against him and for Cesi ;
Carafa himself was undecided.6
1 Panvinius, De creatione Pii IV. papae, in MERKLE, II.,
575-601. To a certain extent Panvinius agrees exactly with
Guidus ; e.g. cf. GUIDUS, 630, 5 seq., with PANVINIUS, 581, 41 seq. ;
Gumus, 630, i, with PANVINIUS, 580, 20 ; GUIDUS, 630, 16, with
PANVINIUS, 583, i.
2 PANVINIUS, 577.
3 Ibid.
4 Ibid., 578.
6 " Ingentes etiam nunc difficultates superesse " : GUIDUS, 630 ;
" ingentes difficultates in utrisque superesse constabat " : PAN
VINIUS, 580. • PANVINIUS, 580.
SUDDEN TURN OF AFFAIRS. 55
When Panvinio visited various Cardinals on the afternoon
of the following day, the feast of Christmas, the position was
considerably altered. Madruzzo and Truchsess regarded the
election of Medici, with which they were not particularly
pleased, as being practically certain, Cesi being no longer
spoken of.1 Panvinio believed, nevertheless, that the election
would still take some time, and in the evening begged Cardinal
Farnese to allow him to go into the city. Farnese, however,
encouraged him to remain, as he thought the election was
actually impending.2
Affairs had almost suddenly taken a turn. On December
2 ist it had been seriously debated whether the conclave
should not be dissolved before Christmas and only resumed
after the Epiphany,3 but as early as the following day the
decisive moment was approaching. After dinner Carafa and
Vitelli accidentally met Cardinal Guise, and a conversation
ensued during the course of which Guise at last asked Carafa
why the election was being postponed, to which the other
replied that it was not his fault. Then Guise made the remark
that as far as he was concerned, who was soon leaving Rome,
it was immaterial who was Pope, provided that the Cardinal
elected was fitted for the position ; as, however, the candidates
proposed by the French had been rejected, the honour of his
nation made it necessary that they should not accept the
candidates of the Spaniards, but must give their votes to
someone else. In saying this Guise had clearly indicated Cesi,
who had, hitherto, neither been seriously proposed nor rejected.
Vitelli thereupon remarked that it was not right to reject a
worthy candidate on such grounds, as it was of no consequence
to which party he belonged as long as he was worthy. Guise
answered that he quite understood the meaning of this re
joinder : Vitelli intended by what he said to recommend
Medici. He on his side, and as a proof of his good will, would
propose two candidates on the part of the French, Cesi and
Medici. Let them select one of these two, and the French
would vote for him. At the same time, Guise added a con-
llbid., 578. 2 Ibid., 579. * Ibid., 580-1.
56 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
dition to this promise : Alfonso Carafa must also give his
approval to the candidate upon whom his uncle should decide.1
Alfonso had previously played no important part in the
conclave ; it was only when Carlo Carafa had made himself
unpopular with his own party, by his perpetual hesitation,
that Alfonso had risen in the esteem of his adherents.2
It was easy to tell in what manner the decision between
Medici and Cesi would be made. Cesi was thought to have
French leanings, and this recommended him to the Cardinals
as little as the fact that he was not particularly agreeable
to the Spanish king.3 The case was different with Medici.
It is true that he had so far come into very little prominence
in the conclave ; he had been unwell when he arrived and
he had been confined to his bed almost ever since.4 He
received but few votes in the scrutinies,5 and none of the
influential Cardinals showed any particular wish for his
election. On the other hand it was very greatly in his favour
that he was regarded as an acceptable candidate at both the
French and Spanish courts, and, finally, his candidature
was the only measure to which they could now have recourse,
when all other attempts had failed. Vargas, who was one
of the most important figures in the negotiations, had written,
a few days after his arrival in Rome, that they might attempt
the candidature of Medici when everything else had failed,
but, he added, he would prefer someone else.6 Later on he
*Ibid.f 581.
2 He is mentioned with distinction side by side with C. Carafa,
e.g. by Concini on December 16 (PETRUCELLI, 156) by Vargas
on December 21 (DO"LLINGER, Beitrage, I., 319, 320).
8Alessandro Farnese writes on December 29, 1559, that Cesi
had been put on one side, " per esser nominate da' Francesi, e
perch e per 1' ultima vostra m' accennaste che non era servizio di
Sua Maesta." CARO, III., 270. C/. Vargas on October 18, in
DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 279.
4ALBERI, II., 4, 6l.
5 See the *List of scrutinies (State Library, Munich) in Appendix
No. i.
8 Vargas to Philip II., on September 28, 1559, in DOLLINGER, I.,
270.
CANDIDATURE OF MEDICI. 57
was less guarded in his remarks.1 Alessandro Farnese had
long ago been pledged2 by express promises to work for
Medici ; it was only to protect himself against Gonzaga that
for a time he kept his wishes in abeyance and followed Carafa's
lead. Sforza stood firmly on the side of Medici ; as Guise
and the French now also declared themselves for him, it was
only necessary that Carlo and Alfonso Carafa should join his
party to turn the scales.3
With the assent of Guise the result of the election was,
in the opinion of Vitelli, decided in Medici's favour.4 During
the last few days Carlo Carafa had leaned strongly to his side,
while Vargas and Farnese kept putting him forward as well.5
It was of decisive importance that Cosimo de' Medici now
judged that the moment had arrived for taking definite steps
in favour of his candidate. By means of Vitelli the Florentine
agents caused letters to be shown to Cardinal Carlo Carafa
in which Cosimo made great promises to the nephews of
Paul IV.6 In these he said that he would endeavour to
obtain for Carafa compensation from Philip II. for Paliano ;
he also promised that he would remain neutral in the struggle
going on between the Marquis Antonio Carafa and the Count
of Bagno concerning Montebello, although he had hitherto
been against Antonio. On the strength of these promises
Carlo Carafa went over to the side of Medici.7
1 Vargas to Philip on October 18 and December 21, 1559, ibid.,
279, 3*9.
2 SUSTA, Pius IV., 149, n. i.
3 Vargas writes on December 21, concerning Medici: " Este
creo que a esta hora tiene mas derecho, si Napoles se ablanda, y
Ferrara viene en el de buen pie, que Carafa no esta ya en escluirlo,
como antes ; " in DO"LLINGER, I., 319.
4 PANVINIUS, 581.
6 Ibid.
6 SUSTA, Pius IV., 149.
7 According to RIESS, 392, Cosimo .promised Carafa 300,000 scudi
in the event of Philip refusing him a territorial indemnification
for Paliano. An " obviously (?) well-informed contemporary "
according to RIESS, 407, whose anonymous report is dated from
58 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
It was more difficult for Vitelli to induce the Cardinal of
Naples, Alfonso Carafa, to join the party of Medici. Alfonso
was under the influence of his father, Antonio Carafa, Marquis
of Montebello, who had no confidence in the promises of
Cosimo, and who therefore recommended his son to support
Cesi, who had been the confidential friend of the late Pope.
The latter, moreover, had never cared for Medici.1 In
addition to all this there was the decisive fact that Alfonso
was not convinced of the perfect orthodoxy of Medici, in the
matter of the concessions to the Protestants.2 At first
Vitelli, despite long discussion, could obtain no more than
the promise that Alfonso would carefully consider the matter.3
On the following day, as well, Vitelli accomplished nothing,
and Alfonso remained firm. On the 24th the plans of Medici's
friends reached the ears of his opponents, and they at once
attacked Alfonso Carafa, beseeching him to separate from
his uncle's party. Carlo Carafa no sooner heard of this than
he rushed to his nephew and by dint of scolding, imploring
and threatening him, he worked, with the support of Vitelli,
on the young Cardinal of Naples in such a way that he at last
agreed to remain with his party.4
In the meantime the interests of Medici were being zealously
promoted by the Florentine envoys. They promised in the
Venice, says that the Pope went to law with the Carafa family
so that Cosimo might regain this written promise and the affair
not be brought to light.
1 " Leviusculum, vanum et, ut dicitur, cerebrellinum appellare
solebat " (PANVINIUS, 582). Paul IV. had openly reprimanded
Cardinal Medici in consistory because he had endeavoured to
obtain the archbishopric of Milan by unjustifiable means, (ibid.
589, n. h.).
2 " Napoli si e lasciato intendere, che per niuno conto vole dare
il voto suo a Medici, sendo, come dicono, sospetto di heresia ;
pare che hebbe questo per ricordo dalla santa memoria di papa
Paulo IV." Thus writes Caligari, the agent of Carafa, in Novem
ber, to Antonio Carafa, in SUSTA, Pips IV., 150, n. i.
3 PANVINIUS, 582.
4 Ibid.
MEDICI'S ELECTION ASSURED. 59
name of the future Pope that Montebello and Paliano should
be entrusted to the sequestrator of the Apostolic Camera until
the settlement of the dispute, and that the Pope, in union
with Duke Cosimo, would apply to Philip II. in favour of
Carafa. Antonio Carafa allowed himself to be won over,
and now influenced his son Alfonso in the sense desired by
Cosimo.1 By this a most important victory had been won
for Medici.2
On the morning of Christmas Day, Vitelli prepared himself
for another attack on Alfonso Carafa. This time he laid
before him a letter of recommendation of Medici which Duke
Cosimo had addressed to the Cardinal of Naples two months
before, but which Vitelli had intercepted and kept back.
In this letter the Duke recommended his candidate with great
urgency and many promises, though he did not go beyond
mere generalities.3 When Vitelli showed his want of satis
faction with this, Cosimo 's ambassador, Bartolomeo Concini,
had recourse, on Vitelli's advice, to similar measures to those
used by Vargas. He drew up, in the name of the Duke, a
letter of four pages to Vitelli,4 in which a promise was made that
all the possessions of the Carafa should remain under the care
of the Apostolic Camera until Philip II. had arranged an
equivalent for them, and Fabrizio di Sangro, a conclavist of
Carlo Carafa, was to repair as the ambassador of the new
Pope to Madrid immediately after the election, there to work
in the interests of the Carafa.5 It was not generally known
that Philip II. had already, two months previously, decided
1 SUSTA, Pius IV., 150. Sebastiano Gualterio received special
instructions from Vitelli on December 23, as to how he was to
influence the hesitating Marquis. SUSTA, Kurie, I., Ixxii n.
2 Concini wrote to Cosimo as early as December 2 : " Farnese
me fait dire que toute 1' affaire de Medici c' est d' arranger celle
de don Antonio Carafa ; " in PETRUCELLI, 153.
3 PANVINIUS, 582.
4 Ibid.
5 SUSTA, Pius IV., 150. Cf. Vargas to Philip II., on December
29» 1559, in DGLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 325. See also CARO, III.,
271.
60 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
concerning Paliano in favour of the Colonna. Alfonso was
now won over and agreed to the elevation of Medici. Vitelli
brought the momentous news to Cardinal Guise on the after
noon of Christmas Day ; thereupon the party leaders, Guise,
Este, Sforza, Carlo Carafa, and Farnese held a meeting and
fixed on the following morning for the election of Medici.1
Medici was not fully informed of all this until his election
was practically assured. Vitelli brought him the first definite
news,2 and the affair soon became known throughout the
whole conclave ; the last doubt vanished when, in the evening,
the Cardinal of Naples, accompanied by Vitelli, paid a visit
to Medici. A general stir now sprang up in the conclave.
Carpi still made some attempt to collect votes against Medici,
but as he had no party leader on his side, he could not count
on any success. On the other hand a long line of Cardinals
streamed to Medici's cell, both before and after the evening
meal ; everyone wished to speak to him and to congratulate
him. Vitelli came for a long consultation after Alfonso
Carafa had gone, and Medici expressed a wish to see Guise
or Este the same evening ; he would not retire to rest before
he had spoken to one of them. On account of the interchange
of compliments, however, the appearance of the two Cardinals
1 GUIDUS, 630 ; PANVINIUS, 582. Several smaller matters
were arranged without difficulty. Este and Gonzaga were
promised the red hat for their nephews, Rebiba received the
assurance that the spoilium of his predecessor in the archbishopric
should be his, although the brief assigning it to him was of doubtful
validity, as it was dated the day of the death of Paul IV. SUSTA,
Pius IV.. 151.
2 GUIDUS, 630 ; PANVINIUS, 583. Medici, however, said to the
Duchess of Urbino on December 23, that he thought he would
certainly be elected, but he did not know if he were capable of
bearing such a burden (§USTA, Pius IV., 150, in Cod. Vat. 7039,
Vatican Library). Carpi maintained later that Medici had
bought his election from Alfonso for a large sum of money, and
that Antonio Carafa had afterwards had a written promise con
cerning the transaction in his possession. This story proves,
at all events, the real importance of Alfonso in the election of
Pius IV. C/. PALLAVICINI, 19, 2, 3.
ELECTION OF MEDICI. 6l
was still delayed, which was most unpleasant for Vitelli and
Medici, as they wished the election to take place immediately
after the visit of the two leaders.1
In the meantime various Cardinals remained standing round
the cell of the chosen Cardinal until long after midnight.
Panvinio also remained near at hand to watch the proceedings.
As Carlo Carafa had engaged the celebrated scholar in con
versation, Panvinio took the liberty of putting in a word
and asking when the election would take place. At the
answer, " Early to-morrow morning," Morone, who was
rather surprised, asked whether they would really wait so
long. Panvinio replied in the affirmative, but added politely
that he really saw no reason why the election should not be
made at once. Morone was of the same opinion and began
to exhort the Cardinals to proceed without delay. All agreed,
and only Carlo Carafa appeared to have a scruple owing to
the fact that many of the Cardinals had already retired for
the night.2 However, they sent to Guise, Sforza and Este
in order to inform them of the wishes of some twelve electors
assembled at Medici's cell. Guise soon came with Vitelli
and entered the cell for a short conversation. In the mean
time Sforza, Farnese, Este and others whom Panvinio had
awakened appeared on the scene. Many had already as
sembled in the place of election, and Madruzzo, who was
suffering acutely from gout, was carried in a chair. Medici
was then led in by Alfonso Carafa and Este. The Papal
throne was placed before the altar and all the Cardinals,
including Medici, took their places in the usual order of rank.
The conclavists crowded in and, at Panvinio's request, were
allowed to remain.3 The acting dean, Tournon, now arose
1PANviNius, 583.
2 Ibid., 584 ; cf. GUIDUS, 630. BONDONUS, 530 : " Et cum
omnes certatim properarent in congratulando, ill10™* cardinalis
Carafa opposuit se ante portam camerae cardinalis de Medicis
omnibus venientibus, eosque rogans ne ad praefatum mmum
accederent, et eum sinerent quiescere. et quod in mane sequenti
tempus erit ad hoc faciendum."
3PANviNius, 584,
f)2 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
and declared that he elected Medici as Pope, the others making
a similar declaration.1 Then the elected Cardinal was raised
to the throne, and the usual homage paid to him to the great
joy of all, even the sick Cardinals having themselves carried
in to take part in the ceremony.2
When Carlo Carafa paid homage, he begged the Pope to
forgive the Roman people everything they had done against
Paul IV., and the house of Carafa, as he would himself forget and
forgive all these occurrences. The Pope at first refused decidedly
to grant this request, as he must give an example of severity.
It was only when Sforza and Farnese impetuously supported
Carafa that he yielded, emphasizing the fact that he did so
for the sake of Carafa, but that indemnification must be
made for the damage done.3 He firmly refused, on the other
hand, the pardon requested by Sforza for Pompeo Colonna,
who had murdered his mother-in-law ; the acquittal of the
murderer of a relative, he declared, should not be the first
act of his pontificate.4
After the ceremony of paying homage was concluded, the
newly-elected Pope declared, in answer to the question of Este
and others, that he would take the name of Pius, because
he wished to be what the name signified. The doors of the
conclave had, in the meantime, been broken open, and the
news of the election which had just taken place, spread rapidly
through the city. On the following morning, December 26th,
the election was confirmed in the usual way, by a scrutiny,
and the newly-elected Pope was carried into St. Peter's,
where the Cardinals again paid him homage. He then repaired
1 Bondonus had to take note of the votes given by word of
mouth and to count them. BONDONUS, 530.
2 PANVINIUS, 585.
3 Ibid. ; GUIDUS, 631. "Con questo il Carafa tornera in
gratia de' Romani," writes Bart. Ferentillo to Alberico Cybo-
Malaspina, on January 2, 1560. Archivio storico Lombardo,
Ser. 3, ann. 23, 161 (1896).
4 GUIDUS, 631. FERENTILLO, loc. cit. " Questi primi saggi,"
remarks Ferentillo, " dan speranra, che Dio . . . ci habbi dato
un buon papa."
PHILIP II. AND VARGAS. 63
to the Vatican amid such mighty cries of joy that, as Panvinio
writes, one could scarcely distinguish the thunder of the
cannon, fired in honour of the occasion, from the acclamations
of the people.1
The election had an unpleasant sequel for Vargas. Philip II.
was not pleased with the over-zealous proceedings of his
ambassador, nor with the means which he had employed.
On January 8th, 1560,2 before the result of the conclave was
known in Spain, the king commissioned Francisco de Mendoza
to go to Rome and earnestly urge the Cardinals to hasten
the election. At the same time he gave him a letter for Vargas.
Shortly before the departure of Mendoza, that is on January
8th, the news of the election of Pius IV. arrived, and Mendoza 's
journey was abandoned. The letter for Vargas, however,
was still sent to Rome.3
In this important letter4 the king first expresses hi* regret
that in spite of the troubled state of Christendom the election
of a worthy Pope had not yet taken place. It caused him
great pain and sorrow that the passions and personal feelings
of the Cardinals should have entailed such consequences.
To combat this recourse should not have been had to such
measures as gifts of money, as had been done by Vargas and
the Viceroy of Naples, and just as little could the promise of
indemnification for Paliano be justified.5 Vargas must never
again make use of such means, but must rather employ such
as would not jeopardize the king's good name. If Carafa
was not satisfied with general promises, such as could be
given without weighing on one's conscience, then the am
bassador had no right to give further pledges in the name
1PANVINIUS, 586.
2 Letter of the Venetian ambassador, Paolo Tiepolo, from
Toledo on January 30, 1560, in BROWN, VII., n. 127, p. 148.
3 MULLER, 204; SUSTA, Pius IV., 142.
4HiNOjosA, joi seqq. ; MULLER, 204 seqq. ; HERRE, 57 seqq.
'Concerning the " Chapter" which Vargas had drawn up in
the King's name at the beginning of December (supra p. 47),
Philip as yet knew nothing. Here, therefore, it is a question of
the earlier promise in the second half of November (supra p. 39).
64 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
of his sovereign. God, Who knew the king's intentions, and
Who had the situation in His keeping, would find a way out
of the difficulty, which would be in keeping with the dignity
of His service. Philip also blamed Vargas for having openly
opposed Gonzaga and having thereby drawn down upon the
king the enmity of the Italian princes. He complained of
the divisions in the Spanish party and of the Cardinals' want
of discretion in openly announcing that they were waiting
for the royal courier and his decision. Finally, Philip declared
his fear that the world would accuse him of having been the
cause of the delay in the election ; it was certainly not his
wish that the Church should remain any longer without a
chief pastor because of any special interests of his own. With
out excluding or naming anyone, he instructed the ambassador
to exhort and call upon the Cardinals in the king's name to
choose a good Pope without delay, such a one as the Church
needed, and who was worthy of such a high office. If they
acted in this manner the king would be gracious to them,
and would honour and promote them as persons who perform
what is required of them for the service of God and the king.
In the other case, however, the king would be compelled to
act towards them in a manner that would be most unpleasant
to himself.
In the instructions for Francisco de Mendoza,1 issued at the
same time, but which were no longer in force since the election
was already accomplished, the king says that he would, at
any rate, prefer the exclusion of Gonzaga, but that if this
could not be carried out, Vargas was to put the general interest
before the private wishes of the king. A concession of such
importance goes a long way to prove that Philip was in earnest
in his oft repeated assurance that in the Papal election he
had in view, above all things, the well-being of the Church.
Vargas answered the complaints of the king in a long
letter of defence,2 which fc expressed in rather self-assured
1 See MULLER, 206 seq.
•Printed in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I.. 329-335. Cf. SUSTA,
Pius IV., 142.
PHILIP II. AND VARGAS. 65
terms, drawing attention to the fact that the election was
actually decided in the sense wished by the king, and for a
Cardinal belonging to the Spanish party. If he hoped thereby
to secure for himself a brilliant career he was very much
mistaken. He had recommended himself very little to his
sovereign by exceeding his instructions, and failing to under
stand his intentions. Pius IV. was very indignant when
Vargas informed him on December 2Qth of the promises
which he had made to Cardinal Carafa in the name of the
king, and without his authority.1 He had also made many
enemies by his exaggerated zeal during the conclave. His
position as ambassador in Rome was thus very difficult from
the first.
1 Vargas to Philip II. on December 29, 1559, in DOLLINGER, I.,
325. Vargas answered the angry Pontiff that if there had been
no cheating Pius IV. would not be Pope.
VOL. XV.
CHAPTER II.
PREVIOUS LIFE AND CHARACTER OF Pius iv. THE BEGINNING
OF HIS PONTIFICATE.
CARDINAL GIAN ANGELO DE' MEDICI who was elected Pope
after a conclave of three and a half months and was crowned
on January 6th 1560, l had not up to this time, in any respect,
played an important part. He was a native of Milan, and was
born there on Easter Sunday (March 3ist), 1499, being the
son of Bernardino de' Medici and his wife, Cecilia Serbelloni.
The Medici of Milan, who could trace their history back to
the XlVth century, belonged to the less important patrician
families of the capital of Lombardy. Their coat of arms was
a golden ball on a red field, and they were in no way related to
the celebrated family of the same name in Florence. Several
members of the family practised as doctors in Milan, but most
of them turned their attention to jurisprudence and practised
as notaries.2 This was the case with Bernardino de' Medici,
JAn *Avviso di Roma of January 6, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 114,
Vatican Library) announces that Pius IV. wished that the pomp
should be moderate and the surplus given to the poor. Forty
persons were crushed to death in the crowds. See the sources
in CANCELLIERI, 109 ; cf, also the pamphlets : La felice creatione
et coronatione d. Sta di N.S.Pio IV. con le feste et livree fatte
dalli sig. Romani (s. 1. et a. , and : Gewisse Zeytung mit was
Pracht u. Gepreng im Anfang des 1560 Jars zu Rom gekront
sey der yetsige Pabst Pius IV. (s. 1 et a.).
2C/. the work of CALVI : Famiglie Milanesi, IV., Milan 1885,
and SUSTA, Pius IV., 9 seq., 155 seq., whose details given in the
Czech language have hitherto been little known, although they
form the most complete record of the previous history of Pius IV.
that we possess. Here, too (p. 1 59 seq.} we have the first thorough
criticism of Panvinius as a biographer of Pius IV. Cf. Appendix
No. 37.
66
FAMILY OF PIUS IV. 67
who, to distinguish him from the other branches of the family,
was surnamed " di Nosigia," because he belonged to the parish
of San Martino di Nosigia. He was known as an industrious
and honourable man,1 who by his marriage with Cecilia Ser-
belloni became the father of fourteen children, of whom ten,
five sons and five daughters, survived. In order to support
this numerous family Bernardino de' Medici endeavoured to
increase his income by the farming of the customs. After
the victory of Francis I. at Marignano, on September i4th,
1515, had placed Milan in the hands of the French, he lost, as
an adherent of Maximilian Sforza, not only this concession,
but also his whole fortune, and was, moreover, thrown into
prison, from which he was only released through the inter
cession of a friend, Girolamo Morone. Completely broken
in health by his misfortunes, Bernardino died in 1519, 2
leaving his family in very necessitous circumstances. The
eldest son, Gian Giacomo, a bold and adventurous character,
who had been obliged to flee from Milan, adopted the career
of arms.3 The second son, Gian Angelo, went to Pavia, where
he at first studied medicine and philosophy, but later, following
the family tradition, turned his attention to jurisprudence,
which was, indeed, more suited to his temperament. The
misfortunes of his father placed him in such dire need,
that he was thrown on the charity of his fellow students,
and was thankful, through the influence of the friend of his
1GiROL. SORANZO, 68. In Cod. D. 325 of the Ambrosian
Library at Milan, there is a picture of the house of Bernardino
de' Medici, with the original coat of arms. Cf. BELTRAMI, Sul
valore dei terreni in Milano al principio del 1500, Milan, 1891,
and Rassegna d'Arte, XIV. 140 seq. (1914).
8 Cf. Lettere di G. Morone, in the Miscell. di stor, Ital., II.,
713. SUSTA, Pius IV., 10.
8 The work of his contemporary, Marcantonio Missaglia,
furnishes reliable statements concerning his adventurous life :
Vita di Giov. Jacomo Medici, marchese di Marignano, Milan, 1605
(con noti di M. Fabi, Milan, 1854). Cf. also Giangiacomo de
Medici Castellano di Musso (1523-32). Saggio bibliografico di
Solone Ambrosoli, Milan, 1805.
68 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
family, Morone, to accept a free place in the college founded
by Cardinal Branda. He continued his juridical studies in
the hope of succeeding in his efforts to obtain a position as
notary in Milan.1 His manner of life, however, was com
pletely altered by the turn of political affairs in the north of
Italy.
In consequence of the capture of Milan by the Papal-
Imperial army on November igth, 1521, and the return of
Francesco Sforza to his capital, everything was changed.
Better days had now come for the Medici family, while, more
important still, Gian Giacomo had won the implicit confidence
of the all-powerful chancellor, Morone. The reckless soldier
became a tool in the hands of Morone, and as a reward for a
political murder he received the fortress of Musso in feudal
tenure from the Duke .2 In this eyrie, on the steep western bank
of the Lake of Como, between Dongo and Rezzonico, of which
only picturesque ruins now remain, he made the whole neigh
bourhood unsafe, under the pretence of fighting the French.
In the confusion which prevailed in the whole district round
Milan, and protected by Morone, the Castellan of Musso,
generally spoken of as II Musso, was able to allow himself
many liberties and became the terror of the neighbourhood.
His aspirations were plainly directed to the foundation of an
independent sovereignty. This soldier, now twenty-eight
years old, thus stands out as a type of those daring, ruthless
and powerful condottieri, of whom the days of the Renaissance
offer so many examples.3
The prosperity of Gian Giacomo was naturally of the greatest
1 Cf. Lettere di G. Morone, loc. cit., 690 ; GIROL. SORANZO, 70 ;
SUSTA, Pius IV., ii.
2 See MISSAGLIA, 15 seq. The romantic episode included in
Ranke (Papste, I6., 206) and Brosch (I., 225) in their account
as to the way in which Gian Giacomo became master of Musso,
has been shown by Susta (Pius IV., 12) to be a fable, though of
very ancient date, since it appears in Mocenigo, 50.
3 Cf. BURCKHARDT, Kultur der Renaissance, I10., 29 and 181,
Leipsic, 1908, the latter dealing with Gian Giacomo's relations
with Aretino.
GIAN GIACOMO DE' MEDICI. 69
advantage to his whole family. Gian Angelo was now in a
position to complete his legal studies at the University of
Bologna, where he enjoyed the tuition of the famous Carlo
Ruini, and in 1525 won his doctor's degree in both branches
of the law. On his return to Milan he was immediately
received as a member of the Collegia dei nobili giuresconsulti.1
He owed this honour to the influence of Morone, who intended
to make use of the young man for his secret political plans.
Gian Angelo, as well as his brother, Gian Giacomo, was
involved in the plot which Morone had set on foot for
the liberation of Italy from the Spanish yoke, but the dis
covery of the conspiracy, which led to the imprisonment of
Morone, ruined all their hopes. The two Medici, who were
deeply compromised, fled to Musso, which was strongly
fortified, and the Spaniards were not powerful enough to take
energetic measures against them. When the Holy League was
formed against the Emperor after the Peace of Madrid, Gian
Giacomo, the skilled soldier, took part in the campaign against
the Spaniards.2 A quarrel in which he was involved with
the commander- in-chief of the Venetians, the Duke of Urbino,
was the occasion of sending his brother, Gian Angelo, to Rome
at the end of 1526. 3 While Gian Angelo was diplomatically
active against the Spaniards, the Castellan of Musso was
waging a guerilla war against them. This daring soldier gave
so much trouble to the Imperial leader, de Leva, that the latter
resolved to make peace with him. Gian Giacomo, who
always had an eye to his own interests, agreed all the more
willingly to de Leva's offer as the League was falling to pieces.
He entered, without scruple, into the service of the Emperor,
who recognised him by patent, on October 3ist, 1528, as
1 The Pope in returning thanks for the congratulations of the
College, referred to this ; see the *brief of March 26, 1560, to the
Collegium iuriscons. Mediol. (Arm. 43, t. 10, n. 136, Papal
Secret Archives). Concerning C. Ruini cf. FANTUZZI, VII.,
230 seq. ; SAVIGNY, Gesch. des rom. Rechts, VI., 426,
2 Cf. SUSTA, Pius IV., 12 seq.
•See ibid., 13-14. Cf. MULLER, 231.
7O HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Marquis of Musso and Count of Lecco.1 It was only towards
the north that his sovereignty could be extended, and, there
fore Gian Giacomo at once sought to secure an alliance by
marrying his sister Chiara to Count Mark Sittich of Hohenems
in the Vorarlberg, and at the same time formed other plans
for the further extension of his power. For his brother, who
was still in Rome and had become a Protonotary there, he had
already procured a benefice in commendam at Mazzo in Val-
tellina, and now Gian Angelo was about to be elevated to the
bishopric of Chur. The Protestant inhabitants of the Grisons,
however, accused Abbot Theodore Schlegel, who was governing
that diocese as vicar-general, of having secretly furthered this
plan, and caused the unhappy man to be executed, after being
horribly tortured, and in spite of his repeated protestations
of his innocence, on January 23rd, 1529. 2 This put an end
to the plan of Gian Angelo becoming Bishop of Chur.
Still more painful was the blow which the year 1529 was to
bring to the Medici family. The Emperor concluded peace
with Francesco Sforza, and Gian Giacomo repaired personally
to Bologna for the protection of his interests. Here he learned
that investiture was to be refused to him, and that his sole
remaining hope was the intercession of Clement VII. Gian
Angelo, who had become closely associated with the Pope
during the terrible days of the sack of the city, was working
personally for this end in Bologna, but his influence proved
insufficient, and the treaty of December 23rd, 1529, put an
end to the sovereignty of Gian Giacomo.3 The Duke of Milan,
1C/. CALVI, Fam. Milan, tav. 3 ; SUSTA, Pius IV., 14-15. See
also BERRETTA, Gian Giacomo de' Medici in Brianza, 1527-31,
in the Arch. stor. Lomb., XLIII., 1-2 (1916).
2 Cf. MOOR, Geschichte von Kurratien, II., I, 109 seqq. ; Kath.
Schweitzer Blatter, I., 227 seqq. ; VII., 432 seq. ; WEISS, Easels
Anteil am Kriege gegen Gian Giacomo de Medici, 1531-2, 50,
Basle, 1902 ; J. C. MAYER, St. Luzi bei Chur1, 50-62, Einsiedeln,
1907.
8 Cf. SUSTA, Pius IV., 16-17. Susta believes that the idea of
connecting the genealogical tree of the Medici of Milan with that
of the Florentine family, first arose after the sack of Rome. For
details see infra p. 77.
THE MUSSO WAR. 71
however, had not got the necessary force to compel the Cas
tellan of Musso to relinquish his possessions. He was still
less able to do so when Gian Giacomo found a powerful inter
cessor in Duke Charles III. of Savoy, who succeeded, in
January, 1531, on the basis of the status quo, in arranging a
temporary peace between Gian Giacomo and Francesco Sforza.1
The Castellan of Musso soon showed that his bold and
ambitious spirit was still unbroken. The aggravation of the
differences between the Catholics and those of the new religion
in Switzerland offered him a favourable opportunity for
angling in troubled waters. The celebrated " Musso War,"
a prelude to the " Kappel War," began in March, 1531. 2
In this enterprise Gian Giacomo had only his own personal
ends in view, which he cleverly sought to disguise under the
pretence of religious zeal. He assured the Emperor, the Pope,
and the Italian princes that his intention was to subdue the
Swiss, who were hostile to the Italians and steeped in abomin
able heresies. Gian Angelo, who, after the failure at Bologna,
had left the Curia, was actively working in the same sense,
and was now serving his brother as chancellor.3 All efforts,
however, to interest the Pope and the Catholic powers in the
struggle in Switzerland were unavailing. The Duke of Milan
even made common cause with the inhabitants of the Grisons
and accepted, by the treaty of May 7th, 1531, the command in
the war, and especially of the seige of Musso.4 In spite of this
the experienced condottiere was able to hold his own until
the following year, and it was only when the mission of Gian
Angelo, in the winter of 1531, to the conference at Baden, had
broken down, that no choice remained to him but to accept
the hard conditions of peace laid down by the conqueror. Gian
SUSTA, loc. cit., 17.
2 Cf. ZELLER-WERDMULLER, Der Krieg gegen den Tyrannen
von Musso, Zurich, 1883 ; JOLLER in the Kath. Scheitzer Blattern,
IV. (1862) ; GHiNZONiin Bollett. stor. d. Svizz. Ital., XV., 140 seq.
(1893) ; WEISS, loc. cit. where there are further literary statements.
3C/. SUSTA, Pius IV., 17 seq.
4 See Eidgenossische Abschiede, IV., ib, 977, 563 seq. ; GIUSSANI
II Forte di Fuentes, 365 seq., Como, 190 5.
72 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Angelo as the fully authorized representative of his brother,
signed the treaty of peace with the Duke Francesco Sforza and
the eight Cantons, on February I3th, 1532 ; Gian Giacomo had
to relinquish all his possessions in exchange for a money indem
nity and the title of Marquis of Marignano.1 The fortress of
Musso was demolished, and its former master was forced at last
to give up his ambitious schemes of one day acquiring an inde
pendent principality. He then went, with his brothers Gian
Battista and Agosto to Savoy. Gian Angelo returned to Rome,
where he was soon able to form new ties in addition to the in
fluential connections which he had already made. It is not,
therefore, surprising that he succeeded in obtaining a Papal
brief in July, 1532, which recommended his elder brother to the
Duke of Savoy. In this document Clement VII. alluded to a
family connection with the Medici of Milan, probably to win the
support of the experienced soldier, Gian Giacomo, by the flatter
ing fiction.2 In the year 1534 Gian Giacomo served the Duke
of Savoy against Berne and Geneva,3 and two years later he
appears in the pay of the Emperor, who was a brother-in-law
of the Duke, at the siege of Turin, which the French were
investing. After the failure of this undertaking, he fell under
the suspicion of holding a traitorous intercourse with the
French, whereupon the Imperial Viceroy in Milan, Guasto,
caused him and his brother Gian Battista to be arrested at
the end of 1536. The proceedings for high treason which were
taken against him, however, had no result.4
1See Eidgenossische Abschiede, IV., ib, 1578-83; WEISS,
loc. cit., 98 seq.
8 In the *brief, dated Rome, July 27, 1532, to which Susta
(Pius IV., 22, 157) first drew attention, we read : " Intelleximus
dil. fil. loannem lacobum Medicem de Mus marchionem Marig-
nani se istuc in quaedam nobilitatis tuas loca contulisse." He
rejoices at the kind reception accorded to him : " cum eum
nostrae familiae addictissimum esse scires, quae quidem necessitu-
dinis causa ad marchionem ipsum tibi commendandum potissimum
nos moveret," which however was not at all necessary. (Arch.
S. Angelo, Arm. n, caps. I., 239, Papal Secret Archives).
8 Cf. WEISS, loc. cit.t 145.
4 Cf. MISSAGLIA, 112 seq. ; SUSTA, Pius IV., 24 seq.
ADVANCEMENT OF GIAN ANGELO. 73
Gian Angelo de' Medici, whose protector, Cardinal Alessandro
Farnese, had ascended the Papal throne on October i3th,
1534, now devoted all his powers to procuring the liberation
of his imprisoned brothers. The new Pope had already in the
first years of his reign entrusted the administration of Ascoli
Piceno in the Marches to the astute Lombard,1 and Gian
Angelo went to Citta di Castello in 1535, and to Parma in 1536
in the same capacity. His unwearied efforts for the liberation
of his imprisoned brothers, to which, among other documents,
a letter in his own hand of May 24th, 1537, sttil preserved in
the Vatican Archives, testifies,2 were at last to be crowned
with success. When the meeting of Paul III. and Charles V.
took place in the summer of 1538 at Nice, Gian Angelo also
went there, and by the Pope's intercession he succeeded in
inducing the Emperor to order his brothers to be set at liberty,
whereupon Gian Giacomo again joined the army of Charles V.,
and won his favour in an increasing degree.3
Gian Angelo, meanwhile, still filled the difficult yet by no
means exalted office of an official in the administration of the
States of the Church. He was Governor of Fano in 1539,
and in the following year filled the same office for a second
time in Parma. His faithful service at length resulted in his
being appointed in 1542 apostolic commissary to the troops
which Paul III. sent to Hungary to assist King Ferdinand
against the Turks. Here he met his brother, Gian Giacomo,
who was commanding the Danube fleet, but who severely
criticized the policy of the commander-in-chief, the Elector
Joachim II. of Brandenburg, in a memorandum which, as the
complete failure of the enterprise proved, was fully justified.4
1 Concerning the slow promotion of Gian Angelo in the Curia
see Panvinius (cf. Appendix No. 37).
2 Susta (loc. cit. 24) was also the first to draw attention to this
*document (Carte Fames. VI., Papal Secret Archives).
3 See the letter of Charles V. to his brother in the Venetian
despatches, I., 475, n. 2. See also Navagero in ALB&RI, I., i, 309.
4 Cf. Vol. XII. of this work, p. 144, and SUSTA, Pius IV., 25.
The reports of Gian Angelo are printed in the Mon. Hung, dipl.,
XVI., Budapesth, 1879.
74 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
On his return from Hungary to Italy, Gian Angelo settled
a boundary dispute between Bologna and Ferrara, and after
wards again accompanied the troops with which Paul III.
supported the Turkish war of Ferdinand I., after which the
Pope invested him with the administration of Ancona and
gave him the rank of Papal Referendarius.1 Gian Giacomo
had in the meantime been rendering the Emperor excellent
service in the war against Cleves and France, and as a reward
he was, in January, 1545, invested with Tre Pievi, on the
lake of Como.2
A matrimonial alliance which Gian Angelo successfully
negotiated with the assistance of the friendly Duke of Florence,
had a decisive influence on the further advancement of both
the brothers.3 While Gian Giacomo was still employed at
the seat of war, the daughter of Ludovico Orsini, Count of
Pitigliano, and sister-in-law of the powerful Pier Luigi Farnese,
was married to him by proxy in October 1545. The result
was that Gian Angelo at length attained to a higher position.
When his patron, Alessandro Farnese, had been raised to the
Papal throne in 1534, Gian Angelo had hoped for speedy
promotion, but the far-seeing Pope, especially in the early
years of his reign, had shown scrupulous care in his choice
of his higher officials, and he had contented himself with
employing the worldly-minded Lombard, who was also not
altogether innocent of offences against the moral law,4 in
lCf. GIROL. SORANZO, 71; EHSES, Concil., IV., 332, n. 2,
350 n. 2. Gian Angelo in 1545 corresponded repeatedly with the
legates of the Council ; see MERKLE, I., 186, 189, 205, 224, 226.
2 See SUSTA, Pius IV., 26. Concerning Tre Pievi see Bergmann
in the treatise X., 172, n. i, mentioned infra, p. 95, n. i.
3 Cf. GIROL. SORANZO, 171 ; BALAN, VI., 368 ; SUSTA, Pius IV.,
27.
4 Gian Angelo had several illegitimate children before he
received the major orders; a son, born either in 1541 or 1542,
and two daughters ; he had kept his failings secret and endeav
oured to avoid public scandal (see MOCENIGO, 52, quoted in
SORANZO, 95; cf. MULLER, 237). The question as to whether
Gian Angelo de' Medici later on, as Cardinal and Pope, was
DISAPPOINTMENT OF GIAN ANGELO. 75
assisting him in the department of administration. In this
position Gian Angelo had the mortifying experience of seeing
his friends rise to distinguished positions in the Curia, his
countryman, Girolamo Morone, having been created Cardinal
in 1542, although he was ten years younger than himself.
It was a hard, but a salutary school which the young Medici
guilty of offences against morality, has not hitherto been examined.
It can neither be affirmed with certainty nor denied. The state
ment of the by no means trustworthy Panvinius (cf. Appendix
No. 37) in the third edition of his Vita Pii IV : "in voluptates
pronus," is in too general a form, and the lampoons after the
death of Pius IV. (F. Cattaneo sent several of the worst in his
"reports of December 22 and 29, 1565, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua)
naturally prove nothing for certain. Tiepolo {p. 181) lays stress,
in his account of the causes of the death of Pius IV. (plainly
drawn up with distaste) not only on his failings as to diet, but
also " altri gravi disordini," which cannot be attributed with
any certainty to offences against morality. A *report of Cusano
of March 2, 1566, and which was hitherto unknown, states:
" Papa Pio IV. haveva un medico da buon tempo per i consigli
del quale vogliano si fusse dato alle cose venere[e], perch' egli
con quanto sia di 65 anni vi attendeva. Hora S.StSl intendendo
teneva donna havendo moglie 1' ha fatto metter all' inquisitione
prigione per adultero et si dubita la potra far male essendo caduto
nelli badi vi sono sopra. E perch' a questi di f u spirato il confessor
di Pio IV. et il Porcillega gran suo cam10 dicono come consapevoli
delle cose veneree. Ho[ra] S,Std> fa far grandissima diligenza
per trovar ch' e stato il malfattore per dargli il meritevole castigo "
(Domestic, Court, and State Archives, Vienna). As nothing
further is to be found in the State Archives at Vienna or elsewhere
(in the *Avvisi di Roma of March 2, there is only some talk of
the proceedings against those who had attacked the confessor
of Pius IV. [Urb. 1040, p. i88b, Vatican Library]) there is nothing
to check this communication of Cusano, a thing which in such a
matter is absolutely necessary. Perhaps the researches under
taken by the Bollandists in the voluminous Borromeo correspond
ence in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, may throw some light
on this mysterious affair ; the Archives of the Inquisition, before
which the physician of Pius IV. had to justify himself, are un
fortunately not accessible.
76 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
had to pass through, a school in which he gained a thorough
knowledge of men and countries, and learned to show adapta
bility in all circumstances.1
After his brother's marriage had connected him with the
family of the Pope, it was not fitting that Gian Angelo should
remain in his hitherto modest position, and he was appointed
Archbishop of Ragusa on December I4th, 1545, in which
diocese he was represented by a vicar. It is certain that he
now received the major orders for the first time ; he was
consecrated bishop in St. Peter's on April 26th, 1546. 2 At
this time his appointment as nuncio at Vienna seemed certain,3
but just at that moment the great crisis in Germany occurred,
and Charles V., resolved on war against the Schmalkaldic
League, allied himself with Paul III. on June 26th, 1546.
The Pope's nephew, Alessandro Farnese, was appointed
Legate, and his brother Ottavio commander-in-chief of the
Papal auxiliary forces,4 the Archbishop of Ragusa accom
panying them as Commissary General.5 The future Pope,
Pius IV. was thus made acquainted with conditions in the
country where the great schism in the Church had taken its
origin, his field of vision being thereby substantially extended.
At the seat of war he met his brother Gian Giacomo who, as
colonel in chief of the infantry, was attached to the head-
XC/. SUSTA, Pius IV., 23.
2 See the Acta consist, in MERKLE, I., 630 ; SUSTA, loc. cit.t 27.
When Medici was Archbishop of Ragusa the *Dialogus de vita ac
clericorum moribus auctore Marco Antonio Sacco Cremonense
flamine, was dedicated to him. In this he is called " ecclesiastic!
decus ordinis praesulumque gemma," and overwhelmed with
flattery (Cod. Vat., 5679, Vatican Library).
8 Cf. the Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, VIII., 582-3.
4 Cf. Vol. XII. of this work, p. 291 seq.
6 See the Diary of Viglius van Zwichem concerning the Schmal
kaldic War on the Danube, published by DRUFFEL, p. 264, Munich,
1877. Numerous reports from Gian Angelo are made use of
in the Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland, IX., 175, 185, 187,
J89, 195, 198, 201, 205, 219, 251, 259, 268, 269, 280, 283, 304,
311, 326.
MEDICI CREATED CARDINAL. 77
quarters of the Emperor. When Alessandro Farnese returned
to Rome he was accompanied by Gian Angelo, and a brief
of July 23rd, 1547, decreed his appointment as Vice-Legate
in Bologna,1 where his friend Morone held the post of Legate.
In September of the same year Medici had to hurry from
Bologna to Parma, on receipt of the news of the murder of
Pier Luigi Farnese, and it was mainly due to the energetic
measures adopted by him that the city was saved for the
Farnese.2
Gian Angelo de* Medici was thus obliged to spend fifteen
years in hard work of many kinds, before he was at last
assared of the purple, which was only bestowed upon him
when, on April 8th, 1549, Paul IIJ- neld nis last creation of
Cardinals.3 Medici, who as Vice-Legate of Umbria, had
been in Perugia since the autumn of 1548, 4 now repaired to
Rome, where he received S. Pudenziana as his titular church.
Among those who offered him their congratulations was the
Duke of Florence, who invited the new Cardinal to adopt
the coat of arms of his house.5
In the conclave held after the death of Paul III., Medici
supported the Imperialist party, and had a decisive influence
in the election of Julius III. The new Pope gave him his
confidence and associated him with the preliminary work in
connection with the reform of the conclave.6 During the
war concerning Parma in the summer of 1551, Medici remained
as legate with the Papal army, his brother, Gian Giacomo,
being in command of the Imperial troops. At the end of the
year, the Cardinal legate seems to have been himself res
ponsible for his recall from his troublesome post, but the
1 See SUSTA, Pius IV., 28. Cf. MERKLE, I., 670.
* See GIROL. SORANZO, 71 ; MERKLE, L, 692. Cf. Nuntiatur-
berichte aus Deutschland, X., 114, 190.
8 C/. Vol. XII. of this work, p. 443.
4 See SUSTA, loc. cit., 29, n. 4. Cf. Vol. XL of this work,
P, 335> n- 4- The people of the Grisons had prevented his
receiving the bishopric of Como in 1548. See WYMAN, 25 seq.
5 GIROL. SORANZO, 67-8. Cf. MULLER, 283.
6 See Vol. XIII. of this work, pp. 41, 159. Cf. SUSTA, Pius IV.,
3J> 36.
78 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Emperor did not prove ungrateful, for Medici received the
bishopric of Cassano in 1553, and three years later, that of
Foligno.1
Medici was much respected among his colleagues on account
of his intimate acquaintance with canon law ; he was per
manent Prefect of the Signatura Gratiae, with Cardinal
Saraceni, while he often represented Cardinal Puteo in the
Signatura Justitiae. His principal work, however, was not
done in the Curia, public opinion placing him among the
Cardinals of lesser importance, while the people persisted in
calling him " Medichino " as if the celebrated name of Medici
was not suitable to him.2 The Cardinal had his residence
in the Fieschi palace, while he possessed a Vigna outside the
Porta S. Pancrazio.3 In both of these he enjoyed seeing
himself surrounded by men of letters. In politics, he was,
as before, an adherent of the Emperor, from whom he enjoyed
a pension ;4 he never, however, took any prominent place
in the party, and associated in a very friendly manner with
those on the side of France. It was as little to his liking to
bind himself to either side, as to take a prominent or important
part in any struggle. He liked to keep on good terms with
everyone, and the quiet times of Julius III. were very much
to his taste.5 The stormy reign of Paul IV. was, therefore,
all the more painful to him, as he had contributed towards
his election, as well as to that of Marcellus II.6
1 See Vol. XIII. of this work, p. 132. SUSTA, 32-5. A number
of letters from Medici to Ferrante Gonzaga about the war with
Parma are in CAMPORI, CHI. Lettere inedite di sommi pontefici,
16 seqq. Modena, 1878.
2 Cf. MULLER, 234 seq. ; SUSTA, 35. Susta forms a fair opinion
concerning the actual circumstances. The anecdote concerning
the prediction of the pontificate by young Silvio Antoniano
(N. ERYTHRAEUS, Pinacotheca, 37 ; cf. CANCELLIERI, Possessi,
109) with which RANKE (Papste, I6., 205) begins his account of
the pontificate, is likely to lead the reader astray.
8 Cf. Vol. XIII. of this work, p. 381, and SUSTA, 38.
4 See the Venetian Despatches, II., 432.
5 Cf. MOCENIGO, 51, and especially SUSTA, 39.
6 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, pp. 10, 62.
CARDINAL MEDICI AND PAUL IV. 79
From an ecclesiastical, as well as from a political point of
view, the Carafa Pope belonged to an entirely different school
of thought from that of Medici. Although the latter had
repeatedly taken part in the reform conferences under Julius
III. and Marcellus II.,1 he was, nevertheless, as an old curialist
of the days of the second Medici Pope, little affected by that
mighty current which, under Paul IV., that inconsiderate
zealot for the revival of the Church and powerful foe of the
heretics, swept all before it. Paul IV. on that account, made
use of him principally in legal matters.2 The difference
between them was still more striking with regard to their
political views, and the fiery, imaginative Neapolitan formed
an irreconcilable antithesis to the calm and sober Lombard/
This appeared when the political horizon grew cloudy.3
It is to the credit of Medici that he did not conceal his opinion,
and pronounced courageously and decisively against the war
with the world-wide power of Spain.4 The Cardinal was,
however, obliged to leave Rome before hostilities broke out,
for his brother, Gian Giacomo, who, in the struggle against
Siena had lately given as great proofs5 of his skill in war as
1Cf. Vols. XIII, p. 1-59, XIV., p. 41, of this work.
2 Cf. MULLER, 235 seq. Medici had been a member of the
Inquisition since autumn, 1556 (see PASTOR, Dekrete, 20). Con
cerning his forebodings with regard to the policy of Paul IV.
see Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 185.
3 The two * briefs, to loannes lacobus marchio Marignani, of
August 20, 1555, and to Cosimo I., of August 22, 1555, testify
to friendly relations. The Cardinal is accredited in the latter,
and in the former he is even praised. Among other things, we
read : " Cum idem tuus frater propediem Anconam profecturus
ad te istuc omnino divertere cogitaret, has ei litteras dedimus,
ut eae una cum ipso te nostris verbis salutarent et quasi testes
essent turn multorum erga te apud nos officiorum quae is vere
fraterna tuaque virtu te ac te digna semper praestitit, turn nostrae
perpetuae in eum benevolentiae." (Arm. 44, t. 4, n. 216, Papal
Secret Archives).
* Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 104.
5 Cf. REUMONT, Toskana I., 199 seq. The magnificent suit of
armour of Gian Giacomo is at present in the Castle at Erbach
in Odenwald.
8o HISTORY OF THE POPES.
of his shocking cruelty and self-seeking, had suddenly died.
The Cardinal, as head of the family, returned to Milan at the
beginning of December to see to the inheritance, which duty,
combined with an attack of gout, kept him there till the
spring of 1556. l He was back again in Rome in April, where
he found himself, as an opponent of the war party, in a painful
and, at last, in a dangerous position.2 On the other hand,
his importance was a good deal increased by this, as his friend,
the Duke of Florence, did not fail to give prominence, at the
court of Brussels, to the services which Cardinal Medici had
rendered by his opposition to the war.3 Medici's relations
with Paul IV. which had been tolerably friendly4 at the
beginning of his pontificate, had now, owing to this attitude,
become exactly the reverse, and this was not altered after the
Peace of Cave. The fact that events had proved that his words
of warning had been justified, did not improve the temper
of the self-assured Carafa. The strict government of the
1C/. SYLVAIN, I., 31; SUSTA, Pius IV., 47. Besides the
*letters of the Cardinal to C. Carafa and Morone in the *Cod.
Barb., LXI., 7 (formerly 5698) and *Vat 6407 (Vatican Library)
cited by Susta, we also find in the Archives of the Count Waldburg
of Hohenems a series of *original letters from Cardinal Medici
to the Hohenems family, which are not wholly restricted to
family matters, e.g. the *letters of January 14, 24, and 25, and
March 4, 1556.
2 On August 28, 1556, the Cardinal made his will. In this he
recommends his soul to God, asserts his Catholic faith, in which
he wishes to die, and desires to be buried without pomp ; if his
death takes place in Rome, he wishes to be buried in S. Pietro
in Montorio, if in Milan, in the Ospedale Maggiore. This hospital
is named as his residuary legatee. Then follow legacies for his
brother Agostino (the Castle of Melegnano and its contents), for
the Altemps, Borromei, Serbelloni, his sister Chiara, etc. An
addition in his own hand is dated September 14, 1556. I owe
my knowledge of this will to the Prefect of the Vatican, Mgr.
Ratti. [Now his Holiness Pope Pius XI. Ed.]
8 Cf. SUSTA, Pius IV., 48, 58, 62. Concerning Medici's opposi
tion cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 136.
4 See SUSTA, 47.
CARDINAL MEDICI LEAVES ROME. 8 1
impetuously reforming Pope, which, after the close of the war,
became painfully evident in its harsh severity, disgusted the
less strict members of the Curia with their life in Rome, and
Medici, like many others, left the Eternal City in 1558. The
voluntary exile which he thus took upon himself was not,
however, the consequence of any open breach with Paul IV.,
whose nephew, Carlo Carafa, honoured the Cardinal by a visit
in April ; it was rather a period of leave, which Medici asked
for in due form in order to undertake a cure for his gout at
the baths of Lucca, and this Paul IV. graciously accorded to
him together with a grant of 1000 ducats. This gout trouble,
for which the damp climate of Rome was most unsuitable,
was no mere fiction, although there were several other reasons
which induced the Cardinal to leave the Curia. The strict
regime in the city, his family affairs, and above all, certain
ambitious plans which he wished to discuss in person with
his patron, Cosimo I., all influenced him in coming to this
decision.1
When Medici left Rome on June isth, 1558, he first repaired
to his episcopal see of Foligno,2 and in the middle of July
he proceeded to Florence. The consultations with Cosimo I.
concerned the next conclave. It was only now, when his
unruly and adventurous brother was dead, that the Duke of
Florence could look upon Cardinal Medici as a suitable candi
date for the tiara.3 Previously Cosimo had only entertained a
platonic friendship for Medici, and had curbed his ambition, but
with the death of Gian Giacomo things had completely changed.
In 1556 Cosimo seriously took up the Cardinal as a candidate
for the Papacy, in the hope of finding in him a willing tool
false and prejudiced statements which Panvinius makes
in the 3rd edition of his Vita Pii IV. (cf. Appendix No. 37) have
been for the first time corrected by Susta (Pius IV., 63 seq.).
8 He *writes from there on June 19, 1558, to Annibale di Ems,
that he intends for reasons of health to go to Bagni di Lucca
(Hohenems Arch).
8 People used therefore to say that Gian Giacomo had procured
the Cardinal's hat for his brother by his marriage, and by his
death the tiara. GIROL. SORANZO, 71.
VOL. XV. 6
82 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
for the attainment of his ambitious plan of being created
King of Tuscany.1 All details were discussed at their meeting
in July, 1558, in the very probable event of Paul IV., who
was far advanced in age, soon closing his eyes in death. This
probability seemed very near its realization when, at the
end of August, the Carafa Pope was attacked by a very severe
illness.2 Medici, who was then at the baths of Lucca, heard,
as excitedly as his patron, the news from Rome, which, how
ever, soon announced that the iron constitution of the Pope
had again surmounted the crisis. Only now did Medici,
who had hitherto remained in the neighbourhood of Florence,
betake himself to Milan. In a letter to the Duke of Florence
at the beginning of October, he laid stress on the fact that all
his hopes for the future were in the hands of His Highness.3
His expectations were not to be disappointed.
While Cosimo was making his preparations for the next
conclave, Cardinal Medici remained, from October i8th, 1558,
till the death of Paul IV., partly in hi* native city of Milan,
and partly on the beautiful shore* of the Lake of Como. In
Milan he was occupied with the completion of the palace
commenced by his brother, while he also distributed alms
with great generosity from the rich inheritance of Gian
Giacomo.4 His works of charity had also won the hearts of
many in Rome, where he was known as the " Father of the
poor "5
1 Cf. SUSTA, Pius IV., 64 seq.
2 Of. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 222.
3 Cf. SUSTA, 67-9.
* Cf. SUSTA, 95-9 ; here we find for the first time a correct
account of the efforts of Medici to obtain the archbishopric of
Milan, a matter that had not yet been settled at the death of
Paul IV. Concerning the Cardinal's change of residence, see
his letters in the Hohenems Archives (Jan. 16, 1559, from Como,
and Feb. 8, and March 22, from Frascarolo).
5 See PANVINIUS, Vita Pii IV. (first edition, enlarged in the
second, cf. Appendix No. 37). Gian Angelo de' Medici also
showed his care for the poor when Pope in so many ways that it
was intended to have a commemorative medal struck (VENUTI,
JOY AT THE ELECTION OF PIUS IV. 83
It can easily be understood that the Roman populace should
have eagerly greeted the elevation of such a man to the throne
of St. Peter, and great was the jubilation when the new Pope
announced that he would secure peace, justice, and an ample
supply of provisions to the Eternal City, which promise he
confirmed by reducing the price of grain as early as the end
of December, at the expense of the Exchequer. The state of
opposition in which Cardinal Medici had stood towards Paul
IV., and the moderate and sober attitude which he had always
adopted, gave promise of a peaceful pontificate which would
heal the wounds inflicted by the war and the exaggerated
severity of the late Pope. The diplomatists themselves were
convinced of this, and as neither party had triumphed in the
elevation of Medici, while neither of them had suffered a com
plete defeat, the representatives of the rival powers were,
without exception, satisfied.1
Although the new Pope was already over sixty, he was
possessed of so much vigour that a long reign might be hoped
115; BONANNI, I., 277). Cf. Constit. archiconfrat. S. Hier-
onymideurDe, 31, Rome, 1694 '• ARMELLINI, 7$seq. ; Mitteilungen
des Osterr. Instit., XIV., 577 ; LANCIANI, III., 211. The attempt
to put a stop to the scandal of the beggars by the establishment
of a poor-house was, however, not successful (cf. BONANNI, L,
285; LANCIANI, Golden Days, 99). Concerning the orphanage
erected by Pius IV. near SS. Quattro Coronati, see Le cose meravig-
liose, 28. As to the care of the Pope for the Roman hospitals,
cf. FORCELLA, VI., 404, 520 ; XL, 128. Nor did Pius IV. forget
the poor prisoners (see Constit. archiconfraternitat. S. Hieronymi,
9).
1 See DEMBINSKI, Wyb6r Piusa IV., 289. Cf. Ricasoli's *report
of Dec. 26, 1559, in the State Archives, Florence and that of the
Portuguese ambassador of December 30, 1559, in the Corpo
dipl. Portug. VIII., 281 ; Canisii Epist., III., 567 seq. In the
*Avviso di Roma of December 30, 1559, we read : " S'ha speranza
ch' el sark Pio di fatti come ha assunto il nome. Ha detto di voler
pace, giustitia et abondantia " (Urb 1039, p. 112, Vatican Library).
Concerning the joy of the Emperor, see the Venetian Dispatches,
III., 131, 133.
84 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
for.1 He was of middle height, and had a very healthy colour,
while his friendly and cheerful countenance showed no trace
of the severe gravity and unapproachable haughtiness of his
predecessor. His nose was slightly aquiline, his forehead was
high, and his short beard was tinged with grey, while his
brilliant grey-blue eyes told of a sanguine temperament, which
was clearly shown in his vivacious, impetuous, and often
precipitate utterances,2 as well as in his almost incredible
activity. The impatience with which, in spite of all his
geniality and kindness, he listened to the explanations of
others, constantly interrupting them with remarks, was very
1 Cf. *Avviso di Roma of June 20, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. I76b,
Vatican Library). Concerning the appearance of Pius IV., and
his character, cf. MOCENIGO, 61 seq. ; GIROL. SORANZO, 120 seq.
See also Massarelli in MERKLE, II., 341, and PANVINIUS, Vita Pii
IV. (last edition ; cf. Appendix No. 37). Of more recent writers
see MULLER, 234 seqq., 242 ; SUSTA, Pius IV., 36 seqq. ; Kurie I.,
xxx seq. The life size oil painting of Pius IV. which is in the
possession of the Ambrosiana, is reproduced in San Carlo, 34.
Another good portrait, which comes from Hohenems, is in the
Castle of Frischenberg, at Bistrau, in Bohemia. The magnificent
copper plate engraving (with bust to the right by Ant. Lafreri
(cf. HARTIG in the Hist. Jahrbuch, XXXVIII , 299) can probably
be traced back to a picture of the same period. The copper
plate engravings by H. Cock and F. van Hiilsen (both busts to the
right, the former with tiara) as well as those of Nic v. Aelst and
A. Loemans (both half-length figures turned to the right), of
which there are excellent examples in the Kaiserl. Familien-
Fideikommiss Library at Vienna, are good portraits of the Pope.
The beautiful medal by the Milanese, G. A. Rossi, is well repro
duced in MUNTZ, III , 242, and that of L. Leone, belonging to the
first years of the pontificate, in PLON, Leoni, PL 33, No. 5 ;
cf. p. 268. The bust of Pius IV. is an excellent piece of work.
Tomb in S. Maria degli Angeli in Rome. Concerning the statue
of Pius IV. in the Cathedral at Milan, the work of Angelo de
Marinis, see CALVI, Fam. Milan., PI. 15 ; ESCHER, 176 ; illustrated
also in RICCI, Kunst in Oberitalien, 198.
•Examples in PALLAVICINI, 17, 3, 7 ; 17 , 8, 8, and SICKEL,
Konzil, 355.
ACTIVITY OF THE POPE. 85
characteristic of him. He himself used often to speak for an
hour at a time, having a very good opinion of his own abilities,
which would endure no difference of opinion.1
As Pius IV. was inclined to corpulency, he pttached great
importance to regular and vigorous exercise, beginning and
ending his day's work with a long walk. None of the Popes
has been such a great walker as he was, and he was, moreover,
no friend of stiff ceremonial, but was often to be met almost
unattended in the streets of Rome, either on foot or on horse
back. All remonstrances on the score of his dignity or his age
he ignored, saying " exercise maintains good health and keeps
away illness, and I do not wish to die in bed." If he was
attacked by fever one day, the next would find him, contrary
to the orders of the doctors, again taking his usual walk.2
Pius IV. enjoyed living in the palace of San Marco, or in the
magnificent apartments of the Castle of St. Angelo, especially
during the first years of his reign.3 In the July, and again
in the August of 1560,* he visited the Palazzo Fieschi, in which
he had resided as Cardinal, accompanied by Cardinals, am
bassadors and numerous nobles. He went up and down stairs,
inspecting all the apartments, and at last ascending to the
tower of the palace, and all the time conversing in the most
lively manner with those who accompanied him, and showing
such activity that everyone was amazed. When he was con
gratulated on his vigour, shortly after his recovery from an
illness, he remarked : " Nb, no. We do not wish to die so
soon." He was particularly pleased by a remark of the
1 See Massarelli in MERKLE, II., 341. That the Pope constantly
interrupted the ambassadors is clear from the *report of the
Obedientia envoys of their first audience, dated Narni, October
ii, 1560 (State Library, Vienna). The dramatic "report of
Mula (see Appendix No. 3) of September 24, 1560 (Papal Secret
Archives) is also characteristic of this trait of Pius IV.
2 See GIROL. SORANZO, 72-3.
8 Cf. BONDONUS, 535 ; *Avviso di Roma of May 4, 1560 (Urb.
1039. Vatican Library).
4 See *Avviso di Roma of July 10, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 188,
Vatican Library).
86 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Venetian ambassador, Mula, who said that there were senators
in Venice who were twenty years older than His Holiness, yet
who directed the affairs of State with as great skill as wisdom.
The Pope himself reminded people that his predecessors had
been twenty years older than he.1
On September 25th, 1560, Pius IV. left the palace of San
Marco at an early hour, and proceeded, accompanied by eleven
Cardinals and the Imperial, Portuguese and Venetian ambassa
dors, to S. Andrea, outside the Porta del Popolo, where he
heard mass. The adjoining Villa Giulia was then visited, and
the Pope walked about in the burning sun, without a stick, in
animated conversation with the Cardinals, full of interest in
the magnificent fountains and antique statues of the Villa,
and quoting verses from the Latin poets. The Pope invited
five Cardinals and the three ambassadors to dine with him,
and conversed with them, principally on the subject of the
antiquities of Rome. After dinner the conversation took a
more serious turn, and dealt with current ecclesiastical and
political affairs, and lasting so long that Cardinal Cueva, who
was suffering from gout, had to ask permission to retire. At
last the Pope also had a siesta, and then, partly on foot and
partly on horseback, he visited the hilly part of the Villa,
returning to the Vatican by the Ponte Molle. When they
arrived there it was already night, but early the next morning,
he was again going about the Vatican, inspecting the building
operations which he had ordered.2
In the following year the activity of Pius IV. again aroused
general astonishment, and the Mantuan agent, Francesco
Tonina, reported on March 2Qth, 1561, that the Pope had
ascended the cupola of St. Peter's and walked round it,
a feat, says Tonina, which a man of twenty might have
hesitated at. This man of sixty-two was, however, so little
fatigued by it, that he returned again on the same day to the
1See the **report of Mula of August 10, 1560 (State Library,
Vienna). Cf. Corpo dipl. Portug., IX., 351.
2 Cf. the * "Letter of Mula of September 26, 1560 (State Library,
Vienna).
DAILY LIFE OF THE POPE. 87
new building of the basilica, in which he took the greatest
interest.1 Taking the same lively interest in all the new
edifices he was having built in Rome, he appeared now here and
now there.2 The reports of the Mantuan ambassador con
stantly tell in the years 1561 and 1562 how vigorous, energetic
and cheerful the Pope was.3 He used to walk so quickly
that, as Girolamo Soranzo relates, in the year 1563, he tired
everyone out, no matter how young they might be. When
he was inspecting the work at the Palazzo Colonna in August,
1564, this man of sixty-five even climbed the unsteady scaffold
ing, without the least fear of falling stones.4
Gout and catarrh were the only illnesses which troubled
Piuo IV., and when he was not suffering from these, he almost
always got up before daybreak. As soon as he was dressed
he went for a long walk, during which he read his breviary.5
During the next two or three hours, the most important
business was transacted, and then he received the ambassadors.
After these duties were over, the Pope heard mass, and then,
if there was time before dinner, His Holiness granted audiences
to the Cardinals and other persons. He was by no means
disinclined for the pleasures of the table,6 although his repasts
JSee last Chapter, Vol. XVI, of this work, the "report of
Fr. Tonina, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua. Cf. also the "report
of Tonina of December 3, 1561, in App. No. 19.
2 The Florentine ambassadors "report on August 2, 1561, that
the Pope walks too much, so that his nephews fear for his health.
(State Arch., Florence).
3 See the *reports of Fr. Tonina of July 23 and 27, and August 2,
1561, March 4 and 18, April 2, May 18, and October 31, 1562
(Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
4 See in Appendix No. 36 the "report of Fr. Tonina of August
12, 1564 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
5 " Quella rnattma," "reports Serristori on June 20, 1561, " sul
spuntar del sole trovai S.S. diceva 1'offitio nel suo giardino di
Monte Cavallo." (State Archives, Florence).
6 Pius IV. ate five times a day ; see the *report of Fr. Tonina
of July 2, 1562 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). After his illness in
December, 1563, his appetite failed ; see the *report of Serristori,
of December 17, 1563. (State Archives, Florence).
88 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
were in no way as splendid as those of his predecessor, who had
thought it necessary to display the magnificent side of the
Papacy in this as in other ways.1 The dishes which appeared
at the table of Pius IV. were mostly plain and simple, and the
service was performed by simple grooms of the chamber.
The official banquets were also simple, the Pope wishing in
this to set an example for the Cardinals and prelates. The
Lombard could be recognised in his fondness for heavy dishes,
especially puddings and pastry, prepared as in his native city,
and of these Pius IV. partook more freely than was good for
his health. It was only in 1563, after a long illness, that he
gave up heavy dishes and wine, a thing which proved very
beneficial to his health. After dinner he enjoyed a long siesta
and then recited the remainder of his breviary, and received
one or more of the Cardinals and ambassadors. A long walk
in the Belvedere, which lasted till darkness fell in the wmter,
but in the summer was prolonged until supper time, brought
his day to a close.2
Paul IV. had always invited none but Cardinals and great
prelates to his table, but such dignitaries were only occasionally
to be seen at that of Pius IV. His simple and hearty manners
were reflected in the free and unrestrained intercourse of his
table. He was very fond of inviting intellectual and witty
men of letters, but he did not disdain to amuse himself with
the jokes of the court jesters.3 The Pope himself had a good
1 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, pp. 66, 68.
2 Cf. GlROL. SORANZO, 73, 77-8 ; GlAC. SORANZO, 129- Con-
cerning the " pasto modesto " for the obedientia envoys, see
ALBERI, II., 4, 15.
3 See GIROL. SORANZO, 77. Concerning the court jester,
Moretto, see the *reports of Tonina of January 4 and 8, 1561.
In the first he says : " Principalmente N.S. il primo dell' anno,
con tutto che sentisse poco de podagra, diede la magnare la
mattina alii parenti, e perche il Moretto buifone disse e fece molte
cose a quel desinare, che lo fecero smasceilare di risa, gli don6
cento scudi d'oro, et il s. duca d'Urbino gli ne don6 cinquanta,
et il cardle suo fratello 30 " (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). The
banquet in honour of Cosimo I., during which Pius IV. joked
DAILY LIFE OF THE POPE. 89
knowledge of literature, and had always been interested in the
works of poets and historians. When he gathered around
him the most celebrated of the humanists of the time he was
fond of showing off his excellent memory by quoting whole
pages from the old writers. When conversing with the am
bassadors Pius IV. also liked sometimes to introduce a verse
from Horace, or to cite examples from history.1 According
to the learned opinion of Girolamo Soranzo the Pope knew
Latin so well that he expressed himself in it at the consistories
with the greatest fluency and pertinency. His handwriting
was also as clear and decided as his style,2 although he com
mitted little more than business communications and legal
documents to paper, and his knowledge of canon law was as
wide as it was profound, while he was intimately acquainted
with everything connected with finance and the conduct of
affairs. Although he was a master in his understanding of the
business of the Curia as a jurist and administrator, he had
little deep theological knowledge. He was perfectly well
aware of this himself, and left all knotty points in this matter
for solution by experts.3 The reproaches levelled against him
when he was a Cardinal in the conclave, concerning his remark
with regard to the concessions to be granted to the Germans
in the matters of communion under both kinds, and the mar
riage of priests,4 must be attributed to the want on his part
of a thorough theological training. Pius IV. himself referred
openly to his want of theological knowledge, and especially
when he had promised more than he could perform. This
frequently happened, because, kind-hearted as he was, he
found it very hard to refuse requests,5 and in difficult cases he
extravagantly with two dwarfs and a favourite of Leo X., " cant6
certi versi elegi latini sonando poi con la lira," is described by
Tonina in his "report of November 27, 1560.
1 Examples in Mula's "reports of September 24 and October 26,
1560 (State Library, Vienna).
2 See GIROL. SORANZO, 74 ; SUSTA, Pius IV., 38.
8GmoL. SORANZO, 74; GIAC. SORANZO, 129-30.
4 Cf. supra p. 33.
6 SUSTA, Pius IV., 39.
go HISTORY OF THE POPES.
preferred to take a middle course. His talent was particularly
shown in the smoothing over and adjustment of conflicting
interests, and this he was very fond of doing,1 and therefore
hated nothing so much as harsh and inconsiderate action.
His sense of statesmanship, and his grasp of practical questions
and the needs of the moment were very remarkable. These
qualities, as well as the absolute independence of his decisions,
first came to light, it is true, after his elevation to the throne
of St. Peter. Only then was it understood that the simple
and shrewd Lombard possessed, if not a very outstanding,
at least a thoroughly independent personality, and that he had
made most excellent use of the manifold experience and know
ledge of different countries which he had acquired during his
long years of hard and practical work.2 Full of worldly
wisdom, he had above all learned from the bitter experience
oi his predecessor that the respect due to the Holy See could
not be maintained under strained relations with the Catholic
princes, and that a moderate and cautious policy should be
followed. This knowledge restrained his impulsive nature,3
and as early as December 26th, 1559, we find Pius IV. saying
to the ambassadors of Cosimo I. that he wished to be on good
terms with all the Catholic princes, and to preserve peace.4
The ambassadors were better able to understand the gifts
of statesmanship of the new Pope, his clear grasp of the
realities of practical political life, and his delicate tact, as his
intercourse with them grew more unrestrained. Here again
the difference between him and Paul IV. showed itself in a
1His attitude to the Carafa after their fall is characteristic
of this. Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 227, n. i.
2 Cf. SUSTA, Kurie, I., xxx, and Pius IV., 36 seq. In the latter
place it is excellently shown how false was the opinion of the
superficial or hostile observer who only saw in Cardinal Medici a
good and simple man, well versed in law, but without any great
power of imagination, who pretended to be indifferent, in order
the more surely to attain to the supreme dignity.
8 Cf. HILLIGER, 4.
4 See the *report of G. B. Ricasoli of December 26, 1559 (State
Arch., Florence).
PIUS IV. AND THE AMBASSADORS. QI
marked degree, for it was now as easy to penetrate into the
presence of Pius IV., as it had been in recent times difficult to
obtain an audience with the head of the Church.1 None of
the strict Spanish haughtiness of the Carafa Pope was now to
be seen ; Pius IV. was simple, kind, and affable to everyone,
and especially with the ambassadors he laid all ceremony
aside.2 It was especially the representatives of Cosimo I.
and the Venetian Republic who were able to approach him
at all times, and to whom he showed the greatest favour, and
they repeatedly relate how the Pope, when about to take his
walk in the Belvedere, would summon them quite uncere
moniously to join him, while after their return they would
accompany him to his private apartments.3 The kindness and
condescension of His Holiness was so great, that he excused
himself if, in consequence of pressing business, the ambassadors
had to wait for a time.4 He liked to express his opinion
in the most detailed way to the Venetian ambassadors, Mar-
cantonio da Mula5 and Girolamo Soranzo, of whom he was
particularly fond. Soranzo writes that his audiences seldom
lasted less than an hour, and that the confidence which the
Pope then showed him could not have been greater, while
Pius IV. himself repeatedly remarked that he told the ambas
sadors what he had been thinking over during the night.6
lCf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 210.
2 See MOCENIGO, 51 ; GIROL. SORANZO, 75 ; "report of the
Bolognese ambassador of T. Cospi, of July 24, 1560 (State Archives,
Bologna) .
3 Cf. the "report of Ricasoli of June i, 1560, and those of
Saraceni of April 23 and June 20, 1561 (State Ai chives, Florence)
and the "reports of Mula of November 9 and 16, 1560 (State
Library, Vienna).
4 So "reports Mula on June 15, 1560 : " Serenissimo Principe.
Andai a S.Sfca hieri mattina . . . et ella si scus6 d'havermi fatto
aspettare." (State Library, Vienna). Cf. Appendix No. 3.
5 Cf. especially the "reports of Mula for the years 1560-1 quoted
(State Library, Vienna), infra cap. IV. See specially "report of
6 September, 1560.
8 GIAC. SORANZO, 131.
Q2 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Pius IV. very clearly showed the great value he attached
to his relations with Venice at the first appearance of the
obedientia envoys of the Republic,1 who were literally over
whelmed with attentions. This ceremony took place on
May I3th in the principal hall of the palace of San Marco, an
honour which hitherto had not been conferred on the repre
sentatives of Venice. The Pope replied to Mula's address
himself, repeatedly referring to the Republic by the title of
" Serenissima," and during the private audience granted two
days later to the Venetian ambassadors the Pope insisted on
their being seated and remaining covered. On this occasion
he praised the services of Venice as the defender of Christendom
and the Holy See. He spoke so emphatically that the aston
ished ambassador wrote home : " This Pope will, if we do our
part, always be on the side of Venice." At the same audience
the Pope expressed himself, in the most confidential manner
and in great detail, regarding the attitude which he intended
taking up with respect to religious and political matters. In
so doing, he insisted how ardently he desired to live in peace
with all Christian princes, especially those in Italy, and to
work for the well-being of the Church, adding that he intended
again to summon the Council to Trent, and to maintain the
unity of the faith in Italy. The ambassadors, who were
treated with the greatest distinction during their stay in
Rome, once more received similar assurances at their farewell
audience on May 2oth, 1560. Pius IV. declared that he would
defend the rights of the Church and the Holy See against all
encroachments, but in other matters he would not fail to make
friendly advances in so far as such were possible.2 These
peaceful sentiments on the part of the Pope, as well as his
intention of reforming the Church and continuing the Council,
are emphasized by the Venetian ambassador, Luigi Mocenigo,
1 Cf. the report of Melch. Michiel of June 8, 1560, in ALBERI, II.,
4, 4 seq., 7 seq.
z See M. Michiel, loc. cit., 9 seq., 13 seq., 16 seq. Cf. also Mula's
*report of May 22, 1560 (State Library, Vienna). Concerning
the obedientia of the Venetians, cf. BONDONUS, 534.
PIUS IV. AND VENICE. 93
in his final report of his embassy, in which he was replaced in
1560 by Marcantonio da Mula. He was of opinion that only
two things gave cause for misgiving : the Pope's intimate
relations with Cosimo I. and the great number of his nephews.1
1See Mocenigo, 51. Cf. P. Pacheco in HILLIGER, 7.
CHAPTER III
THE POPE'S RELATIVES. CHARLES BORROMEO. DIPLOMATIC
RELATIONS WITH THE PRINCES.
IT is indeed a fact that few Popes have been so richly blessed
with relations as Pius IV., and many of these received so great
signs of affection that a new reign of nepotism might well be
feared. The Medici from Milan gave the least cause for
anxiety ; Gian Giacomo died childless, and of the other
brothers of the Pope there only remained Agosto. The
disputes with this sarcastic man over the inheritance had been
embittered yet more by his intriguing wife, whose reputation
was none of the best, and the relations between the Pope and
his brother since then had not been of a friendly nature. At
the beginning of the pontificate Agosto was not even allowed
to come to Rome, but when this permission was accorded to
him in 1562, principally through the intercession of Cosimo I.,
he received indeed a monthly allowance of 200 scudi, but not,
as he had expected, any influential office, for which, in any
case, he would not have been suited.1
The three youngest of the five sisters of Pius IV. had been
for years in a convent in Lombardy,2 while the two others
were married : Margherita to Gilberto Borromeo, Count of
Arona,3 and Chiara to Wolf Dietrich von Hohenems.
The noble family of Ems had their seat in the Vorarlberg,
in the Castle of Hohenems, which is situated on a steep rock
1 Cf. MOCENIGO, 52 ; GIROL. SORANZO, 92 seq. ; SUSTA, Pius IV.,
96. Concerning the intercession of Cosimo I., see the interesting
*report of Fr. Tonina of January 29, 1563. (Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua).
'C/". CALVI, Fam. Milan., III.
3 Concerning the Count of Arona see WYMANN, 31 seq., where
the voluminous special literature has been made use of.
94
THE POPE'S RELATIVES. 95
near Gotzis. They were a war-like race, many members of
which, with their vassals, had fought on the bloody battle
fields of Italy, such as Mark Sittich I. at the beginning of the
XVIth century, and his still more famous cousin, Jakob von
Ems, who, after a short but victorious career, fell before
Ravenna on April i4th, 1512. Wolf Dietrich, the second son
of Mark Sittich (born 1507, died 1538) also distinguished
himself as a soldier in Italy.1 By his marriage with Chiara de'
Medici, he had three sons and two daughters : Jakob Hannibal,
Mark Sittich II., Gabriel, Margaret, and Helena. Cardinal
Medici took a very lively interest in the children of his sister.
In the archives of Hohenems there is still preserved a letter in
which he dissuades the latter from sending the young Gabriel,
who has no inclination for the priesthood, to the dangerous
metropolis of Rome.2 When he was raised to the supreme
pontificate Pius IV. allowed all three sons to come to his court,
but he soon had cause to regret this weakness.
From the marriage of the Pope's elder sister with Gilberto
Borromeo, there were two sons, Federigo and Carlo. Pius
IV. distinguished these nephews to such a degree that the
jealously of those of Ems broke out fiercely. Besides those
1 See BERGMANN, Die Edlen von Embs zu Hohenembs : Denk-
schrift der Wiener Akad., Phil-hist., Kl. X., 93 seqq. (1860)
XL, i seqq. (1861). See also the records from 1315-1537 in the
archives of the Hohenems family collected by F. JOLLER (Pro-
gramm des Gymnasiums zu Feldkirch), Freiburg, 1860, as well
as the treatise " Gli Hohenems cittadini Milanesi " (through
Charles V.,'i553) in the Bollett. stor. d. Svizz. Ital., XXVIII
(1906), and WYMANN, 27 seqq. Cf. also H. WARTMANN, Der
Hof Widnau-Haslach : St. Gallische Gemeindearchive, 1887,
S. vii seqq., in the introduction upon Mark Sittich I.
2 In the characteristic *letter of the Cardinal from Rome of
June 20, 1556, he says of Gabriel : " . . . il quale non havendo
inclinatione di esser prete non puo disegnar di acquistar cosa
alcuna in questa corte, non sia per molto meglio riuscirgli in
ogn' altro luogo che stia d'ltalia. Impero che questa e una
citta piena di tanti sviamenti che insieme con 1' imparar la lingua
et lo scrivere Italiano impareria facilmente di quelle cose che
parturirebbono dishonore a lui et a me." (Hohenems Archives).
96 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
already mentioned there were yet other Milanese relatives on
his mother's side, the five sons of Gian Pietro Serbelloni, who
were all struggling for honours and office. The ambassador
of the Duke of Ferrara announces on January lyth, 1560, that
the Pope has taken affairs in hand so energetically that hopes
may be entertained of a better era, and that the number of
his nephews who are flocking to Rome is constantly increasing ;
already eighteen or twenty have arrived. A week later the
same ambassador says that the number of the Pope's relatives
is still growing.1 This is not, indeed, matter for surprise, for
the prospects which opened before them were brilliant.
Pius IV. showed the greatest favour to the sons of his sister
Margherita, the two Counts Borromeo. The elder, Federigo,
had already been present at the Pope's coronation, and soon
afterwards the younger brother, Charles, also appeared,2 at the
express summons of the Pope.3 It was a memorable day in
the history of Rome and the Church when this youth of twenty-
1 See the *letteis of Giulio Grandi of January 7 and 24, 1560,
in the State Archives, Modena. In the former he says : " *Li
nipoti suoi ogni di multiplicano da Milano et Germania." See
also the *Avvisi di Roma of January 6 and 13, 1560. In that
of the 13 we read : " Et tuttavia vengono delli parenti assai,
liqual e da credere che vorano per loro se non il tutto, almanco
la maggior parte al fermo." (Urb. 1039, Vatican Library).
* According to the *Avviso di Roma of January 6, 1 560, Carlo
Borromeo and Giov. Batt. Serbelloni were summoned to Rome
by letter on the day after the election. (Urb. 1039, p. 14, Vatican
Library) .
8 The Bishop of Verona, Cardinal Agostino Valiero, wrote the
earliest biography of Charles Borromeo (Latin, Cologne, 1587,
Italian, Milan, 1 587) ; perhaps the best was that of the General of
the Barnabites and Bishop of Navara, Bascape (first pub. Ingold-
stadt, 1592). Bascape says himself (p. 2): " Eloquentiam
historiaeque scribendae artem concedens multis, rerum ipsarum
notitiam veritatemque iure mini vendicare posse videor." On
the same page he gives as his sources : personal acquaintance
of many years with Charles Borromeo, information from his
intimate friends, and countless documents, among which are
some 30,000 letters from and to Charles. Cf. P. L. MANZINI in
La Scuola catt., Ser. 4, Vol. XVIII. , 330-7 (1910) ; Analecta
PROMOTION OF CHARLES BORROMEO. 97
one made his entrance into the Eternal City. The elevation
of his uncle to the throne of St. Peter could hardly have had a
more happy result than that, at a single stroke, it opened the
way on which he, in the course of a few years, was to become
the most enlightened guide and the ablest promoter of the
Catholic reformation.
Immediately after the arrival of Charles, Pius IV. showed
his affection for him so plainly that people said he loved him
as the apple of his eye.1 He at once invested him with the
dignity of Protonotary and with various benefices.2 It was
at once rumoured in Milan as well as in Rome, that Charles,
who was so highly esteemed by the Pope, would be raised to
the purple,3 and his reception into the Sacred College followed
Holland., XXII., 121. The most wide-spread and interesting
description of his life was that compiled for the feast of his canon
ization, GIUSSANO, Brescia, 1610. ARISTIDE SALA collected
documents relating to C. Borromeo (three volumes, and Fascicolo
conclusionale, Milan, 1857-62) as well as his Biografia (Milan,
1858) provided with " Dissertazioni e note." Much unpublished
material is made use of by CHARLES SYLVAIN (Lille, 1884) and in
the publication San Carlo Borromeo nel terzo centenario della
canonizzazione, Milan, 1908-10. The Bollandists are preparing
a new and comprehensive collection of documents relating to
C. Borromeo. In particular, the documents of the Roman
archives and of the Ambrosian Library in Milan, which P. v.
Ortroy has collected during long years of devoted work, are to
be published by them.
1 It is said of the Pope, writes Ricasoli on January 12, 1560 :
" *Carlo esser 1' ochio suo diretto." (State Archives, Florence).
2 Cf. *Avviso di Roma of January 27, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. I22b,
Vatican Library).
3 Besides SYLVAIN, I., 50 seq., cf. the "Avviso di Roma of Jan
uary 13, 1560, according to which the early elevation of Charles
to the cardinalate was already spoken of (Urb. 1039, p. 117,
Vatican Library). In the *letter of Giulio Grandi, dated Rome,
January 17, 1560, it is stated : " Si ragiona che nel concistoro de
venerdi proximo la S. Sua promover& al cardinalato 1' abate
Bonromei [sic] suo nipote con darli il suo capello proprio. Questo
giovane e molto amato dalla Sta Sua et peramente dimostra
nelle sue attioni esser assai meritevole," (State Arch. Modena).
VOL. XV. 7
98 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
very soon. On January 3ist, 1560, Charles Borromeo, Gian
Antonio Serbelloni, and Giovanni de' Medici, the seventeen-
year-old son of Cosimo I., were created Cardinals.1 Pius IV.
soon showered further tokens of his love on Charles. On
February yth he received the administration of the archbishop
ric of Milan, and on April 25th the legation of Bologna.2 Pius
IV. had intended to give the direction of ecclesiastical and
political affairs to Cardinal Morone, but the latter declined
the honour.3 Thereupon the Pope transferred to Charles
Borromeo the administration of the Papal States, and installed
his Cardinal-nephew at the head of the secretariate of state.4
In the middle of March this appointment was announced to
the nuncios, together with the order that in future all instruc
tions given by the Cardinal Deacon of SS. Vito e Modesto,5
for such was the first titular church of Charles, were to be
regarded as coming from the Pope himself.6
Charles' only brother, Federigo, was also richly endowed with
honours and dignities. This nephew, who was aged twenty-
five, was to found the territorial power of the Borromei by
1 See Acta consist, in RAYNALDUS, 1560, n. 92 ; Massarelli in
MERKLE, II., 341 ; BONDONUS, 532 . GIACONIUS, III., 889 seq.,
896 seq. ; "report of Ricasoli of January 31,1 560. (State Archives
Florence) .
2 See Acta consist, loc. cit. ; MASSARELLI, 344. The brief of
appointment to Milan of February 23, 1560, in SALA, Fascicolo
conclus., 12 seqq. A Motu Proprio of February 8, 1560, amplified
in a brief of May i, 1561, assures to the archbishop the free
disposal of all the benefices accruing to him. SALA, Document!, I. ,
119 seq., 137 seq.
8 See the "report of Gian. Batt. Ricasoli of January 8, 1560,
State Archives, Florence (Medic., 3279).
4 Cf. BASCAPE, 5 seq. ; GUISSANO, 12 ; Panvinius in MERKLE,
II- » 593 seq. : " Carolum Boromeum [sic] iuris scientia praeditum,
quem perhumanum, modestum et industrium virum negotiis
omnibus ecclesiasticis tractandis praefecit."
5 On September 4, 1560, Borromeo received S. Martino ai
Monti as his titular church, which he exchanged for S. Prassede
on November 17, 1564.
6 See the brief of March 15, 1560, in RAYNALDUS, 1560, n. 94.
FEDERIGO BORROMEO 99
means of a marriage with a member of a princely house.1
The bride chosen for him, as was announced as early as the
end of February, 1560, was Virginia della Rovere, the daughter
of Duke Guidobaldo of Urbino.2 A plan was made to bestow
Camerino on him, as this was the inheritance of Virginia's
mother, Guilia Varano, and it was once more to be taken from
the Farnese family.3 The betrothal contract was signed on
May 5th in the apartments of Cardinal Borromeo. Four days
later Federigo went to Pesaro for the wedding, from whence
he was to proceed to Milan to be present at the marriage
of his sister, Camilla, to Cesare Gonzaga of Guastaila, the
eldest son of Ferrante.4 On August 3ist Cesare Gonzaga
came to Rome, where the Pope received him very
^ee &USTA, Kurie, I., xxxii. G. Grandi "reports on January
17, 1560, that Federigo Borromeo is to receive the " governo di
Ancona," and then to be sent to Philip II. (State Archives,
Modena) ; but on February 10, 1560, the marriage by which
Camerino was to come into his hands was already being spoken
of. See the *Avviso di Roma of February 10, 1560. (Urb. 1039,
p. 127, Vatican Library).
8 *Avviso di Roma of February 24, 1560. (Urb. 1039, p. 131,
Vatican Library).
3 An *Avviso di Roma of April 27, 1560, announces that the
matter of Camerino has been handed over to the Rota ; that of the
29 is to the effect that three Cardinals are to discuss the matter.
(Urb. 1039, p. 151, 176, 218, Vatican Library). On November 23
(see the *Avviso of that date) the speedy settlement of the matter
was expected ; Pius IV. already spoke of the " duchessa di
Camerino, nostra nipote," but prematurely. The question was
not decided, in spite of the suit which had been begun. See
SUSTA, Kurie, II., 401, 423, 456, 458, 553 ; III., 429, 446.
4 According to the *Avviso di Roma of April 27, 1560, Cardinal
della Rovere left Rome on April 25 to bring the negotiations
concerning the marriage to a close. After his return on May 5
the contract was concluded (*Avviso of May n), whereupon
Federigo left on May 9 ; (Urb. 1039, p. 151, 156). Ibid. 143 and
*Avviso of March 30 concerning the marriage between C. Gonzaga
and Camilla Borromeo, who received valuable presents from the
Pope (Vatican Library),
100 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
affectionately.1 In October the wife of Federigo was expected
in the Eternal City, and apartments were prepared for her in
the Belvedere, which were so sumptuous that they might
have served for a king.2
The Duke of Urbino himself appeared in Rome on November
4th, before the arrival of Virginia, and two days later Cosimo
I.3 The stay of the latter prince in Rome, which was pro
longed until December 28th, and the striking marks of honour
paid to him by the Pope,4 gave rise to all sorts of lumours. It
was believed that the Duke had come to receive the title of
" King of Tuscany," but such an elevation was opposed both
by Philip II. and Ferdinand I.5 and the diplomatists of the
Hapsburgs in Rome were filled with all the greater misgivings
as Cosimo 's dealings with the Pope were kept very secret.8
The most various rumours were current,7 but at last events
.proved that Cosimo had completely deceived himself in believ-
1 *Avviso di Roma of August 31, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 194,
Vatican Library). C. Gonzaga afterwards lived in the Palazzo
San Marco.
2 *Avviso di Roma of October 19, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 2iob,
Vatican Library).
8 The arrival of both princes is described by Fr. Tonina in his
*report of November 6 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua) and an
*Avviso di Roma of November 9, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 214, Vatican
Library). According to the latter the Duke of Urbino was lodged
in the " stanze nuove del palazzo, che fece fare Julio III." ;
Cosimo I. and the Duchess " nelle stanze d' Innocenzo VIII.
e di Sisto, restaurate di questo papa con molto ordine."
4 Cf. Massarelli in MERKLE, II., 348 ; BONDONUS 585 seq. ;
REUMONT, Toskana, I., 230 seq. ; PALANDRI, 98 seq.
5 Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 83 ; Voss, 95 ; Venetian Despatches, III.,
159, 1 66. Cf. also LE BRET, Gesch. Italiens, VIII., 159 seq. ;
even before Cosimo I. appeared in Rome the most various con-
iectures were made as to the reason fcr his arrival ; see the ""report
of Fr. Tonina of October 30, 1560 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
6 See Mula's *report of November 16, 1560 (State Library,
Vienna).
7 Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 91, 93, 96, 121, 133. See also the cor
respondence of Card. O. Truchsess, 229, 231 seq.
PROMOTION OF THE POPE'S NEPHEWS. 101
ing that Pius IV. would subordinate himself to the carrying
out of all his schemes.1
The Dukes- of Urbino and Florence were still in Rome when,
on December yth, 1560, Virginia approached the city in
gorgeous state. Four Cardinals and numerous prelates went
to meet her at the Prima Porta, where she was also greeted by
the Roman nobility, and at the Ponte Molle by the diplomatic
corps. After Virginia had spent the night at the Villa Giulia,
she made her entrance into the Eternal City on a white palfrey,
her head covered with a coif gleaming with jewels, while an
honour was rendered to the young Duchess which had hitherto
been conferred only upon queens and empresses, for by her
side rode two Cardinals, Rovere and Borromeo.2
Pius IV. made it his business that honours and riches should
also fall to the lot of his remaining nephews, but he was not
able to satisfy them to the full. The second of the five
Serbelloni brothers had been received, as has been already
stated, into the Sacred College at the same time as Carlo
Borromeo. Gian Battista Serbelloni had received the office
of the Captain of the Castle of St. Angelo, while his brother
Gabrio had become Captain of the Papal guard.3 Fabrizio
Serbelloni was sent in October, 1561, to France, to defend the
city of Avignon, which was being threatened by the Huguenots, 4
1 See HILLIGER, 7, 25.
2 See BONDONUS, 537 seq. Cf. MASSARELLI, 349, and "report
of Fr. Tonina of December n, 1560 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
Concerning the preparations for the reception of Virginia see
*Avvisi di Roma of November 16 and 23, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 216,
218, Vatican Library).
8 See the *report of G. Grandi of January 17,1 560 (State
Archives, Modena). Cf, PAGLIUCCHI, 138. Ibid. 144, con
cerning the appointment of Gian Battista to the bishopric of
Cassano, which took place on September 17, 1562. Gabrio and
his brother Gian Battista had arrived in Rome on January 4
(*Avviso di Roma of January 6, 1560, Urb. 1039, p. 114, Vatican
Library). Gabrio Serbelloni was later on entrusted with the
superintendence of the fortresses of the States of the Church ;
Girol. Soranzo praises him (p. 94).
* See *Avviso di Roma of October 25, 1561 (Urb. 1039, p. 305,
Vatican Library). Cf. GIROL SORANZO, 95.
102 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Gabrio Serbelloni was most dissatisfied with his office, and
jealousy filled his heart. He complained to the Florentine
ambassador as early as June, 1560, that the Pope did not make
independent decisions,. but submitted everything to the judg
ment of Cardinal Borromeo,1 and later on the same ambassador
repeatedly heard bitter complaints from Gabrio, who thought
himself quite put into the background.2
The family of Hohenems was likewise filled with bitter
jealousy at the signs of favour which were lavished upon
the Borromei. These warlike German petty nobles had hurried
to Rome immediately after the election of Pius IV. in order
to make their fortunes there as nephews of the Pope. They
were dignified men, as Cardinal Truchsess informed Duke
Albert of Bavaria, but the Italians laughed at them because
of their want of culture and their rough and clumsy manners.3
They were not, however, lacking in ambition, and were of
the opinion that one of their number should also be invested
with the purple.4 Their aspirations rose yet higher when
Ferdinand I. raised them to the rank of Counts of the Empire
on April 2/th, 1560. 5
The jealousy of his nephews and their quarrels caused the
1 "Letters in cypher from G. B. Ricasoli of June i, 1560 (State
Archives, Florence).
2 See the "letters of G. B. Ricasoli of June 13 and 24, and
July 8, 1560 (State Archives, Florence). In the "report of June
24, he says in cypher: "Gabrio si trova assai mal contento
parendoli il Papa pensi a beneficare ogn' altro che lui."
3 Truchsess on January 20, 1560, in Correspondence of Card. O.
Truchsess, 128; HILLIGER, 10-11.
4 When the Mark Sittich received a " commendam " of the
order of St. James, an "Avviso di Roma of February 24, 1560,
states that people saw in this the first step towards the cardinalate.
That Hohenems endeavoured to attain to this is testified by the
"Avviso di Roma of March 9, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 131, i35b.,
Vatican Library).
5 See the diploma in BERGMANN, Die Edlen von Emts zu
Hohenembs: Denkschrift der Wiener Akad., Phil-hist., KL, X.,
1 80 seq. (1860).
MARK SITTICH VON HOHENEMS. 103
Pope many hours of anxiety from the beginning of his reign.1
Cardinal Madruzzo of Trent interested himself in the German
nephews to such an extent as to cause the Borromei consider
able anxiety and displeasure.2 In order to give the Hohenems
family satisfaction and to put an end to their intrigues against
the Borromei, Pius IV. determined to get them out of Rome
by sending them on honourable missions.3 Mark Sittich von
Hohenems was, despite his very worldly inclinations, appointed
Bishop of Cassano in 1560, and sent in the June of that year to
the court of Ferdinand I., for which mission he was prepared
by being first raised to the bishopric of Constance. On
February 26th in the following year, Mark Sittich, although
he was by no means fitted for it, received the dignity of
1 An *Avviso di Roma of January 27, 1560, reports the jealousy
which the beginnings of the special notice taken of the Borromei
excited : " II che vedendo 1* altri nipoti di S.S. hanno cominciat' a
murmurar' et havute strane parole tra loro, il che ha dato qualche
travaglio a S.S., massime per quelli d'Alemagna ch' hanno il
cervello alquanto gagliardo, et hormai sono comparsi tanti nipoti
che passano il numero de 15." Cf. further the *Avvisi di Roma
of February 3 and March 16, 1560 (the German nephews would
in no way be under the Borromei, and said they wished their
sisters to be placed just as high, " et cosi ogni di ha S.Sta qualche
fastidio della competentia et emulutione, che e fra loro "), Urb.
1039, p. 122, 124, 138, Vatican Library. The continued discord
between the nephews is dealt with in a *report in cypher of G.
Grandi of March 13, 1560 (State Archives, Modena).
» See the report of Truchsess of March 16, 1560, in the Corres
pondence of Card. O. Truchsess, 150. Cf. HILLIGER, 10, who
according to SUSTA, Kurie, I., xxii, overrates the rivalry. How
long these disputes continued may be seen from the **report of
Fr. Tonina of December 29, 1560 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
»C/. GIROL. SORANZO, 89 seq. According to an *Avviso di
Roma of May 25, 1560, thete was talk at that time of marrying
Hannibal von Hohenems to Giovanna d'Aragona, and of buying
a state for him in Italy. Salerno was mentioned, which was to
cost 300,000 ducats (cf. *Avvisi di Roma of June i and 8 [settle
ment of marriage contract] and June 15). Urb. 1039, p. 160,
163, i65a, lygb, Vatican Library. Cf. MOCENIGO, 53.
104 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Cardinal. In January, 1562, he was fixed upon as sixth legate
for the Council of Trent.1 In all these positions he proved
his worth as little as did his brother, Jakob Hannibal, in his
mission to the court of Philip II. of Spain.2 Gabriel von
Hohenems was distinguished by being sent on an expedition
to France, while his sister Margaret was married to a nephew
of Cardinal Madruzzo.3
Neither the Hohenems nor the Serbelloni attained to any
great importance in Roman affairs in the years which followed,
the whole of the Pope's affection being centred in the Borromei.
1 Cf. MOCENIGO, 53-4 J GIROL. SORANZO, 81 ; SICKEL, Konzil,
47, 230 seq. ; STEINHERZ, Nuntiaturberichte, I., 59, 60, 69, 71,
72, 74, 96, 100, 128, 266 seq., 303 307, 312 323 seq., 351, 373 ;
SUSTA, Kurie, I , 99 101, 109, 114, 120 seq., 151, 163 ; II., vi seq. ;
especially REINHARDT-STEFFENS, G. Fr. Bonhomini, Einl. S. xlii
seq. and WYMANN, 66 seqq., where there is also other literature.
Mark Sittich was spoken of as a candidate for the purple in a
letter of Cardinal Truchsess of May 18, 1 560 (Correspondence, 166)
and also in the *report of G. Grandi of September 12, 1560 (State
Archives, Modena). The Altemps, Dukes of Gallese, trace their
origin from Roberto, the natural son of Mark Sittich, afterwards
legitimatized (see BERGMANN, loc. cit., XI., 6 seq. ; cf. LITTA, 91).
With regard to the coat of arms of Cardinal Altemps see Archives
Heraldiques Suisses, 199 seqq., Zurich, 1913; cf. 1912, p. 153.
A magnificent chimney piece, with a beautiful bust of Mark
Sittich, came from the Palazzo Altemps to the Villa Malta, the
Roman residence of that lover of the arts, Prince Billow.
2 As an amplification of the details in SUSTA, Kurie, I., 317,
319, cf. the **letters of Pius IV., to Hannibal von Hohenems,
dated Rome, January 22, March 5 (App. no. 15) and 31, May 5 and
21,1 561 , which contain sharp reprimands of Hannibal's behaviour.
However, when he showed sorrow the Pope forgave him, in a
*letter of October 8, 1 562. In a *letter of November 26, 1562, the
Pope orders him to remain in Spain for the present. All these
letters are to be found in the original in the archives at Hohenems.
Concerning Hannibal's loss of favour with the Pope, see also the
**report of Fr. Tonina of July 23, 1561 (Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua) .
3 MOCENIGO, 54.
CHARLES BORROMEO. 105
Of this family, Charles, who was born at Arona, on the west
shore of Lago Maggiore, on October 2nd, 1538, l deserved in
the fullest degree the affection and confidence which his uncle
showed him. The choice of this youth of twenty-one to be
Secretary of State turned out to be a brilliant success. When
Pius IV. made up his mind to this step he was moved, apart
from family affection, at first only by the same considerations
as had induced so many of his predecessors to act in a like
manner. He believed, in view of the party differences in
the Curia and the College of Cardinals, that he could only find
a trustworthy confidant and fellow worker in his own family.
That his choice fell on Charles Borromeo was a decisive factor
for his whole reign. He found in him, above all, exactly
what, as a man of independent character, he sought ; a most
loyal assistant, who endeavoured, with the greatest devotion,
with persevering diligence and inexhaustible patience, to carry
out the instructions of the head of the Church.2
The members of the Curia, as well as the diplomatists, were
little pleased with the new Secretary of State ; they had no
hope of gaming any influence over the old, experienced Pope,
through his youthful nephew, and besides this, the strict
manner of his life, and the thoroughly ecclesiastical sentiments
of Charles were not at all to the taste of those persons whose
ideal was still the nepotist type of the Renaissance, and of this
Charles Borromeo showed not the least trace. His personal
appearance was neither made attractive by good looks, nor
imposing by its dignity. 3 His excessive modesty of demeanour
1 See the illustrations of the former castle and chapel, as well
as the colossal statue of Charles Borromeo, which now rises
above the ruins, in San Carlo, n, 14, 27, 28.
2 See SUSTA, Kurie, I., xxxiii.
3 Among the many portraits of Cardinal Borromeo, that painted
by Figini, now in the Pinacotheca Ambrosiana, gives the best
idea of his features, according to the testimony of Card. Federigo
Borromeo. A reproduction of it is in San Carlo, 123 ; cf. 136.
His death mask is now in the possession of the Capuchins of
Porta Monforte. An illustration, ibid., 520, 521. As an enemy
of self-glorification, Charles Borromeo, contrary to the habit of
IO6 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
had the effect, at first, of concealing his intellectual gifts ;
his natural tendency to thoroughness and solidity rather than
to outward brilliancy, did not lead him to any great communi
cativeness, or to put himself forward in any way.1 A defect
in his speech, which caused the words to be uttered too
quickly, and of which he was only gradually cured, added to
the unfavourable impression which he made,2 while his modest
reserve, as welt as his scrupulous avoidance of benefitting by
his position to enrich himself, or of enjoying life after the
manner of the clerics of the Renaissance era, caused him to be
looked upon at first as being of limited intelligence.3 In the
ambassadorial reports concerning the early work of the
youthful Secretary of State, he is described as a pious and
good young man, but as possessing few qualities of any im
portance for the transaction of worldly affairs.4 In time,
his contemporaries, set no value on preserving his portrait for
his successors ; in his extensive correspondence, he only once
speaks of his portrait, which he sent to his sister, Anna ; see
WYMANN, 107.
1 " Ne insignes in literis progressus habere videretur (this refers
to his time of study at Pavia), ingenii motus ad explicandum
haud satis expediti faciebant. . . . Earn animi moderationem
atque aequabilitatem haud maxima praesertim ingenii celeritate
coniunctam, quidam quasi tarditatem abiectionemque despicere
videbantur, cum tamen et ipsius adolescentiae acta non obscure
et posterioris temporis res gestae multo illustrius longe aliter se
rem habuisse demonstarint." BASCAPE, 4b.
2 BASCAPE, ya : concisas sententias, immo etiam verba ipsa
imminuta habitu quodam' nimiae celeritatis pronuntiare sole bat.
8 BASCAPE, 6b ; GIUSSANO, loD.
*MOCENIGO, 53. In a *report of August u, 1564, Fr. Tonina
says of Charles Borromeo that he is " di natura freddo et per
consuetudine timido al papa" (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
Requesens to Philip II., on April 30, 1564 : " Es el hombre del
mundo del menos espiritu y accion para tratar negocios "
(D5LLINGER, Beitrage, I., 561). Requesens to Philip on January 5,
1565 (ibid. 581). " Aunque Borromeo es buen hombre y virtuoso,
pienso que la tendria menos en la eleccion, que jumas tubo sobrino
de Papa, porque es tan tibio, qui ne el attiende a tenelle, ne se la
da nada." Requesens had later on an opportunity of becoming
acquainted with the energy of Borromeo.
CHARLES BORROMEO. 107
however, the opinion, even of the Venetian ambassadors,
became more favourable.1 Those who were brought into
closer contact with him could not fail to notice that his intelli
gence was keen and his judgment clear,2 and that what he
lacked in quickness of comprehension or in keenness of per
ception, he made up by assiduous application. His great
energy enabled him to consider any important question from
every point of view, very often for as much as six hours at a
time, without any feeling of fatigue, before he arrived at a
definite decision.3
His firmness of character, his reliability and his deeply
rooted piety were beyond all praise, and he had early given
proofs of these qualities. Charles had been destined for the
Church from his early youth, and educated to that end by
a tutor at home, and hardly had he attained the age of fourteen
in 1552,* when this young scion of the ancient noble family
of Arona proceeded to the University of Pavia to study law.
His father had given him a majordomo, but Chailes soon had to
dismiss him as being unsuitable,5 and he was therefore thrown
on his own resources immediately after leaving his father's
home, and had to follow his own way independently. Filled
with the thought that he owed it to his family, and especially
to his two uncles, the commander-in-chief and the Cardinal,
to distinguish himself, he applied himself with the greatest
energy to his studies. In 1559, after many interruptions,
partly caused by overwork, he passed his examinations as
doctor of law with great distinction.6 He attended to his
1 Cf. WYMANN, 97 seq.
2 ut erat acri ingenio iudicioque ; BASCAP&, iSaa.
» Ibid., i82b.
4 Concerning the date, see SYLVAIN, I., 19 ; GIROL. SORANZO, 90.
5 His second steward was hardly better (SYLVAIN, I., 21, 25).
The opinion which he formed of this steward is characteristic of
the future administrator ; he writes to his father : " This man
does not understand how to command." San Carlo, 25.
6 SYLVAIN, I., 20 ; BASCAP£, 5a. Cf. L. GRAMATICA, Diploma
di laurea in diritto canonico e civile di S. Carlo Borromeo, Milan,
1917.
108 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
religious duties most conscientiously and kept himself pure
and unstained in the licentious university city.
The distinguishing quality of the future reformer, his
unusual talent for government and administration, was very
obvious even during these years of study. In Pavia he had
to manage his household and superintend his servants,1 and he
performed this duty with the greatest skill, in spite of many
difficulties, and a constant want of money.2 During the vaca
tions and the intervals in his studies, with his father's consent,
he looked after the family estates,3 and after the death of
the latter in 1558, his elder brother, Federigo, was quite willing
that Charles should undertake the management of the family
and their father's fortune into his already experienced hands.4
In accordance with the evil custom of the times, he had
already, when a child, been appointed abbot in commendam
of a Benedictine abbey, but the revenue from this he devoted,
for the most part, and with his father s consent, to the poor.5
He also endeavoured successfully to reform the monks, and
when friendly measures did not avail, he made it his business to
see that recourse was had to the punishment of imprisonment.6
Many other offices were soon bestowed on Charles by Pius
IV. in addition to those he already held. The Pope appointed
him Protector of Portugal, Lower Germany and the seven
Catholic cantons of Switzerland, as well as Protector of the
Franciscans, Carmelites, Humiliati, the Canons Regular of the
Holy Cross at Coimbra, and of the orders of St. John and of
Christ in Portugal.7 The revenues from these dignities, and
1 SYLVAIN, I., 25. 2 Ibid., 22 seqq. 3 Ibid., 28, 31.
4 Rerum familiarium summa propter prudentiam morumque
gravitatem ad ems iudicium rediit. BASCAP£, 4-5.
6 BASCAP£, 4a.
6 Ibid., 5b : alios victus asperitate, alios arcta custodia punivit
et in officio continuit, quamquam nullo eius generis tune proposilo
exemplo.
7 BASCAP&, 150. He became Protector of the Humiliati on
February 13, 1560, (SALA, Dissertazioni, 414). The brief ap
pointing him Protector of Switzerland on March 12, 1560, in
Raynaldus, 1560, n. 95. Cf. WYMANN, 85.
CHARLES BORROMEO. IOQ
from the different abbeys which were entrusted to him in
commendam, as well as from his family estates, were valued
by the commercial mind of the Venetian ambassador, Girolamo
Soranzo, in 1563, at about 48,000 scudi annually.1
The foreign ambassadors were filled with wonder that the
Pope's youthful nephew was not seduced by all these honours
and riches to give himself up to the pleasures of life. Nor was
there the least sign of haughtiness about him, and his whole
manner of life remained, according to the universal testimony
of his contemporaries, without a stain.2 He threw himself
into his work with so much zeal, that at first his attendants
feared that his health would be impaired. One of his intimate
friends writes that he hardly allowed himself time to eat or to
sleep in peace, and begs the uncle of Charles, Count Francesco,
that he and Count Guido Borromeo would remonstrate with
their nephew as much as lay in their power, for he was deaf
to all the expostulations of his servants.3 Charles himself
i, II., 4, 92. According to Soranzo, the archbishopric
of Milan yielded him 7,000 scudi, the abbey of Arona 2,000, the
abbeys of Mozzo, della Follina, Colle (in Venetian territory) 3,000,
Nonantola 3,000, an abbey in the Neapolitan territory 1,000. The
Spanish King paid him 12,000 scudi, of which he gave up 3,000
to Card. Altemps The legation of Bologna brought him in
7,000, that of Ravenna 5,000, and the administration of Spoleto
3,000'. From four galleys which Federigo had left him, and which
were in the service of Spain, he drew 1,000 scudi each, and the
revenues from his father's estates amounted to 4,000 scudi. Bas-
cape testifies (p. 6b) that many of these benefices were forced on
him by the Pope. As abbot in commendam, Charles possessed,
according to Bascape (pp. 15, 16) twelve churches ; his revenues
occasionally amounted to 90,000 ducats. A pension of 12,000
ducats, which Philip II. had assigned to him in connection with
the archbishopric of Toledo, was in reality never paid. GIROL.
SORANZO, 95.
' GIROL. SORANZO, 91 : " E il Cardinale di una vita mnocen-
tissima tanto che, per quello che si sa, si pu6 dir che sia netto da
ogni macchia." GIAC. SORANZO 133 : " La vita sua e innc
tissima e castissima."
' Ercole Lodi to Count Guido Borromeo on February 17, 1560
(published by E. MOTTA in the Archivio storico Lombardo, 1900,
110 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
wrote on January 22nd, 1560, that he was well in health, in
spite of the " endless strain," but that he found it hard to save
as much as five or six hours for sleep.1 Entirely giving up
his own inclinations and plans, he placed himself altogether
at the disposal of the Pope,2 keeping as much at his side as
possible the whole day long, and going every morning to the
secretary of the State Chancery, Tolomeo Galli,3 for a con-r
ference two or three hours in length, concerning the reports
and suits which had to be settled.4 The documents which
arrived every day in great numbers at the office of the Secre
tary of State had immediately to be summarized and entered
on short narrow octavo sheets. These extracts served
Borromeo and Galli as the basis of their report to the Pope.
The decisions, to which Pius IV. came very quickly, were often
noted in short expressive notes in pencil on the reverse side
of the extracts, and were then made use of for the replies.
The minutes which had been prepared in the office of the
Secretary of State were again revised, either by Charles or,
perhaps, the Pope himself, before a fair copy was finally made,
352 seq.) : " Resta al presente tanto occupato nelli negocii ch'
apena ci avanza tempo per poter comodamente mangiar e dormire.
II che a noi altri servitori suoi e di grandissimo scontento per la
temenza tenemo che . . . finalmente non caschi in qualche
grave infirmita. ... Si mostra talmente infiamato del ben publico
et tanto inamorato del negocio che pare in effetto unico." Cf.
also the *letter of Fr. Tonina of May 14, 1561 (Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua). The appointment of Paolo Odescalchi as " assistente
delle audientie " points to some slight relief for Borromeo. *Non
havera, says an Avviso di Roma of January 31, 1562, tanti
fastidii che certo non haveva troppo. (Urb. 1039, p. 33 5b
Vatican Archives).
1 SYLVAIN, I., 50.
2 Ha lasciato tutti gli altri suoi pensieri e piaceri per compiacer
la Santita Sua. GIROL. SORANZO, 91.
3 Concerning Tolomeo Galli (born 1526 or 1527 at Como) and his
position as " secretarius intimus," see SICKEL, Berichte, I., 44 seqq.;
SUSTA, Kurie, I., xxxiv, and T$RNE, Ptolome'e Gallic, 55 seq.
See also RICHARD in the Revue d'hist. eccle"s., XI. (1910), 521.
« Cf. GIROL. SORANZO, 77 ; GIAC. SORANZO, 135,
ACTIVITY OF BORROMEO. Ill
and sometimes even these were again examined by the Pope.
The instructions for the nuncios and legates were always
drawn up in the name of Borromeo, who often added long
notes to his signature. The Cardinal also often wrote long
letters in his own hand ; those drawn up in the name of the
Pope only dealt with important matters, or when the person
addressed had to be specially honoured, and in such cases
Pius IV. often added postscripts in his own hand, and these
were seldom wanting in precision.1
Almost the whole of the diplomatic correspondence passed
through the hands of Borromeo, so that he was thus engaged
in all the great questions of European politics, besides those in
connection with purely ecclesiastical affairs. He also had to
decide in the matter of petitions for pardon from condemned
criminals, recommendations for appointments, decrees against
bandits, letters of complaint, and many other similar matters
of lesser importance.2 Besides these exacting duties, the
1 Concerning the daily routine in the office of the Secretary of
State, and the staff employed there, see, besides the excellent
and comprehensive description by SUSTA, Kurie I., xxxiv seq.,
Ixxv., the detailed account in SICKEL, Berichte, I., 44 seqq.,
65 seqq., J2 seqq., 83 seqq. ; II., 15 seqq., 22 seqq., 28 seqq. ; III.,
39 seqq., 99 seqq. See also SICKEL, Ein Ruolo di famiglia des
Papstes Pius IV., Mitteilungen des Osterr. Instit., XIV., 581 seq.,
and TORNE, 41, 74 seqq. Concerning Borromeo's excellent
Uditore, G. Fr. Bonhomini, see EHSES-MEISTER, Nuntiatur-
berichte, I., i, xvi, Paderborn, 1895; REINHARDT-STEFFENS,
G. Fr. Bonhomini, Einl. p. xxv. Examples of the strictness of
Pius IV. with regard to his secretaries, in the *Avvisi di Roma
of April 6 and 13, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. I45b, 147, Vatican Library).
Cf. also SICKEL, Berichte, II., 61 n. i.
2 The many documents which Sala (Documenti, Vol. 3) has
collected, give an idea of these activities. How everyone who
wished to approach the Pope applied to Borromeo is shown by
the letter of complaint of Scipione Saurolo against Michelangelo's
Last Judgment, which is addressed to Borromeo. It is printed in
SALA, Documenti III., 90 seq. Several of Borromeo's letters to
Lucca (concerning the repression of heresy, etc.) are published
by E. LAZZARESCHI in La Scuola catt,, Ser, 4, XVIII,, 279-95
112 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Cardinal held a conference three times a week with eight
legal experts, concerning current affairs in connection with the
administration of the States of the Church.1 In addition to
all these duties there were frequent meetings of the congre
gations of Cardinals, such as that on Thursdays for the reform
of the Church, at which Borromeo had to be present,2 while for
recreation he had the evening discussions in the academy which
he had founded, under the title of " Vatican Nights," where
Latin theses were read and discussed.3
In spite of these splendid examples of self-sacrificing
devotion to duty, Borromeo was still far from being the strict
ascetic of his later years. He was passionately fond of the
chase, and followed it for the benefit of his health more eagerly
than his friends thought consistent with the dignity of a
Cardinal.4 He paid great attention to the magnificence of
his household, although he was for those days very moderate
in his personal requirements, but his court consisted of 150
persons, who were clothed from head to foot in black velvet.5
(1900). (f. also G. CASTELLANI, Una lettera di S. Carlo Borromeo
[of May 4, 1560] a proposito della sacca di Fano : Rivista Ital.
di numismatica, 1908.
1GlROL. SORANZO, QI ; GlAC. SORANZO, 135.
2 Massarelli in MERKLE, II., 343.
» GIROL. SORANZO, 91; TIRABOSCHI, VII. , 45, 198; SAXIUS,
Noctes Vatic. Mediol., 1738; KUNZ, Biblithek fur kath. Pada-
gogik, L, 20; SPROTTE, Zur Gesch. des hi. Karl Borromaus,
Oppeln, 1893 ; San Carlo, 61.
4 Anal. Boll. 25 (1906), 521. The remark of Baseape (p. 6a)
must refer to this, as well as to the game of ball : " Quotidianas
etiam oblectationes quasdam sacrae disciplinae non satis con-
sentaneas admittebat " ; cf. p. ga.: " exercitatione corporis ad id
tempus valetudinis gratia magnopere delectatus." On December
4, 1561, Borromeo begs the nuncio Delfino to send him suitable
sporting dogs from Germany (STEINHEKZ, Nuntiaturberichte, I.,
324). Fr. Tonina speaks of a hunt of Borromeo in a "letter of
October 22, 1561 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
6 GIROL. SORANZO, 92 ; LODI, in the Archivio stor. Lomb.,
1903, 355. The Papal court consisted of 1500 persons; of.
GIROL. SORANZO, 96.
PRINCELY STATE OF BORROMEO. 113
He wished the Borromeo family to make an appearance which
should correspond in every way with their present princely
rank. His creation as Cardinal he announced to his family
in the simplest manner, and he desired that the happy event
should only be celebrated in Arona, and especially by masses
of the Holy Ghost. At the same time, however, he desired
that his sister should have for the future two ladies as com
panions, and these were to be of noble birth and of good
reputation.1 He expressed himself as filled with joy in his
letters when his sisters, through the efforts of their uncle and
the zealous co-operation of their brother, made aristocratic
and wealthy marriages with the Gonzaga, Colonna, Altemps,
and the princes of Venosa.2 On the other hand, when a less
wealthy relative was about to marry beneath her rank, and
thus lower the dignity of the famity, he showed himself very
much troubled.3
Cardinal Borromeo took a particular interest in the fortunes
of his only brother, Federigo, who had espoused the daughter
of the Duke of Urbino, Virginia della Rovere, in 1560. The
whole Borromeo family was justly proud of this alliance, which
gave rise to the most flattering hopes. Federigo, on whose
1 Letter of January 31, 1560, in SYLVAIN, I., 54.
* San Carlo, II. (1910), 278 seqq. ; SYLVAIN, I., 57 seqq., 73;
SALA, Document!, III., 13, 17, 22 seq., 325 seq., 328. Camilla,
Charles' sister, in 1560, married Cesare Gonzaga, Count of Guas-
talla, Duke of Molfetta, Prince of Ariano, who died in 1 573 (CARO,
III., 284, 287 seq., 290, 292, 297). She died in 1583. A second
sister, Geronima, married Fabrizio Gesualdo, Prince of Venosa,
and a third, Anna, married Fabrizio Colonna, in 1562 (died 1580),
the eldest son of Marcantonio (cf. SUSTA, Kurie, II., 258, 261,
291, 525; *report of Fr. Tonina of June n, 1562, Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua). She died in 1582. There was a daughter,
the issue of a second marriage of Gilberto Borromeo to Taddea
del Verme, who was married with great pomp to Hannibal von
Hohenems on January 6, 1565 (cf. SALA, Fascicolo conclus., 47 ;
San Carlo, loc. <:it. ; WYMANN, 63). An *Avviso di Roma of
June 28, 1561, announces the arrival of the four sisters of Charles
Borromeo in Rome (Urb. 1039, p. 283, Vatican Library),
'SYLVAIN, I., 66.
VOL. XV. 8
114 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
head fortune seemed to shower her gifts with a lavish hand,
was of a quiet and retiring temperament, and does not seem
to have aspired to exercise any influence in. affairs of state.1
In spite of this, foreign princes eagerly sought his favour,
especially Cosimo I., who presented to him the magnificent
Altoviti palace in December, 1560, as well as a considerable
sum of money,2 the relations of the Borromeo family to the
Duke of Florence being as close as those between father and
son.3
On April 2nd, Pius IV. appointed the youthful head of the
Borromeo family to be Captain-General of the Church, and
solemnly presented his beloved Federigo with the Marshal's
baton, which carried with it a monthly pension of 1,000
ducats.* On the 22nd of the same month Federigo went to
Trent as the representative of the Pope, in order to give the
daughter of the King of the Romans, Ferdinand, the bride of
the Duke of Mantua, an escort of honour to her new home.5
A year later, when Philip II. was preparing to raise Federigo,
who till now had been a count, to the dignity of Marquis of
Oria, it really seemed as though the name of Borromeo would
soon be able to rival that of Farnese or Medici in splendour and
renown. Unfortunately Federigo quite unexpectedly suc
cumbed to an attack of fever on December igth, 1562, after
an illness of only eight days.6 The magnificent funeral
1C/. MOCENIGO, 53; SUSTA, Kurie, I., xxxii seq.
2 See the*letterof Fr. Tonina of December 14, 1560 (Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua).
3 See with regard to this and the later change in the relations,
the interesting **report of Fr. Tonina of January 29, 1563 (Gon
zaga Archives, Mantua).
4 See BONDONUS, 541.
5 See Massarelli in MERKLE, 355; BONDONUS, 549. Cf. C.
GIULIANI in the Arch. Trentino, III. (1884), 14 seq.
6 See BONDONUS, 543, where however, what the otherwise
careful editor Merkle has overlooked, November 19 is certainly
correct and not August 19. The former date has various other
authorities in its support, besides that already cited in SICKEL,
Berichte, III., 90 seq., and SUSTA, Kurie, III., 89 seq. viz. : (i)
DEATH OF FEDERIGO BORROMEO. 115
obsequies which were held for this youth who had been so
suddenly snatched away from life, almost seemed to be the
funeral rites for the glory of the house of Borromeo. Cardinal
Borromeo might well see in the gold-embroidered pall which
covered the coffin,1 as it lay in state under a gilded canopy
at the obsequies on November 25th, a symbol of the splendid
downfall of his family.
The sudden death of this much-loved nephew at the early
age of twenty-seven, filled the Pope with the deepest sorrow.2
A letter from Borromeo to Cesare Gonzaga of November 19,
1562, in SALA, Document!, III., 241. (2) A *letter of Fr. Tonina
of November 20, 1562 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). (3) A
*letter of Alf. Roselli of November 19, 1562 (State Archives,
Modena). Cf. also Borromeo's letters of November 24, 1562
(with wrong date 1561, as erroneously printed in SALA, Docum.,
III., 99), December 3, 1562, April 5, 1563, September 2, 1564
(removal of the body to Milan), in SALA, Docum., III., 242, 262,
308. The news of his having received the marquisate of Oria only
arrived when Federigo was in his last moments (KERVYN DE
LETTENHOVE, III., 2.12 ; SICKEL, Konzil, 403). A satirical
epitaph on F. Borromeo in Giorn. d. lett. Ital., XXXVI., 212.
IBONDONUS, 544. *Letter of Alf. Roselli of November 25,
1562 (State Archives, Modena).
2 On November 18, 1562, when Federigo's state had become
hopeless, Fr. Tonina reports : " *N.S. ni ha sentito et sente
infinite dispiacere et questa notte gli and6 a otto hore a vederlo
et egli poi, o per dispiacere o per il disturbo, si dice che vomit6
quanto hieri havea magnato et resta anch' esso travagliato."
On November 20 Tonina writes : " * Resta adunque dirle che
N.S. ha sentito et sente di questa morte infinite dolore, et chi
fu presente dice che disse, Manus Domini tetigit me, et un altra
volte disse, orsu bisogna portrala in pace, questi sono i nostri
peccati." In an *Avviso di Roma of November 21, 1562, it is
stated : " S.Sto quand' ebbe tal nuova stava a far segnatura e
sospese la penna, torn6 a seguirla et prestandogli il card. Borro
meo disse : Manus Domini tetigit nos " (State Archives, Naples,
C. Fames.). According to the *report of Tonina of November
28, 1562, the Pope deplored in the Congregation of Monday, with
tears in his eyes, the death of this " filius dilectus, solamen suum "
(Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). According to the ""report of
Il6 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
He bore it, however, with resignation, for he saw in this
crushing blow, which destroyed all his plans for the elevation
of his nephew, a punishment from heaven for the exaggerated
concessions which he had made to the Spanish king1 with
regard to the use of ecclesiastical revenues, with the intention
of thereby promoting the interests of Federigo. The sudden
destruction of such brilliant hopes also made a deep impression
on Cardinal Borromeo,2 all the more so as, almost at the same
time as he lost his beloved brother, the young son of the Duke
of Florence, who had received the Cardinal's hat at the same
time as himself, suddenly died after a three days' illness.3
The ascetic nature of Charles had for long resisted making
any concessions to the more worldly conceptions of life,4 and
now that the futility of all merely earthly aspirations was so
rudely brought before his eyes, he resolved to free himself
from the last traces of a worldly spirit, and to devote his life
exclusively to the supreme goal.
The worldly-minded members of the Curia, and, as was
Alf. Roselli of November 25, the Pope had then spoken in a
composed and courageous manner ; on December 5, however,
the same writer reports : " * II Papa non puo scordarsi la morte
del conte Federigo Borromeo, massime non sapendo risolversi
di soggetto per perpetuarvi la casa sua non inclinando al fratello "
(State Archives, Modena).
1 It was a question of the heavy tax on church property granted
for the fleet of Philip II. ; see the *report of Alf. Roselli of Novem
ber 21, 1562 (State Archives, Modena). Cf. with regard to this
affair, Vol. XVI. of this work.
* See his letter to Cosimo in SALA, Docum., III., 241 seq. The
importance of this death has already been pointed out by Palla-
vicini (19, 4, 9). Ranke has underestimated it, as SICKEL justly
remarks (Berichte III., 83). A contemporary portrait of Federigo
is in the Ambrosiana, and another in the castle of the Borromei
at Angera. Reproductions in San Carlo, 37, 55.
8 BONDONUS, 544. " Questi due si gravi colpi . . . erano
veramente atti ad atterarmi affatto, se hen fossi stato assai piu
forte di quello ch'io sono," writes Borromeo on December 3, 1562,
to the Duke of Florence. SALA, Docum., III., 242.
8b.
BORROMEO RECEIVES HOLY ORDERS. 117
believed, the Pope himself, drew quite other conclusions from
these events . It was supposed that the heir of all the Borromeo
riches would now give up his clerical career, and, in the place
of his dead brother, carry on the family. l Although Charles
was already a sub-deacon, and as such had taken a vow of
chastity, a Papal dispensation did not seem unlikely in his
case. The Cardinal, however, put an end to any such expec
tations by receiving holy orders from Cardinal Cesi on July
I7th, 1563. He took this step with the consent of the Pope,
who had raised his nephew to the rank of Cardinal-Priest at
the consistory of June 4th, 1563, and had thereby given him
the express command to receive holy orders, declaring at the
same time that he had never intended to force Charles to give
up the priesthood, and that all rumours to the contrary were
unfounded.2 Borromeo was much strengthened in his reso
lutions by the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius of Loyola, which
he made under the direction of the Jesuit, Ribera.3 He said
his first mass publicly, and with great solemnity in St. Peter's,
at the altar of the Confession of the Prince of the Apostles, and
his second in complete privacy in the chapel which had been
used by Ignatius of Loyola.4
After having received holy orders, Borromeo at first retained
1 BASCAPE, ga ; KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, III., 212. See the
report of Arcos of December, 1562, in SICKEL, Konzil, 410. In
yet another 'letter from Cardinal Mark Sittich to Hannibal von
Hohenems, dated May 3, 1563, reference is made to the possibility
of Cardinal Borromeo marrying (Hohenems Archives). On June
7, 1563, Cardinal Borromeo was invested with the freedom of the
city of Rome; see GREGOROVIUS, Kleine Schriften, I., 316.
2 See Acta consist, in SUSTA, Kurie, IV., 68 n. 3 ; (van Ortroy)
in the Anal. Boll., XIV. (1895), 436, according to the dispatches
of the Imperial ambassador in Rome, Prospero d'Arco. Cf.
Borromeo's letter to Cesare Gonzaga of June 5, 1563, in SALA,
Document!, III., 269. The statement in GUISSANO, 20 seq.,
that Charles had secretly received Holy Orders against the wish
of his uncle is therefore erroneous.
3GiussANO, 21 ; SACCHINI, 8, 12 (p. 406).
4SACCHiNi, 7, n (p. 362). SYLVAIN, I., 77.
Il8 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
his court and state, but was always growing stricter towards
his own person, and to such a degree that he now denied himself
even the distraction of a walk. The discussions in his academy
of the " Vatican Nights " now related more closely to spiritual
matters, and he also began to fill in the gaps in his theological
education by having lectures in philosophy and theology
given to him. For some time he even thought of resigning
his office of Secretary of State and retiring into the strict order
of Camaldoli. The Bishop of Braga, however, Bartolomeo
de Martyribus, dissuaded him from this step during a visit
to Rome in 1563. 1 Charles repeatedly begged the Pope to
allow him to visit his archbishopric,2 at least for a time, and
to forego a part of the rich benefices which had been assigned
to him.
This change in the manner of life of the most important
and the most highly esteemed Cardinal caused a great sensation
in Rome, where many considered it worthy of blame, while
even the friends of ecclesiastical reform were of opinion that,
as might have been expected from his energetic and strict
character, in many respects he went too far. Dissatisfaction
was especially expressed against Ribera and the Jesuits, it
being said that they had drawn the Cardinal into their nets
to get money out of him, or even to prevail upon him to enter
the Society. Similar rumours penetrated even to Pius IV.,
who appears to have given some credence to them, for, accord
ing to a letter from the Spanish ambassador, Requesens, of
April 3oth, 1564, the Pope showed great displeasure at the fact
that Cardinal Borromeo had cut down the service at his table,
and his whole household, besides having given other signs of
his contempt for the world. He said that these were melan-
1BASCApfe, 9 seq. Cf. San Carlo, I. (1908), 98. He still
retained later on a predilection for Camaldoli and the Camaldolesi ;
cf. his letters of May 6, 1564, November 12, 1572 ; December
13, 1574, m SALA, Docum., III., 298, 442, 560.
2 The appointment of Charles as Archbishop of Milan took place
in May, 1 564 ; before that he had only been the administrator.
He had already been consecrated bishop on December 7, 1563.
See SALA, Document!, III., 817, 819 seq.
ASCETICISM OF BORROMEO. IK)
choly notions savouring of the Theatines, and he commanded
that the Jesuits and other religious orders should be informed
that he would punish them if they set foot in the house of the
Cardinal.1 The feeling against the Jesuits was so strong and
so wide-spread that the secretary of the Order, Polanco,
thought it necessary to send a letter in his own hand to Spain,
in which he made the matter clear, and denied any responsi
bility on the part of the members of the Order for the steps
taken by the Cardinal.2
However compliant Charles Borromeo had hitherto been in
giving way to the wishes of his uncle, he would not make the
slightest concession to him in the matter of any mitigation
of his severe rule of life. On the contrary, his strictness con
tinued to increase, especially after the close of the Council
of Trent. In June, 1564, his court and state were reduced
to a great extent ; about eighty persons, who seemed little
suited for a clerical life, were dismissed and otherwise pro
vided for, while those who remained were forbidden the use
of silken garments and other luxuries. On one day in the
week, the Cardinal took nothing but bread and water ; he
devoted yet more hours of the day to devotion than before ;
iRequesens to Philip II. in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 561,
confirmed by the "reports of Fr. Tonina of April 22 and 29, 1564
(Gonzaga Archives, Mantua, Appendix Nos. 34 and 35) . Pius IV.,
however, had only forbidden Lainez and Ribera to have access
to Borromeo, the messenger who delivered the Pope's order
extended it to all Jesuits. CANISII Epist., IV., 532.
* Polanco to Araoz on April 28, 1564, printed in ASTRAIN, II.,
208 seq. Cf. CANISII Epist., IV., 531 seq. Polanco as well as
Bascape (p. Qa) hints that Charles sometimes went too far:
" Eaque fuit in moribus omnique vitae consuetudine gra vitas,
ut ad austeritatem quoque perveniret, quemadmodum saepe
solet initio vitae religiosioris evenire." The thought of even
denying himself a walk was attributed to Charles by Egidio
Foscarari, according to Bascape (p. Qa). Ribera received in the
following year the long sought permission to go to the foreign
missions. A letter of farewell to him from Borromeo, on February
3, 1565, in SALA, Documenti, III., 331 seq.
I2O HISTORY OF THE POPES.
and in spite of the difficulty he had to contend with in speaking
in public, he began to preach, a thing hitherto unknown for
a Cardinal to do.1 He performed the most severe penances in
secret, a scourge with spikes serving the purpose of lacerating
his tender body, and sometimes he also used a triple chain,
held together by a knot. The curiosity of his chamberlain,
Ambrogio Fornero, discovered these instruments of penance,
when the Cardinal once forgot to remove the key from the
box in which they were hidden from the gaze of those not
intended to see them. Soranzo declares in 1565 that Borromeo
had become extremely thin, through his zeal for work and
study, as well as his fasts, vigils, and other mortifications.
Borromeo kept up his strength in a wonderful way, and it
was only at the end of the reign of Pius V. that a complete
breakdown of his health took place.2
IBASCAPE, 9-10. The date, which is missing, can be seen
from a letter of Fr. Tonina of June 10, 1564 ; " *I1 card. Borromeo
ha cassata tutta la famiglia sua, cento boche in poi, et a molti
anco delli ritenuti ha levata la spesa del cavallo et d' un servitore."
Among those dismissed at that time was Camillo Capilupi (see
Arch. stor. Lomb., XX. (1893), 697). The undated ""letter of
Fr. Tonina of 1564, refers to the same, in which he says : " II s.
card16 Borromeo ha retirata la sua famiglia in 80 persone et la
stalla in 20 cavalli, et camina tuttavia restringendosi et due volte
la settimana ordinariamente si reduce alii Giesuiti a conferire con
un eccel*6 theologo che vi si trova, nelle cose di theologia et di
conscienza, et sopra questo dicono che S.Bne un di disse, non
vogliamo attender a viver piu che posiamo et alegramente, se
Monsr Borromei pur si vorrk far frate gli pagaremo li vestimenti
del nostro, parlando cosi di burla. S. Bne fa ogni instanza a
quanti pochi vescovi che sono qui che vadino a loro vescovati,
et de qui nasce che quelle che gli hanno miseri ogni dl rinonciano
piii presto che andare, come molti hanno fatto " (Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua). In a *letter of Cardinal Mark Sittich to Hannibal von
Hohenems, dated June 15, 1564, there are also comments on the
significant reduction of the court and state of Charles, from
which people might suppose that he was becoming a fool from
mere parsimony ; this is the effect of his dealings with the
" Theatines " (Original in Hohenems Archives).
aSee D'ALESSANDRI, 2, 407 seq. ; WYMANN, 95, 108, 118.
EXEMPLARY LIFE OF BORROMEO. 121
In time people ceased to find fault with the asceticism of
Charles, and his example had an effect, even in the case of the
worldly-minded diplomatists. Their testimony is all the more
valuable and worthy of credence, as they were in the habit of
lUthlessly laying bare the human weaknesses of even the
highest dignitaries. When Girolamo Soranzo gave a report
of his Roman embassy in June, 1563, he remarked : " The life
of Cardinal Borromeo is most innocent, and absolutely
blameless ; by his religious attitude he gives an example which
could not be surpassed. His exemplary manner of life is
all the more worthy of praise as he is in the flower of his age,
and is the very powerful nephew of a Pope, and lives at a court
where the opportunity of enjoying pleasures of every kind is
certainly not wanting to him. ' ' l Two years later the Venetian ,
Giacomo Soranzo, wrote : " Cardinal Borromeo is only
twenty-seven, but delicate, as he has impaired his health* by
study, fasting, vigils and abstinences. He is a doctor of laws,
but devotes himself to theology with a zeal rare in our days.
His life is most unworldly, and his zeal for religion is so great
that one can say with all authority that by his example he is
of more use to the Roman court than all the decrees of the
Council. This nephew, so loved by the Pope, still in the
bloom of youth and at a court full of temptations, who has
overcome himself and the love of the world, is a rare phenom
enon. Borromeo is devoted to the Pope, who, for his part
thinks the world of him and his wishes, as may be seen in
the last promotion of Cardinals, when only such were chosen
as he had either proposed or recommended. He and the Pope,
however, are of two different natures, and Pius IV. would like
to see him more jovial and less strict in his life and ideas. He
even said so to the Jesuits, who have a great influence on the
Cardinal's manner of life, but the latter did not allow himself
to be diverted from his own way. He is not much loved at
court, because they are used to other ways there, and they
complain that the Cardinal asks the Pope for little and gives
xGiROL. SORANZO, 91. Cf. WYMANN in the Schweiz. Kirchen-
zeitung, 1910, No. 44, n. 49.
122 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
little of his own. As to the first, it is with him a matter of
conscience, while as far as his own is concerned, he uses it for
alms, for the portions of penniless maidens, and for the pay
ment of the debts which his brother left."1 It is clear how
lavishly Borromeo distributed alms from the fact that at that
time he spent hardly anything on himself, from the revenues
which accrued to him from the archbishopric of Milan.2 The
Borromeo College in Pavia is a magnificent foundation dating
from his days in Rome, and which he caused to be erected in
1564 by the architect, Pellegrino Pellegrini, to protect poor
students of noble family from the dangers which he had
learned to know in his own student days.3 As a striking
testimony to his benevolence, the table is still preserved in
S. Prassede, at which he served the poor with food.4
Next to Charles Borromeo, Pius IV. greatly valued in the
early days of his reign, Cardinal Morone, who was a man of
SORANZO, 133 seq. Cardinal Seripando *writes on
July 28, 1562, to Trent to Paolo Manuzio concerning Borromeo :
" E huomo di frutto et non di fiore, de' fatti et non di parole "
(Library at Montpellier) . Bascape also says (p. 66) that Charles
showed a certain want of generosity at first. This struck people
more than was perhaps right, as they had been accustomed since
the time of the Renaissance to see the great nobles scattering gold
and favours with great prodigality (cf. WYMANN, 98). A proof
of Borromeo's zeal for study is shown by two tickets, of June 20
and November 29, 1564, which are still in existence, by which
permission is given to him to borrow books from the Vatican
Library, and indeed, in virtue of the second, " volumina etiam
registra nuncupata, et quae forsan, ne adeo omnibus ostenderentur,
magis reservata et custodita essent." Mitteilungen des Osterr.
Instituts, XVII. (1896), 293.
* BASCAP^, 6-7.
3 GUISSANO, 22. Concerning the date of the foundation se'e
San Carlo, 209, concerning the college cf. NATALT in Natura ed
arte, February, 1906. The statutes of the Roman Monte di
Pieta, of 1565, can probably be traced to Borromeo. DONATO
TAMILIA, II sacro monte de pietA di Roma, Rome, 1900.
4 Illustration in San Carlo, 69.
STATESMANSHIP OF PIUS IV. 123
very wide experience, especially in affairs relating to Germany.1
He gave him, however, as little as to the other Cardinals, a'
decisive influence over his plans. However much the Papal
court and the diplomatists might wonder, Pius IV. persisted
in reserving the affairs of state to his own cool judgment.
He was led to this, not only by his own self-confidence, but
also by a deep distrust of the Cardinals, of whom hardly one
was quite independent of the influence of foreign princes.2
Girolamo Soranzo thinks that the vaccillating attitude which
the Pope often displayed is to be attributed to the fact that
he did not consult with others. " As His Holiness is of a very
hasty temperament/' the Venetian explains, " even with regard
to the most important affairs, he comes to a decision very
rapidly ; should difficulties then arise, he shows no obstinate
persistence, but alters his decisions quickly and completely."3
The sense of statesmanship which, besides the great inde
pendence of his decisions, was characteristic of Pius IV.,
showed itself especially in his dealings with the secular princes.
In this respect he followed an exactly opposite policy to that
of his predecessor. While Paul IV., with a strange want of
appreciation of the true state of public affairs, imagined that
he could treat the princes, not as his sons, but as his subjects,4
the shrewd Lombard believed that, in view of the great
1 See MOCENIGO, 40 seq. Cf. *Avviso di Roma of December
3°» *559, and those of January 13 and November 23, 1560, Urb.
1039 (pp. 112, 117, 218, Vatican Library). See further HILLIGER,
20 seq. Later, in the summer of 1561, Morone retired ; Mula and
Navagero then became the confidants of Pius IV. (see SICKEL,
Konzil, 204). In April, 1561, however, Morone still had great
influence; see the *report of Saraceni of April u, 1561 (State
Archives, Florence). Pius IV. had great confidence in Hosius
in 1561, with regard to German affairs; see *letter of G. A.
Caligari of to Commendone, dated Rome, September 27, 1561
(Lett. id. princ., XXIII. , 36, Papal Secret Archives).
2 See GIROL. SORANZO, 74 ; GIAC. SORANZO, 130 ; P. TIEPOLO,
178.
8 GIROL. SORANZO, 75.
* Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, pp. 69, 74,
124 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
defections from Rome, the authority of ecclesiastical power
must be strengthened by the support of the secular princes.
To this cause is to be attributed his moderation and his con
ciliatory attitude towards them.1
Ferdinand I., whose succession to the Imperial dignity
Paul IV. had always obstinately refused to acknowledge, was
the first to experience this conciliatory attitude.2 It was very
soon seen that Pius IV. intended, as soon as possible, to put
an end to this unhappy dispute, which was so hurtful to the
Catholic cause in Germany. On December 3oth, 1559, the
Pope declared to the Cardinals that he did not consider it
of any use to contest Ferdinand's election, for, although non-
Catholics had taken part in it, the Catholics had done so as
well. He referred emphatically to Ferdinand's zeal for the
cause of religion, and to his services as the defender of Christen
dom in the war against the Turks. All the Cardinals, with one
exception, agreed to concede the Imperial title to the King of
Hungary and Bohemia, under the condition, however, that
Ferdinand should make apologies for having taken possession
of the Hungarian bishoprics, for the Treaty of Passau, and for
other decisions made by the Diet. Ferdinand, highly delighted
at this change of policy in Rome, declared himself ready to
do so, and at once assured the Pope, through his ambassador,
Thurm, that he would do his utmost to bring about the return
of his son, Maximilian, to the Church. As the question, based
on principle, as to whether Papal recognition was necessary
for the lawful accession of the Emperor to the throne, was not
touched upon, the reconciliation with Rome was assured by
this concession to Ferdinand.3
1 See MOCENIGO, 61-2 ; GIROL. SORANZO, 75. Pius IV. em
phasized the great defection from Rome, and the necessity for
the reform of ecclesiastical conditions, in the brief by which he
notified his election (to Philip II., Venice, Portugal, Florence)
on December 29 and 30, 1559; see Min. brev., Arm., 44, t 10,
n. 419, 420, 413, 418, Papal Secret Archives.
2 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 351 seq.
3 Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 22 seq., 76 seq. ; REIMANN in the Abhand-
lungen der Schlesischen Gesellschaft fur Kultur, 1871, 37 seq. ;
SCHMID, Kaiser- und Konigswahl, 35 seq.
PIUS IV. AND THE NUNCIATURES. 125
A difficulty which arose at the last moment was ako happily
removed. The representative of Ferdinand I., Scipione
d'Arco, who had arrived in Rome on February I2th, 1560,
and had taken up his residence in the Vatican, had orders to
congratulate the Pope on his accession in a public audience,
and to assure him of respect and homage in the name cf the
Emperor. The Pope, however, required in addition the
oath of obedience. Arco hesitated, and it was only when
Cardinals Morone and Madruzzo reasoned with him that he
decided to exceed his authority and comply with the wish
of the Pope.1 Thereupon the ceremony of the obedientia by
the Emperor's representative took place in a public consistory
in the Sala Regia, on February i7th, 1560.2 The conclusion
of peace between the two greatest powers of Christendom was
sealed by the restoration of the nunciature at the Imperial
court.
Pius IV. once more filled the nunciatures of Venice and
Florence, left vacant at the death of Paul IV., and also changed
the holders of the remaining nunciatures. All this took place
in the small space of three months. This, and the fact that
not one of Paul IV.'s nuncios was sent to a new post, clearly
shows that the Pope was acting in pursuance of a carefully
thought-out plan, by which he removed all the diplomatists
of his predecessor. The Pope also took steps as early as the
summer of 1560, to found permanent nunciatures at Turin
and Florence. The new Swiss nuncio, Giovan Antonio Volpi,
Bishop of Como, received permission to remain in his diocese,
1 Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 42 seq. ; Correspondence of Card. O.
Truchsess, 136 ; SCHMID, loc. cit., 36 seq. It was remarkable, as
Zwiedinek points out in the Archiv fur osterr. Gesch., LVIII,
176, that Pius IV. did not take exception to the person of Arco,
as the Popes usually accepted only members of the princely
houses of the Empire as obedientia envoys. Pius thus proved
his compliant attitude in this matter. Concerning the plan for
crowning the Emperor, see Venetian despatches, III., 133 seqq.,
141 ; concerning Scipione d'Arco, see CONSTANT, Rapport, 3 seq.
2 See BONDONUS, 533 ; SCHLECHT in the Hist. Jahrbuch, XIV.,
22 seq. ; SCHMID, loc. "it.
126 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
from whence he could more easily reach the Catholic parts of
Switzerland than from Lucerne. The exclusion from the cardin-
alate of all those nuncios who had been recommended by a
prince to whom they were accredited, was a most salutary
proceeding.1
The resumption of diplomatic relations which had been
interrupted during the pontificate of Paul IV., as well as the
development of the nunciatures, indicate the value which
the new Pope attached to the keeping up of friendly relations
with the secular powers. The beginning of the reign of Pius
IV. also showed a strong contrast to that of his predecessor
in the Eternal City itself. How the Romans rejoiced when
the Pope, in February, 1560, again permitted the carnival
festivities ! At the same time, however, steps were rightly
taken to prevent abuses.8
It was not only the Romans who rejoiced when one of the
first official acts of the new Pope was to limit once more the
powers of the Inquisition to its original and proper sphere,3
and to mitigate many of the excessively harsh reform decrees
of Paul IV. This showed itself first in the matter of the
examination of candidates for bishoprics, as to which, however,
JSee BIAUDET, Nonciatures, 24 seq., 58; 296 seq. Concerning
Volpi, see REINHARDT-STEFFENS, G. Fr. Bonhomini, Einl.,
p. xxviii, seq. The Florentine nuntiature, as to which Scaduto
makes misleading statements (see Hist. Jahrbuch, IX., 108) is
worthy of a special monograph.
2Cf. CLEMENTI, 218; RODOCANACHI, Juifs, 209; Arch. stor.
Lomb., XIX. (1908), 353. Things were already fairly free at
the carnival of 1561. One of the principal amusements was
bull-fighting (cf. KOLN. Volkzeitung, 1911, No. 168) against the
holding of which in the neighbourhood of the Jesuit College
Lainez made a complaint ; see the **reports of Fr. Tonina of
January 18 and 29, and February 13 and 19, 1561 (Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua). A new *Bando per le maschere of January
20, 1564 in the Editti, V., 60 p. 9, Papal Secret Archives. Con
cerning the Roman theatre at the time of Pius IV., see Giorn. d.
lett. Ital., LXXIII., 296 seq.
8 See *Avviso di Roma of January 13, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 117,
Vatican Library). Cf. Vol. XVI. of this work.
MITIGATION OF DECREES OF PAUL IV. 127
the essential points of the reforms of the Carafa Pope were
retained.1 Other mitigations of the rigorous decrees of Paul
IV. soon followed.2
One particularly thorny point was how to proceed with the
carrying out of the severe penalties which the bull of Paul
IV. of July 20th, 1558, had decreed against the numerous
monks who were living outside their monasteries, or had
entered orders which were less strict than their own.3 A very
great number of these unfortunate men appeared before the
Pope and asked for pardon, but this request, even with all due
regard for mercy, could not be granted without further con
sideration. Exhaustive discussions followed as to how a
middle course could be arrived at, which should avoid both
exaggerated severity and too great clemency.4 It was clear
that serious difficulties had arisen in the carrying out of the
bull of Paul IV. The monks affected by it were too numerous,
and complaints were made that the constitution did not make
the necessary distinctions, as many lived outside their mon
asteries for valid reasons, and with the permission of the
Apostolic See and the superiors of their orders. Several,
moreover, had shown themselves ready to obey the command
of Paul IV., but could not be received back by their former
superiors ; they therefore lost their means of subsistence and
were, "by decrees, excluded from the sacraments. Paul IV.
had also forbidden by a decree, that anyone should give
shelter to an " apostate " monk, but this order could hardly
be put into force owing to the great number, and hence arose
many difficulties of conscience. Pius IV., therefore, on April
3rd, 1560, absolved all those who, on account of disobedience
to the decrees of his predecessor, had fallen under censure or
into irregularity, and repealed the decree itself in so far as it
went beyond the common law, and at the same time gave
1 See Acta consist, of January 19, 1560 ; cf. GULIK-EUBEL, 40.
2 Cf. *Avviso di Roma of January 20, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 120,
Vatican Library).
3 See Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 217.
* Cf. *Avvisi di Roma of January 20, February 24, and March 9,
1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 120, I28b, I35b, Vatican Library).
128 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
extraordinary powers to his Vicar in Rome, Cardinal Save Hi,
and to the bishops and superiors of ord ?rs, to decide in the name
of the Pope matters in dispute concerning the " apostates "
and those monks who had entered other orders. These were
obliged within six months to submit their dispensations to the
duly qualified judge and obey his decision.1
It is characteristic of conditions in the Curia that as soon
as the pressure exercised by Paul IV. had been removed, the
evil elements immediately wakened once more into activity,2
but if anyone thought that the work of reform had come to a
standstill under the new Pope, he was grievously mistaken.
Pius IV. declared quite openly that what had been tolerated in
the time of Leo X. would no longer be allowed.3 When he
confirmed the election capitulation on January i2th, 1560, he
announced his intention of carrying out as Pope the thing
that appeared the most necessary to all persons of discernment,
namely, the taking seriously in hand of the questions of reform
and the Council. He also spoke to the same effect at his
first consistory, held on the same day,4 and announced that
a commission for the " reform of morals " would be appointed
even before the meeting of the Council. Of this Cardinals
Tournon, Carpi, Morone, Madruzzo, Cueva, Saraceni, Puteo,
Cicada, Dolera, Savelli, Alessandro Farnese, Santa Fiora,
1Bullarium Rom., VIII., 15 seqq. To the decrees concerning
the residence of the bishops, Pius IV. held firmly (of. besides the
Acta consist., Papal Secret Archives, the *Avvisi di Roma of
January 27, February 10 and 17, and March 9, 1560, Urb. 1039,
pp. 122, 127, 128, 132, I35b ; see also Chapter IV. infra], but
with regard to the Regressi, on the other hand, he showed con
siderable indulgence. Cf. *Avvisi di Roma of January 13 and 20,
February 10, and March 2, 1560 (Urb. 1039, pp. 117, 120, 127,
134, Vatican Library). See also MOCENIGO, 29.
2 *Avviso di Roma of January 20, 1560 : " Roma torna sa la
pristina liberta. Le puttane cominciano andar in cocchio al
solito " (Urb. 1039, p. i2ob, Vatican Library). G/. MOCENIGO, 36.
8 See DEMBINSKI, Wybor Piusa IV., 286.
4 See *Acta consist. Cancell., VIII. , i (Consistorial Archives
of the Vatican). Cf. DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 328, and the
*report of Ricasoli of January 12, 1560 (State Archives, Florence).
IMPROVED CONDITIONS IN ROME. I2Q
Este and Charles Borromeo were members. They were to meet
every Thursday, and to prepare important changes in the
Papal tribunals and the conclave. The bishops who were
lingering at the curia were called upon to fulfil their duty of
residence,1 and immediately afterwards three Cardinals
received orders to take steps to provide Rome with grain.2
To the great joy of the Curia, Pius IV. also showed his love
of peace in the most unequivocal manner, 3 promised to provide
for strict justice, willingly granted audiences to all, discharged
business quickly and skilfully, and displayed, in addition,
great activity in building.4 A bull of May I5th, 1560, graci
ously forgave the Romans for the excesses of which they had
been guilty at the time of the death of Paul IV.,5 and the city
of Rome, which had suffered so much under the Carafa Pope,
improved in a remarkable manner, both with regard to its
prosperity, and also in the number of its inhabitants, which
rose in 1563 to 80,000. The Venetian ambassador, Girolamo
Soranzo, describes Rome at this time as the most beautiful
1Massarelli in MERKLE, II., 343, without exact date. An
*Avviso di Roma of February 10, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 127 Vatican
Library) tells of the appointment of the " congregatione generale
per la reformatione generale," which Arco announces as impending
on January 31, 1560 (SICKEL, Konzil, 26). According to MASSAR-
ELLI, 349, the sessions of this congregation took place in September,
1560, every Sunday in the presence of the Pope. Cf. EHSES,
Berufung des Konzils, 2.
a *Avviso di Roma of February 10, 1560 (/<?;. cit., Vatican
Library). Cf. BENIGNI, 35 seq., and CUPIS, 147 seq.
8 When the general in command of the infantry, Torquato
Conti, was granted an audience on the occasion of his appointment,
the Pope said to him that he would like to reward him,* " ma
ch' il non vuole ne soldati ne guerra, ma vuole che li contadini
attendino a cultivare li terreni per il ben di tutti " (Avviso,
Urb. 1039, p. ii4b, Vatican Library). Cf. MOCENIGO, 51.
4 Cf. Arch. stor. Napolit., I.. 648. Concerning the rapid
transaction of business in the Signatura, Ricasoli ""reports as
early as January 13, 1560, (State Archives, Florence).
6 The bull is to be found in the *Editti in the Papal Secret
Archives.
VOL. XV. Q
130 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
city of the Appenine peninsula, and praised its international
character, which had nearly disappeared under Paul IV.1
An intimate friend of Cardinal Santa Fiora gave, on October
25th, 1561, in a letter to Vincenzo Gonzaga, an enthusiastic
description of Rome under the new pontificate : " The city
is unfolding itself in its fullest beauty. The Pope promised
at the beginning of his reign to protect religion, peace, and
justice, and to provide for the material needs of his capital,
and he has kept his word. Rome has a superabundance of
grain, wine, and other necessaries, and the feeling of general
contentment is universal. Persons of good conduct and
talent are highly esteemed, and worthless characters have
either to change their ways or submit to punishment, if they
do not prefer to go, of their own accord, into banishment.
Perfect peace prevails in public, as in private life. The Pope
promotes the affair of the Council by every possible means,
and knows how to combine clemency with justice."2
As a matter of fact, Pius IV. did indeed temper with mildness
the severity of his predecessor, in all cases where it was
posstt^e. Only in the matter of the Carafa family did he go
far beyond what had been done by Paul IV.
1GiROL. SORANZO, 83 seq.
2 Letter of Aurelio Porcelaga in the Lett, de' princ., I., 231 seq,
Cf. CIACONIUS, III., 385, and also the letter of Paulus Manutius
to J. B. Titius, of December 5, 1561, in the Epist. P. Manutii,
344 seq., Venice, 1573. An example of the severity shown in the
administration of justice at the beginning of the reign in the
*Avviso di Roma of July 5, 1561 : This day " impiccati 14 per
capparuoli et homicidi," and " circa 25 mandati in galea : cosi
si va purgando la terra id malfattori " (Urb. 1039, p. 285, Vatican
Library). Soon, however, rich people could purchase their
freedom by money (MOCENIGO, 30). This increased later on
and led to grave evils (see Pf TIE POLO, 174).
CHAPTER IV
THE FALL OF THE HOUSE OF CARAFA
WHEN, in January, 1559, tne sudden fall of the nephews of
Paul IV. took place, the Pope had expressed the hope that
his successor would punish the guilty in a fitting manner.
There seemed, at first, but little prospect of his hope being
realized, as Cardinal Carlo Carafa succeeded after the death
of Paul IV. in again immediately gaining a firm footing in
the Sacred College. The fierce anger of his enemies stood
him in good stead in this respect, for even those who, like
Cardinal Pacheco, were by no means friendly to the Carafa,
blamed the wild excesses of the Romans, against which
the Sacred College was bound, in its own interests, to make
a stand.
The Romans understood these feelings very well, and
although they were resolved upon the banishment of the
secular nephews of Paul IV., they did not dare to proceed
in a like manner against the two Cardinals, Carlo and Alfonso
Carafa.1 The request of the Roman people to be allowed
to drive the Duke of Paliano, Giovanni Carafa, out of the
States of the Church, was unanimously rejected by the Sacred
College.2 The shrewd attitude taken up by Cardinal Carlo
Carafa had not been without its influence upon this refusal.
He declared, before the Cardinals, that if it were for the
good of the Church, not only his brother, but also he himself
and Cardinal Alfonso would leave Rome ; they were prepared
to sacrifice their own personal interests to the public good ;
but if it were a mere question of satisfying hatred, the Car
dinals would do well to consider what such a compliance
with the fury of the populace would entail. In the election
1 See supra p. 4. 2 See supra p. 5,
132 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
capitulation, the Cardinals had later expressly resolved that
the new Pope should severely punish the excesses committed
during the vacancy in the Papal throne.1
Although the influence of Cardinal Carlo was evident in
these decisions, there could yet be no doubt as to the con
tinued activity of the former enemies of the family ; should
these gain the upper hand in the conclave, then a fresh exile,
and perhaps worse, was to be feared. Fully aware of the
threatened danger, Cardinal Carlo Carafa did his utmost in
the negotiations concerning the Papal election to gain a
decisive influence in the elevation of the new head of the
Church. The manner in which he set about this shows that
he had learned nothing during his exile. With incredible
arrogance, he again displayed his consciousness of his former
power, and with utter want of consideration treated his
colleagues as if they had been his servants.2 He made use
of every possible means to make his position in the conclave
appear to be decisive, and to make use of it in the interests
of his family. It cannot, indeed, be maintained that he was
prepared to elevate one who was thoroughly incapable to
the Papal throne, for his candidates, Carpi, Pacheco, Doler?
and Gonzaga, were worthy men, but in other respects he
adopted in the conclave a policy merely conducive to his
own interests. Although formerly his sympathies had been
on the side of the French, he now declared himself for the
candidate of the Spaniards, from whom alone he could expect
a great reward for his family. When Philip II., by restoring
Paliano to its former possessor, did not seem to appreciate
his services, he declared himself neutral, probably so as to
let the Spaniards feel his importance, and had, in fact, the
satisfaction of seeing both French and Spaniards alternately
flattering and wooing him, and of standing out as the arbiter
of the conclave. He again turned to the Spaniards on the
strength of the promises made to him by the Spanish ambas-
^ee DEMBI^SKI, \Vyb6r Piusa IV., 302. Cf . supra p. 16.
8 See infra p. 158, n. 2, the "report of Fr. Toninaof January 15,
1561 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
PIUS IV. AND CARLO CARAFA. 133
sador, Vargas, thereby breaking his word to the French
without scruple, and frustrating the already far advanced
candidature of Gonzaga.
It was a severe blow to him when his attempt on behalf
of Carpi, made at the same time, was a failure, for, as
Bernardino Pia informs us, Carafa knew well that his cause
was lost if this candidature, for the sake of which he had
made so many enemies, did not succeed.1 There remained,
indeed, no other course for him but to declare himself for
Medici, whose election he had hitherto opposed. This
change, which was by no means voluntary on his part,
had been effected by means of promises which gave
Carafa reason to hope that the new Pope would support
his interests in the matter of Paliano, and induce Philip II.,
at any rate, to keep the fortress in a state of seques
tration until such time as a suitable indemnity could be
arranged.2
Although Pius IV. clearly understood that the participa
tion of Carafa in his election had been neither voluntary nor
disinterested, he nevertheless gave him credit for the great
services he had rendered him, and showed his gratitude in
various ways. At the end of December, 1559, the envoy
sent to Spain was a declared adherent of the Carafa, and had
instructions to work diligently to obtain compensation for
Paliano.3 Cardinal Carafa had all the more reason to look
for a happy issue to this affair, as Vargas, the representative
of Philip II. in Rome, was altogether on his side, and urgently
represented to his master how greatly it was to his own
*See Pia's letter of December 15, 1550, in ANCEL, Disgrace,
70, n. 2.
2 See MULLER, 223 seq. Cf. supra p. 57.
* See the report of Vargas of December 29, 1 559, in DOLLINGER,
Beitrage, I., 326 seq. Cf. the *brief to F. a Sanguine, dated Rome,
January 5, 1560, in which Pius IV. emphasizes how much he has
the commission of Sanguine at heart (magnae merito no bis curae
sunt) and that the King should grant his first request (Arm.
44, t. 19, n. 17 n., Papal Secret Archives). Cf. HINIJOSA,
120.
134 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
interests to, fulfil the expectations of Carafa.1 Duke Cosimo
I. of Florence, who had made binding promises to Carafa
during the conclave,2 was also active in the same sense. The
enormous importance of the attitude taken up by the Spanish
king, not only with regard to Paliano, but also for the whole
future of his family, could not fail to be understood by so
experienced a politician as Carlo Carafa. He therefore
caused a special envoy, in the person of Oliviero Sesso, to be
sent to the court at Toledo, at the beginning of January,
1560, who was to remind Philip II., in the most discreet
manner, of the great services which Cardinal Carafa had
rendered to the Spanish cause during the Papal election.3
How great was the desire of Pius IV., at the beginning of
March, 1560, that the question of compensation for Paliano
should be settled in a sense favourable to the Carafa, is clear
from the instructions given to the new nuncio, Ottaviano
Raverta, then starting for Spain.4
1 Besides Vargas' report mentioned supra p. 133, n. 3, cf. his
"•instructions for Ascanio Caracciolo (January i, 1560) who was
returning to Spain (Simancas Archives). Cf. ANCEL, Disgrace, 72.
2 See ANCEL, loc. cit.
3 See *Istrurione data dal card. Carafa al conte Olivien
espedito al Re cattolico dopo la creazione di Pio IV. (s.d.), Barb.,
5674, p. 162, Vatican Library, used by ANCEL, Disgrace, 73.
4 There we read : *" Desiderando levar tutte le occasion! che
possano in alcuna maniera adombrare la serenita degli animi di
N. Sig1"6 e di S. Mta et che tutta la benvolenza et ottima corris-
pondenza d' ammo si conservi et accreschi, mi conviene per
espressa commissione di Sua Beatne far sapere a S. Mta che ha
risoluto per ogni modo che Paliano si smantelli, conforme a
1' oblige della capitulatione, "et che 1' artiglieria et munitione
della Sede Apostolica si restituisca. Nel qual proposito non
mancherete di far futta quella instanza a nome di S. Beatue che
potrete maggiore, acci6 si adempisca la ricompensa promessa a
li signori Carafi, intendendo prima dal sig Fabritio di Sangro in che
termini lui habera condutto il detto negotio. Et sopra tutto
raccomandate la persona et gli interessi di monsignore illmo Carafa,
quale N. Sigre ama teneramente et, come V.S. sa, ha causa d'
amarlo." . . . Di Roma a XI. di marzo 1560. Varia polit.
CXVII. (formerly CXVI), 380-1, Papal Secret Archives.
ENEMIES OF THE CARAFA. 135
While, at the beginning of the pontificate of Pius IV., a
prosperous future seemed to be dawning for the nephews of
his predecessor, a storm was slowly gathering over their
heads, which was destined to overwhelm them.
The despotism which the Carafa had exercised in Rome
during the period of their unlimited influence over Paul IV.,
had given rise in all quarters to the greatest bitterness and
hatred against them. Among the numerous enemies whom
the Carafa had made for themselves, many were persons of
the greatest influence, who did everything in their power to
turn the new Pope against them, The most important
of these were Marcantonio Colonna, and the all-powerful
Cardinal Camerlengo, Guido Antonio Sforza of Santa Fiora.
Both had been deeply offended and gravely injured by tfie
Carafa under Paul IV. In the case of Santa Fiora, the official
representative of the interests of Philip II., he was not only
actuated by feelings of revenge, but also by the knowledge
that the protege of the Spanish king, Marcantonio Colonna,
could only gain possession of his strongholds by the destruc
tion of the Carafa.1
Cardinal Carafa had also made a very bitter enemy of
Ercole Gonzaga by his disloyal behaviour in the conclave.
Unfortunately for Carlo Carafa, Gonzaga and his friends,
among whom was the powerful Cardinal Madruzzo of Trent,
had won great influence in the Curia at the very beginning
of the reign of Pius IV., through the union of their families
with that of the Pope.2 While Madruzzo was endeavouiing
to secure Gallese and Soriano for the Altemps, Ercole Gonzaga
was seeking, as early as January, 1560, to pave the way for
himself to the supreme dignity. The Carafa stood in the
way of both of them,3 and both, therefore, brought strong
pressure to bear upon Pius IV. to turn him against the
nephews of Paul IV. Complaints against that family were
all the more readily believed by the new Pope, as he had
belonged to the opposition party during the pontificate of
1 Cf. ANCEL, Disgrace, 76 seq.
a Cf. supra p.p. 99, i°4-
9 Cf. MULLER, 267 seq., and ANCEL, 79 seq.
136 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Paul IV., which had been fully aware of the faults and blunders
of the government, and had sharply criticized them. The
contrast to his predecessor's method of government had
already been so plainly shown by the new Pope in other
respects, that one might describe it as a reaction against the
pontificate of Paul IV. From this reaction the Carafa, who
had to bear so much of the blame for the mistakes of their
uncle, could scarcely hope to be spared, and it is, therefore,
no wonder that even at the beginning of 1560, their position
threatened to become one of danger.
Their former guilt was still further increased by a tragic
event which had taken place before the election of Pius IV.
Giovanni Carafa, Duke of Paliano, a man who was easily
roused to anger, and in his rage lost all control of himself,
had led a brilliant, extravagant and unrestrained life when
he had been at the height of his power. In spite of his own
unfaithfulness he loved his wife, the beautiful, gifted and
cultured Violante d'Alife, who had borne him three children.
She was not unaware of the immoral life led by her husband.
After the fall of the Pope's nephews, the Duke had betaken
himself, with Violante, to their possessions on the north
ern side of the Ciminian hills, between Viterbo and Civita
Castallana, where they resided in the castles of Gallese and
Soriano. In that lonely neighbourhood, the rugged character
of which makes a deep impression on the visitor, an event
took place during the summer of 1559, while Paul IV. was
still alive, which was not altogether cleared up even during
the proceedings which took place later on.1
xThe older accounts of the death of the Duchess of Paliano
(DE STENDHAL [Beyle), in the Revue des deux mondes, 1838 ;
REUMONT, Beitrage, I., 483 seq.}, were superseded by the work
of GNOLI concerning Violante Carafa in the Nuova Antologia,
XIX. (1872), 341 seqq., 543 seqq., 799 seqq. Besides this there are
the documents used by GORI in his Archivio, I., 245 seq. ; II.,
45 seqq. ; 200 seqq. ; 257 seqq. ; which were considerably added
to by ANCEL (Disgrace, 59 seqq.}. It has not been proved for
certain that the Duchess was guilty of adultery, nor do we know
what was the attitude of Paul IV., at that time on his death-bed,
MURDER OF CAPECE. 137
The following facts may, however, be taken as certain :
in the July of that year, tales were brought to the Duke
of Paliano to the effect that his wife was carrying on illicit
relations with one of the members of her household, the
handsome and talented Neapolitan, Marcello Capece. The
Duke was all the more ready to become suspicious and jealous
as he knew himself to be guilty of a similar want of fidelity.
He gave credence to the guilt of Capece and his wife, and took
a bloody revenge upon both of them. Capece was taken
to the dungeons of the fortress of Soriano, while the Duchess
was strictly guarded in the castle of Gallese. The jealousy
of the Duke was still further inflamed by the false ideas of
honour then common among the nobles, which taught that
the adultery of a wife brought such a stain upon the family
as could only be washed out in the blood of the guilty parties.
Giovanni Carafa was strengthened in this view, not only by
his brother, Cardinal Carlo, but also by his brother-in-law.
Justifying himself on his right, as feudal lord of his subjects,
to judge and punish them without restraint, he set up a
secret criminal court, of which he himself, the brother of the
Duchess, Ferrante, Count d'Alife, her uncle, Lionardo di
Cardine, and a third relative, Gian Antonio Toralto, were the
members. The investigation, if one can call it such, took
place in secret, completely ignoring all legal forms, without
witnesses, defence or notary. The court was held in the
strong old fortress of the Orsini, which stands high above the
little town of Soriano. An admission was drawn from
Capece under torture that he had enjoyed the favour of the
Duchess ; the Duke, thereupon, seized with ungovernable
fury, stabbed him on the spot, during the night between
July 26th and 27th, 1559. In consequence of the excitement,
and the persistent pressure of his relatives, to cleanse still
further the supposedly besmirched honour of the family,
by the blood of the Duchess, the enraged man fell ill, and
with regard to the matter (ANCEL, 61 n. i). Rmss (p. 378) and
PARISIO (Arch. Napolit., XII., 838 seq.) consider the Duchess
guilty, without taking into consideration the weighty arguments
to the contrary brought forward by GNOH (loc. cit., 814 seq.).
138 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
although the Duchess was with child, he offered but a feeble
resistance to their will. The Count d'Alife undertook to
strangle his sister with his own hands, and on August 29th,
1559, he appeared with Lionardo di Cardine and a band of
armed retainers at Gallese. They had brought two priests
with them from the Capuchin convent there, who were to
prepare the unhappy victim for death. The Capuchins begged
in vain for a delay in carrying out the deed, in view of the
condition of the Duchess, but the Count answered that he
had to go to Rome, and that he could not show himself there
with this brand upon his brow. Violante was resigned to
her fate ; she confessed and communicated, and protested
her innocence with her dying breath.
This event would have caused a still greater sensation
had it not taken place during the troubled days of the vacancy
in the Papal throne, eleven days after the death of Paul IV.
Nevertheless, the enemies of the Carafa took good care that
it was not forgotten. A report from Rome on January 6th,
1560, announces that the Duke of Paliano had arrived at
the last post station before Rome, at La Storta, where he had
conferred for three hours with his brother, the Cardinal ;
" he did not dare to enter the city, for his case looked bad."
A second report, of January I3th, relates that the Duke had
begged for mercy from the Pope, but that the latter intended
to proceed against the murderers.1 Pius IV. did not hurry
matters, and it was only at the end of March that clear-sighted
observers were able to detect signs that a criminal suit against
the Carafa was impending.
This decision was certainly not an easy one for Pius IV.,
" but if only to secure order he had no choice but to bring the
haughty nephews of Paul IV. to submission."2 He at first
set to work with great caution. Girolamo de Federicis and
Alessandro Pallantieri were reinstated on March 27th, 1560,
in the positions of which they had been deprived by Paul
IV. ; the former was again appointed Governor of Rome,
xSee *Avvisi di Roma of January 6 and 13, 1560 (Urb. 1039,
pp. H4b, 117, Vatican Library).
2 Opinion of BENRATH in Herzogs Realenzyklopadie, XV., 437.
ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THE CARAFA. 139
and the latter Procurator-Fiscal.1 Pius IV. issued a decree
on April 3rd, probably on the advice of Pallantieri, which
renewed severe penalties against those who had usurped
Church property.2 This measure was connected with certain
accusations which had been made against Cardinal Alfonso
Carafa, that he had used his influence during the illness of
Paul IV. to induce the Pope to give him presents. In the
meantime Pallantieri was hard at work so that the excesses
of the other members of the family should not remain un
punished, and the time now seemed to have come when he
would be able to take revenge for his deposition, and his
more than two years' imprisonment in the Castle of St.
Angelo. An enterprising and vindictive man, Uke this
experienced lawyer, was the most suitable person to collect
from all sources proofs of the excesses of the Carafa. Their
creditors were next set in motion, and immediately began
to assail the Pope with their complaints. At the beginning
of April Pius IV. informed Cardinals Carlo and Alfonso Carafa
that he must insist on their satisfying their creditors, where
upon both the Cardinals betook themselves to Gallese to
discuss with the Duke of Paliano how this was to be effected.3
A short time afterwards Cardinal Alfonso was called to account,
in virtue of the decree of April 3rd. He declared that he
had received a casket of jewels from the dying Pope as a
present, and that this had been effected by means of a brief.
The latter was dated on the day of the death of Paul IV., and
the enemies of the Carafa said that it was an extortion which
must be made good. Pius IV. ordered that it must be clearly
shown how the casket came into the Cardinal's possession,
as the brief did not appear to be very authentic, and it was
already reported that the Pope would decide the dispute
between Alfonso Carafa and the Cardinal Camerlengo in
favour of the latter.4
xSee ANCEL, Disgrace, 81.
2 Bull. Rom., VII., 18 seq. The date given by ANCEL (p. 83)
viz. April 2, is erroneous.
3 *Avviso di Roma of April 6, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 1456. Vatican
Library) .
4 *Avvisi di Roma of April 13 and 27, 1560, ibid., pp. 149, 151 b.
140 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
In this state of affairs a great deal depended upon the
attitude of the King of Spain, and he could not think of
putting the interests of the Carafa before those of Marcantonio
Colonna, who was entirely devoted to him. Nor was this
the only thing to be considered. According to the principle
that unreliable confederates and dangerous opponents should
be destroyed while there was yet time, the suppression and,
if possible, the destruction of the family which had brought
about such a severe struggle with the Holy See under Paul
IV., seemed to him to be the policy to be followed.1
Fabrizio di Sangro and Ottaviano Raverta received undecisive
answers, which showed plainly enough that the Spanish
king paid much more attention to the advice of Cardinal
Santa Fiora than to that of Francisco Vargas.2 When the
Count of Tendilla,3 the ambassador extraordinaiy of Philip
II., arrived in Rome on May I2th, for the obedientia ceremony,
the true state of the king's mind was seen even more clearly.
In contrast to Vargas, who still worked for the Carafa with
undiminished zeal, Tendilla displayed a marked indifference
towards the nephews of Paul IV. He had at first taken up
his residence at the Spanish embassy with Vargas, but after
wards, at the express wish of the Pope, removed to the Belve
dere.4 There he repeatedly had secret conferences with
1This is justly pointed out by HILLIGER, p. 15.
2 Cf. PALLAVICINI, 14, 15, 5 seq. ; DURUY, 410 seq.. ANCEL,
Disgrace, 83 seq. ; RIESS, 309 seq.
3 Alba would have liked his son sent to Rome as ambassador.
Had he succeeded in this the enmity of the Duke for the Carafa
would have been very disadvantageous to that family, as Giulio
Grandi points out in his *report of March 13, 1560 (State Archives,
Modena). Tendilla proved, indeed, just as great an opponent of
the Carafa ; it was evident that he was acquainted with the secret
intentions of Philip II. Concerning Tendilla cf. CONSTANT,
Rapport, 276 seq
4 Cf. Vargas' "reports of May 15 and 20, 1560, used by ANCEL,
Disgrace, 84. The *Avvisi di Roma of May 17 and 21, announce
that Tendilla was " allogiato a spese di S.Sta in Belvedere con
infinite carezze " (Urb. 1039, p. i58b, Vatican Library). Con-
THE ENEMIES OF THE CARAFA. 141
Pius IV., and shrewd observers were quick to conclude that
negotiations prejudical to the Carafa were taking place.1 There
can, indeed, be no doubt that not only the enemies of the
Carafa in Rome, but Philip II. as well, were at that time
inciting the Pope2 to take decisive steps against the nephews
of Paul IV., and that their efforts were meeting with success.
Pius IV., however, was careful not to let his altered frame
of mind appear, and he explained this later on by saying
that he wished to prevent the flight of the Carafa. The
latter were able, therefore, to lull themselves with a false
sense of security, indeed, their confidence was so complete
that they even dared to challenge their enemies, for it can
only be so described when the Duke of Paliano commenced a
law-suit in Gallese against Marcantonio Colonna on the
ground of an alleged attempt at poisoning him. Pius IV.
appeared to give sanction to this proceeding by ordering
a commissary to go to Gallese.3
Cardinal Carafa had not the slightest idea at the beginning
of June how near his enemies were to attaining their end,
although the altered state of affairs did not escape the notice
of the diplomatists. That keen observer, the Venetian
ambassador, informed the Doge at that time that Tendilla
was always conferring in secret with the Pope, without the
knowledge of Vargas or the Spanish Cardinals, concerning
the matter of compensation for Paliano, a question which
was developing to the disadvantage of the Carafa ; that
Marcantonio was successfully arranging his sister's marriage
with Annibale Altemps, and that Colonna's mother was
shortly returning to Rome. To this was added the fateful
news that Vargas, the friend of the Carafa, was not in favour
cerning the obedientia ceremony on May 16, 1560, see *Acta consist.
Cam., IX., 21, in the Consistorial Archives of the Vatican, ""reports
of Mula and Mocenigo of May 20, 1560 (Court Library, Vienna),
and Boss, 66.
1 Cf. ANCEL, Disgrace, 85 seq.
2 Cf. HILLIGER, 15.
8 Cf. ANCEL, Disgrace, 88, who justly dismisses the statements
of Duruy (p. 318) as fanciful.
142 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
with the Pope nor at the Curia.1 The Florentine ambassador
announces at the same time the great zeal shown by Pallan-
tieri in collecting evidence against the Carafa, " As the
Imperialists," he adds, "show neither in deeds nor in words
any consideration for Cardinal Carafa, one cannot but fear
for his future."2
The Cardinal himself feared nothing. He was fully per
suaded that the Pope would arrange that he should be fully
compensated, for he owed to him his election. Cardinal
Carafa, announces Mula, rejoices that Philip II. lent no willing
ear to his enemies ; he dined with Borromeo on June 3rd,
and appears in very good spirits.3
Cardinal Carlo Carafa's answer to his brother Giovanni,
dated June ist, when he had consulted him about his return
to Rome, also expresses great confidence. In this letter
the Cardinal thinks that although Philip II. has given no
decisive answer, they may nevertheless hope that the matter
of compensation will be satisfactorily settled, all the more
because the Pope shows the greatest desire for this ; the
Duke is quite at liberty to come to Rome.4
The feeling of confidence entertained by Cardinal Carafa was
not even shaken when Pius IV., after the arrest on May
2yth of Cardinal del Monte, who had stained his purple with
blood, made the remark : " We have not yet come to the
end."5 This hint inspired Cardinal Carafa with as little
1 * "Letter of June i, 1560 (Court Library, Vienna).
2 *Letter of G. B. Ricasoli to Cosimo I. of May 30, 1560 (State
Archives, Florence), translated in ANCEL, Disgrace, 82. On
June i, 1560, Ricasoli "announces that Gabrio Serbelloni has told
him : " che il papa 6 stato come resolute quando fu carcerato
Monte di darli Carafa in compagnia et che di questo era certo,
ma di poi a inter ces si one non sa di chi li pare si sia poi mutato "
(that in italics is in cypher). State Archives, Florence.
s **Repoft of Mula of June 7, 1560 (Court Library, Vienna).
4 See the actual text of the letter (Papal Secret Archives) in
Appendix No. 4.
6 See the "reports of the Florentine ambassador of May 30
and June 6, 1 560 (State Archives, Florence) . Cf. ANCEL, Disgrace,
PALIANO GETURNS TO ROME. 143
fear as the fact that the old enemy of his house, Giovanna
d'Aragona Colonna, who had been obliged to fly in disguise
from Rome four years before, now made a triumphal entry
into the city, many of the Romans, including the guard and
the relatives of the Pope, going to meet her. On the following
day she had an audience of ceremony. l
On June 6th the Duke of Paliano also leturned to Rome.
In consequence of favourable news from Spain both he and
his brother the Cardinal were in the best of spirits ; in the
evening they amused themselves with music and dancing
in the company of loose women.2
A secret consistory had been arranged to take place in
the Vatican on the morning of June 7th.3 This was held
in the apartment situated between the Appartimento Borgia
and the Sala Ducale, which is now called the Sala Guardaroba.
The Cardinals were awaiting the appearance of the Pope
when Aurelio Spina, a chamberlain of Cardinal Borromeo,
89 seq. The arrest of del Monte, according to Massarelli, in
MERKLE, II., 345, was " ob duo homicidia suis manibus perpetrata
in civitate Nucerina in Umbria, in personam scilicet patris et
filii ibi magistri cursorum, dum sede vacante Pauli IV. ex Venetiis
Urbem citatis equis reverteretur." See also Mula's *reports
of May 27, June i, and July 20, 1560. Cf. further the *Avvisi
di Roma of June T, 15, and 2g(Urb. 1039, pp. 162, 169, 176, Vatican
Library) and Mula's ""reports of May 27 and 31, and June i, 1560
(Court Library, Vienna).
1 See the *report of G. B. Ricasoli of June 5, 1 560, State Archives
Florence. *Avviso di Roma of June 8, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. i65a,
Vatican Library). MASSARELLI, 346. Concerning the flight of
Giovanna, see Vol. XIV. of this work, p. in.
8 See in Appendix No. 7, the *Avviso di Roma of June 8, 1560
(Vatican Library).
3 See for what follows, Ricasoli's *report of June 7, 1560, in
Appendix No. 6. Cf. *Acta consist. Cancell., VIII, 38, and
*Acta consist. Cam., IX., 22b (Consistorial Archives of the Vatican,
Appendix No. 5) further MASSARELLI, 346 ; BONDONUS, 534 seq. ;
the report of the Portuguese ambassador of June 12, 1560 in
the Corpo. dipl. Portug., VIII. , 470, seq. : POGIANI Epist , II.,
220 ; correspondence of Card, O, Truchsess, 172 seq.
144 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
announced to Cardinal Carafa that His Holiness wished to
speak to him. The Cardinal, in joyful expectation, followed
the chamberlain by a secret staircase to the Papal Hall of
Audience, where the groom of the chambers then on duty
requested him to wait. Soon afterwards Cardinal Alfonso
Carafa also arrived, whereupon the Captain of the Papal
Guard, Gabrio Serbelloni, appeared, and announced that
they were both under arrest. While Alfonso obeyed in
silence, Carlo cried out boldly : " This is the reward for my
valuable services ! " Both Cardinals were at once conducted
by the secret passage to the Castle of St. Angelo.
The Governor of Rome and the Procurator- Fiscal proceeded
at the same time, accompanied by numerous police, to the
Palazzo Carafa in the Piazza Navona, where they presented
the Duke of Paliano with a warrant for his arrest, and then
took him also to the Castle of St. Angelo. The same morning
similar treatment was given to all the intimates and particular
friends of the two Cardinals. Among the associates of Carlo,
this fate befell Cesare Brancaccio, his secretary, Urbino, his
majordomo and ' four of his attendants, whilst among the
intimates of Cardinal Alfonso, his secretary, Paolo Filonardo,
and three other members of his household were anested.
The Count d'Alife and Lionaido di Cardine also fell into the
hands of the police, but some few, such as the Bishop of
Civita di Penna, Vico de'Nobili, and Matteo Stendardi,
succeeded in escaping. The Marquis of Montebello was
in Naples at the time. After the arrests, all the papers
of the Carafa, even the ordinary housekeeping books, were
seized ; they filled seven or eight chests.
When the Florentine ambassador brought the news of
the arrest of their two colleagues, of which he had been a
witness, to the Cardinals assembled in the Hall of Consistories,
there at once arose a murmuring and whispering, while
astonishment and fear took possession of all present. Several,
like Cardinal Vitelli, endeavoured to conceal their dismay,
but Este and others did not hide their displeasure. When
Pius IV. at last appeared, it could clearly be seen from his
expression how pleased he was that the affair had succeeded
THE CRIMES OF THE CARAFA. 145
so well. The communication which he made to the Cardinals
concerning what had taken place, was limited to a bare
statement of facts. On the following day, however, he was all
the more communicative to the ambassadors, Vargas and
Tendilia, who had been invited to dine with him, the case
being discussed both before and after the meal. The Pope
set forth the crimes of the nephews of Paul IV. in great detail,
laying special stress on their scandalous and unjust attempt
to stir up strife against Charles V. The two Spanish ambas
sadors were invited to convince themselves, by an examination
of the documents, of the falsity of the accusations made at the
time, especially of the intrigues set on foot by Cardinal Carafa,
and of the purely imaginary plot of the Imperialists to poison
Paul IV., by means of which the Pope was incited to break
with Spain. The Pope also laid stress on the fact that Cardinal
Carafa had, besides all this, been guilty of numerous murders,
violations and other crimes ; that Cardinal Alfonso had
obtained possession of money and valuables at the time
of the death of Paul IV. by means of forged briefs ; that the
Duke of Paliano had committed atrocities, robberies and
acts of injustice of every kind during his uncle's reign, and
had murdered his wife duiing the vacancy in the Holy See.
Such crimes must not remain unpunished.1 Pius IV. ex
pressed himself in a like manner to the Venetian and Florentine
ambassadors.2
The greater number of the Cardinals disapproved of the
strong measures adopted by the Pope against two members
of the Sacred College, from a feeling of esprit de ;orps. Carpi,
Este, and Farnese3 were the most outspoken in expressing
1The "reports of Vargas and Tendilia of June 10, 1560, which
are not given in Dollinger, are in the Simancas Archives, and are
used by ANCEL, Disgrace, 91 seq.
1 See the *report of Mula of June 8 (State Archives, Venice),
and that of Ricasoh of June 10, 1560 (State Archives, Florence).
Cf. ANCEL, 92.
8 *Questa cattura di sig. Carafa piu che a tutti gli altri rev1111
per varie ragioni e dispiaciuta a Carpi, Ferrara et Farnese. *Report
of G. B. Ricasoli of June 8, 1560 (State Archives, Florence).
VOL. XV. I0
146 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
their displeasure, and on various grounds. They, however,
were almost alone in taking up this attitude. The Roman
people, for th^ most part, were of opinion that, in view of the
undoubted guilt of the Carafa, the Pope was thoroughly
justified in proceeding thus severely against them ; there was
a feeling of universal joy that at last punishment was to
overtake the family. The Carafa, writes Cardinal Truchsess,1
have many accusers, but few defenders. Cardinal Alfonso,
whom most people considered innocent, was the only one
to receive any sympathy, but the Romans were so filled with
hatred for the other members of the family that they wished
to light a bonfire on the Capitol, but this the Pope forbade.2
Outside the Eternal City, also, people learned with pleasure
of the proceedings of Pius IV. against the Carafa. In strictly
religious circles, people saw in their imprisonment a well-
deserved punishment from heaven for the grave injury they
had inflicted on the Church.3
1 Besides Ricasoli's "report of June 7, 1 560 (see ANCEL, Disgrace,
91) of. also the *Avviso di Roma of June 8, which states : " Pochi
sono che non se rallegrino della prigionia delli Carafi&, massima-
mente il populo Romano, gia di loro tanto offeso " (Urb. 1039,
Vatican Library). See also the letter of Camillo Borromeo in
the Arch. stor. Lomb., XIX. (1903). 357 n- and that of G. Salvage
in the Atti Lig., XIII, 763, as well as the correspondence of
Card. O. Truchsess, 172-3.
2 Giovan Maria Gonzaga writes on June 8 from Rome to the
Duke of Mantua : *In cam bio di far card11 hieri S.Sta mand6
Caraffa et Napoli in castello, et questo fu anche in cambio de fare
concistorio dove erano venuti ; medemamente vi fu menato il
ducha de Paliano et quale era in case de Caraffa et vi era venuto
soramente et senza salvo condotto. Molti signori et dependenti
di questi sigri Caram sono stati posti pregione. Hanno scritto
tutte le robe de li dui rev1111, et si dice che in casa de Napoli vi era
una gran quantita de gioie et da vinti millia scudi. La presa di
Caraffa £ piaciuta a tutti generalmente et maxime alii Romani,
quali se non le fusse stato vietato da S. Sta volevano far fuochi
in Campidoglio per demostracione de 1'alegrezza. (Gonzaga,
Archives, Mantua).
* See Seripando in MERKLE, II. , 460.
OPENING OF THE TRIAL. 147
The legal proceedings against the prisoners were entrusted
to Girolamo de Federicis as Governor of Rome, and to the
Procurator-Fiscal, Alessandro Pallantieri. Both were de
clared enemies of the Carafa, and they immediately set to
work with the greatest zeal. Investigations were carried
on not only in Rome, but also at Gallese and Naples ; in the
latter city, two chests of documents, which Cardinal Carafa
had hidden there, were seized.1
The opening of the arraignment, which was based upon an
examination of the material that had been collected, took
place, by means of a Papal Motu Proprio, on July ist ;2 a
second Motu Proprio, that of July 5th, ordered that Cardinals
Cesi, Cueva, Saraceni, Puteo, Cicada, Bertrand, Urbino and
Cornaro should be present at the special inquiry and trial
of the accused Cardinals, to watch over the proceedings,
and to see that the proper judicial forms were observed.8
The inquiry itself was to be entirely in the hands of Federicis
and Pallantieri. The notary associated with them was Luys
de Torres, a Spaniard of the confraternity of S: Girolamo
della Carita, who had the interests of the accused at heart.4
The principal crimes to be laid to the charge of the Duke
of Paliano were the murders of Capece and the Duchess,
while Cardinals Carlo and Alfonso we/e accused of having
promoted the cruel proceedings against Violante by consent
or incitement. Cardinal Carlo was also accused of several
murders which belonged in part to the time of his life as a
soldier, but above all, of having, while he was the director
XC/. RAYNALDUS, 1560, n. 97; ANCEL, Secretairerie, 40,
Disgrace, 92 seq., and Nonciat. de France, I., viii.
* See the *original text in the Papal Secret Archives in Appendix
No. 8.
* *Motu Proprio ' Nuper ' ven. fratri Hieronymo episc. Sagon-
ensi, dated July 5, 1560 (Lib. iur., 493, Papal Secret Archives).
Cf. ANCEL, Disgrace, 96 seq. An *Avviso di Roma of October 19,
1560, states : "II card. Carafa ha dimandato per suo giudice il
card. Borromeo havendo per sospetto il governatore et fiscale "
(Urb. 1039, p. 211, Vatican Library).
4 ANCEL, Disgrace, 97.
148 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
of the policy of Paul IV., induced that Pope, as well as France,
by means of falsehood and deceit, to wage the unhappy war
against Spain. All three accused were also charged with
having been guilty of great frauds in the administration of
the States of the Church. Carlo and the Duke would also
have to answer for grave misuse of their authority, especially
in the administration of justice, and Cardinal Alfonso for
unlawful personal enrichment at the time of the death of
Paul IV.
The trial of the accused began in the Castle of St. Angelo
on July 8th, and lasted for fully three months.1 While
1 The original documents of the proceedings against the Carafa
were burned after having been revised by Pius V. (detailed
account in a future volume of this work). No copies are in
existence. A summary, however, prepared under Pius V., has
been preserved under the title of *Scripta varia in causa card.
Carafa [e] in the Papal Secret Archives, Miscell. XI., 114 (copies :
Vatic., 7450, Barb, lat., 5752, and one in the Library at Cortona).
Besides these there is the "Liber iurium coram rmo gubernatore
. . . contra ill. et rmos dom. card. Carolum Carafam, Alphonsum
Neapolit., Leonardum de Cardine. Ferrant. Garlonium et com
plices, Papal Secret Archives, Miscell. X., 197 (imperfect copies
in the State Archives, Rome), which contains the originals of the
compromising documents which were seized by order of Pius IV.,
and were used in formulating the accusation. The *Lettere
repetite pro parte card. Caraffe in eius causa contra Fiscum are
in the Cod. Ottob., 2348, p. 286-427, the *Acta of the defenders
of the Carafa and their records are preserved in the Papal Secret
Archives at the end of the Codex Miscell., XL, 114, ibid, in Codex I.
130, pp. 15-29 of the Fonds Borghese (Scritture dello studio del
sor Marc Antonio Borghese sulla causa Romana excessum a difesa
delli cardinal! Carlo et Alfonso Carafa e del duca di Paliano)
and in the Barb, lat., 3630 (Papers for the defence of Cardinal
Alfonso Carafa). — Cf. ANCEL, Secret., 41 seq. and Disgrace, 3-11,
and Nonciat. de France, L, x seq. Ancel was the first to give a
complete survey and a clear description of the material and
sources, which substantially completes and corrects the very
incomplete statements of GORI (Archivio II.) DURUY (p. 413 seq.),
and CRISTOFORI (II pontificate di Paolo IV. ed i Carafa suoi
nipoti : Miscell. stor. Romana, 1883). The discovery of the
TRIAL OF THE CARAFA. 149
Cardinal Alfonso was collected and calm from the first,1 Carlo
Carafa displayed all his old arrogance. He was still hoping
for help from the Spanish king, whose ambassador, Francisco
Vargas, came forward as his staunch friend.2 This, however,
could avail him very little, since Vargas, by his importunate
and provocative manner, had made himself very unpopular
with the Pope.3 The French ambassador interested him
self on behalf of the Duke of Paliano, whom Vargas had
deserted.
The confidence of Carlo Carafa in the Spanish king was by
no means justified, but all the more zealous were the efforts
of Vargas on his behalf.4 This diplomatist, to whom Pius IV.
had, just at that time, on a certain occasion, markedly shown
documents in the Papal Secret Archives mentioned above is also
due to Ancel ; it has, however, escaped him that the Articoji XIV.
pro fisco contra card. Carafam, which often appear in manuscript
(e.g. Inf. polit., II., 465 seq. Library, Berlin ; Urb. 853, p. 410 seq.,
Vatican Library ; Cod. 44 — B — 13 p. 276 seq., Corsini Library,
Rome, and in an unsigned Codex of the Bibl. d. Soc. stor. patria
at Naples) had already been printed in 1731 by HOFFMANN,
Nova script, collectio I., 599 seq., a fact which RANKE (Papste, I.,
209) has also overlooked. The Instrumentum transportations,
assignationis et quietantiae scripturarum Causae contra Carafen.
ex officio criminal! rev. d. Urbis gubernat. ad arcem S. Angeli
de mandate SB011 Patris, dated January 7, 1562, in the Bolett.
stor. d. Svizz. Ital., XXXV. (1915), i.
1 *Napoli si governa con molta prudentia et religione. Avviso
di Roma of July 20, 1560, Urb. 1039, p. I75b (Vatican Library).
aC/. Mula's *reports, especially that of June 29, 1560 (Papal
Secret Archives).
• See the *Avvisi di Roma of May 17 and 24, 1560 (Urb. 1039,
pp. 274, 276b, Vatican Library).
* Cf. ANCEL, Disgrace, 140 seqq. Concerning the intercession
of the French ambassador, see also the * Avviso di Roma of
August 17, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. igib). An * Avviso of November
23, 1560, tells of the intercession of Cosimo (Urb. 1039, p. 219).
Among the other princes who interceded (see * Avviso of September
28, 1560, Urb. 1039, p. 204b, Vatican Library) was the Duke of
Bavaria ; see STEINHERZ, II., 397.
150 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
his disfavour,1 met with no success, as Cardinal Carafa
answered all questions merely by protests and denials. As
to his actions before the time of his cardinalate, lie appealed
to the brief of absolution of Paul IV., and for his later acts to
the article of the election capitulation, which only allowed a
prosecution at law of a Cardinal, in cases of heresy, schism
or high treason.2 His attitude was as full of challenge as if he
had been one of the judges, instead of a prisoner on his trial.3
The position of Carlo Carafa was much aggravated by the
discovery in July of some very compromising documents
concerning his relations with the Turks and the Lutheran
Albert Alcibiades of Brandenburg. A Motu Proprio of July
i8th decreed that the case now fell under the head of heresy.
Ghislieri was now added to the number of the Cardinals
acting as assessors,4 but in consequence of his protracted
1 It was a question of the protection of a baker, against whom
proceedings were to be taken for giving false weight. In order
to pacify Pius IV., as an *Avviso di Roma of July 13 relates,
Vargas had repeatedly sought an audience. As this was not
granted him, he threw himself at the Pope's feet when he met him
by chance, and begged for his blessing. Pius IV. said to him,
angrily : " Levatevi et aon m' impedite la strada." Vargas
again begged his blessing, and the Pope answered : " Date prima
in mano della justitia tutti quelli ch' hanno fatto quest' insulto alia
corte," whereupon Vargas remarked : " Come lo posso dare se
sono fuggiti ? " At last the Pope did give him his blessing
(Urb. 1039, pp. 1816-2, Vatican Library). According to the
*report of Mula, of July 12, 1560 (Papal Secret Archives), it was
a case of the protection of a painter. Vargas remained steadily
in disfavour. On September 12, 1560, Ricasoli 'states : Tendilla
is very much liked by the Pope, and his nephew, but the opposite
is the case with Vargas (State Archives, Florence).
8 See ANCEL, Disgrace, 98 seq.
8 See the letter of Gabr. Salvage of July 20, 1560 in the Atti
Lig., XIII., 762.
4*Motu Proprio "Cum nuper," dated July 5, 18, 1560 (Lib.
iur. p. 495, Papal Secret Archives). See further Mula's *report
of July 6, 1560 (State Library, Vienna), ahd the *Avvisi di Roma
of July 20 and 27, 1560 (Urb. 1039, pp. iysb, 184, Vatican Library).
TRIAL OF THE CARAFA. 151
absence from Rome, he took no actual part in the trial.1
The report that Carlo Carafa would be forced to a confession
by means of torture was repeatedly current in the Curia, but
nothing more was done than to make his imprisonment more
rigorous in the last week of July. Till then he had had two
rooms at his disposal, and had been allowed to receive numerous
visits. These privileges were now withdrawn.2 He then
sought to obtain a mitigation of his imprisonment by feigning
illness, but the Papal physician, Simone Pasqua, who was sent
to him, soon discovered that it was only a case of pretence.3
This appears to have somewhat broken down the obstinacy
of the prisoner. The Venetian ambassador reports on August
24th : " The process, which the Pope has more at heart than
anything else, is being carried on with the greatest zeal ;
interrogations of the prisoners take place every day, morning
and evening ; the authenticity of the handwriting and seal
of Albert of Brandenburg have been proved, whereupon
Cueva has advised Carafa to give up lying, to acknowledge his
guilt, throw himself on the mercy of the Pope, and think of
the salvation of his soul." Carafa, as we are informed by
Mula, now caused Pius IV. to be informed that as a man of the
world and a soldier, he had been guilty of many things, but
that he cast himself upon his niercy, and that he had not even
the means of providing for his bare support. The answer of
Pius IV. was to the effect that he was now suffering nothing
1 Ghislieri had betaken himself to his see of Mondovi on June 28,
1560 (see MAFFEI, 52), and he appears to have remained there
until the autumn.
•See *Avviso di Roma of July 20, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 1756,
Vatican Library), and the reports of Ricasoli of July 20 and 21,
in ANCEL, Disgrace, 100. An *Avviso of September 7, 1560,
related that Pius IV. had angrily answered a remark of Cardinal
Puteo to the effect that he did not find it in accordance either
with law or reason that the ' corda ' should be applied in the case
of Carafa, by saying : " che di qui inanzi non haverebbe pift
carico d' haver il suo esamine et che non se ne dovesse piu im-
pacciare " (Urb. 1039, p. 198, Vatican Library).
•See the *report of Ricasoli of July 25, 1560 (State Archives,
Florence).
152 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
which he had not brought upon himself, that he could promise
him nothing, but that he would take care that he did not come
to want.1
The Cardinal suffered no torture, either owing to the fact
that it was considered impossible to force him by that means
to an admission of his guilt, or because, which is much more
likely, several of the Cardinals, especially Cueva, protested
against such a procedure.2 The prisoner again took courage
when he escaped torture, and still hoped that the King of
Spain would save him. In Rome, where the case of the Carafa
had been the great topic of the day, interest in the long drawn-
out trial gradually began to flag.3
Only at the end of September did the special enquiry
approach its end. The documents were copied and a special
envoy was to convey a full summary to Philip II.4 The
^ee Mula's "letter of Aug. 24, 1560 (a garbled translation in
RIESS, 412), Court Library, Vienna. • On August 24, 1560, Giulio
Grand! * wrote concerning the affair of the Carafa : " Tiensi che
hormai non anderano piu molto alia longa et credesi fermamente
che Carafa et il duca la fara molto male. Napoli non tanto "
(State Archives, Modena). The Portuguese ambassador wrote in
the same sense ; cf. Corpo dipl. Portug., IX., 34. See also
Correspondence of Card. O. Truchsess, 200 seq. Mula "reported
on August 31 : " D. Geremia [Isachino ; cf. Vol. XIV. of this work,
p. 223 seg., and Ancel, Disgrace, 141] di Chietini gionse qui gia 4
giorni et par!6 il giorno stesso che gionse al pontefice et n' e
spedito, dicono che par informatione circa a Caraffa " (Court
Library, Vienna).
2 According to an *Avviso of August 31, 1560, Cardinal Carafa,
when threatened with torture, is said to have answered : " che
sa molto bene che si vogliono satiar del suo sangue et che faccino
quello che vogliono, che di lui non caveranno mai altro di piu
di quello ch' anno cavato fin all' hora essendo nato cavaliere et
cardinale d' honore ; " therefore they hesitated to apply the
torture, thinking it would be useless (Urb. 1039, p. 194, Vatican
Library) . Cf. the "letter of Mula of July 20, 1 560 (Court Library,
Vienna) ; PALLAVICINI, 14, 15, 13 and infra p. 160.
3 See the "letters of Mula of September 7 and 14, 1560 (Court
Library, Vienna).
4 HINOJOSA, 129 ; ANCEL, Disgrace, 101, 129.
TRIAL OF THE CARAFA. 153
results of this special enquiry were as follows : Cardinal
Alfonso Carafa appears to have enriched himself in an un
lawful manner, at the expense of the Holy See, at the time of
the death of Paul IV., and to have had a brief drawn up in his
favour without the dying Pope having been aware of the
matter. Moreover, he was accused of having approved of the
murder of the Duchess of Paliano. This dreadful act was the
principal accusation against the Duke of Paliano, Lionardo di
Cardine, and the Count d'Alife. The greatest number of
accusations, no fewer than twenty-two, were those brought
against Carlo Carafa. Everything had been collected, and
investigations made as far back as his earliest years.1
Carlo Carafa protested against any inquiries being made
concerning the crimes of his life as a soldier ; he appealed to
the brief of absolution which Paul IV. had given him before
his appointment as Cardinal. It was more difficult for him
to defend himself against those other accusations which
belonged to the time of his cardinalate, especially that of the
attempted murder of Domenico de' Massimi. No guilt could
be proved against him as to the murder of Capece ; this
concerned only the Duke of Paliano and his two accomplices.
It was otherwise, however, with regard to the murder of the
Duchess ; as to this it was clearly proved that Carlo had been
an accessory, still, however crushing the proofs adduced might
be, he obstinately entrenched himself against them by sys
tematic lying. Further accusations were to the effect that
Carlo had been guilty of heresy. The incidents adduced
against him from the time of his life as a soldier were of no
account in this respect, but authentic documents proved the
relations of the Cardinal with the Protestant Margrave, Albert
Alcibiades of Brandenburg. Carlo had to admit them, but
maintained that in this case, as well as in his dealings with the
Turks, he had only acted as the tool of his uncle. He made
use of a similar defence with regard to other political accusa
tions, which laid the blame for the whole of the blunders of
Paul IV. upon his shoulders. All this was, however, of no
1 See ANCEL, 101 seqq.
154 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
avail ; although eight items of the prosecution were withdrawn
in the course of the investigation, there still remained fourteen,
and those the gravest, to be answered. The root of the
accusation lay in the wicked and repeated misuse of his
official position in the field of politics, as well as his conduct
in the murder of Violante. On the ground of a similar misuse
of his political influence, the Duke of Paliano was also accused
of having been guilty of high treason.1 The fact that this
aspect of the case was emphasized, caused the whole proceed
ings to become a political trial, with a very decided bias.
The choice of prejudiced judges effected the rest, and thus
it may well have happened that crimes were attributed to the
accused of which they were innocent. With justice did
Cardinal Carafa protest against the charge that he had kept
the secret agreement of Cave from his uncle's knowledge, nor
was it true when the Procurator Fiscal represented Paul IV.
as having always been a peaceably disposed Pope. It was
certainly unjust to attribute the whole responsibility for the
war-like policy against Spain to Carafa. Nevertheless, a
great part of the blunders of those days could be traced to him,
and it was he, too, who had made war inevitable ; while Paul
IV. was following out idealistic aims, it is beyond doubt that
his nephew was principally animated by selfish motives. Yet,
however great may have been the influence exercised by the
prejudice of the judges during the trial, and although Cardinal
Carafa may have been accused of things of which he was
innocent, or only partly guilty, there still remained enough
to justify very strict measures being taken against him.2
On October 5th a copy of the reports of the trial was con
veyed to Cardinal Carafa. In such cases the law required that
prisoners on trial should have twenty days to prepare their
defence, a period which might be extended by fifteen, and
again by ten days more. For this purpose a copy of the
minutes of the proceedings must be given them. The prisoners
1See the excellent details in ANCEL, loc. at., 102 scq., 118 seq.,
141.
«C/. ANCEL, Disgrace, 180-1.
ADVOCATES OF THE CARAFA. 155
were also allowed to hold conversations, not only with their
defenders, but also with their friends, and to arrange for further
examinations of witnesses ; all this, however, must be done
in the presence of a notary.1
Among the advocates of the Carafa there was in the first
place the celebrated Marcantonio Borghese, who had also
skilfully defended Cardinal Morone against the accusations
of the Inquisition.2 Besides him, others were also appointed,
of whom the Neapolitan, Felice Scalaleone, appears to have
been the most active and fearless.3 The detailed legal
opinions in which these jurists elucidated the accusations
brought against the Carafa are still in existence,; ten of them
deal with the defence of each of the two Cardinals, and eight
others with that of the Duke of Paliano. The easiest defence
was that of Cardinal Alfonso ; the most that could be proved
against him was that he had kept silence at the murder of the
Duchess Violante, the enrichment after the death of Paul IV.
not having overstepped the limits of what was usual in such
cases.4
As far as the political accusations made against Carlo Carafa
were concerned, whereby he had jeopardized the highest
interests of the Church, the efforts of the defence were con
centrated upon proving that the Cardinal, as the chief minister
of Paul IV., had only cairied out the Pope's intentions, great
stress being also laid upon the extraordinarily wide authority,
free from all control, which " from time immemorial " had
!See ANCEL, loc. cil., 129 seq. According to an *Avviso di
Roma of October 5, 1560, seven advocates were appointed for
Cardinal Carafa (Urb. 1039, P- 2o6b, Vatican Library).
1 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 305. A letter from Cardinal C.
Carafa to Bprghese in DURUY, 418.
» *E qui un avvocato di Napoli, huomo di gran stima in quell'
essercitio, il quale scrive et parla as*sai liberamente, reported
Mula on October 26, 1560 (Court Library, Vienna). At the
beginning of February, 1561, Scalaleone threatened to go away ;
see *Avviso di Roma of February i, 1561 (Urb. 1039, p. 245b,
Vatican Library).
4 See ANCEL, Disgrace, 141 seq.
156 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
been granted to a cardinal nephew. This point, as well as
others upon which the defence laid much stress, was open to
discussion, but all their skill did not succeed in absolving
Carlo from the guilt of having been an accessory to the murder
of the Duchess of Paliano. Extenuating circumstances,
especially the exaggerated ideas of honour prevalent in Naples,
were brought forward on behalf of the Duke, both for this and
for the murder of Capece, the guilt of Violante being taken for
granted, though it was by no means proved,1
The advocates were not the only persons who were working
for the prisoners, several members of the Sacred College taking
up their case, as for example, Carpi, who, on October 25th,
at the beginning of the consistory, raised a great many objec
tions to the proceedings against the Carafa, and loudly
demanded justice. Pius IV. defended his action in excited
words.2 Again, when Cosimo I. came to Rome, and had long
secret conversations with the Pope, the affair of the Carafa
is certain to have been discussed. On November loth
Francesco Tonina definitely informed the Duke of Mantua
that Cosimo had interceded for the prisoners.3 In Rome many
people believed that on this account the trial would end in
1 See ibid., 131 seqq., 139 seq.
2 See in Appendix No. 1 1 the *report of Mula of October 26,
1560 (Court Library, Vienna). Cardinal Cesi had previously
specially interceded for Carafa ; see Atti Lig., XIII., 762.
'Cosimo, says Tonina's *letter of November 10, 1560, is said
to have handed the Pope a petition in favour of the Carafa,
" ma e generale opinione che anzi facci secretamente ufficio con
loro " (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). Cosimo had in reality done
nothing of consequence for the Carafa, and indeed had perhaps
worked definitely against them. Even at that time people were
inclined to explain this by saying that the Duke sought in this
manner to evade payment of the sum of money which he is said
to have promised Cardinal Carafa for the election of Medici. See
GNOLI, Nuova Antol., XIX. (1872), 816 seq'., and RIESS, 407 seq.,
who, however, goes too far in his deductions. The intercession
of Cosimo for Cardinal del Monte, in whose behalf he was working
as early as August, was sincere.; see the "letter of Mula of August
3, 1560 (Court Library, Vienna).
TRIAL OF THE CARAFA. 157
their favour.1 This view, however, soon proved to be errone
ous. The defence of the Duke of Paliano against the accu
sation of wife-murder, made by his advocate on November
i6th, before the Pope and the appointed Cardinals, was a
complete failure.2 On November 23rd it was an open secret
that the attempts to remove the prejudiced Federicis from the
conduct of the case had proved ineffectual.3 The wife of
Cosimo is reported to have said, on her departure from Rome,
that she was leaving the city in order not to be present at the
tragedy of the Carafa. On December I4th, Francesco Tonina
reported, on the strength of a conversation with the Procurator
Fiscal, Pallantieri, that the decision was imminent ; twelve
notaries were engaged in copying extracts from the minutes
of the trial, so that these could be handed to each Cardinal ;
after Christmas two congregations of Cardinals would be held
in order to decide the sentence which would be pronounced
upon the Cardinal and the Duke by the Pope himself, and upon
the others by the Governor.4
1 See the *Avviso di Roma of November 9, 1560 (Urb. 1039,
p. 214, Vatican Library).
* *Hoggi si e lungamente udito il governatore com' avogadore
d' avanti il pontefice e cardinali deputati, accusando il duca di
Palliano con assai vive ragioni dell' homicidio della moglie, e
1' avocato del duca rispondendo con assai triste ragioni, per quanto
intendo ; e si e concluso che si metta in scrittura, accio che il
mondo intenda sopra la giustitia che si ha da fare ; e del duca
predetto non se ne pronostica se non male. Mula on November 1 6,
1560 (Court Library, Vienna).
»*Awiso di Roma- of November 23, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 219,
Vatican Library).
4 *Li Caraffi s' hanno per ispediti et quest a mattina sendo io
col fiscale del Palantieri, m' ha detto che non s' attende ad altro
che alia ispeditione, et duodeci notari non fanno altro che scrivere
li sommarii delli processi, de quai sommarii si ne hanno a dare a
ciascun cardle per ciascuno uno, et di qua da Natale s' hanno per
quanto ho inteso da far due congregation!, nelle quali si spediranno.
Li dui card" sarranno giudicati dal Papa istesso et insieme il duca
di Paliano, gli altri poi dal governatore, et ancora che si credi che
si debba commutare la pena della vita in carcere perpetuo, non
158 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Tonina was very well informed, for the congregations he
speaks of were held in the second week of January, 1561.
The Pope, who devoted from three to four hours daily to the
study of the minutes of the trial, again gave audience to the
advocates of the Carafa ; the latter appeared to be very much
depressed, and people in general looked for a result unfavour
able to the prisoners, even to the Cardinal ; banishment for
life at the least seemed to be his fate.1 Owing to his long
imprisonment, Carlo Carafa was hardly in a position to con
tinue the payment of his necessary subsistence, as he, like all
other prisoners of this class, had to support himself. A
Mantuan correspondent gives details of the miserable condition
of this once so proud and tyrannical family, and recalls the
arrogance of the Cardinal during the recent conclave.2
At a consistory on January I5th, 1561, the Procurator
Fiscal, Pallantieri, reported the conclusion of the proceedings,
and begged the Pope to order the Governor of the city to
present his final report, at the next consistory, as to the crimes
of which the accused had been found guilty as a result of the
investigation : sentence would then follow. Pius IV. agreed,
di meno si va discorrendo che quella gli debba durar poco, et
perch& queste cose vengono di bocca et di loro che pu6 saper
qualche cosa, si giudica che gia sia risoluto il tutto, benche non
sia antora data la sentenza (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). Cf.
Correspondence of Card. O. Truchsess, 229, 231.
1 *Avviso di Roma of January n, 1561 (Urb. 1039, p. 2O4b-i,
Vatican Library).
* In Fr. Tonina's "letter to the Duke of Mantua, dated Rome,
January 15, 1561, he says, concerning the Carafa : " Sono essi
tutti ridotti a tanta miseria, a quanto questi di mi narrava la
madre del cardle Vitelli,che muoiono di fame, a tale che il cardle ha
venduto la tonicella, et con questi termini si ne passano la vita
loro, questi che al tempo del zio erano tanto orgogliosi et superbi
et particolarmente poi intendo il detto cardle ch' era nel conclave,
come se li altri cardinal! 'tutti fussero stati suoi servitori."(Conzaga
Archives, Mantua). Cf. in Appendix No. 12, the *report of
Tonina of February 22, 1561. Bondonus relates, moreover,
(p. 539) that he had visited Cardinal Carafa on January 15, 1561
and had remained to dinner with him.
CONFESSION OF PALIANO. 159
and ordered that no other matter should be placed upon the
agenda for the consistory, in view of the probable length of the
report.1 Almost two whole months passed before this meeting
was held ; the reason for the delay is to be found in the letters
which the Duke of Paliano addressed to the Pope from his
prison in the Tor di Nona.2
The first of these letters is dated January lyth, 1561. In it
the Duke begs for mercy for his young children, and at the
same time makes certain revelations which he had hitherto
concealed out of consideration for his brothers. These admis
sions concern the beginning of the conflict of Paul IV. with the
Imperialists,3 the suit against the Colonna, and, above all, the
tragedy at Gallese. The Duke confesses as follows :• "If I
lemember correctly, the letter brought to me by Captain
Vico de' Nobili, contained the expression that the Cardinal
had said that he would no longer acknowledge me as his brother
if I did not clear myself from shame by means of the death of
the Duchess. I showed this letter to Leonardo de Cardena,
and we decided between ourselves that he should murder the
Duchess at Sant' Eutichio, on the road from Gallese to Soriano.
When Don Leonardo arrived at Soriano he found the Count
d' Alife there, who was himself just on the point of carrying
out the deed, but he prevented him from doing so. They then
sent Bernardino Olario to me, to whom I made answer as is
recorded in my first examination. I might have forbidden it,
but said that I wanted to have nothing to do with the matter.
It was my own wish to wait for my wife's confinement, and
what I said was with the object of delaying the deed. Never
theless, the Duchess was killed. When I learned of her death
I was exceedingly grieved, and wept bitterly. In order to
find consolation I sent to my painter, by name Moragna, a
Spaniard living at Viterbo, and commissioned him to send the
1 See Acta consist, in GULIK-EUBEL, 38, and ANCEL, Disgrace,
143-
8 "Hiera 1* altra, announces Giulio Grandi on January 16, 1561,
the Duke of Paliano was taken from the Castle of St, Angelo to
the Tor di Nona (State Archives, Modena).
» Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 94 seq.
l6o HISTORY OF THE POPES.
father, Fra Pietro,1 to me at Soriano, where I lay ill. The
father came, and I excused myself to him for the death of the
Duchess by saying that my honour in the eyes of the world
had caused me to consent. What now follows, I do not say
to justify myself, but only in the interests of truth. I had not
ordered the death of the Duchess, but wished everyone to
believe that I had allowed it to take place, merely out of
consideration for my honour. I speak freely here, and not
as one who is before a court of law ; may this be held in my
favour." The Duke also represented his brother as guilty in
the matter of the galleys. In a second letter, dated February
6th, he gave yet further details concerning this affair and the
law-suit against the Colonna, and here, likewise, he attributed
all the guilt to the promptings of his brother. In this letter,
signed merely with the name " Giovanni Carafa " no further
allusion is made to the murder of the Duchess.2 According
to a report of Mula, the Duke, completely broken down by
his eight months imprisonment, is even said to have expressed
a wish that his obstinate brother, who still denied everything,
should be forced to a confession by torture.3 As a matter
of fact, the instruments of torture were actually taken to the
Castle of St. Angelo, but even this did not intimidate Carlo
Carafa ; his assertions grew bolder and more arrogant than
ever.4
1 One of the Capuchins who gave spiritual consolation to the
Duchess at the time of her death ; see supra p. 138.
1 Both letters of the Duke of Paliano to the Pope are in the
*Liber iurium (Papal Secret Archives; see note I supra p. 148)
pp. 578-9, and 574-5. The first is printed in the Arch. stor. Ital.,
XII., 456-8, but with a small omission. The second letter, of
February 6, 1561, is all in his own hand. In the first letter only
the signature is by the Duke himself, and even this is not certain ;
perhaps the whole is merely a copy.
8 According to Mula's *report.of February i, 1561, the Duke
of Paliano is supposed to have said : " Se il cardinale sar& levato
quattro dita di terra, confessed ogni cosa " (Papal Secret Archives)
4 *Fu portata la corda in Castello et ordinato che si fosse
tormentato il card. Carafa, ma non intendo che sia stato eseguito,
e quel cardinale parla altamente come prima e piu ancora, reports
ARREST OF REBIBA. l6l
The second letter had hardly reached the hands of the Pope
when another event occurred. During the night between
February yth and 8th, Cardinal Scipione Rebiba, who had
enjoyed the special confidence of Paul IV., was arrested.
He was accused of having grossly neglected his duty during
his legation in the year 1556 by not having continued his
journey to Brussels, of having extorted a brief concerning
certain benefices from the dying Pope, and of having been
accessory to the murder of the Duchess of Paliano, by sanction
ing the proceedings of Carlo Carafa.1 This new arrest caused
the greatest sensation. Four members of the College of
Cardinals were now in the Castle of St. Angelo, and it was
expected that yet other Cardinals and prelates who had played
an important part under Paul IV. would be called to account.2
On February 2ist it was reported that the advocates of the
Carafa had appeared before the Pope and the Cardinals and had
spoken with them for several hours. They complained
bitterly of the biased conduct of the Procurator Fiscal and
the Governor. Thereupon the Pope decided to go through
the documents once more, saying that he wished to temper
Mula, on February 8, 1561 (Papal Secret Archives, loc. cit. 443).
It is therefore a mistake when Fr. Tonina, in a *letter of January
29, 1 561 , maintains that the Cardinal had been tortured. (Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua). An *Avviso di Roma of February 15, 1561
(Urb. 1039, p. 252b, Vatican Library) makes the same statement.
It was difficult to know the truth, for everything took place in
the strictest secrecy ; *Delli Carafa le cose vanno secretissime,
writes Tonina on February 15, 1561 (Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua) .
1 C/. besides Mula's * "report of February 8, 1561 (Papal Secret
Archives) the *Avvisi di Roma of February 8 and 15, (Urb. 1039,
pp. 251, 252b, Vatican Library) and the *letter of Vargas of
February 15, 1561 (Simancas Archives) translated and com
mented on in ANCEL, Disgrace, 146 n. 3. See also Massarelli in
MERKLE, II., 351 ; BONDONUS, 539, and the report of the Portu
guese ambassador of February 16, 1561, in the Corpo dipl. Portug.,
IX., 184.
* *Avviso di Roma of February 8, 1561 (Urb. 1039, Vatican
Library).
VOL. XV. II
l62 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
justice with mercy.1 The Duke of Paliano was, in the mean
time, again brought from the Tor di Nona to the Castle of
St. Angelo, evidently that he might be confronted with his
brother. It was at once rumoured that two of the guards had
been arrested, and it occasioned a still greater sensation when
soldiers were secretly concentrated in the city.2
In these days of excitement the great creation of Cardinals
took place which was connected with the fall of the Carafa.
For a long time there had been talk of an increase of the Sacred
College, and this took place quite unexpectedly on February
26th, 1561. 3 No less than eighteen Cardinals were appointed,
among them such excellent men as Girolamo Seripando,
Stanislaus Hosius, Ludovico Simonetta, Marcantonio Mula
and Bernardo Navagero. These received the purple in con-
1 Cf. *Avviso di Roma of February 22, 1561 (Urb. 1039, Vatican
Library) .
2 Cf. in Appendix No. 12, the *report of Fr. Tonina of February
22, 1561 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
8 See PETRAMELLARIUS, 66 seq. ; GIACONIUS, III., 905 seq. ;
CARDELLA, V., 9 seq. ; GULIK-EUBEL, 41 seq. Characteristics of
the persons in question in Cod. Vat. 7248, p. 155 seq., Vatican
Library. Concerning the consistory, Fr. Tonina ""reported on
February 26, 1561, that " conflitti et controversie " had arisen
therein, so that it only ended at the twenty-second hour of the
night (cf. also Arco's "report in the State Archives, Vienna,
mentioned by SICKEL, Konzil, 179). On the same day Tonina
writes : *I1 Papa e stato in pensiero solo di quattro o sei al piu,
poi di dieci et poi di tredici sino a questa mattina, et ultimamente
si e risoluto de desdotto, a tal che hieri sera solo si tratto dell'
abate di Gambara, ne prima vi era pensamento alcuno, et tutto
hieri non si fece altro che far congregation! duplicate sopra il,
patriarca d' Aquileia, il quale fmalmente e stato escluso, sotto
pretesto che gia fu inquisito d' eresia de non so che articolo della
giustificatione. Si e ragionato tutti di anco che S.Sta si reservava
in petto rillmo S. Federico nostro fratello di V. Ecc. et alcuni anco
dicevano che forse 1' haveria potuto publicare, et da ciascuno era
tenuto che dovesse ispedir prima la causa de Caraffi, come si havea
ragionato nella congregatione, della causa loro, tutta via quasi
un subito poi S. Sta si n' e spedita (Gonazga Archives, Mantua).
CREATION OF CARDINALS. 163
nection with the Council ; in the case of the others, considera
tions of another kind led to their elevation. The appointments
of Bernardo Salviati, and of the French ambassador, Babou
de la Bourdaisiere, were made to please the French govern^
ment, while the elevation of Inigo de Avalos de Aragon and of
Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle testified to a desire to please
Philip II. It is very remarkable that Cosimo I. only suc
ceeded in getting a very distant relative, the Spaniard, Fran
cisco Pacheco, appointed. The lion's share in the creation
was carried off by the party of the Gonzaga, who were inimical
to the Carafa. Besides the nephew of Cardinal Ercole, the
twenty- four-year-old Francesco Gonzaga, the following received
the purple on February 26th : Ludovico Madruzzo, Luigi
d'Este and the Pope's nephew, Mark Sittich von Hohenems,
as well as Alfonso Gesualdo and Pier Francesco Ferreri, then
nuncio in Venice, who were related to the Pope's nephew. On
the other hand, however, the opponents of Gonzaga, the
Farnese, who were so powerful owing to their connection with
the court of Philip, received due consideration. Their
interests were already served by the appointment of Granvelle
and Ifiigo de Avalos, but in addition to these, the new Car
dinals, Girolamo da Correggio and the Bishop of Brescia,
Francesco Gambara, were also among their faithful adherents.1
'On February 27th, 1561, the last period allowed by the law
of those days to the prisoners for their further defence, had
expired. When the Pope went to the consistory on that date
an advocate of the Carafa cast himself at the feet of His Holi-
1 Cf. HILLIGER, 18 seq. ; SUSTA, Kurie, II., 409; HERRE,
66 seq. ; Q. BIGI, Vita del card. G. da Correggio, 47 seq., Milan,
1864. The red hat had already been prophesied for Francesco
Gonzaga in 1558 (see Giorn. ligustico, 1887, 436 seq.). Pius IV.
had, in an autograph letter, as early as June 18, 1560, secretly
intimated to Luigi d'Este that he would create him cardinal
(*Original in State Archives, Modena). In Min. bred., Arm.,
44 t. 10, n. 30-40, are the "briefs to the newly appointed cardinals
dated February 27, 1561 ; in that to Avalos the petition of
Philip II. is remembered, and in that to Salviati, that of Catherine
de' Medici (Papal Secret Archives).
164 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
ness and begged for mercy for his clients. The answer of
Pius IV. was to the effect that he had better get out of his way.1
At that time, as the Pope expressed it, there were four capital
C's which gave him great anxiety : the Cardinals, the Carafa,
the Council, and the Colonna.2
There now remained only one hope for the Carafa : the
intervention of the Spanish king. Cardinal Carafa had
counted on him from the first, all the more so as all the time
Vargas had remained his firm friend. When the whole world
had abandoned the unhappy man, the ambassador had only
held the more faithfully to Jiim. He even dared, in covert
terms, to reproach his king for his reserve,3 but now, as at
first, Philip took refuge in silence. The way in which he
determined his attitude is evident from the significant words
which he wrote to Tendilla on August iith, 1560. In these
he expresses the impatience with which he was awaiting the
arrival of Santa Croce, who had started from Rome on July
I4th, so that he might know what attitude he had better adopt,
as, however anxious he might be to please the Pope, it would
not be good policy on his part altogether to abandon Cardinal
Carafa, lest he should be accused of ingratitude.4 It was
evident that the king did not wish to commit himself pre
maturely. Santa Croce disclosed to Philip II., in the name of
Pius IV., that Raverta had gone too far in his recommendation
of the Carafa, and that the Pope had been unable to communi-
1 Avviso di Roma of March i, 1561, in ANCEL, Disgrace, 146 n. 5.
2 *Dicono che S.Sta diceva haver quattro C grandi ch'l travag-
liavano la mente cioe : Cardinali, Caraffa, Concilio, Colonnesi.
Letter of Fr. Tonina of February 28, 1561 (Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua) .
3 See ANCEL, 149-50 ; Ibid., 147, concerning the intervention
of France for the Duke of Paliano. Albert V. of Bavaria inter
ceded for both the Cardinal and the Duke ; see Correspondence
of Card O. Truchsess, 211, 216, 218 seq.t 225 seq., 233.
4 See ANCEL, 150 n. 4. Concerning the mission of Santa
Croce cj. Corpo dipl. Portug., VIII., 483 seq. ; IX., 9 seq., 16 seq. ;
PALLAVICINI, 14, 15, 8 ; Miscell. d stor. Ital , V., 526 seq. ;
HINOJOSA, 121 seq.
ATTITUDE OF PHILIP II. 165
cate his real views concerning the family to the Spanish court,
as the nuncio, as well as Vargas, were adherents of the nephews
of Paul IV. Santa Croce had also brought with him, from
the minutes of the proceedings against the Carafa, a collection
of the criminal statements and calumnies of which Carlo
Carafa had made use in order to cause deadly enmity between
Paul IV., Charles V. and Philip II. The further documents,
relating to Carlo's negotiations with the Protestants and the
Turks for the overthrow of the Hapsburgs were sent after Santa
Croce, as he was already on his way.
Philip II. could now throw aside his reserve, and give free
play to his old vindictiveness against Cardinal Carafa without
any danger to himself, although there were still reasons why
he should not make his real intentions quite public. Vargas
received orders on September 5th, 1560, to moderate his zeal
for the prisoners, and he submitted to the wishes of his master,
writing to him, however, on January 5th, 1561, that he had
obeyed his instructions, but that His Majesty, by failing to do
anything for the Carafa, was committing a grave error.1
This had not escaped Philip himself, and several of his
letters testify to the painful state of embarrassment in which
he found himself. If he requited the services of the Cardinal
during the conclave by completely abandoning him, not only
would his reputation be endangered, but his interests as well,
for the prospects of Cardinal Gonzaga obtaining the tiara would
thereby be greatly furthered.2 In the end Philip acted in
accordance with the advice of the Farnese ; he left the secular
members of the house of Carafa to their fate, and interceded
only for the life of the Cardinal. This he did by means of an
autograph letter written to the Pope on February nth, 1561,
from Toledo, which reached Rome on Saturday, March ist.
The consistory at which the decision was to be made was fixed
for Monday, March 3rd, the letter of intercession thus arriving
almost at the last moment. It came, however, in time to
give, to the uninitiated, the appearance that the king was
1 ANCEL is the first (pp. 150-1) to have brought these letters to
light and to make use of them.
'See HILLIGER, 17.
l66 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
protecting the Cardinal, but much too late to make the Pope
withdraw from the course he had already entered upon.
When Vargas handed him the letter on March and, Pius IV.
answered in general terms that he declined to postpone the
consistory.1 The consistory therefore took place on March
3rd as arranged, and lasted for eight hours. The Governor, by
order of the Procurator Fiscal, presented a summary of the
minutes of the proceedings against Cardinal Carlo Carafa, the
Duke of Paliano, the Count d'Alife, and Lionardo di Cardine,
which took seven hours to read out, and demanded the con
demnation of the accused. The enumeration of the offences
made a deep impression, and many Cardinals who had
intended to say a word in favour of Alfonso or Carlo Carafa
remained silent. Este alone endeavoured to refute the
accusation concerning the alliance made with France, a thing
which he understood perfectly. After the minutes of the case
had been read out, the Pope handed to the Governor a sealed
roll of paper, which was only to be opened by special order,
with the words that he was pronouncing the final sentence.
Thereupon Cardinals Carpi, Farnese, Este, Crispi and Savelli
arose, begging the Pope not to show the extremity of severity,
and to have consideration for the dignity of the Sacred College.
Their pleading bore as little fruit as did a new attempt on the
part of Vargas to induce Pius IV. to show clemency.2 The
final step was taken on March 4th, when the sealed roll was
opened in the presence of the advocates ; this contained
1Cf. HILLIGER, 17, and ANCEL, Disgrace, 151 seq. The text
of the letter of Philip II., of February n, 1561, in D^LLINGER,
Beitrage, I., 353.
2 The best report of the consistory is in the *letter of Vargas
of March 14, 1561 (Simancas Archives) used by ANCEL, loo. cit.,
152. Cf. also the report of N. Tiepolo in NARDUCCI, Cat. I., 322,
the Florentine report in the Arch. stor. Ital., XII., 297, 298 n.,
and the slightly divergent report of Fr. Tonina, of March 5, 1561
(Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). See Appendix No. 14 ; cf. No. 13
(Acta consist. Cam., Consistorial Archives). The Acta consist,
in GULIK-EUBEL, 38, report very laconically, as does Massarelli
(in MERKLE, II., 352).
THE SENTENCE ON THE CARAFA. 167
the sentence of death on Cardinal Carlo Carafa, the Duke of
Paliano, the Count d'Alife and Lionardo di Cardine.1 In any
case all four had deserved death on account of the murder of
the Duchess, but the justice of the other accusations, especially
that of high treason against Giovanni and Car.o Carafa, is
open to doubt.2 The estates of the condemned were to be
confiscated.3
When the sentence of death was communicated to Cardinal
Carafa, he did not say a word ; his companions in misfortune
were taken from the Castle of St. Angelo back to the Tor di
Nona. The Count d'Alife and Lionardo di Cardine were
overcome by despair, and the Capuchins who were sent to
them had a hard task.4 On the other hand, Giovanni Carafa
was quite composed ; he had long given up all hope, and had
prepared himself for death by retreats with the Jesuit, Per-
uschi.6 These spiritual exercises had completely changed the
unhappy man ; religion gave him such power that he went
joyfully to his death, because it was for him the way of his
» Report of Mula of March 6, 1561 (State Archives, Venice).
See ANCEL, Disgrace, 153. Cf. also the report of Tiepolo, loc. cit.
2 Upon the question of guilt cf. GNOLI in the N. Antologia, XIX.
(1872), 813 seq. Benrath maintains with justice that, even after
the doubtful accusations had been withdrawn, there remained
sufficient proof; see HERZOG, Realenzyklopadie, XV3, 437 seq.
•The sentence on Cardinal Carafa has not been found up to
the present ; in all probability it was destroyed when the case
was revised. The sentence of death on the Duke of Paliano and
his two companions, dated March 4, 1561, in GORI, Archivio, II.,
260 seq.
4 Cf. the "report of Fr. Tonina of March 5, 1561 (Gorizaga
Archives, Mantua). In the book of the *Giustiziati, Vol. 3, in
the archives of S. Giovanni Decollate (State Archives, Rome),
there is a note on pp. 167^9 that members of the Misericordia
were called on March 5 " a un hora mezzo di notte " to " Conte
d' Alifife, ducca di Paliano and L. de Cardine." The Duke be
queathed to the Confraternity " venti scudi alia capella S. Giovanni
decollate per mia devotione et elemosina."
6 See MANAREUS, De rebus Soc. lesu, 126, Florence, 1886.
Cf. GNOLI, loc. cit., 817.
l68 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
salvation. With crucifix in hand, the Duke prepared his two
companions for their fate, addressing such beautiful Christian
words to them that it seemed as if he were only fulfilling
the office of a consoler, and not himself about to be executed.1
One cannot but read the letters which Carafa addressed in his
last hours to his sister and his only son, Diomede, with deep
emotion. " Praised be the name of Our Lord, Jesus Christ,
for all eternity," he says in the letter to his son. " This paper
contains, I believe, the last words and advice I shall be able
to address to you in this life ; I pray God that they may be
such as a father should address to his only son. As the first
and most necessary thing, I must bring to your recollection
that in all your dealings and inclinations you must prove
yourself a true servant of God, and show that you love His
Divine Majesty far above yourself, and set aside your own
pleasure, satisfaction and will, in order not to offend your
Creator and Redeemer, even though you were promised
worldly greatness, honour and happiness. If you follow this
good and necessary rule of conduct, everything else that you
do will be well and honourably accomplished. As you must
be faithful, after God, to the prince whom He has set over us,
then serve the Majesty of the Catholic King, as becomes a true
and honourable Christian knight. Flee from sin as it engenders
death ; choose rather to die than imperil your soul ; be the
enemy of vice ; seek after honourable and pious company ;
go often to confession ; receive frequently the holy sacraments,
which are the medicine of the soul, destroy sin, and preserve
man in the grace of God ; have compassion on the misery of
others ; practise works of piety, and flee from idleness, and
from conversations and pursuits which are not fitting for you ;
take pains to acquire some knowledge of science and letters,
for these are very necessary for a true nobleman, especially
for one who has power and vassals, as well as to be able to
enjoy the sweet fruits of the Holy Scriptures, which are so
precious for both soul and body. If you savour such fruits,
1Cf. the report of Tiepolo, loc. cit., in which, however, the
date is wrong.
LETTER OF GIOVANNI CARAFA. 169
then you will despise the things of this sorrowful world, and
•find no small consolation in the present life. I wish you to
show indomitable courage at my death, not behaving like a
child, but as a reasonable man, and not listening to the
promptings of the flesh, or to the love of your father, or to the
talk of the world. For your consolation, ponder well the fact
that whatever happens is ordained by the decrees of the great
God, Who rules the universe with infinite wisdom, and, as it
appears to me, shows me great mercy by taking me hence in
this manner, rather than in any other way, for which I always
thank Him, as you also must do. May it only please Him to
exchange this my life for that other, the false and deceitful
for the true. Do not be troubled by whatever people may say
or write ; say to everyone : My father is dead, because God
has shown him great grace, and I hope He has saved him, and
granted him a better existence. Therewith I die, but you shall
live, and bear no one ill-will of my death."1
While Giovanni Carafa was writing these lines, the Captain
of the military police, Gasparino de Melis, proceeded to the
prison of Cardinal Carafa in the Castle of St. Angelo.2 When
JThe letter of the Duke of Paliano to his son is printed in
CACCIAGUERRA, Epist. spirit. (/. NOVAES, VII., 148), again in
PHIL. HONORII Thesaur. poli., II., 137, and finally in the Arch,
stor. Ital., XII., 458 seq. (trans, by REUMONT, Carafa, I., 233 seq.,
and Beitrage, I., 505 seq,}, the letter to his sister, the Marchesa
di Polignano, in FR. CRISTOFORI, II pontificate di Paolo IV.
(Miscell. Rom. 2, Ser. i, 1888), 131. Both letters had already
been published in a French translation in a rare pamphlet Sentence
prononcee contre le card. Carafa etc., Lyons, 1561. The letter
to his son also appeared in a German pamphlet (Abdruck des
Herzogen von Paliano schreybens, etc., s. I. 1561) and was widely
read ; see KLUCKHOHN, Briefe, I., 175.
* The execution of Carafa is described in various, for the most
part anonymous accounts, in Italian and Spanish. These accounts
which agree in essential points, but differ in details, are very often
to be found in the collections of manuscripts of the XVIth century ;
in the Vatican Library, Cod. Ottob., 2241, p. 262 seq., and Urb.
1670, p. 92 seq. ; in the Corsini Library, 44 — B — 13, p. 355 seq. ;
in the Casanate Library, E. III., 30 (see GORI.. Archivio, II., 302) ;
I7O HISTORY OF THE POPES.
he appeared, accompanied by torchbearers, in the antechamber
of the Cardinal's cell, he was told that the prisoner was asleep.
When the Captain declared that, in spite of this, he must enter,
the door was opened. Carafa awoke, raised himself, and asked
what was wanted. The sentence of death had already been
announced to him on the previous day, but he did not believe
that it would ever be carried out. When he now learned that
there was no longer any hope, he repeated more than ten times :
" I am to die ! The Pope wishes that I should die ! " Gas-
in the Capponi Library, now in the National Lib., Florence (cf.
REUMONT, Beitrage, L, 518) ; in the Royal Library, Berlin,
Inf. polit., II., 517 seq. (in Spanish, the same in Urb. 853, p. 464
seq.). One of these reports was already published in PHIL.
HONORII Thesaur. polit., II., 134 seq. ; CRISTOFORI has printed
three (L, 102 seq., 145 seq., 149 seq.}, a fourth is in GORI, Arch., II.,
302 seq. ; a fifth (which only refers to the execution of the Cardinal)
is in Barb. lat. 5674, pp. 170-1, Vatican Library (used by ANCEL,
Disgrace, 153 n.). All these accounts, which were followed by
BROMATO, by the editor of NORES (Arch. stor. Ital., XII., 344)
and also by RANKE (Papste, I3., 209) are more or less highly
coloured, in part even romantically so. The most authentic
account was hitherto unknown ; I found it in the Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua, and it is a *letter of Fr. Tonina, to whom
Gasparino de Melis himself described the proceedings at the
execution, and is dated Rome, March 8, 1561 (see Appendix
No. 17). Good accounts are also given in a letter from Rome
of March 8, 1 561 , which is given in the above mentioned ' Sentence,'
the report of Tiepolo in NARDUCCI, Cat. I., 322, the ""report of
Mula of March 7, 1561, Papal Secret Archives (see Appendix
No. 16), the letter of Sfrondato of March 15 in Arch. stor. Lomb.,
XXX. (1903), 358, the ' Letra de Roma ' of March 7, 1561 in
Do" LLINGER, Beitrage, L, 354 seq., the *Avviso di Roma of March 8,
Vatican Library (see Appendix No. 16), and lastly the interesting
letter which the Dominican Timoteo da Perugia sent on March 9,
1561, to his brethren at Florence, published by H. GEISENHEIMER,
Sulla morte del card. Carafa (Estr. dal Rosario), 6 seq., Florence,
1907 (here too is given the name of the Cardinal's confessor,
Francesco d' Arezzo). Cf. also Massarelli in MERKLE, II., 352
seq. ; BONDONUS, 540. It is uncertain in what part of the Castle
of St. Angelo the execution took place ; see BORGATTI, 134 seq.
EXECUTION OF THE CARDINAL. 171
parino had difficulty in making the unhappy man understand
that the hour of his death had now irrevocably arrived, and
that only a short time remained to him to go to confession,
and make his final arrangements. With the sorrowful cry :
" I, who have admitted nothing, am to die ! " the Cardinal
at length arose and dressed. The biretta was refused to him,
and thereby he knew that he was deposed from his rank as
Cardinal Deacon. " O ungrateful Pius ! " he cried, " O King
Philip ! thou hast betrayed me ! " Then a priest, belonging
to a religious order, who had been appointed to hear his con
fession, entered : it lasted for an hour. After this Carafa
seemed calmer ; he had all the attendants brought in, and
called upon them to witness that he forgave the Pope, the King
of Spain, the Governor, the Procurator Fiscal, and all his
enemies. After he had said the seven penitential psalms, he
courageously offered his neck to the executioner. When the
latter drew the knot, the rope broke ; another was taken,
which also broke, and it was only with the greatest difficulty
that the executioner was able to complete his work.1 The
body of Cardinal Carafa, who was aged only forty-two years,
was then taken to the still unfinished church of S. Maria
Traspontina, near the Castle of St. Angelo.
Gasparino de Melis, with the executioner, hurried away from
the body of Cardinal Carafa to the Tor di Nona. He found
the Duke of Paliano, with the Count d'Alife and Lionardo di
Cardine, in the chapel, where, assisted by a Jesuit, they were
preparing for death. Their Christian resignation, and their
real contrition moved even the Brothers of the Misericordia
who were present, though they were used to such scenes.
The scaffold was erected in the courtyard of the prison, and
while prayers were being said for them, the three guilty men
suffered death. Their bodies were publicly exposed on the
morning of March 6th in the neighbouring square, near the
Ponte Sant Angelo. The decapitated body of the Duke lay
1The horrible incident gave the humanist, Niccol6 Franco,
occasion to write the following epigram : —
Extinxit laqueus vix te, Carafa, secundus ;
Tanto enim sceleri non satis unus erit.
172 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
on a little bier, which was covered with a black, gold-
embroidered cloth, beside the statue to the Apostle St. Paul
at the entrance to the bridge ; at his right, on the ground,
on miserable rags, lay his brother-in-law, and at his left,
Lionardo di Cardine. Only in the evening were the bodies,
like those of ordinary criminals, taken by the Brothers of the
Misericordia to S. Giovanni Decollate, and finally buried in
the church of the Minerva, in the family chapel of the Annun-
ciata. The body of Cardinal Carafa was also taken later to
this church, and buried in the same chapel.1
A light placed on the summit of the Castle of St. Angelo
informed Pius IV. of the carrying out of the sentence ; his
severity caused terror on every side.2 Many in Rome blamed
the Pope for having been too harsh ; it was especially found
fault with that the Cardinal had been put to death like the
rest, and that the bodies of the three others, though they had
deserved to die, should have been buried like ordinary
criminals.3 For several days fears were entertained for
the lives of the three other Cardinals who were still in
the Castle of St. Angelo,4 but the representative of Cosimo I.
1Cf. *Giustiziati, III., p. i6gb, in the Archives of S. Giovanni
Decollate. There (p. 169) we read concerning the execution :
*Li retro e sopranominati cioe il sigr ducha di Paliano il sigr
conte d' Aliffe, '1 sigr don Leonardo di Cardines, a uno a uno
furno condotti da basso nel cortile di Torre di Nona e li talliatoli
la testa dalle hore nove sino a hore XI incircha giovedi addi 6 di
marzo e poi furno condotti in Ponte e lassati fino a ore XV incircha,
e poi si fecieno portare alia nostra chiesia dove venne oltra e' 30
deputati alcuni altri delli nostri fratelli e assai bono numero ; e
per tale exeque si prese otto preti oltre il nostro capellano (State
Archives, Rome).
2 See the dispatches of the ambassadors in ANCEL, Disgrace,
159 ; Istoria di Chiusi in TARTINIUS, Script., I., 1078.
8 See Vargas in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 362 ; SFONDRATO,
loc. cit., 359, and the report of the Portuguese ambassador of
March 6, 1561, in the Corpo dipl. Portug., IX., 195.
4 See in Appendix No. 17 the *report of Fr. Tonina of March 8,
1561 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua) and the *Avvisi di Roma of
March 22 and 29, April 18, May 3 and 31, 1561 (Urb. 1039, pp.
261 b, 2650, 268, 271, 278b, Vatican Library). Cf. BONDONUS, 540.
CARDINAL ALFONSO CARAFA. 173
learned on March lyth that they would be pardoned.1
The youthful, and absolutely innocent Cardinal Alfonso
Carafa, aroused great sympathy,2 and for him the King of
Spain, the Viceroy of Naples, and the Duke of Florence
interceded. Alfonso was completely broken down. He
promised everything they asked ; renunciation of the gifts
of Paul IV., and of the office of President of the Apostolic
Camera, as well as the payment of a fine of 100,000 gold scudi.
On March 24th his pardon was decided on, and on April 4th
he was released from the Castle of St. Angelo. A bull of Pius
IV. suppressed the office of President of the Apostolic Camera,
and Cardinal Alfonso had to confirm this in writing. In
secret, however, he drew up protests against this, as well as
against aU the other things which he had been made to pro
mise.3 On October loth, 1561, he again appeared, to the great
joy of everyone, in the consistory.4 When, in August, 1562,
fresh suspicion fell upon Alfonso, through the discovery of a
letter of Cardinal du Bellay, he thought it advisable to retire
to his archdiocese of Naples,5 where he died, worn out by
1 See the *letter of Saraceni of March 17, 1561 (State Archives,
Florence) .
2 As the Cardinal was not yet 25 years of age, by the *Motu
Proprio Cum ad aures, of July 26, 1560 (Lib. iur., p. 498, Papal
Secret Archives) a procurator was appointed for him in the person
of Cardinal Bertrand.
3 See MASSARELLI, 354 ; BONDONUS, 541 ; *letter of Saraceni
of March 21, 22 and 26, 1561 (State Archives, Florence) ; *report
of G. Grandi of March 26, 1561 (State Archives, Modena) ; GORI,
Archivio, II., 311 seq., and especially ANCEL, Disgrace, 160 seq.
Concerning the intercession made in favour of Cardinal Alfonso,
cf. the brief in RAYNALDUS, 1561 n. 80 and *that to the Viceroy
of Naples of April 13, 1561, Min. brev. n, n. 51, Papal Secret
Archives. See also Corpo dipl. Portug., IX., 215. Among those
who efficaciously helped Cardinal Alfonso in the payment of the
enormous fine was Ugo Boncompagni (see MAFFEI, I., 9). Cf.
REUMONT, Carafa, I., 238.
* See the *report of Saraceni of October 10, 1 561 (State Archives,
Florence).
6 See the *report of Fr. Tonina of August 22, 1562 (Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua).
174 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
grief, on August 2Qth, 1565, aged only twenty-four years.1
The Duke of Florence had also interceded for Cardinal del
Monte, Cardinals Ricci and Cicada likewise taking up his
cause ;2 the former, indeed, was very active on his behalf.3
Nevertheless, the decision of his case was very long delayed.
It was rumoured in July, 1561, that del Monte had been
condemned to pay a fine of 100,000 scudi, and was only to be
released on the condition that he should forfeit his Cardinal's
hat at the first offence.4 His release was delayed until the
autumn. He had to promise to improve his manner of life,
to pay the fine and give up his benefices.5 He was banished
to Tivoli and two Jesuits were sent to labour for his conversion.6
Cardinal Rebiba, for whose life his friends trembled even at
the end of October, 1561, 7 was only set at liberty on January
3ist, 1562. The whole CoUege of Cardinals had interceded
for him. He was again allowed to take part in the consistory
in March.8
1 Cf. GIACONIUS, III., 862 ; GULIK-EUBEL, 39.
2 See *Avvisi di Roma of March 22 and July 7, 1561 (Urb. 1039,
pp. 261 b, 286b, Vatican Library) ; *letter of Saraceni of April 4,
1561 (State Archives, Florence).
8 See the ""letters of Saraceni of April 30 and June 10, 1561
(State Archives, Florence).
4 See *Avviso di Roma of July 12, 1561 (Urb. 1039, p. 287,
Vatican Library).
6 See *Avvisi di Roma of August 2, September 6 and 20, 1561
(Urb. 1039, pp. 29ib, 298, Vatican Library) ; BONDONUS, 542.
P. L. Bruzzone has published the confession of del Monte, dated :
' In Castello, 20 Settembre 1561,' in the Roman Messagero, 1911,
No. 198.
6 *Avvisi di Roma of September 6 and 20, and October n,
1561 (Urb. 1039, pp. 298, 300, 303, Vatican Library). Saraceni
""reported on October 10, 1561, that del Monte was at Tivoli
" con dui preti reformat! quali scrivono che il principio della vita
del cardinale e buono." (State Archives, Florence).
7 *Avviso dt Roma of October 25, 1561 (Urb. 1039, p. 3O5b,
Vatican Library).
s *Avvisi di Roma of January 10 and 31, and March 7, 1562
(Urb. 1039, pp. 330, 33 5b, 343^ Vatican Library).
ATTITUDE OF PHILIP II. 175
Philip II. benefited greatly by the downfall of the Carafa ;
in May, 1561, a bull was expressly issued to protect him against
the serious allegations made against him by Cardinal Carafa
in the time of Paul IV.1 The king's attitude during the whole
tragedy, had been of such a nature that he attained his object of
destroying his old enemies without committing himself on
either side. His share in the fall of the nephews of Paul IV.
remained the secret of but few people, but the Spanish king
had been able to keep himself free from all odium by inter
ceding at the last moment for Cardinal Carlo, again by co
operating in the release of Cardinal Alfonso, and lastly by
affording the Marquis of Montebello and the son of the Duke
of Paliano a refuge in Naples. The circumstance that he had
persisted in leaving Vargas, the faithful friend of the Carafa, in
spite of the strong wishes of the Pope, in his position as
ambassador in Rome, was calculated to dispel any suspicion
that he had been acting in concert with Pius IV.2
The Spanish king proved equally sagacious in the delicate
question as to what was to be done with the possessions of the
condemned men ; the same cannot be said of the attitude
adopted by Pius IV. with regard to this matter.
As the Carafa had been condemned to death, not only for
the murder of the Duchess of Paliano, but also expressly for
high treason and felony, their inheritance fell to the Apostolic
Camera. Justifying his action on this fact, the Pope seized
for his nephews, not only the movable goods of the Carafa,
but also their claims in law. Paliano was only to be handed
over to the Colohna when Philip II. had granted to the Pope's
nephews the same annual revenues as had formerly been
promised to the Carafa ! Philip at first made difficulties ; he
demanded the immediate enfeoffment of Colonna, and wished
the sums paid to the relatives of Pius IV. to be treated as a
favour, but in no sense as an obligation imposed upon him by
any agreement. This painful affair, in which Pius IV. appears
*See RAYNALDUS, 1561, n. 81. Cf. *Acta consist. Cancel!.,
VIII., on May 9, 1561, and Acta consist. Cam., IX. 42 (Consistorial
Archives of the Vatican).
a See HILLIGER, 1 8.
176 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
as an only too greatly interested party, was not settled until
the spring of 1562. l After the Pope's nephews had been
satisfied, the restoration of Paliano to the Colonna took place
on July I7th, 1562, 2 and it remained henceforth in their
hands.3 The former political power, however, of the family had
disappeared, and their wealth had also been seriously dimin
ished. In order to enable Marcantonio to liquidate the immense
burden of debt which he found in existence, the Pope dissolved
for him the entail, with the result that Nemi was sold to the
Piccolomini, Citta Lavinia and Ardea to the Cesarini, and
Capranica, Ceciliano, Pisciano and S. Vito to the Massimi.4
" An unheard of affair, and an example of Divine justice
that one should always have before one's eyes " — so wrote
Seripando in his journa1 after he had heard of the execution
of the Carafa.5 The scandalous administration of the family
during the period of their unlimited power under Paul IV., was
still so fresh in the memory of the people, that many thought
no punishment could be too severe, while they shut their eyes
to the injustice and tyranny which had been displayed during
the trial, and the political interests and the personal hatred
which had played their part in it. Pius IV. himself, does not
appear to have realized that, conducted by such bitter enemies
of the Carafa as Federicis and Pallantieri, the trial was bound
to be of a thoroughly prejudiced character. Onofrio Panvinio6
relates that Pius IV. had himself said to him that nothing in
lCf. SUSTA, Kurie, I., 206 seq., 287 seq,, II., 423 seq. ; ANCEL,
Disgrace, 164 seq.
2 See GORI, Archivio, II. , 315., Atti Mod., 3., Ser. II. (1883),
152 seq.
3 Cf. TOMASSETTI in the Arch. d. Soc. Rom., XXIX., 336 seq. ;
CAMPAGNA, III., 551 seq.
*Cf. REUMONT, Beitrage, V., 95, 103 and Rom. III., 2, 541.
°MERKLE, II., 464.
6 Vita Pii IV. (of. Appendix No. 37). Compare with this the
brief in RAYN ALDUS, 1561, n. 80, and the "letter to the Viceroy
of Naples, dated April 13, 1561, in which, in connection with the
release of Cardinal Alfonso, it says of the other Carafa : " Molestis-
simum tulimus, in aliis nimiam atrocitatem criminum et divini
honoris ac iustitiae zelum obstitisse." (Papal Secret Archives).
PIUS IV. AND NEPOTISM. 177
his whole life had been so difficult for him, or had saddened
him so much, as this sentence of death ; he would gladly have
shown mercy had this been possible without breaking the
laws, or if there had been any hope that the Carafa would
change their manner of life. Finally, the Pope added that he
had also been obliged to show severity in order to give a warning
to the relatives of future Popes, so that they might not misuse
their great position as the Carafa had done. The explanations
which Pius IV. gave to the Imperial ambassador on March
I4th, 1561, l and which he again repeated later, as in the
consistory on June 8th, 1565, and again a few months before
his death, on October I2th, 1565, 2 are in accordance with
Panvinio's statement.
The manner in which Pius IV. justified himself for his action
against the Carafa can be clearly seen from these explanations.
He wished, not only to punish their crimes, but also to stig
matize the whole system. The judgment of March 3rd, 1561,
was a deadly blow aimed at that form of nepotism which
consisted in founding principalities ; it condemned not only
the Carafa, but also the Borgia, Medici and Farnese. There
was now an end to the elevation of the Pope's relatives to the
rank of sovereign princes. The founding of such states for
the Papal nephews had only too often poisoned the political
activity of the Holy See since the time of Sixtus IV., and had
paralysed its efforts for reform. Paul IV., after he had learned
during the last years of his reign to what nepotism might lead,
had banished the nephews whom his successor had now
destroyed. This was of inestimable value for the success of
the Catholic reformation. The warning was efficacious.3
1 See SICKEL, Konzil, 184.
» Concerning the explanations of October see ANCEL, Disgrace,
168 seq. ; those of June 8, 1565, hitherto unknown, in the *Acta
consist, card. Gambarae, Corsini Library, Rome, 40 — G — 13.
8 A medal of Pius IV. bears the inscription : " Discite iustitiam
moniti " (BONANNI, I., 274). Concerning the effects of the
tragedy of the Carafa on the letterati see ANCEL, Disgrace, 1 59,
n. 4. To this belongs the *Capitolo in rima per 1' esecuzione
dei Carafa, in Cod. 1151 of the Trivulzi Library at Milan.
VOL. XV. I2
178 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
From this time forward the efforts of the Papal relatives were
limited to securing riches, honours, and great positions, and
to becoming the equals of the old noble Roman families.
This weakened form of nepotism was, of course, grave enough,
but it was, nevertheless, far less dangerous for the Church.1
1 Cf. RANKE, Papste, I., 209 ; DGLLINGER, Kirche und Kirchen,
524, 528 ; FELTEN in the Freiburger Kirchenlexikon, IX., 135,
and especially ANCEL, 182 seq. Ancel (p. 158, n. 3) quotes the
opinion pronounced by Saraceni on March 7, 1561 : " Et ancho
si vede aperta una strada non pifr usata da dugenti anni in qua,
cio6 di rivedere i conti a nipoti di Papi." Cf. also the statements
in the *Avvisi di Roma of June 8, 1560, and March 8, 1561,
Vatican Library (see Appendix No. 7 and 18).
CHAPTER V.
NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE REOPENING OF THE COUNCIL
OF TRENT.
THE most important, as well as the most difficult task which
the election capitulation had imposed on the new Pope was
the question of the Council, the means by which a stand was
to be made against the divisions in the faith and the abuses
in ecclesiastical affairs. It was not yet decided whether the
Council, which had been suspended in 1552, should be con
tinued, or a new one convoked, nor had anything been decided
as to the time and place of meeting. It was not advisable
to raise all these critical questions prematurely, and it was
therefore considered sufficient to give expression, in general
terms, to the desire of the best elements in the Church.
As to the question whether the Council of Trent should be
continued or a new one convoked, the most conflicting views
were held. While the Protestants, without exception, de
manded that everything that had been decided hitherto
should be revoked, and matters gone into again from the
beginning, strict Catholics insisted, very logically, that the
dogmatic decrees already issued were unchangeable and
irrevocable, as were the- canons of all other ecumenical
councils. The latter view, which was represented most
strongly among the secular powers by Philip II., was at first
shared by the Emperor, Ferdinand I. He, however, allowed
himself to be led away, later on, by consideration for the
Protestants, and he took up their claim as his own. The
French government acted in a similar manner, because their
position with respect to the Huguenots was very similar to
that of Ferdinand towards the German Protestants.1 Pius
1 See EHSES, Schlussakt des Kouzils, 43 seq.
179
l8o HISTORY OF THE POPES.
IV. had, therefore, to be prepared beforehand for the gravest
difficulties. In spite of this he was quite ready to give effect
to the intentions of those who had elected him, with regard
to the matter of the council. Only a few days after his
election, on December 3ist, 1559, he declared to the Imperial
ambassador, Francis von Thurm, that it was his desire speedily
to summon a general Council.1 He also insisted on his
determination to do so to the Cardinals, in a Congregation
on January 4th, 1560.2 He solemnly confirmed and renewed
the election capitulation in a bull of January i2th.3 The
appointment of a reform commission of fourteen Cardinals,
of which Angelo Massarelli was made the secretary.4 clearly
showed the wishes of the Pope with regard to the principal
task of the Council. Pacheco reports to the Spanish king,
as early as January i8th, that it was also the Pope's
intention to confirm the earlier decrees of the Council of
Trent.5
The principal difficulty, now as on former occasions, was
to secure unanimity of opinion among the most powerful
Catholic rulers, the Emperor and the Kings of France and
Spain, before the assembly of the Council.
The attitude of the Emperor, Ferdinand, at first gave reason
to hope for the best. His ambassador extraordinary, Count
Scipione d'Arco, who arrived in Rome in February, was
commissioned to raise the question of the Council.6 Arco
obeyed his orders, but at the ceremony of the obedienlia on
February lyth, 1560, he kept silence on this crucial matter,
plainly out of consideration for the attitude adopted by the
Protestant princes at the Imperial Diet of the preceding
1 Francis von Thurm to the Emperor on January i, 1560, in
SICKEL, Konzil, 23.
z See the * reports of Pacheco and Vargas to Philip II., of
January 7 and 9 (Simancas Archives) used by Voss, 1 5.
•RAYNALDUS, 1559, n. 38. LE PLAT, IV., 613 seqq. Complete
in the *Regest. Vat. 1918, in EHSES, Concil., VIII., 2 seq.
4 Massarelli in MERKLE, II., 343. Cf. supra Chapter II.
6 DO"LLINGER, Beitrage, I., 328.
6 Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 38 seqq.
DIFFICULTIES WITH THE PRINCES. l8l
year.1 Pius IV. expressed his wish to summon the Council
to the Spanish ambassador, Vargas, over and over again.
" He repeatedly proposes to do so," wrote Vargas on February
25th, " and yesterday he assured me in the presence of eight
Cardinals, that as soon as Your Majesty, the Emperor, and
the King of France were of one mind on this matter, he would
decide as to the time and place." In this conversation the
Pope also gave the assurance that he was not thinking of
holding the Council in Rome, but in some suitable place
whither the heretics could come, so that their want of good
will could be plainly seen if they did not accept the invitation.2
At the obedientia ceremony on March Qth, 1560, of the envoy
of the Polish King, Adam Konarski, Prior of Posen, Pius
IV. remarked that he was thinking of summoning the Council,
and he spoke still more plainly in the consistory of March
I5th, when the embassy of the seven Catholic Swiss Cantons
made their obedientia*
Obstacles on the part of Spain and France seemed all the
less likely as those powers had already adopted an article
concerning the Council at the peace of Cateau-Cambresis,
in April, 1559. At the beginning of 1560 Philip II. raised
the question of the Council at the French court, where it was
well received.4 When, however, the actual realization of
the matter was taken in hand, the widely divergent political
views and aims of the Catholic princes, and the conflict
between the actual or supposed interests of the state with
those of religion, became clearly apparent.
Even in the case of that power which was purely Catholic,
and uninflenced by domestic religious differences, even in
the case of Spain, the interests of the Church occupied, at
JSee Hist. Jahrb., XIV., 22 seq., and EHSES, Berufung des
Konzils, 2.
z See the report of Vargas, in Voss, 16.
3 See EHSES, Berufung, 2-3. The reply of Pius IV. to the
representative of the King of Poland is also in Cod. 73, p. 223,
in the Library of the Monastery of Ossegg.
4 Cf. Voss, 17, 19 seqq. Concerning the articles of peace, cf.
GACHARD, Corresp. de Marguerite, L, 172.
l82 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
first, by no means the first place. It could not escape a
keen observer that Philip II., whose policy was above all
directed to procuring and preserving peace, feared fresh
complications from a general council. He was afraid that
the peace, which had only recently been concluded at Cateau-
Cambresis, might be endangered, and Elizabeth. of England
so embittered against him that he might lose the position of
arbiter between England and France in the Scottish question.
The bringing forward, therefore, of the mattei, did not appear
opportune to the Spanish court, though, as the king was
dependent on the good-will of the Pope in several other
matters, he was exceedingly careful, at all events not to
thwart him in the matter of the Council ; at the same time,
however, he showed no zeal for that important question,
but, on the contrary, his efforts were directed to delaying
any decision with regard to it, as long as possible.1
This attitude of reserve on the part of the most important
power in Europe must have warned the Pope to move very
cautiously. The Bishop of Terracina, Ottaviano Raverta,
when he was sent as nuncio to Spain on March nth, 1560,
was simply commissioned to invite the king to support the
Pope in once again convoking the Council.2 Hosius, who
was sent to Vienna as nuncio at the end of March,3 was in
structed to preserve an attitude of reserve in the matter of
the Council. The Pope wished indeed to hold a General
Council, but he could do nothing in the matter until the
French and Spanish ambassadors had expressed themselves
with regard to it.4 Vargas informed Philip II. on April 8th
1 Cf. the exposition by Voss, 24 seqq., and especially that of
DEMBI^SKI, Ryzm, I., 151. See also EHSES, Berufung des
Konzils, 3.
2 See "Varia polit., 116, p. 38oa, Papal Secret Archives. Cf.
HINOJOSA, 112 seq. ; EKSES, loc. cit., and Concil., VIII., 10 seq.
3 Concerning the powers conferred on Hosius see the account
of MERGENTHEIM, I., 244-7.
4 Hosius had accordingly not spoken with the Emperor about
the Council until the beginning of May (cf. Voss, 30, 34). He
did not do so until May 10 (cf. his report of May 13, in STEINHERZ,
FERDINAND I. 183
that the Pope had openly declared that he intended to hold
a Council, and that he would proceed with its promulgation
as soon as the Emperor, France and Spain were of one mind
concerning it. On April 26th Francis von Thurm reported
to the Emperor that he understood from trustworthy sources
that the Pope would reopen and continue the Council at
Trent, and that money was already being collected to ensure
the carrying into effect of its future deliberations. The
ambassador further states that Cardinals Morone and
Madruzzo had begged him to ask the Emperor to urge on the
Pope in the matter, and that he had replied that His Majesty
had already done so through Count Arco, and that he himself
would omit nothing that pertained to his office.1
On May 2nd, Jean Babou de la Bourdaisiere, the brother
of the French ambassador, made his obedientia in the name of
Francis II. In his reply the Pope remarked that he had
wished to hold the Council since the beginning of his reign,
and that he now proposed to convoke it in the immediate
future.2 He was soon led to adopt a more decided attitude,
I., 23 seqq.}. The expression used by the Pope to the Polish
envoy has not the meaning which Voss (p. 30) attributes to it ;
it does not prove that the Pope's first zeal for the Council had
" gone to sleep " for the clause " si opus videbitur " does not
appear in the brief to the King of Poland, of March 22 (THEINER,
Monumenta Poloniae, II., 597). The supposition of Voss that
Pius IV. had only occasionally shown an outward zeal, is not in
keeping with the Pope's continued efforts. Besides this, Voss
contradicts himself when he writes on p. 32 : " The only thing
that was still done in Rome on the matter of the Council was
that they did not let it quite go to sleep." DEMBINSKI (Ryzm, I.,
31) is of opinion that, not only did Pius IV. not wish to evade
the Council, but that he had already had it in mind before the
question of the French national council arose. For a criticism
of Voss see also SAGMI)LLER, Papstwahlbullen, in n.
1 See Voss, 33 ; SICKEL, Konzil, 40, and especially EHSES,
loc. cit.
»RAYNALDUS, 1560, n. 24. LE PLAT, IV., 624. DEMBINSKI,
Ryzm, I., 255. Voss, 33. EHSES, VIII., 16. Cf. BONDONUS,
534. An *Avviso di Roma of May 4, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. i53»
184 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
in the direction of a more speedy convocation of a General
Council of the Church, being moved to this course by the
disclosures which were made to him concerning the grave
complications which had arisen in conditions in France.
The decision of the French Council of State to convene a
kind of national council of the members of the Gallican Church
on December loth, was reported to the Pope by Antonio
Vacca. This decision was calculated to cause the greatest
displeasure in Rome. The Popes had at all times, and with
justice, considered a national council as quite inadequate for
the removal of dogmatic disputes, and as being full of danger,
on account of ths risk of schism. Pius IV. feared that,
in view of the ferment then going on in France, and the
leanings towards a national Church which prevailed there,
such an assembly might lead to the falling away of that
country from its obedience to the Holy See ; besides this,
there was the fact that the assembling of a General Council
would thereby be rendered much more difficult. The Bishop
of Viterbo, Sebastiano Gualterio, who was sent to France
in the middle of May as the new nuncio, and who had pre
viously filled that office in the latter days of Julius III.,
received strict instructions to prevent the assembly of the
French clergy, and to declare that the Pope wished for a
General Council.1
How very much the Pope was alarmed at the danger
threatening in France, and how it forced him to act in a
decisive manner with regard to the Council without waiting
any longer for the opinion of the powers, is clear from the
reports of Mula, the Venetian ambassador in Rome. The
Pope declared to him in the most definite terms on May
27th, that he was resolved to prevent the French national
council by convoking a General Council, and that he intended
Vatican Library) mentions the congregation of 12 Cardinals
which deliberated about the Council, after the ceremony of the
obedientia.
1 See EHSES, Berufung des Konzils, 4 seq. Cf. the *letter of
Mula of May 25, 1560 (Court Library, Vienna), and EHSES, VIIL,
20 seq.
ENERGY OF THE POPE. 185
to bring the matter before the Cardinals in a few days time,
at a consistory, and that he would then acquaint the ambas
sadors with his decision. The suspension must be removed,
and the Council of Trent continued. He desired to carry
on the work of reform, even as to his own person and
his own affairs, but also to safeguard the interests of
the faith and of the Holy See. The Papal supremacy
must not be infringed, but he was not disinclined to
grant reasonable claims. Mula was specially instructed to
make secret inquiries in Venice as to whether the
government of the Republic would be prepared, in case
of need, to place a suitable city in their territory, as for
example Vicenza, at his disposal for the meeting of the
Council.1
The declarations made by Pius IV. in the consistory on
May 29th were to a similar effect ; two days later he again
spoke on the subject to the Venetian ambassador, and
amplified his previous statements. The Council, he said,
should undertake the necessary work of reform, including
his, the Pope's, own affairs, with complete freedom. In
order that this freedom might be assured, it must not
assemble at any place which, directly or indirectly, belonged
to the States of the Church, but neither must it meet in the
territory of heretics, where the bishops would not be in
safety.2
Pius IV. addressed himself to Ferdinand I. and Philip II.
in similar terms, and the instructions of Borromeo on May
25th and 26th, 1560, to the nuncios in Vienna and Madrid,
had a very determined sound. The Pope, it is stated in the
letter to Hosius, will anticipate the French national council
by continuing the Council of Trent, which was only suspended,
1 Cf, the full *account of Mula of May 27, 1560 (Court Library,
Vienna, and Papal Secret Archives), from which REIMANN (Unter-
handlungen, 595) was the first to quote a passage. See also
EHSES, VIII., 28.
z Cf. Mula's report of May 31, in REIMANN, loc. cit. ; EHSES,
VIII., 28. See also DEMBINSKI, Ryzm, I., 35 seq.
l86 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
but never closed. Vargas, the representative of Philip IL,
received a similar declaration.1
The solemn meeting of the ambassadors in the presence
of the Pope, which had been announced, took place on June
3rd, 1560. The ambassador of the Emperor, and the repre
sentatives of Spain, Portugal, Florence and Venice, were
present ; the Polish envoy was absent on account of illness,
as was the representative of France, on account of a dispute
about precedence with the envoy of Philip II. The Pope's
declaration struck a note that was as definite as could be :
" We wish for the Council, We wish for it emphatically, and
We wish it to be both free and general ; did We not wish for
it, the world would delay it for three or four years, on account
of the difficulties as to the place. In order to avoid all
disputes as to the place and the manner of holding the Council,
it is best to continue it in Trent ; later on it can be trans
ferred, if necessary, to another and more suitable place,
but it is impossible to spend more time in conferring upon
that question now, for the progress of heresy, in almost every
country of Christendom, makes immediate action necessary."
The envoys might make this decision known to their princes
by express messenger, and call upon them for their support.
They have already been informed of it by the Pope, but
have not yet answered. Should the Pope, contrary to his
expectations, meet with no response from the princes, his
decision would nevertheless remain unaltered, especially as
France was pushing forward a national council. In any case,
he hoped for favourable replies, and also that the German
princes would be present ; he believed he could take it for
granted that the Margrave of Brandenburg would attend.
" Whatever is decided upon by the Council," the Pope con
cluded, " your princes must assist us in carrying out. We
wish the Council to meet as soon as possible, and shall only
!The letter of Borromeo to O. Raverta in DEMBINSKI, I.,
257 seq., that to Hosius in STEINHERZ, I., 36 ; the declaration to
Vargas in his report of May 25, in Voss, 44. Cf. also EHSES,
Berufung des Konzils, 6 and VIII. , 27.
PHILIP II. AND THE COUNCIL. 187
wait for the replies of your princes before announcing it
publicly, and sending the legates."1
The desire of Pius IV. to carry this important matter
through, with the agreement of the Catholic powers, was
thoroughly justified, for the Holy See would require strong
support during the Council, while the help of the civil powers
would be necessary later on, for the carrying into effect of
the measures decided upon.
The first satisfactory answer came from the Spanish govern
ment. Philip II. had postponed a decision in his reply to
the nuncio, Raverta, even as late as April ist. At the begin
ning of May he yielded so far as to express his approval of
the convocation of the Council, but only on the condition
that the Emperor should also approve. It was only when
further news arrived from Rome and France that Philip
finally resolved, in a plenary meeting of his pi ivy council,
to accept the Council unconditionally. Three days later
he wrote to Vargas in Rome that, since a national council
was being threatened in France, a thing which might have
the gravest consequences, he gave his approval to the decision
of the Pope to hold a general council. The agreement of
France and the Emperor, however, was necessary. He
was glad that the Pope would continue the Council at Trent,
but the reform of abuses would have to be undertaken.2
The answer of the French government was much less
satisfactory, for the continuation of the Council was not at
1 Cf. the report of Francis von Thurm to the Emperor of June 3,
1560, in SICKEL, Konzil, 48, and *that of Mula on the same date,
used by REIMANN, loc. cit., 594 seq. Reimann rightly notes that
" Pius IV. took the first step, from which it is evident that he
was in earnest," and that MOCENIGO (p. 25) is unjust to the Pope
when he doubts his sincerity. See also DEMBII^SKI, Ryzm, I.,
37 seq. Cf. also the ""letter of G. B. Ricasoli of June 3, 1560
(State Archives, Florence), and the report of the Portuguese
ambassador of June 12, 1560, in the Corpo dipl. Portug., VIII.,
464 seq. See also the account in EHSES, Berufung des Konzils,
6 seq., and VIII., 29.
* Cf. Voss, 47 seq., 49 seq., 51 ; EHSES, Berufung des Konzils, 7.
l88 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
all in conformity with its policy. On June 2oth Francis II.
sent the Abbot of Manne to Rome,1 who was to say that the
King of France quite approved in principle of the decision
of the Pope to summon a General Council, but that he must
pronounce against its being held again at Trent, or being
regarded as a continuation of the suspended Council, which
had formerly been held there. The general assembly of the
Church must on the contrary be convoked anew, and in a
place to which one could feel sure that the Emperor and all
the estates of the Empire, Protestant as well as Catholic,
could repair. The opinion of the Emperor must be ascer
tained, to which the King of Spain must also submit himself.
As everything depended on the calming of Germany, the
French government recommended Constance in particular.
The Abbot of Manne was also instructed to give tranquillizing
assurances regarding the plan of a national council. He was,
at the same time, to let it be understood that the prospect
of such an assembly could only be given up if the Pope should
proceed without delay to convene a general council in the
sense desired by the French king. 2
The Emperor Ferdinand I. had only given a general answer
to the nuncio, Hosius, when the latter had first opened the
subject of the Council on May loth, reserving for a later date
a decision as to the time and place. When the nuncio,
after having received his instructions of May i8th,3 again
approached the Emperor on June 3rd upon this important
subject, he once more received an evasive reply. Accord
ing to his report of June 5th, Hosius seems nevertheless to
!See the report of G. Michiel in DEMBINSKI, loc. cit., 254.
Cf. BROWN, VII., n. 174; EHSES, Berufung des Konzils,
ii.
2 Instruttione del Re Christmo portata a N.Sre dall' abbate di
Manna sopra le cose del concilio, 1560 (Inf. polit., VII., 424 seq.,
Royal Library, Berlin), printed in EHSES, VIII. , 35 seq. Cf.
REIMANN, Unterhandlungen, 601 ; Voss, 54 seq. ; EHSES, Beru
fung des Konzils, u.
3 Printed in CYPRIANUS, 76, and STEINHERZ, I., 31 seq.
FERDINAND I. AND THE COUNCIL. 189
have received the impression that Ferdinand was agreeable
that the Council, after the removal of the suspension, should
again be summoned to Trent.1
On the same day the privy council assembled at Vienna
in order to come to a final .decision upon the matter.2 Two
Austrian statesmen, Georg Gienger, and the vice-chancellor
of the Empire, Sigmund Seld, had the chief influence there,
and they, like the great number of the Catholic estates of
the Empire, held the false view that the decrees of Constance
and Basle, which were inimical to the Pope, were lawful and
valid, and that a reform of the Church could only be possible
on this basis.3 The Emperor's councillors, as well as Duke
Albert of Bavaria, who arrived in Vienna on June 8th,
succeeded in making the most of a threatened invasion of
the Imperial dominions by the Protestants, in order to prevent
the Council desired by the Pope. Under the pressure of
this threat, Ferdinand became more hesitating than ever.
He who had encouraged the Pope in March, through Scipione
d'Arco, to summon the Council as quickly as possible, now,
when Pius IV. wished to proceed energetically with the
matter, did everything to keep him back. He gave his
approval to a memorandum,4 drawn up by Gienger, to be
handed to the nuncio, which made so many leservations,
and set up so many claims, which were, in part at any rate,
1 See STEINHERZ, I., 40 seq.
2 Consultatio quid agendum sit in negocio concilii, in SICKEL,
Konzil, 49 seq. Cf. EDER, I., 38 seq.
3 Cf. RITTER, I., 146 ; EDER, I., 36 seq. The attack, in the
otherwise thorough work of Eder, published in 1911, upon Janssen
for a false account of the character of Gienger, is obsolete, for the
passage in question was corrected by me in 1896 in the I5th and
1 6th editions of the IVth volume.
4 Scriptum C. M*18 in negocio concilii nuncio apostolico ex-
hibitum, in SICKEL, Konzil, 55-69, and EHSES, VIII., 39-51-
Cf. REIMANN, Unterhandlungen, 596 seq. ; Voss, 58 seq. ; EHSES,
Berufung des Konzils, 9; EDER, I., 43-7. Eder rightly
contends against Kassowitz (p. I seq.} that Gienger was the
author,
190 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
quite impossible of fulfilment, that the proposal of Pius IV.
seemed to be altogether negatived.1
In the introduction to this very comprehensive document,
indeed, the Emperor approves of the Pope's decision, and
he declares himself anxious for its immediate fulfilment.
He then, however, goes on to explain that on account of
the importance of the matter, and the differences of opinion
among the Christian princes, a period of at least a year would
be necessary for the preparation of the Council. The objec
tions and difficulties, on the solution of which a successful
issue depended, were set forth under six heads :
i. The war between France and England must be brought
to an end, as general peace among the Christian princes is
necessary for the holding and carrying out of a General-
Council.
a. The Pope must see that all the Christian powers,
not only Spain, France, Portugal, Scotland, Poland and
Venice, but also such kingdoms as have already fallen away
from the Church, such as Denmark, Sweden, and England,
are represented at the Council, and that all shall obtain a
hearing. Stress is especially laid upon the difficulty of
obtaining the participation of the Protestants, whose onerous
conditions, drawn up at the Imperial Diet at Augsburg in
1559, are appended for general information. Forcible
proceedings against the Protestants are not advisable, but
the Emperor promises to do everything in his power to induce
them to take part in the Council.
3. The personal attendance of the Pope, whose absence
was very prejudicial to the former assembly at Trent, is
stated to be essential.
4. Doubts are expressed as to whether Trent should be
chosen as the seat of the Council. The town is too small,
and since the beginning of the schism a Council has always
been needed in German territory. The most suitable place
of all would be Cologne, and after that Ratisbon or Constance.
1The opinion of STEIHNERZ I., Ixvii. Cf. EHSES, Berufung
des Konzils, 10.
FERDINAND I. AND THE COUNCIL. IQI
5. The Protestants declare that they were treated too
severely and harshly at the Council of Trent ; they did not
receive the letter of safe-conduct in the desired form, and
were not listened to sufficiently. As their participation
can be obtained in no other way, all their wishes in this
respect must be granted.
6. Great difficulties were created by the Pope's intention
of continuing the former Council by removing the suspension.
As far as the Emperor personally is concerned, he has not the
slightest idea of calling in question the decrees drawn up by
the Council, but a difficulty in the way of a continuation is
the fact that the Protestants intend to place the matters
already dealt with upon the agenda, and various Christian
princes — the allusion is to France — will not acknowledge
the former assembly as a General Council. Finally, reference
is made to the fact that, instead of the two years for which
the Council was suspended, eight have already elapsed.
Therefore, " as it is very evident how difficult the convoca
tion of the Council is, as its progress must be slow, its results
uncertain, and the carrying out of its decrees attended with
much greater danger than was formerly the case," the Emperor
advises the Pope to have recourse to other means for the
preservation of the Catholic faith, and the prevention of
further defections. As such he would propose, before sum
moning a Council, a thorough reform of the clergy, and, in the
meantime, to allow the laity the use of the chalice, and to give
priests permission to marry.
To this document was attached a memorandum which
once more briefly recapitulated the attitude of the Emperor
towards the plan of the Council, and limited the concession
of the chalice to the laity, and the marriage of priests to
Germany. These two documents were handed to Hosius
on June aoth.1 In the negotiations that followed, the latter
proved himself by no means capable of fulfilling his duties.
It would have been easy to show2 that the realization of
1 See Hosius to Borromeo, June 21, 1560, in STEINHERZ, I.,
54 se(l'
2 Cf. STEINHERZ, I., Ixiii.
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
several of the Emperor's requirements, such as the establish
ment of a general peace, and the participation of all the
Christian powers, was really not in the Pope's power, and
that others, such as the discussion anew with the Protestants
of points of dogma, which had already been denned in a
general council, meant nothing less than the overthrow
of the Church ; none of these points, however, were put
forward by Hosius. His misgivings only concerned points
of minor importance, such as several strong phrases or modes
of expression, certain false arguments, the quotations from
Scripture in favour of the marriage of priests, and in general
the theological and biblical proofs upon which the proposed
concessions were based. The Imperial statesmen made no
difficulty about taking into consideration objections which
left the essential points of the memorandum untouched.1
The document, altered in the sense demanded by Hosius,
was handed to the nuncio by the Emperor on June 26th,
and sent by the former on June 28th to Rome, where it
arrived on the evening of July I2th.2 The Imperial ambas
sador in Rome, Count Prospero d'Arco, also received a copy
of the document, as did Philip II. of Spain.3
The replies of the three principal Catholic powers arrived
in Rome in the course of July, 1560. The Abbot of Manne
was the first to deliver his letter, which he had received on
July 4th. On July icth Vargas and Tendilla presented the
reply from their sovereign, dated June i8th. Pius IV. ex
pressed to the Spanish envoys his great joy at the decision
of Philip II., in whom alone he had perfect confidence, and
at the same time acquainted them with the answer of the
French government. The Pope complained that the French,
although they spoke of a general council, obviously did not
want one. Their intention was to gain time by heaping up
difficulties and making promises, so that eventually they
1 Cf. STEINHERZ, I., Ixxi, 55, 63 ; BUCHOLTZ, IX., 678 seq. ;
SICKEO, Konzil, 70 seq. ; EDER, I., 50 seq.
2 See EHSES, loc. cit., 9.
8 See SICKEL, Konzil, 71 seq , 73 seq.
THE IMPERIAL AMBASSADOR.
might hold the national council they had spoken of.1 The
Pope laid the answers of the French and Spanish governments
before the Congregation of Cardinals as early as July nth.2
On July I4th the Imperial ambassador, Prospero d'Arco,
had an audience in order to submit the views and requirements
of Ferdinand, which had recently arrived from Vienna, to
the Pope. The latter, who had already, as a Cardinal during
the conclave, made known his inclination to grant concessions
with regard to the chalice for the laity and the marriage of
priests,3 again showed himself on this occasion not disinclined
to make such concessions, at the same time, however, ex
pressing his doubts as to whether much would be gained
by such a course. Such permissions, without the decision
of a Council, also appeared to him to be of doubtful value,
because difficulties might arise in consequence of them at the
Council, and others might feel that they too could ask for
further concessions independently of a Council.4 The Con
gregation of Cardinals, to which the Pope had submitted the
Emperor's reply of July I5th, also declared that the chalice
for the laity and the marriage of priests could only be granted
by the Council. Arco, who reports this, adds that the removal
of the suspension of the Council of Trent is definitely wished
for in Rome, and that he has it on good authority that if the
Emperor agrees to this, the Pope will give him an assurance
that the wished for concessions shall be made.5 Vargas
1 See Corresp. de Babou de la Bourdaisiere, 9 ; Vargas in
DOLLINGER Beitrage, L, 337 seq. Voss, 65 seq. Giov. Franc.
Canobio had brought to Rome the letter of June 18 ; see BROWN,
VII., n. 172-3.
8 See SICKEL, Konzil, 86 n. Cf. the *report of Mula of July 12,
1560 (Court Library, Vienna, and Papal Secret Archives) ; *Avviso
di Roma of July 13, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 181, Vatican Library).
3 Cf. supra p. 33.
4 See Arco's report of July 1.5, 1 560, in SICKEL, Konzil, 84 seq.
Cf. Voss, 67.
5 See SICKEL, 85. If Arco further declared that in that case the
Pope would also allow that they should treat with the Protestants
upon the " cose determinate in Trento " he was certainly not right.
VOL. XV. X3
IQ4 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
reported to Philip II. to the same effect on July i6th, and
recommended his sovereign to adopt the same attitude.
He thought that Feidinand I. and Francis II. would give
way later on, and represent to their subjects that the Pope
had acted in the matter without their agreement. Pius IV.,
however, was not to be prevailed upon to come to a final
decision without having an understanding with the two
princes in question. He intended, before he did anything,
to send Delfino as ambassador to the Emperor, to write to
France, and to confer on the whole matter with Spain.1
This policy, upon which Pius IV. decided, affords another
proof of his shrewdness as a statesman. In view of the
critical position of the Church, he wished, above all things,
to avoid any conflict with the great Catholic powers, and
from this came his dread of cutting the Gordian knot. In
order to bring about the assembly of the Council, in spite of
all difficulties, he was most careful not to give offence to the
princes, upon whom, in the first instance, everything depended,
by any definite decision, or by too great plainness of speech.
However firmly he was convinced of the necessity of a General
Council, he nevertheless let as little as possible be known
of the character of the new assembly, while he especially
endeavoured to evade the important question of the validity
of the decrees already issued. If he expressed himself on
this point in different terms to the French ambassador from
those he used to the representative of Spain, this did not
mean that his opinion on this essential matter was not firm
and clear, but that he desired to offend neither the one nor
the other by making a categorical pronouncement ; the
powers were intended to receive the impression that he was
ready to meet their wishes as far as possible. Even where
he could make no concessions, as a matter of principle, he
wished, at any rate in outward form, to accommodate himself
as far as he could, to the claims made upon him.2
1 Vargas' "letter on July 16 (Simancas Archives) used by
Voss, 67 seq.
2 See the excellent account in DEMBI£SKI, Ryzm, I., 31-3.
FRANCIS II. AND FERDINAND I. 195
Pius IV. spoke most openly to Philip II., whose views
really approached his own most closely. Prospero Santa
Croce, who had been appointed nuncio in Portugal, was
entrusted with the negotiations, and left Rome in the middle
of July, 1560.
His instructions about the Council,1 contained, besides a
number of other commissions, the following points : He was
first of all to express to Philip II. the exceeding joy of His
Holiness at the royal letter of June i8th, and at the same
time hand him copies of the very unsatisfactory answers of
Ferdinand I. and Francis II. The instructions emphasize
the fact that, in spite of this, the Pope held firmly to his
decision, and admonish Philip II. to do the same. To summon
the Council elsewhere than at Trent must delay the opening
and cause the canons already framed by the Council to be
called in question. As far as the other requests of the
Emperor are concerned, the Pope has no intention of granting
the concessions asked for without the authority of a General
Council.
The replies to Francis II. and Ferdinand I., whose requests
were, at any rate in part, impossible of fulfilment, were
somewhat delayed, owing to an illness of the Pope. The
first was handed in the middle of August to the Abbot of
Manne, who returned home a week later. In this the Pope
declares that he adheres to his determination to come to the
help of the miseries of Christendom by a General Council
of the Church, and that as soon as possible. Trent seemed
to be the best place for this, especially in the interests of a
speedy opening ; the Pope, however, would make no diffi
culty, after the Council was opened, about removing it, if
necessary, to some other city which was safe and not under
the suspicion of heresy. The King of Spain agreed to t he-
removal of the suspension, and the continuation of the Council,
1 Original minute in the *Varia polit., 117, p. 365 seq. (Papal
Secret Archives), printed in the Miscell. di storia Ital., V., 1013 seq.,
and in part in LAEMMER, Melet., 177 seq. Cf. Voss, 68, n. 128 ;
DEMBI&SKI, I., 158 seq., and EHSES, Berufung des Konzils, 8 and
VIII., 52 seq.
196 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
and would use his influence with the Emperor in this sense.
The Pope hoped that the king would do the same, and,
under the existing conditions, no longer contemplate a national
council.1
Zaccaria Delfino, Bishop of Lesina, a very skilful diplo
matist, and a great favourite at the court of Vienna, who
was well acquainted with conditions in Germany from earlier
days, was entrusted with the difficult and most important
task of winning over the Emperor to the views of the Pope.
His appointment as nuncio to Ferdinand I. had already
been made in July, but his actual mission was so long delayed
that he only left Rome on September 2nd, and arrived in
Vienna on the 28th.2
The Pope's answer to the Imperial memorandum of June
26th, which Delfino took with him, bears the date of August
30th.3 In this Pius IV. declares, in very decided terms,
his wish again to assemble the Council at Trent, notwith
standing the objections raised by the Emperor. In matters
of religion, he says, one must proceed without secondary
aims ; it was manifest in Germany that negotiations for
reunion, prompted by temporal considerations, had always
resulted in the infliction of grave injury on religion, as well
as on Germany herself. The Council must therefore be
opened without hesitation, and with the sole purpose of
helping the Church to regain her former position. The
Emperor's doubts and objections are then dealt with one
by one. The war between England and France is at an end.
Whether the Pope will be present in person at the Council
1 See SICKEL, Konzil, 88 seq. ; Corresp. de Babou de la Bour-
daisiere, 19 seq. ; Voss, 73 seq; ; EHSES, VIII., 55 seq. According
to the *report of G. B. Ricasoli of August 9, 1560, the reply to
France was read on the 8 in the " Congregatione della riforma "
(State Archives, Florence).
2 See STEINHERZ, I., 98 seq. Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 92 seq. ;
EDER, I., 55.
3 Printed in RAYN ALDUS, 1560, n. 56 ; LE PLAT IV., 633 seqq. ;
EHSES, VIII., 59 seq. Cf. Voss, 75 seq. ; STEINHERZ, I., Ixxix seq.
The corresponding letter of advice of August 31 in SICKEL, 92,
DELFINO AND THE EMPEROR. 197
is a matter for his own judgment. The Protestants who
appeared at Trent would have no grounds for complaint ;
they would receive safe-conduct in the most sure and complete
form, and would be listened to most willingly. The suspension
of 1552 had only been effected in order to await the end of
the war ; as universal peace now prevailed, the Council
could again come into being. The objection that Trent
was unequal to the task of providing the necessary main
tenance and accommodation was also disposed of. The
Emperor must realize that, in the places which he proposed,
it would be in the power of every reckless prince to suppress
the Council, but at Trent this would be impossible. His
Majesty must also remember that Trent had been formerly
approved of by all the Christian princes, including himself,
as a suitable place for the meeting of the Council, and that
those who now raised doubts in his mind had no other object
in view than to prevent the continuation of the Council.
An earnest admonition then follows, which implores Ferdinand
to consider the present state of affairs, and above all the
conditions in France, which require a speedy assembty of the
Council, and to agree, without taking into consideration any
personal advantage, but for the honour of God and the well-
being of the nations, to the convocation of a General Council
of the Church at Trent. This would also be in the interests
of the concessions which he desired, concerning the chalice
for the laity and the marriage of priests. In conclusion,
as in the answer to France, reference is made to the possible
subsequent removal of the Council to some safe place which
is not under suspicion of heresy.
Delfino is commissioned, in the very detailed instructions
which were given to him, and which were certainly drawn
up by Mo rone,1 to explain more fully the Pope's answer to
the Imperial memorandum. The nuncio is to point out,
with regard to ecclesiastical reform, that the Pope has taken
i Printed in Pogiani Epist., II., 130, and also in STEINHERZ, I.,
100 seq. ; cf. ibid., Ixxx seq. ; EDER, I., 56. Voss (p. 76 seq.) is
wrong in doubting the sincerity of Pius IV.
198 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
it in hand himself, but is also pleased that it shall be dealt
with in the Council ; he will be willing to submit himself to
it, should anything which calls for reform be found in his
own person. If these interior and religious reasons have no
effect, then the nuncio is to point out to the Emperor how very
much it is to his own advantage, even on political grounds, and
especially in order to secure the succession to the Imperial
dignity for his son Maximilian, that he should agree to the
holding of the Council at Trent. Should all these considera
tions have no effect, then Delfino is to declare that, in view
of the dangers which threatened the Church at that time, not
only in Germany, but also in other lands, and especially in
France, the Pope must summon a Council. His Majesty
should, also, in the event of its being held elsewhere than in
Trent, at least send his ambassadors and the bishops to it.
In the extreme case of the Emperor obstinately refusing Trent
or any of the places in Italy, and maintaining his demand for
reforms and concessions, Delfino is instructed to propose
that an assembly of bishops and theologians should deliberate
on these questions in Rome.
Prospero Santa Croce, who was detained by illness at
Avignon, was not able to reach Toledo before August 26th ;
two days later he had an audience with Philip II., who was
pleased to receive the communication of the nuncio, and
declared that he was prepared to send Antonio de Toledo to
France, to exhort Francis II. to give up the idea of a national
council.1 Toledo left the Spanish court as early as September
4th, with instructions, dated on the 2nd, to the effect that he
was to make energetic representations at the French court
in favour of a General Council, and to oppose a national one,
as being injurious and prejudicial to the interests of Christi
anity. Philip II. informed the Pope of this step in an auto
graph letter of September I4th.2
1 Santa Croce's report, dated Toledo, August 28, 1560, in the
Miscell. di storia Ital., V., 1034 seq. Cf. LAEMMER, Melet., 180 seq.
See also BROWN, VII., n. 194, and EHSES, VIII., 59.
aC/. LAEMMER, 181 seq. ; Miscell. di storia Ital., V., 1045;
PALLAVICINI, 14, 16, 8-10 ; Voss, 82 seq. ; EHSES, VIII., 63 seqq.
FRANCE AND THE COUNCIL. 199
This intervention on the part of Spain, however, did not
succeed in bringing about a change in the policy of France.
The Abbot of Manne had arrived at the French court on
September 8th with the Pope's reply. A royal edict of
September loth, 1560, definitely summoned a national council
for January loth, 1561. Antonio de Toledo, who reached the
French court on September 2oth, found himself faced by an
accomplished fact ; he returned as early as September 27th.
The answer of Francis II. which he took back to his sovereign,
renewed, in courteous terms, the previous demands of France,
and especially the refusal of Trent.1
The news which in the meantime had arrived in Rome from
France, had occasioned increasing uneasiness. At first the
Pope still hoped to gain something by complaisance, and
declared himself ready to summon the Council, if necessary,
to Vercelii, so as to make it possible to hold it more quickly.2
When, however, letters from Cardinal Tournon announced on
September 2ist the convention of the French national council
for January loth, 1561, Pius IV. felt himself obliged to take
decisive measures.3 On September 22nd he conferred with
the Cardinals,4 and on the following day he summoned the
1 Cf. PARIS, Negociat., 544 seq., 594 seq., 615 seq. ; LE PLAT, IV.,
650 seq. ; Voss, 82 seqq., 87 seqq. ; EHSES, Berufung des Konzils,
13 seq., 15, and VIII., 72 seq.
* Cf. Voss, 96 seq. ; ibid, for Pius IV's endeavours for reform
at that time, especially with regard to the residence of the bishops.
Cf. Massarelli in MERKLE, II., 347 seq. ; LAEMMER, Melet, 212 seq.
and the "reports of G. B. Ricasoli of September 2, 4, 12, and 13,
1560 (State Archives, Florence) ; the bull de residentia episco-
porum of September 4, 1560, in the Bull. Rom., VII., 55 seq.
Concerning the anxiety in Rome of. also the report of the Port-
guese ambassador of August 22, 1560, in the Corpo dipl. Portug.,
IX., 33, 35-
» The proceedings in France, in the opinion of REIMANN (Hist.
Zeitsch, XXX, 29) " must have vexed the Curia."
« It was proposed to send Tournon to the French court, to
give as much help there as he could ; but he was not to appear
as legate. Voss, 98 ; EHSES, VIII., 58 n. 5. Cf. ibid., 71 seq.
the letter of Pius IV. to Tournon.
200 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
ambassadors, with the exception of the representative of
France,1 to meet him, and then he communicated to them
the news he had received from Tournon, and declared that
he was now obliged to remove the suspension of the Council
of Trent, without making any reference to the validity or
non-validity of the decrees already issued. Should Trent
not prove a suitable place, the Council could be moved later
on to Vicenza, Mantua, or Monferrato. Although he wished
to deal with those who had fallen away from the faith in a mild
and friendly manner, they must not be suffered to issue com
mands to the Holy See in such a matter, but must be prepared
to receive them from him. The ambassadors were instructed
to communicate this to their princes, and to exhort them to
support the Pope. Prospero d'Arco, the representative of the
Emperor, was the only one to raise objections, but the Pope
rebuked him sternly, and the others acquiesced in a greater
or lesser degree.2 In accordance with this decision a new
commission was sent by Cardinal Borromeo to the nuncio,
Delfino, on September 24th, by which he was to induce the
Emperor to agree to the removal of the suspension of the
Council of Trent.3 Pius IV. on the same day sternly re
proached the French ambassador, Bourdaisiere, for the attitude
of France. He promised, however, at the ambassador's
request, to wait for another fortnight or month, until Francis
II. should have spoken to Cardinal Tournon, and conferred
further with him.4 The Pope gave the Imperial ambassador,
Arco, on September 25th, the calming assurance that nothing
but necessity had forced him to his declaration of the 23rd.
If the Emperor thought that he could procure a delay of the
national council from France until he had found out the views
of the Protestants, he would alter his decision in accordance
1 On account of the dispute about precedence with the Spanish
ambassador.
2 See Arco's report of September 24, in SICKEL, Konzil, 95
seq.t and the supplementary report of Vargas of the 25, in
Voss, 98-9.
3 STEINHERZ, I., 115.
4 See Voss, 101-2.
PHILIP II. AND THE COUNCIL. 201
with his wishes.1 As a report was current that the Pope
would remove the suspension without waiting for the answers
of the princes, Pius IV., in reply to a question from Count
Arco, assured him that he had not altered his intention of
waiting until the Emperor and the other princes had answered.
He again declared himself ready to transfer the Council to
another place, if His Majesty so desired.2 On September
2Qth the Pope revealed his intention of summoning the Council
in any case by his decision to postpone the enforcement of the
duty of residence on the part of the bishops, in view of their
participation in the General Council.3
Philip II. of Spain, in contrast to the policy of the Imperial
and French courts, demanded, not only in a general way that
the Council should be promulgated, and held as a continuation
of that formerly assembled at Trent, but also, in a special
way, that the decrees already published at Trent should be
declared to be binding. In consideration of the views held
by the other princes, however, the Pope did not think it
advisable to make the situation still more difficult in this way
by any express declaration. In order, however, that no
doubts as to his own good will in the matter should arise in
Spain, he informed the king, in a confidential letter of October
5th, that he had often considered this question, and had at last
come to the conclusion that it would be best, when summoning
the Council, neither to confirm the former decrees, nor to declare
them invalid, but rather to pass lightly over this question
with merely a few general references to it. To tranquillize
Philip he told him that he personally considered the Council
of Trent as good and holy, and that he especially approved
of the decree on justification, and that he would also declare
this at a consistory.4 On the same October 5th, the Pope
1 See the postscript to Arco's report of September 24 in SICKEL,
Konzil, 96.
2 See Arco's report of October 5, in SICKEL, 97 seq.
3 See Massarelli in MERKLE, II., 348.
4 The *letter of Pius IV. of October 5, in the Simancas Archives,
used for the first time by Voss, ioi.« Cf. the letter of Borromeo
to the nuncio in Spain, in EHSES, VIII., 78 seq.
202 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
received Philip's letter of September I4th, through Vargas,
with the news of the mission of Antonio de Toledo to France.
On the following day he praised the king's good will in a
Congregation of Cardinals, and once more emphasized the
necessity of speedily summoning the Council. As almost all
the Cardinals agreed to the continuation, it was resolved
to announce the removal of the suspension on the First
Sunday in Advent, to appoint the legates and to decide
upon the Festival of Easter as the day of opening.
Morone and Seripando were chosen as the probable
legates.1
Shortly after this, during the night between October 8th
and Qth, the news of the non-success of Toledo's mission
reached Rome. Vargas, who had an audience immediately
afterwards, announces that he found the Pope much depressed,
even though he had scarcely expected anything else. Pius
IV. said to Vargas : "As the French national council is now
definitely decided upon, I for my part will now delay no longer
in summoning the General Council. I no longer count on
France, and believe that the Emperor will continue to hold
back, from fear of complications in Germany. The Spanish
king is my only support. I shall therefore request his agree
ment to the opening of the Council in Trent, as a continuation
of the former assembly there ; it might then later on be
removed to a more suitable place, such as His Majesty would
approve. I hope that after the opening the Emperor and
others who still hesitate, will give their adherence." In a
later conversation with Vargas on October loth, the Pope
declared that he would address an autograph letter to Philip
II. This letter, dated October nth, declared his unalterable
determination to proceed to the continuation of th Council
1 See the report of Vargas in Voss, 101 seq., where the erroneous
account by Sarpi is corrected. Cf. also the letter of the Portuguese
ambassador on October 8, 1560, in the Corpo dipl. Portug., IX.,
48 seq. Morone had already been appointed as legate at the
beginning of June, 1560 ; see the report of Vargas in Voss, 45,
n. 89.
DETERMINATION OF THE POPE. 203
of Trent ; it was at once taken to Spain by Gherio, Bishop of
Ischia, together with that of October 5th.1
On October I3th, the Pope also informed the French
ambassador that he was firmly resolved to continue the Council
of Trent, and on the same day he discussed the matter in the
congregation of Cardinals, who almost all voted for the plan
of opening the synod by the removal of the suspension.2
Pius IV. declared to the Imperial ambassador on October I4th
that he could not delay the removal of the suspension later
than St. Martin's day ; he anxiously awaited the answers of
the Emperor and of the Kings of Spain and France before that
date.3
It has been justly remarked4 how striking a fact it was that
a person of such sanguine character as Pius IV. should, in
spite of all resistance, have held firmly to his plan of con
tinuing the Council of Trent. His high dignity, as the first
ruler of Christendom, seemed, as it were, to raise Pius IV.
above himself. It gave him the strength to carry through
the great task without wavering, in spite of all the difficulties
which presented themselves. The Council could no longer
lemain unfinished ; it must be brought to a close, if the Church
were not to suffer the gravest injury.
The representatives of the Pope at the court of Philip II.,
Prospero Santa Croce and the nuncio, Ottaviano Raverta,
made an official communication to the Spanish king on
October 24th, to the effect that the Pope, after serious consider
ation, had resolved to lose no more time in the matter of the
Council. After he had convinced himself that the Emperor
and the King of France could not be induced to agree to the
removal of the suspension of the Council of Trent, he wished
to order it without any further delay, or to remove it to some
lSee Voss, 102 seq. ; EHSES, Berufung des Konzils, 15-16,
and VIII., 86.
2 See Corresp. de Babou de la Bourdaisiere, 45 ; SICKEL,
Konzil, 116 seq. Corresp. of Card. O. Truchsess, 215, and the
report in EHSES, VIII., 88.
» See Arco's report of October 15, 1560, in SICKEL, Konzil, 104.
4 Voss, 104.
2O4 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
other city, either in Italy, in the dominions of His Majesty,
or in those of his allies, and in this he begged the king to
support him. Philip praised the Pope's zeal, and in general
terms declared his readiness to do so ; the final answer was
to be given to the nuncios in three or four days time. In the
meantime, the Spanish king laid the mattei before an assembly
of theologians for discussion. The latter were, as Santa Croce
learned, of various opinions ; some spoke in favour of removing
the suspension, and others for a new convocation of the Council.
On October 28th, the Duke of Alba addressed the question
to the nuncios, whether the Pope would prefer to remove the
suspension cr to summon a new Council, and whether he would
agree to Besancon as its place of assembly. The nuncios,
however, could give no definite answer on these two points.1
This change of front in the Spanish policy was the result of
consideration for France, after steps had again been taken
by the French ambassador to Spain, the Bishop of Limoges, to
come to an agreement on the matter of the Council. Philip
II. in his reply to the latter on October 3Oth, promised that
he would intercede with the Pope, so that the Council should
be convoked at once, and immediately after it had assembled
be removed to Besancon or Vercclli. This decision of the
Spanish king was then handed to the nuncios by Alba on
October 3ist.2 On November loth, Gherio left the Spanish
court for Rome, with an autograph letter from Philip II. to
Pius IV., in which the king agreed to the continuation of the
Council of Trent, and did not show himself averse to its subse
quent removal ; if this course were decided upon, he proposed
Besancon as a suitable place. In a letter to Vargas, written
at the same time, he declared that he could only agree if, for
the time being, all reference to the validity of the former decrees
of Trent were avoided.3
1 See the report of Santa Croce of October 31, 1560, in LAEMMER,
Melet., 182 seq. ; EHSES, VIII., 92 seq.
z Cf. ibid., 183 seq. Concerning the secret correspondence
of the nuncios with Rome, which, according to the wish of Philip II.
should have ceased, see Voss, no seq. As to this, cf. EHSES,
VIII., 93, and 118 in- the notes. 8 See Voss, in.
DELFINO AND THE EMPEROR. 205
Zaccaria Delfino, who had been entrusted with the mission
to Ferdinand I., arrived in Vienna on September 28th, and was
received in audience by the Emperor on the following day.
Ferdinand greeted him as an old friend,1 but did not show
himself inclined to deviate in any essential point from his
demands. He denned his standpoint in a written reply to the
Pope,2 which was expressed, indeed, in polite and submissive
terms, but in reality made no advances. Now, as before, he
persisted in his claim that the Council must be convoked as a
new one, while he still maintained his objections to Trent as
the place of assembly. Although, for his own part, he had
nothing to urge against a continuation at Trent, he did this
out of consideration for the Protestants, who otherwise could
not be induced to take part in the Council, and also on account
of those powers, such as France, who did not accept the previ
ous assembly, or had not been represented at it. In connection
with his expression of satisfaction at the Pope's reform work
in Rome, the Emperor, in conclusion, recalled the concessions
which he desired with regard to the chalice for the laity and
the marriage of priests. It is true that he declared that
he was also convinced that these points could best be dealt
with at a General Council, but in view of the many difficulties
which in the meantime stood in the way of its convocation, he
again recommended the consideration of these concessions to
His Holiness.
On October 8th the Emperor received the report of his
ambassador in Rome concerning the declaration made by
the Pope on September 23rd. At the same time Borromeo's
instructions to Delfino of September 24th arrived, where
upon the latter immediately requested an audience for Hosius
1 Cf. the report of Delfino and Hosius, dated Vienna, October 3,
1560, in STEINHERZ, I., 123 seq.
2 Text first published from the papers of Staphylus by SCH EL-
HORN, Amoenit., II., 479 seq., then in LE PLAT, IV., 637 seqq.,
and from the Papal Secret Archives by EHSES, VIII., 79 seqq.
Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 98 seq. ; REIMANN, Unterhandlungen, 609 ;
Voss, 115 seq. ; STEINHERZ, I., Ixxxiii seq. ; EDER, I., 58 ; EHSES,
Berufung des Konzils, 18.
206 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
and himself. Both nuncios appeared before the Emperor on
October gih, when they declared to him the Pope's resolve to
remove the suspension of the Council of Trent, and called upon
him for his support. Ferdinand handed them his written
answer to the Pope, adding thereto a declaration concerning the
whole question of the Council, which was couched in vigorous
and decided terms. He then pointed out that he gave no orders
to the Pope, but only wished to fulfil his duty as Emperor,
when he put forward his views on such important matters.
As far as he personally was concerned he was prepared to
accept any decision of the Pope, but he could not fail to sa~
clearly and distinctly to His Holiness that, in the event o.
the continuation of the Council of Trent, the participation of
the Protestants could in no circumstances be counted on, and
that they would even rise up in arms against it. As France
and the other powers also refused to accept the continuation,
the difficulties of Christendom could only be removed by the
convocation of a new Council, to which the Pope was, more
over, bound by the decisions of the Council of Constance,
He wished to support this good work, and left the question
of the time to His Holiness ; as far as he himself was concerned,
he was quite agreeable to Trent, which place was very con
venient for him, but as this name was hated in Germany, he
proposed Innsbruck. The Emperor also referred to the
necessity for the personal attendance of the Pope at the
Council. Finally he expressed his astonishment that the
work of reform in Rome was so slow, and carried out with so
little thoroughness ; he also especially touched upon the abuses
in the appointment of Cardinals, by which he referred to the
decisions of the Council of Basle.1 The satisfaction expressed
1 Concerning the audience of October 9, two reports were sent
to Borromeo on October 14 and 15, one from Delfino, and the
other from Delfino and Hosius together (see STEINHERZ, I., 132
seq., 135 seq). Cf. also the instructions of Ferdinand I. to Arco
of October 18, 1560, in SICKEL, Konzils, 109 seq. See EDER, I., 60
seq. Concerning the delivery of the Emperor's speech and the
author of the instruction. Eder comes to the following con
clusion : The influence of the Spanish Franciscan, Francisco di
VIEWS OF THE CARDINALS. 207
in the memorandum at the Pope's zeal for reform was, there
fore, already forgotten !
The nuncios could at any rate conclude from these signi
ficant declarations of Ferdinand, that if the Pope should
finally decide in favour of Trent, he would not oppose him.
If Delfino, however, thought that the Emperor, in spite of his
strong opposition to the continuation of the Council, would
leave the Pope a free hand in this respect, he was taking a
much too optimistic view.
In Rome, this view was not shared. On the arrival of the
Emperor's answer, Congregations were held on October 27th
and 28th, in which, an unusual occurrence, almost all the
Cardinals took part. At these deliberations a great divergence
of views became apparent. Several very highly respected
Cardinals, especially Carpi, as well as Cesi, Puteo and Saraceni,
spoke very decidedly in favour of the continuation of the
Council of Trent, and against the convocation of a new Council.
They were able to put forward weighty reasons for their
opinion ; in the event of a new Council being summoned, it
was to be feared that the whole of the work accomplished at
Trent would be lost, while should the decisions of Trent be
called in question, the same might be done with regard to
the decrees of previous Councils, and the consequences would
be incalculable.1 With regard to the German Protestants,
Cordova, the confessor of the wife of Maximilian II. "is certain
in the part about ecclesiastical reform (from about exinde ventum
to evenit Caraffis). The preceding part cannot be definitely
shown to have come from him, nor can his influence be admitted
in the part that refers to the new convocation of the Council."
xThe Portuguese ambassador also pointed out this danger
in a letter of August 22, 1560 ; see Corpo dipl. Portug., IX., 33.
On November 23, 1560, Hosius wrote to Commendone from
Vienna : *Si salva nihilominus remancrent concilii Tridentini
sub Paulo et Julio tertiis habita decreta, non multum, quin etiam
nihil referre putarem, indiceretur concilium an continuaretur,
sed si quid latet insidiarum in verbo indictionis, etiam atque
etiam diligenter considerandum censerem ac omni cura providen-
dum, ne sic indicatur concilium, ut omnis conciliorum authoritas
elevata vidiatur (Graziani Library, Citt£ di Castello).
208 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
it was of no importance whether the Council were described,
in accordance with the Emperor's wishes, as a completely new
one, since they had repeatedly declared, and most recently
at the Diet of Augsburg in 1559, that they would acknowledge
no assembly of the Church which was summoned by the Pope.1
They arrived, however, at no definite decision, and Madruzzo
advised them to deliberate further on the matter, to which
proposal Pius IV. also agreed.2
In the Curia much dissatisfaction was felt at the attitude
of Delfino. In a letter from Cardinal Borromeo, of November
2nd, reproaches were made to him that he had expressed the
Pope's intentions to the Emperor with too little vigour.3
Delfino defended himself in a detailed letter on November
I7th. On his arrival in Vienna he had found the situation
almost hopeless, as the Emperor had been worked upon by
France to oppose the continuation of the Council of Trent,
and to agree only to its being held at Spires, Constance, or
some similar place. He had, however, in a few days, managed
to win over Ferdinand to submit to the decision of the Pope
with regard to the time and place of the Council, and even to
agree to Trent, though he had also proposed Innsbruck. The
Emperor, therefore, was not in favour of a new Council, and
against a continuation, because he did not acknowledge the
assembly at Trent, the decrees of which he personally accepted
with all faith, but because he saw that France would not agree,
lSee JANSSEN-PASTOR, IV., 15-16, 19 seq., 135. Cf. REIMANN,
Unterhandlungen, 590.
2 See. Arco's report of October 30, 1560, in SICKEL, Konzil, 123,
and the letter of Mula of November i, 1 560, Court Library, Vienna
(EHSES, VIII., 94). See also the 'report of Fr. Tonina of Novem
ber 2, 1560, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua. Cf, PALLAVICINI, 14,
17, i ; REIMANN, loc. cit., 610 seq. Seripando had already been
summoned by the Pope on October 19, and had conferred with
him on the 20, and again on the 30 concerning the Council and
reform. MERKLE, II., 461-2.
8 The contents of Borromeo's letter, which no longer exists,
may be gathered from Delfino's reply of November 17 ; cf.
STEINHERZ, I., Ixxxviii, 157 seq.
ADVICE OF DELFINO. 2OQ
and that Germany threatened to take up arms against it.1
Delfino allowed it to be plainly seen that, because of these
weighty reasons, he approved of the Emperor's point of view,
and would recommend it in Rome. In a later letter,2 he even
made proposals in this sense. He said that it would perhaps
be well to publish no conciliar bull, but rather four briefs
relating to the Council. The first, addressed to the legates
of the Council, would contain their appointment and admonish
them to listen patiently to everyone, and to treat them in a
friendly manner. The prelates would be summoned and in
vited by a second brief to the Council, which was to be assem
bled at Trent ; in this brief no mention would be made, either
of the summoning of a new Council, or of the continuation of
the former one ; a remark could at the same time be made to
the effect that, although the Pope had appointed legates, he
would appear in person in so far as his health would allow him
to do so. The third brief, to the Emperor Ferdinand and the
other Catholic kings and princes, would beg them to support
the Council, and prevail upon the German piinces to agree to
it. Finally, the fourth brief would be addressed to the secular
Electors, and " the other princes of the noble German nation
who had fallen away from the Catholic faith ; " the Pope
might say to them that, because of their noble forefathers,
who had always been shining lights in Christendom, he could
not believe that they would obstinately resist reunion ; they
should therefore be invited to the Council, with the promise
that they should receive safe-conduct, be listened to with
great patience, and be treated with every consideration.
However, by the time these two letters from Delfino arrived
in Rome, the decisive step had already been taken.
It had certainly not been without influence in bringing
this about that the French court, in consequence of a letter
written to the king by Ferdinand, at the instigation of Delfino,
had suddenly,3 on October I4th, given way on the question
1 See STEINHERZ, loc. cit.
•Preserved as a supplement to Delfino's letter to Morone of
November 18, 1560, in STEINHERZ, I., 162 seq.
8 See EHSES, VIII., 87 seq.
VOL. XV, 14
210 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
of the Council. On November ist, a courier had been sent
to Rome with the declaration that France accepted the
last proposal to summon the Council at Vercelli, or some
other place in Piedmont, and begged the Pope to communicate
this to the Emperor and Philip II. ; the national council
would not be held, but a definite decision of the Pope with
regard to a general council must be laid before the States
General, which were to assemble on December loth.1
After the departure of the courier news arrived from Vienna
that the Emperor had given his consent to Trent, and in
consequence of this a second messenger was sent on November
2nd to convey to the Pope the agreement of the French
government to Trent. Francis II. wrote to the Emperor
on November 6th that he would refrain from assembling a
national council.2
The courier sent by Francis II. on November ist, reached
Rome on November nth, and the second messenger must
have arrived shortly afterwards. On November i4th Car
dinal Borromeo wrote to Santa Croce, the nuncio in Spain,
" The Emperor and the King of France have decided to
agree that the Pope shall hold the Council at Trent, but
desire that it should be summoned anew. As the Pope
under no circumstances will agree to the Council of Trent
or its decrees being invalidated, he is having the question
as to whether the convocation shall take place, without
prejudice to those decrees, discussed by the Cardinals and
other theologians. The bull of convocation will accordingly
be drawn up and published in from ten to twelve days time,
as is required by our duty to God and the welfare of Christen
dom ; a longer delay is excluded by the occurrences in France
and the king's promise to refrain from a national council."3
At a consistory of November I5th the Pope announced that
the princes had agreed to Trent as the seat of the Council,
1 LE PLAT, IV., 655 seq.
* See ibid., 657 seq. ; EHSES, Berufung des Konzils, 20 seq.,
VIII., 97 seq.
'See EHSES, Berufung des Konzils, 21.
A DECISION ARRIVED AT. 211
and that the necessary preparations would be undertaken
with the consent of the Cardinals. Fasts and intercessory
prayers must be ordered for the whole of Christendom, while
a special procession and a High Mass at S. Maria sopra
Minerva would take place in Rome. Cardinals Saraceni, Puteo
and Cicada, together with several other theologians would be
entrusted with the drafting of the bull of convocation, and
their draft would be laid before the Cardinals in consistory.1
The decision so suddenly arrived at, after such long dis
cussion, was soon known in Rome, and caused great
astonishment.
The following occurrences clearly showed that they were
faced with an accomplished fact. The indulgence which
usually preceded the conciliar bull, was published on Novem
ber 1 9th, and in this the Pope announced his resolve to
summon and continue the General Council, in accordance
with the advice, and with the consent of the Cardinals, in
the same city of Trent, where his predecessors had already
held the Council. Fasts, prayers and alms would be ordered
to implore the Divine blessing, and to the faithful who added
to these good works a contrite confession and a worthy com
munion, a plenary indulgence would be granted as in the
year of Jubilee.2
1 There are two reports of the consistory of November 1 5 :
(i) Acta consist. Cancell. printed in RAYNALDUS, 1560, n. 67, and
LAEMMER, Zut Kirchengeschichte, 73 seq. ; (2) Acta consist.
Cancell. in EHSES, Berufung des Konzils, 21, where there are
particulars on the relation between the two accounts. See the
text of both in EHSES, VIII., 100. Cf. also the letter of Card. O.
Truchsess of November 16, in his Correspondence, 222 seq., and
the report of Vargas in Voss, 127. EHSES (p. 23 seq.) completely
rejects the attempt (Voss, 129) to attribute the decisive influence
upon the deliberations in the Curia upon the question of the
Council to Duke Cosimo I. The matter, however, would bear
further investigation according to the documents in the State
Archives, Florence.
2 Concerning the bull of November 1 5, in which the two contrary
expressions indicere and continuare are simply placed one after
212 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
This jubilee was closed by the Pope himself with a solemn
procession, which took place on Sunday, November 24th.
The grand cortege proceeded from St. Peter's, through the
Via de' Banchi, Monte Giordano, and the Piazza, della Dogana,
to S. Maria sopra Minerva, where the Cardinal Bishop of Porto,
Ridolfo Pio di Carpi, celebrated High Mass. In the pro
cession Pius IV. walked barefoot, accompanied by Cardinals
Farnese and Santa Fiora, and all the Cardinals then in Rome,
twenty-one in number, were also to be seen. The ambassadors
first carried the baldachino over the Pope, and afterwards the
nobles. All the members of the Curia took part in the pro
cession, as did also the secular and regular clergy, as well as
the seventeen secular confraternities of Rome, and the Duke
of Florence, who walked between the two junior Cardinal
Deacons, Carlo Borromeo and Giovanni de' Medici, his own
son.1 The Roman people showed great piety during the
ceremony, and many communicated in order to gain the
indulgence.2
The publication of the conciliar bull had also been originally
intended for November 24th, but its appearance was delayed,
as such great differences of opinion had arisen among the
Cardinals, canonists and theologians who had been summoned
to the conference, among whom was the General of the Jesuits,
the other, by which, however, no deception was intended, and
still less any solution of the difficulty, see EHSES, Berufung des
Konzils, 23. The full text, but with wrong date is in the
Corpo. dipl. Portug., IX., 96 seq. ; also in EHSES, VIII.,
100 seq.
1 See Massarelli in MERKLE, II., 349 ; BONDONUS, 537 ; *letter
of Fr. Tonina of November 27, 1560 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua)
the Portuguese report in the Corpo dipl. Portug., IX., 129. An
*Avviso di Roma of November 30 states that Vargas had claimed
that in the procession the ambassadors should walk after the
bishops and in tront of the Cardinals, and that in the end Pius IV.
had assigned to the bishops their place behind the balachino.
The procession was " bellissima et veramente rara." (Urb. 1039,
p. 228b, Vatican Library).
» See BONDONUS, 537.
THE BULL OF CONVOCATION. 213
Lainez, that violent discussions ensued.1 In consequence of
this, the bull could only be read in consistory on November
29th. Before it was read the Pope made a speech in which
he pointed out the necessity of speedy measures in view of
the dangerous position of the Church, and the threatened
national council in France. After the bull -had been read,
he explained it, and indicated as the tasks of the General
Council the eradication of heresy, the removal of schism,
and the reform of the Church. At the end he remarked to
Cardinal d'Este that the national council would thus be
prevented, to which the Cardinal replied that it was already
destroyed.2
In the bull of convocation, which bears the date November
29th, 1560, 3 Pius IV. glances back at the history of the Council
under his predecessors, Paul III. and Julius III., who had been
unable to bring it to an end owing to the difficulties of the
times. This account is in such a form as to take it for granted
that the former acts of the Council, which had been combatted,
partly by the Imperialists and partly by the French, were
valid.4 The Pope then expressed his sorrow at the continued
spread of heresy. As the good and merciful God had again
granted peace to Christendom, he now hoped to be able to
put an end to the great evils of the Church by means of the
Council. After having fully deliberated on the matter with
the Cardinals, and communicated his decision to the Emperor
and the kings and princes, and found them ready to support
the holding of the Council, he now summons the holy, ecumeni-
1 Cf. as to this Voss, 131 seq., who uses especially the reports
of Vargas. See also the "report of Fr. Tonina of November 23,
1560 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua) ; further DEMBI^SKI, Ryzm, I.,
220 seq., and GRISAR, Disput., II., 9*.
2 See Acta consist, in DEMBII^SKI, loc. cit., 256 seq., and EHSES,
VIII., 103. Cf. also Tonina's ""report of November 30, 1560
(Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
8 Printed in RAYNALDUS, 1560, n. 69, and more fully in Bull.
Rom., VII., 90 seq., and in EHSES, VIII., 103. Cf. Corpo dipl.
Portug., IX., 99 seq. A facsimile in SWOBODA, 96.
4 Pallavicini rightly emphasizes this (14, 17, 6).
214 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
cal and general Council to Trent ; it is to be opened there under
the repeal of each and every suspension, on Easter Sunday
next.1 The patriarchs, archbishops, and all those who,
according to common law, or privilege, or prescriptive law or
right, have a seat and vote on the Council, are admonished to
appear at Trent on the appointed day. A request is addressed
to the Emperor and the other princes, that if it be impossible
for them to be present at the Council in person, they shall at
least send envoys, and see that the prelates undertake the
journey without delay, and are in a position to fulfil their
duty.
On November 3Oth copies of the bull, with the accom
panying brief, were sent to the Catholic princes.2 On the
same date a brief was sent to all the bishops of France,
containing an invitation to the Council, a special one being
sent to Cardinal Tournon.3 On Sunday, December 2nd,
the bull of convocation was made public, by being read
in St. Peter's and the Lateran, and by being affixed in the
usual places.4
By the words " under repeal of each and every suspension "
the bull gives expression to the fact that the Council, in
1 Sacrum oecumenicum et generale concilium ... in civitate
Tridentina ad sanctissimum diem Ressurrectionis dominicae
proxime futurum indicimus, et ibi celebrandum sublata suspensione
quacumque statuimus et decernimus.
2 The briefs to the Emperor and Francis II., in RAYNALDUS,
1560, n. 70 and 71 ; LE PLAT, IV., 663 seq. Besides this brief
Pius IV. sent to Ferdinand I. on December 4, 1560, an autograph
letter (SICKEL, Konzil, 147). The brief to the King of Portugal
in the Corpo dipl. Portug., IX., 107. See also EHSES, VIII.,
in seq.
8 RAYNALDUS, 1560, n. 72. LE PLAT, IV., 664 seq.
4 See Massarelli in MERKLE, II., 349 ; BONDONUS, 546. Tonina
*reported on December 4, 1560 : " Lunedi fu congregatione
sopro questa cosa del concilio, della quale ancorche gia sia pub-
licata la bolla . : . stampata et attacata ai muri, nondimeno
ancora si disputa fra cardinal! il suo tenore essendo sopra quelli
ale tin i dispiaceri." (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
CONTINUATION. 215
accordance with the will of the Pope, shall be a continuation
of the previous assembly at Trent, but out of considei ation
for the Emperor and for France, this is put in as reserved a way
as possible, and with a careful avoidance of the word " con
tinuation."
CHAPTER VI.
THE MISSION OF COMMENDONE AND DELFINO TO GERMANY.
Pius IV. and his advisers, by their carefully considered and,
in various points, intentionally vague wording of the bull of
convocation of November 2gth, 1560, wished, as far as possible,
to avoid giving offence to the powers, and to evade the danger
ous controversial question as to the relation existing between
the Council now summoned to Trent, and the former assembly
held there. Out of consideration for the Emperor and France,
the word " continuation " was not used, while, out of con
sideration for Spain, the convocation of a. new Council was not
definitely mentioned. As far as principle was concerned,
however, nothing was yielded by this ; the highly impoitant
question of the validity of the previous decrees remained only
in apparent abeyance. The basing of the convocation on
the historical fact that the Council had already been assembled
on two occasions, and not brought to a conclusion, but only
adjourned, as well as the use of the significant expression
" under repeal of each and every suspension " pointed clearly
to a continuation, and let k be seen that a renewed discussion
of decrees already promulgated, contrary as it was to Catholic
principles, would not be tolerated. On the other hand, the
words " We summon a Council " made it possible for the
Emperor and France to see therein a concession to their wishes.
In this way an attempt was made to do justice to both views,
although they were incompatible and irreconcilable.1
1 See STEINHERZ, I., 172. REIMANN says: "the bull causes
a very high opinion of the skill of the 3 Cardinals and 12 canonists,
of whose manifold deliberations it was the result." (Unterhand-
lungen, 614). Cf. also DEMBII&SKI, Ryzm, I., 228 seq., and EHSES,
Schlussakt des Konzils, 45.
2l6
THE BULL SENT TO FRANCE. 217
The great question was whether the formal concessions
adopted by Papal diplomacy, and which attempted to provide
a middle course between two powerfully opposed attitudes,
would satisfy the great Catholic powers. It was soon evident
that this was by no means the case. The long negotiations
were again renewed, and repeated missions of nuncios
extiaordinary became necessary in order to secure the
acceptance of the bull and the bringing into being of the
Council.
The delivery of the conciliar bull to France was entrusted
to the secretary of Cardinal d'Este, Niquet, Abbot of St.
Gildas, who had come to Rome on September 24th, 1560, with
dispatches from Francis II. to his ambassador, Bourdaisiere.
When Niquet reached Paris on December I7th, 1560, Francis
II. was dead, and his younger brother, Charles IX., then only
ten years old, had succeeded him (December 5th, 1560).
Affairs of state were now in the hands of the Queen-Mother,
Catherine de' Medici, but the change of government had led
to no alteration in the question of the Council. People
appeared to be glad at the idea of a general council being at
last summoned, but objected to the words " under repeal of
each and every suspension " and expressed the fear that the
Protestants, and, out of consideration for them, the Catholics
of Germany as well, would not acknowledge a council which
took for granted the validity of the former decrees. It was,
however, decided to delay making an answer until the
Emperor's attitude could be ascertained. The French
ambassador in Vienna, Bochetel, Bishop of Rennes, was
instructed to discuss the matter with him. Should
Ferdinand not accept the bull, they resolved, in union with
him, to demand an alteration from the Pope. In this
event, Bourdaisiere, the ambassador in Rome, was in
structed to act in concert with the representative of the
Emperor. 1
While the French government was raising difficulties because
1 Cf. LE PLAT, IV., 668 seq. ; PALLAVICINI, 15, i, 5 seq. ;
REIMANN, Unterhandlungen, 614 seq. ; SICKEL, Konzil, 154 n.
2l8 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
the bull pointed to a continuation of the Council of Trent, the
Spanish king was displeased because the continuation was not
expressly and clearly proclaimed. Philip II. and his coun
sellors, in their great zeal for the Catholic faith, feared that
Pius IV. might give way still further, and, in order to win
over the Protestants, allow a renewed discussion of the
decrees already formulated. It was not, however, difficult
to satisfy Philip II. on this point. The greatest danger for
Pius IV. lay in the possibility of an understanding between
the French government and the Emperor, as together they
might be able to enforce their will upon him in the matter of
the Council.1
As a matter of fact, of all the princes, Ferdinand had the
least occasion to make further difficulties, as his request that
the continuation of the Council should not be definitely spoken
of had been complied with, but the Emperor's constant fear
of a sudden attack by the Protestants, which caused him to take
quite exaggerated measures to reassure them, prevented him,
on this occasion as well, from declaring himself boldly in
favour of the Council.2
Pius IV. chose Giovanni Commendone, Bishop of Zante,
to deliver the bull of convocation to the Emperor, and he was,
at the same time, commissioned to announce the Council to
the ecclesiastical and secular princes in north Germany,
Belgium and the Rhineland, Zaccaria Delfino, Bishop of
Lesina, receiving instructions to travel through central and
south Germany for the same purpose. In order to publish
the invitation to the Council in the widest manner possible,
the Pope had thought of allowing his representatives to visit
the Protestant princes as well, but by so doing he would
expose himself to the danger of offensive refusals, so he com-
1 How much the Pope feared this is evident from the * report
of Cusano of January n, 1560 (State Archives, Vienna).
*STEINHERZ very justly remarks (I., xci) that nothing was
more significant of the anxiety with which Ferdinand I. regarded
the Protestants than the fact that he did not wish to publish
the indulgence bull of November 15, because there was mention
in it of the continuation of the Council.
GIOVANNI COMMENDONE.
forted himself with the consciousness of having fulfilled his
duties as chief pastor.1
Giovanni Commendone had begun his diplomatic career
under Julius III. and Paul IV., in many missions, and in
the office of the Secretary of State. He had also come in con
tact with that part of north Germany which he was now to
visit, when he had accompanied the legates Dandino (1553)
and Rebiba (1556). 2 He left Rome on December nth, 1560, 3
and arrived in Vienna on January 3rd, 1561. 4 He delivered
to the Emperor, in addition to the bull of convocation, a brief
and an autograph letter from the Pope. The brief contained
an invitation to send envoys to the Council, and a request
to order the bishops of the Imperial dominions to proceed
to Trent. The autograph letter assured him once more that
the Germans invited to the Council would be listened to with
kindness and charity, and their just demands satisfied.
1 Cf. Mula's "report of November 18, 1560 (Court Library,
Vienna) ; SICKEL, Konzil, 149, 148 seq. ; STEINHERZ, I., 171 seq. ;
EHSES, Ein papstlicher Nuntius, 39.
2C/. Vols. XIII., 149, XIV., 119 of this work.
8 The day of departure, which was not hitherto known for
certain, is given as December 10 in the *Viaggio, mentioned
infra p. 225 n. 3 (Chigi Library, Rome). As there only exists
a copy of this authority, preference must be given to the following
statement in Fr. Tonina's "report of December u, 1560 : " II
Commendone e partito hoggi per la corte Ces. con 120 brevi "
(Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
4 The "Register of the reports of Commendone from Germany,
written by Antonio Maria Graziani, is found in the Graziani
Archives at Citta di Castello, and has been made accessible for
the first time by the researches of J. Dengel. Afterwards it was
published in part by Steinherz in the 2nd volume of the 2nd
section of the Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland. A later copy,
already used by PALLAVICINI (15, 2, 5) is in Cod. Barb., 5798
(formerly LXIL, 58). Cf. also SUSTA, Kurie, I., 139, 312, 319.
Finazzi has published part of the letters, but with many errors,
in the Miscell. di storia Ital., VI., 3 seqq. A splendid new edition
in EHSES, VIII., n. 80 seqq. The "Viaggio in the Chigi Library,
Rome, mentioned infra p.225 gives details of Commendone's route.
220 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
On January 5th, 1561, Commendone, as well as Hosius
and Delfino, had an audience with the Emperor.1 The latter
did not conceal his objections to the wording of the Papal
briefs, but, nevertheless, declared himself ready to further
the Council. He then recommended the nuncios to proceed
without delay to the Diet summoned by the Protestant princes
for January 24th at Naumburg. He requested to be informed
in writing as to what the Pope wished him to communicate
to the princes. The nuncios, who had been forbidden to
undertake written negotiations, so as to avoid protracted
and dangerous correspondence, had scruples about complying
with this request. As Ferdinand, however, insisted on having
at least Commendone 's proposal in writing, they felt bound
to give way, so as not to endanger further negotiations. They
therefore gave him a note from Commendone, drawn up in the
shortest possible terms, to which the Emperor, in his turn,
gave a written reply on January 8th. He praised the Pope's
resolve to invite the German princes by means of the two
nuncios ; from the Catholic states of the Empire, and especially
from the ecclesiastical ones, he thought that the Pope's
representatives would be sure to meet with ready obedience.
With regard to the Protestants, he repeated his advice that
they should visit the Diet at Naumburg, and exhorted them
to act there in a spirit of clemency ; he intended himself to
send envoys to Naumburg.2
There was no possibility of the nuncios seeking fresh instruc
tions as to their course of action from Rome, and as the
Emperor's representations were very urgent, they resolved,
hoping for subsequent approval, to modify their programme,
and to repair together to the Diet of the princes at Naumburg,
*See the report to Borromeo of January 9, 1561 ; January
9 and 13, 1561, composed by Delfino in the names of Hosius and
Commendone as well as himself, in the Miscell. di stor. Ital., VI.,
20 seq., in EHSES, VIII., 128, n. 80, 131, n. 82.
2 The note of the 5, and the Emperor's reply of January 8 in
RAYN ALDUS, 1561, n. 20, more correctly in PLANCK, Anecdota
fasc. 2i, and EHSES, VIII., 123 seq. Cf. REIMANN, Commendone,
241.
ATTITUDE OF FERDINAND I. 221
proceeding afterwards to the legatine districts prescribed to
them. At a further meeting on January i2th, the Emperor
recommended three further points for their consideration.
First, as the Protestant princes looked upon the Council which
had been summoned as a continuation of the former one,
and were therefore full of suspicion, this suspicion must be
removed. Second, it was necessary to act in a very discreet
manner when dealing with the Protestants, and to offer them
safe-conduct in the widest acceptation of the word. Third,
when at Naumburg, they should accommodate themselves
to the German usage, and negotiate in writing. To the
second point, it was possible for Commendone to agree un
conditionally, but to the first he answered that they were
not sent to dispute with the Protestants, but only to invite
them to the Council, where everyone would be able to speak
freely on all points, and would be listened to in the most
courteous manner. With regard to the third point, Com
mendone referred to his instructions, which forbade written
negotiations in order to avoid useless disputes.1
On January Qth Ferdinand replied to the brief, and on the
I5th to the Pope's letter. Both documents, it is true, gave
hopes, in general terms, of his supporting the Council, but
threw no light on the Emperor's own intentions.2 His idea
was to make his decision dependent on the answer of the
Protestant princes assembled at Naumburg. While he
invited the latter, through his envoys, to send delegates
to the Council, he at the same time emphasized his firm
resolve, under all circumstances, to preserve religious
peace.3
Commendone and Delfino left Vienna on January i4th ;
they travelled as quickly as cold and snow permitted, by
way of Prague, where they were received by the Archduke
1 See Commendone's report of January 13, 1561, in the Miscell.
di stor. Ital. VI., 32 seq., in EHSES, VIII., 131 seq. Cf. PLANCK,
loc. cit. ; REIMANN, loc. cit.
* See SICKEL, Konzil, 1 59 seq.
8 See ibid., 157 seq.
222 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Ferdinand, and arrived at Naumburg on January 28th.1
There, in accordance with their instructions, they en
deavoured at first to negotiate with the individual princes
separately, but in this they were not successful, and
had to make up their minds to appear before all the
princes assembled in the Diet. This took place on
February 5th.2 The nuncios first handed to each prince
the brief addressed to him, together with a copy of
the bull of convocation. They then invited the assembled
princes by word of mouth to participate in the General
Council. Delfino assured them that the Council would
not only, and above all, grant them a hearing, but also
all just demands. As there were almost as many opinions
concerning religion as there were individuals, and as many
gospels as teachers, he begged them to send their envoys to
Trent, who would receive safe-conduct in the fullest form,
and thus to secure the re-establishment of xeligious unity.
Commendone pointed out that this was the very moment
for a Council ; peace now reigned between France and Spain,
and the present Pope had zealously resolved to abolish all the
abuses which had crept into the Church and to restore the
weakened ecclesiastical discipline. They must consider that
it was a question of the faith and of the salvation of souls ;
if the foundations of religion were to be destroyed, then the
kingdoms would also fall to pieces. The assembled princes
desired the nuncios to give them what they had said in writing,
1 See Commendone 's report in the Miscell. di stor. Ital., VI.,
42, 45, 50 seq., and the *Viaggio in the Chigi Library, Rome,
quoted infra 225, n. 3.
* Cf. the report of Commendone, composed also in Delfino's
name, of February 8, 1561, in the Miscell. di stor. Ital., VI.,
54 seq., more correctly previously in POGIANI Epist., II., 229 n.,
and also in EHSES, VIII., 149 seq., and the report of Delfino of
February 9, 1561, published by SICKEL in the Neuen Mitteilungen
des thiiringisch-sachsischen Vereins, XII. (1869), 531 seq. Cf.
ibid., a criticism of the reports on the negotiations of the nuncios.
Concerning the Diet of the princes at Naumberg see JANSSEN-
PASTOR, IV., 15-16, 138 seq.
THE NUNCIOS AT NAUMBURG. 223
but desisted when the latter appealed to their instructions
to the contrary.
The nuncios had hardly returned to their temporary lodgings
when they were subjected to insulting treatment, similar to
that which had been shown to the envoys of Paul III. at
Schmalkald.1 Three of the councillors brought back the
briefs with the statement that the princes had only remarked
the address " Beloved son " after they had gone ; as they
did not acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as their father,
they must reject the appellation of " sons " as well as the
documents which had been delivered. The nuncios replied
that the Pope had made use of the term which had been used
from time immemorial towards all Christian princes. The
councillors thereupon laid the briefs upon the table. The
bull of convocation, however, which was a much more im
portant document, and brought the Papal authority into
prominence in quite another manner than did the conventional
address of the briefs, was not among them ; the answer to
this arrived two days later. It was not merely a rejection,
but was couched in rude and offensive terms. The Pope,
it stated, had no right to summon a Council, or to pose as a
judge in ecclesiastical disputes, as it was precisely he who
was the originator of all errors, and who suppressed the truth
more than anybody else The outstanding work of the
Popes had been to stir up nation against nation, and to increase
their own power by weakening that of the people. They
proceeded with cruelty against all those who would not abase
themselves to the adoration of their persons and their false
deities, yet who wished to live in true piety. Then these
very princes who were just then disputing with each other
at Naumburg about the true Confession of Augsburg, went
on to deny the existence of any religious disunion. They
were unjustly accused, they impudently maintained, of not
possessing religious unity, yet there was not only their clear
confession of faith at Augsburg, which had been handed to the
Emperor in 1530, but various other documents which had
1 Cf. Vol. XI. of this work, p. 88 seq.
224 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
amplified and spread more widely the true divine doctrine.
On the other hand the Roman Church was inundated with
errors and abominable abuses, and the Gospel teaching there
was so violently distorted, that it resembled heathen idolatry
rather than a Christian community. The Electors and princes
had been driven by the stern command of God to avoid
idolatry, and to separate themselves from the Roman Church,
and they were by no means willing to allow the Pope to make
laws for them ; it was Ferdinand, the Roman Emperor,
who alone was their master, and had the right to summon a
Council.
Commendone answered this insulting declaration calmly
and with dignity : The Pope had summoned the Council in
the manner which had always been observed in the Church ;
the Emperor, to whom the princes ascribed the right to
summon a Council had too much discernment not to see the
difference between spiritual and temporal authority. The
Pope had had his attention fixed upon reform ever since he
ascended the throne, and he had summoned the Council all
the more gladly as it was precisely in that way that a general
reformation could best be undertaken. That divisions and
uncertainty of opinion existed among the followers of the new
religion was no unjust reproach, but a fact patent to the eyes
of the whole world ; it was perfectly evident from the writings
of their theologians, which had been cited by the princes,
and which were full of many new opinions, all contradictory
of each other. If the princes maintained that they had
certainty in their faith, then the novelty, the deviation from
the rest of the Church, the separation from the ordained power,
must at anyrate affect this certainty and make them doubtful,
especially in a matter where it was a question of eternal
salvation or eternal damnation. St.' Paul, the vessel of
election, who, according to his own testimony, had received
his gospel, not from men, but by revelation, yet received by
revelation the command to go to Jerusalem and compare his
gospel with that of the Apostles, so that he might not run or
have already run in vain. Commendone further enjoined the
princes to reflect that from the days of the Apostles all the
THE NUNCIOS AT NAUMBURG. 225
ancient fathers had always turned to the Church of Rome
as their teacher and rule of truth ; the Germans themselves,
as they must acknowledge, had received Christianity from
her. They should remember the words of the Gospel : " How
often would I have gathered together thy children, as the
hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou
wouldest not ! "l
Although the answer of the princes contained no reply to
the invitation of the nuncios, there could yet be no doubt
that they rejected the Council. Even Delfino, who com
forted himself in his sanguine way, recognized how hostile
those assembled at Naumburg were to the Pope, and feared
that the other Protestant princes and states would follow
their example.2 On February nth he and Commendone
visited Bishop Julius Pflug, who lived at Zeitz, and who
promised to come to Trent. The nuncios separated on
February i3th ; in spite of their different characters they
had got on well together as Venetians. Delfino, in accord
ance with his instructions, went to south Germany, while
Commendone commenced his journey to the north.3
1 See REIMANN, Commendone, 247 seq., 273 seq.
*Cf. Delfino's letter to Ferdinand I. of February 10, 1561,
in BUCHOLTZ, IX., 673 seq. ; REIMANN, loc. cit., 248.
8 The principal sources for Commendone's mission are his
letters, which are now to be found in a good edition, thanks to the
care of EHSES (cf. supra p. 219 n. 4). There is also a detailed
description of his whole journey from Venice until his return
there. This *Viaggio d' Alemagna fatto dal cardinale [sic]
Commendone 1' anno 1560 [until 1561] scritto da S'e Fulgenzio
Ruggieri Bolognese et copiato da Giov. Franc. Scardova Bolognese
1' anno, 1596, is preserved in Cod. M — I — 2, p.p 1-68 in the Chigi
Library, Rome. Heidenheimer has published some notes from
this in the Korrespondenzblatt der Westdeutschen Zeitschrift
fur Geschichte und Kunst, XXI., 117 seq. TreVes, 1902, under
the title of " Ein Italiener des 16. Jahrhunderts iiber Rhein-
landisches und Westphalisches," but they do not by any means
exhaust this source, which is so full of interest for the history of
the Church and of civilization (cf. PASTOR, Eine ungedruckte
Beschreibung der Reichsstadt Aachen aus dem Jahre 1561,
VOL. XV. 15
226 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Commendone refrained from visiting Weimar, as Duke
John Frederick did not even condescend to give him a direct
answer, but merely sent him a message that " he had less
than nothing to discuss with the Roman Bishop ! " The
Elector Augustus of Saxony had provided the nuncios at
Naumburg with letters of safe-conduct for his dominions,
and expressed his regret that he had not met them in a city
belonging to him, but at an assembly for which he had had
to show some consideration. Commendone was accordingly
politely received at Leipsic by the municipal council and the
university, although the whole city was Protestant. From
Leipsic he proceeded by Magdeburg to Berlin, which he
reached on February igth, and where he took up his residence
for a time. Pius IV. had built great hopes on the Elector
Joachim II., as he had made his personal acquaintance many
years before during the Turkish war. Joachim1 acknow
ledged this circumstance by an almost oppressive amiability
verfasst von dem Italiener F. Ruggieri, Aix, 1914). Heiden-
heimer has also overlooked the fact that a great number of passages
had already been published in 1746 and 1756 by LAGOMARSINI,
De scriptis in vita Minerva II., 16 seq., and in POGIANI Epist.,
II., 235 seq. Lagomarsini erroneously ascribes the itinerary to
Graziani. Concerning the account of Germany, drawn up by
Commendone after a Venetian model (in BELLINGER, Beitrage,
III., 310 seq.) cf. SUSTA, Kurie, If., 412. Since, of other accounts,
the monograph of PRISAC, Die papstlichen Legaten Commendone
und Cappacini in Berlin (Neuss, 1846) contains nothing new, there
need only be mentioned REIMANN, Commendone, 250 seq., who
(p. 273 seq.) contributes a criticism of the articles on the subject
in earlier works (Raynaldus, Pallavicini, Gratianus) and the
valuable essay of EHSES, Ein papstlicher Nuntius am Rhein,
39 seq.
1 The character sketch of the Prince Elector given by Ruggieri
in the *Viaggio mentioned in the previous note is printed in
LAGOMARSINI, De scriptis, II., 21 ; there is also a short description
of Berlin at that time. Concerning Brandenburg, Ruggieri says :
*Ci sono alcuni frati Franciscani che dicona la messa et i suoi
uffitii secretamente in un monasterio, ma ci stanno con gran
paura (Chigi Library, Rome, loc. cit.).
COMMENDONE IN BERLIN. 227
and hospitality towards the Pope's representative.1 The
cunning Hohenzollern overwhelmed Commendone with marks
of attention, assigning him a lodging in the best part of his
castle, repeatedly inviting him to his table, and holding long
and confidential theological discussions with him. Com
mendone might well have great hopes that his mission would
be successful here, because the Elector received without any
difficulty the bull of convocation and the brief addressed
to him ; the answer, however, which he finally received,
although very courteous, amounted to a refusal.2
The brother of the Elector, the Margrave John of Branden
burg, whom Commendone, while at Berlin, visited at Beeskow,
also received him with great politeness, giving him, however,
an answer which was an even more definite rejection than
that of Joachim II.3 The son of the Elector of Brandenburg,
Archbishop Sigismund of Magdeburg, to whom Commendone
delivered the bull and a brief from the Pope, promised, on
the other hand, to come soon to Trent ; he would, he said,
apply to the Pope with the greatest confidence for advice
and help in his ecclesiastical affairs. The prince who thus
gave these solemn assurances was already at that time a
Protestant in secret, and openly adhered to the Augsburg
Confession before the year was out.
Commendone 's stay in Berlin came to an end on March
3rd. On his departure Joachim II. handed him a polite
answer in writing to the Pope's brief. The Elector, whose
marks of attention were continued to the end, also wished to
bestow valuable gifts upon the nuncio. Commendone,
however, begged him to refrain from doing this, and rather
to grant him two other favours, namely to agree to read
the controversial work of Hosius, " Confession of the Catholic
Faith," and to restore to the poor Carthusian monks, who
1 See EHSES, Ein Nuntius, 40.
2 Cf. REIMANN, Commendone, 251-9; EHSES, VIII., 171 seq.
3 The reply of John of Brandenburg, dated February 26, 1561,
in SICKEL, Konzil, 176 seq. The detour to Beeskow took place
on February 25 ; on the 26 Commendone started for Frankfort -
on-Oder, returning to Berlin on the 28 ; see "Viaggio, loo. cit.
228 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
had still managed to maintain themselves near Frankfort on
Oder, some property which had been taken away from them.
The Elector promised to grant both requests.
However greatly Commendone may have appreciated the
benevolent frame of mind and the good will of Joachim II.
towards a peaceful settlement of the religious disputes, he
had no illusions, however, as to the attitude which this prince
would adopt with regard to the matter of the Council.1 The
often repeated claims of the Elector that the Protestant
theologians should be granted a vote at the ecumenical Council
could not, in accordance with Catholic principles, be allowed.
Commendone remained at Wolfenbiittel, with the aged
Duke of Brunswick, Henry the Younger, from March 8th
till the I3th. This prince, who had remained true to the
old faith, declared himself ready to send envoys to Trent.2
On the I4th Commendone arrived at Hildesheim, where
he did not meet the bishop of that place, Burkard von
Oberg. The Duke Eric II. of Brunswick and the Bishop
of Osnabriick were also absent, so Commendone delivered
the Papal invitation to the Council to their councillors.
At Paderborn, where Commendone arrived on March
22nd, he at last found a city which still remained entirely
Catholic. The bishop, Rembert von Kerssenbrock, promised,
in spite of his great age, to attend the Council. Munster
was reached on March 26th. In contrast to Paderborn,
many had fallen away from the church in the diocese
of Munster, which was certainly in consequence of the
want of vigilance on the part of the bishops of the
district.3 The metropolitan of that time, Bernhard von
Raesfeld, did not appear to show much zeal in the carrying
out of his pastoral duties, and his reply was in keeping with
his conduct : he endeavoured to excuse himself from going
to Trent, on account of the proximity of the Protestants
and the disobedience of his subjects.
1 Cf. the passages from the letters cited by REIMANN, p. 259, n. i.
*C/. EHSES, VIII., 177.
8 C/. Ruggieri in the *Viaggio in the Chigi Library, Rome,
quoted supra, p. 225. n. 3,
COMMENDONE AND THE ELECTORS. 22Q
On the way to Cologne Commendone touched on the
dominions of the Duke of Cleves, where he again found many
Lutherans. Things looked better in the territory of the
Elector of Cologne, whose capital the nuncio reached at the
end of March. There he took up his residence in the Abbey
of St. Pantaleon. The nuncio and those who accompanied
him were astonished at the number of churches, said to be
as many as three hundred, and at the rich treasures of relics
which the Rhenish metropolis possessed. The city was not
quite free from heresy, but the zeal with which the people
frequented the churches made a most favourable impression
on the Pope's representative.1 His original intention, of
spending Holy Week in Cologne, and then carrying out his
commission, he had to give up on learning that a Diet of the
German Electors was to be held at Frankfort on the 2Oth.
He could not fail to take advantage of this favourable oppor
tunity of furthering the matter of the Council, so he im
mediately repaired to Briihl to see the archbishop, Johann
Gebhard of Mansfeld, who was grievously ill. The answer
which he received there, however, was very unsatisfactory.
In sending this to Cardinal Borromeo, he wrote : " I do not
believe that any of the bishops are thinking of coming to
Trent. The princes of the other religion do all they can to
prevent their appearance there, and in this manner to weaken
the authority of the Council."2
Commendone visited the Elector of Treves, Johann von
der Leyen, by making a journey to Coblence. The two pre
lates understood each other very well, and made friends,
although, even more strongly than the other bishops, Johann
insisted on the impossibility of leaving his people or diocese,
in view of the dangerous position of affairs, and the ex
periences of 1552. 3
In his conversations with the Archbishop of Treves, whose
diocese still remained entirely Catholic, Commendone spoke
xSee Ruggieri, *Viaggio, Chigi Library, Rome.
2 Letter of April n, 1561, in EHSES, VIII., 18 seq.
3 See EHSES, Ein Nuntius, 41, and VIII., 193 se<J-
230 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
with great frankness1 of the sad experiences he had so far
had during his journey through north Germany. " Religious
conditions in Germany," he explained, " are in such a state
that the application of the remedy must not long be delayed ;
the longer we hesitate the more difficult and dangerous it
will become. The number of the heretics increases from day
to day ; they have not only won over the greater number
of the secular princes, but the territories of the Catholic
princes, both ecclesiastical and seculai, are so polluted and
infected that they can hardly exact service from theii subjects,
nor the customary taxes and obedience. Still, there is no
doubt that the power of the Catholic states of the Empire
is greater than that of the Protestants, and nothing causes
these last to be so respected and feared as their external unity,
though at heart they are much divided, and only united
by their common hatred of the Catholic religion, and their
greed for the ecclesiastical property that still remains. It is
therefore most necessary that the Catholic princes should
at once be truly united and on good terms with each other,
from which it would become possible to hope for every good,
and a happy outcome to the Diet, and even without this the
way would be opened to the Council." Johann von der
Leyen informed Commendone in confidence of the obstacles
which had hitherto frustrated the formation of a Catholic
confederation. Commendone, however, adhered firmly to
his opinion that, if they did not make up their minds to
unite the Catholics, and set them free from their state of fear
and subjection, religious affairs would become almost des
perate. The Archbishop of Treves himself does not seem
to have been free from this state of fear, as was shown by his
pronouncements with regard to the Diet of the Prince Electors
and his answer in the matter of the Council, that he could
not appear in person at Trent, on account of the certain
dangers to which he would expose his territory by his absence.2
1 *In questo stato sono manco heretici che negl' altri degl'
elettori di Colonia et Moguntia et per tutto si vive catolicamente,
writes RUGGIERI, loc. cit.
2 See the letters of Commendone of April 14 and 21, 1561, in
EHSES, VIII. , 191 and 194. Cf. REIMANN, Commendone, 261 seq.
COMMENDONE AT COLOGNE. 23!
On April igih Commendone was once more in Cologne,
where he received the visit of the Bishop of Osnabriick,
Johann von Hoya. This prelate, whom in other respects
Commendone highly praises, also dwelt upon the disturbed
state of the country, and the dangers which thieatened the
bishops who should travel to the Council. He proposed that
the archbishops should be commissioned by the Pope to hold
provincial synods, and these should appoint several bishops
to go to the Council, the other bishops remaining behind for
the protection of their own and the other dioceses. Com
mendone, however, protested against the dangerous and
tedious plan of holding provincial synods.
The answer of the municipal council of Cologne, and of the
university of that city to the invitation to the Council was
satisfactory. Commendone, however, did not conceal from
himself the fact that eve a in Cologne grave dangers threatened
the Church. He set great hopes on the Jesuits for averting
these dangers, but the latter had to contend with great diffi
culties in the Rhenish capital, owing to the jealousy of the
clergy, and especially of the mendicant orders. The nuncio was
much grieved by the incredible apathy of so many Catholics.
" It looks," he wrote, " as if our people were those who believe
in faith alone without works, so little do they appear to
trouble about the redress of the present evil conditions. On
the other hand, those who stand outside the truth and can
therefore find no real unity, do endeavour to support one
another and to give an appearance of being united."1
Commendone found conditions much worse than in the
archdiocese of Cologne, when he entered the Duchy of Cleves,
the capital of which he reached on April 26th. The apostasy
from Rome had there made great progress, and there were
many heretics in Cleves. The city of Wesel was almost
entirely Protestant, at Diisseldorf a declared Protestant was
teaching five hundred pupils, and the court preacher gave
the people communion under both kinds. Commendone lost
letters to Borromeo of April 21 and 25, 1561, in EHSES,
VIII., 194 seqq.
232 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
no time in remonstrating with Duke William IV., but was
very cautious in doing so. This was very necessary, as the
Duke was out of temper on account of the hesitation of Pius IV.
to grant permission for the foundation of the university at
Duisburg.1 As a change of religion on the part of the Duke
of Cleves might have incalculable consequences, on account
of the position of his country, Commendone endeavoured to
pacify him and advised Rome to make all possible advances.2
In the matter of the Council, Duke William showed very good
will as to the sending of envoys, expressing at the same time
the wish that the chalice might be granted to the laity, and
permission given to priests to marry.3
From Cleves, Commendone visited the Netherlands, starting
for Utrecht on April- 29th, where he arrived on the 3Oth.
Thence he travelled by Dordrecht to Antwerp, which he
reached on May 3rd, remaining there until the i2th. Here
he received Cardinal Borromeo's instructions that he should
also visit the King of Denmark and hand him personally
the invitation to the Council.4 If he should be successful in
winning over this prince, the most powerful in the north,,
who was also related to the two most important courts of the
1 Upon this affair cf. SUSTA, Kurie, 109 seq.
8 The affair dragged on till 1562. On June 15, 1562, the bull
for the erection of the university of Duisburg was sent to the
Duke, antedated April loth ; see LACOMBLET, Urkundenbuch, IV.,
n. 564; SUSTA, Kurie, II., 211.
8 To the accounts already noted, and profitably treated of by
REIMANN, Commendone, 264 seq., and LOSSEN, Masius' Briefe,
331 seq., must be added the *Viaggio of Ruggieri, where we read
of the religious conditions of the country : *Quanto alia religione
il duca non mostra di dissentire in altro della fede cattolica che
nella communione sub utraque specie ch' egli riceve apertamente ;
la sua corte e quasi tutta lutherana. Nei stati si vive per il piu
alia cattolica, ma per tutti i luoghi sono molto heretici (Chigi
Lib., Rome).
4 *Letter of Borromeo of March 4-7, 1561, Lett, di princ.,
XXII., 113 (Papal Secret Archives). Cf. SUSTA, Kurie, I., 199,
and EHSES, VIII. , 169 seq.
COMMENDONE IN THE NETHERLANDS. 233
German Protestant princes, Brandenburg and Saxony, he
would indeed have attained a great deal. In view of the
attitude which the Danish sovereign had hitherto taken up,
however, there appeared to be very little hope of success.
In spite of this Pius IV. did not wish to leave any means
untried.
In order to cany out this visit to Denmark, Commendone
required special letters of safe-conduct and recommendation
from the Emperor, and these could not be obtained very
quickly. In the meantime the indefatigable nuncio employed
the interval in carrying on further work in the Netherlands
to ensure the sending of delegates to the Council. On May I2th
he proceeded by Malines and Louvain to Brussels, and during
his stay there (May 22nd) carried on negotiations with Marga
ret, the Governess of the Low Countries, and with Cardinal
Granvelle, who both displayed great zeal for the Council.
They, however, advised Commendone against the journey
to Denmark, as being dangerous to his own person, and not
in keeping with the dignity of the Pope. Commendone was,
however, of opinion that it was the duty of a servant to carry
out unconditionally the orders of his master, and that he
should take no thought for his own danger.1 At Louvain
the nuncio had made inquiries concerning the theological
controversies which had been stirred up by the professor
Michael Baius, who was a lover of innovations ; he reported
the facts to the Pope, giving him the shrewd advice, which
Pius IV. followed, to impose silence on both Baius and his
opponents.2
In the person of the Bishop of Liege, Robert van Berghen,
Commendone made the acquaintance of a prelate who was
distinguished both for his learning and piety, and who showed
an ardent zeal for the Council, although he was suffering from
serious illness. The nuncio left Liege on May 3oth. During
1 Cf. the letters of Commendone in EHSES, VIII. , 205 seqq.
9 Cf. ibid., 221 seq. ; PALLAVICINI, 15, 7, 7 seq., n seq. ; SUSTA,
I., 34 seq., 49 seq. The affair of M. Baius will be dealt with later,
in its proper place.
234 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
his stay in Belgium he had also been occupied with the matter
of the recently established bishoprics.
In the Imperial city of Aix Commendone confirmed the
municipal council and the citizens in their great zeal for the
old faith. There was a want of suitable delegates for the
Council in the city, and therefore the councillors promised
a strict observance of any decrees which should be issued
by the Council at Trent.1
On June 2nd Commendone left Aix-la-Chapelle on his
return journey to Antwerp, where he stayed for three weeks,
waiting for news from Rome. On the 24th he started for
Amsterdam, from which city he went on to Liibeck, by way
of Osnabriick. His stay in this entirely Protestant and very
profligate city, which he reached on July gth, was to last for
quite two months, and in the end was to prove altogether
useless.
While the councillors at Liibeck were still hesitating whether
they should observe the customary rules of diplomatic courtesy
towards the representative of the Pope, the Protestant preach
ers were violently declaiming in their pulpits against the
demon who had come to unsettle the consciences of the people
and deceive them with the fable of the Council. The muni
cipality at length decided not to take the embassy of Com
mendone into consideration ;2 this ill success, however, might
have been endured had not the other and much more important
mission, to the Danish king, been such a complete failure.
Full of zeal, Commendone had already declared himself
willing to deliver the invitation to the Council to King Eric
XIV. of Sweden as well. Pius IV., who had originally intended
to entrust this task to Canobio, who was destined for Russia,
at last decided, on the advice of Hosius, in favour of Com
mendone. The latter had addressed a letter to the King of
Denmark, Frederick II., who had not even condescended to
1 For the stay at Liege and Aix, cf. Commendone's letter in
EHSES, VIII., 216 seq. Ruggieri's report on Aix has been pub
lished in the Zeitschrift des Aachener Gesch.-Vereins (cf. supra 225,
n- 3).
2 See EHSES, VIII., 233 and 239 seq. Cf. also ILLIGENS, GESCH.
der lubeckischen Kirche (1896), 149 seq.
COMMENDONE AND SWEDEN. 235
send him a direct reply. The king simply wrote on July
22nd, 1561, to the Imperial commissary, Caspar von Schoneich,
who accompanied the nuncio to north Germany, that he
refused the representative of the Bishop of Rome, with whom
he had no relations, the desired entry into his kingdom.1
The long expected answer of the King of Sweden, which
arrived at the end of August, 1561, not only observed the
forms of courtesy, but also from its tone held out some hopes.
Eric XIV. excused his delay by saying that he had not been
able to decide about his journey to England, but that now
that he had made up his mind, he left it to the nuncio either
to seek him there, or to wait for his return to Sweden. A safe
conduct was attached to the letter.2
It was, however, very doubtful whether a journey to
England would be possible for Commendone, as Queen Eliza
beth had already forbidden Abbot Girolamo Martinengo,
who was to take to her the invitation to the Council, to set
foot in her dominions.3
Commendone decided to return to Antwerp, and there
await developments. In the difficulties of his position it was
a consolation to him that his friends in Rome, the Jesuits
and other religious, were praying for him without ceasing.4
On September gth he left Liibeck5 and travelled by way of
Concerning the plan for the mission to the North, cf. the
letters of Commendone in the Miscell. di stor. Ital., VI., 165,
168, 171 seq., 176 seq., 178 seq., 181 seq., 186 seq., 190 seq., 197 seq.,
203 seq. ; BIAUDET, Commendones legation till Danmark och
Sverige, 1561, in FINSKA, Vet. Soc. Forhandlingar, XLV1I.,
No. 1 8, Helsingfors, 1904-5. The brief to the King of Sweden
and Norway of December 5, 1560, in RAYNALDUS, 1560, n. 74 ;
LE PLAT, IV., 666. Cf. also EHSES, VIII., 117, n. 70.
2 Miscell. di stor. Ital., VI., 233. EHSES, VIII., 252 n. 2.
8 Cf. PALLAVICINI, 15, 7, 1-2; REIMANN, Commendone, 271;
SUSTA, I., 196. Cf. Vol. XVI. of this work.
4 Cf. the *letter of C. A. Caligari to Commendone, dated Rome,
August 30, 1561, Lett, diprinc., XXIII. , 32 (Papal Secret Archives) .
6 With the letter dated from Liibeck, September i, 1561, ends
the impression in the Miscell. di stor. Ital., VI., 235. The other
236 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Verden, Osnabriick, Minister, Emmerich and Cleves to Antwerp
which he reached on September 26th. While he was waiting
for further news there, Eric XIV. gave up his journey to
England, as Elizabeth had informed his ambassador that
she was not at present disposed to marry. In the middle of
November Commendone received in Brussels, where he had
been arranging the reorganization of the Belgian bishoprics,
orders from Cardinal Borromeo to return to Rome, and on his
way to invite Duke Charles II. of Lorraine to the Council.1
The zeal which the nuncio had displayed in his legation had
given universal satisfaction in Rome.2
On December 8th Commendone left Brussels and journeyed
by way of Mons and Rheims to Nancy, to the court of the
young Duke of Lorraine. There he met Cardinal Guise, and
conferred with him as to the religious conditions in France
and Scotland, which was under the rule of Mary Stuart, the
Cardinal's niece. In the matter of the Council, the Duke
replied that he would be guided entirely by the Emperor.3
Commendone remained at Nancy until January gth, 1562,
when he set out, by way of Metz, Treves, Coblence and Wies
baden for Mayence. In this ancient episcopal city he re
marked, to his great sorrow, that many Lutherans were
endeavouring to undermine the faith of the inhabitants.
It was all the greater consolation to him that the Jesuit
college, founded a short time before by the Elector, Daniel
Brendel, who supported it from his private means, was in
structing the young people with great success in the Catholic
letters, in the copy of the register in Cod. Barb, have been used
by SUSTA, (I., 138, 312, 319) and as far as they relate to the Council
have been published by EHSES (VIII. , 252 seq.\.
xThe letter from Borromeo bears the date October 25, 1561 ;
see SUSTA, I., 312. For the return journey see *Viaggio (Chigi
Library, Rome), and EHSES, VIIL, 257.
8 So writes G. A. Caligari to Commendone in a *letter from
Rome of November i, 1561, Lett, di princ., XXIII., 41 (Papal
Secret Archives).
8 See PALLAVICINI, 15, 8, 8. Cf. LAGOMARSINI, De scriptis, II.,
82 seq.
COMMENDONE IN BAVARIA. 237
spirit.1 On January 315! Commendone left Mayence and
proceeded by way of Frankfort and Aschaffenburg to Wiirz-
burg. The bishop of that city, Frederick von Wirsberg,
honoured the Pope's representative in every possible way ;
in consequence of his great age, however, he was not in a
position to undertake the journey to Trent. From a religious
point of view things were not unsatisfactory in the diocese of
Wurzburg, as the bishop did everything in his power to main
tain the people in the Catholic faith. The Catholics were
also in the majority in the diocese of Bamberg, which Com
mendone visited on February 9th ; the greater part of the
people were Catholics, but the nobles, on the other hand,
had gone over to the new doctrines, and because of the unfit-
ness of the bishop, an aggravation of the evil was to be feared
in the futurt.2
From Bamberg the nuncio went to Nuremberg, where all
Catholic services were forbidden. After that he once again
came into Catholic territory. The old church was still un
shaken at Eichstatt, Ingoldstadt and Freising, but there was
no lack of the innovators, especially in lower Bavaria.3 Never
theless, the Catholic attitude of Duke Albert, who heard mass
every day, gave reason to hope that no religious upheaval
would take place there. When Commendone reached Munich
on February nth, the Duke was at that moment sending an
envoy to Pius IV., who was to travel by way of Trent. From
lCf. HANSEN, Jesuitenorden (1896), 392 ; DUHR, I., 103 seq. '
HEIDENHEIMER, loo. cit. 119 (see supra p. 225, n. 3). As to the
Elector whom Commendone visited at Aschaffenburg, *Ruggieri
observes that he was good and Catholic, " ma quasi tutta la sua
corte e lutherana e massimamente i principal!." The passage
which LAGOMARSINI (II., 96) cites as coming from Graziani appears
to be an extract from Ruggieri.
8 Cf. *RUGGIERI, Viaggio, Chigi Library, Rome; also LAGO
MARSINI, II., 96 seq.
* *Quanto a la religione in tutti i.luoghi si celebra la messa et
si dicono tutti gli altri uffizii, ma per tutto sono heretici et
nel inferior Baviera ce n'e maggior copia. RUGGIERI, loc.
cit.
238 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Munich Commendone started upon his return journey to the
south.1
While Commendone was working in the interests of the
Council, with skill, moderation, and in a spirit of conciliation,
in the northern and western parts of the Empire,2 his colleague
and fellow countryman, Delfino, was showing no less zeal in
the legatine district assigned to him.3 He had left Naumburg
in the middle of February, 1561, and had passed through
Voightland in Franconia. As an Italian, he suffered a great
deal from the unaccustomed climate, the roads being soaked
with snow and rain, so that the journey was very difficult,
yet in spite of all obstacles, Delfino did everything in his
power to proceed quickly. He visited Bamberg first, and
then Nuremberg and Wiirzburg, whence he made a detour
to Mergentheim to visit the Grandmaster of the Teutonic
Order.4 He then proceeded by way of Frankfort, to Mayence,
Worms, Spires,5 and at length, at the beginning of May,
reached Strasbourg. With regard to the Council, he found
opinion generally agreed as to the necessity for such an as
sembly, but only very few of those who were invited were
willing to put in an appearance at Trent. All the bishops,
it is true, declared that they would submit to the Council,
yet they were averse to the idea of personally undertaking
the long journey. Some excused themselves on the ground
of ill-health, or the weight of years, others by reason of their
1 According to *RUGGIERI, loo. cit., Commendone left Munich
on February 27, 1562. After he had made a report to the legates
of the Council at Trent, he left there on March 1 5, and arrived at
Mestre- Venice on the 1 7. Commendone's final report to Borromeo
of March 8, 1562, is printed in EHSES, VIII., 281 seq.
2 Cf. the opinion of EHSES, Ein Nuntius, 44.
3 The sources for Delfino's legation are much less full than those
for Commendone ; they exist, however, in an excellent edition
in STEINHERZ, I., 341-398.
4 Cf. the report of Delfino to Card. E. Gonzaga on March 19,
1561, in STEINHERZ, I., 346. The reply of the council of Nurem
berg to Delfino in SICKEL, Konzil, 182 seq.
5 See STEINHERZ, I., 350 seq.
DELFINO IN SOUTH GERMANY. 239
poverty, while yet others alleged the dangers to which their
absence would expose their dioceses. In the Imperial cities
the customary marks of honour were, indeed, shown to the
nuncio, but the answers he received were very unsatisfactory,
several, especially that of the city of Strasbourg, being a curt
refusal.1 Delfino took the opportunity while he was in
Strasbourg, of carrying on negotiations with several Italian
Protestants, such as Count Thiene, Dr. Massaria and Girolamo
Zanchi, who had sought refuge abroad. The nuncio also
had repeated conversations with Vergerio at Strasbourg,
Zabern and Schwarzach. All these efforts were without
result ; as was soon realized in Rome, they were to some
extent even dangerous, for Vergerio certainly " only negotiated
so as to give vent to his burning hatred against the Papacy,
and to forge new weapons against it out of any offers which
might be made for his return to the Church."2
From Strasbourg, Delfino travelled by way of Freiburg,
to the Bishop of Constance, who resided at Meersburg, and
to the Abbot of Weingarten, both of whom declared them
selves unable to go to Trent on account of their age. The
Bishop of Merseburg, who visited Delfino at Ulm, at the end
of May, made his decision dependent on the attitude of the
Emperor. The municipal council of Ulm refused to separate
themselves from the other adherents of the Confession of
Augsburg ; these last protested that they longed above all
things for the restoration of religious unity, but in view of
their cwn powerlessness could only express their earnest wishes
for its realization.3 The University of Ingoldstadt, on the
other hand, promised to send delegates to Trent, as did Duke
Albert of Bavaria, whose court at Munich Delfino reached
JThe reply of Strasbourg in STEINHERZ, I., 355 seq. The
brief to Strasbourg of December 13, 1560, in RAYNALDUS, 1560,
n. 76 ; LE PLAT, IV., 666 seq.
2 The opinion of STEINHERZ (I., 368) who treats of this in great
detail (I., 266 seq., 277 seq., 292 seq., 294, 312, 320, 333 seq., 345 seq.,
356 seq., 367 seq., 374 seq., 394). Cf. also HUBERT, 179 seq., and
SUSTA, I., 29, 39 seq., 96 seq.
8 Cf. STEINHERZ, I., 370 seq., 375 seq., and EHSES, VIII., 218 seq.
240 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
on June 4th. This prince, as Delfino wrote thence to Rome
on the loth, surpassed all others in his zeal for the preservation
of the Catholic faith. Delfino also discussed with Albert
the religious disunion among the Protestants, and they rightly
came to the conclusion that the final settlement of religious
differences lay, not with the theologians, but with the princes.
Delfino repeated on this occasion, what he had previously
insisted upon, that too great hopes for the position of the
Catholic Church in Germany must not be built on the dis
sensions of the Protestants. The position continued to be
one of extreme danger, and they must in every way do their
utmost to induce some of the Protestants to take part in the
Council.1
The result of Delfino's mission was, on the whole, no more
successful than that of his colleague, Commendone. He
had, it is true, received promises from several bishops, but
the Protestant Imperial cities had given him nothing but
refusals.
In the same way as in Germany, the Protestant Cantons
of Switzerland also showed themselves, under various pretexts,
unfavourable to the Council. The five Catholic Cantons,
on the other hand, to which the Bishop of Como, Gian Antonio
Volpi, communicated the conciliar bull, showed themselves
ready to be represented at the Council by delegates. In a
short time Freiburg, Soleure and Glarus joined the Forest
Cantons.2
1 See the report to Borromeo on June 10, 1561, in STEINHERZ, I.,
395 seq.
* Cf. MAYER, I., 37 seqq. ; REINHARDT STEFFENS, G. Fr.
Bonhomini, introd. p. xxxii seq. ; EHSES, VIII., 265 seq.
CHAPTER VII.
FINAL PREPARATIONS FOR THE RE-OPENING OF THE
COUNCIL.
THE attitude of the Emperor towards the question of the
Council was of decisive importance. Hosius made the most
urgent representations to him, but he could not succeed in
obtaining Ferdinand's consent to the conciliar bull. At
the end of January, 1561, the Emperor at length gave up at
any rate his opposition to the solemn publication of the in
dulgence in Vienna, whereby he acknowledged in principle
the Pope's project for a Council.1 On February I3th, 1561,
however, when the answer of the Protestant princes arrived
from Naumburg, the Emperor became more reserved than
ever, and took up a still more dilatory attitude. Pius IV.
vainly tried, by making concessions in the matter of the
visitation of the monasteries, and by sending the Papal
chamberlain, Canobio, with the consecrated hat and sword,
to bring about a change in his attitude. When Canobio
and Hosius were conferring with Ferdinand on February
I4th about the acceptance of the bull, he remarked that,
personally, he had always agreed, but that he wished the
Council to be a success, and to make sure that a war should
not arise from its convocation ; his care now must be to see
that the Catholic bishops should be able to attend the Council
without fear ; it was his intention to make peace with the
Protestant princes if they would promise this to the bishops
who were travelling to the Council. Two days later the
Emperor again declared to Hosius that he was himself in
favour of the Council, but that for the moment he could
not promise the appearance of the bishops ; he wished,
1 Cf. EDER, I., 72 seq.
VOL. xv. 241 *6
242 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
therefore, first to consult the Catholic Electors of the Empire.
Hosius answered that there was danger in delay ; if the
French, tired of waiting, summoned a national council, and
went their own way in ecclesiastical matters, the power of
the Protestants would thereby be strengthened. Regard
less of this, the Emperor persisted in his opinion that he
could do nothing until he had conferred upon the subject
with the Catholic princes, or at any rate with the ecclesiastical
Electors.1 The continued efforts of Hosius during the follow
ing days had no better success, Ferdinand constantly re
peating that he must await the answer of the ecclesiastical
Electors.2
While these negotiations were taking place, France appeared
to have given up her opposition to the conciliar bull. At
the beginning of March the Council of State resolved to
accept the bull, which fact was communicated to the nuncio,
Gualterio, and the envoy extraordinary, Lorenzo Lenzi,
Bishop of Fermo. In an official note of March 3rd, which
Abbot Niquet was to take to Rome, the participation of
France in the Council was, it is true, made dependent on
the consent of Ferdinand I. and Philip II.3
Before the news of this reached Rome, however, Pius IV.
had taken steps to appoint the legates for the Council. In
1 Cf. STEINHERZ, I., xcix, 215 seq. ; EDER, I., 73.
2 See STEINHERZ, I., 219 seq. ; ibid., 221 seq., the report of
Hosius to Borromeo of March 3, 1561, concerning his interview
with Ferdinand I. on March 2. On the last day of February,
1561, Hosius wrote to Commendone : *Hic nihil est novi hoc
tempore. Concilii causa nescio quomodo extrahitur longius.
Caes. Maiestas non satis suam sententiam explicat ac prius etiam
rem ad principes ecclesiasticos electores praesertim referri vult
quam expresse declaret se in concilium consentire. Ego urgere
npn desino, quantumque periculi sit in mora positum inculco,
sed non multum proficio. Quid sit fuurum, Deus scit. On
March 1 1 , Hosius wrote to Commendone : *Adhuc Caes. Maiestas
deliberat in causa concilii et responsum a catholicis principibus
ex Germania expectat (Graziani Archives, Citta di Castello).
3 See SUSTA, I., 170; SICKEL, Konzil, 186 n. ; EDER, I., 74:
EIISES, VIII., 167.
LEGATES FOR THE COUNCIL APPOINTED. 243
doing this he wished to give unmistakable proof that he
was in earnest about the holding of the Council. He had
already announced his intention of appointing Morone as
a legate at the end of June, 1560. x In October a report was
current in Rome that Seripando and Gonzaga had been
chosen to represent the Pope at the Council, in addition to
Morone ; the Spanish ambassador, Vargas, was working
against Morone and Seripando.2 At the beginning of Decem
ber, Morone formally declined the Pope's request ;3 Cardinal
Ercole Gonzaga also refused, but on Pius IV. insisting, gave
his consent on February 6th.4 Pius IV. thereupon appointed
him and Puteo legates to the Council in the consistory of
February I4th, 1561. 5 Three further legates were chosen
1 See the report of Vargas in Voss, 63.
2 Cf. DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 340 seq., 346 seq. ; SUSTA, I.,
xlviii seq.
3 See SUSTA, I., xlviii.
* See ibid., xlviii-xlix. In a *report of Fr. Tonina of January i,
1561, we read : " Da persona che mi dice haverlo da altro che
gli disse haverlo del Papa esso vuole per ogni modo che mons. di
Mantova sia il legato del concilia " (the italics are in cypher).
Gonzaga Archives, Mantua. Cf. also the report of the Portuguese
ambassador of January 26, 1561, in the Corpo dipl. Portug., IX.,
162 seq.
5 See Massarelli 351. Mula reported on November 14, 1561 :
*Et ella [Sua Std<] si avvio verso Belvedere, dicendo che, se non
m' aggravava il caminare, io la seguisse, e tal volta mi chiamava
colla mano dicendo qualche parola e tra le altre che haveva fatto
duoi legati per il concilio e domandando, che me ne pareva, laudai
grandemente 1' uno e 1' altro. Ella soggiunse : Ne faremo tre
altri, e se non ne havemo de' fatti cardinal! che siano al proposito,
gli faremo di nuovo, teologi e legisti che siano da bene, e se non
bastaranno quelli, ne faremo degli altri e ci andaremo ancora noi,
quando conosceremo che sia bisogno. E dicendo io che 1' impresa
e grande e che bisogna che Sua Santita sia correttore degli errori
del tempo passato, ella sospirando pregava Dio che Io potesse
fare e che non mancheria di tutto quello che si sapesse immaginare
e che tutti dovessero pregare Dio che 1' aiutasse in questa difficil-
issima impresa (Papal Secret Archives).
244 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
on March loth, from among the new Cardinals created on
February 26th, namely Seripando, Hosius and Simonetta.1
The Cardinals chosen to represent the Pope were in the
highest degree suited for their distinguished position.2 At
their head, as the president of the legatine college, stood
Ercole Gonzaga, Cardinal of Mantua, who had been invested
with the purple by Clement VII., a man who was distinguished
in many ways, and prominent on account of his great personal
qualities. Even though his eager striving for the tiara had
cast a shadow on his character, yet the son of the celebrated
Isabella d'Este, on account of his varied experience extending
over many years, his wide knowledge, his zeal for reform, his
princely rank and his relationship to the Emperor, can only
be described as an able and worthy representative of the
Pope.
Ercole Gonzaga was above all things a diplomatist, and
was not a learned theologian. What was lacking to him in
this respect was possessed in full measure by the other legates ;
Simonetta, Puteo, Seripando and Hosius. Ludovico Simon
etta, who belonged to a humanist family of Milan, held with
Gonzaga the chief position, although in point of rank he
was the junior of the legates, having only been appointed
Cardinal on February 26th, 1561. A clever canonist, he
appears as the real confidant of Pius IV., whose rights he
always defended with fiery zeal and great skill. It is a signifi-
1 See Massarelli in MERKLE, II., 351. Cf. BONDONUS, 546;
SERIPANDI Comment., 464 ; letter of the Portuguese ambassador
of March 14, 1561, in the Corpo dipl. Portug., IX., 196 seq. ;
* report of Saraceni of March 14 and 18, 1561 (State Archives,
Florence) .
2 For what follows cf. the excellent account of SUSTA, I., xliii
seq. ; Ivi seq. See also SICKEL, Berichte, V., 65 seq. ; SOL, II
card. Simonetta, in the Arch. Rom., XXVI., 185 seq. ; EDER, I.,
119 seq. ; LAUCHERT, 536 seq. For Seripando cf. Vols. XL, XII.
of this work, and for Puteo Vols. XIII., XIV. The monograph of
Giov. DREI, La politica di Pio IV. e del card. E. Gonzaga, 1 559-60,
in the Arch d. Soc. Rom., vol., 40, was unfortunately not accessible
to mef
THE CARDINAL LEGATES. 245
cant fact that, with the exception of the president, Simonetta
alone had a code at his disposal for his correspondence with
Rome.
Giacomo Puteo, a Cardinal since 1551, had rendered
important services to the Church under Julius III. and
Paul IV. Like Simonetta, he was possessed of a thorough
and comprehensive knowledge of canon law. This made
both men peculiarly suited to maintain the rights of
the Holy See in the face of the prejudices against the
Council.
Hosius and Seripando were distinguished in a similar
manner by their theological learning, but their characters
were as different as their origin. Girolamo Seripando, who
belonged to a noble Apulian family, was undoubtedly the
most distinguished man of whom the order of Augustinian
Hermits could at that time boast. Paul III. had appointed
this native of southern Italy, who was distinguished as
preacher, theologian, Ciceronian, Greek scholar, and above
all as a friend of Catholic reform, to be their Prior General
in 1538. In this capacity Seripando displayed burning zeal,
working especially to bring about a thorough reform of his
order and to purge it of the Lutheran elements which had
penetrated into it. During the first period of the Council of
Trent, Seripando had played a most distinguished part.
His views had given occasion for the searching deliberations
on the subject of justification, in the course of which the
well-meant but mistaken theory of compromise which he
maintained had been repudiated. From that time Seripando
had been mistrusted by the strict conservative party, headed
by Carafa. Hostility on the part of the latter, as well as
constant illness caused him, in 1551, to resign his position
as General of his order, and also prevented any further par
ticipation in the deliberations of the Council of Trent, which
had again been opened by Julius III., and he devoted himself
to his studies at Naples. His appointment as Archbishop
of Salerno in the year 1554, enabled him to live in his diocese,
and far from Rome, during the pontificate of Paul IV., who
was prejudiced against him. The new Pope called to mind
246 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
the refined and sober minded scholar, summoned him to
Rome, and on February 26th, 1561, admitted him into the
Sacred College.
Stanislaus Hosius, Bishop of Ermland, a scholar like
Seripando, was of quite a different nature. He had already
rendered distinguished service to the Catholic restoration as
the leader of the bishops of his native land, Poland, against
the encroachments of Protestantism at various diets, as well
as by his effective book " Confession of the Catholic Faith,"
when Pius IV. appointed him as nuncio to Ferdinand I.
His energetic, if at times harsh nature, as well as his somewhat
clumsy person, rendered him, however, little suited for diplo
matic negotiations. Pius IV. nevertheless honoured his
services and his learning when, at the great creation of Feb
ruary, 1561, he summoned him to the supreme senate of
the Church.
The bull of appointment for the five legates of the Council
is dated March loth, 1561. l The special position which
Ercole Gonzaga was to occupy as president of the legatine
college, is not mentioned in this ; it was, however, sufficiently
expressed by the consistent preference shown him by the
Holy See.2
In the appointment of the officials of the Council, which
took place as early as January, Pius IV., to a great extent,
reappointed those persons who had worked so successfully
in a similar capacity under Paul III. and Julius III. Gian
Tommaso Sanfelice, Bishop of La Cava, was appointed com
missary ; he left Rome on January 26th, 1561, and reached
xln RAYNALDUS, 1561, n. 2 ; LE PLAT, IV., 697 seq. ; EHSES,
VIII., 176. Cf. Massarelli in MERKLE, II., 353 ; THEINER, I.,
666; SICKEL, Konzil, 184.
2 See SUSTA, I., 4. Here also concerning Gonzaga's private
secretariate, which developed into the real presidential office for
the whole legation. Puteo was originally intended for first
president ; it was only after his serious illness that Gonzaga took
the first place. In the acts the presidents are always named
exactly in the order of their bulls of appointment, Gonzaga first,
Seripando second, Hosius third, and Simonetta fourth.
OFFICIALS OF THE COUNCIL. 247
Trent on February 24th.1 The important position of secre
tary of the Council was entrusted once more to Angelo
Massarelli, Bishop of Telese ; his appointment followed on
February 2nd, and he left Rome on March nth, reaching
Trent on the 26th.2
The legates then in Rome, Seripando and Simonetta,
received the legatine cross in a secret consistory of March
I7th.3 In the same consistory the Pope exhorted all the
bishops to repair to Trent.4 The bull of appointment was
sent to Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga on March 22nd, with in
structions to proceed immediately to Trent.5 On March
I5th, Cardinal Borromeo informed Hosius by letter of his
appointment as. legate, instructing him to do everything in
his power to induce the Emperor to send representatives to
the Council, and then to go himself without delay to Trent.6
1 See Massarelli in MERKLE, II., 350 ; BONDONUS, 546 ; THEINER
I., 666 seq. ; PALLAVICINI, 15, n, 2; SICKEL, Berichte, I., 21.
Cf. the *Avviso di Roma of January 25, 1561 (Urb. 1039, p. 244,
Vatican Library). On March 5, 1561, Antonio Manelli was ap
pointed " depositario del s. concilio Tridentino ; " his *Libro
delle spese del s. concilio di Trento is in the Vallicella Library,
L 40 ; see CALENZIO, Docum. sul concilio di Trento, xii seq.,
Rome 1874, and SUSTA, I., 53 seq. ; ibid., 27 seq., concerning the
secret fund coexisting with the other, and administered by the
president, Ercole Gonzaga. Cf. also Cerasoli in the Arch. stor.
Ital. 5th series, VIII., 289 seq.
z See MASSARELLI, 351, 353 ; BONDONUS, 547 ; SICKEL, Berichte,
I., 21 ; SUSTA, L, 6.
3 Puteo was then seriously ill. Cf. BONDONUS, 547 ; THEINER,
L, 667. According to a "report of Fr. Tonina of March 22, 1561,
Seripando received 1,000 scudi for his journey to Trent (Gonzaga
Arch. Mantua).
4 *Report of Tonina of March 19, 1561 (Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua). PALLAVICINI, 15, IT, 2.
6 The Cardinal was allowed, in accordance with his request,
to spend the Easter festival at Maguzzano. Brief of Pius IV., of
March 22, 1561, in SUSTA, L, i seq.
6 STEINHERZ, L, 226 seq. ; ibid., 233, the repetition of the order
to start as soon as the Emperor should have signified his willingness
to send envoys to the Council, dated March 23, 1561.
248 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
On March 2ist Pius IV. granted an indulgence to all those
who, after receiving the sacraments, were present at the
entry of the legates, and prayed for the successful issue of the
Council.1 Seripando started for Trent on March 26th, and
had a long conference with the Pope before he set out.2
Ferdinand I., in his conferences with Hosius on March
l8th and igth, had replied to the earnest request for his
decision by reproaching the Pope with having occasioned the
delay, since he had not yet answered the Emperor's question
as to what he intended to do with regard to the reply of the
Protestant princes assembled at Naumburg. Ferdinand,
however, had already been informed of the Pope's intentions
in a letter from Arco, which arrived on March i8th. Pius IV.
had answered the ambassador, when he had handed him the
documents from Naumburg, that, as the Council was sum
moned for Easter, he must send his legates to Trent, but
that these would, in the meantime, hold no sessions with the
bishops who were there ; the Pope would await the decision
of the Catholic princes of Germany. In spite of this,
Ferdinand, when he was again urged by Hosius to appoint
his representatives, kept repeating that he was waiting for
the decision of the Pope, which was evidently a mere excuse
to conceal his own indecision.3
In the meantime, great difficulties in the way of the accept
ance of the conciliar bull had also arisen in Spain. The
theologians there objected to the evasion of the question as
to whether the Council was a new one or a continuation of
th2 former one, and insisted that the latter view must be
definitely expressed.4 The Spanish bishops attached great
importance to this question, because they wished to be sure
that the decree of the Council concerning the subordination
of the cathedral chapters would be upheld.5 The repre-
1 See RAYNALDUS, 1561, n. 4 ; LE PLAT, IV., 698 seq.
2 See MASSARELLI, 353 ; SERIPANDI Comment., 464.
3 Cf. STEINHERZ, I., ci seq., 228 seq., 235 seq.
4 Cf. DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 348, and Colecci6n de docum.
ined., IX., 97.
8 See SICKEL, Konzil, 185, 189, 209 seq.
PHILIP II. AND THE COUNCIL. 249
sentations of the theologians were listened to the more favour
ably by Philip II. as relations between the Pope and the king
had been somewhat strained since the end of 1560, and the
favourable opportunity of bringing pressure to bear on Pius
IV. could not be foregone by the Spanish privy council.1
After Philip had refrained from giving a decisive answer
in the month of February, he at last declared to the nuncio
on March i2th, that he had decided not to accept the bull
immediately nor to send his prelates, but to wait and see how
things turned out in Germany and France, and that in the
meantime he would lay his wishes for the alteration of the
bull before the Pope.2 For this purpose Don Juan de Ayala
was sent to Rome in March. He was ordered to ask from
the Pope an express declaration that no new Council, but a
continuation of the Council of Trent was convoked by the
bull of November 29th, 1560, as the king had taken this for
granted all through his negotiations.3 De Ayala arrived in
Rome on April i6th, 1561, and had an interview with the
Pope on the following day.4
As the appearance of the Spanish bishops was impossible
before an understanding had been arrived .at with Philip II.,
and a delay in the opening of the Council had thus become
imperative, Hosius received fresh instructions on April i6th,
no longer to urge the Emperor to the immediate dispatch of
his representatives to Trent, but only to hold them in readiness
to go as soon as the Spanish bishops should have started for
Trent.5 Canobio, who was again sent to Vienna with similar
instructions on April i6th, was entrusted with further negotia-
lCf. REIMANN, Unterhandlungen, 619 seq. ; SUSTA, L, 15 seq.,
172.
2D6LLINGER, I.. 355 seq.
8 See the Instruction secreta a D. J. de Ayala of March 13, 1561,
in DOLLINGER, I., 358 seq. ; cf. Coleccion de docum. ined., IX., 94.
4 See *Avviso di Roma of April 18, 1561 (Urb. 1039, p. 268,
Vatican Library). Cf. Cal. of State Papers, Foreign, 1561-1562,
64 ; SUSTA, I., 16.
6 Borromeo to Hosius, in STEINHERZ, L, 243 seq. Cf. the
letter of Borromeo to E. Gonzaga in SUSTA, I., 14.
250 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
tions.1 Hosius was immediately to inform the Emperor that
the Pope, in order to comply with the latter 's wishes, was
prepared to proceed to the Council, together with the whole
College of Cardinals, as soon as he considered it fitting and
necessary. As this, however, was not possible at the present
moment, he proposed that after the opening of the Council
he himself should take up his residence at Bologna, and the
Emperor at Innsbruck, so as to be nearer to the seat of the
Council, and to support it. Canobio handed this proposal to
the Emperor in writing. In his answer on May 6th, Ferdinand
referred to his efforts with the Protestants, and declared that
he had neglected nothing in the matter which was incumbent
on him as Emperor ; that he had already appointed envoys
for the Council, whom he would send to Trent as soon as
possible. In the event of the Pope going to Trent, he promised
that he would not only proceed to Innsbruck, but that he
would even go himself to the seat of the Council. By this
Ferdinand had declared his acceptance of the conciliar bull.
The untiring eloquence of Hosius had been to a great extent
decisive in overcoming the objections of the Emperor, and in
gaining his agreement to the appointment of the envoys.2
Encouraged by the success he had already met witn, the
nuncio made an impcrtant request on May 8th and i8th,
namely that Ferdinand should send a representative to Trent
immediately. The Emperor, however, would not agree to
this, although he promised that his representatives should be
the first to appear at Trent, but that he would not send his
envoys until the other powers had given orders to their repre
sentatives to start.3 The Emperor was strengthened in this
resolve by a report from Arco, which arrived on May 25th,
and conveyed to him the Pope's wish that he should act in
this way, without paying attention to the piessure of Hosius.4
1 See STEINHERZ, I., ciii. seq,t 251 seq.
2 Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 191 seq., 194 seq. ; STEINHERZ, I., civ.,
252 ; EHSES, VIII., 200, 204 seq.
3 See STEINHERZ, I., civ., 249, 254 seq.
4 See STEINHERZ, I., civ. seq. For the Pope's reasons cf. the
report of the Portuguese ambassador of May 2, 1561, in the Corpo
dipl. Portug., IX., 236.
RUSSIA, POLAND AND PORTUGAL. 251
Canobio also informed the Emperor that the Pope had
resolved to convey to the Russian Tsar, Ivan Wassiljewicz,
as well as to the King of Poland, a conciliar bull and a brief
(of April I3th, 1561) just as his predecessors had invited the
Greek Emperor to general councils. Ferdinand agreed to
this mission, and Hosius decided that Canobio should under
take its discharge. When Canobio reached the court of the
Polish King, Sigismund Augustus, the latter declared himself
quite ready to support the Council, but he refused to allow
the journey to Russia through his kingdom.1 Pius IV.,
however, would not give up his purpose of negotiating
with the Russian Tsar, and without the knowledge of the
Polish King or the Emperor, he appointed a new envoy to
Russia in the person of Giovanni Geraldi, whose journey,
however, ended in a Polish prison ; he only succeeded in
regaining his liberty in 1564.2
One of the few countries from which gratifying news arrived
was Portugal, the king of which country, Sebastian, was
full of zeal for the Council. On March lyth, 1561, the nuncio,
Prospero Santa Croce, reported to Borromeo from Lisbon :
" It is the firm resolve of the king that all the prelates of his
kingdom shall attend the Council, and in view of the im
portance of the matter, no excuses will be accepted. The
king will send his envoy to Trent as soon as he has heard of
the appointment of the legates." The Pope praised the zeal
of the king in a brief of April 26th, 1561. 3
1C/. SICKEL, Konzil, 192, 195; STEINHERZ, }., 243, 245;
SUSTA, I., ii ; PALLAVICINI, 15, 9, 4; PIERLING, I., 369 seq. ;
OBERSBERGER, I., 348. The brief to the Tsar in RAYNALDUS,
1561, n. 17 ; LE PLAT, IV., 700 seq. For the great difficulties
which, in spite of the acceptance of the conciliar bull on the part
of the King, arose in Poland on the question of the appointment
of delegates for the Council, see SUSTA, I., 121.
8 Cf. PIERLING, Rome et Moscou, 53 seq.t Paris, 1883 ; PIERLING,
373 5e4- • SUSTA, I., 285 seq. ; TURGENIEV, Russiae Monum., I.,
181 seq. ; OBERSBERGER, I., 349.
8 Cf. LAEMMER, Melet., 184 ; STEINHERZ, I., 247 ; RAYNALDUS,
1561, n. 14 ; LE PLAT, IV., 702 ; Corpo dipl. Portug., IX., 235;
SUSTA, I., 24; EHSES, VIII., 175, 198.
252 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
On April 6th, the Easter Sunday of 1561, on which day the
Council should have been opened, there were only four bishops,
but none of the legates, present in Trent.1 On April i6th
Cardinals Gonzaga and Seripando made their solemn entry into
the city of the Council, being welcomed only by the Bishop
of Trent, Cardinal Madruzzo, and nine other bishops.2 The
indulgence of March 2ist had been previously promulgated
on April I2th. There could be no question of opening the
Council at once, for the number of prelates at Trent increased
but slowly during the following months.3 On April 2ist
the legates wrote to Borromeo that the Pope again should
exhort the prelates in Rome to start soon, so that those in
other countries might the more quickly make up their minds.4
The arrival, on May i8th, of the distinguished Archbishop of
Braga, Bartolomeo de Martyribus, as the " first born of the
ultramontane nations " was joyfully acclaimed ; he informed
the legates that three or four more bishops from Portugal,
and the envoy of the king, would soon follow.5 The Pope
was particularly touched and gladdened at this news.6
The negotiations with the powers were still going on. As
the discussions with Don Juan de Ayala in Rome had led to no
result, the Bishop of Terracina, Ottaviano Raverta, who had
1 See THEINER, I., 667, 668. The first bishop who arrived
at Trent was Nic. Sfondrato of Cremona, afterwards Pope Gregory
XIV.
2 Cf. MASSARELLI, 354; BONDONUS, 547 seq. ; SUSTA, I., 7;
GIULIANI, Trento al tempo del Concilio (extract from the Arch.
Trid., 1888), 88 seq. Gonzaga resided, as did Morone later on,
in the palace of Sigismund Thun (now the Municipio) in the Via
Larga ; see SWOBODA, 23. Here there are also some reproduc
tions of the many pictures which represent the sessions of the
Council. See also GALANTE, Kultur-histor., Bilder vom Trienter
Konzil, Innsbruck, 1912.
8 See THEINER, I., 667-8.
4 SUSTA, I, 12.
6 MASSARELLI, 356; SUSTA, I., 24. The date "April 18 " in
THEINER, I., 668, is wrong.
6 Cf. the report of the Portuguese ambassador of June 18,
1561, in the Corpo dipl. Portug., IX., 273.
PHILIP II. 253
previously been nuncio in Spain, and was much beloved
there, was sent to Philip II. on May 23rd. He took with him
important concessions on the points at issue with the Spanish
government. He was authorized, with regard to the Council,
to offer the king that he should be sent a secret brief, design
ating the bull of November the i8th as a " bull of contin-"
uation."1 When Raverta reached the Spanish court on
June I3th, Philip had already given way in view of the grave
development in affairs in France, and in order to gain the
assistance of Pius IV. against the Turks.2 The nuncio,
Giovanni Campegio, Bishop of Bologna, had learned this at
the beginning of June, and had at once informed Rome of it.3
The official announcement took the form of a royal circular
on June I3th, which summoned all the bishops to prepare
for their journey at the beginning of September ; the number
of those who were to go to the Council, and the definite time
of their departure, was to be decided later.4 The brief which
Philip II. desired, containing the declaration concerning the
continuation of the Council of Trent, was drawn up on July
iyth, and was immediate!}' dispatched, together with an1
autograph letter of the Pope of July i6th, declaring the
validity of the decrees of the Council of Trent.5
By this act of compliance on the part of Philip II. the
most dangerous rock was avoided, and the meeting of the
Council was assured.6 On July 2nd, the official announcement
of this favourable turn of affairs, which had so far only been
known privately, arrived in Rome.7 Three days later the
1 See SUSTA, I., 31 seq., 204.
3 Cf. SUSTA, I., 194, and STEINHERZ, I., 274.
3 See his report of June 5, 1561, in SUSTA, I., 193.
4 See GACHARD, Corresp. de Marguerite, I., 291 ; SUSTA, L, 194.
EDER (I., 78) is wrong in giving the date of the circular as June 3.
5 One of the documents in SICKEL, Berichte, II., 107, the other
in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 366. Cf. EHSES, VIII., 279.
6 The opinion of STEINHERZ, I., cix.
7 Sse Borromeo's letter to Hosius of July 2, 1561, in STEINHERZ,
I., 273 seq., and that of the same date to the legates of the Council
in SUSTA, I., 44 seq.
254 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Pope communicated the news to the Emperor and exhorted
him no longer to delay in appointing his prelates and envoys.
A letter to the same effect was immediately sent to King
Charles IX. of France, while the other Catholic powers, such
as the Signoria of Venice, also received news of the- same
important event.1
When Hosius delivered the Papal letter to the Emperor
on July i8th, the latter repeated the answer that he had
already given to Canobio, namely that he had already resolved
to send his envoys to Trent, but that he could not as yet
name any fixed date for their departure. Even the successor
of Hosius, the persuasive Delfino, after repeated exhortations,
could only get the same answer, that the envoys of the Em
peror would reach Trent before those of the Spanish king.2
Hosius, who had long wished to go to Trent, left Vienna
on July 2gth ; he reached the seat of the Council on August
aoth, refusing, in his retiring way, any solemn reception.3
At midsummer Pius IV. was still working zealously on
behalf of the Council. The legates, Puteo and Simonetta,
received instructions in July to hold themselves in readiness
for the journey.4 The nuncios were commissioned to see
to the sending of the delegates to the Council, while the
Pope himself attended to this in Italy. On August ist
briefs to this effect were addressed to all the bishops of the
peninsula, on the 3rd to those of Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica
and Dalmatia, and on the Qth to the Archbishops of Cyprus
and Crete. The prelates who were in Rome were repeatedly
admonished to start for Trent, but some delay was allowed
to them as it was evident that the Spanish bishops could
not reach Trent before October.5 When threatening news
1 See SICKEL, Konzil, 205; SUSTA, I., 48 seq., 219.
2 See STEINHERZ, I., cv. seq.
8 See STEINHERZ, I., 290 ; MASSARELLI 357.
4 *Avviso di Roma of July 12, 1561 (Urb. 1039, p. 287, Vatican
Library).
6 See the letters from Borromeo of July 26, and August 2 and 20,
1561, in SUSTA, I., 64 seq., 69, 71 seq., 73 seq. Cf. *Avviso di
Roma of August 9, 1561 (Urb. 1039, p. 224, Vatican Library),
THE ITALIAN BISHOPS. 255
arrived from France, Pius IV. declared to the Imperial
ambassador on August 23rd, that he would irrevocably open
the Council, even should Ferdinand I. be unable to take
part in it. On the following day the Pope decided in con
sistory that all the Italian bishops were to repair to Trent
within eight days. Many of those who were resident in
Rome resisted even now, so that the number of prelates at
the seat of the Council increased but slowly.1
Nevertheless, at first it was only Italians who were present
at Trent ; the arrival of the bishops from other countries,
with the exception of the Portuguese who were already there,
was still delayed. On September 26th the Bishop of Vich
arrived, as the first of the Spaniards,2 but for the most part,
it was November before the others one by one reached Trent.3
Philip II., after repeated exhortations from the nuncio,
and the Portuguese reports in the Corpo dipl. Portug., IX., 287,
318. The Portuguese ambassador undertook to see that the
letter of Pius IV. of August 20, 1561, to the Negus Minas of
Abyssinia, in which he was invited to send envoys to Trent,
reached him (printed in BECCARI, Rerum Aethiop. Script,
occid., X., 125) ; the letter never reached the Negus (see ibid.,
125 n.).
1 See MASSARELLI, 356 seq. ; THEINER, I., 670 seq. ; SUSTA, I.,
75 seq., 77 seq., 90. An *Avviso di Roma of September 6, 1561,
states that the Pope had ordered 25 bishops to go to the Council,
and that they were starting (Urb. 1039, p. 298, Vatican Library).
Cf. also the "letter of G. A. Caligari to Commendone, dated Rome,
September 13, 1561 (Lett, di princ., XXIII. , 34, Papal Secret
Archives). On October 13, 1561, Serristori *writes that the Pope
insisted that all the bishops should go to the Council (State
Archives, Florence). But again on November 8, it is reported
that the Pope had urged the bishops to go there, that 7 had
started yesterday, but that many refused (*Avviso di Roma of
November 8, 1561, Urb. 1039, p. 308, Vatican Library) ; the
Pope, nevertheless, remained firm on the point that with a few
exceptions all must start out on their journey (*Avvisi of December
20, 1561, and January 3, 1562, loc. cit., pp. 3i9b, 329).
2 Cf. MASSARELLI, 358; THEINER, I., 670; SUSTA, I., 78, 80.
3 MASSARELLI, 258 seqq. Cf. SUSTA, I., 90.
256 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
had decided to send several bishops at once ; the choice of
the others who were to go to the Council was only made in
September.1 The appointment and sending of an envoy
was deferred until later.
The nuncio, Gualterio, had in September little to report
from France that was gratifying, as far as the prospects of
the departure of the envoys for the Council was concerned.
The attitude of the French government towards this impor
tant question was now, as before, very ambiguous.2 On
October 8th, indeed, Borromeo was able to write to the
nuncio that he had heard that the Queen Regent proposed
to send her orators and prelates ; that, however, had been a
vain hope, and had not been fulfilled, for the French coun
cil did not believe in the usefulness of an ecumenical synod,
but hoped to be in a position to enter into a compromise
with the Huguenots, by means of a religious conference and
certain concessions on the part of the Pope.3 The decision
arrived at by twenty-five of the bishops at the end of October,
by which six of them were to proceed at once to San Martin o,
was not taken seriously.4 It was also most unfortunate that
the Emperor proved himself so little desirous of keeping
his promise, and of sending his envoys and the bishops of his
hereditary dominions to the Council. He was indeed resolved
to do so, as he had said, but he wished to wait as long as
possible before sending the envoys, as he feared lest his repre
sentatives might airive too soon at Trent, and have to remain
there alone.5 He hesitated to give a definite answer till
winter had actually arrived, and it was only when he had
learned from his ambassador, Arco, that the Pope had given
1See SUSTA, I., 78, 80, 257.
3 See SUSTA, I., 248 seq. ; cf. 181 seq., 215 seq. On September
13, 1561, G. A. Caligari *wrote from Rome to Commendone :
" Si dice che le cose di Francia vanno molto male e seguitano il
loro conciliabolo." Lett, di princ., XXIII., 34 (Papal Secret
Archives) .
3 Cf. SUSTA, I., 87 seq., 290.
*Cf. SUSTA, I., 290.
6 See STEINHERZ, I., cvi.
THE EMPEROR'S REPRESENTATIVES. 257
orders for the opening of the Council,1 that he promised
Delfino, in a binding form, on Decembei ist, that his envoys
would certainly be in Trent by the middle of January. Delfino
reported this on December ist to the legates at Trent, and
to Borromeo in Rome.2 There were also difficulties with
regard to the persons who were to be sent, but these were all
settled by the end of December as follows : Ferdinand was
to be represented as Emperor by two envoys — by an
ecclesiastic, the former Bishop of Vienna, and Archbishop
designate of Prague, Anton Brus von Miiglitz ; and by a
layman, Count Sigismund von Thun ; as King of Hungary
he was to be represented by the Bishop of Fiinfkirchen,
Georg Draskovich.3 In this way the remainder cf the
year 1561 passed away, without the Council having been
opened.
In a consistory of November loth, Mark Sittich von
Hohenems was appointed legate to the Council in the place
of the invalid Puteo, who was unable to travel, and it was
further resolved that the departure of the fourth legate,
Simonetta, for Trent, which had been expected for months,
but always postponed, should now take place at once. The
choice of Mark Sittich, which had been made principally on
account of his relationship to the Pope, was not a fortunate
one ; he may also have been chosen because, by his birth,
and by reason of his bishopric of Constance, he belonged to
the German nation.4 On November I5th, the indulgence
bull for the happy issue of the Council was published ; it
xSee Arco's report of November 22, 1561, in SICKEL, Konzil,
235-
2 See the report of Delfino in STEINHERZ, I., 325 seq. Cf.
SUSTA, I., 124.
3 See STEINHERZ, I., cvi, 339 ; KASSOWITZ, 37 seq.
4 Concerning the choice of Mark Sittich, well known for his
want of education, and the ill feeling aroused thereby in Catholic
circles, cf. SUSTA, I., 101. Of Puteo an *Avviso di Roma already
reports on August 30, 1561, that the Cardinal will not go to Trent,
being old and very much needed in Rome (Urb. 1039, p. 296,
Vatican Library).
VOL. XV. 17
258 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
announced that the Pope intended to hold a solemn pro
cession from St. Peter's to S. Maria del Popolo on November
23rd.1
Cardinal Simonetta, who had been detained in Rome by
the important affairs of the Dataria, left on November 2oth
and arrived in Trent on December gth.2 In the credentials
for the other legates, which were entrusted to him, the Pope
declares his wish, now that he had waited long enough for
all the princes, that the Council should no longer be delayed,
but opened at once, and proceeded with as quickly as possible.
In a postscript in his own hand, the Pope says : " We are
not in the habit of using many words, but rather prefer
deeds. Hitherto we have waited sufficiently long for all
the princes and the matter can itherefore no longer be delayed,
but the Council must be opened as soon as possible, and
continued with all speed ; the former Council of Trent will
once more be resumed, nor may it be repudiated in any of
its parts. We wish, as a man of honour, as a good Christian,
and as a good Pope, that a good Council shall be held, and
that its one aim be directed to the service of God, of the faith,
and of religion, to the universal well-being of the whole of
Christendom, as well as to the honour of the Holy See. We
have made it our object to finish this Council, to confirm it
and carry it into effect, and by it We desire the union of all
good Catholics, and enduring peace through the whole of
Christendom, so that We may serve God in concord, and be
able to use all our strength against the infidel and the enemies
of the Christian name. When this object is attained, We
xThe bull (in RAYNALDUS, 1561, n. 10 ; LE PLAT, IV., 735;
and EHSES, VIII., 256 seq.} was published in Trent on November
29 (see MASSARELLI, 361). Concerning the procession in Rome
and the arrival of Mark Sittich there on November 28, cf. the
*Avviso di Roma of November 29, 1561 (Urb. 1039, p. 3i4b,
Vatican Library). See also the Portuguese report of November
27, 1561, in the Corpo. dipl. Portug., IX., 406.
2 Cf. SUSTA, I., 114 seq. ; SICKEL, Konzil, 235; THEINER, I.,
672. Simonetta took up his residence in the Palazzo Geremia,
in the Via Larga, facing the Palazzo Thun ; see SWOBODA, 41.
THE POPE'S INSTRUCTIONS TO SIMONETTA. 259
shall willingly and gladly die."1 A second autograph letter
from the Pope, accrediting Cardinal Simonetta, was addressed
to the Cardinal of Mantua alone, in order to emphasize the
peculiar position of that prelate as head of the legates, and
the first in point of rank.2
In the instructions given to Simonetta, the intentions of
the Pope, as to which the legate was to inform his colleagues,
were set forth in greater detail. They were to the following
effect : immediately after his arrival, the Council was to be
opened, and the work taken in hand by the prelates who
were present. The Council was to be principally engaged
in finishing the little that still remained to be dealt with as
regards dogma, especially the doctrine of the Sacraments ;
this was the most important thing. The reform of abuses
was already settled, or at least so far advanced that it could
easily be brought to a close. In this connection it was taken
for granted that only such reforms were to be dealt with at
Trent as did not affect the Roman court, for the Pope looked
upon these as his own prerogative.3 As far as the question
lThe credentials, dated November 19, 1561, in part in PALLA-
VICINI, 15, 13, 2, and complete in SUSTA, I., 113 seq. ; in San
Carlo, 89, they are given in phototype from the original.
2 The letter, dated November 20, 1561, in SUSTA, I., 115.
3 Cf. EDER, I., 121 seq., who rightly remarks that the work of
reform which had at that time been energetically undertaken
in Rome aimed at withdrawing from the Council the " Reformatio
Capite." For this reform work cf. SICKEL, 242 ; SUSTA, I.,
119; *Avvisi di Roma of December 6, 13, and 20, 1561, and
January 10, 1562 (Urb. 1039, pp. 3iyb seq., 3igb, 325^ 310,
Vatican Library). On December 20, 1561, Tonina gives the
following account of this work : *Sopra la bolla del conclave,
del qual S. St& ad ogni hora ragiona, non vi e cardinale che concorri
nella opinione sua, di farlo in Castello, patendo questa sua opinione
molte contrarieta che si adducono de incomodi, pericoli, et che
anco il luoco non sia capace, per6 si crede che non se ne fara
altro. Circa la bolla della riforma a questa si attende et si crede
pure che in ci6 si fara qualche profitto, ancora che portara tempo,
perch e dovendosi reformare ogniuno in casa sua ci bisognano
molte consideration!, molto tempo et molto che fare, in riandare
260 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
of continuation was concerned, Simonetta was authorized
by his instructions, in the event of any dispute arising, to
declare openly that the Council was a continuation of the
previous one ; the decrees of Trent, published under Paul
III. and Julius III., were to be regarded as valid, and under
no circumstances to be called in question. The legates were
to prevent the question of the Pope's supremacy over the
Council from being made the subject of discussion, especially
as the former Council had accepted the Papal supremacy
without question. Should matters, however, go so far,
that the prelates were not to be turned from the treatment
of this article, then the legates were to suspend the Council,
and inform the Pope by courier ; he would then take further
measures, and either remove the Council to another place
or dissolve it altogether.1
Two further documents for the legates were probably
taken to Trent by Simonetta : a brief of September 22nd,
1561, which authorized the legates, in case of need, to remove
the Council at their own discretion to another city, and
another brief of the same date which decided that if the Pope
should die during the Council, the choice of his successor
was not to belong to the Council, but to the Cardinals.2
Shortly before the arrival of Simonetta, during the night
between December 8th and 9th, the report of Delfino had
reached Trent, that in accordance with his promise, the
Emperor's envoys would arrive by the middle of January.
The legates at once informed all the prelates present, and
resolved, in consideration of this news, to postpone the opening
of the Council until January i5th ; Delfino was informed of
una strada tanto invecchiata et bisognando quasi passare da un
estremo all' altro. (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
1 The instruction, according to the minute of the private
secretary, T. Galli, in SUSTA, I., 116 seq.
2 Both documents in RAYNALDUS, 1561, n. 7-9 ; LE PLAT, IV.,
721 seq., and EHSES, VIII., 179 seq., 248. Cf. SUSTA, I., 118 seq.
See also the Acta consist, of November 19, 1561, in LAEMMER,
Melet., 213, and EHSES, VIII., 121. Cf. SAGMULLER, Papstwahl-
bullen, 1 1 8,
DISCUSSION AS TO PROCEDURE. 261
this on December gth. In a letter to Borromeo, dated
December nth, the legates gave their reasons for thus de
viating from the expressed will of the Pope, and begged
for his approval. This was granted them through Borromeo
on December 2Oth, and it was added that should the arrival
of the Imperial envoys, or the representatives of any other
great power, still be imminent, then a further shoit post
ponement would be allowed.1
Immediately after the arrival of Simonetta, the legates
consulted together as to what matter they should deal with
first ; they decided that it would be best to commence with
the Index of forbidden books, so as to avoid bringing up the
question of the continuation at the very outset, by going on
with the doctrine of the Sacraments. Simonetta commu
nicated this intention to Rome on December i±th, and the
Pope consented.2 Before the answer arrived, however, the
legates returned to the question on December i8th, paying
special attention to the objections and difficulties, and changed
their proposal in such a way that they now decided that it
would be advisable to put the question to the assembled
prelates in the first congregation after the opening, as to
whether they thought it best to continue to deal with the
articles not yet decided, or to deliberate upon new ones ;
they were of opinion that everyone would accept the con
tinuation, and that in this way nobody would be able to say
anything against the Pope, as the Council itself would have
declared its opinion. To this they received an answer from
the Pope, through Borromeo, on December 27th, that His
Holiness left it entirely to their discretion to act as they
thought best.3 On January 3rd the legates, who had been
1 SUSTA, I., 122 seq., 139. Borromeo had previously (to Ercole
Gonzaga, December 15, 1561) recommended the Epiphany as a
suitable da}>- for the opening of the Council. Pius IV. also decided
in favour of that day in the consistory of December 17 ; see
SUSTA, I., 132 seq., 134.
2 Borromeo to the legates on December 20, 1561, in SUSTA, I.,
139.
3 SUSTA, I., 129 seq., 143.
262 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
busily employed during these days with the preliminary
work of the Council, sent to Rome a draft of a decree for
the first session, which had been drawn up by Seripando.1
In a consistory on December lyth, the Pope, who, in spite
of the difficulties which still existed, was firmly resolved2 on
a speedy opening of the Council, bestowed the legatine cross
on Mark Sittich. The departure of the Cardinal, however,
was delayed until the new year, and he did not reach Trent
until January 30th, I562.3
The Pope, as he informed the legates through Cardinal
Borromeo on December 3ist, 1561, had chosen January i8th,
1562, a Sunday, on which day the feast of St. Peter's Chair
fell, for the opening day of the Council.4 On the receipt of
Delfino's information that the Imperial envoys would hardly
be in Trent before the end of January, it was left to the
legates, on January yth, to postpone the opening for another
eight or ten days.5
As there were already about a hundred prelates assembled
at Trent, the legates resolved to keep to January i8th. On
the I5th the first preparatory General Congregation assembled.
It was held at the residence of Cardinal Gonzaga, who, as
first legate, opened it with an address and prayer. Then
the secretary of the Council, Massarelli, read aloud the decrees
arranged for the inaugural session, and a Papal brief, by
which, in order to avoid disputes concerning precedure,
the order of rank among the Fathers of the Council was
decided. According to this the patriarchs were to come first,
the archbishops second, and the bishops third ; the primates,
on the other hand, were to have no precedence over the other
archbishops ; within the various ranks, the fathers were
1 SUSTA, I., 144 seq. ; ibid., 146 seq. the draft of the decree.
2 Cf. in Appendix No. 19 the *report of Fr. Tonina of December
3, 1561 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
3 *Report of Tonina, dated Rome, December 17, 1561 (Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua). Cf. SUSTA, I., 134, 151, II., 14 seq. ; STEIN-
HERZ, III., i ; THEINER, I., 680 ; EHSES, VIII., 122.
4 SUSTA, I., 151.
6 Ibid., 156.
DEMANDS OF THE SPANISH BISHOPS. 263
to be arranged according to the date of their appointment.1
Before the meeting of the General Congregation, the legates
had been successful in settling a difficulty which might have
proved very dangerous for the Council which was on the
point of being opened. On January 5th, the Archbishop
of Granada, Pedro Guerrero, had gone to Seripando to demand,
in the name of the Spanish bishops, that every ambiguity
should be avoided at the opening, and that the Council should
be clearly and definitely designated as a continuation of
the former one. On January nth Guerrero repeated his
demand in the presence of the four legates and Cardinal
Madiuzzo, and threatened to make a protest. The legates
did everything they could to avoid this, and at the last
moment their efforts were crowned with success. The arch
bishop withdrew his request, after having been assured by
the legates that no expression would be used at the opening
of the Council which could be taken as a declaration against
continuation ; the Council would be opened exactly in accord
ance with the text of the bull of convocation, the declaration
of continuation would follow at the fitting time, and at the
close, the earlier decrees, drawn up under Paul III. and
Julius III. together with the new decisions, would receive
the confirmation of the Pope.2
lSee THEINER, I., 673 seq. ; PALEOTTO, ibid., II., 530 seq. ;
RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 3 seq. Cf. PALLAVICINI, 15, 15, 6 seq. ;
Musotti in DOLLINGER, Konzil, II., 5. The brief concerning
precedence, dated December 31, 1561, in RAYNALDUS, 1561, n. 12 ;
LE PLAT, IV., 755; EHSES, VIII., 271. The bull Ad universalis
bears the same date of December 31, 1561, which decides that
the right of voting can only be exercised by those who are present
in person, and not by proxies. EHSES, VIII., 269 seq.
2 Besides the letters from the legates to Borromeo of January
12 and 15, 1562, in SUSTA, I., 152 seq., 158 seq., cf. Musotti in
DOLLINGER, Konzil, II., 4 seq. ; SERIPANDI Comment., 470 seq. ;
Paleotto in THEINER, II., 530, and the report of Pedro Gonzalez de
Mendoca, Bishop of Salamanca, who acted as mediator, in DOLLIN
GER, loc. cit., 64 seq. Cf. the letters of the Bishops of Sutri-Nepi
and Modena to Morone of January 15, 1562, in EHSES, VIII.,
279 seq.
CHAPTER VIII.
REOPENING OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. SESSIONS XVII TO
XXII.
Two complete years, full of work and anxieties, had been
necessary, in order to overcome the " sea of difficulties "
which the reopening of the Council had had to face. The
satisfaction of Pius IV. was therefore great and fully justified
when, at the end of the third year of his pontificate, he at
last saw all his efforts crowned with success.1
It was a momentous day for the Church and the Papacy
when all the members of the Council present in Trent assembled
in the ancient church of S. Peter, on the morning of January
1 8th, 1562, in order to proceed in procession to the neigh
bouring Cathedral for the purpose of the solemn opening of
the General Council of the Church. The members of the
secular and regular clergy of the city formed the head of the
procession, and these were followed by the mitred abbots,
ninety bishops, eleven archbishops, and three patriarchs.
Then followed the Duke of Mantua, the nephew of the Cardinal,
who had come to Trent for the solemnity, Cardinal Madruzzo,
and the four Papal legates, Gonzaga, Simonetta, Seripando
and Hosius, whose dignity was denoted by an infula of gold
material. The secular ambassadors should have followed
the legates, but none had as yet arrived. Four generals of
orders followed, with the Auditor of the Roman Rota, the
Consistorial Advocate, the Promoter of the Council, and
lastly the magistrates of Trent and other lay persons of
distinction.
1 The Pope expressed his j oy at the opening of the Council in a
consistory on January 28, 1562. See Acta consist, in LAEMMER,
Melet., 213 seq., and EHSES, VIII., 271. Cf. also Borromeo's
letter to Simonetta in SUSTA II., 18.
264
OPENING OF THE COUNCIL. 265
Cardinal Gonzaga celebrated High Mass, and the sermon
was delivered by the Archbishop of Reggio, Gaspare del Fosso.
After the usual ceremonies, the Secretary of the Council read
the Bull of Indiction, and the Archbishop of Reggio the two
decrees which had been accepted in the General Congregation
of January 15th,1 which were now approved. Four Spaniards
however, led by the Archbishop of Granada, Pedro Guerrero,
protested against the decision that the Council was to act
under the presidency, and to follow the proposals, of the
legates.2 During the session the Bishop of Fiinfkirchen,
Georg Draskovich, one of the orators of the princes, arrived;
he was to represent Ferdinand I. as King of Hungary.3
For the moment, the question of the continuation was
only. evaded. The legates resolved, in view of the widely
divergent views and demands of the powers, and in order not
to impede the course of the Council, to deal at first with
matters of secondary importance. In the General Congrega
tion of January 27th, they submitted three articles for dis
cussion at the next Session ; these concerned prohibited
books, and the drawing up of a letter of safe-conduct for the
Protestants.4 It was further decided to add four more
prelates, who were to examine the mandates of the procurators
of the bishops who were prevented from coming. The articles
submitted were dealt with in ten General Congregations.5
On January 3Oth, Mark Sittich, the long expected fifth legate,
arrived ; he brought the decision of Pius IV. on the much
1 See supra p. 262.
2 Cf. THEINER, I., 676 ; PALEOTTO ibid., II,, 533, ; RAYNALDUS,
1562, n. 5-8; BONDONUS 554 seq, ; Musotti in DOLLINGER,
Konzil, II., 5 ; report of the legates to Borromeo on January 19,
1562, in SUSTA, I., 163-6. Cf. PALLAVICINI 15, 16.
3 Cf. FRAKN6i, A magyar fogapok a trienti zinaton, Estergom,
1863 ; KASSOWITZ, 38 and viii seq. ; SUSTA, I., 164.
4 Cf. THEINER, I., 677 ; RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 9 ; LE PLAT, V.,
17 seq.; MENDO^A, 636; MUSOTTI, loc. "At., 6 seq. (January 20
is an error for 27 ; so is 28 in THEINER, loc. cit.}.
5 See THEINER, I., 678 seq. Cf. PALLAVICINI, 15, 19. For the
revision of the Index see Vol. XVI. of this work, Chap. I.
266 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
debated question as to whether the city of the Council should
have a protective foice of Papal troops. The Pope decided
that the defence of the Council should be entrusted to Cardinal
Madruzzo, as the temporal lord of the district, and that a
monthly allowance of 200 scudi should be assigned to him
from the treasury of the Council.1
The Bishop of Fiinfkirchen had at first to remain inactive,
as he had arrived in Trent without mandate or instructions.2
It was only on January 3ist, when the Archbishop of Prague,
Brus von Miiglitz, one of the envoys who was to represent
Ferdinand I. as Emperor, had arrived, that both the repre
sentatives of the Hapsburg were solemnly received in the
General Congregation on February 6th.3 The Portuguese
envoy, Fernando Martinez de Mascareynas, arrived in Trent
on February 7th.4 In order to avoid disputes between the
ecclesiastical and secular representatives of the princes, such
as had already arisen between the Spanish and Portuguese
envoys, the legates issued a table of precedence on February
8th.5 The Portuguese envoy, who soon proved himself a
loyal friend to the legates, was introduced at the General
Congregation on the following day, and the second Imperial
envoy, Sigismund von Thun, who had now also arrived, was
introduced on February ioth.6
On February i3th the three representatives of Ferdinand I.
handed to the legates a memorandum, 7 in which, in accordance
1 Cf. BONDONUS, 556; SICKEL, Beochte, I., 125; SUSTA, II.,
M-5-
2 See SUSTA, II., 17; KASSOWITZ, 39.
8 See SICKEL, Konzil, 229 ; THEINER. I., 680 ; RAYNALDUS,
1562, n. 10 ; LE PLAT, V., 19-22; BONDONUS, 557. Cf. PALLA-
VICINI, 15, 20.
4 See THEINER, I., 681 ; BONDONUS, 557 ; GIULIANI, loc. cit.,
107 seq. ; SUSTA, I., 95.
6 RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. n ; LE PLAT, V., 22 seq. ; THEINER, I.,
68 1 seq.
• RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 12-14 » LE PLAT, V., 23-30 ; THEINER, I.
682-3 » BONDONUS, 557.
7 In RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 15-6 ; LE PLAT, V., 33-5.
THE XVIIIth SESSION. 267
with their instructions of January ist,1 the following requests
were set forth : In order to avoid giving offence to the Pro
testants, it was desired that no pronouncement as to the
continuation of the Council should be made at present ; that
the next Session should be postponed as long as possible ;
that questions of dogma should in the meantime be adjourned,
and less important matters dealt with ; a condemnation of the
Confession of Augsburg should be avoided in drawing up the
Index ; the Protestants must receive safe-conduct in the
widest sense of the term, and in the form which they them
selves wished. The provisional reply of the legates to these
demands was drawn up in very conciliatory terms.2
On February iyth the legates admonished the fathers
of the Council to keep secret the questions submitted to them
for consideration ; they were only to be made known when
the decrees had been drawn up and published in the public
Session.3
At the General Congregation of February 24th the Bishop
of Fimfkirchen delivered his mandate as Hungarian envoy.4
On the same day the Jubilee indulgence granted by the Pope
in a brief of February I4th, was published.5
The XVIIIth Session, the second under Pius IV., was held
on February 26th.6 The five legates were present, with
Cardinal Madruzzo of Trent, three patriarchs, sixteen arch
bishops, a hundred and five bishops, four abbots, five generals
of orders, fifty theologians and four orators. High Mass
was celebrated by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, Antonio Elio,
after which a sermon was preached by Antonio Cauco, Arch-
1 Printed in SICKEL, Konzil, 252-60. Cf. KROSS, 455 seq. ;
KASSOWITZ, 30 seq. ; EDER, I., 107 seq., 114 seq.. 127.
2 See RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 17; LE PLAT, V., 35 seq. Cf.
SUSTA, II., 23 seq. ; SICKEL, Konzil, 269 ; EDER, I., 128.
3 See RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 18 ; LE PLAT, V., 36 ; THEINER, I.,
686 seq.
4 See LE PLAT, V., 37-43 ; THEINER, I., 690.
6 THEINER, I., 689. The Papal brief in LE PLAT, V., 43.
6 Cf. RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 19-21 ; THEINER, I., 691 ; Musotti,
in DOLLINGER, Konzil, II., 9 seq.; cf. PALLAVICINI, 15, 21.
268 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
bishop of Patras. Two decrees were published : one which
announced the reform of the Index, and dealt with the in
vitation of all to the Council (De librorum delectu et omnibus
ad concilium fide publica invitandis) ; in its second part it
contained an invitation to the Protestants to present them
selves at Trent, which was expressed in a noble spirit
of peace ;J by the second decree, the next Session of the
Council was, in accordance with the wishes of the Emperor,
postponed till May I4th. In order that the letter of safe-
conduct for the Protestants should be granted as soon as
possible, it was resolved that a General Congregation should
have the power to issue this with full validity. They acted
on this decision on March 2nd and 4th, and on the latter day
the letter of safe-conduct was solemnly granted, which fact
was made public on the 8th, by a notice affixed to the doors
of the Cathedral in Trent. The designation " heretic " was
in this replaced by the milder description " those who do not
agree with us in faith, and believe otherwise than the Holy
Roman Church teaches."2
Pius IV. was most anxious that the Council should quickly
be brought to completion by the immediate treatment of
dogmatic questions. It was only after a consultation with
five Cardinals that he had yielded to the request of the
Emperor to postpone the next Session of the Council to a later
date. A letter from Borromeo of February 2Oth gave per
mission for the next Session to be postponed till the beginning
of May at the latest ; in the meantime, in order to meet the
wishes of the Emperor in this respect as well, they should not
deal with dogma, but only with letters of safe-conduct and
similar matters, as well as with several general points of
reform ; the Pope would himself undertake the reform of the
opinion of KN^PFLER in the Freiburger Kirchenlex, XI.,
2090.
2 See RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 22-3 ; THEINER, I., 692 ; Paleotto,
in THEINER, II., 545 seq. ; MUSOTTI, loc. cit., 10 seq. ; report
of the legates of March 9, in SUSTA, II., 46 ; Cf. PALLAVICINI,
DEMANDS OF THE EMPEROR. 269
Curia.1 After the legates had received these instructions on
February 24th, .they resolved, in the General Congregation of
the 25th, to fix the next Session for May I4th.2 At the same
time as they informed the Pope of this, they made him a
proposal that a special envoy should be sent to the Emperor,
in order to prevent further delays.3 The Pope agreed to this,
and suggested that Commendone might ba entrusted with this
mission, when he came to Trent after the completion of his
journey through Germany.4 Commendone, who reached
Trent on March 7th, was prepared to undertake this new task,
but wished first to go to Venice for a few days.5
The position, however, had in the meantime been altered
by the new demands presented by the Imperial envoys on
March 5th • the reform of the German clergy was to be taken
in hand at once, and a solemn invitation to the Council
addressed to the Protestants.6 The legates, in their reply,7
made very reasonable objections to these demands ; 8 the Pope
also wished to refuse them, and was specially averse to the
second one, for an invitation of the Protestants to the Council,
which they did not recognize as such, would only lead to a
further delay in its activities, without being of any other use,
as the Protestants had already received an invitation, which
they had only disregarded and despised. As it was now
feared that the proposed envoy from the Council to the
Emperor might be won over by the latter to his views, the
Pope thought it wiser that the whole mission should if possible
I See SUSTA, II., 31 seq. ; ibid., 32 seq., the more confidential
instructions to Simonetta. Cf. EDER, I., 129 seq.
2THEiNER, I., 690.
3 Letter of the legates of February 25, 1562, in SUSTA, II., 37.
4 Borromeo to the legates on March 8, 1562, in SUSTA, II.,
48 seq. Cf. STEINH.ERZ, III., 26.
5 See SUSTA, II., 52, 412.
6 LE PLAT, V., 102 seq. Cf. STEINHERZ, III., 26. For the date,
March 5 (instead of 6) see EDER, I., 136 n. i, and 147 seq., as
against LOWE, 87 seq.
II Of March 9, in LE PLAT, V., 103.
8 See EDER, I., 136. Cf. SAGMULLER, Papstwahlbullen, 122.
270 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
be given up.1 This in fact was done ; the legates resolved
to make their representations to the Emperor, which were to
have been entrusted to Commendone, through the nuncio,
Delfino. However, before the letter to Delnno, drafted on
April 2nd, was dispatched, a report from the nuncio, of March
30th, arrived in Trent on April 6th, which announced that the
Emperor had withdrawn his demand for a postponement of
the proceedings of the Council.2 On March 2gth the Pope
gave instructions to the legates through Borromeo that they
were no longer to delay the deliberations. Beginning with
the next Session, they were to proceed to the treatment of
questions of dogma, and thereby, though tacitly, and without
any express declaration, the continuation would become an
actual fact ; the Spaniards would certainly be pleased to have
this as an accomplished fact, while on the other hand all
unnecessary offence would be avoided. The Pope also
declared that, in the event of its being necessary, the highly
controversial question whether the bishops' duty of residence
was of divine or human institution, was admissible.3 This
difficult point had been raised when the legates, without
waiting for the Pope's reply, had, on March nth, begun the
treatment of questions of reform by submitting twelve
articles.4
At first it was only private discussions in which this import
ant controversy came into the foreground, but soon it was being
discussed with much heat in the widest circles.6 Cardinal
1 Borromeo to the legates on March 14, 1562, in SUSTA, II., 59.
2 See STEINHERZ, III., 32-3.
3 SUSTA, II., 71 seq. Already on March 18, Borromeo had
given the legates instructions, so as to prevent unpleasantness, to
avoid from any dispute about the " ius divinum residentiae,"
ibid., 65.
4 For the story of the origin of the important 12 articles on
reform (in THEINER, I., 694 ; LE PLAT, V., 104) see SUSTA, II., 47.
Cf. ibid., 52 seq. for the proceedings of the legates, which could
not be brought into accordance with the instructions received
on March 12. See also EDER, I., 136 seq.
5 Cf. Paleotto in THEINER, I., 550 seq.
ARRIVAL OF MORE ENVOYS. 271
Simonetta stood out from the first as the strong opponent of
any definition of a divine law of the duty of residence ; he
stood above all his colleagues in knowledge of canon law,1 and
he clearly recognized the danger which this vexed question
concealed ; however, the wishes of Ferdinand's envoys
weighed more in the end than these fears.2
In the latter half of March the real business of the Council
had to a certain extent to give way to the solemn receptions
and to the ceremonies of Holy Week.3 On March i6th the
envoy of the Spanish king, Fernando Francisco de Avalos,
Marquis of Pescara, was received in the General Congregation ;4
on March i8th, the envoy of the Duke of Florence, Giovanni
Strozzi ;5 on March 2Oth, the envoys of Catholic Switzerland,
Melchior Lussy, chief magistrate of Unterwalden, as orator of
the seven Catholic cantons, and Abbot Joachim Eichhorn of
Einsiedeln, as procurator of the prelates and clergy of the seven
cantons ;6 on April 6th, the procurators of the prelates and
clergy of the kingdom of Hungary, Johann di Kolosvary, Bishop
of Csanad, and Andreas Sbardelato Dudith, Bishop of Knin.7
The discussion, at first only of the first four reform articles,
was now begun in the General Congregation of April yth.8
1 Cf. SICKEL, Berichte, I., 57
2 See EDER, I., 137-8.
3 See SUSTA, II., 53, 64. Cf. PALLAVICINI, 16, 4, 2.
4 See RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 32-4; LE PLAT, V., 105-10. Cf.
THEINER, I., 694 seq. ; BONDONUS, 558-9. See also SUSTA, I.,
313, on the provisional appointment of Pescara.
5 See RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 35-7; LE PLAT, V., uo-6. Cf.
THEINER, I., 695; SUSTA, II., 53 seq.
8 See RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 38-9; LE PLAT, V., 116-24. Cf.
THEINER, I., 695 ; MAYER, Konzil und Gegensreformation, I.,
50 seqq.
7 See LE PLAT, V., 138-46. Cf. THEINER, I., 696 ; SUSTA, II.,
74 seq. On April 25 the envoys of the Republic of Venice, Niccolo
da Ponte and Matteo Dandolo, were received. See RAYNALDUS,
1562. n. 42 ; LE PLAT, V., 159-62. Cf. THEINER, I., 714 ; SUSTA,
II., 61.
8 See THEINER, 1., 696 seqq. ; Paleotto in THEINER, II., 552 seg.
Cf. PALLAVICINI, 16, 4 seg. ; SUSTA, II., 77 seq.
272 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
It then happened that, at the first article, the Archbishop of
Granada, Pedro Guerrero, who was the principal spokesman of
the Spaniards, asked for a decision of the question which was so
variously interpreted by theologians, whether the duty of
residence had its origin in divine or in human law. Whoever
voted on this question with the Archbishop of Granada, in
favour of the divine law, at the same time pronounced in favour
of the opinion that in the episcopal consecration there was
immediately conferred by God a certain though still indeter
minate power of government, while the Pope, in conferring a
bishopric, did no more than designate the person to whom
this power of government was applied. This, however, was
contested by many, and on account of the deeply-rooted
differences of opinion, the discussions proved to be as long as
they were stormy.1 In the discussions most of the Spaniards,
filled with zeal for the defence and consolidation of the epis
copal dignity, spoke in favour of the divine right ; they hoped
from this to be able to gain a strengthening of episcopal
jurisdiction as against the central power of the Pope and a
limitation of Roman dispensations. Beyond this practical
object the matter had also a very wide importance on the
ground of principle. It was not only a question of words,
as some later believed who had only considered the matter
superficially.2 What was being discussed was rather a matter
of profound theology, upon the answer to which the most
important consequences depended. The controversy affected
the innermost constitution of the Church, and involved in
itself the old antithesis between the Papal and episcopal
systems. Cardinal Simonetta saw very clearly the weapon
1 Hitherto the General Congregation had been held at the
residence of Cardinal Gonzaga, the Palazzo Thun ; the much
greater number of those taking part, as well as the increasing
heat of the season, were the reasons why, after April 13, the
church of S. Maria Maggiore was chosen for the place of meeting.
GIUILANI, 96. Cf. also EHSES, VIII. , 440 n. 2, and 513 n. 2.
From April 25 to May 26,, 1 562, the Congregations were held in the
Cathedral.
* Cf. GRISAR, Frage des papstl. Primates, 454 seq., 784.
THE QUESTION OF RESIDENCE. 273
against the Papal primacy contained in the theory of the
Spaniards, as well as the danger which would follow an
affirmative decision. A definition of the divine right, so he
feared, would not only give the Protestants an opening for
fresh attacks upon the Curia, but would also injure important
interests of the Holy See, both in reality and in theory ; it
would bind the hands of the Pope and would create an import
ant prejudice in favour of the superiority of the Council.
Because he did not wish to see the ancient and essential
rights of the Roman primacy lessened, Simonetta did every
thing in his power to avert this danger.1 His forebodings
were only shared by Hosius, and not by Gonzaga and Seri-
pando. For the rest, it was almost entirely Italian prelates
who were on his side, and their authority was weakened by the
fact that, on account of their poverty, they received pecuniary
support from the Curia, in consequence of which they did not
appear to be independent.2
How greatly the views on this subject, which, in default of
any binding definition on the part of the Church, was still an
open one, were in need of being cleared up, appeared in the
voting which took place in the General Congregation on April
2oth, on the question whether the duty of residence was to be
denned as being based on divine institution. It had been
settled that the question was to be answered by a simple
" yes " or " no." As many did not keep to this, a confusion
arose which is reflected to this day in the very discrepant
statements given by the various authorities. According to
the notes made by Seripando, 67 fathers answered with a
simple " yes," and 33 with a simple " no ; " 38 gave a con
ditional vote ; some of these voted in the affirmative, if the
Pope were first asked for his opinion, others in the negative,
if the Pope were not asked ; Cardinal Madruzzo remarked
that he would abide by what he had said in a previous session ;
the Bishop of Budua said that he approved of its publication.
lCf. SUSTA, II., 70, 89, 124 seq. ; EDER, I., 142. See also
Paleotto in THEINER, II., 555.
8 See EDER, I., 142.
VOL. XV. 1 8
274 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
The Benedictine Abbots answered in various ways, the question
then arising as to whether they were to have only one vote,
as in the time of Paul III.1 The result therefore was simply
that a bare majority would come to no decision until the Pope
had given his opinion on the question. The session had been
more excited than any held so far. The noise and strife, said
Musotti, was so great that the avoidance of a schism could
only be ascribed to a miracle.2
The confusion was still further increased by disunion among
the legates. After the voting, Cardinal Gonzaga was inclined
to count the votes of those who said " yes, with the assent of
the Pope," with the votes of those who wished for a definition
of the divine right unconditionally, and then to proceed
without further ceremony, but as Cardinals Simonetta and
Hosius justly protested, he was obliged to give up the
idea.3
The legates sent a petition to the Pope on the very day of
the session, that in view of the divergence of opinion, he would
decide the matter himself.4 Three days later, Gonzaga and
Seripando sent a kind of minority vote to Rome, in which the
sending of such messages to the Pope was deprecated, because
the idea that there was a want of freedom in the Council
would be strengthened among the Protestants as well as among
many Catholics. Gonzaga and Seripando therefore advised
that the Pope should refrain from making a decision, and should
1 SERIPANDI Comment., 484-5. Concerning the different
computations in other authorities, cf. DRUFFEL in the Theol.
Lit.-Blatt., 1876, 484. MERKLE, who has discovered the manu
script remains of Paleotto (see Rom. Quartalschrift, XL, 335 seq,}
in the Isolani Archives at Bologna, promises (ConciJ., II., 639)
an exact edition of each voting from the original diary of Paleotto.
See also the complete conciliar Ada from April 7 to 20, together
with numerous original votes, hitherto unknown, in EHSES, VI II.,
402-65.
2 DOLLINGER, Tagebiicher, II., 12. See also Paleotto in
THEINER, II., 554 seq.
3 See SUSTA, II., 90,
88,
INTERFERENCE OF THE ENVOYS. 275
admonish the prelates to settle the matter according to their
consciences.1
On the same April 2oth a commission was appointed to draw
up a decree embodying the points of reform already dealt with.
From April 2ist to the 24th, six more of the twelve articles
were discussed. On April 28th, a letter from the French envoy,
Lansac, was read, in which he announced his arrival, but
begged that the Session of May i4th might be postponed, as he
could not be in Trent by then.2 Almost all the Spanish
prelates protested against a postponement of the Session, but
they were by no means in the majority. At length a way was
found to please both parties ; it was resolved on April 3oth
to hold the Session fixed for May i4th on that day, but only
to read the mandates of the newly arrived envoys ; the publi
cation of the decrees already determined on was to take place
at a Session to be held eight days later.3
About this time various circumstances contributed to render
the position of the Council exceedingly difficult, not the least
of which were the many acts of interference on the part of the
princes and their representatives. The matter of the con
tinuation on the one hand, and the question as to the duty
of residence on the other, were the subjects which disturbed
the peaceful carrying on of the deliberations.
The Spanish ambassador in Rome, Vargas, had handed an
autograph letter from his master to the Pope on April iQth,
making at the same time a protest, both verbally and in writing,
against the exclusive right of the legates to bring forward
proposals, and against the postponement of the explicit
declaration of continuation.4 Cardinal Borromeo informed
xThe letter of Gonzaga and Seripando of April 23, 1562, un
fortunately only preserved in a summary, in SUSTA, II., 90 seq.
2 See RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 44 ; LE PLAT, V., 162. (./. THEINER,
I., 714 seq.
3 See PALLAVICINI, 16, 5, 13. All the material concerning the
Congregations and Sessions down to the XXIInd. on September 17,
1562, is now in a detailed edition in EHSES, VIII.
* See DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 415; Colleccion de docum.
ined., IX., 141. The autograph letter of Philip II., of March 30,
1562, in SUSTA, II., 94 seq.
276 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
the legates of this on April 25th, and three days later Pius
IV. wrote to them that he had given the Portuguese ambassa
dor, Lorenzo Perez, who was returning home, a commission to
Philip II. to vindicate the Papal policy with regard to the
Council.1 The legates, on their part, drew up for Philip II.
on May 7th, a detailed memorandum of vindication concerning
the questions contested by Spain.2 They also informed Car
dinal Borromeo on May 7th that they had intended to declare
the continuation explicitly at the next Session, but that as
the Imperial envoys had urgently protested against this only
the day before, they were still undecided what course to
pursue.3 The representatives of Ferdinand I. again protested
on May 8th against the words in the draft of the decree of
prorogation fixed for the next Session, which they thought
might be understood as a declaration of continuation. A
corresponding alteration was accordingly made.4 On May
loth the Spanish envoy, the Marquis of Pescara, had returned
to Trent ; he brought fresh instructions from Philip II. which
urgently demanded an explicit declaration of continuation.
The Imperial envoys were equally insistent on the other side.
On May I2th it was agreed that in the Session immediately
following (May I4th), they would merely publish a decree
postponing the next Session from May 2ist to June 4th ; they
must abstain from any declaration of continuation, but the
legates must give the Spanish envoy hopes of this being made
in the Session in June. By this postponement of the Session
the Imperial envoys gained time to seek further instructions
from Ferdinand I.5
In Rome, on May I2th, the French ambassador, in con
junction with Abbot Niquet of St. Gildas, who had arrived
from France, presented to the Pope from their government a
fresh request for the postponement of the proceedings of the
1 See SUSTA, II., 93 seq., 98 seq.
2Collecci6n de docum. in6d., IX., 161 seq. Cf. also SUSTA, II.,
102 seq.
8 SUSTA, II., 101 seq.
4 SUSTA, I., 104 seq.
8 See SUSTA, II., 123 seq. ; EDER, I., 147.
THE XlXth SESSION. 277
Council.1 The Pope was unwilling to agree to this, and since
he was being continually urged by the Spanish ambassador
to proclaim the continuation, z he instructed the legates on May
I3th to proceed with the discussion in the Council of matters of
dogma and reform as an express continuation of the Council
of Trent, without paying any attention to the remonstrances
which were to be expected from France and elsewhere.3
At Trent, on May I4th, in the XlXth Session, the third
under Pius IV., as had been agreed, nothing was don* beyond
the publication of the decree of postponement to the 4th of
June, and the reading of the mandates. The legates, Cardinal
Madruzzo, three patriarchs, eighteen archbishops, a hundred
and thirty-one bishops, two abbots, four generals of orders,
twenty-two theologians and eight orators (among them the
envoy of Duke Albert V. of Bavaria, who had arrived on May
ist) were present.4
Three days before the XlXth Session the developments
in the controversy as to the duty of residence had led the Pope
to make an important pronouncement.
Since they were not in possession of sufficient information
for the treatment of the questions of reform, the legates had
already, on April nth, sent to Rome a confidential messenger
in the person of Federigo Pendaso, who was to find out the
wishes of the Pope, especially in the matter of the duty of
residence.5 Pendaso had arrived in the Eternal City on April
2Oth,6 but his return was so long delayed that reports were
JSee SUSTA, II., 155.
2 See Vargas to Philip II. on May 4, 1562, in DOLLINGER,
Beitrage, II., 415 seq.
8 SUSTA, II., 155. " Le cose del concilio la (S. Su] travagliano
anco molto," *reports Fr. Tonina on May 13, 1562 (Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua).
* See RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 44 ; THEINER, I., 717. Concerning
the Bavarian envoys, Dr. Augustin Paumgartner and Jean
Couvillon S. J. see KNO.PFLER, Kelchbewegung, 100 ; RIEZLER,
IV., 513 ; CANISII Epist., 450, 562.
6 Cf. SUSTA, 11., 78-82, and MERKLE, II., 483 seq.
6 See Arco's report in SICKEL, Konzil, 293.
278 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
current of the imminent translation of the Council, or of its
sudden ending.1 No such plans, however, were contemplated.
The cause of the delay was the embarrassment of the Pope
as to the attitude he should adopt with regard to the question
of the duty of residence, as to which such great differences of
opinion prevailed among the fathers. In view of the great
number who held that opinion, and the attitude of Vargas, a
plain rejection of the divine authority for the duty of residence
did not seem to be opportune, especially because many saw in a
declaration of the divine right one of the most efficacious means
of restoring ecclesiastical discipline, now so fallen into decay,
and thus they would incur the suspicion that the Curia was
seeking to thwart the work of reform. Above all, however, the
most vital interests of the Holy See were involved in the ques
tion. If he gave way, he would have to bear in mind that
those fathers who had spoken out openly against the definition,
thinking thereby to render an important service to the Pope,
must not lightly be thrown over. A hurried definition was
therefore to be avoided, because the laying down of an article
of faith called for complete security, and of that, in the face
of such violent opposition, there could be no question.2
On account of the difficulties which stood in the way of a
definite decision, either in one sense or the other, Pius IV.
thought it best to leave the question open for the time being,
and to send Pendaso back to Trent only with decisions as to
the reforms that were to be undertaken (May 3rd).3 When he
was near Mantua, Pendaso injured himself by a fall from his
horse to such a degree that he was unable to continue his
journey. He therefore dictated to Giovanni Francesco
Arrivabene, who had been sent to meet him by the legates,
his instructions, which were to the following effect : the Pope
is resolved on the reform of the whole Church, and especially
of the Roman Curia. That of the Penitentiaria is already in
hand, and that of the other offices will follow, in spite of the
financial losses involved. The Pope earnestly admonished the
1 See Colleccion de docum. ine"d., IX., 151.
2 Of. PALLAVICINI, 16, 5.
3 See SUSTA, II., 108.
THE POPE'S ARTICLES OF REFORM. 279
legates to proceed with all possible moderation, lest the move
ment for reform within the Church, instead of contributing
to the salvation of Christendom, should degenerate into a mere
upsetting of the existing order ; they were not lightly to lend
an ear to every claim and request, bat to proceed in agreement
with the head of the Church. With regard to the question
of residence, the Pope still reserved a decisive definition ;
in view of the differences of opinion among the fathers, and
the prevailing excitement, it would be better to wait for a
more favourable and a calmer time.1
Besides these instructions, Pendaso was the bearer of 95
articles of reform, furnished with notes by the Pope himself,
which had been drawn up by the private secretary of Pius IV.,
on the basis of the reform libellum of the Spanish prelates,
which had been sent to Rome by Simonetta on April 6th.2
In the meantime, Simonetta, by his expostulations, had been
successful in inducing his colleagues to leave on one side the
question of residence, and to treat of it only in connection with
the discussion of the Sacrament of Holy Orders. This was
reported to Cardinal Borromeo by the legates on May nth.3
But in the meantime a change of opinion had been brought
about in the mind of Pius IV. Reports from various corre
spondents painted the disunion and confusion at Trent in
such vivid colours that the whole Curia was stirred to its
depths. The Pope's mind was disturbed more and more by
the secret warnings which reached him in great numbers,
1 See SUSTA, II., 109 seq. Concerning the reforms at Rome,
which related especially to the Penitentiaria and the Apostolic
Camera, see, besides SICKEL, Konzil, 298 seq., 310, and SAGMULLER,
Papstwahlbullen, 128, the *statements of Tonina (Gonzaga
Archives, Mantua) and the *Avvisi di Roma (Vatican Library)
in Appendix Nos. 20 — 33. For the constitution of May 4,
1562 (Bull. Rom., VII., 193 seq.), which was the first attempt to
alter the Penitentiaria, and to limit its powers, see G$LLER, II.,
113 seq.
8 Published in accordance with a manuscript of Seripando, in
SUSTA, II., 113 seqq.
8 SUSTA, II., 121 seq., 126.
280 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
which came to him partly directly, and partly through Borro-
meo, from fathers of the Council who were known to be zealous
partisans of the Holy See. A profound impression was made
by several reports from Simonetta, who had from the first
been definitely opposed to the declaration that the duty of
residence was founded on divine right. The zeal of the Car
dinal, as well as his wide knowledge of canon law, were bound
to place his opinion above suspicion, and to give real justi
fication to his apprehension of dangers, which the eyes of the
oth6r legates had not detected. In addition to this there had
come to Rome other communications, which not only exagger
ated, but even distorted occurrences which had taken place
in Trent ; among these there were even angry calumnies
against Cardinals Gonzaga and Seripando.1
Pius IV. considered the matter of such grave importance
that, contrary to his usual custom, he sought counsel from
the Cardinals. He formed six of them into a special commis
sion,2 and a consultation with them led to the conclusion that
the Pope could no longer maintain his former attitude of
reserve.3 A resolution was therefore come to, to avert the
dangers that threatened at Trent by an extraordinary step :
to associate with the legates who were there thiee new ones ;
Cardinals Cicada, de la Bourdaisiere, and Navagero were
proposed for this office. Cicada seemed to be especially suited
for the defence of the rights of the Holy See, as not only was
he distinguished for his great knowledge of canon law, but
also for his great intrepidity. Bourdaisiere, as Bishop of
Angouleme, had always shown great zeal for religion, and as
the ambassador of France to the Holy See he had won in a
high degree the good-will and confidence of the Pope ; he
would be in a position to render valuable services in averting
the difficulties which were to be feared from the French
government. Navagero, too, possessed, in addition to a truly
*See the testimony of Borromeo in his letter to Gonzaga of
May n, 1562, in SUSTA, II., 140, and Paleotto in THEINER, II.,
558-9. Cf. PALLAVICINI, 16, 5 and 8.
2 See Paleotto, loc. cit., 559.
3 See EDER, I., 145.
FURTHER LEGATES SUGGESTED. 28l
ecclesiastical spirit, great diplomatic skill, of which he had
given proofs as Venetian ambassador at different courts,and
finally in Rome. It might therefore be hoped that he would
be successful in restoring harmony among the legates.1
Pius IV., in his own vigorous way, informed the legates of
his intention on May nth. He did not refrain from making
bitter reproaches to them on account of their want of unity
in treating the question of the duty of residence. They should
have prevented this complicated question, which had already
been postponed in the time of Paul III. from being made a
subject of discussion, especially as they themselves were not
of one mind regarding it. " Remember," he wrote, " that
you are all legates together, and that you must proceed in
complete agreement, instead of causing scandal by disunion."
In addition to this exhortation to harmony, he repeated in
his letter the declaration that the matter of the duty of resi
dence must be adjourned for the present, and the treatment
of dogma and reform proceeded with instead, without delay.2
The legates, who received this letter on May I5th, answered
two days later ; they would do their utmost, and hoped to
succeed in postponing the question of the duty of residence
at least until the treatment of Holy Orders ; against the re
proach of disunion they attempted to justify themselves.3
Cardinals Gonzaga and Seripando, who understood quite well
that the reproaches of the angry Pope were chiefly directed
against themselves, addressed special letters of justification
to Cardinal Borromeo on May i6th and I7th, which left
nothing to be desired from the point of view of frankness.4
Cardinal Gonzaga at the same time announced his intention of
leaving Trent as soon as Cicada, to whom, because of his
seniority, the presidentship of the legatine college must
1 See PALLAVICINI, 16, 8, 12.
2 SUSTA (IL, 134 seq.) by making use of the previous drafts
has cleared up in a masterly way the genesis of the Papal letter
of May n, 1562.
8 See SUSTA, II., 152.
* Gonzaga's letter in SUSTA, II., 143 seqq., that of Seripando
in SICKEL, Berichte, II., 108 seq.
282 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
belong, had arrived. It was only after the Pope had given
up the proposed mission of new legates, that the deeply
offended Cardinal of Mantua allowed himself to be persuaded
to remain for the time being.1
On May 25th the legates submitted to the fathers of the
Council, as the result of the deliberations which had taken place
so far, the draft of a decree, in nine reform canons, to be
published at the next Session.2 On the same day they
reported to Rome the ill-success of their negotiations with
the Spaniards, who demanded that the question of the duty
of residence should be decided at the next Session, or, if that
were not possible, either that the Session should be delayed,
or that they should have a promise that the matter should
be decided at the following one.3 It was only with great
difficulty that Mendo$a, Bishop of Salamanca, who, by ar
rangement with the legates, had undertaken the task of
mediation, succeeded hi dissuading the leader of the Spanish
prelates, the Archbishop of Granada, from his purpose of
making a protest against the postponement of the question.4
Besides this the Spaniards insisted, as they had done previ
ously, that the Council should be expressly declared to be a
continuation of the former Council of Trent. In this connec
tion the situation was further aggravated by the unmannerly
attitude taken up by the French envoys, whose leader, de
Lansac, the confidant of Catherine de' Medici, reached Trent
on May i8th. A few days later, his two colleagues, Arnaud
du Ferrier, President of the Parliament of Paris, and Gui
du Faur de Pibrac, Chief Justice of Toulouse, both of whom
were suspected of heresy, also arrived.5 The representatives
of France were received 'at a General Congregation on May
26th ; they came with a demand that the Council should be
lCf. SUSTA, II., 180.
2 See THEINER, I., 718-22 ; LE PLAT, V., 186-9.
8 SUSTA, II., 161 seq.
* See MENDO^A, 642 seq.
6 Cf. RAYNALDUS, 1562, n, 44-6 ; LE PLAT, V., 175-85 ; THEINER
I., 720 seq.; BONDONUS, 560; PALLAVICINI, 16, 10 and n ;
BAGUENAULT DE PUCHESSE, 63 seq.
DANGER OF A DISSOLUTION. 283
expressly declared to be a new one, and not a continuation.
At the same time a letter, dated May 22nd, arrived from
Ferdinand I. to his envoys, and another from Delfino to the
legates, announcing that the Emperor not only refused his
consent to an express declaration of continuation, but threat
ening, if this were made, to recall his representatives.1
The legates, who reported the attitude taken up by the
Emperor to Rome on May 26th,2 had reason to fear the disso
lution of the Council. While they were still seeking to find
a way out of this exceedingly difficult position, they received,
on the evening of June 2nd, a letter from Pius IV., dated JMay
3Oth,3 which filled them with dismay, for it contained express
orders that, in accordance with the promise made to the
Spanish king, they were to hold to the express declaration
of continuation which had already been ordained. The legates
were convinced that the carrying out of this command would
not only lead to the dissolution of the Council, but would also,
since the representative of Spain, the Marquis of Pescara, had
agreed to a postponement, throw the whole blame for this
upon the Pope.4 They therefore resolved not to carry out
the order, which had been issued under the influence of Vargas,5
and to justify this step in Rome through Cardinal Mark
Sittich. His mission, however, was not required, as, on the
following day, a second letter from the Pope arrived, dated
May 3ist, which revoked the first one, and left it to the
discretion of the legates to refrain from making an express
declaration of continuation at the next Session, so long as
the actual carrying on of the labours of the Council was taken
in hand.6
VSee SICKEL, Konzil, 314; STEINHERZ, III., 52 seq.
2 SUSTA, II., 164 seq.
8SusxA, II., 175 seq. Cf. SICKEL, Berichte, III., 131.
4 See SERIPAND i Comment., 467 ; MUSOTTI, I., 15 seq. ; Paleotto
in THEINER, II., 560. Cf. PALLAVICINI, 16, 12, 2 and 3. See
also SICKEL, Berichte, III., 138 seq.
6 Cf. Collecci6n de docum. ine"d., IX., 232 seq. ; SUSTA, II., 178.
6 See SUSTA, II., 180 seq., 183, 471. Tonina *reported on
May 20, 1562, that the Pope held congregations about the Council
every day (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
284 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
After the necessary preparations had been made in the
General Congregation of June 3rd, the XXth Session, the
fourth under Pius IV. was held on June 4th. At this assembly,
all the legates, with the exception of Gonzaga, were present,
as well as Cardinal Madruzzo, two patriarchs, eighteen arch
bishops, a hundred and thirty-seven bishops, two abbots, four
generals of orders, twenty-eight theologians, and eleven
orators. High Mass was celebrated by Bishop Mendo9a of
Salamanca, and the sermon was preached by the Bishop of
Famagosta, Girolamo Ragazzoni. On account of the diffi
culties caused by the questions of residence and continuation,
nd .decrees were published, only the mandates of the Swiss,
Salzburg, and French orators and procurators being read,
and a decree of prorogation, which fixed the next Session for
June i6th. The greater number of the fathers accepted this
decree, but thirty-eight raised an objection to the omission
of any mention of the duty of residence and continuation.1
In the General Congregation of June 6th, Cardinal Gonzaga
submitted, as the subject of the next dogmatic decree, five
articles on Communion in both kinds, and the Communion of
children.2 Thirty-one bishops declared their agreement to
this proposal, but only on condition that the duty of residence
should also be dealt with. The same minority also addressed
a very outspoken petition to the Pope on the same day, in
which they defended their position with regard to the duty of
residence as a divine command, and protested against the
tendency ascribed to them of intending to undermine the
authority of the Holy See.3 Pius IV. replied on July 1st that
it was his desire that freedom of speech and discussion should
exist in the Council, but at the same time he warned the
fathers against divisions and discord, so as not to give the
Protestants an excuse to revile and disparage the Council,4
1 See RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 47, 48; THEINER, II., i seq. ;
SERIPANDI Comment., 488. Cf. PALLAVICINI, 16, 12, 9-12.
2 See RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 49 ; LE PLAT, V., 202 ; THEINER, II.,
7. Cf. PALLAVICINI, 17, i.
3 LE PLAT, V., 199-200.
* Ibid., 360 seq.
COMMUNION UNDER BOTH KINDS. 285
The five articles were minutely examined and discussed from
every point of view by sixty-three theologians, in twenty-one
meetings, from June loth to the 23rd.1 In spite of differences
of opinion as to several points, an unanimous agreement was
arrived at with regard to the principal question ; that Com
munion under both kinds was not of divine precept, except
for the celebrating priest ; the Church had the power, for
sufficient reasons, to prescribe Communion under the form of
bread alone, for the laity and for the clergy when not cele
brating ; Christ was entirely present under the one kind ;
Communion was not necessary for very small children. Very
different opinions were elicited with regard to the third of the
five articles, which dealt with the granting of the chalice to the
laity. It was therefore postponed for the time being, and
upon the remaining points four canons were formulated and
submitted to the fathers of the Council on July 23rd. They
discussed these in six General Congregations from June 3Oth
to July 3rd. Cardinal Simonetta, together with three bishops
and the General of the Dominicans, drew up a new statement
of the four canons, based on these discussions, with a view
to further elucidation and argument. Hosius and Seripando,
with three bishops and the General of the Augustinians, drew
up a detailed statement of doctrine.2 All this was laid before
the fathers of the Council in General Congregation on July
4th ; these deliberated upon it on July 8th and gih, so that
on July I4th the final version could be drawn up.
1 For the discussions up to the formulation of the dogmatic
decree of the XXIst Session, see THEINER, II., 7-51 ; LE PLAT, V.,
272-328. EHSES (VIII., 537-617, 633-50, 691) gives all the A eta
from June 10 to July 14, 1562. Cf. PALLAVICINI, 17, 6-7 and n ;
KNOPFLER in the Freiburger Kirchenlexikon, XI., 2094, and
GRISAR, Lainez, 684. Cf. also CAVALLERA, L'interpretation du
chap. VI de St. Jean. Une controverse exeget. au Concile de
Trente, in the Revue d' hist, eccles., X. (1909), 687-709. Con
cerning the vote of P. Canisius with regard to the chalice for the
laity (June 15, 1562) see ESSES, in the Hist. Jahrbuch, XXXVI.,
105 seq.
* Cf. CAVALLERA, loo. cit., 699.
286 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Daring these dogmatic discussions, the legates were still
engaged with other matters which caused them much anxiety.
On June 6th the Imperial envoys had handed to them the
so-called reform libellum of Ferdinand I.1 This compre
hensive document was the outcome of the discussions of the
Imperial councillors upon the articles of reform which had
been submitted by the legates to the Council on March nth,
and which did not seem to them to be sufficient.
The reform libellum of Ferdinand I. embraces the Imperial
demands and proposals with regard to ecclesiastical reform.
It attempts first of all to demonstrate the necessity of a radical
reform of the clergy before the decision of controverted points
of doctrine. Then follow fifteen articles on the amendment
1 It was sent on May 22 and arrived in Trent on the 26, but
on account of the difficulties about the negotiations concerning
the continuation, it was still being kept back. This important
document was only published for the first time in the XVIIIth
century by SCHELHORN (Amoenit., I., 501-75), and afterwards by
LE PLAT (V., 232-59). It has aroused much interest among
modern historians. Cf. REIMANN in the Forschungen zur deuts-
chen Gesch., VIII. (1868), 177-86; SICKEL in the Archiv fur
osterr. Gesch., XIV. (1871), 1-96 ; TURBA in Venezian. Depeschen,
III., 270 seq. ; STEINHERZ, III., 65 seq. ; SAGMULLER, Papstwahl-
bullen 125 seq., 164 ; RITTER, I., 157 seqq. ; KASSOWITZ, 58 seq. ;
HELLE, 7 seq., 16, and especially EDER, who (I., 232) comes to the
following conclusion with regard to the story of the origin of the
libellum : the- initiative and certainly also the general outline of
the thesis can be traced to Ferdinand himself. The basis of the
material for its carrying out was provided by the Imperial coun
cillor Georg Gienger, the final form came from the well-known
theologian, Federico Stafilo, who added much material ; it was
approved, and brought into harmony with the Imperial policy
with regard to the Council by the vice-chancellor, Sigismund
Seld, who also contributed something to its contents ; Urban,
Bishop of Gurk, Cordova, the confessor of the wife of Maximilian
II., and Cithard, Ferdinand's confessor, only took a subordinate
part in it. Just as a number of influential persons had co-operated
in the composition of the little work, so various important docu
ments connected with ecclesiastical reform were made use of in it.
THE LIBELLUM OF FERDINAND I. 287
of the clergy in their head and their members. In these there
is to be found a vigorous demand for the reform of the Pope
and the Curia, the limitation of the members of the College of
Cardinals to twenty-four, in the spirit of the decisions of the
Council of Basle, the limitation of Papal dispensations and
monastic exemptions, the prohibition of benefices, the observ
ance of the duty of residence, the severe punishment of simony,
the limitation of ordinances which bind under pain of mortal
sin, moderation in the infliction of excommunication, the
removal of abuses in the forms of worship, the expurgation
from the missal and breviary of useless and legendary matter,
and the use of singing in the vernacular in divine worship.
To these were added requests for the granting of the chalice to
the laity, the abolition of the law of fasting, and for permission
for priests to marry. The libellum went on to state that,
even though all these concessions were not sought by all the
nations, it was quite a different matter for the German peoples,
whose special infirmities called for special remedies. If the
Church, like a good mother, would be indulgent in these
points, then most people hoped that at any rate the Catholics
who still remained could be preserved from heresy. It was
also necessary to draw up a clear summary of Catholic doc
trine, as well as a new collection of homilies, and also to
establish seminaries for the education and training of a good
clergy. After this came the advice that, as far as the Church
property which had been seized by the Protestants was con
cerned, a liberal attitude should be adopted, as it could not
be hoped that the apostates would return to union with the
Church if restitution of that property was insisted on ; danger
ous points of controversy should also be avoided as far as
possible, as for example that on the duty of residence.
The ecclesiastical policy of Ferdinand had found complete
expression in his reform libellum. The good intentions of the
Emperor stand out clearly in it, especially his anxiety to put
a barrier in the way of the religious innovations, not only
by the removal of ecclesiastical abuses, which were so alarm
ingly on the increase in his dominions, but also by far-reaching
concessions. While we may fully appreciate the subjective
288 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
aims of Ferdinand, the objective value of his proposals, for
reform must be strictly investigated, and it is very evident
that not a few of them were dangerous and went much too
far. The practical usefulness of the important concessions
demanded with regard to the chalice for the laity and the
marriage of priests, was by no means proved by the arguments
brought forward by the Emperor, but was rather open to very
weighty objections.
At their first perusal of the reform libellum there rose in
the minds of the legates the remembrance of the Council of
Basle, of unhappy memory. In consternation at the extent
of the Imperial demands and proposals, they at once, without
waiting to consult Rome, begged the representatives of Fer
dinand to refrain for the present from bringing the document
before the General Congregation. On June 8th they wrote
to the nuncio, Delfino, to beg Ferdinand I. to withdraw or
change the document, as to submit it would certainly entail
the dissolution of the Council. As for the claims for the
reform of the Pope by the Council, of the head by the members,
the nuncio might remind the Emperor of the fatal confusion
of the XVth century.1 One of the Imperial envoys, Arch
bishop Brus, who returned to Prague from Trent on June loth,
also received instructions from the legates to influence the
Emperor in this sense.2
The negotiations of Delfino with Ferdinand I. had a success
ful issue. At the end of June the nuncio was able to inform the
legates that the Emperor appreciated their objections, and left
it to their judgment to submit the libellum, either complete
or in part, to the fathers of the Council at a suitable moment.3
On June 2gth the Emperor himself wrote to the legates that
he did not wish to dispute their right of bringing forward
proposals ; if the articles in the libellum were too numerous
to be dealt with at one time, he would be satisfied if they were
STEINHERZ, III., 61 seq. Cf. SUSTA, II., 184.
2 See KASSOWITZ, 81 seq. ; STEINHERZ, III., 84 ; SUSTA, II.,
190 seq.
3 See STEINHERZ, III., 69 seq., 76 seq., of. 81 seq. ; KASSOWITZ,
80 seq.
THE CHALICE FOR THE LAITY. 289
dealt with by degrees. With regard to the reform of the head
of the Church, he gave the wholly satisfactory assurance that
he had only meant that the Pope should carry this out himself.1
On June 27th, the Imperial envoys had handed a memorial
to the General Congregation of the Council, setting forth the
reasons why the chalice for the laity was requested for the
Imperial dominions.2 The Bavarian envoy, Augustinus
Paumgartner, was introduced in the same General Congre
gation. He made a speech in which he put forward three
claims in the name of Duke Albert V. : the reform of the clergy,
the chalice for the laity, and permission for married persons to
receive Holy Orders.3 At the General Congregation of July
4th, the French envoys also submitted a document supporting
the demand of the Emperor for the chalice for the laity.4
It would seem that the very insistence from such various
quarters led many, who had before not been unwilling to
grant such a concession, to be doubtful. The legates them
selves held different views, and sought, by means of negotia
tions, to have the question set aside.5 Ferdinand's repre
sentatives, however, Thun and Draskovich, obstinately per
sisted, even with threats, in their demand. They insisted
on the postponement of the Session, and the adjournment of
the articles prepared for publication, if the question of the
chalice for the laity could not be decided at once. The
IRAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 61. LE PLAT, V., 351-60. Cf. also
STEINHERZ, III., 87 seq., and HELLE, 31 seq. The Pope came
to an understanding with Arco, and caused instructions to be
sent to the legates to select from the Imperial libellum the suitable
articles and to present them to the Council ; see STEINHERZ, III.,
99 seq.
2RAYNALDUs, 1562, n. 65 ; LE PLAT, V., 346-50.
8 See THEINER, II., 39 seq. RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 52-4; LE
PLAT, V., 335-45. Cf. KNOPFLER, Kelchbewegung, 96 seq.
4 RAYNALDUS, 1 562, n. 66. LE PLAT, V., 366 seq. Cf. THEINER
II., 45-
5 See the report of Thun and Draskovich of July 7, 1562, in
SICKEL, Konzil, 347-9. Cf. the report of the legates of July 9
in SUSTA, II., 223 seq.
VOL. XV. i
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
legates, however, insisted that the Session must be held, and
the four articles prepared published. At length the Imperial
envoys gave way on condition that a declaration should be
made in the Session, that the two articles dealing with the
granting of the chalice, which were now postponed, should
be dealt with later, at a more suitable time, by the Council,
which time was to be when the envoys thought best.
On July loth they resumed the discussion of the nine
reform articles which had been prepared up to May 25th, which
during the days that followed were examined anew in four
Genera] Ccneregations, so that on July I5th a reform decree
could be formulated.1
On the appointed day, July i6th, the XXIst public Session
of the Council, the fifth under Pius IV., was held. The Arch
bishop of Spalato, Marco Cornaro, celebrated High Mass, and
the Hungarian bishop, Andreas Sbardelato Dudith, preached.
In this Session the five legates, Cardinal Madruzzo, three
patriarchs, nineteen archbishops, a hundred and forty-eight
bishops, four abbots, six generals of orders, seventy-one theo
logians and ten envoys took part. The decrees concerning
Communion under both kinds, and of children, in four articles
and as many canons, were published and the announcement
was made that the two articles dealing with the chalice for
the laity would be treated later on. The reform decree which
was then promulgated included nine chapters : it laid down
that ordination and dimissorial letters should be granted
gratuitously ; no one was to be ordained without assured
means of support ; in very extensive parishes assistant
priests were to be appointed, or new parishes formed, though
with sufficient endowments, or, when necessary, several small
parishes could be united into one ; ignorant parish priests were
to have vicars assigned to them, to whom part of their revenues
must be allotted, and all such as led a scandalous life were to
be punished, and if necessary deposed. It was further
ordained that the revenues of churches which were in a ruinous
state were to be transferred to others, or the said churches put
1See THEINER, II., 51-5 ; Paleotto in THEINER, II., 565 seq.
REFORM DECREES. 2QI
into a proper condition. Monasteries held in commendam,
and in which the rules of no Order were observed, as well as
all secular and regular benefices, were to be subject to an annual
visitation by the bishop, as well as all monasteries where
regular observance was still in force, in cases where the
superiors were not fulfilling their duty. Finally, in order to
abolish once and for all the abuses in connection with the
publication of indulgences, it was laid down that, in the first
place the name and office of the collector of the indulgence was
to be suppressed, and the publication of all indulgences and
spiritual favours was to be entrusted to the bishops, who,
with two members of the cathedral chapter, should receive
the voluntary offerings of the faithful, so that all might know
that the treasury of the Church was opened for reasons of
piety and not of gain. These reform decrees were accepted
by all, with the exception of seven of the bishops, who desired
some unimportant alterations. The decree which fixed the
next Session for September i7th was received with general
approval.1
Soon after the fifth Session, an occurrence took place which
was of great importance for the further progress of the Council ;
this was the restoration of unity among the legates. Ever
since May, strained relations had existed among them, especi
ally between Cardinals Gonzaga and Simonetta ; these had
originated in their difference of opinion on the subject of the
duty of residence. This question, as well as the disturbing
reports of an intended dissolution or adjournment of the Council
by the Pope, had caused the legates to send the Archbishop
of Lanciano, Leonardo Marini, to Rome on June 8th, in order
1See RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 70-2; THEINER, II., 56 seq. Cf.
PALLAVICINI, 17, n ; KNOPFLER, in the Freiburger Kirchenlex.,
XI2., 2097 seq. In a letter to Borromeo of July 16, 1562, the
legates speak at length of the reasons for the further postponement
of the next session (the difficulty of treating of the doctrine of
the sacrifice of the Mass ; the proposal to come to a decision on
the question of the chalice ; and the desire of the fathers for some
rest after their protracted labours during the dog days). SUSTA,
II., 249.
2Q2 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
to obtain a verbal declaration of the Pope's intentions.1
Shortly after the departure of Marini, Carlo Visconti, Bishop
of Ventimiglia, arrived in Trent. The Pope had sent this able
Milanese, who was related to, and a friend of Borromeo, in
order that he might have a reliable and impartial agent at
the Council ; he was also to endeavour to bring about the
restoration of unity among the legates.2 Visconti devoted
himself to this task with great zeal, and distinguished himself
by his calm and tactful behaviour. On June igth he had a
long conversation with Gonzaga, in the course of which the
latter spoke of the reports current as to his resignation as
inventions. The legate at that time believed that he had
dispelled the dissatisfaction of the Pope by the defence
which he had made.3 However, a letter from his nephew,
Cardinal Francesco Gonzaga, of June I7th, which the legate,
who was then staying at Pergine, received on the 23rd,
informed him that Pius IV., once moie roused by the com
plaints of Simonetta, had expressed his intention of replacing
the president of the legatine college by another, should he
continue to act as he had done hitherto.4 Gonzaga was deeply
humiliated by this, as well as by other matters,5 and resolved
himself to ask for his recall. He immediately sent his intimate
friend, Francesco Arrivabene, to Rome for this purpose ; the
news caused great excitement and dismay in Trent.6 In view
of the position which Gonzaga held among the fathers of the
Council and with the Catholic princes, his withdrawal would
lHis instructions in SUSTA, II., 184 seqq. Cf. PALLAVICINI,
17, i, 7 and 2.
2 See SUSTA II., viii, 455 seq., 459 seq., 489. Cf.
PALLAVICINI 17, 3 ; EHSES in the Hist. Jahrbuch, XXXVII.,
52 seq.
3 See SUSTA, II., 208.
4 See in DOLLINGER, Tagebiicher, II., 37, the fragment of a
letter of Fr. Gonzaga. Simonetta, on June 25, 1562, wrote
explicitly to Borromeo that it was desirable to recall Gonzaga
from the Council ; see SUSTA, II., 206.
5 See SICKEL, Konzil, 346.
• See BALUZE-MANSI, IV., 241 ; SUSTA, II., 209, 487 seq.
GONZAGA PACIFIED. 293
have entailed the most disastrous consequences for the pro
gress of the deliberations of the Council.
Pius IV., who was more cautious in deed than he was in
his words, refused to accept Gonzaga's resignation, and com
manded him to remain, and to continue to hold the president
ship of the legates.1 The Archbishop of Lanciano who was
sent back from Rome to Trent on July ist, was the bearer of
a letter to the Cardinal, in which the Pope's fullest confidence
in him was expressed. Simonetta at the same time received
instructions to show every consideration to Gonzaga, and keep
on the best terms with him.2 The complete reconciliation
between the two legates only took place on July iQth, when
Gonzaga was invited by Simonetta to dinner. The long
explanations which were made on this occasion resulted in
their mutual satisfaction and pleasure. Cardinal Gonzaga
displayed real magnanimity, demanding no other punishment
for the prelates who had fomented the strife, or who had
offended him, than their improvement. When Borromeo
wrote to him that the Pope was ready to remove the Bishop
of La Cava, who had expressed himself in particularly dis
respectful terms, from his position as Commissary of the
Council, Gonzaga begged that he might be left at his post,
where he was doing most useful work.3
No less important for the successful issue of the Council
than the reconciliation of the two legates, to which Carlo
1 Cf. Paleotto in THEINER, II., 567 seq. ; report of Vargas of
July i, 1562, in DO"LLINGER, Beitrage, I., 445 seq. ; letter of
Gonzaga to the Emperor on July 14, 1562, in SICKEL, Konzil, 354.
8 See SUSTA, II., 227 seq., 230. Cf. PALLAVICINI, 17, 5.
3 See PALLAVICINI, 17, 13, i. The Pope was engaged at that
time, besides restoring concord among the legates, in settling
disputes among the envoys as to precedence. In order to put an
end to the quarrel between the Bavarian and Venetian envoys
Pius IV. called for the help of the Emperor. The Bavarian
envoy also demanded precedence over the Swiss and Florentine
envoys. It was a matter of greater difficulty to settle the dispute
about precedence between the representatives of Spain and France.
Cf. PALLAVICINI, 17, 4 ; SUSTA, II., 237, 242 seq., 249, 494 seq.
2Q4 HISTORY QF THE POPES.
Visconti had materially contributed, was an intimation which
reached Trent on July i8th. This came from Philip II.
The courier who brought it had taken only eleven days to
make the journey from Madrid to Trent, so as to arrive, if
possible, before the Session, and to prevent an unseemly
attitude on the part of the Spanish prelates. He delivered
to the Marquis of Pescara a letter from the king, of July 6th,
instructing him to inform the Spanish prelates that Philip
II. did not wish any protest to be made in the matter of the
duty of residence, and that, in consideration of the opposition
of the Emperor and France, he did not insist on an explicit
declaration of the continuation of the Council ; it would be
sufficient if it could be gathered from the proceedings them
selves that this was a continuation of the former Council.1
This decision on the part of Philip II. caused the greatest
satisfaction in Rome, and on August 4th Borromeo gave
instructions to Crivelli, the nuncio in Spain, to thank the king
in the name of the Pope.2
On July igth the legates submitted to the theologians
thirteen articles relating to the holy sacrifice of the Mass.3
A new regulation, drawn up on the 2oth, had for its object to
prevent the deliberations from being too protracted.4 The
discussion of the articles relating to the Mass required no less
than thirteen meetings, which took place between July 2ist
and August 4th.5 On August 6th the legates who were, at
that time, highly delighted with the steps taken by Pius IV.
for the reform of the Curia,6 laid before the General Congre-
1 See SICKEL, Konzil, 352 seq. ; MENDO£A, 646-7 ; SUSTA, II.,
261 seq., 263 seq., 276.
2 SUSTA, II., 523 seq.
3 See THEINER, II., 58 ; LE PLAT, V., 390 seq. ; PALLAVICINI,
17. 13. 8.
4 See THEINER, II., 58 seq. ; RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 96; LE
PLAT, V., 394-6.
6 See THEINER, II., 60-73.
6 See the letter of August 6, 1562, in SUSTA, II., 296. Con
cerning the progress of the reforms of Pius IV. cf. SAGMULLER,
Papstwahlbullen, 128.
THE CHALICE FOR THE LAITY. 2Q5
gation the draft of a decree, in four chapters and twelve
canons, on the essence, institution and fruits of the holy sacri
fice of the Mass. The fathers of the Council discussed this
from August nth to the 27th, the theological question as to
whether Christ had already offered Mass at the Last Supper
especially giving rise to difficulties.1
Ever since August 22nd the thorny question had been
waiting for an answer, whether the chalice was to be granted
or refused to the laity. Pius IV. had left the Council free to
make the concession in a letter of July i8th ; he thought
it wiser, however, to defer the decision until the end of the
Council.2 Borromeo informed the legates on July 29th that
the Pope desired that all possible satisfaction should be given
to the Emperor in this matter, as far as was consistent with a
good conscience and Christian charity. At the same time
Gonzaga also received the intimation that Pius IV. approved
his view that the decree as to the chalice should be formulated
by the Council and not by the Pope.3 The deliberations on
this difficult question were taken in hand during the last week
of August.4
Opinions as to the practical utility of granting the chalice
to the laity differed very widely. Besides the impetuous
and eloquent Bishop of Fiinfkirchen,5 Cardinal Madruzzo,
Bishop Andreas Sbardalato of Knin, and Archbishop Marini
of Lanciano were in favour of granting it. Among the oppon
ents of the concession Castagna, Archbishop of Rossano, and
Osio, Bishop of Rieti especially distinguished themselves
by the learning and clearness of the arguments they adduced.
JSee THEINER, II., 73-95; RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 97-100;
LE PLAT, V., 428-31 ; MENDO§A, 648 ; PALLAVICINI, 18, i and 2 ;
SUSTA, II., 3II'I3> 338-
2 SUSTA, II., 270 seq. Of. STEINHERZ, III., 113.
3 SUSTA, II., 289-91.
* See RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 73, 75-80; LE PLAT, V., 455 seq.,
463-88 ; THEINER, II, 96-116 ; Paleotto in THEINER, II., 579-87 ;
MEND09A, 649 seq. ; PALLAVICINI, 18, 3-5. Cf. also SUSTA, II.,
542 seq., 545 seq., 550 seq.
5 See LE PLAT, V., 459, 462. Cf. KASSOWITZ, xxv.
296 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
It was remarkable that the only German bishop who was
present, Leonhard Haller, of Eichstatt, pronounced against
the chalice for the laity ; his colleague, Rettinger, Bishop
of Lavarit, had left Trent in order to avoid coming to a decision.
All the opponents of the concession, however, insisted on the
fact that it was in the power of the Church to allow the recep
tion of Communion under both kinds. When Abbot Riccardo
of Vercelli remarked that the request for the chalice had a
taint of heresy, the presiding legate reproved him and bade
him be silent.1
James Lainez, the General of the Jesuits, spoke on Sep
tember 6th, as the last and most impressive of the speakers.
He elucidated the whole question from every point of view,
in an objective manner, treating it calmly, clearly, and with
scholastic acumen. He expressly pointed out that it was
merely a question of the practical appropriateness of the
concession, and that neither the judgment of the Council nor
the infallibility of the Pope were affected. His own view was
that it was not salutary to allow the chalice to the laity, either
generally or locally ;2 past experience had shown this, since,
when the Council of Basle and Paul II. had allowed it, the
apostasy from the Church had not only not been prevented,
but even increased. Although the majority of the fathers
agreed with Lainez, a middle course was eventually adopted,
and the decision of the whole matter was left to the Pope.3
1 See PALLAVICINI, 18, 4. Cf. EHSES in the Abhandlungen
der Gorres-Gesellschaft, Jahresbericht, 1917, p. 44 (Cologne, 1918).
2 Cf. GRISAR, Lainez und die Frage des Laienkelches, in the
Zeitschrift fur kath. Theol., V. (1881) 672 seqq. ; VI. (1882)
39 seqq. ; Disput., II., 24 seqq. Grisar also gives particulars of
the other activities of Lainez at Trent. The General of the
Jesuits had arrived in the city of the Council on August 14 ;
he showed the utmost modesty with.regard to the place he was to
occupy. See BONDONUS, 561 aeq. ; BOERO, Lainez, 254 ; CANISII
Epist., III., 472, 531 ; SUSTA, II., 319, 334. All the discussions
about the chalice for the laity from August 27 to September 6,
1562, with many of the original votes are in EHSES, VIII., 788-909.
3 See the report of the legates of September 16, 1562, in SUSTA,
II., 363.
THE xxund SESSION. 297
When the remodelled decrees concerning the holy sacrifice
of the Mass had been once more submitted to further dis
cussion on September 5th and 7th,1 a reform decree, and
another concerning the abuses which had crept into the cele
bration of Mass, were presented for consideration on September
loth.2 The discussions on these lasted from September loth
to the I4th.3 In the General Congregation on September
i6th, at which the decrees to be published on the following
day were read aloud, very heated discussions took place
concerning the institution of the priesthood.
The XXIInd Session, the sixth under Pius IV., was held on
September lyth. The five legates, Cardinal Madruzzo, three
patriarchs, twenty-two archbishops, a hundred and forty-four
bishops, one Lateran abbot, seven generals of orders, three
doctors of law, thirty theologians, and nine envoys were
present. The Archbishop of Otranto, Pietro Antonio di
Capua, celebrated High Mass, and the sermon was preached by
Carlo Visconti, Bishop of Ventimiglia. The decree on the
holy sacrifice of the Mass, in nine chapters and nine canons,
the decree concerning the removal of abuses at Mass, the reform
decree, in eleven chapters, and finally the above-mentioned
decision concerning the chalice for the laity, were published
at this Session.
The most important decree was that which, in answer to
the numerous errors taught by the innovators, set forth the
primitive Catholic doctrine of the Holy Mass. In this the
following are laid down : at the Last Supper Jesus Christ
bequeathed to his Church a sacrifice, by which the bloody sac
rifice of the Cross was to be represented, its memory preserved,
and the forgiveness of the sins which are daily committed by
men applied. The Lord instituted this sacrifice when He
offered His flesh and blood, under the appearances of bread
and wine, to God the Father, giving it to the Apostles to eat,
and thereby appointing them as His priests, commanding them
and their successors to do this in memory of Him. In the
1 See THEINER, II., 116-9. Cf. SUSTA, II., 339, 344.
*Two lists of these in EHSES, VEIL, 916-24.
3 See THEINER, II., 119-27.
2Q8 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
sacrifice of the Mass, the same Christ who sacrificed Himself
in a bloody manner, is offered up in an unbloody manner.
The Mass is consequently a true expiatory sacrifice, by
which the faithful gain the fruits of the sacrifice of the
Cross, the value of which is not thereby prejudiced ;
Mass is therefore offered, not only for the living, but
also for the souls still in Purgatory. When Mass is cele
brated by the Church in honour of, and in memory of saints,
she teaches that not to these, but to God alone is the sacrifice
offered. From time immemorial the Church has ordained the
Canon, which contains no error of any kind, for the worthy
celebration of the Mass. She has, at the same time, in accord
ance with apostolic tradition, associated the offering of the
sacrifice with ceremonies. It does not seem advisable to the
Council that Mass should be universally celebrated in the
language of the country. Finally, it repudiates all errors
contrary to this teaching, and especially those directed against
the sacrificial character of the Mass. The reform decree gives
prescriptions for the worthy celebration of Mass, and admon
ishes the bishops to avoid anything having the appearance of
avarice, or what is superstitious, or likely to give scandal.1
Full unanimity was only obtained for the decree which
fixed the next Session, for the treatment of the sacraments of
Holy Orders and Matrimony, for November i2th.3 Nobody
dreamed that instead of the two months proposed, ten would
elapse before another Session of the Council could be held.
*For the numerous abuses which, in the course of time had
found their way into the Mass, see the classical work of A. FRANZ,
Die Messe im deutschen Mittelalter, Freiburg, 1902.
2 Cf. THEINER, II., 130-2 ; PALLAVICINI, 18, 9. Concerning
the satisfaction of Pius IV. at the result of the Session see Borro-
meo's letter of September 26, 1562, in SUSTA, III., 12 seq.
CHAPTER IX.
THE MISSION OF MORONE TO FERDINAND I. AT INNSBRUCK,
1562-3.
AFTER Pius IV. had received the decrees of the sixth Session,
he held congregations, at which reforms were discussed,
almost every day.1 The Council, on the other hand, entered
upon the difficult discussions concerning the sacrament of
Holy Orders. First of all, the legates submitted ten articles
to the theologians for consideration on September i8th, 1562 ;
these contained the views of the religious innovators upon
the subject ; the. discussions were to begin on September
23rd.2 Before that, however, the French and Imperial
envoys, in accordance with an agreement brought about by
the Bishop of Fiinfkirchen, demanded that the further treat
ment of dogma should be postponed until the arrival of the
French prelates, and only matters of reform dealt with in
the next Session. This the legates refused,3 and in the course
of a very excited debate, the Bishop of Fiinfkirchen and the
French envoy demanded that the Imperial reform libellum
should be laid before the Council. The legates refused to
comply with this request as well. In the meantime, however,
they had informed Borromeo, on September 24th, that they
were inclined to submit the libellum, with the omission of all
articles which encroached upon the authority of the Pope,
or which, by their very nature, must be excluded ; at the
1 See SICKEL, Konzil, 390.
* See RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 89 ; LE PLAT, V., 508 ; THEINER, II.,
133; PALLAVICINI, 18, 12, i.
8 Cf. MUSOTTI, 25 seq. ; BAGUENAULT DE PUCHESSE, 72 ;
SICKEL, Konzil, 387 ; STEINHERZ, III., 130 ; SUSTA, III., 5.
353 seq., and especially HELLE, 37 seq., where there is a further
bibliography.
200
3OO HISTORY OF THE POPES.
same time they asked for instructions as to how they were
to proceed with regard to each separate article.1 The detailed
answer of the Pope on October 3rd, left the legates free to
lay the libellum before the fathers of the Council, though this
did not mean that they were to put the matter to the vote ;
at the same time they were to make known the Emperor's
letter of June 2gth, which left the legates free to select certain
articles from the libellum for consideration.2 Together with
these instructions was also sent the Pope's opinion as to each
of the articles ;3 this agreed, in all essentials, with the opinion
sent to Rome by the legates on August 27th.4 In spite of
the support which he had received from France, Ferdinand I.
did not continue, at that time, to press for the submission
of his libellum, as other matters, and especially the difficulties
about the election of his son, Maximilian, as King of the
Romans, took up all his attention. It was only after this
had been arranged (November 24th) that there came a change.5
In the seven articles, which the theologians discussed from
September 23rd to October 2nd,* the question whether the
bishops' duty of residence was a divine or an ecclesiastical
precept was not touched upon. However, the subject was
soon broached once more by several, and especially by the
theologian of the Archbishop of Granada. It came still more
1 See GRISAR, Disput., I., 391 seq. ; SUSTA, III., 8 ; STEINHERZ,
III, 133-
2SiCKEL, Berichte, II., 125-33. Cf. STEINHERZ, III., 133;
SUSTA, III., 20.
3 Printed in RAYN ALDUS, 1562, n. 59, 63 ; LE PLAT, V., 388.
Cf. STEINHERZ, III., 133, n. 4. A second appendix, in which
Pius IV. takes up a position against the reform decrees decided
upon by the French clergy at Poissy on October 6, 1561, was
published by SUSTA (III., 20 seq.), who found it among the literary
remains of Seripando.
4 Partly in RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 62, 58; LE PLAT, V., 385-8.
The first part, hitherto unpublished, in STEINHERZ, III., 132 seq.
5 Cf. HELLE, 40, 41.
• See THEINER, II., 135-51 ; Paleotto in THEINER, II., 591 seq. ;
RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 90-2 ; LE PLAT, V., 510-6. ;
THE EPISCOPAL OFFICE. 301
into prominence during the proceedings of the General Con
gregation between October I3th and 2Oth, which concerned
the drafting of the doctrinal decree, and of the seven canons
which pronounced an anathema in connection with the
sacrament of Holy Orders. At the very beginning of the
proceedings, on October I3th, the Archbishop of Granada
made a formal proposal that it should be defined that the
episcopal office rested on divine right.1 The dispute which
arose on this point, during which the position of the Pope,
with reference to the whole Church, and also with reference
to the Council, was debated, drove everything else into the
background, and prevented the deliberations from making
any progress.2 Much learning and theological acumen was
displayed on both sides during these stormy debates. The
General of the Jesuits, James Lainez, who differed from most
of his Spanish compatriots on this point, distinguished himself
above all the rest. The speech which he made on October
2oth, before the taking of the vote, was a masterpiece, dis
tinguished alike by its vast learning, its clearness, and its
pertinency.3 It created an impression such as was scarcely
made by any other address during the whole course of the
Council.4 Many, even of his opponents, were convinced by
the force of the arguments brought forward by Lainez, while
1 SeeTHEiNER, II., 153 seq. ; Paleotto in THEINER, II., 593 seq. ;
PALLAVICINI, 18, 12 and 14 ; GRISAR, Primat, 463 seq. ; Disput, I.,
34* seq., II., 410 seq. ; SUSTA, III., 23 seq., 384, 391 seq.
•EHSES has published in the Hist. Jahrbuch, XXXVIL,
72 seq., the strong letter in which, as early as June 13, 1562,
Morone rebuked his nephew, Girolamo Gallarate, Bishop of
Sutri-Nepi, for his declaration in favour of the definition of the
ius divinum, by which the whole activity of the Council would have
been paralysed.
3 Lainez wrote out his speech. It is preserved in the Papal
Secret Archives, *Concilio, V., 98 seq., but is not yet printed.
PALLAViciNi.(i8, 15) knew of the manuscript, but it was over
looked by GRISAR (Primat, 460). Theiner has abridged the
reports at this point. See ASTRAIN, II.. 180.
4 The opinion of SARPI (7, 20).
302 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
others allowed themselves to be drawn into making violent,
and even personal attacks upon him.1
In view of the great differences of opinion, it was exceed
ingly difficult to find any other version of the matter to be
brought forward for discussion, especially in the case of the
seventh canon, which dealt with the episcopal power. Further
discussions followed from November 3rd, to the 6th, during
the course of which several Italian bishops, who had their own
advantage in view rather than the real interests of the Church,
went much too far in their defence of the Papal rights.2
Pius IV. had in the meantime resolved to cope with one
of the things most urgently necessary for the reform of the
Church, by a bull concerning the conclave, which was dated
October Qth. In sending this to the legates on October 3ist,
he held out hopes of still further measures for the reform of
the Curia.3 On November 6th, Cardinal Gonzaga submitted
the draft of a decree, approved by the Pope, concerning the
duty of residence.4 Three days later, on his proposal, the
first postponement of the Session, from November i2th to the
26th, was made, because the material was not ready for
publication, and also because the long awaited arrival of the
Cardinal of Lorraine and other French prelates was expected
immediately.5 In fact, Cardinal Guise arrived on November
1 Cf. the report of Visconti of October 22, 1562, in GRISAR,
Primat, 492, Disput., I., 43*, 45*, and Paleotto in THEINER, II.,
596. See also Epist. Salmeronis, I., 508 ; BARTOLI, Comp. di Gesu
(Opere, V., 2), 74, 87 ; BAGUENAULT DE PUCHESSE, 75.
8 See THEINER, II., 155-61 ; Paleotto in THEINER, II., 599 seq. ;
GRISAR, Primat, 409 seq.
8 SUSTA, III., 55 seq. The bull Super reformations conclavis
in RAVNALDUS, 1562, n. 188. As to this and its great importance
of. especially SAGMULLER, Papstwahlbullen, 131 seq. ; EISLER,
Vetorecht, 191 seq. Fr. Tonina reported on October 21, 1562 :
*Si attende qui a formar riforme et si fanno spesso congregation!
sopra di ci6 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
4 THEINER, II, 161-3 ; RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 108 ; LE PLAT, V.,
541.
6 THEINER, II., 167 seq.; RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 117; LE
PLAT, V., 542 ; SUSTA, III., 65, 429 seq.
THE CARDINAL OF LORRAINE. 303
I3th, and with him thirteen bishops, three abbots, and eighteen
theologians, for the most part doctors of the Sorbonne ;
among the bishops were Nicolas de Pelleve of Sens, Jean
Morvillier of Orleans, and Nicolas Pseaume of Verdun j1
till then there had only been five French bishops at Trent.
The newly arrived dignitaries of France were solemnly intro
duced in the General Congregation of November 23rd. On
this occasion Guise made a speech which was universally
admired on account of the elegance of its style and the dignity
of its delivery. He exhorted the fathers of the Council to
refrain from all useless disputes, and to carry out the reform
of the Church.2 The frank recognition of the Pope's supre
macy with which he concluded, was calculated to remove the
suspicion felt in Rome, on account of the attitude which he
had taken up with regard to the rights of the Holy See.3
The Cardinal of Lorraine had hoped to be included among
the presidents of the Council, but this hope was not fulfilled.
However, from the beginning he occupied a far more important
position than Cardinal Madruzzo, who also did not belong to
1 Cf. BONDONUS, 562 seq. ; BALUZE-MANSI, IV., 271 ; THEINER,
II., 169 seqq. ; LE PLAT, VI I. , 343 ; SUSTA, III., 66 seq. ; KASSO-
WITZ, xxvii seq.; PALLAVICINI, 18, 17 ; BAGUENAULT DE PUCHESSE,
329 seq. Guise took up his residence in the Palazzo a Prato
in the Contrada S. Trinita (destroyed in great part in the fire
of 1843) ; see SWOBODA, 23. Pseaume is the author of the
diary on the Council, critically edited for the first time by MERKLE
(II.. 723 seqq.).
2 See RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 109-15; LE PLAT, V., 549-63;
THEINER, II., 175 seq. ; PALLAVICINI, 18, 7 and 19, 3 ; Arch,
stor. Ital., 5th Series, XXX VI., 417 ; BAGUENAULT DE PUCHESSE,
334 seq. ; SAGMULLER, Papstwahlbullen, 129 seq. The envoy of
Sigismund Augustus, King of. Poland, Bishop Valentin Herborth
of Przemysl, was received in the General Congregation of October
23 (see RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 106-7 '> LE PLAT, V , 532-7 ; THEINER,
II., 154 ; SUSTA, III., 36, 391, 397). Cardinal Altemps had gone
at the end of October to Constance (see PALLAVICINI, 18, 16).
3 To the testimony already cited (cf. DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I.,
349 ; SUSTA, III., 62) must be added a ""letter of Tonhia, dated
Rome, October 21, 1562 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
304 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
the legatine college. It is significant of this that in the Papal
secretariate the correspondence with him is drawn up in legal
style, just as was done when issuing instructions to the legates.1
All parties at Trent endeavoured to win over the French
Cardinal to their way of thinking, and the latter soon found
himself drawn into both open and secret negotiations with
men of opposite views. Charles de Guise endeavoured, with
the best will and the most persevering courage, above every
thing else to bring about an agreement of the opposing parties
concerning the question of residence, and the much disputed
seventh canon. Until the following year the discussions
upon the proposals put forward for treatment concentrated
more and more, with unending repetitions and often in very
heated debates, upon these questions,2 the defenders of the
divine right of the bishops often laying themselves open to the
charge of holding very dangerous opinions. For example,
Danes, Bishop of Lavaur, in France, maintained that Peter
had not been universal bishop of the Church, that the authority
of his successors over the bishops was only an accessory, and
that the bishops not only held their power by divine right,
but also that in their own churches they were equal to the
Pope !3
It is not to be wondered at that the development of affairs
in Trent was watched with increasing anxiety in Rome.4
The discussions, which were as tedious as they were dangerous,
might have been avoided altogether if the fathers of the
Council had paid attention to the fundamental distinction
which Charles Borromeo had drawn in one short sentence of
the letter which he addressed to the legates on October 2t)ih.
1 Of. SICKEL, Berichte, I., 60 ; III., 14, 42 ; SUSTA, III., v-vi.
2" Este capitulo de la residencia y el septimo canon," writes
Mendo£a (p. 668), " han sido los dos mayores estorbos que han
tenido las cosas del concilio, para dilatarse mas de lo que era
menester y mas de lo que muchos querian." For the disgraceful
scene at the speeches of the Bishops of Cadiz and Alife on Decem
ber i and 2, 1562, see PALLAVICINI, 19, 5.
3 See THEINER, II., 172-3; GRISAR, Primat, 480.
4 Cf. the pessimistic expressions of GIROLAMO SORANZO, 82.
THE EPISCOPAL OFFICE. 305
The distinction between the power of " order " (consecration)
and of jurisdiction, is here clearly pointed out. Bishops have
the former in virtue of their consecration, directly from God,
and the visible minister of the consecration, be he Pope or
bishop, when he confers it, is only acting as an instrument,
so that the invisible and immediate giver of the consecration
may fulfil His supernatural work. On the other hand, the
jurisdiction of the bishops, that is to say their position with
regard to their flock, and their authority to rule over them
in matters concerning their eternal salvation, although it
too is derived from God, is directly communicated to the
bishops, according to the teaching of the scholastics, by the
Pope alone.1
James Lainez, who had maintained this opinion in his first
speech on October 2Oth, in his second address on December
9th, made a proposal that was as practical as it was moderate ;
this was that the " order " of the bishops should be defined
as being of divine right, and that no mention should be made
of jurisdiction, since both opinions had many supporters.2
Attention was diverted from this proposal by two further
formulas, which Cardinal Guise, who was working unweariedly
for an agreement, put forward, amplifying the seventh canon
by an eighth one, concerning the primacy. On the suggestion
of Cardinal Simonetta, who was always solicitous for the
lights of the Holy See, a commission was appointed to deliber
ate on this, consisting of four theologians (one of whom was
Lainez) and five canonists. Three of the theologians spoke
in favour of the proposal, but not so the General of the Jesuits,
who remarked that he saw in it a future schism. The five
canonists, among whom were two future Popes, Ugo Boncom-
pagni and Giovanni Antonio Fachinetti, agreed with Lainez.3
The legates, whose position was daily becoming more difficult,
sent the proposal of Guise, together with the report of the
1 See GRISAR, Primat, 457 seq. The letter of Borromeo is now
given in full in SUSTA, III., 50 seq.
2 See THEINER, II., 197 seq. ; PALLAVICINI, 19, 6, 5 ; GRISAR,
Primat, 491, 759 seq. ; *:.f. Disput., I., I seq.
* Cf. PALLAVICINI, 19, 6, 5 ; GRISAR, Primat, 760 seq.
VOL. XV. 20
306
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
commission, to Rome. Borromeo sent three answers, the
first on December I2th, a second, in greater detail, on December
26th, 1562, and finally, a third on January loth, 1563. These
contained among other things, the instruction that, in order
to secure the necessary clearness, the definition of the Council
of Florence as to the primacy, should be renewed.1
How necessary it was that renewed prominence should be
given, just at that time, to the authority of the Holy See, and
its inalienable rights, assailed as they were, and not by the
Protestants alone, was shown by the discussion which followed,
during the course of which the Gallican current in the Council
appeared clearly on the surface. The French prelates refused,
in the most violent manner, to acknowledge that the bishops
held a position dependent on the Pope, nor would they allow
it to be stated in the seventh canon that the Pope had the
power to govern the Church, as that would prejudice the
view which placed the Council above the Pope.2
On January 24th, 1563, the French envoys, Lansac and
Ferrier, appeared before the legates and protested against the
words " the Pope governs the Church." They wished, they
expressly stated, to stand up for " their religion," which
taught that the Pope is subject to the Council, and in proof
of this they appealed to the Council of Constance. The
answer of the legates left nothing to be desired in the way of
firmness. Cardinal Gonzaga replied that if the envoys thought
of defending the opinion they submitted, he and other legates
were equally determined to defend the truth, and this truth
was that the Pope was above the Council ; they were ready to
•sacrifice their lives before they would allow the supremacy
of the Pope to be inpugned. Seripando then invalidated
1Borromeo's instructions, only summarized by Pallavicini,
of December 12 and 26, 1562, and January 10, 1563, have been
given in a translation by GRISAR, Primat, 762 seq., and afterwards
in the original in Disput., I., 455 seq., 457 seq., 461 seq., 467 seq.
Cf. SUSTA, III., 116, 141 and 153, where, in addition to several
textual corrections from the original (Ambrosiana Library,
Milan, J. 141, inf. p. 167) the date of the last instruction is corrected.
a See Paleotto in THEINER, II., 614 ; GRISAR, Primat, 768 seq.
THE POPE S SUPREMACY. 307
their appeal to the Council of Constance by saying that the
latter had, for the removal of the schism, claimed superiority
only over doubtful Popes, of which at the present time there
could be no question. He concluded with the declaration
that the legates were fully determined that the supreme
authority of the Pope should be denned and published in
suitable terms, and in the widest signification of the
word.1
Cardinal Guise would have been very glad if the dispute
concerning the Pope's supremacy could have been avoided.
His depression of spirits increased from day to day. On
January i8th, 1563, a commission had been appointed under
the presidency of himself and Cardinal Madruzzo ; it formu
lated a new decree on the duty of residence,2 but this was
neither approved by the legates, nor placed by them upon
the agenda.3 The Session, which had been first fixed for
December lyth, 1562, then for the beginning of January, 1563,
and finally for January I5th, had in the meantime been
postponed till February 4th.4 As no agreement could be
come to, however, the Session could not be held on that date.
Therefore, on February 3rd, Cardinal Gonzaga proposed a
further postponement for a longer period, until April 22nd,
to put aside, for the time being, the difficult questions of the
duty of residence and of Holy Orders, and in the meantime
to deal with the sacrament of Matrimony. Discussions were
to take place twice every day ; in the mornings on Matrimony,
by the theologians, and in the afternoons, on the abuses
connected with the ordination of priests, by the bishops.
Of the 176 fathers of the Council present, only nine voted
1 See Paleotto, loc. cit. ; the letter of the legates of January 24,
in GRISAR, Disput., I., 486-92. Cf. GRISAR, Primat., 769 seq. ;
SUSTA, III., 181. See also PALLAVICINI, 19, 14.
8 No agreement was reached upon the theme proposed on
December 10, 1562 ; see THEINER, II., 198.
3 See THEINER, II., 229 seq. ; KNOPFLER in the Freiburger
Kirchenlex., XI2., 2102.
4 See THEINER, II., 179, 186 seq., 206 seq., 218 seq., 228
seq.
3o8
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
against this proposal.1 Accordingly, on the same day, eight
articles on the sacrament of Matrimony were submitted to
the theologians, as fresh matter for deliberation, and these
were discussed from February gth onwards.2 On February
I2th steps were taken to form a commission of ten prelates,
who were to compile a list of the abuses in the ordination of
priests.3
To all these difficulties a new one was now added by the
fact that the French, in conjunction with the Imperialists,
endeavoured to force the Pope to accept a reform at the hands
of the Council. On January 3rd the French envoys had
presented to the General Congregation a reform libellum in
thirty-four points. It was expressed, indeed, in terms of
moderation, but it contained claims which were either im
practicable or dangerous, as for example the one concerning
the concession of the chalice to the laity.4 Lansac then
declared that if the Council would not grant these claims,
France would introduce them on her own authority.5 In
the General Congregation on February nth, the French envoys,
following upon the receipt of a letter from their king, and sup
ported by Guise, again put forward their demands for reform.6
These proceedings of the French caused the Emperor, whose
activities had hitherto been paralysed by other cares, once
more, on the advice of his chancellor, Seld, to intervene in the
conciliar discussions. He gave instructions to his envoys at
Trent to support the reform proposals of the French, and to
insist upon the discussion of the libellum which he had presented
in June, 1562. In order to be nearer to the Council, he
^ee RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 17; LE PLAT, V., 672 ; THEINER,
II., 230-2 ; PALLAVICINI, 19, 16.
2 See RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 19 ; LE PLAT, V., 674 ; THEINER,
II., 232 seqq. ; SUSTA, III., 212.
3 See MUSOTTI, 33.
* See RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 86-9 ; LE PLAT, V., 629-43 ; PALLA
VICINI, 19, ii ; BAGUENAULT DE PUCHESSE, 338 seq.
6 So reported Strozzi on January 4, 1563 ; see SUSTA, III., 154.
« See RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 23-6 ; LE PLAT, V., 677-84 ; THEINER
II., 235 seq. See BAGUENAULT DE PUCHESSE, 343 seq.
CARDINAL GUISE AND THE EMPEROR. 309
removed his court to Innsbruck in January, 1563, and, for
the purpose of discussing the questions then pending, he
summoned thither a meeting of distinguished theologians,1
which might be looked upon as a kind of Imperial bye-
council.
On February i2th, the ambitious Cardinal Guise betook
himself from Trent to Innsbruck, where Cardinal Madruzzo
and the Count of Luna, the envoy of Philip II. , were also
expected. Guise, who arrived at Innsbruck on February i6th,
immediately expressed himself in the strongest terms against
the advisers of the Pope, and declared that a reform by means
Of the Council was indispensable. In a memorial which he
handed to the Emperor, he set forth all the many abuses
which he said encroached upon the freedom of the Council,
namely, the preponderant influence of the Pope, the domination
of the Council by the Italian bishops, who formed a majority,
the exclusive right of making proposals by the legates, and the
appointment of only one secretary of the Council, whose
truthfulness, he averred, was open to grave suspicion. It was
therefore desirable that as many bishops as possible should
come from Spain, France and Germany, and also that the
Emperor should himself go to Trent and be present at the
next Session.2 To the Spanish and French opposition,
which had made itself felt at the Council in the discussion
of questions of dogma, the time had come to add a coalition
of the great Catholic powers, the Emperor, France and Spain,
aiming at domination of the Council, and the enforcement
of a drastic reform both of head and members. The situation
had, without doubt, become extremely critical.
The legates had sent Commendone to Innsbruck to pacify
XC/. SICKEL, Konzil, 419 seq., 431 seq. ; STEINHERZ, III.,
171 seq. ; KASSOWITZ, 158 seq. ; RITTER, I., 168 seq.
2 See SICKEL, Konzil, 433 seq. ; STEINHERZ, III., 195 seq.t
212 seq. For the motives which determined Guise to make his
journey to Innsbruck, and his negotiations there, c/.alsoVenezian.
Depeschen, III., 220 seqq. ; Zeitschr. fur Kirchengeschicte.L,
323 ; Docum, in6d., XCVIIL, 403, 407 ; HOLTZMANN, Maxi
milian II., 441 seq. ; SUSTA, III., 252.
310 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
the Emperor as early as the end of January,1 although it was
hardly to be hoped that this mission would meet with any
decisive success. Pius IV., who was going on with his work of
reform, certainly did not himself expect that he would be able
thus to silence the petulant demands of the powers. On the
strength of previous experience, he suddenly proposed to try
the effect of the intervention of a distinguished ecclesiastical
dignitary, who should possess the respect and confidence of
the Emperor.2 On February loth he urgently begged Cardinal
Gonzaga to go as soon as possible to Innsbruck.3 The
president of the legates at Trent seemed, in virtue of his
family relationship with Ferdinand, and his tact and skill,
admirably suited to influence the Emperor and to demon
strate to him the readiness of Pius IV. to carry out a decisive
reform. Gonzaga, however, declined in a letter of February
1 9th. This refusal was probably to be accounted for by the
complete failure of the mission of Commendone, as well as the
failing health of the Cardinal himself.4
When Guise returned to Trent on February 27th, he found
the first president of the Council akeady very ill. A fever
which he had contracted on February 23rd rapidly wasted the
strength of the fifty-eight-year-old Cardinal, already worn out
by the exertions and anxieties of the Council. On the evening
of March 2nd, this distinguished ecclesiastic, who had worn
the purple for thirty-six years, and for whom many had
prophesied the tiara,6 breathed forth his noble soul. The last
sacraments were administered to him by the General of the
Jesuits, who had returned a short time before from Mantua,
1Cf. PALLAVICINI, 20, i; POGIANI Epist., III., 242 n. ;
STEINHERZ, III., 180 seq., 182 seq., 185 seq., 191 seq., 198 seq. ;
SUSTA, III., 173, 183 seq., 208, 232 seq. The instruction for
Commendone dated January 28, 1563, in DO"LLINGER, Beitrage,
III., 316 seq.
'See RITTER, I., 171 ; SAGMULLER, Papstwahlbullen, 141 seq.
8 See SUSTA, III., 224 seq.
* Cf. PALLAVICINI, 20, 6, 4 ; SUSTA, III., 229.
•See the interesting **report of Fr. Tonina dated Rome,
January 23, 1563 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
DEATH OF GONZAGA AND SERIPANDO. 311
whither the Cardinal had sent him to found a college of the
Society of Jesus.1
In the Congregation of March 8th, Seripando, too, was
attacked by a dangerous illness, which caused his death on
the I7th. The celebrated General of the Augustinians died
as piously as he had lived. He insisted on receiving the last
sacraments fully dressed and on his knees. As certain views
which he had formerly advanced, concerning original sin and
justification, had shaken the confidence of many persons in the
perfect purity of his faith, the dying man took the occasion to
recite one by one, in the presence of the most distinguished
theologians, the articles of the Creed, and to swear that he had
believed them all without the least doubt.2
More than any of the members of the Council to deplore the
loss of their colleagues, who had been distinguished by such
splendid qualities, were the two surviving legates, Hosius and
Simonetta. They felt the responsibility which was now laid
upon their shoulders all the more heavily as the differences of
opinion regarding the relations between the primacy and the
episcopate, and about the duty of residence, continued with
undiminished force, while the demands for reform on the part
of the French and the Emperor were daily growing more
urgent. In addition to all these difficulties there now came
the want of money caused by the death of Gonzaga 3 and the
outbreak of bloody combats among the retainers of the French,
Spanish and Italian prelates, in consequence of which the
holding of Congregations was altogether prevented from
March gth to the I5th.4
1 Cf. BONDONUS, 565 ; MENDO£A, 672 ; POGIANI Epist., III.,
258 ; PALLAVICINI, 20, 6, 1-3 ; SICKEL, Konzil, 439 ; Beitrage, I.,
52; GIULIANI, 119; SUSTA, III., 253 seq., 257 seq. ; ASTRAIN,
II., 187 seq.
2 See BONDONUS, 565-6 ; MENDOSA, 674 ; PALLAVICINI, 20,
7, 6-8; Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch. V., 615 seq. ; SUSTA, III.,
263 seq., 277 ; MERKLE, II., Ixxi seq., where there are details as
to the tomb and will of the Cardinal.
3 See SUSTA, III., 282 seq.
4 Cf. THEINER, II., 256 ; BONDONUS, 56, MENDO9A, 673 seq. ;
SICKEL, Konzil, 468.
312 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
In the meantime the Emperor, whose theological com
mission at Innsbruck was engaged upon the drafting of a new,
the second, reform libellum,1 addressed two letters to the
Pope on March 3rd, which caused great anxiety in the Curia.2
One of these letters,3 which was also communicated to the
Imperial envoys at Trent, to the legates, to Cardinal Guise,
and to others, demanded reform in general terms. It ex
pressed the regret of the Emperor at the unsatisfactory course
of events at the Council, and at the reports which were current
that the Pope intended either to suspend or dissolve it, which
would cause great harm to the Church. He hoped that the
Council might soon be brought to a successful close, and the
longed-for reform carried into effect. For this, however,
full liberty was necessary, and therefore the right of pro
position must not be reserved to the legates alone, but must
also be granted to the envoys of the princes. Finally > the
Emperor announced his inclination to appear at the Council
himself, and addressed an urgent request to the Pope to do
likewise. The second, confidential, letter,4 contained the
same exhortations and demands, but was expressed in a less
severe form. In this the Emperor especially demanded that
for the future simony, and all other unworthy influence should
be excluded from the Papal election, that no Cardinal should
be appointed who, on account of his youth or want of learning,
was unfit to hold the position,5 and finally that the existing
1 Cf. STEINHERZ, III., 209 seqq. ; KRO"SS, 621 seq. ; KASSOWITZ,
1 80 seq.
2 Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 455 ; ibid., 452 seq. Arco's report of the de
claration made by Pius IV. after the receipt of the Imperial letter.
3 See RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 34 LE PLAT, V., 690. Cf. KROSS,
625 seq. ; STEINHERZ, III., 234 seq.
4 Complete in STEINHERZ, III., 223 seq.
5 This claim was founded on the creation of Cardinals of January
6, 1563, so widely and justly found fault with, in which Federigo
Borromeo and Ferdinando de' Medici received the purple, the
one being eighteen years of age, and the other hardly fourteen.
The nomination of Federigo was a compliment to the first president
of the Council, and that of Ferdinand to Cosimo I. Pius IV., who
PROPOSED SUSPENSION OF THE COUNCIL. 313
abuses in the election of archbishops and bishops by the
cathedral chapters should be abolished.1
Towards the end of 1562, Pius IV. would have been very
willing to suspend the Council,2 on the proposal of the Em-
did not, while the Council was sitting, feel safe in the States of the
Church, thought it well to seize upon every opportunity of placing
at least the Italian princes under an obligation to himself (see
STEINHERZ, III., 178 seq. ; SUSTA, III., 157 seq., 161, 193 seq.}.
For the creation of January 6, 1563, see PETRAMELLARIUS, 73 seq ;
CIACONIUS, III., 943 seq. ; CARDELLA, V., 53 seq. ; HERRE, 68).
The appearance of Cardinal Ferdinando is well described by the
author of an account of a journey of Duke Ferdinand, third son of
Duke Albert V. of Bavaria, in the year 1 565, printed in FREYBERG,
Sammlung historischer Schriften, IV., 317 seq., Stuttgart, 1834. As
early as January 30, 1 563, Tonina *reports that people were speak
ing of a fresh creation of Cardinals (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
*On the same March 3, 1563, the Emperor addressed a letter
to Guise (LE PLAT, V., 690 seq.), and a fresh instruction to his
envoys at Trent, printed in SICKEL, Konzil, 446 seq. ; ibid.,
456 seq., and 463 seq., the further instructions of March 21 and 23,
1563. Cf. as to this HELLE, 42 seq.
8 Before the arrival of Guise they were prepared for the Cardinal
to propose the removal of the Council to Besan<pon or Constance ;
the Cardinal himself had spoken of this to the nuncio, Santa
Croce (see the report of Santa Croce of June 26, 1562, in SUSTA, II.,
492). On the strength of this, on July 8, 1562, Borromeo sent
instructions to the legates to hurry on the work of the Council
as much as possible (ibid., II., 239 seqq.). On July 18 Borromeo
wrote to Delfino, who had (June 29) made the proposal that the
Council should be suspended : "If the Emperor, in agreement
with Philip II. makes a proposal for the suspension of the Council,
the Pope is inclined to accept it." (STEINHERZ, III., 94 seqq.).
On July 22 Borromeo again wrote to Delfino that the Pope was
agreeable to a conference on religion, the Council being first
suspended or closed, but that the Emperor must win over the
King of Spain to this plan (ibid., 100). On August 8 the legates
received orders from Borromeo to bring the Council to a close
with all possible speed, and the same order was repeated on
August 22 (see SUSTA, II., 308, 325 seq.). Pius IV. himself wrote
to the legates in the same sense on August 26 (§USTA, II., 327 seq.).
314 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
peror ; on November I4th, 1562, as Borromeo had written to
Delfino, the Pope expected such a proposal from Ferdinand I.
Pius IV. did not wish to take the initiative himself, and at
the end of November he declined Delfino's plan of writing to
Philip II. to close the Council. On December 20th Borromeo
wrote, to Delfino that if a proposal for suspension were not
made by the Imperial Court, the Council would continue its
sessions, for the Pope would not come forward with such a
proposal himself.1 As time went on however, Pius IV.
became more and more convinced of the grave objections
which stood in the way of a suspension or a premature closing
of the Council. On the other hand it became equally clear to
him that the useful progress and the successful issue to the
work of the Council depended upon an understanding with
the secular princes, and especially with the Emperor. He
called upon the latter, in a brief of March 6th, 1563, to under
take the defence of the Apostolic See against all attacks in
the Council, and to instruct his envoys to act in union with
the legates. The brief, at the same time, laid stress on the
sincere wish and the zealous endeavours of the Pope to do
away with all abuses, and to introduce a strict reform.2
On March i8th two briefs were drawn up in answer to the
Imperial letters of March 3rd. In the first, the Pope praised
the Emperor's zeal, and regretted with him the slow progress
of the Council, and the want of unity there ; in answer to the
rumours of suspension or dissolution, he declared his fixed
intention of continuing the Council, and of bringing it to a
happy conclusion. He then spoke of what he had already
done in the way of reform, and finally explained his reasons
for not going in person to Trent.3 A confidential letter was
also drawn up in answer to the confidential letter of
Ferdinand I. In this the Pope said that the Emperor was
perfectly right in maintaining that it was of the utmost im-
^TEINHERZ, III., 144, 151, 163.
* RAYN ALDUS, 1563, n. 67 ; LE PLAT, V., 709 seq. ; STEINHERZ,
III., 237 seq. The reply of Ferdinand I. on March 23, in SICKEL,
Konzil, 468 seq.
8 See RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 35 ; LE PLAT, V., 761-5.
MORONE AND NAVAGERO LEGATES. 315
portance for Christendom that the Papal election should be
lawful and beyond reproach. So many good and wise laws
had already been issued on this matter by former Councils
and Popes, that it had been believed that nothing more could
be added. In order, however, completely to remove every
abuse, the Pope had published a new law. He had not com
municated it to the Council before its publication, much as he
would have liked to do so, because he had realized, since the
recent disputes, how difficult it was, in such an important
and controverted manner, to succeed in accomplishing any
thing. Should the Council, however, of its own accord,
approve the law which he had issued, it would be very pleasing
to him. With regard to the nomination of Cardinals, he
referred to the statements which would be made by Cardinal
Morone, who had been decided upon as legate at the Imperial
court.1
The dispatch of these briefs, however, did not take place,
because it was decided that all the matters touched upon in
the Imperial letters of March 3rd should be answered verbally
by Morone. His mission was announced to the Emperor by
the legate in a detailed brief on March iQth.2 The other very
important task with which Morone had already been entrusted,
his appointment as legate to the Council, was also spoken of in
this brief.
When the news of Gonzaga's death reached Rome on
March 6th, Pius IV. at once saw that he must provide a suc
cessor for the dead president without delay. On the very
next morning, without consulting the Sacred College, he
appointed Morone and Navagero as legates to the Council.3
By this act, so quickly carried out, Pius IV. again displayed
his great political shrewdness. Other proposals were made,
especially the candidature of the ambitious Cardinal Guise,
1See RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 38; LE PLAT, V., 765-8 ; SAG-
MttLLER, Papstwahlbullen, 143 seq.
8 See STEINHERZ, III., 259. Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 471.
8 See Acta consist, card. Gambarae (Cod. Vat. 7061) in SICKEL,
Beitrage, I., 52 ; SUSTA, 267 seq., 270 ; POGIANI Epist., III., 262 ;
DSLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 487 ; SICKEL, Konzil, 452.
316 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
which was at once put forward. Although he had kept his
intention secret, Cardinal Bourdaisiere had succeeded in gain
ing admission to the Pope before the consistory of March 7th,
to represent to him the necessity of appointing Guise. Pius IV.
answered him shortly and decidedly that as the Cardinal of
Lorraine was looked upon as the head of a party in the Council,
it was impossible to consider it advisable to make him a
president, since not the least suspicion of partiality must
attach to the holder of such a dignity.1
Pius IV. had shown great wisdom in his choice of the new
legates to the Council. Of the three who were still at Trent,
two, Hosius and Seripando, were theologians, while Simonetta
was a canonist. As the necessity of a good understanding
with the great powers, for the progress and conclusion of the
Council, had been growing more and more evident since the
arrival of the French, there was urgent need of skilled diplo
matists. From this point of view, among all the Cardinals,
Morone and Navagero seemed the most suitable. Navagero
had had a splendid career as Venetian ambassador, while
Morone was certainly the most able diplomatist who was at
that time at the disposal of the Holy See. In addition to this,
Morone had been for many years, and in quite a special way,
entrusted with ecclesiastical affairs, for which reason Paul III.
had destined him for the office of legate at the first announce
ment of the Council of Trent. He had enjoyed the friendship
of Pius IV. for many years, and possessed his confidence in
the highest degree. Morone was also, with the exception of
Borromeo, more closely acquainted with the progress of
the Council up till now than any other member of the
Sacred College, and in addition to all this he possessed,
in a high degree, the respect and confidence of the
Emperor.2
On March 24th, 1563, Morone left the Eternal City, and on
1 See PALLAVICINI, 20, 6, 4-5 ; LE PLAT, V., 713 ; BAGUENAULT
DE PUCHESSE, 346 ; SlJSTA, III., 270.
* See PALLAVICINI, loc. cit. ; SICKEL, Beitrage, I., 57 seq. ;
EHSES in the Histor. Jahrbuch, XXX VI I. , 57 seq.
MORONE AT INNSBRUCK. 317
April loth, the vigil of Easter, he arrived in Trent.1 At that
time the work of the Council was almost at a standstill. The
joy that was felt at the arrival of the new legate was increased
when the new envoy of the King of Spain, the Count di Luna,
appointed to succeed Pescara, arrived quite unexpectedly on
April I2th.2
The importance and ability of Morone at once became
apparent in the negotiations upon which he entered with the
envoys of the powers who were at Trent, and with Guise and
other distinguished persons, scarcely any of whom believed
in the Pope's real desire for reform.3 These negotiations,
however, could only be provisional, as everything depended on
the attitude of the Emperor. After Morone had entered upon
his new office at the General Congregation of April I3th,4
he set out at once for the Imperial court on April i6th. After
a journey which was rendered very difficult by the cold and
rainy weather, he reached Innsbruck on April 2ist. The
Emperor had been awaiting his arrival with impatience ; he
went to meet the Pope's representative some distance beyond
the gates of the city, and accompanied him in his entry.5
Negotiations were commenced on the following day. In a
conversation which lasted for four hours, Morone gave to the
Emperor answers on all the points contained in his two letters
of March 3rd. The slow progress of affairs at the Council was
discussed in detail, as were the true causes of the evil and the
means of obviating it, together with the question of the sus-
1 See BONDONUS, 567 ; ibid. 568, for the arrival of Cardinal
Navagero, which only took place on April 28. For the departure
of Morone and his letter of credential, see STEINHERZ, III., 277-8 ;
for the course of his journey see SUSTA, III., 287. The autograph
letter of Pius IV. to the Emperor, dated March 25, 1563, which
was sent after the legate, in RAYN ALDUS, 1 563, n. 60 ; LE PLAT, V.,
774 seq.
z See BONDONUS, 567.
8 PALLAVICINI, 20, n and 12. Cf. the Relatione in the Zeitschr.
fur Kirchengesch., III., 654 seq.
4 See RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 63 seq. ; THEINER, II., 262 seq.
5 See STEINHERZ, HI., 278.
318 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
pension, the liberty of the Council and the asking for in
structions from Rome, the right of proposition by the legates,
the reform of the head of the Church, the Papal election, the
nomination of Cardinals, the election of bishops and their
duty of residence, the reasons why the Pope could not go to
Trent, and the invitation sent to Ferdinand I. to receive the
Imperial crown at Bologna. On ail these points Morone kept
to the statements made in the briefs of March 18th,1 which had
not been sent ; he endeavoured, with great skill, and to the
best of his ability, to justify them, but, as he reported to Rome
on April 23rd, he met with serious difficulties on several im
portant points. The Emperor entertained, as the legate
clearly saw, the best intentions towards the Church and the
Pope, but the situation was made difficult by the previous
agreement which he had made with France and Spain.
Ferdinand especially insisted on the right of proposition for
the envoys, on the limitation of Roman dispensations, and on
the reform of the composition of the German cathedral
chapters. He did not absolutely refuse to make the journey
to Bologna for his coronation, which the Pope desired, while
Morone's declaration of the burning zeal of Pius IV. for reform,
made a visible impression on him.2 The two guiding principles
which the distinguished legate kept before him were to make
every possible concession to the Emperor, and at the same
time to adhere firmly to the inalienable rights of the Holy
See.3
1 Cf. supra p. 314.
2 See Morone's report to Borromeo of April 23, 1563, in STEIN-
HERZ, III., 266 seq. ; ibid., 270 seq., also the Soinmario della
risposta data dal card. Morone all' imperatore. If the Sommario
is compared with the drafts of the briefs of March 18 (see supra
p. 314) it is evident, as STEINHERZ (p. 277) justly points out, that
the latter served in the place of a true and proper instruction.
Whether a written instruction was ever given, as might be sup
posed from PALLAVICINI, 20, 13, 4, must be left uncertain ; it
has not so far been found.
8 See Morone's final report of May 17, 1563, in STEINHERZ, III.,
MORONE AT INNSBRUCK. 319
Morone wished to treat with the Emperor by word of mouth
alone, and in secret, without witnesses or intermediaries.
This easily understood wish, however, could not be strictly
adhered to. Ferdinand dictated what he could remember
of the declaration made by Morone to the chancellor, Seld,
and then gave these notes to his theologians to be discussed.1
Morone rightly considered it his principal duty to get on good
terms with the various members of this commission. It was
above all a question of working against a man whose extreme
views had already repeatedly proved harmful to the Emperor's
ecclesiastical policy.2 This adviser of Ferdinand was not a
German, but the Spanish Minorite, Francisco de Cordova.
The activities of this zealous champion of the ideas of Con
stance and Basle caused Morone no little anxiety. He, there
fore, interested himself strongly in confirming other members
of the commission, such as Matthias Sittard and Conrad
Braun, in their good dispositions, and in gaining their good
will by gifts of money. This was not necessary in the case of
Canisius, who was so loyal to the Holy See, but he also received
100 gold scudi, as an alms for the Society of Jesus. The lay
advisers of the Emperor were also remembered by the legate
with gifts of money and valuables, a custom which was
frequently followed in diplomatic negotiations at that
time.3
The former excellent relations existing between Morone
and the Emperor now stood him in good stead. The negotia
tions were also facilitated by the Emperor's wish that the
election of his son Maximilian as King of the Romans should
be confirmed by the Pope as well as by the genuine Catholic
1 Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 495 seq.
1 Cf. LOWE, 6 1 seq.
8 See Morone's reports of May -2, 6, and 17, 1563, in STEINHERZ,
III., 281 seq., 286 seq., 311 seq. Cf. RITTER, I., 172. Concerning
the 100 gold scudi received by Canisius for his Order, cf. CANISII
Epist., IV., 971 seq. Of Fr. de Cordova it is very significant that
he states that Morone refused any acceptance of reform (see
SICKEL, Konzil, 502). It was very important that Gienger
was not at Innsbruck.
32O HISTORY OF THE POPES.
sentiments of this Hapsburg prince, who was always well-
intentioned, although not afWays far-seeing.
There still remained, however, many difficulties to be sur
mounted. Morone found the opinion prevalent at the court
that there was in Rome a spirit of opposition to all reforms.
Not only the Emperor's advisers, but Ferdinand himself,
could not be dissuaded from the view that difficulties would
be put in the way of the decrees of the Council in the Curia,
by granting dispensations.1 It also caused considerable delay
when the legate, soon after his arrival, fell ill with gout and
fever, and was confined to his bed. The Emperor paid him
the great honour of a visit, during the course of which he
remarked that he wished to uphold the authority of the Pope,
but also that of the Council. Morone replied by explaining
the necessity of close co-operation between the Pope and the
Council, quoting a remark of Cardinal Contarini, who was
greatly esteemed by the Emperor, to the effect that it is the
Pope who gives authority and power to the Council, but that
the Council must also have great respect for the power of the
successor of St. Peter. Morone also enlarged upon the blessing
which united action on the part of the Pope and the Emperor
would bring, not only on the work of reform, but also on the
elucidation of other questions. The election of Maximilian
as King, which was of great importance to the Emperor,
was also touched upon.2
Ferdinand I. had promised to arrive at a speedy settlement
of the negotiations. As he was still confined to his bed during
the days that followed, Morone sent Delfino to the Emperor
on May 3rd, to beg him to come to an early decision, without
any exchange of letters ; in this, however, he was not success
ful. Morone in the meantime sought to convince the chamber
lain, Count Arco, and the Imperial theologians, who appeared
at his bedside, of the genuineness of the Pope's intentions of
reform, and to explain to them how impracticable were the
demands of Ferdinand I. in the matters of the right of proposi-
1 See Morone's report to Borromeo of May 2, 1 563, in STEINHERZ,
III., 282.
1 See ibid., 279 seq.
MORONE AND THE EMPEROR. 32!
tion, the reform of the head of the Church, and the representa
tion of all the nations at Trent. He encountered so much
opposition, especially with regard to the first point, that on
May 6th he asked for instructions from Rome regarding the
right of proposition, as to which the Pope had been prepared
to give way at the time of his departure.1
While Morone was successfully endeavouring, from his sick
bed, to prevent the Imperial theologians from the treatment
of new and dangerous questions, as for example, that of the
supremacy of the Council,2 his attempt to deal with the
Emperor by word of mouth alone failed.
On May yth, the Emperor again honoured the legate with
a personal visit. He handed him, as the result of the delibera
tions of his theologians, a written answer to the discourse
which Morone had delivered after his arrival, together with a
supplement on the reform and election of the bishops.3 Con
trary to all expectations, the Emperor's reply was favourable ;
Morone, nevertheless, found in it three points to contest,
which had from the first appeared to him to be most important :
the right of proposition by the civil powers, the formation of
national deputations for the preliminary discussion of con-
ciliar questions, and, above all, the reform of the head of the
Church by the Council. He laid his counter-observations,
especially on the last point, before the Emperor, at an audience,
which lasted three hours, granted to him on May 8th.4 He
had brought notes with him,5 which formed the basis of his
speech. The Emperor begged him to leave these notes with
xSee Morone's report to Borromeo of May 6, 1563, in STEIN-
HERZ, III., .285 seq.
2 See Morone's final report of May 17, 1563, in STEINHERZ, III.,
304 seq.
8 Published by PLANCK, Anecdota, II., 3 seq., III., 3 seqq.,
IV., 2 seq. Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 498 ; SAGMULLER, Papstwahl-
bullen, 148 seq.
* See Morone's report to Borromeo of May 13, 1563, in STEIN
HERZ, III., 295 seq.
6 Published under the title " C. Moronis replica ad S.C.Mt19
responsum in materia concilii," by PLANCK, loc. cit., V., 3 seq.
VOL. XV. 21
322 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
him, and as Morone could not very well refuse this request,
he was thereby forced into negotiations which were partly in
Writing. Ferdinand handed Morone 's reply to his theological
commission, and received from it a counter-reply.1 This
latter did not seem quite satisfactory to Morone, although
it was very favourably expressed in several important points.
Only a limited right of proposition was now demanded, and
the expression " reform of the head " was replaced by the
words " reform of the universal Church, as it is called in the
ancient Councils " a change which excluded the principles of
the Councils of Constance and Basle. Other points were also
modified, but the demand for the national deputations, and
for a reform of the Papal elections by the Council were stili
maintained.2
The Imperial reply was presented to Morone on May I2th.
He had scarcely read it when Ferdinand appeared for a farewell
visit, and the two now conferred for two hours longer.3 The
Emperor displayed great reverence for the Holy See, and for
the person of the Pope, but in spite of this Morone did not
succeed in obtaining all he desired. A full agreement, which
was committed to writing,4 was reached on the following
points : the remaining dogmatic questions, especially those
which had not been attacked by the innovators, were to be
left aside ; the fathers of the Council, as well as the envoys
of the Emperor at Trent, were to be perfectly free to maintain
their opinions, but they would be forbidden to digress from
the subjects proposed for discussion, or to offend in their
speeches against the rules of courtesy, or to display a want of
consideration. The Pope was to leave to the Council full
liberty to pass resolutions. In addition to the completion of
the reforms already taken in hand, the Council should especi-
1 Published by SICKEL, Konzil, 498 seq.
1 See Morone's report to Borromeo of May 13, 1563, in STEIN-
HERZ, III., 297 seq. Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 500 ; HELLE, 56.
8 See STEINHERZ, III., 299 seq. ; cf. 310. See also SAGMULLER,
Papstwahlbullen, 151.
4 See the Summarium in LE PLAT, VI., 15 ; PLANCK, Anecdota,
VI., 4 seq.; BUCHOLTZ, IX., 686. Cf. PALLAVICINI. 20, 15.
MORONE AND THE EMPEROR. 323
ally deal with the irregular election of bishops, and the
exemptions of the cathedral chapters. Bishops were to be
forced to fulfil the duty of residence, and the dispute as to
divine right was to be settled in a peaceful manner. The
appointment of a second secretary of the Council, who, how
ever, was to be chosen by the Pope and the legates, was stated
to be desirable. Ferdinand I. promised, as it was at present
impossible for him to undertake the journey to Bologna for
the coronation, to follow this ancient and praiseworthy custom
of his predecessors as soon as time and circumstances should
permit. Besides all this, they arranged, verbally, that in the
event of a vacancy occurring in the Holy See during the time
of the Council, the Emperor should use all his influence that
their ancient right of choosing a new Pope should remain with
the College of Cardinals.
No agreement was arrived at concerning the national
deputations, the right of proposition, or the conclave bull.
Morone, therefore, caused the two principal advisers of the
Emperor, Seld and Singmoser, to be summoned to him before
his departure on May I2th, and explained to them his point
of view with regard to these matters, and begged them to sub
mit it to his majesty. Not content with this, he also drew up
a memorial,1 which he caused to be delivered to the Emperor
by Delfino on the same day. The answer2 was to be sent by
Delfino to Matrei, the first posting station on the Brenner Pass,
by which Morone was to travel on that day. It was prepared
on the I3th, and was at once sent on to Morone ; Delfino
was able, in doing so, to inform him that Seld had stated that
the Emperor would not insist on the three points mentioned.3
Morone found the Emperor's statements satisfactory. The
*" Scriptum C. Moronis super duplica C.M*i8 " in PLANCK, V.,
8 seq.
2 According to the copy of the Acta of the Council in the Vice
regal Archives, Innsbruck, published by SICKEL, Konzil, 500 seq.
The *original in the Papal Secret Archives, Concilio, 31, n. gob
gives a better text in some places.
8 See Morone's report to Borromeo of May 13, 1563, in STEIN-
HERZ, III., 299-300.
324 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
demand foi the national deputations, which now only appeared
as a counsel, did not seem to him to be dangerous ; he
considered it, on the contrary, even advantageous, in so far
as it was calculated to promote the acceptance of the decrees
of the Council by all the nations. The fact that the Emperor
expressly declared that the subjects proposed for discussion
should only be prepared by these deputations, and then laid
by them before the assembled fathers, to be decided by them
by the majority of votes, could not but allay Morone's fears.
With regard to the right of proposition of the legates, he was
also relieved to see that the Emperor did not adhere to his
demands. He looked upon the Emperor's proviso that, in
the event of a refusal by the legates, the envoys coald also
make proposals, as being reasonable and just, and therefore
believed that it would not be displeasing to the Pope either.
With regard to the conclave bull, the answer of the Emperor
was to the effect that for the time being he asked nothing
further than that it should be carried out in the most exact
and secure way, and that the secular ambassadors, as well as
the electors in the conclave and the whole Roman populace,
should be deterred from interference by the infliction of severe
penalties ; it would be best that these last should be settled
by the Council. This extension of the conclave bull, Morone
rightly did not consider in any way disadvantageous to the
Pope ; on the contrary, he thought that it would render the
intrigues of the secular princes more difficult of execution.
He therefore answered the Emperor without any hesitation,
thanked him for the contents of the letter he had just received,
and, in view of the goodwill shown by his majesty, expressed
great hopes for the favourable progress of public affairs.1
In the final report which he sent to Rome, which in its
simplicity, pertinency, and absence of vainglory, is a master
piece,2 Morone did not conceal his satisfaction that he had
succeeded in blunting the dangerous aims of the bye-council
at Innsbruck, and in convincing the Emperor of the sincere
1 See Morone's final report of May 17, 1563, in STEINHERZ, III..
307 seq.
8 The opinion of STEINHERZ, III., 313.
SATISFACTION OF THE POPE. 325
goodwill and the honourable intentions of the Pope.1 If he
was not perfectly satisfied with the result of his mission,2 he
could at any rate claim that what he had obtained was of no
small importance, an opinion which was also shared by people
of discernment. Canisius considered as the most important
point of all that Morone had obtained, the fact that the passage
on the " reform of the Church in its head and its members "
had been deleted.3 In Rome they were highly pleased with
the work of the legate. " The Pope," writes Borromeo on
May i9th to Morone, " has carefully read and considered your
report of the I3th, and I can assure you that, during the
whole of his reign, none of his diplomatists has given him
greater satisfaction. The more difficult and critical the
negotiations were, the greater are the merit and praise due
to you." Borromeo wrote again in a similar appreciative
way on May 27th.4 The satisfaction of the Pope was all the
greater as he had been prepared, in the last extremity, and in
view of the coalition of the great Catholic powers, to grant
the right of proposition to the envoys, and to allow the reform
of the head of the Church to be discussed by the Council.5
In forming an opinion on what had been accomplished by
Morone the judgment of the opponents of Rome is not without
importance. King Maximilian, to whom all the documents
relating to the Innsbruck conferences were communicated,
learned the result with much disgust. On May 24th he
reproached his father with having given way too far ; now
that it was done, he said, it would be well that the Emperor
1S&Q'ibid. 311 seq. Cf. PALLAVICINI, 20, 17, n.
8 According to a letter from Canisius to Lainez of May 17, 1563,
Morone said this to him, referring especially to the national
deputations ; see Zeitschr. fur Kath. Theologie, 1903, 642 seq.,
and CANISII Epist., IV., 201 seq.
3 See the letter from Canisius to Lainez, cited in the previous
note, and that from the same to Hosius of May 17, 1563, in
CANISII Epist., IV., 209 seq.
* See SUSTA, IV., 18, 31 ; cf. 14. See further STEINHERZ, III.,
313. Cf. also PALLAVICINI, 20, 15, n.
5 Cf. STEINHERZ, III., 277, 305 seq.
326 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
should return to Vienna, and trouble himself no further about
the Council.1 The Cardinal of Lorraine, too, who was at that
time in strong opposition to Rome, expressed his dissatisfaction
at the Emperor's compliance, especially in the matter of the
right of proposition.2
In whatever way the results of the Innsbruck conferences
may be judged, it is beyond doubt that the great diplomatic
skill of Morone had brought about an understanding between
the Emperor and the Pope.3 His ability and prudence were
1 See BUCHOLTZ, IX., 689. Cf. GOTZ, Beitrage zur Geschichte
Albrechts V. in the Briefe und Akten, V., 263 n. 2 ; STEINHERZ,
III.. 313.
2 See SICKEL, Konzil, 509.
3 PALLAVICINI, who had at his disposal the report of Morone
of May 17, and the correspondence with the Emperor, has given
(20, 1 5) a very good account of the Innsbruck conferences. Instead
of using this, RANKE (Papste, 16., 218) lays the greatest stress
upon a " Relatione sommaria del Card. Morone sopra la legatione
sua " in the Altieri Library, and remarks concerning it that it is
the most important document on the proceedings at Trent that
he has come upon ; neither Sarpi nor Pallavicini had noticed it.
The Relatione, which is often to be found elsewhere (the authentic
text in STEINHERZ, III., 312, in the Papal Secret Archives, Con-
cilio, 31, n. 67 ; to the copies noted by SAGMULLER, Papstwahl-
bullen, 150 n., may be added one in the Archivio Borghese,
Ser. 2, H. 18, p. 87 seq.), can hardly have been unknown to Palla
vicini ; he did not quote it because it is not certain whether it
was written by Morone himself, or by Gherio (see STEINHERZ,
loc. cit.). In any case this Relatione, which in the meantime
has been published, though not quite accurately, by MAUREN-
BRECHER in the Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch., III., 653 seq., can
only be considered as of secondary importance, as it is drawn up
in a shorter form, and appeared later, than the classical final
report of Morone of May 1 7, which is remarkable for its clearness
and precision, and to which Pallavicini rightly adheres. Ranke
had all the more reason for putting forward this report, because
it had already been noted by SCHELHORN (Sammlung fur die
Geschicte, I., 210). But Ranke paid no attention, either to
Schelhorn, or to the very important publication of the corres
pondence between Morone and the Emperor by Planck. The
SUCCESS OF MORONE. 327
also brilliantly displayed at Trent, to which city he returned
on May i7th. Morone was just the man to take up the
direction of affairs with a firm and safe hand, and to overcome
all the difficulties which still stood in the way of bringing the
Council to a successful conclusion.1
consequence was that he was only able to give a very unsatisfactory
account, in which the result of Morone's mission appears in too
favourable a light. The first to take up an opposite position
was RITTER (Deutsche Geschicte, I., 173 seq. ; cf. RITTER, L. v.
Ranke, Stuttgart, 1895), but Ritter goes to the other extreme,
and considers the agreement brought about by Morone as only
apparent. STEINHERZ (III., 330) has taken up a stand against
this view, appealing also to the judgment of contemporaries
who were well informed of the true state of affairs. A follower
of Ritter, Helle, has tried, in bis dissertation, Die Konferenzen
Morones, to defend the opinion of his master. Holtzmann, a very
reliable authority for that period of history, has rightly declared
against him in the Histor. Zeitschr., CVIL, 436 seqq. ; he says :
" It is true that, even after the conferences, the Emperor adhered
to his programme of reform, though in a somewhat modified form.
But it seems to me that, all the same, Morone's influence was not
quite without effect, and I should, in particular, estimate Fer
dinand's abandonment of the reformatio in oapite somewhat
differently from HELLE (p. 56, 64) . The way had been paved in all
respects for an agreement, and later on it was but completed
with the help of other things. In particular, the recognition of
the election of Maximilian was very skilfully held up before the
Emperor by Morone as the price of reconciliation ; cf. my book
on Maximilian, p. 450." KASSOWITZ (p. xliii) and v. VOLTELINI
(Mitteilungen des Osterr. Inst., XXVII., 353) also agree with
Steinherz.
1 Concerning the services of Morone see SUSTA, IV., p. v. ;
there see also details of the manuscript tradition of the corres
pondence which issued from the work of Morone in 1 563. For the
" Cifra Moroniana " see SUSTA, in the Mitteilungen des Osterr.
Inst., XVIII., and MEISTER, Die Geheimschrift im Dienste del
papstl. Kurie, 243. At Trent Morone resided in the Palazzo
Thun ; see SWOBODA, 23.
CHAPTER X.
THE CONCLUDING SESSIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT.
WHILE Morone, as legate, and as the confidant of Pius IV.,
was paving the way for an understanding with the Emperor
at Innsbruck, relations between the Spanish king and the
Pope were also taking a more favourable turn. Philip's
representative in Rome since 1559, Francisco de Vargas,
had been in no small degree to blame for the irritation and
disputes between Rome and Madrid. Vargas was not a
man who could smooth difficulties away ; he was much more
likely to render existing friction more acute. Over-zealous
and violent, quarrelsome and contentious, he was the most
unlikely person to obtain anything from Pius IV. In just
the same degree as the relations between the Venetian ambas
sador, Mula, and the Pope were excellent, so did those between
Pius IV. and Vargas go from bad to worse. Philip II. him
self could not fail to recognize that Vargas' position at the
Curia had become unbearable, and his successor, Luis de
Requesens, had been appointed as early as the beginning of
1562, although his departure had been delayed from month
to month.1
In August, 1562, Philip II. had formed the idea of sending
to Rome a special confidential envoy, in order to settle the
differences which existed in the matter of the Council. He
chose for the purpose the aged and experienced Luis de Avila,
but put off sending him until the beginning of December,
as he wished, before doing so, to come to an agreement with
the other Catholic powers with regard to his further procedure
at Trent.2
lCf. SUSTA, I., 157, II., 427, 514, III., 344, 386; CONSTANT,
Rapport 194 seq., 211 seq., where is also given the special biblio
graphy on Requesens.
8 See SUSTA, II., 522 ; III., 83, 88, 385 seq., 411, 442 seq., 446-7.
328
THE POPE S DIFFICULTIES. 32Q
The longer the mission of Avila, from which a favourable
turn in the matter of the Council was hoped for in Rome,
was delayed, the greater was the impatience with which the
arrival of Philip's representative was awaited. In the middle
of February, 1563, his appearance was thought to be imminent,
but a full month had to elapse before Avila made his entry
into Rome on March I4th, 1563. It was in keeping with the
honourable reception accorded to him that he was assigned
lodgings in the Vatican, in the apartments of Federigo
Borromeo. Negotiations were begun two days later, and
if they were at first of a somewhat excited character, this
was to be explained by the disappointment which Pius IV.
experienced when Avila presented the numerous and im
portant demands of his sovereign.1 In order to understand
the attitude of the Pope, one must realize the dangers which
confronted him on all sides. At Trent, where the proceed
ings were at a standstill, the Bishop of Fimfkirchen, who was
in high favour with the Emperor, was declaring quite openly
that the power of the Pope was no greater than that of any
other patriarch, and the Archbishop of Granada expressed
himself in similar terms.2 At Innsbruck the Imperial com
mission of theologians was holding its sessions, and was very
similar to a Council ; no one could foretell what success
the impending mission of Morone to the court of Ferdinand I.
was likely to have.3 In France, the most important cham
pions of the Catholic Church, Marshal St. Andre, and Francois
de Guise, had fallen, while Montmorency was a prisoner.
It was only too well known to Pius IV. that the government
of Catherine de' Medici considered that, faced as they were
by the Huguenots, the only way to safety lay in compliance.
The queen had, in fact, granted to them on March I2th, at
the Peace of Amboise, religious liberty, even though it was
to some extent limited, accepting at the same time the mon
strous proposal that a new Council should be summoned
1 See SUSTA, III., 239, 286, 531, 538, where there is a further
bibliography.
8 Cf. BALUZE-MANSI, III., 454 ; SUSTA, III., 282.
8 See SICKEL, Beitrage, II., 57.
330 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
in Germany or France, and renewed attempts made to attract
the Protestants to it.1
Under these circumstances, Pius IV. was forced to enter
into still closer relations with the only Catholic power which
would not listen to any talk of yielding to the religious in
novators ; the more hesitating the attitude of the Emperor,
and the greater the tension in France, the more the Pope
had to rely on Philip II.2 In order to obtain effective as
sistance from him, the Pope at last came to the momentous
resolve, not only of giving way with regard to the exclusive
right of proposition by the legates, but also of deciding the
dispute about precedence between the Spanish and French
envoys at Trent, in the manner desired in Madrid. An
agreement was reached in the first week of May, and two
documents, mutually binding, were exchanged. In that of
May 6th, Avila and Vargas, as the representatives of Philip
II., gave a solemn promise that their sovereign would defend
the authority of the Pope with all his power. Pius IV,
thereupon wrote on May 8th to the legates at Trent that
they were to explain to the fathers that the liberty of the
Council was not to be affected by the words proponentibus
le<>atis, which had been entered in the decree without his
previous knowledge.3 On the same day the Pope, without
wishing definitely to decide the dispute as to precedence
in the matter of the place to be assigned to the representatives
of Spain at the sessions and congregations, gave way to
the wishes of Philip II., who had based his threat, made on
March 5th, of breaking off diplomatic relations, on the luke
warm attitude taken up in Rome on this question.4
JSee STEINHERZ, III., 265; MAURENBRECHER, Archivalische
Beitrage, 5; BAGUENAULT DE PUCHESSE, 250. Cf. Vol. XVI.
of this work.
2 See SICKEL, Konzil, 514^; BEITRAGE, II., 58.
3 See PALLAVICINI, 21, 5, 7; MAURENBRECHER, loc. cit., 20;
Venetian Despatches, III., 226 ; SICKEL, Beitrage, II., 58, 134 seq.
* See PALLAVICINI, 21, i, 6-7; SICKEL, Beitrage, II., 58 seq.,
I33 se<l' Sickel rightly brings out how well Pallavicini has
described the effect produced at Trent by the new instructions.
MORONE AND SPAIN. 331
Morone, who had successfully defended the exclusive
right of proposition by the legates against the Emperor at
Innsbruck, was as much embarrassed as dismayed at the
compliance shown by Pius IV. to Philip II. in this respect.
The new Spanish envoy, Count di Luna,1 who had arrived
in the place of Pescara, naturally insisted on the fulfilment
of the concessions granted to his sovereign, and all the efforts
of Morone to induce him to change his mind were in vain.
The other legates supported Morone, and in a letter to
Borromeo on June igth, 1563, they protested against the
limitation of their exclusive right of proposition, expressing
the wish to be recalled from the Council, rather than remain
as witnesses of their own discomfiture.2
Even before this painful incident, there had been no lack
of other occurrences which caused Morone and his colleagues
grave anxiety, and placed them in no small embarrassment.3
Not the least of these was the ever smouldering dispute about
precedence between the French and Spanish envoys, in which
the question was always coming more and more into the
foreground of what place was to be assigned to the repre
sentative of the Catholic King in ecclesiastical functions,
and how the kiss of peace and the incensation were to be
carried out. In this matter Pius IV. came to the conclusion,
For the progress of Avila's negotiations see DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I.
489 seq,, 517 seq. ; MAURENBRECHER, loc. cit., 17 seq. ; SUSTA. III.,
531 seq., 538 seq.
*For his introduction into the General Congregation on May
5th, 1563, and the question of precedence which then arose, see
BONDONUS, 567 ; THEINER, II., 280 seq. ; PALLAVICINI, 21, i.
Luna took up his residence in the Palazzo Roccabruna (now
Sardagna) ; see SWOBODA, 23, 49.
8 See PALLAVICINI, 21, 5; SUSTA, IV., 67 seq., 71 seq., 78 seq.
8 For the question raised by the Archbishop of Lanciano as to
the right of voting by proxies, see PALLAVICINI, 20, 17, 7 seq. ;
STEINHERZ, III., 324 seq. ; SUSTA, III., 333 ; IV., 13 seqq. The
demand for the chalice for the laity on the part of the Bavarian
envoy led to the successful mission of Ormanetto ; see STEINHERZ
III., 327 seq. ; SUSTA, IV., 23, 28.
332 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
on June 8th, that it was his duty to decide in favour of Spain,
and he expressly gave as his reason that Philip II. must at
that time be looked upon as the principal support of the
Catholic religion.1
Above all, however, the legates were preoccupied with the
question concerning the episcopate and the primacy, which
had recently once again broken out into flame. Even the
preliminary discussions concerning the abuses connected with
Holy Orders, which lasted from May i2th to June i6th,2 as
well as the later ones on the ordination of priests,3 which
began on June nth, made it clear that an agreement on
these questions was hardly to be expected. While the Arch
bishop of Granada was for ever proclaiming the divine right
of the bishops, others, especially the French bishops, were
indulging in the most violent censures of the real and sup
posed abuses in the Curia. The Bishop of Paris, who
wished to see the discussions on the reform of the Curia
put in the first place, recommended the restoration of the
ancient mode of electing bishops, according to which the
Pope would have to renounce his right of nomination.
According to the wishes of many, the right of dispensation
must also be withdrawn from the head of the Church, and
the election of the Pope regulated by the Council.4
In the final assembly, on June i6th, Lainez, the General
of the Jesuits, maintained with the greatest firmness that
the Pope, as head of the Church, could not be reformed by
the Council. Reform, he declared, is a return to old ways ;
there is an interior reform as well as an exterior one, and the
latter must be subsidiary to the former ; all reform must
^ee PALLAVICINI, 21, 8, 4 ; SICKEL, Beitrage, II., 60 seq., 62
seq. ; SUSTA, IV., 62, 82 seq., 495 seq.
zCf. THETNER, II., 270-301 ; ibid., 264-70, the drawing up of
the list of abuses relative to Holy Orders, which was brought
before the fathers of the Council on May 10. See also Psalmaeus
in MERKLE, II., 838 seqq. For the later proceedings, from July 10
to 12, see THEINER, II., 302-9.
8 See Paleotto in THEINER, II., 617 seq. Cf. SUSTA, IV., 54 seq.
* Cf. GRISAR, Primat, 773 seq.
LAINEZ AT THE COUNCIL. 333
presuppose the immutability of the divine law. Not every
thing, however, is divine law which the fathers of the Council
honour with this title. Lainez then proceeded to demonstrate
once more the fundamental difference between order and
jurisdiction. To have a vote in the Council is a matter of
jurisdiction ; the possession of a diocese is not essential
to the episcopal dignity. The assertion that titular bishops
are not real bishops is false ; in Germany such bishops are
indispensable on account of the extent of the dioceses. Dis
pensations cannot be avoided, and Lainez was most emphatic
in his declaration that the Pope has his right of dispensation
direct from Christ ; no one can deprive him of it or limit it.
He answered the argument that the Pope might sometimes
use this right badly, by saying that the same thing could be
said of every prince and every superior. Finally, he strongly
insisted that the reform of the Roman Curia could be carried
out in the best and most effective manner by the Pope him
self, opposing most resolutely those who maintained the
superiority of the Council over the Pope.1
It is not to be wondered at that such outspoken and deter
mined language failed to appeal to many of his hearers,
especially the French bishops, imbued as they were with
Gallican views. In their reports to Rome, the legates bestowed
great praise on the General of the Jesuits, expressing, how
ever, a desire for greater reserve and prudence.2
Lainez also energetically defended the rights of the Holy
See at the renewed discussions in July on the sacrament of
Holy Orders.3 This was all the more necessary, as the French
bishops made violent protests against every expression which
suggested the superiority of the Pope over the Council, or
acceptance of the Council of Florence and repudiation of
that of Basle. The ultimate aim of the French was to under-
1 See THEINER, II., 300 ; PALEOTTO, ibid., 660 ; PALLAVICINI,
21, 6, 9; GRISAR, Primat, 777 seq. ; SAGMULLER, Papstwahl-
bullen, 156 seq.
2 See SICKEL, Konzil, 547 seq. : GUILLEMIN, Le card, de Lorraine,
346 ; SUSTA, IV., 69.
8 See GRISAR, Primat, 781.
334 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
mine the monarchical character of the organization of the
Church, in the sense of the Council of Basle. The Spanish
bishops, indeed, acknowledged the Council of Florence,
but remained firm on the point that the institution and
jurisdiction of the episcopate was of divine right, and must
therefore be declared to be so. On account of the extent
of their dioceses, and the richness of their benefices, they
hoped everything from the strengthening of the episcopal
power, and would have liked to become popes in their own
dioceses ; they also endeavoured to weaken the authority
of the Cardinals in every possible way. The Italians, and
with them a few Spanish and French bishops, as well as the
very small number of bishops of other nations who were
present, declared themselves, almost without exception,
on the side of the power and dignity of the Holy See.1
In all these controversies, which were conducted with the
greatest violence, secular interests also played a part ; the
Imperial envoys, however, in accordance with the agreement
reached by Morone, worked for the elimination of theoretical
questions, as to which there was no possibility of agreement.
The view of Pius IV. was that it was preferable to come to no
decision with regard to the question of jurisdiction, and
that of the universal primacy, than to adopt a half decision,
which would give occasion for disputes later on.2 The
legates had already written to Rome in April that there was
no other way than to avoid the contested points altogether,
and in the doctrinal chapter and canons to speak only of the
power of order, without mentioning jurisdiction. Lainez
had already proposed this solution on a former occasion, 3 and
an agreement on those lines was actually reached at the
beginning of July. A satisfactory form of the decree on
residence was also arrived at on July 7th, which, in all essen
tials, was in accordance with that which had formerly been
1 See the classic letter of the legates, already used by Pallavicini
on the different national groups at Trent, of June 14, 1563, in
SUSTA, IV., 64 seq.
2 See PALLAVICINI, 21, n, i.
8 See GRISAR, Primat, 779 seq.
THE xxnird SESSION. 335
drafted by Cardinal Gonzaga ; no mention was made in
this of divine right. On July Qth a General Congregation
was held, in which they were successful in obtaining 227
votes for the decrees thus formulated. Only slight altera
tions were asked for, with the insertion of which Archbishop
Marini, of Lanciano, and Foscarari, Bishop of Modena, as
theologians, and Archbishop Castagna, of Rossano, and
Gabriele Paleotto, Auditor of the Rota, as canonists, were
entrusted.1 This happy result, in consequence of which
the XXIIIrd Session, which had been repeatedly postponed,
first from April 22nd to May 2oth, then to June I5th, and
finally to July I5th,2 could at last be held, was above all
to be attributed to the complete change of front on the part
of Cardinal Guise, the leader of the French bishops.
As early as June 2Qth, while the scandalous dispute about
precedence between the French and Spanish envoys was
taking place in the Cathedral of Trent, the passionate French
man, deeply offended at the preference shown to Spain,
had permitted himself to the use of the most violent ex
pressions concerning Pius IV., the lawfulness of whose
election he declared to be doubtful, on account of alleged
simony, and he had threatened to make an appeal to the
Council.3 A few days later he offered the Pope his services,
through his secretary, Musotti. Sudden changes from one
1See PALLAVICINI, 21, n, 4; SUSTA, IV., in, 121 seq. For
G. Paleotto see MERKLE in the Rom. Quartalschr., XI., 336 seq.,
and on G. B. Castagna, Studi stor., IX., 229 seq.
2 See THEINER, II., 263 seq., 279, 298 seq.
3 For this question, and the proceedings connected with it,
see BONDONUS, 568 ; PSALMAEUS, 861 ; MENDO9A, 684 ; *report
of Fr. Porticelli to Madruzzo, dated Trent, July i, 1563 (Vice
regal Archives Innsbruck) ; Paleotto in THEINER, II., 650. Cf.
MERKLE loc. cit., 387 ; BALUZE-MANSI, III., 477 ; IV., 319 ;
LE PLAT, VI., 116 seq. ; PALLAVICINI, 21,8 seq ; SICKEL, Konzil,
556 seqq., Beitrage, II., 63, 135 seq. ; SUSTA, IV., 99, 517 seq.
On May 22, 1563, Fr. Tonina had already reported from Rome :
*Qui si ragiona assai del strepito che fa il card, di Lorena al
concilio (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
336 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
extreme to the other are natural to the French character.
In this change on the part of Cardinal Guise from strong
opposition to becoming the supporter of the Pope, personal
reasons had contributed no less than objective ones. Pius
IV. had previously made him the offer of appointing him
perpetual legate in France after the close of the Council
and of entrusting him with full powers, as, for example, the
granting of the chalice to the laity, things which to an
ambitious man, where very tempting. While on the one
hand, the prospect of a great and honourable activity in his
own country attracted the Cardinal, on the other hand he
shrank from plunging his beloved France, already so sorely
tried, into the confusion of a schism.1 His startling change
of front was at the same time made easier for him by the
amicable settlement arrived at with the Spanish envoy,
which was acceptable to the French court.2
In the General Congregation of July I4th an agreement
had been come to by almost all the fathers with regard to the
whole of the decrees. Only the Spanish bishops, with the
exception of the Bishop of Lerida, were still opposed to the
wording of the sixth canon, but this difficulty was overcome
by the skilful intervention of Morone. The legate appealed to
Count di Luna, who succeeded in overcoming the opposition
of his countrymen, and the same night communicated the
fact to Morone.3
On the morning of July I5th, the four legates, Cardinals
Guise and Madruzzo, three patriarchs, twenty-five arch
bishops, a hundred and ninety-three bishops, three abbots,
seven generals of orders, three doctors of law, a hundred
and thirty theologians, six procurators of bishops who were
absent, and twelve envoys, assembled in the Cathedral of
Trent for the XXIIIrd Session, the seventh under Pius IV.4
*See STEINHERZ, III., 379 seq. ; SUSTA, IV., 102 seq., 121 seq.,
and the sources there cited.
2 See SICKEL, Konzil 562 ; SUSTA, IV., 120, 127.
8 See PALLAVICINI, 21, n, 7 ; SUSTA, IV., 124.
4 Cf. THEINER, II., 310-2 ; RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 125-7 • BECCA-
DELLI, II., 93 seqq. ; PSALMAEUS, 866 seq. ; PALLAVICINI, 21, 12.
THE xxmrd SESSION. 337
High Mass was celebrated by the Bishop of Paris, Eustache
du Bellay, and the sermon was preached by the Spaniard,
Giacomo Giberto di Noguera, Bishop of Alife. Then the
decree on Holy Orders, in four chapters and eight canons,
was read aloud. Of the bishops it was stated in the fourth
chapter : "In addition to the other grades, there belong
in a special way to this hierarchical order the bishops, who
have succeeded to the place of the Apostles, and, as the
Apostle says, have been set by the Holy Ghost to rule the
Church of God." Although this formula did not directly
define divine right, the Spanish bishops had at last declared
it to be satisfactory, because it could be interpreted in their
sense.
The last three canons, so long disputed, were as follows :
" Anathema is pronounced against anyone who maintains
that in the Catholic Church there is no hierarchy, appointed
by divine ordinance, and consisting of bishops, priests and
ministers ; that bishops are no more than priests, and have
not the power to confirm and ordain, or that they have their
power in common with priests, or that the ordination con
ferred by them without the consent of, or without the call
of the people or the civil authorities, is invalid, or that those
who are not properly ordained and appointed by ecclesiastical
and canonical authoiity, but come from elsewhere, are
legitimate ministers of the divine word and of the sacraments ;
that the bishops who are chosen by the Roman Pope are not
true and lawful bishops, but a human institution."
The first president, Morone, was able to announce, as the
result of the voting, that all the fathers approved the decrees,
that six wished for a better and clearer declaration in the
sixth and eighth canons, and one in the fourth. Then the
reform decree, which included eighteen chapters, the first
of which was concerned with the duty of residence, was
publicly read. The second chapter laid it down that all
prelates without exception, even the Cardinals, must receive
Holy Orders within three months. The next fourteen
1 See KNGPFLER in the Freiburger Kirchenlex., XI2., 2105.
VOL. XV. 22
338 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
chapters contained precise regulations for the conferring and
reception of the various orders, as welt as to the qualities
necessary for those who were to be ordained. The rules in
the last chapter, the eighteenth, as to the training and educa
tion of future priests, were of great importance. All the
bishops, it laid down, were to found institutions, seminaries
in which boys could be trained for the priesthood from twelve
years of age and upwards. This enactment, by which the
theological faculties were by no means abolished, aimed at
affording the opportunity of theological study, together
with protection from moral dangers, to all youths, especially
such as were without means.
Divine right was again not mentioned in the decree as to
residence ; several of the fathers, nevertheless, were of
opinion that certain words in it might be interpreted in that
sense. The number of those who objected, however, to
this hotly debated decree, or who accepted it only condition
ally, or objected to certain passages, was only eleven. The
Bishop of Feltre, Francesco Campegio, protested against
the decree, though he declared his readiness to submit to
the decision of the Pope ; all the other fathers gave their
approval. The other reform decrees were accepted by a
simple placet, with the exception of six votes. Finally,
unanimous approval was given to the decree read at the
close, appointing September i6th for the next Session, when
the sacrament of Matrimony, and other doctrinal points
which had not yet been decided, the provision of bishoprics,
and other reforms, would be dealt with.
This happy ending of the seventh Session filled the Pope
and the legates with the greatest joy, and confirmed them
in their intention of completing as quickly as possible the
remaining tasks of the Council. The policy of Philip II.,
however, put serious obstacles in their way. It soon became
apparent that in Spain they were working for the prolonga
tion of the Council, and the proposal of Count di Luna once
more to invite the Protestants had no other object in view.1
1 Cf. PALLAVICINI, 22, i ; STEINHERZ, III., 381 ; SUSTA, IV.,
129 seq.
THE CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL IN SIGHT. 339
The consideration that the Council afforded him an excellent
means of bringing pressure to bear on Pius IV., and of forcing
him to concessions in other matters, was certainly the principal
reason for Philip's conduct.1 The Pope understood this
very well, but his superior statesmanship nevertheless
enabled him to frustrate the aims of the Spanish king. While
always strengthening the understanding with Cardinal Guise,
which was of so great importance as far as his countrymen
was concerned, Pius IV. understood in a masterly way how
to complete the work begun by Morone, and to win over
the Emperor to the conclusion of the Council. As an effective
lever for this purpose he made skilful use of the recognition
of Maximilian's election as king, and Morone stood loyally
by the side of Pius IV. in all his efforts. As early as July
20th, the legate wrote to Ferdinand I., representing to him
that a further prolongation of the proceedings of the Council
could only be harmful to the Church, and begging him to
agree to its conclusion, and to induce Philip II. to withdraw
his opposition.2
At Trent, on July 2Oth, the legates laid before the fathers
of the Council eleven canons on the sacrament of Matrimony,
and a decree which declared clandestine marriages invalid,
as well as those contracted by minors without the consent
of their parents.3 A considerable number of the fathers,
among them the legate Hosius himself, were opposed to
any change with regard to clandestine marriages, and on
this and cognate questions there arose long and difficult
discussions, which lasted far into the autumn.
Important deliberations on general reform were being
carried on at the same time ; in this connection, Pius IV.
expressly declared that the Cardinals must also be reformed
by the Council.4 nor were the laity to be excepted from the
1 See the letter of the legates of July 12, 1563, in SUSTA, IV., 122.
2 See RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 160 ; SICKEL, Konzil, 563; STEIN-
HERZ, III., 382 ; SUSTA, IV., 135.
3 See THEINER, II., 313 seq. ; SUSTA, IV., 136.
4 Cf. PALLAVICINI, 22, i ; SAGMULLER, PapstwahlbuUen, 161
seq. ; SUSTA, IV., 127.
340 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
general reform, a point of view which had long been main
tained by persons of discernment. The nuncio Commendone,
long before the reopening of the Council, and as the result
of his observations in Germany, had drawn attention to
the numerous usurpations of ecclesiastical goods and rights
on the part of the civil authorities, which gravely violated
canon law, and infringed on the liberties of the Church,
adding a demand that, to the reform of the Curia, must be
joined that of the princes and their governments.1
The remarks of Commendone on the oppression of the
Church in Germany, even by Catholic princes, were fully
justified. The German princes had been working success
fully since the XlVth century to bring at least the whole
of the " external affairs of the Church " into subjection to
their authority, to obtain free disposal of ecclesiastical
property, to fill all the lucrative ecclesiastical offices, and
to exercise control over all ecclesiastical ordinances. In the
confusion and distress of the XVth and XVIth centuries
not a few Popes had made far-reaching concessions in this
respect, and had permitted various princes to share in the
regulation of purely ecclesiastical matters. These concessions,
which could only be excused by the miseries of the times,
soon came to be looked upon as a permanent righ+ by the
sovereigns, who, " where there was no question of faith
involved," intended to govern " freely in the affairs of the
ministers of the Church and their possessions." In open
contradiction to the principles of canon law, according to
which the Church possesses the property, and her various
members are only granted its use, the officials of the princes
and the nobility in Austria as in Bavaria disposed of ecclesi
astical goods and foundations as they pleased.2 It was
hardly an exaggeration when Cardinal Truchsess main
tained that even in Catholic states it was no longer the bishops
who governed, but the princes and their officials.3
*See D6LLINGER, Beitrage, III., 310.
2 See JANSSEN-PASTOR, IV 15-16., 164 seq. ; Cf. I 20., 753* and
Vol. VII. of this work, p. 293 seq.
3 Letter from Rome, September 17, 1563, in JANSSEN-PASTOR,
IV 15'16, 163 seq.
REFORM OF THE PRINCES. 34!
To a still greater degree was this the case in France and
in the widespread dominions of the Spanish crown, in Naples,
Sicily and Spain itself.1 Pius IV. was therefore perfectly
justified when, in April, 1563, he made complaints to the
ambassador of Philip II. about the usurpation of ecclesiastical
rights by the Spanish government, and threatened to lay
the matter before the Council at Trent to be dealt with there.
In saying this he referred especially to church patronage,
the office of grand master, the Inquisition, etc. All clear
sighted people, and especially Cardinal Morone, were of
opinion that when they were dealing with general reform
in the Council, the princes must not be excepted.2 In Apiil
the Bishop of Orvieto drew up a memorial on the encroach
ments of the secular princes in spiritual matters, and sent it
to Rome.3 On the strength of this Borromeo gave the
legates strict injunctions on June 26th to place this subject
on the agenda for the Council,4 which was accordingly done.
At the end of July a detailed draft of reform in forty-two
chapters was drawn up,6 which was handed to the envoys
of the princes, so that they might make their observations
upon it. This draft was so comprehensive, that the idea,
so firmly rooted in the minds of many of the envoys, that the
Council would only occupy itself with the redress of unim-
1 Fuller details in Vol. XVI. of this work
2 Letter of Vargas of April 6, 1563, in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I.,
509-
3 See RITTER, I., 171.
4 Poiche ogn' uno ci d& adosso con questa benedetta riforma
et par quasi che non s' indrizzino i colpi ad altro che a ferir 1'
autorita di questa santa sede et noi altri cardinali che siamo
membri di quella, N.Sre dice che per 1' amor di Dio lascino o
faccino cantare ancora sopra il libro de li principi secolari et che
in ci6 non habbino rispetto alcuno, in le cose per6 che sono giuste
et honeste, et anche in questo haveranno a procurare che non
paia che la cosa venga da noi. SUSTA, IV., 100-1. Cf. PALLA-
VICINI, 22, 9, i.
5 Cf. PALLAVICINI, 22, i, 12 ; BAGUENAULT DE PUCHESSE,
363 seq. ; SICKEL, Konzil, 573 seq. ; KASSOWITZ, 234 seq. ; CON
STANT, Rapport, 333 ; SUSTA, IV., 140 seq.
342 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
portant matters in the organization of the Church, was com
pletely destroyed. The envoys were all the more dismayed,
as the thirty-ninth chapter contained a number of strict
regulations tending to ensure the Uberty of the Church against
the interference and encroachment of the civil power. The
first draft, which was subsequently much modified, was to
the following effect : the princes are forbidden, under pain
of excommunication, all interference in purely spiritual
matters, while the observance of the ancient privileges of
the Church is enjoined on them. The following demands
are made on behalf of the Church: free jurisdiction, free
dom in all matters which immediately or mediately concern
the ecclesiastical forum, and, under limitations which were
minutely detailed, exemption from taxes, burdens of state,
and public offices which had been unlawfully imposed. Princes
are not to confer or in any way grant expectancies to prelates
or chapters, and they are to leave untouched ecclesiastical
properties and rights, as well as the properties and rights
of such lay persons as are under ecclesiastical patronage.
The servants, soldiers and horses of princes must not in
future be quartered in the houses of ecclesiastics or monas
teries ; the exequatur or so-called placet of the princes must
be unconditionally abolished.
The representatives of Ferdinand I., whose zeal for reform
had, since June, under the influence of the theological
commission, again come to the fore with increased bitterness,1
were the first to hand to the legates their views on the forty-
two chapters of July 3ist. On August 3rd the French and
Portuguese envoys presented their observations, which the
Imperial envoy at once sent to his master. On August 7th,
the Spanish envoy, Count di Luna, submitted his remarks,
and, true to his previous policy of obstruction, demanded
that the reform commission should be made up by nations.2
xSee the so-called third reform libellum of June 5, 1563, in
SICKF.L, Konzil, 520 seq. ; SAGMULLER, Papstwahlbullen, 154 seq,
2 See SICKEL, Konzil, 571 seq. ; KASSOWITZ, 240 seq. ; SUSTA,
IV , 140 seq., 149 seq., 158 seq., 163 seqq.
SECULAR INTERFERENCE ATTACKED. 343
The demand that the civil authorities should also be sub
mitted to reform roused a violent storm of protest among
the great Catholic powers, all the more so as many of the
requirements put forward were too strictly conceived, and
were based upon a canonical point of view which, owing
to the changed conditions, had become impossible.1 It is
beyond question that the whole subject of the reform of
the princes had been brought forward for the purpose of
moderating the reform requirements of the secular powers
with regard to the spiritual authorities, by calling attention
to their own shortcomings, but the opinion expressed at the
time, that the strict secular reform had been so closely bound
up with the ecclesiastical in order that both might be aban
doned at the protest of the princes, was a wicked insinuation.2
When even Ferdinand I. repeated this assertion,3 it clearly
shows the sway exercised over this well-meaning but easily
influenced monarch by his advisers. It is not surprising that
Philip II. at once made complaints in Rome, through his
ambassadors, on the subject of the reform of the princes,4
because, should the Council adopt the projected measures,
Spain would be more affected than any other country, since
the government of no other Catholic state allowed so much
oppression of the Church as was permitted there.5
In the meantime Philip's envoy at Trent was endeavouring
by subterfuges of every kind to bring about a delay in the
activities of the Council. Although the Count di Luna had
made countless observations upon the other articles of reform,
he now refused to do so with regard to the reform of the
princes, so that it might not seem that he in any way sanc
tioned it.6 The difficulties which were thus caused for the
1 See SAGMULLER, loc. cit., 163.
2 The opinion of SAGMULLER, loc. cit.
8 Letter of Ferdinand I. to his orators at the Council of August
23, 1563, in SICKEL, Konzil, 585.
* Cf. PALLAVICINI, 22, 9, 2 ; Venice also raised objections ;
see CECCHETTI, II., 43 seq.
8 Cf. Vol. XVI. of this work
• See Paleotto in THEINER, II., 663.
344 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
legates were still further increased by the fact that the great
differences of opinion on the sacrament of Matrimony,
especially the prohibition of clandestine marriages, tended
to become greater rather than less. This subject was dis
cussed from July 24th to the 3ist, again, upon a new formula
from August nth to the 23rd, and lastly, upon yet a third
formula, from September yth to the loth.1
Notwithstanding the great difficulties which stood in the
way of the settlement of the decree on Matrimony, as well
as those on reform, Pius IV., convinced of the necessity of
bringing the Council to an end without taking into considera
tion the opposition of Spain, urged the hurrying on of the
proceedings with ever increasing vehemence.2 In this
respect the legates had already done all that they possibly
could,3 but the difficulties increased from day to day. They
had at last, after repeated conferences, succeeded in finding
a new formula for the articles on reform, which now con
sisted of thirty-six chapters. This was sent to the Emperor
on August 20th. The last chapter treated of the reform
of the princes in twelve articles.4 Its form was so moderate
that the legates entertained the hope that it would meet
with universal approval. Great, therefore, was their aston
ishment and dismay when the Archbishop of Prague appeared
on August 27th, and demanded in the name of the Emperor
that they should abandon the reform of the princes.5 They
lSee THEINER, II., 314-34, 338-69, 391-7 ; PALLAVICINI, 22, 4.
2 See the instructions of Borromeo to the legates of August 4,
1563, in SUSTA, IV., 169 seqq. ; the important letter from Borromeo
and Pius IV. to the legates of August 7, in SICKEL, Beitrage, II.,
149 seqq. ; Borromeo's letter of August 14, in SUSTA, IV., 186,
and the autograph letter from the Pope to the legates on the same
day in SICKEL, loc. cit., 152.
3 See their report of August 19, 1563, in SUSTA, IV., 189 seqq.
* See THEINER, II., 371-86 ; SICKEL, Konzil, 582 seq. ; KASSO-
WITZ, 256 seq.
5 The instruction from the Emperor, of August 23, 1563 (in
SICKEL, Konzil, 585 ; cf. KASSOWITZ 245) was brought by a
courier from Vienna to Trent in three days.
DEMANDS OF FERDINAND I. 345
very reasonably expressed their surprise that this request
should now be made, since the Emperor had always insisted
so strongly on general reform, and Morone was quite out
spoken in telling the Archbishop of Prague his opinion. On
former occasions bitter complaints had been made when the
legates sought to learn the opinion of the Pope before they
submitted questions to the Council, and yet the Pope was
not only their prince, but also that of the Church. Now,
however, when the Pope had practically waived this right,
and at the same time empowered the Council to act in all
matters without previous intimation to Rome, the Emperor
wished to dictate to the Council that such and such an article
is not to be dealt with. Neither the legates nor the fathers
of the Council were prepared to submit to such a lowering of
the Papal dignity, or such a violation of the freedom of the
Council. At length, in order to avoid an open breach be
tween the Emperor and the Council, they decided that the
Archbishop of Prague should ask for further instructions
from Ferdinand I., to which course Cardinal Guise also agreed.1
During these negotiations, Morone, in his easily under
stood excitement, had made use of such strong expressions
that he thought it well to send a letter of explanation to the
Emperor ; he remained, however, quite firm on the piont,
and defended his views in a second letter which he addressed
to Ferdinand in the attempt to dissuade him from his opposi
tion to the arguments put forward by the legates. In this
letter he submitted the following statements : the reform
decree was in the first instance handed to all the envoys, so
that it might, after it had been amended in accordance with
their suggestions, finally be laid before the fathers. Several
articles, to which the envoys had taken exception, we either
altered or entirely withdrew. We have urgently begged
every one of the envoys to give us his own views upon the
matter, so that if anything now appears in the decree to
which one or another takes exception, it is not our fault,
1 Cf. the report of the legates of August 28, 1563, already used
by Pallavicini, in SUSTA, IV., 200 seq. Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 586 seq.
346 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
but that of the person who kept silent. It is, however,
quite out of the question for us to let the whole decree lapse,
or even to postpone it to another time, without causing the
greatest scandal, throwing everything into confusion. Almost
the whole of the bishops are convinced that if the reform
of the whole ecclesiastical body is to be taken in hand, those
obstacles must be removed by which the bishops are com
pletely paralysed in the government of their churches by the
civil authorities. Should those obstacles not be removed,
the reform will be not only defective, but useless, and all the
trouble which your majesty and we ourselves have taken
will have been wasted. The whole of the contents of the
decree correspond, not only with canon law, but also with
laws which have been made by pious Emperors. Not all
the oppressions suffered by the clergy, nor all the encroach
ments on the liberty of the Church are mentioned in it, many
such things having been omitted on account of the circum
stances of the times, especially such things as might disturb
the peace of Germany, or seem to hamper the defence against
the hereditary enemy of Christendom. As the opponents
of our true religion are most violently bent on the expulsion
and destruction of the bishops and other clergy, it is only
right that the Council and the Catholic princes should support
them in their ecclesiastical ministry, and uphold their dignity,
especially as we may hope, in virtue of the regulations already
issued, or about to be issued, to have as bishops men who are
learned, prudent, eminently pious and worthy of respect ;
people cannot be brought back from vice to virtue, from
false doctrines to true piety, by bishops who possess no real
authority.3
At the same time as Morone was making these courageous
remonstrances, the French government was preparing, by
threats of extreme measures, to make the reform of the
princes impossible. On August 28th the French envoys
were instructed to retire, as a protest, to Venice, and to
^ee SICKEL, Konzil, 588 seq. ; STEINHERZ, III., 425, where
there are details of the steps taken by Delfino with the Emperor,
by the command of the legates.
DIFFICULT POSITION OF THE LEGATES. 347
cause the French bishops to leave, as soon as the Council
touched upon the rights and liberties of the French crown.
The power of the Council, so Charles IX. declared, was ex
clusively limited to the reform of the ecclesiastical body,
and it had no authority to interfere in the affairs and rights
of the state.1
The legates found themselves in an increasingly critical
position, as the majority of the fathers insisted that the
whole of the thirty-six articles, including that on the reform
of the princes, should be submitted. The conferences on
the first twenty-one chapters were begun on September
nth with a speech by Cardinal Guise, who spoke in words of
praise of the readiness of the Pope and the legates to promote
the work of reform. Among his remarks, his demand for a
special decision as to the reform of the Cardinals met with
great and almost universal approval.2 It was found im
possible to bring these conferences to an end before the
Session fixed for September i6th, and for this reason, as
well as on account of the great differences of opinion con
cerning the sacrament of Matrimony, Morone, at the General
Congregation on September I5th, announced to the fathers
that the Session appointed for the following day could not
be held. His proposal to postpone it to St. Martin's day
was accepted against a minority.3
On the afternoon of September I5th, the Imperial envoy
delivered a letter of the 4th from Ferdinand I., which asked
for a further adjournment of the reform of the princes. The
legates replied that they could only delay the matter so
long as the conferences on the first twenty-one chapters
should last.*
The treatment of the reform of the princes was impatiently
1 See LE PLAT, VI., 194 seq. ; Lettres de Cath. de Me"dicis II.,
87 seq. Cf. BAGUENAULT DE PUCHESSE, 366.
* See THEINER, II.. 397 seqq. Cf. PALEOTTO, ibid., 663 seq, ;
PALLAVICINI, 23, 3 ; SUSTA, IV., 237 seq.
8 See THEINER, II., 406 seq. ; MENDOC. A, 696 seq. ; SUSTA, IV.,
242 seq.
* See SUSTA, IV., 243 seq.
348 -HISTORY OF THE POPES.
desired by the majority of the bishops, because they knew
very well that it was a question of their own authority and
independence. The difficult position in which the legates
found themselves was further aggravated by the fact that
they were not united among themselves. Cardinals Nava-
gero and Hosius insisted so strongly, in the discussions on
the sacrament of Matrimony, on their own special wishes,
that the speedy close of the Council, so longed for by Morone,
was continually delayed. Morone and Simonetta did not
themselves agree upon several questions of reform ; Simonetta
defended the interests of the Curia and the College of Cardinals
more energetically than Morone, against whom Cardinal
Farnese in particular expressed his displeasure on this
account.1
On September i6th the General Congregation continued
its deliberations on the articles on reform, and the question
of the exemption of the chapters especially led to violent
discussions. The conferences were brought to a close on
October 2nd, by a memorable speech from Lainez,2 but
before this an unexpected occurrence had taken place in
the General Congregation of September 22nd.
The legates had been able to report to Rome on September
2oth that, on the strength of fresh instructions, the French
envoys, du Ferrier and Pibrac, had informed them that
their government was pleased that the Council had under
taken the discussion of reform, and disapproved of the arbi
trary departure of several of the French bishops from Trent.
On this occasion the French envoys had expressed a desire
to be allowed to bring forward in the General Congregation
several matters concerned with reform, which were in them
selves of small importance.3 The legates made no difficulty
about granting this request, and appointed the General
Congregation of September 22nd for the purpose. On that
occasion, however, du Ferrier made a speech which completely
*See SUSTA, IV., 263.
2 SeeTnEiNER, II., 407 seq. ; BECCADELLI, II., 131 ; MENDOCA,
698 ; PSALMAEUS, 868 seq. ; PALLAVICINI, 23, 3.
3 See SUSTA, IV., 255.
GALLICAN DEMANDS. 349
and most painfully surprised the legates. The Frenchman
began with a complaint of the delay in ecclesiastical reform,
and then at once passed on to what mattered most, the actual
plans for reform. He declared that this destroyed the free
dom of the Gallican Church, and the authority of His Most
Christian Majesty. For centmies, he continued, these
monarchs had issued ecclesiastical laws which were in no
way contrary to dogma, or injurious to the freedom of the
bishops, as the latter were in no way prevented from re
siding the whole year round in their dioceses, from preaching
daily the pure word of God, from leading sober, just and
godly lives, and allowing the revenues of the Church to be
used for the benefit of the poor ! The Most Christian Kings
had founded nearly the whole of the churches and had, as
rulers of France, the right to dispose freely of the property
and revenues of the clergy, as they did of those of their sub
jects in general, when the well-being and needs of the state
required it. Moreover, they possessed this right, this power
and authority, not from men but from God, who had given
men kings, so that they should obey them. The fathers,
therefore, must not do anything against these rights, or
against Gallican freedom, otherwise it was his duty to protest,
which he now did.1
This outburst on the part of du Ferrier, the offensive tone
of which was still further increased by several ironical ex
pressions, was bound to cause much displeasure to the fathers
of the Council, and on the following day was severely con
demned by Carlo Grassi. Bishop of Monte nascone.2 The
French bishops were also affected by the general feeling of
disgust, the Archbishop of Sens going so far as to declare
that du Ferrier intended to urge Charles IX. to follow in the
footsteps of Henry VIII.3 This opinion was shared by
1 See the text of the speech in LE PLAT, IV., 233 seq. On the
impression it made, see the testimony collected by SUSTA, IV.,
271. See also MENDogA, 697 seq. ; BAGUENAULT DE PUCHESSE,
366 seq.
2 See LE PLAT, VI., 241 seq.
3 See BAGUENAULT DE PUCHESSE, 367 n. 2.
35° HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Morone, who regarded the situation as very dangerous, and
feared a French schism. His principal hope of preventing
matters from coming to an extremity lay in Cardinal Guise l
the latter had not been present at the insulting address of
du Ferrier, as he had started on September i8th, in company
with several other French prelates and theologians, for his
long projected visit to Rome.
Pius IV. received the French Cardinal, who reached Rome
on September 29th,2 with every imaginable sign of honour ;
Guise had apartments assigned to him in the Vatican, where
the Pope paid him a. very ceremonial visit.3 The two discussed
all the questions then pending in a long conversation, and
with regard to du Ferrier 's speech Guise gave the Pope the
tranquillizing assurance that the envoy had never been
instructed by his king to act in such a manner. In consequence
of this, the shrewd Pius IV. ordered the legates on October
2nd to pay no attention to the French protest.4 The Pope
showed the greatest consideration to Cardinal Guise, and a
complete understanding between the two was all the more
easily reached as the French Cardinal was very glad to be
again on good terms with the Pope, both for political and
religious reasons.5 In a consistory on October 8th, Pius IV.
bestowed the greatest praise on the Cardinal, expressing at
1 See SUSTA, IV., 271 seq.
2 * Report of Giacomo Tarreghetti, dated Rome, October 2,
I5&3 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
3 See the reports in SICKEL, Konzil, 609 seq. ; Legaz. di Serristori
392 seq. ; GIAC. SORANZO, 148. Cf. BAGUENAULT DE PUCHESSE,
370. The journey of Cardinal Guise to Rome, which, with the
mission of Morone to Innsbruck, forms one of the most important
events in the third period of the Council, is deserving of treatment
in a special monograph. The demands of Guise and the decisions
made by Pius IV. with regard to them, are of very great interest ;
they have been gathered together and published for the first time
by SUSTA (IV., 339 seq).
4 See the instruction of Borromeo of October 2, 1563, in SUSTA,
IV., 303 seq. Cf. BAGUENAULT DE PUCHESSE, 370 seq.
5 See BAGUENAULT DE PUCHESSE, 370 seq.
CARDINAL GUISE IN ROME. 351
the same time his hope of the speedy ending of the Council.1
When Guise left Rome on October iQth,2 Pius IV. and
Borromeo sent letters to the legates at Trent, in which, amid
many words of praise, the firm conviction was expressed that
Guise would be true to his promises. " His interests," the
Pope said, " are so closely bound up with ours, that there is
no room for doubt . ' ' Consequently the legates were instructed
to treat the Cardinal on his return to Trent exactly as if he
were a legate ; the same honour was also to be shown to
Cardinal Madruzzo.3 Guise deserved this confidence, for he
indeed returned to Trent with the honest intention of giving
his help in the best interests of the Church, so as to bring the
Council to a speedy and honourable end.4
The decisive turn as to this question, which had become
more and more heated, had taken place while Guise was still
absent in Rome.
However widely the views of the two supreme heads of
Christendom might differ on the subject of the Council and
reform, there was, nevertheless, one subject which was calcu
lated to bring them together ; this was the Papal continuation
of Maximilian's election as King of the Romans, a matter in
which the Emperor, who was now growing old, had an extra
ordinary interest.
Pius IV. had, on many occasions, proved himself to be an
exceedingly adroit politician, but never was his skill more
clearly shown than in this matter. As soon as Maximilian's
election had taken place, on November 24th, 1562, very
protracted negotiations had followed. The latest investiga
tions have thrown complete light on these,5 and have shown
1 See Arco's report of October 9, 1563, in SICKEL, Konzil, 609 ;
SUSTA, IV., 570.
2 See the *report of G. Tarreghetti, dated Rome, October 20,
1563 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua).
8 See SUSTA, IV., 337 seq.
* See the Relazione sommaria in the Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch
HI., 657-
6 STEINHERZ, in Vol. III., of the Nuntiaturberichte, to whose
excellent account in the Introduction p. xlii-xlviii, we must here
352 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
why Pius IV. changed from his originally favourable attitude.
After Ferdinand I. had plainly shown his desire to influence
the Council independently of the Pope, by the delivery of the
reform libellum of June 6th, the happy idea came into the
mind of Pius IV. to connect the confirmation of Maximilian's
election with the Council, that is to say, to obtain Ferdinand's
consent to the closure of the Council in exchange for such
confirmation.1 After long and tiresome negotiations, an
agreement was at last reached on this basis. The task, as
important as it was difficult, of acting as mediator, was
undertaken by Delfino, the ambitious nuncio at the Imperial
court, who succeeded in solving the question to the satisfaction
of Pope and Emperor alike. This decision was reached at
the beginning of October.
On the morning of October loth, a letter from Delfino to the
legates, dated October 4th, arrived in Trent, with the news
that the Emperor had agreed that the Council should be
closed at the next Session. Two days before this, at the
request of almost all the envoys, it had been resolved to
postpone the question of the reform of the princes until the
following Session.2 Delfino said that the Emperor had sent
his envoys similar instructions, and had also sent them, so
as to avoid all delay, a proposal for mediation in the question
of ecclesiastical liberties.3 The contents of this important
message was confirmed on the same day by the Imperial
envoys. The legates immediately announced the happy
tidings to Rome, adding that they were endeavouring to make
an alteration in the articles relating to the secular princes,
and therefore begged for immediate instructions, which were
sent to them as soon as possible.4
refer, Ibid., 453 seq., for the part taken by Maximilian in the
Emperor's decision. The brief of thanks sent to Maximilian
on October 22, in BUCHOLTZ, IX., 716.
1 See STEINHERZ, III., xliii.
2 See THEINFR, II., 423 seq.
8 STEINHERZ, III. 439, seq.
* SUSTA, IV., 305 seq.
THE END IN SIGHT. 353
Great joy was felt in Trent as well as in Rome, at this
decision of the Emperor, and the satisfaction of Pius IV.
was indescribable. He personally thanked the Imperial
ambassador, Arco, and addressed glowing words of gratitude
to Maximilian in the consistory on October I5th. On the
same day the legates were instructed to hasten the proceedings
of the Council as much as possible, and Borromeo wrote a
special letter to Morone, telling him to be as active as possible
in this sense, without regard for what the Spanish repre
sentative might say.1
Thanks to the early receipt of the Papal instructions, as
well as to the zeal and skill of the legates, among whom Morone
especially distinguished himself,2 the still outstanding diffi
culties were overcome in a comparatively short time, and it
was possible to keep to St. Martin's day as the date for the
next Session. The legates, who had constantly to struggle
against the Count di Luna's policy of obstruction, had already
submitted a new, the fourth, version of the canons and reform
decree on the sacrament of Matrimony, on October I3th.3
As the result of the conferences4 held on this on October 26th
and 27th, the final version of the twelve canons and the ten
reform chapters in question was drawn up. A commission of
eighteen prelates was appointed to formulate anew the first
twenty-one chapters on general reform, and they began their
work on October 22nd. The new formula drafted by this
commission was )aid before the fathers of the Council on
October 3ist, and these once more discussed it in eleven
Congregations, from November 2nd to the 8th. The definite
form was decided on November gth and loth.5
A leading part in this favourable result was taken by
Cardinal Guise,6 who had returned from Rome on November
5th. He was not disheartened by the fact that his endeavours,
1 See STEINHERZ, III., 465-6; SUSTA, IV., 327 seq.
8 C/. SUSTA, IV., 375.
1 See THEINER, II., 424.
4 Ibid., 427 seqq.
5 See THEINER, II., 429-62 ; MENDO£A, 705 seq.
6 C/. Paleotto in THEINER, II., 673 ; PALLAVICINI, 23, 6, 12.
VOL, XV, 23
354 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
when passing through Venice, to induce the French envoys
who were staying there, to return to Trent, proved vain.1
The tribute which, in the General Congregation of November
8th, he paid to the zeal of Pius IV. for reform, corresponded
to the favourable account of the state of affairs in Rome
which the austere Archbishop of Braga, who had also just
returned from the Eternal City, had given before his arrival.2
The demand made by a majority of the fathers that a special
chapter should undertake the reform of the College of Cardinals,
caused great difficulty at the discussions on general reform.
Those fathers who opposed this were of opinion that the
matter must be left to the decision of the Pope. It is easy
to understand that such a demand naturally caused great
excitement in the Curia; both the Farnese Cardinals wrote
in the sense of the whole Sacred College to Mo rone blaming
him strongly for having allowed the Curia and the College of
Cardinals to be burdened with the very strictest of reforms
while the princes escaped altogether. Morone, whose own
elevation had been due to the Farnese Pope, answered frankly,
justifying his conduct on the ground of necessity, but de
precating exaggerated alarm.3 The opposition of the in
fluential Farnese, however, increased the dissensions at
Trent as to how this matter was to be decided, for it was
extremely difficult to hit upon the true mean between the
two extremes. Eventually Morone found a solution ; he
associated the reform of the Cardinals with that of the bishops,
and it might easily be taken for granted that the latter would
avoid anything like exaggerated severity in their own affairs.
Besides this a still graver danger would be avoided by Morone 's
conciliatory proposal, namely that of fresh discussions on
the mutual relations of the Pope and the Council.4
1 See BAGUENAULT DE PUCHESSE 370.
2 See THEINER, II., 440, 457 ; PALLAVICINI, 23, 7, 7 and 9 ;
SUSTA IV. 367.
3 See PALLAVICINI, 23, 7; SAGMULLER, Papstwahlbullen 171
seq.
* See the Rzlazione sommaria in the Zeitschr. iiir Kirchengesch,
III., 657; SAGMULLER, loc. cit., 174.
THE XXIVth SESSION. 355
All those who did not possess the right to vote were excluded
from the last General Congregation on November loth, to
which all the canons and decrees were once again submitted ;
in previous General Congregations the more important theolo
gians had been admitted. The canons and decrees on the
sacrament of Matrimony were first brought forward, and
before proceeding to the consideration of the decrees on
discipline, the resolution was adopted to add to all decrees
the clause : "in everything and always without prejudice
to the authority of the Holy See." All questions submitted,
including the declaration of the right of proposition, in the
twenty-first chapter of the reform decree, were almost unani
mously accepted.1
After the happy issue of these preliminary proceedings, the
XXIVth Session, the eighth under Pius IV., was held on
November nth, 1563. 2 There were present the four legates,
Cardinals Guise and Madruzzo, three patriarchs, twenty-five
archbishops, a hundred and eighty-six bishops, five abbots,
six generals of orders, and eleven envoys. High Mass was
celebrated by an Italian, Cornaro, Bishop of Treviso, and
the sermon preached by a Frenchman, Richardot, Bishop of
Arras. The doctrinal chapter on Matrimony, in twelve
canons, and the reform decree on the same subject, in twelve
chapters, were first submitted. The first of these chapters
declared clandestine marriages null and void ; for the valid
celebration of marriage, the presence of the parish priest,
or, with his permission or that of the ordinary, of another
priest, and of two or three witnesses, were necessary. In
the chapters that followed there were regulations concerning
the impediments to matrimony, which were in some ways
limited, the punishment of those who abducted women, the
marriages of vagi, laws against concubinage, or violations
of the freedom of the marriage contract, and finally regulations
concerning the forbidden times. While a section of the fathers
1 See PALLAVICINI 24, 2.
2 See THEINER, II., 463-5 ; PALEOTTO, ibid., 674 seq. ; RAY-
NALDUS, 1563, n. 193-6; PALLAVICINI, 23, 8 seq.; BECCADELLI,
Monument!, II., 149 ; SUSTA, IV., 379 seq.
356 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
violently opposed a good number of the regulations, the
majority accepted these decrees. Then followed the reform
1 decree,. in twenty chapters. It contained useful regulations
as to the nomination to bishoprics, and the appointment of
Cardinals, the holding of provincial and diocesan synods, the
visitation of dioceses, the exercise of the office of preaching,
legal procedure against bishops, the extension of the dispensing
power of the bishops, the instruction of the people on the
sacraments and the Mass, public penances and the office of
penitentiary, the visitation of exempted churches, the juridical
import of titles of honour, the qualities and duties of
cathedral officials, the accumulation of several benefices,
the constitution of regular parochial deaneries, the keeping
intact of beneficiary goods, the benefices of cathedral and
collegiate churches, the administration of dioceses during a
vacancy in the see, the abolition of the union of several bene
fices in one person, if the obligations connected therewith
entailed the duty of residence, the prohibition of expectancies,
provisions, reservations, and other similar privileges in the
case of vacant benefices, on the manner of appointment to
vacant parishes, and ecclesiastical procedure at law. A
special decree was added to this which gave the following
explanation of the much discussed right of proposition :
" As the council desires that its decrees may leave no room
for doubt in the future, it explains the words contained in the
decree published in the first Session under Pius IV., namely
that the Council shall, proponentibus legatis, deal with such
subjects. as shall seem suitable to end religious controversies,
to set a bridle on evil tongues, and to reform the abuses of
corrupt customs, by declaring that it has not had the intention,
by the words in question, of changing the usual manner of
dealing with affairs in General Councils, nor of investing
thereby anyone with a new right, or of withdrawing any
which may already exist."1
1 See PALLAVICINI, 23, 10-12 ; KNOPFLER in the Freiburger
Kirchenlex., XI2., 2109. Luna too was in the end satisfied
with the aforesaid declaration (see the report of the legates of
November 8, 1563, in SUSTA, IV., 367). Pius IV. was very
GENERAL WISH TO END THE COUNCIL. 357
At the voting on the reform decree so many divergent
votes were given in the case of chapters III., V., and VI., that
after the Session these had to be once more referred to the
commission appointed for the drawing up of the decree, and
it was only on December 3rd that it was possible to publish
it in the amended form decided upon between November I2th
and 15th.1 The eighth Session had begun at half past nine
in the morning, and had lasted until half past seven in the
evening.
With general consent the next Session was fixed for December
9th, with the power, if necessary, to anticipate that date.
The still undecided chapter on the exemptions of cathedral
chapters, as well as other questions of reform which had not yet
been dealt with, were to be treated in this Session. Pius IV.
sanctioned all the decrees of the XXI Vth Session, and addressed
letters of thanks to the persons principally concerned, at the
same time urging the speedy end of the Council.2
The legates were in no need of any such exhortation. Sup
ported by the wish of Ferdinand I., Maximilian II., the Kings
of Portugal and Poland, the Republic of Venice and the other
Italian governments, they did their utmost, in spite of the
opposition of di Luna, to bring about a successful conclusion
of the Council. Morone, above all, undisturbed by calumnies
and enmity, worked for this end.3 He succeeded in finding
a way out of the difficult question of the exemption of the
cathedral chapters ; that great abuses existed in this matter
was undeniable, but the desire of Philip II. to have them
removed was by no means disinterested. He wished to have
the power of the chapters limited as much as possible, princi
pally because his influence, which in consequence of the royal
pleased that the affair had been settled by a synodal decree and
not by a brief (see PALLAVICINI, 24, 2, i). As to the faculties
granted to the bishops see MERGENTHEIM, I., 84 seq.
1 See THEINER, II., 475-6.
2 PALLAVICINI, 24, 2.
3 RANKE (Papste, P., 222) is of opinion : " The Catholic Church
owes to him, rather than to anyone else, the happy issue of the
Council." •
358 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
bestowal of the bishoprics was already very considerable,
would thereby be much increased. The Pope was obliged to
resist this, so he and the legates espoused the cause of the
chapters. On account of the dependence of the Spanish
bishops on their government there was reason to fear that
they might allow themselves to be led by the will of Philip II.,
if the votes were taken by word of mouth. The legates
therefore resolved that on this occasion the votes should be
made in writing, and in this manner they gained an important
majority for the chapters. Guise skilfully mediated with
the Spanish bishops, who were now satisfied to accept a much
less extensive amplification of their faculties.1
On November I3th Morone summoned the legates,
Cardinals Guise and Madruzzo, as well as twenty-five other
prelates of different nations, to a meeting, and impressed
upon them the necessity of bringing the Council to a close
with the next Session. Guise also spoke urgently in favour
of a conclusion, painting in strong colours the dangerous
state of France, and alluding to the national council which
was threatened there. The Bishops of Lerida and Leon
were alone in wishing that the King of Spain should first
give his consent. The Archbishop of Granada, on the other
hand, was unconditionally in favour of the closing of the
Council. The dangers arising from the possible decease of
the Pope or the Emperor, and the inconveniences which had
arisen from the long absence of the bishops from their dioceses,
were urgent reasons in favour of this view. It was, there
fore, resolved to resume the discussion of the reform decrees
already submitted. With regard to the reform of the princes
they approached the task with great moderation, as the secu
lar power would very soon be required for the enforcement
of the decrees. They therefore adopted that formulation
of the decree, as to which the Pope had come to an agreement
with the Emperor. In this the prescriptions of earlier Coun-
1 See the Relatione sommaria in the Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch.,
III., 657 ; RANKE, Papste, I6., 224. Cf. also MENDO^A, 705 seq. ;
SICKEL, Konzil, 636 seq. ; PALLAVICINI, 24, 4, n.
REFORM DECREES MODIFIED. 359
cils and canons were merely renewed, the anathemas being
replaced by paternal admonitions.1 With regard to the
questions of dogma which were still in arrears, such as the
doctrines of Purgatory, indulgences, the invocation of the
saints, and the veneration of their images and relics, it was
only necessary to gather together all that had been decided
in former Councils, in such a way as to remove abuses, but
without entering upon discussions. On account of the general
feeling of weariness even the envoys of the princes agreed
to this procedure.2
The decisions arrived at on November I3th were laid by
Morone before the General Congregation two days later,
and the remaining fourteen chapters of the reform decree
were then discussed. As the last one, that on the reform
of the princes, had been given a very mild and elastic form,
it was necessary that ecclesiastical reform should be modified
as well.3
The discussions upon this lasted from November i5th
to the i8th, on which date the six other reform chapters
I§USTA, IV., 326 seq.
* See Paleotto in THEINER, II., 675 seq. ; MENDO£A, 711 seq. ;
PALLAVICINI, 24, 2, 3 ; BAGUENAULT DE PUCHESSE, 384 ; SUSTA,
IV., 385 seq.
8 " That the reform of the laity should thus have failed," such
is the verdict of SAGMULLER (Papstwahlbullen, 181), " cannot
be imputed to Pius IV. We should rather recognize in it his
great prudence and his practical grasp of the whole state of
affairs at that time. Nor can it be regarded as so great a mistake
that the reform of the Curia turned out to be milder than was
somewhat unwisely desired in certain quarters, for, in the great
uplifting of the Catholic Church which followed upon the Council
of Trent, Rome maintained her position as the leader in this
matter. And if, in the failure of the reform of the laity, no
decision was arrived at in the matter of the interference of the
princes in the Papal elections, and consequently there was no
express prohibition of such a thing, yet this had already been
provided against in another way, namely in Par. 26 of the bull In
eligendis." (October 9, 1562).
360 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
were submitted.1 To these, on November 20th, was added
a decree upon the reform of the regulars, which was discussed
from November 23rd to the 25th.2
On November 27th the Spanish envoy made a protest
against these steps for bringing the Council to such a hurried
close, whereupon Morone again summoned a special meeting
at his residence on November 28th ; all present again spoke
unanimously in favour of closing the Council. The Arch
bishop of Granada was alone in demanding that, fifteen
days after the coming Session, yet another should be held.
The majority of the fathers would not agree to this, but
determined to prepare the dogmatic questions already men
tioned for the Session appointed for December Qth.3
On November i6th Hosius had informed Commendorfe
that the hopes of a successful ending of the Council had never
been so great as they were at present. Cardinal Guise urged
haste, and threatened that if the proceedings were drawn
out till Christmas he and all the French bishops would leave
Trent. The envoys of the Emperor and the other princes
were similarly insistent, so that, unless something unexpected
should occur, the desired goal seemed likely to be reached
in a very short time.4
1 See THEINER, II., 480 seq. ; MzNDogA 712 seq. ; PALLA-
VICINI, 24, 3.
2 See THEINER, II., 4,5 seq. ; MENDOCA, 713 seq.
3 See Paleotto in THEINER, II., 67,, seq.; MENDOCA, 716;
PALLAVICINI, 24, 4 ; SUSTA, IV., 415 seq., 420 seq.
' *Nunquam spe fuimus maiore celerius absolvendi concilii
quam nunc. Urget Lotaringius cardinalis, ac si fuerit extractum
ad natalem usque christianum, se cum suis omnibus Gallorum
episcopis discessurum hinc minatur, nullus ut ex eis adfuturus sit.
Quomodo concilii decretis erit subscribendum ; quae res non
mediocre no bis calcar addidit ad festinandum, nam si prius Galli
discederent quam esset concilium absolutm, dubitari posset
num esset oecumenicum. Urgent autem hoc ipsum et Caes. Mtis
oratores, quibus etiam alii non dissentiunt. Itaquo nisi' quid
evenerit ex improviso, videmur iam optatum concilii finem esse
brevi consequuturi, quern ut faustum ecclesiae suae Deus esse
velit, supplex maiestatem eius imploro. Hosius to Commendone,
ILLNESS OF THE POPE. 361
The unexpected, however, did occur. On November 2Qth
and 3Oth the representative of Philip II., the Count di Luna,
summoned the Spanish bishops, and such Italians as were
subject to Spanish rule, to his house, in order to bring about,
through their means, a prolongation of the Council. Only
two or three of those who appeared, however, shared the
views of the envoy.1 The last of these meetings finished at
seven o'clock in the evening. Two hours later, a courier,
sent from Rome by the Spanish ambassador, Requesens,
arrived at di Luna's house with the news that the Pope was
mortally ill. Soon afterwards Morone and Simonetta re
ceived a letter from Cardinal Borromeo, dated November
2;th, telling of the grave illness of the Pope, accompanied
by a certified statement from the physicians. A postscript
announced the very urgent wish of Pius IV. that the closing
of the Council should be hurried on in every possible way.2
Haste was absolutely necessary, for a schism was to be feared,
on account of the mutual dispute between the Council and
the Cardinals in Rome concerning the right of electing a
new Pope ; not only were the legates convinced of tl.is,
but also Guise and Madruzzo.3 The legates, therefore,
immediately summoned the envoys and the most important
prelates, in order to lay the threatened danger before them.
All, with the exception of the representatives of Philip II.
and several of the Spaniards, declared themselves agreeable
to the last Session of the Council being held at once, and a
special meeting of the prelates, summoned on December
2nd, also agreed to this. A General Congregation was held
on the same day, which, with the utmost speed, prepared the
whole of the material waiting for publication. On account
dated Trent, November 16, 1563 (Graziani Archives, Citta di
Castello).
!See Paleotto in THEINER, II., 678; MENDO9A, 716; PALLA-
VICINI, 24, 4 ; SUSTA, IV., 415 seq., 420 seq.
2 See SUSTA, IV., 431 seq.
3 Cf. the retrospect in the *letter of Hosius to Commendone,
dated Trent, December 7, 1563 (Graziani Archives, Citta di
Castello).
362 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
of the great number of subjects, the sitting had to last for
two days, and was held on December 3rd and 4th. It was
also expressly resolved that the legates should afterwards
seek the confirmation of the Pope in the name of the whole
Council.1 During the night better news arrived as to the
Pope's condition,2 but the legates and deputies adhered to
the resolution they had taken, and worked until midnight
to clear away and settle the last difficulties which had been
raised against some of the decrees, partly by the envoys and
partly by the fathers.3
On the morning of December 3rd, the XXVth and last
Session of the Council, the ninth under Pius IV., was opened.4
High Mass was celebrated by Zambeccaro, Bishop of Sulmona,
and the sermon was preached by Girolamo Ragazzoni, Bishop
of Nazianzen and coadjutor of Famagosta. The decrees
1 See Paleotto in THEINER, II., 678 seq. ; MENDOCA, 717;
PALLAVICINI, 24, 4 ; SUSTA, IV., 434 seq., 437 seq.
8 The opinion that the illness of Pius IV. was an invention,
or purposely exaggerated, is untenable (see SAGMULLER, Papst-
wahlbullen, 177). To the evidence already printed (cf. SICKEL,
Konzil, 643 seq. Corpo dipl. Portug., X., 154) may be added the
statements of the Mantuan ambassador, Giacomo Tarreghetti,
who wrote on December i : *Dopo che io scrissi 1' altra mia a
V. Ecca, N.S. & stato grandemente dppresso dal male, non senza
grandissimo pericolo di vita, per quello si diceva publicamente,
imperoche ad un tratto era tormento dalla podagra et similmente
dal catarro et anco dalla febre. His *report of December 4, 1563
(cf. SUSTA, IV., 449 seq, 454) announces an improvement. Accord
ing to a *letter of December 8, the Pope on that day was free
from fever, and again granted audiences (Gonzaga Archives,
Mantua). Serristpri, too, in his *letter of December 3, 1563,
notes that at first Pius IV. had been considered to be in a hopeless
condition by the physicians and everybody else (State Archives,
Florence) .
3 See PALLAVICINI, 24, 5.
4 See THEINER, II., 502-14 ; RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 209-17 ;
PSALMAEUS, 876 seq. ; PALLAVICINI, 24, 5-8 ; BAGUENAULT DE
PUCHESSE, 391 seq. ; KNO"PFLER, in the Freiburger Kirchenlex.,
XI2., 21 1 1 seq. ; SUSTA, IV., 441 seqq.
LAST SESSION OF THE COUNCIL, 363
on Purgatory, the invocation of the Saints, and the venera
tion of their relics and images, were read and almost unani
mously accepted. The same was done with the decree on
the reform of the regulars, the twenty-two chapters of which
contained regulations on the observance of the rules of the
orders, the property of communities as well as of individuals,
the number of the members, the foundation of monasteries,
the enclosure of convents of nuns, the election of superiors,
the visitation of convents, whether exempt or non-exempt,
the confessions of nuns, the exercise of the cure of souls by
regulars, the settlement of suits, criminal procedure, vows
and novices, freedom of entry, the treatment of " apostates "
and benefices held in commendam. With regard to these
last, some of the fathers wished that they should be entirely
abolished, but Guise had already prevented this in the General
Congregation.
The general reform decree comprised the most various
subjects in twenty chapters. It insisted on simplicity in
the houses of the bishops and also of the Cardinals, recom
mended caution in imposing the sentence of excommunica
tion, made rules as to the profession of faith to be made by
prelates and other ecclesiastical officials, as well as the pro
fessors in Catholic universities, foundations for masses, the
visitation of exempted chapters, the abolition of expectancies
of ecclesiastical benefices, the administration of hospitals,
the right of patronage, the settlement of lawsuits, the lease
of ecclesiastical property, the payment of tithes, burial fees,
the administration of benefices entailing the cure of so^s,
and the punishment of clerical concubinage. The nineteenth
chapter pronounced excommunication on duellists, their
seconds and supporters, and forbade Christian burial to
those who fell in a duel. Even the onlookers at a duel were
subjected to excommunication. There next followed, as
the twentieth chapter, a " strong exhortation to all the princes
to maintain and protect the rights and immunities of the
Church." In this respect all the earlier canons and con
stitutions were renewed, and the prirces were exhorted to
make it possible for the bishops to reside in their dioceses
364 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
in peace and dignity. The twenty-first and last chapter
contained the clause that the authority of the Apostolic See
must be held inviolate against all the decisions of the Council.
The acceptance of the reform decree took place with an
almost miraculous unanimity ; it was only with regard to
the last two chapters that some remarks were made. After
it had lasted from eight o'clock in the morning until nearly
five in the evening, the Session, as had been previously
arranged in the General Congregation, was adjourned till
the following day. Besides the four legates, there were
present the two Cardinals, twenty-five archbishops, a hundred
and fifty bishops, seven abbots, seven generals of orders,
and eleven envoys of the princes.
After the Session, a large majority, among whom was
Guise, expressed a wish for a decree on indulgences. Morone
was opposed to this as he feared a further delay in concluding
the Council, as well as undue precipitancy in the matter,
but he was forced at last to yield to the general desire. A
decree on indulgences was framed during the night on the
basis of the previous discussions, and this was presented
very early on December 4th to a General Congregation, in
spite of further opposition on the part of Morone.1 Then they
repaired to the Cathedral, where the Archbishop of Catania
celebrated High Mass, after which, before anything else,
the decree on indulgences was read. This declared that
indulgences were salutary and that the Church had the power
to grant them ; the abuses committed by the collectors of
money for indulgences was met by a regulation which very
strictly forbade all manner of gain in the matter. With
regard to the other abuses in the matter of indulgences, which
on account of their multiplicity were not specifically men
tioned, the bishops were to discuss these in the provincial
synods, and to refer them to the Pope in order that he might
remove them. The next decree dealt with the observance
of fast and feast days ; another dealt with the publication
of the Index, the catechism, the breviary and the missal,
1 See THEINER, II., 680.
CLOSE OF THE COUNCIL. 365
these latter matters being referred to the Pope. Then the
Council declared that from the regulations as to the order of
precedence observed among the envoys on this occasion,
no one could claim any rights, while at the same time the
rights of no one were impugned. Finally a decree was read
concerning the observance and acceptance of the Council's
decisions.
After the decrees had been approved, they proceeded to
read once more all the decisions of the preceding Sessions.
Finally the fathers were again asked whether they approved
of the closure of the Council, and the confirmation of its
decrees by the Pope. All gave their assent, the Arch
bishop of Granada alone declaring the Papal confirmation
to be unnecessary. With the words " Andate in pace,"
the first president, Morone, declared the Council closed.
The decrees were confirmed by the signature of two hundred
and fifty-five fathers : four Cardinal legates, two cardinals,
three patriarchs, twenty-five archbishops, a hundred and
sixty-eight bishops, seven abbots, thirty-nine proxies for
those who were absent, and seven generals of orders.1
When the acclamations, led by Cardinal Guise after the
manner of ancient Councils, resounded through the Cathedral
of Trent and proclaimed the conclusion of the great work,
many of the fathers of the Council could not restrain their
tears.2 They were all affected by the solemnity of the
moment, for they felt that the hand of God had turned over
a page in the history of His Church.
lSee PALLAVICINI, 24, 8, 13. Cf. THEINER, II., 509-13. For
the signatures see EHSES in the Abhandlungen der Gorres-Geseli-
schaft, Jahresbericht fur 1917, p. 50.
2 See Paleotto in THEINER, II., 680 ; MENDOCA, 719.
CHAPTER XI
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
IN spite of all the disturbances, both from within and from
without, in spite of all the delays and obstructions, as well as
the many human weaknesses which had come to light during
the course of its proceedings, the Council had accomplished
a mighty work, and one of decisive importance.1
It was true that in spite of every effort, no restoration had
been effected at Trent of that unity of faith, on account of
which from the first the Council had been so ardently longed
for, although there had been no lack on its part of invitations
to the followers of the new beliefs. " We have," said the
preacher at the Session of December 4th, " chosen this city,
at the entrance into Germany, on the very threshold, so to
speak, of their house, in order to remove all suspicion from
their minds, we have refused to be guarded by troops, we have
issued letters of safe-conduct which they themselves have
framed, we have waited long for them, we have begged and
implored them to come and gain knowledge from the light
of the truth. ' ' But in the end the hand that had been stretched
out had been rejected in the most scornful manner ; the last
1Cf. H. SWOBODA, Das Konzil von Trient, sein Schauplatz,
Verlauf und Ertrag, Vienna, 1912. Here E. TOMEK (p. 53 seqq.)
has treated of the Council as the landmark in the history of dogma ;
J. LEHNER (p. 67 seqq.} works out in the discussions the things
relating to th£ Holy Eucharist, and F. M. SCHINDLER (p. 79 seqq.}
the Christian ideal of life ; the editor (p. 87 seqq.} gives an appre
ciation of the pastoral spirit of the Council, and F. ZEHNTBAUER
(p. 103 seqq.} of the decrees on canon law. There is nothing
further in the work of P. DESLANDRES, Le concile de Trente et la
reforme du clerge catholique, Paris, 1909. For the' medal struck
by Pius IV. to commemorate the Council, see BONANNI, I., 275.
366
A NEW EPOCH BEGUN. 367
hope of coming to an understanding had failed, the breach
was now complete. It was necessary to grow accustomed
to the thought that the unity of the family of the Christian
nations, that most precious heritage of the middle ages, had
been for ever broken, and that a new epoch had begun.
However painful this outlook may have been, the breach
had brought with it, on the other hand, that clearing up of
the religious position which had so long been needed. There
could no longer be any doubt as to what was Catholic and
what was not, and that religious uncertainty, which had con
fused the understanding of so many Catholics, and had
paralysed so much activity, was now at an end. " This is the
belief of us all, this is our unanimous conviction, to which,
in token of our agreement and acceptance, we now sign our
names. This is the faith of St. Peter and the apostles, this
is the faith of the fathers and of all true believers." Thus,
after the reading of the decrees of the Council, had Cardinal
Guise exclaimed, in the midst of the acclamations at the last
Session, and in the full consciousness that their agreement
would be handed down, and renewed again and again, to the
uttermost bounds of the earth, and to the end of time, the
fathers had unanimously answered : " So do we believe, so
do we judge, so do we append our names." Error had been
judged, the old consciousness of the faith had found a new and
exact expression, simple in its form, and definite in its facts.
The " purity of the Gospel " which was always on the lips
of the adherents of the new faith, formed the starting point
for the Council's pronouncements. For the assembled bishops,
however, there could be no question of bringing the " pure
Gospel " out of a hiding place where it had lain concealed
during more than a thousands years of oblivion ; for them it
was but a question of preserving the purity of the old and
never-forgotten doctrines of Christ, by the removal of error.
To them, moreover, the Gospel was not only that which had
been written down by the evangelists and apostles, but all that
had been preached by Christ and the apostles, and had been
handed down by the Church over and above the Holy Scrip
tures. The first and fundamental error of the innovators,
368 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
that the Holy Scriptures are the -exclusive source of faith, is
thus rejected. After having decided which books belong to
the Holy Scriptures, they replied to that other fundamental
principle of Protestantism, the claim for private judgment,
by the decision that no one shall be permitted to oppose his
own opinions to that of the whole Church.1
Thus, in the first dogmatic decrees, the principal question
which divided the old and the new beliefs was touched upon,
in that the differences which divided them lay not only in the
actual dogmas which were accepted or rejected, but much
more in the reason why each article of belief was accepted or
rejected, and in the difference of opinion as to the sources of
faith, and the standpoint which the individual had to take up
with regard to them.
But the Council also had to instruct the faithful in the
particular distinctive doctrines, or at least in those which were
most important. Here again attention was directed in the
first place to those errors which formed the foundation of the
doctrinal teaching of the new system of belief, the doctrines
of original sin and justification. This subject was of the
utmost importance, not only for the faith, but also for the
Christian life. Consequences of the most far-reaching im
portance might result, should such doctrines make their way
among the masses of the people, as that the will of man is not
free, and is purely passive as regards the matter of salvation,
or that good works have no value for salvation.2 On the
other hand it was by no means easy to give precise and satis
factory expression, from every point of view, to the principles
living in the consciousness of faith in the Church, as to the
manner of justification. There were no decisions of former
Councils upon which it was possible to lean ; the older theolo
gians had made scarcely any pronouncements as to
iSess. 4. Cf. Vol. XII. of this work, p. 258 seqq.
2 The Tridentine decree on Justification " ought to be regarded
with gratitude, not only by the pastoral theologian, but also by
anyone who still retains any feeling for moral freedom, and for
the ideals of human dignity." SWOBODA, 91,
JUSTIFICATION. 369
justification,1 while the polemical writings of Catholic scholars
of later times were to some extent tainted by the error of
double justice. Thus the Council was in this faced by its
most difficult task ; it accomplished it brilliantly, and to the
complete satisfaction of all the fathers of the Council, after
arduous labours which occupied seven months of its time.2
The doctrine of the Sacraments, by means of which justifi
cation is granted, increased, and restored, forms the subject
of the decisions of the Sessions that follow, from the Vllth
to the XXIVth inclusively. The doctrine of the Eucharist
as a sacrament is treated in an especially detailed manner in
the Xlllth, and in connection therewith that of the Holy
Sacrifice of the Mass in the XXIInd Session. In the Vllth
Session, in which the sacraments in general, with baptism
and confirmation, were dealt with, the Council was content
with rejecting the errors of the innovators in short propositions.
With the next dogmatic decision, in the Xlllth Session, it
reverted to the procedure adopted in the VI th Session, namely,
1 " In eo [articulo de peccato originali] habebamus et sancta
concilia et multa sanctorum Patrum dicta. ... At in articulo
de iustificatione nihil tale habemus, sed pnmi sumus, qui isto
modo materiam istam aggredimur " (Pacheco in MERKLE, I., 82) ;
cf. CARD. CERVINI, ibid., 81, and EHSES, II., 257; PALLAVICINI,
8, 2, 2. Jos. HEFNER, Die Enstehungsgesch. des Trienter Recht-
fertigungsdekretes, Paderborn, 1909. ST. EHSES, Zwei Trienter
Konzilsvota (Seripando and Salmeron), 1546. ISIDOR CLARIUS
in the Rom. Quartalschrift, XXVII. (1913) 20 *seqq., 129 seqq.
HEFNER, Voten (di Is. Clarius) vom Trienter Konzil, Wiirzburg,
1912 (cf. EHSES, loc. cit., 25 *seq.}. The origin of the decree on
original sin is treated by W. KOCH in Tubingen Quartalsch. XCV.
(!9i3). 43° seq., and F. CAVALLERA in the Bulletin de litterature
eccles., 1913, 241 seq. ; on that of the reform decree on preaching,
see J. E. RAINER, in Zeitschr. fur kath. Theol., XXXIX (1915),
256 seq. EHSES (V., xiv. n. 3) gives for the first time a satisfactory
explanation of the absence of the clause relating to the Immaculate
Conception in several of the earliest impressions of the decree ;
cf. also CAVALLERA in Recherches de science relig., IV. (1913),
270 seqq.
* Cf. Vol. XII. of this work, p. 337 seq.
VOL. XV.
370 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
that the Catholic doctrine should first be systematically set
forth, with proofs, and only then were the errors opposed to it
condemned in short canons. The fathers of the Council had
the great advantage when making decrees on the sacraments,
that the subject had already been exhaustively discussed by
the scholastic theologians. Where the opinions of the scholas
tics were not in agreement, the question was either evaded
or left open, as not yet being ripe for a decision, or else not of
importance to the faith. The XXVth and last Session simply
promulgates some decrees, partly dogmatic, on Purgatory,
the cultus of the saints, relics, images and indulgences.
No formal, definitive, decision was pronounced at Trent
with regard to a very important doctrine : that of the primacy
of the Roman See. The Council, however, often calls the
Roman Church the mother and mistress of all the churches ;*
it ordered that at the acceptance of the Council's decisions at
each of the provincial synods, and at the reception of any
ecclesiastical dignity, all must promise true obedience to the
Pope.2 The Council also ordained that its decrees should
only have force subject to the maintenance of the rights of
the Roman See.3 It recognized that the Pope, in virtue of
his office, has to care for the whole Church,4 and that it fell
to him to provide for the holding of an ecumenical Council.5
1 Si quis dixerit in ecclesia Romana, quae omnium ecclesiarum
mater est et magistra, non esse veram de baptismi sacramento
doctrinam : anathema sit., Sess. 7, de baptismo, can. 3. Cf.
Sess. 14, de extr. unctione c. 3 ; sess. 25, de delectu ciborum ;
sess, 22, doctrina de sacrif. missae c. 8. Cf. the Professio fidei
Tridentinae.
2 Sess. 25, de ref. c. 2 ; cf. sess. 24 c. 12.
3 Sess. 25, de ref. c. 21 ; cf, sess. 7, de ref. Prooem.
4 Sollicitudinem universae ecclesiae ex muneris sui officio debet.
Sess. 24, de ref. c. i ; cf. sess. 14, de poenit, c. 7 : Pontifices
maximi pro suprema potestate sibi in ecclesia universa tradita
causas aliquas . . . suo potuerunt peculiar! iudicio reservare.
5 The difficulties which might arise in the acceptance or carrying
into effect of the conciliar decrees, would be overcome, so the
Council hoped, by the Pope " vel etiam concilii generalis celebra-
tione, si necessarium iudicaverit." Sess. 25 Contin., De recipiendis
et observandis decretis concilii.
THE PAPAL SUPREMACY. 371
Finally the Council recognized, de facto, the primacy of the
Pope by submitting, in the last of its decrees, the decisions
arrived at to Papal confirmation.
The denial of the Papal supremacy on the part of the
innovators was sufficiently answered by these decisions, but
Gallican views as to the primacy, and especially the question
whether the Pope was subject to an ecumenical Council, were
not expressly decided at Trent. On account of the uncertainty
of the religious position in France, it was to be feared that a
formal condemnation of this doctrine, the evil inheritance
of the XVth Century, might give rise to a schism.1
As regards everything else, the " most important " doctrines
of the innovators2 were condemned by the Council. The
old Church, which had been defamed and said to be dead,
had proved her vitality in a striking and most efficacious
manner. If Luther had attained to great success, through
his superiority as a writer endowed with a great command of
language, the discussions and decrees of the Council at Trent
displayed a superiority of another kind, the superiority of
ripe theological science, penetrating discernment, and a deep
understanding of the coherence of Christian doctrine.
The reform decrees of the Council are no less striking a
testimony to the spirit and strength of the old Church. She
had been attacked in every way, in word, in writing, and in
picture ; she had been represented as the kingdom of Anti-
Christ, and the sink of iniquity, but behold ! the calumniated
Church had risen again, and her very rising was a proof that
the spirit of Paul and Elias was still alive in her.
1 Later on, in the times of Louis XIV. and Joseph II., they like
wise could not appeal to a conciliar decision against the obscuring
of the doctrine of the faith on this point. To the great detriment
of the Church the ideas of the time of the Council of Basle could
therefore continue to flourish, and the Church to be disturbed
by Gallicanism, Febronianism and lastly by the school of D61-
linger.
* Sancta synodus id potissimum curavit, ut praecipuos haereti
corum nostri temporis errores damnaret. Sess. 25 Contin., de
recip. et observ. deer.
372 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
The abuses with which the Church had so often been re
proached are neither denied nor extenuated in the reform
decrees. The very first sentence of the first decree candidly
acknowledges that ecclesiastical discipline had become greatly
relaxed, and that the morality of both clergy and people was
at a low ebb.1 Nevertheless, the fathers, with a holy earnest
ness and zeal, which stand out in every decree., and, so to speak,
in every sentence, set themselves to stop this depravity, and
to restore the original purity in every respect. It was not
enough for them to attack merely the grossest abominations,
but with a high idealism, which can only be explained by the
consciousness that the true Church of Christ has divine powers
at her disposal, which need but to be awakened to cause every
thing to blossom forth again in all its former beauty, they
fixed their hopes on the highest aims. They would lend no
ear to the advice that they should meet at least the worst
excesses of a depraved clergy by allowing the marriage of
priests.2 They do not shrink from reminding the worldly
prelates of a precept of the first centuries of the Church,
according to which the table and household of a bishop must
be simple and moderate ;3 they lay it down as a principle
that only they should be consecrated as bishops whose lives,
from boyhood to mature age, have been spent in the praise
worthy exercises of ecclesiastical duties,4 who are filled with
the knowledge that they are chosen, not for their own benefit,
not for riches or luxury, but to work and to suffer for the
honour of God.5 The same requirements were also extended
to the Cardinals.6
The whole reform plan of the fathers of the Council is built
1 [Synodus] ad restituendam collapsam admodum ecclesiasticam
disciplinam depravatosque in clero et populo christiano mores
emendandos se accingere volens. Sess. 6, de ref, c. i.
* Cf. sess. 24, can. 9.
8 Sess. 25, 2. i. In the notes that follow the reference is in
each case to the decree on reform.
4 Sess. 6, c. i.
5 Sess. 25, c. i.
8 Ibid, and sess. 24, c. i.
THE RESIDENCE OF BISHOPS. 373
upon the conviction that the Church, in her organization,
possesses both the possibility and the means of moral re
juvenation. According to their idea, the bishops are the
chosen representatives of the reform, from which must proceed
the whole of the new life. Consequently, the fathers began
their work of reform with themselves, for the integrity of
those who are in authority, in the words of Leo the Great, is
the salvation of those who are subject.1
At the beginning of the exhortations to the bishops stands
a requirement, concerning the nature of and reason for which
such violent disputes had arisen, the requirement that the
bishop must not remain away from his own flock.2 The resi
dence of the bishops appeared so important to the fathers, that
in the introduction to the reform decree of the Vllth Session,
they at once speak of the business begun " concerning residence
and reform,"3 and towards the end of the Council they once
more return to the duty of residence of the bishops,4 as if all
the evils in the Church proceeded from the neglect of this.
Since the shepherd must remain with his flock, he must not
have several bishoprics in his possession, for "he is to be
esteemed fortunate to whom it is given to rule even one church
well and fruitfully."5 The bishop must devote his whole
strength to one diocese alone, he must build it up by his care
for religious instruction, in the preaching which is the principal
duty of bishops,6 by constant visitation,7 the punishment of
the guilty,8 and by his care to have a good clergy.9
But, on the other hand, the bishop must have the greatest
possible freedom in the administration of his diocese. No
privilege shall, for the future, protect the guilty cleric from
iSess. 6, c. i.
2Sess. 6, c. i.
3 inceptum residentiae et reformationis negotiura.
*Sess. 23, c. i.
5 Sess. 7, c. 2.
• Sess. 5. c. 2.
7 Sess. 6, c. 7 seq. ; sess. 24, c. 3 etc.
8 Sess. 13, c. i seqq.
8 Sess. 23 c. 1 8.
374 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
his power of inflicting punishment ;* against his visitation not
even the cathedral chapters have the right to claim exemption.2
At his visitations he has the right to arrange matters as he
thinks fit,3 and should his power not prove sufficient in special
cases, he may then act in the name of the Pope, and as his
representative.4 Care shall also be taken that the accused
shall not tie the hands of justice by appeals and similar
practices.5 The bishop is specially urged6 to take care of the
poor and needy, as his government must in general bear the
stamp of gentleness.7 The bishop should summon his clergy
to a joint conference every year in a diocesan synod, while
the metropolitans shall every three years hold a provincial
synod.8
Above all things, however, the bishops must take care to
have an able and worthy clergy. For the world in general,
the Council states, nothing is in a higher degree a constant
lesson in piety and the service of God, than the life and ex
ample of those who are dedicated to the divine service. All
look to them and regulate their conduct by their example. In
their dress, their bearing and their speech, clerics must show
themselves rilled with the spirit of religion, so they must avoid
even light sins, which in their case are very grave ;9 they must
take the lead of the people in their manner of life, their con
versation, and in their learning.10 Parish priests should preach
every Sunday and festival, and they must be specially careful
about the instruction of the children in Christian doctrine.11
All those who have the cure of souls are earnestly reminded
. 6, c. i.
2 Sess. 6, c. 2.
8 Sess. 24, c. 10.
4 Sess. 6, c. 2, 3, ; sess. 7, c. 14 ; sess. 13, c. 5; sess. 14, c. 4 etc.
5 Sess. 13, c. i-
8 Sess. 7, c. 15 ; sess. 22, c. 8.
7 Sess. 13, c. i.
8 Sess. 24, c. 2.
9 Sess. 22, c. i.
10 Sess. 14, Prooem.
11 Sess. 24, c. 4.
SEMINARIES. 375
of their duty of residing among their flocks.1 The bishop can
suspend incapable clerics,2 ignorant parish priests must have
a coadjutor, and the immoral must be punished.3 A number
of regulations aim at preventing unworthy persons from
receiving Holy Orders,4 above all, no one may be ordained,
or receive a benefice, without having passed an examination ;5
a certificate of good conduct from the parish priest is necessary
before receiving minor orders, and only step by step, and after
long proof and trial in the lower ranks, shall anyone be pro
moted to the priesthood.6 Even more important than all
these regulations for the prevention of unworthy persons
being admitted into the ranks of the clergy, was the decree
that in every diocese where there was no university, a seminary
should be established, where suitable young men were to be
trained for the service of the sanctuary from their youth ;7
by this means the formation of a clergy, who should be cultured
and learned, would be assured.
Detailed steps were also taken to provide against the crying
abuses in the system of benefices. Expectancies, as well as
the regressus and accesstis, were forbidden for the future,8
as well as the bestowal of benefices on minors,9 or canonries
on such as would not be ordained, or perform the duties of
their office.10 The Council seeks with special strictness to
protect the holy sacrifice of the Mass against all abuses arising
from greed- for gain, irreverence or superstition.11 For the
rest, no abuse of any importance which was existent at that
time can be named for which provision was not made as far
1Sess. 6, c. 2 ; sess. 7, c. 3 ; sess. 23, c. i.
8 Sess. 14, c. 3.
3 Sess. 21, c. 6.
4 Sess. 7, c. ii ; sess. 14, c. 2 ; sess. 23, c. 16.
6 Sess. 7, c. 13 ; sess. 23, c. 7.
6 Sess. 23, c. 5, 14.
'Sess. 23, c. 18.
8 Sess. 24, c. 19 ; sess. 25, c. 7.
9 Sess. 23, c. 6.
10 Sess. 24, c. 12 ; sess. 22, c. i.
11 Sess. 22, de observandis et evitandis in celebratione missae.
376 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
as possible. We have regulations against the court prelates,1
begging clerics,2 nepotism,3 unauthorized preachers of in
dulgences,4 too great or too small extension of parishes,5
extravagances in the matter of church music,6 and in the fine
arts,7 the encroachments of lay patrons and the nobles in
ecclesiastical matters ;8 and finally against monks who wander
about outside their monasteries.9 In its XXVth Session the
Council occupied itself very minutely with the raising and
renewal of the religious state.
Next to the reform of the clergy, the Council had the care
of the Christian family specially at heart.10 After having
defended the unity, indissolubility, and the religious character
of matrimony in its dogmatic definitions, the reform decrees
endeavour to protect the holiness of the sacrament, and to
prevent scandals by a renewed prohibition of secret marriages,
by a limitation of the impediments to matrimony, by admon
ishing parish priests to exercise care in marrying persons
unknown to them, or not resident in the place, and by providing
for the complete freedom of all, and especially of the weaker
sex, when entering upon this contract.
1 Sess. 25, c. 17.
2 Sess. 21, c. 2.
3 Sess. 25, c. i.
4 Sess. 5, c. 2 ; sess. 21, c. 9.
6 Sess. 21, c. 4-5.
6 Sess. 22, de celebratione missae.
7 Sess. 25, de invocatione sanctorum, We shall treat of this
decree later on, when speaking of art during the period of Catholic
reform.
8 Sess. 22, c. ii ; sess. 25, c. 9.
9 Sess. 14, c. ii. " Thus in some way were pastoral activities
dealt with by the Council, from those that were merely mechanical
to those that were purely ideal, many being treated very minutely,
much being laid down that was new, and everything being gone
into more deeply." SWOBODA, 102.
10 Sess. 24. For the influence of the Council of Trent upon the
development of baptismal and matrimonial registers (a thing
already done since the middle ages) cf. SAGMULLER in the Tubingen
Quartalschrift, LXXXI. (1899), 227 seqq.
THE SECULAR PRINCES. 377
After the fundamental lines for the renewal of life, both for
the Church and the family, had been traced, there remained
but one more field of activity for the work of reforming zeal,
the field of politics. There can be no doubt that in the
relations of the princes to the Church there was room for an
immense number of improvements, and that a very great part
of the most pressing evils was due to the fact that unworthy
proteges had been intruded into ecclesiastical positions by
secular officials and rulers ; it was plain that Church property
had been diverted from its original purpose, and that seculars
influenced the government of the Church for their own selfish
ends. The attempt, however, to appeal to the conscience of
the princes raised a perfect storm of opposition among them.1
No other course, therefore, was possible to the Council than to
express in general terms the hope that the princes would
fulfil their duties as Catholics and as the divinely appointed
protectors of the faith and the Church, and to renew the old
laws for the defence of ecclesiastical liberties, and to exhort
the princes to observe them.2
Had it been given to the Council, by such exhortations as
these, to bring the further development of absolutism to a
standstill, then French, and with it European history, might
have been spared the era of the revolution.
The true and intrinsic success of the Council lay within the
Church itself, though even there its decrees were not all of
them carried into effect everywhere or at once. The law, for
example, concerning the provincial synods to be held every
three years, was nowhere observed, except perhaps by St.
Charles Borromeo.3 In Germany the existing conditions
made it necessary to unite several bishoprics in the hands of
the son of some powerful prince. The reform of the cathedral
chapters remained a pious wish in many places, while even
the important decree concerning the clerical seminaries was
not at once carried out everywhere. A great number of abuses,
1 Cf. supra p. 343.
2 Sess. 25, c. 20.
•He held provincial synods in the years 1565, 1569, 1573,
1576, 1579, 1582.
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
however, were removed, many reforms were carried out at
once in many districts, and in others more slowly. Many
excellent bishops, some of them saints, as Charles Borromeo
of Milan (died 1584), Alessandro Sauli of Aleria in Corsica
(died 1592), Turibio of Lima (died 1606), and Francis de Sales
(died 1622) sought to realize the ideal of a bishop sketched
by the Council of Trent. The provincial and diocesan synods,
which had always proved so important for the renewal of the
religious spirit, were revived later, especially in France. The
Council acquired inestimable merit by its raising of the status
of the secular priesthood. If this body, in modern times,
occupies a far more important and influential position by the
side of the regular clergy than it did in the middle ages, this
must be attributed for the most part, to the better training
which they received as the result of the decrees of the Council
of Trent.
To sum up, it is difficult to estimate too highly the import
ance of the Council of Trent, especially for the interior develop
ment of the Church. It laid the foundations of a true reform,
and fixed Catholic doctrine on broad and systematic lines.
It is at once a boundary line and a landmark, at which opposing
spirits must separate, and it inaugurates a new epoch in the
history of the Catholic Church.
APPENDIX
OF
UNPUBLISHED DOCUMENTS
AND
EXTRACTS FROM ARCHIVES.
APPENDIX,
PRELIMINARY NOTICE.
THE following documents are intended to confirm and complete
the text of my book ; it has formed no part of my plan to
provide a true and full collection of documents. In every
case the place where the document was found is given with the
greatest possible exactitude. As far as the text is concerned,
I have, as a rule, preserved intact the wording of the docu
ments or letters, which for the most part I have had before
me in the original ; there is no need for me to justify the
changes I have made in the matter of capital letters and
punctuation. Where I have ventured on alterations I have
always noted the fact, though small mistakes and obvious
copyist's errors have not been specially noted. The additions
which I have made are enclosed in square brackets, while
unintelligible or doubtful passages are marked by a note of
interrogation or by the word " sic." Those passages which
I have omitted, either when copying the documents or in
preparing them for the Press, and which were not essential or
or unnecessary to my purpose, are marked by dots (. . .).
i. THE SCRUTINIES IN THE CONCLAVE OF Pius IV.
From 9 September to 16 December, 1559.1
The Munich codex Clm 152, "Onuphrii Panvinii Veronensis
fratri Eremitae Augustiniani De varia Romani Pontificis
creatione liber 10," reproduces, p. 302^385, completely the
schedules of the ballots (i to 68) in the conclave of Pius IV. ;
each scrutiny gives about 45 schedules, and each of these,
during the earlier part of the conclave contains for the most
part the names of from 3 to 4 Cardinals, later on there are
usually from 5 to 6, and after that from 7 to 9 names. To
reprint the whole of this multitude of names — there are 132
folio pages — would be useless ; moreover, it would not be
'See supra, pp. 1, 17, 19, 21, 24. 38, 42, 51.
381
382 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
possible to calculate on this basis, in the case of each Cardinal,
the number of votes given to him on a single occasion, because
all the Cardinals present are named on some of the schedules,
tilulo honoris, and none are omitted except Carlo Carafa,
Innocenzo del Monte, and Simoncelli. Therefore, only in the
case of the scrutinies i to 3, 37 to 40, and 66 to 68, have I
reproduced the complete voting by way of example. For the
rest it will suffice to give in the first place an outline of the 68
scrutinies, only naming those Cardinals who obtained more
than ten votes, or who for some reason call for special mention ;
after that I will give in tabular form the number of votes cast
in each scrutiny for the Cardinals whose names appear most
frequently.
I. SURVEY OF THE 68 SCRUTINIES.
(The numbers given by Bondonus in MERKLE II. 519, are
given in [ ] with the letter B ; thus " Pacheco n [B.i8] "
signifies that Pacheco had n votes according to the list of
scrutinies and 18 according to Bondonus. After the date of
the scrutiny there follows, with the letter Z, the number of
schedules reproduced by Panvinio ; " Z.42 " therefore means
that for that scrutiny Panvinio gives 42 schedules.)
1. (Saturday, 9 Sept. ; Z 42) : Pacheco received 15 votes ;
Puteo 8 ; Dolera and Rebiba 7 ; Lenoncourt, Carpi, Tournon
6 ; Scotti, Pisani, Reumano, Gonzaga, du Bellay, Cr. del
Monte 5 ; D. Carafa 4 ; Ghislieri, Medici, Sforza, Cueva,
Este 3 ; Cesi, Madruzzo, Truchsess, Cicada, Armagnac 2 ;
Ricci, Farnese, Capodiferro, Carafa I.
2. (Monday, n Sept. ; Z 42) : Cueva 17 [also Guidus in
MERKLE II., 612 ; B 18] ; Pacheco 12 ; Tournon 9 ; Gonzaga,
Cicada, Puteo 5 ; Crispi, Carpi, Rebiba, Madruzzo, Lenon
court 4 ; Saraceni, Farnese, Cesi, Este, Savelli, Scotti, Dolera
3 ; Dandino, Pisani, D. Carafa, Ghislieri, du Bellay, Capo
diferro, Sforza, Ricci, Medici, Cr. del Monte, Truchsess 2 ;
Reumano, A. Carafa, Cornaro, Vitelli, Corgna, Henry of
Portugal i.
3. (Tuesday, 12 Sept. ; Z 43) : Pacheco n [B 18] ; Puteo,
Gonzaga, Cueva, Dolera 8 ; Tournon 7 ; D. Carafa 6 ; Ghis
lieri, Carpi, Saraceni, Truchsess, Pisani 5 ; Cesi, Ricci, Crispi,
Rebiba, Scotti, Dandino 4 ; Medici, Este, Farnese, Cicada,
Corgna, Gaddi, Cornaro, Sforza 3 ; du Bellay, Rovere, Cr. del
APPENDIX. 383
Monte, Madruzzo, Savelli 2 ; Capodiferro, Reumano, Vitelli,
Sermoneta, Carafa i.
4. (Wednesday, 13 Sept. ; Z 43) : Lenoncourt 18 [B 18] ;
Pacheco 10 ; Dolera 8 ; Cueva 7 ; Cicada 6 ; Rebiba, Scotti 5.
5. (Thursday, 14 Sept. ; Z 43) : Henry of Portugal 15
[B 15] ; Puteo 8 ; Cueva, Saraceni, Dandino, Pacheco 7 ;
Cicada 6 ; D. Carafa, Cornaro 5 ; C. Carafa i.
6. (Friday, 15 Sept. ; Z 45) : Pacheco n [B 12] ; Puteo,
Cr. del Monte 10 ; Dolera 7 ; Farnese, Cicada, Cueva 6 ;
Truchsess, Scotti 5 ; Morone i.1
7. (Saturday, 16 Sept. ; Z 45) : Pacheco 13 [B 12] ; Ghis-
lieri n ; Puteo 10 ; Dolera, Rebiba 8 ; D. Carafa 7 ; Cueva,
Dandino 5 ; Scotti 4 ; Morone 3.
8. (Monday, 18 Sept. ; Z45) : Carpi 14 [B 13] ; Pacheco n ;
Dolera 8 ; Rebiba, Scotti 7 ; Cicada, Cueva, Mercurio 5.
9. (Tuesday, 19 Sept. ; Z 47) : Pacheco 14 ; Carpi 12 ;
D. Carafa 8 [B 14] ; Dolera, du Bellay, Rebiba 7 ; Ricci 6 ;
Crispi, Dandino 5 ; Morone 2.
10. (Wednesday, 20 Sept. ; Z46) : Carpi 13 [B 14] ; Pute'o,
Tournon n ; Pacheco 9 ; Dolera 8 ; Truchsess, Cicada,
Cueva 6 ; Morone 2.
11. (Friday, 22 Sept. ; Z 45) : Pacheco 18 [B 18] ; Tournon
15 and 5 accessits [also B] ; Dolera 7 ; du Bellay, Armagnac
6 ; Farnese 5. — The 5 acceeding Cardinals are du Bellay,
Armagnac, Armagnac (sic !), Crispi, Strozzi.
12. (Saturday, 23 Sept. ; Z 44) : Carpi 16 [B 16] ; Pacheco
13 ; Cueva 11 ; Dolera, Truchsess, Ricci 7 ; Corgna 6.
13. (Monday, 25 Sept. ; Z 46) : Cr. del Monte 13 [B 13] ;
Carpi, Pacheco, Tournon 11 ; Cueva, Dolera 10 ; D. Carafa 9.
14. (Tuesday, 26 Sept. ; Z 45) : Pacheco 22 [B 23 ; also
Vargas in DOLLINGER, Beitr., I, 226] a ; Cueva 17 ; Truchsess,
Ciispi 9 ; D. Carafa 7.
15. (Wednesday, 27 Sept. ; Z 46) : Pacheco 20 [B 21] ;
Cueva 18 [B 18] ; Saraceni 13 ; Dandino 10 [B 10] ; Tournon
10 ; Cr. del Monte 7 ; Truchsess 5 ; Morone 2.
16. (Thursday, 28 Sept. ; Z 45) : Pacheco 17 ; Cueva 12
[B 18] ; D. Carafa 12 ; Truchsess 9 ; Cr. del Monte 8 ; Crispi
7 ; Gonzaga, Puteo 4.
1 From this point onwards Moorne always obtained at least one vote. In
the scrutinies 18-46, one schedule always contains the names of Cueva and
Morone, and 47-68, one always those of Cueva, Morone, Pacheoo.
1 One schedule appears to have been lost, there being only 45 instead of 46.
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
17. (Saturday, 30 Sept. ; Z 45) : Pacheco 18 [B 18] ;
Cueva 14 ; D. Carafa 9 ; Cr. del Monte 8 ; du Bellay 7 ;
Dolera, Rebiba 6 ; Morone 2.
18. (Monday, 2 Oct. ; Z 46) : Pacheco 20 [B 20] ; Cueva
16 ; Dolera 8 ; du Bellay, Cr. del Monte 7.
19. (Tuesday, 3 Oct. ; Pacheco 19 [B 20] ; Cueva 17 ;
Crispi 12 ; D. Carafa, Rebiba 7 ; Innoc. del Monte i.
20. (Thursday, 5 Oct. ; Z 45) : Pacheco 20 [B 18] ; Sara-
ceni 16 ; Cueva 15 ; Scotti n ; D. Carafa 9 ; Dolera 7.
21. (Friday, 6 Oct. ; Z 45) : Pacheco 19 [B 18] ; Rebiba
17 ; Reumano 16 ; Cueva 15 ; Cr. del Monte u ; Corgna 6.
22. (Saturday, 7 Oct.; Z 46) : Pacheco 20 [B 20] ; Sara-
ceni 19 ; Cueva 13 ; Dolera, du Bellay 8 ; Cicada 7 ; Corgna,
Madruzzo 6 ; Capodiferro 5.
23. (Monday, 9 Oct. ; Z 45) : Pacheco 21 ; Cueva 18 ;
Truchsess 13 ; Corgna 7 ; Lorraine 5.
24. (Tuesday, 10 Oct. ; Z 45) : Pacheco 18 [B 19] ; Cueva
1 6 ; D. Carafa, Cicada 10 ; Truchsess 7 ; de Givry i.
25. (Wednesday, n Oct. ; Z 45) : Pacheco 19 [B 18] ;
Cueva 15 ; Strozzi 10 ; Gaddi 9 ; Cicada 8 ; Farnese, Corgna
5 ; C. Carafa 4 ; Bourbon, Vitelli i.
26. (Thursday, 12 Oct. ; Z 45) : Pacheco 20 [B 21] ; Ghis-
lieri 20 ; Cueva 16 ; Cicada n ; Corgna 8 ; Dolera 7 ;
Vitelli i.
27. (Friday, 13 Oct. ; Z 44) : Ran. Farnese 21 [B 22] *;
Pacheco 20 ; Cueva 14 ; Innoc. del Monte 2 ; de Givry,
Carafa i.
28. (Saturday, 14 Oct. ; Z 44) : Pacheco 21 [B 21] ; Cueva
17 ; Puteo, Rebiba 9 ; Dolera 8 ; Innoc. del Monte 3 ;
Morone I. (One name, de Mec, unintelligible.)
29. (Monday, 16 Oct. ; Z 44) : Pacheco 21 [B 21] ; Cueva
17 ; Gaddi 14 ; Cicada 8.
30. (Tuesday, 17 Oct. ; Z 44) : Savelli 22 [B 22] ; Pacheco
18 ; Cueva 17 ; du Bellay, Cr. del Monte 8 ; Corgna 6 ; C.
and A. Carafa i.
31. (Thursday, 19 Oct. ; Z 46) : Pacheco 19 [B 19] ; Cueva.
15 ; Cicada 10 ; du Bellay 9 ; Capizuchi 8 ; Truchsess 7 ;
Ricci 6 ; A. Carafa i.
32. (Friday, 20 Oct. ; Z 44) : Pacheco 21 ; Cueva 16 ;
1 It was the anniversary of the election of Paul III. (See Vol. XI. of this
work, p. 14). In the *Avviso di Roma of 14 October, 1559 (Urb. 1039, p. 95,
Vatic Library), Han. Farnese received 22 votes and 4 accessits.
APPENDIX. 385
Crispi 13 ; Cr. del Monte 9 ; Dolera, D. Carafa, Cicada, du
Bellay 7.
33. (Saturday, 21 Oct. ; Z 45) : Pacheco 21 [B 21] ; Cueva
17 ; Crispi 10 ; Cicada, du Bellay 9 ; Bourbon i.
34. (Monday, 23 Oct. ; Z 48) : Pacheco 22 [B 19] ; Cueva
20 ; D. Carafa 15 ; Crispi 12 ; Simoncelli i.
35. (Tuesday, 24 Oct. ; Z 44) : Pacheco 19 [B 18] ; Cueva
15 ; Cicada n ; Crispi 10.
36. (Wednesday, 25 Oct. ; Z 45) : Pacheco 18 ; Cueva 16 ;
Carafa 2.
37. (Thursday, 26 Oct. ; Z 46) : Pacheco 19 ; Cueva 17 ;
Saraceni n ; D. Carafa 10 ; Cicada 9 ; Ghislieri, Dandino,
Cr. del Monte, Madruzzo 7 ; Dolera, Crispi, du Bellay, Ber-
trand 6 ; Truchsess, Gonzaga, Corgna, Pisani, Puteo, Tournon,
Scotti, Ricci 5; Carpi, Lenoncourt, Rebiba, Ch. Guise 4;
Este, Mercurio 3 ; Cesi, A. Farnese, Capodiferro, Gaddi, A.
Carafa, Savelli, Vitelli, Reumano, Medici 2 ; Cornaro, Morone,
Sermoneta, Sforza, Urbino, Ran. Farnese, Simoncelli i.
38. (Friday, 27 Oct. ; Z 46) : Pacheco 20 ; Cueva 17 ;
Saraceni 10 ; Crispi 9 ; Cicada, du Bellay, Tournon 8 ;
Gonzaga 7 ; Dolera, Capodiferro, Medici, Corgna, Pisani,
Reumano 6 ; Ghislieri, D. Carafa, Carpi, Dandino, Cr. del
Monte, Mercurio, Puteo 5 ; Cesi, Este, Truchsess, Carafa,
Madruzzo 4 ; Armagnac, Rebiba 3 ; Farnese, Lenoncourt,
A. Carafa, Sforza, Scotti, Ricci, Vitelli, Guise, Rovere 2 ;
Morone, Savelli, Sermoneta, Bertrand, Ran. Farnese, Mariae
in Argo (Mariae in Aquiro^Este [?]) i.
39. (Monday, 30 Oct. ; Z 46) : Pacheco 19 ; Cueva 18 ;
Gonzaga n ; Cicada 10 ; D. Carafa 8 ; Carpi, Este, du Bellay,
Rebiba, Saraceni 7 ; Ghislieri, Tournon, Puteo, Crispi 6 ;
Dolera, Dandino, Mercurio, Pisani 5 ; Capodiferro, Cr. del
Monte, Madruzzo 4 ; Cesi, Medici [Priscae], Corgna, Sermoneta,
Ran. Farnese, Bertrand 3 ; Cornaro, Farnese, A. Carafa,
Sforza, Ricci, Vitelli, Guise 2 ; Truchsess, Gaddi, Lenoncourt,
Lorraine, Morone, Reumano, Savelli, Scotti, Strozzi,
Rovere i.
40. (Tuesday, 31 Oct. ; Z 48) : Pacheco 16 ; Cueva 15;
Capizuchi u ; D. Carafa, Rebiba 10 ; Saraceni 9 ; Ghislieri,
Carpi, Crispi, Cr. del Monte, Madruzzo 7 ; Gonzaga, Cicada,
Mercurio, Scotti 6 ; Este, Medici [Priscae], Puteo, Dandino,
Pisani 5 ; Corgna, Savelli, Guise 4 ; Cesi, Tournon, Dolera,
VOL. xv. 25
386 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
du Bellay, Farnese, Lenoncourt, Reumano, Ricci 3 ; Carafa,
Capodiferro, A. Carafa, Strozzi, Ran. Farnese 2 ; Truchsess,
Gaddi, Lorraine, Morone, Sforza, Rovere, Monte, Bertrand i.
41. (Friday, 3 Nov. ; Z 48) : Pacheco, Cueva 17 ; Cr. del
Monte 14 ; Saraceni 13 ; du Bellay 10 ; Crispi, Dandino, Pisani 9.
42. (Saturday, 4 Nov. ; Z 48) : Cueva 16 ; Pacheco 15 ;
Dandino 13 ; D. Carafa, Cicada n ; Rebiba 10 ; Crispi, A.
Carafa 8 ; Corgna 6 ; Guise 5.
43. (Monday, 6 Nov. ; Z 48) : Cueva 18 ; Pacheco 17 ;
Ghislieri, Gonzaga 10 ; Saraceni 9 ; Crispi 8 ; Ricci 6 ; Henry
of Portugal 5 ; Bourbon, Innoc. del Monte, C. Carafa1 1.
44. (Tuesday, 7 Nov. ; Z ? 2) : Pacheco 17 ; Cueva 17 ;
Saraceni, Cicada n ; Dolera, Ghislieri, du Bellay 10.
45. (Thursday, 9 Nov. ; Z 48) : Pacheco 20 ; Cueva 18 ;
Rebiba 12 ; Crispi n ; Reumano 9.
46. (Friday, 10 Nov. ; Z 48) : Cueva 20, Pacheco 19 ;
Rovere 12 ; Este 10 ; Cornaro 9 ; Bourbon i.
47. (Monday, 13 Nov. ; Z 48) : Pacheco 19 ; Cueva, du
Bellay 15 ; D. Carafa 13 ; Rebiba 12 ; Gonzaga 10.
48. (Tuesday, 14 Nov. ; Z 46) : Pacheco 19 ; Cueva 17 ;
Tournon 12 ; Cicada n ; Guise 9 ; Saraceni 8.
49. (Wednesday, 15 Nov. ; Z 48) : Pacheco 20 ; Cueva
15 ; Rebiba 10.
50. (Thursday, 16 Nov. ; Z 47) : Pacheco 22 ; Cueva 15 ;
du Bellay 12 ; Carpi, Tournon n ; Carafa, Guise 6.
51. (Friday, 17 Nov. ; Z 48) : Pacheco 21 ; Cueva 13 ;
Carpi, Cicada 12 ; Tournon, Saraceni u ; Innoc. del Monte,
Vitelli [S. Mariae in Porticu) I.
52. (Monday, 20 Nov. ; Z 48) : Pacheco 17 ; Cueva 14 ;
D. Carafa, Carpi 12 ; Saraceni 12.
53. (Tuesday, 21 Nov. ; Z 48) : Saraceni 18 ; Pacheco 17 ;
Cueva 14 ; du Bellay 12 ; Cicada, Carpi n.
54. (Thursday, 23 Nov. ; Z 48) : Pacheco 19 ; Cueva 18 ;
Saraceni 15 ; D. Carafa, Cicada 12 ; Carpi, Tournon n ;
Guise 9.
55. (Friday, 24 Nov. ; Z 48) : Pacheco 17 ; Saraceni 14 ;
Cueva 13 ; Cicada 12 ; Tournon 10 ; Guise 8.
56. (Monday, 27 Nov. ; Z 48) : Pacheco 17 ; Cueva 15 ;
Saraceni 13 ; Tournon 12 ; du Bellay n ; Guise 5.
1 C. Carafa received from now onwards several votes in each scrutiny.
* On account of the confused division of the lines in the manuscript, it is
impossible to be certain as to this.
APPENDIX. 387
57. (Tuesday, 28 Nov. ; Z 48) : Pacheco 19 ; Rebiba 14 ;
Cueva, Tournon 12 ; Saraceni n ; Reumano 9 ; Guise 6 ;
Capizuchi 5 ; Bourbon i.
58. (Wednesday, 29 Nov. ; Z 48) : Pacheco 18 ; Cueva 13 ;
D. Carafa 12 ; Tournon n ; Saraceni 10 ; Guise 8.
59. (Friday, i Dec. ; Z 48) : Pacheco 18 ; Este 12 ; Cueva,
Saraceni, Tournon n ; Gonzaga, D. Carafa 10 ; Guise 7.
60. (Saturday, 2 Dec. ; Z 46) : Pacheco 17 ; Gonzaga
12 ; Este, Cicada n ; Cueva, Cr. del Monte, Saraceni,
Tournon 10.
61. (Monday, 4 Dec.; Z 471) : Cueva 16 ; Pacheco 15;
Este 12 ; Saraceni 12 ; Gonzaga n ; Cicada, Rebiba 10.
62. (Tuesday, 5 Dec. ; Z 46) : Pacheco 17 ; Cueva 16 ;
Saraceni 13 ; Cesi 12 ; Tournon u ; Este, du Bellay 10.
63. (Wednesday, 6 Dec. ; Z 46) : Pacheco 15 ; Cueva 14 ;
Cr. del Monte 12 ; Este, Saraceni n ; Gonzaga, Rebiba 10.
64. (Saturday, 9 Dec. ; Z 46) : Pacheco, Cueva 18 ; Tour
non, Saraceni n.— To schedule 40 there is attached the
remark : " Non erat appositum verbum [i.e., some word or
sentence, which should have been placed as a token outside
the folded schedule], et ideo fuit disputatum an valeret, et
fuit conclusum, quod aperiretur, et erat (Turnonius, Man-
tuanus, Ferrariensis)."
65. (Monday, n Dec. ; Z 46) : Pacheco 17 ; Cueva 15 ;
Tournon, Cesi 13 ; Dolera n ; Rebiba 10.
66. (Wednesday, 13 Dec. ; Z 46) : Cueva 18 ; Pacheco 17 ;
Cesi JO ; Este, Rebiba 9 ; Carpi, Saraceni, Guise 8 ; Cicada,
Cr. del Monte, Corgna, Tournon 7 ; Ghislieri, D. Carafa,
Truchsess, du Bellay, Gonzaga 6 ; Dolera, Carafa, Pisani,
Savelli, Capizuchi, Ran. Farnese 5 ; Armagnac, Crispi, Medici,
Rovere 4 ; A. Carafa, Scotti, Madruzzo 3 ; Cornaro, Mercurio,
Morone, Puteo, Reumano 2 ; A. Farnese, Gaddi, Henry of
Portugal, Sermoneta, Sforza, Bertrand i.
67. (Thursday, 14 Dec. ; Z 45) : Pacheco 18 ; Cueva,
Saraceni 16 ; Tournon, Gonzaga, Cesi 10 ; Cicada, Cr. del
Monte 9 ; Ghislieri, Este, Dolera 8 ; D. Carafa 7 ; Carpi,
Rebiba 6 ; Pisani, Puteo, Guise 5 ; C. and A. Carafa, Corgna,
Reumano, Scotti, Rovere 4 ; Truchsess, Crispi, Gaddi, Mer
curio, Madruzzo, Ricci 3 ; Sermoneta, Strozzi, Capizuchi,
1 Schedules 9 and 10 are exactly alike, and since we know from Bondonus
that from December 1 to 13 the conclave had only 4(5 members, it follows that
the writer must by mistake have written his schedule twice over.
388
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Ran. Farnese 2 ; Armagnac, du Bellay, Medici, Morone,
Savelli, Simoncelli, de Givry, Vendome, Vitelli1 i.
68. (Saturday 16, Dec. ; Z 46) : Pacheco 19 ; Cueva 17 ;
Tournon, Saraceni n ; Cesi, Cicada 9 ; Carpi, Armagnac,
Reumano 8 ; Puteo, Rebiba, Corgna, D. Carafa 7 ; Dolera,
Truchsess, Gonzaga, Madruzzo 6 ; Este, Ghislieri, Crispi,
Cr. del Monte, Mercuric, Guise 5 ; Gaddi, Rovere, Pisani,
Vitelli, Bertrand 3 ; A. Carafa, Strozzi, Sermoneta, Savelli 2 ;
du Bellay, Morone, Sforza, Scotti, Ricci, Ran. Farnese,
Capizucbi, Simoncelli i.
II. VOTES RECORDED FOR THE PRINCIPAL CANDIDATES.
(For Pacheco and Cueva see under I.)
|1234
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Carpi . . .
6
4
5
6
6
7
7
14
12
13
9
1 6
ii
4
2
3
7
Cesi
2
3
4
3
4
5
4
i
2
5
3
2
i
2
3
5
5
Este. . . .
3
3
3
2
i
2
4
2
I
4
4
3
5
3
2
5
5
Ghislieri .
3
2
5
2
3
4
ii
3
4
5
5
4
4
i
I
2
i
Gonzaga .
5
5
8
2
2
2
6
4
2
i
i
3
3
2
2
4
4
Medici2 . .
3
2
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
6
5
4
3
I
4
Pisani . . .
5
2
5
4
3
3
6
i
i
2
4
6
i
2
4
4
5
Puteo
8
5
8
4
8
10
10
9
8
II
6
6
6
4
5
4
7
Reumano
5
i
i
4
2
3
5
4
2
3
3
2
i
i
2
Saraceni .
3
5
2
7
4
3
6
6
4
3
4
2
—
13
6
4
Tournon .
6] 9
7
4
6
8
7
9
8
ii
15
7
II
8
10
7
8
18 19J20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 31
32
33
34
Carpi . . .
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
6
5
5
7
7
8
6
5
6
Cesi ....
5
2
4
4
5
3
3
7
7
6
3
4
4
2
4
4
3
Este. . . .
3
5
6
3
3
6
i
4
2
5
6
6
4
5
7
6
2
Ghislieri .
3
3
i
3
7
7
2
3
20
5
5
4
2
i
i
5
4
Gonzaga .
5
4
7
4
5
6
3
5
5
4
7
7
5
3
8
8
7
Medici. . .
3
i
2
3
3
—
7
7
6
4
5
3
3
i
4
2
2
Pisani . . .
4
4
7
5
5
4
3
9
6
4
4
9
5
4
6
2
5
Puteo. . .
6
6
8
5
6
7
6
7
5
5
9
3
2
2
5
5
8
Reumano
i
2
16
i
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
4
2
2
Saraceni .
6
2
16
4
19
4
6
8
4
3
3
2
6
7
6
7
Tournon .
7
4
3
7
6
6
5
4
5
8
7
8
7
9
5
8
5
1 In schedule 38, in a space left blank by the writer, an illegible namo
(Lotharingus ?) ha.s been written in another hand.
* The votes given for " 8. Prisca " are counted as being in favour of Cardinal
Medici. That the Cardinal " tf. Priscae " (in spite of Massarelli in MERKLE, II.,
339) was no other than Medici, is not only proved from Panvinio (*Nomina
cardinalium viventium, quando Pius IV. creatus est ; Clm 152, p. 429b,
and in MERKLE II., 590; cf. CIACONIUS III., 736, 867, 868, 869), but also
follows from the list of scrutinies itself. In scrutinies 57-8, 60-3, there is a
schedule with the names : Portuensis, Albanensis, S. Priscae. In scrutiny
59, this schedule no longer appears, but another with the names Portuensis,
Albanensis, Medici. Cf. also the two schedules in scrutiny 65, vote 21 :
Praenestinus, Albanensis, Medici, and scrutiny 66, vote 14 : Praenestinus,
S. Priscae.
APPENDIX.
389
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
144
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Carpi . . .
5
5
4
6
5
5
8
8
9
ii
12
Cesi ....
Este
g
2
2
4
3
3
10
5
7
6
6
4
5
8
Ghislieri .
J
3
7
5
6
7
5
6
10
10
7
4
/
5
6
6
5
8
Gonzaga .
5
7
5
7
ii
6
5
7
10
5
5
9
10
8
7
8
7
Medici . .
4
3
2
6
3
5
2
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
3
6
4
Pisani. . .
5
5
5
6
5
5
9
5
4
4
2
4
6
5
3
3
4
Puteo . . .
4
6
5
5
6
5
8
8
6
7
7
8
8
4
7
6
6
Reumano
3
7
2
6
i
3
3
6
2
2
9
3
4
i
5
7
4
Saraceni .
8
9
II
10
7
9
J3
4
9
II
7
6
5
8
7
8
i i
Tournon .
7
7
5
8
6
3
4
9
6
8
6
9
8
12
5
ii
ri
52
53
54 i 55
56 57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
Carpi . . .
12
ii
ii
9
8
7
6
5
7
7
8
7
6
5
8
6
8
Cesi
()
7
9
9
8
4
9
5
8
9
12
7
6
13
IO
IO
9
Este . . .
9
8
6
7
7
7
8
12
ii
12
IO
ii
8
7
9
8
5
Ghislieri .
0
6
8
6
5
5
4
7
8
0
6
7
7
6
6
8
5
Gonzaga .
9
6
7
8
8
4
5
IO
12
1 1
8
IO
8
8
6
IO
6
Medici . .
3
5
6
3
7
4
5
3
3
2
2
i
5
4
4
i
—
Pisani . . .
2
7
8
4
6
6
8
6
4
4
5
3
3
3
5
5
3
Puteo . . .
8
5
5
5
3
4
4
5
5
5
2
4
5
5
2
5
7
Reumano
7
4
5
7
5
9
5
7
2
5
4
5
8
5
2
4
8
Saraceni .
12
18
15
J4
13
ii
10
ii
10
1 2
13
ii
ii
5
8
16
I i
Tournon .
8
6
ii
10
12
12
ii
ii
IO
8
ii
9
ii
13
7
IO
1 1
2. FRANCESCO DI GUADAGNO TO THE DUKE OF MANTUA.
1559, September 20, Roma.1
. . . Sabato and6 in rotta una pratichetta di Medici, con-
dotta da Farnese et Caraffa, ma ella non trovo buon piede, tan-
to piu che si scoperse che volesson far senza il Camarlingo, che
e tanto prircipale la dentro. Del s. card e nostro speravano
tuttavia meglio con il servitio de Francesi, i quali pareva che
cominciassero a lasciarsi indurre a far bene. La domenica
fu rinfrescata la pratica di Medici, et perche i Franzesi davan
qualche intentione di conscendervi, era in bona spettatione.
La notte sequente Ferrara comincio a esser dietro alle sue
pratiche gagliardamente et per tutto il giorno sequente non
resto di tempestare, benche ogn' homo conoscessi 1' impossi-
bilita. Farnese per paura la sera fece mezo segno di voler
andare ad adorare Carpi per far risolvere Ferrara, ma essendo il
numero de suoi complici tanto poco la cosa si risolvette in
passeggiare fino alle quattro hore per capella. Hieri piu che
mai si attese a far pratiche per Carpi dalli adversarii di Ferrara
1 See supra, p. 19, an. 4, (5.
390 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
et se egli non si risolvessi, la cosa potrebbe essere pericolosa.
Questa occasione potrebbe servire per il s. card'0 nostro,
essendoci chi attende alle contramine in servigio di S. S. Ill" a,
et se si continua ne1 modo comincio, fra poco si potrebbe sentir
il scoppio dell' uno et dell' altro. Scrivendo questa mi e
sopragionto aviso che la furia di Carpi e in gran parte cessata,
ma non saria gran cosa che questa notte si rinfrescassi. Questo
contrapeso fa molto per noi, per Medici et Puteo, ma se Ferrara
si risjlvera il nostro ne havera meglio di tutti. . . .
[Orig. Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.]
3. THE DISPATCHES OF MARCANTONIO DA MULA.
Marcantonio da Mula, who was generally spoken of in the
Curia as Amulio, came to Rome in the middle of May, 1560,
as the successor of Mocenigo, and there won particular favour
with Pius IV., who, on February 26th, 1561, honoured him
by bestowing the purple on him. By accepting this dignity,
Mula incurred lasting disgrace from his own government.
For the life of this man, who was distinguished in every way,
and who in 1565 was named prefect of the Vatican Library,
and died on March i3th, 1570, cf. besides the sources cited
supra p. 162, n. 3, MAZZUCHELLI, I., 2, 651 seq. ; Mon. Slav,
merid., VIII., 86, n. ; TURBA, Depeschen, II. , xii. seq. III., 168 n.
2 ; MERKLE, Concil. Trid., II. ; HILLIGER, 115 seq; : LIEBMANN,
Deutsches Land und Volk nach itaL Berichterstattern der
Reformationszeit, 57 seq., Berlin, 1910 ; Lettere di Marcan
tonio da Mula a Gian Giorgio Trissino, published by E.
PIOVENE in 1878 at Vicenza. Some letters of Mula in CICOGNA,
Iscriz. Ven., VI., 737 seq. Of his papers preserved in the
Cod. Vatic, lat. 3933, his speech to Pius IV. in 1560 was
printed in Latin and Italian at Venice in 1846, as was a letter
to P. Manutius in the Mel. d'archeol., III., 276 seq. The
despatches of Mula from the Imperial court, where he repre
sented his country from 1552 to 1554, were published in a
masterly way by Turba in the second volume of his Venez.
Depeschen. Concerning them Turba says : " Mula is among
the most talented of the Venetian ambassadors at the
Imperial court. He is not a mere mouthpiece, through whom
one feels that others are speaking, but he rises superior to the
events, circumstances and moods, of which he is making his
APPENDIX. 391
report, and penetrates below the surface, estimating them
in the light of their bearing on the future. More than any
of his predecessors already named he falls into the defect
of unnecessary repetition, a thing which, however, may be
forgiven on account of the zeal with which he served his
government. In spite of the haste with which he drew up
his reports, his style and language are far more clear and
polished than in the case of his predecessors." (II., 40). The
same judgment holds good of the despatches of Mula from
his embassy in Rome, which on account of the interest of
their contents, were very quickly copied. As will be seen
from the following list, some of them are to be found in almost
all the great collections of manuscripts in Europe.
BERLIN, Royal Library : Inf. Polit. VIII. (reports from May
18 to Sept. 21, 1560) ; Inf. Polit. XIII. (reports from Sept.
24 to Nov. 28, 1560) ; Inf. Polit. XXXVII. (reports from
the end of Jan. to Feb. 25, 1561).
BOLOGNA, University Library : Cod. 2469 (Libr. of S.
Salvatore 745).
CARPENTRAS, Library : Cod. 543.
INNSBRUCK, University Library : Cod. 600 (reports from
May 18 to Sept. 21, 1560). The codex has the note :
" Cod. fuit Bibl. Mantuanae direptae post mortem ultimi
ducis."
LONDON, British Museum : Addit. 16534 (reports from
June 15 to July 22, 1560).
MANTUA, Capilupi Library : register in 4 vols.
PARIS, Bibl. Nationale : cf. Montfaucon, Bibl. I. 1093 ;
Marsand II. 104 seq.
ROME, i, Boncompagni Archives : Cod. E. 2 (reports' of
1560); 2, Vatican Library: Urb. 1027 (reports from May
18, 1560 to March 8, 1561) ; Urb. 1670, p. 79b — 90 (re
ports on the Carafa) ; Barb. 5761 (formerly LXIL, n) :
reports from 1560 to March 8, 1561 ; cf. Montfaucon,
Bibl. I. 174 ; 3, Papal Secret Archives : Miscell. III.
p. 24 (reports from May 22, 1560, to March 20, 1561) ;
Bolognetti, Cod. 22 and 23.
VENICE, State Archives, Filza XIII.
VIENNA, Court Library 6749 (Fosc. 18), p. 319-425 (reports
from May 18 to Sept. 21, 1560).
All these codices, even that in the State Archives, Venice,
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
are copies,1 in which the text, and especially the dates, are
often incorrect.
On account of this great multiplication of the reports in
the codices, it is no wonder that they have often been used,
and with much profit, by historical investigators. Probably
the first to use them was the indefatigable Raynaldus, who
availed himself of them for his annals (1560, n. 57), from a
codex of Cardinal Spada. Pallavicini made fuller use of them,
after his rival Sarpi had done so. Ranke drew upon them
from the Berlin codex (Fiirsten und Volker, I., 368 ; Papste8
I., 207, 211, and III., 50*). It is strange that Sickel did
not avail himself of this valuable source, the more so as the
codex in the Court Library, Vienna, was easily accessible
to him. On the other hand, Susta has used them, as has
Ancel, in their description of the fall of the Carafa. I refrain
from printing the reports of Mula on the Council in deference
to the publication of Ehses. Mula is also deserving of a
monograph on account of the literary style of his reports.
4. CARDINAL C. CARAFA TO THE DUKE OF PALiANO.2
1560, June 1, Roma.
Illmo et eccmo sig™ mio e fratello osservmo.
Mando con questa a V. E. copia delle lettere che il sig
Fabritio ha scritto ultimamente di corte, cosi a S. StA come
a me et al sigr Ferrante, e vedra che forma di resolutione
hanno presa fino adesso le cose nostre ; e a me pare che le
parole del sigr Fabritio si devino molto ben considerare,
et che da quelle si possa trarre certa speranza che, se bene
S. M1* non ha determinato sopra il fatto de la ricompensa,
sia non di meno questo negocio per riuscire a tutta nostra
sodisfattione, et tanto piu quanto io ci vedo S. Su, dalla
quale ha da depender tutto questo fatto, dispositissima,
come e stata sempre ; si ch'io giudico che V. Eccza possa
starne con 1'animo riposato e sicuro, perche anco dal canto
nostro non si mancara di fare quanto sara possibile.
Quanto al venir di V. Ecc™ qua, e tutto in arbitrio suo3 ;
ma quando pure le paresse di aspettare Tarrivo del sigre
Fabritio, poi che non potra tardare cinque o sei giorni piu,
in
* See supra, p. 142, n. 4.
• In the original underlined in a later hand.
APPENDIX. 393
per haver qualche chiareza piu delle cose, rimetto il tutto
a lei, aspettando che mi faccia intendere quanto risolvera,
et li baso le mani.
Di Roma il primo di giugno Lx.
Di V. Eccza
servitore
Sr Duca di Paliano. II cardinale Carafa.
[Orig. Miscell. X 197 p. 18 seq. Papal Secret Archives.]
5. CONSISTORY OF 7 JUNE, 1560 *-.
Die veneris VII. iunii fuit consistorium secretum in loco
soli to, a quo ex supradictis xxxix, qui erant Romae, abfuere
Turnonus, de Carpo, Armeniacus, Augustanus, Messanensis,
Puteus, Alexandrinus, Araeceli, Bertrandas, Urbinas, de
Monte, Cornelius et de Medicis.
Antequam papa descenderet ad consistorium, fuerunt
vocati eius iussu revmus dominus cardinalis Carafa nepos
et revmus dominus Alfonsus cardinalis Neapolis pronepos
papae Pauli IV. et missi ad arcem Sancti Angeli.
Descendit postea Sua Sanctitas ad consistorium et de ea
actione rationem reddidit ceteris cardinalibus et terminavit
consistorium.
Copy. Acta Camer. IX. 22b Consistorial archives of the
Vatican.
6. Giov. BATTISTA RICASOLI TO COSIMO I., DUKE OF
FLORENCE.2
1560, Junl 7, Roma.
. . . Questa mattina sendo tutti i cardinali in consistorio
eccetto pero Medici, fu chiamato da monsignore Aurelio
Spina per parte di S. Santita il cardinale Carafa, il quale
allegramente per la lumaca sali nelle stanze dove da audienza
S. Bae la quale pero non vi era, et io che vedendolo chiamare
giudicai potesse essere quello che e stato, me le inviai dietro.
Arrivato di sopra li fu detto dal maestro di camera che aspet-
tasse, in quel mentre fu chiamato il cardinale di Napoli, et
arrivato dal zio nelle prefate stanze, il signor Gabrio fattosi
loro incontro disse all' uno, et all' altro che gl'erano prigioni
1 See supra, p. 143, n. 3. * See supra, p. 143, n. 3.
394 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
di S. Su et che haveva commissione di condurli all'ora in
castello. Carafa senza smarrirsi rispose, quest! sono i frutti
delle mie buone opere, 1'altro si smarrl, et non disse nulla.
Intanto al Governatore et al Fiscale fu comandato che an-
dassero a fare prigione il conte di Montorio, che si trovava
alloggiato in casa di Carafa et dalli detti fa messo in un cocchio,
et condotto in Castello, et nel medesimo tempo fu anco preso
il vescovo di Civita di Penne gi& governatore di Bologna.
10 che mi trovai presente alia cattura di questi due Illmi
ritornatomene in consistoro et dettolo a tre o quattro di
quei signori in uno instante si vedde uno bisbiglio, et tma
trasfiguratione di volti difficile a essere scritta ; infra i quali
cardinale Vitelli ancora che li sia parso uno strano gioco,
si sforzava con grandissima arte di dissimulare. II cardinale
di Ferrara quando io gli ne dissi, si turb6 meravigliosamente
con dirmi, e egli vero ! che cose sono queste ! Intanto essendo
gia sonate le XIV. hore S. Std> se ne venne in consistorio con
si buona cera, et si allegra quanto io 1'habbia veduta altra
volta ; et maravigliandosene molti mostrai loro ch'essi
havevano il torto, perche S. Bne era fuora di quel pensiero,
che forse per il passato lo haveva tenuto talvolta occupato.
Ai cardinali, o almeno alia maggior parte non e dubio nessuno
che e parso strano parendo si spesseggi troppo, ma allo univer-
sale, per quanto gik si comprende, ha satisfatto questa resoluta
attione di S. Sta meravigliosamente ; et non e gran fatto
poiche eghi havevano senza mai fare piacere a nessuno offeso
ogni huomo.
[Orig. Florence State Archives, Medic. 3280 p. 174]
7. Avviso DI ROMA OF 8 JUNE, 1560. l
. . . Et 1'istesso giovedi vers'un'hora di notte venne qui
11 conte di Montorio per le poste di Galese molto pomposamente
et ando allogiar nel palazzo del card. Caraffa suo fratello,
ove era anch'il card, di Napoli et v'era apparecchiato un
bellissimo bancheto et vi fu anch'invitato il prince di Sulmona,
il quale per alcuni negocii privati era gia 3 di prima venut'in
Roma. Stavano con molt'allegrezza, con tanti suoni, balli
et comedie, andando poi bona parte di quella notte per Roma
a sollazzo in cocchi con cortegiane cantando et sonando
1 See supra, pp. 143, 178.
APPENDIX. 395
molt' allegramente ; dices! la causa dell' allegrezza esser
stata per le buone nove che di Spagna 1'haveva portato il
sigr Ferrante de Sanguini di S. M1^ Catholica, cio e che quella
deve al card. Caraffa i2m scadi di pensione che 1'haveva
promisso in tempo di Paulo IV sopra 1'arcivescovato di
Toledo et le paghe scorse in tutto questo tempo et 8m scudi
di naturalezza et al duca di Paliano che fu dava tutto quell' era
stato capitolato e promessoli in tempo di Paulo sudetto.
Ma questa lor allegrezza duro pocho, imperho che la mattina
seguente, che fu hieri, havendo S. Sta convocato il consistoro,
ordin5 che subito venend' il card16 Caraffa et Napoli a palazzo,
dovessero venire a parlarli alia sua camera ; il che fecero,
ma volendovi andare et passand' appresso la via che va a]
corritorio del Castello, gli fu detto che d'ordine di S. StA
andasser' in Castello ; et fu Caraffa il primo accompagnato del
sig1 Gabrio Cerbellone nipote di S Sta, et non si smarri punto,
ma vedendo poi venir Napoli et intendendo 1'ordine di Sua
St&, divenne piu morto che vivo et vi ando ancora lui con
alcuni loro piu favoriti ; et tutt' in un tempo mando il Papa
al palazzo del Carafa il barigello con tutti li sbirri per il conte
di Montorio, il quale mostro alia prima di voler fare un poco
di resistentia, ma vedendosi poi circondato di tanta compagnia,
si rese e montat' in cocchio ando in Castello ; et era il cocchio
del governatore il qual er' andat' in persona a levarlo. Fu
poi inventorisato et sequestrato per il fisco tutto cio che
havevan in loro palazzi, et portato in palazzo del Papa il
piu importante. Et incontinente ando il barigello per tutto
cercando la famiglia loro, della quale sonno poi stati presi
circa 20 et alcuni fugiti. Tra li presi sonno il conte d'Aliffa
cognato del conte di Montorio, ch'e quello ch'amazz6 la
moglie sua sorella ; poi Torquato Conte ch'era l'anima et
governo del card16 Caraffa nelli suoi trionfi, poi Cesare Bran-
caccio, il sigr Ferrante de Sanguini, Hieronimo Episcopo,
il vescovo di Civita di Penna, Mattheo Stendardi, li quali
tutti sonno stati li seguaci delli Caraffa et piu favoriti. Si
cercano ancora delTaltri, et si dice ch'il Papa ha detto chel
havera anch'il marchese di Montebello, si ben e a Napoli,
a tal che li Caraffi stann'a mal partito ; et cosi anch'il card16
di Monte, il quale si dice che ha la febre terzana, et pochi
sonno che non si rallegrino della pregionia delli Caraffi,
massime il populo romano gia di loro tanto offeso. Dicesi
396 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
ch'il card16 di Napoli ha robbato alia morte di Paulo IV.
circa i8m scudi ; oltre li altri robbamenti di che haveranno
da render corito, s'oppone morte di piu persone, sforzamenti
di donzelle et stupri horrendissimi che meritano ogni acer-
bissimo castigo. Dicesi che la signora donna Giovanna
Aragona ha dato bonissima mancia a colui che porto la nuova
di queste cose seguite. S'intese poi ch'andando quella
mattina Sua Sta in consistero, era in tanta colera che per
camino non si ricordo di dare la beneditione ad alcuno : di
che ogn'uno stava maravegliato, et in concistoro non ragiono
quas'altro che deH'indignita di questi Caraffi e Monte, et
di quanto scandalo eran'al mondo in questi tempi travagliosi
che tutt'il mondo grida contra la St& Sede Apostolica per
li dishonorati suggietti ch'in quella sonno ; et voltatosi poi
alii suoi nipoti disse : Questo vi sia per essempio et a tutti,
et al revmo Santa Fiore camerlengo disse : Monsignore, adesso
sera tempo de redintegrarvi di quello vi e stato tolto. Ris-
pos'egli : Pater Sancte, io non desider'altro che quello
veramente m'appartiene, et assai mi duole ii mal d 'altri.
Saggiunse Sua Sta che nissun'haverebbe male che non
1'havesse piu che meritato ; et si ragiono qualche poco poi
del concilio, che tant'e sollicitato di Franza e Spagna ; ma
per commodita loro et d'Alemagna lo voriano a Bizansone ;
ma si crede che sera a Trento, perche li signori Venetiani
non lo voriano ne a Bergamo ne a Vicenza, come ben havrebbe
voluto S. Std/. Si dice ch'i president! del concilio saranno
il Morone, Santa Croce, et Sua Sid> dice tuttavia di voler
alia fin d'agosto andar a Bologna. Di far cardinal! non
s'ha parlato per li disturbi ch'hanno dato le cose di Carafn ;
pur non pu6 tardare che non ne facci almanco 4. ...
[Orig. Urb. 1039 P- l65b — 167. Vatican Library.]
8. MOTUPROPRIO OF POPE PlUS IV. CONCERNING THE
TRIAL OF THE CARAFA.1
1560, Juli 1, Roma.
Pius papa HIP.
Motu proprio etc. Cum ad aures nostras plurimorum
fidedignorum relatione, non sine gravi animi nostri molestia,
pervenerit, loannem Carafam, ducem Paliani et militem
1 Cf. supra, p. 147, n. 2.
APPENDIX. 397
militie Su Michaelis, quam plura et varia crimina, etiam
atrocia, perpetrasse et inter cetera quondam Marcellum
Capicium eius nepotem seu alias consanguineum aut affinem,
nullis prorsus precedentibus iuditiis, absque ullo pro cess a
et figura iuditii, absque etiam notaria et sine aliqua penitus
scriptura, temerario ausu et odio qao ilium prosequebatur,
questionibus et tormentis supposuisse ac demum quam
pluribus vulneribus affectum crudeliter, etiam sepius per
ilium petita forsan sacramentali confessione et illi denegata,
interfecisse, illiusque cadaver in latrinam deiecisse, multoque
fimo superiniecto, ne facile detegi posset, cooperiri, et quon
dam Violantem uxorem suam, mulierem nobilem et in primis
pudicam optimeque apud omnes opinionis et fame, ex ipso
pregnantem in sexto vel septimo mense existentem, per
eiusdem Violantis fratrem germanum et aliurn eius coii-
sanguineum vel affinem, ab ea prius quam in privato carcere
per mensem et ultra detinuerat seu detineri fererat, certis
gemmis et iocalibus extortis, opprobriose strangulari mandasse
et fecisse, ac dudum antea quendam curie burgi executorem
ob id quod quandam executionem sibi a iudice demandatam,
ut ex officii necessitate tenebatur, fecisset, propriis manibus
occidisse ; necnon Carolum Carafam et Alfonsum Neapolitanos
vulgariter nuncupates S. R. E. diaconos cardinales, propriae
salutis ac dignitatis prosus immemores, in necem dictae
Violantis eorum fratris et patrui respective uxoris1 conspirasse,
illamque necari mandasse, suasisse vel alias sollicitasse et ob
eorum mandata, suasionem vel sollicitationem huiusmodi
illius necem subsecutam fuisse. Insuperque Carolum card-
inalem antea quam plura homicidia et enormia et multipliciter
qualificata, etiam mediante pecunia, propriis manibus com-
misisse et seu committi fecisse aut mandasse et, quod omnium
deterius est fel. rec. Paulum papam IV. predecessorem nos
trum nihil magis quam pacem inter christianos principes
inire et conservare satagentem, utpote qui admodum ipsi
Carolo cardinali credebat, sub diversis confictis pretextibus
et exquisitis falsis coloribus ac mendaciis variisque dolis et
machinationibus decepisse, sicque ad ineundum bellum,
ex quo innumera homicidia, sacrilegia, incendia, stupra,
rapine aliaque toti reipublice christiane incommoda et damna
sequuta fuerunt, induxisse, et tarn ipsum Carolum cardinalem
1 Ms : uxorem.
39$ HISTORY OF THE POPES.
quam dictum ducem Antonium Carafam ipsorum fratrem
in stipendiis militum S. R. E. eundem Paulum predecessorem
et Cameram Apostolicam in ingenti et notabili pecuniarum
summa defraudasse, et ex hoc etiam almam Urbem nostram
totumque statum ecclesiasticum maximo periculo ob mili-
tam carentiam et defectum supposuisse ; eosdemque Carolum
cardinalem et toannem ducem quam plura adulteria et stupra
mulierum, que renitentes erant, viros, fratres et parentes
minis terrendo et carcerari faciendo vel alias vim inferendo,
commisisse, et sub clipeo multos innocentes pro eorum libito
ultimo supplicio tradi, ad triremes transmitti aliisque peris
affici iussisse et effecisse ; ac eosdem dictumque etiam Alfon-
sum cardinalem in omnibus provinciis status ecclesiastici
quam plurimas extorsiones fecisse illasque et earum incolas
ac etiam Cameram Apostolicam respective expilasse et
defraudasse ac fieri expilari et defraudari mandasse eundemque
Alfonsum cardinalem, qui alias ex sibi comrrisso regentis
Camere officio, de quo fideliter exercendo in manibus eiusdem
predecessoris iuramentum prestiterat, omnia ad eandem
Cameram Apostolicam pertinentia non minus diligenter
quam fideliter custodire tenebatur, in obitu predict! Pauli
predecessoris ex ipsius cubiculo valde magnam et notabilem
pecuniarum summam, gemmas, argenta, vasa usibus etiam
ecclesiasticis et divino cultui aicata aliaque preciosa ingentis
valoris subtraxisse, et monitorio generali, sub certis censuris
et penis, ut, si qui de bonis ad Cameram predictam spectantibus
aliqua haberent, ilia denunciarent et restituerent, in vim
litterarum a nobis emanatarum edito et publicato, penitus
spreto, censuras et penas in illo contentas damnabiliter in-
currendo, minime restituere voluisse litterasque in forma
brevis sub eiusdem Pauli predecessoris nomine, quibus ilia
sibi per eundem Paulum predecessorem donata esse contineri
asserebatur, falso fabricari fecisse et seu fabricasse aut saltern
in eisdem literis falsitatem admisisse seu de ipsius mandate
commissam fuisse, ipsosque cardinales et ducem alia etiam
varia crimina et delicta, etiam falsitates et testium subor-
nationem commisisse seu committi et patrari fecisse, suasisse
vel mandasse. Nos, non valentes premissa, non solum ex
assidua plurimorum relatione, sed etiam ex vehementi publica
fama ac per modum quodammodo notorii ad nostram notitiam
deducta, pro nostri oificii debito non sine maximo totius
APPENDIX. 399
orbis et Ecclesie scandalo conniventibus oculis pertransire,
in primis predictos cardinales et ducem, de quorum fuga, si
informationes de premissis coram notario recepte fuissent,
maxime verendum erat, in arce nostra S11 Angeli detrudi
iussimus et deinde venerabili fratri Hieronimo episcopo
Sagenensi alme Urbis nostre gubernatori et vicecamerario
ut super premissis diligenter inquireret ac quoscunque,
etiam episcopali dignitate fungentes, de premissis ac aliis
eorundem ducis et cardinalium excessibus et delictis in-
formatos examinaret, vive vocis oraculo commisimus et
mandavimus ; qui de mandate nostro huiusmodi super eis
inquirere et quamplures etiam circa premissa complices
examinare incepit et examinavit. Ne autem de viribus
processus per eum hactenus desuper habiti et imposterum
habendi hesitari contingat, motu simili et ex certa scientia
eidem Hieronimo gubernatori per presentes committimus
et mandamus ut super premissis omnibus et singulis aliisque
in processu deductis et deducendis contra supra dictos car
dinales et ducem ac omnes alios et singulos quoscunque
etiam episcopali vel alia dignitate preditos in eodem processu
relates eadem auctoritate diligenter inquireret, peisonis
cardinalium dumtaxat exceptis, quos non nisi cum assistentia
nonnullorum ex venerabilibus fratribus nostris eiusdem
S. R. E. cardinalibus, ad id per nos deputatorum seu depu-
tandorum, examinari et quod contra eos repertum fuerit
nobis, ut quid de eis statuendum sit deliberare possimus,
per eundem gubernatorem referri volumus, in reliquis causam
et causas huiusmodi cum omnibus et singulis earum
incidentibus, dependentiis, emergentiis, annexis et connexis
iuxta facultates suas ordinarias et stilum sue curie audiat,
cognoscat et pro iusticia terminet atque decidat. Dantes
ei potestatem et facultatem quoscunque etiam dicta episcopali
dignitate insignitos citandi et quibus et quotiens opus fuerit
inhibendi, et pro veritate comperienda quascunque personas,
etiam ecclesiasticas et ut prefertur qualificatas, ad subiicien-
dum se examini etiam per censuras ecclesiasticas aliaque
iuris et facti remedia opportuna, prout iuris fuerit, cogendi
et compellendi et absque eo quod persone huiusmodi aliquam
propterea irregularitatem incurrant, quam illas nullatenus
incurrere volumus et declaramus, axaminandi, et delinquentes
quos culpabiles repererit presentes debitis penis etiam ultimi
400 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
suplicii puniendi, absentes vero, etiam si dignitate episcopal!
prediti existant, habitis contra eos etiam extraiudicialiter
iuditiis, arbitrio suo quantum sibi sufficere videbitur, constito
sibi presertim extraiudicialiter de illorum ab Urbe et Roman a
curia fuga et recessu vel alias ipsorum latitatione, etiam per
edictum ad valvas sue curie et in acie Campiflore affigendum,
ad comparendum coram eo personaliter et non per procura-
torem seu excusatorem aliquem intra terminum per eum
prefigendum, et se ab obiectis et obiiciendis excessibus,
criminibus et delictis expurgandum et excusandum, ac cum
dilecto filio Alexandro Palanterio nostro Camere Apostolice
procuratore fiscali iuri standum, sub excommunicationis
maioris, suspensionis a divinis et ingressus ecclesie, privationis
ecclesiarum et cathedralium, dignitatum et beneficiorum,
pensionum annuarum et fractuum reservationum et officiorum
ac feudorum et dominiorum utilium et temporalium aliorumque
bonorum omnium confiscations et corporalibus etiam ultimi
supplicii et aliis etiam pecuniariis eius arbitrio imponendis
penis, monendi et requirendi, et' si non comparuerint seu
etiam si comparuerint et se ab obiectis excessibus, criminibus
et delictis legitime non expurgaverint, servatis quatuor
terminis in similibus servari solitis, censuras et penas predictas
incurrisse declarandi, aggravandi, reaggravandi, interdicendi
et contra eos brachium seculare invocandi aliaque omnia et
singula faciendi et exequendi in premissis et circa ea necessaria
[sic] seu quomodolibet opportuna, non obstantibus con-
stitutionibus et ordinationibus apostolicis ac privilegiis,
indultis, litteris apostolicis, dignitate ducali dicteque militie
sancti Michaelis et illius militibus ac S. R. E. cardinalibus,
etiam per capitula in proximo preterito conclavi, in quo
nos ad summi apostolatus apicem assumpti fuimus, firmatis,
concessis, confirmatis et innovatis, quibus omnibus, illorum
tenores etc., quoad premissa dumtaxat specialiter et expresse
derogamus, stilo palatii caterisque contrariis quibuscunque
statum et merita cause et causarum huiusmodi delinquentium
nomina, cognomina, dignitates et numerum delictorum, species,
qualitates et circumstancias ceterorumque premissorum ac
aliorum forsan necessario vel magis specifice exprimendorum
tenores et compendia pro sufficienter expressis habentes.
[Manu Pontificis] Placet et ita motu proprio committimus
et mandamus.
APPENDIX. 401
Presentetur. B. Amerinus Regens.
[Foris] Prima iulii 1560 Nicolaus de Matheis.
Prima iulii 1560 Hieronimo Sagonensi gubernatori.
Gubernatore — Romana excessuufn pro Fisco ; contra
Rmos Cardinales Carafa et Neapolitanum ac illmum ducem
Paliani et alios. Die i iulii 1560.
Aloysius de Ruere notarius actuarius.
[Grig. Miscell. X 197 p. 492 seq. Papal Secret Archives.]
9 — 10. MARCANTONIO DA MULA TO VENICE.1
1560, August 24, Rom.
La materia dei Caraffi, trattata con tanta diligenza et
sollicitudine, com'ho piu volte scritto, e pin a cuore a Sua
Santita ch'ogni altra ; et s' e giustificata la mano del marchese
Alberto et suo sigillo da persone prattiche, et ogni dl mattina
e sera si sono ridotti, et parve al cardinale della causa spagnuola
di dire parole e molto libere al cardinale Caraffa, che saria
meglio per lui, essendo hormai convinto com'e et non potendo
fuggire la condannatione, rimettersi nella pura misericordia
del pontefice, et non piu stare sopra negative che non li giovano,
ma mandare a chiamare due teologhi huomini da bene che
1'inducessero a pensare all'anima sua et non piu alle cose di
questo mondo. II che dalli altri cardinali, ch'erano presenti,
fu in un certo modo ripreso, et il card Caraffa con grand[impeto
si dolse et esclam6, assai displorando la miseria sua et
1'ingiustitia che diceva esserli fatta. Poi esso cardinale
mando a dire al pontefice ch'egli era stato huomo dal bel
mondo et soldato et haveva fatto del male assai a'suoi dl,
et se egli meritava perder la robba, la vita e 1'honore, stimava
pii\ 1'honore ch' ogn'altra cosa, et raccommandavasi humil-
mente a Sua St& dicendo che pativa e molto del vivere et
non haveva piu il modo ; et Sua Santita gli mand6 a rispondere
che non haveva alcun male che lui medesimo non 1'havesse
procurato.
[Copy. Court Library, Vienna, seq. 6749 p. 402.]
ii. MARCANTONIO DA MULA TO VENICE.2
1560, October 26, Rom.
Mandero il plico per Spagna ricevuto con le lettere di V.
Sertdi il 19, e non potei hieri haver 1'audienza da S. Su, com'
1 See supra, p. 152, n. 1. * See supra, p. 156 n. 2,
VOL. XV. 26
402 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
e 1'ordinario, perche la mattina fu consistoro et ella suole
sempre uscirne tardi et esser stanca, et mi fece sapere ch'io
andassi questa mattina ; e buono fu ch'io non andassi hieri,
perche 1'haverei ritrovata alquanto alterata. perche hieri
mattina in principio del concistoro il cardle di Carpi si fece
innanzi a S. Sta e chiamati alcuni altri cardinal!, le parlo in
presenza sua a favore de' Caraffi domandando termine,
dilationi et giustitia. Ond'il pontefice si altero e chiam6
tutti 1'altri cardinali e fece ch'il cardle di Carpi repplico la
sua instanza e poi cominci6 a dire che sapeva che si negasse
giustitia, termine, dilationi, e longamente riprese esso cardle
di Carpi con parole pungenti.
II card16 si scusava e replicava giustitia, onde il rumore
fu assai grande, e per 6 si fecero poche facenda in concistero,
se non che furono spediti alcuni vescovati in Francia, e circa
essi Caraffi si vanno formando le diffese del cardinale e quelle
del cardle di Napoli ancora non si sono date, et alcuni dicono
che le oppositioni non sono cosi gravi come si diceva da prima,
scusandosi il card16 in tutto sopra la volonta del papa suo
zio
[Copy ; Court Library, Vienna.]
12. FRANCESCO TONINA-TO THE DUKE OF MANTUA. 1
1561, February 22, Rom.
... II duca di Paliano per quanto si dice e ridotto a tanta
miseria che non ha che magnare, et sono due o tre dl, che
un'altro prigionato gli presto 5 scudi, non havendo egli dove
sovenirsi. Sono intrati in Roma questi dl secretamente
soldati ben armati, ma nissuno sa a che effetto, et pare che
chiedutane la causa da N. S. ci habbia sol detto, eh, non
e niente, non di meno questi di si sparse fama che era stata
trovata una poliza, la qual fu portata a S. Std> et in essa se
gli dava aviso che gente armata dovea venire a forte de Nona
et mentre che ciascuno stava occupato in quei bagordi del
carnevale dovea andare a levare per forza il duca di Palliano
de forte de Nona, per il che alPhora fu levato de la et ridotto
in Castello, et pare che dai birri siano stati detenuti et si
trovino colpevoli di non so che, et de qui anco naschi la fretta
che si fa di spedire la causa, tuttaviasivedera.il fine. , , .
[Orig. Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.]
1 See supra, pp. 158, n. 2, 162 n. 2.
APPENDIX. 403
13. CONSISTORY OF 3 MARCH, 1561. x
. . . Deinde vero Sua SUs, instante domino Alexandro
Pallanterio procuratore fiscali, mandavit domino Hieronymo
de Federicis episcopo Sagonensi, gubernatori Urbis, ut referret
processum causae contra cardinalem Carafam ; qui obediendo
Suae Sanctitati retulit : duravitque relatio ab hora decima
septima ad vigesimam quartam. Post quam quidem rela-
tionem Sua S1^8 pronuntiavit prout in cedula et terminavit
consistorium.
lulius card. Perusinus [carnerarius.]
[Copy. Actd consist. Camer. IX, 38. Consistorial archives
of the Vatican.]
14. FRANCESCO TONINA TO THE DUKE OF MANTUA. 2
1561, March 5, Rome.
... II di del concistoro il card16 Caraffa tanto si perse
die non potea parlare, hora dicono essere stata intimata a
tutti la morte, et che detto Cardle non parla ad alcuno, se
non che urla a modo di animale. II conte di Aliffa si voleva
amazzare, ma gli hanno poste le guardie. Don Lonardo
non si puo aquietare, tuttavia vi sono seco li capucini con-
fortatori. N. S. deve partire se no dimani o 1'altro, almeno
lunidi certo per Civita Vecchia, et la sera inanti si fara la
essecutione. II duca di Palliano prega solo d' essere ispedito
presto. . . .
[Orig. Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.]
15. POPE Pius IV. TO HANNIBAL VON HOHENEMS.S
1561, March 5, Roma.
Brief with the following autograph postscript by the Pope :
Voi non doveti instare che el Re vi mandi, anci se vi vole
mandar doveti far ogni cosa per excusarvi, se pero questa
letera vi trovasse in viaggio et che havesti comissioni im-
portanti di Sua Mu non vi levammo la faculta del [erasure]
maravigliammo anchora che [defect in the paper] habbiati
scritto in quel modo in favore de Caraffa, attento che Sua
MtA ne ha scritto in una altera manera et con altri rispetti.
Cacciate [via] Avanzino et non impedite la g[ra]tia de li
Borromei et por[tate] ve bene.
[Orig. Hohenems Archives.]
'See supra, p. 166 2 See supra, p. 166. 3 Seo supra, p. 104. n. 2.
404 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
16. MARCANTONIO DA MULA TO VENICE.1
1561, March 7, Roma.
Lunedi fa concistoro, il quale si ridusse la mattina a buon
hora e duro fino a due hore di notte. Si lesse il processo
del cardinal Caraffa e la causa fu trattata per il governadore,
intendo, con molt a vehemenza ; al quale il cardinal di Ferrara
rispose come quello che sapeva il tutto in materia delle cose
di Francia e della guerra fu ascoltato, e tutti i cardinali inter-
cessero ; ma non valse, perche il pontefice disse che voleva
far giustitia, e pronuntiava la sentenza prout in cedula, dando
al governatore una polizza bollata, e commandandoli che
non la dovesse aprire fino ad altro ordine suo, e questa con-
teneva la sentenza ; et il giorno seguente il governatore si
ridusse col fiscale et i suoi giudici, et espedirono i laici, cioe
il duca di Palliano, il conte di Alife suo cognato, il sigr conte
Leonardo di Cardine ; ma non si sapeva come fosse 1'espedition
loro ; si dubitava male, per le parole che disse Sua Santita
in concistoro, onde poi il mercore il sigr Vargas si dolse con
S. Std> che volesse mettere in si puoco conto le raccomandationi
del serenissimo re cattolico, che intercedeva per li signori
Caram, come scrissi che faceva per Pultimo spaccio, e Sua
Santita gli rispose che voleva far giustitia ad ogni modo,
se ben fosse anco contro il re Filippo.
La notte poi del mercore medesimo ad hore quattro entrorno
i barigelli in Castello et andati alle stanze del duca di Palliano,
gli dissero che lo volevano menare a Civita Vecchia, et egli,
vedutosi che lo volevano far morire, gli disse che non con-
veniva che procedessero con lui in tal modo, per che era
pronto a morire, ma desiderava haver tanto tempo che potesse
scrivere una lettera al suo figliuolo : e cosi gli portorno da
scrivere e la copia mando qui inclusa.
Fornito di scrivere, prese in mano un crocefisso et una
candela benedetta accesa e, doppo dette alcune orationi,
and6 alle stanze del conte di Alife suo cognato col crocefisso
e la candela in mano e, salutatolo, disse : Fratello, andiamo
di buona voglia, bisogna morire, anzi andare alia vita, esort-
andolo con tal sorte di parole che intendo che non si poteva
dir le piu belle ne le piii christiane ; e con lui and 6 alle stanze
del sigr Leonardo di Cardine, et essortato ancor lui con
efncacia a morire volontieri et consolatolo, furono menati
1 See supra, p. 170.
APPENDIX. 405
tutti e tre fuori di Castello in Torre di Nona, dove furono
decapitati, morendo tutti christianissimamente.
Poi ritornati i barigelli1 in Castello, che potevano essere le
cinque hore di notte, andorno alle stanze del cardinal Caraffa,
il quale non sapeva niente di questo fatto, e destatolo, perche
dormiva, disse uno de 'barigelli : Monsignore, piace a Dio
et al papa che dobbiate morire adesso adesso, pero disponetevi.
II cardinale interruppe e disse : Morire ? replicando due volte
questa parola con admiratione ; et alcuni dicono che disse
di piu : Come deve morire uno che non e confessato ne con-
vinto ? Ma datemi da vestire, e fate almeno che mi possa
confessare. II barigello rispose : Se vi volete confessare,
e qui an frate per questo, che vi attendera ; e contentandosi
il cardinale che venisse, si fini di vestire sino al saio e demand -
ando la cappa da cardinale e la berretta, dissero che havevano
ordine di non gliela dare. Si lave le mani, si confesso, disse
1'umcio della Madonna e i sette salmi, inginocchiatosi con le
mani gionte, disse : Fate il vostro ufficio, e direte al governa-
tore et al fiscale che gli perdono ; e cosi, messoli un laccio
nuovo al collo per strangolarlo, si ruppe il laccio, et egli,
levatosi in piedi, disse : Ah traditori, perche mi stentate a
questo modo ? Poi tornatosi ad inginocchiare, gliene posero
un altro, il quale anco si ruppe ; ma egli non potendosi piu
levare et essendo ancor vivo, lo finirono con un lenzuolo del
suo letto e lo portorno subito alia chiesa della Traspontina
a seppellire, e potevano essere nove hore incirca.
La mattina poi per tempo furono posti i corpi degl' altri
in Ponte con alquante torice, il duca in un cataletto coperto
di un panno di velluto colle armi de' Caram e quella deda
madre dalla parte destra ; il conte dalla sinistra il sigr don
Leonardo [su] due tappeti in terra, con tanto concorso di
popolo che ruppero fino il cataletto e grinciamporno addosso
per la calca ; e fu forza, quando gli volsero lavar via, che
potevano essere quindici hore, portare un altro cataletto :
et erano tutti calpestati et infangati, perche piovette dal
principio di questo fatto fino che furono seppelliti.
II popolo minuto e grande biasimano il pontefice per troppo
severe, massime nella morte del cardinale e nella sepoltura
die tre, havendoli fatti portare di Ponte con scuola della
Misericordia fino a S. Giovanni decollate, dove portano
1 This account is wrong. The Cardinal was executed first. See the 'report
of Tonina which follows in No. 17.
406
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
ogni sorte di giustitiati ; di dove i parent! gli hanno poi
tolti e portati altrove a seppellire in secreto.
[Copy. Miscell. III. 24 p. 493 --497. Papal Secret Archives.]
17. FRANCESCO TONINA ro THE DUKE OF MANTUA. l
1561, March 8, Roma.
... £ finalmente finita questa tragedia Carafesca. Mercori
alle cinque hore di notte ando il barigello Gasparino2 (come
egli stesso ha narrate di bocca) primieramente al cardle Caraffa,
il quale dormeva supino, et bench e gia gli era stata notitiata
la morte, come per la precedente mia scrissi a V. Ecca, non di
meno non poteva pur crederlo, et cosi entrato in camera,
gli disse quello che era venuto a fare, il che era per far esseguire
quel tanto che era di mente di N. S. in farlo morire, al che
ci dice, che detto cardle rispose per died volte, io morire ?
adunque il Papa vuole che io muoia ? Et finalmente chiaritc
che questa era 1'ultima hora, et che se non attendeva a con-
fessaris et accomodare li casi fuoi fra quel poco di tempo
che ad esso bargello era stato statuito per fare 1'essecutione
egli senz' altro aspettare haveria fatto esseguire la commissione
sua, anchor che piii volte replicasse, io che non ho confessato
cosa ale una, morire ? si dispose poi a confessarsi, il che fatto,
chiamo tutti gli astanti et li disse, siate testimoni, come io
perdono al Papa, al Re di Spagna et al governadore et fiscale
et altri nemici miei, poi postolo a sedere sopra una scragna
li pose il carnefice il capestro al collo, et dopo haverlo fatto
molto stentare Io fini pur al ultimo di strangolare. Andorno
poi al duca di Palliano, qual condussero in Torre di Nona
et nel discendere dalla prigione di Castel Sfco Angelo, dimando
dove Io conduce vano, et allora il bargello non gli volse dire
che Io conducessero a far morire, ma sol gli disse che Io con-
duceva in Torre di Nona, et piu oltre non sapea sin a quella
hora. Al che detto duca rispose, che ben sapea che Io con-
ducevano alia morte, che Christo glielo havea rivelato, et
che di gratia gli lasciassero scrivere una lettera al figliolo
Cosl ridottosi nella camera dove sta prigione con sigurta
di non far fuga Giovanni de Nepi, interessato anch' egli in
questo negotio, esso duca scrisse le due lettere che V. Ecc.
1 See supra, pp. 170, 172.
1 Gasparinus de Melis, named barisellus in aJmn Urbe in the brief of March 20
1557. Min brov. Arm. 42 t. 12, n. 95 Papal Secret Archives. Cf. Rouo-
CANACHI, St. Ange, 167.
APPENDIX. 407
vedera con questa alligate, 1'altra alia sorella, le quali sono
veramente christiane, poi fu condutto a Torre di Nona,
dove a lui et il conte di Aliffa et don Leonardo di Cardine
fu troncata la testa. Mori il duca dispostissimo, eccetto
che nell'istesso voler porre il capo sotto il ceppo o tagliuola,
comincio a dire, aiutatime de gratia tentatione, abremmtio
Satanae, et finalmente fu ispedito ; il conte d' Aliffa si dice
che ragionava anch' egli alcune parole christiane, pur era
fuor di se. Don Leonardo di Cardine mori finalmente disposto.
Delli corpi loro segui questo. II cardle fu portato nella
chiesa Transpontina, il duca et il conte et D. Leonardo furno
portati la mattina per tempo in Ponte, il duca in cadaletto
piccolo et assai miserabile, ove giaceva con una veste di
pelle in torno con due torze rosse, una per ciascun capo,
il conte d'Aliffa et D. Leonardo erano coricati in terra su
due miserabili tapeti, longhi dui brazzi o circa, et poi tutti
infangati et calpestrati dal numero delle genti che andavano
a vedere. II cardle e stato portato poi a sepellire alia Minerva,
et si nice anco del duca, gli altri dui dicono che li parenti
trattavano di condurgli a Napoli. Del cardle di Napoli si
spera universalmente poco bene, ma di Pisa si tiene da tutti
del sicuro pessimo fine. Di Monte non si sa quello ch'habbia
a seguire, ma non se ne spera anco bene alcuno. Havea
detto N. S. di voler andare a Civita Vecchia, ma sin qui non
vi e segno alcuno. . . .
[Orig. Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.]
18. Avviso DI ROMA OF 8 MARCH, 1561. l
Di Roma li 8 marzo 1561. Lunedi si fece concistero sopra
le cose de Carafn, che dur6 8 hore di continove et passata
un hora di notte si fini et vi fu letto un summario del processo
di Caraffa dal governatore ; et letto che fu, Sua Sta diede
la sententia et pronunci6 prout in cedula contra Caraffa
et fatto questo si levorono li revmi Carpi, Ferrara, Farnese,
Crispo, Augusta et altri, et andavano da Sua Sta supplicandolo
a volere usare qualche misericordia verso il cardinale et non
punirlo secondo li demeriti suoi, massime per esser del sacro
collegio, che e grado piu eccellente in christianitk ; alii Sua
Su rispose che a tanti enormi delitti non si poteva trovar
1 See supra, pp. 178 seq.
408
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
luoco di dementia et che a levare li scelerati fuor di quel
collegio non ne poteva succedere se non honore. Et cosi
la notte del mercordi circa a hore 6 fu mandate in Castello
solo il barigello havendo seco il boia ad anuntiarli la morte
cosi al duca di Paliano suo fratello et al conte d'Aliffe et a
Lunardo di Cardine.
II cardinale dormiva et svegliato dal barigello facendoli
intendere c'haveva a morire rispose : io ho a morire, et
replicatosi che si, alzo la voce et disse : b Re Philippo, b
Papa Pio, et poco di poi havendo dimandato a vestire volendosi
metter una veste et la baretta da cardinale, gli fu detto che
non lo facesse et vestitosi dimando il confessore et confessatosi
disse i sette salmi et altre orationi passeggiando et alle volte
ingenocchiandosi et finite le orationi disse sitio chiedendo
de 1'acqua et beve, tenendo poi stretto et abbracciato un
quadro di Nostra Donna, pregando che quello fusse poi
dato a sua sorella et postosi di poi a sedere si volto alii ministri
della* giustitia et disse, se da me non volete altro, fatte quello
c'havete a far et fatte presto. II laccio, col quale il boia
gli stringeva la gola, si ruppe per maggior pena et fu necessario
torne un altro col quale fu strangolato et fatto finir di morire
et il corpo suo involto in uno linzuolo fu portato a sepelire in
S. Maria Transpontina. Fu fatto poi intendere al duca di
Paliano che ivi era venuto il barigello, et levatosi ringratio
Iddio poi che era giunto al fine delle sua miserie, poi dimando
del cardinale suo fratello et gli fu risposto che n'era bene et ne
laudo et ringratio Iddio ; tolto poi in mano un crusifisso
s'invio verso Torre di Nona, confortando sempre gli altri
dui et facendo loro animo et bellissime parole fino a quel
punto che misse il collo sul ceppo, onde tutti li circonstanti
lagrimavano et cosi furono tutti 3 decapitati et li corpi loro
con le teste portati su la piazza, di Ponte s. Angelo et furono
posti vicino al Ponte verso Torre di Nona, quello del duca
sopra uno cataletto con 2 torcie accese et quelli del conte
d'Aliffe et di don Lunardo di Cardine sopra la terra nuda
presso a pie del cataletto, et poi portati tutti 3 a sepelire
di quel modo et di quello luogo che si portono a sepelire i
ladri et assassini che morono per giustitia con i sbirri dietro
per scorta et questo e stata 1'ultimo fin loro. II Papa disse
la matina seguente al card. Borromeo, chel caso di costoro
havava da essere de gran documento a lui et che quando
APPENDIX. 409
egli facesse il quarto delle cose che essi havevano fatto, pregava
Iddio che fusse fatto a lui come a loro. Questa notte passata
a hora 5 fue cavato d'una sepoltura il card. Caraffa et accom-
pagnato da 4 frati de quelli della Traspontina, ove era sepolto,
fue portato alia Minerva. Hora vi sono li 3 cardinal! pre-
gioni, cioe Napoli, Monte et Pisa che di loro si ne fa malissimo
giudicio, massime di Pisa che de lui si dubita piu che delli
altri.
Di Venetia alii 14 marzo 1561. V. Stopio.
On the reverse : Al Ulrico Fuccari Augusta.
[Orig. Urb. 1039, P- 25^b — 259. Vatican Library.]
19. FRANCESCO TONINA TO THE DUKE OF MANTUA. l
Roma, 1561, December 3.
. . . Di Franza non si ha da poi piu altro, ma si crede che
habbino poca voglia di concilio, li capi et nel generale. Per
contrario la Sa di N. S. per ogni modo vuole ch' esso concilio
si faccia, et da persona che lo puo sapere, intendo che ha
havuto a dire, faciamo pur il concilio et poi pensaremo alia
esecutione, come che habbi in animo finite quello di provedere
poi per altra via alle heresie. Questa sera intorno a un hora
di notte o circa con un pessimo acre, che si trovava, egli era
sopra li corridori die vanno da palazzo a Castello, a lurne di
torze, ne pare che temi cosa alcuna, tanto e robusto in questa
sua vecchiezza. . . .
[Orig. Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.]
20. Avviso DI ROMA OF GTH DECEMBER, 1561. 2
. . . Sua Su par!6 della riforma [nel concistoro di hieri] che
pur li sta tuttavia nel core, dicendo che voleva esser lei la
prima a porvi la mano, et massimamente nella corte, dove li
pareva non esser ragionevole che il concistoro ne altri vi
ponessero la mano, et che perho voleva far una bulla sopra le
cose della sede vacante, nel qual tempo si faceva cose assai che
apportavano scandali ; et disse di voler limitare 1' autorita del
camerlengo per quel tempo, non li parendo honesto che egli
potesse liberar banditi o confmati in galea, ne far salvo con-
dutti et far pagar debiti della Sede Apostolica senza il consenso
di tutto il collegio ; et de simil faculta che tiene et anche circa
1 See supra, pp. 87. 262.
* See supra, p. 279
4io
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
la Penitentiaria che la faceva alcune cose che non stanno bene ;
et disse che voleva che il conclave in sede vacante si dovesse
far in Castello et che la elettione passasse per bollotatione et
non per via de voti con pollize. Ma di questo ultimo non
fece ferma deliberatione, per che S. St& mandera la bulla
a tutti cardinali ad un per uno per poter dir il lor
parere. . . . Sua Santita e stata per 2 o 3 di molto ristretta
con li revmi Alessandiino et Trani sopra le cose della riforma ;
ma non s' intende che sia conclusa cosa veruna : ben si
dubitava che dovesse uscire Una bulla che ogniuno andasse alle
parocchiali et cure che hanno. . . .
II negocio della reformatione della Penetentiaria S. Stdr ha
rimessa la consideratione alii revmi San Clemente et Vitello
con doi altri prelati, et la reformation del Datariato ha rimesso
alii rev * Su Fiore et S. Angelo.
[Orig. Urb. 1039 p.
Vatican Library.]
21. Avviso DI ROMA OF I3TH DECEMBER, 1561. l
. . . Giovedi si fece la solita congregatione nanti il papa,
nella quale si tratto la cosa della riforma et del concilio ; ma
firi qui non e determinate niente, perche a cardinali non e
parso conveniente che tanti illustmi et reverendmi si riduchino
sotto la custodia d' un solo castellano, ne gli e piaciuta la
proposta della diminutione del vivere et riduttione a pane et
acqua, se fra tanto tempo non s' accordassero a fare il papa
nel castello di Sto Angelo, dicendo che sarebbe assai quando
si riducessero a far vita de frati, e disse Sua Su che non era
bene che nissun cardinale tenesse piu d' un cocchio et che in
esso si potesse andare ad alcun atto publico ne tornare, ma
sopra li loro muli et con le solite cavalcate ; et furono fatti
diversi altri ragionamenti et discorsi pur senza conclusione.
[Orig. Urb. 1039, p. 325b, Vatican Library.]
22. AVVISO DI ROMA OF 2OTH DECEMBER, 1561. »
. . . Le bolle della riforma delli ecclesiastici et del conclave
va[nno] intorno fra questi revmi, et gia il rcvmo Carpi 1' ha
sottoscritta, cosa che si pensava non dovesse fare cosi facil-
1 See supra, p. 279.
* See supra, p. 279.
APPENDIX. 411
mente ; et Sua Sfc& 1' ha data di sua man propria al revmo di
Mantua suo zio, nella quale vuol S. Su [ad] ogni modo che la
creatione si facci con ballottatione a usanza di Venetia.
[Orig. Urb. 1039 p. 3i9b, Vatican Library.]
23. Avviso DI ROMA OF IOTH JANUARY, 1562. l
... II giorno inanzi [lunedi passato vigilia del la corona -
tione di S. Su] Sua Santita fece comandare sotto pena della
sua disgratia, che nissun cameriero andasse per Roma se non
in habito ecclesiastico, et cosl tutti gli altri beneficiati in
habito di prete ; et la, riforma della corte, Penitentiaria,
Datariato et del conclave va tuttavia intorno et stara poco
a publicarsi. . . .
[Orig. Urb. 1039 p. 330, Vatican Library.]
24 — 33- REFORMING ACTIVITY OF Pius IV. FROM FEBRUARY
TO MAY, 1562. 2
i. Avviso DI ROMA OF STH FEBRUARY, 1562.
On Monday the Pope issued a Motuproprio : all holders of
benefices who are in sacris must, under pain of excommuni-
caion, wear the priestly dress (sottana di sotti il ginocchio). 3
[Orig. Urb. 1039, p. 337, Vatican Library.]
2. FRANCESCO TONINA TO THE DUKE OF MANTUA.
1562, February 21, Rom.
... £ uscito un motu proprio, che tutti che hanno beneficii
o pensioni o siano in sacris vadino in habito et tonsura, et
perche si trovano de coqui, de staferi et altri piu vili persone
servitori de card11 che hanno beneficii et pensioni, alcuni card11
hanno fatto ricorso a S. Bne perche questo editto si moderasse
et sopra questo e stata fatta congregatione, ma non solo N. S.
non ha voluto moderar quello, ma hoggi ni e uscito un' altro
che sotto 1' istesse pene di escommunicatione, carceratione,
pecuniarie ad arbitrio et della privatione de benefici, tutti
habbino ubedito fra nove dl, altrimente si essequiranno le
pene. . . .
[Orig. Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.]
1 See supra, p. 279.
• Cf. supra, p. 279.
* In consequence of opposition the carrying1 out of the order had to be
referred to the next consistory; see Arco in KASSOWITZ, XVII. n. 17.
412
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
3. Avviso DI ROMA OF 7TH MARCH, 1562.]
Thursday, a Congregation of the Cardinals, in the presence
of the Pope, concerning the reform of the Penitentiary, the
greed of which must be restrained, " di che il card. S. Angelo
[Ranuccio Farnese] si duole."
[Orig. Urb. 1039, P- 343b- Vatican Library.]
4. FRANCESCO TONINA TO THE DUKE OF MANTUA.
1562, April 2, Rom.
. . . Hieri e stata congregatione nella quale fu dispatato
assai, se li card i che hanno pensioni o benefici in Spagna
doveranno contribuire alia concessione fatta alia Mu Cathca
delle 60 gale re, et fu concluso che non. Hoggi e stata con
gregatione sopra le cose della Penitentiaria, la quale S. StA
dimostro haver animo di ridurre a pochissima authorita, cosa
che cede a molto danno del cardle S. Angelo, il qual pertanto
dopo finita essa congregatione, nella quale sono intravenuti
gli ufficiali principali di essa, si doleva et sbatteva assai, con
alcuni altri cardu, pur converra che habbi patienza, perche e
gia un pezzo che S. Bne ha questa voglia. Se dimani fa buon
tempo (che questa sera e gran pioggia) S. StA havea desegnato
di andare all' acqua di Salone, cioe a verdere quest' acqua, la
quale e un vaso di bonissima acqua, che si e in opera per
condurla a Roma, et sara. bastevole, senza bere piu di quell del
nume, ma non sono ancora in essere li vasi, et vi sono qualche
differenze. . . .
[Orig. Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.]
5. Avviso DI ROMA OF 25™ APRIL, 1562.
The Pope is holding many congregations on reform, " ma
non conclude niente ; " especially of the Dataria and Peni
tentiary, " che sono di grandissima importantia per gli offitii
di Roma che sono fondate sopra P intrate che si cavano dalle
ispeditioni."
[Orig. Urb. 1039, P- 35$b- Vatican Library.]
6. FRANCESCO TONINA TO THE DUKE OF MANTUA.
1562, May 2, Roma.
. . . La Stdi de N. S. e cosi entrata alia riforma di questi
uffici di Roma, che altro non si sente che stridi de gli ufficiali
APPENDIX. 413
di Penitentiaria et degli altri uffici, massime di Camera. Alia
Penitentiaria si levano tutti le si in evident! , che passino F
entrata di venti scudi et tutte le assolutioni da delitti, et tante
altre authorita che havea che dire il card16 S. Angelo, che gli
levano d' entrata pin de cinque mila scudi F anno. Al Camer-
lengo levano quasi tutta F authorita et massime quella che
havea in sede vacante, grandissima, ct in maniera passano le
cose, che quelli che hanno comprati gik gli uffici per cinque,
sei et sette mila scudi, hor si dariano voluntieri per due et tre.
Ogni cosa si riduce alia Dataria, in maniera che molti mor-
morano che S. Bne tiri F acqua tutta al suo molino. . . .
[Orig. Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.]
7. FRANCESCO TONINA TO THE DUKE OF MANTUA.
1562, May 6, Roma.
. . . Non si sente altro qui de presente che parlare di
ri forma, ha S. Bne levato gli accessi, regressi et coadiutorie et
le confidenze, sopra il che si ha da publicare una bolla rigoro-
sissima. Quella delta riforma della Penitentiaria non e stata
ancora mandata in publico, perch e ancorche nel consitorio
di luni prossimo passato S. B dicesse espressamente alii
rmi card11 Cueva, Morone, Cesis ct S. Clemente che gli parlorono
per gli umciali che voleva che fusse com' era stabilita, non di
meno ottennero che si soprasedesse il publicarla per certo poco.
Parlo non di meno S. Bne in presenza d' ogniuno molto chiaro
che non voleva farsi altro, perch e gli dimandavano almeno
qualche ricompenso et restoro della ruina che gli era delli
ufficii loro. . . .
[Orig. Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.]
8. Avviso DI ROMA OF QTH MAY, 1562.
Reform of the Cancellaria. Abolition of vivae vocis oraculo
per conto delle indulgentie, which are generally to be granted
bat sparingly.
[Orig. Urb. 1039, p. 362. Vatican Library.]
9. Avviso DI ROMA OF i6TH MAY, 1562.
Yesterday a general congregation of all the Cardinals. A
bull on the reform of the Penitentiary.
[Orig Urb. 1039, p. 363. Vatican Library.]
414
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
10. Avviso DI ROMA OF 23RD MAY, 1562.
The bull for the reform of the Penitentiary appeared in
print.
[Orig. Urb. 1039, p. 366. Vatican Library.]
34. FRANCESCO TONINA TO THE DUKE OF MANTUA. l
1564, April 22, Rom.
... Si ragiona assai per corte che detto rmo Borromei sia
dato tutto al spiiitc, et quasi a una vita theatina, della quale
dubitando N. S., si dice anco che 1' ha fatto eshortare a lasciar
la pratica stretta che teneva de essi Theatini et a loro, che
sotto pene non vi pratichino. . . .
[Orig. Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.]
35. FRANCESCO TONINA TO THE DUKE OF MANTUA. 2
1564, April 29, Rom.
. . . Qui si ragiona che N. S. tiene molto dispiacere della
stretta pratica che il rmo Borromei ha tuttavia con questi
Theatini, li quali dicono che S. Sfcdi dice che mirano alle intrate
et beni, piu che alia santita che di fuora mostrano et che con
destro modo ha fatto sapere ad esso illmo Borromei quanto
sarebbe il desiderio suo in cio, con eshortarlo ad attendere alii
negocii et carico che ha per non dai occasione a S. Bne di far
altra provisione come seria necessario per il cumulo de negoci
di questa Stfti Sede. . . .
[Orig. Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.]
36. FRANCESCO TONINA TO THE DUKE OF MANTUA. 3
1564, August 12, Rom.
. . . Di questo medico di S. Bn3 ditenuto variamente si
ragiona, et ancora che da molti sia detto che sia pur suspitione
di veneno, laonde si dice che viene anco fatto processo con il
cardle di Napoli, non di meno la cosa va tanto secreta che non
si ne pu6 penetrare di certezza il vero. S. Bne si trova ancora
a S. Apostolo, palazzo del sr card16 Borromei in vita acquistato
dal s. ill. Antonio Colona, et nel quale adesso si lavora in
fabrica di molta spesa et va S. Bne ad alto per sopra certi
1 See supra, p. 119.
' See supra, p. 119.
3 See supra, p. 87, n. 4, and Vol. XVI. of this work.
APPENDIX. 415
ponti che non sono anco molto sicuri et dove tuttavia cascano
pietre et altre cose da muri. . . .
[Orig. Gonzaga Archives, Mantua.]
37. ONOFRIO PANVINIO AS BIOGRAPHER OF Pius IV.
The fourth Pius is among those Popes who have not been
made the subject of a long and full biography. He was not
one of those outstanding personalities, such as a biographer
delights in. Moreover, the closing period of the Council of
Trent drew general attention to itself rather than to what
was happening in Rome. The brief biographical sketch of
Pius IV. which O. Panvinio added to his biographies of other
Popes, is an instance of this. In this matter the veil has
been drawn back by a German historian, who has won great
renown by his history of Pius IV., namely, Giuseppe Susta,
in his splendid monograph published in Czech in the year
1900, under the title : Pius IV. pred pontificatem a na po£atku
pontifikatu (Pius IV. before his pontificate down to its be
ginning). J. Goll wrote a spirited review of this work in
the Abendpost of Vienna, 1902, Beilage n. 21, to which atten
tion was drawn in the Histor. Zeitschrift, LXXXIX, 330.
In spite of this, the results of the researches of Susta have
remained quite unnoticed among scholars. Even Merkle,
who, in the second volume of his great collection of authorities
called Concilium Tridentinum, devotes a very minute disser
tation to the life and writings of Panvinio in their bearing on
the Popes and conclaves during the Council, knows nothing
of them. With the acumen which is characteristic of him,
Susta, in Appendix II, p. 159 seqq. submits to a critical
examination the Vita Pii IV. of Panvinio, as it appears in the
edition of 1568, which hitherto has been accepted, together
with the Venetian reports, as the principal authority, and
comes to the surprising conclusion that for Pius IV.
Panvinio is by no means the safe guide that even Muller
(Konklave Pius IV., 228, n. 242) thought him to be. In
this case that fact comes out even more strongly, which,
in speaking of the sources and authorities for the history
of Paul IV. in the present work (Vol. XIV., 486 seqq), I estab
lished in the case of the Carafa Pope, namely that our
historian has allowed himself to be very strongly biased
416 HISTORY OF THE POPES.
in his account by the public opinion which was often very
strong in the Curia, and by his own relations with his patron,
Cardinal Alessandro Farnese.
The first edition of the Vita Pii IV. of Panvinio appeared
in 1562 as an appendix to the new edition of Platina issued
by the Cologne editor, Maternus Cholinus.1 This very
brief sketch (p. 340-342) the mere embryo of the later biog
raphy, went as far as the end of 1561 ; it is all rather colour
less, and at times may be altogether discounted on account
of its brevity. Thus, for example, according to this account
we should be led to believe that Cardinal Medici remained
in Rome daring the whole of the pontificate of Paul IV.
Although it does not lack the usual words of praise, of which
the humanist writers were never sparing, it is nevertheless
very far from being a panegyric. According to all appearances
the thing was much felt at the Papal court. Above all it
was bound to cause talk that a point so well known and
discussed as the Florentine origin of the Medici of Milan
was passed over in silence. As far as other defects were
concerned, the haste used in its composition might have been
urged as an excuse, but this omission implied an attack
on the upstart. It is not difficult to understand what led
Panvinio to act in this way. He who had had relations with
the new Pope while he was still a Cardinal, found himself
disappointed in his ambitious expectations when the Cardinal
had been raised to the supreme dignity.2 Susta (p. 161)
conjectures, and not without good grounds, that Panvinio 's
relations with Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, whose own
relations with Pius IV. had become strained, helped to pre
possess him against Pius IV. But in court circles, and indeed
with Pius IV. himself, the attitude adopted by Panvinio
could not be a matter of indifference, since an author who
was so popular and gifted exercised a considerable influence
on public opinion.- It was thought well to win him over.
Panvinio was given a position in the Vatican Library, with
a monthly salary of ten ducats, in addition to a money present
of 500 ducats.3 He then wrote, with the greatest possible
speed, a new Vita Pii IV. He received from the Pope himself
1 Of. SCHRORS in the Annalen des Hist. Verehis fur (Ten Niederrhein,
LXXXV., Cologne, 1908, 150 seq.
* The 200 scudi given to Panvinio by Pius IV. was considered insufficient
(see PKRTNI, O. Panvinio, Roma, 1899, 24, 219).
3 See PERINI, 219 ; MERKLE, II., cxxvi.
APPENDIX. 417
by word of mouth, a justification of the condemnation of the
Carafa,1 to be included in his book. Besides this he re
ceived from the Pope's intimate friends certain " hints "
which indicated a number of changes that might be introduced
in his more detailed Vita. As a proof that Panvinio very
willingly accommodated himself to these desires, Susta refers,
though very briefly, to the Cod. Vatic, lat. 6775, and to Cod.
122 of Arm. X of the Miscell. in the Papal Secret Archives.
(Emendanda, addenda vel demenda sine ulla contradictione et si
opportuerit meis sumptibus in vita Pii IV. papae). On
account of the important bearing which this has upon the
question of the independence of Panvinio, it will not be out
of place to print here at least one of these " hints." It is
to be found in Cod. Vatic, lat. 6775, Par. 2a, p. 155 — i66b,
and runs as follows :
Populari statu — Honorifico2 potius, si lovio credimus in
vita Leonis X.
Pater Pii IV. Sequendo ordinem naturae et temporum
et personarum, videtur prius facienda mentio avi, deinde
patris, postea filiorum ; et antequam nomen Pii IV ex-
primeretur, nuncupandus esset simpliciter loannes Angelas ;
deinde gradatim prout eius aucta est dignitas, immutandum
nomen prothonotarii et archie piscopi.
Medices — potius Mediceus.
Marignani — vulgare nimis et etiam depravatum ; nam
Melegnanum dictur vulgo. Latinior vox esset Melenianum.
Paschae — Paschatis potius, licet alii contra.
Paroeciae — cum a dictione graeca wapoyos descendat, dicen.
dum potius Parochia ; licet Budaeus contra.
Hie commemorandum videtur illud praesagium flammae
lambentis crines pueri dum noctu cum nutrice cubaret.
luri operam — prius philosophiae ac medicinae.
Consecutus est. Deinde in patriam re versus in iurisperi-
torum collegium cooptatus, aliquandiu farensi actioni in-
servivit,8 cum assiduis bellis4 exagitata patria pacate in ea
degere non posset.
Publicis muneribus deinde affinitate. — Hie quoque ser-
vandus ordo videretur, ut primo recenserentur munera,
1 See supra, p. 140.
* On the margin : illustri — claro.
* On the margin : se dedit.
4 On the margin : bellorum turbinibus.
VOL, XV. 27
4i8
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
magistratus, provinciae quas ei delegavit Paulus III et quae
singilatim enumerantur in praefatione ; deinde collatio
archiepiscopatus, amnitas, cardinalatus.
Praefuit Asculanis — contracte nimis ; ideo aliquanto latius
explicanda, praesertim ubi aliquid insigne edidit.
Alter marchio — hie addenda dictio quae indicet esse ilium
de quo supra.
Inique — hoc nimis aggravat factum Caesarianorum. Forte
melius : quorundam aemulorum conspiratione.
Lites fmibus — propius videtur : finium regundorum dis-
ceptator et arbiter.
Exercitus curator — Quaestor potius.
Parmam missis — Non misit, sed ivit, et quanquam nulla
secum stipendia attulisset, opibus tamen amicorum, quos
Parmae habuit, adiutus, valido praesidio urbem firmavit.
Novissime — Hie praecedere debet mentio affinitatis, archie
piscopatus Ragusin,, episcopatus Cassan.
Consilio ipsius et opera atque solertia.
Publica munera nulla attigit — aberrat a vero, quia sub
lulio III. et Paulo IV modo signaturae iustitae, modo gratiae,
modo utrique praefuit.
Pauli IV severitas — omittendum, et praetereunda causa
balneorum Lucensium et desiderii visendae fruendae
patriae.
Avitis aedibus — Non erant avita, sed nova aedificia a
fratre marchione coepta.
Vixit — addendum : nee tamen diem ullum praetermisit in
quo litterariis studiis non incumberet, sic bonas horas con-
sumendo.
Hie quoque vel alio in loco primum illud et liberale factum
commemorandum videtur, cum fraternam adivisset haere-
ditatem et dubitaret ne facta fratris, dum variis praefuit
bellis, aliqui iacturam bonorum suorum fecissent, redditum
annuum mille aureorum ex censu fraterno xenodochio seu,
ut vocant, hospitali magno Mediolani concessit, ut ex eo
primo resarcirentur damna passi, deinde pauperes infirmi
alerentur ; quin etiam propria sacerdotia satis ampli redditus
eidem hospitali assignavit.
Existimatus est, tamen quam praecipue, cum Urbe in-
undatione Tyberis sub Paulo IV fame vexata, quicquid
ipse in horreis ad familiae suae pro integro anno usum
APPENDIX. 419
considerat, liberaliter ad egenae plebis substentationem
piimis mensibus deprompsit.
Cardinalium ambitum, modestius ob varias dissensiones.
Alexandro Farnesio, Hippolyto a Ferr. omittenda, cum
electio pontificis tarn homini quam Deo accepta ferenda-sit.
Qui laesi — qui alioqui laesi.
Florentiae, Allobroga — prius Allobroga.
Labe f actorum — labe f act um .
Ante omnia, ne videatar id ie profecto egisse ut quaecunque
decreta Pauli IV subverteret, texenda est oratio ut appareat
ob multorum querimonias qui se Pauli sanctionibus iniuste
tractates lamentabantur, coactum esse novum ius rescribere.
Evidently these " hints " come from somebody intimately
acquainted with the daily life of Pius IV. Their nature is
such that there can remain no doubt as to the aim with which
they were drawn up. As soon as one looks at the second
edition of the Vita Pii IV. which Panvinio composed, and
which goes to the end of 1562, one must see that in it Panvinio
has made use, in the most literal way, of almost all the
" hints " with which he was provided.
Of this second edition Susta was only acquainted with the
precis in Cod. 122 of Arm. XI. of the Miscell. in the Papal
Secret Archives. He was of opinion that it is not possible
to decide foi certain whether this second edition was ever
published, as he had not been able to discover Latin editions
of Platina from 1562 to 1568, but that the second edition
was to be found in an Italian translation of Platina-Panvinio,
which was published in Venice in 1563 by Michele Tramezino.1
In this respect I am able to complete the researches of Susta.
I have before me : B. Platinae Historia de Vitis Pontincum
Romanorum a D. N. lesu Christo usque ad Paulum Papam
II. longe quam antea emendatior, cui Onuphrii Panvinii
Veronensis fratris Eremitae Augustiniani opera reliquorum
quoque pontificum vitae usque ad Pium I II I, pontificem
maximum adiunctae sunt. Venetiis, apud Michaelem Trame-
zinum. Anno 1562. There, p. 31^-319, may be found the
Latin text of the second edition. At the begininng of this
work there is a dedication by Panvinio to Pius IV. dated
l G. GAIDA, Platynae Hist rici Liber de vita Christ! ac omnium pontificum,
in the new editim by MURATOKI, Rerum Hal. Seriptcres fuse. 124, CittA ci
Castello, 1913, p. xcvii, wo cine grute Ubersicht aller Ausgaben und Ubc-r-
setzungen des Platina-Panvinio, where there is agcr.d account of all the
editions and translations of Platiua— Panvinio.
42O
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
Romae kal. octobr. [October ist] 1561 l, in which there is
given as the reason fcr the edition the close approach of the
Council. There is no lack of praise for the reigning Pope :
" Cui enim aptius dicari de maximis pontificibus liber scriptus
potuit, quam pontifici maximo ? et ei pontifici, qui divinitus
nobis in hac temporum hominumque pravitate datus est.
Qui pietate, religione, iustitia, prudentia et humanitate,
ecclesiae ipsi iam in senium vergenti et fere collapse pias
manus porrigere et earn iacentem attollere rursum atque
paene confectam restituere sua virtute et Dei beneficio et
potest et vult." The whole of the new life is written in this
sense. In the place of the dry and meagre first sketch we
have now a highly coloured and detailed account, full of such
plentiful eulogies of the Pope that one might almost call
it a panegyric. At the very beginning the Florentine origin
of the family is brought out, and at this point there is inserted,
in accordance with the " hint " which had been communicated
to him as above, the little story of the wonderful light which
had surrounded the cradle of Pius IV. In other places too
the " hints " are used almost word for word, while at the
same time many other changes are made, which obviously
may also be attributed to similar " hints " from the intimate
friends of the Pope. The account of the successive steps
in the rise of Pius IV. is much more exact than in the first
edition. In support of his own credibility Panvinio says
twice over that he is writing as an eye-witness (p. 3i6b and
317). Here too the contrast between Medici and Paul IV.,
passed over in the first editicn, is suitably emphasized, to
gether with the former's absence from Rome. In the second
edition the good qualities of Pius IV., and especially his
liberality, are much more fully exemplified ; when speaking
of the Pope's nephews, Charles Borromeo is especially ex
tolled and praised, having been altogether forgotten in the
first edition. The merits of Pius IV. in connection with the
success of the Council are brought out in high relief, and
painted in bright colouis, not without a hint at the contrast
to the conduct of the preceding Popes. When he speaks of
the decision of the question about the continuatio or nova
1 The date is surprising, because the account goes to the end of 1562 ;
the right to^riiit from Cosimo de' Medici is dated: Ap. 1, 1562, and that from
Venice Aug. 21, 1561. Can Panvinio have chosen this earlier date in order
to make people forget the first edition ?
APPENDIX. 421
indictio of the Council, the expedient adopted by the Pope is
praised in the highest terms. But on the other hand the
hard treatment shown in the suit against the Carafa, is made
to appear in as favourable a light as possible for Pius IV.,
altogether in accordance with the wishes of the court. How
very accommodating Panvinio showed himself to be in this
matter comes out clearly by comparing the two editions (see
infra p. 424 seqq). Certainly Susta is not making too severe
a judgment when he says (p. 163) that the second edition
has all the excellencies as well as all the defects of an official
historian.
Panvinio has built up his new edition of the Vita Pii IV.
merely on the basis of a. biography of that pontiff, which he
inserted in his larger work De varia Romani pontificis creatione
libri X. This work, which was added to in many respects,
remained unpublished : Merkle was the first to publish it
(II. 586-600) from the Munich codex. The codex in the
Papal Secret Archives (Miscell. Arm. XI., 122) which was
used by Susta, escaped the notice of Merkle. It would be
desirable, if circumstances should permit me to return to
work in Rome, to compare this codex with that at Munich,
and also with Cod. Vat. lat. 6775.
If in his second edition Panvinio yielded very much to
external influences, he did so no less in the third, which he
printed and published under Pius V. By that time in
official circles in Rome an altogether different view of Pius
IV., in some ways rather unfavourable, had become current.
It is with pain and surprise that one sees how Panvinio now
made no scruple about reckoning to a great extent with this
new tendency. The dedication of Panvinio to Pius V. bears
the date November i, 1567, and therefore came immediately
after the rehabilitation of the Carafa. If before he had
magnified the crime, Panvinio now adds apologetic observa
tions. With regard to the influence to which he was yielding
in so doing, Susta refers to a letter, which he has discovered,
from Panvinio to Cardinal Antonio Carafa, who had much at
heart the rehabilitation of his uncle who had been put to
death. Susta (p. 163 seqq.) severely criticises the conduct
of Panvinio, and calls attention to the spiteful additions,
by means of which the biography of Pius IV., while retaining
its original form, was now given an altogether different char-
422
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
acter. In so doing Panvinio worked with a skill that was
worthy of a better cause. For example, the genealogical
tree of Pius IV., which had been shown to take its roots in the
soil of Florence, is not suppressed, but is depreciated by the
remark that other families as well boasted of a similar origin
and parentage. When he speaks of the father of the Pope,
he makes the depreciatory remark that he rose to fame by
farming the taxes. The story of the wonderful light that
shone round the cradle of Pius IV. is omitted. Moreover,
certain rather severe remarks about Paul IV., who had been
very much esteemed by Pius V., are excised. In the same
way the account of the relations between Cardinal Medici
and Paul IV. are remodelled. Nor is the most important
change effected by Panvinio his substantial transformation
of his treatment of the trial and fall of the Carafa in the third
edition, which is no longer, as it was in the second, favourable
to Pius IV., but has now in conformity to the current popular
view, become much more unfavourable to him ; much more
radical, however, are the changes which he makes in his
description of the character of Pius IV., whose goodness of
heart Panvinio had brought out very strongly in the second
edition. None of this it is true, is retracted, but by means
of spiteful additions, Pius IV. is made to appear in quite a
different light. For example, before his election he was
looked upon as a good-natured man, but afterwards he proved
himself to be very different, and from being a man of honest
and open character, he suddenly became deceitful and spiteful.
Hitherto in this mixture of praise and blame, people saw an
argument for the impartiality of Panvinio, and a judicious
distribution of light and shade, but since Susta discovered
the genesis of these various biographical efforts of Panvinio
such a view has become quite untenable. An author who,
in the course of six years, on account of his susceptibility
to external influences, changes so completely, and three
separate times, his characterization of the same person cannot
be considered as a reliable witness as to Pius IV. If for
so long a time the last description of Pius IV. given by
Panvinio passed for an impartial estimate, its origin shows
it to have been an unbalanced combination of an officially
inspired panegyric with a depreciation of the person in ques
tion, which only came into being when public opinion in
Rome had changed.
APPENDIX. 423
No substantial change in this view is called for by a letter
from Panvinio to Cardinal Charles Borromeo, dated August
16, 1567, and preserved in Cod. F. 39 Inf. of the Ambrosian
Library, Milan. Tacchi Venturi (I., xi) has given a short
summary of this. The whole content is as follows : I am
about to write some biographies of the Popes from Sixtus
IV. to Pius IV. " per aggiongerle al Platina " which has
recently been printed. I have been asked in many quarters
to republish Platina, and so I must add the life of Pius IV.,
and I do not like to issue the book before you have examined
it. " lo sono obligato alia memoria di Pio IV. et per6 son
proceduto nel bene che lui fece con molte et effetuose parole ;
nel male (perche anche lui fu huomo) con tutto quel rispetto
et brevita che ho saputo senza pregiudicar per6 alia verita
et questo Pho fatto accio che mi sia creduto il vero et non
entri in opinione di bugiardo et adulatore, dalli quali errori
me ne guardo quanto posso. V.S. piacendosi vedra questa
debol faticha et la racconciera, mutera, aggiongera, levara
quello che gli parra sia honesto et conveniente che tanto mi
sforzaro di lassar lei comandara." I beg for a speedy reply,
as I must send the book to Cologne, where it is being printed.
It is already completed down to Clement VII.
So far it is not known what Borromeo replied, but the
letter is highly significative of Panvinio's methods. It is
painful to meet with such devices in a scholar, l who otherwise
is so meritorious. Panvinio was a man of talent, but not of
character. The setting forth of contemporary history is
a dangerous reef for any historian, and Panvinio has run
upon it.2
'It is only recently that the learned investigations of O. HARTIO have
brought to light a merit of Panvinio's, hitherto unknown ; his attempt at an
iconography of the Popes, in which the liturgical vestments have been taken
into consideration with much greater exactitude than in all the later collections
of portraits of the Popes (see Histor. Jahrbuch, XXXVIII., 284-314, and
Die Griindung der Miinchevor Hofbibliothek durch Albrecht V. und Johann
Jakob Fugger, Munich, 1919, 218, 274, 410).
1 So fir so little is known of the character of Panvinio that, especially in
this connection, the monograph prepared by SCHRORS, based upon his deep
studies, seems very much wanted.
424
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
PANVINIO ON THE FALL OF THE CARAFA,
First Edition.
Carafarum eiusdem
Pauli propinquorum
res tarn in patrui Pon-
tificatu, quam aliis
temporibus patratas,
et praesertim bello
Neapolitano, quo uni-
versus terrarum orbis,
arque Urbs inprimis
vexata fuerat, cardin-
alium aliquot, et Urbis
gubeinatoris Hierony-
mi episcopi Sagonensis
sententiae subiecit.
Unde cum eorum
nomina inter reos re-
cepta essent, Carolus
et Alfonsus Carafae,
Scipio Rebiba cardin-
ales, loanes comes
Montorii, qui dux Pal-
liani dicebatur, Leon-
ardus Cardineus, et
Comes Allifanus, cum
aliquot aliis Carafae
domus clientibus, par-
tim in Hadriani mole,
partim in publicum
carcerem diverso tern-
pore coniecti, quaes-
tionibus diligenter
habitis singulorumque
causis examinatis ex
Pontificis auctoritate
damnati sunt. Ex his
Carolus cardinalis Car-
afa, nono carceris
mense carneficis manu
in mole Hadriani
strangulatus est. loan-
nes Montorii comes
cum Allifano et Car-
dineo securi in publico
carcere percussi, hor-
rendum et maxime
memorabile spectacu-
lum, insolensque in-
stabilis fortunae sur-
sum deorsum omnia
agitantis ludibrium,
in publico expositi
Second Edition.
Carafarum Pauli IV.
propinquorum crim-
ina, cum patruo ponti-
fice, bello potissimum
Neapolitano, quo uni-
versa paene Italia
atque Urbs inprimis et
propinquae provinciae
vexatae fuerunt, turn
aliis temporibus in
publicam incurrentia
offensionem patrata
cognoscere, et legitimis
poenis vindicare sta-
tuit. Itaque quam-
quam suapte natura
mitis et ab omni im-
manitate alienus, non
potuit tamen et sui
honoris et pontificii
muneris causa ab
huiusmodi capitali
supplicio temper are.
VII Iduum luniarum
igitur anni DLX Caro-
lum et Alfonsum car-
dinales ad consistorium
profectos, loannem
vero Caroli fratrem, et
Montorii comitem, Pa-
liani ducem turn voca-
tum, qui paulo ante ex
Gallesio Faliscorum in
Urbem venerat, ux-
orisque eius fratrem
comitem Allifanum
Leonardumque Car-
dinem fratrum propin-
quum nihil tale sus-
picantes in Hadriani
molem, et per eosdem
dies aliquot alios Cara
fae domus clientes in
publicum carcerem
coniici mandavit.
Third Edition.
Pontifex interim, vel
eorum memor quae in
sui contumeliam car*-
dinalis Carafa in con-
clavi dixerat, vel
ducis Paliani regiae
pro Ducatu Paliani
compensationi (ut
fama fuit) pro sororis
filio inhians, aut (quod
ipse aiebat) ut Roman-
orum pontificum pro-
pinquis salutare ex-
emplum relinqueret, ut
populos sibi creditos
clementer acciperent et
publica negocia pro
ecclesiae dignitate con-
ficerent, specie vindi-
candi ea crimina quae
Carafae patruo Ponti-
fice, et bello potissi
mum Neapolitano pa-
traverant, questionem
capitalem in eos in-
stituere est aggressus.
Ita ut ad VII Idus
lunii MDLX quo die
quinto ante anno Car
afa purpurei pilei hon-
ore donatus fuerat,
Carolum ipsum et
Alfonsum cardinales
ad consistorium pro
fectos, loannem vero
Caroli fratrem et Mon
torii comitem Paliani
ducem turn vocatum,
qui paulo ante ex
Gallesio Faliscorum
oppido in Urbem cum
ipsius Pontificis licen-
tia venerat, uxorisque
eius fratrem comitem
Allifanum, Leonard
umque Cardinem fra
trum propinquum nihil
tale suspicantes, in Ha
driani molem, et per
eosdem dies aliquot
alios Carafiae domus
APPENDIX.
425
attonito et quor-
sum isthaec tender-
ent admiranti popu-
lo Romano, praebu-
erunt, quun omnes
passim confluerent ad
eos spectandos, qui
modo miserabiliter ex-
tincti paulo ante ur-
bem Romamet Italiam
omnem solo nomine
perterruerant. Alfon-
sus vero centum milli-
bus au eo um persolu-
tis et Camerae Aposto-
licae praefectura de-
posita, reliqui vadibus
datis praeter unum
Cardinalem Rebibam
dimissi sunt.
Utque hoc iudicium
sine ulla suspicione
perageret, cardinalium
quaestioni, octo eius-
dem ordinis patres, co-
mitis vero Montorii et
aliorum Hieronymum
episcopum Sagonen-
sem Urbis guberna-
torem, et Alexandrum
Palanterium Fisci ad-
vocatum praefecit.
Quaestionibus dili-
genter per novem
menses habitis, singu-
lorumque criminibus
accurate examinatis,
postremo quum tota
causa ad pontificum
pleno in consistorio
relata esset, Carolus
cardinalis maiestatis,
ab ipso pontifice,
Comites Montorii et
Allifanus, et Leonar-
dus Cardines ab Urbis
clientes in publicum.
carcerem coniici man-
davit.
Omnium quaestion-
ibus relatores praefecit
Urbis gubernatorem
Hieronymum Frideri-
cum, episcopum Sa-
gonensem ministrum
impigrum, audacem et
acris virum ingenii,
Alexandrum Palan
terium procuratorem
Fisci. Ut autem hoc
iudicium rite peragere
videretur, cardinalium
quaestioni octo eius-
dem ordinis patres
integritate et iustitia
insignes Fridericum
Caesium episcopum,
Bartholomaeum Cue-
varn, loannem Micha-
elem Saracenum, loan
nem Baptistam Cica-
dam, Michaelem Alex-
andrinum, loannem
Bertrandum presby-
teros, lulium Ruver-
eum, et Luisium Corn-
elium diaconos cardin-
ales adesse iussit, om
nium inspector es Gu-
bernatori et Fiscali
assistentes. Quibus
coram interrogati rei,
cardinalis C a r a f a e
scriptae literae pro-
ductae, et quaesti-
onum principia agi-
tata. Novissima vero
causae cognitio iis non
admissis, quum per
novem menses insti-
tuta, singulorumque
o b j e c t a examinata
fuissent, Pontifex seor-
sum quaestiones videre
voluit. Postremo, ut
totius iudicii series ab
omnibus patribus cog-
nosci posset, tota causa
ad Pontificem pleno in
consistorio ab eodem
qui quaesierat Guber-
natore diei spatio it-
426
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
gubernatore homicidii
et aliorum quorundam
crimanum damnati
sunt iudicique rerum
capitalium mandatum,
ut iuxta legitimas
sanctiones lege in eos
ageret.
Sic cardinalis stran-
gulatus, comites et
Cardines capitali sup-
plicio affecti, maxime
memorabile spectacu-
lum, insolensque in-
stabilis fortunae sur-
sum deorsum omnia
agitantis ludibrium po-
pulo Romano prae-
buerunt, iis vero qui
secundiori aura altius
provecti extra omnem
sortem sese collocates
existimant documen-
tum memorabile, ne
summa potestate in
s u m m a m licentiam
conversa, illicita
quaeque committere,
perpetrareque sese
posse impune confi
dant.
erata est, non auditae
tamen patrum super
ea re sententiae fuere.
Tune Carolus cardin
alis maiestatis ab ipso
Pontifice damnatus, et
omnibus honorum
gradibus exutus, curiae
(ut vocant) saeculari
castigandus traditus
est : qui cum Comiti-
bus Montorii, et Alli-
f a n o , Leonardoque
Cardino ab Urbis
Gubernatore maies
tatis, et homicidii
damnatis, morti est
addictus iudicique re-
rum capitalium man-
datum, ut iuxta civiles
sanctiones, lege in eos
ageret. Sic sententiis
in Cardinalem a Ponti
fice, in Ducem vero a
Gubernatore Urbis
subscriptis, Carolus in
Hadriani mole carni-
ficis manu nocte quae
Nonas Martias prae-
cessit, strangulatus,
comites et Cardines in
Turris Novae (sic !)
carcere capitali sup-
plicio affecti, maxime
memorabile specta-
culum, insolensque in-
stabilis fortunae ludi
brium, in publico ad
pontem Aelium ex-
positi, et paulo post ad
damnatorum sepulchra
relati, populo Romano
attonito, et quorsum
isthaec tenderent ad-
miranti, praebuerunt ;
iis vero qui secundiori
aura altius provecti,
extra omnem sortem
sese collocates exist
imant, documentum
memorabile, q u u m
omnes passim conflu-
rent ad eos spectan-
dos, qui miserabiliter
ab eo pontifice quern
APPENDIX.
427
Inter multas praeci-
pau damnati cardinalis
causa fuit, quod senem
pontificem Paulum
quamquam in bellum
pronum, tamen non
solum bellicarum re-
ipsi potissimum ad
tantae potestatis cul-
men evexerant, extinc-
ti, nutu renutuque suo
cuncta moderabantur.
Ducis praesertim ca-
sum animo reputantes,
quern paulo ante in-
signi militum et equit-
um manu stipatum,
ac per Urbem more
paene regio inceden-
tem conspexerant.tunc
vero eius corpus capite
truncum miserabili as-
pectu publice colloca-
tum viderent. Illud
memoratu d i g n u m ,
utrosque fratres non
solum religiose et pie,
quemadmodum opti-
mos christianos decet
cum poenitentiae sa-
cramento excessisse,
sed fortissimo animo
tantam calamitatem,
perinde ac a Deo
iussam excepisse Ducis
admirabilis constantia
fuit, qui paulo ante
obitum et socios metu
c a e d i s consternates
egregia oratione ad
mortis contemptum
adhortatus est, et lit-
teras pulcherimas nlio
iuveni scripsit optimis
monitis refertas, qui-
bus ei christiano more
bene precabatur. Car
dinalis cadaver in pro-
pinqua divae Mariae
Transpontinae aede
publico sepulchre da
tum, mox ab eius
familiar ib us ad
Minervae trans-
latum, et in familiae
eius sacello conditum
est. Inter multas
multas praecipue dam
nati cardinalis causae
in quaestionum codi-
cillis relatae sunt, quod
senem pontificem
Paulum, quamquam in
428
HISTORY OF THE POPES.
rum sed omnis civilis
gubernatoris imperi-
tum falsis nuntiis et
consiliis decepisset,
multosque et maximae
dignationis viros eius
belli occasione vexare,
persequi et etiam oc-
cidi iussisset, varias
litteras et notas arbi-
trarias ementitus, et
ut paucis omnia com-
plectar, quod eius
unius praecipue opera
totum id bellum quod
Paulus gessit suscep-
tum, diutiusque maxi-
mo non privatorum
solum, sed totius fere
christiani orbis damno
et apostolicae sedis
dedecore productum
fuisset.
Comitis vero et ali-
orum* praeter supra-
dictas causas (cum
cardinali enim con-
spirasse videbantur)
innocentis uxoris gra-
vidae et suspecti adul-
teri ob suspicionem
solam indigna caedes.
Audivi ego a pontifice
se aegerrimo animo
id omnino fecisse et
nihil sibi tota vita
lugiibrius quam huius-
modi iudicium accidiss
modi iudicium acci-
disse libentissimeque
ad mitiorem poenam
facile se fuisse inclina-
turam, si id vel salvis
aequioribus 1 e g i b u s
facere, vel aliquam
de illorum mutatione
m o r i b u s fiduciam
fiduciam habere potu-
isset. Necessarium
enim his qui postea
Romanorum p o n t i -
ficum propinqui futuri
erant, esse affirmabat,
qua ratione se in sum-
ma potestate locati
gesturi sint, exemp-
bellum pronum, tamen
bellicarum rerum im-
peritum, falsis nuntiis
et consiliis decepisset,
multos et maxime dig
nationis viros eius belli
occasione vexare iussi-
set : quodque varias
litteras et notas arbi-
trarias ementitus eius
unius praecipue opera
quinquenalibus inter
reges Hispaniae et
Galliae ictis induciis
fractis, totum id bel
lum quod Paulus gessit
susceptum diutiusque
non sine magno Sedis
Apostolicae detrim-
ento productum fuis
set.
Comiti propter, cri-
men laesae maiestatis,
et sociis, uxoris grav-
idae et adulteri indicta
causa caedes obiectae.
Fuerunt plerique eo
tempore iureconsulti,
qui constantissime as-
severarunt, iudicium
id iniquum fuisse,
quum Cardinalis sine
testibus ex suis tan-
turn litteris eorum re-
dargutus damnatus-
que fuisset, quae Pauli
IV iussu ab se facta
esse contendebat, iis
quae sibi obiecta fuer-
ant more Romano
quaestioni et tormento
subiecto non expressis,
dilationibus quas pete-
bat non concessis, pat-
ronis vero eius raro
auditis. Pontifex vero
videri voluit eos non
eo consilio vinxisse ut
morti traderet, at in
quaestionibus haben-
dis exacerbatus mag-
nitudinem demun rei
intellexisse, quum ei
persuasum esset, Car-
dinalem animi excelsi
et intrepidi si dimit-
APPENDIX.
429
lum praebere : et ante-
actam illorum vitam
sanguinariam et malo
assuetam spem om-
nem in meliorem vitam
praecidisse et omne
mitigandae p o e n a e
temperamentum ab-
stulisse, denique nul-
lum apud Pium ponti-
ficem mansuetudini
aut clementiae locum
reliquisse, quod ex eo
certius licuit coniicere
quum longe mitius ac-
tum sit cum Alfonso,
qui mansuetae con-
tinentis naturae baud
dubium specimen de-
bat ; ipse namque pe-
cunia tantum et Cam-
erae Apostolicae prae-
fectura multatus, cum
reliquis omnibus libere
dimissus est.
teretur in s u o r u m
quempiam aliquando
impetum facturum.
Quo timore eum semel
gravissime laesum tolli
iussit, in reliquos cle-
mentius, quos minus
peccasse profitebatur
haud dubie acturas, ni
fortuna iis adversa
pontincis i n f 1 a m -
matum animum mi-
pulisset, ut eos potius
perdendos, quam Car-
dinalem conservandum
eixstimasset.
Aliquanto mitius
cum Alfonso cardinal! ,
qui mansuetae conti-
nentisque naturae
haud dubium specimen
dabat, actum : ipse
namque, qui die obitus
Pontincis quaedam e
cubiculo eius subri-
puisse accusatus
fuerat, centum milibus
aureorum Vitellii car-
dinalis studio compar-
atis, persolutis, Cam-
erae Apostolicae prae-
fectura multatus, cum
reliquis omnibus libere,
ea conditione tamen
dimissus est, ne Urbe
egrederetur.
INDEX OF NAMES IN VOL. XV.
AELST, Nic. v. (engraver), 84
n. i.
Agostino, Antonio (Bishop of
Alife, later of Lerida), 304,
336, 358.
Alba, the Duke of, 25 n. i, 26
n. 6, 204.
Albert Alcibiades (Margrave of
Brandenburg), 150 seq.,
153, 186.
Albert V. (Duke of Bavaria),
102, 164 n. 3, 189, 237,
239, 277, 289, 313 n.
Alife, Ferrante, Count of
(brother-in-law of Giov.
Carafa, Duke of Paliano),
137 seq., 144, 153, 159, 166
seq., 171 seq.
Alife, Violante d' (wife of Giov.
Carafa, Duke of Paliano),
136-138, 147, 153 seq., 159
seq., 175.
Altemps, see Hohenems.
Amulio, see Mula.
Antoni'ano, Silvio (latinist,
papal secretary), 78 n. 2.
Araceli, Cardinal of, see Dolera.
Aragona, Giovanna d', 105 n.
3, 143-
Arco, Count (High Chamberlain
to Ferdinand I.), 183, 248,
320.
Arco, Prospero (Imperial envoy
in Rome), 117 n. 2, 192
seq., 200, 256, 289 n. i,
353-
Arco, Scipione (" obedienza "
envoy of Ferdinand I.),
125, 180, 189.
Arezzo, Francisco d' (confessor
of Card. Carlo Carafa), 170
n.
Armagnac, Cardinal, 6, 7 n. i,
9, 13, 21, 24 n. 2.
Arona, Count of, see Borromeo,-
Giberto.
Arrivabene, Giov. Francesco
(familiar of Card. Ercole
Gonzaga), 278, 292.
Aubespine, Sebast. de 1' (Bishop
of Limoges, French envoy
to Spain), 204.
Augustus (Elector of Saxony),
226.
Avalos, Inigo, de Aragon, Car
dinal, 163.
Avila, Luis de (Spanish envoy
in Rome), 328 seqq.
Ayala, Juan de (Spanish envoy
in Rome), 249, 252.
BAGNO, Giov. Francesco, Count,
Baius,' Michael (theologian),
233-
Bascape (General of the Barna-
bites, Bishop of Novara),
96 n. 3, 109 n. i, 112
n. 4.
Bellay, Eustache du (Bishop
of Paris), 332, 337.
Bellay, Jean du, Cardinal, 5,
6n. 4, 7, 9, 13, 20 seqq., 31,
45 seqq., 50 seqq., 173-
Berghen, Robert van (Bishop
of Liege), 233.
Bertrand, Cardinal, 7 n. 3, 14,
147, 173 n. 2.
Blarer, Gerwig (Abbot of Wein-
garten), 239.
Bochetel (Bishop of Rennes,
French envoy in Vienna),
217,
431
432
INDEX OF NAMES.
Boncompagni, Ugo (Legate for
Spain, Cardinal, afterwards
Pope Gregory XIII.), 305.
Bondonus, Ludovicus, de Bran-
chis Firmanus (master of
ceremonies at the conclave
of Pius IV.), i n. i, 17 n. 3,
31, 44 n. 4, 62 n. i, 158 n. 2.
Bonhomini, G. Fr. (auditor of
Card. C. Borromeo), in
n. i.
Borghese, Marcantonio (advo
cate for Card. C. Carafa),
148 n., 155.
Borromeo, Family of the, 80 n.
2, 98, 102, 104.
Borromeo, Anna (sister to Card.
C. Borromeo, wife of
Fabrizio Colonna), 113 n. 2.
Borromeo, Camilla (sister to
Card. C. Borromeo, wife
of Cesare Gonzaga, Count
of Guastalla), 113 n. 2.
Borromeo, Charles, Cardinal
{nephew of Pius IV.), xli.,
95-99, ioi seq., 105-113,
115-122, 129, 142 seq., 185,
200, 205, 208, 210, 212,
229, 232, 236, 247, 251
seq., 256, 261 seq., 268,
270, 275 seq., 279, 281,
291 n. i, 292 seqq., 299,
304 seqq., 313 n. 2, 314,.
316, 325, 341, 351, 353,
361, 377 seq.
Borromeo, Federigo (nephew of
Pius IV., captain-general
of the church), 95 seq., 98
seqq., 108, 114 seq.
Borromeo, Federigo, Cardinal,
105 n. 3, 312 n. 5.
Borromeo, Francesco, Count
(uncle to Card. C. Borro
meo), 109.
Borromeo, Geronima (sister to
Card. C. Borromeo, wife of
Fabrizio Gesualdo, Prince
of Venosa), 113 n. 2.
Borromeo, Giberto, Count of
Arena (husband of Mar-
gherita de' Medici, sister of
Pius IV.), 94, 95, 107, 113
n. 2.
Borromeo, Guido, Count (uncle
to Card. C. Borromeo), 109.
Borromeo, Ortensia (daughter
of Giberto Borromeo, wife
of Count Hannibal von
Hohenems), 113 n. 2.
Bourbon, Antoine de, see Ven-
dome.
Bourbon, Charles de, Cardinal
(of Vendome), 7.
Bourdaisiere, Jean Babou de la
(French " obedienza " en
voy in Rome, brother to
the Cardinal), 183, 200.
Bourdaisiere, Philibert Babou
de la, Cardinal (Bishop of
Angouleme, French am
bassador in Rome), 163,
217, 280, 316.
Brancaccio, Cesare (familiar of
Card. C. Carafa), 144.
Branda, Cardinal, 68.
Braun, Conrad (theologian),
3J9-
Brendel, Daniel (Archbishop
and Elector of Mayence),
236.
Brus von Miiglitz, Anton (Arch
bishop of Prague, envoy of
Ferdinand I. at the Council
of Trent), 237, 266, 288,
344-
CALIGARI, G. A., 256 n. 2.
Campegio, Francesco (Bishop
of Feltre), 338.
Campegio, Giovanni (Bishop of
Bologna, nuncio), 253.
Canisius, Peter, St. (S.J.),
xlvii., 285 n. i, 319, 325.
Canobio, Giov. Franc, (papal
chamberlain, envoy), 241,
249 seqq., 254.
Capece, Marcello (steward to
the Duke Giov. Carafa),
I37> M7. J53. J56.
Capilupi, Camillo (familiar of
Card. C. Borromeo), 13 n.
3, 120 n. i.
Capizuchi, Cardinal, 6, 7 n. i,
14.
Capodiferro, Cardinal, 6 n. 4,
7, 14, 24 n. 2., 42, 50.
INDEX OF NAMES.
433
Capua, Pietro Ant. di (Arch
bishop of Otranto), 297.
Caraceiolo,. Ascanio (secretary
to Vargas), 35, 13411. i.
Caraceiolo, Niccol6 Maria
(Archbishop of Catania),
364-
Carafa, Family of the, 4 seq.,
14, 62, 130, 131 seqq., 175,
395-
Carafe, Alfonso (nephew of
Paul IV.), Cardinal, 3, 14
seq., 19, 24 n. 2, 50, 54,
56 seqq., 60, 131, 139, 144-
149, 153. 1 66, 173, 175.
Carafa, Antonio (Marquis of
Montebello), 5, 15 n. 2,
57 seqq., 144, 175.
Carafa, Carlo Cardinal (nephew
of Paul IV.), 4 seq., 6 n. 4,
8, 14 seq., 19 seqq., 27, 33
seqq., 42, 46 seqq., 50, 54
seq., 57 seqq., 61 seqq., 81,
131-172, 175, 390.
Carafa, Diomede, Cardinal, 14,
24 n. 2, 54, 168.
Carafa, Giovanni (Duke of
Paliano), 3 seq., 14 seq.,
131, 136 seqq., 141-145,
147 seqq., 153-162, 167
seqq., 175, 39O.
Carafa of Polignano (Marchesa,
sister to Giovanni Carafa),
169 n. i.
Cardine, Lionardo di (uncle to
Violante d' Alife), 137 seq.,
144, 153, 159, 1 66, 171 seq.
Carpi, Pio Ridolfo, Cardinal,
5, 9, II, 14, 16, 18 seqq.,
24 n. 2, 28, 38 seq., 41 seq.,
48, 50, 54, 60, 128, 132,
145, 156, 166, 207, 212.
Castagna, Giov. Batt. (Arch
bishop of Rossano, nuncio
to Spain, afterwards Pope
Urban VII.), 295, 335-
Catherine de' Medici, see Medici.
Cauco, Ant. (Archbishop of
Corfu), 267.
Cesarini, Family of the, 176.
Cesi, Cardinal, 14, 24 n. 2, 46
54 seqq.t 58, 117, 147,
207.
VOL. XV.
Charles II. (Duke of Lorraine),
236.
Charles III. (Duke of Savoy),
71 seqq.
Charles V., The Emperor, 25,
42, 69 seq., 72 seq., 76, 145,
165.
Charles IX. (King of France),
217, 254, 347, 349.
Chatillon, Odet de', Cardinal
(Bishop of Beauvais), 7.
Chiurelia, Antonio (Bishop of
Budua), 273.
Cicada, Cardinal, 6 n. 4, 14,
24 n. 2, 128, 147, 174, 211,
280 seq.
Cithard (confessor to Ferdinand
I.), 286 n. i.
Clement VII., Pope, 25, 70, 72,
244.
Cock, H. (engraver), 84 n. i.
Colonna, Family of the, 60, 159,
176.
Colonna, Fabrizio (husband of
Anna Borromeo), 113 n. 2.
Colonna, Marcantonio, 3, 35,
113 n. 2, 135, 140 seq., 176.
Colonna, Pompeo (commander
of Papal troops), 62.
Commendone, Giov. Francesco,
Cardinal (Bishop of Zante,
nuncio), 207 n. i., 218-238,
242 n. 2., 269 seq., 309
seq., 340, 360.
Concini, Bartolomeo (Floren
tine envoy in Rome), 12, 59.
Concini, Matteo (Florentine
envoy in Rome), 12, 53 n.,
4-
Consiglieri, Cardinal 7.
Consuberi, Tommaso (Bishop of
Civita di Penna), 144.
Contarini, Cardinal, 320.
Conti, Torquato (general), 129
n. 3.
Cordelia, Fabio (master of the
Conclave), 44.
Cordova, Francisco de (Spanish
Franciscan, confessor to the
wife of Maximilian II.),
206 n. i, 286 n. i, 319.
Corgna, Cardinal, 14, 24 n. 2,
51, 52 n.
28
434
INDEX OF NAMES.
Corgna, Ascanio della (nephew
of Julius III.), 2, 4, 6 n. 4.
Cornaro (Bishop of Treviso),
355-
Cornaro, Cardinal, 14, 17, 51,
147.
Cornaro, Marco (Archbishop of
Spalato), 290
Correggio, Girolamo da, Car
dinal, 163.
Cosimo I. (Duke of Florence),
12 seq.t 1 8, 26, 29, 36, 42,
57 seqq., 74, 77, 80 seq.,
91, 93 seq., 98, 100, 114,
J34, 149 n. 4, 156, 163,
172, 174, 2.H n. i, 393.
Couvillon, J. (S.J.), Bavarian
envoy to the Council of
Trent, 277 n. 4.
Crispi, Tiberio, Cardinal, 6 n. 4,
14, 21, 24 n. 2, 166.
Cristoforo of Padua (General
of the Augustinians), 285.
Crivelli, Alessandro, Cardinal
(Bishop of Cariati, nuncio),
294.
Cuesta (Bishop of Le6n), 358.
Cueva, Bartolomeo de la, Car
dinal, 6 n. 5, 14, 17, 24 n.
2, 31 n. i, 32, 43, 86, 128,
147, 151 seq.
DANDINO, Cardinal, 7, 12, 14,
24 n. 2, 41 n. i, 42, 50, 219.
Dandolo, Matteo (Venetian
envoy to the Council of
Trent), 271 n. 7.
Danes (Bishop of Lavaur), 304.
Delfino, Zaccaria, Cardinal
(Bishop of Lesina, nuncio),
112 n. 4, 194, 196 seqq.,
200, 205, 207 seqq., 218,
220-225, 238 seqq., 254,
257, 260, 262, 270, 283,
288, 313 n. 2, 314, 320,
323, 346 n. i, 352.
Dolera (Araceli), Cardinal, n,
14, 24 n. 2, 40, 128, 132.
Draskovich, G. (Bishop of
Fiinfkirchen, envoy of
Ferdinand I. to the Council
of Trent), 257, 265 seqq.,
289, 295, 299, 329. *
Dudith, Andr. Sbardelatus
(Bishop of Knin, Hun
garian procurator at the
Council of Trent), 271,
290, 295.
EICHORN, Joh. (Abbot of Einsie-
deln, Swiss procurator at
the Council of Trent), 271.
Elio, Antonio (Patriarch of
Jerusalem), 267.
Elizabeth (Queen of England),
182, 235 seq.
Ems, see Hohenems.
Eric II. (Duke of Brunswick),
228.
Eric XIV. (King of Sweden),
234 seqq.
Este, Ippolito d', Cardinal of
Ferrara (Legate to France),
6 n. 4, 7 seqq., 12 seq., 16,
19, 21, 23, 26, 36, 39 seqq.,
47, 49 n., 60 seqq., 129,
145, 166, 213.
Este, Luigi d', Cardinal, 163.
FACCHINETTI, Giov. Ant. (can
onist, nuncio to Venice),
305-
Farnese, Family of the, 177.
Farnese, Alessandro, Cardinal,
6 n. 4, 14 seq., 19, 23 seq.,
27, 34. 38, 40, 45, 48, 50
seq., 54 seqq., 60, 76 seq.,
128, 145, 166, 212, 348, 354.
Farnese, Ottavio (Duke), 76.
Farnese, Pier Luigi, 74, 77.
Farnese, Ranuccio, Cardinal,
7 n. i, 14, 22, 24 n. i, 32,
354-
Federici, Girolamo (Bishop of
Sagona, governor of Rome),
138, 147, 157 seq., 161, 166,
171, J76.
Ferdinand I., The Emperor, n
n. 6, 29, 73 seq., 83 n. i
100, 103, 124 seq., -Ljgseqq.,
185-198, 200 seqq., 207
seqq., 213 seqq., 216-224,
241 seq., 246-251, 257, 265
seq., 268-271, 276, 283,
286 seqq., 300, 308-326,
329, 339, 342-347, 352, 357-
INDEX OF NAMES.
435
Ferdinand, Archduke of Austri;
(governor of Bohemia), 222
Ferdinand of Bavaria (son oj
Duke Albert V.), 313 n.
Ferreri, Pier Francesco (Bishop
of Vercelli, nuncio to Ven
ice, Cardinal), 163.
Ferrier, Armand du (President
of the Paris Parliament,
French envoy to the Coun
cil of Trent), 282, 306, 348
stag.
Figini (painter), 105 n. 3.
Figueroa, Juan de (Spanish
envoy in Rome), 10 seq.,
28 n. 8.
Filonardo, Paolo (secretary to
Card. Alfonso Carafa), 144.
Firmanus, see Bondonus.
Fornero, Ambrogio (chamber
lain to Card. C. Borromeo),
120.
Foscarari, Egidio (O.P., Bishop
of Modena), 119 n. 2, 335.
F^osso, Gasparre del (Arch
bishop of Reggio), 265.
Francis I. (King of France), 67.
Francis II. (King of France),
9, 183, 188, 194 seq., 198
seq., 203, 209, 217.
Francis de Sales, St., 37*.
Frederick II. (King of Den
mark), 232 seqq.
GADDI, Cardinal, 6 n. 4, 14,
24 n. i, 49 n.
Gaetano di Tiene, xli.
Gallarate, Girolamo (Bishop of
Sutri - Nepi, nephew of
Card. Morone), 301 n. 2.
Galli, Tolomeo (secretary of the
Papal chancery, Cardinal),
no, 260 n. i. .
Gambara, Francesco, Cardinal
(Bishop of Brescia), 163.
Geraldi, Giovanni (Papal envoy
to Russia), 251.
Gesualdo, Alfonso, Cardinal, 163
Gesualdo, Fabrizio (Prince of
Venosa, husband of Gero-
nima Borromeo), 113 n. 2.
Gherio (Bishop of Ischia, Papal
envoy to Spain), 203 seq.,
326 n. 3.
Ghislieri, Michele (O.P.), Car
dinal, 14, 24 n. i, 32, 50,
150.
Gianfigliazzi, Bongianni (Flor
entine envoy in Rome), 12,
24 n. 2.
Gienger, Georg (imperial coun
cillor), 189, 286 n. i, 319
n. 3.
Giussano (biographer of Charles
Borromeo), 97 n.
Givry, de, Cardinal, 7.
Gomez, Ruy, 25 n. i.
Gonzaga, Cesare (Count of
Guastalla, husband of
Camilla Borromeo), 99, 113
n. 2.
Gonzaga, Curzio, 30, 47 n. 2,
48 n. i.
Gonzaga, Ercole, Cardinal (of
Mantua), 6 n. 4, 9, 12 n. 2,
14 seq., 20, 22 seqq., 26 seqq.,
33 seqq., 40, 47 seq., 50, 57,
64, 132, 135, 165, 243 seq.,
246 seq., 252, 262, 264 seq.,
274, 280 seq., 284, 291
seqq., 302, 306 seq., 310
seq., 315, 335-
Gonzaga, Federigo, Cardinal,
162 n. 3.
Gonzaga, Ferrante, 78 n. i, 99.
Gonzaga, Francesco, Cardinal
(nephew of Cardinal Er
cole), 163, 292.
Gonzaga, Giovan Maria, 146
n. 2.
Gonzaga, Vincenzo, 130.
Gonzaga, William (Duke of
Mantua), 21 n. i, 29, 37,
156, 264, 389.
randi, Giulio (ambassador of
the Duke of Ferrara), 96,
97 n. 3, 152 n. i.
randis, Julius de (Bishop of
Anglona), 51 n. 4.
Granvelle, Cardinal, 163.
rassi, Carlo (Bishop of Monte-
fiascone), 349.
raziani, Ant. Maria (secretary
to Commendone), 219 n. 4,
226 n.
Greece, Michele (painter), 6 n.
i.
436
INDEX OF NAMES.
Grimani, Giovanni (Patriarch
of Aquileia), 162 n. 3.
Guadagno, Franc, di (Mantuan
ambassador in Rome), 19
n., 24 n. 2, 389.
Gualterio, Sebastian (Bishop of
Viterbo, nuncio to France),
59 n. i, 184, 242, 256.
Guasto (Imperial viceroy of
Milan), 72.
Guerrero, Pedro (Archbishop of
Granada), 263, 265, 272,
282, 300, 329, 332 358,
36o> 365-
Guido, Antonio (conclavist),
9-
Guise, Charles de (Archbishop
of Rheims, Cardinal of
Lorraine), 7, 10 n. 2, 21
seqq., 47 seqq., 52 seq., 55,
60 seq., 236, 302 seqq., 305,
307, 309 seq., 312, 315 seqq.,
326, 336, 339, 345. 347.
35°' seq., 353. 355, 358, 360,
363 seqq.
Guise, Francis de (Duke), 7,
329.
Guise, Louis de, Cardinal, 7 n.
i, 13-
HALLER, Leonard (Bishop of
Eicnstatt), 296.
Helding, Michael (Bishop of
Merseburg), 239.
Henry II. (King of France), 9.
Henry, Infant of Portugal,
Cardinal, 7, 17.
Henry the younger (Duke of
Brunswick), 228.
Herborth, Valentin (Bishop of
Przemysl, Polish envoy to
the Council of Trent), 303
n. 2.
Hohenems (Altemps), Family
of, 80 n. 2, 94, 102 seqq.
Hohenems, Gabriel von (nephew
of Pius IV.), 95, 104.
Hohenems, Hannibal von
(nephew of Pius IV., cap
tain-general of the Church),
81 n. 2, 103 n. 3, 104 n. 2,
113 n. 2, 117 n. i, 120 n. i,
141, 403.
Hohenems, Helena von (daugh
ter of Wolf Dietrich), 95.
Hohenems [Ems], Jakob von
(cousin to Mark Sittich
I.). 95-
Hohenems, Jakob Hannibal
von, 95, 104.
Hohenems, Margaret von
(daughter of Wolf Die
trich), 95, 104.
Hohenems, Mark Sittich I.
von, 70, 95.
Hohenems, Mark Sittich II.,
Cardinal [Altemps], nep
hew to Pius IV., 95, 102
n. 4, 103, 117 n. i, 120 n.
i, 163, 257, 262, 265, 283.
Hohenems, Robert von (natural
son of Card. Mark Sittich),
104 n. i.
Hohenems, Wolf Dietrich von
(husband of Chiara, the
sister of Pius IV.), 94 seq.,
95-
Hosius, Stanislaus, Cardinal
(Bishop of Ermland, nuncio
in Vienna), 123 n. i, 162,
182, 185, 188, 191 seq., 205,
207 n. i, 220, 234, 241
seq., 244 seqq., 248, 250,
254, 264, 273, 285, 311,
316, 360.
Hoya, Joh. von (Bishop of
Osnabriick), 228, 231.
Hiilsen, F. van (engraver), 84
n. i.
IGNATIUS OF LOYOLA, St., xli.,
117.
Isachino, Geremia (Theatine),
152 n. i.
Ivan Wassiljewiez (The Terri
ble, Tsar of Russia), 251.
JOACHIM II. (Elector of Brand
enburg), 73, 226 seq.
John, Margrave of Branden
burg (brother to Joachim
II.). 227-
John Frederick, Duke of Wei
mar, 226.
Julius III., Pope, 77 seqq., 184,
213, 219, 245 seq., 260, 263.
INDEX OF NAMES.
437
Justiniani, Vincent (General of
the Dominicans), 285.
KERSSENBROCK, Rembert von
(Bishop of Paderborn), 228.
Kolosvary (Bishop of Csanad).
271.
Konarski, Adam (Prior of
Posen, envoy of Polish
King), 181.
LAFRERI, Ant. (engraver), 84n.i.
Lainez, General of the Jesuits,
119 n. i, 213, 296, 301,
305, 3IO> 332 seqq., 348.
Lansac (French envoy to the
Council of Trent), 275, 282,
306, 308.
Lenoncourt, Cardinal, 6 n. 4,
14, 17, 24 n. 2.
Lenzi, Lorenzo (Bishop of
Fermo, nuncio to France),
242.
Leoni, L. (artist), 84 n. i.
Leva, de (Imperial commander),
69-
Leyen, Joh. von der (Arch
bishop of Treves), 229 sea.
Lodi, Ercole (friend of Card. C.
Borromeo), 109.
Loemans, A. (engraver), 84 n. i.
Lorraine, Cardinal of, see Guise,
Charles.
Lottino (Roman agent of Duke
Cosimo I.), 12.
Luna, Count of (Spanish envoy
to the Council of Trent),
309, 317. 33i, 336, 338,
342s*0., 353, 356 n. i, 357,
361.
Lussy, Melchior (Orator of the
Swiss Catholic Cantons at
the Council of Trent), 271.
MADRUZZO, Cristoforo, Cardinal
(Bishop of Trent), 6 n. 4,
14, 22 seqq., 28, 30, 33
seq., 38, 40, 47, 55, 61, 103
seq., 125, 128, 135, 183,
208, 252, 264, 266 seq., 273,
277, 284, 290, 295, 297, 303,
307. 3°9, 336, 35i> 355.
358, 36i.
Madruzzo, Lodovico, Cardinal,
163.
Manelli, Antonio (treasurer of
the Council of Trent), 247
n. i.
Manne, Abbot of (French envoy
in Rome), 188, 192, 195,
199-
Mansfeld, Joh. Gebhard von
(Archbishop of Cologne),
229.
Marcellus II., Pope, 12 n. 4,
78 seq.
Margaret of Parma (Governess
of the Netherlands), 41 n. i.
Marini, Lionardo (Archbishop
of Lanciano), 291, 293,
.295, 331, 335-
Marinis, Angelo de (sculptor),
84 n. i.
Mark Sittich von Hohenems,
see Hohenems.
Martinengo, Girolamo (Abbot,
nuncio for England), 235.
Martyribus, Bartholomew de
(Archbishop of Braga), 1 18,
252, 354-
Mary Stuart (Queen of Scot
land), 236.
Mascareynas, Fernando Mar
tinez de (Portuguese envoy
to the Council of Trent),
266.
Massarelli, Angelo (secretary to
the Council), 180, 247, 262.
Massaria (Italian Protestant),
239-
Massimi, Family of the, 176.
Massimo, Domenico, 153.
Maximilian II. (King of the
Romans), 124, 198, 300, 319
seq., 325, 339, 351 seq., 357.
Medici, Milanese family of the,
66 seqq., 72, 94> I77-
Medici, Agostino de' (brother
of Pius IV.), 80 n. 2, 94.
Medici, Bernardino de' (father
of Pius IV.), 66 seq.
Medici, Catherine de' (Queen
of France), 12, 18, 39, 217,
256, 282, 329.
438
INDEX OF NAMES.
Medici, Chiara de' (sister of
Pius IV.), 70, 80 n. 2, 94
seq.
Medici, Cosimo de', see Cosimo
I.
Medici, Ferdinando de', Car
dinal (son of Cosimo I.),
3*2 n. 5.
Medici, Gian Angelo de', Car
dinal (Pope Pius IV.), 6 n.
5,. ii seq., 14, 16, 18 seq.,
23, 26, 28 seq., 32 seq., 53-
62, 66 seqq.
Medici, Gian Battista de'
(brother of Pius IV.), 72.
Medici, Gian Giacomo (di
Musso), 67-74, 77,^79, 81
seq., 94.
Medici, Giovanni de', Cardinal
(son of Cosimo I.), 98, 212.
Medici, Margherita de' (sister
of Pius IV., wife of Giberto
Borromeo, Count of Arona),
.94-
Melis, Gasparino de (head of the
Roman police), 169, 171.
Mercuric, Cardinal (of Messina),
6 n. 4, 14, 24 n. 2, 51 seqq.
Mendoca, Pedro Gonzalez de
(Bishop of Salamanca), 263
n. 2, 282, 284, 304 n. 2.
Mendoza, Francisco de, Car
dinal, 7, 63 seq.
Metzler von Andelberg, Christo
pher (Bishop of Constance),
239.
Meudon, Cardinal, 7.
Michelangelo, in n. 2.
Minas (Negus of Abyssinia),
255 n.
Mocenigo, Luigi (Venetian am
bassador in Rome), 26 n.
6, 31, 92.
Monte, Cristoforo del, Cardinal,
6 n. 4, 14, 24 n. 2.
Monte, Innocenzo del, Cardinal,
6 n. 4, 14, 24 n. 2, 142,
156 n. 3, 174.
Montmorency, the Constable,
329-
Moragna (painter), 159.
Moretto (court jester to Pius
IV.), 88 n. 3.
Morone, Giov. Girolamo, Car
dinal, 3, 7 seq., 11, 14, 20,
30, 61, 75, 77, 98, 122, 125,
128, 155, 183, 197, 202, 243,
252 n. 2, 315-327, 328 seq.,
331. 334. 336 seq., 341, 345
., 353 seq., 358 seqq.,
361, 364 seq.
Morone, Girolamo (chancellor
of Milan, father to the
Cardinal), 67 seq., 69.
Morvillier, Jean (Bishop of
Orleans), 303.
Moya de Contreras, Ascisclo
(Bishop of Vich), 255.
Mula [Amulio], Marcantonio da
Cardinal (Venetian am
bassador in Rome), 86, 91
seq., 93, 123 n. i, 142, 145,
151, 160, 162, 184 seq.,
243 n. 5, 328, 390, 401,
404.
Musotti (secretary to the Car
dinal of Lorraine), 335.
NAVAGERO, Bernardo, Cardinal
(Venetian ambassador,
Bishop of Verona), 13 n. 2,
123 n. i, 162, 280, 315 seq.,
317 n. i, 348.
Neri, Philip, St., xli.
Niquet, Abbot of St. Gildas
(secretary to Card. Este),
217, 242, 276.
Noailles, Francois de (Bishop of
Dax, French envoy), 5.
Nobili, Vico de', 144, 159.
Noguera, Giacomo Giberto di
(Bishop of Alife), 304, 337.
OBERG, Burkard von (Bishop of
Hildesheim), 328.
Odescalchi, Paolo (auditor of
Card. C. Borromeo, Papal
envoy to Spain), no n.
Olario, Bernardino, 159.
Ormanetto, Niccol6, 331 n. 3.
Orsini, Lodovico (Count of
Pitigliano), 74.
Osio (Bishop of Rieti), 295.
PACHECO, Francisco, Cardinal,
24 n. 2, 163.
INDEX OF NAMES.
439
Pacheco, Pedro, Cardinal, 14
18, 21, 28 seq., 32, 38, 40,
45, 50 seqq., 131 seq., 180.
Paleotto, Gabriele, Cardinal,
Pallantieri, Alessandro (fiscal-
procurator), 138 seq., 147,
154, 157 seq., 161, 166, 171,
176.
Panvmio, Onofrio (historian),
i n. i, 54 seq., 61, 63, 176
.**?., 4J5-
Pasqua, Simone (physician),
151-
Paul II., Pope, 296.
Paul III., Pope, xJiii.,73 seq., 76,
213, 223, 245 seq., 260, 263,
274, 281.
Paul IV., Pope, xli., i seqq., 5-8,
14 seq., 20, 23, 43, 58 n. i,
62, 78 seqq., 81 seqq., 90,
123 s^g-., 126 seqq., 130, 131
se^., 145, 148, 153, 159,
161, 173, 175, 219.
Paumgartner, Augustine (Bav
arian envoy to the Council
of Trent), 277 n. 4, 289.
Pellegrini, Pellegrino (archi
tect), 122.
Pelleve, Nicholas de (Bishop of
Amiens, later of Sens,
Papal envoy to Scotland),
303> 349-
Pendaso, Federigo (proxy in
Rome for the legates of the
Council, companion to
Commendone), 277 seqq.
Perez, Lorenzo (Portuguese
envoy in Rome), 276.
Peruschi (S.J., rector of the
Roman Seminary), 167.
Pescara, Fernando Francisco de
Avalos (envoy from Philip
II. to Trent), 271, 276, 283,
317, 33i-
Pflug, Julius (Bishop of Naum-
burg), 225.
Philip II. (King of Spain), 10
seq., 12, 15, 17 seq., 26, 28
™qq., 34~4i» 44 seqq., 50
seq., 56 seq., 59, 63 seq.,
100, 104, 116, 132 seqq.,
141 seq., 149, 152, 163
seqq., 171, 175, 179 seqq.,
185 seqq., 192, 195, 201
seqq., 209, 218, 242, 249,
253 seqq., 276, 283, 294,
309, 314. 328-332, 338
seq., 341, 343, 3575^., 361.
Pia, Bernardino, 133.
Pibrac, Gui du Faur de (French
envoy to the Council of
Trent), 282, 348.
Piccolomini, Family of the, 176.
Pietro, Fra (Capuchin), 160.
Pisani, Francesco, Cardinal, 9,
14, 18, 46, 50.
Pius IV., Pope, see Medici, Gian
Angelo and Contents.
Pius V., Pope, xli., xlv., 120.
Pistoja, xlvii.
Pogiano, Guilio (humanist), 6.
Polanco (S.J.), 119.
Pante, Niccol6 da (Venetian
envoy to Council of Trent),
271 n. 7.
Pseaume, Nicolas (Bishop of
Verdun), 303, 332 n. 2.
Puteo, Giacomo, Cardinal, n,
14, 18, 24 n. 2, 28, 78, 128,
147, 151 n. 2, 207, 211,
243 seqq., 254, 257 n. 4.
RAESFELD, Bernard von (Bishop
of Miinster), 228.
Ragazzoni, Girolamo (Bishop of
Famagosta), 284, 362.
Raverta, Ottaviano (Bishop of
Terracina, nuncio to Spain),
134, 140, 164, 182, 187,
203, 252 seq.
Rebiba, Scipione, Cardinal, 14,
24 n. 2, 32, 60 n. i, 161,
174, 219.
Requesens, Luis de (Spanish
envoy in Rome), 106 n. 4,
118, 328, 361.
Rettinger (Bishop of Lavant),
296.
Reumano, Cardinal, 14, 23 seq.,
40, 46 seq., 51.
Ribera (S. J.), 117, 118.
Ricasoli, G. B.) Florentine am
bassador in Rome), 90 n. 4,
91 n. 3, 145, 150 n. I, 393-
Riccardo (Abbot of Vercelli),
296.
440
INDEX OF NAMES.
Ricci, Cardinal, 6 n. 5, 14, 24
n. 2, 174.
Richardot (Bishop of Arras), 355
Rossi, G. A. (Milanese artist),
84 n. i.
Rovere, Guilio della, Cardinal,
6 n. 4, 14, 24 n. 2, 99 n. 4,
101.
Rovere, Guidobaldo (Duke of
Urbino), 37, 69, 99 seq.
Rovere, Virginia della (wife of
Federigo Borromeo) , 99
seq.
Ruggieri, Fulgenzio, 225 n. 3.
Ruini, Carlo (preceptor to Gian
Angelo de' Medici, later
Pius IV.), 69.
SAINT-ANDRE, Marshal, 329.
Sala, Antonio and Aristide, 97
n., in n. 2.
Salviati, Bernardo, Cardinal,
163.
Sanfelice, Gian Tommaso
(Bishop of La Cava), 246,
293-
Sangro [Sanguine], Fabrizio di
(conclavist of Card. C.
Carafa), 59, 133 n. 3, 134
n. 4, 140.
Santa Croce, Prospero, Car
dinal (Bishop of Cisamus),
164 seq., 195, 198, 203
seq., 210, 251, 313 n. 2.
Santa Fiora, see Sforza.
Saraceni, Cardinal, 7, 14, 24
n. 2, 32, 50, 78, 128, 147,
174 n., 178 n. i, 207, 211.
Sauli, Alessandro St. (Bishop of
Aleria), 378.
Saurolo, Scipione, in n. 2.
Savelli, Cardinal, 14, 24 n. i,
51, 128, 166.
Sbardalato, Andreas (Bishop of
Knin), see Dudith.
Scalaleone, Felice (advocate of
Card. C. Carafa), 155.
Schlegel, Theodore (Abbot), 70.
Schoneich, Kaspar von (Im
perial comissary), 235.
Schutzbar, Wolfgang (Grand
Master of the Teutonic
Order), 238.
Scotti, Cardinal (of Trani), 12,
14, 24 n. 2.
Sebastian (King of Portugal),
251 seq., 357.
Seld, Sigmund (Vice-chancellor
of Ferdinand I.), 189, 286
n. i, 308, 319, 323.
Serbelloni, Family of the, 80 n.
2, 104.
Serbelloni, Cecilia (mother of
Pius IV.), 66 seq.
Serbelloni, Fabrizio (nephew of
Pius IV.), 10 1.
Serbelloni, Gabrio (nephew of
Pius IV., commander of
the Papal guard), 101 seq.,
142 n. 2, 144.
Serbelloni, Gian Antonio, Car
dinal, 98.
Serbelloni, Gian Battista
(Bishop of Cassano, castel
lan of Sant' Angelo), 96
n. 2, 101.
Serbelloni, Gian Pietro (uncle
to Pius IV.), 96.
Seripando, Girolamo, Cardinal
(general of the Augustinian
Hermits), 122 n. i, 162,
202, 208 n. 2, 243, 244
seqq., 252, 264, 273 seq.,
280 seq., 285, 306, 311,
316.
Sermoneta, Cardinal, 14, 16 n.
2, 22, 24 n. 2.
Serristori, 255 n. i, 362 n. 2.
Sesso, Oliviero (envoy of Card.
C. Carafa to Spain),
134-
Sfondrato, Niccol6 (Bishop of
Cremona, later Pope Gre
gory XIV.), 252 n. i.
Sforza, Francesco (Duke of
Milan), 68, 70 seqq.
Sforza, Guido Ascanio, Car
dinal (of Santa Fiora), 4,
14, 16, 21 seqq., 27 seqq.,
33 seqq., 48 seqq., 57, 60
seqq., 128, 130, 135, 140,
212.
Sforza, Maximilian (Duke of
Milan), 67.
Sigismund Augustus (King of
Poland), 251, 357
INDEX OF NAMES.
441
Sigismund of Brandenburg
(Archbishop of Magde-
burg), 227.
Simoncelli, Cardinal, 6 n. 4, 7
n. i, 14, 24 n. 2.
Simonetta, Lodovico, Cardinal,
162, 244 seqq., 254, 258-
261, 264, 269 n. i, 272,
279 seq., 285, 291 seq., 305,
311, 316, 348, 361.
Singmoser (Imperial councillor),
323.
Sittard, Matthias (theologian),
3i9.
Sixtus IV., Pope, 177.
Soranzo, Giacomo (Venetian
ambassador in Rome), 122
n. i.
Soranzo, Girolamo (Venetian
ambassador in Rome), 87,
89, 91, 101 n. 3, 109, 121,
123, 129.
Spina, Aurelio (chamberlain of
Card. C. Borromeo), 143.
Staphylus, Frederick [Stafilo],
286 n. i.
Stendardi, Matteo, 144.
Strozzi, Cardinal, 7 n. i, 10 n.
2, 14, 21, 24 n. 2.
Strozzi, Giovanni (Florentine
envoy to Trent), 271.
TADDEO PERUGINO, Fra, 13
n. 3-
Taro, Pirro (Conservator of
Rome), 5.
Tarreghetti, Giacomo (Mantuan
ambassador), 362 n. 2.
Tendilla, Count of (Spanish
ambassador in Rome), 140
seq., 145, 150 n. i, 164, 192.
Teodolo, Hieron. (Bishop of
Cadiz), 304.
Thiene, Count (Italian pro-
testant), 239.
Thun, Sigmund von (envoy of
Ferdinand I. to the Council
of Trent), 252 n. 2, 257,
266, 289.
Thurm, Francis von (envoy of
Ferdinand I. to Rome),
2 n., n, 24 n. 2, 30, 44,
53 n. i, 124, 180, 183.
Timoteo da Perugia (O.P.),
170 n.
Toledo, Antonio de (Spanish
envoy to France), 198 seq.,
202.
Tonina, Francesco (Mantuan
ambassador in Rome), 86,
100 n. 3, 115 n. 2, 156 seq.,
243 n. 4, 259 n. 3, 402 seq.,
406, 409, 411-414.
Toralto, Gian Antonio (kinsman
to the Duchess Violante
d'Alife), 137.
Torres, Luys de (notary), 147.
Tournon, Cardinal, 7 n. i, 9, 13,
20 seqq., 24 n. 2, 33, 46,
50, 61, 128, 199 seq.,
214.
Truchsess, Otto (Bishop of Augs
burg), Cardinal, 7 n. i, 14,
24 n. 2, 30, 32 seq., 55, 102,
146, 211 n. i, 340.
Turibio of Lima, St., 378.
URBINO, Cardinal, 147.
Urbino (secretary to Card. C.
Carafa), 144.
VACCA, Antonio, 184.
Valiero, Agostino (Bishop of
Verona), Cardinal, 96
n. 3.
Vanzi, Sebastian (Bishop of
Orvisto), 341.
Varano, Guilia (Duchess of
Urbino), 99.
Vargas, Francisco de (Spanish
envoy in Rome), n, 25
seqq., 33 seqq., 41, 44 seqq.,
51 seqq., 56 seq., 63 seq.,
133, 140 seq., 145, 149 seq.,
164 seq., 175, 181 seqq.,
187, 192 seq., 202, 204,
243. 275, 277 seq., 328,
33°-
Veit von Wiirzburg (Bishop of
Bamberg), 237.
Vendome, Cardinal, see Bour
bon, Charles de,
Vergerio (apostate), 239.
Verme, Taddea del (2nd wife of
Giberto Borromeo), 113 n.
2.
442
INDEX OF NAMES.
Violante d'Alife, see Alife.
Visconti, Carlo (Bishop of Ven-
timiglia), Cardinal, 292,
294, 297-
Vitelli, Cardinal, 14, 20, 23
seq., 49 n., 54 seq., 57 seqq.,
61, 144.
Volpi, Giovan Antonio (Bishop
of Como, nuncio), 125,
240.
WILLIAM, Duke of Cleves
Juliers, 231 seq.
William, Duke of Mantua, see
Gonzaga.
Wirsberg, Frederick of (Bishop
of Wurzburg), 237.
ZAMBECCARO (Bishop of Sul-
mona), 362.
Zanchi, Girolamo (Italian pro-
testant), 239.
,. t
955 .P35 1899 v.15 SMC
Ludwig, Freiherr von
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11