Skip to main content

Full text of "The history of the popes from the close of the Middle Ages : drawn from the secret archives of the Vatican and other original sources"

See other formats




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 DOM ERNEST GRAF, 
of Buckfatt Abbey, and Vols. XXXV.-XXXVI. by E. F. 

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. 

A.D. 1305-1458 

A.D. 1458-1483 

A.D. 1484-1513 

A.D. 1513-1521 

A.D. 1522-1534 

A.D. 1534-1549 

A.D. 1550-1559 

A.D. 1559-1565 

A.D. 1566-1572 

A.D. 1572-1585 

A.D. 1585-1591 

A.D. 1592-1604 

A.D. 1605-1621 

A.D. 1621-1644 

A.D. 1644-1700 

A.D. 1700-1740 

A.D. 1740-1774 

The original German text of the History of the Popes is published 
by Herder & Co., Freiburg (Baden). 











PIUS iv. (1559-1565) 





First published in England 1928 
Reprinted 1951 





Table of Contents . vii 

List of unpublished documents in Appendix . . xxi 
Confirmation of the Council of Trent. The Index. The 

Roman Catechism . 1-37 

Church Music. Palestrina . . 37~55 
Reforming activity of Pius IV., Charles Borromeo, 

and the Jesuits .... . 5 6 ~ IO 4 
Attitude of the Powers towards the Tridentine Decrees. 

The question of the chalice for the laity and 

ecclesiastical celibacy in Germany . . . 105-140 

State of Religion in Poland 141-152 

State of Religion in France 153-210 

State of Religion in England ..... 211-254 

State of Religion in Scotland and Ireland . . 255-304 

The Roman Inquisition in Italy .... 305-352 

Pius IV. and Philip II. The Turkish Peril . . 353-372 
Government of the Papal States. The Conspiracy of 

Accolti. End of the Pontificate . . . 373-403 
Pius IV. and Art. Works in Rome. The Villa Pia. 

St. Peter s. Death of Michelangelo . . . 404-457 

Appendix of unpublished documents . . . 459-502 

Index of Names ....... 503-518 

1 For Bibliography see Volume XV. 




A.D. - . PAGE 

1563 The Pope s joy at the happy ending of the Council . i 
His intention of confirming its decrees . 

Opposition in Rome to an unconditional confirma 
tion (December 3oth) 

The Pope declares his determination to confirm the 

decrees ..... 3 

Two commissions of Cardinals appointed for the 

purpose . . 4 

1564 An unconditional confirmation decided upon (Jan 

uary 26th) 

Pius IV. determines to have the decrees printed 
The first printed edition of the decrees (March) 
Continued opposition in the Curia 

The Bull of Confirmation published 9 

The exclusive right of interpretation reserved to the 

Holy See .... 9 

A commission of Cardinals appointed to deal with 

questions concerning the decrees . .10 

The Tridentine profession of faith drawn up and made 


Several tasks left unfinished by the Council . 
The Index of prohibited books 
Work begun upon the revision of the Index . 
Cardinals employed upon this work H 

The discussion of the Index during the Council 
The Commission of the Index at Trent 
Work of the Commission 
The Index of Paul IV. much too severe ; several 

authors " liberated " 

The Tridentine Index published (March 24th) 
The so-called Rules of the Index 22 

The Catechism discussed at Trent . 2 4 

The Catechism of the Council of Trent ... 25 
General demand for a Catechism . "a 

The work continued in Rome after the Council 
The reform of the Breviary and Missal undertaken . 30 
Abuses in the Breviary and other liturgical books . 31 
The Santa Croce Breviary ... -33 

Paul IV. and the Breviary . 
Work on the Breviary at Trent . -33 



A - D - PAGE 

A correct edition of the Bible and the Fathers of the 

Church projected . . . . . .35 

All these things brought to a conclusion at a later date 36 
The work of the Council to trace the broad funda 
mental lines of reform . . . . .37 



The question of church music at Trent ... 38 
Some wish to exclude it entirely from divine worship 38 
Two things insisted upon the exclusion of the pro 
fane and the necessity of intelligibility . . 38 
Abuses in church music . . . . -39 

The development of polyphonic music from the old 

chant . , . . . . . -39 
Mixture of the sacred and profane ... 40 

Want of intelligibility 4I 

Fantastic experiments in music .... 42 
The Netherland school of music in the XVth century 43 
Johann Okeghem and Josquin de Pres ... 44 
The Netherland musicians in Italy and Rome . 45 

Giovanni Pierluigi da Palestrina .... 46 
The art of Palestrina entirely devoted to the Church 47 
Palestrina in Rome (1551) . . . .49 

His friendship with Philip Neri .... 50 
The Mass of Pope Marcellus . . . .51 

Reform of the Papal choir 53 

Giovanni Animuccia ...... 54 



1565 The work of Pius IV. in relation to the Council . 57 
The Pope declares null all privileges contrary to the 

decrees of Trent . . . . . -57 

The reform of the Roman Curia . . . .58 

Cardinal Commendone s description of the Papal Court 58 
Popular character of the government . .59 

The great number of officials .... 59 

Constantly changing conditions .... 60 
Worldliness the principal evil 61 

Evil effects of secular influence .... 62 
Exaggerated veneration for pagan ideals . . 63 

The problem of reform ..... 65 

New regulations for the Rota and other tribunals . 65 
Reform of the Apostolic Camera and Penitentiaria . 66 
Reform of abuses connected with benefices . . 67 



Mitigation of many of the decrees of Paul IV. . . 68 

The Papal succession ...... 68 

The conclave bull of Pius IV. (1562) ... 69 

The duty of residence ; action taken by the Pope . 72 

Renewed efforts of Pius IV. to enforce this duty . 73 

Repeated regulations issued on the subject . . 75 

The share of Borromeo in all these reforms . . 76 
Borromeo sets the example in his own person and 

household . . . . . . 77 

Other reasons contribute to the progress of reform . 78 

Political weakness of the States of the Church . 78 
Impoverishment of the Cardinals increased sim 

plicity of living 
Reform of the Apostolic Palace 
Visitation of the Roman clergy 
Reforms in the city 
The establishment of seminaries 


The Council asks for a seminary in Rome . . 86 
Cardinals appointed to carry out this desire . . 86 
The Jesuits and the Roman College . . . 87 
Opposition to the Jesuits in Rome . . .87 

The Pope takes up the cause of the Jesuits . . 88 
The first seminaries established . . . .89 
Jesuit colleges opened in many dioceses . . 90 

Pius IV. and the Jesuits . . . .91 

Influence of Lainez and Francis Borgia ... 93 
Ignatius of Loyola and the Roman College . . 94 
Beginnings of the Roman University ... 95 
Rapid growth of the University . .96 

The new scholasticism .... -97 

The German College . . 98 

The work of visitation in Italy . . .100 

Reform of the religious orders ; St. Teresa and the 

Carmelites 101 

Reform of the Cistercians . . 101 

The Dominicans and Franciscan Conventuals . . 102 
Diocesan and provincial synods . . 103 

Borromeo and the provincial council of Milan . 103 

Borromeo s work as a bishop . 104 



1564 The secular princes and the decrees of the Council . 105 
Attitude of the Swiss Catholic Cantons . .106 

Ferdinand I. and the reform decrees . .107 

Want of zeal of the German bishops . . 108 

Delfino appointed to deliver the decrees in Germany . 108 
Peter Canisius in Germany . . , . . i9 



Demand in Germany for concessions . . .no 
Communion under both kinds . . . .in 

Ferdinand I. and Albert of Bavaria ask for the con 
cession of the chalice . . . . . 112 

Cardinals Truchsess and Hosius oppose this demand 113 
Attitude of the Pope and the Council . . .114 
Albert V. of Bavaria allows the concession . . 115 
Efforts of Ferdinand I. to obtain the concession . 116 
Attitude of the ecclesiastical Electors . . .117 
Delfino proves himself an unexpected ally of the 

Emperor . . . . . .118 

Letter of Ferdinand I. to Pius IV. . . .119 

Attitude of Pius IV. towards the concession . .121 
Strong opposition on the part of Spain . . 121 

The decisive consistory of March 8th, 1564 . .122 
The Cardinals, led by Farnese, oppose the concession 123 
The Pope s speech ; Morone to be sent to Germany . 124 
The Pope allows the chalice for the laity in Germany 

under certain conditions . . . . .127 

The briefs allowing the concession published (May 9th) 128 
The concession meets with considerable success at 

first ........ 129 

Death of Ferdinand I. (July 2sth) . . . 130 

Opposition to the concession in many parts of Germany 130 
The enthusiasm for the concession dies away ; " more 

harm than good " . . . . . . 131 

Albert of Bavaria s views completely changed . . 132 
Ecclesiastical celibacy . . . . . -133 

Maximilian II. renews his father s demands (Sep 
tember 1 9th) ....... 134 

1565 The attitude of Philip II. towards the concession . 135 
The nuncios in Vienna try to win over Maximilian . 136 
The Emperor continues to press his demands . 137 

The recall of Delfino 138 

Maximilian II. and the decrees of Trent . . 139 

Bavaria and the first seminaries in Germany . .140 



1560 Heresy in Poland ; principally among the smaller 

landed gentry . . . . . .141 

King Sigismund Augustus a good Catholic, but easy 

going 141 

Bongiovanni sent as nuncio to Poland . . .142 
His report to the Pope on the state of affairs . .143 
Bishop Uchanski favours concessions to the heretics . 144 

1563 Commendone sent to Poland . . . . 145 

He and Hosius bring pressure to bear on the king . 146 
They urge the acceptance of the decrees of Trent . 147 



Commendone summoned before the king and the 

council ... ..... 148 

1564 Sigismund Augustus accepts the decrees . . 148 

Danger of a national council in Poland . .149 

The question of the king s divorce . . .150 

The services of Commendone and Hosius to Poland . 151 
Three Jesuit colleges established . . . .152 



1559 The death of Henry II. . . . . . 153 

Spread of Calvinism in France . . . .153 

The political power in the hands of the Guise . 153 

Opposition to the Guise ; the princes of the blood 

royal 154 

1560 Conde and Coligny ; the conspiracy of Amboise . 155 
Anxiety of Pius IV. Cardinal Tournon made Grand 

Inquisitor for France .. . . . .156 

Many secret Calvinists among the clergy . . 157 

Proposals for a national council . . . 157 

Disastrous attitude of Cardinal Guise . . .158 
Regency of Catherine de Medici . . . 159 

Her only object is to maintain herself in power . 159 

Concessions to the Calvinists . . . .160 

Catherine draws nearer to the Calvinist party . . 161 
Gualterio succeeded as nuncio by Santa Croce . . 161 

Double-dealing of the King of Navarre . . .162 

1561 Cardinal Ippolito d Este appointed legate to France 163 
Danger of a national council . . . .164 
Este s journey to France . . . . .165 
The object of his mission . . . . .166 
The assembly of Poissy ... .167 
Beza received at the French court . . .169 
Beza s speech at the assembly of Poissy . .170 
He is refuted by Cardinal Guise . . . .170 
Arrival of Cardinal Este at the French court . 171 
The recognition of his faculties is withheld . . 171 
His strictly conciliatory policy . . . .172 
Threatening attitude of Philip II. ; Catherine orders 

the restitution of the churches seized by the 
Calvinists . ... . . . 173 

Renewed Calvinist outrages upon the Catholics . 174 

Indiscretion of Este ; his recall demanded in Rome . 175 
He is rebuked by the Pope ; he defends himself . 176 

1562 Further concessions made to the Calvinists . 177 
Outbreak of the first religious war . .178 

Violence of the Calvinists *79 

The beginnings of a Catholic reaction . .181 

The whole of France under arms . . . .182 


A - D - PAGE 

The war assumes an international character . .183 
The Huguenots surrender Le Havre to Elizabeth . 183 
The Pope promises financial help subject to certain 

conditions . . . . . . .184 

Proposed Catholic league . . . . ! 184 

The Pope modifies the conditions of his subsidy . 185 
Defeat of the Huguenots at Dreux . . .186 

1563 Francis de Guise assassinated at the siege of Orleans 186 
The Edict of Amboise (March igth) . . .187 
Cardinal Este starts on his return to Rome . .188 
Several French bishops suspected of heresy . .189 
The suspected bishops cited to appear before the 

Roman Inquisition . . . . . .190 

Cardinal Chatillon deprived of his dignities . . 191 
Eight other French bishops summoned on a charge 

of heresy ....... 192 

Pius IV. and the Queen of Navarre . . .193 
Sentence pronounced on the seven bishops . .194 
The French government and the Tridentine decrees 196 

1564 Catherine is determined not to accept the decrees . 197 
Quarrel concerning precedence between the French and 

Spanish ambassadors . . . . .198 
Pius IV. endeavours to avoid a definite decision . 199 
He at length decides in favour of France ; the Spanish 

ambassador leaves Rome .... 200 

In spite of this the French government continues to 

evade the acceptance of the decrees . . .201 

1565 The Bayonne conference . . . . . 202 
Catherine de Medici s deceitful policy . . . 203 
The position of the Jesuits in France . . . 204 
Parliament refuses to register the decree for their 

admission into France ..... 204 

The University of Paris also opposed to them . . 204 

They are supported by the French Cardinals . 205 
The Parliament recognizes the Jesuits under certain 

restrictions (1562) ...... 206 

The success of the Jesuit college in Paris ; the 

lectures of Madonatus (1564) .... 206 

Hostility of the university ..... 207 

Storm of hostility against the Jesuits ; they seek the 

protection of Parliament against the university . 208 
The invectives of Etienne Pasquier against the 

Jesuits ........ 209 

Parliament refuses to make any decision . .210 

The Society continues to gain ground in France . 210 



1559 Queen Elizabeth had undone the work of Mary . 211 
But the Catholic cause in England was by no means 

lost 211 



The Spanish ambassador s false estimate of Elizabeth 212 
The extraordinary duplicity of the queen . .213 
Her personal indifference in religious questions . . 214 
She encourages religious differences abroad . .215 
Philip II. clings to the hope of her return to 

Catholicism . . . . . . .216 

And dissuades the Pope from taking action against her 217 

1560 Pius IV. sends Parpaglia to Elizabeth with concilia 

tory assurances of his good- will . . .218 
This mission very opportune for Elizabeth, who, 
however, is determined to keep Parpaglia out of 
England ....... 220 

Spain, through jealousy of France, assists her in this 221 
The recall of Parpaglia . . . . . .221 

The policy of Philip II. . . . . .223 

Elizabeth s matrimonial intrigues .... 224 

Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester .... 225 

Queen Elizabeth and the Council of Trent . . 227 

1561 The mission of Martinengo . . . . .228 
Elizabeth is resolved not to admit a Papal nuncio to 

England ....... 229 

Martinengo is definitely refused admission . .231 
This implies the final separation of England from the 

Church 231 

Pius IV. still hopes to win over Elizabeth . . 232 

Proposed excommunication of Elizabeth ; Philip 

II. opposes this ...... 233 

Enforcement of the religious laws against the Catholics 234 
The imprisoned English bishops .... 235 

Elizabeth held back by fear of French interference . 236 
Bishop Bonner of London . . . . .237 

Persecution of the Catholics . . . . .238 

The royal visitation . . . . . .239 

London the headquarters of Protestantism . .240 
But there are many strongholds of Catholicism in 

the provinces . . . . . . .241 

The English people still on the whole Catholic . . 242 

1562 The clergy filled with the spirit of compromise ; want 

of clear ideas as to Protestant worship . . 243 

Most of them accept the oath of supremacy . 243 

1563 The new Penal Laws ...... 244 

The conspiracy of Arthur Pole .... 245 

Fulminations against the " Papists " . . . 246 

Enforced " loans " levied upon the Catholics . . 247 

Penalties for assisting at Mass . . . 248 

The persecution of the Catholics made more severe . 250 
Attempts to consolidate the new religion . -251 

Appointment of Protestant bishops . . . 252 

Rise of Puritanism 253 

Growing indifference to all religion in England . . 254 




A state of anarchy in Scotland . . . .255 

Pillage and disaster lead to a decline of the old faith 256 
But Lutheranism makes little progress . . .256 
Disgraceful conduct of the Scottish barons . .256 
John Knox ........ 257 

He transforms Scottish Protestantism into Calvinism 258 

1554 Mary of Guise becomes Regent of Scotland . . 259 

1555 Renewed activity of Knox ; the " party of the Lord " 260 
J 559 Iconoclasm in Scotland ..... 261 

By the death of Henry II., Mary Stuart becomes 

Queen of France . . . . . .262 

Mary of Guise and the " party of the Lord " . . 262 

Elizabeth secretly assists the Scottish nobles . .263 

1560 Cecil negotiates the Treaty of Edinburgh . . 264 
Prohibition of Catholic worship in Scotland . .265 
But the Parliament not a legal assembly . . . 266 
Destruction of churches and monasteries . . 267 
Remonstrances of Henry II. of France to the Pope 

(1559) 268 

Paul IV. refuses to take any action . . . 268 
Efforts of Pius IV. to repair the shortcomings of his 

predecessor . . . . . . .269 

Death of Francis II. (December 5th) ; Mary Stuart 

prepares to return to Scotland . . .269 

1561 The nobles offer the crown to Elizabeth . . . 269 
On her refusal they begin to rally to Mary . .270 
Embassies sent from Scotland to Mary ; duplicity 

of James Stuart . . . . . .270 

Mary Stuart lands in Scotland (August i9th) . . 271 
Character of Mary Stuart . . . . .271 

Difficult position of the young queen . . .272 
John Knox denounces the Mass . . : .273 
The Scottish people generally loyal to the queen . 274 
Her personal loyalty to the Church ; she is unable to 

help the Catholics . 275 

Pius IV. and Mary Stuart ; he sends her the Golden 

Rose 276 

1562 The mission of Goudano ... . 277 
His secret interview with the queen . . .278 
Goudano and the Scottish bishops . . .280 
Isolation of the queen ; her powerlessness . 281 
Goudano leaves Scotland . . . .282 
Ninian Winzet . . . . . .283 
Lord James Stuart the real ruler of Scotland . .284 

1563 The tragedy of the Gordons, Mary s chief supporters 285 
Complete liberty enjoyed by the reformers . .286 
Letter of Mary Stuart to the Council of Trent . .287 
Reply of the Fathers of the Council; "a splendid 

tribute " 288 



Mary s admiration and friendship for Elizabeth . 289 
Proposals for Mary s marriage ; Elizabeth s fear of a 

Spanish or Austrian match . . . .290 

Henry Darnley ....... 290 

1565 Mary s infatuation for Darnley .... 291 

In spite of Elizabeth s efforts, the marriage takes 

place (July 29th) 291 

Darnley is proclaimed king ..... 292 

Murray stirs up the fanaticism of the reformers . 293 
The General Assembly adopts a threatening attitude 293 
Conspiracy against the queen and her husband . 294 
Mary s courage and decision ; the rebellion suppressed 285 
The queen s position seems assured ; her policy of re 
ligious toleration ; Catholic worship restored .296 
Mary applies to the Pope for help . . . .297 

Conciliatory reply of Pius IV., but he is unable to 

help her materially . . . . .298 

She asks the help of Philip II., but without result . 299 
1560 Pius IV. and Ireland . . . . . . 299 

The English ecclesiastical laws accepted by the Irish 

Parliament . . . . . . .299 

Catholic public worship suspended . . . 300 

Lamentable state of the clergy ; David Wolf as 

nuncio ........ 300 

The work of Wolf as nuncio . . . . .301 

Schools and seminaries established . . . 302 

Persecution in Ireland . . . . . 303 

Revolts break out continually .... 304 



1560 Pius IV. restricts the powers of the Holy Office . 305 
But confirms its privileges. Ghislieri still Grand 

Inquisitor ....... 306 

The rehabilitation of Morone and others . . .307 

1562 The Pope gives the Inquisition fresh powers . . 309 
His decree concerning the Inquisition . . 310 

1564 A new congregation of Cardinals of the Inquisition . 312 
The method of procedure of the Inquisition . . 315 
Pius IV. takes little personal part in the Inquisition 316 
The Council of Trent and the Inquisition . . 3*7 

1562 The case of Grimani, Patriarch of Aquileia . .319 
He is acquitted by the Roman Inquisition . 321 
His renewed imprudent declarations . . .321 
Venice presses for his elevation to the cardinalate . 322 
A special congregation decides against Grimani . 323 

1563 Grimani appeals to the Council of Trent . . 324 
Pius IV. at length allows the appeal . . 325 
The sentence of the Council mainly in his favour . 326 

VOL. XVI. b 



The Spanish Inquisition ; its sensitiveness as to its 

rights 327 

The case of Carranza, the Archbishop of Toledo . 328 
The Spanish Inquisition resents interference on the 

part of Rome ....... 329 

Philip II. and the mission of Odescalchi . . . 330 
Carranza appeals to the Council ; the Pope unable 

to come to his assistance . . . .331 
The Commission of the Index at Trent approves 

Carranza s Catechism . . . . .332 
The Pope determines to send a legate to Spain to 

examine the acts of the trial and pronounce 

sentence ....... 333 

1565 The mission of Cardinal Boncompagni . . . 334 
The death of Pius IV. leaves the question still 

pending . ... . . . 334 

The question of the introduction of the Spanish 

Inquisition into Milan . . . . . 335 

Violent opposition in Milan ..... 336 

Similar fears in Naples and other parts of Italy . 337 
Milanese embassy to Rome . . . . .338 

Philip II. abandons his plan ..... 339 

Activity of the Roman Inquisition in Italy . . 340 

The Pope and Venice ...... 343 

Friendship of Pius IV. for Cosimo I. . . . 344 

The Inquisition at Lucca and Genoa . . . 347 

Dangers to the Church in Savoy .... 348 

The Duke of Savoy and the Calvinists . . . 349 

Zeal of Emanuele Filiberto against the Waldensians 351 

The Waldensians in Calabria .... 352 



Philip II. the obvious protector of the Church . . 353 
But his natural autocracy leads him to wish to rule, 

as well as protect the Church . . . -354 
The Catholic Kings had obtained concession upon 

concession and had seriously encroached upon the 

liberties of the Church . . . . * 355 
The vast wealth of the Church in Spain . . -355 
Philip II. makes misuse of the Spanish Inquisition, 

in order to bring the Church into subjection . 356 

The " holding back " of Papal briefs . . . 356 

Attempts of the Popes to limit this caesaro-papalism 357 

1559 State of affairs at the election of Pius IV. . . 358 

The new Pope grants the Cruzada, Sussidio, and other 

levies ........ 359 

Philip II. s ever increasing demands . . . 361 



The royal council treats the Curia with " overbearing 

contempt "... . 362 

1561 Alessandro Crivelli appointed nuncio in Spain . . 362 
Francisco Vargas Spanish ambassador to the Holy 

See ; his character 363 

His strained relations with Pius IV. . 363 
Philip II s dilatory conduct with regard to the 

Council ...... . 364 

Unworthy behaviour of the Spanish representatives at 

Trent 3 6 5 

1564 The Turkish question becomes more threatening . 366 

1565 Heroic defence of Malta by the Knights of St. John . 367 
The Pope sends assistance to the Emperor against 

the Turks . 3 68 

The Spaniards claim the credit of the defence of Malta 369 

1559 The case of Carranza, the Archbishop of Toledo . 370 

1565 The mission of Cardinal Boncompagni . 371 

Pius IV. complains bitterly of the conduct of Philip II. 372 



Great weakness of the Papal States . -373 

Want of fortifications and means of defence . -374 
Nevertheless they still form the second power in Italy 374 

The six administrative districts or legations . - 375 

The principal cities of the Papal States . 37 6 

Pius IV. introduces reforms in administration . 376 

The administrative offices filled by Milanese . -377 

Many reform decrees ... 37 8 

The Papal finances ; state loans . -379 

The sources of revenue ... . 3 8 

The heavy expenditure necessitates much taxation . 381 

This causes deep discontent in the Papal States . 381 

The Pope fears an attack on his life . . . 3 82 

1564 The conspiracy of Accolti 3 8 3 
The discovery of the plot . 3 8 4 
Confession of the conspirators . 3 86 

1565 Accolti, Canossa and Manfred! executed (January) . 387 
The confession of Canossa . 

He protests his innocence 

The marriage of Hannibal von Hohenems 

Great creation of Cardinals (March) . 393 

The new Cardinals all worthy men ; influence of 

Borromeo in their choice 394 

Borromeo leaves Rome for Milan . -395 
The Pope s failing health 

He recovers, but his death is generally expected . 398 



He is suddenly taken ill ; Borromeo hurries back to 

Rome ........ 399 

The death of Pius IV. (December 9th) . . . 400 

His tomb in S. Maria degli Angeli . . . . 401 

Importance of his pontificate in the history of Catholic 

reform . . . . . . . 402 

Charles Borromeo the good genius of Pius IV. . . 403 




Pius IV. as a patron of letters .... 404 
The Accademia Vaticana . . . . . 405 
Pagan literature treated from the Christian stand 
point 406 

The printing press of Paulus Manutius . . -407 
The Vatican Library . . . . . .408 

Guglielmo Sirleto ....... 408 

The Papal Archives ...... 409 

The Roman University ; other universities in the Papal 

States . .410 

The outspoken memorial of Lodovico Parisetti . 411 

Pius IV. as patron of the arts ; his architects . 413 
His passion for building ; the Belvedere . . . 413 
The Loggia della Cosmografia . . . .416 

The Hall of Secret Consistories . . . .417 
The Sala dei Papi, the Sala Regia, and the Sala Ducale 418 
The Villa Pia. Pirro Ligorio . . . . .419 
Its important place in the history of architecture . 421 
Description of the Casino and Loggia . . .422 
Fortification works of Pius IV. . . . .426 

The Castle of St. Angelo 427 

Fortification of the city . . . . . 429 

The Borgo Pio . 43O 

Fortifications in the Papal States .... 432 

The Porta Pia .... 

The Porto del Popolo ...... 435 

New streets in Rome ...... 436 

Scheme for a good water supply . . . -437 
Great services of Pius IV. to the adornment of Rome 438 
The Palazzo dei Conservatori .... 439 

University buildings in Rome and Bologna . . 440 
Restoration of churches . . . . .441 

The Lateran basilica ...... 442 

The Baths of Diocletian ; S. Maria degli Angeli . 443 
Michelangelo s grand plan ..... 444 

Pius IV. and St. Peter s ; his relations with Michel 
angelo 446 

His loyal support of Michelangelo .... 449 



Michelangelo offers to resign his post as architect of 

St. Peter s 449 

The attempts of his rivals to oust him . . . 450 

Michelangelo s successor appointed by the Pope . 451 

The last days of Michelangelo .... 453 

The death of Michelangelo (February i8th, 1564) . 454 

His burial at S. Croce in Florence . . . 454 
Pirro Ligorio and Vignola appointed architects of St. 

Peter s ........ 456 

Personal interest of Pius IV. in the plans of the 

basilica ........ 456 

His plan for the Piazza of St. Peter s .... 457 


I. Pope Pius IV. to the Doge . 
II. Pope Pius IV. to Pier Francesco Ferreri, 
Bishop of Vercelli, Nuncio to Venice 

III. Cardinal Ghislieri to the Inquisitor of Genoa . 

IV. Cardinal Ghislieri to the Inquisitor of Genoa 
V. Francesco Tonina to the Duke of Mantua 

VI. Francesco Tonina to the Duke of Mantua 
VII. Pope Pius IV. to Cardinal Pier Francesco 
Ferreri ....... 

VIII. Francesco Tonina to the Duke of Mantua 
IX. Pope Pius IV. to Hannibal von Hohenems . 
X. Pope Pius IV. to Hannibal von Hohenems 
XI. Francesco Tonina to the Duke of Mantua 
XII. Consistory of 2jih June, 1561 

XIII. Francesco Tonina to the Duke of Mantua 

XIV. Consistory of 8th August, 1561 

XV. Giovanni Andrea Caligari to Commendone 
XVI. Avviso di Roma of 3oth August, 1561 . 
XVII. Giovanni Andrea Caligari to Commendone 
XVIII. Giovanni Andrea Caligari to Commendone 
XIX. Giovanni Andrea Caligari to Commendone 
XX. Avviso di Roma of 8th November, 1561 
XXI. Pope Pius IV. to Ottavio Farnese, Duke of 
Parma and Piacenza .... 
XXII. Cardinal Ghislieri to the Inquisitor of Genoa . 

XXIII. Francesco Tonina to the Duke of Mantua 

XXIV. Avviso di Roma of 2ist February, 1562 
XXV. Francesco Tonina to the Duke of Mantua 

XXVI. Francesco Tonina to the Duke of Mantua 
XXVII. Francesco Tonina to the Duke of Mantua 
XXVIII. Pope Pius IV. to Hannibal von Hohenems 
XXIX. Motuproprio of Pope Pius IV. in favour of the 
Roman Inquisition ..... 
XXX. -XXXI. Pius IV. and the Roman Printing House 
of Paulus Manutius .... 
XXXII. The Emperor Ferdinand I. to his Envoys in 

XXXIII. Giacomo Tarreghetti to the Duke of Mantua . 

XXXIV. Cardinal Ghislieri to Girolamo Franchi, O. Pr., 

Inquisitor of Genoa .... 

XXXV. Pius IV. to Cardinal Henry of Portugal . 







4 6 5 







XXXVI. Francesco Tonina to the Duke of Mantua 
XXXVII. Motuproprio of Pope Fius IV. for the eight 

Cardinals of the Roman Inquisition . 

XXXVIII. Pope Pius IV. to Alessandro Crivelli . . . 

XXXIX. Commendone s Discorso sopra la Corte di 

Roma, 1564 ...... 

XL.-XLII. Concerning the conspiracy of December, 1564 
XLIII. Francesco Priorato to the Duke of Ferrara 
XLIV. Francesco Priorato to the Duke of Ferrara 
XLV. Francesco Priorato to the Duke of Ferrara 
XL VI. Execution of the conspirators against Pius 
IV. Benedetto Accolti and his companions . 
XL VII. -XL VIII. L. Bondonus de Branchis concerning the 
conspiracy of Benedetto Accolti 







DURING his severe illness, at the end of 1563, Pius IV. had 
spoken in a way which had aroused the expectation in the 
minds of well-informed persons that the decrees of the Council 
would be strictly enforced. 1 After his recovery the Pope 
continued to express himself in the same sense. On December 
I2th, 1563, 2 he held a consistory in the presence of the Imperial, 
Spanish, Portuguese and Venetian ambassadors, at which he 
expressed his joy at the happy ending of the Council. The 
fathers, he said, had held their discussions in complete in 
dependence, and had freely resolved to bring their delibera 
tions to a close, No assembly which had been held during 
the past 500 years could compare in importance with that held 
at Trent in its advantageous results for the Church, in the 
number and learning of those who took part in it, or in the 
importance and complexity of the subjects dealt with. Noth 
ing further remained but that the Pope should exercise his 
office by confirming and ordering the observance of what had 

1 *Pare che questa nuova del recesso del Concilio, li habbia 
arrecato un mondo di pensieri et di confusione, dice volere obser- 
vare in tutto le deliberazioni del Concilio et non ne volere pre- 
terire una iota, vuole che tutti i vescovi vadino a residere et 
credo sara severissimo et aspro quanto sia stato altro Pontefice 
con i vescovi et cardinali. Report of Serristori, dated Rome, 
December 17, 1563 (State Archives, Florence, Medic. 3283, p. 112). 

2 POGIANI (Epist. III., 372) gives December 10 as against 
December 12 in the consistorial acta (manuscript of Card. Spada) 
in RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 222, and *Acta consist., card. Gambarae, 
p. 25oa of the Cod. 40-0-13 of the Corsini Library, Rome. C/. 
PALLAVICINI, 24, 9, i ; SICKEL, Konzil, 52. 

VOL. XVI. i 


been ordained as good and salutary. It was his intention 
to make some additions to the decrees ; he would insist that 
the bishops should reside in their dioceses, and he also took the 
opportunity of announcing at once that no one must look for 
indulgence in this respect. 1 He then ordered a procession of 
thanksgiving to be made on December I5th to the church of 
S. Maria sopra Minerva. 2 

It could be seen from the replies of the Cardinals to this 
speech that all in Rome were not in favour of an uncon 
ditional confirmation of the reform decrees. Several remarked 
that explanations ought to be appended to some of the ord 
inances. Pius IV. replied that he would consider this point 
on another occasion, but that it was his intention to confirm 
the decrees both in general and particular. 3 In spite of this 
clear declaration the report spread that the Pope himself 
would be the first to break through the limits set by the 
Council, 4 and it would seem that several of the Roman officials 
were agitating, more especially against a general confirmation 
of the reform decrees, principally because they feared the 
diminution of their revenues owing to the limitation of the 
appeals to Rome. 5 

1 Consistorial acta in POGIANI, Epist. III., 372-4, and in the 
*Corsini Library, 40-0-13, p. 250-3. For the story of the con 
firmation of the Council cf. EHSES, Der Schlussakt des Konzils 
von Trient, in Gorres-Gesellschaft, 1914, 43 seq.; SAGMULLER, Die 
Geschichte der Congregatio Concilii von dem Motuproprio " Alias 
nos nonnullas " vom 2 August, 1564, in the Archiv fiir kathol. 
Kirchenrecht, LXXX. (1900), 3-17. For the dissertation of 
HACKENBERG in Festschrift zum elfhundertjahrigen Jubilaum des 
deutschen Camposanto in Rom. (1897), 221 se W-> see SAGMULLER, 
loc. cit. 

2 Bondonus in RAYN ALDUS, 1563, n. 122. 

3 POGIANI Epist., III., 374. 

* Pius IV., on December 30, ibid., III., 382. 

6 To reassure them Pius IV. on January 26, 1564, while giving 
the confirmation, said : " Damnum vero huius curiae multo 
levius fore, quam prima specie videretur, tamen quantumcunque 
esset, prae universal! bono christianae reipublicaeneglegendum." 
*Acta consist, card. Gambarae, Corsini Library, Rome, 40-0-13, 


In the meantime, the legates, Morone and Simonetta, had 
returned to Rome even before Christmas, had reported upon 
the Council in many audiences, and had begged for its con 
firmation. 1 The Pope held another consistory on December 
30 th, 2 at which, in a long speech, he first gave thanks for the 
Council to God, the Emperor, and the princes, and praised the 
legates and fathers of the Council. He also expressed his 
thanks to the fathers because they had, in their reform decrees, 
shown such moderation and consideration for the Curia. 
He would have proceeded with much greater strictness him 
self, had he taken the work of reform into his own hands. 
It was his fixed intention to confirm the reform prescriptions 
of the Council, and to have them strictly enforced. 3 The 
unfounded belief of many persons that he was not in earnest 
about the carrying out of the reform would thus be disproved 
by the facts. It was his intention to make alterations only 
where the fathers had been too timid, but not so as to relax 
discipline in any way. He then entrusted Cardinal Morone 
with the task of watching over the consistory, so that nothing 

p. 25Qb; cf, RAYNALDUS, 1564, n. 3. As Ehses shows in a 
recently published article, the statements which Sarpi makes 
concerning the objections raised in the curia, and which he bases 
on other authorities, are quite unworthy of belief. 

1 RAYNALDUS, 1564, n. I seq. Morone and Simonetta left 
Trent on December 6, 1563 (SusxA, IV., 448). The other two 
legates, Navagero and Hosius, received the permission which 
they had asked for to return to their own dioceses, Verona and 
Ermland (Borromeo to Navagero, December 4, 1563, in SUSTA, IV., 
455 ; brief to Hosius of December 5 [SusxA, loc., cit. t 4], RAYNALDUS 
1563, n. 223). Navagero left Trent on December 8, and Hosius 
on the 15. SUSTA, IV., 448, 456. 

2 POGIANI Epist., III., 381-92. *Acta consist, card. Gambarae, 
Corsini Library, Rome, 4O-G-I3, p. 253-8. Cf. EHSES, Schlussakt 
des Konzils, 46, which goes to discredit the remarks of Sarpi 
(8, 84). 

3 " Certum ac fixum est nobis efficere, ut, servatis s. concilii 
decretis ilia disciplinae ratio in mores inducatur. POGIANI Epist. 
III., 382. Cf. STEINHERZ, IV., 8, 10; EHSES, Schlussakt des 
Konzils, 46. 


might be proposed there which was foreign to the spirit of 
the Council or opposed to it. Cardinal Simonetta was to act 
in a like manner in the case of the Dataria. 1 . The Pope was 
determined to have the reform decrees of the Council carried 
out absolutely ; should, in any special case, a dispensation 
be necessary, it was his intention to grant it only on the advice 
of the Cardinals. At the end of his speech the Pope again 
insisted on the importance of the duty of residence, to which 
he would not make any exception, even for his own personal 
service. He then appointed two commissions of Cardinals : 
the one to prepare the confirmation of the Council, and to 
consider the best means of carrying it out, that is to say, to 
arrive at a decision as to the time and manner of the con 
firmation, 2 while the other, which was to consist of the senior 
Cardinal Bishop, the senior Cardinal Priest, and the senior 
Cardinal Deacon, was to discharge the duty, in conjunction 
with those presenting the candidate in each case, of examining 
the worthiness of those proposed for bishoprics. 3 Shortly 
afterwards the Pope celebrated the anniversary of his election 
and coronation by a banquet given to the whole senate of 
the Church. Many of the Cardinals looked upon this joyful 
occasion as a favourable opportunity of obtaining marks of 
favour; Pius IV., however, refused all such requests, and 
protested once more that he would confirm the whole of the 
decrees of the Council, and would see that they were observed. 
The official world of Rome was in despair at such pronounce 
ments, and was of opinion that a wholesale departure of the 
prelates would follow, and that Rome would be left half 
empty. 4 

1 POGIANI Epist., III., 382 seq. 
3 Cf. EHSES, loc. cit. 47. 

3 POGIANI Epist., III., 391. Prospero d Arco to Ferdinand I., 
January i, 1564, in SICKEL, Konzil, 649. 

4 *Dopo pasto si ridusse dove suole fare congregation!, ove 
molti cardinal! lo ricercarono d alcune gratie, alle quali S.S U non 
volse consentire ne amettere pur una. Anzi comminci6 a pro- 
porre a loro che voleva confermare tutti li decreti fatti al concilio 
di Trento et farle osservare. ... Si fark un sfrattamento che 


Pius IV. had, by these repeated public declarations, practi 
cally pledged himself to the unconditional confirmation of the 
Council, and any possible objections made by the discontented 
members of the Curia could have little effect to the contrary. 1 
After the congregation of Cardinals had completed its work, 2 
it was possible to proceed to the final act of the Council. All 
the Cardinals advised an unconditional confirmation at the 
consistory of January 26th, 1564, Cicada and Ghislieri alone 
finding a difficulty in the decision of the Council 3 that bishops 
were to be able to absolve in matters of conscience which were 
reserved to the Pope. 4 This objection, however, had already 
been invalidated by the congregation of Cardinals. No one 
adopted the view put forward, for political reasons, by Cardinal 
Cristoforo Madruzzo, that they ought first to await the con 
currence of the unrepresented powers. Pius IV., as well as 
all the other Cardinals, rejected this proposal, because the 
papal confirmation must precede everything else. 5 Morone, 

Roma restera la meta vota. Gli ufficiali sono disperati, pur che 
son sospese le ispeditioni, dice quelle poche che si f acevano etiamdio 
di beneficii. Carlo Stuerdo to the Duke of Parma, January 8, 
1564 (Cart. Fames. 763, State Archives, Naples). Even before 
the close of the Council, Pius IV. had ordered that all transactions 
with the Curia should be free, which, however, in the event, was 
found to be impracticable ; cf. CANISII Epist., V., 122, n. 2 ; 
179, n. 6. 

1 We have not got sufficient information as to the opposition 
to the unconditional confirmation, but merely the authority of 
the untrustworthy Sarpi, and certain ambassadorial reports 
(in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 551, 554, 563 seq.), in addition to the 
characteristic letter of Bernardo Tasso (Lettere, ed. Portioli, 36). 
Cf. SAGMULLER in the Archiv fur kathol. Kirchenrecht, 1900, 
10 seq. 

2 For the discussions, which reveal their care to change nothing 
in the well thought out reform decrees of the Council, see EHSES, 
he. cit., 51 seq. 

3 Sess. 24, de ref. c. 6. 

* *Acta consist, card. Gambarae, Corsini Library, Rome, 
40-0-13, pp. 26ob-i. 

6 See EHSES, loc. cit., 52. 


in whom, as Borromeo pertinently remarked, the whole history 
of the Council of Trent was personified, 1 defended this view in 
a long speech. In conjunction with Simonetta he begged for 
the confirmation of all the decisions which had been arrived 
at in Trent since Paul III. The Pope acceded to this request 
and promised to draw up a document to that effect ; he was, 
he added, prepared to encounter many difficulties in carrying 
out those decisions, but he was also resolved to surmount 
them. He then returned once more to the duty of residence 
of the bishops, and declared that he agreed to the limitation 
of appeals which the Council had ordered. 2 

In spite of the repeated assurances of the Pope, the fear 
that he would nevertheless very soon dispense from the 
reform decrees, was not at once allayed. 3 How deeply 
Pius IV. was convinced of the importance of the Council is 
also evident from the fact that immediately after its close, 
at the latest in January, 1564, he proposed having the docu 
ments concerning the proceedings of the synod printed. 4 
As early as the year 1548, the then legate of the Council, 
Cervini, had formed the plan of issuing such a publication, 
which would, in his opinion, afford a means of following the 
course of the deliberations, and of proving the care with 
which the fathers had proceeded. 5 Later, however, the views 
of those who feared that more harm than good would come 
from such a step, prevailed, although during the first months 
after the Council the plan of issuing such a publication was 
considered so certain that in the earliest Roman editions of 

1 SUSTA, IV., 455. 

2 *Acta consist, card. Gambarae, loc. cit., 258 seqq. RAYNALDUS, 
1564, n. 1-3. STEINHERZ, IV., 10. 

8 Cf. Borromeo to the Archbishop of Braga, on December 2, 
1564, April 3 and December 2, 1565, in BALUZE-MANSI, III., 
519, 522, 528 ; SUSTA, IV., 252, 276. 

4 EHSES, II., xxvi-xxxviii. ; V., xxvi-xxxviii. The reproach 
made by Sarpi, and accepted by Ranke, that they wished in 
Rome to suppress the acts is not justified. Cf. EHSES in the 
Rom. Quartalschrift, XVI. (1902), 296-307. 

5 EHSES, II. f xxvi. 


the decrees of the Council, the printer, Paulus Manutius, 
announced in the preface 1 that the publication of the docu 
ments was imminent. 

The official printed edition of the Tridentine decrees appeared 
in March, 1564. 2 It contains an official statement of the oral 
papal confirmation of January 26th. The promised bull of 
confirmation, which, in view of this oral confirmation, was 
no longer really necessary, was, during the months that 
followed, so slow in making its appearance, that many people 
believed that it would never be issued. Everything was done 
by certain officials of the Curia to prevent its publication ; 
it was represented to the Pope that an unconditional con- 

1 Printed in the Appendix to the Epistolae of Manutius ( Venice > 
1573), 133. Cf. *Fr. Tonina to the Duke of Mantua, March 15, 
1564 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). For the plan of Job. Fickler 
of publishing the acts of the Council in 1605, cf. WIEDEMANN, 
Reformation, I., 246. 

2 The printing was completed on March 18 (STEINHERZ, IV., 73 ; 
cf. infra p. 8, note i). A second edition was accompanied by" 
a motuproprio signed by Borromeo " 4 id. apr." (EHSES, II., 
xxxii., n. 6). Borromeo speaks of a reprint on July i, 1564 
(STEINHERZ, IV., 149). Cf. A. RENOUARD, Annales de 1 im- 
primerie des Aide, Paris, 1803, 346-52 ; SALA, Dissertazioni, 
231-9 ; SICKEL, Berichte, I., 35. In some copies of the first 
edition, Massarelli and two notaries of the Council attest its 
conformity with the original. A facsimile of this attestation 
from the original is in SWOBODA, 127. Cf. RENOUARD, 347 ; SALA, 
233 ; LAMMER, Zur Kirchengeschicte des 16. und 17. Jahr- 
hunderts, 179. Other editions, not official, differ widely from 
the Roman one and from the one which the congregation of 
the Council sent, on January 29, 1565, as an authoritative and 
authenticated copy to the Archbishop of Saragossa (POGIANI 
Epist., I., 344). For the variations in the Paris edition of 1564, 
especially with reference to the additions on the Immaculate 
Conception, see EHSES, II., xiv., n. 3. Borromeo sent an authentic 
copy to the Archbishop of Bremen so that the decrees might be 
printed in their genuine form in Germany " et impiorum hominum 
fraus, a quibus iam impressa multaque falsa affecta sunt, et 
deprehendi et evitari facile possit." Borromeo, on August 29, 
1564, in BALUZE-MANSI, III., 517. 


firmation of the Council would affect the revenues of the 
Apostolic Camera in the most disastrous manner, and would 
mean the simple ruin of the Papal Court. 1 The fear aroused 
by the oral confirmation of January 26th, which, however, 
could still be limited by the bull, was already great enough. 
Two-thirds of the Court, it was calculated, would now, in 
consequence of the Tridentine decree as to residence, leave 
Rome, and with them would depart the splendour and luxury 
of the city, for good or for evil. 2 

In spite of this, however, the promised bull appeared on 

1 * Circa la bolla del concilio, che dover use ire, si e sopraseduta 
per le molte querele de cortegiani di Roma, li quali non mancano 
con ogni via insinuate alia S.S U , che ci6 sara la rovina della corte. 
Fr. Tonina to the Duke of Mantua, March i, 1564 (Gonzaga 
Archives, Mantua). Si travano tante difficolta nel far di questa 
bolla del concilio, che per molte che ne siano fatte, non si trova 
forma che sodisfaccia, et si tiene da i giuditiosi, che non se ne 
publicara alcuna. Bern. Tasso to the Duke of Mantua, Rome, 
March 8, 1564 : Lettere, ed. Portioli 44. *I1 concilio e finite di 
stampare, cioe li decreti solo, con una pura fede in fine del card. 
Farnese che sia stato approbate da S.B ne , et altra bolla sin qui 
non v e ne si crede che sia per uscire, venendo molto impugnata 
per ciascuno per il danno della corte et diminutione delle entrate 
delle camera. Si stampa appresso integramente come e stato 
di mano in mano fatto, ma non e ancor fornito, et di piu si ristampa 
il primo in stampa piccola. Tonina to the Duke of Mantua, 
March 15, 1564 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). Cf. Requesens to 
Philip II. , February 22, and March 4, 1564, in DOLLINGER, 
Beitrage, I., 551, 554. 

2 La dichiaratione che hieri S.S U fece in concistorio che con- 
firmava in omnibus et per omnia et senza alcuna ecceptione tutto 
quello che era stato deliberate nel concilio, ha posta in disperatione 
tutta questa corte, et si tiene per certo che questa citta ne rimarra 
desolata ; S.S fci e deliberata che tutti i Cardinal!, i Vescovi, et 
tutti quelli c hanno benefici curati vadano a far la residentia, 
di maniera che i due terzi della Corte se n andrano, et con questi 
necessariamente si partira la maggior parte de mercanti, de gli 
artefici et delle putane. Bern. Tasso to the Commandant of 
Mantua, Francesco Tosabezzi, on January 27, 1564, in PORTIOLI 


June 30th, with the date of the oral confirmation, January 
26th, 1564. 1 After an historical introduction on the Council 
of Trent, in which emphasis is laid on the fact that, in virtue 
of the Papal concession, the Council had been able to decide 
with absolute freedom upon matters reserved to the Holy See, 
the confirmation of the Council follows, together with a call 
upon the bishops and princes to carry out the decrees issued, 
and to support this work by the secular power. Two im 
portant decisions then followed : It is forbidden to print 
commentaries and notes concerning the decrees of the Council 
without permission from the Holy See, while in case of doubt 
as to the interpretation of any decree, application must be 
made to the Holy See, to which is reserved the decision of all 
such difficulties. 2 

These two regulations concerning the exclusive right of 
interpretation by the Holy See, were the outcome of exhaustive 
deliberations, and were in reality the principal cause of the 
long delay in the appearance of the bull. 3 There was an obvious 
danger that the reform decrees might be differently under 
stood in various countries and by various tribunals, and that 
confusion and uncertainty might in consequence arise. This 
danger was avoided by the right of interpretation being re- 

1 For the reasons for not giving up the publication, see Borromeo 
to Delfino, July, i, 1564, in STEINHERZ, IV., 149. Cf. the *reports 
of Giacomo Tarreghetti to Mantua, January 19 : the bull of 
confirmation " e fatta, ma non publicata "; January 22 : " Tutti 
questi giorni congregation! " on the subject of the " confirmatione " 
of the council ; February 23 : Yesterday there were congrega 
tions on the bull of confirmation. The ambassador refers to this 
at length ; July i : " leri sera finalmente e uscita la bolla con- 
firmatoria del concilio tridentino." (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 
Cf. Requesens to Philip II. on July 6, 1564 : "A postrero del 
pasado salio impresa [the bull of confirmation] y se fijo en los 
lugares publicos de Roma." BELLINGER, Beitrage, I., 563 ; 

2 The bull Benedictus Deus in RAYNALDUS, 1564, n. 3, and in 
the printed editions of the Council of Trent. 

Requesens to Philip II., February 2, 1564, in DCLLINGER, 
Beitrage, I., 551. 


served to the Holy See. The Council had already acknow 
ledged the primacy of the Apostolic See by its decision that 
the decrees should only be valid when witlout prejudice to 
the Papal rights. 1 The Gallican party, however, the existence 
of which the proceedings at the Council had lately made 
evident, was able to maintain that the Pope had exercised 
the rights reserved to him by the Council by his very act of 
confirmation, and that he could in consequence no longer alter 
anything in the decrees, but was, on the contrary, himself 
subject to them. 2 This second danger was met by the clear 
declaration that the interpretation of the decrees was to be 
for all future time in the hands of the Pope. A further reason 
for the delay in the publication of the bull was to be found in 
the opposition to the unconditional confirmation of the Coun 
cil, which, it would appear, was not yet silenced. 

It was to be expected that an immense number of questions 
concerning the Tridentine reform decrees would reach Rome 
as soon as these decisions became known. Pius IV. therefore 
commissioned the eight Cardinals to whom he had entrusted 
the task of preparing the confirmation and enforcement of 
the Council, to see that the decrees were exactly observed. 
The same Cardinals were also to put into force the former 
reform prescriptions affecting the Penitentiaria and the 
various Roman tribunals, which had not been sufficiently 
obeyed. 3 In cases of doubt, however the eight Cardinals 
were not to decide of themselves but were to refer the matter 
to the Pope. Pius IV. soon increased the number of this 
commission of Cardinals to twelve, 4 and appointed as secre- 

1 Sess. 25, de ref. c. 21. 

2 Requesens to Philip II., loc. cit. 

3 Motuproprio of August 2, 1564, in POGIANI Epist., II., liii., 
and in the editions of the Council of Trent. It is possible that 
the idea of the " Congregatio cardinalium concilii Tridentini 
interpretum " was suggested to the Pope by Bishop Ugo Bon- 
campagni, the future Gregory XIII. (SAGMULLER in the Archiv 
fiirkathol. Kirchenrecht, 1900, 12-14), but so far the only authority 
for this is a writer of such little reliability as Sarpi. 

* Before April 5 ; see POGIANI Epist., IV., 17. 


tary the celebrated latinist, Giulio Pogiani, whose skilful pen 
clothed a great number of the decisions in classical garb. 1 
Later on the power of this commission was greatly extended, 
so that it developed into the Congregation which became so 
important for the interpretation of the decrees of the Council 
of Trent. 2 

Only the reform decrees fell within the competency of the 
Congregation of the Council, not the dogmatic decisions. The 
Council itself had endeavoured to secure submission to these 
by its regulation that all those who took part in a provincial 
synod, the bishop at their head, must solemnly accept the 
Council, promise obedience to the Pope, and openly reject 
all heresies, especially those condemned at Trent. 3 Besides 
this, all those who, for the future, should be chosen for * the 
episcopate, were to submit their profession of faith to the 
Pope, 4 while all those who received an appointment involving 
the cure of souls were to make a profession of faith and take 
an oath of obedience to the Roman Church. 5 The Council 
had not drawn up a formula for the profession of faith, al 
though the draft of one had been submitted to it. 6 Pius IV. 
completed the work of the Council in this respect, by the bull 
of November 13^1,1564 ; 7 at the same time he extended the 
obligation of making a profession of faith and taking an oath 

1 POGIANI Epist., I., 335-496. They cover the interval between 
October 8, 1564, and September 25, 1568. 

For the Congregation of the Council cf. G. PHILLIPS, Kirchen- 
recht, VI., 625, Ratisbon, 1864 ; WERNZ, lus decretalium, II. , 
752, Rome, 1899; R. PARAYRE, La sainte Congregation du 
Concile. Son histoire, sa procedure, son autorite, Paris, 1897. 

3 Sess. 25, de ref. c. 2. 

4 Sess. 24, de ref. c. i. 

5 Sess. 24, de ref. c. 12. 

6 Canones super abusibus sacramenti ordinis (presented on 
April 30, 1563) can. 17. LE PLAT, VI., 41. As early as September 
4, 1560, according to LAEMMER, Melet., 212 seq., there was drawn 
up a form of oath which had to be taken by bishops and prelates 
on assuming their office, and at consecration. 

7 The bull, Iniunctum nobis, printed in the edition of the Council 
of Trent. 


of obedience to the superiors of Orders, while in another con 
stitution, issued at the same time, he laid the same obligation 
on professors in universities, and on doctors taking their 
degree. 1 In the XVIIth and XVIIIth centuries the Tridentine 
profession of faith was extended still further. 2 

The Council had not been able to complete some of its 
labours, such as the revision of the Index of prohibited books, 
the publication of a catechism, and the reform of the more 
important liturgical books, and it had accordingly, in its last 
session, committed the carrying out of these tasks to the care 
of the Apostolic See. 3 

Of these tasks, that which was the most advanced was the 
preparation of the revised Index. 4 Paul IV. had already 
learned by experience that he could not, even in Italy, be 
successful in carrying into effect his excessively rigorous 
prohibition of books! 5 As early as 1559 tne editions of his 
Index contain the beginnings of a mitigation of the strictest 
ordinances, 6 and Cardinal Otto Truchsess, who complained 
of the crushing severity of the prohibitions, received a re- 

1 In sacrosancta of November 13, 1564, Bull. Rom., VII., 
523 seq. ; cf. BICCI, Boccapaduli, 364 n. The bull was occasioned 
by Canisius and Possevino, who raised complaints about the 
reported appointments of Protestants to posts in Italian univer 
sities ; see CANISII Epist., IV., 653 seq., 688. Concerning the 
difficulty of enforcing the bull in German universities, ibid. 790. 
Cf. KNOPFLER, Kelchbewegung, 208 ; HOLDEN, La profession 
de foi a Fribourg au i6 e siecle, Friburg in Switzerland, 1898 
(Diss.). See also MOHNIKE, Urkundl. Geschichte der sog. Pro- 

fessio fidei Trident, und einiger anderer rom.-kathol. Bekenntnisse, 
Grief swald, 1882 ; BRUGI, Gli scolari dello studio di Padova nel 
cinquecento, Padua, 1903. 

2 See Kirchenlexikon of Freiburg, V 2 ., 683 seq. 

3 Sess. 25, Contin. 

4 For an appreciation of the prohibition of books cf. Hist-pol. 
Blatter, XXXVII. (1856), 561 seqq. 

5 For the perplexities caused by the Index of Paul IV. cf. 
SUSTA, I., 17 ; CANISII Epist., II., 377, 425, 4445^., 450 ; HILGERS 
198 seqq., 488 seqq. 

6 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 277 seqq. 


assuring reply. 1 The complaints against the Index of his 
predecessor continued under Pius IV ; 2 the Pope, indeed, had 
already determined, immediately after his accession, not to 
withold from public use such books by heretical writers as 
dealt with indifferent questions under the guise of religion. 
He expressed himself in this sense to Lainez in March, 1560, 3 
and the Grand Inquisitor, Ghislieri, also granted similar full 
powers, 4 and in this way the work upon the revision of the 
Index was begun. 5 At the beginning of the following year 
Lainez was able to put forward the proposal that anything 
which went beyond the general ordinances of the canon law 
should be removed from the existing Index, on the ground 
that such prohibitions were a snare for many souls and were 
of advantage to only a very few people. 6 These suggestions 

1 Canisius to Lainez, May 27 and August 6, 1559, CANISII 
Epist., II., 425, 500. 

2 SusxA, L, 17 seq. On August 25, 1560, in a special brief 
addressed to him (printed in WIRZ, Quellen zur Schweizerges- 
chichte, XXL, 379 ; SUSTA, L, 19) Pius IV. explains the mistake 
by which the humanist, Glareanus, had been included in the 
Index. He deplores the inaccuracies of the compilers of the 
Index, who were men subject to human frailties, and declares 
that he gladly counts Glareanus among Catholic writers, and that 
nothing suspect had been reported concerning him in Rome. 
The Holy See loves all its sons, " doctos vero homines, hoc est 
tui similes, etiam eximie deligit." 

3 " esser 1 animo suo che li libri heretici fossino prohibiti, ma 
non li altri." Polanco to Canisius on March 2, 1560, CANISII 
Epist., II., 604. 

4 Polanco to Canisius on March 24, 1560, ibid., 614 ; cf. NADAL, 
Epistolae, IV., 61, 63. 

5 CANISII Epist., II., 618 ; zf. 633. CALENZIO, Documenti, 246. 
According to the *Avviso di Roma of March 9, 1560 (Urb. 1039, 
Vatican Library) four Cardinals were in consultation upon the 
reform of the Index. According to the *Avviso di Roma of 
February 10, 1560, Cardinal Madruzzo had raised objections to 
the mode of procedure of the Grand Inquisitor : in his condemna 
tions he had not sufficiently taken into consideration the contents 
of the books. 

6 Polanco to Canisius, January 25, 1561, CANISII Epist., HI., 27. 


met with much approval in a Congregation of Cardinals and 
learned men, 1 and on January 24th, 1561, Seripando was 
instructed to devote himself to the work of revising the Index. 2 
During February and March conferences were held upon the 
subject 3 and on March i6th the decision was arrived at in a 
secret consistory to put the modifications into force. 4 On 
May iyth Borromeo was able to hold out to the legates of 
the Council at Trent the prospect of the speedy appearance of 
the revised Index ; the new list was to be drawn up in such a 
manner that the public could not reasonably find anything 
to object to in it. 5 At the same time an endeavour was made 
to put a stop to the flood of Protestant writings by the setting 
up of a printing press in Rome, which was entrusted to Paulus 
Manutius. 6 Cardinals Scotti, Vitelli, Mula and Morone were 
charged to make it their business to promote this new under 
taking. 7 

The hope of the early publication of the revised Index was 
not realized, but in its place there was issued on June I4th, 
1561, an order from the Grand Inquisitor, Ghislieri, which 
anticipated several of the modifications of the later Tridentine 
Index. 8 After the reassembling of the Council, the whole 

1 Polanco to Nadal, February 16, 1561, NADAL, Epist, L, 388. 

2 Seripando in MERKLE, II., 463. 

3 ibid., 463, 464. *Hoggi e stata fatta congregatione et s ha 
trattato principalmente sopra il catalogo delli libri condannati 
da Paolo 4. It will be revised. Awiso di Roma of February 8, 
1561 (Urb. 1039, p. 251, Vatican Library). Cf. EHSES, VIII. , 
250, n. 2. 

* Seripando in MERKLE, II., 464. 

6 " Sara di tal maniera che il mondo havra causa di potersene 
ragionevolmente contentare "; in SUSTA, I., 19. 

SusxA, I., 83. 

Morone to Capilupi, June 20, 1652, in Arch. stor. Lomb., 
1893, I]C 4 se 1 In this letter instructions are given to Capilupi 
to prevent the reprinting of the publication of Pole on the Council, 
which had been undertaken by the Venetian printer, Ziletti. 

"HILGERS in Zentralblatt fur Bibliothekswesen, XXVIII. 
(1921), 120 seq. Here the decree is published from a Vatican 
codex, but there must be other impressions in existence as well 


matter was referred to the synod by the brief of January I4th, 
I562. 1 

At that moment those assembled at Trent were keenly 
discussing the question whether the synod, which was about 
to be opened, was to be looked upon as a continuation of the 
former Council or not. 2 A subject of discussion, therefore, 

(ibid. 12 1). It was sent to Spain as having been published, but 
it was kept back for the time being by the Grand Inquisitor, 
Valdes. Cf. J. A. LLORENTE, Hist. crit. de 1 Inquisition d 
Espagne, trad, de par A. Pellier, I., 471 seq. Paris, 1818. In 
the introduction to the decree it is stated that Pius IV. had 
recognized that the censures contained in the recently published 
Index were a stumbling block to many persons. The mitigations 
have reference to those books which had been prohibited simply 
because the author or translator was suspect, or the name of the 
author was not given, as well as to editions of the Vulgate with 
suspect notes and commentaries, to the medical and botanical 
works of Leonhard Fuchs, and the manual of Canon Law by 
Molinaeus. With the removal of the notes and passages contrary 
to faith, these books can now be allowed, as also may be, after 
careful examination, the juridical works of Ulrich Zasius. The 
remark that Latin dictionaries (by heretical writers) and Bibles 
in the vernacular may be permitted subject to the prescriptions 
contained in the Index (which ?) is enigmatical. This can hardly 
have reference to the Index of Paul IV. ; it would seem that 
Ghislieri must have had in view the future rules 4 and 5 of the 
Tridentine Index. Above all, in the books now allowed, the 
names of heretical authors and translators must be removed. In 
order to obtain the free circulation of the works of Zasius, his 
sons, in September, 1562, obtained from the University of Freiburg, 
a testimonial to the orthodoxy of their father (REUSCH, I., 364) 
and also wrote to the Pope (without date, but apparently before 
September, in *Concilio, 74, Papal Secret Archives). They 
cannot have known that a whole year previously, Ghislieri had 
anticipated their wish. In other respects it would seem that 
the decree of June 14, 1561, has left but little trace. 

1 EHSES, VIII., 279. The forces that were so actively at work 
in connection with the Index, wrote Calini on January 29, 1562, 
have so far produced no results, " se non che ha scoperto infinite 
dimcolta." BALUZE-MANSI, IV., 212. 

2 Cf. Vol. XV. of this work, p. 265. 


such as the Index, which had no connection whatever with 
this question, was very welcome to the legates of the Council. 
It soon became evident, however, that the condemnation of 
Protestant books would have just as great an effect in keeping 
the innovators away from Trent as the announcement that 
the former Council, which was so detested by the Protestants, 
was to be continued. It was hoped to avoid this difficulty 
by setting the work on the Index on foot immediately, but 
deferring the declaration of the result until the close of the 
Council. 1 The further objection, that a Council could not 
correct the work of a Pope, was easily dealt with by the fact 
that the Pope had himself ordered the revision of the Roman 
Index. A Papal brief containing this order was issued on 
January I4th, 1562, and was read aloud in the general con 
gregation of January 3oth. 2 

In view of the excitement which the severe condemnation 
of books by Paul IV. had aroused, a speedy decision by the 
Council on the question of the Index could not fail to have a 
salutary effect. A decree was therefore prepared immediately 
after the opening of the Council, to be presented at the next 
Session ; this, however, only announced the resolution that a 
commission of the members of the Council should confer on 
the subject of the existing Index, and upon suspected books. 
All those whom it concerned were invited to submit their 
observations on the subject with full confidence to the Council. 
On January 27th, the legates laid the matter of the Index 
before the fathers as the principal subject for discussion. 3 
The Council decided by an overwhelming majority, in five 

1 The legates to Borromeo, December 18, 1561, in SUSTA, I., 129. 
MENDOA, 636 seq. 

2 THEINER, I., 678. BONDONUS, 556. SlCKEL, KojlZll, 269. 


3 THEINER, I., 677. SlCKEL, 269. BALUZE-MANSI, IV., 212. 

The legates wrote on January 29, 1562, to Borromeo : " In una 
congregatione privata signammo hieri molti prelati parte all 
indice, parte al catechismo et parte al decreto che s havera da 
formare." SUSTA, II:, 13 ; POGIANI Epist., II., xviii. Cf. 
EHSES, VIII., 304 seq. 


general congregations, 1 that a new Index should be drawn up, 
and the list of Paul IV. revised. 2 A commission, 3 appointed 
on February I2th, submitted on the ijth the draft of a decree, 
which led men to expect a revision. 4 After most careful 
deliberation, in three further congregations, the new decree 
was drawn up in the form 5 in which it was, with a few sub 
sequent alterations, made public at the solemn session of 
February 26th, the XVII Ith of the Council, and the second 
under Pius IV. 

The commission for the revision of the Index was appointed 
on February I7th, even before the publication of the decree. 
It was composed of six archbishops, nine bishops, one Bene 
dictine abbot, and the Generals of the Observants and the 
Augustinians. 6 The Archbishop of Prague, Anton Brus von 

1 Of January 30, February 6, 9, 10 and 12 ; see THEINER, I., 
678 seq. ,680 seq., 682 seq.; PALEOTTO, ibid., II., 535 ; BECCADELLT, 
III., 5 seq.; EHSES, VIII., 306-25. 

2 THEINER, I., 685. EHSES, VIII., 325. 

3 It consisted of the Archbishop of Zara, Muzio Calini, Bishops 
Egidio Foscarari of Modena, Giacorao Maria Sala of Viviers, 
Antonio Agustino of Lerida, and a Benedictine abbot. SUSTA, II., 
24 ; cf. THEINER, I., 685 ; BECCADELLI, III., 7 ; EHSES, VIII., 325 
n. 2. 

4 See EHSES., VIII., 329. 

6 In MERKLE, II., 477. Another form of the decree (ibid., 478) 
drafted by the Archbishop of Rossano, the future Urban VII., 
was only of practical importance in that it led to the changing 
of the last sentence of the first form (ibid., 477 seq.) ; see Paleotto 
in THEINER, II., 543. The original vote of the Archbishop of 
Rossano in EHSES, VIII., 336 seq., n. 231, D. 

6 They were the archbishops, Anton Brus von Muglitz of Prague, 
Giovanni Trevisano, Patriarch of Venice, Sebastiano Leccavella 
of Naxos, Ludovico Beccadelli of Ragusa, Guglielmo Pavesi of 
Sorrento, Bartol. de Martyribus of Braga, the bishops Tommaso 
Caselli of Cava, Ottaviano Preconio of Ariano, Egidio Foscarari 
of Modena, Urb. Vigerio of Sinigaglia, Jeronimo de Velasco of 
Oviedo, Antonio Agustino of Lerida, Domenico Bollani of Brescia, 
Niccol6 Sfrondato of Cremona, Girolamo Trevisano of Verona, 
Eutichio de Cordes (of Antwerp), the abbot of S. Fortunate near 

VOL. XVI. 2 


Miiglitz, acted as a kind of president at the discussions, which 
were held at his house. 1 Every possible care was taken that 
all the churches which were represented at the Council should 
have a seat and vote on the commission. At the request of 
the legates, the Grand Inquisitor sent to the seat of the Coun 
cil all the documents which could throw light on the Index 
of Paul IV., for the use of the commission. 2 By a brief of 
February 7th, 1563, the Pope extended the powers of the com 
mission by granting it permission to examine and form a 
judgment upon books which were not included in the Index 
of Paul IV. 3 

The invitation of the XVIIIth session, to submit claims and 
requests to the commission of the Index, was responded to 
from various quarters. 4 The answers given at Trent clearly 

Bassiano, the General of the Franciscan Observants, Francesco 
Zamorra, and the General of the Augustinians, Cristoforo di 
Padova (THEINER, I., 686 ; BECCADELLI, III., 7, 320). On 
July 29, 1563, the legates reported to Borromeo that there had 
been appointed to the commission " circa 22 padri " (SusTA, IV., 
144). Later on, it would seem, the number was again increased, 
and that the theologians were also called in for consultation. 
Together with REUSCH (I., 318) who makes various mistakes 
in the names, see EHSES, VIII., 328 seq. 

J The legates of the Council to Borromeo, July 29, 1563, in 
SUSTA, IV., 145. Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 294, 531 ; STEINHERZ, 
Brief e, 55. 

2 Borromeo to the legates, February 14, 1562, in SUSTA, II., 30 ; 
cf. 1 6. 

8 Printed in SUSTA, III., 215. 

4 In April, 1562, Gelli had recourse to the Florentine ambassador, 
that he might intercede on behalf of a prohibited book written 
by Gelli himself (SusxA, II., 348). On April 30, Beccadelli 
informed Lelio Torelli, secretary of the Duke of Florence, that if 
Gelli wished to explain or alter any passages of his book, he could 
do so, " perche noi come giudici benigni, e suoi amorevoli, pro- 
cureremo di liberarlo di questa nota " (BECCADELLI, III., 324). 
Gelli replied on May 6 by protesting his submission to the Congre 
gation of the Index (ibid., 325 seq.; the censures of the theologians 
of the Index upon his book, ibid., 195-8). The Duke of Urbino 
sent two works of Machiavelli in an expurgated form, and begged 
that they might be permitted in this form (SusxA, loc. cit.}. The 


prove the endeavour to show all possible clemency. In July, 

Florentine envoy Strozzi sought to induce his Duke to have 
Boccaccio expurgated as well, and to seek permission for the 
expurgated form (ibid.). At Trent Beccadelli declared that it 
was impossible to expurgate Boccaccio without spoiling it : let 
certain obscene or impious expressions be expunged, and say 
nothing about the rest, " come si e fatto del Bernia e certi altri " 
(BECCADELLI, III., 388 ; of. vol. XIV. of this work, p. 279). For 
later attempts to expurgate Machiavelli and Boccaccio see DEJOB, 
149 seq., 167 seq., 393 seqq. In a letter of August 8, 1562, Ghislieri 
instructed the nuncio in Venice, J. Capilupi, to suppress in an 
edition of Boccaccio which was being prepared there, some 
possible stories opposed to religion. Ghislieri confessed that he 
had never read Boccaccio (Arch. stor. Lomb., 1893, 113 seq.}. On 
February 22, 1563, the Jews asked that they might be allowed 
an expurgated edition of the Talmud (SusTA, III., 236 seqq., 
MEND09A, 106. G. WOLF, Das tridentinische Konzil und der 
Talmud, Vienna, 1895. Cf. Vol. XIII. of this work, p. 215). 
The writings of Raimundus Lullus were removed from the Index 
at the beginning of September, 1563, in accordance with the 
request of his countrymen (MENENDEZ Y PELAYO, Los heterodoxos 
espanoles, I., 537 seq., Madrid, 1880. Polanco to Nadal, Sep 
tember 7, 1563, in NADAL, Epist. II., 380. Cf. also SUSTA, III., 7 ; 
GRISAR, Disput, I., 407; SICKEL, Berichte, II., 128). The so- 
called Apostolic Constitutions which were prohibited by Ghislieri 
as apochryphal and heretical, and which also met with opposition 
in other quarters (Paleotto in THEINER, II., 576) were expunged 
from the Index at Trent in accordance with the remonstrances of 
their editor, Bovio (cf. letter of the legates of September 20, 1563, 
in SUSTA, IV., 255 seq.}. Beccadelli worked in favour of Flaminio 
(BECCADELLI, I., 30, 64 ; III., 321, 357) ; the Bibles of Isidore 
Clario and Giovanni Campensis were removed from the Index on 
July 27, 1562 (ibid., 357) in the same way as the Centoni of Lelio 
Capilupi were liberated by the intervention of his brother, the 
ambassador J. Capilupi (Arch. stor. Lomb., 1893, "5)- In the 
case of Grimani, Patriarch of Aquileia, who had been accused 
before the Inquisition of having declared orthodox certain pro 
positions denounced to him by the Dominican, Leonardo da Udine, 
a commission of 25 members of the Council pronounced (September 
T 7> T 563) in favour of Grimani (PALLAVICINI, 22, 3, 10 ; n, i ; 
SUSTA, II., 173 seq.; IV., 254 seq.); the sentence in THEINER, II.,4io. 


1563, the mild sentence passed on the much-discussed Cate 
chism of Archbishop Carranza of Toledo even led to serious 
complaints on the part of the Spanish ambassador, and con 
sequently to dissensions in the commission itself. 1 The 
fathers were most anxious to form their opinion from know 
ledge drawn from the books themselves, and not from the 
testimony of others. In the course of the year 1562, the Jesuit, 
Nadal, purchased heretical books for the Council at Antwerp, 2 
and in December of the same year a memorial from the fathers 
charged with the censorship of books, complained of the want 
of the necessary volumes, as they did not wish to give an 
opinion concerning things which they had not personally 
investigated. 3 Borromeo therefore charged the legates to 
have the desired books purchased at the expense of the Holy 
See, either in Venice or Germany. 4 Many people were even 
of opinion that the fathers of the Council read too many 
prohibited books. 6 

As the result of these investigations it became more and 
more evident how much the list of Paul IV. was in need of 
revision. It had been discovered, writes Archbishop Anton 
Brus, 6 that "several pious and learned persons " had been 
unjustly " not a little burdened " by the Roman Index ; 
several of them have already been "liberated." 7 Further 

1 The legates to Borromeo, July 29, 1563, in SUSTA, IV., 144 
seqq. Cf. the bibliography there published, p. 147, as well as 
Antonio Brus to King Maximilian II., in STEINHERZ, Briefe, no ; 
Philip II., to the Count di Luna, August 2, 1563, in Colleci6n de 
documentos in&litos, XCL, 483 seg. 

2 NADAL, Epist., II., 96. 

3 SUSTA, II. , 347. 

4 September 16, 1562, in SUSTA, III., 7. 

5 The memorial on this subject to Pius IV., and the reply of 
Borromeo in SUSTA, III., 321, 323. 

6 To King Maximilian II., June 18, 1563, in STEINHERZ, Briefe, 

7 Namely Giov. Campensis, Giorgio Agricola, Henricus Glareanus 
and Ulrich Zasius. Ibid., no. 


"liberations" followed. 1 . The writings of Erasmus, which 
Archbishop Brus would have preferred to license in their 
entirety, 2 gave the commission much trouble. Many diffi 
culties were also caused by consideration for Philip II. of 
Spain, who did not wish that certain books, which were for 
bidden by the Spanish Inquisition, should be omitted from 
the Roman Index. 3 

After the close of the Council, the results of this great 
labour, the so-called Tridentine Index, were once more exam 
ined in Rome by a deputation of four members, 4 and were 
then published by a Papal brief of March 24th, 1564. 5 While 
the Index of Paul IV. contained substantially only a list of 
prohibited books and writers, the Tridentine Index consists 
of two divisions, the so-called ten rules, and the list of writings. 
At the beginning there is the brief of confirmation of Pius IV., 
and a preface composed by the secretary of the commission, 

The inclusion of the rules is a very important change. It 
had been realized that it would be quite impossible to enumer 
ate and prohibit all the writings against the Church which had 
already appeared or would appear in the future. 6 It is ex- 

1 In September, 1563, Joh. Hartung (ibid., 134) who had been 
condemned on account of a translation of a Confession of Faith 
of the Greeks, was removed from the Index. On September 6, 
1563, Brus asked for the works of Geiler von Kaisersberg from the 
cathedral chapter of Augsburg (ibid., 135) : of his writings the 
Tridentine commission only retained on the Index the edition of 
the Narrenschitf prepared by the future apostate Otther. REUSCH, 

I-, 37- 

2 REUSCH, I., 320. 

3 Collecion de documentos ineditos, IX., 240 ; XCL, 484, 491. 
4 Pauli Manutii Epistolae, Venice, 1573, 1. 6, r. 25, p. 379. 

Archbishop Muzio Calini was a member of this deputation ; ibid. 

5 On April 24, 1564, Borromeo sent a copy to the nuncio Delfino. 
STEINHERZ, IV., in ; cf. DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 562. 

6 In the discussions on the Index, cf. the votes under Brac- 
carensis (Braga) and Chironensis (Dionysius Gnecus), in THEINER, 
I., 679 ; EHSES, VIII., 307. 


pressly stated in the preface that it would have been possible 
to include many other names in the list of those whose works 
are prohibited in their entirety, but that it had not been the 
intention or the function of the Council to seek all these out. 
They had been satisfied with the list of Paul IV., and left its 
completion to the bishops and inquisitors. 

The rules of the Tridentine Index are intended to supple 
ment the list of condemned books by means of a general and 
comprehensive prohibition, but at the same time they show a 
very considerable mitigation of the legislation concerning 
books. The list of Paul IV., it is stated in the preface by 
Fureiro, had in many places not been accepted, because 
scholars could not, without great difficulty, do without many 
of the books which it condemned ; besides this, many things 
in that list required explanation. The rules of the Tridentine 
Index provided for both these cases. The books of the actual 
propagators of heresy (heresiarchs), indeed, were condemned 
now as they had been before, but the writings of other heretics 
which did not treat of religion, were, under certain conditions, 
permitted. 1 Bibles and controversial writings in the vernacu 
lar were not allowed to all indiscriminately, but only, with 
episcopal permission, to such as would derive benefit from 
such books. 2 As far as books of a lascivious nature were 
concerned, all actually obscene literature was unconditionally 
forbidden ; certain works of the ancient classics, which were 
regarded as models of style, could not at any rate be placed 
in the hands of young people. 3 Finally, books on divination 
were forbidden. Only the reading and keeping of heretical 
books was punished by excommunication, and all books must 
be submitted to censorship before publication. 

As far as the second .part of the new Index, the list of 

1 Rules 2, 3, 5, 8. 

2 Rules 4, 6. The Council refers to persons who do not under 
stand Latin, namely, in the opinion of the day, who are wanting 
in higher education. These especially are not to explain the 
Sacred Scriptures themselves, but are to accept the explanation 
of those set over them. 

3 Rule 7. 


prohibited books, is concerned, the fathers " after long delibera 
tion, thought it best to keep to the earlier list which had 
recently been compiled by the Inquisition, with a few excep 
tions and additions." 1 Even here, however, the severity of 
Paul IV. was considerably mitigated. In the first place Pius 
IV. set aside both of the appendixes in which his predecessor 
had condemned a number of editions of the Bible, and had 
named numerous printers, the whole of whose output he had 
forbidden. In addition to these changes, not a few errors 
and obscure passages were removed. The three classes, 
however, which Paul IV. had distinguished, were retained 
in the new Index : the list of heretics, all of whose writings 
were held to be forbidden ; 2 pernicious books, both by Catholic 
and non-Catholic authors, whose names were known ; and 
those whose authors were unknown. 

The commission of the Index, however, removed many 
names from the first to the second class, especially that of 
Erasmus. 3 Even in the case of writers in the first class, it is 
no longer stated that they are open heretics, but only that they 
are either heretics or suspected of heresy. The inclusion of 
an author in the first class does not therefore declare him to 
be a heretic without further steps being taken. It signified, 
too, an important change that many books were not uncon 
ditionally condemned, but only pending their emendation, 4 
as for instance, Gelli and Boccaccio, on behalf of whom 
intercession had been made before the commission of the 
Index. 5 

After the publication of the new Index, the Pope, on August 
27th, 1564, gave the Cardinals the two-fold permission to read 

1 Introduction by Fureiro. 

2 Even though in this class mention is only made of the names 
of persons, the sentence of the Index applies, not to persons, but 
to their books. Cf. the " vota " of the fathers of the Council in 
THEINER, I., under Leriensis, p. 680, Vivariensis, p. 682, Vestanus, 
p. 684, Papiensis, p. 684, Nucerinus, p. 685. 

3 Cf. supra p. 21. 

* Rule 8. 

* Cf. supra p. 1 8, n.4. 


forbidden books themselves, and to allow others to read them. 1 
A decree of the Inquisition had already endeavoured to prevent 
heretical books from being smuggled into Rome and sold 
there. 2 

Like the new Index, the Roman Catechism was, in no small 
degree, the work of the fathers of the Council of Trent. 3 

A complaint had been made in the general congregation of 
April 5th, 1546, of the abuse by which, for the sake of the 
study of the profane sciences and of useless scholastic ques 
tions, the Sacred Scriptures were passed over, with the result 
that Christian people were less well instructed in Christian 
doctrine than in anything else, and that neither parents nor 
teachers were able to instruct young people in the Christian 
rule of life. In order to pave the way to the study of the 
Sacred Scriptures, the Council was begged to compile a concise 
introductory manual, which, avoiding long disputations, 
should simply and faithfully comprise the principal points of 
Christian doctrine, and which would afford the students of 
various countries a text-book and introduction to the Sacred 
Scriptures; At the same time a catechism for the instruction 
of children and the illiterate should be published both in Latin 
and in the vernacular. 4 

Both these suggestions were unanimously adopted. Only 
a few maintained that it was unnecessary to draw up a manual 
of the kind suggested as similar works had already been 
provided by Peter Lombard, Thomas Aquinas, Cyprian and 
Erasmus. 5 The Council expressed no further views on this 
point, and in the reform decree of the fifth Session no decision 

1 HlLGERS, 502. 

a Of May 13, 1562 ; ibid., 497. 

3 A. Reginaldus, O. Pr., Dissertatio de Catechismi Roman! 
auctoritate, printed in NAT. ALEXANDER, Hist, eccl., Supp. I., 
and before the publication of the Roman catechism, Toulouse, 
1648. CANISII Epist., III., 728-34 seq. ST. L. CORVIN v. SKIB- 
NIEWSKI, Gesch. des Rom. Katechismus, Rome-Ratisbon, 1903. 

4 EHSES, II., 72 seq., 106 n. 3. 

5 Discussions of April 13 and 15, 1546, ibid., 108-10 ; 114-19; 
summary of the results, ibid. f 113, 120. 


was arrived at, regarding either the manual or the catechism, 
probably because the Council did not wish to refer to matters 
which were not yet in existence. 1 In the meantime the 
question remained in abeyance, and the broken threads were 
only again taken up in the third period of the Council. 

In the interval the Emperor, Ferdinand I., took up the 
matter of the catechism. In the year 1551 he requested the 
University of Vienna and the Jesuits to carry out these two 
plans, which the Council had sanctioned but never carried 
into effect : the compilation of a catechism and of a manual 
of theology. 2 It is due to Ferdinand that the " Imperial " 
catechism was compiled by Canisius, and it is also to his .con 
tinued requests for a manual of theology that we owe the 
celebrated text-book for the use of parish priests which, under 
the title of " Catechism of the Council of Trent " or the 
" Roman Catechism," has gone through edition after edition, 
and is of great importance in the Church even to the present 
day. When the Emperor, in 1562, appointed the Archbishop 
of Prague, Anton Brus von Miiglitz, and Count Sigismund von 
Thun as his envoys at the Council, by the advice of his chan 
cellor, Seld, on October 20th, 1561, he charged them to see 
that a catechism was drawn up. 3 In the instructions given 
to the envoys 4 it is stated that they are to insist that a com 
pendium of Christian doctrine shall be published by the Council 
itself, either in a detailed or a concise form, or in both, in 
accordance with which doctors, parish priests, preachers, 
professors and schoolmasters in Catholic districts can regulate 
their teaching. 

Archbishop Brus had an opportunity for the first time of 
going into the matter at the Tridentine commission of the 

1 Ibid., 120. As early as the draft presented on May i and 7 
(ibid., 122 seq., 125 seq.) there is no longer any mention of either 
the catechism or manual. 

2 Methodum doctnnae catholicae. BRAUNSBERGER, Entstehung 
und erste Entvicklung der Katechismen des. sel. Petrus Canisius, 
Freiburg, 1903, 12. 

3 SICKEL in Arch, fur osterr. Geschichte, XLV. (1871), 35. 

4 SICKEL, Konzil, 258. 


Index. In the lists of Paul IV. the prohibition of catechisms 
had been so general that it might almost be thought that all 
the existing catechisms were condemned. Therefore, as Brus 
wrote to the Emperor on April 28th, 1562, the commission 
of the Index determined to request the Council to draw up a 
reliable and authoritative compendium of Catholic doctrine. 
All other catechisms were then to be prohibited, with the ex 
ception of that of Canisius, the contents of which could, for the 
most part, be incorporated in the new Tridentine catechism. 1 
In the celebrated reform libellum of the Emperor Ferdinand 
similar demands were made by the Imperial envoys ; the new 
manual, it is here stated, must specially deal with the disputed 
doctrines, and, out of consideration for uneducated parish 
priests, must be expressed in clear terms and in a popular 
style ; the book must be issued in the name of the Council, the 
Emperor and the princes, and it must be made incumbent 
on all parish priests, whether Catholic or not, not to deviate 
in any point from its teaching. One of the many catechisms 
by Catholic authors should be chosen and introduced as part 
of the educational equipment in schools for the young. 2 The 
King of France, in a memorial which he caused to be handed 
to the Council of Trent by his envoys on January 3rd, 1563, 
identified himself with the desire for a catechism expressed by 
Ferdinand. 3 

At the beginning of March, 1563, a deputation on the 
question of the catechism was already at work. 4 Seripando, 

1 Ibid., 294. The petition of the Archbishop of Prague to 
Cardinal Gonzaga of May 5, 1562, and Gonzaga s reply in STEIN- 
HERZ, Briefe, 59 seq. 

2 LE PLAT, V., 252 seq. 

3 Postulate* regis Galliae art. 13, in RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 8; 
LE PLAT, V., 637. Cf. the reply of the legates to art. 29. (Ls 
PLAT, V., 641). 

4 From Jan. 28, 1562, there is mention of this deputation, but 
none of the fact. The proposal was also put forward " di far un 
catechismo, et con quello tener i padri et theologi in esercitio " 
(the legates to Borromeo, February 14, 1562, in SUSTA, II., 23). 
According to Seripando (in SUSTA, III., 260) at the conference 


shortly before his death (March lyth, 1563) distributed the 
various headings of the catechism to the theologians for 
consideration, 1 and at the end of July the Council was urging 
the speedy compilation of the catechism. 2 The Pope, as 
Mendo9a, the Bishop of Salamanca, wrote at the time, wished 
for it, everyone was asking for it, and it was a very important 
thing for Christendom. The different parts of the proposed 

of the legates on March 5, it was discussed . . . " ut pro cate- 
chismo deputati duos, quos vellent, sibi theologos adiungerent, 
ut deputati ad indicem librorum secretarium Camilli loco, quern 
vellent asciscerent. " In contradiction to a supposition which 
has often been repeated, the commission for the catechism was 
then distinct from the deputation of the Index, which would 
also seem to be the case from the 25th session of the Council 
(December 4). At the beginning of March we have as the com 
mencement of the work the reply of the legates to art. 13 of the 
French demands, to the effect that certain prelates had been 
charged to compose a catechism, that they had begun it, and 
would soon complete it. The Roman comments on the replies 
of the legates reached Trent on March 6. SUSTA, III., 262. 

1 CHRISTOPHORUS SANTO Tis, Theatrum sanctorum Patrum, 
Burgos, 1607, Prologus, in SKIBNIEWSKI, 106. Santo Tis was 
charged by Seripando to prepare the article on the Church. The 
dissertation of the Franciscan, Michele Medina, on the fourth 
article of the Creed (the passion, death, and burial of Christ) 
is published (Explicationes in quartum symboli apostolici articu- 
lum, Venice, 1564). It begins thus : " Duo nobis ab ill. et rev. 
legatis in singulorum articulorum symboli apost. interpretatione 
demandantur; prius, ut quid christianus homo credere teneatur, 
explicemus ; posterius, ut quid in eisdem explicandis evangelici 
ministri populis ingerere debeant, adnotemus." The first is 
set out from f. 3-13, the second from f. 13-15. The Roman 
catechism differs widely from the explanation of Medina. 

2 MERKLE, II., 465. At the beginning of June the legates 
promised that immediately after the next session (July 15) there 
would be set up a deputation of fathers, " qui catechismum et 
homiliarium sive postillas conscribent " and a deputation for the 
ritual (the word legenda in Sickel is perhaps a misprint), the 
breviary, missal, and other liturgical books. Brus and Draskowich 
to the Emperor, June 9, 1563, in SICKEL, Konzil, 539. 


text-book were again given to the theologians. Spaniards 
were selected for the treatment of the profession of faith ; 
it would appear, Mendoya remarks with joyful pride in this 
connection, that it was his nation to whom the faith could 
be safely entrusted. The task of explaining the Lord s Prayer 
was entrusted to doctors from Louvain and France. 1 A list 
of September gth gives the names of the theologians to whom 
the treatment of the Ten Commandments and the Sacraments 
were to be entrusted. 2 Two catechisms were in contemplation, 
a larger one for teachers and a smaller one for the pupils. 3 

In spite, however, of all these appointments, the work had 
hardly advanced at all at the end of four months, and it was 
therefore, at the end of October, handed over to four other 
theologians, among whom mention may be made in the first 
place of the Archbishop of Zara, Muzio Calini. 4 To the future 
Cardinal Paleotto was entrusted the task of producing, from 
the drafts of the theologians, a homogeneous and polished 
work. 5 

After the dissolution of the Council the work upon the 
catechism was looked upon in Rome as having only been 
begun. Archbishops Muzio Calini of Zara, and Lionardo 
Marini of Lanciano, together with the Bishop of Modena, 
Egidio Foscarari, were given the task of completing it. 6 

1 MEND09A, 689. Mender s theologian, Funtiduena, received 
the article on the coming of Christ for the Judgment. 

2 Deputatio theologorum pro ~ateohismo, printed in SKIBNIEWSKI, 
108 ; cf. 31. 

3 MENDOA, IOC. Clt. 

4 MENDO^A on October 26 and 27, 1563, in MERKLE, II., 706. 

5 SANTO Tis, loc. cit. For the part taken by Paleotto in the 
Council, cf. MERKLE in the Rom. Quarfcalschr., XI. (1897), 379 Se 4- 

6 " Datum est negotium a pontifice max. tribus episcopis, ut 
ex decreto tridentini concilii commentarios componerent Christ 
ianas discipline " (Pogiani on December 25, 1564, Epist. III., 448). 
Francesco Torres bears witness to the collaboration of Marini 
and Foscarari in a letter to Hosius dated Rome, April 17, 1564, 
in Cyprianus, 356 : "in breviario laborant Mutinensis et Lan- 
cianensis, laborant quoque in catechismo." For the part played 
by Calini cf. LAGOMARSINI, Pogiani Epist., II., xxi. According 


Borromeo s zeal in the matter can be seen from many remarks 
in his letters. The principal assistant of the bishops was the 
Portuguese Dominican, Francisco Fureiro, who had already 
distinguished himself at the Council ; he was then brought to 
Rome, where he enjoyed the special friendship of Borromeo. 1 
Marini and Foscarari were also Dominicans, to which Order the 
principal credit for the Roman catechism must be ascribed. 
What the theologians had drafted was finally given to the 
most distinguished humanist of his times, Giulio Pogiani, that 
he might perfect it as far as the language was concerned. The 
celebrated stylist devoted the whole of his time during the 
last four months of the year 1564 to this honourable task, 2 and it 
is due to him that the catechism may be described, even as to 
its style, as a classical work. In other respects as well, ecclesi 
astical literature was quick to make use of the achievements 
of humanism. The decrees of the Council of Trent are written 
in a Latin which, for the purpose, one could not wish improved. 
The theologians of the new scholasticism, such as Melchior 
Cano, Canisius and their successors, attached no small import 
ance to a good Latin style. 3 The surprising fact therefore 

to BALUZE-MANSI, IV., 192, Calini wrote the two first chapters 
of the catechism, on the profession of faith and the sacraments. 
For other collaborators cf. SKIBNIEWSKI, 51. 

1 Borromeo caused him to give him daily theological lectures 
(BASCAPE, 10). The letters of recommendation from Borromeo 
on behalf of Fureiro to the Cardinal-infante and the King of 
Portugal in BALUZE-MANSI, III., 522 seq.; cf. 530. Fureiro was 
also engaged upon the revision of the Index. * Brief of March 8, 
1564, to the Cardinal-infante of Portugal (Brevia, Arm. 44, t. 20, 
n. 125, Papal Secret Archives). RAYN ALDUS, 1564, n. 53. 

2 Pogiani to Annibale Minali, December 25, 1564, Pogiani 
Epist. III., 449. 

3 The new scholasticism " has not only enriched theology with 
new discipline, but has also set up a classical model in every kind 
of exposition. The translation of the Metaphysics of Aristotle 
by Fonseca is beautiful latinity. The works of Melchior Cano, 
Canisius, Petavius, Toletus and Maldonatus, Bellarmine and 
Lessius stand out for their pure latinity and ease of style, which 
find the right word for every idea with exactitude and ease. The 


emerges that a tendency, which appeared for a long time to be 
given up to the worship of pagan ideals, and which had not 
otherwise succeeded in creating any enduring works, now at 
last, in the service of the Church, exercised an influence which 
has outlived the ages. 

On April i3th, 1565, Borromeo was able to write that, 
principally owing to the labours and skill of Fureiro, the 
catechism was at length nearly completed. 1 The hope, 
however, that he had expressed even at the beginning of the 
year, that the book would be printed in a few days, was not 
to be realized during the reign of Pius IV. 2 

The same bishops who had been entrusted with the com 
pletion of the Index and the Catechism, had also, for the 
greater part, the task of reforming the Breviary and the 
Missal. 3 

After the holy sacrifice of the mass the only divine worship 
as such officially used by the Church was the prayer in choir 
which was distributed over the seven periods of the day, and 
consisted of the psalms and lessons taken from the Sacred 
Scriptures, from the Fathers of the Church, and, on the feasts 
of the saints, from the story of their lives. This prayer of 
the canonical hours was also much used and valued by the 
faithful ; the alteration of the breviary, which is the basis 
of the prayer in choir, was followed by serious disturbances 

Council of Trent is as classical in its style as the Roman Catechism 
is excellent." (R. HERKENRATH in the Zeitschrift fur kath. 
Theol. XIII., 1889, 626 seq.}. Seripando desired that the canons 
and doctrine of the sacrament of orders among the decrees of the 
Council of Trent should be corrected from the point of view of 
style by Pendaso. SUSTA, III., 18, n. 3. 

x To the Cardinal-Infante of Portugal, in BALUZE-MANSI, III., 

2 To Delfino, January 20, 1565, in STEINHERZ, IV., 276; 
cf. ng. 

3 Cf. SCHMID in the Tubingen Quartalschrift, LXVI. (1884), 
45 I -83, 621-64. See BAUMER, Gesch. des Breviers, Freiburg, 
1895; BATTIFOL, Histoire du BreViaire remain, Paris, 1911; 


in Saragossa. 1 It can therefore easily be understood that 
even the secular princes, in their proposals for reform at the 
Council, should have taken prayer in choir and the breviary 
into consideration. In his ordinance for reform on July I4th, 
1548, 2 Charles V. issued prescriptions as to the prayer of the 
canonical hours on the ground that in the course of time much 
that was unsuitable and apochryphal had crept in ; the bishops 
should therefore remove these defects by the help of learned 
and pious men. 3 Ferdinand I. renewed these complaints in his 
reform libellum of 1562, while at the same time he drew atten 
tion to another abuse, namely the excessive length of the 
breviary. In order to reach the end the clergy in choir hurried 
on the prayers to such an extent that one side could not 
understand the other, and the people in consequence despised 
divine worship, which feeling was also extended to the sermons. 
The breviary, missal, and other liturgical books must be 
examined and revised. 4 The legates replied to these demands 
by saying that the reform of the missal and breviary would be 
entrusted to the fathers who were engaged upon the Index, 
but that neither the laity nor the clergy could make any 
complaint concerning the length of the breviary ; not the 
laity, because it was not necessary for them to take part in the 
prayer in choir, nor the clergy, because it was precisely for 
divine worship that they were there. 5 

As far as the Church was concerned, already for some time 
past, Leo X. and several provincial synods 6 had intended to 
give a new form to the canonical hours, while Clement VII. 
had encouraged attempts at reform of the most various kinds. 
Zaccaria Ferreri, who had wished to see classical Latin intro- 

1 Memorial of Juan ab Arce to the Council of Trent, 1551, in 
BAUMER, 404. Anal. luris Pontif., XXVI. (1886), 922. 
a Cf. Vol. XII. of this work, p. 424. 

3 c. 4, in LE PLAT, IV., 77 seq. 

4 LE PLAT, V., 243. Cf. the proposals made by the theologians 
to the Emperor Ferdinand on June 5, 1563, in SICKEL, Konzil, 
522 ; the advice of the Imperial orators at Trent, ibid., 531. 

5 N. 14, in LE PLAT, V., 387. 
See SCHMID, loc. cit., 478 seq. 


duced into the breviary, 1 Gian Pietro Carafa and the Theatines, 
with their strictly ecclesiastical ideas for a revival, the Cardinal 
of Santa Croce, Francisco Quinones, who had greatly curtailed 
the prayer in choir, and in other respects as well had broken 
through the bounds which had been so strictly observed for 
a thousand years, all these had met with help and encourage 
ment from the Pope. 

Only the so-called Santa Croce breviary, issued by Ouiiiones 
in 1535, had had an important, if temporary, influence. 2 
According to a declaration of Paul III., only the clergy who 
were very much occupied had the Papal dispensation to use 
this breviary, but soon afterwards several theologians declared 
that a special dispensation from the Pope was unnecessary, 3 
and many had availed themselves of this opinion. 4 In 
forty years the work of Quinones had gone through about a 
hundred editions, and in many places, as for example, several 
churches in Spain, had even come into common use by the 
faithful for prayer in choir. 

1 Cf. Vol. VIII. of this work, p. 208 seq.; BAUMER, 387-90 ; 
TACCHI VENTURI, 117 seqq. In his collection of hymns, Ferreri 
promised to reform the whole breviary. Part of his work is 
certainly preserved in the office (and mass) of St. Casimir ; see 

z Cf. BAUMER, 391 seqq. Reprint by J. Wickham Legg of the 
Antwerp edition of 1537, London, 1908 (Henry Bradshaw Society., 
Vol. XXXV). The Santa Croce breviary is of interest to England 
because it was one of the sources of the Book of Common Prayer. 
I* 1 *533 Quinones had on loan from the Vatican some codices of 
lives of the saints. MERCATI in Rassegna Gregoriana, VI. (1907), 


3 CANISII Epist., III., 70 n. 4. 

* Hence Canisius declared that it was absolutely necessary that 
he and his subjects should have the faculty to allow the use of 
the new breviary (ibid., 75). Examples of dispensations for the 
use of the Santa Croce breviary, ibid., I., 346 ; Cartas de s. Ignacio, 
IV., 80, 346 ; BALUZE-MANSI, III., 513. Ignatius of Loyola 
had obtained for his Order permission to use the Santa Croce 
breviary ; cf. the brief of Julius III., of June 3, 1545, Institutum 
Soc. lesu, I., n, Florence, 1892. 


The Santa Croce breviary, however, did not fail to find many 
enemies. In 1551, the Spaniard, Juan ab Arce, addressed to 
the Council of Trent a memorial against the innovations of 
Quinones. 1 After the third opening of the Council, in 1562, 
the Bishop of Huesco, Pedro Agustin, and all the bishops of 
Aragon, renewed their complaints to the Pope and the Council 
concerning the abuses to which the new breviary had given 
rise, and begged that the old Roman breviary, with the 
alterations planned by Paul IV., might be introduced through 
out the whole Church. 2 

After Gian Pietro Carafa had received permission in 1524 
and 1529 to draw up a new breviary and to test it in the 
Theatine Order, he had devoted himself zealously to this task, 
without, however, being able to obtain its approval from the 
irresolute Medici Pope. After Carafa had ascended the Papal 
throne as Paul IV., he again took up the work, together with 
the Theatine Cardinal Scotti and his confessor, Isachino, in 
collaboration with the future Cardinal Sirleto. Although 
it was not yet quite completed, the breviary of Paul IV. was 
adopted after his death by the Theatines in 1561, and soon 
afterwards was made the basis of the new arrangement of the 
canonical hours by the Council of Trent. The Carafa Pope 
had forbidden any further dispensations for the use of the 
Santa Croce breviary in 1558. On the strength of the memorial 
of the bishops of Aragon, the legates of the Council also sent 
the draft of a decree against the changes of Quinones to Rome 
on November 23rd, 1562. 3 

Some six months were to elapse, however, before the reform 
of the breviary and missal was seriously undertaken at Trent. 4 
The first step was taken when the legates, on June 24th, 1563, 
asked to have the preliminary work of Paul IV. on the breviary, 

1 Printed in Anal. Juris Pontif., XXVI. (1886), 784 seqq., gn 

2 SUSTA, III., 72 seq. Already in an extract from the reform 
proposals of the Spanish bishops there was expressed a wish for a 
common breviary and missal ; cf. LE PLAT, V., 610. 

3 BAUMER, 418. 

4 SICKEL, Konzil, I., 539. 

VOL. XVI. 3 


then in the hands of Cardinal Scotti, and the work of Alessandro 
Pellegrini on the missal, sent to them from Rome for ex 
amination. 1 The so-called missal of Gregory the Great, which 
Cardinal Guise had seen in the Vatican Library, was also 
conveyed to Trent, carefully packed, at the end of October. 2 
About the same time a deputation was finally appointed for 
the reform of the breviary and missal, 3 but it soon became 
clear that the deputation would not be able to bring its task 
to a completion before the close of the Council. 4 

Just as hitherto the revision of the liturgical books had, 
for the most part, gone hand in hand with the work in connec 
tion with the catechism, so, both before and after the close of 
the Council, the completion of both these tasks was entrusted 
to the same bishops, namely Calini, Marini and Foscarari. 6 In 
Rome the Pope gave them several assistants, among whom 
Sirleto and some members of the Theatine Order may be 
mentioned. 6 

J The legates to Borromeo, June 24, 1563, in POGIANI Epist., 
II., xviii ; SUSTA, IV., 95. The work of Pellegrini was found by 
Card. Scotti ; it was very incomplete (Borromeo, July 31 and 
Aug. 4, 1563, in SUSTA, IV., 162, 172). The Roman commission 
for printing begged on July 28 that the printing of the new missal 
and breviary might be carried out in Rome (ibid. 158). 

2 Borromeo to the legates, Oct. 21, 1563, in SUSTA, IV., 341 ; 

cf- 347- 

3 MENDO?A, 706. The Bishop of Faenza, Giov. Batt. Sighicelli, 
wrote on Nov. 4, 1563 to Sirleto : " Parmi intendere che gia siano 
stati deputati alcuni padri a revedere quello [breviario] di papa 
Paulo IV." See SCHMID, loo. cit. 627. 

4 Mendo9a, on Nov. 10, 1563, in MERKLE, II., 710. 

6 A little while before his death Foscarari began a letter to the 
Pope, on Dec. 17, 1564, in which, contrary to his previous vote, he 
begs for the retention of the Little Office of Our Lady, as follows : 
" Etsi pro munere divini officii componendi r " 8 archiepiscopis 
Lancian. [Lionardo Marini] et landrensi [Muzio Calini] mihique 
inuncto . . . . ; published by LAGOMARSINI, Pogiani Epist., II., 
xxiii, and recently by MERCATI in Rassegna Gregoriana, X. (1911), 
293. Cf. POGIANI Epist., II., xxu 

6 SCHMID, loc. cit. 628 seqq. Cf. the bull of Pius V. of July 9, 
1 568, prefixed to the editions of the breviary. 


The commission based their labours on the principle that it 
was not a question of providing anything new, but only of 
restoring the ancient prayer book of the Church to its original 
purity. They accordingly went back to the oldest breviaries 
attainable. The greatest alterations occurred in the case of 
the lives of the saints, into which much that was unsuitable 
and apochryphal had crept. 1 The task of giving to the 
revised lives a suitable literary form again fell to the lot of the 
celebrated Giulio Pogiani. 2 

On June 3rd, 1564, Borromeo wrote to Delfino that great 
pains were being taken to complete the breviary and missal, 3 
but at the death of Pius IV. the printing of the two books had 
not yet been begun. 

Paulus Manutius was summoned to Rome in 1561 to prepare 
correct editions of the Bible and the Fathers of the Church. 4 
The IVth Session of the Council had already ordered that in 
future the Vulgate must be printed as exactly as possible, and it 
was obvious that only the Roman See was in a position to carry 
out such a task. 5 This work was also taken in hand under Pius 
IV., 6 but it would seem that it had made but little progress. 

1 SCHMID, 633. 

2 BASCAPE in Pogiani Epist., II., xii ; cf. xxxiii. 

3 STEINHERZ, IV., 135. 

4 See Epist. ad P. Victorium, ed. Bandinius, L, Hi, Florence, 
1758. There was also question of printing the Greek text. See 
HILDEBRAND HoPFL, Kardinal Wilhelm Sirlets Annotationen 
zum Neuen Testament (Bibl. Studien, XIII.), 92, Freiburg, 1908. 

5 Cf. EHSES, II., 29, 37. 

6 On Oct. 21, 1562, Marsilio Caphano, " depositario della R. C. 
Apost. sopra la stampa," certified that he had received into his 
keeping from Ghislieri by the hand of Sirleto a very ancient codex 
of the Vulgate, which he was to return to whomsoever should be 
appointed by the " deputati sopra la stampa," Cardinals Scotti, 
Morone. Mula and Vitelli. The codex was to be compared with 
others, so that they might have a " Bibbia emendatissima " 
(VERCELLONE, Variae lectiones, I., xix, Rome, 1860). Already, 
immediately after the publication of the Tridentine decree upon 
the Vulgate, Sirleto, at the suggestion of Cardinal Cervini, had 
begun to collect various texts. HOPFL, loc. cit. 9 seqq. 


A new edition of the Fathers of the Church, especially the 
Greek Fathers, appeared to many people to be a necessity, 
as the text hitherto in use was looked upon as having been 
falsified by the heretics. 1 Charles Borromeo, by the Pope s 
orders, turned his attention to this matter as well. He 
endeavoured to obtain the services of the able Portuguese 
philologist, Achilles Stazio, for this undertaking, 2 and he 
encouraged the Archbishop of Corfu, who had sent some Greek 
codices to Rome, to search for unpublished works, assigning 
to him for this purpose a sum of money and a monthly stipend. 3 
The time had not arrived, however, for such an extensive 
undertaking ; there was not a sufficiently clear appreciation 
of the difficulties and requirements of such a task, nor any 
very clear idea of the principles of textual criticism ; above 
all, there was, for the moment, a lack of trained experts. 

In the event it was necessary to wait until the end of the 
century before the world saw the completion of even those 
undertakings which the Council had originally intended to 
accomplish itself, but which, under the force of circumstances, 
it had been compelled to hand over to the Holy See. Several 
of the undertakings which had been put forward by the 

1 P. Manutius wrote to Pius IV. that he had been called to 
Rome " ut sacros praecipue libros ab haereticorum nefaria peste 
vindicates, ederem quam liceret emendatissime " (Epistolae, 426 ; 
cf. 28). It is thfe intention of the Imperial envoys to propose to 
the Council of Trent that it should issue a decree " ut libri catholici 
bibliorum sacrorum et ss. patrum per haereticos depravati resti- 
tuantur." Memorial of June 5, 1563, in SICKEL, Konzil, 522 ; 
cf. EICHHORN, Hosius, II., 273 seq. 

2 BALUZE-MANSI, III., 525. Under Pius V. Stazio was employed 
in the composition of the Papal letters. P. MANUTIUS, Epistolae, 

* BALUZE-MANSI, III., 526. Avanzato and Panvinio were 
given the task of examining the libraries of lower Italy in search 
of unpublished writings of the Fathers (RAYNALDUS, 1564, n.53). 
A *motuproprio of Jan. 8, 1564, created the office of a " correc- 
tore dei libri Greci della Biblioteca Vaticana copiati scorretta- 
mente." Estratti de libri instrument, esistenti nell arch. segreto 
Vaticano 1374-1557 (sic !), n.3 (State Archives, Rome). 


Imperial envoys, such as the popular catechism, and the 
book of sermons for the use of parish priests, were later on 
left, both by the Council and the Pope, to the zeal and enter 
prise of private individuals. As a matter of fact it could 
not fall within the sphere of a Council s work to carry every 
thing into effect, or to provide for everything itself down to the 
smallest details. The work of the Council was to trace the 
broad fundamental lines upon which the Church was once 
again to renew herself. In the fact that the Council of Trent 
discharged this duty in so eminent a degree lies its " epoch- 
making importance in the history of the world." 1 

1 Cf. RANKE, Papste, I 6 ., 226 seq. 



THE Fathers of the Council were fully conscious of its duty 
and its dignity. The same thing came out clearly in the course 
of a discussion which has attained to a certain celebrity owing 
to the legendary development given to it at a later period. 
While it was conferring on the manner in which the holy sacri 
fice of the mass should be celebrated, attention was naturally 
drawn to the question of church music. Several of the 
fathers of the Council were of opinion that music should be 
entirely excluded from divine worship, 1 but this view did not 
find favour with the majority ; the Spaniards especially urged 
the very ancient custom of the Church in favour of the exist 
ing practice, and pointed out the assistance that a dignified 
chant could render to piety. It was only necessary that 
anything voluptuous or profane should be kept out of the 
Church, while all possible care must be taken that the words 
of the liturgy did not become unintelligible. 2 A decree was 
therefore drawn up and submitted in this sense, which in 
sisted upon these two points, namely, the exclusion of any 
thing profane, and the necessity for intelligibility, as to which 
many special ordinances were proposed. 3 Together with 
many other proposals for reform, the Council referred the care 
of church music to the bishops ; in its decree upon the cele 
bration of the Holy Sacrifice, it contented itself with ad- 

1 Naturally only figured music is spoken of here. There was no 
wish to touch the Gregorian chant, which had been recognized in 
sess. 23, de ref., c.i8, and sess. 24, de ref., c.i2. 

2 Paleotto in THEINER, II., 590. PALLAVICINI, 18, 6, 17. 

3 In THEINER, II., 122. EHSES, VIII., 926 seq. In two memor 
ials printed ibid, concerning " abusus circa missae sacrificium " 
there are included (p. 918 and 922) abuses in the singing. 




monishing the bishops to be careful to exclude anything 
frivolous or unclean. 1 

Many complaints had been made concerning church music 
even before the time of the Council. Bishop Johannes Roth 
of Breslau (1482-1506) had wished frankly to banish figured 
music, which he described as " cantus crispus," from the 
Church. 2 As in the draft laid before the Council of Trent, 
the complaints centred round these two points, that the words 
were rendered unintelligible by the music, and that the sacred 
and the profane were mixed up together. 3 

The meaning of these two complaints may be gathered 
from the historical development of church music. At the 
time of the Council of Trent the prevailing form of music was 
not that which is usual to-day, namely, the so-called monodic 
form, in which one voice alone takes up the melody, and the 
other voices have only to sing the harmonies which accompany 
it. The older form of singing for several voices was the so- 
called polyphonic style, in which all the voices are of equal 
importance, each one singing its own melody, and only, as it 
were, incidentally and by accident, harmonizing with the 

This polyphonic or contrapuntal church music was a develop 
ment from the old ecclesiastical Gregorian chant. 4 One of 
the singers, the so-called " holder " of the melody (tenor) 
rendered the ancient chant of the Church, while round this 

1 Sess. 22, Deer. " de evitandis." In Sess. 24, de ref., c. 12 
(cf. THEINER, II., 376) church music is dismissed with a passing 
word. In the first draft of the reform decree of this session, but 
not in the second draft (in THEINER, II., 371 seq.}, there was 
actually contained a prohibition of effeminate church music 
(PALLAVICINI, 22, 5, 14). Ferdinand I., to whom the first draft 
was sent, put in a word on Aug. 23, 1563 in favour of figured music 
(ibid.). KARL WEINMANN, Das Konzil von Trient und die 
Kirchenmusik, Leipzig, 1919. Cf. App. n. 32. 

2 " cantum crispum appellavit " AMBROS, III., 24. 
3 AMBROs, IV., 13. 

4 Ibid., II., Zweites Buch : Die Entwicklung des geregelten 
mehrstimmigen Gesanges, 339 seqq. 


the other voices moved in their own melodies. Before long 
composers began to combine with the well-known ecclesaisti- 
cal melody, a second one, already existing, and also well 
known ; thus two well-known melodies were now being sung 
at the same time, while round these the remaining voices 
provided an artistic accompaniment of rising and falling 
scales. This counter-melody, which was thus combined with 
the chant, was very often taken from the chant itself, but 
was ]ust as frequently drawn from among the popular songs 
of the day. 

As a matter of fact, this mixture of the sacred and profane 
was by no means so offensive as, at first glance, it might 
appear. It must not be supposed that the words of the 
popular song were also sung. 1 The notes of the popular air 
were so long drawn out, and the melody so broken, shortened, 
and altered in rhythm, as to become almost unrecognizable. 
Through the polyphonic musical texture, only long drawn out 
notes were audible, which provided the foundation of the 
melody, 2 the secular air " being as it were, only the wire in 
tended to hold together the flowers round which it was wound, 
without being itself visible." 3 Often the composer took from 
some secular song nothing but the motif, out of which he 
developed his Kyrie or Gloria, though even then, as an autho 
rity puts it, 4 in such a composition the secular melody was 
" everywhere and nowhere ; everywhere, in that it permeates 
the music at every point, and nowhere, in that it scarcely 
appears definitely or in its original form at any point, except, 
at the most, occasionally in the tenor, when it again immedi 
ately disappears in the runs and waves of the counterpoint 
which envelopes it." 

Nevertheless the practice had its dangerous side. When 
Jean de Richafort, in a Requiem, caused to be sung among 
the words of the ecclesiastical text, the words from the Psalms : 
" The sighs of death surround me," and when, in the midst 
of the Latin text of the liturgy, the two tenors, with ever- 

1 Ibid., III., 24. 2 Cf. ibid., 15 seq. 

3 Ibid., II., 450. 4 Ibid. (III., 46). 


increasing anguish, exclaim to each other : c est douleur non 
pareille, this violent intrusion of the deepest personal grief 
into the solemnity of the funeral rites of the Church may have 
been very affecting, but the hearer must have found it diffi 
cult to avoid receiving a false impression when he remembered 
that in the popular song from which it was drawn this douleur 
non pareille was occasioned by the emptiness of the purse. 1 
It was already a scandal when people began to distinguish 
the different Masses by the popular songs on which they were 
based, and even named them by the first words of some well- 
known song. 2 

Richafort s Requiem also furnishes an example of another 
peculiarity of the music of that time, that of singing different 
words simultaneously, and thus rendering it almost impossible 
for the hearer to understand anything that was said. In a 
Mass of the great Jakob Obrecht, a prayer to St. Donatian is 
mixed up with the Agnus Dei. 3 Matteo Pipelare caused the 
whole story of the life of St. Livinus to be sung at the same 
time as the Mass. 4 The genial but fantastic Nicholas Gombert 
wrote a much admired motet entitled Diversi diversa orant, 
in which four different voices actually sang four different 
antiphons to Our Lady at the same time. 5 Such things are 

1 AMBROS, III., 43. In a secular musical composition Jannequin 
describes a battle, in which one can hear the advance of the troops 
with their drums and pipes, the thunder of the cannon, the shouts 
of victory, etc. He then had the strange whim of converting this 
into a mass, which was known as " Battaille " (ibid. 344). 

2 A mass O Venus bant by Kaspar van Weerbeke, AMBROS, 
III., 251 ; La belle si siet by Okeghem, Giov. Ghiselin, de Orto, 
ibid., 179, 258. A mass Adieu mes amours, and another Baisez- 
moi, ibid., xiv. Almost all the great composers before Palestrina, 
and after him, wrote a mass on the songL homme arme ; ibid., 46 ; 
II., 450. 

Ibid., III., 182. 

4 Ibid., 187. 

5 Ibid., II., 391 seqq. ; III., 300. In an Ite missa est for three 
voices in the so-called mass of Tournai (xiii century) one voice 
sings the ecclesiastical text, a second sings a Latin sentence, and a 
third a secular French song ; ibid., III., 27. 


frequently to be found in church music before the time of the 
Council of Trent. 

There were undoubtedly excrescences and artificialities, 
but the music of the time was very full of both apparent and 
real artifices in the combination of several voices ; these 
constitute a necessary transition stage in the development of 
polyphonic music, which represents an enormous advance 
upon classic antiquity, and is one of the most splendid achieve 
ments of the middle ages. The architecture which produced 
the Gothic cathedral has been described as frozen music, and 
indeed, as far as the strict co-ordination of measure and 
number is concerned, no other art is so closely akin to archi 
tecture as the one which has to build up its masterpieces out 
of variable and scattered notes. So it came to pass that 
number and measure, theory, and dry and rigid rules played 
an eminently fitting part in the evolution of music. The first 
compositions for several voices are rather sums in arithmetic 
than works of art, and for a long time to come music retained 
this character of being the production of the reasoning facul 
ties, and of delight in making captious experiment. Men 
aimed at the impossible in the matter of the combination 
of voices, and we read of compositions for 24 and even for 36 
voices. 1 By preference they cultivated the most difficult 
of the contrapuntal forms, the so-called " canon," in which 
all the different voices successively render the same melody, 
but the later voice commences the melody before the pre 
ceding one has finished it, so that the different parts are being 
performed simultaneously, and have each in their turn to be 
harmonized with the others. A " fantastic touch " is to be 
found in this music, and in every part of it, which reveals 
itself in strange refinements of composition. During the 
XVth century there are to be found in the compositions of 
the Netherland school " not a few pieces which are frankly 
impossible, but which, nevertheless, have a characteristic 
attractiveness, problems of musical composition which even 
a choir of trained singers could hardly have been able to 

l lbid., III.. 176, 210, 


perform, because music had arrived at the point of exploring 
the utmost limits of its kingdom by searching experiments, 
sometimes very daring, so as to take the measure of its own 
strength by setting before itself the hardest problems." 1 The 
matter was still further complicated by singers who were 
skilled in their art adding, even in the case of difficult 
compositions, further flourishes and ornamentations of their 
own. 2 

It must not be supposed, however, that music before the 
time of Palestrina succeeded in producing nothing but arti 
ficial compositions, and no works of art. Little by little there 
arose masters who, while completely mastering the greatest 
technical difficulties, were able to infuse real warmth of feeling 
and spiritual expression into their compositions. After the 
first un wieldly attempts in Scandinavia and England, and later 
in France, the Netherlands became the home of music. The 
first great master arose in the person of Guillaurne Dufay of 
Hainault (died 1474), who had been a canon of Cambrai since 
1436. He was the first whose work showed real style ; 3 
deep warmth of feeling and a pure sense of beauty are ex 
pressed in them in a most attractive way, and through nearly 
all of them there runs the expression of a wonderfully tender 
melancholy and a graceful piety. 4 Dufay s most able pupils 
were Binchois, also a priest of Hainault, and above all, Busnois, 
whose works show a considerable advance on those of Dufay. 
While the earlier music went no further than to " envelope in 
harmony " a given melody, say from the Gregorian chant, it 
now begins to stand on its own feet and to follow out its own 
aspirations. 5 

A second Netherland school began with Johann Okeghem, 

1 Ibid., g. 

2 Examples of such so-called " diminuzioni " in Pierluigi da 
Palestrina, Werke, XXXI 1 1., 45 seqq. 

3 AMBROS, II., 496. 

4 Ibid., II., 497. Cf. F. X. HABERL, Bausteine fur die Musik- 
geschicte, I; Wilhelm Du Fay, Leipzig, 1885; cf. Hist.-pol. 
Blatter, XCVII. (1886), 279 seqq. 

5 AMBROS, II., 504. 


who died, when almost a hundred years old, in 1512. He 
probably was a native of East Flanders, and had been a singer 
in the chapel of Charles VII. and Louis XI., and later became 
treasurer of the capitular church of St. Martin, at Tours. 
Okeghem was master of the canon and all other musical 
artifices to an astonishing degree, but he also knew how to 
impart to his music " the singing soul," and we find in him 
" whole periods of the most wonderful melodic treatment, and 
an extraordinary gracefulness and fervour of expression." 1 
A funeral cantata at the time of his death speaks of him as the 
prince of music, and there is no doubt that he exercised a very 
great influence on the later development of harmony. Jakob 
Obrecht (d. 1507) may be looked upon as his disciple, but it 
was principally through Josquin de Pres that Okeghem s style 
was spread in Italy, France, and even Germany, where the 
great composers, Heinrich Isaak 2 and Ludwig Senfl 3 were his 
followers. Josquin himself must be counted among " the 
greatest musical geniuses of all time." A master of all the 
subtleties and artifices of composition, it was he who " with 
a strong hand, broke through the thorny thickets the way which 
led to a more moderate form of art." 4 Notwithstanding the 
constraints which the fixed forms of the day imposed on him, 
his works express a " deep, pure feeling, which is capable of 
exciting the deepest emotion ; " he frees himself more and 
more from the many imperfections of his earlier works, until 
he at last succeeds in creating " works of pure gold, which 
stand on the very pinnacle of artistic perfection." 5 Josquin 
was born in 1445 in Hainault, probably at Conde, where he died 
in 1521. He belonged to the Papal choir under Sixtus IV., 
and in 1480 was already a celebrated master at the court of 
Louis XI. of France, with whom he was on very intimate terms. 

l lbid., III., 175. 

2 Ibid., 389 seqq. His is the song, Innsbruck, ich muss dich 
lassen, of which he makes use in the Kyrie of his Missa carminum ; 
ibid., 389, 394. 

3 Ibid., 414 seqq. 

4 Ibid., 207. 

5 Ibid., 208 seq. 


The music of the Netherlands gained a world-wide reputation 
owing to all these celebrated composers, and every important 
princely court sought to obtain their services for their chapels. 
They made their way to Vienna in 1498, 1 and Philip the Fair 
took them with him to Spain, where the chapel of Valladolid 
was one of the most celebrated in the world. 2 About 1480 
three distinguished Netherlander taught music at the same 
time in Naples, 3 and even Venice, which jealously took care 
that none but natives should hold the posts of organist and 
chapel-master, was persuaded in 1527 to invite Adrian Willaert 
there as a teacher of music. 4 

It was, however, of much greater importance that the 
Netherlanders also took possession of the Papal choir in Rome. 
Their position at the French court had paved their way to the 
Papal court at Avignon, and when Gregory XL returned per 
manently to Rome in 1377, ne to k them with him, and they 
retained their position in the Papal choir until well on into the 
XVIth century. In the time of Dufay the list of the Papal 
singers contains only names which have a Flemish or French 
sound ; Dufay himself, and later on Josquin, were for many 
years members of the Papal choir, the archives of which con 
tain to this day a number of masses and motets by masters 
from the Netherlands. 5 

The supremacy of the Netherlander singers in Italy was as 
beneficial to their own school of music as it was for that of 
Italy. It preserved the Italians from a premature attempt 
to revert, by quite unexplored ways, to classical antiquity in 
the field of music as in other directions. The age of the 
Renaissance, as far as music was concerned, only began in the 
XVIIth century, and it then led to the creation of the modern 
or monodic style of composition, yet the Renaissance was not 
without its influence on the earlier practice of the art even in 

1 Ibid., II., 516. 

2 Ibid., 524. 
8 Ibid., 538. 
4 Ibid., 539. 

6 Ibid., 494 seq. 


the XVIth century. It was undoubtedly of the greatest 
value to the genius of Dufay or Josquin that both of them 
should have been brought into contact, at Rome and Florence, 
with the culture of the Italy of those days. Netherland music 
only attained to the highest perfection of which it was capable 
when the Italians, with their educated sense of beauty and 
their refined artistic temperament, adopted and made use of 
the achievements of their predecessors. 

Even the greatest of the musicians of the XVIth century, 
Giovanni Pierluigi di Sante, commonly called Palestrina, from 
the place of his birth, can by no means be regarded as the 
creator of a completely new style of church music. 1 

Probably born in 1525, 2 he received his musical education 
in Rome, between 1540 and 1544, in the strict school of a 
Netherlander. 3 As his works prove, he had studied the Flemish 

1 Pierluigi da Palestrina, Werke, 33 volumes, Leipsic, 1862- 
1893, I 97- J os - BAINI, Memorie storico-critiche sopra la vita 
e le opere del G. P. da Palestrina, Rome, 1828. F. X. HABERL 
in Kirchenmusikal. Jahrbuch, IV. (1894), 87-89, KARL WEIN- 
MANN, Zur Geschichte von Palestrinas Mii>sa Papae Marcelli in 
the Jahrbuch der Musikbibliothek Peters fiir 1916 anno XXIII., 
Leipsic, 1917, 23-42. W. BAUMKER, Palestrina, Freiburg, 1877. 
P. WAGNER, Palestrina als weltlicher Komponist, Strassburg, 
1890 ; Das Madrigal und Palestrina in the Vierteljahrsschrift fiir 
Musikwissenschaft, VIII. (1893), 4 2 3 se ^- > Geschicte der Messe 
I., Leipsic, 1913 ; the same in Gregoriusblatt, XXXVIII. (1913), 
55-56, 65-70. TH. SCHMID in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, XLVII. 
(1894), 113-136. 

* Karl Weinmann arrives at this conclusion in his excellent 
monograph, Palestrinas Geburtsjahr, Ratisbon, 1915, which forms 
a chapter of the great biography of Palestrina, on which this 
learned writer on music has been at work for many years. 

3 Of Gaudio Mel. Baini wrongly identifies him with Claude 
Goudimel. HABERL in Kirchenmusikal. Jahrbuch, IV. (1891), 
98. According to recent researches Palestrina s master was the 
Fleming, Firmin le Bel. Cf. CASIMIRI, Giovanni Pier Luigi da 
Palestrina. Nuovi documenti biografici. Rome, 1919. See also 
P. WAGNER, neue Dokumente zur Lebensgeschicte Palestrinas, 
in Musica Sacra LII (1919). 5 seqq. 


masters with great assiduity, and in his earlier works he 
followed closely in their footsteps. 1 In a few cases he even did 
not disdain to write masses which were founded on secular 
melodies, 2 and he is as expert in all the rules of counterpoint 
as any of the great Netherlanders. The thing, however, 
which especially distinguishes Palestrina from his predecessors 
is his extraordinarily refined sense of beauty. His melodies 
are "formed of pure gracefulness," 3 he has discarded every 
thing of the pedantry, affectation and want of spontaneity, 
which in various ways still adhered to the style of the reat 
northern masters. In his hands the arrangements of the parts 
became more melodious and more full of life, and even under 
the constraint of the most complicated forms of counterpoint, 
he seems to move with supreme ease and freedom. His 
means of expression are in themselves very limited. He uses 
only four or six, or rarely eight male voices, which, for all their 
complexity, meet in but three pure harmonies. These voices, 
however, (which he occasionally divides into two choirs) he 
is able to group together in an exceedingly effective manner, 
so as to produce the most glorious effects. In this respect 
Palestrina, considered merely from the musical point of view, 
may be looked upon as " the last and most perfect flower of a 
development extending over centuries." 4 

Palestrina placed his powers as a composer entirely at the 
service of the Church. In his music the ancient ecclesiastical 
chants appear in festal array, and for the most part he con 
structed his compositions out of motifs drawn from the Gre 
gorian chant, and he develops his melodies upon the lines 
of that chant. 5 The ease with which he composed enabled 

I AMBROS, IV., 23. 

2 He also wrote a mass on I homme armd in 1570 ; in another 
written on the same song in 1582 he omits any mention of the 
theme, as is the case in his Missa sine nomine written upon a song 
Je suis desherite. Cf. WAGNER in Gregoriusblatt, XXXVIII, 
(1913), 67. 

3 Ibid., 66. 

4 AMBROS, IV., 23. 

8 WAGNER, loc. cit., 66, 70. 


him to write 93 masses, motets for all the feasts of the year, 
and hymns for all the ecclesiastical seasons ; his secular com 
positions, two volumes of madrigals, are hardly worthy of 
mention in comparison with these. 1 A tone of the deepest 
religious fervour pervades all his ecclesiastical works, for 
Palestrina penetrated deeply into the meaning and feeling of 
the liturgical text, and knew how to give expression to it 
in the most affecting manner. Compositions such as his 
Improperia and Stabat Mater cannot be listened to without 
emotion by anyone who has any ear for music, and even com 
posers, whose point of view is quite different in other ways, 
have never been able to conceal their admiration for Palestrina 
in this respect. 2 

1 According to Haberl s thematic list of the works of Palestrina 
in the complete edition, XXXIII., 97-129, the master composed 
(not including two of doubtful authenticity) the following masses : 
39 for four voices, 29 for five, 21 for six, and 4 for eight ; besides 
486 antiphons, motets, offertories and psalms, 69 hymns, 30 
lamentations, 35 Magnificats, n litanies, 182 madrigals and 
secular songs. 

2 See in BAUMKER, 24, 67, the opinion of Felix Mendelssohn- 
Bartholdy on the Improperia and old Italian church music in 
general. Richard Wagner has often expressed his admiration 
for Palestrina. He has called the " celebrated ecclesiastical com 
positions of Palestrina " an " altogether intellectual revelation " 
by which "we are struck with an indescribable emotion." 
(Schriften und Dichtungen [s.a.] IX., 79 seq.}. " For the con 
noisseur of art, we come to the decadence of Italian music with 
the rise of opera ; a statement which is evident to anyone who has 
arrived at a clear idea of the grandeur, wealth and unspeakably 
expressive depth of the Italian church music of the preceding 
centuries, and, after hearing, for example, the Stabat Mater of 
Palestrina, it is impossible to maintain the opinion that Italian 
opera is the legitimate daughter of that wonderful mother." 
(Ibid., VII., 90.) "To ascend to an expression in melody suitable 
to its inmost meaning, the true Christian spirit invented poly 
phonic music on the basis of a harmony of four voices. ... To 
what a wonderful depth of expression, such as had never in any 
way been attained before, melodic language attained with this 
discovery, we can see, with ever increasing emotion, in the alto- 


The great simplicity and depth of Palestrina s style may be 
looked upon as the realization of the reform of Church music 
desired by the Council of Trent. The credit of having pre 
pared the way for the reformer, and therefore for the reform 
itself, must be given to Pope Julius III., once bishop of 
Palestrina s native place, who had himself a great under 
standing of music. 1 It was probably he who, in 1551, sum 
moned the youthful master from an unimportant position 
in the cathedral of his native place to be choir-master at 
St. Peter s in Rome. 2 It was also through the influence of 
Julius III. that, on January I3th, 1555, Palestrina was ad 
mitted into the college of the singers of the Papal choir, from 
which he was, however, dismissed on the 3oth of the following 
July by the strict Paul IV., on the ground that the Papal 
singers must be clerics, and Palestrina was a layman and 
married. He was next appointed choir-master of the Lateran, 
and afterwards of St. Mary Major. It was only in 1571 that 
he was again entrusted with the direction of the music at 
St. Peter s, which position he retained until his death in 

In Rome Palestrina had an opportunity of getting into 
closer touch with those circles from which had sprung the 
movement for ecclesiastical reform. He says himself that he 
had laboured with all his powers in accordance with the advice 
of distinguished and ^God-fearing men, to contribute by means 

gether incomparable masterpieces of Italian church music," which 
produce an effect which in a wonderful way " stir the heart to the 
deepest piety " which " literally cannot be compared with any 
effect produced by any other among the arts." (Ibid., VII., 106.) 
In his capacity as director of the court chapel of Saxony, Wagner 
formed the plan of banishing orchestral music from divine service 
in the court chapel, and of introducing in its stead the music in 
the style of Palestrina (ibid., II., 252 seqq.}. In Parsifal, at the 
mention of Good Friday, Wagner makes the orchestra play the 
first bars of Palestrina s Stabat Mater. Cf. J. HATZFELD in 
Musica Sacra, XLVI. (1913), 125 seqq. 

1 Cf. Vol. XIII. of this work, p. 51. 

2 Cf. ibid. p. 332. 

VOL. XVI. 4 


of his art to the glorification of the holy sacrifice of the Mass. 1 
Later on he looked upon it as a great fault that he had, as 
early as 1555, published a volume of madrigals, in which the 
beauty of women and worldly love had been extolled. 2 It would 
seem that he formed a friendship with Philip Neri ; at any 
rate the latter assisted the great master at his death. That 
in some way Palestrina had been brought into contact with 
Marcellus II., the zealous reforming Pope, may be gathered 
from the title he gave to one of his most celebrated master 
pieces, the Mass of Pope Marcellus. 3 During the short reign 

1 " Faciendum mihi putavi, ut gravissimorum et religiosissi- 
morum hominum secutus consilium ad rem in Christiana religione 
omnium maximam et divinissimam, hoc est Sanctissimum Missae 
sacrificium novo modorum genere decorandum, omne meum 
studium, operam, industriamque conferrem." (Dedication to 
Philip II. prefixed to the second volume of his masses, 1567). The 
" novum modorum genus " has hitherto been understood in the 
sense that Palestrina wrote masses in a new style, and that he now 
appeared as the founder of this new style, with special reference 
to the Mzsstf di Pdpa Marcello, which was printed for the first time 
in this volume. But Palestrina is speaking of all the masses in 
the volume, and that all these bear out the aforesaid " new style " 
cannot be claimed. Perhaps Palestrina merely wished to point 
out that he was presenting a new series of masses (K. WEINMANN 
in Jahrbuch des Musikbibliothek Peters fiir 1916, 24 seqq.) ; 
perhaps he is also alluding to the canticum novum of the Sacred 
Scriptures (Ps. 39, 4 ; 149, i, etc.). 

2 WEINMANN, loc. cit., 26. 

3 It was partly from the attempt to explain the enigmatical 
title of this mass that there sprang the story that the Council of 
Trent under Marcellus II. (!) had wished to abolish figured music, 
but that Palestrina saved it by means of this mass. Baini refutes 
this legend (cf. Hist.-pol. Blatter, XLII. [1858], 893-911) but does 
not suggest any other explanation in its stead. According to him 
Palestrina really saved church music, not against the Council of 
Trent, but against the commission of Cardinals appointed for the 
carrying out of the Council s decrees (ibid. 911-926). As to this 
see infra, p. 51, n. 3, and p. 54, n. i. The Council had dealt with 
church music in the congregation " ad colligendos abusus de 
sacrificio missae," formed on July 20, 1562. EHSES, VIII., 721, 


of Marcellus the master belonged to the choir of the Sistine 
Chapel, and he must certainly have been present when the 
Pope summoned the singers and reproached them for the 
unsuitable music to which he had listened on Good Friday, 
I 555- Probably so as to give scope to the affectations of some 
virtuosi among the singers, they had, as Massarelli testifies, 
allowed the whole performance to appear rather as an expres 
sion of joy, than of sorrow, for the death of Christ. The Pope 
insisted that this must never occur again, and that the text of 
the chant must not be allowed to lose its intelligibility by 
reason of the embellishments and ornamentations of the 
singers. Massarelli, who relates the incident, adds that the 
singers, to the great satisfaction of the faithful, carried out 
the Pope s instructions. 1 A year later Palestrina himself 
wrote, in I556> his Improperia for Good Friday, which almost 
entirely avoided all counterpoint, yet in their depth of feeling 
and their intrinsic beauty are among the most splendid com 
positions of the master. 2 In the same year he set the 
Lamentations of the prophet Jeremias to music, for use in 
Holy Week. It is very probable that it was about the same 
time that he wrote the Mass of Pope Marcellus, and that in 
so doing he was actuated by the wish to carry out the Pope s 
plans for the reform of church music. 3 

" Cum autem sacra ipsa a cantoribus non ea qua decet rever- 
entia recitarentur, sed magis ab eis cantiones laetitiae cum eorum 
musicis concentibus proferri viderentur . . . pontifex ipse, 
vocatis ad se cantoribus ipsis, eis iniunxit, ut quae his diebus 
sanctis in mysteriis passionis et mortis Christi recitanda erant, ea 
rei condecentibus vocibus referrent, atque etiam ita referrent, ut 
quae proferebantur, audiri atque percipi possent. Quod quidem 
ab ipsis cantoribus cum maxima astantium consolatione exe- 
cutioni demandatum est." Massarelli in MERKLE, II., 256 seq. ; 
Cf. WEINMANN, he. cit., 38 seq. 

a Complete edition, vol. XXXI. 

3 WEINMANN, 41, seq. Baini maintains that this mass was written 
for the congregation of Cardinals of 1564, and that its preformance 
saved figured music from being banished from divine worship. This 
is impossible, because it can be proved that the Missa di papa Mar- 
cello was in existence at the latest in 1563. WEINMANN, 34 seqq. 


The advance which church music made by means of 
Palestrina was due, in no small degree, to the advocates of 
ecclesiastical reform. Palestrina repaid the debt he owed to 
them by preserving their reforming zeal from undue precipita 
tion. Even after the appearance of the Mass of Pope Mar- 
cellus, the voice of certain zealots, who wished to see figured 
music entirely banished from divine service, was not at once 
silenced. 1 There is a well-founded tradition that Pius IV. 
himself was not altogether opposed to this view, and that he 
was on the point of proposing a decree in this sense to the 
Council of Trent. Palestrina s masses, however, made the 
Pope change his mind, and won him over completely to the 
style of the master. 2 Referring to the Christian name of 
Palestrina, John, Pius IV. is said to have remarked concerning 
the Mass of Pope Marcellus, that it reminded him of the 
harmonies of the heavenly Jerusalem, heard by the Apostle 
St. John, of which another John had now given the world a 
foretaste. 3 

The impulse which the Council of Trent had given to the 
reform of church music, although it had not issued any actual 
decree on the subject, was not without effect in other ways. 
Its insistence, above all, that the words of the chant must 
always be intelligible, whatever the wealth of the musical 
ornamentation, was included by Charles Borromeo, together 
with the other Tridentine decrees, in an ordinance of his first 

1 Mario Corrado, in a dedication to Carlo Carafa, speaks of 
people, " qui furiosissime clamitant, modos musicos et musicae 
praeceptores de communi societate hominum eiici debere " 
POGIANI Epist. III., 194 ; cf. AMBROS, II. , Pref. p. xi. On 
Ferdinand I. " salvatore della musica ecclesiastica, " cf. App. 
n. 32. 

2 The Jesuit, de Cressolles learned of the matter from Palestrina 
himself, through a third party. LUD. CRESOLLII Mystagogus, 627, 
Paris, 1629. HABERL in Kirchenmusik., Jahrbuch, VI. (1892), 
94. TH. SCHMID in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, 1894, H- I2 4 
cf. IV., 13. 

8 BAINI loc. ciL (see supra p. 46, n. i ) ; Hist.-pol. Blatter, 
XLII. (1858), 920 (which, however, does not give the authority). 


provincial synod of 1565 ; x with this, it was spread through 
out the whole Catholic world, and was repeated in many pro 
vincial synods. 2 

In Rome itself, Cardinals Borromeo and Vitelli turned their 
attention to the subject of church music in connection with 
their duties on the congregation for the explanation of the 
decrees of Trent. 3 At first, it is true, they were occupied 
rather with the reform of the choir of Papal singers, than with 
the reform of music itself ; fourteen of the members of the 
choir were dismissed, and the singers were reduced to the 
original number of twenty-four. 4 But the chant itself was 
examined, to see whether it was in accordance with the desires 
of the Council. Under the date of April 28th, 1565, the diary 
of the choir states that the singers performed several masses 
at the house of Cardinal Vitelli so that he might j adge whether 
the words could be understood. By that time the two 
Cardinals had not to arrive at any decision as to whether 
figured music was to be retained in the churches or not. They 
were satisfied with the music then in use, and also with that 
of Orlando di Lasso, although he was even more free in his 
treatment of the subject than Palestrina. Through Cardinal 
Truchsess, in 1561 and 1562, Vitelli had copies of masses by 
Orlando sent to him by Duke Albert V., and declared that he, 
as well as Borromeo, was satisfied with them. 5 

We have no record of which the masses were which the 
Papal singers performed at Vitelli s house on April 28th, 

1 A comparison of the draft of the reform decrees upon church 
music (THEINER, II., 122 ; cf. PALLAVICINI, 12, 5, 14) with the 
Ada ecclesiae Mediolanensis, I., 31, Bergamo, 1738 (HARDOUIN 
Collectio Conciliorum, X., 687) shows that Borromeo made use 
of this draft. 

* Cf. Hist.-pol. Blatter, XLII. (1858), 920. 

*HABERL, Die Kardinalskommission von 1564 und Palestrinas 
Missa papae Marcelli, in Kirchenmusikalischen Jahrbuch, VI. 
(1892), 82-97. WEINMANN, loc. cit. 

* HABERL, 85 seq. For the personnel of the choir of singers of the 
Papal chapel cf. CELANI in Rivista music, XIV. (1907), 753 Se 4- 

6 WEINMANN, loc. cit. 29-32. 


1565. 1 It is probable that the works of Palestrina, seeing the 
vogue which he enjoyed, were not omitted, and this becomes 
all the more probable in view of the fact that in the October of 
1565 " by reason of the compositions already published, or 
about to be published for the use of the Papal choir " his 
salary was increased in such a way that, although he was not 
a Papal singer, he nevertheless received the full salary of 
one. 2 

During the years that follow we still hear of the endeavours 
of ecclesiastically-minded composers to safeguard the in 
telligibility of the chant. The contemporary of Palestrina, 
Giovanni Animuccia, choir -master at St. Peter s, who also 
composed songs in a simple form for the " Oratory " of Philip 
Neri, published a book of masses in 1567, in the preface to 
which he speaks of the wish of " certain persons " that the 
words sung should always be intelligible. It would seem 
that his work satisfied the commission of Cardinals, for in the 
following year, by their express orders, he was told to compose 
hymns, motets and masses " in -accordance with the pre 
scriptions of the Council of Trent, and the recent regulations 

1 From the fact that in a codex in the archives of the Sistine 
Chapel there are written together three masses by Palestrina, 
namely the Illumina oculos meos, the Mass of Pope Marcellus, and a 
third without a name, and that the Mass of Pope Marcellus bears 
the date 1565, Baini concluded that these three masses were 
written at that time by Palestrina and sung before Vitelli ; also 
that the commission had to deal with the question whether 
figured music was any longer to be tolerated in divine worship. 
But this codex does not contain the oldest copy of the Mass of 
Pope Marcellus (see supra p. 51, n. 3) ; this appears from the 
pages bound up with these much later on, probably in 1724. It 
is not the Mass of Pope Marcellus which bears the date 1565, but 
the " mass without title," and the former is, as can be proved, 
earlier, namely 1562. The mass Illumina is so named because 
its themes are drawn from the motet Illumina by Andrea de Silva. 
The title is not, therefore, as Baini thinks, to be considered as a 
prayer of Palestrina invoking the divine assistance to save church 
music. HABERL, lot, cit, 89 seq. 

2 Ibid., 87, 


of the commission." 1 Cardinal Borromeo caused a certain 
Vincenzo Ruffo to compose psalms and masses, which state on 
the title-page their conformity with the rules of the Council 
of Trent. 2 

1 Ibid., 97. AMBROS, II., 600 seq. 

2 " Salmi . . . conform! al decreto del S. Concilio Tridentino, 
1574." HABERL, loc. cit., 92 ; cf. SYLVAIN, 1., 265. 



WHILE the Council was still sitting, Pius IV. had been accused 
by the Gallican party of encroaching on its liberty, a reproach 
which won a certain notoriety through the witticism of 
Lansac. 1 The answer to this charge, however, came from 
the Council itself, 2 and was to the effect that such talk not only 
impugned the honour of the assembly, but might even cast 
doubts upon its validity. If the Pope had no part in the 
Council, then it was no true Council at all, and its decrees 
would be null and void, as had been shown in the early ages 
of Christianity in the case of the so-called " Robber-Council " 
of 449. They who spoke in this way started from the false 
principle that it is not by the ordinance of God that the head 
and president of a Council must be the Pope, to whom in a 
special way the promise of infallibility in matters of faith has 
been given. The view that the Pope could be excluded from 
the Council, and that no courier must pass between Trent and 
Rome to learn his opinion, rested upon this false principle. 
The Pope is, in fact, in accordance with Catholic principles 

1 Lansac to de Lisle on May 19, 1562, in LE PLAT, V., 169 : 
" (qu ) il luy plaise laisser les propositions .. . . libres, sans y 
prescrire ancune limite, ny envoyer le S. Esprit en valise de Rome 
icy " (of. PALLAVICINI, 16, 10, 12). A similar witticism had 
previously been employed at the conclave of Julius III. ; cf. Vol. 
XIII. of this work, p. 24, n. 5. 

z The Bishop of Tortosa, Martino de Cordoba de Mendo$a, to 
his secretary, Gonzalo Perez, from Trent, Aug. 20, 1562, in Col- 
leccion de documentos ineditos, IX., 278. The explanations of 
Cordoba refer expressly to the saying of Lansac, " que Su Santidad 
envia el Espiritu Santo aca en balija." 



the head of the bishops ; he is so when the bishops are living 
apart from each other in their dioceses, and he is so in exactly 
the same way when they are assembled in a Council. The 
theory that an assembly of bishops is independent of the Pope, 
and can even impose laws on the Pope himself, is only an echo 
of those adopted in the XVth century, but of which the first 
ages of the faith and Christian antiquity had no knowledge. 
Some say, wrote Pius IV. in an autograph letter to Philip II., 1 
that the Council is not free, because they want a Huguenot, 
Protestant, or Lutheran Council. In reality it is free to such 
an extent that everyone says and puts forward whatever comes 
into his head, so that great confusion arises ; some indeed have 
become frankly insolent, and it would appear that they aim 
at nothing less than the destruction of the Roman see. He, 
however, would quietly go on his way, and would make 
provision for a reform of the strictest kind, which would make 
the whole Curia cry out in alarm. 

It is true that the carrying into effect of the Tridentine 
decrees could not be the work of a single pontificate, but the 
credit of having, at any rate, made a resolute and decisive 
beginning cannot be denied to the Medici Pope. This carrying 
out of the decrees was inaugurated and placed on a firm footing 
by the unconditional confirmation of the Council, and by the 
appointment of the special congregation of Cardinals to watch 
over the reform. Pius further completed these arrangements 
by the fact that on February I7th, 1565, he declared null all 
privileges which ran counter to the decrees of Trent. 2 

1 On June i, 1562 (Colleccion de docum. ined., IX., 243 seq.) : 
" Circa il concilio sapemo che alcuni dicono che non e libero, 
perche vorriano que el fusse ugonotto o protestante o luterano. 
. . . Provedendo d ogni reformatione conveniente etiam rigor- 
osissima et che fa gridare tutta la corte." Cf. Pius IV. to Philip 
II. on May 23,1562 (ibid., 197 seq.}. 

2 Bull. Rom., VII., 277 seq., where, however, the date " ab 
incarnatione " is wrongly fixed, and the bull is inserted in its wrong 
place. This is clear from the fact that 3 of the bull speaks of 
privileges granted " since the time when the Council began to be 
binding," that is to say, after May i, 1564 (cf. ibid., 299). The bull 


This congregation of Cardinals at once began to exercise 
its functions. Between October 8th, 1564, and August 3ist, 
1565, its secretary, Pogiani, had to send oat 67 decisions, 
mostly to Italian and Spanish dioceses ; these decisions prove 
that the congregation treated the doubts and complaints 
referred to them by the Pope strictly in accordance with the 
spiiit of the Council, and that measures were already being 
taken in the dioceses to introduce the Tridentine reforms. A 
beginning was made by combatting the accumulation of 
benefices, 1 by insisting on the residence of bishops, 2 by the 
visitation of the religious orders, 3 and by the establishment of 
seminaries. 4 

More important, however, than all these separate measures 
was the radical renewal of the Roman official world, the reform 
of the Roman Curia which had so long been asked for, and 
which had been so definitely promised by Pius IV. 

A picture of the conditions at the Papal court, in which 
definite and clear emphasis is laid on the causes of the evils, 
and the difficulties in dealing with them, was drawn, shortly 
after the close of the Council of Trent by the bishop who was 
afterwards to become Cardinal Commendone. 5 There is no 
place in the world, so he begins his description, which affords 
a more favourable spot for making one s fortune than Rome ; 
at that court, more than at any other, or in any othei state, a 

therefore cannot have been issued on Feb. 17, 1564. The correct 
date is in magnum Bull. Rom., II., 145 seq. (Luxemburg, 1742). 
Cf. NILLES in Zeitschrift fur kathol. Theol., XXV. (1901), 
I seqq. 

1 POGIANI Epist., III., 341, n. n ; 348, n. 22 ; 363, n. 48, etc. 

a When the Pope learned that in the Neapolitan territory the 
duty of residence was being neglected with the tacit consent of 
the archbishops, he gave orders to the nuncios to proceed against 
those prelates. Decree of June 30, 1565, in POGIANI Epist., I., 
359 seq., n. 42 seq. 

3 Ibid., 341, n. 9. 

4 Cf. infra p. 

6 *Discorso sopra la Corte di Roma, Casanatense Library, 
Rome ; cf. App. No. 76. 


number of ambitious people of every kind succeed in attaining 
the end of their desires ; there the door is open to all. 1 

The reason for this, to a great extent, democratic character 
of the Eternal City, is to be found, according to Commendone, 
in the very nature of the supreme government. It is a fact 
that the power of the Pope is accountable to no one on earth, 
yet he receives his power by the election of the Cardinals. 
Although he has suddenly been raised far above his fellows, 
he nevertheless owes his elevation to those who were yesterday 
his equals, and he is therefore inclined, at least at first, to use 
his power in a moderate manner, all the more so as a Cardinal is 
frequently elected Pope, of whose elevation there was little 
expectation. A popular character is thereby impressed upon 
the whole system of government. As is the case with a 
republic, anyone can entertain the hope of attaining to the 
most exalted positions. From this comes, too, the freedom to 
speak and act as one likes, which is allowed to all in Rome ; 
from this comes the anxiety of ambitious officials to stand 
well with everyone ; from this too comes the lavish expenditure 
which they make in order to attain this end, often far beyond 
their means. 2 

Moreover, people of every kind can make their fortune in 
Rome. Wealth, and the fact of having been born of a family 
which had already produced a Cardinal, certainly gives reason 
to expect high office, but even those of small means, so long as 
they are capable in other ways, can indulge in the most exalted 
hopes, for whereas at other courts there is need of but two 
officials of high attainments, a secretary and an auditor, the 
Papal government has need of the services of a whole 
number of auditors of the Rota, referendaries both gratiae and 
justitiae, deputies, governors, commissaries, auditors for the 
States of the Church, and finally Cardinals foi the two signa- 
turae, and all of these must be well skilled in the law. The 
wealthy and the nobles do not willingly devote themselves 
to learned studies, and for that very reason the widest field 

1 *Discorso, p. 23ob. 

2 *Discorso, p. 233. 


lies open in Rome to those of more modest means. Anyone, 
whether of high 01 low estate, can make his way, so long as he 
is capable. 1 

Rome is therefore a city of opposites and contrasts, 2 and 
this character is still further accentuated by the fact that the 
Popes are for the most part well advanced in years before they 
ascend the throne and the government is therefore frequently 
changed. On account of the unique position of the Popes, 
however, such an occurrence is accompanied by greater 
changes than would be the case elsewhere. These changes are 
such as would take place in an ordinary city, if the prince were 
frequently to change his dwelling place, and that at every such 
change all the streets had to be altered, so that they might lead 
to the new palace, and that to effect this houses were pulled 
down, palaces cut through, and streets hitherto deserted filled 
with life, while others which had hitherto been centres of 
traffic became deserted. 3 In addition to this the Cardinals 
often deliberately elect a Pope who in many ways is directly 
the opposite to his predecessor, either because they wish for a 
change, or because the mistakes and exaggerations of the 
deceased Pope have made his manner of government unpopular. 
In accordance with the dispositions of the head, there comes 
about a change in the behaviour of the court, even in matters 
that concern their private lives. People, therefore, only bind 
themselves by agreements for life, and should an exception 
occur, the heirs quickly dispose of the property in Rome, either 
because they can do nothing with it, or because they do not 
wish to remain in the city. 4 Everything in Rome is therefore 
in a constant state of change ; even the names of houses, 
streets and squares are frequently changed, and those parts 
of the city which have nothing to do with the court, are 
nevertheless drawn into the vortex by the influence of those 

1 Ibid. p. 

2 *le quali condition! tutte insieme fanno molto varia la repub- 
lica (ibid., p. 234b). There was a current proverb " A Roma 
gl estremi " (ibid., p. 23ob). 

3 Ibid., p. 234b. 

4 Ibid., p. 235a. 


circles which set the tone to Rome. A friend of Commendone 
used therefore to say that he did not know whether the con 
stantly changing weather in Rome was the cause of the 
instability of the Curia, or whether the continual changes in 
the Curia affected the weather. 1 

Rome was, therefore, to use the expression of Commendone, 
no longer a city, but a place where foreigners lived for a long 
time, like a market or a diet, and everything was always on the 
move. 2 People with all the virtues and vices which marked 
the closing years of the Renaissance, flocked thither to seek 
their fortune. Once they had attained the object of their 
desires, they were distinguished from the laity by the possession 
of a benefice, or perhaps by ordination, but not by their 
manner of life ; they became clerics or prelates without even 
knowing the name of the office they held. 3 There was a 
complete lack of education in the spirit of the priesthood. 4 

As the principal root of all the evils existing in the Curia 
during the time of the Renaissance, Commendone points to its 
worldliness. The Pope and Cardinals were too anxious to 
emulate the secular princes ; 5 they forgot that the object of 
all ecclesiastical offices and revenues is the service of religion, 
and that religion can only be served properly by conscientious 
ness and virtue. 6 It had therefore come to pass that eccle- 

1 Ibid., p. 235b. 

2 *si questa citta fosse veramente citta, et non piu tosto una 
limga cohabitatione di huomini forastieri, simile ad uno mercato, 
overo ad una dieta con uno continuo flusso (p. 245). 

8 *essendo prima fatto chierico, o prelate, chiegli intende pure 
il nome delli officio che prende (p. 23 yb). 


6 *Le cagioni principal!, che spingono fuori del cammino il 
Pontifice, credo che siano due, la prima, di voler vivere secolar- 
mente et governare anchora lo Stato nella maniera che fanno i 
Principi secolari et ragunare thesori, et cercar gloria non coveni- 
ente . . . ., la seconda e il poco amore che ordinariamente si 
suole havere alle cose, che non sono proprio nostro. Discorso, 
p. 238a. 

6 Ibid. p. 


siastical offices and benefices were looked upon as a means of 
enriching relations, rewarding devoted servants, and of forming 
parties in the College of Cardinals, so as to influence the election 
of the next Pope. Hence persons were promoted who were 
distinguished by anything rather than learning and piety, 
while, to enrich some special favourite, a whole number of 
benefices were heaped upon him. 1 The consequence of all 
this was a great loss of the respect in which the Pope and 
Cardinals were held. 2 

But the responsibility for the deterioration in ecclesiastical 
affairs also rested, in the opinion of Commendone, in no small 
degree with the laity, who were so loud in their complaints 
of the corruption of the Curia. Most of the offices and benefices 
had become hereditary in certain families, 3 and were disposed 
of as if they were private property. Especially during the last 
hours of the head of the family, relations and friends crowded 
round the bed of the dying man, besieging him with requests to 
secure the ecclesiastical property for the family, and he who 
refused to comply with their requests was looked upon as 
blameworthy. 4 The view had come to be held that the Church 
as such should not possess temporal goods ; 5 the princes, 
therefore, looked upon ecclesiastical property as belonging to 
them, the good ones, in the belief that they could administer 
it better than the Church, and the bad ones from greed, and a 
kind of mania to absorb all rights into their own hands. 6 The 
Curia, therefore, no longer had the free disposal of the benefices, 
while the Pope found himself in the unhappy predicament 
of having either to give in to the proposals of the princes, or 
in some other way to take precautions so as to preserve the 

1 Ibid. p. 238a. More fully as to these relatives p. 240 

2 Ibid. p. 246a. 

3 *la maggior parte degli honori et de benefitii si fanno here- 
ditarii. et si tengono molto tempo in una famiglia. Ibid. p. 

* Ibid. p. 

6 Ibid. p. 2436 

* Ibid. p 


bare essentials of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 1 The greater 
part of the official posts and ecclesiastical revenues were 
likewise in the power of the princes, wherefore many clerics 
entered into the service of the secular power, 2 while the Curia 
itself was divided because the princes all had their partisans 
there. The Pope could not even be sure of his ambassadors 
and nuncios, as they too were sometimes tempted to promote, 
at least in some matters, the interests of the princes rather 
than those of the Church. In Rome itself, the Cardinals 
could no longer be given that share in the government of the 
Church which they had formerly possessed, as they were to be 
considered rather as the honoured friends of the princes than 
as the representatives of ecclesiastical government. 3 

While the great prelates consumed the revenues of the 
ecclesiastical offices, the performance of the duties attached 
to those offices was left to badly paid and unworthy hirelings. 
The ranks of the secular clergy were crowded with such 
persons, just as the monasteries were filled with unworthy 
monks, who furnished heresy with its best preachers. 4 A 
serious symptom of the preponderance of a non-Christian 
spirit, was the exaggerated veneration paid to ancient pagan 
ism. Eulogies were delivered in praise of men who should 
be described as monsters rather than as merely criminals. 
People were even ashamed of names which had a Christian 
significance, and many changed them for others of pagan 
renown. 5 Even such trivial details as these show how far the 

1 *Per la qual cosa e la corte caduta in una miserabile necessity 
di concedere i beneficii hora ad instanza de Principi, hora secondo 
la diligentia degli avvisi per mantenere la giurisditione nel modo 
che si pu6. Ibid. p. 246%. 

1 Ibid. p. 247a. Cf. the decree of the Council of Trent, Sess. 
25, de ref., c. 17, against those prelates who forget the dignity of 
their state so far as to become the servants of ministers and royal 

3 Ibid. p. 24ya b. 

* Ibid. p. 247b. 

6 *E piacesse a Sua Divina Maesta che tale non fosse hormai la 
corruttione presente che non si dovesse ragionevolmente temere 


hearts of the people had strayed from religion, an estrangement 
which rendered the government of the Church and the defeat 
of heresy extremely difficult. 1 

Commendone concludes his description of the abuses both 
within and without the Curia with some reflections as to the 
manner of restoring to the Church her original purity and 
lustre. It is easy, he says, to speak of the need of reform, but 
very difficult to name a procedure by which it may be brought 
about. How will the princes be prevailed upon not to foster 
such abuses in the future ? Reform decrees may be issued, 

che dentro questi abisso 6 poco lungi si trovino grandissimo 
numero di huomini ; conciossia cosa che come inanzi la pestilenza 
si sente la mala dispositions dell acre e putrefatione delli humori, 
cosi ancora si scopre una certa gentilita e nelli opinione e ne i 
costumi, che da verisimile inditio, considerando le tante memorie 
che si honorano et si fanno di coloro che furono piu tosto mostri 
che huomini, scelerati, con molto maggior laude di essi e desiderio 
et ammiratione della lor gloria che di quella de martiri et de gli 
apostoli ; et passa tanto avanti che alii figlioli che si battezzano 
molto piu volontieri mettano i norm gentili che li christiani ; e 
vi sono alcuni di tanta vanita che, vergognandosi di quelli che 
hanno, li lasciano et, quasi sbattezzandosi, ne prendano dei novi et 
di gentili : alia qual pravita, non senza gran misterio del giudicio 
di Dio, si oppose, quando essa prima si scoperse, il pontefico di 
quei tempi Paolo II. Percioche queste tali cose, bench e possano 
parere molte minutie di poco momento, nondimeno sono come 
i segni, per li quali i medici prevendono pestilenza et i nocchieri la 
futura tempesta ; anzi appresso de buoni et intendenti sono per 
aventura di maggior importanza che le dimostrationi piu spesse 
delle cose piu gravi, perche, secondo quel savio, nelle cose piu 
piccole, dove non si finge e non si mette studio di apparenza ne si 
teme di esser punito, facilmente si comprende et 1 habito della 
virtu e la secreta inclinatione el dispositione che I huomo da 
verso i vitii ; cosi adunque da queste minaccie si scuopre una 
estrema alienatione d animi et una poca riverenza et poco amore 
verso la religione et verso questa Santa Sede, periche [sic] il 
grandissimo travaglio si supporta hoggidi nel reggere, volendo 
conservare I authorita ecclesiastica et mantener la sana et pura 
dottrina Christiana. Discorso, p. 
1 Ibid., p. 250. 


but to whom are they to be entrusted for execution ? To the 
prelates of the day ? That would be to pour new wine into old 
bottles. To prelates who are yet to be trained ? Where are 
such to be found in sufficient numbers, and how are all the 
offices to be filled with them without having recourse to 
violence ? Further, should they aim at the abolition of all 
the abuses at a single blow, or should they content themselves 
with particular reforms ? The former course seems impossible, 
yet the latter is not enough ; it would be a case of patching 
an old garment with new cloth. Finally should they issue 
new reform regulations, which actually contained nothing 
beyond what was already prescribed in the old canons, or 
should they be content to devote themselves merely to the 
enforcement of the ancient rules of ecclesiastical discipline ? 

When Pius IV. set to work, a few years later, really to put 
the work of reform into force, the greater part of the diffi 
culties and fears of Commendone had already lost their force. 
The Council had decided as to how the renewal of Christendom 
was to be proceeded with. The reform of the princes and of 
the policy of national churches was indeed left to the judg 
ment of history, but as far as the reform of the Roman court 
was concerned, it was precisely the crowning mistake of 
Paul IV., the war with Spain, which had brought about the 
most salutary change, in that henceforth the Papal States 
disappeared from among the number of the great powers of 
political importance, and the Pope and Cardinals had been 
thrown back upon their proper sphere of activity, the care of 
the spiritual government of the Church. 

Pius IV. had, even while the Council was still sitting, issued 
drastic measures against the deplorable abuses in the Roman 
official world. The Rota, the Penitentiaria, and the various 
Roman tribunals had been subjected to new regulations. 1 

1 Bull of reform for the Rota of December 27, 1561, Bull. 
Rom., VII., 155 ; for the Penitentiaria, of May 4, 1562, ibid., 193 
(cf. RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 188) ; for the corrector of the Apostolic 
Chancery, of May 27, 1562, Bull. Rom., VII., 200 ; for the tribunal 
of the Apostolic Camera, of May 27, 1562, ibid., 79 ; for the auditor 
of the Camera, of June 2, 1562, ibid., 207 ; for the other tribunals, 

VOL. XVI. < 


We have, the Pope wrote to Philip II., on May 23rd, I562, 1 
inaugurated a very strict reform, which will prove to be the 
salvation of the world, and we intend to carry it still further ; 
in doing so, we are not considering our own advantage, for 
we have, at one stroke, deprived ourselves of 200,000 scudi. 
After the close of the Council, the superintendence of these 
tribunals, and the carrying out of this reform, was entrusted 
to the Congregation of Cardinals which was charged with the 
execution of the Tridentine decrees. 2 The Apostolic Camera, 
on November ist, 1564, was again subjected to an ordinance 
of reform. 3 On November yth, 1565, the Penitentiaria was 
placed under the direction of Borromeo as Grand Penitentiary. 4 

The reforms of Pius IV. in the matter of benefices were of 
great importance. All expectancies and reservations, even if 
they had been granted to Cardinals, were withdrawn or limited 
as early as September loth, 1560. 6 A constitution of the same 
year was directed against the not uncommon artifice of begin- 

of June 31, 1562, ibid., 214 ; for the Signatura iustitiae of June 31, 
1562, ibid,, 234. The *Avviso di Roma of March 31, 1565 (Urb. 
1040, p. 2b, Vatican Library) records the rumour that the Signatura 
gratiae would also be reformed. 

1 " Noi di qua havemmo fatto et facemmo una reforma asper- 
rima et che sara la salute del mondo (Colleccion de documentos 
ineditos, IX., 198). Havemo gik fatta et esseguita una rigor- 
osissima riforma de le cose de la corte con danno nostro particolare 
di piu di 200 mila scudi di capitali di officii, oltra quel che a la 
giornata si perde de gli emolument! del datariato et altri officii, 
che e una sommo notabile." Instruction for the Archbishop 
of Lanciano of June 29, 1562, in SICKEL, Berichte, II., 118 seq. 
In the same sense see Borromeo to the Spanish nuncio, Crivelli, 
May 24, 1562, in EHSES, VIII., 272, n. 5. 

2 See supra p. 57. 

3 Bull. Rom., VII., 310 seq. 

4 RAYNALDUS, 1565, n. 24. PANVINIUS, De creatione Pii IV., 
in MERKLE, II. , 599. *Avviso di Roma of November 5, 1565 
(Urb. 1040, Vatican Library). 

5 *Regula revocatoria expectativarum, mandatorum, reser- 
vationum, facultatum et indultorum quibusvis etiam cardinalibus 
concessorum. Editti, 126 (Casanatense Library, Rome). 


ning interminable lawsuits, so as not to be forced to give up 
illegally held Church revenues. 1 The so-called " confidential" 
simony, which was practised in the matter of benefices by means 
of the accessus and regressus and the like, had already been 
forbidden to the Cardinals by Pius IV. in the consistory of 
May i4th, 1562 ; 2 in the years that followed he again ad 
monished them, 3 and issued a formal decree on the matter, 
which was chiefly aimed at the Curia itself. 4 The prohibition 
to the nuncios to receive benefices or promotion through the 
intervention of the secular princes, struck at the very highest 
dignitaries of the Church. 5 On May 12, 1564, the Pope oidered 
that when, for the future, the affairs of a Cardinal were dis 
cussed in consistory, as, for example, the conferring upon him 
of a church or abbey, the Cardinal in question was to with 
draw from the room, so that the others might express their 
view? on the case with greater freedom. 6 Pius also renewed 
and amplified the provisions of the Council of Trent against 
unconscientious titular bishops, who conferred Holy Orders 
on all and sundry who asked for them. 7 

The successor of Paul IV. had modified many of the strict 
regulations of that Pope, such as the constitutions against 

1 Bull. Rom., VII., 77. The date October 26 (not 29), 1560, 
can also be fixed with certainty from the *Editti 125 (Casanatense 
Library, Rome). 

2 RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 188. Cf. EHSES, VIII., 272 seq. 

8 *Acta consist, card. Gambarae of December 30, 1563, and 
March 23, 1564 (Corsini Library, Rome, 40 G 13, p. 257 and 

4 Bull. Rom., VII., 305 (October 16, 1564). RAYNALDUS, 1564, 
n. 55. Occasion for this decree was apparently afforded by the 
death of Cardinal Sforza, whose friends had demanded the keeping 
of about 20 benefices (consistory of . October 6, 1564). *Acta 
consist, card. Gambarae, loc. cit., 386 seq. 

5 Bull. Rom., VII., 369 (May 18, 1565). RAYNALDUS, 1565, 
n. 5. *Acta consist. Cancell., IX., of April 13, 1565 (Consistorial 
Archives of the Vatican). 


7 RAYNALDUS, 1565, n. 23 ; cf. Cone. Trid., sess. 14, can. 2. 


" apostates " from the religious orders, 1 the alienation of 
Church property, 2 and the Jews. 3 Moreover, a decree upon 
the Papal election, which Pius IV. had, at any rate, the in 
tention of issuing, had, it would appear, been suggested to 
him by the very contrast between himself and his predecessor. 4 
When the reassembling of the Council of Trent was under 
consideration, Pius IV., following the example of Paul IV., 
and to a great extent in his very words, 5 had on September 
22nd, 1561, issued a bull, by which the right of electing the 
Pope, even during the session of the Council, was restricted 
to the Cardinals and not to the Council. 6 The bull was only 
published in the consistory of November igth, 1561. On this 
occasion Pius " decided and declared " that the Pope could 
not appoint his successor, nor a coadjutor with the right of 
succession, not even if all the Cardinals, either together or 
separately, gave their consent, so that the election was left 
to the free decision of the Cardinals. 7 According to the 
account of Cardinal Alfonso Carafa, Pius added that he had 
made this declaration because " certain people " thought that 
this power belonged to the head of the Church, and that he 
would make arrangements that a bull should be framed on 
the point. 8 It may be gathered from another report of the 
same consistory of November igth, who the persons were who 
ascribed such wide powers to the Pope. Paul IV., it is here 
stated, 9 was of opinion that he could himself appoint his 
successor, and attempted to do so. Probably his eagerness 
to exclude from the tiara certain Cardinals of whose faith he 
entertained suspicions, notably Cardinal Morone, gave rise 

1 Bull. Rom., VII., 15 (April 3, 1560). 

* Ibid., 58 (September n, 1560). 
3 Ibid., 167. 

* For what follows, cf. EHSES in the Dritten Vereinsschrift der 
Gorres-Gesellschaft fiir 1913, 56-67. 

5 Bull of November 19, 1544, in EHSES, IV., 388. 

6 RAYNALDUS, 1561, n. 8. EHSES, VEIL, 248. 

7 Acta consist. Cancell. in EHSES, loc. cit. (Vereinsschrift), 57. 

8 Ibid., 58. 

9 Av viso di Roma of November 22, 1561, ibid. 


to this idea in the mind of Paul IV. ; l Pius IV. accordingly 
took this opportunity to make any such attempt impossible 
for the future. 

The promised bull did not appear, but Pius IV. again 
recurred to the matter in the consistory of May i8th, 1565. 2 
The question, he said, whether the Pope has the right to 
appoint a coadjutor with the right of succession, has been con 
troverted hitherto ; discussions had been held on the point 
under various Popes, and recently under Paul IV., while even 
now the affirmative view had its supporters ; he therefore 
intended to put an end to these differences of opinion by 
issuing a Papal decision. Morone, indeed, declared that 
such a decision was unnecessary, as no Pope would dare to 
name his successor himself, and this view found favour among 
the Cardinals. Some, with Reumano, even thought the 
proposed decree harmful, as it would give the impression of 
the existence of a real danger which had to be legislated against. 
Finally, however, the majority of the Cardinals agreed to the 
drafting of the constitution, whereupon Pius IV. declared his 
intention of proceeding with it. The existence of such a 
decree would always be an obstacle to any Pope who, in the 
future, might really desire to appoint his successor, even 
though it was not easy to safeguard it with such clauses as 
would render its abrogation impossible. Pius, however, did 
not, even now, go beyond this oral declaration in consistory ; 
the proposed constitution did not appear, and the question 
which it was intended to decide still remained open as before. 
The bull of Pius IV. concerning the conclave, dated October 
9th, 1562, is, on the other hand, of great importance with regard 
to the conduct of the Papal election, the necessity for the 
reform of which had been so glaringly illustrated in the pro 
ceedings at the election of the Medici Pope himself. 3 In this 

1 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, pp. 302 seqq. 

2 Acta consist, card Gambarae, published by SAGMULLER in 
Archiv fur kath. Kirchenrecht, LXXV. (1896), 425 seqq. 

3 Bull. Rom., VII., 230 seqq. A *Declaratio facultatum con- 
clavistarum of September 22, 1562, in Editti, 156 (Casanatense 
Library, Rome). 


new bull, which was issued after long deliberations, 1 Pius IV. 
confirms and amplifies the conclave bulls of his predecessors, 
from Gregory X to Julius II . The Cardinals absent from Rome 
are only to be waited for for ten days after the death of the 
Pope. The obsequies for the deceased pontiff are to last for 
nine days ; should a feast intervene, on which it is not possible 
to celebrate the funeral offices, it is nevertheless to be included 
in the nine days, and the disbursements for the service which 
is omitted are to be given to the poor. The funeral expenses, 
which had become exorbitant, are not to exceed the sum of 
10,000 ducats, including the payments to the clergy who 
assist ; the money bestowed in alms on the Roman populace, 
however, was not included in this. After ten days had elapsed 
the Cardinals mast go into conclave without fail, and set to 
work at once on the business of the election, without waiting 
to draw up an election capitulation. 

During the vacancy the College of Cardinals is not to assume 
any power belonging to the Pope ; they are to issue no orders 
with regard to the temporal affairs of the States of the Church, 
or the Papal treasury, except such as may be necessary for 
the support of the Papal household or the defence of the 
States of the Church. The offices of Camerlengo and Peni 
tentiary are to be retained, though their powers are restricted ; 
the office of Datary lapses, and the Signatum Gratiae is in 

In the conclave itself, the right of calling together the 
electors, and discussing with them doubtful points and matters 
of business which may arise, belongs, during the first three 
days, to a committee composed of the senior Cardinal Bishop, 
Cardinal Priest, and Cardinal Deacon. After the lapse of 
three days these give place to the next three in seniority, and 
so on. The cells of the conclave are to be assigned by lot, 
and are not to be changed or enlarged. A number of regula 
tions enjoin the strict observance of the enclosure, which had 

1 Together with SAGMULLER, Papstwahlbullen, 131, 298 seq., 
see the recent articles by SINGER in the Zeitschrift fur Rechtgesch., 
XXXVII. , Kanon. Abt., VI., 103 seq. 


been almost entirely ignored at the last conclave. No one is 
to inhabit any room adjoining the conclave, either above or 
below or at the sides. The cells, as well as the walls of the 
enclosure must be frequently inspected by the deputation of 
Cardinals, to see that there are no prohibited openings. Each 
Cardinal is to be allowed only two servants, or, in case of 
illness, at the most three ; these must have been a consider 
able time in his service, and must be approved for the conclave 
by the deputation of Cardinals. Besides these, one sacristan, 
two masters of ceremonies, one confessor, two physicians, one 
surgeon, one apothecary, one carpenter, one chamberlain, 
two barbers, and ten servants, were to be admitted. In 
general, no visits from persons outside are to be allowed, nor 
any correspondence with them. Bets concerning the election 
are forbidden. The guardians of the conclave are to allow no 
news to enter, and a conclavist is only to be allowed to go 
into the city on the sworn testimony of a physician, and he 
must not return. Every elector must at least have received 
the subdiaconate. No one is to be excluded from the conclave 
on the pretext that he is excommunicated, or has otherwise 
incurred the censure of the Church. In giving their votes 
the Cardinals are not to be influenced by the recommendations 
of the secular princes or by other worldly considerations, but 
are only to keep God before their eyes. The prelates, officials 
and ambassadors, to whom the protection of the conclave is 
entrusted, must bind themselves by oath to the observance 
of these regulations, which must, on each occasion, be read 
and sworn to by the Cardinals before the beginning of the 
election proceedings. 

Although all these regulations had been carefully thought 
out, it was not possible by such means to remove the principal 
cause of the disorders in the conclaves which had been held 
in recent times. Under the existing conditions it was impos 
sible to deprive the Catholic princes of their influence upon 
the election. Once this was acknowledged, then intercourse 
between them and the Cardinals could not be completely 
prevented ; in other words, the strict regulations concerning 
the enclosure had to be relaxed, and as long as the existing 


conditions remained unchanged, it was impossible for any 
decree to effect a reform of any importance. 

The observance of the duty of residence, especially by the 
bishops, was looked upon by all persons of discernment as 
the principal point of ecclesiastical reform. The Council of 
Trent had already issued decrees on this matter in 1547 ; 
when it returned to the subject in 1562, Cardinal Seripando 
remarked that, in the opinion of all nations, the present Council 
would far excel all previous assemblies if it only succeeded in 
giving effect to this one decree as to residence. 1 All efforts, 
however, to enforce the observance of this duty had hitherto 
proved unsuccessful. Paul IV. had endeavoured to enforce 
it with the utmost severity during the last year of his life. 2 
He only succeeded in driving the prelates who were forgetful of 
their duty to seek another Rome in Venice or Naples ; after his 
death they returned to the seat of the Curia. 3 Pius IV. from 
the first displayed great determination with regard to the 
question of residence ; 4 after a preliminary admonition in 
the consistory of February jth, 1560, he summoned all the 
bishops then in Rome to appear before him eight days later, 
and ordered them to return to their dioceses at the beginning 
of Lent. The prospect, however, of soon being able to send 
them to the General Council at Trent, caused the Pope to 
refrain, for the moment, from further pressure. It was only 

1 Seripando to Borromeo, May 17, 1562, in SICKEL, Berichte, II., 
1 16. Diego Covarruvias, Bishop of Ciudad-Rodrigo, wrote on 
September 7, 1562, that he had in his diocese one of the smallest 
in Castile, 156 persons with the care of souls, of whom hardly 
a quarter resided in their parishes (SusTA, III., 10). This state 
ment is very characteristic of the state of things at that time. 

2 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 234. 

8 Egidio Foscarari to Cardinal Morone, May 18, 1562, in BECCA- 
DELLI, III., 333. Foscarari was of opinion that things would be 
very different if the duty of residence were declared to be of 
divine precept, the breaking of which would be a mortal sin, 
" non essendo ancora gli Ecclesiastici venuti a questa impudenza 
di non curarsi di stare in peccato pubblico mortale (ibid.). 

Cf. Vol. XV. of this work, p. 129. 


when this prospect did not seem likely to be realized, that he 
again assembled the bishops who were in the Eternal City, 
on September 4th, and exhorted them to fulfil their former 
promise ; x he then caused to be read to them a constitution, 
which reminded prelates of their pastoral duties, threatened 
the negligent, and promised privileges to the obedient. 2 

After the close of the Council, the Pope insisted, in the 
first consistories, that the question of residence should now 
be seriously taken in hand. 3 As, however, many of the pre 
lates were worn out by their exhausting labours at the Council, 4 
he was once more indulgent. It was not until March ist, 1564, 
that he again summoned all the bishops in Rome to a con 
sistory and exhorted them in a long speech to return to their 
flocks. No one was to be exempted from this duty ; he would 
in future employ no bishop for the business of the Curia, or 
make use of them as nuncios or governors, and would only 
grant a dispensation for the most urgent reasons ; his own 
nephews must spend at least a part of the year in their diocese. 
He was riot at present thinking of a creation of Cardinals, 
but when he should do so, he would not overlook the merits 
and piety of each ; he then dismissed them with his blessing 
and permission to start on their journeys. 5 He gave the same 

I LAEMMER, Melet., 212. SUSTA, II., 283. ERSES, VIII., 66. 
Cf. Vol. XV. of this work, p. 255. 

2 Constitution of September 4, 1560, Bull. Rom., VII., 55. 
*Bandi V., n (Papal Secret Archives). See also WYMANN, 
105 seq. 

3 See supra p. 2. A *motuproprio of March 10, 1563 " super 
parochialium ac aliarum ecclesiaarum curatarum collationibus 
necnon iuramenti et fideiiussione praestandis de residendo," in 
the *Editti, 165 (Casanatense Library, Rome). 

* *Acta consist, card Gambrae, Corsmi Library, Rome, 40 G 
13, p. 268b. 

5 Ibid., 267 *eqq. " *Hoggi e stato concistoro et prima sua B ne 
ha fatto chiamar tutti li prelati che sono in Roma et con longo 
ragionamento gli ha eshortati andare alle residenze loro, allegando 
non haver per hora risolutione di far cardinali, e che quando 
pensara questo, non manchera tenere memoria delli meriti di 
ciascuno et delle virtu loro, cosi gli ha benedetti et licentiati che 


instructions to the Cardinals who held bishoprics ; if any of 
them had given up their church in favour of a relative, they 
must now send that relative away and settle at least 1,000 
ducats on him. 1 When Pius visited the Belvedere some 
weeks later, and found several bishops in the Hall of Con- 
stantine, he caused his chair to be stopped, and asked them 
why they had not returned to their dioceses. When some of 
them replied that they had been detained in Rome by law 
suits or other business, he insisted that they should go ; they 
could leave behind procurators and advocates for the lawsuits, 
for anyone might plead a lawsuit as an excuse for not ful 
filling the duty of residence ; even the Cardinals must go. 
The Pcpe then summoned an auditor, and charged him to 
give orders to all to depart, on the penalty of losing their 
benefices. A short time afterwards a general monitorium was 
issued, which bound everyone to the duty of residence under 
the same penalty. 2 On November 25th, 1564, another ad- 

vadino. Si dice che il medemo ha fatto de cardinali che hanno 
chiese, per6 con molta modestia." Francesco Tonina to the 
Duke of Mantua, on March i, 1564 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 

1 See GULIK-EUBEL, 40. Cf. the consistory of March 23, 1564. 
*Acta consist, card. Gambarae, loc. cit. 290. 

2 *Questa mattina S. B ne andando in Belvedere et vedendo 
nella sala di Costantino alcuni vescovi, si ferm6, et seduta nella 
sede dove si fa portare dimando a ciascuno di loro perch e non 
andavano alii loro vescovati, et allegando alcuni, chi liti et altre 
occasion!, gli comando espressamente che andassero, et che 
chi havesse liti lasciasse procurator! et avocati, soggiongendo 
ogniuno si fingeria della lite per non andare alia residenza, volemo 
che ci vadino anco li cardinali, et chiamo 1 auditore della camera 
ch era gli presente et gli ordin6 che comandasse a tutti che gli 
andavano, et anzi che sotto pena di privatione andassero, dicendo, 
ne privaremo due o tre, et cosi sara exempio agli altri. Tonina 
to the Duke of Mantua, Rome 1 564, April 8. *Oltra 1 admonitione 
che S. S tri fece questi di passati ad alcuni vescovi che andassero 
alii loro vescovati, nuovamente ha fatto formare un monitorio 
generale a tutti, ma in esso specialmente ni nomina molti, et 
tutti quelli che sono in Roma, nel quale li comanda che vadino 
alia residenza sotto pena di privatione, et si ha da intimare a 


monition followed, and laid it down that the property of non 
resident prelates and priests with the cure of souls, should 
revert at their death to the Apostolic Camera. 1 On May 5th, 
1565, yet another monitorium against non-resident eccles 
iastics was issued. 2 

The prescriptions of the Council on the subject of the 
accumulation of benefices also caused no small anxiety, and 
they could only be put into force gradually. 3 In accordance 
with the considerate principles of canon law, the Council s 
regulations were not extended to petitions which had been 
presented before the confirmation of the Council. 4 

One can hardly be mistaken in recognizing in all these 

tutti. Tonina to the Duke, dated Rome, Apr, 19, 1564 (Gonzaga 
Archives, Mantua). See also WYMANN, 106. Cf. *Caligari to 
Commendone, Apr. 15, 1564, Lettere di princ., XXI II., 49 (Papal 
Secret Archives). 

1 Bull. Rom., VII., 332 seq. *Bandi V., n p. 76 (Papal Secret 
Archives) . 

2 Ibid., p. 79. *Editti 187 (Casanatense Library, Rome). 

8 *" II tumulto nato per questi che hanno piii bencfici ha fatto 
tanto che hieri si fece una congregatione per questo ultimamente, 
per la quale si risolse che fosse bene far un altra prorogatione a 
rassegnarli et si crede che S. S tdp acconsentira che si publichi la 
bolla. Et perch e li vescovi usano ogni rigore contra de questi et 
anco per le residenze, pare anco che S. B ne vogli fare una regola 
cli Camera, che tutti li benefici che vacaranno per li decreti del 
concilio siano affetti et tocchi solo a S. B ne a conferirgli." Tonina 
to the Duke of Mantua, dated Rome, Dec. 25, 1564 (Gonzaga 
Archives, Mantua). 

4 *" uscito finalmente il motu proprio che prolonga la resi- 
dentia a preti dalle calende di maggio per tutto ottobre prossimo. 
La dataria e alquanto allargata et ha commissione di segnare 
tutte le supplicazioni che siano state presentate nanti la con- 
firmatione del concilio. Passano medemamente le dispense de 
matrimonii contratti sin a quel tempo purche li contrahenti 
giurino di non haver saputo quel che di ci6 all hora havesse 
ordinato il concilio in tal materia, et pero e passata una dispensa 
di due scicliani li quali havevano contratto in 2 grado, la quale 
pero gli e costata mille scudi." Tonina to the Duke of Mantua, 
July 29, 1564, loc. cit. 


regulations for reform the influence of the Secretary of State 
on his uncle the Pope. Borromeo came more and more to 
look upon the furtherance and carrying out of the decrees of 
Trent as his life s work, and to this task he devoted, with the 
greatest determination and persistence, all his talents, his no 
small influence over the Pope, and, later on, his pastoral 
labours. He became for all time the model and guide for the 
carrying into effect of the Tridentine decrees, and he thus 
became one of the most influential ecclesiastical reformers, 
while his name must ever be closely associated with that of 
the Council of Trent. 

While the Council was sitting, the whole of the extensive 
correspondence with the legates passed through the hands of 
Borromeo. 1 Every week reports and letters from Trent were 
constantly arriving in Rome, often several on the same day, 
and it was the duty of the Secretary of State to present a 
report on all these to the Pope. It is true that short summaries 
of these documents were prepared for him by subordinate 
officials, but there is reason to believe that Borromeo did not 
base his reports to the Pope on these summaries alone, but 
that he read the documents themselves. 2 Pius IV. himself 
decided what answers were to be sent, but it was the duty of 
the Secretary of State to examine and correct the drafts of 
these replies. 3 It is clear, moreover, that on many occasions, 
Borromeo did not conduct the correspondence with the Council 
merely as a tool in his uncle s hands, but that he formed his 
own opinion on events, and maintained it even against the 
Pope. 4 

1 For what follows cf. C. VITALI in La Scuola cattolica, Ser. 4, 
XVIII. (1910), 769-801. 

2 VITALI (loc. cit. 778) thinks he can find authority for this 
statement, by a comparison between the requests of the legates 
and the replies. 

8 For the progress of the negotiations in the secret secretariate 
see Vol. XV. of this work, p. no. 

4 On the question of the safe-conduct for the Protestants he, 
on April i, 1562, first sent that which the Pope had decided upon 
(SusTA, II., 75), but he attached to this a letter to Simonetta, 


The joy and self-sacrifice with which Borromeo took upon 
his shoulders this great burden of work, in which he saw the 
service of God, and the well-being of the Church, is sometimes 
to be seen in his merely business communications with the 
legates, 1 ,, On the day of the closing of the Council he speaks 
of it as the greatest benefit which could have been conferred 
on the world, an enterprise redounding to the honour of the 
Pope, a thing both beneficial and necessary for Christianity, 
and one which had set free the Church of God from great 
danger at a moment of dire peril. Perhaps so distinguished a 
gathering would not meet again for many centuries, and he 
burned with zeal to see the Council carried into effect at once 
as the needs of Christendom demanded. 2 

Borromeo began the work of carrying out the Triden- 
tine regulations in his own household and his own person. 
When, immediately after the close of the Council, he reduced 
his princely state, increased the simplicity and strictness of 
his manner of life, and set himself to the practice of preaching, 
he was led to this more than anything else by his respect for 
the ordinances of Trent. 8 The Council should not have vainly 
laid it down that the state of a bishop must be simple, and that 
preaching is his first duty. 4 Borromeo went much further 
than the mere words of the Council; the "almost regal 

in which he expressed his own rather different idea (ibid., 76). 
On the occasion of the controversy about the duty of residence, 
he, on May n, sent to the legates, together with the Pope s 
letter, another one " in his own name " (ibid., 136). 

1 KoNSTANTiN GERMANUS, Reformatorenbilder, 157, 308, 
Freiburg, 1883. GRISAR, Disput., I., 400 seq. 

2 SUSTA, IV., 454 seq. " tanto il desiderio mio che hormai 
s attenda ad exequir poi che sara confirmato questo santo concilio 
conforme al bisogno che ne ha la Christian tici tutta e non piu a 
disputare . . ." Ibid. 

s Cf. Vol. XV. of this work, p. 119 seqq. *" Cardinal Mark 
Sittich wrote on June 15, 1564, to Count Hannibal von Hohenems 
that Cardinal Borromeo had dismissed 150 members of his suite, 
and got rid of all his horses." (Hohenems Archives). 

4 Sess. 25, de ref., c.i. ; sess. 24, de ref., 0.4. 


magnificence of his court " l disappeared more and more, 
until it became an almost exaggerated simplicity. 

It was an inestimable advantage for the reform movement 
in Rome that the nephew of the Pope, the first and most 
influential of the Cardinals, should have placed himself at its 
head. " He gives everyone so splendid an example," wrote 
the Venetian ambassador Soranzo, in 1565, " that it may 
indeed be said that he is in his own person the cause of more 
good at the Roman court than all the decrees of the Council 
of Trent taken together/ 2 

If the Papal court, as Soranzo writes, 3 was no longer the 
same as it had been, this change must not be entirely attri 
buted to the influence of Borromeo. The Cardinals had now 
become poorer, says the same correspondent, 4 since they had 
had to give up their benefices in England and Germany after 
the defection of those countries. Moreover, in consequence 
of the Tridentine decree as to residence they could no longer 
accumulate three or four bishoprics and numerous benefices 
in their own hands. Besides this, the foreign princes no 
longer sought the friendship of the Cardinals so eagerly as 
they had been wont to do. The weakness of the States of the 
Church had become only too apparent under Paul IV. ; it 
was, therefore, no longer of the same importance to the princes 
whether this man or that became Pope, so that they no longer 
strove, by means of costly gifts, to secure for themselves a 
party in the College of Cardinals or in the conclave. One 
hardly hears nowadays, writes Soranzo, that this or that 
Cardinal is Imperial, French, or Spanish, and their partisan 
ship for the princes has disappeared with the liberality of the 
latter. Philip II., moreover, considered himself so powerful 
that in his opinion the Pope would in any case be obliged to be 
on friendly terms with him, while France, both on account 
of the whole tendency of her policy, and of her internal wars, 

1 The expression of CIACONIUS (III., 891). 

2 GIAC. SORANZO, 133 seq. 

3 Ibid., 136. 

4 Ibid., 136 seq. 


could no longer think of mixing herself up in Roman 
affairs . 

The vanishing wealth of the Roman princes of the Church 
was also the reason why men of talent no longer flocked to 
the Eternal City to make their fortunes in the service of the 
Cardinals. On account of the Tridentine decrees of residence, 
such men could, in spite of all their efforts to secure the favour 
of the great, only succeed in obtaining a single benefice. To 
serve a Cardinal any longer could not procure them a second, 
the duty of residence called them back to their flocks, and they 
left Rome. 1 

The greater simplicity which gradually prevailed in Rome, 
however, must not be explained merely by the disappearance 
of the means of making a great display. A spirit of greater 
seriousness and of deeper religious feeling was making itself 
felt in the Eternal City, and this was, in no small degree, owing 
to the influence of Borromeo. " At the -Curia/ again says 
Soranzo, 2 " they live very simply, partly, as has been said, 
from want of means, but perhaps not less on account of the 
good example of Cardinal Borromeo, for those in subordinate 
positions adapt themselves to the example of their princes. 
No Cardinal or courtier can any longer count on favour, if 
he does not live, either in reality, or at least in appearance, as 
he does. At any rate, in public they stand aloof from every 
kind of amusement. Cardinals are no longer seen riding or 
driving masked in the company of ladies ; at the most they 
sometimes ride in coaches, but without any retinue. 3 
Banquets, games, hunting parties, liveries, and all forms of 
external luxury, are all the more at an end because there 


2 Ibid., 138. 

3 These coaches, which had not long before made their appear 
ance in Rome, seemed as unsuitable to dignitaries of the Church 
as, in our own day, was the case at first with bicycles or motor 
cars. On November 17, 1564, Pius IV. forbade the Cardinals 
to come to the Vatican in future in travelling coaches, or in 
wooden carriages with two horses ; they must ride, or, in case of 
sickness, make use of a sedan chair. See WYMANN, 102, n.i. 


are no longer any lay persons of high rank at the court, such 
as were formerly to be found there in great numbers among the 
relatives and intimates of the Pope. Priests now go about in 
the dress of their order so that the reform is visible to the eye. 
On the other hand," Soranzo adds, " artisans and shop 
keepers might as well declare themselves bankrupt ; since the 
offices and posts are in the hands of the Milanese, who are 
well known to show but little generosity, there are very few 
people here who are pleased with the government." 1 

It was inevitable that there should be no lack of complaints 
against the stern reformer and his " Theatine ways," but even 
Annibale Caro, who gives strong expression to this feeling, 2 
testifies that people no longer came to Rome to make their 
fortunes, but to pray, and that the change in the city must 
be traced to the influence of Borromeo. Men of ecclesiasti 
cal sympathies, 3 as well as the Roman populace, were, 4 on 
the other hand, loud in the praises of Borromeo. It must 
have been of the utmost importance for the moral regenera 
tion of the Eternal City that the Cardinal Secretary of State 
used his influence with the Pope to bring worthy men into the 
Sacred College. At the appointment of Cardinals on March 

1 GIAC. SORANZO, 138. 

2 " Di Roma non so che me le dire, se non che quell acconcia 
stagni e candelieri ha tolto a rifaria tutta ; et non gli basta Roma, 
che vuol fare il medesimo per tutto " (to Torquato Conti on July 
22, 1564, in CARO, Lettere famil., I., 50). " Se 1 ambizione le 
facesse per avventura desiderar Roma, le ricordo che ci si viene 
hora per orare e non per pascere (letter to Sala on Feb. 20, 1564, 
in CARO, II., 100). *Cardinal Mark Sittich, who thought himself 
injured by Borromeo, wrote, on June 15, 1564, after Borromeo 
had reduced his own court, to Count Hannibal von Hohenems 
that he was of opinion that Borromeo would go mad from sheer 
stinginess ; he acts as though he had not got an income of 2,000 
crowns, nor is he satisfied with what he has, but is always 
seeking for more : this is the result of his Theatineria (Hohenems 

8 Canisius to Hosius on Sept. 17, 1565, CANISII Epist., V., 96. 
* SYLVAIN, I., 243. 


I2th, 1565, no one was promoted except at the suggestion of 
Borromeo or with his consent. 1 

The example of his nephew did not fail to have an influence 
on the Pope himself. 2 At the end of July, and the beginning 
of August, 1564, he reformed the Apostolic Palace, and over 
400 superfluous courtiers were dismissed. A new majordomo 
had already been appointed, and for this important position 
Pius chose a man who had not before come into public notice, 
and whom the least of the Cardinals would not have chosen 
for such a position in his household. The Pope dismissed all 
the chamberlains outside Rome except five, and the number 
of the camerieri segreti, chaplains, grooms and horses was 
reduced. It was calculated that the Papal household saved 
20,000 ducats yearly by these reforms. 3 

J GiAC. SORANZO, 135. The Archbishop of Pisa was recom 
mended for the cardinalate by Borromeo. SALA, III., 337 seq. 

2 BASCAP&, 10, 19. 

3 *" N.S. ha fatta riforma de la sua casa et dicono che ha 
cassato da. 400 bocche per far il ponte di S. Spirito sopra il fiume 
et domani devesi publicare." Carlo Stuerdo to the Duke of 
Parma on July 22, 1564 (Carte Farnesiane 763, State Archives, 
Naples). *" S. Santita ha riformato il palazzo, id est n ha cacciato 
400 bocche." Girolamo Mei to Latino Latinio, Aug. 5, 564 
(Capitular Library, Viterbo). *" S. Beatitudine ha riformata 
la casa ; il primo d agosto prossimo si pubblicara del tutto, et 
fra tanto ha pubblicato un maestro di casa nuovo, il quale e 
un Don Diodato Parmiggiano suo capellano, il quale sin qui non 
e stato in tanta consideratione che forsi qual si voglia minimo 
Cardinale sifosse degnato di haverlo per suo maestro di casa. 
Ha cassato tutti li camerieri extra muros eccetto cinque che 
sono mess. Aurelo Porcelaca Bresciano, il conte Porsia del 
Friulli, il Mandello milanese, mess. Paulo Palucelli Romano et 
uno di Savoia. Alii camereri secreti oltfe che si restringono 
di numero ha ristretto anco il numero delle bocche et cavalcature, 
et ha cassato disdotto palafreneri et molti capellani. Et perch e 
nessuno delle essecutori di questa riforma la publichino prima 
del di determinato, per non venir fastidito da questo et quello, 
gli ha comandato sotto pena di escommunicatione il silentio 
delli particular!. Quelli che intervengono a questa riforma sono, 

VOL. XVI. 6 


Perhaps the measures that were taken for the improvement 
of ecclesiastical conditions in Rome were of even greater 
importance. 1 The Pope insisted that the divine worship in 
the titular churches of the Cardinals should be reorganized, 
and priests who gave scandal punished. Cardinal avelli, 
,the Vicar of Rome, received orders on May I2th, 1564, \to 
arrange for the visitation of the Roman clergy by the titular 
bishop, Cesarini. Cesarini had previously been entrusted 
with the same duty ; later on, Savelli, as well as Cardinal 
Alessandro Farnese made use of the Roman Jesuits for this 
difficult task, in the case of the churches which were under 
their jurisdiction. The same Society had also, in accordance 

il cardinale Borromei, Altemps et s. Giorgio, il s. Gabrio Scierbel- 
lone, il castellano et il maestro di casa di S. S^ vecchio. Le 
bocche che si levano sono circa 475, li restanti si dice che saranno 
seicento, li quali haveranno pane et vino solamente, oltra quelli 
che haveranno le spense del tutto. L avanzo che si fara per 
questa riforma si dice essere di 20 mille ducati ogni anno. Franc. 
Tonina to the Duke of Mantua, July 29, 1564 (Gonzaga Archives, 
Mantua). In a *letter of August 2, 1564, Tonina refers to the 
" mille stridi " on account of the reform in the " casa del papa." 
Already on Jan. 6, 1564, *Carlo Stuerdo had written to the Duke 
of Parma that " S. S 1 ^ sta per riformar la casa sua et dicono che 
si allegiera di molte bocche " (State Archives, Naples, Carte 
Fames. 763). But at that time it was not carried out. Ludo- 
vicus Bondonus de Branchis Firmanus, Diarium, Aug. 2, 1564 
(Papal Secret Archives, Arm. 12, 29 seq., 374). 

1 *Acta consist, card. Gambarae, May 12, 1564, Rome, 40 
G 13 p. 3156 seq (Corsini Library). SACCHINI, II., 1. 4, n. 8 seq. 
(a. 1560) ; 1. 8, n. 10, 20 (a. 1564). SUSTA, II., 233. * ... 
" S. S*^ nel ultima congregatione che si fece dimostr6 di voler 
che in ogni modo si estirpassero gli abusi et parlo contro i vitiosi 
e dediti alle lascivie, il giorno seguente fece publicare un bando 
contro i concubinarii che in certo tempo debbano sbrigarsi dalle 
loro concubine sotto gravissime pene se non obediranno. Gli 
r m card 11 deputati sopra la reforma del collegio de card 11 tosto 
riferiranno a S. S tA le constitution! fra loro determinate accioche 
S. S td/ appro vi o levi quello che le parera." Francesco Tonina 
to the Duke of Mantua, dated Rome, Aug. 7, 1563 (Gonzaga 
Archives, Mantua). 


with the prescriptions of the Council, to examine candidates 
for Holy Orders, as well as those seeking benefices. 

The reforming care of the Pope was also extended to the 
citizens and nobles of Rome. Several edicts of the years 
1564 and 1565 are directed against blasphemy, against walk 
ing about in the churches, against prostitutes, who were not to 
be allowed to live in the neighbourhood of churches or of noble 
married women, against vagabonds, and against the bearing 
of arms. 1 A confraternity, which gathered together homeless 
and insane beggars from the streets of Rome, and gave them 
protection from cold and hunger, was confirmed by the Pope 
and enriched with indulgences and privileges, 2 as well as a 
pious association which combatted prostitution by under 
taking the care and education of poor girls between the ages 
of nine and twelve. 3 The Hospital for Catechumens, which 
specially looked after the converts from Judaism, likewise 
enjoyed the protection of the Pope. 4 An edict of December 
loth, 1563, issued by the magistracy in the name of the Pope, 
gave very detailed rules concerning the degree of luxury 
which might be allowed in matters of dress at banquets. 5 
On the other hand, the Pope absolutely required of the 
Cardinals that they should maintain a state in keeping with 

1 *Bando sopra la biastema et del passegiare per le chiese. 
Jan. 8, 1564 (Bandi V., 7, p. i, Papal Secret Archives). *Bando 
contra le corteggiane et altre persone scandalose, deH armi, 
dell aiutto si deve dare a chi e offeso, contra li vagabond! e sopra 
1 allogiare de forastieri, Sept. 20, 1564 (Editti V., 60, p. 207). 
*Bando contra biastemmatori, giocatori, et contra corteggiane 
o meretrici che non possino habitare appresso le chiese e gentil- 
donne maritate, et che donne da 8 anni in su non possino andare 
vendendo per Roma cichorea et altre herbe. May 28, 1655, ibid, p. 
208 (Papal Secret Archives). 

2 kull of Sept. n, 1561, Bull. Rom., VII., 139 seq. 

3 TACCHI VENTURI, I., 668 seq. ; cf. 675. 

4 Facultates et privilegia archiconfraternitatis monasterii B. 
Mariae Virginis annuntiatae et hospitalis catechumenorum de 
urbe. (*Editti 119, Casanatense Library, Rome). 

5 See CLEMENTI, Carnevale, 225 seq. Cf. the Milanese Pungolo 
di Domenica of July 20, 1884 ; Rivista storica, 1907, 445. 


their rank as princes of the Church. In the consistory of 
November I7th, 1564, l he accordingly forebade them to repair 
to the Vatican on solemn occasions in coaches. In accordance 
with the ancient custom they must come on horseback ; 
Charles V. had especially admired the cavalcade of Cardinals 
at the ecclesiastical functions. The Pope was prepared to 
assign a dwelling in the Vatican to the poorer Cardinals who 
could not afford to keep a stable. 2 The whole of Rome, he 
said in the consistory of December i5th, 1564, was rejoiced 
that the Cardinals no longer rode about in coaches ; such a 
means of conveyance should in future be left to women ; it 
was not seemly for men, and he would take care that its use 
in future should be limited to ladies. 3 

The regeneration of the priesthood was not to be brought 
about by laws and penalties, but only by having the clergy 
of the future educated from their earliest youth in special 
establishments, and in a genuine sacerdotal spirit, so that an 
entirely new generation of priests might come into being. 

J *Acta consist. Cancell., IX. (Consistorial Archives of the 
Vatican) . 

2 GULIK-EUBEL, 41. Cf. HUBNER, Sixtus V., I., 73, and 
supra p, 79, n. 3. " Hora tutti li cardinal! quando gli occorrono 
andare a palazzo vanno a cavallo et in pontificale et non in cocchio 
come facevano molti che erano poveri per eshortatione di S. S t4 
tornando ci6 in decoro et riputatione id questa S. Sede, con haver 
dato intentione a quelli che non hanno il modo ni mantenere una 
stalla di cavalli di dargli le stanze in palazzo." Giacomo Tarre- 
ghetti to the Duke of Mantua, December 2, 1564 (Gonzaga Archives 

8 " *Dixit totam urbem magnam laetitiam cepisse, quod his 
diebus cardinales non viderit in rhedis. Visum esse restitutum 
pristinum huius Curiae splendorem, propterea cupere se ut 
perseveretur, ac ne domum quidem redeundo cardinales rhedis 
utantur. . . . Rhedas mulieribus relinquendas, in quas ne nimium 
severus sit, vellc se illis rhedas indulgere ; sed maximum sibi 
abusum videri, viros tanquam feminas rhedis uti ; vos inquit 
rogabimus, alios vero cogemus ut rhedis abstineant." Acta 
consist, card Gambarae, 40 G 13, p. 409 (Corsini Library, 
Rome) . 


This view had already been expressed during the first period 
of the Council by the Jesuit Lejay, the representative of Otto 
Truchsess, Bishop of Augsburg. 1 The idea was first put into 
practice by Cardinal Truchsess in his college at Dillingen, 
in 1549, 2 an d by Ignatius Loyola in the Germanicum in Rome, 
in 1552. 3 Later, in 1555, Cardinal Pole exhorted the Bishops 
of Cambrai and Tournai to imitate the foundation of Loyola 
in their dioceses. 4 and in 1556 he drew up for England, as 
Archbishop of Canterbury, his celebrated decree on seminaries, 
which became the basis of the decree on the subject in the 
Council of Trent. 5 This was unanimously approved by the 
fathers of the Council, and some were of opinion that even had 
the synod accomplished nothing more than the promulgation 
of this one decree, it would still deserve credit for a work of 
incalculable importance . 6 

The fathers of the Council had originally intended to embody 
in their decree an express wish that such a seminary might 
be founded in Rome itself as would serve as a model for the 
whole world. The legates sought to evade this request by 
promising in the name of the Pope that he would meet their 
wishes, and found a seminary in Rome which would be worthy 

Congregation of April 6, 1546, in EHSES, II., 79. Cf. the 
letter of the legates to Farnese on April 10, 1546 : " fare come 
si faceva anticamente il seminario di bon preti, allevandoli da 
piccoli." EHSES, I., 501. PALLAVICINI, 7, 2, 3. 

2 Tn. SPECHT, Gesch. der ehemaligen Universitat Dilligen, 
Freiburg, 1902, 8 seqq. Cf. Vol. XIII. of this work, p. 227. 

3 Cf. Vol. XIII. of this work, p. 229 seqq. 

4 AUG. THEINER, Gesch. der geistlichen Bildungsanstalten, 
Mayence, 1835, 103. 

6 Sess. 23, de ref., c. 18. Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 392. 
" Anno 1562, quando SS. Pontifex Pius IV. opus Cardinalis Pole 
de Concilio in typographia Aldina Romae imprimi mandavit ad 
usum concilii Tridentini, hae constitutiones [of the English Council, 
1556] sub titulo Reformatio Angliae una cum praefato opere typis 
editae fuere." Arch. Cone. Trid., vol. 49, p. 13, in the Documenta 
ad legationem Cardinalis Polis spectantia (Rome s. a. [1896]) 30. 
SUSTA, I., 155 ; II., 45. 

6 Paleotto in THEINER, II., 661. 


of him and of the Eternal City. On July 26th, 1563, the legates 
therefore addressed a petition to Pius IV. in their own name 
and that of the Council, that he would soon take in hand a 
work which all considered so necessary and useful. l Borromeo 
answered on August 4th that the Pope already had in mind 
the plan of a model seminary in Rome. 2 In the consistory 
of August i8th, 1563, Pius IV. charged Cardinals Mula, 
Savelli, Borromeo and Vitelli to select, in conjunction with the 
Cardinal Dean, suitable youths, and to decide on the governing 
body of the institution ; 6,000 ducats, provisionally assigned 
from the Apostolic Camera, should be paid annually for its 
maintenance. 3 

After the close of the Council, the Pope, in a consistory on 
December 3oth, 1563, insisted on the fact that, after the duty 
of residence, the next important point of the reform must be 
the establishment of seminaries. He promised to found these 
in Rome and Bologna. 4 

It is certain that the want of suitable professors among the 
secular clergy of Rome is the explanation of the fact that 
after the lapse of six months, the Pope, in the consistories 
of March ist and April I4th, 1564, had to exhort the Cardinals 
to hasten this work. 5 Already, before the end of April, the 
deputation of Cardinals had arrived at the decision to entrust 

1 POGIANI Epist., III., 388. SUSTA, IV., 142. Facsimile of 
the letter and of Borromeo s reply of August 4 in (Carlo Sica) 
Cenni storici del Pontificio Seminario Romano, Rome, 1914. 
8-9, 12-13. 

2 usTA, IV., 172. 

3 SUSTA, IV., 196. POGIANI Epist., III., 388. Later there was 
talk of 10 cardinals to take charge of the seminary. ASTRA IN, II., 

4 POGIANI Epist., III., 387. 

5 Ibid., 389. *Acta consist, card. Gambarae, 40013, p. 
272a, 30ib (Corsini Library, Rome). In the *consistory of 
March 23 (ibid., 2Qia) the financial difficulties of the undertaking 
were dealt with : " Clerum urbanum postulasse, ne qua nova 
taxatio beneficiorum fieret, semetipsos sua sponte taxaturos ; 
si modo res ad exitum perduceretur, modum non curare," Cf. 
ASTRAIN, II., 207. 


. the seminary to the Jesuits ; the General of the Order, Lainez, 
gave definite promises in answer to the proposal made to him 
by Cardinal Savelli. 1 

The news of these proceedings let loose a storm of ill-will 
against the Jesuits. There already existed but little friendly 
feeling towards them among the Roman clergy, because the 
Vicar of the city, Cardinal Savelli, had entrusted them with 
the thorny task of holding the examination, prescribed by 
the Council, of those seeking benefices and of the candidates 
for Holy Orders, and because he, as well as Cardinal Farnese, 
had caused the Jesuits to make a visitation of the Roman 
parishes. 2 Several Cardinals, the chapters of St. Peter s, 
the Lateran, and St. Mary Major, and almost all the parishes 
of the city, were loud in their complaints, and gave the Pope 
a list of secular priests who were fully qualified to be professors 
in the seminary. 3 

Pius IV. had not been particularly favourable to the Jesuits 
in the first half of the year 1564, as he thought the changed 
manner of life of his nephew, Cardinal Borromeo, was due to 
their influence. However, he allowed himself to be appeased 
by Lainez, and the deputation of Cardinals on the question 
of the seminary adhered to their decision, 4 which the Pope 
adopted in the consistory of July 28th. 5 On July 3ist he 
visited the Roman and German Colleges, accompanied by 
several cardinals, and declared himself well satisfied with the 

A new and more violent storm, however, was already brew 
ing. The titular bishop, Cesarini, whom Savelli had employed 
to make the visitation of the Roman parishes, till he replaced 
him by the Belgian Jesuit Goisson, 6 drew up two indictments 
against the Order, full of every imaginable accusation against 

1 ASTRAIN, II., 206. 

2 SACCHINI, II., 1. 8, n. 10. 

3 ASTRAIN, II., 207. Cf. LANCIANI, IV., 75. 

4 SACCHINI, loc. cit. n. 19. 

5 POGIANI Epist., III., 389. *Acta consist. Cancell., VIII., 
I79b (Consistorial Archives of the Vatican), 

6 Cf. supra p. 82. 


the private lives of its members, as well as against their be 
haviour in the confessional and in the care of souls ; these 
two documents were not only circulated among the Cardinals 
in Rome, but were also spread abroad, especially in Germany, 
among persons of influence. 1 The Pope was indignant with 
Cesarini, but nevertheless caused his accusations to be sub 
mitted to the reform commission for careful examination. 2 
The investigation proved the innocence of the accused, 3 and 
at the end of the year the Pope himself took up their cause, 
describing the accusations, in briefs which he addressed to the 
Emperor, the Duke of Bavaria, the three ecclesiastical Electors, 
and Cardinal Truchsess, as sheer inventions, and recommend 
ing the Society of Jesus to the goodwill of the princes, both 
secular and ecclesiastical. 4 

I SACCHINI, loc. cit., n. 20 seqq. 

2 Polanco to Salmeron, October 28, 1564, and January 7, 1565, 
in SALMERON, Epist., I., 555, 566. Francis Borgia to Araoz, 
November 25, 1564, in S. FRANCISCUS BORGIA, III., 725. 

3 On some points the reform commission asked for more detailed 
information, which was given in H. Natalis apologia Societatis lesu 
(NADAL, Epist., IV, 148-65). 

* SACCHINI, VIII., n. 33. The brief to the Emperor, of December 
29, 1564, in SACCHINI, II., 1., 8 n. 34, and LAEMMER, MeJet., 
349 seq.; that to the Elector of Mayence, of December 30, in 
SACCHINI, II., 1. 8, n. 35, and POGIANI Epist., III., 390 seq.; that 
to the Elector of Cologne, of December 30, in REIFFENBERG, 
Historia S. J. ad Rhenum inferiorem, Cologne, 1764, Mantissa, 24 ; 
that to Otto Truchsess, of December 28, in F. X. KROPF, Historia 
provinciae S. J. Germaniae superioris, pars V., decas 10, n. 425, 
Augsburg, 1 754, p. 209. Manuscripts in the Papal Secret Archives, 
Brevia 20, n. 86 (to Truchsess), n. 89 (to Albert of Bavaria), n. 91 
(to the Emperor), n. 92 (to the Archbishop of Mayence). Cf. 
CANISII Epist., IV., 761, 773, 943. These briefs were printed at 
Dillingen in 1565, with a preface by Cardinal Truchsess. Synopsis 
actorum p. 37 n; CANISII Epist., V., n. Borromeo gives the 
following opinion on the affair in a letter to Ormaneto on January 
6, 1565 : Quanto al governo del Seminario [in Milan] non dubitate 
ch io sia per rimuoverne i Padri gesuiti, sapendo bene la bonta, 
patientia et sufficientia loro in questo carico ; et se il clero mi 
scriverk sopra questo, sapro quello che dover6 risponder loro, 


The excitement against the Jesuits frustrated the Pope s 
intention of setting an example to the world in carrying out 
the seminary decree of the Council of Trent. Cardinal Mula 
anticipated him in the middle of 1564 in his diocese of Rieti. 1 
In the same year the first Tridentine seminary was established 
on German soil 2 through the zeal of Martin von Schaumberg, 
Bishop of Eichstatt, and soon afterwards the dioceses of 
Camerino 3 and Monte pulciano 4 followed this example. For 
the moment the Pope had to content himself with promoting 
the execution of the decree by sending letters of exhortation 
to the bishops. 5 In France, the Archbishop of Cambrai, in 
his provincial synod of 1565, urged the establishment of 
seminaries. 6 

ne mi meraviglio che il demonio habbia suscitato costi degli 
istromenti suoi contra questi buoni padri, poi che non e mancato 
anchor qui in Roma chi ha cercato di impedirgli il medesimo 
governo con finger mille calunnie contra questi religiosi, le quali 
sono sparse in molti luoghi, et fino nella Germania ; onde Nostro 
Signore ha scritto diversi Brevi, et particolarmente all Imperatore, 
giustificando la loro innocenza come vedrete per la copia che vi 
si mando ; perico dico non mi par strano che anco in Milano si 
siano trovati di questi mali spiriti. SALA, III., 327. 

1 Cum decretum fuerit in s. synodo, ut in civitatibus erigeretur 
seminarium, ill m s cardinalis meus primus fuit inter episcopos, 
qui illud erexit, et ascivit in illud pueros 26 iuxta tenuitatem 
sumptus. Lombard us to Hosius, July 24, 1564, in CYPRIANUS, 

2 J. G. SUTTNER, Geschicte des bischoflichen Seminars in 
Eichstadt, Eichstadt, 1859. JULIUS SAX, Die Bischofe und Reichs- 
fiirsten von Eichstadt, Landshut, 1884, 45 8 se( l- 

3 MILTIADES SANTONI, De Camertino clericorum seminario, 
Camerino, s.a. (short account of the seminary 1564-1861). 

4 POGIANI Epist., I., 347. According to UGHELLI, Italia sacra, 
IV., 1124, Rome, 1652, the seminary had already been started 
at Vercelli before 1562. Cf. CARDELLA, V., 25. 

5 RAYNALDUS, 1564, n. 53, makes mention of two of these 
letters, of July 14 and 22, 1564, for Venice and Lyons. Cf. 
STEINHERZ, IV., 360, 427, 435 and *Brevia, Arm. 44, t. 20, n. 173 
(Papal Secret Archives). 

6 See THEINER, Bildungsanstalten, 139 seq. 


The Jesuit colleges were looked upon as seminaries in the 
sense of the Council. For this reason the seminary decree of 
Trent had been framed in such a way as to exempt the Jesuit 
colleges from the duty of contributing to the diocesan semin 
aries, 1 and when the fathers of the Council urged the estab 
lishment of a model seminary in the Eternal City, Morone had 
replied that Rome already had such institutions in the Roman 
College and the Germanicum. 2 For this reason, after the 
publication of the decree, many of the bishops sought to fulfil 
their duty by asking for Jesuit colleges in their dioceses. 3 As 
Cardinal Truchsess wrote, 4 it was Charles Borromeo who was, 
above all, filled with the desire that seminaries should be 
established in every diocese of Christendom, and he had already, 
since the third opening of the Council, with the support 
especially of the legate Morone and the General of the Jesuits, 
Lainez, been working zealously with all his might for the 
carrying out of this plan. As early as 1564 he had set up 
an institution at Pavia, for noble youths who were studying 
at the university, 5 and at the end of the same year the opening 
of a true seminary in accordance with the prescriptions of 
Trent had followed in his own diocese of Milan. 6 The first 

1 Polanco, Trent, July 15, 1563, in CANISII Epist., IV., 292 seq.; 
cf. 285. 

2 Polanco, July 12 (13), 1563, ibid., 289. 

3 Polanco to Canisius, beginning of July, 1563, ibid., 286. 
SACCHINI, II., 1. 7, n. 4. Concerning Mayence, see infra. 

4 To the Cologne Jesuit, Joh. v. Reidt, September 13, 1564, 
in JANNSSEN-PASTOR, IV. 15 " 16 , 427. On the efforts made to in- 
induce the Hungarian bishops to establish seminaries, see STEIN- 
HERZ, IV., 436 ; cf. 427. 

5 San Carlo, 195, 200. Cf. R. MAIOCCHI and ATTILIO MOIRAGHI, 
II Collegio Borromeo di Pavia, 1908. See also Vol. XV. of this 
work, p. 122. 

6 Cardinal Borromeo to Ormaneto, Dec. 23, 1564. SALA, 
Docum., II., n. 197. The opening was originally fixed for Nov. 
u, 1564. An indulgence brief of Pius IV., of Oct. 23, 1564, 
for those taking part in this festivity, in SALA, Docum., I., 147. 
Other briefs for the seminary, ibid., 146, 148. For the efforts 
made by Borromeo to obtain candidates for the seminary, see 


candidates received there came for the most part from Switzer 
land ; l he placed the direction of this establishment in the 
hands of the Jesuits, who, however, accepted the charge only 
as a temporary measure. 2 

In the consistory of January I2th, 1565, the Pope acknow 
ledged that he felt put to shame by the zeal of his nephew, 
and that Rome must no longer allow other cities to show her 
the way in the carrying out of the seminary decree. Cardinal 
Savelli was instructed to see to it that the necessary con 
tributions for the maintenance of the seminary were promptly 
made. 3 The institution was at last actually opened in the 
middle of February ; the students attended the lectures at the 
Roman College, and the palace of Cardinal Carpi, who had 
lately died (May 2nd, 1564) was assigned to the seminary as 
its home. 4 

Carpi was the first and last Cardinal Protector of the Jesuit 
Order. After his death the Society resolved not to renew 
the petition for the appointment of a Protector. The Pope 
approved of this decision, saying that he would himself in 
future take that office upon himself. 5 Except for the above- 

SALA, Docum., II., 232 seqq., n. 38-41, 45, 53. 6l > 6 7> 7 8 8 4> 86 
seqq. Cf. also WYMANN, 100, and MAGISTRETTI, Liber seminari, 
Mediolanensis, in Arch. stor. Lomb., XLIIL, (1916), 1-3. 

*SALA, Biografia 23. 

ZSALA, Docum., III., 830. 

3 *Acta consist, card. Gambarae, 40 G 13, p. 42ob (Corsini 
Library, Rome). Cf. DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 590 seq. ; LAEMMER, 
Melet., 218. 

* Borgia to Salmeron, Feb. 18, 1565, SALMERON, Epist., II., 6. 
The first Jesuit rector, Peruschi (cf. Vol. XV. of this work, p. 167), 
took possession of the Roman Seminary on Jan. 28, 1565 (Polanco 
to Salmeron, Jan. 28, 1565, ibid. 3)- For the subsequent history 
of the establishment see MORONI, Dizionario, LXIV., 5-22 ; 
HANNIBAL ADAMI, Seminarii Romani Pallas purpurata, Rome, 
1569 ; (Carlo Sica) Cenni storici del Pontificio Seminario Romano, 

Rome, I9 I 4- 

5 Polanco to Canisius, May 20, 1564, CANISII Epist., IV., 534. 
For the motives for not asking for another Protector, see 
SACCHINI, II., 1. 8, n. 5 seqq. 


mentioned temporary misunderstanding, Pius IV., in other 
ways as well, showed great favour to the Society of Jesus, 
by confirming and increasing their privileges. 1 He expressly 
annulled the regulation of his predecessor that the General 
should only retain his office for three years. 2 When the Council 
of Trent, in its decree on the religious orders, praised and 
recognized the special constitution of the Society of Jesus, 3 
this was done with the express sanction of the Pope. 4 It was 
France which gave occasion for this declaration, when its 
Parliament had made the admission of the Order, which was 
so violently opposed there, dependent on the decision of the 
Council. 5 Later on, Pius IV. sent a letter, full of high praise 
of the Jesuits, to Charles IX., to whom he recommended the 
college of the Order in Paris. 6 On many other occasions 
as well he raised his voice for the promotion and protection 
of the young order. He wrote in this sense to Cardinal 
Granvelle, 7 in the Netherlands, where the Jesuits had great 
difficulties to contend with. He exhorted the Archbishop of 
Goa to respect their rights, 8 and the clergy of Augsburg to 

1 Synopsis actorum 27, n. 31 (confirmation of the general ap 
proval of 1561). Certain privileges renewed or granted, ibid. 
30, n. 40 ; 31, n. 44 ; 34, n. 53 ; 35, n. 58 ; Institutum Societatis 
lesu, I., 31, 34, Florence, 1892. 

2 Oral decision, attested by Cardinal Este, June 22, 1561; 
see CANISII Epist., III., 178 seq. ; cf. SACCHINI, II., 1. 4, n. 13 
seqq. ; 1. 5, n. 121 seqq. SALMERON, Epist., I., 447 ; NADAL, 
Epist., I., 474 ; Bobadillae Monumenta, 377. 

8 Sess. 25, de regul. c. 16. ASTRAIN, II., 196 seqq. CANISII 
Epist., IV., 415. NA. AL, Epist., II., 344, 379, 467, 630 seq. 

4 Borromeo to the legates of the Council, Aug. 4, 1563, in 
SUSTA, IV., 171 ses* 

6 Ibid. ; cf. Vol. XIII. of this work, p. 231. 

6 On May 29, 1565, in SACCHINI, III., 1. i, n. 19. He wrote at 
the same time, and in the same sense to the Queen-Mother, to 
the Parliament of Paris, and to Cardinal Bourbon (Synopsis 
actorum, 41 n. 78-80). In all these letters the confirmation 
of the Order by the Council of Trent is emphasized. 

7 On Oct. 30, 1561, in RAYNALDUS, 1561, n. 67. 
Synopsis actorum, 29, n. 39 (Dec. i, 1562). 


keep the peace with them. 1 He also recommended them to 
the governor and senate of Milan, 2 to the Doge of Genoa, 3 
to the Emperor Ferdinand I., 4 and to Maximilian II. 5 Pius 
IV. also instructed the nuncios Delfino and Commendone, 
when they were sent to invite the German princes to the 
Council, to arrange for the establishment of as many Jesuit 
colleges as possible in Germany. 6 

Lainez, the General of the Order, was held in high esteem by 
Pius IV., who sought his opinion, and attached great weight to 
his views, especially as to the difficult problem of the best 
manner of reassembling the Council. 7 It was on the advice 
of Lainez that duels were forbidden, 8 and the Tridentine 
profession of faith required of candidates for a doctor s 
degree. 9 The representations of the General of the Jesuits 
also had a great influence in bringing about the mitigation of 
the Index. 10 The successor of Lainez, Francis Borgia, was also 
treated with the greatest distinction by Pius IV. when, on 
the day of his election as General of the Society, July 2nd, 
1565, he presented himself before the Pope. 11 

Pius IV. spoke in terms of special praise of the Jesuits in a 
letter to Philip II., which shows plainly his anxiety for the 
firmer establishment of one of the most important educational 
institutions of that time, the Roman College. " Among all the 
religious orders," he wrote to the king on November 24th, 

I CANISII Epist., IV., 902 seqq. ; cf. 662. 

2 *Brevia n, n. 359, 360 (Papal Secret Archives). Synopsis 
30, n. 41-2 (May 4, 1563). 

3 *Brevia u, n. 362 Ice. cit. Synopsis, 30, n. 43 (May 4, 1563). 

4 In RAYNALDUS, 1561, n. 65 (Aug. 8). 
6 Ibid., 1564, n. 53 (Sept. 30). 

6 SACCHINI, II., 1. 5, n. 159 ; cf. 1. 4, n. 7. 

The advice in GRISAR, Disput., II., i seqq. The criticisms 
made in this, e.g. p. 15, are taken into consideration in the final 
drafting of the bull. 

3 SACCHINI, II., 1. 4, n. 10. 

9 See supra p. 12. SACCHINI, II., 1. 8, n. 41. 

10 See supra p. 13. 

"S. Franciscus Borgia, IV., 17. 


I56I, 1 " the Society of Jesus deserves to be embraced with 
special love by the Holy See ; it exercises a zealous and 
fruitful activity on behalf of the Church, while the progress 
which the Order has made in so short a time, the good it has 
done, and the colleges it has founded, are almost incredible." 
There is, he continues, a large college of the Order in Rome, 
and the Pope recommends it to the protection and benevolence 
of the king on the ground that this institution serves as the 
training ground for the colleges of the Order in Italy, Germany 
and France ; from this source the Apostolic See continually 
draws capable labourers, to send them wherever they are 

Ignatius of Loyola had, as a matter of fact, when he founded 
the Roman College, the idea of providing a central point for 
his Order ; from it, as he caused Borgia to be informed in a 
letter of 1555, 2 colleges had already been spread through the 
whole of Italy, as at Perugia, Florence, Naples, Loreto, 
Ferrara, Modena, Genoa and Bologna : to say nothing of the 
college at Vienna, they were just then sending subjects to 
found one at Prague : at Strasbourg, Ratisbon, Gran and 
Ermland, they were insistently asking for similar establish 
ments. The greater the lack of educated and exemplary 
Catholics in those places, the more important it was to provide 
a remedy, by the training of a more worthy laity ; this 
college therefore is an undertaking that concerns the whole 
world, and not the city of Rome alone. 

In addition to being their training ground, it was stated in 
the same letter, the Roman College must also serve as the 
pattern and model for the other Jesuit colleges. According 
to the idea of Loyola, it was destined to become an instrument 
for the reform of the sadly decadent study of theology, in 
the first place for his own Order, and then over a much wider 
field. He wrote that he intended, in the capital of Christen- 

II., 1. 5, n. 158. RAYNALDUS, 1561, n. 66. A 
"brief to Philip II. of Nov. 15, 1562, with a recommendation of 
the visitor, Nadal, and praise of the Jesuits, in Brevia 10, n. 365, 
p. 2835 (Papal Secret Archives). 

2 On Sept. 14, 1555 : Monumenta Ignatiana, Ser. i, IX., 609 seq. 


dom, and at the headquarters of the Society of Jesus, to find 
out by experience what was the best method of conducting 
such colleges. A scheme of instruction for universities had 
already been drafted, and they were preparing text-books ; 
they were confident that in a few years time they would be 
able to put forward a course of studies " in accordance with 
which, in the shortest possible time and in the best way, they 
would be able to teach all the sciences necessary for the 
service of God, and the care of souls." Moreover, there were, 
especially in Italy, Sicily, Flanders and Germany, many 
youthful members of the Order, of great talent and capacity 
for the care of souls, who were unable to obtain in those 
countries a scientific training, for the reason that there studies 
were conducted negligently, and in an excessively prolix 
manner. For such the Roman College was also necessary. 
On another occasion Ignatius wrote to Borgia : l "I estimate 
the importance of this educational establishment so highly, 
not only for the Order, but for the whole Church, that I do not 
know in all Christendom of a better work than its foundation. 
If the other colleges of the Order were to give the Roman one 
half of every loaf, and half of every cloak they possess, they 
would be doing something of great value to themselves as 

The beginnings of the University, which later on became 
so celebrated, were very modest. A generous gift of money 
from the then Duke of Gandia, Francis Borgia, who was in 
Rome in 1550, 2 made it possible for Ignatius to come nearer 
to the realization of his plans. On February I5th, fifteen 
students of the Order moved into a hired house, and lectures 
in Latin and Greek were commenced there on the following 
day. 3 Hebrew was soon added to the curriculum ; 4 on 
October i8th, 1553, the philosophical and theological 
studies were inaugurated by a solemn disputation in the 

1 On Dec. 28, 1554, Mon. Ign. Ser. 1, VIII. , 197; cf. XII., 
290 seqq. 

2 Cf. Vol. XIII. of this work, p. 177. 

3 Mon. Ign. Ser. 1., III., 339. 
Ibid. IV., 59. 


presence of six Cardinals. Medicine and civil law were 
excluded from the course of studies, but in 1554 there were 
five chairs of Latin, one each of rhetoric, Greek, and Hebrew, 
and three of philosophy. Every day there was a well attended 
lecture on mathematics, and another on morals, two further 
lectures on scholastic theology and one on the Holy Scriptures, 
being also given daily ;* the course of studies was widened in 
1563 by lectures on cases of conscience, and moral philosophy, 
and it was also possible to obtain instruction in Arabic. 2 
It was just because of this wealth of subjects that the Sapienza 
seemed to be eclipsed. 3 In the year 1561 the number of 
students had risen to about 800 ; in the years that followed it 
was still larger, so that several of the classes had to be divided. 4 
In the reports special stress is laid upon the fact that many 
students also flocked to the lectures in philosophy and 
theology ; 5 this was something new for Rome, and was all the 
more wonderful as the lectures were generally in the morning 
or the evening, and there were frequent disputations. This 
fact is a sign of the spirit of reform which was gradually 
making itself felt. The exclusive predominance of humanism 
was weakening, and a more serious spirit was taking hold of 
the Eternal City. 6 

A survey of the subjects taught at the Roman College clearly 
shows in what sense Ignatius had formed his ideas for the 

. VII., 258; cf. V., 613 ; IX., 608 seq. 

2 SACCHINI, II., 1. 7, n. 5. 

3 Mon. Ign. Ser. 1., IX., 608. 

4 SACCHINI, II., i. 5, n. 62 ; III., 1. 3, n. 44 ; 1. 4, n. 146. 

*Mon. Ign. Ser. 1., VII., 258. 

6 Even outside learned circles attention was fixed on the Roman 
College. Francesco Tonina wrote as follows to the Duke of 
Mantua on Oct. 30, 1560 : *" Heri si fece una disputa da questi 
novi theatini nella loro chiesa, della predestinatione et altri 
articoli, alle quale intravenero present! il card le di Ferrara et 
il card 16 Savello, et dopo finita quella disputatione sali sul pulpito 
un giovanetto paggio pur di esso r mo di Ferrara, il quale fece una 
assai bella oratione, et la quale fu lodata assai da molti dotti che 
furono present! " (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 


reform of theological studies. The things which he found 
fault with in the method of teaching the sacred sciences at that 
time were its extraordinary prolixity, which did not exhaust 
the subject in the course of many years, the tendency to dwell 
on sophistries and trivialities, the neglect of the Sacred Scrip 
tures, and its uninteresting form. Therefore we find in the 
curriculum of instruction at the Roman College, great stress 
being laid upon the Sacred Scriptures, the classics, and the 
positive sciences ; the constant aim of the professors at the 
Roman College was to react against undue prolixity, and to 
discover a method which would combine the necessary thor 
oughness with the greatest possible brevity ; the number of 
the drafts and the proposals with regard to this matter which 
we possess, belonging to the period before 1586, would fill 
a large volume. 1 Ignatius held firmly to scholasticism, at 
that time so ostracized, but it was something new for Italy that 
it was no longer the " master of the sentences " Peter Lombard, 
but above all Thomas Aquinas whose works were made the 
ground-plan of the lectures. 2 

By means of his Roman College Ignatius exercised no small 
influence upon the adaptation to his times of the method of 
teaching theology, and therefore, indirectly, upon the methods 
of preaching and giving instruction. It is true that Thomas 
Aquinas had, since the beginning of the XVIth century, and 
even before, come back to his place as the great master of the 
west, and following in his footsteps, the founders of the new 
scholasticism, the Spanish Dominican, Francisco da Vittoria 
(died 1546), and his disciples, Melchior Cano, Domenico and 
Pietro Soto and others, had opened a new era in the treatment 
of the science of theology. 3 But it was of great importance 
for the triumph of this new treatment that the Order of the 
Jesuits should have adopted it in all its educational establish 
ments, and thus have spread it far and wide. 

1 Monumenta paedagogica Societatis lesu, quae primam 
rationem studiorum anno 1586 editam praecessere, Madrid, 1901. 

2 TACCHI VENTURI, I., 58. SACCHINI, II., 1. 4, n. 91. 

3 Cf. F. EHRLE in Katholik, 1884, II., 497 seqq., 632 seqq. ; 
Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, XVIII. (1880), 388 seqq. 

\OL. xvi. 7 


The actual alliance with the Spanish neo-scholasticism only 
took place, it is true, after the death of Ignatius. Francisco 
di Toledo, the talented disciple of Domenico Soto, who, when 
but 23 years old, was lecturing at the University of Salamanca, 
entered the Society of Jesus in 1558. In the following year he 
was teaching philosophy in the Roman College to 30 young 
Jesuits, who were being trained as professors. By his means 
the theological school of the new Order was linked with that 
of the older one. 1 

During the lifetime of Ignatius, and for some time after his 
death, the Roman College could only be maintained with 
great difficulty, owing to the lack of means. The many 
students, drawn from the most widely separated nations, 
were lodged in a hired house, and there were no fixed revenues 
for their maintenance. It was only under Pius IV. that, to 
some extent at least, provision was made for this necessity. A 
niece of Paul IV., after the death of her husband, wished to 
make over her palace, the dwelling of her uncle when a Car 
dinal, to some religious order. In 1560 Pius IV. induced her 
to give the building to the Jesuits, as the home of the Roman 
College. 2 The attempts of Pius IV. to complete this benefac 
tion by assigning to it fixed revenues were unsuccessful. 3 On 
the other hand, the College received a church which, begun in 
1562, was consecrated in 1567. 4 

Yet another establishment, dedicated to the education of 
noble youths, after modest beginnings under Paul IV., took 
definite form under his successor. The idea came from 
Lainez. Under Paul IV. this German College in Rome found 
itself on the verge of ruin, 5 and it was then that Lainez sought 

1 SACCHINI, II., 1. 2, n. 153 ; 1. 3,11.34. 

2 SACCHINI, II., 1. 4, n. 2 seq., 5. 

3 CANISII Epist., IV., 242 seqq., 258 seqq., 262, 282. SUSTA, 
IV., 163. BALUZE-MANSI, III., 510. 

4 SACCHINI, II., 1. 6, n. 3. For the church of the S 131 * Annun- 
ziata, on the site of which S. Ignazio afterwards was built, cf. 
CEPARI-SCHRODER, HI. Aloysius, Einsiedeln, 1891, 42 seqq., and 
L Arte, 1913, Jan. -Apr. 

6 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 249 seq. 



to render its continued existence possible by throwing it open 
to paying students of all nations, including even those who 
did not wish to enter the ecclesiastical state. In 1560 thirty- 
two such students were lodged with the original German 
students, whose number had then shrunk to seven. After 
that the number of the German students rose again to between 
twenty and thirty, while from the years 1563 and 1573 the 
College housed about 200 other students. After the new 
foundation of the Germanicum in the year 1573 the college 
of the nobles was united to the Roman Seminary. 1 In its new 
form the Germanicum won for itself a great name in the 
Catholic world, and sons of the most distinguished noble 
families sought their education there. Of the 180 extern 
students who were received there in 1565, 40 entered the eccle 
siastical state, six of whom became bishops, while twenty 
entered the Society of Jesus. 2 Pius IV . came to the assistance 
of the German College with a monthly contribution of fifty 
gold florins. 3 

The tidings of the new religious life which had awakened in 
the Eternal City made a great impression everywhere. The 
Catholics of Germany, wrote Cardinal Truchsess, are filled 
with sheer joy at the news that the decrees of the Council 
are being carried out in Rome, and that the reform has pene 
trated into the household of the Pope himself. They have 
learned with the greatest satisfaction that the Pope has himself 
set up a seminary in Rome. 4 

*A. STEINHUBER, Geschichte des Kollegiums Germanikum 
Hungarikum in Rom. I 8 , 49 seqq., Freiburg, 1906. 

2 STEINHUBER, I., 52 seqq. ; cf. POGIANI Epist., III., 433 seq. 

3 CANISII Epist., IV., 244. A "motuproprio of May 13, 1560, 
grants the Germanicum exemption from tax for 20 barrels of 
wine per annum (Estratti de libri instrument, esistenti nell Arch. 
segr. Vaticano, 1374-1557, n. 3, p. 203). A *motuproprio of 
Aug. 20, 1560, extends to 40 the exemption for 20 barrels granted 
by Julius III. to the Jesuits (ibid. 209). State Archives, Rome. 

4 Instruction for the Jesuit de Mendc^a who was returning 
to Rome, in EHSES, in the Rom. Quartalschrift, Supplementheft, 
XX. (1913), 141. 


The insistence and exhortations of the Pope 1 also called 
into being outside Rome at any rate the beginnings of a new 
life. Already in 1560 Cardinal Ghislieri had made a visitation 
of his diocese of Mondovi. 2 Commissioned by Cardinal Scotti, 
Caligari held a visitation of the neglected diocese of Piacenza. 3 
Other visitations were completed during the years 1564 and 
1565 at Perugia, S. Sepolcro, Bitonto and Oria ; 4 it was, 
however, only under Pius V. and Gregory XIII. that these 
became common. 

Morality had become greatly relaxed, even among the clergy, 
above all in Corsica, owing to the frequent wars. Acting on 
the reports of the Genoese ambassadors, Pius IV. exhorted 
the bishops there to, take strong action with the help of the 
secular arm, to which he gave the right of proceeding against 
the guilty with the punishment of the galleys. 5 

1 *Brief of Jan. 23, 1561, to G. Vida, Bishop of Alba, for the 
reform of the secular and regular clergy, Brevia n, n. 13; to 
the vicar-general of the Bishop of Brescia, on Nov. 3, 1562, 
to the Cardinal of Trani, on Jan. 27, 1563, for the reform of the 
secular clergy ; ibid. n. 306, 319 (Papal Secret Archives). 

2 GABUTIUS, Vita S. Pii V., c. 3, n. 28 (Acta Sanctorum, May 
T, 619, Paris, 1866). 

3 Caligari to Coinmendone, dated Piacenza, March 18, 1562, 
*Lettere di principi, XXIII. , 44. In this letter the joy shown 
by the old cardinal for the " new life " is very interesting. Cf. 
the * brief to Cardinal Scotti of Jan. 27, 1563, Brevia, Arm. 44, 
t. n, n. 319 (Papal Secret Archives). 

*MAZZATINTI, Archivi di Stato, I., 87, 130, 140; II., 23. By 
the orders of Cardinal E. Gonzaga, the dean, F. Recordato, with 
Bart. Cavaccio and C. Olivio, visited as early as 1560 " tutti i 
mobili delle cappelle et altari delle chiese di Mantova " ^docu 
ment of Dec. i, 1560, Episcopal Archives, Mantua). A "brief 
of Nov. 3, 1562 (Brevia, Arm. 44, t. n, n. 306, Papal Secret 
Archives), gave to the bishop s vicar at Brescia the power to 
proceed by apostolic authority, with the consent of the bishop, 
against the guilty ; the steps taken by the vicar for the reform 
of the clergy who were giving scandal were looked upon by the 
dean of the city as an infringement of his rights. 

6 *Briefs of May 17, 1560, to the Bishops of Aleria, Ajaccio, 


A reform of the religious orders was also set on foot. It 
was Pius IV. who, on July I7th, 1565, gave St. Teresa leave 
to found a reformed convent at Avila, thus paving the way 
to a renewal of the whole Carmelite order. 1 New life also 
showed itself in the Cistercian order ; Louis de Baissey, Abbot 
of Citeaux, undertook a visitation of the Cistercian convents 
in north and middle Italy ; 2 the Pope gave him his assistance 
in this undertaking by recommending him to the Viceroy of 
Naples, and the Dukes of Parma, Savoy, Ferrara, Florence, and 
Modena, 3 by increasing the powers of the Abbot of Citeaux, 
and granting him privileges against the system of commendams, 
to which was chiefly to be attributed the degeneracy in 
monastic life. 4 In 1563 Louis de Baissey charged Johann von 
Briedel, Abbot of Hemmerode, to hold a visitation of the 
convents in the archdioceses of Treves and Mayence. 5 Jerome 
de la Souchiere, the successor of the Abbot-General Louis, held, 
on May 2ist, 1565, a general chapter for the carrying out of 
the decrees of Trent. Strict regulations were issued upon 
the enclosure, the restoration of the monastic buildings, and 
the abolition of the holding of private property by individual 
monks ; it was enacted that heretical persons and writings 
were to be removed, and the necessary books for the divine 
worship procured ; it was also decided that, in order to restore 

Sagona, Accia and Mariana, Brevia, 10, p. 208, n. i64b (Papal 
Secret Archives). 

1 Reprint of the bull in Acta Sanctorum, Oct. vii., 202 seq. Cf. 
RAYNALDUS, 1561, n. 61 seq. Bull. Carmelit., II., 124 seq., 132 
seq., Roma, 1718. 

2 A. POSTINA in Cistercienser-Chronik, XIII., 193. 

a *To the viceroy, Brevia Arm. 44, t. n, n. 386 ; *to the Dukes 
of Florence, Ferrara, Parma, and Savoy, March 31, 1564, ibid. 
t. 20, n. 115 (Papal Secret Archives) ; *to the Duke of Modena, 
March 31, 1564 (State Archives, Modena). For the Cistercian 
reform in Tuscany, a *bull of Oct. 31, 1561, in State Archives, 
Florence, Cisterc. 

4 POSTINA, loc. cit. 

5 SCHMIEDER in Studien und Mitteilungen aus dem Bene- 
diktiner-und Zisterzienserorden, XII. (1891), 84 seq. Cf. 
POSTINA, loc. cit., 225. 


monastic discipline, it should be possible to transfer well 
instructed monks from the better houses to those that were 
less good. So as to carry these regulations into effect visitors 
were appointed, namely, the Abbots of Salem and Kaisheim 
for Bavaria, the Palatinate and Saxony ; the Abbots of 
Hemmerode and Altenberg for the lower and middle Rhine- 
land. 1 As early as 1564, the Dominicans held a general 
chapter, and discussed the carrying out of the decrees of the 
Council in their Order, and they received the congratulations 
of Pius IV. on their work on April 3oth, 1 564.2 The Pope 
had previously given the General of the Dominicans the task 
of visiting and reforming the convent at Rieti, saying that he 
wished for the strict observance of the constitutions of the 
Order in the sense of the Council of Trent. 3 The Franciscan 
Conventuals also received new constitutions through the care 
of the Pope. 4 In the case of the orders of women steps were 

1 POSTINA, IOC. Clt., 225 

2 Brevia, 20 n. 164. Papal Secret Archives. RIPOLL, V., 

3 On April 24, 1564, ibid, n. 142 and RIPOLL, V., 99 seqq. ; 
ibid., 10 1 seq. brief of Aug. 5, 1565, on the reform of monas 
teries in the Venetian territory. A brief of July 18, 1561, on 
the reform of monasteries in Portugal in Corpo dipl. Portug., 
IX., 283. Borromeo to the Duke of Florence on the reform of 
the Canons Regular of Fiesole, May 5, 1565, in SALA, III., 


4 Constitution of Sept. 17, 1565, in Bull. Rom., VII., 399 
seq. Camillo Luzzara wrote to the Duke of Mantua on March 
24, 1565 : *" Ogni di si fanno congregationi in camera di Borromeo, 
et quella d oggi e stata sopra del stringere et unire i fratri con- 
ventuali di S. Francesco con quelli d osservanza, si che siano 
tutti osservanti " (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). Arrangements 
as to the privileges of the Order of St. Lazarus in Bull. Rom., 
VII., 336 seq. (May 4, 1565), on those of the Antoniti, ibid. 379 
(Aug. 19, 1565). For the reform of the Benedictine Order ch. 
SCHMIEDER, he. ;it. 56 seqq. ; for Abbot Joachim Eichhorn, the 
" second founder " of the monastery of Einsiedeln, see Allgem. 
deutsche Biographic, V., 730. For the reform of the Carmelites 
see Bull. Carmelit., II., 124 seq., 132 seq., Romae, 1718. 


taken to insist on the strict observance of the enclosure ; l 
Pius IV. himself wrote to his two sisters, who were Dominican 
nuns in a convent at Milan, in order to overcome their dislike 
for the new regulations. 2 

The Council of Trent had attached special importance to the 
holding of diocesan and provincial synods. In 1562, Bishop 
Girolamo Vida held a synod for reform ; 3 diocesan synods 
followed in 1564 and 1565 at Ravenna, Naples and Como. 4 
During the same years provincial synods were held at Rheims 
and Cambrai, in order to promulgate the Tridentine decrees. 
Especially important was the provincial council at Milan, 
which formed, as it were, the introduction to that great 
pastoral activity, by which Charles Borromeo has identified 
his name for all time with the carrying out of the Council of 
Trent. Although he was kept in Rome by the Pope, Borromeo 
had never lost sight of his diocese. In order to set on foot 
there a radical reform, he begged from the Bishop of Verona 
Jlie_seryice&of the celebrated Niccolo Ormaneto, who had been 
trained under the greatest of the pre-tridentine reforming 
^Bishops, Matteo Giberti. 5 He had accompanied Cardinal 
Pole to Englaad, 6 had taken part in the Council of Trent, and 
was now, as a simple parish priest, in charge of a small con- 

Epist., IV., 360, n. 44; 362, n. 46; 366, n. 54, etc. 
To the nuncio at Naples there was entrusted on Oct. 31, 1560, 
the "order to reform the convent of Benedictine nuns of S. 
Marcello (Brevia, 10, p. 278, n. 359, Papal Secret Archives). 
A *brief of Jan. 23, 1561, to Girolamo Vida, Bishop of Alba, 
with the charge to reform the convent of St. Martino of Augus- 
tinian nuns, and to provide for the residence of the chaplains, 
ibid. Brevia 14, n. 13. 

2 SYLVAIN, I., 270. 

Giorn. stor. d. letter. Ital., LVIL, 332 seqq. 

*See Synodus dioec. Rav. A 1790, xxvii., Ravenna, 1791- 
The synod of Como was held from May 16 to 18, 1565- 
government forbade the clergy of the Valtellina to attend it. 
REINHARDT-STEFFENS, G. Fr. Bonhomini, I., Ixxviii. 

6 Cf. Vol. X. of this work, pp. 4 2 4 44 2 - 

6 Cf. Vol. XII. of this work, p. 465 seq. 


gregation. 1 jn the July of 1564 Ormaneto went to Milan and 
began the moral regeneration of the completely neglected 
diocese by assembling a diocesan council of 1200 ecclesi 
astics and promulgating the decrees of the Council of Trent. 
He was assisted by priests of the school of Giberti, by the 
Barnabites, and by the governor of Milan, Avalos de Aquino, 
Marquis of Pescara. Since 1563 two Jesuits had been prepar 
ing the way for the coming of Ormaneto. 2 At first Borromeo 
had contented himself with having reports sent to him of the 
more important affairs of his diocese, and consulting upon 
them with theologians chosen for the purpose. 3 At last, 
however, as the result of his repeated requests that he might 
be allowed to devote himself entire ly to his diocese, he obtained 
in the autumn of 1565 permission from the Pope to go, at 
least for a short time, to Milan, and to hold a provincial council 
there, for the promulgation in due order of the decrees of the 
Council in his ecclesiastical province. At this assembly, 
which lasted from October I5th to November 3rd, eleven 
bishops were present, while others took part in it by means 
of representatives. 4 

The severe illness of Pius IV. called Borromeo back to Rome ; 
the death of the Pope set him free from the burden of the 
Secretaryship of State. From that time forward Borromeo 
was only a bishop, and as such he became by his pastoral 
activity a shining example, and by his seven provincial synods, 
and his eleven diocesan ones, the recognized law-giver of a true 
ecclesiastical reform in accordance with the spirit of the 
Council of Trent. 

1 BASCAPE, 13. SYLVAIN, I., 251 seq. 

2 BASCAPE, 13. Cf. the two letters of Borromeo of May 29 
and June 23, 1566, in S. Franciscus Borgia, IV., 250, 264. 

3 BASCAPE, 13-15. 

4 The synodal acta, e.g. in HARDOUIN, Collectio concil., X., 
633 seq. Borromeo to Sirleto, Oct. 17 and Nov. 3, 1565, in 
DOM. TACCONE GALLUCCI, Monografia del Cardinale Gugl. Sirleto, 
Rome, 1909 ; cf. San Carlo, 136. 





IN view of the close connection between Church and State, the 
attitude taken up by the civil governments was of the greatest 
importance to the complete carrying into effect of the dis 
ciplinary decrees of Trent. It would have been in the truest 
interests of the State to have worked hand in hand with the 
ecclesiastical authority, because the removal of abuses from 
among the_clergy was bound at the same time to be advan 
tageous to the laity, but even where this fact was recognized, 
the false idea prevailed that many of the prescriptions of the 
Council infringed upon the legitimate powers of the State, 
whereas in reality nothing was attacked but those usurpations 
of ecclesiastical rights which had crept into the relations of 
Church and State in later medieval times. The difficulties 
which were bound to result from this began to make them 
selves shown immediately after the conclusion of the Council. 

Among the orators of the secular princes who had been 
represented at the Council, acceptance of the decrees had 
been made in writing on December 6th, 1563, by the repre 
sentatives of the Emperor Ferdinand I., the Kings of Poland 
and Portugal, the Dukes of Savoy and Florence, the Republic 
of Venice and the Swiss Catholic Cantons. 1 Thus, the two 
great Catholic powers, where State interference in ecclesiasti 
cal affairs had assumed dangerous proportions, still held back : 
these were France and Spain. 

While the French government continued to offer resistance 
to any recognition of the disciplinary decrees of Trent, Philip II. 

1 See THEINER, II., 516 ; cf. PALLAVICINI, 24, 8. 



at last brought himself to accept them, but only with the 
proviso " without prejudice to his royal rights." 1 

In the states of Italy, 2 in Portugal, 3 as well as in Poland 4 
the new ecclesiastical laws were received unconditionally ; 
it was otherwise in Switzerland and Germany. 

Apart from the French intrigues, the attitude of Switzer 
land was based upon the fact that state interference in ecclesi 
astical affairs had struck such deep roots in that country that 
there was reason to fear that the carrying out of the reform 
would put serious obstacles in the way of various claims put 
forward by the civil power. 5 Thus it came to pass that, in 
spite of their protestations of obedience, in spite of a Papal 
monitorium of February I5th, 1564, and of the zealous labours 
of Melchior Lussy, their representative at the Council, the 
Swiss Catholic Cantons were in no hurry to begin to carry out 
the Tridentine decrees. The requirements of the Church 
had been clearly set forth by the Bishop of Constance, Cardinal 
Mark Sittich ; he asked for the help of the secular power so 
that priests who were in need of reform might not be able, 
through their relatives, to secure the protection of the civil 
authorities against their own bishop. 6 All the efforts of 

1 For the details see infra, Chapters IX and X. For the fate of 
the decrees in the Netherlands see PIRENNE, IV., 411 seq., 480 
seq. and also in Volume XVIII. of this work. There is no account 
of the acceptance of the Council which satisfies the requirements 
of historical science. The two old works of LE COURAYER in his 
version of Sarpi (II. [1736], 772 seq.) and MIGNOT, Histoire de la 
reception du Concile de Trente (1756), altogether apart from 
their anti-Roman tendency, which led to their inclusion in the 
Index (see REUSCH, I., 597), are not sufficient in any-sense. 

2 Cf. infra, Chapter IX. As a reward for its acceptance of the 
Tridentine decrees the Republic of Lucca in 1 565 received the 
Golden Rose; see SARDI in Rassegna naz., CXXXIII. (1903). 
42 seq., and FUMI in Rassegana Lucchese, II. (1905). I2 se( l- 

a See Corpo dipl. Portug., X., 173 seq.; PALLAVICINI, 24, 9; 

SCHAFER, III., 369. 

4 See infra, Chapter V. 

5 Cf. REINHARDT-STEFFENS, I., Ixxiii, seq, 

6 See ibid., Ixix, ; cf. lix.-lxii. 


Pius IV. to obtain a definite promise from the five Catholic 
Cantons of Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Unterwalden and Zug were 
without result. In the first instance they wished to wait and 
see what the attitude of the other Catholic powers towards 
the Council would be ; x they next insisted that first of all the 
prelates, and especially the Cardinal Bishop of Constance, 
mast obey the Council and observe the duty of residence. 2 
Answers such as these were made about the same time as the 
conclusion of the alliance between the five Cantons and Pius IV. 
" with the purpose that the ship of Peter, the holy, Roman 
and Christian Church, and the true, ancient, and undoubted 
Christian Catholic faith, may be maintained, protected and 
defended, and the work of the holy, most Christian and most 
blessed Council of Trent carried into effect." 3 

The Emperor Ferdinand had, as early as September 2oth, 
1563, asked from the government of Lower Austria an opinion 
as to the reform articles of the Council " whether they were 
not prejudicial to the House of Austria and its legitimate 
authority, liberties, rights and privileges, to its lands and 
peoples, and with what arguments and reasons he could oppose 
them ; the other articles, which did not affect the laity, could 
be allowed to stand." On the strength of their opinion, 
Ferdinand did not publish those ordinances of the Council 
which seemed to encroach on the power of the state. 4 

1 Ibid., xxxix., xli. 
8 Ibid., Ixiii. 

3 See the text of the league formed on April 10, 1565, between 
Pius IV. and the five Cantons of Lucerne, Uri, Schwyz, Unter 
walden and Zug, in Schweiz. Abschiede, IV., 2, 1517-19. Cf. 
SEGESSER, Rechtgeschichte von Luzern, IV. (1858), 371 seq. ; 
REINHARDT-STEFFENS, I., Ixviii. MAYER (Das Konzil von 
Trient und die Gegenreformation in der Schweiz I.) remarks 
that although this was drawn up only for the lifetime of Pius IV., 
and came to an end with his death, the pact nevertheless had 
an importance for the future which must not be overlooked, 
because " by the solemn recognition of the Council the Catholic 
Cantons were given a common end, which was clearly recognized 
as such, and a bond for common action." Cf. DIERAUER, III., 327. 

4 See WIEDEMANN, L, 241 ; BUCHOLTZ, IX., 705 seqq. 


"Since the work of Catholic reform in Austria, as in the rest 
of Germany, was at that time only in its initial stage, the 
decrees of Trent were received, even by the episcopate, with 
a reluctance which afforded a striking contrast to the eagerness 
with which, for so long a time, the Council had been demanded 
in Germany. It is clear from the complaints of Peter Canisius 
how little zeal the majority of the German bishops showed 
for the publication and carrying out of the new decrees. 1 

At the beginning of November, 1564, the nuncio at Vienna, 
Delfino, had received instructions to send to each of the 
German bishops printed and attested copies of the Tridentine 
decrees, together with Papal briefs. 2 Delfino looked for but 
little success from the mere sending of the briefs and decrees ; 
he knew that he would hardly receive even a reply from the 
greater part of the bishops. He therefore proposed to entrust 
their delivery to a special pontifical envoy, who was to go 
from one bishop to another, and induce them to accept the 
Council. 3 Delfino entrusted the carrying out of this task to 
his auditor, Anton Cauchius, 4 but his mission very soon came 

1 See the letter of Feb. 10, 1565, in CANISII Epist., V., 8. 

2 Borromeo to Delfino, Nov. 4, 1564, in STEINHERZ, IV., 232. 
As early as March 18 Borromeo sent to Delfino 6, and on June 3, 
25 copies of the second edition in order that he might distribute 
them among distinguished ecclesiastical and civil personages 
(ibid. 73, 135). *Briefs of Oct. 3, 1564, to 15 German bishops 
concerning the carrying out of. the Council, in Brevia, 20, n. 41, 
Papal Secret Archives, Arm. 44, t. 21, to the Archbishop of 
Troves, Oct. 25, 1564, ibid. n. 42 ; Fr. Tonina wrote on Sept. 
1 6, 1564, to the Bishop of Mantua: *" Ha parimente S. S u 
mandate un libro del concilio a tutti li vescovi di Germania et 
voleva anco a tutti li principi, ma il dubitare del modo del legarli 
et servare li decoro conveniente per cias cuno di loro 1 ha fat to 
risolvere di mandarli in mano al Nuncio la, che faccia come a 
lui pare. Alia Regina di Enghilterra ni ha mandato uno tutto 
miniato et benissimo accommodate." (Gonzaga Archives 

3 Delfino to Borromeo, Nov. 23, 1564, in STEINHERZ, IV., 247. 
Reply of Borromeo, Dec. 9, ibid., 248. 

4 Ibid., 274 seq. 


to a lamentable end. On the road between Leipsic and 
Bamberg, Cauchius was attacked near Kahla in Thuringia, 
his retinue was cut to pieces, and he himself alone escaped 
with the loss of all his baggage. 1 

They now sought in Rome for someone to take the place 
of Cauchius, and found him in the person of Peter Canisius, 2 
who, on account of the election of the new General of the 
Jesuits, and the general congregation of the Order, had been 
in Rome since the end of May. Francis Borgia appointed 
him visitor of the Jesuit colleges in Upper and Lower Germany, 
and on the Rhine ; under cover of this mission Canisius would 
be able to visit the various German bishops without exciting 
comment. Pius IV. conferred with him in person, and 
Canisius left the Pope full of admiration for the great kindness 
and charity with which the pontiff spoke of the apostate 
Germans, for whose salvation he seemed prepared to make 
any sacrifice. 3 At the beginning of November the new Papal 
envoy arrived at Dillingen, where he gave Cardinal Truchsess 
the brief addressed to him ; thence he visited the Bishop of 
Wiirzburg at Aschaffenburg, and at Coblence he met the Arch 
bishops of Mayence and Treves, travelled down the Rhine to 
Nimwegen, afterwards visiting from Cologne the Westphalian 
dioceses. He had a personal interview with the Bishop of 
Osnabruck at Fiirstenau, but contented himself with sending 
to the untrustworthy Bishop of Munster the copy of the 
Council s decrees and the Papal brief addressed to him. Nor 
did he visit in his episcopal city of Paderborn Rembert von 
Kerssenbrock, who was a zealous Catholic, but already broken 
down with years. The visit which he paid to Duke William 
of Cleves-Julich at Dusseldorf was without results. At 
Cologne he was not successful in seeing the Archbishop, 
Friedrich von Weid, but on the other hand was able to work 
with success in the Catholic interest upon the town-council and 
the university. 

1 Ibid., 443 seq. 

2 CANISII Epist., V., 148 seqq., 639 seqq. BRAUNSBERGER in 
Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, LXXL, 58 seqq., 164 seqq., 301 seqq. 

3 Canisius to Hosius, Sept. 17, 1565, in CANISII Epist., V., 96. 


As soon as he had learned with certainty of the death of 
Pius IV., Canisius thought that his mission had expired. 1 
In the course of his wearisome winter journey his efforts had 
not been restricted to the mere delivery of the decrees of the 
Council. He had special instructions for each of the bishops, 
he was to advise and encourage them, and above all he was 
to invite them to attend the Diet which had been summoned 
to Augsburg, which promised to prove of very great importance 
for the ecclesiastical situation in Germany, and for the attitude 
of the German church towards the Council of Trent. Further, 
he was to send to Rome, to Cardinal Mula, a report based upon 
his own observations of the state of affairs in the north. 2 

If Canisius, and others of his way of thinking, looked 
for the salvation of the Church in Germany in a strict 
observance of the Tridentine decrees, and at the same time 
in a renewal of the old ecclesiastical legislation, in other 
quarters, on the contrary, it was thought that it was only 
by making concessions, and by meeting the views of the 
innovators in every possible way, that the remnants of Catholic 
ism in Germany could be saved. In accordance with this 
view, Charles V., as far back as 1548, had wished in his 
Interim to concede communion under both kinds, and the 
marriage of priests. 3 The proposals of Ferdinand I. to the 
Council of Trent were upon the same lines. The people, so 
he stated in his reform libellum of 1562, did not understand 
very much about the more subtle doctrines of the reformers ; 
the things that impressed them were certain more material 
points, which in their opinion were based upon the Holy 
Scriptures, namely, communion under both kinds, the right 
to eat meat, and the right of priests to marry. Since they 
thought that on these points the truth lay with the Protest 
ants, they accepted their other doctrines as well without more 
ado. If, however, these three points should be conceded by 
the Catholics the people would not be likely to pay much 

J That he still had mandates, at any rate for the Bishops of 
Strasbourg, Spires and Worms, see CANISII Epist., V., 649. 
2 BRAUNSBERGER, loc. cit., 63 seq., 319-323. 
* Cf. Vol. XII. of this work, p. 413 seq., 437. 


attention to the other Protestant doctrines, which they did 
not understand. Besides, the only recommendation of the 
Protestant clergy, who were for the most part men of bad 
life, and therefore disliked, was that at any rate they lived in 
wedlock, whereas it was precisely the incontinence of the 
Catholic ecclesiastics which was unbearable in the eyes of the 
people. 1 

According to Catholic teaching the Eucharist is both sacri 
fice and sacrament. For the Eucharist in the sacrifice of the 
Mass the two species are absolutely essential, and therefore, 
ajs is self-evident, for the communion of the priest who cele 
brates Mass. But apart from this case they are not necessary, 
from the nature of the subject, for the reception of the sacra 
ment, since the glorified Redeemer is present whole and entire 
under either species, nor can any divine precept of communion 
under both kinds be adduced. 2 As a matter of fact, even in 
the very earliest Christian times, the communion of the laity 
is to be found under one species as well as under both. 3 

That the Church would do well if she were once more to 

1 LE PLAT, V., 248. Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 54, 64 (proposals of 

2 Cone. Trid. sess. 21, c.l. 

8 The passages from Tertullian, etc., in GRISAR in the Zeit- 
schrift fur kathol. Theol., V. (1881), 698. At a later date the 
chalice was sometimes granted to eminent laymen as a special 
mark of honour. Thus Clement VI., on Jan. 5, 1352, granted this 
privilege to the Dauphin of France (MARTENE-DURAND, Vet. 
script, ampliss, collectio, I., 1456 seq. SAUERLAND in Pastor 
bonus, XIV. [1901-02], 128). During his Mass the Pope ex 
pressly administered the chalice to distinguished foreigners 
(Ord. Rom., XV., n. 85, in MIGNE, Patr. lat., LXXVIII., 1332. 
THOM. WALDENSJS, 1. 2, c. 88, 149, Venice, 1571. Die Pilger- 
fahrt lies Ritters Ernold von Harff, herausg. von. E. v. Grote, 
34, Cologne, 1860). The very fact that the chalice was looked 
upon as a special mark of distinction for the laity was used as a 
powerful means of agitation by the innovators. Cf. JAK. 
HOFFMANN, Gesch. der Laienkommunion bis zuin Tridentinum, 
Spires, 1891 ; JUL. SMEND, Kelchspendung und Kelchversagung, 
Gottingeii, 1898. 


allow the universal use of the chalice was the opinion of many 
persons who were otherwise strictly Catholic, on account of 
the eager desire of the people for the reception of both species. 
The Archbishop of Prague, Anton Brus, was especially, on the 
strength of his own experience, a keen champion of the con 
cession ; in the great plague of 1561, so he stated at Trent, 
in his capacity of Imperial envoy, out of a hundred dying 
people hardly one had shown any desire for communion under 
one kind alone : the people would rather have gone without 
the sacrament altogether than do without the chalice. 1 
Ferdinand I. had forbidden (February 20th, 1554) the use of 
both species, 2 but the insistence of the States had been so 
great that he had withdrawn the prohibition in I556 3 and, 
under the influence of his advisers, had thrown himself more 
and more into the arms of those who wished for the chalice. 

He found a powerful ally in Albert V., Duke of Bavaria. 
In the beginning Albert, too, had firmly refused the request 
for the chalice made by his States, 4 but the concession made 
by the Emperor Ferdinand in 1556 had caused him, on March 
3 ist of that year, to proclaim that communion under both 
kinds would not be visited with any penalties. 5 The idea then 
gradually took a firmer hold on his mind that " for the pre 
servation of our other Catholic doctrines and rites " it would 
be necessary " to show a sympathetic comprehension and 
indulgence ; " 6 his request that the bishops would at any- 
rate tolerate the administration of the chalice to the laity 
was not, however, granted by the two meetings of the bishops 

I WIEDEMANN, I., 235. Analogous matters in KNGPFLER, 
Kelchbewegung, 74. For the views of Archbishop Brus, cf. 
his memorial on the ordination of Utraquist priests in Bohemia 
in the year 1563, edited by STEINHERZ in Mitteilungen des Vereins 
fur Gesch. der Deutschen in Bohmen, XLV. (1907), 162-177. 

2 WlEDEMANN, I., 293. 

3 WlEDEMANN, I., 298. 

4 KNOPFLER, loc. cit., 6. 

5 KNOPFLER, 21 seq. Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 345. 
The Duke of Cleves also asked for the chalice in 1556 (ibid.). 



at Salzburg in 1558 and 1562. 1 Therefore, like the Emperor 
Ferdinand, Albert also had recourse to the Council at Trent, 
where the Bavarian envoy, Augustine Paumgartner, on June 
27th, 1562, declared in a solemn speech that the granting of 
the two species was necessary, together with some modification 
of the law of celibacy. 2 His proposal, as far as the chalice 
was concerned, found support from the Imperial envoys, who 
declared that by this concession they might be able to win 
over the whole of Bohemia to the Church, while in Hungary, 
Austria, Moravia, Silesia, Carniola, Carinthia, Styria, Bavaria, 
Swabia, and many other parts of Germany there was a strong 
desire for the chalice. 3 If only the fathers of the Council 
had a closer acquaintance with the state of affairs in Germany, 
their doubts would disappear. 4 

But others who were well acquainted with conditions in 
Germany were of quite another opinion on the matter. 
Cardinal Otto Truchsess wrote on March 2ist, 1562, to Charles 
Borromeo that he thought a plain refusal of the Bavarian 
demands was the only course to adopt, and that to entertain 
their request would do more harm than good. 5 From Trent 
Hosius, on March 3ist, 1563, advised the Duke of Bavaria 
to act differently, 6 and for the most part the efforts of 
Ferdinand and Albert to obtain the concession of the chalice 
met with very little support from the German bishops. At 
first Peter Canisius had been of opinion that under certain 
circumstances communion under both kinds might be allowed 
to persons who in other respects were fervent Catholics, 7 but 

1 Ibid., 32 seq. ; 94. 

2 KNOPFLER, 102. LE PLAT, V., 335-344. Cf. RIEZLER, 
IV., 512 seq. 

3 Declaration of the Imperial envoys on June 27, 1562, nn. 9 
and 17, in LE PLAT, V,, 347 seq. 

4 Ibid. 

5 EHSES in Rom. Quartalschrift, Supplementheft XX. (1913). 
139. CANISII Epist., IV., 619. 

6 KNOPFLER, loc. cit., Aktenstiicke 78-84. For the opinion of 
Hosius cf. RAYNALDUS, 1558, n. 17. 

7 CANISII Epist., III., 749. 

VOL. xvi. 8 


later on he strongly advised against any attempts to help 
the cause of the Church by any compromise with the innova 
tors. Among the thousands who asked for the chalice there 
was scarcely one who in all other respects was a loyal son of 
the Church. 1 

Even before Paumgartner s speech the Catholic teaching 
concerning the two species had been discussed in the Council, 2 
but, to the great disgust of the Imperial envoys, 8 at the next 
solemn session on July i6th, 1562, only dogmatic decrees 
were dealt with, the disciplinary side of the question, and there 
fore the Emperor s request, being reserved for further con 
sideration. The discussions were very heated, and opinions 
very divided. The Pope, who, even during the conclave had 
expressed himself on the subject, 4 intended to meet the 
Emperor s wishes as far as possible. 5 The Papal legates 
worked in the same sense, while the Imperial envoys did all 
they could to secure the success of their master s wishes. 
These same envoys declared that no subject had been dealt 
with at the Council with greater heat and excitement. 6 The 
legates also wrote to the Pope that in none of the discussions 
of the Council had there been a greater diversity of opinion, 
or had more time been spent with so little result ; the secretary 
had not ventured to set out the votes in definite lists, 7 for, in 


x To Hosius, April 21, 1563, in CANISII Epist., IV., 151. Full 
opinion on the question, ibid., 623-632. 

Cf. GRISAR in Zeitschr. fur kathol. Theol., V. (1881), 672- 
720 ; VI. (1882), 39-112. Ibid, the speech of Lainez on Sept. 6, 
1562, which very clearly sets forth the negative view on the 
matter. Much new material, especially with regard to the 
original votes, in EHSES, VIII., 788-909, 942-954. 

3 SUSTA, II.. 221 seq. 

4 Cf. Vol. XV. of this work, p. 33. 

5 Pius IV. to the legates, July 18, 1562, in SUSTA, II., 270 ; cf. 
ibid. 282, 284, 289, 291. STEINHERZ, III., 113. 

Letter to the Emperor of Sept. 18, 1562, in LE PLAT, V., 504. 

7 To Borromeo, Sept. 7, 1562, in SUSTA, II., 347. The esti 
mates of Massarelli (THEINER, II., 115) and Paumgartner 
(KNOPFLER, 106) differ very widely from each other. 


the case of many of the fathers it was not known whether 
they had said Yes or No. 1 At length, at the solemn session 
of September lyth, the whole matter was referred to the 
decision of the Pope. 2 

Albert V. thought that the time had now come to make 
representations in Rome, by means of an embassy, on behalf 
of the chalice for the laity, and for the admission to the minis 
try of the Church of married men of proved merit. The 
Pope received his envoys in a friendly spirit at several 
audiences, but finally declared that he intended to refer the 
whole matter back to the Council. Without, therefore, 
having obtained anything, the envoys set out on May ist, 
1563, for their own country, 3 where, in the meantime, Albert 
had allowed a further important concession to be wrung from 
him. At the diet of Ingolstadt he promised the states that 
if, by St. John s Day, no reply or a negative reply had come 
from Rome, he " would take steps to secure " the use of the 
chalice " during Mass, and after confession, and without giving 
scandal to others." 4 The demand for the chalice, he after 
wards declared to the Archbishop of Salzburg, had been so 
violent, that he could not have avoided complying with it, 
except by sentence of banishment. Such a penalty was 
plainly out of the question, because, on account of the great 
number of those who demanded the concession, it would have 
occasioned a rising even greater and more serious than the 
Peasants War. 5 

The news of Albert s concession caused consternation in 
Rome and Trent ; 6 it was already feared that now the Duke of 
Bavaria as well would go over to the side of the innovators, 
and would take with him the whole of southern Germany. 

l To Borromeo, Sept. 10, 1562, in SUSTA, II., 353. 

Cf. Vol. XV. of this work, p. 296. 

KNOPFLER, 106-113. On the question of the chalice in 
Bavaria j/. RIEZLER, IV., 515 seq. ; GOETZ-THEOBALD, Beitrage, 
72 seqq. 

4 KNOPFLER, 115. 

6 Ibid., 129. 

6 Ibid., 116-135. 


By command of the Pope, Niccolo Ormaneto, who was also 
accredited and commissioned for the purpose at Trent by 
the president of the Council, was ordered to set out at once 
for Munich ; l Hosius and the nuncio at Vienna, Delfino, also 
addressed strong exhortations to the Duke. 2 Albert assured 
them that he was not wavering in his loyalty to the ancient 
Church, but he nevertheless continued his efforts to obtain 
the chalice for the laity. 3 In the meantime the Archbishop 
of Salzburg referred the matter to a meeting of the bishops, 
which indeed assembled at Salzburg on July 5th, 1563, but 
the meeting declared its intention of waiting for the outcome 
of the conference convoked by Ferdinand for July i5th, 


The Emperor Ferdinand had not, after the decision of the 
Council on September I7th, 1562, given up his efforts to obtain 
the use of the chalice. It was his object to win over to a 
similar course of action the three ecclesiastical Electors, so 
that he might be able to put forward his requests in the name 
of all Catholic Germany. He had already, in the October 
of 1562, and at the electoral diet of Frankfort, taken some 
steps in that direction ; 4 a short time before he had asked 
the Jesuits at Vienna and Prague, and Canisius, Staphylus 
and Gienger, for their opinions on the question whether he 
ought to ask the Pope for the use of the chalice, and in what 
form he should put his request. 5 After this, on December 
27th, he sent from Freiburg a letter to the ecclesiastical 
Electors, asking them to send to Vienna, after his return to 
the court, learned counsellors to treat of the question of the 

1 Brief of May 19, 1563, to the Duke, with recommendation of 
Ormaneto, in ARETIN, I., Urkunden, II., 6. 

2 Letter of the president of the Council, of May 30, 1563, in 
KNOPFLER, 117; cf. Calini, May 31, 1563, in BALUZE-MANSI, 
IV., 313. Letter of Hosius, of May 31, in ARETIN, Aktenstiicke, 
78 seqq. ; of Delfino, of June 7, ibid. 7. 

3 Cf. ARETIN, loc. cit. 8 seqq. ; reply to the Pope of June 15, 
1563, ibid., 1 6. 

4 SICKEL, Konzil, 577. 

5 SAFTIEN, 15-25. CANISII Epist., III., 449-5 J 3- 


concession of the chalice, and concerning the modification 
of the law of celibacy. 1 

The proposed conference, at which delegates from Salzburg 
and Bavaria were present, took place at the end of July, 1563, 
but its results were not very satisfactory for the Emperor. 
Of the four archbishops, only one, the Elector of Treves, de 
clared himself in agreement with the Emperor and the Duke 
of Bavaria on the question of the chalice ; 2 if, at the end, in 
his farewell address, 3 Ferdinand was able to state that the 
majority of the assembly had been in favour of communion 
under both kinds, this bare majority had been secured only 
because the representative of Salzburg had not brought with 
him the right to vote, and in consequence the meeting only 
consisted of five voters. The Imperial proposals concerning 
the marriage of priests had met with opposition from all four 

Ferdinand, however, did not altogether give up hope of 
still winning over the Electors to his plans. 4 When the end 
of the Council was seen to be imminent, he once more, on 
November 5th, renewed his invitation to them to take part 
in the solemn embassy, by which he aimed at obtaining in 
Rome the use of the chalice for the laity, a dispensation for 
married clerics, and admission to the ministry of the Church 
of married laymen ; the Electors, however, declared that 
they wished first to learn the views of their suffragans. 5 Then 
the Emperor resolved to proceed without them. 

Deserted by the German bishops, the Emperor found an un 
expected ally in the nuncio at Vienna, Zaccaria Delfino, At the 
beginning of October, 1563, when they weie working in Rome 

1 Extract in BUCHOLTZ, VIII., 660 seq. 

2 Ibid., 663-671 seq. 

3 Of Aug. 5, 1563, in SICKEL, Konzil, 576. Or the conduct 
of the Bavarian envoys cf. L. PFLEGER, Martin Eisengrein, 
1 535-78, 31 seqq. Freiburg, 1908; the same in the Hist.-pol. 
Blatter, CXXXIL, 55 seq. 

4 Farewell speech of Aug. 5, 1563, loc. it., and letter to the 
Electors of Aug. 14, 1563, in BUCHOLTZ, VIII., 671. 

8 Their replies in BUCHOLTZ/ VIII., 676-9. 


for the longed-for conclusion of the Council, Delfino had been 
able to win over the Emperor to this by pointing out to him 
that even after the Council was ended it would not be difficult 
for him to obtain from the Pope the concessions of the chalice 
and the marriage of priests which he so greatly desired. 1 
He appealed to promises supposed to have been made by 
Cardinal Morone in the July of that year. 2 As a matter of 
fact there had been no question of promises, but only of certain 
proposals, which the Emperor had refused, and in these pro 
posals there had been no mention, at any rate expressly, of 
any mitigation of the law of celibacy. The postscript of the 
Imperial letter of October 4th, which gave instructions to the 
envoys at Trent not to oppose the conclusion of the Council 3 , 
had been drafted by Delfino himself. 4 From his pen had also 
come the draft of the letter in accordance with which the 
Imperial envoys in Rome were to express to the Pope the 
expectation that he would abide by the " promises " of 
Morone. 5 In his reports to Rome, however, the nuncio 
carefully concealed the advice he had given to the Emperor. 
The embassy which Ferdinand I. proposed to send to Rome 
immediately after the close of the Council in January, 1564, 
did not meet with the approval of Delfino. The nuncio 
pointed out that the Emperor would do better to express his 
wishes to the Pope in writing. A solemn embassy, which 
would have to set forth its demands in public consistory, and 
give all sorts of reasons, would cause a sensation ; the Pope 
would have to ask the advice of the College of Cardinals, there 
would be long discussions, in which not only the Cardinals 
would have to be heard, but also theologians like the Jesuits 
and " other learned men who were equally scrupulous and 
rigid " and the Cardinals and theologians were for the most 
part opposed to the concession of the chalice and to the mar- 

1 STEINHERZ, III., 440 seqq. 

2 Ibid., 380 seqq., 452 ; IV. 43. 

3 RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 207. 

4 STEINHERZ, III., 450. 

5 SICKEL, Konzil, 629. 


riage of priests. 1 The Emperor allowed himself to be per 
suaded all the more easily because he naturally thought that 
the nuncio was acting under the secret instructions of the 
Pope. Albert V. as well at once agreed to this course. 2 

On February I4th, 1564, the necessary letters were drawn 
up to the Imperial envoys in Rome, 3 to Cardinal Morone and 
to the Pope. 4 Albert V. had already on February 5th identified 
himself with the Emperor s wishes in letters to Cardinals 
Morone and Borromeo and to his ambassador, Arco. 5 In his 
letter to the Pope Ferdinand states that it was his zeal for 
the Church which had led him to ask the Council for the use 
of the chalice, and not any wish for temporal advantage, or 
because he personally was scandalized at the custom hitherto 
in use, but because, by the concession of the chalice, the 
conversion of many who had fallen or wandered away would 
be made possible, and the way prepared for the restoration 
of ecclesiastical unity. He had therefore continued his 
negotiations with the prelates and ministers of the Church, as 
well as with Duke Albert, and these had approved of the 
aims of the princes, and had promised to carry out whatever 
the Pope should decide upon. Relying upon the hints of 
Morone and Borromeo, and on the statements of Delfino, he 
now submitted in his own name and that of Duke Albert his 
request that the Pope would come to the assistance of the 
German nation, a thing which, in the opinion of many well- 
informed Catholics, could be accomplished by means of the 
concession of the chalice ; the incalculable advantage of this 
must be manifest to everyone. After careful consideration 
with pious and learned men, well acquainted with conditions 
in Germany, he called attention to the fact that, in order to 

1 Ferdinand to Maximilian, Jan. 27, 1564, in Sitzungsberichte 
der Kaiserl. Akademie der Wissensch. I., fasc. 5 (1848), 29 
seqq. Cf. CANISII Epist., IV., 450. 

2 Letter of Feb. 5, 1564, printed in SAFTIEN, 77 seqq. 
STEiNHERZ, IV., 36 seqq. Cf. Zeitschr. des Bergischen 

Geschichtsvereins, XXX I IT., 141 seqq. 

4 RAYNALDUS, 1564, n. 29 seq. 

5 In SAFTIEN, 78 seq. 


save the small remnants of the Catholic religion and to stamp 
out heresy it would be a great help to leave their wives to the 
married priests, and where there was a lack of priests to admit 
suitable laymen to the service of the altar and to the admin 
istration of the sacraments. This he asked in his own name 
and that of Duke Albert. In a postscript the Emperor 
expressed his complete confidence that his wishes would be 
granted without delay. The letter to Morone especially 
recommended the question of the marriage of priests, as 
communion under both kinds would certainly not offer any 
difficulties. In the instructions to the Imperial envoys were 
given the names of the bishops to whom Ferdinand desired 
that the faculty to allow the chalice should be given : these 
were the Archbishops of Mayence, Treves, Cologne, Magdeburg, 
Salzburg, Bremen, Gran, and Prague, and the Bishops of 
Naumburg and Gurk. 1 

The unprincipled nuncio had gone so far in his obsequious 
ness to the Emperor as to have himself drafted all three letters \ 2 
It is no wonder that, after many other proofs of his devotion, 
Delfino should have been successful, thanks to the Emperor s 
intervention, in attaining his eagerly desired aim, the Cardinal s 
hat, though, on the other hand, it explains why this and similar 
happenings led the Pope to issue his severe decree of May 
1 8th, 1565, against the servility of the nuncios. 3 The reports 
which Delfino sent to Borromeo at the same time as the 
dispatch of the Imperial letters, are expressed as though he 
were a mere observer and chronicler of what was happening. 
Certain points, however, are cleverly brought out. " I am 
informed," so we read in one of these reports, " that the 
people are so incensed against the clergy on account of the 
refusal of the chalice that it is feared that at the death of the 
Emperor all Catholics will be banished," 4 he hints that if it 
is not decided to allow communion under both kinds, it is 

1 STEINHERZ, IV., 39. 
z Ibid., 40, 47. 

3 Bull. Rom., VII., 369. 

4 STEINHERZ, IV., 30, 33. 


possible that Ferdinand and Albert will seek for a way out 
of the difficulty for themselves. 1 

Until March I5th Ferdinand hoped for a favourable reply, 2 
but in spite of his earlier promises the Pope could not come to 
a decision so quickly. In the consistory of March ist he spoke 
about the Emperor s requests : every day, he said, a number 
of Catholics were passing over to the heretics from a desire for 
the chalice, the granting of which, in the opinion of Ferdinand, 
was the only way to stop the apostasy. The state of the world 
showed a sad picture indeed, heresy was in the ascendancy 
everywhere ; only Spain and Italy had kept themselves free 
of it, and these only partially, as could be seen in Venice and 
Naples. He was therefore of opinion that they should -not 
reject the Emperor s proposals without further thought ; on 
the other hand it seemed hard to break away from the ancient 
custom of the Church, especially as the successful issue of 
the concessions was not certain. In accordance with the 
advice of the Cardinals he would now commit the consideration 
of the whole matter to a commission of their body. In days 
gone by it would have been possible to ignore such demands, 
but now the number of the heretics had increased to such an 
extent that only a tenth part of all Christians were Catholics. 3 
From the whole tone of this speech it is clear that Pius IV. 
was not averse to the concession of the chalice ; as the Spanish 
ambassador states, 4 he said in a public consistory that he had 
already promised the chalice in order to end the Council, but 
that opinion in the College of Cardinals was not favourable 
to the wishes of the Emperor. Besides this the Spanish 
ambassador, Luis de Requesens, spared no pains in working 
against them ; on March yth, the day before the decisive con 
sistory, he visited between twelve and fifteen Cardinals in the 


2 Ibid., 38. 

3 *Acta consist, card. Gambarae, 40 G 13, p. 269-272 
(Corsini Library, Rome). 

4 To Philip II., March 4, 1564, in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 


endeavour to prejudice them against the concession of the 
chalice by hinting at the scandal which would be taken by 
the whole Catholic world if the Pope were to yield, by pointing 
to the aversion which was felt even by the German ecclesias 
tical princes, who merely did not say plainly what they 
thought about it, and to the general danger of a policy of 
compromise ; he reminded them of the disastrous experiences 
they had had with the Greeks and Bohemians, and of the 
treachery of the heretics, who were asking for the chalice from 
any motives rather than those of piety. One concession would 
open the way to others ; what was granted to Bavaria and 
Bohemia could not be refused to other Catholics. At least 
they must not come to a decision hastily, and the whole 
question must be well weighed by learned men. On the whole 
Requesens found the opinion of the Cardinals so averse to 
the concession that three-fourths of them would have been 
opposed to the Pope if he had openly laid the matter before 
them in the consistory. 1 

As a matter of fact the Pope gave up the idea of proposing 
the question of the chalice for immediate solution. For the 
time being he only proposed to send to Germany a legate with 
very wide powers. Morone was chosen for this task, though 
he, for his part, tried by every means in his power to escape 
this thankless task. 2 

Under these circumstances, it was only to be expected that, 
at the decisive consistory of March 8th, the opposing views 
would be hotly debated. The Pope, however, thought that 
he would be able to prevent this. At the commencement 
of the consistory he caused the three nephews of Paul III. and 
ten other Cardinals who had not taken part in the secret 
sessions of the preceding days, 3 to take their places near the 

1 Requesens to Philip II., March 12, 1364, ibid., 556 seq. Cf. 
Arco to the Emperor, March 12, 1564, in BUCHOLTZ, IX., 718. 

2 Requesens to Philip II., March 4, 1564, in DOLLINGER, 
Beitrage, L, 555. 

3 Detailed report of the consistory in *Acta consist, card. 
Gambarae, 40 G 13, p. 277-289 (Corsini Library, Rome). 
Cf. LAEMMER, Melet., 214-217 ; *Averardo Serristori to the Duke 


throne, saying to them that he had decided to send Cardinal 
Morone to Germany, in order that he might work for the carry 
ing out of the Council of Trent, and attempt, in the approaching 
Diet, to win over to the Catholic cause one or more of the 
Protestant princes. As to the question of the chalice and 
the Emperor s demands, he said not a word. 

Cardinal Alessandro Farnese then began to speak. It was 
not wise, in his opinion, to send a legate to Germany. Similar 
missions had always turned out disastrously for the Apostolic 
See ; the presence of a legate at the Diet would lead to religious 
discussions, and this was dangerous, because the Protestants 
were in a majority there. Therefore even Paul III., who at 
the beginning of his pontificate had sent many legates to 
Germany, had afterwards abandoned this policy. To the re 
mark of the Pope that the present times were very different 
from those of Paul III., Farnese replied that it was just because 
the present times were so much worse that it was especially 
unwise to send a legate. Even if he were armed with the 
power to grant all the things asked for by the Emperor, much 
harm would result from this. Thereupon Farnese began to 
set forth the arguments against the concession of the chalice. 

But the Pope cut him short ; that subject was not under 
discussion at present ; the legate was being sent for the carry 
ing out of the decrees of the Council ; as to the Emperor s 
demands, he himself, the Pope, would decide as God should 
inspire him. The decision belonged to him as Pope, and it 
had been left in his hands by the Council : " We, not you," 
he added passionately, " have to render an account to God in 
this matter." At these words the Cardinals who were stand 
ing near the throne made it plain by signs that they very 
willingly left the whole responsibility to him. 

Farnese raised no further objections, 1 but his brother 

of Florence, March u, 1563 (Florentine style). (State Archives, 
Florence, Medic. 3283, p. 248 seq.}. Cf. Arco to the Emperor, 
March 12, 1564, in BUCHOLTZ, IX., 717 seq. 

1 *" Cosi Farnese si ristrinse nelle spalle et se ne torn6 a sedere." 
Serristori, loc. cit. 


Ranuccio at once returned to the burning question. He 
had heard, he said, from respected and trustworthy men, 
that not a few of the Catholic bishops of Germany, and among 
them two of the Electors, had worked at the Council to induce 
the fathers to resist the concession of the chalice, on the 
ground that it would be a mortal blow to the Catholic religion 
in Germany. The Pope replied that he also had heard the 
same thing, but that changed times called for new measures, 
and he would obtain further information from Germany itself. 
Many of the Council, moreover, had changed their opinion, 
and in the end several of the Spaniards had declared them 
selves in favour of the concession. " With regard to that," 
Ranuccio replied, " I have heard just the opposite," and when 
Pius IV. appealed to the legates of the Council as his authority, 
the Cardinal answered that he was quite aware of what the 
legates said, but he noticed that many prelates of all the various 
nations gave quite another report on that very point, and had 
promised to furnish proofs to the Pope himself. Pius put an 
end to the discussion by remarking that he intended to trust 
his legates. 

Then the Pope began a long speech. He said : " Now 
that the Council is happily ended, our most important task 
is to see that it is carried into effect. I therefore intend to 
send legates to all the princes, first of all to Germany, then 
to France, and finally to Spain. The Emperor, who is so full 
of good intentions, is seriously ill and near to death ; we must 
therefore seize upon the opportunity to deal with a prince 
who is so well disposed and so deeply religious. As legate 
for Germany I have appointed Morone, in whose prudence 
and acceptability to the princes I have full confidence. I have 
arrived at this decision in secret consistory, because it has 
not been possible to treat of the whole matter in public ; my 
predecessors acted in the same way. Paul III. often said that 
nobody but a heretic could deny that the Pope has the right 
to decide all questions himself. In order to keep Catholics 
in the Church and to bring back heretics to the fold, I am 
prepared to make any concessions which do not involve injury 
to the faith, to religion and the honour of God. The present 


times, indeed, are worse than they were under Paul III. and 
Julius III., when France was altogether free from heresy, 
Germany contained more Catholics, Spain was united to 
Germany, and England under the rule of a Catholic queen. 
But the difficulties do not dismay me ; my predecessors were 
not able to bring the Council to an end, but I have succeeded 
in doing so. Everything that has not been done before is 
not necessarily to be rejected for that reason. I intend to 
meet the heretics in a spirit of gentleness ; if they act hypo 
critically they will deceive themselves, but not God." Turn 
ing to Morone, he begged him to accept the burden imposed 
on him for the honour of God and the salvation of Christendom. 

Morone replied that it was his duty to be silent and to obey. 
As to the prospects of his legation he believed that the Pope, 
in virtue of his higher enlightenment, could see things which 
others could not see, and that a happy issue was possible. 
The difficulties, however, were so great that he almost des 
paired of being able to accomplish anything. He gave ex 
pression to this opinion now because men were wont to form 
their judgment after the event. But as far as he was con 
cerned he would spare no pains to do what the Pope required 
of him. 

Pius IV. replied with a few words of encouragement. If 
not all, at least some might be brought back to the old religion. 
The Elector of Brandenburg, for example, wore the crucifix 
which the Pope had sent to him, he had treated the Papal 
nuncios with courtesy, he had accepted a pontifical brief, 
and had blamed those who rejected them ; nor was it neces 
sary to despair altogether of Duke Augustus of Saxony. The 
situation in Germany had changed for the better at any rate 
in so far that the heretics were no longer united, but broken 
up into many sects. 

Morone then had to leave the consistory, and the Cardinals 
voted upon the question whether Morone should go as legate 
to Germany for the carrying out of the Council. No opposi 
tion was raised, though several took the opportunity of 
expressing their opinion on the demands of the Emperor. 

At the end of his report of this consistory Cardinal Gambara 


states that he has written it all down thus minutely in order 
that later on the opinion of the Cardinals as to Morone s lega 
tion might be known. If the Pope had submitted the 
Emperor s demands for discussion, they would certainly not 
have agreed to them. He concludes with the somewhat 
malicious remark that the Pope, who was unable to use his 
right arm on account of a bad attack of gout, had given his 
blessing to the new legate with his left hand. 

However interesting the consistory may be as giving a 
picture of the feeling at the time, it had nevertheless very 
little importance as far as the course of events was concerned. 
The mission of Morone never took place ; the Emperor s 
advisers had become sufficiently aware of his diplomatic skill 
during the course of the negotiations at Innsbruck in the 
previous year, and they at once decided that he must at all 
costs be kept away from Austria : " this Roman craftsman with 
his keen and penetrating shafts, who was so subtle and wonder 
fully trained ex longo rerum usu." 1 They realized that they 
were no match for him, 2 and they also feared the effect of long 
negotiations upon the life of the sick Emperor. In the evening 
of the very day on which, early in the morning, news had come 
of Morone s mission, Ferdinand told the nuncio Delfino that 
the Protestant princes feared lest the Pope should form a 
Catholic league for the carrying out of the Council. The 
arrival of a legate might furnish them with a pretext for 
forming a counter-league of their own, to which course they 
would undoubtedly be urged by Elizabeth of England and 
by France, and the consequence of which would be the com 
plete destruction of the Catholic religion in Germany. 3 An 
Imperial letter to Arco 4 on the 26th, and another from Delfino 

1 Zasius to the Archduke Ferdinand, March 23, 1564, in HIRN, 
Erzherzog Ferdinand II., 93. Cf. STEINHERZ, IV., 82. 

2 " Non habemus homines, qui cum eo tractent " wrote Seld, 
in STEINHERZ, lo:. cit. " Moronus adducet multos et magnos the- 
ologos, quibusnon habemus nos quosopponeremus." SELD, ibid. 

3 Delfino to Borromeo, March 27, 1564, in STEINHERZ, IV., 
78 ; cf. 79, 83. 

* Ibid., 83. 


on March 27th, 1 conveyed this intelligence .to Rome. Bor- 
romeo replied to the nuncio in Venice on April igth, 2 that 
Morone s mission would not take place, that the Pope had 
already granted the chalice to the laity, but that as far as 
the marriage of priests was concerned Pius IV. had never 
made any promises on the subject ; in the meantime the 
Emperor was requested to submit his proposals more definitely. 
It was true that, under the date of April i6th, the Pope 
hacl caused briefs for the more important bishops of Germany 
to be prepared, containing the concession of the chalice. 3 
This, however, was not granted unconditionally nor universally. 
In the introduction of the briefs mention is made of the 
assurances made by Ferdinand and Albert that the remnants 
of the Catholic religion in Germany would disappear altogether 
if the chalice were not allowed. If the bishop to whom the 
brief was addressed could conscientiously say that this was 
really the case, then the Pope gave him power to appoint 
certain priests to give communion under both kinds. On 
the part of the communicants it was taken for granted that 
they were in communion with the Roman Church, that they 
had been to confession, and they must believe that the same 
is contained under one species as under two, and that the 
Roman Church was not in error in giving the Holy Eucharist 
under one kind alone. The concession was not to apply to 
the non-German parts of the German dioceses. At the same 
time the bishops were given the important power of reconciling, 
either in person or by their delegates, heretics who either 
publicly or in private had abjured their errors. 4 

1 Ibid., 76 seqq, 

z Ibid., 94. 

8 The brief for Julius Pflugk of Naumburg in CYPRIANUS, 
i seqq., Pogiani Epist., III., 161 ; for Nicolaus Olah of Gran in 
STEPH. KATONA, Historia critica regum Hungariae stirpis 
Austriacae, IV., 811 seq. Buda, 1799; for Urban of Gurk in 
Vierteljahrsschrift fur kath. Theologie, VI. (1877), 88 seqq. 
Copies of the other briefs in KNOPFLER, 138, n. 3. 

4 As to the importance of this faculty see MERGENTHEIM, 
Die Quinquennalfakultaten, I., 87. 


For the moment the Pope kept these briefs a secret ; in the 
consistory of April i/jln he let nothing transpire about them. 
The excitement which had been aroused by the attitude of 
the Pope towards the concession of the chalice had by no 
means died down, and during the weeks that had elapsed 
the Spanish ambassador had caused a theologian to draw up 
a memorial against the concession which had been circulated 
among the Roman prelates. 1 Even in Germany the Pope s 
willingness to give way on the matter had caused as much 
surprise as though Pius IV. had become a Lutheran. Canisius, 
who reported what was being said to Rome, was himself of 
opinion that the concession of the chalice would throw the 
remainder of the German Church into hopeless confusion ; 
the conditions made in Rome would not be observed, nor, 
despite the concession, would the authority of the Church or 
the Pope be recognized. 2 Even when the pontifical briefs 
had arrived, jokes were current on the subject because the 
permanent agent in the provinces for the granting of the 
chalice and for the Confession of Augsburg bore the family 
name of Teufel (devil) and because on the day that the briefs 
arrived a frost had almost destioyed the whole of the grape 
vintage in the district of Vienna. 3 

On May gth the Papal briefs to the three ecclesiastical 
Electors, to the Archbishops of Salzburg, Prague, Gran, Magde 
burg and Bremen, and to the Bishops of Naumburg and Gurk 
were in the hands of Delfino. The nuncio proposed to publish 
the pontifical concession at first only in Upper and Lower 
Austria and in Bavaria. 4 His suggestion was accepted and 
a beginning was made of the work of promulgation on June 
i8th, at Vienna, when Urban, Bishop of Gurk, and administra- 

1 Printed in SICKEL, Konzil, 377, who wrongly places it in the 
series for September, 1562 ; cf. STEINHERZ, IV., 97, who is the 
first to give it its right date. 

2 To Lainez, March 25, 1564, in CANISII Epist., IV., 480. The 
letter was presented to the Pope : ibid., 490. 

3 STEINHERZ, IV., 125 seq. 

4 Ibid., 119 seqq. 


tor of the diocese of Vienna, read and explained the brief in 
the Cathedral of St. Stephen. 1 

The success of the promulgation seemed at first to surpass 
even the most sanguine hopes. As Delfino wrote to Rome, at 
Vienna two-thirds of the Lutherans and others suspected of 
heresy declared themselves to be Catholics. 2 There is no 
doubt, he again wrote on November 2oth, 1564, 3 that in 
Vienna and the small diocese of Vienna the concession of the 
chalice is having a beneficial effect ; every day the number 
of those who assist at the sermons and divine offices is increas 
ing. After so encouraging a beginning the briefs addressed 
to them were sent to the other ecclesiastical provinces in 
June, while similar concessions were asked for, and immedi 
ately granted by the Pope for the dioceses of Olmutz, Breslau, 
Weiner-Neustadt and Laibach. 4 Anton Brus boasted, when 
he received his brief, that the kingdom of Bohemia was re 
stored to life ; the Archbishop of Gran also looked for great 

1 For the discussions as to the way in which the brief was to 
be carried into effect, cf. WIEDEMANN, I., 311 seq. For the in 
formation obtained as to the administration of the two species 
in the Greek Church, see SAFTIEN, 84 seq., and the letter of Ferdi 
nand I. of May 17, 1564, to his envoy in Venice, in Beitrage 
zur Kunde steiermarkischer Geschichtsquellen, IX. (1872), 115. 

2 Acta consist, in RAYNALDUS, 1564, n. 35. 

3 STEINHERZ, IV., 244. 

4 STEINHERZ, IV., 140, 167. A fresh brief was also drawn up 
at that time for the Bishop of Gurk in his capacity of administrator 
of Vienna. The brief for Breslau is printed in KASTNER, Archiv 
fur die Geschicte des Bistums Breslau, I. (1858), 262 seq. ; cf. 
J. JUNGNITZ, Visitationsberichte der Diozese Breslau, Archidiak- 
onat Breslau, Part I., 20, Breslau, 1902. The concession of the 
chalice for that part of Styria which was in the patriarchate 
of Aquileia was asked for in July, 1564, but was only granted 
on Sept. 24, 1565 (STEINHERZ, IV., 166, 169, 391). Printed 
edition of the brief in Pogiani Epist., III., 162 seq., and in 
Beitragen zur Kunde steiermarkischer Geschichtsquellen, IX. 
(1*872), 115 seq. The brief for Magdeburg was sent back to Rome 
without having been used (STEINHERZ, IV., 139), that for Bremen 
followed (CANISII Epist, IV., 575). 

VOL. XVI. q 


fruit for the Catholic religion in Hungary from the concession 
of the chalice. 1 

It was with great satisfaction that the Pope was able on 
July I4th, 1564, to give the Cardinals the first official notifica 
tion of the concession of the chalice which he had made some 
time before. The Emperor, he said, had represented to him 
that without some such concession Germany would become, 
not merely heretical, but pagan. It had not been in public, 
but quite in secret, that he had held consultations on the 
subject with certain Cardinals and former members of the 
Council, and he had done this in order that the expression of 
opinions might be more free, for he knew well with how many 
artifices and threats the concession of the chalice would be 
opposed. He attached great importance to the opinion of 
the Emperor, who at that moment was lying on his death 
bed, and who was animated with a feeling for religion which 
could not have been more pure or supernatural in a monk or a 
Jesuit. 2 For Ferdinand I., indeed, the Papal concession was 
a great consolation in his last illness. On May lyth, he had 
a letter written to Rome, in which he said that no Papal utter 
ance had ever given him such joy as the brief about the 
chalice. 3 He died on July 25th, 1564, with the consciousness 
that he had rendered a last great service to that ecclesiastical 
unity which he had always aimed at so zealously. 

But it was not everywhere that the brief about the chalice 
was received with enthusiasm. At Cologne, the strong atti 
tude taken by the University prevented the archbishop from 
carrying the concession into effect, though he was himself in 
favour of it ; the University caused to be drawn up and gave 

iDelfino to Borromeo, July 13, 1564, in STEINHERZ, IV., 
155. Anton Brus published the brief about the chalice on July 
23, 1564. FRIND 7, and doc. 17. 

2 *Acta consist, card. Gambarae, on July 14, 1564* Rome, 
4 o-G-i3, p. 333 seqq. (Corsini Library). That the brief about the 
chalice was up to this time not known in Rome is clear from the 
fact that Lainez, on June 24, asked for a copy from Canisius. 
CANISII Epist., IV., 573. 

3 STEINHERZ, IV., 123. 


its sanction to a memorandum written by the Jesuit Coster, 
against the two species, and obliged all its theologians to 
accept it. 1 At Treves the municipal council demanded from 
everyone a certificate from their parochial authorities that they 
had communicated under one kind alone. 2 At Mayence too 
the concession of the chalice had no tangible results. 3 It was 
only after long negotiations that the Archbishop of Salzburg 
agreed to the Imperial wishes, and even then the meeting of 
the bishops of the province of Salzburg limited in every pos 
sible way the administration of the chalice. 4 In the immediate 
neighbourhood of Vienna the distinguished Christian Naponaus 
Radiducius, Bishop of Weiner-Neustadt, at length, it is true, 
published the Papal indult, but in practice refused to administer 
the two species. 5 The Jesuits in Vienna were bound to allow 
the publication in their church of the brief about the chalice, 
but they insisted so sfrictly on the conditions laid down by the 
Pope that at first there were none, and afterwards very few, 
who received the two species at their hands. 6 

For the most part the enthusiasm among the Catholics for 
the communion of the laity under both kinds disappeared. 
It is true that its defenders, in the face of all the arguments 
of the theologians, had appealed to their knowledge of con 
ditions in Germany, 7 but the event tended to justify the 

I HANSEN, 494. CYPRIANUS, 376. CANISII Epist., IV., 694. 

2 HANSEN, 496. 

3 SERARIUS-IOANNIS, Rerum Maguntiacarum, I., 873, Frank 
fort, 1722. 

4 STEINHERZ, IV., 156, 169, 175, 182. Report of Joh. Pfister, 
Aug. 25, 1564, in CANISII Epist., IV., 619 seqq. Cf. WIEDEMANN, 
I., 313 seq. ; KNOPFLER, 138-148. 

5 WIEDEMANN, I., 313. 

6 CANisn Epist., IV., 633-635. NADAL, Epist., IV., 289. 
DUHR, I., 447 seqq. 

7 So said Seld, according to the report of Delfino : " esser di 
bisogno udire li pratici delle cose ... in Roma si grida pro 
reductione et si parla del fine, ma quanto alii mezzi o non si 
sanno o non si vogliono sappere " (STEINHERZ, IV, 32). On 
the other hand, Otto Truchsess, after the arrival of the concession 
of the chalice, dfeplores " quod sua Sanctitas non habuerit 


wisdom of those who, equally relying on their own experience, 
looked for nothing but confusion and harm from any rap 
prochement with the innovators. As early as 1565 Drasko- 
vich said to Commendone that he repented of having worked 
with so much zeal for the chalice for the laity in his capacity as 
Imperial envoy at the Council of Trent, because the con 
cession, when it had at last been obtained, had brought about 
nothing but harm. l Commendone wrote to Cardinal Borromeo 
from Petrikau 2 that experience in the districts bordering on 
Poland showed that the concession had done more harm than 
good ; the conditions laid down by the Pope had not been 
observed, and the consequences had been scandal and con 
fusion. He was trying by every means in his power to prevent 
the King of Poland from asking for the chalice, as he was being 
urged to do in many quarters. On November loth, 1564, 
Lainez, the General of the Jesuits wrote, 3 that he was being 
informed from all parts of Germany that the concession of 
the chalice was doing more harm than good to religion, and 
that the heretics had only been rendered more insolent by 
it. To the question of Cardinal Hosius, as to what results 
the movement in favour of the chalice was producing in 
Bavaria, Cardinal Truchsess of Augsburg 4 replied that as far 
as he himself was concerned the Pope had not ordered the 
use of the two species, and that he did not intend to introduce 
it until he had first made known in Rome his reasons for 
opposing it. The Duke of Bavaria, who at first had hoped 
for great results from the concession of the chalice, had 
entirely changed his point of view, and was saying openly that 
the chalice should not be allowed to anyone. 
It was true that from being the champion of the chalice 

meliorem magisque fundatam informationem de statu Germanicae 
nationis." (CANISII, Epist., IV., 619). 

1 Hosn Opera, II., 241, Cologne 1584. CANISII Epist., V., 


2 June 6, 1565, in POGIANI Epist., III., 165. 

3 To Hosius, in CYPRIANUS, 376. 

4 November 20, 1564, in CYPRIANUS, 379, and POGIANI Epist., 
III. 165. 


Albert V. had now become its strong opponent. The mission 
of Ormaneto and the discouraging letter of Hosius had already 
to a great extent cooled his enthusiasm. 1 More exact in 
formation in the years 1563 and 1564 showed that the number 
of those who wished for the chalice was by no means so great 
as might have been supposed from the hasty estimate of those 
who spoke on behalf of the concession, and that those who did 
were, for the most part, only to be found in a majority in the 
neighbourhood of Protestant distiicts. 2 The pontifical con 
cession of the chalice was not promulgated in Bavaria, and 
the two species were only administered in individual cases, 
and secretly, and then only in certain localities and with strict 
limitations. 3 A few yeais later the Duke altogether forbade 
the chalice to the laity. 4 

In the meantime, in Austria, they not only held firmly to 
the chalice, but also sought to obtain a relaxation of the law 
of celibacy. Ferdinand I. had himself written to Rome on June 
I7th, 1564, 5 that the concession of the two species was not 
sufficient by itself, unless those priests who had taken wives 
were also allowed to retain them. It was not without reason 
that Germany had always advanced these two claims in 
conjunction with each other, because the concession of the 
chalice had always been advocated and defended for the most 
part by those who, despite their priesthood, had taken wives, 
and afterwards, from fear of ecclesiastical penalties, had turned 
against the Church and her prelates. Moreover, it was 
impossible for the bishops in many districts to provide the 
people with unmarried priests, and they were therefore forced 
to leave many cures vacant, and the people were in conse 
quence forced to turn to the ministers. Finally the concession 
of the chalice was fettered with certain conditions, but what 
was the use of imposing conditions if there was no one to 

1 Canisius to Hosius July 31 1563, in CANISII Epist., IV., 
300 seqq. 

2 KNOPFLER, 154 seqq. 

3 Ibid., 156. 

4 Ibid., 213. 

5 To Arco, in STEINHERZ, IV., 141 seqq. 


explain them to the people or insist upon their observance ? 
The Emperor therefore asked that priests who were already 
married might be dispensed, and that it should be allowed, 
in places where there was a scarcity of priests, that married 
laymen should be admitted to receive orders. 

On September igth, 1564, Maximilian II. renewed the 
demands of his father, which demands were also presented 
at the same time in the name of the Archduke Charles, on 
behalf of his territories of Styria and Carniola, 1 while the Arch 
duke Ferdinand would have nothing to do with the marriage 
of priests as far as the Tyrol and the Swabian provinces of 
Austria were concerned. 2 It was once more the nuncio, 
Delfino, who, in gross violation of his duties as the repre 
sentative of the Pope, drafted this letter which was so dis 
pleasing to Pius IV., 3 while in his other communications with 
Rome, under the guise of a mere narration of events, he caused 
the Imperial wishes to appear in the best possible light. 4 

In consequence of these demands the Pope found himself 
in a very embarrassing position. He had already had dis 
astrous experience of the policy of concession in the matter 
of the chalice, 5 but on the other hand it was very dangerous 
openly to oppose a prince of such doubtfully Catholic senti- 

1 STEINHERZ, IV., 205 seq. A "letter of the Archduke Charles 
to the Pope in favour of the concession of the chalice to the laity, 
dated Vienna, November 30, 1564, in the National Archives, 
Paris, Papiers de Simancas. 

2 " L archiduca Ferdinando non ha scritto mai ne fatto dire 
a S. S ta cosa alcuna in questa materia del connubio, se bene dal 
imperatore si pretende, che li stati di detto Ferdinando siano ne 
la medesima necessita." Papal instruction of May 21, 1565, 
to the envoys at Vienna, STEINHERZ, IV., 364. Cf. DOLLINGER, 
Beitrage, I., 645. The chalice was not asked for Bohemia, where 
Ferdinand was the governor. 

3 STEINHERZ, IV., 207. 

4 Delfino to Borromeo, November 20, 1564, ibid., 241 seqq.; 

cf. 330, 348- 

6 The Pope, as well as Borromeo, was very soon convinced ot this. 
DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 623, 625 ; cf. CANISII Epist., IV., 480 
and 1065. 


ments as Maximilian, since opposition might have the effect 
of provoking a new and worse Interim at the approaching diet. 1 
Pius IV. therefore sought to gain time. 2 It was only on 
January 2oth, 1565, that he appointed a commission of Car 
dinals to discuss the Emperor s demands. 3 When, in March,- 
this had led to no results, and the Emperor was still pressing 
for a definite reply, 4 the number of the Cardinals on the com 
mission was reduced from eighteen to five ; these latter began 
theirdeliberations on April I4th 5 and on May I2th they advised 
the Pope as a first step to send nuncios to the Emperor. 6 On 
May 24th Archbishop Lionardo Marini and Pietro Guicciardini 
the Auditor of the Rota, set out for Vienna in this capacity. 7 
Before this Pius IV. had found a powerful ally in Philip II. 
of Spain, who, in a letter of March I2th, 1565, had charged 
Cardinal Pacheco to oppose the requests of Maximilian by 
every means in his power. 8 The Pope, however, had not 
perfect confidence in the Spanish king, for he thought that 
Philip wished to drive him to a breach with the Emperor so 
that Spain might remain the only Catholic power, and he thus 
might be able to do as he liked with the Pope. 9 In June, 
1565, Philip II. sent Pedro de Avila to Rome for the express 

1 DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 594, 612. 

2 STEINHERZ, IV., 323, 336, 374, etc. " En negocios tan arduos 
la dilacion es la importa " was, according to Cardinal Pacheco, 
the maxim which guided the Pope in this matter. DOLLINGER, 
Beitrage, I., 595 ; cf. 597. 

3 Borromeo to Delfino, January 20, 1565, in STEINHERZ, IV., 
277. Maximilian II. to Arco, March 13, 1565, ibid., 317. The 
Pope had already brought forward the matter for discussion in 
the consistory of January 12. *Acta consist, card. Gambarae, 
40 G 13, p. 4i6b seqq. (Corsini Library, Rome). DO"LLINGER, 
Beitrage, I., 588 seqq. LAEMMER, Melet., 217. 

4 Borromeo to Delfino, March 3, 1565, in STEINHERZ, IV., 306. 

5 Borromeo to Delfino, April 14, 1565, ibid., 333. Pacheco to 
Philip II., April 20, 1565, in DGLLINGER, I., 598. 

8 STEINHERZ, IV., 375. 

7 Ibid., 370. 

8 Ibid., 335. 

9 Pacheco to Philip II., April 20, 1565, in DOLLINGER, I., 598. 


purpose of raising objections against the granting of the 
Emperor s demands. 1 

In the meantime the two nuncios in Vienna, were in an 
embarrassing position. According to their instructions, 2 
it was their duty to try and make the Emperor change his 
mind, and to this end they were to point out that the Pope 
had to concern himself with the whole world and not with 
Germany alone, and that he could not inflict a grave injury 
on the whole of the Church so as to save a single country. 
There were the very gravest reasons for the celibacy of the 
clergy : the ancient custom of the Latin Church, dating from 
the time of the Apostles, and the dignity of the priesthood, 
which, on account of its close connection with the Holy Euchar 
ist and the other sacraments, required virginity. If this 
concession were made in Germany, it would very soon be asked 
for in France and Flanders, and then in Spain and Italy, for 
which reason King Philip in particular had taken up a very 
decided attitude of opposition to the concession of marriage 
to the priests of Germany. The Emperor must further 
remember what difficulties this very request had occasioned 
at the time of the Interim and at the Council of Trent. Lastly, 
it was a mistaken policy to try and further religion by making 
concessions to sensuality, all the more so as it was generally 
felt in Rome that the same thing would happen with the 
marriage of priests as had happened with the concession of 
the chalice, which had caused scandal and loss of piety rather 
than edification, and in no case had produced the obvious 
advantages which had been promised. It was therefore much 
better to procure celibate priests, either from Germany itself 
or from elsewhere ; once the necessary pressure was brought 
to bear, there was reason to hope that many such would be 
found. Should the Emperor reply that the needs of Germany 
called for prompt measures and no delay, the Pope undertook 
to send a certain number of celibate priests, who, even though 
they did not know the language of the country, would be 

1 His instructions, July 10, in DOLLINGER, I., 602 seqq. 

2 Of May 21, 1565, in STEINHERZ, IV., 356 seqq. 


able to be of assistance so that by means of the seminaries 
good German priests could be trained. Since they had already 
waited 30 or 40 years, they could certainly wait for another 
three or four. Should the Emperor not accept all this, they 
might hold out to him the possibility of the renewal of the con 
cessions granted by Paul III. and Julius III. to Charles V., 
though they had never been carried into effect, namely that 
dispensations might be given in individual cases for married 
priests. If this should not be enough, the nuncios were to 
declare expressly that the Pope could not, nor was it lawful 
for him to do so, introduce into the Church so great a change, 
except in the case where the necessity for it was altogether 
obvious, and where extraordinary advantages would result, 
as for example the conversion of the whole of Germany, and 
when both the one and the other were proved in a quite 
incontestable way. Moreover the Pope could not effect such 
a change surreptitiously, but he would have to consult all the 
prelates who had German subjects ; for example, he would 
have to obtain exact information as to the number of celibate 
priests, and of those who wished to marry in each district, so 
that the remedy might be made commensurate with the need. 
For a time it seemed as though these arguments were not 
without their effect on the Emperor. Some of the things laid 
before him by Marini were entirely new to Maximilian, because 
he had never discussed his plans with the theologians. 1 In 
any case it is a fact that on July 28th he wrote to Arco to beg 
the Pope to delay in coming to a definite decision. 2 But 
Maximilian very soon reverted to his former wishes. On 
September nth, Marini and Guicciardini left Vienna without 
having accomplished anything. 3 One thing alone had their 
influence at Vienna helped to bring about ; the double-dealing 
nuncio, Delfino, who at last, on June 26th, 1565, received the 
coveted cardinal s hat, 4 and who could not therefore any longer 

1 Report of the Spanish ambassador, Chantonnay, to Philip II. 
on July 28, 1565, in STEINHERZ, IV., 428. 
* Ibid., 435, 437. 

3 Ibid., 452. 

4 Ibid., 402. He was nominated on March 13, 1565 ; ibid., 441 


remain as nuncio, 1 was, in consequence of a letter from the 
Spanish ambassador, recalled from his post even before the 
approaching Diet. 2 The Emperor was thus no longer under 
the influence of this intriguing man, who had not only held out 
hopes of the certainty of the concession of the marriage of 
priests, but had also shown himself ready to accept other very 
strange concessions. 3 It seemed to the Papal legates that he 
and Arco had fostered the marriage of priests even more than 
the Emperor himself. 4 

Face to face with the renewed demands of Maxi 
milian, the Pope endeavoured again to delay a decision. In 
the first place he replied to the insistence of the ambassador 
that he must await the return of Marini and Guicciardini, and 
when they had arrived on November Qth, he said that he wished 
to hear the views of Delfino before giving a definite reply. 
While he was still delaying, Pius IV. died. 5 

The matter of the publication and carrying out of the reform 
decrees of Trent had been quite pushed into the background 
by the question of the chalice for the laity and the marriage 
of priests. The hopes of a favourable outcome of this matter 
had become much less bright when, with the accession of 
Maximilian II., the reins of government had fallen into the 
hands of a prince who, confused and obscure in his religious 
sentiments, showed himself in the most varying aspects, and, 

1 Ibid., 441. On August 4, 1565, Pius IV. also recalled the 
other nuncios who had been nominated as Cardinals. 

2 In a letter from Borromeo on August 18, 1565, ibid., 440. 
The letter of Chantonnay, the contents of which were communi 
cated to the Pope by Cardinal Pacheco, and had as its consequence 
the recall of Delfino, ibid., 442 seq.; cf. 429 seq. 

3 Cf. Chantonnay to Philip II., July 21, 1565, ibid., 405 seq. 
Chantonnay was frankly opposed to Delfino, but Marini and 
Guicciardini very soon lost in Vienna their confidence in Delfino. 
Cf. Chantonnay, July 14, 1565, ibid., 404 seq. HIRN, in Allgem. 
Literaturblatt, XXVI. (1917), 48 seq., passes judgment on Delfino 
in terms of justifiable severity. 

4 Avila to Philip II., November 14, 1565, in DOLLINGER, Beit- 
rage, I., 638. 

5 Ibid., 635, 638. STEINHERZ, IV., 462 seqq., 465 seq. 



in many important doctrines no longer took his stand upon 
the firm ground of the Catholic Church. 1 When, in the 
October of 1564, Delfino proposed to Maximilian that he should 
publish the decrees of Trent by an Imperial edict, he made 
profuse declarations which Visconti summed up very aptly 
by saying that, in view of the existing conditions in Germany 
the Emperor refused to comply with anything of the kind. 2 
It was quite in accordance with this that he unceremoniously 
forbade the publication of the decrees in Hungary, for which 
purpose the Archbishop of Gran had summoned a meeting 
of the Hungarian bishops for April 23rd, 1564. 3 Whereas 
the Council of Trent had exacted from the professors of Catholic 
universities a sworn promise to teach in the Catholic sense, 
Maximilian had hardly mounted the throne before, in violation 
of the charter of foundation of the University of Vienna, he 
ordained that the profession of the Catholic creed was no 
longer necessary for appointment, but that it was enough 
if the candidate declared that he was a Christian Catholic. 4 

Under these circumstances the only hope of improvement 
lay in a bold stand being made by the episcopate. But at 
first the Austrian bishops were by no means in a hurry to 
reform their clergy in accordance with the decrees of the 
Council, or to provide for a healthy rising generation by the 
establishment of seminaries for priests. 5 The Archbishop 
and Elector of Mayence, Daniel von Brendel, endeavoured in 
1564 to carry out the wishes of the Council by obtaining a 
pontifical decree empowering him to endow the Jesuit college 

1 For the religious attitude of Maximilian II., cf. JANSSEN- 
PASTOR, IV. 15 " 16 , 210 seqq., where the recent monographs of 
Gotz, Walter and Hopfen are minutely examined. HUBER, IV., 
226, also shows that Maximilian was not a Catholic of any firm 
conviction. V. BIBL, in Archiv fur osterr. Geschicte, 106 (1908), 
298 seqq., gives further information on the matter of the religious 
attitude of Maximilian II. 

2 Cf. STEINHERZ, IV., 224, 229. 

3 See STEINHERZ, IV., 65, 101. 

4 See JANSSEN-PASTOR, IV. 15 * 10 , 447. 

5 Cf. HUBER, IV., 227. 


at Mayence and a seminary for poor boys, which he intended 
to entrust to the direction of the Jesuits. 1 

It was of great importance for Germany that little by little 
Bavaria set to work on the lines of a Catholic restoration. 2 
It was a characteristic step in this direction when Duke Albert, 
on September 5th, 1564, entered into an agreement with the 
Archbishop of Salzburg and the other bishops for the carrying 
out of the decrees formulated at Trent and confirmed by the 
Pope. 3 A Bavarian bishop, Martin von Schaumberg of 
Eichstatt, was the one who, by establishing a seminary, in 
November, 1564, won the glory of having been the first to 
found in Germany an institution of the kind prescribed by the 
Council. 4 Side by side with this there was in the college of 
St. Jerome, founded at Dillingen as far back as 1549 ^Y O* to 
von Truchsess, Bishop of Augsburg, an institution which, in 
its aims and organization, corresponded to the seminaries 
required by the Council. 6 

1 See the letter of Polanco from Rome, April 10, 1564, in 
CANISII Epist, IV., 493 seq. 

2 Details in JANSSEN-PASTOR, IV. 15 " 16 , 445 seq., 458 sect., and 
RIEZLER, IV., 541 seq. 

3 See v. ARETIN, Maximilian I., 152, n. 5, Passau, 1842. 

4 Cf. SCHMIDLIN, 76. 

5 See RIEZLER, IV., 237. 



CONDITIONS in the kingdom of Poland, as in Germany, were 
the cause of no little anxiety to Pius IV. In Greater Poland 
and Lithuania the teaching of Luther and the community 
of the Bohemian Brothers had obtained a great hold, while 
the same thing was true in Little Poland of the doctrines of 
Calvin, who kept up an active correspondence with his adher 
ents in the distant east. The real strength of the new opinions 
in the kingdom of the Jagellons lay among the " Schlachta " 
or smaller landed gentry, who saw in them the best rn^ans of 
completely overthrowing the clergy, as they had already 
succeeded in doing with the peasant and citizen classes. 1 
The easy-going king, Sigismund Augustus, allowed things to 
take their course, the more so as he was, just at the beginning 
of the pontificate of Pius IV., completely occupied by the 
danger which threatened him from the Russian Czar, Ivan 
the Terrible. In order to meet this danger he betook himself 
to Livonia, where he remained during the whole of 1560. He 
therefore took no active part in the negotiations for the 
reassembly of the Council, though he put no obstacles in the 
way of the Holy See in this matter. 2 At the beginning of 
March, 1560, he had sent an envoy to Rome for the obcdientia, 
and was thus one of the first among the secular princes to 
perform this act. 3 

1 See LJUBOWICZ, Istoria reformacii w Polszje, Kalwinisty y 
Antitrinitarii, Warsaw, 1883. Cf. Histor. Zeitschrift, LXVIIL, 
558 seq. 

2 Cf. DEMBirisKi, Rzym, I., 186 seq. 

3 See MASSARELLI, 343, and BONDONUS, 533, the former of 
whom dates the obedientia March 9, and the other March 5, 1560. 
This matter, which was left open by Merkle, is decided in favour 
of March 9, by the *Acta consist. Cam. IX., (Consistorial Archives 
of the Vatican). The brief of thanks from Pius IV., in THEINER, 
Monum. Pol., II., 597 seq. 



It never, however, entered the head of Sigismund Augustus 
that the ceremony of the obedientia made it incumbent upon 
the bearer of the crown to protect the Church. The final 
solution of the Livonian question, when exactly the same thing 
occurred as had happened in Prussia in 1525, showed how 
little the Polish king had the interests of the Church at heart. 
The Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, Gotthard von Kette- 
ler, returned to the lay state, and as Duke of Curland and 
Semgallen became the vassal of the King of Poland, who, on 
his side, promised to leave the country its independent con 
stitution and full liberty to profess the Confession of Augsburg I 1 

Pius IV. had appointed the Bishop of Camerino, Bernardo 
Bongio vanni, 2 as nuncio in Poland, in April, 1560. He was 
instructed to warn the king not to allow religious disputations, 
to prevent anything prejudicial to the Catholic Church at 
the approaching Diet, to encourage the Catholics to hold fast 
to the faith, and above all to urge the bishops to the zealous 
fulfilment of their duties, and the energetic defence of the 
rights of the Church. 3 In a letter of August 2Qth, 1560, 
Bongiovanni describes to Cardinal Morone the sad state of 

1 See SCHIEMANN, Russland, Polen und Livland bis zum 17. 
Jahrh. II., 307. Cf. SEIBERTZ on G. v. Ketteler in Zeitscrift 
fur Gesch. und Altertumskunde, XXIX., Munster, 1871, and 
SCHEIMANN, Die Reformation Altlivlands, Reval, 1884. 

2 See the brief to the King of Poland, dated April 23, 1560, in 
THEINER, Monum, Pol., II., 598 ; ibid, reports of Bongiovanni 
to Morone of the years 1561-63. For the way Bongiovanni 
ignored Hosius see EICHHORN, II., 23. 

3 The instructions for Bongiovanni in Polish in Relacye, I., 
7/1 seq. Also in various Italian collections of manuscripts there 
is to be found from Bongiovanni a *Relatione di Polonia (Vatican 
Library, Cod. Ottob., 2433, p. 165 seq.; 2510, p. 66 seq.; Urb. 
1020, p. 20 seq. Chigi Library, Rome, R. i, p. 51. Ambrosian 
Library, Milan, D. 208. State Archives, Florence., C. Strozz., 
314). Cf. FABISZ, Wiadomosd o Legatach i Nuncyuszach Apos- 
tolskich w dawnej Polsce, Ostr6w, 1866, 135. On the question 
of the succession to Bari, mentioned in the instructions, cf. 
EICHHORN, I., 315 seq.; SUSTA, I., 319 ; III., 296^.; STEINHERZ, 
L, 25 seq. 


affairs which he had found in Poland. He paints in strong 
colours the despotic and selfish attitude of the nobles, who had 
led their vassals away from the old faith, and the activity of 
the new preachers, of whom some called themselves Lutherans, 
others Sacramentarians, others Schwenkfeldians and followers 
of Servetus. The disunion among these preachers was very 
great and violent disputes took place at their meetings. 
Bongiovanni did not share the fear of many good Catholics 
that the king might fall away from the faith ; he thought that 
Sigismund Augustus would maintain his previous attitude of 
allowing everyone to believe what he pleased, but that he 
would personally remain true to the Catholic Church. The 
nuncio looked upon the furtherance of the sending of repre 
sentatives to the Council as his principle task, as well as the 
strengthening of the Catholic senators in their goodwill with a 
view to the future Diet, and the winning back of the heretics, 
whom he looked on as being less obstinate than those in 
Germany. 1 

It did not escape the notice of Bongiovanni how much the 
king s attitude injured the interests of the Church. In his 
reports to Rome he deplores that Sigismund Augustus should 
be on friendly terms with the heretics, and allow them full 
liberty to draw people away from the Catholic Church. At 
the outset the nuncio absolutely condemned the protection 
which the king accorded to Jakob Uchanski, who was suspected 
of heresy, but had been designated for the bishopric of Kujavia, 

1 * Bongiovanni to Morone from Cracow, August 29, 1560 
(Cod. Vatic, lat., 6409, p. 58, Vatican Library), translated in 
Relacye, I., 85 seq. Hosius describes the confusion in Poland 
in very similar terms in a letter in RAYNALDUS, 1560, n. 8. The 
deputation to the Council met with very serious opposition (see 
SUSTA, I., 121, 247 ; II., 40). On the failure of the efforts of 
Bongiovanni to win back Stanislaus Orzechowski, who had drifted 
away from the Church, see Relacye, I., 91 seq., and Kirchenlexikon 
of Freiburg, IX., 2 1103 seq., where is to be found the special 
bibliography, to which has recently been added the monograph 
of L. KUBULA (Lemberg, 1906). On the faculties for absolving 
the heretics see SUSTA, L, 31. 


although this had not been confirmed in Rome. 1 This was 
quite in accordance with the instructions which the nuncio 
had received from Pius IV., who in this matter took up 
exactly the same point of view as his predecessor. 2 It is 
therefore very difficult to understand how Bongiovanni should 
very soon have allowed himself to .be completely won over by 
Uchanski. He absolved him from all ecclesiastical censures 
and did not rest until his confirmation as Bishop of Kujavia 
had been obtained. 3 He even went further ! When Przer- 
embski, Archbishop of Gnesen, died in January, 1562, Bion- 
giovanni assisted his protege* to obtain this high and influential 
position. 4 The nuncio, who was before everything else a 
diplomatist and politician, hoped to effect more by mildness 
than by strict measures. His attitude towards the popular 
but quite unreliable Uchanski caused great scandal to zealous 
Catholics, and on this account they desired the appointment 
of a new nuncio. The relations between Bongiovanni and 
Uchanski seem at last to have given scandal in Rome as well, 
and the overthrow of Catholic interests at the Diet at Petrikau 
in 1562, made the nuncio s position untenable. 5 

Uchanski showed, in the immediate future, how little fitted 
he was to fill the highest position in the Church in Poland. 
The new primate, brought up as he had been among schismatics 
and uniats, hoped to gain everything by means of concessions 
in the matters of communion under both kinds, the marriage 
of priests, and the introduction of the Polish language into the 

1 Cf. Relacye, I., 95 seq. 

2 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 336. 

8 See Relacye, I., 102 seq.; THEINER, II., 658 seqq. Cf. ZAKR- 
ZEWSKI, 141 seqq. The Papal confirmation arrived on June 2, 
1561 ; see KORZENIOWSKI, Analecta, 108. 

4 Papal confirmation of August 31, 1562 ; see KORZENIOWSKI, 
loc. cit., 109. The letter of the King, asking for the confirmation, 
in THEINER, II., 644. Moreover, Hosius also recommended 
Uchanski ; ibid., 646. Cf. ZAKRZEWSKI, 266. 

5 Cf. EICHHORN, II., 152, 208, corrected by ZAKRZEWSKI, 
141, 175, 269; BAIN in Cambridge Mod. Hist., III., 82; DEM- 
BINSKI, Rzym, I., 207. 



liturgy. " By the help of all his arts, among which the inten 
tion to deceive and to take people unawares played no small 
part," 1 he aimed at holding a national synod. Fortunately 
for the Polish Church, Pius IV. clearly recognized the threat 
ened danger, 2 and after the recall of Bongiovanni at Easter, 
1563, 3 he appointed the energetic and shrewd Giovanni 
Commendone as nuncio in Poland, who, together with the dis 
tinguished Cardinal Hosius, successfully frustrated such danger 
ous proposals. The petty artifices of Uchanski, no less than the 
activities of the innovators were powerless before these two 
" men made as it were of steel and granite." 4 They became 
the saviours of the gravely threatened Church in Poland. 5 

Commendone, who started from Venice on October I5th, 
1563, passed through Pressburg, where he presented himself 
before the Emperor, Ferdinand I., and King Maximilian II. 6 

1 CARO gives this opinion in Hist. Zeitschrift, LXXVIIL, 516, 
in a valuable review of the monograph of WIERZBOWSKI, J. 
Uchanski, arcybiskup Gnieznienski, 1562-1581, Warsaw, 1895. 

2 For the importance which Pius IV. attached to the King of 
Poland remaining true to the Church, of. SUSTA, III., 43 ; GIAC. 
SORANZO, 150. 

3 Cf. ElCHHORN, II., 153 ; ZAKRZEWSKI, 175. 

4 See CARO, loc. cit., 518. 

6 The chief sources for the Polish nunciature of Commendone 
are his *reports, preserved in a volume written by Graziani in the 
Graziani Archives at Citta di Castello ; a later copy in Cod. 
Barb, lat., 5789 (formerly LXII., 58), already used by RAYNALDUS 
(1563, n. 187 seq.}, and PALLAVICINI (24, 13), translated into 
Polish by MALINOWSKI (Wilna, 1847, 2 vols.), with regard to 
which, however, an examination of the original text is not un 
necessary. There are also some letters and documents in LAGO- 
MARSINI, De scriptis invita Minerva, II., 117 seqq., and in Bollett. 
stor. d. Svizz. Ital., 1899, 75 seqq.; 1900, 51 seq. In comparison 
with these reports the life of Commendone by GRAZIANI (Paris, 
1669) is of only secondary importance. Cf. also EICHHORN, II., 
208 seq. Commendone received a monthly stipend of 200 scudi ; 
cf. FABISZ, 137, n. 2. 

6 See STEINHERZ, III., 477, 480. Cf. also STEINHERZ, Ein Bericht 
iiber Villach von 1563 in Carinthia, I. (1913). Hosius had worked 
for the mission of Commendone ; see SUSTA, IV., 208, 248. 



He arrived in Cracow on November 2ist, and from thence he 
hurried on to Warsaw where the Diet was opened on December 
6th. The nuncio was accompanied, in addition to his secre 
tary, Antonio Maria Graziani, by two other learned men, 
Federigo Pendasio and Paolo Emilio Giovannini. The sad 
condition of religion in Poland, and the ineffectual resistance 
which the disunited and weak episcopate offered to the 
dissemination of the new doctrines is evident, both from the 
account drawn up by Giovannini and from the reports of 
Commendone. 1 The opposite views of Uchanski, the Arch 
bishop of Gnesen, and Padniewski, the Bishop of Cracow, 
became evident immediately upon the arrival of Commendone. 
The latter wished the nuncio to be received by the king in a 
public audience, the former only privately. Even in his first 
audiences Commendone had plenty of opportunities of realizing 
not only the disunion of the episcopate, but also the weakness 
of Sigismund Augustus. Friendly though his reception of the 
Pope s representative was, he nevertheless showed but little 
inclination to take any active part in securing the repeal of the 
decree issued in the Diet of the preceding year, limiting epis 
copal jurisdiction. Commendone could obtain little more 
than promises for the future, though he built great hopes on 
the influence of Hosius, whom the king had invited to Lomza 
after the close of the Diet (May ist, 1564). On this occasion 
Hosius did not fail in displaying the greatest zeal and elo 
quence. Among other matters, his expostulations were 
directed against the proposal, which was now again being put 
forward, of holding a national council, to which the dissenters 
should be invited. Hosius endeavoured to convince the king 
that the ecclesiastical confusion would only be increased by 
such a course, and declared that he would be unable to take 
part in any such assembly. He explained that only an 
ecumenical council, such as that at Trent, could decide on 
matters concerning the Catholic faith, but not a provincial or 
a national council. As the sectarians had repudiated any such 
council, they would only attend in order to dispute, and where 

1 See KORZENIOWSKI, 180 seq. 


could such disputation lead, if the decrees of an ecumenical 
council were to become a subject of controversy? It was there 
fore the duty of the princes to carry out the decrees of Trent. 1 
The most important question for ecclesiastical conditions in 
Poland was touched upon in these words. Upon its solution 
Commendone held consultations with Hosius whom he visited 
on May 2Oth, 1564, at Frauenberg, and with whom he stayed 
for two months. 2 In July, Commendone, who was then with 
Hosius at Heilsberg, received a letter from Borromeo, of March 
24th, to which were attached five copies of the printed decrees 
of the Council, the acceptance of which in Poland he was 
instructed to bring about. 3 Commendone, as well as Hosius, 
was convinced that this could not be done in a private audience ; 
on the other hand it did not seem advisable to deliver the 
decrees to the Diet, as many Protestants, with whom Uchanski, 
who was aiming at a national council, had secret relations, 
had a seat there. In spite of this, however, Commendone at 
length decided upon the latter course, as the other might lead 
to even greater complications. The king, however, must first 
be won over. The nuncio, who had won the favour of the 
king by his prudent attitude, hoped to be successful in accom 
plishing this by acting with both circumspection and prompti 
tude. At the beginning of August he appeared at Parczow, 
where the king was holding a national assembly. In a long 
audience on August 7th, Commendone set before him the great 
importance of accepting the Tridentine decrees. The king 
listened attentively, and promised to give him an answer after 
he had deliberated with his counsellors ; immediately after- 

1 See EICHHORN, II., 213 seq., 216. 

2 See LAGOMARSINI, Pogiani Epist., III., 426 n.; EICHHORN, II., 
217. Hosius continued in active correspondence with Commen 
done. A "letter dated from Posnaniae, 1564, Ian. 27, deals with 
the wearisome return journey ; one of February 19, from Heilsberg 
announces his return ; one of April 16 expresses his joy at the 
approaching visit of Commendone (Graziani Archives, Citta di 

3 See the report of Commendone of July 6, 1564, in LAGOMARSINI, 
Pogiani Epist., IV., 131 n. 


wards Commendone was himself summoned into their presence. 
His surprise at this was very great, but he quickly recovered 
himself and explained his request in eloquent terms. He set 
forth in detail the reasons for and the work of the Council of 
Trent, the necessity for a supreme authority in matters of 
faith, and the confusion which had sprung from the setting 
up of " new and false papacies at Geneva, Wittenberg and 
elsewhere ; " he also spoke of the evil effects of the religious 
innovations on political conditions, of which he had had 
personal experience in Germany, France, and England. His 
most earnest wish was that Poland might enjoy a happier 
fate, and with this he delivered the decrees, which alone 
would afford a remedy in the existing state of confusion. The 
stirring words of Commendone, and his skill in bringing out 
the advantages of the re-establishment of ecclesiastical unity 
for the domestic peace and the national greatness of Poland 
did not fail to make a great impression. When, after his 
speech, he was about modestly to withdraw, the king begged 
him to remain, saying that since he was ignorant of the Polish 
language, his presence would not interfere with the freedom 
of the discussion. Uchanski then proposed a further consider 
ation of the question, but Sigismund Augustus declared that 
for his part it seemed to him fitting that they should accept 
the decrees of the Council at once. The reply, which was 
communicated in Latin by the vice-chancellor of the kingdom, 
declared that the king accepted the decrees of the holy Council 
of Trent, and would take care that they were carried into effect 
throughout the whole kingdom. 1 On August 7th, 1564, there 

1 See the report of Commendone to Borromeo of August 8, 
1564, in LAGOMARSINI, Pogiani Epist., IV., 133-5 n.; ibid., 20 n. 
the letter of the Polish king of August 9, and the reply of Pius IV., 
of November 3, 1564. Cf. also the letter of Uchanski of August 10, 
1564, in "\YIERZBOWSKI, Uchansciana, II., 62, and the *letter of 
Hosius to Commendone dated Heilsberg, September n, 1564, 
in the Graziani Archives, Citta di Castello. In the consistory 
of October 6, 1564, Pius IV. gave great praise to the King of 
Poland for his acceptance of the decrees of the Council. *Acta 
consist, card. Gambarae, 40013 (Corsini Library, Rome). 
Cf. RAYNALDUS, 1564, n. 45. 


appeared two royal edicts, which, only partially it is true, met 
the wishes of Commendone. The one set people on their 
guard against the new doctrines, while the other banished all 
foreign religious innovators. 1 The discredited Bernardino 
Ochino did not wait for their publication, but left Cracow at 
the beginning of September, 1564. 2 

The acceptance of the decrees by the king was not enough, 
as Commendone very quickly realized, to give them the force 
of law in Poland ; the nuncio therefore set to work to obtain 
their acceptance by the Diet as well. At a personal interview 
he prevailed upon the Bishop of Lemberg to take the carrying 
out of the decrees in hand. 3 Commendone extended his 
journey through the Polish kingdom as far as Podolia, his 
efforts everywhere being directed to the abolition of eccle 
siastical abuses. 4 Since the end of the year he had again been 
occupied with the renewed danger of a national council, against 
which he worked upon the king, as well as in other ways, 
wherever he had an opportunity. 5 In the Diet which was 
opened in January, 1565, at Petrikau, the religious innovators 
strove with all their power for the holding of such a council. 6 
This danger was indeed averted, but the Diet decided upon the 
liberation of the nobles from ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 7 By 

1 See ZAKRZEWSKI, 271 ; ZIVIER, Neuere Geschicte Polens, L, 
Gotha, 1915, 748 seq. 

2 See the "report of Commendone dated Lemberg, September 9, 
1564 (Graziani Archives, Citta di Castello), which BENRATH, 
Ochino, 335, amplifies. 

3 Cf. ZIVIER, I., 756 seq. Particulars of the attitude of the 
Polish clergy towards the Tridentine decrees and their promul 
gation in Poland in Archiv fiir kathol. Kirchenrecht, XXII. 
(1869), 84 seq. 

4 See the *reports of Commendone of May 19, October 7, and 
November 12, 1564 (Graziani Archives, Citta di Castello). 

6 See the ""reports of Commendone of December 23, 1564, and 
January 2 and 8, 1565, ibid. 

6 See the *reports of Commendone of January 23 and 24, 1565, 

f Cf. ZIVIER, I., 759 seq. 


calling attention to the disturbances in France, Commendone 
was successful in inducing even many persons of Protestant 
leanings to have no further desire for a national council. 1 

This danger seemed hardly to have been averted when a 
new one arose. The plan of divorcing himself from his wife, 
the Archduchess Catherine of Austria, who gave him no 
prospect of issue, was taking a stronger and stronger hold 
upon the king. The validity of his marriage was to be con 
tested on the ground that Catherine was the sister of the king s 
first wife. A dispensation from this impediment, however, 
had been granted by the Pope, and it could hardly be supposed, 
therefore, that Pius IV. would consent to a separation. 2 The 
innovators now called upon the king to cause his divorce to be 
declared by a national council ; they had already fixed upon a 
future queen in the daughter of Radziwill, the leader of the 
Lithuanian Protestants. If Sigismund Augustus had fallen 
in with these plans, there would have been a repetition in 
Poland of what had been seen in England under Henry VIII. 
Fortunately this extreme step was prevented, and this was in 
no small degree due to Commendone. 3 

The indefatigable nuncio had richly deserved the purple 
which was bestowed on him on March I2th, 1565. Always 
active on behalf of ecclesiastical affairs in Poland, he remained 
there until the end of the year, though when he left the king 
dom, in spite of all his successes, he was greatly troubled at 
heart for its future. Political anarchy was as rampant there 
as the religious controversy. 4 The anti-Trinitarians weie 

1 See the *report of Commendone of January 26, 1565 (Graziani 
Archives, Citta di Castello). 

2 See the letter from Borromeo to Commendone of March 3, 
1565, in THEINER, Monum. Pol., II., 716. 

3 See the *reports of Commendone of January 8, 30 and 31 ; 
February i, 4, 8, 12, 16, 19, 20, 26 and 28 ; March 2, 4, 15 and 23 ; 
April i and 10 ; and May 3, 1565, in the Graziani Archives, 
Citta di Castello. Cf. WIERZBOWSKI, Uchansciana, I., 125 seq.; 
EICHHORN, II., 241 seq.; WOTSCHKE, 212. 

4 Cf. the *report of Commendone of April 7, 1565 (Graziani 
Archives, Citta di Castello). 


spreading everywhere ; the question of the king s divorce as 
well as the untrustworthiness of Uchanski weie sources of 
grave danger. 1 Nevertheless Commendone could console 
himself with the thought that he had, during his sojourn in 
Poland, laid the foundations for a reform and a Catholic 
restoration by the acceptance of the Tridentine decrees which 
he had obtained from the king. 2 The carrying into effect 
of these, especially that against the accumulation of benefices, 
and that about the duty of residence, opened out, it is true, 
extraordinary difficulties, 3 but on the other hand Commendone 
had the joy of witnessing the beginnings of a renewal of eccle 
siastical life ; at the Easter of 1565 he was able to report as 
to the increasing frequentation of the holy sacraments, and 
the first signs of the return of many Protestants to the Church. 4 
In all his efforts for an ecclesiastical restoration, to which he 
continued to give his attention to the end, 5 no one stood more 
loyally by his side than Hosius. In August, 1565, they united 
in bringing their influence to bear on the diocesan synod of 
Heilsberg in favour of the carrying out of the Tridentine 

1 Cf. EHRENBERG, 164, 177. For the anxiety in Rome see 
the *report ot Carlo Stuerdo to the Duke of Parma, dated Rome, 
May 19, 1565 (State Archives, Naples, C. Fames., 763). 

2 Writers of the most various points of view are unanimous in 
recognizing the importance which attaches to Hosius and Com 
mendone in connection with the Catholic restoration in Poland. 
Cf. EICHHORN, II., 208 seqq.; ZuKOWie, II cardinale Hosio e la 
chiesa polacca, Petrograd, 1882 (in Russian) ; HIRSCH in Allgem. 
Deutsche Biographic, XIII., 182 seq.; SCHIEMANN, III., 325 seq.; 
LJUBOWICZ, Naczalo katoliczeskoj reakcii i upadok reformacii w 
Polszje (the beginnings of the Catholic reaction and the decline 
of the reformation in Poland ; see Histor. Zeitschrift, LXVIIL, 
175 seq., Warsaw, 1891) ; KORZENIOWSKI, 175 seqq.; Anzeiger 
der Krakauer Akademie, 1894, 221 ; WOTSCHKE, 209 seqq.; 
BAIN in Cambridge Mod. Hist., III., 83. 

3 Cf. the detailed *report of Commendone of June 3, 1565 
(Graziani Archives, Citta di Castello). 

4 See the *report of Commendone of April 25, 1565, ibid. 

5 In a *letter dated Posnaniae, October, 1565, he speaks of his 
attempts to establish a seminary, ibid. 


decrees. 1 It was due to both Cardinals that one of the most 
powerful instruments for the Catholic restoration, the Jesuits, 
turned their attention to the east. They immediately estab 
lished colleges at Braunsberg, Wilna, and Pultusk. The college 
at Braunsberg became the centre of the Catholic restoration 
in eastern and northern Europe. 2 

1 Cf. ETCHHORN, II., 169 seq. 

2 Pius IV. had already, in a brief of August 28, 1561, recom 
mended the introduction of the Jesuits to the Archbishop of 
Gnosen (see EHRENBERG, 93 seq.}. For the introduction of the 
Jesuits into Poland see POGIANI Epist., IV., 136 seq.; THEINER, 
Monum. Pol., II., 717, 719; THEINER, Schweden, II., 168 ; 
EICHHORN, II., 173 seqq.; KRASICKI, De Soc. lesu in Polonia 
primordia, Berlin, 1860 ; ZAKRZEWSKI, 269 ; CANISII Epist., IV., 
461 seq., 798 ; FIJALEK, Pierwsi Jezuici w Polsce (see Anzeiger 
der Krakauer Akademie, 1894, 226 seq.}. ZALESKI, Jezuici w 
Polsce, I., Lw6w, 1900. For Braunsberg see DUHR, I., 179 seq. 



THE crisis which the kingdom of France had to encounter 
was far more violent and dangerous than that in Poland. A 
victory of the new religious opinions there would have been 
of incalculably far-reaching importance for the whole of 

The premature death of Henry II. (July loth, 1559) brought 
about a decisive change in French affairs, and during the 
reigns of his sons, who were minors, the domestic dissensions 
in the kingdom grew more and more acute. In political as 
well as in religious matters grave disorders broke loose upon 
the kingdom. Calvinism, the adherents of which, in spite 
of the persecution of Henry II., were increasing in numbers, 1 
had, with its fundamental doctrine of predestination, and its 
pitiless separation of the elect and the lost, pierced deep into 
the heart of ancient France. 2 It had, moreover, entered into 
close alliance with the opposition party in politics. 

Under the first successor of Henry II., Francis II., who 
was only sixteen years of age, and who was weak in body as 
well as in mind, the reins of government fell into the hands 
of the Guise, of whom Francis, the bold and experienced 
soldier, and his diplomatic brother, the Cardinal, were the 
most important. Cardinal Charles Guise, that highly-gifted 
man, who had already received the purple at the age of twenty- 
three, had many high qualities, but also many grave faults. 
The youngest of the French Cardinals, he put the others to 
shame by his strictly ecclesiastical manner of life. In his 
diocese of Rheims he had devoted himself, above all, to the 

1 See Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 323 seqq. 

J See MARCKS in Histor. Zeitschrift, LXIL, 43. 



formation of a good clergy. His imposing presence, his 
knowledge of languages and his eloquence, aroused universal 
admiration, but all the more did his contemporaries blame his 
boundless ambition, his self-seeking character, and his greed 
of wealth and power. 1 The Guise knew well that the revolu 
tionary tendencies of the people had their origin in the religi 
ous innovations, 2 and they accordingly strove to keep the 
latter in dheck with as much rigour as the dead king. This 
made as many enemies for them as the unlimited power which 
the king allowed them, and the want of consideration with 
which they used it. Having only recently settled in France, 
they were looked upon as foreigners, a thing which added to 
the number of their opponents. All these malcontents, as 
the Venetian ambassador, Soriano, says, united themselves 
with the Huguenots, as the Calvinists in France were then 
called, so that they might attain their private aims under the 
guise of religion. 3 Among these malcontents, in addition to 
many of the nobles, were to be found the princes of the blood 
royal, to whom, according to the old French custom, belonged 
the first place in the councils of a king who was a minor, but 
who now found themselves put in the background and passed 

1 See G. Michiel in ALBERT, I., 3, 440 seq. Cf. GRATIANUS, 
De bello, 303 ; RANKE, FranzosischeGesch., I 2 ., ig^seq. BOUILLE 
(Hist, des dues de Guise, Paris, 1849), FORNERON (I., 86 seq.), 
and GUILLEMAIN (Le card, de Lorraine, Paris, 1847) are defective 
from the point of view of criticism in their accounts. SOLD AN, 
(I., 215) remarks that the Protestant partisan writings must be 
used with caution, as well as the panegyrics of contemporary and 
later authors ; but he himself has not been sufficiently careful in 
this respect. The same is true of PHILIPPSON (Westeuropa, II., 
97), who describes the Cardinal as a hypocrite " who was at 
bottom a complete infidel ! " A biography, complying with the 
requirements of modern science, of the Cardinal, who was a man 
of very complicated character, is still very much wanted. The 
publication by H. MOYSSET of the Lettres et papiers d etat du 
card. Ch. de Lorraine will provide the basis for such a biography. 

2 The opinion of Voss, Verhandlungen, 20. 

3 M. Soriano in ALBERI, I., 4, 131 ; cf. ibid., 155, 


over. Not a few of these important personages openly and 
unreservedly avowed themselves Calvinists, while others were 
at any rate strongly inclined to their opinions. 

Of the princes of the collateral line of Bourbon, the only 
one who remained true to the Church was Charles de Bourbon, 
who had been raised to the purple by Paul III. His elder 
brother, Antoine de Vendome, who was, through his wife, 
Jeanne d Albret, titular King of Navarre, but actually only 
in possession of Beam and Lower Navarre, was a man of weak 
character, who allowed himself to be guided by those about 
him. As his wife was a zealous adherent of the Huguenots, 
the latter co anted upon his support ; they were certain of 
that of his brother, Louis de Conde. This prince, who was 
as ambitious as he was cunning, was, despite his dissolute 
life and his love of pleasure, a man of great energy and resolu 
tion. Admiral Gaspard de Coligny must be described as an 
even more important personality ; his severe manner of life 
was in strong contrast to that of Conde, but he was in com 
plete accord with him in the matter of religion. 

The opposition party, both political and religious, which 
ascribed to the Catholic Guise all the abuses in the French 
kingdom, set on foot, in the spring of 1560, the conspiracy 
of Amboise, which aimed at the overthrow of the Guise, the 
abduction of the king, and at setting Conde at the head of 
the government, and thus establishing the predominance of 
Calvinism. Conde himself was the secret leader of the con 
spiracy, the ramifications of which stretched as far as England 
and Germany. 1 The Calvinists justified their action on the 
ground of political necessity. 2 The plot, however, was dis 
covered, and many of the conspirators were executed. Never 
theless, it did not fail to have an effect ; a certain weakening 
began to show itself in the hitherto unbending attitude of 
the Guise ; they allowed the appointment as chancellor of 
Michel de L Hopital, the leader of the so-called political 
Catholics, who were pursuing the phantom of compromise 

1 See RUBLE, II., 140 seq.; MARCKS, Coligny, 362. 

2 See PLATSHOFF, Theorie, 50, 


(July 3oth, 1560), while they also made further concessions, 
which were interpreted by their enemies as signs of fear, and 
which they therefore hailed with ridicule. 1 Thus the courage 
and the pretensions of the hitherto persecuted Calvinists 
began to revive, and they began to lift up their heads in 
many different places. As early as the summer of 1560 a 
close observer reported to Rome that heresy was steadily 
spreading in the provinces, because so little resistance was 
made to it. At Rouen nocturnal battles in the streets be 
tween the Catholics and Huguenots were not uncommon, while 
at Orleans, Poitiers and in other towns the Catholics showed 
themselves so timid that they scarcely dared to make 
complaint. 2 

Pius IV., who had since May been anxious about the turn 
of affairs in France, 3 sought vainly to remedy them by nomi 
nating, on June I3th, 1560, Cardinal Tournon as Grand In 
quisitor for France, with the power of proceeding against the 
heretics even without the assistance of the local bishops. 
Fully realizing that the principal cause of the religious schism 
lay in the disorders among the clergy, he, at the same time, 
proposed to restore discipline among the French ecclesiastics 
by the appointment as legates of the two Cardinals, Tournon 
and Guise. 4 But this measure came too late. Many of the 

*Cf. RUBLE, II., 317 seq. ; SOLDAN, I., 346 seq. ; RANKE, 
Franzosische Gesch., I 2 ., 207; MARK, Calvin und die Wider- 
standsbewegung in Frankreich, Dresden, 1902, 66. For M. de 
L Hopital see the special works of TAILLANDIER (Paris, 1861), 
VILLEMAIN (Paris, 1874), GEUER (Leipzig, 1877), DUPRE-LASALE 
(Paris, 1875 and 1899,) ATKINSON (London, 1899), AMPOUX 
(Paris, 1900). 

2 See Epist. P. Broeti, 139. Cf. DEJARDINS, III., 419 seqq.; 
MARCKS, Coligny, 372 seq. 

3 Cf. the *reporfc of Mula dated Rome, May 25, 1560 (Papal 
Secret Archives). 

4 See RAYN ALDUS, 1560, n. 31 seq., and 36. Cf. Voss, Verhand- 
lungen, 62, for the mission of Cardinal Armagnac to save Antoine 
de Navarre and his wife from apostasy, and for the protection 
of Avignon. Cf. RUBLE, II., 371 seq., 378 ; TAMIZEY DE LAROQUE, 
Lettres du card. d Armagnac in the Rev. Hist., II., 517 seq. 


bishops who had been nominated by the court party were 
tainted by the corruption of the times, and were quite unfit 
to take steps against the abuses among the lower clergy. 
Even the regular clergy had in various ways degenerated, 
while the new order of the Jesuits, which was so full of vigour, 
was not allowed into France. 1 It can therefore be no matter 
for surprise that, among the secular clergy, both the higher 
and the lower, as well as in the monasteries, there were to be 
found many secret Calvinists, who were held back from open 
apostasy only by the consideration of their benefices and the 
fear of punishment. Even several of the bishops, such as Jean 
de Montluc of Valence, Jean de Saint-Gelais of Uzes, and 
Caraccioli of Troyes, as well as even Cardinal Odet de Chatil- 
lon, Bishop of Beauvais, were followers of the new doctrines. 
The common people, as Giovanni Michiel bears witness, still 
remained loyally firm in their old faith, but on the other hand, 
the upper classes, and especially the nobles, were greatly 
tainted by the new religious opinions, and many only went 
to mass for the sake of appearances or out of fear. 2 

The religious situation in France became even more threat 
ening when the government took up an antagonistic attitude 
towards the Holy See by reason of its policy with regard to 
the Council. Undeterred by the repeated assurances of 
Pius IV. that the ecumenical Council would very soon be con 
voked, the French Council of State projected the holding of 
a special assembly of the French prelates, which looked only 
too like a national council. Even good Catholics, discontented 
at the long suspension of the Council of Trent, gave their 
support to these proposals, which were the outcome of that 
Gallican spirit, which had for so long filled the Curia with 
anxiety. In spite of all the assurances to the contrary on the 
part of the French government, Rome saw in this assembly 
of the prelates, a national council, which would in all proba 
bility lead to schism. 3 In the case of the ambitious Cardinal 
Guise they feared that he was aiming at the dignity of French 

1 Cf. Vol. XIII. of this work, p. 203 seqq., and Vol. XIV., p. 325. 

2 See Relazione di Francia in ALBERT, I., 3, 426. 

3 See Vol. XV. of this work, p. 184. 


patriarch. 1 How far his conduct was influenced by the idea 
of a national church, which would be incompatible with the 
unity of the universal Church, must remain an open question ; 
at anyrate it was a strange and suspicious circumstance that 
both he and the untrustworthy chancellor, de L Hopital, were 
promoting a national council. The Venetian ambassador, 
Michele Soriano, has expressed the opinion that Guise only 
wished to throw dust in the eyes of the innovators by this plan 
of a national council. 2 Whatever the real objects of the 
Cardinal may have been, 3 his conduct with regard to the 
question of the Council had very disastrous consequences. 
Even though in November he changed his attitude, and threw 
over the national council, his policy had so encouraged the 
Huguenots that in those places where they were strongest 
they persecuted the Catholics and drove them from their 
churches. 4 They even threatened Avignon itself. Conde 
then planned a fresh conspiracy for the overthrow of the 
Guise, but this too was discovered and led to the imprisonment 
and condemnation of the prince. His execution was on the 
point of being carried into effect when the death of Francis II., 
on December 5th, 1560, completely changed the situa- 

1 See DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 349 ; SUSTA, I., 183. 

2 See ALBERT, I., 4, 132. 

3 RANKE (Franzosische Gesch., I 2 ., 211) does not trust Soriano, 
and thinks that the Cardinal " merely from ill-will and to some, 
extent of necessity " agreed to the " convocation of the deliberative 
assemolies." MARCKS, Coligny, 386, is of the same opinion. 
DEMBINSKI, in his dissertation upon the relations of France with 
the Holy See during the reign of Francis II. (see Extrait du 
Bulletin de 1 Acad. des Sciences de Cracovie, February, 1890) has 
paid detailed attention to the attitude of Cardinal Guise towards 
the Holy See, but he has not been able quite to clear up the 
mystery. DEMBEI^SKI takes as his authority the correspondence 
of the French ambassador in Rome, Babou de la Bourdaisiere, 
Bishop of Angouleme (see *F. franc. 16038, and V. Colbert 343, 
in the Bibl. Nat. Paris ; the edition published at Rheims in 1859 
is incomplete and often incorrect). Cf. also the correspondence 
between Morone and Guise in EHSES, VIII., 139 seq., 189 seq. 

4 See PHILIPPSON in Flathes Weltgeschicte, VII., 363. 


tion. 1 Once more a boy ascended the throne, the ten year old 
Charles IX., but the helm of the state passed into the by no 
means strong hands of the Queen-Mother, Catherine de 

This remarkable woman made an impression upon the 
history of France which was as deep as it was unfortunate. 
She possessed all the good qualities and all the weaknesses 
of her family. Gifted, a lover of the arts and of pomp, and 
filled with an indefatigable energy, her conduct was always 
dominated by that uneasy, cautious Medici prudence which 
was so characteristic of her great-uncle, Leo X. Like that 
Pope, to whom she bore a strong personal resemblance, 
Catherine was extremely irresolute, and at the same time 
very timid and superstitious. A faithful disciple of Machia- 
velli, and a past mistress of untruthfulness, she did not shrink 
from the employment of the very worst means in order to 
maintain her supremacy. It has with reason been said of 
her that her subtlety consisted only in the constantly changing 
use of trifling measures and self-seeking intrigues. It was 
vain to seek for any strength in her, who was capable of 
changing her mind three times in a single day. She always 
preferred half-measures. Externally she acted for the most 
part as a Catholic, but the differences of religion did not really 
affect her mind at all. How far she was under the sceptical 
influence of her compatriot, Pietro Strozzi, would be difficult 
to say, but it is beyond doubt that she always subordinated, 
and without the least scruple, questions of religion to political 
considerations. In face of the dangers which threatened 
France from the fanaticism of the Huguenots and the am 
bition of the Guise, the regent, caring only for honour and 
power, and looked upon by her subjects as a foreigner, hoped 
best to maintain her supremacy by a policy of preserving a 

1 See RUBLE, II., 326 seq., 360 seq., 413 seq., 425 seq. The 
news of the death of Francis II., which raised the hopes of the 
Calvinists (see MARCKS, Coligny, 422), cannot only have reached 
Rome on December 18, as SICKEL (Konzil, 153) maintains, 
because Pius IV. sent his condolences to Charles IX. as early as 
December 14 ; see RAYNALDUS, n. 83, 1560. 


balance between the parties, following first one and then the 
opposite course, one day, as Aubigne says, pouring oil into 
the fire of the party feuds, and the next day water, aiming 
always at never allowing either of the opposing forces to 
secure a decisive advantage, using one against the other, and 
in this way ruling them both. 1 

The new government began by a reaction against the former 
despotism of the Guise, who now leaned more strongly than 
before upon the strict Catholic party. Conde was pardoned, 
Navarre received again the office of Lieutenant-General, and 
Coligny his former dignities. The Calvinists drew great ad 
vantages from the changed state of affairs. As early as the 
end of January, 1561, in spite of the protests of the nuncio, 
Gualterio, 2 they obtained such concessions as the suspension 
of all judicial proceedings in matters of religion, and the 
abrogation of penalties already inflicted. After the appoint 
ment of Navarre to the office of Lieutenant-General of the 
kingdom, they thought that they could look upon themselves 
as masters of the country districts. Numerous preachers 
flocked into France from Geneva, who were allowed without 
interference to attack and flout the Catholic religion in Paris 
and other cities. 3 Very soon they even made their appearance 
at the royal court. Coligny brought a preacher with him to 

1 AUBIGNE, Hist. Univ., 1626, I., 141. For the personality of 
Catherine de Medici see, among contemporary writers, especially 
the report of the Venetian ambassadors Giov. Capello (i554) 
in ALBERI, I., 2, 280, Giov. Michiel (1561), ibid., I., 3, 433 seq., 
Mich. Soriano (1562) ibid, I., 4, 143 seq. Giov. Correro (1569), 
ibid, 202 seq. Cf. BASCHET, Dipl. Venet., 460 seqq., 511 seqq.; 
SOLDAN, I., 385 seq.; RANKE, Franzosische Gesch., I 2 ., 305 seq.; 
V. 3 , 81 seq.; SEGESSER, I., 54 seq.; RUBLE, III., 34 seq.; 175; 
SCHOTT in Zeitschr. fiir allgem. Gesch., IV. (1887), 537 seq.; 
MARCKS, Bayonne, p. ix, xiii, 7 seq. , n ; DEFRANCE, Catherine de 
Medicis. Ses astrologues et ses magiciens-envouteurs, Paris, 1911. 

2 Cf. RUBLE, III., 36 ; SUSTA, I., 171. 

8 The deterioration in the state of affairs appears among other 
things in the reports of the Jesuit Broet to Lainez : see Epist. 
P. Broeti, 158 seq., 166 seq., 170 seq., 172. 


Fontaine bleau, and Catherine suffered this ; she even one 
fine day accompanied the young king and her other children 
to a sermon of this innovator. The nuncio tried to make a 
protest, but was not granted an audience. 1 In view of the 
danger of the apostasy of the royal house Francis de Guise 
and Montmorency put aside their former enmity and were 
joined by the Marshal de Saint- Andre. At Easter, April 6th, 
1561, these three men formed themselves into a league known 
as the Triumvirate. In consequence of this Catherine drew 
even nearer to the Calvinist party, who were still further 
encouraged in their activities by an edict of toleration on 
April i Qth. With growing indignation Gualterio observed 
the behaviour of the government, dictated as it was by weak 
ness and fear. His reports to Rome, though quite in accord 
ance with the truth, were described on the part of the French 
as being too pessimistic, and consequently the position of the 
nuncio became more and more difficult. It became altogether 
intolerable when Pius IV. shrank from taking the strong course 
of action against the French government which Gualterio 
recommended. The diplomatic Pope feared an open break 
with France, principally because this would have left him 
completely at the mercy of the arrogance of the Spanish king, 
which was already so galling. It was not by severity, but 
rather by mildness that the people in question were to be won 
over. Taking into consideration the vacillating character 
of Catherine de Medici and of Navarre, it appeared to him 
that such a course of action offered the best chance of a change 
of French religious policy in favour of the French Catholics. 
In May, 1561, the recall of Gualterio and his replacement by 
Prospero Santa Croce, Bishop of Cisamus, was decided upon. 2 
Pius IV. was in no small degree confirmed in this cautious 
policy by the behaviour of Navarre, who adapted his religious 
attitude to his political aims. While Francis II. was still 

1 See RUBLE, III., 69. 

2 See SUSTA, I., 31. 187, 189 seq., 191 seq. For the correspondence 
of the nuncio Gualterio with the secret secretariate see SUSTA, I., 
Ixii., seq. Constant has undertaken to deal with the French 
nunciature under Pius IV. 



alive, the titular king of Navarre had sent to Rome, in the 
person of Pierre d Albret, an envoy to pay homage to the 
Pope, and thus obtain recognition as a sovereign prince. On 
account of the opposition of the Spaniards the Pope had long 
deferred this recognition, but at length, on December I4th, 
1560, he had received the obedientia of the King of Navarre 
at a public consistory in the Sala Regia. 1 It would appear 
that very little had been known in France about this occur 
rence. Navarre was able to retain his popularity with the 
Huguenots all the more easily because he was secretly assist 
ing their aims. He made such far-reaching promises to the 
Queen of England that Elizabeth looked upon him as a sure 
ally. But at the approach of Easter the fickle prince retired 
to a monastery, and during Holy Week publicly received 
Communion, taking good care that his Catholic behaviour 
was reported to Rome by the nuncio. 2 At the same time 
he sent the skilful Pierre d Albret back to the Curia, hoping 
that he would be received by Pius IV. as the permanent 
ambassador of Navarre, which would have involved a recogni 
tion on the part of the Pope of his claims to that kingdom. 
When, at the end of April, d Albret arrived in the Eternal 
City, he found that, in consequence of a strong protest lodged 
by Juan de Ayala in the name of Philip II. against the con 
sistory of December I4th, 1560, the situation had been en 
tirely changed, and that Pius IV. had been forced to a skilful 
diplomatic volte-face. While it was hinted that the Pope 
intended to refrain from mixing himself up in this difficult 
question, an excuse was found for sending d Albret back 
to France. He was told to hold oat hopes to his master that 
a better opportunity would be found, and at the same time 
to pave the way in France for the sending of a Cardinal 
legate. 3 

It seemed to the Pope that the man best suited for this 

1 Cf. BONDONUS, 539 ; RAYNALDUS, 1560, n. 85 ; RUBLE, III., 
44 seq. 

2 See RUBLE, III., 42 seq., 46, 130. Cf. HEIDENHAIN, Unions- 
politik Philipps von Hessen, 181 ; SUSTA, I., 190. 

3 See SUSTA, L, 190 seq. Cf. RUBLE, III., 47. 


difficult mission would be Cardinal Ippolito d Este. 1 This 
prince of the Church, who was as ambitious as he was wealthy, 
had, as the uncle of the Duke of Guise, and the cousin of the 
widowed Duchess Renee, been for many years on the best of 
terms with the kingdom of France, where he held many 
ecclesiastical benefices. The builder of the famous Villa 
d Este at Tivoli was among the most brilliant figures in the 
College of Cardinals, and held an altogether exceptional 
position there. 2 An enthusiastic patron of the arts and of 
science, the son of Lucre zia Borgia was at the same time a 
diplomat of great ability, who was, moreover, intimately 
acquainted with French affairs. He fully shared the affection 
of his house for France, and in the last conclave had been the 
principal candidate of the then all-powerful Guise, 3 though 
he was now on the side of those who had control of the govern 
ment, Catherine de Medici and the King of Navarre. For 
this reason, as well as on account of the popularity which he 
enjoyed with the French people, he was in a quite exceptional 
way fitted for the mission now intended for him. 4 As soon as 
Este had declared his readiness to undertake the task, which, 
in view of the ever-increasing confusion in the state of 
affairs in France, bristled with difficulties, Pius IV. burned 
with impatience to put his plan into execution. Even 
before the arrival of d Albret in France, 5 he had already, 

1 1 found the first notification that Este had been chosen for a 
mission to France in a *despatch from the Florentine envoys of 
March 5, 1561 (State Archives, Florence, Medic., 3281). 

2 C/. concerning him Vol. XL of this work, p. 183, n. 2. See 
also A. BAUMGARTNER, Gesch. der Weltlit., V., 267. 

8 See Vol. XV. of this work, p. 8. 

* See the note drawn up on the basis of Este s memorandum in 
the State Archives, Modena, in SUSTA, I., 191 For Este s 
influence in France see G. Michiel in ALBRI, L, 3, 451 seq.; for 
his position in Rome, ibid., II. , 4, 143. 

5 See the *letter of Arco, May 31, 1561 (Secret State Archives, 
Vienna), and that of Cardinal Gonzaga of May 31, 1561, in SUSTA, 
L, 196. An *Avviso di Roma of May 31, 1561, reports : " al 
though he was taken ill on the 27, after the consistory, the Pope 
nevertheless, though still in bed, held a congregation on the 29, 
concerning Este s mission (Urb. 1039, p. 270 b, Vatican Library). 


on June 2nd, 1561, appointed Este as legate de latere. 1 
The departure of Este, however, was delayed, partly on 
account of the necessary preparations, for he wished to make 
his appearance with the greatest possible pomp, and partly 
because it was necessary to wait for the consent of the French 
government. Instead of this there arrived, in the last week 
of June, a report from Gualterio of the I4th of that month, 
containing the news of the assembly of the French prelates 
which had been convoked for July 2Oth. Although the French 
government did not fail to send soothing assurances, the 
terrifying picture of a national council took possession of the 
imagination of Pius IV. He was convinced that the reasons 
alleged for this assembly, namely the preliminary discussions 
about the ecumenical Council, and the consideration of the 
liquidation of the debts of the crown, were merely a pretext. 
On June 26th Gualterio was charged to do all in his power 
to have the assembly postponed, at anyrate until the arrival 
of Este ; if he could not succeed in doing this, he was to 
prevent any steps being taken in the assembly to the injury 
of the Catholic religion. 2 In a consistory on June 27th the 
report of the French nuncio was read, and the conclusion was 
arrived at that there was no definite reason for supposing 
that a national council was intended. 3 Nevertheless the 

1 *Die lunae 2. Iimii 1561 fuit consistorium secret um in aula 
Constantini : ... Descendit postea S. S tas ad res Galliae et 
pluribus rationibus ostendit, in quo malo statu reperirentur, 
dixi que quod pro honore Dei ac suo officio, ad quod etiam prin- 
cipes christiani earn hortati fuerant, decreverat mittere legatum 
a latere suo ad illud regnum direxisseque oculus atque mentem 
in rev. dom. Ippolitum cardinalem Ferrariensem, virum gravem, 
probum ac prudentem illusque regni principibus gratum eumque 
de omnium rev. dominorum cardinalium consensu legatum ad 
eas partes deputavit. Acta consist, card. Gambarae (Corsini 
Library, Rome, 40 G 13). Cf. BONDONUS, 541 ; SUSTA, I., 
IQ5, J 97 " * Report of Fr. Tonina of June 4, 1561 (Gonzaga Archives 

z Cf. SUSTA, I., 38 seq., 203, 215. 

3 See *Acta consist, card. Gambarae, 40 G 13 (Corsini 
Library, Rome). 


departure of Este was hurried forward. He received the 
legatine cross on June 27th, and left the Eternal City on 
July 2nd. 1 His retinue was as splendid as that of a prince 
of the Church in the golden age of the Renaissance. His suite 
numbered more than 400 knights, while his own company of 
musicians added to the ostentatious display. Este also took 
with him several bishops, and the best canonists and theolo 
gians in the Curia, among whom, by the special order of the 
Pope, was the General of the Jesuits, Lainez. 2 Thus the 
representatives of Catholic reform had their place in the 
mission. Advisers of wide experience and of strict ecclesiasti 
cal views seemed all the more necessary in view of the difficulty 
of the problems which had to be dealt with in France, and also 
because the Cardinal, a true son of the Renaissance, was much 
more likely to be influenced by political than by religious 

Cardinal Este travelled slowly by way of Siena, first of all 
to Florence, which he reached on July I3th, and where he had 
a conference with Cosimo I. ; nor was the remainder of his 
journey at all hurried. 3 The reason for this was not only 

1 The accounts of Bondonus are erroneous (p. 542). Cf. 
STEINHERZ, I., 267, 274, and the *letter of Fr. Tonina, dated 
Rome, July 2, 1561 : " Este only started to-day because couriers 
arrived from France " (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). The brief to 
Charles IX., dated June 28, concerning the mission of Este in 
RAYNALDUS, 1561, n. 84 ; ibid., n. 85, the briefs to A. de Navarre 
and Conde. The brief to Duke Alfonso of June 28, 1561, in the 
State Archives, Modena, that to Renee of Ferrara in FONTANA, 
II., 562 seq. * Similar briefs to the King and the grandees of 
France, dated June 28, 1561, in Min. brev. Arm. 44, t. n, n. 
154-77 (Papal Secret Archives). See also CIBRARIO, Lettere 
59 seq. 

2 Cf. FOUQUERAY, I., 249. For Este s retinue see the *Avviso 
di Roma of July 2, 1561 (Urb. 1039, Vatican Library), as well 
as SUSTA, I., 41 seq., 63, 234, and Corpo dipl. Portug., IX., 281 seq. 
To the *report of Tonina of July 2, 1561, there is attached a list 
of those who accompanied Este on his journey (Gonzaga Archives, 

3 See SUSTA, I., 38, 216, 219, 221. 


the great heat of the summer, but also the realization of the 
difficulty of his mission, and the hope that the complicated 
state of affairs in France would soon become clearer. 

The object of Este s mission was to protect the interests 
of the Catholic Church in France, so seriously threatened 
by the weakness of the French government, by skilful diplo 
macy, and by winning over those in authority. His immediate 
object was to win over the influential but vacillating Kmg of 
Navarre, to keep Catherine from making any further con 
cessions to. the innovators, and to guide her attempts to meet 
the religious crisis in the legitimate direction of an ecumenical 
Council, at the same time being very careful in all this to 
avoid anything which might lead to an open rupture. Even 
during the course of his journey the Cardinal showed himself 
as moderate and conciliatory as possible. He tried to show 
the King of Navarre into what an abyss of difficulties he would 
throw France by blindly pursuing his own private ends, and 
of what little value, in comparison with the power of the 
Catholics, were the hopes which he entertained of the help of 
England and Germany. 1 

The news which came from France at first was not very 
encouraging. The government persisted in its projected 
assembly of the prelates, and even openly declared that the 
leaders of the Calvinists must be invited to be present ! But 
even if the optimistic view of the situation which, on the whole, 
had so far been held in the Curia had to be modified, fresh 
hopes were roused when news came of the edict of July, which 
contained several provisions favourable to the Catholics. It 
is true that there was little reason for satisfaction as far as the 
carrying out of these provisions was concerned, 2 and Gualterio 
reported that the government, in contradiction to the assur 
ances which they had hitherto given, intended to allow the 

1 See LE LABOUREUK, Mem. de Castelnau, I., 729 ; SUSTA, I., 
Ixxix, 216, 296. C/. RUBLE, III., 164. 

2 See SICKEL, Konzil, 210 ; SUSTA, I., 66 seq., 217 seq., 220 seq. 
For the Edict of July, dated the n, but only issued on the 30, 
see SOLDAN, I., 429 seq.; RUBLE, III., 103 seq.; HEIDENHAIN, 
Unionspolitik, 313. 


discussion of the religious question at the assembly of the 
prelates. At the same time, Catherine de Medici and the 
King of Navarre, to whom it was of great importance to 
maintain the appearance of being good Catholics, were very 
lavish with every kind of promise. They sent friendly letters 
to the Pope, with the result that he again became reassured. 1 
There was, however, but little justification for this, for the 
edict of July remained a dead letter. 2 On August T7th the 
Calvinist, Hugo Languet, wrote in triumph concerning it 
from Paris that the Papists had done nothing more by its 
means than to irritate the people they wished to be suppressed, 
so that these now did openly what they had before been 
accustomed to do in secret ; in almost all the cities except 
Paris, sermons were preached, churches seized, images des 
troyed and relics of the saints burned. 3 

In order to appease the strict Catholics, and especially the 
professors of the Sorbonne, who even in May had strongly 
dissuaded the king from the idea of a national council, the 
following were stated to be the objects of the assembly of 
prelates : a preliminary consultation about the ecumenical 
Council, the appointment of the delegates who were to attend 
it, and the discussion of important matters relating to the 
Gallican church and the kingdom. That the government 
had other intentions, however, was shown by the edict of 
July 25th, which assured safe-conduct to Poissy to all French 
subjects, and therefore to the Calvinists as well, who wished 
to bring forward any matter concerning religion. 4 There, at 
Poissy, close to St. Germain-en-Laye, where the court was 
in residence, the clergy were to assemble, while the nobles 
and the third estate were to meet at the neighbouring city 
of Pontoise. Only a part of the bishops went to Poissy, 
among them Odet de Chatillon, Montluc, Saint-Gelais and 
Caraccioli, who were all more or less openly inclined to Cal- 

1 See SICKEL, loc. cit., 208 seq., SUSTA, I., 230, 234. 

2 See RUBLE, TIL, 103 seq.; SOLDAN, L, 433 seq. 

3 LANGUETI Epist., II., 130, 137. SOLDAN, L, 433 seq. 

* See D ARGENTRE. II., 192 seq.; SOLDAN, L, 437 ; Fou- 
QUERAY, L, 250 seq. 


vinism. 1 To these the Cardinals who were present formed a 
counterpoise, namely, Tournon, Armagnac and Guise. The 
assembly was opened on July 3ist by the chancellor, L Hopital, 
who in the name of the king openly described it as a national 
council, which, far better than a general council, composed 
for the most part of foreigners, would be able, by means of 
" a reform of morals and doctrine " to afford relief to the 
difficulties of France. Speaking of the adherents of the new 
religion, he declared that it was the duty of the assembly 
not to condemn them in advance, but to welcome them 
kindly. 2 

While the nuncio Gualterio was making bitter complaints 
to Catherine and Navarre concerning this line of action, which 
was altogether at variance with that hitherto followed by the 
government, 3 the majority of the bishops, under the leader 
ship of Cardinal Tournon, had taken up a definite stand. They 
repudiated the idea of a national council, and declared that, 
always supposing that there would be no discussion of doctrine, 
they could only take part in the deliberations concerning the 
removal of abuses ; they were quite determined to maintain 
the obedience which they owed to the Pope. 

To this double-dealing, so dear to the French government, 
with regard to the assembly of prelates at Poissy, were added 
other acts which were calculated more and more to destroy 
the hopes which the sanguine temperament of Pius IV. led 
him to entertain. In spite of her attempts to conceal the 
real objects of her policy, Catherine de Medici found that the 
true state of affairs was nearly always reported to Rome. 
This could only have been done by the nuncio Gualterio, and 
since the Spanish ambassador, Chantonnay, was also in the 
habit of sending frequent dispatches to Rome, she suspected 
a secret understanding between them. In order to discover 

1 Cf. DESJARDINS, III. 464 ; A. PASCAL, Antonio Caracciolo, 
Vescovo di Troyes, Roma, 1915. 

2 See SOLD AN, I., 439 ; Lettres de Cath. de Medicis, I., 604. 

3 See the report of Gualterio of August 7, 1561, in SUSTA, I., 
227 seq. 


this she caused the diplomatic dispatches to be intercepted 
and opened ! Pius IV. loudly complained in consistory at 
this shameful proceeding, and threatened that he would no 
longer receive the French ambassador unless the stolen corres 
pondence was restored. 1 Soon more bad news arrived from 
France ; at Pontoise the nobles and the third estate had 
demanded the cessation of all persecution of the Calvinists, 
and the holding of a national council, and, in order to meet 
the financial crisis, they gave their support to a confiscation 
of ecclesiastical revenues. 2 The government showed itself 
well disposed towards this last proposal, and, moreover, per 
sisted in its plan of abolishing the first-fruits, while it made 
difficulties about sending any prelates to Trent. In this way 
the assembly at Poissy developed into a religious conference 
with the Calvinists. Preachers, for the most part apostate 
Catholics, arrived from all parts ; on August 23rd, Theodore 
Beza, Calvin s principal colleague, arrived at the court of 
St. Germain-en-Laye, and the reception accorded to him 
could not have been more ceremonious had he been the Pope 
himself. He was at once allowed to preach at the house of 
Conde, and in the evening Navarre took him to Catherine 
de Medici and Charles IX., who received him very graciously. 
During the days that followed, Beza, as well as others, were 
allowed to preach at the royal palace before a large gathering 
of the nobility, as well as to hold a Calvinist service. All this 
was the cause of great anxiety to the Spanish ambassador, 
who felt as though he were at Geneva. 3 

It can hardly be wondered at, therefore, that in spite of the 
protests of the Sorbonne a religious conference was opened 
under the presidency of the young king on September 9th in 

1 Pius IV., who wished to avoid a rupture with France " at 
any cost," allowed himself to be pacified more easily than Spain, 
so that Charles IX. was obliged to disavow his mother s action. 
See RUBLE, III., 163 seq., 165 seq.; SUSTA, I., 239. 

2 See SOLDAN, I.. 464 seq. 

3 See the reports of Chantonnay in Mem. de Conde, II., 16 seq. 
Cf. SOLDAN, I., 470. 


the refectory of the Dominicans at Poissy. 1 Beza spoke first 
in the name of the twelve Calvinist preachers. He began with 
an emotional prayer, and then proceeded to explain, at first 
with great circumspection, the new system of doctrine. It was 
only when he came to the doctrine of the Eucharist that he 
came out in his true colours by saying : " The Body of Christ 
is as far removed from the consecrated bread as heaven is from 
earth." At these words loud murmurings broke out through 
all the assembly ; even the adherents of the new religion were 
covered with confusion, while Coligny covered his face with 
his hands, and Cardinal Tournon turned to the queen, crying 
out excitedly : "Is it possible that Your Majesty can tolerate 
such a blasphemy ? " 2 His appeal was in vain, and Catherine 
allowed Beza to finish his discourse. After Tournon had 
demanded a copy of the speech,. so that he might frame his 
reply, the assembly broke up in great excitement. 

At the second sitting, on September i6th, Cardinal Guise 
refuted the doctrines set forth by Beza in a brilliant speech, 
calling attention with great skill to the contradictions between 
the Calvinists and the adherents of the Augsburg Confession. 
The Cardinal s speech was couched in extremely measured 
terms, so that it could not fail to make a great impression on 
the moderate party, though as far as the matter was concerned 
he held firmly to the Catholic standpoint. On September 
I2th the government had succeeded in obtaining from the 
Parliament of Paris the registration of the great edict of 

1 Cf. Me"m. de Conde, II., 490 seq.; BOSSUET, Hist, des variat., 
IX., 90 seq.; HSNRY, II., 497 seq.; BAUM, Beza, II., 147 seqq.; 
SOLD AN, I., 467 seqq. MOURGUES (Strasbourg, 1859) ; KLIPFFEL 
(Paris, 1867) RUBLE, III., 154 seq.; 176 seq., and Mem. de la 
Soc. de 1 hist. de Paris, XVI. (1890), i seq.; GOTHEIN, 594 seq.; 
LAVISSE, Hist, de France, VI., i, 47 seq.; FOUQUERAY, I., 251 seq. 
See also the letter of Polanco in Precis hist., 1889, 71 seq.; THOMP 
SON, 106 seq. See also HAUSER, Sources, III., 172. 

2 For this incident cf. the reports of the envoys of Florence 
(DESJARDINS, III., 462), and Venice (RUBLE, III., 180), as well as 
the Avviso da Parigi di 13 Ottobre, 1561, in Riv. Cristiana, III., 


Orleans of January 3ist, the edict which abolished the 
power of the Pope in the conferring of French benefices, 
and forbade the sending of first-fruits and other monies 
to Rome. 1 

Such was the state of affairs when at last, on September 
1 9th, Cardinal Este, sent to act as mediator, arrived at St. 
Germain-en-Laye. 2 His reception at the court was courteous, 
but cold. Although Este had, through an intermediary, given 
tranquillizing assurances on the subject of his faculties, the 
chancellor, L Hopital, refused to give them the customary 
sanction by affixing to them the seal of state, on the ground 
that they were a violation of the edict of Orleans. Este did 
not allow himself to be intimidated by this set-back. .Like 
the skilled diplomatist he was he sought to attain his ends 
by studious moderation. Making a virtue of necessity, he so 
completely shut his eyes to the dangerous policy of Catherine 
and the questionable behaviour of Navarre as to draw down 
upon himself the strong blame of the strict Catholics, who from 
the first had regarded him with distrust and dislike. Cardinals 
Guise and Tournon likewise feared a curtailment of their 
own powers. All the party of the Guise, as well as the Spanish 
ambassador, were strongly opposed to the policy of moderation 
pursued in Rome, which endangered their own aims. They, 
as well as the nuncio Gualterio, were convinced that Catholic 
interests could only be safeguarded by the fall of the existing 
government, the want of sincerity and double-dealing of which 
filled them with indignation. 3 Their remonstrances, in con 
junction with the bad impression given by recent events, had 
at last caused Pius IV. himself to hesitate, and at the end of 

i See RUBLE, III., 153 seq. SUSTA, I., 88. 

a See RUBLE, III., 184 ; SUSTA, 1., 295. For * he correspondence 
of Este with the secret secretariate see the exhaustive account 
given by SUSTA, I., Ixxix., seq.. to which I have nothing to add 
except that the Chigi Library in Rome (Codex M I 5) contains 
a copy of the manuscript in the State Archives, Modena, which, 
like that in the Royal Library, Berlin (*Inf. polit.. 39), only goes 
down to July 28, 1562. 

a See SUSTA, I., 209, 231, 232-4, 296. 


October he seemed to have decided to abandon the conciliatory 
policy which he had so far followed. 1 

Cardinal Este, however, did not allow himself to be deterred 
from his policy of moderation either by the changed attitude 
of the Pope or by the difficulties which he met with in France. 
He seemed to be willing to overlook everything : the equivocal 
behaviour of Navarre, the religious conference, and the toler 
ation of Calvinism. From the first he had made it clear that 
he had come to show mildness, and to use gentle remedies 
against the disease. 2 In order to gain ground, his first care 
was to obtain the recognition of his faculties, by which the 
edict of Orleans would be completely set aside. 3 While the 
disentanglement of this problem was long delayed, he very 
soon secured the abandonment of the publicity which had 
hitherto been accorded to the religious conference ; hence 
forward the king took no further part in its sittings. The 
very ambiguous formula concerning the Holy Eucharist 
adopted on September 2gth gave great pleasure at the court, 
but was rejected by the Sorbonne. On October 9th the 
assembly of the prelates at Poissy proposed the banishment 
of all the preachers who should refuse to subscribe to the 
Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist ; on the other hand they 
took upon themselves for the next sixteen years the payment 
of seventeen million livres for the liquidation of the debts 
of the state. On the strength of this the government promised 
to maintain the Catholic religion throughout the kingdom. 4 

1 See SUSTA, I., 88 sea. Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 225. For the 
state of opinion in the Curia see an *Avviso di Roma, Oct. 
n, 1561 (Urb. 1033, p. 302b, Vatican Library), and a *letter 
from Caligari to Commendone dated Rome, October n, 1561, 
in which he says : " Le cose di Francia vanno malissimo et quasi 
qjii si hanno per disperate : admettono gl heresiarchi non solo in 
colloquio ma alle prediche publiche. Ancora non s intende che 
la gionta del logato habbia operata cosa di momento." (Lett, di 
princ., XXIII. 76, Papal Secret Archives.). 

2 See HILLIGER, Katharina, 310 seq. 

3 See RUBLE, III., 206, 212 ; SUSTA, I., 298. 

4 See SOLDAN, L, 500 seq., 512 seq. RUBLE, III., 186 seq. Cf. 
also CAUCHIE, Les assemblies du clerge en France, in the Revue 
des sciences philos. et theol., II., 74-95. 


At the same time it approved, at any rate in appearance, the 
sending of delegates to the Council of Trent. This was due, 
not only to the pressure of Este, but also to the threatening 
attitude of Philip II., who in the middle of October caused 
Catherine to be informed that this was the last time he would 
urge her to give up her policy of toleration of the Calvinists, 
and to enter upon one of stern repression ; in that case she 
could count upon his assistance, but otherwise he must give 
it to those who were asking for it in order to preserve the old 
religion, since the protestantizing of France exposed both the 
Netherlands and Spain to danger. 1 

Catherine, who feared nothing so much as intervention on 
the part of Spain, was much alarmed at this, and on October 
i8th, she issued orders for the restitution of all the churches 
which had been seized by the Calvinists, put an end to the 
negotiations for a reunion, which were already hopeless, and 
solemnly promised that she would cause a good number of 
prelates, as well as a special envoy from herself, to go to the 
Council. 2 At last Este, in spite of the refusal of L Hopital, 
obtained the recognition of his faculties by their being stamped 
with the seal of state. 3 It was not until he had won this success 
that he sent a report to the Pope by Abbot Niquet. Pius IV., 
however, trusted the turn which affairs had taken in France 
all the less since the French ambassador had presented a 
petition for the granting of the chalice to the laity. 4 Niquet, 
who was eagerly awaited in Rome, did not arrive until Novem 
ber I4th, 1561. In the name of Este he begged for the con 
tinuation of the policy so far adopted, and of the negotiations 
to win over Navarre ; at the same time he advised that such 
concessions as that of the chalice for the laity should be 
granted, since force would be of no avail at all. The detailed 
account which the representative of Este gave of the state 

1 See HILLIGER, Katharina, 251; SOLDAN, I., 518; RUBLE, 
III., 294 seq. SUSTA, I., 262-4. 

z See Mem. de Conde, II., 520 ; SOLDAN, I., 524 seq. SUSTA, I., 


3 See RUBLE, III., 213 ; Lettres de Cath. de Medicis, I., 247. 

* See LE PLAT, IV., 727 seq. SUSTA, I., 95- 


of affairs in France held out but little prospect of any change 
for the better. 1 The mildness and conciliatory attitude of the 
government only roused the Calvinists to still greater hatred 
of the " idolators," as they called the Catholics. It seemed 
as though they intended to make it clear to the latter that 
they would not be satisfied with any mere toleration, but that 
they aimed at the complete overthrow of the Catholic religion 
in France. It was just at this moment that the acts of violence 
against the Catholics in many different parts of the country 
were multiplied. In many cities they were insulted and ill- 
treated, their images and relics burned, here and there churches 
were destroyed, priests and monks driven out, and sometimes 
even killed, or, as in Normandy, cruelly mutilated by the 
cutting oft of their ears. The worst outrages occurred in the 
southern provinces, where in several places the Catholic 
worship was altogether suppressed. 2 The new religion had 
begun to penetrate even into the Papal territory at Car- 
pen tras. 3 

All this was bound to confirm Pius IV. in his conviction that 
the conciliatory policy of the past must be abandoned. 
Although he had so far defended Cardinal Este against the 
attacks of the Guise and the Spaniards, he now began to lend 
an ear to the accusations brought against him. 4 The dis 
pleasure of the Pope was still further increased by news 

1 See SUSTA, I., 99, 298. Cf. also the "report of Serristori dated 
Rome, November 14, 1561 (State Archives, Florence). The 
letter from Este to Pius IV. taken by Niquet, of November 4, 
1561, in SALA, III, 99 seq. 

2 See DOLLINGER, Kirchengesch., 531 seq. ; DE MEAUX, 88 ; 
137 seq. For the cutting off of ears see the Paris report of October 
13, 1561, published from the State Archives, Modena, in Riv. 
Cristiana, III., 363. 

3 See the *report of Fr. Tonina dated Rome, November 19, 
1561 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). The Pope sent money for 
the defence of the Papal territory against a surprise attack on the 
part of the Huguenots ; see SUSTA, I., 333. 

4 See SUSTA, I., 332 ; cf. PALLAVICINI, 15, 14, 8. 


which arrived on November 29th, which caused such con 
sternation on all sides that no less a person than Morone 
demanded the recall of Este . 1 In his zeal to win over Navarre, 
Este, despite the protests of Tournon, allowed himself to be 
induced, at the invitation of Jeanne d Albert and Catherine 
de Medici, to be present at the sermon of a Calvinist, an 
apostate Franciscan ! 2 It availed the Cardinal very little 
that, in a detailed report, and with all the ingenuity of a true 
son of the Renaissance, he represented his conduct as an 
innocent act of courtesy to the two queens, who in return for 
his compliance had, together with Navarre, Conde and other 
Huguenots, assisted at the Catholic sermon preached by the 
court chaplain. 3 

When, at the beginning of 1562, Niquet left Rome, he was 
given a letter for Este which made it perfectly clear that 
Pius IV. did not intend to allow questions of religion to be 
treated from the political point of view. It was altogether 
unfitting, it stated, 4 that the Cardinal legate should have 
assisted at the sermon in question : very few people could be 
aware that this step had been taken with the best intentions 
and with forethought, while the scandal given was patent to 
all Catholics in France as well as abroad ; such a thing must 
never take place again. Then the Pope went on in his letter 
to make bitter complaints of the behaviour of the French 
government, which put into force all the edicts issued in 
favour of the Huguenots, while those in favour of the Catholics 
remained a dead letter. He also complained of the demand 

1 Cf. SUSTA, IV., 373. 

2 This event is minutely described by Chantonnay ("letter to 
Philip II., November 13, 1561, National Archives, Paris ; used 
by RUBLE, III., 213 seq.}, and by the envoy of Frederick the 
Pious (KLUCKHOHN, Bricfe, II., 221 ; cf. DELABORDE, Les protest. 
a la cour de St. Germain, 70). Cf. also SUSTA, I., 112, 307 ; II., 

373; IV., 37- 

8 See the letters of Este to Borromeo of November 12 to 15, 

1561, in SUSTA, I., 303 seq. 

* Pius IV., to Este, dated Rome, the beginning of January, 

1562, in SUSTA, I., 329 seq. 


for the chalice for the laity which had been made by the 
French ambassador in Rome, of the delay in sending repre 
sentatives to the Council of Trent, and of the edict of Orleans. 
As long as the latter remained in force, the Pope must consider 
the concordat and all indults as being in abeyance. The legate 
must make it clear to the King of Navarre that his wishes could 
only be met on the condition of his taking up a definitely 
Catholic position. As to the line of action to be followed in the 
future, Pius IV. did not conceal the fact that it no longer seemed 
wise to him to adopt or follow a policy of conciliation. The 
legate must make strong protests, without, however, coming 
to an actual breach. An autograph postscript added to the 
letter was highly significant ; this left it open to Este to resign 
his legation under certain circumstances ; in such a case he 
was to leave everything in the hands of Cardinal Tournon and 
the new nuncio, Santa Croce, who had been in France since 
October. 1 

As the Pope again later on repeatedly showed his displeasure 
at the conduct of Este, the latter sought in every possible way 
to justify himself. In doing this he especially blamed the 
Catholics who thronged about the Guise, from whom the 
Church had little to hope ; on the other hand he took con 
siderable pains to excuse the behaviour of Catherine. If 
the disturbances in France had been of a purely religious 
nature, so Este maintained, another line of action might have 
been advisable, but he had become more and more convinced 
that religion was only made a pretext for the furtherance of 
private ends ; therefore the situation did not seem to him 
to be so hopeless as his enemies made out. It would be easy 
to precipitate a rupture, but nothing but mildness would do 

1 The reports of the nunciature of Santa Croce are published 
only very partially, and not always accurately, by AYMON, 
Synodes nationaux (La Haye, 1710), and CIMBER-DANJON, Arch, 
curieuses, I., 6. The Roman collections of codices contain many 
others, especially the Papal Secret Archives, *Bibl. Pia 133, and 
*Nunziat. div. 32 ; see SUSTA, I., Ixxvi seq. See ibid, for the 
" Proposte " ; cf. II., 383, for the peculiar position of Santa Croce 
as nuncio during the legation of Este. 


any good. It was only in this way that he had been able to 
entertain any hopes of obtaining the recognition of his faculties, 
and of the sending of representatives to Trent. 1 

It was quite true that Este could boast of success in these 
two matters. 2 He was also destined to be successful in winning 
over Navarre and in obtaining the abrogation of the pro 
hibition of the first-fruits, but in the thing that mattered most, 
the attitude of Catherine towards the Calvinists, things 
remained as they were. The queen held firm to her plan of 
maintaining peace by making concessions to the innovators, 
and of retaining the supreme power for herself by acting as 
mediator between the parties. Este assisted her in this, and 
hoped to win over Pius IV. to the concessions, while Catherine 
was determined to carry them out unaided by means of a 
religious conference. 3 That she had no idea of keeping the 
promise which she had made to the clergy of maintaining the 
Catholic religion was shown by an edict published on January 
24th, 1562, in the framing of which L Hopital plainly 
showed his conviction that in course of time the old and 
the new religions would be able to exist side by side in 

The January edict gave the Calvinists the free right to 
practise their religion outside the cities, and only imposed 
on them the restitution of the churches which they had taken 
from the Catholics, while it enjoined on both parties to refrain 

1 See SUSTA, I., 322 seq., 327. Cf. PALLAVICINI, 15, 14, 8 seq. 
Two letters in which Este defends his conduct to the Bishop of 
Caserta are printed in Lett, di princ., III., 256b. 

2 For the participation in the Council see Vol. XV. of this 
work, chap. VIII. The question of his faculties, about which the 
Paris Parliament specially made difficulties, was only settled in 
February, 1562, by a royal grant of approbation (cf. Lettres de 
Cath. de Medicis, I., 268 ; RUBLE, III., 220 ; SUSTA, I., 321, 
324, 326; II., 397). Pius IV. exhorted him to use his faculties 
with prudence, advice which Este complied with ; see SUSTA, I., 
330 ; II., 396. 

3 See the excellent estimate of the policy of Catherine made by 
SUSTA, I., 384. 

VOL. XVI. 12 


from any acts of violence. 1 This edict was of " immense 
importance " for by it " the union of Church and State was 
broken." 2 The immediate consequence of this new concession 
was the outbreak of the first civil and religious war, which was 
to be followed by seven others. Even though at first the 
leaders of the Huguenots clamoured for the observance of the 
January edict, they had no intention of being contented with 
that. In this, as Beza clearly stated, they saw merely the 
first-fruits of victory ; 3 their conception of the old Church, 
as an idolatrous institution, implied its complete destruction. 
For the present, however, by far the greater part of the 
nation clung to the faith of their fathers, 4 which was so closely 
interwoven with the life and customs of the people. For 
centuries their ancestors, in noble emulation, had proclaimed 
in every part of the kingdom their piety, their wealth and their 
artistic sense by the erection of so many magnificent churches, 
and by adorning them within and without with the most 
splendid creations of sculpture and painting. These works 
of art symbolized for the people the doctrines of Christianity, 
and lifted them up above the miseries of earth to a better 
world. They formed at the same time their most cherished 
memorials, because almost every family of importance, and 
every confraternity and guild had provided the means for 

1 See Mem. de Conde, III., 8 seq. Cf. SOLDAN, I., 565 seq. 
BAUER in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, XL, 437 seq. RUBLE, IV., 
17. To both Cardinal Este and Santa Croce Catherine had 
represented the contents of the edict as representing a victory 
for Catholicism (see BALUZE-MANSI, IV., 380 ; Arch, cur., VI.). 
When Santa Croce made complaints about it, Catherine replied 
with vague evasions. See SUSTA, II., 378 seq. 

a The opinion of RANKE, Franzosische Gesch., I*, 235, 239. 
Cf. GEUER, Die Kirchenpolitik des M. de 1 Hospital, 38 ; PHTLIPP- 
SON in Flathes Weltgeschichte, IV., 366. 

3 See BAUM, Beza, II., App. 156. Calvin was of opinion that 
so long as the freedom promised in the edict remained in force 
the Papacy would be shaken to pieces. See HENRY, III., 523 ; 
SOLDAN, I., 568 seq. 

4 See RANKE, Franzosische Gesch., I., * 240. Cf. PALANDRI, 100. 


some artistic foundation, or for an altar, a statue, or a stained 
glass window. 

It is easy to imagine what excitement and bitterness was 
caused when the followers of Calvin, ignoring all prohibitions, 
sacked, destroyed and pulled down churches and convents 
wherever they could ! Nor did they stop at that. Their 
minds inflamed with the fantastic idea that they were called 
upon to adopt the role of the prophets of the Old Testament 
when face to face with pagan idolatry, they proceeded to 
attack the persons of the Catholics, wounding and even killing 
them. During the autumn of 1561 at Montpellier all the sixty 
churches and convents in the city were sacked, and 150 priests 
and monks put to the sword. A similar attack on the churches 
and convents was made at Nimes in December ; the statues 
and relics were burned on a pyre in front of the cathedral, and 
after dancing round it, crying out that they would have neither 
mass nor idols nor idolators, the new religionists set themselves 
to pillage the churches in the neighbourhood. At Montauban 
the Poor Clares especially suffered ; their convent was burned 
and the defenceless sisters were exposed half naked to the 
insults of the people, who advised them to get married. In 
some cities the Catholic worship was entirely suppressed. The 
preachers of the new religion incited their followers to these 
acts of violence, and deliberately planned them in their 
assemblies. For example the reformed consistory at Castres 
ordered, in December, 1561, the captain of the city forcibly 
to take everyone who appeared in the streets to the sermons ; 
in carrying out this order several priests were dragged from the 
very altar and taken there ; nor did twenty inmates of the 
convent of the Poor Clares fare any better. 1 It was while 
the discussions concerning the edict of January were in pro 
gress that news came from Beza s city that after the terrible 
destruction of the cathedral there the Huguenots had forcibly 

1 See VAISSETTE, Hist, de Languedoc, V., 584 seq., 591 seq.; 
DOLLINGER, Kirchengesch., 532 seq. ; ANQUETIL, 126 seq. Cf. 
PICOT, I., 10 seq. GAUDENTIUS, no seq. ; DE MEAUX, 85 ; MERKI, 
389 seq. 


driven away all the priests. 1 Not content with destroying 
the objects of veneration, such as the images, here and there, 
as for example at Montpellier, their fury was directed against 
the dead, whose graves were profaned, merely out of hatred 
for the religion which they had professed. 2 If it is said that 
all this was merely by way of reprisal, and that the Calvinists 
only gave as they had received, it may be replied that while 
this is no doubt true in some cases, as for example at Car 
cassonne, where the Catholics took a bloody revenge, 3 in the 
majority of cases it was the Catholics who were the injured 
party, and the victims of a system which aimed at the abolition 
of " idolatry " at all costs. The very fact that there were 
still many Catholics was looked upon by the Huguenots as a 
challenge. The violence of the Huguenots, which grew even 
more extreme during the course of the religious wars could 
only astonish those who were still wavering. What sort of 
religion, people asked themselves, can these men have, who 
profess to understand the Gospel better than anyone else ? 
Where has Christ ordered men to despoil their neighbour and 
shed his blood? 4 The thing which above all caused bitter 
feeling was the Huguenots lust for sacrilege, which not only 
destroyed images, crucifixes and relics, but led to the most 
revolting crimes against what the Catholics regarded as their 
most holy and precious possession, the Holy Eucharist. At 
Nimes, Paris, and elsewhere, after the breaking open of the 
tabernacles, the sacred host was burned and trampled under 
foot. 5 

The behaviour of the Huguenots after the appearance of the 
edict of January could not but increase the exasperation of 

1 Cf. BAUM, Beza, II., App. 156. In January, 1562, in Gascony 
a priest could not be found within 40 miles. POLENZ, II., 278 seq. 

2 See VAISSETTE,V., 586. 

3 See DE MEAUX, 86 seq. 

4 RANKE (Papste, II., 8 41) quotes these words without giving 
their source : they are to be found in the report of Correro in 
ALBERT, I., 4, 186. 

5 See VAISSETTE, V., 592. Cf. DOLLINGER, loc. cit., 533 seq. 
DEJARDINS, III., 454, 469 ; POLENZ, II., 88. 


the Catholics, and confirm them in their opposition to that 
enactment. 1 In the past the innovators had refused obedience 
to edicts which were unfavourable to them, but they now with 
all the more zeal insisted on a strict observance of the edict 
of January on the part of the Catholics, though they them 
selves paid no attention to the limitations which it imposed 
on them. As before they continued to hold their services, 
even in the cities, and as before they continued to allow them 
selves every kmd of act of violence. 2 That their aim was the 
total abolition of the Catholic Church was shown by the decision 
arrived at in a synod held by 70 preachers at Nimes in Febru 
ary, 1562, to destroy all the churches in the city and diocese, 
and to compel the Catholics to accept Calvinism. In con 
formity with. this decision, on February 23rd, all the priests 
who still remained were driven out, and the work of destroying 
the churches begun by the burning of the cathedral. 3 

The first signs of a definite Catholic reaction appeared in 
Paris, which had already become the true capital of France. 
The Duke of Guise repaired thither, at the invitation of no less 
a person than Navarre, who now fulfilled the hopes of Este, and 
trusting in the deceitful promises of Philip, openly joined the 
Catholic party. This man, whom the Huguenots had so long 
looked upon as their leader, now openly expressed himself in 
favour of the introduction of the Inquisition into France ! 4 

1 They were led in Rome to look for an improvement in the 
state of affairs from this opposition : see the *report of Carlo 
Stuerdo to the Duke of Parma, dated Rome, March n, 1562 
(State Archives, Naples. C. Fames. 763). 

2 See VAISSETTE, V., 594 ; SICKEL, Konzil, 261. 

3 See VAISSETTE, V., 596. 

4 See the report of Este of March 3, 1562, in SALA, III., 133. 
For the winning over of Navarre to the Catholic side, which 
confirmed Este s conviction as to the ultimate success of his 
procedure, see RUBLE, III., 311 seq. SUSTA, II., 374, 390, 396, 
419, 430. On March 15, 1562, Pius IV. expressed to the legate 
his satisfaction, and encouraged him to remain in France (see 
SUSTA, II., 413 seq.}. The Papal brief to Navarre of April 23, 
in RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 141. 


On March 1st at Vassy in Champagne, the followers of Guise 
came to blows with the Huguenots of that place, and sixty 
of the latter were killed. Guise had not ordered this butchery, 
and it is open to doubt to what extent the Calvinists, who, in 
defiance of the January edict, continued to hold their services 
at Vassy, had provoked the conflict. 1 This chance encounter 
was disastrous because, in the existing state of excitement, 
it was looked upon as intentional, and, as De Thou says, gave, 
as it were, the signal for the outbreak of civil and religious war. 
The attempt of Conde to seize the king failed ; the Guise 
anticipated him by persuading the still hesitating Queen- 
Mother by prayers and threats to return with her son to Paris. 
Conde thereupon hastened to Orleans and called upon the 
whole Calvinist body to rise up in arms. In a short time the 
whole country was under arms, and the civil war had begun. 
The Huguenots had asked their preachers whether it was 
lawful for them to take up arms, and these decided that " it 
was not only lawful, but their duty to do so, in order to free 
the king and the queen from the power of the Guise, to defend 
religion, and to uphold the edicts which had been so solemnly 
promulgated." 2 It might have been thought from this that 
the whole aim of the Huguenots was the defence of the edict 
of January ; there can, however, be no question of this. Beza 
and Calvin thought that their work would only be completed 
and assured when the ancient Church in France had been 

1 That Guise was quite innocent in this affair is clear from the 
trustworthy report in EBELING, Archivalische Beitrage zur Gesch. 
Frankreichs, Leipzig, 1872, n. 4, to the importance of which 
LOSSEN has called attention in the Theol. Litt.-Blatt of Bonn, 
1873, 473, at the same time showing that RANKE (Franzosische 
Gesch., I. 2 , 245) attaches too much importance to the incident. 
Cf. also Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, II., 510 seq. ; XL, 499 seq. ; 
DE MEAUX, 87. See further, SUSTA, II., 405 ; Hist. Zeitschrift, 
C., 678 ; THOMPSON, 134 seq. 

2 See RANKE, Franzosische Gesch., I. 8 , 250; DOLLINGER, 
Ktrchengesch., 535 seqq. Cf. CARDAUNS, Die Lehre vom Wider- 
standsrecht des Volkes gegen die rechtmassige Obrigkeit im 
Luthertuin und im Calvinismus des 16. Jahrh., Bonn, 1903, 54. 


destroyed. Any toleration of what the Huguenots called 
idolatry was contrary to their principles ; they believed that 
they were called by God to purge the country from " the sons 
of Satan." But the Catholics were just as resolved to defend 
their religion against the threatened destruction, and their 
sanctuaries from pillage and fire. 1 Both parties knew well 
that everything was at stake. They therefore fought with a 
bitterness and cruelty that is unparalleled. 2 Catherine was 
forced against her will to take part in the war, but if she took 
up her position on the side of the Catholics this was principally 
in order that she might keep the management of that party 
in her own hands. 3 

The civil and religious war in France soon took on an 
international character, for upon its result depended the 
religious future of western Europe. The Huguenots obtained 
help from Protestant Germany and England, and the Catholics 
from Spain and the Pope. Queen Elizabeth only gave her 
help after the Huguenots had traitorously 4 given over Le 
Havre, the finest port in the north of France, into her hands. 
Philip II. and the Pope wished to send troops, but Catherine 
preferred help in money. 

After the arrival in Rome (May loth) of the Abbot Niquet 
with the request of the French government for help in the war 
against Conde , long negotiations followed as to the amount 
to be paid, and the manner and conditions of the payment 
which Pius IV. imposed. 5 The result, which was communi 
cated to the Cardinals on May 27th, was as follows : the Pope, 
in spite of his serious financial straits, was prepared to make a 
gift of 100,000 scudi, and to make a loan of a similar sum. 

i See SISMONDI, XIII., 446 ; XIV., i ; Katholik, 1863, II., 248 ; 
BAUER in Stimmen aus Maria-Laach, II., 513 seq. 

* Cf. ANQUETIL, 124 seq., 151 seq. For the misdeeds of Fabr. 
Serbelloni, the commandant of Avignon, see POLENZ, III., 199 seq. 

8 See HILLIGER, Katharina, 255. 

* Cf. the strong words of POLENZ, II., 156. See further MARCH- 
AND in Rev. des quest, histor., LXXVII. (1905), IO1 se( l- 

5 See SICKEL, Konzil, 308 seq. Cf. SUSTA, II., 435, -444 se( l-> 

450, 455- 


25,000 scudi were to be paid at once, and the remainder 
within three months, but only after the fulfilment of 
the following conditions : the withdrawal of all the edicts 
in favour of the Huguenots, as well as of the anti-papal 
ordinances of that of Orleans, the banishment from the court 
of all open or secret Calvinists, and especially of the chancellor, 
L Hopital, the protection of Avignon, and the maintenance 
of the concordats and the Papal rights in France. 1 

The task of securing the acceptance of these conditions, 
which were based upon a well-founded distrust of Catherine s 
sincerity, devolved upon Cardinal Este. As the war was 
urgent, Cardinal Guise insisted upon the immediate payment 
of the 25,000 scudi, which were of more importance in view of 
the pressing need of money, than would be a million later 
on. Este yielded to his insistance and paid the first instal 
ment without securing the fulfilment of the conditions imposed 
by Pius IV. 2 The Cardinal also gave 2000 scudi of his own, 
which he had with difficulty borrowed at 10 per cent. 3 

While the Pope held out to the French government the 
hope of financial aid he also had in view, on account of the 
critical state of affairs in France, another plan, which had been 
suggested to him by Cosimo I. In a letter of May nth, 
Cosimo proposed, in order to save France, the formation of 
a great Catholic league, in which Spain and the Italian states, 
as well as the Pope, should join. Pius IV., who had already 
had some such idea in his mind, eagerly welcomed the proposal, 
but he found little inclination, either at Madrid or Venice, 
to enter upon so costly and far-reaching an undertaking. 4 

1 See SUSTA, II., 463 seq. 

2 See his report of July 5, 1562, in BALUZE-MANSI, IV., 425 seq., 
and SUSTA, II., 493, 500. 

3 See his report of May 8, 1562, in BALUZE-MANSI, IV., 409. 

4 See SICKEL, Konzil, 307 seq., 340, and especially SUSTA, II., 
480 seq., also 169, 195 seq., 198, 228, 512, 521 seq. Cf. ibid., I., 
261 seq., for similar projects in the autumn of 1561. How much 
inclined the impulsive character of Pius IV. was to quick and 
decisive measures was to be seen even at the beginning of his 
pontificate, when he took into consideration the plan of the Duke 


The plan of sending auxiliary troops to France, with which 
Cardinal Altemps was to have been sent as legate, was ship 
wrecked owing to the opposition of Catherine de Medici. 1 
It was no less painful for the Pope that he met with the gravest 
difficulties in securing the conditions which he had imposed 
on the French government in return for his financial aid. 
While Catherine at anyrate promised the withdrawal of the 
edict of Orleans, that is to say as far as the restoration of the 
first-fruits was concerned, she absolutely refused to dismiss 
the chancellor, who, she maintained, was a good Catholic. 
At the beginning of August, Philippe de Lenoncourt, Bishop 
of Auxerre, was sent to Rome to negotiate for less severe 
conditions, and since Este also expressed himself in favour 
of their mitigation, at the beginning of September Pius IV. 
consented to a partial alteration. The principal demands 
which he now made were : the suppression of the Huguenots, 
the restoration of the first-fruits, and the promotion of the 
Council. 2 The French government still hesitated to accept 
these terms, so that the Pope began to fear that he had been 
deceived. His determination to adhere to the above-men 
tioned demands hardened when the news came that it was 
the intention of the French to raise the question of the first- 
fruits at the Council, and that Catherine refused to forbid 
this. 3 On November 2ist, 1562, Cardinal Este had declared 
that the withdrawal of the clauses in the edict of Orleans 
which referred to the first fruits and preventions, was immin 
ent, but it was not until January, 1563, that he received the 
royal patent on the matter. In consequence of this Este 
handed over to the French government a bill of exchange for 

of Savoy of forming a league for the conquest of Geneva, only to 
abandon it in the following year. See SICKEL, loc. cit., 51 seq., 
175 seq. Venez. Depeschen, III., 182 seq. Cf. SOLDAN, I., 333. 

1 Cf. SUSTA, II., 195 seq. Again in the consistory of October 25, 
1564, Pius IV. lamented the rejection of his proposal ; see *Acta 
consist, card. Gambarae, 40 G 13 (Corsini Library, Rome). 

2 See SUSTA, II., 502, 516 seq., 520, 528 seq., 531 seq. 

3 See SUSTA, III., 94 seq., 113 seq., 420 seq., 454 seq., 463, 


40,000 scudi of the subsidy, 1 a course which was approved by 
the Pope, who had now made the single condition that if 
Catherine entered into any agreement with the Huguenots 
which was harmful to the Catholics, the money should not 
be paid. When the instructions to this effect, which are 
dated January I5th, were sent to Este, 2 Rome was in a state 
of jubilation over the defeat which the Guise, with the help 
of the Spaniards, had inflicted on the Huguenots on December 
igth, 1562, near Dreux. On January 3rd, 1563, a solemn 
mass of thanksgiving for this happy event was sung at S. 
Spirito. 3 Immediately afterwards Pius IV. sent letters to the 
principal French Catholics, in which he exhorted them to 
profit by the success which they had won. 4 

In the meantime Francis de Guise had commenced the 
seige of Orleans, which was the principal stronghold of the 
Huguenots. He expected by the capture of this city to 
paralyse the power of the enemy and to put an end to the 
terrible civil war. But while he was engaged upon this plan 
he was mortally wounded by a Huguenot assassin on February 
i8th, 1563. The leaders of the Huguenots loudly praised 
this crime. 5 Guise died a few days later, and his death was 

1 See GRISAR, Disput., I., 454 ; SUSTA, III., 480. For the two 
medals relating to the assistance given to France see BONANNI, I., 
285 seq., 288 seq. 

2 See SUSTA, IV., 480. 

3 See Bondonus, 544 (Bull. Vatic., III., 49 seq., Roma, 1752). 
SUSTA, III., 152 seq., 157, 165, 474 seq., 481, 483 seq. According 
to the report of Jules (in LE PLAT, V., 561) Pius IV. feared lest 
the victory might strengthen the opposition of the French bishops 
at Trent. The deciding factor at Dreux were the mercenary 
troops of the Catholic Swiss Cantons. See SEGESSER, I., 249. 
Cf. E. LENZ, Die Schlacht bei Dreux, Giessen, 1915. 

4 See RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 2. 

5 See PAULUS in Histor. Jahrb., XXVI., 190. RUBLE (L assas- 
sinat de Fr. Guise, Paris, 1898) pronounces against the opinion 
of MARCKS as to the culpability of Coligny (Hist. Zeitschrift, 
LXIL, 42 seq.). WHITEHEAD (Coligny, London, 1904) defends it. 
For MERKT, Coligny, 309 seq., 327 seq., see Liter. Rundschau, 1912, 
432 seq. Cf. also THOMPSON, 188 seq. 


an irreparable loss to the Catholics, 1 who were now without 
a leader, Marshal Saint-Andre, as well as Navarre, having 
died some time previously. 2 Montmorency was a prisoner, 
and Cardinal Guise was at the Council of Trent. Then 
Catherine, in spite of the threats and protests of Philip II., 3 
renewed her negotiations for a compromise ; the Prince of 
Conde she won over by the wiles and artifices of a lady of the 
court. 4 Under Catherine s influence, Conde and Montmor- 
morency, who had been set at liberty, concluded a treaty on 
March I2th, which was published on the igth by Charles IX. 
under the name of the edict of Amboise. According to this 
the Huguenot nobles received, besides a general amnesty, 
full liberty to practise their religion for themselves and their 
families, and to some extent for their subjects. Moreover, in 
cities where the Calvinist worship had been in use up to March 
gth, it was to be allowed to continue, and further, the reformed 
worship was to be allowed in one city in each administrative 
district, with the exception of Paris, and those places where 
the court was in residence. 5 

Nobody was satisfied with this new agreement except 
Catherine, who did not wish either of the rival parties to become 
too powerful, and whose object, before everything else, was to 
recover her own supremacy. Coligny and Beza looked upon 
the compact as a betrayal, and from the first would not accept 
it. In their opinion the concessions were too small, and they 
did not intend to be satisfied with anything less than equal 

1 For the grief of Pius IV., who caused a funeral service for 
Guise to be held in the Sistine Chapel, as though for an Emperor, 
see SUSTA, III., 281, 316. 

2 Navarre had died on November 18, 1562, as a Protestant, 
as many believed ; see RUBLE IV., 371 ; SOLDAN, II., 77 seq. 
Lettres de Cath. de Medicis, I., 436 ; SUSTA, III., 457 seq. 

3 See BAGUENAULT DE PUCHESSE in Rev. des quest, hist., XXV. 

(1879), 17 seq. 

4 See KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, I., 137 seq. 

5 See Mem. de Conde, IV... .311 seq. SOLDAN, II., 103 seq. 
D AUMALE, Les princes de Conde, I., 224 ; SEGESSER, I., 



rights. On the other hand, the concessions which had been 
made to their mortal enemies seemed to the Catholics to be too 
great. The Spanish king as well as the Pope saw nothing 
less than a violation of the league in such a compact of peace, 
as being inadmissible in principle. 1 Consequently Cardinal 
Este was not able to pay over to the French government the 
last instalment of the Papal subsidy. 2 With regard to the 
peace compact the Cardinal, in order to allay suspicion and 
anxiety, reported to Rome that Catherine and the leading 
Catholics had agreed to it only under the pressure of necessity, 
and against their will, and that he hoped, in a personal inter 
view, to be able to convince the Pope of the good dispositions 
of Catherine. He accordingly still recommended the greatest 
possible consideration towards the latest requests of the French 
government, which had reference in the first place to the 
dispensation for the Cardinal of Bourbon to give up the 
ecclesiastical state, by which Conde would be precluded 
from aU pretensions to be the first prince of the blood 
royal, and in the second place to the permission to sell 
ecclesiastical goods in order to relieve the extraordinary 
financial crisis. 3 

The conciliatory Cardinal legate had always been a thorn 
in the side of the Spaniards, but all their efforts to procure 
his recall failed before the opposition of Catherine, to whom 
such a man was very welcome. When, on April 22nd, 1563, 
Este started out on his often deferred journey home, this was 
entirely at his own wish. At the end of May he had an inter 
view at Ferrara with the Cardinal of Guise, which was of great 
importance for the furtherance of the Council. After a second 
conference at Florence with Cosimo I., he made his entry into 

1 See DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 500 ; MARCKS, Bayonne, 23 ; 
SUSTA, III., 316, 545, 554. Pius IV. expressed himself against the 
peace on March 31, 1563, at the first, but still indefinite, news, 
and afterwards more strongly on April 17, 1563 ; see *Acta 
consist, card. Gambarae, 40 G 13 (Corsini Library, Rome). 
Cf. also SICKEL, Konzil, 472. 

2 See SUSTA, III., 514, 523, 554. 

3 See SUSTA, III., 517 seq. 


Rome on June 26th, where he very soon made his influence 
felt. 1 

While Este was still in France, the Pope had taken decisive 
steps in a matter of great importance. It had been pointed 
out by a Venetian envoy that one of the chief causes of the 
spread of the new religious opinions was the fact that men 
who were more or less avowed followers of Calvinism were 
able, in consequence of the unscrupulous way in which the 
French government abused the privileges given to it by the 
concordat, to insinuate themselves into the most important 
offices, and even become bishops and abbots. 2 This betrayal 
of the Catholic Church by its natural protectors, the bishops, 
forced the Pope to take proceedings. His rights in this matter 
had once more recently been confirmed at the XHIth Session 
of the Council of Trent. 3 At the same time Pius IV. showed 
no undue haste in dealing with the matter. When reliable 
informants pointed out to him as being very suspicious the 
religious attitude of several ecclesiastical dignitaries of high 
rank, especially Cardinal Odet de Chatillon, the brother of 
Coligny, and Jean de Montluc, Bishop of Valence, he first 
asked for further detailed information, and even after he 
had received this he still delayed in summoning the accused 
before him, in which he was supported, not only by the easy 
going Cardinal Este, but also by the strict Cardinal Tournon, 
the Protector of the French Jesuits, who, in the July of 1561, 
was still advising him to delay. 4 

1 Cf. SUSTA, III., 7, 63, 120 seq., 368, 421 seq., 457> 47 6 se 4-> 4 8l > 
517, 55 ; IV -> l6 se 4-> 2 7 2 HILLIGER, Katharina, 312. Ac 
cording to the "report of Fr. Tonina of June 26, 1563, Este arrived 
the day before and made his entry on the 26 (Gonzaga Archives, 
Mantua) . 

2 See ALBERI, L, 4, 163. According to RANKE, Franzosische 
Gesch, V. 3 , 78, the report was from Michele Soriano. 

3 See the learned dissertation of DEGERT, Proces, 64. 

4 See SUSTA, I., 189, 209, 221, 225. For Cardinal Tournon, 
who died April 21, 1562, cf. Kirchenlexikon of Freiburg, XI. 2 , 
1908 seq. FOUQUERAY, L, passim. Rabelais had dedicated to 
Cardinal Chatillon the fourth book of his Pantagruel with its 


Intervention on the part of the Pope, however, was all the 
more necessary since the French government did not show the 
slightest disposition to take steps against the bishops who 
were thus unfaithful to their trust. It was, however, only 
when Cardinal Guise, in May, 1562, declared himself to be 
prepared to proceed with the accusation against those pre 
lates who openly supported heresy, that the Pope was able 
to take action. On May 25th he gave Cardinals Guise and 
Este the necessary powers, at the same time issuing six cita 
tions to appear before the Roman Inquisition. The Cardinals 
were to conduct the inquiry, though the Pope reserved the 
sentence to himself, or they might cause the citations to be 
delivered, and sent to Rome, in which case the conduct of the 
affair would pass into the hands of the Inquisition. Pius IV. 
would have preferred to have left the matter in the hands 
of Cardinal Guise alone, but the Cardinal legate, Este, wo did 
not suffer himself to be passed over. The latter, however, 
on account of the opposition of Queen Catherine, did not 
show any great haste, although there could no longer be any 
doubt as to the apostasy of Chatillon from the Church. Este 
had to be urged to execute the summons in September and 
November, 1562, and it was at the same time pointed out 
to him that the Pope was inexorable on this point, whether 
the queen gave her consent or not. A further delay occurred 
owing to the fact that in the first summons issued against 
Chatillon there was a technical error, which, in the opinion of 
the Inquisition, rendered it invalid. Accordingly, on Decem 
ber 8th, a second summons was sent to Este, with instructions 
to deliver it immediately, together with those issued against 
the other bishops, because complaints at the long delay in 
the proceedings were being made from all sides. This ex 
plains why it was only at the end of January, 1563 that the 
nuncio Santa Croce was able to send to Rome a formal notifica 
tion that the summons against Chatillon and the Bishop of 

attacks upon the Pope ; see BIRCH-HIRSCHFELD, Gesch. der 
franzos. Lit., I., 249. 


Troves had been delivered. 1 The Roman Inquisition then 
took the matter into its own hands. This tribunal had set 
on foot the most searching enquiries, which, in the case of 
Cardinal Chatillon, had made it clear that this disloyal prince 
of the Church had undoubtedly seceded to the Calvinists, 
whose doctrines he had disseminated in his diocese of Beauvais 
and wherever else he could. Chatillon had made no attempt 
to defend himself. Making 1 use of the existing legal forms, 
Pius IV., with the assent of all the Cardinals, deprived him 
of all his dignities and benefices in a consistory on March 2ist. 
This sentence was hurried forward because the Pope feared 
lest Michel de Seurre, who had been sent to Rome by Catherine 
to ask for the dispensation for Bourbon, and for permission 
to sell ecclesiastical property in France, should intercede for 
Chatillon. 2 

Pius IV. had no idea of limiting himself to these proceedings 
against Chatillon, and at the end of March he made it clear 
that it was his intention to deprive all the Huguenot ecclesi 
astics of their benefices. The Queen of Navarre was also 
declared to have forfeited her kingdom, 3 because she had tried 
to force upon it the acceptance of the new doctrines by means 
of threats of violence, such as the prohibition of public pro 
cessions under pain of death. 4 

In virtue of a special bull, dated April 7th, 1563, the Roman 
Inquisition, on the I3th of the same month, published, by 

1 See SUSTA II., 488 seq. ; III., 114, 367, 422, 457, 474, 4 8 seq. ; 
RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 40 ; MERLET, Le card, de Chatillon, 10. 
It was considered certain in Rome in the autumn of 1562 that 
Chatillon would be deposed ; see the *report of Carlo Stuerdo 
to the Duke of Parma dated Rome, October 3, 1562 (State Arch., 
Naples. C. Fames., 763). 

2 See in the report of Zufiiga of April 3, 1563, DSLLINGER, 
Beitrage, I., 499. Cf. RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 49, and Bull. Rom., 
VII., 247 seq. (bull of March 31) ; DEGERT, 64 seq. MERLET, 
lo*,. cit. 12 : SUSTA, III., 545, 555. 

3 See the report of Zufliga mentioned in preceding note. 

4 See the proofs from archives as to this in DUBERET, Le pro- 
testantisme en Beam, Paris, 1896. 


affixing it in the four principal places in the city, a procla 
mation citing eight French bishops to appear within six 
months before that tribunal to defend themselves against the 
charge of heresy, under pain of excommunication latae sen- 
tentiae and deprivation. The accused were Jean de Chaumont 
of Aix, Antonio Caracciolo of Troyes, Louis d Albret of Lescar, 
Claude Regin of Oloron, Jean de Montluc of Valence, Fran$ois 
de Noailles of Dax, Charles Guillart of Chartres, and Jean de 
Saint-Gelais of Uzes. 1 

Except in the cases of Noailles the accusation was fully 
justified. 2 Only one of the accused, Caracciolo, asked the 
nuncio for mercy, the rest, appealing to the liberties of the 
Gallican church, refused to appear before the Inquisition. 3 
The French government, which just at that moment had deeply 
offended the Pope by its arbitrary proceeding in the sale of 
church property, and by its equivocal attitude towards the 
Huguenot threat to Avignon, 4 now set a seal upon its hostile 
attitude by taking the part of the accused. It denied the right 
of the Pope to pronounce sentence in such causes at Rome ; 
thus, in the face of the Pope s condemnation, Chatillon had the 
effrontery during August to appear at Rouen in his Cardinal s 
dress. 5 

It was just at this moment that Catherine appointed 
Cardinal Guise to defend the Gallican liberties ; as soon as 
the rights of the crown were touched upon at Trent, he and all 
the French bishops were to leave the Council. 6 Catherine 
had felt the threat of proceedings against the Huguenot 
Queen of Navarre very deeply, since her deposition was bound 
to turn to the advantage of Spain. 7 The situation was thus 

1 See LADERCHI, 1566, n. 424 seq. ; DEGERT, 62 seq. The bull 
of April 7, 1563, in Bull. Rom., VII., 249 seq. 

2 See the definite proofs in DEGERT. 66-78. For J. de Montluc 
cf. also the too eulogistic work of REYNAUD (Paris, 1893). See 
also SAMARAN in Rev. Gascog., 1905. 

3 See DEGERT, 80 seq. 

* See SUSTA, IV., 470 seq., 474, 481 seq., 484 seq., 486. 

5 See MARCKS, Bayonne, 41 ; SUSTA, IV., 533 seq. 

6 Cf. Vol. XV. of this work, chapter X. 

7 See MARCKS, loc. cit., 42. 


very strained when the nuncio Santa Croce, a short time after 
Charles IX. had attained his majority at Rouen, went to 
Rome on August 22nd, 1563, to discuss the questions at issue 
between France and the Curia. Santa Croce took with him, 
in Catherine s name, a proposal for a meeting of the principal 
Catholic sovereigns under the presidency of the Pope. This 
proposal, which to all outward seeming was quite harmless, 
but which in reality contained the " quite unmistakeable 
threat " of action on the part of the secular power, was aimed 
at preventing the Curia from going on with the reform of the 
princes at Trent, and the punishment of the Queen of Navarre. 1 
Catherine, however, obtained just the contrary of what she 
wished ; the diplomatic skill of Pius IV. proved to be far 
superior to her own. The Pope received the proposal which 
the queen had made very cordially, and united it to his own 
earlier proposal of a league of the Catholic princes for the 
carrying out of the decrees of the Council, and the extirpation 
of heresy, and thus made it appear that France was calling 
the princes to take the field in defence of the Council and 
against heresy. 2 

After this diplomatic victory the Pope firmly and success 
fully worked for the conclusion of the Council, but he did not 
on that account lose sight of the punishment of the Queen of 
Navarre and the heietical French bishops. Catherine experi 
enced another diplomatic defeat when the envoy sent by her 
to Rome in October was refused an audience. It was very 
strange that she should have chosen for this office one of the 
accused bishops, Fran$ois de Noailles, who was the close friend 
of Chatillon. Noailles was instructed to ask for the approval 
of the sale of Church property, which had already been carried 
out in the most arbitrary way by the French government, 
and he was also to protest against the deposition of Jeanne 
d Albret and of Chatillon as being an infringement of the 
piivileges of the French kings, of the concordat, and of the 

1 See ibid., 42 seq., 315 seq. Cf. also SUSTA, IV., 239 seq., 253, 
266, 554 seq. 

2 See SOLDAN, II., 184 seq. MARCKS, he. cit. 43 seq. 

VOL. XVI. J 3 


liberties of the Gallican church, which enjoined that no French 
subject should be brought to judgment outside France. 1 
Pius IV. absolutely refused to receive Noailles, so that the latter 
had to remain for the time being in Venice. In the meantime 
Cardinal de la Bourdaisiere was doing his utmost in Rome 
to have the trial of the accused held in France. Cardinal 
Guise too, who was in Rome, used all his eloquence to make 
the Pope change his mind, 2 but Pius IV., who knew that the 
highest interests of the Church in France were at stake, 
remained firm. He continued to refuse to receive Noailles, 
and only waited for the departure of Cardinal Guise to take 
decisive steps. In a consistory on October 22nd, 1563, 3 after 
a statement as to the situation had been made by the Grand 
Inquisitor, Ghislieri, it was declared that all the seven bishops 
had refused to obey the summons, that some of them were 
notorious heretics, and the rest strongly suspected of heresy. 
Therefore the Pope, who twice spoke against the proposal 
for delay put forward by Bourdaisiere, pronounced sentence 
with the approval of all the Cardinals, namely deprivation of 
all their dignities and benefices in the case of all those who were 
proved to be heretics. It was left to the Inquisition to decide 
which of the bishops, as being only contumaces, had incurred 
the penalties threatened in the monitorium ; should they allow 
the year s grace now given them to pass without taking advan 
tage of it, then definite proceedings were to be taken against 
them, and the accusations against them taken as proved. 

On the same October 22nd Pius IV. caused a summons to be 
issued by the Inquisition, by which, on pain of losing all her 
possessions, Jeanne d Albret was cited to appear within six 
months before the Roman Inquisition to answer the accu- 

1 See Lettres de Cath. de Medicis, II., 417 seq. 

2 See Legaz. di Serristori, 391 ; DEGERT, 86. 

3 Cf. *Acta consist. Cam., IX., 88 (Consistorial Archives of the 
Vatican) and *Acta consist, card. Gambarae (Corsini Library, 
Rome, 40 G 13) as well as the ""instructions, first used by 
DEGERT (p. 87 seq.) of Cardinal Bourdaisiere to his secretary, sent 
to France and dated [Rome] October 30, 1563 (Archives de3 
affaires etrangers, Paris). 


sations made against her. 1 Cardinal Guise once more inter 
ceded with the Pope on behalf of Jeanne d Albret, Chatillon 
and the seven bishops, and sought to induce him to receive 
Noailles. The Pope s reply amounted to an absolute refusal, 2 
and showed how determined he was to do his duty by taking 
action against the aforesaid persons in the interests of religion. 
It is of course beyond doubt that the Pope was within his 
rights in so doing, 3 but it is another question whether such 
procedure was opportune at that time. Guise did not fail 
to call the attention of Pius IV., through Morone, to the fact 
that in thus insisting upon strict justice he was really furthering 
the plans of the Huguenots, who desired nothing so much as 
to prevent the acceptance of the decrees of the Council by 
France ; only when this matter had been satisfactorily accom 
plished could the fitting time come for taking further definite 
action. 4 These considerations, together with the threatening 
attitude of the French government, 6 led the Pope to defer 
the formal publication of the sentence on the seven bishops. 
He was able to do this because a year had been allowed to the 
condemned to come to a changed state of mind. But even 
when this peiiod of grace had elapsed without their taking 
advantage of it, the sentence still remained unpublished, 

1 See M(hn. de Conde, IV., 669 seq. RAYNALDUS (1563, n. 133), 
Requesens (Pio IV. y Felipe, II., p. 51 seq.) and Borromeo (USTA, 
IV-, 253) all give the date October 22. The date September 22 
given in the Mem. de Conde, loc. cit., seems to be certain from the 
fact that the ordinance of the Inquisition had already been issued 
in September, since the *monitorium et citatio offitii s. Inquisi- 
tionis contra ill. et ser. d. d. Joh. Albret., reginam Navarrae, 
a copy of which is preserved in the Archives of the Spanish 
Embassy at Rome, bears the date September 28, 1563. 

8 See RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 181 ; DEGERT, 91 seq., 95. Cf. 
also SICKEL, Konzil, 637. 

3 See DEGERT, 95. Cf. the opinion of POLENZ, II., 301, 320. 

4 See SUSTA, IV., 410 seq. Cf. ibid., 356, the remonstrances of 
the legates at the Council. 

8 Cf. MARCKS, Bayonne, 44, 55. The French government also 
caused intervention to be made with the Pope in favour of Jeanne 
d Albret by means of Maximilian II. ; see STEINHERZ, IV., 101 seq. 


though it was in no sense withdrawn. 1 In the same way no 
steps were taken against the Queen of Navarre, who was 
under the protection of Catherine. 2 This considerate conduct 
sprang from the wish, so often shown before, to avoid a definite 
rupture with France, a wish which was also responsible for 
the concessions made by the Pope in the matter of the con 
cordat. 3 He was confirmed in his attitude by the behaviour 
of Catherine, who also, for her part, was careful not to drive 
things to an extremity. Noailles was recalled on December 
I7th, 1563, and a new envoy sent to Rome in his stead in the 
person of Henry Clutin d Oissel, who presented a memorial 
setting forth the Gallican point of view of the government 
with regard to the French bishops summoned to Rome. 4 
By that time, however, another matter had become the 
absorbing topic of interest, the acceptance of the decrees of 
Trent. Cardinal Guise and the nuncio Santa Croce laboured 
to bring this about with all their power, but they met with the 
greatest opposition. 5 L Hopital would not consent to the 
acceptance of the decrees on any terms, and Catherine was 
guided entirely by his advice. 

To the first request made by Santa Croce Catherine had 
replied that with regard to the acceptance of the decrees of 
the Council she must first consult Guise, white even after this 
had been done she made the excuse that she must wait for the 
Pope s confirmation. When this had arrived she found another 
pretext for delay in the hesitating attitude of Philip II. This 
pretext being also disposed of, Catherine put forward the view 
that a healthy country like Spain could stand far more violent 

1 See LADERCHI, 1566, n. 425 ; DEGERT, 97 seq. 

2 See Lettres de Cath. de Medicis, II., 119 seq., 153. 

3 Cf. GUETTEE, VIII., 390 ; BAUDRILLART, Concordat, 97, 
and RICHARD in Rev. cath. des Eglises, I. (1904). 5 2 5> f r the 
brief of May 12, 1564. 

4 See DEGERT, 69 seq. Cf. MARCKS, Bayonne, 44, 55 ; Venez. 
Depeschen, III., 254. The memorandum for Oissel in PITHOU, 
Libertes de 1 Eglise gall., Paris, 1661, 66 seq. 

5 Cf. (MIGNOT) Hist, de la reception du concile de Trente, I., 
Amsterdam, 1756, 198 seq: 


treatment than a sick one like France, which drew from Santa 
Croce the retort that a sick man is in far more urgent need of 
medicine than a healthy one. 1 

The truth is that Catherine, acting under the advice of 
L Hopital, never seriously intended to accept the decrees of 
the Council. On February 25th, 1564, she referred the decrees 
to a commission of councillors of state and members of the 
Parliament. Their judgment was that there were many things 
in them which ran counter to the royal privileges and the liber 
ties of the Gallican church. In addition to a number of special 
points of difficulty, among which was the prohibition of 
regular benefices being held in commendam, the consideration 
which above all caused their rejection was the fear of the 
Huguenots, whom Catherine was determined not to offend 
on any account. 2 Her fear of them was so great that she 
wo aid not even allow the nuncio to distribute the printed 
decrees among the prelates. It was on this occasion that the 
queen made complaint of the attitude of the Pope with regard 
to the dispute as to precedence between the French and 
Spanish ambassadors in Rome, which, she said, had given 
offence throughout France. 3 

This dispute, which had only with great difficulty been 
smoothed over in the Council at Trent, 4 was renewed when 
the new French ambassador Oissel arrived in Rome at the 
beginning of February. 5 Oissel announced that he had 

1 See the reports of Santa Croce from January to April, 1564, 
used oy PALLAVICINI, 24, n. 

2 See Mem. de Conde, V., 81 seq. ; LE PLAT, VI., 320 seq. ; 
MIGNOT, loc. cit., 212 seq. ; SOLDAN, II., 195 seq. ; MARCKS, Bayonne 
66 seq. Cf. also Bullet, de la Soc. p. 1 hist. du Protest, francais, 
XXIV., 409 seq. 

3 See the report of Santa Croce of April 24, 1564, in PALLA 
VICINI, 24, n, 5. 

4 C/. Vol. XV. of this work, p. 331. 

5 For what follows r.f the *reports of Requesens, of which only 
that of February 16, 1564, is printed in Pio IV. y Felipe II., 
p. 234 seq., and which STEINHERZ (IV., 86) was the first to extract 
from the State Archives, Samancas. 


instructions to depart, and to withdraw the obedientia of 
France if the Pope were to raise the slightest question as to 
the right claimed by her that her ambassador should hold the 
next place after the representative of the Emperor, and 
always rank before that of Spain. The Spanish ambassador, 
Requesens, at once announced that he would leave Rome at 
once should the Pope arrive at a decision unfavourable to the 
claims of Spain. A letter which arrived from Philip II. 
on March 22nd, made it clear that he too was determined in 
such an eventuality to break off diplomatic relations. 1 Pius 
IV. was thus driven to seek a way out of a dilemma which 
seemed bound to lead to a rupture with one or other of these 
great Catholic powers. Accordingly, as a first step, he re 
frained from taking part in any public ceremony of the Church, 
on the pretext of ill-health. When Holy Week drew near, 
the dispute was still unsettled. The excuse which he had 
hitherto given was no longer of any use, since the Pope s health 
was now very good. 2 At the washing of the feet and the 
publication of the bull In coena Domini on Maunday Thursday 
it had never been customary to assign special places to the 
ambassadors, but on this occasion the French ambassador 
insisted on being present, even though the Pope should threaten 
him with excommunication. The Imperial ambassador there- 

1 See STEINHERZ, IV., 86. Cod. F. 23 of the Boncompagni 
Archives, Rome, contains *Ragioni a favore di Spagna per conto 
della precedenza colla corte di Francia esposte da Augusto de 
Crauctiz 1 anno, 1564. 

2 Fr. Tonina reported to the Duke of Mantua on March 29, 1564 : 
*Cosi dico solo che con tutto che in questi giorni santi non siano 
mai soliti li papi tralasciare di andare in capella et far le solite 
ceremonie, non di meno S. B ne mai v e stata ne vi viene, ne si 
crede e per venire, per questa contesa della precedenza tra 
Franza et Spagna, et ancora che detto N. S. sia stato indisposto 
sin qui della podagra, il che ha potuto dar colore, che per questo 
non vi venesse, non di meno questa ragioni hor cessa, perche sta 
bene, et e andato hoggi et hieri in Belvedere senza farsi portare, 
et e notorio che resta per questa differenza. Non si crede anco 
per questa regione che dimani sia per fare la cerimonia del lavar 
dei piedi. (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 


fore thought that it was not in keeping with his master s 
dignity that he should absent himself from the ceremony. 
Accordingly on Maunday Thursday (March 3Oth) he as well 
as the French and Spanish ambassadors presented themselves 
at the Vatican, all three determined to maintain their rights 
at all hazards. So as to avoid a public scandal the Pope with 
drew by a secret staircase to the loggia, where he gave his 
blessing ; only the sound of the cannon from the Castle of 
St. Angelo made it known to the ambassadors who were waiting 
in the Hall of Constantine that the function had taken place. 
Oissel then attempted to join the suite of the Pope on his 
return, and was only prevented from doing so by force. He 
thereupon demanded his passports, and only the united efforts 
of the Pope and Cardinals Este and Morone were successful 
in inducing him to give up his departure, from which a com 
plete rupture with France was to be feared. They tran 
quillized him by assuring him that the dispute would be settled 
by Pentecost. 1 Pius IV. thought that Philip II. would have 
given way by then ; 2 the king, indeed, had given cause to 
hope that this would be the case, but he now declared that the 
affair had gone so far that he could not withdraw the instruc 
tions he had given to his ambassador. 3 On Ascension Day 

1 Together with the letters of Borromeo and Arco in STEINHERZ, 
IV., 84 seq., 87 seq., and Pio IV. y Felipe II., p. 272, 276, see also 
the **report of Fr. Tonina of April i, 1564, loc. cit., the **reports 
of Serristori of April i, 4, and 5, 1564 (State Archives, Florence), 
and *the report of Caligari to Commendone from Rome, April i, 
1564 (Lett, di princ, XXIII, 47 seq, Papal Secret Archives). 
If Oissel departs, wrote *Tonina on April 5, 1564 : "Si dubita 
che ne siano per seguire non solo la fatale alienatione di quel 
regno de la Sede Apost., ma altri inconvenienti come saria far un 
patriarcha in esseo regno et forse qualche guerra " loc, cit. On 
April 12 Tonina *reports that both the French and the Spanish 
ambassadors were threatening to depart. Cf. the reports of 
Requesens in Pio IV. y Felipe II., p. 275 seqq. 

2 On April 5 he had a heated explanation with the Spanish 
ambassador. Cf. the "report of Serristori of April 7, 1564 (State 
Archives, Florence). 

3 See PALLAVICINI, 24, n. 


the Pope took no part in the functions, 1 but to absent himself 
again at Pentecost seemed to be out of the question, not only 
because any further absence seemed hardly in keeping with 
the dignity of the head of the Church, 2 but also because the 
period of delay promised to the French ambassador had come 
to an end. All attempts to arrive at a compromise had failed, 
and the time had come to take up a definite stand. The Pope 
therefore decided that without any prejudice to the rights of 
the rival claimants, the precedence hitherto allowed to the 
French ambassador over the Spanish one was to be continued. 
Requesens therefore was not present at the High Mass on the 
day of Pentecost (May 2ist) but instead made a protest and 
broke off all relations with the Curia. 3 On receiving his 
report Philip II., in the middle of July, ordered him to leave 
Rome, a step which Pius IV. diplomatically accepted as the 
result of a complaint which he had made at the arbitrary 
imprisonment by Requesens of a licenciate. As a matter of 
fact Philip himself did not wish to drive matters to an ex 
tremity ; he had only recalled Requesens from Pius IV., but 
not from the Holy See, and the charge of his ecclesiastical 
interests was entrusted to Cardinal Pacheco. 4 The king felt 
that any further action, such as the withdrawal of the obedi- 
cntia, would be imprudent, and he accordingly accepted the 
decrees of the Council, except in so far as they ran counter 
to his privileges. 5 

1 See the "report of Fr. Tonina dated Rome, May 13, 1564 
(Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 

2 Cf. *Acta consist, card. Garbarae, May 13, 1564, 40 G 13 
(Corsini Library, Rome). 

3 See STEINHERZ, IV., 134. Cf. Pio IV. y Felipe II., p. 390 seq.; 
Corresp. dipl., I., XXXV. seq. According to the *report of Fr. 
Tonina, of May 31, 1564 (loc. cit.} the ambassador of Florence was 
also absent from the Pentecost mass. 

4 See HILLIGER, Katharina, 66 seq. CONSTANT, Rapport, 390. 
6 See Pio IV. y Felipe II., p. 403 seq., 444 seq. (cf. Pref., p. iii) ; 

PALLAVICINI, 24, 12. The presentation of the palfrey on St. 
Peter s Day took place, in spite of the state of tension, but not 
by the hands of Requesens himself, but of his secretary ; see the 
*report of Fr. Tonina of July i, 1564 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 


The attitude of the French government was very different. 
The Pope had hoped to induce them to accept the decrees of 
the Council by his recent procedure. 1 With this purpose he 
sent Ludovico Antinori to France in October as envoy extra 
ordinary. The envoy at the same time took with him the 
permission for the alienation of Church property, and was 
to hold out hopes of the legation of Avignon being conferred 
on Cardinal Bourbon. In spite of this the French govern 
ment continued to make evasive replies on the question of the 
acceptance of the decrees of the Council. 2 Catherine, who 
wished for peace at all costs, 3 adhered to her contention that 
the reform decrees were an infringement of Gallican liberties. 
The loyal Catholic bishops in France thought otherwise, and 
endeavoured in their provincial synods to carry the decrees 
of the Council into effect. Cardinal Guise gave a shining 
example in this at the synod which he held at Rheims in 1564. 4 

Santa Croce had continued as nuncio in France during all 
these events. His reports will always be an important 
authority for this period of French history, painting as they 
do in vivid colours the attitude of Catherine de Medici both 
towards the Catholics and the Huguenots. Santa Croce s 
account of the first civil war, in which he gives a minute 
description of its atrocities and horrors to his friend Pietro 
Benedetti, form an important addition to his reports. 5 He 

1 Cf. BAUDRILLART, Concordat, 97 ; GUETTEE, VIII. , 390. 

2 See PALLAVICINI, 24, n, the *brief of recommendation for 
Antinori addressed to Charles IX., October 20, 1564, in Min. 
brev. t. 20, n. 20 (Papal Secret Archives). By the conferring of 
the legation of Avignon on Cardinal Bourbon on April 13, 1565, 
France became liable for the defence of that territory against the 
Huguenots ; see STEINHERZ, IV., 383. 

3 See Lettres de Cath. de Medicis, II., 126. 

4 See HARDOUIN, Cone, coll., X., 529 ; PICOT, I., 6 seq. Cf. 
HUMBERT in Rev. d hist. et de litt. relig., XII. (1907), 293. On 
April 28, 1564, Pius IV. had appointed Cardinal Guise Inquisitor 
General for the dioceses of Metz, Toul, and Verdun, and for the 
Duchy of Lorraine ; see FONTANA, III., 393 seq. 

5 *Cod. XXXIII., 74, of the Barberini Library, Rome (now 
Vatican Library), printed in MARTENE-DURAND, Coll. V., 1427 seq. 


wrote tfiis when his nunciature was drawing to an end. On 
March I2th, 1565, he received the richly deserved reward of 
his perseverance in his very difficult task by his elevation to 
the purple, but this did not yet bring with it the recall he so 
much desired. Thus it fell to his lot to take part in the famous 
meeting which Catherine and Charles IX. held, between June 
I4th and July 4th at Bayonne, with Queen Elizabeth of Spain 
and Alba. Catherine was led to this by her wish to enter into 
better relations with Philip II., and at the same time to under 
mine his enormous influence ; she also wished to pave the way 
for advantageous marriages for her sons. 1 

This meeting excited great interest, and filled the Pro 
testants with grave anxiety, the more so as its negotiations 
and the decisions arrived at remained concealed behind a veil 
of complete secrecy. Only recent research has lifted this veil. 
It is clear that at Bayonne no treaty in the true sense of the 
word was arrived at, and that only oral promises were made. 
These were concerned in the first place with the acceptance 
of the decrees of the Council ; Catherine demanded a revision 
of the reform decrees, to be made by an assembly of prelates, 
but Alba rejected such a counter-council. " At last Santa Croce 
arranged a compromise, by which the French government 
pledged itself to accept the decrees after they had, witn the 
Pope s consent, been subjected to examination by trustworthy 
Catholics, who, however, were not to touch upon dogma. With 
regard to her attitude towards the Huguenots Catherine made 
a general promise to take strong measures against them. 2 

1 See MARCKS, Bayonne, 297 seq., 302. 

z See MARCKS, loc. cit., 205 seq., 210 seq., 238 ; HILLIGER, 
Katharina, 289 seq. Cf. also WIRTZ, Politik der Katharina von 
Medici, Fulda, 1891, 38 seq., and Deutsche Lit.-Zeitung, 1892, 
1302. Santa Croce still had to remain at his post since Francesco 
Beltramini, Bishop of Terracina, who was destined to succeed him, 
was not acceptable to the French government (DESJARDINS, III., 
516, with the name given wrongly, and the "report of B. Pia from 
Rome, November 24, 1565, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). On the 
news of the death of the Pope, Santa Croce started at once for the 


The treacherous queen, however, never had any intention of 
fulfilling the promise wrung from her by Alba. Pius IV. was 
the first to see through her deceitful game. When Cardinal 
Pacheco, by the order of Philip II., communicated to him the 
results of the meeting at Bayonne, the Pope advised him to 
put no faith in Catherine s word ; she had often made similar 
promises, but had always found excuses and had never done 
anything. The only way to restore the old state of affairs 
in France was to take serious action against Coligny, Condc 
and L Hopital. This, however, could not be done without 
having recourse to arms, and it was just that that the queen- 
mother shrank from. 1 As before, her aim was the holding 
of a national council in France, which should discuss further 
concessions, so as to quiet the Huguenots. It was obvious to 
Catherine that Pius IV. would never consent to any such 
thing, but she was counting on the early death of the ailing 
pontiff. It was for this reason that at Bayonne she had dis 
cussed the question of the next Papal election in great detail 
with her daughter, the Queen of Spain, pointing out to her that 
the elevation of the weak Cardinal Este, who was devoted to 
herself, was important and even necessary in the interests of 
the French government. 2 

During the Bayonne conference a definite decision was also 
come to as to the status of the Jesuits in France. Long 
disputes had preceded this decision, which had brought out 
with surprising clearness the attitude of the most influential 
corporate bodies in France towards the rights of the Holy See. 

As early as January, 1551, Henry II. had ordered the legal 
recognition of the Jesuits, but, relying upon the opinions of the 
Bishop of Paris and the University, the Parliament had 

1 See the "report of Pacheco to Philip II., dated Rome, Septem 
ber 15, 1565 (Simancas Archives), printed in part in HILLIGER, 
Katharina, 293. On June 8, 1565, Pius IV. had stated in the 
consistory : " *in Gallia quoque meliori res in statu esse atque 
in dies melius sperari, verum tot annorum et saeculorum vulnera 
uno momento sanari non posse." (*Acta consist, card. Gambarae, 
Corsini Library, Rome, 40 G 13). 

2 See HILLIGER, Katharina, 300 seq. 


obstinately refused to register the royal letter, and thus give 
it the full force of law. 1 After this the whole question was 
dropped for many years, and it was only in 1558, when the 
energetic and skilful Cogordan had been appointed to assist 
the French provincial, that the matter was once more pressed 
by the French Jesuits with all their power. Francis II. was 
well inclined to their endeavours, but the beginning of the 
Huguenot war was not a suitable moment to try and break 
down the resistance of the Parliament to the royal power. 
On February I2th, 1560, the king endeavoured to secure the 
registration of the royal letter of 1551, but the Parliament 
would not obey. On April 25th, 1560, there was issued a 
second royal edict, which was of wider scope than the former 
one, in so far as it provided for the admission of the Jesuits, 
not only to Paris, but to the whole kingdom. But once more 
the Parliament, as a first step, asked for the opinion of the 
bishop and the university. After this the king sent notice 
to the Parliament that they must clearly state before the court 
whether they intended to obey or not, and to give their reasons 
for objecting to the Jesuits. But, neither in response to this 
notification, nor a second, did any of the officials condescend 
to put in an appearance. For a second time the opinion of 
Bishop du Bellay was asked ; he thereupon gathered together 
all the parish priests of Paris, put the case before them from 
his own point of view, and obtained a unanimous declaration 
from them that the Order of the Jesuits was incompatible 
with the liberties of the Gallican church. Du Bellay then had 
recourse to the university, which replied in the same sense, 
giving as one of its reasons that the Order had not been 
approved either by an ecumenical council or by a provincial 

1 Cf. Vol. XIII of this work, p. 204. For the struggle of the 
Jesuits for admission from 1558 to 1565, cf. FOUQUERAY, I., 
231 seqq., 243 seqq., 263 seqq. P. FERET in Rev. des quest, hist., 
LXV. (1899), 455-74 ; La Faculte* de theologie de Paris et ses 
docteurs les plus celebres. Epoque moderne, vol. I., Paris, 1900 ; 
ARISTIDE DOUARCHE, L Universite de Paris et les Jesuits (XVIe et 
XVIIe siecles), Paris, 1888. 


one. In full keeping with its Gallican ideas, the university 
completely ignored the Pope s approval. 1 

Cogordan, however, did not yet lose heart. Since it was the 
Papal privileges which constituted the principal grievance 
against the Jesuits, he declared before the Parliament that he 
asked for nothing more than was possessed by the Mendicant 
Orders, who were fully recognized in France. 2 At the same 
time he obtained from Francis II. a further royal letter, dated 
October gth, I56o. 3 This letter stated that the Jesuits, 
as they had themselves declared, had no wish to infringe upon 
the rights of the parish priests and bishops, that the Papal 
bulls had made no concession contrary to those rights, and 
concluded by urging the Parliament to recognize those bulls. 
This letter was the first to meet with success. The Parliament, 
it is true, tried yet again to escape compliance by appealing 
to the bishop, but the latter now declared himself, though with 
many reservations, in favour of the Jesuits. 4 On December 
23rd, 1560, Catherine renewed the edicts of Henry II. and 
Francis II. The Parliament made a fresh attempt to bring 
the university into the field against the Jesuits, but at length 
declared, on February 22nd, 1561, that the decision might be 
made either by the States General or by the religious conference 
at Poissy, or by the next ecumenical council. 5 

Pius IV. had recommended the cause of the French Jesuits 
to his legate in France, Cardinal Este. The French Cardinals, 
Tournon, Lorraine, Armagnac and Guise were also favourable 
to them, 6 while the boldness of the Protestants at Poissy could 
not fail to recommend to them an Order which had as its 

1 FOUQUERAY, I., 231-7. 

2 For the sense of this declaration (i.e. a renunciation of the 
exercise of the privileges, but not of the privileges themselves) 
see FOUQUERAY, I., 237. 

3 An extract of this sent to Rome is printed in FOUQUERAY, I., 
650 seq. Ibid. 238, because Cogordan wished for another lettre 
de jussion this was the fifth. 

4 FOUQUERAY, I., 241 seq. 

5 FOUQUERAY, I., 243-6. 

6 Ibid., 249, 253. 


special work the defence of the old religion and of the Apostolic 
See. Accordingly the question of the Jesuits had been 
included among the subjects which the Catholics wished to 
bring forward at Poissy. 1 During the interval between the 
two sittings of September gth and i6th, it was resolved for 
various reasons to refer the matter to the Bishop of Paris. 
Acting upon his opinion, the prelates signed, on September 
I5th, 1561, a document in which, though in very guarded 
terms, they recommended the recognition of the Jesuits. 
They were to be admitted, not as an Order, bat as a society 
or college, to give up their name, to be in all things subject 
to the bishops, and to renounce the privileges granted to them 
in the pontifical bulls. On the strength of this document, the 
Parliament, on February i3th, 1562, recognized the Jesuits 
under the name of the Society of the College of Clermont. 2 
Thus at length was obtained the long desired recognition, with 
all its important consequences ; the restrictions under which 
it laboured were very soon one by one abolished. 8 

The days of struggle, however, were far from being ended. 
Even though the Parliament had been so far won over that 
it even began to take the Jesuits under its protection, on the 
other hand the university made all the difficulties it could. 
Once they had obtained legal recognition, the Jesuits endeav 
oured to make their college in Paris one of the principal 
educational establishments of the Order. A large house was 
bought, licence to give lectures was obtained from the Rector 
of the university, the coarse of studies which had been begun 
at the end of February, 1564, was gradually extended, and a 
number of distinguished professors summoned to Paris. 4 
Among these was the Spaniard, Maldonatus, who had a great 
name as an authority on the Holy Scriptures, but who, at 
Paris, first lectured in philosophy. In view of the unbelief, 
which was steadily taking a firmer hold upon the upper classes, 


2 Ibid., 253-5. 

3 Ibid., 256. 

4 MANARAEUS, 80, 83 seq. 


Maldonatus treated in his lectures, not on fruitless subtleties, 
but on the doctrine of God and the immortality of the soul, 1 
and in consequence of his learned treatment of these subjects 
it soon was found that no hall could accommodate the crowds 
who flocked to hear him, while every seat was filled two or 
three hours before the beginning of the lecture. 2 The other 
professors of the new college also taught with great success, 
and their lecture-halls were filled while those of the university 
became more and more empty. 3 

The ill-will of the University professors, some of whom, like 
Pierre Ramus, were Huguenots, 4 led to a series of attempts to 
silence these inconvenient rivals by means which were certainly 
not academic. In the first place they maintained that the 
faculty to lecture which had been granted to the Jesuits con 
tained a defect in form. The provincial thereupon provision 
ally suspended the lectures, but the students showed their 
displeasure so violently that the Parliament ordered the Jesuits 
to recommence them. Then the university caused the famous 
jurist, Charles Du Moulin, who was a Protestant, and very 
hostile to the Jesuits, to draw up a legal opinion on the con 
troversy, 5 and, at a meeting on October 8th, 1564, followed 
up his condemnation of the Order by one of their own. 6 The 

1 " Admirabilem se praebuit in tractatibus de Deo et immor- 
talitate animae, qui tracturus maxime opportuni videbantur ob 
multitudinem atheorum, praecipue nobilium, quae continenter 
augescebat " (MANARAEUS, 83 seq.}. " *I1 re e cattolico, li 
populari cattolici et obbedienti al re, la nobilita non ha religione 
alcuna ne vuole superiority ne di Dio ne del re, ritiene authority 
et tirannide grande nelli populari, et quanto piu andera accrescendo 
di honor! et di robbe, tanto sara piu inobediente di Dio et del re 
et tiranna del populo." Cifra di Francia, dated Paris, August 22, 
1570 (Papal Secret Archives, Francia, 4, 26). 


a Du BOULAY, Historia Universitatis Parisiensis, VI., 916, in 

FOUQUERAY, I., 369. 

4 Cl. Matthieu, Me"moire, in PRAT, Maldonat, 594. 
6 FOUQUERAY, I., 372. 


fresh order for the suspension of the lectures was, however, 
at once cancelled by the Parliament. 

Du Moulin had represented it as being something " mon 
strous, fatal, and contrary to public justice " that the Jesuits 
should be allowed to deliver lectures, independently of the 
university. Emboldened, perhaps, by the two judgments 
which had been given in their favour by the Parliament, the 
accused now sought to put an end once for all to this charge, 
which was indeed quite groundless, by putting forward a 
respectful request 1 that they might be incorporated in the 
university. They declared their readiness to forego all the 
dignities and emoluments, as well as the right of conferring 
academic degrees, or of themselves holding honorary academic 
positions. On the other hand, should their request be com 
plied with, they promised complete obedience to the rector 
and statutes of the university, in so far as their own institute 

The reply of the university to this petition was a renewed 
prohibition to teach, and a threat to the students that they 
would forfeit all their rights and privileges if they attended 
the lectures of the Jesuits. The latter then had recourse to 
the law, by calling for the protection of the Parliament against 
the attacks of the university on February 2Oth, 1565. 2 

This step let loose upon the new Order so terrible a storm 
that even their friends gave them up for lost. 3 All Paris took 
sides, either for or against the Jesuits. They were overwhelmed 
with satires and lampoons ; on the same day and at the same 
hour sermons were preached against them in twelve different 
pulpits, and they were unable to show themselves in the 
neighbourhood of the university without being stoned. 4 
During the legal proceedings, the speech of their opponents 
advocate, the clever and eloquent Etienne Pasquier, injured 

1 Composed by Odo Pigenat, in FOUQUERAY, I., 375 seq. 

2 FOUQUERAY, I., 384. 

a " Turn nemo erat, qui de nostra causa non existimaret con- 
clamatum esse, foreque ut tota iuventus nos desereret." MAN- 

ARAEUS, 88. 

*MANARAEUS, 88, seq. 


their cause considerably. His account of the history of Loyola, 
of the beginnings of the Company of Jesus, and of the contents 
of their statutes is all taken from Chemnitz, and is a tissue 
of lies, misrepresentations and distortions. But the audacity 
with which the most fantastic accusations were set forth as 
irrefutable truths, and the tone of conviction which this clever 
advocate knew how to give to his words, as he came forward 
in the r6le of the champion of law and religion against a faction 
of the enemies of progress, could not fail to make a deep 
impression in many quarters, and for centuries Pasquier s 
invectives remained a mine for attacks on the Jesuits. The 
real reason for the strong feeling against the Jesuits comes out 
many times in his speech, namely the essential antagonism 
felt by men of Gallican ideas to these champions of the Holy 
See. When ecclesiastical superiors, Pasquier said, have tried 
to use their powers wrongfully to the injury of the king s 
majesty, the Paris university, with the assistance of this 
parliamentary tribunal, has always resisted them, just as 
though a permanent ecumenical council were assembled in that 
city for the defence of French subjects. Paul III., he main 
tained, had confirmed the Jesuits for purely political reasons, 
because they bound themselves by vow to exalt the Pope 
above every other power on earth ; the Bishop of Clermont 
had brought them to Paris so that the Pope might have a 
court of his own there. Nothing in the constitutions of the 
Society of Jesus roused the ire of Pasquier so much as the 
fourth vow of the professed members, by which they promised 
special obedience to the Pope with regard to the missions. 1 
Similar views had been expressed in the opinion given by the 
university on the question of the admission of the Jesuits to 
that body. In this it was plainly stated that the incorporation 
with the university which they asked for could not be allowed 
because they placed the Pope above the Council. 2 

In spite of everything, however, the final result of this 
sensational suit was not all that the friends of the university 

1 FOUQUERAY, I., 394. SACCHINI, III., 1. i, n. 8. 

2 FOUQUERAY, I., 383. 

VOL. xvi. 14 


desired. Parliament refused to decide definitely in favour 
of either party, and on April 5th, 1565, it decided that in the 
matter of the Jesuits things were to remain in statu quo. 1 
A fresh prohibition of the Jesuit schools on the part of the 
university met the same fate as its predecessors. At the Bay- 
onne conference in 1565, the Jesuit Possevino obtained for 
the members of his Order a fresh letter from the Parliament, 
dated July 1st, 1565, which gave them permission to open 
colleges everywhere in France, and to call themselves the 
Company of Jesus. 2 With this the hostility of the university 
to the new Order was silenced until 1594. 

In reality, in spite of all the attacks upon it, the Order had 
steadily gained ground in France, even during the pontificate 
of Pius IV., and had founded colleges at Tournon in 1561, 
Rodez in 1562, Toulouse in 1563, Mauriac in 1564, 3 Avignon, 
Chambery and Lyons in 1565 ; 4 under Pius V. the colleges 
at Verdun, Nevers and Bordeaux were added to these. 
During the course of the struggle between the Jesuits and the 
university, Pius IV. himself, in the last year of his reign, had 
thrown into the scales his own influence as supreme pontiff, 6 
by pointing out to the king that the Society of Jesus had been 
approved and confirmed by the Pope and by the Council of 
Trent, that in many countries of Europe it had done a great 
work in defence of the faith, while in Rome itself it enjoyed 
the protection and esteem of the Pope. 

1 FOUQUERAY, I., 415. 

2 Ibid., 411. 

3 Cf. FOUQUERAY, I., 288 seqq., 304 seqq., 318 seqq. A laudatory 
*brief from Pius V., " Ordini civium nobilium Tolosae," for 
their generosity to the Jesuits, in Brevia, Arm. 44, t. 12, n. 132 
(Papal Secret Archives). 

4 FOUQUERAY, I., 434 seqq., 452 seqq. Cf. M. CHOSSAT, Les 
Jesuites et leurs oeuvres & Avignon, Avignon, 1896. 

5 May 29, 1565, in SACCHINI, III., 1. i, n. 19. 


IN England the young Queen Elizabeth had apparently, even 
in the time of Paul IV., almost entirely destroyed the edifice 
so laboriously built up by her elder sister. The crown had 
set itself to the work of taking possession of the ecclesiastical 
property restored by Mary, the monasteiies were suppressed, 
while the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity had destroyed 
the authority of the Pope, and compelled all the faithful to 
attend the Anglican worship. 1 

In spite of all this, however, English Catholics did not look 
upon their cause as lost. The change of religion, it was stated 
in a memorial to Pius IV. in 1559, 2 rested entirely upon the 
will of the queen ; many important persons as well as most 
of the common folk were still devoted to the old religion ; 
Elizabeth, moreover, had not enforced the new laws with any 
great rigour ; there was therefore still hope that in time, either 
spontaneously or by force of circumstances, the queen would 
seek for reunion with Rome. Similar views were put before 
the Pope by the former English ambassador, Edward Carne, 
and by Francis Englefield, who during the reign of Queen Mary 
had been a member of the royal council, but who had left 
England on account of the religious laws, and was now living 
at Padua. 3 

The Spanish ambassadors in London, Count Feria and his 

1 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 401 seqq. For the restoration 
under Mary see ibid., 360 seqq., and G. CONSTANT in Revue his- 
torique, CXII. (1913), 1-27. 

2 In MEYER, 403 seq., suppl. i. 

8 KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 482 seq. For the subsequent 
adventures of Englefield see STEVENSON, Calendar, Foreign, 1562, 
n. 127 ; 1563, n. 1027. 



successor, Bishop Alvaro de la Quadra, based their hopes 
upon quite other motives. The one ally of England, even in 
the time of Queen Mary, had been King Philip of Spain. It 
seemed inconceivable to the Spanish ambassadors that 
Elizabeth could persist in alienating this one ally by her relig 
ious legislation ; the policy of the young queen was, speaking 
generally, altogether incomprehensible to them. Again and 
again they declared that Elizabeth could not go on in the 
course she had adopted, because it was obvious to everyone 
that she must soon meet with disaster on account of her 
indiscretions. 1 The twenty-five year old and frivolous 
queen, who, by reason of her open adulterous relations with 
the married Robert Dudley, had forfeited the popular favour, 2 
was, in the eyes of the Spaniards, nothing but an inexperienced 
young girl, given up to fashions, vanities, caprices and love 
affairs, but who, as far as politics were concerned, had placed 
herself blindly in the hands of unscrupulous advisers, and who 
was hastening to a disastrous end. 

It was only by slow degrees that de la Quadra realized 
how mistaken he had been in his estimate of the young queen. 
It was quite true that Elizabeth loved pomp and pleasure, 
but before everything else she was determined to remain 
queen, and she was a born ruler. In spite of her youth she 
had clear views as to the aims and methods of her policy, and 
these she had carefully weighed with her principal adviser, 
William Cecil. With rare judgment she knew how to choose 
her advisers and tools, while she had grasped the political 

1 " No hay quien no vea manifestamente la perdicion de la 
Reyna y de su reyno." De la Quadra to Margaret of Parma, 
Nbvember 12, 1559, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 86 ; cf. 
ibid., 72, in. Margaret thought the same, ibid., in, and xxi. 
Feria thought that Elizabeth would be like the cock in the Spanish 
proverb, which scratched until it dug up the knife which was to 
cut off his head. Chaloner to Cecil, from Brussels, December 6, 
1559, ibid., 121. 

2 KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., xlvi.; cf. ibid., 72, de la Quadra 
to Granvelle, January 13, 1560, ibid., 689. As to Elizabeth s 
" puterias " cf. ibid., 189, 225. 


conditions of Europe with extraordinary shrewdness, and had 
made her arrangements for the attainment of her ends with 
iron inflexibility. But above all she very soon proved herself 
unequalled in intrigue and deceit. While still an infant she 
had lost her mother, when three years old she had been declared 
illegitimate and thrown upon the mercies of an openly antagon 
istic world. In these difficult conditions her character had 
developed in an extraordinarily crooked manner. She was 
excitable, irritable to a quite undignified degree, artificial, over 
sensitive, devoid of all good feeling, and entirely lacking in 
all nobility of heart or mind. 1 The adverse circumstances of 
her youth had caused her prematurely to have recourse to 
intrigue as her only means of defence. Her name was to be 
found mixed up in almost all the conspiracies against Queen 
Mary, but with incomparable skill she invariably succeeded 
in escaping from the most dangerous situations. 2 Now that 
she was queen she had the effrontery to declare with sighs 
in the presence of the Spanish ambassador that she desired 
to be a nun in a convent cell, and to spend her days in prayer, 
while all the time, to use an expression of de la Quadra, " she 
had a hundred thousand devils in her." 3 She could adapt 
herself to any role ; she knew how to act the queen, full of 
majesty and dignity, just as well as she could, if occasion 
demanded, show herself amorous or pious, Catholic or Pro 
testant. In this way, in order to deceive the world as to her 
real intentions, she would sometimes pretend to be a frivolous 
and impressionable girl, who, for example, would cause her 
admirer, the Archduke Charles of Austria, to be informed that 
she often stood in admiration before his portrait, and could 
not take her eyes off it, 4 while on the next day she would 

1 E. MARCKS, Konigin Elisabeth von England und ihre Zeit 
Bielefeld, 1897, 15, 28, 47 seq. 

2 BROWN, VI., p. 1058, 1060; cf. n. 80, 505, 510, 525, 1290. 
8 " Me dice siempre que muere por ser monja y por estarse en 

una celda rezando " De la Quadra to Fena, December 27, 1559, 
in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 158 ; Correspondencia de 
Felipe II., I., 268. 

* Tiepolo, December 15, 1559, in BROSCH, Mitteilungen des 
Instituts fiir osterr. Geschichtsforschung, X. (1889), 128. 


unctuously inform him " that she could not disregard the grace 
which Our Lord had given her, and that it would be her 
delight to live and die a pure virgin." 1 

As far as she herself was concerned, Elizabeth was very little 
affected bv any religious views ; 2 in her direction of the affairs 
of state her only God was success, and her gospel was that of 
Machiavelli. It was nothing but consideration for her own 
advantage which led her to base the whole of her policy upon 
the antagonism which, since the religious schism, had divided 
the peoples of northern Europe into two hostile camps. Since 
the marriage of the Scottish queen, Mary Stuart, with the heir 
to the French throne, it seemed as though the two kingdoms 
nearest to England must be united under one sceptre. The 
military resources of England, however, were not sufficient 
to hold their own against a Franco-Scottish alliance ; the 
kingdom, which now numbers 32 million inhabitants, then 
contained but three or at most five millions, while the condition 

1 De la Quadra, June 3, 1560, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 


2 " There never was a woman who was so completely devoid 
of all religious feeling as she was." (RICHARD GREEN, A short 
history of the English people, London, 1886, 368, in BROSCH, VI. t 
590). " Scarcely a trace of religious enthusiasm ever entered 
her soul " (MEYER, 12). "It cannot be said of her that she 
belonged to any of the religious bodies of her time " (RANKE, 
Englische Geschichte, L, 298). " According to the exigencies 
of the circumstances of the moment, the queen knew how to 
behave as a Catholic or Protestant with equal ease ; she was an 
artist in politics, and it would be hard to say what part religion 
had in her artistry " (BROSCH, VI., 589). According to John 
Knox, Elizabeth was " neither a good Protestant nor a decided 
Papist " (History of the Reformation in Scotland, ed. D. LAING 
Edinburgh, 1846, II., 174 ; cf. FLEMING, 285). Elizabeth, in 1560 
said to Lethington, concerning the Sacrament of the altar, that 
it was the central point of the burning religious disputes : " Some 
think one thing and some another ; who is right, God alone 
knows ; in the meantime everyone adheres to his own opinion. - 
POLLEN, in The Month, 1904, II., 501. 


of its fortresses and armies were only calculated to excite the 
derision of military experts. 1 

In the face of the real or possible dangers of the political 
situation, it was very far from Elizabeth s intentions to unite 
herself with her brother-in-law, Philip, and thus commit 
herself to a Catholic policy. The unhappy example of her 
elder sister, as well as the weakness of Spain, were a warning 
to her. The English queen decided that it would be far 
more advantageous to her if she were to take up an independent 
position as a Protestant, and wherever it was possible to enter 
into friendly relations with Protestant subjects against their 
lawful rulers. In Scotland she encouraged the hatred of the 
Protestants for Mary Stuart, in France she supported the 
Huguenots against the house of Valois, and in the Netherlands 
she fomented the discontent of the future gueux against 
Philip II., and in this way she paralysed the activities of alt 
those who might have proved a danger to her. At the very 
beginning of her reign a memorandum of her principal adviser, 
William Cecil, gave expression to the view that she should lend 
her assistance to religious discontent abroad, and above all 
encourage the hopes of those who " were inclined to good 
religion." 2 As early as 1560 the Spanish ambassador wrote that 
Elizabeth was resolved to set all Christianity on fire so as to 
secure peace in her own house ; if the English intrigues should 
be successful, the queen, with the help of the new religion, 
would ruin all the neighbouring countries, and no one would 
any longer be safe by their own fireside. 3 It was inevitable 

1 Chaloner reports the opinion of Granvelle as to this to Cecil, 
December 6, 1559, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 119. 

2 " Especially to augment the hope of them who incline to 
good religion." A device for the alteration of religion, in BURNET, 
History of the Reformation, ed. Pocock, V., 497 ; cf. STEVENSON, 
in The Month, 1893, H., 26. 

3 " Ha determinado lo que agora vemOs, que es solamente 
poner fuego en la Christiandad . . . para bivir ella descansada y 
ociosa." De la Quadra to Margaret of Parma, January 5, 1560, 
in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 169. " Vuestra Alteza tenga 
por cierto que, si esta maldad de aqui pasa adelante, destruyra 
por esta via desta nueva religion todas las provincias convecinas." 
De la Quadra to Margaret of Parma, January 21, 1560, ibid., I94 5. 


that the whole tendency of her policy should have proved how 
illusory were the hopes of the return of Elizabeth to the 
Catholic Church. 

It was of incalculable importance to Elizabeth that Philip 
of Spain still clung to these hopes. By means of her ambassa 
dors in Spain the queen had caused the rumour to be spread 
that she was still at heart a Catholic ; 1 Philip, who was well 
aware of the fact that by his intercession on her behalf with 
Queen Mary, he had obtained the liberation of Elizabeth from 
the Tower, and thus saved both her life and her crown, 2 
was all the less able to disbelieve her assurances because it 
was an integral part of his policy to maintain his alliance with 
the English queen. In the event of Elizabeth s rule being 
overthrown, or should she be declared illegitimate, the next 
lawful heir to the English crown was Mary Stuart, who, 
immediately after the death of Mary the Catholic had assumed 
the arms and title of Queen of England. Philip was seriously 
afraid of the French obtaining possession of England, 3 and if 
the most formidable rival of the Hapsburgs should succeed in 
uniting in his own person the crowns of Scotland and England, 
as well as that of France, the doom of Spain seemed to be sealed. 
In this sense Margaret of Parma wrote on December 8th, 1559, 
that it would be as fatal to tolerate the presence of the French 
in England as to open to them the gates of Brussels ; should 
the French become masters of England, then Flanders would 

1 " Yo se que esto que me ha respondido tan to en lo de su 
casamiento como en lo de la religion, es la suma de lo que tantos 
dias ha dieron por instruction a sus embaxadores para que lo 
dixesen siendo preguntados en Espafia." De la Quadra to 
Granvelle, June 3, 1560, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 

2 Granvelle to d Assonleville, April 22, 1563, in KERVYN DE 
LETTENHOVE, III., 345. Elizabeth herself said, in 1564, to the 
Spanish ambassador, that she owed her life and throne to Philip. 
Guzman de Silva to Philip II., July 10, 1564, Colleccion de docum. 
ined., XXVI., 512. 

9 POLLEN, in The Month, XCVI. (1900), 399 


be torn from Spain. l Gran ve lie too was of opinion that London 
must be defended as carefully as Brussels itself. 2 In addition 
to all this, Philip at that time desired above all things a policy 
of peace, so as to afford to his exhausted country the quiet 
which it so long had lacked. Moreover, Spain was so ill 
equipped for war, and was so deeply in debt, 3 that in 1557, 
and again in 1575, it was found necessary to declare a state of 
national bankruptcy. 4 

Elizabeth, therefore, had nothing to fear from Philip ; on 
the contrary, the Spanish king was rendering her important 
service. The king reported in Rome 6 what Elizabeth had 
caused him to be informed as to her own Catholic sentiments, 
and it was Philip himself who dissuaded the Pope from taking 
stronger measures against Elizabeth, uniting himself for this 
end with Edward Carne and Francis Englefield, who sought to 
persuade the Pope that the change of religion in England was 
not to be attributed so much to the queen as to the counsellors 
by whom she was surrounded. 6 

1 GACHARD, Correspondance de Marguerite de Parme, I., 73. 
vasionsprojecte, 2 seq. 

8 Ibid., II., xxxv. 

4 See SUSTA in Mitteilungen des Instituts fur osterr. Geschichts- 
forschung, XXX., 545. 

5 Philip pointed out to the Pope " que siempre se tenia esperanza 
que ella, como muger de ingenio y sabia, se reduzeria y procuraria 
de reducir los suyos a la religion universal y catolica, lo qual Su 
Magestad habia mandado decir y exponer al Papa para obviar a 
lo que ella sabe, que Franceses un tiempo procuraban contra ella 
[the excommunication]." De la Quadra to Granvelle, June 3, 
1560, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 440. 

6 " Donnans la coulpe du changement et mutation d icelle 
[of religion] plus tost a aulcuns ministres estans & present en 
credit vers ladicte Royne que a icelle Dame mesmes." De la 
Quadra and Glajon, to Margaret of Parma June 28, 1560, in 
KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 482 seq. Throckmorton, the English 
ambassador in France, wrote on June 30, 1560, to Elizabeth, that 
the mission of Parpaglia had been urged by distinguished persons 


Under the influence of these advisers, and in accordance 
with their views, Pius IV., on May 5th, 1560, addressed a letter 
to Elizabeth, which was to be taken to her by Vincenzo Par- 
paglia, Abbot of S. Solutore. 1 The Pope, this letter stated, 
sincerely desired the prosperity and honour of the queen, 
as well as the consolidation of her power. Elizabeth therefore 
must take no heed of evil counsellors, who sought only their 
own advantage, but must accept the paternal advice of the 
Pope. For his part he promised to do everything he could 
in virtue of his office to bring about the salvation of her soul, 
and to assure her position as queen. The letter ended with an 
invitation to the Council which he hoped would shortly assem 
ble, and with a recommendation of his nuncio. 2 On the same 
day Pius IV. wrote to Philip II. and to the King of the Romans, 
begging them to lend their assistance to his negotiations with 
the queen. 3 Parpaglia left Rome on May 25th, 4 and on June 
i7th he arrived at Louvain. 5 

The mission of Parpaglia came at a very opportune moment 
for Elizabeth ; for some time past the French had been bringing 
pressure to bear in Rome to induce the Pope to recognize Mary 
Stuart as lawful queen of England. Paul IV. would not 

in England, who had led the Pope to believe that the majority of 
Englishmen were opposed to the existing religion. STEVENSON, 
Calendar, Foreign, 1560-1, n. 254, p. 156. 

1 The abbey of SS. Solutore, Avventore and Ottavio de Sangano, 
at Turin, had probably been suppressed in 1536. DOLLINGER, 
Beitrage, II., 238. MAITLAND in the English Hist. Review, XV. 
(1900), 760. 

2 RAYNALDUS, 1560, n. 42. 

3 Ibid., 1560, n. 43, 45. A letter to the Spanish ambassador 
in London of March 10, ibid., n. 44. 

4 STEINHERZ, I., 34. Unschuldige Nachrichten, 1723, 15. 

5 KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 470. His journey was via 
Spires, Cologne and Louvain to Brussels (ibid., 472). For the 
mission of Parpaglia, cf. The North British Review, III. (1870); 
G. CONSTANT in Melanges d histoire offerts a M. Charles Bemont, 
Paris, 1913, 509-20 ; C. G. BAYNE, Anglo-Roman relations, 
1558-65, London, 1913. 


consent to do this, 1 and the letter of Pius IV. on May 5th, 
1560, was calculated to put an end to any further anxiety on 
that score. But so long as Elizabeth paid no attention to the 
exhortations of the Pope and continued to force the Catholics 
to apostasy, it was not impossible that sooner or later they 
would take stronger measures in Rome; Pius IV., indeed, 
had already hinted at something of the kind. 2 A bull of 
excommunication might have the most disastrous consequences 
for Elizabeth. Even though, in the changed conditions of 
the times, there was less reason to fear the loss of the throne, 
a thing which, according to medieval ideas, would have been 
the consequence of such a Papal condemnation, nevertheless 
excommunication would have the effect of breaking off or at 
least disturbing friendly relations with Catholic powers, and 
since England, as far as the great majority of her people was 
concerned, was still Catholic in opinion, it might easily result 
in internal disturbances. 

As soon as the news of the mission of a nuncio to England 
was received, Elizabeth had a conference with the Spanish 
ambassador. 3 She protested that she was as much a Catholic 
as the ambassador himself, and called God to witness that she 
believed all that the Catholics of her kingdom believed. 4 
When de la Quadra thereupon asked her why she acted against 
her conscience, and caused her subjects to apostatize from the 
true religion, she replied that she was for the present forced 

1 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 405. 

2 POLLEN, Papal negotiations, 46. Cf. MEYER, 36. Giacomo 
Soranzo had heard in Venice that should Elizabeth not obey, 
France and Spain would proclaim a commercial blockade against 
England (TURBA, III., 148). John Sheres wrote from Venice 
to Cecil on May 18, 1560, that Parpaglia had received the power 
to excommunicate Elizabeth and declare her a rebel, if she refused 
his demands. STEVENSON, Calendar, Foreign, 1560-1, n. 108, p. 63. 

3 De la Quadra to Granvelle, June 3, 1560, in KERVYN DE 
LETTENHOVE, II., 440 seqq. 

4 " que ella era tan catolica yo y que hazia a Dios testigo de que 
lo que ella creia no era differente de lo que todos los catolicos de 
su reyno creyan." Ibid., 440. 


to act in that way, and that if the ambassador knew the true 
state of the case, he would certainly hold her excused. 1 De 
la Quadra acted as though he accepted these assertions, and 
he sought to hold the queen as firmly as possible to her state 
ments, so that later on he might be able, should she speak in 
another sense, to convict her of her inconsistency. At length 
he even forced her to declare that she would willingly receive 
the nuncio, and that it would not be her fault if union with the 
Church were not restored. 2 

The difficult task of keeping Parpaglia out of England, 
without thereby again exciting the resentment of the Pope 
against her, was spared to Elizabeth, for Philip II. relieved 
her of it. Unfortunately for Parpaglia it was taken for granted 
at the Spanish court that his mission was the outcome of French 
intrigue, and was merely a French political move. 3 For this 
reason he had to be prepared to meet with difficulties on the 
part of Spain. Moreover, Philip II. looked upon it as certain 
on a priori grounds that the queen would not receive the nuncio; 
at the same time, so it was thought in Spain, the Pope would 
be bound to meet the open rejection of a Papal envoy by 
excommunication and deposition, and the Catholic King would 
be charged with the carrying out of the sentence ; otherwise 
the courage of the English Catholics would fail, and the 
Spanish king would be discredited on all sides. On the other 
hand, however, just then, when peace had hardly been con 
cluded, a war with England was the very thing that could not 
be contemplated. 4 Moreover, not only was the moment for 

1 " que era forzada ad tempus y que, si yo supiese lo que a esto 
la habia forzado, que sabia que la tendria por escusada." KERVYN 

2 " Hizele decir que holgaria de que viniese el nuncio que se decia 
qye Su Santidad enviava y que por ella no quedaria que la Iglesia 
no se uniese siempre que los otros principes quisiesen." Ibid., 441. 

3 Margaret of Parma to de la Quadra, July 24, 1560, in KERVYN 
DE LETTENHOVE, II., 513 : " Comme avez pu veoir par les pieces 
qui vous ont este envoyees, il est certain que les Fra^ois sont 
1 une de principalles causes de 1 envoy dudict abbe." 



sending a nuncio ill-chosen, but so was the person selected for 
that office, Parpaglia was looked upon as a French partisan 1 
and only eighteen months before Philip had had him banished 
from Flanders under threat of death, as a French spy. 2 Nor 
could he be welcome at the court of Elizabeth, on account of 
his close relations with Cardinal Pole, whom she had detested. 3 

On receipt of the news that Parpaglia was going to England, 
Philip at once caused remonstrances to be made in Rome. 4 
He then sent instructions to Margaret of Parma to detain 
Parpaglia at Brussels until Vargas, the Spanish ambassador 
in Rome, should have made representations to the Pope. 5 
On July loth Parpaglia received a letter from Borromeo, 
and another from Vargas ; 6 if he should not have already 
departed for London, the Pope ordered him to wait at Brussels, 
while should he have already reached England he was to be 
guided in all things by the advice of de la Quadra and not leave 
the country without further instructions. 

In this way Parpaglia s mission was frustrated ; all that 
remained to be done was to find some suitable pretext for 
his honourable recall. It could not be openly stated that con 
sideration for Spain had been the determining factor in his 
recall, for that would have given offence to France, which 
had advocated the mission of Parpaglia. 7 According to 

1 " Dicen es Frances por la vida," De la Quadra to Granvelle, 
June 3, 1560, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 441. " Es mas 
Frances que Piamontes," Vargas to Philip II., May 6, 1560, in 
G. CONSTANT in Mel. d hist. offerts a M. Ch. Bemont, 516. 

2 Tiepolo to the Doge, June 25, 1560, in BROWN-BENTINCK, VII., 
n. 176. Margaret of Parma, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 513. 

3 Margaret of Parma to de la Quadra, July n, 1560, loc. cit., 
502 ; cf. 441. 

4 BROWN-BENTINCK, loc. cit. Philip II. to Vargas, June i, 
1560, in G. CONSTANT, loc. cit., 516-8 ; GACHARD, Corresp. de 
Marguerite d Autriche, L, 206. -Cf. BEKKER, Elisabeth und 
Leicester, 4 seq. 

5 GACHARD, loc. cit., 204. Margaret of Parma to de la Quadra, 
July n, 1560, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 502. 

6 Ibid,, 503. 

7 Ibid. 


Vargas letter to the nuncio, the Pope would now have pre 
ferred that Elizabeth should refuse him his passport to England, 
and that he would have liked de la Quadra to have influenced 
the queen in that sense. But, as the Duchess of Parma 
pointed out, if any such reasons were to be given for the 
recall of Parpaglia, the French in Rome wo aid be encouraged 
to make further demands against Elizabeth, while on the other 
hand it would be impossible to pass over in silence such an 
insult as the refusal of a passport, without driving the English 
Catholics to despair. Margaret therefore advised that the 
Spanish ambassador should write to Parpaglia to the effect 
that, having carefully examined into the state of affairs, he 
had come to the conclusion that the granting of the passport 
was fall of difficulties, and that therefore Parpaglia would be 
well advised not to ask for it, and to postpone the execution 
of his mission until the conclusion of peace and the opening 
of the Council. 1 

De la Quadra wrote the suggested letter on July 25th, 2 
and on the same date he wrote to the Duchess of Parma 3 
that it would not be impossible to obtain the passport, but 
that the queen wished first to see the dispatches carried by 
Parpagiia. She would refuse to receive the Papal letters 
unless in them she were accorded all her titles. This was as 
much as to say that she would in no case receive the nuncio, 
because they certainly would not give her in Rome the title of 
" defender of the faith " (Defensor Fidei). The queen added 
that the sending of a nuncio was unnecessary, since she was so 
firmly fixed in her faith that she would die rather than change 
it ; de la Quadra had better see to it that Parpaglia did not 
come, since she did not wish to give displeasure to the Pope. 
Then she remembered that she had formerly told de la Quadra 
that she was of the same faith as himself, and began to argue 

1 Margaret of Parma, loc. cit. 


3 Ibid,, 515 seq. The letters to Parpaglia, Margaret of Parma 
and Vargas were also sent to Rome. De la Quadra to Philip II., 
July 23, 1560. Corresp. de Felipe II., I., 302. 


with him, finally saying that in all essentials there was hardly 
any difference between herself and the ambassador. 1 

The nuncio in France also wrote to Parpaglia that he had 
better not proceed any further in the matter, 2 and in October 
Parpaglia returned to Italy. 3 

Philip II. was severely blamed by Catholics for his action 
with regard to the mission of Parpaglia ; the English Catholics 
complained that it was his policy which was responsible for 
the fact that heresy had taken such deep root in their country. 4 
When Nicolas de Pelleve, Bishop of Amiens, and Papal legate 
in Scotland, passed through London on his return home, he 
informed the Spanish ambassador there that in his opinion 
the mission of a nuncio to England was exceedingly opportune. 
The French ambassadors in Scotland, Montluc, Bishop of 
Valence, and Randan, made similar complaints against 
Philip. Pelleve saw the reason for Philip s indirect support 
of " Elizabeth s evil cause " in the king s matrimonial plans 
for the English queen. 5 

It was quite true that from the first Philip had entertained 
the idea of winning over Elizabeth to the Hapsburg policy by 
means of some suitable marriage, and thus forcing her to 
renounce her support of the religious changes ; he hoped that 
he would thus be able to attain his ends by peaceful means, 

" Se puso en disputas y en querer me provar que en lo sub- 
stancial no diferiamos casi en nada." KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, 
II., 516; Corresp. de Felipe, II., I., 302 seq. Cf. Guzman de 
Silva, April 26, 1565, Collection de docum. hied., XXVI. , 539. 

2 De la Quadra to Parpaglia, July 29, 1560, Collecci6n de 
docum. ined., XXVI., 518. 

8 STEVENSON, Calendar, Foreign, 1560-1, n. 815, 7. He stayed 
for eight days at Orleans, and then went straight on to Rome 
on November 20. Ibid., n. 737, 10. 

* De la Quadra to Philip II., July 25, 1560, Corresp. de Felipe II., 
* 33 : "El querer V.M. sustentar a esta Reina por la conserva 
tion de sus Estados, es causa que la herejia haga raices en este 
Reino." Philip II. wrote on the margin in his own hand, " Este 
capitulo es bien mirar." 

5 De la Quadra, August 12, 1560, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II. 


more easily than by having recourse to war or force. First 
of all he offered his own hand to his royal cousin, and when 
Elizabeth rejected this, he caused the Archduke Charles of 
Austria to be put forward in his stead. These suggestions 
were not displeasing to the queen, because so long as there 
was any possibility of a Hapsburg marriage she thought she 
would be safe from a Papal excommunication. Taught by 
the experience of her elder sister, she had resolved not to marry 
at all, and had definitely given expression to this resolve 
before Parliament. On another occasion, however, she had 
expressed herself in the opposite sense, so that no one kaew 
what she really intended, and the hopes of her suitors were 
constantly receiving fresh encouragement. 1 Many others, 
besides the Hapsburgs, aspired to the hand of Elizabeth. 2 
The queen did not formally reject any of them, she allowed 
presents to be made to her by all of them, and drew much 
political profit from the friendship of her many suitors. Hei 
own subject, Robert Dudley, was the one who, above all, 
enjoyed her favour. When the wife of the latter met with a 
violent end, the rumour was soon current at court that Eliza 
beth had already married him in secret. 3 

Elizabeth made use of her relations with Dudley to confirm 
Philip in his illusions as to her own religious opinions. In 

1 E. WERTHEIMER, Hieratsverhandlungen zwischen Elisabeth 
von England und Erzherzog Karl von Oesterreich, 1559-61; 
Hist. Zeitschrift XL., N.F. IV., 385-432 ; Wertheimer is of 
opinion (p. 402) : "if we examine her conduct during these 
matrimonial negotiations, she appears as the very personification 
of deceit." M. BROSCH, Habsburgische Vermahlungsplane mie 
Elisabeth von England, in Mitteilungen des Instituts fiir osterr. 
Geschichtsforschung, X. (1889), 121-34. 

2 " Estamos aqui diez o doze embaxadores competitores de 
Su Magestad " wrote de la Quadra on October 29, 1559, to Feria, 
n. 710, the names of the twelve suitors are given. 

3 De la Quadra s justification, April 30, 1562, in KERVYN DE 
LETTENHOVE, III., 17. For the end of the wife of Dudley, cf. 
WALTER RYE, The murder of Amy Robsart, London, 1885 ; 
BEKKER, Elisabeth und Leicester, 44-77. 


January, 1561, a relative of Dudley, Henry Sidney, went to 
de la Quadra and pointed out to him how advantageous it 
would be for King Philip if Elizabeth could be induced to marry 
Dudley, because the latter was prepared to serve the king as 
his vassal, and Elizabeth would thereby be disposed to restore 
the old religion by means of the Council, in which case Dudley 
would certainly lend his aid ; x an attempt was even made 
to overcome de la Quadra s doubts as to this by a sworn state 
ment. 2 On February i3th Dudley himself paid a visit to the 
Spanish ambassador in order to confirm the promises made by 
Sidney, 3 and he even went so far on a subsequent occasion 
as to say that he was prepared to go in person to the Council 
should an ordinary envoy not be enough. 4 In the meantime 
Elizabeth acted as though she took the whole affair seriously. 
In the course of an audience of the Spanish ambassador she 
said, among many other things, that she would like to go to 
confession to him, and to tell him, under the seal of the 
sacrament, that she was not an angel, and that she could not 
deny her love for Dudley, but that she had not made up her 
mind to marry him or anyone else, although every day she 
saw more clearly the necessity of taking that step ; she said 
that she could only marry an Englishman, and what would 
de la Quadra say if she were to choose one who was the devoted 
servant of Philip ? 5 After Sidney s visit she began to single 
out the Spanish ambassador for special favour, and gave up 
persecuting the Catholics ; on April i^th d-e la Quadra wrote 
to Philip II. that during the past three years they had never 
been left in so much peace as during the last three months. 6 

1 De la Quadra to Philip II., January 22, 1561, Corresp. de 
Felipe, II., I., 312 seq. 

2 " Con juramentos grandes se esforzaron de persuadirme que 
la Reina y M. Roberto estaban determinados de restittiir la 
religion por via del Concilio." Ibid., 314. 

3 De la Quadra to Philip II., February 23, 1561, ibid., 316 seqq. 

4 " Me dijo qui si no bastaba inviar al Concilio, iria alia el 
mismo." Corresp. de Felipe II., I., 319. 

6 De la Quadra to Philip II., February 23, 1561, ibid., 317. 
6 Ibid., 335. 

VOL. XVI. 15 


The English Protestants saw all this with great anxiety. 
As the queen s lover, Dudley was no less distasteful to them 
than to the Catholics ; the violent death of his wife afforded 
the preachers occasion for making remarks in their pulpits 
which certainly did not redound to the good name of the 
queen. 1 De la Quadra, however, did not allow himself to bo 
deceived ; he replied evasively to Elizabeth s demands, and 
advised the Catholics to build no hopes for success upon her 
marriage with Dudley. In spite of this he advised his king 
to support Dudley s schemes, pointing out that the marriage 
could only damage Elizabeth s reputation, and would make it 
impossible for her any longer to hold the diplomatists in sus 
pense by means of their uncertainty as to her matrimonial 
intentions. 2 Philip s attitude towards the matter was one 
of great caution and reserve, though Elizabeth s vacillations 
had for him the advantage that at anyrate they caused the 
postponement of the arrival in England of a Papal nuncio. 
Philip sent instructions to Granvelle that the nuncio, whose 
mission had been suggested, must not start until the marriage 
of Elizabeth and Dudley had been openly decided upon. 3 

In spite of the failure of Parpaglia, Pius IV. had under 
consideration the sending of a fresh embassy to England. 
The Earl of Bedford, whom Elizabeth had sent to the French 
court to convey her condolences at the death of Francis II., 
had, in the course of conversation with Catherine de Medici, 
dropped the remark that there were many religious parties 

1 " Aun los predicadores en los pulpitos trataban dello de 
manera que prej udicaban a la honra y servicio de la Reina." 
De la Quadra, January 23, 1561, Corresp. de Felipe, II., I., 314. 
" Aunque ella [Elizabeth] ve que los herejes la tratan muy nial, 
especialmente los predicatores, y que Roberto esta peer quisto 
dellos que de los catolicos." De la Quadra March 25, 1561, ibid., 


2 De la Quadra to Granvelle, July 19, 1561, in KERVYN DE 

3 " Yo escribo [to Granvelle] que no le deje pasar hasta wer 
que camino lleva la platica que os ha movido Sidney." Philip II. 
to De la Quadra, March 17, 1561, Corresp. de Felipe II., I., 326. 


in England, and that the English queen would be glad of the 
advice of Catherine as to how she was to act. It was, he said, 
her intention to put an end to the religious strife by taking 
part in the Council, but that it seemed to her that the poweis 
on the north of the Alps must act together in order that the 
Council should be able to carry on its discussions with the 
necessary freedom. Elizabeth put forward this proposal 
merely to bring into being, under pretext of the Council, a 
union of the English and French Protestants against the 
ecumenical council. Bedford s remarks reached the ear of 
the Duke of Savoy through his ambassador, Morette, and were 
passed on by the duke to Rome, where they now took it as 
certain that Elizabeth would send representatives to the 
Council. 1 Pius IV., who had decreed the assembly of the 
Council of Trent on November 29th, 1560, and who was looking. 
for the return of England to the Church by peaceful means, 2 
now, therefore, turned his attention to the presentation of the 
brief of May 5th to the English queen by the hands of a nuncio, 
and in this way to invite her to send representatives to Trent. 
The Pope s choice fell upon Girolamo Martinengo, a noble 

1 De la Quadra to Philip II., March 25 and November 27, 1561, 
and January 10, 1562, Corresp. de Felipe II., I., 326 seq., 373, 378. 
De la Quadra to Granvelle, November 27, 1561, in KERVYN DE 
LETTENHOVE, II., 647 : "El caso es que este Moretta, persuadido 
del Conde Betford en Francia y con desseo de hazer Cardenal al 
Obispo de Tolon su cufiado, hizo que el Duque su amo dio este 
negocio por hecho al Papa, que fue causa de la venida del Abad 
Martinengo." Cf. SUSTA, I., 195. 

2 When Mula expressed to the Pope his hope that during his 
pontificate he would be able at least to a great extent to restore 
the unity of Christendom, Pius IV. replied : *" Dio il voglia, da 
noi non manchera ; gia facemo quello che non hanno voluto far 
gli altri ; non andamo con durezze e scommuniche, ma volemo 
andar con pieta e carita con tutti. Dissi che le scommuniche 
alienorno il regno d ln ghilterra. Si, disse, e noi vi mandamo 
il nostro nuntio, ch e 1 abbate vostro Martinengo, per acquittarli 
et farli bene, se potremo." Mula to the Doge, January 31, 1561 
(Papal Secret Archives, Miscell., Arm. III., 24, p. 431). 


of Brescia, who, after having first refused, at length accepted 
the difficult mission. 1 

In his instructions of March Qth, 1561, 2 Martmengo was told 
to go in the first place through Germany to Brussels, and there 
take counsel with Granvelle and the Duchess of Parma, and 
to apply for a passpoit to England from Elizabeth. In London 
he was to place himself in communication with the Spanish 
and French ambassadors, but he was not to take up his abode 
with the former, and he must have his audience of the queen 
without his being present. Should the passport to England 
be refused, or should the queen delay in making reply, the 
nuncio was to have recourse to Rome for further instructions. 
He was only to ask for the release from prison of the English 
bishops after the matter of the Council had been dealt with. 
At the beginning of April Granvelle received news that the 
nuncio had started from Rome. 3 

On this occasion as well, Philip of Spain was not at first in 
favour of this Papal mission to Elizabeth. At the beginning 
of February his representative in Rome was instructed to ask 
the Pope to refrain from any such step, on the ground that it 
was impossible, on account of the religious disturbances in 
France, to take energetic proceedings against the English 
queen. 4 Pius IV. caused him to be informed that it was merely 
a matter of inviting her to the Council, 5 yet Philip wrote to 
Flanders in April that the departure of Martinengo for England 
must be prevented. 6 This letter, however, had no great effect 

1 Guido Gianetti to Elizabeth, and John Sheres to Cecil, dated 
Venice, December 21, 1560. STEVENSON, Calendar, Foreign, 
1560-1, n. 815-6. 

In MEYER, 407 seq. Cf. PALLAVICINI, 15, 7, i. 

3 Granvelle to de la Quadra, April 4, 1561, in KERVYN DE 

4 GACHARD, Corresp. de Marguerite de Parme, I., 400. KERVYN 

6 De la Quadra to Granvelle, April 14, 1561, in KERVYN DE 
LETTENHOVE, II., 548 seq. 

Margaret of Parma to de la Quadra, April 21, 1561 : " Su 
Magestad ha escrito que se estorvasse la yda del Abad " (KERVYN 


upon the course of events ; on the contrary, in the opinion 
of the Duchess of Parma, the negotiations of de la Quadra in 
London had gone too far to render any interference advisable. 
Elizabeth found herself in a position of no small embarrass 
ment on account of the mission of Martinengo. She was fully 
resolved not to admit any nuncio to England, yet, out of 
consideration for Philip II., she did not dare openly to forbid 
him to set foot in the country. Accordingly she sought first 
to gain time. She told de la Quadra that she was delighted 
that the nuncio was coming, but that he must remember that 
according to the laws of the land it was impossible to give 
the Pope the title of universal or supreme bishop, and that 
he could only be entitled the Bishop of Rome. 1 On another 
occasion she declared that she was prepared to send repre 
sentatives to the Council, and to accept its decrees, always 
supposing that it was a really free Council, but that she 
regretted that the Pope had not, as he had done in the case 
of the other princes, consulted her on the subject, and had thus 
treated her as a Protestant princess. She also said that she 
must have a guarantee that the bishops whom she sent would 
have a seat and a vote in the Council like the other Catholic 
bishops. By command of Elizabeth Cecil also had dealings 
with de la Quadra, though he went much further than the queen 
in the matter of making impossible conditions ; at one time 
he insisted that the reconciliation with Rome should be 
brought about by means of a conference between the repre 
sentatives of the Pope and the English theologians, while 
at another he claimed that the Papal brief must give the queen 
all the titles accorded to her by English law, and that otherwise 
it could not be accepted. 2 In conversation with de la Quadra 

DE LETTENHOVE, II., 555 ; omitted by MEVER, p. 34). De la 
Quadra was working earnestly for Martinengo, but he was unaware 
of the intentions of Philip II. Cf. de la Quadra to Granvelle, 
April 12, 1561, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 546. 

x De la Quadra to Granvelle, April 14, 1561, in KERVYN DE 

2 De la Quadra to Philip II., March 25, 1561, Corresp. de Felipe 
IL, L, 33, 333 ; MEYER, 34 ; FRERE, 75. 


Dudley was at pains to assure him that both he and the queen 
were resolved to restore the old religion in England, and that 
Elizabeth only wished to pat an end to the religious differences. 1 
At last things advanced so far that a place was arranged for 
the meeting between the queen and the nuncio ; Greenwich 
was chosen for this purpose, so as not to expose the Pope s 
representative to the risk of the insults of the populace in the 
streets of London. 2 

Before this, on April i2th, de la Quadra had written to the 
regent in the Netherlands to hurry forward Martinengo s 
journey, so that the queen might be forced to show her true 
colours. 3 Margaret of Parma agreed to this, but wished that 
the ambassador should first obtain from Elizabeth the neces 
sary passport for Martinengo. 4 Cecil received the request 
with apparent courtesy, but on April 25th he paid a visit to 
the Spanish ambassador and made excuses for not being able 
to arrange the desired audience for the moment. When, 
however, he had another meeting with de la Quadra on the 
28th, his attitude was very different ; by that time he had hit 
upon a pretext for still keeping the nuncio out of England 
without occasioning any great scandal. In the middle of 
April certain important Catholics had been impiisoned for 
hearing Mass, and Cecil now magnified this affair into a Catholic 
conspiracy, in which the Spanish ambassador was involved. 
Moreover, Pius IV. had a short time before sent a nuncio to 
Ireland, which fact was made use of by the Secretary of State 
to pretend that this nuncio was stirring up the people in that 
country, and that he feared the same thing might happen if 
Martinengo came to England. Under these circumstances 
Cecil declared that there could be no longer any question of 
giving Martinengo a passport. 5 

1 De la Quadra to Philip II., April 15, 1561, ibid., I., 339. 

2 Ibid., 338. 

3 De la Quadra to the Regent, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 


4 The Regent to de la Quadra, April 21, 1561, ibid., 555. 

5 De la Quadra to Margaret of Parma, April 28, 1561, ibid., 
559 seq. 


On May ist, 1561, the queen s Privy Council met at Green 
wich to come to a decision as to the admission of Martinengo. 
Even then many of the councillors were still hesitating to 
exclude the nuncio from England without further consideration, 
when the Lord Privy Seal, Nicholas Bacon, declared that it 
would be high treason to vote in favour of his admission, and 
in the end Cecil succeeded in winning over the whole Privy 
Council to his view. 1 

On May 5th the Spanish ambassador was summoned to hear 
the decision of the Privy Council. De la Quadra refused to 
accept this, on the ground that he was not the ambassador of 
the Pope ; the document was, therefore, merely read to him. 
This document stated that the admission of a Papal envoy 
was contrary to the law of the land, was opposed to wise 
policy, and was calculated to result in disturbances and rebel 
lion. It was, moreover, no new thing in England to refuse 
admission to Papal nuncios, for Queen Mary herself had done 
this when the Cardinal s hat had been sent to Peto from 
Rome. 2 As far as the Council was concerned, the queen 
wished to have nothing to do with it. It was not a free 
Council, and the queen had had no information as to the place 
where it was to assemble, or of other circumstances connected 
with it, as should have been the case, and as had been the case 
with other princes. This was not to be taken as meaning, 
however, that the Anglican Church would not take part if 
At any time the princes should assemble a Council that was 
universal, free, Christian and holy. 3 It was quite untruthfully 
stated in the document that this decision had been arrived 
at by the Royal Council unanimously and without opposition. 4 
With this reply the separation of England from the universal 
Church was decided for centuiies to come. Nothing but his 
realization of the enormous importance of this decision can 
explain why Pius IV., in spite of the insult offered to him, still 

1 MEYER, 35 ssq. 

2 Cf. Vol XIV. of this work, p. 397- 

3 De la Quadra to Margaret of Parma, May 6, 1561, in KERVYN 
DE LETTENHOVE, II., 564 seq. 

4 MEYER, 35. 


considered it his duty as supreme pastor, to let no opportunity 
go by of winning over the sovereign of a country which was 
still for the most part Catholic. The uncertainty as to her 
own private opinions, which Elizabeth knew very well how 
to keep to herself, seemed still to hold out at least a glimmer of 
hope, which the Pope may have considered it a matter of 
conscience to take into account. He therefore, on June 29th, 
1561, charged Cardinal Este, who had been sent as legate 
to France, to open negotiations with the Queen of England as 
well, and to make concessions to her if she would but return 
to the Church. 1 When, on November i6th, the ambassador 
of the Duke of Savoy, Morette, arrived in London on his way 
to Scotland, his companion, the protonotary Foix, on the 
strength of the remarks of the Earl of Bedford, had the bold 
ness to seek an audience with Elizabeth. The queen made 
reply to his proposals that she should send representatives 
to Trent, by referring him to the decision of the previous May, 
and she accepted a letter from Cardinal Este with the remark 
that her ambassador, Throckmorton, would send a reply to 
the Cardinal. 2 This fresh attempt to win over Elizabeth 
naturally had no chance of success, but Pius IV. wished to 
give proofs that as far as he was concerned he had made every 
possible attempt, and had left nothing undone. 3 Before 
this the nuncio in France, Gualterio, had had equally un 
successful dealings with the English ambassador, Throck 
morton, who was violently opposed to the Catholics. 4 When, 
at the end of 1563, Thomas Sackville, the son of the under 
secretary of the Treasury, Richard Sackville, came to Rome 
during his travels in Italy, this seemed to afford a fresh oppor- 

1 SUSTA, I., 196. The letters of Este concerning his negotiations 
with the English ambassador on January 17 and 30, 1562, in 
BALUZE-MANSI, IV., 381, 384. 

2 De la Quadra to Philip II., November 27, 1561, Corresp. de 
Felipe II., I., 373, and to Granvelle, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, 
II., 646 seq. 

3 So wrote Cardinal Borromeo to Cardinal Este, January 3, 1562, 
in SUSTA, I., 335 ; cf. II., 417. The letters of Este of January 
17 and 30, 1562, in BALUZE-MANSI, IV., 381, 384. 

4 MEYER, 34. 


tunity of finding out from both the son and his father whether 
there was any chance of the admission of a nuncio to England 
being allowed. At anyrate it does honour to the goodwill of 
Pius IV. that he should have made this attempt ; it met with 
no success, and Richard SackviHe informed his son that no 
one in England would dare so much as to suggest such a thing. 1 
In this way, in Rome as elsewhere, there remained for a long 
time great uncertainty as to the real views of the English 
queen. 2 

After the rejection of Parpaglia and Martinengo, the ques 
tion whether Elizabeth should not be formally excommuni 
cated became acute. 3 In a letter dated July i6th, 1561, to 
his ambassador in Rome, Vargas, Philip II. was strongly 
opposed to such a step, on the ground that it would be im 
possible to give effect to a Papal excommunication by deposing 
Elizabeth. 4 The Emperor Ferdinand expressed himself in a 
similar sense on July iQth, 1563, 6 when a memorial 6 from the 

1 POLLEN in Publications of the Catholic Record Society, II., 
London, 1906, i seqq. MEYER, 45 seq. MAITLAND in the English 
Historical Review, XV. (1900), 757 seqq. Thomas Sackville 
(Lord Buckhurst and Earl of Dorset) made a name for himself 
later as a poet. 

2 Even in 1581 Elizabeth succeeded in making the experienced 
and shrewd French ambassador Lansac believe that she was at 
heart a Catholic (BROSCH, VI., 589)- The Protestants themselves 
did not feel at all certain about the queen s views. On August 10, 
1565, Edward Warner wrote to Cecil from Spa that Elizabeth was 
seeking through an intermediary to induce the Pope to confirm 
the grants of benefices which she had made, and to recognize her 
legitimacy ; King Philip was supposed to have urged her to do 
this : at anyrate such was the strong rumour which had several 
times come from Rome. KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, IV., 232 seq. 

3 Borromeo to the legates of the Council, June 2, 1563, in 
SUSTA, IV., 49. 

4 In MIGNET, Histoire de Marie Stuart, I., 405 seq. MEYER, 36. 

5 Letter to the orators of the Council, in SICKEL, Konzil, 551 &q. 
Cf. SUSTA, IV., 97. 

6 In BUCHOLTZ, IX., 700 seq., and contained in a letter from 
the Imperial envoys to Ferdinand, June 12, 1563. Cf. SUSTA, IV., 
87. A memorial urging the excommunication of Elizabeth is 
also to be seen in the English Hist. Rev., VII. (1892), 82-4. 


English Catholics in Flanders had put forward the suggestion 
that the Council of Trent should at least make a declaration 
that Elizabeth deserved to be excommunicated, even though 
the carrying into effect of the ecclesiastical censure might 
have to be deferred. Granvelle in like manner, in a memor 
andum to the Council, advised strongly against the excom 
munication. 1 The Papal legates at Trent approved the 
Emperor s views. 2 The Pope did the same on July 6th, 3 
although he had been inclined a short time before to decide 
in the sense suggested by the aforesaid English memorial. 4 
This set forth the view that the Catholics in England were 
confidently awaiting a declaration by the Council against 
Elizabeth, and that unless this were made the assembly 
would forfeit all respect in their opinion. There was no need 
to be held back by the fear least such a step against Elizabeth 
would prejudice the position of the English Catholics, since 
the latter would willingly bear any such increase in their 
sufferings if only the Council would speak oat on their behalf. 5 
The fear that Elizabeth would retaliate by taking fresh 
steps against her Catholic subjects was well founded. The 
mission of the two nuncios, Parpaglia and Martinengo, had 
already brought about a change for the worse in the position 
of the English Catholics. During the first years of Elizabeth 
the cruel religious laws had only been enforced with full 
severity in the case of the Catholic bishops who had remained 
true to their duty, though, even in their case, the government 

1 POULLET, I., 551 ; RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 115 ; MEYER, 43. 

2 SICKEL, Konzil, 555; MEYER, 410 seq; SUSTA, J.V., in. 

3 MEYER, 410; SUSTA, IV., 117. 

4 MEYER, 409. On October 31, 1563, Pius IV. informed 
Philip II. that the excommunication of Elizabeth had been post 
poned out of consideration for the Spanish king. Philip, on his 
part, begged Elizabeth not to persecute the bishops and the other 
Catholics. RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 179. Cf. SUSTA, IV., 139. 

5 A second part of the memorial, which was not put forward 
for discussion by the Papal legates at Trent, dealt with the trans 
ference of the English crown to a Catholic prince, who was to 
marry Mary Stuart. BUCHOLTZ, IX., 701, 


had taken good care not to go to the length of shedding their 
blood. 1 Two of the bishops were thrown into prison as early 
as the beginning of April, 1559, probably in order to remove 
from Parliament some who would be opposed to the new 
religious laws. 2 By the end of 1559, however, the only ones 
who retained their sees were Stanley of Sodor and Man, and 
the apostate Kitchin of Llandaff, all the others having been 
deposed during the course of the year. The penalty of im 
prisonment followed that of deposition, the eighty-five year 
olxt Tunstall of Durham being thus imprisoned in the palace 
of the Anglican archbishop Parker, while Baine of Coventry- 
Lichfield and Oglethorp of Carlisle were kept in custody in 
the house of Grindal, Bishop of London, a form of imprison 
ment more unpleasant to the prisoners than incarceration in 
the Tower. These three bishops died before the end of 1559. 
On January i2th, 1560, White of Winchester also died in the 
custody of his relatives, from fever which he had contracted 
during his long imprisonment in the Tower. Morgan of 
St. David s, who also did not outlive 1559, remained at liberty 
until the time of his death. In June, 1559, Gold well of Si. 
Asaph succeeded in escaping to the continent. Poole of 
Peterborough was allowed to remain at liberty in London, 
within a three mile radius. 

Of the remaining bishops eight were thrown into the Tower 
or other prisons during May and June, 1560 ; Parpagalia wrote 3 
that this was probably due to the suspicions aroused by his 
prospective mission rather than to any other cause. The 
prisoners were treated with extreme severity ; when the 
arrival of Martinego was expected, and an intercepted letter 

1 BRIDGETI-KNOX, The true history of the Catholic Hierarchy 
deposed by Elizabeth, London, 1889 ; G. E. PHILLIPS, The ex 
tinction of the ancient Hierarchy, London, 1906 ; the same in the 
Dublin Review, CXLII. (1908), 315 seqq. BELLESHEIM in Hist.-pol. 
Blatter, CV. (1890), 278 seqq., CXXXVI. (1908), 891 seqq. 
SPILLMANN, II., 34 seqq. For Bourne of. BIRT in the Dublin 
Review, CXXI. (1897), *34 se( J^I- 

2 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 411. 

3 September, 8, 1560, in STEVENSON, Calendar, Foreign, 1560- 
1561, n. 507. 


from the Tower expressed the hope that before long the 
imprisoned bishops would at least recover their liberty through 
the intervention of the Pope and the King of Spain, all com 
munication with the outside world was refused them. 1 It 
must be added that their life was in constant danger, while 
the successes of the Huguenots in France encouraged the 
government in December, 1562, to demand the taking of the 
oath of supremacy from the imprisoned bishops under threat 
of death. 2 At the opening of Parliament on January i2th, 
1563, the principal theme of the Protestant preachers, both 
at Westminster before the queen, and at St. Paul s before the 
convocation of clergy, was the necessity of putting to death 
"the caged wolves." 3 

Elizabeth did not dare, however, further to provoke the 
Catholics before the conclusion of the war with France. 4 
When she became afraid lest the French should stir up a 
rebellion in England the tieatment of the bishops became much 
less severe than it had been before. Elizabeth gave back his 
libeity to the Archbishop of York, Heath, who was ill, about 
the middle of the year. 5 At the intercession of the Emperor 
Ferdinand, 6 Thirlby of Ely, Turberville of Exeter, Bourne 

1 De la Quadra to Granvelle, April 20, 1561, in KERVYN DE 
LETTENHOVE, II., 553 seq. ; cf. 559. As the Warden of the Tower 
stated, they were still, on June 14, 1562, in " strict solitary im 
prisonment " (Hist.-pol. Blatter, CV., 287). Pius IV. tried to send 
them help in money by the hands of de la Quadra, but they were 
not to know whence it came. Philip II. to de la Quadra, March 
17, 1561, Corresp. de Felipe II., I., 325. Cf. also SUSTA, IV., 
1 68, n. 3, 187 seq. 

2 De la Quadra to Granvelle, Dec. 13, 1562, in KERVYN DE 

3 De la Quadra to Carlo de Giesso, January 14, 1563, ibid., 
HI., 234. 

4 De la Quadra to Granvelle, May i, 1563, ibid., III., 366: 
" Hasta tener concluyda la paz con Francia, no osara venir la 
Reina a la execucion destos Catholicos." 

5 De la Quadra to Granvelle, July 3, 1563, ibid., III., 499. 

6 A letter of his was already in the hands of de la Quadra at the 
beginning of May (de la Quadra to Granvelle, May i, 1563, ibid., 


of Bath and Wells, Pate of Worcester, and Watson of Lincoln 
were released from the Tower and handed over to the custody 
of Anglican bishops, though even so their imprisonment was 
very strict. Only thoroughly Protestant servants were 
allowed to approach them, their custodians were not allowed, 
as was customary, to invite them to their table, but had to 
send them their meagre rations to their rooms ; they were 
given nothing but Protestant books to read, they were for 
bidden to practise Catholic worship, and whenever possible 
they were forced to attend Protestant services and sermons. 1 
Only Archbishop Heath was allowed to remain in his own 
house ; Scott of Chester, who was released from prison in 1564, 
and placed under police surveillance, escaped to Louvain, 
where he died in the following year. 

The intercession of the Emperor had only succeeded for a 
short time in opening the gates of the Marshalsea Prison in 
Southwark to Bonner, Bishop of London, who was the most 
hated and feared of all the Catholic prelates. In 1564 an 
attempt was made to implicate him in fresh charges. The 
Protestant bishop, Home, in whose diocese Southwark was 
situated, was deputed once again to make the attempt to get 
him to take the oath of supremacy, 2 but Bonner was able to 
resist all his efforts in the most brilliant manner. He 
proved in an elaborate treatise that the Act of Supremacy 
was contrary to law, and that Home was not a person com 
petent to exact the oath of supremacy, because he could not, 
even in English law, be considered a bishop. The proofs 
adduced by this able jurist were irrefutable, since both the 
consecration of the English bishops, and the Act of Supremacy, 
were, even under English law, full of illegalities. 3 All further 

III., 365). A second letter, of September 24, only arrived after 
the bishops had been liberated (Hist.-pol. Blatter, CV., 288). 

1 Orders of the Privy Council ; see SPILLMANN II., 47. 

2 Luis Roman to Margaret of Parma, April 29, 1564, in KERVYN 
DE LETTENHOVE, IV., 13 seq. 

8 The Act of Supremacy had been passed by the Upper and 
Lower Houses, but not, as was also necessary, by Convocation. 
It was therefore illegal. Parker, the consecrator of Home, had 


efforts to induce Bonner to take the oath of supremacy were 
given up, and in 1566 an attempt was made to remedy the 
legal defects which he had pointed out by means of a Parlia 
mentary enactment. 1 

The arguments put forward by Bonner, did not, of course, 
induce the government to restore the ancient hierarchy. With 
the death of Watson of Lincoln on September 27th, 1584, 
after 26 years imprisonment, the last remaining Catholic 
bishop in England died. When, a year later, Goldwell, 
Bishop of St. Asaph, also died in Rome, the ancient English 
hierarchy became extinct. By the Catholics the imprisoned 
bishops were looked upon as almost martyrs ; they realized 
that the extreme penalty had been withheld in their case 
merely in order that they might be deprived of the glory of 
martyrdom, and that their long drawn out suffering was worse 
than a violent death. 2 

As had been the case with the bishops, the full rigour of 
the penal laws was not immediately put into force against 
the Catholic body in general. The Acts of Parliament which 
abolished the supremacy of the Pope and the Mass, and en 
forced attendance at Protestant worship, 3 received the royal 
assent on May 8th, 1559. In giving this the queen expressed 
her thanks for the care and moderation which had marked 
the debates, and promised to enforce these wise new laws 
which were so necessary for the maintenance of peace, justice, 

been ordained according to the ordinal of Edward VI., for at the 
time of his consecration the Roman pontifical had quite certainly 
been abolished, but Parliament had forgotten to take steps to 
introduce the ordinal of Edward VI. Moreover, even according 
to English law, the consecration had to be performed by an 
archbishop and two bishops. Thus, at Parker s consecration, 
there could not have been any archbishop, and the four ecclesi 
astical dignitaries who took part in the consecration were all 
deposed bishops. 

1 FRERE, 130 seqq. 

* Cf. the remarks of Sander and Allen in PHILLIPS, Dublin 
Review, CXLII. (1908), 319. 

3 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 410. 


and religious unity. 1 The first steps in this direction were 
taken in June ; England was divided into six districts, and 
visitors were appointed ; these were, in the case of the counties, 
chosen principally from the nobility, but each visiting com 
mission had attached to it a lawyer, or at least a theologian. 
It was the duty of the visitors above all to exact the oath of 
supremacy from the clergy, and to introduce the use of the 
Book of Common Prayer. Inspectors were to be appointed 
in every parish, who were to denounce all those who, without 
valid excuse, were absent from divine worship. Besides this 
they were to remove all traces of the old religious practices, 
and especially to replace the altars with simple tables. 
It was also their duty to destroy in private houses, 
reliquaries, pictures and images. 2 A number of other 
regulations dealt with the introduction of the new religious 
conditions. 3 

We only have full reports of the proceedings of these visita 
tions in the case of southern England. Although the com 
mission nowhere found any enthusiasm for the new religion, 
it yet did not there meet with any strong opposition. At 
Durham, however, the episcopal city of the much-loved 
Bishop Tunstall, the chapter declared, almost to a man, that 
the supreme ecclesiastical authority in England belonged to 
the Pope ; 4 at York a fourth part of the clergy refused to 
present themselves to take the oath, and a similar state of 
affairs was found at Chester and Carlisle. In other places, 
however, the parochial clergy showed themselves very com 
pliant. The commission proceeded with great caution, gave 

1 FRERE, 30 seq. 

2 Ibid., 35 seqq. According to Frere (p. 39) the action of the 
government was illegal because both the Acts of Supremacy and 
Uniformity lacked the approval of Convocation. He justifies it 
by stating that " a religious revolution, like any other revolution, 
must risk technical illegalities." 

3 Ibid. 

4 Ibid., 42. Cf. STEVENSON in The Month, LXXIX. (1893), 
24 seqq. 


time for consideration to those who refused the oath, and 
only deprived very few of their offices. 1 

In London, the headquarters of Protestantism, the change 
of religion was received by the people with unconcealed joy. 
In the cathedral church of St. Paul the visitors gave instruc 
tions for the destruction of the images, crucifixes and altars, 
and the order was eagerly carried out. 2 In September, 1559, 
the Spanish ambassador wrote that the state of religion was 
worse than it had ever been ; for eight days, he said, they 
had not ceased to burn crucifixes, images, vestments and 
sacred objects, and they were proceeding with such violence 
against those who refused the oath or to obey, that it seemed 
likely that in the course of a few days Elizabeth would burn 
more Catholics than her sister had sent heretics to the flames 
during her whole reign. 3 For three weeks the populace was 
allowed to give free vent to its rage. 4 

The royal visitations came to an end in October, 1559. 

1 FRERE, 41 seq. Creighton maintains that out of 9400 eccle 
siastics only 192 refused the oath of supremacy. Against this, 
according to the calculations of J. FORBES in Revue des quest, 
hist., LVIII. (1895), 456, 517, and H. N. BIRT (The Elizabethan 
religious settlement, London, 1907) it is clear that in 1559 there 
were only about 7500 ecclesiastics, and that for the years 1559-* 
1565 the names of about 700 are given who suffered deprivation. 
At the same time 1934 prebends disappear from the lists between 
June, 1559, and the end of 1565, without counting new appoint 
ments. Birt therefore is of opinion that about 2000 priests 
refused the oath of supremacy. The question, however, is one 
that calls for further inquiry ; it must in any case be admitted 
that the majority of the clergy did not show themselves staunch 
to their principles. Cf. Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch., XXXIII. 
(1912), 146 seq. Dublin Review, CXLIII. (1908), 212 seq. 

2 FRERE, 42. 

3 De la Quadra to Granvelle, September 2, 1559, in KERVYN DE 
LETTENHOVE II., 13. As early as July 13, 1559, de la Quadra 
wrote to Philip : " haberse commenzado a ejecutar las leyes del 
Parlamento en las cosas de la religion muy rigurosamente." 
Corresp. de Felipe II., I., 220. 

4 FRERE, 42. 


In the meantime, on July igth, a central permanent com 
mission, consisting of three ecclesiastics, eight lawyers, and 
eight other laymen, had been set up ; this was to carry out 
the royal power of visitation, give effect to the Acts of Supre 
macy and Uniformity, watch over the attendance at divine 
worship, and see to other ecclesiastical ordinances. The task 
of exacting the oath of supremacy was also laid upon this 
commission in October. It began its work in November 1 , and 
in the following year the newly-appointed Anglican bishops 
again took up the work of visitation. 

The results of these episcopal visitations were by no means 
satisfactory to the friends of the new ecclesiastical conditions. 
Many of the clergy still maintained " externally the dress, 
and in their hearts the religious opinions which they had 
inherited from the days of Papal rule, and they bewitched 
the eyes and ears of the populace to such -an extent that people 
might suppose either that Papal doctrines had not yet been 
abolished or would shortly be restored." 2 At Hereford the 
feast of the Assumption of Our Lady was still solemnly cele 
brated, and a strict fast observed on the vigil. Some who had 
refused to take the oath, and had been driven from Exeter, 
Worcester, and other places were lodged and entertained by 
the justices of the peace, and honoured with a torch-light 
procession, while the Anglican bishop was a stranger in his 
own diocese. 3 At Winchester many of the laity escaped the 
visitation by changing their houses, and special difficulties 
were encountered in the case of the leading Catholics in the 
country districts. Six months later the Book of Common 
Prayer was still not in general use. 4 The University of Oxford 
was a stronghold of Catholic doctrine. Bishop Home of 
Winchester wrote to Cecil that if he were to take strict pro 
ceedings scarcely two people would be left in any house. 5 
In the diocese of Carlisle the clergy were, it is true, ready to 

1 Ibid., 41. 2 Ibid., 58. Ibid., 64. 4 Ibid. 

6 Ibid., 65. The Mayor of Oxford declared in 1561 that there 
were not three houses in which there were not Papists ; De la 
Quadra to Margaret of Parma, Nov. 15, 1561, in KERVYN DE 

VOL. xvi. 16 


subscribe to the oath, but the Anglican bishop himself ad 
mitted that this compliance was merely the result of fear. 1 
Pilkington, the Bishop of Durham, compared his visitation 
to a struggle with wild beasts, worse than that which Paul 
had to undergo at Ephesus. 2 

Reports of Catholic origin make it clear, no less than these 
Protestant evidences, that by far the greater part of England, 
during the first years of Elizabeth, was still firmly attached 
in its opinions to the old religion. The populace, wrote 
Sanders to Cardinal Morone about 1561, is composed of 
peasants, shepherds and artisans ; the peasants and shepherds 
are all Catholics, but some of the artisans are schismatics. 
The more distant parts of the country are still very far from 
being heretical, as for example, Wales, Devon, Westmoreland, 
and Northumberland. Since the cities of England are few 
and small, and since heresy has no hold in the country dis 
tricts, it is the opinion of competent judges that not more 
than one per cent, of the English people is infected. The 
Lutherans therefore speak of their adherents as "a little 
flock " 3 De la Quadra wrote on January i6th, 1560, that the 
sacraments were still dispensed in England with the same 
frequency as of old, but in secret, and that in London many 
masses were celebrated every day. 4 

Nevertheless England was lost to the Catholic Church. 
The followers of the old religion had no leader, they had no 
organization, and above all they had no clear principles. 
The Book of Common Prayer was made up of psalms, of 
passages from Scripture, and of prayers which could also be 
found in the Roman Missal. Many who passed as good 
Catholics persuaded themselves that it was sufficient to main 
tain their faith in their hearts, and that they could obey the 
civil authority in externals, such as singing the psalms and. 

1 FRERE, 67. 

2 Ibid. 

3 Publications of the Catholic Record Society, I. Cf. The 
Month, 1905, II., 547 seq. 

4 To Count Feria, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 186. 


reading the Bible. 1 At the same time they allowed them 
selves to attend the Protestant churches and services, and 
sought to quiet their consciences by blocking their ears with 
wool, so as not to hear the Anglican sermons. 2 There were 
even priests who secretly offered the sacrifice of the Mass, 
and in public celebrated the Protestant worship, while some 
of the laity even went so far as to receive the Anglican com 
munion, 3 which in their opinion was nothing but a little bread 
and wine. The want of clearness of ideas on the subject was 
so great that, in 1562, some Catholics thought of putting 
before the Council of Trent the question whether it was lawful 
to assist at Anglican services and sermons. De la Quadra 
sent a request to Vargas, the Spanish ambassador in Rome, 
that he would, by the Pope s orders, submit this question to 
certain theologians of the Inquisition. The reply of the 
Roman tribunal was a clear and decided negative. 4 In spite 
of this, however, in 1592, Cardinal Allen found himself obliged 
to exhort the priests in England to be very careful not to teach 
or defend the view that it was lawful to take part in Protestant 
worship. 5 

In view of this confusion as to questions of principle it is 
easy to understand how it was that the great majority of the 
clergy, in spite of their internal reluctance, accepted the oath 
of supremacy, and were followed in so doing by their flocks. 
On the other hand, the same thing explains why the govern- 

1 Report of Allen as to his work in England during the years 
1562-1565, in Bellesheim, ALLEN, 18. 

2 Stone in Dublin Review, CIX. (1891), 322. 


4 De la Quadra to Philip II., November 8, 1562, Corresp. de 
Felipe II., I., 425 seq. The letter of de la Quadra to Vargas, 
August 7, 1562, in an English translation in MAITLAND, English 
Hist. Rev., XV. (1900), 531, where is also given (p. 531 seq.} in 
the original Latin, the request to the Inquisition and the latter s 
reply. Another memorial from the English Catholics on the same 
subject was also sent to the Council by means of the Portuguese 
ambassador at Trent, Mascareynas. SUSTA, II., 297. 

5 BELLESHEIM, loc. cit., 18, n. 


ment did not find it necessary to put the laws against the 
Catholics into force with extreme rigour, at anyrate, for the 
moment ; so long as the majority of the adherents of the old 
religion conformed outwardly and attended the Protestant 
worship, the new religion was bound, by slow degrees, and 
as it were naturally, to take root in their hearts. The fears 
inspired by the frightful penalties of the law worked in the same 

The aim of the new penal laws of 1563 was to. add to these 
fears. 1 While hitherto the penalties of pmemunire and high 
treason had been attached only to the second or third offence 
against the Act of Supremacy, they were now to be incurred 
at the first or second act of defence of the Papal authority. 
At the same time the obligation of taking the oath of supre 
macy was extended to two further classes of persons ; in the 
first place to all members of the House of Commons, and to 
all school-masters and lawyers, and secondly to all those who 
had ever held any ecclesiastical office, who openly showed 
disapproval of the State religion, or who celebrated or heard 
Mass. To those of the former class, the oath could only be 
offered once, and that under penalty of death. " The amazing 
violence and unlawful audacity of the followers of the Bishop 
of Rome " were given as the excuse for this extraordinary 
severity. 2 This excuse, however, was quite without founda 
tion as far as the English Catholics were concerned ; Lord 
Montague was quite right in stating in the Upper House that 
it was a well-known fact that the Catholics had not caused 
any disburbances in the kingdom. They did not hold dis 
putations and they did not preach, they did not disobey the 
queen, nor did they put forward any new doctrines or tenets. 3 
Elizabeth, however, often complained of the hostility of the 
Guise in France, and at the end of 1562, in connection with 
the so-called conspiracy of the two Poles, she raised an outcry 
that they " were cultivating relations in this kingdom with 

1 LINGARD, VII., 316. 

2 Ibid. 

3 Ibid. 


rebels and enemies of the crown." 1 These complaints, how 
ever, were but an excuse. 

Arthur Pole, the nephew of Cardinal Pole, had, as the 
representative of the White Rose, certain claims to the English 
crown. 2 This young man, who was of a restless spirit, and 
combined great audacity with very little prudence or capa 
city, 3 had at first offered his services to the English queen, 
but had been rejected ; in 1561 he had been placed in the 
Tower with Waldgrave because he was suspected of being a 
Catholic and the government distrusted him. 4 By the advice 
of certain sorcerers, 5 he determined to leave England in 
September, 1562, as de la Quadra informs us, 6 nominally on 
account of his religious opinions, but in reality to seek his 
fortune and, by the help of the Catholics, to obtain possession 
of the English crown. 7 De la Quadra and the French am 
bassador, Foix, to whom he turned for aid, refused to help 
the visionary, 8 who, when he was on point of taking ship, was 
imprisoned at the instance of an informer. 9 He then con 
fessed that it was his intention to take service under the 
Guise in France, to marry his brother Edmund to Mary Stuart, 
and himself become Duke of Clarence. 10 The condemnation 

1 De la Quadra to Philip II., December 6, 1562, Corresp. de 
Felipe II., I., 438. 

Cf. POLLARD in the Dictionary of National Biography, XLVL, 


3 De la Quadra thus describes him in his letter to Philip II., 
September 15, 1562, Corresp. de Felipe II., I., 421. 

4 De la Quadra to Margaret of Parma, April 28, 1561, in KERVYN 

6 De la Quadra to the same, December 19, 1562, ibid., III., 


To Philip II., September 15, 1562, Corresp. de Felipe II., 

L, 421- 

7 " Pretender las sucesiones deste Reino con el favor de los 
catolicos." Ibid. 

8 De la Quadra, ibid. 

De la Quadra to Margaret of Parma, October 17, 1562, in 

10 De la Quadra to the same, December 19, 1562, ibid., III., 215. 


to death of the two brothers was not carried into effect, and 
they remained in the Tower till their death. 1 

While the new religious laws were in preparation, the 
preachers fulminated in every pulpit against the " papists " 
giving as their reason the anti-Protestant demonstrations in 
Paris. There was never a sermon, wrote de la Quadra, which 
did not urge the kiling of the Catholics ; at the same time Cecil 
and his party were working for the same end. Had they but 
dared, scarcely a Catholic in the country would have been 
safe. 2 But for the moment there could be no question of 
carrying out the religious laws in their full rigour ; the duty 
of receiving the oath of supremacy was reserved to the Angli 
can bishops. At the suggestion of Elizabeth, Archbishop 
Parker gave his suffragans instructions in a secret letter never 
to demand the oath a second time without first laying the full 
details of the case before him. It was also expressly for 
bidden by the queen that the oath should again be offered 
to the bishops in prison. 3 

By this insistence on the oath of supremacy Catholics were 
excluded from Parliament and from any kind of office ; in 
this way they were bound to become a despised caste, and 
they and their religion robbed of all respect. 4 Frequent 
sermons on the pretensions of the Pope and the abominations 
of the Mass were formally ordered at the visitation of the 
diocese of Winchester in 1562. 5 The most unseemly parodies 

1 POLLARD, loc. cit. 

2 Nunca los predicadores de aqui hacen sermon en que no 
inciten al pueblo a degollar a los papistas, y el mismo Sicel y los 
de su liga nunca tratan de otro, y si osasen, bien creo que no 
quedaria cat61ico en el Reino que no fuese degollado ; pero son 
muchos los buenos y se venderian caros siempre que a esto se 
viniese. Corresp. de Felipe II., de la Quadra to Philip II., 
January 10, 1563. Vol. I., 464. 

3 LINGARD. VII., 318 ; FRERE, 102. 

4 Cecil gives this advice in his " Device for the alteration of 
religion," in BURNEX, History of the Reformation, ed. Pocock 
V., 497. 

5 FRERE, 65, 


of the old religion were openly tolerated and approved, and 
on January 6th, 1559, in a comedy of this kind, at which the 
queen was present, crows were represented in the cardinalitial 
dress, asses in episcopal vestments, while wolves appeared as 
Catholic abbots. 1 Pamphlets, issued with episcopal approba 
tion, dragged in the mire everything Catholic, at home and 
abroad. 2 The English Catholics were more heavily burdened 
with taxes than their fellow-subjects, while a custom grew up 
by which, whenever the Treasury was in special need of funds, 
the government had the right to levy so-called " loans " from 
private individuals, though everyone knew that they would 
never be repaid. The Catholics were especially liable to 
demands of this sort, sometimes to the extent of a hundred 
pounds sterling a head. 3 The war with France, which was 
essentially waged in order to assist the Huguenots against 
the French Catholics, was paid for, for the most part, with 
Catholic money. 4 But the most oppressive burden upon 
those who professed the old faith was the tax levied for non- 
attendance at Protestant worship. The ordinary individual 

1 Schifanoia, January 23, 1559, in BROWN-BENTINCK, VII, 
n. 10. De la Quadra wrote on October 3, 1562, to Margaret of 
Parma, concerning a comedy, in which Pietro Soto, confessor of 
Charles V., and professor at Oxford under Mary, and the well- 
known theologian Malvenda, urged fratricide (KERVYN DE 
LETTENHOVE, III., 154). When, however, the students of Cam 
bridge went to the length of deriding the much venerated im 
prisoned bishops in a comedy, this was more than the queen could 
allow, and she left the place with her torch-bearers, leaving the 
performers in the dark. Guzman de Silva to Margaret of Parma, 
August 19, 1564, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, VI., n. 88. 

2 De la Quadra to Philip II., August, 1561, in KERVYN DE 
LETTENHOVE, II., 609 n. 

3 De la Quadra to Margaret of Parma, December 19, 1562, ibid. 
III., 215 ; of. 209. d Assonleville to the same, April 24, 1563, 

ibid., 355- 

4 " Bellum gallicum, ad quod plus pecuniae contribuere coacti 
sunt illi, qui catholici habentur, quam alii." Petition of the 
English Catholics to the Council of Trent, 1563, in BUCHOLTZ, 
IX., 703. 


might escape taking the oath of supremacy, he might retire 
from any official position, but the terrible obligation of 
attending Protestant worship was brought home to him week 
after week, and he could not comply with this without denying 
his faith and his conscience, though the penalty for non- 
attendance, a shilling for each offence, was ruinous to a man 
of small means at a time when the value of money was ten or 
twelve times as great as at the present day. Attendance at 
Mass, on the other hand, was punished by the truly enormous 
fine of at least a hundred marks. 1 

Few records have been preserved of the carrying out of 
these penal laws during the first years of Elizabeth. In the 
beginning extreme measures were only adopted when it was a 
case of bringing home the law, or when some political object 
was involved. When it was reported to the queen that the 
Catholic worship was still being carried on in several parts of 
London, she caused the chapels of the Spanish and French 
ambassadors to be visited during the time of Mass on the 
feast of the Purification (February 2nd), 1560, and imprisoned 
all who were assisting at Mass at the French embassy. The 
excuse she gave for this arbitrary proceeding was her fear 
that, under the guise of religious worship, intrigues were being 
carried on with the French ambassador ; Elizabeth was very 
anxious to prevent Catholics from attending secret meetings, 2 
and on the same day she therefore had others, both priests 
and laymen, who had celebrated or heard Mass, thrown into 
prison. 3 During May, June, and September, 1560, further 
severe penalties against the adherents of the old religion were 
formulated. 4 In April, 1561, when the immediate arrival 

1 One mark was worth 13 shillings and 4 pence ; 100 marks 
was therefore in modern currency equivalent to 13,000 marks. 

2 De la Quadra to Margaret of Parma, February 7, 1560, in 

3 TRESAL, 409. 

4 The Month, 1904, II., 507. A list of those imprisoned for 
celebrating or hearing Mass during the first 10 years of Elizabeth, 
ibid. 1909, II., 307-311. Cf. Publ. of the Cath. Record Society, 
I., 45, 49 seqq. ; Calendar of State Papers, Domestic, 1547-1580, 
p. 173 seq., 321, Addenda 1545-1565, p. 510, 524. 


of the Papal nuncio, Martinengo, was expected, Cecil seized 
upon a pretext, quite insignificant in itself, for proving the 
hostility of the Catholics towards the state, and for taking 
severe measures against them. An English priest, who was 
embarking for Flanders, was recognized at Gravesend by his 
rosary and breviary, and thrown into prison ; terrified by 
threats he made the following admissions : he was the chaplain 
of Sir Edward Waldgrave, a former councillor of Queen Mary ; 
he was on his way to Flanders to distribute alms among the 
poor Catholic refugees ; Mass was celebrated every day at the 
house of Waldgrave, where three or four priests dispensed 
the Sacraments. He also gave the names of a large number 
of noblemen and others who were accustomed to meet there. 1 
Cecil magnified all this into a formal " papistical " conspiracy, 
in which the Spanish ambassador and the imprisoned bishops 
were involved, 2 and thus succeeded in providing a plausible 
reason for keeping Martinengo out of England. On April 
2Oth the prisoners were taken under strong escort through the 
streets of London to the Tower, 3 and soon afterwards sixty 
more, all of them noblemen and persons of importance, were 
thrown into prison. 4 The persecution of the Catholics, the 
Spanish ambassador wrote on May I2th, 1561, 5 is proceeding 
apace ; in some places the mayors and town councillors have 
been put into prison for ill-treating, or not treating with due 
respect, the new preachers. The cause of religion, he writes 

1 De la Quadra to Granvelle, April 20, 1561, in KERVYN DE 
LETTENHOVE, II., 553 seq. 

2 Ibid. 

8 De la Quadra to Granvelle, April 21, 1561, ibid., II., 557. 

4 De la Quadra to Margaret of Parma, April 28, 1561, ibid., II., 
560. According to the report of Sanders to Cardinal Morone, in 
addition to those imprisoned with Waldgrave, there were at that 
time in the Tower, for having heard Mass, 10 students of civil 
law, and 160 other persons. Publ. of Cath. Record Soc., I., 45. 
The Month, 1909, II., 309. Cf. de la Quadra to Philip II., May 5, 
1561 : " de los quales [cat61icos] tiene [the queen] las carceles 
llenas y cada dia se prenden mas." Corresp. de Felipe II., L, 351. 

5 To Granvelle, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 568. 


again in August of the same year, 1 is getting steadily worse ; 
the Catholics are dying out, and those who remain are per 
secuted and forced into apostasy ; the governor of Guernsey, 
one of the most determined and worthy men in the kingdom, 
is dead, and Waldgrave will soon follow him ; Lords Ludburn 
and Wharton have allowed themselves to be persuaded to take 
the oath of supremacy in order to regain their liberty, while 
in the prisons death by starvation is carrying off those who 
remain steadfast. 2 In the middle of November six Catholic 
students of Oxford were sent to the Tower because they would 
not consent to the removal of a crucifix from their college 
chapel. 3 

The outbreak of hatred against the Catholics, which came 
to a head in the severe laws of 1563, had already shown itself 
in the August of the previous year. Whereas hitherto only 
three commissioners had been charged with the task of pro 
ceeding against the Catholics, fifty were appointed on July 
3Oth, and there was every likelihood that the sword would 
now be employed against the adherents of the old religion. 4 
Priests who refused to take the oath of supremacy were kept 
under strict supervision ; they were obliged to live within 
certain areas, where they could more easily be watched ; lists 
of " recusants " were drawn up, and arrests and imprison 
ments became more and more common. 5 Towards the end of 

1 To Philip II., ibid., 608 seq. n. 

2 Waldgrave died in September, 1561. He had paid the fine 
of 200 ducats for having heard Mass, but he was not released from 
prison because he had given 10,000 ducats as alms to poor Catho 
lics. The day before his death he ordered that all his property 
should also be divided among poor Catholics (de la Quadra to 
Margaret of Parma, September 6, 1561, in KERVYN DE LETTEN- 
HOVE, II., 620 seq. la Quadra to Philip II., June 3, 1561 : 
" No quieren admitirlos a la pena del Estatuto porque estan 
determinados de no soltarlos." Corresp. de Felipe II., II., 358). 

3 De la Quadra to Margaret of Parma, Nov. 15, 1561, in KERVYN 

4 De la Quadra to Granvelle, Aug. 29, 1562, ibid., III., 124. 
FRERE, 80. 

5 FRERE. 80. 


1562 the Spanish ambassador thought there was reason to 
fear " terrible cruelty " against the Catholic prisoners in the 
Tower, even though the state of those imprisoned there was 
already so bad that they told the Warden of the Tower that 
they would rather be executed, " and to-day rather than to 
morrow.." 1 About the same time the authorities even ven 
tured on the hitherto unheard of act of violating the privileges 
of the foreign embassies ; ah 1 foreigners in London, including 
all persons who were not naturalized, were forbidden to hear 
Mass at the house of the Spanish ambassador. 2 In the follow 
ing January the government even went so far as to close the 
doors of the Spanish embassy between the hours of 9 and I, 
so that no one might be able to attend Mass there. 3 Accord 
ing to a letter from de la Quadra, Elizabeth, at the end of 
February, promised those who were in prison for hearing Mass 
that they should again be permitted to resume their old 
manner of life, but, he adds that the queen must have changed 
her mind as to this, since the prisons were still filled with such 
prisoners. 4 In the July of that year, however, Elizabeth was, 
at least for the moment, more mercifully inclined towards the 
Catholics. 5 

Side by side with this persecution of the old Church went 
various attempts to consolidate the new religion. Since the 
May and June of 1559, only "two of the old bishops had not 
been deprived of their sees ; these were Kitchin and Stanley ; 
it was therefore necessary, before everything else, to set up 

1 " lo que han respondido al Castellano del Torre que los tiene 
presos es, que antes oy que manana dessean que les acaben la 
mala vida que passan." De la Quadra to Granvelle, Dec. 27, 
1562, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, III., 223. 

2 Ibid. 

3 Corresp. de Felipe II., I., 439 seqq., 484 seqq. De la Quadra 
to Margaret of Parma, Jan. 10, 1563, in KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, 
III., 226. The reply of the royal council to the complaints of 
de la Quadra on Jan. 7, 1563, in Corresp. de Felipe II., I., 448 ; 
summary in STEVENSON, Calendar, Foreign, 1563, n. 44, p. 25, 27. 

4 To Margaret of Parma, Feb. 27, 1563, in KERVYN DE LETTEN 
HOVE, III., 259 : " y assi se tienen las carceles llenas dellos." 

5 De la Quadra to Granvelle, July 3, 1563, ibid., III., 499- 


a new hierarchy. Elizabeth, however, was in no particular 
hurry to do this ; Parliament had given the government the 
right to exchange Church property for other ecclesiastical 
goods which had already been confiscated, and the queen 
wished to see this exchange completed before she nominated 
new bishops. Matthew Parker had been chosen as Archbishop 
of Canterbury, and head of the new Anglican hierarchy in 
December, 1558. On August ist, 1559, ne wa s elected by 
the chapter of Canterbury; and consecrated on December 
1 7th in the episcopal palace of Lambeth. Many difficulties, 
even from the point of view of English law, 1 were raised as to 
the legality of this consecration, but the queen, by means 
of a clause in the deed of appointment of Parker, supplied for 
all these defects. 2 By March, 1560, thirteen new bishops had 
been appointed, eleven of whom received their consecration 
at the hands of Parker ; thus sixteen of the twenty-seven 
English sees were again filled. 

The new bishops found their dioceses in a lamentable con 
dition. In the archdeaconry of Colchester about a third part 
of the parishes had no pastor in 1563, and ten parishes in 
Colchester itself were vacant ; three years later, out of 850 
benefices in the diocese of London, about 100 were unfilled. 3 
At Rochester only 13 of the 64 parish priests were able to 
preach, yet this, in comparison with other dioceses, was a very 
favourable state of affairs. 4 Grindal, the Bishop of London, 
ordained 100 clerics in four ordinations, while Parker ordained 
150 in a single day, many of whom were ignorant artisans. 5 
In a speech at the opening of Parliament in 1563 it was stated 
that the preachers had no zeal, and that the laity refused to 
listen to the doctrine approved by the state. * There were, it 
was stated, very few ecclesiastics, and many of these were 
quite incapable ; discipline was relaxed to such an extent that 

1 See supra p. 237 seq. 

2 FRERE, 5, 46-49. 

3 Ibid., 105. 
*Ibid., 107. 
6 Ibid.. 60. 


everyone lived just as he liked and without fear of punish 
ment. 1 

Besides this, the Protestants were divided among themselves. 
Many who had fled to the continent under Queen Mary, had 
develoj)ed a taste for Calvinism in Switzerland ; to such as 
these Anglicanism seemed to be a mixture of Catholicism and 
Protestanism, and by no means in conformity with the " word 
of God." Even many of the bishops were inclined to this 
so-called Puritanism. 2 The differences of opinion showed 
themselves at first in comparatively trifling matters, as for 
example whether it was lawful at divine worship to retain any 
of the vestments which had been used in the old Church, the 
use of which was still permitted by the Book of Common 
Prayer. 3 

The queen herself in many things clung to the external 
forms of the religion to which she had been accustomed since 
her youth. In her own chapel, a cross with two candles was 
before long replaced upon the altar, and she persisted in this 
in spite of the indignation of the Calvinists at such " a scandal 
ous proceeding. " 4 . Still more remarkable was Elizabeth s 
dislike for married clergy, and it was only with great difficulty 
that Cecil dissuaded her from her intention of imposing the 
vow of celibacy on her clergy. 5 

The people were not asked for their opinion as to reform. 
Externally they obeyed the violence done to their consciences, 
but in their hearts they long remained attached to the old 
worship. 6 The effect of the anti-Catholic legislation was not 

1 Ibid., 95. The position of the new bishops was by no means 
an enviable one in other ways as well. Cf. J. N. BIRT in Dublin 
Review, CXXI. (1897), I2 5 se 43 

1 FRERE, 8 seq., 94 seq. 

8 Ibid., 54 seqq., in seqq. Even the use of the ring at marriages 
was attacked by che Puritans. Ibid., 95. 

4 Ibid., 52 seq. 

5 Ibid., 68 seq. 

" To tell the truth " says (p. 129 seq.) the Protestant Frere, 
by no means friendly to Catholics, " the immediate results of 
what was called reform, were not calculated to make it popular 


to produce enthusiasm for the new religion, but rather a 
grov/ing indifference to all religion. 1 The truth was that 
comparatively few people had the moral courage to sacrifice 
their property and their liberty rather than act against their 
conscience, or to submit to the hardships of a voluntary exile 
from their country, 2 but those who did so were the noblest 
of their nation, and the glory of England and the Catholic 
Church . 

among those who still clung to what, in the language of the time, 
was known as the old religion. There was much talk of the 
restoration of purity of faith and worship, on the model of primi 
tive times. But what people saw with their own eyes as the 
immediate result of the change was the profanation of churches 
by means of iconoclasm, the destruction of altars, the burning 
of the sacred objects in the churches, and contempt of pious 
usages. Impious mockery of the Eucharist was not merely a 
temporary outburst of the first days of reaction, but was con 
sidered as a suitable subject for jesting, in order to amuse the 
queen and her court on the occasion of her visit to Cambridge 
in 1564. Strong measures were taken to restore the communion, 
but the immediate result was that the celebration of the Eucharist 
became more and more rare. Efforts were also made to revive 
the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, and for this purpose a 
system of daily divine service was introduced. But the im 
mediate result was a falling off of daily worship. In his youth 
the recusant had been accustomed to see the churches filled 
day after day with worshippers, but now the doors of the churches 
began to remain closed from Monday to Saturday, the people 
discontinued their daily visits to the church, and contented 
themselves with attendance at divine worship on Sunday, with 
an occasional communion for appearance sake. It cannot cause 
surprise that to many people, and those the best, even the abuses 
of the old system were more dear than the reforms of the new." 

1 According to FRERE, 94, Parker, at the opening of convoca 
tion in 1563, urged " reform of that growing negligence of the 
people in worship which followed upon the Act of Uniformity 
and its system of enforcing church attendance by civil com 

2 Cf. R. LECHAT, Les Refugies Anglais dans les Pays-Bas 
espagnols, 1568 a 1603, Louvain, 1914. 


IN Scotland, where, since the XVth century the minoritj of 
three kings in succession had given a great impulse to the 
excessive influence of a depraved nobility, 1 both the political 
and religious revolutions made great strides when, in 1542, 
after the death of James V., a new minority began. The 
heir to the crown, Mary Stuart, was but a few days old when 
her father died, and from the time of her sixth year she had 
been in France as the destined bride of Francis II. She had 
been driven abroad by the violence of Henry VII L, who 
wished forcibly to obtain her hand for his own son by means 
of a series of plundering campaigns, and in France she was 
more and more lost sight of by her future subjects. 2 

In the meantime the young queen s kingdom was thrown 
into a state of anarchy and awful confusion by the campaigns 
of Henry VIII. In 1543, Lord Hertford was expressly 
charged by the English king to lay waste the northern kingdom 
with fire and sword. 3 Edinburgh was in flames for three 

1 James II., James III., and James V. all came to the throne 
as minors. Before that the imprisonment in England for many 
years of James I. had made a regency necessary (BELLESHEIM, 
I., 270 seqq., 286 seqq., 306 seqq.). HOSACK (I., 2) says of the 
Scottish aristocracy of the time : " Scotland was oppressed by a 
nobility the most rapacious and corrupt that probably ever 

2 Cf. Vol. XII. of this work, p. 472. 

3 Hamilton Papers, II., 326 ; cf. FLEMING, 189, n. 63. The 
instructions say, e.g. : " Do what you can out of hande, and 
without long tarrying, to beate down and overthrowe the castle, 
sack Holyrod house, and as many townes and villaiges about 
Edinborough as ye may conveniently, sack Lythe and burne 
and subverte it and all the rest, putting man, woman, and childe, 
to fyre and swoorde ..." And they continue in the same 
barbarous strain. 



whole days, 192 towns, parish churches and castles, and 243 
villages were destroyed and reduced to ashes, and the whole 
countryside laid waste. 1 After the death of Henry VIII., Lord 
Hertford, who had now become Duke of Somerset and Lord 
Protector, went on with the work which he had begun ; he 
inflicted a terrible defeat upon the Scots near Pinkie, Leith 
was reduced to ashes, and the abbey of Holyrood sacked. 

The decline of the ancient faith can be traced to this time of 
pillage and disaster. Broadly speaking Scotland was still 
Catholic at the time of the birth of Mary Stuart ; the Lutheran 
preachers had met with but little favour, and in 1535 Parlia 
ment had passed severe laws against them. 2 The battle-cry 
of the Scots at Pinkie, " Death to the heretic English ! " had 
proved that at that time the majority of the Scottish people 
still held firmly to the ancient faith, and also showed that they 
fully understood the true significance of the English invasion. 3 
It was only by slow degrees that the religious innovations 
gained ground during those years of turmoil, though the 
attempts made in the synods of 1549 anc ^ I 55 I t remove the 
principal pretext for religious change by a reform of the clergy, 
and by improving the state of religious instruction among the 
people by means of a new catechism for the use of parish 
priests, 4 did not meet with much success, even though the 
peace of Boulogne in 1^50 put an end to the long war with the 

During these wars the Scottish barons had played a dis 
graceful part. Won over by English gold, they voluntarily 
gave their services to the destroyers of their own native land 
" in order to introduce " as they said, " the Protestant 
religion into their fiefs, since the Bible was the foundation 
stone of all truth and honour." 6 A list of 200 such " men of 

1 FORBES-LEITH, 21 seq. 

z BELLESHEIM, I., 332. 

8 FORBES-LEITH, 29 n., BELLESHEIM, I., 365. 

4 BELLESHEIM, I., 370 seqq. For the catechism of Hamilton, 
ibid., 380 ; a reprint by Mitchel, Edinburgh, 1882, and by Graves 
Law, with a preface by W. E. GLADSTONE, Oxford, 1884. 



honour " who had sold themselves to England, fell, after the 
death of Henry VIII. into the hands of the Scottish regent, 
Arran. 1 

At first the task of preaching the new religion in Scotland 
had been in the hands of quite unimportant persons ; 2 it was 
therefore an event of great importance that, after the accession 
to the throne of Queen Mary of England, many of the Pro 
testant preachers whom she drove out took refuge in the neigh 
bouring kingdom in the north. It was even more pregnant 
in its consequences when the man who had once formed the 
first Protestant community from among the murderers of 
Cardinal Beaton and their sympathisers, and who, after 
passing 19 months as a prisoner in the French galleys had 
preached with feverish zeal in England, and who was destined 
to become the real author of the Scottish religious schism, fled 
to Geneva through fear of Mary, there to drink in at their 
fountain head the ideas of Calvin. Until then Scottish Pro 
testantism had followed almost exclusively the lines laid down 
by Luther. 3 John Knox 4 was the man who definitely trans 
formed it into Calvinism. 

As had been the case with Calvin, Knox also laid down, as 
the basis even of political organization, the terrible doctrine 
of absolute predestination, according to which one half of 
mankind is created for heaven, and the other half is a priori 

1 Ibid. The attitude of the populace towards the attempt to 
make Scotland English was very different. The English am 
bassador, Sadler, heard it said that there was not a boy in Scot 
land so young that he would not throw stones, that the women 
would pursue them with their distaffs, and that the whole people 
would rather die in a single day than become the slaves of England. 
Hamilton Papers, I., 477, in FLEMING, 183 seq., FORBES-LEITH, 18. 

2 BELLESHEIM, I., 383. 

3 BELLESHEIM, I., 326, 332, 334 seq., 369. Wishart, however, 
whom Knox at first followed, was the disciple and friend of 
the Swiss reformers. Realenzykl. of Herzog, X 3 ., 603. 

4 Works, edited by LAING, 6 volumes, Edinburgh, 1846-1864. 
Biography of TH. MACCRIE, 1811, and frequently by J. H. 
BROWN, 1895, A. LANG, London, 1905. P. J. KROMSIGT, John 
Knox als Kerkhervormer, Utrecht, 1895. 

VOL. XVI. 17 


destined for eternal damnation. In his eyes, his own followers 
are the elect, the saints of the Lord, and the Catholics infidels 
and idolators, while he deduced from the Holy Scriptures, 
as being a precept of Almighty God, that if necessary, all 
idolators may be exterminated by the sword. Moreover, 
the elect of the Lord have both the right and the duty of 
enforcing, even by the use of arms, what they deem to be the 
will of God ; in such a case it becomes lawful, even in opposi 
tion to a duly constituted authority, for the community, or 
for the individual acting in the name of the community, to 
have recourse to the sword or the dagger. 1 Such doctrines 
were very welcome to the Scottish barons, as affording them 
justification for the acts of violence which they had long 
indulged in, though they had never attempted to excuse them 
on the strength of texts from Scripture. Their teacher was 
naturally attracted to Calvinism by his own hard and un 
bending character, as well as by the gloom and irritability of 
his nature. 

Knox was, no doubt, a man of no ordinary talent, but he 
cannot be described as having either greatness or originality. 
He was hasty and uncouth, but he was endowed with ? great 
nimbleness of speech and a natural gift of eloquence ; his 
ideas, however, except for the grossness with which he clothed 
them, were merely those of Calvin. He had no appreciation 
whatever for anything like culture or of the glorious history 
of his people. His religious teaching showed him entirely 
untouched by the gentle spirit of Christ or the Gospel ; he was 

1 " When it is a case of carrying out this supreme will, then 
every other law, which may run counter to it in civil matters, 
and even the supreme civil authority, must give way ; the people 
that professes the law of God must, in virtue of its rights, or 
rather of its duties, in case of necessity take its execution into 
its own hands, and do so forcibly, and where it is not possible 
for a people of God to act in common for this purpose, then it 
becomes the right or rather the duty of the individual zealot to 
do so." Realenzykl. of Herzog X 3 ., 603. For the corresponding 
teaching of Calvin, cf. ibid., III 3 ., and the Institutio of Calvin IV., 
20, 31 seq. 


the apostle of the sword and the flaming torch. But he was 
not the stuff of which martyrs are made ; at the approach of 
danger, he knew how to save his own skin, though once he 
was in safety his courage was unbounded, and with the help 
of a certain geniality he knew how to rouse the populace and 
drive them whither he would, 1 

The opportunity of taking an active part in the affairs of 
his country came for Knox when, in 1554, Mary of Guise, the 
mother of Mary Stuart, succeeded the Earl of Arran as regent. 
Mary owed this appointment principally to the nobles in the 
pay of England ; and she undertook it with the tacit under 
standing that she should secretly promote the new doctrines. 2 
Knox thereupon returned to Scotland in the autumn of 1555, 
and began to preach energetically in the territories of the 
Protestant nobles. His thunders against idolatry were not 
without effect ; wherever they could his followers at once put 
an end to Catholic worship, drove out the monks and priests, 
and burned the churches and ecclesiastical ornaments. 3 In 
this he was as little interfered with by the queen-regent as 
by the bishops, none of whom showed themselves worthy of 
their high office. When in the end a summons was issued 
against him, for May I5th, 1556, he, it is true, appeared for 
the proceedings, but his judges did not. On the strength of 
this the bold reformer thought it safe to preach publicly in 
Edinburgh on the same day, and to invite the regent in an open 
letter herself to adopt the new teaching. 4 His courage failed 
him, however, when threats of serious proceedings against 
him on the part of the Church were made, and he fled once 
more to Geneva. 5 Knox was then burned in effigy in Edin 
burgh, but the impression of weakness given by this tardy 
condemnation of one who was already in safety, really only 
served to encourage the innovators. John Douglas, an 

1 For Knox s character see BELLESHEIM, II., 134 ; HOSACK, 
II., 163 seq. 



4 BELLESHEIM, I., 385 seq. 

5 Ibid., 387. 


apostate Carmelite, now preached openly in Edinburgh, 1 
and in March, 1557, the leaders of the party of the nobles did 
not hesitate to send an invitation to Knox to return to his 
native land. Knox, it is true, only ventured as far as Dieppe, 
but even though he did not appear in person, a letter which 
he sent to his friends in Scotland had a great effect. On 
December 3rd, 1557, the leaders of the nobles who had 
embraced the new religion met and gave their party a definite 
organization by signing their names to a covenant. They 
now styled themselves the " party of the Lord," and the Catho 
lics the party of Satan ; the signatories, with the Earls of 
Argyll, Morton and Glencairn at their head, bound themselves, 
in accordance with the ancient Scottish custom, to remain 
united until death, and promised to defend the new doctrines, 
" the holy word of God in His congregation " and openly to 
profess themselves the enemies of " the party of Satan, its 
abominations, and its idolatry." 2 

Thus was the old Church formally apprised of the declaration 
of a war of destruction. The nobles of " the party of the Lord " 
drove the Catholic priests from their estates, and replaced them 
with preachers of the new doctrines. 3 There was all the less 
reason at that moment to fear any strong measures being taken 
by the queen-regent, as she required the support of the Pro 
testant nobles for the French marriage of her daughter. 
She even showed favour to the proposals put forward by the 
party to allow liberty for Protestant worship, 4 which proposals 
were in their turn rejected, as far as their substance was con 
cerned, by a last and belated council of reform held by the 
Catholic prelates in March and April, 1559. 5 

It was only about Easter, 1559, that the regent changed 
her attitude towards the matter by forbidding the preachers 

1 Ibid., 387 seq. 

2 Ibid., 389 seq. FORBES-LEITH, 34. CALDERWOOD, History 
of the Kirk of Scotland, ed. Thompson, Edinburgh, 1842, I., 
326 seq. 

3 BELLESHEIM, I., 390. 

4 Ibid., 392. 

6 Ibid., 393 seqq. 


to show themselves in public, and by makin b the administra 
tion of the sacraments dependent upon the consent of the 
bishop. 1 In the meantime events followed quickly one upon 
another. The preachers refused to obey, and Mary summoned 
them to appear for trial at Stirling on May loth ; they did 
not come and were declared outlaws. Thereupon, by way of 
reprisal, they delivered day after day at Perth inflammatory 
speeches against the " idolatry " of the Catholics, and the duty 
of exterminating them. The resentment which they excited 
reached its climax when Knox, who had been again in Scotland 
since May 2nd, 1559, preached at Perth on May nth Against 
" idolatry." The mob smashed tha images of the saints and 
all the ornaments in the parish church, and then went to the 
churches of the Dominicans, Franciscans and Carthusians, and 
reduced them to ruins and ashes. 2 Knox and the nobles 
uttered no word of blame of these atrocities, which were imme 
diately repeated at Cupar. 3 The mob then marched by way 
of Crail and Anstruther, where also Knox s sermons had let 
loose the lust of iconoclasm, to St. Andrew s, the chief episcopal 
see in the country. After Knox had there inveighed during 
three days against " idolatry " the magnificent cathedral, the 
mother church of Scotland, with all its many monuments of 
prelates, nobles and famous men, was sacked and reduced to 
ruins ; nor did the other churches of the city fare any better. 4 
To the west of Perth lay the Abbey of Scone, a sanctuary 
indeed in the eyes of every noble-minded Scot, since from time 
immemorial the kings of Scotland had been crowned there ; 
yet even this holy place was given to the flames. 5 Of all the 
churches of Stirling the citizens saved only that of the Francis 
cans. After the destruction of the Abbey of Cambuskenneth, 
Knox marched with his followers on Edinburgh. The regent 
took to flight, and before long the capital was given over to 

1 Ibid., 407. 

2 Ibid., 408 seq. 

3 Ibid. t 409. 

* Ibid., 411 seqq. 
5 Ibid., 412. 


revolt and pillage ; not even the royal chapel was spared. 1 
Similar scenes occurred in other places. One who took part 
in this work of destruction wrote : " This is our manner of 
proceeding : every kind of convent, and certain abbeys, which 
will not voluntarily accept the reform, are destroyed ; as 
for the parish churches, they are purged of their images, etc., 
and orders are given that Mass is no longer to be said there." 2 

In the meantime the government was quite powerless to 
deal with this state of affairs ; after the first acts of destruc 
tion at Perth, Mary of Guise had threatened to take stern 
measures, but the only result was that the innovators en 
trenched themselves at Perth, and sent an insulting letter to 
the regent. Thereupon she prepared to act, but civil war was 
once again averted by means of a truce arranged by the Earl 
of Argyll and Lord James Stuart. But on the pretext that 
the truce had not been observed by Mary, the two mediators 
very soon openly joined the party of the innovators. 3 

In the meantime, with the death of Henry II. of France in 
July, 1559, the two crowns of Scotland and France were 
united in the person of his son, Francis II., the husband of 
the Scottish queen. Francis II. at once sent to his wife s 
mother 2,000 French auxiliary troops ; 20,000 more were to 
follow under the command of the two brothers of the Scottish 
regent, the Marquis d Elboeuf and the Due d Aumale. 4 The 
insurgents were unable to withstand the well-trained French 
troops, so they sought for aid from Elizabeth of England. 

As early as July, 1559, Mary of Guise had publicly accused 
the nobles of " the party of the Lord " of daily receiving 
communications from England, and of sending them thither. 5 
On August 3rd, 1559, John Knox had made to James Croft,, 
the commandant of Berwick, the English frontier fortress, 
the traitorous proposal to hand over to the English several 

1 Ibid., 413. 

2 W. Kyrkcaldy to Sir Henry Percy, July i, 1559, in FORBES- 
LEITH, 37, n. 2. 

3 BELLESHEIM, I., 409 seq. 

* HOSACK, I., 26, 32. 

5 BELLESHEIM, I., 414. 


Scottish border fortresses, in return for which the " party 
of the Lord " was to receive help in English gold. 1 A little 
later the Scottish intermediary, Belnaves, openly informed 
the Englishmen, Croft and Sadler, that the nobles intended 
to renounce their allegiance to Mtry Stuart, and to place 
on the throne in her place the Duke of Chatelherault or his 
son the Earl of Arran ; on their part, the nobles looked for 
financial aid from England. 2 

These requests for aid met with an encouraging reception from 
Cecil, but at first the English Privy Council made difficulties 
about any open co-operation with the rebels. 4 Elizabeth con 
tented herself with sending secret financial help, but when, in 
October, the Lords of the Congregation openly deposed the 
regent and besieged her in Leith, but found themselves forced 
to raise the siege, and in January, 1560, were pursued by the 
French troops as they fell back on Stirling, the English queen 
ventured upon a further step. Her admiral, Winter, as 
though by chance, and, as he stated, upon his own responsi 
bility, was able, with his fleet, to render important services 
to the insurgents, for which Elizabeth duly expressed her 
regret in a letter to the regent. 4 In the meantime the nobles 
had sent to the English court an able diplomatist in the person 
of Lethington, Laird of Maitland, who, in conjunction with 
Throckmorton, till then English ambassador in France, 
succeeded, on February 27th, in persuading Elizabeth to enter 
into the treaty of Berwick, by which she promised her help 
to the Lords of the Congregation. 6 

Thus it seemed as though the internal disputes in Scotland 
were on the point of developing into a great war involving 
three kingdoms, and one which might prove very dangerous 
to Elizabeth if 20,000 French troops really landed in Scotland. 
Fortune, however, favoured the English queen, for two fleets 
carrying French auxiliary troops were destroyed by storms 

Ibid., 41 seq. 
HOSACK, I., 31 seqq. 
Ibid., 35- 
OPITZ, I., 25 seq. 


off the coasts of Zeeland and Denmark. 1 Throckmorton 
stirred up the French Huguenots to rebellion against their 
government, while the conspiracy of Amboise made it clear 
to the French politicians that it would not be safe to let 
themselves be involved in any undertaking on a large scale 
abroad. 2 Mary of Guise thus had only her own French troops, 
well-equipped and trained, it is true, but only numbering at the 
most 3,000 men. 3 Mary had to suffer also for the preference 
which she showed for her French supporters and soldiers over 
the Scots, for the discontent caused by this led even some of 
the Catholic nobles to accept the treaty of Berwick and join 
the English cause. 4 

Under these circumstances Elizabeth had things in her own 
hand. The war was confined to skirmishes round Leith and 
the siege of that place, 5 but although the English army won 
but few laurels at Leith, and Elizabeth was angry with Cecil 
as the author of a long and inglorious campaign, 6 yet, after 
the death of the Scottish regent (June loth, 1560), 7 Francis II. 
and Mary Stuart found themselves obliged to enter into 
negotiations for peace. Cecil went in person to Edinburgh 
as the English representative, and he hoodwinked the French 
envoys, Montluc and Randan, to such an extent that they 
agreed to terms, with regard to which he himself boasted that 
by them he had gained more ground in Scotland than all the 
English kings had by their wars. 8 By one of the articles of 
the treaty, which was signed at Edinburgh on July 6th, 1560, 

1 HOSACK, I., 33 ; FORBES-LEITH, 46. 

2 HOSACK, I., 37 seq. 

3 FORBES-LEITH, 45, n. 3. 

4 BELLESHEIM, I., 417. 

5 Ibid., 418 seq. ; HOSACK, I., 42 seqq. 

6 HOSACK, I., 47. 

7 For the date see FLEMING, 216, n. 33. 

8 HOSACK (I., 51) understands Cecil s words in the following 
sense : " Religious sympathy at length promised to bring about 
that which had baffled the power and skill of the greatest mon- 
archs. Cecil well knew that if Scotland remained Catholic, 
the prospects of a peaceful union were more than ever hopeless." 


Cecil and the incautious French caused Mary Stuart to 
renounce " for all future time " the use of English arms, which 
could be taken as meaning the renunciation of her claim to 
succeed to the English throne. The foreign troops were to be 
withdrawn, and Scotland thus was left open to the attacks 
of Elizabeth. The reins of government were placed in the 
hands of the allies of the English queen, the nobles who had 
embraced the new religion. In the absence of the queen the 
country was to be governed by a council of twelve, of whom 
Mary Stuart had indeed the power to nominate seven, but 
only from among twenty-five candidates chosen by the estates. 
The nobles of the " party of the Lord " and their adherents 
were not to be called to judgment for the excesses committed 
during the last few years. A Parliament was to meet on 
August ist, 1560, the enactments of which were to have the 
same binding force as if it had been summoned by the express 
command of the regent herself. At the same time the treaty 
contained clauses in favour of Mary Stuart and the old re 
ligion. A deputation was to ask for the approval of the 
king and queen before the opening of the Parliament, and 
by the terms of the treaty a commission appointed by the 
Parliament was to lay the state of religious affairs before 
the two sovereigns. Bishops and other ecclesiastics who 
had suffered losses in the recent troubles were to have the 
right to make a claim for indemnity. 1 

In reality these apparent concessions to the sovereign 
and the prelates were of no practical value. Parliament 
assembled without the assent of the queen on August ist, 
1560, swept away the ancient Church, and established 
Calvinism as the state religion. On August I7th, a pro 
fession of faith, drafted by Knox and others, was solemnly 
accepted. On August 23rd there followed the prohibition 
of all Catholic worship ; whoever celebrated or heard 
Mass was to be punished for the first offence by being 
flogged and deprived of his property, for the second 
offence by banishment, and for the third by death. 

1 BELLESHEIM, I., 420 seq. 


August 24th saw the abrogation of the Papal authority 
in Scotland. 1 

All these enactments lacked the force of law because 
Parliament had assembled without the royal assent. 2 The 
astonishing majority upon which the reformers could count 
in the assembly had been secured by the admission, for the 
occasion, of 100 members of the lesser nobility, who, by 
the laws long in force in Scotland, had no right to sit in 
Parliament. 3 Besides this, the assembly was not free. During 
the debates, the preachers openly urged the nobles from the 
pulpit to use force against the recalcitrant clergy. 4 The 
Archbishop of St. Andrew s was threatened with death by 
his own brother, the Duke of Chatelherault, when he ventured 
to oppose the acceptance of the reformed profession of faith. 5 
English influence dominated the assembly to such an extent 
that the leaders sought advice from London on all the more 
important matters. 6 

The violence which characterized the whole conduct of 
this Parliament to some extent explains why we hear so 
little of any opposition to its revolutionary enactments. It 
would appear that the bishops looked upon it as certain 7 
that a new and legal assembly would soon be convened, 
and that they therefore disdained to pay any attention to 

1 Ibid., 424 seqq. The " Confessio Scotiana " in MULLER, 
Bekenntnisse, 249 seq. The internal organization of the new 
church was settled by the Book of discipline, on the model of 

2 The Convention of States which met in August, 1560, was 
possessed of no lawful authority." HOSACK, I., 33 ; cf. 55. 

Hist-.polit. Blatter, CXII. (1893), 566. 

4 " All their new precheris perswadis opinly the Nobilitie, 
in the pulpit, to putt violent handis, and slay all Kirkmen that 
will not concurr and tak thir opinion." The Archbishop of St. 
Andrew s to the Archbishop of Glasgow, in FORBES-LEITH, 49. 

5 BEKKER, Maria, 6. 

6 Tytler in FORBES-LEITH, 4,9, n. 4. 

7 BELLESHEIM, I., 429. 


this packed Parliament, from which in any case they 
could expect nothing but indignity. It was perhaps for 
this reason that they did not appear even when, in accordance 
with the treaty of Edinburgh, they were invited to claim 
compensation for their lost ecclesiastical property. 1 Knox 
then tried to obtain possession of the benefices of the old 
Church for his own followers, but the nobles in Parliament 
wanted to keep these for themselves, and did not even con 
descend to reply to his request. 2 

The preachers met with better success, however, in another 
direction. In the north and west of Scotland convents and 
churches had been preserved in considerable numbers. The 
ecclesiastical assembly of May, 1561, therefore put before the 
nobles of the Privy Council a request for the destruction 
of all these remains of " idolatry " and several of the latter 
were actually charged to carry out this task, namely, Lord 
James Stuart for the north, and the Earls of Arran, Argyll 
and Glencairn for the west ; there was not a church left 
that was not mutilated or destroyed ; the timbers, the plate 
and the bells were sold, and the books and manuscripts 
burned. Not even the monuments of the Scottish kings 
were spared, so that to-day we do not know of a single royal 
tomb on Scottish soil. 3 

The complete breach with the past in Scotland was made 
without any attempt being made in Rome to interfere. On 
October 2nd, 1555, the thirteen-year-old queen had begged 
the Pope from France to allow her to levy a tax on the clergy 
for the needs of the kingdom. At the same time reports 
in cypher reached Rome as to the need for reform among 


* Ibid., 51. 

"BEKKER, Maria, 7; BELLESHEIM, II., 8 seq. ; FORBES- 
LEITH, 52 seq. " In the whole of history," says HOSACK (I., 
60 seq.), " this outburst of fanatical fury finds no equal. No 
army in any enemy country was ever guilty of such inhuman 
destruction. No people before or since has ever destroyed 
with greater deliberation and all the formalities of law the monu 
ments of art and industry, or the heritage of its fathers." 


the Scottish clergy, on the strength of which Cardinal 
Sermoneta in the following year demanded the appointment 
of a visitor for the northern kingdom. When, after the peace 
of Cave, Paul IV. sent Cardinal Trivulzio to France, he also 
empowered him, on October 27th, 1557, to appoint such a 
visitor, but Trivulzio died at the end of June, 1559, without 
having taken any steps in the matter. 

Soon afterwards Henry II. of France made fresh remon 
strances to the Pope, 1 describing ecclesiastical conditions in 
Scotland in the darkest colours, and declaring that in spite 
of her exhaustion France intended to send a large army there 
to punish the destroyers of the churches ; he declared that 
it was absolutely essential that a Papal legate should be 
sent there, especially in view of the approaching Parliament 
of August ist, 1560. He recommended as a fit person for 
this office, the Bishop of Amiens, Nicholas Pelleve. In spite 
of the reproachful tone which Henry II. used in this letter 
to the Pope, it would appear from the instructions which he 
sent about the same time to his envoys with the Scottish 
rebels, that the king s zeal for religion was not very deep- 
seated. 2 

Paul IV. at first received the royal letter courteously, 
and promised to take immediate steps. In the meantime, 
however, he began to entertain suspicions as to the orthodoxy 
of the proposed legate. He accordingly made answer to 
the ambassador that Scotland was no concern of Henry 
II. s, while after the king s death he refused to send a legate 
on the ground that Francis II. and Mary Stuart had not 
asked for one. 3 Nevertheless, the royal couple, 4 as well as Mary 
of Guise, 5 had strongly pointed out to the Pope the necessity 
for reform in Scotland about the same time as Henry II. 

1 Letter of June 29, 1559, in POLLEN, 13-17. 
8 POLLEN, xxxii. 

3 The French ambassador in Rome to the Cardinal of Lorraine 
August 17, 1559, in RIBIER, II., 811 seqq. ; POLLEN, 20 seqq. 

4 RIBIER, II., 808. 

5 P. HUME BROWN, John Knox, II., London, 1895, App. B, 
p. 300 seqq. CJ. POLLEN, xxviii. 


His successor, Pius IV., did his best to repair the short 
comings of Paul IV. by giving full powers to Pelleve, 1 who 
had been in Scotland as French ambassador since September. 
The learned theologians who accompanied him defended 
the old religion in sermons and disputations with consider 
able success. Mary of Guise proclaimed liberty of conscience 
for all, which of course included the Catholics, brought back 
to Edinburgh the monks who had been driven out, restored 
the broken altars, so that the Catholic worship was once 
again carried on with greater fervour than before. 2 In 
other respects Pius IV. maintained a cautious attitude, and 
gave his nuncio in France, Sebastiano Gualterio, express 
instructions not to do anything which would involve the 
Pope in expenditure in Scotland. * 

Francis II. of France died on December 5th, 1560. He had 
never recognized the peace of Edinburgh, but his death 
put an end to any further preparations against the Scottish 
insurgents. 4 In the meantime Mary Stuart was making 
ready to return peacefully to her own country. In February, 
1561) she sent a message to this effect to Scotland, promised 
immunity for the past, and gave full powers for the assembly 
of a Parliament. 6 

Hitherto the Scottish nobles had hardly given a thought 
to their queen. At the conclusion of the Parliament of 
1560 they had sent to her a simple gentleman to acquaint 
her with the decisions arrived at, while the more important 
members of their party went at the same time to Elizabeth 
to offer her the hand of the Earl of Arran in marriage, and 
with it the crown of Scotland, for it was their intention to 
make Arran king, and by means of his marriage with Eliza 
beth to unite England and Scotland as one great Protestant 
kingdom. Elizabeth, however, made difficulties about 
accepting the crown from the hands of traitors, while the 

1 Brief of Jan. 25, 1560, in POLLEN, 31-35. 

2 POLLEN, xliv. 

3 Instructions of May 15, 1560, in POLLEN, 45 seq. 

4 BEKKER, Elisabeth und Leicester, 15 seq. 



thought of ruling over such unruly subjects may well have 
had small attractions for her ; moreover, she would have 
found herself called upon to buy the support of the Scottish 
leaders with considerable sums of money, and Elizabeth w?s 
alarmed at the prospect of heavy expenditure. 1 On Decem 
ber nth, 1560, before she had yet had news of the death of 
Francis II., she refused Arran s hand. Irritated by her 
conduct, the nobles turned their backs on Elizabeth, and 
began to rally to Mary Stuart, from whom it was difficult to 
suppose there could come any threat to the supremacy of 
the new doctrines. Arran sent to France to ask for her 
favour and her hand, and Lethington himself offered Mary 
his support. This she accepted, under certain conditions, 
whereupon Lethington, together with Lord James Stuart, 
went so far as to maintain the hereditary right of Mary to 
the English throne I 2 

At this juncture embassies set out for France, in the name 
of the Catholics, as well as in that of the reformers, to invite 
the queen to return to her kingdom. The first to arrive was 
the envoy of the Catholics, Leslie, the future Bishop of Ross. 
He advised her to land at Aberdeen, in the north of Scotland, 
where everything was still Catholic ; there she would be met 
by the Catholic nobles with 20,000 men, with whose help she 
would be able to crush the insurgents, and in any case she 
should also take French troops with her to Scotland. 3 This 
suggestion, however, found no favour in Mary s eyes, while 
Leslie s advice that she should beware of her half-brother, 
James, who had designs upon the Scottish crown, made no 
impression upon her. When, on the following day, James 
presented himself as the envoy of the Protestant estates, she 
refused, indeed, to confirm the peace of Edinburgh, but in 
other respects received her half-brother in the most cordial 
way, and with simple confidence told him of all her ideas and 
plans, and sought his advice ; it never occurred to her that her 
brother was in close relations with Elizabeth. On his return 

1 BEKKER, loc. cit., 22 seq., 25 seq. 

*Ibid., 35. 

3 So Leslie himself stated. Cf. FORBES-LEITH, 54 seq. 


joarney James had hardly reached Paris before he went in 
secret to the English ambassador, Throckmorton, and gave 
him a full account of all that his ingenuous sister had told him. 
Throckmorton lost no tune in recommending this faithful 
friend of England to Elizabeth for a large reward in money. 1 

At that time Mary found herself treated by Elizabeth in a 
very harsh and hostile spirit. Refused the passport which 
she had asked for, for her journey through England, and with 
a grave risk of being taken prisoner by English ships on her 
voyage, the Scottish queen set out from Calais on August I4th, 
1561, and landed safely at Leith on the iQth, under cover of 
a dense fog. 2 " Adieu mes beaux jours " are the words put 
into her mouth in the touching poem of her farewell to France, 
her second home. She could not yet guess the terrible way 
in which the future was to see this prediction fulfilled. 

Mary was leaving behind her a happy and joyous youth. 3 
She was possessed of a beauty that had won admiration on all 
sides, and had a great charm of manner in society, while she 
was at the same time a daring horsewoman and follower of the 
chase. She was also highly educated and a woman of great 
intellectual gifts, with a taste for poetry and music, while in 
the years that were to come she displayed courage and reso 
luteness in danger, together with a warlike disposition. A 

1 HOSACK, I., 62. 

2 For the negotiations about the passport cf. FLEMING, 240, 
n. 49, 247, n. 66. Bishop Leslie expressly stated that Elizabeth 
wished to seize Mary (ibid., 43) ; this report was wide-spread 
(ibid., 250 seq. ; cf. 242 seq. and KERVYN DE LETTENHOVE, II., 
589, 607). It is certain that the order was given to detain her 
in the southern English ports, where she wished to land. FLEMING 
251 seq. ; cf. Revue des quest, hist., LIII. (1893), 59 seqq. (accord 
ing to the Rutland Papers in the Report of the Historical Manu 
script Commission, II.). 

3 F. J. STEVENSON, Mary Stuart, a narrative of the first eighteen 
years of her life. London, 1886 ; BELLESHEIM in Hist.-polit. 
Blatter, XCIX., (1187), 282 seqq., A. DE RUBLE, La premiere jeun- 
esse de Marie Stuart, Paris, 1891 ; J. F. STODDART, The girlhood 
of Mary, Queen of Scots, London, 1908. 


contemporary writes that it was her delight to listen to tales 
of valour and chivalry ; that she admired these qualities even 
in her enemies, and willingly faced privations and risks if 
she thought they would lead her to victory. 1 All the reports 
relating to the years she had spent in France are full of her 
praises, and in her later life no one ever left her without 
carrying away the impression of a woman of great brilliancy. 2 
Thanks to the careful education which she had received at the 
hands of her pious grandmother, Antoinette de Bourbon, 3 
Mary s youth was untainted by the corruption of the French 
court, which never disclosed its secrets to the promised bride 
of its future king. She tenderly loved her husband, Francis 
II., who was so unlike herself, and her brief married life was 
happy. As far as her religion was concerned, she frankly told 
the English ambassador, Throckmorton, that she thought 
the Catholic religion was the most pleasing to God and that 
she neither knew nor wished to know any other. 4 

This girl of nineteen years of age now assumed the reins of 
government in a country which was at the mercy of the 
strongest man among nobles who thought nothing of treachery 
and assassination, and amid a people which suffered itself to 
be roused to any act of violence by the tongues of demagogues, 
a girl, moreover, who knew nothing of the state of affairs in 
Scotland, who lacked the support of a powerful army, who had 
nobody to confide in, and not an adviser whom she could trust. 
In her very capital Knox thundered against her from the pulpit, 
while to the south Elizabeth was plotting her ruin, and what 
was worst of all, her political guides were her own half-brother, 
Lord James Stuart, and William Maitland, Earl of Lethington, 

1 Knollys to Cecil, June n, 1568, in FLEMING, 175 seq. POLLEN 
in the Month, XCI. (1898), 349, gives the following opinion : 
" She was above all things a warlike queen, and her faults and 
sins were those of the Scottish camp, not of the Italian court." 

2 Not even her determined enemy, the cold Cecil, was an ex 
ception. HOSACK, II., 21. 

3 Concerning her, cf. DE PAMODAN, La mere des Guises, Paris, 

4 FORBES-LEITH, 56 ; HOSACK, I., 64. 


a man of the highest gifts, but quite without principle, who 
gave his services to every party in turn, and betrayed them 
all. 1 It would have been indeed a miracle if the inexperienced 
and gay young queen had made no blunders and incurred no 

The young queen was to experience in the first days of her 
residence in Scotland, the difficulties that were awaiting her. 
At her landing, indeed, she met with a cordial reception from 
the people, and was greeted with loud cries of joy, but it was 
not difficult to guess the significance of the fact that in the 
evening the populace gathered outside the castle walls, and for 
three nights sang Calvinist psalms to her. 2 The Privy Council 
had allowed the queen to have daily Mass, but when, on the 
first Sunday after her arrival, they were preparing to celebrate 
it, Lord Lindsay presented himself at the chapel, at the head 
of a band of his followers, and threatened the " idolatrous " 
priest with death. These " men of God " were forced, 
however, " with anguish of heart " as Knox expressed it, to 
retire when Lord James Stuart took up his position at the door 
of the chapel in full armour, and prevented their entry. 
Similar scenes occurred many times during the first months. 3 
Knox preached that a single Mass was a worse disaster than 
the landing of 10,000 foreign troops, 4 and every day he prayed 
that God would touch the hard heart of the queen, and 
strengthen the minds and the hand of His elect in their 
opposition to the rage of all tyrants. 5 The question was 

1 A proof of her confidence in him is given in a letter from 
Mary of the beginning of January, 1562, in POLLEN, 439 : " pour 
le moigns quelque dificulte qu il i est pour la religion, i]s se con 
ferment au rest a ce que je veuls, et sur tout mon frere le prieur 
et Ledinton se montrent aifectiones ..." 

2 Brant6me in FORBES-LEITH, 59. 
8 FoRBES-Leith, 60. 

4 BELLESHEIM, II., 14 seq. 

6 " His prayer is dayly for her : That God will turn her obstinate 
heart ... or if the holy will be otherwise, to strengthen the 
hearts and hand of His chosen elect stoutly to withstand the 
rage of all tyrants." Randolph, Oct. 24, 1561, in FLEMING, 258 
seq. cf. ibid., 317, n. 20. 

VOL. XVI. 1 8 


openly raised whether it was lawful to obey so idolatrous a 
queen in civil matters. 1 Nothing shows better the state of 
affairs than the fact that Mary was powerless to deal with such 

In spite of all this, however, Mary had by no means yet 
reason to despair. In a progress which she made in Septem 
ber, 1561, it was clear that the greater part of the people was 
sincerely loyal to the queen. 2 It was not unreasonable to 
hope that the wild tirades of Knox would gradually lose their 
influence. If only from the political standpoint Mary could 
not have acted more wisely in the face of such attacks than to 
continue to hunt and dance, and leave the disentanglement of 
the problem to the hand of time ; little by little, good sense 
and reason, added to the innate loyalty of the people to the 
crown, were bound to restore calm. The charm which Mary s 
beauty exercised over the people, and even more her kindly 
behaviour, the mirror of a kind heart, helped to soothe and 
pacify her excited subjects. Many who approached her as her 
enemy, left her as a friend. 3 If she had but had the calm 
sagacity of her mother, Mary might perhaps have succeeded in 
steering the ship safely through the angry waves. But the 
impulsiveness of her temperament caused her too often to be 
led away by the impressions of the moment, and thus she 
offered to her enemies a welcome opportunity to ruin her. 4 

While she was still in France the queen had said that she 
did not intend to use any violence as far as religion was con 
cerned, 5 and she adhered to this intention. After her arrival 
in Scotland, on August 25th, 1561, she proclaimed that the 
religious question would be submitted to the Parliament, and 
that in the meantime everything must remain in statu quo. 6 

1 Randolph to Cecil, Nov. n, 1561, in HOSACK, I., 79. 

2 OPITZ, I., 54. 

2 HOSACK, I., 71. BELLESHEIM, II., 14. 

4 HOSACK, I., 71. 

" I mean to constrain none of my subjects, but would wish 
they were all as I am." Mary to Throckmorton, in FORBES- 
LEITH, 56 ; HOSACK, I., 64. 



As a matter of fact the innovators not only kept in their hands 
the property they had seized, but continued to add to it. In 
the Privy Council which Mary called together on September 
6th, 1561, there were only two Catholics ; l she agreed that a 
stipend should be allotted to the Protestant preachers from the 
Catholic ecclesiastical revenues, 2 whereby the status of 
the body of the new religionists was recognized as legal. 
Thus Knox was able to continue his invectives undisturbed. 
The queen sought to influence him by summoning him to her 
presence several times, and, though of course without effect, 
by remonstrating with him for his revolutionary activities. 3 
For her own part Mary remained staunch and unshaken in 
the Catholic faith, but in her desire that all might be led to 
see eye to eye with her, she took no active measures on behalf 
of her own co-religionists. Her own personal influence 
brought it about that at any rate there was no longer any 
attempt to put the capital penalty into force against the 
Catholics ; while she had only with great difficulty been able 
during the first two years of her residence in Scotland to secure 
the release from prison of the Bishops of St. Andrew s and 
Aberdeen, who had celebrated Mass at Easter, during the last 
two years of her rule 9,000 and 12,000 persons respectively 
were able to receive their Easter communion in the royal 
chapel without creating any disturbances. 4 A description 
of the condition of the Scottish Catholics is given in the report 
of the Jesuit Nicholas Floris of Gouda in Holland, who was sent 
by Pius IV. as nuncio to Mary Stuart in 1562. 

Immediately after the accession of Pius IV. to the throne, 
Francis II. and Mary had caused homage to be paid to him, 

1 Ibid., 15. In a letter of June 10, 1561, Murray had advised 
Mary not to confer on the bishops the great offices of state, 
because they were not worthy of them, and would seek for further 
concessions. PHILIPPSON, HI., 437. BELLESHEIM in Hist.- 
polit. Blatter, CXII. (1893), 5^8. 

8 Ibid., 15. 

4 Hay to Francis Borgia, Paris, May, 1566, in POLLEN, 496. 
Guzman de Silva to Philip II., London, July 26, 1567, ibid., 521. 


for which he expressed his thanks in the consistory of May 
4th, 1560. l On August 22nd, 1560, the Golden Rose was sent 
to the young queen ; z the nuncio Lorenzo Lenzi, Bishop of 
Fermo, who was sent to the French court after the premature 
death of Francis II., took to Mary a letter of condolence from 
the Pope; 3 he, like the nuncio Gualterio at an earlier date, 
and Cardinal Este later on, 4 had instructions to enter into 
negotiations with her. While she was still in France, Mary 
received an invitation from the Pope to urge her represen 
tatives and the Scottish bishops to attend the Council of 
Trent. 5 

Affairs only took a more serious turn after Mary had re 
turned to her own kingdom. When, in September, 1561, 
it was rumoured that the King of Denmark was aspiring to 
Mary s hand, Commendone, at that time nuncio in Germany 
called the attention of the Pope to Mary, whose marriage to a 
Protestant would mean an increase in the strength of the 
reforming party, whereas the destinies of Scotland, Ireland 
and England itself might be guided in quite another direction 
were she to give her hand to a Catholic prince. 6 As a matter 

1 RAYNALDUS, 1560, n. 24. POLLEN mentions other letters of 
courtesy, p. 48 seq. 

z STEVENSON, Calendar, Foreign, 1560-61, n. 446. The date 
of the brief " March 23, 1561 " in RAYNALDUS, 1561, n. 76, can 
not be correct ; cf. POLLEN, 49. 

2 RAYNALDUS, 1560, n. 83. Cf. SUSTA, I., Ixvii. 

4 Commendatory brief for Gualterio, of March 29, 1560, men 
tioned in POLLEN, 48; for Este, of July i, 1561, printed 
ibid., 56. 

6 Briefs of March 6, 1561, in POLLEN, 53. The invitations to 
the Scottish bishops were sent on the same date ; ibid., 55. 

6 Commendone to Charles Borromeo, September 5, 1561, in 
POLLEN, 63. A memorial, probably of May, 1566, intended 
for Philip II., expresses similar views. In the English schism, 
says the unknown author, is to be found the principal cause of 
the apostacy of Scotland, of the contagion in France, and of the 
infection in the Low Countries, where they are near to open 
apostacy. It is therefore of the utmost importance to help 


of fact a great deal more depended upon the action of the 
young princess than Commendone guessed. She was the 
legitimate heir to the English crown ; it was Mary Stuart, and 
not Elizabeth, who was to become the ancestress of the 
English royal house. If she had maintained her own throne 
and her hereditary rights, if she had founded a line of Catholic 
sovereigns, the religious future of the whole English kingdom 
might have developed on quite different lines ; at anyrate, 
the toleration of the Catholic Church in England and its colon 
ies, and consequently the principle of religious toleration in 
general would certainty have been accepted as a fundamental 
political principle more than two centuries earlier than was 
actually the case. 1 

From that time onwards Commendone kept Mary in mind, 2 
and it was certainly in consequence of his representations that 
Pius IV. determined to send a nuncio to her in December, 
1561. 3 It was obviously impossible to entrust this mission 
to a nuncio of high rank, and therefore the Jesuit, Nicholas 
Floris, of Gouda in Holland, commonly called Goudano, was 
chosen for this difficult task. Goudano s departure, however, 
was delayed until June, 1562, probably because Commendone 
was anxious to give him as a companion Everard Mercurian, 
provincial of the Jesuits, and a man of great experience. A 
brief of June 3rd, 1562, named Mercurian as nuncio in the 

Mary : if she were to succeed to the English crown the return of 
England to the Church would more than half quiet France and 
would save the Low Countries. Apart from this, if Scotland 
remains true to the Church, England will be obliged to allow 
liberty of conscience to the Catholics. POLLEN, 241-247. 

1 Cf. POLLEN in The Month, 1900, II., 168. 

z Cf. his reports to Rome from September 5 to November 30, 
1561, in POLLEN, 63-8. 

3 For the mission of Goudano see his report to Lainez from 
Mayence, September 30, 1562, and his letter to Lainez of October 
2, as well as one without date, in SCHNEEMANN in Stimmen aus 
Maria-Laach, XIX. (1880), 83-108, together with other documents 
recently edited by POLLEN, 113-61, and The Month, XCVI, (19), 


place of Goudano, 1 but it arrived too late. Goudano had set 
sail for Scotland on June loth, accompanied by a French 
Jesuit, and the Scottish priest, Edmund Hay ; they reached 
Leith on June i8th. 2 The object of their mission was to 
encourage the queen, and to invite her to send the Scottish 
bishops to the Council. 3 

The arrival of a Papal envoy, the news of which, owing 
to an act of imprudence, was soon widely spread, caused the 
greatest excitement in Edinburgh. In almost all his sermons 
Knox inveighed against the diabolical emissary of Baal and 
Beelzebub ; 4 Goudano could not show himself in public, and 
therefore Hay took him for safety s sake beyond the Firth of 
Tay, to his father s house near Errol, in Perthshire. 

A whole month passed before Goudano was able to present 
himself before the queen, and even then it was necessary 
carefully to choose the moment when he could make his way 
into the city and the royal palace. 5 Knox was accustomed 
to preach on Sundays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and all the 
courtiers who professed the new faith attended these sermons. 6 
Accordingly, at the hour of the sermon on Friday, July 24th, 
when all the reformers had left the palace, Goudano was able 
to obtain an interview with the queen. 7 He first of all set 
forth in Latin the objects of his mission, and when the queen 

I RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 183. On the strength of this brief 
PHILIPPSON (Regne de Marie Stuart, II., 40) makes Mercurian go 
as nuncio to Scotland. 

2 William Crichton, Memoir, in POLLEN, 144. 

3 Cf. the brief to Mary of December 3, 1561, which Goudano 
was to take, in POLLEN, 73 seq. 

4 POLLEN, 115. 

5 Lord James declared that the nuncio might become the 
cause of the disturbance of the whole country, and a source of 
personal danger to the queen, and that, with all his power, he 
could not prevent it. Letter of the English agent at Berwick, 
Randolph, June 26, 1562, in POLLEN 140. 

POLLEN, p. liv. 

7 Randolph nevertheless had news of it at Berwick. Cf. his 
letter of August i, 1562, in POLLEN, 142. 


explained that she could understand Latin better than she 
could speak it, the nuncio s companions were introduced, and 
with the help of Hay the interview was carried on in the 
Scottish tongue. Mary replied to the Pope s letter that he 
should look rather to her good will than to what she had 
been able to do for the cause of the Church ; in order to save 
what was left of the Catholic faith in the country, she had 
been obliged to allow many things to be done which she 
certainly did not approve of. With regard to the sending ol 
representatives to Trent, she would consult with her bishops, 
but she could not hold out any great hopes of success. As far 
as she herself was concerned she would rather die at once than 
lose her faith. 1 

Since the time at their disposal was limited, Goudano 
accepted this reply to the letter, and passed on to the dis 
cussion of other matters. Above all he asked how he could 
best deliver to the bishops the Papal letters addressed to them. 
At first Mary made answer that this certainly could not be done 
by the nuncio himself, but she afterwards added that perhaps 
the briefs could be entrusted to Henry Sinclair, Bishop of 
Ross, who was president of the .Parliament. When Goudano 
asked for a safe conduct, Mary refused it, saying that as far 
as the authorities were concerned, no action would be taken 
against him, but that as for other attacks which might be made 
upon him, she had no power to afford him any protection. 
Lastly the Pope s representative recommended, as the best 
way of disillusioning those who had gone astray, that a college 
should be established, where learned and pious men could give 
instruction to the people, and especially the young. To this 
Mary replied that for the moment it was quite out of the 
question to think of anything of the kind. 2 In the meanwhile 
the time had so slipped by, that the nuncio was obliged 
hurriedly to take his departure with his companions, though 
Mary again sent her secretary to him twice on the same day 
to obtain further information as to the wishes of the- Pope, and 

1 Goudano, ibid., 117 seq. 

2 Ibid., 118 seq. 


to offer her assistance in seeing that the briefs which he had 
brought were delivered to the bishops. Goudano agreed to 
this on the condition that the queen informed the Pope of 
this in her letter of reply to his. 1 

In this matter Mary had already asked the Bishop of Ross 
to deal with the nuncio, but the bishop s courage failed him ; 
if the nuncio, he thought, were to visit him, his house would 
most certainly be burnt down within 24 hours. 2 To the 
proposal which he made in writing, that Sinclair should at 
least reply to the Pope by letter, Goudano received no direct 
reply, but he was informed by Sinclair, through a third party, 
that such a letter would be sure to fall into the hands of the 
reformers, and that therefore he did not dare to write it. 3 
The Bishop of Dunblane, William Chisholm, was also in Edin 
burgh at that time, and he had scarcely got back to his house 
before the nuncio was daring enough to visit him, accompanied 
by a relation of the bishop, and dressed as a servant. Even 
so, however, he was refused admission. 4 After such experi 
ences Goudano had recourse to the other bishops by letter 
alone. He received replies from the Archbishop of St 
Andrew s and Robert Creighton, the Bishop of Dunkeld ; the 
latter also sent the nuncio a letter for the Pope, and even 
received him in a house of his which was situated on a remote 
island ; Goudano, however, had to disguise himself as a money 
lender, and to talk about nothing but financial matters during 
the meal. 5 Later on, after he had left Scotland, Goudano 
also received an answer to his letter from the Bishop of 
Aberdeen, William Gordon. 6 

1 Ibid., 119 seq. 

2 Ibid., 120. 

3 Ibid., 120 seq. 
*Ibid., 121. 

5 Ibid., 122. When Goudano handed him the Papal brief in 
his room, " il povcro vescovo cascho in tanta abondanza de 
lachrime per la consideratione del misero stato della religione nel 
regno di Scozia, et parimente il P. Goudano, che per un spatio di 
tempo non potevano dir una parola 1 un all altro." Crichton, 
Memoir, in POLLEN, 146. 

Ibid,, 153. 


The nuncio learned that there were still many Catholics 
among the nobility, but that from fear of the heretics they kept 
far from the court and took no part in affairs of state. He 
sent Papal briefs to three of these. 1 

The nuncio describes the state of the kingdom in the most 
gloomy colours. The convents and churches, he laments, 
are destroyed, and Catholic worship in public is entirely 
suppressed, with the single exception of the royal chapel. 
Since baptism is only administered according to the Calvinist 
rite, and only on Sundays, many infants die without it. 2 
The preachers of the new religion are drawn partly from apos 
tate monks, and partly from artisans who are completely 
uneducated. 3 On one occasion during his stay, three priests 
abjured the ancient faith in a single day, not far from his 
lodging. During the same period, one of the most highly 
esteemed ministers, a monk and a doctor of theology, was 
openly married, notwithstanding his 70 years. 4 Anybody 
who has a lawsuit is first asked if he is a Catholic ; if he admits 
it, his suit is either disregarded or postponed. 5 The great men 
of the kingdom acknowledge the queen outwardly, but do not 
allow her to act as such. They put obstacles in her way on 
every occasion, and lead her into making many mistakes ; 
especially if she tries to do anything on behalf of the Catholics, 
do they hold up before her eyes the bogey of an English in 
vasion. The young princess has no one to defend her or 
advise her ; even her confessor, Rene Benoist, whom she had 
brought with her from France, has deserted her. The nobles 
do not allow any one to have free access to her. 6 That the 
bishops, who are for the most part still good Catholics, con 
sidering the state of affairs, have no power to do anything 

1 Ibid., 122. 

2 According to the " Book of discipline " it was a " gross errour " 
that baptism was considered necessary for the salvation of infants. 
POLLEN, 123, n. 2. 

3 Ibid., 123. 

4 Ibid., 124. 

5 Ibid. 

9 Ibid., 124 seq. 


even if they wish, was shown when, last Easter, the Bishop 
of Dunkeld tried to administer the sacraments according to the 
Catholic rite, and to have his people taught by a Catholic 
priest ; he was accused of breaking the laws, and by the 
command of the queen herself was forced to abandon the idea. 
The bishops, therefore, do nothing ; the only exception is the 
co-adjutor of the Bishop of Dunblane, who confirms many in 
the faith by his sermons and private instructions. 1 Apart 
from him there are very few Catholic preachers here, and even 
these either do not dare to treat of controversial matters, or 
are incapable of doing so. 2 Of the nobles and the upper 
classes a few still hear Mass in private ; there are still many 
Catholics among the common people, but they suffer under 
the persecution of the new religionists, and rest their hopes 
principally upon the loyalty of the queen to the faith of their 
fathers 3 

Even Goudano, however, was of opinion that all hope for 
the Catholics of Scotland was not yet lost. The whole country 
might be won back to the Church if the queen were to many 
a powerful Catholic prince, who would be able to keep the 
enemies of the faith in check by his authority ; it would then 
be necessary to provide the queen with Catholic advisers, and 
to consider the appointment of capable bishops and prelates. 
Philip II. of Spain could be called upon to keep the designs of 
England upon Scotland in check 4 

His mission in Scotland over, Goudano, disguised as a 
sailor, set out in a boat from a lonely spot on the coast, and was 
conveyed to a Flemish ship, for a strict watch was being kept 
in all the ports of the kingdom for the nuncio and his corre 
spondence. 5 Hay followed him later with a band of young 
Catholics, who entered the Society of Jesus, and afterwards 
laboured as priests in their own country. 6 With them also 

1 Ibid., 125 seq. 

2 Ibid., 126. 

3 Ibid., 126 seq. 

4 Ibid., 127 seq. 

5 Goudano, ibid., 128 seq. 

6 Crichton, Memoir, ibid., 146. 


went Ninian Winzet, who had hitherto been the most able 
defender of the ancient Church in Scotland. 1 This dis 
tinguished humanist had forfeited his position as professor of 
Latin at Linlithgow. He afterwards took up the pen in defence 
of the Church, first in open letters, and later in a larger work 
in which he challenged the new prophet, Knox, to demonstrate 
his right to reform the Church of Christ by proving his divine 
mission. The reply to this was the confiscation of the press 
which had issued his " trumpet call against the usurped 
authority of Knox." Winzet himself was forced to fly, and 
he died in 1592 as abbot of the Scottish monastery at Ratisbon. 
The Abbot of Crossraguel, Quentin Kennedy (died 1564), 
had defended Catholic doctrine by his writings even before 
Winzet ; 2 religious conferences between the Catholics and the 
reformers had been held on several occasions, but without any 
noteworthy results. 3 Winzet speaks with brutal candour 
of the abuses of the old Church, and especially the scandalous 
lives of the Scottish clergy, 4 but in his opinion, as in that of 
Goudano, " the true root " of the evil was to be found in the 
arrogance and rapacity of the nobles, who wished to provide 
for their sons from the benefices of the Church, and thus placed 
the highest ecclesiastical offices in the hands of men who were 
quite unworthy to hold them. 5 

As the result of Goudano s report, the queen was kept 
almost as a prisoner by her entourage ; she was unable to 
receive any news from the outside world without the permission 

1 Goudano to Lainez, December 1562, in POLLEN, 152. Editions 
of the works of Winzet by John Blackgracie, Edinburgh, 1835 
(Maitland Club), by James King Hewison, 2 vols. Edinburgh, 
1888 (Scottish Text Society). For Winzet cf. BELLESHEIM, II.. 
20-35, and Hist.-polit. Blatter, CIII. (1889), 27-39 ; CVII. (1891), 

* BELLESHEIM, I., 402 seqq. 

* Ibid., II., 7 seq., 21, 35 seq. 
1 Ibid., 22 seqq. 

5 Ibid., 24. Cf. Hist.-polit. Blatter, CVII. (1891), 711 ; Goudano 
in POLLEN, 127. Kennedy also expressed himself in the same 
sense. BELLESHEIM, I., 405. 


of her ministers, except by stealth. The real ruler of Scotland 
was her half-brother, Lord James Stuart. The heretics, 
wrote Edmund Hay, the companion of Goudano, 1 with the 
exception of the Earl of Hamilton, are bound to him by their 
own interests, and he keeps the Catholics at bay by fear and 
by threats of appeal to the royal authority, so that no one 
dares oppose his will. He is always talking of the interests of 
the queen, but nobody in Scotland, who still retains a spark 
of intelligence, or who is not blinded by prejudice, can have 
the slightest doubts as to his real intentions. Leslie says 
plainly that James was aiming at the crown, 2 and that in 
order to attain this end he always strove to keep the 
management of the affairs of state in his own hands, 
to fill all offices with his own supporters, to deprive 
the Catholic clergy as far as possible of all their property, 
and lastly, to undermine the power of his enemies among the 

The hostility of Lord James was especially directed against 
the Earl of Huntly, 3 the most powerful of the Catholic nobles, 
whose possessions in the north of Scotland formed almost a 
small kingdom. Huntly s past had not been blameless, 4 but 
he could at anyrate be considered the most important repre 
sentative of the Catholic party, and he was a loyal adherent 
of the queen. About the time that the queen was making 

x To Lainez, January 2, 1563, in FORBES-LEITH, 80. 

2 " Not content with the administration of the kingdom, 
aspired to the crown itself," in FORBES-LEITH, 81. The nuncio 
Laureo also wrote to Rome, March 12, 1567 (POLLEN, 362) : 
" Muray [James] ... ha havuto sempre la mira d occupare il 
regno, persuaso della setta contraria che gli tocchi di ragione, et 
massime che pretende che la madre sia stata segretamente sposata 
dal Re suo padre." The memorial addressed in 1568 in the name 
of Mary to Cosimo I. of Tuscany mentions the fact of Murray s 
aspirations to the crown as a well known fact. LABANOFF, VII., 

3 Cf. Leslie in FORBES-LEITH, 84-92 ; BELLESHEIM, II., 43-5 ; 
HOSACK, I., 85 seqq. POLLEN, p. Iviii-lxi. 

FLEMING, 82, 311. 


a progress through the northern provinces, it happened that 
John Gordon, Huntly s second son, in a street quarrel with 
Lord Ogilvie in Edinburgh, wounded his opponent, was 
thrown into prison, and escaped a few days later. The hot- 
blooded young man was extremely irritated by a public 
summons to repair to Aberdeen, and by the order to return to 
prison, and thus place himself in the power of his enemies. 
Twice he attempted to attack the author of these orders, 
Lord James, even though he was in the queen s presence. 
A royal order to the Gordons then followed, that they were to 
surrender their castles of Inverness and Findlater, but this 
was resisted by the garrisons, who said that they must first 
have the consent of their own master. 

Thereupon the queen summoned the nobles of the surround 
ing district to her aid, and called Huntly to account. The 
Earl would not risk placing himself in the hands of his enemies, 
but sent his secretary to hand over the keys of the castles, 
excusing himself for not being able to come in person, on 
account of Lord James, though he declared that he was ready 
to be imprisoned in Edinburgh, or wherever the queen might 
appoint, on condition that he should not be condemned to 
death without the consent of the whole of the Scottish nobility. 
Huntly s messenger was seized by Lord James, and by threats 
of torture forced to give evidence against the Earl. Three 
times more did Huntly try to send the same message to the 
queen, but each time his attempt was frustrated by Lord 
James. In the meantime armed forces had been sent to take 
Huntly prisoner in his castle of Strathbogie. As he could not 
feel safe anywhere, in desperation he summoned 1200 men to 
his defence. These came to blows with Lord James near 
Corrichie ; Huntly was defeated, captured, and fell dead from 
his horse. His son, John Gordon, was beheaded, and the 
whole clan of the Gordons was deprived of its possessions 
and titles by the Parliament of 1563. Thus did Mary suffer 
herself to be led to the fatal step of cutting off from herself 
the very party upon whom she ought most to have relied. 
Her most dangerous enemy, on the other hand, her half-brother 
Lord James, returned from the north as Earl of Murray, 


with the rich possessions of the Earl of Huntly in his 
hands. 1 

While the position of the Catholics continued to be pre 
carious under Mary s rule, the reformers were enjoying the 
most complete liberty under her government. The preachers 
were allowed to pray openly in their pulpits that God would 
convert the queen, or give her a short life ; 2 Knox was suffered 
to inveigh undisturbed against the queen s dancing, and the 
attire of her court ladies, 3 and this at the very moment when 
this delicate minded champion of morality, then a man of 
about 60 years of age, was paying his court to a girl of 16, 
whom he married in 1564. 4 The Catholics, on the other hand 
had no share in this religious tolerance. The laws, which 
allowed a third part of the ecclesiastical revenues to the 
reformers, were arbitrarily administered by Murray, in such a 
way that more was taken from the Catholic clergy than was 
left to them. 5 In order to practise their religion in accordance 
with the custom of their fathers, the Catholics had to take 
refuge in the forests and marshes, while Knox declared that 
even there they should be harassed by the fanatical reformers. 6 
The fact that the death penalty imposed by law for the celebra 
tion of Mass was not carried into effect was, indeed, due to the 
influence of the queen, but in other respects she was only able 
to mitigate the severity of the sentences imposed in individual 

In 1563 a number of distinguished ecclesiastics were 
imprisoned, among them Hamilton, Archbishop of St. Andrew s, 
because he had dared to attempt to keep Easter according to 
the usage of the ancient Church. In order to save the accused, 

1 The condemnation of Huntly (in the presence of his dead 
body) by the Parliament in 1563 is described in the Rutland 
Papers ; see Rev. des quest, hist., LIII. (1893), 5 Z 4- 

3 Letter of the English envoy, Randolph, of February 28, 1563 ; 
see HOSACK, I., 90 n. 

3 BELLESHEIM, II., 45, 49. 

4 Randolph, January 22, 1563, HOSACK, loc. cit. 

5 Leslie in FORBES-LEITH, 82. 

6 HOSACK, I., 95 seq. 


Mary could think of no better plan than to send for Knox 
and ask for his intercession, although Knox was the- very 
man who was pressing for the condemnation of all Catholic 
priests. On May igth the Archbishop and 48 others were put 
on their trial for having heard confessions, and for having 
said or heard Mass, and were sentenced to imprisonment in 
Edinburgh Castle, though they were pardoned after nine weeks. 
After this the persecution of priests became more general, and 
on June 3rd, 1563, Randolph informed Cecil that the Catholic 
priests of Scotland were taking refuge in English territory. 1 

Fortunately for her Catholic reputation, Mary had, a 
little before this, made profession of her faith before the whole 
Catholic world at Trent and that in a way that created a stir 
in the Council. 2 The Bishop of Amiens, Pelleve, had already 
reminded her on April 2ist, 1562, that Christian princes 
were accustomed to send representatives to such an assembly 
in order to assert their rank and dignity, and that not even 
Elizabeth, in his opinion, would hold back on such an occasion. 3 
Soon after this the express Papal invitation reached her by the 
hands of Goudano. 4 Mary replied to the Pope on January 
3ist, 1563, by expressing her own good will, and explaining 
the difficulties of the times, but assuring him that she would 
do her best to send a certain number of the Scottish bishops 
to the Council. 5 At the same time she charged her uncle, the 
Cardinal of Lorraine, to make her excuses to the Pope if she 
had not carried out all her duties to the cause of religion. 6 
On May loth, 1563, a letter from the Queen of Scotland was 
read at Trent at a solemn general congregation, which was 
held with open doors. 7 In this letter Mary spoke of herself 

1 BELLESHEIM, II., 46 seqq. HOSACK, L, 95 seqq. FLEMING, 

8 POLLEN, Ixi seqq,, 162 seqq. 

3 Ibid., 446. 

4 See sup /a p. 278. 

5 LABANOFF, I., 175. 

7 Massarelli in THEINER, II., 264. The letter itself in RAY- 
NALDUS, 1563, n. in ; LE PLAT, VI., 48. 


as " a most devoted daughter of the Catholic Church," and 
acknowledged that as such she was bound to send some of her 
bishops to the Council, and that this would be for her subjects 
as well a great inducement to give to the Apostolic See the 
honour due to it. The times, however, did not permit of her 
sending even a representative, and she begged her uncle of 
Lorraine to give the distinguished assembly fuller information 
as to Scottish affairs. The Cardinal did this in the course 
of a long speech, 1 and the fathers of the Council made a reply, 2 
which certainly contained the most splendid tribute which had 
ever been given to the Scottish queen by the supreme ecclesi 
astical authorities. 

After the close of the Council Pius IV. gave express orders 
that a printed copy of the decrees should be sent to the Queen 
of Scotland. 3 This was entrusted to her envoy, Stephen 
Wilson. The brief which accompanied it exhorted the queen 
to do her utmost to carry out the decrees of the Council, and 
only to confer ecclesiastical dignities on Catholics who were 
above suspicion, and to do the same, as far as possible, in the 
case of civil offices. 4 At the same time briefs were sent to the 
two archbishops of St. Andrew s and Glasgow, together with 
exhortations to put the Tridentine decrees into force. 5 Mary s 
reply, 6 in which she again expressed her good will, only reached 
the Pope after a long delay, and he replied on May ist, 1565, 
in words of praise and encouragement. 7 

The queen once more entered into correspondence with the 
Holy See when the lengthy negotiations on the subject of her 
marriage had been brought to an end. 

1 The legates of the Council to Borromeo, in SUSTA, III. 325- 

2 RAYNALDUS, 1563, n. 112. The letter of reply was composed 
by Calini. BALUZE-MANSI, IV., 308. 

8 Borromeo to Santa Croce, March 24, 1564, in POLLEN, 181. 

4 Brief of June 15, 1564, ibid., 185 seq. 

5 Both these letters, dated January 13, 1564, in POLLEN, 138 seq., 
181 seq. Notice of the briefs to the other bishops, prelates, and 
Scottish nobles, ibid., 184 seq. Cf. RAYNALDUS, 1564, n. 49. 

6 Of October 20, 1564, in LABANOFF, VII., 6. 

7 In POLLEN, 188 seq. 


Mary s relations with foreign powers were, at the beginning 
of her reign, governed by three ideas ; she aimed at maintain 
ing friendly relations with Elizabeth of England, at the 
recognition of her hereditary claim to the English crown, and 
at the consolidation of her position by marriage with some 
powerful Catholic prince. 

In the first years of her reign she could hardly do enough 
in the way of reiterated protestations of friendship and ad 
miration for her " good sister " of England. On one occasion 
she said that she wished to honour Elizabeth as an elder 
sister, and to follow her advice as she would her mother s. 1 
She treated as precious treasures, which she carried near her 
heart, the letters of her " dear sister, and sweet cousin and 
friend." 2 The crafty Elizabeth willingly accepted such 
assurances, which afforded her an opportunity for exercising 
influence over Mary s decisions, and for interference in Scottish 
affairs. The hereditary right of her rival to the English 
throne, which had been called in question by the peace of 
Edinburgh, she never formally recognized, although she 
sometimes allowed her ambassador to make use of expressions 
calculated to encourage Mary s hopes. 3 

It was above all in the matter of the matrimonial plans 
of her neighbour that Elizabeth was thus able to exercise 
a powerful influence. Naturally Mary did not lack for suitors. 
First of all she thought of marrying Don Carlos, the son of 
Philip II.; 4 the Archduke Charles of Austria was also con 
sidered for a time. 5 From the first Pius IV. looked favourably 
upon the Spanish match, but, in consequence of the repre 
sentations of the Cardinal of Lorraine, he, at the end of 
October, 1563, instructed his nuncio in Spain to lay before the 
Catholic King the Cardinal s arguments in favour of Charles 

1 Randolph to Cecil, November 3, 1564, in STEVENSON, VII., 
772, 2. 

2 FLEMING, 321. 

3 Ibid., 320, n. 33. 

*Colecci6n de docum. ined., XXVI., 447 seqq. 
5 FOURNIER in Osterr. Rundschau, 1908, 27-36. 

VOL. XVI. 19 


of Austria. 1 But Philip II. had no wish to see the archduke, 
with his possible claims to Flanders, brought any nearer to 
the Low Countries, so in 1563 he gave up all thought of the 
Scottish match for his own son as well. 2 

Elizabeth had threatened hostilities on her own account 
if Mary were to marry either the Infante or a member of the 
House of Austria, but promised that she would find in her a 
sister and a friend if she made a choice in accordance with 
her wishes. 3 It was probably only with the purpose of still 
further postponing the dreaded marriage of her rival that 
Elizabeth, in March, 1564, suggested to Mary as a husband 
her own lover, Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester. 4 Mary, 
however, towards the end of the same year, was herself coming 
to a decision, which was to lead her to her own undoing ; 
she was thinking of marrying her cousin, Henry Darnley, 
who was only 19 years of age. 

Darnley, 5 like Mary herself, was descended from a sister 
of Henry VIII., 6 and after Mary Stuart was the nearest 
legitimate heir to the English throne. A marriage with him 
could not but strengthen her own claim. There was reason 
to hope, however, that he would be acceptable to the English 
queen in that the match would remove all fear of a foreign 
marriage, by means of which Scotland might gain an alliance 
on the continent, whereas Darnley was a subject of Elizabeth. 7 

1 POLLEN, 178. 

2 It was only on August 8, 1564, that Philip II. informed his 
ambassador in England that he had given up the idea. FLEMING, 94. 

3 FLEMING, 89. 

4 Ibid., 95 ; HOSACK, I., 97. 

5 We have adopted the form of the name then in use (Darnley 
and not Darley), just as for the same reason we give the name 
Murray instead of Moray. 

6 The grandmother of both Darnley and Mary was the sister 
of Henry VIII., Margaret Tudor, who was first married to James 
IV. of Scotland, and afterwards to Archibald Douglas, Earl of 
Angus, whose daughter Margaret was Darnley s mother. 

7 On February 23, 1564, de la Quadra wrote to Philip II. that 
Darnley s mother was thinking of marrying hirn to Mary. FLEM 
ING, 34, 227. 


His father, the Earl of Lennox, who belonged to one of the 
most distinguished Scottish families, had been obliged to leave 
his own country 20 years before, on account of his relationship 
with Henry VIII., and had since lived in England, where 
Darnley had been born. In consequence of representations 
made by Elizabeth, the Earl of Lennox obtained permission 
to return to Scotland at the end of 1564, to be followed in the 
next year by his son, who was presented to the queen on 
February I7th, 1565. The first impression which her young 
relative made upon her was very favourable, and unfortunately 
she allowed herself to be deeply influenced by this impression. 
In a snort time she was entirely infatuated by the youth, who 
was quite incapable and unworthy, and when, in April, 1565, 
Darnley fell ill, she visited him very often and nursed him 
with a mother s care. 1 An eye-witness testifies that she had 
suddenly become a changed being ; her brightness, her beauty, 
her cheerfulness were all overshadowed, and her dignity had 
disappeared. People talked seriously of witchcraft, and 
claimed that they had seen the magic rings and bracelets. 2 
In any case everyone felt sure that Darnley would be king. 

When Elizabeth realized that this time Mary was in earnest, 
she at once sent orders to Lennox and Darnley to return to 
England, and tried in every way to prevent the marriage ; 
but all was in vain, for Mary remained fixed in her resolve. 
She declared that Elizabeth had no more right to interfere 
with her marriage than she had to meddle with Elizabeth s 
own matrimonial affairs. 3 The marriage was accordingly 
celebrated according to the Catholic rite on July 2gth 1565. 4 

Mary was not unaware that, on account of her near relation 
ship to Darnley, the marriage could not be validly contracted 
without a Papal dispensation. She had therefore attempted 

1 Bedford to Cecil, April 18, 1565, in STEVENSON, Calendar, 
Foreign, 1564-1565, n. 1105, i. 

2 Thus at least wrote Randolph, who was Mary s enemy after 
the appearance of Darnley, to Leicester, June 3, 1565, STEVENSON, 
1564-1565, n. 1221, 2. 

3 FLEMING, 340. 

4 See PHILIPPSON, II., 401 seq. OPITZ, I., 107. 


in the first place to get into communication with Rome through 
her uncle, Charles de Guise. But at first the Cardinal would 
have nothing to do with Darnley, and he delayed so long that 
his messenger only reached Rome on July 2Oth, 1565. A 
messenger sent by the queen herself, namely, William Chis- 
holm, Bishop of Dunblane, whom she dispatched to the 
Eternal City at the end of June, only arrived there on August 
I4th. Between this date and September 25th, Pius IV. 
granted the queen s request. 1 Thus, at the time of the 
marriage, July 29th, the dispensation had not yet been granted, 
though in all probability Sinclair, who celebrated the marriage, 
as well as Mary herself, took it for granted that it had been 
issued by that time, or else they thought that, in view of the 
urgency of the case, the Archbishop of St. Andrew s, as Papal 
legate, could give the necessary faculties. 2 Almost simultane 
ously with the wedding Darnley was proclaimed king, and all 
future acts were to be published in his name as well as that of 
Mary. This provision, however, was illegal, in that it had 
not received the assent of Parliament, but Mary s popularity 
was so great at that time that no one made any protest. 3 

One reason why Mary thus at length entered into a new 
marriage is certainly to be found in her desire to escape from 
the tutelage of Murray, and manage her own affairs. Her 
choice of Darnley had also been determined by the fact that 
he came of a Catholic family, and was himself looked upon 
as a Catholic. As a matter of fact, if, in deference to Elizabeth s 
attitude, and in the interests of her own hereditary rights, she 
had to choose a husband who was a native of the British Isles, 
and one who was of the same religion as herself, her choice was 

J The brief, which bears the wrong date, VIII. Kal. lunii, 
1565, is printed in POLLEN, 218. For the dispensation in general 
cf. ibid., Ixxii-xcviii, 191-231, and Scottish Hist. Review, IV. 
(1907), 241-8. 

2 Cf. POLLEN, cxi seqq. The dispensation for the marriage of 
Mary Stuart with Darnley is dated June i, 1565, and in the Reg. 
Vatic, may be seen the recommendation " de spedirla quanto 
prima." See EHSES in Hist. Jahrbuch, XL. (1920), 251. 

3 HOSACK, I., no. 


very limited. In this the tragic blunder of her life, in having 
allowed the family of Huntly to be destroyed, was clearly 
shown. 1 

It was only natural that Mary s marriage should have 
antagonized Murray, and stirred up against her the religious 
fanaticism of the reformers. A Catholic queen, especially 
one who was so unassuming as Mary, might still have been 
tolerated, but with her marriage to Darnley the probability 
of a Catholic dynasty became acute. As early as March, 1565, 
Murray had entered into an alliance with Chatelherault and 
Argyll, by which they agreed to stand together, though with 
the proviso that this should only be in matters which were 
not opposed to God and the queen. 2 At the beginning of 
April, Murray left the court, where he had so long been all 
powerful ; at the end of the month, however, by Mary s 
orders, he returned, but he refused to give his consent to the 
marriage with Darnley, basing his refusal upon the latter s 
religion. 3 He would consent, he said, only on condition that 
he should himself be made the head of the government, and 
that the Catholic religion should be proscribed. 4 

The general assembly of the reformers at the same time 
adopted a threatening attitude. A few days before the cele 
bration of the marriage this assembly sent a deputation to 
the queen begging her to confirm its decision that the Mass 
must be suppressed " together with all manner of papistry, 
idolatry and Papal jurisdiction " all over the kingdom, in 
cluding the royal court, and that throughout the country 

1 According to PHILIPPSON as well (II., 327), Mary let herself 
be led into the marriage not so much on account of her love for 
Darnley, as to secure her hereditary right to the English throne. 

2 FLEMING, 353. 

3 Randolph to Bedford, April 7, in STEVENSON, Calendar, 
Foreign, 1564-1565, n. 1085, n. 2. 

4 Mary to Paul de Foix, November 8, 1565, in LABANOFF, I., 301. 
" Pourveu qu il maniast 1 affaire luy tout seul et que mes dictz 
subjectz congneussent qu il estoyt le chef, et que par mesme 
moyen (pour leur donner plus de couraige) il estoyt necessaire 
de bannir de ce royaume la religion catholicque et romaine." 


" the pure word of God and His true religion " be established. 1 
Mary made answer that she did not consider that there was 
anything impious in the Mass, and that she felt sure her subjects 
would not force her to act against her conscience. She could 
not and would not deny the religion in which she had been 
brought up, and which she looked upon as the true religion 
founded upon the word of God. She had made no attempt 
to do violence to the consciences of her subjects, and did not 
intend to do so, but would leave each one to serve God as he 
deemed best ; she claimed the same right for herself. 2 

This dignified reply was powerless to change the course of 
events. Even before it had been made known, the nobles 
of the new religion met at Stirling to decide what was to be 
done should Mary overthrow their religion or give Queen 
Elizabeth a pretext for invading Scotland. 3 When she was 
at Perth on June 3Oth, the queen received news that, at her 
departure from the city, which had been arranged for the 
next day, she was to be seized and imprisoned, and Lennox 
and Darnley killed. She immediately summoned 300 armed 
men to her aid, and frustrated the attack by leaving Perth at 
a very early hour. 4 The conspirators then had recourse to 
arms; Murray, Chatelherault and Argyll appealed for help 
to Elizabeth, whom they described as " blessed with the 
noble title of being, after God, the special protector of the 
champions of religion." 5 On July loth they received an 

1 FLEMING, 108 ; cf. Randolph, May 3, 1565, in STEVENSON, 
Calendar, Foreign, 1564-1565, n. 1140, 9 (p. 353) : "This day, 
Thursday, the chief of the Protestants, with the ministers, 
assembled in the church. Their deliberations contained three 
heads : first, how to remove idolatry out of the realm, containing 
in that as well the Queen s chapel as others." 

2 HOSACK, I., 107. FLEMING, 352. 

3 FLEMING, 109. 

4 Later on Mary said that she could prove, by the testimony 
of a hundred nobles, that at that time her own imprisonment 
and the murder of Darnley and Lennox were intended. Letter 
of November 8, 1565, to Paul de Foix. in LABANOFF, I., 304 seq. 

6 FLEMING, 109. 


encouraging reply from Elizabeth. 1 On July i2th, 1565, 
Mary answered the rumours being spread about by the re 
formers that their religion was in danger, by a fresh promise 
of religious freedom. Three days later she renewed this 
promise, and at the same time sent orders to her friends to 
assemble under arms at Edinburgh. 2 

This rebellion was not without real danger. Many powerful 
nobles took the part of the insurgents, such as the Earl of 
Argyll, who had almost unlimited power in the western 
Highlands of Scotland, and the Earl of Glencairn, one of the 
most powerful nobles in the south-west of the kingdom. 3 
Moreover, the leader of the conspiracy, the Earl of Murray, 
was a skilful general, and behind him was Elizabeth, in reliance 
upon whose help the insurgents had taken up arms. 4 Elizabeth, 
however, was unwilling openly to declare war on Scotland, 
and her secret assistance was not enough. 5 Mary, on the 
other hand, in the face of this danger, displayed a warlike 
courage, together with judgment and decision, which excited 
the admiration even of her enemies. She herself took her 
place at the head of her armies, and at her approach the 
insurgents, who had intended to march on Glasgow, retreated. 
They seized Edinburgh, indeed, but they met with so little 
support there, in spite of the inflammatory sermons of the 
preachers, that they abandoned the city, and Mary was able 
to return there unopposed on September igth. At the 


2 FLEMING, 108. 

3 HOSACK, I., in. 

4 Later on, on October 24, 1565, Murray wrote from Carlisle 
to Cecil that unless they had been encouraged by Elizabeth and 
her Privy Council, he and the other nobles would never have 
ventured upon the undertaking : " If they had not been moved 
to it by the handwriting of the Queen and her Council " (STEVEN 
SON, Calendar, Foreign, 1564-5, n. 1592). On the same date 
Murray wrote to Leicester (ibid., n. 1593) : " They were not 
minded to take any appointment with Queen Mary unless Queen 
Elizabeth had been the dresser thereof." 

5 HOSACK, I., 115 seg. 


beginning of October she again took the field against the rebels 
at the head of between 6,000 and 12,000 men, but their leaders 
had already sought refuge in English territory. 1 On October 
23rd Murray had a humiliating audience of Elizabeth ; in 
the presence of the Privy Council and the two French am 
bassadors he appeared before the queen in a simple black 
dress, and had to listen on his knees to a lecture, in which 
the great actress taught him a lesson as to the duties of a 
subject to his sovereign. 2 She had already denied on oath 
to one of the French ambassadors that she had sent any 
financial help to the Scottish rebels. 3 

To all outward appearance Mary s position at the end of the 
reign of Pius IV. was stronger than ever. She had at one 
blow thrown off the tutelage which had hampered her for 
years, and had shown a bold front to her most dangerous 
enemies, the nobles who had adopted the new religion, and 
the preachers, and she had overcome them. It can easily 
be understood that the queen should have sought to profit 
by her victory. Among the rebels, the Duke of Chatelherault 
was pardoned on condition that he went to live in France for 
five years ; the others were summoned to appear before 
Parliament in March, 1566, when their case was tried, and 
their property forfeited to the crown. 4 Besides this the queen 
tried seriously to enforce her oft -repeated principle of religious 
toleration for all, in the sense that her own co-religionists were 
not to be excluded from this general liberty. As a consequence 
of this the Catholic nobles again began to assist openly at 
the worship of the ancient Church, and Catholic sermons were 
once more preached in the royal chapel of Holyrood. 5 An 

1 Ibid., 113-8. FLEMING, 112 seqq. 

"FLEMING, 117 seg., 367 seq. According to the memoirs 
of James Melville Elizabeth made Murray bear witness at this 
audience that she had not come to any understanding with the 
Scottish rebels ! HOSACK, I., 118. 

3 Ibid., 1 1 6. 

4 Randolph to Cecil, December 23, 1565, in STEVENSON, Calen- 
daF> Foreign, 1564-5, n. 1748, 2 ; cf. n. 1751. FLEMING, 118, 369. 

6 BELLESHEIM, II., 55. Darnley also took part at the function 
of Christmas night. STEVENSON, loc. cit., n. 1752. 


act granting religious freedom to the Catholics was prepared 
for presentation to the next Parliament, to which the clergy 
were also summoned. 1 The Dean of Restalrig, who had 
blessed Mary s marriage, was appointed president of the 
court, while John Leslie, the Bishop of Brechin, was made 
Bishop of Ross, and a member of the Privy Council ; 2 both 
of these were worthy and deserving men. 

Since the nobles who had adopted the new religion had 
sought and obtained financial aid from Elizabeth, it was 
natural that Mary should also seek for like assistance. Bishop 
Chisholm, who had been sent to obtain in Rome the dispensa 
tion for the marriage with Darnley, had received the further 
instructions to approach the Pope on this point. " In Scot 
land," he told the Pope, 3 "it is now a question of existence 
or extinction, both for the queen and for the Catholic religion. 
Even before her marriage with Darnley, the queen did all she 
could to re-establish the old religion, and this was the purpose 
she had in mind in entering upon the match. She cannot, 
however, do as she likes with her own property, because her 
treasurer and his secretary, who are both bitter heretics, will 
not allow her anything for purposes which they do not approve 
of. Mary s object is to crush the enemies of the faith, and 
those who disturb religious peace, to re-establish the Church, 
and to restore the. former submissiveness and quiet ; she is 
of opinion that she can attain this end very easily within four 
or five months, with the help of from 10,000 to 12,000 men, 
and she looks to the Pope for the necessary funds for the 
maintenance of these troops. This assistance would mean 

1 " The spirituall estate placed therein in the ancient maner, 
tending to have done some good anent restoring the auld religion." 
Mary to the Archbishop of Glasgow, April 2, 1566, in LABANOFF, I., 
343. " The parliament was opened and two measures submitted 
for discussion one allowing the bishops and rectors of churches 
the full exercise of there ancient religion. . . ." Leslie in FORBES- 
LEITH, 108. 

2 BELLESHEIM, II., -56 seq. Processus ecclesiae Brechinensis, 
Romae, 1565, September 2 and 3, in POLLEN, 512 6. 

8 POLLEN, 204-7. 


life and safety for the queen, peace and quiet for Scotland, 
restoration and new splendour for the Christian religion, and 
a renewal of respect and obedience for the Apostolic See. 
Without it, on account of the alliance of the Scottish heretics 
with Elizabeth, the queen can expect nothing but a martyr 
dom similar to that suffered by her mother." 

Chisholm s speech certainly described the situation in 
over-strong terms. As far as she herself was concerned, 
Mary was sincerely devoted to the faith of her fathers, and 
she had in many ways alleviated the hard lot of her Catholic 
subjects ; but it cannot be maintained that she was very 
zealous for the complete restoration of the former religious 
conditions. Pius IV., who had not at his disposal the con 
siderable sum of money asked for, * answered her courteously 
on September 25th, 1565, and at the same time informed the 
Cardinal of Lorraine that the time was not yet come for the 
help demanded. 2 

Bishop Chisholm did not go straight back to Scotland from 
Rome, but was detained in Paris during the winter. 3 His 
mission gave occasion for a series of briefs of encouragement 
and praise to Archbishop Hamilton, and to the nobles who 
were Catholics, or passed as Catholics, such as the Earls of 
Lennox, Atholl, Huntly, Montrose, Eglinton, Cassilis, Caith 
ness, and Eroll and Mar, and Lords Hume, Seton, Semphill 
and Ruthven. 4 

On hearing the good news of the first successes of the queen 
against the rebels, Pius IV. to some extent abandoned his 
attitude of cautious reserve. In the consistory of October 
1 2th, 1565, he said that he did not wish for war, but hated it, 
but that when it had been undertaken by others in defence of 
religion, it was the duty of the head of the Church to come to 

1 According to the Avviso di Roma of September 15, 1565, 
Mary asked for 300,000 ducats. POLLEN, 197. 

2 The letter in POLLEN. 221 seq., 223 seq. 

3 E. Hay to Polanco, Paris, January 9, 1566, ibid., 490. 

4 POLLEN, 225-7. Raynaldus wrongly ascribes these briefs 
to 1563 (n. 113). A covering letter from Borromeo to the queen 
in BALUZE-MANSI, III., 528, 


the assistance of Catholics with advice and in other ways, 
and that this was also the duty of other Catholic powers. 
The respective Cardinal Protectors should therefore remind the 
Emperor, and the Kings of France and Spain of this duty. 1 
By means of the Cardinal of Lorraine, the Pope advised the 
queen not to place too much trust in some of her counsellors, 
who wished to make a compromise at the expense of the 
Catholic religion at the next Parliament. 2 

Besides appealing to the Pope, Mary had turned for help 
to Philip II., 3 and on September 2nd Pius IV. also asked that 
monarch s advice with regard to Scottish affairs. 4 Philip s 
reply, dated October i6th, 5 showed that Mary s enemies had 
nothing to fear from him. 6 A small sum of money which he 
sent to the queen was unfortunately lost. 

Pius IV. also tried to interfere in ecclesiastical affairs in 
Ireland by sending a nuncio there, but, taught by his experi 
ence with England, he ordered him to go without any external 

By the help of deceit and surprise, the English ecclesiastical 
laws concerning the abolition of Papal authority, the oath of 
supremacy, and attendance at Protestant worship, had been 
accepted by the Irish Parliament in 1560 ; the president of 
the Lower House, James Stanihurst, pat the question to the 
vote at a time when the House was very thinly attended, 
and those present were altogether favourable to the change. 7 
The displeasure of the other members was calmed by the 

1 In POLLEN, 228 seq. 

2 Pius IV. to Lorraine, October 15, 1565. See PHILIPPSON, III., 
480 ; POLLEN, 228. 

3 Letter of September 10, 1565, in LABANOFF, 1., 281. Cf. Phayre 
to Cecil, dated from Madrid, November 17, 1565, in STEVENSON, 
Calendar, Foreign, 1564-5, 2-6, p. 519. Mary had asked for the 
help of Philip as early as July 24, 1565. LABANOFF, VII,. 340. 

4 In POLLEN, 211 seq. 

5 In MIGNET, Histoire de Marie Stuart, I., Paris, 1854, 421. 
Cf. POLLEN, 213. 

6 Cf. Phayre, lac. cit., 6. 

7 BELLESHEIM, Irland, II., 120 seqq., 131. 


assurance that the new laws would not be put into force. 
As a matter of fact the traditional form of the oath of loyalty 
was maintained, 1 and the Anglican liturgy of the Book of 
Common Prayer was unintelligible to the mass of the people 
because it was not translated into Irish. 2 Nevertheless after 
1560 the public use of Catholic worship gradually came to an 
end, 3 although it was not found possible to prevent attendance 
at Mass, even in the neighbourhood of Dublin. 4 With a few 
exceptions 5 the Irish bishops lemained true to the Church, 
and the government only dared to deprive two of their dio 
ceses. 6 In 1566 the viceroy of Ireland, the apostate Arch 
bishop Curwin, and the other members of the Irish Privy 
Council reported to the English queen that the new doctrines 
had only made any noteworthy progress in the dioceses of 
Armagh, Meath, and Dublin, while they were entirely unknown 
in the rest of the country. 7 

The great obstacle in the way of the sorely needed con 
solidation of the Catholic religion in Ireland lay in the condition 
v of the clergy, and especially their religious ignorance. Car 
dinal Morone, the Protector of Ireland, therefore proposed to 
the Pope to send a nuncio to the island. It was of course no 
longer possible for a Papal envoy to appear with any external 
pomp ; Pius IV. therefore appointed for this purpose, not a 
prelate, but, as had been the case in Scotland, a Jesuit, David 
Wolf, a native ot Ireland, 8 who, by the order of the General 
of the Jesuits, was to make his appearance with the greatest 
simplicity, and was not to accept any payment for his work, 
not even by way of alms. 9 Indeed, for some time after his 

1 Ibid., 123. 

2 Ibid., 122, 124. 

3 Ibid., 137 ; cf. 124. 

4 Ibid., 130. 

6 Ibid., 128, 140. For the apostacy of the Archbishop of 
Dublin, Curwin, ibid., 114 ; for Devereux of Ferns, ibid., 129. 

8 Namely Walsh of Meath and Leverous of Kildare ; ibid., 129. 

7 BELLESHEIM, Irland, II., 134. 

8 Ibid., 137 ; cf. SACCHINI, II., 1. 4, n. 45. 

9 BELLESHEIM, II., 138. 


arrival in Ireland, in January, 1561, Wolf carried out his 
instructions so literally that he suffered real want among the 
poor Irish. 1 

The duty of the nuncio was to encourage the nobles and the 
bishops to be constant in the Catholic faith, and to devote 
himself to the reform of the clergy by suggesting to the Pope 
suitable bishops, by insisting that the bishops should promote 
capable priests, by looking after the maintenance of ecclesi 
astical discipline and the erection of schools, and by watching 
over the preaching and the administration of the sacraments. 2 

The news of the arrival of a Papal envoy in Ireland had 
hardly spread when men and women, barefooted and in the 
poorest dress, came to him in crowds to obtain the absolution 
of their sins, and especially that he might set right invalid 
marriages. Wolf himself relates that in the course of a few 
months he made use of his Papal faculties in more than 1,000 
such cases. 3 Many who had been more or less inclined to the 
new doctrines were reconciled by Wolf to the Church ; it 
caused a great sensation when the Protestant Bishop of 
Limerick, William Cahessy, who was already a Catholic priest, 
returned publicly to the Church. 4 In accordance with Wolf s 
suggestions, at the consistory of January 28th, 1562, three 
new bishops were appointed to the dioceses of Raphoe, Achonry 
and Elphin, who received their episcopal consecration in Rome. 
Of the three bishops who took part in the Council of Trent, 
two, MacCongail of Raphoe, and the Dominican, O Harte of 
Achonry, were proposed for their office by Wolf. 5 

A grave danger to religion in Ireland lay in the want of 
schools, where young clerics could receive a sufficient theo 
logical training ; Wolf had been charged to obviate this 
danger by all the means in his power, and the Pope himself, 

1 Ibid., 139. Wolf, however, did not remain faithful to this 
strict manner of life, and later he was dismissed from the Society. 
SACCHINI, II., 1. 5, n. 149. 

2 BELLESHEIM, II., 138. 

3 Letter to Lainez, SACCHINI, II., 1. 5, n. 148. 

4 BELLESHEIM, II., 145. 
6 Ibid., 141. 


on May 3ist, 1564, issued a bull to the same effect. 1 This 
bull states that there is in Ireland no university at which men 
can study and receive the doctor s degree ; that the Irish are 
too poor to be able to go and study in other countries ; that 
consequently there are at most six or eight bachelors of 
theology in the whole island, that one or two at most are doctors 
in theology, and probably none at all in law, 2 that for a 
thousand years the Irish bishops have not given any assistance 
worthy of the name to theological study ; that, in spite of the 
prescriptions of the Council of Trent concerning seminaries, 
and the conferring of ecclesiastical dignities on graduates, it 
appeared that there was little likelihood that, even in the 
future, the bishops would change their ways, or give up their 
custom of conferring ecclesiastical benefices on quite unworthy 
persons ; nevertheless, in order that, in spite of this, a uni 
versity and colleges might arise in Ireland, the bull granted 
to Richard Creagh, Archbishop of Armagh, and to the nuncio, 
Wolf, the faculty to use for the purpose of places of instruction 
convents which had fallen into ruin or which had been alienated 
from their original purpose, as well as ecclesiastical benefices. 
This, the bull stated, had already been decreed by the Parlia 
ment at Dublin under Cardinal Pole and Queen Mary. 3 

Later on the schools became the principal object of the care 
of all the most important men of Catholic Ireland, many of 
whom devoted themselves personally to the work of instruc 
tion. The school of Peter White, formerly dean of the cathe 
dral of Waterford, especially produced a number of dis 
tinguished scholars and priests. 4 

1 MORAN, Spicilegium, I., 32-8. 

2 " Cum Hiberni in propria insula nullam studii generalis 
universitatem . . . habeant, nee illis . . . pecunia suppeditet, 
unde in exteris regionibus litteris vacare ac gradus huiusmodi 
suscipere valeant, propterea fit, ut in uni versa Hiberhia nullt, ut 
creditur, ad s. theologiae praeter unum et alterum et ad iuris- 
prudentiae doctoratus forsan nullus, ad bacchalariatus autem in 
ipsa theologia gradus non plures quam sex aut octo promoti 
reperiantur etc." 1 MORAN, I., 33. 

3 Ibid., 34. 

4 BELLESHEIM, II., 133, 232. 


Neither Archbishop Creagh nor the nuncio could, as a matter 
of fact, do anything at all to carry out the Papal letter. In 
1564 the archbishop fell into the hands of the English ; he 
succeeded several times in escaping, but he passed far the 
greater part of the rest of his life in English and Irish prisons, 
and died of poison in the Tower of London in 1585. l The 
nuncio too was thrown into prison, and on May I3th, 1568, 
the successor of Pius IV. tried to obtain the intervention of 
Philip II. with Elizabeth on behalf of him and the archbishop. 2 
The distinguished bishops Walsh of Meath and O Herlihy of 
Ross also endured a harsh imprisonment for many years 3 
The same is also true of other bishops, of Edmund Tanner of 
Cork (died 1579), 4 of Peter Power of Ferns (died 1587), who 
for a time allowed himself to be led away by the blandishments 
of the government, 5 and Archbishop Nicholas Scered of Tuam 
(died 1583), an alumnus of the Germanicum in Rome. 6 After 
horrible cruelties the government executed the Bishop of 
Cashel, Dermot O Hurley, in 1584 ; 7 like him, the Bishop of 
Mayo, Patrick O Hely, of the Franciscan order, suffered 
death by hanging in I578. 8 Besides him, a whole number of 
Irish Franciscans suffered a bloody death between 1565 and 
1580 9 . In order to introduce the new "doctrines by force 
a state of war was declared in Ireland, and in little more than 
a year and a half about 400 persons were put to death in the 
province of Munster. 10 

1 Ibid., 152 seqq., 183 seqq. 

2 LADERCHI, 1568, n. 124; cf. Castagna to Bonelli, May i, 
and Bonelli to Castagna, July 21, 1568, Corresp. dipl., II., 354, 417, 

3 BELLESHEIM, II., 144 seq., 147 seq. 

4 Ibid., 1 88 seq. 
6 Ibid., 187. 

6 Ibid., II., 187 seq. 

7 Ibid., 197 seqq. 

8 Ibid., 186. 

9 Ibid., 189 seq. 

10 Report of Drury, March 24, 1-578, ibid., 191 ; cf. 201. For the 
Irish victims of the hatred of Catholics see O REILLY, Memorials 
of those who suffered for the catholic faith in Ireland, London, 
1868 ; DAVID ROTHE, Analecta, ed. by P. F. Moran, Dublin, 1884. 
Cf. Katholik, 1888, II., 179 seqq. 


In the trials of the Irish bishops the forms of law were not 
infrequently entirely ignored. In a process against Arch 
bishop Creagh at Dublin in 1567, the jury refused to find him 
guilty, although they were shut up for several days on bread 
and water, yet the archbishop was not set at liberty, while the 
court inflicted heavy penalties on the jurors. 1 

While Creagh was a prisoner in London the government 
vainly tried to convict him of treason. He was said to have 
had relations with Shane, a son of the Earl of Tyrone, who 
claimed the title of O Neill, and to be King of Ulster, and 
caused a great deal of trouble to the English government, until 
he was killed at the instigation of an English official. At 
that time revolts were breaking out almost continually in that 
part of Ireland. The government was always on its guard 
against surprise, but it was only with the greatest difficulty 
that it could carry into effect the legal penalty of forfeiture of 
lands against the insurgents. The attempt to introduce 
English settlers into the confiscated property, and to leave 
it to them to defend it against its former owners, was a com 
plete failure. 2 

1 BELLESHEIM, II., 155. Cf. ibid., 199, 201, on what was done 
to O Hurley. 

2 LINGARD, VIII., 126 seqq. 



WHILE the storm of religious changes was raging over the whole 
of western Europe, the south remained for the most part 
untouched by the disturbance. Protestantism indeed knocked 
at the gates of Italy, and even found entrance in more than one 
place, but it was vigorously ejected by the Roman Inquisition. 
The attitude adopted by Pius IV. towards this body was in 
many respects different from that of his predecessor. 

The destruction of the palace of the Inquisition at the death 
of Paul IV., and the wild scenes that accompanied it, l suggested 
to the new Pope, 2 even in the first weeks of his pontificate, 
the idea of introducing a reform of the tribunals of faith more 
in keeping with the needs of the times. Even during the 
coronation celebrations it was rumoured that he intended to 
abolish the powers of the Inquisition, and hand them over 
to the bishops. 3 Pius IV., however, did not go as far as that, 
but in a congregation on January nth, 1560, he once again 
restricted the power of the Holy Office to its former limits, 
in such a way that only matters directly concerning the faith 

1 C/. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 414. 

The accounts of Pius IV. and the Inquisition in HINSCHIUS, 
Kirchenrecht, VI., 329 seqq., 342, 363 ; HENNER, Papstliche 
Ketzergerichte, 122, 369, 372 ; HERGENROTHER, Staatund Kirche, 
607 ; PHILLIPS, Kirchenrecht, VI., 594 ; PAULUS, Hexenwahn, 
254 ; CIACONIUS, III., 873 scq. are derived only from printed 

3 *Si ragiona che S. S ta> vora che sian levate 1 inquisition! per 
tutto, lasciandone il carico alii vescovi delli luoghi . . . et questo 
acci6 non segua piu tal disordine come per il passato s ha visto con 
gran ruina et vergogna della S. Sede Romana. Avviso di Roma, 
1560. (Urb. T039, p. ii4 b , of January 6, Vatican Library). 

VOL. XVI. 305 20 


came before it, but not simony, blasphemy and sodomy 
Moreover, at the beginning of April, 1560, obviously in refer 
ence to the acts of Paul IV., he issued a statement in which he 
announced that all who lay under censure, exile or condemna 
tion for heresy might submit their cause to a fresh juridical 
examination, in spite of the sentence pronounced by his 
predecessors. 2 On the other hand, at the request of the 
officials of the Inquisition, the new Pope, on December loth, 
1560, confirmed all the privileges which had been granted to 
them by his predecessor on January ist, in the first year of 
his pontificate. 3 A monitorium issued by the Cardinal 
Inquisitors on January 7th, 1561, ordered the restoration of all 
the documents which had been stolen at the time of the 
destruction of the palace of the Inquisition. 4 Cardinal 
Ghislieri remained Grand Inquisitor, since no otlier Cardinal 
was willing to undertake that office. 5 

1 *Avviso di Roma, 1560, Urb. 1039 p. 117, of January 13, 
(Vatican Library). *N. Signore sta bene et il giobbia [u. 
January] passato tenne congregatione per sonto della inquisizione, 
la quale sara regolata con quel modo et iustitia che desidravano 
per il passato i prudenti, cioe che non si tratti in essa se non cose 
meramente appartenenti alia [he] resia senza mescolarvi dentro 
ne simonia ne bestemia o sodomia. . . . Report of Ricasoli, dated 
Rome, January 12, 1560 (State Archives, Florence. Medic. 3279 

P- 555)- 

2 *Sua Santita ha declarato che, non ostante ch alcuni siano o 
potessero essere incorsi in censura, escomunicatione o altra 
condemnatione per causa d alcuna imputatione d heresia, che 
possin essere realditi [sic !] et possono produrre le loro ragioni et 
sarann espediti giuridicamente, non ostante tutto quello che per 
li suoi antecessori potesse esser sta to giudicato. Avviso di Roma 
of April 6, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 145, Vatican Library). 

3 *Div. Camer., t. 191, p. 145 (Papal Secret Archives). 

4 *Editti, Casanatense Library, Rome. On September 20, 
1560, *Pius IV. confirmed the brief of his predecessor of June 
26, 1555, by which the Dominican, Tommaso Scoto of Vigevano, 
was made inquisitor, with powers to summon bishops, archbishops, 
primates and patriarchs (Cod. Barb., lat. 1502, p. 169-172 ; 1503, 
p. 80-83, Vatican Library). 

5 *Avviso di Roma of July 20, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 175, Vatican 


The sorely tried Cardinal Morone had no longer to remain 
in the prisons of the Inquisition. From the first, even before 
his formal acquittal, he enjoyed the special favour of the Pope, 
whose trusted confidant he became in all questions of import 
ance. 1 On March 6th, 1560, his innocence was formally 
recognized by a decree of the Inquisition, signed by the Pope, 2 
and the document was read at the consistory of March I4th ; 3 
on the i8th the Cardinal was absolved at S. Maria in Trastevere 
from certain penalties which had been imposed upon him in 
view of the suspicions under which he had lain. 4 In view of 
his eminent position, so the Pope wrote to the Emperor on 
March i8th. 1560, 5 he had immediately after his election 
entrusted the case of Morone to Cardinals who were beyond 
suspicion and learned in the law, with the order that they were 
to examine the whole matter with the fear of God before their 
eyes. Their verdict was that the whole trial had been invalid, 
and that there was no evidence of any kind against the Cardinal, 
but that all the more important depositions of the witnesses, 
and other items of evidence, had proved his innocence so 
completely that no trace of suspicion could now attach to 
him. On the strength of this verdict the Pope proceeded to 
absolve Morone in the consistory. The other princes, as well 
as the Emperor, received copies of the verdict. 6 

1 *Avviso di Roma of January 13, 1560, ibid. p. 117, and of 
February 3, 1560, ibid. Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 307. 

2 *Editti V., 31, p. 43 (Papal Secret Archives). *Document 
concerning the absolution, ibid., Borghese, I., 44, p. 1-6, and 
Colonna Archives, Rome (printed with the autograph signature 
of the notary, Claudio de Valle). 

3 *Acta consist. Cam., XI., 19 seq. (Papal Secret Archives). 

4 *Pergamene dell archivio Farnese 81 (State Archives, Naples). 

5 *" Nihil contra ipsum cardinalem iure actum, nihil probatum 
fuisse, contraque et ex plurimorum eorumque gravissimorum 
testium dictis et ex aliis probationibus certissimis constare sibi 
ac patere innocentem eum, nee crimine solum, sed omni prorsus 
suspicione carere." (Brevia 10, p. 8gb, n. 116, Papal Secret 
Archives) . 

Thus, for example, *Duke Alfonso II. of Ferrara, March 14, 
1560 (State Archives, Modena) ; again, *Duke William ol 


At the consistory of May 2gth, 1560, the Papal decision was 
read which declared that Sanfelice, Bishop of La Cava, who 
had been imprisoned at the same time as Morone, was a.lso free 
irom all suspicion of heresy. 1 His companion in misfortune, 
Egidio Foscarari, Bishop of Modena, was also splendidly 
justified by a decree of the Grand Inquisitor on January ist, 
1560, The examination, this decree states, had resulted in 
showing his complete innocence, and that the accusations 
against him were made by wicked and deceitful men. 2 On 
the other hand, at the same consistory which had seen the 
absolution of the Bishop of La Cava, Andrea Centani, Bishop 
of Limassol in Cyprus, was condemned as a heretic. 3 Imme 
diately after the Pope s election Carnesecchi came to Rome, 4 
in the endeavour to get the sentence pronounced against 
him under Paul IV. annulled ; he too was absolved at the 

Mantua, March 20, 1560 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). An 
*Avviso di Roma of March 30, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 144. Vatican 
Library), claims to know that writings had been discovered, which 
had been concealed in the time of Paul IV., because they spoke 
in Morone s favour. The Pope therefore decided upon a new 
bull affirming the innocence of Morone, to be signed by all the 

1 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 307. *Mercore in concistorio 
furono date alcune chiese in Spagna, et al conte Marco nipote 
di S. S 1 ^ qaella di Cassano, come scrisse che si doveva fare, et fu 
publicata la condennatione del vescovo di Limosso Zentani com 
heretico, et letta 1 assolutione del vescovo della Cava, gia im- 
prigionato al tempo di Paolo IV. per sospetto d heresia. 
Report of Mula, dated Rome, June i, 1560 (Court Library, 
Vienna) ; *Acta consist. Cam., May 29, 1560 (Papal Secret 
Archives). Ricasoli sent with his report of June 15, 1560, 
to Florence, the absolution of Sanfelice. (State Archives, 
Florence) . 

2 The decree in CANTVJ, Eretici, II., 193. 

3 See note i, supra. Concerning him cf. BUSCHBELL, 81, 153, 

4 *Avviso di Roma of March 2, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 133, 
Vatican Library), according to which the case of Carnesecchi was 
to be decided at the next consistory. 


beginning of June, 1560. * The mildness of Pius IV. was also 
shown by the complete abrogation of the strict regulations 
issued by his predecessor against the Jews. 2 

How little, however, in spite of this, the Pope intended to 
abolish the Inquisition, is shown by the fact that in his first 
consistory he entrusted Cardinals Carpi, Ghislieri, Scotti, 
Puteo and Pacheco with the direction of inquisitorial matters. 3 
A Papal decree of October i4th, 1562, 4 gave the tribunal of 
the faith fresh powers. The. Cardinals of the Inquisition are 
named in the introduction to the brief : these were the three 
Cardinal Bishops, Carpi, Madruzzo and Truchsess, and the 
seven Cardinal Priests, Puteo, Scotti, Rebiba, Reumano, 
Ghislieri, Dolera and Savelli. 5 

I AMABILE, Inquisizione, I., 155. *Carnesecchi fu assoluto 
nel ultima congregazione del inquisitione." Report of Saraceni 
of July 7, 1560 (State Archives, Florence). Later on Pius V. said 
that Carnesecchi had escaped by means of lies : " che a tempo 
di Pio antecessore suo avava dette un monte di bugie, delle quali 
era stato assoluto." (Legaz. di Serristori [May 16, 1567], 436). 
For the other absolutions of 1560 (Galeoto and Bishop Verdura) 
see AMABILE, I., 234. *" Don Gabriele Fiamma frate del ordine 
della pace fu gia inquisito due anni predicando in Napoli [cf. 
SALA, III., 161] mercordi [April 26] fu assoluto in una congre- 
gatione." Caligari to Commendone, April 29, 1564, Lett, di 
princ., XXIII, 50 (Papal Secret Archives). 

2 See RIEGER, 161. 

3 *Acta consist. Cam., V1IL, p. ib (Papal Secret Archives) ; 
*Avviso di Roma of January 13, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. H4b, Vatican 
Library). The *report of Ricasoli cited supra, 308, n. i, gives 
the name of Reumano instead of Pacheco. On August 29, 1560, 
Carpi, Cueva, Puteo, Ghislieri and Dolera were named Cardinal 
Inquisitors. Bollett. Senese, XVII., 164. 

4 Bull. Rom. VII., 236-9. Already, on August 27, 1561, the 
inquisitors had been given the right to employ secular and regular 
clerics as notaries ; ibid., 138. 

5 With the exception of Madruzzo, Rebiba, Ghislieri and Savelli, 
the same Cardinals are named as Inquisitors General in a decree 
of the Inquisition of November 21, 1561, in PASTOR, Dekrete, 66. 
At a meeting of the Inquisition on July 8, 1561, there were 
present : Carpi Truchsess, Cueva, Puteo, Scotti, Simonetta, 


In the introduction to this decree it is stated that the Pope 
is working with all possible zeal to suppress the damnable 
heresies, so that the purity of the Catholic faith and the true 
worship of God may flourish and that the apostates may either 
return to the bosom of the Church, or, if they remain obstinate, 
may, by their punishment, serve as an example to others. 
The Inquisition was set up by Paul III. with great wisdom, and 
under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and it had been 
maintained by the Popes who had succeeded him ; it has done 
such good service to the Church that it may be described as the 
strong shield of religion. Taking into consideration how 
useful, and even salutary and essential the tribunal of the 
faith is, it is the intention of Pius IV. now to extend its 
powers, and he therefore now confirms the Cardinal Inquisitors 
in their office for all Christendom. The crimes of heresy, 
Protestantism and Anabaptism especially come under their 
authority, as well as apostasy from the faith, together with 
witchcraft, it if be heretical, and lastly the prevention of these 
crimes, even though they be committed by persons of the 
highest rank, though bishops, Cardinals, and persons of royal 
rank retain the privilege that only the conduct of the trial 
shall belong to the Inquisition, and that the passing of sentence 
shall pertain to the Pope alone. In all other cases even the 
passing of the sentence shall belong to the Cardinals of the 
Inquisition, and when they cannot all be present, the judgment 
of two of their number shall suffice. The Cardinals of the 
tribunal of the faith have further the power ot appointing 

Dolera, and Reurnano, but not Ghislieri, because he was not then 
in Rome (CARCERERI, Grimani, 32). Later on Mula was also 
appointed to the Inquisition (GiROL. SORANZO, 100). At the end 
of 1560, contrary to his wishes, Seripando was added to the 
Inquisition ; in March, 1561, he had to give his opinion on the 
cases of Carnesecchi and Grimani (MERKLE, II., 462, 536). That 
Morone, before his departure for Trent, should have become a 
member of the " Consejo de la Inquisicion," was looked upon by 
the Spanish ambassador Vargas as a " terrible escandalo." 
Cicada too was placed on the Inquisition. Vargas to Philip II. 
April 6, 1563, in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 513. 


deputies to discharge their functions, of dismissing them, and 
of calling in the aid of the secular arm. Those who show them 
selves repentant must first, in public or in private, renounce 
their errors, and promise on oath that they will not relapse, 
or countenance any similar crimes ; after a penance has been 
imposed upon them, they may be absolved from heresy and 
censures, set free from the penalties which they have incurred, 
reconciled to the Church, and restored to their former state 
and office. A special mitigation of penalties is provided for 
those who spontaneously submit themselves to the Inquisition, 
even in the case of those who have relapsed. The supreme 
Roman tribunal can appoint, depose, and punish the com 
missaries and inquisitors anywhere in Christendom, and it has 
in general the right to do all that may be necessary for the 
proper discharge of its functions. It may summon to its 
assistance even the prelates and doctors of theology or law. 

The fact that this decree thus once again gave the Inqui 
sition powers over even the Cardinals and bishops, was, from 
the point of view of medieval law, an innovation, 1 which, 
however, was justified by the changed conditions of the times. 
About a fortnight later this decree was made even more severe 
by a mottiproprio of October 3ist, 1562, 2 which expressly 
referred to the sad experiences of recent times, when even some 
of those who ought to have stood out " as walls of Israel, had 
forgotten their duty and had listened to the wild statements 
of the enemy, and taken their part." Therefore the judges of 
the faith are commanded once more to take proceedings 
against bishops, though of the highest rank, and Cardinals, 
as soon as they show any signs of heretical opinions, and since 
the prelates against whom this command was aimed lived out 
of Rome, in places out of reach of the Inquisition, it was 
ordered on April jih in the following year 3 that a summons to 
appear in Rome by the posting of an edict in certain fixed 
places in the city was sufficient notice even in the case of 

1 See HINSCHIUS, V., 474. 

2 *Barb. 1502, p. 182-7 ; 1503, p. 89-93, Vatican Library, 
see Appendix, n. 29. 

3 Bull. Rom., VII., 249-51. 


bishops of the highest rank. Those summoned were obliged 
to present themselves in person in Rome, under penalty of 
excommunication, suspension, and forfeiture of their bene 
fices. If they did not appear, the Inquisition was empowered 
to proceed against them even in their absence. 

Before two years had passed the Pope, by a motuproprio of 
August 2nd, 1564, l formed a new congregation of Cardinals 
for the affairs of the Inquisition, on which only three of those 
who had been appointed on October I4th, 1562, were to be 
found. The number of Cardinal Inquisitors, it is here stated, 
is too large, and those who are appointed cannot all easily 
meet together. On account of the number of trials pending, 
as well as of those who repent, the discharge of all the duties 
of the Inquisition takes too much time, and is too protracted. 
Moreover, under Paul III. and Julius III. only five or at most 
six Cardinals were charged with the direction of the supreme 
tribunal of the faith, and it is essential, especially in the case 
of the Inquisition, that trials should be carried through with 
promptitude. Therefore, for the future only the following 
eight Cardinals were to be in charge of the Inquisition : 
Saraceni, Cicada, Reumano, Ghislieri, Dolera, Simonetta, 
Borromeo and Vitelli. 2 With the exception of the cases of 
bishops, archbishops, patriarchs, dukes, kings, and cardinals, 
this commission could give the final sentence in all trials ; it 

1 *Barb. 1502, p. 187-94 ; 1503, p. 93-9, Vatican Library ; 
see Appendix, n. 37. Pius IV. refers to this decree in the motu 
proprio printed in Bull. Rom., VII., 298 seq. 

2 With the exception of Borromeo, the names of the same 
Cardinals are given as Inquisitors General in a decree of the 
Inquisition of June 18, 1564 (PASTOR, Dekrete, 25), in which 
(ibid., 26) the number of the inquisitors is expressly stated as 7. 
*" N.S. ha sminuita la congregatione della inquisitione et de niolti 
cardinal! che vi erano 1 ha ridotta a sette, due theologhi che sono 
Alessandrino et Araceli, et gli altri legisti, che sono Saraceno, S. 
Clemen te, Reomano, Vitelli et Simonetta." Tonina to the Duke 
of Mantua [without the day of the month] (Gonzaga Archives, 
Mantua). Cf. the *report of Galeazzo Cusano of June 17, 1564 
(State Archives, Vienna). 


was to have the same rights as those previously granted to it 
by the Popes. 1 The congregation was to meet at least once 
a week, at the palace of the senior member, or in that of some 
other Cardinal. All that it, or the majority of its members, 
should decide was to have the same authority as if it had been 
done by the former congregation or by the Pope himself. The 
Governor of Rome and the officials of the State were bound 
under pain of excommunication to obey the inquisitors in all 
that pertained to their office ; the civil princes were exhorted 
to show favour to the representatives of the tribunal of the 
faith, and to give them their assistance. When persons were 
accused before the Inquisition who were already in prison on 
account of some other crime, even if they had been imprisoned 
for some grave offence, they must first be brought before the 
Inquisition, and only after their case had been tried by that 
body were they to be taken back to prison and handed over 
to the other courts. The Papal secretaries were to give 
their services gratuitously to the Holy Office. 

Later on Cardinal Alciati was added to the number of the 
eight Inquisitors General, and his appointment was confirmed 
by a brief, in which the earlier regulation concerning decrees 
made by a majority of the Inquisition was explained to mean 
that the decrees made by the Cardinals present at anjr session 
of the Inquisition were to have the force of law. 2 

For the most part, the only things known of the activities 
of the Inquisition are those trials which ended in a public 

1 Here the Pope mentions as decrees by which he had himself 
given faculties to the Inquisition, those of October 31, 1562 
(see sup /a p. 311), October 14, 1562 (supra p. 312), and April 7, 1563 
(supra p. 31 1). Since all these documents are in existence, we may 
feel sure that we know of all the more important decrees of Pius 
IV. concerning the Inquisition down to the end of August, 1564. 

Bull. Rom., VII., 298 seq. The brief is not dated, but it 
appears to be subsequent to August 27, 1564, since in a brief of 
that date the names of the eight Inquisitors General are given but 
without the name of Alciati. Cf. PANVINIUS, De creatione Pii 
IV. (MERKLE, II., 599), where the nine Cardinal Inquisitors are 
named, and certainly on the strength of the decree in question. 


abjuration or condemnation. The Papal decree of October 
I4th, 1562, makes mention, however, of another field of 
activity on the part of the Holy Office, which v/as perhaps more 
extensive and important. This lay in the fact that when 
persons who knew that they were guilty of heresy repented 
and went to the tribunal of the faith, the Inquisitors General 
had faculties which were denied to ordinary confessors ; they 
could secretly absolve the offenders and reconcile them to the 
Church without scandal, or the loss of their reputation and 
position. 1 

From the facts which are so far at our disposal, or from other 
sources, it is difficult to arrive at any considerable knowledge 
of this side ot the activities of the Inquisition, though it is 
hinted at in a decree of the tribunal of March I2th, 1565. 2 
This concerns certain members of the Franciscan order who 
found themselves in the circumstances mentioned, and they 
were allowed to present themselves before a tribunal of the 
Inquisition composed of the Procurator-General of their Order, 
Felice Peretti, the future Sixtus V., the other members also all 
being Franciscans. With the exception of those who had 
relapsed, all who belonged to the Ordei might make their 
abjuration in secret before this tribunal and suitable witnesses, 
and thus -be reconciled to the Church. All the acts, however, 

1 The Inquisitors General have the power " Ecclesiae catholicae 
omni abolita infamia reconciliandi " such persons " et pristine 
statui atque officio et habilitati restituendi " (brief of October 
14, 1562, par. 8, Bull. Rom., VII., 238). An exception is made, 
however, in the case of priests, even though they have made their 
abjuration in private ; they may not hear the confessions of the 
laity any more (decrees of September 2, 1562, and November 15, 
1565, in PASTOR, Dekrete, 24. 28. As I have since discovered, 
these two decrees are given in A. DIANA, Opera omnia, Lyons, 
1667, 579, and ibid., 577-80 others of the decrees of Paul IV. and 
Pius IV. concerning the Inquisition which I have published are 
also printed). Subjects of the kingdom of Naples are not to have 
leave to return thither even after a purely secret abjuration 
(decree of September 21, 1563, in PASTOR, Dekrete, 25), 

2 PASTOR, Dekrete, 27. 


relating to their case had to be sent to the Holy Office and 
submitted to the members of that tribunal. 

The proceedings were to a great extent absolutely private, 
because the congregation wished to keep the way to secret 
abjuration open. Under pain of excommunication reserved 
to the Pope and the Holy Office the strictest silence had to be 
observed to externs on all that concerned the Inquisition 1 
and it was only with the express permission of the supreme 
tribunal that the acts of trials held by the Inquisition could be 
referred to other courts. 2 

This secrecy, however, was not to serve as a screen, and the 
procedure was therefore strictly regulated. During the reign 
of Pius IV., in addition to the Papal ordinances, a decree of the 
Inquisition of June i8th, 1564, is of special importance in this 
respect. 3 The spirit in which the inquisitors are to act is 
shown in the first regulation, which ordeis that first of all the 
assistance of the Holy Ghost is to be invoked. Under pain of 
excommunication the members are forbidden to write anything 
either in favour of or against the accused. The accused may 
be allowed to have a defender, who may only exercise that 
office after he has been asked for, and has sworn to make use 
of no unlawful means and to abandon the cause of his client 
should the latter prove himself to be an obstinate heretic. 
He may give his assistance to repentant heretics ; if he knows 
of any accomplices he must denounce them. The accused 
has the right to dictate his depositions, and if he does not wish 
to do this his depositions must be read to him after the inquiry, 
or at the latest on the following day. The cases before the 
tribunal are to be distributed in order among the seven 
Inquisitors General, each of whom may call upon the assistance 
of the consultors appointed by the Pope. The Grand In 
quisitor has, in case of necessity, a certain discretion concerning 
orders of imprisonment, and in answering letters on arrival, 
but he must give a report to his colleagues as to what he has 

1 Decrees of January 25, 1560 and June 18, 1564, ibid., 24, 25. 

2 Decree of February 24, 1562, ibid., 24. 

3 Decree of February 24, 1562, ibid., 25 seq. 


done, and is in general bound to conform in his replies by letter 
to their wishes. Release from the prisons of the Inquisition is 
to be made only with the consent of the whole congregation ; 
in a case of necessity the votes of each of the Cardinals are 
to be taken at their own houses. The Cardinal in charge of a 
case may arrange for the attachment of accomplices and 
witnesses, but he must give an account of his conduct at the 
next meeting of the congregation. Those in prison are to be 
visited every month. 1 

Other decrees fixed the fees for the officials and executioners 
of the Holy Office. 2 A measure that told in favour of the 
accused was the order that all the inquisitors abroad must read 
over the depositions of the witnesses in the presence of the 
accused before they pronounced sentence. 3 Torture might 
be resorted to if plain answers were not given, or if replies were 
refused altogether. 4 

Pius IV. took little personal part, even in the drafting of the 
Papal decrees concerning the Inquisition. " His Holiness," 
the Venetian ambassador, Girolamo Soranzo, 5 wrote in 1563, 
" has made no study of theology, and therefore cannot take 
part in the proceedings of the Inquisition with any personal 
authority : he is wont to say that he is content to leave all 
kinds of business to those to whom it is entrusted. And 
though it is well known that he does not much care for the 
great strictness with which the Inquisitors generally act, and 
that he has given it to be understood that he would be better 
pleased if, instead of behaving like strict monks they would 
rather act like courteous noblemen, he nevertheless does not 

1 At these visits the prisoners had the right to protest against 
their treatment. Cf. the report of a visit to the prisons on 
August 1 8, 1561, in A. BERTOLOTTI, Le prigioni di Roma nei 
secoli XVL, XVII. e XVIII, Rome, i8go, 14 (extract from the 
Rivista di discipline carcerarie, XX). 

2 Decrees of September 14, November 16, and December 20, 
1564, in PASTOR, 26 seq. 

3 Decree of October 20, 1562, ibid., 25. 

4 Decree of September 10, 1560, ibid., 24. 

5 ALBRI, II., 4, 74. 


dare to oppose himself to their judgment, or at any rate does 
not like to do so, and very rarely interferes, so that for the most 
part their decisions are approved by him." 

The Council of Trent, as well as the Pope, did not altogether 
approve of the strictness of the Inquisition. In a letter to 
Rome, the legates of the Council openly expressed their opinion 
that the conditions of the time called for a procedure marked 
by gentleness and charity, so that those who had strayed might 
be brought to understand that what was desired was their 
return to a good life and to ecclesiastical unity, and that the 
Church, like a kind and loving mother, was holding out her 
arms to them. 1 Similar sentiments were to be expected from 
the Council itself, as being a last attempt to restore the unity 
of Christendom. Just as after the death of Paul IV. the 
Council had promised a mitigation of the Index, so it was to 
be expected that it could and would show greater indulgence 
than the ordinary ecclesiastical tribunals in dealing with 
apostates from the Church. Accordingly, on May nth, 
1561, two Polish Dominicans, who had made their studies at 
Bologna and were about to return to their own country, told 
the legates that many heretics in Poland would have been 
reconciled to the Church if they had not feared the shame of a 
public abjuration. The legates thereupon agreed to their 
request, which Cardinal Ghislieri had refused, that certain 
trustworthy ecclesiastics in Poland should be given faculties 
to reconcile such persons to the Church with only a secret 
abjuration. The presidents of the Council had not the power 

1 " Niun altra cosa ci indusse ritrovandoci qui sulla porta della 
Germania a pro curare d havere quel Breve dalla Santitk di N. S. 
di potere cognoscere le cause degli heretici, si non 1 opinione che 
havevamo, che a questi tempi non si convenisse usare del rigore, 
anzi che fosse necessario con dolci et amorevoli maniere mostrare 
desiderio che gli sviati ritornassero sulla buona via, et si riunissero 
alia Chiesa santa, dando loro a conoscere ch ella come benigna et 
pietosa Madre stava colle braccia aperte per riceve li tutti con 
carita." The legates to Borromeo (in the trial of the Genoese, A. 
Centurioni), March 8, 1563, published by CARCERERI in Archivio 
Trentino, XXL (1906), 78. 


to grant this faculty, bat they had recourse to Rome to obtain 
it for themselves, and to give it to others. 1 Pius IV. granted 
their request, saving the rights of the Inquisition ; not even 
the Council must interfere in the trials which would naturally 
come before that tribunal. 2 When the legates objected that 
such a limitation made the concession almost useless, since 
almost all those who would have recourse to Trent had come 
into the hands of the Inquisition, 3 the Pope amplified the 
faculties which he had granted in such a way that it only tied 
the hands of the legates in the case of the Roman Inquisition, 
but did not apply to accusations which had been made before 
other tribunals of faith. 4 Anyone, therefore, who had been 
summoned before the Roman tribunal could only, as had been 
the case before, be absolved at Trent in virtue of a special 
Papal brief. 

After the Council had issued an invitation to those who 
had separated themselves from the Church, and had given 
them a full safe-conduct, some of them actually appeared 
at Trent and were reconciled to the Church, as, for example, 
a Genoese merchant, Agostino Centurione, 5 but for various 
reasons, there was an unwillingness in Rome to send other 
accused persons before the more gentle tribunal of the Council. 
The humanist, Ludovico Castelvetro, who, during his trial 
before the Inquisition in 1559, had fled from Rome and taken 

J The legates to Borromeo, May 12, 1561, in SUSTA, I., 19 seqq. 

2 Borromeo sent the brief on May 24, 1561, in SUSTA, I., 21. 

3 The legates to Borromeo, July 31, 1561, ibid., 63. 

4 Brief of August 8, 1561, in THEINER, I., 669 ; cf. SUSTA, I., 64. 

5 Absolved on April 7, 1563. CARCERERI in Archivio Tridentino, 
XXI. (1906), 65-99 (with printed account of the trial, p. 79-99)- 
Cf. SUSTA, III., 155, 175, 186, 247 seq., 261 seq., 280. The Car 
dinals of the Inquisition disapproved of the leniency of the Council ; 
in general they considered it harmful to the reputation of the 
Inquisition to refer trals for heresy to the assembly at Trent 
(SusTA, IV., 379). For the trial of V. Marchesi, who in spite of 
the protests of Ghislieri, was sent to Trent, where he probably 
was judged lightly, /. SUSTA, IV., 379, and CARCERERI in Rivista 
Tridentina, X. (1910), 89-93. 


refuge in the Orisons, vainly sought to have his cause heard 
at Trent ; the legates of the Council were informed that he 
must appear in Rome, at least for a secret abjuration. 1 A 
similar request in the case of the apostate monk, Pietro 
Scotti, was even more definitely refused. 2 The ex-Dominican, 
Jacopo Paleologo (Mascellara) of Chios, who had relapsed three 
times into heresy, several times escaped from the prisons of the 
Inquisition, and at the beginning of 1562 had asked to have his 
case tried by the nuncio to France, Cardinal Este, 3 was sent 
back from Rome to Trent, where his haughty behaviour caused 
so much scandal that in September, 1562, Bishops Foscarari 
and Pavesi, refused to have anything more to do with him. 4 
The attitude of the Pope as well as that of the Council of 
Trent towards the Holy Office is illustrated by the celebrated 
trial of Giovanni Grimani, Patriarch of Aquileia, before the 
Inquisition. 5 When Soranzo speaks of the reserve of Pius IV, 

1 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 282 ; CANTU, Eretici, II. , 
167 seq. Borromeo to Gonzaga, September 20, 1561, in SUSTA, I., 
76. Cf. SANDONNINI, Lod. Castelvetro e la sua famiglia, Bologna, 
1882 ; Opere varie critiche di Lod. Castelvetro colla vita dell 
autore da L. A. MURATORI, Verona, 1727; Hist.-pol. Blatter, 
CXX. (1897), 813 seq. 

2 CARCERERi in Rivista Tridentina, X. (1910), 87. 

3 Santa Croce to Borromeo, January 21, 1562, in SUSTA, II., 382. 

4 SUSTA, III., ii. Paleologo was summoned to Rome on 
July i, 1562, and was brought before the Inquisition there ; 
the Pope himself took an interest in his case (SusxA, II., 258). 
In spite of this they had his cause under consideration at Trent 
later on (ibid., III., 9 seq. cf. STEINHERZ, Brief e, 107, and NUN- 
TTATUR, IV., 117). The "frivolous monk" fled to Prague; he 
was at last beheaded in Rome in 1585, after he had become 
reconciled to the Church. ORANO, 68, 72. 

5 Cf. CARCERERI, Grimani, 26 seqq, For the trial, besides the 
special monographs of Carcereri and de Leva, cf. CECCHETTI, I., 
33 seqq. ; 49 seqq. SUSTA, II., 66 seq. PALLAVICINI, 21, 7, 8 ; 
22, 3, 10 seq., and n, i ; MENDO9A, 692 ; BONDONUS, 570 ; 
*Processus in causa loannis Grimani patriarchae Aquileiensis, 
in Cod. Barb. XXXIV, 34 (Vatican Library), and Rossiana Library, 
Vienna. Some documents in I. H. SERRY, Hist. Congregationurn 
de auxiliis divinae gratiae, Venice, 1740. For Grimani s attitude 
towards the Lutherans, cf. SXEINHERZ, IV., 287, 381. 


in all matters that concerned the Inquisition, he is evidently 
alluding in a special way to his experiences as ambassador in 
Rome in connection with this trial. 1 

During 1549 a Lenten preacher at Udine had expressed him 
self in a way that occasioned wonder and scandal among the 
faithful upon a question that was j.ust then being eagerly 
discussed everywhere, namely, the divine predestination to 
eternal life. 2 The vicar-general referred the matter to the 
patriarch, who replied in a letter of April lyth, in which he 
defended the preacher, and sought to reconcile the doctrine 
with the freedom of the human will. 3 The matter would in 
all probability have been forgotten if the Signoria had not in 
the following year suggested the patriarch for the Cardinal s 
hat, as being a prelate who was worthy of that dignity. In 
order to have " for safety s sake " two representatives for the 
patriarchate of Venice, the senate at the same time desired 
Grimani to resign, by way of the regressus, in favour of some 
body else, which the patriarch did on December i7th, 1550. 

In the meantime disturbing rumours as to Grimani s ortho 
doxy had reached Rome. His physician, Susio della Miran- 
dola, had been brought before the Roman Inquisition on 
suspicion of heresy, but had been declared to be innocent. 4 

1 This is proved by comparing the report cited supra p. 316, 
n. 5, with the other reports of Soranzo on the Grimani case. 
Cf. CARCERERI, 26 seqq. 

2 Appealing to St. Thomas Aquinas, he established the pro 
position " che il predestinate da Dio non pu6 dannarsi, 116 il 
prescito salvarsi." CARCERERI, 5. 

3 Latin translation of the letter in SERRY, App. 3-8. For the 
date (1549 and not 1547, as in SUSTA, II., 66) and the manuscripts 
of the letter, cf. CARCERERI, 6, n. 2. 

4 DE LEVA, Grimani 413, and " Su due lettere del cardinal di 
Trani al Patriarcha di Aquileja G. Grimani," in the Atti del R. 
Istituto Veneto di scienze, lettere ed arti, Series 5, Vll, Venice, 
1 88 1. It was rumoured later on that Grimani had received 
Vergerio in his house, and that an heretical monk was his teacher. 
Cf. SUSTA, II. , 66, and Grimani s defence in DE LEVA, Grimani, 
451 seq., where there are also particulars of his journey to Rome 
and the canonica purgatione. 


Grimani went of his own accord to Rome, and submitted 
himself to an inquiry before the Inquisition, and to the 
so-called canonical " purgatio." It was seen that he was 
innocent, but at the same time it did not seem possible to 
admit to the Sacred College a man who had been before the 
supreme tribunal of faith on the suspicion of heresy. All the 
waters of the Tiber, Julius III. had said, were not enough to 
wash out such a stain, since the fact of the accusation can never 
be removed. 1 

Pius IV. alone seemed inclined to pay attention to the 
insistence of the Signoria. During the first months following 
his election he had promised that he intended to take 
the wishes of the Signoria into consideration in the 
creation of Cardinals, and in October, 1560, there had 
followed a formal promise to nominate Grimani at the next 
creation. 2 

Grimani thus had the best reasons for hoping to be admitted 
to the senate of the Church at the coming creation of Cardinals 
on February 26th, 1561, when once more he imprudently put 
forward his views as to predestination and the foreknowledge 
of God. Grimani s letter of April I7th, 1549, nac * been sent 
to the Inquisition, and Cardinal Ghislieri had pointed out in it 
a number of propositions as being scandalous, heretical, or 
suspect ; 3 the letter, moreover, had been widely circulated, 4 
and was calculated to help the spread of Protestant ideas. 
Under these circumstances it was impossible for the moment 
to think of the promotion of the patriarch to the cardinalate. 
The fact that the Venetian ambassador Mula defended his 
protege in audiences on February 2ist and 22nd was of no 

1 Cf. Vol. XIII. of this work, p. 224. It would appear that 
Grimani s letter was not at that time in the hands of the Inquisi 
tion. CARCERERI, 15 seq. 

2 Ibid., ii seq. 

3 The document in CARCERERI, 15 seq. ; and rather differently 
in SERRY, xlv. 

*" Essendo la lettera andata per tutte le parti del mondo," 
said Pius IV. to Soranzo, in CARCERERI, 32. 

VOL. XVI. 21 


avail, 1 nor that a special congregation of theologians, presided 
over in person by the Pope, to consider the case of the future 
Cardinal Seripando, pronounced favourably upon the letter of 
Grimani, 2 nor that in that same congregation the patriarch 
threw himself in tears at the Pope s feet, nor that Mula on the 
morning of February 26th, immediately before the creation, 
proposed to the Pope, as a way out of the difficulty, that he 
should nominate him in petto : 3 the sentence of the theologians, 
upon whom everything depended, in spite of all the demands 
of courtesy, ordered the patriarch to present himself before 
the Inquisition and submit himself to an interrogatory as to his 
beliefs, and though, at the end of the consistory of February 
26th, Pius IV. allowed the Cardinals to state that they intended 
to vote for the elevation of Grimani, 4 even this was attached 
to conditions which Grimani would not accept. 

Almost five months of negotiations followed. Mula himself 
had received the purple on February 26th, and Girolamo 
Soranzo had succeeded him as the representative of the 
republic, a special agent for the nomination of Grimani, 
Formenti, having also been appointed. With the help of these 
two men Grimani persisted in his efforts to be allowed to 
justify himself in writing, but the Cardinals of the Inquisition 
on their part persisted in their claim that an oral interrogatory 
of the patriarch must be held, so that at any rate they might 
be able to ask for an explanation of the not very clear state 
ments in his written reply. 5 

At length, on August igth, 1561, the Pope held a sitting of 
the Inquisition to consider the case of Grimani, after which 

1 CARCERERI, 15 seq. On February 21, the Pope said to Mula : 
" II fare un cardinale e fare una persona, che possa esser papa 
per amor di Dio si guardi bene ci6 che si f a ; " ibid., 102. On 
February 25 Pius IV. declared that they were not trying to 
condemn Grimani, but only wished to exclude him from the 

2 CARCERERI, 17 seq., Seripando in MERKLE, II., 463. 


4 Ibid., 20 ; cf. 102. 
6 Ibid., 22-35. 


he caused the patriarch to be brought in, and told him that 
out of special consideration for the Signoria, he would be 
satisfied with a reply in writing, which Grimani was told to 
draw up at once in the presence of four theologians. The 
patriarch sought to excuse himself on the ground of the 
difficulty of the case and his lack of books. But his case was 
not one that was concerned with abstruse theological specu 
lations, but only with a dogma of the Church, with which, 
as a bishop, he ought to be well acquainted, and which could 
be expressed in a few simple propositions. 1 The Pope there 
fore insisted on his demand. The patriarch was given a list 
of the propositions which had given scandal, drawn from his 
letter of 1549, an d wa s told that he must show that they were 
in agreement with the teaching of the Catholic religion. On 
September nth a commission of theologians gave its opinion 
on the case, which was read to the Pope and the Cardinals of 
the Inquisition on the i6th. 2 The verdict of the theologians 
was unfavourable, 3 and the Pope decided that Grimani must 
be interrogated on the point of faith, and a process opened 
against him by the Inquisition as in other cases. The Signoria 
in consequence desisted for the moment from any further 
pressure in favour of the patriarch, who left Rome without 
taking his leave of the Pope. 4 

In spite of all this Grimani did not rest, and in March, 1562, 
it was learned in Rome, from the Venetian ambassador, that 
he was thinking of submitting his case to the Council of Trent. 5 

Although the Pope had given the Council full faculties for 
the absolution of heretics by his brief of August 8th, 1561, this 

x The denunciations of De Leva are therefore out of place 
(419 seq.). 

2 CARCERERI, 35-41. 

8 Ibid., 42 seqq. See the vote of Lainez in GRISAR, Disput., II., 
137-52 ; that of Felice Peretti, ibid., 52. *Only the Bishop of 
Alife gave a favourable .vote, in the sense that he passed over 
the apologia of Grimani, and said that everything in the letter 
could be understood in a correct sense. 

4 CARCERERI, 44 seqq. 

5 Borromeo to the legates, March 18, 1562, in SUSTA, II., 65. 


concession did not apply to the case of Grimani, since his trial 
was pending before the Roman Inquisition, and the Council 
had no authority to deal with such cases. 1 Therefore, in 
spite of further intervention on the part of the Signoria, the 
Pope would not allow this fresh move on the part of Grimani. 2 
Grimani s claim, so he informed the nuncio in Venice and the 
legates of the Council, was baseless, and was not in keeping 
with the dignity of the Roman See or with the canons ; if he 
were to persist in it, it would be fatal to him. 3 He therefore 
sent to the nuncio in Venice a summons for Grimani to appear 
before the Roman Inquisition, which was to be delivered to 
him before he set out for Trent. 4 Fresh remonstrances on the 
part of the Signoria only wrung from the Pope the concession 
that Grimani should go to Rome to be judged by the whole 
College of Cardinals, or by a full meeting of the Inquisition. 5 
Pius IV. adhered to his resolution 6 even when the legates of 
the Council recommended that Grimani s writings should be 
examined at Trent and his cause decided in Rome on the basis 
of that examination. 7 

The matter went no further for several months, until the 
question was once again brought forward by a petition from 
Friuli to the Signoria. 8 The present state of doubt as to the 
orthodoxy of the bishop, so this petition states, is a source 
of grave injury to the whole diocese ; the Signoria should 
therefore take steps at the Council for the settlement of this 
question, which had now been so long pending. At length 
Pius IV. gave way before the insistence of the Venetian repre 
sentatives ; when Morone and Navagero started for Trent to 
replace the dead legates Gonzaga and Seripando, the Pope 

1 Cf. supra p. 317 seq. 

2 CARCERERI, 47 seqq. 

3 Borromeo to the legates, March 18, 1562, in SUSTA, II., 65. 

4 CARCERERI, 50 seq. cf. 52, 53 ; SUSTA, II., 202. 

6 Pius IV. to the legates June n, 1562, in SUSTA, II., 201 seq. 

7 Letter from the legates to the Pope, June i, 1562, SUSTA, 11., 
173 seq. 

8 Extract in SERRY, App. 13 seq. CARCERERI, 58 seq. 


gave them the writings of Grimani for examination at Trent. 1 
The patriarch accordingly went to Trent on June i8th, 1563, 
and, accompanied by twenty prelates, presented himself 
before the presidents of the Council. 2 

Contrary to all expectations, however, the settlement of this 
long disputed question met with difficulties from the legates 
of the Council, who, on June 22nd, declared to the Venetian 
orators that in order to be able to pronounce sentence in 
Grimani s case they must have faculties given them by a special 
Papal brief. 3 As soon as he heard of this reply on the part of 
the legates Pius IV. sent them instructions by a special courier 
to meet the wishes of the Signoria in the matter of Grimani 
in every way. 4 In accordance with these instructions great 
freedom was given to the orators of the Signoria as well as to 
the patriarch himself, to use their influence in the selection 
of the prelates who were to act as judges, and the Pope declared 
himself satisfied with the list that was submitted to him. 5 
The final sitting of this judicial body was held on August I3th, 
and on September I7th the sentence was pronounced. 6 

Grimani had been wise in his generation when he thought 
that he would meet with greater kindness from the assembly at 
Trent. Even his judges at Trent, however, declared that all 


2 CARCERERI, 63 ; SUSTA, IV., 86 seq. The absence of Grimani 
from the Council had already impressed the Spaniards ; see letter 
of the Venetian envoys of March 9, 1563, in CECCHETTI, II., 33. 

3 The legates to Borromeo, June 22, 1563, in SUSTA, IV., 92-5. 
The Council of Ten to its envoys in Rome, June 28, 1563, in 
CECCHETTI, II., 50 seq. 

4 The Pope s letter of July n, 1563, in CARCERERI, 89. A 
special brief followed, but since the letter of July n was more 
favourable to Grimani, the latter was made the basis of the 
negotiations and the brief was kept back ; ibid., 69. Cf. the 
reports of the Venetian envoys of July 9 and 12, 1563, in CEC 
CHETTI, II., 34 seq. 

5 CARCERERI, 70 seq. 

6 Ibid., 75 seq. BONDONUS, 569 seq. The general sense of this 
sentence in CARCERERI, 97-9 ; Cf. THEINER, II., 410 ; RAYNALDUS, 
1563, n. 137. 


was not as it should be in the two statements of the patriarch, 
and in their final decision they stated that the two documents 
should not be published because several matters contained in 
them were not very clearly treated and explained. Otherwise 
it was decided that his explanations were capable of a sound 
interpretation. It was therefore declared that Grimani s 
letter and apologia were neither heretical nor suspect of 
heresy, nor would they give scandal so long as they were under 
stood in the right sense. 1 

In Rome, in spite of the fact that Cardinal Borromeo sent 
the patriarch his congratulations, there was but little satisfac 
tion at the result of the inquiry. In spite of the repeated 
demands of the Signoria, 2 Grimani did not even now receive 
the red hat. Nor was he recognized as the legitimate patriarch 
because he had not received the pallium from Rome, and was 
still thinking of having his case brought anew before the 
Roman Inquisition. 3 On hearing of the death of Pius IV. 
Grimani set out at once for Rome, in order to press his 
claims before the conclave to be treated as a Cardinal, to 
which dignity he claimed to have been appointed, bat he 
returned home as soon as he heard that Ghislieri had been 
elected. 4 

Like the Roman Holy Office, the Spanish Inquisition also 
^requently found itself in touch with and in opposition to the 
General Council at Trent. 

1 Litteras . . . cum Apologia iunctas non esse haereticas, seu 
de haeresi suspectas, neque sic declaratas esse scandalosas, non 
tamen divulgandas propter nonnulla difficilia minus exacte in 
eis tractata et explicata (CARCERERI, 99). Cf. A. BATTISTELLA, 
L assolurione del patr. Giov. Grimani, Cividale, 1914. 

2 CECCHETTI, II.. 54 seg., 56 seqq., 60 seq. 

3 CARCERERI, 80-5. 

4 Pius V., like Gregory XIII., refused him both purple and 
pallium. Sixtus V. did the same at a sitting of the Inquisition 
on October 24, 1585, and imposed perpetual silence on the pat 
riarch s wishes ; he died at the age of 92 in 1593, as Patriarch 
of Aquileia. It was his continued insistence which especially 
lost him his heart s desire (CARCERERI, 85-7). For the attitude 
of Pius V. to Grimani cf. GOTHEIN, 527, 539. 


When the Council had it in mind to invite the Protestants 
to Trent, it had thought of extending the safe-conduct in 
such a way as to include in its invitation all those who had 
fallen into the hands of the Inquisition. 1 It very soon 
occurred, however, to the legates that the Spaniards and 
the Roman Inquisition wo aid not be at all satisfied with 
this arrangement, 2 and indeed in Rome they pointed out 
that on the strength ol the proposed safe-conduct even those 
who were imprisoned by the Inquisition might claim the 
right of appealing to Trent, 3 while the Spanish envoy at the 
Council made urgent request that this should not apply to 
the Spanish Inquisition, because it would be the ruin of 
Spain. 4 The safe-conduct, when it was at last issued on 
March 4th, 1562, did not, as a matter of fact, contain any 
mention of those who were accused before the Holy Office. 
In order to safeguard the dignity of the Council against the 
claims of the Spanish Inquisition, they hit upon the ex 
pedient, after long negotiations with Rome, of making each 
nation at Trent name two prelates who were to examine 
into and decide whether the cases of their countrymen accused 
before the Inquisition should be referred to Trent. 5 

The sensitiveness with which the Spanish Inquisition 
sought to protect its rights may be seen especially in the 
discussions, already begun in the time of Paul IV., which 

1 Cf. the draft of the safe-conduct, in SUSTA, I., 146. 

a The legates to Borromeo, January 4, 1562, ibid., 149. 

3 Cf. the observations made in Rome as to the original form of 
the safe-conduct, ibid., II., 3. 

* " Ci ha pregati strettamente il signer marchese di Pescara 
che non la vogliamo toccare, assicurandoci che sarebbe un ruinare 
tutto quel regno." The legates to Borromeo, March 23, 1562, 
in SUSIA, II., 63. For the " great scandal " taken in Spain at 
the steps taken by the Council, cf. Mendo?a, under date March 2, 
1562, in MERKLE, II., 637. 

5 The legates to Borromeo, March 5, 1562, in SUSTA, II., 41. 
The correspondence with Rome on the subject, ibid., 49, 5 8 62 - 
The final decision of the Pope in a letter from Borromeo to the 
legates, April i, 1562, ibid., 75 seq. 


took place as to the orthodoxy of the Archbishop of Toledo, 
Bartolome Carranza. 1 

Thinking that the process against the archbishop would be 
ended in a few months, 3 Pius IV. had, at the beginning of 
his pontificate, granted faculties to the Spanish Grand In 
quisitor, Valdes, to conduct it, and had removed the possibility 
of difficulties, if the powers granted had to be transferred 
to subordinate judges, by entrusting the nomination of the 
judges to the king himself. The passing of the final sentence, 
however, was reserved to the Pope. 3 The discussion of 
the case against the imprisoned archbishop was then resumed. 
For the moment the Pope could do nothing to hasten matters 
because the reserve of the Spanish Inquisition had not even 
allowed it to inform them in Rome of the points of accusa 
tion which had been made ; it was therefore only possible 
to give the nuncio Crivelli, who was sent to Spain at the end 
of 1561, general instructions upon the subject ; he was told 
that he must be careful not to offend the king, that he must 
be satisfied if he could protect the archibshop from unjust 
treatment, that he was to try and induce the Inquisition to 
report to Rome, and that he must safeguard the right of 
the Pope to pronounce the final sentence. 4 It would seem 
that until then they had cherished the hope in Spain that 
they would be able to bring the whole affair to a conclusion 
by means of the Spanish Inquisition alone. 5 From the 
beginning of his nunciature Crivelli tried to have the acts of 
the trial reported to Rome, but he had to be content with 
fair promises. 6 

Paolo Odescalchi, who was sent to Spain as envoy extra- 

1 Cf. Vol., XIV of this work, p. 315 seq. 

* " Credendo di poter in pochi mesi venir a la sentenza." 
Borromeo to the legates, November 14, 1562, in SUSTA, III., 75. 

3 Briefs of May 5 and July 3, 1560, in RAYNALDUS, 1560, n. 22, 


4 Instructions for Crivelli, December 8, 1561, in SUSTA, I., 


5 Report of Giulio Costantini of the end of 1561, ibid., 319. 

6 Crivelli to Borromeo, June 8, 1562, in SUSTA, II., 484. 


ordinary in June, 1562, fared no better. 1 The king told him 
that it was a very important matter, and that he must there 
fore proceed very carefully ; as soon as the examination of 
the witnesses was completed, which would be the case very 
shortly, copies of the evidence would be sent to Rome. 2 
Odescalchi, however, received the impression that the In 
quisition was exceeding its powers. Carranza s defender, 
the celebrated moralist Azpilqueta, was arrested in his own 
house by that tribunal because he had publicly stated the 
innocence of his client. At the court many people looked 
upon the whole affair as a mere piece of persecution, and 
said that the trial would go on for a long time because as 
long as it lasted the revenues of the archbishopric would go 
into the royal treasury; 3 out of these revenues Carranza 
did not even receive the 10,000 ducats reserved to him while 
in prison by the order of the Pope, in order that, as Odescalchi 
was informed, the archbishop should not be able to bribe 
the Curia ! 4 

In the meantime, however, the friends of Carranza were 
not remaining inactive. At the beginning of October, 1562, 
they were in possession of a Papal brief in his favour, and 
they had recourse to Odescalchi so that he might deliver this 
to the principal judge, Zuniga, Archbishop of Santiago. 
Odescalchi went, accompanied by a notary, to Zuniga, but 
the latter refused to accept the brief, saying that it must 
first be presented to the king. If Odescalchi had agreed 
to do this, one of two things must have happened : either 
the royal council would have discussed the brief at endless 
length, or the king would have forbidden its delivery, since, 
as Odescalchi wrote to Rome in August, all Madrid was 

1 His duties with regard to Carranza in his instructions of 
June 3, 1562, ibid., 478 seq. 

2 Odescalchi, July 27, 1562, ibid., 514. 

3 Odescalchi to Borromeo, July 27, 1562, ibid., 513, and Corresp. 
dipl., II., ix, n. 3. 

4 " Che non se gli diano, perche dicono che con quelli se non 
servira a corrompere la corte di Roma." Odescalchi, August 3, 
1562, in SUSTA, II., 522. 


trying to ruin the poor archbishop, whose revenues had 
been his undoing. Odescalchi tried to induce Zuniga by 
arguments, to accept the brief, but in vain ; he was told 
that he must make up his mind to present the Papal letter 
to the king. 1 The result of his attempts is shown in an 
autograph letter from Philip to Pius IV., of October i6th, 
1562, 2 which is highly significant of the Spanish caesaro- 
papalism. The king, this letter says, has heard from 
Odescalchi that the Pope has sent a certain letter concerning 
the affair of the Archbishop of Toledo. His Holiness is 
aware of the care taken by the king that justice shall be carried 
out with all possible speed and equity in the execution of 
the Pope s instructions ; he can therefore only feel surprise 
that the Pope, on the strength of unauthorized reports, 
should have given instructions on the subject without waiting 
for information from the king, since Philip is always careful 
to inform His Holiness of everything that he should know. 
For this and other reasons he has advised Odescalchi not to 
pay any attention to the brief ; the king begs the Pope not 
to take this amiss, and to issue no orders until the reports 
of the trial are sent to him. 

Cardinal Borromeo sent Philip s letter to Trent, so that 
the Council might see how far things had gone, and to prove 
to it that the Pope could not do any more for the archbishop 
unless he were willing to bring about a rupture with the 
Spanish king. 3 

After vainly making application to Philip II., 4 Carranza 
had actually turned to Trent for help. There, in October, 
1562, a monk made his appearance as his representative, 
and presented to the fathers a memorial in which the im 
prisoned archbishop begged the fathers of the Council to 

1 Odescalchi to Borromeo, October 5, 1562, in SUSTA, II., 


2 Ibid., 386. 

8 Borromeo to the legates, November 21, 1562, in SUSTA, III., 

4 LAUGWITZ, 75. 


intervene on his behalf with the Pope. 1 Borromeo, however, 
on receipt of Carranza s memorial, was only able to reply to 
the legates that, in spite of all efforts to hasten the trial, 
they had not yet even been able to obtain the copies of the 
depositions of the witnesses which they had so often asked 
for. The Pope did not know what to do ; the fathers of 
the Council must decide for themselves whether it was wise 
to come to a rupture with the Spanish king, and to prefer 
the interests of an individual to the general well-being of 
the Church. 2 Seripando seemed to be right when .he said 
that it was impossible to come to the assistance of Carranza 
either at Trent or in Rome. 3 

After the middle of 1563, however, the affair was brought 
a little nearer to a decision. Guzman, a doctor of law, arrived 
in Rome from Spain in order to make a report of the progress 
of the trial. 4 Carranza s friends indeed declared that 
Guzman s account must be treated with suspicion, as not 
being impartial, 5 but Pius IV. thought that at any rate 
it was clear that the imprisonment of the archbishop could 
not be said to be unjust, though in other respects he adhered 
firmly to his determination to reserve the final sentence to 
himself, while, in order to secure the production of the 
evidence, the powers of the Inquisition were extended until 
May ist, 1564. 6 The nuncio CriveUi was instructed to pacify 

1 The legates to Borromeo, November 5, 1562, in SUSTA, III., 54. 
LLORENTE (III., 266 ; cf. LAUGWITZ, 77, with a wrong reference 
to Pallavicini) maintains that the fathers of the Council went 
too far in their condemnation of the treatment of Carranza, and 
that they cannot have disclosed Philip s letters to the assembly. 
CARCEFERI in Rivista Tridentina, X. (1910), 81, n. remarks that 
he cannot have found any support for this statement in the 

2 Borromeo to the legates, November 14, 1562, in SUSTA, III., 


3 Ibid., 88. 

4 Borromeo to the legates, June 19, 1563, in SUSTA, IV., 98. 

5 Ibid., 461, 464. 

6 Borromeo, ibid., 98 ; cf. Corresp. dipl., I., 7, n. 


Carranza s friends, by assuring them that no injustice to 
the archbishop would be allowed. 1 

About this time Carranza s friends tried to advance a 
step further by seeking to obtain from the commission of 
the Index at Trent an opinion upon the archbishop s cate 
chism, which was the starting point of the accusation. 2 Many 
of the members of the commission did not understand Spanish, 
while others who did had the name of being his partisans, 
as being Dominicans like Carranza himself. Therefore, the 
Archbishop of Prague, Brus, who to some extent presided 
over the examination of suspected books, caused the catechism 
to be examined independently of the commission by four 
of the most celebrated and learned doctors of Spain and 
Portugal, and at the same time asked for a written opinion 
from four Spanish members of the Council, namely Guerrero, 
Archbishop of Granada, and Bishops Blanco of Orense, 
Corrionero of Almeria, and Cuesta of Leon. 3 The opinions 
of all of them were favourable to the catechism, and accord 
ingly the representatives of Carranza asked Brus to give them 
a written statement to that effect, and six or seven copies 
were given to them, all signed by the eleven members of the 
commission then present, 4 and this was immediately sent 
by Carranza s friends to Spain. 5 

No sooner had the Count di Luna heard of this than he 
immediately insisted on the withdrawal of this testimony, 
as being an insult both to the Spanish Inquisition and to 
the Pope, by whose instructions the tribunal was holding its 

With this the commission of the Index found itself in a 
position of great embarrassment. Some of the members 
were unwilling to withdraw their signature now that it had 
been given, while others maintained that in a matter of 

1 Borromeo to Crivelli, June 15, 1563, in SUSTA, IV., 500. 

2 The legates to Borromeo, July 29, 1563, ibid., 144 seg. 

3 Brus to Maximilian II., June 18, 1563, in STEINHERZ, Briefe, 

4 The legates, loc. cit. 



such great importance the commission could only act col 
lectively, that the signatures had not been attached for 
publication, and that the fact that not a single name of a 
Spaniard was among them must excite suspicion. Others 
changed the,ir opinion, either for or against Carranza, so 
that out of the 18 members of the commission half were in 
favour of and half were opposed to the judgment which had 
been issued. Excited explanations followed, by which 
Brus was seriously offended. 1 The outcome of the affair 
was that the part taken by the Council on Carranza s behalf 
brought him no advantage. 

On August I2th, 1564, the frequently extended powers 
which had been given to the Spanish Inquisition to conduct 
the trial of Carranza were once again extended for the last 
time, 2 but by January ist, 1565, they had finally lapsed, and 
it became necessary to enter into fresh negotiations with 
Rome. About the middle of January, 1565, an envoy from 
Philip II., Rodrigo de Castro, arrived in Rome, 3 who sought 
in every way to induce the Pope to hand over to the Spanish 
Inquisition the pronouncement of the final sentence on the 
unfortunate archbishop. Such a concession, however, would 
not only have been contrary to the established law, but 
also against the Council of Trent, 4 and Pius IV. accordingly 
remained obdurate in the matter ; the utmost that he could 
do for the king, if Philip insisted upon it, would be to send 
an apostolic legate, who, in conjunction with other Roman 
and Spanish prelates to be appointed by the Pope, would 
examine the acts of the trial on Spanish soil and pronounce 
sentence. 5 

1 The legates, loc. cit. MENDO9A, 688. 

2 Corresp. dipl., I., 7, n. 2. 

3 Borromeo to Crivelli, January 20, 1565, ibid., i. 

4 Apart from the legal difficulties Odescalchi saw as early as 
October 5, 1562, and the legates by April i, 1563, that the only 
solution of the affair was for the Pope to take the trial into his own 
hands. SUSTA, III., 288, 387. 

5 Borromeo to Crivelli, February 24, 1565, Corresp. dipl., I., 
I seq. 


In June, 1565, Cardinal Ugo Boncompagni, the future 
Pope Gregory XIII., was appointed legate for Spain, 1 and 
in the consistory of July I3th was formally constituted judge 
of Carranza s cause. 2 His assessors were to be Castagna, 
Archbishop of Rossano, who was at the same time appointed 
nuncio in Spain, and the future Cardinal, Giovanni 
Aldobrandini. 3 The Papal judges arrived in Spain in Novem 
ber, 1565, and were received with great pomp, but the 
question whether any members of the Spanish Inquisition 
were to be attached to them as assessors 4 was still pending 
when Pius IV. died in December, 1565, leaving the trial of 
Carranza as an unpleasant inheritance to his successor. The 
Pope was and remained but little edified by his experiences 
of Spanish caesaro-papalism. Alluding to the magnificence 
with which the Papal judges had been received in 1565, 
while at the same time the Spaniards were only willing to 
allow the provincial councils demanded by the Council of 
Trent on condition that a state official were present, Altemps 
wrote to Boncompagni on November I7th, 1565, his opinion 
that the prevailing idea in Spain was that so long as they 
showed themselves loyal and devout in such external cere 
monies, they could be as obstinate and rebellious in other 
matters as they pleased. 5 An instruction sent to the nuncio 
Castagna in August, 1565, 6 is full of complaints at the in 
trusion of the Spanish officials into ecclesiastical matters, 

1 Borromeo to Crivelli, June 10, 1565, ibid., 3. 

2 RAYNALDUS, 1565, n. 7. Cf. Cain. Luzzara to the Duke of 
Mantua, July 14, 1565, in BERTOLOTTI, Martiri, 29. The bull 
with faculties for Boncompagni, July 13, 1565, in Corresp, dipl., I., 
4-9. *Acts concerning the mission of Boncompagni, which 
certainly come from his heirs, in Boncompagni Archives, Rome, 
Cod. D. 4. 

3 Pius IV. to Philip II., August 20, 1565, Corresp. dipl., I., 18. 
Nomination of Castagna : Pius IV. to Philip II., August 20, 1565, 
ibid., 17. 

4 Castagna to Altemps, December 18, 1565, ibid., 47 seq. cf. 50. 

5 Corresp. dipl., I., 31. 
9 Ibid., 21 seq. 


and a letter of protest of the same time relates how the 
president, Figueroa, in defending such acts on the part of 
the council of state had several times openly said that there 
was no Pope in Spain. 1 

Just at the time when the treatment of Carranza had 
caused such discontent with the Spanish Inquisition in Italy, 
news was received at the beginning of August, 1563, in 
Trent, 2 and in the middle of the same month at Milan, 3 
that Philip II. intended, alongside of, or rather in the place 
of, the mild and purely ecclesiastical Inquisition then in 
existence, to introduce into his possessions in northern Italy 
a Holy Office like that in Spain, 4 and that the Pope had not 
thought it wise to offer any resistance to the Spanish king s 
wishes. 5 As a matter of fact the Archbishop of Messina, 
Cervantes, had been appointed Inquisitor General for Milan, 
and on August 7th, 1563, instructions were sent to the legates 
of the Council to give him leave to depart as soon as he asked 
for it. 6 

This news caused the greatest excitement in Milan. At 
the meeting of the civic council which was immediately 
summoned, and again in its reply to Rome, as well as in 
later memorials to the Pope, it was openly stated that the 
introduction of the Spanish Inquisition would mean the ruin 
of the Duchy, and that if the project were carried into effect 
the citizens would leave their homes with all possible speed, 

1 Ibid., 144. 

2 Borromeo to Simonetta, August 4, 1563, in SUSTA, IV., 


8 Lucio Cotta to the vicar, Gottardo Reina, Rome, August 18, 
I 5^3 > c f- VERGA, 9. 

4 Besides the works of Verga, cf. PALLAVICINI, 22, 8, 2-4 ; 
CANT^T, Eretici, III., 38 seqq. ; BALAN, VI., 507 ; CARCERERI 
in Rivista Tridentina, X. (1910), 82 seqq., and the bibliography 
given in SUSTA, IV., 168 n. 

5 " S. S ta> non par bene di farci resistenza " (USTA, IV., 175). 
Pius IV. offered resistance from the first. Prospero d Arco to 
the Emperor, August 4, 1563, in CARCERERI, loc. cit., 82, n. i. 

SusTA, IV., 180. 


and emigrate to foreign lands. 1 Recourse was had at once 
to the governor of Milan, the Duke of Sessa, who tried to 
pacify them and gave them leave to send envoys to Madrid 
and Rome. It was also resolved to send a distinguished 
Milanese citizen at the public expense to Trent in 
order to obtain from the two Milanese Cardinals, Morone 
and Simonetta, letters of recommendation to Cardinal 
Borromeo and the Pope. 2 In Rome the envoys of the city 
were instructed in the first place to go to the Spanish ambas 
sadors, Vargas and de Avila, and to point out to them that 
with the introduction of the Spanish Inquisition, commerce 
and trade would leave Milan, to the great loss of the king. 
The envoys were next to win over Cardinals Borromeo and 
Ghislieri to their side. 3 The city of Cremona also sent an 
envoy to ask the intercession of Morone with the Pope. 4 

The news of the Pope s acquiescence in the wishes of the 
Spanish king also caused great dismay at Trent. If the 
Inquisition is allowed for Milan, wrote Carlo Visconti, Bishop 
of Ventimiglia, and confidential agent of the Curia, it 
will be impossible to refuse it for Naples. The other Italian 
princes would then ask for it, and since the Inquisition in 
Spain has authority over the bishops, the same concession 
would have to be made throughout Italy, to the great dis 
advantage of the Roman See. Out of fear of the Inquisition 
the bishops would seek above all to be on good terms with 
the princes, and in the event of another Council being 

1 In the municipal council they were " unanimemente risciolti 
che questa Inquisitione saria T ultimo esterminio della Cita, anzi 
fargli tutta quella provvisione e resistenza dovuta che si puotrk ; 
la qual cosa quando altramente succedesse si e determinato 
abbandonare piu presto le proprie case et andare in altri paesi." 
Letter of reply to L. Cotta, in VERGA, II. Cf. ibid., 10, Reina in 
the municipal council, and the letter to Pius IV. of August 29, 
1563, ibid., 44 seq. 

2 VERGA, n. 

3 Ibid., 12 seqq. Printed copy of the instructions in CANTT. 
Eretici, III., 39-41. 

* CARCERERI, loc. cit. 83, n. 2 ; SUSTA, IV., 214. 


assembled, the Pope would no longer have any bishops upon 
whom he could rely. Nor is any consolation to be found 
in the fact that even the Inquisition of the Spanish type is 
dependent upon Rome, since the trial of the Archbishop of 
Toledo shows how lightly the Spanish Holy Office regards 
its duty of obedience. 1 The legates expressed themselves 
in similar terms. It is difficult to realize, they wrote, 2 how 
much the bishops have been affected by the fear that in a 
short time the Holy Office will be carried from Milan to 
Naples. Already some of the fathers are saying that they 
intend to act very cautiously in the matter of the reform 
of the princes so as not to draw down upon themselves the 
vengeance of Philip II. and his Inquisition. 3 The bishops of 
Lombardy thought of including among the reform decrees 
of the Council one to protect episcopal rights against the 
Inquisition ; 4 and when this plan was abandoned, 13 of them 
had recourse to Rome with a request that the proposal of 
Philip II. might be refused. 5 All this was reported to Rome 
by the legates. 6 The Pope then tried in repeated letters 
to tranquillize the frightened prelates : if, he said, the In 
quisition is set up in northern Italy, it will not be dependent 
upon Spain but on Rome, it will not injure the bishops, and 
it will follow the usual course of ecclesiastical law. 7 The 
legates objected that this would not be enough if the appoint 
ment of the officials of the Inquisition was to be in the hands 
of the king, but at length they accepted the Pope s 
tranquillizing assurances. 8 

1 VERGA, 20 seqq. BALUZE-MANSI, III., 492. 

2 August 23, 1563, in SUSTA, IV., 198. 

3 Letter of August 19, 1563, ibid., 190. 

4 Visconti to Borromeo, September 2, 1563, in CARCERERI, loc. 
cit., 83 seq. On September 10 the plan was abandoned ; ibid., 85. 

6 Borromeo to Simonetta, September 18, 1563, ibid., 267 n. 

6 CARCERERI, loc. cit., 84 seq. 

7 Borromeo to Morone, August 21, to the legates, August 25 
and 28, to Simonetta, August 25, 1563, in SUSTA, IV., 209, 217, 
219, 222. 

* CARCERERI, loc. cit., 85, n. i. 

VOL. XVI. 22 


In the meantime they had been working hard in Rome, 
and apparently with success, against the Milanese Inquisition. 
All the Cardinals except Carpi, 1 and public opinion throughout 
the city were opposed to Philip s plan. The splendid recep 
tion which was accorded to the Milanese envoys was an 
expression of the general feeling ; the Pope himself assigned 
the Villa Giulia to them for their residence, 2 and in conversa 
tion with the members of the Milanese colony in Rome he 
held out to them great hopes, though he forbade them under 
pain of excommunication to report what he had said to 
Milan. 3 

It seemed as though everything was going well for the 
Milanese, when it was suddenly reported that the Inquisitor 
General destined for Milan was expected in Rome, and that 
the bull which was to introduce the Inquisition into northern 
Italy was already drafted and consigned to Cardinal Ghislieri. 
The general fear was increased by some remarks of the Spanish 
ambassador. 4 

Surreptitiously, " by magic arts " as they expressed it, 
the Milanese succeeded in getting hold of a copy of the brief, 
which was immediately sent to Milan. 5 The draft of this 
document promised the Spanish king the right to nominate 
the Inquisitor for all his possessions in northern Italy, and 
gave the Milanese Inquisition all the rights of the Holy Office 
which had been granted by the Popes since Paul III., including 
the right to make use of torture. 

The first signs of a popular rising now made their appear 
ance at Milan, but the " vicario " at once went to the governor, 
the Duke of Sessa, who gave the assembled authorities the 
solemn assurance that he would use all his influence on behalf 
of the city, and persuaded them not to send their envoys to 

1 VERGA, 15. Cf. Seb. Gualterio to Morone, August 7, 1563, 
in SUSTA, IV., 181 : " tutti i cardinal! se gli oppognono gagliarda- 

2 VERGA, 23 seq. 

3 Ibid., 28 seq. 

4 Ibid., 24 seq. 

6 Ibid., 25. Printed copy of the bull, ibid., 38-43. 


Madrid and Rome until they had more definite information. 
The Milanese allowed themselves to be pacified by these 
assurances, while their agents in Rome renewed their repre 
sentations to the Pope, with the result that on September 
2ist, 1563, they were able to inform their country that their 
efforts had been crowned with success, and that the Pope 
had promised not to introduce any change with regard to 
the Inquisition in Milan. 1 As a matter of fact the Pope had 
told the Spanish ambassador, de Avila, that the protective 
measures which had been adopted hitherto were quite 
sufficient to prevent the entrance of heresy into Italy, and 
that there was no need to talk of the Spanish Inquisition 
there. Philip II. himself thought it more prudent to abandon 
his intention, 2 so that Naples also no longer had any reason 
to fear the introduction of the Spanish tribunal of faith, 
so much so that in the following year, 1564, they even dared 
to agitate against the Roman Inquisition. 3 

The reason why Philip II. wished to introduce a stricter 
form of the Inquisition into the province of Milan was the 
dangerous proximity of Switzerland, and especially of the 
Grisons ;* it seemed to him that the old and indulgent Milanese 
tribunal of the faith did not afford a sufficient defence against 
the very real danger from that quarter. 5 

In the Eternal City itself the Inquisition often had occasion 
to show how anxiously it was seeking to safeguard the unity 

1 Ibid., 27 seq. Visconti to Morone, Rome, September 23, 
1563, in SUSTA, IV., 569. 

2 VERGA, 30. 

3 G. CAPPELLETTI, Gianfrancesco Alois e 1 agitazione napoletana 
dell anno 1564 contra la s. Inquisizione, Urbino, 1913 ; Rivista 
storica, 1914. Arch. Napol., XXXIII., 467 ; AMABILE, I., 273. 

4 VERGA, 14. 

6 In their instructions for their envoys in Rome in 1563 the 
Milanese themselves say that for many years past most of the 
immigrants into their city had been accused before the Inquisition 
(CANTti, Eretici, III., 39). For the Roman Inquisition in Milanese 
territory, cf. L. FUMI in Arch. stor. Lomb., XXXVII. (1910), 1-124, 
145-220, 285-414 ; concerning the Lutherans, ibid., 335 seqq. 


of the faith in Italy. Three executions on a charge of heresy 
are recorded during the first year of the Pope s reign. 1 The 
three victims, one of whom was Luigi Pasquali, the preacher 
of the Calabrian Waldenses, came from the north, and with 
the exception of Pasquali abjured their heresy before their 
death. In 1562 the burning of an obstinate monk and Greek 
bishop, Macarius of Macedonia, who had already twice 
relapsed and had received circumcision, caused a certain stir. 2 
He was followed (January 23rd, 1563) by a heretic from 
Holland, and on September 4th, 1564, by another heretic 
from Cyprus, who, however, died a Catholic. 3 All these 
were foreigners, but in June, 1564, it was discovered that even 
the orthodoxy of the Roman nobility was not entirely above 
suspicion, and seven of the noblest Romans, among them the 
Marquis de Vico, a nephew of Paul IV., were summoned 
before the Holy Office to answer to a charge of heresy. 4 

1 The executions took place on August 13, September 15 and 25, 
1560 (ORANO, 9 seq.) One of the three was perhaps not a heretic. 
According to BENRATH (Realenzyklop. of Herzog, IX 3 ., 539) 
two other ministers of the Waldensians, Stefano Negrini and 
Giacomo Borelli, were burned together with Pasquali. Orano 
and an *Avviso di Roma of September 21, 1560 (Vatican Library) 
say nothing of this ; BERTOLOTTI (Martiri, 29) makes Negrini die 
(when ?) of starvation. For the heretics discovered in Rome in 
May, 1561, among them two Sienese, see Bollettino Senese, XVII., 
1 66. 

2 ORANO, 13 (June 10, 1562). *Avviso di Roma of June 13, 
1562 : " Qua in Roma si e abbruciato vivo un vescovo Greco, 
che ha rinegato due volte et era circonciso, e si ha poi brusato 
cinque o sei statue di altri eretici." (Urb. 1039, p. 372, Vatican 

3 ORANO, 13 seq. 

4 *Sono appresso instituti qui alia inquisizione sette delli 
principali di quella citta per sospetti di hersia, fra li quali uno 
dei primi e il marchese de Vico, il quale anco si processa del regno 
per essere andato contro Beneventani per differenze che hanno 
insieme de territorii, in forma di essercito come scrissi. Fr. 
Tonina to the Duke of Mantua, June 17, 1564 (Gonzaga Archives, 
Mantua). The trial was still going on on April 7, 1565 ; an *Avviso 


We are exceptionally well informed as to the activities of 
the supreme Roman tribunal during the last two years of 
the reign of Pius IV., in a volume of the acts of the Roman 
Inquisition which got taken to Dublin by some means not 
yet explained. The six condemnations which it contains 
for the years 1564 and 1565 all concern strangers to Rome. 1 

Protestant students from Germany not infrequently 
visited Italy in the XVIth century, who, for the most part, 
if they were careful, were able to travel about unmolested. 2 
For some unknown reason, however, it happened in June, 
1565, that while he was travelling in Italy, Philip 
Camerarius, a son of the famous Leipsic professor, Joachim 
Camerarius, was imprisoned with his companion on a charge 
of Protestantism ; by the intervention of Duke Albert of 
Bavaria and the Emperor Maximilian II., both of them were 
liberated at the beginning of August. 3 

di Roma (Urb. 1940, p. gb) records that on that date de Vico had 
obtained from the Pope the privilege of not being placed in the 
prison of the Inquisition, but of going of his own accord to the 
Castle of St. Angelo. 

1 This volume contains the following for the time of Pius IV. : 
i. Sententia contra frm. Thomam de Fabianis de Mileto O. Sti 
Franc. Conv., 16 dec., 1564, published by R. GIBBINGS, A case of 
a Minorite friar, Dublin, 1853 ; cf. RULE, History of the In 
quisition, II., London, 1874, 196 seq. 2. Sententia contra Gio 
vanni Micro de Napoli pro fisco, 16 dec., 1564, published by 
K. BENRATH in Rivista cristiana, VII. (1979), 464-7. 3. 
Sententia contra Joh. Bapt. Saxum de Caserta, ult. febr., 1565, 
ibid., 467-8. 4. Sententia contra loa. Paganum de Caserta, 
12 apr., 1565, ibid., 468-9. 5. Sententia contra Marcum 
Bergamascum de St. Germane, 16 sept., 1565, ibid., 469-71. 
6. Sententia contra Aurelium della Vista di Sto Angelo ad Fossan- 
ella, 4 oct., 1565, ibid., 471-2. 

2 ELKAN, Philipp Marnix, 72. 

3 A letter of Cardmal Circada of Dec. 5, 1567 (Rosi, Riforma 
in Liguria, 144 ; cf. 75) alludes to the case " d alcuni favoriti 
del duca di Sassonia prigioni in Roma (ai tempi di Pio IV.) " and 
it is said " che si lasciorno andare per paura che quel duca lion 
facesse amazzare li nostri nuntii che andavano per Germania 


Of great importance for the activity of the Inquisition, 
as well as for the preservation of the unity of faith in Italy, 
was the influence exercised by Pius IV. over the Italian 
states- The courts of Mantua and Urbino were connected 
with him by ties of relationship, 1 but even the other states 
had to take him into account. The chief difficulties with 
regard to the sending of heretics to Rome came from the 
Republic of Venice, 2 though in other respects Pius IV. was 

intimando il concilio." (Cf. also STEINHERZ, IV., 444 seq.). The 
report of Philip Camerarius is published in lo. GEORGII SCHEL- 
HORNII, De Vita, fatis ac meritis Philippi Camerarii, Nuremberg, 
1740 ; cf. CANISII Epist., V., 741 seqq., 750 seqq. ; STEINHERZ, 
IV., 421 seq. ; MASIUS, Briefe, 366 ; BERTOLOTTI, Martiri, 32 ; 
Neues Lausitzisches Magazin, XLV. (1868), 65 seqq. ; KANNE, 
Beitrage zur Geschichte der Finsternis, etc., Frankfort, 1822. 
See also the report of Serristori of August 1 1, 1565, (State Archives, 
Florence) . 

1 See GIROL. SORANZO, 114-15, and GIAC. SORANZO, 155 seq., 
where there are particulars of certain misunderstandings. In a 
*brief of February 14, 1564, Pius IV. asked the Duke of Mantua 
to give him the help of the secular power against heretics in the 
diocese of Turin who would not abjure. (Arm. 44, t. n, n. 219, 
Papal Secret Archives). 

2 On February 22, and again on March 29, 1560, Pius IV. asked 
Venice to hand over Francesco Stella, and to protect Felice da 
Montalto, the inquisitor at Vicenza, who was threatened by the 
members of his own order ; see the *brief in App., nos. i and 2 
(Papal Secret Archives). The Signoria however, was opposed 
to Montalto and would not accede to the request. On this account, 
as well as over the demand made by the Roman Inquisition a 
short time afterwards for the handing over of another suspect, 
Fra Andrea de Michaele, constant and angry disputes arose ; see 
the *reports of Mula, dated Rome, May 18 and 22, June 15, 
August 31, September 7 and 21, October 19 and 26, 1560, and 
February 21, 1561 (Papal Secret Archives, and Court Library, 
Vienna). Cardinal Ghislieri, who could not later on as Pope 
forget these disputes (see P. TIEPOLO, 191), would not give way 
on the question, having the idea that Venice wished to model 
its Inquisition upon that of Spain. The Roman Inquisition 
insisted on the handing over of the accused on the ground that in 


on the best of terms with that state. From the first he had 
shown what great importance he attached to the friendship 
of the only Italian state which was still quite independent, 
to which fact the hope of protection against a Protestant 
invasion of Italy also contributed. 1 The utter disgrace with 
his government incurred by the Venetian ambassador, Mula, 
who was deprived of his office and banished because, con 
trary to Venetian law, he had accepted the cardinalate, 2 
did not bring about any substantial change in this attitude ; 
the republic continued to be honoured in every way, and 
repeatedly received favours from the Pope. 3 On its side 

Venice the witnesses would not be able to give their evidence 
freely. On June 19, 1560, Pius IV. appointed the Dominican 
Bartolomeo de Lugo (see FONTANA, 454 seq.}, Inquisitor General 
at Venice, to deal with the cases of the Friars Minor among the 
accused. For the recall of F. de Montalto see also TEMPESTA, 
Sisto V., i, 58. On March 28, 1561, Pius IV. demanded the 
handing over of the two other accused ; see in App. n. 7 the 
* brief to Cardinal P. F. Ferreri, of that date (State Archives, 

1 See MOCENIGO, 10, seq., 63. 



3 See GIROL. SORANZO, 115 seqq. It was only towards the end 
of the pontificate of Pius IV. that there was a cooling in the 
relations on account of the displeasure of the Pope with the atti 
tude of Venice during the Council, and the strict insistence upon 
the disgrace of Mula (cf. GIROL. SORANZO, 151 seqq. ; 156 seqq. ; 
see also Bollett. stor. d. Svizz. Ital., 1900, 15). But even then 
Pius IV. granted them favours and showed his goodwill by the 
gift of the Palazzo di Venezia (June 10, 1564). It is true that what 
influenced him in this was the secret thought that the rich republic 
would contribute to the beauty of Rome by completing the un 
finished Palazzo, a hope which, however, was not fulfilled. Cf. 
the careful notes in DENGEL, Der Palazzo di Venezia, 103 seqq. 
in conjunction with which we may also note the *report of Fr. 
Tonina of July 5, 1564 : " Dominica mattina pross a passata 
1 ambasciatore di Venetia fu a pigliare il possesso del palazzo di 
S. Marco in nome della S ma S ia come donata gli da S. B ne , et qui 


the government of Venice firmly upheld its own right to 
watch over the tribunals of the inquisition, though it did 
not fail to take action against the cases of heresy discovered 
in its territory. 1 

Cosimo I., Duke of Florence was, speaking generally, 
very accommodating in matters that concerned the In 
quisition. 2 All the ambassadors speak of the Pope s intimate 
relations with the Duke. 3 Cosimo looked forward to the 
fulfilment of his ambitious schemes, and especially of receiving 
the title of king, since, like everybody else, he underestimated 
the independence of character of Cardinal Gian Angelo de* 
Medici. 4 He had every reason, however, to be satisfied with 
what he obtained. The first creation of Cardinals had already 
given his son Giovanni the red hat, while during his stay in 
Rome in November and December, 1560, the Pope had 
heaped favours upon him ; he gave the Duke, who was a 
connoisseur of the arts, the magnificent column which now 
stands in the Piazza Trinita in Florence, as well as many 

si oppose il card 10 Pisani qual dice ch egli ha havuto et ha poco 
rispetto, et che non se ha potuto fare questa donatione in pre- 
giudicio suo, mentre che vive per il decreto et ordine di Paulo II. 
veneto che lo edific6 et volse che sempre cedesse a beneficio del 
piu vecchio cardinale venetiano, et ancora non si e potuto esso r mo 
Pisani acquetare." (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). See also the 
*report of G. Cusano of June 17, 1564 (Court and State Archives, 

1 See DE LEVA, Degli eretici di Cittadella, Venice, 1873, 
65 seq. ; cf. BENRATH, 63 seq., 89 seq. ; ELZE in Rivista crist., 
III., 20 seq. For the Anabaptists in Venetian territory, see Theol. 
Studien und Kritiken, LVIII. (1885), 38 seq. For Vicenza 
see SUSTA, IV., 93, 99, 118, 143. For Padua, ibid., 143, 
and Arch. stor. Ital., ser. 5, XV., 417. For Verona, PALLAVICINI, 

24, 9, 3- 

2 For the Inquisition in Tuscany cf. LE BRET, VIII., 548 seq. ; 

3 See MOCENIGO, 60 seq. ; GIROL. SORANZO, in seq. ; GIAC. 
SORANZO, 152 seq 

See SUSTA, Pius IV., 64, 66 seq. 


antique statues. 1 The right of patronage for the arch 
bishoprics of Florence, Siena and Pisa, and of six other 
bishoprics, which was granted to Cosimo in January, 1561, 
was of great importance from the point of view of ecclesiastical 
policy. 2 The next creation of Cardinals, in February, brought 
disappointment to the Duke, but on the death of Giovanni 
de Medici (November 2nd, 1562) Pius IV. raised Cosimo s 
third son Ferdinand to the cardinalate in January, 1563, 
so that the rich benefices of his dead brother remained in the 
hands of the House of Medici. 3 Many people thought that 
Cosimo, who frequently received autograph letters from the 
Pope, could do anything he liked with his former protege. 
Giacomo Soranzo, however, categorically denies this ; it was 
only in financial matters that the Duke had any real influence, 
whereas in other matters, and even in the dispute for prece 
dence between Ferrara and Florence, Cosimo was very far 
from getting all he wanted. 4 It is noteworthy that he did 

1 See GAVE, III., 43 seq. ; MICHAELIS in Jahrbuch des Deutsch 
Archaol. Instituts, V., 43 seq. ; LANCIANI, III., 250. The im 
portance which Pius IV. attached to Cosimo is also shown by the 
splendid reception accorded to the " Principe de Firenze " ; cf. 
the *report of, the Bishop of Anglona, dated Rome, November 5, 
1561 (State Archives, Modena), and the *letters of Fr. Tonina 
of November 9 and 12, 1561. Tonina further *reports on Novem 
ber 15, 1561, that Cardinal Ricci had presented a magnificent 
antique bust (of Pyrrhus) to the prince (Gonzaga Archives, 
Mantua) . 

2 See *Avviso di Roma of January 8, 1561 (Urb. 1039, p. 239, 
Vatican Library), and GIROL. SORANZO, in, who mentions the 
concessions for the foundation of the Order of St. Stephen (cf. infra, 
Chapter X). Montepulciano was made a bishopric at the request 
of Cosimo in 1561 ; see CIACONIUS, III., 881. 

3 See REUMONT, III., 2, 573 ; also in Toskana, I., 320. 

4 See GIAC. SORANZO, 153 seq. The relations of Cosimo with Pius 
IV. are deserving of a special monograph based on documents 
in the State Archives, Florence, which contain numerous auto 
graph letters of the Pope, especially of the first years of his ponti 
ficate. It is beyond doubt that the jealousy and envy of the 
other powers exaggerated the influence of Cosimo over Pius IV. 


not attain to his chief aim of obtaining the title of king. In 
this matter the opposition of the Hapsburgs was of decisive 
weight ; Philip II. saw with much displeasure the close 
relations between the Pope and Florence, and feared that 
any increase of his power would put Cosimo in a position 
to cause disturbance to the Spanish possessions in Italy ; 
he therefore not only resisted Cosimo s scheme of becoming 
a king, but even prevented his meeting with the Pope at 
Bologna. The fear of a league of the Italian states still 
haunted the Spanish monarch, 1 and he very much disliked 
the establishment of the nunciature of Florence. 2 Nor was 
it only the Spaniards who worked against Cosimo in Rome, 
but Cardinal Borromeo as well, who was very far from being 

For the disputes about precedence between Ferrara and Florence 
see the numerous *reports of Alessandro Grandi in the State 
Archives, Modena, in which the jealousy of the Este is strongly 
expressed. Thus Grandi reports on May 6, 1562 : *" II Papa e 
piu affett mo al duca di Firenze che mai " (State Archives, Modena). 
The often rather strained relations of Pius IV. with the Este, 
as with the Farnese at Parma, was connected with the hostile 
attitude towards them taken up by Cosimo I., as Girol. Soranzo 
brings out (p. 114 seq.). In the case of Ferrara there was the 
further question of the salt monopoly of Comacchio (cf. GIAC. 
SORANZO, 154), and the fear felt by the Este lest the Pope should 
threaten the existence of their state in the interests of his nephews, 
a thing which Cardinal Borromeo categorically denied. (See the 
*report of A. Grandi, dated Rome, July 22, 1562, State Archives, 
Modena). How the Duke of Ferrara behaved is described by 
Soranzo (p. 114) : " Va dissimulando saviamente e non lascia 
addietro alcun officio che si convenga ad ubbidiente vassallo della 
Sede Apostolica faccendo sempre parte a S. S td> di tutte le cose 
che stima desiderate a lei." Cardinal Ippolito d Este worked 
mdefatigably to bring about an understanding (see GIROL. 
SORANZO, 155), but at the last moment the action of the Duke 
against a Papal collector of tithes led to new and violent disputes. 
(See the *report of C. Luzzara, dated Rome, March 24, 1565, 
Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). For the severity of Pius IV. to 
Cardinal Luigi d Este, see SUSTA, IV., 371 seq., 377, 409. 

1 See Fedeli in ALBRI, II., i, 371 seq. 

z lbid., 382, 

PIUS iv. AND COSIMO i. 347 

well-disposed to him. All the more eagerly therefore did 
the Duke try to win over the other Cardinals, the nephews, 
and above all the Pope himself, 1 who remained devoted to 
him to the end. 2 

As was the case in Tuscany, 3 so was the Inquisition called 
upon to take action against the religious innovators at Lucca 
and Genoa. 4 

i gee GIROL. SORANZO, 112 seq. Cf. the * "report of Fr. Tonina 
of January 23, 1562 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 

z See GIAC. SORANZO, 153. 

3 A letter from the Roman Inquisition in 1564 to the Bishop 
of Volterra asked him to take proceedings against an heretical 
body at S. Gimignano near Siena ; see BATTISTINI, Un accademia 
di eretici a S. Gimignano, in Miscell. stor. d. Valdelsa, XXIII. 
3- For heresy at Siena, cf. Bollett. Senese, XVII., 164 


**For Lucca see SICKEL, Konzil, 133 ; cf. RAYNALDUS, 1562, 
n. 138; Arch. stor. Ital., X., App. 176 seq.; SUSTA, I., 224. 
After the conclusion of the Council of Trent Cardinal Borromeo 
exhorted the city to break off its relations with the Lucchese 
Protestants at Geneva. For the way in which later on a vigilance 
commission against heresy was set up at Lucca, and how the city 
received the Golden Rose in 1565, cf. M. Rosi, La riforma relig. 
e ITtalia nel sec. xvi., Catania, 1892, 8 seq. After the nuncio in 
France, Gualterio, had reported to Rome that among the Lucchesi 
resident at Lyons there were only three families free from heresy, 
the Council of Lucca received from Parensi, its envoy in Rome, 
the advice that energetic measures should be taken by the republic 
to counteract the bad impression made in Rome by Gualterio s 
report (E. LAZZARESCHI in La Scuola cattolica, 1910, II., 281). 
As a result, on January 9, 1562, a decree was issued by the Council 
of Lucca which (i) placed a price of 300 gold scudi upon the heads 
of six Lucchesi who had been declared heretics and rebels, if they 
showed themselves in Italy, Spain, France, Flanders and Brabant ; 
(2) extends and amplifies for the Lucchesi in Lyons all the laws 
passed in 1545 at Lucca concerning religious disputations, pro 
hibited books, attendance at Catholic worship, the reception of 
the sacraments, etc. ; (3) prohibits all its subjects to attend 
heretical sermons ; (4) calls upon the Council to enforce these 
laws strictly (Arch. stor. Ital., X., App. 176 seqq. ; the names of 


The situation of the Church in Savoy was a cause of great 
anxiety, for there it was threatened by the Waldensians, 
who were so numerous in the valleys of the Alps. The forti- 

those exiled, ibid., 450). The decree fulfilled its object of satisfy 
ing the Pope ; a brief of Pius IV. of January 20, 1562 (ibid., 178 ; 
RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 138), and a letter from Borromeo of January 
23 (LAZZARESCHI, loc. cit., 282) praises the zeal of the Council ; 
the decree, however, was not put into force. Fresh complaints 
at the rebellious attitude of the Lucchesi in France and at Lyons 
gave occasion for a further letter from Borromeo on December 18, 
1563, in which he demands the carrying out of these decrees 
" che voglino rinnovare gli ordini fatti sopra ci6 con asseguirli 
severamente contro li delinquenti " (thus LAZZARESCHI, loc. cit., 
284, who rightly passes over the certainly wrong text in SALA, 
Documenti, III., 289). This is the letter on the strength of which 
Lord Acton in his letters maintains that Borromeo in his capacity 
of Papal secretary wished for the killing of the Protestants, and 
complained that no heretic s head had been sent to Rome (!) : 
" Saint Charles Borromeo, when he was the Pope s nephew and 
Minister, wrote a letter requiring Protestants to be murdered and 
complaining that no heretical heads were forwarded to Rome 
in spite of the reward that was offered for them." (Letters to 
Mary Gladstone, ed. H. Paul, London, 1904, 186 ; cf. BELLESHEIM 
in Hist.-polit. Blatter, CXXXIX., 1907, 772). But (i) as far as 
Pius IV. is concerned, in the brief of January 20, 1562 (loc. cit.), 
the Pope expressly enumerates the points which he approves 
and praises in the religious laws concerning Lyons : " Exempla 
etiam litterarum legimus, per quas eiusdem Consilii mandate 
cives vestri, qui Lugduni negotiantur diligenter et severe ad- 
modum, ut decuit, admoniti fuerunt : ut haereticorum omnium 
congressus, colloquia et condones vitenl, omnibusque dictis et factis 
declarent, se s. Romanae Ecclesiae ritus, instituta et praecepta 
servare, neque ulla in re a recta fide et catholica regiqne de- 
flexisse." In this there is no mention of any decree of banish 
ment against the Protestants, to which the eulogies of the Pope 
make no reference. It is well known that it was considered 
unseemly for a priest to take part in pronouncing a sentence of 
death, no matter how just, or to assist at its carrying out. This 
in certain circumstances might even involve ecclesiastical cen 
sures. (2) The same thing naturally applies to the official 


fied places, especially Turin and Chieri, which by the terms 
of the peace of Cateau-Cambresis had remained in the hands 
of the French, had become hot-beds of Calvinist propaganda, 
owing to the indifference of the representatives of the French 
government. 1 The attitude taken up towards this state of 
affairs by Emanuele Filiberto, Duke of Savoy, was all the 
more important as the organization of active measures against 
Geneva, the head-quarters of Protestantism in western 
Europe, depended upon him. Pius IV. was convinced that 
some decisive steps would have to be taken against " the 
new Rome of the heretics," and he therefore energetically 
took up the plan, already mooted by Paul IV., of crushing 
the viper in its own nest. 2 For this purpose the Pope counted 

declarations of his minister as to the brief of the Pope. As a 
matter of fact, Borromeo, in his letter of November 18, 1563 
(/o< . cit.) only speaks of the laws passed in Lucca " che li loro 
cittadini et sudditi, che sono in Francia, vivessero cattolicamente " 
and he asks for the renewal and strict carrying out of the laws 
made for that purpose. He, too, does not speak of the order for 
proscription, and evidently on purpose, and for the same reason 
as that which kept the Pope silent (cf. H. THURSTON in The Month, 
1910, II., 401 seqq. ; CANT^, Eretici, II., 471). Moreover, Bor 
romeo s insistence that the senate should carry out the laws, 
cannot in the nature of things refer to the order for proscription, 
since the declaration of banishment is merely a declaration ; if 
it is issued and renewed the senate had done its duty ; what else 
has the senate got to " carry out " ? No historian would expect 
to find in those days any disapproval on the part of the Pope 
of even strict measures against the heretics, but this does not 
imply any express approval of the order for proscription. As 
to Genoa, besides Rosi, Riforma, 55 seqq., 600 seq., see FONTANA, 
460 seq. and in Appendix Nos. 3, 4, 22, 34, the *letters of Ghislieri 
(University Library, Genoa). By a * brief of December 26, 1563, 
Pius IV. allowed " Hieron. de Franchis O. Pr. inquisit. Genuensis " 
to summon to Genoa and try heretics from all parts of the republic 
(Arm. 44, t. n, n. 408, Papal Secret Archives). 

1 See SUSTA, I., 100 seq. ; II., 394. 

2 See WIRZ, Bullen und Breven (Quellen zur Schweizergesch., 
XXL), 376 seq. ; DIERAUER, III., 317 seq. Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 
51 seq., and CRAMER, I., 50 seq. 


above all on the Duke of Savoy and the Catholic Swiss Can 
tons, as well as upon the help of the Spaniards and the 
Venetians. In the summer of 1560 he set aside 20,000 gold 
scudi for the Catholic Swiss Cantons, and promised a similar 
subsidy to the Duke of Savoy if he would undertake the 
projected campaign against Geneva. 1 The Duke agreed 
to do this ; he was a strong Catholic and an old friend of the 
Pope, 2 and had shown his zeal against the new religion as 
early as February i5th, 1560, by the issue of a severe edict 
against the Waldensians in his Alpine valleys, which he had 
at once proceeded to put into force. 3 The nunciature which 
was established in Piedmont in June, 1560, became the centre 
of the Catholic activities ; this Pius IV. entrusted to Francesco 
Bachodi, who was given the powers of legate a latere. The 
.Pope and the Grand Inquisitor, Michele Ghislieri, sent with 
him the Jesuit, Antonio Possevino, who sought by means of 
sermons, disputations, and the establishment of seminaries 
for Catholic missionaries to obtain some lasting success. 4 
When gentle measures failed, they took action against the 
Waldensians by force of arms, but the Duke met with 
such determined resistance that he found himself obliged 
to grant to his enemies the free exercise of their religion 
within certain clearly defined districts by the peace of Cavour 
on June 5th, 1561. 5 The Pope s zeal for the war projected 
against Geneva in June, 1560, had been cooled by the in- 

1 See SALA, III., 22 seq. ; CRAMER, I., 54. 

2 See A. Boldu in ALBERI, II., i, 421 seq., 459 seq. ; cf. II., 2, 35. 

3 See KARTTUNEN 38 seq. ; BALAN VI., 510. A *brief of Pius 
IV., dated May 30, 1560, praises Franc, archiepisc. Panormit. for 
his zeal as inquisitor in Piedmont and exhorts him to continue. 
Min. brev. Arm. 44, t. 10, n. 202 ; cf. ibid. t. u, nn. 119 seq., the 
briefs to the Duke and Duchess of Savoy, August 5, 1561, Papal 
Secret Archives. 

4 See KARTTUNEN, 39 seq. ; cf. SUSTA, I., 100. 

5 See BALAN, VI., 510 seq. As is made clear in the Rivista 
stor., 1917, 47, the account in JALLA, Storia della riforma in 
Piemonte fino alia morte di Em. Filiberto (1517-1580), Florence 
1915, is unfair to the Catholics. 


different attitude of the Catholic powers, and when the 
Duke of Savoy prematurely disclosed the plan at the 
beginning of the following year. Pius IV. withdrew from 
the undertaking, which ever afterwards seemed to be 
impracticable. 1 

Developments in Savoy continued to cause the Pope grave 
anxiety, 2 the more so as he feared that Filiberto s wife, 
Margaret of Valois, would apostatize from the Catholic faith. 
In a brief of January 3oth, 1562, he urged the Duke to remove 
the heretical courtiers and ladies from his wife s suite. 3 The 
Duke did all that he could to recover the fortresses occupied 
by the French, and he also sougnt to prevent the further 
spread of Calvinism by sending Catholic preachers at his 
own expense to the threatened districts, while Antonio 
Posse vino did all he could to foster this missionary activity. 4 
He advised the Duke to remove all excuse for religious in 
novations by a reform of the secular and regular clergy, and 
even after some of the Waldensians had taken up arms, he 
still wished to rely upon gentle methods and organized a 
religious conference, which was, however, without result. 5 
The restrictive edicts issued by the Duke were not put into 
force, with the result that the pretensions of the Waldensians 
kept on increasing ; at the synod of Angrogne in 1563 they 
declared that they accepted the teachings of the church of 
Geneva ; they imagined that the Duke was afraid of them 
and so conspired freely with Geneva. Emanuele Filiberto, 
who looked upon this as high treason, took much more 

1 Cf. CRAMER, I., 61 seq., 80 seq., 86, 90 seq. ; II., 54 seq., 69 seq., 
77 (in I., 86 the dispatch of Mula of February 14 [not 4, as in 
RANKE, I 8 ., 211] is published). 

2 Cf. the *report of Mula of August 10, 1560 (Court Library, 
Vienna) and the *letter of Saraceni of August 26, 1561 (State 
Archives, Florence) . 

3 See SUSTA, II., 393 seq. 

4 See SUSTA, II., 395 ; III., 269. Cf. CIBRARIO, Lettere, 196. 
The * brief to Fr. Bachodi, May 28, 1561, in Min. brev. Arm. 44, 
t. n, n. 70, Papal Secret Archives. 

6 Cf. DUHR, Jesuitenfabeln, (1904), 836 seq. 


vigorous action against them in 1565 than he had done for 
the past five years. 1 

The Waldensians in Calabria had been almost exterminated 
in a series of bloody battles by the Spanish government in 
the years 1560-61. 2 The cruelties perpetrated by the 
Spaniards in Calabria were published far and wide by the 
French in a series of pamphlets. 3 

1 See KARTTUNEN, 45 seq. ; BALAN, VI., 589 seq. At the 
beginning of his reign Pius IV., had made an arrangement with 
the Duke of Savoy that he should provide for the bishoprics of 
Piedmont, leaving the nomination to those of Savoy to the Duke. 
Filiberto did not keep to this, and there was a controversy over 
the appointments to Turin and Mondovi, which disturbed the 
Pope very much (see GIROL. SORANZO, no; SUSTA, III., 555 
seq. ; CIBRABIO, loc. cit., 198 seq.). Othei difficulties also occured 
with regard to ecclesiastical politics, as for example the question 
of jurisdiction in Val d Aosta (see CLARETTA, La successione di 
Eman. Filberto, Turin, 1884 ; cf. also FRIEDBERG, II., 705 seq.}. 
On June 28, 1562, the Duke withdrew three decrees which were 
against ecclesiastical liberty (see RICOTTI, Storia d. Monarchia 
Piemontese, II. ; MOROZZO, Elogio del card. M. A. Bobbo, Turin, 
1799 ; Bollett. stor. Subalpino, VI., 257 seq.}. If the relations 
between Savoy and Rome improved (see GIAC. SORANZO, 152 seq.}, 
this was explained by the fact that in matters of importance the 
two powers were dependent on each other s help. But dis 
agreements still continued. In a *brief of November 30, 1564, 
Pius IV. wrote to the chancellor of Savoy that he had heard that 
the bishops were unable to do anything against the heretics 
because they were hindered in various ways in the exercise of 
their powers, and begged him to co-operate in the removal of these 
hindrances when the bishops returned from the Council (Arm. 44, 
t. 20, n. 93, Papal Secret Archives). 

2 See BALAN, VI., 511 seqq. Cf. Arch. stor. Ital., IX., 193 seq. ; 
AMABILE, I., 235-260 ; BERTOLOTTI, Martiri, 28 seq. ; BENDER, 
Gesch. der Waldenser, 102, cf., 157 ; Realenzykl. of Herzog, XX. 3 , 
836 ; DUHR, loc. cit., 838 seq. A * brief of praise to the Viceroy 
of Naples for the help given by him to the Inquisition, in Arm. 44, 
t. 21, n. 47 (Papal Secret Archives). For the Waldensians at 
Amalfi see CAMERA, Memorie d Amain, II., 134. 

3 See the rare work Copie d autres nouvelles de Romme et 
autres choses memorables, Lyons, 1561. For the Inquisition in 
Sicily see GARUFI in Arch. stor. Sicil., XLI. (1917). 



WHEN Pius IV. ascended the Papal throne, it was expected 
that the most cordial relations would exist between him and 
the King of Spain. Certainly the good-will was not lacking 
on the Pope s part ; as a Cardinal he had been a partisan of 
Spain, and in view of the state of European politics, his position 
as head of the Church pointed in the same direction on account 
of the grave dangers threatening the Catholic religion in 
Germany, England, Scotland, France and Poland. Philip II. 
seemed to be the only reliable defender of the old religion, 
since, on account of the weakness of the Empire, the duty of 
protecting the Holy See devolved upon the Catholic sovereign 
who had the greatest power. 

On his side, Philip II. looked upon himself as the political 
head of Catholic Christendom. 1 The geographical position 
of his kingdom pointed to him as its defender against the 
followers of Islam, since it comprised the greater part of the 
Christian countries bordering on the Mediterranean Sea. Per 
sonally a fervent Catholic, and deeply penetrated by the con 
viction that ecclesiastical changes must bring civil revolution 
in their train, the King of Spain watched strictly over the 
maintenance of Catholic unity in his dominions. The progress 
of Protestantism in England, France and western Germany 
affected him directly on account of his possessions in the 
Netherlands, where the Catholics looked to the Spanish king 
as their chief protector. Everything therefore combined to 
make Philip II. the champion of the Catholic Church, though 
his shortcomings affected her interests no less than his good 

* See MARCKS, in Philipp II., in Preuss. Jahrb., LXXIII., 205. 

VOL. xvi. 353 23 


Very few princes have devoted themselves to the affairs of 
state so zealously, or taken their position as rulers so seriously 
as Philip II., whose natural autocracy was given a special 
character by the view he took of the heavy responsibilities 
which lay upon his shoulders. His unwearied assiduity at 
the council table would have been an excellent thing in the 
ruler of a small state, but in the case of a monarch who was 
master of half the world it could not fail to become a grave 
disadvantage, all the more so as it was united to a great want 
ol decision. Instead of acting, Philip II. was for ever thinking 
things over, trying to gain time and to put off making a definite 
decision. His instinctive absolutism was shown in his mania 
for undertaking the personal direction of the smallest details 
of government throughout his dominions, both in civil and 
ecclesiastical affairs. Not content with protecting, he wanted 
to rule the Church. 1 In this fact, as well as in the general 
development of politico-ecclesiastical conditions in Spain, was 
to be found the reason why the relations of the king with Pius 
IV. developed in a way so different from what had been 

Since the end of the Middle Ages the " Catholic Kings," by 
making skilful use of the conditions of the times, had aimed 
at obtaining a complete sovereignty over the Church in their 
dominions. While making a great parade of their Catholicism 
they had, by prayers and threats, wrung one concession after 
another from the Holy See. 2 After the Popes of the XV th 

1 Cf. GACHARD, Corresp., I., liii. seq. ; MARTIN A. S. HUME, 
Philip II., London, 1897 ; HAEBLER in Hist. Zeitschrift, 
LXXXIV., 144 seq. ; GAMS, III., i, 192 ; FRIEDBERG, II., 

2 See HERGENROTHER in Archiv fur kathol. Kirchenrecht, X. 
(1863), 14 seqq. ; PHILIPPSON, Philipp II. und das Papsttum, in 
Hist. Zeitschr., XXXIX., 269 seq. ; FRIEDBERG, II., 542 seq., 
546 seq. ; GOTHEIN, 37 seqq. Cf. also previous vols. of this work : 
IV., 397 ; V., 338 ; VI., 443 ; VIII., 435 ; X., 57, 370. DEMBIN- 
SKI, (I., 179) is quite right in saying that at that time Spain 
had in some ways succeeded in forming a church within the 


century had already granted them wide powers in the filling 
of the bishoprics, Charles V. had obtained the complete and 
permanent right of presentation and patronage in the case 
of all the archiepiscopal and episcopal sees of Spain. In the 
same way the Spanish government had succeeded in getting 
into its own hands the right of conferring the greater part of 
the other ecclesiastical benefices to which revenues were 
attached, as well as those of the great military orders. It had 
also, since 1476, exercised a wide supervision over ecclesiastical 
jurisdiction by means of the " royal council " of Castille. 
The crown lawyers appealed in this matter to the example of 
France, and indignantly rejected the idea that there was in this 
the least wish to infringe upon the authority of the Pope, which 
they professed to hold in the greatest reverence. This, 
however, did not prevent great liberties being taken. In spite 
of all the protests of Rome, the government held tenaciously 
to its claim to examine every Papal decree, and to pronounce it 
invalid for Spain if it infringed upon the laws and customs of 
the kingdom. It is true that all the external forms of respect 
were always observed, and that the procedure generally 
adopted was, by way of palliation, designated as the " holding 
back (retention) of Papal bulls." In order to reconcile the 
Spanish church to the state of servitude into which it had 
fallen, the kings had increased its wealth to such an extent that 
at the beginning of the reign of Philip II. the revenues of the 
clergy from their landed estates amounted to five million 
ducats, which was a half of the whole fixed revenue of the 
kingdom. Of the seven archbishoprics and the thirty-nine 
bishoprics the most wealthy was the archbishopric of Toledo, 
which in 1566 was valued at 400,000 ducats. Many of the 
bishops and prelates made good use of their princely revenues, 
though there were not wanting some who acted in quite a 
contrary way. 1 

If the Spanish government had thus increased the riches of 
the Church its motive had been by no means disinterested, 

1 See the reports of Tiepolo and Soranzo in ALBERT, I., 5, 19, 
79 ; PHILIPPSON, loc. cit., 279 seq. 


for the goods oi the Church served as an inexhaustible source 
of revenue. In order to levy these subsidies it was necessary, 
in accordance with canon law, to obtain the consent of the 
Pope, which was generally given, because in almost all the 
wars of Spain it was possible to plead the good of religion, but 
very often the sums raised were used for quite another purpose. 
This was especially the case with the large sums obtained in 
virtue of the bull of crusade (Cruzada) which was first 
granted by Julius II., and afterwards amplified in various 
ways. 1 

In order to bring the clergy, especially the cathedral chapters 
and the religious orders, into subjection to the absolute power 
of the king, Philip II. made misuse of the Spanish Inquisition 
whenever they tried to defend ecclesiastical rights and their 
own privileges, nor did he hesitate to use it against the laity 
as well. Rome steadily opposed this abuse, but the kings of 
Spain successfully aimed at making this tribunal a docile tool 
by means of which they could efficaciously fight their political 
enemies and all the opponents of absolutism, while, since two- 
thirds of the fines and confiscations inflicted by the Inquisition 
went to the king, the tribunal was also a rich source of revenue ; 
in 1566 it paid over about 200,000 gold ducats. 2 It thus 
became very important for the Catholic Kings to extend to the 
other countries under their rule the extraordinary privileges 
which they possessed or claimed to possess in Spain. Julius 
II. had granted them the patronage of all the churches in the 
West Indies, and Clement VII. had done the same in the case 
of the bishoprics of the Kingdom of Naples. In all its Italian 
possessions the government exercised its right of examining, 
and if necessary " holding back " all Papal bulls, or the 
exequatur, as it was called in Naples and Sicily. The 
sovereign privileges claimed in Sicily, known by the 

1 See HERGENROTHER, loc. cit., X., 10 ; PHILIPPSON, loc. cit. t 
281 ; HINOJOSA, 178 ; ISTURIZ in Annuaire de 1 univ. de Louvain, 
1907, 388 seq. For the Bula de la Cruzada in general, cf. Kirchen- 
lexikon of Freiburg II.*, 1470 seq. 

2 See in Corresp. dipl., I., 449 seq. the memorial of the beginning 
of 1566. 


name of Monarchia Sicula, amounted to a real caesaro- 
papalism. 1 

The Popes had repeatedly sought to limit this caesaro- 
papalism of the Catholic Kings, but they had always met with 
the most obstinate resistance. When Philip II. ascended the 
throne the long desired goal had been substantially attained ; 
the Church which was intended to be free had been humbled, 
and had become the obedient and docile servant of the crown. 
This unnatural state of things, which was so full of incon 
sistencies, was in direct contradiction to Catholic principles, 
and contained the seeds of endless quarrels with the Holy See. 
When Paul IV. had attempted to throw off the Spanish yoke 
in Italy, the straggle had been embittered by the usurpations 
of the Spanish government in purely ecclesiastical affairs. 2 
The peace of Cave had done so little to remove the source of 
the trouble that a kind of secret warfare between the Curia 
and Spain still went on. The true state oi affairs is clear from 
the instructions given in the spring of 1559 t the new nuncio 
in Spain, Salvatore Pacini, who was told to watch over eccle 
siastical jurisdiction and the obedience of Spain to the Holy 
See, because the royal council had interfered in many eccle 
siastical matters, and had gravely prejudiced the cause of 

1 See PHILIPPSON, he. cit. 3 seg. Cf. Vol. VI., of this work, 
p. 443. A pragmatic of August 30, 1561 forbade under strict 
penalties the publication of Papal decrees at Naples without the 
exequatur in writing (see GIANNONE, IV., 165 ; SCADUTO, Stato 
e .Chiesa nelle Sicilie, Palermo, 1887, 208 ; PELUSO, II diritto di 
placitazione nelle due Sicilie, Naples, 1898, 13). SCHAFER 
(Beitrage zur Gesch. des Span. Protestantismus und der Inquisi 
tion jm 1 6. Jahrhundert I., Giitersloh, 1902, 227) has shown that 
after the suppression in 1560 of the two communities at Seville 
and Valladolid, which were very small, Protestantism did not 
spread in Spain. Those who were condemned later on were 
generally foreigners, e.g. the Frenchmen executed at Toledo in 
1565. For the disputes between the Inquisition in Sicily with 
the Spanish viceroys, see GARUFI, in Arch. stor. Sicil., XLI. (i9 J 7) 
3 seq. 

2 See Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 158. 


ecclesiastical liberty. 1 The already dangerous state of affairs 
became worse when Philip II., not satisfied with his practically 
unlimited sovereignty over the Church in Spain, began to 
claim to have a decisive voice in the affairs of the whole 
Church. The result of the conclave encouraged him in this ; 
he hoped that in the new Pope he had found a compliant 
instrument for the carrying out of his desires, since he had 
at one time been a Spanish subject, and had always lived on 
friendly terms with Spain. The Pope, however, was a priori 
little disposed to show such compliance either in important 
or in small matters. 

The diplomatic correspondence between Madrid and Rome 
was therefore bound to become very difficult. 2 The Spanish 
nunciature, which, under Charles V., had played a very 
secondary part, in. consequence of the importance of Philip 
II., both in European politics, and in the various inter 
ests of the Catholic Church, now became one of the most 
difficult, because Philip II. acted towards the Church in the 
same way as Louis XIV. a century later. 

In order that his Spanish subjects should not have to under 
take legal proceedings before the Roman courts, Charles V. 
had induced Paul III. to confer on the nuncio the same wide 
faculties as were given to a legate a latere. To safeguard 
jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters, for the nuncio s tribunal 
was also a court of appeal, he was given an auditor to assist 
him. 3 Instead of easing the situation this new arrangement 
became the source of endless difficulties. As the nuncios 
greatly misused their faculties in many ways, the Spanish 
government was before long very dissatisfied with the arrange 
ment which it had itself made, and asked that a royal assessor 

1 See LAEMMER, Melet., 174 seq. and PIEPER, Die papstl. Legaten 
und Nuntien, Miinster, 1897, 209. 

2 During the short pontificate of Pius IV. no less than 
1 6 nuncios and envoys extraordinary were appointed for 
the court of Spain. Cf. HINOJOSA, 111-169; SUSTA, I., Ixx. 

3 See HERGENROTHER in Archiv fur kathol. Kirchenrecht, 
X., 29 seq. 


should also be attached to the nuncio. 1 The negotiations 
carried on on the subject with the nuncio Pacini, who had been 
confirmed by Pius IV., remained without result until March, 

1560, with the result that the Pope s representative had not yet 
succeeded in presenting his credentials. 2 On account of the 
opposition of Pius IV., the question of the appointment of an 
assessor was not raised again on the arrival of the new nuncio, 
Ottaviano Raverta, 3 because other matters were for the moment 
nearer to Philip s heart, especially that of relief from his 
pressing financial difficulties. The Pope granted him, for 
three years, a renewal of the bull of crusade (Cruzada), which 
produced annually more than 350,000 ducats. 4 Pius IV. was 
also sincerely desirous of doing all that lay in his power to meet 
the wishes of the one protector of the Catholic faith he could 
count on. 5 But Philip II. was insatiable in his demands, 
as was clearly shown in the negotiations concerning his request 
to be allowed to levy a very large annual subsidy from the 
Spanish clergy for the preparation and maintenance of a fleet 
against the Turks. In a bull which was delivered in January, 

1561, by the nuncio extraordinary, Gherio, the Pope granted 
the annual levy of 300,000 gold ducats for five years, under 

1 Cf. ISTURIZ in Annuaire de 1 univ. de Louvain, 1907, 383 seq. 
For the greed of the Papal collectors in Spain see DESJARDINS, 
III., 411. 

2 See the report of P. Tiepolo in BROWN, VII., n. 125, and that 
of Seb. de 1 Aubespine in PARIS, Negot. rel. au regne de Francois II. 
Paris, 1841, 292 seq. 

3 See the accounts of Raverta of his first audience with Philip II. 
on April i, 1560, in his "report, dated Toledo, May 22, 1560 
(Ms. Ital., 6, p. 326b, Royal Library, Berlin). 

*The "bull, dated 1559 (Florentine style) V. Id. mart. A. 1 
in Arch. S. Angelo, Arm. 5, caps. 3 (Papal Secret Archives) ; 
cf. BROWN, VII., n. 148. 

6 See GIROL. SORANZO, 107. The strange proposal in the in 
structions for Brocardo Persico (USTA, I., 280) of uniting the 
crowns of France and England with that of Spain, was certainly 
made merely with the purpose of thus discovering the intentions 
of Philip II., an opinion with which Susta is inclined to agree 
(I., 284). 


certain conditions, and at the same time he refused the request 
which had been subsequently made for the sale of the great 
Spanish ecclesiastical fiefs. Philip II., without informing 
the nuncio, thereupon in February sent a courier to Rome 
with orders to reject the bull, and to obtain more favourable 
conditions. At the same time he brought great pressure to 
bear in other ways, especially in the matters of sending envoys 
to the Council, and of payments to the Pope s nephews, 
seeking in this way to make the Pope more yielding. 1 It was 
very difficult for the Pope to come to a decision, because other 
states as well, such as France, Venice, and Portugal, were 
seeking similar permission to levy subsidies from their clergy. 2 
On account of the critical state of affairs in France the Pope 
decided to meet the wishes of the King of Spain, and in April, 
1562, he sent a new bull, antedated March 4th, by which 
he increased the subsidy to 420,000 ducats and promised 
to extend the permission from five years to ten. The 
permission to sell the ecclesiastical fiefs was held over until 
after the closure of the Council. 2 The Spanish clergy 

1 See SUSTA, I., 31, 85 seq., 92, 172, 205 seq., 258 seq., 275 

2 See SUSTA, I., 284 seq. Pius IV. was on the best of terms 
with John III. of Portugal (cf. GIROL. SORANZO, 109 seq. ; GIAC. 
SORANZO, 150). Since this sovereign always showed his Catholic 
sentiments, the Pope conferred many favours on him. Thus 
he named the Cardinal-Infante Henry legate a latere, and gave 
him the right to summon before himself all the trials pending 
before the bishops courts for heresy, and also of reforming the 
clergy. From the reports in Corpo dipl. Portug., VIII. -IX., it 
is clear how favourable Pius IV. was to the Portuguese Inquisition, 
and how he granted to John III. even the right of taxing the 
clergy. Cf. also Archiv fur kathol. Kirchenrecht, LIII. (1885), 
35. Pius IV. also favoured the project of marrying Francesco 
Maria de Medici to Joanna, the mother of the future King 
Sebastian of Portugal (cf. BROWN-BENTTNCK, VII., nn. 241, 254, 
285). In the autumn of 1561 John III. sent to Pius IV. some 
rare animals, including an elephant, for the gardens of the Belve 
dere ; see Corpo dipl. Portug., IX., 400, 418 seq. 

2 See RAYNALDUS, 1562, n. 186; SUSTA, II., 401, 423. 


protested against the proposed retrospective effect of the 
bull of 1560. l 

Even now Philip II. was not entirely satisfied, although he 
had every reason to be so, since, according to Paolo Tiepolo, he 
received during 1563 750,000 ducats from the Cruzada and the 
Sussidio y which was entirely due to the good-will of Pius IV. 
How small, on the other hand, were the payments which were 
at last made to the Pope s nephews after long negotiations 
and deliberate delays ! 2 According to a memorial drawn up 
in Rome after the death of Pius IV., the sum total of the eccle 
siastical revenues accruing to Philip II. by Papal concession 
was 1,970,000 gold ducats a year ! 3 

The representatives of the other states, especially the 
ambassador of Venice, saw with jealousy and envy the favours 
granted by the Pope to the King of Spain ; Philip had only 
to make a request, they thought, to have it granted. 4 But 
they were very much mistaken if they thought that Pius IV. 
had become a merely passive tool in the hands of the Spanish 
king. Philip II. himself ensured that this should not be the 
case, since the more compliant the Pope showed himself, 
the more did he increase his demands. 5 Knowing full well 
that the sovereign of the Papal States, shut in as he was to 
the north and south by the Spanish power, was almost power 
less politically, the ruler of the empire on which the sun never 

1 See SUSTA, III., 487. 

2 See P. Tiepolo in ALB^RI, I., 5, 47 ; PHILIPPSON, Philipp II. 
und das Papstum, 292. *Mula refers to the gifts made by Pius IV. 
to Philip II. on October 19, 1560 : "S. S u apparecchia di mandare 
un presente al re cattolico d una corona regia d oro, adorna di 
gioie, d una croce in cristallo con due candelieri della medesima 
inateria e fattura, per adornamento d un alture, et una tavola di 
pietre nnissime che fu di papa Giulio III., con un organo che fu 
del medesimo, un stocco che S. S tA benedira, et 4 teste, uno che e 
di marmo bellissimo " (Court Library, Vienna). *Cf. Avviso di 
Roma of October 5, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 2o6 b , Vatican Library). 

3 See Coiresp. dipl., L, 453. 

4 GlROL. SORANZO, 107. 

5 See P. Tiepolo, loc. cit. ; SUSTA, II., 477 ; III., 346. 


set thought to retain the right that the Holy Father should 
be at his command in everything. He stood out against Pius 
IV. with all the pride and cruel harshness of his Spanish 
nature, and it must be admitted that the Pope in many ways 
went too far in his readiness to give way. With haughty 
self-assurance the king laid aside all the respect that he should 
have shown. The " overbearing contempt " which the royal 
council showed in its dealings with the Curia gave the impres 
sion that it looked upon the Pope as a mere Milanese prelate ; 
the nuncios and other representatives of the Holy See were 
treated in Spain as though they were the envoys of a subject 
of the Spanish crown. 1 Difficulties were pkced in the way of 
all the Pope s wishes, both in great and small matters, while 
at the same time fresh demands were always being made. 
Besides the sale of the ecclesiastical fiefs, which would have 
produced a million ducats, Spain asked for a levy upon all 
ecclesiastical goods, and the extension for a further five years 
of the subsidy for the fleet, and for its application to Naples 
and Milan as well. 2 Claims such as these, together with the 
whole attitude of Philip II., clearly showed the reverse of the 
medal, and what lay behind his frequently ostentatious zeal 
for the Catholic Church, namely, that he was deliberately 
trying to make it powerless and subservient to his own ends. 
The disagreements which were in consequence always occurring 
were bound at last to lead to an open rupture, a thing which, 
nevertheless, many shrewd observers thought to be impossible, 
in view of the mutual dependence of the two powers. 3 

If for a time a crisis was avoided this was due to the skilful 
conduct of affairs by Alessandro Crivelli, who had been 
appointed nuncio in Spain in November, 1561. By his 
appointment of this diplomatist Pius IV. had openly shown 
his good will towards Philip II., since Crivelli, who was a 

1 See the opinion of PHILIPPSON, Westeuropa, 87 ; Philipp II. 
und das Papsttum, 291 seq. Giac. Soranzo brings out the readi 
ness to give way on the part of Pius IV., in ALBERI, I., 5, 93, and 
Girol. Soranzo the obstinacy of the Spanish cabinet (108 seq.}, 

2 See GIAC. SORANZO, 149. 

3 See GIROL. SORANZO, 108 seq. 


Milanese by birth, was a loyal adherent of the Spanish cause, 
and was as prudent as he was retiring and conciliatory. 1 

Philip II. had chosen a man of quite another character as 
his representative in Rome, in the person of Francisco Vargas, 
who was a true Castilian. Vargas had many great qualities, 
especially a wide experience of politics, and a deep knowledge 
of theology and canon law, but his haughty, arrogant and 
overbearing nature rendered him little fitted for diplomacy. 
He set no limits to his zeal for the cause of the Catholic King, 
and it was his maxim that he must make a show of Spanish 
ruthlessness on all occasions, or, as he put it, show his teeth 
to the Pope. Yet, in spite of all this, this ambitious man 
nattered himself with the idea that he would receive the 
purple ! 2 With unwearied importunity he tried to make the 
head of the Church follow his advice in all things, 3 thinking 
that this was the only safe course for the Pope to follow. In 
spite of his strictly ecclesiastical views, his indiscreet zeal often 
led him to do injury to the reverence due to the Pope, and to 
make use of very worldly methods in dealing with ecclesiastical 
matters. It may be added that he was a strong partisan of 
the Farnese. It is not surprising, therefore, that very strained 
relations existed between him and Pius IV. from the first. 
As early as May 1561 there had been violent scenes between 
them, and this happened again and again. 4 On one occasion, 
in May, 1562, the Pope turned to Vargas in the presence of 
many persons and exclaimed that the only thing for him to do 
was to take up arms and fight the Holy See ; that he wanted 
to lord it completely over the Pope and find fault with all he 
did ; that His Majesty made no return of any kind for the 

1 See Corresp. dipl., I., xxxiii. seq. 

2 See the excellent character sketch of Vargas given by CON 
STANT, Rapport, 367 seq., in which he has made use of many 
reports drawn from the archives of Simancas. Cf. also Vol. XV. 
of this work pp. 25, 37, 63 seq. 

3 A striking example was his attempt to lay down for the Pope 
whom he should receive in audience. See *Avviso di Roma of 
March 2, 1560 (Vatican Library). 

4 See SUSTA, I., 301 seq. ; CONSTANT, Rapport, 371. 


benefits which were continually being bestowed upon the 
Catholic King. 1 Many times Pius IV. declared that he would 
not have anything more to do with Vargas, and asked Philip 
II. to put an end to a state of affairs which had become 
intolerable by recalling his ambassador. The king promised 
to do so, but kept on putting off the fulfilment of his promise. 
So long as the Council was sitting the presence of a man like 
Vargas in Rome seemed to him to be necessary, and it was not 
until the autumn of 1563 that Requesens was sent in his place. 2 

The attitude of Philip in the matter of the Council, the 
essential point of Catholic interest, had not been all that could 
be desired from the first. 3 It now became of decisive import 
ance to his relations with the Pope. 4 

In view of the sincerely Catholic sentiments of Philip II., his 
dilatory and even hostile attitude towards the opening of the 
ecumenical council, a thing which was absolutely necessary, 
can only be described as surprising. This attitude, like his 
failure to accept the Pope s proposals for a Catholic league, 
and for energetic action against the Queen of England, can 
only be explained by the painful anxiety of the Spanish mon 
arch to avoid all warlike complications, to say nothing of the 
lamentable state of his finances. When the Council was at 
last assembled, the attitude taken up by none of the princes 
caused so much fear to the Pope as that of Philip II., whose 
representative in Rome was for ever trying to thwart the 
policy of the Curia. 5 The way in which the king sought to 

1 See the report of Vargas of May 23, 1562 in DOLLINGER, Beit- 
rage, I., 429 seq. 

2 Vargas left Rome on October 12, 1563 ; see the *report of 
Giac. Tarreghetti of October 13, 1563 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 
Cf. also CONSTANT, Rapport, 372 seq., 376 ; SUSTA, I., 283, 313 ; 
II., 485 seq. ; III., 390, 484. 

3 SUSTA in Mitteilungen des osterr. Instituts, XXX., 546. 
Cf. the complaints of Pius IV. of March, 1563, in Legaz. di Ser- 
restori, 389 and SUSTA, III., 526 seq. 

4 The Venetian orators bring this out repeatedly. See GIROL. 

6 See SUSTA, II., 400 and in Mitteil. des osterr. Instit., XXX. ,546. 


make use of the conduct of the bishops of his kingdom in 
questions of dogma in order to extort important concessions 
from the Holy See, gives a very painful impression. The 
favourable turn given to the relations between Madrid and 
Rome in May, 1563, did not last long, and were even made 
worse by the efforts of the Spanish government to delay the 
discussions of the Council as much as possible. 1 The Venetian 
orator, Girolamo Soranzo, openly says that in this they were 
only aiming at obtaining a lever to wring fresh concessions 
from the Pope, especially in matters of finance. 2 The same 
writer clearly shows how the tension became greater when the 
Pope decided in favour of France in the dispute about prece 
dence. The disrespectful attitude of the court of Madrid, 
where the Pope was reviled as an irascible man of but little 
judgment, was in keeping with the recall of the Spanish 
ambassador. The Pope was deeply roused, and even allowed 
himself to be led into making open threats against Philip II. 3 
He had already spoken of recalling his nuncio in February, 
1564, when Spanish influence was interfering with his sovereign 
rights in Rome. 4 In addition to the former grievances fresh 
cause of offence was given by the delay of Philip in publishing 
the decrees of the Council in his dominions, 5 and when the 
king at last did so, on July iQth, 1564, his love of caesarism led 
him to add a clause, as a consequence of which many of the 
most salutary decrees could not be put into force. 6 With 

1 Cf. Vol. XV. of this work p. 358. The indignation of Pius IV. 
at the behaviour of Spain over the question of the Council was 
strongly expressed in his letter to Crivelli of October 30, 1563 
(SusTA, IV:, 586 seq.). Cf. also the complaints of Pius IV. about 
Philip II. in the **report of Serristori of September u, 1563 
(State Archives, Florence). 

2 ALBERT, I., 5, 93 seq. 

2 See ibid., 94 seq. Cf. FORNERON, I., 189. 

4 See Legaz. di Serristori, 407, 410, 414. 

5 See the report of Requesehs of July 6, 1564, in DQLLINGER, 
Beitrage, I., 564. 

6 Cf. supra p. 106. Cf. GAMS, III., i, 188 seq. ; (MIGNOT) 
Histoire de la reception du Cone, de Trente, I., Amsterdam, 1756, 
25 seq. 


regard to those decrees which ran counter to the Monarzhia 
Sicula Philip retracted his own ordinance of July igth, 1564, 
when the governor of Sicily raised objections to it. 1 The 
simultaneous recall of Requesens did not, it is true, lead to a 
complete rupture between Madrid and Rome, but the 
relations between the two courts became obviously more 

It was clearly seen how great the state of tension had 
become when, in the winter of 1564-65, the Turkish question 
became extremely threatening. All Europe was ringing with 
the news of the vast preparations being made by the Sultan, 
Sulieman. 2 For a long time it was uncertain where his attack 
would be made, but at last it became clear that he was planning 
a great stroke in the western Mediterranean. Malta was the 
gate by which the enemy hoped to break in ; if this stronghold 
of the Knights of St. John were to fall, Sicily and the coasts 
of Italy would be in imminent peril. 

Pius IV., who from the beginning of his pontificate had 
sought to secure the safety of Rome as well as of the coast of 
Italy, 3 now redoubled his efforts. 4 In a consistory on Febru 
ary 23rd, 1565, he spoke of the Turkish peril, 5 and in that of 
April 1 3th he alluded to the activities of the commission which 
he had set up, composed of Cardinals Morone, Farnese, Mula 
and Este. He then spoke at length of the Turkish war, 
enumerated the concessions which he had made to the kings 
of Spain, Portugal and France, and to the Republic of Venice, 

1 See CARUSO, 260 seq. ; SENTIS, Monarchia Sicula, 117. 

2 See CHARRIERE, II., 772, 777, 780. 

3 Cf. infra, Chapter XII. For the Order of St. Stephen, 
founded in 1562, for the protection of the Mediterranean coasts, 
see REUMONT, Toskana, I., 234 seq. ; RANKE, Histor.-biogr. 
Studien, Leipzig, 1877, 433 ; FRIO DA PISA in La Lettura, VII., 
(1912). For the Papal confirmation see Esenzioni d. famiglia 
Castiglione, Mantua, 1780, App. 2 and 12. 

* Cf. the *Avvisi di Roma of March 31, April 14 and 28, and 
May i, 1565 (Urb. 1040, p. i, 3, 7bb., i2b. Vatican Library). 

8 See *Acta consist. Cam., IX., 116 (Consistorial Archives of the 


so that they might defend Christendom against the common 
enemy, and expressed the hope that Philip II. would in the 
end do his duty in this respect. 1 On May i8th prayers were 
ordered for the removal of the Turkish peril, 2 and on May 3ist 
it was reported that a Turkish fleet of 150 ships, bearing 
heavy artillery and 30,000 men had appeared before Malta. 3 
The Pope had sent the Knights of St. John 10,000 ducats, but 
he had sent no troops because he thought that the defence of 
Malta belonged in the first instance to Philip II., whose father 
had given the island to the Knights, and who, on account of 
the nearness of the island to Sicily, was the party principally 
concerned. When the Knights asked for military help as well, 
Pius IV. sent them 600 men under the command of Pompeo 
Colonna. 4 Ascanio della Corgna, who was set free from 
prison, also went to Malta. 5 

Under the supreme command of the Grand Master, Jean de 
la Valette, the Knights of St. John made so heroic a resistance 
that the Turks only succeeded in storming the small fort of St. 
Elmo (June 23rd). 6 In spite of all their efforts the assailants 

1 See *Acta consist, card. Gambarae, (Cod. 40 G 13, Corsini 
Library, Rome). 

2 See *Acta consist. Cam., loc. cit. 

8 *" Eodem die [ult. Maii] etiam venit pessimum novum ad 
urbem, qualiter classis Turcharum in Melitam insulam descen- 
derat." *Diarium of L. Bondonus (Miscell. Arm. XII., 29, 
p. 3826, Papal Secret Archives). 

4 *Acta consist, card. Gambarae, of June 8, 1565, loc. cit. Cf. 
also *Avviso di Roma of June 16, 1565 (Urb. 1040, p. 31, Vatican 
Library. See also VERTOT IV., 447). 

5 *" Die 3 him ill mu s dominus Ascanius de Cornea fuit a carceri- 
bus liberatus et de arce S. Angeli. Et die 12 dicti mensis dis- 
cessit ab Urbe Melitam versus ad instantiam Regis Catholici." 
Diarium of L. Bondonus, loc. cit., ,p. 383 (Papal Secret 
Archives) . 

6 *" Die ii dicti mensis allatum fuit novum quod Turcae 
maximo impetu aggressi sunt fortilitium sancti Hermi et illud 
maximo conflictu expugnaverunt et omnes milites religionis ac 
omhes alios ibidem repertos trucidarant et ex ipsis Turcis perier- 
ant circa quinque millia." Ibid. 


were unable to capture the other two fortresses of the harbour. 
As time went on their courage flagged more and more ; sickness 
reduced their numbers, and the fate of the siege was decided 
on September 7th, by the arrival of the Spanish fleet, whose 
sailing had been long delayed b} the dilatoriness of Philip II., 
and the excessive caution of the timorous Viceroy of Sicily. 1 
On September nth the Turks gave the signal for the raising 
of the siege. 2 

This failure was a fresh inducement to the Sultan to restore 
the prestige of Turkish arms by resuming the war on land 
against Hungary. Here too Pius IV. contributed his share 
by giving 50,000 ducats ; half of this sum was sent in hard 
cash in August, and the other half was paid by Count Biglia, 
the new nuncio at the Imperial court, who left Rome at the 
end of September, and arrived in Vienna on October lyth. 
In the event of peace, or at least an armistice, not having 
been concluded with the Turks by the following spring, the 

1 Cf. MANFRONI, Marina, 431 seq. 

2 For the siege of Malta see VERTOT, IV., 461 seq., 519 seq. ; 
HAMMER, III., 747 seq. ; ZINKEISEN, II., 898 seq. ; PRESCOTT, 
II., 221 ; FORNERON, I., 376 seq., 381, 384 seq. ; CARLO SAN- 
MINIATELLI ZABARELLA, L assedio di Malta, Turin, 1902 ; JORGA, 
III., 107 ; JURIAN DE LA GRAVIERE, Les chevaliers de Malte et 
la marine de Philippe II., Paris, 1887. Numerous writings in 
prose and verse extolled the bravery of the Knights of St. John ; 
see the bibliography in [V. ARMANDO], II successo de L Armata 
de Solimano Ottomano dell impresa di Malta. Poemetto, Turin, 
1884, and in A. BOSELLI in Archivum Melitense, 1911. Among 
these must be numbered the Greek poem of Antonios Achelis 
recently published by H. Pernot, with a reprint of the excellent 
account by Gentil de Vendosmes (Paris, 1910). Cf. GERLAND 
in Lit. Zentralblatt, 191 i, 695 seq., and WEIGAND in Lit. Rund 
schau, 1912, 488 seq. See also BOSELLI in Malta letter, VIII., 87. 
A description of the siege of Malta which has certainly not so far 
been published is given by BARTH. GRYHIUS, De expeditione 
classis Turcicae et melitae obsidione, in Cod. Pal. 934 of the 
Vatican Library. In the " Galleria geogranca " of the Vatican, 
on the right of the entrance, the siege of Malta is depicted opposite 
the battle of Lepanto. 


Pope promised to place in the field 4,000 infantry and 2,000 
cavaky. 1 

Europe had awaited the result of the siege of Malta, which 
lasted for three months, in the greatest anxiety. The agitation 
in Rome had been very great, since at the end of May two 
Turkish vessels had appeared before Ostia, so much so that 
the city had been placed in a state of defence. 2 The relief 
at the end of the siege was therefore very great. 3 

The Spaniards, who had had no share in the danger of the 
Knights of St. John, but only in their success, claimed never 
theless to be hailed as the real victors. Pius IV., however, 
refused to allow this, and when he informed the Cardinals that 
the Turks had withdrawn from Malta, he remarked that this 
success was due to God and the bravery of the Knights. He 
made no mention of the Spanish help, 4 and made no attempt 
to conceal the fact that he considered it quite insufficient. 

1 See *Avviso di Roma of August n, 1565 (Urb. 1040, p. 64b, 
Vatican Library) ; *Acta consist. Cam. IX., on August 17, 1565 
(Consistorial Archives of the Vatican) ; Venez. Depeschen, 
III., 303 ; SCHWARZ in Hist. Jahrb., XVIIL, 393 ; STEINHERZ, 
IV., 456. HUBER, (IV., 225), makes Pius IV. contribute only 
25,000 ducats. 

* Description by Philip Camerarius ; see Neues Lausitzisches 
Magazin, XLV. 1 , 64. 

The *Lettera del Gran Maestro della Religione de cavalieri 
Gerosolimit. J. di Valetae a P. Pio IV., d.d. Malta, 1565, n 
September, in Cod. Ital. 171, p. 22ib. seq. (State Library, Munich). 

* See the letter of P. Davila in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 629, 
and the *report of Camillo Luzzara dated Rome, September 22, 
1565 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). For the celebration of the 
victory in Rome see PAGLIUCCHI, 147, and the *Avviso di Roma 
of September 22, 1565, (Urb. 1040, p. 99, Vatican Library). Ibid., 
130 and 135 b. the *Avvisi di Roma of November 5 and 17, 1565, 
refer to the scheme of Pius IV. for securing the permanent safety 
of Malta. Cf. *Acta consist. Cam. IX. for August 22, 1565 
(Consistorial Archives of the Vatican). It is necessary to inquire 
carefully into the question of the seriousness of the thoughts and 
plans of Pius IV. for a crusade, of which GIAC. SORANZO speaks 
(p. 145 seq.}. 

VOL. XVI. 24 


But however great his displeasure with Philip II. was, on 
account of the preponderance of Spain, and his experiences 
of the utter unreliability of the French government, he found 
himself, so as to avoid a complete rupture, constrained to treat 
the King of Spain with great consideration, that monarch 
who proudly called himself the Catholic King. 1 This came 
out once more in his treatment of the trial by the Inquisition 
of Bartolome Carranza, the Archbishop of Toledo, who had 
been imprisoned on August 22nd, 1559, on a charge of heresy. 2 
The Inquisitor General, Fernando Valdes, was, like Philip 
II ., convinced of the guilt of the accused. Philip had further a 
special political interest in the affair ; by thus humiliating the 
primate of Spain he struck fear into the hearts of all the other 
bishops, and drove them into complete submission, while by 
the confiscation of the archbishop s revenues he received 
800,000 ducats. 3 

The conduct of the trial resulted in a whole series of usurpa 
tions on the part of the Spanish government. The concession 
made by Paul IV. that the trial should take place in Spain, 
with the reservation to the Pope of the final sentence, was 
understood in Madrid as meaning that the whole affair was to 
be concluded in Spain. Pius IV. protested against this, and 
adhered to his point of view, but his representatives, Crivelli 

1 In a cypher "report of Alfonso Roselli to the Duke of Ferrara, 
dated Rome, September 26, 1565, it is stated : "II papa circa 
il succeso di Malta parla piu tosto con manco honore di don Garcia 
di quello che vanno mettendo li suoi Spagnuoli in cielo, et in vero 
il papa, ove puo, mostra mala satisfattione del re cattolico et 
de suoi ministri in publico et in private, ma al fine la potenza e 
tale di questo re in Italia che il papa con tutto ci6 si vede che pro- 
cede con molto rispetto poi al fine dubitando della potenza sua, 
ma in suo intresco non gli vuol bene et dice che e longa differenza 
da lui al padre suo et al governo dell uno all altro." (State 
Archives, Modena). 

2 See supra p. 318. LAUGWITZ, B. Carranza, Kempten, 1870 ; 
LEA, Inquisition of Spain, II. ; FORNERON, I., 196 seq. 

3 See PHILIPPSON, Philipp II. und das Papsttum, 293, 297. 
For Carranza s fault, if indeed it is possible to call it a fault, cf. 
Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 315. 


and Odescalchi, met with insuperable difficulties. Philip II. 
remained deaf to the Pope s remonstrances ; Borromeo 
repeatedly complained that there was no way of helping the 
archbishop unless they were prepared to come to a complete 
breach with Spain. 1 In a letter of August I5th, 1563, the king 
definitely refused, as being a violation of his sovereign rights, 
to send Carranza and the acts of the trial to Rome, as was 
requested both by the Pope and the Council. 2 When the 
Council was concluded he again set to work to do all in his 
power to prevent the transference of the imprisoned archbishop 
to Rome. By the advice of the Spanish Inquisition Philip II. 
asked the Pope to send judges to Spain. Pius IV. gave way 
even on this point, 3 but chose men whose character was a 
guarantee of a just decision, namely, Cardinal Ugo Boncom- 
pagni, as legate a latere, Giovanni Aldobrandini as Auditor, 
the new nuncio, Giovan Battista Castagna, Archbishop of 
Rossano, and the Franciscan, Felice da Montalto. This 
embassy, by means of which Borromeo hoped to secure the 
recall of Requesens from Rome, is the only instance in the 
whole history of Papal diplomacy in which three of its members 
were destined to ascend the throne 01 St. Peter. 4 

Philip II., who had always taken care to obtain his end 
under the outward appearances of great respect for the Holy 
See, showed the legates every sign of honour, but he asked 
that the Court of the Inquisition, on which the Papal envoys 
were merely to take their place as co-members, should pro 
nounce the final sentence. 5 This claim, which the legate 
was bound to refuse, was the result of the same idea of caesar- 
ism as had led to the sending of royal officials to the provincial 
councils. This new interference on the part of the king in 
ecclesiastical matters drew fresh complaints from Pius IV., 
and the Cardinal legate was charged on November I7th and 
29th, 1565, to make strong protests and to demand the with- 

1 .Cf. SUSTA, III., 75, 87 seq., 304 seq. 

2 See Coleccion de docum. in6d., V., 447 ; LAUGWITZ, 77 seq. 

3 See the remark of Borromeo in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 628. 

4 Cf. supra p. 334. 

5 See Corresp. dipl., I., 47 seq. Cf. LAUGWITZ, 86. 


clrawal of the order, but these instructions had not yet reached 
Boncompagni when the news of the Pope s death called him 
back to Rome for the conclave. 1 

A little while before his death Pius IV. had bitterly com 
plained to Cardinal Pacheco and Pedro de Avila, who had been 
sent as envoy extraordinary in July, 1565, of Philip II. and 
his ministers, saying that he had received worse treatment at 
their hands than had been shown to any of his predecessors 
by a Spanish sovereign. In stern words he declared that 
Philip II. wished to influence the decisions of the provincial 
councils by means of laymen, that he had assumed the right 
of interpreting even the Council of Trent, and even claimed to 
pronounce upon the publication of the pontifical bulls, briefs 
and decrees. Never before had the Pope so strongly con 
demned the caesarism of Philip II. " You in Spain," he 
exclaimed, " wish to be Pope, and to refer all things to the 
king," but " if the king intends to be king in Spain, I intend 
to be Pope in Rome." 2 

1 See HINOJOSA, 162 seq. ; Corresp. dipl., I., 30 seq., 38 seq. 

2 See the report of Pacheco of November 30, 1565, in DOLLINGER, 
Beitrage, I., 640 seq. The strong words of the Pope were quickly 
noted. An *Avviso di Roma of December i, 1565 says that the 
Pope had replied to Pacheco " che non era bene che il Re volesse 
esser anco Papa et che era sopra il concilio, che poteva fare quello 
che le pareva." (Urb. 1040, p. 1405, Vatican Library). In 
Corresp. dipl., I., 443 seq. there is a list belonging to the beginning 
of 1565, of the offences against ecclesiastical jurisdiction on the 
part of the civil power in Spain. Cf. supra 334. 



THE great readiness to yield shown by Pius IV. to Philip II. 
was caused principally by the weakness of the Papal States. 1 
Although they were of great importance in many respects, 
the temporal possessions of the Holy See had no sufficient 
means of defence against the great power of Spain, which 
shut them in both to the north and the south. The long 
frontier on the side of Naples was hardly fortified at all, 
and Pius IV. sought to remedy this defect by fortifying Anagni. 
To the north there was no point d appuis against the attack 
which might come from Milan, but which might also be 
undertaken by the Duke of Tuscany, who had become a 
power to be reckoned with since he had obtained possession 
of Siena. There was the further disadvantage that the 
territory of Cosimo, together with that of Urbino, cut the 
Papal States in half. Orvieto, which was almost impregnable 
on account of its position, was insufficiently fortified, and 
the same was true of Perugia, Ancona and Civitavecchia. 
Ravenna was only given adequate fortifications in the time 
of Pius IV. 2 Some of the inhabitants of the Papal States, 
such as those in the Romagna, Bologna, Perugia and Spoleto, 
had the reputation of possessing a great aptitude for war, but 
owing to the disconnected nature of their governments they 

1 The other possessions of the Holy See, Avignon and the 
ioslated territory of Benevento, made no more difference to the 
independence of the Pope than the great fiefs of Naples, Urbino 
and Parma, which only recognized the sovereignty of the successor 
of St. Peter in name. 

2 Cf. MOCENIGO, 26 ; GIROL. SORANZO 86. For the fortification 
of Anagni and Ravenna, see infra, Chapter XII. 



had no unity for military purposes. In 1560 Mocenigo said 
that the Papal States might put 25,000 soldiers in the field, 
but that all their capable commanders were in foreign pay ; 
while they could hardly provide 500 armed horsemen between 
them. 1 

It had been seen, during the pontificate of Paul IV., how 
easily, under certain conditions, an enemy could advance 
to the very gates of Rome. This explains the anxious care 
of his successor to ensure at least the safety of the Eternal 
City from a surprise attack by the erection of extensive 
fortifications. 2 In spite of this the situation in 1563 was 
still such that the Venetian ambassador, Girolamo Soranzo, 
was of opinion that the Papal States were so weak that their 
sovereign could not and should not think of defending them 
except by peaceful means, since Paul IV. by his war had 
made it plain to all the world what a low estimate must be 
formed of their military power. 3 The plans formed by Pius 
IV. in 1564 of reorganizing the Papal army were not carried 
into effect. 4 

Nevertheless, even though they but imperfectly fulfilled 
their primary purpose of safeguarding the liberty and in 
dependence of the Pope, the Papal States were of great value 
to the Holy See. After Venice they formed the most important 
power in Italy, so much so that by their means the Pope was 
able to bring efficacious pressure to bear upon the various 
governments of Italy, even in ecclesiastical matters, while 
apostasy from the Church was rendered very difficult for 
them. 5 

1 MOCENIGO, 26 ; SUSTA, Pius IV., 52 seq. For the warlike 
skill of the inhabitants of the Papal States, see the account in 
ORTENSIO LANDI, Forcianae quaestiones, Naples, 1586. Cf. 
BURCKHARDT, Kultur dei Renaissance, II. 10 , 305. For Pius IV. 
and the array, see App. n. 36. 

2 See infra, Chapter XII. 

3 See GIROL. SORANZO, 88 seq. 

4 See the *report of Fr. Tonina of August 22, 1564 (Gonzaga 
Archives, Mantua). 

5 See supra, p. 342. 


The territory belonging to the Popes as temporal sovereigns 
was divided into six administrative districts or legations ; 
the Campagna of Rome, the Patrimony of St. Peter, Umbria 
(Perugia), the March of Ancona, the Romagna, and Bologna. 
In the Eternal City itself, the Pope s power was almost 
absolute, and Mocenigo describes the power of the Romans 
as a shadow. 1 A Cardinal legate administered each legation 
in the Pope s name, but the real ruler was his representative, 
called vice-legate or president. In the larger cities the Papal 
authority was represented by a governor, appointed by the 
vice-legate, or a podestd elected by the citizens and confirmed 
by the Pope. The smaller cities, which belonged as fiefs 
to baronial families, were administered by commissaries or 
vicars appointed by the vice-legate. 2 

The richest province was undoubtedly the fertile Romagna, 
with its dense and wealthy, but very restless population. 
It was the one district of Italy where the free peasant was 
still to be found. Bologna, situated in the fertile grassy 
plain between Reno and Savena, was the largest and most 
prosperous city, and had retained almost all the outward 
appearances of its former civic independence. In the other 
half of the Papal States, besides the barren mountain dis 
tricts of the Appenines, the already desolate Campagna 
and the Pontine Marshes, there were also many fertile districts, 
as for example the neighbourhood of Ancona in the March, 
the plain of Foligno in Umbria, and the district round Viterbo 
in the Patrimony. The economic conditions, however, 
were by no means in keeping with the natural conditions, 
which were in many ways so promising. Some of the dis 
tricts, like the March of Ancona, were only able to export 
corn in very good years ; the production of wine was still 
very backward everywhere, and only supplied local needs ; 
the Papal States could not compare with Tuscany in this 
respect, nor in the production of oil. Of the more than 40 

1 See MOCENIGO, 30. For Pius IV. and the administration of 
Rome, see RODOCANACHI, Instit. commun., 266, 268, 273, 275. 

2 See MOCENIGO, 26 seq. ; GIROL. SORANZO, 58 seq. ; SUSTA, 
Pius IV., 52 seq. 


cities the more important were : in the Campagna, Anagni, 
Velletri and Terracina ; in the Patrimony, Viterbo, Orvieto 
and Civitavecchia ; in Umbria, Spoleto, Foligno and Perugia ; 
in the March of Ancona, Fermo, Ascoli, Macerata and 
Camerino ; in the Romagna, Ravenna, Imola, Faenza, 
Forli and Cesena ; in Bologna the city itself. As a port, 
Ancona was far more important than Civitavecchia. 1 

Certain decrees made by Pius IV. concerning the notaries 
were very useful for the development of trade. It had been 
a great drawback that in the Papal States there had been 
scarcely any archives for the preservation of contracts and 
processes, and that very often the notaries lacked the requisite 
legal knowledge, and allowed infringements upon legal rights ; 
Pius IV. met this difficulty on October 6th, 1562, by renewing 
a decree of his predecessor, and at the same time placing 
the notariate in the charge of the Apostolic Camera ; 2 he 
also introduced a fixed scale of charges for the notaries. 3 
The retail dealers in the city of Rome were given a special 
tribunal for the settlement of their disputes, and their com 
mercial books were given the status of public documents, 
as had akeady been ordered by Boniface IX. ; 4 forged accounts 
were publicly burned to the sound of a trumpet on the 
Capitol, and the name of the forger publicly proclaimed. 
Debtors who tried to evade their liabilities by appealing to 
various legal exemptions could neither obtain nor avail 
themselves of such benefits unless they made themselves 
known to everyone by wearing a green hat. 6 Pius IV. also 
set himself to the task of frustrating the tricks of the money 
makers by the prevention of usurious interest. 6 

1 See GIROL. SORANZO, 86 seq. ; SUSTA, loc. cit. 

2 See Bull. Rom., VII., 285 seq. 

3 Ibid., 177 seq. 

4 Ibid., 267 (February 5, 1564). 

5 Ibid., 145 (October 27, 1561). 

6 Ibid., i seqq. (s.d.). For the complicated money transactions 
of the traders of that time see the account of LAINEZ, De usura 
variisque negotiis mercatorum, in GRISAR, Disput., II., 227-331. 
The craftiness of the merchants, says Lainez, has evolved so 


As was the case in the other states of Italy, so in the States 
of the Church political economy limited itself to the regulation 
of prices and the prohibition of exports. 1 The absence of 
any stable form of administration caused much harm ; 2 each 
pontificate brought with it a complete change of officials, 
and the proverbially quick changes that took place in Rome 
at the court itself, after the election of a new Pope, found an 
echo in the provinces. 3 Under the pressure of the 
discontent which had been aroused by the hardships 
occasioned by the previous administration, the new one 
was generally disinclined to carry on the system of its 

Pius IV. did not depart from the custom of previous Popes 
of filling the administrative offices with their own countrymen. 
Just as in the time of Clement VII. these had been filled by 
Florentines, and in that of Paul IV. by Neapolitans, so now 
they were given to Milanese. All competent observers 
lament the way in which the latter sought to enrich them 
selves, and the bad administration of justice, and especially 
the settlement of tedious legal processes by money payments. 4 
It was recognized, however, that Pius IV. was genuinely 
seeking to secure the safety of the Papal States by a series 
of enactments. The laws which had been made since the 
time of Pius II. against murderers and brigands were con- 
many tricks (in order to escape the laws against usury) that it 
is difficult even to understand them, let alone to pass judgment 
on them (ibid. 228). Lainez advises that a Papal decision should 
be asked for in difficult cases (ibid. 227). 

1 Cf. Bull. Rom., VII., 376 seq. On the care shown by Pius IV., 
in times of scarcity see PANVINIUS, Vita Pii IV. ; Cardinal 
Borromeo too worked to prevent the raising of prices of food ; 
see GIUSSANO, 17. 

2 Cf. SUSTA, Pius IV., 53 seq., and I., 68. 

With regard to this cf. the *Discorso della corte di Roma by 
Conimendone quoted supra p. 58, n. 5. 

4 See GIROL. SORANZO, 88 seq. ; GIAC. SORANZO, 132, 138, 


firmed and strengthened, 1 and in order to fight this evil more 
vigorously, in 1564 Cardinal Mark Sittich was appointed 
Papal legate for the Marches, 2 though it was especially under 
his government that the evil consequences of the custom of 
escaping penalties by payments of money made themselves 
felt. Pius IV. had strictly prohibited duelling as early as 
November I3th, 1560 ; this decree referred primarily to 
the Papal States, but it also bound the civil authorities in 
general to take proceedings against this evil. 3 By an edict 
of December I4th, 1564, the privilege possessed by certain 
confraternities of liberating a murderer from prison on Good 
Friday or some other fixed day was abrogated. 4 It was 
especially enacted for Rome on February i8th, 1562, that 
the palaces of the Cardinals and foreign ambassadors should 
no longer afford sanctuary to a murderer from the officers of 
justice. 5 In 1563 Pius IV. issued a proclamation against 
excessive luxury in Rome, 6 and in 1564 and 1565 there were 
edicts against women and other persons of ill-fame, as well 
as against that deep-rooted plague-spot of the Eternal City, 
the vagrants. 7 

A very vital matter was the administration of the Papal 
finances, and especially the national debt. 8 It was impossible 

1 See the constitutions of January 6, 1561, April 10 and October 
8, 1562, and May 21, 1565 in Bull. Rom., VII. , 102, 186, 187. 
Ibid., 171 seq. a prohibition to carry fire-arms, of March 6, 1562 ; 
2. " Bando " explaining this in *Editti 171, (Casanatense Library, 

2 *Consistorial decree of October 25, 1564 (Acta consist, card. 
Gambarae, Corsini Library, Rome, 40 G 13, p. 389 seq.). 

3 Bull. Rom., VII., 83 seq. 

4 Ibid., 334 seq. Pius IV. himself had granted a similar priv 
ilege on May 15, 1561 ; cf. ibid., 121. 

5 Ibid., 1 66. Cf. RAYN ALDUS, 1565, n. 5. 

6 See LODI in Pungolo della Domenica, Milan, 1884, J u ly 2O - 

7 See the *Bandi of September 23, 1564 and May 28, 1565, in 
Editti, V., 60, p. 207 and 208 (Papal Secret Archives). 

8 Cf. the statements of M. Michiel [1560] in ALBERT, II., 4, 12 ; 
MOCENIGO [1560], 27 seq., 62 ; GIROL. SORANZO [1563], 86 seq. ; 
GIAC. SORANZO [1565], 131 seq., 147; P. TIEPOLO [1569], 174, 


to think of placing the finances on a sound basis so long as the 
principle obtained of meeting the financial deficit by the 
so-called Monti, or state loans, by which certain definite 
imposts were made over to the whole body of subscribers. 
This system, 1 which entirely withdrew from the public 
treasury more than half the revenues of the state, was con 
tinued by Pius IV., who even set up two new Monti. 2 In 
addition to the already existing saleable offices, he estab 
lished in 1560 a body of 375 cavalieri di Pio. 3 The number 
of persons maintained by the revenues of the Apostolic See 
increased in his time to 3,645.* According to the report of 
the Venetian ambassador, Girolamo Soranzo, in June, 1563,* 
the greater part of the revenues was employed to satisfy the 

whose notes in cypher, however, are not quite clear. Of recent 
writers see RANKE, Papste, I. 8 , 271 ; REUMONT, III., 2, 594 seq. ; 
SUSTA, Pius IV., 54 seq., who was the first to make use of the 
State balance sheet of 1564 in Cod. ottob. 1888, of the Vatican 
Library, from which it is clear that the greater part of the taxes 
did not come to the Camera. 

1 Cf. Vol. X. of this work, p. 100, n. 4. 

2 See the accounts in *Cod. N. II. 50 of the Chigi Library, 
Rome. Cf. PANVINIUS, Vita Pii IV. ; MORONI, XL., 149 seq. ; 
COPPI, Finanze, 4 ; CUPIS, 161. 

3 See the *Avvisi di Roma of March 23 and April 27, 1560 
(Urb. 1039, p. 141, 151, Vatican Library). Cf. Arch. d. soc. 
Rom., IV., 266. 

4 *Lista degli ofncii della corte Romana, in Cod. N II. 50, 
Chigi Library, Rome, used by RANKE, Papste, I. 8 , 271, and 
SUSTA, Pius IV., 56. Cf. GOTTLOB, Aus der Camera Apost., 
Innsbruck, 1889, 251 seq. 

s GIROL. SORANZO, 86 seq., SUSTA (Pius IV., 50, n. i), in which 
he disagrees with Ranke and Brosch, doubts the statistics given 
by the Venetian reports, and that because the Venetians did 
not take sufficient pains in collecting them. Often the envoys 
repeat the same figures in quite a mechanical way. No one outside 
the Tesoriere generale was in a position to give the receipts of the 
Dataria, and the sums drawn from the various compositions, 
which were certainly kept secret. It is very doubtful whether, 
in view of the gaps in the archives, any special inquiry would 
throw much light upon the subject. 


creditors of the state. The ordinary revenues, which were 
drawn from the customs of Rome, from the common taxes 
and imposts of the city and state, from the salt-mines of 
Comacchio and from the feudal payments, were estimated by 
Girolamo Soranzo at about 600,000 scudi, of which, however 
the Pope only received such revenues as were not assignable 
to the creditors or 200,000 scudi in all. which was hardly 
sufficient for the upkeep of the court, which cost about 70,000 
scudi, for the pay of the Swiss Guard and the light cavalry, 
and for the salaries of the nuncios and the poorer Cardinals. 
The greater part of the extraordinary revenues had been 
furnished in the past by the Dataria, but this, under the strict 
regime of Paul IV., had only produced, according to the esti 
mate of the not always reliable Soranzo, 6,000 scudi a month ; 
Pius IV. increased this to between 25,000 and 30,000 scudi, 
and again to 40,000 scudi, until the carrying oat of the reform 
again lowered it to 8,000 scudi a month. By means of this 
the Pope met the deficit in the ordinary revenues, and provided 
for buildings, presents, and other expenses. In spite of the 
greatest economy, 1 it was only with great difficulty that the 
cost of the Council could be defrayed from the existing revenue, 
and when in addition to that, the defence of the Catholic 
religion in France and Savoy called for considerable financial 
help, Pius IV. found himself obliged to open out fresh sources 
of revenue. 2 First of all, in May, 1562, a fresh direct tax was 
laid upon the provinces and cities of the Papal States, which 
was to bring in 400,000 scudi, while a hearth-tax was also laid 
upon Rome and the neighbourhood. By this means and the 
heavy fines laid upon Cardinals Alfonso Carafa and del Monte, 
as well as by new state loans and the sale of offices, the annual 
receipts were raised to 900,000 scudi. The financial help of 
50,000 scudi sent to the Emperor for the Turkish War in 1565, 
gave occasion to a fresh levy, which produced a further 
400,000 scudi. In this way, during his six years pontificate, 
Pius IV. raised about six million scudi. Of this sum, according 

1 See SUSTA, I., 53. 

* Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 309 seq. 


to an estimate made at the time, a million was spent in ex 
tinguishing the debts of Paul IV., a million and a half on 
buildings and fortifications in Rome, Agnani, Civitavecchia 
and Ancona, 300,000 scudi on the reception and entertainment 
of princes, 600,000 on the Council of Trent, 300,000 on the 
defence ot Avignon against the Huguenots, 50,000 in helping 
the French Catholics, and as much for the Emperor s war 
against the Turks. There remained a further large sum spent 
on presents, while a considerable sum passed into the hands 
of the nephews. 1 The treasurer, Donato Matteo Minale, 
also appropriated considerable sums. 2 

As was only to be expected, the searching demands made by 
Pius IV. upon the contributions of his subjects caused great 
irritation and deep discontent. The original popularity of 
the Pope was entirely lost throughout the Papal States. 3 
In July, 1562, pamphlets and broadsheets were spread in 
Rome in which he was denounced as a tyrant, who deserved 
death. Pius IV. then threatened to transfer his residence to 
Bologna, caused many arrests to be made, accumulated arms 
in his summer residence, the palace of S. Marco, and increased 
his guard. 4 The disturbance reached its climax when, on 

1 See GIAC. SORANZO, 133. For the redistribution of the taxes 
in May, 1562, see FONTANA, III., 391, for the sums deposited 
in the Castle of St. Angelo by Pius IV., see Studi e docum., XIII., 
314 seq., 311 seq ; PAGLIUCCHI, 143 seq. ; RODOCANACHI, St.-Ange, 
164 ; for the coinage of Pius IV., see SERAFINI, I., 287 seq. For 
Due scudi d oro spettanti a Pio IV., cf. Bullett. numism., 1882- 

2 An inquiry into the case of Minale was therefore made under 
Pius V., which ended in his condemnation. See Vol. XVII. of 
this work. 

3 See the ""report of Romeo Foscarari, dated Rome, August 6, 
1561, and that of Vincenzo Campegio, of December 17, 1561 
(State Archives, Bologna). 

4 Besides the reports of the Spanish and Imperial ambassdors 
in DOLLINGER, Beitrage, I., 447 seq., and SICKEL, Konzil, 310 seq., 
cf. Lettres de Cath. de Medicis, I., 394, and in App. nn. 25, 26, the 
interesting ""reports of Fr. Tonina of July 29 and August I, 1562 
(Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 


the second Sunday of August, 1652, a shot was fired from the 
street into the Hall of Consistories in the palace of S. Marco, 
where the Pope had been a short time before. It was said 
that the bullet had been found and that it was a case of an 
attempt upon the Pope s life. 1 The body-guard was increased 
and several persons were imprisoned ; the Pope did not go 
out in public any longer, and troops were gathered in the city. 2 
In the meantime fresh taxes were under consideration, in 
which, however, the Pope wished to spare the common people. 3 
The situation only became easier when, at the end of August, 
Marcantonio Colonna came to Rome ; the Pope began again 
to appear in public, 4 but he remained very nervous. 5 At the 
beginning of January, 1564, it was rumoured that guards had 
been permanently stationed at four places in the Vatican for 
the protection of the Pope. 6 How very necessary such pre- 

1 See the "report of Alessandro Grandi of August 5, 1562 
(State Archives, Modena), and in App. n. 27, the *report of 
Tonina of August 5, 1562 (State Archives, Mantua). Cf. BON- 
DONUS, 543 ; DENGEL, Palazzo di Venezia, 101. 

2 See the "reports of Tonina of August 8 and 12, 1562 (some of 
those imprisoned were in relations with the Huguenots !), Gonzaga 
Archives, Mantua, and that of *A. Grandi, of August 8, 1562 
(State Archives, Modena). 

3 Cf. SICKEL, Konzil, 311. 

4 "Letter of A. Grandi, dated Rome, August 29, 1562 (State 
Archives, Modena). 

5 For the inquiry upon G. A. Santori, opened in July, 1563, 
which, however, revealed no crime, see Arch. d. Soc. Rom., 
XVII., 337. The ambiguous remarks of Pius IV. in the con 
sistory of December 30, 1563, refer to this ; see POGIANI Epist., 
III., 383 seq. 

6 See BONDONUS, 571 n. and the "report of Giac. Tarreghetti, 
of January i, 1564 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). The discontent 
of the Romans was increased by Pius IV. s plan of going to 
Bologna, in which many people thought they detected all sorts 
of schemes on the part of the Pope and Cosimo I., who was aiming 
at the title of king (see SICKEL, Konzil, 426). With regard to 
this latter point "Tarreghetti reported from Rome on May 16, 
1565 : *" N.S. ha fatto scrivere in iure ad alcuni dottori et ci6 e 
stato per vedere se si poteva crear Re di Toscana il duca di 
Firenze et per quali ragioni." (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 


cautions were was made clear during the course of the same 

In the December of 1564 the news spread in Rome that a 
conspiracy to kill the Pope had been discovered. Those who 
were better informed . were careful not to speak of this un 
pleasant affair, but the people had no such scruples. It was 
only by degrees that the details became known. 1 The head of 
the conspirators was generally said to be Benedetto Accolti, 
the illegitimate son of the immoral Cardinal who had been so 
severely punished by Paul III., and had died in exile in 1549. 2 
Benedetto Accolti, who had for a time lived at Geneva, had 
shown from his youth a great tendency to mental excitement 
and prophetical imaginations. He also knew how to infect 
other people with his ideas, such as Count Antonio di Canossa, 
Taddeo Manfredi, Giangiacomo Pelliccione, his nephew, 
Pietro Accolti, and Prospero de Pittori. He succeeded in 
getting these people to believe that dreams and visions had 
made known to him that if Pius IV. were removed, by resig 
nation or murder, he would be succeeded b}^ a Pope who would 
be holy, angelic, and who would become the ruler of the whole 
world, and would satisfy the desires of all Christendom. It 
was Accolti s plan to present to Pius IV. a petition pointing 
out to him the necessity of his abdicating, and in the event of 
his refusal to kill him with a poisoned dagger. Canossa, 
Manfredi and Pelliccione were to assist him in this act, which 
he looked upon as a holy deed, and pleasing to God, while the 
other two, who had not been completely initiated into the 
criminal scheme, were to await results in the piazza of St. 
Peter s. 

On the day appointed, Accolti, Canossa, Manfredi and 
Pelliccione, with daggers concealed about their persons, 

1 See the "reports of G. Tarreghetti dated Rome, December 20 
and 24, 1564 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). See also the account 
of P. Tiepolo (p. 194 seq.) based on the Venetian reports ; *Diarium 
of L. Bondonus, Papal Secret Archives (see App. nn. 47, 48) ; the 
*report of Fr. Priorato, State Archives, Modena (see App. 43 
and the documents ibid. nn. 40-42). 

2 Cf. Vol. XL of this work, p. 310 seq. 


presented themselves at the Vatican. Accolti presented his 
petition to the Pope, who was attending a sitting of the 
Segnatura, but at the very moment when he intended to strike 
his fatal blow, he was seized with such fear that he dared do 
nothing. The conspirators returned without having accom 
plished anything, and fell to quarrelling among themselves. 
Pelliccione, who feared lest the others should reveal the plot, 
decided to disclose the conspiracy, so as to save at any rate his 
own life. They were consequently all imprisoned, and an 
inquiry was immediately opened, which was begun in the 
prison of Tor di Nona, before the governor of the city, on 
December I4th, 1564, and lasted till January 5th, 1565. x 
The Pope, who had already informed the Cardinals of the 

1 The "original protocol of the trial in Arch. crim. Processi del 
sec. XVI. (1564), vol. 100 (State Archives, Rome) includes 262 
sheets. It is headed as follows : " Repertorium constitutorum 
inferius annotatorum : 

loannes lacobus Pellicionus Ticinensis reus fol. i 35 60 88 

105 137. 

loannes quondam loannis Petri Nursinus fol. 6 150. 
Thadeus de Manfredis fol. 9 49 89 117 185 205 244. 
Benedict us de Accoltis fol. 14 68 102 129 142 167 169 206 

227 237 224 258. 
Petrus quondam Adrian! de Accoltis fol. 27 47 115 233 


Presbiter Oratius Cattarus de Urbino fol. 43 52. 
Dominus Nicolaus Delia Guardia Aprutinus fol. 56 247. 
Prosper Francisci de Pettoribus fol. 63 149. 
Elisabetta uxor Thadei Manfred! fol. 67. 
Comes Antonius Canosius fol. 90 107 116 118 140 152 199 

242 243 251. 

Petrus Maronus spadarius fol. 101. 
Eques Nicolaus Zololus fol. 119. 
Petrus Paulus Angelinus fol. 126. 
Alphonsus Bovius fol. 128. 

lulius Colanus de Accoltis fol. 189 222 236 246. 
Elisabetta Agra fol. 220. 
Petrus Ludovici Corsi fol. 222 249. 
Honofrius Cominus fol. 248." 


plot in the consistory of December i5th, 1564, 1 again spoke 
to them on the subject on January 6th, 1565, and again on 
the 1 9th, saying that some of the conspirators had resided at 
Geneva, but that there was no foundation for the wide-spread 
rumour that even some of the princes had had a share in the 
conspiracy. As far as he personally was concerned, he forgave 
the offenders, but that for the sake of example he must let 
justice take its course. 2 The execution of the conspirators 
was expected as early as January loth. 3 Francesco Priorato, 
the envoy of the Duke of Ferrara, visited them on that day 
in the Castle of St. Angelo, whither they had been transferred 
from Tor di Nona. According to his account, Benedetto 
Accolti was a small, ugly man, of varied attainments, and by 
profession an astrologer. He made no secret that he believed 
that he had been inspired by God with the idea of killing Pius 
IV. Priorato further relates that Manfredi had been enam 
oured of the beautiful wife of Count Canossa, and had thus 
been won over to the conspiracy. Canossa himself told the 
envoy that on the very day of his imprisonment he had made 
up his mind to reveal the plot to the Pope ; he had gone twice 
to the Vatican but had been unable to obtain an audience. 
Urged on by the devil and their wild imaginings, says Priorato, 
the delinquents had determined to kill the Pope, and said so 
openly : Accolti, who intended to use a poisoned dagger, 
seemed to him to be a madman on account of his wild pro 
phecies. 4 

The depositions which Accolti and his companions made 

1 *Quaedam deinde de coniuratione per scelestos quosdam et 
amentes infimae sortis homines contra se inita dixit, quae cum 
in sequenti consistorio latius dixerit, hie omittenda censui. Acta 
consist, card. Gambarae (Corsini Library, Rome). 40 G 13. 

2 See *Acta consist. Cam., IX., nib (Consistorial Archives 
of the Vatican). Cf. GULIK-EUBEL, 41. See also the report of 
Arco in Venez. Depeschen, III., 291, n. 8, and *that of Fr. Priorato 
of January 6, 1565 (State Archives, Modena), see App. n. 44. 

3 See in Appendix 45, the *letter of Fr. Priorato of January 10, 
1565 (State Archives, Modena). 

4 See ibid. 

VOL. XVI. 25 



during the course of the inquiry, gave the same impression, 
bat since torture was employed, 1 their statements are not of 
very much value. As to his object, Accolti said that he had 
intended to liberate Italy and the whole world from tyrants, 
beginning with the Pope. When he was asked who would then 
be the chosen people and who the angelic Pope, whose coming 
he prophesied, he replied that he would be a holy man, and an 
old man like the early Popes, and that he would be that Pope 
whom the Romans spoke of as " Papa angelico." He only 
wished to injure the reigning Pope in case of necessity, and 
with the help of the chosen people. Accolti also stated that 
he had told Canossa, Manfredi, Pietro Accolti and some others, 
but not Prospero de Pittori, that he intended to go to Pius 
IV., and if the latter would not agree to his proposal, to kill 
him, not indeed as Pope, for as such he did not consider him, 
but as a private individual, and the enemy of Christ and the 
apostolic faith. Accolti confessed that he- had taken the afore 
said accomplices with him to the Vatican in order to carry 
out the attempt. 2 On the other hand he maintained most 
emphatically that he had initiated some persons of princely 
rank into his scheme. 3 He spoke of the reading of Lutheran 
books, as well as of the account by Platina of the conspiracy 
of Porcaro to kill Nicholas V. as having given him the idea 
of killing Pius IV., and he particularly asserted that Pietro 
Accolti was urged to it by him. 4 

How filled with fear the Pope was is made clear by the fact 
that the guard in the Vatican was doubled, and that the only 
persons admitted to the antecamera were the Cardinals and 
ambassadors, and nobody else, not even the bishops. 5 

1 See the *Acts of the trial, p. 24 (State Archives, Rome). 
Cf. the * letter of Fr. Priorato of December 30, 1564 (App. n. 43). 
and Vencz. Depeschen, III., 292 a. 

2 See these depositions in App. nn. 40-42, from the *Atti pro- 
cessuali in the State Archives, Rome. 

3 Cf. the *Atti processuali, loc. cit., n. 25 and 261. 

4 See his testimony in App. nn. 40-42. 

5 *Per questa congiura si sono raddopiate le guardie in palazzo 
et le genti non ponno andare piii nelT anticamera di N.S. come si 


Pelliccione, who had revealed the conspiracy, was pardoned, 
and Pietro Accolti and Prospero de Pittori were condemned 
to the galleys for life. Benedetto Accolti, Canossa and 
Manfredi, were handed over, as guilty of high treason, to the 
criminal court of the city, and were barbarously put to death 
on the Capitol on January 27 th. The terrible scene struck 
even the brothers of the misericordia with horror, although 
they were well accustomed to such sights. 1 To the end 
Benedetto Accolti maintained the innocence of his nephew, 
Pietro, and he as well as his two companions resigned them 
selves to death, after having received the sacraments on the 
previous day. 2 

As is generally the case with conspiracies which are crushed 
before they come to a head, so in this case there still remains 
a good deal of doubt as to its objects. It is, however, undeni 
able that Benedetto Accolti was the originator of the murderous 
plan, and that it was he who had drawn the others into it. 
In a letter to his parents and relatives, written from the Castle 
of St. Angelo on January 25th, 3 Canossa protests his innocence, 

faceva di prima, eccetto che li cardinali et gli ambasciatori, et 
questo non e anco concesso alii vescovi. Reports Giac. Tarreghetti 
on January 6, 1565 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 

1 Besides the short "report of Giac. Tarregehetti, dated Rome, 
January 27, 1565 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua), which records the 
sentence of galera perpetua on the two lesser offenders, cf. the full 
description of L. Bondonus (Papal Secret Archives) in App. n. 
47-48, and ibid. n. 46, the precis in the *book of the Giustiziati 
in the Archives of S. Giovanni Decollate (State Archives, Rome). 

2 See the *book of the Giustiziati, III., 306, 3o8b, loc. cit. 

3 See the *text in App. nn. 40-42, III. (Corsini, Vatican, and 
Chigi Libraries, Rome). RANKE, (Papste, I. 8 , 229) was the first 
to make use of this letter ; he only knew, however, of the Corsini 
Library copy, and says that he has not found anywhere else the 
information contained in the letter, nor does he hesitate to build 
up his whole account of the conspiracy of Accolti on this one 
document. If such a proceeding is a dangerous one in any case, 
this applies even more to the general conclusions which he thinks 
he can draw from the letter. One can only feel surprise at the 
way in which Ranke, with categorical assurance makes the mad 


and gives a detailed account of the way in which he had been 
misled by the fantastic ideas of Accolti. The latter had 
confided to him that he was in possession of a secret that had 
been made known to him by God, the truth of which he was 

visionary Accolti into a representative of Catholic reform, and 
this he does as definitely as though he were dealing with a scientifi 
cally demonstrated fact. He begins his narrative as follows : 
" The spirit which was showing itself in the strictly Catholic 
movement very soon became a dangerous one for the Pope ; a 
certain Accolti, who was an extreme Catholic, came to Rome." 
In the. course of the narrative Accolti is again described as " a 
fanatically Catholic man," and Ranke concludes as follows : 
" One can see what kind of spirit was at work in the deeply stirred 
life of the times. In spite of all that Pius IV. had done for the 
reconstruction of the Church, there were many who looked upon 
this as quite insufficient, and who were forming quite different 
plans." This account, which has been followed by almost all 
subsequent historians, calls for emphatic contradiction. Views 
such as those of Accolti may be looked for in vain among the 
champions of a strongly Catholic policy, apart from the fact that 
it never even entered the minds of anyone of that party to remove 
a worldly minded Pope by assassination. There are no grounds 
at all in Canossa s letter for the hypothesis put forward with such 
assurance by Ranke. The same holds good of the many other 
reports of the conspiracy, which I have collected and used in my 
own account. In so far as these are not yet published, one can 
not blame Ranke for not having known of them, though one of 
these reports, that of the Venetian Tiepolo, was known to Ranke, 
since he frequently quotes it. It is all the more significant, 
therefore, that Ranke is silent as to what Tiepolo says about 
Accolti s conspiracy, including his statement that many people 
at that time thought that the conspiracy had been organized 
by the Protestants. This opinion was shared by many con 
temporaries, including Pius IV. himself, and met with more belief 
since Accolti had resided at Geneva. In spite of that, however, 
no reliable historian would venture to say, on the strength of 
such evidence, that Accolti was inspired by Protestantism ; to 
do that much stronger proofs would be necessary. But on the 
other hand unprejudiced science must strongly protest when 
Ranke ascribes Accolti s attempt to the strict Catholic movement. 
It is very hard to form a definite judgment as to the real motives 


willing to prove by passing unscathed through a burning pyre 
in the Piazza. Navona, in the presence of learned theologians 
and all the people. He had depicted the future in eloquent 
words : the union of the Greek Church with Rome, the sub 
mission of the Turkish empire, the extirpation of ah 1 sects, 
and the rale of perfect justice under a holy Pope, the anointed 
of Christ, who would govern as a universal sovereign. Accolti 
had incited him to the attempt, and had promised him the 
reward of God and of the future Pope, if he would co-operate 
in opening the way for him by killing Pius IV., who was not 
a true Pope. Canossa claimed that he had at first resisted the 
criminal design, but had at last yielded, and had seen how 
Accolti, at the very moment when he was about to carry out 
the deed, had changed colour and had not dared to deliver the 
blow. He had then declared his intention of giving up the 
design. " As Pelliccione can testify, I have bitterly bewailed 
my folly, and have wished to make it known to the Pope that 
Accolti still adhered to his intentions. For that purpose I 
went twice to the Vatican, but could not obtain an audience. 
On my return I went to the house of Manfredi, and there I 
heard Accolti say that he intended to carry out his mission to 
the Pope on the following morning, " with good effect." He 
had then wished to return home, but had suffered himself to 
be detained for the night ; it had been his intention to go in 
the morning to the Vatican to reveal the whole thing to the 
Pope before the arrival of Accolti, when suddenly the police 
arrived to arrest Accolti and Manfredi, for debt, as it was 

of Accolti and his companions. This is shown by the fact that 
even well-informed contemporaries, such as Pius IV. and Tiepolo, 
held quite different opinions. The confused religious utterances 
made use of by the conspirators, are sufficiently explained by the 
visionary prophecy of the Pastor angelicus. How far confusion 
of ideas can go in such cases may be seen, e.g. in the fact that the 
murderers of Galeazzo Maria Sforza prayed before their crime 
in the church of S. Stefano to the titular saint and heard mass 
before going out to commit the murder (cf. BURCKHARDT, Renais 
sance, I. 10 , 60 seqq.}. Historical criticism is not called upon to 
give any sort of explanation of such acts of religious mania. 


thought at first ; when he heard later that the arrest had been 
made on account of the projected murder, he had offered to 
appear before the governor of the city to prove his innocence, 
which he still maintained. He had not given his adherence 
to the scheme with a view to obtaining any advantages, but, 
misled by Accolti s eloquence, he had only wished to serve God. 
He therefore, on account of his simplicity, his whole behaviour, 
and the fact that he had not gone to the length of carrying 
out the murder, claimed that he was not guilty of death. He 
firmly believed that Pius IV. was the vicar of Christ, and hoped 
that he would pardon him on account of his repentance. In 
a postscript Canossa records the sentence of death which had 
been pronounced on the evening of January 25th, and says 
that he accepts it with Christian resignation, and that he was 
preparing himself for death in those sentiments. 

One can only read these lines with deep compassion for the 
deluded man ; the others too deserve our compassion, for it 
is evident that their heads had been completely turned 1 
by the still prevailing prophecy of the coming of an angelic 
Pope (Pastor Angelicus). 2 

Pius IV. and many others were of opinion that Accolti and 
his companions had been urged to the attempt by the 
Calvinists. 3 This can hardly surprise us if we remember the 
Seiious fears of an invasion of Italy by the French Protestants 4 

1 Such visionaries would to-day become a subject of study by 
alienists, but no one thought of such a thing then. 

2 For this prophecy see Vol. I of this work, 155 seq. 

3 See the report of Arco of January 6, 1565, in Venez. Depeschen, 
III., 291, n. 8 ; *letters of Fr. Priorato of January 6 and 10, 1565 
(State Archives, Modena) in App. nn. 44, 45 ; P. TIEPOLO, 195. 

4 Cf. MOCENIGO, 63 and GIROL. SORANZO, 82. F. Tonina 
reports as to the fortification of Ravenna on May 5, 1563 : " *La 
principal causa di questa fortificatione e per6 giudicata essere 
per qualche timore che Sua Beatitudine habbia che questi oltra- 
montani non se ne vengano di longo a Roma, et questo si cava da 
alcune parole che S. B ne disse quando pranso a Campidoglio 
banchettata da Romano, da se stessa dicendo loro che non dubit- 
assero degli Ugonotti che gli havrebbe tagliato il camino a mezzia 


which had prevailed for some years past, especially when 
Accolti confessed that he had been in Geneva, and had read 
such Protestant books as the Institutiones of Calvin, and 
Luther s incitements to the murder of the Pope. 1 The Vene 
tian ambassador, Tiepolo, was one of those who inclined to 
the opinion that the conspirators had been led to their scheme 
by criminal vainglory, and that they thought they could not 
better satisfy this than by washing their hands in the blood 
of a Pope. 2 In this way Accolti would have been numbered 
among those assassins of the time of the Renaissance, 3 
whose outrageous vainglory found expression in a truly 
demoniacal form. 4 

It was while the trial of Accolti and his companions was going 
on that Rome became the witness of the splendid marriage of 
one of the Pope s nephews. In May, 1563, Cardinal Mark 
Sittich had written to Count Hannibal von Hohenems, who 
was in disgrace, 5 that the Pope would not even have his name 
mentioned, and that after the death of Federigo he did not 
want to have any relatives. Nevertheless Mark Sittich advised 
Hannibal to come to Rome, and at once pay his respects to 
the influential Cardinal Borromeo. 6 The unceasing efforts 
of Mark Sittich to reconcile his brother to the Pope were at 

strada et da altro che nouvamente disse questi di mentre che si 
trovava in Belvedere per risposta al cardinale di Trento che gli 
disse : Padre Santo io dubito che un di haveremo un stuolo di 
questi Ugonotti a Roma, et esso rispose, non dubitate che havemo 
gia pensato alle provision! " (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). For 
the fear of an understanding with the Hugenots in Rome, see 
supra, p. 383, (report of August 12, 1562). 

1 See the *depositions of Accolti in App. nn. 40-42 (State Archives 

2 P. TIEPOLO, 194. 

3 Some remarks in the *Sommario are a further proof of this ; 
see App. 

4 For this cf. Vol. HI of this work, p. 100, and BURCKHARDT, 
Renaissance, I. 10 , 164 seq. 

5 Cf. App. nn. 9, io, 28. 

6 *Letter of Cardinal Mark Sittich to Hannibal von Hohenems, 
May 14, 1563, (Hohenems Archives). 


last crowned with success. In spite of the serious blow of 
November, 1563, Pius IV. had not altogether given up his 
thoughts of the exaltation of his house. Thus the Hohenems 
were readmitted to his favour, and in July, 1564, the marriage 
of Hannibal to Virginia, the widow of Federigo Borromeo, was 
under consideration. This, however, did not come to pass, 
since it was found impossible to come to an agreement with 
the Duke of Urbino. 1 At length a plan for reconciling the 
Hohenems and the Borromei was found in the marriage of 
Hannibal with Ortensia, the half-sister of Charles Borromeo, 2 
and on January 6th, 1565, the anniversary of the coronation of 
Pius IV., the insignia of Captain General of the Church were 
conferred on Hannibal, which was followed by his marriage 
to the thirteen-year-old Ortensia. 3 When the fine weather 
had come, the marriage was celebrated in Bramante s cortile 
at the Vatican with a magnificent tourney. 4 

1 See HILLIGER, 39. In addition to the sources cited there, 
of. the "letter of Cardinal Mark Sittich to Hannibal, October 10, 
1564 (Hohenems Archives). 

2 At the end of the year the marriage and the promotion of 
Hannibal were decided upon. " It is clear," reports Fr. Priorato 
on December 30, 1564, " that the Pope intends to go on promoting 
and honouring these tedeschi." (State Archives, Modena). 

3 Besides SALA, III., 326, cf. the *Diarium of L. Bondonus, 
Miscell. Arm. XII., 29, p. 377^ (Papal Secret Archives), the 
*report of Giac. Tarreghetti, dated Rome, January 6, 1565 
(Gonzaga Archives, Mantua), and the "report of Fr. Priorato of 
January 6, 1565 (State Archives, Modena). The "document for 
the appointment of Hannibal, dated January 5, 1565, in the 
Archives of the Museum Bregenz, n. 107 ; ibid., n. 108, a "docu 
ment of October 30, 1565, by which Pius IV. gives the Count full 
authority over all the troops, including the ius gladii. 

4 Cf. L. BONDONUS, "Diarium, loc. cit., p. 379b (Papal Secret 
Archives), and the full account of A. F. Cirni, printed in ALVERI, 
Rome, 1664, 143 seq., and also in the nozze publication Narrazione 
del Torneo fatto nella corte di Belvedere, ed. A. Betocchi, Rome, 
1898. An illustration in the well-known engraving of Du Perac. 
Cf. LETAROUILLY, Vatican, I., Belvedere, pi. 7 ; MAES, in Cracas, 
1890, 354 seq., 585 seq., 631 seq. ; CLEMENTI, 229, 232, 240 ; 
EH RLE, Pianta, 10. 


A little later, on March I2th, 1565, there followed the long 
expected creation of new Cardinals. Immediately before 
the consistory, the Venetian ambassador had again vainly 
attempted to get the Patriarch of Aquileia, Grimani, included 
in the list of candidates which had been decided upon the 
previous evening. When the Cardinals had assembled, the 
Pope announced that he thought the time had come to recom 
pense those who, during the Council or in other ways, had 
rendered faithful service to the Holy See. In reading out the 
list, which included 22 names, he added in each case the 
reason why each seemed worthy of the purple. The Cardinals, 
especially the older ones, were but little pleased with the new 
nominations, but none of them dared to say so openly. Ales- 
sandro and Ranuccio Farnese joined with Morone and Simon- 
etta in interceding on behalf of the distinguished Gabriele 
Paleotto, for whose promotion Borromeo also wished. Pius 
IV. included Paleotto in the list, but on the other hand the 
Archbishop of Otranto was excluded, because his complete 
justification before the Inquisition had been no more successful 
than that of Grimani. 1 

With one exception, the Frenchman, Antoine de Crequy, 
all the 23 new Cardinals were Italians by birth ; six of them 
came from Milan. Of these, Carlo Visconti and Francesco 
Abbondio Castiglione had rendered important service during 
the Council, Alessandro Crivelli had filled the difficult Spanish 
nunciature with so great ability that Philip II. himself had 
recommended his promotion . Francesco Alciati and Francesco 
Grasso had a great reputation as jurists ; the former had been 
the master of Charles Borromeo, and the latter had won 
distinction as governor of Bologna. Also closely connected 
with Borromeo were the private secretary, Tolomeo Galli, 
who was a native of Como, the distinguished Guido Ferreri, 
Bishop of Vercelli, and the two natives of Bologna, Ugo Bon- 
compagni and Gabriele Paleotto ; they were all men of high 
character, and an ornament to the Sacred College by reason 

1 Cf. the "reports of Camillo Luzzara of March 12 and 14, 1565 
(Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 


of their learning. The same was equally the case with the 
Calabrian, Guglielmo Sirleto. The fact that the Neapolitan, 
Annibale Bozzuto, was included, is rather surprising, because 
he had once been secretary to Carlo Carafa. The Genoese, 
Benedetto LomeUini, had filled the same office with Cardinal 
Rebiba. Cosimo I. had interceded on behalf of the Florentine, 
Angelo Niccolini, the Duke of Savoy for Marcantonio Bobba, 
Catherine de Medici for Prospero Santa Croce, and the 
Emperor for the ambitious Delfino. Among the new Card inals, 
Giovanni Francesco Commendone was also a diplomatist, while 
Luigi Pisani, Bishop of Padua, who was a Venetian like 
Delfino and Commendone, had done good work at the Council, 
as had the Archbishop of Taranto, Marcantonio Colonna ; the 
nomination of the jurist, Flavio Orsini, balanced the elevation 
of this scion of the celebrated Roman princely house. 
Alessandro Sforza, Count of Santa Fiora, had done good service 
in the administration of the food supplies. Last of all there 
was Simone Pasqua, the Pope s physician, who was also a 
scholar of great repute. 1 

However much personal ties between the new Cardinals and 
the Pope and Borromeo influenced the choice made at the 
great creation of Cardinals oi March, 1565, it cannot be denied 
that on this occasion ecclesiastical interests were more taken 
into consideration than in the creations of 1561 and 1563, and 
it is beyond doubt that the credit for this is due to the strict 
Charles Borromeo. 2 

Borromeo had wished for a long time past personally to visit 
his diocese of Milan. When his desire was fulfilled in the 
autumn of 1565, his place at the secretariate of state was filled 
by Cardinal Mark Sittich von Hohenems, who had been author 
ized by brief since January to discharge all the business of the 
Papal States ; 3 but this appointment only referred to current 

1 Cf. PETRAMELLERIUS, 74 seq. ; CIACONIUS, III., 945 seqq. ; 
CARDELLA, V., 55 seqq. ; HILLIGER, 42 seq. ; HERRE, 89 seq. 
For Fl. Orsini, cf. SARNELLI, Lettere eccles., Naples, 1686, 333 
seq. ; for Sforza, see GARAMPI, 293. Cf. also MOROZZO, Elogio 
del card. M. A. Bobba, Turin, 1799. 

2 See HERRE, 89 seq. 

3 See HILLIGER, 39, 


business, all more important decisions being kept until the 
return of Borromeo. 1 

Cardinal Borromeo, who had been appointed legate for the 
whole of Italy on August I7th, 2 left Rome on September ist 
at night, so as to avoid the customary ceremonial. 3 He went 
by Viterbo to Florence, where he stayed from the 7th to the 
gth, and was received with great honour by Cosimo. After 
a short stay in Bologna he reached his episcopal city on 
September 23rd. 4 There on October 8th he received a visit 
from Morone. 5 After he had held a provincial council, 6 he 
went by the Pope s orders on November 6th to Trent, in order 
to escort into their new country the sisters of Maximilian II., 
one of whom was promised in marriage to the hereditary prince 
of Florence, and the other to the Duke of Ferrara. On his 

1 See the *Avviso di Roma of September i, 1565 (Urb. 1040, 
p. j8b, Vatican Library). Mark Sittich only affixed his signature, 
but T. Galli conducted the affairs ; see TORNE, 84 ; Corresp. 
dipl., I., xxxviii. 

2 See the "letter of Serristori of August 17, 1565, (State Archives, 
Florence) . 

3 See the *Avviso di Roma of September i, 1565, loc. cit. C. 
Luzzara reports on September i, 1565 : *" II s 1 card le Borromeo 
e partito questa mattina per Milano tanto per tempo che per un 
pezzo gli e convenuto caminare con le torcie, et il piacere con che 
va a questo viaggio e cosa che non si pu6 imaginare. II Papa per 
la sodisfatione grande di S. S. 111. 1 ha lasciato andare volentieri." 
(Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 

4 For the journey to Milan see the *Diarium of L. Bondonus, 
Miscell. Arm. XII, 29, p. 387 (Papal Secret Archives) where 
(p. 392) the entry into Milan is also described. Cf. MERKLE, IL, 
cxi., and the letter of Felice da Montalto in TACCONE GALUCCI, 
G. Sirleto, Rome, 1909, 16 seq. See also SALA, III., 361 seq. ; 
Mitteil. des osterr. Instit., III., 636, and the letter of Borromeo 
of September 23, 1565 in San Carlo, L, 116. On August 21, 
Borromeo wrote to Philip II. about the object of his journey. 
The reply of the king on September 25, 1565, is published in an 
Italian translation in San Carlo, L, 251. 

5 See *Diarium of L. Bondonus, loc. cil., p. 398b. 

6 See supra p. 104. 


way home he received news at Firenzuola in Tuscany that his 
uncle was seriously ill. A second report was more reassuring, 
but the Cardinal nevertheless made his way as quickly as 
possible to Rome, in time to administer to the dying Pope the 
last consolations of religion. 1 

Pius IV. had been very vigorous during the first years of his 
reign, in spite of his gout, 2 and he had not allowed his frequent 
attacks to interfere with his attention to business, nor with his 
activity. 3 He also often suffered from catarrh, and during 
the spring of 1562 so seriously as to cause him grave anxiety, 4 
though he soon recovered. 5 His anxieties in connexion with 
France and the Council, his periodical attacks of illness, and 
finally the death of Federigo in November, 1562, greatly taxed 
his strength. 6 Although he was not feeling at all well, he 

1 See BASCAPE, 15-20 ; *Diarium of L. Bondonus, loc. cit., 
p. 419. Two letters of Borromeo from Trent, of November 21 
and 22, 1565, in SALA, III., 368 seqq. In a *letter from Rome on 
December i, 1565, Cardinal Mark Sittich expresses to Borromeo 
the Pope s satisfaction at his activity (State Archives, Naples : 
C. Fames. 737). 

2 Cf. Vol. XV. of this work, p. 87. 

3 See SICKEL, Konzil, 226. In spite of his gout the Pope has 
good " ciera " Tonina *reports on June 21, 1561 ; on June 28 ; 
he has got to keep his bed (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). For the 
attack of gout in December, see SUSTA, I., 133, and the *report 
of Tonina of December 31, 1561 (loc. cit.). 

4 See SICKEL, loc. cit., 289 ; SUSTA, II., 409. 

6 See *Avviso di Roma of March 14, 1562 (Urb. 1039, p. 347, 
Vatican Library). The doctors spoke very pessimistically in 
June ; see the *report of A. Grandi, dated Rome, June 24, 1562 
(State Archives, Modena). 

6 See *Avviso di Roma of June 20, 1561 (Urb. 1039, p. 373b) 
concerning a flusso and fever. On June 24, 1562 Tonina *reports 
that the Pope seems to be attacked : " e travagliato assai dell 
animo a quanto s accorge non solo delle cose di Franza, ma pur 
anco da queste del concilio " ; on July 2 : the Pope is better, and 
eats five times in the day and again in the night ; on November 
28 : his sorrow at the death of Federigo ; on December 16 : 
the Pope was carried to the consistory, as he could not walk on 


insisted on celebrating the mass on Christmas Day. 1 In June . 
1563, Girolamo Soranzo says in his reports that the gout had 
never troubled the Pope so much as it was doing then, and that 
as he would not spare himself the doctors were not without 
anxiety. He had not been able to move for four months. 
He was moreover suffering from catarrh, and there had also 
been symptoms of nephritis, though when he began to be 
more careful in his diet, the doctors began to hope that he 
might live for a long time. v 2 When this report arrived in 
Venice the Pope was again suffering from gout, 3 and at the 
end of November he had that dangerous attack which led the 
fathers of the Council to bring their deliberations to a rapid 
conclusion. 4 

The falling off in the mental elasticity of Pius IV., which 
is noticed by aU correspondents at the end of 1563, was the 
result of his bad state of health, 5 and not of his freedom 
from the anxieties of the Council. 6 After the Epiphany 

account of the gout (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). On December 
12, 1562, Alf. Roselli wrote : " S. S^ e colerica et rotta per 
questo accidente del conte Federico et per li molti negotii fastidiosi 
che ha hora per le mani." (State Archives, Modena). 

1 *Report of Alf. Roselli, dated Rome, December 26, 1562, ibid. 

2 See GIROL. SORANZO, 73. For the suffering state of Pius IV., 
who often made mistakes in his diet, see the ""reports of Fr. 
Tonina, dated Rome, January 20, 27, and 29, February 17 
(definite improvement), and March 3, 1563 (complete recovery), 
(Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). If we can believe the account of 
P. Tiepolo (p. 181), which is manifestly inspired by dislike, Pius IV. 
afterwards observed the dietary precautions so little that his 
sudden death was not to be wondered at. The bad effect of his 
mistaken dietary told upon his gouty condition. 

3 See the **reports of Tonina of June 9 and 24, July 14 and 17, 
1563 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 

1 See Vol. XV. of this work, p. 361 . 

6 See especially the *report of Alf. Roselli, dated Rome, Decem 
ber 1 8, 1563. (State Archives, Modena). See also the **reports 
of Serristori of December 8 and 18, 1563 and January 21, 1564 
(State Archives, Florence). 

6 Thus P. Tiepolo (p. 171 and 180) with evident bias. Cf. on 
the other hand Legaz. di Serristori 404, and the *report of Alf. 
Roselli of December 18, 1563, loc. cit. 


of 1564, the Pope had completely recovered. 1 He was, 
however, filled with serious thoughts, and on February 8th 
he disposed of his private property; 2 a little later he had 
another attack of gout, and again in March and June. 3 These 
attacks recurred during 1565 in April and May, though the 
Pope was still able to carry out the Easter function, which 
lasted for five hours. 4 At the beginning of May he was very 
preoccupied with the quarrels of his nephews, 5 and at the end 
of June he had a severe attack of fever. 6 Soon afterwards he 
felt so much better that Cardinal Borromeo was able to leave 
Rome with an easy mind on September ist. Further attacks 
of gout followed during the autumn, but the sick man was still 
able to attend to his duties. 7 In spite of this the idea was 
widespread among the people of Rome that the Pope would die 
in December. 8 This conviction grew stronger when, on 
December 2nd, the first Sunday in Advent, the candle nearest 
to the Papal throne twice went out at mass for no explicable 

1 See the *report of Giac. Tarreghetti, January 8, 1564 (Gonzaga 
Archives, Mantua). On January 26, 1564, Carlo Stuerdo "in 
formed the Duke of Parma that the Pope was well, but was with 
out appetite, pero travaglia assai (State Archives, Naples, C. 
Fames. 763). This disposes of the statement so often made 
that after the Council the Pope did no more work. 

2 See Studi e docum., XIV., 373 seqq. 

3 See the "reports of Giac. Tarreghetti of February 16, March 15, 
and June 24, 1564 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 

4 See the "Avvisi di Roma of April 6 and 28, 1565 (Urb. 
1040, p. 9, i2b, Vatican Library), and the "reports of Giac. 
Tarreghetti of May 12 and 19, 1565 (Gonzaga Archives, 
Mantua) . 

6 See in App. the "report of Alf. Roselli of May 2, 1565 (State 
Archives, Modena). 

6 See the "Avviso di Roma of June 30, 1565 (Urb. 1040, p. 36, 
Vatican Library). 

7 See the "Avvisi di Roma of September 15 and 29, and October 
I 3 J 565 (ibid., p. 95, iO3b, 1176, Vatican Library). 

8 "Letter of Serristori from Rome, November 9, 1565 (State 
Archives, Florence), and of "Bernardino Pia from. Rome, Novem 
ber 24, 1565 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 


reason. 1 On December 3rd the Pope had arranged for a 
sitting of the Segnatura as usual on the following day, but 
during the night he was attacked by catarrh, sickness, pains in 
his chest and fever. The doctors ordered him to bed but were 
not very anxious. 2 During the night between the 4th and 
5th the sick man had three relapses, one so severe that his 
attendants thought him dead. Towards morning, however, 
there was an improvement. 3 The Pope had mass said in his 
room and received Holy Communion with great devotion, 4 
after making his confession. Cardinal Borromeo had been 
at once informed of this unexpected illness, and all the neces 
sary measures of security had been taken in the city in case the 
Pope should die. But soon there was a manifest change for 
the better, so much so that they hoped he would quite recover ; 
some of the doctors, however, were anxious, be cause the fever 
had greatly sapped the strength of the sixty-six year old man. 5 

1 *Die 2 a decembris. In dominica prima adventus fuit missa in 
capella, absente Papa, quam celebravit rev mus patriarcha Hiero- 
solimitanus. Fuit sermo ut moris est. Eodem mane, dum missa 
celebrabatur, candela ultima a conru evangelii quae propinquior 
erat solio Pontificis, absque aliqua accidental! causa, a se ipsa bis 
extincta fuit, quinque aliis accensis permanentibus. Causam 
Deus scit ; sed malum omen ab omnibus iudicatum fuit. Attamen 
vox populi erat per multos dies antea, quod Pontifex in illo mense 
erat moriturus : quod pronosticum, cum ego essem Mediolani, a 
quodam nobili viro pro certo mihi dictum fuit et quod antequam 
ego Romain redirem Pontifex esset moriturus et quod ego non 
invenirem eum viventem. Diarium caerem. XII., 29, p. 420 
(Papal Secret Archives). 

2 Cf. the "reports of Fr. Tosabezzo, dated Rome, December 4 
and 7, 1565 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua), and the *Avviso di 
Roma of December 9> 1565 (Urb. 1040, p. 148, Vatican Library). 

3 See the **reports of Fr. Tosabezzo of December 5, 1565 
(Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 

4 Cornelius Firmanus in MERKLE, II., cxv. 

5 See the *report of Serristori of December 5, 1565 (State 
Archives, Florence), as well as the ""report of Girol. Oltramari 
of December 5, 1565 (State Archives, Modena). On December 6 
Serristori *writes that it is believed that the Pope is out of danger 
(loc. cit.). For the doctors of Pius IV. see MARINI, I., 417 seqq. 


Besides many other alarming symptoms, he was now suffering 
from colic and nephritis. 1 

During the night between December 6th and jih the Pope 
had another relapse, and the fever increased. It was rumoured 
in the city that he was already dead, and the scenes customary 
at a vacancy in the Holy See began. The sick man was not 
dead, but his end was fast approaching. 2 On December 8th 
the Cardinals were summoned, and with their consent the 
Pope made provision for some of them, and arranged money 
gifts for his nephews to the amount of 200,000 scudi. 3 Cardinal 
Borromeo arrived during the night between December 8th 
and Qth, and the Pope rejoiced greatly at the coming of his 
faithful counsellor ; in the morning the Cardinal gave him 
Holy Communion, 4 and then administered Extreme Unction. 
When Morone told him that he had only a few more hours to 
live, the Pope replied : God s will be done ; with the crucifix 
in his hands the Pius IV. died on the evening of December 

1 The Hofrat, v. Tschermak, to whom I submitted the accounts 
of the last illness of Pius IV., is of opinion that the sudden begin 
ning, followed by the frequent relapses and fever, the sickness, 
the fainting, the pain in the chest (certainly too in the reins), 
and the retention of which many of the accounts speak, are quite 
in accordance with the description as nephritis, which was also 
accompanied by uremia. 

2 See the two *reports of Caligari to . Commendone, of 
December 8, 1565, Lett, di princ. XXIII (Papal Secret 
Archives) . 

3 See the two **reports of Fr. Tosabezzo of December 7, 1565 
(State Archives, Mantua), the *report of Girol. Oltramari of 
December 8, 1565 (State Archives, Modena), the *Avviso di Roma 
of December 9 loc. cit., and the ""reports of Serristori of December 
7, 8, and 9, 1565 (State Archives, Florence). Cf. GULIK-EUBEL, 
41 and HILLIGER, 48 seq. 

4 See the "report of Prospero d Arco, dated Rome, December 9, 
1565, (Archives, Innsbruck, Ambraser Akten) ; the letter of 
Caligari to Commendone of December 9, 1565, loc. cit. ; the 
"letter of Fr. Tosabezzo of December 9, 1565 (Gonzaga Archives, 
Mantua). Here Tosabezzo reports that the doctors were saying 
that the Pope was patientissimo et obedientissimo. 


gth, 1565. l The body was placed on a bier in the Pauline 
Chapel, and afterwards buried in St. Peter s. On December 
nth the funeral offices were begun. 2 

In accordance with his instructions, the mortal remains of 
Pius IV. were removed on January 4th, 1583, to S. Maria 
degli Angeli. 3 His very simple tomb stands on the left of the 
chapel, which now serves as the choir. The tablet for the 
inscription, which is adorned with marbles of various colours, 
is reminiscent of Michelangelo in the design of the cornices, 
brackets, scrolls, fillets and coats of arms ; it must have been 
designed by an artist who had come under the influence of the 
master. 4 

1 The death took place on the 9th (not the loth, as stated by 
many) hora 2 noctis ; see Cornelius Firmanus in GATTICUS, 447 
(cf. MERKLE, II., cxv.) *letter of Serristori of December 9, 1565 
(State Archives, Florence). For the last hours of Pius IV., see 
the letters of Borgia to F. Coster in SUAU, Fr. de Borgia, 
II., 129. The Pope died in cameris suis torrae Borgiae ; see 
Acta consist., Cam., IX., 132 (Conslstorial Archives of the Vatican). 
Giov. Amadori tells in his *report of December 19, 1565, how 
Pius IV. was able to speak to the end, and thanked Cardinal 
Paleotto for his spiritual help (State Archives, Modena). 
[RAYNALDUS, 1565, n. 28, states that Pius IV. was assisted at 
his death by two saints, Charles Borromeo and Philip Neri. 
Ed. note]. 

2 See C. Firmanus, loc. cit., and the *report of Fr. Tosabezzo 
of December 10, 1565 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 

3 See Mucantius in GATTICUS, 480. Besides the *Avvisi di 
Roma of July 28, 1582, and January 8, 1583 (Urb. 1050 and 1051, 
Vat ; can Library), of. for the new tomb of Pius IV., the "report 
of the Mantuan ambassador Odescalchi of December 18, 1582 : 
*" La sepultura di Pio IV., che il card. S. Giorgio [Altemps] ha 
fatto fare in S. Maria degli Angeli alle Therme & finita et scoperta, 
la quale e reuscita assai bella." (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 

4 See CIACONIUS, III., 882 ; MAI, Spicil., IX., 364 ; FORCELLA, 
IX., 154 ; LANCTANI, III., 208 ; THODE, Kritische Untersuchun- 
gen, V., 241. Steinmann found a sketch for a larger monument 
for Pius IV. in the Dyce Collection at the Victoria and Albert 
Museum, London. 

VOL. XVI. 26 


If we try to sum up what had been accomplished by Pius 
IV. during his six years pontificate, we find him to have been, 
apart from certain exceptions not surprising in one so change 
able, a man who with great sagacity and skill took into con 
sideration the requirements of the general conditions of his 
time, both political and religious, and one who, in spite of his 
studied moderation, was always careful to maintain the rights 
of the Holy See. His character, rather cold and averse to all 
extreme measures, was far better suited for the continuation 
of the Council than that of Paul IV., who was so self-assured 
and impulsive, though the fourth Pius lacked the imposing 
majesty of his predecessor. In spite of this, however, if we 
compare him with Paul IV., who only too often ruined wise 
measures by going to extremes, and who may be said to have 
looked for quarrels, while Pius IV. tried to avoid them at all 
costs, the latter stands out to advantage. On the other hand, 
Pius IV. suffers in the comparison with his holy successor, 
who may be described as the incarnation of Catholic reform 
in its highest and most ideal form. But although Pius IV. 
was so little imbued with the new ecclesiastical spirit, and had 
so many weaknesses, which were not to be found in Pius V., 
his pontificate is nevertheless of great importance in the 
history of Catholic reform. 1 It was he who reopened the 
Council of Trent, and brought it to its successful conclusion, 
although the difficulties which he had to overcome were enor 
mous. 2 This was the outstanding and undeniable result of 
his pontificate, which in other respects was overshadowed by 
many dark clouds. In his determination to keep the control 
of the Council in his own hands, Pius IV. repeatedly interfered 
in its deliberations in a very personal way, 3 though this does 
not take away from the wise moderation which also guided 
him in his relations with the Catholic princes. The new policy 

1 Cf. REINHARDT-STEFFENS, I., xxi. seq. 

2 See EDER, I., 33 ; REUMONT, III., 2, 557. 

3 See STEINHERZ in Mitteil. des osterr. Instit., XVII., 68 1 ; 
SICKEL, in the preface to SUSTA, Kurie, I., vii. seq. Here Sickel 
bases his decided opinion in favour of the complete liberty left 
to the Council upon the official edition of the Acta. 


of the Holy See which he inaugurated in this matter became 
of great importance for the spread of the reform and the Catho 
lic restoration. The results of his efforts in this direction, as 
well as those of his reforming activities, only came to maturity 
in later times. It is noteworthy that, in spite of all the worldly 
tendencies of Pius IV., the strict ways of Paul IV. were for 
the most part continued in his time. 1 The chief credit for 
this is due to his Secretary of State, Charles Borromeo, who 
worked wonders by his example. This man, to whose perfect 
disinterestedness, zeal for religion, and spotless purity even 
the coldest of his critics pay tribute, was to the end the good 
genius of Pius IV., and it was to him that the Pope s greatest 
triumphs were due. 2 

1 See GIAC. SORANZO, 183 ; BASCHET, Dipl. Venet., 192. In 
the time of Pius IV. several new dioceses were formed in mission 
ary countries ; e.g. a consistorial decree of June 27, 1561, forms 
Santiago in Chili, and Vera Paz in Mexico, and one of Novemder 
19, 1561, Yucatan, which was united to the diocese of Cocumel, 
which had existed since 1520. The episcopal see of Santa Marta 
was transferred to Santa Fe de Bogota. Extracts from the 
consistorial acta concerning these in the Records of the American 
Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia, X., (1899) 339-341. 
Cf. RAYNALDUS, 1564, n. 58. The Greeks in Italy were placed 
under the jurisdiction of the Latin bishops by a brief of February 
16, 1564 (*Editti, V., 10, Papal Secret Archives). For the relations 
of Pius IV. with the East see App. nn. 50-52. 

8 See REINHARDT-STEFFENS, I., xxi. seq. Cf. BENRATII in 
Realenzyklop. of Herzog, XV. 3 , 438. 




OUR picture of Pius IV. would be incomplete without taking 
into consideration his relation to science and art. As had been 
the case with Paul III. his patronage of letters was far less 
important than his artistic interests. 

That Pius IV. appreciated scientific and literary merit is 
shown by the liberal assistance which he bestowed upon 
writers, 1 as well as by his having conferred the purple on such 

1 An *Avviso di Roma of January 20, 1560 (Urb. 1039, p. 120, 
Vatican Library), already refers to the great liberality of Pius IV. 
towards the literati et poveri. In February, 1560, Latini speaks 
of the favour shown to the humanists ; see MASIUS, Briefe, 322. 
The Pope himself in a * brief of 1564 (Min. Brev. 20, n. 177, Papal 
Secret Archives) expresses his great appreciation of learned men. 
Cf. ibid., 1 66, the * brief to Mattia Sittardus. Pius IV. gave effect 
to this appreciation among other things by the favour shown to 
Sperone Speroni, the celebrated orator and philosopher (see 
FLAMINI, 474 ; FRATI, Catal. dei Mss. d. Bibl. Marciana, I., 98 ; 
ZAMBETTI, Sp. Speroni, Lecce, 1913) and Gabriele Faerno (see 
RENAZZI, II., 215 seq. ; FLAMINI, 117 ; REUMONT, III., 2, 693). 
The poet Luigi Tansillo owed it to Pius IV. that his name was 
expunged from the Index (BAUMGARTNER, Weltliteratur, IV., 
330). Pompeo della Barba, who was summoned as a physician 
to Rome, was also distinguished as a man of letters (MAZZUCHELLI, 
II., i, 236). Francesco Alciati, who was distinguished as a jurist, 
also came to Rome at the invitation of the Pope, where he obtained 
important offices, and eventually became a Cardinal (ibid., I., I, 
372). For Panvinio and Pius IV. see Vol. XV. of this work, p. 415. 
For the preacher, Musso, who was much esteemed by Pius IV., see 
Mitteil. nes osterr. Instit., vol. supplem. VI., 555 seq. Pius IV. 
expressed his own pleasure at the defence of religion made by the 



men as Seripando, Hosius, Navagero, Marcantonio Colonna, 
Commendone, Paleotto, Francesco Alciati, Guglielmo Sirleto 
and Charles Borromeo. Many good Latinists were to be found 
among his private secretaries, such as Giulio Poggiani, Gian 
Battista Amalteo and Silvio Antoniano. 1 The latter was one 
of the principal members of the Accademia Vaticana founded 
by Cardinal Borromeo. From April 2oth, 1562, the inde 
fatigable Cardinal gathered together in this a chosen band of 
friends of like interests and common tastes, who met several 
times a week at the Vatican at a late hour in the evening, for 
academical discussions and for their mutual encouragement 
and instruction. This was Borromeo s recreation after his 
wearisome daily labours. Besides Silvio Antoniano, the 
following were to be found among their number : Francesco 
Alciati, Carlo Visconti, Guido Ferreri, Tolomeo Galli, Francesco 
Gonzaga, Agostino Valiero, who all received the purple in 
course of time ; besides these there were Ugo Boncompagni, 
the future Gregory XIII., Sperone Speroni, the Milanese, 
Pietro da Lonate, and the Count of Landriano. The literary 
gatherings of these men had something of the character of the 
Renaissance in so far that, in conformity with the ideas of the 
time, they assumed other names : Charles Borromeo was called 
il Caos, Galli il Segreto, and Speroni il Nestore. But their 
spirit was very different from that of the Roman academies 
of the time of Leo X., which, in the sources at which they 
drank, and the things which they lauded, paid homage to 
none but classical literature, and especially to Greek and Latin 

learned G. Witzel in a *brief of December 7, 1660 (Min. Brev., 
Arm. 44, t. 10, n. 436, Papal Secret Archives) . For Pius IV. and 
the reform of the Calendar see RENAZZI, II., 224. From a 
remark in Spicil. Vatic. 80 seq., it is clear how highly Pius IV. 
appreciated a discovery. 

1 Cf. TIRABOSCHI, VII., i, 26 ; MAZZUCHELLI, I., i, 858. For 
the work of Borromeo on behalf of the mathematician Girolamo 
Cardano, see Arch. stor. Ital. Series 5, XXXV., 425 seq. ; for 
his relations with the jurist Lodovico Settala, see FOGOLARI, II 
Museo Settala, in Bollett. stor, d, Svizz, Ital. XXVIII., (1900) 
fasc. 3. 


poetry. In the Noctes Vaticanae of Charles Borromeo, the 
study oi profane literature also at first held the place of 
honour, but the spirit in which they treated it was altogether 
different from that of the age of the Renaissance. They 
strictly adhered to the point of view that ancient poetry and 
philosophy must receive their interpretation and sanction 
from the light of Christian truth. After 1563, the Accademia 
assumed a more and more theological character ; discussions 
were held upon the eight beatitudes and the mysteries of the 
life of Christ, although they still continued to treat of profane 
matters. Science and faith went hand in hand. 1 

Sperone Speroni dedicated the following beautiful verses 
to the new Accademia Vaticana : 

Schiera gentil, che 1 alto Vaticano, 
Onde umilmente il tuo gran nome prendi, 
Con si chiaro valore orne e difendi, 
Che invidia tenta ormai di armarsi invano : 

Tu di ogno stato tuo sacro ed umano 
Giusta ragione al cielo e al mondo rendi : 
Tu sola forse intentamente attendi, 
L ombra lasciando, al vero onor sovrano. 

lo, che si poco amar solea me stesso, 
Ben troppo altrui, io tuo padre in etade, 
Ma nelle opre e ne premii inutil servo ; 

1 See SASSI, Noctes Vatic, seu sermones habiti in academia a 
S. Carolo Borromeo Romae in palatio Vaticano instituta, Milan 
1784. Cf. RENAZZI, II. , 221 seq. ; DEJOB, 17 ; TACCHI VENTURI, 
I., 108 seq. ; REINHARDT-STEFFENS, I., xxii. ; F. SPROLTE, Zui 
Gesch. des hi. Karl Borromaus, Convivium noctium Vaticanarum, 
Oppeln, 1893, an d the valuable monograph, which includes some 
unpublished sources, by L. BERRA : L Accademia delle notti 
Vaticane fondata S. Carlo Borromeo, Rome, 1915 ; Charles 
Borromeo was also the protector of the Accademia degli affidati 
at Pa via ; see D. S. AMBROGIO, Un marmo del card. S. Carlo 
Borromeo nel museo di Porta Giovia, in Riv. di scienze stor.; V., 
Rome, 1908, fasc. 8-9. 


Or vuo sempre adorarti, se da presso 
Gia ti onorai, che la vita, che cade, 
Seco non trahe la mente, ove io ti servo. 1 

How predominant in the literary patronage of Pius IV. were 
ecclesiastical interests was shown in his establishment of a 
private press, already projected by Paul IV., at the head of 
which was placed Paulus Manutius. This son of the celebrated 
Venetian printer, Aldus, was living in a state of great poverty 
at Padua, when the Pope summoned him to Rome in 1561, and 
assigned to him an annual salary of 720 gold scudi. His 
duties were to be the printing of editions of the Fathers of the 
Church and other ecclesiastical writers, a thing which was being 
urged by the Council. Paulus Manutius opened his press as 
early as the summer of 1561, and the city of Rome was to 
contribute to its upkeep. He attracted celebrated scholars 
to act as editors, such as Sirleto, Faerno, Latino Latini, etc. 2 
Pius IV. ordered in several briefs that Paulus Manutius was to 
choose in the first instance such Latin and Greek works of 
ecclesiastical writers as were suited to bring out clearly the 
truth of Catholic dogmas, in answer to the attacks of the 
religious innovators, and that he was to take into consideration 
not only such works as had been imperfectly published, but 
also those that had not been published at all. The principal 
source was found in the codices of the Vatican Library, for 
the completion of which, in May, 1563, and again in the 
August of the same year, envoys were sent to Sicily to search 
the libraries there. The results of these researches were to 
be referred to the learned Cardinal Mula, who was the head 

1 Opere di Sp. Speroni, IV., Venice, 1740, 374 seq. 

2 Cf. POGIANI, Epist.. I., 329 seq., n. ; II., 273 seq. ; RENAZZI, 
II., 205 ; RODOCANACHI, Capitole, 115 seq. ; NOLHAC in Mel. 
d archeol., III., 267 seq. (with further bibliographical references) ; 
BELTRAMI, La tipografia Romana diretta da P.M., Florence, 
1877 ; FUMAGALLI, Lexicon typogr. Italiae, Florence, 1905, 
346 seq., 476. Cf. also supra p. 35. As early as September 26, 
1561, P. Manutius became an honorary citizen of Rome ; see 
GREGOROVIUS, Kleine Schriften, I., 316. 


of the commission set up by Pius IV. for the publication of 
such works as were called for by the times. 1 Mariano 
Vittori, who was well known for his writings against the new 
religion, undertook, by the order of the Pope, an excellent 
new edition of the works of St. Jerome. 2 

Pius IV. on several occasions added to the Vatican Library 
by purchase, and after the death of Alfonso Carafa Mula became 
its librarian. 3 On January 8th, 1562, the Pope created the 
office of corrector of the Greek codices. 4 

The first place among the learned men employed by Pius 
IV. was taken by Guglielmo Sirleto. 5 This man, who was as 
distinguished for his vast erudition as for his modesty and 
piety, lived in the convent of the Theatines on the Quirinal. 
By his many letters and counsels he exercised a great influence 
upon the deliberations of the Council, and provided the theo 
logical matter for the legates. 6 When the Council was 
drawing to an end, Seripando was able to write to him that he 
had done them better service in Rome and given them more 
help than if fifty prelates had been sent to Trent. 7 He was 

1 See in App. nn. 30, 31, the *briefs of May 22 and 26, and 
August 26, 1563 (Papal Secret Archives). 

2 See HURTER; Nomenclator, I., 32, and the excellent mono 
graph of A. SACHETTI SASSETTI : La vita e gli scritti di M. Vittori, 
Rieti, 1917. 

3 See TIRABOSCHI, VII., i, 179 ; Serapeum, 1846, 256, 295 
seq. For those employed cf. Mitteil. des osterr. Instit., XIV., 
586 seq. The edict of May 15, 1565, issued by order of Pius IV., 
and published from the Chigi Library by CUGNONI in La Scuola 
Rom. IV., (1886), 288 seq., has to do with the preservation of 

4 *Motuproprio con cui Pio IV. erige 1 uffizio del correttore dei 
libri greci, dated January 8, 1562 (State Archives, Rome). 

5 A biography of Sirleto, for which there is plentiful material 
at the Vatican, is still wanting. Some information about him in 
TACCONE GALLUCCI, Monografia del card. G. Sirleto, Rome, 1909. 
Cf. also Anecd. litt., IV., 328 seq., 369 seq. 

6 Cf. especially *Cod.. Vat. 6179 and 6189 (Vatican Library). 



also highly esteemed by Borromeo. 1 The distinguished Silvio 
Antoniano, 2 who preached the funeral oration of Pius IV., was 
also high in the esteem of both the Pope and the Cardinal. 3 

Intended at first to meet a purely practical need, though it 
afterwards proved to be of the highest importance for his 
torical science, was the attempt of Borromeo to form regular 
archives for the secretariate of state. 4 It is a thing deserving 
of our highest admiration that, in the midst of the many and 
exacting duties which occupied his attention, the Cardinal 
found time to give his attention to the proper preservation of 
the current archival documents. By his advice and that of 
others, Pius IV. first ordered the formation of the consistorial 
archives, and by a brief of June I5th, 1565, charged 
Cardinal Mala, who had had experience of such work in 
Venice, to set up a central archivium for the Vatican. Con 
nected with this was the resumption of the transference of the 
archives from Avignon, which was continued later on by 
Pius V. 5 

From the very beginning of his reign Pius IV. turned his 
attention to the revival of the Roman University. 6 He 

1 For the letters of Borromeo to Sirleto see La scuola catt., 
1910, Mar. 

2 Besides the monograph cited in the following note, cf. 
MAZZUCHELLI, I., 2, 858 ; RENAZZI, II., 198 seq., and CARBONERA, 
Silvio Antoniano o un pedagogista della riforma cattolica, Sondrio, 

3 Silvii Antoniani card. Vita a IOSEPHO CASTALIONE et eiusdem 
Silvii orationes XIII., Rome, 1610, 113 seq. 

4 DUDIK, Iter Roman., II., Vienna, 1855, 21. PALMIERI, Ad 
Vatic. Archivi Rom. Pontif. Regesta manuductio, Rome, 1884, 
xxiii. seq. Regesta Clementis V., Praef., p. lii. Studi e docum., 
VIII. (1887), 12. See Revue d hist. eccles., XL, (1905), 5^4 ; 
MERKLE, I., xix ; II., Ixxv. seq. 

5 See DUDIK, loc. cit., 21 ; SICKEL, Berichte, I., 13, 16 ; MUNTZ, 
La Bibl. du Vatican, Paris, 1886, 115 seq. 

6 Mula *reports on June 26, 1560 : " Nell ultima congregatione 
si parlo di risecar le spese superflue e si diede carico a dieci cardinali 
si che si procurasse di riformare qui un studio di lettere in diverse 
profession! " (Arm. 3, t. 24, p. 71, Papal Secret Archives). 


interested himself in its revenues, 1 its new buildings, and above 
all in obtaining for it new professors, the number of whom was 
increased in 1561 to 24, and in 1563 to 34.2 Among the new 
appointments may be named Girolamo Vielmo, Girolamo 
Politi, Girolamo Parisetti, Marcantonio Mureto and Silvio 
Antoniano, who in 1564 became the coadjutor of the rector, 
Camillo Peruschi. 3 The new building, which Pius IV. pro 
vided for by the creation of the Monte dello studio, was en 
trusted to Pirro Ligorio. 4 In the Papal States Ancona was 
given a university in 1562 ; 5 and the establishment of another 
at Douai was provided for by a bull of January 6th, 1560. 6 
Philip II. established one at Dole in 1561 in response to the 
appeal of Pius IV. 7 The University of Bologna, when it 
had been " reformed, and almost re founded " by Cardinal 
Borromeo, who was legate of the city, had its former privileges 
confirmed. 8 

1 See RENAZZI, II.. 136. 

2 See *Cod. H. III. 62, Chigi Library, Rome. Fr. Tonina 
"reports from Rome on November 29, 1561 : " gionto anco 
qui, non hieri 1 altro, ITmola dottore in leggi, qual leggeva a 
Padova, condotto da S. B ne perch e lega qul, con animo che essa 
ha di voler far bello questo studio, et di voler far venire de valent 
huomini per lettori " (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 

3 See RENAZZI, II., 137, 156, 169 seq., 175, 181 seq., 198 seq. 

4 Ibid., 138. 

5 See Arch. stor. per le Marche e J Umbria, I. (1884), 230 seq., 
254 seq. 

6 The bull (DUTHILLOEUL, De 1 universite de Douai, Douai, 
i855> 29) reproduces the brief of Paul IV., the real founder ; see 
LEMAN, Paul IV., et la fondation de I universite de Douai, Lille, 
1912, 10. 

7 See WEISS, Papiers de Granvelle, VIII., 529. 

8 See Bull. Rom., VII., 254 seq. Cf. CIACONIUS, III., 874. 
The vicelegate of Bologna, Donate Cesi, summoned such men as 
Carlo Sigonio, Giov. Angelo Papio, and put an end to the trial 
which had been set on foot against the young Tasso on account 
of a pasquinade ; see GUALANDI, Processo fatto in Bologna, 1564, 
a T. Tasso, Bologna, 1862 ; Arch. stor. Ital., N.S., XV. (1862), 
456 seq. For the University of Perugia, see RIZZATI, Perugia, 


Among the works dedicated to Pius IV. 1 the most note 
worthy is that of Lodovico Parisetti the younger, in which, 
in 1560, he publicly submitted to the Pope his desires and 
suggestions for the reform of the Church. 2 The work consists 
of a series of letters composed in elegant Latin. The papacy 
is instituted, says Parisetti, for the honour of God, and the 
salvation of mankind ; it is not instituted for the sake of the 

Bologna, 1911, 150. For a favour granted to a German univer 
sity, sec WEGELE, Univ. Wiirzburg, II., 52 seq. For Duisburg, 
see Rom. Quartalschrift, XXIII., 62 seq. Cf. also in this con 
nection the * brief for the Rector et universitas Fnburgi, dated 
August 23, 1560 : it recommends the Studium, granted in con- 
ventu Adclhausen O.P. in Freiburg. Min. Brev., Arm. 44, t. 10, 
n. 296 ; cf. n. 297 episc. Constant D. ut s. (Papal Secret Archives). 

1 Some dedications are recorded in CIACONIUS, III., 882. For 
the lives of the Popes of Platina, see Vol. XV. of this work, p. 416. 
NOLHAC (Bibl. Orsini, 160) gives a Greek poem by Matt. Devaris, 
and RENAZZI (II.. 193) a work on medicine. There is also the *Ode 
to Pius IV. by Ippolito Capilupi in Cod. Regin. 2019, p. 148 seq., 
Vatican Library. Cod. XXIX., 176 of the Barberini Library 
contains a poem : *Vellus aureum divi Pio IV. loannes Henrici 
Cornel. Agrippae fil. d.d. In the * brief to Girolamo Roth dated 
May 26, 1561. it states : " Opusculum tuum grato animo accepi- 
mus." We send you 100 aureos (Min. Brev., Arm. 44, t. n, n. 66, 
Papal Secret Archives). The work of Roth von Schreckenstein 
(cf. K. H. FRHR. VON ROTH-SCHRECKENSTEIN, H. Roth v. Schi., 
Karlsruhe, 1879) is entitled* : De veritate, firmamento et stabili- 
tate donationis Constantinianae ad S. Pium IIII. P.M., Dillingen 
(s.a.). The dedication states : " Ita dilucide negotium tractabo 
ut luce meridiana clarius pateat, eandem [donat. Constant.] et 
factam et validam ! " It may here be recorded that the Letter e 
di principi, which are so important to the historian, were also 
dedicated to Cardinal Borromeo in 1561. For the efforts of 
Borromeo for the publication of the reports from the new world 
of the missions of the Jesuits, see in App. 36 the *report of Fr. 
Tonina of July 22, 1564 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 

2 lunioris Ludovici Pariseti Regiensis epistolarum ad Pium 
IIII. Pontif. Max. libri III., Bologna (apud Alex. Benaccium) 
1560. No doubt on account of its great rarity this work has 
hitherto been entirely disregarded. 


Pope, but rather the contrary, and no one will have to render 
a more rigorous account before the tribunal of God than the 
vicar of Christ. Parisetti recommends, as one of the principal 
means for the reform of the Church, the assembly of a Council, 
on the ground that one had always been summoned to meet 
the Church s greatest difficulties. This Council should princi 
pally turn its attention to seeing that suitable bishops were 
appointed, this being a thing of greater importance to reform 
than the making of many laws ; but the bishops, for their 
part, must devote themselves to their office, and not mix 
themselves up in other matters. The system of commendams 
is a cancer upon the religious orders, which has brought it 
to pass that many monasteries in Rome and elsewhere are 
empty. As for the Pope himself, he must take the exhorta 
tions of the Council as applying to himself, and not alter its 
decrees at his own caprice ; he must try to win the hearts of 
his subjects and exercise his office in a spirit of charity. He 
must not admit persons of worldly views to ecclesiastical 
offices, nor sach as scheme to obtain them ; above all he must 
keep far from simony, nor tolerate it in others. Parisetti 
speaks in very plain words of the abuses which had hitherto 
prevailed at the Papal court ; the sins of the Popes and the 
bishops had had their share in the blame for the religious 
disruption. He had himself been scandalized during his stay 
in Rome by the worldly ostentation and the excessive luxury 
of the Papal coart. 1 

This work is noteworthy as a sign of the times, and it is at 
the same time to the honour of Pius IV. that anyone should 
so freely have dared to give expression to such grave truths 
in a book dedicated to him. 

1 When he was called to an audience, Parisetti goes on to say, 
they kept him waiting in the antecamera while musicians and 
buffoons were admitted. This certainly refers to the time of 
Julius III. (see Vol. XIII. of this work, p. 64). In his other com 
plaints Parisetti has the pontificate of Paul IV. in mind : e.g. 
when he pillories the evils of nepotism, or when he says that after 
the election many people became quite different from what they 
had been before, or when he claims to have seen for himself in 
recent times how unsuitable explosions of anger are in a Pope. 


The patronage given to art by Pius IV. is much more 
important than that given by him to letters. What had been 
prevented in the time of his predecessor by the war with Spain, 
lack of money, and care for ecclesiastical reform, namely, the 
continuation by the Holy See of its traditional patronage of the 
arts, was resumed by Pius I V. with the greatest zeal. In his 
anxiety to pass for a true Medici, he was full of eagerness to live 
up to the magnificent artistic reputation associated with that 
name. It was not possible to give him greater pleasure than by 
praising the zeal for building which was a real passion with him. 1 

Of the two palace architects employed by Pius IV., one, the 
Neapolitan Pirro Ligorio, had served his predecessor, and the 
other, Sallustio Peruzzi, was a son of the celebrated Baldassare, 
though the younger man showed that he was far inferior to 
his father. 2 

Pius IV. s passion for building was chiefly employed for the 
Vatican itself. Numerous coats of arms and inscriptions, 
besides the account books in the State Archives in Rome, bear 
witness to the extent of the alterations which were undertaken 
there, as well as of the new buildings 3 which were in the first 
place concerned with the completion of the Belvedere, where, 
since the time of Julius III., the Popes had for the most part 
taken up their abode. At the end of August, 1561, the new 
portions begun by Paul IV. had been practically finished, and 
tastefully adorned with statues and fountains. 4 The Pope 

1 Cf. GIROL. SORANZO 76 seq. Giov. Visbroc wrote from Rome 
on December u, 1562, that Pius IV. outshone Paul III. in his 
building activities ; see MASIUS, Briefe, 348. Cf. also the funeral 
oration delivered by Silvio Antoniano, in Silvii Antoniani Vita a 

2 See the accounts of the *Fabriche Palatine (State Archives, 
Rome) in FRIEDLANDER, 124. 

3 See LANCIANI, III., 212 seq. Cf. Panvinius in MAI, Spicil., 
IX., 368, 379 ; LETAROUILLY-SIMIL, II. : Loges. The inscrip 
tions in FORCELLA, VI., 73 seq. A painted coat of arms of Pius IV. 
on the upper wall in the cortile of the Papagallo. 

4 See *Avviso di Roma of August 30, 1561 (Urb. 1039, p. 296, 
Vatican Library). According to the inscription in FORCELLA, 
VI., 78, the works were all finished in 1562. 


visited them on August 30th. 1 Some of the rooms, which 
now form the Etruscan Museum, were decorated with pictures 
representing biblical, allegorical and mythological subjects, 
which are still for the most part in a good state of preserva 
tion. 2 

The erection of the two floors of the new facade of the 
Belvedere took place in 1562. At that time, as a drawing by 
Giovan Antonio Dosio shows, the large cortile was enclosed 
to the west by plain walls. 3 To correspond with the treatment 
of the east side begun by Julius II. and completed by Paul III., 
Pius IV. caused Pirro Ligorio to carry out a corridor in three 
floors thus completing the original idea of Bramante almost half 
a century after the master s death. 4 At the same time Ligorio 
superintended the execution of the huge niche, the famous 
Nicchione, which had probably already been planned by 
Michelangelo when, in the days of Julius III., he gave the 
staircase facing the exedra of Bramante its present form. 
Ligorio carried out this scheme by building a second floor on 
the lower north side, erecting at the same time the half dome 
over the Nicchione, and crowning it with a loggia giving a 
beautiful view over the city and campagna. 5 In the time 

1 Fr. Tonina *reports on August 30, 1561, that Pius IV. had 
visited " Tutte le fabbriche di Belvedere," which would shortly 
be completed (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 

2 Cf. TAJ A, 354 seq. ; FRIEDLANDER, 68 seq., ng, 129. Fried- 
lander proves that these pictures are by the same group of artists 
as were employed in the Casino of Pius IV. Cf. also BERTOLOTTI, 
Art. Lomb., I., 114, 118 seq., 135; Art. Bologn., 43; Jahrb. 
der Preuss. Kuntsamml., XXX. (1909), Beiheft, p. 166. 

3 See EGGER, Veduten, tav. 47. 

4 Cf. LANCIANI, III., 214 seq. 

6 Hitherto the design for the huge niche has been universally 
attributed to Bramante. In a work shortly to be published Dr. 
Dagobert Frey will show that Bramante only planned the exedra 
on one floor, with an open semi-circular staircase, and that the 
idea of the strikingly magnificent Nicchione probably came from 
Michelangelo. That the gigantic niche was only erected under 
Pius IV. is shown by the hitherto unnoticed inscription : " Pius IV. 
Medices Mediolanensis Pont. Max. quo commodiores honestiores- 


of the Romans similar colossal niches, like the one which 
to-day looks over the Palatine in the so-called Stadion in the 
Imperial palace, was the decoration generally preferred for 
gardens. 1 

The general effect of the huge cortile thus formed was very 
wonderful. With its adornment of antique statuary con 
temporaries praised it as one of the most beautiful and note 
worthy creations since the days of antiqaity. The work was 
begun in the summer of 1561, 2 and lasted for four years. On 
occasions of great festivities, jousts and tournaments, it was 
difficult to imagine a better setting than this great theatre, 
closed in to the north by the Nicchione. On festal occasions 
the Pope and the College of Cardinals took their places on the 
external stairs leading from the lower cortile to the Giardino 
della Pigna, the other spectators being seated partly in the 
porticos of the lateral corridors, and partly in the exedra at 
the lower end of the cortile. 

A striking picture of the festivities with which, on Carnival 
Monday, 1565, this magnificent cortile, "this atrium of 
pleasure," was opened, is given in the engraving, carried out 
with his customary detail, by Etienne du Perac, which repre 
sents the splendid tourney, with the spectators massed around, 
which was held on that day to celebrate the marriage of Hanni 
bal von Hohenems with Ortensia Borromeo, in the presence 
of all the Roman nobility. 3 

que sibi successoribusque, hortos Vaticanos redderet, complures 
aulas, cubicula et scalas, circum supraque hemicyclum pleraque 
a fundamentis extraxit, quasdam in veterem formam restituit 
atque exornavit. Anno salutis MDLXII Pont, sui anno III. Cal. 
Ian. absolvit." Du CHESNE, Hist, des Papes II., Paris, 1653, 422. 

1 Cf. M. GOTHEIN, Geschichte des Gartenkunst, I., 242. 

* According to Bondonus, in BONANNI, I., 282, and MERKLE, 
II., 542, the first stone was laid on August i, 1561. Cf. the 
""letters of Caligari, August 30, and October u, 1561, in App. nn. 

15, 17- 

3 Cf. supra p. 392. Troops were also reviewed in the cortile of 
the Belvedere ; see the rare work, illustrated by woodcuts : 
Descrittione della mostra generale fatta dalli Caporioni di Roma, 
alii 3 di giugno, 1565, in Belvedere, innanzi alia Santita di N.S. 
Papa Pio IV., s. 1. (Rome, 1565). 


Pius IV. had taken a most active interest in the building 
of the Belvedere. According to the reports of the Mantuan 
representative Tonina he had visited the works several times 
during October, 1563, and January, 1564. l 

During 1563 another work at the Vatican was completed 
which had been begun in 1560 ; the Loggia della Cosmo- 
grafia. The west wing of the third floor of the Loggia had so 
far remained without decoration. Pius IV. had the ceiling 
and walls of this very richly adorned with stucco and paint 
ings, especially with maps on the walls. According to Vasari 
this work was entrusted to Giovanni da Udine, who had come 
to Rome in 1560 with Cosimo I. 2 A glance at the work, which 
is still well preserved, shows clearly how the master had aged, 
and how decadent this form of art had become. The inspira 
tion of antiquity has become almost extinct ; changed taste and 
misplaced learning have introduced into the scheme of decora 
tion subjects and facts which cannot be treated artistically, 
and give a heavy effect. 3 Sacred and allegorical subjects 
appear in a strange medley, together with fantastic landscapes 
and maps, the latter being designed by Pirro Ligorio. The 
name and armorial bearings of the Pope who commissioned 
the work are repeated wherever it is possible in a way that is 
wearisome. Besides this a long series of inscriptions records 
all the actions of Pius IV. In these he is lauded as the restorer 

1 See the *reports of Fr. Tonina, dated Rome, October 6 and 27, 
1563, and January 19, 1564, in which however the " fabriche " 
in the Belvedere are only spoken of in general (Gonzaga Archives, 

2 VASARI, VI., 563. Cf. CHATTARD, II., 33 ; Arch, di Soc. Rom., 
XXXI., 412 ; Jahrb. des Preussen Kunstsamml., XXX., (1909), 
Beiheft p. 161. According to the account books the work was 
only finished in 1564 ; see LANCIANI, III., 214. For the majolica 
decoration of the floor cf. BERTOLOTTI, Art. Lomb. I., 115 seq., 
and Art. Subalp., 148 ; EHRLE, Appart. Borgia, Rome, 1897, 41. 

8 Cf. BURCKHARDT, Gesch. der Renaissance 5 , Esslingen, 1912, 
357. It is a view that has by no means been proved that " the 
incipient counter-reformation " was to blame for the decadence 
of this form of art. 


of peace, the champion of justice, the helper of the poor, the 
promoter of learning, the reformer of ecclesiastical discipline. 
The Council of Trent, a session of which forms the subject of 
one of the pictures, is several times justly celebrated as his 
principal achievement ; the same is done with the help given 
to the French Catholics. The multifold building activities 
of the Pope, both in Rome and the Papal States, are recorded 
in detail, while the inscriptions which explain the maps are not 
without interest. It is noteworthy that neither in the case of 
England nor Germany is any mention made of their religious 
apostasy ; if one were to judge from the inscriptions it might 
be thought that no change had occurred in the relations of 
those countries with Rome. Of Spain it is stated that that 
land produces the most devoted sons of the Christian religion, 
and that they spread the faith far and wide. The subjection 
of Greece to the Turks is carefully recorded, while of 
Italy it is stated that it is the most beautiful, healthy 
and fertile country in the world, distinguished for its 
doctrine, the value and richness of its minerals, and in 
general for all the necessaries of life ; once queen of the 
peoples, it still possesses in the Holy See the central point 
of the Christian religion, and is as it were, the one refuge 
of virtue. 1 

In the same good state of preservation as the third floor 
of the Loggia is the Hall of Secret Consistories, newly erected 
by Pius IV. In the middle of the magnificent coffered ceiling 
are the brilliant gilt armorial bearings of the builder, with the 

1 See TAJA, 232-253. Cf. B. PODESTA in Riv. Europ., VIII., 2 
(1877), 34 seqq. ; F. PORENA in Bollett. della Soc. geogr. Ital., 
1888 ; M61. d Arch^ol., XX., 290 seq. ; E. SCHMIDT in Geogr. 
Zeitschrift of Hettner, XVII. (1911), 503. The inscriptions were 
often copied later on ; cf. N. CHYTRAEUS, Variorum in Europa 
itinerum deliciae, Herborn, 1594. Information from the " regis 
ters of expenditure (State Archives, Rome) for the Loggia bella 
delle Cosmografie, in LANCIANI, III., 214. Cf. Arch. d. Soc. 
Rom., XXXI. , 412. Payment for the majolica tiles for the 
pavement, which were brought from Genoa, in BERTOLOTTI, 
Art. Subalp., 149. 

VOL. XVI. 27 


words : " Pope Pius IV. in the fourth year of his reign, 

I563-" 1 

How extensive the works undertaken by the Pope in the 

Vatican were, is also shown by the adornment of the Sala dei 
Papi, the Sala Regia, and the Sala Ducale. In the first named, 
the arms of Pius IV. are conspicuous on all four walls ; the 
paintings, however, have suffered so greatly that it is only 
with difficulty that one can imagine its former appearance. 
Sturdy cariatides painted in bright sepia with baskets of flowers 
on their heads, and placed at regular intervals, seem to be 
supporting the sections of the richly decorated vaulting ; they 
are fairly well preserved as far as their general outline is 
concerned. The views of Rome in the wide spaces between, 
among which is the new Porta Pia, are almost completely 
destroyed. 2 The Sala Ducale was adorned with a frieze, in 
which landscapes and figures of the virtues alternate ; fine 
arabesques stand out on the white stucco of the vaulting. 3 

In the Sala Regia, coats of arms and inscriptions record 
the decorative work, which was carried out under the 
direction of Cardinal Mula. Since it was there that the 
ambassadors were received, it was fitting that the paintings 
on the walls should principally represent events in the history 
of the Popes relating to the gifts made by the civil princes 
to the Holy See, and to the relations of the latter with the 
Emperor. Long inscriptions explain these historical scenes. 
A number of painters were employed upon them, among whom 
were Taddeo Zuccaro, Daniele da Volterra, Girolamo Siccio- 
lante da Sermoneta, Livio Agresti, and Francesco Salviati. 4 

The celebrated casa di campagna, the Casino di Pio IV., or 

1 See TAJA, 79. This hall is now entitled La prima camera de 

2 Cf. STEINMANN, Das Appartamento Borgia im Vatikan, in 
Allgem. Zeitung, 1896, suppl. n. 74. See also TAJA, 88. 

3 The coat of arms in the ceiling of the Sala Ducale gives only 
the name " Pius IIII.," without date. 

4 Cf. VASARI, VII., 39, 573 ; BERTOLOTTI, Art. Lomb., I., 118, 
Art. Bologn., 44 seq. JAHRB. der Preuss. Kunstsamml., XXX, 
(1909), Beiheft, p. 166 ; LANCIANI, III., 228. 


the Villa Pia, forms the crowning achievement of the works 
executed at the Vatican. This building was constructed 
facing the Cortile di Belvedere in the southern part of the 
Vatican Gardens, close to a small wood, 1 and has preserved 
the name of Pius IV. in the memory of all lovers of art down 
to our own days. 

Its builder, Pirro Ligorio, was probably born at Naples 
before 1510, and died in 1583. He was a man of considerable 
learning and imagination, but was whimsical and fickle. An 
architect, an engineer, a painter, a writer, and an antiquarian, 
he nevertheless has a bad name among archeologists on account 
of his frequent falsification of inscriptions. 2 His vast know 
ledge of antiquity and his many other gifts are splendidly shown 
in his work as architect of the Villa Pia. The view of a writer 
of the XVIIIth century, that he took as his model an old 
Roman villa on the Lake of Gabi, is only true in a very limited 
sense. 3 It is true to say that, as had been the case with the 
Villa d Este, so in the Casino di Pio IV. Ligorio was able, in 
a supremely skilful way, to draw upon his extensive knowledge 
of ancient Roman monuments, but it is impossible to speak 
of a direct imitation of any definite building of antiquity, 

1 Therefore called in the account books and in letters (see App. 
n. 17) " la fabbrica del boschetto " or " Bosco di Belvedere " 
VASARI too (VII., 257) speaks of the. " palazzetto del bosco di 

2 Cf. HANZEN in Comment, phil. in honorem Th. Mommsen, 
Berlin, 1877, 627 seqq. DESSAU in Sitzungsber, der Berliner Akad., 
1883, II" I0 77 sec L HENZEN in Corpus inscript. lat., VI., i, 41 
seq. ; HULSEN in Mitteil. des Deutschen Archaol. Instit., Rome, 
Abt. XVI. (1901), 123 seq. ; Atti Mod,, III., no seq.; FRIED- 
LANDER 10 seq., 14 ; NOLHAC, P. Ligorio, Paris, 1886 ; PLON, 
Leoni, 176 seq. ; BONACCI, Note intorno a P. Ligorio, Naples, 
1905 ; PORENA in Atti d. Accad. d. Arch, di Napoli, N.S. I., 
(1912). For the house of Ligorio in Rome see N. Antologia, 
CXXXVI. (1908), 416 seq. On December 2, 1560, P. Ligorio 
became an honorary citizen of Rome ; see GREGOROVIUS, Kl. 
Schriften, I., 315. 

3 VENUTI, Descriz. di Roma, 501. 


since the decorative and architectural forms with which every 
part of the Villa Pia is profusely adorned, are drawn from 
ancient Roman models and from many different sources. 
Antiquity indeed pervades the whole of this graceful building, 
which is more than ordinarily attractive on account of 
its beauty, but it is nevertheless an entirely original 
conception. 1 

Paul IV. had begun the construction of this casino, " the 
most beautiful resting place for the afternoon hours which 
modern architecture has produced," 2 in May, 1558, but the 
works had come to an end by the end of the same year. 3 Pius 
IV. resumed them in May, 1560, and made such rapid progress 
that in the coarse of the following year the entire scheme, 
which is so beautiful, was completed as far as its general 
features are concerned. In the autumn of 1562 the interior 
and exterior decoration was also finished, including the setting 
up of the draped antique figures, so that it was possible to go 
and live there. 4 A great deal of antique material was used 

1 See MUNTZ, III., 344 ; FRIEDLANDER, 15 seq. Cf. QUATRE- 
MERE DE QUINCY, Gesch. der beruhmten Architekten, I. (1831), 
293 ; BERGNER, Das barocke Rom, Leipzig, 1914, n seq. 

2 BuRCKHARDT, Cicerone, 208. 

3 Cf. ANCEL, Le Vatican, 63 seqq. 

* See FRIEDLANDER, Kasino Pius IV., 5-8. This work, which 
is written with great restraint, and is the basis of the description 
which follows, surpasses all the other works which have so far 
appeared, among which may be named : TAJ A, 499 seq. ; CHAT- 
TARD, III. (1762), 232 seq. ; BOUCHET, La Villa Pia des jardins du 
Vatican, Paris, 1837 ; LETAROUILLY-SIMIL II. : Villa Pia ; 
BARTOLINI in Giorn. Arcadico, VIII. (1901), 85 seqq. ; LANCIANI, 
III., 217 seqq., 229 seqq. For a criticism of Fiiedlander and of 
the work of Krommes cited infra p. 424, n.2, cf. H. Voss in Monat- 
shefte fur Kunstwissenschaft, V., 381 seq. See also the pleasant 
article by SCHMARSOW, Das Gartenhaus Pius IV., in Deutsche 
Lit.-Zeit., 1912, n. 15. On the strength of the account books and 
the inscriptions (see FORCELLA, VI., 72 seq.), Friedlander (p. 8) 
rightly places the completion of the exterior at the end of 1561. 
The *letter of Caligari of October n, 1561, gives the date more 
exactly ; cf. App. n. 17 (Papal Secret Archives.) 


in the construction, a thing which continued to be done for a 
long time to come. 1 

The Villa Pia was admirably suited for the purpose of 
providing the Pope with an easily accessible place of quiet and 
recreation, whither, either alone or with a few friends, he could 
withdraw from the bustle and pomp of the court. The Villa 
Pia also holds a particularly important place in the history of 
building architecture, for it is the only secular building in an 
almost complete state of preservation belonging to the transi 
tion period between the Renaissance and the baroque style. 
In it architecture, decoration and painting are combined in 
perfect harmony. 

The Villa consists of two small buildings, the Casino proper 
and the Loggia. The Casino, which is a strictly symmetrical 
building half hidden in the wood, has added on to it, behind 
and to the left, a small tower, " as if it had been felt necessary 
to add this last touch so as to give to the whole edifice the 
appearance of a happy informality." 2 The Loggia stands like 
a well-house in the middle of a basin fed from "maschere." 
In front of the Loggia there is a parterre with formal beds of 
flowers. 3 

The Casino and the Loggia are separated by an oval shaped 
cortile surrounded by a parapet with seats, and a graceful 
fountain plays in the middle. This fountain, the oval basin 
of which corresponds to the shape of the cortile, is adorned by 
two marble figures of putti riding upon a dolphin ; these are 
the work of the sculptor Casignola. The paving of the cortile 
is composed of flat stones of different colours, white travertino 
and dark peperino, in such a way that there is no regular 
pattern, thus increasing the general appearance of informality. 
At the two sides there are entrances consisting of richly 

1 Cf. LANCIANI, III., 212, 217. An important discovery was 
made in 1562 at SS. Cosmas and Damian, where some fragments 
of the Forma Urbis Romae were found. Cf. DOREZ in Comptes 
rendus de 1 Acad. des Inscript., 1910, 499 seq., and HULSEN, Dei 
lavori archeol. di Giovanantonio Dosio, Rome, 1913, 3. 

* BUSCKHARDT, Gesch. der Renaissance, 250. 

8 See A. GOTHEIN, Gesch. der Gartenkunst, I., 278. 


decorated gateways, forming vestibules, the outer part of 
which, towards the Casino, form the beginning and end of the 
great wall which encloses the whole of the north-west part, 
especially the principal building, and cutting it off, as though 
to ensure absolute privacy. 1 

A characteristic of the whole undertaking, which was 
intended to be, above all things, a splendid example of decora 
tive art, is the complete preponderance of the decorative 
element over the purely architectural. The fa9ades of both 
the Casino and the Loggia, display, from top to bottom, a 
prodigality of graceful decoration. Almost every inch of 
available space is filled with stucco ornamentation, in such a 
way that the architectural lines almost entirely disappear. 
The part taken in the reliefs and sculptures by the antique 
is noteworthy, and characteristic of the worldly tendencies of 
Pius IV. On the fa$ade of the Loggia, which is open at both 
ends, may be seen reliefs in stucco representing Apollo with 
the nine Muses and two Bacchic figures. The tympanum, 
in the centre of which is Aurora reclining upon the clouds, is 
surmounted by an antique female figure. On the north east 
side a relief represents the nymph Amaltea with a she-goat, 
which is suckling the infant Jove. 

Four columns of grey Numidian granite adorn the entrances 
of both the Loggia and the Casino. The facade of the Casino, 
which is without windows, and is purely decorative, has 
numerous allegorical scenes in relief. Eirene, Dike, Eunomia 
and Aegle are accompanied by Pan and Silenus, all distin 
guished by inscriptions. In the central space a five-line Latin 
inscription in large letters informs us that in 1561 Pius IV. 
erected a loggia, cortile, fountain and casino in the wood of the 
Vatican Palace for himself and his successors. The marble 
coat of arms of the Pope stands out boldly underneath this 
inscription, held up by two winged figures, and surmounted 
by the crossed keys and the tiara. 

From the portico of the Casino, which is richly decorated 
in mosaics, conches, stucco, paintings and statues, a lower door 

1 FRIEDLANDER, 18, 20 seq. 


leads to a wide rectangular hall, the principal feature of the 
ground floor. There are two other rooms ; out of the larger 
we pass into a small empty one, in which is placed the narrow 
staircase, which, by means of a few square landings, leads to the 
first floor, and opens on to a small platform with a balustrade , 
and lighted by three windows. The apartments on the first 
floor correspond as to their arrangement and size with the more 
lofty and airy ones on the ground floor. 1 

The interior decoration of the Casino is even more mag 
nificent than that of the exterior. The floor is covered 
with small tiles of majolica, arranged with a taste which, both 
as to the varied design and the bright colouring, recall the best 
period of this branch of art. The walls have no paintings ; 
they were intended to be covered with hangings, because 
frescoes would have spoilt the effect of the antique statues 
which were placed there, and which were taken for the most 
part from the villa of Julius III. 2 The principal and out 
standing decoration is to be found in the beauty oi the ceilings, 
where a scheme of vaulting " a specchio " has been adopted. 
" The vaulting springs from a wide cornice, and rises from 
all four sides to the centre, meeting at the corners in groins 
which are covered with decoration . " 3 Rome already possessed 
several outstanding examples of this type of decoration in the 
Loggia of Raphael, at the Castle of St. Angelo, and in the Villa 
di Papa Giulio. That of the ceiling of the Casino is on the 
same lines, and was entrusted, by the advice of Cardinal Mula, 
to a number of artists, among whom were Federigo Zuccaro, 

1 In the vestibule of the Casino two specimens of cosmati work 
of the Xllth century are used in the pavement. In one of these 
there can be read in capital letters an inscription which may be 
reproduced here, as it is not mentioned in FRIEDLANDER in his 
otherwise complete and detailed description ; it runs as follows : 
" Hunc operis quicquid chorus ecce nitet preciosi artificis scultri 
scomsit Bona dext. prae Pauli." 

2 Cf. HUBNER, Le statue di Roma, 1. : Quellensammlung, 
Leipzig, 1912, 79 seq. 



Santi di Tito and Federigo Barocci. 1 Barocci, who was a 
compatriot of Raphael, distinguished himself especially in 
this work. His paintings are marked by great strength and 
beauty, both in their design and colouring. In his treatment 
he departs from that adopted by his predecessors, for whereas 
hitherto the symbolical representations had been spread over 
the whole curve of the vaulting, Barocci places the principal 
motif in the centre, and thus has the most important scene at 
the true point of view. 2 

The decoration of the ceilings in each of the rooms in the 
Casino is extraordinarily varied ; no two are alike, and each 
is in some way characteristic of the art of the day. The 
spectator is presented with a rich display of gilt and painted 
stucco work, and the motives in each case are extremely 
beautiful, while the general impression is very fine. Anyone 
who examines the stucco work even casually will find that it 
leads up almost insensibly to the paintings themselves. In 
scriptions and armorial bearings at every turn pay their 
homage to the Pope who caused the work to be carried out. 

On the ground floor the paintings on the ceiling in the large 
hall consist of small grotesques, all connected with each other, 
among which are smiling landscapes and larger decorative 
frescos of single figures, splendid allegorical figures of women 
and putti, and lastly of independent paintings, which are 
separated from the cornice by scenes from the life of Christ. 
Among these the central point and the principal picture is a 
magnificent fresco of the Holy Family by Barocci, in which 
the influence of Correggio is plainly to be seen. The other 
smaller paintings, which are drawn from the New Testament, 
are the work of Barocci s principal assistant, Pierleone Genga. 3 

The vaulting of the adjoining room, the decoration of which 

1 Cf. VASARI, VII., 91. 

2 See FRIEDLANDER 50 seq., 54. For Barocci cf. SCHMARSOW, 
F. Barocci, I. -III., Leipzig 1909-1911 ; BOMBE, F. Barocci 
Perugia 1909 ; KROMMES, Studien zu Leipzig, 1909-19. See also 
FRIEDLANDER in Thieme-Becker, Lexikon der bild. Kiinstler, 
II., 511 seq. 

3 Cf. F^RIEDLANDER 54 seq., 62 seq., 104 seq., no seq. 


has much in common with that of the large hall, but betrays 
a later tendency, and a more advanced baroque style, is also 
adorned by a fresco of the Annunciation by Barocci. Rarely 
has this subject been depicted with so great dramatic power 
as here. The mysterious chiaroscuro, which Barocci employed 
here for the first time, is in keeping with the subject. The 
angel, who is shown as a young man, hovers above the Blessed 
Virgin who, on her knees before her prie-dieu, stretches out 
her hands in wonder, yet receives the tidings with a royal 
dignity. 1 

The four pictures in the vaulting of the well of the staircase 
are important on account of their subjects, and were the work 
of the Florentine, Santi di Tito ; this too was completed under 
Pius IV. These paintings represent : the Casino itself, as it 
appeared immediately after its completion, the horses of 
Montecavallo with the road which the Pope had constructed, 
ending in the Porta Pia, the Via Flaminia to its end, the Porta 
del Popolo, which also had been restored by the Pope, and 
lastly the Cortile di Belvedere, in which the connecting link 
erected by Pius IV. is not yet to be seen. In these pictures 
the architecture is only a background ; they are rather to be 
described as dainty little landscapes, enlivened by figures. 2 

The Loggia, which was certainly used for meals in the open 
air, had a delightful view over the fishpond below, and the 
flower beds of the garden. On the ceiling, where painting 
and stucco are alike employed, Federigo Zuccaro painted 
scenes from the history of Moses. Again here the pictures are 
drawn entirely from sacred history, whereas one would natur 
ally have been led to expect a return to antiquity. The 
erotic and mythological paintings round the side walls, 
however, show how strong a hold such things still had upon 
men s taste. The changed times nevertheless appear in the 
fact that in the Casino of Pius IV. not only are there many 
pictures of religious subjects, but also that, in contrast to the 

1 See ibid., 72 seq., 119 seq. The reproduction in Friedlander 
gives the picture the wrong way round. 

2 Ibid., 86 seq. 


Villa of Julius III., the allegorical figures are nearly always 
draped. 1 

Since the Villa of Pius IV. was situated in a more or less 
hidden place, and was not generally accessible, there is little 
mention in the guides to Rome of this " little jewel " in which 
Ligorio so cleverly combined a house and a garden. 2 Contem 
poraries only refer to it rarely, 3 but all the more fully do they 
speak of the other buildings with which Pius IV. enriched and 
fortified the Eternal City. 

The events of the war of Paul IV. with Spain had shown how 
much Rome stood in need of defences. Pius IV. could not 
forget the experiences of those days. After the news of the 
sudden defeat of the Spanish fleet near Jerbeh in May, 1560, 4 
the Turkish peril was always present before the minds of the 
Curia. 5 In order to protect his capital against a sudden 
attack by the Turkish corsairs, Pius IV. was not content with 

1 The stricter views which came into force in this respect after 
the Council of Trent, produced the decision to paint over the 
nudities of Michelangelo s Last Judgment in 1564. Cf. Vol. XII. 
p. 611, of this work. Mention is also made ibid, a thing which 
has been passed over by NOGARA in Monatsschrift fur Kunst- 
wissenschaft, III. (1910), 160 seq., of the memorial containing a 
strong attack on the Last Judgment of Michelangelo, which 
was sent on September 6, 1561, to the Archbishop of Milan, 
Charles Borromeo, for the Pope, by Scipione Saurolo. It is due, 
to NOGARA or to G. MERCATI that Saurolo s letter, which I was 
informed had been lost, is printed together with the memorial, 
in SALA, III., 90 seqq. For the opposition of the Bologna clergy 
to the nude figure of Neptune on the fountain of Giambologna 
at Bologna see PATRIZIO PARRIZI, II Gigante, Bologna, 1897. 

2 See GOTHEIN, Geisch. der Gartenkunst, I., 280. 

3 Friedlander (p. 86) has already called attention to this. The 
following passage in the *letter of Caligari to Commendone, dated 
Rome, April 4, 1564, certainly refers to the Villa : " N. S re domen- 
ica mattina fece pasto a la vigna a molti suoi parent!." (Lett, di 
princ. XXIII., n. 50, Papal Secret Archives). 

4 Cf. ZINKEISEN, II., 885 seq, ; JORGA, III., 104 seq. 

5 Cf. Massarelli in MERKLE, II., 345 ; HAMMER, II., 301; 
ZINKEISEN, II., 885 seq. GUGLIELMOTTI, Pirati, II., 413 seq. 


strengthening the Aurelian Walls, 1 but in January, 1561, 2 he 
resolved to undertake a great new scheme of fortification. 

The first consideration was to add to the defences of the 
Leonine City, a matter which Paul III. had already taken in 
hand. 3 A beginning was made by strengthening the defences 
of the Castle of St. Angelo, where the third pentagonal rampart 
which had been commenced by Paul IV. had been in great 
measure destroyed by the overflowing of the Tiber in Septem 
ber, 1557.* A commission, composed of Cardinals Tiberio 
Crispi, Alessandro Farnese and Guido Ascanio di Santa Fiora, 
was set up, which entrusted the general supervision of the works 
to the commandant of St. Angelo, Giovanni Battista Serbel- 
loni, and his brother, Gabrio, the celebrated military engineer. 5 
By the advice of Michelangelo, the carrying out of the new work 
was given to the well-known engineer, Francesco Laparelli, 
who was assisted by Latino Orsini, Galeazzo Alessi, Ascanio 
della Corgna and Francesco Paciotti. 6 

In the last week of February, 1561, the Pope and the 
Cardinals held a meeting to discuss this important matter, 

1 See NIBBY, Le mura di Roma, Rome 1820, 301, 322, 324, 356, 
367, 380 ; Revue archeol., VI., 31, 32 seq. ; VII., 130, 136, 226. 
Cf. FORCELLA, XIII., 34. Two coats of arms of Pius IV. with the 
date 1563 are preserved in the walls of the Via delle mura near 
Porta Cavalleggieri. 

2 *" Qui si da ordine per fortificare Borgo " says Fr. Tonina 
on January n, 1561 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua) ; and on 
January 16 G. Grandi : *" N. S re ha dato principle alia forti- 
ficatione del Borgo " (State Archives, Modena). Cf. the report 
of the Portuguese ambassador of January 16, 1561, in Corpo 
dipl. Portug., IX., 164 seq. 

3 Cf. Vol. XII. of this work, p. 560. 

4 Cf. Vol. XIV. of this work, p. 169, and BORGATTI, 131 seq. 

5 This is clear from *Mandati camerali 1560-1562, p. 84 (State 
Archives, Rome), and from the Motuproprio of July 30, 1562, 
published by PAGLIUCCHI (p. 162 seq.). 

6 Cf. VENUTI, Vita del cap. Fr. Laparelli, Leghorn, 1761, 7, 13, 
22 ; GUGLIELMOTTI, Fortificazioni, 373 seq. ; BORGATTI, 135, 211 ; 
ROCCHI, Piante 73, 319 seq. See also BERTOLOTTI, Art. subalp., 


also taking into consideration the question of strengthening 
the fortifications of the coast. 1 For this purpose Pius IV. 
had already visited Ostia at the end of January, 1561, 2 and on 
April i8th he went, accompanied by experts, to Civitavecchia. 3 

On May 8th the first stone of the new fortifications of St. 
Angelo was laid with great solemnity, the Pope, who was 
accompanied by a suite of 18 Cardinals and many prelates, 
himself performing the ceremony. The arms of Pius IV. were 
engraved on one side of the foundation stone, and his name 
with the date of the second year of his pontificate on the other, 
while coins of gold, silver and copper were buried with the 
stone. A salvo of cannon from the Castle of St. Angelo pro 
claimed the important event to the city. 4 

The work on the fortifications was carried on with feverish 
haste during the summer of 1561 and until the autumn. 5 

1 *Avviso di Roma of February 22nd, 1561 (Urb. 1039, p. 255, 
Vatican Library). 

z Cf. the ""reports of Fr. Tonina of January 22 and 25, 1561 
(Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). See App. n. 6, 

8 The *Avviso di Roma of April 18, 1561 (Urb. 1039, p. 268, 
Vatican Library) mentions as one of those who accompanied the 
Pope, the engineer of the Duke of Urbino, Baldassarre Tacco of 
Urbino, who had made the " modello della fortificazione di 
Borgo." This was the " Baldassarre architetto," of whom 
Saraceni remarks in his "report of April 7, 1561 (State Archives, 
Florence) that the Pope was awaiting his arrival in order that he 
might go with him to Civitavecchia. 

4 See the *letter of Saraceni of May 9, 1561 (State Archives, 
Florence), and the detailed report in the *Avviso di Roma of May 
10, 1561 (Urb. 1039, p. 272, Vatican Library). May 8 is here 
given as the date of the laying of the first stone. Bondonus is 
accordingly corrected on this point in MERKLE, II., 541 (May 7) 
and in BONANNI, I., 283 (May 6). Cf. also the *report of Fr. 
Tonina of May 10, 1561 : *"Di nuovo qui e che giobbia passata 
S.S tdl in forma solenne and6 a porre le prime pietre della forti 
ficazione che si e cominciata di Castel S. Angelo et di Borgo." 
(Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 

5 Cf. in App. nn. 13, 17, the *letters of Caligari of August 30 and 
October 1 1, 1561 (Papal Secret Archives). An *Avviso di Roma of 
August 30, 1561 (Vatican Library) speaks of the zeal with which 


In October a Mantuan agent reports that the Pope inspected 
the progress of the work every day, and desired nothing so 
much as its completion. 1 To obtain the necessary money for 
the expenses the tax for grinding corn and slaughtering beasts 
was increased, 2 in spite of the opposition of the Romans. 3 
The sums swallowed up by the fortification of the Castle of 
St. Angelo may be seen from the account books : for the years 
1561-1562 45,502 scudi were expended, in 1563 44,551, and in 
1565 46,484.* Considerable expropriations of property were 
needed in order to isolate the passage leading from the Castle 
to the Vatican ; 5 and connected with this was the displace 
ment of the north wall of the ramparts of the Leonine City. 
The new gate that was made there was called the Porta 
Angelica, from the baptismal name of the Pope ; armorial 
bearings and inscriptions record its construction at the instance 
of Pius IV. There, as on the restored Porta di Castello, may 
be read another and very significant inscription : " Let him 
who would preserve the city follow our example." 6 

they were working at the fortifications of the Castle ; see App. n. 16. 
On September 17, 1561, Fr. Tonina writes : *" Si dovea tirar hoggi 
il filo della muraglia chi si ha da fare da Castello a Palazzo, 
ma non e seguito poi, forsi domani " (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua), 

1 *" N.S re va ogni di a piedi a vedere la fabrica che si fa della 
fortezza del Castello et pare che non desideri altro che questa 
fortezza." Fr. Tonina from Rome, October 15, 1561 (Gonzaga 
Archives, Mantua). 

2 See *Avviso di Roma of January n, 1561 (Urb. 1039, p. 24ob, 
Vatican Library). 

3 Cf. RODOCANACHI, St.-Ange, 163, and PAGLIUCCHI, 143. 

4 Cf. ROCCHI, Piante, 304 seq. 

6 See RODOCANACHI, St.-Ange, 264 seq. 

6 See FORCELLA, XIII., 32 ; GUGLIELMOTTI, 366 seq. ; TOMAS- 
SETTI, III., i seq., 8 (drawing). Cf. Inventario del Monumenti di 
Roma I., Rome, 1912, 441. The inscription on the Porta di 
Castello is now in the Museum of the Castle of St. Angelo. In 
spite of all protests (cf. A. SACCO, Le torre poligone di Castel S. 
Angelo, Florence, 1890, 6) the Porta Angelica was destroyed in 
1890 in making the Piazza, del Risorgimento ; some remains of it 
were built up not far from its former site in the outer walls of the 
enclosure of the Vatican. 


The enlarged part of the Leonine City received the name of 
Borgo Pio, and the work of construction was helped on by 
the granting of privileges. 1 The above mentioned passage, 
which Pius IV. caused to be restored, separated the Borgo S. 
Angelo from this new quarter. In order to provide convenient 
means of access seven tall entrance gates were formed, on both 
sides of which fine shields bearing the arms of the Pope can 
still be seen. 2 

The old parish church of S. Maria in Traspontina, which 
stood close to the moat of the Castle, and not far irom the 
bridge, was pulled down to make room for the new fortifications 
in 1564-1565. Pius V. had it rebuilt in March, 1566, the 
design for the fa9ade being the work of Sallustio Peruzzi. 3 

The Venetian envoy, Girolamo Soranzo, in his report of 
June I4th, 1563, says that the fortifications in the Borgo and 
at the Castle of St. Angelo had made great progress, but that 
the work took so much time and was so costly, that unless 
another Pope of the same way of thinking should succeed 
Pius IV., like many other such undertakings, it would never be 
finished. 4 This view can easily be understood if we bear in 
mind that the circumference of the fortifications was three 
kilometres in length and included ten bastions and five gates. 
Soranzo s prediction was fulfilled, not only on account of the 
great expense, bat also because of the difficulty of finding 

1 See " Bulla Pii Papae IV. erectionis civitatis Piae, prope arcem 
S. Angeli, ac gratiarum in ea aedificantibus concessarum," dated 
August 23, 1565, Rome (Bladus) 1565 ; also in Bull. Rom., VII., 
381 seq. Cf. also LANCIANI, IV., n. 

2 See in FORCELLA, XIII., 32, the inscriptions on the entrance 
nearest to the Vatican, which took the place of the old Porta 
S. Pellegrino. Cf. BORGATTI, Le mura di Roma, Rome, 1899, 398. 

8 Cf. PAGLIUCCHI, 141 seq. L. Bondonus says : *" Die 13 iuli 
[1564] ex commissione S 11 " D.N. fuerunt dirutae quaedam domun- 
culae, quae erant prope dictam arcem [S. Angeli], ac etiam 
paries beatae Mariae Transpontinae." (Papal Secret Archives. 
Miscell. Arm., XII, 29, p. 374). 

4 GIROL. SORANZO, 83. For the progress of the works see 
SICKEL, Konzil, 455, and in App. n. 33 the "report of Giac. 
Tarreghetti of September 15, 1563 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 


suitable ground for the proposed bastions 1 in the wider sweep 
of the ramparts both on the slope of the Vatican hill, and on 
the north side of the Leonine City between the Belvedere and 
the Castle of St. Angelo. Bernardo Gamucci extols these new 
works which were being carried out in accordance with the 
modern ideas of fortification as one of the wonders of Rome, 
and says that it is a superhuman undertaking. 2 Pius IV., 
who had always taken the most keen interest in the work, 3 
nowhere else proclaims by means of inscriptions and coats of 
arms his responsibility for the work so fully as he does here. 4 
A special commemorative medal was struck to record it. 5 
Between the years 1562 and 1565 the Castle of St. Angelo was 
equipped with new cannon and arms, and stocked with sup 
plies ; restorations were also effected in the interior and new 
quarters formed. 6 

1 Cf. in App. n. 5, the *report of Fr. Tonina of January 18 1561 
Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 

2 GAMUCCI, Antichita, 1 79 seq. 

3 On April 8, 1562, the Pope visited the fabrica del Castello 
(*report of Tonina of that date, Gonzaga Archives, Mantua); 
he did the same in February, 1563 (*report of the same of February 
17, loc. cit.) and again in August, when he also visited the fabrica 
di Borgo (*report of the same, August n, 1563, loc. cit.). 

141 seq. Cf. BARTOLI, 92, and BORGATTI, II Mausoleo d Adriano 
ell Castel S. Angelo, Rome, 1902, 52. At the present day (1913) 
there are preserved in the Castle of St. Angelo no less than n 
inscriptions some with the arms of Pius IV. Two read : Pius 
IIII Mediolan. P.M.; five : Pius IIII Mediolan. Pont. Max. 
Anno sal. 1563 (these were placed in the curtains of the pentagonal 
ramparts) ; two others : Pius IIII Medices Mediolan. Pontif. 
Max. anno sal. 1563. Lastly there are two key-stones ; angels 
holding up tablets with the inscription : Observato fines Pius IIII 
Pont. Max. Anno sal. 1565. Several coats of arms of Pius IV. 
are also to be found in the covered way leading to the Vatican. 

6 Cf. BONANNI, 1., 283 seq.; VENUTI, in ; ARMAND, II., 217. 

6 Cf. RODOCANACHI, St. Ange, 173; PAGLIUCCHI, 143. For 
the restoration of the Ponte S. Angelo see Jahrb. der Preuss. 
Kunstsamml, XXXVI, Beiheft, p. 59. 


Extensive constructions were planned, and partly carried 
out, for the protection of the coasts of the Papal States. In 
accordance with the proposals of Martino de Ayala fortified 
towers were erected near Terracina, Monte Circeo, Anzio and 
Palidoro, where the inhabitants might take refuge at the 
approach of the Turkish corsairs. A complete system of such 
towers was projected, but the fulfilment of the scheme was left 
to Pius V. 1 At the same time the strengthening of the 
fortifications of the ports was taken into consideration. 2 At 
Ostia Pius IV. made good in 1561 the damage which that 
fortress had suffered at the hands of the Spaniards under 
Paul IV. 3 The works at Civitavecchia were on a larger scale ; 
the Pope inspected them in person several times, first in Octo 
ber, 1561, 4 and again in November, 1563. 5 A medal com 
memorates the improvement in the harbour and the security 
given to the city by Pius IV. The work only reached com 
pletion under his successor. 6 When, especially in 1562, the 
Mediterranean coast, and later, that of the Adriatic, were 
disturbed by Turkish attacks, 7 Pius IV. made provision for 

1 See GUGLIELMOTTI, Fortificazioni, 398-405, 430 seq., 449, 478. 
Cf. TOMASSETTI, Campagna, I., 180. 

2 Cf. the *Avvisi di Roma of May 10, October 4 and 25, 1561 
(Urb. 1039, p. 272, 301, 3O5b, Vatican Library). 

3 See the *report of Mula of January 25, 1561 (Papal Secret 
Archives), and the Relazione of Tiepolo, 196. Cf. GUGLIELMOTTI, 
he. cit., 84 ; DURUY, 200, n. 4 ; BERTOLOTTI, Art. Lomb., i, 170, 
and the *report in App. n. 6. 

4 See in App. n. 18, the "letter of Caligari of October 22, 1561 
(Papal Secret Archives). Cf. SUSTA, III., 44. 

5 See the *report of Giac. Tarreghetti, dated Rome, November 
J 3 T 5 6 3 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 

6 See GUGLIELMOTTI, loc. cit., 286 seq., 290, 294, 296. Cf. 
BONANNI, I., 290. Two letters of Charles Borromeo of 1562 
concerning the fortifications of Civitavecchia in PICCOLOMINI- 
ADAMI, Guida di Orvieto, 357 seq. On the principal gate of the 
Rocca at Civitavecchia the name of Pius IV. may still be seen. 

7 An *Avviso di Roma of June 6, 1562, reports that the corsairs 
were taking away many prisoners near Ardea ; a man who had 
conspired with them had been imprisoned (Urb. 1039, p. 368b, 


the protection of his subjects. 1 Specially noteworthy was the 
improvement carried out by his orders of the defence works 
at Ancona, where the harbour was also improved. 2 How 
methodically the Pope proceeded with his fortification works 
in the Papal States may be seen from the fact that at the end 
of 1561 he ordered Gabrio Serbelloni to make a tour of the whole 
territory in order that he might personally satisfy himself as 
to the places which stood in special need of defences. 3 The 
Papal States were also in need of protection against other 
enemies than the corsairs, and Pius IV. accordingly in 1561 
had the defences of Bologna strengthened, and enclosed Anagni, 
which was situated in an exposed position, within a completely 
new line of walls. The Florentine, Giovan Antonio Dosio, 
who was well known for his archeological researches, drew the 
plans for this. 4 In May, 1563, Ravenna was fortified, which 

Vatican Library). Another surprise attack had been made near 
Ostia on June 18 and 19 (see *Avviso di Roma of June 20, 1562, 
ibid., 374). Some corsairs even got as far as Tre Fontane, in 
consequence of which the Pope sent 500 men to Ostia " per vedere 
di resistere alle ruine " (*Avviso of June 27, 1562, ibid., 375). 
For the fortifications at Nettuno in 1563, see TOMASSETTI, Cam- 
pagna, II., 332. 

1 See the *Avvisi di Roma of May 16 1562 (Urb. 1039, p. 363 b), 
March 31, April 14 and 28, 1565 (Urb. 1040, p. i, 3, 7b, Vatican 

2 Cf. LEONI, Ancona illustr. Ancona, 1832, 294 ; SALA, III., 86 ; 
GUGLIELMOTTI, Fortificazioni, 489 ; according to a ""report of 
Mula of July 27, 1560 (Papal Secret Archives) a strong fortification 
of Ancona was already under consideration. The * brief " super 
solutione 8,000 scutorum pro reparatione portus Anconit." 
(Editti, in Casanatense Library, Rome) is dated June 9, 1561 ; 
Faenza was exempted from the tax ; see *brief of May 28, 1564 
(Communal Archives, Faenza). 

8 See in App. n. 19, the *letter of Caligari of November 8, 
1561 (Papal Secret Archives). 

4 A *report of Fr. Tonina of January n, 1561 (Gonzaga Archives, 
Mantua), records the fortification of Bologna, and GIAC. SORANZO, 
131, that of Anagni, 238 seq. cf. DE MAGISTRIS, Storia d Anagni, 
I (1889), 169, 238 seq. See also Pio IV. y Felipe II., 343. 
As to Anagni an *Avviso di Roma of May 3, 1565, announces that 

VOL. XVI. 28 


caused it to be said that fears of a Huguenot invasion of Italy 
were entertained. 1 

The Pope combined his fortification works with aesthetic 
considerations in his restoration of the gates of Rome, for which 
Michelangelo provided many of the sketches. For the new 
gate which was to take the place of the ancient Porta Nomen- 
tana or of S. Agnese, the master made three designs, which 
Vasari describes as being as beautiful as they were clever. 
From motives of economy Pius IV. chose the one which was 
the least costly. 2 In March, 1561, the work was commenced 
upon this new entrance to the city, which was erected between 
the ancient Porta Nomentana and the Porta Salaria. 3 On 
June i8th of the same year Pius IV. laid the first stone of the 
gate, which was named after him Porta Pia. 4 The contract 
made by the Apostolic Camera with the builders employed 
on this work is dated July 2nd, 1561. In this document 
Michelangelo is spoken of as the director of the works, and 
Pierluigi Gaeta appears as overseer. 6 For the sake of safety, 
a motuproprio ordered the closing both of the Porta Salaria 
and the old Porta Nomentana, and Count Ranieri was ap 
pointed custodian ot the new gate, with permission to build 
an inn there. 6 The fagade of the Porta Pia towards the city, 

the Pope is going there for the Ascension " a veder la fortezza, 
alia quale s e tuttavia intorno " (C. Farnes. VI., State Archives, 
Naples). For Dosio see BERTOLOTTI, Art. Lomb., I., 62. Cf. 
also HULSEN, Dei lavori archeol. di G. Dosio, Rome, 1913, 3. 

1 Cf. the *report of Fr. Tonina of May 5, 1563 (Gonzaga Archives, 

2 See VASARI, VII., 260 ; DAELLI, n. 23 ; THODE, V., 208. Cf. 
GAMUCCI, Antichita, 116. 

3 See LANCIANI, III., 231 seq. Cf. CANCELLIERI, Possessi, 475 ; 
Jahrb. der Preuss. Kunstsamml., XXX. (1909), Beiheft, p. 166. 

4 See Diarium caerem. in BONANNI, 1., 278 and in App. n. n. 
the *letter of Tonina of June 18, 1461 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). 
In the Annuaire Pontifical, 1915, p. 168, is an old picture of the 
Porta Pia, and on p. 169 a picture of the tomb of Pius IV. 

5 GOTTI, II., 1 60 seq. Cf. BERTOLOTTI, Art. subalp., 40 seq.; 
THODE, I., 471 ; V., 207. 

6 See BICCI, Notizia della famiglia Boccapaduli, 230. 


which was only completed in the time of Pius IX., clearly 
shows the intention of the master to give the actual gateway a 
more imposing appearance ; as far as the construction is 
concerned this is carried out in such a way as to produce an 
extremely fine effect, being surrounded by small secondary 
windows and sham battlements. The construction of the 
actual adornment is subordinated to this purpose, and is in 
itself quite trivial. 1 In the upper part, above the entrance, 
was placed the coat of arms of the founder, carved out of a 
colossal marble capital discovered under the palace of Cardinal 
della Valle. 

The reconstruction of the Porta del Popolo, which swallowed 
up more than 10,000 scudi, was decided upon in the autumn 
of 1561, 2 but was only taken in hand in 1562. 3 On July 23rd 
of the following year Pius IV. inspected the outer faagde ; 4 
this takes the form of a triumphal arch, and is adorned with 
four Doric columns, two of granite and two of marble. 

The inscriptions on the Porta del Popolo and the Porta Pia 
tell us of the rearrangement of the streets which was under 
taken by Pius IV., 6 which, like the levelling and reconstruction 
of the piazze near the Lateran 6 and Capitol, 7 were undertaken 

1 See BURCKHARDT, Gesch. der Renaissance, 231. Cf. REU- 
MONT, III., 2, 721 ; GEYMULLER, Michelangelo als architekt, 
39 seq., 55 seq.; KRAUS-SAUER, II., 2, 654 ; MACKOWSKY, Michel 
angelo 324 seq.; also NIBBY, Roma antica, I., 143, and Arch. d. 
soc. Rom., XL, 157. 

2 C/. in App. n. 17, the *letter of Caligari of October n, 
1561 (Papal Secret Archives). 

3 See LANCIANI, III., 234 seq.; CANCELLIERI, Possessi, 474 n. 
Cf. BONANNI, I., 287; VENUTI, 113 seq. 

4 *" Hieri S.B ne . . . riguard6 assai la porta del popolo ri- 
formata per Sua B ne " Report of Fr. Tonina from Rome, July 24, 
I 5&3 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). Here, too, is given the 
inscription (Anno III.) from which THODE (V., 210) wrongly 
calculates the beginning as well as the end of the work. 

5 See FORCELLA, XIII., 31 seq. Cf. CANCELLIERI, Possessi, 
476 n. 

6 See CONTARINI, Antichita, 41. 

7 See RODOCANACHI, Capitole, 80. 


from motives both of utility and beauty. The street leading 
from Monte Cavallo to the Porta Pia, which was named after 
the Pope, was finished in June, 1561, and is one of the most 
beautiful in the whole city. 1 It is rivalled by the Via 
Flaminia, which Pius IV. improved and beautified as far as 
Ponte Molle. It is impossible to imagine, boasts a contem 
porary, any entrance to a city more beautiful than this, which 
so splendidly prepares the stranger for the grandeurs and mar 
vels of Rome. 2 

Pius IV., who also took steps to connect the Via di Porta 
Angelica with the Via Cassia, and to restore the Via Merulana 
and Via Aurelia, had even more extensive plans for the well- 
being of his capital ; above all he wished to improve the 
communication between Rome and the sea-coast. 3 Another 
of his projects was to prevent the inundations of the Tiber, 
which so frequently afflicted the city. 4 In order to put an 

1 See in App. nn. 5, n, the ""reports of Tonina of January 18, 
and June 18, 1561 (Gonzaga Archives, Mantua). See also the 
note of Girol. Ferrucci to ANDREA FULVIO, L antichit& di Roma 
con le aggiutioni di G. F., Venice, 1588, 26b. 

2 GAMUCCI, Antichita, 133. 

3 See the inscriptions in TAJA, 244 and FORCELLA, XIII., 32, 
as well as LANCIANI, III., 169. The construction of the street 
from SS. Quattro Coronati to the Lateran is recorded in the 
guide, Le cose meravigliose dell alma citta di Roma, Rome, 1563, 
28. Reference is made to the Via Aurelia in the *Avviso di 
Roma of October 4, 1561 (Urb. 1039) : the Pope is about to 
make " una strada commoda de poter andare da Roma a Civi 
tavecchia, anche per li carri." An *Avviso di Roma of October 
25, 1561, announces that the Pope intends to fortify Ostia and 
Civitavecchia. At Civitavecchia, besides repairing the road, 
there was a plan for " un naviglio over di trovar un modo di 
poter far andare le barche giunte che siano nel porto insino a 
Polo, ove potranno discargare le robbe per condurle piu facil- 
mente a Roma per esser quella strada piu commoda che non 
e quella d Hostia " (Urb. 1039, p. 3055, Vatican Library). 

4 An *Avviso di Roma of June 28, 1561, says that Pius IV. 
" ha proposto di voler far con 1 aiuto de Romani che si facci 
passare un ramo del Tevere per i Prati insino alia Magliana, ove 


end to the brigandage in the neighbourhood .of Rome, the 
Pope had the woods round Civitavecchia, which formed such 
a good hiding place, cut down. 1 

In some respects Pius IV. was the precursor of Sixtus V., 
not only by his improvement of the streets, the beauty of 
which was so praised by his contemporaries, 2 but also because, 
from the second year of his pontificate, 3 he set himself to the 
task of providing for one of the most important needs of the 
life of Rome, a good water supply. With this end in view he 
entirely renewed the Acqua Vergine. 4 The necessary steps 
were decided upon in the spring of 1561 ; 5 not only the Roman 
people, but the College of Cardinals as well, were to contribute 
to the cost. 6 In April, 1562, Pius IV. inspected the works 
near Salone. 7 Contemporaries were right in praising this 

habia a ritornare nel Tevere et questo per metter Borgo in penin 
sula et per obviare alle inundationi " (Urb. 1039, p. 2835, Vatican 
Library). For the plan of Antonio Treviso of 1560 cf. GASPORONI, 
Arti e Lettere, Rome, 1865, 117 seq. ; BELTRAMI in Riv. Europ., 
XI. (1880), 361 seq., 367 seq. The same, L. BUFALINI, Florence, 
1880. A medal of Pius IV. records the alteration in the course 
of the Savio in the Romagna (Sapio intra novum alveum coer- 
cito) ; see BONANNI, I., 288 ; VENUTI, 121. 

1 See in App. n. 18, the *letter of Caligari of October 22, 1561 
(Papal Secret Archives). 

2 Cf. P. TIEPOLO, 196. 

8 Cf. in App. nn. 15, 17, the ""letters of Caligari of August 30 and 
October n, 1561 (Papal Secret Archives). 

4 Cf. L. PETI, De mensuris et ponderibus Romanis et Graecis, 
Rome, 1573, 113 seq. ; P. TIEPOLO, 196; BONANNI, L