Reforming Priests and Parishes (Education and Society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance)

REFORMING PRIESTS AND PARISHES

EDUCATION AND SOCIETY IN THE MIDDLE AGES AND RENAISSANCE Editors

Jürgen Miethke (Heidelberg) William J. Courtenay (Madison) Jeremy Catto (Oxford) Jacques Verger (Paris)

VOLUME 27

REFORMING PRIESTS AND PARISHES Tuscan Dioceses in the First Century of Seminary Education BY

KATHLEEN M. COMERFORD

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2006

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Comerford, Kathleen M. Reforming priests and parishes : Tuscan dioceses in the first century of seminary education / by Kathleen M. Comerford. p. cm. — (Education and society in the Middle Ages and Renaissance, ISSN 0926-6070 ; v. 27) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. ISBN-13: 978-90-04-15357-8 ISBN-10: 90-04-15357-8 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Catholic Church—Italy—Tuscany—History—16th century. 2. Tuscany (Italy)—Church history—16th century. 3. Clergy—Training of. 4. Theological seminaries—Italy—Tuscany. 5. Dioceses—Italy—Tuscany. I. Title. II. Series. BX1546.T8C66 2006 230.07’32455—dc22 2006047567

ISSN 0926-6070 ISBN-10: 90 04 15357 8 ISBN-13: 978 90 04 15357 8 © Copyright 2006 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Hotei Publishing, IDC Publishers, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. printed in the netherlands

Al mio vero cuore, perchè non li havrò mai le parole. . . .

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ...................................................................... List of Maps and Charts .......................................................... List of Abbreviations .................................................................. Preface ........................................................................................

ix xi xiii xv

Chapter One: Early Modern Tuscany: The Social and Political Setting ......................................................................

1

Chapter Two: Early Modern Priests in Selected Tuscan Dioceses: Expectations and Realities ....................................

25

Chapter Three: The Diocese and Seminary of Arezzo ........

39

Chapter Four: The Archdiocese and Seminary of Siena ......

59

Chapter Five: The Diocese and Seminary of Volterra ..........

79

Chapter Six: The Archdiocese and Seminary of Lucca ........

91

Chapter Seven: Context: Three Other Tuscan Dioceses and Seminaries .............................................................................. 115 Chapter Eight: Conclusion ........................................................ 131 Bibliography ................................................................................ 139 Index .......................................................................................... 149

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am a very lucky person; I begin this page not knowing whom, among many, to thank first. Colleagues, friends, and family all have contributed so much to the book which follows (without, of course, deserving any share of the blame for the mistakes herein) that I am faced with a difficult task. The faculty and staff of Georgia Southern University, from the late Tim Moore in the Office of Research Services and Sponsored Programs, who succumbed to cancer as I was writing, to Cynthia Frost and the Interlibrary Loan program, to the Department of History, all supported, encouraged, and improved this work. I am particularly indebted to Fran Aultman, Charles F. Briggs, Jonathan Bryant, Sandra Peacock, and Lisa Sapp. Colleagues and friends around the world, especially Luca Codignola, Wietse de Boer, Sabrina Gatto, William V. Hudon, Robert M. Kingdon, Thomas McCoog, John Monfasani, John O’Malley, Hilmar Pabel, Maurizio Sangalli, Howard Shealy, and Nicholas Terpstra, deserve my deepest appreciation for their enthusiasm, patience, and wisdom. I was fortunate enough to receive several grants to research and complete this book. The largest portion came from Georgia Southern University, but I was also generously supported by the Istituto Nazionale degli Studi di Rinascimento/Renaissance Society of America. In addition, my work was aided by the State University System of Georgia’s Summer Abroad in Montepulciano Program. While teaching courses there over several summers, I was not only able to increase my understanding of south-central Tuscan society, and to gain valuable experience in the arts of wine, cheese, and olive oil, but also to use my non-teaching time for further networking and researching. While on these various research trips to Arezzo, Chiusi, Florence, Lucca, Montepulciano, Pienza, Rome, San Minato al Monte, Siena, Volterra, Atlanta, and Washington, D.C., I met more librarians and archivists than I can count, and remain deeply indebted to them for their freely offered help. I thank, as well, the helpful and cheerful people at Brill Academic Publishers. Julian Deahl first encouraged me to submit the book, and he and Marcella Mulder remained sources of support throughout

x

acknowledgements

the process. The anonymous reader they chose made this a vastly improved book, and my gratitude goes to this reader and the editors. A scholar, of course, is at bottom a human, and without my incomparable family and friends I should never have survived despite the resources at my disposal. My friends are great gifts, and I shall ever appreciate their patience with my anxieties and joys. Yet over the years, I have learned that family is more precious than anything. No amount of words could thank my parents for all they have been and done for me, based on my needs and desires and regardless of the cost to them. Neither can I ever express all that my chosen family means to me. Mark and Elliot, you are truly my tesori. Portions of Chapters 3, 6, and 7 were published as “‘The Care of Souls is a Very Grave Burden for [the Pastor]’: Professionalization of Clergy in Early Modern Florence, Lucca, and Arezzo,” in Wim Janse and Barbara Pitkin, eds., The Formation of Clerical and Confessional Identities in Early Modern Europe: Dutch Review of Church History 85 (2006): 349–368; and “Post-Tridentine Tuscan Diocesan Seminaries: Collaboration between City-State and Church?” in Paedagogica Historia (forthcoming).

LIST OF MAPS AND CHARTS

Map 1: 1596 Borders of Selected Dioceses, with Borders of Modern Tuscany .................................................................... Map 3.1: Diocese of Arezzo .................................................... Table 3.1: Yearly Student Population of the Seminary in Arezzo, 1658–1676 ................................................................ Table 3.2: Total Time Students Spent in Seminary in Arezzo, 1640s–1670 .............................................................. Table 3.3: Comparison of Town of Origin of Secular Priests in Arezzo, 1600s–1650s ............................................ Table 3.4: Urban Profile of Secular Priests in Arezzo, 1600s–1650s ............................................................................ Table 3.5: Comparison of Length of Time for Promotions in Orders between Seminary and Non-Seminary Priests in Arezzo, 1600s–1650s .............................................................. Graph 3.1: Average Duration of Stay in Seminary in Arezzo vs. Year of Entrance, 1658–1676 ............................ Chart 3.1: Geographical Origins of Secular Clergy in Arezzo, 1600–1650s .............................................................. Chart 3.2: Geographical Origins of Non-Seminary Priests in Arezzo, 1600–1650s .............................................................. Chart 3.3: Geographical Origins of Seminary Priests in Arezzo, 1640s–1650s .............................................................. Map 4.1: Diocese of Siena ........................................................ Table 4.1: Total Time Students Spent in Seminary in Siena, 1630s–1670s ............................................................................ Table 4.2: Yearly Student Population of the Seminary in Siena, 1633–1675 .................................................................. Table 4.3: Comparison of Town of Origin of Secular Priests in Siena, 1630s–1670s ............................................................ Table 4.4: Urban Profile of Secular Priests in Siena, 1630s–1670s ............................................................................ Graph 4.1: Average Duration of Stay in Seminary in Siena vs. Year of Entrance, 1633–1674 ........................................ Chart 4.1: Geographical Origins of Secular Priests in Siena, 1630–1670s ............................................................................

2 52 46 50 54 55

56 49 53 53 54 75 68 69 74 77 70 75

xii

list of maps and charts

Chart 4.2: Geographical Origins of Non-Seminary Priests in Siena, 1630–1670s ............................................................ Chart 4.3: Geographical Origins of Seminary Priests in Siena, 1630s–1670s ................................................................ Map 5.1: Diocese of Volterra .................................................. Map 6.1: Diocese of Lucca ...................................................... Table 6.1: Yearly Student Population of the Seminary in Lucca, 1637–1657 .................................................................. Table 6.2: “Grades” Earned by Lucchese Seminarians in Selected Subjects, 1637–1657 ................................................ Table 6.3: Age of Seminarians in Lucca at Entrance, 1637–1657 .............................................................................. Table 6.4: Age of Seminarians in Lucca at Departure, 1637–1657 .............................................................................. Table 6.5: Total Time Students Spent in Seminary in Lucca, 1637–1657 .................................................................. Table 6.6: Comparison of Town of Origin of Secular Priests in Lucca, 1600s–1650s .............................................. Table 6.7: Urban Profile of Secular Priests in Lucca, 1609–1660 .............................................................................. Table 6.8: Comparison of Length of Time for Promotions in Orders between Seminary and Non-Seminary Priests in Lucca, 1609–1660 ............................................................ Graph 6.1: Average Duration of Stay in Seminary in Lucca vs. Year of Entrance, 1637–1656 ........................................ Chart 6.1: Geographical Origins of Secular Priests in Lucca, 1609–1660 .............................................................................. Chart 6.2: Geographical Origins of Non-Seminary Priests in Lucca, 1609–1660 ............................................................ Chart 6.3: Geographical Origins of Seminary Priests in Lucca, 1609–1660 .................................................................. Table 7.1: Comparison of Ordination Statistics ...................... Table 7.2: Comparison of Urban Profiles .............................. Table 7.3: Relationship between Synods and Seminary Foundations ............................................................................

76 76 80 111 99 102 103 103 104 111 112

113 105 109 110 110 116 116 128

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

Reference Works DBI DESE

Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana. 1960– (63 volumes in 2005). Dizionario di Erudizione Storico-Ecclesiastica da S. Pietro sino ai nostri giorni. Venice: Tipografia Emiliana, 1840–1861, 108 volumes.

Archives AACL ACAS ACVA ADM ADPz ASA ASAL ASCAF ASCV ASF ASL ASMF ASS ASSS ASV ASVA AVV

Archivio Arcivescovile della Curia di Lucca Archivio della Curia Arcivescovile di Siena Archivio della Curia Vescovile di Arezzo Archivio Diocesano di Montepulciano Archivio Diocesano di Pienza Archivio di Stato di Arezzo Archivio del Seminario Arcivescovile di Lucca Archivio Storico della Curia Arcivescovile di Firenze Archivio Statale Comunale di Volterra Archivio di Stato di Firenze Archivio di Stato di Lucca Archivio del Seminario Maggiore di Firenze Archivio di Stato di Siena Archivio Storico del Pontificio Seminario Regionale Pio XII di Siena Archivio del Seminario di Volterra Archivio del Seminario Vescovile di Arezzo Archivio Vescovile di Volterra

list of abbreviations

xiv

Libraries BCA BDS BGV BNCF

Biblioteca Biblioteca Biblioteca Biblioteca

della Città di Arezzo Diocesano di Siena Guarnacci di Volterra Nazionale Centrale di Firenze

PREFACE

In 1563, the Council of Trent issued a decree requiring all dioceses in Catholic territories to build seminaries for the training of parish priests (Session 23, Chapter 18). This decree was intended to usher in a major change in the parish and its clergy; indeed, Hubert Jedin has stated “[i]t would not be an exaggeration to say that, if the Council of Trent had done nothing else for the renewal of the church but initiate the setting up of diocesan seminaries for priests, it would have done a great deal.”1 The requirement to open a seminary to train secular priests was a practical solution to the widely acknowledged abuse of clerical ignorance and incompetence, arising in part from long-term failures of the educational establishment and in part from the specific demands of the Protestant Reformation. This solution is now viewed by historians as a natural aspect of mid- to lateReformation developments, especially confessionalization and professionalization. In the context of a strong emphasis on education and doctrinal standardization found throughout Western European Christian denominations in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Catholic reformers set out to improve the discipline and practical knowledge of priests and parishioners alike. In part this was a reaction, a move designed to combat heresy, superstition, and ignorance of doctrine. In part it was a revival of earlier attempts to improve the behavior and intellect of the clergy, traceable back through some of the earliest ecumenical councils. The new educational institutions, Tridentine diocesan seminaries, were accompanied by other initiatives: the Schools of Christian Doctrine, colleges and universities run by Jesuits and other religious orders, and a number of local or regional schools, for example the Cannobian school in Novara (founded 1554) and the Oblates of St. Ambrose in Milan (founded 1581). Although these institutions cannot be considered a system, they often worked effectively together to educate future priests. These schools, and the men who

1 Hubert Jedin, Crisis and Closure of the Council of Trent (London: Sheed and Ward, 1967), p. 120.

xvi

preface

were taught there, created a more professional clergy, one equipped for the “Age of Confessionalization.” In other words, they were ready to educate the parishioners, via propaganda, counter-propaganda, and formal instruction, or else to lose them to other denominations.2 The role of seminaries in this schema was initially defined as the training of clergy in every Roman Catholic diocese. The impossibility of this design was soon clear, as many dioceses proved unable to support seminaries by themselves. In addition, an important omission in the decree quickly proved fatal to the hope that the problems to be overcome were merely financial: although all dioceses were supposed to open seminaries, not all aspiring secular priests were required to attend them. As a result, this apparently significant reform in fact allowed the continuation of a number of alternate paths to the priesthood, including the kind of apprentice training associated with the Middle Ages and the forms of careerism found among the wealthy seeking to gain positions for their sons. No specific incentives were attached to seminary education and no specific punishments were meted out for non-attendance. In addition, education in such seminaries as did exist was not always systematic, as will be explained in the case studies which comprise the bulk of this volume. Still, the reform was a watershed at least in theory. Diocesan seminaries should have affected a very dramatic change in the practice of Catholicism, because the students at such schools would be from the parishes and would return there, thereby creating a truly local reform. Schools of religious orders and universities primarily, though not exclusively, trained priests to evangelize, teach, or hold administrative and bureaucratic positions. On the other hand, seminaries were exclusively intended to instruct the parish clergy, even the poorest among them, to become good pastors, men who would truly exercise the cura animarum, preaching as well as administering and explaining the sacraments

2 The process of “confessionalization” is characterized in a series of works by Wolfgang Reinhard: see especially “Gegenreformation als Modernisierung? Prolegomena zu einer Theorie des konfessionellen Zeitalters,” in Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 68 (1977): 226–251; “Confessionalizzazione forzata? Prolegomeni ad una teoria dell’età confessionale,” Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento 8 (Bologna: il Mulino, 1982): 13–37; and “Reformation, Counter-Reformation, and the Early Modern State: A Reassessment,” in Catholic Historical Review 75 (1989): 383–404. A recent study of casuistry and parishes in Milan, Wietse De Boer’s The Conquest of the Soul: Confession, Discipline, and Public Order in Counter-Reformation Milan (Brill: Leiden and Boston 2001), is also important for this field.

preface

xvii

to their congregations. This parish reform would contain the seeds of a far broader reform of the Catholic Church, as it would create an educated and experienced generation of priests who could lead the parishioners through the spiritual chaos of the Reformation era and seventeenth century, and provide leadership on pivotal issues such as the treatment of heresy, the new regulations on marriage, and censorship. This book is a comparative study of a number of diocesan seminaries in the region of modern Italy called Tuscany from the close of the Council of Trent through the late seventeenth century. The selected dioceses represent a broad spectrum of economic, political, demographic, and religious issues and thus allow insight into the various factors leading to or preventing success. The largest city in the study is Siena, formerly an independent republic, but after 1555 under Florentine domination. Although it was not treated in the same way as the other conquered cities—unlike Arezzo and Volterra, which had no independence, Siena was considered a stato nuovo and allowed to keep its bureaucracy more or less intact—it had lost a large measure of its political freedom, and worked to serve Medici and Florentine interests. The only truly independent region under consideration is Lucca, the capital city of which had roughly the same population as Siena, which remained autonomous until conquered by Florence in 1796.3 Many of the smaller dioceses used for contextual comparison also had a long history of conflict with the Medici state. Montepulciano, for example, had often been the scene 3 Widely different statistics can be found for the population of the cities and dioceses under consideration in this study. As a conservative estimate, between 1550 and 1700, the population of the city of Siena varied from a low of 10,300 (1550) to a high of approximately 19,000 (1600–1610s), and that of Lucca ranged from 10,000 to 25,000; the figures for the latter are far less convincing, as the sources both use rounding and fail to distinguish clearly between city, diocese, and republic. Given the loss of territory for the creation of the Grand Ducal Diocese of San Miniato after 1622 and the impact of the 1630s plagues, for example, it is highly unlikely that the population of Lucca—city, archdiocese, or republic—remained at around 24,000–25,000 by 1645, as Karl Julius Beloch, Storia della popolazione d’Italia (Florence: Casa Editrice Le Lettere, 1994), pp. 290–291 and 333–334, claims. See also Jan de Vries, European Urbanization 1500 –1800 (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1984), p. 276; Riguccio Galluzzi, Istoria del Granducato di Toscana sotto il Governo della Casa Medici, 2d edition (Florence: Gaetano Cambiagi, 1781), vol. 6/9, p. 413; Gregory Hanlon, Early Modern Italy, 1550–1800 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000), p. 54; and Archivio di Stato di Firenze (henceforth ASF) Consiglio di Reggenza N. 264: Codex Sacerdotii et Imperii de Episcopis P.I. Stati dell’Anime del Granducato di Toscana dell’Anno 1761.

xviii

preface

of battles for dominance between Siena and Florence; by 1554–1555, it was safely in Florentine hands. Individual chapters introduce the political and economic history of each diocese. While each diocese clearly was dominated by very diverse bishoprics, the local clergy did not differ dramatically from region to region before the Council of Trent. As a study of the visitation records and pre-Tridentine schools shows, in all areas the clergy were badly in need of reform. Did this similarity end after the seminaries were built? The simple answer is yes, the clergy showed some improvement, but it is the ways in which the seminary-trained priests and their non-seminarian secular priest contemporaries differed from region to region which is complicated. A seminarian in Lucca followed a fairly rigorous course of study, complete with frequent examinations. A seminarian in Siena also benefited from an organized curriculum, but not from similar testing. A seminarian in Arezzo had neither. All of these would go out to work in parishes, and be held to the same standards on visitations; their performances are quite revealing. Thus the one constant among the different dioceses after seminaries opened is the small number of young men who studied in seminaries, and the brief periods for which they studied. Clearly, therefore, these newly-trained parish priests were themselves more professional, or to use Gaetano Greco’s term, more “sacerdotal,” but they were also clearly very rare in the late sixteenth century and still sparse throughout the seventeenth.4 The major questions which this book seeks to answer are twofold: what was the impact of seminary education in a given area, and how (if at all) did that differ between major and minor urban centers? This focus on the educational changes for the clergy in the early modern period allows for an understanding of the development of church and people. While the creation of a more centralized state and a more educated and professional clergy can lead historians to categorize the Baroque era as a stagnating period in Roman Catholic Church history, it can also create a broader picture of the “Age of Confessionalization.” In particular, studying the parish clergy can

4 Notable among Greco’s more recent works on the issue of professionalization and sacerdotalization is La Chiesa in Italia nell’età moderna (Rome: Laterza, 1999). On the Tridentine interpretation of the parish priest’s ministry, and how this developed, see Silvio Dainich, “La teologia del presbiterato al Concilio di Trento,” La Scuola Cattolica 99 (1971): 331–358.

preface

xix

provide historians with deeper insight into the way that the Reformation and Catholic or Counter Reformation affected the “average” person in town and country. In other words, one way to look at popular culture or its close relative, popular religion, is viewing the clergy in minor orders and the diocesan priests as “regular folk,” not part of some elite. Before the Council of Trent these clerics, and in particular the secular priests, were rarely educated, much less welleducated; tended to stay and work in the same towns where they were born and raised; and had little influence on society outside of their own parishes. The new institutions with their new goals should have ushered in a new era in pastoral life, an era of significantly increased education and discipline. They did not; however, a measure of change within parishes is clearly evident and will be discussed in detail, along with the limitations. The study of seminaries in different dioceses sheds light on areas including social, religious, and institutional history, and recently historians have demonstrated increasing interest in these schools. The present study, while comparative, remains but a small corner of the larger picture of the role of education in the Catholic Reformation.

CHAPTER ONE

EARLY MODERN TUSCANY: THE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL SETTING

Tuscany since the unification of Italy is a single province with some lingering political rivalries; in the same region in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, several small rival republics coexisted with the Florentine state, which frequently attempted to swallow those smaller republics. The present volume focuses primarily on select regions of this fertile zone in north-central Italy from the 1560s through approximately the 1670s: Arezzo, Lucca, Siena, and Volterra. The choices are rather deliberate because the cities represent different aspects of the history of Tuscany: Siena and Lucca were large and powerful cities, once capitals of powerful republics (although Lucca’s independence was at times precarious and Siena’s was only a recent bitter memory); Arezzo was a secondary city and Volterra smaller still, both very much overshadowed by their neighbors, Florence, Pisa, and Siena. They represent the four compass points within the region. All of these cities faced economic crises, but responded in far different ways.1 Therefore, these urban areas, and the sometimes overlapping contadi which they dominated, provide the historian with a broad basis of comparison for developments in the educational, social, and religious history of Tuscany in the late Reformation era. The three dependent comuni, and several mentioned in brief in Chapter 7, were part of a complex centralized, although not completely central, organization known as the Duchy of Florence until 1569 and the Grand Duchy of Tuscany after that. The government was headed by a Duke and then a Grand Duke, assisted by a series of councils and an overseeing body called the Nove Conservatori della giurisdizione e del dominio fiorentino, created in 1560 and suppressed in

1 Bella Duffy’s The Tuscan Republics (Florence, Siena, Pisa and Lucca) with Genoa (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons and London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1893) is a history dealing with the separate republics; although it does not meet twenty-first century standards for professionalism, it remains one of the few comparative discussions of these four republics.

2

chapter one

Map 1: 1596 Borders of Selected Tuscan Dioceses, with Borders of Modern Tuscany © Research Media, University of Georgia

1769. Nine citizens held their posts for 6 months: 5 of them were from the Senate, 2 from the Consiglio di Dugento, and the remainder were “ordinary citizens,” i.e. not holding political offices. Elections were a mano, in the grand Medici tradition.2 The Nove had administrative, judicial, and financial functions which were designed to make the governance of the Grand Duchy more efficient.3 2 Beatrice Biagioli et al., Nove Conservatori: Luoghi Pii: Inventario (Florence: Archivio di Stato, unpublished, 1998). 3 Cf. P. Benigni and Cesare Vivoli, “Progetti politici e organizzazione di archivi: la documentazione dei Novi,” Rassegna degli Archivio di Stato 43 (1983): 32–82, and Beatrice Biagioli, ed., ASF Inventario 52 Bis: Nove Conservatori: Deputazione sui Monti Pii: Inventario (Florence: Archivio di Stato, unpublished, 2000).

early modern tuscany

3

A brief survey of the history and historiography of Tuscany during the Reformation era shows without a doubt the preeminence of Florence and its Medici rulers; all too easily, the “other Tuscany” is passed over. The dominance by Florence of Arezzo since 1384, of Volterra since 1472, and of Siena since 1555 on the one hand, and the independence of Lucca on the other hand, figured heavily in the development of local and central political institutions and of communal schools and universities outside the Grand Ducal capital, and therefore deserve fuller attention. The subject cities and the independent republics also played significant roles in the French Invasions of 1494, 1498, and particularly of the 1520s and 1530s.4 By the middle of the sixteenth century, Florence controlled nearly all of the major productive cities of the region: Anghiari, Arezzo, Bagno, Barga, Bibbiena, Borgo San Sepolcro, Campiglia, Casentino, Castiglion Fiorentino, Castrocaro, Colle, Cortona, Firenzuola, Fivizzano, Lari, Livorno, Marradi, Modigliana, Montepulciano, Pietrasanta, Pieve Santo Stefano, Pisa, Pistoia, Prato, San Gimignano, Siena, Vicopisano, and Volterra. Only Cesena, Grosseto, Massa, and Urbino among the major cities remained independent until the time of Ferdinando II (1621–1670), during which the Granducato expanded to include a number of cities formerly in the Papal State; and Lucca gained its independence in 1796.5 Nevertheless, the degrees of loyalty versus resistance, and of benefit versus damage, among the lesser cities is a complex subject. In particular, the early years of the Grand Duchy witnessed turmoil from within Arezzo, Cortona, and Volterra—potentially very dangerous because of the possibility of appeal to the Holy Roman Empire for help.6

4

Furio Diaz, Il Granducato di Toscana—I Medici (Turin: UTET Libreria, 1987) is a standard history for the period. 5 Giuseppe Caciagli, ed., Pisa. Istituto Storico delle Province d’Italia Vol. 1/2 (Pisa: Colombo Cursi Editore, 1970), p. 490; see also Diaz, Il Granducato di Toscana. On continued economic difficulties for Arezzo under Florentine rule in the Renaissance, see Anthony Molho, Florentine Public Finances in the Early Renaissance, 1400 –1433 (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1971). On the expansion of Florentine power interpreted from the standpoint of urban history, see Ann Katherine Isaacs, “States in Tuscany and Veneto, 1200–1500,” chapter 4 of “The Urban Belt and the Emerging Modern State,” by Gerhard Dilcher et al., in Peter Blickle, ed., Resistance, Representation and Community (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 291–304. 6 Diaz, Il Granducato di Toscana, pp. 29–30, 39.

4

chapter one

The Grand Duchy had, typically for Italian states, a complex relationship with the papacy.7 Both the lay and religious leadership expected absolute allegiance from the citizens, causing no small amount of difficulties. In much of Tuscany, the balance was more delicate than elsewhere because of the dependence of the Medici on the protection of their relatives and supporters at the papal court. Some of the tension early in the Medici period centered on the issue of the right of secular rulers to tax church property, but because of the generally warm support for the popes of the early Grand Dukes of Florence—based on family connection, cooperation in raising revenues for the state, similar anti-conciliar attitudes, and promises of promotions to cardinalate for at least one male per generation of the Medici family—both sides compromised and granted concessions.8 An example of such give-and-take is the creation of the Diocese of Colle in 1592. Ferdinando I had wanted to carve out two new dioceses and requested the elevation of both San Miniato and Colle in 1587. Pope Clement VIII, although aware of the need for cooperation with the Medici, did not want to capitulate entirely to Florentine pressure, and therefore granted half the request. San Miniato was not declared a diocese until 1622.9 In 1591, when Pope Gregory XIII’s bull expanding ecclesiastical jurisdiction was issued, the problem of clerical loyalty to the Florentine State and of civil versus ecclesiastical justice within an independent republic was brought into sharp relief; however, it was not an isolated incident in the conflict. For example, at Easter in 1589, the Bishop of Montepulciano had denied communion to those who collected the ecclesiastical gabelle; other regions also resisted the taxation.10 The 1591 papal bull increased the tension, and Cosimo II protested the intrusion of papal power in his jurisdiction.11 The relationship between papacy and Republic of Lucca was 7 The early sixteenth-century difficulties are chronicled in volumes 2, 3, and 5 of the 9-volume study by Riguccio Galluzzi, Istoria del Granducato di Toscana sotto il Governo della Casa Medici, 2d edition (Florence: Gaetano Cambiagi, 1781). 8 Roberto Bizzocchi, “Politica fiscale e immunità ecclesiastica nella Toscana medicea fra Repubblica e Granducato (secoli XV–XVIII),” in Hermann Kellenbenz and Paolo Prodi, eds., Fisco religione stato nell’età confessionale, Annalli dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico Quaderno 26 (Bologna: il Mulino, 1989): 355–386, at pp. 362–365; Domenico Sella, Italy in the Seventeenth Century (New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 1997), p. 165. 9 Roberta Roani Villani, San Miniato, il Valdarno inferiore e la Valdera: la storia . . . (Milan: Mondadori, and Florence, Regione Toscana, 1999), p. 19. 10 Galluzzi, Istoria del Granducato di Toscana, 5/9, pp. 501–503. 11 Galluzzi, Istoria del Granducato di Toscana, 6/9, pp. 398–399.

early modern tuscany

5

considerably less smooth than that in Florence: Domenico Sella noted the “combative and fiercely independent stance [of Lucca] vis-à-vis the Papacy” marked by the difficulties associated first with heresy and second with bellicose bishops in the mid-seventeenth century.12 A complex factor of great importance to this study is the changing economy of Tuscany in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The region has generally been considered an example of the “crisis of the seventeenth century,” but current historiography suggests that the picture needs to be reexamined. Domenico Sella’s recent textbook details a prosperous Tuscany after the Peace of Cateau-Cambresis in 1559, and notable recovery after the plagues of the 1630s. Although he laments the lack of resources to create a complete picture of the situation in the peninsula in the seventeenth century, he presents evidence to undermine the long-held interpretation of precipitous decline in all but luxury trades.13 Despite “the sharp drop in prices” apparent in the mid-seventeenth century, largely due to the devastating plague episodes, the economy did not collapse. The period 1620–1660 may be considered to be “bleak decades”—and it was, perhaps paradoxically, in this period that the seminaries under consideration achieved their stability—but the end of the seventeenth century cannot be considered a time of economic disaster for Tuscany.14

12

Sella, Italy in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 165–166; for more on the situation in Lucca, see ch. 6. 13 On the seventeenth-century crisis, see the following recent works: Brian M. Fagan, The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History, 1300–1850 (New York: Basic Books, 2000); John A. Marino, “Economic Structures and Transformations,” in Gregory Hanlon, ed., Early Modern Italy, 1550 –1800 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000), pp. 51–68; Geoffrey Parker and Lesley M. Smith, eds., The General Crisis of the Seventeenth Century 2d edition (London and New York: Routledge, 1997); and Philip Benedict and Myron P. Gutmann, eds., Early Modern Europe: From Crisis to Stability (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 2005). 14 The Florentine wool industry suffered greatly from competition from Venice and northern Europe. Although in part this was due to production costs—manufacturers in Prato and other small towns in Tuscany, Piedmont, the Veneto, and Abruzzi used much cheaper labor—the real danger was the lack of markets in the peninsula; the early loss of non-Italian markets had been a severe blow. Creative marketing and changes in manufacturing were the only solution for many trades. The shift to supplying luxury silks to the Spanish and Portuguese colonies saved Pisan sericulture, in the same way as the shift to Poland saved Florentine, after the end of the Thirty Years War; the increased investment in leathermaking was instrumental in creating new wealth in Pisa and Florence; and rural industries remained in good order, particularly in the northern parts of the peninsula. Sella, Italy in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 42–43 and 48–49.

chapter one

6

Demographic history also demonstrates difficulties in the period under consideration. Plague surfaced in Tuscany in several concentrated pandemics: 1575–1577, 1629–1633, and 1656–1657. The second appeared at a particularly inopportune moment, after the economic depression of the 1620s and the subsistence crisis of 1629. A crop failure in 1619, coming on the heels of a series of bad winters, caused not only hunger but a significant drop in wool production throughout the 1620s, thus disrupting the Florentine financial system to the extreme—not only affecting individuals, but increasing the population of the desperately poor and the distance between rich and poor, as well as depressing the economy of the city and especially the countryside. The ever-accelerating shift to the Atlantic economy worsened the situation, making recovery slow and incomplete.15 The decline in the supply of necessities, and the parallel rise in grain prices, continued through the 1640s. In 1630, the Florentine Monte di Pietà was even challenged: given the stresses both war and disease had visited upon the local industries, Ferdinando II was forced to borrow heavily from the public treasury.16 Although the effects of the pandemic were considerably worse elsewhere—approximately half of the population of Brescia, Mantua, Milan, Padua, and Verona died, versus about 10% of Florence’s population—certain areas in the rest of modern Tuscany, particularly Lucca, were hard-hit.17 The 1650s plague had a lesser impact. Nevertheless, recovery from these two latter plagues was limited. [T]he great plagues of 1630 and 1656 . . . carried off the urban artisans and workers whose heads and hands produced the country’s fine manufactured goods. There was no longer any money to absorb the tremendous costs the epidemics occasioned, no elasticity or resiliency in the urban economy to absorb the shock. Moreover, mortality sucked the life out of the rural economy. Declining food prices ruined many landed fortunes. . . . Both rural and urban conditions worsened for a century thereafter.18

Pandemics were only one aspect of the demographic crisis. Tuscany, in particular Florence, was hit with typhus epidemics in 1621, 1629, 15

Eric Cochrane, Florence in the Forgotten Centuries: 1527–1800 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), p. 195; and Hanlon, Early Modern Italy, 1550–1800, pp. 232–235. 16 Galluzzi, Istoria del Granducato di Toscana, 6/9, pp. 410–11. 17 Hanlon, Early Modern Italy, p. 232. 18 Hanlon, Early Modern Italy, p. 235.

early modern tuscany

7

and 1648, and in fact the disease spread throughout Italy in 1590–1593, 1648–1649, and 1671, “coinciding each time with a doubling of the price of grain.”19 Famines, too, were sprinkled throughout the period: episodes of flooding in September 1589 led to harvest failures throughout Italy and were, in Florence, exacerbated by heavy rains in November of the same year.20 The social history of the region is heavily dependent on urban studies. Once understood to concern only large cities, urban histories have expanded to include smaller cities and towns. Identifying a municipality as urban or rural, or something in between, can be quite difficult, particularly in Italian regions where even small towns had urban administrations and very large cities were integrated into the life of the contadi. Peter Musgrave has concluded “that virtually every north Italian small town was also an agricultural centre with a resident population of farmers and agricultural labourers; equally, local agricultural land was a favourite home for the investment of urban wealth.”21 Thus, urban and rural history cross in very complex ways. Without doubt, the study of urban areas is integral to that of religion in the Early Modern period, not only because of Thomas Brady’s, Bernd Moeller’s and Steven Ozment’s groundbreaking work on the response of cities to the Reformation, but also because of the close connections between religious and civic power which continued during that era regardless of religious affiliation.22 In the Italian peninsula, the large number of small dioceses underlines this importance. Most European dioceses were based in cities; however, dioceses in towns like Pienza demonstrate that urban and diocesan history are not interchangeable and that sometimes what is applicable to large cities, like Siena or Lucca, cannot be used to interpret the workings of smallcity dioceses like Montepulciano. To return to Musgrave, “the metropolitan significance of the great cities and their financial and commercial

19

Hanlon, Early Modern Italy, p. 236. Cochrane, Florence in the Forgotten Centuries, p. 98. 21 Peter Musgrave, “The Small Towns of Northern Italy in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: an Overview,” in Peter Clark, ed., Small Towns in Early Modern Europe (Leicester University Press, 1999), pp. 250–270, at p. 252. 22 Thomas A. Brady, Ruling Class, Regime and Reformation at Strasbourg 1520–1555 (Leiden: Brill, 1978); Bernd Moeller, Imperial Cities and the Reformation: Three Essays (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972); and Steven Ozment, The Reformation in the Cities: The Appeal of Protestantism to Sixteenth-Century Germany and Switzerland (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975). 20

chapter one

8

relationships can very easily conceal the fact that most of the smaller towns of Italy, as elsewhere in Europe, were of essentially local or at best regional significance, rather than being part of a wider-ranging European or world economy.”23 This new interest has made it possible to engage in the kind of micro-study which is of such importance to reassessing religious history—one which bridges the gap between popular and elite religion, which concentrates on the daily practice by “regular” people, which demonstrates the importance of students from the outlying areas in the universities and seminaries, and which focuses attention outside of the areas already deeply studied to the regions long neglected by historians, in particular by non-Italian historians who have for too long considered only the major urban centers.24 Because the current study is concerned not with only the largest dioceses and archdioceses, or with only their largest and wealthiest cities, an understanding of rural versus urban is of some importance; however, it is also very difficult. No ruler in Tuscany made a distinction between governments allowable to given areas—a municipality was simply that, a comune, regardless of its geographical size, level of urbanization, or population density. As a result, organizing particular comuni into categories is somewhat artificial, but is also necessary for the work at hand. Chapters 3, 4, and 6 include statistical analyses of priests, seminary-trained and otherwise, from several different Tuscan dioceses; in these analyses, slight variations on Musgrave’s categories are followed. He places the largest of the Early Modern European cities into a category he calls the “stratosphere;” these are the “great international centres” of trade, commerce, etc. and he uses Bologna, Genoa, Milan, Turin, and Venice as examples. Of the dioceses researched for this book, only Florence, treated in brief, fits into this category. The second category is that of “regional cities:” “[s]ubordinated in political and, to some extent, economic terms to the metropolitan cities, they still retained a great deal of their social and cultural independence,” even having separate nobilities. Musgrave’s examples are Brescia, Mantua, Modena, Padua, Parma, Verona, and 23

Musgrave, “Small Towns,” p. 253. See, as an example of the recent focus on smaller urban areas, the investigation of intellectuals in Colle in Oretta Muzzi, “The Social Classes of Colle Valdelsa and the Formation of the Dominion (Fourteenth-Sixteenth Centuries),” in William J. Connell and Andrea Zorzi, eds., Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), pp. 264–292, at pp. 270–272. 24

early modern tuscany

9

Vicenza; among the dioceses at hand, Arezzo, Lucca, Siena, and ( just barely) Volterra fit this category. The last category is that of small towns, which is itself divided into two levels: (1) those with a population around 2,000–5,000 circling large urban areas; and (2) more remote towns with an agricultural or a fishing base, “but equally clearly . . . [with] a number of urban functions and urban occupations: retailing, administration, . . . [and] professional groups, in particular notaries but also doctors and apothecaries.” This category contains two of the diocesan sees used for comparison: Pienza and Montepulciano.25 Living outside a major city did not limit economic opportunity in the seventeenth century, though; in fact, it might mean increased opportunity. The seventeenth-century plagues not only concentrated greater mortality in the urban areas, and slowed migration to cities, but also contributed to the movement of manufacturing to the countryside: “[b]y the middle-late seventeenth century it would probably not be an exaggeration to say that the cities had become essentially service centres for their rural and small-town hinterlands rather than being the economic arbiters of those hinterlands. In a very real sense a revolution had taken place in the urban hierarchy, a revolution in which the small towns had been the gainers.”26 In order to understand the successes and failures of seminary education in the dioceses under consideration, we must first understand the way that the above factors—demographic and social history— worked in the different areas. A brief survey of the political and economic history of each diocese follows, to set the stage for the religious life of the region. Since the working of any kind of education, seminary or other, depended in large part on local support, financial and otherwise, the picture presented in the rest of this chapter gives a necessary overview of the individual region and its relationship with Florence. The city and region of Arezzo have been justly celebrated since the Middle Ages for producing giants in the field of culture—from 25 Musgrave, “Small Towns,” pp. 233–234. Musgrave explicitly rejects the use of population statistics as the determining factor for categorizing a given comune, in large part because of the major contractions of population during plagues. In this, he is opposed to the work of Jan DeVries in European Urbanization 1500–1800 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984), who defines cities in his database as those areas with “at least ten thousand inhabitants at some time between 1500 and 1800,” (p. 18) including eleven central Italian cities (pp. 26, 29), among them Rome, Florence, and Bologna. 26 Musgrave, “Small Towns,” pp. 260–261.

10

chapter one

Guido Monaco (c. 995–after 1033) through Petrarch (1304–1374) and Pietro Aretino (1492–1566) in the oral disciplines to Spinello Aretino (1350–1410) and Giorgio Vasari (1512–1574) in the pictorial arts. This eastern Tuscan city was also made famous by such foreigners as Piero della Francesca (1415/20–1492), who painted the Crucifixion in the church of San Francesco (1452–1446), and by Guillaume de Marcïllat (1467–1529 or 1475–1537), who created the stained glass windows in the Cathedral. The urban plan and architecture reflect both the city’s long heritage—Etruscan, Roman, Byzantine, Lombard, Frankish, Ghibelline, and Florentine (influence beginning 1289, after the Aretines defeated the Sienese bid to take over, and solidified in 1384)—and its wealth. Like much of the rest of Tuscany, the agricultural products of the Aretine region, which includes portions of the Tiber, Chiana, Arno, and Casentino rivers, include olives, grapes, sunflowers, and chestnuts. Among the principal manufactured products of the pre-modern era were jewelry, especially silver and gold; textiles; furniture; and ceramics. The wealth and economic diversity of the region served it well in the Early Modern period. Arezzo suffered less during the seventeenthcentury crisis than some of the other Tuscan cities, but did not exactly prosper. The city faced serious financial problems in the third quarter of the sixteenth century related to the punishing settlement and taxation from the loss of a war with Florence. Although Arezzo was allowed by the Medici to maintain a native aristocracy, and thus to consider the occasional protest, its fortunes very much depended on the central administration of the Grand Duchy.27 In the final decades of the sixteenth century, Arezzo endured famines. All of this made for a shaky beginning to the seventeenth century, a period of significant challenge throughout Tuscany. Although Arezzo suffered less than other regions in the plague of the early 1630s, the region was not completely resistant either to disease or its economic disruptions, for example the general decline in cloth production in Italy during the same decade.28 The Casentine region, especially the towns 27 Franco Cristelli, Storia civile e religiosa di Arezzo in età medicea (1500–1737) (Arezzo: Grafiche Badiali, 1982), pp. 28–30. Tax evasion did occur through the turn of the century; see Cristelli, pp. 31–34. 28 See, for example, Maurizio Bianconi, Storia di Arezzo (Arezzo: Centro Studi Toscani, 1975), p. 85, who states that even though Arezzo was not blessed with many natural resources, “nulla scuotesse la ormai pacifica vita della città” during the Granducato, except the plague.

early modern tuscany

11

of Poppi and Pratovecchio, was hurt by the drop in wool manufacture, in part a direct result of the plague, which had deeply affected the wool-workers. The effects of this slump, dramatic in themselves, were exacerbated by decades of Florentine protectionism. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Grand Duchy introduced laws limiting the sale and manufacture of non-Florentine goods in the city of Florence. These were not simply measures against foreign competitors, but in fact hurt the outlying regions of the state itself; the 1604 legislation prohibited the sale of Casentine products within 6 miles of the capital, and additional restrictions in 1608 forced the manufacturers to obtain permission from the Ministri della Dogana of Florence even to travel within the 6-mile radius.29 These protectionist measures were very successful, since they in effect limited the sale of Casentine manufactures to the locals—both a smaller and a poorer market than Florence. Agricultural products were not as restricted, but were also not as profitable, and as their prices rose in the first decades of the seventeenth century, the citizens living in the diocese of Arezzo saw their standard of living decline steadily. Florentine trade barriers, combined with the loss of neighborhood markets due to the population decreases resulting from plague and famine, caused one more factor to change in the Aretine economy: land distribution became increasingly unequal because of the economic failures and extinctions of families, and many of the rich became wealthier still.30 In addition to facing economic problems with Florence, Arezzo also coped with demographic and geographic difficulties. During the Renaissance and Reformation eras, the diocese underwent a series of changes to its jurisdiction, losing territory to help create the Dioceses of Montepulciano in 1561 and Città della Pieve in 1601. In 1639, the Dioceses of Fiesole and Arezzo made an exchange: Fiesole gave up San Maria à Mancioni to Arezzo, and Arezzo gave up San Andrea à Cennano for Fiesole. After that, the boundaries remained stable through the twentieth century.31 The upheavals in territory seem to

29 Giovanna Benadusi, “Il Casentino e la sua gente tra Cinque e Seicento,” in Liletta Fornasari, Il Seicento in Casentino: Dalla Controriforma al Tardo Barocco (Florence: Edizione Polistampa, 2001), pp. 31–43, at pp. 36–37. 30 Benadusi, p. 38. On the Aretine aristocracy, in particular the military orders, see Franco Lani, Arezzo fra passato e futuro: un’identità nelle trasformazioni urbane (Naples: Edizioni scientifiche italiane, 1993), p. 87. 31 Giovanna Guerri, Patrimonio artistico e territorio del vicariato della Val di Sieve (Diocesi di Fiesole): Inquadramento storico e situazione attuale. Il piviere di Frascole, Tesi di Laurea,

12

chapter one

have had little impact on ecclesiastical power, however; no major challenges to the authority of the church or to local bishops took place in the early Reformation period, and when conflicts did arise in the later sixteenth century, they were over the rather heavy-handed style of the bishops, rather than theology. The Diocese of Arezzo is bordered to the southwest by the dioceses of Montepulciano and Pienza, regions considered in brief in Chapter 7. These small but important cities were, like Arezzo, dominated by Florence economically as well as culturally, but retained certain aspects of cultural as well as religious independence. In many ways, their cultural history is as closely related to that of Renaissance Siena as to that of Florence, as the art and architecture of the diocesan sees demonstrates. Both regions specialized in agricultural products, with high elevations making for easy defense—and they were therefore prized acquisitions by Florence during the sixteenth century (Montepulciano in 1511, and Pienza in 1559, in the war with Montalcino). Both were also late religious foundations, elevated to the status of diocese because of their connections to popes. In the case of Pienza, both the city and the diocese were founded in 1462 on the orders of Pope Pius II, on the site of the town of Corsignano, where his family, the Piccolomini, had been exiled by the Sienese government in 1385. The Diocese of Montepulciano, on the other hand, was created from territory in Siena in 1561 by request of Cosimo I dei Medici, but it too had an important connection to Rome, as it was the home of the Cervini and Bellarmine families.32 Both dioceses have undergone significant jurisdictional changes in the modern era; Pienza was united to Chiusi in 1772 and this combined diocese was merged into a single entity called Montepulciano-Chiusi-Pienza in 1986. Nevertheless, they still retain some historical separation of function, and indeed separate cathedrals. Unfortunately, in none of these locations were records kept on the level of those in the four main dioceses in the study. Further to the west lies the diocese in this study with the most contentious relationship with Florence: Siena. In 1554, the Florentines began their last war to conquer the Republic of Siena and include it

Università degli Studi di Firenze, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia. Anno Accademico 1980–1981, vol. 1/2, p. 36, and Giuseppe Raspini, Gli archivi parrocchiali della diocesi di Fiesole: Inventario (Rome: Il Centro di Ricerca Editore, 1974). 32 Colle Val d’Elsa nell’Età dei Granduchi Medicei (Florence: Centro Di, 1992), p. 13.

early modern tuscany

13

in the Granducato. The defeat was very costly to Siena, despite the support of France. Piero Strozzi had been named commander-in-chief of French forces in Tuscany, and as Cosimo’s enemy and an ambitious individual, sought to use his position to create in Siena a true alternative to Medici power—a desire of both the French and the Florentine exiles. Fatal to those hopes, Cosimo’s surprise attack on the city was successful, and that, when combined with cutting off the supply lines to starve the inhabitants of the state, forced the Sienese to surrender in 1555. The terms of the treaty took longer to settle than the war itself, due to continued skirmishes, but by 1557, the control of the Duchy of Florence over the smaller republic was ratified.33 Cosimo was forced into certain concessions to the Holy Roman Empire, including a Spanish military presence in the southern regions of the Sienese state, and recognition that his position as Duke of the Sienese was as an imperial feudatory; however, this was still an extraordinary victory.34 Siena never was allowed to regain economic prominence and thus simply became part of the Medici machine. The conquest, while solidifying the position of Florence as capital of an important state, nevertheless had its drawbacks. The purpose of the incursion, after all, was in part the destruction of the territory and its ability to maintain economic and political independence; thus, it led to interruptions in production and trade. Forests and farmland were levelled and burned to fortify the region against possible Spanish attack, resulting in a vast impoverishment and depopulation of the region.35 As a result, not only did the Sienese suffer, but so did the Medici: the costs were difficult to recoup. A war with the French and with Montalcino only worsened the situation by creating a major subsistence crisis in 1558.36 The difficulties caused by the prolonged conflict and negotiations—armed citizens, French troops, the resistance to a Medici takeover of Montalcino until 1559 and Sovana until 1560—were legion, but the central organization of the state allowed for a complete

33 J.R. Hale, Florence and the Medici: The Pattern of Control (London: Thames and Hudson, 1977), p. 132, and Eric Cochrane, Florence in the Forgotten Centuries: 1527–1800 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), pp. 88–89. 34 Hale, Florence and the Medici, p. 132. 35 Roberto Cantagalli, “La Guerra di Siena,” in Leonardo Rombai, ed., I Medici e lo stato senese, 1555–1609: Storia e territorio (Rome: De Luca, 1980), pp. 9–22, at 19–21. 36 Fabio Bertini, Feudalità e servizio del principe nella Toscana del ’500: Federigo Barbolani da Montauto Governatore di Siena (Siena: Edizioni Cantagalli, 1996), p. 75.

14

chapter one

conquest. This highly destructive war which resulted in, among other things, a tremendous loss of lives, effected important changes in the organization of the Florentine State. The Uffizi, part of a larger program of urban renewal and centralization of all administrative offices, dates from 1559; the elevation of the ruler to Grand Duke dates from 1569.37 Cosimo’s policy of centralizing bureaucratic authority at the expense of the subject cities and of insisting on the use of Florentines as local rulers was not a plan for absolute autonomy, however; he regularized the political relationships between smaller states and Florence and encouraged local industries in the subject cities.38 The reorganization of the territory followed, and in 1561, the Medici imposed a reform of laws called the Riformagioni, “a real and proper constitution” under which the role of the officials and laws of the Sienese state were brought under the direct jurisdiction of the Duchy of Florence.39 Throughout the rest of the decade, Cosimo introduced economic changes to protect Florentine interests, ranging from the ban of foreign currency to a system for grain distribution.40 Meanwhile, the Duchy, and then Grand Duchy, did nothing to encourage the recovery of pasturage or farming in Siena, or to prevent the misuse of the conquered land for personal purposes by the local aristocracy; indeed, by the passive response to the latter, they may well have encouraged this kind of “refeudalization.”41 By the seventeenth century, along with the rest of Tuscany and much of the Italian peninsula, the Sienese experienced an increase in poverty, due to a precipitous decline in wool production and a lack of investment in local industries such as wool- and silk-making, mining, and banking. In addition, the population declined significantly in the first half of that century.42 37

Christopher Hibbert, The House of Medici: Its Rise and Fall (New York: William Morrow, 1975), pp. 265–268, and Cochrane, Florence in the Forgotten Centuries, p. 90. 38 Hale, Florence and the Medici, p. 133. 39 Bertini, Feudalità e servizio del principe, pp. 78–79, and Elena Fasano Guarini, “Le Istituzioni di Siena e del suo stato nel ducato mediceo,” in Rombai, ed., I Medici e lo stato senese, pp. 49–62. 40 Bertini, Feudalità e servizio del principe, pp. 83, 144–146. 41 Lucia Bonelli Conenna, “Cenni sulle comunità del contado senese dopo la conquista medicea,” in Rombai, ed., I Medici e lo stato senese, pp. 225–237, at 225, and Lando Bortolotti, Siena (Rome and Bari: Laterza, 1988), p. 90. 42 Bortolotti, Siena, pp. 87–89. At the end of the sixteenth century, Siena’s population was approximately 26,000; it had declined to 21,000 by 1660 (p. 87). On the decline in specific areas during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, see Conenna, “Cenni sulle comunità del contado senese,” pp. 231–237.

early modern tuscany

15

A small portion of the western border of the sixteenth-century diocese of Siena was contiguous with Volterra, the westernmost of the Grand Ducal communes and dioceses under consideration in this study. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it was one of the most extensive dioceses in the Italian peninsula, with a patrimony nearly half the size of that of Florence.43 In part due to its deposits of alum, sulphur, copper sulfate, and salt, this hill town and its contado were considered of strategic importance to both Florence and Pisa, despite a small population and notable poverty. As an example, the town of Lucignano had only 211 inhabitants in 1551 and 185 in 1745.44 Until the mid-fourteenth century, Pisa attempted to control its neighbor, in part by allying with the Belforti family, rulers of Volterra who had been exiled in 1361 to the larger city during factional disputes which led to Florentine intervention. With the defeat of Pisa by Florence in 1364 in the long battle of Ghibillines against Guelfs, Pisa lost its bid to control Volterra, and Florence was able to extend its reach closer to the Mediterranean Sea. By 1385, the Captain of Volterra, known as the Capitano di Custodia, was a Florentine territorial official chosen in Florence.45 The next year, the Florentines included Volterra, the nearby Valdinievole and Valdelsa, and a number of other communes to the south and west of Florence, in their taxation.46 The tax burden was a tremendous strain which continued until the Albizzi regime in Florence collapsed in 1434. The Volterrans scrambled to meet the impositions via various schemes including fundraising and spending reductions, yet they were unable to satisfy the levy. Despite the financial strain this insolvency caused for the Florentines during the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries—they relied on taxes from subject cities—it created a political boon. First, the Florentine government had a stick to wield against Volterra; and second, they had an excuse to establish connections to the local elites in attempts both to gain more control and to grant favors in return 43 Lelio Lagorio, ed., Dizionario di Volterra, Vol. 1/3: Lelio Lagorio, La Storia. Il lungo cammino di Volterra dai miti dall’antichità ai giorni nostri (Pisa: Pacini Editore, 1997), p. 59. 44 Alfredo Altieri, San Pancrazio e Lucignano: storia di due paesi: indagine sui cognomi della comunità, 1541–1841 (Florence: G. Pagnini, 1998), pp. 27, 35. 45 Lorenzo Fabbri, “Patronage and its Role in Government: The Florentine Patriciate and Volterra,” in William J. Connell and Andrea Zorzi, eds., Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000): 225–241, at pp. 225–228. 46 Fabbri, “Patronage and its Role in Government,” pp. 229–30.

16

chapter one

for influence. As one example, the only way to survive the crisis was to obtain loans from the Florentine bankers, which meant greater dependence for the smaller city. As another, Florentines were allowed to become Volterran officeholders, overturning electoral laws and procedures—to the point that, after 1405, Florentines held the offices of podestà, Captain of the Household of the Priors, Notary of the danni dati, and, of course, Captain of Volterra.47 The situation exploded in the third decade of the fifteenth century, with the famous 1427 catasto. Volterra managed to resist the survey until 1430, when a riot begun the year before was finally put down by Florence.48 According to Lorenzo Fabbri, the catasto upset the delicate political balance, in Florence and in its subject cities: It shook some of the fundamental cornerstones of local autonomy, undermining both the link between the city and its contado and the power of the commune’s ruling group. In particular, it inaugurated a direct relationship between the Florentine government and the individual contributors of the district, relieving the local authorities, up to then in full control over the distribution of the local tax burden, of their status as intermediaries. It was clearly a fundamental issue regarding the status of the subject commune within the dominion created by Florence, not to mention the local power structure within the commune itself.49

The result of the revolt, which took place in October 1429, “was definitively to upset those assumptions and balances which had for many decades propped up relations between the two cities.”50 The podestà was eliminated, civil jurisdiction was transferred to the Captain of Volterra, and the contado was detached from Volterra and incorporated into the ever-growing Florentine contado. The Florentine victory was short-lived, however, because it was fought in the context of other conflicts, including a failed war with Lucca and the rise of the Medici at the expense of the Albizzi; thus, within two years, Volterra’s losses were reversed. Cosimo de’ Medici was seen as a patron by the people of Volterra, because he was anti-Albizzi and 47

Fabbri, “Patronage and its Role in Government,” pp. 231, 233–25. The authoritative study of the catasto remains David Herlihy and Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, Tuscans and their Families: A Study of the Florentine Catasto of 1427 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985; translated from Les Toscans et leurs families. Une étude du Catasto florentin de 1427, Editions de L’Ecole des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 1978). On the revolt of the Volterrans, see Fabbri, “Patronage and its Role in Government,” p. 237. 49 Fabbri, “Patronage and its Role in Government,” pp. 236–237. 50 Fabbri, “Patronage and its Role in Government,” p. 237. 48

early modern tuscany

17

because he had courted them. Once in power, he reduced their taxes dramatically; and his family created more friendly, personal relationships with the local elites. Cosimo, in Volterra as in Florence, introduced the politics of consensus and of networking. Unfortunately, the politics of family factions was on the rise, and this upset the new equilibrium because the old factions came back to Florence and to the subject cities. Still, the pro-Medici group held on to a great deal of power, not least because of its vast wealth. When, in the later fifteenth century, alum deposits were discovered in the Val di Cecina, Lorenzo the Magnificent seized the opportunity to complete the subjection of Volterra by 1472.51 Florentine rule was significantly challenged in 1494, when the subject cities revolted at the death of Piero di Lorenzo; however, due to the financial importance of alum, and the geographical importance of the city in general, Lorenzo di Piero brutally suppressed the revolt and regained control. In the sixteenth century, the difficulties of this rural commune continued, as Florence spread its influence across the region. During the War of 1530, Volterra suffered greatly from both Florentine ambitions and the attempts by others to quell them. The Spanish and Imperial forces, fresh from victory in the Sack of Rome, sought to destroy the Tuscan republic in 1529. Just when the situation was most critical—armies near the walls of Florence, rampant hunger (Eric Cochrane even mentions the increase in cost of mice as a gauge of the desperation), plague, and various financial strains occasioned by the war—Francesco Ferrucci recaptured Volterra for Florence from the Empire and marched from there to Pisa. Unfortunately, the victory was short-lived as the Spanish and Imperial forces captured Florence in 1530.52 The restoration by the papacy of the Medici later that year—significantly as dukes, not leaders of a republic—was instrumental in the collapse of Volterran independence, as the new Florentine rulers expanded their territory, and eventually also in the increased fortification of the walls of the hill town to prevent further surprises to first the Duchy and then the Grand Duchy. By the end of the century, the dominance of Florence over Volterra, economically as well as politically, was fairly complete. Cosimo I even insisted on determining the price for the salt from the mines in a decree of 51

Fabbri, “Patronage and its Role in Government,” pp. 238–241. Eric Cochrane, Florence in the Forgotten Centuries 1527–1800 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), pp. 3–10. 52

18

chapter one

1572.53 As a measure of how complete the Florentine domination of Volterra was, Francesco I established an office overseeing the artisanal production of works in pietre dure by 1580.54 To add insult to injury, the Florentine government sold pastureland it had seized in the end of the fifteenth century, which had dramatically reduced the size of the commune, back to Volterra in 1581.55 Artistic professions were in many ways the backbone of the struggling Volterran economy, as the region is home to deposits of quartz, limestone, travertine, magnesite, and alabaster. As the production of alabaster, for which Volterra remains famous, expanded and became a threat to the artisans who specialized in marble sculpture, the Grand Duchy established protective measures in the first half of the seventeenth century against the Volterran miners and artisans, for example limiting the use of the pietre dure to the Galleria Granducale.56 Despite the control by Florence, Volterra retained some cultural and social independence. Among the more illustrious families in the region were the Pannocchieschi, with ties to Siena and Pisa. This family were the rulers of the Contea d’Elci, and held the offices of Signoria di Volterra as well as jurisdiction over a variety of Castelli including Massamarittima, Montemassi, Sticciano, and Castel della Pietra. In 1629, Grand Duke Ferdinando II granted them the title of Marchesi di Monticiano.57 The family also included a number of major figures in the church of Volterra: bishops, archdeacons, a Canonico della Basilica Vaticana, and two Archbishops of Pisa, Scipione del Orso del Conte Raniere (1636–1663) and his nephew Francesco del Conte Raniere (1663–1702).58 In addition to the political problems of the sixteenth century, Volterra suffered from demographic crises along with the rest of Tuscany. Famines hit the region most frequently in the 1540s–1560s

53 Giovanni Batistini, Volterra nel seicento (Volterra: Edizioni Libreria Gian Piero Migliorini, 1995), p. 13. 54 Giovanni Batistini, Volterra nel seicento, p. 40. 55 Giovanni Batistini, Volterra nel seicento, p. 52. 56 Giovanni Batistini, Volterra nel seicento, pp. 35–36. 57 Francesco Galvani, Sommario Storico della Famiglie Celebri Toscane, compilato dal Conte Francesco Galvani e riveduto in parte dal Cav. Luigi Passerini (Florence: Ulisse Diligenti, 1864–1865), vol. 3/3, p. 1. 58 Galvani, Sommario Storico della Famiglie Celebri Toscane, vol. 3/3, pp. 4–5. Prior to his elevation as archbishop of Volterra, Scipione had been bishop of Chiusi and Pienza (1631–1636).

early modern tuscany

19

and the 1580s, and a total of 7 times between 1577 and 1700.59 Incidences of plague and famine were frequent through the sixteenth century in Volterra. These were, however, of less serious consequence than the infamous 1630–1632 manifestation, during which the city of Volterra took important precautions. Unfortunately, even though the city gates were closely guarded, trade and communications with Pisa, Livorno, and Florence were necessary, and casualties remained high.60 The result was a reduction in population of 20% from the 1550s.61 A terrible plague returned to the Italian peninsula in 1656, but the lessons of prior appearances helped much of Tuscany, including Volterra, avoid infection. This does not mean that the 1650s were easy for Volterra, though, as the commune suffered from a famine and the emigration of a number of important families, including the Cavalcanti, Borselli, and Caffarecci.62 Volterra was bordered to the northwest by Pisa and then, in the seventeenth century, also by San Miniato; these dioceses separated it from the one truly independent region in the present study, the Diocese of Lucca. The illustrious history of this city dates back as far as Etruria itself, although the actual city was founded by the Romans. Julius Caesar’s First Triumvirate met in Lucca, demonstrating its importance to Rome; it later became the Lombard capital of Tuscany through the ninth century. This city, located in the northwest of modern Tuscany, engaged in communal warfare during the middle ages and Renaissance with its neighbors Pistoia (to the east) and Pisa (to the south)—to gain control over a large contado and because those neighboring cities were Ghibelline while Lucca was Guelf, until its “conversion” in the fourteenth century.63 In the course of the fifteenth 59 Alfredo Altieri, San Pancrazio e Lucignano: storia di due paesi: Indagine sui cognomi della comunità, 1541–1841 (Florence: G. Pagnini, 1998), p. 28, and Mario Battistini, Le epidemie in Volterra dal 1004 al 1800 (Volterra: A. Carnieri, 1916), pp. 28–31. 60 Giovanni Batistini, Volterra nel seicento, pp. 61–83 and Mario Battistini, Le epidemie in Volterra dal 1004 al 1800, pp. 32–34. In the surrounding communes, Pomarance and possibly Bibbona remained unaffected, Castelnuovo Val di Cecina, San Gimignano, and Pistoia were hit very hard, and Piombino, Savereto, Montecatini Val di Cecina, Sasso, Silano and La Leccia suffered minor casualties. Mario Battistini, Le epidemie in Volterra dal 1004 al 1800, pp. 38–44. 61 Enrico Fiumi, ed. by Giuliano Pinto, Volterra e San Gimignano nel medioevo (San Gimignano: Cooperativa Nuovi Quaderni, 1983), p. 153. 62 Mario Battistini, Le epidemie in Volterra dal 1004 al 1800, pp. 50–51. 63 The introductory chapter to Duane J. Osheim, An Italian Lordship: The Bishopric of Lucca in the Late Middle Ages (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977), provides a clear summary of the development of Lucca through the medieval period,

20

chapter one

century, domestic and foreign political difficulties increased alarmingly, in large part because of the aggression of the expanding Florentine state. The Republic of Lucca fought hard to maintain its independence from Florence beginning in the 1430s; in order to do so, it engaged in alliances with Genoa and Siena and was pulled deep into the balance-of-power games of the Visconti and their opponents. Despite important victories in 1431, the alliances were not altogether stable, and conflict arose between Venice and Genoa at Portofino, while Pietrasanta revolted against Lucca. By the end of the decade, Lucca had lost most of its contado. In the following decade, however, the Florentines negotiated a treaty and alliance against the Visconti in which the Lucchese benefited by regaining territory, but were compromised by a certain dependence on Florence.64 These and other conflicts throughout the fifteenth century dealt a series of blows to the Republic’s stability, based on family honor and ambition along with a healthy dose of Florentine aggression. Recovery was therefore not only difficult but incomplete. The political conflicts led to inflation and grain shortages in the 1430s, the exiling of patrician families in the 1440s, and governmental controls over industry and immigration.65 Contemporary domestic tensions included a patrician coup against Paolo Guinigi, leading to a constitutional and administrative reform in 1430; attempts by the Guinigi to regain power in the 1440s; and the involvement of Florence in patrician plots to shake up or overthrow the government through the 1490s.66 The century ended with the devastating French invasions starting in 1494, which drove the Lucchese to side with the Holy Roman Empire and along with copious bibliographic and explanatory notes. See also the section on the Republic in Girolamo Arnaldi, et al., Comuni e signorie nell’Italia nordorientale e centrale: Lazio, Umbria, Marche, Lucca, Vol. 1 book 2 of Giuseppe Galasso, editor-in-chief, Storia d’Italia (Turin: UTET, 1987). 64 Augusto Mancini, Storia di Lucca (Lucca: Maria Pacini Fazzi, 1999), pp. 199–202. 65 Girolamo Tommasi, Sommario della storia di Lucca dall’anno 1004 all’anno 1700 compilato su documenti contemporanei da Girolamo Tommasi, archivista degli atti del governo, continuato sino all’anno 1799 e seguito da una scelta degl’indicati documenti per cura di Carlo Minutoli (Florence: Viesseux, 1847), lib. III cap. 1 and Mancini, Storia di Lucca, pp. 202–204. 66 Michael E. Bratchel, “Lucca, 1430–94: The Politics of the Restored Republic,” in Maureen F. Mazzaoui and Thomas W. Blomquist, eds., The “Other Tuscany”: Essays in the History of Lucca, Pisa, and Siena during the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Centuries (Kalamazoo, Mich.: Medieval Institute Publications, 1994): 19–39, at pp. 19–21, and Bratchel, Lucca 1430–1494. The Reconstruction of an Italian City-Republic (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).

early modern tuscany

21

depleted their treasury by forcing the Republic to purchase the contado cities Pietrasanta and Montrone first from French King Charles VIII (1496) and second from his successor Louis XII (1500), who had taken them over during the Second French Invasion.67 In the sixteenth century, the Republic of Lucca also fared badly in the continued power struggles in the Italian peninsula; the new, stronger walls begun in the first two decades of the cinquecento did not protect the city or its contado from the upheavals of the time.68 The fall of Pisa (1509), the loss again of Pietrasanta and Montrone to Florence upon the election of Leo X Medici as pope (1513–1521), the same pope’s reorganization of the Diocese of Lucca in favor of an increased piviere of Pescia (finally granted the status of diocese in the eighteenth century), patrician revolts in the 1520s, 1530s, and 1540s which resulted in a major expansion of the Consiglio Generale in 1531 and of the minor Consiglio as well as in restrictions in membership to native Lucchese (supported by further restrictions in 1556) were the most significant events before the Council of Trent.69 The fall of Florence in 1529 to the papacy gave the Lucchese some respite from Medici ambitions, but this was not to last. In 1546 perhaps the most important political uprising took place: a plot led by Francesco Burlamacchi, a Protestant sympathizer, opposing the takeover of the Republic by Florence and conspiring to end Medici power elsewhere in Tuscany. The plot was revealed to Cosimo dei Medici, who imprisoned Burlamacchi; Emperor Charles V had him executed in 1548 67 Tommasi, Sommario della storia di Lucca libro III cap. III; Michael E. Bratchel, “Lucca, 1430–94: The Politics of the Restored Republic,” pp. 209–210. 68 Mancini, Storia di Lucca, p. 214. Further information on the relationship of Lucca to sixteenth-century European politics can be found in Città italiane del ’500 tra riforma e controriforma (Lucca: Maria Pacini Fazzi, 1988), section 3, “Lucca e l’Europa,” pp. 103–239, with seven articles on the urban and religious history of the republic. 69 Bratchel, “Lucca, 1430–94,” p. 20: “Against the background of the revolt of the Straccioni, membership of the General Council was increased from 90 to 130, and no more than three representatives of any individual family were allowed to sit together in Council. The more aristocratic ethos of the later sixteenth century produced restrictions on the number of those eligible for political office. As in the century before the fall of the republic, these restrictions resulted in further constitutional modifications when it became imposs to find sufficient eligible candidates to fill vacant offices.” See also Tommasi, Sommario della storia di Lucca libro III cap. V. The minor Consiglio expanded from 36 to 54; Tommasi, Sommario della storia di Lucca libro III cap. IV. Anziani must be at least 25 years of age, Gonfalonieri at least 30; and both must be born in Lucca. See also the article “Lucca,” by Michael E. Bratchel in Paul F. Grendler, editor-in-chief, Encyclopedia of the Renaissance. Vol. 3/6: Galen-Lyon (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1999), pp. 455–457.

22

chapter one

in Milan.70 Plots during the 1560s and 1590s involved the attempts of citizen Pietro Buzzolini to help the Florentines take over and of Bernardino Antelminelli to prevent Florentine interference.71 The sixteenth century also introduced serious economic problems, especially the decline in both silk production and in the silk trade—too much supply, coupled with not enough demand—due to conditions throughout Europe in mid-century: famine, plague, changes in trade around the continent. This led to the silk guild limiting production and emphasizing quality that in turn upset the workers, who demanded financial as well as political concessions: the popolo minuto wanted more say in the government. This revolt, and its ultimate failure, were in some ways comparable to the 1378 Florentine Ciompi revolt.72 Political upheavals in the seventeenth century continued along the same lines as those in the preceding centuries: conflicts with neighbors, in particular with Ferrara and Florence (note especially the wars over the Garfagnana region, in 1601–1604 and 1613);73 flooding in the 1620s;74 a spectacularly devastating plague in 1630–1632, responsible for the deaths of over 38% of the population;75 and economic strains related to the change in supply and demand, leading to domestic instability. The very costly conflicts caused significant long-term economic crises as well, especially the Garfagnana wars. These involved not only close neighbors, but also Spain, Milan and the Holy Roman Empire. The economic difficulties which these wars caused were only part of the hardships of the century; the Grand Duchy of Florence, though it could not control Lucchese commerce, could indeed—and did—impose very heavy taxes on shipping and the use of ports; in addition, the Florentines determined the use of lakes and the flooding of plains.76 The Republic continued to try to build its defenses, and completed its final wall in 1645. Unfortunately, because of politics, both domestic and international; European-wide

70 Alison Bideleux, Aspects of Popular Catholicism in Sixteenth Century Lucca. University of Sussex Doctoral Thesis, 1987, p. 35, and Mancini, Storia di Lucca, pp. 246–247. 71 Tommasi, Sommario della storia di Lucca, lib. III cap. IX, p. 456 and lib. III cap. X; and Mancini, Storia di Lucca, p. 255. 72 Mancini, Storia di Lucca, pp. 219–225. 73 Tommasi, Sommario della storia di Lucca, lib. III cap. X, and lib. IV cap. I and cap. III. 74 Tommasi, Sommario della storia di Lucca, lib. IV cap. IV. 75 Mancini, Storia di Lucca, p. 264. 76 Mancini, Storia di Lucca, pp. 258–259.

early modern tuscany

23

changes in the marketplace; and increasing repression of religious dissent leading to restrictions on immigration; the economy of the region suffered greatly.77 While agricultural products (notably olive oil and chestnuts) continued to sell, significant shifts in the production and sale of draperies and silks had devastating effects on the Lucchese economy. The Bonvisi (or Buonvisi) family went bankrupt in 1629; creditors defaulted in the 1620s and 1630s; and the effects were widespread—at one point in this period, dowries dropped to as low as 200 scudi.78 The situation was grave. According to Peter N. Miller, Lucca was “the smallest and least significant of the three Italian cityrepublics that had survived the Renaissance,” meaning that although it retained some of its wealth at the end of the sixteenth century, it was no longer cosmopolitan or competitive.79 The devastation of the first two decades of the seventeenth century, including a near-collapse of the industries in the Republic causing bankruptcies and vast unemployment, led to dramatic and even extreme measures. In 1631, at the height of the plague outbreak, the government confined people to their houses; ordered the holding of religious services outside, in order to take communion to those confined to their houses; and instituted a policy of “marking” of clergy and doctors who cared for the sick, allowing them to move freely about the quartieri but at the same time making them easily detectable to all as persons who had confronted the plague.80 In 1633, when the pandemic had died down, the government created a special commission on reviving the economy, including protective taxation practices.81 Unfortunately, both the attempts to halt the plague and to contain the fiscal downturn failed, and the wars of the early seventeenth century contributed to a widespread economic depression exacerbated by the continuing protectionism.82 By the 1640s, Lucca’s economy was in crisis (and therefore it was unable to deal well with the 1648–1650 plague),83 77 Mancini, Storia di Lucca, p. 250; see also Tommasi, Sommario della storia di Lucca, Libro IV cap. IV. 78 Gerardo Mansi, I patrizi di Lucca: le antiche famiglie lucchesi ed i loro stemmi (Lucca: Titania, 1996), p. 122. 79 Peter N. Miller, “Stoics who Sing: Lessons in Citizenship from Early Modern Lucca,” The Historical Journal 44 (2001): 313–339, at p. 314. 80 Tommasi, Sommario della storia di Lucca, lib. IV cap. IV, p. 545. 81 Rita Mazzei, La Società Lucchese del seicento (Lucca: Maria Pacini Fazi, 1977), pp. 52, 55, and 59–60. See also Tommasi, Sommario della storia di Lucca, lib. IV cap. IV. 82 Mazzei, La Società Lucchese, pp. 65, 67. 83 Tommasi, Sommario della storia di Lucca, lib. IV cap. VI, pp. 573–574.

24

chapter one

and there was even a serious homeless problem. This dire situation lasted until exports to Germany and Eastern Europe reopened after the mid-1660s.84 These four dioceses, despite their obvious differences, experienced many of the same struggles when attempting to implement one reform from the Council of Trent: the seminary decree. Chapters 3–6 consist of case studies in each region, detailing economic, bureaucratic, social, religious, and other issues pertinent to the foundation of new institutions to educate secular priests. The constants are these: all dioceses had the same expectations, despite widely different populations, wealth, existing educational infrastructure, and political stability. All dioceses demonstrated inefficiencies in the training of parish clergy, and in the management of that clergy. In other words, a priest in Pomarance, a small commune near the Cécina River in the Diocese of Volterra, was expected to own and use the new service books, demonstrate the same level of literacy in Latin, perform the same ceremonial functions, and create the same sense of professionalism as a priest in the Cathedral of Arezzo. The latter, however, would be far more likely to have enjoyed the benefits of a good humanist, and possibly even university, education, as would his parishioners. In addition, a priest in Laterina, north of the Arno River and west of Arezzo, would have to conform to the same regulations as a priest in Borgo a Mozzano, west of the Serchio River and north of Lucca— regardless of the relationship their secular rulers had with the papacy. The creation of a standardized and centralized priestly culture, so important to the professionalization of the secular clergy, would therefore work both parallel to and in opposition to the local interests of the different dioceses under consideration.

84

Mazzei, La Società Lucchese, pp. 71, 82.

CHAPTER TWO

EARLY MODERN PRIESTS IN SELECTED TUSCAN DIOCESES: EXPECTATIONS AND REALITIES

The creation of a professional clergy depended on two very different contexts: the post-Tridentine church’s determination to standardize and centralize while improving practice and belief, and the Early Modern Italian states’ determination to remain independent of outside influences, including —and sometimes especially—the papacy. To understand these at times conflicting processes, this chapter identifies the major religious issues, first in general and then in each of the dioceses under consideration, before the case studies of the following section are presented. The religious background to the seminary issue is complex. It involves not only the secular clergy, but the regular as well, and the church bureaucracy. During the century after the Council of Trent, a number of religious orders were suppressed; for example, in 1652, Pope Innocent X’s sweeping reforms of male monasteries resulted in the suppression of some 1500 houses (some of which were later restored).1 This naturally had a deep impact on the Italian peninsula, home, according to Gregory Hanlon, of “about 315 [dioceses and archdioceses] in 1600.”2 Education, pastoral life, and even commerce were regularly affected by the work of the religious orders, even the smaller ones, and the suppression of one or another had obvious consequences on the towns near the houses. At the same time as male and female orders were being suppressed, however, the Society of Jesus was expanding, growing from 18 schools in the peninsula in 1556 to 80 in 1630 and 111 in 1700.3 Because at the same time the population in Tuscany was increasing rather dramatically, these schools must have been in great demand.4 1

Hanlon, Early Modern Italy, p. 126. Hanlon, Early Modern Italy, p. 108. 3 Hanlon, Early Modern Italy, p. 127. 4 According to Oscar di Simplicio, from about 1640 to about 1682, the population of Tuscany increased approximately 18%, while the population of religious orders there increased nearly 25%. By the 18th century, the population increase was 2

26

chapter two

Among the secular clergy, the priesthood in the Middle Ages, Renaissance, and Reformation period was reached by passing through a series of 7 orders.5 To begin the path, a young man must be tonsured. Although this is not technically an “order,” the ordination books of Tuscan dioceses in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries record it quite faithfully because it certainly represented a commitment. As far as the 1627 and later revisions of the Pontificale Romanum were concerned, this step was fundamental to the priesthood, and must not be conferred on anyone illiterate, not yet confirmed, or “fidei rudimenta edocti non fuerunt.”6 The first order properly called such was the porter, whose job it was to guard the doors of the church against intrusions and to ring the bell announcing the beginning of services. The lector read from the sacred books. The exorcist expelled evil spirits from holy water, sacred places, and individuals, and reserved places for communicants. The acolyte served at the altar in much the same way as modern altar boys and girls. After these four “minor orders,” the next three levels of ordination were called the “major orders,” because they required celibacy and were sacramental, thus imputing the indelible character attributed to the priesthood; once ordained to a major order, one could not voluntarily leave the priesthood. A candidate for the major orders was required to present evidence of financial stability, in the form of a benefice or patrimony, which provided annual income.7 Subdeacon was the almost 22%, while the religious orders declined over 32%. Oscar di Simplicio, “La Giustizia ecclesiastica e il processo di civilizzazione,” in Franco Angiolini, Vieri Becagli and Marcello Verga, eds., La Toscana nell’età di Cosimo III. Atti del convegno Pisa-San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) 4–5 giugno 1990 (Florence: EDIFIR, 1993), 455–495, at pp. 464 and 485. 5 These definitions are from a variety of modern sources—the Catholic Encyclopedia, New Catholic Encyclopedia, Enciclopedia Cattolica, Dizionario degli istituzioni di perfezione, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, Lessico ecclesiastico illustrato, and Dizionario de erudizione storico-ecclesiastica da s. Pietro sino ai nostri giorni—and are borne out by the explanation of orders found in Fabio Incarnato, Scrutinium Sacerdotale, Sive Modus Examinandi, Tam in vistatione Episcopali, quam in susceptione Ordinum (Barcelona: Sebastiani à Cormellas, 1620), esp. pp. 97–99, as well as the service books discussed infra. 6 Pontificale Romanum Clementis VIII Pont. Max. iussu restitutum atque editum (Antwerp: Plantiniana, 1627), “De Ordinibus Conferendis,” p. 4; Pontificale Romanum Clementis PP. VIII. iussu restitutum Urbani VIII Auctoritate recognitum. Novis locupletam Figuris, mendisque expurgatum. Sanctiss. Pontificis Alexandri VII. Faustis Auspiciis in lucem iterum prodit (Rome: Philippi de Rubeis, 1663), “De Ordinibus Conferendis,” p. 6. 7 On this see, e.g., Rosa Martucci, “ ‘De vita et honestate clericorum.’ La formazione del clero meridionale tra sei e settecento,” Archivio Storico Italiano 144 (1986): 446. For further information on the office of subdeacon, see Attilio Cereda, “Le ordinazioni dei suddiaconi nel carteggio e nei registri dell’archivio storico della Diocesi di Milano,” Rassegna degli archivi di stato 56/3 (1996): 525–546.

early modern priests in selected tuscan dioceses

27

first such major order and was the beginning of the commitment to perpetual celibacy. The man promoted to subdeacon was an assistant to the deacon, acting in many ways as an apprentice deacon: he prepared the elements of the Eucharist, washed the sacred linen, and wore ecclesiastical dress at all times. The deacon, similarly, was a kind of apprentice priest: he assisted at or ministered at the altar, was permitted to read the Gospel, and was given specific sacramental functions: in special circumstances, he could preach, baptize, and distribute communion. The priest was given all these functions and powers without limitation, and was allowed to administer all sacraments, including Holy Orders when permitted, and to consecrate the Eucharist as well as distribute it. In addition to ceremonial functions, the job of the parish priest included, after the Council of Trent, a variety of administrative functions (largely comprised of the keeping of records of births, deaths, and the sacraments administered in between) along with the tasks of preaching and teaching. As a result, a reform of direct consequence to the creation of an educated clergy was the order, in Session 25 of the Council, to revise the service books.8 Between the 1560s and the 1610s, the Breviary, Missal, Ceremonial, and Roman Ritual were all reformed, and a new Catechism was written. In July 1568, Pius V issued a statement concerning the revision and correction of the Breviary: “Mandat haec recipi, Episcopos que monet, ut Breviaria haec nova in suas diocesas introducant.”9 On 14 July 1570, Pius V issued “Quo primum tempore,” a statement that the new service books—Missal and Breviary—and the Roman Catechism must henceforth be used throughout Christendom. On 6 October 1571, he issued “Ex debito pastoralis,” stating that children should be taught morals and Christian doctrine on feast days and Sundays by the Confraternitates Doctrinae Christianae.10 Clement VIII ordered a new edition of the 8 Session 25, Decree Concerning Reform, Chapter 21, “Concerning the Index of Books and the Catechism, Breviary and Missal,” Schroeder pp. 254–255, refers to only three of the service books, but the reform of the Ceremonial, Pontifical, and Ritual followed as a consequence of the initial statements. A general study of the new books is D. Balboni, “I libri parrochiali dopo il Concilio di Trento.” Archiva Ecclesiae 18–21 (1975–1978): 234–238. 9 Aloysius Guerra, ed., Pontificarum Constitutionum in Bullariis magno, et Romano contentarum, et aliunde desumptarum epitome, et secundum materias dispositio cum indigibus locupletissimis. Vol. 1 of 4 (Venice: Nicolai Pezzana, 1772), p. 37. 10 Both of these bulls are reproduced in Laerzio and Angelo Maria Cherubini et al., Magnum Bullarium Romanum, a Beato Leone Magno usque ad S.D.N. Benedictum XIII. Vol. 2/8: Pius IV-Innocentius IX (Luxembourg: Sumptibus Andreae Chevalier, 1777), pp. 334 and 371.

28

chapter two

Breviary published, to correct errors, and issued a statement regarding ownership on 10 May 1602: “Ceterum cum multi Sacerdotales non habeant, unde hoc novum Breviarium emant, iis permittit Pontifex uti veteri; jubens, ut si novum emere debent, hoc correctum emant.”11 Clement also mandated the correction of the Caeremonialis Episcoporum in 1600 and the Missale in 1604.12 Pius V ordered corrections on the Rituale Romanum: “Restabat examinandum, corrigendum, et edendum Rituale Romanum; ut omnes Ecclesiae iisdem caeremoniis uterentur in administrandis Sacramentis, aliisque functionibus Ecclesiastici faciendis.”13 The revisions were completed and published under Paul V in 1614. Clearly, the new service books were meant to increase standardization and therefore contribute to the professionalism of the clergy. The Council of Trent had allowed for the continuation of rites and services which were over 200 years old, for example the Ambrosian Rite in Milan. For all other churches, the Roman ceremonies now were the standard, as set out by the the Roman Breviary, the Roman Catechism, the Roman Ceremonial, the Roman Missal, the Roman Pontifical, the Roman Ritual, and Roman Sacramental. This served two basic functions: the suppression of non-regulation variations and local preferences, and the creation of a more streamlined set of rites. In particular, the Missal restricted votive masses, clearly defined the kinds of feasts for given days, reduced the number of saints days, and set forth the specifics of all retained rites.14 The Breviary reestablished the importance of publicly saying the Divine Office and employed humanist methods of study and writing. The commission to reform the Breviary, a part of the Commission of the Index of Prohibited Books, both returned to ancient liturgical texts to purge the services of unnecessary accretions and historical inaccuracies, especially the apocryphal saints’ lives, and sought to make it a shorter and more literary work.15 The latter qualities were intended to increase the

11

Guerra, Pontificarum Constitutionum in Bullariis magno, Vol. 1/4, p. 37. Missal: Guerra, Pontificarum Constitutionum in Bullariis magno, Vol. 1/4, p. 38; Ceremonial, Guerra, Pontificarum Constitutionum in Bullariis magno, Vol. 1/4, p. 39. 13 “Guerra, Pontificarum Constitutionum in Bullariis magno, Vol. 1/4, p. 39. 14 For a fuller discussion of the rituals and the role that the post-Tridentine service books played in them, see Joseph A. Jungmann, Mass of the Roman Rite, trans. Francis A. Brunner, vol. 1/6 (New York: Benziger, 1950), esp. pp. 135–136. 15 Pierre Battifol, History of the Roman Breviary, trans. by Atwell M.Y. Baylay (London, New York and Bombay: Longmans, Green & Co., 1898), pp. 251–259; 12

early modern priests in selected tuscan dioceses

29

clergy’s desire to participate in the Divine Office. By the sixteenth century, priests in many regions throughout Europe, especially Rome, had ceased to engage in this duty for a variety of reasons ranging from heavy obligations to outright neglect, and the new text was clearly supposed to change this.16 These service books were required not only by the decrees of the Council of Trent, but by local councils as well.17 Many requests for clarification regarding rituals and services were made to the Congregationis Sacrorum Rituum or Congregation of the Sacred Rites (CSR) during the seventeenth century by the dioceses under consideration. Frequently, the replies of the CSR included recommendations to consult the Breviary, Ceremonial, Missal, or Ritual, for example a series of questions from the Diocese of Siena in 1667 about proper dress, procession order, use of candles, etc.; the answers to five out of the seven requests amount to “see the Caeremoniale.” One other is a single word (negationis) and the other a very brief (four-word) explanation.18 In addition to these bureaucratic functions, the service books were also meant to aid the pastor in a number of ways: they detail ceremonies (sometimes with pictures); they provide handy reference for feast days; and they are a library of prayers required for all occasions. In particular, the Breviary, Catechism, Missal and Ritual allow the priest to understand his own role as teacher as well as preacher more clearly and therefore to perform that role better. The revisions were very much in the spirit of Tridentine “sacerdotalization” and “professionalization.” This “sacerdotalization” means, roughly, “priestification,” i.e. the increasing importance of the clergy, the acculturation of priests to their jobs, the recognition of further levels of bureaucracy attached to religious life, etc., and is an aspect of post-Tridentine

see also Jules Baudot, The Breviary: Its History and Contents, trans. by the Benedictines of Stanbrook (London and Edinburgh: Sands & Co. and St. Louis: B. Herder, 1929), pp. 51–53. 16 Pierre Salmon, The Breviary Throughout the Centuries, trans. Sister David Mary (Collegeville, Minn: The Liturgical Press, 1962), pp. 18–19. 17 For example, Suitbert Baumer in Histoire du Breviaire, trans. Reginald Biron, vol. 2/2 (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1905), p. 221, makes reference to three provincial councils which required the Breviary: Milan and Urbino in 1569, and Florence in 1571. 18 Aloysius Gardellini, ed., Decreta Authentica Congregationis Sacrorum Rituum ex actis Eiusdem Sacr. Congr. Collecta, Vol. 2 of 7: Decreta ab anno 1646 ad 1677 (Rome: Francisci, et Leopoldie Bourlié, 1825): decree 2248, 5 March 1667, pp. 233–234.

30

chapter two

parish life throughout Catholic territories.19 Now that the priest would have to stamp out certain private devotions—unapproved saints, to use the most common example—he should be given not only the ammunition to do so, but the ability to make it palatable. He would have further information on acceptable saints to engage the congregation in proper ceremonies. He would have better homilies based on suitable doctrine. He would have prayers for all occasions at his fingertips. In a bow to the age—i.e. in an admission of the problem of laxness—he would have less to say: the offices were shortened, but they were now to be enforced. He would have step-by-step instructions on the administration of sacraments. Without these books, the priests would therefore be at a serious disadvantage, even if they had a seminary education; for example, the revised Rituale Romanum began with a two-page set of instructions “De iis, quae in sacramentorum administratione generaliter servanda sunt” with a strict order of preparation and prayer to follow.20 The new Catechismo, cioe istruttione, secondo il Decreto del Concilio di Trento was specifically written for parish priests and included an extensive section on the sacrament of ordination—clearly in part polemical, to argue against the anticlericalism of the age, and clearly also in part didactic, to explain to the priests and congregation the pastoral role of the ordained clergy.21 These changes in requirements and expectations were eventually to have broad-ranging effects; that they were not implemented quickly or widely is not surprising. The culture of the clergy had not changed dramatically in the Middle Ages or Renaissance, despite certain local or even international measures relating to education, simony, concubinage, and pluralism. In the wake of the Council of Trent, though, that culture was expected to change on all those levels simultaneously, and to define new roles, without a dramatic difference in the personnel. According to Joseph Bergin, through the end of the sixteenth century, it was very easy to be promoted in minor orders (up

19 As an example, see Philip M. Soergel, Wondrous in His Saints: Counter-Reformation Propaganda in Bavaria (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), esp. pp. 76–80. 20 Rituale Romanum Pauli V. Pont. Max. iussu editum cum Coniurationibus, et Benedictionibus variis. Nunc addita forumla absolvendi, et benedicendi populos, et agros (Rome: Philippi de Rubeis, 1652), pp. 1–2. 21 Catechismo, cioe istruttione, secondo il decreto del Concilio di Trento, à Parochi, publicato per comandamento del santissimo S. N. Papa Pio V. et tradotto poi per ordine di S. Santità in lingua volgare dal Reverendo Padre Alesso Figliucci, de l’Ordine de’ Predicatori (Rome: Con privilegio di N. S. Papa Pio Quinto, 1566), pp. 319–339.

early modern priests in selected tuscan dioceses

31

to and including acolyte)—and it was also very easy to stop before the promotion to subdeacon, leading to “a vast underbelly of men who were technically clerics, but who in effect lived as laymen.”22 This “vast underbelly” in minor orders enjoyed certain privileges, the most famous of which was “benefit of clergy.” Major orders meant actual work as a priest, a larger burden with fewer privileges, and therefore attractive to a smaller population. Why did some young men continue through to the end? Bergin concluded that the priests of the sixteenth century formed a very heterogeneous group: some had the cure of souls and some did not; some had religious motives and others personal ambitions, and that they were not a profession but “an estate characterised by their way of life and privileges.”23 Although change was not pronounced in the late sixteenth century, by the seventeenth century, one could find a dramatic shift: “taken as a whole, the development and intensive use of pastoral visitations, synods, missions, ecclesiastical conferences and seminaries, suggests that the Counter-Reformation Church was, however unconsciously at times, attempting to impose the marks of a profession on the lower clergy.” These “marks” included a minimum age of tonsure, a basic education, a prescribed age for final orders, a training period of curacy, and then, at last, a parish. All of this helped the church control the movements of its clergy, whereas the traditional practice of emphasizing the need for a benefice above all else had encouraged too much moving around.24 Bergin’s assessment thus is an observation of increasing professionalization within the Catholic parish clergy late in the Reformation, and this conclusion is borne out by other research. Angelo Turchini has argued that the trend began at the Council of Trent, the canons and decrees of which he has characterized as “the basis of a refoundation and a re-motivation of the ideals and values of the clergy. . . . [M]aking residence an obligation stabilized the territorial roots [of the priests]; the continued relationship with the community stressed preaching and sacramental catechesis. The Council also issued other formal indications, no less substantial, about career access, suggested requirements, [and] preparation: these could be considered elements 22 Bergin, “Between Estate and Profession,” p. 68. For a fuller definition of “major” and “minor” orders, see below. 23 Bergin, “Between Estate and Profession,” p. 69. 24 Bergin, “Between Estate and Profession,” pp. 83–84.

32

chapter two

of ‘rationalization’.”25 These requirements and preparation, in combination with a series of treatises describing the behavior of the “good pastor,” constituted a guidebook for secular priests. “The parish, guided by the pastor, developed as a center of sacramental life as well as a place for the daily management of the sacred, but also a registry, assistance center, a pivot of spiritual life. The time during which the clergy, especially in the rural areas, were completely incapable of administering confession and providing basic catechesis, was long gone.”26 Much of the scholarship which embraces this argument of confessionalization and professionalization emphasizes the distinctions between clergy and parishioner after the Council of Trent. Representative statements include David Gentilcore’s observations that the Council sought to turn parish priests into “a body of specialists and functionaries, increasingly conscious of their new role in the daily administration of the sacred at the parish level;”27 Philip Hoffman’s claim that “[t]he priests in fact became the agents who institutionalized the Counter Reformation in towns and villages;”28 and Stephen Haliczer’s characterization of confessors and parish priests as “far less tolerant than their predecessors of the casual immorality, superstition, and disrespect for the sacred that they found in many villages” and who as a result “frequently alienated the community in which they had to live.” They were, Haliczer argued, products of the “stern moral code” and “harsh disciplinary regime” of Spanish seminaries, which “deliberately recruited boys between the ages of twelve and eighteen when they were most malleable in order to better inculcate the ideals of the post-Tridentine clergy.”29 Seminary

25

Angelo Turchini, “La nascita del sacerdozio come professione,” in Paolo Prodi and Carla Penuti, eds., Disciplina dell’anima, disciplina del corpo e disciplina della società tra medioevo ed età moderna. Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico Quaderni 40 (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1994): 225–256, at p. 228. Unless otherwise indicated, all translations are the work of the author. 26 Turchini, “La nascita del sacerdozio come professione,” p. 235. 27 David Gentilcore, From Bishop to Witch: The System of the Sacred in Early Modern Terra d’Otranto (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992), p. 42. 28 Philip T. Hoffman, Church and Community in the Diocese of Lyon 1500–1789 (New Haven: Yale, 1984), p. 1. Later, Hoffman states that the parish clergymen “were more concerned with consolidating their rapprochement with the elite than with satisfying the spiritual needs of the common people.” Hoffman, p. 42. 29 Stephen Haliczer, Sexuality in the Confessional: A Sacrament Profaned (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 96, 158 and nn. 35, 36.

early modern priests in selected tuscan dioceses

33

history has helped to nuance and challenge the validity of these statements, although they remain popular among the general public and continue to appear in textbooks. The question which is only recently being asked is, exactly how could a generation of cold, distant, merely bureaucratic priests have arisen when seminary education for at least its first century was so infrequent, so short, and so unlikely to produce a major career improvement?30 As the case studies in this book will demonstrate, seminaries in Tuscany before 1700 did not produce, and may not even have aimed to produce, a clerical elite. Instead, many of these institutions trained a small group of men who rarely achieved prominence even in their own dioceses and who had as often as not learned only the basics of pastoral care. Marc Forster pointed out that seminary educated priests were instrumental in bringing the reform to the parishes of Speyer, but as mediators, not agents of reform.31 These new curates were better trained in the pastoral duties which the parishioners wanted: the cura animarum, or preaching, administering the sacraments, and teaching catechism, and therefore were more, not less, popular than their predecessors.32 Unfortunately, though, their numbers were so small that their impact was necessarily limited. The majority of parish priests in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries continued to learn their duties via forms of apprenticeship. As a result, the seminary educated priests were the ones on whom the bulk of the reform should have depended.33 Joseph Bergin argued that the hierarchy sought, after the Council of Trent, not only to train candidates for their careers,

30 See Kathleen M. Comerford, Ordaining the Catholic Reformation: Priests and Seminary Pedagogy in Fiesole, 1575–1675 (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2001) esp. Ch. 6, and the increasing number of studies on visitations in the post-Tridentine period, for example the volume of collected essays in Studia Borromaica 10 (Milan: Biblioteca Ambrosiana, 1996). 31 Marc Forster, The Counter Reformation in the Villages (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992), p. 7. 32 Forster, Counter Reformation in the Villages, p. 31. 33 For a broader picture of Roman Catholic religious education in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century, the following works are of great use: Luigi Volpicelli, Il Pensiero pedagogico della Controriforma (Florence: Sansoni, 1960); Helga Robinson-Hammerstein, European Universities in the Age of Reformation and Counter Reformation (Dublin and Portland, OR: Four Courts Press, 1998); and Christopher Black, Church, Religion and Society in Early Modern Italy (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004). For comparisons with other forms of schooling see, among others, Thomas B. Deutscher, “From Cicero to Tasso: Humanism and the Education of the Novarese Parish Clergy (1565–1663),” Renaissance Quarterly 55 (2002): 1005–1027 and “The Growth of the Secular Clergy

34

chapter two

but to ensure that this training was not neglected in favor of the many temptations of the world—chiefly corruption, vice, or laziness— once the career was begun. Angelo Turchini noted that the Council had mandated a variety of adjustments relevant to parish life. In addition to an increased emphasis on pastoral duties and to creating some basic religious expertise to perform them better, the postTridentine pastor had to face changes on the bureaucratic side of his job, for example the institutionalization of more formal and informative connections between the center of a given diocese and its surrounding areas, designed not only to centralize decision-making but also to connect the outlying areas of the diocese more closely to the see. The clergy with the cura animarum was, thus, working harder than it had in the period up to 1545; not only was it upholding the sacramental, preaching, and administrative duties it had had all along, but it now also had increased social obligations. “[The parish clergy] strained to offer an overproduction of goods and services. [T]his generated . . . tensions and inefficiencies; at the same time [it] urged new rules and forms of responsibility . . .; on the other hand [it also] resented the . . . growing acculturation of the clergy, if not of society as a whole, translating into a progressive ‘sacerdotalization’.”34 The question of educational context is harder to summarize. Because of the widely acknowledged importance of education in the Reformation era, there is a large body of literature on the subject of clerical training. Universities and schools of religious orders, particularly those of the Jesuits, provided education for a small group—the exact size of this group is impossible to determine—of those in clerical orders.35 None of the dioceses in this study were remote from universities, and the Development of Educational Institutions in the Diocese of Novara (1563– 1772),” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 40 (1989): 393–394; and Paul Grendler, The Universities of the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002). A more general study, John Van Engen, ed., Educating People of Faith (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004), raises some of the major questions of pre-modern religious and educational institutions; however, it says disappointingly little about education of Catholic clergy in the post-Tridentine era. 34 Turchini, “La nascita del sacerdozio come professione,” pp. 241, 247. 35 Recent important studies on schools of religious orders in Italy include Gian Paolo Brizzi, ed., La “Ratio studiorum.” Modelli culturali e pratiche educative dei Gesuiti in Italia tra Cinque e Seicento (Rome: Bulzoni Editore, 1981), pp. 77–120; Mario Fois, “L’insegnamento delle Lettere al Collegio Romano,” L’Università Gregoriana: Istituzione ignazia. Archivum historiae pontificiae 29 (1991): 42–62; and Candido Pozo, “La Facoltà di teologia del Collegio Romano nel XVI secolo,” in L’Università Gregoriana: Istituzione ignaziana. Archivum historiae pontificiae 29 (1991): 17–32. Among the best recent studies

early modern priests in selected tuscan dioceses

35

and all hosted at least some schools. The universities of Florence, Pisa, and Siena were not only relatively nearby, but also had international reputations.36 The problem for this particular story is that theology faculties in Tuscany were rare, and those that existed produced few graduates. According to Paul Grendler, graduates in theology made up less than 6% of the graduates of the University of Siena in the late fifteenth and the sixteenth centuries.37 In fact, in many decades of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, Siena did not employ a professor of theology, and it never had a professor of Sacred Scripture.38 Therefore, the colleges of the religious orders, in particular of the Jesuits, are more important in Tuscan clerical education than universities. While much research has been published on Jesuit education, certain colleges, notably that in Florence, deserve further consideration.39 Late-twentieth- and early-twenty-first-century research on seminaries and colleges pays far greater attention to conof broader issues in Jesuit education are Christopher Chapple, ed., The Jesuit Tradition in Education and Missions: A 450-Year Perspective (Scranton, Penn.: University of Scranton Press, 1993) and John W. O’Malley, The First Jesuits (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993). For some comparative work on Jesuits and seminarians see, for example, Kathleen M. Comerford, “Teaching Priests to be Pastors: Comparing Jesuit Schools and Diocesan Seminaries in Seventeenth-Century Italy,” Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu 72 (2003): 293–322; and Aldo Scaglione, The Liberal Arts and the Jesuit College System (Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins Publishing, 1986). 36 Grendler, The Universities of the Italian Renaissance, is indispensable for understanding this field. In addition to this magnum opus, see the following for specific Tuscan universities: on Siena, see Giovanni Minnucci and Leo Ko“uta, Lo Studio di Siena nei secoli XIV–XVI. Documenti e Notizie Biografiche (Milan: Giuffrè editore 1989); Mario Ascheri, L’università di Siena. 750 anni di storia (Siena, 1991); and Lodovico Zdekauer, Lo Studio di Siena nel Rinascimento (Milan: Ulrich Hoepli, 1894). On Pisa, see Giovanni Cascio Pratilli, L’Università e il Principe. Gli studi di Siena a di Pisa tra Rinascimento e Controriforma (Florence: Olschki, 1975) and Elsa Mango Tomei, Gli studenti dell’Università di Pisa sotto il regime granducale (Pisa: Pacini, 1976). On Florence, see Claudio Leonardi, “L’Ateneo fiorentino dallo Studium generale (1321) all’Istituto di Studi Superiori (1859),” in Storia dell’Ateneo fiorentino: Contributi di studio vol. I (Florence: Edizioni F&F Parretti Grafiche, n.d. [1987?]), pp. 13–20; and Celestino Piana, La Facoltà Teologica dell’Università di Firenze nel Quattro e Cinquecento (Grottaferrata [Rome]: Editiones Collegii S. Bonaventurae ad Claras Aquas, 1977). 37 Grendler, Universities of the Italian Renaissance, p. 50. 38 Grendler, Universities of the Italian Renaissance, pp. 380–381. 39 A number of Jesuit scientists and mathematicians, famous and otherwise, working around the Early Modern world are studied in articles in John W. O’Malley et al., eds., The Jesuits: Cultures, Sciences and the Arts, 1540–1770 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999). Specialized studies tend to concentrate more on non-Italian Jesuits; cf., for example, the volume edited by Daniel Stolzenberg, The Great Art of Knowing: The Baroque Encyclopedia of Athanasius Kircher (Stanford: Stanford University Libraries and Fiesole: Edizioni Cadmo, 2001) which contains important bibliographical and contextual references covering a wide variety of Kircher’s intellectual

36

chapter two

text, yet comparative studies remain rare.40 The model of this kind of work is the corpus of studies by Simona Negruzzo on the Stato di Milano.41 In the chapters which follow, I will be employing several forms of documentation to understand both seminaries and seminarians. Each case study includes consideration of founding and financing seminaries, and the impact on the priesthood, particularly through the use of visitations concentrating on the service books discussed above and on the teaching of catechism. This group of sources— both the visitations themselves and the materials used to prepare for them—provide varying amounts of data, but have proved useful for generations of historians investigating diocesan and parish life.42 Unfortunately, very different information has been preserved in individual dioceses and as a result, some areas do not allow for direct comparison. The most obvious is the lack of ordinations in Volterra, a result of many factors including archive access and maintenance. Ordination records, where available, provide some very specific information regarding the priesthood: geographical distribution, length of time for all seven promotions, and in some cases, job assignments, age, and (most rarely) education. Foundation documents, regole (where available), and other contemporary sources directly related to the

output. Kircher was also the subject of another exhibition which produced Ingrid D. Rowland’s The Ecstatic Journey: Athanasius Kircher in Baroque Rome (Chicago: University of Chicago Library, 2000). On Possevino, see, among the few English-language studies, E. Garcia Garcia and A. Miguel Alonso, “The Examination of Talents (1575) by Huarte de San Juan in the Bibliotheca Selecta (1593) by Antonio Possevino,” Revista de historia de la psicología 24, Part 3/4 (2003): 387–396. 40 See Massimo Marcocchi, “Il Concilio di Trento e l’istituzione del seminario (1563),” in Annali di storia dell’educazione e delle istituzione scolastiche 7 (2000): 13–20, and Xenio Toscani, “Recenti studi sui seminari italiani in età moderna.” Annali di storia dell’educazione e dele istituzioni scolastiche 7 (2000): 281–307. 41 Simona Negruzzo, Collegij a forma di seminario: Il sistema di formazione teological nello Stato di Milano in età spagnola (Brescia: Editrice La Scuola, 2000), and a series of articles published since 2000. 42 See, for example, Gabriele De Rosa, “Le visite pastorali del vescovo G.M. Giberti (1525–42).” Ricerche di storia sociale e religiosa N. S. 18 (1989): 179–196; Cecilia Nubola, Per una banca dati delle visite pastorale italiane: le visite della diocesi di Trento (1537–1940) (Bologna: il Mulino, 1998) and Conoscere per governare. La diocesi di Trento nella visita pastorale di Ludovico Madruzzo (1579 –1581) (Bologna: il Mulino, 1993); Angelo Turchini, “Per la storia religiosa del Quattrocento italiano. Visite pastorali e questionari di visita nell’Italia centro-settentrionale,” Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 13 (1977): 265–290; and Ugo Mazzone and Angelo Turchini, eds., Le visite pastorali: Analisi di una fonte (Bologna, il Mulino, 1990).

early modern priests in selected tuscan dioceses

37

opening of seminaries—financial records, letters, and early histories— round out the picture. Although each of the seminaries under consideration were very different institutions, and no two have the same documentation available, the existing records do provide a clear enough snapshot for each that historians have a greater opportunity to understand the post-Tridentine parish clergy.

CHAPTER THREE

THE DIOCESE AND SEMINARY OF AREZZO

The Diocese of Arezzo in the sixteenth and seventeenth century was administered by a series of bishops who had an uneasy relationship with power. Bishop Bernardetto Minerbetti of Florence (1537–1574) was very efficient—he held synods in 1565, 1567, and 1570—although not always very popular.1 His cloistration of the female monasteries, in accordance with Tridentine regulations, sometimes involved resorting to force.2 His successor, Stefano Bonucci (1574–1589; appointed cardinal 1587), had been one of the theologians present at the Council of Trent, and his dedication to reform as Bishop of Arezzo likely sprang from that experience.3 Although after his appointment to Cardinal he remained in Rome rather than return to his diocese, Bonucci created an impressive record: he energetically carried out his duties as Apostolic Visitator to Santissima Annunziata in Florence in 1580, where he introduced a series of reforms, including prescribing the Missale Romanum instead of any other forms;4 conducted a Visita Pastorale in Arezzo in 1575; held synods in 1575, 1580, and 1584; conducted a public book-burning in 1576; and ordered a catechism printed in 1578.5 1 Biblioteca della Città di Arezzo (henceforth BCA) MS 11: Jacopo Burali, with Alessandro Dragoni, Vite de’Vescovi Aretini descritte da Jacopo Burali d’Arezzo, Accademico Discorde, dall’anno 336 all’anno 1638. Le quale furono stampate in Arezzo appresso Ercole Gori con licenza de’superiori l’anno stesso 1638. Copiate da un sacerdote Aretino con varie aggiunte fatte alle medesime e continuazione delle stesse dall’anno 1638 all’anno 1755 (henceforth cited as Burali), pp. 87 and 121 (the latter of which corresponds to fol. 112r in a second numbering system for some of the inserted pages). 2 Cristelli, Storia civile e religiosa di Arezzo, p. 98. 3 Gaetano Moroni, ed., Dizionario di Erudizione Storico-Ecclesiastica da S. Pietro sino ai nostri giorni (henceforth DESE ) Vol. 6 (Venice: Tipografia Emiliana, 1840) s.v. “Bonucci Stefano,” pp. 28–29. 4 Boris Ulianich, “Bonucci Stefano,” Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1960–) (henceforth DBI ) vol. 12: Bonfadini-Borrello (Rome: Società Grafica Romana, 1970): 457–461, at p. 461. 5 Burali, pp. 122–123 (fols. 114v–115r). I have not determined the exact edition of the catechism in use; it was likely the Catechism of the Council of Trent, but may also have been one by Canisius or a local author. See also Cristelli, Storia civile e religiosa di Arezzo, p. 101 and Angelo Tafi, I Vescovi di Arezzo dalle origini della diocesi (sec. III ) ad oggi (Cortona: Calosci, 1986), pp. 131–133, 137. Tafi described Bonucci as the

40

chapter three

After two years of Bonucci’s non-residence, Pietro Usimbardi (1589– 1611) succeeded to the see of Arezzo. Usimbardi was a member of a prominent Tuscan family which included the first bishop of Colle di Val d’Elsa, and had served several important appointments prior to his elevation to Bishop of Arezzo, including as secretary to Fernando dei Medici.6 While Bishop of Arezzo, Usimbardi continued his predecessors’ reforms: he maintained parochial instruction in catechism, held a synod in 1597, made pastoral visits in 1590 and 1596, printed constitutions for cloistered nuns in 1603, and created twelve vicari foranei and two canonical offices (theologian and confessor).7 Even more than Minerbetti, Usimbardi was resisted by both the clergy and the laity in his attempts to improve behavior; they generally acted slowly on changes, as evidenced in the discussion on visitations below and in the complaints that the lay congregations, lay corporations, and hospitals lodged with the Nove Conservatori regarding what they considered burdensome taxation.8 The motives of the clergy have been attributed to either laziness or chauvinism, but they certainly were not alone in their dislike for the bishop. In fact, on his death, a mob wanted to burn him in effigy in the palazzo vescovile, but Grand Duke Ferdinando I stopped that action.9 Usimbardi’s successor, Antonio de Ricci of Florence (1611–1637), also from a prominent family, continued his predecessor’s work but began few initiatives; he restored a number of churches which had fallen into disrepair and founded a female monastery (for the order of Santa Chiara) in Monte San Savino.10 first of the “veri pastori residenti e zelanti,” yet there are reasons to question this appellation in his last two years as bishop. 6 Burali, pp. 89 and 123–125 (fols. 115r–118r). 7 Tafi, I Vescovi di Arezzo, pp. 137–138. Burali, p. 125 (fol. 117r), notes that Usimbardi used the great preacher Matteo Guerra di Siena to interest the people in catechetical instruction, apparently with some success. The synod is published as Constitutiones et decreta publicata in Synodo dioecesana Arretina, quam Petrus Usimbardius episcopus Arretii habuit. Anno Domini 1597 (Florence: Michaelangelo Sermartellii, 1598). Usimbardi was also the author of a biography of Ferdinand I, not published until the nineteenth century: Istoria del Gran Duca Ferdinando 1. de’Medici, edited by Guglielmo Enrico Saltini (Florence: M. Cellini et al., alla Galileiana, 1880). 8 ASF Nove Conservatori Luoghi Pii 22: Rapporti de Luoghi Pii laicale dello Stato per l’esenzione della Decima per lo Studio Pisano in esecuzione della circolare del Magistrato de’ Nove dell’anno 1606 (unfoliated). The pious foundations argued that they had so many expenses—masses, feasts, and employees—that they should be exempted. The Nove’s answer is not recorded. 9 Cristelli, Storia civile e religiosa di Arezzo, argues that the priests wished to preserve their more lax way of life; p. 108. According to Tafi, I Vescovi di Arezzo, the source of the opposition was more personal: because of his important Florentine connections, the Aretines hated him; p. 138. 10 Ricci was the son of Florentine Senator Vincenzo Ricci. For a short biography,

the diocese and seminary of arezzo

41

Seventeenth-century Arezzo was dominated by the episcopacy of Tommaso Salviati (1638–1671), another Florentine noble and a former Bishop of Colle. This energetic and enduring administrator had a special fondness for the poor, making significant donations of alms to poor families and of devotional books to poor priests, and supporting the Cappucine mendicants. In addition, he strongly supported pastoral education, and was considered both a great preacher and an important teacher of catechism.11 During his tenure, the Jesuits began a domestic mission in 1664 and began the construction of a church in 1668.12 Another Florentine, Neri di Filippo Corsini, was the Cardinal Bishop from 1672–1677. Very little information, outside of his education at the Jesuit Collegio Romano, is available on this bishop.13 He was apparently a good man, but was unable to accomplish much because of his delicate health, and resigned his position only a year before he died at the age of 78.14 Later bishops, most importantly the Florentines Alessandro Strozzi (1677–1682) and Giuseppe Ottavio Attavanti (1683–1691), and the Pistoiese Giovan Matteo Marchetti (1691–1704), continued the work of reforming the diocese in different ways. Strozzi employed a “prete bergamasco” to lead the clergy in unidentified “spiritual exercises” in the bishop’s palazzo; he seems to have been a devotee of several forms of contemporary spirituality.15 This may indicate further influence of the Society of Jesus. Attavanti was a Canon of the Cathedral of Florence and a graduate of the Roman Seminary; his interest in and training by the Jesuits there undoubtedly contributed to the continuation of the Society in the diocese. Marchetti saw to the completion of the Jesuit church and college in Arezzo in the end of 1686 and the beginning of 1687.16 The Society did not stay long, because disputes among the maestri apparently annoyed the Aretini. see Burali, pp. 89 and 125–145 (fols. 118r–128r), and Cristelli, Storia civile e religiosa di Arezzo, pp. 112–113. 11 Burali, pp. 136–139 (fols. 123v–125r) and BCA MS 187: Relazione de la morte di Mons. Tommaso Salviati . . . 17 ottobre 1672, fol. 724v. 12 BCA MS 27: Scritture varie, secc. XVI–XVIII, fols. 152r –152v (refoliated as fols. 151r –151v; both numbers remain on the folios), entries from 25 May 1664 and 13 July 1668. 13 DESE Vol. 17, s.v. “Corsini Neri,” pp. 285–286. DBI Vol. 29, s.v. “Corsini Neri,” pp. 649–651. 14 Tafi, I Vescovi di Arezzo, pp. 145. 15 Burali, pp. 150–153 (fols. 130v–132v) and ASF Carte Strozziane Terza Serie 75: Vite degl’huomini illustri della famiglia degli Strozzi. Parte Prima, fol. 54v. 16 BCA MS 27, fol. 154r (153r), 22 December 1686 and 2 January 1687; Tafi, I Vescovi di Arezzo, p. 150.

42

chapter three

The work of these bishops outside the construction of a seminary was significant in itself; the Diocese of Arezzo showed many signs of interest in and success with the Catholic Reform. Early post-Tridentine evidence of education in the Diocese of Arezzo includes some encouraging indications. In 1574, Minerbetti began a program of teaching dottrina cristiana (catechism) to children in the Church of San Francesco, with limited success.17 Minerbetti was also a member of the commission created by Archbishop Antonio Altoviti of Florence (1548–1573) to study the feasibility of opening a seminary in that archdiocese, and had written a summary of the Council of Trent, so he was clearly very familiar with the needs and the obstacles to fulfilling them.18 Real change in the clerical educational process, however, was left to future generations. Despite Bonucci’s theological training at both Bologna and Padua, and his dedication to teaching catechism in Arezzo, he did not attempt to found a seminary. This omission led to complaints from the Apostolic Visitator, Bishop Angelo Peruzzi of Sarsina, during his work in 1582–1583. He registered dismay on several fronts relating to education: not only did he not find a seminary, teachers, or students in the Cathedral, but he could also detect 17 Tafi, I Vescovi di Arezzo, p. 130. According to Cristelli, Storia civile e religiosa di Arezzo, p. 99, Minerbetti saw to it that “many children” were taught catechism in S. Francesco, “ma avremo modo di vedere che l’iniziativa sulle prime non ebbe gran seguito.” 18 Diocesana synodus Florentiae celebrata tertio non. maias MDLXIX (Florence: Sermartellium, 1569), p. 31: “De iis praeponendis, qui seminario praesint. Mandatum est ab eodem Concilio Tridenti habito, ut in singulis Dioecesibus fiat puerorum aliquot seminarium, ubi diligenter erudiantue, ac religiose educentur. Sed nobis pro virili parte eiusmodi constitutionem ita mature, ita provide propositam exequi cupientibus: prae beneficiorum tamen nostrae Dioesesis tenuitate incredibili, multa quidem impedimenta occurrunt. Atque id propter nimios sumptus, qui ad Collegii fabricam erigendam, et mercedem praeceptoribus, et Ministris exolvendam, alendamque iuventutem maxime necessarii forent; nihilominus ad hanc rem magni quidem momenti tractandam, adhibendos et eligendos esse duos de Cap. quorum alter a nobis, alter vero ab eodem Cap. deligetur. Et de cleri universitate totidem simili modo proponendos esse putavimus, qui una nobissum ad aliquam huiusce rei conficiendae ratione sese conferant: vel ad numerum clericorum in ludo literario Ecclesiae nostrae descriptorum augendum, vel ad aliquod aliud de hac re utile consilium ineundum, quorum nomina sunt haec.” This is signed by Minerbetti, Domenico Antonio Beniveni (Canon of Florence, on behalf of the Chapter), Niccolò Servidio (Laurentian Canon, on behalf of the clergy), and Leonardo Tancio (Prior of the lay Company of San Niccolò, sent by the Archbishop of Florence). Minerbetti’s summary of the Council was Breve et utile somma, cavata d’una parte de decreti del sacrosanto oecumenico Concilio tridentino (Florence: Bartolomeo Sermartelli, 1565). He also translated one of the twelve books of the Aeneid, published in Andrea Lori et al., L’Opere di Vergilio. Cioè la Buccolica, Georgica, et Eneida (Venice: Domenico Farri, 1568).

the diocese and seminary of arezzo

43

no instruction in cases of conscience; no Lenten preaching; no synods; and no diocesan visitation.19 After listing infractions, he insisted on catechism in all the parish churches.20 This is an early indication that the clergy of Arezzo were not simply opposed to individual bishops, as for example Minerbetti, but were either unable or unwilling to engage in the kinds of dramatic changes that reform would entail. Peruzzi was obviously not pleased with his findings in Arezzo. The tone of the questions he asked in his visitation can tend to the terse, for example telling the rector of San Stefano in Marciano that he must again teach catechism or risk censure (apparently he had at one point but was not doing so in 1583).21 In most of the other churches sampled for this study, the notary recorded the local clergy’s failure to instruct in the rudiments of faith along with a reminder that at the very least, the catechism should be explained on feast days. In fact, failure to instruct the people in Christian doctrine was widespread and obviously disappointing and frustrating to Peruzzi; for example, at the parish Church of Santa Maria in Lauro, the visitator notes failure not as a mere issue of neglect (Christian doctrine not taught) but in its specifics (Christian doctrine not taught on feast days, or Sundays; Gospel and sacraments not explained; etc.), suggesting that this issue was of great interest and concern to the visitator, as, one must imagine, it was to Bishop Bonucci who had printed that catechism as recently as 1578.22 Despite Bonucci’s efforts, catechism was taught at very few of 30 churches selected at random during 1582–1583. The most striking case of such neglect is at the church of San Biagio, where the rector was identified as a doctor of theology—yet even he did not teach catechism.23 In some churches, the situation was not exactly as it should be, but also not strictly in violation. In the Church of Sant’Andrea, the cappellano taught catechism, perhaps because the rector, Ser Giacomo 19 BCA MS 96: Visitatio civitatis et locorum terrarum insignium diocesis Aretii 1582, 1583, Vol. 1/2, fol. 31r (44r in modern foliation). This visitation is bound in two volumes, totaling 1171 pages, in modern binding. The modern foliation begins 13 folios before the original, but this pattern is disrupted at original foliation 275, at which point an inserted folio is labeled 275 b/c. Further complicating matters is the mistake in modern foliation which passes over folio 289, going straight to 290 from 288. Therefore, by folio 276r (original numbering), the difference is 16 folios. 20 Cristelli, Storia civile e religiosa di Arezzo, p. 102. 21 BCA MS 96: Visitatio . . . 1582, 1583, Vol. 1/2, fol. 293v (309v). 22 BCA MS 96: Visitatio . . . 1582, 1583, Vol. 1/2, fol. 423r (439r). 23 BCA MS 96: Visitatio . . . 1582, 1583, Vol. 1/2, fol. 321v (305v).

44

chapter three

Marsuppini, was nonresident.24 In the Church of San Martino, rector Giacomo Lauriccio taught catechism separately to boys and girls.25 Giulio de Bartoli, the rector of the parish Church of Sant’Angelo, did not teach doctrina cristiana but sent the boys and girls to an unnamed “scholis” and to the Cathedral where it was taught.26 This particular priest was, in some respects, a model reformer. In addition to seeing to the education of youth, he also was praised for his preaching on feast days, his explanations of the Scripture, and his observance of the decrees of the Council of Trent.27 The rector of SS. Appollonia and Lucia in Montemarciano sent some boys to the Oratorio of the Society of San Michele Archangelo for lessons in catechism.28 Thus, as early as the 1590s, it was clear in the Diocese of Arezzo that the commitment to reform “in the trenches,” i.e. among the secular clergy, would only extend so far, and that educating future priests would be an uphill battle. Usimbardi, described by Tafi as tireless in his pastoral activity,29 began the process of creating a dedicated institution for teaching parish clergy, and decided that its location should be the Church of San Marco di Murello, where the Fraternità dei Chierici was housed. This was not acceptable to the members of the Fraternity, however, who appealed the attempted annexation of their church to Rome. They won the case, leaving the embryonic seminary without any location. A similar situation in the diocese of Fiesole occurred during the 1575 attempt to open a seminary in the Oratorio di Santa Maria a Ponterosso in Figline

24 The record for the Church of Sant’Andrea is found in BCA MS 96: Visitatio . . . 1582, 1583, Vol. 1/2, fols. 63r –64v (76r –77v in modern foliation). Apparently, Marsuppini was resident at the Church of Sant’Antonio, in the jus patronato of the de Testi family; this church was united with that of St. Cosimo. BCA MS 96: Visitatio . . . 1582, 1583, Vol. 1, fol. 102r (115r). 25 BCA MS 96: Visitatio . . . 1582, 1583, Vol. 1/2, fol. 260r (273r). 26 BCA MS 96: Visitatio . . . 1582, 1583, Vol. 1/2, fol. 272r (285r). In a document from 15 May 1583 (1582 stile commune), a school, probably this one, is described in greater detail, although never given a name or location. Students there were taught Ovid, Terence, Cicero, Virgil, “et alias [auctores] . . ., ad alias morales virtutes ad ipiscendas; et intercoetera mandavint eisdem ut unica saltem die in hebdomada doceant pueros ipsos Doctrinam Christianam, et quo omnino procurent, ut diebus festis pueri ipsi adveniat in Ecclesiis Parochialibus ad initi se exercent in ea.” Vol. 1, fol. 372v (393v). 27 BCA MS 96: Visitatio . . . 1582–1583, Vol. 1, fol. 272r (285r). 28 BCA MS 96: Visitatio . . . 1582–1583, Vol. 1, fol. 428r (443r). 29 Tafi, I Vescovi di Arezzo, p. 137.

the diocese and seminary of arezzo

45

Valdarno, a commune centrally located in the diocese.30 Usimbardi’s successor, Ricci, achieved nothing in this area either. Not surprisingly, the bishop who finally opened the seminary in Arezzo was Tommaso Salviati. Eight students entered the institution in 1641; this clearly was a modest foundation, especially in the seventeenth century. The diocese rented a house from the Gammurrini family to accommodate the seminary; it remained there until 1643, when the diocese purchased and remodeled the Palazzo Concini, the home of the institution until 1745.31 The first rector was Tiburzio Biagini from Monte San Savino, who had been the parochial rector of the church of SS. Biagio and Maria in Ciggiano before being given his new position in March 1641; by December 1642, he was also teaching humanities. Bernardo Liberatori was the first named teacher of cantus firmis et figuratis, and Giovanni Battista de Forzori the first of writing and abbacus.32 Four more students were named as entering on 11 November 1642. The bishop had hoped for twice that number, given the expenses, but was apparently unable to find eight new recruits. According to my calculations, the population of the seminary in the 1660s and 1670s never surpassed 24, and in fact dipped quite low in the 1670s (see Table 3.1). The figures for the last two years of the 1650s are suspect, because they assume no students were in the seminary before 1658, but I can find no evidence to hazard a guess as to the number who might have been in attendance and only have direct evidence for two entering in 1658. If, for the sake of convenience, one were to speculate that 8 students were at the seminary in 1657 (as in 1641), and then add that to each year, the population remains quite small, ranging from 10 as a minimum to 32 as a maximum number of students.

30 According to Tafi, I Vescovi di Arezzo, p. 137, “I canonici, incredibile a dirsi, fecero cantare un solenne Te Deum in cattedrale.” On Fiesole, see Kathleen M. Comerford, Ordaining the Catholic Reformation (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2001), Ch. 4. 31 Tafi, I Vescovi di Arezzo, p. 141. 32 Archivio del Seminario Vescovile di Arezzo (henceforth ASVA) II.C.10: Copie di documenti che riguardano la fondazione de seminario in Arezzo fino da tempo di Monsignor Tommaso Salviati, fols. 9v and 14r. I have converted all dates in this and subsequent chapters to stile comune from the local practices of stile fiorentino, stile pisano, and stile lucchese.

chapter three

46

Table 3.1: Yearly Student Population of the Seminary in Arezzo, 1658–1676 Year of Entrance into the Seminary in Arezzo

1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676

Number of Students Entering

2 5 6 8 9 2 9 6 10 6 12 6 6 3 5 3 1 3 0

Number of Students Leaving

Number of Students Remaining

Number of Students Remaining, Assuming Eight Students in 1657

N/A 1 2 3 6 4 10 9 4 5 10 3 8 6 4 10 6 2 1

2 6 10 15 18 16 15 12 18 19 21 24 22 19 20 13 8 9 8

10 14 18 23 26 24 23 20 26 27 29 32 30 27 28 21 16 17 16

The foundation documents (written in 1638–1639) frequently make note of the Tridentine mandate to open a school to train youth in good morals and discipline. Salviati appointed deputies in February 1638 to begin the task of creating the seminary: Michelangelo Gualteri ( preposito of the cathedral), Antonio Graffioni (dean of the cathedral), and two identified simply as “Aretine priests,” Giacomo Giorgini and Antonio de Vezzosi. According to his plan, the seminary was to be built as a residential institution for 12 students from the city and diocese, with a minimum of 2 from the city and 6 from the diocese.33 This total number was a standard for the Jesuits; they determined it was the minimum necessary to maintain an institution, and were loath to support anything smaller.34 In this institution, students 33

ASVA II.C.10: Copie di documenti che riguardano la fondazione, fols. 8r –9r. Congregation 2, After the Election, Decree 8: “An excessive increase in the number of colleges and inadequate endownments of them are to be avoided,” dealt 34

the diocese and seminary of arezzo

47

who met the three minimum requirements—age of at least 12 years, legitimate birth, ability to read and write—were to be instructed in letters, singing, “aliarumque bonarum artium disciplinas,” morals, scripture, sacred rhetoric, sacraments, and rituals; this very closely mirrors the Tridentine regulations.35 Financial support was, as described in the Council of Trent, to come from offices, prebends, hospitals, benefices, and other pious institutions including the bishop’s own treasury. Institutions which paid decime to the Studio Pisano and to the papacy were told to divert some of this money to the seminary.36 Salviati also listed 17 chapels and churches from which revenues were to be united to the seminary.37 Perhaps most indicative of Salviati’s commitment to the Tridentine regulations was his personal involvement in teaching; according to an early biography, the bishop himself taught catechism in his chambers.38 Although ordination records identify individual clerics as seminarians in the 1620s–1650s, other information on the workings of the institution is very rare. Bishop Attavanti was apparently a student at the Roman Seminary, but he did not demonstrate a commitment to seminaries in Arezzo.39 None of the remaining seventeenth-century bishops seem to have played a role in the seminary, and indeed, it may have closed, as synods in the second half of the century omit notice of it entirely. As late as 1709, a diocesan synod in Arezzo with the quick expansion of the Society, and with the foundation of colleges in areas without sufficient teachers, staff, and students. John W. Padberg et al., ed., For Matters of Greater Moment: The First Thirty Jesuit General Congregations. A Brief History and Translation of the Decrees (St. Louis: Institute for Jesuit Sources, 1994), p. 113. This became a continuing struggle within the order as they sought to found a college in Montepulciano at the end of the sixteenth century; as the population of the house never reached more than 8 students, they failed. Information on the unsuccessful Montepulciano foundation is found throughout the letters printed in Diego Lainez et al., Lainii Monumenta: epistolae et acta patris Jacobi Lainii, secundi praepositi generalis Societatis Jesu (Madrid: G. Lopez del Horno, 1912–1917), 6 vols., and Petri de Ribadeneira et al., Confessiones, epistolae aliaque scripta inedita, ex autographis, antiquissimis apographis et regestis deprompta (Madrid: “La editorial ibérica,” 1920–1923), 2 vols. 35 ASVA II.C.10: Copie di documenti che riguardano la fondazione, fol. 5v. An Italian translation of a portion of this document, also dated 14 February 1638, is on fol. 33v. 36 ASVA II.C.10: Copie di documenti che riguardano la fondazione, fols. 5v–6r. 37 ASVA II.C.10: Copie di documenti che riguardano la fondazione, fols. 6r –v. 38 BCA MS 187: Relazione de la morte di Mons. Tommaso Salviati . . . 17 ottobre 1672, fol. 724v. 39 Ferdinando Ughelli and Nicola Coleti, Italia Sacra sive de Episcopis Italiae et insularum adjacentium, rebusque ab iis præclare gestis, deducta serie ad nostram usque aetatem. Vol. 1/10, Second edition (Venice: Sebastanium Coleti, 1717), col. 435.

48

chapter three

made no mention of the seminary.40 Evidence from ordination records and from the financial records of the seminary suggests that the school had little impact on the diocese. Out of 1,222 secular priests in Arezzo for whom I have any ordination or education information for selected five-year periods between 1602 and 1678, only 126 were designated as seminarians. The “academic year” began on 10 March. Although specific dates for entrance are given for some seminarians in the 1640s, that information is not available in subsequent years, and no exit data are recorded at all. For the sake of convenience, I have therefore relied on the information found in the records of payments for students, and have designated the first year of payment as the first year in the seminary, and the last year of payment as the last year in the seminary, with a date of 9 March. Arezzo used stile pisano, which meant that the year began on 25 March rather than 1 January, with a correspondence to modern style from 1 January through 24 March. Thus, dating from 10 March roughly corresponds to the Aretine year.41 In eight cases, the year of last information was also the year of first information; for these seminarians, therefore, I have used a date of 31 December of that year as their departure. Twenty-three seminarians were only identified in the foundation document, and therefore a date of departure cannot be determined at all. Among the 96 for whom I have some information regarding length of stay, the arithmetic mean length of stay was 55 months, with a minimum of less than one month and a maximum of 168 months, as noted in Table 3.2. Graph 3.1 demonstrates that the length of stay during the two decades from 1658 to 1676 followed no discernable pattern.

40

ACVA Synodus Diocesana Aretina. . . . Celebrata diebus 16 et 17 Aprilis 1709 (Arezzo: Octavii Loreti, 1709). 41 Stile fiorentino, in use in Florence and Siena, was the reverse of stile pisano, used in Pisa and Volterra: in Florence, the year began on 25 March, and corresponded to modern dating from that date through 31 December. From 1 January through 24 March, it was behind stile comune. From 25 March through 31 December, the year in stile pisano was ahead of that in stile comune. By contrast, stile lucchese, in use only in Lucca, a system in which the year began on 25 December, and which anticipated stile comune in that period from 25 through 31 December.

Average Duration of Stay (months)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Graph 3.1: Average Duration of Stay in Seminary in Arezzo vs. Year of Entrance, 1658–1676

Year of Entrance

1658 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675 1676

the diocese and seminary of arezzo 49

chapter three

50

Table 3.2: Total Time Students Spent in Seminary in Arezzo, 1640s–1670 Number of Months Spent in Seminary in Arezzo, 1640s–1670s <1 10 12 22 24 36 48 60 72 96

Number of Seminarians Spending That Number of Months 1 12 22 2 26 15 9 4 2 1

Average (Mean) Number of Months Spent at the Seminary in Arezzo Median Number of Months Spent at the Seminary in Arezzo

Percentage of Seminarians Spending That Number of Months 1.04% 12.50% 22.92% 2.08% 27.08% 15.63% 9.38% 4.17% 2.08% 1.04% 29 24

Distinctions within the backgrounds of seminary and non-seminary priests are expressed in the charts and tables which follow. Note that the percentages do not add up to 100, because I have selected the most frequently represented comuni among all from which the clergy came, for purposes of comparison only. In Arezzo, nearly 25% of all clergy, but only about 17.5% of seminarians, came from the diocesan see. This discrepancy is considerably larger than the figures for either Siena or Lucca (see Chapters 4 and 6), as is the difference between the percentage of all priests who came from cities versus seminarians from metropolitan areas. Over 62% of all clergy in Arezzo came from urban areas (cities and large towns), and just under 64% of seminarians. The similarities in these figures for the diocese of Arezzo are striking; evidence from Fiesole, Lucca, and Siena show rather different profiles for the total cross-section of clergy. This is particularly notable when compared to Fiesole, since the diocesan territory so closely overlapped with that of Arezzo. In the former diocese, over 56% of secular clergy, over 68% of seminary students, and over 48% of non-seminarians came from urban areas. The percentage of urban seminary students in Fiesole and Arezzo is similar, but not that of non-seminarians. Of particular interest in this case is the number of students from Florence. According to the

the diocese and seminary of arezzo

51

ordination records in Arezzo, no non-seminarians from the city of Florence were ordained in the diocese; yet three seminarians from the Grand Ducal capital were (2.4%). By contrast, 3.7% of all priests ordained in Fiesole were from Florence, and yet only 4.1% of seminarians, translating into 37 of all priests and 17 seminarians.42 As Florence had no seminary at the time, those committed to the ideal of Tridentine-sanctioned clerical education would have had to travel, yet only a very small number did. Certainly, some priests from bordering dioceses went to the “wrong” seminary. For example, a small percentage (no more than 8%) of candidates from the nearby Diocese of Fiesole were educated at the seminary in Arezzo, at a time when they could easily have gotten their training in their home diocese. The reason for this was most likely convenience, as Arezzo was considerably closer to, for example, San Giovanni Valdarno and Montevarchi than their diocesan see of Fiesole was. On the other hand, candidates for the priesthood from the Diocese of Florence rarely show up in other diocesan seminaries, a fact not easily explained.43 Charts 3.1–3.3 show geographical origins for the secular clergy in Arezzo; the accompanying Table 3.3 compares the percentages of individuals in orders according to towns. Table 3.4 groups the comuni according to relative size and compares the groups (city, large town, and small town either within or outside the diocesan borders). In this table, unlike those above, “unknown origin” is grouped with “unidentifiable comune” because the desire is to determine not the specific location, but the classification of the said location. The figures for priests ordained from outside the diocese are estimates based on the same sources from 42 I reported different figures in Ordaining the Catholic Reformation, chapter 5. Since the publication of that volume, I have conducted further research, found Fiesolan clergy ordained elsewhere, and adopted a new statistical analysis program; all of this makes the percentages reported here more accurate. 43 I have not attempted to gather data for all secular clergy from other dioceses ordained in Arezzo. Candidates from Borgo San Sepolcro, Cortona, Pienza, and Siena show up in the records, with and without the required dimissory letters from their bishops which allowed for ordination in a different diocese. As ordination itself in Arezzo had no special draw for these clergymen, save (in only some cases) location, I cannot account for their presence in the records with the same kind of assumptions that I can apply to those seeking seminary education. A possible explanation for ordaining, for example, a Pientine priest without permission is that said priest had moved to Arezzo and still identified with his family home; a different possible explanation for one from Cortona is the availability of a bishop at a shorter travel distance; etc. On the other hand, it is not at all clear why a non-seminary priest would travel a great distance from Siena or, if one was from Borgo San Sepolcro, choose Arezzo over Florence.

52

chapter three

which the maps and the ordinations were drawn. Given the lack of accuracy of the 1596 survey, it is not possible to be certain which to diocese some smaller towns belong; in addition, the lack of consistency in recording names of towns introduces a fairly large error. Among the seminarians from outside the diocese, the majority hailed from the Dioceses of Florence (with 2.38% of the number from the Grand Ducal capital itself ) or Fiesole, but some also came from Cortona. In all, the designation “unidentifiable” means that a town name was given but cannot be matched to any known comune, whereas “unknown origins” means that no information was given. Map 3.1 shows selected cities, demonstrating that Aretine priests, whether seminarians or not, were drawn from all regions of the diocese.

Map 3.1. Diocese of Arezzo (1596 borders) © Research Media, University of Georgia

the diocese and seminary of arezzo

53

Arezzo, 24.84% Other, 27.86%

Laterina, 1.31% Subbiano, 1.39%

Unknown Origin, 9.15%

Asciano, 1.47% Poppi, 1.96% Terranuova Bracciolini, 2.29%

Castiglion Fiorentino, 7.76%

Lucignano, 2.86% Foiano, 3.84% Bibbiena, 4.00%

Monte San Savino, 7.19% Anghiari, 4.08%

Chart 3.1: Geographical Origins of Secular Clergy in Arezzo, 1600–1650s

Arezzo, 25.73% Other, 29.11%

Subbiano, 1.55%

Castiglion Fiorentino, 8.39%

Poppi, 1.82% Terranuova Bracciolini, 2.37% Lucignano, 3.10%

Unknown Origin, 8.03% Monte San Savino, 7.30%

Bibbiena, 4.01% Foiano, 4.20%

Anghiari, 4.38%

Chart 3.2: Geographical Origins of Non-Seminary Priests in Arezzo, 1600–1650s

chapter three

54

Arezzo, 17.46% Other, 27.78%

Terranuova Bracciolini, 1.59% Unknown Origin, 17.46%

Talla, 1.59% Pozzo, 1.59% Montebenici, 1.59% Montanina, 1.59% Bucine, 1.59% Asciano, 1.59% Anghiari, 1.59% Florence, 2.38%

Monte San Savino, 6.35%

Castiglion Fiorentino, 2.38% Soci, 3.17%

Bibbiena, 3.97% Poppi, 3.17% Quarata, 3.17%

Chart 3.3: Geographical Origins of Seminary Priests in Arezzo, 1640s–1650s

Table 3.3: Comparison of Town of Origin of Secular Priests in Arezzo, 1600s–1650s Comuni outside the diocese are indicated in bold type Town of Origin of Secular Clergy in Arezzo, Selected Cases

Percentage of Secular Clergy from that Town

Arezzo Unknown Origin Castiglion Fiorentino Monte San Savino Anghiari Bibbiena Foiano Lucignano Terranuova Bracciolini Poppi Asciano Subbiano Laterina Loro Ciuffena Quarata Soci Florence

24.84% 9.15% 7.76% 7.19% 4.08% 4.00% 3.84% 2.86% 2.29% 1.96% 1.47% 1.39% 1.31% 0.98% 0.82% 0.41% 0.25%

Percentage of Percentage of Seminary Students Non-Seminary from that Town Clergy from that Town 17.46% 17.46% 2.38% 6.35% 1.59% 3.97% 0.79% 0.79% 1.59% 3.17% 1.59% 0% 0% 0% 3.17% 3.17% 2.38%

25.73% 8.03% 8.39% 7.30% 4.38% 4.01% 4.20% 3.10% 2.37% 1.82% 1.46% 1.55% 1.46% 1.09% 0.55% 0.09% 0%

the diocese and seminary of arezzo

55

Table 3.4: Urban Profile of Secular Priests in Arezzo, 1600s–1650s Origins of Aretine Secular Priests

All Secular Priests

City Large town Small town Unknown origin or unidentifiable comune Outside the diocese

Seminarians

Non-Seminarians

31.67% 30.36% 25.78% 12.19%

36.97% 26.89% 18.49% 17.65%

31.10% 30.73% 26.56% 11.60%

9.62%

15.05%

8.55%

Unlike in Lucca and Siena (see below), we can make no comparisons between the rate of promotions in orders in Arezzo, an important issue because the Council of Trent mandated a period of at least three years for the final orders: subdeacon, deacon, and priest. Among the 126 identified as seminarians in Arezzo, only one has complete ordination information. He was made a priest in less than 44 months, or over 3.5 years. Two have information for the promotions to the holy orders: it took them less than 33 months each, which is just shy of the 3 years required by the Council of Trent for the three major orders alone. The average time for ordination to all seven levels for the remaining 1,096 secular priests can be determined for only 9; it is just under 17 months, far short of the time period which would have conformed with the Council of Trent’s mandates. By contrast, I have the information on the final three promotions for a total of 82 Aretine priests (including those 9 referenced above); the average time for a young man to pass from subdeacon to deacon to priest was approximately 18 months. The data found in Table 3.5 further demonstrate the little information found. The discrepancy between the average time for all seven orders and three holy orders for non-seminarians promoted is the result of the greater availability of data for the latter. Visitations provide the most information on how Arezzo changed with the foundation of a seminary. According to the reports of latesixteenth and seventeenth-century visitations, the diocese was badly in need of reform despite the efforts of its bishops. In the 1582–1583 visitation, for example, Peruzzi reported that the Church of Sant’Agnese had two non-consecrated altars; Mass was not celebrated in the parish of San Nicola; one of the chaplains at San Biagio kept a female servant; in the aforementioned school, the profession of faith was not taught; the Eucharist was not kept (non retinentur) at the parish Church

chapter three

56

Table 3.5: Comparison of Length of Time for Promotions in Orders between Seminary and Non-Seminary Priests in Arezzo, 1600s–1650s Type of Secular Priest in Arezzo

Average for Promotion to all Seven Orders

Minimum for all Seven Orders

Maximum for all Seven Orders

Average for Promotion to Three Holy Orders

Minimum for Three Holy Orders

Maximum for Three Holy Orders

Nonseminarian

<17 months

<1 month

<39 months

<18 months <1 month

<39 months

Seminarian

<44 months N/A (reported for only one priest)

N/A

<33 months <33 (reported months for only two priests)

<33 months

of Santa Maria in Casanova44 or SS. Biagio and Lorenzo in Montanina; the parish churches of the Assumption in Villa Ottavo, SS. Giacomo and Cristoforo in Villa Cozzano, and San Martino in Vitiano did not even have sacristies. Among the 30 churches, none of the priests were questioned about the Breviary and only five had indications of Missals: San Niccolò had an unidentified version, Santa Maria in Terranuova Bracciolino and SS. Ippolito e Casciano had two each of the reformed version, and San Martino had four of the reformed Missals.45 The visitation undertaken in 1606 focused on manifestations of cult, giving inventories of liturgical implements but offering no information on the practice of religion in the diocese.46 By contrast, the visitation of 1638–1639 included details on this important subject, noting failure among the clergy to teach catechism. However, unlike in 1582–1583, fewer punishments, fines, and reminders were recorded.47 Eleven out of 30 parishes selected at random made no mention at all of teaching the rudiments of the faith, including the parish of

44 This is probably the small town of the same name south and slightly east of Pontedera. 45 On the above points, see BCA MS 96: Visitatio . . . 1582, 1583, Vol. 1 and 2, passim. Unfortunately, I cannot determine from the records which of the reformed Missals was in use in Arezzo. Major seventeenth-century editions after 1570 were the 1604 Clementine edition and the 1634 edition of Urban VIII. 46 ACVA 9: Visite Pastorali Usimbardi, 1606. 47 ACVA 15: Visite 1634 –1668.

the diocese and seminary of arezzo

57

Sant’Agnese in the city of Arezzo, where the rector was a doctor of philosophy.48 Among those 9 churches for which the visitator did raise the issue, the picture was bleak indeed. Lorenzo de Buonfigliuoli of Arezzo, the rector of San Pietro di Nufio in Campoluci, not only failed to observe the feast days, but was himself described as “completely ignorant of the rudiments of the faith;” not surprisingly, his parishioners knew very little themselves. He was fined 21 lire for his shortcomings.49 Giovanni de Donatis of Villa San Firmena (rector of San Firmena in that town) and Fulvio de Gammurrini (rector of Sant’Adriano, in an unnamed comune) also failed to observe feast days or teach the “rudimenta fidei”—probably because both were judged, like Buonfigliuoli, to be ignorant of them. Three other priests, Bernardino de Campolucci of Quarata (rector of San Giovanni Evangelista in Pratoantico), Giovanni Battista de Ralli of Arezzo (rector of San Martino de Signano, a church united with Sant’Agata a Saccione), and the unnamed rector of Santa Maria de Murello did teach on feast days.50 In addition, in this 1638 visitation, none of the parishes selected at random were listed as being in possession of any of the new service books which were required. The foundation of a seminary in Arezzo met with much resistance. Even when it did open, it was not welcomed; few seminarians passed through the institution. Although the geographical data show that the clergy who attended the new school were a fairly representative cross-section of the diocesan priests, the other data demonstrate little change within seventeenth-century parishes in the region. The few differences between seminarians and non-seminarians in Arezzo are tantalizing, but prove no major improvements. Since the jobs which the seminarians and non-seminarians filled did not differ significantly throughout the seventeenth century—both groups were parish priests, rectors, and canons in about equal measure (although the seminarians were more likely to be Cathedral canons than their non-seminary counterparts)—it is difficult to imagine a lasting impact of this group. For example, for those priests with available information—a very small subset of the whole, amounting to only 220 non-seminarians and 7 seminarians—a full 83% of non-seminary secular clergy received patrimonies upon their promotion to subdeacon, 48 49 50

ACVA 15: Visite 1634 –1668, fols. 143v–144v. ACVA 15: Visite 1634 –1668, fol. 27r. ACVA 15: Visite 1634 –1668.

58

chapter three

whereas only 14% of seminarians did; fewer than 2% of non-seminarians received canonries upon that same promotion, yet again 14% of seminarians did. At the same time, there was a greater likelihood that seminarians received chaplaincies when promoted to major orders (43%) versus non-seminarians (less than 0.5%). However, the 14% of seminarians refers to only 1 person, and the 2% of non-seminarians refers to 4. The data suggest that seminarians were less likely than non-seminarians to work in parishes, but this cannot be stated with certainty. If, with further investigation, such turns out to be the case, the impact of the reforms will prove even smaller. What is clear in this diocese is that this center of Renaissance creativity did not become a center of Catholic Reformation secular clerical education, and that the seminarians were not employed in a manner to spread that education much further. As a result, neither the pastors nor the parishes in Arezzo were reformed.

CHAPTER FOUR

THE ARCHDIOCESE AND SEMINARY OF SIENA

Although in Siena traces of the Reformation emerged, in the form of Socialism, Calvinism, and Nicodemism, heresy was not especially widespread, unlike in Lucca, as explained below. Also unlike Arezzo and Lucca, the Jesuits had a prominent presence in the Archdiocese of Siena. In 1559, the Society of Jesus was confronted with a controversy in its relatively new house and College in the archiepiscopal see, both of which were begun by Ignatius himself in late 1556 in response to the “affliction” of Reformed theology.1 A letter from Girolamo Rubiola to Diego Lainez in September 1558 refers to three difficulties which Duchess Eleonora of Toledo wanted resolved: first, “Lutheran” adherents were still to be found; second, a plague had arrived; and third, the Jesuits were being persecuted by the city for heresy.2 The details of this last problem are murky, but the situation was under control by December 1560.3 Before the end of that decade, the Inquisition heard cases involving the very important Chigi and Benvoglienti families, which did not result in major political or religious upheavals.4

1 Bortolotti, Siena, p. 101. Lainii monumenta; epistolae et acta patris Jacobi Lainii, secundi praepositi generalis Societatis Jesu vol. 1/8 (Madrid: G. Lopez del Horno, 1912), letter 235, 7 November 1556, from Lainez in Rome to Fulvio Androzi, mentions the need for a college in the “afflicta città di Siena,” p. 503. 2 Lainii monumenta vol. 3/8 (Madrid: G. Lopez del Horno, 1913): letter 968, 20 September 1558, from Rubiola to Lainez, pp. 548–551. 3 Petri de Ribadeneira et al., Confessiones, epistolae aliaque scripta inedita, ex autographis, antiquissimis apographis et regestis deprompta vol. 1/2 (Madrid: “La editorial ibérica,” 1920), letter 133, 29 December 1560, Ribadeneira to Lainez: “ho trovato questo collegio molto ben ordinato, aiutato in spirito, fondato in povertà e speranza nel Signor . . .; è amato et riverito ordinariamente da tutti; perche già con la perseverantia del bene operare vicerunt invidiam,” pp. 347–352. 4 Bertini, Feudalità e servizio del principe, pp. 76, 154. Fabio Benvoglienti (1532–1580) was the author of Discorso di m. Fabio Benvoglienti. Per qual cagione per la religione no si sia fatta guerra fra’ gentili, e perchè si faccia tra Christiani (Lucca: V. Busdrago, 1570; also editions in Siena and Florence), a work on Aristotle’s Rhetoric, and a translation of the statements of Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople, on the Council of Florence; presumably, he was not under suspicion. I was unable to find any heretical publications by a Benvoglienti or a Chigi.

60

chapter four

During the sixteenth century in Siena, one archbishop presided for nearly 60 years, seeing the diocese through major political and religious upheavals: Francesco Bandini Piccolomini (1529–1588). As a member of the illustrious family which not only created the city and bishopric of Pienza, but which also provided many archbishops of Siena, his age at accession—24—was likely not a major handicap as he had surely been trained for such a purpose. Like other members of the Piccolomini family, his interest in the history of his family, and in particular his admiration for Pope Pius II, was evident.5 This Piccolomini was occupied with the issues of heresy and Jesuit controversy described above, but did not consider a seminary to be among the solutions to his problems. In the synod which he held after the Council of Trent in 1564, his major concerns were residence, benefices, and following through on Session 24 of the Council of Trent, which contained provisions on yearly diocesan councils, visitations, and qualifications for canonries, among other issues.6 His successor, another Piccolomini named Ascanio (1588–1597), was a poet and author whose governance ideas were apparently quite similar to Francesco’s. On the other hand, Ascanio was more aggressive and clashed with clergy and laity alike during his tenure.7 The Piccolomini line was interrupted by the elevation of the aged (72 years old), but still spry and brilliant, Cardinal Francesco Maria Tarugi, nephew of Pope Julius III, to Archbishop of Siena in 1597. The nine years of his archepiscopacy marked a change in the religious life of the region. According to Franco Daniele Nardi, in fact, he came to power with a mandate—the papacy “hoped [that his leadership would produce] the solidification of the Catholic Reform after 5 Cf. the volume Pii secundi pontificis max. Commentarii rerum memorabilium, quae temporibus suis contigerunt, a r.d. Ioanne Gobellino vicario Bonnen. iamdiu compositi, et a r.p.d. Francisco Bandino Picolomineo archiepiscopo Senensi ex vetusto originali recogniti. Quibus hac editione accedunt Jacobi Picolominei cardinalis papiensis. . . . Rerum gestarum sui temporis, et ad Pii continuationem, commentarii locul (Rome: Dominici Basae, 1584). 6 Archivio della Curiale Arcivescovile di Siena (henceforth ACAS) 3: Sinodus Diocesanae plurimum annorum dal 1564 ab 1679. 7 Franco Daniele Nardi, “Aspetti della vita dei religiosi a Siena nell’età della Controriforma, parte prima,” Bollettino senese di storia patria 93 (1986): 194–240, at p. 195. The poems can be found in Rime di Monsig. Ascanio Piccolomini: fatte la maggior parte nella primavera dell’eta sua. Et alla fine d’esse saranno dodici imprese del medesimo, le quali tosto haveranno anco in luce l’esposizioni loro (Siena: Bonetti, 1594); other writings were collected in Avvertimenti civili estratti da monsignore Ascanio Piccolomini arcivescovo di Siena da’ sei primi libri degli Annali di Cornelio Tacito. Dati in luce, da Daniello Leremita gentilhuomo del serenissimo gran duca di Toscana (Florence: Volcmar Timan, 1609).

the archdiocese and seminary of siena

61

the failures in mission of the preceding visitators.”8 Since Tarugi had helped found the Filippini (also known as Oratorians) and had proved himself both a strong advocate of orthodoxy and a supporter of the papacy against the French, the Roman authorities considered him an ideal choice to reform the Archbishopric of Siena.9 They were not disappointed. Tarugi’s interests included discipline among the clergy and conformity with, at least, the Tridentine mandates for record-keeping; the year of his promotion to archbishop of Siena, he wrote Formulae scribendi in libris parochialibus, ex mandato illustrissimi, ac reverendiss. Dom. D. Francisci Mariae Taurusii. . . . Ad usum eius metropolitana ecclesiae, et parochorum senen impressa.10 He also worked to promote the cura animarum and the morality of the pastors, for example in the 1599 synod he held. Chapter 15 of this synod is dedicated to the sacrament of Holy Orders, and Tarugi insisted on good priests: they must not only have the general attributes required in any diocese (legitimate birth, charity, chastity, piety, sobriety, etc.), but also follow all the proper procedures (no one would be accepted without both the proper “clerical habit” and the tonsure), be knowledgeable in Christian doctrine, and endure public testimony regarding their suitability for promotion in orders.11 A number of archbishops in the seventeenth century served for brief terms and affected little change in the region. Camillo Borghesi (1607–1612) and Celio Piccolomini (1671–1681) were relatively undistinguished in their tenure. Metello Bicchi (1613–1615) both studied law and taught it at the University of Siena; he is credited with restoring a number of churches and with support for the seminary (see below), but resigned his post within two years to return to Rome, where he died in 1619.12 Alessandro Petrucci (1615–1628), graduate of the Jesuit Roman Seminary, ordered the printing of a catechism and held synods (1618 and 1625).13 Leonardo Marsili (1681–1713) 8

Nardi, “Aspetti della vita dei religiosi a Siena,” p. 197. DESE Vol. 73: Tar-Tes (Venice: Tipografia Emiliana, 1855), pp. 3–4. 10 Siena, [1597]. 11 Joannes Dominicus Mansi, et al., Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. Vol. 36bis/53: Synodi occidentales, 1569 –1609 (Paris: Huberti Welter, 1913), coll. 536–537. Caput XV: “De sacramento ordinis.” 12 Gaspare de Caro, “Bichi Metello,” DBI vol. 10 (Biagio-Boccaccio), p. 353 and DESE vol. 5: Ben-Bon, s.v. “Bichi Metello,” 240. 13 Decreti e costituzioni generali dell’illustriss. e reverendiss. monsignore Alessandro Petrucci . . . (Siena: Hercole Gori, 1625); Dottrina cristiana, stampata d’ordine dell’illustrissimo, et reverendissimo signore Alessandro Petrucci, arcivescovo di Siena. . . . Aggiuntovi le letanie della 9

62

chapter four

authored a broadsheet on the conversion of two young Jews, but apparently nothing else.14 The longest-reigning archbishop of the seventeenth century, Ascanio II Piccolomini (1628–1671), is perhaps most famous for his friendly relationship with Galileo Galilei, but he also effected numerous changes in the archbishopric, many associated with the seminary. Despite the length of his episcopacy, little has been written about this member of the illustrious and dominant family; his correspondence with Lorenzo Magalotti, bishop of Ferrara, diplomat, and intellectual was published in the twentieth century, but no major biography exists.15 In this archdiocese, the difficulties with opening a seminary seem to have come from several angles: first, the existence of a university, a cathedral school, a Jesuit College, and a variety of other clerical institutions including schools run by Dominicans and Franciscans, may have slowed initiatives down, as it may have in other Grand Ducal dioceses with strong educational establishments (in Florence, for example, no seminary opened until the eighteenth century; in Pisa, a small one opened in 1625 and remained a minor operation until the eighteenth century). Second, sixteenth-century tensions between archbishops and clergy led to a generally low level of cooperation and may have been a causal factor in the small number of school foundations and sponsorships by archbishops between the close of the Council of Trent and the turn of the seventeenth century. Only Cardinal Tarugi, known for his expertise in Scripture, Patristics, and Asian languages, opened a school for aspiring clergy in the Abbey of San Michele Arcangelo, which focused on discipline and

Madonna . . . da antarsi in tutto l’anno (Siena: Bonetti, [1610?]). As the date of the latter is impossible, since Petrucci ordered this catechism while archbishop, it must be a cataloguer’s misreading of 1618 or 1620 (I was unable to consult this work and found only library entries). Petrucci was also the author of Sanctitatis gigas panegyrico expressus in festo S. Iuonis presb. pauperum advocati ad S.R.E. card. ab Alexandro Petruccio Eretino sem. Rom. cler. 14 Kal. Iunii an. 1643 (Rome: Fr. Corbeletti, 1643). 14 Fuggiti negli stessi giorni dalle case paterne Salomone, e Dianora Giovanetti ebrei: per abbracciare la fede euangelica; questa manca di virtù, e ritorna à gl’errori, quello persiste nel proposito, e si battezza, li 14. luglio 1697, nella chiesa di S. Francesco de’ PP. Min. Conv. in Siena, per mano dell’illustriss., e reverendiss. monsig. Leonardo Marsili arcivescovo di Siena: per l’augurio delle due rondinelle, che Dianora pentita ritorni a’ i primi santi sentimenti, in vigore dell’efficacia della predica fatta à gl’ebrei nel detto giorno dal M.R.P.M. Luti predic. ces. min. conv.: sonetto (Siena: Nella Stamperia del Pubblico, 1697). 15 Laura Corso, Relazioni fra Lorenzo Magalotti e Ascanio II Piccolomini Arcivescovo di Siena (da un carteggio inèdito) (Siena: Stab. Arti Grafiche Lazzeri, 1937).

the archdiocese and seminary of siena

63

humanistic studies.16 Tarugi also repaired the relationship between archbishop and regular clergy and supported lay catechetical initiatives.17 Third, early foundations—and two institutions can be considered early seminaries in this archdiocese—were shaky. The first of these was associated with the Congregazione dei Sacri Chiodi (Sacred Nails, i.e. those used to crucify Christ), founded in 1567 by Matteo Guerra to serve the hospital in the city of Siena.18 In 1579, they received permission to recite the penitential psalms, preach, and teach catechism. Five years later, Pope Gregory XIII united them to the Congregazione dei Chiodi in the Church of San Giorgio, also in the city, with the proviso that they would perform catechetical functions, administer the sacraments, help the poveri vergognosi (those formerly rich families which had been reduced to poverty), and in general, do good deeds. Ten years after that, in 1594, they revised their rule, which Clement VIII approved in 1614.19 The bull which Clement VIII issued was a confirmation of the existence of a Collegio di San Giorgio, a confraternity of priests and laymen. In 1614, several clerics were listed, including 2, Spinello di Spinelli and Giovanni Battista Sozzini, who were expelled in 1619 and 1620 respectively, for “incorrigibile” behavior. Among the other 10, three were confessors as well as priests; one was a deacon who died in 1620; and at least one became a priest during his tenure in the Congregazione.20 In addition to clergy, laymen were allowed, and some, for example Girolamo Vannucci and Agostino Angelini, were “admitted to the novitiate for clergy,” in this case, in 1619.21 Over the course of the next several

16 Nardi, “Aspetti della vita dei religiosi a Siena,” pp. 198 and 201 n. 16, and DESE Vol. 73, Tar-Tes, s.v. “Tarugi Francesco Maria,” pp. 3–4. 17 Nardi, “Aspetti della vita dei religiosi a Siena,” p. 198. 18 See Franco Daniele Nardi, “Matteo Guerra e la Congregazione dei Sacri Chiodi (secc. XVI–XVIII): Aspetti della religiosità senese nell’età della Controriforma,” Bullettino senese di storia patria 91 (1984): 12–148. 19 Introduction to Archivio Pontificale Seminario Regionale Pio XII/Archivio Storico del Seminario Arcivescovo di S. Giorgio poi di S. Francesco di Siena (henceforth ASSS), Archivio Congregazione Padri Sacri Chiodi 2: Capitoli, della Venerabile Congregatione de Reverendi Padri di S. Giorgio di Siena (Siena: n.d.), p. 1. 20 ASSS Memorie I, fols. 30r–33v. Sozzini, in fact, was ordered to pay for the amount of time he had spent in the Congregation, a total of eight years and an unspecified number of months; also in 1621, Lorenzo Spinelli was also required to pay his expenses for four and one-half years. Vincenzo Scarletti, the deacon, may have died of the plague; the illness which killed him is referred to as “il male.” 21 ASSS Memorie I, fol. 32r.

64

chapter four

years, lay and clerical entrants were recorded. This Congregatione was united to the Padri di San Giorgio alla Congregazione del Santissimo Crocefisso in San Prospero di Pistoia in 1620.22 Entrants and dismissals are recorded in 1622, but this was the last record of activity in the Memorie until the 1660s. Meanwhile, the Seminario di San Desiderio was opened in 1614 by Archbishop Bicchi, a natural supporter of education.23 His motives and methods were familiar: worried about the lack of erudition and expertise among parish priests, Bichi diverted income from the mensa episcopale and pious institutions within the diocese to create the new school.24 With the support of Paul V, himself Sienese, Bichi wrote the constitutions of the seminary while residing in Rome.25 The original location was the church of San Desiderio, and the first ten students were presided over by a rector from nearby Montepulciano, Emilio Reneschi.26 Little else is known about this seminary, but Maurizio Sangalli’s research provides some important information: a maximum of eight young men lived there; they took grammar and humanities classes in the Jesuit college; and the staff was very small. The Regole were approved in 1647 and printed. However, the seminary continued to be dependent on religious orders for classes. In addition, non-seminarians lived among seminarians.27 Among the earliest records of this seminary is a financial document with data from October 1649 through March 1650 and November 1668 through December 1670. It notes the costs to students—35 lire for each one listed in 1670—but makes no mention of how those revenues applied to the salaries of instructors or administrators; simply the everyday expenses are noted.28 I do not have total secular clergy population 22

ASSS Memorie I, after f. 34v, where the numbering system changes frequently. Gaspare de Caro, “Bichi Metello,” DBI vol. 10: Biagio-Boccaccio (Rome: Società Grafica Romana, 1968), p. 353. 24 DESE vol. 5: Ben-Bon, s.v. “Bichi Metello,” p. 240. 25 The opening statement of Regole del Seminario di Siena distinte in due parti: La prima contiene l’Istituzione de’ Ministri, l’altra i documenti de’ cherici. Riformate ed accresciute dall’Illustrissimo, e Reverendissimo Monsignore Ascanio Piccolomini d’Aragona, arcivescovo della medesima città, con l’aggiunta dell’ottime educazione de’ figliuoli (Siena, 1647), make reference to this Roman connection. For more on this issue, see Maurizio Sangalli, “A sua immagine e somiglianza: Siena e il Seminario arcivescovile 1614–1785,” in Sangalli, ed., Il Seminario di Siena: da arcivescovile a regionale 1614–1953/1953–2003 (Soveria Mannelli [Catanzaro]: Rubbettino, 2003), pp. 1–70, esp. 15–18. 26 Sangalli, “A sua immagine e somiglianza,” p. 17. 27 Sangalli, “A sua immagine e somiglianza,” p. 22. 28 ASSS: Prime registrazioni Seminario di S. Giorgio 1: Questo libretto si segnarano I atti contori che veranno ne seminario di S. Giorgio. 23

the archdiocese and seminary of siena

65

figures for Siena, but have ordination records for 313 priests in the four decades of the 1630s, 1640s, 1660s, and 1670s, with a total of only 82 identified as seminarians, including 11 not on Sangalli’s lists—therefore, as an estimate, just over 26% of Siena’s seventeenthcentury priests were seminarians.29 In the dioceses of Arezzo and Lucca, the percentages are considerably lower: approximately 10% and 16%, respectively; in Fiesole, by contrast, the percentage is considerably higher at 41.5%. In each of these three cases, the number of all priests is over 1,000, more than three times that in Siena. Because complete information for time of ordination, age, and time in seminary is not available for a single individual in Siena, conclusions are impossible. Even the average time for ordination of nonseminarians (5 reported out of 231) is meaningless: each of the 5 has a different value. This highlights a particular problem for historians: the ordination statistics in Siena cannot be compared to those in other dioceses, and therefore, no assumptions can be made about the progress of certain aspects of the Tridentine reform as it affected the clergy. The Regole of the seminary were revised in 1647, apparently as a sort of update of the original; I have not found a similar document connected directly to the foundation in 1614, and do not believe that it exists any longer.30 However, documents from the period 1614–1647 do shed some light on the early operations of the seminary. For example, a list of alunni (day-students) supported by some form of financial aid/scholarship based on the revenues of the church of San Desiderio, begun in 1633, is a detailed record of student entrance dates, family data, and exit dates, along with the reason for departure from the seminary. After 1644, a phrase was added to the entrance information, stating that if the young man in question decided not to become a priest, or left the seminary without the permission of 29 Sangalli also documents a Giacomo del Cristofano Palmieri as a student from 29 October 1633 through an unspecified date in 1639; that makes a total of 21 identified as seminarians out of my 269. I did not intend a complete database for mid-seventeenth-century Siena, as I had created for Fiesole, but only looked for information in the specified decades, as I had in Arezzo. 30 Biblioteca Diocesano di Siena (henceforth BDS), GI 9.e.40: Regole del Seminario di Siena. Distinte in due parte. La prima contiene l’Istituzione de’ Ministri, l’altra i documenti de’ chierici. Riformate ed accresciute dall’Illustrissimo, e Reverendissimo Monsignore Ascanio Piccolomini d’Aragona, Arcivescovo della medesima città, con l’aggiunta dell’ottima educazione de’ figliuoli (Siena: Bonetti, nella Stamperia del Pubblico, 1647), p. 1. I am unaware of any seventeenth-century revisions to Regole for other Tuscan dioceses.

66

chapter four

the archbishop and rector, or was thrown out of the seminary for bad behavior, “come si dice nelle Regole,” he would have to pay back the seminary for all its expenses in maintaining him.31 After 1666, the revenues for such students came from the Padri dei Sacri Chiodi and the church of San Gregorio, the place to which the seminary was transferred when it was united to the Congregation.32 Some places were still reserved for the children of donor families. For example, the Macchi provided for students from the Clemani, Cenelli and Pagni families in the seventeenth century, and the Reneschi for descendants of Francesco Bindi di Montelatroni’s second marriage as well as for descendants of Emilio Reneschi, after 1697.33 In both cases, San Desiderio and Sacri Chiodi, the word “seminary” applies to some extent, and is inappropriate to some extent. Both institutions supported the candidate for sacramental orders, either by teaching catechism or by providing a residence for those studying at the colleges of religious orders; however, both institutions were inadequate for the purposes outlined at the Council of Trent. In 1662–1663, the Rectors were Giovanni Battista Barili and Giovanni Fredani and the Vice-Rectors were Mariano Rondinelli and Girolamo Vigilanti.34 Among the students listed were laici fratelli, the number of which was approximately the same as that of chierici (7 of the former, 5 of the latter in 1661–1662; 2 were not identified as either, 5 were laici, and 8 were chierici in 1662–1663).35 By 1666, the records of debits and credits were referring to a seminario rather than a congregazione, and included statements on memorial donations from prominent Sienese families: Bardi, Orlandini, Petrucci, Piccolomini, and Vannucci. The next year, in a decree dated May 1667, Archbishop Ascanio Piccolomini described the administration of the “Seminario Ecclesiasticale per autorità apostolica nuovamente eretto nella Parrocchia di S. Giorgio.”36 By this time, presumably, the lay students were gone, as was the Seminario 31

ASSS: Seminario di S. Desiderio 1: Elenco alunni 1633–1661. Information on the source of funding in San Desiderio and San Gregorio comes from Luigi Lazzeri, Siena e il suo territorio ([Bologna]: Forni, 1989, 1862), s.v. “Seminariocollegio Arcivescovile,” pp. 417–418. 33 Struttura dell’Archivio Storico del Pontificio seminario regionale Pio XII di Siena (Unpaginated, unpublished work found in the ASSS). 34 ASSS Memorie I, unfoliated section. I have listed the rectors in what I assume to be the correct order from the dates of entrata recorded. 35 ASSS Memorie I, unfoliated section (same as that referenced in n. 34, supra). 36 ASSS Memorie I, unfoliated section: “Decreto del assegnato fatti ai Provisionati del Seminario, 1667.” 32

the archdiocese and seminary of siena

67

di San Desiderio, described in 1669 as “suppressed” in 1666.37 The officers were to be the rector, prefect, and sacristan, given board and paid salary at the following rate: 48 scudi per annum for the rector, 38 for the prefect, and 30 for the sacristan.38 The rector in 1669 was Alessandro de Betti of Siena. In that year, the archbishop added an Economo (bursar) to the list of officers. The synods held during these decades do not shed much light on the difficulties the seminary (or seminaries) was (or were) experiencing, although they do make mention of failures to teach cases of conscience and catechism (1660, 1661, 1662, 1664, and 1667); and in 1665, of the poor state of erudition among the priests. As of that year, all those planning on receiving the tonsure were to be questioned about their character, which was nothing new, but apparently needed restating; and all those on the cusp of receiving the holy orders (subdeacon, deacon, and priest) were to be tested in their knowledge of cantu gregorianu, which was new. Those who were deficient were to be sent to learn it.39 The “foundation” in 1666 by Ascanio II Piccolomini was called the Seminario di San Giorgio, after the church in which it resided; the initial “class” contained 10 students.40 Apparently, most of them served the city churches, but records are thin. Oscar di Simplicio notes that these “graduates” were better equipped for their jobs than previous generations: he suggests that at this point, historians can measure a growing professionalism among the clergy. His conclusions come from an observed increase in the use of conferenze to teach cases of conscience to secular priests.41 Do the data from the seminary in the late 1660s and after support a growing professionalization? Among the 82 seminarians I have identified between 1633 and 1675, out of a total of 313 secular priests, the time spent in the seminary is known for two-thirds.42 The following charts detail the known information. 37 ASSS Memorie I, unfoliated section with title “Coram Vobis Reverendissimo D. Vicario Generali, Illustrissimi et Reverendissimi DD Senari Archiepiscopi vestrag: Cura, et officio. Anno Domini 1669 . . . 26 Novembris.” 38 ASSS Memorie I, “Decreto del assegnato fatti ai Provisionati del Seminario, 1667.” 39 ACAS 3: Sinodus Diocesanae plurimum annorum dal 1564 ab 1679, Synod of 1665, f. 298v (in modern foliation, fol. 364v). 40 Oscar di Simplicio, “La Giustizia ecclesiastica e il processo di civilizzazione,” in Franco Angiolini, Vieri Becagli and Marcello Verga, eds., La Toscana nell’età di Cosimo III. Atti del convegno Pisa-San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) 4–5 giugno 1990 (Florence: EDIFIR, 1993), pp. 455–495, at p. 466. 41 di Simplicio, “La Giustizia ecclesiastica,” pp. 466–467; see also tables 1.a–1.c at p. 485. 42 Sources for this information are: ACAS 3050: Acta Ecclesiastica: Ordinazioni dal

chapter four

68

In the 1660s, the average stay in seminary reported for a total of 12 students was 4 years, ranging from 1 year to 8 years, as reported by Maurizio Sangalli.43 The figures for other decades come directly from archival sources. Table 4.1: Total Time Students Spent in Seminary in Siena, 1630s–1670s Number of Months Number of Seminarians Percentage of Seminarians Spent in Seminary Spending that Number Spending that Number in Siena, 1630s–1670s of Months of Months 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120

7 7 9 6 7 10 2 3 1 2

Average (Mean) Number of Months Spent at the Seminary in Siena Median Number of Months Spent at the Seminary in Siena

12.96% 12.96% 16.67% 11.11% 12.96% 18.52% 3.70% 5.56% 1.85% 3.70% 52 48

Given the inconsistent data from the seminary in Siena—due, no doubt, to its shaky history—we cannot determine with certainty the number of students entering, remaining, or exiting in a given year. Table 4.2 and Graph 4.1, which follow, represent estimates. Since so many data are missing, especially for the date of departure throughout and for the majority of the 1650s, the estimate is unreliable on

1638 al 1658; ACAS 3051: Acta Ecclesiastica: Ordinazioni dal 1658 al 1682; Sangalli, ed., Il Seminario di Siena, appendix: “Alunni del Seminario arcivescovile di Siena 1633–1728” contains the names of a large number of students, not all of whom I was able to find ordination information for, but which has provided me with the year of entrance and often the numbers of years spent in seminary for all but six of those identified as students of some sort in the institution. 43 Maurizio Sangalli, “Una fonte, più storie: l’Archivio Storico del Seminario Arcivescovile di Siena,” Annuario dell’Istituto Storico Diocesano di Siena 3 (1999): 281–294, at p. 293.

the archdiocese and seminary of siena

69

its own, but can provide some points of comparison. This seminary was far smaller than that in Arezzo or Lucca, and had its peak attendance in the late 1660s, rather than (as in Arezzo) in the early 1660s or (as in Lucca) in the early 1650s. Table 4.2: Yearly Student Population of the Seminary in Siena, 1633–1675 Year of Entrance into the Seminary in Siena

1633 1638 1639 1640 1641 1644 1645 1646 1647 1649 1657 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1666 1667 1668 1669 1670 1671 1672 1673 1674 1675

Number of Students Entering

Number of Students Leaving

Number of Students Remaining, Ignoring Gaps in the 1630s, 1640s, and 1650s

6 2 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 5 2 3 1 13 3 3 1 2 N/A 7 2 6 N/A

N/A 3 1 N/A 1 2 N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 1 3 6 N/A 3 1 3 2 2 6 N/A 5 2

6 5 7 8 8 7 10 10 12 15 17 18 20 25 26 26 21 34 34 36 34 34 32 33 35 36 34

Number of Students Remaining, Assuming a Base of 6 in 1637 and Ignoring Gaps in the 1630s, 1640s, and 1650s 11 13 14 14 13 16 16 18 21 23 24 26 31 32 32 27 40 40 42 40 40 38 39 41 42 40

Average Duration of Stay (Months)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1663 1662 1661

1660

1670

1669

1668 1667

1666

1657

1641

1639

1638

1633

Graph 4.1: Average Duration of Stay in Seminary of Siena vs. Year of Entrance, 1633–1674

1659

Year of Entrance

70 chapter four

1674 1673

1672

the archdiocese and seminary of siena

71

Certainly, for most of the third quarter of the seventeenth century, the seminary population was larger than that of the 1630s—in nearly every year of the 1660s and 1670s, more students entered than had 30 or 40 years earlier. This might suggest an increased interest in or emphasis on such professional education within the archdiocese. On the other hand, one cannot argue that the students of the 1660s were better trained by looking at the graph of duration of stay versus entrance date, as there is no discernable pattern. The determining factor, it seems, is the curriculum as outlined in the Regole of the seminary, which clearly concentrate on pastoral training. Without doubt, aside from the seminary, candidates for the priesthood had a larger number of choices for education than any other diocese in this study: a university, with Faculties of Law, Theology, and Medicine in the archiepiscopal see, which the Medici reformed in the end of the sixteenth century; along with several humanist academies, as were typically found in larger cities at the time. The most famous, the Accademia degli Intronati and the Accademia dei Filomati, were united in 1654.44 Despite this variety of educational opportunities, however, the seminary remained the locus of the Tridentine clerical reforms. The pastoral training detailed in the Regole demonstrate a clear understanding of the needs of the parishes and the abilities of the new institution to address them, providing solutions when possible. In the section entitled “Del Progresso degli Studi in generale. Cap. V,” after summarizing the Council of Trent’s statements on the need for an educated clergy, more specific statements are made on teaching than in any other seminary foundation document discussed in this study. The classes which were to be taught were grammar, humanities, rhetoric, logic, philosophy, and theology, “[e] non si permette, che alcuno vada vagando per diverse sorti di Libri; ma si prescrivino à ciascuno i Libri determinate per il suo buon profitto negli Studii, e nella Lettione di Questi spendi il tempo.” The student’s day included classes and recitations, which were to be undertaken with energy and enthusiasm, “[p]erchè lo Studio è altro, che

44 For more on the accademie, see Bernardino Sani, “Cultura figurativa nella società senese del primo Seicento,” in Alessandro Angelini, Monika Butzek and Bernardina Sani, eds., Alessandro VII Chigi (1599–1667): Il Papa senese di Roma moderna (Siena: Maschietto and Musolino, 2000), pp. 40–47. For references on the University of Siena, see Ch. 2, fn. 36.

72

chapter four

una occupazione assidua, e vehemente applicata à qualche Materia con grande, e pronta voluntà.” The upper-level students (“i cherici maggiori”) studied speculative theology and occasionally answered questions regarding cases of conscience specially posed to them by the clerical staff of the seminary. All students took exams, attended readings, and engaged in disputations.45 Chapter VI of the Regole reiterates the necessity for education for the priests, quoting ecumenical councils and popes on the matter. However, it introduces a new twist: although no priest is excused from the duty of studying, “massime quelli del Seminario, che hanno l’obligo di studiare e la commodità d’imparare.” This is an unusual acknowledgement of the small numbers of educated priests in such a context. Indeed, this document is rather sensitive to the issue of what twentieth- and twenty-first-century educators would call “different abilities,” noting that some of those who do have the opportunity for study may not be particularly good at some subjects: Ma se alcuno de’ Cherici, per essere tardo d’ingegno, si giudici, che sia per consumare il tempo nella Logica in vano; si proveda, che lassato questo studio, spenda il tempo nella Lezzione del Catechimso Romano, del Sacro Concilio di Trento, e nella pratica de’ Casi di Coscienza; e della vita spirituale: leggendo spesso l’Opere del Gersone, Granata, Grattarola, e d’altri buoni autori.

On the other hand, those with abilities in logic should move on to philosophy, “con questa condizione, che s’applichino dipoi, per lo spazio almeno di due anni, allo studio della Sacra Teologia.”46 In keeping with the emphasis on pastoral care for inexperienced or belowaverage students, the seminary in Siena required all of its pupils to 45 Biblioteca Diocesana di Siena (henceforth BDS) GI 9.e.40: Regole del Seminario di Siena. Distinte in due parte. La prima contiene l’Istituzione de’ Ministri, l’altra I documenti de’ chierici. Riformate ed accresciute dall’Illustrissimo, e Reverendissimo Monsignore Ascanio Piccolomini d’Aragona, Arcivescovo della medesima città, con l’aggiunta dell’ottiama educazione de’ figliuoli (Siena: Bonetti, nella Stamperia del Pubblico, 1647): 57–62; quotes from paragraphs 13, 14, and 16. 46 Regole del Seminario di Siena, pp. 62–65, with quotes from paragraphs 13, 19, and 20. The books referenced in the long quote are most probably Luis de Granada (1504–1588), Opera omnia; Jean Gerson (1363–1429), Opera Omnia; and Marco Aurelio Grattarola (1549–1623?), Oblate of the Congregation of SS. Ambrogio and Carlo, author of Prattica della vita spirituale per le monache, altre persone desiderose di far progresso nella Christiana perfettione. Con il modo d’allevare le novitie, le figliuole secolari ne’ monasteri. (Milan: Pacifico Pontio and Gio. Battista Piccaglia, 1605) and Li Successi maravigliosi della veneratione di S. Carlo Cardinale di S. Prassede, & Arcivescovo di Milano (Milan: Pacifico Pontio and Gio. Battista Piccaglia, 1614).

the archdiocese and seminary of siena

73

learn how to work in a parish, providing for practice in sermons or spiritual exhortations and were taught to speak in public and to sing in a voice that could be heard in the congregation.47 Because of their increased training, the cherici maggiori were to teach catechism “a quelli, che haveranno bisogno d’impararla, e saranno delle classe raccomandata alla lor Cura: essendo questo Offizio proprio de’ cherici.”48 Thus, this seminary’s educational program was much like that of a contemporary college, yet with a considerably smaller enrollment. Like the institution in Fiesole, the seminary in Siena also had a daily schedule which included common meals held in silence so that spiritual readings could be done; individual meditation and mental prayer; and precious little free time. The students’ behavior was watched by a rector, vice-rector, a prefect of studies, and several other administrators. They might have lay classmates, in rare cases and only when the behavior of those not intending to become priests mirrored that of the seminarians. They had to confess regularly, serve at mass, and meet all the requirements for becoming priests (legitimate birth, baptism, and proof of income) before entering. Unlike Fiesole, potential students were examined upon entrance to the institution. Chapter XIII of the Regole provides the form and method of the examination: students were to be questioned on their vocation (“cioè se habbia voluntà di servire à Dio perpetuamente ne Ministerii della chiesa, e nello stato di prete secolare”), followed by a test to see if they could read in Latin and the vernacular and if they could write their own names. Next, candidates were asked either to recite something (no clues are given as to subject) from memory or from the Catechism; to demonstrate a basic knowledge of Latin and vernacular grammar; and to translate between the two languages. In some cases, where there was evidence of other education, students could also be examined on arithmetic, rhetoric, or other subjects they studied. The examination ended with the examiner, presumably either the Rector, Vice-Rector, or Prefect of Studies, asking about habits and customs, to determine “[s]e finalmente mostri segni d’essere inclinato ad abbracciare gli essercizii dello Stato Clericali.”49 47

Regole del Seminario di Siena, pp. 65–66, paragraphs 21, 23, and 28. Regole del Seminario di Siena, p. 66, paragraph 29. 49 Regole del Seminario di Siena, pp. 40–42, paragraphs 2–9; quotes from paragraphs 2 and 9. 48

74

chapter four

The attention to the intent and emotional maturity of incoming seminarians is notable in its rarity. Geographical information, while sparser in Siena than in the other dioceses in this volume, still helps demonstrate the impact of the seminary in the region. As Charts 4.1–4.3 and Table 4.3 show, in all cases, the city of Siena was the largest single provider of secular priests between 1630 and 1670. Although the same is true in Arezzo and Lucca, the dominance of Siena is far more pronounced than either of those other diocesean sees. On the other hand, the majority of priests in the diocese of Siena was not from cities or large towns, as in Arezzo and Lucca; smaller towns make up the largest number of ordinands in this archdiocese for whom we have information (cf. Table 4.4). Given the significantly larger number of Sienese clergy from unidentified or unidentifiable comuni, further conclusions are difficult to make. Since the statistics from Fiesole, another nearby diocese, also show a dominance of urban areas among all priests, seminarians, and non-seminarians (56.31%, 68.51%, and 47.59%, respectively, including cities and large towns), it is unlikely that the Sienese priests whose origins are unknown are overwhelmingly from small towns. As Map 4.1 shows, the secular clergy from Siena hailed, as in Arezzo and in Lucca, from all parts of the diocese; however, unlike those two other dioceses, a number of secular priests, both seminarians and non-seminarians, came from other dioceses. Table 4.3: Comparison of Town of Origin of Secular Priests in Siena, 1630s–1670s Comuni outside the archdiocese are indicated in bold type Town of Origin of Secular Clergy in Siena, Selected Cases Siena Unknown Buonconvento Monterone d’Arbia (Monterongriffoli) Sinalunga Casciano Castellina in Chianti Castiglion Fiorentino Fonterútoli

Percentage of Secular Clergy from that Town

Percentage of Seminary Students from that Town

Percentage of Non-Seminary Clergy from that Town

47.60% 39.62% 1.92%

39.02% 41.46% 1.22%

50.65% 38.96% 2.16%

0.96% 0.96% 0.32%

3.66% 0% 1.22%

0% 1.30% 0%

0.32%

1.22%

0%

0.32% 0.32%

1.22% 1.22%

0% 0%

the archdiocese and seminary of siena

75

Map 4.1: Diocese of Siena (1596 borders) Research Media, University of Georgia

Sinalunga, 0.96%

Other, 8.63%

Monterone d’Arbia (Monterongriffoli), 1.28% Buonconvento, 1.92%

Siena, 47.60%

Unknown Origin, 39.62%

Chart 4.1: Geographical Origins of Secular Priests in Siena, 1630–1670s

chapter four

76 Other, 6.93% Sinalunga, 1.30% Buonconvento, 2.16%

Siena, 50.65%

Unknown Origin, 38.96%

Chart 4.2: Geographical Origins of Non-Seminary Priests in Siena, 1630–1670s Other, 1.22% Unclear, 3.66% Monterone d’Arbia, (Monterongriffoli) 3.66%

Unknown Origin, 41.46%

Siena, 39.02%

Chart 4.3: Geographical Origins of Seminary Priests in Siena, 1630s–1670s

the archdiocese and seminary of siena

77

Table 4.4: Urban Profile of Secular Priests in Siena, 1630s –1670s Origins of Sienese Clergy City Large Town Small Town Unknown origin or unidentifiable comune Outside the diocese50

All Clergy

Seminarians

Non-Seminarians

41.54% 1.28% 6.71%

41.46% 1.22% 10.98%

50.65% 1.30% 5.19%

41.54% 3.20%

43.90% 6.10%

40.69% 2.16%

The visitations of the seventeenth century, while effective methods of studying other dioceses (cf. the chapters on Arezzo and Lucca), reveal little in Siena. In the 1640s and 1660s, the notes taken during visitations demonstrate more negative aspects than positive; the work was done in an obvious hurry, and several churches might be taken in a single day (an unusual practice in the seventeenth century in Tuscan dioceses). The main purpose was clearly to determine the presence of materials necessary to the rituals of the Catholic Church, not to understand the depth of knowledge of the pastors or the spiritual health of the parish. Unlike other dioceses, there is no evidence that even the most basic questions regarding the teaching of catechism, preaching, or maintaining a library of conciliar documents and service books were asked. Thus, we have no sense at all of a change, positive or negative, in pastoral activity in the seminary era. In general, one might refer to the visitations as “candlecounting,” since the numbers of candles were nearly always recorded— even when the name of the pastor was not.51 As the available information on parish or other diocesan assignments is so very rare in Siena—only 42 out of all the secular priests have information on income at promotion, and only 13 have job assignments—once again, a discussion of preferential hiring or specific impact in parishes is nearly impossible. Among the seminaries in Tuscany, that in Siena has received the most attention. This is justified by its rather specific curriculum, as outlined in its 1647 Regole, but not by its observable impact in the 50

For an explanation of the numbers of priests outside the diocese, see Ch. 3. ACAS 41: Acta et decreta secondae ac tertiae visitationis diocesis de anno 1640 e 1645; ACAS 42: Atti della visita pastorale alle parrocchie di campagna dell’Arcivescovo Ascanio Piccolomini, 1649; ACAS 43: Visitationis Diocesanae, et civitatis de anno 1653–1660. 51

78

chapter four

early decades of its existence. Because the visitators did not ask certain questions, historians are at a loss: were seminary graduates, or seventeenth-century secular priests in general, conforming to the Tridentine regulations in the Archdiocese of Siena? Their time for ordination cannot be determined; their ownership of required service books is unknown; and their use of pastoral education or expertise is undocumented. After 1670, the situation changed. Maurizio Sangalli’s and Roberto di Pietra’s studies of the institution in the final quarter of the seventeenth century paint a picture of a more rigorous education and a greater archiepiscopal involvement in that education, particularly after 1685.52 Before that, the evidence again points to a small, regional operation which provided a minority of priests for its diocese, and therefore changed little in the practices or beliefs of either clergy or congregation.

52 Sangalli, “A sua immagine e somiglianza,” and Roberto di Pietra, “Amministrazione e contabilità del Seminario arcivescovile di Siena nella seconda metà del XVII secolo,” in Sangalli, ed., Il Seminario di Siena, pp. 71–97.

CHAPTER FIVE

THE DIOCESE AND SEMINARY OF VOLTERRA

The diocese of Volterra, the largest among the core dioceses in this study, includes large stretches of thinly-populated land in the Val di Pesa and Valdelsa. Thus its size was not matched by its independence or importance, and its political history is very much tied up with more powerful neigboring states, especially Pisa and Florence. The bishops of Volterra were, like many other bishops in Tuscan dioceses in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, often Florentine, for example Benedetto Nerli (r. 1548–1565) and Alessandro Strozzi (r. 1565–1570), from noble families which also produced bishops and other prominent citizens of Florence. Among the ecclesiastical administrators associated with the diocese were bishops of several other dioceses, including Giacomo Guidi, native of Volterra and bishop of Penne and Atri (1561–1568), who participated in the discussions on residence and the sacrament of Holy Orders at the Council of Trent from 1562–1563, and voted in favor of the creation of seminaries;1 Benedetto Falconcini, the Apostolic Vicar to Pescia (1684) and Bishop of Arezzo (1693–1724); and the Florentine Bishop of Volterra, Ludovico di Dionigi Antinori (1568–1573), who was sent by Pius IV to the Council of Trent in 1563 “to hasten the conclusion,” and by the same pope to France in 1564 to see to the publication of the Tridentine decrees.2 Antinori was an ambassador to the Holy Roman Empire for Cosimo I, and after 1573, an ambassador in Spain. From 1568–1575 he was Bishop of Volterra, during which time he published the decrees of the Council of Trent and held a synod; after that, he became Archbishop of Pisa until his death in 1577.3 1 Josef Steinruck, “Die Beitrag des Bischofs Jacopo Guidi aus Volterra zu den Beratungen der 3. Periode des Konzils von Trient (1562/63),” in Edwin Iserloh and Konrad Repgen, eds., Reformata Reformanda: Festgabe für Hubert Jedin zum 17. Juni 1965, vol. 1 of 2 (Münster Westfalen: Verlag Aschendorff, 1965): 657–689, esp. pp. 669–673. 2 Mario Bocci, “Volterrani Vescovi in patria e fuori,” Volterra 7/10 (1968), p. 5; Archivio di Stato di Firenze (henceforth ASF) Manoscritti 290: “Il Sacrario Fiorentino ove sono registrati i Santi, Pontefici, Cardinali, e Prelati usciti da Famiglie Fiorentine,” 1678, fol. 182v, and Galvani, Sommario Storico della Famiglie Celebri Toscane, vol. 1/3, p. 2. 3 Biblioteca Guarnacci, Volterra, at the Biblioteca Communale di Volterra (hence-

80

chapter five

Map 5.1: Diocese of Volterra (1596 borders) Research Media, University of Georgia

Many of the other sixteenth-century bishops of Volterra did not have careers of the kind of importance seen in the bishops of the other dioceses in this study. Very little has been written about Alessandro Strozzi (1566–1568), papal legate for Cosimo I and canon of the Cathedral of Florence, or the Aretine noble Marco Saracini (1574).4 Guido Servidio or Serguidio (1575–1598), who played a major role in the foundation of the seminary in his diocese, was a native Volterran who had participated at the Council of Trent. He held a synod in 1590.5 Bishop Luca Alamanni or Alemanni (1598–1617) held a synod in 1600 and encouraged religious education, evidenced by the foundation of local Schools of Christian Doctrine in 1596.6 Among the prominent men of the seventeenth century who became bishops of Volterra, Bernardo Inghirami (1617–1633) stands out. A

forth BGV) 52.6.1, “Memorie Istoriche dei Vescovi di Volterra,” 18th-century MS attributed to “Ormanni,” fols. 52r–53r. 4 Ferdinando Ughelli and Niccolò Coleti, Italia sacra: sive De episcopis Italiae et insularum adjacentium, rebusque ab iis praeclare gestis, deducta serie ad nostram usque aetatem. Opus singulare provinciis XX. distinctum, in quo ecclesiarum origines, urbium conditiones, principum donationes, recondita monumenta in lucem proferuntur (Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, 1970, 1717), vol. 1, cols. *379–*380. On Saracini, see Burali, p. 121 (fol. 112r): the bishop left Volterra for his native Arezzo because he was suffering from some unidentified grave illness, which apparently caused his death. 5 BGV 52.6.1, “Memorie Istoriche dei Vescovi di Volterra,” fols. 57r –60r. 6 BGV 52.6.1, “Memorie Istoriche dei Vescovi di Volterra,” fols. 61r –v.

the diocese and seminary of volterra

81

doctor in utriusque iure from Pisa, he apparently became dissatisfied with the small-town life in his native Volterra, and set to the building of a grand palazzo vescovile. In addition to his taste, Inghirami’s career as Bishop of Volterra is remarkable for his interest in the education of the local clergy. He created theological prebends and began a weekly “conference” for teaching cases of conscience to the clergy in 1624, because “he was not pleased to see ignorant priests,” according to an early biographer, Scipione Ammirato.7 He held a synod in 1625, in which he discussed the Schools of Christian Doctrine— evidence that they continued their work after the tenure of Alamanni.8 Inghirami was the bishop who presided over the detachment of territory to form the Diocese of San Miniato in 1622. This foundation also involved the Archdiocese of Lucca, which lost land as well, and was the final realization of the plan begun in 1587 by Granduke Ferdinando to create two new dioceses (San Miniato and Colle).9 Again, how-ever, most of the seventeenth-century bishops had undistinguished careers. Bishop Niccolò Sacchetti (1633–1650), a Florentine noble and Granducal legate, and his successor Bishop Giovanni Gerini (1650– 1653), both carried out visitations (discussed below). The see was vacant from 1653–1655, when Orazio Degli Albizi (1655–1676) took over; he also conducted a visitation. Alessandro Strozzi (1676–1677) had a very short career in Volterra before becoming bishop of Arezzo.10 Bishop Carlo Filippo Sfondrati (1677–1680), a Barnabite from Milan, was, after his death, elevated to “venerable” status.11 Ottavio Del Rosso (1681–1714), former canon of the Cathedral of Florence 7 Scipione Ammirato, Vescovi di Fiesole, di Volterra, et d’Arezzo, con l’aggiunte di Scipione Ammirato il Giovane (Florence: Amadore Massi and Lorenzo Landi, 1637), 193; cf. also Ughelli, Italia sacra, Vol. 1, *381–*382, and Giovanni Batistini, Volterra nel seicento, p. 151. 8 BGV 52.6.1, “Memorie Istoriche dei Vescovi di Volterra,” fols. 63r –v. The synod was printed: Constitutiones et decreta diocesanae synodi volaterranae, quam habuit Bernardus Inghiramius, Episcopus Volaterranus . . . anno a Christi Incarnatione M. DC. XXIV. (Siena: Aemilium Bonettum, 1625). The state of the episcopal archive at Volterra—significantly understaffed and underfunded—is such that I have been unable to consult the synods. 9 Archivio Statale Comunale di Volterra (henceforth ASCV) 25B: “Documenti istorici politici spettanti alla Toscana dal 1621 al 1670,” BGV P.4.B, contains a set of documents from December 1621 through September 1622: “Sommario dei documenti serviti per l’erezione di San Miniato in Vescovado, 1622.” See also Cristina Cinelli et all, San Miniato e la sua Diocesi: I Vescovi, le istituzioni, la gente (Tirrenia: Cassa di Risparmio di San Miniato, Edizioni del Cerro, 1989), pp. 15–16. 10 ASF Carte Strozziane Terza Serie 75. 11 Ughelli, Italia sacra, vol. 1, col. 1463.

82

chapter five

who saw the diocese through the turn of the eighteenth century, conducted visitations. Among these bishops, several worked on the specific Tridentine reform which created seminaries. Despite Ludovico Antinori’s obvious commitment to the Council of Trent and otherwise illustrious career, he did not enforce the seminary decree in Volterra or at his next assignment, as Bishop of Pisa; that task was left in the former diocese to Bishop Guido Serguidio. Serguidio opened an educational institution in 1590 or 1591. This bishop was a force to be reckoned with; he resisted the attempts of Giambattista Castelli, bishop of Rimini and vicar to Gregory XIII, to enforce the Index and to found a local Inquisition. Not surprisingly, since the pope clearly wanted further control over the dioceses in the Granducato, Serguidio had the support of the Medici, and prevailed in his rebuff.12 This is, nonetheless, among the more obscure foundations in Tuscany, not even highlighted in some of the earlier histories of the diocese or collective biographies of bishops, for example the volume Memorie Istoriche dei Vescovi di Volterra, which apparently dates from the eighteenth century. Still, reliable sources state that Serguidio was the founder of the Seminario di Sant’Andrea Apostolo.13 Serguidio was apparently also responsible for an initiative to bring the Society of Jesus to the diocese in 1575; however, Grand Duke Francesco I refused the request.14 Beyond these tidbits of information, specific evidence of early financial or administrative support from the bishop is lacking. Other dioceses, for example Fiesole, dedicated portions of the mensa episcopalis to the budget of the seminary; in some regions, the Monte di Pietà also contributed.15 The financial picture in Volterra is not entirely unclear, however; many of the churches in the diocese paid, in varying amounts, tasse universitarie (to the University of Pisa) and tasse seminarii—surely an important source of money for the seminary, and one not noted in the records for any other seminary I

12

Lagorio, La Storia, pp. 58–59. BGV MS 52.6.11: Memorie Istoriche dei Vescovi di Volterra, s.v. Serguido, fols. 57r –60r, and Mario Bocci, “Cenni storici e sociologici della diocesi,” Annuario della Diocesi di Volterra (1980): 14–17. If Serguido was indeed the founder, he is unusual in Tuscany, because most bishops who founded seminaries were not natives of the diocese in which they opened such institutions. 14 Giovanni Batistini, Volterra nel seicento, p. 151. 15 On the economics of the seminary of Fiesole, see Kathleen M. Comerford, Ordaining the Catholic Reformation (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2001), chapter 4. 13

the diocese and seminary of volterra

83

have seen.16 At least one family, the Birelli, endowed a scholarship. Archpriest Pompeio Birelli’s will stipulated that the scholarship post should be given to a member of the Birelli family, “chosen” by the bishop for his good character and the likelihood that he would serve God in a worthy manner. In the event that no Birelli was available, the post should be granted to a youth from Castelnuovo, and failing that, to one from Pomarance. At all times, according to the will, the number of students (including those on scholarship) must remain at 12, and so as soon as one cared for by the bequest left, a new one was to be found fitting the above description. In case no vacancies existed in a given year, the seminary must still find a place for a Birelli student; this “extra” student was to wear black, not purple, attend “la squola de cherici, e musica,” serve at the Cathedral, and observe all the rules that the regular students did.17 Unfortunately for the donor’s wishes, after his death, students from the Birelli family were not clamoring for admission to the seminary, and the bequest was not as rich as he had anticipated, so the provisions had to be altered. The family agreed that the bishop of Volterra could use his discretion.18 A manuscript history of the seminary apparently from the late eighteenth century points to a variety of funding sources, ranging from personal donations to taxation of benefices, which were quite frequent sources of income in all seminaries, to the promise of free tuition to students who taught grammar and music and served at the Cathedral (thus creating considerable savings in salaries). These contributions, though hardly consequential individually, collectively sustained the seminary through the seventeenth century; the loss of territory to Colle was acutely felt in this situation. In the eighteenth century, funds came from more significant sources, including suppressed monasteries.19 Mario Bocci, the authority on the seminary, stated that the original foundation was not a seminary according to the Council of Trent . . .; it was . . . a school for beginning instruction in liturgy, almost necessary restricted to the city: the college [consisted] of 12 clerics serving at the Cathedral, 16

AVV Visite Pastorale di Mons. Alamannis dal 1598 al 1616. ASV, Filza V, contains several drafts and modifications (dating from 1674 to 1774) of the will of Archpriest Pompeio Birelli. 18 Although the documents after 1677 in this collection (ASV, Filza V) suggest that the choice of prospective students from Castelnuovo and/or Pomarance were later decisions, the drafts of the will clearly state the provision. 19 BGV MS 67/7/8, filza 20: Seminario, 1.5 unfoliated folios. 17

84

chapter five called ‘Pavonazzi’ because of the [purple] habit which they wore. They stayed in their own houses, and they met every morning in the Cathedral where they served Mass and assisted with the Divine Office; after that, they . . . had lessons in grammar. In the evening, after the Office, they had lessons in singing, ceremonies, and doctrine. . . . There were five other clerics added to these, called ‘di sacrestia,’ who participated in school, but who were more free and less restricted.20

In addition, 6 clerics studied at the Duomo in San Gimignano, part of the Diocese of Volterra. Finally, Bocci mentioned a “collegio,” which suffered from the “oppositione del clero locale.” He called these “timid beginnings of good will” because they were important attempts, but were not successful.21 According to Bocci, the early Seminario di Sant’Andrea Apostolo was still not a proper seminary; instead he insisted on the name “collegio convitto per i chierici della diocesi” because the alunni continued to live at home and to frequent the civic schools for abbaco. He granted the appellation “Tridentine,” and the status of “seminary,” which he clearly considered linked to that adjective, to the institution only in 1703, when Don Carlo Conti was rector.22 However, supporting documents from towns in the diocese of Volterra fairly consistently refer to the seminary as a Tridentine foundation. Another very brief early manuscript history, incomplete and dating from no earlier than 1784, states that the seminary was following the directives of the Council of Trent: the seminary “was instituted . . . for the instruction of those who wished to embrace the clerical estate” in 1591 by Monsignor Serguidio. The maintenance of these young students was made possible by the taxation of “all the benefices” (whether that meant in the city or the diocese is unclear). The Chapter elected the maestri and allowed the free use of rooms in the Canonica for instructional purposes until 1703.23 After the first few years of the eighteenth century, the number of “pavonazzi” was reduced to 8, but the location of the seminary was expanded to include several “contigue Torri” in the main square of the city. 20 Mario Bocci, Il Seminario di Volterra (Volterra: Unione Tipografica Artigiana, 1952), p. 12. 21 Bocci, Il Seminario di Volterra, p. 13. 22 Bocci, Il Seminario di Volterra, pp. 14, 27, and ASV Conventino di Casole filza 8, document 3, refers to a Pontifical Brief in which “a formal seminary in Volterra was erected.” I have not been able to locate a copy of that Brief. 23 BGV MS 67.7.8, filza 20, “Seminario.” The five-page document ends midsentence and has no identifying information other than several eighteenth-century dates, including a reference to the suppression of the Olivetan monastery in 1784.

the diocese and seminary of volterra

85

The present location of this institution is the former Olivetan monastery, granted to the diocese for use of the seminary in 1784 by Grand Duke Leopold I.24 Music was apparently a specialty of this seminary from its inception. A document from December 1677 contains more information on this elusive seminary, noting the presence of 12 clerics, who wore a purple habit (the “pavonazzi” mentioned above) and a maestro of music.25 This is confirmed by the eighteenth-century manuscript history, which refers to instruction in grammar and music. The document also notes that “other” students received their education at the expense of the seminary itself, and were expected to serve at the Cathedral.26 The institution’s maestri di musica apparently included the famous organist Marcantonio Cesti (1623–1669; according to Bocci, taught at the seminary 1645–1650), who helped develop the genre of melodrama and who is credited with the creation of the “da capo” aria; he may have taught at the seminary of Volterra before embarking on a career which included teaching and composing for courts in Rome, Venice, and Vienna.27 I have been unable to confirm this information. However, the subject was clearly important at Volterra, as the early teaching of music and the tuition breaks for students teaching music at the Cathedral attest. By the eighteenth century, the seminary also employed maestri of “humanities,” rhetoric, canon and civil law, philosophy, geometry, algebra, church history, moral philosophy, arithmetic, and even calligraphy.28 Finances were always an issue, as with other dioceses in Tuscany. Bocci refers to an attempt to create canons of the Cathedral chapter for the specific purpose of discipline in the seminary, which was not realized due to the costs, but he does not specify dates.29 Benefices were, of course, taxed to support the seminary. In addition, pious institutions contributed to or were united to the school throughout the seventeenth century, for example in 1653, when Bishop Giovanni Gerini (1650–1653) granted the revenues of suppressed convents to the seminary. This was not a smooth transaction, though. Among the BGV MS 67.7.8, filza 20, “Seminario.” ASV Filza 5, “Castel Nuovo”: unfoliated document, 29 December 1677. In this document, the seminary is again called a Tridentine foundation. 26 BGV MS 67.7.8, filza 20, “Seminario.” 27 Bocci, Il Seminario di Volterra, p. 14. 28 BGV MS 67.7.8, filza 20, “Seminario.” 29 Bocci, Il Seminario di Volterra, p. 14. 24 25

86

chapter five

suppressed convents was that of Santa Maria dei Servi di Casole, which was granted the maintenance of a chaplain with a salary of no less than 50 scudi by Pope Innocent X in 1653; however, this commitment was not honored to the letter after the 1660s. The relationship between the seminary of Volterra and the commune of Casole was a strong yet tense one. In the later 18th century, a case was pleaded regarding the payment of taxes from the town and the reservation of scholarship places in the seminary for young men from Casole. The case was resolved in the favor of the seminary.30 In addition, some families gave rather large gifts, for example that of Giovanni Maria de Lenci, who in 1663 created two benefices: one for a chapel in the Jesuit church of San Giovannino in Florence, and one for the support of full pensione for 4 students at the seminary of Volterra (2 from the Cathedral and 2 from the city), with a provision for income for 30 years.31 Diocesan paperwork in Volterra demonstrates a promising tradition of administrative support for the seminary. Sixteenth-century visitations began with edicts endorsing Tridentine reform and noting the integral role of visitations in it, as means of correction, discipline, pastoral care, and in general “cleaning up” the diocese.32 Questions on simony, ordinations, concubinage, the divine cult, the sacraments, and the laity were listed at the beginning of the 1564–1565 visitation undertaken by Bishop Benedetto Nerli (1545–1566).33 The picture emerging from early post-Tridentine visitations is thus of surprising conformity with the Council’s regulation on education; indeed, the visitation of 1576 commented on the parish priests’ literacy and comprehension. The majority were assessed as being “a little” (aliquantulit) literate, and some could even read “competently.”34 Although not all were putting their literacy to good use, because teaching of catechism was very limited (indeed, I found no indications of catechism ownership among priests under Nerli), this is an important early sign of attention to standards in the parishes. Other information from the visitations suggest that the parish ASV Conventino di Casole filza 8, document 3. ASF Compagnie Religiose Soppresse da Pietro Leopoldo 971 contains five printed copies of the bequests, dated only 1663. The statement “duo ex Clero Cathedralis” may refer either to students from an existing cathedral school, to the established pavonazzi, or to those working in the cathedral who had not yet been ordained. 32 AVV Visite Pastorale, 1576, fols. 2r –3v. 33 AVV 9, Visite di Monsignore Benedetto Nerli degli anni 1564, e 1565. 34 AVV Visite Pastorale, 1576, fols. 23v –26r. 30 31

the diocese and seminary of volterra

87

reform in Volterra, even after the foundation of the “seminary,” was not completely smooth. For example, in certain parish churches, when nonconformity with behavioral and beaurocratic decrees was noted, the visitators often made strong suggestions for improvement and levied punishments, including fines for failure to pray the Divine Office.35 In a sampling of records from 30 churches visited in 1576, only 3 kept revised Missals and only 1 had a Catechism.36 The 1598 visitation demonstrates an increased concern for whether or not the rector taught catechism and, like the 1564–1565 visitation, an interest in the most current service books.37 A random sampling of visitations by Bishop Luca Alamanni to 90 churches between 1598 and 1618 (the records are dated 1598, 1600, 1601, 1602–1603, 1606, 1611, and 1618, and do not appear to have been systematically done) reveals that none of them owned Catechisms. Examples from three of the years listed above are illustrative. In 1598, 6 out of 30 churches held Missals: 4 had new ones, and 2 had both old and new. In only one instance was the teaching of dottrina cristiana mentioned, and that was to note that the pastor was not doing it. On the other hand, 8 churches had a priest who was at least “decently” versed in cases of conscience. In 1606, 12 out of 17 churches owned Missals: 3 new, 4 old, 1 both, and 4 of uncertain date. Four churches taught catechism and 2 were cited for not doing so. Three owned Rituali and 2 owned Sacerdotali. In 1618, 14 out of 32 churches held Missals: 8 new, 5 old, and 1 of uncertain date. Four owned Rituali: two new, one old, and one of uncertain date. Only 2 parishes employed priests who taught dottrina cristiana. In all, during this period a respectable number, 33–40% (the range is accounted for by the lack of information on printing date of some of the volumes), of churches held revised Missals, versus 3–10% which had pre-Tridentine versions; from 6–23% simply owned “Missals” which were not identified as reformed or unreformed.38 In 1598, many churches list for the first time payments 35 The Church of S. Bartolomeo de Angua in a town identified as Castro Angua (perhaps the Castagno near Pistoia) was threatened with a fine of 100 gold pieces if Masses and the Divine Office were not said within a month of the visitation. AVV Visite Pastorale, 1576, fols. 229r –230r. 36 AVV Visite Pastorale di Mons. Casteli, 1576. 37 AVV 9, Visite di Mons. Benedetto Nerli degli Anni 1564, et 1565 makes mention of missals, sometimes including comments on the condition of the volumes, but the first revised missal was not printed until 1570. 38 AVV Visite Pastorale di Mons. Alamannis dal 1598 al 1616 and Visite Pastorale di Mons. Inghirami del 1618.

88

chapter five

of both tasse universitarie and tasse seminarii—the former were always considerably larger than the latter, but may suggest the beginning of impositions, as references may also be found in the later visitations.39 These visitations indicate, in the aggregate, a strong support from the Diocese of Volterra for the Tridentine reform, including the opening and administrative and financial maintenance of a seminary, despite certain obstacles; moreover, they show that the priests already working in parishes were also open to forms of Tridentine reform.40 Later seventeenth-century visitations in Volterra, while often conducted in what appears to be surprising haste, continue the diocesan focus on service books, residence of rector, participation of parishioners in sacraments, and donations of parishes to the studio pisano and the seminary. Since new Breviaries were required by Urban VIII after 1643, the omission of references to these books is not only surprising, but disappointing. On the other hand, ownership of other reformed service books can be determined. Out of 25 churches selected at random in the visitations by Bishop Niccolò Sacchetti (1633–1650) from the 1630s, only 4 (16%) owned reformed Rituals, 3 (12%) had Rituals of indeterminate edition, and 1 (4%) had a non-reformed version; 7 (28%) had reformed Missals, 4 (16%) Missals of indeterminate edition, and 4 (16%) had both kinds.41 The 1650s visitations show similar results: again, of 25 randomly selected parishes, 3 (12%) had reformed Rituals, 4 (16%) Rituals of indeterminate edition, and 1 (4%) non-reformed; 4 (16%) had reformed Missals, 7 (28%) had Missals of indeterminate edition, and 3 (12%) had non-reformed Missals. In the parish of SS. Ippolito and Silvestro (Racciano), the visitation ended with a decree that the rector needed to purchase a new missal, “sub poena viginti quinque librarum locis Piis applicandor.”42 In the 1660s and the last two decades of the seventeenth 39 AVV Visite Pastorale di Mons. Alamannis dal 1598 al 1616, with modern foliation, e.g. the Pieve San Giovanni in Monte Silvestri, fol. 7r (26 libras and 25 solidi for the Studio Pisano and 12 libras for the seminary) and parish Church of S. Michele Castri Micciani, fol. 13r (4 libras and 10 solidi for the Studio Pisano [University] and 20 solidi for the seminary). 40 I have as of yet found no evidence that the Monte di Pietà contributed to the building of the institution, although it did to the construction of a Cappucine monastery in 1573. ASCV N nero 32: Spese ed eleemosine per la costruzione del convento dei Cappuccini del 1573. 41 AAV, Mons. Sacchetti Visita Pastorali Anni 1636, 1645 e 1648. In most cases, those Missals which were designated as “reformed” were Clementine, although one church, SS. Donati e Nicola de Fosini, owned a version approved by Urban VIII. 42 AVV Visita Pastorale di Mons. Gerini anni 1650 e 1652. The visitation of SS. Ippolito e Silvestro is on fols. 401r –402r, with the decree on fol. 402r.

the diocese and seminary of volterra

89

century, according to visitations undertaken by Bishops Orazio Degli Albizi (1655–1676) and Ottavio Del Rosso (1681–1714), the designation “reformed” is all but absent from the reporting, and as a result, comparisons are difficult. Perhaps by this time the issue was moot, as the reform of all service books was complete. However, conformity was still low: a total of only 7 (28%) of parishes owned a Ritual and only 4 (16%) owned a Missal, one of which was surely a reformed version.43 These mid- and late-century visitations provide other details to enrich the understanding of the progress of Tridentine reform, however. For example, the visitators were clearly concerned to uphold the mandate to keep better records, and faithfully note the use of books to record the reception of sacraments by parishioners. In addition, in a small number of parishes, the pastors were asked if they taught “Christian doctrine” and/or explained the gospel to their parishioners; in the 1630s, only 2 taught catechism and 1 did both. In the 1650s, 6 taught catechism and 4 did not; in the 1660s, 9 taught catechism and 1 did not. Those pastors who did not teach the rudiments of the faith were ordered to do so in the future in these visitations. By the 1650s, a “personal visit” in the form of an interview of the rector by the visitator, to note issues such as residence and suggest specific reforms such as the purchase of new liturgical books had become the norm.44 Given the lack of information on personnel in Volterra—the ordination records are not available for consultation, and seminary documents shed little light on those who taught in or attended the institution—it is harder to draw conclusions regarding the impact of this kind of clerical education here than in the other Tuscan dioceses under consideration. Since visitations did show improvement, in particular in the area of possession of the required service books, on a larger scale than those other dioceses, it is possible to assume some good effect; however, this cannot be proved yet.

43 AVV 2, Visita Pastorale di Mons. Albizi 1656 e 1675; AVV Visita Pastorale di Mons. del Rosso dal 1682 al 1701. Città e Pendici Casole e Radicondoli. 44 AVV 2, Visita Pastorale di Mons. Albizi and AVV Visita Pastorale di Mons. del Rosso.

CHAPTER SIX

THE ARCHDIOCESE AND SEMINARY OF LUCCA

The Republic and Archdiocese of Lucca, the only non-Grand Ducal region under consideration, was the setting for the most significant religious upheavals among the dioceses in this volume. On the administrative level, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries witnessed several large-scale changes for the archdiocese. Lands in the archdiocesan borders which were politically controlled by Pisa and Florence were sometimes handed over to the Grand Duchy for administration and distribution among its dioceses; for example, in 1622, over the strenuous objections of Archbishop Alessandro II Guidiccioni, the diocese of San Miniato was founded from pieces of that of Lucca.1 On the level of practice and belief, the changes were more dramatic, as Lucca was known to be sympathetic to the Reformation. The most significant time period for the Reformation in Lucca was from 1525 to the 1540s, and its most important influences were Johannes Oecolampadius, Bernardino Ochino, and Peter Martyr Vermigli. Locals, including many of the nobles of merchant origin, attempted to form a Reformed church there.2 In response, the Roman Catholic authorities began a local form of Inquisition in 1545, and introduced a local form of the Index of Prohibited books in 1545 and 1549, which ushered in a fairly successful repression of “Luteranismo”—which was not, of course, really Lutheranism but a local form of nonCatholic Christianity which by the late-1550s included some Calvinist influences.3 Luther’s works were available in the Republic as early as 1525, when the Consiglio Generale prohibited their circulation and

1 Tommasi, Sommario della storia di Lucca, lib. IV cap. IV, p. 535; Cristina Cinelli et al., San Miniato e la sua Diocesi: i Vescovi, le istituzioni, la gente (Tirrenia: Cassa di Risparmio di San Miniato, Edizione del Cerro, 1989), pp. 30–32; and Duane J. Osheim, “The Country Parish in Late Medieval Lucca,” in Paula Findlen, Michelle M. Fontaine, and Duane J. Osheim, eds., Beyond Florence: The Contours of Medieval and Early Modern Italy (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003): pp. 59–71, at p. 60. 2 Mancini, Storia di Lucca, pp. 230–231. 3 Mancini, Storia di Lucca, p. 234.

92

chapter six

ordered public burning of Protestant literature.4 Still, the books were to be found during the 1540s in the Republic, because the Senate passed restrictive measures against those who corresponded with heretics or read heretical books.5 The repressive measures of the 1540s and 1550s had at least one major impact on the region. A number of the Reformers and followers, including members of the prominent families Arnolfini, Burlamacchi, Cattani, Franciotti, Guidiccioni, Moriconi, and Turrettini emigrated to Geneva in 1555, to join other voluntary exiles. This helped to end the “crisis” of Protestantism by the end of the century, despite evidence of dissent lingering through the 1570s.6 In part because Alessandro Guidiccioni (the first Lucchese Archbishop of that name, 1549–1600) was unable to suppress heresy completely, the Lucchese were faced with a threatened intervention by the Medici, in 1556–1559. In addition, Pope Paul IV and Cardinal Carlo Carafa wanted to forge an alliance with Florence and strengthen the political and religious power of the Papal State. King Philip II of Spain helped Lucca against the Florentines, deflecting an immediate political crisis on top of the religious one.7 The real end to the influence of Protestantism, however, resulted not from the Republic’s Officio sopra la onestà, voluntary exile, or outside threats, but from controls of information and communication instituted in the 1560s which were more restrictive than the Senate’s measures of the 1540s. As an example, a law of 16 February 1566 made commerce with immigrants from Geneva, or those who had stayed in Lucca for more than 15 days without a license from the Officio sopra la religione, a capital offense.8 The repression of religious dissent was aided by the imposition of the decrees of the Council of Trent and by the laws of economic and political origin prohibiting immigration; unfortunately,

4 Tommasi, Sommario della storia di Lucca, lib. III cap. V, p. 391; see also Mancini, Storia di Lucca. 5 Tommasi, Sommario della storia di Lucca, lib. III cap. VII, p. 429. A number of documents relevant to the history of Protestantism in Lucca during the period 1525– 1570 are published at the end of the volume, with restarted page numbering in a section headed “Documenti risguardanti novità religiose in Lucca,” pp. 162–185. 6 See, for example, Martino Berengo, Nobili e mercanti nella Lucca del cinquecento (Turin: Einaudi, 1965), esp. pp. 399–454; Simonetta Adorni-Braccesi, “Una città infetta”: La Repubblica di Lucca nella crisi religiosa del cinquecento (Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1994); Tommasi, lib. III cap. VIII; Mancini, Storia di Lucca, pp. 237, 242. 7 Bideleux, Aspects of Popular Catholicism in Sixteenth Century Lucca, p. 46. 8 Mancini, Storia di Lucca, p. 240.

the archdiocese and seminary of lucca

93

these laws also led to the suppression of innovation in trade and manufacturing.9 Despite the desire of the city and archdiocese to fight Protestantism, during two decades, the 1560s and 1580s, Lucca fought against the establishment of a Jesuit house. They did accept a Roman teaching order known as the Chierici regolari della Madre di Dio, founded in 1579 by Giovanni Leonardi, which was suppressed in 1624–1625. A number of prominent citizens, including representatives of the Guinigi, Arnolfini, and Mei families, suggested that the suppression be instead a combination with the Jesuits, who still wanted to establish themselves in the archdiocese; but this did not happen.10 The Jesuits did eventually settle in the archdiocese, but not without difficulties. In the 1650s, Pope Alexander VII “exhorted [Lucca] with a brief to admit the Jesuits, for the single motive of supervising the education of youth.” The Lucchese Senate remained very opposed, but allowed the Society into the city by the end of 1660.11 In the 3.5 decades between the suppression of the Chierici regolari and the arrival of the Jesuits, complaints of heresy resurfaced, but the archbishops of the 1630s—Alessandro II Guidiccioni and Marcantonio Franciotti— were unable to suppress dissent. Although Protestantism, and fears thereof, did loom large, many of the religious upheavals in Lucca can be traced to the style of governance of the archbishops, and the resistance that the tensions created. Indeed, at times the two strains of conflict intersected. Pope Paul V opposed the appointment of Archbishop Alessandro II (1600–1637) because he was a Guidiccioni. Some of that family had moved to Geneva during the sixteenth century, and suspicions of sympathy with Protestantism remained among those who stayed in the Republic. Feeding the fear was the decision of Alessandro I, the uncle of Alessandro II, to allow some German Protestants to conduct business in Lucca. As a result, Paul V wanted the family to renounce the see altogether in favor of Viterbo; but they refused.12 Although Alessandro II was old and infirm, he was not a weak personality, and his highly-developed sense of his own 9 Mancini, Storia di Lucca, p. 250; see also Tommasi, Sommario della storia di Lucca, lib. IV cap. IV. 10 Tommasi, Sommario della storia di Lucca, lib. IV cap. IV, p. 537, and lib. 1, p. 195. 11 ASL 52: Offizio Sopra la Giurisdizione 72: Trattati per l’esclusione dei Gesuiti di Lucca, details the discussions from 1651 through 1660. See also Tommasi, Sommario della storia di Lucca, lib. IV cap. VI, 577–578 and Tommasi, “Documenti,” pp. 205–218. 12 Mancini, Storia di Lucca, pp. 261–262.

94

chapter six

power led him into conflicts over his autocratic style and policies which annoyed the clergy and laity alike, for example strict enclosure for female monasteries.13 Indeed, to strengthen his position against the lay leadership of Lucca and with the papacy, Guidiccioni asked that a local kind of Inquisition be established. The Republic, resenting this move, called Guidiccioni a traitor. With the help of Philip III of Spain, the two sides reached a compromise: the Republic would allow for the establishment of such an Officio, if Guidiccioni remained in Rome and did not return to Lucca.14 The mediation of Cardinals Roberto Bellarmine and Odoardo Farnese allowed Alessandro II to retain the title and income of the archbishopric until his death in 1637, but he was either unable or unwilling to exercise authority in the 1630s against groups accused of heresy. Alessandro II’s successor Franciotti (1637–1645) faced further tensions. Franciotti had studied at the Jesuit college in Lyons from 1606 through 1610, interrupting his studies to return to Lucca when his father died. However, he did not remain in the Republic because of the refusal of the archdiocese to admit the Jesuit order; he would have had no place to stay. Instead he went to Pisa and Bologna, where he began his association with the future Urban VIII and actually left the Society.15 When he was appointed archbishop in his home archdiocese, he was faced with government opposition because of his open favoritism of his family members in economic matters. As a result of what Rita Mazzei has called “a dense plot of jealousy and rivalry among the oligarchical citizen families,”16 Franciotti and 13 Simone Ragagli, “Guidiccioni Alessandro,” DBI vol. 71 (Guglielmo GonzagaJacobini): 318–320, at pp. 318–319. Ferdinando Ughelli states, on the other hand, that the clergy in the archdiocese were only too happy to implement Guidiccioni’s reforms. This cannot be correct, yet the author’s statements on the archbishop’s indefatigable dedication to improving the clergy’s administration of sacraments, involvement in the divinum cultum, and learning, are most likely true. Ughelli, Italia Sacra, vol. 1, s.v. “Alessandro Guidiccioni,” cols. 890–991. 14 Ragagli, “Guidiccioni Alessandro,” p. 319. For more on the conflict between Guidiccioni and the Republic, and its connections to the remaining problem of Protestantism, see Mancini, Storia di Lucca, pp. 259–261. 15 Dario Busolini, “Franciotti Marco Antonio,” DBI vol. 50 (Francesco I SforzaGabbi): pp. 162–163. 16 On the possible Protestantism of Guidiccioni (sometimes written as Guidiccione), see Mancini, Storia di Lucca, pp. 261–262. On the difficulties between Franciotti and the city, see Rita Mazzei, “La questione dell’interdetto a Lucca nel sec. XVII,” Rivista Storica Italiana 85 (1973): 167–185, at p. 167; Mansi, I patrizi di Lucca, p. 222; DBI vol. 50 (Francesco I Sforza-Gabbi), s.v. “Franciotti, Marco Antonio,” pp. 162– 163; and Mancini, Storia di Lucca, pp. 262–263.

the archdiocese and seminary of lucca

95

the citizens of Lucca not only entered a bitter conflict which included financial struggles, but incurred the wrath of former ally Pope Urban VIII. In April 1640, at the height of a conflict between Franciotti and the city, the archbishop introduced preferential treatment for the sale of silk by his family members and an increase in the grain tithes. His insistence on carrying arms (which was forbidden to bishops), his nepotism, and his refusal to admit the commissario apostolico, Cesare Raccagna, led to the interdict of 1640–1643—despite political support from Spain and the Granducato, taking a respite from their wars to take a stand together against the papacy.17 After the death of Pope Urban VIII, who had promoted and protected Franciotti as late as 1639, the archbishop was forced to resign and fled to Villa Vicopelago. His family suffered financially from the continued antipathy of the Lucchese.18 Shortly thereafter, Raccagna imposed an interdict on the archdiocese on 2 April 1640. It was finally lifted on 31 March 1643.19 The city itself was forced both to accept the strengthened presence of the Jesuits and the authority of the Pisan Inquisition by Pope Innocent X (1644–1655) in 1651.20 The archbishops of the second half of the seventeenth century were less plagued by domestic troubles than their predecessors. Archbishops Giovanni Battista Rainoldi (1646–1651) and Pietro Rota, O.F.M. (1651– 1657) hardly distinguished themselves. Each held a single synod (1646 and 1653) and each published sermons.21 However, neither had any major confrontations over heresy or politics with religious or civic leaders. Cardinal Archbishop Girolamo Buonvisi (1657–1677), who

17 Pastor, History of the Popes Vol. 28: Gregory XV and Urban VIII (1621–1644) (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul and St. Louis: B. Herder, 1955, 1938), pp. 174–175. 18 Mazzei, “La questione dell’interdetto,” p. 167; and Mancini, Storia di Lucca, pp. 262–263. 19 Ludwig von Pastor, History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages Vol. 28: Gregory XV and Urban VIII (1621–1644), trans. by Ernest Graf (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul and St. Louis: B. Herder, 1955, 1938), pp. 174–175. 20 Mancini, Storia di Lucca, p. 263; see also Tommasi, Sommario della storia di Lucca Lib. IV cap. V. 21 Rainoldi: Oratio habita coram santissimo dominum Innocentio 10. in publico Consistorio 21. Februarii 1645. pro canonizatione beato Bernardi Ptolomaei . . . (Rome: Stamperia Camerale, 1645). Rota: Hortus floridissimus: variorum, selectissimorum que discursuum praedicabilium, ad quinque vel sex, saepe plurium, pro singulis anni dominicis et festis principalioribus, non solum variis et copiosis; verum etiam exquisitissimis conceptibus tam scripturisticis, quam moralibus, qui et faciliter et fructose ad populum declamari possunt, instructus (Mainz: Schönwetteri, 1671); in Italian, Giardino fiorito di varii concetti scritturali, e morali sopra le feste di tutti i santi principali, che si celebrano nel corso dell’anno . . . (multiple editions in the 1670s in Milan).

96

chapter six

also held a single synod (1661), was of greater international importance, and was even considered papabile in 1669; but the close relationship between Lucca and Spain caused the French to vote against him.22 The Genoese Cardinal Archbishop Giulio Spinola (1677–1690) held two synods (1678 and 1681) and unsuccessfully attempted to woo back the Genevan exiles in a work published in that city in both Italian and French in 1680.23 Cardinal Archbishop Francesco Buonvisi (1690–1700), nephew of Girolamo, held a synod in 1700, undertook “repeated” visitations, and revitalized popular participation in religion, introducing, for example, the Quarantore devotion.24 Lucchese archbishops, clearly, had their hands full with sometimes explosive combinations of economic, political and religious crises. Nevertheless, this diocese attempted to conform to one of the more demanding of the decrees of the Council of Trent: the mandate to open a seminary. That this was not only an order, but also a recognized need, was clear. Visitations under Alessandro I Guidiccioni in 1566–1567 and 1595 demonstrate what Alison Bideleux has called “no more than a mediocre level of learning” for priests.25 As in many other dioceses, reaction to the seminary decree was slow, and involved much debate before action. The institution was discussed, and commissions were appointed to commence action, in synods in 1564 and 1568.26 Still, the first evidence of a seminary’s existence dates only to 1572, when salaries for a camerlingo (financial officer) along with either a Maestro di grammatica or di lettere umane were listed. In 1589, 25 young men studied at the Seminario della Cattedrale, also sometimes referred to as the Seminario di San Martino.27 The students dressed in red and were called “i Rossini.”28 Since they lived at home for at least part of the 1570s, the situation was not ideal. Rather than being a proper

22

Mansi, I patrizi di Lucca, 122. Lettera dell’eminentissimo Signore Cardinale Spinola,Vescovo di Lucca, agli oriundi di Lucca stantiati in Geneva: Colle considerationi sopr’ad essa fatte (Geneva: Samuel de Tournes, 1680); the French version was Lettre de Monsieur le Cardinal Spinola, Évêque de Luques: aux originaires Luquois qui demeurent à Genève, avec les considerations qu’ils ont fait à ce sujet . . . (Geneva: Samuel de Tournes, 1680). 24 Gaspare de Caro, “Buonvisi Francesco,” DBI vol. 15 (Buffoli-Caccianemici): 319–325, at p. 324. 25 Bideleux, Aspects of Popular Catholicism, p. 75. 26 Pietro Tocchini and Pietro Lazzarini, Storia dei Seminari di Lucca (Lucca: Accademia Lucchese di Scienze, Lettere e Arti, 1969), pp. 19–20. 27 Tocchini and Lazzarini, Storia dei Seminari di Lucca, pp. 23–25, 28. 28 Tocchini and Lazzarini, Storia dei Seminari di Lucca, p. 27. 23

the archdiocese and seminary of lucca

97

seminary in which all the students destined for the secular priesthood lived, it was a semi-convitto (half- or partial-board), an issue which apparently caused some concern in Rome. Archbishop Alessandro I Guidiccioni, on the other hand, had a mixed reaction; although he was uncomfortable with the seminary not being a residential institution, he was reluctant to increase the tax burden on the archdiocese in order to expand it.29 Clearly, the decision to allow the seminarians’ families to pay for their upkeep was financial. In a synod in 1590, Guidiccioni learned that the problem was acute, and decided upon a novel remedy: the archbishop required memorial donations from all the Lucchese clergy. While not all followed through, the requirement itself is unique among the seminaries under consideration in this volume.30 Guidiccioni’s support of and interest in clerical education was quite strong, as demonstrated in his authorship of Regole per classi de’ sacerdoti.31 Nevertheless, this early seminary is rather hidden from historians. The institution did possess a physical space, the Cloister of San Martino, first as a tenant and then in mid-1573 as an owner. Although one historian claims that teaching staff were paid yearly through 1617, no ordination candidates were identified as being affiliated with the seminary before 1637, and the diocesan Atti del Clero records include no mention of seminarians, so either no educational activity was in progress, or that activity was not recorded.32 In addition, the 1593 synod is silent on the institution, not even referring to the commission formed to open it.33 Perhaps, like a number of other small sixteenth-century seminaries, the one in Lucca temporarily folded some time between 1589 and the beginning of the seventeenth century. Historians Tocchini and Lazzarini point to contributions in the 1580s and a very large donation by Taddei Giorgio in 1593 as

29 Angelo Adami, Osservazioni sopra la storia del Seminario della Catthedrale di Lucca (MS, after 1825), pp. 20, 27 and Tocchini and Lazzarini, Storia dei Seminari di Lucca, pp. 20–21. 30 Adami, Osservazioni sopra la storia del Seminario, pp. 27, 44–45 and Tocchini and Lazzarini, Storia dei Seminari di Lucca, p. 24. 31 Regole per le classi de’ sacerdoti, e per ogn’altro chierico della città, e diocesi di Lucca. Con alcuni avvertimenti al popolo. Del molto illustre, e reverendissimo monsignor Alessandro Guidiccioni vescovo di Lucca (Lucca: V. Busdraghi, 1580). 32 Adami, Osservazioni Sopra la Storia del Seminario, pp. 3–4, 45. Tocchini and Lazzerini, Storia dei Seminari di Lucca, pp. 26–27, refer to the mid-1573 purchase of a location in the Cloister of San Martino, which the institution was already renting. 33 Adami, Osservazioni Sopra la Storia del Seminario, pp. 28–29.

98

chapter six

evidence of continued existence, but revenues were collected for the seminary in Fiesole while it was not in operation.34 In 1612, however, the seminary certainly was in operation, and had 12 students. At this time, it relocated to the church of Santa Maria Cortelandi and was run by the Chierici regolari della Madre di Dio. Within a decade, the population had doubled.35 The order maintained the seminary until 1617, offering lessons in reading and religion.36 Once again, the seminary fades from the record in the 1620s and early 1630s. In 1637, Cardinal Marcantonio Franciotti housed the seminary in its own building, near the Cathedral.37 That the seminary failed another time seems an attractive and logical conclusion. Historians of the seminary agree emphatically that this was a new foundation, not a reform of the old one—leaving open the question of what became of the Seminario di San Martino and the one run by the Chierici regolari della Madre di Dio.38 Ordinations of priests identified as “serviti” of “S. Maria Curtius Orlandini” are recorded in November 1644, but they are not also identified as seminarians, so their exact function and relationship to the seminary remains unclear.39 Adding to the confusion, throughout the 1640s, in fact, the ordinations record a number of young men receiving orders with the designations “clericus seminarium Cathedralem,” “clericus seminarium S. Josephus,” “clericus seminarium S. Michaellis in foro,” or “clericus seminarium S. Josephus et Reparata.” These designations undoubtedly refer to locations; yet histories of the seminary in Lucca describe nothing related to San Giuseppe, San Michele in Foro, or SS. Giuseppe e Reparata, only the Cathedral. From what information is known, the Cathedral seminary was small and understaffed; Adami notes only 34 Tocchini and Lazzarini, Storia dei Seminari di Lucca, pp. 25–27. On Fiesole, see Comerford, Ordaining the Catholic Reformation, ch. 4. 35 Carlo Fantappiè, “Istituzioni ecclesiastiche e istruzione secondaria nell’Italia moderna: i seminari-collegi vescovili,” Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento 15 (1989), p. 210; Idro Marcocci, Medaglioni: I vescovi di Montepulciano 1561–1964 (Siena: Edizione Arteditoria Periccioli, 1975?), pp. 24, 41; Tocchini and Lazzarini, Storia dei seminari di Lucca, pp. 33–39, and Angelo Adami, Osservazioni sopra la storia del Seminario, pp. 5, 27, 53, and 56. 36 Tocchini and Lazzarini, Storia dei Seminari di Lucca, 30; Adami, pp. 5–6. 37 Adami, Osservazioni sopra la storia del Seminario, pp. 5–6 and 53 n. 25. 38 Adami, Osservazioni sopra la storia del Seminario, p. 29; Tocchini and Lazzarini, Storia dei Seminari di Lucca, p. 43; and Pietro Guidi, “La fondazione del Seminario Diocesano di Lucca,” estratto da L’Inaugurazione del nuovo seminario della diocesi di Lucca (Lucca: Tipografia Baroni, 1937), p. 9. 39 Archivio Arcivescovile della Curia di Lucca (henceforth AACL) Ordinazioni V. 17.

the archdiocese and seminary of lucca

99

lettore di Filosofia or di Logica and maestri di Musica, since no rector, prefect, or other official was paid.40 The population of the seminary in the mid-seventeenth century is estimated in Table 6.1, below. Table 6.1: Yearly Population of the Seminary in Lucca, 1637–1657 Year of Entrance into the Seminary in Lucca 1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 1657

Number of Students Entering

Number of Students Leaving

Number of Students Remaining

44 2 7 5 12 5 4 11 9 8 26 5 3 10 8 0 5 1 2 4 1

4 6 4 14 2 6 8 4 10 14 3 7 9 2 1 2 4 6 4 1 1

40 36 39 30 40 39 35 42 41 35 58 56 50 58 65 63 64 59 57 60 60

Despite the difficulties, the ability of the archdiocese to overcome the economic hardships of the seventeenth century made this seminary foundation a remarkable achievement. The opening of a seminary in Lucca could not have been a function of the economy, which was worse in 1637 than in 1589, and instead must have depended on other factors. Among these surely the work of individual archbishops is important; they pressured the priests and parishioners alike to conform to the Council of Trent’s decree and they supported a bettereducated clergy. On the other hand, historians must not make too

40

Adami, Osservazioni sopra la storia del Seminario, p. 46.

100

chapter six

much of the success. Although this seminary was clearly larger than that in Arezzo or Siena, it still educated a small percentage of archdiocesan priests and was, apparently, never a priority among the seventeenth-century archbishops which followed Franciotti. Cardinal Girolamo Buonvisi did have experience of the new educational initiatives, having studied at the Collegio Tolomei in Siena (where he met Fabio Chigi, the future Alexander VII); nevertheless, his support for the seminary in Lucca was lacking.41 According to Gaspare de Caro, Cardinal Francesco Buonvisi studied under the grammarian Giuseppe Lorenzi at the seminary of Lucca, but I have been unable to corroborate this with any other primary or secondary sources.42 Once in operation, the seminary of Lucca kept better records on pedagogical activity than any of the others in this study. After the permanent foundation of 1637, the staff recorded student performance on a series of examinations, given yearly. Out of 199 individuals identified as seminarians from a total of 1,256 secular priests from 1602–1646, I have examination information for 143. The subjects were quite varied; composition, grammar, logic, history, and the works of various classical authors were tested in addition to higherlevel academic subjects such as Greek and the Sentences along with others suited to pastoral life, including catechism, rhetoric and singing. The students were demonstrably mediocre in their knowledge and dedication upon arrival and departure.43 Some were examined as many as four times, but most only once, after each underwent an initial assessment of age, “capacity” (ingenii ), memory, morals, diligence, and his “promise” (spei ). Comments on performance included obtuse, not good, not easily enough, tolerable, slow but tenacious, mediocre, not bad, improved, accurate, good, sharp, best, and a host of other

41 Mansi, I patrizi di Lucca, 122; M. Trigani, “Buonvisi Girolamo,” DBI vol. 15 (Buffoli-Caccianemici), pp. 331–332, at 331; and DESE Vol. VI: Bon-Cam, s.v. “Buonvisi Girolamo,” p. 166. 42 de Caro, p. 319. On Buonvisi, see also Mansi, I patrizi di Lucca, p. 122; DESE Vol. VI: Bon-Cam, s.v. “Buonvisi Francesco,” p. 166; and Furio Diaz and Nicola Carranza, eds., Francesco Buonvisi; nunziatura a Varsavia (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per l’età moderna e contemporanea, 1965). 43 The examinations are listed in Archivio Storico del Seminario Arcivescovile di Lucca (henceforth ASSAL), Stato dei chierici del seminario di S. Maria di Lucca 1637 and Stato dei Chierici del Seminario di S. Martino di Lucca dal 24 maggio 1644 al 1° aprile 1667, in the following manner: name of student, age, date of examination, material of examination, and assessment.

the archdiocese and seminary of lucca

101

subjective responses. For ease of understanding, I have divided these subjective “grades” into three categories: good, middling, and bad; I am only mentioning a portion by name, as the total number of evaluative words used is nearly three dozen. Only 5 of the students were tested for grammar, and 3 of them were considered middling; 2 were assessed as good. On the question of whether or not the entrants were “promising,” only 38 out of 145 rated were in the range of “good”—a full 96, or 66%, instead were called “steadfast,” “steadfast enough,” “eager enough,” “good enough,” or, in 6 cases, “not hopeless.” These 6, not surprisingly, did not fare well in academic subjects, despite the fact that 4 of them stayed in the seminary for quite some time—Giovanni di Andrea di Filippo the longest among them, for 6 years and 7 months. The examinations were not uniform (not every student took every exam, and not every exam was offered every year) and the grading was rather quirky. Comparison and analysis of specific subjects demonstrate that the group of students in the 1630s, 1640s, and 1650s were average in intelligence, behavior, and ability to learn. Table 6.2 shows the “grades” given for examinations in certain works of Cicero (Epistolae selectae and two unnamed texts), for a total of 29 students, 6 of whom were tested twice (hence the 35 reported grades); in vocabulary for 27 students, 13 of whom were tested twice (40 reported grades); in the Sentences for 10 students, 1 of whom was tested twice (11 reported grades); and in the Catechism for 4 students, none of whom were tested twice. Two of the students’ grades worsened over the course of a year for vocabulary; they (Bernardino di Ambrogio di Garza and Domenico di Bartolomeo di Caturegli, both from Lucca) had not appeared exceptionally promising upon their arrival, and in general managed to remain in the “not bad” category for the three and four years, respectively, of their time in seminary. I have found no evidence that they were ordained. The age at entrance for the seminarians was nearly in conformity with the Council of Trent’s decree; it had required a minimum age of 12, and although 7 out of the 152 for whom I have ages at time of entrance were younger (the youngest was 9, and the oldest 20), the average was between 13 and 14 years old, and nearly 95% were 12 or older. Many of them also met another requirement: they knew how to read, some even in Greek. I have been unable to determine exactly how many were taught to read elsewhere, or where. Six were

chapter six

102

Table 6.2: “Grades” Earned by Lucchese Seminarians in Selected Subjects, 1637–1657 “Grade” or Evaluation

Number of Students Earning that Grade in Cicero’s Works

optime bene satis bene mediocriter non male tolerabile non supra mediocritater tenuis satis tarde non bene pessime male

Number of Students Earning that Grade in Vocabulary

Number of Students Earning that Grade in Sentences

Number of Students Earning that Grade in Catechism

1 9 6 13 N/A N/A 1

N/A 13 9 5 2 2 N/A

N/A 2 2 4 1 1 N/A

N/A 1 N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A

1 N/A N/A 1 3

N/A 1 2 N/A 4

N/A N/A N/A N/A 1

N/A N/A 1 N/A 1

tested on reading when they arrived, but most of the whole performed adequately on the first exams, which included such subjects as Greek, explication of the Catechism, and the explication of Quintius Curtius Rufus’ History of Alexander the Great; therefore, they must have been able to read at least a little before entrance. The average age when seminarians left (as with other institutions, Lucca’s seminary had no “graduation”) was less than 18, with the youngest being 11 and the oldest 30. The average amount of time that seminarians spent at Lucca was approximately 4 years. Unfortunately, information for ages of nonseminarians is not available, so understanding the full impact of these young men in the seminary on the archdiocese is not possible. Tables 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5 show these figures. The summary in Graph 6.1, which shows a gap for the year 1652 (in which, apparently, no new seminarians entered), shows the pattern of average duration of stay in the seminary as a function of the entrance date of students.

the archdiocese and seminary of lucca

103

Table 6.3: Age of Seminarians in Lucca at Entrance, 1637–1657 Age at Entrance to Seminary, in Years (as reported at time of entrance)

Total for that Age, 1637–1657

9 10 11 12 13 13.544 14 15 16 17 18 20 Average (Mean) Age at Entrance Median Age at Entrance

1 5 2 28 30 1 35 23 12 10 4 1

Percentage of Whole at that Age, 1637–1657 0.66% 3.29% 1.32% 18.42% 19.74% 0.66% 23.03% 15.13% 7.89% 6.58% 2.63% 0.66% 13.88 years 14 years

Table 6.4: Age of Seminarians in Lucca at Departure, 1637–1657 Age at Departure from Seminary, in Years

Total for that Age, 1637–1657

11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 30 Average (Mean) Age at Departure Median Age at Departure

2 4 5 14 13 17 21 15 8 9 2 5 1

Percentage of Whole at That Age, 1637–1657 1.72% 3.45% 4.31% 12.07% 11.21% 14.66% 18.10% 12.93% 6.90% 7.76% 1.72% 4.31% 0.86% 17.69 years 18 years

44 This is the only student in any diocese I have studied with a reported age in a fraction of a year.

chapter six

104

Table 6.5: Total Time Spent by Seminarians in Lucca, 1637–1657 Time in the Seminary of Lucca, in Half-Year Segments, 1637–1650s

Number of Students Who Spent This Amount of Time

6 months 2 12 months 7 18 months 6 24 months 10 30 months 9 36 months 14 42 months 12 48 months 12 54 months 14 60 months 6 66 months 10 72 months 2 78 months 1 84 months 3 90 months 1 96 months 1 102 months 1 108 months 1 120 months 2 132 months 1 174 months 1 Average (Mean) Number of Months Spent at the Seminary in Lucca Median Number of Months Spent at the Seminary in Lucca

Percentage of Students Who Spent This Amount of Time 1.72% 6.03% 5.17% 8.62% 7.76% 12.07% 10.34% 10.34% 12.07% 5.17% 8.62% 1.72% 8.62% 2.59% 8.62% 8.62% 8.62% 8.62% 1.72% 8.62% 8.62% 49.74 44

By comparison with Arezzo, these numbers are very large—the average stay in Lucca was more than twice that of Arezzo. However, there is no discernable pattern by which to compare the duration of stay over time between the two dioceses. By comparison with Siena, on the other hand, the numbers are not out of the ordinary; indeed, the mean and median stays in Siena are approximately four months longer than the same numbers in Lucca. On the other hand, the missing data in both dioceses once again makes it impossible to determine any pattern for duration of stay in either. The impact of Lucca’s seminary must be understood in terms of more than the number of young men it educated, which was obviously quite small. As with other dioceses, the information on employment

Average Duration of Stay (months)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Graph 6.1: Average Duration of Stay in Seminary in Lucca vs. Year of Entrance, 1637–1656

1637 1638 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1644 1645 1646 1647 1648 1649 1650 1651 1652 1653 1654 1655 1656 Year of Entrance

the archdiocese and seminary of lucca 105

106

chapter six

is scarce, and tends to prove little: more seminarians received benefices than patrimonies, a situation which was reversed for the non-seminarians. I have no evidence to show that the incomes differed, or that preferable jobs were reserved for those trained in the seminary; indeed, I have employment information for only 46 out of 1,296 priests in the time period, less than one-third of whom were seminarians, so a statistical analysis would be essentially meaningless. Both seminarians and non-seminarians alike were more likely to receive patrimonies upon promotion to subdeacon than chaplaincies. In Lucca, unlike in Arezzo, visitations yield little information, perhaps because of the continued political, economic, and religious upheavals. In addition, the documents were clearly written in haste and concentrate on inventorying the sites. In 1581, from a random sample of 13 churches, only 3 owned Missals; these were the church known as Santa Maria di Tofori, with an unidentified version; the church of Pieve à Camaiore, with one new and three old Missals along with a Gradual, a choral “manuale,” two “salmistà,” for the chorus, and “un libro grande per il coro scritto a mano con alcune Messe e vespri notati in canto fermo”; and the Church of San Lorenzo in a town called Signa which had two “modern” Missals, one Gradual, and one Antiphonary. None of the 13 churches owned catechisms of any kind.45 The situation regarding catechism and ownership of Missals was not much different in the beginning of the seventeenth century, as the visitations demonstrate.46 The Lucchese records from that time include an Interrogatorio per la visita della Cattedrale (no date, but either sixteenth or first half of the seventeenth century), which made no mention of any educational requirements or teaching duties for priests. The questions focus instead on income, in particular that associated with the prebends and canons.47 Fortunately, the 1603 visitations demonstrate some concern with larger issues of pastoral care; but 45 Archivio Archivescovile della Curia di Lucca (henceforth AACL) Visite Pastorale Libro 12: Abbozzi, e originali di sagre visite dall’anno 1484 al 1739, specialmente dell’Anno 1638. Because many of these documents are drafts, not all visitations are dated; I have only considered those with dates in my argument. The only Signa I found is much closer to Florence than to Lucca, but this particular church was part of the visitation. I could find no Tofori. 46 AACL Libro 12, fols. 69r –v, 91r –92v, 93r –94v. For more information on this, see Comerford, “Chierici e seminari nei primi decenni post-tridentini in Toscana,” in Per il Cinquecento Religioso Italiano: Clero Cultura Società (Rome: Edizione dell’Ateneo, 2003): pp. 363–372. 47 AACL Libro 12, fols. 487r –488v.

the archdiocese and seminary of lucca

107

they are far more complete than those undertaken after that year. A document included in the records, without its own date, lists “advice” for the churches: every curate must pray each Sunday, publicize feast days and teach catechism on those days, administer communion on a regular basis, and advise parishoners to avoid any whiff of scandal before marriage.48 In the Church of San Giacomo in Altopascio, the pastor was admonished for his lax attention to these duties.49 Out of 15 churches selected at random, none were in possession of a Breviary or Catechism; in only one church, San Miniato, the visitator recorded a “libro per servire le messe di giorno in giorno,” certainly some kind of Missal.50 The 1619–1620 visitation is very incomplete; nearly all of what is recorded pertains to altars, rather than to churches.51 The 1649 visitation contained no information at all about teaching catechism, except at the Oratorio of San Rochi, or of service books.52 In 1650–1651 and 1680, both very short visitations, no service books were mentioned.53 One visitation presents a problem. According to Carlo Sodini, Archbishop Giulio Spinola undertook a “viaggio” or “itinerario” in the territory in 1679, but did not engage in a formal visitation. The dating and categorization are both suspect. According to the Archivio Arcivescovile Capitolare di Lucca, one Paolo Segni, S.J., undertook a visitation in either 1675 or 1679; making matters more complicated, the earlier date falls within the episcopacy of Buonvisi, the latter within that of Spinola.54 As Sodini describes the 1679 “viaggio,” Spinola was able to observe the poverty of outlying regions and the failures of the clergy in remote areas to care for their parishioners in a manner which would have done credit to the church. The contents of the 1681 synod reflect his disappointment with the behavior, training, and general attitudes of the secular priests. According to Sodini, Spinola took up the burden of emphasizing the important role priests were supposed to play: his vicar, at the synod, “affirmed 48 AACL Libro 48/II: Visite Pastorale 1603–1685, fols. 11r –11v: “Avvertimenti generali.” 49 AACL Libro 48/II: Visite Pastorale 1603–1685, fol. 21r. 50 AACL Libro 48/II: Visite Pastorale 1603–1685, fol. 7v. 51 AACL Libro 48/II: Visite Pastorale 1603–1685, fols. 22r –23r. 52 Archivio di Stato di Lucca (henceforth ASL) 34: Offizio Sopra la Giurisdizione. visitation of Oratorio of S. Rochi, 11 September 1649. No page or folio numbers. 53 AACL Libro 48/II: Visite Pastorale 1603–1685. 54 AACL Visite Pastorale 48.I: “Liber Secundae Visitationis Lucanae Dioecesis de anno 1675.” The date of 27 August 1679 is found beginning on fol. 9r.

108

chapter six

decisively that God gave only to the ecclesiastical corps the duty to represent himself on earth,” and that as a result, they had to deserve this prerogative.55 The 1675 visitation, which may be the same, shows that the clergy were clearly ill-equipped to begin the momentous task: in none of 20 churches is there evidence for Breviary, Catechism, or Missal ownership.56 These surveys were taken four decades into the seminary’s existence, suggesting that its effects were not yet being felt. Another method of measuring impact is to see the geographical distribution. According to Charts 6.1–6.3, which reflect geographical distribution of the Lucchese clergy, the city of Lucca was home to nearly 22% of all clergy, yet nearly 52% of the seminary population. The cities with the greatest representation among all clergy— Lucca, Barga, Castelnuovo di Garfagnana, Coreglia Antelminelli, Gallicano, and Menabbio—are also in many cases the same as those with the greatest representation among seminarians. Only in Vallico and Bagni di Lucca was there disproportionate representation of seminarians (see Table 6.6). Over 42% of all clergy came from urban areas, while over 62% of seminarians and only about 37% of non-seminarians did. Indeed, the profile for seminarians versus non-seminarians is rather striking in Lucca, and rather unlike that in Arezzo, where the representation of town versus country is fairly close (cf. Table 3.4). By contrast, in Siena, the non-seminarians were more urbanized than their seminarian peers—nearly 43% of seminarians came from urban areas, yet closer to 52% of non-seminarians did. Clearly, in Lucca, the seminarians were a more urban group than their non-seminary counterparts and their Sienese and Aretine contemporaries. This means that the former group of young Lucchesi had more access to education and to powerful jobs in the first place. Unfortunately, determining whether this access to education is a cause of the higher percentage of urban students, or a result, is impossible. What historians can conclude is that the seminary in Lucca had greater appeal to the more urbanized families—over 60% of the students came from cities or large towns, versus only above 43% of the non-seminarians. Did this presence of urban seminarians create a more urbane set of congre-

55 Carlo Sodini, “. . . in quel strano e fondo verno”: Stato, chiesa e cultura nella seconda metà del Seicento lucchese (Lucca: Maria Pacini Fazzi, 1992), pp. 81–82. 56 AACL Visite Pastorale 48.I: “Liber Secundae Visitationis Lucanae Dioecesis de anno 1675.”

the archdiocese and seminary of lucca

109

gations? Given the lack of information regarding careers, it is impossible to tell. The seminary of Lucca also had only a limited appeal to aspiring clergy outside the archdiocese; about 5 1/3% of seminarians identified themselves as coming from a town or city outside the archdiocese of Lucca, and out of all secular clergy ordained in Lucca, less than 7% were from another diocese. (These figures assume that San Miniato towns, which account for considerably less than 1% of those totals, are outside the archdiocese for the entire time period, for the sake of convenience.) This is in fairly sharp contrast to Arezzo, where the numbers for all secular clergy from outside the diocese were above 9% and for seminarians were above 15%. The discrepancy may be due to Lucca’s independence from, and Arezzo’s position in, the Grand Duchy. However, the numbers from Siena, also a part of the Granducato, tell a different story: 3.2% of the whole from outside the archdiocese, and 6.1% of seminarians. Although figures from that archdiocese are quite sparse, they are closer to the ideals of having all clergy ordained in the home diocese, and may thus, as the comparable data from Lucca may, represent a further attempt at conformity with the Tridentine norms for ordination.

Lucca, 18.83%

Barga, 5.09% Castelnuovo di Garfagnana, 4.48%

Other, 44.83%

Unknown Origins, 4.40%

Coreglia, 2.47%

Gallicano, 2.01% Menabbio, 2.01%

Sillicano, 1.31%

Monte di Villa, 1.93%

Ghivizzano, 1.31%

Cerreto, 1.85%

Trassilico, 1.85% Careggine, 1.39% Tereglio, 1.47%

Camaiore, 1.70% Pieve Fosciana, 1.47%

Vitiana, 1.62%

Chart 6.1: Geographical Origins of Secular Clergy in Lucca, 1609–1660

chapter six

110

Other, 31.95% Lucca, 50.62%

Castelnuovo di Garfagnana, 1.66%

Menabbio, 2.07%

Bagna di Lucca, 2.07% Vallico, 2.49% Unknown Origins, 9.13%

Chart 6.2: Geographical Origins of Seminary Priests in Lucca, 1609–1660 Lucca, 11.56% Barga, 6.07% Castelnuovo di Garfagnana, 5.12% Other, 51.28%

Unknown Origins, 3.32% Coreglia, 2.84% Monte di Villa, 2.37% Gallicano, 2.27%

Trassilico, 2.18% Cerreto, 2.09%

Camaiore, 1.99% Menabbio, 1.99%

Careggine, 1.61% Tereglio, 1.71%

Pieve Fosciana, 1.80% Vitiana, 1.80%

Chart 6.3: Geographical Origins of Non-Seminary Secular Priests in Lucca, 1609–1660

the archdiocese and seminary of lucca

111

Map 6.1: Archdiocese of Lucca (1596 borders) © Research Media, University of Georgia

Table 6.6: Comparison of Town of Origin of Secular Priests in Lucca, 1609–1660 Comuni outside the archdiocese are indicated in bold type, and include those in the diocese of San Miniato Town of Origin of Secular Clergy in Lucca, Selected Cases Lucca Barga Castelnuovo di Garfagnana Unknown Origin Coreglia Gallicano Menabbio Monte di Villa Cerreto Trassilico Camaiore Vitiana

Percentage of All Secular Clergy from that Town

Percentage of Seminary Students from that Town

Percentage of NonSeminary Clergy from that Town

18.83% 5.09% 4.48%

50.62% 0.83% 1.66%

11.56% 6.07% 5.12%

4.40% 2.47% 2.01% 2.01% 1.93% 1.85% 1.85% 1.70% 1.62%

9.13% 0.83% 0.83% 2.07% 0.00% 0.83% 0.41% 0.41% 0.83%

3.32% 2.84% 2.27% 1.99% 2.37% 2.09% 2.18% 1.99% 1.80%

chapter six

112 Table 6.6 (cont.)

Town of Origin of Secular Clergy in Lucca, Selected Cases Pieve Fosciana Tereglio Careggine Ghivizzano Vallico Pieve di Controne Verni Bagni di Lucca

Percentage of All Secular Clergy from that Town 1.47% 1.47% 1.39% 1.31% 1.08% 1.00% 1.00% 0.93%

Percentage of Seminary Students from that Town 0.00% 0.41% 0.41% 0.83% 2.49% 0.00% 0.00% 2.07%

Percentage of NonSeminary Clergy from that Town 1.80% 1.71% 1.61% 1.42% 0.76% 1.23% 0.95% 0.66%

Table 6.7: Urban Profile of Secular Priests in Lucca, 1609–1660 Origins of Lucchese Clergy City Large town Small town Unknown origin or unidentifiable comune Outside the diocese57

All Clergy

Seminarians

Non-Seminarians

47.61% 20.29% 21.84% 10.27%

53.27% 22.94% 14.50% 9.29%

22.82% 8.71% 53.94% 14.52%

6.57%

5.36%

6.50%

One final point of comparison between seminarians and non-seminarians in Lucca is the time for ordination. While the data are very sparse, they yield more information than those from Arezzo. Table 6.8 compares the statistics for seminary and non-seminary priests. The Archdiocese of Lucca was far closer to compliance with the Tridentine norms than the Diocese of Arezzo, yet clearly many exceptions occurred. The distinction between seminarians and nonseminarians, in most cases, is large. This suggests that the seminarians, for whatever reasons, followed the Tridentine regulations far more closely than the non-seminarians in this Archdiocese. In fact, the difference between average promotion to all seven orders in Lucca is especially striking in comparison to the numbers for the diocese of Fiesole. There, the mean time for promotion to all orders for seminarians 57

For an explanation of the numbers of priests outside the diocese, see Ch. 3.

the archdiocese and seminary of lucca

113

was over 77 months, compared with over 57 for non-seminarians; for promotion to the three Holy Orders, it was 25 versus 16 months.58 Table 6.8: Comparison of Length of Time for Promotions in Orders between Seminary and Non-Seminary Priests in Lucca, 1609–1660 Type of Secular Priest in Lucca

Average for Promotion to all Seven Orders

Minimum for all Seven Orders

Nonseminarian

<20 months <2 months

Maximum for all Seven Orders

Average for Promotion to Three Holy Orders

Minimum for Three Holy Orders

Maximum Three Holy Orders

<50 months

<25 months <1 month <55 months

Seminarian <80 months <10 months <118 months <24 months <1 month <55 months

Of all the seminaries under consideration in this volume, the one which simultaneously yields the most information and the raises the most questions is Lucca. The tantalizing notations of actual academic progress within the seminary are not matched by good documentation to follow the careers of the students. Indeed, not even in this archdiocese was any kind of training necessary, any length of training considered desirable, or any reward for training outlined. While it is tempting to conclude that a seminary which gave students examinations in their knowledge of history, rhetoric, the works of Cicero, and both the Canisius and Roman catechisms was one which produced a corps of pastors, curates, vicars, and canons prepared to teach the people the “true religion,” the late-seventeenth century lament of Spinola and the failure of churches to follow the most basic requirements of the Council of Trent regarding the purchase of service books demonstrate that such a conclusion is impossible.

58 Again, I reported slightly different numbers in Ordaining the Catholic Reformation; these are a reflection of further research and more detailed analysis.

CHAPTER SEVEN

CONTEXT: THREE OTHER TUSCAN DIOCESES AND SEMINARIES

Each case study has its own story to tell, and yet understanding individual seminaries requires comparisons and context as well. At first glance, direct comparisons among those dioceses and seminaries considered in this volume tell almost nothing: for example, there is no pattern for seminary population, for length of time in seminary, or for length of time for ordination over the decades. Even a geographical analysis yields little information: while in each diocese for which figures are available, the diocesan see provided the largest number of candidates for the priesthood in or out of seminaries, that percentage varies considerably from diocese to diocese. On the other hand, certain points of comparison are noteworthy. All of the seminaries began with a group of approximately one dozen students. All of the dioceses sent a very small percentage of aspiring clergy to their seminaries. Each seminary had significant financial difficulties, particularly in plague years. Few of the “graduates” held positions of importance in their own or other dioceses in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries. The “trickle-down” effect of more educated clergy and mandates to educate parishioners was at best slow during the seventeenth century— and was at times very difficult to detect. Given the very different dioceses under consideration, these effects are apparently independent of wealth, geography, and the presence of other schools. The following figures provide direct comparisons among the three cases studied in Chapters 3, 4, and 6 (omitting Volterra because of the lack of data), in an effort to draw larger conclusions about seminaries in north-central Italian cities in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. In brief, they demonstrate the following: seminaries had some impact on time for promotion, lengthening it but not bringing it into direct conformity with the mandate of the Council of Trent; seminaries drew from all regions within each diocese, but relied heavily on urban areas, particularly the city in which the institution was located; and all seminaries had unstable enrollments during the period under consideration.

chapter seven

116

Table 7.1: Comparison of Ordination Statistics Promotions

Average Time Average Time Average Time Average Time in in Arezzo for in Arezzo for in Lucca for Lucca for Non-Seminarians Seminarians Non-Seminarians Seminarians

All seven <17 months levels Three Holy <18 months Orders

<33 months

<20 months

<24 months

<44 months

<25 months

<80 months

Table 7.2: Comparison of Urban Profiles Geographical Seminarians NonSeminarians NonSeminarians NonOrigins in Arezzo Seminarians in Lucca Seminarians in Siena Seminarians in Arezzo in Lucca in Siena City Large town Small town Unknown origin or unidentifiable comune Other diocese Urban areas Rural Areas Diocesan See

36.97% 26.89% 18.49% 17.65%

31.10% 30.73% 26.56% 16.60%

53.27% 22.94% 14.50% 9.29%

22.82% 8.71% 53.94% 14.52%

41.46% 1.22% 10.98% 43.90%

50.65% 1.30% 5.19% 40.69%

approx. 8% 63.86% 18.49% 17.46%

approx. 3% 54.04% 26.56% 25.73%

approx. 5% 76.21% 14.50% 50.62%

approx. 7% 31.53% 53.94% 11.56%

approx. 3% 41.46% 12.20% 39.02%

approx. 2% 50.65% 6.49% 50.65%

Context is also of great importance in studying seminaries. In this section, I shall make brief statements about seminaries and secular priests in Florence, Montepulciano, and Pienza. As with the major case studies, these cities are chosen to represent a geographical spread in Tuscany (in this instance, north and south instead of east and west), as well as both major and minor urban centers. The urban, cultural, and political center of the region was the capital of the Grand Duchy and the metropolitan archdiocese: Florence. In the first postTridentine synod, held in 1564, Archbishop Antonio Altoviti (1548– 1573) expressed his desire to encourage improved pastoral behavior; but he focused more on specifics in his 1569 synod.1 In this latter meeting, the influence of the Council of Trent was notable: “every

1 For a thorough study of the 1564 synod, see Arnaldo D’Addario, Aspetti della Controriforma a Firenze (Rome: Pubblicazioni del Archivio di Stato, 1972), pp. 196–202.

three other tuscan dioceses and seminaries

117

priest who undertakes the cura animarum . . . should be . . . esteemed for virtue, intelligence, and good morals. Moreover, priests should be conspicuous for their erudition.”2 This synod published a list of books, including the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Canons and Decrees of that same council, and the decrees of the current synod, which each parish priest should own, under penalty of a 25-florin fine. As a result, one can assume that the message of the whole synod—not just the punishment for transgression, but the explanation of good behavior—was intended to reach every pastor clearly and with regularity,3 in much the same way as were exhortations not to read prohibited books found in later synods.4 Not surprisingly, Altoviti enforced these provisions via his visitation, which clearly also concentrated on a combination of morality and intellect. According to Arnaldo D’Addario, the visitation taken between 20 March 1568 and 6 October 1569 reflects Altoviti’s belief that the failures of the sixteenth-century clergy had prevented any reformation within Catholicism to progress. He ordered the visitators to question the pastors “on the principal questions of faith, in particular if a priest had not been examined earlier, when nominated to his post. Exceptions to this interview were allowable only when the parish priest was very old, presuming experience and rectitude as demonstrated by the facts [i.e.

2 Diocesana synodus Florentiae celebrata tertio nones maias MDLXIX (Florence: Bartholomeaum Sermartellium, 1569), “De Examinatoribus,” p. 32: “Omnium Sacerdotum, qui sint animarum curam suscepturi, maxime interest, ut probi, ut prudentes, ut bene morati viri iudicentur, et re quidem vera existant, quorum exemplo ii, quibus praesunt, excitati, ab omni item culpa semper abesse studentes, ad optimam, vitae disciplinam sese conferant, in ea perpetuo mansuri. Praeterea Sacerdotes ipsos eruditione multa praestare etiam decet, ne non fideliter alios docere, prudenterque regere valeant.” 3 Diocesana synodus Florentiae . . . MDLXIX, “De Libros quos, parochi omnes apud se continenter habere debent,” p. 44: “Ut Parochi omnes apud se habere sedulo procurent Concilium Tridentinum, Cathechismum a Sanctissimo Papa Pio V. nuper editum, Synodales Constitutiones Floren. atque etiam Synodum a nobis in praesentia celebratam, simul ac primum formis impressa fuerit, ad haec casus omnes in bulla in coenadomini summo Pont. ac etiam nobis reservatos, et libros omnes alios pro qualitate, et in genii captu personarum. Id quod intra Mensem unum a Parochis omnibus omnino fieri volumus. Qui vero contra nostram hanc venerit voluntatem, noverint se poenam et multam florenorum vigintiquinque, sive aliam arbitrio nostro irrogandam, statim subituros.” 4 For example, the 1573 synod also held by Altoviti includes the chapter “Visitans se informet, et examinet magistros puerorum, eisdemque prohibetur lectio librorum obscenorum,” Decreta provincialis synodi Florentinae, Praesidente in ea Reverendissimo D. Antonio Altovita Archiepiscopo (Florence: Bartholomaeum Sermartellium, 1573), pp. 51–53.

118

chapter seven

rather than by exam], or when the visitator had reason, as in a notorious case, to reserve the questioning for an official.”5 Later legislation reflected a continued interest in encouraging the teaching of catechism by pastors; in the 1619 synod, this rather dramatic statement can be found: no priest with the cura was “exempt . . . from the duty of teaching Christian doctrine” because the divine law would “hold him under the penalty of mortal sin.” After all, God had sent him out to deliver the basic instruction to the ignorant, to boys under his care, and to call the people with a bell. In 1627, Archbishop Marzi Medici restated this verbatim.6 The 1637 synod, held by Archbishop Piero Niccolino, stated it even more forcefully: Pastors and all who are entrusted with the cura animarum will remember that they will render account to the Omnipotent God not only for their own souls, but also for the souls placed under their care. The care of souls is of itself a very grave burden for him. . . . It is necessary that he be of the utmost vigilance, and that nothing is neglected by him who knows his own duties. . . . [W]e commend . . . all who have the cura animarum, that on feast days, they should teach catechism to the untaught, and to boys placed under their care, so that when they call the people with a bell, and when they congregate at the church at lunch, . . . and after . . . the Gospel, they should . . . explain the mysteries of the faith, that is to say the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the remaining articles [of the faith], and the precepts of the Decalogue, and the Church, and of the sacraments.

The passage continues with a statement that the “brief catechism” which the previous archbishop (Marzi Medici) had imposed was of great 5

D’Addario, Aspetti della Controriforma a Firenze, pp. 232–233. “Quia aliqui, quae sancita sunt in nostra Synodo Anni 1619. tit.1.c.2.§2.3. circa Doctrinam Christianam, male sunt interpretati, declaramus nostrae mentis non fuisse eximere ullum Parochum ab onere docendi Christianam doctrinam cum ad id omnes Iure divino sub poena peccati mortalis teneantur, qui animarum curam habent, et ideo denuo mandamus, et districte precipimus omnibus Parochis, ut tradant rudimenta fidei rudibus, et pueris suae Curae commissis, vel convocando populum cum tintinabulo, vel eundem convocando a prandio ad Ecclesiam cum maiori campana, vel antequam incipiant sacrum, vel lecto Evangelio, quibus temporibus explicent precipua capita fidei. Videlicet SS. Trinitatem, Incarnationem, ac reliquos Articulos, et praecepta Decalogi, et Ecclesiae, eiusque sacramenta, ac propterea nos mandavimus imprimi novum Cathecismum brevissimum, et eo facilius res tanti momenti omnino non praetermittatur.” Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze (henceforth BNCF) Misc 516.1–8: Decreta synodi diocesanae Florentinae. Habita in Metropolitana Ecclesia die X. Mensis Maii 1627. (Florence: Ex Typographia Sermartelliana, 1629), p. 5. I have not located a copy of this 1619 synod, just a mention of it in Joannes Dominicus Mansi et al., Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, vol. 36 tris (synodi occidentales, 1610–1719): (Arnhem [Netherlands] and Leipzig, 1924) of 53, col. 69. 6

three other tuscan dioceses and seminaries

119

profit, and that the pastors (particularly those with the cura animarum) should “not only instruct, and teach” the people, but hear confessions, and administer the sacraments.7 In the diocesan synod of 1645, Archbishop Niccolino expanded his position on the frequent teaching of dottrina cristiana in church: it was required because the Council of Trent said to do it. Pastors should speak “loudly but not rushed, in a distinctive voice and in a sermon in the vernacular, reciting the Sunday Oration, the Angelic Salutation, the Apostle’s Creed, a general confession, the Decalogue and the precepts of the Church, the seven sacraments, and the seven mortal sins with similar teachings” so that all those present could follow, even the children; otherwise, the archbishop warned, he would face “grave censures, suspensions, and financial penalties,” along with public denunciation.8 Visitations in Florence demonstrate that even in large, wealthy, and internationally important dioceses, non-conformity was frequent, and censures or sanctions were rare and seem to have had little longterm effect. In the 1575 visitation, Altoviti’s evident concerns were ownership of record books, Breviaries, Missals, and copies of the bull

7 Decreta synodi diocesanae Florentinae. Habita in Metropolitana Ecclesia die XVI. Mensis Iunii 1637, pp. 7–8. “Parochi et omnes curam animarum gerentes meminerint se Omnipotenti Deo, non solum de propriis, verum etiam de sibi subditorum animis rationem reddituros. Animarum cura onus per se gravissimum set . . . [C]ommendamus, et stricte praecipimus Parochis, omniusque curam animarum habentibus, ut diebus festis, doceant doctrinam Christianam rudes, et pueros suae curae commissas, vel convocando populum cum tintinnabulo, vel eodem convocando ad Ecclesiam a prandio . . ., vel antequam incipiant sacrum, vel lecto Evangelio, quibus, temporibus explicent Mysteria praecipua nostrae fidei. Videlicet SS. Trinitatem, Incarnationem, ac reliquos articulos, et praecepta Decalogi, et Ecclesiae, eiusque Sacramenta. Et ut rem tanti momenti facilius peragant, uti poterunt Cathechismo brevissimo quod sub Illustrissimo Alexandro Mario Mediceo Praedecessore nostro impressum est, et ut populum ad hoc tam salutare exercitum alliciant poterunt etiam indulgentias promulgare quas Christianam Doctrinam docentibus et audientibus, Pius V. et Gregorius XIII. concessit et propterea mandamus ut singuli apud se librum habeant in quo describantur omnes de tempore in tempus maiores septemnii eius cure subiecti.” I would like to thank my colleague Charles F. Briggs for his help with this translation. 8 BNCF Magl.2.6.258: Decreta, et acta Synodi Diocesanae Florentinae Habitae in Metropolitana Ecclesia XVII. Mensis Maii anni MDCXLV (Florence: Typographia archiepiscopali, 1645). Tit. I Ch. 4: De Doctrina Cristiana, pp. 14–15: “alta non accellerata, sed distincta voce et vernaculo sermone recitent Orationem Dominicam, Angelicam Salutationem, Apostolorum Symbolum, generalem confessionum, Decalogi et Ecclesiae Praecepta, septem sacramenta, septemque peccata mortalia cum his similibus; monendoque eurent ut totus praesens populus eius vocem in huiusmodi recitatione sequatur, praecipue vero utriusque sexus pueri, qui loca vicinior teneant, quo facilius audiantur et audiant . . . [aliter oberet] gravitate censuras, suspensiones, et poenas pecuniarias.”

120

chapter seven

In coena domini. In 19 out of a sample of 25 churches, the visitator noted full or nearly full conformity; the remaining 6 had none of the required elements.9 Unfortunately, the good data are not reproduced in future visitations. In 1589, under Alessandro de’ Medici, the majority of churches have no indications at all of keeping or not keeping records, owning or not owning the proper liturgical books, teaching or not teaching catechism. As an example, in a sample of 31 churches in that year, 3 did not teach catechism, 6 did, and 22 had no information at all.10 Similarly, in the 1626–1629 visitation of Alessandro Marzi Medici, 45 out of 54 churches had no indications of presence or lack of instruction in catechism; 5 did not; and 4 did.11 A sample of 25 churches in the 1636 visitation of the Archdiocese of Florence includes only 10 with the Ritual; among those, one did not own a Missal (in the rest, including those not owning the Ritual, there is no mention of Missals); no church seems to have owned a Catechism.12 In the majority of cases, this and other deficiencies are simply observed or not; only in a few instances does the visitator give any indication that this is a troubling situation. The rector of the parish church of Santi Angeli in Argiano was threatened with fines of 10 scudi if he did not have a Missal, Ritual, and the proper stands on which to display them within 15 days; and that of Santa Lucia in Barberino was reminded that he had been warned in 1626 to get a Missal yet he had not done so and as a result was now facing a 4 scudi fine.13 These fines were relatively small, but certainly not insignificant; to give some context, students paid up to 60 scudi for a year’s tuition in the nearby seminary in Fiesole in the seventeenth century, while most maestri and administrative staff in the same seminary earned 12 scudi along with meals.14 The yearly income of the 9

Archivio Storico della Curia Arcivescovile di Firenze (henceforth ASCAF) VP 15: Visite Pastorale Card. A. Medici [1575]. 10 ASCAF VP 16: Medici Alessandro—Visite 1589. 11 ASCAF VP 22.1: Marzi Medici Alessandro 1626–1629: Visita Diocesana. 12 Archivio storico della Curia Arcivescovile di Firenze (henceforth ASCAF) VP 26: Visite Pastorale Niccolini 1635–40. 13 I have been unable to determine if this is Barberino di Mugello or Barberino Val d’Elsa; they appear almost equally distant from Florence and today are towns of approximately the same size. Archivio storico della Curia Arcivescovile di Firenze (henceforth ASCAF) VP 26: Visite Pastorale Niccolini 1635–40, fols. 108v –109r and 139v–140r. Supplemental information on the same visitations can be found in the series Visite Pastorali Documenti: ASCAF VPD.11.17: Visite Pastorali di Mons. Pietro Niccolini alla Pieve di S. Piero in Bossolo. 14 Cf. Comerford, Ordaining the Catholic Reformation, pp. 60–61.

three other tuscan dioceses and seminaries

121

parishes and benefices held by the secular priests in the dioceses under consideration ranged from 8 to 130 scudi, averaging about 66, some supplemented with grain or other food allowances.15 On the other hand, because of the 10-year delay in following up on infractions, we can assume that the Archdiocese of Florence experienced some of the same problems that neighboring Tuscan dioceses faced: despite the good intentions of the hierarchy, the new Tridentine norms were not implemented. The problem continued through the second half of the seventeenth century: in 1655, only 4 out of 30 churches were recorded as teaching either rudimenta fidei or doctrina Christiana.16 In 1666, the data are not as comprehensive, in part because far fewer churches were recorded, and in part because the volume is damaged. Among 10 churches, 5 taught catechism. This does not mean that all were successful; indeed, at the churches of San Martino in Gonfienti and San Donato in Collina the visitator records that catechism was taught but that the young boys, when asked about their instruction, were unable to answer questions satisfactorily on doctrine.17 Because the Archdiocese of Florence opened a seminary only in the eighteenth century, it is tempting to attribute the failures of parochial education and of a reform of parish priests regarding the liturgy which was directly connected to the Council of Trent to the lack of clerical education. On the other hand, dioceses with seminaries also failed in these areas in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, so this cannot be a proper conclusion. The early history of the seminary foundation in Florence mirrors that in other dioceses: diocesan and provincial councils, notably the 1573 provincial council, emphasized the need for a seminary, but none was opened. In fact, in this council, the language was very strong: the bishop was required to carry out the decrees of the Council of Trent, and therefore he must open a seminary within six months of the close of the present provincial council. To fund the building of this seminary, the provincial council 15 The income figures can be found in the series ASF Auditore dei Beni Ecclesiastici, numbers 4541, 4542, 5905 and 5913, and (rarely) in the ordination records for the Diocese of Lucca. The average is based on a count of 42 churches and chapels for which I found monetary income. 16 ASCAF VP 28.1: Visite Pastorali 1655 (Ap.-Mai.). Nerli Francesco: Visita della campagna. 17 ASCAF VP 38.1: no title, but the contents are the visite pastorali of 1659 and 1666; no pagination or foliation. The location of “Gonfienti” is unclear.

122

chapter seven

required that all benefices and ecclesiastical institutions, whether with or without the cura animarum, and whether a regular or an exempt diocese or abbacy, be taxed.18 As far as the potential students were concerned, only those who met the Council of Trent’s requirements for age, knowledge, morality, modesty, obedience, and piety would be accepted.19 Indeed, this council was particularly preoccupied with educational matters, including rubrics on theological prebends for secular priests, which should be established in each cathedral and collegiate church;20 on teaching catechism to children, which should happen every Sunday and feast day;21 on the yet-to-be-built seminary; and a section in Rubric 37 is “De vita et honestate clericorum,” Chapter 1, “Quales esse debeant Clerici, et a quibus si abstinere,” which stated that the clergy must be both moral and educated.22 Despite all of this interest, the seminary did not materi18 Decreta Provincialis Synodi Florentinae . . . Altovita, p. 39: De Seminario Rub. XXIII, Cap. I. Exempt dioceses were those immediately subject to the pope, or in other words not part of an ecclesiastical province. Here, Florence was exercising some territorial jurisdiction where it did not have diocesan jurisdiction. 19 De Seminario Rub. 1 Cap. 2: Qualitas, et officium adsumendorum in collegium seminarii. “Eorum vero, qui ad hoc collegium adsumuntur, aetas, scientia, mores eiusmodi sint, ut nihil a praescriptione Concilii Tridentini discrepare videantur; atque ea religione, modestia, et obedientia vivant, ut vere ad pietatem, et ad divinum cultum institui, et educari omnibus notum esse possit; eaque ut perpetuo serventur, Episcopi saepissime ipsa seminario visitabunt, aut a Deputatis visitari curabunt.” Decreta Provincialis Synodi Florentinae . . . Altovita, p. 40. 20 Rubric 20: De Praebenda theologali. Cap. 1: “Quod sacra theologia publice profiteatur, et legatur, et adsignetur merces:” “Nihil minus negligere oportet episcopos, quam executionem decreti sacri concilii Tridentini de lectore sacrae theologiae. Quidquid est in unaquaque ecclesia cathedrali, vel oppidi insigni collegiata, quam primum constituatur, cum assignatione liberae praebendae primo vacaturae, aut, ibi nulla fuerit, aliqua mercede, aut alia ratione; quae episcopi iudicio magis ecclesiae statui convenire poterit.” Joannes Dominicus Mansi et al., Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio Vol. 35/53: 1414–1724 (Paris: Huberti Welter, 1902), col. 746. 21 Rub. 21, “De initiis fidei a parocho tradendis.” Cap. 1: “Initia fidei pueros docenda:” “Singulis dominicis, et festivis diebus statura hora, et proprio campanae sono, parochi pueros omnes ad ecclesiam convocent, ubi initia fidei eos doceant, et ad obedientiam primum Deo, deinde parentibus praestandam, atque etiam ad ea omnia, quae ad christianam religionem pertinent, accurate instituant. Hortatur autem parentes, ut idem ipsi domi faciant; atque etiam curent, ut filii hanc tam salutarem disciplinam negligere non possint.” Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, vol. 35, cols. 746–747. 22 “Clerici omni ingenio, ac opera studeant, ita vitam moresque componere, ut aliis exemplo esse possint, eaque etiam, quae leviora videntur crimina, gravissima sibi pro sua conditione esse meminerint: quae igitur novissime post multas sanctissimorum pontificum, ac sacrorum conciliorum sanctiones, Tridentina synodus praecepta innovavit de vita, honestate, cultu, et doctrina ab eis comparanda et retinenda, quaeque de luxu, comessationibus, choreis, alea, lusibus, et aliis hujus generis, ac

three other tuscan dioceses and seminaries

123

alize during the seventeenth century, and the archdiocesan synods of 1623, 1627, and 1637 are silent on the subject.23 The synod of 1637 did specifically call for those who had the cura animarum to teach doctrine to the ignorant and the children in their care, calling them together by ringing a bell after lunch, yet it was not explained how those teachers would learn the doctrine.24 When, at last (1712), the Florentine seminary did open, it was apparently quite small; even as late as 1802, only 13 alunni are recorded.25 Perhaps the most-studied small Tuscan town is Pienza, the site of Pope Pius II’s “ideal city.” In this diocese, which remained independent of its neighbors Chiusi and Montepulciano until the eighteenth and twentieth centuries, respectively, a functional seminary was not begun until the 1650s.26 Like so many other Italian dioceses, Pienza’s seventeenth-century school was a second foundation, although I have not established with certainty the date of the first foundation; the Convento di San Francesco was most probably the initial location.27 Bishop Giovanni Spennazzi (1637–1658), clearly committed to reform

praesertim profanis negotiis evitandis, ut maxime necessaria, et eorum ordini consentanea omnino servent; alioquin statutis ab ea poenis, aliisque severioribus, si ita episcopis videbitur, coerceantur, quarum executionem nulla appellation, aut provocation suspendit.” Mansi, vol. 35, col. 770. 23 Decreta Synodi Diocesanae Florentinae. Habita in Metropolitana Ecclesia die XVII. mensis Maii. MDCXXIII (Florence: Bartholomaeum Sermartellium, 1623); Decreta Synodi Diocesanae Florentinae. Habita in Metropolitana Ecclesia die X. mensis Maii. 1627 (Florence: Bartholomaeum Sermartellium, 1629); Decreta Synodi Diocesanae Florentinae. Habita in Metropolitana Ecclesia die XVI. mensis Iunii 1637 (Florence: Bartholomaeum Sermartellium, 1637). Mansi, vol. 36 tris/53, col. 149, notes (but does not reproduce) a 1629 synod, but this is likely an error for 1627, given the publication information. 24 Decreta Synodi Dioecesanae Florentiniae . . . 1637. Petrus Nicolinus archiepiscopus. Titulus 3.: De Officio Parochorum, p. 7. 25 ASMF 146 bis: Bilanci di Amministrazione del Venerabile Seminario Fiorentino 1801–1862, Busta 1, No. 1. 26 In the period 1464–1528, Chiusi and Pienza were united; after the latter date, however, Clement VII separated them and Pienza received its own bishop. Giuseppe Chironi, ed., L’Archivio Diocesano di Pienza (Siena: Amministrazione Provinciale, 2000), p. 24. In some records, the diocese is referred to as “Pienza and Montalcino,” but as far as I can tell, the formal name was “Diocesi di Pienza.” 27 Brief accounts of this seminary can be found in G. B. Mannucci, Pienza: Arte e Storia, 3d edition (Siena: Stab. S. Bernardino, 1937), p. 217 and Chironi, L’Archivio Diocesano di Pienza, pp. 475–498. Don Aldo Franci generously shared with me his unpublished manuscript Pienza: Seminario Vescovile: Cenni Storici, which he wrote over the course of the second half of the twentieth century (he did not remember when he began the volume, only that he stopped writing in 1998), the most comprehensive study of the institution. On the first foundation, see Franci, Pienza: Seminario Vescovile: Cenni Storici, p. 3.

124

chapter seven

(he conducted no less than seven visitations during his tenure), began by collecting money from the suppression of small pious institutions, including benefices, but he needed more; in 1654 he instituted a tax.28 In 1653, the Cathedral Chapter consented to the suppression of “tre conventini di Conventuali,” in Pienza and Montichiello (a nearby comune), including Pienza’s own Franciscan monastery.29 The Bull of Erection dates from 1657, and in fact discusses finances at some length, including contributions from the Monte Pio which Spennazzi had created by 1644.30 Rather surprisingly, the document makes no reference to the education which seminarians would receive, but concentrates instead on general matters of correction and obedience. The clothing seminarians were required to wear was detailed, but the books they might need were not; the requirement of conforming to the Council of Trent was acknowledged, but the necessity of attending the seminary for specific educational and disciplinary training was not.31 The “student body” reportedly consisted of only 3 seminarians in February of 1657.32 From 1658 through 1664, the see was vacant (Gabriele Gucci served as papally appointed administrator for the diocese in this period), during which time the Convento di San Francesco was restored in 1659, as a result of successful protests by the friars.33 This meant that the seminary had to close, as it had been housed there. As in the case of the Fraternità dei Chierici in Arezzo, the original occupants of the location selected for the seminary won their point. However, later Pientine developments showed less support for such an institution than was found in Arezzo. Just after the seminary was opened, Spennazzi died. For the 28 Archivio Diocesano di Pienza (henceforth ADPz) 121: fol. 5r, untitled letter from Rome, 16 April 1654, and notices of suppressions and letters responding to such notification from fols. 7r–12r, 20r, 25v, 26v. The visitations date from 1638, 1641, 1645, 1648, 1650, 1652–1633, and 1656–1658. 29 ADPz 121: Seminarium Episcopale Pientinum, a bound volume containing documents relating to the foundation and early operation of the seminary. “Consenso di Capitolo per la distribuzione di tre Conventi soppressi (1653),” fol. 1r, and “Relatione, e Parere del Vescovo di Pienza, e suo Capitolo intorno all’applicatione, e repartimento debene delli Conventi suppressi in quella Diocesi in virtu della Rolla della Santita di Nostro Signore sopra cit. publicata [!],” fol. 2r. 30 The first Libro d’amministrazione from that institution dates from 1644–1663. 31 ADPz 121: Erectio Seminarii, fols. 13r –14r; repeated at fols. 32r –33v. 32 Chironi, L’Archivio Diocesano di Pienza, p. 475 n. 3. 33 ADPz 121: “Lettera della Sacra Congregazione continente la restitutione del Convento di S. Francesco di Pienza alla Religione di S. Francesco de Minori Conventuali,” 4 June 1659, fol. 34r, followed by further documentation on fols. 34v –36r.

three other tuscan dioceses and seminaries

125

next six years, with no bishop, the diocese quite possibly abandoned the seminary project entirely; no records exist, and Chironi claims it was suppressed.34 The seminary seems to have achieved real stability only in the late eighteenth century, with the construction of a building for 12 existing students in 1788 and with the writing of Constitutiones in 1792.35 The Diocese of Montepulciano, east of Pienza, was established in 1561, and its first bishop was Giovanni Ricci (1561–1562). Some reports list him as the founder of the seminary, in 1561; others claim later dates.36 Ricci certainly demonstrated an interest in education, as he opened a small school in the diocese in 1568 to educate 8 youths at his family’s expense.37 However, the most likely date for the seminary foundation was after Ricci’s tenure as bishop. Spinello Benci (1562–1596), Ricci’s successor, saw to the building of the new cathedral on the site of the former Pieve di Santa Maria. The bell tower for the cathedral is what remains of that original church. Benci had been present at the Council of Trent in 1562, where he participated in discussions on the obligation of residence of bishops and on the reception by the laity of communion in two species, which he opposed. According to Idro Marcocci, Benci’s pastoral activity was based on “three . . . points of particular attention . . .: the seminary, the synod, and the pastoral visit.”38 These points seem to have received due attention: Benci held a synod in 1566, hosted an apostolic visitation in 1583, and opened a seminary “fu una casa attigua alla residenza vescovile,” in or after 1564.39 The next years of the 34 Chironi, L’Archivio Diocesano di Pienza, pp. 25–26: after mentioning the financial difficulties of attempting Tridentine reforms, he states “Esemplare sotto questo punto di vista l’attività del vescovo Giovanni Spennazzi e le difficoltà incontrate nell’erigere le prebenda teologale, la penitenzieria e il seminario, poi soppresso subito dopo la morte del prelato.” 35 Chironi, L’Archivio Diocesano di Pienza, p. 478 and Franci, Pienza: Seminario Vescovile: Cenni Storici, p. 14. The first rector Franci listed was Canon Luigi Baffi di Torri Sabina, 1792–1795; Franci, Pienza: Seminario Vescovile: Cenni Storici, p. 15. 36 Idro Marcocci, Medaglioni: I vescovi di Montepulciano 1561–1964 (Siena: Edizione Arteditoria Periccioli, 1975?), p. 18 and Seminaria Ecclesiae Catholicae (Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1962) both support this date. 37 Niccola Zucchelli, Appunti e Documenti per la storia del Seminario Arcivescovile di Pisa Pisana Num. 1 (Pisa: Tipografia B. Giordano, 1906), p. 16. 38 Marcocci, Medaglioni, p. 18. 39 Quote from Marcocci, Medaglioni, p. 18, which gives the exact date of 27 February 1565. See also Giuseppe Liberali, Le origini del seminario diocesano. Documentari della Riforma Cattolica pre e Post-Tridentina a Treviso (1527–1577) 5 (Treviso: Biblioteca del Seminario Vescovile di Treviso, 1971) and Pio Paschini, Cinquecento Romano e

126

chapter seven

seminary are obscure. It seems to have closed at least twice in the late sixteenth century, but evidence points to its existence in 1590, when it is described in a visitation: the magister of the seminary taught catechism in the Cathedral, and presided over 4 “clerici” who shared living quarters with him.40 Again, one can find indications of the operation of the seminary during the episcopate of Sallustio d’Antonio Tarugi (1600–1607).41 According to Carlo Fantappiè, the reopening dates from 1601, and this incarnation of the seminary served 9 alunni, or day-students. 42 Thus, in its early years it was similar to the semiconvitto found in Lucca. The institution apparently experienced some difficulties during the episcopate of the Florentine Alessandro della Stufa (1622–1640), who was troubled by the declining finances which forced the seminary to continue to operate as a semi-convitto.43 Marcocci suggests another closing and reopening at some point after that, noting in his section on Talento Talenti (1640–1651) that “Il Seminario che era chiuso da circa quarant’anni è stato riaperto.”44 As Talenti had served as Rettore generale of the Studio Pisano in the beginning of the seventeenth century, this is perplexing; either he did not retain a commitment to education or the problems of the seminary of Montepulciano were overwhelming.45 Since the church formerly associated with the Silvestrini Riforma Cattolica. Scritti raccolti in occasione dell’ottantesimo compleanno dell’autore (Rome: Facultas Theologica Pontificii Athenaei Lateranensis), 1958. Ersilio Fumi, Guida di Montepulciano e dei Bagni di Chianciano (Montepulciano: Atesi Editore, 1894), pp. 35–36, claims instead that the seminary moved in 1564 to the house vacated by the Society of Jesus in 1563. The Jesuits arrived in Montepulciano in 1557, on the request of the Priori of the city and several cardinal, but did not succeed in founding a house there because they could never reach the minimum number of students to satisfy the Society’s central administration. They remained for several decades, however, always trying to attain the goal of eight residents. For more on the Jesuits in Montepulciano, see Maria Russo, “La chiesa e il Collegio della Compagnia di Gesù. Fondazione e sviluppo,” and “Cronologia storica di Montepulciano,” in Montepulciano: Il centro storico e il collegio dei Gesuiti, ed. M. Marchetta (Perugia: Electa Editori Umbri, 1992), pp. 53–63 and 99–102. 40 Archivio Diocesano di Montepulciano (henceforth ADM) Visitatio Civitatis, ac Diocesis totius Montispolitiani facta per Ill.rem ac R.mo DD Angelum Perutius Episcopus Sasineti et Comitem, ac Vis.rem ap.licum generalem, 25 October 1590, fol. 32r. 41 Marcocci, Medaglioni, p. 24. 42 Carlo Fantappiè, “Istituzioni ecclesiastiche e istruzione secondaria nell’Italia moderna: i seminari-collegi vescovili,” Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento 15 (1989): 189–240, at p. 210. 43 Marcocci, Medaglioni, p. 35. 44 Marcocci, Medaglioni, p. 41. 45 ASF Manoscritti 290: “Il Sacrario Fiorentino ove sono registrati i Santi, Pontefici, Cardinali, e Prelati usciti da Famiglie Fiorentine,” 1678, fol. 171r notes Talenti’s position in the Studio Pisano, but without dates.

three other tuscan dioceses and seminaries

127

(a Benedictine order), suppressed in 1650, was given to the diocesan seminary, it is possible to conclude that Talenti therefore opened the seminary in that year or the following, the last of his episcopacy.46 According to Fantappiè, on the other hand, the reopening after “circa quarant’anni” took place in 1665, and therefore under one of Talenti’s successors, Antonio Cervini (1663–1706). Since the move to the Silvestrini convent took is credited to Cervini, this is the likelier scenario. This was apparently a still smaller institution, with between four and six alunni. 47 Towards the end of the seventeenth century, the institution faced further upheaval. Cervini displayed “una certa peroccupazione di curare l’onorabilità del suo clero e di far sì che sia sempre all’altezza della sua divina missione,” as his new housing arrangements, within the city limits, attests. In addition, the students attended school at the struggling Jesuit college in Cervini’s time.48 Unfortunately, this did not stabilize the situation entirely, because during the episcopate of Pio Magnoni (1747–1755), “la riapertura del seminario dopo ‘qualche tempo di forzata chiusura’ avvenuta nel novembre 1754.”49 Because of the late date of foundation of the diocese, the first available visitations date from the 1580s and 1590s, and demonstrate some teaching of catechism, but not enough to satisfy the visitators.50 Six out of 10 churches selected at random did not teach catechism, not even the parish church of Santa Mostiola, where the rector had a licentio in theology.51 In the second decade of the seventeenth century, a random sampling of 22 churches suggests a decline: from 40% teaching catechism in the end of the sixteenth century to as low as 23% by 1619.52 Unfortunately, the visitations are not consistent on the issue of service books. Not one of the visitations give 46 The monastery of the suppressed order became the home of the Cappuccini. Andrea Parigi, Notizie del Cardinale Roberto Nobili degli altri illustri Poliziani e della città di Montepulciano (Montepulciano: Tipografia di Angiolo Fumi, 1836; anastatic reprint, Bologna: Arnaldo Forni, 1974), p. 176. 47 Carlo Fantappiè, “Istituzioni ecclesiastiche e istruzione secondaria nell’Italia moderna: i seminari-collegi vescovili,” Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento XV (1989): 189–240, at p. 210. 48 Marcocci, Medaglioni, pp. 51–52. 49 Marcocci, Medaglioni, p. 64. 50 ADM Visitatio Civitatis, fol. 14v. 51 ADM Visitatio Civitatis, fols. 36v, 41r –43v, and 45v. In all total counts, I am including the Cathedral if I found a visitation for it, but no monastic churches. 52 ADM Visitatio Civitatis, fols. 14v, 36v, 41r–43v, 45v, 46r, 54v, and ADM Visitatio 1613[17]–1619, fols. 36r –36v, 38r–40v, 43r, 44r, 46v, 48r, 53v, 58v. See Comerford, “Chierici e seminari,” p. 371.

chapter seven

128

any indication of the ownership of either a Breviarium or the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. None of those from the sixteenth century even mention the Rituale, so its presence or absence is unknown; the same is true of the Missale in the seventeenth century. In the late sixteenth century, 4 out of the 10 churches did not own a reformed Missale. In these three cases used as context, dioceses demonstrated a variety of financial and administrative responses to the need for a seminary. In some areas, institutions were obstructionist; in others, no protests were recorded as large numbers of benefices were suppressed. In no region, however, can one conclude that seminaries were a welcome expense or a major influence on parish life. On the other hand, in each diocese, the institutions were discussed at the synods which were celebrated. Therefore, it is of some interest to note the time between first post-Tridentine synods and seminary foundations: Table 7.3: Relationship between Synods and Seminary Foundations Diocese or Archdiocese

First PostDate of Gap between Synod and Tridentine Synod Seminary Seminary Foundation Foundation

Arezzo Florence Lucca

1565 1569 1564

Montepulciano 1566 Pienza

1583

Siena

1564

Volterra

between 1568 and 1575

1641 1712 1572–1574 or 1637 1564

76 years 143 years 8–10 years for first foundation, 73 for second (seminary preceded synod by two years) 1657 74 years for first foundation, 205 for second 1567, 1614, 3 years for Seminario dei and 1666 Sacri Chiodi, 50 for Seminario di San Desiderio, and 102 for Seminario Ecclesiastico di San Giorgio 1590 15–22 years

The synods were often delayed, were held infrequently, and the boilerplate language used in them bespeaks only lukewarm bureaucratic support. Committees were appointed, the decree of Trent was sum-

three other tuscan dioceses and seminaries

129

marized, promises were made—and in the next synod, all or most of this would be repeated. Were any of the three seminaries discussed for contextual purposes “successful”? On the level of dramatic and visible changes in catechetical instruction to the parishes or conformity to the new Tridentine regulations concerning service books, no. On the level of educating a significant number of candidates to the priesthood, no. Yet it is clear that a number of bishops were committed to the process of foundation, even if not to the actual work of seminary education. This leads, therefore, to a question: can one argue in favor of the success of a sixteenth- or seventeenth-century Tuscan seminary?

CHAPTER EIGHT

CONCLUSION

In this survey of diocesan seminaries in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany and the Republic of Lucca, different social, economic, and religious contexts contributed to similar conclusions. Poor or small dioceses had no more chance of success in implementing the seminary reform of the Council of Trent than rich or large archdioceses. Because at all times the population of seminary-educated priests was vastly outnumbered by non-seminary-educated ones, these dioceses also had difficulty in implementing other reforms of the Council, namely those concerning the education of the parishioners and the uses of proper service books. In certain striking cases of neglect, for example the pastor of San Biagio in Arezzo who, although a doctor of theology, did not teach catechism, it can be hard to see realistic results. One is tempted to argue that the best intentions can be thwarted by lazy or argumentative people in any given profession in any given age. On the other hand, enough evidence exists to make some generalizations. First, the seminaries had some effect—often little, it is true, but some nonetheless. Presumably, the 10% of priests in the Diocese of Arezzo, 16% in Lucca, and 26% in Siena who spent any time in the seminaries were affected at least in a small way by the education. These priests, if no others, owned books, were instructed in casuistry, and had practiced saying the mass before their ordination. Although progress in education is only visible among those students who attended the seminary in Lucca, the educational focus of the foundation decrees in Arezzo and Siena, and the requirement to be able to read at date of entrance to the institution in Arezzo, lead to the conclusion that whatever time was spent in these schools was not entirely wasted. Unfortunately, these foundations were often weak and had periods of closure, during which time under-educated young men continued to be ordained to the priesthood. As a result, not only did certain problems of the pre-Tridentine secular priesthood (including illiteracy and failure to teach catechism) continue, but those who were trained better were so few and so widely dispersed that they were unable to change the environment. Despite the best intentions

132

chapter eight

of the high-level administrators, the petty bureaucrats were not reformed. One fairly frequent obstacle was the unpopularity of bishops in every one of the dioceses studied; their support for seminaries, and for educated priests, thus often worked against the institutions. Second, the difference in some regions between priests in the seminary and those not in it from the larger comuni—62% of all Aretine clergy and 64% of seminarians came from cities in the Diocese of Arezzo, and 42% of all Sienese clergy and 42% of seminarians— suggests that the dominance of certain cities in culture, economy, and politics was reflected by a dominance of the larger comuni in religious matters as well. Outside the Grand Duchy, in the Republic of Lucca, the same held true: 68% of all Lucchese clergy and 76% of seminarians were from urban areas. What remains puzzling in this picture is the absence of Florentine priests. Only 3% of Aretine seminarians hailed from the Grand Ducal capital. This latter point leads to a third issue: the secular clergy did not completely respect diocesan borders in the manner in which they were supposed to do according to the Tridentine regulations on ordination outside of one’s diocese, but they were in fairly close conformity.1 This may be a consequence of Grand Ducal policies. Although the Medici did not emphasize any one seminary over another, the government of Florence did restrict travel and employment within its lands, and thus may have inadvertently or purposefully supported church policy. In Arezzo, 10% of all clergy, 15% of seminarians and 9% of non-seminarians came from other dioceses; in Siena, 3% of all, 6% of seminarians, and 2% of non-seminarians were foreigners. Again, Lucca’s situation is parallel: 7% of all, 5% of seminarians, and 7% of non-seminarians came from outside the archdiocese. Fourth, the seminary education received by the small group under consideration was clearly a function of regionalism, not of any centralized program of education either from Rome or Florence. Each foundation was based on similar guiding principles—those found in the Council of Trent—but the surviving documentation demonstrates a variety of interpretations of these principles. The original decree stated that only those aged 12 and older, of legitimate birth, who

1 Session 23, Decree Concerning Reform, Ch. 8: “How and by Whom Each One Ought to be Ordained,” H.J. Schroeder, ed., Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (St. Louis, Missouri: Herder, 1941), p. 169.

conclusion

133

were literate and show a desire to become priests could be accepted as students. While in the seminary, they are to wear “clerical garb” and “study grammar, singing, ecclesiastical computation, and other useful arts . . . Sacred Scripture, ecclesiastical books, the homilies of the saints, the manner of administering the sacraments, especially those things that seem adapted to the hearing of confessions, and the rites and ceremonies. The bishop shall see to it that they are present every day at the sacrifice of the mass, confess their sins at least once a month, receive the body of our Lord Jesus Christ in accordance with the directions of their confessor, and on festival days serve in the cathedral and other churches of the locality.”2 All dioceses held to the minimum age in theory, as each made statements in various foundation documents, but in Lucca, the only seminary with information on the age of each entrant, 5% of those accepted were below 12 years old. From other sources, I have constructed age information for a total of 7 Aretine seminarians (approximately one-half of one per cent); their ages ranged from 11 to 22 years, with an average of 14. Only one was below age 12, and he was 11 years old.3 I have no information for Siena. On other fronts, however, the dioceses diverged, most notably in the subjects taught. In Arezzo, chant, writing, arithmetic, ethics, rituals, sacraments, sacred rhetoric, and scripture were taught. In Siena, the subjects were grammar, humanities, logic, philosophy, rhetoric, and theology, using books approved by the seminary, and distinguishing (as did the Jesuit Constitutions sections on education) between those who were more academically talented than others; upper-division students progressed in theology and learned casuistry. According to the synod of 1665, all those who were to receive the holy orders must be questioned in cantu gregorianu; however, the Regole do not list singing as a subject required at the seminary. Volterra’s students were to learn catechism, grammar, rituals, and singing. Lucca’s foundation did not detail a curriculum, but the regular testing shows a highly developed educational institution concerned with a variety of subjects ranging from grammar to the Sentences and including casuistry,

2 Session 23, Decree Concerning Reform, Ch. 18: “Directions for Establishing Seminaries for Clerics, Especially the Younger Ones; in Their Erection Many Things Are to Be Observed; the Education of Those to Be Promoted to Cathedral and Major Churches,” Schroeder, ed., Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, p. 169. 3 See ASF Auditore dei Beni Ecclesiastici, numbers 4541, 4542, 5905 and 5913.

134

chapter eight

Greek, history, several kinds of music, and secular and sacred rhetoric. Three out of four, then, emphasized the teaching of rhetoric; all included some basic emphasis on church ritual. Volterra’s “curriculum” was by far the weakest. Only the Aretine foundation documents, however, clearly emphasized both the disciplinary and moral formation which the seminary was to provide in addition to the intellectual. Only the Sienese Regole state that students should be examined for dedication to their vocation. Fifth, the lack of alternatives for religious education in Tuscany— no theology faculties to speak of, and few colleges of religious orders— should have done what it did not. It should have made these seminaries full of students, but they were relatively empty. Given the failures of the Jesuits in Arezzo, Montepulciano, Lucca, and Siena, therefore, it is tempting to speculate that there was rather little demand, as well as rather little incentive, for seminary education. Scholarship posts even went unfilled in Siena. So what can historians conclude? After the Council of Trent, diocesan and provincial synods made frequent reference to models of clerical behavior, both for bishops and parish priests. Although no true definition of the paragon of pastoral behavior was written at or based on the proceedings from Trent, a clear new emphasis emerged. Desired attributes of post-Tridentine parishes included manageable size, greater central control of finances, disciplined and dedicated priests, enthusiastic participation in religious associations, and educated clergy and parishioners. The key to the last four attributes on this list was supposed to be the seminary for parish priests—an institution opened in each diocese, with the task of teaching the clergy the basic aspects of their jobs: sacrament administration, preaching, and catechesis. While the seminary decree of the Council of Trent made no mention of requiring attendance, the church hierarchy did make it clear that this reform was of great import in protecting Catholicism in certain areas and, indeed, of spreading it in others. Ideally, the seminary “graduate” would be a more professional priest—a kind of model pastor who could, in turn, create a model parish in which an episcopal visitator could easily find a basic library, a lively cult, an educated congregation, and up-to-date materials for the everyday workings of the church. The Council of Trent, and the diocesan synods which ratified and repeated portions of it, clearly stated that parish priests needed increased discipline and greater focus on their duties so as to inspire the congregation to greater knowledge

conclusion

135

and improved behavior.4 At the same time, it presupposed that the bishop would increase these duties, or at the very least enforce the older ones more regularly. Therein lay one of the main problems with the reform: each of the dioceses considered as major case studies in this volume experienced significant problems with overbearing or unpopular bishops, who were therefore unable to garner enough support for their policies to achieve any major changes. A second major problem was that all of the seven dioceses faced financial difficulties. As a consequence, local religious and secular leaders often rebuffed attempts at reform because they could not afford the initiatives. Since so much quite literally depended on the seminaries—bettereducated priests were more equipped to educate their parishioners, and young men trained by teachers hired by the diocese were more aware of their duties and of the theology they were required to uphold and defend—the lack of participation among dioceses resulted in a continued need to reform rather than in a new generation of model parishioners. Among the dioceses in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany and its neighbor, the Republic of Lucca, the seminary reform had very little effect. Each of the seven dioceses considered in this volume had a seminary which was unstable before the second quarter of the seventeenth century; several were unstable for longer, and some faced periods of closure. Each showed little change in the daily life of parishes and parishioners by the third quarter of the seventeenth century. In dioceses which did open seminaries, given the lack of incentives, rewards and punishment, attendance was low. In addition, education in such seminaries as did exist was not always systematic. Among the factors affecting the opening and maintenance of seminaries were finances, educational context (secular and religious), and episcopal commitment. Although each case study includes consideration of these factors, some common concerns are notable. Many dioceses were unable to support seminaries by themselves. Even the wealthy regions

4 Cf. Session 22, Decree Concerning Reform, Ch. 1: “Decrees Concerning the Life and Conduct of Clerics Are Renewed,” which states “There is nothing that leads others to piety and to the service of God more than the life and example of those who have dedicated themselves to the divine ministry. For since they are observed to be raised from the things of this world to a higher position, others fix their eyes upon them as upon a mirror and derive from them what they are to imitate.” Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent p. 152.

136

chapter eight

faced difficulties of funding due to, as in the case of Florence, an uneven distribution of wealth within the diocese; the majority of religious bequests there and in other rich dioceses traditionally were sent to monasteries or abbeys, not to bishops, and not to new or promised seminaries. As a result, the riches were not available for building campaigns, and many bishops literally could not afford to open seminaries. At first blush, this seems not to have been a terribly serious issue, because the Council of Trent had not required attendance at such institutions in order to be promoted in religious orders; yet it certainly did not help to carry out the plans of those who wrote the decree on reform from the Twenty-Third Session. In addition, some bishops made deliberate choices. A clear example in another region of the Italian peninsula is that of Luigi Pappacoda of Lecce (r. 1639–1670), who spent lavishly on the construction of an episcopal palace and on the cathedral, but not on a seminary, in an effort to demonstrate support for the monopoly over education enjoyed by the religious orders in his diocese.5 The seminary reform had promised a great deal, and the creation of these new institutions certainly demonstrated a commitment to a major change, focusing on both the theology of Catholicism and the action of the local leadership in maintaining belief and practice. However, fundamental flaws in the plan included the failure to grant incentives or rewards for attendance (particularly in the case of promises of better jobs—nothing indicates a “seminary differential” in career paths), the difficulties of expecting bishops and lower clergy to work harder on projects imposed from outside, and the lack of rewards for or of accountability for not embracing the reform. In some cases and in particular areas, the seminaries produced improvements: longer time for ordination and greater literacy, for example,

5

Mario Spedicato, “Protagonismo episcopale e disciplinamento post-Tridentino: il progetto riformatore del vescovo Pappacoda a Lecce: successi e limiti,” in Luisa Cosi and Mario Spedicato, Vescovi e città nell’epoca barocca: atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Lecce, 26–28 settembre 1991) (Galatina: Congedo Editore, 1995), 235–245, at pp. 244–245. In the same volume, Oronzo Mazzotta details the level of education of the clergy in Pappacoda’s time, and notes the predominance of the Jesuits among the religious orders in the education of priests, particularly as concerned the instruction of philosophy and theology, but points out that the majority (two-thirds) of those having any level of ordination studied grammar with secular priests—just not in seminaries. “Il clero secolare al tempo di Mons. Pappacoda (1639–1670),” in Cosi and Spedicato, Vescovi e città nell’epoca barocca, 247–269, at p. 255.

conclusion

137

among the priests who had attended. Clearly, though, this was a very limited reform since the population of seminary students was a decided minority of the total number of secular clergy. The process of reforming priests and pastors in Tuscany was, at least in the first century after the Council of Trent, less than successful.

WORKS CONSULTED

Manuscript Primary Sources Archivio del Seminario Vescovile di Arezzo (ASVA) II.C.10: Copie di documenti che riguardano la fondazione de seminario in Arezzo fino da tempo di Monsignore Tommaso Salviati. Archivio della Curia Vescovile di Arezzo (ACVA) Ordinazioni 1601–1616 Ordinazioni 1616–1641 Ordinazioni novembre 1641–agosto 1656, con alla fine alcune nomine a benefizi 9: Visite Pastorali Usimbardi, 1606. 15: Visite 1634 –1668. Synodus Diocesana Aretina. . . . Celebrata diebus 16 et 17 Aprilis 1709. Arezzo: Octavii Loreti, 1709. Archivio del Seminario Maggiore di Firenze (ASMF) 146/bis: Bilanci di Amministrazione del Venerabile Seminario Fiorentino 1801–1862, Busta 1, No. 1. Istituzioni, regoli, e decreti Ar. 124: Costituzioni, Ordini, regolamenti per il buon regime del Seminario ed alunni (sec. XVIII–XIX). Archivio di Stato di Firenze (ASF) Capitani di Parte Guelfa tomo 21, nn. 1, 8, 20, and 21. Carte Strozziane Terza Serie 75: Vite degl’huomini illustri della famiglia degli Strozzi. Parte Prima. Consiglio di Reggenza N. 264: Codex Sacerdotii et Imperii de Episcopis P.I. Stati dell’Anime del Granducato di Toscana dell’Anno 1761. Manoscritti 290: Il Sacrario Fiorentino ove sono registrati i Santi, Pontefici, Cardinali, e Prelati usciti da Famiglie Fiorentine. 1678. Nove Conservatori Luoghi Pii 22: Rapporti de Luoghi Pii laicale dello Stato per l’esenzione della Decima per lo Studio Pisano in esecuzione della circolare del Magistrato de’ Nove dell’anno 1606. Compagnie Religiose Soppresse da Pietro Leopoldo 971. Auditore dei Benefici Ecclesiastici poi Segreteria del Regio Diritto 4541: Registro di possessi di benefizi ordinato per diocesi: Arezzo, Cortona, Colle di Val d’Elsa, Montepulciano, Pisa, San Miniato, Lucca. Auditore dei Benefici Ecclesiastici poi Segreteria del Regio Diritto 4542: Estratti Benef. 1673–76. Auditore dei Benefici Ecclesiastici poi Segreteria del Regio Diritto 5905: Registro di passagi di benefizi ecclesiastici che rimandino alle licenze di possessi sec. XVII. Auditore dei Benefici Ecclesiastici poi Segreteria del Regio Diritto 5913: Registro di passagi di benefizi (trae riscontro nei libri delle licenze e nei campioni dei benef. della Diocesi di Fiesole e delle altre diocesi Toscane) sec. XVII.

140

works consulted

Archivio Storico della Curia Arcivescovile di Firenze (ASCAF) VP 15: Visite Pastorale Card. A. Medici [1575]. VP 16: Medici Alessandro—Visite 1589. VP 22.1: Marzi Medici Alessandro 1626–1629: Visita Diocesana. VP 26: Visite Pastorale Niccolini 1635–40. VP 28.1: Visite Pastorali 1655 (Ap.–Mai.). Nerli Francesco: Visita della campagna. VP 38.1: [Visite pastorali of 1659 and 1666]. VPD.11.17: Visite Pastorali di Monsignore Pietro Niccolini alla Pieve di S. Piero in Bossolo. Archivio Diocesano di Montepulciano (ADM) Visitatio 1613[17]–1619. Visitatio Civitatis, ac Diocesis totius Montispolitiani facta per Ill.rem ac R.mo D.D. Angelum Perutius Episcopus Sasineti et Comitem, ac Vis.rem ap.licum generalem, 25 October 1590. Visitatio Civitatis. 1669. Archivio Arcivescovile della Curia di Lucca (AACL) Libro 48/II: Visite Pastorale 1603–1685. Visite Pastorale 48.I: Liber Secundae Visitationis Lucanae Dioecesis de anno 1675. Visite Pastorale Libro 12: Abbozzi, e originali di sagre visite dall’anno 1484 al 1739, specialmente dell’Anno 1638. Archivio Storico del Seminario Arcivescovile di Lucca (ASSAL) Stato dei Chierici del Seminario di San Martino di Lucca dal 24 maggio 1644 al 1° aprile 1667. Stato dei chierici del seminario di San Maria di Lucca 1637. Archivio di Stato di Lucca (ASL) Offizio sopra la giurisdizione 34 [1649]. Offizio sopra la giurisdizione 72: Trattati per l’esclusione dei Gesuiti da Lucca. Ordinazioni 17 Archivio Diocesano di Pienza (ADPz) 121: Seminarium Episcopale Pientinum. Archivio della Curia Arcivescovile di Siena (ACAS) 3: Sinodus Diocesanae plurimum annorum dal 1564 ab 1679. 41: Acta et decreta secondae ac tertiae visitationis diocesis de anno 1640 e 1645. 42: Atti della visita pastorale alle parrocchie di campagna dell’Arcivescovo Ascanio Piccolomini, 1649. 43: Visitationis Diocesanae, et civitatis de anno 1653–1660. 3050: Acta Ecclesiastica: Ordinazioni dal 1638 al 1658. 3051: Acta Ecclesiastica: Ordinazioni dal 1658 al 1682. Archivio Storico del Pontificio Seminario Regionale Pio XII di Siena (ASSS) Archivio Congregazione Padri Sacri Chiodi 2: Capitoli, della Venerabile Congregatione de Reverendi Padri di S. Giorgio di Siena. Siena: n.d.

works consulted

141

Memorie I Prime registrazioni Seminario di San Giorgio 1: Questo libretto si segnarano “I” atti contori che veranno ne seminario di San Giorgio. Seminario di San Desiderio 1: Elenco alunni 1633–1661. Archivio Statale Comunale di Volterra (ASCV) 25B: Documenti istorici politici spettanti alla Toscana dal 1621 al 1670. N nero 32: Spese ed eleemosine per la costruzione del convento dei Cappuccini del 1573. Archivio del Seminario di Volterra (ASV) Conventino di Casole. Filza V, Castel Nuovo. Archivio Vescovile di Volterra (AVV) 2: Visita Pastorale di Monsignore Albizi 1656 e 1675. 9: Visite di Monsignore Benedetto Nerli degli anni 1564, e 1565. Visite Pastorale di Monsignore Casteli, 1576. Visite Pastorale di Monsignore Alamannis dal 1598 al 1616. Visite Pastorale di Monsignore Inghirami del 1618. Monsignore Sacchetti Visita Pastorali Anni 1636, 1645 e 1648. Visita Pastorale di Monsignore Gerini anni 1650 e 1652. Visita Pastorale di Monsignore del Rosso dal 1682 al 1701. Città e Pendici Casole e Radicondoli. Biblioteca della Città di Arezzo (BCA) MS 11: Jacopo Burali, with Alessandro Dragoni, Vite de’ Vescovi Aretini descritte da Jacopo Burali d’Arezzo, Accademico Discorde, dall’anno 336 all’anno 1638. Le quale furono stampate in Arezzo appresso Ercole Gori con licenza de’ superiori l’anno stesso 1638. Copiate da un sacerdote Aretino con varie aggiunte fatte alle medesime e continuazione delle stesse dall’anno 1638 all’anno 1755. MS 27: Scritture varie, secc. XVI–XVIII. MS 96: Visitatio civitatis et locorum terrarum insignium diocesis Aretii 1582, 1583, Vol. 1/2. MS 187: Relazione de la morte di Monsignore Tommaso Salviati . . . 17 ottobre 1672. Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze (BNCF) Magl.2.6.258: Decreta, et acta Synodi Diocesanae Florentinae Habitae in Metropolitana Ecclesia XVII. Mensis Maii anni 1645. Florence: Typographia archiepiscopali, 1645. Misc 516.1–8: Decreta synodi diocesanae Florentinai. Habita in Metropolitana Ecclesia die X. Mensis Maii 1627. Florence: Bartolomaeum Sermartellianum, 1629. Biblioteca Diocesano di Siena (BDS) GI 9.e.40: Regole del Seminario di Siena. Distinte in due parte. La prima contiene l’Istituzione de’ Ministri, l’altra i documenti de’ chierici. Riformate ed accresciute dall’Illustrissimo, e Reverendissimo Monsignore Ascanio Piccolomini d’Aragona, Arcivescovo della medesima città, con l’aggiunta dell’ottiama educazione de’ figliuoli. Siena: Bonetti, nella Stamperia del Pubblico, 1647.

142

works consulted

Biblioteca Guarnacci, Volterra, at the Biblioteca Communale di Volterra (BGV) MS 52.6.1: Memorie Istoriche dei Vescovi di Volterra, 18th-century MS attributed to “Ormanni.” MS 67.7.8, filza 20: Seminario. Printed Primary Sources Adami, Angelo. Osservazioni Sopra la Storia del Seminario della Catthedrale di Lucca (MS, after 1825). Ammirato, Scipione. Vescovi di Fiesole, di Volterra, et d’Arezzo, con l’aggiunte di Scipione Ammirato il Giovane. Florence: Amadore Massi and Lorenzo Landi, 1637. Cherubini, Laerzio, Angelo Maria Cherubini, et al. Magnum Bullarium Romanum, a Beato Leone Magno usque ad S. D. N. Benedictum XIII. Vol. 2/8: Pius IV-Innocentius IX. Luxembourg: Andreae Chevalier, 1777. de Ribadeneira, Petri et al., Confessiones, epistolae aliaque scripta inedita, ex autographis, antiquissimis apographis et regestis deprompta. Madrid: “La editorial ibérica,” 1920–1923, 2 vols. Decreta provincialis synodi Florentinae, Praesidente in ea Reverendissimo D. Antonio Altovita Archiepiscopo. Florence: Bartholomaeum Sermartellium, 1573. Decreta synodi diocesanae florentinae. Habita in Metropolitana Ecclesia die XVII. mensis Maii. MDCXXIII. Florence: Bartholomaeum Sermartellium, 1623. Decreta synodi dioecesanae florentiniae. Habita in Metropolitana Ecclesia die XVI. mensis Iunii 1637 Florence: Bartholomaeum Sermartellium, 1637. Diocesana synodus florentinae celebrata tertio nones Maias MDLXIX. Florence: Bartholomeaum Sermartellium, 1569. Guerra, Aloysius, ed. Pontificarum Constitutionum in Bullariis magno, et Romano contentarum, et aliunde desumptarum epitome, et secundum materias dispositio cum indigibus locupletissimis. Vol. 1/4. Venice: Nicolai Pezzana, 1772. Incarnato, Fabio. Scrutinium Sacerdotale, sive modus examinandi, tam in vistatione Episcopali, quam in susceptione Ordinum. Barcelona: Sebastiani à Cormellas, 1620. Lainez, Diego, et al. Lainii Monumenta: epistolae et acta patris Jacobi Lainii, secundi praepositi generalis Societatis Jesu. Madrid: G. Lopez del Horno, 1912–1917, 6 vols. Mansi, Joannes Dominicus, et al., Sacrorum Conciliorum novaet amplissima collection. Vol. 35/53: 1414–1724. Paris: Huberti Welter, 1902. ——. Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio. Vol. 36bis/53: Synodi occidentales, 1569 –1609. Paris: Huberti Welter, 1913. Pontificale Romanum Clementis VIII Pont. Max. iussu restitutum atque editum. Antwerp: Plantiniana, 1627. Pontificale Romanum Clementis PP. VIII. iussu restitutum Urbani VIII Auctoritate recognitum. Novis locupletam figuris, mendisque expurgatum. Sanctiss. Pontificis Alexandri VII. faustis auspiciis in lucem iterum prodit. Rome: Philippi de Rubeis, 1663. Regole del Seminario di Siena distinte in due parti: La prima contiene l’Istituzione de’ Ministri, l’altra i documenti de’ cherici. Riformate ed accresciute dall’Illustrissimo, e Reverendissimo Monsignore Ascanio Piccolomini d’Aragona, arcivescovo della medesima città, con l’aggiunta dell’ottime educazione de’ figliuoli. Siena: Bonetti, 1647. Regole per le classi de’ sacerdoti, e per ogn’altro chierico della città, e diocesi di Lucca. Con alcuni avvertimenti al popolo. Del molto illustre, et reverendissimo Monsignore Alessandro Guidiccioni vescovo di Lucca. Lucca: V. Busdraghi, 1580. Rituale Romanum Pauli V. Pont. Max. iussu editum cum coniurationibus, et benedictionibus variis. Nunc addita formula absolvendi, et benedicendi populos, et agros. Rome: Philippi de Rubeis, 1652.

works consulted

143

Ughelli, Ferdinando and Niccolò Coleti. Italia Sacra sive de Episcopis Italiae et insularum adiacentium, rebusque ab iis præclare gestis, deducta serie ad nostram usque aetatem. 10 Vols., 2d edition. Venice: Sebastanium Coleti, 1717, and anastatic reprint Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, 1970. Secondary Works Adorni-Braccesi, Simonetta. “Una città infetta”: La Repubblica di Lucca nella crisi religiosa del cinquecento. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1994. Altieri, Alfredo. San Pancrazio e Lucignano: storia di due paesi: indagine sui cognomi della comunità, 1541–1841. Florence: G. Pagnini, 1998. Aranci, Gilberto. Formazione religiosa e santità laicale a Firenze tra cinque e seicento. Florence: Pubblicazioni dell’Archivio Arcivescovile di Firenze, 1997. Arnaldi, Girolamo, et al. Comuni e signorie nell’Italia nordorientale e centrale: Lazio, Umbria, Marche, Lucca. Vol. 1 book 2 of Giuseppe Galasso, editor-in-chief. Storia d’Itala. Turin: UTET, 1987. Atlante stradale della Toscana. Livorno: Editoriale Il Tirreno, 1991. Balboni, Dante. “I libri parrochiali dopo il Concilio di Trento.” Archiva Ecclesiae 18–21 (1975–1978): 234–238. Batistini, Giovanni. Volterra nel seicento. Volterra: Edizioni Libreria Gian Piero Migliorini, 1995. Battistini, Mario. Le epidemie in Volterra dal 1004 al 1800. Volterra: A. Carnieri, 1916. Beloch, Karl Julius. Storia della popolazione d’Italia. Florence: Casa Editrice Le Lettere, 1994. Benadusi, Giovanna. “Il Casentino e la sua gente tra Cinque e Seicento,” in Liletta Fornasari, Il Seicento in Casentino: dalla Controriforma al Tardo Barocco. Florence: Edizione Polistampa, 2001: pp. 31–43. Benigni, Paola and Cesare Vivoli. “Progetti politici e organizzazione di archivi: la documentazione dei Novi.” Rassegna degli Archivio di Stato 43/1 (1983): 32–82. Berengo, Martino. Nobili e mercanti nella Lucca del cinquecento. Turin: Einaudi, 1965. Bertini, Fabio. Feudalità e servizio del principe nella Toscana del ’500: Federigo Barbolani da Montauto Governatore di Siena. Siena: Edizioni Cantagalli, 1996. Biagioli, Beatrice, ed., ASF Inventario 52/bis: Nove Conservatori: Deputazione sui Monti Pii: Inventario. Florence: Archivio di Stato, 2000. Biagioli, Beatrice, et al., Nove Conservatori: Luoghi Pii: Inventario. Florence: Archivio di Stato, 1998. Bianconi, Maurizio. Storia di Arezzo. Arezzo: Centro Studi Toscani, 1975. Bideleux, Alison. Aspects of Popular Catholicism in Sixteenth Century Lucca. University of Sussex Doctoral Thesis, 1987. Bizzocchi, Roberto. “Politica fiscale e immunità ecclesiastica nella Toscana medicea fra Repubblica e Granducato (secoli XV–XVIII).” In Hermann Kellenbenz and Paolo Prodi, eds. Fisco religione stato nell’età confessionale. Bologna: il Mulino, 1989: pp. 355–386. Bocci, Mario. “Cenni storici e sociologici della diocesi.” Annuario della Diocesi di Volterra (1980): 14–17. ——. “Volterrani Vescovi in patria e fuori.” Volterra 7/10 (1968): 5. ——. Il Seminario di Volterra. Volterra: Unione Tipografica Artigiana, 1952. Bortolotti, Lando. Siena. Rome and Bari: Laterza, 1988. Bratchel, Michael E. “Lucca, 1430–94: The Politics of the Restored Republic.” In Maureen F. Mazzaoui and Thomas W. Blomquist, eds. The “Other Tuscany”: Essays in the History of Lucca, Pisa, and Siena during the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Centuries. Kalamazoo, Mich.: Medieval Institute Publications, 1994: pp. 19–39.

144

works consulted

Bratchel, Michael E. Lucca 1430–1494. The Reconstruction of an Italian City-Republic. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Busolini, Dario. “Marco Antonio Franciotti.” DBI vol. 50 (Francesco I Sforza-Gabbi): pp. 162–163. Caciagli, Giuseppe, ed. Pisa. Istituto Storico delle Province d’Italia Vol. 1/2. Pisa: Colombo Cursi Editore, 1970. Cantagalli, Roberto. “La Guerra di Siena.” In Leonardo Rombai, ed. I Medici e lo stato senese, 1555–1609: storia e territorio. Rome: De Luca, 1980: pp. 9–22. Cereda, Attilio. “Le ordinazioni dei suddiaconi nel carteggio e nei registri dell’archivio storico della Diocesi di Milano.” Rassegna degli archivi di stato 56/3 (1996): 525–546. Chironi, Giuseppe ed. L’Archivio Diocesano di Pienza. Siena: Amministrazione Provinciale, 2000. Cinelli, Cristina, et al. San Miniato e la sua Diocesi: i Vescovi, le istituzioni, la gente. Tirrenia: Cassa di Risparmio di San Miniato, Edizione del Cerro, 1989. Città italiane del ’500 tra riforma e controriforma. Lucca: Maria Pacini Fazzi, 1988. Cochrane, Eric. Florence in the Forgotten Centuries 1527–1800. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973. Colle Val d’Elsa nell’Età dei Granduchi Medicei. Florence: Centro Di, 1992. Comerford, Kathleen M. “ ‘The Care of Souls is a Very Grave Burden for [the Pastor]’: Professionalization of Clergy in Early Modern Florence, Lucca, and Arezzo.” In Wim Janse and Barbara Pitkin, eds. The Formation of Clerical and Confessional Identities in Early Modern Europe: Dutch Review of Church History 85 (2006): 349–368. ——. “Chierici e seminari nei primi decenni post-tridentini in Toscana,” in Per il Cinquecento Religioso Italiano: Clero Cultura Società. Rome: Edizione dell’Ateneo, 2003: pp. 363–372. ——. Ordaining the Catholic Reformation: Priests and Seminary Pedagogy in Fiesole, 1575–1675. Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 2001. ——. “Post-Tridentine Tuscan Diocesan Seminaries: Collaboration between CityState and Church?” in Paedagogica Historia forthcoming. ——. “Teaching Priests to be Pastors: Comparing Jesuit Schools and Diocesan Seminaries in Seventeenth-Century Italy.” Archivum Historicum Societatis Iesu 72 (2003): 297–322. Conenna, Lucia Bonelli. “Cenni sulle comunità del contado senese dopo la conquista medicea.” In Leonardo Rombai, ed. I Medici e lo stato senese, 1555–1609: storia e territorio. Rome: De Luca, 1980: pp. 225–237. Corso, Laura. Relazioni fra Lorenzo Magalotti e Ascanio II Piccolomini Arcivescovo di Siena (da un carteggio inèdito). Siena: Stab. Arti Grafiche Lazzeri, 1937. Cristelli, Franco. Storia civile e religiosa di Arezzo in età medicea (1500–1737). Arezzo: Grafiche Badiali, 1982. D’Addario, Arnaldo. Aspetti della Controriforma a Firenze. Rome: Pubblicazioni del Archivio di Stato, 1972. Dainich, Silvio. “La teologia del presbiterato al Concilio di Trento.” La Scuola Cattolica 99 (1971): 331–358. de Caro, Gaspare. “Francesco Buonvisi.” DBI vol. 15 (Buffoli-Caccianemici): pp. 319–325. ——. “Girolamo Buonvisi.” DBI vol. 15 (Buffoli-Caccianemici): pp. 331–332. ——. “Metello Bichi.” DBI vol. 10 (Biagio-Boccaccio): p. 353. De Rosa, Gabriele. “Le visite pastorali del vescovo G. M. Giberti (1525–42).” Ricerche di storia sociale e religiosa n.s. 18 (1989): pp. 179–196. DESE Vol. 17, s.v. “Corsini Neri.” Pp. 285–286. DESE Vol. 5, s.v. “Bichi Metello.” P. 240. DESE Vol. 6, s.v. “Bonucci Stefano.” Pp. 28–29.

works consulted

145

DESE Vol. 6, s.v. “Buonvisi Girolamo.” P. 166. DESE Vol. 73, s.v. “Tarugi Francesco Maria.” Pp. 3–4. Deutscher, Thomas B. “The Growth of the Secular Clergy and the Development of Educational Institutions in the Diocese of Novara (1563–1772).” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 40 (1989): 381–397. Deutscher, Thomas B. “From Cicero to Tasso: Humanism and the Education of the Novarese Parish Clergy (1565–1663).” Renaissance Quarterly 55 (2002): 1005–1027. DeVries, Jan. European Urbanization 1500–1800. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1984. di Pietra, Roberto. “Amministrazione e contabilità del Seminario arcivescovile di Siena nella seconda metà del XVII secolo.” In Maurizio Sangalli, ed. Il Seminario di Siena: da arcivescovile e regionale 1614–1953/1953–2003. Soveria Mannelli (Catanzaro): Rubbettino, 2003: pp. 71–97. di Simplicio, Oscar. “La Giustizia ecclesiastica e il processo di civilizzazione.” In Franco Angiolini, Vieri Becagli and Marcello Verga, eds. La Toscana nell’età di Cosimo III. Atti del convegno Pisa-San Domenico di Fiesole (FI) 4–5 giugno 1990. Florence: EDIFIR, 1993: pp. 455–495. Diaz, Furio. Il Granducato di Toscana—I Medici. Turin: UTET Libreria, 1987. Duffy, Bella. The Tuscan Republics (Florence, Siena, Pisa and Lucca) with Genoa. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons and London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1893. Fabbri, Lorenzo. “Patronage and its Role in Government: The Florentine Patriciate and Volterra.” In William J. Connell and Andrea Zorzi, eds. Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power. Cambridge and NY: Cambridge University Press, 2000: pp. 225–241. Fantappiè, Carlo. “Istituzioni ecclesiastiche e istruzione secondaria nell’Italia moderna: i seminari-collegi vescovili.” Annali dell’Istituto storico italo-germanico in Trento 15 (1989): 189–240. Fasano Guarini, Elena. “Le Istituzioni di Siena e del suo stato nel ducato mediceo,” in Leonardo Rombai, ed. I Medici e lo Stato senese (1555–1609). Storia e territorio. Rome: De Luca, 1980: pp. 49–62. Fiumi, Enrico, ed. by Giuliano Pinto. Volterra e San Gimignano nel medioevo. San Gimignano: Cooperativa Nuovi Quaderni, 1983. Forster, Marc. The Counter Reformation in the Villages. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992. Fossa, Ugo. “Camaldoli e Camaldolesi nel Seicento,” in Liletta Fornasari, Il Seicento in Casentino: Dalla Controriforma al Tardo Barocco. Florence: Edizione Polistampa, 2001: pp. 51–55. Franci, Aldo. Pienza: Seminario Vescovile: Cenni Storici (MS completed 1998; in possession of author). Fumi, Ersilio. Guida di Montepulciano e dei Bagni di Chianciano. Montepulciano: Atesi Editore, 1894. Galluzzi, Riguccio. Istoria del Granducato di Toscana sotto il Governo della Casa Medici. Second edition. Florence: Gaetano Cambiagi, 1781. Galvani, Francesco. Sommario Storico della Famiglie Celebri Toscane, compilato dal Conte Francesco Galvani e riveduto in parte dal Cav. Luigi Passerini. 3 vols. Florence: Ulisse Diligenti, 1864–1865. Gentilcore, David. From Bishop to Witch: The System of the Sacred in Early Modern Terra d’Otranto. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1992. Greco, Gaetano. La Chiesa in Italia nell’età moderna. Rome: Laterza, 1999. Grendler, Paul F. The Universities of the Italian Renaissance. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002. Grendler, Paul F., editor-in-chief. Encyclopedia of the Renaissance. Vol. 3/6: GalenLyon. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1999. Guerri, Giovanna. Patrimonio artistico e territorio del vicariato della Val di Sieve (Diocesi di

146

works consulted

Fiesole): Inquadramento storico e situazione attuale. Il piviere di Frascole. Tesi di Laurea, Università degli Studi di Firenze, Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, 1980–1981, vol. 1/2. Guidi, Pietro. “La fondazione del Seminario Diocesano di Lucca.” Extract from L’Inaugurazione del nuovo seminario della diocesi di Lucca. Lucca: Tipografia Baroni, 1937: p. 9. Hale, J.R. Florence and the Medici: The Pattern of Control. London: Thames and Hudson, 1977. Haliczer, Stephen. Sexuality in the Confessional: A Sacrament Profaned. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Hanlon, Gregory. Early Modern Italy, 1550–1800. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2000. Herlihy, David, and Christiane Klapisch-Zuber. Tuscans and their Families: A Study of the Florentine Catasto of 1427. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985; translated from Les Toscans et leurs families. Une étude du Catasto florentin de 1427. Editions de L’Ecole des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, 1978. Hibbert, Christopher. The House of Medici: Its Rise and Fall. New York: William Morrow, 1975. Hoffman, Philip T. Church and Community in the Diocese of Lyon 1500 –1789. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. Isaacs, Ann Katherine. “States in Tuscany and Veneto, 1200–1500.” In Peter Blickle, ed. Resistance, Representation and Community. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1997: pp. 291–304. Jedin, Hubert. Crisis and Closure of the Council of Trent. London: Sheed and Ward, 1967. Lagorio, Lelio, ed. Dizionario di Volterra. Vol. I/3: Lelio Lagorio. La Storia. Il lungo cammino di Volterra dai miti dall’antichità ai giorni nostri. Pisa: Pacini Editore, 1997. Lani, Franco. Arezzo fra passato e futuro: un’identità nelle trasformazioni urbane. Naples: Edizioni scientifiche italiane, 1993. Lazzeri, Luigi. Siena e il suo territorio. [Bologna]: Forni, 1989, 1862. Liberali, Giuseppe. Le origini del seminario diocesano. Documentari della Riforma Cattolica pre e Post-Tridentina a Treviso (1527–1577) V. Treviso: Biblioteca del Seminario Vescovile di Treviso, 1971. Mancini, Augusto. Storia di Lucca. Lucca: Maria Pacini Fazzi, 1999. Mannucci, G.B. Pienza: Arte e Storia. 3d edition. Siena: Stab. S. Bernardino, 1937. Mansi, Gerardo. I patrizi di Lucca: le antiche famiglie lucchesi ed i loro stemmi. Lucca: Titania, 1996. Marcocchi, Massimo. “Il Concilio di Trento e l’istituzione del seminario (1563).” Annali di storia dell’Educazione e delle Istituzione Scolastiche 7 (2000): 13–20. Marcocci, Idro. Medaglioni: i Vescovi di Montepulciano 1561–1964. Siena: Edizione Arteditoria Periccioli, [1975?]. Martucci, Rosa. “ ‘De vita et honestate clericorum.’ La formazione del clero meridionale tra sei e settecento,” Archivio Storico Italiano 144 (1986): 423–467. Mazzei, Rita. “La questione dell’interdetto a Lucca nel sec. XVII,” Rivista Storica Italiana 85 (1973): 167–185. Mazzei, Rita. La Società Lucchese del seicento. Lucca: Maria Pacini Fazi, 1977. Mazzotta, Oronzo. “Il clero secolare al tempo di Monsignore Pappacoda (1639–1670).” In Luisa Cosi and Mario Spedicato. Vescovi e città nell’epoca barocca: atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Lecce, 26–28 settembre 1991). Galatina: Congedo Editore, 1995: pp. 247–269. Miller, Peter N. “Stoics who Sing: Lessons in Citizenship from Early Modern Lucca.” The Historical Journal 44 (2001): 313–339. Molho, Anthony. Florentine Public Finances in the Early Renaissance, 1400–1433. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971. Musgrave, Peter. “The Small Towns of Northern Italy in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: an Overview,” in Peter Clark, ed. Small Towns in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999: pp. 250–270.

works consulted

147

Muzzi, Oretta. “The Social Classes of Colle Valdelsa and the Formation of the Dominion (Fourteenth-Sixteenth Centuries),” in William J. Connell and Andrea Zorzi, eds., Florentine Tuscany: Structures and Practices of Power. Cambridge and NY: Cambridge University Press, 2000: pp. 264–292. Nardi, Franco Daniele. “Aspetti della vita dei religiosi a Siena nell’età della Controriforma, parte prima.” Bollettino senese di storia patria 93 (1986): 194–240. ——. “Matteo Guerra e la Congregazione dei Sacri Chiodi (secc. XVI–XVIII): Aspetti della religiosità senese nell’età della Controriforma.” Bullettino senese di storia patria 91 (1984): 12–148. O’Malley, John W. The First Jesuits. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. Osheim, Duane J. An Italian Lordship: The Bishopric of Lucca in the Late Middle Ages. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977. ——. “The Country Parish in Late Medieval Lucca.” In Paula Findlen, Michelle M. Fontaine, and Duane J. Osheim, eds. Beyond Florence: The Contours of Medieval and Early Modern Italy. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003: 59–71. Padberg, John W., et al., ed. For Matters of Greater Moment: The First Thirty Jesuit General Congregations. A Brief History and Translation of the Decrees. St. Louis: Institute for Jesuit Sources, 1994. Parigi, Andrea. Notizie del Cardinale Roberto Nobili degli altri illustri Poliziani e della città di Montepulciano. Montepulciano: Tipografia di Angiolo Fumi, 1836; anastatic reprint, Bologna: Arnaldo Forni, 1974. Paschini, Pio. Cinquecento Romano e Riforma Cattolica. Scritti raccolti in occasione dell’ottantesimo compleanno dell’autore. Rome: Facultas Theologica Pontificii Athenaei Lateranensis, 1958. Ragagli, Simone. “Guidiccioni Alessandro.” DBI vol. 71 (Guglielmo GonzagaJacobini): pp. 318–320. Raspini, Giuseppe. Gli archivi parrocchiali della diocesi di Fiesole: Inventario. Rome: Il Centro di Ricerca Editore, 1974. Rombai, Leonardo and Margherita Azzari, Imago et descriptio Tusciae: la Toscana nella geocartografia dal XV al XIX secolo. [Tuscany]: Regione Toscana and Venice: Marsilio, 1993. Sangalli, Maurizio, ed. Il Seminario di Siena: da arcivescovile a regionale 1614 –1953/ 1953–2003. Soveria Mannelli (Catanzaro): Rubbettino, 2003. Sangalli, Maurizio. “A sua immagine e somiglianza: Siena e il Seminario arcivescovile 1614–1785.” In Maurizio Sangalli, ed. Il Seminario di Siena: da arcivescovile a regionale 1614 –1953/1953–2003. Soveria Mannelli (Catanzaro): Rubbettino, 2003: pp. 1–70. ——. “Una fonte, più storie: l’Archivio Storico del Seminario Arcivescovile di Siena.” Annuario dell’Istituto Storico Diocesano di Siena 3 (1999): 281–294. Sella, Domenico. Italy in the Seventeenth Century. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, 1997. Seminaria Ecclesiae Catholicae. Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1962. Schroeder, H.J. Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent. Original Text with English Translation. St. Louis, Missouri: Herder, 1941. Sodini, Carlo. “. . . in quel strano e fondo verno”: Stato, chiesa e cultura nella seconda metà del Seicento lucchese. Lucca: Maria Pacini Fazzi, 1992. Spedicato, Mario. “Protagonismo episcopale e disciplinamento post-Tridentino: il progetto riformatore del vescovo Pappacoda a Lecce: successi e limiti.” In Luisa Cosi and Mario Spedicato. Vescovi e città nell’epoca barocca: atti del convegno internazionale di studi (Lecce, 26–28 settembre 1991). Galatina: Congedo Editore, 1995: pp. 235–245. Steinruck, Josef. “Die Beitrag des Bischofs Jacopo Guidi aus Volterra zu den Beratungen der 3. Periode des Konzils von Trient (1562/63).” In Edwin Iserloh and Konrad Repgen, eds. Reformata Reformanda: Festgabe für Hubert Jedin zum 17. Juni 1965, vol. 1/2. Münster Westfalen: Verlag Aschendorff, 1965: pp. 657–689.

148

works consulted

Struttura dell’Archivio Storico del Pontificii seminario regionale Pio XII di Siena (Unpaginated, unpublished work found in the ASSS; late-20th/early 21st century). Stumpo, Enrico. “Neri Corsini.” DBI Vol. 29 (Cordier-Corvo): pp. 649–651. Tafi, Angelo. I Vescovi di Arezzo dalle origini della diocesi (sec. III) ad oggi. Cortona: Calosci, 1986. Tocchini, Pietro, and Pietro Lazzarini. Storia dei Seminari di Lucca. Lucca: Accademia Lucchese di Scienze, Lettere e Arti, 1969. Tommasi, Girolamo. Sommario della storia di Lucca dall’anno 1004 all’anno 1700 compilato su documenti contemporanei da Girolamo Tommasi, archivista degli atti del governo, continuato sino all’anno 1799 e seguito da una scelta degl’indicati documenti per cura di Carlo Minutoli. Florence: Viesseux, 1847. Toscani, Xenio. “Recenti studi sui seminari italiani in età moderna.” Annali di storia dell’educazione e dele istituzioni scolastiche 7 (2000): 281–307. Trigani, M. “Girolamo Buonvisi.” DBI vol. 15 (Buffoli-Caccianemici): pp. 331–332. Turchini, Angelo. “Per la storia religiosa del Quattrocento italiano. Visite pastorali e questionari di visita nell’Italia centro-settentrionale.” In Ugo Mazzone and Angelo Turchini, eds. Le visite pastorali: Analisi di una fonte. Bologna: il Mulino, 1990. Ulianich, Boris. “Bonucci Stefano.” DBI vol. 12 (Bonfadini-Borrello): pp. 457–461. Villani, Roberta Roani. San Miniato, il Valdarno inferiore e la Valdera: la storia. . . . Milan: Mondadori, and Florence, Regione Toscana, 1999. von Pastor, Ludwig. History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages Vol. 28: Gregory XV and Urban VIII (1621–1644), transl. by Ernest Graf. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul and St. Louis: B. Herder, 1955, 1938. Zucchelli, Niccola. Appunti e Documenti per la storia del Seminario Arcivescovile di Pisa. Pisa: Tipografia B. Giordano, 1906.

INDEX

Cities and regions which can be found on maps are indicated with the page number followed by m. Information from charts, graphs, and tables is indicated by page number followed by, respectively, c, g, or t. Abbey of San Michele Arcangelo, 62 Accademia degli Intronati, 71 Accademia dei Filomati, 71 acolytes, 26, 31 agriculture in Arezzo, 10, 11 in Florence, 12 in Lucca, 23 alabaster, 18 Alamanni, Luca, 80, 81, 87 Albizi, Orazio Degli, 81, 89 Albizzi, 16–17 Alemanni, Luca. See Alamanni, Luca Alexander VII, Pope, 93, 100 Altopascio, 107 Altoviti, Antonio, Archbishop of Florence (1548–1573), 42, 116–118 alum, 15, 17 Ambrosian Rite, 28 Ammirato, Scipione, 81 Angelini, Agostino, seminarian in Siena (1619), 63 Anghiari, 3, 52m, 53t, 54t, 54c Antelminelli, Bernardino, 22 Antinori, Ludovico di Dionigi, Bishop of Volterra (1568–1575), 79, 82 apprenticeship training of priests, 33 archbishops clergy and, 62, 63 of Florence, 42, 116–118 of Lucca, 92–96 of Siena, 60–62 See also individual names of archbishops Aretine seminarians, xviii, 46, 55, 108, 133, 134 Aretino, Pietro, 10 Aretino, Spinello, 10 Arezzo, 52m agriculture in, 10, 11 bishops of, 39–43 catechism teaching in, 41, 42, 43–44, 56–57

clergy in, 40, 43, 43n culture of, 9–10 demographics of, 9, 11–12 Diocese of, 39–58, 52m, 65, 131–133, 134 economics of, 10–11 famine in, 10, 11 Florence and, xvii, 3, 3n, 10–11, 52, 132 geography of, 11–12, 50–52, 52m, 53c, 54t, 54c, 55t government of, 1–5 manufacturing in, 10 map of, 2m, 52m natural resources of, 10n non-seminarians in, 116t plagues in, 10–11 seminary decree and, 24 seminary of, xviii, 42, 44–58, 104, 116t, 124 academic year in, 48, 48n curriculum of, 47, 133 effect of, 57–58, 131 financial support for, 47, 48 length of stay in, 48, 48n, 49g, 50t ordination records in, 47–52, 55–58 origin of clergy in, 50–52, 52m, 53c, 54t, 54c, 55t, 109, 132 population of, 45–47, 46t, 46n–47n promotions to holy orders in, 55, 56t, 57–58, 112 requirements for admission, 47 service books in, 57 Society of Jesus in, 41, 134 synods in, 39, 40, 43, 47–48, 128t, 128–129 wool manufacturing in, 11 visitations in, 39, 40, 43, 43n, 55–57 Argiano, 120 Aristotle, 59n Arnolfini family, 92, 93 Asciano, 52m, 53t, 54t, 54c, 75m Attavanti, Giuseppe Ottavio, Bishop of Arezzo (1683–1691), 41, 47

150

index

Bagni di Lucca, 108, 110c, 111m, 112t Bagno, 3 banking, 14 Barberino, 120 Barberino di Mugello, 120n Barberino Val d’Elsa, 120n Bardi family, 66 Barga, 3, 108, 109c, 110c, 111t, 111m Barili, Giovanni Battista, rector of the seminary of Siena (1662–1663), 66 Bartoli, Giulio de, parish priest in Arezzo, 44 Battista de Forzori, Giovanni, teacher of writing and math at seminary of Arezzo (1642), 45 Belforti family, 15 Bellarmine (Bellarmino), Roberto, 94 Bellarmine family, 12 Benci, Spinello, Bishop of Montepulciano (1562–1596), 125 Beniveni, Domenico Antonio, Canon of Florence (1569), 42n Benvoglienti family, 59, 59n Betti, Alessandro de, rector of seminary of Siena (1669), 67 Biagini, Tiburzio, rector of and teacher of humanities at seminary of Arezzo (1641), 45 Bibbiena, 3, 52m, 53t, 54t, 54c Bibbona, 19n Bicchi, Metello, Archbishop of Siena (1613–1615), 61, 64 Bientina, 111m Birelli, Pompeio, archpriest in Volterra and major donor to seminary there, 83 Birelli family, 83 bishops of Arezzo, 39–43 of Montepulciano, 125–127 of Pienza, 123–125 unpopularity of, 132, 135 of Volterra, 79–83 Bocci, Mario, 83, 85 Bonucci, Stefano, Bishop of Arezzo (1574–1589), 39–40, 39n–40n, 42, 43 Bonvisi family. See Buonvisi family book-burning, 39, 92 Borghesi, Camillo, Archbishop of Siena (1607–1612), 61 Borgo a Mozzano, 111m Borgo San Sepolcro, 3, 51n Borselli family, 19 Brescia, 6, 8

Breviarium Romanum (Roman Breviary), 27, 27n, 28, 29, 56, 88, 107, 108 Bucine, 54t, 54c Buonconvento, 74t, 75t, 75m, 76t Buonfigliuoli, Lorenzo de, parish priest in Arezzo (1638), 57 Buonvisi, Francesco, Cardinal Archbishop of Lucca (1690–1700), 96, 100, 107 Buonvisi, Girolamo, Cardinal Archbishop of Lucca (1657–1677), 95–96, 100 Buonvisi family, 23 Burlamacchi, Francesco, 21–22 Burlamacchi family, 92 Buzzolini, Pietro, 22 Caesar, Julius, 19 Caffarecci family, 19 Calvinism, 92 Camaiore, 109c, 110c, 111t, 111m Campiglia, 3 Campolucci, Bernardino de, parish priest in Arezzo (1638), 57 Campoluci, 57 Cannobian school, xv Carafa, Carlo, 92 Careggine, 109c, 110c, 112t Casanova, 56 Casciano, 74t, 75m Casentino, 3 Casole, 86 Castel della Pietra, 18 Castelfiorentino, 80m Castelfranco di Sopra, 52m Castelli, Giambattista, Bishop of Rimini (1569), 82 Castellina in Chianti, 74t, 75m Castellino, 80m Castelnuovo, 83 Castelnuovo di Garfagnana, 108, 109c, 110c, 111t, 111m Castelnuovo Val di Cecina, 19n Castiglion Fiorentino, 3, 53t, 54t, 54c, 74t Castrocaro, 3 catasto of 1427, 16 catechism, teaching of, 36 in Archdiocese of Florence, 118–119, 120, 121, 123 in Archdiocese of Lucca, 101, 102, 106 in Archdiocese of Siena, 61, 61n–62n, 66, 67, 73

index in Diocese of Arezzo, 39, 39n–40n, 40, 41, 42, 43–44, 56–57 in Diocese of Montepulciano, 127 in Diocese of Volterra, 84, 86–87, 89 See also Roman Catechism Catechismus Romanus (Roman Catechism), 27, 27n, 28, 29, 30, 87, 107, 108, 120 See also catechism, teaching of Cattani family, 92 Caturegli, Domenico di Bartolomeo di, seminarian in Lucca, 101 Cavalcanti family, 19 Cécina, 80m celibacy, 26, 27 Cenelli family, 66 censorship, xvii Ceremoniale Romanum (Roman Ceremonial), 27, 28, 29 Cerreto, 109c, 110c, 111t Cervini, Antonio, Bishop of Montepulciano (1663–1706), 127 Cervini family, 12 Cesena, 3 Cesti, Marcantonio, musician, 85 Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, 21–22 Charles VIII, king of France, 21 Chianni, 80m Chierici regolari della Madre di Dio, 93, 98 Chigi, Fabio. See Alexander VII, Pope Chigi family, 59, 59n Chiusi, 12, 123, 123n churches Agnese, Santa (Arezzo), 55 Andrea, Santa (Arezzo), 43–44, 44n Angelo, San (Arezzo), 44 Appollonia and Lucia, Sante (Montemarciano), 44 Biagio and Lorenzo, Santi (Montanina), 56 Biagio and Maria, Santi (Ciggiano), 45 Francesco, San (Arezzo), 10, 42, 42n Giacomo, San (Altopascio), 107 Giacomo and Cristoforo, Santi (Villa Cozzano), 56 Giorgio, San (Siena), 63 Giuseppe e Reparata (Lucca), 98 Ippolito e Casciano, Santi (Arezzo), 56 Ippolito and Silvestro, Santi (Racciano), 88 Lorenzo, San (Signa), 106 Marco di Murello, San (Arezzo), 44

151

Martino, San (Arezzo), 44 Maria, Santa (Casanova), 56 Maria, Santa (Lauro), 43 Ciggiano, 45 Città della Pieve, 11 Civitella, 75m Clemani family, 66 Clement VII, Pope, 123n Clement VIII, Pope, 4, 27–28, 63 clergy, secular (parish), 51, 51n, 53t, 54t, 77t archbishops and, 62, 63 attaining priesthood, 26–27 in Arezzo, 40, 43, 43n diocesan borders and, 132 education of, 81, 131–132 from Florence, 132 in Lucca, 112t, 116t pastoral behavior, 116–118, 134 professionalization of the, 28–29, 30–32, 67 in Siena, 65–78, 74t teaching catechism and, 118–119 in Volterra, 81, 86 See also individual dioceses; individual seminaries; priesthood; seminarians Cloister of San Martino (Lucca), 97 Colle di Val d’Elsa, 3, 4, 8n, 75m, 80m, 81, 83 Collegio di San Giorgio (Siena), 63–64 Collegio Tolomei (Siena), 100 Collina, 121 concubinage, 30, 86 confessionalization, xvin, xviii, 32 Congregation of the Sacred Rites (CSR), 29 Congregazione dei Chiodi (Siena), 63–64 Congregazione dei Sacri Chiodi (Siena), 63 Conte Raniere, Francesco del, Archbishop of Pisa (1636–1663), 18 Conte Raniere, Scipione del Orso del, Archbishop of Pisa (1663–1702), 18, 18n Contea d’Elci, 18 Conti, Don Carlo, rector of the seminary of Volterra (1703), 84 Convento di San Francesco (Pienza), 123, 124 convents, 85–86, 123, 124 Coreglia Antelminelli, 108, 109c, 110c, 111t Corsignano, 12. See also Pienza

152

index

Corsini, Neri di Filippo, Cardinal Bishop of Arezzo (1672–1677), 41 Cortona, 3, 51n, 52, 52m Council of Florence (1431–1439), 59n Council of Trent, xix, 60 catechism and, 119 diocesan seminaries and, xv–xvi pastoral behavior and, 116–118 professionalization and, 28–29, 30–32 promotion in holy orders and, 55 religious dissent and, 91–93 religious orders and, 25 rites and, 28–29 seminary decree of, xv–xvi, 24, 33–34, 132–133, 134 service books revision, 27–28, 113 CSR. See Congregation of the Sacred Rites culture of Arezzo, 9–10 of Volterra, 18 cura animarum, xvi–xvii, 117, 118, 122, 123 deacons, 27, 55, 67 Del Rosso, Ottavio, Bishop of Volterra (1681–1714), 81–82, 89 demographics of Arezzo, 9, 11–12 of Lucca, 9, 22 of Siena, 9, 14 of Tuscany, 6–7 of Volterra, 9, 18–19 depression, economic, 6 divine cult, 86 Divine Office, 28, 29, 87 Dominican Order, 62 Donatis, Giovanni de, parish priest in Arezzo, 57 dottrina cristiana, 119. See catechism Duchy of Florence. See Florence, Duchy of economics of Arezzo, 10–11 of Lucca, 22–24, 92–95, 99 of Siena, 13, 14 of Tuscany, 6, 8 of Volterra, 15–18 education, seminary, xvi–xvii, xviii, 30, 33n Eleonora of Toledo, Duchess of Florence (1539–1562), 59

exempt dioceses, 122n exorcists, 26. See also holy orders; minor orders Falconcini, Benedetto, of Pescia, 79 famines, 7 in Arezzo, 10, 11 in Lucca, 22 in Tuscany, 7 in Volterra, 18–19 Farnese, Odoardo, Cardinal, 94 Ferdinando I, Grand Duke of Tuscany (1587–1609), 4, 40, 81 Ferdinando II, Grand Duke of Tuscany (1621–1670), 3, 6, 18 Ferrara, 22 Ferrucci, Francesco, 17 Fiesole Diocese of, 11, 44 seminary of, curriculum of, 73 financial support for, 98, 120 origin of clergy in, 50, 51, 52, 53c, 54t, 54c, 55t population of, 65 promotions in holy orders in, 112–113 Figline Valdarno, 44–45 Filippini, 61 Filippo, Giovanni di Andrea di, 101 Firenzuola, 3 Fivizzano, 3 floods, 7, 22 Florence, 1 agriculture in, 12 Archdiocese of, 120–122 Arezzo and, xvii, 3, 3n, 10–11, 52, 132 catechism teaching in, 120, 121 government of, 132 Lucca and, xvii, 3, 16, 20–22, 91, 92, 132 papacy and, 21 Papal State and, 4 Pisa and, 15 population of, 6 priests from, 132 seminarians from, 50–51, 54t seminary of, 62, 116, 129 curriculum of, 122 financial support for, 120–122, 121n population of, 123 requirements for admission, 122 visitations, 119–121

index service books in, 119–120, 129 Siena and, xvii, 3, 12–14, 132 synods in, 116–119, 123, 128t, 128–129 universities in, 35 urban history of, 8 Volterra and, xvii, 3, 15–19, 79 wool industry in, 5n, 6 Florence, Duchy of, 13 government of, 1–2 Riformagioni, 14 See also Florence Florentine state. See Florence; Florence, Duchy of Foiano, 52m, 53t, 54c Fonterútoli, 74t, 75m Foro, 98 France, 13 Lucca and, 20–21, 96 Francesca, Piero della, 10 Francesco I, Grand Duke of Tuscany (1574–1587), 18, 82 Franciotti, Marcantonio, Archbishop of Lucca (1637–1645), 93, 94–95, 98 Franciotti family, 92 Franciscan Order, 124 Fraternità dei Chierici (Arezzo), 44, 124 Fredani, Giovanni, rector of the seminary of Siena (1662–1663), 66 Galileo Galilei, 62 Gallicano, 108, 109c, 110c, 111t Gammurrini, Fulvio de, parish priest in Arezzo, 57 Gammurrini family, 45 Gannadius, 59n Garfagnana wars, 22 Garza, Bernardino di Ambrogio di, seminarian in Lucca, 101 Geneva, 92 Genoa, 20 geography of Arezzo, 11–12, 50–52, 52m, 53c, 54t, 54c, 55t of Lucca, 19, 108–109, 109c, 110c, 111t, 111m, 112t of Siena, 15, 74, 74t, 75c, 75m, 76c, 77t of Tuscany, 2m of Volterra, 19, 80m Gerini, Giovanni, Bishop of Volterra (1650–1653), 81, 85 Ghibellines, 15, 19 Ghivizzano, 109c, 112t

153

Giorgini, Giacomo, priest in Arezzo and deputy of the seminary (1638), 46 Giorgio, Taddei, donor to seminary of Lucca (1593), 97–98 Gonfienti, 121, 121n government of Arezzo, 1–5 of Florence, 132 of Lucca, 1–5, 21n, 92–93 Nove Conservatori della giurisdizione e del dominio fiorentino, 1–2, 40 of Siena, 1–5, 13–14 of Volterra, 1–5, 15–18 See also Duchy of Florence; individual cities and rulers Graffioni, Antonio, dean of the Cathedral of Arezzo (1638), 46 Grand Duchy of Tuscany. See Tuscany, Grand Duchy of Gregory XIII, Pope (1572–1585), 4, 63, 82 Grosseto, 3 Gualteri, Michelangelo, proposito of the cathedral of Arezzo (1638), 46 Gucci, Gabriele, administrator of the Diocese of Pienza (1658–1664), 124 Guelfs, 15, 19 Guerra, Matteo, Sienese preacher and founder of the Congregazione dei Sacri Chiodi (1567), 40n, 63 Guidi, Giacomo, Bishop of Penne and Atri (1561–1568), 79 Guidiccioni, Alessandro I, Archbishop of Siena (1549–1600), 92, 93, 96, 97 Guidiccioni, Alessandro II, Archbishop of Siena (1600–1637), 91, 93–94, 94n Guidiccioni family, 92 Guinigi, Paolo, signore of Lucca (1400–1430), 20 Guinigi family, 93 heresy, xvii, 5, 59, 60, 92, 93. See also Calvinism; Index of Prohibited Books; Inquisitions; Lutheranism; Protestant Reformation; religious dissent holy orders, 67. See also ordination, sacrament of Holy Roman Empire, 3, 13, 20–21, 22, 79 Ignatius of Loyola, 59. See also Society of Jesus In coena domini, 119–120

154

index

Index of Prohibited Books, 28, 82, 91 Inghirami, Bernardo, Bishop of Volterra (1617–1633), 80–81 Innocent X, Pope (1644–1655), 25, 86, 95 Inquisitions, 59, 82, 91, 94, 95 Jesuits. See individual names; Society of Jesus Julius III, Pope (1550–1555), 60 Kircher, Athanasius, S.J., 35n–36n Lainez, Diego, S.J., 59 Lari, 3 Laterina, 52m, 53t, 54c Lauriccio, Giacomo, parish priest in Arezzo, 44 Lauro, 43 leathermaking, 5n Lecce, 136 La Leccia, 19n lectors, 26 Lenci, Giovanni Maria de, donor to Jesuit church in Florence and seminary of Volterra (1663), 86 Leo X, Pope (1513–1521), 21 Leonardi, Giovanni, founder of Chierici regolari della Madre di Dio in Lucca (1597), 93 Leopold I, Grand Duke of Tuscany, 85 Liberatori, Bernardo, first teacher of singing at seminary of Arezzo (1642), 45 Livorno, 3 Lorenzi, Giuseppe, grammarian, 100 Lorenzo di Piero dei Medici (Duke of Urbino 1492–1519, ruler of Florence 1513–1519), 17 Lorenzo I dei Medici (Lorenzo the Magnificent), ruler of Florence (1469–1492), 17 Louis XII, king of France (1498–1515), 21 Lucca agriculture in, 23 archbishops of, 92–96 Archdiocese of, 65, 81, 91–113, 111m catechism teaching in, 101, 102, 106 demographics of, 9, 22 economics of, 22–24, 92–95, 99 famines in, 22 Florence and, xvii, 3, 16, 20–22, 91, 92, 132

France and, 20–21, 96 geography of, 19 government of, 1–5, 21n, 92–93 Grand Duchy of Tuscany and, 22 history of, 7, 19–24 independence of (Republic of ), 3, 20–21 map of, 2m, 111m non-seminarians in, 110c, 116t papacy and, 4–5, 21 plagues in, 6, 22, 23 population of, xviin secular priests in, 112t seminarians in, 116t Caturegli, Domenico di Bartolomeo de, 101 Garza, Bernardino di Ambrogio di, 101 seminary decree and, 24 seminary of, xviii, 96–113, 135 curriculum of, 98, 100n, 100–102, 102t, 113 financial support for, 97–99 impact of, 104, 106, 131 length of stay in, 101, 102, 104, 104t, 105g location of, 97, 97n, 98 ordination records, 97, 98, 104, 106, 121n origin of clergy, 50, 53c, 54t, 54c, 55t 108–109, 109c, 110c, 111t, 111m, 112t, 132 population of, 96–97, 98–99, 99t, 100–102, 103t promotions to holy orders in, 104, 106, 112–113, 113t requirements for admission, 101–102, 133 visitations, 96, 106–108, 106n service books in, 106–107, 108, 113 Siena and, 20 Society of Jesus in, 93–95, 134 Spain and, 96 synods in, 95–96, 97, 107–108, 128t, 128–129 urban areas of, 108 Lucignana, 111m Lucignano, 15, 52m, 53t, 54c Luther, Martin, 91–92 Lutheranism, 59, 91–92 Magalotti, Lorenzo, Bishop of Ferrara (1628–1637), 62 Magnoni, Pio, Bishop of Montepulciano (1747–1755), 127

index major orders, 26–27, 31. See also holy orders; ordination, sacrament of Mantua, 6, 8 Manufacturing, 10 Marchetti, Giovan Matteo, Bishop of Arezzo (1791–1704), 41 Marciano, 43 Marcïllat, Guillaume de, artist, 10 Marradi, 3 marriage, xvii Marsili, Leonardo, Archbishop of Siena (1681–1713), 61–62 Marsuppini, Ser Giacomo, parish priest in Arezzo (1582), 43–44, 44n Marzi Medici, Alessandro, Archbishop of Florence (1605–1630), 118–119, 120 Massa, 3 Massamarittima, 18 Medici, Cosimo dei (Cosimo il Vecchio), 12, 13, 14, 16–17, 21–22 Medici, Cosimo II dei, Grand Duke of Tuscany (1590–1621), 4 Medici, Fernando I dei, Grand Duke of Tuscany (1574–1587), 18, 82 Medici, Ferdinando I dei, Grand Duke of Tuscany (1587–1609), 4, 40, 81 Medici, Ferdinando II dei, Grand Duke of Tuscany (1621–1670), 3, 6, 18 Medici, Lorenzo di Piero dei (Duke of Urbino 1492–1519, ruler of Florence 1513–1519), 17 Medici, Lorenzo I dei (Lorenzo the Magnificent), ruler of Florence (1469–1492), 17 Medici state. See Florence; Florence, Duchy of; Tuscany; Tuscany, Grand Duchy of Mei family, 93 Menabbio, 108, 109c, 110c, 111t Middle Ages, 26 Milan, xv, 6, 22 Minerbetti, Bernardetto, Bishop of Arezzo (1537–1574), 39, 42, 42n, 43 mining, 14, 18 minor orders, 26, 30–31. See also holy orders; ordination, sacrament of Missale Romanum (Roman Missal), 27, 27n, 28, 29, 39, 56, 56n, 87, 88, 88n, 89, 106, 108, 120, 128 Modena, 8 Modigliana, 3 Monaco, Guido, 10 monasteries female, 40, 94

155

Franciscan, 124 male, 25 Montalcino, 12 Montanina, 54t, 54c, 56 Monte di Pietà of Volterra, 82, 88n Monte di Villa, 109c, 110c, 111t Monte Pio, 124 Monte San Savino, 40, 52m, 53t, 54t, 54c Montebenici, 54t, 54c Montecatini, 80m Montecatini Val di Cecina, 19n Montelatroni, Francesco Bindi di, 66 Montemarciano, 44 Montemassi, 18 Montepulciano, xvii–xviii, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 47n, 64, 123 catechism teaching in, 127 seminary of, 116, 129 financial support for, 126 population of, 125, 126 visitations, 126, 127–128 service books in, 127–128, 129 Society of Jesus in, 126n, 127, 134 synods in, 125, 128t, 128–129 Montepulciano-Chiusi-Pienza, 12 Monteriggioni, 75m Monterone d’Arbia, 74t, 75t, 75m, 76t Monterongriffoli, 74t, 75t, 75m, 76t Montevarchi, 51 Montichiello, 124 Montrone, 21 Moriconi family, 92 music, 85 natural resources, 10n Nerli, Benedetto, Bishop of Volterra (1548–1565), 79, 86 Niccolino, Piero, Archbishop of Florence (1631–1651), 119 Novara, xv Nove Conservatori della giurisdizione e del dominio fiorentino, 1–2, 40 Oblates of St. Ambrose, xv Ochino, Bernardino, 91 Oecolampadius, Johannes, 91 Oratorians, 61 Oratorio di Santa Maria a Ponterosso (Figline), 44–45 Oratorio of San Rochi (Lucca), 107 Oratorio of the Society of San Michele Archangelo (Arezzo), 44 Order of Friars Minor. See Franciscan Order

156

index

Order of Preachers. See Dominican Order ordination, sacrament of, 30, 36, 86. See also holy orders; major orders; minor orders; and individual dioceses ordination records, 36, 51n in Arezzo, 47–52, 55–58 in Lucca, 97, 98, 104, 106, 121n in Siena, 65 in Volterra, 89 Orlandini family, 66 Padri di San Giorgio alla Congregazione del Santissimo Crocefisso, 64 Padri dei Sacri Chiodi, 66 Padua, 6, 8 Pagni family, 66 Palazzo Concini, 45 Palmieri, Giacomo del Cristofano, seminarian in Siena (1633–1639), 65n pandemics. See plagues Pannocchieschi family, 18 Papal State, 3, 4–5, 92 Pappacoda, Luigi, Bishop of Lecce (1639–1670), 136 parish priests, 134. See also clergy, secular; priesthood parish reforms, xv–xvii, xviii, 87 Parma, 8 pastoral behavior, 116–118, 134 patrimony, 26 patronage, 15–16 Paul IV, Pope (1555–1559), 92 Paul V, Pope (1605–1621), 28, 64, 93 pavonazzi, 84, 85 Peace of Cateau-Cambresis (1559), 5 Peruzzi, Angelo, Bishop of Sarsina (1581–1600), 42–43, 55 Pescia, 21 Petrarch, 10 Petrucci, Allessandro, Archbishop of Siena (1615–1628), 61, 61n–62n Petrucci family, 66 Philip II, king of Spain (1556–1598), 92 Philip III, king of Spain (1598–1621), 94 Piccolomini, Ascanio I, Archbishop of Siena (1588–1597), 60 Piccolomini, Ascanio II, Archbishop of Siena (1628–1671), 62, 66, 67 Piccolomini, Celio, Archbishop of Siena (1671–1681), 61 Piccolomini, Francesco Bandini, Archbishop of Siena (1529–1588), 60

Piccolomini family, 12, 66 Pienza, 7, 9, 12, 51n, 60, 75m, 123n seminary of, 116, 129 Bull of Erection (1657), 124 curriculum of, 124 financial support for, 124 population of, 124, 125 requirements for admission, 124 visitations, 124 service books in, 129 synods in, 128t, 128–129 Pietrasanta, 3, 20, 21 Pieve à Camaiore, 106 Pieve di Controne, 112t Pieve di Santa Maria, 125 Pieve Fosciana, 109c, 110c, 112t Pieve Santo Stefano, 3 Piombino, 19n Pisa, 1, 3, 21, 111m Florence and, 15 Lucca and, 91 seminary of, 62 universities in, 35 Volterra and, 79 Pistoia, 3, 19, 19n, 111m Pius II, Pope (1458–1464), 12, 60, 123 Pius IV, Pope (1559–1565), 79 Pius V, Pope (1566–1572), 27, 28 plagues, 9 in Arezzo, 10, 11 in Lucca, 6, 22, 23 population and, 9n in Siena, 59 in Tuscany, 5–7 in Volterra, 17, 19, 19n pluralism, 30 Pomarance, 19n, 24, 80m, 83 Pontificale Romanum, 26, 28 Poppi, 11, 52m, 53t, 54t, 54c population of Florence, 6 of Lucca, xviin during plagues, 9n of seminaries, 115 in Arezzo, 45–47, 46t, 46n–47n in Florence, 123 in Lucca, 96–97, 98–99, 99t, 100–102, 103t in Montepulciano, 125, 126 in Pienza, 124, 125 in Siena, 65, 68t, 68–69, 69t, 71 in Volterra, 83, 84, 85 of seminary educated priests, 131 of Siena, xviin, 14, 14n

index of Tuscany, 25 of Volterra, 19 porters, 26. See also holy orders; minor orders Pozzo, 54t, 54c Prato, 3 Pratoantico, 57 Pratovecchio, 11 priesthood, 67 administrative functions of, 27–28 attaining, 26–27, 30–31 bureaucratic duties of, 34 education of, 131–132 functions of, 26–27 non-seminarians, 50–52, 53t, 76t, 110c, 116t, 131 ordination records and the, 36 pastoral duties of, 34 professionalization of the, 28–29, 30–32 promotions in, 55, 56t, 57–58, 104, 106, 112–113, 113t, 115, 116t, 136 secular, 55t, 74t seminaries and, xvi, 33–34, 50–52, 54c, 76t, 110c, 116t, 131 service books and, 29–30 in Volterra, 86 See also clergy, secular; holy orders; major orders; minor orders; promotions; sacerdotalization; and individual orders professionalization, 67 Council of Trent and, 28–29, 30–32 promotions, 115, 116t, 136 in Arezzo, 55, 56t, 57–58, 112 in Lucca, 104, 106, 112–113, 113t Protestant Reformation, xv, xix, 91–93, 92n attaining priesthood during the, 26 effect on urban areas, 7 in Siena, 59 in Tuscany, 3 See also Calvinism; heresy; Lutheranism; and individual names Quarata, 54t, 54c, 57 Raccagna, Cesare, commissario apostolico in Lucca, 95 Racciano, 88 Rainoldi, Giovanni Battista, commissario apostolico in Lucca, 95 Ralli, Giovanni Battista de, parish priest in Arezzo, 57 regionalism, 132–133

157

Regole of seminaries, 64, 65–66, 71–73, 77, 97, 133–134 religious dissent, repression of, 91–93 See also heresy religious orders, 34n–35n after Council of Trent, 25 promotions in, 55, 56t, 57–58, 136 schools of, 34–35 See also Dominican Order; Franciscan Order Renaissance, 26 Reneschi, Emilio, donor to seminary in Siena, 66 Reneschi, Emilio, parish priest in Siena (1614), 64 Ricci, Antonio de, Bishop of Arezzo (1611–1637), 40, 40n, 45 Ricci, Giovanni, Bishop of Montepulciano (1561–1562), 125 Ricci, Vincenzo, 40n Riformagioni, 14 rites, 28–29 Rituale Romanum, 27, 28, 29, 30, 87, 88, 89, 120, 128 Roman Breviary, 27, 27n, 28, 29, 56, 88, 107, 108 Roman Catechism, 27, 27n, 28, 29, 30, 87, 107, 108, 120. See also catechism, teaching of Roman Catholic Church confessionalization and, xviii, xvin, 32 educational institutions of, xv–xvi, 33n Protestant Reformation and, 91–93 reform of, xv–xvii Roman Ceremonial, 27, 28, 29 Roman Missal, 27, 27n, 28, 29, 39, 56, 56n, 87, 88, 88n, 89, 106, 108, 120, 128 Roman Pontifical, 26, 28 Roman Ritual, 27, 28, 29, 30, 87, 88, 89, 120, 128 Roman Sacramental, 28, 87 Rondinelli, Mariano, vice-rector of seminary of Siena (1662–1663), 66 Rossini (students in Seminario di San Martino, Lucca), 96 Rota, Pietro, O.F.M., Archbishop of Lucca (1651–1657), 95 Rubiola, Girolamo, S.J., 59 rural history, 7–9 Sabina, Luigi Baffi di Torri, rector of seminary in Pienza (1792–1795), 125n Sacchetti, Niccolò, Bishop of Volterra (1633–1650), 81, 88

158

index

sacerdotalization, xviii, xviiin, 29, 34. See also priesthood; professionalization Sacramentale Romanum, 28, 87 salt, 17–18 Salviati, Tommaso, 41, 45, 46, 47 San Andrea à Cennano (Fiesole), 11 San Biagio (Arezzo), 43, 55, 131 San Desiderio (Siena), 64, 65, 66–67 San Donato (Collina), 121 San Francesco (Arezzo), 10, 42, 42n San Gimignano, 3, 19n, 80m San Giovanni Evangelista (Pratoantico), 57 San Giovanni Valdarno (Fiesole), 51 San Giuseppe (Lucca), 98 San Gregorio (Siena), 66 San Maria à Mancioni (Arezzo), 11 San Maria Curtius Orlandini (Lucca), 98 San Martino (Arezzo), 44 San Martino (Gonfienti), 121 San Martino (Vitiano), 56 San Martino de Signano (Arezzo), 57 San Michele (Foro), 98 San Miniato (Lucca), xviin, 4, 19, 81, 91, 107, 109 San Niccolò (Arezzo), 56 San Nicola (Arezzo), 55 San Pietro di Nufio (Campoluci), 57 San Prospero (Pistoia), 64 San Stefano (Marciano), 43 Santa Chiara (Monte San Savino), 40 Santa Lucia (Barberino), 120 Santa Maria (Terranuova Bracciolino), 56 Santa Maria Cortelandi (Lucca), 98 Santa Maria de Murello (Arezzo), 57 Santa Maria dei Servi di Casole, 86 Santa Maria di Tofori (Lucca), 106 Santa Mostiola (Montepulciano), 127 Sant’Adriano (Arezzo), 57 Sant’Agata a Saccione (Arezzo), 57 Sant’Agnese (Arezzo), 57 Sante Appollonia and Lucia (Montemarciano), 44 Santi Angeli (Argiano), 120 Santi Biagio and Lorenzo (Montanina), 56 Santi Biagio and Maria (Ciggiano), 45 Santi Giacomo and Cristoforo (Villa Cozzano), 56 Santi Giuseppe e Reparata (Lucca), 98 Santi Ippolito e Casciano (Arezzo), 56 Santi Ippolito and Silvestro (Racciano), 88

Santissima Annunziata (Florence), 39 Saracini, Marco, 80, 80n Sasso, 19n Savereto, 19n Scarletti, Vincenzo, seminarian in Siena (d. 1620), 63n Schools of Christian Doctrine, xv, 80, 81 Segni, Paolo, S.J., visitator in Lucca (1675 or 1679), 107 semi-convitto, 126 seminarians Angelini, Agostino, seminarian in Siena (1619), 63 Aretine, xviii, 46, 55, 108, 133, 134 Caturegli, Domenico di Bartolomeo di, seminarian in Lucca, 101 Garza, Bernardino di Ambrogio di, seminarian in Lucca, 101 Palmieri, Giacomo del Cristofano, seminarian in Siena (1633–1639), 65n Scarletti, Vincenzo, seminarian in Siena (d. 1620), 63n Sozzini, Giovanni Battista, seminarian in Siena, expelled 1620, 63, 63n Spinelli, Lorenzo di, seminarian in Siena, expelled 1621, 63n Spinelli, Spinello di, seminarian in Siena, expelled 1619, 63 from urban areas, 50–51, 54t, 115, 116t Vannucci, Girolamo, seminarian in Siena (1619), 63 seminaries in Arezzo, 104, 109, 131, 132 academic year in, 48, 48n curriculum of, 47, 133 financial support for, 47, 48 length of stay in, 48, 48n, 49g, 50t ordination records of, 47–52, 55–58 origin of clergy in, 50–52, 52m, 53c, 54t, 54c, 55t, 109 population of, 45–47, 46t, 46n–47n promotions to holy orders in, 112 requirements for admission, 47 Council of Trent and, xv–xvi, 24, 28–29, 30–32, 33–34, 132–133, 134 demand for, 134 education in, xvi–xvii, xviii, 30, 33n, 73–74, 100–102, 102t effect of, 115, 131–132 factors affecting, 135, 136 flaws in, 136–137 foundation documents, general, 36–37 in Florence, 62, 116, 129

index curriculum of, 122 financial support of, 120–122, 121n population of, 123 requirements for admission, 122 visitations, 119–120 in Lucca, xviii, 96–113, 131, 132, 135 curriculum of, 98, 100n, 100–102, 102t, 113 effect of, 131 financial support for, 97–99 impact of, 104, 106 length of stay in, 101, 102, 104, 104t, 105g location of, 97, 97n, 98 ordination records, 97, 98, 104, 106, 121n origin of clergy, 50, 53c, 54t, 54c, 55t 108–109, 109c, 110c, 111t, 111m, 112t, 132 population of, 96–97, 98–99, 99t, 100–102, 103t promotions to holy orders in, 104, 106, 112–113, 113t requirements for admission, 101–102, 133 visitations, 96, 106–108, 106n in Montepulciano, 116, 125–128, 129 financial support for, 126 population of, 125, 126 visitations, 126, 127–128 in Pienza, 116, 123–125, 129 curriculum of, 124 financial support for, 124 population of, 124, 125 requirements for admission, 124 visitations, 124 purpose of, xvi, 33–34, 134–135, 136 regionalism and, 132–133 resistance to, 57–58 in Siena, xviii, 62–78, 100, 104, 109, 116t, 131, 132, 133, 134 curriculum of, 64, 71–73, 77, 133, 134 daily schedule of, 73 effect of, 131 examinations in, 73 financial support for, 64, 65–66, 67 length of stay in, 68t, 68n, 68–69, 70g, 71 ordination records, 51n, 65 origin of clergy in, 50, 53c, 54t, 54c, 55t, 74, 74t, 75c, 75m, 76c, 77t, 109, 132 population of, 65, 68t, 68–69, 69t, 71

159

Regole, 64, 65–66, 71–73, 77, 134 requirements for admission, 65 urban areas and, 74, 77t visitations, 77–78 synods and, 128t, 128–129 Tridentine, xv, xviiin, 79, 84 in Tuscany, 33–34 in Volterra, 82–89 curriculum of, 84–85, 133–134 financial support for, 82–83, 84, 85–86 ordination records in, 36, 89 population of, 83, 84, 85 visitations, 81, 82, 86–89 Seminario della Cattedrale (Lucca), 96 Seminario di San Desiderio (Siena), 64 Seminario di San Giorgio (Siena), 67 Seminario di San Martino (Lucca), 96, 98 Seminario di Sant’Andrea Apostolo (Volterra), 82, 84 Serguidio, Guido, Bishop of Volterra (1575–1598), 80, 82, 82n, 84 Serrazzano, 80m service books in Arezzo, 57 catechism teachings and, 36 in Florence, 119–120, 129 in Lucca, 106–107, 108, 113 in Montepulciano, 127–128, 129 in Pienza, 129 purpose of, 29–30 revision of, 27–28 in Siena, 77 in Volterra, 87–89 See also individual books Servidio, Guido. See Serguidio, Guido Servidio, Niccolò, Laurentian canon in Arezzo (1569), 42n Sfondrati, Carlo Filippo, Bishop of Volterra (1677–1680), 81 Siena archbishops of, 60–62 Archdiocese of, 59–78, 75m banking in, 14 catechism teaching in, 61, 61n–62n, 66, 67, 73 Congregation of the Sacred Rites and, 29 demographics of, 9, 14 economics of, 13, 14 educational institutions in, 62 Florence and, xvii, 3, 12–14

160

index

geography of, 15, 74, 74t, 75c, 75m, 76c, 77t government of, 1–5, 13–14 independence of, xvii Lucca and, 20 manufacturing in, 14 map of, 2m, 75m mining in, 14 non-seminary priests in, 76t, 116t plagues in, 59 population of, xviin, 14, 14n secular priests in, 77t seminarians in, Angelini, Agostino, seminarian in Siena (1619), 63 Palmieri, Giacomo del Cristofano, seminarian in Siena (1633–1639), 65n Scarletti, Vincenzo, seminarian in Siena (d. 1620), 63n Sozzini, Giovanni Battista, seminarian in Siena, expelled 1620, 63, 63n Spinelli, Lorenzo di, seminarian in Siena, expelled 1621, 63n Spinelli, Spinello di, seminarian in Siena, expelled 1619, 63 Vannucci, Girolamo, seminarian in Siena (1619), 63 seminary of, xviii, 62–78, 68t, 69t, 70g, 74t, 75c, 76c, 77t, 100, 104, 116t curriculum of, 64, 71–73, 77, 133, 134 daily schedule of, 73 effect of, 131 examinations in, 73 financial support for, 64, 65–66, 67 length of stay in, 68t, 68n, 68–69, 70g, 71 ordination records, 51n, 65 origin of clergy in, 50, 53c, 54t, 54c, 55t, 74, 74t, 75c, 75m, 76c, 77t, 109, 132 population of, 65, 68t, 68–69, 69t, 71 Regole, 64, 65–66, 71–73, 77, 134 requirements for admission, 65 urban areas and, 74, 77t visitations, 77–78 seminary priests in, xviii, 76t service books in, 77 Society of Jesus in, 59, 60, 134 synods in, 60, 61, 67, 128t, 128–129, 133

universities in, 35 urban history of, 7 wool industry in, 14 Signa, 106, 106n Silano, 19n silk manufacturing, 5n, 14, 22, 23 Sillicano, 109c, 111m Silvestrini convent, 127 simony, 30, 86 Sinalunga, 74t, 75t, 75m, 76t Soci, 54t, 54c Society of Jesus, xv, 25 in Arezzo, 41, 46, 134 education and, 34, 35, 35n in Lucca, 93–95, 134 in Montepulciano, 126n, 127, 134 in Siena, 59, 60, 134 in Volterra, 82, 86 See also individual names Sovana, 13 Sozzini, Giovanni Battista, seminarian in Siena, expelled 1620, 63, 63n Spain, 17, 22, 79 conflicts with Tuscany, 17, 22 Lucca and, 92, 94, 95, 96 seminaries in, 32 Volterra and, 79 Spennazzi, Giovanni, Bishop of Pienza (1637–1658), 123–124 Spinelli, Lorenzo di, seminarian in Siena, expelled 1621, 63n Spinelli, Spinello di, seminarian in Siena, expelled 1619, 63 Spinola, Giulio, Cardinal Archbishop of Lucca (1677–1690), 96, 107–108, 113 Stato de Milano, 36 Stazzema, 111m Sticciano, 18 Strozzi, Alessandro, Bishop of Arezzo (1677–1682), 41 Strozzi, Alessandro, Bishop of Volterra (1565–1570), 79, 80, 81 Strozzi, Piero, 13 Stufa, Alessandro della, Bishop of Montepulciano (1622–1640), 126 Subbiano, 53t, 54c subdeacon, 26n, 26–27, 31, 55, 67. See also holy orders; major orders subsistence crises, 6, 13 synods, 31, 39, 40, 43, 47–48, 60, 61, 67, 79, 80, 81, 95–96, 97, 107–108, 116–119, 123, 125, 128t, 128–129, 133, 134

index Talenti, Talento, Bishop of Montepulciano (1640–1651), 126–127 Talla, 52m, 54t, 54c Tancio, Leonardo, Prior of Company of San Niccolò, Florence, 42n Tarugi, Francesco Maria, Cardinal Archbishop of Siena (1597–1607), 60–61, 62–63 Tarugi, Sallustio d’Antonio, Bishop of Montepulciano (1600–1607), 126 Tereglio, 109c, 110c, 112t Terranuova Bracciolini, 52m, 53t, 54t, 54c, 56 tonsure, 26, 31, 61. See also minor orders Trassilico, 109c, 110c, 111t Turrettini family, 92 Tuscany demographics of, 6–7, 8–9 economics of, 5–7 government of, 1–5 independent cities in, 3 map of, 2m Medici and, 4–5 Papal States and, 4–5 plagues in, 5–7 political setting of, 1–5 population of, 25 during Protestant Reformation, 3 social setting of, 7–8 universities in, 35n, 35–36 See also Arezzo; Florence; Florence, Duchy of; Lucca; Montepulciano; Pienza; Pisa; Siena; Tuscany, Grand Duchy of; Volterra Tuscany, Grand Duchy of, 135 Arezzo and, 10 Florence and, 116 government of, 1–2, 40, 132 Lucca and, 22 manufacturing in, 11 Papal States and, 4–5 during Protestant Reformation, 3 See also Arezzo; Florence; Florence, Duchy of; Lucca; Montepulciano; Pienza; Pisa; Siena; Tuscany; Volterra Uffizi, 14 University of Pisa, 82 University of Siena, 35 urban areas in Lucca, 108

161

seminarians from, 50–51, 115, 116t Siena seminary and, 74, 77t urban history, 7–9 Urban VIII, Pope (1623–1644), 88, 88n, 94, 95 Urbino, 3 Usimbardi, Pietro, Bishop of Arezzo (1589–1611), 40, 40n, 44 Usimbardi family, 40 Val di Pesa, 79 Valdelsa, 15, 79 Valdinievole, 15 Vallico, 108, 110c, 112t Vannucci, Girolamo, seminarian in Siena (1619), 63 Vannucci family, 66 Vasari, Giorgio, 10 Venice, 20 Vermigli, Peter Martyr, 91 Verni, 112t Verona, 6, 8 Vezzosi, Antonio de, parish priest in Arezzo and deputy of the seminary (1638), 46 Viareggio, 111m Vicopisano, 3 Vigilanti, Girolamo, vice-rector of the seminary of Siena (1662–1663), 66 Villa Cozzano, 56 Villa Ottavo, 56 Villa San Firmena, 57 Villa Vicopelago, 95 visitations, xviii in Arezzo, 39, 40, 43, 43n, 55–57 in Florence, 119–120 in Lucca, 96, 106–108, 106n in Montepulciano, 126, 127–128 pastoral behavior and, 117–118 in Pienza, 124 in Siena, 77–78 in Volterra, 81, 82, 86–89 Viterbo, 93 Vitiana, 109c, 110c, 111t, 111m Vitiano, 56 Volterra bishops of, 79–82 Capitano di Custodia, a.k.a. Capitan of Volterra, 15–16 catasto, 16 catechism teaching in, 86–87, 89 clergy of, 81, 86 culture of, 18 demographics of, 9, 18–19

162 diocese of, 79–89, 80m economics of, 15–18 famine in, 18–19 Florence and, xvii, 3, 15–19, 79 geography of, 19 government of, 1–5, 15–18 map of, 2m, 80m parish reforms in, 87 patronage in, 15–16 Pisa and, 79 plagues in, 17, 19, 19n population of, 19 seminary decree and, 24 seminary of, 82–89

index curriculum of, 84–85, 133–134 financial support for, 82–83, 84, 85–86 ordination records in, 36, 89 population of, 83, 84, 85 visitations, 81, 82, 86–89 service books in, 87–89 Society of Jesus in, 82, 86 synods in, 79, 80, 81, 128t, 128–129 War of 1530, 17 votive masses, 28 War of 1530, 17 wool industry, 5n, 6, 11, 14