Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:46:19.604Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How not to be a Counter-Reformation saint: the attempted canonization of Pope Gregory X, 1622–451

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2013

Simon Ditchfield
Get access

Come non essere un santo controriformatore: la tentata canonizzazione di papa gregorio x

Il secolo dopo la chiusura del Concilio di Trento (1545–63) è stato a lungo associato con iniziative papali ad ampio raggio finalizzate allo standardizzare della liturgia e il rito. A partire dalla revisione del Breviario Romano (1568), questo processo di profonde riforme, che toccò ogni aspetto del rituale e del credo Cattolico Romano, venne affidato nel 1588 alla Sacra Congregazione dei Riti e delle Cerimonie appena fondata. A tale istituto venne affidata la sorveglianza dei processi essenziali al funzionamento di un liturgia vivente — canonizzazione —, nuovi culti furono quindi approvati nell'ambito del rito Cattolico, mentre culti che già esistevano vennero riconosciuti o riformati. Nel cinquantennio successivo alla Riforma (1523–88), il Papato sembra perdere vigore, ma dal 1588 inizia un periodo diverso, che vede il conferimento con di almeno tredici canonizzazioni nel giro dei successivi 41 anni. Queste furono, tuttavia, canonizzazioni di ‘nuovo tipo’ nelle quali la prova di santità fu esaminata con un rigore moralistico di un livello sconosciuto precedentemente, in tal modo la canonizzazione divenne un istituto più frequente anche se più difficile da ottenere. L'articolo si propone quindi di esaminare il modo in cui la procedura riformata di canonizzazione si fece strumento della politica papale in vista della standardizzazione del rito avviata a partire dalla riforma del Breviario Romano. Si tenta ciò ricostruendo il tentativo non riuscito di una canonizzazione durante questo periodo cruciale per la storia della procedura; un esercizio che rivela forse in maniera più evidente rispetto ad altri casi maggiormente riusciti, le politiche e i desiderata di santità della chiesa Tridentina.

Type
Articles
Information
Papers of the British School at Rome , Volume 60 , November 1992 , pp. 379 - 422
Copyright
Copyright © British School at Rome 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

The bulk of the research for this article was conducted whilst I enjoyed a nine-month scholarship at the British School at Rome (October 1988–June 1989). Further research (April–May 1990) was funded by the Central Research Fund of the University of London. The writing up of the project of which this article is part, however, was made possible by a two-year studentship from the Association for Cultural Exchange. I am grateful to all these institutions for their support. This study could not have been written without the cooperation of librarians and archivists in Rome, Arezzo, Piacenza and Parma. I would especially like to acknowledge the helpfulness of Monsignor Jaroslav Nemec, archivist of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in Rome as well as the patience and forbearance of the library staff of the British School at Rome. I am also indebted to John Bossy, David d'Avray, David Chambers, Nicholas Davidson and Adriano Prosperi for having given generously of their time to comment on this article at various stages of its composition. Their combined attention has saved me from several errors of detail besides generally chastening my prose. Especial thanks go to Dr Davidson for his detailed criticisms, together with his invaluable suggestions of an editorial nature. I, of course, take full responsibility for any errors of commission or omission that remain. As an historian whose focus of interest has ‘slipped’ several centuries into the early modern period it gives me great pleasure here to dedicate this article on the seventeenth-century treatment of a thirteenth-century subject to my principal mentor in things medieval whilst I was an undergraduate: Gordon Leff. Abbreviations: ACCS—Archivio della Congregazione per le cause dei santi (ex Riti); ASAR—Archivio di Stato, Arezzo; ASPC—Archivio di Stato, Piacenza; ASPR—Archivio di Stato, Parma; BAV—Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana; BCPC—Biblioteca Comunale di Piacenza; BIBL. NAZ. V. E.—Biblioteca nazionale Vittorio Emanuele, Rome; DBI–Dizionario biografico degli Italiani; HE—P. M. Campi, Dell'historia ecclesiastica di Piacenza 3 vols (Piacenza, 1651–62).

References

2 Bossy, J., Christianity in the West, 1400–1700 (Oxford, 1985), 96Google Scholar.

3 The saint in question was the Spanish Franciscan missionary Diego (Didacus) of Alcalà (d. 1464). The last previously successful candidates had been SS. Benno and Antonino of Florence (both canonized, in the first double ceremony, in 1523). See P. Burke, ‘How to be a Counter-Reformation saint’, in idem, The Historical Anthropology of Early-Modern Italy (Cambridge, 1987), 48–62, especially 60.

4 The qualified critical remarks in Luther, M., Decem praecepta Wittenbergensi predicata populo (Werke, I, Weimar, 1883) in particular pp. 411–26Google Scholar, may be compared to the more uncompromising hostility shown by Calvin, in his Institution de la Réligion Chrestienne, ed. Benoit, J. D. (Paris, 1957–1963)Google Scholar; bk I, ch. XI, section 8; bk III, ch. XX, section 21 and bk IV, ch. IX, section 14. See also Calvin, , Traicté des Reliques, (1543) in Corpus Reformatorum, XXXIV (Brunswick, 1867), cols 409–52Google Scholar.

5 See in particular Erasmus' colloquy; Naufragium of 1523 (Opera Omnia, I (Basel, 1540) 600–3). For an English translation see Thompson, C. R., The Colloquies of Erasmus (Chicago/London, 1965), 138–46Google Scholar, especially p. 141 ff. See also Léfèvre d'Etaples in his preface to his French translation of the Psalms (to be found readily in Rice, E. F., The Prefatory Epistles of Jacques Léfèvre d'Etaples and Related Texts (New York/London, 1972), Epistle 139, p. 470)Google Scholar.

6 Burke, P., ‘How to be a Counter-Reformation saint’, 49Google Scholar.

7 For an outline of the Congregation's role and history see McManus, F. R., The Congregation of Rites (Catholic University of America Canon Law Studies no. 352) (Washington D. C., 1954)Google Scholar. See also Del Re, N., La Curia Romana: lineamenti storico giuridici (Rome, 1970), 435–42Google Scholar. For the text of the founding bull see Bullarium Romanum, VIII (Turin, 1863), 985–99Google Scholar (pp. 989–990 actually concern the Congregation of Rites).

8 Its first edition was published in Rome, 1601, with a revised edition in Rome, 1610. Other works on the same topic include: Castellini, Luca's Tractatus de certitudine gloriae sanctorum canonizatorum (Rome, 1628)Google Scholar; and De inquisitione miraculorum in sanctorum martyrum canonizatione, ibid (1629), together with Contelori, Felice's Tractatus et Praxis de canonizatione sanctorum (first edition, Lyon, 1609?, enlarged edition, Lyon, 1639)Google Scholar.

9 Rocca, 's definition was as follows: ‘Canonizatio est canonica et publica sanctitatis alicuius hominis approbatio, quaquis Catalogo sanctorum adscriptis declaratur et solemnitur promulgatur…’ De canonizatione, 3Google Scholar.

10 Chapters X–XVIII, pp. 14–37 of 1610 edition.

11 For a discussion of the successive stages of the trial see chapters XXXIV–XXXVIII, ibid., 76–90.

12 These are given on pp. 69–73.

13 Idem, 84.

14 Idem, 91.

15 According to Hurter, H., Nomenclator Literarius theologiae catholicae tom. III (Innsbruck, 1907), col. 1175Google Scholar, the first edition dates from 1609 (Lyon) but I have failed to find a copy of this edition in the Vatican Library (hereafter BAV), or other major Roman libraries. Nor is this edition mentioned in Petrucci, F.'s exhaustive survey in his article on Contelori in the Dizionario biografico degli italiani (hereafter DBI) XXVIII, 336–41Google Scholar.

16 Bullarium Romanum XIV (Turin, 1868), 436–40Google Scholar. It was issued on 5 July 1634.

17 Whereby signs of a cult anticipating official papal approval constituted an impediment to canonization.

18 Bullarium Romanum XIV, 438Google Scholar, col. 1.

19 The papal brief establishing this office was issued on 11 January 1631 and may be found on pp. 34–7 of Decreta et ordo conficiendi processus in causis beatificationis et canonizationis sanctorum S. D. N. Urbani P. P. VIII iussu editus (Rome, ex Typographia Re. Cam. Apost., 1642)Google Scholar. Described by Giuseppe Löw as the ‘magna charta’ of canonization procedure, this collection constituted the most thorough guide to practice until Benedict XIV's (Lambertini, Prospero, who was Promotoris fidei, 1712–1728)Google Scholar, De servorum Dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione 4 vols (Bologna, 1734–1738)Google Scholar. This work still remains the most comprehensive work on the subject, providing, for example, the complete text of the Decreta et ordo … in the Appendix to vol. II (pp. 571–97)Google Scholar. For a helpful outline of canonization procedure and its history see also Löw, G. in the Enciclopedia Cattolica (hereafter EC) IIIGoogle Scholar, cols 569–607 (Urban VIII's decrees are discussed in cols 592–4). See also the extremely valuable though unfinished survey by Papa, G., ‘La Sacra Congregazione dei Riti nel primo periodo di attività, (1588–1634)’, in Miscellanea in occasione del IV centenario della Congregazione per le Cause dei Santi, 1588–1988 (Vatican City, 1988, 13–52)Google Scholar. Papa only goes as far as 1610, though a sequel is promised.

20 Dated 29 April 1601 it may be found in the Bullarium Romanum XIV, 687–705Google Scholar. See also Papa, , ‘La Sacra Congregazione dei Riti’, 29–33Google Scholar.

21 According to Palazzini (cardinal-prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, 1980–8) the involvement of these senior legal figures at such a crucial stage ensured from the beginning that the judicial dimension would prevail over the theological. See the preface to the Miscellanea, p. 8. For the sequence of questions put to each witness in the processus remisorialis et compulsorialis see pp. 44–9 of the 1642Google Scholar collection of decrees cited immediately above.

22 For a thought-provoking survey of the question from the thirteenth to the fifteenth centuries see Kleinberg, A. M., ‘Proving sanctity: selection and authentication of saints in the later Middle Ages’, Viator 20 (1989), 183–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Gregory, IX, Decretales 3. 45. 1.Google Scholar On the previously widespread practice of canonization by bishops see Amore, A., ‘La canonizzazione vescovile’, Antonianum 52 (1977), 231–60Google Scholar. See also Amore's complementary piece in the same issue (pp. 38–80), ‘Culto e canonizzazione dei Santi nell'antichità cristiana’.

24 See Paciocco, R., ‘“Virtus morum”’ et “Virtus signorum”. La teoria della santità nelle lettere di canonizzazione di Innocenzio III’, Nuova Rivista Storica 70 (1986), 597–610Google Scholar. Innocent's arrenghe for Homobonus' canonization is given on pp. 599–600. I am grateful to Brenda Bolton for having drawn my attention to this interesting article. S. Kuttner believed Innocent III's pontificate to have been the crucial period in the development of papal reservation of the right to canonize, not that of Alexander III (in the latter's Bull Audivimus) as argued so influentially by Benedict XIV. See Kuttner, S., ‘La réserve papale du droit de canonization’, Revue Historique de Droit Français et Étranger 17 (1938), 172–228Google Scholar. See also Vauchez, A., Le Sainteté en Occident aux derniers siècles du Moyen Age (Rome, 1981), who established c. 1270 as the turning point in papal attitudes to canonization (pp. 71–121)Google Scholar.

25 Vauchez, , Le Sainteté, 588–90Google Scholar, 606 n. 69, identified precisely this need to demonstrate heroic degrees of virtue as the hallmark of the changed papal attitude to canonization, citing the particular case of St Louis of France.

26 It was reprinted in Tractatus universi iuris tom. 14, vol. 20 (Venice, 1584), ff. 97–103Google Scholar.

27 That is to say, after the section in the Summarium vitae on Hélory's pity towards the sick, there are numbered references to the relevant depositions from the Processus Inquisitionis et Informationis. See pp. 342–3 of de la Borderie, Le Moyne (ed.) Monuments originaux de l'histoire de S. Yves (Saint-Brieve, 1887)Google Scholar. Borderie counted 243 witnesses (out of a total of 500) included in the first report. The Acta Sanctorum (hereafter Acta SS.), Maii IV, 537 ff, only referred to 92 out of the 249 extant depositions. I am extremely grateful to Dr David d'Avray for having drawn my attention to this fascinating document.

28 For a detailed account of Campi's writings and their relation to the broader question of historia sacra during the century after the closing of the Council of Trent see my unpublished Ph.D thesis: Hagiography and Ecclesiastical Historiography in Late Sixteenth- and Early Seventeenth-Century Italy: Pietro Maria Campi of Piacenza (1569–1649) (University of London (Warburg Institute), 1991)Google Scholar.

29 The bulk of Campi's correspondence relating to the canonization of Pope Gregory X is to be found in the Biblioteca Comunale di Piacenza (hereafter BCPC): fondo pallastrelli with a lesser number of letters dispersed between the Carteggio Farnese interno and estero at the Archivio di Stato of Parma (hereafter ASPR). Documentary material relating to the canonization case itself may be found in the Archivio di Stato at Piacenza (hereafter ASPC): fondo culto and Provvigioni e Ordinazioni; the Archivio di Stato at Arezzo (hereafter ASAR): principally in the Fondo Canonizzazione del Beato Gregorio X, (dal 1622 al 1716); the Archivio segreto vaticano (hereafter ASV): Arch. cong. SS. rituum; and finally in the Archivio della congregazione per le cause dei santi—ex Riti—(hereafter ACCS) in Rome. The only published study of Gregory X's canonization trial is the incomplete survey by Benassi, U., ‘Pietro Maria Campi e il B. Gregorio X’, Bollettino Storico Piacentino (hereafter BSPC) 9 (1914), 145–57Google Scholar. There also exists a guide to documents relating to the affair in the ASPC in Nasalli-Rocca, E., ‘La causa di canonizzazione del B. Gregorio X (Documenti dell'Archivio del Comune)’, in Il Nuovo Giornale, Anno XVII, no. 9 (1 febbraio 1926)Google Scholar. For an incomplete unpublished account of the trial which does not consider material held at the BAV, ASV, or ACCS see Manelli, E., Il metodo storiografico del Campi e la storiografia piacentina (Università Cattolica di Milano—tesi di laurea—1969–1970), chapter 1, 21 ff.Google Scholar

30 See Polizzotto, L., ‘Vicissitudini, contrasti ed esiti del processo di canonizzazione di S. Antonino’, Rivista di Ascetica e Mistica (1990), 363–87Google Scholar and Turchini, A., La fabbrica di un santo: il processo di canonizzazione di Carlo Borromeo e la controriforma (Casale Monferrato, 1984)Google Scholar and Rasmussen, N., ‘Iconography and liturgy at the Canonization of Carlo Borromeo’, Analecta Komana Instituti Danici 15 (1986), 119–50Google Scholar (now reprinted in a shortened form in Headley, J. M. and Tomaro, J. B. (eds), San Carlo Borromeo: Catholic Reform and Ecclesiastical Politics in the Second Half of the Sixteenth-Century (Washington/Toronto/London, 1988), 264–76)Google Scholar.

31 For the period of Gregory XV and Urban VIII's pontificates (1621–44) see Pastor, , Storia dei Papi, XIII (Rome, 1961)Google Scholar, passim. Innocent X, on the other hand, under whose authority the final decision in Gregory X's trial was taken in 1645, was acutely aware of growing French power and therefore pursued a more positive policy towards Spain. See Pastor, , Storia dei Papi, XIV.IGoogle Scholar, passim.

32 Apart from the four volume edition of the first trial into the sanctity of Filippo Neri edited by G. Incisa della Rocchetta and N. Vian (Vatican City, 1957–63) and Marcora, C., ‘Il processo diocesano informativo sulla vita di S. Carlo per la sua canonizzazione’, Memorie Storiche della Diocesi di Milano 9 (1962), 76–735Google Scholar, there do not appear to be any edited collections of trial documents from this period on a par with Lugano, P. T., I processi inediti per Francesco, Bussa dei Ponziani (Santa Francesco Romana), 1440–1453 (Studi e Testi, 120) (Vatican City, 1945)Google Scholar; Occhioni, N., Il processo per la canonizzazione di S. Nicola da Tolentino, [1325] (Collection de l'Ecole française de Rome, 74) (Rome, 1984)Google Scholar; or Menestò, E., Il processo di canonizzazione di Chiara da Montefalco [1318–1319] (Quaderni del centro per il collegamento degli studi medievali e umanistici dell'Università di Perugia 14, Agiografia umbra 4) (Scandicci (Florence), 1984)Google Scholar.

33 The above account of Tedaldo Visconti's career is based on Kelly, J. N. D., The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (Oxford, 1986), 197–8Google Scholar, and the fuller, though patchy, account given by Molinari, F. in Bibliotheca sanctorum VII (Rome, 1966), cols 379–87Google Scholar. See also the collection of articles assembled in Gregorio X nel VII centenario delta morte (Biblioteca Storica Piacentina, 38) (Piacenza, 1977)Google Scholar.

34 See BAV, Vat. Lat. 3457, ff. 43r–46rGoogle Scholar. See also the description of Gregory's miracles published in Benedict XIV, De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione II (Bologna, 1735), 269–76Google Scholar.

35 See Campi, P. M., Dell'historia ecclesiastica di Piacenza (hereafter HE) vol. III (Piacenza, 1662), 285Google Scholar; and also Mollat, G. (ed.), Jean XXII (1316–1334) lettres communes analysées d'après les registres dits d'Avignon et du Vatican tom V (Paris, 1909), letter 22302 (p. 373)Google Scholar.

36 De Servorum Dei II, Bk 2, lib. 24, section 133 (p. 272). Campi suggested that the relevant documents had been perhaps lost when the papacy returned from Avignon in 1377 (Dell'historia ecclesiastica di Piacenza vol. III (Piacenza, 1662), 95.2)Google Scholar, while Vauchez doubted that the enquiry even took place (La sainteté en Occident, 366 n. 160).

37 For further details concerning the history of Gregory X's cult see Campi, P. M., Relatio … super processu et causa canonizationis Gregorii X (Piacenza, 1622), section five, 26ffGoogle Scholar.

38 ASV, Arch. Cong. SS. Rituum 2150 (hereafter Processus 2150), ff. 20v–23vGoogle Scholar. Castellini, , on p. 456 of his Tractatus de certitudine gloriae sanctorum canonizatorum (Rome, 1628)Google Scholar, mentions how Campi began petitioning Rome for the right for Gregory to have his own Office to be said on his Feast Day in 1606.

39 The full title ran Relatio ad sanctissimum D. N. Gregorium P. P. XV per Petrum Mariam Campum canonicum placentinum super processu, et causa Canonizationis, seu Beatificationis Gregorii papae X transmissa 1622 die 10 martij quae deinceps ab eodem S. D. N. remissa fuit sacrae Congregalioni Rituum examinanda (Piacenza, Typis Alexandri Bazachi, apud Iacobum Ardizzonum, 1622), in 4, 31Google Scholar. The date of the imprimatur was 26 September the same year. The Relatio was reprinted two years later in Florence (‘Pigonius, 1624’) with a new preface addressed to the new pope, Urban VIII.

40 See Pastor, , Storia dei Papi XIII, 56–7Google Scholar.

41 ACCS, Regesta Servorum Dei, I, 1592–1654, 219Google Scholar.

42 See BCPC, ms. pall 155, ff. 15v–17rGoogle Scholar, which consists of an account of the expenses Campi incurred between 20 September 1622 and 12 February 1626 in connection with Gregory's case. This document also mentions how he despatched some 65, unbound, copies to Rome. The same document also indicates (f. 16r) that Campi had 280 copies of the Relatio printed in Florence in the second half of 1623.

43 BCPC, ms. pall. 82:II, ff. 107r–108vGoogle Scholar, undated. Campi's list of expenses (ms. pall. 155, ff. 15v–17r) also tells us that during the course of 1624 he wrote some 500 letters connected with Gregory's candidature, at the total cost of some 87 scudi.

44 There is the copy Campi made of the letter he wrote, in Latin, to the dean of the chapter of Liège Cathedral—dated ‘vi idus Aprilis 1623’—in BCPC, ms. pall 82:I, f. 210r–vGoogle Scholar. The numbering of folios for this manuscript is my own.

45 See BCPC, ms. pall. 82:I, ff. 221r–222rGoogle Scholar for a copy of the letter Campi sent Philip IV on 27 November 1623.

46 See BCPC, ms. pall. 82:I, f. 229r–vGoogle Scholar for a copy of the letter Campi sent, dated 12 November 1623.

47 See BCPC, ms. pall. 82:I, f. 228r–vGoogle Scholar for a copy of the letter Campi sent to the doge of Venice dated 27 June 1624.

48 ‘12 Oct.… per la spesa dell'andata mia a Parma ove stetti 4 giorni, insieme con mio nipote, à plantare la prima copia all ill. ma… Card. Farnese.’ BCPC, ms. pall. 155, ff. 15v–17rGoogle Scholar.

49 Dated 6 April 1623, a copy of this letter may be found in BCPC, ms. pall. 82:I, f. 199rGoogle Scholar. See also ASV, Processus 2150, f. 37rGoogle Scholar, where another copy of the letter, this time dated 7 April 1623, is given.

50 See HE vol. III, 96.1Google Scholar, (i.e. page 96 column 1). For another copy of the letter see Burali, J., Vite de Vescovi Aretini.. dall'anno CCCXXXVI fino all' Anno MDCXXXVIII (Arezzo, 1638), 68Google Scholar.

51 See ASPC, Provvigioni e riformagioni del consiglio Generale del Comune di Piacenza, reg. 78, 370Google Scholar where there is reference made to a ‘lectio memorialis … pro beatificatione Smi Gregoriji Pontificis Decimi. See also BCPC, ms. pall. 155 (f. 16r–v)Google Scholar where Campi gave the date when he began his official duties as April 1623.

52 ASV, Arch cong. SS. Rituum: processus 2150. ‘Acta Inquisitionis et Informationis… super fama sanctitatis e vitam ac miraculorum … Gregorij X.mi’, ff. 67Google Scholar, registered by the notary Johannes Francisum di Parma, (July) 1623.

53 ASPR, Epistolario scelto, busta 4, filza 6.

54 Processus 2150 is the first Piacentine trial; Processus 2151 the second remissorial trial held at Arezzo; Processus 2152, a copy of the Aretine remissorial trial held in the early eighteenth century; Processus 2153, a copy of the Piacentine remissorial trial; Processus 2154, a copy of the Relatio made for the Auditors of the Rota as well as a summary of 2150; and, finally, Processus 2155 is a copy of the first, Aretine remissorial trial.

55 This fondo contains four items concerned with Gregory X's canonization from the period 1622–1716. They are: a copy of Campi's Relatio in the 1622 Piacenza edition; a Positio super dubio et Animadversiones fidei promotoris (Rome, 1712)Google Scholar; a similar document dating from 1713; and an eighteenth-century miscellany of documents relating to Gregory X. In the ASPC Fondo Culto, cartella 20, on the other hand, are to be found copies of the remissorial trial held at Piacenza and of both of the remissorial trials held at Arezzo. It is just possible that the missing document might be found amongst the residual holdings of the ASV still kept at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris where documents relating to Gregory X were listed in a nineteenth-century inventory as constituting numbers 2958–2990 of the Vatican canonization trial holdings there. See Analecta Bollandiana 5 (1886), 147–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 Processus 2150, f. 43r f.

57 Calegari's contact here was the Dominican hagiographer Silvano Razzi who in turn wrote to the grand duke of Tuscany's physician Girolamo Mercuriale, so as to obtain permission to make a copy of the document. See the copies of the bishop of Arezzo's letter to Mercuriale of 2 January 1604 and of Razzi's letter to the latter five days later (7 January), both in Processus 2150, ff. 44v and 43v–44r respectively.

58 See Processus 2150, f. 47v for a copy of a letter dated 26 March 1619 from one Giovanni Battista Ricciardetti on behalf of the Priore del Popolo and Confalonieri di Giustizia of Arezzo in response to Piacentine requests for more information about Gregory.

59 ASPC, Fondo Culto, cartella 20, ‘Sacra Rituum Congregatione Placentina pro Canoniz[ation]e Beati Gregorij Papae decimi Processus Remissoriales due Aretini’, f. 27r–vGoogle Scholar. Cf. Burali, Jacopo's different list of officers given in his Vita de Vescovi Aretini, 68Google Scholar.

60 … acriò di essi in name pubblico, così pia e sant'opera fosse aiutata, e sollecitata con ogni offitio e diligenza possibile.’ Processus 2150, f. 53v.

61 Processus 2150, f. 4r where reference was made to the fact that the Congregation of Rites sought ‘aliqua probatio in genere de fama sanctitatis, et miraculorum’.

62 Processus 2150, ff. 13r–14v.

63 Processus 2150, f. 14v.

64 Processus 2150, ff. 17v–18r. Moroni, (Dizionario di erudizione storico-ecclesiastica t. XV (Venice, 1842), col. 261)Google Scholar attributed this couplet to John of Toledo, bishop of Porto.

65 Processus 2150, f. 29v. See also Fabio Buccabarili's testimony from iconographical evidence (f. 27 v) and that of Clemente Bonvino (f. 21r). Bernardo Fornario's testimony referred to the same image as Barolini (f. 29v).

66 Processus 2150, f. 35r.

67 Processus 2150, ff. 18r; 19r; 21r–v and 30v.

68 This transcription is to be found on ff. 39v–43r.

69 ACCS, Regesta Servorum Dei, 1592–1654, 279–80Google Scholar. The text of this letter may be found in ASV, Processus 2153, ff. 2v–4vGoogle Scholar.

70 See Ortolan, T., ‘Canonisation dans l'Eglise Romaine’ in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique vol. II.2 (Paris, 1923), cols 1626–59Google Scholar (in particular cols 1646–56), and also Löw, G.. ‘Beatificazione’ in the Enciclopedia Cattolica vol. II (Florence, 1949), cols 1090–100Google Scholar. At this transitional stage in the development of canonization procedure, however, several of the distinctions between the first and second trials–such as the number of judges–had yet to be fixed. By the eighteenth century, however, three bishops were needed (see Benedict XIV, De Servorum Dei, IV, bk II, ch. xlv, section 10).

71 Processus 2153, ff. 4v–5r.

72 Examples of these were: (1) Item ponitur quod semper d[ict]a Gregorius Pontifex magnam et excellente habuit fidem servavit (f. 7r); (13) Item ponit[ur] quod excellentissimam habuit caritatem erga Deum cuius amore flagrabat ac pro eius gloria et honore in suo Pontif[icat]u multa praeclara fecit seq. ab omni (f. 7v); Item ponit[ur] quod ardentissima habuit charitatem erga proximos … (idem); and (22) Item ponit[ur] et quod in vita sua maxima et quamplurima miracula fecit quae sunt vera miracula, sanitatem multis restituit ipsoq[ue] Gregorio invente et adhuc Lugduni pontis precibus eius liberata est a morte mulier in flumen prolapsa quae acquis suffogabatur quod fuit el est verum (f. 8v).

73 At a later date these questions were drawn up by the Promoter of the Faith in Rome (and sent in a sealed envelope) for the Vice-Promoter to put to the witnesses in the form of positions. See Ortolan, cols 1648–50.

76 BCPC, ms. pall. 91.II, ‘Diario del negotiato per me Pietro Maria Campi can.co piacentino nella causa della pro Canoniz[azion]e Beati Gregorij Papae Decimi Processis Remissoriales due Aretini’, f. 35v (for the beginning of the testimony of the first witness) and f. 116v (for that of the last).

75 ‘Processis Remissoriales due Aretini’, f. 11r–v (for the five criteria) and ff. 13r–26r (for the 31 categories).

76 BCPC, ms. pall. 91.II, ‘Diario del negotiato per me Pietro Maria Campi can.co piacentino nella causa della beatificazione di esso glorioso pontefice in Roma’, 1. This summary account of Campi's time in Rome is unfortunately little more than an annotated list of letters he sent each day (the copies of most of which are to be found in ms. pall. 83). It does, however, cover the entire period of his stay—4 March 1626 until 28 May 1631.

77 BCPC, ms. pall. 155, ff. 15v–17rGoogle Scholar, where in a list of Campi's expenses incurred during the course of the trial, the latter noted that he had to pass on receipts to these two officers come eletti sopra questa causa … al 30 settembre 1625.

78 ASPC, Provvigioni e riformagioni del Consiglio Generale del Comune di Piacenza, reg. 82, f. 285r–vGoogle Scholar. This document also provides an itemized account drawn up by the Anziani from Campi's own account books of all the latter's expenses whilst in Rome for the attempted canonization of Gregory X.

79 BCPC, ms. pall. 155, f. 18rGoogle Scholar and ms. pall. 83, ff. 3r and 4r–v. On Zazzara (1574–1626) see pp. 157–8 of Gasbarri, C., L'Oratorio Romano dal '500 al '900 (Rome, 1963)Google Scholar. On Zazzara's replacement, the Jesuit hagiographer Virgilio Cepari (c. 1564–1631), see De Backer, and Sommervogel, , Bibliothèque de la Compagnie de Jésus vol. II (Brussels/Paris, 1891), cols 957–65Google Scholar.

80 ASSC, Decreta Liturgica, 1622–26, ff. 134v–135rGoogle Scholar. See also BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f.24vGoogle Scholar in a letter to the bishop of Piacenza of 15 July 1626 or in ACCS, Processi antichi 76, f. 15rGoogle Scholar and Campi's letter to the duchess of Tuscany of 16 May (ibid. f. 5r–v) and that to Agucchi of 15 May 1626 (ibid. f. 6v) where Campi wrote ‘… vie è necessari la derogazione per rispetto di Gregorio, che non è de'Santi nuovi ma antiche’. For the text of the relevant decree (dated 11 June 1605) see ACCS, Decreta Liturgica, 1602–1607, 174Google Scholar.

81 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, containing ff. 538Google Scholar. However we do know that Campi did enjoy help with the task of copying. See his letter to Duke Odoardo Farnese of 4 May 1630 (BCPC, ms. pall. 83, ff. 377v–378rGoogle Scholar).

82 The first two saw Gregory's case through to the end, but Manzanedo was replaced by Merlino in 1629.

83 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 96rGoogle Scholar, letter from Campi to Canonico Spada of 10 April 1627. For more details as to the specific doubts raised vis à vis the Arezzo case see BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section C, ff. 141r–147vGoogle Scholar: ‘Dubia data per Ill.ma Cardinale ponente die 10 Martij 1627’, f. 141r–v; ‘Responsiones ad dubia… 11 martij’, ff. 142r–143v; and finally ‘Responsiones ad dubia super validitate processus Aretini remissorialis’, ff. 145r–147v.

84 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section B, ff. 148r–148rGoogle Scholar (bis).

85 ASPC, Fondo culto, cartella 20, ‘Sac.Rit. Cong.… processus remissorialis due Aretini’. The re-examinations appear to have been conducted over a period of only two days–28–29 August that year (see ff. 32r and 54v).

86 ACCS, Decreta Servorum Dei, 1592–1654, 348–9 and 352–3Google Scholar where the doubts about the validity of the remissorial trials were discussed in a meeting of the Congregation of Rites on 17 July and resolved on 7 August 1627. See also BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 118vGoogle Scholar, a letter from Campi to the bishop of Arezzo dated 14 August 1627.

87 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 123vGoogle Scholar, a letter to the bishop of Arezzo from Campi, dated 30 October 1627. ‘de validitate processoris, examinis testorum et iurius compulsorum.’

88 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, ff. 123v–124rGoogle Scholar, recorded in a letter from Campi to the duchess of Parma of 6 November 1627.

89 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, ff. 138r–139rGoogle Scholar. See also, ibid, f. 139v, a letter to a certain Emilio Vescovi also dated 25 December 1627 where Campi wrote that he had found in the Vallicelliana library and elsewhere ‘alcun manoscritti antichi’ which mentioned Gregory's miracles.

90 Ibid. 147v.

91 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 160r–vGoogle Scholar, in a letter dated 10 May to the Duchessa Madre.

92 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 173vGoogle Scholar, letter from Campi to the Duchessa Madre, 14 June 1628.

93 BCPC, m. pall. 83, f. 179vGoogle Scholar, letter to the duke of Parma of 19 July 1628.

94 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 194vGoogle Scholar, in a postscript to a letter to the Duchessa Madre dated 19 September 1628. See also ASV, Arch. Cong. SS. Rituum, processus 2151, ‘Secundus processus remissorialis civitate Aretina factus die decima octava septembris 1628’, ff. 65Google Scholar.

95 ‘[Her brother commended her] al glorioso Pontefice con si fatta fede, e promessa di offerirgli un voto, che subito se ne’ uscì la creatura morta, et essa si hebbe e vive tuttavia, non senza gran stupore d'ognuno’. This description and the closing sentence comes from the account given by Campi from Arezzo in a letter to the Anziani of Piacenza dated 23 April 1626 (ASPC, Fondo culto, cartella 20, letter 15). See also the account given in ACCS, Processi Antichi, 76, f. 139 v ffGoogle Scholar. For certain added details, such as the name and social status of the mother, together with a full analysis of the issues at stake see Paolo Zacchia, Quaestionum medico legalium tom. 3: quo continentur consilia et responsa 85 ad materia medico-legales pertinentia nec non decisiones S. Rotae Romanae ad praedictas materias spectantes… which I consulted in the edition compiled by Lanfranco Zacchia (Lyon, 1673), 12–4 (‘Consilium IX’) and 14–5 (‘Consilium X’). On Zacchia, see note 98 below.

96 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 210rGoogle Scholar.

97 See ACCS, Processi antichi, 76, ff. 150r–153rGoogle Scholar. The list of the doctors is given on f. 152v.

98 On Zacchia (1584–1659), later physician to Pope Innocent X, see Capparoni, P., Profilo biobibliografici di medici e naturalisti celebri italiani dal sec. XV al sec. XVIII vol. 2 (Rome, 1926), 134–6Google Scholar. I am grateful to Adriano Prosperi for having first alerted me to Zacchia's importance and to Nicholas Davidson for putting me onto the Quaestiones medico-legales. The comprehensive list of Campi's expenses connected with the case itemized that 14 scudi 10 soldi were paid ‘A tre Signori Medici, che studiarono in Roma il caso del Miracolo nuovo della Donna che moriva in parto in Arezzo’. See ASPC, Provvigioni e riformagioni del Consiglio Generale del Comune di Piacenza, reg. 82, f. 286r–vGoogle Scholar.

99 Zacchia provided a summary of his reasoning on the final page of his report. Ibid., f. 153r.

100 ‘Non mirum ergo est si periti in arte tantopere hoc factum admirati sint, ut nunquam tale quid per longam annorum seriem observaverint.’ Idem.

101 See Campi's letters addressed to the Duchessa Madre dated 3 March and 4 April 1629. BCPC, ms. pall. 83, ff. 248v and 259rGoogle Scholar.

102 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, ff. 288v–289rGoogle Scholar, a letter from Campi to Agucchi dated 14 July 1629. I have been unable to find a formal decree to this effect in the ACCS, but reference to this new state of affairs was made at a meeting of the Congregation of 29 November 1629. See Decreta Servorum Dei, 1592–1654, 432.

103 For Campi's calculation of how long the case would take given the new regulations, see his letter to the Theatine Giovanni Battista Portigiano (of S. Michele agli Antinori), Florence, dated 29 September 1629, BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 311vGoogle Scholar.

104 ‘… altrimenti non si farà cosa buona, e sempre si durerà fatica in haver audienza.’ BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 7vGoogle Scholar.

105 ASPC, Ordinazioni e provvigioni, vol. 82, f. 287rGoogle Scholar.

106 ASPC, Provvigioni e riformagioni del Consiglio Generale del Comune di Piacenza, vol. 82, f. 288vGoogle Scholar.

107 From May to October he was given 540 scudi 28 soldi. See ASPC, Provvigioni e riformagioni vol. 82, f. 284vGoogle Scholar.

108 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 7vGoogle Scholar.

109 BCPC, ms pall. 83, ff. 377v–378rGoogle Scholar. Furthermore, this would appear to square with the overall list of expenses made on his return to Piacenza where a little over 660 ducats (i.e. 32 per cent) of the total 2,052 were given as personal costs and where it was also noted that Campi was still owed at that time (28 July 1631) 391 ducats. ASPC, Provvigioni e riformagioni… vol. 82, ff. 284r–289rGoogle Scholar.

110 E.g. BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 315rGoogle Scholar in a letter addressed to Agucchi of 27 October 1629.

111 The next record of payment Campi received from Piacenza is dated 27 May 1627 and thereafter at irregular intervals over the following two years. See ASPC, Provvigioni e riformagioni… vol. 82, f. 285rGoogle Scholar. The dates were as follows: 27 May, 10 June, and 12 July (1627); 14 February and 1 June (1628); and 24 May, 30 May and 20 June (1629). These payments totalled just over 1,100 ducats.

112 ‘… quelli popolari… [adding, by way of reassurance] se gli si sono opposti non mancarò darli la mortificazione che meritano.’ ASPR, Carteggio Farnese interno, 27 January 1628Google Scholar.

113 See the letters between the governor of Piacenza and the cardinal regent and Duchessa Madre dated 1, 2, 9, 21 August 1622 and 16 July 1623 in the ASPR, Carteggio Farnese interno and cited in Benassi, U., ‘Pietro Maria Campi e il B. Gregorio X’, BSPC 9 (1914), 149 n. 3Google Scholar.

114 ASPR, Cart. Farn. Int. 1628 26 October 1628Google Scholar. See also Benassi, ibid., 151 n. 1. The exact nature of Campi's request can be seen in a reference made in the ASPC, Provvigioni e riformagioni… reg. 81, f. 238Google Scholar, dated 31 October 1628 which recorded Campi's petition for 600 ducats (ducatoni).

115 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, f. 265vGoogle Scholar.

116 That is to say, the summary of the case as it had been presented to and approved by the auditors of the Rota, incorporating much material from the transsumpta of the remissorial and investigative trials in Piacenza and Arezzo.

117 I have not been able to find out anything further about this unusual collector. Campi mentioned him in a letter to Ludovico Vicedomini (ms. pall. 83, f. 247r–v).

118 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 246rGoogle Scholar, a letter from Campi to the Duchessa Madre, dated 21 February 1629.

119 The trial of the former had begun in Tortona on 12 September 1626. See ACCS, Decreta Servorum Dei, 1592–1654, 305Google Scholar.

120 As reported by Campi in a letter to Portigiano of 6 June 1626, BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 14rGoogle Scholar. See also Campi's letter to Agucchi of a week later (13 June).

121 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 345r–vGoogle Scholar, a letter dated 26 January 1630 to Pier Luigi Borghi.

122 ACCS, Decreta Servorum Dei, 1592–1654, 441—Constat. de virt.

123 See ASPC, Ordinazioni… vol. 81, f. 94r–vGoogle Scholar. In the same letter Campi also mentioned how the Fatebenfratelli had sent one of their order to Rome all the way from Spain to argue the case of their founder John of God, while the case of the Zoccolanti martyrs had been conducted by a friar who had been sent all the way from India whither he returned—rewarded with a bishopric—after the successful conclusion of their case.

124 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 372rGoogle Scholar, a letter from Campi dated 6 April 1630.

125 See Campi's letter to Portigiano of 4 May 1630 where the former recounted that Pius' case had been temporarily halted by the lack of two authenticated miracles. BCPC, ms. pall. 83, ff. 378v–379rGoogle Scholar.

126 See ACCS, Decreta Servorum Dei 1592–1654, 325 (Aper. proc.); 335–6Google Scholar (Litt. remiss.); 425 (Relatio auditorum); 451 (Constat. de validitate) and 473–4 (Constat. de virt.). The speedy progress of this trial was helped by an Iter causae velociis of 7 September 1630 (ibid., 462).

127 ACCS, Decreta Servorum Dei, 1592–1654, 446–7Google Scholar—Constat. de virt.

128 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, ff. 378v–379rGoogle Scholar.

129 See ASPC, Serie Culto, Cartella 20. See also Campi's copy of the letter, without the attached Nota della spese, in BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 387r–vGoogle Scholar and also the letter together with the list of projected expenses sent on the same day to the duke of Parma (ibid., f. 387v).

130 ‘Si deono far dipingere a chiaroscuro li attioni piu eroiche et miracoli del Beato in 16 o 20 quadri in tela, da mettersi intorno alla chiesa che a died scudi l'uno importeranno 160 scudi et un quadro grande su l'altar maggiore, scudi 50’. ASPC, Serie Culto, Cartella 20.

131 ‘Nella musica e concerti di quattro chori almeno per li detti due vesperi et messa cantata—60 scudi.’ Ibid.

132 ‘Sogliono anche la sera di notti far[ne] allegrezza con abbruggiar botti, tirrar raggi e pagari trombetti.’ Ibid.

133 See Campi's letter of 28 September 1630 to the duke of Parma in ASPR, Epistolario Scelto, busta 4, filza 6. See also Campi's copy in BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 412rGoogle Scholar.

134 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 404rGoogle Scholar.

135 See a letter Campi wrote to Cardinal Ascoli on 11 September, i.e. the day after the meeting, where he noted that if the ambassadors were not successful he would have to wait until the following January (ibid.).

136 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 424vGoogle Scholar, letter to the duke of Parma, dated 19 October 1630.

137 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 434r–vGoogle Scholar.

137 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 436vGoogle Scholar. This was to Antonio Barberini the Elder, Cardinal S. Onofrio. See Gheri, Francesco, Elenchus Congregationum aliorumque congressum qui pro negotiorum et causarum expeditione in Urbe fieri solent. Ordine alphabetico congestus (Rome, 1629), 7 and 32Google Scholar. I am grateful to Prof. Dr Markus Voelkel for having drawn my attention to this work.

139 ‘niuna fu risoluta.’ BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 464vGoogle Scholar, letter from Campi to Cardinal Ascoli dated 1 February 1630.

140 Idem.

141 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 474rGoogle Scholar, letter from Campi to the bishop of Arezzo dated 1 March 1631. See also BAV, Barb. Lat. 2766, Facti et Iuris cum Sommario Miraculorum, f. 25rGoogle Scholar. Here D. Cerri, the Promoter of the Faith, stated his principal reason for wanting to see the Tabella: ‘ut ex facie illius posset melius antiquitatis comprobari’.

142 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 478rGoogle Scholar. See also a letter to the prince-bishop of Cologne of 26 March, 1631 (f. 479v) where Campi referred to these factors as ensuring that the case would take at least another two years.

143 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 502rGoogle Scholar letter to the sollecıtatore of the case, Antonio Gerardı, dated 3 July 1631.

144 Born at the end of the sixteenth century and dyıng after September 1644, Gerardi was something of a professional ın these matters. He acted as procurator or sollecıtatore in the canonization trials of Isabella of Portugal, John of God, Giosephat Kuncewycz and Maria Maddalena de'Pazzi, besıdes wrıting up a summary account of each of these cases. For a comprehensive list of his works see Bıblıografıa Romana: notızıe della vıta e delle opere deglı scrıttorı Romanı dal secolo XI fıno aı nostrı gıornı vol. 1 (Rome, 1880), 132–4Google Scholar. It is also just possible that he was the same Gerardi who had been appoınted as the first notaıo-archıvısta on 23 December 1624. See ACCS, Decreta Lıturgıca, 1622–1626, ff. 144–145Google Scholar. (His successor, Cardınal Ginelli, was appointed on 30 April 1632. See Decreta Servorum Deı, 1592–1654, ff. 583–584.Google Scholar) However, Mons. Jaroslav Nemec, the archivist of the ACCS, informed me that thıs was unlikely.

145 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, ff. 24r–v and 28rGoogle Scholar.

146 Judging simply from the number of witnesses examined in this trial—42—this was the most important of the processi informativi into the fama sanctitate of Fr. Rafaele. A copy of the trial, received by the Anziani on 12 August 1627, may be found in ASPC, Fondo Culto, Cartella 1, fasc. 56. According to a letter from Campi to the Anziani of 28 July 1628 some eighteen witnesses were examined in Cremona and four in Orte. See ASPC, Ordinazioni… vol. 77, f. 180r–vGoogle Scholar (and also Campi's copy kept in BCPC, ms. pall. 83, ff. 180v–181r)Google Scholar.

147 ASPC, Fondo Culto, cartella I, fasc. 56.

148 ASPC, Fondo Culto, cartella I, fasc. 1 (last letter in the fascicule).

149 ACCS, Decreta Servorum Dei, I, 1592–1654, 385–6Google Scholar.

150 ‘due ò più centinaia del'effigie et oratione stampate di Fra. Rafaele perche co[n] esse si può meglio mantenere la devotione verso di lui e aiutare molto à far bene que'processi.’ See ASPC, Ordinazioni… vol. 77, f. 180r–vGoogle Scholar.

151 BCPC, ms. pall. 83, ff. 176v and 179rGoogle Scholar, dated 8 and 19 July 1628.

152 ACCS, Decreta Servorum Dei I, 1592–1654, 395Google Scholar. See also a letter from Campi to Rinuccini dated 23 September 1628 in BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 196rGoogle Scholar.

153 See BCPC, ms. pall. 83, f. 286rGoogle Scholar.

154 See ACCS, Processi antichi, 76, ff. 72 and 83–84Google Scholar.

155 ‘devono sapere le SS VV Illme che da quel tempo [1631] in qua niente altro di più si è fatto ne solamente in essa ma nè in alcun altra cause de Santi e Beati.’ Relatione fatta da Pietro Maria Campi davanti Illma Communità di Piacenza on 14 June 1635, BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section B, ff. 65r–69vGoogle Scholar. See also a letter from Gerardi to Campi dated 15 March 1636: ‘Già altre volte ho scritto a VS. che dopo la tua partenza di Roma mai è stato tratiato negozio nessuno de santi’. Ibid., f. 76r.

156 For information on the history of the ACCS see Nemec, J., ‘L'Archivio della Congregazione per le cause dei Santi, (ex-S. Congregazione dei Riti)’, in Miscellanea in occasione del IV centenario della Congregazione per le cause dei Santi (1588–1988) (Vatican City, 1988), 339–52Google Scholar. A full list of the cardinal-prefects, secretaries, Promoters of the Faith and Relatori Generali compiled by Mons. Giovanni Papa is given in Appendix 1, 423–8.

157 ‘insomma mostra havere volontà di voler fare a dire ma non se ne farà niente’, BCPC, mi. pall. 87, section B, f. 76rGoogle Scholar.

158 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section B, f. 98rGoogle Scholar.

159 The following figures are derived from the Index Reg. Dec. S. D. for 1592–1654, as tabulated by Yvon Beaudoin at the ACCS in 1976.

160 They are: Pedro Regalado, 1390–1456 (OFM); Andrew Hibernon, 1534–1602 (Conventual OFM), beatified in 1791; Bernardino of Feltre, c. 1439–94 (OFM) beatified in 1728; Charles Spinola, d. 1622 (SJ), beatified in 1867; Felix of Cantalice, 1513–87 (Capuchin), canonized in 1724; Francis Borgia, 1510–72 (SJ), canonized in 1671; Ignatius of Azevedo, d. 1570 (SJ), cult confirmed in 1854; John of Capistrano, 1386–1456 (Conventual OFM), canonized in 1724; Peter of Alcantara, 1499–1562 (OFM), canonized in 1669; Francis Gonzaga, 1537–66 (OFM); and Stanislaus Kostka, 1550–68 (SJ), canonized in 1726.

161 Charles Spinola was martyred along with 24 others and Ignatius of Azevedo with 39 companions according to The Book of Saints: a Dictionary of Servants of God Canonized by the Catholic Church sixth edition (London, 1989), 121 and 281Google Scholar.

162 The Theatines were: Gaetano Thiene, 1480–1547, canonized in 1671; Paolo Burali, 1511–78, beatified in 1772; and Andrea d'Avellino, 1521–1608, canonized in 1712. The Barnabite was Alessandro Sauli, 1534–93, beatified in 1742 and canonized in 1904; the Discalced Carmelite, John of the Cross, 1542–91, beatified in 1675 and canonized in 1726; the Minister of the Sick, Camillo de Lellis, 1550–1614, canonized in 1746; and the member of the Order of the Visitation, Francis of Sales, 1567–1622, canonized in 1665.

163 The above breakdown of figures may be usefully compared with those corresponding to candidates actually canonized between 1588 and 1767 as assembled by Peter Burke as an appendix to his article ‘How to be a Counter-Reformation saint’, cited above, n. 3.

164 For a thumbnail sketch of the eventful ecclesiastical career of Facchinetti ‘lucidissima tamen ingenij…’, whom Urban later made cardinal, see Ciaconius, A., Vitae et res gestae Pontificum Romanorum (Rome, 1677), tom. 4, cols 621–2Google Scholar.

165 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section B, f. 103Google Scholar, dated 25 February 1640. On Albrizzi/Albrizio/Albrici (1579–1655), preacher of the Palazzo Apostolico (1639–51) and rector of the German College (1637–42), see the article by Pirri, Pietro in DBI II, 59–60Google Scholar.

166 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section B, f. 109rGoogle Scholar, in a letter dated 30 March 1640.

167 For an outline of the course of this War and the circumstances leading up to it see Pastor, L., Storia dei Papi XIII (Rome, 1961), 882–94Google Scholar.

168 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section B, ff. 115r–116rGoogle Scholar. It has not been possible to trace any more specific references to this meeting either in the ASV or the ASSC.

169 A copy of the original letter may be found in ACCS, Processi antichi, 76, f. 87rGoogle Scholar.

170 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section B, f. 128rGoogle Scholar. Letter from the procurator of the case, Lorenzo della Rosa to Campi, 15 May 1641. See also ms. pall. 87, section C, (f. 200r), for a copy of the declaration of the bishop of Arezzo which accompanied the Tabella to Rome.

171 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section B, f. 138vGoogle Scholar, Gerardi to Campi, 25 December 1642. See also ACCS, Decreta Servorum Dei, 1592–1654, 676–7Google Scholar, which gave the date when the new cardinale ponente, Montalto took over as 9 August 1642. Giulio Cenci's term as secretary had ended on 14 April 1642. while Carlo Pauluzi di Calbulensi was appointed on 23 April 1642 (holding office until 10 December 1644). See Miscellanea… IV Centenario della Congregazione per le Cause dei Santi (1588–1988), (Vatican City, 1988)Google Scholar, Appendix 1, 425.

172 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, Section C, f. 204rGoogle Scholar.

173 ‘Io credo che il Card le Panfilio habbia arrengato contro la causa onde bisogna pregar Iddio che l'illumini ad esser favorevole al S. to Pontefice.’ Ibid.

174 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section C: ‘Oppositiones R. Fidei Promoteris super aperitione et identitate tabulae miraculorum’, ff. 205r–206rGoogle Scholar; ‘Obiectio ad oppositiones R. Fidei Promoteris super aperitione et identitate tabulae miraculorum’, ff. 207r–208r. ACCS Processi antichi, 76, ‘Responsio ad obiecta R. Promotoris Fidei circa tabulam miraculorum’, ff. 79r–82vGoogle Scholar; ‘Oppositiones R. Fidei Promotoris super aperitione et identitate tabulae miraculorum’, ff. 83r–86v; and ‘Summarium super identitate tabulae miraculorum’, ff. 87r–90v.

175 He was appointed on 10 May 1642 and in office until 11 December 1673. See Appendix 1 of Miscellanea… IV centenario… CCS, 427.

176 ACCS, Processi antichi, 76, f. 83rGoogle Scholar.

177 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section C, f. 207rGoogle Scholar.

178 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section C, f. 207vGoogle Scholar.

179 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section C, f. 208rGoogle Scholar.

180 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section C, f. 214rGoogle Scholar, letter from Gerardi to Campi of 11 March 1643. See also ACCS, Decreta Servorum Dei, 1592–1654, 695Google Scholar, concerning the meeting on 24 January 1643, and idem, 697 (21 February 1643).

181 See letters of Jacopo Burali of Arezzo of 19 and 25 March to Campi, BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section C, ff. 215r and 216r–vGoogle Scholar.

182 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section C, f. 219r–vGoogle Scholar, letter from Gerardi to Campi, 1 April 1643.

183 ACCS, Regesta Servorum Dei, 1592–1654, 701Google Scholar.

184 ACCS, Regesta, 702–3Google Scholar.

185 Campi's nephew had it included by way of an appendix to the second volume of the HE (Piacenza, 1651), 317–39Google Scholar. On page 317 Campi referred to ‘… la solenne canonizatione che al presente si procura di nuovo in Roma … in quest'anno 1644’. Further down the same page Campi explicitly stated the purpose of the Apologia: ‘… io, come procurator principals della causa, e informatissimo de'fatti del B. Gregorio, insinuai di subito a gli agenti colà, sostituiti da me in detta causa’. Idem, 317.2. The two shortened versions of the Apologia which I have found in manuscript, Breve apologia contro alcuni detrattori della fama e santità di Gregorio X, may well have belonged to Della Rosa (as procurator) and Gerardi (as solicitor). These manuscripts are located in BAV, Barb. Lat. 5370, ff. 171–80Google Scholar and in the Biblioteca Nazionale di Roma, mss fondo gesuitico, 1105(29), ff. 75–86.

186 Annales Ecclesiastici XII (Antwerp, 1609), 164Google Scholar.

187 It was only printed in 1646, In Piacenza, per Gio. Antonio Ardizzone Stampator Camerale. I consulted the copy at the BCPC, A VI 18.

188 Memoriale, 6–16. This passage occurs on p. 16.

189 Memoriale, 18–27.

190 Memoriale, 27.

191 It is impossible to be more precise, for Campi simply referred to una scrittura, but the subsequent use of material from both works by the procurator of the case, Lorenzo Della Rosa, suggests that ultimately both were sent to Rome.

192 A copy of this letter may be found on the second of two sheets bound in between the pages of an incomplete autograph manuscript of the Relatio Auditorum (pp. 18–49) found in BCPC, ms. Landi 234. In the same place there is a copy of a letter sent to Lorenzo Della Rosa on the same day. In the latter Campi referred to a scrittura he had sent both Della Rosa and Gerardi.

193 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section D, ‘Obiectiones R. P. Promotoris Fidei in causa canonizationis B.ti Gregorij Papa X.mi Placentini Anno Dni 1645, 22 Aprilis’, ff. 1r–4rGoogle Scholar; ACCS, Processi antichi, 76, ff. 154r–160vGoogle Scholar.

194 De Rossi's position may be summarized by his own proposition half way through his Obiectiones in ms. pall. 87, section D, f. 2r ‘Defectu miraculorum in vita accedit irrelevantia probatione quae fuerunt deduitque super miraculis post obitu’.

195 BCPC ms. pall. 87, section D, f. 2vGoogle Scholar.

196 ?BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section D, f. 3rGoogle Scholar.

197 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section D, f. 3r–vGoogle Scholar.

198 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section D, ff. 6r–17rGoogle Scholar, ‘Responsio ad obiecta R. P. de Rubeis Promotoris Fidei in causa canonizationis B. Gregorij Papa X.mi per D. Laurentio della Rosa 1645 de mense Maij’.

199 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section D, f. 6rGoogle Scholar.

200 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section D, f. 7r–vGoogle Scholar.

201 Ibid., f. 8r.

202 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section D, f. 8v.

203 BCPC, ms.pall. 87, section D, ff. 8v–9r. See also Relatio Auditorum, f. 29r.

204 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section D, ff. 9r–12v. The exact manuscripts he referred to may now be found in the BAV, Vat. Lat. 3457, ff. 43v–46r and in the Biblioteca Vallicelliana, Rome (hereafter Bibl. Vallic), C. 16, ff. 155v–157r. Both of them appear to be later copies. Vat. Lat. 3457 had been presented to the Cardinal librarian Antonio Caraffa in the late sixteenth century, while Bibl. Vallic. C. 16 constituted part of a series of copies made from the Vatican manuscripts, most probably at the close of the sixteenth century or the very beginning of the seventeenth century for either Cardinal Baronio or Antonio Gallonio.

205 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section D, f. 12v.

206 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section D, f. 12.2.

207 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section D, f. 12.2v.

208 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section D, f. 15r–v.

209 Including Corio, Bernardino's Historia Patria (Milan, 1503)Google Scholar; Calco, Tristano's Historia Patria (Milan, 1627)Google Scholar (though Calco—before 1455–1515—wrote it over a century earlier); and Bossio, Donato's Genealogia Vicecomitum principum Mediolani (Milan, 1492)Google Scholar; besides unpublished chronicles of Piacenza.

210 Apologia, 318.1.

211 Apologia, 317.2.

212 Campi, remark comes from HE II, 319.1Google Scholar. Stephanardo's judgement of Gregory occurs in Book II (lines 1–21) of his poem in Rerum Italicarum Scriptores, revised edition, vol. IX. I (Città di Castello, 1910), 51–3Google Scholar. The footnotes on p. 52 (lines 21–92) provide a thorough survey of the conflicting accounts as to what actually happened.

213 HE II. 319.1–323.1.

214 Apologia, 321.2.

215 Apologia, 325.2–338.1.

216 Vitae duodecim Vicecomitum Mediolani Principum (Paris, 1549), 28–9Google Scholar, and De i dodici Visconti e di Sforza prencipi di Milano (Venice, 1558), 25–6Google Scholar.

217 HE, II, 325.2–326.1.

218 Having based himself on the section ‘De Sanctitate B. Pontificis in genere’ where—ff. 23v–26r—Campi listed a whole range of works where Gregory X was mentioned approvingly.

219 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section D, ff. 17r–26r.

220 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, part D, ff. 17r–20v.

221 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, part D, f. 22v ff.

222 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section D, f. 23v. ‘… ex illius oculari inspections constat de veritate antiquitate, primo quod parum fuit venerata cum in pluribus locis appareat recenti manu lineata et signata cum notis marginalibus…’.

223 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section D, f. 23v. ‘Replicatio quod testes deponentur de fama in secondo processu remissoriali Aretino non referant originem ad dictam tabulam sed reddant causam scientiae ex commune omnium opinione, et reputate per auditum a maioribus, qui etiam a senioribus idem audiverant…’

224 BCPC, ms. pall. 87, section D, f. 24r.

225 ACCS, Regesta Servorum Dei, 1592–1654, 718, 724, and 735Google Scholar.

226 See the beginning to his ‘De Reformatione Martyrologii Romani’ of 1592 which is most easily consulted in Le Bachelet, X.-M., Auctarium Bellarminianum (Paris, 1913), 459–61Google Scholar. See also Ryan, E., The Historical Scholarship of Robert Bellarmine (Louvain, 1936), 173Google Scholar.

227 Gregorii X ex familia Vicecomitum placentina Pont. Max. Vita a Pietro Maria Campio placentino canonico italice descripta et a Sylvester Petrasancta Societatis Iesu, Latine reddita. Romae, Typis Haeredum Corbelletti, MDCLV.

228 See ASPC, Fondo culto, cartella 20. A copy of the letter may be found inside a partial copy of Campi's Relatio, which is part of BCPC, ms. Landi 234.

229 On Bonucci (b. 1651), who enjoyed a successful missionary career in South America, see the article by Pignatelli, G. in DBI XII, 453–4Google Scholar.

230 Historia, 2. Book one was divided into twelve chapters (pp. 5–56).

231 Historia, 3. Book two was by far and away the longest section of the work, being divided into 22 chapters (pp. 57–240).

232 Historia, 115–28.

233 Historia, 3. Book three was divided into sixteen chapters on pp. 241–331.

234 Sacrorum Rituum Congregatione Eminentissimo et Reverendissimo D. Cardinali de Abdua Aretinam seu Placentina Canonizationis B. Gregorii Papae X Positio super dubio (Rome, 1712)Google Scholar. I consulted three unbound copies: BAV, Arch. Cap. S. Pietro, C. 146 A; ASAR, Fondo canonizzazione del Beato Gregorio X; and ASPC, Serie culto, cartella 20.

235 Positio, 6.

236 Ibid.

237 De Servorum Dei II (Bologna, 1735), lib. 24, section 139 (pp. 274–5)Google Scholar.

238 See ACCS, Decreta liturgica, 1622–1626, ff. 134v–135rGoogle Scholar for this ruling, which was subsequently reconfirmed in the Bull Coelestis Ierusalem cives of 1634.