# Giulia Vidori **THE PATH OF PLEASANTNESS**

**Ippolito II d'Este Between Ferrara, France and Rome**

#### Premio Istituto Sangalli per la storia religiosa

ISSN 2704-5749 (PRINT) | ISSN 2612-8071 (ONLINE)

– 10 –

#### PREMIO ISTITUTO SANGALLI PER LA STORIA RELIGIOSA SANGALLI INSTITUTE AWARD IN RELIGIOUS HISTORY

Studi di storia religiosa e culturale / Studies in religious and cultural history

## *Director*

Maurizio Sangalli, University for Foreigners of Siena, Italy

*Co-Director*

Massimo Carlo Giannini, University of Teramo, Italy

#### *Scientific Board*

Paolo Branca, Catholic University of Sacro Cuore, Italy Lucia Ceci, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy Roberto Di Stefano, National University of La Pampa, Argentina Carlo Fantappiè, Roma Tre University, Italy Myriam Greilsammer, Bar-Ilan University, Israel Gert Melville, Technische Universitaet Dresden, Germany Ferial Mouhanna, Damascus University, Syrian Arab Republic Paolo Naso, University of Rome La Sapienza, Italy Olivier Poncet, École nationale des chartes, France Myriam Silvera, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy Lorenzo Tanzini, University of Cagliari, Italy

#### *Jury, year 2019*

Paolo Branca, Catholic University of Sacro Cuore, Italy Lucia Ceci, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy Raimondo Michetti, Roma Tre University, Italy Maurizio Sangalli, University for Foreigners of Siena, Italy Kenneth Stow, HCMH, The Haifa Center for Mediterranean History, Israel

# **The Path of Pleasantness**

Ippolito II d'Este Between Ferrara, France and Rome

Firenze University Press 2020

The Path of Pleasantness : Ippolito II d'Este Between Ferrara, France and Rome / Giulia Vidori. – Firenze : Firenze University Press, 2020 (Premio Istituto Sangalli per la storia religiosa ; 10)

https://www.fupress.com/isbn/9788855182669

ISSN 2704-5749 (print) ISSN 2612-8071 (online) ISBN 978-88-5518-265-2 (print) ISBN 978-88-5518-266-9 (PDF) ISBN 978-88-5518-267-6 (XML) DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-266-9

Graphic design: Alberto Pizarro Fernández, Lettera Meccanica SRLs Front cover: Étienne Dupérac, *Gardens at Villa d'Este*

*FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing* (DOI https://doi.org/10.36253/fup\_best\_practice) All publications are submitted to an external refereeing process under the responsibility of the FUP Editorial Board and the Scientific Boards of the series. The works published are evaluated and approved by the Editorial Board of the publishing house, and must be compliant with the Peer review policy, the Open Access, Copyright and Licensing policy and the Publication Ethics and Complaint policy.

Firenze University Press Editorial Board

M. Garzaniti (Editor-in-Chief), M.E. Alberti, F. Arrigoni, M. Boddi, R. Casalbuoni, F. Ciampi, A. Dolfi, R. Ferrise, P. Guarnieri, A. Lambertini, R. Lanfredini, P. Lo Nostro, G. Mari, A. Mariani, P.M. Mariano, S. Marinai, R. Minuti, P. Nanni, A. Novelli, A. Orlandi, A. Perulli, G. Pratesi, O. Roselli.

The online digital edition is published in Open Access on www.fupress.com.

Content license: the present work is released under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). This license allows you to share any part of the work by any means and format, modify it for any purpose, including commercial, as long as appropriate credit is given to the author, any changes made to the work are indicated and a URL link is provided to the license.

Metadata license: all the metadata are released under the Public Domain Dedication license (CC0 1.0 Universal: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode).

4

5

*Ai miei genitori*

© 2020 Author(s)

Published by Firenze University Press Firenze University Press Università degli Studi di Firenze via Cittadella, 7, 50144 Firenze, Italy www.fupress.com

*This book is printed on acid-free paper Printed in Italy*

*Ai miei genitori*

6 7

**Table of Contents**

**Chapter 1**

**Chapter 2**

**Chapter 3**

**Chapter 4**

**Chapter 5**

**Chapter 6**

**The succession of Luigi d'Este** Conclusions

**A cardinal in the Curia**

Strozzi

1. Cardinal protector of the French crown

**Serving the king. The administration of Siena, 1552-1554**

1. Conflict in Ferrara. The inheritance of Alfonso I 2. Outside Ferrara. The archdiocese of Milan

**Serving the pope. The legation to Paris, 1561-1563**

2. The cardinal's legation after Saint-Germain

1. Seeking peace. The cardinal between Siena, Rome and Florence 2. Limits to French power. Ippolito d'Este, Cosimo de' Medici, Piero

**Serving the family. Diverging identities and dynastic unity, 1553-1561**

3. Ippolito and Alfonso II. Estense politics after Cateau-Cambresis

1. From the Colloquy of Poissy to the Edict of Saint-Germain

**Bibliography 177**

2. A cardinal protector's wealth 3. Ippolito d'Este in conclave

**Abbreviations and translation conventions 9**

**Introduction 11**

**Becoming a cardinal 19**

**65** 74 86

**133** 136 152

# **Table of Contents**


FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

6 7 7 Giulia Vidori, *The Path of Pleasantness. Ippolito II d'Este Between Ferrara, France and Rome*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2612-8071 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518-266-9 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-266-9


Figure 2. A map of Ippolito d'Este's French ecclesiastical benefices

9

ACDF, SO: Archivio della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, Archivio del

ASMO, CDAP: Archivio di Stato di Modena, Camera Ducale, Amministrazione

All the quotations from archival and manuscript sources or from printed primary sources that are found in the body of the text (either inset or embedded) have been translated into English from the original document. The quotations that appear in the footnotes have been left in the original language, and the original spelling has been retained. In both cases, I have changed punctuation and capitalisation – when needed

ASMO, CDA: Archivio di Stato di Modena, Cancelleria Ducale, Ambasciatori ASMO, CDCPE: Archivio di Stato di Modena, Cancelleria Ducale, Carteggio con

AAV, *Arch. Concist.*: Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Archivio Concistoriale AAV, *Misc., Arm II*: Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Miscellanea, Armadium II

ASFI, MdP: Archivio di Stato di Firenze, Mediceo del Principato

ASMI, CCS: Archivio di Stato di Milano, Carteggio Cancellerie di Stato

ASMI, AUT: Archivio di Stato di Milano, Autografi

ASMO, CS: Archivio di Stato di Modena, Casa e Stato

BEM: Biblioteca Estense Modenese

**Translation conventions**

– to enhance readability.

**Abbreviations and translation conventions**

**List of abbreviations** 

Sant'Officio

64

Principi

Principi Esteri

# **Abbreviations and translation conventions**

# **List of abbreviations**

ACDF, SO: Archivio della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, Archivio del Sant'Officio ASFI, MdP: Archivio di Stato di Firenze, Mediceo del Principato ASMI, AUT: Archivio di Stato di Milano, Autografi ASMI, CCS: Archivio di Stato di Milano, Carteggio Cancellerie di Stato ASMO, CDAP: Archivio di Stato di Modena, Camera Ducale, Amministrazione Principi ASMO, CDA: Archivio di Stato di Modena, Cancelleria Ducale, Ambasciatori ASMO, CDCPE: Archivio di Stato di Modena, Cancelleria Ducale, Carteggio con Principi Esteri ASMO, CS: Archivio di Stato di Modena, Casa e Stato AAV, *Arch. Concist.*: Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Archivio Concistoriale AAV, *Misc., Arm II*: Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Miscellanea, Armadium II BEM: Biblioteca Estense Modenese

#### **Translation conventions**

8

**Index 195**

Table 1. Dioceses and archdioceses held by Ippolito d'Este Table 2. French abbeys held *in commendam* by Ippolito d'Este Figure 1. A timeline of Ippolito d'Este's dioceses and archdioceses Figure 2. A map of Ippolito d'Este's French ecclesiastical benefices

**Tables and figures**

All the quotations from archival and manuscript sources or from printed primary sources that are found in the body of the text (either inset or embedded) have been translated into English from the original document. The quotations that appear in the footnotes have been left in the original language, and the original spelling has been retained. In both cases, I have changed punctuation and capitalisation – when needed – to enhance readability.

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

9 9 Giulia Vidori, *The Path of Pleasantness. Ippolito II d'Este Between Ferrara, France and Rome*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2612-8071 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518-266-9 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-266-9

10 11

XCIII-CXLVII.

**Introduction**

Historiography has not taken a particular interest in Ippolito II d'Este, the secondborn son of Duke Alfonso I of Ferrara and Lucrezia Borgia. When mentioned at all, this princely Italian cardinal has usually been framed as one of the most luminous sixteenth-century examples of artistic patronage, lavish lifestyle and clerical corruption. Meanwhile, his own blatant disinterest in pastoral concerns and his thirst for ecclesiastical benefices have sometimes served as a negative comparison to emphasise the new religious and institutional tensions that were changing the Catholic Church for good.1 The fact that, for early modern standards, Ippolito had quite a long life – he died at sixty-three – has helped to cast him as somewhat of an anachronistic character, clinging onto a golden age of exterior splendour in which cardinals were more familiar with Castiglione's *Courtesan* than with the Bible. Whilst art historians have long recognised the importance of Ippolito's artistic patronage both in France and in Italy, not much has been made of his life in relation to the broader

Having been destined by his family to join the clergy in order to take up the legacy of his eponymous uncle (whom Castiglione had indeed mentioned as an example of courtly refinement), Ippolito became a cardinal thanks to his brother's money and to King Francis I's influence. His close friendship with Francis I, at whose court Ippolito spent many happy years, was pivotal to kickstarting his career as one of the richest cardinals in the Sacred College, as well as to giving him a reputation for being privy to the French monarch's plans, especially after he became a member of the *Conseil du roi.* At the same time, his large household became one of the vessels through which people and culture moved between France and Italy, leading some art historians to see the presence of the cardinal's artistic entourage in France as the main channel through which the Italian Renaissance arrived into the country.<sup>2</sup> Under Henry II's reign, not only did Ippolito manage to retain the king's favour when many did not, but he went on to become the cardinal protector of the French crown, one of the monarchy's candidates to the pontificate, and, for nearly two years, the

<sup>1</sup> Examples are in H. Jedin, *Geschichte des Konzils von Trient* (4 vols, Freiburg, 1951-1976), iv, p. 272 and G. Alberigo, *I vescovi italiani al Concilio di Trento* (Florence, 1959), p. 272. 2 C. Occhipinti, *Carteggio d'arte degli ambasciatori estensi in Francia (1536-1553)* (Pisa, 2001), pp.

events of this time. He stood, however, at the very centre of them.

administrator of French-occupied Siena on behalf of Henry II.

# **Introduction**

Historiography has not taken a particular interest in Ippolito II d'Este, the secondborn son of Duke Alfonso I of Ferrara and Lucrezia Borgia. When mentioned at all, this princely Italian cardinal has usually been framed as one of the most luminous sixteenth-century examples of artistic patronage, lavish lifestyle and clerical corruption. Meanwhile, his own blatant disinterest in pastoral concerns and his thirst for ecclesiastical benefices have sometimes served as a negative comparison to emphasise the new religious and institutional tensions that were changing the Catholic Church for good.1 The fact that, for early modern standards, Ippolito had quite a long life – he died at sixty-three – has helped to cast him as somewhat of an anachronistic character, clinging onto a golden age of exterior splendour in which cardinals were more familiar with Castiglione's *Courtesan* than with the Bible. Whilst art historians have long recognised the importance of Ippolito's artistic patronage both in France and in Italy, not much has been made of his life in relation to the broader events of this time. He stood, however, at the very centre of them.

Having been destined by his family to join the clergy in order to take up the legacy of his eponymous uncle (whom Castiglione had indeed mentioned as an example of courtly refinement), Ippolito became a cardinal thanks to his brother's money and to King Francis I's influence. His close friendship with Francis I, at whose court Ippolito spent many happy years, was pivotal to kickstarting his career as one of the richest cardinals in the Sacred College, as well as to giving him a reputation for being privy to the French monarch's plans, especially after he became a member of the *Conseil du roi.* At the same time, his large household became one of the vessels through which people and culture moved between France and Italy, leading some art historians to see the presence of the cardinal's artistic entourage in France as the main channel through which the Italian Renaissance arrived into the country.<sup>2</sup> Under Henry II's reign, not only did Ippolito manage to retain the king's favour when many did not, but he went on to become the cardinal protector of the French crown, one of the monarchy's candidates to the pontificate, and, for nearly two years, the administrator of French-occupied Siena on behalf of Henry II.

Giulia Vidori, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, giulia.vidori@gmail.com

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

<sup>1</sup> Examples are in H. Jedin, *Geschichte des Konzils von Trient* (4 vols, Freiburg, 1951-1976), iv, p. 272 and G. Alberigo, *I vescovi italiani al Concilio di Trento* (Florence, 1959), p. 272. 2 C. Occhipinti, *Carteggio d'arte degli ambasciatori estensi in Francia (1536-1553)* (Pisa, 2001), pp.

XCIII-CXLVII.

<sup>10</sup> 11 11 Giulia Vidori, *The Path of Pleasantness. Ippolito II d'Este Between Ferrara, France and Rome*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2612-8071 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518-266-9 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-266-9

Scholars are yet to map the full extent of the thick web of exchanges that linked Italy to France in the sixteenth century and that extended far beyond political and military involvement fuelled by the decades-long wars between Valois and Habsburg. Literary, artistic, financial, religious exchanges were facilitated by men who had interests, family, duties and possessions in both countries. These men could also become the vessels – directly or indirectly, as in the case, for instance, of travelling households – of ideas and innovations that ranged from artistic techniques to religious reform. Throughout the sixteenth century, one could find so many Italians in France – artists, bankers, military officials as well as choir singers and kitchen staff – that what looked like a collective fascination with the Italian Renaissance gave way, by the end of the century, to a rising anti-Italian backlash.3 At the same time, French military and diplomatic personnel – the latter often recruited from the ecclesiastical ranks – were to be found in Rome, Venice, Ferrara, whilst a number of French cardinals (especially in the first half of the century) resided in Rome – some of them continuously, some others not – and became fully integrated in the life of the city, greatly contributing to its cultural and artistic development.<sup>4</sup> Whilst Ippolito d'Este was one of the brightest stars of this *France italienne* during Francis I's reign, the relationship he had with the Valois monarchy and his strong sense of belonging, I will argue, were also essential to how the cardinal was perceived by others and to how he perceived himself, therefore shaping his identity and his outlook as well as decisively influencing his family politics.

If it is true, then, that one can see a 'French Italy' still thriving and striving to influence the Italian political arena even after Charles V's imperial crowning in 1530, then Ippolito d'Este definitely remained of its nodes.<sup>5</sup> His involvement in French diplomacy inside and outside the College of Cardinals, made official by his appointment as cardinal protector, did nothing but increase throughout the 1540s and 1550s, after Henry II succeeded Francis I. Whilst the duchy of Ferrara – one of the Italian areas in which French influence was strongest – was striving to adopt a more balanced and tactful foreign policy (at least from a military point of view), Ippolito remained firmly grounded in 'French Italy'. His role as member of an Italian ruling family and partisan of the Valois, became, at times, a source of trouble for his brother Duke Ercole II, who feared too strong a French influence over his state. This tension, inherent to Ippolito's figure, set him strongly apart from those French clerics who were – as they have been described – 'prelates of state'.6 Although from many

13

<sup>7</sup> M. Iacovella, 'L'apprendistato politico del cardinal Ercole Gonzaga. Militanza filofrancese, conflitti famigliari, impegno pastorale (1527-1532)', in G. Alonge and R. Ruggiero (eds), *Relations diplomatiques franco-italiennes dans l'Europe de la prèmiere modernité. Communication politique et circulation* 

Looking at Ippolito d'Este's life as characterised by its particular closeness – political and physical, but also territorial thanks to his ecclesiastical benefices – to the French crown can also help us understand the relationships and tensions between the different political and spatial environments through which the cardinal moved – between the court of the Valois kings, the northern Italian states and the papal Curia. In a recent book, Matthew Vester has looked at the life of a Renaissance feudal lord, René de Challant, in light of the transregional characters of his power and possessions, which were mainly located across the Alpine regions that are now in France, Italy and Switzerland but which also stretched further north into the duchy of Lor-

perspectives Ippolito fitted homogenously within the group of French cardinals, especially after his niece married into the Guise, as an Italian prince he remained a prelate of not just one state but two – France and Ferrara, whose relationship grew

Some dependency upon foreign potentates was common to all Italian ruling families and thus it also influenced the careers of their offspring. This was particularly true of those families whose states were at the doorstep of Italy and who controlled the roads and rivers that carried soldiers, goods and news to the rest of the peninsula and to the Alpine regions. As a result, small territorial entities like Ferrara or Mantua were used to defend their independency by cultivating tight diplomatic relationships with neighbouring states whilst sending cadet sons to 'make themselves great' at one of the European courts. Marco Iacovella has recently drawn attention to the handful of years that Ippolito d'Este's maternal cousin, the cardinal of Mantua, Ercole Gonzaga, spent supporting the French crown at the beginning of his career in the Church.7 Whilst he went on to become one of the leaders of the Imperial cardinals, young Ercole Gonzaga's brief stint as a French supporter was motivated by his family's need to bring some balance to the duchy's foreign politics, as Ercole's brother, Ferrante, was already employed as a military official amongst Charles V's ranks. Iacovella traces back to the period of French militancy the balanced view of the conflicts between Habsburg and Valois that Cardinal Gonzaga held later on in his life: the south of Italy under the Habsburg and the duchy of Milan under the French. Gonzaga's ideal division of spheres of influence, which prioritised stability and peace around his family's seat over a further enhancement of Imperial power, also appears as the expression of a common concern that characterised lords and states of the Po valley. We will see that a similar mindset was also shared by Ippolito d'Este – for example, when he tried to divert a French military operation to Naples rather than to Lombardy or Tuscany. In comparison to Gonzaga and other princes whose family power was rooted in the northern Italian plains, however, Ippolito's politics appear more staunchly one-sided and his biography more markedly

increasingly problematic as France lost ground, in Italy, to Spain.

international.

*des savoirs* (Lecce, 2020), pp. 157-182*.*

<sup>3</sup> J-F. Dubost, *La France italienne, XVIe-XVIIe siècle* (Paris, 1997); id., 'Enjeux identitaires et politiques d'une polémique. Français, Italiens et Espagnols dans les libelles publiés en France en 1615', in A. Tallon (ed) *Le sentiment national dans l'Europe méridionale aux XVI et XVII siècles* (Madrid, 2007), pp. 91-122; H. Heller, *Anti-Italianism in Sixteenth-Century France* (Toronto, 2003). See also J. Milstein, *The Gondi: Family Strategy and Survival in Early Modern France* (Aldershot, 2013), pp. 1-5.

<sup>4</sup> To the point of competing with Italian cardinals as protectors of the arts: F. Bardati, 'Ippolito II d'Este e i cardinali francesi: dialogo, emulazione, competizione', in M. Cogotti and F. Fiore (eds), *Ippolito II d'Este. Cardinale, principe, mecenate* (Rome, 2013), pp. 73-99. See also id., *Hommes du roi et princes de l'Église romaine: les cardinaux français et l'art italien (1495-1560)* (Rome, 2015).

<sup>5</sup> G. Alonge, *Ambasciatori. Diplomazia e politica nella Venezia del Rinascimento* (Rome, 2019), p. 8. 6 The definition is by C. Michon, *La crosse et le sceptre. Les prélats d'État sous François Ier et Henry IV* (Paris, 2008).

perspectives Ippolito fitted homogenously within the group of French cardinals, especially after his niece married into the Guise, as an Italian prince he remained a prelate of not just one state but two – France and Ferrara, whose relationship grew increasingly problematic as France lost ground, in Italy, to Spain.

Some dependency upon foreign potentates was common to all Italian ruling families and thus it also influenced the careers of their offspring. This was particularly true of those families whose states were at the doorstep of Italy and who controlled the roads and rivers that carried soldiers, goods and news to the rest of the peninsula and to the Alpine regions. As a result, small territorial entities like Ferrara or Mantua were used to defend their independency by cultivating tight diplomatic relationships with neighbouring states whilst sending cadet sons to 'make themselves great' at one of the European courts. Marco Iacovella has recently drawn attention to the handful of years that Ippolito d'Este's maternal cousin, the cardinal of Mantua, Ercole Gonzaga, spent supporting the French crown at the beginning of his career in the Church.7 Whilst he went on to become one of the leaders of the Imperial cardinals, young Ercole Gonzaga's brief stint as a French supporter was motivated by his family's need to bring some balance to the duchy's foreign politics, as Ercole's brother, Ferrante, was already employed as a military official amongst Charles V's ranks. Iacovella traces back to the period of French militancy the balanced view of the conflicts between Habsburg and Valois that Cardinal Gonzaga held later on in his life: the south of Italy under the Habsburg and the duchy of Milan under the French. Gonzaga's ideal division of spheres of influence, which prioritised stability and peace around his family's seat over a further enhancement of Imperial power, also appears as the expression of a common concern that characterised lords and states of the Po valley. We will see that a similar mindset was also shared by Ippolito d'Este – for example, when he tried to divert a French military operation to Naples rather than to Lombardy or Tuscany. In comparison to Gonzaga and other princes whose family power was rooted in the northern Italian plains, however, Ippolito's politics appear more staunchly one-sided and his biography more markedly international.

Looking at Ippolito d'Este's life as characterised by its particular closeness – political and physical, but also territorial thanks to his ecclesiastical benefices – to the French crown can also help us understand the relationships and tensions between the different political and spatial environments through which the cardinal moved – between the court of the Valois kings, the northern Italian states and the papal Curia. In a recent book, Matthew Vester has looked at the life of a Renaissance feudal lord, René de Challant, in light of the transregional characters of his power and possessions, which were mainly located across the Alpine regions that are now in France, Italy and Switzerland but which also stretched further north into the duchy of Lor-

12

<sup>3</sup> J-F. Dubost, *La France italienne, XVIe-XVIIe siècle* (Paris, 1997); id., 'Enjeux identitaires et politiques d'une polémique. Français, Italiens et Espagnols dans les libelles publiés en France en 1615', in A. Tallon (ed) *Le sentiment national dans l'Europe méridionale aux XVI et XVII siècles* (Madrid, 2007), pp. 91-122; H. Heller, *Anti-Italianism in Sixteenth-Century France* (Toronto, 2003). See also J. Milstein,

<sup>4</sup> To the point of competing with Italian cardinals as protectors of the arts: F. Bardati, 'Ippolito II d'Este e i cardinali francesi: dialogo, emulazione, competizione', in M. Cogotti and F. Fiore (eds), *Ippolito II d'Este. Cardinale, principe, mecenate* (Rome, 2013), pp. 73-99. See also id., *Hommes du roi et princes* 

<sup>5</sup> G. Alonge, *Ambasciatori. Diplomazia e politica nella Venezia del Rinascimento* (Rome, 2019), p. 8. 6 The definition is by C. Michon, *La crosse et le sceptre. Les prélats d'État sous François Ier et Henry* 

*The Gondi: Family Strategy and Survival in Early Modern France* (Aldershot, 2013), pp. 1-5.

*de l'Église romaine: les cardinaux français et l'art italien (1495-1560)* (Rome, 2015).

*IV* (Paris, 2008).

Scholars are yet to map the full extent of the thick web of exchanges that linked Italy to France in the sixteenth century and that extended far beyond political and military involvement fuelled by the decades-long wars between Valois and Habsburg. Literary, artistic, financial, religious exchanges were facilitated by men who had interests, family, duties and possessions in both countries. These men could also become the vessels – directly or indirectly, as in the case, for instance, of travelling households – of ideas and innovations that ranged from artistic techniques to religious reform. Throughout the sixteenth century, one could find so many Italians in France – artists, bankers, military officials as well as choir singers and kitchen staff – that what looked like a collective fascination with the Italian Renaissance gave way, by the end of the century, to a rising anti-Italian backlash.3 At the same time, French military and diplomatic personnel – the latter often recruited from the ecclesiastical ranks – were to be found in Rome, Venice, Ferrara, whilst a number of French cardinals (especially in the first half of the century) resided in Rome – some of them continuously, some others not – and became fully integrated in the life of the city, greatly contributing to its cultural and artistic development.<sup>4</sup> Whilst Ippolito d'Este was one of the brightest stars of this *France italienne* during Francis I's reign, the relationship he had with the Valois monarchy and his strong sense of belonging, I will argue, were also essential to how the cardinal was perceived by others and to how he perceived himself, therefore shaping his identity and his outlook as

If it is true, then, that one can see a 'French Italy' still thriving and striving to influence the Italian political arena even after Charles V's imperial crowning in 1530, then Ippolito d'Este definitely remained of its nodes.<sup>5</sup> His involvement in French diplomacy inside and outside the College of Cardinals, made official by his appointment as cardinal protector, did nothing but increase throughout the 1540s and 1550s, after Henry II succeeded Francis I. Whilst the duchy of Ferrara – one of the Italian areas in which French influence was strongest – was striving to adopt a more balanced and tactful foreign policy (at least from a military point of view), Ippolito remained firmly grounded in 'French Italy'. His role as member of an Italian ruling family and partisan of the Valois, became, at times, a source of trouble for his brother Duke Ercole II, who feared too strong a French influence over his state. This tension, inherent to Ippolito's figure, set him strongly apart from those French clerics who were – as they have been described – 'prelates of state'.6 Although from many

well as decisively influencing his family politics.

<sup>7</sup> M. Iacovella, 'L'apprendistato politico del cardinal Ercole Gonzaga. Militanza filofrancese, conflitti famigliari, impegno pastorale (1527-1532)', in G. Alonge and R. Ruggiero (eds), *Relations diplomatiques franco-italiennes dans l'Europe de la prèmiere modernité. Communication politique et circulation des savoirs* (Lecce, 2020), pp. 157-182*.*

raine.8 In doing so, Vester has highlighted the need to expand the categories used to frame the Italian Renaissance to include the experience of 'edge characters' such as de Challant. In the case of Ippolito d'Este, as we will see, the historiographic category of 'family cardinal' needs to be complemented by a consideration of the peculiarities of his family, who shared some of the transregional characters of a lord like de Challant: besides being a composition of territories and jurisdictions that stretched from the Po estuary on the Adriatic coast to the Apennines north of Lucca, the duchy of Ferrara also came to include, after the marriage of Ercole II d'Este with Renée of France in 1528, the duchy of Chartres as well as fiefs in Normandy and in the Loire Valley. As observed by Jean Sénié, the fragility of the dispersed territorial inheritance of the Este became tragically evident at the moment of the extinction of the principal male line with Alfonso II, which triggered the devolution of Ferrara, in 1598.9 Ippolito's French ecclesiastical benefices, on the other hand, were so remarkable in quantity and quality to make him more similar to other French aristocratic cardinals than to his Italian equivalents.

In this book, I also look at Ippolito's 'Frenchness' in light of his position within the Curia, in which he was both the cardinal protector of the French crown and, especially in the conclaves of the 1550s, one of the French candidates to the papal throne. Paolo Prodi's now classic work on the double nature of the popes has emphasised the pontiff's role as princely sovereign, paving the way to better knowledge of many aspects related to the governing functions of the papacy – the role of the College of Cardinals and cardinal factions, the papal elections, the papal court, and the career paths available in the Curia. <sup>10</sup> Studies by Italian scholars Antonio Menniti Ippolito, Mario Rosa and Maria Antonietta Visceglia, in particular, have contributed greatly to improve our knowledge of these topics and have helped frame Ippolito's experience as a leader of the French faction in the Curia. <sup>11</sup> In particular, I have tried to highlight how factional politics, family interest and self-promotion interacted and often clashed with each other every time that Ippolito and the other cardinals were called to elect the new pontiff in the secrecy of conclave, a moment – arguably the only moment – in which factions worked at full steam. In the case of Italian aristocratic cardinals like Ippolito the boundaries of their loyalty to a lay sovereign were anything but fixed: they could move back or forth based on other considerations – family interest, personal honour, religious concerns – that thus contributed to shape the contours of each faction during each conclave, and that could sometimes also nurture unexpected alliances, such as the agreement on the election of Cardinal Sal-

15

<sup>12</sup> Cardinal Gonzaga's position during this and other conclaves is analysed in M. Iacovella, '«Padrone di me et del voto mio». Militanza filoimperiale e coscienza religiosa nel cardinal Ercole Gonzaga', *Riforma e movimenti religiosi. Rivista della società di studi valdesi*, 7 (2020), pp. 13-47. The conclave of 1549

and the following ones are considered in Chapter 2.3 in this book.

viati that brought Ippolito and his Imperial cousin, Ercole Gonzaga, on the same side

Unlike conclaves, which are a topic that have always fascinated historians and on which much has been written, the protectorship of national crowns is an institution that has only very recently started to draw more attention and on which there is still much to say. Ippolito's protectorship was so long – almost twenty-five years – and it spanned over decades so important for the relationship between Church and France, that I have considered it as a fundamental moment of transition towards the seventeenth century protectorship, that is to say, towards a role that was more institutionalised and diplomacy-focused than it had previously been. Similarly, the changes occurred in the administration of Ippolito's French benefices after Luigi's succession, which is dealt with in the final chapter of this book, offer a glimpse into the broader changes that were restructuring the relationship between church and

From a biographical perspective, this book is especially concerned with the years that marked Ippolito's political maturity, loosely from 1548 to 1563 – that is to say, from when Ippolito moved to Rome to become the new cardinal protector of France to when his mission as papal legate to France ended. Throughout this period, Ippolito's power and ambition were at their height and he was dialectically engaged with those political entities from which he derived his power and to which he addressed his ambition. Therefore, one of the recurring questions of this book will be how and to what extent the different obligations to which Ippolito d'Este was subject influenced one another; and further, whether the multiple opportunities of personal advancement that were made available to him through the exploitation of his position at the crossroads of different powers resulted in an enhancement of his per-

I have chosen to focus in particular on three biographical moments, which occupy the central chapters of this book and follow one other chronologically. The first deals with Ippolito's administration of Siena, in the first years of the 1550s, which I have considered as the highest expression of the cardinal's affiliation to the French crown. The second looks at Ippolito as the member of an Italian ruling family – from the repercussions of his involvement with the French military to his familial leadership following the difficult political conjuncture of 1559. The third and last episode moves beyond the 1550s and deals with Ippolito's legation to Paris, in 1561. It focuses on the reversed perspective from which Ippolito had to negotiate his lifelong relationship with a very changed French court – that is to say, as a papal emissary to a France divided along religious lines and in which the fascination with the Italian Renaissance previously shared by the French aristocracy had given way to an anti-Italian backlash. The close observation of such short periods of time – historical mi-

during the conclave of 1549-1550.12

monarchy in France.

sonal and familial power.

<sup>8</sup> M. Vester, *Transregional Lordship and the Italian Renaissance. René de Challant, 1504-1565* (Amsterdam, 2020), pp. 13-19.

<sup>9</sup> The fragility of the Este's transregional possessions became evident at the moment of the devolution of Ferrara, in 1598: J. Sénié, 'Une affaire de famille: les enjeux politiques des héritages de la maison d'Este', *Les Mélanges de l'École française de Rome - Italie et Méditerranée modernes et contemporaines*, 131-132 (2019), pp. 357-370.

<sup>10</sup> P. Prodi, *Il sovrano pontefice. Un corpo e due anime: la monarchia papale nella prima età moderna*  (Bologna, 1982).

<sup>11</sup> See the bibliography at the end of this book.

viati that brought Ippolito and his Imperial cousin, Ercole Gonzaga, on the same side during the conclave of 1549-1550.12

Unlike conclaves, which are a topic that have always fascinated historians and on which much has been written, the protectorship of national crowns is an institution that has only very recently started to draw more attention and on which there is still much to say. Ippolito's protectorship was so long – almost twenty-five years – and it spanned over decades so important for the relationship between Church and France, that I have considered it as a fundamental moment of transition towards the seventeenth century protectorship, that is to say, towards a role that was more institutionalised and diplomacy-focused than it had previously been. Similarly, the changes occurred in the administration of Ippolito's French benefices after Luigi's succession, which is dealt with in the final chapter of this book, offer a glimpse into the broader changes that were restructuring the relationship between church and monarchy in France.

From a biographical perspective, this book is especially concerned with the years that marked Ippolito's political maturity, loosely from 1548 to 1563 – that is to say, from when Ippolito moved to Rome to become the new cardinal protector of France to when his mission as papal legate to France ended. Throughout this period, Ippolito's power and ambition were at their height and he was dialectically engaged with those political entities from which he derived his power and to which he addressed his ambition. Therefore, one of the recurring questions of this book will be how and to what extent the different obligations to which Ippolito d'Este was subject influenced one another; and further, whether the multiple opportunities of personal advancement that were made available to him through the exploitation of his position at the crossroads of different powers resulted in an enhancement of his personal and familial power.

I have chosen to focus in particular on three biographical moments, which occupy the central chapters of this book and follow one other chronologically. The first deals with Ippolito's administration of Siena, in the first years of the 1550s, which I have considered as the highest expression of the cardinal's affiliation to the French crown. The second looks at Ippolito as the member of an Italian ruling family – from the repercussions of his involvement with the French military to his familial leadership following the difficult political conjuncture of 1559. The third and last episode moves beyond the 1550s and deals with Ippolito's legation to Paris, in 1561. It focuses on the reversed perspective from which Ippolito had to negotiate his lifelong relationship with a very changed French court – that is to say, as a papal emissary to a France divided along religious lines and in which the fascination with the Italian Renaissance previously shared by the French aristocracy had given way to an anti-Italian backlash. The close observation of such short periods of time – historical mi-

14

<sup>8</sup> M. Vester, *Transregional Lordship and the Italian Renaissance. René de Challant, 1504-1565* (Am-

<sup>9</sup> The fragility of the Este's transregional possessions became evident at the moment of the devolution of Ferrara, in 1598: J. Sénié, 'Une affaire de famille: les enjeux politiques des héritages de la maison d'Este', *Les Mélanges de l'École française de Rome - Italie et Méditerranée modernes et contem-*

<sup>10</sup> P. Prodi, *Il sovrano pontefice. Un corpo e due anime: la monarchia papale nella prima età moderna* 

raine.8 In doing so, Vester has highlighted the need to expand the categories used to frame the Italian Renaissance to include the experience of 'edge characters' such as de Challant. In the case of Ippolito d'Este, as we will see, the historiographic category of 'family cardinal' needs to be complemented by a consideration of the peculiarities of his family, who shared some of the transregional characters of a lord like de Challant: besides being a composition of territories and jurisdictions that stretched from the Po estuary on the Adriatic coast to the Apennines north of Lucca, the duchy of Ferrara also came to include, after the marriage of Ercole II d'Este with Renée of France in 1528, the duchy of Chartres as well as fiefs in Normandy and in the Loire Valley. As observed by Jean Sénié, the fragility of the dispersed territorial inheritance of the Este became tragically evident at the moment of the extinction of the principal male line with Alfonso II, which triggered the devolution of Ferrara, in 1598.9 Ippolito's French ecclesiastical benefices, on the other hand, were so remarkable in quantity and quality to make him more similar to other French aristocratic

In this book, I also look at Ippolito's 'Frenchness' in light of his position within the Curia, in which he was both the cardinal protector of the French crown and, especially in the conclaves of the 1550s, one of the French candidates to the papal throne. Paolo Prodi's now classic work on the double nature of the popes has emphasised the pontiff's role as princely sovereign, paving the way to better knowledge of many aspects related to the governing functions of the papacy – the role of the College of Cardinals and cardinal factions, the papal elections, the papal court, and

Ippolito, Mario Rosa and Maria Antonietta Visceglia, in particular, have contributed greatly to improve our knowledge of these topics and have helped frame Ippolito's

to highlight how factional politics, family interest and self-promotion interacted and often clashed with each other every time that Ippolito and the other cardinals were called to elect the new pontiff in the secrecy of conclave, a moment – arguably the only moment – in which factions worked at full steam. In the case of Italian aristocratic cardinals like Ippolito the boundaries of their loyalty to a lay sovereign were anything but fixed: they could move back or forth based on other considerations – family interest, personal honour, religious concerns – that thus contributed to shape the contours of each faction during each conclave, and that could sometimes also nurture unexpected alliances, such as the agreement on the election of Cardinal Sal-

<sup>10</sup> Studies by Italian scholars Antonio Menniti

<sup>11</sup> In particular, I have tried

cardinals than to his Italian equivalents.

the career paths available in the Curia.

sterdam, 2020), pp. 13-19.

(Bologna, 1982).

*poraines*, 131-132 (2019), pp. 357-370.

<sup>11</sup> See the bibliography at the end of this book.

experience as a leader of the French faction in the Curia.

<sup>12</sup> Cardinal Gonzaga's position during this and other conclaves is analysed in M. Iacovella, '«Padrone di me et del voto mio». Militanza filoimperiale e coscienza religiosa nel cardinal Ercole Gonzaga', *Riforma e movimenti religiosi. Rivista della società di studi valdesi*, 7 (2020), pp. 13-47. The conclave of 1549 and the following ones are considered in Chapter 2.3 in this book.

cro-episodes – makes it possible to reconstruct not only Ippolito's career as a sixteenth-century Italian cardinal, lord and diplomat but also the ways in which kinship, lordship, diplomacy, political alliances and religion influenced each other – whether in Rome, France or Ferrara. In doing so, I hope to have at least partially picked up historian Heinrich Lutz's suggestion, who first argued that evaluating the life of Ippolito d'Este in light of the historical and institutional conditions to which he was subject can only help us understand those conditions more broadly.<sup>13</sup>

Sources useful to illustrate episodes of Ippolito's biography are indeed plentiful throughout the cardinal's life. In fact, the main issue faced whilst dealing with primary materials has been how to select them. Only a very small portion of the sources that regard the cardinal has ever been published and, when some have, those documents are mainly dispersed in nineteenth-century collections of documents.14 The backbone of this work, therefore, is constituted by original material from the Archive of Modena. The overabundance of primary sources on Ippolito contrasts with the scarcity of scholarly works concerned with his figure. The only comprehensive study on Ippolito is his biography, written one-hundred years ago by Tivoli historian Vincenzo Pacifici. Although sympathetic to Ippolito's figure overall, Pacifici focuses much on the cardinal's contributions to the arts and is inclined to picture him as a quintessential Renaissance man unable to fit into the sombre atmosphere of counter-reformation Italy.15 Writing at the same time as Pacifici, but from a very different perspective, was French historian Lucien Romier, who first highlighted the long and important ramifications of Ippolito's relationship with the French crown. Romier's analysis, however, is often incomplete and sometimes quite biased, as one of his overarching arguments is that the French kings' involvement with Italian politics was one of the factors that later determined the explosion of the French wars of religion and fractured royal power.<sup>16</sup> In much more recent years, Mary Hollingsworth used the extraordinarily large number of ledgers carefully compiled by Ippolito's secretaries in the 1530s to track the expenses of the then archbishop of Milan, picturing a detailed account of his and his household's life in the years that led to the long-awaited appointment to the red hat.<sup>17</sup> Lastly, the work on Ippolito by Jean Sénié, carried out at the very same time as mine, by focusing in particular on Ippolito's time in France, fills many gaps in my own research and offers a richer un-

17

<sup>18</sup> J. Sénié, 'Ippolito II d'Este, cardinal «de famille», agent français et médiateur des relations francoferrarais', in G. Alonge and R. Ruggiero (eds), *Relations diplomatiques franco-italiennes dans l'Europe de la prèmiere modernité. Communication politique et circulation des savoirs* (Lecce, 2020), pp. 129- 156; id., 'Jalons pour une histoire des relations entre le duché de Ferrare et le royaume de France', *Cahiers de recherches médiévales et humanistes / Journal of Medieval and Humanistic Studies*, 38 (2020), pp. 111-127. See the bibliography at the end of this book for a complete list of references. 19 Among these, and limiting myself to Italian cardinals, see G. Alonge, *Condottiero, cardinale, eretico. Federico Fregoso nella crisi religiosa e politica del Cinquecento* (Rome, 2017); S. B. Butters, 'Contrasting Priorities: Ferdinando I de' Medici, Cardinal and Grand Duke', in M. Hollingsworth and C. M. Richardson (eds), *The Possessions of a Cardinal: Art, Piety, and Politics, 1450-1700* (University Park, 2010), pp. 185-225; H. Hyde, *Cardinal Bendinello Sauli and Church Patronage in Sixteenth-century Italy* (Woodbridge-Rochester, 2009); P. V. Murphy, *Ruling Peacefully: Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga and Patrician Reform in Sixteenth-century Italy* (Washington, 2007); G. Rebecchini, *"Un altro Lorenzo". Ippolito de' Medici tra Firenze e Roma (1511-1535)* (Venice, 2010). 20 Hollingsworth, M., Pattenden, M. and Witte, A. (eds), *A Companion to the Early Modern Cardinal*

derstanding of this French-Italian cardinal and of his unique relationship with the

men, who remained at the height of power throughout the modern era.20

Hollingsworth's study on Ippolito also coincided with a wave of renewed interest in early modern cardinals, who continue to fascinate historians as they responded to very different impulses that not only make it difficult to separate their worldly problems from their religious concerns but also to separate their efforts of selfpromotion and family promotion from their roles as papal representatives. Particularly useful for this project, even if not always directly mentioned, have been studies on other cardinals of the time – either from the same generation or from an earlier or later one – who came from similar social backgrounds and who sometimes crossed paths with Ippolito. Even when they did not, though, their experiences shed light on many shared characteristics that were common to this group of men: their selffashioning as patrons of the arts, their shrewd pursuit of family promotion, their role as religious reformers or Curial diplomats.19 A recent collective work has taken up the task to identify the common denominator amongst this variety of individual cardinal's experiences, in order to explore and frame the shared identity of this group of

In comparison to others in this group, Ippolito's career as a cardinal was a striking success, not just because he became one of the richest and most influential cardinals in the Curia, but also because it provided for the next generation of Este – family continuation being a concern that was pivotal to the nobility's selfrepresentation and a concern that was particularly delicate in the case of the noninheritable assets of the Church. The reputation and the ecclesiastical benefices that the very first Este cardinal, the first Ippolito, had grown during his lifetime were picked up and improved by the second Ippolito who, by the end of his life, was then in a position to pass on both his important connections with France and his assets to his nephew, Luigi, the third Este cardinal. Ippolito's Curial prominence, however, did not contribute to strengthen his family position in Italy. From a dynastic perspective beyond the immediate uncle-nephew succession, Ippolito's time in the Curia was rather a missed opportunity: crucially, it failed to improve the relationship between Ferrara and the papal state, whose claims over parts of the duchy never ceased

French monarchy.18

(Leiden, 2019).

<sup>13</sup> H. Lutz, 'Il cardinale Ippolito d'Este. Schizzo biografico di un principe della Chiesa', *Atti e memorie della Società Tiburtina di Storia d'Arte,* XXXIX (1966), pp. 127-156.

<sup>14</sup> An exception are the publications curated by Modenese historian Giuseppe Campori, which mainly focus on the relationship between the Este cardinals and their patronage of the arts. They are included in the bibliography at the end of this book.

<sup>15</sup> Pacifici's work serves nonetheless as an essential point of reference, not least as it includes long extracts from Ippolito's documents in the Archive of Modena: V. Pacifici, *Ippolito II cardinale di Ferrara*  (Tivoli, 1920).

<sup>16</sup> L. Romier, *Les origines politiques des guerres de religion* (2 vols, Paris, 1913-1914), i, pp. 89-131 and 317-413. 17 M. Hollingsworth, *The Cardinal's Hat: Money, Ambition and Housekeeping in a Renaissance Court* 

<sup>(</sup>London, 2005). Hollingsworth's several other papers based on her reading of Ippolito's books of expenses in different years are listed in the bibliography at the end of this book.

derstanding of this French-Italian cardinal and of his unique relationship with the French monarchy.18

Hollingsworth's study on Ippolito also coincided with a wave of renewed interest in early modern cardinals, who continue to fascinate historians as they responded to very different impulses that not only make it difficult to separate their worldly problems from their religious concerns but also to separate their efforts of selfpromotion and family promotion from their roles as papal representatives. Particularly useful for this project, even if not always directly mentioned, have been studies on other cardinals of the time – either from the same generation or from an earlier or later one – who came from similar social backgrounds and who sometimes crossed paths with Ippolito. Even when they did not, though, their experiences shed light on many shared characteristics that were common to this group of men: their selffashioning as patrons of the arts, their shrewd pursuit of family promotion, their role as religious reformers or Curial diplomats.19 A recent collective work has taken up the task to identify the common denominator amongst this variety of individual cardinal's experiences, in order to explore and frame the shared identity of this group of men, who remained at the height of power throughout the modern era.20

In comparison to others in this group, Ippolito's career as a cardinal was a striking success, not just because he became one of the richest and most influential cardinals in the Curia, but also because it provided for the next generation of Este – family continuation being a concern that was pivotal to the nobility's selfrepresentation and a concern that was particularly delicate in the case of the noninheritable assets of the Church. The reputation and the ecclesiastical benefices that the very first Este cardinal, the first Ippolito, had grown during his lifetime were picked up and improved by the second Ippolito who, by the end of his life, was then in a position to pass on both his important connections with France and his assets to his nephew, Luigi, the third Este cardinal. Ippolito's Curial prominence, however, did not contribute to strengthen his family position in Italy. From a dynastic perspective beyond the immediate uncle-nephew succession, Ippolito's time in the Curia was rather a missed opportunity: crucially, it failed to improve the relationship between Ferrara and the papal state, whose claims over parts of the duchy never ceased

*Ippolito de' Medici tra Firenze e Roma (1511-1535)* (Venice, 2010). 20 Hollingsworth, M., Pattenden, M. and Witte, A. (eds), *A Companion to the Early Modern Cardinal* (Leiden, 2019).

16

<sup>13</sup> H. Lutz, 'Il cardinale Ippolito d'Este. Schizzo biografico di un principe della Chiesa', *Atti e memorie* 

<sup>14</sup> An exception are the publications curated by Modenese historian Giuseppe Campori, which mainly focus on the relationship between the Este cardinals and their patronage of the arts. They are included in

<sup>15</sup> Pacifici's work serves nonetheless as an essential point of reference, not least as it includes long extracts from Ippolito's documents in the Archive of Modena: V. Pacifici, *Ippolito II cardinale di Ferrara* 

<sup>16</sup> L. Romier, *Les origines politiques des guerres de religion* (2 vols, Paris, 1913-1914), i, pp. 89-131 and 317-413. 17 M. Hollingsworth, *The Cardinal's Hat: Money, Ambition and Housekeeping in a Renaissance Court*  (London, 2005). Hollingsworth's several other papers based on her reading of Ippolito's books of ex-

*della Società Tiburtina di Storia d'Arte,* XXXIX (1966), pp. 127-156.

penses in different years are listed in the bibliography at the end of this book.

the bibliography at the end of this book.

(Tivoli, 1920).

cro-episodes – makes it possible to reconstruct not only Ippolito's career as a sixteenth-century Italian cardinal, lord and diplomat but also the ways in which kinship, lordship, diplomacy, political alliances and religion influenced each other – whether in Rome, France or Ferrara. In doing so, I hope to have at least partially picked up historian Heinrich Lutz's suggestion, who first argued that evaluating the life of Ippolito d'Este in light of the historical and institutional conditions to which he was

Sources useful to illustrate episodes of Ippolito's biography are indeed plentiful throughout the cardinal's life. In fact, the main issue faced whilst dealing with primary materials has been how to select them. Only a very small portion of the sources that regard the cardinal has ever been published and, when some have, those documents are mainly dispersed in nineteenth-century collections of documents.14 The backbone of this work, therefore, is constituted by original material from the Archive of Modena. The overabundance of primary sources on Ippolito contrasts with the scarcity of scholarly works concerned with his figure. The only comprehensive study on Ippolito is his biography, written one-hundred years ago by Tivoli historian Vincenzo Pacifici. Although sympathetic to Ippolito's figure overall, Pacifici focuses much on the cardinal's contributions to the arts and is inclined to picture him as a quintessential Renaissance man unable to fit into the sombre atmosphere of counter-reformation Italy.15 Writing at the same time as Pacifici, but from a very different perspective, was French historian Lucien Romier, who first highlighted the long and important ramifications of Ippolito's relationship with the French crown. Romier's analysis, however, is often incomplete and sometimes quite biased, as one of his overarching arguments is that the French kings' involvement with Italian politics was one of the factors that later determined the explosion of the French wars of religion and fractured royal power.<sup>16</sup> In much more recent years, Mary Hollingsworth used the extraordinarily large number of ledgers carefully compiled by Ippolito's secretaries in the 1530s to track the expenses of the then archbishop of Milan, picturing a detailed account of his and his household's life in the years that led to the long-awaited appointment to the red hat.<sup>17</sup> Lastly, the work on Ippolito by Jean Sénié, carried out at the very same time as mine, by focusing in particular on Ippolito's time in France, fills many gaps in my own research and offers a richer un-

subject can only help us understand those conditions more broadly.<sup>13</sup>

<sup>18</sup> J. Sénié, 'Ippolito II d'Este, cardinal «de famille», agent français et médiateur des relations francoferrarais', in G. Alonge and R. Ruggiero (eds), *Relations diplomatiques franco-italiennes dans l'Europe de la prèmiere modernité. Communication politique et circulation des savoirs* (Lecce, 2020), pp. 129- 156; id., 'Jalons pour une histoire des relations entre le duché de Ferrare et le royaume de France', *Cahiers de recherches médiévales et humanistes / Journal of Medieval and Humanistic Studies*, 38 (2020), pp. 111-127. See the bibliography at the end of this book for a complete list of references. 19 Among these, and limiting myself to Italian cardinals, see G. Alonge, *Condottiero, cardinale, eretico.* 

*Federico Fregoso nella crisi religiosa e politica del Cinquecento* (Rome, 2017); S. B. Butters, 'Contrasting Priorities: Ferdinando I de' Medici, Cardinal and Grand Duke', in M. Hollingsworth and C. M. Richardson (eds), *The Possessions of a Cardinal: Art, Piety, and Politics, 1450-1700* (University Park, 2010), pp. 185-225; H. Hyde, *Cardinal Bendinello Sauli and Church Patronage in Sixteenth-century Italy* (Woodbridge-Rochester, 2009); P. V. Murphy, *Ruling Peacefully: Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga and Patrician Reform in Sixteenth-century Italy* (Washington, 2007); G. Rebecchini, *"Un altro Lorenzo".* 

threatening its territorial integrity – a constitutional weakness that, in 1598, led the Este to lose their capital city of Ferrara. Ippolito's involvement with the French monarchy, on the other hand, tilted Este foreign politics too strongly towards France, leaving the duchy unprepared to deal with the French retreat from Italian affairs during the second half of the sixteenth century and the Este men profoundly mistrusted by Philip II's Spain.

As a man and a cardinal, Ippolito truly appears as the mirror of his generation. Educated according to humanist ideals and raised to appreciate art and literature, he was in a position to seduce the court of France with his refined taste and his financial largesse. Throughout the 1530s and 1540s, his humanist culture also exposed him to French and Italian evangelical circles, although this association never seems to have left the sphere of learned conversation and did not make Ippolito less keen to judge very harshly Calvinist riots in France. When, in the 1560s, he briefly became an object of interest for the Inquisition led by Cardinal Ghislieri, it was clear that his past frequentations and his courtly understanding of religion and politics had become not only improper but also suspicious. In this, his experience appears to be marked by a change of atmosphere that affected an entire generation of clerics: it affected those cardinals like Giovanni Morone or Reginald Pole,<sup>21</sup> who had personally pursued religious renovation within the Church, but also other patrician cardinals who had never taken an open side; Ippolito's cousin, Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga, who had been drawn to Valdesian ideas and whose secretary was found guilty of heresy by the Inquisition;<sup>22</sup> or men like Ippolito's life-long competitor in conclave, Alessandro Farnese, who – as Gigliola Fragnito recently showed – tried to adjust to counter-reformation Rome by – quite paradoxically – forcing sobriety on his daughter's behaviour.<sup>23</sup> Ippolito's characterisation as the quintessential Renaissance type, then, can be replaced by a more nuanced picture in which family ties, political affiliations, artistic patronage and religious feelings all contribute to shape the experience of a man whose inherent contradictions shed light on many political and ecclesiastical tendencies of his time.

19

*Quantunque il grado del cardinalato gli fosse stato pur alquanto conteso […]* 

Ippolito II d'Este was born in 1509 into a Ferrara ruled by his father, Duke Alfonso I d'Este. His mother was Lucrezia Borgia, the daughter of Pope Alexander VI, who had orchestrated the marriage in the hope of tying his lineage to an established Italian family. The Este had been ruling over Ferrara, Modena and Reggio since the thirteen century and had increasingly extended their territorial power ever since, acquiring the title of dukes in the fifteenth century. Like all small Italian states, the Duchy of Ferrara had its local rivalries and historical alliances. Most notably, the Este had had a relationship of consistent enmity with both the Sforza of Milan and the Medici in Florence, whilst they had historically maintained a more positive relationship with Venice.2 The biggest threat to the duchy, however, came from its fragmented nature: the first Este duke, Borso d'Este, had received confirmation over his fiefs of Modena and Reggio from the emperor in 1452, whilst obtaining the title of Duke of Ferrara from the pope in 1471. As a consequence, the long Estense rule

Such a delicate diplomatic position and the need to counterbalance different stakes over their state led the Este to develop a close relationship with France, which also fostered cultural exchange. In the fifteenth century, Ferrara would benefit from a 'large-scale importation of manuscripts of French poetry, chronicles, and other

here to and are partisans of the king of France, and many are dressed and shod and

<sup>1</sup> 'Although his [Ippolito's] rank of cardinal had been quite disputed, he outdid by far all the princes of his time'. From the eulogy written by Ercole Cato upon Ippolito d'Este's death: E. Cato, *Oratione fatta* 

<sup>2</sup> W. L. Gundersheimer, *Ferrara: The Style of a Renaissance Despotism* (Princeton, 1973)*,* pp. 32-33. See also T. Tuohy, *Herculean Ferrara. Ercole d'Este (1471-1505) and the Invention of a Ducal Capital*  (Cambridge, 2002)*,* p. 8; L. Chiappini, *Gli Estensi* (Varese, 1967)*,* pp. 211-247. 3 L. Lockwood, *Music in Renaissance Ferrara, 1400-1505: The Creation of a Musical Centre in the* 

. An anonymous diarist noted that 'the Ferrarese almost all universally ad-

had often been troubled by external political events.

*dal cavaliere Hercole Cato…* (Ferrara, 1587), p. 4.

*Fifteenth Century* (Oxford, 2009), p. 83.

*avanzò poi di gran longa tutti i prencipi dell'età sua* Ercole Cato, humanist and Ippolito d'Este's secretary1

**Chapter 1**

writings'3

**Becoming a cardinal**

<sup>21</sup> M. Firpo and G. Maifreda, *L'eretico che salvò la Chiesa. Il cardinale Giovanni Morone e le origini della Controriforma* (Turin, 2019).

<sup>22</sup> J. J. Martin, 'Elites and Reform in Northern Italy', in P. Benedict, S. Seidel Menchi and A. Tallon (eds), *La Réforme en France et en Italie. Contacts, comparaisons et contrastes* (Rome, 2007), pp. 309- 329.

<sup>23</sup> G. Fragnito, *Clelia Farnese. Amori, potere, violenze nella Roma della Controriforma* (Bologna, 2016).

# **Chapter 1 Becoming a cardinal**

*Quantunque il grado del cardinalato gli fosse stato pur alquanto conteso […] avanzò poi di gran longa tutti i prencipi dell'età sua* Ercole Cato, humanist and Ippolito d'Este's secretary1

Ippolito II d'Este was born in 1509 into a Ferrara ruled by his father, Duke Alfonso I d'Este. His mother was Lucrezia Borgia, the daughter of Pope Alexander VI, who had orchestrated the marriage in the hope of tying his lineage to an established Italian family. The Este had been ruling over Ferrara, Modena and Reggio since the thirteen century and had increasingly extended their territorial power ever since, acquiring the title of dukes in the fifteenth century. Like all small Italian states, the Duchy of Ferrara had its local rivalries and historical alliances. Most notably, the Este had had a relationship of consistent enmity with both the Sforza of Milan and the Medici in Florence, whilst they had historically maintained a more positive relationship with Venice.2 The biggest threat to the duchy, however, came from its fragmented nature: the first Este duke, Borso d'Este, had received confirmation over his fiefs of Modena and Reggio from the emperor in 1452, whilst obtaining the title of Duke of Ferrara from the pope in 1471. As a consequence, the long Estense rule had often been troubled by external political events.

Such a delicate diplomatic position and the need to counterbalance different stakes over their state led the Este to develop a close relationship with France, which also fostered cultural exchange. In the fifteenth century, Ferrara would benefit from a 'large-scale importation of manuscripts of French poetry, chronicles, and other writings'3 . An anonymous diarist noted that 'the Ferrarese almost all universally adhere to and are partisans of the king of France, and many are dressed and shod and

Giulia Vidori, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, giulia.vidori@gmail.com

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

18

<sup>21</sup> M. Firpo and G. Maifreda, *L'eretico che salvò la Chiesa. Il cardinale Giovanni Morone e le origini* 

<sup>22</sup> J. J. Martin, 'Elites and Reform in Northern Italy', in P. Benedict, S. Seidel Menchi and A. Tallon (eds), *La Réforme en France et en Italie. Contacts, comparaisons et contrastes* (Rome, 2007), pp. 309-

<sup>23</sup> G. Fragnito, *Clelia Farnese. Amori, potere, violenze nella Roma della Controriforma* (Bologna,

threatening its territorial integrity – a constitutional weakness that, in 1598, led the Este to lose their capital city of Ferrara. Ippolito's involvement with the French monarchy, on the other hand, tilted Este foreign politics too strongly towards France, leaving the duchy unprepared to deal with the French retreat from Italian affairs during the second half of the sixteenth century and the Este men profoundly

As a man and a cardinal, Ippolito truly appears as the mirror of his generation. Educated according to humanist ideals and raised to appreciate art and literature, he was in a position to seduce the court of France with his refined taste and his financial largesse. Throughout the 1530s and 1540s, his humanist culture also exposed him to French and Italian evangelical circles, although this association never seems to have left the sphere of learned conversation and did not make Ippolito less keen to judge very harshly Calvinist riots in France. When, in the 1560s, he briefly became an object of interest for the Inquisition led by Cardinal Ghislieri, it was clear that his past frequentations and his courtly understanding of religion and politics had become not only improper but also suspicious. In this, his experience appears to be marked by a change of atmosphere that affected an entire generation of clerics: it affected those cardinals like Giovanni Morone or Reginald Pole,<sup>21</sup> who had personally pursued religious renovation within the Church, but also other patrician cardinals who had never taken an open side; Ippolito's cousin, Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga, who had been drawn to Valdesian ideas and whose secretary was found guilty of heresy by the Inquisition;<sup>22</sup> or men like Ippolito's life-long competitor in conclave, Alessandro Farnese, who – as Gigliola Fragnito recently showed – tried to adjust to counter-reformation Rome by – quite paradoxically – forcing sobriety on his daughter's behaviour.<sup>23</sup> Ippolito's characterisation as the quintessential Renaissance type, then, can be replaced by a more nuanced picture in which family ties, political affiliations, artistic patronage and religious feelings all contribute to shape the experience of a man whose inherent contradictions shed light on many political and ecclesiasti-

mistrusted by Philip II's Spain.

cal tendencies of his time.

*della Controriforma* (Turin, 2019).

329.

2016).

<sup>1</sup> 'Although his [Ippolito's] rank of cardinal had been quite disputed, he outdid by far all the princes of his time'. From the eulogy written by Ercole Cato upon Ippolito d'Este's death: E. Cato, *Oratione fatta dal cavaliere Hercole Cato…* (Ferrara, 1587), p. 4.

<sup>2</sup> W. L. Gundersheimer, *Ferrara: The Style of a Renaissance Despotism* (Princeton, 1973)*,* pp. 32-33. See also T. Tuohy, *Herculean Ferrara. Ercole d'Este (1471-1505) and the Invention of a Ducal Capital* 

<sup>(</sup>Cambridge, 2002)*,* p. 8; L. Chiappini, *Gli Estensi* (Varese, 1967)*,* pp. 211-247. 3 L. Lockwood, *Music in Renaissance Ferrara, 1400-1505: The Creation of a Musical Centre in the Fifteenth Century* (Oxford, 2009), p. 83.

<sup>19</sup> 19 Giulia Vidori, *The Path of Pleasantness. Ippolito II d'Este Between Ferrara, France and Rome*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2612-8071 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518-266-9 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-266-9

#### The Path of Pleasantness

hatted in the French manner, above all the courtiers'.<sup>4</sup> From the end of the fifteenth century, however, the nearly continuous warfare between France and Empire that tore through Italy forced the Este dukes to pursue a defensive foreign policy that aimed, above all, to protect their state. Ippolito's father, Alfonso, found himself in a difficult position on more than one occasion, struggling to fend off papal claims over the duchy and having to navigate through fleeting and unstable political alliances. Between 1510 and 1523, he lost Modena, Reggio and several other territories to Julius II first and then to Leo X, also losing the backing of the French after Francis I was captured and imprisoned by the emperor in Pavia, in 1525. In the following years, Alfonso reconquered the lost cities. His hold, however, remained weak and the danger of losing them again to the pope led the duke to keep swinging allegiance between the emperor and the king of France. Even after the recovery of its territories, the hostility of the popes remained a crucial factor in the political life of the duchy and one that extended well beyond Alfonso's reign.<sup>5</sup>

It is in this context that young Ippolito started his career in the clergy. As Alfonso and Lucrezia's second-born son, there were never any doubts that he would follow in his uncle's steps and join the clergy. It was common practice for Italian ruling families to destine their cadet sons to the Curia, as the Church offered excellent career prospects and a religious vocation was not a prerequisite. At the age of ten, Ippolito received the archbishopric of Milan from his uncle, Ippolito I, who had held it since 1498.<sup>6</sup> His education, though, remained focused on those typical courtly activities that were deemed fit for any young prince: just like his elder brother Ercole, Ippolito learned to ride horses, to hunt and to dance. The Este court attracted many famous names of the Italian Renaissance, and the duke's children could benefit from first-rank teaching in Latin literature, grammar and philosophy, but also in music and theatre.7

Unfortunately, the relentless hostility that marked the relationship between Ferrara and the popes weighed against Ippolito's chances to ascend the ecclesiastical hierarchy as quickly as his uncle, who had become a cardinal when he was only fourteen-years old. When Alfonso, in 1527, joined the League of Cognac alongside

21

of domestic authority and put him in a difficult situation with the papacy.12

<sup>8</sup> On Renée of France, see E. Belligni, *Renata di Francia (1510-1575): un'eresia di corte* (Turin, 2011). <sup>9</sup> C. Jenkins Blaisdell, 'Politics and Heresy in Ferrara (1534-1559)', *The Sixteenth Century Journal,* 6/1

<sup>10</sup> M. Hollingsworth, 'Ippolito d'Este. A Cardinal and his Household in Rome and in Ferrara in 1566',

<sup>11</sup> Belligni, *Renata di Francia,* pp. 113-114. Celio Calcagnini's conversion to Calvinism has never been demonstrated, but his involvement with the Ferrarese evangelical circles is well known: S. Seidel Men-

<sup>12</sup> In 1536, an early Inquisitiorial investigation into some of the members of Renée's household was put off by Ercole II, who handed the suspects over to the French ambassador, that way placing them under French protection. About twenty years later, in 1554, the relationship between Ercole and Renée had worsened to the point that Ercole ordered her to vacate her lodgings so that his men could search her belongings. There, they found books 'en voulgaire des doctrines dallemaigne […] avec infinies lettres de tous les principaux hommes qui ont escript en Germaine et a Geneve. […] ny en atrouve un seul bon, mais tous ceulx quon peult appeler les pires du monde': A. Vitalis (ed), *Correspondance politique de* 

King Francis I and Pope Clement VII, he was promised the hand of French princess Renée for his eldest son, Ercole, and the red hat for Ippolito. When the hostilities ended, Francis kept his promise, but Clement did not. Ercole's wedding to Renée, in 1528, strengthened the duchy's relationship with the Valois.<sup>8</sup> It also marked the beginning of Ippolito's relationship with the French monarchy, as King Francis I authorised the young archbishop to hold ecclesiastical benefices in France. Ippolito had much to expect from Francis I's friendship, especially because the tension between Ferrara and Rome over the possession of Modena and Reggio was escalating quickly and Ippolito's promotion to cardinal had to be put on hold. In the end, only a last-minute plea to Charles V, on his way to be crowned in Bologna in 1530, allowed Alfonso to save the integrity of the duchy and to have his rights over Modena and Reggio officially recognised. Ippolito's red hat, though, was delayed to better

After Alfonso's death in 1534, Ercole II continued his father's foreign policies. Whilst Ippolito, enticed by the promise of King Francis I's favour, was planning a journey to France, Ercole was trying to scale down the French influence that his marriage to Renée had brought over the Este court. Renée's figure has indeed remained famous for having ultimately provided Ercole II's reign with some of its central tensions. Often described as a 'liability',<sup>9</sup> a 'trouble', or even a 'noose' for Ercole,10 the duke was deeply suspicious of his wife's agenda regarding Ferrara and the French, fearing too high a dependence of Ferrara on that crown. Renée's religious ideas leaned towards Protestantism and her court became a centre of attraction for individuals suspected of heresy, who found in the French princess a sympathetic and generous protector. Amongst them, were also famous humanists Fulvio Pellegrino Morato and Celio Calcagnini, who, years before, had both taught young Ippolito. Both Morato and his daughter, the famous poetess Olimpia, later converted to Calvinism.<sup>11</sup> Although Ercole generally stuck to a policy of religious toleration as long as his political and territorial rule was not threatened – and Renée's court definitely was not the only place in the duchy where religious ideas were freely discussed – he grew increasingly hostile at his wife's activities, which posed a problem

times.

(1975), p. 70.

*The Court Historian,* 5/2 (2000), p. 107.

*Dominique du Gabre…* (Paris, 1903), p. 96.

chi, *Erasmo in Italia, 1520-1580* (Turin, 1987), pp. 95-96.

<sup>4</sup> The quotation is in Gundersheimer, *Ferrara*, pp. 226-227. See also: T. Dean, 'Court and Household in Ferrara, 1494', in D. Abulafia (ed), *The French Descent into Renaissance Italy, 1494-96* (Aldershot, 1995), pp. 165-190; E. Balmas, 'Ferrara e la Francia nel XVI secolo: uno sguardo d'insieme', in M. Bertozzi, *Alla corte degli Estensi. Filosofia, arte e cultura a Ferrara nei secoli XV e XVI* (Ferrara, 1994), pp. 355-365. The French influence also extended to the way in which the Estense dukes fashioned their

funeral rites: G. Ricci, *Il principe e la morte* (Bologna, 1998), pp. 17-23. 5 On Ferrara politics, see: M. Folin, *Rinascimento estense: politica, cultura, istituzioni di un antico Stato italiano* (Rome-Bari, 2004), pp. 287; 343-344; G. Signorotto, 'Note sulla politica e la diplomazia dei pontefici (da Paolo III a Pio IV)', in M. Fantoni (ed), *Carlo V e l'Italia* (Rome, 2000), pp. 68-70. On Francis I's relationship with Italian princes, see: J. M. Le Gall, 'Les princes italiens et François Ier: 1515-1530', in C. Lastraioli and J-M. de Gall (eds), *François I et l'Italie / L'Italia e Francesco I. Échanges, influences, méfiances entre Moyen Âge et Renaissance / Scambi, influenze, diffidenze fra Medioevo e Rinascimento* (Turnhout, 2018), pp. 107-130.

<sup>6</sup> On Ippolito I, see L. Byatt, 'Este, Ippolito d', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 1993).

<sup>7</sup> Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 5-6. On Ferrara's court, see, for example: L. Chiappini, *La corte di Ferrara e il suo mecenatismo, 1441-1598* (Modena, 1990); R. Iotti (ed), *Gli Estensi. La corte di Ferrara* (Modena 1998).

King Francis I and Pope Clement VII, he was promised the hand of French princess Renée for his eldest son, Ercole, and the red hat for Ippolito. When the hostilities ended, Francis kept his promise, but Clement did not. Ercole's wedding to Renée, in 1528, strengthened the duchy's relationship with the Valois.<sup>8</sup> It also marked the beginning of Ippolito's relationship with the French monarchy, as King Francis I authorised the young archbishop to hold ecclesiastical benefices in France. Ippolito had much to expect from Francis I's friendship, especially because the tension between Ferrara and Rome over the possession of Modena and Reggio was escalating quickly and Ippolito's promotion to cardinal had to be put on hold. In the end, only a last-minute plea to Charles V, on his way to be crowned in Bologna in 1530, allowed Alfonso to save the integrity of the duchy and to have his rights over Modena and Reggio officially recognised. Ippolito's red hat, though, was delayed to better times.

After Alfonso's death in 1534, Ercole II continued his father's foreign policies. Whilst Ippolito, enticed by the promise of King Francis I's favour, was planning a journey to France, Ercole was trying to scale down the French influence that his marriage to Renée had brought over the Este court. Renée's figure has indeed remained famous for having ultimately provided Ercole II's reign with some of its central tensions. Often described as a 'liability',<sup>9</sup> a 'trouble', or even a 'noose' for Ercole,10 the duke was deeply suspicious of his wife's agenda regarding Ferrara and the French, fearing too high a dependence of Ferrara on that crown. Renée's religious ideas leaned towards Protestantism and her court became a centre of attraction for individuals suspected of heresy, who found in the French princess a sympathetic and generous protector. Amongst them, were also famous humanists Fulvio Pellegrino Morato and Celio Calcagnini, who, years before, had both taught young Ippolito. Both Morato and his daughter, the famous poetess Olimpia, later converted to Calvinism.<sup>11</sup> Although Ercole generally stuck to a policy of religious toleration as long as his political and territorial rule was not threatened – and Renée's court definitely was not the only place in the duchy where religious ideas were freely discussed – he grew increasingly hostile at his wife's activities, which posed a problem of domestic authority and put him in a difficult situation with the papacy.12

20

<sup>6</sup> On Ippolito I, see L. Byatt, 'Este, Ippolito d', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 1993). <sup>7</sup> Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 5-6. On Ferrara's court, see, for example: L. Chiappini, *La corte di Ferrara e il suo mecenatismo, 1441-1598* (Modena, 1990); R. Iotti (ed), *Gli Estensi. La corte di Ferrara* (Modena

hatted in the French manner, above all the courtiers'.<sup>4</sup> From the end of the fifteenth century, however, the nearly continuous warfare between France and Empire that tore through Italy forced the Este dukes to pursue a defensive foreign policy that aimed, above all, to protect their state. Ippolito's father, Alfonso, found himself in a difficult position on more than one occasion, struggling to fend off papal claims over the duchy and having to navigate through fleeting and unstable political alliances. Between 1510 and 1523, he lost Modena, Reggio and several other territories to Julius II first and then to Leo X, also losing the backing of the French after Francis I was captured and imprisoned by the emperor in Pavia, in 1525. In the following years, Alfonso reconquered the lost cities. His hold, however, remained weak and the danger of losing them again to the pope led the duke to keep swinging allegiance between the emperor and the king of France. Even after the recovery of its territories, the hostility of the popes remained a crucial factor in the political life of the

It is in this context that young Ippolito started his career in the clergy. As Alfonso and Lucrezia's second-born son, there were never any doubts that he would follow in his uncle's steps and join the clergy. It was common practice for Italian ruling families to destine their cadet sons to the Curia, as the Church offered excellent career prospects and a religious vocation was not a prerequisite. At the age of ten, Ippolito received the archbishopric of Milan from his uncle, Ippolito I, who had held it since 1498.<sup>6</sup> His education, though, remained focused on those typical courtly activities that were deemed fit for any young prince: just like his elder brother Ercole, Ippolito learned to ride horses, to hunt and to dance. The Este court attracted many famous names of the Italian Renaissance, and the duke's children could benefit from first-rank teaching in Latin literature, grammar and philosophy, but also in

Unfortunately, the relentless hostility that marked the relationship between Ferrara and the popes weighed against Ippolito's chances to ascend the ecclesiastical hierarchy as quickly as his uncle, who had become a cardinal when he was only fourteen-years old. When Alfonso, in 1527, joined the League of Cognac alongside

<sup>4</sup> The quotation is in Gundersheimer, *Ferrara*, pp. 226-227. See also: T. Dean, 'Court and Household in Ferrara, 1494', in D. Abulafia (ed), *The French Descent into Renaissance Italy, 1494-96* (Aldershot, 1995), pp. 165-190; E. Balmas, 'Ferrara e la Francia nel XVI secolo: uno sguardo d'insieme', in M. Bertozzi, *Alla corte degli Estensi. Filosofia, arte e cultura a Ferrara nei secoli XV e XVI* (Ferrara, 1994), pp. 355-365. The French influence also extended to the way in which the Estense dukes fashioned their funeral rites: G. Ricci, *Il principe e la morte* (Bologna, 1998), pp. 17-23. 5 On Ferrara politics, see: M. Folin, *Rinascimento estense: politica, cultura, istituzioni di un antico Stato italiano* (Rome-Bari, 2004), pp. 287; 343-344; G. Signorotto, 'Note sulla politica e la diplomazia dei pontefici (da Paolo III a Pio IV)', in M. Fantoni (ed), *Carlo V e l'Italia* (Rome, 2000), pp. 68-70. On Francis I's relationship with Italian princes, see: J. M. Le Gall, 'Les princes italiens et François Ier: 1515-1530', in C. Lastraioli and J-M. de Gall (eds), *François I et l'Italie / L'Italia e Francesco I. Échanges, influences, méfiances entre Moyen Âge et Renaissance / Scambi, influenze, diffidenze fra Me-*

duchy and one that extended well beyond Alfonso's reign.<sup>5</sup>

music and theatre.7

1998).

*dioevo e Rinascimento* (Turnhout, 2018), pp. 107-130.

<sup>8</sup> On Renée of France, see E. Belligni, *Renata di Francia (1510-1575): un'eresia di corte* (Turin, 2011). <sup>9</sup> C. Jenkins Blaisdell, 'Politics and Heresy in Ferrara (1534-1559)', *The Sixteenth Century Journal,* 6/1 (1975), p. 70.

<sup>10</sup> M. Hollingsworth, 'Ippolito d'Este. A Cardinal and his Household in Rome and in Ferrara in 1566', *The Court Historian,* 5/2 (2000), p. 107.

<sup>11</sup> Belligni, *Renata di Francia,* pp. 113-114. Celio Calcagnini's conversion to Calvinism has never been demonstrated, but his involvement with the Ferrarese evangelical circles is well known: S. Seidel Menchi, *Erasmo in Italia, 1520-1580* (Turin, 1987), pp. 95-96.

<sup>12</sup> In 1536, an early Inquisitiorial investigation into some of the members of Renée's household was put off by Ercole II, who handed the suspects over to the French ambassador, that way placing them under French protection. About twenty years later, in 1554, the relationship between Ercole and Renée had worsened to the point that Ercole ordered her to vacate her lodgings so that his men could search her belongings. There, they found books 'en voulgaire des doctrines dallemaigne […] avec infinies lettres de tous les principaux hommes qui ont escript en Germaine et a Geneve. […] ny en atrouve un seul bon, mais tous ceulx quon peult appeler les pires du monde': A. Vitalis (ed), *Correspondance politique de Dominique du Gabre…* (Paris, 1903), p. 96.

#### The Path of Pleasantness

It does not seem that Ippolito was ever involved with Renée's court. The visit that John Calvin famously paid to the duchess, in 1536, coincided with Ippolito's long-awaited departure to France, where he travelled accompanied by over onehundred men. Welcomed by the French royalty, he tried to defend his brother's behaviour with Renée before King Francis, who had been long hearing rumours about his royal cousin's mistreatment at the hand of the Italian duke. Whilst Ippolito's presence at the French court did not contribute to improve the strained relationship between duke and duchess, which ended with Renée's confinement, it laid the foundations for his life-long reputation as a friend of the Valois and a patron of the arts. Between 1536 and 1539, his scant political influence was compensated by his increasing proximity to the king and his family, which made him a point of reference for Italian affairs in at the French court.<sup>13</sup> The introduction to the court, through figures like Benvenuto Cellini, Sebastiano Serlio and Primaticcio, of artefacts of interest in the Italian Renaissance was one of the main reasons that Ippolito gained and maintained favour with the royal family, especially because the king was known for having a taste for Italian art.<sup>14</sup> Thanks to the numerous artists that revolved around his court, Ippolito was able to present Francis I with the finest gifts, which were often returned by the king through the concession of some wealthy ecclesiastical benefice.15

Already in 1536, Francis had recommended Ippolito's promotion to Pope Paul III. The duke of Ferrara was ready to transfer a huge sum of money to the pope in exchange for Ippolito's red hat, but hostility between the papacy and Ferrara remained an obstacle. Ippolito had to wait another two years until Francis I's insistence and his brother's money eventually convinced Paul III. In the secret consistory of 1538, the pope appointed Ippolito as a cardinal. His long-awaited promotion was made public the following year, shortly after the pope and Ercole had reached an agreement on the issue of the investiture of Ferrara. In October 1539, Ippolito travelled to Rome to attend the ceremony of his promotion. On this occasion, however, he did not have the time to familiarise himself fully with Roman society and the papal court: he spent there just a few months, but, as he wrote to his brother, he made sure to behave in a way that was fit for his rank.<sup>16</sup>

Having obtained the coveted red hat, Ippolito was keen to return to Paris, where he knew that Francis I's favour was awaiting. Indeed, the king immediately made the new cardinal a member of his private counsel – Ippolito was the only foreigner – and, during the following years, continued to bestow him with important benefices. Ippolito remained close to King Francis until the king's death, in 1547. During the

23

<sup>17</sup> On the Renaissance cardinal, see: M. Firpo, 'Il cardinale', in E. Garin (ed), *L'uomo del Rinascimento*  (Rome-Bari, 1992), pp. 75-131; A. Tallon, 'Les cardinaux à la Reinassance. Profil Historique', in F. Lamerle, Y. Pauwels and G. Toscano (eds), *Les cardinaux de la renaissance et la modernité artistique*  (Villeneuve d'Ascq, 2012), pp. 7-21. A much broader survey of early modern cardinals is the recent col-

<sup>18</sup> D. S. Chambers, 'The Economic Predicament of Renaissance Cardinals', in D. S. Chambers, *Renais-*

<sup>19</sup> Cato, *Oratione*, p. 10. On the political use of patronage and art collections amongst the Roman elites, see: L. Beaven, 'Elite Patronage and Collecting', in S. Ditchfield, P. Jones and B. Wisch (eds), *A Com-*

<sup>20</sup> Ibid., p. 293. On cardinals' courts, see also: G. Fragnito, 'Cardinals' Courts in Sixteenth-Century Rome', *The Journal of Modern History,* 65/1 (1993), pp. 26-56; id., 'Le corti cardinalizie nella prima metà del Cinquecento: da Paolo Cortesi a Francesco Priscianese', *Miscellanea Storica della Valdelsa,* 

lective volume Hollingsworth, Pattenden and Witte (eds), *A Companion.*

*sance Cardinals and their Worldly Problems* (Aldershot, 1997), p. 291.

*panion to Early Modern Rome* (Leiden, 2019), pp. 387-411.

CVIII (2003), pp. 97-105.

1540s, he definitively established his reputation as a fine patron of the arts and as a generous host, qualities that he could exhibit from his new residence of Fontainebleau, *le Grand Ferrare,* designed by famous architect Sebastiano Serlio. When he returned to Italy, in 1548, Henry II was the new king of France and Ippolito, as

Ippolito's career as a cardinal lasted for longer than thirty years. During this time, in France and later in Italy, he ostentatiously embraced those qualities of magnificence and munificence that were considered essential to represent the Roman Church.<sup>17</sup> His namesake uncle, the first Este cardinal, had been considered by Baldassarre Castiglione as one of the finest princes of his time, and Ippolito set himself to live up to the standard.18 Indeed, public displays of splendour and generosity – in clothing, residences, alms, gifts, and artistic collections – were the norm for the cardinals of this period, and such displays were even framed as an obligation. Such magnificence, such a 'high style of living', was something expected of a prince of the Church: cardinals were to behave, and to be seen, in a style that was appropriate to the prestige of their station, and thus their displays also had political significations. For Ippolito, these kinds of obligations, to which he happily subjected himself, were made more pressing by the fact that he belonged to an important Italian family and that, as a cardinal protector, he was also representing the French monarchy. Writing Ippolito's eulogy, humanist Ercole Cato did not forget to mention the cardinal's 'miraculous gardens, divine paintings, army of ancient statues, ingenious fountains': all of them contributed to make him one of the most influential cardinals in

A cardinal's responsibility for the combination of splendid displays, generous charity, and the sheer number of his attendants and dependents meant, however, that much of his income immediately went elsewhere. As a consequence, Ippolito spent his life burdened by debts, owing huge amounts of money to his brother and often resorting to borrowing from moneylenders in Ferrara. A cardinal's court, in particular, was the thermometer of his affluence and thus the first reason for high expenditure. Paolo Cortesi, in his *De Cardinalatu,* prescribed that a cardinal's house should include 140 men.20 Ippolito's household, at times, largely outdid Cortesi's recommendations: when the cardinal returned to France with the red hat, in 1540, his

we will see, was the new cardinal protector of the French crown.

Rome.19

<sup>13</sup> A profile of Ippolito during the years of Francis I's reign is in C. Michon, 'Hippolyte d'Este', in C. Michon (ed), *Les conseillers de François Ier* (Rennes, 2011), pp. 527-532.

<sup>14</sup> On the relationship between Francis and Ippolito, see the 'Introduction' in Occhipinti, *Carteggio d'arte.* The influence of Italian artists over Francis I's court is considered in the recent collective work *Il sogno d'arte di François I. L'Italie à la cour de France,* ed. G. Brouhot and L. Capodieci (Rome, 2019). <sup>15</sup> R. J. Knecht observed that Ippolito 'knew that his favour with the king depended largely on his reputation as an art connoisseur. It needed to be sustained by plying Francis with gifts of the highest quality': R. J. Knecht, *Renaissance Warrior and Patron. The Reign of Francis I* (Cambridge, 1984)*,* p. 184. <sup>16</sup> Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 61.

1540s, he definitively established his reputation as a fine patron of the arts and as a generous host, qualities that he could exhibit from his new residence of Fontainebleau, *le Grand Ferrare,* designed by famous architect Sebastiano Serlio. When he returned to Italy, in 1548, Henry II was the new king of France and Ippolito, as we will see, was the new cardinal protector of the French crown.

Ippolito's career as a cardinal lasted for longer than thirty years. During this time, in France and later in Italy, he ostentatiously embraced those qualities of magnificence and munificence that were considered essential to represent the Roman Church.<sup>17</sup> His namesake uncle, the first Este cardinal, had been considered by Baldassarre Castiglione as one of the finest princes of his time, and Ippolito set himself to live up to the standard.18 Indeed, public displays of splendour and generosity – in clothing, residences, alms, gifts, and artistic collections – were the norm for the cardinals of this period, and such displays were even framed as an obligation. Such magnificence, such a 'high style of living', was something expected of a prince of the Church: cardinals were to behave, and to be seen, in a style that was appropriate to the prestige of their station, and thus their displays also had political significations. For Ippolito, these kinds of obligations, to which he happily subjected himself, were made more pressing by the fact that he belonged to an important Italian family and that, as a cardinal protector, he was also representing the French monarchy. Writing Ippolito's eulogy, humanist Ercole Cato did not forget to mention the cardinal's 'miraculous gardens, divine paintings, army of ancient statues, ingenious fountains': all of them contributed to make him one of the most influential cardinals in Rome.19

A cardinal's responsibility for the combination of splendid displays, generous charity, and the sheer number of his attendants and dependents meant, however, that much of his income immediately went elsewhere. As a consequence, Ippolito spent his life burdened by debts, owing huge amounts of money to his brother and often resorting to borrowing from moneylenders in Ferrara. A cardinal's court, in particular, was the thermometer of his affluence and thus the first reason for high expenditure. Paolo Cortesi, in his *De Cardinalatu,* prescribed that a cardinal's house should include 140 men.20 Ippolito's household, at times, largely outdid Cortesi's recommendations: when the cardinal returned to France with the red hat, in 1540, his

22

<sup>13</sup> A profile of Ippolito during the years of Francis I's reign is in C. Michon, 'Hippolyte d'Este', in C.

<sup>14</sup> On the relationship between Francis and Ippolito, see the 'Introduction' in Occhipinti, *Carteggio d'arte.* The influence of Italian artists over Francis I's court is considered in the recent collective work *Il sogno d'arte di François I. L'Italie à la cour de France,* ed. G. Brouhot and L. Capodieci (Rome, 2019). <sup>15</sup> R. J. Knecht observed that Ippolito 'knew that his favour with the king depended largely on his reputation as an art connoisseur. It needed to be sustained by plying Francis with gifts of the highest quality': R. J. Knecht, *Renaissance Warrior and Patron. The Reign of Francis I* (Cambridge, 1984)*,* p. 184.

It does not seem that Ippolito was ever involved with Renée's court. The visit that John Calvin famously paid to the duchess, in 1536, coincided with Ippolito's long-awaited departure to France, where he travelled accompanied by over onehundred men. Welcomed by the French royalty, he tried to defend his brother's behaviour with Renée before King Francis, who had been long hearing rumours about his royal cousin's mistreatment at the hand of the Italian duke. Whilst Ippolito's presence at the French court did not contribute to improve the strained relationship between duke and duchess, which ended with Renée's confinement, it laid the foundations for his life-long reputation as a friend of the Valois and a patron of the arts. Between 1536 and 1539, his scant political influence was compensated by his increasing proximity to the king and his family, which made him a point of reference for Italian affairs in at the French court.<sup>13</sup> The introduction to the court, through figures like Benvenuto Cellini, Sebastiano Serlio and Primaticcio, of artefacts of interest in the Italian Renaissance was one of the main reasons that Ippolito gained and maintained favour with the royal family, especially because the king was known for having a taste for Italian art.<sup>14</sup> Thanks to the numerous artists that revolved around his court, Ippolito was able to present Francis I with the finest gifts, which were often returned by the king through the concession of some wealthy ecclesiastical bene-

Already in 1536, Francis had recommended Ippolito's promotion to Pope Paul III. The duke of Ferrara was ready to transfer a huge sum of money to the pope in exchange for Ippolito's red hat, but hostility between the papacy and Ferrara remained an obstacle. Ippolito had to wait another two years until Francis I's insistence and his brother's money eventually convinced Paul III. In the secret consistory of 1538, the pope appointed Ippolito as a cardinal. His long-awaited promotion was made public the following year, shortly after the pope and Ercole had reached an agreement on the issue of the investiture of Ferrara. In October 1539, Ippolito travelled to Rome to attend the ceremony of his promotion. On this occasion, however, he did not have the time to familiarise himself fully with Roman society and the papal court: he spent there just a few months, but, as he wrote to his brother, he made

Having obtained the coveted red hat, Ippolito was keen to return to Paris, where he knew that Francis I's favour was awaiting. Indeed, the king immediately made the new cardinal a member of his private counsel – Ippolito was the only foreigner – and, during the following years, continued to bestow him with important benefices. Ippolito remained close to King Francis until the king's death, in 1547. During the

sure to behave in a way that was fit for his rank.<sup>16</sup>

<sup>16</sup> Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 61.

Michon (ed), *Les conseillers de François Ier* (Rennes, 2011), pp. 527-532.

fice.15

<sup>17</sup> On the Renaissance cardinal, see: M. Firpo, 'Il cardinale', in E. Garin (ed), *L'uomo del Rinascimento*  (Rome-Bari, 1992), pp. 75-131; A. Tallon, 'Les cardinaux à la Reinassance. Profil Historique', in F. Lamerle, Y. Pauwels and G. Toscano (eds), *Les cardinaux de la renaissance et la modernité artistique*  (Villeneuve d'Ascq, 2012), pp. 7-21. A much broader survey of early modern cardinals is the recent collective volume Hollingsworth, Pattenden and Witte (eds), *A Companion.*

<sup>18</sup> D. S. Chambers, 'The Economic Predicament of Renaissance Cardinals', in D. S. Chambers, *Renaissance Cardinals and their Worldly Problems* (Aldershot, 1997), p. 291.

<sup>19</sup> Cato, *Oratione*, p. 10. On the political use of patronage and art collections amongst the Roman elites, see: L. Beaven, 'Elite Patronage and Collecting', in S. Ditchfield, P. Jones and B. Wisch (eds), *A Companion to Early Modern Rome* (Leiden, 2019), pp. 387-411.

<sup>20</sup> Ibid., p. 293. On cardinals' courts, see also: G. Fragnito, 'Cardinals' Courts in Sixteenth-Century Rome', *The Journal of Modern History,* 65/1 (1993), pp. 26-56; id., 'Le corti cardinalizie nella prima metà del Cinquecento: da Paolo Cortesi a Francesco Priscianese', *Miscellanea Storica della Valdelsa,*  CVIII (2003), pp. 97-105.

household included one-hundred and fifty people;21 on the occasion of another journey to France, in 1561, it expanded to four hundred men; and it still included 275 people in 1566.22 One of the major political aspects of these large courts was the transfer of cultural prestige and skill, which proved crucial to boost Ippolito's career when he first arrived at Francis I's court. When the cardinal moved back to Italy, his court became an important vessel through which culture continued to move between France and Italy, to his political benefit.<sup>23</sup>

During the 1540s, Ippolito's household also served as a node of communication and exchange between the circles of Italian evangelism and those that revolved around Marguerite of Navarre, Francis I's influential sister.<sup>24</sup> In 1539, when he returned to Italy to receive the red hat, Ippolito was accompanied by Luigi Alamanni, a Florentine exile and a learned poet who had been living in France for years and who introduced several other characters to Marguerite. Amongst these was Italian bishop Pier Paolo Vergerio, who joined Alamanni and Ippolito's when they travelled back to Paris, in 1540, and stayed at Marguerite's court. A few years later, when the papal nuncio to Venice opened an investigation about Vergerio's reforming ideas, Ippolito joined the efforts of the French ambassador, one of Marguerite's *protegés,* in persuading the nuncio to drop the accusation. Just before taking the decision to flee from Italy, Vergerio made a last attempt to evade the pending menace of the inquisitorial trial by asking for a change of venue to Ferrara, and by requesting Ippolito d'Este as his judge.<sup>25</sup> One year later, when Vergerio had already been convicted of heresy, Ippolito still owned a copy of his *Dialoghi –* presumably a gift from the author. 26

It is not surprising that some of the men that, through Ippolito, participated in this network of relationship between France and Italy also crossed path with Renée of France: the princess herself had been close to Marguerite of Navarre before marrying Ercole, and her court in Ferrara remained for a long time a safe port for all those individuals, French or Italian, who were involved in the European religious

<sup>23</sup> Mary Hollingsworth used Ippolito's ledgers to reconstruct the number of French labourers and artists present within the cardinal's household: Hollingsworth, 'A Taste for Conspicuous Consumption', p. 141.

<sup>24</sup> On Marguerite's network of influence in both Italy and France, see: J. A. Reid, *King's Sister-Queen of Dissent: Marguerite of Navarre and her Evangelical Network* (Leiden, 2009) and G. Alonge, 'Poesia ed evangelismo tra Italia e Francia: Luigi Alamanni, Antonio Caracciolo e Antonio Brucioli', *Italique,* XXI (2018), pp. 137-180.

25

<sup>29</sup> Occhipinti, *Carteggio d'arte,* pp. 316-320. A later inventory of Ippolito's books lists around onehundred and fifty books and notes that, due to the publication of the Index in 1559, the cardinal's staff had had to hand over six books by Erasmus to the Inquisition (along with copies of Machiavelli, Ptolemy and more): Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 374-376. 30 M. Firpo and G. Maifreda, *L'eretico che salvò la Chiesa. Il cardinale Giovanni Morone e le origini* 

crisis and sought to renovate the Church. Renée was in contact, for example, with another friend of Luigi Alamanni, Florentine humanist Antonio Brucioli, who dedicated to the duchess the first volume of his comment to the Old Testament. Although it does not seem that the two ever met, Brucioli dedicated to Ippolito the third volume of the comment to the Old Testament, a bible and a comment to the New Testament. When, in 1548, he had to flee Venice to avoid a trial, Brucioli went

Given these frequentations, it is true – as it has been observed – that a slight suspicion of unorthodox sympathies lingered around Ippolito's figure.<sup>28</sup> His involvement with men and ideas linked to European evangelical circles, however, never became a defining element of his court, as it was for Renée's or Marguerite's. It shows, however, that Ippolito's humanist court could serve as a vessel through which such ideas travelled, at a time in which the boundary between heresy and orthodoxy was not yet fixed and humanist and religious conversations easily overlapped. For a man like Ippolito, who had received a fine humanist education and who moved in cultural circles where reforming ideas were discussed in the open – and at the presence of laymen and clergymen altogether – a degree of reception of

Whilst it is impossible to know what the cardinal actually thought of Antonio Brucioli or Pier Paolo Vergerio, it is certain that his reception of this climate of religious ferment never left the boundaries of the court, nor did it translate into a firsthand involvement in the renovation of the Church. His book inventories depict a literary taste that favoured classical authors – Cicero, Ovid, Thucydides, Aristotle – over religious texts, although they included the copy of Vergerio's book mentioned above and several luxurious editions of Erasmus' works, among which a translation

reside in any of his ecclesiastical sees, which were administrated by his vicars. In conclave, he strenuously opposed those cardinals who had had been closer to the evangelical ideas of men like Alamanni or Brucioli – the *spirituali* Giovanni Morone and Reginald Pole. He did so for the very simple reason that they were supported by the Imperial faction and that he was chasing the tiara for himself. In the conclave that elected Pius V, in 1566, Ippolito did not hesitate to use Cardinal Morone's past involvement with the Inquisition to raise suspicions on his orthodoxy and prevent,

Ippolito's religious ideas were only ever scrutinised by the Inquisition in the 1560s, following the cardinal's mission to Paris, where his cooperation with Cathe-

<sup>29</sup> As a bishop, Ippolito did not

straight to Ferrara and placed himself under Renée's protection.27

that climate of religious ferment was almost inevitable.

of the New Testament ('with latches in solid gold')*.*

once again, his election.<sup>30</sup>

<sup>28</sup> Ibid., p. 150.

<sup>27</sup> Alonge, 'Poesia ed evangelismo', pp. 160-167.

*della Controriforma* (Turin, 2019), p. 674.

<sup>21</sup> M. Hollingsworth, 'Materializing Power. Cardinal Ippolito d'Este in 1540', in L. Golden (ed), *Raising the Eyebrow: John Onians and World Art Studies* (Oxford, 2001), p. 170.

<sup>22</sup> M. Hollingsworth, 'A Taste for Conspicuous Consumption. Cardinal Ippolito d'Este and his Wardrobe', in M. Hollingsworth and C. M. Richardson (eds), *The Possessions of a Cardinal* (University Park, 2010), p. 133. See also: G. Guerzoni, 'Between Rome and Ferrara: The Courtiers of the Este Cardinals in the Cinquecento', in J. Burke and M. Bury (eds), *Art and Identity in Early Modern Rome* (Aldershot, 2008), pp. 59-77.

<sup>25</sup> A. Jacobson Schutte, *Pier Paolo Vergerio. The Making of an Italian Reformer* (Geneva, 1977)*,* pp. 216-226; 244. See also F. C. Church, *The Italian Reformers, 1534-1564* (New York, 1932)*,* pp. 123; 353.

<sup>26</sup> Listed in a 'wardrobe inventory' dated 1550 and published in Occhipinti, *Carteggio d'arte,* pp. 316- 320.

crisis and sought to renovate the Church. Renée was in contact, for example, with another friend of Luigi Alamanni, Florentine humanist Antonio Brucioli, who dedicated to the duchess the first volume of his comment to the Old Testament. Although it does not seem that the two ever met, Brucioli dedicated to Ippolito the third volume of the comment to the Old Testament, a bible and a comment to the New Testament. When, in 1548, he had to flee Venice to avoid a trial, Brucioli went straight to Ferrara and placed himself under Renée's protection.27

Given these frequentations, it is true – as it has been observed – that a slight suspicion of unorthodox sympathies lingered around Ippolito's figure.<sup>28</sup> His involvement with men and ideas linked to European evangelical circles, however, never became a defining element of his court, as it was for Renée's or Marguerite's. It shows, however, that Ippolito's humanist court could serve as a vessel through which such ideas travelled, at a time in which the boundary between heresy and orthodoxy was not yet fixed and humanist and religious conversations easily overlapped. For a man like Ippolito, who had received a fine humanist education and who moved in cultural circles where reforming ideas were discussed in the open – and at the presence of laymen and clergymen altogether – a degree of reception of that climate of religious ferment was almost inevitable.

Whilst it is impossible to know what the cardinal actually thought of Antonio Brucioli or Pier Paolo Vergerio, it is certain that his reception of this climate of religious ferment never left the boundaries of the court, nor did it translate into a firsthand involvement in the renovation of the Church. His book inventories depict a literary taste that favoured classical authors – Cicero, Ovid, Thucydides, Aristotle – over religious texts, although they included the copy of Vergerio's book mentioned above and several luxurious editions of Erasmus' works, among which a translation of the New Testament ('with latches in solid gold')*.* <sup>29</sup> As a bishop, Ippolito did not reside in any of his ecclesiastical sees, which were administrated by his vicars. In conclave, he strenuously opposed those cardinals who had had been closer to the evangelical ideas of men like Alamanni or Brucioli – the *spirituali* Giovanni Morone and Reginald Pole. He did so for the very simple reason that they were supported by the Imperial faction and that he was chasing the tiara for himself. In the conclave that elected Pius V, in 1566, Ippolito did not hesitate to use Cardinal Morone's past involvement with the Inquisition to raise suspicions on his orthodoxy and prevent, once again, his election.<sup>30</sup>

Ippolito's religious ideas were only ever scrutinised by the Inquisition in the 1560s, following the cardinal's mission to Paris, where his cooperation with Cathe-

24

household included one-hundred and fifty people;21 on the occasion of another journey to France, in 1561, it expanded to four hundred men; and it still included 275 people in 1566.22 One of the major political aspects of these large courts was the transfer of cultural prestige and skill, which proved crucial to boost Ippolito's career when he first arrived at Francis I's court. When the cardinal moved back to Italy, his court became an important vessel through which culture continued to move between

During the 1540s, Ippolito's household also served as a node of communication and exchange between the circles of Italian evangelism and those that revolved around Marguerite of Navarre, Francis I's influential sister.<sup>24</sup> In 1539, when he returned to Italy to receive the red hat, Ippolito was accompanied by Luigi Alamanni, a Florentine exile and a learned poet who had been living in France for years and who introduced several other characters to Marguerite. Amongst these was Italian bishop Pier Paolo Vergerio, who joined Alamanni and Ippolito's when they travelled back to Paris, in 1540, and stayed at Marguerite's court. A few years later, when the papal nuncio to Venice opened an investigation about Vergerio's reforming ideas, Ippolito joined the efforts of the French ambassador, one of Marguerite's *protegés,* in persuading the nuncio to drop the accusation. Just before taking the decision to flee from Italy, Vergerio made a last attempt to evade the pending menace of the inquisitorial trial by asking for a change of venue to Ferrara, and by requesting Ippolito d'Este as his judge.<sup>25</sup> One year later, when Vergerio had already been convicted of heresy, Ippolito still owned a copy of his *Dialoghi –* presumably a gift

It is not surprising that some of the men that, through Ippolito, participated in this network of relationship between France and Italy also crossed path with Renée of France: the princess herself had been close to Marguerite of Navarre before marrying Ercole, and her court in Ferrara remained for a long time a safe port for all those individuals, French or Italian, who were involved in the European religious

<sup>21</sup> M. Hollingsworth, 'Materializing Power. Cardinal Ippolito d'Este in 1540', in L. Golden (ed), *Raising* 

<sup>22</sup> M. Hollingsworth, 'A Taste for Conspicuous Consumption. Cardinal Ippolito d'Este and his Wardrobe', in M. Hollingsworth and C. M. Richardson (eds), *The Possessions of a Cardinal* (University Park, 2010), p. 133. See also: G. Guerzoni, 'Between Rome and Ferrara: The Courtiers of the Este Cardinals in the Cinquecento', in J. Burke and M. Bury (eds), *Art and Identity in Early Modern Rome* (Aldershot,

<sup>23</sup> Mary Hollingsworth used Ippolito's ledgers to reconstruct the number of French labourers and artists present within the cardinal's household: Hollingsworth, 'A Taste for Conspicuous Consumption', p.

<sup>24</sup> On Marguerite's network of influence in both Italy and France, see: J. A. Reid, *King's Sister-Queen of Dissent: Marguerite of Navarre and her Evangelical Network* (Leiden, 2009) and G. Alonge, 'Poesia ed evangelismo tra Italia e Francia: Luigi Alamanni, Antonio Caracciolo e Antonio Brucioli', *Italique,* XXI

<sup>25</sup> A. Jacobson Schutte, *Pier Paolo Vergerio. The Making of an Italian Reformer* (Geneva, 1977)*,* pp. 216-226; 244. See also F. C. Church, *The Italian Reformers, 1534-1564* (New York, 1932)*,* pp. 123;

<sup>26</sup> Listed in a 'wardrobe inventory' dated 1550 and published in Occhipinti, *Carteggio d'arte,* pp. 316-

*the Eyebrow: John Onians and World Art Studies* (Oxford, 2001), p. 170.

France and Italy, to his political benefit.<sup>23</sup>

from the author.

2008), pp. 59-77.

(2018), pp. 137-180.

141.

353.

320.

<sup>27</sup> Alonge, 'Poesia ed evangelismo', pp. 160-167.

<sup>28</sup> Ibid., p. 150.

<sup>29</sup> Occhipinti, *Carteggio d'arte,* pp. 316-320. A later inventory of Ippolito's books lists around onehundred and fifty books and notes that, due to the publication of the Index in 1559, the cardinal's staff had had to hand over six books by Erasmus to the Inquisition (along with copies of Machiavelli, Ptolemy and more): Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 374-376. 30 M. Firpo and G. Maifreda, *L'eretico che salvò la Chiesa. Il cardinale Giovanni Morone e le origini* 

*della Controriforma* (Turin, 2019), p. 674.

#### The Path of Pleasantness

rine de' Medici's conciliatory politics was seen as excessively indulgent.<sup>31</sup> When she was younger, Catherine too had been close to Marguerite of Navarre's court and so had many French prelates who were supporting her attempts to find a compromise between Catholics and Huguenots. It has been suggested that Catherine's religious politics, in the years before the French civil wars, could be seen as an evolution of Marguerite's irenic and tolerant Catholicism.<sup>32</sup> Was papal legate Ippolito d'Este showing excessive indulgence because Catherine's politics of toleration represented, to him too, a remnant of a season in which religious dialogue was still possible, or was he supporting the crown solely as a guarantee against political disorders? The impossibility of giving an answer to this question shows, if anything, that politics and religion were always, for Ippolito as well as for any other men of his time, two sides of the same coin.

27

<sup>1</sup> 'You never did as much for your own service as having sent him [Ippolito d'Este] to Italy'. From a letter written by Charles de Guise to King Henry II on 28 December 1549, during the conclave that elected Julius III: G. Ribier (ed)*, Lettres et mémoires d'Estat, des roys, princes, ambassadeurs…* (Paris,

*Ne fistes jamais en Italie tant pour vostre service que de luy avoir envoye*

The following chapter aims to illustrate the role of Ippolito d'Este as a representative of French power in the Roman Curia, both as the cardinal protector of the crown – a post that he held for about twenty-five years – and as the king of France's *favorito* on occasion of all the papal elections that took place from 1549 to 1559. Ippolito returned to Italy in 1549, after his appointment to the cardinal protectorship, and remained in Italy until the end of his life, in 1572. Apart from two years, which he spent in France as the papal legate, and another similar period of time that he spent governing Siena, from 1552 to 1554, the cardinal mainly lived in Rome. There, he could exercise his function of representative of the French monarchy, both as the cardinal protector and as one of the leaders of the French group of cardinals that

Whilst the two sections that constitute this chapter focus on two different themes – the protectorship of the Valois crown and the conclaves in which Ippolito was running for the tiara – they address similar issues from a different perspective, as they both deal with the structure and cohesion of the French faction in the Curia, with the leadership that Ippolito d'Este exerted on it, and with the relationship between the Curia and the French crown. Talking about a 'French faction', however, can be misleading: whilst we can identify a group of cardinals who considered themselves as servants of the king of France and who voted in conclave according to the instructions received, the existence itself of such a group of people united by the same national-factional interest during the normal course of Curial life is arguable. As historians who have dealt with the functioning of factions in the Roman palaces have pointed out, it is difficult to set a clear distinction between different groups that were equally trying to influence Curial politics, and to measure their different weight on the outcome of the broader struggles that often rose between the papacy

gathered every time it was necessary to elect the new pontiff.

Charles de Guise, cardinal of Lorraine1

**Chapter 2**

1666), ii, p. 259.

**A cardinal in the Curia**

<sup>31</sup> Ippolito's legation to Paris is the subject of Chapter 5 in this book. 32 G. Alonge, *Ambasciatori. Diplomazia e politica nella Venezia del Rinascimento* (Rome, 2019), pp. 262-263.

# **Chapter 2 A cardinal in the Curia**

*Ne fistes jamais en Italie tant pour vostre service que de luy avoir envoye* Charles de Guise, cardinal of Lorraine1

The following chapter aims to illustrate the role of Ippolito d'Este as a representative of French power in the Roman Curia, both as the cardinal protector of the crown – a post that he held for about twenty-five years – and as the king of France's *favorito* on occasion of all the papal elections that took place from 1549 to 1559. Ippolito returned to Italy in 1549, after his appointment to the cardinal protectorship, and remained in Italy until the end of his life, in 1572. Apart from two years, which he spent in France as the papal legate, and another similar period of time that he spent governing Siena, from 1552 to 1554, the cardinal mainly lived in Rome. There, he could exercise his function of representative of the French monarchy, both as the cardinal protector and as one of the leaders of the French group of cardinals that gathered every time it was necessary to elect the new pontiff.

Whilst the two sections that constitute this chapter focus on two different themes – the protectorship of the Valois crown and the conclaves in which Ippolito was running for the tiara – they address similar issues from a different perspective, as they both deal with the structure and cohesion of the French faction in the Curia, with the leadership that Ippolito d'Este exerted on it, and with the relationship between the Curia and the French crown. Talking about a 'French faction', however, can be misleading: whilst we can identify a group of cardinals who considered themselves as servants of the king of France and who voted in conclave according to the instructions received, the existence itself of such a group of people united by the same national-factional interest during the normal course of Curial life is arguable. As historians who have dealt with the functioning of factions in the Roman palaces have pointed out, it is difficult to set a clear distinction between different groups that were equally trying to influence Curial politics, and to measure their different weight on the outcome of the broader struggles that often rose between the papacy

Giulia Vidori, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, giulia.vidori@gmail.com

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

26

<sup>31</sup> Ippolito's legation to Paris is the subject of Chapter 5 in this book. 32 G. Alonge, *Ambasciatori. Diplomazia e politica nella Venezia del Rinascimento* (Rome, 2019), pp.

rine de' Medici's conciliatory politics was seen as excessively indulgent.<sup>31</sup> When she was younger, Catherine too had been close to Marguerite of Navarre's court and so had many French prelates who were supporting her attempts to find a compromise between Catholics and Huguenots. It has been suggested that Catherine's religious politics, in the years before the French civil wars, could be seen as an evolution of Marguerite's irenic and tolerant Catholicism.<sup>32</sup> Was papal legate Ippolito d'Este showing excessive indulgence because Catherine's politics of toleration represented, to him too, a remnant of a season in which religious dialogue was still possible, or was he supporting the crown solely as a guarantee against political disorders? The impossibility of giving an answer to this question shows, if anything, that politics and religion were always, for Ippolito as well as for any other men of his

time, two sides of the same coin.

262-263.

<sup>1</sup> 'You never did as much for your own service as having sent him [Ippolito d'Este] to Italy'. From a letter written by Charles de Guise to King Henry II on 28 December 1549, during the conclave that elected Julius III: G. Ribier (ed)*, Lettres et mémoires d'Estat, des roys, princes, ambassadeurs…* (Paris, 1666), ii, p. 259.

<sup>27</sup> 27 Giulia Vidori, *The Path of Pleasantness. Ippolito II d'Este Between Ferrara, France and Rome*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2612-8071 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518-266-9 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-266-9

#### The Path of Pleasantness

and European monarchies. As Maria Antonietta Visceglia stressed, the papal court was one of the battlefields on which interest-based groups (families, clienteles, etc) also faced each other in an attempt to gain control over the relationship between the Curia and the monarchy they represented.2

As we will see, Ippolito d'Este himself cannot be fully described as a neutral emissary of the king of France's will, as his theoretical dependency on the king's agenda and instructions was always contaminated by his own effort to enhance his personal, and, sometimes, familial position within the Curia. Similarly, his relationship with the other French cardinals – both in conclaves and in other occasions – was anything but univocal, and his leadership constantly mediated by the presence of other emissaries of the royal power, whether other powerful ecclesiastics or the monarchy's ambassadors.

## **1. Cardinal protector of the French crown**

The role of cardinal protector of a crown involved, in a word, the defence of the protectee's interests in Rome, at the papal court and particularly in the College of Cardinals – an exclusive space, closed to the lay ambassadors of European monarchies who otherwise acted as the authoritative figureheads of diplomatic representation in Rome.

Scholars have traced the genealogy of the protector and identified the birth of the protectorship in the thirteenth century, in the context of the organisation of regular orders.3 Franciscans and Dominicans would both rely upon a cardinal protector, who was the spokesperson for the order in the Curia and often played an active role in its constitution. Whilst the cardinal protectors of religious orders were an institution from the beginning permitted by the papacy, the protectors of the monarchs

29

<sup>6</sup> Poncet, 'Cardinal-protectors', p. 163. However, this seems to have been the case only in the later sixteenth century: it does not seem that Ippolito d'Este ever performed any control on the proposed French

<sup>8</sup> Wodka, *Geschichte der nationalem Protektorate,* p. 100; Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, pp. 95-96. Ippolito announced his appointment to his brother via letter: ASMO, CS, 148 (2 April 1548). The news of Ippolito's appointment was also confirmed by the Florentine ambassador to Milan, Francesco Vinta: ASFI, MdP, 3101a, fo. 1123. 9 With the exception of England, Scotland and Ireland, whose protectors were appointed by the pope and not by the secular rulers: Poncet, 'Cardinal-protectors', p. 163 n. 22. The case of Scotland, however, is worth some extra consideration: after Mary Stuart married the French dauphin in 1548, Henry II man-

were more controversial: in 1425, Martin V forbade any cardinal to act as protector of 'any king, prince or commune ruled by a tyrant or any other secular person whatsoever',<sup>4</sup> for the obvious reason that such an action would compromise a cardinal's loyalty and counsel to the sovereign pontiff himself. Such a prohibition, however, would obviously suggest that this function – if not the official role itself – had been visible, and increasingly so, in recent years, and it had continued through the reigns of Pius II and Alexander VI. Only under Hadrian VI (1522-3) was the protectorship

With this acknowledgement, the papacy established the ambiguous – and necessarily Janus-faced – role of the protectors, who were obliged to serve the interests of a secular power without jeopardising their primary devotion to the pope himself. However, the ambassador – as well as the crown's other cardinals in the Curia – was someone alongside whom the cardinal protector was required to work in order to mobilise the will of the distant monarch. Whilst his position in the Curia gave him a role quite distinct from that of the ambassador, it was nonetheless a role partially conditioned by that of his lay counterpart. The cardinal protectorship was a function that was used exclusively by monarchs – namely, as a means to facilitate the process by which kings could propose their own candidates to head bishoprics and abbeys in their territories: the cardinal protector would review, and ultimately approve, the candidate and announce his candidacy to the consistory.<sup>6</sup> As a result, then, this, in Poncet's words, 'first and most visible function' of the cardinal protector would make him – whilst at the same time the servant of the pope – the enabler, or pawn, of his respective monarch's designs to consolidate total power over his dominion; he was, as Wilkie observes, a symptom and agent of the growth of national monar-

Ippolito d'Este was appointed cardinal protector of the French crown by Henry II in April 1548, to fill the position left vacant by the death of Cardinal Agostino Trivulzio.<sup>8</sup> The appointment required him to be present in Rome and, after some delays, Ippolito made his official entrance in July 1549. By this time, the presence of cardinal protectors within the Curia was an established tradition and their role recognised and approved of. The pontiff, however, played no part in the appointment to the role of any specific cardinal, as this was a decision that was entirely in the hands of the sovereign.<sup>9</sup> In Ippolito d'Este's case, his appointment was the result of his

of states explicitly acknowledged.5

<sup>4</sup> Poncet, 'Cardinal-protectors', p. 161 <sup>5</sup> Wilkie, *Cardinal Protectors*, pp. 5-10.

<sup>7</sup> Wilkie, *Cardinal Protectors,* p. 10

chies.<sup>7</sup>

prelates.

<sup>2</sup> M. A. Visceglia, *Roma papale e Spagna. Diplomatici, nobili e religiosi fra due corti* (Rome, 2010), pp. 34-35.

<sup>3</sup> Scholarship on the cardinal protectors of the European crowns is quite lacking, but the subject is seeing renewed interest in recent years. Unfortunately, I did not have a chance to read T. Sanfilippo and P. Tusor (eds), *Gli "angeli custodi" delle monarchie: i cardinali protettori delle nazioni,* (Viterbo, 2018), which promises to include some very interesting contributions to the topic. The main sources that inform what follows, therefore, are W. Wilkie, *The Cardinal Protectors of England. Rome and the Tudors Before the Reformation* (Cambridge, 1974); O. Poncet, 'Cardinal-protectors of the crowns in the Roman Curia in the first half of the sixteenth century: the case of France', in G. Signorotto and M. A. Visceglia (eds), *Court and Politics in Papal Rome, 1492-1700* (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 158-176; J. Wodka, *Geschichte der nationalem Protektorate der Kardinale and der römischen Curie* (Innsbruck, 1938). Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, pp. 89-131 devotes a chapter to the 'cardinaux protecteurs' of the French crown during Henry II's reign, and the same subject is also briefly treated in M. M. Edelstein, 'Foreign Episcopal Appointments During the Reign of Francis I', *Church History,* 44/4 (1975), pp. 450-459 (although this contains some mistakes). Useful suggestions have also come from studies on single cardinal protectors, even though not exclusively focused on their role as protectors: D. S. Chambers, *Cardinal Bainbridge in the Court of Rome, 1509 to 1514* (Oxford, 1965); K. Wolfe, 'Protector and Protectorate: Cardinal Antonio Barberini's Art Diplomacy for the French Crown at the Papal Court', in J. Burke and M. Bury (eds), *Art and Identity in Early Modern Rome* (Aldershot, 2008), pp. 113-132; O. Poncet, 'Antonio Barberini (1608-1671) et la papautè. Rèflexion sur un destin individuel en cour de Rome au XVIIe siècle', *Mélanges de l'Ecole française de Rome. Italie et Méditerranée,* 108/1 (1996), pp. 407-402*.* 

were more controversial: in 1425, Martin V forbade any cardinal to act as protector of 'any king, prince or commune ruled by a tyrant or any other secular person whatsoever',<sup>4</sup> for the obvious reason that such an action would compromise a cardinal's loyalty and counsel to the sovereign pontiff himself. Such a prohibition, however, would obviously suggest that this function – if not the official role itself – had been visible, and increasingly so, in recent years, and it had continued through the reigns of Pius II and Alexander VI. Only under Hadrian VI (1522-3) was the protectorship of states explicitly acknowledged.5

With this acknowledgement, the papacy established the ambiguous – and necessarily Janus-faced – role of the protectors, who were obliged to serve the interests of a secular power without jeopardising their primary devotion to the pope himself. However, the ambassador – as well as the crown's other cardinals in the Curia – was someone alongside whom the cardinal protector was required to work in order to mobilise the will of the distant monarch. Whilst his position in the Curia gave him a role quite distinct from that of the ambassador, it was nonetheless a role partially conditioned by that of his lay counterpart. The cardinal protectorship was a function that was used exclusively by monarchs – namely, as a means to facilitate the process by which kings could propose their own candidates to head bishoprics and abbeys in their territories: the cardinal protector would review, and ultimately approve, the candidate and announce his candidacy to the consistory.<sup>6</sup> As a result, then, this, in Poncet's words, 'first and most visible function' of the cardinal protector would make him – whilst at the same time the servant of the pope – the enabler, or pawn, of his respective monarch's designs to consolidate total power over his dominion; he was, as Wilkie observes, a symptom and agent of the growth of national monarchies.<sup>7</sup>

Ippolito d'Este was appointed cardinal protector of the French crown by Henry II in April 1548, to fill the position left vacant by the death of Cardinal Agostino Trivulzio.<sup>8</sup> The appointment required him to be present in Rome and, after some delays, Ippolito made his official entrance in July 1549. By this time, the presence of cardinal protectors within the Curia was an established tradition and their role recognised and approved of. The pontiff, however, played no part in the appointment to the role of any specific cardinal, as this was a decision that was entirely in the hands of the sovereign.<sup>9</sup> In Ippolito d'Este's case, his appointment was the result of his

28

and European monarchies. As Maria Antonietta Visceglia stressed, the papal court was one of the battlefields on which interest-based groups (families, clienteles, etc) also faced each other in an attempt to gain control over the relationship between the

As we will see, Ippolito d'Este himself cannot be fully described as a neutral emissary of the king of France's will, as his theoretical dependency on the king's agenda and instructions was always contaminated by his own effort to enhance his personal, and, sometimes, familial position within the Curia. Similarly, his relationship with the other French cardinals – both in conclaves and in other occasions – was anything but univocal, and his leadership constantly mediated by the presence of other emissaries of the royal power, whether other powerful ecclesiastics or the

The role of cardinal protector of a crown involved, in a word, the defence of the protectee's interests in Rome, at the papal court and particularly in the College of Cardinals – an exclusive space, closed to the lay ambassadors of European monarchies who otherwise acted as the authoritative figureheads of diplomatic representation in

Scholars have traced the genealogy of the protector and identified the birth of the protectorship in the thirteenth century, in the context of the organisation of regular orders.3 Franciscans and Dominicans would both rely upon a cardinal protector, who was the spokesperson for the order in the Curia and often played an active role in its constitution. Whilst the cardinal protectors of religious orders were an institution from the beginning permitted by the papacy, the protectors of the monarchs

<sup>2</sup> M. A. Visceglia, *Roma papale e Spagna. Diplomatici, nobili e religiosi fra due corti* (Rome, 2010), pp.

<sup>3</sup> Scholarship on the cardinal protectors of the European crowns is quite lacking, but the subject is seeing renewed interest in recent years. Unfortunately, I did not have a chance to read T. Sanfilippo and P. Tusor (eds), *Gli "angeli custodi" delle monarchie: i cardinali protettori delle nazioni,* (Viterbo, 2018), which promises to include some very interesting contributions to the topic. The main sources that inform what follows, therefore, are W. Wilkie, *The Cardinal Protectors of England. Rome and the Tudors Before the Reformation* (Cambridge, 1974); O. Poncet, 'Cardinal-protectors of the crowns in the Roman Curia in the first half of the sixteenth century: the case of France', in G. Signorotto and M. A. Visceglia (eds), *Court and Politics in Papal Rome, 1492-1700* (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 158-176; J. Wodka, *Geschichte der nationalem Protektorate der Kardinale and der römischen Curie* (Innsbruck, 1938). Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, pp. 89-131 devotes a chapter to the 'cardinaux protecteurs' of the French crown during Henry II's reign, and the same subject is also briefly treated in M. M. Edelstein, 'Foreign Episcopal Appointments During the Reign of Francis I', *Church History,* 44/4 (1975), pp. 450-459 (although this contains some mistakes). Useful suggestions have also come from studies on single cardinal protectors, even though not exclusively focused on their role as protectors: D. S. Chambers, *Cardinal Bainbridge in the Court of Rome, 1509 to 1514* (Oxford, 1965); K. Wolfe, 'Protector and Protectorate: Cardinal Antonio Barberini's Art Diplomacy for the French Crown at the Papal Court', in J. Burke and M. Bury (eds), *Art and Identity in Early Modern Rome* (Aldershot, 2008), pp. 113-132; O. Poncet, 'Antonio Barberini (1608-1671) et la papautè. Rèflexion sur un destin individuel en cour de Rome au XVIIe siècle', *Mélanges de l'Ecole française de Rome. Italie et Méditerranée,* 108/1 (1996), pp. 407-402*.* 

Curia and the monarchy they represented.2

**1. Cardinal protector of the French crown**

monarchy's ambassadors.

Rome.

34-35.

<sup>4</sup> Poncet, 'Cardinal-protectors', p. 161

<sup>5</sup> Wilkie, *Cardinal Protectors*, pp. 5-10.

<sup>6</sup> Poncet, 'Cardinal-protectors', p. 163. However, this seems to have been the case only in the later sixteenth century: it does not seem that Ippolito d'Este ever performed any control on the proposed French prelates.

<sup>7</sup> Wilkie, *Cardinal Protectors,* p. 10

<sup>8</sup> Wodka, *Geschichte der nationalem Protektorate,* p. 100; Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, pp. 95-96. Ippolito announced his appointment to his brother via letter: ASMO, CS, 148 (2 April 1548). The news of Ippolito's appointment was also confirmed by the Florentine ambassador to Milan, Francesco Vinta:

ASFI, MdP, 3101a, fo. 1123. 9 With the exception of England, Scotland and Ireland, whose protectors were appointed by the pope and not by the secular rulers: Poncet, 'Cardinal-protectors', p. 163 n. 22. The case of Scotland, however, is worth some extra consideration: after Mary Stuart married the French dauphin in 1548, Henry II man-

successful networking activity during his stay in France and, especially, of his personal friendship with the late Francis I (who had seemingly promised him the post even before cardinal Trivulzio's death).10 The cardinal of Ferrara remained in charge as the cardinal protector of France for about twenty-five years, until the post was taken up by his nephew, Cardinal Luigi d'Este.

To encourage the commitment that was required from a protector – a commitment that any primary attention to the pope would hardly seem to allow – the French monarch would shower him with sufficient gifts to make it worth his while. In a context in which cardinals were in a sense expected to live a life of luxury in order not to demean their station – a context in which extravagance and pomp were 'necessities' to which cardinals often had to 'resign themselves'11 – the institution of the cardinal protector therefore had something of an allure. In a way, then, the protectorships also had the function of 'filling a vacuum' created by the fact that the simple role of the cardinal did not necessarily provide the most comfortable level of income.<sup>12</sup> In France, this endowment of gifts was made possible by the fact that the kings had increasingly gained control over the assignation of the French ecclesiastical benefices, eroding the pope's authority in order to make use of the church properties to reward their most prominent subjects and to strengthen royal power. In this period, the appointment to French benefices was regulated by the Concordat of Bologna (1516), which allowed the king to appoint to 114 episcopal and archiepiscopal positions and 800 abbatial seats in France, in exchange for the payment of some taxes to the Curia, and subject to the pope's approval of each candidate. Although there were some restrictions on the king's power of choice – such as the age of the appointed prelate, or the fact that abbots were supposed to belong to the same religious order as the abbey to which they were appointed – these were, in fact, almost never respected.13

Although most French protectors received substantial financial benefits (in the form of pensions) from the French crown in the first half of the seventeenth century,

<sup>12</sup> Wilkie, *Cardinal Protectors,* p. 7.

31

<sup>18</sup> Ibid., 957; 958. 19 D. S. Chambers, 'The Renaissance cardinalate: from Paolo Cortesi's *De Cardinalatu* to the present', in M. Hollingsworth and C. M. Richardson (eds) *The Possessions of a Cardinal: Politics, Piety, and Art,* 

it does not seem that Ippolito d'Este was receiving a pension attached to his protectorship. It is true, though, that none of the seventeenth-century cardinal protectors could boast a portfolio of French ecclesiastical revenues even remotely as large as Ippolito d'Este's.<sup>14</sup> A benefit that the cardinal of Ferrara enjoyed, unlike his seventeenth-century equivalents, was an exemption from taxation on all his French benefices – a privilege that had been first granted to Agostino Trivulzio by Francis I, and that Ippolito inherited alongside the protectorship.<sup>15</sup> Although, as we shall see, this exemption was later revoked, it certainly enhanced Ippolito d'Este's income for about a decade. Another important source of income that was attached to the role of protector was the presentation, in consistory, of the monarch's new appointee to a benefice: after being confirmed by the pope, all new appointees were bound to pay the *annata,* a tax that was worth a year of the benefice's revenues – plus a fifteen percent fee that was due to the cardinal protector for his mediation in consistory

In Ippolito d'Este's case, the *propinae* that he was entitled to receive were carefully listed, alongside the name of the benefice, the name of the prelate receiving it, and the taxation applied, in the account books that went under the name of *protettione di Francia.*<sup>17</sup> Although the *propina* depended on the number of vacant benefices that needed to be filled at a certain time, which makes it difficult to identify an average figure each year, one can gain an understanding of how lucrative the performance of this specific task was by looking at Ippolito's ledgers: in the period 1560-1561, for instance, Ippolito's accountants in Rome recorded and cashed in 13.576 *scudi* worth from the *propina.*<sup>18</sup> If one considers that Paolo Cortese, in his exposition regarding the 'ideal cardinal' and published after his death in 1510, had estimated the annual income necessary to maintain a cardinal's lifestyle to 12.000 ducats*,* it is easy to understand that the *propina* alone brought to the cardinal protec-

Indeed, if the cardinals themselves were required to advance displays of wealth and splendour, the cardinal protectors' same commitment to ostentation was necessarily multiplied. Flaminia Bardati's studies on French cardinals in Rome highlighted some of the concerns of this group of men, who were implicitly required to ex-

<sup>14</sup> Poncet, 'Cardinal-protectors', p. 166. See also David Chambers's assessment of Cardinal Bainbridge's

<sup>16</sup> It seems that an additional five percent was allocated to any member of the protector's household who had aided him in supplying information to facilitate his audit, but I did not find any trace of this in relation to Ippolito d'Este: Wilkie, *Cardinal Protectors,* pp. 8-9. Hollingsworth notes that, on top of the *propina,* the protectors also received a fixed fee of 41 *scudi* for each appointment: M. Hollingsworth, 'A Cardinal in Rome: Ippolito D'Este in 1560', in J. Burke and M. Bury (eds), *Art and Identity in Early Modern Rome* (Aldershot, 2008), p. 83. See also Poncet, 'Cardinal-protectors', pp. 167-168; Chambers,

tor some very significant benefits in terms of income.<sup>19</sup>

wealth in the early sixteenth century: *Cardinal Bainbridge,* pp. 125-130. <sup>15</sup> É. Picot, *Les italiens en France au XVIe siècle* (Bordeaux, 1918), p. 26.

<sup>17</sup> All of Ippolito d'Este's account books are in ASMO, CDAP.

(called the *propina*).16

*Cardinal Bainbridge,* pp. 2-3.

*1450-1700* (University Park, 2010), p. 20.

aged to impose his own candidates on the pope. Scotland was considered by the king of France as part of a 'bigger French kingdom' and its protectorship a matter of royal concern. By January 1549, and acting in Mary's name, Henry II obtained the removal of Rodolfo Pio da Carpi from the post ('for right and good reasons') and forwarded a plea to the pope to have the protectorship assigned to the cardinal of Ferrara: Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* ii, p. 187. It is easy to see that Ippolito's influence was playing in the background and that he was benefitting from the recent marriage of his niece, Anna d'Este, to the first-born son of the duke of Guise: the hatred between Carpi and Este was well known and the Guise were Mary Stuart's maternal family. Despite the Guise and the king's support, Ippolito's appointment to Scotland must have been halted by the pope, because the position eventually fell in the hands of Gian Domenico de Cupis, cardinal of Trani. When de Cupis died, in 1553, his successor was Nicolò Caetani, the cardinal of Sermoneta, who was one of Ippolito d'Este's most trustworthy allies in the Curia and who held the post until his death, in 1585: Wodka, *Geschichte der nationalem Protektorate*, p. 123.

<sup>10</sup> This was reported by the Estense ambassador to France: ASMO, CDA, Francia, 23 (1 April 1547) and also by Cardinal du Bellay, who wrote that 'monsieur le Cardinal de Ferrare me dist à son partement de France que le roy la luy avoit promise en cas de decés': Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* ii, p. 123 (6 March 1548). 11 Fragnito, 'Cardinals' Courts', pp. 26-56.

<sup>13</sup> O. Poncet, *La France et le pouvoir pontificale (1595-1661): l'esprit des institutions* (Rome, 2011), pp. 51-71; H. O. Evennett, 'Pie IV et le bénéfices de Jean du Bellay', *Revue d'historie de l'Église de France,* 22/97 (1936), pp. 425-435.

it does not seem that Ippolito d'Este was receiving a pension attached to his protectorship. It is true, though, that none of the seventeenth-century cardinal protectors could boast a portfolio of French ecclesiastical revenues even remotely as large as Ippolito d'Este's.<sup>14</sup> A benefit that the cardinal of Ferrara enjoyed, unlike his seventeenth-century equivalents, was an exemption from taxation on all his French benefices – a privilege that had been first granted to Agostino Trivulzio by Francis I, and that Ippolito inherited alongside the protectorship.<sup>15</sup> Although, as we shall see, this exemption was later revoked, it certainly enhanced Ippolito d'Este's income for about a decade. Another important source of income that was attached to the role of protector was the presentation, in consistory, of the monarch's new appointee to a benefice: after being confirmed by the pope, all new appointees were bound to pay the *annata,* a tax that was worth a year of the benefice's revenues – plus a fifteen percent fee that was due to the cardinal protector for his mediation in consistory (called the *propina*).16

In Ippolito d'Este's case, the *propinae* that he was entitled to receive were carefully listed, alongside the name of the benefice, the name of the prelate receiving it, and the taxation applied, in the account books that went under the name of *protettione di Francia.*<sup>17</sup> Although the *propina* depended on the number of vacant benefices that needed to be filled at a certain time, which makes it difficult to identify an average figure each year, one can gain an understanding of how lucrative the performance of this specific task was by looking at Ippolito's ledgers: in the period 1560-1561, for instance, Ippolito's accountants in Rome recorded and cashed in 13.576 *scudi* worth from the *propina.*<sup>18</sup> If one considers that Paolo Cortese, in his exposition regarding the 'ideal cardinal' and published after his death in 1510, had estimated the annual income necessary to maintain a cardinal's lifestyle to 12.000 ducats*,* it is easy to understand that the *propina* alone brought to the cardinal protector some very significant benefits in terms of income.<sup>19</sup>

Indeed, if the cardinals themselves were required to advance displays of wealth and splendour, the cardinal protectors' same commitment to ostentation was necessarily multiplied. Flaminia Bardati's studies on French cardinals in Rome highlighted some of the concerns of this group of men, who were implicitly required to ex-

<sup>17</sup> All of Ippolito d'Este's account books are in ASMO, CDAP.

30

<sup>10</sup> This was reported by the Estense ambassador to France: ASMO, CDA, Francia, 23 (1 April 1547) and also by Cardinal du Bellay, who wrote that 'monsieur le Cardinal de Ferrare me dist à son partement de France que le roy la luy avoit promise en cas de decés': Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* ii, p. 123 (6 March 1548). 11 Fragnito, 'Cardinals' Courts', pp. 26-56.

<sup>13</sup> O. Poncet, *La France et le pouvoir pontificale (1595-1661): l'esprit des institutions* (Rome, 2011), pp. 51-71; H. O. Evennett, 'Pie IV et le bénéfices de Jean du Bellay', *Revue d'historie de l'Église de* 

successful networking activity during his stay in France and, especially, of his personal friendship with the late Francis I (who had seemingly promised him the post even before cardinal Trivulzio's death).10 The cardinal of Ferrara remained in charge as the cardinal protector of France for about twenty-five years, until the post was

To encourage the commitment that was required from a protector – a commitment that any primary attention to the pope would hardly seem to allow – the French monarch would shower him with sufficient gifts to make it worth his while. In a context in which cardinals were in a sense expected to live a life of luxury in order not to demean their station – a context in which extravagance and pomp were 'necessities' to which cardinals often had to 'resign themselves'11 – the institution of the cardinal protector therefore had something of an allure. In a way, then, the protectorships also had the function of 'filling a vacuum' created by the fact that the simple role of the cardinal did not necessarily provide the most comfortable level of income.<sup>12</sup> In France, this endowment of gifts was made possible by the fact that the kings had increasingly gained control over the assignation of the French ecclesiastical benefices, eroding the pope's authority in order to make use of the church properties to reward their most prominent subjects and to strengthen royal power. In this period, the appointment to French benefices was regulated by the Concordat of Bologna (1516), which allowed the king to appoint to 114 episcopal and archiepiscopal positions and 800 abbatial seats in France, in exchange for the payment of some taxes to the Curia, and subject to the pope's approval of each candidate. Although there were some restrictions on the king's power of choice – such as the age of the appointed prelate, or the fact that abbots were supposed to belong to the same religious order as the abbey to which they were appointed – these were, in fact, almost never

Although most French protectors received substantial financial benefits (in the form of pensions) from the French crown in the first half of the seventeenth century,

aged to impose his own candidates on the pope. Scotland was considered by the king of France as part of a 'bigger French kingdom' and its protectorship a matter of royal concern. By January 1549, and acting in Mary's name, Henry II obtained the removal of Rodolfo Pio da Carpi from the post ('for right and good reasons') and forwarded a plea to the pope to have the protectorship assigned to the cardinal of Ferrara: Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* ii, p. 187. It is easy to see that Ippolito's influence was playing in the background and that he was benefitting from the recent marriage of his niece, Anna d'Este, to the first-born son of the duke of Guise: the hatred between Carpi and Este was well known and the Guise were Mary Stuart's maternal family. Despite the Guise and the king's support, Ippolito's appointment to Scotland must have been halted by the pope, because the position eventually fell in the hands of Gian Domenico de Cupis, cardinal of Trani. When de Cupis died, in 1553, his successor was Nicolò Caetani, the cardinal of Sermoneta, who was one of Ippolito d'Este's most trustworthy allies in the Curia and who held the

post until his death, in 1585: Wodka, *Geschichte der nationalem Protektorate*, p. 123.

taken up by his nephew, Cardinal Luigi d'Este.

respected.13

<sup>12</sup> Wilkie, *Cardinal Protectors,* p. 7.

*France,* 22/97 (1936), pp. 425-435.

<sup>14</sup> Poncet, 'Cardinal-protectors', p. 166. See also David Chambers's assessment of Cardinal Bainbridge's wealth in the early sixteenth century: *Cardinal Bainbridge,* pp. 125-130.

<sup>15</sup> É. Picot, *Les italiens en France au XVIe siècle* (Bordeaux, 1918), p. 26.

<sup>16</sup> It seems that an additional five percent was allocated to any member of the protector's household who had aided him in supplying information to facilitate his audit, but I did not find any trace of this in relation to Ippolito d'Este: Wilkie, *Cardinal Protectors,* pp. 8-9. Hollingsworth notes that, on top of the *propina,* the protectors also received a fixed fee of 41 *scudi* for each appointment: M. Hollingsworth, 'A Cardinal in Rome: Ippolito D'Este in 1560', in J. Burke and M. Bury (eds), *Art and Identity in Early Modern Rome* (Aldershot, 2008), p. 83. See also Poncet, 'Cardinal-protectors', pp. 167-168; Chambers, *Cardinal Bainbridge,* pp. 2-3.

<sup>18</sup> Ibid., 957; 958. 19 D. S. Chambers, 'The Renaissance cardinalate: from Paolo Cortesi's *De Cardinalatu* to the present', in M. Hollingsworth and C. M. Richardson (eds) *The Possessions of a Cardinal: Politics, Piety, and Art, 1450-1700* (University Park, 2010), p. 20.

tend abroad an image of the magnificence of the French monarchy, through artistic patronages, luxurious residences, and a sumptuous court life. In addition to engaging in diplomatic exchanges and maintaining good relations with the pope, these cardinals were also compelled to cultivate relations with the Roman élite and with the Roman populace in general, through the patronage – in the name of France – of improvement projects to the city's churches, and through public events and celebrations in honour of the French.<sup>20</sup> If these cardinals were in the habit of competing with each other in the glory of their dedications to their monarch, the protector had to elevate his station further by organising ever more lavish displays and celebrations. It is consequently no surprise to see Ippolito ranked among the wealthiest cardinals in Rome, and his palaces of Monte Cavallo and Monte Giordano – the latter serving as a sort of 'French embassy' in Rome – the object of massive renovation works throughout the fifties and the sixties of the sixteenth century.<sup>21</sup> It is interesting to notice, in this respect, that Ippolito paid for most of the renovation and embellishment of his palaces in Rome using the *propina* he earned as cardinal protector: one indirect way in which the wealth of French ecclesiastical benefices contributed to enhance the splendour of French representation in Rome.22

The public display of French grandeur was certainly an important part of the cardinal protector's work – and something that, in the sixteenth century, was not always immediately distinguishable from what we nowadays consider as diplomacy. On a more practical level, however, the cardinal protector was supposed to be a direct channel of communication between the monarchy and the papacy every time a matter that directly affected or involved French interests was under discussion – and, of course, an active spokesperson for the defence of such interests. Lucien Romier stressed that the protectorship of the French crown also gave the protector 'la surintendance des affaires royales en Italie'.23 However, as both a papal counsellor and a diplomat of a foreign power, the French protector's room for independent manoeuvre was actually quite limited – particularly as he was only one of a number of his crown's diplomats in Rome, and agents and ambassadors would often be sent from France to Rome to discuss specific diplomatic matters with the pontiff. The position of the cardinal protector was rather conditioned always by 'the freedom of action allowed by other representatives of France in Rome'.<sup>24</sup> Any cardinal protector's autonomy for action was always contingent upon the presence – as well as the personalities and agendas – of any other French cardinals, and the official French lay ambassador to Rome himself, from whom the protector would often receive word of the monarch's intentions.25

33

In the case of Ippolito d'Este – that is to say, a cardinal but also a prince, and hence someone whose interests could not entirely transcend the Italian internal power system – it does not seem that his 'surintendance' ever made him the head of a well-defined diplomatic unit, nor that there even was a well-defined diplomatic unit to be made head of. In the case of the defence of the French interests in Rome, this also raises questions regarding the functioning of the French lobbying activity, its effectiveness, and even the actual existence of a French faction coherently orientated toward lobbying for the French crown. Whilst, as we shall see, the French group demonstrated a certain degree of unity when called to elect the new pontiff, this does not seem to apply on a level of everyday practice to the defence of the French interests in Rome. Although it is impossible to provide any thorough answer to these questions, Ippolito d'Este's protectorship helps shed some light on some aspects of

First of all, Ippolito d'Este was not always in Rome. The fifties of the sixteenth century coincided with a revival of the hostilities between the king of France and the emperor – the wars of Parma and Siena and later the anti-Habsburg league promoted by Paul IV followed each other in rapid succession. Ippolito was first sent to Siena, in 1552, where he spent two years as the king's representative. Later, he was accused of simony and exiled from the Curia by Paul IV, in 1555, and he did not return to Rome until after the pontiff's death, in 1559. He left again in 1561 to travel to Paris as Pius IV's legate and came back two years later. The moments in which the cardinal's leadership emerged more vividly were the conclaves. This, however, was especially due to the fact that he was always a *papabile* and the candidate of the French monarchy: time and money were therefore spent on supporting his own candidacy rather than the success of the French party. For the rest of the time, Ippolito's diplomatic action always developed in partnership with some other French representative: in Rome, with the French lay ambassadors; in Siena, within the limits im-

Besides being subordinate to the prominent role reserved to the ambassador, as French 'pure minister', as opposed to the 'hybrid' function of the cardinal protector, Ippolito's pursuit of an effective lobbying activity in the name of the king of France was also affected by the presence of other French cardinals, and by the personal rivalries that his presence stirred. Far from taking the form of a group of individuals united by the same political agenda, the French faction in the Curia was divided by single affiliations, interests and loyalties. The fact that the protectorship was not a royal office, and that the boundaries of the protector's authority over the crown's other representatives were not clearly defined, made the role itself subject to the dialectics between the monarchy and the papacy, and to the dynamics internal to the

From the very beginning of his career as the French protector, for instance, the cardinal of Ferrara's presence in Rome was met by the hostility of Cardinal du Bellay, who had been managing the French affairs at the Curia before Ippolito's arrival in Rome, and who had therefore resented the subsequent downsizing of his respon-

posed by the presence of the French military officials.

French representation in Rome.

these issues.

<sup>20</sup> F. Bardati, 'Between the King and the Pope: French Cardinals in Rome (1495-1560)', *Urban History,*  37/3 (2010), pp. 419-433.

<sup>21</sup> Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 112; 253; 264. See also Hollingsworth, 'Ippolito d'Este', pp. 105-126; 107; Evennett, 'Pie IV et les bénéfices', p. 448. 22 ASMO, CDAP, 957; 958; 961.

<sup>23</sup> Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, p. 90.

<sup>24</sup> Poncet, 'Cardinal-protectors', p. 166.

<sup>25</sup> Ibid., p. 168.

In the case of Ippolito d'Este – that is to say, a cardinal but also a prince, and hence someone whose interests could not entirely transcend the Italian internal power system – it does not seem that his 'surintendance' ever made him the head of a well-defined diplomatic unit, nor that there even was a well-defined diplomatic unit to be made head of. In the case of the defence of the French interests in Rome, this also raises questions regarding the functioning of the French lobbying activity, its effectiveness, and even the actual existence of a French faction coherently orientated toward lobbying for the French crown. Whilst, as we shall see, the French group demonstrated a certain degree of unity when called to elect the new pontiff, this does not seem to apply on a level of everyday practice to the defence of the French interests in Rome. Although it is impossible to provide any thorough answer to these questions, Ippolito d'Este's protectorship helps shed some light on some aspects of these issues.

First of all, Ippolito d'Este was not always in Rome. The fifties of the sixteenth century coincided with a revival of the hostilities between the king of France and the emperor – the wars of Parma and Siena and later the anti-Habsburg league promoted by Paul IV followed each other in rapid succession. Ippolito was first sent to Siena, in 1552, where he spent two years as the king's representative. Later, he was accused of simony and exiled from the Curia by Paul IV, in 1555, and he did not return to Rome until after the pontiff's death, in 1559. He left again in 1561 to travel to Paris as Pius IV's legate and came back two years later. The moments in which the cardinal's leadership emerged more vividly were the conclaves. This, however, was especially due to the fact that he was always a *papabile* and the candidate of the French monarchy: time and money were therefore spent on supporting his own candidacy rather than the success of the French party. For the rest of the time, Ippolito's diplomatic action always developed in partnership with some other French representative: in Rome, with the French lay ambassadors; in Siena, within the limits imposed by the presence of the French military officials.

Besides being subordinate to the prominent role reserved to the ambassador, as French 'pure minister', as opposed to the 'hybrid' function of the cardinal protector, Ippolito's pursuit of an effective lobbying activity in the name of the king of France was also affected by the presence of other French cardinals, and by the personal rivalries that his presence stirred. Far from taking the form of a group of individuals united by the same political agenda, the French faction in the Curia was divided by single affiliations, interests and loyalties. The fact that the protectorship was not a royal office, and that the boundaries of the protector's authority over the crown's other representatives were not clearly defined, made the role itself subject to the dialectics between the monarchy and the papacy, and to the dynamics internal to the French representation in Rome.

From the very beginning of his career as the French protector, for instance, the cardinal of Ferrara's presence in Rome was met by the hostility of Cardinal du Bellay, who had been managing the French affairs at the Curia before Ippolito's arrival in Rome, and who had therefore resented the subsequent downsizing of his respon-

32

<sup>20</sup> F. Bardati, 'Between the King and the Pope: French Cardinals in Rome (1495-1560)', *Urban History,* 

<sup>21</sup> Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 112; 253; 264. See also Hollingsworth, 'Ippolito d'Este', pp. 105-126; 107;

tend abroad an image of the magnificence of the French monarchy, through artistic patronages, luxurious residences, and a sumptuous court life. In addition to engaging in diplomatic exchanges and maintaining good relations with the pope, these cardinals were also compelled to cultivate relations with the Roman élite and with the Roman populace in general, through the patronage – in the name of France – of improvement projects to the city's churches, and through public events and celebrations in honour of the French.<sup>20</sup> If these cardinals were in the habit of competing with each other in the glory of their dedications to their monarch, the protector had to elevate his station further by organising ever more lavish displays and celebrations. It is consequently no surprise to see Ippolito ranked among the wealthiest cardinals in Rome, and his palaces of Monte Cavallo and Monte Giordano – the latter serving as a sort of 'French embassy' in Rome – the object of massive renovation works throughout the fifties and the sixties of the sixteenth century.<sup>21</sup> It is interesting to notice, in this respect, that Ippolito paid for most of the renovation and embellishment of his palaces in Rome using the *propina* he earned as cardinal protector: one indirect way in which the wealth of French ecclesiastical benefices contributed

The public display of French grandeur was certainly an important part of the cardinal protector's work – and something that, in the sixteenth century, was not always immediately distinguishable from what we nowadays consider as diplomacy. On a more practical level, however, the cardinal protector was supposed to be a direct channel of communication between the monarchy and the papacy every time a matter that directly affected or involved French interests was under discussion – and, of course, an active spokesperson for the defence of such interests. Lucien Romier stressed that the protectorship of the French crown also gave the protector 'la surintendance des affaires royales en Italie'.23 However, as both a papal counsellor and a diplomat of a foreign power, the French protector's room for independent manoeuvre was actually quite limited – particularly as he was only one of a number of his crown's diplomats in Rome, and agents and ambassadors would often be sent from France to Rome to discuss specific diplomatic matters with the pontiff. The position of the cardinal protector was rather conditioned always by 'the freedom of action allowed by other representatives of France in Rome'.<sup>24</sup> Any cardinal protector's autonomy for action was always contingent upon the presence – as well as the personalities and agendas – of any other French cardinals, and the official French lay ambassador to Rome himself, from whom the protector would often receive word of the

to enhance the splendour of French representation in Rome.22

monarch's intentions.25

37/3 (2010), pp. 419-433.

<sup>25</sup> Ibid., p. 168.

Evennett, 'Pie IV et les bénéfices', p. 448. 22 ASMO, CDAP, 957; 958; 961. <sup>23</sup> Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, p. 90. <sup>24</sup> Poncet, 'Cardinal-protectors', p. 166.

sibilities.26 In 1555 especially, the cardinal of Ferrara held du Bellay responsible for his exile from Rome ordered by Paul IV, something that the French prelate had obtained (according to Ippolito) through a slandering campaign and in partnership with Rodolfo Pio da Carpi, whose hatred for the Este dated back to an old family feud caused by the annexation of Carpi to the duchy of Ferrara. <sup>27</sup> A few days before the pope's order to leave the Curia reached Ippolito, Paul IV had already appointed du Bellay dean of the College of Cardinals, in spite of the precedence that, owing to their having been bishops for a longer time, the title should have been given to two other French cardinals (Bourbon and Tournon). Ippolito interpreted this latter episode as 'a plot led by du Bellay and Carpi' in order to stir resentfulness within the group of French cardinals and put off Cardinal Tournon from going to Rome as a 'lesser cardinal' than du Bellay.<sup>28</sup> When, just a few days after du Bellay's appointment, Paul IV charged Ippolito d'Este with simony, Ippolito concluded that the pope's mind had been poisoned by the same pair in order to undermine him too, so that du Bellay would remain the one head of the French representation in the Curia. Together with Carpi, the two would then 'move the pope around as they wish'.29

As we shall see in the next chapter, Ippolito had little shame in using money, influence and benefices to draw votes to himself in conclave. He, as many others, believed that, due to Paul IV's old age, the papal throne would soon become available again and he was presumably preparing to the next conclave through deals and trades with other cardinals. Corruption of this sort, however, was so widespread in Rome that it seems obvious that Ippolito was being targeted for reasons that were not exclusively motivated by his behaviour. Soon after the cardinal had received news that the pope wished to exile him from the Curia, the involvement of du Bellay and Carpi was confirmed to the duke of Ferrara by an agent sent by the pope's nephew, Cardinal Carlo Carafa.30 From his villa in Tivoli, where he was spending the summer, Ippolito vehemently protested that if he had really been planning to pursue

35

<sup>33</sup> C. Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance politique de M. De Lanssac (Louis de Saint-Gelais)…* (Paris, 1904), pp. 483-484 (21 December 1555). 34 Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* ii, pp. 140; 206-207. 35 Although we can see from the registers of the consistories that Cardinal du Bellay often took over the presentation of the benefices whenever Ippolito d'Este was away from the Curia, the latter seemingly had the power to appoint a substitute without much interference from other powers: in 1553, for instance, he dismissed Cardinal Trani from the protectorship when du Bellay, who was previously absent, returned to the Curia: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 114; p. 140. See also Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 204. 36 In December 1561, Ippolito d'Este asked Cardinal Salviati, who was taking care of the appointments to the French benefices whilst Ippolito was away, to forward all the money relative to the protectorship

any 'illegitimate business', he would have stayed in Rome, 'where one could accomplish in a day more than by staying here for a year'.<sup>31</sup> Despite the cardinal's complaints, however, the pope did not change his mind and Ippolito spent the fol-

Besides showing that the quest for personal power – whether bestowed by the pope or from the king – could create interest-based alliances that had nothing to do with – or, rather, went beyond – the existence of a French faction in Rome, this episode also shows that Ippolito d'Este's supposed leadership as the principal conductor of the monarchy's diplomatic affairs was anything but irreplaceable. The subsequent negotiations between the Valois crown and the pope to form a league against the emperor were led by the cardinals of Lorraine and Tournon and by the French ambassador to Rome, and, despite his protestations that he did not want to be 'left behind', Ippolito only returned to the Curia after Paul IV's death in 1559.33 Throughout the fifties, however, the cardinal's involvement in French politics in Italy and in Rome remained considerable even when he was not personally in Rome: as the king's representative in Siena, he was constantly informed of every negotiation that happened in the Curia by the French ambassador, and the same happened in the

The cardinal protector was certainly not supposed to take over the ambassador's function, nor to be a sort of co-ambassador: whenever the French ambassador was ill, that was deemed news worth reporting, because it meant that any ongoing negotiation was moving into the protector's (or substitute protector's) hands.<sup>34</sup> The one function that was specific to the cardinal protectorship, and that could not be performed by the French ambassador, was the presentation (*expeditione*) of the French benefices in consistory. During Ippolito's absences from Rome, this task was taken up by a protector *ad interim,* whom Ippolito himself appointed and who acted as the cardinal protector (without, however, being officially appointed as a 'viceprotector', or 'co-protector', a more formalised use of the office that came into use later in the sixteenth century).<sup>35</sup> A letter written by the cardinal of Ferrara in 1561 seems to suggest that, even when it was another cardinal who proposed the king's appointments to the French benefices in consistory, the fee that was charged for those appointments, the *propina*, was nonetheless paid to the 'official' protector and not to the substitute.<sup>36</sup> The fact that Ippolito d'Este was left some room as to how to

32

lowing years away from Rome, mostly residing in Ferrara.

years of his exile during Paul IV's pontificate.

<sup>31</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.43 (7 September 1555). 32 Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 267-283.

<sup>26</sup> Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* ii, pp. 206-207; 243-244. A biographical profile of Cardinal du Bellay is in R. Scheurer, 'Jean du Bellay (1492 ou 1498/1499-1560)', in C. Michon (ed), *Les conseillers de François Ier* (Rennes, 2011), pp. 319-330.

<sup>27</sup> Carpi was annexed in 1527: Chiappini, *Gli Estensi,* pp. 235-240.

<sup>28</sup> Ippolito II to Ercole II: 'Nostro Signore pubblicò una bolla a favor del cardinal di Bellay, con la quale lo constituisse decano in pregiudicio delli reverendissimi di Borbone et Tornone, che sono vescovi anteriori a lui […]. Hora io lascierò considerar a Vostra Eccellenza quanto la cosa mi sia rincresciuta, vedendo che tutta questa è trama condutta da Bellay et da Carpi si per odio particolare che essi portano a esso Tornone, come per far dispetto a me, pensando di haver per questa via a impedire che quel signore non venga di qua, come quello che non sia per volersi trovar in grado inferiore a Bellay': ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.42 (28 August 1555). On this episode, see R. Scheurer, 'L'accession de Jean du Bellay au décanat du Sacré Collège', in C. Michon and L. Petris (eds), *Le Cardinal Jean du Bellay: diplomatie et* 

*culture dans l'Europe de la Renaissance* (Tours, 2013), pp. 99-111. 29 'Non sono altri che Bellay et Carpi, i quali come hanno procurato et fatto ogni opra et per mezzo della bolla del decanato et per ogni via per impedir la venuta de reverendissimo Tornone a Roma, così hanno anche voluto cercare hora di levarne me di quest'altro modo': ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.43 (7 September 1555).

<sup>30</sup> Carafa wrote that Carpi was driven 'dall'odio antico et dal temor che ha che il cardinal di Ferrara non sia ancora un dì più potente che non sia ora', whilst du Bellay 'è mosso dall'ambitione si di rimaner con più auttorità delle cose del re, sì dalla speranza che Carpi gli haveva data che possa esser papa': AAV, *Misc., Arm II*, 119, p. 55 (21 September 1555).

any 'illegitimate business', he would have stayed in Rome, 'where one could accomplish in a day more than by staying here for a year'.<sup>31</sup> Despite the cardinal's complaints, however, the pope did not change his mind and Ippolito spent the following years away from Rome, mostly residing in Ferrara. 32

Besides showing that the quest for personal power – whether bestowed by the pope or from the king – could create interest-based alliances that had nothing to do with – or, rather, went beyond – the existence of a French faction in Rome, this episode also shows that Ippolito d'Este's supposed leadership as the principal conductor of the monarchy's diplomatic affairs was anything but irreplaceable. The subsequent negotiations between the Valois crown and the pope to form a league against the emperor were led by the cardinals of Lorraine and Tournon and by the French ambassador to Rome, and, despite his protestations that he did not want to be 'left behind', Ippolito only returned to the Curia after Paul IV's death in 1559.33 Throughout the fifties, however, the cardinal's involvement in French politics in Italy and in Rome remained considerable even when he was not personally in Rome: as the king's representative in Siena, he was constantly informed of every negotiation that happened in the Curia by the French ambassador, and the same happened in the years of his exile during Paul IV's pontificate.

The cardinal protector was certainly not supposed to take over the ambassador's function, nor to be a sort of co-ambassador: whenever the French ambassador was ill, that was deemed news worth reporting, because it meant that any ongoing negotiation was moving into the protector's (or substitute protector's) hands.<sup>34</sup> The one function that was specific to the cardinal protectorship, and that could not be performed by the French ambassador, was the presentation (*expeditione*) of the French benefices in consistory. During Ippolito's absences from Rome, this task was taken up by a protector *ad interim,* whom Ippolito himself appointed and who acted as the cardinal protector (without, however, being officially appointed as a 'viceprotector', or 'co-protector', a more formalised use of the office that came into use later in the sixteenth century).<sup>35</sup> A letter written by the cardinal of Ferrara in 1561 seems to suggest that, even when it was another cardinal who proposed the king's appointments to the French benefices in consistory, the fee that was charged for those appointments, the *propina*, was nonetheless paid to the 'official' protector and not to the substitute.<sup>36</sup> The fact that Ippolito d'Este was left some room as to how to

34

<sup>30</sup> Carafa wrote that Carpi was driven 'dall'odio antico et dal temor che ha che il cardinal di Ferrara non sia ancora un dì più potente che non sia ora', whilst du Bellay 'è mosso dall'ambitione si di rimaner con più auttorità delle cose del re, sì dalla speranza che Carpi gli haveva data che possa esser papa': AAV,

sibilities.26 In 1555 especially, the cardinal of Ferrara held du Bellay responsible for his exile from Rome ordered by Paul IV, something that the French prelate had obtained (according to Ippolito) through a slandering campaign and in partnership with Rodolfo Pio da Carpi, whose hatred for the Este dated back to an old family feud

pope's order to leave the Curia reached Ippolito, Paul IV had already appointed du Bellay dean of the College of Cardinals, in spite of the precedence that, owing to their having been bishops for a longer time, the title should have been given to two other French cardinals (Bourbon and Tournon). Ippolito interpreted this latter episode as 'a plot led by du Bellay and Carpi' in order to stir resentfulness within the group of French cardinals and put off Cardinal Tournon from going to Rome as a 'lesser cardinal' than du Bellay.<sup>28</sup> When, just a few days after du Bellay's appointment, Paul IV charged Ippolito d'Este with simony, Ippolito concluded that the pope's mind had been poisoned by the same pair in order to undermine him too, so that du Bellay would remain the one head of the French representation in the Curia. Together with Carpi, the two would then 'move the pope around as they wish'.29

As we shall see in the next chapter, Ippolito had little shame in using money, influence and benefices to draw votes to himself in conclave. He, as many others, believed that, due to Paul IV's old age, the papal throne would soon become available again and he was presumably preparing to the next conclave through deals and trades with other cardinals. Corruption of this sort, however, was so widespread in Rome that it seems obvious that Ippolito was being targeted for reasons that were not exclusively motivated by his behaviour. Soon after the cardinal had received news that the pope wished to exile him from the Curia, the involvement of du Bellay and Carpi was confirmed to the duke of Ferrara by an agent sent by the pope's nephew, Cardinal Carlo Carafa.30 From his villa in Tivoli, where he was spending the summer, Ippolito vehemently protested that if he had really been planning to pursue

<sup>26</sup> Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* ii, pp. 206-207; 243-244. A biographical profile of Cardinal du Bellay is in R. Scheurer, 'Jean du Bellay (1492 ou 1498/1499-1560)', in C. Michon (ed), *Les conseillers de François* 

<sup>28</sup> Ippolito II to Ercole II: 'Nostro Signore pubblicò una bolla a favor del cardinal di Bellay, con la quale lo constituisse decano in pregiudicio delli reverendissimi di Borbone et Tornone, che sono vescovi anteriori a lui […]. Hora io lascierò considerar a Vostra Eccellenza quanto la cosa mi sia rincresciuta, vedendo che tutta questa è trama condutta da Bellay et da Carpi si per odio particolare che essi portano a esso Tornone, come per far dispetto a me, pensando di haver per questa via a impedire che quel signore non venga di qua, come quello che non sia per volersi trovar in grado inferiore a Bellay': ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.42 (28 August 1555). On this episode, see R. Scheurer, 'L'accession de Jean du Bellay au décanat du Sacré Collège', in C. Michon and L. Petris (eds), *Le Cardinal Jean du Bellay: diplomatie et culture dans l'Europe de la Renaissance* (Tours, 2013), pp. 99-111. 29 'Non sono altri che Bellay et Carpi, i quali come hanno procurato et fatto ogni opra et per mezzo della bolla del decanato et per ogni via per impedir la venuta de reverendissimo Tornone a Roma, così hanno anche voluto cercare hora di levarne me di quest'altro modo': ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.43 (7 Septem-

*Ier* (Rennes, 2011), pp. 319-330.

*Misc., Arm II*, 119, p. 55 (21 September 1555).

ber 1555).

<sup>27</sup> Carpi was annexed in 1527: Chiappini, *Gli Estensi,* pp. 235-240.

<sup>27</sup> A few days before the

caused by the annexation of Carpi to the duchy of Ferrara.

<sup>31</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.43 (7 September 1555). 32 Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 267-283.

<sup>33</sup> C. Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance politique de M. De Lanssac (Louis de Saint-Gelais)…*

<sup>(</sup>Paris, 1904), pp. 483-484 (21 December 1555). 34 Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* ii, pp. 140; 206-207. 35 Although we can see from the registers of the consistories that Cardinal du Bellay often took over the presentation of the benefices whenever Ippolito d'Este was away from the Curia, the latter seemingly had the power to appoint a substitute without much interference from other powers: in 1553, for instance, he dismissed Cardinal Trani from the protectorship when du Bellay, who was previously absent, returned to the Curia: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 114; p. 140. See also Pacifici, *Ip-*

*polito II,* p. 204. 36 In December 1561, Ippolito d'Este asked Cardinal Salviati, who was taking care of the appointments to the French benefices whilst Ippolito was away, to forward all the money relative to the protectorship

fill the office of the protectorship whenever he was out of Rome demonstrates that, in the general frame of French diplomacy, the name of the substitute did not make such a difference – and that the presentation of the benefices in consistory was a role that was more honorific than substantial. This was even more true considering that, unlike what was to become customary in later years,<sup>37</sup> Ippolito d'Este never performed any check on the personal and religious background of the prelates nominated by the king, and, therefore, that he and his occasional substitutes merely announced the king's choices in consistory.

However, over the course of Ippolito's protectorship, the validity of the king's right to appoint prelates, and the extent of this right, was often put under discussion. This was, mainly, a consequence of the imperfect nature of the Concordat of 1516, which had given Francis I and his successors the power to present their own candidates to French benefices, but not in the whole of their kingdom: some regions of France – the ones that had been most recently annexed, Provence and Brittany – were excluded by the Concordat, which was a permanent agreement, and the king's right over those benefices needed to be reconfirmed every time a new pope or a new king ascended to the throne. Furthermore, if any of the cardinals who held any of the French benefices should die in Rome, then the pope had the right to fill those vacancies with a candidate of his choice (*ad sedem apostolicam*). Some bulls of exemption later granted by the pontiffs had basically nullified this clause, but, as much as the king's right to appoint prelates in the 'new' regions, these bulls of exemption also needed to be confirmed – and were subject, of course, to political circumstances as well as to the pontiff's broader agenda.38 As both the monarchy and the papacy were interested in strengthening their own authority over the French benefices, to the detriment of the other, this provoked occasional diplomatic crises between France and Rome. Julius III, for instance, refused to confirm some royal nominations in consistory between 1552 and 1553.<sup>39</sup> A few years later, Pius IV refused to recognise the validity of previous bulls of exemption *super vacantibus in Curia,* and, when Cardinal du Bellay died in Rome in 1560, his benefices became the object of a dispute between France and Rome.<sup>40</sup>

Although occasional papal opposition to the king's claims to these appointments never took the form of a more systematic revision of the task of presentation performed by the cardinal protector, Ippolito d'Este's role as the mediator between the

37

<sup>42</sup> Cardinal Borromeo's letter to Ippolito is published in J. Šusta, *Die Römische Curie und das Concil* 

<sup>41</sup> As reported by the Estense ambassador to France: 'Mons. il presidente Ferrier […] se ne va hora a Roma mandato da sua maestà per trattare con sua santità per la cosa delle annate, idest della spesa della ispeditione delle bolle per conto de benefici di questo regno. Questi signori non vorriano che si pagasse nulla per la ispeditione delle dette bolle, dicendo non esser ragionevole et aggravandosi che esca di questo regno così grossa summa de denari come dicono che esce per questo conto, et faranno ogni cosa per ottenerlo da Sua Santità se potranno. Et in caso che non possino, tentaranno almeno di minuire la detta spesa, et si forciaranno quanto potranno d'accommodarsi con sua beatitudine […]. Il detto Ferrier par che habbi anco commissione di trattare col signor cardinale di Ferrara per levare, o almeno minuire, la propina che tira hora sua signoria illustrissima et reverendissima sulla speditione delle bolle dei benefici a causa della protetione ch'essa tiene di questo regno, che importa 15 per cento': ASMO, CDA, Francia,

French crown's management of the benefices and the papacy came under discussion at the beginning of the sixties, as a reaction to the French religious and political crisis that opened after Henry II's death and the continuous threat of a Gallican schism. In this context, the involvement of the cardinal protector with the French benefices lost some of its honorific status and acquired a more substantial character, as the whole process of appointment became the object of disagreement between the French crown and the papacy. In 1561, a French diplomat was sent to Rome to discuss with the pope the cancellation or reduction, of the *annate* – the fee that appointed prelates were bound to pay upon papal confirmation. In the context of this initiative, the same agent was also in charge of convincing Ippolito d'Este to renounce – or, again, reduce – the *propina* that he received as the protector of the crown.41 This request was, from a practical point of view, motivated by the critical state of the French royal finances, but it was also part of a long-term struggle to put the French benefices more firmly under the monarchy's control. As we shall see, the *annate*  were unilaterally suppressed by the Estates General in 1561, after the pope had refused to comply with the monarchy's request. As part of the same struggle for financial emancipation, the French monarchy withdrew the exemption from taxation that the cardinal protectors had enjoyed since the time of Agostino Trivulzio. As a result,

The role that Ippolito d'Este had in negotiating the reintroduction of the *annate*  with the French crown is considered in the second part of this work. Here, it is sufficient to observe that, whilst the Valois were trying to emancipate – at least financially – the French benefices from the Holy See, the pope was trying to gain more control over the appointments of the French prelates. In April 1562, when the cardinal of Ferrara was negotiating the reintroduction of the taxation, Pius IV insisted on that routine background check on the French candidates to the benefices that later became customary, but that had never been performed before by Ippolito d'Este. Presumably because of the suspicion and hostility that already existed between the pope and the French monarchy, the pope did not trust the cardinal of Ferrara to perform the check himself: Cardinal Borromeo asked the nuncio to France, Prospero Santa Croce, to take care of it. Only after receiving Ippolito's bitter complaints via letter, did Pius IV decide to put him in charge of performing this task (in partnership, however, with the aforementioned nuncio).42 When, in the seventies, Luigi d'Este suc-

Ippolito d'Este's benefices became financially liable.

36 (last day of February 1561).

*von Trient unter Pius IV* (4 vols, Wien, 1904-1914), i, p. 468.

to his Roman accountants: ASMO, CS, 150 (4 December 1561); AAV, *Misc., Arm II*, 131, p. 40. In November 1561, Salviati had indeed presented the king's choices for several monasteries and abbeys: Wodka, *Geschichte der nationalem Protektorate*, p. 101. 37 Poncet, 'Cardinal-protectors', p. 167.

<sup>38</sup> On the Concordat, see Poncet, *La France,* pp. 51-71; F. Baumgartner, 'Henry II's Italian Bishops: A Study in the Use and Abuse of the Concordat of Bologna', *The Sixteenth Century Journal,* 11/2 (1980)', p. 53.

<sup>39</sup> A first-hand account of Julius III's refusal to accept some of the French appointments is in the French ambassador's correspondence from Rome: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* pp. 250; 317.

<sup>40</sup> Evennett, 'Pie IV et le bénéfices', pp. 425-461. See also C. Michon, 'Le cardinal Jean du Bellay et ses bénéfices en France sous François Ier et Henry II', in C. Michon and L. Petris (eds), *Le cardinal Jean du Bellay: diplomatie et culture dans l'Europe de la Renaissance* (Tours, 2013), pp. 67-88. Ippolito discussed the issue of du Bellay's benefices in a letter to his nephew, Alfonso II: ASMO, CS, 150, 15 February 1560.

French crown's management of the benefices and the papacy came under discussion at the beginning of the sixties, as a reaction to the French religious and political crisis that opened after Henry II's death and the continuous threat of a Gallican schism. In this context, the involvement of the cardinal protector with the French benefices lost some of its honorific status and acquired a more substantial character, as the whole process of appointment became the object of disagreement between the French crown and the papacy. In 1561, a French diplomat was sent to Rome to discuss with the pope the cancellation or reduction, of the *annate* – the fee that appointed prelates were bound to pay upon papal confirmation. In the context of this initiative, the same agent was also in charge of convincing Ippolito d'Este to renounce – or, again, reduce – the *propina* that he received as the protector of the crown.41 This request was, from a practical point of view, motivated by the critical state of the French royal finances, but it was also part of a long-term struggle to put the French benefices more firmly under the monarchy's control. As we shall see, the *annate*  were unilaterally suppressed by the Estates General in 1561, after the pope had refused to comply with the monarchy's request. As part of the same struggle for financial emancipation, the French monarchy withdrew the exemption from taxation that the cardinal protectors had enjoyed since the time of Agostino Trivulzio. As a result, Ippolito d'Este's benefices became financially liable.

The role that Ippolito d'Este had in negotiating the reintroduction of the *annate*  with the French crown is considered in the second part of this work. Here, it is sufficient to observe that, whilst the Valois were trying to emancipate – at least financially – the French benefices from the Holy See, the pope was trying to gain more control over the appointments of the French prelates. In April 1562, when the cardinal of Ferrara was negotiating the reintroduction of the taxation, Pius IV insisted on that routine background check on the French candidates to the benefices that later became customary, but that had never been performed before by Ippolito d'Este. Presumably because of the suspicion and hostility that already existed between the pope and the French monarchy, the pope did not trust the cardinal of Ferrara to perform the check himself: Cardinal Borromeo asked the nuncio to France, Prospero Santa Croce, to take care of it. Only after receiving Ippolito's bitter complaints via letter, did Pius IV decide to put him in charge of performing this task (in partnership, however, with the aforementioned nuncio).42 When, in the seventies, Luigi d'Este suc-

36

fill the office of the protectorship whenever he was out of Rome demonstrates that, in the general frame of French diplomacy, the name of the substitute did not make such a difference – and that the presentation of the benefices in consistory was a role that was more honorific than substantial. This was even more true considering that, unlike what was to become customary in later years,<sup>37</sup> Ippolito d'Este never performed any check on the personal and religious background of the prelates nominated by the king, and, therefore, that he and his occasional substitutes merely an-

However, over the course of Ippolito's protectorship, the validity of the king's right to appoint prelates, and the extent of this right, was often put under discussion. This was, mainly, a consequence of the imperfect nature of the Concordat of 1516, which had given Francis I and his successors the power to present their own candidates to French benefices, but not in the whole of their kingdom: some regions of France – the ones that had been most recently annexed, Provence and Brittany – were excluded by the Concordat, which was a permanent agreement, and the king's right over those benefices needed to be reconfirmed every time a new pope or a new king ascended to the throne. Furthermore, if any of the cardinals who held any of the French benefices should die in Rome, then the pope had the right to fill those vacancies with a candidate of his choice (*ad sedem apostolicam*). Some bulls of exemption later granted by the pontiffs had basically nullified this clause, but, as much as the king's right to appoint prelates in the 'new' regions, these bulls of exemption also needed to be confirmed – and were subject, of course, to political circumstances as well as to the pontiff's broader agenda.38 As both the monarchy and the papacy were interested in strengthening their own authority over the French benefices, to the detriment of the other, this provoked occasional diplomatic crises between France and Rome. Julius III, for instance, refused to confirm some royal nominations in consistory between 1552 and 1553.<sup>39</sup> A few years later, Pius IV refused to recognise the validity of previous bulls of exemption *super vacantibus in Curia,* and, when Cardinal du Bellay died in Rome in 1560, his benefices became the object of a

Although occasional papal opposition to the king's claims to these appointments never took the form of a more systematic revision of the task of presentation performed by the cardinal protector, Ippolito d'Este's role as the mediator between the

to his Roman accountants: ASMO, CS, 150 (4 December 1561); AAV, *Misc., Arm II*, 131, p. 40. In November 1561, Salviati had indeed presented the king's choices for several monasteries and abbeys:

<sup>38</sup> On the Concordat, see Poncet, *La France,* pp. 51-71; F. Baumgartner, 'Henry II's Italian Bishops: A Study in the Use and Abuse of the Concordat of Bologna', *The Sixteenth Century Journal,* 11/2 (1980)',

<sup>39</sup> A first-hand account of Julius III's refusal to accept some of the French appointments is in the French ambassador's correspondence from Rome: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* pp. 250; 317. <sup>40</sup> Evennett, 'Pie IV et le bénéfices', pp. 425-461. See also C. Michon, 'Le cardinal Jean du Bellay et ses bénéfices en France sous François Ier et Henry II', in C. Michon and L. Petris (eds), *Le cardinal Jean du Bellay: diplomatie et culture dans l'Europe de la Renaissance* (Tours, 2013), pp. 67-88. Ippolito discussed the issue of du Bellay's benefices in a letter to his nephew, Alfonso II: ASMO, CS, 150, 15 Feb-

nounced the king's choices in consistory.

dispute between France and Rome.<sup>40</sup>

p. 53.

ruary 1560.

Wodka, *Geschichte der nationalem Protektorate*, p. 101. 37 Poncet, 'Cardinal-protectors', p. 167.

<sup>41</sup> As reported by the Estense ambassador to France: 'Mons. il presidente Ferrier […] se ne va hora a Roma mandato da sua maestà per trattare con sua santità per la cosa delle annate, idest della spesa della ispeditione delle bolle per conto de benefici di questo regno. Questi signori non vorriano che si pagasse nulla per la ispeditione delle dette bolle, dicendo non esser ragionevole et aggravandosi che esca di questo regno così grossa summa de denari come dicono che esce per questo conto, et faranno ogni cosa per ottenerlo da Sua Santità se potranno. Et in caso che non possino, tentaranno almeno di minuire la detta spesa, et si forciaranno quanto potranno d'accommodarsi con sua beatitudine […]. Il detto Ferrier par che habbi anco commissione di trattare col signor cardinale di Ferrara per levare, o almeno minuire, la propina che tira hora sua signoria illustrissima et reverendissima sulla speditione delle bolle dei benefici a causa della protetione ch'essa tiene di questo regno, che importa 15 per cento': ASMO, CDA, Francia, 36 (last day of February 1561).

<sup>42</sup> Cardinal Borromeo's letter to Ippolito is published in J. Šusta, *Die Römische Curie und das Concil von Trient unter Pius IV* (4 vols, Wien, 1904-1914), i, p. 468.

ceeded Ippolito as the cardinal protector of France, we have evidence from his documents that he was checking the appointed prelates' suitability on a regular basis.<sup>43</sup>

The cardinal protectors, as we have already observed, were a symptom of the growth of national monarchies. As the process was still ongoing, however, we can see, in Ippolito d'Este's case, some of the contradictions and changes that affected his protectorship. If, from a diplomatic point of view, some aspects of the role did not change much – as it always remained dependent on the ambassador's presence, both when Ippolito was in and outside Rome, for instance – Ippolito's continuous involvement in French politics was a consequence of his ability to preserve the king's favour over the years (also through his personal connections at court) rather than part of his duties as cardinal protector. The dual nature of the protectorship – requiring loyalty to both the papacy and the sovereign – reached a moment of crisis when both the papacy and the monarchy tried to enhance their respective share in the management of the French benefices. The years of Ippolito's protectorship represent a moment of transition in the role of the protector itself: in comparison, by the end of the sixteenth century and, more evidently, in the seventeenth century, the protectorship acquired a more defined 'ministerial' nature. This was also reflected in the fact that the tenures of the protectors become shorter and the benefits attached to it less remarkable, at least for what concerns the possession of French benefices.

# **2. A cardinal protector's wealth**

We have already observed that the best way a monarch had to secure the cardinal protector's commitment to the cause, especially if this cardinal was a foreigner, was to bestow him with enough benefices to make the cardinal's own interests coincide with that of the crown. To this end, the kings of France used bishoprics, abbeys, and pensions. These were, however, the same means through which members of the French aristocracy were rewarded for their services to the royal crown, and, therefore, were the object of fierce competition. Although one might expect, as a consequence of the king's management of the French benefices, a visible 'gallicanisation' of the appointments, there was a large population of Italian prelates amongst the bishops appointed by the kings of France in the sixteenth century. At the beginning of the twentieth century, French historian Émile Picot drew attention to the importance of Italian presence in sixteenth-century France. In more recent years, others tried to provide statistics that help us to understand the extent of this presence, as well as its causes and consequences. Overall, this remarkable Italian presence has been seen as a direct consequence of the French crown's presence – military and political – in Italy, which reached its peak during the reigns of Francis I and Henry II and then decreased in the second half of the sixteenth century, when French ambitions over Italy came to an end. Consistently with this interpretation, the number of foreign appointments to French bishoprics is similar for both the reigns of Luis XII

<sup>43</sup> ASMO, CS, 410, 2056.XVIII.13.

39

<sup>49</sup> Hollingsworth, 'A Cardinal in Rome', p. 82; E. Albèri (ed), *Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al* 

<sup>44</sup> M. C. Péronnet, *Les évêques de l'Ancienne France* (2 vols, Paris, 1977), i, pp. 416-417; Edelstein, 'Foreign Episcopal Appointments', pp. 451-452; Baumgartner, 'Henry II's Italian Bishops', pp. 56-58. See also the 'geography' of Italian bishops in France more recently outlined in N. Lemaitre, 'Les évêques italiens de François Ier', in C. Lastraioli and J-M. de Gall (eds), *François I et l'Italie / L'Italia e Francesco I. Échanges, influences, méfiances entre Moyen Âge et Renaissance / Scambi, influenze, diffi-*

<sup>46</sup> C. Eubel, *Hierarchia catholica Medii Aevi…* (6 vols, Regensberg, 1913)*,* iii, p. 17 (from this list is missing the diocese of Périgueux, which is nonetheless to be found in ibid*.,* p. 272). See also Edelstein,

<sup>47</sup> See Table 2 at the end of this chapter. 48 Estimates of Ippolito's wealth suggested by Venetian diplomats are in N. Tommaseo (ed), *Relations des Ambassadeurs vénitiens sur les affaires de France au XVIe siècle* (2 vols, Paris, 1838), i, p. 456; ii, p. 86; and in Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, p. 90. Ippolito d'Este's properties in the duchy of Ferrara are listed in Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 331-333. In Italy, Ippolito also held the churches of Bondeno, Pomposa, San Benedetto, and Sant'Agnese, as he declared on the occasion of a general assessment of benefices in 1571: E. Hewett, 'Assessment of Italian Benefices Held by the Cardinals for the Turkish War of 1571', *The English Historical Review,* 30/119 (1915), p. 493. The revenues relative to Ippolito's Italian

*denze fra Medioevo e Rinascimento* (Turnhout, 2018), pp. 145-167. 45 Edelstein, 'Foreign Episcopal Appointments', p. 457.

benefices are in ASMO, CDAP, 921; 922; 923; 944; 996; 998; 1002; 992.

*Senato* (3 series, 14 vols, Florence, 1839-1863*),* s. 2, ii, p. 14.

'Foreign Episcopal Appointments', p. 453.

and Charles IX, whilst it is significantly higher for those of Francis I and Henry II.44 The same can be said about abbeys, which were sources of income sometimes as fruitful as bishoprics and which were extensively given in care to Italian prelates,

It is therefore worth asking how the cardinal of Ferrara fitted into this scenario, and whether his being the cardinal protector of France brought him, in terms of ecclesiastical benefices, any substantial advantage in comparison to other Italian prelates. The cardinal who preceded Ippolito d'Este as the protector of the French crown, Agostino Trivulzio, had received, throughout his career, nine bishoprics: of these, five were in France, and had all been given to Trivulzio by King Francis I, who had also appointed him cardinal protector.<sup>46</sup> Ippolito d'Este's career was seemingly very similar: he held, at various times, two bishoprics in Italy and six in France. A striking difference between these two cardinal protectors, however, lies in the quality of the French benefices that they received: whilst Trivulzio, like the majority of the other Italian prelates, was appointed to 'poor dioceses', Ippolito held some of the most remunerative benefices of France – such as the episcopal sees of Autun, Narbonne, Lyon, or the abbey of Chaalis, which gave 15.000 francs of revenues.47 Whenever a foreign diplomat – usually Venetian – tried to estimate the revenues that Ippolito was extracting from his French benefices, these figures were invariably around 100-150.000 *livres* per year, and this of course excluded all the properties (lands, palaces, but also the right to collect some taxes) that Ippolito had inherited from his family and the lesser – nonetheless wealthy – benefices that he held in the duchy of Ferrara.<sup>48</sup> Mary Hollingsworth calculated that, in the sixties, the cardinal of Ferrara's income was around 85.000 *scudi*: as a useful comparison, one can notice that Ercole Gonzaga, who was the cardinal protector of the Castilian crown and the member of another Italian ruling family, had an income of 20.000

often to those who already held at least one episcopal see in France.<sup>45</sup>

*scudi* in 1540.<sup>49</sup>

and Charles IX, whilst it is significantly higher for those of Francis I and Henry II.44 The same can be said about abbeys, which were sources of income sometimes as fruitful as bishoprics and which were extensively given in care to Italian prelates, often to those who already held at least one episcopal see in France.<sup>45</sup>

It is therefore worth asking how the cardinal of Ferrara fitted into this scenario, and whether his being the cardinal protector of France brought him, in terms of ecclesiastical benefices, any substantial advantage in comparison to other Italian prelates. The cardinal who preceded Ippolito d'Este as the protector of the French crown, Agostino Trivulzio, had received, throughout his career, nine bishoprics: of these, five were in France, and had all been given to Trivulzio by King Francis I, who had also appointed him cardinal protector.<sup>46</sup> Ippolito d'Este's career was seemingly very similar: he held, at various times, two bishoprics in Italy and six in France. A striking difference between these two cardinal protectors, however, lies in the quality of the French benefices that they received: whilst Trivulzio, like the majority of the other Italian prelates, was appointed to 'poor dioceses', Ippolito held some of the most remunerative benefices of France – such as the episcopal sees of Autun, Narbonne, Lyon, or the abbey of Chaalis, which gave 15.000 francs of revenues.47 Whenever a foreign diplomat – usually Venetian – tried to estimate the revenues that Ippolito was extracting from his French benefices, these figures were invariably around 100-150.000 *livres* per year, and this of course excluded all the properties (lands, palaces, but also the right to collect some taxes) that Ippolito had inherited from his family and the lesser – nonetheless wealthy – benefices that he held in the duchy of Ferrara.<sup>48</sup> Mary Hollingsworth calculated that, in the sixties, the cardinal of Ferrara's income was around 85.000 *scudi*: as a useful comparison, one can notice that Ercole Gonzaga, who was the cardinal protector of the Castilian crown and the member of another Italian ruling family, had an income of 20.000 *scudi* in 1540.<sup>49</sup>

38

ceeded Ippolito as the cardinal protector of France, we have evidence from his documents that he was checking the appointed prelates' suitability on a regular basis.<sup>43</sup> The cardinal protectors, as we have already observed, were a symptom of the growth of national monarchies. As the process was still ongoing, however, we can see, in Ippolito d'Este's case, some of the contradictions and changes that affected his protectorship. If, from a diplomatic point of view, some aspects of the role did not change much – as it always remained dependent on the ambassador's presence, both when Ippolito was in and outside Rome, for instance – Ippolito's continuous involvement in French politics was a consequence of his ability to preserve the king's favour over the years (also through his personal connections at court) rather than part of his duties as cardinal protector. The dual nature of the protectorship – requiring loyalty to both the papacy and the sovereign – reached a moment of crisis when both the papacy and the monarchy tried to enhance their respective share in the management of the French benefices. The years of Ippolito's protectorship represent a moment of transition in the role of the protector itself: in comparison, by the end of the sixteenth century and, more evidently, in the seventeenth century, the protectorship acquired a more defined 'ministerial' nature. This was also reflected in the fact that the tenures of the protectors become shorter and the benefits attached to it less remarkable, at least for what concerns the possession of French benefices.

We have already observed that the best way a monarch had to secure the cardinal protector's commitment to the cause, especially if this cardinal was a foreigner, was to bestow him with enough benefices to make the cardinal's own interests coincide with that of the crown. To this end, the kings of France used bishoprics, abbeys, and pensions. These were, however, the same means through which members of the French aristocracy were rewarded for their services to the royal crown, and, therefore, were the object of fierce competition. Although one might expect, as a consequence of the king's management of the French benefices, a visible 'gallicanisation' of the appointments, there was a large population of Italian prelates amongst the bishops appointed by the kings of France in the sixteenth century. At the beginning of the twentieth century, French historian Émile Picot drew attention to the importance of Italian presence in sixteenth-century France. In more recent years, others tried to provide statistics that help us to understand the extent of this presence, as well as its causes and consequences. Overall, this remarkable Italian presence has been seen as a direct consequence of the French crown's presence – military and political – in Italy, which reached its peak during the reigns of Francis I and Henry II and then decreased in the second half of the sixteenth century, when French ambitions over Italy came to an end. Consistently with this interpretation, the number of foreign appointments to French bishoprics is similar for both the reigns of Luis XII

**2. A cardinal protector's wealth**

<sup>43</sup> ASMO, CS, 410, 2056.XVIII.13.

<sup>49</sup> Hollingsworth, 'A Cardinal in Rome', p. 82; E. Albèri (ed), *Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al Senato* (3 series, 14 vols, Florence, 1839-1863*),* s. 2, ii, p. 14.

<sup>44</sup> M. C. Péronnet, *Les évêques de l'Ancienne France* (2 vols, Paris, 1977), i, pp. 416-417; Edelstein, 'Foreign Episcopal Appointments', pp. 451-452; Baumgartner, 'Henry II's Italian Bishops', pp. 56-58. See also the 'geography' of Italian bishops in France more recently outlined in N. Lemaitre, 'Les évêques italiens de François Ier', in C. Lastraioli and J-M. de Gall (eds), *François I et l'Italie / L'Italia e Francesco I. Échanges, influences, méfiances entre Moyen Âge et Renaissance / Scambi, influenze, diffidenze fra Medioevo e Rinascimento* (Turnhout, 2018), pp. 145-167. 45 Edelstein, 'Foreign Episcopal Appointments', p. 457.

<sup>46</sup> C. Eubel, *Hierarchia catholica Medii Aevi…* (6 vols, Regensberg, 1913)*,* iii, p. 17 (from this list is missing the diocese of Périgueux, which is nonetheless to be found in ibid*.,* p. 272). See also Edelstein, 'Foreign Episcopal Appointments', p. 453.

<sup>47</sup> See Table 2 at the end of this chapter. 48 Estimates of Ippolito's wealth suggested by Venetian diplomats are in N. Tommaseo (ed), *Relations des Ambassadeurs vénitiens sur les affaires de France au XVIe siècle* (2 vols, Paris, 1838), i, p. 456; ii, p. 86; and in Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, p. 90. Ippolito d'Este's properties in the duchy of Ferrara are listed in Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 331-333. In Italy, Ippolito also held the churches of Bondeno, Pomposa, San Benedetto, and Sant'Agnese, as he declared on the occasion of a general assessment of benefices in 1571: E. Hewett, 'Assessment of Italian Benefices Held by the Cardinals for the Turkish War of 1571', *The English Historical Review,* 30/119 (1915), p. 493. The revenues relative to Ippolito's Italian benefices are in ASMO, CDAP, 921; 922; 923; 944; 996; 998; 1002; 992.

#### The Path of Pleasantness

Both Agostino Trivulzio and Ippolito d'Este came from families that had been allied with or had served the French power in Italy. They both started their ecclesiastical careers as supporters of the French monarchy, and they both received one or more French benefices before being appointed cardinal protector. From this perspective, then, the protectorship was a confirmation of the already existing relationship between the cardinal and the sovereign: the benefices that both cardinals gained after having been appointed to the post of protector represented a continuation and an enhancement of that same relationship. Whilst Trivulzio exchanged or resigned his French benefices within just a few years, and mainly in favour of other Italians – thus participating in a trend that was common to all the Italian prelates – Ippolito held his for a much longer time, keeping Lyon, Narbonne, and Auch for around ten years each, and remaining the abbot of Chaalis for more than twenty years.50 The fact that Ippolito was receiving benefices from and resigning them in favour of the most prominent French cardinals – Lorraine, Tournon, Bourbon – could also be seen as a signal that he was much more naturalised within the elite of the French clergy than his predecessor had been.

Ippolito d'Este was certainly one of the great pluralists of the time. In addition to his various episcopal sees, he also possessed a vast array of abbeys *in commendam*, another practice that was increasingly being stigmatised as contributing to the corruption of the religious orders.<sup>51</sup> On average, throughout his career, he held around ten French abbeys at once: in 1564, he had twelve, and in 1572 he had thirteen. With regard to 'major benefices', the only moments when Ippolito held only one diocese were before 1539 (when he was appointed to Lyon), from 1557 to 1562 (without considering his brief repossession of Milan), and during the five years before his death, in 1572. Although McClung Hallman's study on cardinals and their ecclesiastical property suggests that, during the fifties, the vast majority of cardinals complied with the legal obligation to choose one episcopal see and renounce all the others, Ippolito d'Este eventually became a non-pluralist bishop only in 1567. His pluralism had been occasionally sanctioned by the pontiffs: Paul III, for instance, had granted Ippolito permission to hold both Milan and Lyon at the same time.<sup>52</sup> What emerges vividly from an analysis of Ippolito's ecclesiastical career is that he exploited the protection provided by the Valois monarchy against any attempt to enforce limits on pluralism coming from the pope. In France, as an ambassador observed, 'neither *spoglie* nor *decime* nor resignations (with or without *regressus*)*,* nor pensions […] go to Rome; but they are entirely arranged and managed within this

41

kingdom'.53 After 1551, all of Ippolito's dioceses are to be found in France, where the number of abbeys, pensions, and reservations (*regressus*) that he held was also growing exponentially. In Italy, on the contrary, he possessed only the archdiocese of Milan, which he renounced in 1555 but which kept coming back to him through the *regressus* until his final resignation in 1558*.* The decision to renounce Milan had been indeed motivated in the first place by the cardinal's desire to maintain his French bishoprics whilst, at the same time, he was forced to show at least some compliance with the legislation against the accumulation of bishoprics enforced by

The presence of so many Italian prelates amongst those who held benefices in France, as we have said, has been seen by historians as an 'exceptional conjuncture' due to the direct involvement of the crown in the political life of the Italian peninsula. Some common features seem to have been shared by this group of Francophile ecclesiastics: they were usually appointed to dioceses on the medium-low end of the revenue spectrum; they were part of a network of other Italian prelates to whom they used to resign their episcopal sees or to grant pensions; they rarely hold the same benefices for more than a few years. In this context, the quality and quantity of Ippolito's ecclesiastical properties in France make him an exceptional case in an already 'exceptional' scenario. What is more noteworthy, his habits in terms of benefices made him much more similar to French prelates than to his Italian equivalents.

For all the different actors who tried to influence Roman policies, the zenith of their lobbying efforts was reached every time the papal throne fell vacant. Because of the inherently fleeting nature of the pope's temporal power over the papal state – which equated the pope to any other temporal ruler but lacked the dynastic element, as it could not be passed on to an heir – the end of each pontificate opened a political breach in which continuity and change fought each other to determine later events. In these moments, the 'political activism' of some cardinals turned into a hectic lobbying activity, with faction leaders and prominent members of the College of Cardinals building or breaking alliances, strengthening their party's inner cohesion, nego-

<sup>53</sup> Ambassador Marino Cavalli, in 1546: Tommaseo (ed), *Relations,* i, pp. 299-300. The *regressus* was a legal instrument that allowed a bishop who had resigned a benefice to receive it back whenever that benefice should fall vacant. During the XVI century, the *regressus* was extremely popular amongst the Church hierarchies, as it provided an efficient way to maintain some authority over more than one benefice, and, therefore, to dodge partially the legislation against the accumulation of benefices (not surprisingly, the *regressus* had been severely criticised by those seeking a reformation of the Church). The same decree issued by Paul III that forbade prelates from holding more than one episcopal see specified that the rule also applied to those bishoprics that were repossessed through the *regressus.* The reservation of the regress, however, was still tolerated. In France, the *regressus* was subject to more restricted conditions (for instance, it could not be introduced to a benefice in which it was not already in use) and to the king's approval: McClung Hallman, *Italian Cardinals,* pp. 33-35; H. Jedin, *A History of The Council of Trent* (2 vols, London, 1957)*,* i, pp. 423-425. On the legal aspects of the regress in France:

Paul III and Julius III.

**3. Ippolito d'Este in conclave**

Durand de Maillane, *Dictionnaire*, iv, pp. 298-300.

<sup>50</sup> Péronnet, *Les évêques,* i, p. 491; Baumgartner, 'Henry II's Italian Bishops', p. 57. For a summary of

Ippolito d'Este's benefices, see the tables and figures at the end of this chapter. 51 On the legal status of the *commenda*: Poncet, *La France,* pp. 43-44. For criticism of its use: X. Lavagne d'Ortigue, 'Le temps de faux abbés: la commende en France du XVI au XVIII siècle', in D-M. Dauzet and M. Plouvier (eds), *Abbatiat et abbés dans l'ordre de Prémontré* (Turnhout, 2005)', pp. 161- 165. See also the entry in F-T. Durand de Maillane, *Dictionnaire de droit canonique et de pratique bénéficiale* (4 vols, Lyon, 1770), i, 569-572.

<sup>52</sup> B. McClung Hallman, *Italian Cardinals, Reform, and the Church as a Property* (Berkeley, 1985)*,* pp. 32-33.

kingdom'.53 After 1551, all of Ippolito's dioceses are to be found in France, where the number of abbeys, pensions, and reservations (*regressus*) that he held was also growing exponentially. In Italy, on the contrary, he possessed only the archdiocese of Milan, which he renounced in 1555 but which kept coming back to him through the *regressus* until his final resignation in 1558*.* The decision to renounce Milan had been indeed motivated in the first place by the cardinal's desire to maintain his French bishoprics whilst, at the same time, he was forced to show at least some compliance with the legislation against the accumulation of bishoprics enforced by Paul III and Julius III.

The presence of so many Italian prelates amongst those who held benefices in France, as we have said, has been seen by historians as an 'exceptional conjuncture' due to the direct involvement of the crown in the political life of the Italian peninsula. Some common features seem to have been shared by this group of Francophile ecclesiastics: they were usually appointed to dioceses on the medium-low end of the revenue spectrum; they were part of a network of other Italian prelates to whom they used to resign their episcopal sees or to grant pensions; they rarely hold the same benefices for more than a few years. In this context, the quality and quantity of Ippolito's ecclesiastical properties in France make him an exceptional case in an already 'exceptional' scenario. What is more noteworthy, his habits in terms of benefices made him much more similar to French prelates than to his Italian equivalents.

#### **3. Ippolito d'Este in conclave**

40

<sup>52</sup> B. McClung Hallman, *Italian Cardinals, Reform, and the Church as a Property* (Berkeley, 1985)*,* pp.

<sup>50</sup> Péronnet, *Les évêques,* i, p. 491; Baumgartner, 'Henry II's Italian Bishops', p. 57. For a summary of Ippolito d'Este's benefices, see the tables and figures at the end of this chapter. 51 On the legal status of the *commenda*: Poncet, *La France,* pp. 43-44. For criticism of its use: X. Lavagne d'Ortigue, 'Le temps de faux abbés: la commende en France du XVI au XVIII siècle', in D-M. Dauzet and M. Plouvier (eds), *Abbatiat et abbés dans l'ordre de Prémontré* (Turnhout, 2005)', pp. 161- 165. See also the entry in F-T. Durand de Maillane, *Dictionnaire de droit canonique et de pratique bé-*

Both Agostino Trivulzio and Ippolito d'Este came from families that had been allied with or had served the French power in Italy. They both started their ecclesiastical careers as supporters of the French monarchy, and they both received one or more French benefices before being appointed cardinal protector. From this perspective, then, the protectorship was a confirmation of the already existing relationship between the cardinal and the sovereign: the benefices that both cardinals gained after having been appointed to the post of protector represented a continuation and an enhancement of that same relationship. Whilst Trivulzio exchanged or resigned his French benefices within just a few years, and mainly in favour of other Italians – thus participating in a trend that was common to all the Italian prelates – Ippolito held his for a much longer time, keeping Lyon, Narbonne, and Auch for around ten years each, and remaining the abbot of Chaalis for more than twenty years.50 The fact that Ippolito was receiving benefices from and resigning them in favour of the most prominent French cardinals – Lorraine, Tournon, Bourbon – could also be seen as a signal that he was much more naturalised within the elite of the French clergy

Ippolito d'Este was certainly one of the great pluralists of the time. In addition to his various episcopal sees, he also possessed a vast array of abbeys *in commendam*, another practice that was increasingly being stigmatised as contributing to the corruption of the religious orders.<sup>51</sup> On average, throughout his career, he held around ten French abbeys at once: in 1564, he had twelve, and in 1572 he had thirteen. With regard to 'major benefices', the only moments when Ippolito held only one diocese were before 1539 (when he was appointed to Lyon), from 1557 to 1562 (without considering his brief repossession of Milan), and during the five years before his death, in 1572. Although McClung Hallman's study on cardinals and their ecclesiastical property suggests that, during the fifties, the vast majority of cardinals complied with the legal obligation to choose one episcopal see and renounce all the others, Ippolito d'Este eventually became a non-pluralist bishop only in 1567. His pluralism had been occasionally sanctioned by the pontiffs: Paul III, for instance, had granted Ippolito permission to hold both Milan and Lyon at the same time.<sup>52</sup> What emerges vividly from an analysis of Ippolito's ecclesiastical career is that he exploited the protection provided by the Valois monarchy against any attempt to enforce limits on pluralism coming from the pope. In France, as an ambassador observed, 'neither *spoglie* nor *decime* nor resignations (with or without *regressus*)*,* nor pensions […] go to Rome; but they are entirely arranged and managed within this

than his predecessor had been.

*néficiale* (4 vols, Lyon, 1770), i, 569-572.

32-33.

For all the different actors who tried to influence Roman policies, the zenith of their lobbying efforts was reached every time the papal throne fell vacant. Because of the inherently fleeting nature of the pope's temporal power over the papal state – which equated the pope to any other temporal ruler but lacked the dynastic element, as it could not be passed on to an heir – the end of each pontificate opened a political breach in which continuity and change fought each other to determine later events. In these moments, the 'political activism' of some cardinals turned into a hectic lobbying activity, with faction leaders and prominent members of the College of Cardinals building or breaking alliances, strengthening their party's inner cohesion, nego-

<sup>53</sup> Ambassador Marino Cavalli, in 1546: Tommaseo (ed), *Relations,* i, pp. 299-300. The *regressus* was a legal instrument that allowed a bishop who had resigned a benefice to receive it back whenever that benefice should fall vacant. During the XVI century, the *regressus* was extremely popular amongst the Church hierarchies, as it provided an efficient way to maintain some authority over more than one benefice, and, therefore, to dodge partially the legislation against the accumulation of benefices (not surprisingly, the *regressus* had been severely criticised by those seeking a reformation of the Church). The same decree issued by Paul III that forbade prelates from holding more than one episcopal see specified that the rule also applied to those bishoprics that were repossessed through the *regressus.* The reservation of the regress, however, was still tolerated. In France, the *regressus* was subject to more restricted conditions (for instance, it could not be introduced to a benefice in which it was not already in use) and to the king's approval: McClung Hallman, *Italian Cardinals,* pp. 33-35; H. Jedin, *A History of The Council of Trent* (2 vols, London, 1957)*,* i, pp. 423-425. On the legal aspects of the regress in France: Durand de Maillane, *Dictionnaire*, iv, pp. 298-300.

tiating with the sovereigns' ambassadors, and counting the votes at their disposal, all in order to push their *favorito* onto the throne of St. Peter.<sup>54</sup>

During the forty years of his career as a cardinal, Ippolito d'Este took part in six conclaves as the cardinal protector of France and one of the leaders of the French faction. His privileged relationship with the French monarchy, his vast assets and his network of princely alliances made him one of the protagonists of the pope making process and, also, fuelled his ambition to become the first Este pope.<sup>55</sup> In all of these six conclaves, Ippolito's main concern was to win the tiara for himself, a pursuit that was only brought to an end by his death. The fact that, in spite of his relentless efforts, his campaigns of self-promotion always ended up in a failure signals the limits of his leadership. Further, it sheds some light on the relations that the cardinal of Ferrara had established with both the court of the Valois – with its different components – and the group of cardinals that were French by birth and not, as he was, by 'heart' only.

The identity and composition of the French faction, as well as the Imperial one, were indeed anything but straightforward: whilst in its ranks were definitely included those cardinals who were French by birth, it also attracted a number of cardinals, like Ippolito himself, who were not French but who considered themselves as 'servants' of the French monarch. The cardinals who were French by birth were first and foremost their king's subjects – as their family advancement entirely depended on the king's favour – and they voted in accordance with the instructions received by the ambassador and the faction leaders. The bulk of votes that converged on a candidate recommended by the French king, therefore, came from these cardinals. Their number, however, was low, fluctuating in this period at between seven and fourteen – insufficient to elect a pope. Italian cardinals who had a personal or family affiliation to the French monarchy – or hoped to have one – joined ranks with the French, but their loyalty could only hardly be taken for granted. Many factors, in fact, weighed in a cardinal's allegiance to a faction, from personal gain (political and economic) and family interests to religious believes. Alliances could break as easily as they could be formed, and a lot of effort was put, before and during conclaves, in identifying those cardinals that could be more easily convinced to change side. For

43

<sup>56</sup> E. Bonora, *Aspettando l'imperatore. Principi italiani tra il papa e Carlo V* (Turin, 2014), pp. 247-

<sup>57</sup> Visceglia, *Morte e elezione,* pp. 313-339; id., 'Factions in the Sacred College in the sixteenth and seventeenth century', in G. Signorotto and M. A. Visceglia (eds), *Court and Politics in Papal Rome, 1492-*

<sup>58</sup> Visceglia, *Morte e elezione,* pp. 322-327. On Paul III's creations, see: J. E. Vercruysse, 'Die Kärdi-

nale von Paul III', *Archivum Historiae Pontificiae,* 38 (2000), pp. 41-96.

Italian cardinals, who, in this period, mainly came from the ranks of the nobility, loyalty to a foreign sovereign – whether a Valois or a Habsburg – was only one of the components of their political identity and was often subordinated to more pressing familial and dynastical concerns. For the years we are considering, Elena Bonora56 and Maria Antonietta Visceglia<sup>57</sup> showed how multi-faceted and mutable the Imperial faction was: one of the Imperial leaders was indeed Ippolito's cousin, Ercole Gonzaga, and we will see how their family bond remained strong regardless of their different political commitments; Imperial was also one of Ippolito's archenemies, Rodolfo Pio da Carpi, whose hate for the Este and religious conservatism made him a very different type of Imperial – at least from Ippolito's perspective –

From the beginning of the sixteenth century, another element played an increasingly important role in shaping the opposing factions during the election of the pontiff: the presence of large groups of cardinals who had been appointed by the same pope, either as a reward for their loyalty or to cement a family alliance – in both cases, in a deliberate attempt to increase the size of the College of Cardinals and influence future elections. The most noticeable example, in this period, was the group of cardinals who had been created by Paul III and who gathered around the pope's grandson, Cardinal Alessandro Farnese. During his pontificate, Paul III had appointed seventy-one new cardinals: although not all of them saw themselves as 'Farnesian', the number of those who did was large enough to make the votes of Alessandro Farnese and his supporters crucial to elect the new pope – whilst Farnese himself could sometime present himself as the 'compromise candidate' in the play

Given that not all the cardinals resided at the papal court – quite the opposite – the first and one of the major issues that the faction leaders faced every time the papal throne fell vacant was to gather as many voters as possible, prompting any absent cardinals to arrive in Rome in time for the beginning of the conclave. Whilst disorders and violence often erupted in the streets of Rome as the papal see fell vacant, the College of Cardinals and the Camerlengo took up the organisation of Curial life in these delicate moments. The main events of the interregnum – the pope's burial ceremony and the opening of the conclave – followed one another according to a fixed timetable, in use since the time of Gregory X: the mourning and the masses for the late pope would end on the ninth day from the moment of his death and, on the tenth day, the cardinals would be locked in conclave. Obviously, this left very little time for those cardinals who were abroad to reach Rome. Given the difficulties in communication and travel, it was a common practice, for the leaders of factions, to

from Ercole Gonzaga.

between French and Imperials.58

*1700* (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 99-109.

271.

<sup>54</sup> Scholarship on papal elections and the College of Cardinals in the early modern period includes: J. F. Broderick, 'The Sacred College of Cardinals: Size and Geographical Composition (1099-1986)', *Archivum Historiae Pontificiae,* 25 (1987), pp. 7-81; D. S. Chambers, 'Papal conclaves and Prophetic Mystery in the Sistine Chapel', in D. S. Chambers, *Individuals and institutions in Renaissance Italy* (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 299-312; M. T. Fattori, *Clemente VIII e il sacro collegio (1592-1605). Meccanismi istituzionali ed accentramento di governo* (Stuttgart, 2004); A. Menniti Ippolito, *Il governo dei papi nell'età moderna. Carriere, gerarchie, organizzazione Curiale* (Rome, 2007); M. Pattenden, *Electing the Pope in Early Modern Italy (1450-1700)* (Oxford, 2017); W. Reihnard, 'Struttura e significato del Sacro Collegio fra la fine del XV e l'inizio del XVI', in *Città italiane del Cinquecento tra riforma e controriforma: atti del convegno internazionale di studi* (Lucca, 1993), pp. 257-265; M. Rosa, *La Curia romana nell'età moderna. Istituzioni, cultura, carriere* (Roma, 2013), pp. 3-24; M. A. Visceglia, *Morte e elezione del papa. Norme, riti e conflitti* (Rome, 2013); C. Weber, *Senatus divinus. Verborgene Strukturen in Kardinalskollegium der fruhen Neuzeit (1500-1800)* (Frankfurt, 1996). 55 Having become a member of the College of Cardinals under Paul III, Ippolito participated in the fol-

lowing conclaves: 1549-1550 (Julius III), March 1555 (Marcellus II), May 1555 (Paul IV), 1559-1560 (Pius IV), 1565 (Pius V) and 1572 (Gregory XIII).

Italian cardinals, who, in this period, mainly came from the ranks of the nobility, loyalty to a foreign sovereign – whether a Valois or a Habsburg – was only one of the components of their political identity and was often subordinated to more pressing familial and dynastical concerns. For the years we are considering, Elena Bonora56 and Maria Antonietta Visceglia<sup>57</sup> showed how multi-faceted and mutable the Imperial faction was: one of the Imperial leaders was indeed Ippolito's cousin, Ercole Gonzaga, and we will see how their family bond remained strong regardless of their different political commitments; Imperial was also one of Ippolito's archenemies, Rodolfo Pio da Carpi, whose hate for the Este and religious conservatism made him a very different type of Imperial – at least from Ippolito's perspective – from Ercole Gonzaga.

From the beginning of the sixteenth century, another element played an increasingly important role in shaping the opposing factions during the election of the pontiff: the presence of large groups of cardinals who had been appointed by the same pope, either as a reward for their loyalty or to cement a family alliance – in both cases, in a deliberate attempt to increase the size of the College of Cardinals and influence future elections. The most noticeable example, in this period, was the group of cardinals who had been created by Paul III and who gathered around the pope's grandson, Cardinal Alessandro Farnese. During his pontificate, Paul III had appointed seventy-one new cardinals: although not all of them saw themselves as 'Farnesian', the number of those who did was large enough to make the votes of Alessandro Farnese and his supporters crucial to elect the new pope – whilst Farnese himself could sometime present himself as the 'compromise candidate' in the play between French and Imperials.58

Given that not all the cardinals resided at the papal court – quite the opposite – the first and one of the major issues that the faction leaders faced every time the papal throne fell vacant was to gather as many voters as possible, prompting any absent cardinals to arrive in Rome in time for the beginning of the conclave. Whilst disorders and violence often erupted in the streets of Rome as the papal see fell vacant, the College of Cardinals and the Camerlengo took up the organisation of Curial life in these delicate moments. The main events of the interregnum – the pope's burial ceremony and the opening of the conclave – followed one another according to a fixed timetable, in use since the time of Gregory X: the mourning and the masses for the late pope would end on the ninth day from the moment of his death and, on the tenth day, the cardinals would be locked in conclave. Obviously, this left very little time for those cardinals who were abroad to reach Rome. Given the difficulties in communication and travel, it was a common practice, for the leaders of factions, to

42

(Pius IV), 1565 (Pius V) and 1572 (Gregory XIII).

<sup>54</sup> Scholarship on papal elections and the College of Cardinals in the early modern period includes: J. F. Broderick, 'The Sacred College of Cardinals: Size and Geographical Composition (1099-1986)', *Archivum Historiae Pontificiae,* 25 (1987), pp. 7-81; D. S. Chambers, 'Papal conclaves and Prophetic Mystery in the Sistine Chapel', in D. S. Chambers, *Individuals and institutions in Renaissance Italy* (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 299-312; M. T. Fattori, *Clemente VIII e il sacro collegio (1592-1605). Meccanismi istituzionali ed accentramento di governo* (Stuttgart, 2004); A. Menniti Ippolito, *Il governo dei papi nell'età moderna. Carriere, gerarchie, organizzazione Curiale* (Rome, 2007); M. Pattenden, *Electing the Pope in Early Modern Italy (1450-1700)* (Oxford, 2017); W. Reihnard, 'Struttura e significato del Sacro Collegio fra la fine del XV e l'inizio del XVI', in *Città italiane del Cinquecento tra riforma e controriforma: atti del convegno internazionale di studi* (Lucca, 1993), pp. 257-265; M. Rosa, *La Curia romana nell'età moderna. Istituzioni, cultura, carriere* (Roma, 2013), pp. 3-24; M. A. Visceglia, *Morte e elezione del papa. Norme, riti e conflitti* (Rome, 2013); C. Weber, *Senatus divinus. Verborgene Strukturen in Kardinalskollegium der fruhen Neuzeit (1500-1800)* (Frankfurt, 1996). 55 Having become a member of the College of Cardinals under Paul III, Ippolito participated in the following conclaves: 1549-1550 (Julius III), March 1555 (Marcellus II), May 1555 (Paul IV), 1559-1560

tiating with the sovereigns' ambassadors, and counting the votes at their disposal, all

During the forty years of his career as a cardinal, Ippolito d'Este took part in six conclaves as the cardinal protector of France and one of the leaders of the French faction. His privileged relationship with the French monarchy, his vast assets and his network of princely alliances made him one of the protagonists of the pope making process and, also, fuelled his ambition to become the first Este pope.<sup>55</sup> In all of these six conclaves, Ippolito's main concern was to win the tiara for himself, a pursuit that was only brought to an end by his death. The fact that, in spite of his relentless efforts, his campaigns of self-promotion always ended up in a failure signals the limits of his leadership. Further, it sheds some light on the relations that the cardinal of Ferrara had established with both the court of the Valois – with its different components – and the group of cardinals that were French by birth and not, as he was, by

The identity and composition of the French faction, as well as the Imperial one, were indeed anything but straightforward: whilst in its ranks were definitely included those cardinals who were French by birth, it also attracted a number of cardinals, like Ippolito himself, who were not French but who considered themselves as 'servants' of the French monarch. The cardinals who were French by birth were first and foremost their king's subjects – as their family advancement entirely depended on the king's favour – and they voted in accordance with the instructions received by the ambassador and the faction leaders. The bulk of votes that converged on a candidate recommended by the French king, therefore, came from these cardinals. Their number, however, was low, fluctuating in this period at between seven and fourteen – insufficient to elect a pope. Italian cardinals who had a personal or family affiliation to the French monarchy – or hoped to have one – joined ranks with the French, but their loyalty could only hardly be taken for granted. Many factors, in fact, weighed in a cardinal's allegiance to a faction, from personal gain (political and economic) and family interests to religious believes. Alliances could break as easily as they could be formed, and a lot of effort was put, before and during conclaves, in identifying those cardinals that could be more easily convinced to change side. For

in order to push their *favorito* onto the throne of St. Peter.<sup>54</sup>

'heart' only.

<sup>56</sup> E. Bonora, *Aspettando l'imperatore. Principi italiani tra il papa e Carlo V* (Turin, 2014), pp. 247- 271.

<sup>57</sup> Visceglia, *Morte e elezione,* pp. 313-339; id., 'Factions in the Sacred College in the sixteenth and seventeenth century', in G. Signorotto and M. A. Visceglia (eds), *Court and Politics in Papal Rome, 1492- 1700* (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 99-109.

<sup>58</sup> Visceglia, *Morte e elezione,* pp. 322-327. On Paul III's creations, see: J. E. Vercruysse, 'Die Kärdinale von Paul III', *Archivum Historiae Pontificiae,* 38 (2000), pp. 41-96.

try to delay the pope's burial ceremony in order to gain time for those cardinals who were still on their way.59

In order to gain time for their supporters to arrive, ambassadors and faction leaders had to work together, especially after the beginning of the election, when communications and updates between the conclave and the outside world were still important, in order to adjust one's party strategy, but they were also more difficult, due to the cardinals' segregation. Although cardinals were forbidden from having any communication with the outside, this rule was very often ignored or dodged. Ambassadors and faction leaders were also the channel through which the king's intentions and preferences were made known to all the cardinals in the faction, both before and after the beginning of the conclave, both *intra* and *extra* conclave.

Overall, the French cardinals were more easily found in France than in Italy – as they often served as royal advisors and, as a general rule, were not keen to distance themselves from the court and the king's favour.<sup>60</sup> The first step to take in order to try to determine the outcome of the conclave, then, was to make sure that the electors were all physically present in Rome. With the exception of those who were too old to travel to Rome (complaints about the length and the discomfort of the journey are a popular *topos* in the letters written by cardinals on their way to the conclave), the French monarch usually urged all of his cardinals to undertake the journey to Rome in time for the upcoming election – though this was not, *per se*, a guarantee of participation. When Paul III died on 10 November 1549, for example, there were only two French cardinals in Rome. Although the French ambassador, Claude d'Urfé, had warned the king about the likelihood of a conclave a few days before the pope's death, none of the French cardinals were expected to reach Rome in time for the beginning of the ballots.61 Having been given 'express and special power' from Henry II to prevent any election that might take place before the arrival of the French, the ambassador committed himself to seeking to delay Paul III's burial ceremony for as long as possible. With the aid provided by Ippolito d'Este, d'Urfé managed to delay the funeral and thus the opening of the conclave, which started only on 29 November 1549.62 The same strategy was used five years later, after the death of Julius III: Ippolito d'Este and the French ambassador, Louis de St-Gelais, Lord de Lansac, sent an envoy to France 'to urge to send the Cardinals here, and in the highest number possible' whilst they would 'do what we can to gain time before their arrival, and before anything occurs'.63 Therefore, they both committed them-

45

<sup>68</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.23 (9 April 1555). 69 See Firmani's and Massarelli's diaries of the conclave in S. Merkle, *Concilii Tridentii diarorum pars* 

*Context: A Via Media in the Reformation* (Aldershot, 2000), pp. 1-21.

*secunda…* (Freiburg, 1965), pp. 506-508; 245-248.

<sup>64</sup> G. Canestrini (ed), *Legazioni di Averardo Serristori ambasciatore di Cosimo I…* (Florence, 1853), p.

<sup>65</sup> 'Il reverendissimo decano sollecita molto et non vorria che si prolungasse oltre l'entrare et lo eligere il papa; et intendo che fa invettive […] volendo alludere a Ferrara': K. Brandi, A. Duffel et al. (eds), *Briefe und akten zur geschichte des sechzehnten jahrhunderts…* (6 vols, München-Leipzig, 1873-1913),

<sup>66</sup> Three cardinals arrived between 12 and 13 December, two others on 29 December, and the cardinal of Lorraine on 21 January 1550: Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* ii, pp. 252; 254-257; Canestrini (ed), *Legazioni,* pp.

<sup>67</sup> The conclave of 1549-1550, which ended with the election of Cardinal Del Monte as Julius III, was one of the longest and most complex conclaves in the history of the papacy. An analysis of the role played by the French faction is in A. Tallon, 'Le "parti français" lors des conclaves de 1549-1550 et de 1555', in B. Barbiche, J. P. Poussou and A. Tallon (eds), *Pouvoirs, contestations et comportements dans l'Europe moderne, Mélanges en l'honneur du professeur Yves-Marie Bercé* (Paris, 2005), pp. 101-121. Just as interesting is Elena Bonora's account of the clashes that tore the Imperial faction: Bonora, *Aspettando l'imperatore,* pp. 246-271. Massimo Firpo convincingly argued that this same conclave, in which Cardinal Carafa fended off Reginald Pole's election by accusing him of heresy, also marked the beginning of the Inquisition's rise to power: M. Firpo, *La presa di potere dell'Inquisizione romana (1550- 1553)* (Rome-Bari, 2014), pp. 3-51. Reginald Pole's position is considered in T. Mayer, 'The War of the Two Saints: the Conclave of Julius III and the Cardinal Pole', in T. Mayer, *Cardinal Pole in European* 

selves to delay Julius III's funeral.<sup>64</sup> Although the Florentine diplomat was positive that the election of the new pope would begin on 26 or 27 March despite the French intervention, the conclave only started on 5 April: a delay that was unanimously attributed to Ippolito d'Este's efforts at procrastination, and that drew on him the fury

In both 1549 and 1555, however, the success obtained in delaying the conclave did not result in a full participation of the French group. At the opening ceremony of 29 November 1549, only three French cardinals were present. A week later, those three cardinals were still the only French participants in the ballots.<sup>66</sup> The exceptional length of the conclave in the end allowed the French party – eventually increased in number – to play a determining role in shaping the alliance that led to the promotion of Cardinal Del Monte.<sup>67</sup> Five years later, upon entering the conclave with a very limited group of supporters, Ippolito d'Este promised King Henry II that 'if nothing else, we would […] temporise until the French cardinals arrive'.68 However, the conclave of April 1555 proved to be much quicker than the previous one: after less than a week of voting, Cardinal Cervini was elected to the papacy – still without any of the French electors present (the only exception being cardinals du Bellay and d'Armagnac, who were already in Rome).<sup>69</sup> Two weeks after Cervini's promotion, Louis de Guise was still the only additional French Cardinals to have arrived in Rome. Being aware that the pope's health was rapidly deteriorating and that the possibility of a new conclave in the near future was not unlikely, Louis de Guise wrote to the king asking him 'to order the French cardinals that they diligently finish the

of the dean, Cardinal Carafa.65

347.

iv, p. 624.

220-221.

<sup>59</sup> The rituals, norms and traditions that characterised the death of a pope and the election of another one are thoroughly described in Visceglia, *Morte e elezione,* pp. 97-226. On the explosions of violence that often marked the death of a pontiff and their social meaning*,* see J. M. Hunt, 'Rome and the Vacant See', in S. Ditchfield, P. Jones and B. Wisch (eds), *A Companion to Early Modern Rome, 1492-1692*  (Leiden, 2019), pp. 99-114.

<sup>60</sup> On the role of French cardinals as both royal ministers and princes of the Church, and on their pres-

ence in Rome, see Bardati, *Hommes du roi,* pp. 7-28. 61 Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* ii, p. 254. See also Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, p. 216.

<sup>62</sup> Ibid.*,* p. 251. See also L. von Pastor, *History of the Popes* (40 vols, London, 1899-1953), xiv, p. 3. 63 ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.21 (23 March 1555). Also reported in R. Brown and G. Cavendish Bentinck (eds), *Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice (38 vols, London, 1890),* British History Online (22 November 2020)*,* 6, no. 53.

selves to delay Julius III's funeral.<sup>64</sup> Although the Florentine diplomat was positive that the election of the new pope would begin on 26 or 27 March despite the French intervention, the conclave only started on 5 April: a delay that was unanimously attributed to Ippolito d'Este's efforts at procrastination, and that drew on him the fury of the dean, Cardinal Carafa.65

In both 1549 and 1555, however, the success obtained in delaying the conclave did not result in a full participation of the French group. At the opening ceremony of 29 November 1549, only three French cardinals were present. A week later, those three cardinals were still the only French participants in the ballots.<sup>66</sup> The exceptional length of the conclave in the end allowed the French party – eventually increased in number – to play a determining role in shaping the alliance that led to the promotion of Cardinal Del Monte.<sup>67</sup> Five years later, upon entering the conclave with a very limited group of supporters, Ippolito d'Este promised King Henry II that 'if nothing else, we would […] temporise until the French cardinals arrive'.68 However, the conclave of April 1555 proved to be much quicker than the previous one: after less than a week of voting, Cardinal Cervini was elected to the papacy – still without any of the French electors present (the only exception being cardinals du Bellay and d'Armagnac, who were already in Rome).<sup>69</sup> Two weeks after Cervini's promotion, Louis de Guise was still the only additional French Cardinals to have arrived in Rome. Being aware that the pope's health was rapidly deteriorating and that the possibility of a new conclave in the near future was not unlikely, Louis de Guise wrote to the king asking him 'to order the French cardinals that they diligently finish the

<sup>65</sup> 'Il reverendissimo decano sollecita molto et non vorria che si prolungasse oltre l'entrare et lo eligere il papa; et intendo che fa invettive […] volendo alludere a Ferrara': K. Brandi, A. Duffel et al. (eds), *Briefe und akten zur geschichte des sechzehnten jahrhunderts…* (6 vols, München-Leipzig, 1873-1913), iv, p. 624.

<sup>66</sup> Three cardinals arrived between 12 and 13 December, two others on 29 December, and the cardinal of Lorraine on 21 January 1550: Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* ii, pp. 252; 254-257; Canestrini (ed), *Legazioni,* pp. 220-221.

44

<sup>59</sup> The rituals, norms and traditions that characterised the death of a pope and the election of another one are thoroughly described in Visceglia, *Morte e elezione,* pp. 97-226. On the explosions of violence that often marked the death of a pontiff and their social meaning*,* see J. M. Hunt, 'Rome and the Vacant See', in S. Ditchfield, P. Jones and B. Wisch (eds), *A Companion to Early Modern Rome, 1492-1692* 

<sup>60</sup> On the role of French cardinals as both royal ministers and princes of the Church, and on their pres-

<sup>62</sup> Ibid.*,* p. 251. See also L. von Pastor, *History of the Popes* (40 vols, London, 1899-1953), xiv, p. 3. 63 ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.21 (23 March 1555). Also reported in R. Brown and G. Cavendish Bentinck (eds), *Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice (38 vols,* 

ence in Rome, see Bardati, *Hommes du roi,* pp. 7-28. 61 Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* ii, p. 254. See also Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, p. 216.

*London, 1890),* British History Online (22 November 2020)*,* 6, no. 53.

try to delay the pope's burial ceremony in order to gain time for those cardinals who

before and after the beginning of the conclave, both *intra* and *extra* conclave.

In order to gain time for their supporters to arrive, ambassadors and faction leaders had to work together, especially after the beginning of the election, when communications and updates between the conclave and the outside world were still important, in order to adjust one's party strategy, but they were also more difficult, due to the cardinals' segregation. Although cardinals were forbidden from having any communication with the outside, this rule was very often ignored or dodged. Ambassadors and faction leaders were also the channel through which the king's intentions and preferences were made known to all the cardinals in the faction, both

Overall, the French cardinals were more easily found in France than in Italy – as they often served as royal advisors and, as a general rule, were not keen to distance themselves from the court and the king's favour.<sup>60</sup> The first step to take in order to try to determine the outcome of the conclave, then, was to make sure that the electors were all physically present in Rome. With the exception of those who were too old to travel to Rome (complaints about the length and the discomfort of the journey are a popular *topos* in the letters written by cardinals on their way to the conclave), the French monarch usually urged all of his cardinals to undertake the journey to Rome in time for the upcoming election – though this was not, *per se*, a guarantee of participation. When Paul III died on 10 November 1549, for example, there were only two French cardinals in Rome. Although the French ambassador, Claude d'Urfé, had warned the king about the likelihood of a conclave a few days before the pope's death, none of the French cardinals were expected to reach Rome in time for the beginning of the ballots.61 Having been given 'express and special power' from Henry II to prevent any election that might take place before the arrival of the French, the ambassador committed himself to seeking to delay Paul III's burial ceremony for as long as possible. With the aid provided by Ippolito d'Este, d'Urfé managed to delay the funeral and thus the opening of the conclave, which started only on 29 November 1549.62 The same strategy was used five years later, after the death of Julius III: Ippolito d'Este and the French ambassador, Louis de St-Gelais, Lord de Lansac, sent an envoy to France 'to urge to send the Cardinals here, and in the highest number possible' whilst they would 'do what we can to gain time before their arrival, and before anything occurs'.63 Therefore, they both committed them-

were still on their way.59

(Leiden, 2019), pp. 99-114.

<sup>64</sup> G. Canestrini (ed), *Legazioni di Averardo Serristori ambasciatore di Cosimo I…* (Florence, 1853), p. 347.

<sup>67</sup> The conclave of 1549-1550, which ended with the election of Cardinal Del Monte as Julius III, was one of the longest and most complex conclaves in the history of the papacy. An analysis of the role played by the French faction is in A. Tallon, 'Le "parti français" lors des conclaves de 1549-1550 et de 1555', in B. Barbiche, J. P. Poussou and A. Tallon (eds), *Pouvoirs, contestations et comportements dans l'Europe moderne, Mélanges en l'honneur du professeur Yves-Marie Bercé* (Paris, 2005), pp. 101-121. Just as interesting is Elena Bonora's account of the clashes that tore the Imperial faction: Bonora, *Aspettando l'imperatore,* pp. 246-271. Massimo Firpo convincingly argued that this same conclave, in which Cardinal Carafa fended off Reginald Pole's election by accusing him of heresy, also marked the beginning of the Inquisition's rise to power: M. Firpo, *La presa di potere dell'Inquisizione romana (1550- 1553)* (Rome-Bari, 2014), pp. 3-51. Reginald Pole's position is considered in T. Mayer, 'The War of the Two Saints: the Conclave of Julius III and the Cardinal Pole', in T. Mayer, *Cardinal Pole in European Context: A Via Media in the Reformation* (Aldershot, 2000), pp. 1-21.

<sup>68</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.23 (9 April 1555). 69 See Firmani's and Massarelli's diaries of the conclave in S. Merkle, *Concilii Tridentii diarorum pars secunda…* (Freiburg, 1965), pp. 506-508; 245-248.

journey that they have started to elect a pope, and especially that they do not fail to offer their vote to the cardinal of Ferrara'.<sup>70</sup>

The gloomy prediction about Cervini's health proved to be correct: the briefness of his pontificate – only twenty-one days – allowed most of the French cardinals who were still on the road at the time of Cervini's elevation in April to participate at least in the final stages of the new conclave in May. Despite the three weeks' time that they had unexpectedly gained due to the pope's abrupt death, many of the French were still missing when the conclave began on 15 May 1555. Once again, then, Ippolito d'Este had to commit himself 'not to spare any effort to undermine and sabotage the other party's plans until the arrival of the most reverend French cardinals, whose number and quality are such that one could then hope for the best'.<sup>71</sup> Although this conclave, like the previous one, did not last long, all the French cardinals had eventually reached Rome when Cardinal Carafa was elected pope, taking the name of Paul IV, on 23 May 1555.

Although it was not strictly necessary for a cardinal to participate in the conclave in order to be elected pope, a successful candidate usually needed to be personally present to work his way around the different factions through networking and negotiating. Therefore, given that the king of France's list of *papabili* usually included those same powerful ministers-ecclesiastics who mainly resided in France, the chances of electing one of them were significantly lowered – from a very practical perspective – by the fact that they were very often late or absent. In a letter that the Roman protonotary, Agostino Cocciano, sent to Girolamo Seripando to analyse the possible outcome of the conclave that followed Julius III's death, he excluded from the number of those who could aspire to the papacy most of the French cardinals, on account of the fact that '[they] are not here', even though – Cocciano added – they would give to their own election a 'serious thought, if there is time'.<sup>72</sup> Italians in the Sacred College, on the other hand, were about three times more numerous than all the other nationalities together.73 Further, even if they were divided by family rivalries, territorial feuds and political affiliations, they all shared a strong bias against the election of a 'foreigner', whether a Spaniard or a Frenchman.<sup>74</sup> Therefore, the inclusion of some Italians in the list of *papabili* was, for a sovereign, a de-

47

in case of his election, as evidence of the support provided by Henry II: ibid., pp. 261-262.

cision both strategic and unavoidable: an Italian pro-French cardinal was certainly more likely to build the network of consensus that was necessary to become pope, not least through his family's connections, and was way more likely to attract the

From 1549 to 1559 – that is to say, in four different conclaves – Ippolito d'Este was the only Italian to figure consistently at the very top of Henry II's recommended names, coming not only before any other Italian but also before highly regarded French cardinals such as François de Tournon. In 1549, Ippolito d'Este was Henry II's second choice after Jean de Lorraine, who was, at the time, one of the most powerful prelates in the kingdom: in case Lorraine was defeated in the first round of balloting, the French faction was ordered to combine all its votes for Ferrara.<sup>75</sup> In the conclaves of April and May 1555, the cardinal of Ferrara was granted Henry II's full and exclusive support as the French first candidate to the papacy – a decision that was communicated by letter to both the cardinal and the ambassador to Rome, with the express recommendation that no other cardinal should indulge in 'any alternative hope'.<sup>76</sup> In 1559, despite the absence of the majority of French cardinals, Louis de Guise – who was Jean de Lorraine's nephew and one of the leaders of the French faction – was instructed by the monarchy 'to do his utmost for the cardinal of Ferrara'. In case of Ippolito's defeat, Guise and the rest of the faction were ordered to cast their vote in favour of François de Tournon, who was a prominent member of the French clergy and a royal advisor – a reversed situation from 1549, when Ippolito's name had figured after Jean de Lorraine's. Although monarchs were ready to claim that they had endorsed a winning candidate from the very beginning of a conclave even if, in fact, they had not – in order not to lose the opportunity to have a pope who owed his election at least partially to them – the support that Henry II granted

The worldly means that Henry II had made available to support the cardinal of Ferrara were indeed quite exceptional*.* In 1549, the royal bankers in Lyon issued the cardinal of Guise a note that authorised him to withdraw 100.000 *scudi* in Rome, which were to be spent on bribes in any way Guise and Ferrara would deem appro-

<sup>75</sup> Lorraine missed the election by four votes. In the account of the conclave given by Onofrio Panvinio, a contemporary historian, it is said that the cardinal of Ferrara was Henry II's first choice – but this is most likely due to the fact that Lorraine's exclusion became evident very soon: Merkle, *Concilium tridentinum,* ii, pp. 253-254. According to a list compiled by Charles de Guise and Ippolito d'Este at the end of December 1549, the French faction (once all the French cardinals had arrived) included twelve French and eleven Italian cardinals. As Guise wrote: 'Tous les autres sont Imperiaux et Farnese, excepté deux secrets que l'ambassadeurs vous mandera, et deux autres, don't à tous les besoins monsieur le cardinal de Ferrare nous fait server': ibid., pp. 259-261. See also the relation written in 1551 by the Venetian ambassador, Matteo Dandolo, in Albèri (ed), *Relazioni*, s.3, ii, p. 345. 76 Henry II to the cardinal of Ferrara: 'Mon cousin, ie ne veux ny entends estre rien épargné de tout ce qui sera en ma puissance, pour fair eque vous, mon cousin le cardinal de Ferrare, parveniez au papat; […] outre ce que j'ay écrit resolutivement à mon ambassadeur le Sieur d'Avanson, avec commandement exprés, qu'il n'ait à mettre, ny tenir aucun des cardinaux en quelque esperance alternative'. Henry II indeed wrote to the ambassador in very similar tones: Ribier (ed), *Lettres*, ii, pp. 604-605. 77 In 1549, for instance, Henry II sent to his ambassador, d'Urfé a letter in which he expressed his wish that Cardinal Salviati should ascend the papal throne, and which was meant to be shown to Salviati only

votes of other Italian cardinals.

to Ippolito d'Este was genuine.<sup>77</sup>

<sup>70</sup> J-F. Michaud and J-J-F. Poujoulat (eds), *Nouvelle collection des mémoires pour server à l'histoire de France…*, *VI: Mémoires de Francois de Lorraine…* (Paris, 1839), p. 232.

<sup>71</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.24 (15 May 1555).

<sup>72</sup> Brandi, Duffel et. al (eds), *Briefe und akten,* iv, p. 625.

<sup>73</sup> It has been calculated that, between 1513 and 1565, pontiffs appointed 232 cardinals. Of these, 163 were Italian (70%), whilst France and Spain together only accounted for 49 cardinals (less than 20%): Broderick, 'The Sacred College', p. 44. See also Weber, *Senatus divinus,* pp. 122-123. For variations in the composition of the College of Cardinals in the period we are considering: Visceglia, *Morte e* 

*elezione*, pp. 226-253. 74 In 1555, for instance, the French ambassador wrote to the king that it would be impossible to obtain the election of Tournon or du Bellay, 'estans naturel François': Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* ii, p. 610. At the same time, the Florentine ambassador wrote that 'il cardinal San Jacopo resta addietro a tutti per essere spagnuolo': A. Desjardins (ed), *Négociations diplomatiques de la France avec la Toscane…* (6 vols, Paris, 1859-1886), iii, p. 354. In 1559, Ercole II d'Este told Cardinal von Waldburg that he stood little chances of becoming pope because of his being 'ultramontano': ASMO, CS, CDA, Roma, 65, 317.1.

cision both strategic and unavoidable: an Italian pro-French cardinal was certainly more likely to build the network of consensus that was necessary to become pope, not least through his family's connections, and was way more likely to attract the votes of other Italian cardinals.

From 1549 to 1559 – that is to say, in four different conclaves – Ippolito d'Este was the only Italian to figure consistently at the very top of Henry II's recommended names, coming not only before any other Italian but also before highly regarded French cardinals such as François de Tournon. In 1549, Ippolito d'Este was Henry II's second choice after Jean de Lorraine, who was, at the time, one of the most powerful prelates in the kingdom: in case Lorraine was defeated in the first round of balloting, the French faction was ordered to combine all its votes for Ferrara.<sup>75</sup> In the conclaves of April and May 1555, the cardinal of Ferrara was granted Henry II's full and exclusive support as the French first candidate to the papacy – a decision that was communicated by letter to both the cardinal and the ambassador to Rome, with the express recommendation that no other cardinal should indulge in 'any alternative hope'.<sup>76</sup> In 1559, despite the absence of the majority of French cardinals, Louis de Guise – who was Jean de Lorraine's nephew and one of the leaders of the French faction – was instructed by the monarchy 'to do his utmost for the cardinal of Ferrara'. In case of Ippolito's defeat, Guise and the rest of the faction were ordered to cast their vote in favour of François de Tournon, who was a prominent member of the French clergy and a royal advisor – a reversed situation from 1549, when Ippolito's name had figured after Jean de Lorraine's. Although monarchs were ready to claim that they had endorsed a winning candidate from the very beginning of a conclave even if, in fact, they had not – in order not to lose the opportunity to have a pope who owed his election at least partially to them – the support that Henry II granted to Ippolito d'Este was genuine.<sup>77</sup>

The worldly means that Henry II had made available to support the cardinal of Ferrara were indeed quite exceptional*.* In 1549, the royal bankers in Lyon issued the cardinal of Guise a note that authorised him to withdraw 100.000 *scudi* in Rome, which were to be spent on bribes in any way Guise and Ferrara would deem appro-

46

<sup>70</sup> J-F. Michaud and J-J-F. Poujoulat (eds), *Nouvelle collection des mémoires pour server à l'histoire de* 

<sup>73</sup> It has been calculated that, between 1513 and 1565, pontiffs appointed 232 cardinals. Of these, 163 were Italian (70%), whilst France and Spain together only accounted for 49 cardinals (less than 20%): Broderick, 'The Sacred College', p. 44. See also Weber, *Senatus divinus,* pp. 122-123. For variations in the composition of the College of Cardinals in the period we are considering: Visceglia, *Morte e elezione*, pp. 226-253. 74 In 1555, for instance, the French ambassador wrote to the king that it would be impossible to obtain the election of Tournon or du Bellay, 'estans naturel François': Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* ii, p. 610. At the same time, the Florentine ambassador wrote that 'il cardinal San Jacopo resta addietro a tutti per essere spagnuolo': A. Desjardins (ed), *Négociations diplomatiques de la France avec la Toscane…* (6 vols, Paris, 1859-1886), iii, p. 354. In 1559, Ercole II d'Este told Cardinal von Waldburg that he stood little chances of becoming pope because of his being 'ultramontano': ASMO, CS, CDA, Roma, 65, 317.1.

*France…*, *VI: Mémoires de Francois de Lorraine…* (Paris, 1839), p. 232.

<sup>71</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.24 (15 May 1555). <sup>72</sup> Brandi, Duffel et. al (eds), *Briefe und akten,* iv, p. 625.

journey that they have started to elect a pope, and especially that they do not fail to

The gloomy prediction about Cervini's health proved to be correct: the briefness of his pontificate – only twenty-one days – allowed most of the French cardinals who were still on the road at the time of Cervini's elevation in April to participate at least in the final stages of the new conclave in May. Despite the three weeks' time that they had unexpectedly gained due to the pope's abrupt death, many of the French were still missing when the conclave began on 15 May 1555. Once again, then, Ippolito d'Este had to commit himself 'not to spare any effort to undermine and sabotage the other party's plans until the arrival of the most reverend French cardinals, whose number and quality are such that one could then hope for the best'.<sup>71</sup> Although this conclave, like the previous one, did not last long, all the French cardinals had eventually reached Rome when Cardinal Carafa was elected

Although it was not strictly necessary for a cardinal to participate in the conclave in order to be elected pope, a successful candidate usually needed to be personally present to work his way around the different factions through networking and negotiating. Therefore, given that the king of France's list of *papabili* usually included those same powerful ministers-ecclesiastics who mainly resided in France, the chances of electing one of them were significantly lowered – from a very practical perspective – by the fact that they were very often late or absent. In a letter that the Roman protonotary, Agostino Cocciano, sent to Girolamo Seripando to analyse the possible outcome of the conclave that followed Julius III's death, he excluded from the number of those who could aspire to the papacy most of the French cardinals, on account of the fact that '[they] are not here', even though – Cocciano added – they would give to their own election a 'serious thought, if there is time'.<sup>72</sup> Italians in the Sacred College, on the other hand, were about three times more numerous than all the other nationalities together.73 Further, even if they were divided by family rivalries, territorial feuds and political affiliations, they all shared a strong bias against the election of a 'foreigner', whether a Spaniard or a Frenchman.<sup>74</sup> Therefore, the inclusion of some Italians in the list of *papabili* was, for a sovereign, a de-

offer their vote to the cardinal of Ferrara'.<sup>70</sup>

pope, taking the name of Paul IV, on 23 May 1555.

<sup>75</sup> Lorraine missed the election by four votes. In the account of the conclave given by Onofrio Panvinio, a contemporary historian, it is said that the cardinal of Ferrara was Henry II's first choice – but this is most likely due to the fact that Lorraine's exclusion became evident very soon: Merkle, *Concilium tridentinum,* ii, pp. 253-254. According to a list compiled by Charles de Guise and Ippolito d'Este at the end of December 1549, the French faction (once all the French cardinals had arrived) included twelve French and eleven Italian cardinals. As Guise wrote: 'Tous les autres sont Imperiaux et Farnese, excepté deux secrets que l'ambassadeurs vous mandera, et deux autres, don't à tous les besoins monsieur le cardinal de Ferrare nous fait server': ibid., pp. 259-261. See also the relation written in 1551 by the Vene-

tian ambassador, Matteo Dandolo, in Albèri (ed), *Relazioni*, s.3, ii, p. 345. 76 Henry II to the cardinal of Ferrara: 'Mon cousin, ie ne veux ny entends estre rien épargné de tout ce qui sera en ma puissance, pour fair eque vous, mon cousin le cardinal de Ferrare, parveniez au papat; […] outre ce que j'ay écrit resolutivement à mon ambassadeur le Sieur d'Avanson, avec commandement exprés, qu'il n'ait à mettre, ny tenir aucun des cardinaux en quelque esperance alternative'. Henry II indeed wrote to the ambassador in very similar tones: Ribier (ed), *Lettres*, ii, pp. 604-605. 77 In 1549, for instance, Henry II sent to his ambassador, d'Urfé a letter in which he expressed his wish

that Cardinal Salviati should ascend the papal throne, and which was meant to be shown to Salviati only in case of his election, as evidence of the support provided by Henry II: ibid., pp. 261-262.

priate.<sup>78</sup> In 1555, the cardinal of Ferrara was allowed by the king to offer all the benefices he possessed in France and his position of cardinal protector of the French crown as rewards to those cardinals who would support his election, with the promise that the king would accept their succession to the benefices or the protectorship 'without any transgression or difficulty'.79 To attract as many votes as possible, Henry II also made available an additional 25.000 *scudi* worth of French ecclesiastical revenues, which would be assigned after the conclave in compliance with Ippolito d'Este's indications – and special 'thankfulness' was promised to the cardinals of Trento and Mantua, the Imperial leaders, if they actively supported Ippolito's run for the tiara.80 Furthermore, in April 1555, a rumour spread amongst cardinals that Piero Strozzi, captain of the French army in Tuscany, was ready to march six thousand infantrymen to Rome to procure by force what could not be achieved by negotiation or corruption. Even if this was probably just a *boutade*, it well demonstrates the boldness of the French crown's involvement with Ippolito d'Este's campaign.81

On top of Henry II's resources, there was Ippolito's enormous private fortune. Obviously, the cardinal did not spare it in order to pursue his papal ambitions. As observed by a Spanish ambassador, Ferrara 'spends most of his assets to support poor cardinals, and, this way, he holds as affiliated and obliged many of those who are servants of His Majesty [Philip II]'.82 Ippolito's largesse was very well known in Rome, from the luxurious hospitality with which he welcomed other cardinals in his palace of Monte Giordano to the shameless offers of money and pensions in exchange for votes. To support his compelling need of money during conclaves, the cardinal often turned to his brother, the duke of Ferrara, who had of course a lot to gain in case of Ippolito's success: in March 1555, when Julius III was irremediably ill, Ercole II was asked to send 25.000 *scudi* immediately to Rome and 'to be offered to the College'.83 On 15 May 1555, when the conclave that elected Paul IV opened,

49

<sup>88</sup> Leone Ricasoli to Cosimo de' Medici: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* p. 405 (29 September 1559).

Whilst, as a leader of the French faction, Ippolito conducted most negotiations in partnership with Charles de Lorraine, often enough he was trying to make sepa-

<sup>84</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.40 (15 May 1555). 85 ASMO, CDCPE, Roma – Cardinali, 1386/124, fasc. 1; Cuisiat, D. (ed), *Lettres du cardinal Charles de Lorraine (1525-1574)* (Geneva, 1998), pp. 138-144. See also S. Carroll, *Martyrs and Murderers. The* 

<sup>86</sup> Ricasoli to Cosimo de' Medici: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* p. 405 (27 August 1559). 87 Michaud and Poujoulat (eds), *Nouvelle collection,* pp. 233-234.

with 'many [cardinals] that are not so well known to the others'.89

*Guise Family and the Making of Europe* (Oxford, 2009)*,* p. 64.

<sup>89</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.21 (23 March 1555).

Ippolito asked his brother for another 6.000 *scudi,* presumably to be spent for the

In addition to Henry II's endorsement and Ercole II's money, the cardinal could also count on his family alliance with the house of Guise: Charles de Guise led the French faction alongside Ippolito d'Este in 1549, and tried to procure his election.85 After the death of his uncle Jean in 1550, Charles had taken the title of cardinal of Lorraine and had become the most powerful prelate of France: his influence was so large that, in 1559, the Florentine ambassador in Rome wrote that 'Lorraine is here pope and king, with more authority than everyone has ever had in this kingdom'.86 The Guise had also managed to obtain the red hat for one of Charles's younger siblings, Louis, who substituted for his brother in leading the French cardinals during the conclaves of 1555, when Charles was absent. The correspondence between the two brothers is full of optimistic hopes regarding Ippolito's promotion.<sup>87</sup> In 1559, the cardinal of Lorraine once again undertook the journey to Rome with the explicit purpose of 'bringing his support to the cardinal of Ferrara, to promote him to the

In Italy, the Ferrarese network of friendships and alliances also offered important backing to Ippolito's papal efforts. Duke Ercole's involvement in his brother's activity certainly reached its height on the occasion of a conclave. For the little duchy of Ferrara, whose control over part of its territories had always been threatened by papal power, having a friendly cardinal installed on St. Peter's throne was as important as for the French crown – and the hypothetical consequences that might have derived from having a hostile or aggressive pope far worse. Whilst the two brothers might have pursued different strategies to enhance their own power (as we will see in the next chapters), the preparation and then management of each conclave undoubtedly configured as teamwork. From the correspondence that he held with his brother, Ercole, and with his nephew, Alfonso, it easy to see how Ferrara became a crucial centre of diplomacy every time a conclave was about to begin. Taking advantage of his duchy's geographical position, which made it a convenient stop on the way to Rome for many cardinals travelling by land, Duke Ercole used all the means offered by Estense diplomacy to second his brother's papal ambitions. In 1555, in order to be able to work beyond and around the French faction, Ippolito also asked Ercole to send to Rome one of his most trusted advisors, Monsignor Rossetto, whom he could entrust with the management of more 'unofficial' negotiations

same purpose.84

pontificate'.<sup>88</sup>

<sup>78</sup> Ibid., pp. 256-257. A French agent in Rome wrote that an equally large sum of money had been made available by the emperor to support his own *favoriti*: Michaud Poujoulat (eds), *Nouvelle collection,* p. 13.

<sup>79</sup> Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* ii, p. 605. On Henry II's support, see also the letter by the cardinal of Lorraine to Ercole II d'Este: ASMO, CDCPE, Roma – Cardinali, 1386/124, 1 (16 May 1555); and the one by the duke of Guise to Ercole II d'Este: ASMO, CDCPE, Francia, Guisa-Lorena, 1627/2, 1 (13 May 1555). 80 Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* ii, p. 605*.* 

<sup>81</sup> As the Florentine ambassador, Serristori, wrote to Duke Cosimo: 'È capitato in Roma un uomo del maresciallo Strozzi con lettere credenziali a dieci cardinali della fazione francese, al duca di Ferrara, a quel d'Urbino e allo ambasciatore di Francia, ed ha espressa la sua credenza che è insomma che si tenti di fare il papa per forza d'armi, e che perciò egli offerisce secretamente in Roma tre mila fanti; e fuori il doppio. Ferrara non ha voluto che si sparga questo nome, e ha ricusato': Canestrini (ed), *Legazioni,* pp. 351-352. See also F. Trucchi, *Vita e gesta di Piero Strozzi, fiorentino, maresciallo di Francia, scritta su documenti originali* (Florence, 1847), p. 119. Pacifici claims that Strozzi's letter was intercepted by a

Florentine agent and shown to the College of Cardinals: Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 262. 82 Luis de Requesens to Philip II: I. von Döllinger (ed), *Beiträge zur politischen, kirchlichen und cul-*

*ture-geschichte…* (Regensburg, 1862), pp. 582-583. 83 ASMO, CS, 1149, 1707.XX.18 (21 March 1555). See also Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 261 and Hollingsworth, 'A Cardinal in Rome', p. 4.

Ippolito asked his brother for another 6.000 *scudi,* presumably to be spent for the same purpose.84

In addition to Henry II's endorsement and Ercole II's money, the cardinal could also count on his family alliance with the house of Guise: Charles de Guise led the French faction alongside Ippolito d'Este in 1549, and tried to procure his election.85 After the death of his uncle Jean in 1550, Charles had taken the title of cardinal of Lorraine and had become the most powerful prelate of France: his influence was so large that, in 1559, the Florentine ambassador in Rome wrote that 'Lorraine is here pope and king, with more authority than everyone has ever had in this kingdom'.86 The Guise had also managed to obtain the red hat for one of Charles's younger siblings, Louis, who substituted for his brother in leading the French cardinals during the conclaves of 1555, when Charles was absent. The correspondence between the two brothers is full of optimistic hopes regarding Ippolito's promotion.<sup>87</sup> In 1559, the cardinal of Lorraine once again undertook the journey to Rome with the explicit purpose of 'bringing his support to the cardinal of Ferrara, to promote him to the pontificate'.<sup>88</sup>

In Italy, the Ferrarese network of friendships and alliances also offered important backing to Ippolito's papal efforts. Duke Ercole's involvement in his brother's activity certainly reached its height on the occasion of a conclave. For the little duchy of Ferrara, whose control over part of its territories had always been threatened by papal power, having a friendly cardinal installed on St. Peter's throne was as important as for the French crown – and the hypothetical consequences that might have derived from having a hostile or aggressive pope far worse. Whilst the two brothers might have pursued different strategies to enhance their own power (as we will see in the next chapters), the preparation and then management of each conclave undoubtedly configured as teamwork. From the correspondence that he held with his brother, Ercole, and with his nephew, Alfonso, it easy to see how Ferrara became a crucial centre of diplomacy every time a conclave was about to begin. Taking advantage of his duchy's geographical position, which made it a convenient stop on the way to Rome for many cardinals travelling by land, Duke Ercole used all the means offered by Estense diplomacy to second his brother's papal ambitions. In 1555, in order to be able to work beyond and around the French faction, Ippolito also asked Ercole to send to Rome one of his most trusted advisors, Monsignor Rossetto, whom he could entrust with the management of more 'unofficial' negotiations with 'many [cardinals] that are not so well known to the others'.89

Whilst, as a leader of the French faction, Ippolito conducted most negotiations in partnership with Charles de Lorraine, often enough he was trying to make sepa-

<sup>86</sup> Ricasoli to Cosimo de' Medici: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* p. 405 (27 August 1559). 87 Michaud and Poujoulat (eds), *Nouvelle collection,* pp. 233-234.

48

<sup>78</sup> Ibid., pp. 256-257. A French agent in Rome wrote that an equally large sum of money had been made available by the emperor to support his own *favoriti*: Michaud Poujoulat (eds), *Nouvelle collection,* p.

<sup>79</sup> Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* ii, p. 605. On Henry II's support, see also the letter by the cardinal of Lorraine to Ercole II d'Este: ASMO, CDCPE, Roma – Cardinali, 1386/124, 1 (16 May 1555); and the one by the duke of Guise to Ercole II d'Este: ASMO, CDCPE, Francia, Guisa-Lorena, 1627/2, 1 (13 May 1555). 80 Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* ii, p. 605*.* <sup>81</sup> As the Florentine ambassador, Serristori, wrote to Duke Cosimo: 'È capitato in Roma un uomo del maresciallo Strozzi con lettere credenziali a dieci cardinali della fazione francese, al duca di Ferrara, a quel d'Urbino e allo ambasciatore di Francia, ed ha espressa la sua credenza che è insomma che si tenti di fare il papa per forza d'armi, e che perciò egli offerisce secretamente in Roma tre mila fanti; e fuori il doppio. Ferrara non ha voluto che si sparga questo nome, e ha ricusato': Canestrini (ed), *Legazioni,* pp. 351-352. See also F. Trucchi, *Vita e gesta di Piero Strozzi, fiorentino, maresciallo di Francia, scritta su documenti originali* (Florence, 1847), p. 119. Pacifici claims that Strozzi's letter was intercepted by a Florentine agent and shown to the College of Cardinals: Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 262. 82 Luis de Requesens to Philip II: I. von Döllinger (ed), *Beiträge zur politischen, kirchlichen und culture-geschichte…* (Regensburg, 1862), pp. 582-583. 83 ASMO, CS, 1149, 1707.XX.18 (21 March 1555). See also Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 261 and Hol-

priate.<sup>78</sup> In 1555, the cardinal of Ferrara was allowed by the king to offer all the benefices he possessed in France and his position of cardinal protector of the French crown as rewards to those cardinals who would support his election, with the promise that the king would accept their succession to the benefices or the protectorship 'without any transgression or difficulty'.79 To attract as many votes as possible, Henry II also made available an additional 25.000 *scudi* worth of French ecclesiastical revenues, which would be assigned after the conclave in compliance with Ippolito d'Este's indications – and special 'thankfulness' was promised to the cardinals of Trento and Mantua, the Imperial leaders, if they actively supported Ippolito's run for the tiara.80 Furthermore, in April 1555, a rumour spread amongst cardinals that Piero Strozzi, captain of the French army in Tuscany, was ready to march six thousand infantrymen to Rome to procure by force what could not be achieved by negotiation or corruption. Even if this was probably just a *boutade*, it well demonstrates the boldness of the French crown's involvement with Ippolito d'Este's cam-

On top of Henry II's resources, there was Ippolito's enormous private fortune. Obviously, the cardinal did not spare it in order to pursue his papal ambitions. As observed by a Spanish ambassador, Ferrara 'spends most of his assets to support poor cardinals, and, this way, he holds as affiliated and obliged many of those who are servants of His Majesty [Philip II]'.82 Ippolito's largesse was very well known in Rome, from the luxurious hospitality with which he welcomed other cardinals in his palace of Monte Giordano to the shameless offers of money and pensions in exchange for votes. To support his compelling need of money during conclaves, the cardinal often turned to his brother, the duke of Ferrara, who had of course a lot to gain in case of Ippolito's success: in March 1555, when Julius III was irremediably ill, Ercole II was asked to send 25.000 *scudi* immediately to Rome and 'to be offered to the College'.83 On 15 May 1555, when the conclave that elected Paul IV opened,

paign.81

13.

lingsworth, 'A Cardinal in Rome', p. 4.

<sup>84</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.40 (15 May 1555). 85 ASMO, CDCPE, Roma – Cardinali, 1386/124, fasc. 1; Cuisiat, D. (ed), *Lettres du cardinal Charles de Lorraine (1525-1574)* (Geneva, 1998), pp. 138-144. See also S. Carroll, *Martyrs and Murderers. The Guise Family and the Making of Europe* (Oxford, 2009)*,* p. 64.

<sup>88</sup> Leone Ricasoli to Cosimo de' Medici: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* p. 405 (29 September 1559).

<sup>89</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.21 (23 March 1555).

rate deals with Italian cardinals of the Imperial faction, so that their agreement would remain secret not only to other Imperial supporters but also to the French. This was the nature, for instance, of secret deals he established with his cousin, Ercole Gonzaga – who was one of the leaders of the Imperial faction and enjoyed a good reputation in the Sacred College – and with Otto Truchsess von Waldburg, prince-bishop of Augsburg, who was another prominent cardinal of the Imperial faction. Whilst in 1549 Ippolito had tried in vain to convince Gonzaga to vote for him, in 1555, after a long negotiation that had also involved Duke Ercole, the two cousins had decided to support each other secretly – and Ippolito therefore believed Mantua's vote to be 'a certainty'.<sup>90</sup> Although the deal in the end did not work out, in 1559 Cardinal Gonzaga was again at the centre of a complicated tangle of promises weaved by Ippolito d'Este: this time, Ippolito – supported by the Guise cardinals – managed to unite all the French votes on Gonzaga, despite his being an Imperial cardinal.<sup>91</sup> At the same time, Ercole d'Este had struck a deal, on behalf of his brother, with an old friend of their house, Cardinal von Waldburg: according to Ercole, in case of Ippolito's exclusion from the ballots, he would induce all the French to vote for von Waldburg (under the pretension of a 'vote of courtesy' to enhance the cardinal's reputation in Germany). In exchange, obviously, von Waldburg was asked to vote for Ippolito in the first place.92 This unusual keenness – demonstrated by both Ippolito and Ercole – to find an agreement with Gonzaga and von Waldburg was due to the compelling necessity of undermining the position of another Imperial cardinal, Rodolfo Pio da Carpi, within his own faction. As Ercole explained to von Waldburg, the Este needed support to 'exclude Pio from the papacy, because of the bad will that this cardinal shows towards my brother and all our house'.<sup>93</sup> Only when the ballots clearly showed that neither Ippolito himself nor Gonzaga would obtain the majority of votes, did Ippolito turn to the French crown's list of candidates and tried – in vain – to procure cardinal Pisani's election.94 The way in which these negotiations were conducted, secretly, individually, and cross-faction, shows both that there was not a univocal strategy through which to gain the election, and that any sense of af-

51

filiation to a French faction or to a broader 'French agenda' in Italy was subordinat-

Furthermore, in this pattern of behaviour, it is easy to see the clash between his role of candidate for the papacy – and one particularly obsessed with the papal throne – and that of leader of the French faction, thus technically committed to defend the interests of the Valois. From this perspective, Estense diplomacy acted not only as an additional channel to convey more votes to the cardinal, but as a separate entity that sometimes aimed at different and conflicting goals. This emerges more vividly when considering the attempts made by Ercole d'Este to gain the support of Duke Cosimo de' Medici, who, especially after Julius III's pontificate, was believed to have a remarkable influence over the College of Cardinals: as Ippolito observed, 'I do not think that I should worry less about this duke than I do about the Imperials'.95 In 1555, Cosimo's contribution towards Ippolito's election was sought by one of Ercole's agents, who offered Ercole's friendship and help to the duke of Florence in exchange for his support of Ippolito during the conclave. The agent made it very clear that, in proposing this the Este intended to bypass both the king of France and the emperor, 'without letting either the emperor or the king know, because this partnership being harmless for both of these majesties, they would be satisfied with it once it is done'.96 Despite these attempts, the diffidence of the duke of Florence weighed against Ippolito's chances of success in the conclave of 1555 as well as in

A letter that Ippolito addressed to his nephew in June 1555 – two weeks after Paul IV's election – shows what he believed were the obstacles that lay in his way to the papacy, and how to overcome them. In the letter, he announced that he was about to send his secretary to France to illustrate the causes of his own failure and to 'show His Majesty what measures should be taken to overcome the difficulties that

The extent of this business [Ippolito's own election] can be limited to two points: one that His Majesty should send here as many cardinals as possible, the other that he should reward these cardinals who have served him. And all of this is so easy to accomplish that I cannot believe that any difficulty will arise […]. Indeed, if His Majesty decided on this, my affairs are in such a [good] state under all other respects

This optimistic analysis shows that Ippolito's hopes, in 1555, were still very much alive. The age of Paul IV at the time of his election – seventy-nine years-old –

<sup>95</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.21; 22 (23 March 1555). A report written by a Florentine diplomat in France confirmed that the French believed Cosimo had the power to determine the next pontiff: 'Si Cosme le voulait, dit-on, Ferrare serait pape': Desjardins (ed), *Négociations*, iii, p. 405. See also Pacifici, *Ippolito II*, pp. 258-259. 96 Canestrini (ed), *Legazioni*, pp. 352-354. Serristori dismissed Ercole's agent by replying that 'tolto via questa congiuntura del pontificato, al duca di Ferrara sarà uscita la voglia, e si pentirà in tempo che non avrà più rimedio; perché la confidenza non si può fare in un avemaria, e bisogna seminare chi vuol ricor-

ed, on an individual level, to private and familial concern.

we have had so far'. According to Ippolito's analysis,

that I am more hopeful than I have ever been.97

re': ibid., p. 354. 97 ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.41 (6 June 1555).

the following ones.

<sup>90</sup> ASMO, CS, 79, 1654.XXII.70 (12 April 1554). 91 The news that the French were ready to support an Imperial candidate were received with surprise by contemporary observers. The Venetian ambassador, for instance, wrote that 'this information would seem incredible had it not been confirmed to me by the ambassador from Mantua, and from the lips of Ludovic Gonzaga, the duke's brother, who is here. This was the opinion of the cardinal […] de Lorraine, to whom it seems that the world being tired and sickened by seeing popes without authority and of low extraction, […] it is necessary to make a prince by birth pope, that he may have authority not only with the cardinals, but also with other potentates.': *Cal. State Papers Venice,* 7, no. 96 (Charles de Guise is mistaken for Louis de Guise). See also Visceglia, *Morte e elezione,* pp. 336-338.

<sup>92</sup> ASMO, CS, CDA, Roma, 65, 317.10 (15 December 1559). Ercole II seemingly managed to convince von Waldburg to vote secretly for Ippolito also in 1555, but the deal did not work out: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.24 (13 April 1555).

<sup>93</sup> ASMO, CS, CDA, Roma, 65, 317.1 (instructions to Cristoforo Sertorio). See also ibid., 317.4 (20 October 1559); 317.6 (22 November 1559); 317.10 (15 December 15559). A letter, presumably written by the Cardinals Madruzzo and Santa Fiora but held among Gonzaga's correspondence, confirms that the Imperials tried to elect Cardinal Carpi but were met by the firm opposition of the French party: ASMO, CDCPE, Roma – Cardinali, 1380/114 fasc.1 (undated).

<sup>94</sup> ASMO, CS, 150, 16 December 1559.

filiation to a French faction or to a broader 'French agenda' in Italy was subordinated, on an individual level, to private and familial concern.

Furthermore, in this pattern of behaviour, it is easy to see the clash between his role of candidate for the papacy – and one particularly obsessed with the papal throne – and that of leader of the French faction, thus technically committed to defend the interests of the Valois. From this perspective, Estense diplomacy acted not only as an additional channel to convey more votes to the cardinal, but as a separate entity that sometimes aimed at different and conflicting goals. This emerges more vividly when considering the attempts made by Ercole d'Este to gain the support of Duke Cosimo de' Medici, who, especially after Julius III's pontificate, was believed to have a remarkable influence over the College of Cardinals: as Ippolito observed, 'I do not think that I should worry less about this duke than I do about the Imperials'.95 In 1555, Cosimo's contribution towards Ippolito's election was sought by one of Ercole's agents, who offered Ercole's friendship and help to the duke of Florence in exchange for his support of Ippolito during the conclave. The agent made it very clear that, in proposing this the Este intended to bypass both the king of France and the emperor, 'without letting either the emperor or the king know, because this partnership being harmless for both of these majesties, they would be satisfied with it once it is done'.96 Despite these attempts, the diffidence of the duke of Florence weighed against Ippolito's chances of success in the conclave of 1555 as well as in the following ones.

A letter that Ippolito addressed to his nephew in June 1555 – two weeks after Paul IV's election – shows what he believed were the obstacles that lay in his way to the papacy, and how to overcome them. In the letter, he announced that he was about to send his secretary to France to illustrate the causes of his own failure and to 'show His Majesty what measures should be taken to overcome the difficulties that we have had so far'. According to Ippolito's analysis,

The extent of this business [Ippolito's own election] can be limited to two points: one that His Majesty should send here as many cardinals as possible, the other that he should reward these cardinals who have served him. And all of this is so easy to accomplish that I cannot believe that any difficulty will arise […]. Indeed, if His Majesty decided on this, my affairs are in such a [good] state under all other respects that I am more hopeful than I have ever been.97

This optimistic analysis shows that Ippolito's hopes, in 1555, were still very much alive. The age of Paul IV at the time of his election – seventy-nine years-old –

50

<sup>90</sup> ASMO, CS, 79, 1654.XXII.70 (12 April 1554). 91 The news that the French were ready to support an Imperial candidate were received with surprise by contemporary observers. The Venetian ambassador, for instance, wrote that 'this information would seem incredible had it not been confirmed to me by the ambassador from Mantua, and from the lips of Ludovic Gonzaga, the duke's brother, who is here. This was the opinion of the cardinal […] de Lorraine, to whom it seems that the world being tired and sickened by seeing popes without authority and of low extraction, […] it is necessary to make a prince by birth pope, that he may have authority not only with the cardinals, but also with other potentates.': *Cal. State Papers Venice,* 7, no. 96 (Charles de Guise is

<sup>92</sup> ASMO, CS, CDA, Roma, 65, 317.10 (15 December 1559). Ercole II seemingly managed to convince von Waldburg to vote secretly for Ippolito also in 1555, but the deal did not work out: ASMO, CS, 149,

<sup>93</sup> ASMO, CS, CDA, Roma, 65, 317.1 (instructions to Cristoforo Sertorio). See also ibid., 317.4 (20 October 1559); 317.6 (22 November 1559); 317.10 (15 December 15559). A letter, presumably written by the Cardinals Madruzzo and Santa Fiora but held among Gonzaga's correspondence, confirms that the Imperials tried to elect Cardinal Carpi but were met by the firm opposition of the French party: ASMO,

mistaken for Louis de Guise). See also Visceglia, *Morte e elezione,* pp. 336-338.

1709.XX.24 (13 April 1555).

CDCPE, Roma – Cardinali, 1380/114 fasc.1 (undated).

<sup>94</sup> ASMO, CS, 150, 16 December 1559.

rate deals with Italian cardinals of the Imperial faction, so that their agreement would remain secret not only to other Imperial supporters but also to the French. This was the nature, for instance, of secret deals he established with his cousin, Ercole Gonzaga – who was one of the leaders of the Imperial faction and enjoyed a good reputation in the Sacred College – and with Otto Truchsess von Waldburg, prince-bishop of Augsburg, who was another prominent cardinal of the Imperial faction. Whilst in 1549 Ippolito had tried in vain to convince Gonzaga to vote for him, in 1555, after a long negotiation that had also involved Duke Ercole, the two cousins had decided to support each other secretly – and Ippolito therefore believed Mantua's vote to be 'a certainty'.<sup>90</sup> Although the deal in the end did not work out, in 1559 Cardinal Gonzaga was again at the centre of a complicated tangle of promises weaved by Ippolito d'Este: this time, Ippolito – supported by the Guise cardinals – managed to unite all the French votes on Gonzaga, despite his being an Imperial cardinal.<sup>91</sup> At the same time, Ercole d'Este had struck a deal, on behalf of his brother, with an old friend of their house, Cardinal von Waldburg: according to Ercole, in case of Ippolito's exclusion from the ballots, he would induce all the French to vote for von Waldburg (under the pretension of a 'vote of courtesy' to enhance the cardinal's reputation in Germany). In exchange, obviously, von Waldburg was asked to vote for Ippolito in the first place.92 This unusual keenness – demonstrated by both Ippolito and Ercole – to find an agreement with Gonzaga and von Waldburg was due to the compelling necessity of undermining the position of another Imperial cardinal, Rodolfo Pio da Carpi, within his own faction. As Ercole explained to von Waldburg, the Este needed support to 'exclude Pio from the papacy, because of the bad will that this cardinal shows towards my brother and all our house'.<sup>93</sup> Only when the ballots clearly showed that neither Ippolito himself nor Gonzaga would obtain the majority of votes, did Ippolito turn to the French crown's list of candidates and tried – in vain – to procure cardinal Pisani's election.94 The way in which these negotiations were conducted, secretly, individually, and cross-faction, shows both that there was not a univocal strategy through which to gain the election, and that any sense of af-

<sup>95</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.21; 22 (23 March 1555). A report written by a Florentine diplomat in France confirmed that the French believed Cosimo had the power to determine the next pontiff: 'Si Cosme le voulait, dit-on, Ferrare serait pape': Desjardins (ed), *Négociations*, iii, p. 405. See also Pacifi-

ci, *Ippolito II*, pp. 258-259. 96 Canestrini (ed), *Legazioni*, pp. 352-354. Serristori dismissed Ercole's agent by replying that 'tolto via questa congiuntura del pontificato, al duca di Ferrara sarà uscita la voglia, e si pentirà in tempo che non avrà più rimedio; perché la confidenza non si può fare in un avemaria, e bisogna seminare chi vuol ricorre': ibid., p. 354. 97 ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.41 (6 June 1555).

indeed convinced many contemporary commenters, Ippolito d'Este included, that they would have another conclave very soon.<sup>98</sup> Against any prediction, however, Paul IV survived until 18 August 1559: whilst it is impossible to know whether Ippolito might have stood a chance if the pontificate had been shorter, scholarship has long showed how, by the time of Paul IV's death, the Church, the Empire and the Italian political landscape had undergone some irreversible changes, which also made the election of a man like Ippolito more unlikely than it had ever been before. The dynastic division of Charles V's reign, after years of internal clashes, had eventually left Philip II of Spain in the position of having strong influence on the Church and on several Italian families whose members controlled the Curia. In the College of Cardinals, then, the categorisation of those who were loyal to the Habsburg monarchy as 'Imperials', already a definition increasingly loose, lost any real meaning in 1559. Imperial cardinals like Ercole Gonzaga, who had been very close to Charles V's old entourage, were not appreciated by Philip II's court. As for the Church, Paul IV's pontificate established the Inquisition as a centre of power internal to the Curia, whose protection of strict Catholic orthodoxy also included preventing 'suspicious' cardinals – as the 'spirituals' had been – from being elected popes.<sup>99</sup> For some prelates, then, their membership of the Congregation of the Holy Office became a more characterising element than their association to the Empire.100

From a French perspective, the year 1559 also marked the peace of Cateau-Cambresis and a loss of influence over Italy, where potentates and small states were now almost entirely gravitating around Philip II's Spain. Henry II's abrupt death – only a few weeks before Paul IV's – shook European courts. France was already torn by a religious crisis that, with the king's death, was primed to become a political one too. It is not surprising, then, that some ten days after Paul IV's death, on 23 August 1559, the Florentine ambassador to Paris reported that the French cardinals were generally believed to 'care only but little' about the incoming papal election. For this reason – the ambassador concluded – 'if the king and the Queen will not force these Most Reverends, I do not believe that they will come to Rome'.<sup>101</sup> When the conclave to elect Paul IV's successor opened, on 5 September 1559, only seven cardinals were missing: of these, five were French. Whilst some were simply too old to travel, two others – Charles de Bourbon and Odet de Châtillon – had explicitly refused to leave France in reason of their position of leadership within the factions that were fighting to control the French crown.102 According to the master of ceremonies, Ludovico Firmani, members of the French party in conclave only accounted for twelve votes – that is to say, about half the votes that they had had in the con-

53

is considered as the wisest and the most experienced amongst the cardinals; he has an unprecedented patience, but two things disadvantage him, the one having been born too high, the other one having shown too much desire in the past to be promot-

This echoed the opinion expressed by an Estense envoy a few years earlier, in 1559, at the end of the conclave that followed Paul IV's death: it had been impossible, the envoy wrote to Ferrara, to elect Ippolito due to the crowd of new lowranking cardinals that had been freshly appointed by Paul IV – a hint that Ippolito's

<sup>103</sup> To make things worse, for the French faction, Cardinal du Bellay left the conclave in December because of illness, and two Italian supporters, Dandino and Capodiferro, died before the end of the conclave: Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 284. 104 'M'incresce che […] ella [Charles de Guise] si parta non solamente risoluta di non voler più tornar essa, ma che peggio non mostri di curarsi che questi altri signori francesi restino di qua, et certamente sarebbe molto a mal proposito che quei signori de la corte la intendessero del medesimo modo': ASMO,

<sup>105</sup> The quotation is in K. M. Setton, *The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571* (4 vols, Philadelphia, 1976-

clave of 1549.<sup>103</sup> In the end, the diplomatic ability and influence of Duke Cosimo de' Medici proved fundamental to elect Pius IV. After the election, Ercole d'Este wrote a letter to his brother, Ippolito, in which the duke expressed his disappointment over the absence of the French cardinals and his concern that the French crown might take little care in encouraging its prelates to go to Rome also in the future.<sup>104</sup> From the perspective of a French participation in the election of the pontiff, the election of 1559 indeed inaugurated a period of decline. In the two conclaves that followed, one in 1565 (Pius V) and another one in 1572 (Gregory XIII), the French group was nearly entirely absent. On both those occasions, only one French cardinal took part in the ballots: all the others – who were also the great names of the French clergy – did not leave France. Despite the lack of French supporters, the Cardinal of Ferrara's life-long pursuit of the papal tiara did not stop, nor did the means he used to obtain it become less aggressive: in 1565, Cardinal Pacheco complained in a letter to Philip II that Ippolito's behaviour was such that 'it does scandalise not only the College, but the whole of Rome!'.105 The cardinal's hopes to ascend the papal throne were ultimately put off only by his own death, in 1572. It was not a fully unrealistic pursuit: in the conclave that took place a few months before his death, bookmakers in Rome still gave Ippolito a 5% chance of being elected pope (Cardinal Boncompagni, who would be elected as Gregory XIII, was given a 13% chance)106. In the years following 1559, however, Ippolito's chances to fulfil his ambition were increasingly judged by his contemporaries to be against the odds. One of the reasons that prevented Ippolito's elevation to the papal throne may have well been articulated by the Venetian ambassador to Rome, Giacomo Soranzo, who, in 1565, wrote

that the Cardinal of Ferrara

ed to the pontificate.107

CS, 150, 1709.XXIV.26 (26 January 1560).

<sup>106</sup> Visceglia, *Morte e elezione,* p. 281. <sup>107</sup> Albèri (ed), *Relazioni*, s.2, iv, p. 143.

1984)*,* iv, pp. 882-883.

<sup>98</sup> The French ambassador, for example, wrote to Henry II that it was necessary to start thinking of the next conclave, which 'ne pourroit ester loin […] à cause de son [Paul IV's] aage déja decrepit […] et

indisposition': Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* p. 609. 99 Visceglia, *Morte e elezione,* pp. 336-339.

<sup>100</sup> Bonora, *Aspettando l'imperatore,* pp. 269-270.

<sup>101</sup> Desjardins (ed), *Négociations*, iii, p. 404 (27 August 1559).

<sup>102</sup> Ibid., p. 405.

clave of 1549.<sup>103</sup> In the end, the diplomatic ability and influence of Duke Cosimo de' Medici proved fundamental to elect Pius IV. After the election, Ercole d'Este wrote a letter to his brother, Ippolito, in which the duke expressed his disappointment over the absence of the French cardinals and his concern that the French crown might take little care in encouraging its prelates to go to Rome also in the future.<sup>104</sup>

From the perspective of a French participation in the election of the pontiff, the election of 1559 indeed inaugurated a period of decline. In the two conclaves that followed, one in 1565 (Pius V) and another one in 1572 (Gregory XIII), the French group was nearly entirely absent. On both those occasions, only one French cardinal took part in the ballots: all the others – who were also the great names of the French clergy – did not leave France. Despite the lack of French supporters, the Cardinal of Ferrara's life-long pursuit of the papal tiara did not stop, nor did the means he used to obtain it become less aggressive: in 1565, Cardinal Pacheco complained in a letter to Philip II that Ippolito's behaviour was such that 'it does scandalise not only the College, but the whole of Rome!'.105 The cardinal's hopes to ascend the papal throne were ultimately put off only by his own death, in 1572. It was not a fully unrealistic pursuit: in the conclave that took place a few months before his death, bookmakers in Rome still gave Ippolito a 5% chance of being elected pope (Cardinal Boncompagni, who would be elected as Gregory XIII, was given a 13% chance)106. In the years following 1559, however, Ippolito's chances to fulfil his ambition were increasingly judged by his contemporaries to be against the odds. One of the reasons that prevented Ippolito's elevation to the papal throne may have well been articulated by the Venetian ambassador to Rome, Giacomo Soranzo, who, in 1565, wrote that the Cardinal of Ferrara

is considered as the wisest and the most experienced amongst the cardinals; he has an unprecedented patience, but two things disadvantage him, the one having been born too high, the other one having shown too much desire in the past to be promoted to the pontificate.107

This echoed the opinion expressed by an Estense envoy a few years earlier, in 1559, at the end of the conclave that followed Paul IV's death: it had been impossible, the envoy wrote to Ferrara, to elect Ippolito due to the crowd of new lowranking cardinals that had been freshly appointed by Paul IV – a hint that Ippolito's

52

<sup>98</sup> The French ambassador, for example, wrote to Henry II that it was necessary to start thinking of the next conclave, which 'ne pourroit ester loin […] à cause de son [Paul IV's] aage déja decrepit […] et

indisposition': Ribier (ed), *Lettres,* p. 609. 99 Visceglia, *Morte e elezione,* pp. 336-339. <sup>100</sup> Bonora, *Aspettando l'imperatore,* pp. 269-270.

<sup>102</sup> Ibid., p. 405.

<sup>101</sup> Desjardins (ed), *Négociations*, iii, p. 404 (27 August 1559).

indeed convinced many contemporary commenters, Ippolito d'Este included, that they would have another conclave very soon.<sup>98</sup> Against any prediction, however, Paul IV survived until 18 August 1559: whilst it is impossible to know whether Ippolito might have stood a chance if the pontificate had been shorter, scholarship has long showed how, by the time of Paul IV's death, the Church, the Empire and the Italian political landscape had undergone some irreversible changes, which also made the election of a man like Ippolito more unlikely than it had ever been before. The dynastic division of Charles V's reign, after years of internal clashes, had eventually left Philip II of Spain in the position of having strong influence on the Church and on several Italian families whose members controlled the Curia. In the College of Cardinals, then, the categorisation of those who were loyal to the Habsburg monarchy as 'Imperials', already a definition increasingly loose, lost any real meaning in 1559. Imperial cardinals like Ercole Gonzaga, who had been very close to Charles V's old entourage, were not appreciated by Philip II's court. As for the Church, Paul IV's pontificate established the Inquisition as a centre of power internal to the Curia, whose protection of strict Catholic orthodoxy also included preventing 'suspicious' cardinals – as the 'spirituals' had been – from being elected popes.<sup>99</sup> For some prelates, then, their membership of the Congregation of the Holy Office became a more

From a French perspective, the year 1559 also marked the peace of Cateau-Cambresis and a loss of influence over Italy, where potentates and small states were now almost entirely gravitating around Philip II's Spain. Henry II's abrupt death – only a few weeks before Paul IV's – shook European courts. France was already torn by a religious crisis that, with the king's death, was primed to become a political one too. It is not surprising, then, that some ten days after Paul IV's death, on 23 August 1559, the Florentine ambassador to Paris reported that the French cardinals were generally believed to 'care only but little' about the incoming papal election. For this reason – the ambassador concluded – 'if the king and the Queen will not force these Most Reverends, I do not believe that they will come to Rome'.<sup>101</sup> When the conclave to elect Paul IV's successor opened, on 5 September 1559, only seven cardinals were missing: of these, five were French. Whilst some were simply too old to travel, two others – Charles de Bourbon and Odet de Châtillon – had explicitly refused to leave France in reason of their position of leadership within the factions that were fighting to control the French crown.102 According to the master of ceremonies, Ludovico Firmani, members of the French party in conclave only accounted for twelve votes – that is to say, about half the votes that they had had in the con-

characterising element than their association to the Empire.100

<sup>103</sup> To make things worse, for the French faction, Cardinal du Bellay left the conclave in December because of illness, and two Italian supporters, Dandino and Capodiferro, died before the end of the conclave: Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 284. 104 'M'incresce che […] ella [Charles de Guise] si parta non solamente risoluta di non voler più tornar

essa, ma che peggio non mostri di curarsi che questi altri signori francesi restino di qua, et certamente sarebbe molto a mal proposito che quei signori de la corte la intendessero del medesimo modo': ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXIV.26 (26 January 1560).

<sup>105</sup> The quotation is in K. M. Setton, *The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571* (4 vols, Philadelphia, 1976- 1984)*,* iv, pp. 882-883.

<sup>106</sup> Visceglia, *Morte e elezione,* p. 281.

<sup>107</sup> Albèri (ed), *Relazioni*, s.2, iv, p. 143.

princely status might not fit well in the new Italian political scenario.<sup>108</sup> Much like the Venetian ambassador quoted above, contemporary observers often underlined how one of the factors that undermined Ippolito's campaigns for the tiara was the almost unanimous opinion that he displayed an excessive desire for it. Although this could be easily dismissed as nothing more than a colourful anecdote, the recurrence of similar statements in contemporary sources makes it worth taking into account. Coming consistently from diplomats and other prelates – and occasionally even from Ercole II d'Este109 – this kind of criticism seems somehow to entail than the acknowledgment of a mere personality flaw: rather, it seems to reflect a progressive modification of the idea of the 'good pope' – or at least of the 'desirable pope' – which made the likes of Ippolito d'Este – rich, princely prelates – look like the suspicious ambassadors of a revival of the great nepotistic age that had been perfectly embodied by Paul III. Historians have pointed out that, in the second half of the sixteenth century, the profile of the successful candidate to the papacy shifted towards 'the man of the Curia': cardinals who were also canon lawyers, theologians or diplomats became more *papabili* than Italian princely prelates. On the other hand, cardinals like Ercole Gonzaga and Alessandro Farnese, who had shared with Ippolito a background of princely grandeur*,* also shared with him a destiny of frustrated papal ambitions.

If the chances these cardinals had of becoming pope decreased across the second half of the sixteenth century, this did not confine them to the role of mere spectators. On the contrary, Ippolito d'Este continued to be a powerful pope-maker whose influence lasted from conclave to conclave. The support that Ippolito had offered to Cardinal de' Medici on the occasion of his election as Pius IV, for example, led to the appointment of Luigi d'Este, Ippolito's nephew, to the red hat: a great success for the Este, as it ensured that Ippolito's prominent role within the Church could be passed on to another member of the family. Working as one of the heads of the French faction, Ippolito also managed to play an important role in the conclaves in the period 1549-1559. He steered them, if not towards the French monarch's preferred outcome, at least towards one that displeased his opponents: the elections of Julius III, Marcellus II and Paul IV were all perceived as defeats by Habsburg diplomacy in Italy.<sup>110</sup>

55

*pension that was already due to Ippolito d'Este* 

OCTOBER 1563: Cardinal Pisani resigns à Ippolito

Table 1. Dioceses and archdioceses held by Ippolito d'Este

Angelo Arcimboldi

Medici (January 1560)

LYON II October 1539-May 1551; April 1562-July 1564

*Ippolito keeps the regress*

Bourbon's resignation

NARBONNE IV June 1550-April 1551 and October 1563-death

of Cardinal Jean de Lorraine

APRIL 1562: Tournon dies

*Ippolito keeps a pension of 1.000 scudi*

*Cardinal Pisani keeps 1/3 of the income.*

*1536* 

TRÉGUIER April 1542-November 1548

AUTUN III June 1548-June 1550

*Narbonne*

Tournon

MILAN <sup>I</sup> 1519-March 1550; April 1555-December 1556; June 1558

*Ippolito renounces his right to regress*

*Ippolito keeps 2/3 of the income and the regress* APRIL 1555: Arcimboldi dies à Ippolito (regress) DECEMBER 1556: Ippolito resigns à Filippo Archinti

1519: Ippolito is appointed to succeed his uncle Ippolito I d'Este MARCH 1550: Ippolito exchanges Milan for NOVARA à Giovanni

JUNE 1558: Archinti dies à Ippolito (regress) à Gian Angelo de'

OCTOBER 1539: Ippolito is appointed by the king of France *The king of France had promised Lyon to Ippolito d'Este already in* 

JULY 1564: Ippolito exchanges Lyon with Arles à Antoine d'Albone

APRIL 1542: The king of France appoints Ippolito upon Louis de

*The king asked Ippolito to resign Autun in order to be appointed to*

JUNE 1550: Ippolito is appointed by the king of France after the death

*Tournon keeps 1/3 of the income and the regress, which adds up to the* 

APRIL 1551: Ippolito exchanges Narbonne with Auch à Cardinal

MAY 1551: Tournon resigns à Cardinal Francesco Pisani

NOVEMBER 1548: Ippolito resigns à Giovenale Orsini

JUNE 1548: Ippolito is appointed by the king of France JUNE 1550: Ippolito resigns à Philibert D'Ugny

MAY 1551: Ippolito resigns à Cardinal Tournon

APRIL 1562: Tournon dies à Ippolito (regress)

<sup>108</sup> The quotation is in Visceglia, *Morte e elezione,* p. 415 n. 99.

<sup>109</sup> 'Il Duca di Ferrara […] disse che suo fratello si perdeva in questo desiderio d'esser papa per il troppo desiderio che n'aveva': Canestrini (ed), *Legazioni,* p. 352 (9 May 1555). See also a letter from Ercole II to Ippolito in which the duke seems to resent his brother's eagerness to become pope: ASMO, CS, 79, 1654.XXII.70 (12 April 1554). The cardinal of Ferrara's burning ambition also alienated him the sympathies of the French cardinals, especially du Bellay's: Canestrini (ed), *Legazioni,* pp. 351-352 (9 May 1555). Concerns about the cardinal's too strong desire were also expressed by the Estense ambassador to Rome in 1559: ASMO, CDA, Roma, 65, 317.6 (22 November 1559). In 1560, the Tuscan ambassador again reported that 'tutti i suoi [the cardinal of Ferrara's] pensieri sono posti nel pontificato': Canestrini (ed), *Legazioni,* p. 397. Other examples of similar statements are in Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 262-267.

<sup>110</sup> M. J. Levin, *Agents of Empire: Spanish Ambassadors in Sixteenth-Century Italy* (New York, 2005), pp. 43; 57-64. Alain Tallon looked at the role played by the French faction in the period 1549-1559, stressing that they demonstrated a better cohesion than their Imperial counterparts partially because they were not divided by religious issues: Tallon, 'Le "parti français"', pp. 391-392.

#### Table 1. Dioceses and archdioceses held by Ippolito d'Este


54

<sup>109</sup> 'Il Duca di Ferrara […] disse che suo fratello si perdeva in questo desiderio d'esser papa per il troppo desiderio che n'aveva': Canestrini (ed), *Legazioni,* p. 352 (9 May 1555). See also a letter from Ercole II to Ippolito in which the duke seems to resent his brother's eagerness to become pope: ASMO, CS, 79, 1654.XXII.70 (12 April 1554). The cardinal of Ferrara's burning ambition also alienated him the sympathies of the French cardinals, especially du Bellay's: Canestrini (ed), *Legazioni,* pp. 351-352 (9 May 1555). Concerns about the cardinal's too strong desire were also expressed by the Estense ambassador to Rome in 1559: ASMO, CDA, Roma, 65, 317.6 (22 November 1559). In 1560, the Tuscan ambassador again reported that 'tutti i suoi [the cardinal of Ferrara's] pensieri sono posti nel pontificato': Canestrini (ed), *Legazioni,* p. 397. Other examples of similar statements are in Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 262-267. <sup>110</sup> M. J. Levin, *Agents of Empire: Spanish Ambassadors in Sixteenth-Century Italy* (New York, 2005), pp. 43; 57-64. Alain Tallon looked at the role played by the French faction in the period 1549-1559, stressing that they demonstrated a better cohesion than their Imperial counterparts partially because they

princely status might not fit well in the new Italian political scenario.<sup>108</sup> Much like the Venetian ambassador quoted above, contemporary observers often underlined how one of the factors that undermined Ippolito's campaigns for the tiara was the almost unanimous opinion that he displayed an excessive desire for it. Although this could be easily dismissed as nothing more than a colourful anecdote, the recurrence of similar statements in contemporary sources makes it worth taking into account. Coming consistently from diplomats and other prelates – and occasionally even from Ercole II d'Este109 – this kind of criticism seems somehow to entail than the acknowledgment of a mere personality flaw: rather, it seems to reflect a progressive modification of the idea of the 'good pope' – or at least of the 'desirable pope' – which made the likes of Ippolito d'Este – rich, princely prelates – look like the suspicious ambassadors of a revival of the great nepotistic age that had been perfectly embodied by Paul III. Historians have pointed out that, in the second half of the sixteenth century, the profile of the successful candidate to the papacy shifted towards 'the man of the Curia': cardinals who were also canon lawyers, theologians or diplomats became more *papabili* than Italian princely prelates. On the other hand, cardinals like Ercole Gonzaga and Alessandro Farnese, who had shared with Ippolito a background of princely grandeur*,* also shared with him a destiny of frustrated papal

If the chances these cardinals had of becoming pope decreased across the second half of the sixteenth century, this did not confine them to the role of mere spectators. On the contrary, Ippolito d'Este continued to be a powerful pope-maker whose influence lasted from conclave to conclave. The support that Ippolito had offered to Cardinal de' Medici on the occasion of his election as Pius IV, for example, led to the appointment of Luigi d'Este, Ippolito's nephew, to the red hat: a great success for the Este, as it ensured that Ippolito's prominent role within the Church could be passed on to another member of the family. Working as one of the heads of the French faction, Ippolito also managed to play an important role in the conclaves in the period 1549-1559. He steered them, if not towards the French monarch's preferred outcome, at least towards one that displeased his opponents: the elections of Julius III, Marcellus II and Paul IV were all perceived as defeats by Habsburg di-

ambitions.

plomacy in Italy.<sup>110</sup>

<sup>108</sup> The quotation is in Visceglia, *Morte e elezione,* p. 415 n. 99.

were not divided by religious issues: Tallon, 'Le "parti français"', pp. 391-392.

#### The Path of Pleasantness


<sup>I</sup> On the controversies regarding the cardinal's possession of the archdiocese of Milan, his difficulties in collecting its revenues and his several resignations, see chapter 4 in this book.

II Ippolito was appointed to the archdiocese of Lyon by Francis I in 1536, during his first visit to the French royal court. On 4 October 1536, he wrote to his brother Ercole that 'essendo venute […] novelle a questa maestà che l'arcivescovo di questa città […] era molto gravato dal male […] anchor che li suoi benefici le fussero dimandati da altri, ella, ricordandosi de la servitù mia, senza altro mio ricordo, non solo mi fece gratia di l'arcivescovato de Lione ma anco di una bellissima abbatia di San Marco di Suason': ASMO, CS, 145, 1709.II.34. However, to be confirmed to the episcopal see, he needed to obtain papal approval, which was only conceded in 1539. The reason behind this delay was the ongoing negotiation between Paul III and Duke Ercole II on the issue of Modena and Reggio and on Ippolito's elevation to the cardinalate. The pope required Ercole II to pay an enormous sum of money to be reinstalled as the legitimate ruler of the two cities and to bestow Ippolito with the red hat (respectively, 170.000 and 40.000 *scudi*). This request encountered Ercole's stubborn resistance, in spite of Ippolito's efforts to convince his brother to comply with Paul III's terms. As a temporary compromise, Francis I offered Lyon to Jean de Lorraine, who promised to leave the benefice to Ippolito when his family dispute with the pope would be resolved. In a letter written to Ferrara in January 1539, Ippolito explained to Duke Ercole II, who would have wanted to see his brother appointed to Lyon, that he could not prompt the king to do so, because the archdiocese had been given to Lorraine. However, Francis I kept his promise and bestowed Ippolito with the archbishopric of Lyon later on in 1539, upon resignation of the cardinal of Lorraine,

57

and after Paul III had publicly elevated Ippolito to the red hat (in the consistory of 5 March 1539) and had approved his appointment to the French benefice (in October 1539): Hollingsworth, *The Cardinal's Hat,* pp. 130-132; 233; M. C. Giannini, 'Ippolito II d'Este arcivescovo di Milano fra interessi familiari e scelte politiche (1535-1550)', in A. Rocca and P. Vismara (eds), *Prima di Carlo Borromeo. Istituzioni, religione e società agli inizi del Cinquecento* (Rome, 2012), pp. 109-110. On Lorraine and Francis I, see: C. Michon, 'Les richesses de la faveur à la Reinassance: Jean de Lorraine (1498-1550) et François Ier',

III Upon resignation of the diocese of Autun, in 1550, the cardinal obtained the abbey of Fla-

IV In the consistory of 8 October 1563, Ippolito resigned Auch to Luigi and obtained Narbonne from Cardinal Francesco Pisani, who had held the diocese since 1551. Narbonne was worth 27.000 *livres.* Prospero Santa Croce, papal nuncio to France in 1553, wrote that Narbonne was worth 20.000 francs, and that Ippolito had offered (through the French ambassador to Rome, Lord de Lansac) to exchange it for the bishopric of Mirepoix and two abbeys that belonged to Julius III's *protegé*, Cardinal Innocenzo del Monte: Sauzé de Lhoumeau

<sup>V</sup> Although the diocese of Novara was not a metropolitan see, its revenues were equal to those of the more important archdiocese of Milan – both being worth around 5.000 ducats a year according to the Venetian ambassador Caroldo: A. Segarizzi (ed), *Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al Senato* (3 vols, Bari, 1912-1916), ii, p. 28. When Ippolito d'Este resigned Milan to Arcimboldi in exchange for Novara, he promised to Don Ferrante Gonzaga, the governor of Milan, that he would later resign Novara in favour of Giulio della Rovere, a cardinal who was loyal to the emperor: C. Marcora, 'La Chiesa milanese nel decennio 1550-

VI The dioceses of Narbonne, Lyon, and Auch were at the centre of a complicated exchange of benefices that took place in April and May 1551 between Ippolito and the Cardinals Tournon and Pisani. In April, Ippolito and Tournon exchanged their respective dioceses of Narbonne and Auch. However, a dispute arose between Henry II and Julius III on their respective right to appoint the bishops to vacant French dioceses. When Ippolito resigned Narbonne to Tournon, Julius III appointed to Narbonne Cardinal Pisani, who, having a reputation for being loyal to the Valois monarchy, was not an unacceptable choice for King Henry II. Tournon was therefore convinced to renounce Narbonne, only one month after his appointment and under the provision of one third of the income and the right to re-enter the diocese in the future. At the same time as Tournon's resignation, in May 1551, Ippolito resigned Lyon in favour of Tournon, but he too kept the *regressus*. For this reason, the Archdiocese of Lyon fell again into Ippolito's hands after Cardinal Tournon's death in April 1562. At the time, Ippolito still held the diocese of Auch: therefore, in compliance with the existing decrees against the accumulation of ecclesiastical benefices, Ippolito would have had to resign one diocese or the other within six months. In October 1563, however, he had not yet done so. In a letter written to the bishops gathered in Trent, Cardinal Borromeo tried to justify Ippolito's pluralism: Borromeo explained that the archdiocese of Lyon had been seized by the Huguenots during the wars of religion in France, and Ippolito had not been able to take official possession of the benefice. For this reason, the pope had decided not to apply the sixmonths deadline. The year of Ippolito's resignation of Lyon is not fully clear. See R. Trisco, 'Carlo Borromeo and the Council of Trent', in J. M. Headley and J. B. Tomaro (eds), *San Carlo Borromeo: Catholic Reform and Ecclesiastical Politics in the Second Half of the Six-*

*Revue d'histoire modern et contemporaine,* 50-53 (2003), pp. 34-61.

1560', *Memorie storiche della Diocesi di Milano,* 7 (1960)', pp. 261-264.

vigny and the abbey of Saint Vivant: Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 332.

(ed), *Correspondance* p. 249.

and after Paul III had publicly elevated Ippolito to the red hat (in the consistory of 5 March 1539) and had approved his appointment to the French benefice (in October 1539): Hollingsworth, *The Cardinal's Hat,* pp. 130-132; 233; M. C. Giannini, 'Ippolito II d'Este arcivescovo di Milano fra interessi familiari e scelte politiche (1535-1550)', in A. Rocca and P. Vismara (eds), *Prima di Carlo Borromeo. Istituzioni, religione e società agli inizi del Cinquecento* (Rome, 2012), pp. 109-110. On Lorraine and Francis I, see: C. Michon, 'Les richesses de la faveur à la Reinassance: Jean de Lorraine (1498-1550) et François Ier', *Revue d'histoire modern et contemporaine,* 50-53 (2003), pp. 34-61.

III Upon resignation of the diocese of Autun, in 1550, the cardinal obtained the abbey of Flavigny and the abbey of Saint Vivant: Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 332.

IV In the consistory of 8 October 1563, Ippolito resigned Auch to Luigi and obtained Narbonne from Cardinal Francesco Pisani, who had held the diocese since 1551. Narbonne was worth 27.000 *livres.* Prospero Santa Croce, papal nuncio to France in 1553, wrote that Narbonne was worth 20.000 francs, and that Ippolito had offered (through the French ambassador to Rome, Lord de Lansac) to exchange it for the bishopric of Mirepoix and two abbeys that belonged to Julius III's *protegé*, Cardinal Innocenzo del Monte: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance* p. 249.

<sup>V</sup> Although the diocese of Novara was not a metropolitan see, its revenues were equal to those of the more important archdiocese of Milan – both being worth around 5.000 ducats a year according to the Venetian ambassador Caroldo: A. Segarizzi (ed), *Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al Senato* (3 vols, Bari, 1912-1916), ii, p. 28. When Ippolito d'Este resigned Milan to Arcimboldi in exchange for Novara, he promised to Don Ferrante Gonzaga, the governor of Milan, that he would later resign Novara in favour of Giulio della Rovere, a cardinal who was loyal to the emperor: C. Marcora, 'La Chiesa milanese nel decennio 1550- 1560', *Memorie storiche della Diocesi di Milano,* 7 (1960)', pp. 261-264.

VI The dioceses of Narbonne, Lyon, and Auch were at the centre of a complicated exchange of benefices that took place in April and May 1551 between Ippolito and the Cardinals Tournon and Pisani. In April, Ippolito and Tournon exchanged their respective dioceses of Narbonne and Auch. However, a dispute arose between Henry II and Julius III on their respective right to appoint the bishops to vacant French dioceses. When Ippolito resigned Narbonne to Tournon, Julius III appointed to Narbonne Cardinal Pisani, who, having a reputation for being loyal to the Valois monarchy, was not an unacceptable choice for King Henry II. Tournon was therefore convinced to renounce Narbonne, only one month after his appointment and under the provision of one third of the income and the right to re-enter the diocese in the future. At the same time as Tournon's resignation, in May 1551, Ippolito resigned Lyon in favour of Tournon, but he too kept the *regressus*. For this reason, the Archdiocese of Lyon fell again into Ippolito's hands after Cardinal Tournon's death in April 1562. At the time, Ippolito still held the diocese of Auch: therefore, in compliance with the existing decrees against the accumulation of ecclesiastical benefices, Ippolito would have had to resign one diocese or the other within six months. In October 1563, however, he had not yet done so. In a letter written to the bishops gathered in Trent, Cardinal Borromeo tried to justify Ippolito's pluralism: Borromeo explained that the archdiocese of Lyon had been seized by the Huguenots during the wars of religion in France, and Ippolito had not been able to take official possession of the benefice. For this reason, the pope had decided not to apply the sixmonths deadline. The year of Ippolito's resignation of Lyon is not fully clear. See R. Trisco, 'Carlo Borromeo and the Council of Trent', in J. M. Headley and J. B. Tomaro (eds), *San Carlo Borromeo: Catholic Reform and Ecclesiastical Politics in the Second Half of the Six-*

56

NOVARA <sup>V</sup> March 1550-November 1551

AUCH VI April 1551-October 1563

bonne

1564-1567

ARLES VII July 1564-1566/7

SAINT-JEAN DE MAURIENNE VIII

change for Milan

*tion of 1.000 ducati)*

Brandelisio Trotti is appointed 1563: Trotti dies à 1564: Ippolito

MARCH 1550: Acquired from Giovanni Angelo Arcimboldi in ex-

APRIL 1551: Acquired from Cardinal Tournon in exchange for Nar-

*Ippolito keeps all the income of the diocese for himself (with the excep-*

NOVEMBER 1551: Ippolito resigns à Giulio della Rovere

JULY 1564: Acquired from d'Albone in exchange for Lyon

NOVEMBER 1567: Ippolito resigns à Pierre de Lambert

<sup>I</sup> On the controversies regarding the cardinal's possession of the archdiocese of Milan, his difficulties in collecting its revenues and his several resignations, see chapter 4 in this book.

II Ippolito was appointed to the archdiocese of Lyon by Francis I in 1536, during his first visit to the French royal court. On 4 October 1536, he wrote to his brother Ercole that 'essendo venute […] novelle a questa maestà che l'arcivescovo di questa città […] era molto gravato dal male […] anchor che li suoi benefici le fussero dimandati da altri, ella, ricordandosi de la servitù mia, senza altro mio ricordo, non solo mi fece gratia di l'arcivescovato de Lione ma anco di una bellissima abbatia di San Marco di Suason': ASMO, CS, 145, 1709.II.34. However, to be confirmed to the episcopal see, he needed to obtain papal approval, which was only conceded in 1539. The reason behind this delay was the ongoing negotiation between Paul III and Duke Ercole II on the issue of Modena and Reggio and on Ippolito's elevation to the cardinalate. The pope required Ercole II to pay an enormous sum of money to be reinstalled as the legitimate ruler of the two cities and to bestow Ippolito with the red hat (respectively, 170.000 and 40.000 *scudi*). This request encountered Ercole's stubborn resistance, in spite of Ippolito's efforts to convince his brother to comply with Paul III's terms. As a temporary compromise, Francis I offered Lyon to Jean de Lorraine, who promised to leave the benefice to Ippolito when his family dispute with the pope would be resolved. In a letter written to Ferrara in January 1539, Ippolito explained to Duke Ercole II, who would have wanted to see his brother appointed to Lyon, that he could not prompt the king to do so, because the archdiocese had been given to Lorraine. However, Francis I kept his promise and bestowed Ippolito with the archbishopric of Lyon later on in 1539, upon resignation of the cardinal of Lorraine,

DECEMBER 1559: Girolamo Capodiferro dies à In March 1560,

OCTOBER 1563: Ippolito resigns à Luigi d'Este

1566/7: Ippolito resigns à Prospero Santa Croce

*teenth Century* (Washington, 1988), p. 63. On the dispute between Julius II and Henry II, see: Poncet, *La France,* pp. 51-73; Baumgartner, 'Henry II's Italian Bishops', p. 55. See also J. Tricou, 'Un archevêque de Lyon au XVIe siècle, Hyppolyte d'Este', *Revue des études italiennes*, V (1958), pp. 147-166. Some information on Ippolito's tenure of Lyon is also in H. Hours, 'Le XVIe siècle', in G. Gadille, R. Fedou et al. (eds), *Histoire du Diocèse de Lyon* (Paris, 1983), pp. 123-127.

VII The two main sources that informed this appendix do not agree on the years of Ippolito's tenure of Arles. Eubel dates Ippolito's resignation to 1566, and Gams to 1567. Furthermore, both Gams and the compilers of *Gallia christiana* dates Ippolito's appointment (and Cardinal d'Albone's translation to Lyon) to 1562, while Eubel to July 1564. In the consistory of 8 October 1563, however, Ippolito was reported to be holding both Auch and Lyon, and this seems to dismiss 1562 as the year of his resignation of Lyon; it is more likely that this took place sometime between October 1563 and July 1564. See Eubel, *Hierarchia catholica,* iii, p. 116; P. B. Gams, *Series Episcoporum Ecclesiae catholicae* (Graz, 1957)*,* p. 495; D. de Sainte-Marthe et al. (eds)*, Gallia christiana, in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa…* (16 vols, Paris, 1715-1865*),* col. 590; Trisco, 'Carlo Borromeo', p. 62.

VIII After Girolamo Capodiferro's death, the diocese of Saint-Jean de Maurienne (in Savoy) was assigned, in March 1560, to Brandelisio Trotti, provost of Ferrara. Trotti had been a member of Ippolito's household since the 1530s and had also followed the cardinal to France in 1536. At the beginning of the 1550s, when the cardinal of Ferrara was in Siena, Trotti had served as an ambassador and representative of Ippolito before the pope. In March 1560, the provost held the important position of Ippolito's *vicelegato al patrimonio*: from Rome, he managed all the cardinal's payments and kept track of all his income and expenses. The cardinal of Ferrara obtained Trotti's appointment to the bishopric of Maurienne as a reward for the support that he had offered to Pius IV during the conclave that had led to his election. In a letter written to his nephew, Alfonso II, the Ippolito d'Este wrote that 'Nostro Signore ha dato a contemplation mia al Preposto Trotti il vescovato di Moriana, che si figura due mila ducati, de quali mille ne ha riservati di pensione a me per parte de la ricompensa di Milano et d'altri cinquecento si trova aggravato di pension vecchia, di modo che cinquecento almanco ne restano per il vescovo'. However, this decision of Pius IV – taken at the beginning of his pontificate, when he needed to please his electors – provoked a harsh dispute between the pope and the cardinal of Ferrara about two years later, when the cardinal received news that Pius IV was considering appointing a man of the duke of Savoy to Trotti's diocese. Given the old age of Ippolito's protégé, the pope's renewed interest in the bishopric of Maurienne was probably due to an illness of Brandelisio Trotti. However, the fact that Trotti had been appointed 'in contemplatione' implied that, in case of his death, Ippolito d'Este was expecting to succeed him to the benefice – or, at least, to appoint his successor. The dispute over Maurienne lasted for several months: on 31 December 1561, Ippolito angrily wrote to Rome that 'con questi romori si potrà pensare che levandolo [the bishopric of Maurienne] a quello a che io l'ho dato, ciò sia perché s'habbia mala opinione di me'. The developments of the controversy in the following months seem to suggest that, in the meantime, Brandelisio Trotti had died (although Eubel in his *Hierarchia catholica* lists him as the bishop of Maurienne until 1563). In a letter written from France in April 1562, when Pius IV's decision to appoint someone else to the bishopric seemed irreversible, Ippolito d'Este begged Cardinal Borromeo to grant him at least his pension of 1.000 scudi, because he doubted that any newly appointed bishop would be keen to pay him, and because he had already been prevented from cashing in his pension during the months when the controversy was going on. He also suggested that the Pius IV should produce a written statement to make clear that he had always intended to grant Ippolito that pension, that the former bishop ('the dead man') had been aware of it and

59

never objected – and it is hard to imagine how 'the dead' could refer to anyone but Brandelisio Trotti, given that the previous bishop, Girolamo Capodiferro, had never paid Ippolito any pension. It seems that Ippolito d'Este eventually won his case: in 1564, he was appointed apostolic administrator of Maurienne, a title that he kept until 1567: ASMO, CS, 150,1709.XXVI.48 (31 Dicembre 1561); ibid., 1709.XXIV.32 (27 March 1560); AAV, *Misc., Arm II*, 131, pp. 64ss; Hollingsworth, *The Cardinal's Hat*, pp. 33; 88-89; Eubel, *Hierarchia catholica*, iii, p. 238; Gams, *Series episcoporum*, p. 830; McClung Hallman, *Italian Cardinals*, p. 34; Baumgartner, 'Henry II's Italian Bishops', p. 55. Brandelisio Trotti is also remembered as a member of Ippolito's household in a list of 'Ferrara's illustrious men' (although his biography contains various mistakes): A. Libanori, *Ferrara d'oro imbrunito* (3

vols, Ferrara, 1665-1674), i, pp. 89-90.

never objected – and it is hard to imagine how 'the dead' could refer to anyone but Brandelisio Trotti, given that the previous bishop, Girolamo Capodiferro, had never paid Ippolito any pension. It seems that Ippolito d'Este eventually won his case: in 1564, he was appointed apostolic administrator of Maurienne, a title that he kept until 1567: ASMO, CS, 150,1709.XXVI.48 (31 Dicembre 1561); ibid., 1709.XXIV.32 (27 March 1560); AAV, *Misc., Arm II*, 131, pp. 64ss; Hollingsworth, *The Cardinal's Hat*, pp. 33; 88-89; Eubel, *Hierarchia catholica*, iii, p. 238; Gams, *Series episcoporum*, p. 830; McClung Hallman, *Italian Cardinals*, p. 34; Baumgartner, 'Henry II's Italian Bishops', p. 55. Brandelisio Trotti is also remembered as a member of Ippolito's household in a list of 'Ferrara's illustrious men' (although his biography contains various mistakes): A. Libanori, *Ferrara d'oro imbrunito* (3 vols, Ferrara, 1665-1674), i, pp. 89-90.

58

*teenth Century* (Washington, 1988), p. 63. On the dispute between Julius II and Henry II, see: Poncet, *La France,* pp. 51-73; Baumgartner, 'Henry II's Italian Bishops', p. 55. See also J. Tricou, 'Un archevêque de Lyon au XVIe siècle, Hyppolyte d'Este', *Revue des études italiennes*, V (1958), pp. 147-166. Some information on Ippolito's tenure of Lyon is also in H. Hours, 'Le XVIe siècle', in G. Gadille, R. Fedou et al. (eds), *Histoire du Diocèse de Lyon*

VII The two main sources that informed this appendix do not agree on the years of Ippolito's tenure of Arles. Eubel dates Ippolito's resignation to 1566, and Gams to 1567. Furthermore, both Gams and the compilers of *Gallia christiana* dates Ippolito's appointment (and Cardinal d'Albone's translation to Lyon) to 1562, while Eubel to July 1564. In the consistory of 8 October 1563, however, Ippolito was reported to be holding both Auch and Lyon, and this seems to dismiss 1562 as the year of his resignation of Lyon; it is more likely that this took place sometime between October 1563 and July 1564. See Eubel, *Hierarchia catholica,* iii, p. 116; P. B. Gams, *Series Episcoporum Ecclesiae catholicae* (Graz, 1957)*,* p. 495; D. de Sainte-Marthe et al. (eds)*, Gallia christiana, in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa…* (16

VIII After Girolamo Capodiferro's death, the diocese of Saint-Jean de Maurienne (in Savoy) was assigned, in March 1560, to Brandelisio Trotti, provost of Ferrara. Trotti had been a member of Ippolito's household since the 1530s and had also followed the cardinal to France in 1536. At the beginning of the 1550s, when the cardinal of Ferrara was in Siena, Trotti had served as an ambassador and representative of Ippolito before the pope. In March 1560, the provost held the important position of Ippolito's *vicelegato al patrimonio*: from Rome, he managed all the cardinal's payments and kept track of all his income and expenses. The cardinal of Ferrara obtained Trotti's appointment to the bishopric of Maurienne as a reward for the support that he had offered to Pius IV during the conclave that had led to his election. In a letter written to his nephew, Alfonso II, the Ippolito d'Este wrote that 'Nostro Signore ha dato a contemplation mia al Preposto Trotti il vescovato di Moriana, che si figura due mila ducati, de quali mille ne ha riservati di pensione a me per parte de la ricompensa di Milano et d'altri cinquecento si trova aggravato di pension vecchia, di modo che cinquecento almanco ne restano per il vescovo'. However, this decision of Pius IV – taken at the beginning of his pontificate, when he needed to please his electors – provoked a harsh dispute between the pope and the cardinal of Ferrara about two years later, when the cardinal received news that Pius IV was considering appointing a man of the duke of Savoy to Trotti's diocese. Given the old age of Ippolito's protégé, the pope's renewed interest in the bishopric of Maurienne was probably due to an illness of Brandelisio Trotti. However, the fact that Trotti had been appointed 'in contemplatione' implied that, in case of his death, Ippolito d'Este was expecting to succeed him to the benefice – or, at least, to appoint his successor. The dispute over Maurienne lasted for several months: on 31 December 1561, Ippolito angrily wrote to Rome that 'con questi romori si potrà pensare che levandolo [the bishopric of Maurienne] a quello a che io l'ho dato, ciò sia perché s'habbia mala opinione di me'. The developments of the controversy in the following months seem to suggest that, in the meantime, Brandelisio Trotti had died (although Eubel in his *Hierarchia catholica* lists him as the bishop of Maurienne until 1563). In a letter written from France in April 1562, when Pius IV's decision to appoint someone else to the bishopric seemed irreversible, Ippolito d'Este begged Cardinal Borromeo to grant him at least his pension of 1.000 scudi, because he doubted that any newly appointed bishop would be keen to pay him, and because he had already been prevented from cashing in his pension during the months when the controversy was going on. He also suggested that the Pius IV should produce a written statement to make clear that he had always intended to grant Ippolito that pension, that the former bishop ('the dead man') had been aware of it and

vols, Paris, 1715-1865*),* col. 590; Trisco, 'Carlo Borromeo', p. 62.

(Paris, 1983), pp. 123-127.

Figure 1. A timeline of Ippolito d'Este's dioceses and archdioceses

The Path of Pleasantness

61

I Both Saint Médard de Soissons and Saint-Pierre de Jumièges were promised to Ippolito by Francis I in 1536, when he also promised him the archdiocese of Lyon. Just as with Lyon, his possession of these two abbeys was officially recognised by Paul III only in 1539. Ippolito d'Este wrote to his brother, Duke Ercole, to inform him that Saint-Pierre was worth 4.000 *ducati* a year (or 10.000 livres), whilst Saint-Médard and the archbishopric of Lyon together were worth 18-20.000 livres a year: ASMO, CS, 145, 1709.II.34; Hollingsworth, *The Cardinal's Hat,* p. 214. The revenues of Saint-Médard are also mentioned in a list in ASMO, CS, 390 (undated). The papal nuncio confirmed in a letter to Rome that Francis I had promised Ippolito 'a good abbey and the bishopric of Lyon which would amount to 15.000 francs a

Table 2. French abbeys held *in commendam* by Ippolito d'Este

(year)

Saint-Médard de Soissons I 1539 5.500 livres Benedictine Saint-Pierre de Jumièges 1539 10.000 livres Benedictine Chaalis II 1541 15.000 livres Cistercian Flavigny III 1550 Benedictine Saint-Vivant de Vergy 1550 Benedictine Notre-Dame de l'Aumône IV 1551 Cistercian Saint-Étienne de Caen V 1557 Benedictine Beauport 1557 Premostratensian

Grandselve 1557 Cistercian Pontigny VI 1560 Cistercian Sainte-Trinité de Tiron 1560 Benedictine Notre-Dame de Breteuil 1560 Benedictine Saint-Chinian 1561 Benedictine Saint-Mesmin de Micy 1561 Benedictine Saint-Martin d'Ainay VII 1562 Benedictine

Prémontré VIII 1562 8.000 livres Premonstratensian

Saint-Georges de Boscherville 1563 4.000 livres Benedictine Saint-Laumer de Blois 1563 6.000 livres Benedictine Notre-Dame de Lyre 1563 8.000 livres Benedictine Longpont 1563 2.500 livres Cistercian Boulbonne 1563 8.000 livres Cistercian Sainte-Marie de Berteaucourt 1563 5.000 livres Benedictine

Revenue (if known) Religious order

Name From

#### Table 2. French abbeys held *in commendam* by Ippolito d'Este


I Both Saint Médard de Soissons and Saint-Pierre de Jumièges were promised to Ippolito by Francis I in 1536, when he also promised him the archdiocese of Lyon. Just as with Lyon, his possession of these two abbeys was officially recognised by Paul III only in 1539. Ippolito d'Este wrote to his brother, Duke Ercole, to inform him that Saint-Pierre was worth 4.000 *ducati* a year (or 10.000 livres), whilst Saint-Médard and the archbishopric of Lyon together were worth 18-20.000 livres a year: ASMO, CS, 145, 1709.II.34; Hollingsworth, *The Cardinal's Hat,* p. 214. The revenues of Saint-Médard are also mentioned in a list in ASMO, CS, 390 (undated). The papal nuncio confirmed in a letter to Rome that Francis I had promised Ippolito 'a good abbey and the bishopric of Lyon which would amount to 15.000 francs a

60

Figure 1. A timeline of Ippolito d'Este's dioceses and archdioceses

year, if he who possesses them, who is very ill, dies': the quotation is in McClung Hallman, *Italian Cardinals,* p. 43.

II Chaalis was given to Ippolito d'Este by Francis I in 1541, after he had gifted Francis I with an ewer and a basin crafted by the famous Italian goldsmith, Benvenuto Cellini. Cellini himself reports the episode in his autobiography, saying that, in return for his gift, Ippolito had received an abbey worth 7.000 *scudi*: Cellini, *Autobiography*, p. 259. Although Cellini does not mention its name, that the abbey in question was Chaalis is confirmed by both the year of the donation and the abbey's value, which roughly reflects the figure indicated in a list of benefices in the Archive of Modena (ASMO, CS, 390). Commenting on his latest acquisition, Ippolito d'Este wrote to Ercole II that the abbey was 'bellissima, lontana da Parigi non più di otto leghe, la residentia, il casamento et il sito sono bellissimi, è un luogo molto frequentato da Sua Maestà per le belle cacce': the quotation is in Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 67-68. Once appointed as *abbé commendataire*, Ippolito d'Este employed some of the most famous artists of the time to renovate the abbey: Sebastiano Serlio planned the architectural works and Primaticcio frescoed the chapel of Sainte-Marie. Ippolito's patronage of Chaalis is well known to art historians: S. Frommel, 'Le residenze del Cardinale Ippolito d'Este in Francia: il Grand Ferrare e Chaalis', in M. Folin and F. Ceccarelli (eds), *Delizie estensi. Architetture di villa nel Rinascimento italiano ed europeo* (Florence, 2009), pp. 387-417. See also the collective work J-P. Babelon (ed), *Primatice à Chaalis* (Paris, 2006).

III Both Flavigny and Saint-Vivant were obtained from Cardinal D'Ugny upon Ippolito's resignation of the diocese of Autun, in 1550: ASMO, CS, 148, 28 June 1550.

IV In 1561, Ippolito d'Este exchanged Aumône for Prémontré, held by Cardinal Francesco Pisani: ASMO, CS, 390, *Brevetto del re*; Lavagne d'Ortigue, 'Le temps de faux abbés', p. 165. The exchange of abbeys between Ippolito d'Este and Pisani displeased Pope Pius IV, especially because it took place at the time of Ippolito's legation to Paris. On his intention to acquire Prémontré from Pisani, Ippolito wrote to his Roman agent, Francesco Maria Visconti: 'In una permuta ch'io son per fare con monsignor reverendissimo Pisani dell'abbatia sua di Premonstre con la mia del piccolo Cistiaulex non ho mirato ad alcuno mio interesso o commodo particolare, […] essendomi mosso a ciò solo per la contentezza di quel signore et perché io ho veduto talvolta le cose di quella abadia in tal termini che ho dubitato che non intravenisse qualche strano accidente per sua signoria reverendissima et che non li foste levata, […] oltre che per essere la sua badia capo d'ordine et male intrattenuta da un pezzo in qua non potrò mantenerla se non con maggiore spesa di quello che facevo la mia': AAV, *Misc., Arm II,* 131, p. 40 (4 December 1561).

V The abbeys of Saint-Étienne de Caen, Grandselve and Beauport were assigned to Ippolito d'Este's following Henry II's decision, in October 1557, to confiscate all of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese's benefices in France – a punishment for Farnese's support for the king of Spain (although Farnese repossessed at least some of them only a few years later): Romier, *Les origines politiques,* ii*,* p. 90. According to the papal nuncio Lenzi, the abbeys acquired by Ippolito d'Este thanks to Farnese's spoliation were worth 30.000 francs: J. Lestocquoy (ed), *Correspondance des nonces en France: Lenzi et Gualterio, legatiòn du Cardinal Trivulzio (1557-1561)* (Rome, 1977), p. 105.

VI It seems that Cardinal du Bellay personally resigned Pontigny in favour of Ippolito d'Este just before his death. After du Bellay's death, in February 1560, Ippolito also received Sainte-Trinité de Tiron and Notre-Dame de Breteuil, which had also been du Bellay's. However, a dispute arose between the French monarchy and Pius IV on who had a right to assign du Bel-

63

lay's benefices. For this reason, Ippolito eventually received Tiron and Breteuil from the hands of Pope Pius IV rather than from the French monarch: Evennett, 'Pie IV et les bé-

VII Saint-Martin d'Ainay was one of the numerous benefices that fell vacant after Cardinal Tournon's death in April 1562. Ippolito d'Este resigned it in 1566, as requested him by the

VIII The revenues of Prémontré and of the following six abbeys are all from a list of Ippolito's

abbeys compiled between 1563 and 1564: ASMO, CS, 390 (undated).

néfices', pp. 442-461; 453.

French king: ASMO, CS, 410, 2056.XVIII.9.

lay's benefices. For this reason, Ippolito eventually received Tiron and Breteuil from the hands of Pope Pius IV rather than from the French monarch: Evennett, 'Pie IV et les bénéfices', pp. 442-461; 453.

VII Saint-Martin d'Ainay was one of the numerous benefices that fell vacant after Cardinal Tournon's death in April 1562. Ippolito d'Este resigned it in 1566, as requested him by the French king: ASMO, CS, 410, 2056.XVIII.9.

VIII The revenues of Prémontré and of the following six abbeys are all from a list of Ippolito's abbeys compiled between 1563 and 1564: ASMO, CS, 390 (undated).

62

VI It seems that Cardinal du Bellay personally resigned Pontigny in favour of Ippolito d'Este just before his death. After du Bellay's death, in February 1560, Ippolito also received Sainte-Trinité de Tiron and Notre-Dame de Breteuil, which had also been du Bellay's. However, a dispute arose between the French monarchy and Pius IV on who had a right to assign du Bel-

year, if he who possesses them, who is very ill, dies': the quotation is in McClung Hallman,

II Chaalis was given to Ippolito d'Este by Francis I in 1541, after he had gifted Francis I with an ewer and a basin crafted by the famous Italian goldsmith, Benvenuto Cellini. Cellini himself reports the episode in his autobiography, saying that, in return for his gift, Ippolito had received an abbey worth 7.000 *scudi*: Cellini, *Autobiography*, p. 259. Although Cellini does not mention its name, that the abbey in question was Chaalis is confirmed by both the year of the donation and the abbey's value, which roughly reflects the figure indicated in a list of benefices in the Archive of Modena (ASMO, CS, 390). Commenting on his latest acquisition, Ippolito d'Este wrote to Ercole II that the abbey was 'bellissima, lontana da Parigi non più di otto leghe, la residentia, il casamento et il sito sono bellissimi, è un luogo molto frequentato da Sua Maestà per le belle cacce': the quotation is in Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 67-68. Once appointed as *abbé commendataire*, Ippolito d'Este employed some of the most famous artists of the time to renovate the abbey: Sebastiano Serlio planned the architectural works and Primaticcio frescoed the chapel of Sainte-Marie. Ippolito's patronage of Chaalis is well known to art historians: S. Frommel, 'Le residenze del Cardinale Ippolito d'Este in Francia: il Grand Ferrare e Chaalis', in M. Folin and F. Ceccarelli (eds), *Delizie estensi. Architetture di villa nel Rinascimento italiano ed europeo* (Florence, 2009), pp. 387-417. See also the collective

III Both Flavigny and Saint-Vivant were obtained from Cardinal D'Ugny upon Ippolito's res-

IV In 1561, Ippolito d'Este exchanged Aumône for Prémontré, held by Cardinal Francesco Pisani: ASMO, CS, 390, *Brevetto del re*; Lavagne d'Ortigue, 'Le temps de faux abbés', p. 165. The exchange of abbeys between Ippolito d'Este and Pisani displeased Pope Pius IV, especially because it took place at the time of Ippolito's legation to Paris. On his intention to acquire Prémontré from Pisani, Ippolito wrote to his Roman agent, Francesco Maria Visconti: 'In una permuta ch'io son per fare con monsignor reverendissimo Pisani dell'abbatia sua di Premonstre con la mia del piccolo Cistiaulex non ho mirato ad alcuno mio interesso o commodo particolare, […] essendomi mosso a ciò solo per la contentezza di quel signore et perché io ho veduto talvolta le cose di quella abadia in tal termini che ho dubitato che non intravenisse qualche strano accidente per sua signoria reverendissima et che non li foste levata, […] oltre che per essere la sua badia capo d'ordine et male intrattenuta da un pezzo in qua non potrò mantenerla se non con maggiore spesa di quello che facevo la mia': AAV, *Misc.,* 

V The abbeys of Saint-Étienne de Caen, Grandselve and Beauport were assigned to Ippolito d'Este's following Henry II's decision, in October 1557, to confiscate all of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese's benefices in France – a punishment for Farnese's support for the king of Spain (although Farnese repossessed at least some of them only a few years later): Romier, *Les origines politiques,* ii*,* p. 90. According to the papal nuncio Lenzi, the abbeys acquired by Ippolito d'Este thanks to Farnese's spoliation were worth 30.000 francs: J. Lestocquoy (ed), *Correspondance des nonces en France: Lenzi et Gualterio, legatiòn du Cardinal Trivulzio* 

work J-P. Babelon (ed), *Primatice à Chaalis* (Paris, 2006).

*Arm II,* 131, p. 40 (4 December 1561).

*(1557-1561)* (Rome, 1977), p. 105.

ignation of the diocese of Autun, in 1550: ASMO, CS, 148, 28 June 1550.

*Italian Cardinals,* p. 43.

#### The Path of Pleasantness

Figure 2. A map of Ippolito d'Este's French ecclesiastical benefices

65

<sup>1</sup> 'If there is any authority over those lands, we believe that it lies in the cardinal of Ferrara'. From a note addressed by Julius III to his emissary to Siena, Giovanni Andrea Vimercato, on 12 August 1553: AAV,

**Chapter 3**

*Misc., Arm II*, 79, p. 139.

**Serving the king. The administration of Siena, 1552-1554**

The rivalry existing between the French kingdom and the Holy Roman Empire played a determining role in shaping the political destinies of the Italian states during the Renaissance. Between the end of the fifteenth century and the second half of the sixteenth century, Italy was the battleground for a series of micro-conflicts – collectively known as the 'Italian wars' – that involved the principal Italian rulers as well as France, the Empire, and the Holy See. In this scenario of ever-changing alliances and structural political tensions, every crisis had the potential to spread beyond its local borders and to provide the *casus belli* for the resumption of hostilities, which would inevitably entail the establishment of new alliances and counteralliances, in a political domino effect. The presence of foreign troops in the Italian northern regions – in Lombardy and in Piedmont – and the strong imbalance of military power between the European sovereigns and the Italian rulers had made the political survival of the latter highly dependent on the protection respectively offered by the king or the emperor and – consequently – on their own diplomatic resourcefulness in order never to alienate completely any of the political actors involved.

The presence of the papal territories, which covered a great portion of the Italian peninsula, contributed to the general frame of uncertainty, especially because its policies were never univocal but rather the combination of diverse interests – interests which could also abruptly change following the election of a new pope. This was the case, for instance, in 1545, when Pope Paul III Farnese decided to bestow, as a fief, the cities of Parma and Piacenza – part of the papal State – on his illegitimate son, Pier Luigi. This way, a new problematic political entity was added to the already fragmented Italian scene. When Pier Luigi Farnese, Duke of Parma and Piacenza, was suddenly murdered only a couple of years later, in 1547, the consequent political upheavals resulted in the resumption of the war between the French crown and

*Si commissione alcuna è dalle bande di qua, credemo che sia nel cardinale di Ferrara*

Pope Julius III1

# **Chapter 3 Serving the king. The administration of Siena, 1552-1554**

*Si commissione alcuna è dalle bande di qua, credemo che sia nel cardinale di Ferrara* Pope Julius III1

The rivalry existing between the French kingdom and the Holy Roman Empire played a determining role in shaping the political destinies of the Italian states during the Renaissance. Between the end of the fifteenth century and the second half of the sixteenth century, Italy was the battleground for a series of micro-conflicts – collectively known as the 'Italian wars' – that involved the principal Italian rulers as well as France, the Empire, and the Holy See. In this scenario of ever-changing alliances and structural political tensions, every crisis had the potential to spread beyond its local borders and to provide the *casus belli* for the resumption of hostilities, which would inevitably entail the establishment of new alliances and counteralliances, in a political domino effect. The presence of foreign troops in the Italian northern regions – in Lombardy and in Piedmont – and the strong imbalance of military power between the European sovereigns and the Italian rulers had made the political survival of the latter highly dependent on the protection respectively offered by the king or the emperor and – consequently – on their own diplomatic resourcefulness in order never to alienate completely any of the political actors involved.

The presence of the papal territories, which covered a great portion of the Italian peninsula, contributed to the general frame of uncertainty, especially because its policies were never univocal but rather the combination of diverse interests – interests which could also abruptly change following the election of a new pope. This was the case, for instance, in 1545, when Pope Paul III Farnese decided to bestow, as a fief, the cities of Parma and Piacenza – part of the papal State – on his illegitimate son, Pier Luigi. This way, a new problematic political entity was added to the already fragmented Italian scene. When Pier Luigi Farnese, Duke of Parma and Piacenza, was suddenly murdered only a couple of years later, in 1547, the consequent political upheavals resulted in the resumption of the war between the French crown and

Giulia Vidori, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, giulia.vidori@gmail.com

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

64

Figure 2. A map of Ippolito d'Este's French ecclesiastical benefices

65 65 Giulia Vidori, *The Path of Pleasantness. Ippolito II d'Este Between Ferrara, France and Rome*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2612-8071 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518-266-9 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-266-9

<sup>1</sup> 'If there is any authority over those lands, we believe that it lies in the cardinal of Ferrara'. From a note addressed by Julius III to his emissary to Siena, Giovanni Andrea Vimercato, on 12 August 1553: AAV, *Misc., Arm II*, 79, p. 139.

the Habsburgs, and in the exacerbation of the already strained relation between the Valois monarchy and the Holy See.2

By the beginning of 1551, the situation had reached a critical point: Charles V had occupied Piacenza and was claiming Parma, Paul III had died and Pier Luigi's son, Ottavio Farnese, was trying to protect his inheritance from both the emperor and the new pope, Julius III, who would have wanted to reintegrate Parma within the Church territories. Charles V and Julius III's ambitions for Parma had led Ottavio Farnese to seek an alliance with the Valois monarchy, the only power that could guarantee effective protection of his small dukedom. When the agreement between Ottavio and Henry II became formalised in May 1551, the pope abandoned any attempt to bring the issue to a pacific resolution; instead, he declared the removal of Ottavio from his title of duke and sought an alliance with the emperor Charles V. In just a few weeks, this situation rapidly degenerated into open war, in which the joint forces of Charles V and the pope opposed the French troops. This new scenario caused a breach of diplomatic relations between France and the papacy, and Henry II even ordered the papal nuncio, Cardinal Trivulzio, to take immediate leave of his court.<sup>3</sup> After less than a year of war, however, severe financial difficulties led the pope, once again, to seek a truce with the king of France and Ottavio Farnese. Charles V, who was struggling with the internal political and religious turmoil of his reign, adhered just a couple of weeks later: in April 1552, the war of Parma and Piacenza ended without any substantial modification to the *status quo ante,* and Parma remained with Ottavio Farnese.

Instead of inaugurating a period of peace, however, the end of the short war of Parma re-awakened the ambitions of the European potentates over the Italian region. The hostility between Henry II and Charles V was unchanged, as was Henry II's resentment towards Pope Julius III, who had taken the Imperial side. As one of the French military commanders in Italy, Blaise de Monluc, wrote in his memoirs many years after these events, the king of France still 'wished to trouble the emperor in Italy'. In order to do so, as we will see below, Henry II 'made the citizens of Siena revolt, so that the Spanish that were there were expelled […] and as these people saw themselves free, they put up the French emblem and begged the king for his help'.<sup>4</sup> Not surprisingly, the emperor saw the presence of a French contingent in Si-

67

<sup>6</sup> ASFI, Mdp, 1865, fo. 88r. See also Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 204-205. Cosimo de' Medici pointedly remarked that 'il duca di Ferrara finge non sapere niente': Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, p. 299. Romier argues that, after Ercole's refusal, the French chose Chioggia as a location in order to exert some

ena – although 'requested' by the Sienese citizens themselves – as a deliberate aggression and a threat to the precarious Italian equilibrium, fearing that 'after a foot, [the king of France] would have put all his body in'.<sup>5</sup> This way, Siena became the

Ippolito II d'Este, appointed as the 'general lieutenant and plenipotentiary' of the 'free Siena' by Henry II, was himself at the centre of this new chapter; for the only time in his political career, he acted as a direct emanation of the power of the French monarchy, and not just as the representative of their interest within the Catholic Church, as his role of cardinal protector entailed. This Sienese episode demonstrates the contentious loyalties that the cardinal owed and operated within: he could not afford fully to disavow his loyalty to the Church, yet here, in the complicated context of the Italian Wars, and in acting under the auspices of the French monarchy, he was in the equivocal position of potentially siding with a combatant against

As ever, and particularly, given the war scenario, this picture is complicated further by his familial obligations, and the existence of a local framework of alliances. These alliances and tensions come to the fore in the second part of this chapter, as Ippolito's attempts to channel French power in Siena are hindered by the irruption of the feud between Cosimo de' Medici and Piero Strozzi. Until this point, which also coincided with a loss of powers of the cardinal of Ferrara, he and Cosimo appear in parallel positions – forced to balance, but, also, keen to exploit, their foreign alle-

The decision to intervene in the rebellion of the Tuscan city had been taken during an official gathering of the highest French representatives in Italy – and Italian Francophiles – which was held in Chioggia, on 17 July 1552, only three months after the signing of the truce that ended the war of Parma. The choice had fallen on Chioggia, part of the Venetian territories, because Ercole II d'Este had refused to host the meeting in Ferrara, which would have been the French designated choice. The duke was struggling to keep some distance between Ferrara and the French monarchy and wished to maintain his state neutral. He therefore feared that his offering a seat for such a meeting would have been perceived by the emperor as a po-

*riusciti*, was not new. It had been discussed since the previous year, but its execution had to be put on hold due to the hostility that had arisen between the Valois and the pope, whose neutrality was deemed essential to the success of the coup. In the spring of 1552, Ippolito d'Este had, in his palace in Ferrara, hosted one of the principal Sienese conjurors, Giovanni Maria Benedetti, and had promised him to support the cause of 'the freedom of Siena' with King Henry II. On the discussions on Siena before 1552, see the sixteenth-century chronicle by A. Sozzini, 'Diario delle cose avvenute in Siena...', in *Archivio storico italiano* (Florence, 1842)*,* ii, pp. 28-63. On Charles V's acquisition of Siena, which dated back to 1530, see: A. K. Isaacs, 'Impero, Francia, Medici orientamenti politici e gruppi sociali a Siena nel primo Cinquecento', in *Firenze e la Toscana dei Medici nell'Europa del '500* (2 vols, Florence, 1983), i, pp. 249-270; J. Hook. 'Habsburg Imperialism and Italian Particularism: The Case of Charles V and Siena',

centre of a new chapter of the Italian wars.

giance in the context of the Italian political frame.

*European Studies Review,* 19/3 (1979), pp. 283-312.

<sup>5</sup> Monluc, *Commentaires*, ii, p. 3.

the pope.

litical statement.6

<sup>2</sup> For a chronological account of the long and complicated Italian wars, see: M. E. Mallett and C. Shaw, *The Italian Wars 1494-1559: War, State and Society in Early Modern Europe* (London, 2012), pp. 37- 288. See also A. Spagnoletti, 'Guerra, stati e signori in Italia nell'età di Carlo V', in M. Fantoni (ed), *Carlo V e l'Italia* (Rome, 2000), pp. 77-100. On Paul III's politics and Pier Luigi's investiture, see G. Fragnito, 'Il nepotismo farnesiano tra ragioni di Stato e ragioni di Chiesa', in E. Bonora and M. Gotor (eds), *Cinquecento italiano. Religione, cultura e potere dal Rinascimento alla Controriforma* (Bologna, 2011), pp. 220-230 and G. Tocci, 'Nel corridoio strategico-politico della pianura padana: Carlo V, Paolo III e la creazione del ducato farnesiano', in F. Cantù and M. A. Visceglia (eds), *Carlo V e l'Italia. Guerra, religione e politica nel primo Cinquecento* (Rome, 2003), ii, pp. 375-388. A historiographical review of the works available on this topic is in E. Fasano Guarini, '«Ètat moderne» et ancien ètats italiens. Èlements d'histoire comparée', *Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine*, 45 /1 (1998)', pp. 15-41. <sup>3</sup> In August 1551: Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 201.

<sup>4</sup> B. de Monluc, *Commentaires de Messire Blaise de Montluc Marechal de France…* (4 vols, Paris, 1746), ii, p. 2. The idea of a French incursion in Siena, strongly advocated for by a group of Sienese *fuo-*

ena – although 'requested' by the Sienese citizens themselves – as a deliberate aggression and a threat to the precarious Italian equilibrium, fearing that 'after a foot, [the king of France] would have put all his body in'.<sup>5</sup> This way, Siena became the centre of a new chapter of the Italian wars.

Ippolito II d'Este, appointed as the 'general lieutenant and plenipotentiary' of the 'free Siena' by Henry II, was himself at the centre of this new chapter; for the only time in his political career, he acted as a direct emanation of the power of the French monarchy, and not just as the representative of their interest within the Catholic Church, as his role of cardinal protector entailed. This Sienese episode demonstrates the contentious loyalties that the cardinal owed and operated within: he could not afford fully to disavow his loyalty to the Church, yet here, in the complicated context of the Italian Wars, and in acting under the auspices of the French monarchy, he was in the equivocal position of potentially siding with a combatant against the pope.

As ever, and particularly, given the war scenario, this picture is complicated further by his familial obligations, and the existence of a local framework of alliances. These alliances and tensions come to the fore in the second part of this chapter, as Ippolito's attempts to channel French power in Siena are hindered by the irruption of the feud between Cosimo de' Medici and Piero Strozzi. Until this point, which also coincided with a loss of powers of the cardinal of Ferrara, he and Cosimo appear in parallel positions – forced to balance, but, also, keen to exploit, their foreign allegiance in the context of the Italian political frame.

The decision to intervene in the rebellion of the Tuscan city had been taken during an official gathering of the highest French representatives in Italy – and Italian Francophiles – which was held in Chioggia, on 17 July 1552, only three months after the signing of the truce that ended the war of Parma. The choice had fallen on Chioggia, part of the Venetian territories, because Ercole II d'Este had refused to host the meeting in Ferrara, which would have been the French designated choice. The duke was struggling to keep some distance between Ferrara and the French monarchy and wished to maintain his state neutral. He therefore feared that his offering a seat for such a meeting would have been perceived by the emperor as a political statement.6

<sup>5</sup> Monluc, *Commentaires*, ii, p. 3.

66

<sup>4</sup> B. de Monluc, *Commentaires de Messire Blaise de Montluc Marechal de France…* (4 vols, Paris, 1746), ii, p. 2. The idea of a French incursion in Siena, strongly advocated for by a group of Sienese *fuo-*

<sup>2</sup> For a chronological account of the long and complicated Italian wars, see: M. E. Mallett and C. Shaw, *The Italian Wars 1494-1559: War, State and Society in Early Modern Europe* (London, 2012), pp. 37- 288. See also A. Spagnoletti, 'Guerra, stati e signori in Italia nell'età di Carlo V', in M. Fantoni (ed), *Carlo V e l'Italia* (Rome, 2000), pp. 77-100. On Paul III's politics and Pier Luigi's investiture, see G. Fragnito, 'Il nepotismo farnesiano tra ragioni di Stato e ragioni di Chiesa', in E. Bonora and M. Gotor (eds), *Cinquecento italiano. Religione, cultura e potere dal Rinascimento alla Controriforma* (Bologna, 2011), pp. 220-230 and G. Tocci, 'Nel corridoio strategico-politico della pianura padana: Carlo V, Paolo III e la creazione del ducato farnesiano', in F. Cantù and M. A. Visceglia (eds), *Carlo V e l'Italia. Guerra, religione e politica nel primo Cinquecento* (Rome, 2003), ii, pp. 375-388. A historiographical review of the works available on this topic is in E. Fasano Guarini, '«Ètat moderne» et ancien ètats italiens. Èlements d'histoire comparée', *Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine*, 45 /1 (1998)', pp. 15-41.

the Habsburgs, and in the exacerbation of the already strained relation between the

By the beginning of 1551, the situation had reached a critical point: Charles V had occupied Piacenza and was claiming Parma, Paul III had died and Pier Luigi's son, Ottavio Farnese, was trying to protect his inheritance from both the emperor and the new pope, Julius III, who would have wanted to reintegrate Parma within the Church territories. Charles V and Julius III's ambitions for Parma had led Ottavio Farnese to seek an alliance with the Valois monarchy, the only power that could guarantee effective protection of his small dukedom. When the agreement between Ottavio and Henry II became formalised in May 1551, the pope abandoned any attempt to bring the issue to a pacific resolution; instead, he declared the removal of Ottavio from his title of duke and sought an alliance with the emperor Charles V. In just a few weeks, this situation rapidly degenerated into open war, in which the joint forces of Charles V and the pope opposed the French troops. This new scenario caused a breach of diplomatic relations between France and the papacy, and Henry II even ordered the papal nuncio, Cardinal Trivulzio, to take immediate leave of his court.<sup>3</sup> After less than a year of war, however, severe financial difficulties led the pope, once again, to seek a truce with the king of France and Ottavio Farnese. Charles V, who was struggling with the internal political and religious turmoil of his reign, adhered just a couple of weeks later: in April 1552, the war of Parma and Piacenza ended without any substantial modification to the *status quo ante,* and Parma

Instead of inaugurating a period of peace, however, the end of the short war of Parma re-awakened the ambitions of the European potentates over the Italian region. The hostility between Henry II and Charles V was unchanged, as was Henry II's resentment towards Pope Julius III, who had taken the Imperial side. As one of the French military commanders in Italy, Blaise de Monluc, wrote in his memoirs many years after these events, the king of France still 'wished to trouble the emperor in Italy'. In order to do so, as we will see below, Henry II 'made the citizens of Siena revolt, so that the Spanish that were there were expelled […] and as these people saw themselves free, they put up the French emblem and begged the king for his help'.<sup>4</sup> Not surprisingly, the emperor saw the presence of a French contingent in Si-

Valois monarchy and the Holy See.2

remained with Ottavio Farnese.

<sup>3</sup> In August 1551: Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 201.

<sup>6</sup> ASFI, Mdp, 1865, fo. 88r. See also Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 204-205. Cosimo de' Medici pointedly remarked that 'il duca di Ferrara finge non sapere niente': Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, p. 299. Romier argues that, after Ercole's refusal, the French chose Chioggia as a location in order to exert some

*riusciti*, was not new. It had been discussed since the previous year, but its execution had to be put on hold due to the hostility that had arisen between the Valois and the pope, whose neutrality was deemed essential to the success of the coup. In the spring of 1552, Ippolito d'Este had, in his palace in Ferrara, hosted one of the principal Sienese conjurors, Giovanni Maria Benedetti, and had promised him to support the cause of 'the freedom of Siena' with King Henry II. On the discussions on Siena before 1552, see the sixteenth-century chronicle by A. Sozzini, 'Diario delle cose avvenute in Siena...', in *Archivio storico italiano* (Florence, 1842)*,* ii, pp. 28-63. On Charles V's acquisition of Siena, which dated back to 1530, see: A. K. Isaacs, 'Impero, Francia, Medici orientamenti politici e gruppi sociali a Siena nel primo Cinquecento', in *Firenze e la Toscana dei Medici nell'Europa del '500* (2 vols, Florence, 1983), i, pp. 249-270; J. Hook. 'Habsburg Imperialism and Italian Particularism: The Case of Charles V and Siena', *European Studies Review,* 19/3 (1979), pp. 283-312.

The purpose of the meeting was to deliberate on the next course of action in the war, and in particular on the possible ways to take advantage of the presence of those French troops that had remained quartered in Emilia after the truce of Parma. The chair of this conference in Chioggia was Ippolito d'Este. Under this circumstance, the cardinal had been forced to abandon his usual tact and to take a very strong political stance in favour of the king of France. Instead of going back to Rome – which he had left in June 1551, at the moment of the definitive rupture between Rome and Henry II – he addressed a letter to the pope in which he expressed his happiness about the recent reconciliation and in which he begged to be forgiven 'if at the time of the disagreement between you [Julius III] and the Most Christian King, I tried on many occasions to serve His Majesty'.<sup>7</sup> When, shortly after, the pope asked him to return to Rome, the cardinal refused; he had already devoted himself to the organisation of the gathering of the French representatives.

This episode was the peak of Ippolito's dedication to the defence of the interests of the Valois crown, and one of the very few circumstances in his long career – perhaps the only one – in which he failed to find a balance between the different powers to whom he owed loyalty. The exceptional situation of war certainly urged him to adopt such an exceptional stance. But behind this, there were also more personal and practical considerations. The cardinal's career was on the rise and he was challenging the position of predominance held by Cardinal Tournon – who was his elder by twenty years and an experienced diplomat – over the management of French affairs in Italy.<sup>8</sup> He was probably eager to demonstrate that his recent appointment to the protection of France had been a sensible choice: he had gained the trust of Henry II during the recent events of the war of Parma, when he had pawned 'what he had of value in his own house' in order to pay and to arm a column of soldiers who went to help the French troops besieged in the town of Mirandola (a contemporary observer – perhaps with a touch of hyperbole – wrote that 'if the cardinal had not put his hands [in this matter], Mirandola would have been lost').9 Furthermore, the decision of where next to deploy the French forces in Italy carried many consequences, not only for the Italian rulers (Este included), who were always exposed to the unsettling interventions of foreign powers, but also for some French families, who had personal interests or claims of ownership over some Italian territories. Amongst these was the powerful house of Guise, to which the cardinal of Ferrara had recently succeeded in tying his own kin by arranging the marriage of his niece Anna d'Este with the duke of Guise. The French dynasty was particularly keen to encourage a military in-

69

<sup>13</sup> Monluc, *Commentaires,* ii, p. 2. 14 Cosimo to Pierfilippo Pandolfini, 15 July 1552: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, pp. 314-315.

<sup>10</sup> C. Magoni, *I gigli d'oro e l'aquila bianca. Gli Estensi e la corte francese tra '400 e '500: un secolo di rapporti* (Ferrara, 2001)*,* p. 67; Carroll, *Martyrs and Murderers,* pp. 22-23. See also a letter of June 1551 sent by an anonymous writer from Paris to Cosimo de' Medici regarding the Guise's well-known

<sup>11</sup> ASFI, MdP, 1865, fos. 88r-88v. See also: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, p. 314; Sozzini, 'Diario'*,*  pp. 70-71. 12 It seems that the idea of Lombardy as a potential target came from Paul de Thermes: Pacifici, *Ippolito* 

ambitions over Naples: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, pp. 277-278.

tervention in the kingdom of Naples, as they could claim over that crown an old right of sovereignty, which derived from René of Anjou, duke of Lorraine and king

Two days before the French gathered in Chioggia, Cosimo de' Medici forwarded to his ambassador to the Imperial court, Pierfilippo Pandolfini, the dispatches that he had collected from some of his diplomatic emissaries about the upcoming meeting, in order to keep him posted on the identity of the participants and on the contrasting rumours he had heard about the intended target of their bellicose resolutions.11 The presence in Chioggia of both the prince of Salerno, exiled in Fce after having unsuccessfully opposed Charles V, and of the Tuscan *fuoriusciti*, who had been purged from Florence when Cosimo de' Medici had risen to power, made the outcome of the meeting quite unpredictable. It was indeed a varied group that gathered in Chioggia: besides Ippolito d'Este, there were French military officials such as Paul de Thermes; the other main representative of the clergy, Cardinal Tournon; French diplomats such as the ambassador to Venice, Odêt de Selve; and, of course, the prince of Salerno and a handful of Sienese and Florentine exiles, who had all been employed in the service of France, such as Giovanni Maria Benedetti, Cornelio

The discussions went on for three days, with different plans being presented and discussed before a resolution was reached. Besides the obvious suggestions made by the Prince of Salerno and by the group of Tuscan exiles, who were both advocating an intervention in their native territories, the idea of an attack on Lombardy was also considered.12 In his memoir, the French commander, Monluc, later attributes Henry II's decision to attack Siena to 'the manoeuvres and practices of certain cardinals who supported the king'<sup>13</sup> – a not very cryptic reference to Ippolito d'Este. This remark, however, seems to be ascribable to Monluc's personal distaste of Ippolito and of the French involvement in Tuscany. The surviving chronicles of the discussions that took place in Chioggia do not depict Ippolito d'Este as championing the Sienese coup at all, and we have already seen that his personal affiliations made him rather lean in favour of Naples. More reliable seem to be the words of one of Cosimo de' Medici's informers – who were collecting rumours on the French military plans – according to whom the idea of attacking the state of Milan, strongly supported by Paul de Thermes, had been opposed by 'the king's Italian ministers' – another reference to Ippolito d'Este – who supported the prince of Salerno and 'presented that

of Naples in the fifteenth century.10

Bentivoglio, and Girolamo da Pisa.

endeavour as very easy'.14

*II,* pp. 206-207 n. 2.

pressure on the Venetians and convince them to join an anti-Imperial league: Romier, *Les origines politiques*, i, p. 318 n. 3.

<sup>7</sup> From a letter written on 24 April 1552, quoted in Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 204 n. 1.

<sup>8</sup> Cardinal Tournon had personally negotiated the truce of Parma with the pope and he was the principal referent for the Sienese and Florentine *fuoriusciti.* The Prince of Salerno had also sent his secretary, Bernardo Tasso, to try to convince him to support a French attack against the king of Naples: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations*, iii, p. 309.

<sup>9</sup> 'La raggione è questa, che subito che le genti del papa che stava dentro detti forti per assediarli uscivano fuori, gli Imperiali vi entravano dentro, dove senza dubio sariano stati tanti, che l'haveriano presa, la qual cosa non poteno fare perché le genti che haveva fatta fare il cardinale di Ferrara […] furno i primi ad occupare detti forti': ASFI, Mdp, 1865, fo. 87v.

tervention in the kingdom of Naples, as they could claim over that crown an old right of sovereignty, which derived from René of Anjou, duke of Lorraine and king of Naples in the fifteenth century.10

Two days before the French gathered in Chioggia, Cosimo de' Medici forwarded to his ambassador to the Imperial court, Pierfilippo Pandolfini, the dispatches that he had collected from some of his diplomatic emissaries about the upcoming meeting, in order to keep him posted on the identity of the participants and on the contrasting rumours he had heard about the intended target of their bellicose resolutions.11 The presence in Chioggia of both the prince of Salerno, exiled in Fce after having unsuccessfully opposed Charles V, and of the Tuscan *fuoriusciti*, who had been purged from Florence when Cosimo de' Medici had risen to power, made the outcome of the meeting quite unpredictable. It was indeed a varied group that gathered in Chioggia: besides Ippolito d'Este, there were French military officials such as Paul de Thermes; the other main representative of the clergy, Cardinal Tournon; French diplomats such as the ambassador to Venice, Odêt de Selve; and, of course, the prince of Salerno and a handful of Sienese and Florentine exiles, who had all been employed in the service of France, such as Giovanni Maria Benedetti, Cornelio Bentivoglio, and Girolamo da Pisa. exiled in France

The discussions went on for three days, with different plans being presented and discussed before a resolution was reached. Besides the obvious suggestions made by the Prince of Salerno and by the group of Tuscan exiles, who were both advocating an intervention in their native territories, the idea of an attack on Lombardy was also considered.12 In his memoir, the French commander, Monluc, later attributes Henry II's decision to attack Siena to 'the manoeuvres and practices of certain cardinals who supported the king'<sup>13</sup> – a not very cryptic reference to Ippolito d'Este. This remark, however, seems to be ascribable to Monluc's personal distaste of Ippolito and of the French involvement in Tuscany. The surviving chronicles of the discussions that took place in Chioggia do not depict Ippolito d'Este as championing the Sienese coup at all, and we have already seen that his personal affiliations made him rather lean in favour of Naples. More reliable seem to be the words of one of Cosimo de' Medici's informers – who were collecting rumours on the French military plans – according to whom the idea of attacking the state of Milan, strongly supported by Paul de Thermes, had been opposed by 'the king's Italian ministers' – another reference to Ippolito d'Este – who supported the prince of Salerno and 'presented that endeavour as very easy'.14

68

pressure on the Venetians and convince them to join an anti-Imperial league: Romier, *Les origines poli-*

<sup>8</sup> Cardinal Tournon had personally negotiated the truce of Parma with the pope and he was the principal referent for the Sienese and Florentine *fuoriusciti.* The Prince of Salerno had also sent his secretary, Bernardo Tasso, to try to convince him to support a French attack against the king of Naples: Desjardins

<sup>9</sup> 'La raggione è questa, che subito che le genti del papa che stava dentro detti forti per assediarli uscivano fuori, gli Imperiali vi entravano dentro, dove senza dubio sariano stati tanti, che l'haveriano presa, la qual cosa non poteno fare perché le genti che haveva fatta fare il cardinale di Ferrara […] furno i primi

<sup>7</sup> From a letter written on 24 April 1552, quoted in Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 204 n. 1.

*tiques*, i, p. 318 n. 3.

(ed), *Négociations*, iii, p. 309.

ad occupare detti forti': ASFI, Mdp, 1865, fo. 87v.

The purpose of the meeting was to deliberate on the next course of action in the war, and in particular on the possible ways to take advantage of the presence of those French troops that had remained quartered in Emilia after the truce of Parma. The chair of this conference in Chioggia was Ippolito d'Este. Under this circumstance, the cardinal had been forced to abandon his usual tact and to take a very strong political stance in favour of the king of France. Instead of going back to Rome – which he had left in June 1551, at the moment of the definitive rupture between Rome and Henry II – he addressed a letter to the pope in which he expressed his happiness about the recent reconciliation and in which he begged to be forgiven 'if at the time of the disagreement between you [Julius III] and the Most Christian King, I tried on many occasions to serve His Majesty'.<sup>7</sup> When, shortly after, the pope asked him to return to Rome, the cardinal refused; he had already devoted him-

This episode was the peak of Ippolito's dedication to the defence of the interests of the Valois crown, and one of the very few circumstances in his long career – perhaps the only one – in which he failed to find a balance between the different powers to whom he owed loyalty. The exceptional situation of war certainly urged him to adopt such an exceptional stance. But behind this, there were also more personal and practical considerations. The cardinal's career was on the rise and he was challenging the position of predominance held by Cardinal Tournon – who was his elder by twenty years and an experienced diplomat – over the management of French affairs in Italy.<sup>8</sup> He was probably eager to demonstrate that his recent appointment to the protection of France had been a sensible choice: he had gained the trust of Henry II during the recent events of the war of Parma, when he had pawned 'what he had of value in his own house' in order to pay and to arm a column of soldiers who went to help the French troops besieged in the town of Mirandola (a contemporary observer – perhaps with a touch of hyperbole – wrote that 'if the cardinal had not put his hands [in this matter], Mirandola would have been lost').9 Furthermore, the decision of where next to deploy the French forces in Italy carried many consequences, not only for the Italian rulers (Este included), who were always exposed to the unsettling interventions of foreign powers, but also for some French families, who had personal interests or claims of ownership over some Italian territories. Amongst these was the powerful house of Guise, to which the cardinal of Ferrara had recently succeeded in tying his own kin by arranging the marriage of his niece Anna d'Este with the duke of Guise. The French dynasty was particularly keen to encourage a military in-

self to the organisation of the gathering of the French representatives.

<sup>10</sup> C. Magoni, *I gigli d'oro e l'aquila bianca. Gli Estensi e la corte francese tra '400 e '500: un secolo di rapporti* (Ferrara, 2001)*,* p. 67; Carroll, *Martyrs and Murderers,* pp. 22-23. See also a letter of June 1551 sent by an anonymous writer from Paris to Cosimo de' Medici regarding the Guise's well-known ambitions over Naples: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, pp. 277-278.

<sup>11</sup> ASFI, MdP, 1865, fos. 88r-88v. See also: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, p. 314; Sozzini, 'Diario'*,*  pp. 70-71. 12 It seems that the idea of Lombardy as a potential target came from Paul de Thermes: Pacifici, *Ippolito* 

*II,* pp. 206-207 n. 2.

<sup>13</sup> Monluc, *Commentaires,* ii, p. 2. 14 Cosimo to Pierfilippo Pandolfini, 15 July 1552: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, pp. 314-315.

#### The Path of Pleasantness

It is not difficult to understand why Ippolito, the brother of the duke of Ferrara, should prefer targeting Naples rather than the state of Milan: an attack against Lombardy would have inevitably affected his brother's dukedom – Ercole's lands would have been criss-crossed by French troops and the western border of the duchy would have been, once again, ravaged by war.<sup>15</sup> Siena was not as close to Ferrara as Milan, but yet the 'liberation' of the city – an action that had all the potential of degenerating into open war in Tuscany – would have presented more than one difficulty to a man in Ippolito's position. It would have necessarily involved Siena's immediate neighbour, the duke of Florence, with whom the Estense had always been in competition (although under the mask of a tactful politeness). In the equilibrium of the Italian states, and after the upheavals caused by the war of Parma, the Este viewed a situation of open hostility with the duke of Florence as neither desirable nor sustainable.

Therefore, when the idea of supporting the prince of Salerno's revenge against Charles V was eventually rejected due to its military unfeasibility, it took the Sienese *fuoriusciti* a good deal of persuasion to win over the cardinal of Ferrara. He first asked them for a written statement signed by all the conspirators and then, only when offered the argument of the dangers of their producing such a document without arousing any Spanish suspicion, offered his reluctant support to the cause.<sup>16</sup> The cardinal convinced the prince of Salerno that a French venture in Naples would have been, in that moment, 'not just difficult but extremely difficult'. In order not to alienate his French sympathies, Salerno was kept unaware of the parallel negotiation regarding Siena. The cardinal recommended he be patient and wait for a better chance: a defeat of the Spanish in Siena was not only achievable but would have also provided the king of France with an ideal launch-pad from which to proceed to the conquest of Naples<sup>17</sup> – and we will see that, even after the fall of Siena, Ippolito kept supporting the idea of a naval attack against the southern kingdom.

The outcome of the conference was kept carefully secret. Contrasting news on what had happened in Chioggia spread after the French ministers parted ways: Don Diego de Mendoza, the governor of Siena and Spanish ambassador to Rome, believed that nothing had been decided ('When the conference of Chioggia finished, rumour spread that those French lords had not concluded anything, because the Imperials started to say that that conference had been a waste of time [*una dieta di meloni*], and Don Diego was saying the same').18 The Spanish governor even decided to reduce the number of his men in Siena in order to patrol the coastline in case a naval attack was launched against the kingdom of Naples, which he thought to be a more likely military target; whilst Don Ferrante Gonzaga, governor of Milan, feared

71

<sup>19</sup> Similarly, the papal nuncio to Germany, Pietro Camaiani, was unable to tell whether the French had decided to move against Naples, Milan or Siena: R. Cantagalli*, Cosimo I de' Medici granduca di Tos-*

<sup>20</sup> Cosimo concluded by saying that the French would not try anything before having received clear instructions from the king and that 'a voler fare cosa segnalata nel regno o nel stato di Milano, era necessario che il Re venisse in Italia': Cosimo to Pierfilippo Pandolfini, 20 July 52: Desjardins (ed), *Négocia-*

<sup>21</sup> Cosimo to Pierfilippo Pandolfini, on 20 July 1552. The duke also added that 'non potrà patire quello

<sup>22</sup> The days of the upsurge against Charles V are narrated by Sozzini, 'Diario', pp. 73-88. See also:

<sup>23</sup> ASFI, MdP, 1865, fos. 91r-92v. 24 This anonymous dispatch – 'Notitia di alcuni avvisi di Siena' – is dated 'August 1552': ASFI, MdP,

stato [Siena] sinistro alcuno, che non ne patisca anco il nostro': ibid.*,* iii, pp. 317-318.

410, fos. 810r-810v. The same story is told by Sozzini, 'Diario', p. 79.

an incursion in Lombardy.<sup>19</sup> Even Cosimo de' Medici, who had always been very suspicious of the political *liaison* between the Tuscan exiles and the Valois monarchy, did not believe that the French would have marched their army to Tuscany, even though he had been carefully following the plots of the Tuscan *fuoriusciti*. On the contrary, he wrote to his envoy to Germany that the hopes of both the *fuoriusciti*  and the prince of Salerno had been quashed and that 'no certain resolution was taken […] but Siena was really doubtful [as a target]; it is believed that they will turn themselves to harass the state of Milan'.<sup>20</sup> As a preventive measure, therefore, the duke decided to improve the defences of some Florentine castles and strongholds close to the Sienese border, in the belief that, all considered, 'if the French venture

The expulsion of the Spanish from Siena worked out according to what had been planned during the meeting in Chioggia. On 26 July 1552, an army of Italians and French, led by one of the leaders of the Sienese exiles, Enea Piccolomini, arrived beneath the walls of the city. At the same time, the people inside rose against Mendoza's troops, and managed to open some of the doors and let the soldiers from outside burst into the city. Over the following day, the Spanish troops were forced to retreat into the citadel, where they remained besieged by the Sienese and the French for a few days, until an official agreement allowed the Imperial soldiers to leave the

Paul de Thermes, who, after the meeting in Chioggia, had returned to Ferrara with Ippolito d'Este, arrived in Siena on 11 August – apparently provided with a sum of money, by the cardinal of Ferrara, in order to pay the soldiers.23 An anonymous informer from within the city walls wrote to Cosimo that, after the Republic of Siena had officially accepted the protection of the king of France, all the Sienese authorities had left the Palazzo Pubblico (the town hall) and, accompanied by Paul de Thermes, had unfolded a white standard decorated with golden fleur-de-lis. With that – and shouting 'freedom, freedom!' and 'France, France!' – they had gone to the Duomo to praise the Lord for their recently retrieved freedom; from there, they had walked to the citadel*,* where, using hammers, picks and other tools, they began to destroy the Spanish fort (Porta Camollia) – with the rest of the population, including women and children, soon following.<sup>24</sup> The atmosphere of euphoria that sur-

to Siena, it cannot be that they will not harass our state'.<sup>21</sup>

city.<sup>22</sup>

*cana* (Milan, 1985), p. 183.

Hook, *The Fall of Siena*, pp. 187-188.

*tions*, iii, p. 316.

<sup>15</sup> Romier, *Les origines politiques*, i, p. 320-322. According to Romier, the 'first artisan' of the Sienese rebellion had been Cardinal Tournon, convinced and supported by the Tuscan exile Giovanni Maria Benedetti.

<sup>16</sup> ASFI, MdP, 1865, fos. 89r-89v. 17 Ibid, fo. 90v.

<sup>18</sup> Ibid.

an incursion in Lombardy.<sup>19</sup> Even Cosimo de' Medici, who had always been very suspicious of the political *liaison* between the Tuscan exiles and the Valois monarchy, did not believe that the French would have marched their army to Tuscany, even though he had been carefully following the plots of the Tuscan *fuoriusciti*. On the contrary, he wrote to his envoy to Germany that the hopes of both the *fuoriusciti*  and the prince of Salerno had been quashed and that 'no certain resolution was taken […] but Siena was really doubtful [as a target]; it is believed that they will turn themselves to harass the state of Milan'.<sup>20</sup> As a preventive measure, therefore, the duke decided to improve the defences of some Florentine castles and strongholds close to the Sienese border, in the belief that, all considered, 'if the French venture to Siena, it cannot be that they will not harass our state'.<sup>21</sup>

The expulsion of the Spanish from Siena worked out according to what had been planned during the meeting in Chioggia. On 26 July 1552, an army of Italians and French, led by one of the leaders of the Sienese exiles, Enea Piccolomini, arrived beneath the walls of the city. At the same time, the people inside rose against Mendoza's troops, and managed to open some of the doors and let the soldiers from outside burst into the city. Over the following day, the Spanish troops were forced to retreat into the citadel, where they remained besieged by the Sienese and the French for a few days, until an official agreement allowed the Imperial soldiers to leave the city.<sup>22</sup>

Paul de Thermes, who, after the meeting in Chioggia, had returned to Ferrara with Ippolito d'Este, arrived in Siena on 11 August – apparently provided with a sum of money, by the cardinal of Ferrara, in order to pay the soldiers.23 An anonymous informer from within the city walls wrote to Cosimo that, after the Republic of Siena had officially accepted the protection of the king of France, all the Sienese authorities had left the Palazzo Pubblico (the town hall) and, accompanied by Paul de Thermes, had unfolded a white standard decorated with golden fleur-de-lis. With that – and shouting 'freedom, freedom!' and 'France, France!' – they had gone to the Duomo to praise the Lord for their recently retrieved freedom; from there, they had walked to the citadel*,* where, using hammers, picks and other tools, they began to destroy the Spanish fort (Porta Camollia) – with the rest of the population, including women and children, soon following.<sup>24</sup> The atmosphere of euphoria that sur-

70

<sup>15</sup> Romier, *Les origines politiques*, i, p. 320-322. According to Romier, the 'first artisan' of the Sienese rebellion had been Cardinal Tournon, convinced and supported by the Tuscan exile Giovanni Maria

It is not difficult to understand why Ippolito, the brother of the duke of Ferrara, should prefer targeting Naples rather than the state of Milan: an attack against Lombardy would have inevitably affected his brother's dukedom – Ercole's lands would have been criss-crossed by French troops and the western border of the duchy would have been, once again, ravaged by war.<sup>15</sup> Siena was not as close to Ferrara as Milan, but yet the 'liberation' of the city – an action that had all the potential of degenerating into open war in Tuscany – would have presented more than one difficulty to a man in Ippolito's position. It would have necessarily involved Siena's immediate neighbour, the duke of Florence, with whom the Estense had always been in competition (although under the mask of a tactful politeness). In the equilibrium of the Italian states, and after the upheavals caused by the war of Parma, the Este viewed a situation of open hostility with the duke of Florence as neither desirable nor sustaina-

Therefore, when the idea of supporting the prince of Salerno's revenge against Charles V was eventually rejected due to its military unfeasibility, it took the Sienese *fuoriusciti* a good deal of persuasion to win over the cardinal of Ferrara. He first asked them for a written statement signed by all the conspirators and then, only when offered the argument of the dangers of their producing such a document without arousing any Spanish suspicion, offered his reluctant support to the cause.<sup>16</sup> The cardinal convinced the prince of Salerno that a French venture in Naples would have been, in that moment, 'not just difficult but extremely difficult'. In order not to alienate his French sympathies, Salerno was kept unaware of the parallel negotiation regarding Siena. The cardinal recommended he be patient and wait for a better chance: a defeat of the Spanish in Siena was not only achievable but would have also provided the king of France with an ideal launch-pad from which to proceed to the conquest of Naples<sup>17</sup> – and we will see that, even after the fall of Siena, Ippolito

The outcome of the conference was kept carefully secret. Contrasting news on what had happened in Chioggia spread after the French ministers parted ways: Don Diego de Mendoza, the governor of Siena and Spanish ambassador to Rome, believed that nothing had been decided ('When the conference of Chioggia finished, rumour spread that those French lords had not concluded anything, because the Imperials started to say that that conference had been a waste of time [*una dieta di meloni*], and Don Diego was saying the same').18 The Spanish governor even decided to reduce the number of his men in Siena in order to patrol the coastline in case a naval attack was launched against the kingdom of Naples, which he thought to be a more likely military target; whilst Don Ferrante Gonzaga, governor of Milan, feared

kept supporting the idea of a naval attack against the southern kingdom.

ble.

Benedetti.

<sup>18</sup> Ibid.

<sup>16</sup> ASFI, MdP, 1865, fos. 89r-89v. 17 Ibid, fo. 90v.

<sup>19</sup> Similarly, the papal nuncio to Germany, Pietro Camaiani, was unable to tell whether the French had decided to move against Naples, Milan or Siena: R. Cantagalli*, Cosimo I de' Medici granduca di Toscana* (Milan, 1985), p. 183.

<sup>20</sup> Cosimo concluded by saying that the French would not try anything before having received clear instructions from the king and that 'a voler fare cosa segnalata nel regno o nel stato di Milano, era necessario che il Re venisse in Italia': Cosimo to Pierfilippo Pandolfini, 20 July 52: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations*, iii, p. 316.

<sup>21</sup> Cosimo to Pierfilippo Pandolfini, on 20 July 1552. The duke also added that 'non potrà patire quello stato [Siena] sinistro alcuno, che non ne patisca anco il nostro': ibid.*,* iii, pp. 317-318.

<sup>22</sup> The days of the upsurge against Charles V are narrated by Sozzini, 'Diario', pp. 73-88. See also: Hook, *The Fall of Siena*, pp. 187-188.

<sup>23</sup> ASFI, MdP, 1865, fos. 91r-92v. 24 This anonymous dispatch – 'Notitia di alcuni avvisi di Siena' – is dated 'August 1552': ASFI, MdP, 410, fos. 810r-810v. The same story is told by Sozzini, 'Diario', p. 79.

#### The Path of Pleasantness

rounded the first moments of the liberation was also confirmed to the duke of Florence by his resident ambassador in Siena, Leone Ricasoli, who wrote to his lord to inform him that 'these people have so much faith and hope in these things of France, and so much happiness about what might come, that even if they only have six thousand men in their army, they seem to fear nothing'.25 Cosimo I, outlining to Charles V the information that he had obtained on the political and military situation of Siena in the immediate aftermath of the revolt, informed him that 'the universal [part] of the city leans towards the French, and they are sure that His Majesty would not forgive their past mistakes, and they fear him; and that fear makes them easily acquiesce to the will of these French ministers'.<sup>26</sup>

In August 1552, Henry II appointed Ippolito II d'Este to govern the Tuscan city on his behalf (whilst Paul de Thermes remained in charge as the leader of the French army). In September, the news reached the cardinal in Ferrara, where he had remained and from where he had been following the developments of the rebellion.<sup>27</sup> Ippolito hesitated; in his own words, he was very reluctant to accept and eventually 'took up this burden' only because he was 'forced by the king' – as he wrote in a letter to Archbishop Sauli.28 A Florentine agent in Ferrara, however, insinuated that not only had Ippolito been seeking the appointment, but that he had also managed to obtain the removal of the Sienese cardinal Fabio Mignanelli, who, in August, had been hurriedly appointed *legatus a latere* to Siena by Julius III in order to help govern the city, and with whom the more powerful cardinal of Ferrara had no intention of sharing his authority.29 Mignanelli aside, there were also more dangerous competitors: cardinal Alessandro Farnese had insistently tried to replace Mignanelli in the legation. As Farnese was one of the richest and most powerful cardinals in the Curia, his chances of fulfilling his desire were probably higher than those of anyone else.<sup>30</sup> At the same time, the group of the Tuscan *fuoriusciti* who were spending their exile at the Valois court were – quite obviously – willing to see one of them appointed to rule Siena, and they could count on the influence of Henry's wife, Catherine de' Medici, who had taken them under her protection.31 In Italy as well as in France, the Sienese upsurge had triggered more than one political mechanism, and, already at the beginning of August, there was not much room left in which to manoeuvre – not even for someone as influential as Ippolito d'Este. Although he had not been amongst the early Sienese enthusiasts – or, maybe, exactly because of that – to allow someone else to be appointed to govern Siena would have been a *faux pas* for the cardinal's career, especially as the protector of the French affairs in Italy. It is possi-

73

fifty Swiss guards: Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 212.

<sup>32</sup> Romier, *Les origines politiques*, i, pp. 331-332. 33 The resentment and hostility that characterised Sienese political life was well known to king Henry II, who, in August, addressed a letter to the city recommending everyone to drop their 'haines particulìers, les passions et les injures, qui ont eu cours parmi vous, et par quoi vous tombates dans le malheur et la necessité, d'où nous vous avons retires': ibid.*,* p. 325. For an outline of the political life of Siena as a republic and under the Empire, see: J. Hook, *Siena. A City and its History* (London, 1979), pp. 172-183. 34 Ippolito d'Este arrived in Siena in the evening of 1 November 1552 and met the representatives of the city on the following day. To their manifestations of friendliness, he replied by saying that he 'non saria mai per perdonar a cosa alcuna per conservarli in quella maggior libertà che havessero mai': ASMO, CS*,* 149, 1709.XVIII.8. The cardinal's household included four-hundred men, three-hundred horses and

ble, then, that Ippolito asked for support from the Guise, his powerful French relatives, in order to be assigned the lieutenancy over his other competitors – as Lucien Romier claimed – and that the 'reluctance' he displayed when his appointment was made public was only due to his 'hypocrisy'.32 The governance of Siena was a task the performance of which would have proved difficult to anyone; in the case of Ippolito d'Este, the task was certainly made even harder by his personal political position, which needed to be constantly renegotiated both with the other Italian players (above all, Rome and the Florence of Cosimo de' Medici) and with the other French representatives in Italy, secular and ecclesiastical. The cardinal's affiliation to both the Church and the duchy of Ferrara made it necessary for him to minimise the perception that his thirst for French power had made him an unconditional supporter of an enterprise that had the potential to upset all the Italian equilibria, especially if he wanted to preserve his and his brother's friendship with the suspicious duke of Flor-

After his promotion to the much sought-after position of cardinal protector of France, however, the mission to Siena confirmed Ippolito's position at the very top of French diplomacy in Italy. The moment was critical: the hostility between the Valois and the pope – and the recrudescence of the war with the Habsburgs – had made, as we have seen, the fragile political balance of the Italian states even more uncertain. The fact that he was both a Roman cardinal and a 'French minister', however, made him a particularly suitable candidate to be the link between the Valois monarchy and Julius III, whilst the fact that he also was an Italian prince – and had a much better understanding of the Italian political scene than any other French candidate – could have made him more easily accepted by the Sienese. The mission to Siena was a particularly difficult task also because of the inner divisions and hostilities that had marked the history of the city in the previous decades and that, at the time of Ippolito's appointment, were anything but resolved.<sup>33</sup> Despite the expected difficulties, the cardinal wrote in very optimistic terms to his brother, Duke Ercole II, saying that he had been very well received by the Sienese authorities upon arrival: they 'let me know with many words that not only they are very thankful and devoted to His Majesty, but also that they are immensely happy to see me in this place'.<sup>34</sup> A slightly different opinion, however, was expressed by the Florentine ambassador, Leone Ricasoli, who wrote to Duke Cosimo that 'the most illustrious and reverend Ferrara had been received very warmly, but not as warmly as cardinal Mignanelli': the Sienese feared his 'greatness' and his interference in the government of the Re-

ence.

<sup>25</sup> ASFI, MdP, 410, fo. 484 (12 August 1552). 26 Cosimo also added that the French, in order to gain the trust of the Sienese citizens, were careful to show that they were seeking nothing but the city's freedom and safety: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,*  iii, p. 326.

<sup>27</sup> As his 'general lieutenant' in Italy, Ippolito was also assigned a pension of 12.000 golden *scudi*: Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 210-211.

<sup>28</sup> Romier, *Les origines politiques*, i, p. 331. See also ASFI, MdP, 1865, fo. 92v.

<sup>29</sup> Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, p. 332.

<sup>30</sup> ASFI, MdP, 1851, fo. 26 (6 September 1552).

<sup>31</sup> On the relationship between the queen and the *fuoriusciti,* see H. Heller, *Anti-Italianism in Sixteenth-Century France* (Toronto, 2003), pp. 94-95.

ble, then, that Ippolito asked for support from the Guise, his powerful French relatives, in order to be assigned the lieutenancy over his other competitors – as Lucien Romier claimed – and that the 'reluctance' he displayed when his appointment was made public was only due to his 'hypocrisy'.32 The governance of Siena was a task the performance of which would have proved difficult to anyone; in the case of Ippolito d'Este, the task was certainly made even harder by his personal political position, which needed to be constantly renegotiated both with the other Italian players (above all, Rome and the Florence of Cosimo de' Medici) and with the other French representatives in Italy, secular and ecclesiastical. The cardinal's affiliation to both the Church and the duchy of Ferrara made it necessary for him to minimise the perception that his thirst for French power had made him an unconditional supporter of an enterprise that had the potential to upset all the Italian equilibria, especially if he wanted to preserve his and his brother's friendship with the suspicious duke of Florence.

After his promotion to the much sought-after position of cardinal protector of France, however, the mission to Siena confirmed Ippolito's position at the very top of French diplomacy in Italy. The moment was critical: the hostility between the Valois and the pope – and the recrudescence of the war with the Habsburgs – had made, as we have seen, the fragile political balance of the Italian states even more uncertain. The fact that he was both a Roman cardinal and a 'French minister', however, made him a particularly suitable candidate to be the link between the Valois monarchy and Julius III, whilst the fact that he also was an Italian prince – and had a much better understanding of the Italian political scene than any other French candidate – could have made him more easily accepted by the Sienese. The mission to Siena was a particularly difficult task also because of the inner divisions and hostilities that had marked the history of the city in the previous decades and that, at the time of Ippolito's appointment, were anything but resolved.<sup>33</sup> Despite the expected difficulties, the cardinal wrote in very optimistic terms to his brother, Duke Ercole II, saying that he had been very well received by the Sienese authorities upon arrival: they 'let me know with many words that not only they are very thankful and devoted to His Majesty, but also that they are immensely happy to see me in this place'.<sup>34</sup> A slightly different opinion, however, was expressed by the Florentine ambassador, Leone Ricasoli, who wrote to Duke Cosimo that 'the most illustrious and reverend Ferrara had been received very warmly, but not as warmly as cardinal Mignanelli': the Sienese feared his 'greatness' and his interference in the government of the Re-

72

<sup>25</sup> ASFI, MdP, 410, fo. 484 (12 August 1552). 26 Cosimo also added that the French, in order to gain the trust of the Sienese citizens, were careful to show that they were seeking nothing but the city's freedom and safety: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* 

<sup>27</sup> As his 'general lieutenant' in Italy, Ippolito was also assigned a pension of 12.000 golden *scudi*: Paci-

<sup>31</sup> On the relationship between the queen and the *fuoriusciti,* see H. Heller, *Anti-Italianism in Sixteenth-*

<sup>28</sup> Romier, *Les origines politiques*, i, p. 331. See also ASFI, MdP, 1865, fo. 92v.

rounded the first moments of the liberation was also confirmed to the duke of Florence by his resident ambassador in Siena, Leone Ricasoli, who wrote to his lord to inform him that 'these people have so much faith and hope in these things of France, and so much happiness about what might come, that even if they only have six thousand men in their army, they seem to fear nothing'.25 Cosimo I, outlining to Charles V the information that he had obtained on the political and military situation of Siena in the immediate aftermath of the revolt, informed him that 'the universal [part] of the city leans towards the French, and they are sure that His Majesty would not forgive their past mistakes, and they fear him; and that fear makes them easily ac-

In August 1552, Henry II appointed Ippolito II d'Este to govern the Tuscan city on his behalf (whilst Paul de Thermes remained in charge as the leader of the French army). In September, the news reached the cardinal in Ferrara, where he had remained and from where he had been following the developments of the rebellion.<sup>27</sup> Ippolito hesitated; in his own words, he was very reluctant to accept and eventually 'took up this burden' only because he was 'forced by the king' – as he wrote in a letter to Archbishop Sauli.28 A Florentine agent in Ferrara, however, insinuated that not only had Ippolito been seeking the appointment, but that he had also managed to obtain the removal of the Sienese cardinal Fabio Mignanelli, who, in August, had been hurriedly appointed *legatus a latere* to Siena by Julius III in order to help govern the city, and with whom the more powerful cardinal of Ferrara had no intention of sharing his authority.29 Mignanelli aside, there were also more dangerous competitors: cardinal Alessandro Farnese had insistently tried to replace Mignanelli in the legation. As Farnese was one of the richest and most powerful cardinals in the Curia, his chances of fulfilling his desire were probably higher than those of anyone else.<sup>30</sup> At the same time, the group of the Tuscan *fuoriusciti* who were spending their exile at the Valois court were – quite obviously – willing to see one of them appointed to rule Siena, and they could count on the influence of Henry's wife, Catherine de' Medici, who had taken them under her protection.31 In Italy as well as in France, the Sienese upsurge had triggered more than one political mechanism, and, already at the beginning of August, there was not much room left in which to manoeuvre – not even for someone as influential as Ippolito d'Este. Although he had not been amongst the early Sienese enthusiasts – or, maybe, exactly because of that – to allow someone else to be appointed to govern Siena would have been a *faux pas* for the cardinal's career, especially as the protector of the French affairs in Italy. It is possi-

quiesce to the will of these French ministers'.<sup>26</sup>

iii, p. 326.

fici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 210-211.

<sup>29</sup> Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, p. 332. <sup>30</sup> ASFI, MdP, 1851, fo. 26 (6 September 1552).

*Century France* (Toronto, 2003), pp. 94-95.

<sup>32</sup> Romier, *Les origines politiques*, i, pp. 331-332. 33 The resentment and hostility that characterised Sienese political life was well known to king Henry II, who, in August, addressed a letter to the city recommending everyone to drop their 'haines particulìers, les passions et les injures, qui ont eu cours parmi vous, et par quoi vous tombates dans le malheur et la necessité, d'où nous vous avons retires': ibid.*,* p. 325. For an outline of the political life of Siena as a republic and under the Empire, see: J. Hook, *Siena. A City and its History* (London, 1979), pp. 172-183. 34 Ippolito d'Este arrived in Siena in the evening of 1 November 1552 and met the representatives of the

city on the following day. To their manifestations of friendliness, he replied by saying that he 'non saria mai per perdonar a cosa alcuna per conservarli in quella maggior libertà che havessero mai': ASMO, CS*,* 149, 1709.XVIII.8. The cardinal's household included four-hundred men, three-hundred horses and fifty Swiss guards: Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 212.

public – and Ricasoli therefore concluded that 'everyone is awaiting, and if His Lordship will lend his ear to their words and passions he will indeed be very busy'.<sup>35</sup>

# **1. Seeking peace. The cardinal between Siena, Rome and Florence<sup>36</sup>**

The role played by Julius III during the French protection of Siena greatly influenced the outcome of the whole episode. The attempts made by papal diplomacy to secure an agreement between France and the Empire on the future of the city, and especially to avoid provoking a new fire of war in central Italy,<sup>37</sup> kept the Curia busy during the spring and the summer of 1553. This outburst of diplomatic activity had been induced, in the previous months, by a succession of upsetting events that had enhanced the pope's wish to pacify Siena as soon as possible. The viceroy of Naples (Cosimo de' Medici's father-in-law) in January 1553 had left his kingdom to march his troops to Siena, where his son, Don Garcìa, had attacked and destroyed several lands in Sienese territory and laid siege to the town of Montalcino; Cosimo de' Medici had been forced by the turn of the events to take more openly the side of the emperor, to grant some help to the troops of his father-in-law and to offer his state as the base camp for supplies and soldiers; the Valois monarchy was negotiating for the return of the Turkish armada to the Italian seas, where their previous incursion had been so effective as to destroy completely the papal town of Gaeta.<sup>38</sup>

Julius III had seemingly no intention of offering his unconditional support to one of the contenders and was rather aiming to find a solution that would drive both the French and the Spanish out of Siena. The pope's sympathies, however, leaned

75

<sup>39</sup> Cosimo's diplomacy in these years is analysed in A. Contini, 'Aspects of Medicean Diplomacy in the Sixteenth Century', in D. Frigo (ed), *Politics and Diplomacy in Early Modern Italy. The Structure of Diplomatic Practice, 1450-1800* (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 49-94. On the Medici-Toledo alliance, see: C. J. Hernando Sánchez, 'Naples and Florence in Charles V's Italy: Family, Court and Government in the Toledo-Medici alliance', in T. J. Dandelet and J. Marino (eds), *Spain in Italy. Politics, Society, and Religion, 1500-1700* (Leiden, 2006)', pp. 170-171. On Mendoza's politics: Pastore, S., 'Una Spagna antipapale: gli anni italiani di Diego Hurtado de Mendoza', *Roma Moderna e Contemporanea,* 15/1-3

<sup>40</sup> Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, pp. 317-318. 41 The news was brought on the morning of 27 July 1552 by the cardinal of Sermoneta, who had been told by the French that 'tenevano per certo che a quest'ora Siena si tenesse per loro': Desjardins (ed),

<sup>43</sup> A. Montalvo, *Relazione della guerra di Siena di Don Antonio di Montalvo…* ed. C. Riccomanni, F.

towards the Medici house: his election had been strongly supported by Cardinal Burgos, Juan de Toledo, the viceroy's cousin. Cardinal Burgos had become, in the previous years, the spokesperson of both the Toledo and the Medici's interest in the Roman Curia, contributing to cement the alliance between the two families. In Italy, both Toledo and Medici were aggressively challenging the old Imperial network of Charles V's officials and Italian supporters, which had been prominent in previous decades and included, amongst others, the governor of Siena, Mendoza, and the Gonzaga, Ferrante and Ercole. For a while, Cosimo too had been close to these men, as they were all opposing Paul III's politics. At the beginning of the 1550s, thanks to the election of Julius III, Cosimo's relationship with the Roman Curia had greatly improved and he was now in a position to play a diplomatic game between the pope

At the beginning of the Sienese crisis, in July 1552, Cosimo de' Medici had written to his ambassador to the emperor that the French were continuously trying to 'drive the pope to their side', and that the Imperials should therefore be very careful not to 'exacerbate and annoy him'.<sup>40</sup> When the news of the upsurge arrived at the Holy See, however, the pope told Cosimo de' Medici's ambassador to Rome, Averardo Serristori, that he believed that 'the French, once they had liberated Siena from the emperor, would let it be on its own; without expecting, after that, to deal with it anymore'.<sup>41</sup> Therefore, the pope believed that both the Holy See and the duke of Florence would 'prefer to have Siena as a neighbour standing alone, rather than accompanied by the emperor; and that, given that the Sienese are mad, and these princes are about to persecute each other with slanders, they will keep each other busy and will not harass Your Excellence'.42 While the French definitely did not manage to drive the pope to their side, one of the duke of Florence's courtiers, who witnessed the events of Siena and later wrote a report on them, claimed that the pope, although forced by the difficult political circumstances to insist on his neutrality, was actually keen to advantage Florence43 – and we will see that, over the course of the following year, Julius III's Sienese policies ostensibly changed, as well

and the emperor.39

as his profession of neutrality.

*Négociations,* iii, p. 341.

<sup>42</sup> Ibid*.*

(2007), pp. 63-94 and Levin, *Agents of Empire,* pp. 59-63.

Grottanelli and L. Banchi (Turin, 1863), pp. 14-16.

<sup>35</sup> ASFI, MdP, 1851, fo. 148. Cardinal Mignanelli had actually been received very coldly by the Sienese, as pointed out by M. Gotor, 'Mignanelli, Fabio', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 2010).

<sup>36</sup> For a comprehensive survey of the sources available on the war of Siena (especially contemporary chronicles and relations), see A. D'Addario, *Il problema senese nella storia italiana della prima metà del Cinquecento* (Florence, 1958)*,* pp. 267-271. Only few scholars have dealt with this topic after D'Addario's work was published in 1958: to my knowledge, R. Cantagalli's *La guerra di Siena, 1552- 1559. I termini della questione senese nella lotta tra Francia e Asburgo nel '500 e il suo risolversi nell'ambito del principato mediceo* (Siena, 1962) and id., *Cosimo I* are the most recent and extensive studies available. Very important remains also Romier, *Les origines politiques* (not included in D'Addario's list, although known to Cantagalli), whilst an interesting analysis focused on the European game of alliances and the role of the Holy See is provided by Setton, *Papacy and Levant,* iv, pp. 592- 606. On the political situation of Siena in the first half of the Sixteenth century, see also: Isaacs, 'Impero, Francia, Medici', pp. 249-270. On Mendoza's involvement in Siena, see E. Spivakovsky, *Son of the Alhambra. Don Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, 1504-1575* (Austin, 1970), ch. 13.

<sup>37</sup> Rumours about the outbreak of open war between Siena and Florence had been echoing since the beginning of the revolt. The day after his arrival in the city, the cardinal of Ferrara wrote that the rumours on the upcoming war were spreading in Siena, but there was no clear evidence of any war design: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.8 (see also Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 214). The Florentine ambassador, Ricasoli, also wrote that 'il sospetto della guerra qui da un'hora a un'altra crescie e sciama': ASFI, MdP*,*  1851, fo. 148.

<sup>38</sup> On the scandalous alliance between France and the Ottoman Empire, see: G. Ricci 'L'empia alleanza franco-ottomana: una prospettiva italiana', in C. Lastraioli and J-M. de Gall (eds), *François I et l'Italie / L'Italia e Francesco I. Échanges, influences, méfiances entre Moyen Âge et Renaissance / Scambi, influenze, diffidenze fra Medioevo e Rinascimento* (Turnhout, 2018), pp. 169-179.

towards the Medici house: his election had been strongly supported by Cardinal Burgos, Juan de Toledo, the viceroy's cousin. Cardinal Burgos had become, in the previous years, the spokesperson of both the Toledo and the Medici's interest in the Roman Curia, contributing to cement the alliance between the two families. In Italy, both Toledo and Medici were aggressively challenging the old Imperial network of Charles V's officials and Italian supporters, which had been prominent in previous decades and included, amongst others, the governor of Siena, Mendoza, and the Gonzaga, Ferrante and Ercole. For a while, Cosimo too had been close to these men, as they were all opposing Paul III's politics. At the beginning of the 1550s, thanks to the election of Julius III, Cosimo's relationship with the Roman Curia had greatly improved and he was now in a position to play a diplomatic game between the pope and the emperor.39

At the beginning of the Sienese crisis, in July 1552, Cosimo de' Medici had written to his ambassador to the emperor that the French were continuously trying to 'drive the pope to their side', and that the Imperials should therefore be very careful not to 'exacerbate and annoy him'.<sup>40</sup> When the news of the upsurge arrived at the Holy See, however, the pope told Cosimo de' Medici's ambassador to Rome, Averardo Serristori, that he believed that 'the French, once they had liberated Siena from the emperor, would let it be on its own; without expecting, after that, to deal with it anymore'.<sup>41</sup> Therefore, the pope believed that both the Holy See and the duke of Florence would 'prefer to have Siena as a neighbour standing alone, rather than accompanied by the emperor; and that, given that the Sienese are mad, and these princes are about to persecute each other with slanders, they will keep each other busy and will not harass Your Excellence'.42 While the French definitely did not manage to drive the pope to their side, one of the duke of Florence's courtiers, who witnessed the events of Siena and later wrote a report on them, claimed that the pope, although forced by the difficult political circumstances to insist on his neutrality, was actually keen to advantage Florence43 – and we will see that, over the course of the following year, Julius III's Sienese policies ostensibly changed, as well as his profession of neutrality.

74

<sup>37</sup> Rumours about the outbreak of open war between Siena and Florence had been echoing since the beginning of the revolt. The day after his arrival in the city, the cardinal of Ferrara wrote that the rumours on the upcoming war were spreading in Siena, but there was no clear evidence of any war design: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.8 (see also Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 214). The Florentine ambassador, Ricasoli, also wrote that 'il sospetto della guerra qui da un'hora a un'altra crescie e sciama': ASFI, MdP*,* 

<sup>38</sup> On the scandalous alliance between France and the Ottoman Empire, see: G. Ricci 'L'empia alleanza franco-ottomana: una prospettiva italiana', in C. Lastraioli and J-M. de Gall (eds), *François I et l'Italie / L'Italia e Francesco I. Échanges, influences, méfiances entre Moyen Âge et Renaissance / Scambi, in-*

public – and Ricasoli therefore concluded that 'everyone is awaiting, and if His Lordship will lend his ear to their words and passions he will indeed be very busy'.<sup>35</sup>

The role played by Julius III during the French protection of Siena greatly influenced the outcome of the whole episode. The attempts made by papal diplomacy to secure an agreement between France and the Empire on the future of the city, and especially to avoid provoking a new fire of war in central Italy,<sup>37</sup> kept the Curia busy during the spring and the summer of 1553. This outburst of diplomatic activity had been induced, in the previous months, by a succession of upsetting events that had enhanced the pope's wish to pacify Siena as soon as possible. The viceroy of Naples (Cosimo de' Medici's father-in-law) in January 1553 had left his kingdom to march his troops to Siena, where his son, Don Garcìa, had attacked and destroyed several lands in Sienese territory and laid siege to the town of Montalcino; Cosimo de' Medici had been forced by the turn of the events to take more openly the side of the emperor, to grant some help to the troops of his father-in-law and to offer his state as the base camp for supplies and soldiers; the Valois monarchy was negotiating for the return of the Turkish armada to the Italian seas, where their previous incursion had

Julius III had seemingly no intention of offering his unconditional support to one of the contenders and was rather aiming to find a solution that would drive both the French and the Spanish out of Siena. The pope's sympathies, however, leaned

<sup>35</sup> ASFI, MdP, 1851, fo. 148. Cardinal Mignanelli had actually been received very coldly by the Sienese, as pointed out by M. Gotor, 'Mignanelli, Fabio', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 2010). <sup>36</sup> For a comprehensive survey of the sources available on the war of Siena (especially contemporary chronicles and relations), see A. D'Addario, *Il problema senese nella storia italiana della prima metà del Cinquecento* (Florence, 1958)*,* pp. 267-271. Only few scholars have dealt with this topic after D'Addario's work was published in 1958: to my knowledge, R. Cantagalli's *La guerra di Siena, 1552- 1559. I termini della questione senese nella lotta tra Francia e Asburgo nel '500 e il suo risolversi nell'ambito del principato mediceo* (Siena, 1962) and id., *Cosimo I* are the most recent and extensive studies available. Very important remains also Romier, *Les origines politiques* (not included in D'Addario's list, although known to Cantagalli), whilst an interesting analysis focused on the European game of alliances and the role of the Holy See is provided by Setton, *Papacy and Levant,* iv, pp. 592- 606. On the political situation of Siena in the first half of the Sixteenth century, see also: Isaacs, 'Impero, Francia, Medici', pp. 249-270. On Mendoza's involvement in Siena, see E. Spivakovsky, *Son of* 

**1. Seeking peace. The cardinal between Siena, Rome and Florence<sup>36</sup>**

been so effective as to destroy completely the papal town of Gaeta.<sup>38</sup>

*the Alhambra. Don Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, 1504-1575* (Austin, 1970), ch. 13.

*fluenze, diffidenze fra Medioevo e Rinascimento* (Turnhout, 2018), pp. 169-179.

1851, fo. 148.

<sup>39</sup> Cosimo's diplomacy in these years is analysed in A. Contini, 'Aspects of Medicean Diplomacy in the Sixteenth Century', in D. Frigo (ed), *Politics and Diplomacy in Early Modern Italy. The Structure of Diplomatic Practice, 1450-1800* (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 49-94. On the Medici-Toledo alliance, see: C. J. Hernando Sánchez, 'Naples and Florence in Charles V's Italy: Family, Court and Government in the Toledo-Medici alliance', in T. J. Dandelet and J. Marino (eds), *Spain in Italy. Politics, Society, and Religion, 1500-1700* (Leiden, 2006)', pp. 170-171. On Mendoza's politics: Pastore, S., 'Una Spagna antipapale: gli anni italiani di Diego Hurtado de Mendoza', *Roma Moderna e Contemporanea,* 15/1-3 (2007), pp. 63-94 and Levin, *Agents of Empire,* pp. 59-63.

<sup>40</sup> Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, pp. 317-318. 41 The news was brought on the morning of 27 July 1552 by the cardinal of Sermoneta, who had been told by the French that 'tenevano per certo che a quest'ora Siena si tenesse per loro': Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, p. 341.

<sup>42</sup> Ibid*.*

<sup>43</sup> A. Montalvo, *Relazione della guerra di Siena di Don Antonio di Montalvo…* ed. C. Riccomanni, F. Grottanelli and L. Banchi (Turin, 1863), pp. 14-16.

#### The Path of Pleasantness

While the Imperial siege of Montalcino was continuing throughout the spring of 1553, the pope was growing more concerned about the Tuscan situation. In April 1553, his desire to find an agreement on Siena between the emperor and the king of France eventually led him to send legates to both Paris and Brussels,<sup>44</sup> as well as to begin negotiations to organise a meeting – to take place in the towns of Viterbo or Orvieto, both more or less halfway between Siena and Rome – between himself and the representatives of both sides: Siena and France on one, Florence and the Empire on the other.<sup>45</sup> It was quite an exceptional event that a pope should leave Rome to deal personally with the spokesmen of the European and Italian powers – a sign that the efforts of the numerous crowd of envoys and couriers continuously marching along the Florence-Rome-Siena axes had been fruitless and that no mutually agreed conditions for the restoration of peace could be established. The last of these emissaries to reach Siena before the opening of the negotiations to organise a face-toface meeting with the pope was bishop Federigo Fantucci, who, in April, presented Ippolito d'Este with Julius III's proposals for peace. These entailed the return to Siena and to the city authorities of all the lands occupied by the Imperial troops, the retreat of both the French and the Imperial troops from Sienese territory, and the appointment of a captain, a 'guard' – supported by one thousand infantrymen – who would be an impartial guarantor of peace in the aftermath of the French retreat. In order not to burden excessively the already strained finances of Siena, the pope also offered to take upon himself the payment of the wages of the infantry for the time necessary for the city to recover from the war.

The cardinal of Ferrara and Paul de Thermes decided to defer any decision to Henry II's judgement, dismissed Fantucci with the simple claim that their main concern was to defend the king's honour, and immediately sent a dispatch to France.<sup>46</sup> Henry II's written response was handed to the French ambassador to Rome, Lansac, who was at the time in Ferrara and who, from there, forwarded it to Siena. The king did not dislike the idea of leaving Siena under the pope's control but he left the final decision to the cardinal of Ferrara and Paul de Thermes – only reminding them that 'they could have not served him any better than by relieving him of the great ex-

77

<sup>47</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.13 – all. B (24 April 1553). From November 1552 to April 1553, the king's expenditure on the army (in France and Italy) was worth 400.000 *ecus* a month. From April 1553

<sup>48</sup> Ibid. Ercole II wrote to Ippolito that 'per quanto riferisce il predetto monsignor di Lansac, [the king] desidera molto di essere sgravata per poter più gagliardamente attendere nelli luoghi più importanti al suo regno': ASMO, CS, 79, 1654.XXII.54. See also: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* pp. 16-

<sup>49</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.13 – all. B (24 April 1553)*.* This opinion was also shared by Piero Strozzi, who wrote to Ippolito d'Este to let him know that the king's priority was 'to be discharged of

to September 1553, 600.000 *scudi*: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 271.

such a great expense': ibid., 1709.XVIII.13 – all. C (24 April 1553).

<sup>50</sup> The quotation is in Cantagalli, *Cosimo I,* pp. 180-181.

penditure that he was making on the infantry'.<sup>47</sup> Ambassador Lansac, however, added to the king's answer a more articulated analysis of the situation and of all the rea-

His Holiness would make the Spanish retreat from the state of Siena and give back Orbetello and everything else […]; Siena would appoint some good captain and a number of people as their guards, who would be paid by His Holiness; and, given that it is impossible to agree on the captain's appointment, His Holiness would provide one, trusted by all and impartial to both sides […]. You may want to consider that the most compelling issues are now occurring in other places, where His Majesty and his enemy are in person and where it is necessary to address the biggest part of our efforts and expenses; because you know that even when the king acquired half of Italy, and things were going bad in his own kingdom, he would lose the

Lansac believed that the pope's offer represented, all considered, a very good deal for the king of France – who in that way could have 'very honestly got out' – and that, if properly negotiated with the pope, that deal could have become even more advantageous.49 The same opinion was shared by another representative of the French crown, Dominique du Gabre, bishop of Lodève, treasurer of the French army stationed in Ferrara. However, that Lansac felt the need to highlight to Ippolito in this letter the fact that Siena was only one of the many pawns on the French monarchy's chessboard indicates the different mind-set with which a French minister and someone like Ippolito looked at Italy – the former reflecting above all else the king's will to preserve the kingdom of France, and therefore considering all the external territories of the kingdom as subordinate to the greatest interest of France, and the latter having in Italy the bulk of his powers and therefore someone who could not relocate his priorities as easily as the French king. Cosimo de' Medici had expressed a very similar feeling when he had complained with his ambassador to Germany about the poor care that the Spanish were taking of Tuscany, saying that 'they do not pay with their own home, as we do and as these poor people of our neighbours do'.<sup>50</sup> The Spanish attitude, in this case, reflects the more generic attitude of the European powers towards the small Italian regional states, namely an attitude that implicitly framed Italy as a field upon which contests over European supremacy were played out. However, at the same time, the Italian states were concerned, as they had to be, with both their local interests and the general political scene in which they

sons that should contribute to make up the cardinal's mind:

whole […].48

19.

<sup>44</sup> Girolamo Capodiferro and Girolamo Dandino, who both left the Curia in April 1553. Their diplomatic efforts, however, were to prove unsuccessful against the unrelenting hostility that was between Henry II and Charles V, the first refusing to return Siena and the latter demanding it unconditionally: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* pp. 135-140, 193-194; G. Molini (ed), *Documenti di storia italiana* (2 vols, Florence, 1836-1837), ii, p. 449-450.

<sup>45</sup> 'Il papa cominciò a voler trattare di accordare le cose di Siena tra lo imperadore et il re, et così gli scrisse a tutto doi che volessero vedere di accordare le cose di Siena et lassare quella repubblica libera, l'imperadore et il re risposero che loro erano contenti et così fu remisa da tutti doi la cosa nel papa':

ASFI, MdP, 1865, fos. 96v-97r. 46 A written copy of Julius's proposal was personally carried to the king of France by Girolamo da Pisa, who had participated in the organisation of the Sienese coup from the very beginning. On the way to France, Girolamo da Pisa stopped in Ferrara to inform Duke Ercole II about recent developments: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.13 – all. A (13 April 1553). See also: Vitalis (ed), *Correspondance,* pp. 42-43; Sozzini, 'Diario', pp. 65-66; 112-113; 131; Setton, *Papacy and Levant,* iv, p. 597.

penditure that he was making on the infantry'.<sup>47</sup> Ambassador Lansac, however, added to the king's answer a more articulated analysis of the situation and of all the reasons that should contribute to make up the cardinal's mind:

His Holiness would make the Spanish retreat from the state of Siena and give back Orbetello and everything else […]; Siena would appoint some good captain and a number of people as their guards, who would be paid by His Holiness; and, given that it is impossible to agree on the captain's appointment, His Holiness would provide one, trusted by all and impartial to both sides […]. You may want to consider that the most compelling issues are now occurring in other places, where His Majesty and his enemy are in person and where it is necessary to address the biggest part of our efforts and expenses; because you know that even when the king acquired half of Italy, and things were going bad in his own kingdom, he would lose the whole […].48

Lansac believed that the pope's offer represented, all considered, a very good deal for the king of France – who in that way could have 'very honestly got out' – and that, if properly negotiated with the pope, that deal could have become even more advantageous.49 The same opinion was shared by another representative of the French crown, Dominique du Gabre, bishop of Lodève, treasurer of the French army stationed in Ferrara. However, that Lansac felt the need to highlight to Ippolito in this letter the fact that Siena was only one of the many pawns on the French monarchy's chessboard indicates the different mind-set with which a French minister and someone like Ippolito looked at Italy – the former reflecting above all else the king's will to preserve the kingdom of France, and therefore considering all the external territories of the kingdom as subordinate to the greatest interest of France, and the latter having in Italy the bulk of his powers and therefore someone who could not relocate his priorities as easily as the French king. Cosimo de' Medici had expressed a very similar feeling when he had complained with his ambassador to Germany about the poor care that the Spanish were taking of Tuscany, saying that 'they do not pay with their own home, as we do and as these poor people of our neighbours do'.<sup>50</sup>

The Spanish attitude, in this case, reflects the more generic attitude of the European powers towards the small Italian regional states, namely an attitude that implicitly framed Italy as a field upon which contests over European supremacy were played out. However, at the same time, the Italian states were concerned, as they had to be, with both their local interests and the general political scene in which they

<sup>50</sup> The quotation is in Cantagalli, *Cosimo I,* pp. 180-181.

76

42-43; Sozzini, 'Diario', pp. 65-66; 112-113; 131; Setton, *Papacy and Levant,* iv, p. 597.

<sup>44</sup> Girolamo Capodiferro and Girolamo Dandino, who both left the Curia in April 1553. Their diplomatic efforts, however, were to prove unsuccessful against the unrelenting hostility that was between Henry II and Charles V, the first refusing to return Siena and the latter demanding it unconditionally: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* pp. 135-140, 193-194; G. Molini (ed), *Documenti di storia italiana* (2

<sup>45</sup> 'Il papa cominciò a voler trattare di accordare le cose di Siena tra lo imperadore et il re, et così gli scrisse a tutto doi che volessero vedere di accordare le cose di Siena et lassare quella repubblica libera, l'imperadore et il re risposero che loro erano contenti et così fu remisa da tutti doi la cosa nel papa': ASFI, MdP, 1865, fos. 96v-97r. 46 A written copy of Julius's proposal was personally carried to the king of France by Girolamo da Pisa, who had participated in the organisation of the Sienese coup from the very beginning. On the way to France, Girolamo da Pisa stopped in Ferrara to inform Duke Ercole II about recent developments: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.13 – all. A (13 April 1553). See also: Vitalis (ed), *Correspondance,* pp.

While the Imperial siege of Montalcino was continuing throughout the spring of 1553, the pope was growing more concerned about the Tuscan situation. In April 1553, his desire to find an agreement on Siena between the emperor and the king of France eventually led him to send legates to both Paris and Brussels,<sup>44</sup> as well as to begin negotiations to organise a meeting – to take place in the towns of Viterbo or Orvieto, both more or less halfway between Siena and Rome – between himself and the representatives of both sides: Siena and France on one, Florence and the Empire on the other.<sup>45</sup> It was quite an exceptional event that a pope should leave Rome to deal personally with the spokesmen of the European and Italian powers – a sign that the efforts of the numerous crowd of envoys and couriers continuously marching along the Florence-Rome-Siena axes had been fruitless and that no mutually agreed conditions for the restoration of peace could be established. The last of these emissaries to reach Siena before the opening of the negotiations to organise a face-toface meeting with the pope was bishop Federigo Fantucci, who, in April, presented Ippolito d'Este with Julius III's proposals for peace. These entailed the return to Siena and to the city authorities of all the lands occupied by the Imperial troops, the retreat of both the French and the Imperial troops from Sienese territory, and the appointment of a captain, a 'guard' – supported by one thousand infantrymen – who would be an impartial guarantor of peace in the aftermath of the French retreat. In order not to burden excessively the already strained finances of Siena, the pope also offered to take upon himself the payment of the wages of the infantry for the time

The cardinal of Ferrara and Paul de Thermes decided to defer any decision to Henry II's judgement, dismissed Fantucci with the simple claim that their main concern was to defend the king's honour, and immediately sent a dispatch to France.<sup>46</sup> Henry II's written response was handed to the French ambassador to Rome, Lansac, who was at the time in Ferrara and who, from there, forwarded it to Siena. The king did not dislike the idea of leaving Siena under the pope's control but he left the final decision to the cardinal of Ferrara and Paul de Thermes – only reminding them that 'they could have not served him any better than by relieving him of the great ex-

necessary for the city to recover from the war.

vols, Florence, 1836-1837), ii, p. 449-450.

<sup>47</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.13 – all. B (24 April 1553). From November 1552 to April 1553, the king's expenditure on the army (in France and Italy) was worth 400.000 *ecus* a month. From April 1553 to September 1553, 600.000 *scudi*: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 271.

<sup>48</sup> Ibid. Ercole II wrote to Ippolito that 'per quanto riferisce il predetto monsignor di Lansac, [the king] desidera molto di essere sgravata per poter più gagliardamente attendere nelli luoghi più importanti al suo regno': ASMO, CS, 79, 1654.XXII.54. See also: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* pp. 16- 19.

<sup>49</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.13 – all. B (24 April 1553)*.* This opinion was also shared by Piero Strozzi, who wrote to Ippolito d'Este to let him know that the king's priority was 'to be discharged of such a great expense': ibid., 1709.XVIII.13 – all. C (24 April 1553).

were forced to take sides. This was something that had already emerged vividly during the meeting in Chioggia at which – whilst Paul de Thermes, a French army official, had supported the idea of attacking Milan, basing his judgement upon strategic considerations – Ippolito had supported Naples for reasons that were very different, in that they were both local (i.e., to keep the spectre of war away from Ferrara) and particular (i.e., not purely strategic concerns, but rather to support the Guise's ambitions).

To obtain a response on the proposed terms of the peace, Julius III appointed an envoy, Giovanni Andrea Vimercato, to visit first the cardinal of Ferrara and Paul de Thermes in Siena, and then Cosimo de' Medici and the Imperials in Florence. The duke of Florence had been claiming that the physical presence of the pope in the Tuscan lands would have benefitted and hastened the peaceful resolution of the war, whilst the cardinal of Ferrara had agreed with him that 'one could not find a better suited way to push [the peace agreement] forward and make it succeed than the meeting that Your Excellence had suggested'.<sup>51</sup> However, the pope – although eager to promote 'peace and quiet throughout Christendom, especially in Italy, more especially in Tuscany for being our birthplace'<sup>52</sup> – had no intention of leaving Rome without first being given a written reassurance that both Siena and Florence were serious in seeking his mediation and in discussing the terms of the peace offer that he had put forward.53 Given the importance of the matter under discussion and having not yet received a satisfactory response from the French side, Julius III decided to send to Siena the cardinal of Sermoneta to Siena, whose authority largely outweighed Vimercato's. Julius's instructions to Sermoneta were as follows:<sup>54</sup>

You will say that a pope who moves is something more exceptional than somebody might think […], and you can remember that it was said in the congregation this morning that pontiffs [in the past] did not want to move to talk with kings and emperors if they had not received those assurances that they deemed sufficient; and if they want us to move towards Orvieto, which is on the border with their territory, it is necessary that they abandon generic [statements] and provide a clear picture of their minds, in writing or by giving you their word. […] If they are not pleased or do not trust us, they should freely tell us this, because once the world has no chance to say that we have been fooled and once our conscience is not burdened before God, then we will adjust ourselves to any decision in the best way we can.55

<sup>52</sup> AAV, *Misc., Arm II*, 79, p. 132 (Memoriale per M. Gio. Andrea Vimercato, 6 May 1553).

79

In the case of a positive response from the French, Julius III ordered the cardinal of Sermoneta to send a message to Florence, so that the cardinal of Perugia, Julius's

The hesitancy of the cardinal of Ferrara, whose presence had been specifically requested by the pope, was due to the fact that both he and the Sienese suspected the pope of being willing – beneath the guise of an unbiased agreement – to push an agenda favourable to the Imperials and Florence (and we will see that they were quite correct). The point that aroused their suspicion was the pope's request to appoint a captain of his choice and to establish an infantry regiment in the city under the captain's command. Even though Ippolito had already received the indirect permission of the king to accept all of the pope's terms – as well as a more explicit permission through the words of the French ambassador, Lansac – he now found himself in the difficult situation of having to overcome the resistances of the Sienese authorities, who, 'not knowing who shall govern them […], are afraid and have good reason to be afraid'.<sup>57</sup> In this situation, the cardinal was forced to take into account the interests of the people he had been appointed to 'protect' – and this, of course, was not just out of generosity, but was also motivated by the desire both to defend his own reputation and to prevent any insurrection in Siena. At the same time, he was irremediably bound to his own personal relationship with the king of France and, therefore, ultimately subject to the French political agenda – something which in itself reveals the inherent weakness of his position. While he was aware, as much as ambassador Lansac, that Italy was for the Valois monarchy only a piece in a much broader picture, he could not afford, unlike King Henry II, to relocate his pri-

nephew, could prompt the Imperials to participate in the meeting.<sup>56</sup>

orities and was obliged to play a much more complicated diplomatic game.

of Ferrara).

Seeing that his brother was putting himself in a difficult position, Duke Ercole II intervened, writing to Ippolito that he should consider his personal affiliation to the papacy before taking any dangerous stance towards the agreement: to displease the pope and be perceived by the Curia as the one responsible for the failure of the peace would have certainly damaged the cardinal's career (and therefore the duchy

the Sienese authorities to the pope's plan were seemingly becoming more substantial: disregarding Ippolito's attempts to sweeten the deal, the Sienese had told the cardinal of Sermoneta that they were unable to accept the presence of a 'foreign' captain and that they were therefore begging the pope not to force this condition upon them.59 While Ippolito was trying to convince the citizens of Siena to accept the

<sup>56</sup> 'Accioché egli [the cardinal of Perugia] habbia a procurare che si superseda in l'innovatione dalla banda imperiale, come voi ancora havrete a procurare che si superseda dalle bande francesi': ibid. Ful-

<sup>58</sup> Ippolito replied to Ercole saying that he accepted his advice on 'le commodità che se havevano et che si potriano perdere dello stato del papa quando a Sua Beatitudine cadesse in opinione che dal canto suo

<sup>59</sup> To explain his difficulties to Ercole II, Ippolito wrote that 'perché Sua Santità persiste pur in volere che l'elettione del capo sia rimessa liberamente a lei, et tutta l'importantia et la difficultà di questa pratica consiste in questo punto, sicome da cosa de la quale questi signori intendono che dipenda ogni bene

vio della Cornia, cardinal of Perugia, was Julius III's nephew.

<sup>57</sup> ASMO, CS, 1709.XVIII.15 (3 June 1553).

si fosse mancato di venire a questo accordo': ibid.

<sup>58</sup> Ercole's mildly alarmed letter reached Siena just as the opposition of

<sup>51</sup> ASFI, MdP, 3721, fo. 614r.

<sup>53</sup> 'Non basta che tanto una parte quanto l'altra dica che avvicinandosi la persona nostra a quelle bande potrebbono torre molte difficultà et dare più prest'ispeditione al negocio, perché non sarebbe honesto che ci movessimo senza haver prima chiarezza di quello che le parti vorranno fare […]. Et si tal chiarezza piacerà alla sua divina bontà e misericordia che sia secondo il desiderio nostro, non mancaremo di conferirci quanto prima fin a Viterbo': ibid. See also: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 34. <sup>54</sup> Ippolito wrote to his brother about Sermoneta's arrival: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.15 (3 June 1553). Both the visits of Vimercato and Sermoneta were recorded in his chronicle by Sozzini, 'Diario', pp. 133-135.

<sup>55</sup> AAV, *Misc., Arm II*, 79, p. 133 (Recordo per il cardinale di Sermoneta, undated).

In the case of a positive response from the French, Julius III ordered the cardinal of Sermoneta to send a message to Florence, so that the cardinal of Perugia, Julius's nephew, could prompt the Imperials to participate in the meeting.<sup>56</sup>

The hesitancy of the cardinal of Ferrara, whose presence had been specifically requested by the pope, was due to the fact that both he and the Sienese suspected the pope of being willing – beneath the guise of an unbiased agreement – to push an agenda favourable to the Imperials and Florence (and we will see that they were quite correct). The point that aroused their suspicion was the pope's request to appoint a captain of his choice and to establish an infantry regiment in the city under the captain's command. Even though Ippolito had already received the indirect permission of the king to accept all of the pope's terms – as well as a more explicit permission through the words of the French ambassador, Lansac – he now found himself in the difficult situation of having to overcome the resistances of the Sienese authorities, who, 'not knowing who shall govern them […], are afraid and have good reason to be afraid'.<sup>57</sup> In this situation, the cardinal was forced to take into account the interests of the people he had been appointed to 'protect' – and this, of course, was not just out of generosity, but was also motivated by the desire both to defend his own reputation and to prevent any insurrection in Siena. At the same time, he was irremediably bound to his own personal relationship with the king of France and, therefore, ultimately subject to the French political agenda – something which in itself reveals the inherent weakness of his position. While he was aware, as much as ambassador Lansac, that Italy was for the Valois monarchy only a piece in a much broader picture, he could not afford, unlike King Henry II, to relocate his priorities and was obliged to play a much more complicated diplomatic game.

Seeing that his brother was putting himself in a difficult position, Duke Ercole II intervened, writing to Ippolito that he should consider his personal affiliation to the papacy before taking any dangerous stance towards the agreement: to displease the pope and be perceived by the Curia as the one responsible for the failure of the peace would have certainly damaged the cardinal's career (and therefore the duchy of Ferrara). <sup>58</sup> Ercole's mildly alarmed letter reached Siena just as the opposition of the Sienese authorities to the pope's plan were seemingly becoming more substantial: disregarding Ippolito's attempts to sweeten the deal, the Sienese had told the cardinal of Sermoneta that they were unable to accept the presence of a 'foreign' captain and that they were therefore begging the pope not to force this condition upon them.59 While Ippolito was trying to convince the citizens of Siena to accept the

78

<sup>53</sup> 'Non basta che tanto una parte quanto l'altra dica che avvicinandosi la persona nostra a quelle bande potrebbono torre molte difficultà et dare più prest'ispeditione al negocio, perché non sarebbe honesto che ci movessimo senza haver prima chiarezza di quello che le parti vorranno fare […]. Et si tal chiarezza piacerà alla sua divina bontà e misericordia che sia secondo il desiderio nostro, non mancaremo di conferirci quanto prima fin a Viterbo': ibid. See also: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 34. <sup>54</sup> Ippolito wrote to his brother about Sermoneta's arrival: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.15 (3 June 1553). Both the visits of Vimercato and Sermoneta were recorded in his chronicle by Sozzini, 'Diario',

were forced to take sides. This was something that had already emerged vividly during the meeting in Chioggia at which – whilst Paul de Thermes, a French army official, had supported the idea of attacking Milan, basing his judgement upon strategic considerations – Ippolito had supported Naples for reasons that were very different, in that they were both local (i.e., to keep the spectre of war away from Ferrara) and particular (i.e., not purely strategic concerns, but rather to support the Guise's ambi-

To obtain a response on the proposed terms of the peace, Julius III appointed an envoy, Giovanni Andrea Vimercato, to visit first the cardinal of Ferrara and Paul de Thermes in Siena, and then Cosimo de' Medici and the Imperials in Florence. The duke of Florence had been claiming that the physical presence of the pope in the Tuscan lands would have benefitted and hastened the peaceful resolution of the war, whilst the cardinal of Ferrara had agreed with him that 'one could not find a better suited way to push [the peace agreement] forward and make it succeed than the meeting that Your Excellence had suggested'.<sup>51</sup> However, the pope – although eager to promote 'peace and quiet throughout Christendom, especially in Italy, more especially in Tuscany for being our birthplace'<sup>52</sup> – had no intention of leaving Rome without first being given a written reassurance that both Siena and Florence were serious in seeking his mediation and in discussing the terms of the peace offer that he had put forward.53 Given the importance of the matter under discussion and having not yet received a satisfactory response from the French side, Julius III decided to send to Siena the cardinal of Sermoneta to Siena, whose authority largely out-

weighed Vimercato's. Julius's instructions to Sermoneta were as follows:<sup>54</sup>

then we will adjust ourselves to any decision in the best way we can.55

<sup>52</sup> AAV, *Misc., Arm II*, 79, p. 132 (Memoriale per M. Gio. Andrea Vimercato, 6 May 1553).

<sup>55</sup> AAV, *Misc., Arm II*, 79, p. 133 (Recordo per il cardinale di Sermoneta, undated).

You will say that a pope who moves is something more exceptional than somebody might think […], and you can remember that it was said in the congregation this morning that pontiffs [in the past] did not want to move to talk with kings and emperors if they had not received those assurances that they deemed sufficient; and if they want us to move towards Orvieto, which is on the border with their territory, it is necessary that they abandon generic [statements] and provide a clear picture of their minds, in writing or by giving you their word. […] If they are not pleased or do not trust us, they should freely tell us this, because once the world has no chance to say that we have been fooled and once our conscience is not burdened before God,

tions).

<sup>51</sup> ASFI, MdP, 3721, fo. 614r.

pp. 133-135.

<sup>56</sup> 'Accioché egli [the cardinal of Perugia] habbia a procurare che si superseda in l'innovatione dalla banda imperiale, come voi ancora havrete a procurare che si superseda dalle bande francesi': ibid. Fulvio della Cornia, cardinal of Perugia, was Julius III's nephew.

<sup>57</sup> ASMO, CS, 1709.XVIII.15 (3 June 1553).

<sup>58</sup> Ippolito replied to Ercole saying that he accepted his advice on 'le commodità che se havevano et che si potriano perdere dello stato del papa quando a Sua Beatitudine cadesse in opinione che dal canto suo si fosse mancato di venire a questo accordo': ibid.

<sup>59</sup> To explain his difficulties to Ercole II, Ippolito wrote that 'perché Sua Santità persiste pur in volere che l'elettione del capo sia rimessa liberamente a lei, et tutta l'importantia et la difficultà di questa pratica consiste in questo punto, sicome da cosa de la quale questi signori intendono che dipenda ogni bene

#### The Path of Pleasantness

cardinal of Sermoneta's peace offer – or, if nothing, to 'make them reply politely, as they have done'60 – he reassured his brother and Lodève that he had understood the king's priorities and that he was actively working on hastening the resolution of the conflict:

We did not neglect to keep this deal alive, to make it easier, to do everything to prepare it, and to convince these citizens to be happy and satisfied with it, this last being the main difficulty we face in this negotiation […]. We have paid the utmost attention to the king's will, with regard to both this situation and his other occurrences and plans elsewhere.61

It is easy to see, then, that the main reason for the cardinal of Ferrara's hesitation was his expectation of the difficulties involved in convincing the Sienese to accept the imposition of a captain they themselves were unable to choose, as well as the fact that, given that the infantry would have been paid by the pope, the Sienese would have been left with an armed body within their city walls that responded not to them but to an external and potentially hostile power. He personally shared this concern about the political future of Siena and was suspicious of the pope's firmness in advocating for his own appointment of the captain: 'Because I see how much His Holiness insists on keeping this appointment in his hands, I cannot but doubt that His Holiness is seeking to appoint someone who will please neither these lords [the Sienese] nor our side'.<sup>62</sup>

This ongoing commentary on the situation in his letters to his brother demonstrates another reason for his behaviour at this time: his personal risks and the risks to his family. Although during the war of Parma Ercole II had taken a position of overt neutrality, and if he had refused to host the meeting of the French diplomats on Ferrarese land, Ippolito's own position as an ally – and tool – of the French problematized the duchy's own affiliation to France. The duke had no intention of being forced into any position of unambiguous and flagrant support for the Valois, whilst he needed his brother to be at the same time the spokesperson for the Estense interests within the Church, and he did not want Ippolito to alienate the pope's sympathies as a result of his too-close support for the French.

Alongside his political and private considerations, the cardinal of Ferrara had another good reason to procrastinate the meeting with the pope: from Siena, the French commanders were eagerly following the Turkish armada which, allied with the Valois, were advancing along the southern coasts of Italy. For weeks they had been banking on the fact that a prompt arrival in Neapolitan waters of the fearsome Turkish naval forces would have, in all likelihood, forced the viceroy to take at least a part of his troops back to the south in order to defend the coastline. The dismantling of the troops that were ravaging the Sienese countryside would have not only

81

represented an invaluable military aid but would have also allowed the city – and its political leader, Ippolito d'Este – to sit down at the peace table and negotiate from a much better position. In the case of Ippolito, this would have immediately allowed him to overcome the contrast between the king's desire to cut his military expenses and the Sienese refusal to accept the pope's deal as it had been drafted when Sienese territory was under siege. The cloud of uncertainty that surrounded the arrival of the Turks had indeed been a determining factor in any decision regarding an agreement between the emperor and the king of France, not only for the Sienese but also for the duke of Florence. The duke believed that the cardinal of Ferrara was instrumentally using the promise of the arrival of the Turks, among 'many other great things […], to keep those people firm'.<sup>63</sup> He therefore concluded that 'the French are weak, and because the king knows that he cannot defend it [Siena], he will try to find a way out. And he will try even harder now, because he is losing hope that the Turk will

Cosimo's opinion had been also influenced by the fact that the cardinal of Ferrara, while delaying his final response to the pope (for reasons we have already seen), had taken care always to reassure the duke of Florence that he and the Sienese were 'inclined to quietness, and ready to work to the achievement of this agreement as much as we can'.65 Whether the duke believed Ippolito to be sincere or not, the cardinal's frequent demonstrations of 'very good will' had been interpreted by Cosimo as a sign that even the French shared his doubts regarding the arrival of the fleet, and that the French were trying to get out of a desperate situation without losing their reputation. The duke of Florence had therefore written to the emperor that the quashing of their hopes for the Turkish arrival 'will make it easy to come to an agreement,

Despite Cosimo's prediction, however, the bet on the arrival of the Turks was eventually won by the French: when the pope left Rome for Lazio, on 8 June 1553, the cardinal of Ferrara had just received the news that the armada had left Sicily and was heading for Naples.<sup>67</sup> The following day, Giovanni Andrea Vimercato arrived in

Yesterday evening, late, while I was waiting for His Holiness's decision [on the meeting], Vimercato appeared here with a letter from His Holiness that called me to him and asked me to go see him as fast as I could, and in order to do so I took care this morning to have the four ambassadors appointed […] and I have decided to

Soon after the cardinal's departure from Siena – and in accordance with the French prediction – the viceroy's son and leader of the army, Don Garcìa de Toledo,

especially on the French side, because we see that they are well inclined'.<sup>66</sup>

Siena to inform Ippolito that Julius III was keen to meet him in Viterbo:

<sup>63</sup> Cosimo de' Medici to his ambassador Pandolfini: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, p. 338.

leave on Monday with no hesitation.68

<sup>65</sup> ASFI, MdP, 3271, fo. 479r (10 May 1553). 66 Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, p. 338 (9 March 1553).

<sup>67</sup> Sozzini, 'Diario', pp. 138-139. 68 ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.17 (10 June 1553).

ever arrive'.<sup>64</sup>

<sup>64</sup> Ibid.

et ogni male che possa nascere a questa città, non si è potuto in effetto persuadere loro a far liberamente questa rimissione a Sua Santità': ibid.

<sup>60</sup> Ibid.

<sup>61</sup> Ibid.

<sup>62</sup> To his brother, Ippolito wrote that he could easily guess who the person appointed by the pope would be, but he did not name them: ibid.

represented an invaluable military aid but would have also allowed the city – and its political leader, Ippolito d'Este – to sit down at the peace table and negotiate from a much better position. In the case of Ippolito, this would have immediately allowed him to overcome the contrast between the king's desire to cut his military expenses and the Sienese refusal to accept the pope's deal as it had been drafted when Sienese territory was under siege. The cloud of uncertainty that surrounded the arrival of the Turks had indeed been a determining factor in any decision regarding an agreement between the emperor and the king of France, not only for the Sienese but also for the duke of Florence. The duke believed that the cardinal of Ferrara was instrumentally using the promise of the arrival of the Turks, among 'many other great things […], to keep those people firm'.<sup>63</sup> He therefore concluded that 'the French are weak, and because the king knows that he cannot defend it [Siena], he will try to find a way out. And he will try even harder now, because he is losing hope that the Turk will ever arrive'.<sup>64</sup>

Cosimo's opinion had been also influenced by the fact that the cardinal of Ferrara, while delaying his final response to the pope (for reasons we have already seen), had taken care always to reassure the duke of Florence that he and the Sienese were 'inclined to quietness, and ready to work to the achievement of this agreement as much as we can'.65 Whether the duke believed Ippolito to be sincere or not, the cardinal's frequent demonstrations of 'very good will' had been interpreted by Cosimo as a sign that even the French shared his doubts regarding the arrival of the fleet, and that the French were trying to get out of a desperate situation without losing their reputation. The duke of Florence had therefore written to the emperor that the quashing of their hopes for the Turkish arrival 'will make it easy to come to an agreement, especially on the French side, because we see that they are well inclined'.<sup>66</sup>

Despite Cosimo's prediction, however, the bet on the arrival of the Turks was eventually won by the French: when the pope left Rome for Lazio, on 8 June 1553, the cardinal of Ferrara had just received the news that the armada had left Sicily and was heading for Naples.<sup>67</sup> The following day, Giovanni Andrea Vimercato arrived in Siena to inform Ippolito that Julius III was keen to meet him in Viterbo:

Yesterday evening, late, while I was waiting for His Holiness's decision [on the meeting], Vimercato appeared here with a letter from His Holiness that called me to him and asked me to go see him as fast as I could, and in order to do so I took care this morning to have the four ambassadors appointed […] and I have decided to leave on Monday with no hesitation.68

Soon after the cardinal's departure from Siena – and in accordance with the French prediction – the viceroy's son and leader of the army, Don Garcìa de Toledo,

80

et ogni male che possa nascere a questa città, non si è potuto in effetto persuadere loro a far liberamente

<sup>62</sup> To his brother, Ippolito wrote that he could easily guess who the person appointed by the pope would

cardinal of Sermoneta's peace offer – or, if nothing, to 'make them reply politely, as they have done'60 – he reassured his brother and Lodève that he had understood the king's priorities and that he was actively working on hastening the resolution of the

We did not neglect to keep this deal alive, to make it easier, to do everything to prepare it, and to convince these citizens to be happy and satisfied with it, this last being the main difficulty we face in this negotiation […]. We have paid the utmost attention to the king's will, with regard to both this situation and his other occurrences

It is easy to see, then, that the main reason for the cardinal of Ferrara's hesitation was his expectation of the difficulties involved in convincing the Sienese to accept the imposition of a captain they themselves were unable to choose, as well as the fact that, given that the infantry would have been paid by the pope, the Sienese would have been left with an armed body within their city walls that responded not to them but to an external and potentially hostile power. He personally shared this concern about the political future of Siena and was suspicious of the pope's firmness in advocating for his own appointment of the captain: 'Because I see how much His Holiness insists on keeping this appointment in his hands, I cannot but doubt that His Holiness is seeking to appoint someone who will please neither these lords [the

This ongoing commentary on the situation in his letters to his brother demonstrates another reason for his behaviour at this time: his personal risks and the risks to his family. Although during the war of Parma Ercole II had taken a position of overt neutrality, and if he had refused to host the meeting of the French diplomats on Ferrarese land, Ippolito's own position as an ally – and tool – of the French problematized the duchy's own affiliation to France. The duke had no intention of being forced into any position of unambiguous and flagrant support for the Valois, whilst he needed his brother to be at the same time the spokesperson for the Estense interests within the Church, and he did not want Ippolito to alienate the pope's sympa-

Alongside his political and private considerations, the cardinal of Ferrara had another good reason to procrastinate the meeting with the pope: from Siena, the French commanders were eagerly following the Turkish armada which, allied with the Valois, were advancing along the southern coasts of Italy. For weeks they had been banking on the fact that a prompt arrival in Neapolitan waters of the fearsome Turkish naval forces would have, in all likelihood, forced the viceroy to take at least a part of his troops back to the south in order to defend the coastline. The dismantling of the troops that were ravaging the Sienese countryside would have not only

conflict:

and plans elsewhere.61

Sienese] nor our side'.<sup>62</sup>

questa rimissione a Sua Santità': ibid.

be, but he did not name them: ibid.

<sup>60</sup> Ibid. <sup>61</sup> Ibid.

thies as a result of his too-close support for the French.

<sup>63</sup> Cosimo de' Medici to his ambassador Pandolfini: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, p. 338.

<sup>64</sup> Ibid.

<sup>65</sup> ASFI, MdP, 3271, fo. 479r (10 May 1553). 66 Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, p. 338 (9 March 1553).

<sup>67</sup> Sozzini, 'Diario', pp. 138-139. 68 ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.17 (10 June 1553).

abandoned the battleground of Montalcino and headed back south taking the entire army with him.69 The news of the viceroy's retreat from Montalcino reached the cardinal on 15 June, while he was having breakfast in Monte Fiascone. The news was brought by the pope's envoy, Giovanni Andrea Vimercato, who had visited Ippolito to let him know that Julius III was waiting for the cardinal's arrival, and that he was expected to join the papal table for dinner on the following day.<sup>70</sup> In a letter to his brother, Ercole, written a few days after the meeting with the pope, Ippolito commented on the arrival of the Turkish fleet saying that his happiness upon receiving the news had been increased by his 'clearly seeing that this result completely reflects the opinion that I always held, which was that any mediocre diversion that one could exert by that means would have freed the state of Siena from war'.71

The cardinal had received order from the king to reject any agreement that might eventually entail the return of Siena to the emperor; at the same time, he was supposed to do everything in his power to save both Henry II's finances and his reputation (that is to say, Ippolito had to find the most honourable way to get the French out of Siena). Thanks to the abrupt reversal of French fortune, the cardinal could now negotiate with the pope from a much stronger position.72 Contemporary witnesses disagree on what happened between Julius III and Ippolito d'Este when they eventually met on 16 June 1553. The Sienese contemporary chronicler, Alessandro Sozzini, writes that the cardinal, as soon as he was informed that the Imperial army was no longer threatening Montalcino, dropped any discussion, 'kissed the foot of His Holiness and came back [to Siena]'.<sup>73</sup> An anonymous report, however, states that it was the pope who, acknowledging that the situation had changed after the departure of the Spanish troops, refused to pursue the original agreement, despite Ippolito's insistence: 'the pope dismissed the cardinal, who wanted to travel to Rome with him, but the pope did not want him to'.74

To understand what happened between the cardinal of Ferrara and Julius III, it is worth considering the timings involved in the dispersal of the information surrounding the Imperials' departure, as that – their departure – was the event that overturned

83

<sup>75</sup> Another source that claims that Ippolito only found out about the Imperial retreat when he was already

<sup>76</sup> 'Il quale aviso mi fu poi anche confirmato da monsignor di Lansach che venne ad incontrarmi a mezza strada, et dal reverendissimo du Bellay, che mi incontrò poi di un pezzo fuori dalla porta, havendomi l'uno et l'altro aspettato in Viterbo. Ma il dì dipoi ne hebbi nova certa per lettere di monsignor di Ter-

<sup>77</sup> 'Benchè Sua Maestà mi habbia scritto che dopo la conclusione di questo accordo l'animo suo è che io mi ritiri a Roma […] l'ho supplicata a non mi voler astringere a questa andata, ma lasciarmi riposare per qualche giorno […]; ho pensato di venirmene dopo questo accordo a passar questo resto del caldo in Ferrara con l'Eccellenza Vostra': ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.17 (10 June 1553); ibid., 1709.XVIII.13

<sup>79</sup> 'Anche che io havessi inteso che Nostro Signore si fosse partito da Viterbo et andato in Bagnaia con animo d'andarsene poi a Roma, io nondimeno continuerei a inseguir Sua Santità': ASMO, CS, 149,

mes mandatemi per huomo espresso': ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.19 (20 June 1553).

the existing balance of power. Both Alessandro Sozzini and the anonymous author of the report, while partially disagreeing on the role played by the cardinal, write that he found out about the retreat of the Imperial army once his meeting with the pope had already started, thanks to an express courier promptly sent by Paul de Thermes on 16 June.75 However, as we have seen, when the dispatch sent from Siena reached the cardinal, he had the previous day been informed by the pope's envoy, Vimercato. Furthermore, that day, 15 June, Vimercato's news had also been corroborated by the French ambassador, Lord de Lansac, and by Cardinal du Bellay, who were both in Viterbo with the pope's household and who both went to see Ippolito while he was on his way to Bagnaia – presumably in order to find an opportunity to confer with him before he met the pope.76 The rumour of Don Garcìa's departure had therefore already spread throughout the Roman Curia at least one day

That the cardinal of Ferrara had indeed left Siena with all the intentions of signing the peace agreement – as it had been recommended by the king, and in spite of the fact that he already knew that the Turkish armada was heading for Naples – is demonstrated by a letter that he sent to his brother just a few days before meeting the pope, in which he discussed his and Henry II's plans for the immediate aftermath of the peace.77 Another letter sent by the cardinal to Duke Ercole informs us that the pope had suddenly decided to go back to Rome without having met Ippolito. On 14 June, while he was on his way to the meeting, Ippolito had received news that the pope had left the castle of Viterbo – where the meeting should have taken place – and was heading to Bagnaia, a town nearby, with the intention of leaving for good.78 The cardinal had just decided to continue his journey to Viterbo and join Cardinal du Bellay and ambassador Lansac, who were waiting there for him and with whom he would have then followed the pope to Rome, when he was told by Vimercato that the pope had changed his mind and was waiting for him in Bagnaia.<sup>79</sup> According to Ippolito d'Este, Julius III believed that the recent military success would have persuaded the king of France to turn his back on the peace agreement, and he therefore

before Ippolito managed to actually see the pope.

suggested to wait for the king to express his intentions:

with the pope is ASFI, MdP*,* 1865, fo. 97v.

<sup>78</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.19 (20 June 1553).

1709.XVIII.19 (20 June 1553).

– all. C.

<sup>69</sup> 'Se ne andò alla volta di Napoli con l'essercito et questa fu la fine della impresa del Monte Alcino': ASFI, MdP, 1865, fo. 97v. As Ippolito d'Este explained to his brother, 'la causa è stata, havendo mandato loro il reverendissimo Pacecco trenta mila ducati, fece loro anche intendere che dovessero con essi levare quell'essercito et condurlo per difesa di quel regno [the kingdom of Naples] […], il che hanno subito messo in essecutione': ASMO, CS*,* 149, 1709.XVIII.19 (20 June 1553). See also: Sozzini, 'Diario', p. 138-144; Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,,* pp 86-87. 70 ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.19 (20 June 1553).

<sup>71</sup> The cardinal did not miss the chance to point out that, if the Imperials had been so scared by a mere fleet, they would have been even more so had the French sent the infantry to Naples, 'come si era dissegnato' – a reference to the meeting in Chioggia, where the cardinal had supported the idea of an attack against Naples rather than against Siena: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.19 (20 June 1553).

<sup>72</sup> The king's conditions to come to terms with the emperor were that Ippolito should be present in the meeting, that Siena should not go back to the emperor, and that the Sienese citizens should be involved in any decision: ASFI, MdP*,* 1865, fo. 97r.

<sup>73</sup> Sozzini, 'Diario', p. 148. 74 'Il papa gli [to Ippolito d'Este] disse che poiché gli Imperiali se erano partiti del stato di Siena, che per allhora si poteva differire di trattare le cose di Siena et scriver di nuovo all'Imperadore et al re et vedere quello che loro dicevano, et così licentiò il cardinale': ASFI, 1865, MdP, 1865, fos. 97v-98r.

the existing balance of power. Both Alessandro Sozzini and the anonymous author of the report, while partially disagreeing on the role played by the cardinal, write that he found out about the retreat of the Imperial army once his meeting with the pope had already started, thanks to an express courier promptly sent by Paul de Thermes on 16 June.75 However, as we have seen, when the dispatch sent from Siena reached the cardinal, he had the previous day been informed by the pope's envoy, Vimercato. Furthermore, that day, 15 June, Vimercato's news had also been corroborated by the French ambassador, Lord de Lansac, and by Cardinal du Bellay, who were both in Viterbo with the pope's household and who both went to see Ippolito while he was on his way to Bagnaia – presumably in order to find an opportunity to confer with him before he met the pope.76 The rumour of Don Garcìa's departure had therefore already spread throughout the Roman Curia at least one day before Ippolito managed to actually see the pope.

That the cardinal of Ferrara had indeed left Siena with all the intentions of signing the peace agreement – as it had been recommended by the king, and in spite of the fact that he already knew that the Turkish armada was heading for Naples – is demonstrated by a letter that he sent to his brother just a few days before meeting the pope, in which he discussed his and Henry II's plans for the immediate aftermath of the peace.77 Another letter sent by the cardinal to Duke Ercole informs us that the pope had suddenly decided to go back to Rome without having met Ippolito. On 14 June, while he was on his way to the meeting, Ippolito had received news that the pope had left the castle of Viterbo – where the meeting should have taken place – and was heading to Bagnaia, a town nearby, with the intention of leaving for good.78 The cardinal had just decided to continue his journey to Viterbo and join Cardinal du Bellay and ambassador Lansac, who were waiting there for him and with whom he would have then followed the pope to Rome, when he was told by Vimercato that the pope had changed his mind and was waiting for him in Bagnaia.<sup>79</sup> According to Ippolito d'Este, Julius III believed that the recent military success would have persuaded the king of France to turn his back on the peace agreement, and he therefore suggested to wait for the king to express his intentions:

82

abandoned the battleground of Montalcino and headed back south taking the entire army with him.69 The news of the viceroy's retreat from Montalcino reached the cardinal on 15 June, while he was having breakfast in Monte Fiascone. The news was brought by the pope's envoy, Giovanni Andrea Vimercato, who had visited Ippolito to let him know that Julius III was waiting for the cardinal's arrival, and that he was expected to join the papal table for dinner on the following day.<sup>70</sup> In a letter to his brother, Ercole, written a few days after the meeting with the pope, Ippolito commented on the arrival of the Turkish fleet saying that his happiness upon receiving the news had been increased by his 'clearly seeing that this result completely reflects the opinion that I always held, which was that any mediocre diversion that one

could exert by that means would have freed the state of Siena from war'.71

with him, but the pope did not want him to'.74

in any decision: ASFI, MdP*,* 1865, fo. 97r.

rio', p. 138-144; Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,,* pp 86-87. 70 ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.19 (20 June 1553).

The cardinal had received order from the king to reject any agreement that might eventually entail the return of Siena to the emperor; at the same time, he was supposed to do everything in his power to save both Henry II's finances and his reputation (that is to say, Ippolito had to find the most honourable way to get the French out of Siena). Thanks to the abrupt reversal of French fortune, the cardinal could now negotiate with the pope from a much stronger position.72 Contemporary witnesses disagree on what happened between Julius III and Ippolito d'Este when they eventually met on 16 June 1553. The Sienese contemporary chronicler, Alessandro Sozzini, writes that the cardinal, as soon as he was informed that the Imperial army was no longer threatening Montalcino, dropped any discussion, 'kissed the foot of His Holiness and came back [to Siena]'.<sup>73</sup> An anonymous report, however, states that it was the pope who, acknowledging that the situation had changed after the departure of the Spanish troops, refused to pursue the original agreement, despite Ippolito's insistence: 'the pope dismissed the cardinal, who wanted to travel to Rome

To understand what happened between the cardinal of Ferrara and Julius III, it is worth considering the timings involved in the dispersal of the information surrounding the Imperials' departure, as that – their departure – was the event that overturned

<sup>69</sup> 'Se ne andò alla volta di Napoli con l'essercito et questa fu la fine della impresa del Monte Alcino': ASFI, MdP, 1865, fo. 97v. As Ippolito d'Este explained to his brother, 'la causa è stata, havendo mandato loro il reverendissimo Pacecco trenta mila ducati, fece loro anche intendere che dovessero con essi levare quell'essercito et condurlo per difesa di quel regno [the kingdom of Naples] […], il che hanno subito messo in essecutione': ASMO, CS*,* 149, 1709.XVIII.19 (20 June 1553). See also: Sozzini, 'Dia-

<sup>71</sup> The cardinal did not miss the chance to point out that, if the Imperials had been so scared by a mere fleet, they would have been even more so had the French sent the infantry to Naples, 'come si era dissegnato' – a reference to the meeting in Chioggia, where the cardinal had supported the idea of an attack

<sup>72</sup> The king's conditions to come to terms with the emperor were that Ippolito should be present in the meeting, that Siena should not go back to the emperor, and that the Sienese citizens should be involved

<sup>73</sup> Sozzini, 'Diario', p. 148. 74 'Il papa gli [to Ippolito d'Este] disse che poiché gli Imperiali se erano partiti del stato di Siena, che per allhora si poteva differire di trattare le cose di Siena et scriver di nuovo all'Imperadore et al re et vedere

against Naples rather than against Siena: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.19 (20 June 1553).

quello che loro dicevano, et così licentiò il cardinale': ASFI, 1865, MdP, 1865, fos. 97v-98r.

<sup>75</sup> Another source that claims that Ippolito only found out about the Imperial retreat when he was already with the pope is ASFI, MdP*,* 1865, fo. 97v.

<sup>76</sup> 'Il quale aviso mi fu poi anche confirmato da monsignor di Lansach che venne ad incontrarmi a mezza strada, et dal reverendissimo du Bellay, che mi incontrò poi di un pezzo fuori dalla porta, havendomi l'uno et l'altro aspettato in Viterbo. Ma il dì dipoi ne hebbi nova certa per lettere di monsignor di Termes mandatemi per huomo espresso': ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.19 (20 June 1553).

<sup>77</sup> 'Benchè Sua Maestà mi habbia scritto che dopo la conclusione di questo accordo l'animo suo è che io mi ritiri a Roma […] l'ho supplicata a non mi voler astringere a questa andata, ma lasciarmi riposare per qualche giorno […]; ho pensato di venirmene dopo questo accordo a passar questo resto del caldo in Ferrara con l'Eccellenza Vostra': ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.17 (10 June 1553); ibid., 1709.XVIII.13 – all. C.

<sup>78</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.19 (20 June 1553).

<sup>79</sup> 'Anche che io havessi inteso che Nostro Signore si fosse partito da Viterbo et andato in Bagnaia con animo d'andarsene poi a Roma, io nondimeno continuerei a inseguir Sua Santità': ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.19 (20 June 1553).

#### The Path of Pleasantness

About what happened between our lord and myself, I will briefly tell you that I have been received twice by His Holiness […] so warmly and with so many pleasantries and demonstrations of love and good will as one could wish. However, as things have completely changed due to this retreat of the enemies, it occurred to His Holiness that the agreement should not be discussed anymore and that it is convenient to wait for His Majesty's decision after he will be noticed this success. And having left things as I just told you, he heard and dismissed these ambassadors saying that he will go to Rome and that they and I could go back to Siena.80

We have seen that the Sienese feared that the pope might appoint someone who would have dragged the city into the Imperial orbit. It seems quite likely, especially, as we have seen before, in the light of the cardinal of Ferrara's suspicion regarding Julius III's appointment, that the pope actually intended to advantage the duke of Florence under the label of a 'neutral peace agreement', and that he dropped the negotiations because he saw that, with the departure of the Imperial army, he had lost his best leverage to make the French and the Sienese accept what was, in reality, a disadvantageous agreement – and we shall see that the pope will indeed in time take Cosimo de' Medici's side more openly.

Julius III's attempts to mediate between the parties and his attitude towards the Sienese authorities sensibly changed subsequent to – or, probably, due to – the meeting in Bagnaia and the end of the siege of Montalcino. The pope continued to work actively to end the war in Tuscany; but when, in the following August, Giovanni Andrea Vimercato was sent once again to visit Siena and Florence, his mission was to present a harsh complaint against the one-sidedness of Ippolito's diplomatic policies, which the pope saw, in his own words, as 'clear, evident, straightforward and safe for one side […] and not only doubtful and dangerous, but completely disadvantageous for the other'.81 The instructions left to Vimercato in August required him to make the Sienese aware of the pope's utter dissatisfaction and to forward to the cardinal of Ferrara Julius's request – or, rather, threat – that he show more consideration for the position of the duke of Florence, whose diffidence was on the verge of breaking into armed aggression:

What really concerns us, and this is the reason why we are sending you there, is that we have never believed that it is either useful to the king or beneficial to Siena to keep the duke of Florence in that suspicion, diffidence and animosity in which they put him. His state is well prepared and strong, he has money, artillery and soldiers and ways of having as many as he likes in four days. These Imperials told us just today that they have resolved not to leave him for any reason and to give him part of the forces that they have in this reign […] We believe that the duke will satisfy himself with staying within his own borders and enjoying his state, and he will not bother other people's states nor will he quarrel with the king; on the other hand, if he [the king] satisfies himself with Siena being in a real state of freedom, as his ministers have always said and as His Majesty has said to our legate (and which some people will hardly believe until the governance and custody and army of the city is in the

85

<sup>85</sup> 'Li francesi […] non se mostrano alieni dalla concordia, anzi se ne mostrano desiderosi, ma non sapremo allo strignere qual conditione volesseno. Noi li havemo detto più volte per conto nostro che quello che tocca a noi che son due sorti […], una ero amicus tuus et amicorum tuorum, l'altra ero amicus tuus et inimicus inimicorum tuorum, et a questa seconda sorte non volevamo in alcun modo esser sottoposti, perché non volevamo essere inimico dell'imperatore che è inimico del re, né volevamo essere

<sup>83</sup> Setton, *Papacy and Levant,* iv, pp. 595; Canestrini (ed), *Legazioni,* p. 529; Sozzini, 'Diario', p. 95. <sup>84</sup> This was in all likelihood a reference to Cardinal du Bellay, who was one of the leaders of the French faction and a personal enemy of Ippolito d'Este. The pope also added that the French representatives in Rome had told him that they had asked the king for more powers, but that until that moment the one authority to deal with in regard to Siena was the cardinal of Ferrara, and that every effort to find an agreement had to go through him: AAV, *Misc., Arm II*, 79, p. 139 (Memoriale per M. Gio. Andrea Vimercato,

hands of His Majesty's ministers), then we do not see why the cardinal and the duke

The pope had already to some extent demonstrated, whilst professing neutrality, that he was not alien to demonstrations of partiality (for example, he had granted the viceroy of Naples safe-conduct to march his troops through the papal state on the way to Siena).<sup>83</sup> This time, however, the mission of Julius's agent contained a much more straightforward declaration of intent. Once he had left Siena, Vimercato was to head straight to Florence. There, he was to explain to Cosimo de' Medici that the French did not trust him and that they were afraid that he might be the vehicle of an Imperial attack, to which Siena could have offered little resistance. The more important task of Vimercato, however, was to perform an apology before the duke of Florence of the pope's past behaviour, explaining to him that his attempts to draw the French to sign the peace had been frustrated by their political ambiguity ('these ministers here [in Rome] speak in a way and those who are in Siena in another, and it seems that these here speak for themselves')84. Julius III was also keen to let Cosimo know that he had tried to be friendly with the French but, at the same time, he had strongly refused to take Henry II's side against the emperor, not least because that would have entailed entering into an alliance that included the forces of the 'heretics' (i.e. the German Protestant princes and the Ottoman Empire).85 For the near future, the pope suggested to the duke of Florence that he should not 'intervene in the things regarding Siena and […] do not help the emperor against the king'.

The pope, of course, knew that his recommendation would not be taken up. Cosimo de' Medici was the emperor's principal ally in central Italy and, after the viceroy's troops had arrived in the Sienese, his state had served as a military base for men, news and supplies. It was just a matter of time before the duke decided to put also his troops at the service of the Spanish – and the pope had already sanctioned Cosimo's position by issuing a decree that forbade everyone in the papal state from joining either the Imperial or the French troops, a decree that did not apply to whoever decided to serve the duke of Florence. Under a pretension of neutrality, therefore, the decree pretended to forget that Cosimo was playing a very relevant part in the war of Siena, and that to enter his service meant to offer, at least, silent support

should not come to an agreement very quickly.82

<sup>82</sup> Ibid.*,* pp. 137-138.

12 August 1553).

amico di turchi et lutherani che sono amici del re': ibid.

<sup>80</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.19 (20 June 1553).

<sup>81</sup> AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 79, p. 137 (Memoriale per M. Gio. Andrea Vimercato, 12 August 1553).

hands of His Majesty's ministers), then we do not see why the cardinal and the duke should not come to an agreement very quickly.82

The pope had already to some extent demonstrated, whilst professing neutrality, that he was not alien to demonstrations of partiality (for example, he had granted the viceroy of Naples safe-conduct to march his troops through the papal state on the way to Siena).<sup>83</sup> This time, however, the mission of Julius's agent contained a much more straightforward declaration of intent. Once he had left Siena, Vimercato was to head straight to Florence. There, he was to explain to Cosimo de' Medici that the French did not trust him and that they were afraid that he might be the vehicle of an Imperial attack, to which Siena could have offered little resistance. The more important task of Vimercato, however, was to perform an apology before the duke of Florence of the pope's past behaviour, explaining to him that his attempts to draw the French to sign the peace had been frustrated by their political ambiguity ('these ministers here [in Rome] speak in a way and those who are in Siena in another, and it seems that these here speak for themselves')84. Julius III was also keen to let Cosimo know that he had tried to be friendly with the French but, at the same time, he had strongly refused to take Henry II's side against the emperor, not least because that would have entailed entering into an alliance that included the forces of the 'heretics' (i.e. the German Protestant princes and the Ottoman Empire).85 For the near future, the pope suggested to the duke of Florence that he should not 'intervene in the things regarding Siena and […] do not help the emperor against the king'.

The pope, of course, knew that his recommendation would not be taken up. Cosimo de' Medici was the emperor's principal ally in central Italy and, after the viceroy's troops had arrived in the Sienese, his state had served as a military base for men, news and supplies. It was just a matter of time before the duke decided to put also his troops at the service of the Spanish – and the pope had already sanctioned Cosimo's position by issuing a decree that forbade everyone in the papal state from joining either the Imperial or the French troops, a decree that did not apply to whoever decided to serve the duke of Florence. Under a pretension of neutrality, therefore, the decree pretended to forget that Cosimo was playing a very relevant part in the war of Siena, and that to enter his service meant to offer, at least, silent support

84

<sup>81</sup> AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 79, p. 137 (Memoriale per M. Gio. Andrea Vimercato, 12 August 1553).

What really concerns us, and this is the reason why we are sending you there, is that we have never believed that it is either useful to the king or beneficial to Siena to keep the duke of Florence in that suspicion, diffidence and animosity in which they put him. His state is well prepared and strong, he has money, artillery and soldiers and ways of having as many as he likes in four days. These Imperials told us just today that they have resolved not to leave him for any reason and to give him part of the forces that they have in this reign […] We believe that the duke will satisfy himself with staying within his own borders and enjoying his state, and he will not bother other people's states nor will he quarrel with the king; on the other hand, if he [the king] satisfies himself with Siena being in a real state of freedom, as his ministers have always said and as His Majesty has said to our legate (and which some people will hardly believe until the governance and custody and army of the city is in the

About what happened between our lord and myself, I will briefly tell you that I have been received twice by His Holiness […] so warmly and with so many pleasantries and demonstrations of love and good will as one could wish. However, as things have completely changed due to this retreat of the enemies, it occurred to His Holiness that the agreement should not be discussed anymore and that it is convenient to wait for His Majesty's decision after he will be noticed this success. And having left things as I just told you, he heard and dismissed these ambassadors saying that he

We have seen that the Sienese feared that the pope might appoint someone who would have dragged the city into the Imperial orbit. It seems quite likely, especially, as we have seen before, in the light of the cardinal of Ferrara's suspicion regarding Julius III's appointment, that the pope actually intended to advantage the duke of Florence under the label of a 'neutral peace agreement', and that he dropped the negotiations because he saw that, with the departure of the Imperial army, he had lost his best leverage to make the French and the Sienese accept what was, in reality, a disadvantageous agreement – and we shall see that the pope will indeed in time take

Julius III's attempts to mediate between the parties and his attitude towards the Sienese authorities sensibly changed subsequent to – or, probably, due to – the meeting in Bagnaia and the end of the siege of Montalcino. The pope continued to work actively to end the war in Tuscany; but when, in the following August, Giovanni Andrea Vimercato was sent once again to visit Siena and Florence, his mission was to present a harsh complaint against the one-sidedness of Ippolito's diplomatic policies, which the pope saw, in his own words, as 'clear, evident, straightforward and safe for one side […] and not only doubtful and dangerous, but completely disadvantageous for the other'.81 The instructions left to Vimercato in August required him to make the Sienese aware of the pope's utter dissatisfaction and to forward to the cardinal of Ferrara Julius's request – or, rather, threat – that he show more consideration for the position of the duke of Florence, whose diffidence was on the

will go to Rome and that they and I could go back to Siena.80

Cosimo de' Medici's side more openly.

verge of breaking into armed aggression:

<sup>80</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.19 (20 June 1553).

<sup>82</sup> Ibid.*,* pp. 137-138.

<sup>83</sup> Setton, *Papacy and Levant,* iv, pp. 595; Canestrini (ed), *Legazioni,* p. 529; Sozzini, 'Diario', p. 95.

<sup>84</sup> This was in all likelihood a reference to Cardinal du Bellay, who was one of the leaders of the French faction and a personal enemy of Ippolito d'Este. The pope also added that the French representatives in Rome had told him that they had asked the king for more powers, but that until that moment the one authority to deal with in regard to Siena was the cardinal of Ferrara, and that every effort to find an agreement had to go through him: AAV, *Misc., Arm II*, 79, p. 139 (Memoriale per M. Gio. Andrea Vimercato, 12 August 1553).

<sup>85</sup> 'Li francesi […] non se mostrano alieni dalla concordia, anzi se ne mostrano desiderosi, ma non sapremo allo strignere qual conditione volesseno. Noi li havemo detto più volte per conto nostro che quello che tocca a noi che son due sorti […], una ero amicus tuus et amicorum tuorum, l'altra ero amicus tuus et inimicus inimicorum tuorum, et a questa seconda sorte non volevamo in alcun modo esser sottoposti, perché non volevamo essere inimico dell'imperatore che è inimico del re, né volevamo essere amico di turchi et lutherani che sono amici del re': ibid.

#### The Path of Pleasantness

to the emperor.86 The menacing tones with which Vimercato was supposed to approach the Sienese authorities had, of course, no equivalent in the instructions left him regarding his mission in Florence. Not only did Julius III content himself with this insipid request of non-intervention, but he also ordered Vimercato to manage according to Cosimo's will any further negotiations with Ippolito d'Este and with the other Sienese ministers, and in such way as to pursue only Cosimo's own satisfaction:

When you will happen to return to the cardinal or to negotiate towards the peace, you will manage yourself as the duke commands, because in this matter we do not care about anybody's benefit or satisfaction but his own.<sup>87</sup>

#### **2. Limits to French power. Ippolito d'Este, Cosimo de' Medici, Piero Strozzi**

Cosimo de' Medici's diplomatic duplicity found its perfect counterpart and best recipient in Ippolito d'Este. In many respects, when the Sienese rebellion began, the two Italian lords were not in a dissimilar situation: they were both allied – or, better, subject – to a much stronger power, to which they owed a good deal of their influence and wealth, and from which they were hoping to gain more in the future. We have seen how the attention that families like the Medici and the Este paid to the 'local' dimension of Italy was necessarily very different from that of the great European powers. The affiliation with the emperor or the king of France had become, in the sixteenth century (with the exception of Venice, traditionally neutral), an essential element in the life of any Italian small state, as it provided protection against their enemies and opportunities to acquire honour and prestige. However, in the context of the deep political instability that affected the Italian peninsula, to tie one's own destiny too tightly to the Italian fortunes of either the Habsburgs or the Valois was never a recommendable choice, and so every ruler tried to maintain for their state the favour of all the European sovereigns. In case of a new eruption of hostilities in Italy, too straightforward an obligation to serve either the emperor or the king of France would have determined, for most Italian states, the exposure of their dominions to the uncertainties of war and to the retaliation of the other side – a scenario that most Italian rulers were keen to avoid (as we have seen, for instance, when Ercole II refused to host the meeting of the French in Ferrara).

This was exactly Cosimo de' Medici's situation when the French took control of Siena. The duke had always been highly suspicious of the connection the Tuscan exiles enjoyed with the French monarchy and especially with the queen, Catherine de' Medici, who had offered them protection and had made them very influential at the

87

<sup>88</sup> The group of Florentines at Henry II's court was very influential, not only politically but also economically. Among their number, many were bankers and regularly loaned money to the sovereign to fund his

<sup>89</sup> The duke called Mendoza 'suo inimicissimo' and 'atto a fare molto maggiori mali e maggiori perditte

<sup>91</sup> Desjardins (ed), *Négociations*, iii, p. 340. 92 Vitalis (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 52. See also: Hernando Sánchez, 'Naples and Florence', p. 174.

campaigns against the emperors: Heller, *Anti-Italianism*, pp. 94-95.

<sup>90</sup> Cantagalli, *Cosimo I,* p. 185.

a Sua Maestà': G. Spini (ed), *Lettere di Cosimo I* (Florence, 1940), pp. 118-119.

swim into two waters at the same time, which will be very difficult to do'.92

Part of Cosimo's plan was to maintain a friendly relationship with the French representatives in Siena, especially with the cardinal of Ferrara. The kind of relationship that the duke and the cardinal aimed to establish had already been made clear at the very beginning of Ippolito's work as the king's representative: travelling from Ferrara to Siena, the cardinal had stopped in Florence, where he had been wel-

royal court.<sup>88</sup> Cosimo had feared that the *fuoriusciti* might have managed to convince Henry II to support military action against one of the Tuscan towns, which, in Cosimo's eyes, were Florentine satellites, and for which he had always had an expansionistic thirst. His relationship with the Valois court was nonetheless far from hostile, at least on the surface. Although his rise as the duke of Florence had been helped by Charles V, that alliance also presented some risks, as Cosimo aimed to maintain his state independent and feared to become too strongly dependent on the Empire. For this reason, the duke was also deeply hostile to Charles' officials in Tuscany and, in his letters to the emperor, he did not miss an opportunity to complain about Don Diego de Mendoza, blaming him for his poor handling of Siena.<sup>89</sup> Roberto Cantagalli claims that the duke was not displeased with the idea of a popular rebellion in Siena, which, resulting in the expulsion of Mendoza, would both have relieved Florence of his principal rival in Tuscany and have made the emperor see that Cosimo's long-standing criticism of Mendoza's governorship had been pro-

When the rebellion broke out, Cosimo avoided immediately taking a strong position against the Sienese citizens. He managed to send a few of his troops into the city, through a door that was still controlled by the Spanish soldiers, but rather than fighting the rebels and calming the turmoil, his officials contented themselves with occupying the fort and remaining there – an action that was more symbolic than effective and aimed to demonstrate to Charles V that the duke was a trustworthy ally.<sup>90</sup> That Cosimo was deliberately biding his time instead of deploying his army surprised even the Florentine ambassador to Rome, Averardo Serristori; not so the pope, who told the incredulous Serristori that he 'did not believe that Your Excellence [Cosimo] will uncover himself so much, in order not to drag this flood upon himself, and not to have this pest all upon his shoulders; because the emperor can neither defend himself nor others'.<sup>91</sup> Cosimo's line of action – a clever but difficult game that, through a claim of neutrality, aimed to reassure Charles V of his loyalty without provoking a French intervention against Florence – was perfectly described by Bishop Lodéve in a letter: 'it seems that he [Cosimo] wants to make an effort and

phetic.

<sup>86</sup> As Cosimo's courtier, Montalvo, observed, 'questo bando fu fatto a cautela, perché chi andava dal duca non poteva incorrere nel bando': Montalvo, *Relazione*, p. 16. 87 Ibid.

royal court.<sup>88</sup> Cosimo had feared that the *fuoriusciti* might have managed to convince Henry II to support military action against one of the Tuscan towns, which, in Cosimo's eyes, were Florentine satellites, and for which he had always had an expansionistic thirst. His relationship with the Valois court was nonetheless far from hostile, at least on the surface. Although his rise as the duke of Florence had been helped by Charles V, that alliance also presented some risks, as Cosimo aimed to maintain his state independent and feared to become too strongly dependent on the Empire. For this reason, the duke was also deeply hostile to Charles' officials in Tuscany and, in his letters to the emperor, he did not miss an opportunity to complain about Don Diego de Mendoza, blaming him for his poor handling of Siena.<sup>89</sup> Roberto Cantagalli claims that the duke was not displeased with the idea of a popular rebellion in Siena, which, resulting in the expulsion of Mendoza, would both have relieved Florence of his principal rival in Tuscany and have made the emperor see that Cosimo's long-standing criticism of Mendoza's governorship had been prophetic.

When the rebellion broke out, Cosimo avoided immediately taking a strong position against the Sienese citizens. He managed to send a few of his troops into the city, through a door that was still controlled by the Spanish soldiers, but rather than fighting the rebels and calming the turmoil, his officials contented themselves with occupying the fort and remaining there – an action that was more symbolic than effective and aimed to demonstrate to Charles V that the duke was a trustworthy ally.<sup>90</sup> That Cosimo was deliberately biding his time instead of deploying his army surprised even the Florentine ambassador to Rome, Averardo Serristori; not so the pope, who told the incredulous Serristori that he 'did not believe that Your Excellence [Cosimo] will uncover himself so much, in order not to drag this flood upon himself, and not to have this pest all upon his shoulders; because the emperor can neither defend himself nor others'.<sup>91</sup> Cosimo's line of action – a clever but difficult game that, through a claim of neutrality, aimed to reassure Charles V of his loyalty without provoking a French intervention against Florence – was perfectly described by Bishop Lodéve in a letter: 'it seems that he [Cosimo] wants to make an effort and swim into two waters at the same time, which will be very difficult to do'.92

Part of Cosimo's plan was to maintain a friendly relationship with the French representatives in Siena, especially with the cardinal of Ferrara. The kind of relationship that the duke and the cardinal aimed to establish had already been made clear at the very beginning of Ippolito's work as the king's representative: travelling from Ferrara to Siena, the cardinal had stopped in Florence, where he had been wel-

86

<sup>86</sup> As Cosimo's courtier, Montalvo, observed, 'questo bando fu fatto a cautela, perché chi andava dal

This was exactly Cosimo de' Medici's situation when the French took control of Siena. The duke had always been highly suspicious of the connection the Tuscan exiles enjoyed with the French monarchy and especially with the queen, Catherine de' Medici, who had offered them protection and had made them very influential at the

to the emperor.86 The menacing tones with which Vimercato was supposed to approach the Sienese authorities had, of course, no equivalent in the instructions left him regarding his mission in Florence. Not only did Julius III content himself with this insipid request of non-intervention, but he also ordered Vimercato to manage according to Cosimo's will any further negotiations with Ippolito d'Este and with the other Sienese ministers, and in such way as to pursue only Cosimo's own satis-

When you will happen to return to the cardinal or to negotiate towards the peace, you will manage yourself as the duke commands, because in this matter we do not

**2. Limits to French power. Ippolito d'Este, Cosimo de' Medici, Piero Strozzi**

Cosimo de' Medici's diplomatic duplicity found its perfect counterpart and best recipient in Ippolito d'Este. In many respects, when the Sienese rebellion began, the two Italian lords were not in a dissimilar situation: they were both allied – or, better, subject – to a much stronger power, to which they owed a good deal of their influence and wealth, and from which they were hoping to gain more in the future. We have seen how the attention that families like the Medici and the Este paid to the 'local' dimension of Italy was necessarily very different from that of the great European powers. The affiliation with the emperor or the king of France had become, in the sixteenth century (with the exception of Venice, traditionally neutral), an essential element in the life of any Italian small state, as it provided protection against their enemies and opportunities to acquire honour and prestige. However, in the context of the deep political instability that affected the Italian peninsula, to tie one's own destiny too tightly to the Italian fortunes of either the Habsburgs or the Valois was never a recommendable choice, and so every ruler tried to maintain for their state the favour of all the European sovereigns. In case of a new eruption of hostilities in Italy, too straightforward an obligation to serve either the emperor or the king of France would have determined, for most Italian states, the exposure of their dominions to the uncertainties of war and to the retaliation of the other side – a scenario that most Italian rulers were keen to avoid (as we have seen, for instance, when

care about anybody's benefit or satisfaction but his own.<sup>87</sup>

Ercole II refused to host the meeting of the French in Ferrara).

duca non poteva incorrere nel bando': Montalvo, *Relazione*, p. 16. 87 Ibid.

faction:

<sup>88</sup> The group of Florentines at Henry II's court was very influential, not only politically but also economically. Among their number, many were bankers and regularly loaned money to the sovereign to fund his campaigns against the emperors: Heller, *Anti-Italianism*, pp. 94-95.

<sup>89</sup> The duke called Mendoza 'suo inimicissimo' and 'atto a fare molto maggiori mali e maggiori perditte a Sua Maestà': G. Spini (ed), *Lettere di Cosimo I* (Florence, 1940), pp. 118-119.

<sup>90</sup> Cantagalli, *Cosimo I,* p. 185.

<sup>91</sup> Desjardins (ed), *Négociations*, iii, p. 340. 92 Vitalis (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 52. See also: Hernando Sánchez, 'Naples and Florence', p. 174.

comed very warmly by the duke and his family.<sup>93</sup> There, according to the anonymous writer from Ippolito's household,

Discussing many times with the duke of Florence, who thought that the king of France might have sent the cardinal of Ferrara to Siena in order to move war against him, the cardinal told him that his king's will was to maintain that Republic free, and that if the king had had any intention to do otherwise he would have not sent him.94

The cardinal of Ferrara was therefore hoping to 'make the duke of Florence become friends with the king, so that the affairs in Tuscany would always remain in peace' – something that would have been difficult to achieve, given the reserve with which Cosimo was seen at the Valois court.<sup>95</sup> That both men had decided to temporarily embrace this friendly attitude is also the opinion of one of Cosimo's courtiers, who, mirroring the judgement expressed by the anonymous writer, stated that 'with the cardinal, [the duke of Florence] had a good correspondence, and they exchanged very polite letters with each other'.<sup>96</sup> It was an arrangement that, whilst opportunistic and hypocritical, served the purposes of both: Cosimo did not want to arouse a climate of hostility against Florence that would have forced him to defend his state when neither his nor the emperor's forces were ready; Ippolito did not want to cloud his administration with an open war, an occurrence that not only would have deprived him of his leadership in favour of the French military officials, but would have also exposed the Duchy of Ferrara to the risk of another war in central Italy. Therefore, for the time being, a situation of strained neutrality was preferable to any other alternative.

However, that, behind the superficiality of their claims of friendship, the duke and the cardinal 'were both waiting for a chance to pursue their own plans' is something that occurred even to contemporary observers.<sup>97</sup> This was particularly true in the case of the duke of Florence, who was playing a difficult game between the emperor and France and who had definitely more to gain (and to lose) in the immediate future than the cardinal of Ferrara. While his letters to Ippolito were as polite as ever, Cosimo's real efforts focused on collecting information on Siena. Immediately after the beginning of the rebellion, he sent, alongside his troops, a couple of agents who devoted themselves to gathering all the information available on relations between the French ministers and the citizens, on the food supplies in the city, on the number of troops heading to Tuscany, and on the forts, walls, and artillery of Siena.<sup>98</sup> Besides employing several casual and 'anonymous' informers who sent him

89

Germany, Pandolfini, between July and August 1552: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, pp. 319; 321-

<sup>99</sup> Ricasoli's correspondence mainly dealt with the fortifications in the Sienese territories, the movements of the French troops, and the food supplies available in the city. The ambassador also coordinated a network of informers, who, after his departure from Siena, kept addressing their letters to him. See, for

dispatches from within the walls of Siena, the duke also employed a resident ambassador, Leone Ricasoli (from August 1552) – another sign that Cosimo was more eager to promote the image of someone neutral rather than that of the loyal Imperial servant. Ambassador Ricasoli's frequent letters provided the duke with a thorough picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the French presence in the city, in a way that resembles more the work of an intelligence agent than that of a mere ambassador.99 Cosimo's behaviour was well explained to Charles V by the Florentine am-

These French agents who are in Siena have started to repose so much confidence and safety in us, that without any precaution they send couriers with their dispatches across this state [Florence]. Which is something we keep dissimulating, in order to be able to so easily get to know and penetrate their plans and their secrets; in the belief that this might be really helpful to His Caesarean Majesty. […]. If this will be treated with the appropriate discretion, we hope we will really benefit him [Charles V]. We also believe that, the more Don Diego and I dissimulate in regard with these things of Siena and show that we do not care about them so much nor we do want to interfere, the more these French agents will fall asleep and will take fewer defensive measures for the city, persuading themselves that there is no reason to worry about

While committed to acquiring information through every available means, Cosimo also allowed the French to cross his territories with men and supplies. This behaviour, however, became more difficult to sustain when the viceroy moved to the siege of Montalcino. The duke had managed, once again, to defend his neutrality and to provide only a limited support to the Imperial troops – a fact that the cardinal of Ferrara did not neglect to appreciate and praise.<sup>101</sup> At the same time, the cardinal had kept relying on Cosimo's 'politeness' to obtain free passage of goods and supplies through the Florentine state, making sure, for his part, that none of the French troops heading to Siena would trouble the duke's dominion.102 Paradoxically, when the viceroy's troops attacked the Sienese, the exchange of courtesies between the two men increased.103 Although, as we have seen, the duke had previously justified his blatant lack of initiative to Charles V by explaining that he was aiming to gain the trust of the French, his excessively polite relationship with Siena, in the end, aroused the emperor's suspicions. In March 1553, Cosimo was forced to defend himself and to write a letter to Germany in which he blamed Don Diego de Mendoza as the one who had spread rumours about the duke's negligence in patrolling the border with

bassador to Germany, Pierfilippo Pandolfini, in August 1552:

His Caesarean Majesty.<sup>100</sup>

322; 326-328. See also Cantagalli, *Cosimo I,* p. 186.

<sup>101</sup> ASFI, MdP, 3271, fo. 433r. 102 Ibid.*,* fo. 433v. <sup>103</sup> Ibid., fos. 434; 437.

example, ASFI, MdP, 410/1851, fos. 4-147; 413a, fos. 696-767. 100 Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, p. 323.

<sup>93</sup> As Ippolito himself later told Cosimo's ambassador, Leone Ricasoli, when he arrived in Siena: ASFI, MdP, 1851, fo. 148.

<sup>94</sup> Ibid., 1865, fo. 93r. 95 Ibid.

<sup>96</sup> Montalvo, *Relazione*, p. 6.

<sup>97</sup> Ibid.

<sup>98</sup> These were Ippolito da Correggio and Leone Santi. The duke shared everything they had found out with Charles V. See, for example, the numerous letters that Cosimo addressed to his ambassador to

dispatches from within the walls of Siena, the duke also employed a resident ambassador, Leone Ricasoli (from August 1552) – another sign that Cosimo was more eager to promote the image of someone neutral rather than that of the loyal Imperial servant. Ambassador Ricasoli's frequent letters provided the duke with a thorough picture of the strengths and weaknesses of the French presence in the city, in a way that resembles more the work of an intelligence agent than that of a mere ambassador.99 Cosimo's behaviour was well explained to Charles V by the Florentine ambassador to Germany, Pierfilippo Pandolfini, in August 1552:

These French agents who are in Siena have started to repose so much confidence and safety in us, that without any precaution they send couriers with their dispatches across this state [Florence]. Which is something we keep dissimulating, in order to be able to so easily get to know and penetrate their plans and their secrets; in the belief that this might be really helpful to His Caesarean Majesty. […]. If this will be treated with the appropriate discretion, we hope we will really benefit him [Charles V]. We also believe that, the more Don Diego and I dissimulate in regard with these things of Siena and show that we do not care about them so much nor we do want to interfere, the more these French agents will fall asleep and will take fewer defensive measures for the city, persuading themselves that there is no reason to worry about His Caesarean Majesty.<sup>100</sup>

While committed to acquiring information through every available means, Cosimo also allowed the French to cross his territories with men and supplies. This behaviour, however, became more difficult to sustain when the viceroy moved to the siege of Montalcino. The duke had managed, once again, to defend his neutrality and to provide only a limited support to the Imperial troops – a fact that the cardinal of Ferrara did not neglect to appreciate and praise.<sup>101</sup> At the same time, the cardinal had kept relying on Cosimo's 'politeness' to obtain free passage of goods and supplies through the Florentine state, making sure, for his part, that none of the French troops heading to Siena would trouble the duke's dominion.102 Paradoxically, when the viceroy's troops attacked the Sienese, the exchange of courtesies between the two men increased.103 Although, as we have seen, the duke had previously justified his blatant lack of initiative to Charles V by explaining that he was aiming to gain the trust of the French, his excessively polite relationship with Siena, in the end, aroused the emperor's suspicions. In March 1553, Cosimo was forced to defend himself and to write a letter to Germany in which he blamed Don Diego de Mendoza as the one who had spread rumours about the duke's negligence in patrolling the border with

88

<sup>98</sup> These were Ippolito da Correggio and Leone Santi. The duke shared everything they had found out with Charles V. See, for example, the numerous letters that Cosimo addressed to his ambassador to

<sup>93</sup> As Ippolito himself later told Cosimo's ambassador, Leone Ricasoli, when he arrived in Siena: ASFI,

comed very warmly by the duke and his family.<sup>93</sup> There, according to the anony-

Discussing many times with the duke of Florence, who thought that the king of France might have sent the cardinal of Ferrara to Siena in order to move war against him, the cardinal told him that his king's will was to maintain that Republic free, and that if the king had had any intention to do otherwise he would have not sent

The cardinal of Ferrara was therefore hoping to 'make the duke of Florence become friends with the king, so that the affairs in Tuscany would always remain in peace' – something that would have been difficult to achieve, given the reserve with which Cosimo was seen at the Valois court.<sup>95</sup> That both men had decided to temporarily embrace this friendly attitude is also the opinion of one of Cosimo's courtiers, who, mirroring the judgement expressed by the anonymous writer, stated that 'with the cardinal, [the duke of Florence] had a good correspondence, and they exchanged very polite letters with each other'.<sup>96</sup> It was an arrangement that, whilst opportunistic and hypocritical, served the purposes of both: Cosimo did not want to arouse a climate of hostility against Florence that would have forced him to defend his state when neither his nor the emperor's forces were ready; Ippolito did not want to cloud his administration with an open war, an occurrence that not only would have deprived him of his leadership in favour of the French military officials, but would have also exposed the Duchy of Ferrara to the risk of another war in central Italy. Therefore, for the time being, a situation of strained neutrality was preferable to any

However, that, behind the superficiality of their claims of friendship, the duke and the cardinal 'were both waiting for a chance to pursue their own plans' is something that occurred even to contemporary observers.<sup>97</sup> This was particularly true in the case of the duke of Florence, who was playing a difficult game between the emperor and France and who had definitely more to gain (and to lose) in the immediate future than the cardinal of Ferrara. While his letters to Ippolito were as polite as ever, Cosimo's real efforts focused on collecting information on Siena. Immediately after the beginning of the rebellion, he sent, alongside his troops, a couple of agents who devoted themselves to gathering all the information available on relations between the French ministers and the citizens, on the food supplies in the city, on the number of troops heading to Tuscany, and on the forts, walls, and artillery of Siena.<sup>98</sup> Besides employing several casual and 'anonymous' informers who sent him

mous writer from Ippolito's household,

him.94

other alternative.

MdP, 1851, fo. 148. <sup>94</sup> Ibid., 1865, fo. 93r. 95 Ibid. <sup>96</sup> Montalvo, *Relazione*, p. 6.

<sup>97</sup> Ibid.

Germany, Pandolfini, between July and August 1552: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, pp. 319; 321- 322; 326-328. See also Cantagalli, *Cosimo I,* p. 186.

<sup>99</sup> Ricasoli's correspondence mainly dealt with the fortifications in the Sienese territories, the movements of the French troops, and the food supplies available in the city. The ambassador also coordinated a network of informers, who, after his departure from Siena, kept addressing their letters to him. See, for example, ASFI, MdP, 410/1851, fos. 4-147; 413a, fos. 696-767. 100 Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, p. 323.

<sup>101</sup> ASFI, MdP, 3271, fo. 433r. 102 Ibid.*,* fo. 433v.

<sup>103</sup> Ibid., fos. 434; 437.

Siena and in preventing the transit of French goods – something that, as we have just seen, he had indeed done. Cosimo played the role of the indignant loyal servant and hypocritically reassured the emperor that 'our conscience is not burdened with the slightest sense of negligence'.<sup>104</sup> At the same time, and on the other side, Ippolito too was accused by some of his own *protégés,* the Sienese, of 'having some business with the duke of Florence' – a suspicion that, whether sincere or not, could be easily induced by Ippolito's well-known 'friendliness' with the duke.105

This behaviour, as we have seen, had its primary rationale in Ippolito's obligation to soothe the hostilities in Tuscany – nonetheless, it was at risk of appearing politically duplicitous and it could be very easily used to undermine Ippolito's reputation before the French monarchy.106 The private favours that the two men kept exchanging with each other resulted, for both of them, in suspicions of betrayal on the part of their allies.<sup>107</sup> In the case of the cardinal of Ferrara, these suspicions are echoed even in the words of a modern historian such as Lucien Romier, who argued that while Ippolito's behaviour might have been a sign of his 'trahison' – but it was probably the sign only of his 'fatuité naïve'.<sup>108</sup> We shall see that the the cardinal's relationship with the duke of Florence was not as naïve as Romier thought, and that he had a clear sense of Cosimo's agenda. However, though Ippolito was forced by his conflicted loyalties to stick to his programme of appeasement, Cosimo de' Medici's ambitions over Siena had the benefit of being more independent, and it was therefore the duke who was first to abandon his pretended neutrality.

While the private relationship between Ippolito and Cosimo de' Medici seemed to be oblivious to the increasing tension caused by the ravages of the Spanish troops in the Sienese, the tactful circumspection that had surrounded the 'official' diplomatic relation between Siena and Florence in the summer and the autumn of 1552 was giving way, in the winter, to an atmosphere of increasing hostility. Suspicions about the Florentine ambassador's involvement with an anti-French conspiracy started to make the ambassador permanence in the city problematic – to the point that, in February 1553, Cosimo decided to recall him to Florence.109 Immediately after Ricasoli's departure, the Sienese arrested a certain Monterchio, one of his collaborators, who had been seen 'measuring' the city fortifications and whose visits to

91

congiunta con qualche diffidentia de le parole mie': ASFI, MdP, 3271, fo. 479.

<sup>114</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.12 (13 April 1553).

Ricasoli's house had led to suspicions that he was a spy.110 To save Monterchio from prison, the capitano del popolo, Giulio Salvi, intervened, prohibiting the accusers from questioning Monterchio about his relationship with Ricasoli and eventually obtaining his release (a favour that Monterchio could not return when the capitano himself was arrested and beheaded a few months later, with the accusation of having

The withdrawal of an ambassador represented, in the best case, a severe breach in any diplomatic relationship; in the worst, it was the prelude to a declaration of war. The departure of Leone Ricasoli briskly tore the veil of ostentatious courtesy that the cardinal and the duke of Florence had spread over their diplomatic communications since the beginning of the Sienese rebellion. While on 30 January 1553 (and continuously even during the siege of Montalcino) the cardinal was still warmly reassuring Cosimo of his friendship ('Not only do I desire the health of this city without any dangerous harm for yourself, but whenever I might learn of a way to obtain the preservation of your freedom and your state more safely and peacefully, I will be as committed and prompt to walk that path as Your Excellence might wish'), only a week later, on 12 February, he claimed to be shocked and hurt by Cosimo's decision – Ricasoli's departure was, in Ippolito's words, a personal offence.112 In his letter to the duke – which he wrote because he wished it 'to remain with you as a witness of truth, and because my conscience compels me to do so' – the cardinal bitterly regretted Cosimo's decision and especially lamented the fact that, 'having decided Your Excellence to remove this ambassador, he did not do it in a different way

After this first burst of animosity, the cardinal must have believed that Cosimo was going to abandon his pretence of neutrality and show his real intentions over Siena, because, in April 1553, he wrote to his brother that 'he [the duke of Florence] is starting to uncover himself'.114 As for their own relationship, another sign that private friendship and reason of state were starting to collide came from Cosimo's espionage, in the difficult moment when the cardinal was managing the negotiations for the peace agreement proposed by the pope. Keen to penetrate into the real

<sup>110</sup> ASFI, MdP, 413a, fo. 696r (15 February 1553). See also ibid., 1866, fo. 17r (16 February 1553). 111 ASFI, MdP, 413a, fos. 706r-707r (16 February 1553). Ottaviano Salvi, a clergyman and Giulio Salvi's brother, was one of Leone Ricasoli's most active spies. In his dispatches, he used codenames to talk about the Sienese authorities (Ippolito II d'Este, for instance, was 'the widow'). He also asked Ricasoli to provide him with 'quella mistura di poter leggere le lettere nel modo che mi diceste' so that he could write more explicit things about the Sienese politics – the 'mistura' sounds like some sort of invisible ink. Ottaviano was sentenced to death with his brother in May 1553. The Salvis had also helped Ricasoli to obtain the removal of some offensive sonnets and paintings ('sonnettacci e dipinture') that were targeting Charles V. See ASFI, MdP, 413a, fos. 706r-707r (16 February 1553); 766r (16 February 1553) as well as ibid., 1851, fo. 98. See also Sozzini, 'Diario', p. 142; Cantagalli, *Cosimo I,* pp. 199-200. 112 'Ho compreso che la cagione che l'ha indotta a rivocarlo è stata il parerle che noi caminiamo in queste cose di Siena ad altro fine ch'ella non pensava; né posso fare che io non mi dolga che Vostra Eccellenza habbia conciputo così fatta opinione, sì per esser tutto contraria al vero, sì per venire ad essere

organised the anti-French conspiracy).<sup>111</sup>

[*sotto un colore diverso*]'.<sup>113</sup>

<sup>113</sup> Ibid.

<sup>104</sup> The duke also polemically asked: 'E forse che i francesi non possono per altre vie che per il nostro stato mandare denari e ciò che vogliono in Siena, e che gli mancano le strade per donde mandarli!':

Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii*,* pp. 337-338. 105 Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 231. 106 The cardinal had found a letter, written by 'qualche maligna persona di questa città' and addressed to Constable Montmorency and Cardinal Tournon: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.24 (24 August 1553). The suspicions of the Sienese are also accounted for in some of Bartolomeo Cavalcanti's letters (Cavalcanti had followed Ippolito d'Este to Siena to help him manage the government of the city): G. Campori, *Diciotto lettere inedite di Bartolomeo Cavalcanti* (Modena, 1868)*,* p. 8.

<sup>107</sup> Ippolito, for instance, took care of returning to Cosimo three slaves of his that had been imprisoned in Siena. Cosimo, given the difficulties in supplying Siena with food during the siege, personally presented Ippolito with five-hundred measures of wine for his household: ASFI, MdP, 3271, fo. 431; 436. 108 Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, p. 350.

<sup>109</sup> Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, pp. 333-334; Romier, *Les origines politiques*, i, p. 347 n.1.

Ricasoli's house had led to suspicions that he was a spy.110 To save Monterchio from prison, the capitano del popolo, Giulio Salvi, intervened, prohibiting the accusers from questioning Monterchio about his relationship with Ricasoli and eventually obtaining his release (a favour that Monterchio could not return when the capitano himself was arrested and beheaded a few months later, with the accusation of having organised the anti-French conspiracy).<sup>111</sup>

The withdrawal of an ambassador represented, in the best case, a severe breach in any diplomatic relationship; in the worst, it was the prelude to a declaration of war. The departure of Leone Ricasoli briskly tore the veil of ostentatious courtesy that the cardinal and the duke of Florence had spread over their diplomatic communications since the beginning of the Sienese rebellion. While on 30 January 1553 (and continuously even during the siege of Montalcino) the cardinal was still warmly reassuring Cosimo of his friendship ('Not only do I desire the health of this city without any dangerous harm for yourself, but whenever I might learn of a way to obtain the preservation of your freedom and your state more safely and peacefully, I will be as committed and prompt to walk that path as Your Excellence might wish'), only a week later, on 12 February, he claimed to be shocked and hurt by Cosimo's decision – Ricasoli's departure was, in Ippolito's words, a personal offence.112 In his letter to the duke – which he wrote because he wished it 'to remain with you as a witness of truth, and because my conscience compels me to do so' – the cardinal bitterly regretted Cosimo's decision and especially lamented the fact that, 'having decided Your Excellence to remove this ambassador, he did not do it in a different way [*sotto un colore diverso*]'.<sup>113</sup>

After this first burst of animosity, the cardinal must have believed that Cosimo was going to abandon his pretence of neutrality and show his real intentions over Siena, because, in April 1553, he wrote to his brother that 'he [the duke of Florence] is starting to uncover himself'.114 As for their own relationship, another sign that private friendship and reason of state were starting to collide came from Cosimo's espionage, in the difficult moment when the cardinal was managing the negotiations for the peace agreement proposed by the pope. Keen to penetrate into the real

<sup>110</sup> ASFI, MdP, 413a, fo. 696r (15 February 1553). See also ibid., 1866, fo. 17r (16 February 1553). 111 ASFI, MdP, 413a, fos. 706r-707r (16 February 1553). Ottaviano Salvi, a clergyman and Giulio Salvi's brother, was one of Leone Ricasoli's most active spies. In his dispatches, he used codenames to talk about the Sienese authorities (Ippolito II d'Este, for instance, was 'the widow'). He also asked Ricasoli to provide him with 'quella mistura di poter leggere le lettere nel modo che mi diceste' so that he could write more explicit things about the Sienese politics – the 'mistura' sounds like some sort of invisible ink. Ottaviano was sentenced to death with his brother in May 1553. The Salvis had also helped Ricasoli to obtain the removal of some offensive sonnets and paintings ('sonnettacci e dipinture') that were targeting Charles V. See ASFI, MdP, 413a, fos. 706r-707r (16 February 1553); 766r (16 February 1553) as well as ibid., 1851, fo. 98. See also Sozzini, 'Diario', p. 142; Cantagalli, *Cosimo I,* pp.

90

<sup>107</sup> Ippolito, for instance, took care of returning to Cosimo three slaves of his that had been imprisoned in Siena. Cosimo, given the difficulties in supplying Siena with food during the siege, personally presented

Ippolito with five-hundred measures of wine for his household: ASFI, MdP, 3271, fo. 431; 436. 108 Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, p. 350. <sup>109</sup> Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, pp. 333-334; Romier, *Les origines politiques*, i, p. 347 n.1.

<sup>104</sup> The duke also polemically asked: 'E forse che i francesi non possono per altre vie che per il nostro stato mandare denari e ciò che vogliono in Siena, e che gli mancano le strade per donde mandarli!': Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii*,* pp. 337-338. 105 Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* p. 231. 106 The cardinal had found a letter, written by 'qualche maligna persona di questa città' and addressed to Constable Montmorency and Cardinal Tournon: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.24 (24 August 1553). The suspicions of the Sienese are also accounted for in some of Bartolomeo Cavalcanti's letters (Cavalcanti had followed Ippolito d'Este to Siena to help him manage the government of the city): G. Campori,

*Diciotto lettere inedite di Bartolomeo Cavalcanti* (Modena, 1868)*,* p. 8.

Siena and in preventing the transit of French goods – something that, as we have just seen, he had indeed done. Cosimo played the role of the indignant loyal servant and hypocritically reassured the emperor that 'our conscience is not burdened with the slightest sense of negligence'.<sup>104</sup> At the same time, and on the other side, Ippolito too was accused by some of his own *protégés,* the Sienese, of 'having some business with the duke of Florence' – a suspicion that, whether sincere or not, could be easily

This behaviour, as we have seen, had its primary rationale in Ippolito's obligation to soothe the hostilities in Tuscany – nonetheless, it was at risk of appearing politically duplicitous and it could be very easily used to undermine Ippolito's reputation before the French monarchy.106 The private favours that the two men kept exchanging with each other resulted, for both of them, in suspicions of betrayal on the part of their allies.<sup>107</sup> In the case of the cardinal of Ferrara, these suspicions are echoed even in the words of a modern historian such as Lucien Romier, who argued that while Ippolito's behaviour might have been a sign of his 'trahison' – but it was probably the sign only of his 'fatuité naïve'.<sup>108</sup> We shall see that the the cardinal's relationship with the duke of Florence was not as naïve as Romier thought, and that he had a clear sense of Cosimo's agenda. However, though Ippolito was forced by his conflicted loyalties to stick to his programme of appeasement, Cosimo de' Medici's ambitions over Siena had the benefit of being more independent, and it was

While the private relationship between Ippolito and Cosimo de' Medici seemed to be oblivious to the increasing tension caused by the ravages of the Spanish troops in the Sienese, the tactful circumspection that had surrounded the 'official' diplomatic relation between Siena and Florence in the summer and the autumn of 1552 was giving way, in the winter, to an atmosphere of increasing hostility. Suspicions about the Florentine ambassador's involvement with an anti-French conspiracy started to make the ambassador permanence in the city problematic – to the point that, in February 1553, Cosimo decided to recall him to Florence.109 Immediately after Ricasoli's departure, the Sienese arrested a certain Monterchio, one of his collaborators, who had been seen 'measuring' the city fortifications and whose visits to

induced by Ippolito's well-known 'friendliness' with the duke.105

therefore the duke who was first to abandon his pretended neutrality.

<sup>199-200. 112</sup> 'Ho compreso che la cagione che l'ha indotta a rivocarlo è stata il parerle che noi caminiamo in queste cose di Siena ad altro fine ch'ella non pensava; né posso fare che io non mi dolga che Vostra Eccellenza habbia conciputo così fatta opinione, sì per esser tutto contraria al vero, sì per venire ad essere congiunta con qualche diffidentia de le parole mie': ASFI, MdP, 3271, fo. 479. <sup>113</sup> Ibid.

<sup>114</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.12 (13 April 1553).

#### The Path of Pleasantness

thoughts of the French over the agreement that they kept delaying, the Imperials seized a batch of ciphered letters that one of the cardinal's men was carrying, some of them written by Duke Ercole and addressed to Ippolito in Siena, some others written by Ippolito and addressed to Ferrara – even though both the carrier and the letters were protected by a safe-conduct signed by the duke of Florence. When the cardinal discovered the loss, he complained to the duke of Florence and scornfully wrote to his brother that he was not expecting any help from the man who had in all likelihood benefitted from the theft:

Although I did not neglect to report it to the duke of Florence […], my opinion is that he was informed of everything, and that the letters found their way into his hands; therefore, I think that he is going to respond more in words than actions. 115

A month after the episode, the cardinal's stolen letters were returned, but in such terms that made it quite clear that Cosimo's 'neutrality' and 'friendship' were definitely a thing of the past:

The day before yesterday, this lord the duke sent me, through his secretary Bartholomeo Concino, two large sheets of opened letters, which were given to him (he says) by Don Garcìa, who was in Florence the other day and to whom he claims he had addressed several requests. I did not find, among these sheets, other letters of importance but those from Your Excellence, [written] in cipher on the VII and on the X […]; and regarding those that were cyphered, this lord the duke wrote me that Don Garcìa told him that he had sent them to the emperor's ambassador in Venice to have them deciphered [*at this point Ippolito starts writing in cipher*] hence, one can well imagine that having the letter of mine for Your Excellence, they might have deciphered it and might have also seen, if they had deciphered the other ones too, what was there said against this business [i. e. the peace deal].<sup>116</sup>

This episode did not put on hold the friendly relationship between Ippolito d'Este and Cosimo de' Medici. <sup>117</sup> The arrival of the Turkish armada and the failure of the peace conference, however, dropped the curtain on the official diplomatic activity that had involved Florence, Siena and Rome in the previous months. In the summer of 1553, war quickly opened on several fronts; the political environment in which Ippolito d'Este was in charge of defending the French-Sienese interests completely changed. After the attack against the kingdom of Naples, the Turkish fleet sailed to Tuscany; upon arrival, on 9 August 1553, the fleet attacked and destroyed the islands of Elba and Pianosa, part of the Florentine state. The French, galvanised by the sudden turn of the events, decided to send Paul de Thermes and a great number of soldiers to conquer Corsica (under the control of Genoa, allied with the emperor), leaving Siena poorly defended. The destruction of part of his dominion by

93

the Turks, combined with the vulnerability in which Siena had been left, offered Cosimo the perfect excuse to abandon his neutrality and take the initiative against the French. During August and September 1553, the duke of Florence started discreetely organising his forces and seeking Charles V's support to gather more men and horses, whilst also sending his troops to help Genoa fight the French in Corsica.118 Soon after that, rumours spread in Italy that the king of France had decided to appoint Piero Strozzi, the most prominent of the anti-Medicean Tuscan exiles in France, to be general captain of the army in Siena. Formally, Strozzi was to replace Paul de Thermes: it was clear, however, that Strozzi's appointment was not of the same

We have already noticed that Cosimo de' Medici had been displeased to see that Tuscan exiles were gaining more and more influence at the French court, thanks to the support offered them by Catherine de' Medici; the fact that the king of France was now sending to Tuscany the most dangerous of them, the son of that Filippo who had tried to overthrow Cosimo and who had made a fortune lending money to the monarchies of Europe, provided the duke of Florence with the perfect *casus belli*  to move war against Siena and fulfil his expansionistic desires. The hatred that existed between Cosimo de' Medici and the Strozzi family was public knowledge: the king of France himself had refrained from sending Piero Strozzi to Italy when the rebellion had first broken out, in spite of his insistent requests.<sup>120</sup> He had chosen, instead, a man of compromise, Ippolito d'Este, who would have done anything in his power to keep Tuscany as quiet as possible, giving the king time to reassess the monarchy's priorities without burdening its finances. The time of compromise definitively closed during the summer of 1553; the choice to send Strozzi – a soldier, not a politician – signalled that change, but was also the result of the increasing influence of the aristocratic factions that revolved around the royal court. It is hard to believe that Henry II did not realise that, by appointing Cosimo's 'capital enemy', he was provided the duke of Florence with the perfect excuse to break out of his neu-

<sup>121</sup> Everyone involved was expecting Florence to take serious measures

<sup>118</sup> For the developments of war in the summer of 1553, see Cantagalli, *Cosimo I,* pp. 202-204; Montalvo, *Relazione,* p. 8. The French ambassador to Rome, Lord de Lansac, wrote nonetheless to Siena to say that the 'grandes provisions et préparatifs que fait le duc de Florence […] sont telz que plutost l'on deveroyt avoir suspeçon que se fust pour offender et non pour se deffendre': Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed),

<sup>119</sup> Piero Strozzi was the son of Clarice de' Medici and Filippo Strozzi, who had been one of the richest bankers of Europe and had been banished from Florence after leading an attempt to overthrow Cosimo de' Medici. Piero's mother, Clarice, was Catherine de' Medici's aunt. After Filippo died, Piero passed into the service of the French monarchy, helped and protected by his cousin Catherine de' Medici: Hel-

<sup>120</sup> Trucchi, *Vita e gesta,* p. 66. The king did not want to provoke Cosimo by violating a convention signed by Florence and Siena in 1542 that forbade either of them to give shelter to the other's political enemies; Montalvo, *Relazione*, p. 14-15; Cantagalli, *Cosimo I,* p. 205-206; Romier, *Les origines poli-*

<sup>121</sup> As Montalvo wrote to sanction his lord's behaviour: 'Non contenti [the French] per fargli l'ultimo affronto, avevano mandato a Siena Pietro Strozzi, ribelle e fuoriuscito del suo stato e suo capital nemico, con la carica di Capitano Generale del Re nello stato di Siena. Di maniera che, chiaritosi dell'insolenza dei francesi aveva determinato, vedendo ogni ragione dalla sua, pigliare l'arme': Montalvo, *Relazione,* 

119

quality and that sending him to Tuscani was adding fuel to the fire.

trality.

*Correspondance,* p. 155.

ler, *Anti-Italianism*, pp. 94-96.

*tiques*, i, pp. 396; 404-405.

<sup>115</sup> Ibid., 1709.XVIII.14 (3 May 1553).

<sup>116</sup> Ibid., 1709.XVIII.15 (3 June 1553). 117 Cantagalli, *Cosimo I,* pp. 204-205.

the Turks, combined with the vulnerability in which Siena had been left, offered Cosimo the perfect excuse to abandon his neutrality and take the initiative against the French. During August and September 1553, the duke of Florence started discreetely organising his forces and seeking Charles V's support to gather more men and horses, whilst also sending his troops to help Genoa fight the French in Corsica.118 Soon after that, rumours spread in Italy that the king of France had decided to appoint Piero Strozzi, the most prominent of the anti-Medicean Tuscan exiles in France, to be general captain of the army in Siena. Formally, Strozzi was to replace Paul de Thermes: it was clear, however, that Strozzi's appointment was not of the same quality and that sending him to Tuscani was adding fuel to the fire. 119

We have already noticed that Cosimo de' Medici had been displeased to see that Tuscan exiles were gaining more and more influence at the French court, thanks to the support offered them by Catherine de' Medici; the fact that the king of France was now sending to Tuscany the most dangerous of them, the son of that Filippo who had tried to overthrow Cosimo and who had made a fortune lending money to the monarchies of Europe, provided the duke of Florence with the perfect *casus belli*  to move war against Siena and fulfil his expansionistic desires. The hatred that existed between Cosimo de' Medici and the Strozzi family was public knowledge: the king of France himself had refrained from sending Piero Strozzi to Italy when the rebellion had first broken out, in spite of his insistent requests.<sup>120</sup> He had chosen, instead, a man of compromise, Ippolito d'Este, who would have done anything in his power to keep Tuscany as quiet as possible, giving the king time to reassess the monarchy's priorities without burdening its finances. The time of compromise definitively closed during the summer of 1553; the choice to send Strozzi – a soldier, not a politician – signalled that change, but was also the result of the increasing influence of the aristocratic factions that revolved around the royal court. It is hard to believe that Henry II did not realise that, by appointing Cosimo's 'capital enemy', he was provided the duke of Florence with the perfect excuse to break out of his neutrality. <sup>121</sup> Everyone involved was expecting Florence to take serious measures

92

thoughts of the French over the agreement that they kept delaying, the Imperials seized a batch of ciphered letters that one of the cardinal's men was carrying, some of them written by Duke Ercole and addressed to Ippolito in Siena, some others written by Ippolito and addressed to Ferrara – even though both the carrier and the letters were protected by a safe-conduct signed by the duke of Florence. When the cardinal discovered the loss, he complained to the duke of Florence and scornfully wrote to his brother that he was not expecting any help from the man who had in all

Although I did not neglect to report it to the duke of Florence […], my opinion is that he was informed of everything, and that the letters found their way into his hands; therefore, I think that he is going to respond more in words than actions.

A month after the episode, the cardinal's stolen letters were returned, but in such terms that made it quite clear that Cosimo's 'neutrality' and 'friendship' were defi-

This episode did not put on hold the friendly relationship between Ippolito

of the peace conference, however, dropped the curtain on the official diplomatic activity that had involved Florence, Siena and Rome in the previous months. In the summer of 1553, war quickly opened on several fronts; the political environment in which Ippolito d'Este was in charge of defending the French-Sienese interests completely changed. After the attack against the kingdom of Naples, the Turkish fleet sailed to Tuscany; upon arrival, on 9 August 1553, the fleet attacked and destroyed the islands of Elba and Pianosa, part of the Florentine state. The French, galvanised by the sudden turn of the events, decided to send Paul de Thermes and a great number of soldiers to conquer Corsica (under the control of Genoa, allied with the emperor), leaving Siena poorly defended. The destruction of part of his dominion by

<sup>117</sup> The arrival of the Turkish armada and the failure

The day before yesterday, this lord the duke sent me, through his secretary Bartholomeo Concino, two large sheets of opened letters, which were given to him (he says) by Don Garcìa, who was in Florence the other day and to whom he claims he had addressed several requests. I did not find, among these sheets, other letters of importance but those from Your Excellence, [written] in cipher on the VII and on the X […]; and regarding those that were cyphered, this lord the duke wrote me that Don Garcìa told him that he had sent them to the emperor's ambassador in Venice to have them deciphered [*at this point Ippolito starts writing in cipher*] hence, one can well imagine that having the letter of mine for Your Excellence, they might have deciphered it and might have also seen, if they had deciphered the other ones too, what

was there said against this business [i. e. the peace deal].<sup>116</sup>

115

likelihood benefitted from the theft:

nitely a thing of the past:

d'Este and Cosimo de' Medici.

<sup>115</sup> Ibid., 1709.XVIII.14 (3 May 1553). <sup>116</sup> Ibid., 1709.XVIII.15 (3 June 1553). 117 Cantagalli, *Cosimo I,* pp. 204-205.

<sup>118</sup> For the developments of war in the summer of 1553, see Cantagalli, *Cosimo I,* pp. 202-204; Montalvo, *Relazione,* p. 8. The French ambassador to Rome, Lord de Lansac, wrote nonetheless to Siena to say that the 'grandes provisions et préparatifs que fait le duc de Florence […] sont telz que plutost l'on deveroyt avoir suspeçon que se fust pour offender et non pour se deffendre': Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 155.

<sup>119</sup> Piero Strozzi was the son of Clarice de' Medici and Filippo Strozzi, who had been one of the richest bankers of Europe and had been banished from Florence after leading an attempt to overthrow Cosimo de' Medici. Piero's mother, Clarice, was Catherine de' Medici's aunt. After Filippo died, Piero passed into the service of the French monarchy, helped and protected by his cousin Catherine de' Medici: Heller, *Anti-Italianism*, pp. 94-96.

<sup>120</sup> Trucchi, *Vita e gesta,* p. 66. The king did not want to provoke Cosimo by violating a convention signed by Florence and Siena in 1542 that forbade either of them to give shelter to the other's political enemies; Montalvo, *Relazione*, p. 14-15; Cantagalli, *Cosimo I,* p. 205-206; Romier, *Les origines politiques*, i, pp. 396; 404-405.

<sup>121</sup> As Montalvo wrote to sanction his lord's behaviour: 'Non contenti [the French] per fargli l'ultimo affronto, avevano mandato a Siena Pietro Strozzi, ribelle e fuoriuscito del suo stato e suo capital nemico, con la carica di Capitano Generale del Re nello stato di Siena. Di maniera che, chiaritosi dell'insolenza dei francesi aveva determinato, vedendo ogni ragione dalla sua, pigliare l'arme': Montalvo, *Relazione,* 

against Strozzi's presence – the French, the Sienese and also Julius III, who told his nephew, Ascanio della Cornia, that he was sure that Strozzi's arrival in Tuscany would have provoked 'some great demonstration' on Cosimo's part.122

Factors that had probably contributed to king Henry II's decision were the success achieved by Piero Strozzi in Metz, where he and the duke of Guise had forced the emperor's troops, larger in number, to a shameful retreat;<sup>123</sup> and the influence of both the Tuscan *fuoriusciti* and the queen*,* who were keen to take the opportunity to trouble Cosimo de' Medici and who had put their substantial financial assets at the service of the French crown.<sup>124</sup> However, according to the Florentine ambassador, Averardo Serristori, Strozzi's election had been determined not by political or economic considerations but rather by the hatred that was between the factions of the Guise and of Constable Montmorency, who were in competition to have their *protégés* and friends appointed to the highest offices in the kingdom: rather than seeing the duke of Guise granted the title of general captain, Montmorency had preferred to endorse Piero Strozzi's ambitions.125

In this situation, the limits of Ippolito d'Este's powers were quite evident. His chances of influencing the royal court, without the support of the Guise, were small. But the Guise too saw Italy as part of a larger puzzle, an extension of their power and not the bulk of it, and that their 'Italian policies' had to be subject to broader considerations, as much as those of the king. If it is true that Strozzi's appointment had been encouraged by the constable, it also appears that the Guise had not particularly opposed it – or that they had thought it more convenient to accept Montmorency's candidate – even though they were aware, as everyone else was, that Strozzi's presence in Siena would have strained the relation with Florence and, inevitably, deprived Ippolito d'Este of his supreme authority over the city. In April 1553, several months before Strozzi was officially invested as captain of the army and at a time when the negotiations for the peace agreement were still on-going, the cardinal of

95

Lorraine (the duke of Guise's brother) had already started to enquire about Ippolito's

With regard to what monsignor de Lorraine wanted you to ask me, that it is whether I would be happy to see Piero Strozzi here, I cannot but be surprised by such a question, because I do not see why anyone should not believe that I would happily see that lord here with me; besides regarding him as a friend of mine and someone whom I could not love or favour more even if we were related by blood, he is also

The cardinal of Lorraine probably knew that Ippolito would have not liked at all to share part of his powers with Strozzi – something that Ippolito's rhetorical enthusiasm can barely hide. It was more than a generic concern, because, if the presence of Strozzi was expected to induce the duke of Florence's reaction, that would have also necessarily shifted the balance of power from the civil to the military sphere – that is to say, from Ippolito d'Este to the freshly appointed general captain of the

Ippolito, while reassuring the cardinal of Lorraine of his good feelings towards the Tuscan captain, objected nonetheless that the arrival of one of Cosimo's principal enemies would have strained the atmosphere of 'neutrality' that he had established with difficultly with Florence – an objection that, as we have already seen, lost most of its resonance after the peace agreement failed and Cosimo sent his troops to Corsica.<sup>127</sup> Nevertheless, the cardinal tried to use the news of Strozzi's arrival to his advantage, telling the Florentine ambassador that whenever Cosimo 'took the decision to sort things out with the Most Christian king, then [Strozzi] would be called back'.<sup>128</sup> That Ippolito d'Este was not the right man to represent this new aggressive turn in king Henry II's Italian politics was quite evident: too many ties and interests conditioned his actions, and in a situation of war he had very little to gain and a lot to lose. The Tuscan exiles, on the contrary, believed that 'there is no doubt that the liberation of Siena will result in the ruin of the duke of Flor-

Piero Strozzi's appointment was officially notified to Ippolito d'Este in November 1553. Although the cardinal did not know exactly what kind of division of powers the king had envisioned to allow the two men to work side by side, he assumed that the captain would be his subordinate.130 However, as soon as Strozzi arrived, in

<sup>127</sup> 'Potrebbe ben essere che sul principio che questo duca non si era scoperto tanto a diffavore et disavantaggio nostro, et che mostrava pur qualche buon animo verso le cose del Re et di questo Stato, fusse stato di parer che non si havesse a mandare per non eccitar col sospetto di lui l'animo di Sua Eccellenza

<sup>128</sup> Canestrini (ed), *Legazioni,* p. 326. 129 As Piero Strozzi wrote to the king of France soon after he had arrived in Siena: Montalvo, *Relazione,* 

<sup>130</sup> 'Non sapendo anchora le comissioni ch'egli porta, per essersi Sua Maestà rimessa a quel che mi farà intendere per lui': ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.32 (13 November 1553). The French ambassador, Lord de Lansac, had told Ippolito that Strozzi would have been the 'lieutenant général aux affaires de la

<sup>126</sup> Ippolito II to Ercole II: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.12 (13 April 1553).

et darle materia di dichiararsi contra noi': ibid.

feeling regarding the possibility of Strozzi's appointment:

known to me for being a valiant and illustrious knight.126

army.

ence'.129

pp. 240-241.

p. 15. Ambassador Lansac had suggested to Cardinal Tournon to appoint Camillo Orsini instead: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 204.

<sup>122</sup> Ibid.*,* p. 16. In January 1554, Lodève warned Henry II that Cosimo had already started 'a parler nouveau langage, qu'il vous a toujours été serviteur, et s'esbahist qu'on luy ait envoyé pour voisin un sien rebelle': Vitalis (ed), *Correspondance,,* pp. 22-23. Some of the Sienese also feared that Strozzi's presence would have drawn Cosimo's anger upon them: Romier, *Les origines politiques*, i, p. 404 (fn. 2). 123 Trucchi, *Vita e gesta,* pp. 60-65.

<sup>124</sup> Romier, *Les origines politiques*, i, pp. 395-396. Whilst appointing Strozzi, to Italy, the king of France also allocated 600.000 *scudi* a month for the war. Roberto Strozzi, Piero's brother and the administrator of the family's bank, very soon arranged a loan of 50.000 *scudi* to finance the royal army in Italy: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 300 (December 1553); Vitalis (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 90 (February 1554).

<sup>125</sup> 'Il papa essere avvisato di buon luogo che Piero Strozzi era stato mandato per opera del Conestabile, il quale haveva proveduto col mezzo di Piero perché non ci venissi monsignor di Guisa, havendo mostro al re che l'andata di detto Piero a Metz era stata la cagione di salvare quella città': ASFI, MdP, 3272, fo. 499 (14 January 1554). Piero Strozzi was actually closer to the Guise than to Montmorency, who opposed him and all the *fuoriusciti*. According to Strozzi's biographer, however, after the success of Metz, Montmorency had looked for a reconciliation and had therefore strongly supported the captain's desire to be appointed to Siena. Strozzi's star was on the rise after Metz, and it is likely that the Constable thought that, by sponsoring his ambitions, he would both drawn him into his sphere of influence and avoid the risk that Henry II might appoint the duke of Guise: Trucchi, *Vita e gesta,* pp. 65-67.

Lorraine (the duke of Guise's brother) had already started to enquire about Ippolito's feeling regarding the possibility of Strozzi's appointment:

With regard to what monsignor de Lorraine wanted you to ask me, that it is whether I would be happy to see Piero Strozzi here, I cannot but be surprised by such a question, because I do not see why anyone should not believe that I would happily see that lord here with me; besides regarding him as a friend of mine and someone whom I could not love or favour more even if we were related by blood, he is also known to me for being a valiant and illustrious knight.126

The cardinal of Lorraine probably knew that Ippolito would have not liked at all to share part of his powers with Strozzi – something that Ippolito's rhetorical enthusiasm can barely hide. It was more than a generic concern, because, if the presence of Strozzi was expected to induce the duke of Florence's reaction, that would have also necessarily shifted the balance of power from the civil to the military sphere – that is to say, from Ippolito d'Este to the freshly appointed general captain of the army.

Ippolito, while reassuring the cardinal of Lorraine of his good feelings towards the Tuscan captain, objected nonetheless that the arrival of one of Cosimo's principal enemies would have strained the atmosphere of 'neutrality' that he had established with difficultly with Florence – an objection that, as we have already seen, lost most of its resonance after the peace agreement failed and Cosimo sent his troops to Corsica.<sup>127</sup> Nevertheless, the cardinal tried to use the news of Strozzi's arrival to his advantage, telling the Florentine ambassador that whenever Cosimo 'took the decision to sort things out with the Most Christian king, then [Strozzi] would be called back'.<sup>128</sup> That Ippolito d'Este was not the right man to represent this new aggressive turn in king Henry II's Italian politics was quite evident: too many ties and interests conditioned his actions, and in a situation of war he had very little to gain and a lot to lose. The Tuscan exiles, on the contrary, believed that 'there is no doubt that the liberation of Siena will result in the ruin of the duke of Florence'.129

Piero Strozzi's appointment was officially notified to Ippolito d'Este in November 1553. Although the cardinal did not know exactly what kind of division of powers the king had envisioned to allow the two men to work side by side, he assumed that the captain would be his subordinate.130 However, as soon as Strozzi arrived, in

94

avoid the risk that Henry II might appoint the duke of Guise: Trucchi, *Vita e gesta,* pp. 65-67.

against Strozzi's presence – the French, the Sienese and also Julius III, who told his nephew, Ascanio della Cornia, that he was sure that Strozzi's arrival in Tuscany

Factors that had probably contributed to king Henry II's decision were the success achieved by Piero Strozzi in Metz, where he and the duke of Guise had forced the emperor's troops, larger in number, to a shameful retreat;<sup>123</sup> and the influence of both the Tuscan *fuoriusciti* and the queen*,* who were keen to take the opportunity to trouble Cosimo de' Medici and who had put their substantial financial assets at the service of the French crown.<sup>124</sup> However, according to the Florentine ambassador, Averardo Serristori, Strozzi's election had been determined not by political or economic considerations but rather by the hatred that was between the factions of the Guise and of Constable Montmorency, who were in competition to have their *protégés* and friends appointed to the highest offices in the kingdom: rather than seeing the duke of Guise granted the title of general captain, Montmorency had preferred to

In this situation, the limits of Ippolito d'Este's powers were quite evident. His chances of influencing the royal court, without the support of the Guise, were small. But the Guise too saw Italy as part of a larger puzzle, an extension of their power and not the bulk of it, and that their 'Italian policies' had to be subject to broader considerations, as much as those of the king. If it is true that Strozzi's appointment had been encouraged by the constable, it also appears that the Guise had not particularly opposed it – or that they had thought it more convenient to accept Montmorency's candidate – even though they were aware, as everyone else was, that Strozzi's presence in Siena would have strained the relation with Florence and, inevitably, deprived Ippolito d'Este of his supreme authority over the city. In April 1553, several months before Strozzi was officially invested as captain of the army and at a time when the negotiations for the peace agreement were still on-going, the cardinal of

p. 15. Ambassador Lansac had suggested to Cardinal Tournon to appoint Camillo Orsini instead: Sauzé

<sup>122</sup> Ibid.*,* p. 16. In January 1554, Lodève warned Henry II that Cosimo had already started 'a parler nouveau langage, qu'il vous a toujours été serviteur, et s'esbahist qu'on luy ait envoyé pour voisin un sien rebelle': Vitalis (ed), *Correspondance,,* pp. 22-23. Some of the Sienese also feared that Strozzi's presence would have drawn Cosimo's anger upon them: Romier, *Les origines politiques*, i, p. 404 (fn. 2). 123 Trucchi, *Vita e gesta,* pp. 60-65. <sup>124</sup> Romier, *Les origines politiques*, i, pp. 395-396. Whilst appointing Strozzi, to Italy, the king of France also allocated 600.000 *scudi* a month for the war. Roberto Strozzi, Piero's brother and the administrator of the family's bank, very soon arranged a loan of 50.000 *scudi* to finance the royal army in Italy: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 300 (December 1553); Vitalis (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 90 (Feb-

<sup>125</sup> 'Il papa essere avvisato di buon luogo che Piero Strozzi era stato mandato per opera del Conestabile, il quale haveva proveduto col mezzo di Piero perché non ci venissi monsignor di Guisa, havendo mostro al re che l'andata di detto Piero a Metz era stata la cagione di salvare quella città': ASFI, MdP, 3272, fo. 499 (14 January 1554). Piero Strozzi was actually closer to the Guise than to Montmorency, who opposed him and all the *fuoriusciti*. According to Strozzi's biographer, however, after the success of Metz, Montmorency had looked for a reconciliation and had therefore strongly supported the captain's desire to be appointed to Siena. Strozzi's star was on the rise after Metz, and it is likely that the Constable thought that, by sponsoring his ambitions, he would both drawn him into his sphere of influence and

would have provoked 'some great demonstration' on Cosimo's part.122

endorse Piero Strozzi's ambitions.125

de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 204.

ruary 1554).

<sup>126</sup> Ippolito II to Ercole II: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.12 (13 April 1553).

<sup>127</sup> 'Potrebbe ben essere che sul principio che questo duca non si era scoperto tanto a diffavore et disavantaggio nostro, et che mostrava pur qualche buon animo verso le cose del Re et di questo Stato, fusse stato di parer che non si havesse a mandare per non eccitar col sospetto di lui l'animo di Sua Eccellenza et darle materia di dichiararsi contra noi': ibid.

<sup>128</sup> Canestrini (ed), *Legazioni,* p. 326. 129 As Piero Strozzi wrote to the king of France soon after he had arrived in Siena: Montalvo, *Relazione,*  pp. 240-241.

<sup>130</sup> 'Non sapendo anchora le comissioni ch'egli porta, per essersi Sua Maestà rimessa a quel che mi farà intendere per lui': ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.32 (13 November 1553). The French ambassador, Lord de Lansac, had told Ippolito that Strozzi would have been the 'lieutenant général aux affaires de la

January 1554, it became clear that he had no intention to subordinate himself to the cardinal, giving way to a dispute over the two men's respective responsibilities. Although, according to the king's intention, Strozzi was supposed to be in charge of the military defences and Ippolito of the civil government of the city, the situation of war in Sienese territory made the distinction more blurred in practice than it was on paper – and neither of the two men seemed to be willing to share any part of the other's prerogative. The clash of responsibilities arising at the very height of the Sienese hierarchies resulted in a vicious circle of resentment and misunderstanding, which went as far as to paralise the life of the city. Ippolito immediately addressed to the king a request of clarification with regard to his and Strozzi's respective position, to which soon followed a request to be permitted to resign his office and leave Siena for good.<sup>131</sup>

At the same time, Cosimo de' Medici decided to take advantage of the confusion amongst the Sienese hierarchies: through a surprise attack, the Florentine troops managed to occupy the fort of Porta Camollia, next to the city walls, and, from there, they laid siege to Siena.<sup>132</sup> The fact that Siena was now threatened by Cosimo's army shifted the balance of power more drastically towards Piero Strozzi. Although Ippolito had eventually 'contented himself with letting monsignor Piero manage the things of war',133 the hostility between the two men did not decrease. The cardinal's correspondence with his brother during the winter of 1554 is devoted to complaints about Strozzi's provocations, who 'relentlessly tries to make the world believe that he holds supreme authority over this State' and whose 'bad attitude […] annoys me'.<sup>134</sup>

Given the impossibility of convincing Strozzi to subordinate himself to the cardinal's authority,135 Ippolito's efforts, from February onwards, focused on obtaining the king's permission to leave Siena in order to preserve his reputation. He was eventually granted licence to leave in March 1554, but, as the war continued in

<sup>132</sup> On Cosimo's attack and the following events, see Cantagalli, *Cosimo I,* pp. 213-223.

<sup>135</sup> Ippolito II to Ercole: 'E però che il signor Pietro recusò liberamente di voler consentir alla superintendenza […] sono stato costretto a cedere et contentarmi che tutte le cose si siano accomodate a vantaggio suo': ASMO, CS, 1709.XIX.9 (19 February 1554).

97

<sup>137</sup> Ippolito to Ercole: 'Havendo visto […] quanto ella disideri che in queste cose non habbi Sua Maestà cagion di restar mal sodisfatta di me, io la […] prego a esser certa che quando ben manchi dal canto di esso signor Pietro di non proceder meco con que termini che commanda Sua Maestà et che converrebbe, io però non sia per mancar di accommodarmi intieramente con lui in maniera che Sua Maestà non havrà

Sienese territory, and because of the size of his household, he could only depart in May.136 In the meantime, he had to give up his claim of superiority and adjust himself to Strozzi's presence. Duke Ercole, having recognised that the political conjuncture had turned unfavourable to his brother, intervened to recommended Ippolito not

When he was eventually in a position to leave Siena, Ippolito reiterated his in-

Despite his best diplomatic efforts, when Ippolito left Siena he found himself at odds with the pope, and without having succeeded in his implicit agenda of preventing hostilities with Cosimo de' Medici. War had broken out between Florence and Siena and, as a Florentine agent ironically observed in the summer of 1554, Ippolito d'Este's dissatisfaction with the latest course of events was so overwhelming to make him a potential ally to the emperor, 'if the emperor wanted to compensate

It is undeniable that the Sienese episode ended in a personal fiasco for Ippolito and a military defeat for the French monarchy, since Cosimo ultimately succeeded in conquering the city. In looking at this episode, Lucien Romier has stressed Ippolito's underlying incompetence in handling the government of the city. Yet, Romier's focus is on the French monarchy and his overarching argument that the continuous involvement of the Valois with local Italian disputes ultimately weakened the French crown. Such a perspective tends to downplay the different relationships and duties that contributed to the political identity of characters like Ippolito d'Este, for which the loyalty to France was only one component. As the cardinal's correspondence shows, he was fully aware of the superficialities in his exchanges with the duke of Florence. Cosimo, however, was in a much stronger position, enjoying both the support of the pope and an organised army – two things that Ippolito lacked. When Strozzi took up his position in Siena, the cardinal was forced to make himself scarce. It is not by accident that Strozzi himself did not hesitate to take advantage of Ippolito's personal involvement with the duke of Florence to strengthen

I have heard from a secretary of mine that His Holiness defends these movements of the duke of Florence strenuously […]; therefore, if I was to go there, I could well say that I managed to dodge one struggle to get into another one, which might be even worse in many respects, and especially because one can see […] that this war

to harm his relationship with Henry II only out of his hatred for Strozzi.137

tention to avoid Rome. In February 1554, he had already told Ercole II that

will not end anytime soon.138

<sup>136</sup> Ibid., 1709.XIX.20 (22 March 1554).

<sup>138</sup> Ibid., 1709.XIX.7 (5 February 1554). <sup>139</sup> Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, p. 410.

causa di alcuna mala satisfattione': ibid.*,* 1709.XIX.23 (2 May 1554).

him'.<sup>139</sup>

guerre, avec semblable autorité que avoit Monsigneur de Termes': Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 314.

<sup>131</sup> As the cardinal explained to his brother: 'Quanto pur apertamente esso signor Pietro dichiara qual sia l'animo suo, et qual l'autorità egli pretende d'havere in questo stato (il che era conosciuto prima da me, et però io faceva poco conto di quella obedienza ch'egli diceva di volermi portare) tanto più mi rendo certo ch'ella conoscerà ch'io non mi poteva governar d'altra maniera di quella che ho fatto, et ch'io non potrei haver maggior occasione di quella che ho di dimandar la licentia ch'io dimando, conoscendo ben chiaramente che il mio star qui di questa sorte non potrebbe se non essere in gran pregiudicio de l'honore et de la reputatione con la quale ci sono stato infino ad hora': ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XIX.4 (15 January 1554).

<sup>133</sup> Vitalis (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 91. Lodève explained the king that Ippolito and Piero Strozzi 'sont fort différentz de sa complexion et de profession et seront presque toujours en opinion contraire': ibid. See also: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* pp. 345-346.

<sup>134</sup> ASMO, CS, 1709.XIX.6 (30 January 1554). More letters in which Ippolito d'Este complains about Piero Strozzi are published in appendix in Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 420-429. Strozzi's biographer, on the other hand, claims that the captain had done everything in his power to sooth the cardinal's hurt pride and start a fruitful collaboration, but to no avail: Trucchi, *Vita e gesta,* pp. 67-68.

Sienese territory, and because of the size of his household, he could only depart in May.136 In the meantime, he had to give up his claim of superiority and adjust himself to Strozzi's presence. Duke Ercole, having recognised that the political conjuncture had turned unfavourable to his brother, intervened to recommended Ippolito not to harm his relationship with Henry II only out of his hatred for Strozzi.137

When he was eventually in a position to leave Siena, Ippolito reiterated his intention to avoid Rome. In February 1554, he had already told Ercole II that

I have heard from a secretary of mine that His Holiness defends these movements of the duke of Florence strenuously […]; therefore, if I was to go there, I could well say that I managed to dodge one struggle to get into another one, which might be even worse in many respects, and especially because one can see […] that this war will not end anytime soon.138

Despite his best diplomatic efforts, when Ippolito left Siena he found himself at odds with the pope, and without having succeeded in his implicit agenda of preventing hostilities with Cosimo de' Medici. War had broken out between Florence and Siena and, as a Florentine agent ironically observed in the summer of 1554, Ippolito d'Este's dissatisfaction with the latest course of events was so overwhelming to make him a potential ally to the emperor, 'if the emperor wanted to compensate him'.<sup>139</sup>

It is undeniable that the Sienese episode ended in a personal fiasco for Ippolito and a military defeat for the French monarchy, since Cosimo ultimately succeeded in conquering the city. In looking at this episode, Lucien Romier has stressed Ippolito's underlying incompetence in handling the government of the city. Yet, Romier's focus is on the French monarchy and his overarching argument that the continuous involvement of the Valois with local Italian disputes ultimately weakened the French crown. Such a perspective tends to downplay the different relationships and duties that contributed to the political identity of characters like Ippolito d'Este, for which the loyalty to France was only one component. As the cardinal's correspondence shows, he was fully aware of the superficialities in his exchanges with the duke of Florence. Cosimo, however, was in a much stronger position, enjoying both the support of the pope and an organised army – two things that Ippolito lacked. When Strozzi took up his position in Siena, the cardinal was forced to make himself scarce. It is not by accident that Strozzi himself did not hesitate to take advantage of Ippolito's personal involvement with the duke of Florence to strengthen

96

January 1554, it became clear that he had no intention to subordinate himself to the cardinal, giving way to a dispute over the two men's respective responsibilities. Although, according to the king's intention, Strozzi was supposed to be in charge of the military defences and Ippolito of the civil government of the city, the situation of war in Sienese territory made the distinction more blurred in practice than it was on paper – and neither of the two men seemed to be willing to share any part of the other's prerogative. The clash of responsibilities arising at the very height of the Sienese hierarchies resulted in a vicious circle of resentment and misunderstanding, which went as far as to paralise the life of the city. Ippolito immediately addressed to the king a request of clarification with regard to his and Strozzi's respective position, to which soon followed a request to be permitted to resign his office and leave

At the same time, Cosimo de' Medici decided to take advantage of the confusion amongst the Sienese hierarchies: through a surprise attack, the Florentine troops managed to occupy the fort of Porta Camollia, next to the city walls, and, from there, they laid siege to Siena.<sup>132</sup> The fact that Siena was now threatened by Cosimo's army shifted the balance of power more drastically towards Piero Strozzi. Although Ippolito had eventually 'contented himself with letting monsignor Piero manage the things of war',133 the hostility between the two men did not decrease. The cardinal's correspondence with his brother during the winter of 1554 is devoted to complaints about Strozzi's provocations, who 'relentlessly tries to make the world believe that he holds supreme authority over this State' and whose 'bad attitude […]

Given the impossibility of convincing Strozzi to subordinate himself to the cardinal's authority,135 Ippolito's efforts, from February onwards, focused on obtaining the king's permission to leave Siena in order to preserve his reputation. He was eventually granted licence to leave in March 1554, but, as the war continued in

guerre, avec semblable autorité que avoit Monsigneur de Termes': Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Corre-*

<sup>131</sup> As the cardinal explained to his brother: 'Quanto pur apertamente esso signor Pietro dichiara qual sia l'animo suo, et qual l'autorità egli pretende d'havere in questo stato (il che era conosciuto prima da me, et però io faceva poco conto di quella obedienza ch'egli diceva di volermi portare) tanto più mi rendo certo ch'ella conoscerà ch'io non mi poteva governar d'altra maniera di quella che ho fatto, et ch'io non potrei haver maggior occasione di quella che ho di dimandar la licentia ch'io dimando, conoscendo ben chiaramente che il mio star qui di questa sorte non potrebbe se non essere in gran pregiudicio de l'honore et de la reputatione con la quale ci sono stato infino ad hora': ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XIX.4 (15

<sup>133</sup> Vitalis (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 91. Lodève explained the king that Ippolito and Piero Strozzi 'sont fort différentz de sa complexion et de profession et seront presque toujours en opinion contraire': ibid.

<sup>134</sup> ASMO, CS, 1709.XIX.6 (30 January 1554). More letters in which Ippolito d'Este complains about Piero Strozzi are published in appendix in Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 420-429. Strozzi's biographer, on the other hand, claims that the captain had done everything in his power to sooth the cardinal's hurt pride

<sup>135</sup> Ippolito II to Ercole: 'E però che il signor Pietro recusò liberamente di voler consentir alla superintendenza […] sono stato costretto a cedere et contentarmi che tutte le cose si siano accomodate a van-

<sup>132</sup> On Cosimo's attack and the following events, see Cantagalli, *Cosimo I,* pp. 213-223.

and start a fruitful collaboration, but to no avail: Trucchi, *Vita e gesta,* pp. 67-68.

See also: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* pp. 345-346.

taggio suo': ASMO, CS, 1709.XIX.9 (19 February 1554).

Siena for good.<sup>131</sup>

annoys me'.<sup>134</sup>

*spondance,* p. 314.

January 1554).

<sup>136</sup> Ibid., 1709.XIX.20 (22 March 1554).

<sup>137</sup> Ippolito to Ercole: 'Havendo visto […] quanto ella disideri che in queste cose non habbi Sua Maestà cagion di restar mal sodisfatta di me, io la […] prego a esser certa che quando ben manchi dal canto di esso signor Pietro di non proceder meco con que termini che commanda Sua Maestà et che converrebbe, io però non sia per mancar di accommodarmi intieramente con lui in maniera che Sua Maestà non havrà causa di alcuna mala satisfattione': ibid.*,* 1709.XIX.23 (2 May 1554).

<sup>138</sup> Ibid., 1709.XIX.7 (5 February 1554).

<sup>139</sup> Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, p. 410.

his own position in Siena and that rumours about Ippolito's supposed political unreliability were spread in the city by the *fuoriusciti.* 

A more sympathetic analysis than Romier's might divide Ippolito's time in Siena into two distinct periods. Initially, the cardinal was appointed to Siena as a result of the recognition of his abilities in mediation, a result of a French faith in his capacity to keep the monarchy's best interests in mind and to not overtly exacerbate tensions. As Ippolito d'Este himself had told Cosimo de' Medici at the beginning of his mission to Siena, he would not have been appointed to the role if the king had not thought him the best person in whom to entrust the peaceful stability of Tuscany. However, this period ends abruptly with the arrival of the Turkish armada and the immediately strengthened French position that resulted. Ippolito's skills in diplomatic compromise were therefore no longer needed, and he was the first to recognise that he was unable to express the new timbre of the French political agenda: the arrival in Siena of Strozzi – the most explicit representation of a new French belligerence toward Cosimo – only signals the confirmation of this change in political tack. Piero Strozzi's arrival shifts the emphasis of this Tuscan conflict towards a more local dimension: whilst appointed as a representative of the king of France, Strozzi's presence in Siena kindles all the personal and dynastic relationships and hostilities that had been to this point below the surface rather than out in the open.

Meanwhile, Ippolito faced the flux of the factional strife in France. Whilst he had been sufficiently cunning to marry his family with the Guise, the appointment of Strozzi seems to indicate the extent to which the cardinal was the victim of their political whim. In influencing the king's politics, the Guise, as much as the king himself, were playing a game that took into account not just Italy but also the other fronts of the war against the emperor and, especially, the changeable scene of the factions in their own kingdom. Put simply, the Guise's failure or unwillingness to intervene in the positioning of Strozzi in Siena indicates that Ippolito could not always be their priority. Seemingly without sufficient leverage in the French court, all Ippolito could do was to accept their decision.

Preparing to leave Siena for good, the cardinal of Ferrara took the hot weather as an excuse to delay his return to Rome and decided to head north rather than south ('it is very dangerous for everyone to go to Rome in such a season').<sup>140</sup> His brother had already warned him not take the path of Tuscany, which was certainly quicker but which would have also forced Ippolito to publicly meet some of Cosimo de' Medici's representatives, as it was customary for high-rank travellers. In order to escape this unwanted contact, which would have damaged Ippolito's reputation, already negatively marked by his 'friendliness' with the Florentine duke, Ercole offered to obtain from Cosimo a safe-conduct for the cardinal's luggage and servants; Ippolito himself, however, would have had to take a longer but diplomatically safer journey through the papal capital.141

99

rini, 'Cosimo I de' Medici', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 1984).

cerebbe già ch'ella passasse per lo detto stato, poiché è da credere ch'il predetto duca manderebbe ad incontrarla et si forzaria farli far di quelli honori che ordinariamente si convengano, il che non mi parrebbe punto in proposito in questi tempi, anzi per fuggire tale incontro per conveniente rispetto lauderei che a Vostra Signoria Illustrissima non gravasse pigliare l'incommodo di allungar qualche poco la strada': ASMO, CS, 79, 1654.XXII.66 (20 February 1554). See also Setton, *Papacy and Levant,* iv, pp. 600-601; Sozzini, 'Diario', pp. 226-227. 142 Ibid.*,* 1709.XIX.26; 27 (14 June 1554; 23 June 1554). On the developments of the Sienese conflict after Ippolito's departure, which ended with the defeat of the French forces (April 1555) and the annexation of Siena to the Florentine state (July 1557), see: Cantagalli, *Cosimo I,* pp. 223-236; Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, pp. 393-430. It has been observed that the acquisition of Siena, soon followed by the peace between Spain and France, sanctioned Cosimo de' Medici's role as the pivot of Spanish politics in Italy and as Philip II's principal Italian ally: G. Signorotto, 'Papato e principi italiani nell'ultima fase del conflitto tra Asburgo e Valois', in J. Martínez Millán (ed), *Carlos V y la quiebra del humanismo politico en Europa, 1530-1558: congreso internacional,* i (Madrid, 2001), pp. 271-272; E. Fasano Gua-

After having sent most of his household and belongings ahead, Ippolito d'Este left Siena on 5 June 1554. Following Ercole II's advice, he travelled across Umbria, boarded a ship in a town on the Adriatic coast and sailed up to the Po estuary, from where he sailed the river upstream until he arrived in sight of his hometown of Fer-

rara.<sup>142</sup>

<sup>140</sup> ASMO, CS, 1709.XIX.25 (23 May 1554). See also: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 417 (18 May 1554).

<sup>141</sup> 'Non mancherò di procurare col duca di Fiorenza che le robbe et la famiglia di lei possino passar sicure per lo stato di Sua Eccellenza, ma quanto alla persona di Vostra Signoria Illustrissima non mi pia-

After having sent most of his household and belongings ahead, Ippolito d'Este left Siena on 5 June 1554. Following Ercole II's advice, he travelled across Umbria, boarded a ship in a town on the Adriatic coast and sailed up to the Po estuary, from where he sailed the river upstream until he arrived in sight of his hometown of Ferrara.<sup>142</sup>

98

<sup>140</sup> ASMO, CS, 1709.XIX.25 (23 May 1554). See also: Sauzé de Lhoumeau (ed), *Correspondance,* p.

<sup>141</sup> 'Non mancherò di procurare col duca di Fiorenza che le robbe et la famiglia di lei possino passar sicure per lo stato di Sua Eccellenza, ma quanto alla persona di Vostra Signoria Illustrissima non mi pia-

his own position in Siena and that rumours about Ippolito's supposed political unre-

that had been to this point below the surface rather than out in the open.

Meanwhile, Ippolito faced the flux of the factional strife in France. Whilst he had been sufficiently cunning to marry his family with the Guise, the appointment of Strozzi seems to indicate the extent to which the cardinal was the victim of their political whim. In influencing the king's politics, the Guise, as much as the king himself, were playing a game that took into account not just Italy but also the other fronts of the war against the emperor and, especially, the changeable scene of the factions in their own kingdom. Put simply, the Guise's failure or unwillingness to intervene in the positioning of Strozzi in Siena indicates that Ippolito could not always be their priority. Seemingly without sufficient leverage in the French court, all

Preparing to leave Siena for good, the cardinal of Ferrara took the hot weather as an excuse to delay his return to Rome and decided to head north rather than south ('it is very dangerous for everyone to go to Rome in such a season').<sup>140</sup> His brother had already warned him not take the path of Tuscany, which was certainly quicker but which would have also forced Ippolito to publicly meet some of Cosimo de' Medici's representatives, as it was customary for high-rank travellers. In order to escape this unwanted contact, which would have damaged Ippolito's reputation, already negatively marked by his 'friendliness' with the Florentine duke, Ercole offered to obtain from Cosimo a safe-conduct for the cardinal's luggage and servants; Ippolito himself, however, would have had to take a longer but diplomatically safer

A more sympathetic analysis than Romier's might divide Ippolito's time in Siena into two distinct periods. Initially, the cardinal was appointed to Siena as a result of the recognition of his abilities in mediation, a result of a French faith in his capacity to keep the monarchy's best interests in mind and to not overtly exacerbate tensions. As Ippolito d'Este himself had told Cosimo de' Medici at the beginning of his mission to Siena, he would not have been appointed to the role if the king had not thought him the best person in whom to entrust the peaceful stability of Tuscany. However, this period ends abruptly with the arrival of the Turkish armada and the immediately strengthened French position that resulted. Ippolito's skills in diplomatic compromise were therefore no longer needed, and he was the first to recognise that he was unable to express the new timbre of the French political agenda: the arrival in Siena of Strozzi – the most explicit representation of a new French belligerence toward Cosimo – only signals the confirmation of this change in political tack. Piero Strozzi's arrival shifts the emphasis of this Tuscan conflict towards a more local dimension: whilst appointed as a representative of the king of France, Strozzi's presence in Siena kindles all the personal and dynastic relationships and hostilities

liability were spread in the city by the *fuoriusciti.* 

Ippolito could do was to accept their decision.

journey through the papal capital.141

417 (18 May 1554).

cerebbe già ch'ella passasse per lo detto stato, poiché è da credere ch'il predetto duca manderebbe ad incontrarla et si forzaria farli far di quelli honori che ordinariamente si convengano, il che non mi parrebbe punto in proposito in questi tempi, anzi per fuggire tale incontro per conveniente rispetto lauderei che a Vostra Signoria Illustrissima non gravasse pigliare l'incommodo di allungar qualche poco la strada': ASMO, CS, 79, 1654.XXII.66 (20 February 1554). See also Setton, *Papacy and Levant,* iv, pp.

<sup>600-601;</sup> Sozzini, 'Diario', pp. 226-227. 142 Ibid.*,* 1709.XIX.26; 27 (14 June 1554; 23 June 1554). On the developments of the Sienese conflict after Ippolito's departure, which ended with the defeat of the French forces (April 1555) and the annexation of Siena to the Florentine state (July 1557), see: Cantagalli, *Cosimo I,* pp. 223-236; Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, pp. 393-430. It has been observed that the acquisition of Siena, soon followed by the peace between Spain and France, sanctioned Cosimo de' Medici's role as the pivot of Spanish politics in Italy and as Philip II's principal Italian ally: G. Signorotto, 'Papato e principi italiani nell'ultima fase del conflitto tra Asburgo e Valois', in J. Martínez Millán (ed), *Carlos V y la quiebra del humanismo politico en Europa, 1530-1558: congreso internacional,* i (Madrid, 2001), pp. 271-272; E. Fasano Guarini, 'Cosimo I de' Medici', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 1984).

100 101

**Chapter 4**

stituted a disruptive factor.

is: Tommaseo (ed), *Relations*, ii, p. 84.

II, p. 406.

**1561**

**Serving the family. Diverging identities and dynastic unity, 1552-**

As we have seen in the previous chapter, the war of Siena and Ippolito's prominent role in those events, in the years 1552-1554, created a highly conflicted situation in which the cardinal of Ferrara's leadership could no longer work effectively. Furthermore, his family's position and his relationship with the Church were put severely at stake. The 1550s, with the crisis of Parma and Siena first and then the establishment of Paul IV's anti-Habsburg league, manifested all the contradictions that were inherent not only to Ippolito d'Este's personal power, but also to the Duchy of Ferrara. Whilst Ippolito's governorship, from a perspective of personal enhancement, had put him at the very head of the French forces in Italy (diplomatically, at least) and had confirmed that 'great dependence and understanding with that crown'<sup>2</sup> that had previously determined his rise to the post of cardinal protector, the same episode, when seen in the context of a shared familiar strategy, had rather con-

In order to assess the influence that personal choices and affiliations undertaken by members of a ruling family could have on the political life of the small Italian states, it is worth insisting on the multifaceted dependencies that characterised these dominions, and on the strategies that were used in order to engage with the presence, in Italy, of stronger political entities – the French and Imperial monarchies, and the Roman Church. A certain degree of 'duplicity' and 'fickleness' – to use the definitions that have been traditionally associated with the political behaviour of many

<sup>1</sup> 'To make states safe, dimension and location are not enough, as two more qualities are necessary: strength and resources, as the state that is neither strong nor united cannot be safe'. From the report written by the Venetian ambassador to Ferrara, Emiliano Manolesso, in 1575: Albèri (ed), *Relazioni*, s. 2 v.

<sup>2</sup> From a description of Ippolito II d'Este written by Marcantonio Barbaro, Venetian ambassador to Par-

*Alla sicurtà degli stati, non basta la grandezza e la comodità, essendovi due altre qualità necessarie: la fortezza e l'abbondanza, imperocchè quello stato che non è né forte né unito, non può esser sicuro*

Emiliano Manolesso, Venetian ambassador to Ferrara1

# **Chapter 4 Serving the family. Diverging identities and dynastic unity, 1552- 1561**

*Alla sicurtà degli stati, non basta la grandezza e la comodità, essendovi due altre qualità necessarie: la fortezza e l'abbondanza, imperocchè quello stato che non è né forte né unito, non può esser sicuro* Emiliano Manolesso, Venetian ambassador to Ferrara1

As we have seen in the previous chapter, the war of Siena and Ippolito's prominent role in those events, in the years 1552-1554, created a highly conflicted situation in which the cardinal of Ferrara's leadership could no longer work effectively. Furthermore, his family's position and his relationship with the Church were put severely at stake. The 1550s, with the crisis of Parma and Siena first and then the establishment of Paul IV's anti-Habsburg league, manifested all the contradictions that were inherent not only to Ippolito d'Este's personal power, but also to the Duchy of Ferrara. Whilst Ippolito's governorship, from a perspective of personal enhancement, had put him at the very head of the French forces in Italy (diplomatically, at least) and had confirmed that 'great dependence and understanding with that crown'<sup>2</sup> that had previously determined his rise to the post of cardinal protector, the same episode, when seen in the context of a shared familiar strategy, had rather constituted a disruptive factor.

In order to assess the influence that personal choices and affiliations undertaken by members of a ruling family could have on the political life of the small Italian states, it is worth insisting on the multifaceted dependencies that characterised these dominions, and on the strategies that were used in order to engage with the presence, in Italy, of stronger political entities – the French and Imperial monarchies, and the Roman Church. A certain degree of 'duplicity' and 'fickleness' – to use the definitions that have been traditionally associated with the political behaviour of many

Giulia Vidori, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, giulia.vidori@gmail.com

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

100 101 101 Giulia Vidori, *The Path of Pleasantness. Ippolito II d'Este Between Ferrara, France and Rome*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2612-8071 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518-266-9 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-266-9

<sup>1</sup> 'To make states safe, dimension and location are not enough, as two more qualities are necessary: strength and resources, as the state that is neither strong nor united cannot be safe'. From the report written by the Venetian ambassador to Ferrara, Emiliano Manolesso, in 1575: Albèri (ed), *Relazioni*, s. 2 v. II, p. 406.

<sup>2</sup> From a description of Ippolito II d'Este written by Marcantonio Barbaro, Venetian ambassador to Paris: Tommaseo (ed), *Relations*, ii, p. 84.

Italian rulers of the time – was necessary to ensure the survival of the small Italian states (Mantua, Florence, Parma, etc). A familiar strategy that allowed an Italian dynasty to gain representation at the crucial junctions of power was therefore essential, for example through a marriage or the offer of military service. In the case of the Church, the presence of a family member in the College of Cardinals opened a privileged channel through which to seek the pope's favour – whose authority weighed on the actions of secular rulers, and whose vast territorial presence constituted an essential piece of the Italian puzzle.<sup>3</sup> In the case of Ferrara, the relation with Rome was at the very core of the dukes' policy-making, and a factor of continuous instability, induced by the relation of vassalage that tied Ferrara to the papacy, by the proximity of their territories, and by the aggressive foreign politics of some of the popes. For the Este more than for other dynasties, therefore, the Vatican always remained an essential interlocutor, and the acquisition of the red hat for one of their members almost a necessary course of action.<sup>4</sup>

The strong political position gained by Ippolito II in the course of the forties and the fifties, however, went far beyond the defence of the Estense interests in the Roman Curia, and became, for Ferrara, rather a factor of further instability. Other cardinals, invested with similar dynastic expectations, managed to strengthen their family's political position: Ercole Gonzaga with the Duchy of Mantua, for instance, or Alessandro Farnese – with due differences – with the Duchy of Parma.<sup>5</sup> Ippolito's dependence on the French monarchy, on the other hand, did not seem to have brought similar benefits – in terms of stability and political leverage – to the Duchy of Ferrara. On the contrary, in fact: the years of Siena and Ippolito's strong involvement in a situation of hostility with the Imperial forces, the duke of Florence, and the pope, had undermined Ercole II's neutrality. We have seen, in the previous chapter, that Ercole II – whilst limiting Ferrara's support of their traditional French allies to diplomacy and information – had repeatedly reminded his brother of the delicateness of Ferrara's position within the other Italian powers, especially with regard to those that the French venture in Siena was provoking.

<sup>4</sup> Signorotto, 'Papato e principi', pp. 266-268.

103

the Roman pontiffs and the dukes of Ferrara: Albèri (ed), *Relazioni,* s. 2 v. II, pp. 415-416.

At the end of his time in Siena, Ippolito took back his role of cardinal protector and, after some time in Ferrara, returned to Rome, from where he remained in charge of a 'supervision' of the French affairs in the Tuscan city.<sup>6</sup> It had been his brother who had begged him to go back to Rome and take up that protection not only of France, but also, and especially, of his family's interests, which had been largely neglected whilst he was in Siena.7 The death, in 1555, of Julius III – who, under the pretence of neutrality, had supported Florence – and the election of Paul IV, a pope who was known for his hatred of the emperor, could have steered Vatican politics more favourably towards the French crown, and hence brought an easing in relations between Ferrara and the Holy See. Paul IV's aggressive Italian politics, however, determined Ferrara's subsequent involvement in a war that, as it is known, ended with the defeat of the papal league and the triumph of the Imperial-Spanish

To the world outside of the duchy, the duke and the cardinal made an effort to defend each other's interests and presented an image of dynastic unity and mutual support. Besides the role that he played in the major diplomatic and geopolitical issues of the time, Ippolito II also endeavoured to defend the local economic interests of Ferrara in Rome, for example in the case of the frequent disputes with the Vatican over salt production in the Po estuary.8 Due to the fact that, in the sixteenth century, the structure of power was based on family and clientele, the success in any field of one's personal relations provided the means for the socio-economic advancement of one's whole kin. This is one of the reasons why Ercole II, as we have seen, had supported Ippolito financially in his attempts at conclave to become pope, and why the duke would, as we will see, employ his diplomats in order to obtain for Ippolito the

However, this picture – and the external standing of Este unity along with it – was continually complicated by Ippolito's increased loyalty to France. This became problematic particularly, as already said, during moments of war, when his personal affiliation began to cause problems for his brother in Ferrara, who was attempting, like his father before him, to maintain a diplomatic balance between the emperor and France. The example of Ippolito's governorship of Siena, between 1552 and 1554, illustrates the divergent agenda of the two Este brothers. Ippolito's own personal engagements in this instance put into focus the different political identities that these brothers had, as well as the different expectations that they had of foreign powers

The distinction between the brothers' roles was therefore much less straightforward than a simple division between spheres of influence – between the secular and

<sup>6</sup> Ippolito's hatred of Piero Strozzi, which had marked the last month of his time in Siena, continued long after the cardinal had left Tuscany. In the summer of 1555, for example, Ippolito wrote to his brother that '[Strozzi] non si è curato di mai di dare notizia di cosa alcuna se non quando ha avuto bisogno di denari': ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XXII.23 (undated, but written between May and June 1555). 7 ASMO, CS, 79, 1654.XXII.74 (21 May 1554). See also Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 249-250; Romier, *Les origines politiques,* i, p. 248. 8 A Venetian diplomat mentioned these kinds of disagreements as the principal cause of hatred between

forces, later confirmed by the peace of Cateau-Cambrésis.

payment of the revenues of Milan.

such as France.

<sup>3</sup> On the politics adopted by small Italian states of the period, see: D. Frigo, 'Guerra e diplomazia: gli stati padani nell'età di Carlo V', in M. Fantoni (ed), *Carlo V e l'Italia* (Rome, 2000), pp. 17-46; G. Tocci, 'Sul "piccolo stato" nel Cinquecento italiano', in G. Signorotto (ed), *Ferrante Gonzaga. Il Mediterraneo, l'impero (1507-1557)* (Rome, 2009), pp. 37-57; M. J. Rodríguez Salgado, 'Terracotta and Iron. Mantuan politics (ca. 1450-1550)', in C. Mozzarelli, R. Oresko and L. Ventura (eds), *La Corte di Mantova nell'età di Andrea Mantegna: 1450-1550* (Rome, 1997), pp. 15-16; A. Spagnoletti, 'Guerra, stati e signori in Italia nell'età di Carlo V', in M. Fantoni (ed), *Carlo V e l'Italia* (Rome, 2000), pp. 77-100, pp. 86-87.

<sup>5</sup> Id., 'Note sulla politica', pp. 68-70. On Gonzaga and Farnese, see: F. Rurale, 'Ercole e Ferrante Gonzaga. Tra ragione imperiale e ragione domestica', in G. Signorotto (ed), *Ferrante Gonzaga. Il Mediterraneo, l'Impero (1507-1557)* (Rome, 2009), pp. 237-257; R. Tamalio, 'Tra Parigi e Madrid. Strategie famigliari gonzaghesche al principio del Cinquecento', in C. Mozzarelli, R. Oresko and L. Ventura (eds), *La Corte di Mantova nell'età di Andrea Mantegna: 1450-1550* (Rome, 1997), pp. 69-90; J. Martínez Millan, 'Alessandro Farnese la corte di Madrid e la monarchia cattolica', in A. Bilotto, P. Del Negro and C. Mozzarelli (eds), *I Farnese. Corti, guerra e nobiltà in antico regime* (Roma, 1997), pp. 93-116.

At the end of his time in Siena, Ippolito took back his role of cardinal protector and, after some time in Ferrara, returned to Rome, from where he remained in charge of a 'supervision' of the French affairs in the Tuscan city.<sup>6</sup> It had been his brother who had begged him to go back to Rome and take up that protection not only of France, but also, and especially, of his family's interests, which had been largely neglected whilst he was in Siena.7 The death, in 1555, of Julius III – who, under the pretence of neutrality, had supported Florence – and the election of Paul IV, a pope who was known for his hatred of the emperor, could have steered Vatican politics more favourably towards the French crown, and hence brought an easing in relations between Ferrara and the Holy See. Paul IV's aggressive Italian politics, however, determined Ferrara's subsequent involvement in a war that, as it is known, ended with the defeat of the papal league and the triumph of the Imperial-Spanish forces, later confirmed by the peace of Cateau-Cambrésis.

To the world outside of the duchy, the duke and the cardinal made an effort to defend each other's interests and presented an image of dynastic unity and mutual support. Besides the role that he played in the major diplomatic and geopolitical issues of the time, Ippolito II also endeavoured to defend the local economic interests of Ferrara in Rome, for example in the case of the frequent disputes with the Vatican over salt production in the Po estuary.8 Due to the fact that, in the sixteenth century, the structure of power was based on family and clientele, the success in any field of one's personal relations provided the means for the socio-economic advancement of one's whole kin. This is one of the reasons why Ercole II, as we have seen, had supported Ippolito financially in his attempts at conclave to become pope, and why the duke would, as we will see, employ his diplomats in order to obtain for Ippolito the payment of the revenues of Milan.

However, this picture – and the external standing of Este unity along with it – was continually complicated by Ippolito's increased loyalty to France. This became problematic particularly, as already said, during moments of war, when his personal affiliation began to cause problems for his brother in Ferrara, who was attempting, like his father before him, to maintain a diplomatic balance between the emperor and France. The example of Ippolito's governorship of Siena, between 1552 and 1554, illustrates the divergent agenda of the two Este brothers. Ippolito's own personal engagements in this instance put into focus the different political identities that these brothers had, as well as the different expectations that they had of foreign powers such as France.

The distinction between the brothers' roles was therefore much less straightforward than a simple division between spheres of influence – between the secular and

102

<sup>3</sup> On the politics adopted by small Italian states of the period, see: D. Frigo, 'Guerra e diplomazia: gli stati padani nell'età di Carlo V', in M. Fantoni (ed), *Carlo V e l'Italia* (Rome, 2000), pp. 17-46; G. Tocci, 'Sul "piccolo stato" nel Cinquecento italiano', in G. Signorotto (ed), *Ferrante Gonzaga. Il Mediterraneo, l'impero (1507-1557)* (Rome, 2009), pp. 37-57; M. J. Rodríguez Salgado, 'Terracotta and Iron. Mantuan politics (ca. 1450-1550)', in C. Mozzarelli, R. Oresko and L. Ventura (eds), *La Corte di Mantova nell'età di Andrea Mantegna: 1450-1550* (Rome, 1997), pp. 15-16; A. Spagnoletti, 'Guerra, stati e signori in Italia nell'età di Carlo V', in M. Fantoni (ed), *Carlo V e l'Italia* (Rome, 2000), pp. 77-100, pp.

<sup>5</sup> Id., 'Note sulla politica', pp. 68-70. On Gonzaga and Farnese, see: F. Rurale, 'Ercole e Ferrante Gonzaga. Tra ragione imperiale e ragione domestica', in G. Signorotto (ed), *Ferrante Gonzaga. Il Mediterraneo, l'Impero (1507-1557)* (Rome, 2009), pp. 237-257; R. Tamalio, 'Tra Parigi e Madrid. Strategie famigliari gonzaghesche al principio del Cinquecento', in C. Mozzarelli, R. Oresko and L. Ventura (eds), *La Corte di Mantova nell'età di Andrea Mantegna: 1450-1550* (Rome, 1997), pp. 69-90; J. Martínez Millan, 'Alessandro Farnese la corte di Madrid e la monarchia cattolica', in A. Bilotto, P. Del Negro and C. Mozzarelli (eds), *I Farnese. Corti, guerra e nobiltà in antico regime* (Roma, 1997), pp.

Italian rulers of the time – was necessary to ensure the survival of the small Italian states (Mantua, Florence, Parma, etc). A familiar strategy that allowed an Italian dynasty to gain representation at the crucial junctions of power was therefore essential, for example through a marriage or the offer of military service. In the case of the Church, the presence of a family member in the College of Cardinals opened a privileged channel through which to seek the pope's favour – whose authority weighed on the actions of secular rulers, and whose vast territorial presence constituted an essential piece of the Italian puzzle.<sup>3</sup> In the case of Ferrara, the relation with Rome was at the very core of the dukes' policy-making, and a factor of continuous instability, induced by the relation of vassalage that tied Ferrara to the papacy, by the proximity of their territories, and by the aggressive foreign politics of some of the popes. For the Este more than for other dynasties, therefore, the Vatican always remained an essential interlocutor, and the acquisition of the red hat for one of their

The strong political position gained by Ippolito II in the course of the forties and the fifties, however, went far beyond the defence of the Estense interests in the Roman Curia, and became, for Ferrara, rather a factor of further instability. Other cardinals, invested with similar dynastic expectations, managed to strengthen their family's political position: Ercole Gonzaga with the Duchy of Mantua, for instance, or Alessandro Farnese – with due differences – with the Duchy of Parma.<sup>5</sup> Ippolito's dependence on the French monarchy, on the other hand, did not seem to have brought similar benefits – in terms of stability and political leverage – to the Duchy of Ferrara. On the contrary, in fact: the years of Siena and Ippolito's strong involvement in a situation of hostility with the Imperial forces, the duke of Florence, and the pope, had undermined Ercole II's neutrality. We have seen, in the previous chapter, that Ercole II – whilst limiting Ferrara's support of their traditional French allies to diplomacy and information – had repeatedly reminded his brother of the delicateness of Ferrara's position within the other Italian powers, especially with re-

members almost a necessary course of action.<sup>4</sup>

gard to those that the French venture in Siena was provoking.

86-87.

93-116.

<sup>4</sup> Signorotto, 'Papato e principi', pp. 266-268.

<sup>6</sup> Ippolito's hatred of Piero Strozzi, which had marked the last month of his time in Siena, continued long after the cardinal had left Tuscany. In the summer of 1555, for example, Ippolito wrote to his brother that '[Strozzi] non si è curato di mai di dare notizia di cosa alcuna se non quando ha avuto bisogno

di denari': ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XXII.23 (undated, but written between May and June 1555). 7 ASMO, CS, 79, 1654.XXII.74 (21 May 1554). See also Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 249-250; Romier, *Les* 

*origines politiques,* i, p. 248. 8 A Venetian diplomat mentioned these kinds of disagreements as the principal cause of hatred between the Roman pontiffs and the dukes of Ferrara: Albèri (ed), *Relazioni,* s. 2 v. II, pp. 415-416.

#### The Path of Pleasantness

the ecclesiastical, and between Rome and Ferrara. Even within the ecclesiastical sphere, the pursuit of family power could come up against different political interests: as we will see, when Ercole sought, in 1549, to install his son, Luigi, as bishop of Ferrara, Ippolito argues against his nephew's appointment, seeking rather to preserve his vast collection of French benefices by having his nephew succeed him and carry on the proximity to the Valois. To this end, we will see that Ippolito used all his influence in order to secure Luigi the diocese of Auch and his role of cardinal protector of the French crown.

As we will see, these tensions which characterised the relationship in the 1550s between the Ercole II and Ippolito – who acted as the leaders of the family – were put to one side both when it came to defending Estense interests 'outside' the duchy and when 'internal' interferences threatened their division of power within Ferrara. We see this particularly in the case of their third brother, Don Francesco, against whose claims to the castle of Massa Lombarda they united in opposition. Although don Francesco played an important role in the maintenance of Ferrara's external diplomatic face – in his position at the court of Charles V – when it came to the arrangements of power 'inside' the duchy, he was deliberately excluded.

However, these dynamics which characterised the management of power within the Este came to an abrupt end at the end of this decade, when 1559 brought the deaths of Ercole II and of Henry II of France, and the peace of Cateau-Cambresis, which sanctioned Spanish dominance over Italy. The succession of Alfonso II left Ippolito as the *de facto* leader of the family, at an historical moment at which it was imperative to reassess the condition of the family's diplomatic relationships and alliances. Significantly, it was Ippolito that attempted to ameliorate the hostility – or to seal the rift – between the Este court and that of Philip II in the wake of Cateau-Cambrésis, through the employment of his personal agents and through his choice of the Ferrarese ambassador.

#### **1. Conflict in Ferrara. The inheritance of Alfonso I**

A desire to maintain a degree of centralisation with regards to dynastic assets was an impulse that motivated many sovereign families in sixteenth-century Italy. In the inheritances of a prince, it was common – and often felt as necessary – to sacrifice the younger children, economically and dynastically, in order to keep intact the family's power and wealth. Whilst one of the other sons would often be encouraged, or expected, to pursue an ecclesiastical career in order to receive an income from a different source – particularly in cases, such as the Este, in which there was already a cardinal within the family – the remaining were instead often provided with a source of income or, sometimes, with a minor title, and were themselves expected to seek employment and favour with the greater powers in Europe. These solutions were particularly auspicious for the minor Italian states, as they also offered the means to ensure that a spokesperson for their interests would be present in foreign courts.<sup>9</sup> This

105

ideas of 'nobility' and 'family', see: C. Donati, *L'idea di nobiltà. Secoli XIV-XVIII* (Roma-Bari, 1988),

<sup>10</sup> On the role of cadet sons, see: Spagnoletti, *Le dinastie italiane,* pp. 225-238; R. Ago, 'Giochi di squadra: uomini e donne nelle famiglie nobili del XVII secolo', in M. A. Visceglia (ed), *Signori, patrizi, ca-*

*valieri nell'età moderna* (Rome-Bari, 1992), pp. 256-264.

pp. 52-150.

was, of course, particularly pertinent for Ferrara, as the Este dukes already owed loyalty to both the pope and the emperor, on account of the historical investitures

At the same time, however, the personal ambitions of cadet sons, which were necessarily frustrated by the principle of primogeniture, could be easily exploited by foreign or competitive powers to bring tension within a ruling family. The noncompetitive complementarity of roles that, ideally, should have characterised the 'teamwork' between brothers, was therefore much more easily established in the case of a ruling prince and his cardinal brother, whose sphere of influence was more evidently separated. The role of other male members of the family, who often were not offered an opportunity of political and economic self-realisation comparable to a career in the Church, remained a potential factor of disruption. Therefore, although explosions of violence between members of the family were relatively rare, the political treatises of the time almost unanimously recommended Italian princes to be-

The most famous sixteenth-century episode of family violence provoked by the ambitions and the frustration of the cadet sons took place in Ferrara: in 1509, Ferrante and Giulio d'Este organised a conspiracy to overthrow their brother, Duke Alfonso I. The betrayal of the two brothers strengthened the axis constituted by Alfonso I and his cardinal brother, Ippolito I, who participated in the defence of the duchy's interests – and whose influence as an ecclesiastic was much needed due to the conflictual relationship that was between Ferrara and the Vatican in the first decades of the sixteenth century. Although no further episode of familiar violence occurred, a similar axis ruled the Este family also in the following generation: Ippolito II and Ercole II took up their legacy, ecclesiastic and secular respectively, and both

Between the summer of 1552 and the summer of 1553, the inherent fragility that characterised the duchy of Ferrara as a political unity – and that had been nothing but emphasised by the decades of the Italian wars – was reflected in a series of controversies regarding the duke's jurisdiction and the role of the other male members of the dynasty within the more general strategy of the enhancement of familial power. Not coincidentally, the opportunity for a family clash arose at a moment when Ippolito II's active involvement in the king of France's aggressive Italian politics was affecting his own and his brother's roles as Italian princes. The conflict, however, was not rooted in their relationship with France, but rather in that with Ferrara, namely in the testamentary disposition that the late duke, Alfonso I, had taken some twenty years before, in 1534. At the moment of setting up his bequests to his male heirs who were not destined to inherit the ducal title, Alfonso had decided to provide them with a source of income emancipated from the reigning duke's jurisdiction. He

pursued a shared strategy to maintain and enhance their family's power.

given on Ferrara and on Modena and Reggio respectively.

ware of their own male relatives before anyone else.<sup>10</sup>

<sup>9</sup> A. Spagnoletti, *Le dinastie italiane nella prima età moderna* (Bologna, 2003), pp. 13-37; 225-294; C. Casanova, *La famiglia italiana in età moderna* (Rome, 1997), pp. 85-128. On the developments in the

was, of course, particularly pertinent for Ferrara, as the Este dukes already owed loyalty to both the pope and the emperor, on account of the historical investitures given on Ferrara and on Modena and Reggio respectively.

At the same time, however, the personal ambitions of cadet sons, which were necessarily frustrated by the principle of primogeniture, could be easily exploited by foreign or competitive powers to bring tension within a ruling family. The noncompetitive complementarity of roles that, ideally, should have characterised the 'teamwork' between brothers, was therefore much more easily established in the case of a ruling prince and his cardinal brother, whose sphere of influence was more evidently separated. The role of other male members of the family, who often were not offered an opportunity of political and economic self-realisation comparable to a career in the Church, remained a potential factor of disruption. Therefore, although explosions of violence between members of the family were relatively rare, the political treatises of the time almost unanimously recommended Italian princes to beware of their own male relatives before anyone else.<sup>10</sup>

The most famous sixteenth-century episode of family violence provoked by the ambitions and the frustration of the cadet sons took place in Ferrara: in 1509, Ferrante and Giulio d'Este organised a conspiracy to overthrow their brother, Duke Alfonso I. The betrayal of the two brothers strengthened the axis constituted by Alfonso I and his cardinal brother, Ippolito I, who participated in the defence of the duchy's interests – and whose influence as an ecclesiastic was much needed due to the conflictual relationship that was between Ferrara and the Vatican in the first decades of the sixteenth century. Although no further episode of familiar violence occurred, a similar axis ruled the Este family also in the following generation: Ippolito II and Ercole II took up their legacy, ecclesiastic and secular respectively, and both pursued a shared strategy to maintain and enhance their family's power.

Between the summer of 1552 and the summer of 1553, the inherent fragility that characterised the duchy of Ferrara as a political unity – and that had been nothing but emphasised by the decades of the Italian wars – was reflected in a series of controversies regarding the duke's jurisdiction and the role of the other male members of the dynasty within the more general strategy of the enhancement of familial power. Not coincidentally, the opportunity for a family clash arose at a moment when Ippolito II's active involvement in the king of France's aggressive Italian politics was affecting his own and his brother's roles as Italian princes. The conflict, however, was not rooted in their relationship with France, but rather in that with Ferrara, namely in the testamentary disposition that the late duke, Alfonso I, had taken some twenty years before, in 1534. At the moment of setting up his bequests to his male heirs who were not destined to inherit the ducal title, Alfonso had decided to provide them with a source of income emancipated from the reigning duke's jurisdiction. He

104

<sup>9</sup> A. Spagnoletti, *Le dinastie italiane nella prima età moderna* (Bologna, 2003), pp. 13-37; 225-294; C. Casanova, *La famiglia italiana in età moderna* (Rome, 1997), pp. 85-128. On the developments in the

the ecclesiastical, and between Rome and Ferrara. Even within the ecclesiastical sphere, the pursuit of family power could come up against different political interests: as we will see, when Ercole sought, in 1549, to install his son, Luigi, as bishop of Ferrara, Ippolito argues against his nephew's appointment, seeking rather to preserve his vast collection of French benefices by having his nephew succeed him and carry on the proximity to the Valois. To this end, we will see that Ippolito used all his influence in order to secure Luigi the diocese of Auch and his role of cardinal

As we will see, these tensions which characterised the relationship in the 1550s between the Ercole II and Ippolito – who acted as the leaders of the family – were put to one side both when it came to defending Estense interests 'outside' the duchy and when 'internal' interferences threatened their division of power within Ferrara. We see this particularly in the case of their third brother, Don Francesco, against whose claims to the castle of Massa Lombarda they united in opposition. Although don Francesco played an important role in the maintenance of Ferrara's external diplomatic face – in his position at the court of Charles V – when it came to the ar-

However, these dynamics which characterised the management of power within the Este came to an abrupt end at the end of this decade, when 1559 brought the deaths of Ercole II and of Henry II of France, and the peace of Cateau-Cambresis, which sanctioned Spanish dominance over Italy. The succession of Alfonso II left Ippolito as the *de facto* leader of the family, at an historical moment at which it was imperative to reassess the condition of the family's diplomatic relationships and alliances. Significantly, it was Ippolito that attempted to ameliorate the hostility – or to seal the rift – between the Este court and that of Philip II in the wake of Cateau-Cambrésis, through the employment of his personal agents and through his choice of

A desire to maintain a degree of centralisation with regards to dynastic assets was an impulse that motivated many sovereign families in sixteenth-century Italy. In the inheritances of a prince, it was common – and often felt as necessary – to sacrifice the younger children, economically and dynastically, in order to keep intact the family's power and wealth. Whilst one of the other sons would often be encouraged, or expected, to pursue an ecclesiastical career in order to receive an income from a different source – particularly in cases, such as the Este, in which there was already a cardinal within the family – the remaining were instead often provided with a source of income or, sometimes, with a minor title, and were themselves expected to seek employment and favour with the greater powers in Europe. These solutions were particularly auspicious for the minor Italian states, as they also offered the means to ensure that a spokesperson for their interests would be present in foreign courts.<sup>9</sup> This

rangements of power 'inside' the duchy, he was deliberately excluded.

protector of the French crown.

the Ferrarese ambassador.

**1. Conflict in Ferrara. The inheritance of Alfonso I**

ideas of 'nobility' and 'family', see: C. Donati, *L'idea di nobiltà. Secoli XIV-XVIII* (Roma-Bari, 1988), pp. 52-150.

<sup>10</sup> On the role of cadet sons, see: Spagnoletti, *Le dinastie italiane,* pp. 225-238; R. Ago, 'Giochi di squadra: uomini e donne nelle famiglie nobili del XVII secolo', in M. A. Visceglia (ed), *Signori, patrizi, cavalieri nell'età moderna* (Rome-Bari, 1992), pp. 256-264.

had therefore bequeathed the castles of Brescello and of Massalombarda respectively to his younger sons, Ippolito II and Francesco d'Este.<sup>11</sup>

The *castrum* of Brescello had become part of the Duchy of Ferrara in 1479, when Duke Ercole I had obtained it from Ludovico Sforza in exchange for Castelnovo Tortonese. In 1492, Ercole's thirteen years-old son, Ippolito I, was appointed abbot *in commendam* of the Benedictine monastery of San Genesio in Brescello, which also controlled the surrounding lands and the fortifications.<sup>12</sup> Due to its geographical position – on the shore of the Po river and at the border with both the Duchy of Mantua and the Duchy of Milan – Brescello acquired an important military and commercial role during the first half of the sixteenth century. When Ippolito I prematurely died in 1520, all his assets – 'all goods movable and immovable, lands and rights wherever they may be […] and fruits and rents of any kind, also ecclesiastical'<sup>13</sup> – went to his brother, Duke Alfonso I, who then bequeathed Brescello, as a *castellania,* to his second-born son, Ippolito II d'Este. From the year of Alfonso I's death, in 1534, Ippolito II had been the legitimate owner of the *castrum*, which was therefore excluded from Ercole II's jurisdiction: it was Ippolito's officials who took care of the military defences of the fief, who administrated criminal justice and who collected taxes.14 This decision of the late Duke Alfonso I deprived his successor of the jurisdiction over a territory that, in the following years, became one of the crucial battlegrounds between French and Imperial troops – and, as such, it provoked more than one misunderstanding between Ippolito II and his brother, Duke Ercole. Alfonso I's dispositions regarding Francesco's share of inheritance were also to become a source of resentment within the Estense family, but for quite a different reason.

The object of the dispute that, in 1553, opposed Francesco to his brothers was a clause that the former duke had added to the second draft of his will, in order to bind Francesco d'Este's share of inheritance to a *fidecommesso,* a trust. As a consequence of this testamentary resolution, which had been enforced at Alfonso I's death, Francesco was only entitled to the income produced by the properties he had inherited, but he did not hold any right of possession over them. In order to rent out, sell, or give away any part of his legacy, Francesco was forced to ask for the permission of his brother, Duke Ercole II, who was the trustee appointed by their father, Alfonso I. Amongst sixteenth-century Italian families, the institution of a trust was indeed a popular way to preserve the unity of the family's assets for future generations. It accompanied, ideally, the social-juridical principle of primogeniture, which prescribed

<sup>14</sup> See Guerzoni, 'Between Rome and Ferrara', p. 63.

107

<sup>19</sup> In 1546, for instance, Ercole II included Brescello in an agreement with the duke of Parma without

that the first-born son inherited all of the family's properties – whether a dominion, in the case of sovereign dynasties, or a commercial enterprise, as in the case, for instance, of rich Venetian merchants – in order not to disperse the wealth accumulated by the previous generations.<sup>15</sup> In the case of the Este, Alfonso I had passed his title and the duchy on to his first-born son, Ercole II – as his ancestors had done before him – but, at the same time, he had bequeathed smaller portions of the Estense fortune (such as castles and palaces, but also, for instance, the right to collect some taxes) to Ercole's younger brothers, Ippolito II and Francesco.<sup>16</sup> The institution of a *fidecommesso,* in this case, was not meant to preserve the family's wealth: whilst the first draft of Alfonso I's will assigned to both Ippolito and Francesco the same rights over their respective legacy, Alfonso had later decided to bind Francesco's assets to a trust as a punishment for having run off to the Valois court without his approval.<sup>17</sup> Unlike Ippolito II – who had received Brescello and several other minor properties with no legal conditions attached, and who was therefore free to manage them as he wished – Francesco had therefore found himself forced to seek his brother's permis-

Whilst Massalombarda lay in the eastern part of the duchy of Ferrara, Brescello sat on the vulnerable western border. Due to the succession of conflicts that marked the history of the north of Italy in the first half of the century, and that had its epicentre in the duchy of Milan, Ippolito's possession was much more exposed than Francesco's to the consequences of war. Already in 1544, the governor of Milan, Ferrante Gonzaga, had sent his troops to face the French army, who were stationed in the town of Mirandola and who were preparing an attack against Lombardy, and had let them occupy and sack Brescello. Ippolito, who was at that time in Rome, could only write to his brother Ercole, to warn him of the danger of the Imperials gaining control of Brescello, and ask the pope to help him defend his possession.<sup>18</sup> When the conflict calmed, Ercole II negotiated the restitution of Brescello on behalf of Ippolito, but he also took advantage of the situation in order to erode his brother's

posed again to the military raids of the Spanish troops stationed in Milan, was quite clear to Ippolito II, who, in 1549, wrote to Ercole II predicting a gloomy destiny for

<sup>15</sup> For an outline of the use of the *fidecommesso* in the period we are considering, see: M. L. Ferrari and G. Vivenza, 'Tutelare la famiglia: conservazione o incremento del patrimonio. Percorsi seisettecenteschi italiani o inglesi', in S. Cavaciocchi (ed), *La famiglia nell'economia europea, secoli XIII-XVIII* (Florence, 2009), pp. 205-208. 16 Besides the castle of Massalombarda, Francesco had inherited several estates, a villa and a palace, with also a sum of money to furnish it: L. Bertoni, 'Este, Francesco d'', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 1993). Alfonso I had acquired Massalombarda (and other territories in Romagna) when he had married Lucrezia Borgia, as part of her dowry: G. Guerzoni, 'Di alcune ignote e poco nobili cause del soggiorno Bolognese di Kaiser Karl V', in M. Fantoni (ed), *Carlo V e l'Italia* (Rome, 2000), p. 207. <sup>17</sup> In 1534, when he was eighteen years-old, Francesco had gone to France seeking social promotion and against his father's explicit wish that he served as a military official at the emperor's court: Chiappini,

<sup>19</sup> That Brescello was a vulnerable target, and likely to be ex-

sion before taking any financial initiative regarding his inheritance.

authority over the fief*.*

*Gli Estensi,* p. 244. 18 Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 90-91.

informing his brother: ibid*.*

<sup>11</sup> It was not unusual, for sovereign families, to start a cadet branch by bequeathing a minor title with a fief to one of the younger sons, in order to have another line of male heirs who could take up the main title in case of a dynastic emergency. Usually, however, the condition attached to this kind of feudal alienations was that the fief would return to the main line of the family if the cadet son had no male heirs to succeed him: Spagnoletti, *Le dinastie italiane,* pp. 225-226.

<sup>12</sup> G. Tiraboschi, *Dizionario topografico-storico degli stati estensi* (2 vols, Modena, 1824), i, p. 10. See also Byatt, 'Este, Ippolito d''.

<sup>13</sup> Ippolito I's will, which named Alfonso I as the universal heir of the cardinal's immense fortune, is held among the documents of the Este princes in the Archive of Modena: ASMO, CS, 387, 2037.VIII. See also McClung Hallman, *Italian Cardinals,* p. 89.

that the first-born son inherited all of the family's properties – whether a dominion, in the case of sovereign dynasties, or a commercial enterprise, as in the case, for instance, of rich Venetian merchants – in order not to disperse the wealth accumulated by the previous generations.<sup>15</sup> In the case of the Este, Alfonso I had passed his title and the duchy on to his first-born son, Ercole II – as his ancestors had done before him – but, at the same time, he had bequeathed smaller portions of the Estense fortune (such as castles and palaces, but also, for instance, the right to collect some taxes) to Ercole's younger brothers, Ippolito II and Francesco.<sup>16</sup> The institution of a *fidecommesso,* in this case, was not meant to preserve the family's wealth: whilst the first draft of Alfonso I's will assigned to both Ippolito and Francesco the same rights over their respective legacy, Alfonso had later decided to bind Francesco's assets to a trust as a punishment for having run off to the Valois court without his approval.<sup>17</sup> Unlike Ippolito II – who had received Brescello and several other minor properties with no legal conditions attached, and who was therefore free to manage them as he wished – Francesco had therefore found himself forced to seek his brother's permission before taking any financial initiative regarding his inheritance.

Whilst Massalombarda lay in the eastern part of the duchy of Ferrara, Brescello sat on the vulnerable western border. Due to the succession of conflicts that marked the history of the north of Italy in the first half of the century, and that had its epicentre in the duchy of Milan, Ippolito's possession was much more exposed than Francesco's to the consequences of war. Already in 1544, the governor of Milan, Ferrante Gonzaga, had sent his troops to face the French army, who were stationed in the town of Mirandola and who were preparing an attack against Lombardy, and had let them occupy and sack Brescello. Ippolito, who was at that time in Rome, could only write to his brother Ercole, to warn him of the danger of the Imperials gaining control of Brescello, and ask the pope to help him defend his possession.<sup>18</sup> When the conflict calmed, Ercole II negotiated the restitution of Brescello on behalf of Ippolito, but he also took advantage of the situation in order to erode his brother's authority over the fief*.* <sup>19</sup> That Brescello was a vulnerable target, and likely to be exposed again to the military raids of the Spanish troops stationed in Milan, was quite clear to Ippolito II, who, in 1549, wrote to Ercole II predicting a gloomy destiny for

106

<sup>11</sup> It was not unusual, for sovereign families, to start a cadet branch by bequeathing a minor title with a fief to one of the younger sons, in order to have another line of male heirs who could take up the main title in case of a dynastic emergency. Usually, however, the condition attached to this kind of feudal alienations was that the fief would return to the main line of the family if the cadet son had no male heirs

<sup>12</sup> G. Tiraboschi, *Dizionario topografico-storico degli stati estensi* (2 vols, Modena, 1824), i, p. 10. See

<sup>13</sup> Ippolito I's will, which named Alfonso I as the universal heir of the cardinal's immense fortune, is held among the documents of the Este princes in the Archive of Modena: ASMO, CS, 387, 2037.VIII.

to succeed him: Spagnoletti, *Le dinastie italiane,* pp. 225-226.

See also McClung Hallman, *Italian Cardinals,* p. 89. <sup>14</sup> See Guerzoni, 'Between Rome and Ferrara', p. 63.

also Byatt, 'Este, Ippolito d''.

had therefore bequeathed the castles of Brescello and of Massalombarda respective-

The *castrum* of Brescello had become part of the Duchy of Ferrara in 1479, when Duke Ercole I had obtained it from Ludovico Sforza in exchange for Castelnovo Tortonese. In 1492, Ercole's thirteen years-old son, Ippolito I, was appointed abbot *in commendam* of the Benedictine monastery of San Genesio in Brescello, which also controlled the surrounding lands and the fortifications.<sup>12</sup> Due to its geographical position – on the shore of the Po river and at the border with both the Duchy of Mantua and the Duchy of Milan – Brescello acquired an important military and commercial role during the first half of the sixteenth century. When Ippolito I prematurely died in 1520, all his assets – 'all goods movable and immovable, lands and rights wherever they may be […] and fruits and rents of any kind, also ecclesiastical'<sup>13</sup> – went to his brother, Duke Alfonso I, who then bequeathed Brescello, as a *castellania,* to his second-born son, Ippolito II d'Este. From the year of Alfonso I's death, in 1534, Ippolito II had been the legitimate owner of the *castrum*, which was therefore excluded from Ercole II's jurisdiction: it was Ippolito's officials who took care of the military defences of the fief, who administrated criminal justice and who collected taxes.14 This decision of the late Duke Alfonso I deprived his successor of the jurisdiction over a territory that, in the following years, became one of the crucial battlegrounds between French and Imperial troops – and, as such, it provoked more than one misunderstanding between Ippolito II and his brother, Duke Ercole. Alfonso I's dispositions regarding Francesco's share of inheritance were also to become a source of resentment within the Estense family, but for quite a different rea-

The object of the dispute that, in 1553, opposed Francesco to his brothers was a clause that the former duke had added to the second draft of his will, in order to bind Francesco d'Este's share of inheritance to a *fidecommesso,* a trust. As a consequence of this testamentary resolution, which had been enforced at Alfonso I's death, Francesco was only entitled to the income produced by the properties he had inherited, but he did not hold any right of possession over them. In order to rent out, sell, or give away any part of his legacy, Francesco was forced to ask for the permission of his brother, Duke Ercole II, who was the trustee appointed by their father, Alfonso I. Amongst sixteenth-century Italian families, the institution of a trust was indeed a popular way to preserve the unity of the family's assets for future generations. It accompanied, ideally, the social-juridical principle of primogeniture, which prescribed

ly to his younger sons, Ippolito II and Francesco d'Este.<sup>11</sup>

son.

<sup>15</sup> For an outline of the use of the *fidecommesso* in the period we are considering, see: M. L. Ferrari and G. Vivenza, 'Tutelare la famiglia: conservazione o incremento del patrimonio. Percorsi seisettecenteschi italiani o inglesi', in S. Cavaciocchi (ed), *La famiglia nell'economia europea, secoli XIII-*

*XVIII* (Florence, 2009), pp. 205-208. 16 Besides the castle of Massalombarda, Francesco had inherited several estates, a villa and a palace, with also a sum of money to furnish it: L. Bertoni, 'Este, Francesco d'', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 1993). Alfonso I had acquired Massalombarda (and other territories in Romagna) when he had married Lucrezia Borgia, as part of her dowry: G. Guerzoni, 'Di alcune ignote e poco nobili cause del soggiorno Bolognese di Kaiser Karl V', in M. Fantoni (ed), *Carlo V e l'Italia* (Rome, 2000), p. 207.

<sup>17</sup> In 1534, when he was eighteen years-old, Francesco had gone to France seeking social promotion and against his father's explicit wish that he served as a military official at the emperor's court: Chiappini,

*Gli Estensi,* p. 244. 18 Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 90-91.

<sup>19</sup> In 1546, for instance, Ercole II included Brescello in an agreement with the duke of Parma without informing his brother: ibid*.*

his possession in the case of a new outburst of war between France and the Empire.<sup>20</sup> Two years later, when the latent rivalry between Charles V and Henry II was once again on the verge of becoming virulent – the *casus belli* this time being the protection of the duchy of Parma – the Spanish army, led by the governor of Milan, Ferrante Gonzaga, occupied Brescello as a preventive measure aimed to keep the French troops from establishing their military headquarters there. In May 1551, the Tuscan ambassador to France, Luigi Capponi, wrote to his Duke Cosimo de' Medici that the occupation of Brescello had deeply displeased the king of France, who had seen it as a violation of the existing armistice, because that agreement 'included allies and servants, and given that the cardinal of Ferrara is a member of the private counsel and a most faithful servant, this means that now the war will break out if these [lords] want it so'.<sup>21</sup>

As we have seen in the previous chapter, the war eventually did break out. The war of Parma lasted for less than a year, and the peace was restored in April 1552 by an armistice that involved the king of France, the emperor, and the pope. However, when Ferrante Gonzaga was ordered to suspend the hostilities and hand over the territories he had occupied during the previous year to their legitimate owners, the exceptional state of Brescello – a possession that fell under the direct jurisdiction of the 'French' cardinal Ippolito d'Este – raised some controversies. While those parts of the duchy of Ferrara that had fallen under the emperor's control were immediately given back to Ercole II, who had tried to remain neutral and had worked towards a quick resolution of the conflict in order to preserve his state from the turmoil of war, Ferrante Gonzaga refused to return Brescello alleging that 'this is the cardinal of Ferrara's property'.22 Only several months after the armistice, in October 1552, was Brescello eventually returned – although not to Ippolito d'Este, but to his brother Ercole.

While Ippolito d'Este was negotiating from Siena the restitution of Brescello with his brother, Don Francesco tried to change the state of financial subordination in which his father's will had put him. From Mantua, where he had stopped on the way back from Piedmont, he sent an envoy to Ercole II asking for the annulment of the *fidecommesso*. Francesco's agent justified this request by saying that 'it was too shameful to him to ask for permission every time he wished to sell for two or three thousand *scudi*'. Whilst rejecting the agent's plea as 'something unusual and unfair', 'a fantasy of little reason', Duke Ercole offered to authorise the alienation of Francesco's assets for 40.000 *scudi,* also remarking that he would never deny him permission in the future. Francesco, however, stubbornly insisted on the full annulment of their father's trust, refusing 'to agree to any solution; on the contrary, he is firmer and more convinced than ever in his purpose, saying that he wants what is his own not to sell it or alienate it […] but to enjoy it as long as God will allow him, and to leave it to friends and relatives'. In order to dodge the legal bind of the *fidecommesso,* Francesco suggested his brother to state that Francesco's legitimate

109

<sup>23</sup> This and all the quotations in this paragraph are from ASMO, CS, 79, 1654.XXII.58 (9 August 1553).

share of their father's inheritance was worth exactly the value of the properties that he had received, so that he could claim his compensation accordingly – 'without

Because it seemed strange to me that His Most Illustrious Lordship […] had fantasised over such a request, given that a trust cannot be broken without causing harm to justice, I thought that the aforementioned lord our brother did not make this request just out of his own will, but after the work and the persuasion of someone from the emperor's court, who wishes to see and to cause bad intelligence and contrariety amongst us rather than that brotherly love and harmony that ought exist […] Because I did not know what more to do in regard to this matter, in which I suspect there might be another influence rather than our brother's simple will, I did not want to give him a response before letting Your Excellence know what has happened so

Whether these suspicions were real, or instrumentally used by Ercole II to keep Francesco in a subaltern position, they certainly weighed on the final decision of dismissing his brother's request, and articulate a concern that is indicative nonetheless, as it exemplifies a legitimate and no doubt real anxiety about an external political player seeking to influence the internal dynamics of the Este's familiar and domestic policy. Ippolito II, as much as Ercole II, had no reason to change a settlement – which was mainly economic but which, in the light of Ercole's suspicions, had also the potential to become political – that had put him in a leading position within the family. The stronger French vocation of the cardinal certainly made it preferable for him, to keep any potential Imperial influence outside the duchy, especially in a moment of open conflict between Habsburg and Valois – and the respect due to the

bitions were being used in order to weaken the family union:

After several weeks of negotiation, having recognised that 'no reason could persuade him [Francesco] not to get into a controversy', Ercole II asked his other brother, Ippolito, for advice.24 The political situation, in 1553, was particularly delicate. We have seen in the previous chapter that Ippolito's position in Siena was dependent on both the local and the international political scenario, and that he struggled to comply with all the different obligations and loyalties that his hybrid role required. He had committed himself to soothe Cosimo de' Medici's hostility, and Duke Ercole had intervened to remind him about the importance of maintaining a good relationship with the Vatican too. Over the course of the war of Siena, both brothers had presented themselves as interested in pursuing peace rather than war, Ippolito defending the 'freedom' of Siena and Ercole defending his own state's neutrality. Interestingly, when Francesco d'Este advocated the annulment of Alfonso I's *fidecommesso*, Ercole immediately ascribed his brother's request to the influence of someone from the Imperial court – a political manoeuvre in which Francesco's am-

causing harm to anyone'.23

far.<sup>25</sup>

<sup>24</sup> Ibid*.* <sup>25</sup> Ibid*.*

<sup>20</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 27 July 1549.

<sup>21</sup> Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, pp. 270-271. 22 Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 197; 202.

share of their father's inheritance was worth exactly the value of the properties that he had received, so that he could claim his compensation accordingly – 'without causing harm to anyone'.23

After several weeks of negotiation, having recognised that 'no reason could persuade him [Francesco] not to get into a controversy', Ercole II asked his other brother, Ippolito, for advice.24 The political situation, in 1553, was particularly delicate. We have seen in the previous chapter that Ippolito's position in Siena was dependent on both the local and the international political scenario, and that he struggled to comply with all the different obligations and loyalties that his hybrid role required. He had committed himself to soothe Cosimo de' Medici's hostility, and Duke Ercole had intervened to remind him about the importance of maintaining a good relationship with the Vatican too. Over the course of the war of Siena, both brothers had presented themselves as interested in pursuing peace rather than war, Ippolito defending the 'freedom' of Siena and Ercole defending his own state's neutrality. Interestingly, when Francesco d'Este advocated the annulment of Alfonso I's *fidecommesso*, Ercole immediately ascribed his brother's request to the influence of someone from the Imperial court – a political manoeuvre in which Francesco's ambitions were being used in order to weaken the family union:

Because it seemed strange to me that His Most Illustrious Lordship […] had fantasised over such a request, given that a trust cannot be broken without causing harm to justice, I thought that the aforementioned lord our brother did not make this request just out of his own will, but after the work and the persuasion of someone from the emperor's court, who wishes to see and to cause bad intelligence and contrariety amongst us rather than that brotherly love and harmony that ought exist […] Because I did not know what more to do in regard to this matter, in which I suspect there might be another influence rather than our brother's simple will, I did not want to give him a response before letting Your Excellence know what has happened so far.<sup>25</sup>

Whether these suspicions were real, or instrumentally used by Ercole II to keep Francesco in a subaltern position, they certainly weighed on the final decision of dismissing his brother's request, and articulate a concern that is indicative nonetheless, as it exemplifies a legitimate and no doubt real anxiety about an external political player seeking to influence the internal dynamics of the Este's familiar and domestic policy. Ippolito II, as much as Ercole II, had no reason to change a settlement – which was mainly economic but which, in the light of Ercole's suspicions, had also the potential to become political – that had put him in a leading position within the family. The stronger French vocation of the cardinal certainly made it preferable for him, to keep any potential Imperial influence outside the duchy, especially in a moment of open conflict between Habsburg and Valois – and the respect due to the

108

his possession in the case of a new outburst of war between France and the Empire.<sup>20</sup> Two years later, when the latent rivalry between Charles V and Henry II was once again on the verge of becoming virulent – the *casus belli* this time being the protection of the duchy of Parma – the Spanish army, led by the governor of Milan, Ferrante Gonzaga, occupied Brescello as a preventive measure aimed to keep the French troops from establishing their military headquarters there. In May 1551, the Tuscan ambassador to France, Luigi Capponi, wrote to his Duke Cosimo de' Medici that the occupation of Brescello had deeply displeased the king of France, who had seen it as a violation of the existing armistice, because that agreement 'included allies and servants, and given that the cardinal of Ferrara is a member of the private counsel and a most faithful servant, this means that now the war will break out if

As we have seen in the previous chapter, the war eventually did break out. The war of Parma lasted for less than a year, and the peace was restored in April 1552 by an armistice that involved the king of France, the emperor, and the pope. However, when Ferrante Gonzaga was ordered to suspend the hostilities and hand over the territories he had occupied during the previous year to their legitimate owners, the exceptional state of Brescello – a possession that fell under the direct jurisdiction of the 'French' cardinal Ippolito d'Este – raised some controversies. While those parts of the duchy of Ferrara that had fallen under the emperor's control were immediately given back to Ercole II, who had tried to remain neutral and had worked towards a quick resolution of the conflict in order to preserve his state from the turmoil of war, Ferrante Gonzaga refused to return Brescello alleging that 'this is the cardinal of Ferrara's property'.22 Only several months after the armistice, in October 1552, was Brescello eventually returned – although not to Ippolito d'Este, but to his broth-

While Ippolito d'Este was negotiating from Siena the restitution of Brescello with his brother, Don Francesco tried to change the state of financial subordination in which his father's will had put him. From Mantua, where he had stopped on the way back from Piedmont, he sent an envoy to Ercole II asking for the annulment of the *fidecommesso*. Francesco's agent justified this request by saying that 'it was too shameful to him to ask for permission every time he wished to sell for two or three thousand *scudi*'. Whilst rejecting the agent's plea as 'something unusual and unfair', 'a fantasy of little reason', Duke Ercole offered to authorise the alienation of Francesco's assets for 40.000 *scudi,* also remarking that he would never deny him permission in the future. Francesco, however, stubbornly insisted on the full annulment of their father's trust, refusing 'to agree to any solution; on the contrary, he is firmer and more convinced than ever in his purpose, saying that he wants what is his own not to sell it or alienate it […] but to enjoy it as long as God will allow him, and to leave it to friends and relatives'. In order to dodge the legal bind of the *fidecommesso,* Francesco suggested his brother to state that Francesco's legitimate

these [lords] want it so'.<sup>21</sup>

er Ercole.

<sup>20</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 27 July 1549.

<sup>21</sup> Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, pp. 270-271. 22 Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 197; 202.

<sup>23</sup> This and all the quotations in this paragraph are from ASMO, CS, 79, 1654.XXII.58 (9 August 1553). <sup>24</sup> Ibid*.*

<sup>25</sup> Ibid*.*

late duke's decision, avowed by both brothers, could easily mask more practical concerns.

In the case of Brescello, Ercole II's behaviour was different from the 'family loyalty' he had shown to Ippolito when the two brothers had unanimously decided to keep Francesco subject to their father's testamentary decisions. In the dispute that arose around Brescello, Ercole II was eager to adopt the point of view of the emperor and of Ferrante Gonzaga in order to take advantage of the situation and to reintegrate the fief into the duchy's jurisdiction. This episode, which opened a fracture in the relationship between the two brothers, offers the perfect example of how two leading members of the same sovereign family – although both allied, if not military, at least 'morally' to France – could be perceived very differently by their 'enemies' under the exceptional circumstance of a war scenario. It also shows how Ippolito's political identity – and others' perception of it – was constantly renegotiated and influenced by external factors. At the same time, it highlights the different dynamics of inclusion and exclusion that the Estense family adopted when projecting their sovereign power outside the duchy.

Following the armistice between Valois and Habsburg after the war of Parma, Ippolito had followed the negotiation on the restitution of Brescello first from Ferrara and then from Siena, where he had taken up the administration of the city in October 1552. The political implications of the long Imperial occupation of Brescello had been such that, in the months after the end of the war of Parma, when Italian diplomats were collecting rumours on the next movements of Henry II's troops, Cosimo de' Medici's agents had even postulated a French military intervention aimed at retrieving Ippolito's possession from the hands of Ferrante Gonzaga.26 In October, as we have seen, Ercole II had eventually sealed a deal with the emperor and had then annexed Brescello to the duchy.

As soon as the cardinal of Ferrara realised that his brother was not going to hand over his fief – as he had thought at the beginning – a harsh dispute arose between the two brothers, and the mutual resentment poisoned their relationship for longer than a year. The cardinal's anger at his brother is more easily understandable when one considers that, among all the possessions that were providing the cardinal with a monetary income, Brescello was one of the most lucrative and its revenues exceeded those of all the other lands Ippolito owned in Italy.<sup>27</sup> To come to an agreement with his brother, Ercole even suggested – in person during the summer of 1552 and via letter in the following November – they take the issue before an impartial 'person or council', to avoid the spread of any rumours about their disagreement and to keep

111

<sup>32</sup> ASMO, CS, 79, 1654.XXII.51 (1 December 1552). 33 'Mi par molto strano ch'ella […] mostri credere hora che […] habbi a darle senza cercar altro la essecutione di tutto quello che Vostra Signora Illustrissima pretende dover haver da me in questa materia per virtù del testamento, come se fossimo nel caso di esso, et che io havessi havuto Brescello da lei, per ricompensa del quale fossi obligato darli equivalente intrada, si come ordina il predetto testamento […]. Non volendo ella ricordarsi che siamo in termine molto differente […] non so come ella pensi di esser

<sup>28</sup> 'Bene vedo che essendo poco conveniente che fra noi si havesse da far lite pubblica per tal causa, per ogni rispetto et massimamente per non dar da rider a malevoli nostri, havrò caro che tra Vostra Signoria Illustrissima et me si trovasse via et modo che questo punto, il quale non credo io che porti molte difficultà per resolverlo, si facesse decider a qualche personaggio o colleggio confidente ad amendue, senza

liti': ASMO, CS, 79, 1654.XXII.49 (13 November 1552).

<sup>30</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.9 (22 November 1552). 31 Ibid., 1709.XVIII.14 (18 December 1552).

'the world from believing that the love we share has changed in any way'.<sup>28</sup> To avoid any leak of information, Ercole also suggested to conceal their real names in the papers and to use pseudonyms instead.<sup>29</sup> Ippolito's reply followed just a few

You can easily imagine that I was very displeased to see that the more I wanted to come to an agreement regarding these things of Brescello, the more you tried to procrastinate […]. If I am requesting my possession of Brescello from Your Excellence, as I did in person and in yet another letter, I am requesting it from you because you hold it in your hands, and not [because I want to obtain it] through arbitration; because I said I would content myself with everything that our father the duke commanded in his will, and he never mentioned that this should be remitted to a council or to anyone else; it seems inappropriate to me that judges and doctors in law should interfere in such a simple matter, because I do not recognise anyone's authority but that of Your Excellence over that place […]. If Your Excellence wishes to retain Brescello and abide by our father's will, I do not understand why we should discuss whether I should receive another equivalent jurisdiction or not; it is clear that the testator's opinion was to give me a castle with more jurisdictional powers and bigger than those he left to his other children. And I cannot agree on any compensation that is not of the same quality and quantity of the one I was assigned in the first place

A month later, in December, the cardinal of Ferrara more clearly recognised that Ercole II had negotiated the restitution of Brescello by distancing himself from his brother. Ippolito consequently accused him of having adopted 'the same arguments as the emperor, who takes me [Ippolito] as his enemy', instead of behaving 'as a brother should do with a brother'.<sup>31</sup> In a long letter written at the beginning of the same month, Ercole had defended his course of action by saying that he had obtained Brescello from the 'supreme Lord of that fief, who is the emperor, who took possession of it under his own name, as it is well known, and who deliberated that Your Excellence's power over that place had elapsed'.32 Ercole had argued that, given the exceptional way in which Brescello had been returned to him, he was obliged neither to abide by their father's will nor to compensate Ippolito with a possession equivalent to the castle he had lost.33 Ercole also mentioned that the cardinal had no

days later:

[…].<sup>30</sup>

<sup>29</sup> Ibid*.*

<sup>26</sup> Cosimo de' Medici wrote to his ambassador to the Imperial court that 'alcuni credevano che [the French] volessino andare alla recuperazione di Brescello': Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, p. 314 (15 July 1552).

<sup>27</sup> Thanks to its thriving cloth industry, Brescello, in 1537, was providing Ippolito with 2.460 *scudi* a year and was thus one of his main Italian sources of income. Although in the following years the cardinal was bestowed with some very lucrative Church benefices, such as the archdiocese of Lyon, Brescello remained a very important asset. The figure regarding Brescello's value is in Hollingsworth, *The Cardinal's Hat,* p. 138.

'the world from believing that the love we share has changed in any way'.<sup>28</sup> To avoid any leak of information, Ercole also suggested to conceal their real names in the papers and to use pseudonyms instead.29 Ippolito's reply followed just a few days later:

You can easily imagine that I was very displeased to see that the more I wanted to come to an agreement regarding these things of Brescello, the more you tried to procrastinate […]. If I am requesting my possession of Brescello from Your Excellence, as I did in person and in yet another letter, I am requesting it from you because you hold it in your hands, and not [because I want to obtain it] through arbitration; because I said I would content myself with everything that our father the duke commanded in his will, and he never mentioned that this should be remitted to a council or to anyone else; it seems inappropriate to me that judges and doctors in law should interfere in such a simple matter, because I do not recognise anyone's authority but that of Your Excellence over that place […]. If Your Excellence wishes to retain Brescello and abide by our father's will, I do not understand why we should discuss whether I should receive another equivalent jurisdiction or not; it is clear that the testator's opinion was to give me a castle with more jurisdictional powers and bigger than those he left to his other children. And I cannot agree on any compensation that is not of the same quality and quantity of the one I was assigned in the first place […].<sup>30</sup>

A month later, in December, the cardinal of Ferrara more clearly recognised that Ercole II had negotiated the restitution of Brescello by distancing himself from his brother. Ippolito consequently accused him of having adopted 'the same arguments as the emperor, who takes me [Ippolito] as his enemy', instead of behaving 'as a brother should do with a brother'.<sup>31</sup> In a long letter written at the beginning of the same month, Ercole had defended his course of action by saying that he had obtained Brescello from the 'supreme Lord of that fief, who is the emperor, who took possession of it under his own name, as it is well known, and who deliberated that Your Excellence's power over that place had elapsed'.32 Ercole had argued that, given the exceptional way in which Brescello had been returned to him, he was obliged neither to abide by their father's will nor to compensate Ippolito with a possession equivalent to the castle he had lost.33 Ercole also mentioned that the cardinal had no

110

<sup>26</sup> Cosimo de' Medici wrote to his ambassador to the Imperial court that 'alcuni credevano che [the French] volessino andare alla recuperazione di Brescello': Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, p. 314 (15

<sup>27</sup> Thanks to its thriving cloth industry, Brescello, in 1537, was providing Ippolito with 2.460 *scudi* a year and was thus one of his main Italian sources of income. Although in the following years the cardinal was bestowed with some very lucrative Church benefices, such as the archdiocese of Lyon, Brescello remained a very important asset. The figure regarding Brescello's value is in Hollingsworth, *The* 

late duke's decision, avowed by both brothers, could easily mask more practical

In the case of Brescello, Ercole II's behaviour was different from the 'family loyalty' he had shown to Ippolito when the two brothers had unanimously decided to keep Francesco subject to their father's testamentary decisions. In the dispute that arose around Brescello, Ercole II was eager to adopt the point of view of the emperor and of Ferrante Gonzaga in order to take advantage of the situation and to reintegrate the fief into the duchy's jurisdiction. This episode, which opened a fracture in the relationship between the two brothers, offers the perfect example of how two leading members of the same sovereign family – although both allied, if not military, at least 'morally' to France – could be perceived very differently by their 'enemies' under the exceptional circumstance of a war scenario. It also shows how Ippolito's political identity – and others' perception of it – was constantly renegotiated and influenced by external factors. At the same time, it highlights the different dynamics of inclusion and exclusion that the Estense family adopted when projecting

Following the armistice between Valois and Habsburg after the war of Parma, Ippolito had followed the negotiation on the restitution of Brescello first from Ferrara and then from Siena, where he had taken up the administration of the city in October 1552. The political implications of the long Imperial occupation of Brescello had been such that, in the months after the end of the war of Parma, when Italian diplomats were collecting rumours on the next movements of Henry II's troops, Cosimo de' Medici's agents had even postulated a French military intervention aimed at retrieving Ippolito's possession from the hands of Ferrante Gonzaga.26 In October, as we have seen, Ercole II had eventually sealed a deal with the emperor and had

As soon as the cardinal of Ferrara realised that his brother was not going to hand over his fief – as he had thought at the beginning – a harsh dispute arose between the two brothers, and the mutual resentment poisoned their relationship for longer than a year. The cardinal's anger at his brother is more easily understandable when one considers that, among all the possessions that were providing the cardinal with a monetary income, Brescello was one of the most lucrative and its revenues exceeded those of all the other lands Ippolito owned in Italy.<sup>27</sup> To come to an agreement with his brother, Ercole even suggested – in person during the summer of 1552 and via letter in the following November – they take the issue before an impartial 'person or council', to avoid the spread of any rumours about their disagreement and to keep

concerns.

their sovereign power outside the duchy.

then annexed Brescello to the duchy.

July 1552).

*Cardinal's Hat,* p. 138.

<sup>28</sup> 'Bene vedo che essendo poco conveniente che fra noi si havesse da far lite pubblica per tal causa, per ogni rispetto et massimamente per non dar da rider a malevoli nostri, havrò caro che tra Vostra Signoria Illustrissima et me si trovasse via et modo che questo punto, il quale non credo io che porti molte difficultà per resolverlo, si facesse decider a qualche personaggio o colleggio confidente ad amendue, senza liti': ASMO, CS, 79, 1654.XXII.49 (13 November 1552).

<sup>29</sup> Ibid*.*

<sup>30</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.9 (22 November 1552). 31 Ibid., 1709.XVIII.14 (18 December 1552).

<sup>32</sup> ASMO, CS, 79, 1654.XXII.51 (1 December 1552). 33 'Mi par molto strano ch'ella […] mostri credere hora che […] habbi a darle senza cercar altro la essecutione di tutto quello che Vostra Signora Illustrissima pretende dover haver da me in questa materia per virtù del testamento, come se fossimo nel caso di esso, et che io havessi havuto Brescello da lei, per ricompensa del quale fossi obligato darli equivalente intrada, si come ordina il predetto testamento […]. Non volendo ella ricordarsi che siamo in termine molto differente […] non so come ella pensi di esser

#### The Path of Pleasantness

reason to complain, because he had been forced to behave as he had done because of the adverse circumstances and because of the emperor's hostility – a subtle criticism of Ippolito's one-sided politics, which had made him a target of the emperor's revenge and had often put Ercole's neutrality at risk:

I do not know why […] you believe that you can now complain about me, because, trying to retrieve it [Brescello] from His Majesty as my own possession and something that is very important to my State, I could not, given the quality of these current times, avoid to promise and to accept things that do not allow me now to give that place back to you, as I did that other time when I got it back from the marquis of Vasto who had indeed taken it from you. There is no reason why Your Excellence should blame me or complain about myself or my good intentions rather than about the bad condition of the present times, which has forced me, if I wanted to have it [Brescello] returned, to consent to such things ['consentir a cose'] that were not mentioned the other time. […] I would happily give you […] along with my life and my State also that castle of Brescello, if only I did not find myself, in this matter, bound to such conditions that prevent me from doing it.<sup>34</sup>

It is clear that Ercole had obtained from the emperor an agreement that worked to Ippolito's detriment. When the marquis of Vasto had occupied Brescello in 1546, as mentioned in the letter above, the cardinal of Ferrara was already emerging as one of the most zealous defendants of French interests in Italy. However, he had not been as personally involved in the French operations in Italy as he had been in the fifties, when he convened the meeting that led to the Sienese rebellion. If Ippolito tried to appeal to his brother's 'sense of family' in order to receive his castle back, as had indeed happened in the 1540s, Ercole put the reason of state above his brotherly loyalty.

Therefore, given the impossibility of convincing Ercole to return Brescello – or at least 'its revenues […] or a compensation equal to the testator's will' – the cardinal advocated the intervention of the king of France:

Given all that happened in that place, I fear Your Excellence might think of using the same argument that the emperor could put forward to my disadvantage, although this would surprise me given that His Majesty (as you know) did not deprive me of my jurisdiction over that place of mine but kept it under the word of Don Ferrante. If this was to be the case, I could not avoid remitting the matter to the king of France rather than to some people in a council and asking him to give me some compensation for what I lost whilst serving him […]. I would not like to be deprived of my possession and to be involved in a fight with you, but I know from experience that all the issues that ever mattered to me have always been so delayed that I never got to see their resolution […].35

113

<sup>40</sup> Ippolito II to Ercole II: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.32 (13 November 1553). Despite the king's promise, the cardinal of Ferrara never received any benefice as a compensation for Brescello. The king decided to give Ippolito an annual pension until he could appoint him to a benefice that bore the had

The clash between the two brothers grew so bitter that Ippolito, while agreeing with Ercole on the need to keep 'the resentment that might arise between us secret',36 almost stopped any communication from January to April 1553, with the exception of a handful of very brief and standardised letters to recommend some people who were about to visit Ferrara.37 In the same period, Ercole visited Brescello quite often, presumably to make the reintegration of the castle under his own juris-

The issue was eventually presented to Henry II through the French treasurer of the army, the bishop of Lodève, who, in April, wrote from Ferrara to his king that the cardinal was expecting 'the greatest rewards for his services' – in the form of some wealthy temporal and spiritual benefices.<sup>39</sup> A few months later, Ippolito's secretary, Abbot Niquet, came back from Paris bringing the news that the king had accepted Lodève's proposal and was keen to compensate Ippolito for his services by

I will follow Your Excellence's advice and solicit that compensation, part in spiritual and part in temporal goods […], and I will demand that land about which monsieur di Lodeva [Lodève] wrote to me. […] Those lords had already told me that the king wanted to compensate me and would send me a letter about it. Nevertheless, given that I had not received any letter before Nichetto [Niquet] made his return, I did not believe it was true and I thought that it was just words. And you can be sure that if His Majesty had informed me earlier about his decision, I would have not failed to accept it as I am doing now, and this in order to please Your Excellence ra-

<sup>36</sup> Ibid*.* On this point, Ercole bitterly remarked that 'Se si darà pur alegrezza a nostri inimici me ne rincrescerà infinitamente per l'honor di casa nostra, però perche ciò non procederà per causa o diffetto mio me ne dolerà più per lei che per me, benchè, per dire il vero, Vostra Signoria Illustrissima nanti la partita sua di qua publicò così fattamente la mala sodisfattione ch'ella volea si sapesse da tutti quelli che intravano nella camera sua esser in lei di me per quella materia, che horamai mi pare che non vi sia artigiano

<sup>37</sup> In the last letter that Ippolito sent to Ferrara about Brescello, he complained that his brother had given him an additional source of concern, 'appresso tanti altri ch'io mi trovo haver, il quale posso dir liberamente che mi pesa più di tutti gli altri'. In April, the cardinal remarked that 'vedendo ch'ella […] non è disposta ad altro che a darmi repliche et parole, non so anco che mi dir altro se non rimettermi ch'ella che ha di già piena notitia del mio animo ci pigli poi quello ispediente che più le piacerà': ASMO, CS,

<sup>39</sup> Lodève recommended that the king meet Ippolito d'Este's expectations: 'Je serois d'advis, soubz correction, qu'il vous pleust accorder cela, car monsieur le cardinal vous est si affectionne que quant vous prendriez tout son temporel, et le sprituel avec, pour votre service, il n'y aura jamais regret et pourrez accomoder cela avec luy': Vitalis (ed), *Correspondance*, p. 41. The bishop of Lodève held the post of Henry II's 'tresorier général des armées en Italie' and he resided in Ferrara for the whole of 1553. He was one of Cardinal Tournon's *protégés,* but he was also in very friendly terms with the Este (significantly, Lodève named his son Hercule). In Ippolito's words, Lodève was 'nurritura di Monsignor Reve-

diction effective and to assess the damages resulting from the war.<sup>38</sup>

bestowing him with another benefice as a replacement for Brescello:

che non lo sappi in questa terra': ASMO, CS, 79, 1654.XXII.51 (1 December 1552).

149, 1709.XVIII.5 (21 January 1553); ibid., 1709.XVIII.12 (13 April 1553). 38 Vitalis (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 37.

rendissimo Tornone et mio amicissimo': ASFI, MdP, 3271, fo. 756.

ther than pursue my own benefit.40

hora interamente nel caso del predetto testamento, et per qual causa io a semplice dimanda di lei habbi ad esser tenuto per ragione darle il detto luogo': ibid*.*

<sup>34</sup> Ibid*.*

<sup>35</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.9 (22 November 1552).

The clash between the two brothers grew so bitter that Ippolito, while agreeing with Ercole on the need to keep 'the resentment that might arise between us secret',36 almost stopped any communication from January to April 1553, with the exception of a handful of very brief and standardised letters to recommend some people who were about to visit Ferrara.37 In the same period, Ercole visited Brescello quite often, presumably to make the reintegration of the castle under his own jurisdiction effective and to assess the damages resulting from the war.<sup>38</sup>

The issue was eventually presented to Henry II through the French treasurer of the army, the bishop of Lodève, who, in April, wrote from Ferrara to his king that the cardinal was expecting 'the greatest rewards for his services' – in the form of some wealthy temporal and spiritual benefices.<sup>39</sup> A few months later, Ippolito's secretary, Abbot Niquet, came back from Paris bringing the news that the king had accepted Lodève's proposal and was keen to compensate Ippolito for his services by bestowing him with another benefice as a replacement for Brescello:

I will follow Your Excellence's advice and solicit that compensation, part in spiritual and part in temporal goods […], and I will demand that land about which monsieur di Lodeva [Lodève] wrote to me. […] Those lords had already told me that the king wanted to compensate me and would send me a letter about it. Nevertheless, given that I had not received any letter before Nichetto [Niquet] made his return, I did not believe it was true and I thought that it was just words. And you can be sure that if His Majesty had informed me earlier about his decision, I would have not failed to accept it as I am doing now, and this in order to please Your Excellence rather than pursue my own benefit.40

112

hora interamente nel caso del predetto testamento, et per qual causa io a semplice dimanda di lei habbi

reason to complain, because he had been forced to behave as he had done because of the adverse circumstances and because of the emperor's hostility – a subtle criticism of Ippolito's one-sided politics, which had made him a target of the emperor's re-

I do not know why […] you believe that you can now complain about me, because, trying to retrieve it [Brescello] from His Majesty as my own possession and something that is very important to my State, I could not, given the quality of these current times, avoid to promise and to accept things that do not allow me now to give that place back to you, as I did that other time when I got it back from the marquis of Vasto who had indeed taken it from you. There is no reason why Your Excellence should blame me or complain about myself or my good intentions rather than about the bad condition of the present times, which has forced me, if I wanted to have it [Brescello] returned, to consent to such things ['consentir a cose'] that were not mentioned the other time. […] I would happily give you […] along with my life and my State also that castle of Brescello, if only I did not find myself, in this matter,

It is clear that Ercole had obtained from the emperor an agreement that worked to Ippolito's detriment. When the marquis of Vasto had occupied Brescello in 1546, as mentioned in the letter above, the cardinal of Ferrara was already emerging as one of the most zealous defendants of French interests in Italy. However, he had not been as personally involved in the French operations in Italy as he had been in the fifties, when he convened the meeting that led to the Sienese rebellion. If Ippolito tried to appeal to his brother's 'sense of family' in order to receive his castle back, as had indeed happened in the 1540s, Ercole put the reason of state above his brotherly

Therefore, given the impossibility of convincing Ercole to return Brescello – or at least 'its revenues […] or a compensation equal to the testator's will' – the cardi-

Given all that happened in that place, I fear Your Excellence might think of using the same argument that the emperor could put forward to my disadvantage, although this would surprise me given that His Majesty (as you know) did not deprive me of my jurisdiction over that place of mine but kept it under the word of Don Ferrante. If this was to be the case, I could not avoid remitting the matter to the king of France rather than to some people in a council and asking him to give me some compensation for what I lost whilst serving him […]. I would not like to be deprived of my possession and to be involved in a fight with you, but I know from experience that all the issues that ever mattered to me have always been so delayed that I never got

venge and had often put Ercole's neutrality at risk:

bound to such conditions that prevent me from doing it.<sup>34</sup>

nal advocated the intervention of the king of France:

to see their resolution […].35

ad esser tenuto per ragione darle il detto luogo': ibid*.*

<sup>35</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.9 (22 November 1552).

loyalty.

<sup>34</sup> Ibid*.*

<sup>40</sup> Ippolito II to Ercole II: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.32 (13 November 1553). Despite the king's promise, the cardinal of Ferrara never received any benefice as a compensation for Brescello. The king decided to give Ippolito an annual pension until he could appoint him to a benefice that bore the had

<sup>36</sup> Ibid*.* On this point, Ercole bitterly remarked that 'Se si darà pur alegrezza a nostri inimici me ne rincrescerà infinitamente per l'honor di casa nostra, però perche ciò non procederà per causa o diffetto mio me ne dolerà più per lei che per me, benchè, per dire il vero, Vostra Signoria Illustrissima nanti la partita sua di qua publicò così fattamente la mala sodisfattione ch'ella volea si sapesse da tutti quelli che intravano nella camera sua esser in lei di me per quella materia, che horamai mi pare che non vi sia artigiano che non lo sappi in questa terra': ASMO, CS, 79, 1654.XXII.51 (1 December 1552).

<sup>37</sup> In the last letter that Ippolito sent to Ferrara about Brescello, he complained that his brother had given him an additional source of concern, 'appresso tanti altri ch'io mi trovo haver, il quale posso dir liberamente che mi pesa più di tutti gli altri'. In April, the cardinal remarked that 'vedendo ch'ella […] non è disposta ad altro che a darmi repliche et parole, non so anco che mi dir altro se non rimettermi ch'ella che ha di già piena notitia del mio animo ci pigli poi quello ispediente che più le piacerà': ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XVIII.5 (21 January 1553); ibid., 1709.XVIII.12 (13 April 1553). 38 Vitalis (ed), *Correspondance,* p. 37.

<sup>39</sup> Lodève recommended that the king meet Ippolito d'Este's expectations: 'Je serois d'advis, soubz correction, qu'il vous pleust accorder cela, car monsieur le cardinal vous est si affectionne que quant vous prendriez tout son temporel, et le sprituel avec, pour votre service, il n'y aura jamais regret et pourrez accomoder cela avec luy': Vitalis (ed), *Correspondance*, p. 41. The bishop of Lodève held the post of Henry II's 'tresorier général des armées en Italie' and he resided in Ferrara for the whole of 1553. He was one of Cardinal Tournon's *protégés,* but he was also in very friendly terms with the Este (significantly, Lodève named his son Hercule). In Ippolito's words, Lodève was 'nurritura di Monsignor Reverendissimo Tornone et mio amicissimo': ASFI, MdP, 3271, fo. 756.

Whilst providing an example of how the identity of a man like Ippolito d'Este was always subject to a difficult negotiation of interests between Italy and France, the Brescello episode also shows that even his role as a member of the Estense dynasty could be sometimes exposed to a re-negotiation. As we will see, whenever it was necessary to enhance the power of the family outside the borders of the duchy (as in the case of the revenues of the archdiocese of Milan, which had been part of the family assets for almost sixty years), the Este united against what they saw as an injustice and a violation of the family's rights. However, in the case of Brescello and, more generally, in the administration of the duchy of Ferrara as a political entity, the dynamics within the Este were quite different. The Brescello episode shows how the alliance of the Este with France was taking, in the fifties, diverging directions: whilst Ercole II remained more or less anchored to his subaltern role as an Italian ally, Ippolito II acted – and was perceived – as a 'real' Frenchman.

#### **2. Beyond Ferrara. The archdiocese of Milan**

A series of episodes that provide a different insight on the Este family dynamics, when projected outside the duchy and engaging with a hostile power, occurred when Ippolito II d'Este held the archdiocese of Milan. During the wars, the revenues of the diocese were frozen by the local authorities on several occasions – the first time between 1536 and 1538-1539, the second in 1543-1544 (when Brescello was sacked by Charles V's army), and the third and last between 1555 and 1558.<sup>41</sup>

Ippolito II had been appointed to the archbishopric of Milan in 1519, when he was only ten years old, in order to succeed his uncle, Ippolito I, who had held the benefice since 1497 – a classic nepotistic manoeuvre aimed to keep the assets of the Church within the family and to provide the next generation of ecclesiastics with a solid base of income and power.<sup>42</sup> Whilst the first two decades of Ippolito's tenure had been marked by his non-residency and had been relatively uneventful, the situation changed when the duchy of Milan fell under the emperor's direct control, following the death of Francesco Sforza, in 1535.43 This event marked a new beginning in the war between Francis I and Charles V.

<sup>43</sup> On Charles V's dominion over Milan, see: A. Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño, 'The State of Milan and the Spanish Monarchy', in T. Dandelet and J. Marino (eds), *Spain in Italy. Politics, Society, and Religion,* 

115

*1500-1700* (Leiden, 2006), pp. 104-111; G. Signorotto, 'Lo Stato di Milano nell'età di Filippo II. Dalle Guerre d'Italia all'orizzonte confessionale', in L. Lotti and R. Villari (eds), *Filippo II e il Mediterraneo*  (Bari-Rome, 2004), pp. 25-56*.* Some letters written by Ippolito and addressed to the duke of Milan can

<sup>44</sup> ASMO, CS, 145, 4 November 1537. 45 Whilst Giannini is inclined to attribute the seizure to the war between Francis I and Charles V – and he therefore dates the suspension of the decree to the signing of the truce of Nice between France and the Empire in 1538 – Hollingsworth interprets the episode as a deliberate retaliation against Ippolito d'Este's increasing familiarity with the French monarchy, and argues that the sequestration of the revenues was lifted in 1539, after Ippolito was eventually publicly created cardinal: Giannini, 'Ippolito II',

be found in ASMI, AUT, 27, 130 (12 August 1531; 8 July 1533).

pp. 109-110; Hollingsworth, *The Cardinal's Hat,* pp. 130; 137; 233.

<sup>46</sup> Giannini, 'Ippolito II', pp. 108-110.

peaceful possession was granted by his friendship with the king of France.

In this context of increasing political tension between Habsburg and Valois – and, as we will see, a context of increasingly strict control by Imperial officials over the Archdiocese of Milan – must be seen Ippolito's project to resign his one Italian episcopal see. Ippolito sought to acquire a 'safer' benefice in a place in which his avowed French partisanship would not expose him to the danger of having his right to the revenues diminished at every stirring of the French-Imperial war. Around the years 1548-1549, the cardinal started a negotiation to exchange Milan with the diocese of Ferrara, his family's 'home diocese', which the Este had never ceased to consider a family benefice even though it had been held by Cardinal Giovanni Sal-

In this situation, Ippolito's well-known sympathy for the French crown made his possession of the archdiocese of Milan – now an Imperial attachment – more problematic than it had previously been. At the same time as Milan's devolution to Charles V, the non-resident archbishop openly manifested his Francophile feelings by starting a long residence at king Francis I's court, in this way rousing the hostility of the Imperial officials in charge of the duchy – who subsequently decided to seize the revenues of the archdiocese. A similar situation occurred in 1543, when Ippolito was still at Francis I's court: a new outbreak of war between the Habsburg and the Valois resulted, for the second time, in the issue of a decree that froze the payment of the ecclesiastical revenues (by obliging all the diocese's employees to retain any sum of money in their possession without transferring it out of the duchy). On both occasions, the restitution of the revenues was immediately taken up by Ippolito's brother, Ercole II, who ordered his ambassador at the Imperial court and his agents in Milan to protest against the seizure, which was perceived as detrimental to Ippolito's honour, and, therefore, as 'a demonstration […] against our entire house'.<sup>44</sup> Whilst it is unclear when exactly Ippolito managed to have his rights on the revenues restored after the first sequestration of 1536<sup>45</sup> (although it is worth remembering that, at the time, the duke's diplomatic efforts were fully focused on establishing the terms of Ippolito's elevation to the cardinalate with Pope Paul III), in 1544 the duke's diplomacy managed to obtain the rectification of the decree quite easily, through a plea to the emperor.<sup>46</sup> For the cardinal of Ferrara, however, the archbishopric of Milan remained a source of concern rather than income – the only source of concern in what was an otherwise very remunerative collection of benefices, whose

value as Brescello – but Ippolito never received the pension either. The topic of the cardinal's outstanding credit with the king of France is dealt with in Chapter 6 in this book.

<sup>41</sup> The episodes that took place in 1537 and 1543-1544 are both discussed in M. C. Giannini, 'Ippolito II arcivescovo di Milano fra interessi familiari e scelte politiche (1535-1550)', in A. Rocca and P. Vismara (eds) *Prima di Carlo Borromeo. Istituzioni, religione e società agli inizi del Cinquecento* (Rome, 2012), pp. 107-112.

<sup>42</sup> On the archdiocese of Milan under Ippolito I and Ippolito II, see also the studies by C. Marcora, 'Il cardinal Ippolito I d'Este arcivescovo di Milano', *Memorie storiche della Diocesi di Milano,* 5 (1958); Id., 'Ippolito II arcivescovo di Milano (1519-1550), *Memorie storiche della Diocesi di Milano,* 6 (1959) (although more focused on the life of the Milanese clergy and generally critical of the Este cardinals due to their lack of pastoral care); Id. 'La Chiesa Milanese nel decennio 1550-1560', *Memorie storiche della Diocesi di Milano,* 7 (1960) (especially for the original documents published).

In this situation, Ippolito's well-known sympathy for the French crown made his possession of the archdiocese of Milan – now an Imperial attachment – more problematic than it had previously been. At the same time as Milan's devolution to Charles V, the non-resident archbishop openly manifested his Francophile feelings by starting a long residence at king Francis I's court, in this way rousing the hostility of the Imperial officials in charge of the duchy – who subsequently decided to seize the revenues of the archdiocese. A similar situation occurred in 1543, when Ippolito was still at Francis I's court: a new outbreak of war between the Habsburg and the Valois resulted, for the second time, in the issue of a decree that froze the payment of the ecclesiastical revenues (by obliging all the diocese's employees to retain any sum of money in their possession without transferring it out of the duchy). On both occasions, the restitution of the revenues was immediately taken up by Ippolito's brother, Ercole II, who ordered his ambassador at the Imperial court and his agents in Milan to protest against the seizure, which was perceived as detrimental to Ippolito's honour, and, therefore, as 'a demonstration […] against our entire house'.<sup>44</sup>

Whilst it is unclear when exactly Ippolito managed to have his rights on the revenues restored after the first sequestration of 1536<sup>45</sup> (although it is worth remembering that, at the time, the duke's diplomatic efforts were fully focused on establishing the terms of Ippolito's elevation to the cardinalate with Pope Paul III), in 1544 the duke's diplomacy managed to obtain the rectification of the decree quite easily, through a plea to the emperor.<sup>46</sup> For the cardinal of Ferrara, however, the archbishopric of Milan remained a source of concern rather than income – the only source of concern in what was an otherwise very remunerative collection of benefices, whose peaceful possession was granted by his friendship with the king of France.

In this context of increasing political tension between Habsburg and Valois – and, as we will see, a context of increasingly strict control by Imperial officials over the Archdiocese of Milan – must be seen Ippolito's project to resign his one Italian episcopal see. Ippolito sought to acquire a 'safer' benefice in a place in which his avowed French partisanship would not expose him to the danger of having his right to the revenues diminished at every stirring of the French-Imperial war. Around the years 1548-1549, the cardinal started a negotiation to exchange Milan with the diocese of Ferrara, his family's 'home diocese', which the Este had never ceased to consider a family benefice even though it had been held by Cardinal Giovanni Sal-

114

<sup>43</sup> On Charles V's dominion over Milan, see: A. Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño, 'The State of Milan and the Spanish Monarchy', in T. Dandelet and J. Marino (eds), *Spain in Italy. Politics, Society, and Religion,* 

value as Brescello – but Ippolito never received the pension either. The topic of the cardinal's outstand-

<sup>41</sup> The episodes that took place in 1537 and 1543-1544 are both discussed in M. C. Giannini, 'Ippolito II arcivescovo di Milano fra interessi familiari e scelte politiche (1535-1550)', in A. Rocca and P. Vismara (eds) *Prima di Carlo Borromeo. Istituzioni, religione e società agli inizi del Cinquecento* (Rome, 2012),

<sup>42</sup> On the archdiocese of Milan under Ippolito I and Ippolito II, see also the studies by C. Marcora, 'Il cardinal Ippolito I d'Este arcivescovo di Milano', *Memorie storiche della Diocesi di Milano,* 5 (1958); Id., 'Ippolito II arcivescovo di Milano (1519-1550), *Memorie storiche della Diocesi di Milano,* 6 (1959) (although more focused on the life of the Milanese clergy and generally critical of the Este cardinals due to their lack of pastoral care); Id. 'La Chiesa Milanese nel decennio 1550-1560', *Memorie storiche della* 

Whilst providing an example of how the identity of a man like Ippolito d'Este was always subject to a difficult negotiation of interests between Italy and France, the Brescello episode also shows that even his role as a member of the Estense dynasty could be sometimes exposed to a re-negotiation. As we will see, whenever it was necessary to enhance the power of the family outside the borders of the duchy (as in the case of the revenues of the archdiocese of Milan, which had been part of the family assets for almost sixty years), the Este united against what they saw as an injustice and a violation of the family's rights. However, in the case of Brescello and, more generally, in the administration of the duchy of Ferrara as a political entity, the dynamics within the Este were quite different. The Brescello episode shows how the alliance of the Este with France was taking, in the fifties, diverging directions: whilst Ercole II remained more or less anchored to his subaltern role as an

Italian ally, Ippolito II acted – and was perceived – as a 'real' Frenchman.

by Charles V's army), and the third and last between 1555 and 1558.<sup>41</sup>

A series of episodes that provide a different insight on the Este family dynamics, when projected outside the duchy and engaging with a hostile power, occurred when Ippolito II d'Este held the archdiocese of Milan. During the wars, the revenues of the diocese were frozen by the local authorities on several occasions – the first time between 1536 and 1538-1539, the second in 1543-1544 (when Brescello was sacked

Ippolito II had been appointed to the archbishopric of Milan in 1519, when he was only ten years old, in order to succeed his uncle, Ippolito I, who had held the benefice since 1497 – a classic nepotistic manoeuvre aimed to keep the assets of the Church within the family and to provide the next generation of ecclesiastics with a solid base of income and power.<sup>42</sup> Whilst the first two decades of Ippolito's tenure had been marked by his non-residency and had been relatively uneventful, the situation changed when the duchy of Milan fell under the emperor's direct control, following the death of Francesco Sforza, in 1535.43 This event marked a new beginning

**2. Beyond Ferrara. The archdiocese of Milan**

in the war between Francis I and Charles V.

pp. 107-112.

ing credit with the king of France is dealt with in Chapter 6 in this book.

*Diocesi di Milano,* 7 (1960) (especially for the original documents published).

*<sup>1500-1700</sup>* (Leiden, 2006), pp. 104-111; G. Signorotto, 'Lo Stato di Milano nell'età di Filippo II. Dalle Guerre d'Italia all'orizzonte confessionale', in L. Lotti and R. Villari (eds), *Filippo II e il Mediterraneo*  (Bari-Rome, 2004), pp. 25-56*.* Some letters written by Ippolito and addressed to the duke of Milan can be found in ASMI, AUT, 27, 130 (12 August 1531; 8 July 1533).

<sup>44</sup> ASMO, CS, 145, 4 November 1537. 45 Whilst Giannini is inclined to attribute the seizure to the war between Francis I and Charles V – and he therefore dates the suspension of the decree to the signing of the truce of Nice between France and the Empire in 1538 – Hollingsworth interprets the episode as a deliberate retaliation against Ippolito d'Este's increasing familiarity with the French monarchy, and argues that the sequestration of the revenues was lifted in 1539, after Ippolito was eventually publicly created cardinal: Giannini, 'Ippolito II', pp. 109-110; Hollingsworth, *The Cardinal's Hat,* pp. 130; 137; 233.

<sup>46</sup> Giannini, 'Ippolito II', pp. 108-110.

viati, a Florentine, since 1520.<sup>47</sup> Besides the obvious desire to bring the diocese of Ferrara back into the family's bosom, Ippolito was also driven by more compelling considerations. As he explained to his brother in a long letter written in 1549, a consistorial decree, recently approved, against the accumulation of benefices made his acquisition of another diocese (in this case, Ferrara) little recommendable; hence the need – in his opinion – to exploit the opportunity offered by Cardinal Salviati's availability to take over the bishopric of Milan, and the necessity to carry out the exchange:

Having been decided in consistory (as you must know) that no one, from now on, can hold more churches than those he holds in the present, and given that I cannot keep but three, as I do now, I thought that these three should be those that might be more beneficial to me; and that one should be the archbishopric of Lyon and the other the bishopric of Autun, and I thought of keeping the latter in the hope that one day I could have it exchanged by the king with something more valuable (as I hope will happen one day). Then, coming to the exchange of the bishopric of Ferrara that is now under discussion between me and the most reverend Salviati, I wanted it to be the third one, so that I would only need to be discharged of Milan, and this is what I wanted to do. Because that church is in the place and in the hands that we know, and I am where I am, and […] there could be hostilities between them [the emperor and the king of France] […].<sup>48</sup>

Ippolito also pointed out that, having to resign one of his churches in order to acquire Ferrara, Milan would have been the most appropriate choice, not only because of the hostility of the emperor, but also because, upon resignation, he could have gained the right to regress to the bishopric in the future (whilst the same did not apply to his French benefices).49 According to the negotiation that Ippolito was carrying out with Cardinal Salviati, he might even have ended up obtaining not only Ferrara but also Modena, 'which I could not keep due to the aforementioned reasons [Paul III's decree], but even if I could not keep it, I would exchange it with some abbeys and I would also gain the regress on it'.<sup>50</sup>

117

<sup>52</sup> ASMO, CS, 148, 1 May 1547. A letter from the papal nuncio Dandino suggests that, in 1547, Ippolito was already considering the idea of resigning Milan, but it is unclear if that project initially involved Luigi or not. In a conversation between the two men (Ippolito was at the time in France), the cardinal of Ferrara had told nuncio Dandino that he wanted to comply with Paul III's decree and renounce his

<sup>53</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XXII.24. Don Francesco d'Este had only two daughters: Bertoni, 'Este, Fran-

<sup>54</sup> 'Io veggio l'età di Don Luigi tanto tenera che non so se il papa in questi tempi vorrà admetter la rinunzia in persona di lui, et dovendosi dar ad alcun confidente non lo so trovare, havendo monsignor vo-

Besides relieving the cardinal from the inconvenience of holding a bishopric in an Imperial state, the appointment to Ferrara would have also had the advantage of making it easier to pass on the bishopric to the next generation of family's ecclesiastics, namely to Ippolito's nephew, Luigi d'Este – and to steer Luigi's career firmly towards the French monarchy, without the uncertainties related to the emperor's fa-

Even if Your Excellence were determined to make Luigi a clergyman, which I would really appreciate as something that would be the greatest satisfaction I could possibly have, it seems to me that to make him great (as I indeed want him to be) it would be by all means more easily accomplished following this [the French] path rather than the emperor's or anyone else's […] and the bishopric of Ferrara would be

This last observation regarding Luigi's career, which was probably partially motivated by Ippolito's genuine desire to enhance his family connections with the French crown, can also be read in the light of Ippolito's previous refusal to resign Milan to Luigi, as suggested by Ercole II a couple of years previously, when Luigi was eight years old.<sup>52</sup> Whilst the age of Luigi did not raise any sort of consideration either in 1547 or in 1549, Ippolito insisted that he would have been happy to see his nephew embrace the ecclesiastical career, but that he nonetheless thought that his brother should wait before taking any decision regarding Luigi's future until his elder brother, Alfonso, had reached an age at which Ercole could be sure that he could succeed him to the duchy. This especially 'considering the very few people that are currently in our house, and because I see that Your Excellence has only two brothers and there is little hope that Don Francesco [Ippolito and Ercole's younger brother]

That Ercole did not agree with his brother's considerations on their familiar strategy is well demonstrated by the fact that, in 1548, he had already opened a parallel negotiation with Cardinal Salviati to obtain Ferrara for Luigi. Ercole had even sought the advice of his cousin, Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga, to find the best way to ensure Luigi's succession and to dodge the obstacle of his young age. At the time, Ercole II and Gonzaga had agreed that Ippolito would have not been able to take up the church on behalf of his nephew (as a *coadiutor*) because he already had too many bishoprics of his own, and the pope would therefore have not given his consent.54 Not surprisingly, then, in 1549 Ercole II reacted with stubborn opposition to

more suited to him than any other he could receive.51

will give us many more in the future'.53

church of Milan: Giannini, 'Ippolito II', p. 112 n. 16.

vour:

<sup>51</sup> Ibid.

cesco d''.

<sup>47</sup> The diocese of Ferrara had been one of the benefices of Ippolito's uncle, Ippolito I, who had held it until his death in 1520. The then disastrous relationship between Ferrara and the Vatican, however, had made it impossible for the Este to tie the benefice to the family through the succession of young Ippolito, and the bishopric had therefore been assigned to Cardinal Salviati. Similarly, in 1529, Duke Alfonso I had faced Clement VII's opposition when he had unilaterally tried to bestow the bishopric of Modena upon Ippolito II. See Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 5-6; 64 n.3.

<sup>48</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XXII.24 (the letter is undated; however, from the bishoprics that are mentioned in the text and from the fact that Ippolito refers to the French benefices as 'these' and to the Italian ones as 'those', it is possible to date the document between January 1549 – that is to say, after the cardinal's resignation of the diocese of Treguier, which would have otherwise figured amongst his benefices, and the first half of 1549, when Ippolito moved from France to Italy).

<sup>49</sup> 'Havendo io a lasciar come è necessario che lasci una di queste chiese, mi par che habbi anco da lasciar più tosto di quelle d'Italia, dove posso guadagnar il regresso, che di queste di Francia dove non può più cader': ibid*.*

<sup>50</sup> Ibid.

Besides relieving the cardinal from the inconvenience of holding a bishopric in an Imperial state, the appointment to Ferrara would have also had the advantage of making it easier to pass on the bishopric to the next generation of family's ecclesiastics, namely to Ippolito's nephew, Luigi d'Este – and to steer Luigi's career firmly towards the French monarchy, without the uncertainties related to the emperor's favour:

Even if Your Excellence were determined to make Luigi a clergyman, which I would really appreciate as something that would be the greatest satisfaction I could possibly have, it seems to me that to make him great (as I indeed want him to be) it would be by all means more easily accomplished following this [the French] path rather than the emperor's or anyone else's […] and the bishopric of Ferrara would be more suited to him than any other he could receive.51

This last observation regarding Luigi's career, which was probably partially motivated by Ippolito's genuine desire to enhance his family connections with the French crown, can also be read in the light of Ippolito's previous refusal to resign Milan to Luigi, as suggested by Ercole II a couple of years previously, when Luigi was eight years old.<sup>52</sup> Whilst the age of Luigi did not raise any sort of consideration either in 1547 or in 1549, Ippolito insisted that he would have been happy to see his nephew embrace the ecclesiastical career, but that he nonetheless thought that his brother should wait before taking any decision regarding Luigi's future until his elder brother, Alfonso, had reached an age at which Ercole could be sure that he could succeed him to the duchy. This especially 'considering the very few people that are currently in our house, and because I see that Your Excellence has only two brothers and there is little hope that Don Francesco [Ippolito and Ercole's younger brother] will give us many more in the future'.53

That Ercole did not agree with his brother's considerations on their familiar strategy is well demonstrated by the fact that, in 1548, he had already opened a parallel negotiation with Cardinal Salviati to obtain Ferrara for Luigi. Ercole had even sought the advice of his cousin, Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga, to find the best way to ensure Luigi's succession and to dodge the obstacle of his young age. At the time, Ercole II and Gonzaga had agreed that Ippolito would have not been able to take up the church on behalf of his nephew (as a *coadiutor*) because he already had too many bishoprics of his own, and the pope would therefore have not given his consent.54 Not surprisingly, then, in 1549 Ercole II reacted with stubborn opposition to

116

<sup>47</sup> The diocese of Ferrara had been one of the benefices of Ippolito's uncle, Ippolito I, who had held it until his death in 1520. The then disastrous relationship between Ferrara and the Vatican, however, had made it impossible for the Este to tie the benefice to the family through the succession of young Ippolito, and the bishopric had therefore been assigned to Cardinal Salviati. Similarly, in 1529, Duke Alfonso I had faced Clement VII's opposition when he had unilaterally tried to bestow the bishopric of

<sup>48</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XXII.24 (the letter is undated; however, from the bishoprics that are mentioned in the text and from the fact that Ippolito refers to the French benefices as 'these' and to the Italian ones as 'those', it is possible to date the document between January 1549 – that is to say, after the cardinal's resignation of the diocese of Treguier, which would have otherwise figured amongst his bene-

<sup>49</sup> 'Havendo io a lasciar come è necessario che lasci una di queste chiese, mi par che habbi anco da lasciar più tosto di quelle d'Italia, dove posso guadagnar il regresso, che di queste di Francia dove non può

viati, a Florentine, since 1520.<sup>47</sup> Besides the obvious desire to bring the diocese of Ferrara back into the family's bosom, Ippolito was also driven by more compelling considerations. As he explained to his brother in a long letter written in 1549, a consistorial decree, recently approved, against the accumulation of benefices made his acquisition of another diocese (in this case, Ferrara) little recommendable; hence the need – in his opinion – to exploit the opportunity offered by Cardinal Salviati's availability to take over the bishopric of Milan, and the necessity to carry out the ex-

Having been decided in consistory (as you must know) that no one, from now on, can hold more churches than those he holds in the present, and given that I cannot keep but three, as I do now, I thought that these three should be those that might be more beneficial to me; and that one should be the archbishopric of Lyon and the other the bishopric of Autun, and I thought of keeping the latter in the hope that one day I could have it exchanged by the king with something more valuable (as I hope will happen one day). Then, coming to the exchange of the bishopric of Ferrara that is now under discussion between me and the most reverend Salviati, I wanted it to be the third one, so that I would only need to be discharged of Milan, and this is what I wanted to do. Because that church is in the place and in the hands that we know, and I am where I am, and […] there could be hostilities between them [the

Ippolito also pointed out that, having to resign one of his churches in order to acquire Ferrara, Milan would have been the most appropriate choice, not only because of the hostility of the emperor, but also because, upon resignation, he could have gained the right to regress to the bishopric in the future (whilst the same did not apply to his French benefices).49 According to the negotiation that Ippolito was carrying out with Cardinal Salviati, he might even have ended up obtaining not only Ferrara but also Modena, 'which I could not keep due to the aforementioned reasons [Paul III's decree], but even if I could not keep it, I would exchange it with some

change:

più cader': ibid*.* <sup>50</sup> Ibid.

emperor and the king of France] […].<sup>48</sup>

abbeys and I would also gain the regress on it'.<sup>50</sup>

Modena upon Ippolito II. See Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 5-6; 64 n.3.

fices, and the first half of 1549, when Ippolito moved from France to Italy).

<sup>51</sup> Ibid.

<sup>52</sup> ASMO, CS, 148, 1 May 1547. A letter from the papal nuncio Dandino suggests that, in 1547, Ippolito was already considering the idea of resigning Milan, but it is unclear if that project initially involved Luigi or not. In a conversation between the two men (Ippolito was at the time in France), the cardinal of Ferrara had told nuncio Dandino that he wanted to comply with Paul III's decree and renounce his church of Milan: Giannini, 'Ippolito II', p. 112 n. 16.

<sup>53</sup> ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XXII.24. Don Francesco d'Este had only two daughters: Bertoni, 'Este, Francesco d''.

<sup>54</sup> 'Io veggio l'età di Don Luigi tanto tenera che non so se il papa in questi tempi vorrà admetter la rinunzia in persona di lui, et dovendosi dar ad alcun confidente non lo so trovare, havendo monsignor vo-

his brother's projected exchange of dioceses, which he must have seen as an undue interference in his own plans. The exchange of bishoprics did not take place and Ippolito remained archbishop of Milan. About a year later, in May 1550, Julius III granted Luigi d'Este the right to succeed Cardinal Salviati as administrator of the bishopric of Ferrara (the right of *accessus*), as a reward for Ippolito's support towards his election to the papal throne.<sup>55</sup>

Ippolito eventually resigned the archdiocese of Milan in 1550, in favour of Giovanni Angelo Arcimboldi. He kept for himself two-thirds of the revenues and the right to regress the benefice in case of Arcimboldi's death. <sup>56</sup> Because of the regress, when Arcimboldi died in April 1555, the archdiocese of Milan returned to Ippolito – as he had indeed predicted at the time of his resignation. In those five years, Habsburg politics had changed further: the Empire was going through a period of transition, and Charles V, in 1545, had left the management of Milan to his son, the future Philip II of Spain.<sup>57</sup> As a consequence of this change of asset, the champion of Charles V's agenda in Italy and governor of Milan for ten years, Ferrante Gonzaga – to whom Ippolito was also closely related – fell into disgrace after a slanderous inquiry into his Milanese administration and was called back to Brussels. According to the Venetian ambassador to the emperor, Charles V himself later told Gonzaga that his misfortune 'was attributable to the interests of his [Philip II's] dearest ministers, who did not let him know Don Ferrante's great worth […], apologising for his son greatly, and blaming his ministers greatly'.58 When Ferrante Gonzaga eventually left his Milanese post, in March 1555, his appointed successor was the man who more than anyone else embodied the aggressive new course of Philip II's 'dearest ministers': Ferdinando Álvarez de Toledo, the duke of Alba – who had been long pulling the threads that eventually led to Gonzaga's deprivation.<sup>59</sup>

119

When Giovanni Angelo Arcimboldi died, on 6 April 1555, the cardinal of Ferrara was participating in the conclave that would elect Marcello Cervini as pope Marcellus II. Being aware that the ongoing conflict between the king of France and the Imperial-Spanish forces would have probably undermined his regress to the church of Milan, he asked his brother to forward a message to Philip II, in which he asked

I beg Your Excellence to make the warmest office with the king of England […] so that I will not be impeded in my possession, letting him know that that church was mine even before, and that I have held it in peace as well as in war, begging him not to show that mistrust that I have not been shown so far, and promising him that although I am a servant of the king, I would not use such a thing as an instrument to serve him, and that I will only take care of those things that concern the respect of the church and my revenues, without being prejudicial to the things of the State in

Regardless of his demonstrations of impartiality and Ercole's embassies, however, Ippolito did not manage to overcome the opposition of the Spanish government and of the local officials, who were in charge of issuing the ducal *placet,* the official authorisation necessary to take possession of major abbeys and dioceses within the state of Milan.<sup>61</sup> On 8 April 1555, the Chancellor, Francesco Taverna, and the Senate of Milan recommended the fiscal administrator to take possession of the archdiocese and its revenues in order to later 'give the possession to the cardinal of Ferrara' – but, in the document, the words 'cardinal of Ferrara' had been crossed out and replaced with 'to whom it will pertain'.<sup>62</sup> On the same day, a letter sent by the *castellano* of Milan, Juan de Figueroa (who was also a relative of the duke of Alba), insisted that the Senate immediately get a hold on 'everything that belongs to the archdiocese', because he had heard that the cardinal of Ferrara, an 'open enemy of

Not surprisingly, in the period between April and May 1555, Ippolito could not have his right to Milan officially recognised. Given that Alba was yet to make his

(Madrid, 1998), pp. 45-48. On the shift in Spanish politics in Italy and Milan, and on the rise of Philip II's ministers, see: J. Martínez Millán, 'Fazioni politiche e correnti spirituali nel servizio dell'Imperatore', in F. Cantù and M. A. Visceglia (eds), *L'Italia di Carlo V. Guerra, religione e politica nel primo Cinquecento* (2 vols, Rome, 2003), i, pp. 3-39. 60 ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.24 (13 April 1555). Ippolito later wrote a letter to the chancellor to claim the archdiocese – 'la qual ritorna in persona mia in virtù del rigresso che io vi ho sopra' – and to intro-

<sup>61</sup> The dukes of Milan had tried to prevent the instalment of 'unwanted' ecclesiastics over the major benefices in their territory by requiring every candidate to obtain the duke's *placet* in conjunction with the papal appointment: L. Prosdocimi, *Il diritto ecclesiastico dello Stato di Milano dall'inizio della si-*

<sup>62</sup> The senate and Chancellor Francesco Taverna to the *economo*: ASMI, CCS, 196 (8 April 1555). <sup>63</sup> 'Ancor che io non solamente creda ma tenghi per fermo che le signorie vostre havevano dato ordine che'l possesso del detto arcivescovato sia preso a nome di sua reggia et ducal maestà, nondimeno stante hoi le cose nei termini che stano con la morte del pappa et per certo regresso che intendo haver il cardinal di Ferrara, nemico alla scoperta di sua maestà, io non ho voluto lasciare di racordarli questo per parte mia, et di procurare vostre signorie di impatronirse di tutte le cose spettanti al detto arcivescovato': ibid.

duce his agent, Francesco Maria Visconti: ASMI, AUT, 27, 130 (10 May 1555).

*gnoria viscontea al periodo tridentino (secoli XIII-XVI)* (Milan, 1941)*,* pp. 60-80.

for the peaceful possession of the Archdiocese of Milan:

His Majesty', held the regress to that church.<sup>63</sup>

the least part.60

stro fratello tante chiese et io non ne potendo havere più che questa di Mantova': V. Pacifici, 'Luigi

d'Este', *Atti e memorie della Società Tiburtina di Storia e d'Arte,* IX-X (1929-1930)*,* pp. 54-55. 55 Cardinal Salviati only insisted on reserving a pension of 1.000 *scudi* (a quarter of the overall income): ASMO, CDCPE, 1416/164 fasc. 6, 22 May 1550. When Salviati died, in October 1553, Ercole II immediately took possession of the diocese on behalf of his son. He then wrote to Ippolito that his promptness had pleased the Ferrarese, who had feared that their church might end up in the hands of a 'diabolico forestiero': ibid., CS, 79, 1654.XXII.59 – all.

<sup>56</sup> In exchange for the archdiocese of Milan, Arcimboldi had resigned the diocese of Novara – which was one of Milan's suffragan dioceses – in favour of Ippolito d'Este, who held the benefice until November 1551: Eubel, *Hierarchia Catholica,* pp. 240; 260; ASMI, AUT, 27, 130 (7 May 1550).

<sup>57</sup> On the transition of Milan from Charles V to Philip, see: Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño, 'The State of Milan', pp. 99-132; M. Peytavin, 'Government/Administration: The Italian kingdoms within the Spanish Monarchy', in T. Dandelet and J. Marino (eds), *Spain in Italy: Politics, Society and Religion, 1500-1700*  (Leiden, 2007), pp. 356-357; Signorotto, 'Lo Stato di Milano', pp. 25-56.

<sup>58</sup> Federico Badoer to the Venetian doge and senate: Brown and Cavendish Bentinck (eds), *Cal. State Papers Venice,* 6, April 1555, no. 45.

<sup>59</sup> Philip announced Alba's appointment in April 1555: Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño, 'The State of Milan', p. 107. Cardinal Gonzaga had written to Ercole II d'Este to announce the appointment of Alba already at the beginning of January, commenting that 'mi da molto fastidio per la riputatione che vedo perder alla persona di lei [Ferrante Gonzaga]'. Two months later, Gonzaga confirmed that the duke of Alba was arriving in Italy 'omnipotente': ASMO, CDCPE, 1380/114, fasc. 1, 8 January 1555, 2 March 1555. On Ferrante Gonzaga's deprivation, see: F. Chabod, *Carlo V e il suo Impero* (Turin, 1985), pp. 451-514; M. J. Rodríguez Salgado, *The Changing Face of Empire: Charles V, Philip II and Habsburg Authority, 1551-1559* (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 106-110; M. Rivero Rodríguez, *Felipe II y el gobierno de Italia* 

When Giovanni Angelo Arcimboldi died, on 6 April 1555, the cardinal of Ferrara was participating in the conclave that would elect Marcello Cervini as pope Marcellus II. Being aware that the ongoing conflict between the king of France and the Imperial-Spanish forces would have probably undermined his regress to the church of Milan, he asked his brother to forward a message to Philip II, in which he asked for the peaceful possession of the Archdiocese of Milan:

I beg Your Excellence to make the warmest office with the king of England […] so that I will not be impeded in my possession, letting him know that that church was mine even before, and that I have held it in peace as well as in war, begging him not to show that mistrust that I have not been shown so far, and promising him that although I am a servant of the king, I would not use such a thing as an instrument to serve him, and that I will only take care of those things that concern the respect of the church and my revenues, without being prejudicial to the things of the State in the least part.60

Regardless of his demonstrations of impartiality and Ercole's embassies, however, Ippolito did not manage to overcome the opposition of the Spanish government and of the local officials, who were in charge of issuing the ducal *placet,* the official authorisation necessary to take possession of major abbeys and dioceses within the state of Milan.<sup>61</sup> On 8 April 1555, the Chancellor, Francesco Taverna, and the Senate of Milan recommended the fiscal administrator to take possession of the archdiocese and its revenues in order to later 'give the possession to the cardinal of Ferrara' – but, in the document, the words 'cardinal of Ferrara' had been crossed out and replaced with 'to whom it will pertain'.<sup>62</sup> On the same day, a letter sent by the *castellano* of Milan, Juan de Figueroa (who was also a relative of the duke of Alba), insisted that the Senate immediately get a hold on 'everything that belongs to the archdiocese', because he had heard that the cardinal of Ferrara, an 'open enemy of His Majesty', held the regress to that church.<sup>63</sup>

Not surprisingly, in the period between April and May 1555, Ippolito could not have his right to Milan officially recognised. Given that Alba was yet to make his

118

his brother's projected exchange of dioceses, which he must have seen as an undue interference in his own plans. The exchange of bishoprics did not take place and Ippolito remained archbishop of Milan. About a year later, in May 1550, Julius III granted Luigi d'Este the right to succeed Cardinal Salviati as administrator of the bishopric of Ferrara (the right of *accessus*), as a reward for Ippolito's support to-

Ippolito eventually resigned the archdiocese of Milan in 1550, in favour of Giovanni Angelo Arcimboldi. He kept for himself two-thirds of the revenues and the

when Arcimboldi died in April 1555, the archdiocese of Milan returned to Ippolito – as he had indeed predicted at the time of his resignation. In those five years, Habsburg politics had changed further: the Empire was going through a period of transition, and Charles V, in 1545, had left the management of Milan to his son, the future Philip II of Spain.<sup>57</sup> As a consequence of this change of asset, the champion of Charles V's agenda in Italy and governor of Milan for ten years, Ferrante Gonzaga – to whom Ippolito was also closely related – fell into disgrace after a slanderous inquiry into his Milanese administration and was called back to Brussels. According to the Venetian ambassador to the emperor, Charles V himself later told Gonzaga that his misfortune 'was attributable to the interests of his [Philip II's] dearest ministers, who did not let him know Don Ferrante's great worth […], apologising for his son greatly, and blaming his ministers greatly'.58 When Ferrante Gonzaga eventually left his Milanese post, in March 1555, his appointed successor was the man who more than anyone else embodied the aggressive new course of Philip II's 'dearest ministers': Ferdinando Álvarez de Toledo, the duke of Alba – who had been long pulling

stro fratello tante chiese et io non ne potendo havere più che questa di Mantova': V. Pacifici, 'Luigi d'Este', *Atti e memorie della Società Tiburtina di Storia e d'Arte,* IX-X (1929-1930)*,* pp. 54-55. 55 Cardinal Salviati only insisted on reserving a pension of 1.000 *scudi* (a quarter of the overall income): ASMO, CDCPE, 1416/164 fasc. 6, 22 May 1550. When Salviati died, in October 1553, Ercole II immediately took possession of the diocese on behalf of his son. He then wrote to Ippolito that his promptness had pleased the Ferrarese, who had feared that their church might end up in the hands of a 'diabolico

<sup>56</sup> In exchange for the archdiocese of Milan, Arcimboldi had resigned the diocese of Novara – which was one of Milan's suffragan dioceses – in favour of Ippolito d'Este, who held the benefice until No-

<sup>57</sup> On the transition of Milan from Charles V to Philip, see: Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño, 'The State of Milan', pp. 99-132; M. Peytavin, 'Government/Administration: The Italian kingdoms within the Spanish Monarchy', in T. Dandelet and J. Marino (eds), *Spain in Italy: Politics, Society and Religion, 1500-1700* 

<sup>58</sup> Federico Badoer to the Venetian doge and senate: Brown and Cavendish Bentinck (eds), *Cal. State* 

<sup>59</sup> Philip announced Alba's appointment in April 1555: Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño, 'The State of Milan', p. 107. Cardinal Gonzaga had written to Ercole II d'Este to announce the appointment of Alba already at the beginning of January, commenting that 'mi da molto fastidio per la riputatione che vedo perder alla persona di lei [Ferrante Gonzaga]'. Two months later, Gonzaga confirmed that the duke of Alba was arriving in Italy 'omnipotente': ASMO, CDCPE, 1380/114, fasc. 1, 8 January 1555, 2 March 1555. On Ferrante Gonzaga's deprivation, see: F. Chabod, *Carlo V e il suo Impero* (Turin, 1985), pp. 451-514; M. J. Rodríguez Salgado, *The Changing Face of Empire: Charles V, Philip II and Habsburg Authority, 1551-1559* (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 106-110; M. Rivero Rodríguez, *Felipe II y el gobierno de Italia* 

vember 1551: Eubel, *Hierarchia Catholica,* pp. 240; 260; ASMI, AUT, 27, 130 (7 May 1550).

<sup>56</sup> Because of the regress,

wards his election to the papal throne.<sup>55</sup>

right to regress the benefice in case of Arcimboldi's death.

the threads that eventually led to Gonzaga's deprivation.<sup>59</sup>

(Leiden, 2007), pp. 356-357; Signorotto, 'Lo Stato di Milano', pp. 25-56.

forestiero': ibid., CS, 79, 1654.XXII.59 – all.

*Papers Venice,* 6, April 1555, no. 45.

<sup>(</sup>Madrid, 1998), pp. 45-48. On the shift in Spanish politics in Italy and Milan, and on the rise of Philip II's ministers, see: J. Martínez Millán, 'Fazioni politiche e correnti spirituali nel servizio dell'Imperatore', in F. Cantù and M. A. Visceglia (eds), *L'Italia di Carlo V. Guerra, religione e politica nel primo Cinquecento* (2 vols, Rome, 2003), i, pp. 3-39. 60 ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XX.24 (13 April 1555). Ippolito later wrote a letter to the chancellor to claim

the archdiocese – 'la qual ritorna in persona mia in virtù del rigresso che io vi ho sopra' – and to introduce his agent, Francesco Maria Visconti: ASMI, AUT, 27, 130 (10 May 1555).

<sup>61</sup> The dukes of Milan had tried to prevent the instalment of 'unwanted' ecclesiastics over the major benefices in their territory by requiring every candidate to obtain the duke's *placet* in conjunction with the papal appointment: L. Prosdocimi, *Il diritto ecclesiastico dello Stato di Milano dall'inizio della signoria viscontea al periodo tridentino (secoli XIII-XVI)* (Milan, 1941)*,* pp. 60-80.

<sup>62</sup> The senate and Chancellor Francesco Taverna to the *economo*: ASMI, CCS, 196 (8 April 1555).

<sup>63</sup> 'Ancor che io non solamente creda ma tenghi per fermo che le signorie vostre havevano dato ordine che'l possesso del detto arcivescovato sia preso a nome di sua reggia et ducal maestà, nondimeno stante hoi le cose nei termini che stano con la morte del pappa et per certo regresso che intendo haver il cardinal di Ferrara, nemico alla scoperta di sua maestà, io non ho voluto lasciare di racordarli questo per parte mia, et di procurare vostre signorie di impatronirse di tutte le cose spettanti al detto arcivescovato': ibid.

#### The Path of Pleasantness

entrance into Milan, the chancellor served as the governor and, therefore, he and the senate managed the administration of the archdiocese 'on behalf of the cardinal of Ferrara'. They therefore ordered the fiscal administrator to appoint officials and a vicar *in spiritualibus* – with the authorisation of the new pope, Marcellus II, who had nonetheless warned Milan's senate not to violate Ippolito's rights to the collection of the revenues.<sup>64</sup> The pope's premature death left Ippolito without a solid ally to obtain the recognition of his rights to the archdiocese. If he had had some leverage on Ferrante Gonzaga – thanks to the good relationship between their families and especially with Ferrante's brother, Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga – neither the absence of the governor nor, as we will see, the presence of the duke of Alba advantaged Ippolito's claim.<sup>65</sup>

Having very little hope of convincing the senate to let him enjoy his archdiocese without the support of the Roman Curia, Ippolito turned, once again, to his brother.66 Ercole ordered one of his ambassadors, Claudio Ariosti, to defend Ippolito's cause with the Milanese officials and with the duke of Alba, who, in the meantime, had officially taken up the position of governor. However, in the summer of 1555, ambassador Ariosti reported back to his lord that other ecclesiastics who held benefices in the Milanese and supported the king of France had already been deprived of their revenues, and that he had heard many rumours indicating that the sequestration of Ippolito's diocesan money was imminent.<sup>67</sup> Ambassador Ariosti's report soon proved to be correct: the Milanese authorities carried out the sequestration of the diocese's revenues and kept them under seizure for the following year and a half, in spite of an admonition issued by Marcellus II's successor, Paul IV.68

In December 1556, given the impossibility of restoring his right to the revenues, Ippolito resigned the diocese again, this time in favour of Filippo Archinto, a Milanese patrician. Once again, Ippolito kept the *regressus*. The cardinal of Ferrara was probably hoping that, by appointing a bishop who belonged to the ranks of the local

121

<sup>69</sup> Archinto was assigned a pension of 1.000 *scudi,* whilst the share enjoyed by Ippolito would be decided year by year according to the real income produced by the diocese. Following Filippo Archinto's death in June 1558, Ippolito repossessed and resigned again Milan in favour of Giovanni Angelo Medici, the future Pius IV. However, pope Paul IV died before having given his official approval to Ippolito's *resignatio in favorem*, and when Giovanni Angelo Medici became pope, at the beginning of 1560, the resignation was still pending. Pope Medici made Ippolito's resignation official and transferred the archdiocese of Milan to his nephew, Carlo Borromeo: Giannini, 'Una chiesa senza arcivescovo', pp. 270-

<sup>70</sup> On Filippo Archinto, see G. Alberigo, 'Archinto, Filippo', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Ro-

<sup>73</sup> 'Ipse Reverendissimus Archintus non velit solvere pensiones et cetera conventa adimplere nisi consecitus fuerit possessiones pacifice dicti Archiepiscopati, quod totus cadit ad grave damnus et preiuditius

<sup>71</sup> ASMO, CS, 389, Testi essaminati per… arcivescovato di Milano*,* esp. pp. 14-15.

ipsis Illustrissimi cardinalis sine sua culpa': ibid., p. 3.

patriciate and who was in good terms with the Spanish authorities, he would have eventually managed to enjoy the revenues that he had been so far denied – especially because, according to the very advantageous terms of his resignation, Ippolito would have still received the entirety of the diocese's revenues, whilst Archinto would have only been entitled to a small pension.<sup>69</sup> The newly appointed bishop, however, never managed to establish his right to possess the diocese: after many attempts to obtain the government's consensus on his instalment and the lifting of the sequestration decree, Archinto left Milan and died in Bergamo in June 1558.<sup>70</sup> In the period between Arcimboldi's death and Archinto's death (1555-1558), therefore, neither Ippolito nor Filippo Archinto managed to obtain the ducal *placet*; in response to their reiterated requests that the sequestration of the revenues be suspended, the Spanish and Milanese authorities always argued that they were bound to comply

Whilst Filippo Archinto was seeking the help of the Curia to support his reasons against the government's abuse, Ippolito and his brother prompted the drafting of a legal memorial aimed to both demonstrate Ippolito's rights over the revenues of Milan and to establish their precise amount. An inquiry aimed to assess the amount of money that was due to Ippolito had been made necessary by the fact that, because of the sequestration, the 'fruits and the revenues had been withheld and were in the hands or under the control of the most reverend *economo* [the Milanese fiscal ad-

According to the four witnesses who, in March 1557, gave their testimony – all agents or employees of the cardinal who were in Milan in that period and who had unsuccessfully tried to claim the money due to their lord – the Senate of Milan had improperly withheld the revenues of the diocese after Arcimboldi's death and had objected to Ippolito's right to administer the bishopric. When Ippolito had resigned in favour of Archinto, the senate had also objected to the latter's instalment, and Archinto had therefore argued that he would not pay Ippolito his share of the revenues if he could not manage to 'peacefully possess the Archdiocese'.73 During the year and a half after Arcimboldi's death, Ippolito's agents had repeatedly travelled back and forth seeking the permission of the local authorities to let the cardinal first,

with the king's will.71

ministrator]'.72

272.

me, 1961).

<sup>72</sup> Ibid., p. 6.

<sup>64</sup> The Senate and Chancellor Francesco Taverna to the *economo*: ibid. (25 April 1555). See also Giannini, 'Una Chiesa senza arcivescovo', pp. 238-254.

<sup>65</sup> It seems that Don Ferrante had approved Ippolito's resignation in favour of Arcimboldi without first requesting the emperor's approval. When Ippolito took over the diocese of Novara, he granted Don Ferrante the privilege to post a man of his choice to guard the fortress on the island of San Giulio, which was of strategical interest to the duchy of Milan but belonged to the diocese of Novara: Marcora, 'La Chiesa milanese', pp. 261-264; ASMO, CS, 390, 2038.VI.87 (undated, probably written in the spring of

<sup>1550). 66</sup> Ippolito II to Ercole II: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XXII.23 (undated, but written between May and June 1555).

<sup>67</sup> Ariosti reported that the Spanish government of Milan had already seized the revenues of the benefices belonging to Bernardo Salviati, who was one of Catherine de' Medici's *protégés* (and the brother of that Giovanni Salviati who had resigned the diocese of Ferrara in favour of Luigi d'Este): ASMO, CDA, Milano, 36, 27 August 1555; 4 September 1555. Ambassador Ariosti had been also ordered 'di metter l'authorità di Vostra Eccellenza in compromesso nella simil causa del prior di Roma [Bernardo Salviati]': ibid., 9 September 1555. On Bernardo Salviati's relationship with France, see: Baumgartner, 'Henry II's Italian Bishops', p. 51.

<sup>68</sup> In October 1555, the fiscal administrator of Milan issued a document that thoroughly listed all the products that had been seized from the properties of the archdiocese: ASMI, CCS, 202 (Scrutinio de frutti dell'arcivescovato, 12 October 1555).

patriciate and who was in good terms with the Spanish authorities, he would have eventually managed to enjoy the revenues that he had been so far denied – especially because, according to the very advantageous terms of his resignation, Ippolito would have still received the entirety of the diocese's revenues, whilst Archinto would have only been entitled to a small pension.<sup>69</sup> The newly appointed bishop, however, never managed to establish his right to possess the diocese: after many attempts to obtain the government's consensus on his instalment and the lifting of the sequestration decree, Archinto left Milan and died in Bergamo in June 1558.<sup>70</sup> In the period between Arcimboldi's death and Archinto's death (1555-1558), therefore, neither Ippolito nor Filippo Archinto managed to obtain the ducal *placet*; in response to their reiterated requests that the sequestration of the revenues be suspended, the Spanish and Milanese authorities always argued that they were bound to comply with the king's will.71

Whilst Filippo Archinto was seeking the help of the Curia to support his reasons against the government's abuse, Ippolito and his brother prompted the drafting of a legal memorial aimed to both demonstrate Ippolito's rights over the revenues of Milan and to establish their precise amount. An inquiry aimed to assess the amount of money that was due to Ippolito had been made necessary by the fact that, because of the sequestration, the 'fruits and the revenues had been withheld and were in the hands or under the control of the most reverend *economo* [the Milanese fiscal administrator]'.72

According to the four witnesses who, in March 1557, gave their testimony – all agents or employees of the cardinal who were in Milan in that period and who had unsuccessfully tried to claim the money due to their lord – the Senate of Milan had improperly withheld the revenues of the diocese after Arcimboldi's death and had objected to Ippolito's right to administer the bishopric. When Ippolito had resigned in favour of Archinto, the senate had also objected to the latter's instalment, and Archinto had therefore argued that he would not pay Ippolito his share of the revenues if he could not manage to 'peacefully possess the Archdiocese'.73 During the year and a half after Arcimboldi's death, Ippolito's agents had repeatedly travelled back and forth seeking the permission of the local authorities to let the cardinal first,

120

<sup>68</sup> In October 1555, the fiscal administrator of Milan issued a document that thoroughly listed all the products that had been seized from the properties of the archdiocese: ASMI, CCS, 202 (Scrutinio de

entrance into Milan, the chancellor served as the governor and, therefore, he and the senate managed the administration of the archdiocese 'on behalf of the cardinal of Ferrara'. They therefore ordered the fiscal administrator to appoint officials and a vicar *in spiritualibus* – with the authorisation of the new pope, Marcellus II, who had nonetheless warned Milan's senate not to violate Ippolito's rights to the collection of the revenues.<sup>64</sup> The pope's premature death left Ippolito without a solid ally to obtain the recognition of his rights to the archdiocese. If he had had some leverage on Ferrante Gonzaga – thanks to the good relationship between their families and especially with Ferrante's brother, Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga – neither the absence of the governor nor, as we will see, the presence of the duke of Alba advan-

Having very little hope of convincing the senate to let him enjoy his archdiocese without the support of the Roman Curia, Ippolito turned, once again, to his brother.66 Ercole ordered one of his ambassadors, Claudio Ariosti, to defend Ippolito's cause with the Milanese officials and with the duke of Alba, who, in the meantime, had officially taken up the position of governor. However, in the summer of 1555, ambassador Ariosti reported back to his lord that other ecclesiastics who held benefices in the Milanese and supported the king of France had already been deprived of their revenues, and that he had heard many rumours indicating that the sequestration of Ippolito's diocesan money was imminent.<sup>67</sup> Ambassador Ariosti's report soon proved to be correct: the Milanese authorities carried out the sequestration of the diocese's revenues and kept them under seizure for the following year and a half, in

In December 1556, given the impossibility of restoring his right to the revenues, Ippolito resigned the diocese again, this time in favour of Filippo Archinto, a Milanese patrician. Once again, Ippolito kept the *regressus*. The cardinal of Ferrara was probably hoping that, by appointing a bishop who belonged to the ranks of the local

<sup>64</sup> The Senate and Chancellor Francesco Taverna to the *economo*: ibid. (25 April 1555). See also Gian-

<sup>65</sup> It seems that Don Ferrante had approved Ippolito's resignation in favour of Arcimboldi without first requesting the emperor's approval. When Ippolito took over the diocese of Novara, he granted Don Ferrante the privilege to post a man of his choice to guard the fortress on the island of San Giulio, which was of strategical interest to the duchy of Milan but belonged to the diocese of Novara: Marcora, 'La Chiesa milanese', pp. 261-264; ASMO, CS, 390, 2038.VI.87 (undated, probably written in the spring of 1550). 66 Ippolito II to Ercole II: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XXII.23 (undated, but written between May and June

<sup>67</sup> Ariosti reported that the Spanish government of Milan had already seized the revenues of the benefices belonging to Bernardo Salviati, who was one of Catherine de' Medici's *protégés* (and the brother of that Giovanni Salviati who had resigned the diocese of Ferrara in favour of Luigi d'Este): ASMO, CDA, Milano, 36, 27 August 1555; 4 September 1555. Ambassador Ariosti had been also ordered 'di metter l'authorità di Vostra Eccellenza in compromesso nella simil causa del prior di Roma [Bernardo Salviati]': ibid., 9 September 1555. On Bernardo Salviati's relationship with France, see: Baumgartner, 'Henry

spite of an admonition issued by Marcellus II's successor, Paul IV.68

nini, 'Una Chiesa senza arcivescovo', pp. 238-254.

1555).

II's Italian Bishops', p. 51.

frutti dell'arcivescovato, 12 October 1555).

taged Ippolito's claim.<sup>65</sup>

<sup>69</sup> Archinto was assigned a pension of 1.000 *scudi,* whilst the share enjoyed by Ippolito would be decided year by year according to the real income produced by the diocese. Following Filippo Archinto's death in June 1558, Ippolito repossessed and resigned again Milan in favour of Giovanni Angelo Medici, the future Pius IV. However, pope Paul IV died before having given his official approval to Ippolito's *resignatio in favorem*, and when Giovanni Angelo Medici became pope, at the beginning of 1560, the resignation was still pending. Pope Medici made Ippolito's resignation official and transferred the archdiocese of Milan to his nephew, Carlo Borromeo: Giannini, 'Una chiesa senza arcivescovo', pp. 270- 272.

<sup>70</sup> On Filippo Archinto, see G. Alberigo, 'Archinto, Filippo', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 1961).

<sup>71</sup> ASMO, CS, 389, Testi essaminati per… arcivescovato di Milano*,* esp. pp. 14-15.

<sup>72</sup> Ibid., p. 6.

<sup>73</sup> 'Ipse Reverendissimus Archintus non velit solvere pensiones et cetera conventa adimplere nisi consecitus fuerit possessiones pacifice dicti Archiepiscopati, quod totus cadit ad grave damnus et preiuditius ipsis Illustrissimi cardinalis sine sua culpa': ibid., p. 3.

and Archinto later, enjoy the revenues of the Archdiocese, but with little success – especially because 'everything was debated, negotiated and discussed in a secluded and private way'. The chancellor of Milan, Francesco Taverna, had even prevented one of these agents from visiting the territories of the Archdiocese, and only when confronted with the strong protests of Ippolito's man had he eventually given his consent – but he had pointed out that that visit should take place 'privately, and had ordered that this witness [Ippolito's agent] should not make any official demonstration of possession or show any sign of superiority in any way, either by action by word'.74 The president of the senate had told Francesco Maria Visconti – one of Ippolito's closest servants, who had been expressly sent from Rome to Milan – that the senate had taken over the revenues of the Archdiocese following an order of Philip II and that the only way to have them back was to forward a plea to the king. Visconti eventually managed to have a meeting with Alba, but he was dismissed without receiving any positive answer.75 The only thing that Ippolito's agents accomplished was an examination of the account books that the administrators of the diocese had been keeping in the previous years, and an enquiry into some of them. They unanimously testified that the revenues of Milan have always been worth around 5.800 golden *scudi* per year<sup>76</sup> – and one of them pointed out that in 1555 that figure had peaked at 6.573,5.77

If Ippolito's French loyalty could per se explain why the authorities of Milan tried to sabotage the instalment of a cardinal who was not just an ecclesiastic but also – and, in this period, especially – one of the highest representatives of the king of France and a leading member of a neighbouring sovereign family, this explanation does not suffice when one considers the case of Filippo Archinto, a bishop who had no personal affiliation with the Valois. For a long time, historiography has ignored – or partially ignored – the complex political tensions that were behind the management of the Archdiocese of Milan in the years before Carlo Borromeo's appointment. The clashes between the local authorities, the Imperial-Spanish government, and the Roman bishops have often been seen only as the product of the dialectic between the impulses of the Catholic Reformation and the resistances of a 'secularised' clergy and abusive local powers – in other words, as a moment of spiritual decadence as opposed to the religious rebirth inaugurated with Borromeo's residency.78 Studies on Milan under Philip II's rule, however, have provided a much more

123

and the cardinal himself as a 'shameful archbishop' and 'a heathen', Filippo Archinto's struggle to take possession of Milan has been often attributed to the reaction of the corrupted local clergy to Archinto's reputation as a 'reformer bishop': A. Rimoldi, 'La prima metà del Cinquecento (1500-1559)', in A. Caprioli, A. Rimoldi and L. Vaccaro (eds), *Diocesi di Milano* (Brescia, 1990)*,* pp. 378-380. This interpreta-

<sup>79</sup> Giannini, 'Una chiesa senza arcivescovo'. On the archdiocese of Milan, see also M. C. Giannini, 'Politica imperiale ed ecclesiastici filo-francesi nello Stato di Milano tra fedeltà e interessi (1535-1548), in J. C. D'Amico and J-L. Fournel (eds), *François Ier et l'espace politique italien: États, domains et terri-*

solid analysis of the political clashes that were not only external – Spain versus France, or Spain versus the papacy – but internal, in the form of a new Spanish ruling elite that was more decisively drawing the politics of the Italian peninsula to-

The condition of 'non-tenure' that characterised the diocese of Milan before the advent of Carlo Borromeo has been explained in a similar fashion by Massimo Giannini, whose studies on the archdiocese of Milan shed light on many aspects that had been previously neglected and that are fundamental to put Ippolito's experience as archbishop in context. Amongst these, the aggressive campaign led by the powerful Cardinal de Granvelle, in conjunction with the Milanese official responsible for the fiscal administration (the *economo* to whom Ippolito's legal memorial referred), to take hold of the economic produce of the Milanese benefices – an initiative that went beyond the anti-French politics pursued by the State of Milan, and that paralleled the action of the governor in charge.79 In this sense, the sequestration of the revenues pursued in the years 1555-1558 differs from the similar episodes occurred in the previous decades, and it must be seen in connection with both the 'new course' of Philip II's Italian politics and with the local and private initiative of the Milanese *economo*. This scenario finds confirmation in the testimonies of Ippolito's agents regarding the period 1555-1556, and in their unanimous understanding that their work in Milan was impeded by the 'secrecy' in which all the discussions oc-

The overlap of an 'official' Milanese policy and a more private initiative is ultimately demonstrated by the developments of Ippolito's litigation with the government of Milan in the following year. A legal text written in 1558 by a professional Modenese jurist, appointed by the duke of Ferrara to support the Ippolito's claim over the revenues of the Archdiocese, sheds more light on the parallel initiative pursued by the Milanese *economo,* and on the fact that his personal initiative went well beyond the mere exercise of his functions.<sup>80</sup> In 1556, the royal officers had seized the cash from the revenues from the people in charge of its transportation, despite their holding a *salvacondotto –* a safe-conduct – that had been granted to the cardinal of Ferrara's agents in order to move the revenues across the border safely. The 'res controversa' revolved around the terms of this safe-conduct: the *economo* of the fiscal office of Milan quibbled over the word 'silver', claiming that it only applied to silver objects or artefacts and not – as was the case – to silver as 'money' (*monetam*  or *pecuniam*). The fact that the people who were carrying the money were French, and that they were actually transporting it to France, corroborates the suspicion that

wards a restricted circle of Philip II's courtiers.

curred, and by the role played by the *economo*.

tion still echoes in Alberigo, 'Archinto, Filippo'.

<sup>80</sup> ASMO, CS, 389, Allegationes Iuris pro Duce Mutini.

*toires* (Rome, 2018), pp. 105-128.

<sup>74</sup> Ibid., pp. 9-10. 75 Ercole II's ambassador, Claudio Ariosti, had been dismissed too by the duke of Alba, and so another of Ippolito's agents, who had made 'molte, et molte, et più, et diverse volte instanzissima instanza' to grant his lord the ducal *placet*: ibid., pp. 7-10.

<sup>76</sup> This figure is also confirmed by other sources: Segarizzi (ed)*, Relazioni,* ii, p. 28; Picot, *Les italiens en France,* p. 111.

<sup>77</sup> The witness who provided this very precise figure was Paolo Albertino, who had been Ippolito's agent in Milan and administrator of the diocese's finances during the years of Ippolito's first tenure (since 1535) and therefore knew all the *fattori* (stewards) who were keeping track of the money produced by the diocese: ASMO, CS, 398, Testi essaminati per… Arcivescovato di Milano*,* p. 10. Albertino's reports from Milan are in ASMO, CDA, Milano, 35.

<sup>78</sup> Giannini, 'Una chiesa senza arcivescovo', pp. 227-229; 248-250. Whilst the most recent reference I have found of Ippolito as the archbishop of Milan defines the years of his tenure as 'non-government'

solid analysis of the political clashes that were not only external – Spain versus France, or Spain versus the papacy – but internal, in the form of a new Spanish ruling elite that was more decisively drawing the politics of the Italian peninsula towards a restricted circle of Philip II's courtiers.

The condition of 'non-tenure' that characterised the diocese of Milan before the advent of Carlo Borromeo has been explained in a similar fashion by Massimo Giannini, whose studies on the archdiocese of Milan shed light on many aspects that had been previously neglected and that are fundamental to put Ippolito's experience as archbishop in context. Amongst these, the aggressive campaign led by the powerful Cardinal de Granvelle, in conjunction with the Milanese official responsible for the fiscal administration (the *economo* to whom Ippolito's legal memorial referred), to take hold of the economic produce of the Milanese benefices – an initiative that went beyond the anti-French politics pursued by the State of Milan, and that paralleled the action of the governor in charge.79 In this sense, the sequestration of the revenues pursued in the years 1555-1558 differs from the similar episodes occurred in the previous decades, and it must be seen in connection with both the 'new course' of Philip II's Italian politics and with the local and private initiative of the Milanese *economo*. This scenario finds confirmation in the testimonies of Ippolito's agents regarding the period 1555-1556, and in their unanimous understanding that their work in Milan was impeded by the 'secrecy' in which all the discussions occurred, and by the role played by the *economo*.

The overlap of an 'official' Milanese policy and a more private initiative is ultimately demonstrated by the developments of Ippolito's litigation with the government of Milan in the following year. A legal text written in 1558 by a professional Modenese jurist, appointed by the duke of Ferrara to support the Ippolito's claim over the revenues of the Archdiocese, sheds more light on the parallel initiative pursued by the Milanese *economo,* and on the fact that his personal initiative went well beyond the mere exercise of his functions.<sup>80</sup> In 1556, the royal officers had seized the cash from the revenues from the people in charge of its transportation, despite their holding a *salvacondotto –* a safe-conduct – that had been granted to the cardinal of Ferrara's agents in order to move the revenues across the border safely. The 'res controversa' revolved around the terms of this safe-conduct: the *economo* of the fiscal office of Milan quibbled over the word 'silver', claiming that it only applied to silver objects or artefacts and not – as was the case – to silver as 'money' (*monetam*  or *pecuniam*). The fact that the people who were carrying the money were French, and that they were actually transporting it to France, corroborates the suspicion that

<sup>80</sup> ASMO, CS, 389, Allegationes Iuris pro Duce Mutini.

122

<sup>74</sup> Ibid., pp. 9-10. 75 Ercole II's ambassador, Claudio Ariosti, had been dismissed too by the duke of Alba, and so another of Ippolito's agents, who had made 'molte, et molte, et più, et diverse volte instanzissima instanza' to

<sup>76</sup> This figure is also confirmed by other sources: Segarizzi (ed)*, Relazioni,* ii, p. 28; Picot, *Les italiens* 

<sup>77</sup> The witness who provided this very precise figure was Paolo Albertino, who had been Ippolito's agent in Milan and administrator of the diocese's finances during the years of Ippolito's first tenure (since 1535) and therefore knew all the *fattori* (stewards) who were keeping track of the money produced by the diocese: ASMO, CS, 398, Testi essaminati per… Arcivescovato di Milano*,* p. 10. Albertino's reports

<sup>78</sup> Giannini, 'Una chiesa senza arcivescovo', pp. 227-229; 248-250. Whilst the most recent reference I have found of Ippolito as the archbishop of Milan defines the years of his tenure as 'non-government'

and Archinto later, enjoy the revenues of the Archdiocese, but with little success – especially because 'everything was debated, negotiated and discussed in a secluded and private way'. The chancellor of Milan, Francesco Taverna, had even prevented one of these agents from visiting the territories of the Archdiocese, and only when confronted with the strong protests of Ippolito's man had he eventually given his consent – but he had pointed out that that visit should take place 'privately, and had ordered that this witness [Ippolito's agent] should not make any official demonstration of possession or show any sign of superiority in any way, either by action by word'.74 The president of the senate had told Francesco Maria Visconti – one of Ippolito's closest servants, who had been expressly sent from Rome to Milan – that the senate had taken over the revenues of the Archdiocese following an order of Philip II and that the only way to have them back was to forward a plea to the king. Visconti eventually managed to have a meeting with Alba, but he was dismissed without receiving any positive answer.75 The only thing that Ippolito's agents accomplished was an examination of the account books that the administrators of the diocese had been keeping in the previous years, and an enquiry into some of them. They unanimously testified that the revenues of Milan have always been worth around 5.800 golden *scudi* per year<sup>76</sup> – and one of them pointed out that in 1555 that

If Ippolito's French loyalty could per se explain why the authorities of Milan tried to sabotage the instalment of a cardinal who was not just an ecclesiastic but also – and, in this period, especially – one of the highest representatives of the king of France and a leading member of a neighbouring sovereign family, this explanation does not suffice when one considers the case of Filippo Archinto, a bishop who had no personal affiliation with the Valois. For a long time, historiography has ignored – or partially ignored – the complex political tensions that were behind the management of the Archdiocese of Milan in the years before Carlo Borromeo's appointment. The clashes between the local authorities, the Imperial-Spanish government, and the Roman bishops have often been seen only as the product of the dialectic between the impulses of the Catholic Reformation and the resistances of a 'secularised' clergy and abusive local powers – in other words, as a moment of spiritual decadence as opposed to the religious rebirth inaugurated with Borromeo's residency.78 Studies on Milan under Philip II's rule, however, have provided a much more

figure had peaked at 6.573,5.77

grant his lord the ducal *placet*: ibid., pp. 7-10.

from Milan are in ASMO, CDA, Milano, 35.

*en France,* p. 111.

and the cardinal himself as a 'shameful archbishop' and 'a heathen', Filippo Archinto's struggle to take possession of Milan has been often attributed to the reaction of the corrupted local clergy to Archinto's reputation as a 'reformer bishop': A. Rimoldi, 'La prima metà del Cinquecento (1500-1559)', in A. Caprioli, A. Rimoldi and L. Vaccaro (eds), *Diocesi di Milano* (Brescia, 1990)*,* pp. 378-380. This interpretation still echoes in Alberigo, 'Archinto, Filippo'.

<sup>79</sup> Giannini, 'Una chiesa senza arcivescovo'. On the archdiocese of Milan, see also M. C. Giannini, 'Politica imperiale ed ecclesiastici filo-francesi nello Stato di Milano tra fedeltà e interessi (1535-1548), in J. C. D'Amico and J-L. Fournel (eds), *François Ier et l'espace politique italien: États, domains et territoires* (Rome, 2018), pp. 105-128.

the interpretation of the fiscal office was just a pretext for the retaliation against Ippolito as a 'French cardinal' during the last stage of the war between France and Spain. Therefore, the jurist who wrote Ippolito's *allegationes* insisted that those who come from France or speak French call money 'argent' (i.e. silver) and that the safeconduct had been requested *secundum morem loquendi.* He therefore concluded that 'restituendam esse pecuniam male ablatam'.81 This new seizure of Ippolito's money happened when the governorship of Milan had been taken up by Cardinal Cristoforo Madruzzo, who – also in accordance with the relaxation of the war between Habsburg and Valois – had soothed the terms of the sequestration of the revenues in the Milanese and had issued the safe-conduct that Ippolito's agents were carrying.82 Rather than an episode of 'bureaucratic schizophrenia', then, the behaviour of the *economo* demonstrates that the prolonged sequestration of Ippolito's revenues in the fifties was not simply a result of the French-Spanish opposition.

It is therefore easy to see that, when the power over Milan shifted drastically towards Brussels and Philip II's court, the lack of a direct access to the court of the sovereign and to his powerful representatives – such as Alba or Granvelle – weighed heavily against not only Ippolito d'Este, but also against Filippo Archinto. During the first fifteen years of his reign, Ercole II had been careful to maintain a good relationship with Charles V, to whom he owed his investiture over Modena and Reggio.<sup>83</sup> He had refused, for instance, to join the king of France in a league against the emperor in 1548, and had struggled to keep his State neutral during the war of Parma and when Henry II had fomented the anti-Imperial rebellion in Siena – a strategy of political balance that followed the path laid down by the late duke, Alfonso I, who had planned his sons' careers in accordance with his diplomatic vision. For this reason, in the same years in which Ippolito was building his ecclesiastical grandeur in the shade of the Valois monarchy, his younger brother, Don Francesco d'Este, had been serving the emperor as a military official. Francesco's presence at Charles V's side had also helped Ercole and Ippolito obtain the payment of the revenues when they had been seized in the previous decades.84 In the 1550s, however, Francesco had left Charles V's service and had slowly started to reposition himself in the French orbit, encouraged by his brother, Ippolito II, and also by Ercole II's increasing vicinity to the Valois monarchy – which eventually led him, in 1556, to join an anti-Spanish league.<sup>85</sup> Not only the duchy's politics, then, but also the personal political affiliations of the members of the house of Este contributed to tying the destiny of Ferrara to the French kingdom more closely in the 1550s of the sixteenth century – a choice with some bitter consequences for the Estense duchy when, after the

125

<sup>88</sup> In March 1560, Pius IV appointed one of Ippolito's most loyal *protégés,* Brandelisio Trotti, to the diocese of Saint-Jean de Maurienne, whose revenues were worth 2.000 *ducati.* The pope then assigned Ippolito a pension that was worth half of Maurienne's revenues: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XXIV.32 (27

<sup>86</sup> Ippolito II to Alfonso II: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XXIV.22 (4 January 1560).

peace of Cateau-Cambresis of 1559, the king of Spain emerged as the principal

Having failed to establish Ippolito d'Este's right to the revenues with the State of Milan and the king's representatives in Italy, the claim over the sequestrated revenues moved on, in the following years, to the field of international diplomacy. Here too, however, both Ippolito and the Estense duchy found themselves affected by the lack of connections with what had become, in the meantime, Philip II's Madrid court (we will see in the next part of this chapter the difficulties met by Alfonso II, who succeeded his father as the duke after Cateau-Cambrésis scenario, in competing with other 'more Spanish' Italian rulers – those of Savoy and Florence, for instance – when seeking Philip II's favour). In the case of the Milanese revenues, an agent sent by the cardinal of Ferrara, in 1559, obtained the king's promise that he would return 'that money that had been sequestrated in Milan under the safe-conduct', and that the duke of Alba would be in charge of the bureaucratic aspect of the payment. With regard to the revenues of the Archdiocese that the State of Milan had withheld during the years of war, Ippolito's agent was told that, because of the terms of the peace between the Valois and the Habsburg, Philip II was not due to return them at all.<sup>86</sup> Despite Ippolito's optimism ('[his agent] gives me such good hope on this matter that I hope that the outcome will be in accordance with my wish')87, neither the revenues nor the money sequestrated in violation of the safe-conduct were paid back in 1559. Partial compensation, however, was offered by the newly elected Pius IV, who, in March 1560, assigned a pension of 1.000 *ducati* to the cardinal of Ferrara,

That the dispute over Milan mattered to the Estense family as a whole and not only to Ippolito has already been demonstrated by the diplomatic efforts sustained by Ercole II at the time of his brother's tenure of the archdiocese, and by the fact that the jurist in charge of presenting Ippolito's claim had been appointed – and salaried – by Ercole II. A definitive confirmation is also offered by the subsequent developments of the litigation. Although Ippolito II, as we have just seen, had eventually obtained from the king of Spain the restitution of the money sequestrated from his agents, that promise had been kept neither in 1559 nor in the following years. At the moment of his death, in 1572, Ippolito d'Este had still not been reimbursed with the money which he had been expecting for thirteen years. His heirs, his nephews Alfonso II and Luigi d'Este, became therefore involved in another legal dispute with the State of Milan over the payment of those same revenues, as they tried to establish their right to receive the money that had been due to their uncle when he was still alive. Disregarding that first refusal opposed by king Philip II, they claimed both the revenues of the archdiocese (which were worth the considerable sum of 14.000 *scudi*) as well as the money seized from Ippolito's employees, which ac-

power in Italy.

'as a compensation for Milan'.88

<sup>87</sup> Ibid*.*

March 1560).

<sup>81</sup> 'Apud Gallos, vel eos qui eorum voce loquuntur, argenti vocabulo monetam significant […] et vulgariter etiam scimus, Gallos ea voce *l'argian* significare pecuniam. Cum igitur hic, qui salvum conductum petiit, e Gallis veniret, petitionem suam concepit secundum morem loquendi': ibid*.*

<sup>82</sup> Cardinal Madruzzo succeeded the duke of Alba in June 1556: Bellati, *Serie de' governatori di Milano,*  pp. 2-3.

<sup>83</sup> On the problem of the investiture, see: Chiappini, *Gli Estensi,* pp. 243-244; 252-253; Folin, *Rinascimento estense,* pp. 51-53; 331-333.

<sup>84</sup> Giannini, 'Ippolito II', p. 108.

<sup>85</sup> Magoni, *I gigli d'oro,* pp. 59-75.

peace of Cateau-Cambresis of 1559, the king of Spain emerged as the principal power in Italy.

Having failed to establish Ippolito d'Este's right to the revenues with the State of Milan and the king's representatives in Italy, the claim over the sequestrated revenues moved on, in the following years, to the field of international diplomacy. Here too, however, both Ippolito and the Estense duchy found themselves affected by the lack of connections with what had become, in the meantime, Philip II's Madrid court (we will see in the next part of this chapter the difficulties met by Alfonso II, who succeeded his father as the duke after Cateau-Cambrésis scenario, in competing with other 'more Spanish' Italian rulers – those of Savoy and Florence, for instance – when seeking Philip II's favour). In the case of the Milanese revenues, an agent sent by the cardinal of Ferrara, in 1559, obtained the king's promise that he would return 'that money that had been sequestrated in Milan under the safe-conduct', and that the duke of Alba would be in charge of the bureaucratic aspect of the payment. With regard to the revenues of the Archdiocese that the State of Milan had withheld during the years of war, Ippolito's agent was told that, because of the terms of the peace between the Valois and the Habsburg, Philip II was not due to return them at all.<sup>86</sup> Despite Ippolito's optimism ('[his agent] gives me such good hope on this matter that I hope that the outcome will be in accordance with my wish')87, neither the revenues nor the money sequestrated in violation of the safe-conduct were paid back in 1559. Partial compensation, however, was offered by the newly elected Pius IV, who, in March 1560, assigned a pension of 1.000 *ducati* to the cardinal of Ferrara, 'as a compensation for Milan'.88

That the dispute over Milan mattered to the Estense family as a whole and not only to Ippolito has already been demonstrated by the diplomatic efforts sustained by Ercole II at the time of his brother's tenure of the archdiocese, and by the fact that the jurist in charge of presenting Ippolito's claim had been appointed – and salaried – by Ercole II. A definitive confirmation is also offered by the subsequent developments of the litigation. Although Ippolito II, as we have just seen, had eventually obtained from the king of Spain the restitution of the money sequestrated from his agents, that promise had been kept neither in 1559 nor in the following years. At the moment of his death, in 1572, Ippolito d'Este had still not been reimbursed with the money which he had been expecting for thirteen years. His heirs, his nephews Alfonso II and Luigi d'Este, became therefore involved in another legal dispute with the State of Milan over the payment of those same revenues, as they tried to establish their right to receive the money that had been due to their uncle when he was still alive. Disregarding that first refusal opposed by king Philip II, they claimed both the revenues of the archdiocese (which were worth the considerable sum of 14.000 *scudi*) as well as the money seized from Ippolito's employees, which ac-

124

<sup>81</sup> 'Apud Gallos, vel eos qui eorum voce loquuntur, argenti vocabulo monetam significant […] et vulgariter etiam scimus, Gallos ea voce *l'argian* significare pecuniam. Cum igitur hic, qui salvum conductum

<sup>82</sup> Cardinal Madruzzo succeeded the duke of Alba in June 1556: Bellati, *Serie de' governatori di Milano,* 

<sup>83</sup> On the problem of the investiture, see: Chiappini, *Gli Estensi,* pp. 243-244; 252-253; Folin, *Rinasci-*

petiit, e Gallis veniret, petitionem suam concepit secundum morem loquendi': ibid*.*

pp. 2-3.

*mento estense,* pp. 51-53; 331-333. <sup>84</sup> Giannini, 'Ippolito II', p. 108. <sup>85</sup> Magoni, *I gigli d'oro,* pp. 59-75.

the interpretation of the fiscal office was just a pretext for the retaliation against Ippolito as a 'French cardinal' during the last stage of the war between France and Spain. Therefore, the jurist who wrote Ippolito's *allegationes* insisted that those who come from France or speak French call money 'argent' (i.e. silver) and that the safeconduct had been requested *secundum morem loquendi.* He therefore concluded that 'restituendam esse pecuniam male ablatam'.81 This new seizure of Ippolito's money happened when the governorship of Milan had been taken up by Cardinal Cristoforo Madruzzo, who – also in accordance with the relaxation of the war between Habsburg and Valois – had soothed the terms of the sequestration of the revenues in the Milanese and had issued the safe-conduct that Ippolito's agents were carrying.82 Rather than an episode of 'bureaucratic schizophrenia', then, the behaviour of the *economo* demonstrates that the prolonged sequestration of Ippolito's revenues in the

It is therefore easy to see that, when the power over Milan shifted drastically towards Brussels and Philip II's court, the lack of a direct access to the court of the sovereign and to his powerful representatives – such as Alba or Granvelle – weighed heavily against not only Ippolito d'Este, but also against Filippo Archinto. During the first fifteen years of his reign, Ercole II had been careful to maintain a good relationship with Charles V, to whom he owed his investiture over Modena and Reggio.<sup>83</sup> He had refused, for instance, to join the king of France in a league against the emperor in 1548, and had struggled to keep his State neutral during the war of Parma and when Henry II had fomented the anti-Imperial rebellion in Siena – a strategy of political balance that followed the path laid down by the late duke, Alfonso I, who had planned his sons' careers in accordance with his diplomatic vision. For this reason, in the same years in which Ippolito was building his ecclesiastical grandeur in the shade of the Valois monarchy, his younger brother, Don Francesco d'Este, had been serving the emperor as a military official. Francesco's presence at Charles V's side had also helped Ercole and Ippolito obtain the payment of the revenues when they had been seized in the previous decades.84 In the 1550s, however, Francesco had left Charles V's service and had slowly started to reposition himself in the French orbit, encouraged by his brother, Ippolito II, and also by Ercole II's increasing vicinity to the Valois monarchy – which eventually led him, in 1556, to join an anti-Spanish league.<sup>85</sup> Not only the duchy's politics, then, but also the personal political affiliations of the members of the house of Este contributed to tying the destiny of Ferrara to the French kingdom more closely in the 1550s of the sixteenth century – a choice with some bitter consequences for the Estense duchy when, after the

fifties was not simply a result of the French-Spanish opposition.

<sup>86</sup> Ippolito II to Alfonso II: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XXIV.22 (4 January 1560).

<sup>87</sup> Ibid*.*

<sup>88</sup> In March 1560, Pius IV appointed one of Ippolito's most loyal *protégés,* Brandelisio Trotti, to the diocese of Saint-Jean de Maurienne, whose revenues were worth 2.000 *ducati.* The pope then assigned Ippolito a pension that was worth half of Maurienne's revenues: ASMO, CS, 149, 1709.XXIV.32 (27 March 1560).

counted for an extra 10.000 *scudi* and which Ippolito had already claimed in 1558 and 1559.<sup>89</sup>

# **3. Ippolito and Alfonso II. Estense politics after Cateau-Cambresis**

In April 1559, Philip II and Henry II signed the peace of Cateau-Cambresis, which ended over sixty years of war between Habsburg and Valois and left Philip in control of almost the whole of Italy.<sup>90</sup> In July, Henry II died after having been accidentally wounded in the eye during a joust held to celebrate the peace. The French king was followed, one month later, by Paul IV, the pope whose hatred of the emperor and inflammatory politics had contributed to revive the hostilities in the second half of the fifties. In October, during the conclave that would elect the more diplomatic Pius IV, Duke Ercole II, who had reluctantly backed Paul IV's anti-Habsburg action, died in Ferrara.<sup>91</sup> Over the course of little more than six months, the protagonists of the alliance against Charles V and Philip II left the scene. Whilst the death of the authoritarian Paul IV has remained famous for having been welcomed with rejoicing by the Roman population, the death of Ercole II and Henry II left their respective states to deal with the consequences of the defeat sanctioned at Cateau-Cambresis.

For the kingdom of France, Henry II's death marked the beginning of a period of instability: the war had left the royal finances in a wretched state, and the confessional hatred between Huguenots and Catholics was fuelling episodes of violence throughout the country. The delicateness of the situation would have required a firm leadership – something that Henry's successor, the sickly and young Francis II, could not provide.92 For the duchy of Ferrara, the consequences of 1559 were of a different nature: whilst the succession to the dukedom was easily secured with the

127

R. Quazza, 'Alfonso II d'Este', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 1960).

<sup>93</sup> Alfonso II had been in France from 1552 to 1554, and again from 1556 to 1557. When Ercole II had joined the league against Philip II, Alfonso had gone back to Italy to take part in the military operations. In 1558, after the defeat of the French, he had married Lucrezia de' Medici. Immediately after, however, Alfonso had returned to the French court, where he had witnessed Henry II's joust incident. When his father died, Alfonso was still in France. See Renèe of France's letter to Ippolito II, on 7 October 1559: ASMO, CS, 85, 1655.XX.7 (misplaced among Alfonso II's correspondence). On Alfonso II's life, see:

return from France of Alfonso d'Este, Ercole II's 26 year old son, Henry II's death deprived the duchy of its foremost protector.<sup>93</sup> The most compelling matter on the new duke's agenda, therefore, was the fragile political position of Ferrara in the now

with Ippolito's return to the French court as the papal legate (1561), more than ten years after his last stay and under very different political circumstances. Whilst the cardinal's efforts to enhance Alfonso II's relationship with the French monarchy are considered in the following chapter, here it is necessary to ask what the broader Ferrarese agenda was, and what role the cardinal of Ferrara played in it. Until Ercole II's death in 1559, Ippolito II and Ercole II had always been the ultimate representatives of their family's power in Italy and abroad: a two-headed leadership based on the theoretical division of spheres of influence, but in which the two heads – as we have seen – did not necessarily work unanimously towards the same aim. Alfonso II's succession changed what had been, in fact, an equilibrium – although sometimes a controversial one – between peers. The young duke's inexperience and duchy's political fragility shifted the balance of power more decisively towards the cardinal of Ferrara, whose influence was much more required than before. If in the past, as we have seen, Ippolito had been the family's strongest advocate for an everincreasing union of interests with the French crown, the years 1560-1561 brought a

All the portraits and descriptions that have remained of Alfonso II depict him as deeply influenced, in his manners, tastes, and attitude, by his French ascendance. Unlike Ercole II, Alfonso was a direct descendant of the French royalty – through his mother, Renée of France – and had spent his youth living in France (where he still was when Ercole II died). A report written in 1561 by the Venetian ambassador to France, aimed to illustrate the relationships between the French monarchy and the various Italian princes, offers a good example of what was the perception of Alfonso

Ferrara [Alfonso II], for confidence, does not differ from French natives, not only because he was born […] from a French mother and raised in France, and because of the numerous honours and great demonstrations he was given in that kingdom, but also because of the many interests he has there, as he receives a pension of 50.000 francs a year from the king, further to the lands he owns in Normandy, thanks to some money that his ancestor, Duke Alfonso, lent to king Francis a long time ago; but also because (what is more relevant) he is in credit of more than 1.100.000 *scudi*, of which more than 600.000 were borrowed when lord Guise came [to Italy]. Furthermore, there are the interests of his own house, which, without the help and pro-

II's 'confidence' with the Valois in the eyes of contemporary observers:

As we will see in the next chapter, this moment of transition also coincided

Spanish-dominated Italian scene.

modification of the 'traditional' roles of the Este.

<sup>89</sup> The Este presented the senate of Milan with the sentence in favour of Ippolito II and with a letter from the king of Spain that ordered the fiscal office to return the money, but the magistrates of Milan refused to execute the sentence and argued that the king's letter was personal and could not apply to the cardinal's heirs. An Estense agent had nonetheless found another letter from the king that commanded 'che si paghino detti crediti alli heredi del cardinale di Ferrara': ASMO, CS, 390, 2038.VI.79.

<sup>90</sup> In the North, the French renounced their claim to Milan, which was left to Spanish rule; Savoy and Piedmont were restored to Philip's ally, Emmanuel-Philibert of Savoy (although France kept some fortresses); Genoa, also allied with Spain, obtained Corsica. In Central Italy, Philip directly controlled the *Stato dei presidi*, a group of cities on the Tuscan coast. The South of Italy remained under Spanish con-

trol. This political arrangement lasted, with little changes, for over 150 years. 91 Ercole II, following his traditional policy of moderation, had initially tried to maintain Ferrara neutral. He had eventually agreed to finance the French military operation in exchange for the title of general of the French-Vatican league and the promise of the annexation of the city of Cremona at the end of the war. Helping to make up Ercole's mind had been the fact that the main supporters of a new aggressive action in Italy were his close relatives, the Guise: see Benzoni, 'Ercole II' and Carroll, *Martyrs and Murderers,* pp. 75-79. On the involvement of the duchy of Ferrara and the role of Paul IV, see the analyses by Signorotto, 'Note sulla politica', pp. 50-51; id., 'Papato e principi', pp. 269-271. See also Dandelet, *Spanish Rome,* pp. 53-108. On the last stage of the Italian wars, which led the French to the defeat of Saint-Quentin, see: Mallett and Shaw, *The Italian Wars,* pp. 250-289.

<sup>92</sup> On Henry II's last years of reign and the rise of a 'Huguenot problem', see: Romier, *Les origines politiques,* ii, pp. 225-390.

return from France of Alfonso d'Este, Ercole II's 26 year old son, Henry II's death deprived the duchy of its foremost protector.<sup>93</sup> The most compelling matter on the new duke's agenda, therefore, was the fragile political position of Ferrara in the now Spanish-dominated Italian scene.

As we will see in the next chapter, this moment of transition also coincided with Ippolito's return to the French court as the papal legate (1561), more than ten years after his last stay and under very different political circumstances. Whilst the cardinal's efforts to enhance Alfonso II's relationship with the French monarchy are considered in the following chapter, here it is necessary to ask what the broader Ferrarese agenda was, and what role the cardinal of Ferrara played in it. Until Ercole II's death in 1559, Ippolito II and Ercole II had always been the ultimate representatives of their family's power in Italy and abroad: a two-headed leadership based on the theoretical division of spheres of influence, but in which the two heads – as we have seen – did not necessarily work unanimously towards the same aim. Alfonso II's succession changed what had been, in fact, an equilibrium – although sometimes a controversial one – between peers. The young duke's inexperience and duchy's political fragility shifted the balance of power more decisively towards the cardinal of Ferrara, whose influence was much more required than before. If in the past, as we have seen, Ippolito had been the family's strongest advocate for an everincreasing union of interests with the French crown, the years 1560-1561 brought a modification of the 'traditional' roles of the Este.

All the portraits and descriptions that have remained of Alfonso II depict him as deeply influenced, in his manners, tastes, and attitude, by his French ascendance. Unlike Ercole II, Alfonso was a direct descendant of the French royalty – through his mother, Renée of France – and had spent his youth living in France (where he still was when Ercole II died). A report written in 1561 by the Venetian ambassador to France, aimed to illustrate the relationships between the French monarchy and the various Italian princes, offers a good example of what was the perception of Alfonso II's 'confidence' with the Valois in the eyes of contemporary observers:

Ferrara [Alfonso II], for confidence, does not differ from French natives, not only because he was born […] from a French mother and raised in France, and because of the numerous honours and great demonstrations he was given in that kingdom, but also because of the many interests he has there, as he receives a pension of 50.000 francs a year from the king, further to the lands he owns in Normandy, thanks to some money that his ancestor, Duke Alfonso, lent to king Francis a long time ago; but also because (what is more relevant) he is in credit of more than 1.100.000 *scudi*, of which more than 600.000 were borrowed when lord Guise came [to Italy]. Furthermore, there are the interests of his own house, which, without the help and pro-

126

<sup>92</sup> On Henry II's last years of reign and the rise of a 'Huguenot problem', see: Romier, *Les origines poli-*

counted for an extra 10.000 *scudi* and which Ippolito had already claimed in 1558

In April 1559, Philip II and Henry II signed the peace of Cateau-Cambresis, which ended over sixty years of war between Habsburg and Valois and left Philip in control of almost the whole of Italy.<sup>90</sup> In July, Henry II died after having been accidentally wounded in the eye during a joust held to celebrate the peace. The French king was followed, one month later, by Paul IV, the pope whose hatred of the emperor and inflammatory politics had contributed to revive the hostilities in the second half of the fifties. In October, during the conclave that would elect the more diplomatic Pius IV, Duke Ercole II, who had reluctantly backed Paul IV's anti-Habsburg action, died in Ferrara.<sup>91</sup> Over the course of little more than six months, the protagonists of the alliance against Charles V and Philip II left the scene. Whilst the death of the authoritarian Paul IV has remained famous for having been welcomed with rejoicing by the Roman population, the death of Ercole II and Henry II left their respective states to deal with the consequences of the defeat sanctioned at

For the kingdom of France, Henry II's death marked the beginning of a period of instability: the war had left the royal finances in a wretched state, and the confessional hatred between Huguenots and Catholics was fuelling episodes of violence throughout the country. The delicateness of the situation would have required a firm leadership – something that Henry's successor, the sickly and young Francis II, could not provide.92 For the duchy of Ferrara, the consequences of 1559 were of a different nature: whilst the succession to the dukedom was easily secured with the

<sup>89</sup> The Este presented the senate of Milan with the sentence in favour of Ippolito II and with a letter from the king of Spain that ordered the fiscal office to return the money, but the magistrates of Milan refused to execute the sentence and argued that the king's letter was personal and could not apply to the cardinal's heirs. An Estense agent had nonetheless found another letter from the king that commanded 'che si

<sup>90</sup> In the North, the French renounced their claim to Milan, which was left to Spanish rule; Savoy and Piedmont were restored to Philip's ally, Emmanuel-Philibert of Savoy (although France kept some fortresses); Genoa, also allied with Spain, obtained Corsica. In Central Italy, Philip directly controlled the *Stato dei presidi*, a group of cities on the Tuscan coast. The South of Italy remained under Spanish control. This political arrangement lasted, with little changes, for over 150 years. 91 Ercole II, following his traditional policy of moderation, had initially tried to maintain Ferrara neutral. He had eventually agreed to finance the French military operation in exchange for the title of general of the French-Vatican league and the promise of the annexation of the city of Cremona at the end of the war. Helping to make up Ercole's mind had been the fact that the main supporters of a new aggressive action in Italy were his close relatives, the Guise: see Benzoni, 'Ercole II' and Carroll, *Martyrs and Murderers,* pp. 75-79. On the involvement of the duchy of Ferrara and the role of Paul IV, see the analyses by Signorotto, 'Note sulla politica', pp. 50-51; id., 'Papato e principi', pp. 269-271. See also Dandelet, *Spanish Rome,* pp. 53-108. On the last stage of the Italian wars, which led the French to the defeat

paghino detti crediti alli heredi del cardinale di Ferrara': ASMO, CS, 390, 2038.VI.79.

of Saint-Quentin, see: Mallett and Shaw, *The Italian Wars,* pp. 250-289.

**3. Ippolito and Alfonso II. Estense politics after Cateau-Cambresis**

and 1559.<sup>89</sup>

Cateau-Cambresis.

*tiques,* ii, pp. 225-390.

<sup>93</sup> Alfonso II had been in France from 1552 to 1554, and again from 1556 to 1557. When Ercole II had joined the league against Philip II, Alfonso had gone back to Italy to take part in the military operations. In 1558, after the defeat of the French, he had married Lucrezia de' Medici. Immediately after, however, Alfonso had returned to the French court, where he had witnessed Henry II's joust incident. When his father died, Alfonso was still in France. See Renèe of France's letter to Ippolito II, on 7 October 1559: ASMO, CS, 85, 1655.XX.7 (misplaced among Alfonso II's correspondence). On Alfonso II's life, see: R. Quazza, 'Alfonso II d'Este', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 1960).

tection of France, and the great profits that come from it, would remain poor: I am referring to the cardinal (who enjoys more than 100.000 and 50.000 francs a year of ecclesiastical revenues, which he hopes will pass on to Luigi, his nephew), as well as to the privileges that lord Don Francesco and Don Alfonso, his uncles, receive from the king, both being knights of the order. Therefore, even if the duke were not French by choice, he should be so by obligation: and the French hold him as obliged.94

It is particularly significant, in this context, to highlight the efforts made by the cardinal of Ferrara to realign, at least partially, his dynasty with the Spanish crown. Ippolito's attempt to promote such a shift of politics emerges vividly from the correspondence he held with Alfonso II during the first year of his nephew's reign, when the French crown's loss of influence over the Italian states made the duchy's 'obligation' to the Valois less convenient than it had been at the time of Henry II, and the lack of good and continuous diplomatic relations with the Castilian branch of the Habsburg power – especially with Philip II's state apparatus – was strongly disadvantageous. It has been observed by scholars that Philip's court, after Cateau-Cambrésis, emerged as the ultimate arbiter of the dynastic rivalries and ambitions that animated the life of the Italian nobility, as they all looked at Madrid for pensions, rewards, and titles that could support their kin. The Spanish capital became, in this way, the centre of a system of alliances and control that subordinated Italian princes to Philip II – a sort of Spanish informal protectorate, which functioned through a clever 'politics of honours'.95

Despite the hostilities between Ferrara and Spain that had marked the second half of the fifties, the cardinal of Ferrara was quite optimistic that Philip II would not exclude his family from his favour in the future. In January 1560, Ippolito wrote to Alfonso that he believed that they had more opportunities to gain favours in Spain rather than in France, which 'given all its debits should show itself much more benevolent and generous'.<sup>96</sup> Consequently, Ippolito started a negotiation with cardinal Farnese to marry one of Alfonso's sisters to one of Ottavio Farnese's brothers, as the Farnese were now amongst those Italian families that enjoyed Philip's favour. The cardinal was positive that Philip II would not object to his plan and would give his permission to celebrate the marriage, but the following months showed that he had overestimated Philip's benevolence towards his house.<sup>97</sup> The marriage that had been already celebrated, in 1558, between Alfonso II and Lucrezia de' Medici, Cosimo's daughter, had been meant to seal the peace treaty signed with Spain, and Cosimo's

129

<sup>99</sup> Ibid., 2 November 1560. 100 BEM, Fondo Campori, 189, Rangoni Fulvio – Copialettere, Istruttioni (September 1561). 101 ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXIV.22 (4 january 1560).

ally made by Ippolito d'Este.

<sup>98</sup> Ibid., 20 July 1560.

mediation between the two parts. A marriage deal with the Farnese, then, would

The alliance between Este and Medici that had started – in theory – with the marriage between Alfonso II and Lucrezia, however, never turned into actual support of each other's politics: on the contrary, the stronger position that Cosimo held in the panorama of the Spanish-controlled Italy constituted, for Ferrara, a danger rather than a help, as the two powers were still competing on the right of precedence and Cosimo had nothing to gain by offering his better connections with Philip II's court to the Este. Not surprisingly, then, in July 1560, Ippolito wrote to Alfonso that he believed that Cosimo de' Medici 'was acting very timidly in gaining the Catholic king's confidence […]. We can say that he is keener to give us advice rather than help'.<sup>98</sup> That Cosimo would not put himself on the line to help the Este improve their political position appeared even more evidently after the advent to the papacy of Pius IV, to whose election had contributed Ippolito and the French cardinals, but who was, in the first place, an old friend of Florence. When Cosimo de' Medici visited Rome after Pius's elevation, he was welcomed – in Ippolito's own words – 'with all those means that are usually reserved to that category of Princes who are called *magni*': a violation of the traditional ceremonial that made it clear what side the pontiff was most likely to take in case of a dispute between Medici and Este.<sup>99</sup>

The fact that Ippolito, at this moment, was orientating Alfonso's decisions in matter of foreign politics is well demonstrated by the fact that not only did he personally choose the Estense ambassador to Madrid, but that he also convinced him to accept the position after he had forwarded his refusal to Duke Alfonso.100 Until that point, diplomatic dispatches from the Madrid court had been mainly provided to Alfonso II by one of Ippolito's agents, *monsignor* Montemerlo, who sent duplicates of his letters to Ferrara.<sup>101</sup> In order to improve Alfonso's chances to gain Philip II's favour, however, it was necessary to have a resident ambassador who could not only perform all the functions associated to the post, taking care of both practical issues and negotiations, but who could also perform the more general task of representing and defending his lord's status on the official occasions and the ceremonies that were an important part of the court's life. It is telling, then, that the choice of the man that was charged with restoring the Este's image before Philip's eyes was actu-

The correspondence between Fulvio Rangoni – the ambassador – and the cardinal of Ferrara indeed shows that the ambassador was taking his instructions from the prelate rather than from the duke. The ambassador himself, once in Madrid, defined the relation between himself and Ippolito d'Este as 'the main reason for which I have come here', leaving little doubt as to who was setting the priorities of his dip-

have enhanced the Este's opportunities to shift their politics towards Spain.

<sup>94</sup> Tommaseo (ed), *Relations,* i, pp. 456-458.

<sup>95</sup> D. Frigo, 'Politica estera e diplomazia: figure, problemi, apparati', in G. Greco and M. Rosa (eds), *Storia degli antichi stati italiani* (Rome-Bari, 1997), p. 134. See also G. Galasso, 'L'Italia nel sistema imperiale spagnolo da Filippo II a Filippo IV', in P. Pissavino and G. Signorotto (eds), *Lombardia borromaica, Lombardia spagnola* (2 vols, Rome, 1995), pp. 13-40.

<sup>96</sup> ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXIV.22 (4 January 1560). 97 Ippolito to Alfonso II: 'Quanto al rispetto della Maestà Catholica, […] non mi pareva si dovesse dubitar che fusse per sentir male il nome di Vostra Eccellenza, sì per esser mutati i tempi, come per haver Sua Maestà qualche capara di già dell'ottima volontà di Vostra Eccellenza di fare il servitio suo': ASMO, CS, 150, 26 June 1560.

mediation between the two parts. A marriage deal with the Farnese, then, would have enhanced the Este's opportunities to shift their politics towards Spain.

The alliance between Este and Medici that had started – in theory – with the marriage between Alfonso II and Lucrezia, however, never turned into actual support of each other's politics: on the contrary, the stronger position that Cosimo held in the panorama of the Spanish-controlled Italy constituted, for Ferrara, a danger rather than a help, as the two powers were still competing on the right of precedence and Cosimo had nothing to gain by offering his better connections with Philip II's court to the Este. Not surprisingly, then, in July 1560, Ippolito wrote to Alfonso that he believed that Cosimo de' Medici 'was acting very timidly in gaining the Catholic king's confidence […]. We can say that he is keener to give us advice rather than help'.<sup>98</sup> That Cosimo would not put himself on the line to help the Este improve their political position appeared even more evidently after the advent to the papacy of Pius IV, to whose election had contributed Ippolito and the French cardinals, but who was, in the first place, an old friend of Florence. When Cosimo de' Medici visited Rome after Pius's elevation, he was welcomed – in Ippolito's own words – 'with all those means that are usually reserved to that category of Princes who are called *magni*': a violation of the traditional ceremonial that made it clear what side the pontiff was most likely to take in case of a dispute between Medici and Este.<sup>99</sup>

The fact that Ippolito, at this moment, was orientating Alfonso's decisions in matter of foreign politics is well demonstrated by the fact that not only did he personally choose the Estense ambassador to Madrid, but that he also convinced him to accept the position after he had forwarded his refusal to Duke Alfonso.100 Until that point, diplomatic dispatches from the Madrid court had been mainly provided to Alfonso II by one of Ippolito's agents, *monsignor* Montemerlo, who sent duplicates of his letters to Ferrara.<sup>101</sup> In order to improve Alfonso's chances to gain Philip II's favour, however, it was necessary to have a resident ambassador who could not only perform all the functions associated to the post, taking care of both practical issues and negotiations, but who could also perform the more general task of representing and defending his lord's status on the official occasions and the ceremonies that were an important part of the court's life. It is telling, then, that the choice of the man that was charged with restoring the Este's image before Philip's eyes was actually made by Ippolito d'Este.

The correspondence between Fulvio Rangoni – the ambassador – and the cardinal of Ferrara indeed shows that the ambassador was taking his instructions from the prelate rather than from the duke. The ambassador himself, once in Madrid, defined the relation between himself and Ippolito d'Este as 'the main reason for which I have come here', leaving little doubt as to who was setting the priorities of his dip-

128

<sup>95</sup> D. Frigo, 'Politica estera e diplomazia: figure, problemi, apparati', in G. Greco and M. Rosa (eds), *Storia degli antichi stati italiani* (Rome-Bari, 1997), p. 134. See also G. Galasso, 'L'Italia nel sistema imperiale spagnolo da Filippo II a Filippo IV', in P. Pissavino and G. Signorotto (eds), *Lombardia bor-*

<sup>96</sup> ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXIV.22 (4 January 1560). 97 Ippolito to Alfonso II: 'Quanto al rispetto della Maestà Catholica, […] non mi pareva si dovesse dubitar che fusse per sentir male il nome di Vostra Eccellenza, sì per esser mutati i tempi, come per haver Sua Maestà qualche capara di già dell'ottima volontà di Vostra Eccellenza di fare il servitio suo':

tection of France, and the great profits that come from it, would remain poor: I am referring to the cardinal (who enjoys more than 100.000 and 50.000 francs a year of ecclesiastical revenues, which he hopes will pass on to Luigi, his nephew), as well as to the privileges that lord Don Francesco and Don Alfonso, his uncles, receive from the king, both being knights of the order. Therefore, even if the duke were not French by choice, he should be so by obligation: and the French hold him as

It is particularly significant, in this context, to highlight the efforts made by the cardinal of Ferrara to realign, at least partially, his dynasty with the Spanish crown. Ippolito's attempt to promote such a shift of politics emerges vividly from the correspondence he held with Alfonso II during the first year of his nephew's reign, when the French crown's loss of influence over the Italian states made the duchy's 'obligation' to the Valois less convenient than it had been at the time of Henry II, and the lack of good and continuous diplomatic relations with the Castilian branch of the Habsburg power – especially with Philip II's state apparatus – was strongly disadvantageous. It has been observed by scholars that Philip's court, after Cateau-Cambrésis, emerged as the ultimate arbiter of the dynastic rivalries and ambitions that animated the life of the Italian nobility, as they all looked at Madrid for pensions, rewards, and titles that could support their kin. The Spanish capital became, in this way, the centre of a system of alliances and control that subordinated Italian princes to Philip II – a sort of Spanish informal protectorate, which functioned

Despite the hostilities between Ferrara and Spain that had marked the second half of the fifties, the cardinal of Ferrara was quite optimistic that Philip II would not exclude his family from his favour in the future. In January 1560, Ippolito wrote to Alfonso that he believed that they had more opportunities to gain favours in Spain rather than in France, which 'given all its debits should show itself much more benevolent and generous'.<sup>96</sup> Consequently, Ippolito started a negotiation with cardinal Farnese to marry one of Alfonso's sisters to one of Ottavio Farnese's brothers, as the Farnese were now amongst those Italian families that enjoyed Philip's favour. The cardinal was positive that Philip II would not object to his plan and would give his permission to celebrate the marriage, but the following months showed that he had overestimated Philip's benevolence towards his house.<sup>97</sup> The marriage that had been already celebrated, in 1558, between Alfonso II and Lucrezia de' Medici, Cosimo's daughter, had been meant to seal the peace treaty signed with Spain, and Cosimo's

obliged.94

through a clever 'politics of honours'.95

<sup>94</sup> Tommaseo (ed), *Relations,* i, pp. 456-458.

ASMO, CS, 150, 26 June 1560.

*romaica, Lombardia spagnola* (2 vols, Rome, 1995), pp. 13-40.

<sup>98</sup> Ibid., 20 July 1560.

<sup>99</sup> Ibid., 2 November 1560. 100 BEM, Fondo Campori, 189, Rangoni Fulvio – Copialettere, Istruttioni (September 1561). 101 ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXIV.22 (4 january 1560).

lomatic action.102 After his arrival in Spain, in 1561, Fulvio Rangoni embarked in a frantic activity to procure the Este with some supporters in the Spanish court. Following Ippolito's advice, the ambassador tried to revive the old relation that tied the house of Ferrara to the Borjas, or Borgias, from whose ranks had come Alfonso I d'Este's wife, Lucrezia Borgia, but that had later been neglected by both parts.<sup>103</sup> At the same time, count Rangoni tried to cultivate the friendship of the king's most powerful *privado,* Ruy Gòmez de Silva, through whom the ambassador was hoping to deliver his petitions to the king, and whose influence over Philip was extremely well known (as observed by another diplomat, 'Ruy Gòmez always has the last word in matters of honors, rewards, favours, and payments').104

From the very beginning, however, the cardinal of Ferrara and the Estense ambassador had to accept that their 'little knowledge of this court' and the lack of political allies ('there is no man that has any confidence with him [the duke]') were obstacles that were unlikely to be overcome in the near future.<sup>105</sup> As Fulvio Rangoni wrote,

Many things have happened that could rouse in this court little love for your most excellent house, and, although one can take the saucepan away from the fire, the mark of where it used to be stays for longer, and it is not possible for a servant like me to remove it at once.106

The main reason that had motivated Ippolito's keen desire to gain Philip's favour through a renovated diplomatic connection was, besides the need of protecting his house's political future, that he was seeking the monarch's support to be elected pope. The outcomes of previous conclaves in which Ippolito had participated had shown that, despite the French support he had always enjoyed and despite his vast financial means, the veto expressed against him by the Habsburg had always hampered his chances of success. The marriage of Alfonso with Lucrezia de' Medici had offered a good opportunity to try Cosimo de' Medici's reliability as an ally, not only in political matters, but also in Ippolito's own quest for the papacy. Therefore, the cardinal had inquired whether the Duke of Florence would support his campaign to gain Philip II's favour in the next conclave, and the decision of improving the level of the Estense diplomatic representation in Spain had been also – or, rather, espe-

131

<sup>108</sup> Such as Plinio Tomacelli, who was a secretary to Giovanni Andrea Doria and who had spent two years in Madrid: BEM, Fondo Campori, 189, Rangoni Fulvio – Copialettere, Lettera al cardinale di Fer-

could not support him: ibid.*,* 390, 2038.VI.28 (24 December 1565).

rara (29 luglio 1562); ibid. (26 September 1562).

<sup>107</sup> 'Bisognerebbe piuttosto procurar di moverlo per conscientia a disporre il re suo a non escluder alcuno […]. Ma se ben io mi persuado che quella maestà sia per intender le cose mie altrimenti di quel che ha fatto per l'adietro, essendo hora mutati i tempi, et cessando la causa che ella pretendeva contra di me, in evento però che per qual si voglia modo l'opera fusse frustatoria, et che con effetto ella volesse pur l'esclusione de la persona mia, il punto è di sapere di che modo Sua Eccellenza pensasse di proceder in tal caso con me, però che quando pur si deliberasse di moversi a benefitio mio etiam nonostante l'esclusione, si potrebbe dir che ci venisse veramente di bon gambe, ma se anche volesse che questa esclusione gli fusse impedimento, io non vederei che fondamento si potesse far su l'aiuto suo, ne vorrei havermi a ridur a termine che quando si fusse a le strette volesse Sua Eccellenza coprirsi sotto a questo scudo': ASMO, CS, 150, 20 July 1560. Similarly, in 1565, Ippolito d'Este forwarded a request to the emperor, Maximilian II, to endorse his candidacy to the papacy, but he was answered that the emperor

cially – a consequence of the cardinal's need to secure new allies for his own goals.107 As the ambassador had repeatedly wrote to both Alfonso and the cardinal of Ferrara, however, Philip's court was a very difficult system to crack, and the lack of a network of support made it very unlikely to obtain anything from the king.

Fulvio Rangoni's diplomatic mission indeed ended in a failure. It paved the way, nonetheless, to a future realignment of the Este with the Spanish monarchy, also through the recruitment, in their courts, of men that were more experienced about the dynamics of Madrid than the ambassador was himself.<sup>108</sup> As we see in the next chapter, Ippolito d'Este's contemporaneous stay in France offered him the opportunity to strengthen that connection with the Valois that had been shaken by Henry II's abrupt death, whilst, at the same time, the cardinal still hoped to present a

convincing image of the Este to any audience in the Spanish court.

<sup>102</sup> Ibid.*,* Lettera al cardinale di Ferrara (10 April 1562). As the ambassador wrote to the cardinal of Ferrara: 'Io potrò d'haver da lei avertimenti et commandamenti, et secondo che le cose verranno trattate da

me, o riprensioni o lode': ibid.*,* Lettera al cardinale di Ferrara (6 February 1562). 103 As Fulvio Rangoni wrote to Ippolito d'Este: 'Ho ritornato in piedi con mille officii et dimostrationii il parentado con la casa Borgia, il quale era sì scordato che dal duca di Candia [Francisco Borgia] niuno di loro sapeva nì a qual grado fossi Vostra Signoria Illustrissima, nì Monsignor Illustrissimo a lei': ibid.

<sup>104</sup> The quotation is from J. Boyden, *The Courtier and the King. Ruy Gómez da Silva, Philip II, and the Court of Spain* (Berkeley, 1995), pp. 83. As Boyden writes, 'In the eyes of the ambassadors at court, the *privado* was an indispensable source of access to the king and of information on Philip's wishes and disposition towards their affairs': ibid*.* The Estense ambassador Rangoni wrote to Ippolito that he wanted to 'guadagnare Ruigomes con tutte le strade': BEM, Fondo Campori, 189, Rangoni Fulvio – Copialettere, Lettera al cardinale di Ferrara (1 May 1562). 105 Ibid., Lettera al cardinale di Ferrara (30 January 1562).

<sup>106</sup> Ibid.*,* Lettera al cardinale di Ferrara (1 May 1562).

cially – a consequence of the cardinal's need to secure new allies for his own goals.107 As the ambassador had repeatedly wrote to both Alfonso and the cardinal of Ferrara, however, Philip's court was a very difficult system to crack, and the lack of a network of support made it very unlikely to obtain anything from the king.

Fulvio Rangoni's diplomatic mission indeed ended in a failure. It paved the way, nonetheless, to a future realignment of the Este with the Spanish monarchy, also through the recruitment, in their courts, of men that were more experienced about the dynamics of Madrid than the ambassador was himself.<sup>108</sup> As we see in the next chapter, Ippolito d'Este's contemporaneous stay in France offered him the opportunity to strengthen that connection with the Valois that had been shaken by Henry II's abrupt death, whilst, at the same time, the cardinal still hoped to present a convincing image of the Este to any audience in the Spanish court.

130

alettere, Lettera al cardinale di Ferrara (1 May 1562). 105 Ibid., Lettera al cardinale di Ferrara (30 January 1562). <sup>106</sup> Ibid.*,* Lettera al cardinale di Ferrara (1 May 1562).

<sup>102</sup> Ibid.*,* Lettera al cardinale di Ferrara (10 April 1562). As the ambassador wrote to the cardinal of Ferrara: 'Io potrò d'haver da lei avertimenti et commandamenti, et secondo che le cose verranno trattate da me, o riprensioni o lode': ibid.*,* Lettera al cardinale di Ferrara (6 February 1562). 103 As Fulvio Rangoni wrote to Ippolito d'Este: 'Ho ritornato in piedi con mille officii et dimostrationii il parentado con la casa Borgia, il quale era sì scordato che dal duca di Candia [Francisco Borgia] niuno di loro sapeva nì a qual grado fossi Vostra Signoria Illustrissima, nì Monsignor Illustrissimo a lei': ibid. <sup>104</sup> The quotation is from J. Boyden, *The Courtier and the King. Ruy Gómez da Silva, Philip II, and the Court of Spain* (Berkeley, 1995), pp. 83. As Boyden writes, 'In the eyes of the ambassadors at court, the *privado* was an indispensable source of access to the king and of information on Philip's wishes and disposition towards their affairs': ibid*.* The Estense ambassador Rangoni wrote to Ippolito that he wanted to 'guadagnare Ruigomes con tutte le strade': BEM, Fondo Campori, 189, Rangoni Fulvio – Copi-

lomatic action.102 After his arrival in Spain, in 1561, Fulvio Rangoni embarked in a frantic activity to procure the Este with some supporters in the Spanish court. Following Ippolito's advice, the ambassador tried to revive the old relation that tied the house of Ferrara to the Borjas, or Borgias, from whose ranks had come Alfonso I d'Este's wife, Lucrezia Borgia, but that had later been neglected by both parts.<sup>103</sup> At the same time, count Rangoni tried to cultivate the friendship of the king's most powerful *privado,* Ruy Gòmez de Silva, through whom the ambassador was hoping to deliver his petitions to the king, and whose influence over Philip was extremely well known (as observed by another diplomat, 'Ruy Gòmez always has the last word

From the very beginning, however, the cardinal of Ferrara and the Estense ambassador had to accept that their 'little knowledge of this court' and the lack of political allies ('there is no man that has any confidence with him [the duke]') were obstacles that were unlikely to be overcome in the near future.<sup>105</sup> As Fulvio Rangoni

Many things have happened that could rouse in this court little love for your most excellent house, and, although one can take the saucepan away from the fire, the mark of where it used to be stays for longer, and it is not possible for a servant like

The main reason that had motivated Ippolito's keen desire to gain Philip's favour through a renovated diplomatic connection was, besides the need of protecting his house's political future, that he was seeking the monarch's support to be elected pope. The outcomes of previous conclaves in which Ippolito had participated had shown that, despite the French support he had always enjoyed and despite his vast financial means, the veto expressed against him by the Habsburg had always hampered his chances of success. The marriage of Alfonso with Lucrezia de' Medici had offered a good opportunity to try Cosimo de' Medici's reliability as an ally, not only in political matters, but also in Ippolito's own quest for the papacy. Therefore, the cardinal had inquired whether the Duke of Florence would support his campaign to gain Philip II's favour in the next conclave, and the decision of improving the level of the Estense diplomatic representation in Spain had been also – or, rather, espe-

in matters of honors, rewards, favours, and payments').104

wrote,

me to remove it at once.106

<sup>107</sup> 'Bisognerebbe piuttosto procurar di moverlo per conscientia a disporre il re suo a non escluder alcuno […]. Ma se ben io mi persuado che quella maestà sia per intender le cose mie altrimenti di quel che ha fatto per l'adietro, essendo hora mutati i tempi, et cessando la causa che ella pretendeva contra di me, in evento però che per qual si voglia modo l'opera fusse frustatoria, et che con effetto ella volesse pur l'esclusione de la persona mia, il punto è di sapere di che modo Sua Eccellenza pensasse di proceder in tal caso con me, però che quando pur si deliberasse di moversi a benefitio mio etiam nonostante l'esclusione, si potrebbe dir che ci venisse veramente di bon gambe, ma se anche volesse che questa esclusione gli fusse impedimento, io non vederei che fondamento si potesse far su l'aiuto suo, ne vorrei havermi a ridur a termine che quando si fusse a le strette volesse Sua Eccellenza coprirsi sotto a questo scudo': ASMO, CS, 150, 20 July 1560. Similarly, in 1565, Ippolito d'Este forwarded a request to the emperor, Maximilian II, to endorse his candidacy to the papacy, but he was answered that the emperor could not support him: ibid.*,* 390, 2038.VI.28 (24 December 1565).

<sup>108</sup> Such as Plinio Tomacelli, who was a secretary to Giovanni Andrea Doria and who had spent two years in Madrid: BEM, Fondo Campori, 189, Rangoni Fulvio – Copialettere, Lettera al cardinale di Ferrara (29 luglio 1562); ibid. (26 September 1562).

132 133

**Chapter 5**

li.2

p. 734.

(3 vols, Lips, 1834-1841), iii, p. 366*.*

**Serving the pope. The legation to Paris, 1561-1563**

*Non sunt ferenda vitia: sed qui nullum vitium fert, nullum hominem feret*

After the years in Siena, Ippolito II d'Este had experienced the harshness of Paul IV's papacy. The pope had charged him with simony and forced him to leave the Roman court; furthermore, he had deprived the cardinal of the governorship of Tivoli, where he had built his famous Villa d'Este. From 1555 to 1559, Ippolito had lived a golden exile in his hometown of Ferrara, surrounded by the finest paintings and statues. But with the death of Paul IV and the election of Pius IV, the political situation abruptly changed and turned more favourable to the cardinal. He was first readmitted to the Curia and then, in early 1560, he was reappointed governor of Tivo-

A new degree of dialogue with the Protestants and sovereigns whose kingdoms were 'plagued by heresy' was the principal change which occurred when Giovanni Angelo Medici ascended to the papal throne. He had inherited from his predecessor Paul IV a Rome politically isolated and at odds with all the European powers, even with the solidly Catholic Spain.<sup>3</sup> During the conclave that led to his election, Cardinal de' Medici had announced to his cardinal colleagues that he was ready to endorse some liturgical reforms in order to restore the unity of Christianity, following the example of the Interim issued by Charles V a few years before. This statement did not appeal to cardinal Ghislieri, the Grand Inquisitor, and at that time the future Pius IV had wisely preferred to withdraw from his initial position in order not to arouse the hostility of Ghislieri's supporters.<sup>4</sup> Once elected, though, Pius IV persisted in his attempt at pacification and turned his eyes especially to France, where the

<sup>1</sup> 'Vices should not be borne. But he who does not bear any vice, will not bear any man'. From the notes taken by the humanist Marc-Antoine Muret of a conversation between himself and the cardinal that occurred at Villa d'Este, in Tivoli: M. A. Muret*, M. Antonii Mureti opera omnia, cum brevi adnotatione…* 

<sup>2</sup> ASMO, CPE, Vaticano – Papi, 1300/25 (18 May 1560). See also Pacifici, *Ippolito II*, pp. 293-294. 3 Signorotto, 'Note sulla politica', pp. 51-55. <sup>4</sup> E. Bonora, *Roma 1564. La congiura contro il papa* (Rome, 2011) p. 56; Setton, *Papacy and Levant*, iv,

Ippolito II d'Este, cardinal of Ferrara1

# **Chapter 5 Serving the pope. The legation to Paris, 1561-1563**

*Non sunt ferenda vitia: sed qui nullum vitium fert, nullum hominem feret* Ippolito II d'Este, cardinal of Ferrara1

After the years in Siena, Ippolito II d'Este had experienced the harshness of Paul IV's papacy. The pope had charged him with simony and forced him to leave the Roman court; furthermore, he had deprived the cardinal of the governorship of Tivoli, where he had built his famous Villa d'Este. From 1555 to 1559, Ippolito had lived a golden exile in his hometown of Ferrara, surrounded by the finest paintings and statues. But with the death of Paul IV and the election of Pius IV, the political situation abruptly changed and turned more favourable to the cardinal. He was first readmitted to the Curia and then, in early 1560, he was reappointed governor of Tivoli.2

A new degree of dialogue with the Protestants and sovereigns whose kingdoms were 'plagued by heresy' was the principal change which occurred when Giovanni Angelo Medici ascended to the papal throne. He had inherited from his predecessor Paul IV a Rome politically isolated and at odds with all the European powers, even with the solidly Catholic Spain.<sup>3</sup> During the conclave that led to his election, Cardinal de' Medici had announced to his cardinal colleagues that he was ready to endorse some liturgical reforms in order to restore the unity of Christianity, following the example of the Interim issued by Charles V a few years before. This statement did not appeal to cardinal Ghislieri, the Grand Inquisitor, and at that time the future Pius IV had wisely preferred to withdraw from his initial position in order not to arouse the hostility of Ghislieri's supporters.<sup>4</sup> Once elected, though, Pius IV persisted in his attempt at pacification and turned his eyes especially to France, where the

Giulia Vidori, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, giulia.vidori@gmail.com

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

132 133 133 Giulia Vidori, *The Path of Pleasantness. Ippolito II d'Este Between Ferrara, France and Rome*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2612-8071 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518-266-9 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-266-9

<sup>1</sup> 'Vices should not be borne. But he who does not bear any vice, will not bear any man'. From the notes taken by the humanist Marc-Antoine Muret of a conversation between himself and the cardinal that occurred at Villa d'Este, in Tivoli: M. A. Muret*, M. Antonii Mureti opera omnia, cum brevi adnotatione…*  (3 vols, Lips, 1834-1841), iii, p. 366*.*

<sup>2</sup> ASMO, CPE, Vaticano – Papi, 1300/25 (18 May 1560). See also Pacifici, *Ippolito II*, pp. 293-294. 3 Signorotto, 'Note sulla politica', pp. 51-55.

<sup>4</sup> E. Bonora, *Roma 1564. La congiura contro il papa* (Rome, 2011) p. 56; Setton, *Papacy and Levant*, iv, p. 734.

#### The Path of Pleasantness

political and religious situation was particularly delicate: the kingdom was ruled by an underage king; by his side was a queen mother who, issuing some edicts of tolerance, had dismantled the rigid anti-heretical legislation of Henry II.5 But Calvinism had already penetrated deep into the highest ranks of the nobility, which were now divided into rival factions that hungered to control the throne. Several French bishops and cardinals were already suspected of heresy, and both Calvin and the European Protestant powers were striving to propel France into the arms of the Reformation.6

As a consequence of the increasingly alarming news which came from the other side of the Alps, Cardinal Ippolito II d'Este was appointed *legato a latere* in the consistory of 2 June 15617 and ordered to leave immediately for France, where the news of his upcoming arrival soon spread through the royal court.8 The pope's expectations, in this tense international environment, were to boycott the assembly of the French clergy that was about to take place at Poissy, and to persuade the queen to send bishops to the general council in Trent.<sup>9</sup> Pius IV saw the assembly of the French clergy as the materialisation of the long-standing threat of a Gallican council, and as an event that would have deprived the pontiff of his universal authority over religious matters. Furthermore, a national council would have undermined the meaningfulness and the validity of the general council of Trent.10 By 1561, Pius IV had already sustained a remarkable diplomatic effort to come to an agreement with Spain

<sup>6</sup> On the popularity of Calvinism amongst the French elites, see: H. Daussy, 'Les élites face à la Reforme dans le royaume de France (ca. 1520-ca. 1570)', in P. Benedict, S. Seidel Menchi and A. Tallon (eds), *La Reforme en France et en Italie. Contacts, comparaisons et contrastes* (Rome, 2007), pp. 331-349.

135

<sup>11</sup> The principal obstacle had been the definition of the new conciliar session, and whether it was to be considered a continuation of the 1551-1552 session or not. The first option implied that Luther's condemnation was still valid, as Philip II wanted. By contrast, the emperor insisted on a 'new beginning' with the direct participation of some reformed ministers. On this topic, see: H. Jedin and P. Prodi (eds),

<sup>12</sup> The king of Navarre had unsuccessfully tried to recover the Spanish Navarre by negotiating with both Charles V and Philip II. Sutherland argues that, as late as 1561, Navarre's 'priority was still compensation for Spanish Navarre' and that 'he saw in the politico-religious struggle one more means of extracting it': N. Sutherland, *Princes, Politics and Religion 1547-1589* (London, 1984)*,* p. 66. For an analysis of the role of Navarre in the French affairs, see also: M. Turchetti, *Concordia o tolleranza? François Bauduin (1520-1573) e i "moyenneurs"* (Geneva, 1984), pp. 201-208; Sutherland, *Princes*, pp. 55-72.

*ll Concilio di Trento come crocevia della politica europea* (Bologna, 1979), pp. 109-119.

<sup>13</sup> Pastor, *History of the Popes,* xvi, p. 163.

and the Empire about their participation in the new conciliar session, and he was

Despite Catherine de' Medici's reassuring statements that nothing would be decided by the Gallican assembly, this pending menace strengthened Pius IV's will to gather all the bishops in Trent as soon as possible, and an important part of the cardinal of Ferrara's mission to Paris was to secure French participation. Furthermore, the papal legate had to do whatever lay within his power to gain the hesitant king of Navarre, Antoine de Vendôme, to the Catholic side. After the death of Francis II in December 1560, Navarre had joined the queen mother as regent and he was believed to be the pivotal figure in French politics. As we will see, Ippolito committed himself to weave a complex diplomatic net between Rome, Paris and Madrid in order to obtain Navarre's public adherence to Catholicism. As a mean of persuasion, he exploited Navarre's old and well-known ambition to recover the lands of the Spanish

Ippolito's appointment as papal legate to France was the result of Pius IV's need for someone he could rely on to advise the princes and the queen, someone whose authority was derived not only from papal investiture but also (and especially) from his established reputation as a very good friend of the French crown. Ippolito's perfect courtly education, and his lifestyle – marked by the magnificence and the politeness held in high regard by all Renaissance princes – meant that he was comfortable in dealing with rulers – as he had been raised as a ruler himself. Pastor claimed that he had a reputation as a skilled diplomat;13 and he had served the French crown as a diplomat in the reigns of Francis I and Henry II. But he had not been very successful, and he had never been directly involved in any mission of such importance. He was certainly neither a Contarini nor a Morone, the cardinals who had dominated the recent history of dialogue with the Protestants. His great advantage in 1560, however, was his thirty-year long friendship with the Valois. In other words, the pope seemed to recognise that the predominance of Catholicism in France had to be secured through the monarchy and the princes, who were driven by political concerns and dynastical consideration, and he consequently decided to send a politician to negotiate. The pope's decision seemed to have been influenced by the fact that, as we know, Ippolito d'Este had long been a favourite in the French court and that he was an Italian prince in his own right, two factors that, as we will see, gave him special leverage in dealing with the Valois court. As one of Ippolito d'Este's supporters

now determined to see the French bishops cross the Alps to Trent.<sup>11</sup>

Navarre that had been conquered by Ferdinand of Aragon in 1512.<sup>12</sup>

<sup>5</sup> For a chronology of the edicts of tolerance, see N. Sutherland, *The Huguenot Struggle for Recognition* (New Haven, 1980), pp. 101-128 and P. Roberts, *Peace and Authority During the French Religious Wars: c. 1560-1600* (Basingstoke, 2013), pp. 15-28.

<sup>7</sup> AAV, *Arch. Concist., Acta Vicecanc.*, 9, 84v. Two days later Ippolito wrote the news to Alfonso II d'Este: ASMO, CS, 150, 4 June 1561. See also: ASMO, CPE – Vaticano, Papi, 1300/25 (28 June 1561). <sup>8</sup> According to the papal nuncio, Sebastiano Gualterio, who wrote to Ippolito d'Este on 14 June 1561: Lestocquoy (ed), *Correspondance: Lenzi et Gualterio*, p. 344. The bull of appointment and the letters of presentation, addressed to the principal member of the French court and signed by Pius IV, were dated 28 June 1561: ASMO, CPE, Vaticano – Papi, 1300/25.

<sup>9</sup> Ippolito's official mission, as stated in his bull of appointment, was to fight the heresy in France, reconcile the country and defend Catholicism: B. Barbiche and S. de Dainville-Barbiche, 'Les légats *a latere* en France et leur facultés aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles', *Archivium Historiae Pontificiae*, 23 (1985), p. 159. But, from the instructions sent by the Roman Curia to the papal nuncio Gualterio in May-August 1561, it is clear that the pope's priorities were already set before Ippolito's arrival and that Ippolito had been involved in the decisions regarding France also before his departure: Šusta, *Die Römische Curie,* i,

pp. 169-242. 10 In 1560, Ippolito II wrote to Alfonso II that 'a Nostro Signore et a tutta questa corte dispiace sommamente la cosa di questo concilio nationale, come di quello che, oltre agli altri mali frutti che potrebbe produrre, è direttamente contra l'autorità di Sua Santità et contra la dignità di questa santa sede, et tanto più se ne sente gravata Sua Beatitudine quanto ella è più disposta alla celebrazione del concilio generale': ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XX.76 (28 September 1560). The Ferrarese ambassador reported that the pope, at the public reading of the bull that called for the Council, had said that the first reason for the gathering was his intention to stop the French national council: ASMO, CDA, Roma, 66, 320.I.40 (30 September 1560).

and the Empire about their participation in the new conciliar session, and he was now determined to see the French bishops cross the Alps to Trent.<sup>11</sup>

Despite Catherine de' Medici's reassuring statements that nothing would be decided by the Gallican assembly, this pending menace strengthened Pius IV's will to gather all the bishops in Trent as soon as possible, and an important part of the cardinal of Ferrara's mission to Paris was to secure French participation. Furthermore, the papal legate had to do whatever lay within his power to gain the hesitant king of Navarre, Antoine de Vendôme, to the Catholic side. After the death of Francis II in December 1560, Navarre had joined the queen mother as regent and he was believed to be the pivotal figure in French politics. As we will see, Ippolito committed himself to weave a complex diplomatic net between Rome, Paris and Madrid in order to obtain Navarre's public adherence to Catholicism. As a mean of persuasion, he exploited Navarre's old and well-known ambition to recover the lands of the Spanish Navarre that had been conquered by Ferdinand of Aragon in 1512.<sup>12</sup>

Ippolito's appointment as papal legate to France was the result of Pius IV's need for someone he could rely on to advise the princes and the queen, someone whose authority was derived not only from papal investiture but also (and especially) from his established reputation as a very good friend of the French crown. Ippolito's perfect courtly education, and his lifestyle – marked by the magnificence and the politeness held in high regard by all Renaissance princes – meant that he was comfortable in dealing with rulers – as he had been raised as a ruler himself. Pastor claimed that he had a reputation as a skilled diplomat;13 and he had served the French crown as a diplomat in the reigns of Francis I and Henry II. But he had not been very successful, and he had never been directly involved in any mission of such importance. He was certainly neither a Contarini nor a Morone, the cardinals who had dominated the recent history of dialogue with the Protestants. His great advantage in 1560, however, was his thirty-year long friendship with the Valois. In other words, the pope seemed to recognise that the predominance of Catholicism in France had to be secured through the monarchy and the princes, who were driven by political concerns and dynastical consideration, and he consequently decided to send a politician to negotiate. The pope's decision seemed to have been influenced by the fact that, as we know, Ippolito d'Este had long been a favourite in the French court and that he was an Italian prince in his own right, two factors that, as we will see, gave him special leverage in dealing with the Valois court. As one of Ippolito d'Este's supporters

134

political and religious situation was particularly delicate: the kingdom was ruled by an underage king; by his side was a queen mother who, issuing some edicts of tolerance, had dismantled the rigid anti-heretical legislation of Henry II.5 But Calvinism had already penetrated deep into the highest ranks of the nobility, which were now divided into rival factions that hungered to control the throne. Several French bishops and cardinals were already suspected of heresy, and both Calvin and the European Protestant powers were striving to propel France into the arms of the Refor-

As a consequence of the increasingly alarming news which came from the other side of the Alps, Cardinal Ippolito II d'Este was appointed *legato a latere* in the consistory of 2 June 15617 and ordered to leave immediately for France, where the news of his upcoming arrival soon spread through the royal court.8 The pope's expectations, in this tense international environment, were to boycott the assembly of the French clergy that was about to take place at Poissy, and to persuade the queen to send bishops to the general council in Trent.<sup>9</sup> Pius IV saw the assembly of the French clergy as the materialisation of the long-standing threat of a Gallican council, and as an event that would have deprived the pontiff of his universal authority over religious matters. Furthermore, a national council would have undermined the meaningfulness and the validity of the general council of Trent.10 By 1561, Pius IV had already sustained a remarkable diplomatic effort to come to an agreement with Spain

<sup>5</sup> For a chronology of the edicts of tolerance, see N. Sutherland, *The Huguenot Struggle for Recognition* (New Haven, 1980), pp. 101-128 and P. Roberts, *Peace and Authority During the French Religious* 

<sup>6</sup> On the popularity of Calvinism amongst the French elites, see: H. Daussy, 'Les élites face à la Reforme dans le royaume de France (ca. 1520-ca. 1570)', in P. Benedict, S. Seidel Menchi and A. Tallon (eds), *La Reforme en France et en Italie. Contacts, comparaisons et contrastes* (Rome, 2007), pp. 331-349. <sup>7</sup> AAV, *Arch. Concist., Acta Vicecanc.*, 9, 84v. Two days later Ippolito wrote the news to Alfonso II d'Este: ASMO, CS, 150, 4 June 1561. See also: ASMO, CPE – Vaticano, Papi, 1300/25 (28 June 1561). <sup>8</sup> According to the papal nuncio, Sebastiano Gualterio, who wrote to Ippolito d'Este on 14 June 1561: Lestocquoy (ed), *Correspondance: Lenzi et Gualterio*, p. 344. The bull of appointment and the letters of presentation, addressed to the principal member of the French court and signed by Pius IV, were dated

<sup>9</sup> Ippolito's official mission, as stated in his bull of appointment, was to fight the heresy in France, reconcile the country and defend Catholicism: B. Barbiche and S. de Dainville-Barbiche, 'Les légats *a latere* en France et leur facultés aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles', *Archivium Historiae Pontificiae*, 23 (1985), p. 159. But, from the instructions sent by the Roman Curia to the papal nuncio Gualterio in May-August 1561, it is clear that the pope's priorities were already set before Ippolito's arrival and that Ippolito had been involved in the decisions regarding France also before his departure: Šusta, *Die Römische Curie,* i, pp. 169-242. 10 In 1560, Ippolito II wrote to Alfonso II that 'a Nostro Signore et a tutta questa corte dispiace sommamente la cosa di questo concilio nationale, come di quello che, oltre agli altri mali frutti che potrebbe produrre, è direttamente contra l'autorità di Sua Santità et contra la dignità di questa santa sede, et tanto più se ne sente gravata Sua Beatitudine quanto ella è più disposta alla celebrazione del concilio generale': ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XX.76 (28 September 1560). The Ferrarese ambassador reported that the pope, at the public reading of the bull that called for the Council, had said that the first reason for the gathering was his intention to stop the French national council: ASMO, CDA, Roma, 66, 320.I.40 (30

*Wars: c. 1560-1600* (Basingstoke, 2013), pp. 15-28.

28 June 1561: ASMO, CPE, Vaticano – Papi, 1300/25.

September 1560).

mation.6

<sup>11</sup> The principal obstacle had been the definition of the new conciliar session, and whether it was to be considered a continuation of the 1551-1552 session or not. The first option implied that Luther's condemnation was still valid, as Philip II wanted. By contrast, the emperor insisted on a 'new beginning' with the direct participation of some reformed ministers. On this topic, see: H. Jedin and P. Prodi (eds), *ll Concilio di Trento come crocevia della politica europea* (Bologna, 1979), pp. 109-119.

<sup>12</sup> The king of Navarre had unsuccessfully tried to recover the Spanish Navarre by negotiating with both Charles V and Philip II. Sutherland argues that, as late as 1561, Navarre's 'priority was still compensation for Spanish Navarre' and that 'he saw in the politico-religious struggle one more means of extracting it': N. Sutherland, *Princes, Politics and Religion 1547-1589* (London, 1984)*,* p. 66. For an analysis of the role of Navarre in the French affairs, see also: M. Turchetti, *Concordia o tolleranza? François Bauduin (1520-1573) e i "moyenneurs"* (Geneva, 1984), pp. 201-208; Sutherland, *Princes*, pp. 55-72. <sup>13</sup> Pastor, *History of the Popes,* xvi, p. 163.

would later write, on this occasion Pius IV had wisely chosen 'a Ulysses over an Ajax'14.

Intransigent behaviour had already proved unprofitable, as demonstrated by the animosity that arose between the nuncio Sebastiano Gualterio, Bishop of Viterbo, and the queen mother Catherine de' Medici, who had suffered the nuncio's endless and bitter recriminations on the bad state of religion in France.<sup>15</sup> Aware of the declining reputation of the nuncio, who was so close to the Spanish ambassador that he was suspected of being a spy,16 cardinal Borromeo had recommended Gualterio to use milder manners and to follow 'a path of pleasantness', as the pope did not want him to be too 'rigorous and polemic'.17 This failure in dealing with the Valois crown later induced Pius IV to replace Gualterio with Prospero Santa Croce and, at the same time, to delegate the supervision of the French diplomacy to Ippolito d'Este, who, as we have seen in his role as governor of Siena, generally sought compromise over conflict.18 It is thus clear that the pope's intention was to treat the French kingdom as a patient in need of the most effective antidotes rather than as a subordinate to be returned to the right track by some show of strength – which was indeed the same strategy that the pope was already applying to Germany through legate Giovanni Francesco Commendone.<sup>19</sup> Whether this initial disposition of Pius IV was to change during the following months is a matter that will be discussed later.

# **1. From the Colloquy of Poissy to the Edict of Saint-Germain, 1561-1562**

The cardinal of Ferrara left Rome in July 1561 magnificently accompanied by a

private choir and over 350 members of his household, an entourage which appeared

gerous game between two factions in a country on the brink of civil war, was afraid

1561 is attached to a letter written to the duke of Mantua on 2 July, published in Pacifici, *Ippolito II*, pp.

<sup>21</sup> H. Dufour and H. Meylan (eds), *Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze* (4 vols, Geneva, 1963), iii, p.

<sup>22</sup> Pastor argues that Pius IV had decided to send Lainez with Ippolito d'Este in order to counterbalance the 'political spirit' of the legate with some proven and rigidly ecclesiastical advisors: Pastor, *History of the popes*, xvi, p. 165. In the introduction to the published letters of Diego Lainez, however, it is stated that the legate had asked the pope for the Jesuit's company, as he was looking for a partner 'probitate, prudentia, integritate et doctrina commendatum': D. Laynez *Lainii monumenta epistolae et acta patris Jacobi Lainii...* (8 vols, Madrid, 1912-1918), vi, p. vii. This suggestion was repeated by Lainez's secretary, Juan Polanco, in July 1561, who wrote that 'ottenne Sua Signoria Reverendissima [the cardinal of Ferrara] avanti la sua partita di Roma, da Sua Santità, di poter menar seco il reverendo nostro padre maestro Iacomo Laynez': J. A. Polanco, *Polanci complementa epistolae et commentaria p. Joannis Al-*

<sup>23</sup> The French clergy was already in session in August, while the Protestant ministers, only officially invited in July, were beginning to arrive. The first session of the Colloquy took place on 9 September: D. Nugent, *Ecumenism in the Age of the Reformation: The Colloquy of Poissy* (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 92-95; N. Valois, 'Les essais de conciliation religieuse au début du règne de Charles IX', *Revue d'histoire de l'Eglise de France*, 31 (1945)', pp. 248-255. The cardinal's long journey is very well described in the letters by Annibal de Coudret, one of Lainez's assistants: Laynez, *Lainii monumenta*, vi,

*phonsi de Polanco...* (2 vols, Madrid, 1916-1917), ii, p. 627.

430-431.

pp. 47-52.

<sup>24</sup> Layard (ed)*, Despatches,* p. 34.

148.

137

137

The cardinal of Ferrara left Rome in July 1561 magnificently accompanied by a private choir and over 350 members of his household, an entourage which appeared lavish in comparison to the only 117 knights who had travelled with him on the occasion of his first visit to France in 1536.<sup>20</sup> On this occasion, Ippolito's entourage included a large group ('magna caterva', as Calvin defined it)<sup>21</sup> of ecclesiastics whose duty was to support him during the religious debates, since the Legate, who had never been ordained to the priesthood, was not a champion of theological knowledge. Amongst them was the Jesuit general Diego Lainez, the successor of Loyola, a rigid defender of orthodoxy and faithful to the principles of the Catholic reformation.22 In addition, Ippolito was accompanied by Lainez's secretary, Juan Polanco, eight bishops, several further theologians, and a famous preacher, Angelo Giustiniani. After several weeks of travel, the cardinal and his household crossed the border between France and Italy at the end of August and reached Saint-Germainen-Laye on 19 September, when the French clergy had already gathered in the Do-

Pius IV's decision to send Ippolito d'Este to France had displeased the queen mother, who saw in his presence at Court an unnecessary foreign interference in French political affairs. According to the dispatch of the Venetian ambassador Michele Suriano to the Doge on 29 July, the queen 'remarked [...] that she was greatly surprised and grieved that the pope should mistrust her and that he showed more confidence in the cardinal of Ferrara'.24 If the pope had been banking on Ippolito's warm personal connections with the Valois monarchy, that calculation was about to be proved wrong. The French kingdom had changed since Ippolito's last visit, more than ten years before, and Catherine de' Medici, who was playing a dangerous game between two factions in a country on the brink of civil war, was afraid

<sup>20</sup> Hollingsworth, *The Cardinal's Hat*, p. 63. The list of the men who took part in Ippolito's journey of 1561 is attached to a letter written to the duke of Mantua on 2 July, published in Pacifici, *Ippolito II*, pp.

<sup>21</sup> H. Dufour and H. Meylan (eds), *Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze* (4 vols, Geneva, 1963), iii, p.

<sup>22</sup> Pastor argues that Pius IV had decided to send Lainez with Ippolito d'Este in order to counterbalance the 'political spirit' of the legate with some proven and rigidly ecclesiastical advisors: Pastor, *History of the popes*, xvi, p. 165. In the introduction to the published letters of Diego Lainez, however, it is stated that the legate had asked the pope for the Jesuit's company, as he was looking for a partner 'probitate, prudentia, integritate et doctrina commendatum': D. Laynez *Lainii monumenta epistolae et acta patris Jacobi Lainii...* (8 vols, Madrid, 1912-1918), vi, p. vii. This suggestion was repeated by Lainez's secretary, Juan Polanco, in July 1561, who wrote that 'ottenne Sua Signoria Reverendissima [the cardinal of Ferrara] avanti la sua partita di Roma, da Sua Santità, di poter menar seco il reverendo nostro padre maestro Iacomo Laynez': J. A. Polanco, *Polanci complementa epistolae et commentaria p. Joannis Al-*

<sup>23</sup> The French clergy was already in session in August, while the Protestant ministers, only officially invited in July, were beginning to arrive. The first session of the Colloquy took place on 9 September: D. Nugent, *Ecumenism in the Age of the Reformation: The Colloquy of Poissy* (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 92-95; N. Valois, 'Les essais de conciliation religieuse au début du règne de Charles IX', *Revue d'histoire de l'Eglise de France*, 31 (1945)', pp. 248-255. The cardinal's long journey is very well described in the letters by Annibal de Coudret, one of Lainez's assistants: Laynez, *Lainii monumenta*, vi,

*phonsi de Polanco...* (2 vols, Madrid, 1916-1917), ii, p. 627.

minican convent of Poissy.<sup>23</sup>

430-431.

pp. 47-52.

<sup>24</sup> Layard (ed)*, Despatches,* p. 34.

148.

<sup>14</sup> AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 125, p. 55. The text is addressed to 'Conte Alfonso Gonzaga di Novellara' but it is not signed. lavish in comparison to the only 117 knights who had travelled with him on the occasion of his first visit to France in 1536.<sup>20</sup> On this occasion, Ippolito's entourage included a large group ('magna caterva', as Calvin defined it)<sup>21</sup> of ecclesiastics

<sup>15</sup> The Venetian ambassador to France, Michele Suriano, reported that Catherine de' Medici had told him that Gualterio was 'evilly disposed, and endeavoured to influence her by menaces' (22 September 1561): A. H. Layard (ed), *Despatches of Michele Suriano and Marc'Antonio Barbaro: Venetian Ambassador at the Court of France* (Lymington, 1891), p. 44. In a later report, Suriano confirmed that 'la regina non poteva tollerare l'asprezza e la senestrezza del vescovo di Viterbo': Tommaseo (ed), *Relations*, i, pp. 534-536. See also L. Romier, *Catholiques et Huguenots à la cour de Charles IX* (Paris, 1924), p. 228. whose duty was to support him during the religious debates, since the Legate, who had never been ordained to the priesthood, was not a champion of theological knowledge. Amongst them was the Jesuit general Diego Lainez, the successor of Loyola, a rigid defender of orthodoxy and faithful to the principles of the Catholic reformation.22 In addition, Ippolito was accompanied by Lainez's secretary, Juan

<sup>16</sup> '[The French] erano fin arrivati a ritener i suoi corrieri, persuadendosi di ritrovar nelle lettere qualche trattato occulto col re Filippo': N. Avanzini, 'Gualtieri, Sebastiano', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 2003). See also Pastor, *History of the Popes*, xvi, pp. 168-169. Polanco, eight bishops, several further theologians, and a famous preacher, Angelo Giustiniani. After several weeks of travel, the cardinal and his household crossed the border between France and Italy at the end of August and reached Saint-Germain-

<sup>17</sup> 25 May 1561: 'Il rigore e la querela non piace a Sua Santità […], ancora chè, avendo preso la strada della piacevolezza per confirmare et guadagnare quelli animi, tutto ciò che si farebbe per altra via sarebbe a distruzione del già fatto': Šusta, *Die Römische Curie*, i, p. 187. en-Laye on 19 September, when the French clergy had already gathered in the Dominican convent of Poissy.<sup>23</sup>

<sup>18</sup> Gualterio was ordered to wait for Santa Croce's arrival (in October) before leaving France. In the meantime, he had to help the cardinal of Ferrara by giving him any necessary information and devolving any final decision on him: Lestocquoy (ed)*, Correspondance: Lenzi et Gualterio* (Rome, 1977), p. 359. Pacifici, however, argues that the papal nuncio was removed because he had opposed the cardinal of Ferrara: Pacifici, *Ippolito II*, p. 301. For a brief summary of both Gualterio and Santa Croce's ecclesiastical and diplomatic careers, see: B. Barbiche, 'La nonciature de France aux XVI and XVII siècles: les nonces, leur entourage et leur cadre de vie', in A. Koller (ed), *Curie und Politik. Stand und Perspektiven der Nuntiaturberichtsforschung* (Tübingen, 1998), p. 87. Pius IV's decision to send Ippolito d'Este to France had displeased the queen mother, who saw in his presence at Court an unnecessary foreign interference in French political affairs. According to the dispatch of the Venetian ambassador Michele Suriano to the Doge on 29 July, the queen 'remarked [...] that she was greatly surprised and grieved that the pope should mistrust her and that he showed more confidence in the cardinal of Ferrara'.24 If the pope had been banking on Ippolito's warm personal connections with the Valois monarchy, that calculation was

<sup>19</sup> E. Bonora, *Giudicare i vescovi. La definizione dei poteri nella Chiesa postridentina* (Rome, 2007), pp. 188-190. about to be proved wrong. The French kingdom had changed since Ippolito's last visit, more than ten years before, and Catherine de' Medici, who was playing a dan-

#### The cardinal of Ferrara left Rome in July 1561 magnificently accompanied by a Giulia Vidori

private choir and over 350 members of his household, an entourage which appeared lavish in comparison to the only 117 knights who had travelled with him on the occasion of his first visit to France in 1536.<sup>20</sup> On this occasion, Ippolito's entourage included a large group ('magna caterva', as Calvin defined it)<sup>21</sup> of ecclesiastics whose duty was to support him during the religious debates, since the Legate, who had never been ordained to the priesthood, was not a champion of theological knowledge. Amongst them was the Jesuit general Diego Lainez, the successor of Loyola, a rigid defender of orthodoxy and faithful to the principles of the Catholic reformation.22 In addition, Ippolito was accompanied by Lainez's secretary, Juan Polanco, eight bishops, several further theologians, and a famous preacher, Angelo Giustiniani. After several weeks of travel, the cardinal and his household crossed the border between France and Italy at the end of August and reached Saint-Germainen-Laye on 19 September, when the French clergy had already gathered in the Dominican convent of Poissy.<sup>23</sup>

Pius IV's decision to send Ippolito d'Este to France had displeased the queen mother, who saw in his presence at Court an unnecessary foreign interference in French political affairs. According to the dispatch of the Venetian ambassador Michele Suriano to the Doge on 29 July, the queen 'remarked [...] that she was greatly surprised and grieved that the pope should mistrust her and that he showed more confidence in the cardinal of Ferrara'.24 If the pope had been banking on Ippolito's warm personal connections with the Valois monarchy, that calculation was about to be proved wrong. The French kingdom had changed since Ippolito's last visit, more than ten years before, and Catherine de' Medici, who was playing a dangerous game between two factions in a country on the brink of civil war, was afraid

<sup>24</sup> Layard (ed)*, Despatches,* p. 34.

136

<sup>20</sup> Hollingsworth, *The Cardinal's Hat*, p. 63. The list of the men who took part in Ippolito's journey of 1561 is attached to a letter written to the duke of Mantua on 2 July, published in Pacifici, *Ippolito II*, pp.

<sup>21</sup> H. Dufour and H. Meylan (eds), *Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze* (4 vols, Geneva, 1963), iii, p.

<sup>22</sup> Pastor argues that Pius IV had decided to send Lainez with Ippolito d'Este in order to counterbalance the 'political spirit' of the legate with some proven and rigidly ecclesiastical advisors: Pastor, *History of the popes*, xvi, p. 165. In the introduction to the published letters of Diego Lainez, however, it is stated that the legate had asked the pope for the Jesuit's company, as he was looking for a partner 'probitate, prudentia, integritate et doctrina commendatum': D. Laynez *Lainii monumenta epistolae et acta patris Jacobi Lainii...* (8 vols, Madrid, 1912-1918), vi, p. vii. This suggestion was repeated by Lainez's secretary, Juan Polanco, in July 1561, who wrote that 'ottenne Sua Signoria Reverendissima [the cardinal of Ferrara] avanti la sua partita di Roma, da Sua Santità, di poter menar seco il reverendo nostro padre maestro Iacomo Laynez': J. A. Polanco, *Polanci complementa epistolae et commentaria p. Joannis Al-*

<sup>23</sup> The French clergy was already in session in August, while the Protestant ministers, only officially invited in July, were beginning to arrive. The first session of the Colloquy took place on 9 September: D. Nugent, *Ecumenism in the Age of the Reformation: The Colloquy of Poissy* (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 92-95; N. Valois, 'Les essais de conciliation religieuse au début du règne de Charles IX', *Revue d'histoire de l'Eglise de France*, 31 (1945)', pp. 248-255. The cardinal's long journey is very well described in the letters by Annibal de Coudret, one of Lainez's assistants: Laynez, *Lainii monumenta*, vi,

137

<sup>19</sup> E. Bonora, *Giudicare i vescovi. La definizione dei poteri nella Chiesa postridentina* (Rome, 2007), pp.

would later write, on this occasion Pius IV had wisely chosen 'a Ulysses over an

change during the following months is a matter that will be discussed later.

**1. From the Colloquy of Poissy to the Edict of Saint-Germain, 1561-1562**

<sup>14</sup> AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 125, p. 55. The text is addressed to 'Conte Alfonso Gonzaga di Novellara' but it

The cardinal of Ferrara left Rome in July 1561 magnificently accompanied by a private choir and over 350 members of his household, an entourage which appeared lavish in comparison to the only 117 knights who had travelled with him on the occasion of his first visit to France in 1536.<sup>20</sup> On this occasion, Ippolito's entourage included a large group ('magna caterva', as Calvin defined it)<sup>21</sup> of ecclesiastics whose duty was to support him during the religious debates, since the Legate, who had never been ordained to the priesthood, was not a champion of theological knowledge. Amongst them was the Jesuit general Diego Lainez, the successor of Loyola, a rigid defender of orthodoxy and faithful to the principles of the Catholic reformation.22 In addition, Ippolito was accompanied by Lainez's secretary, Juan Polanco, eight bishops, several further theologians, and a famous preacher, Angelo Giustiniani. After several weeks of travel, the cardinal and his household crossed the border between France and Italy at the end of August and reached Saint-Germainen-Laye on 19 September, when the French clergy had already gathered in the Do-

<sup>15</sup> The Venetian ambassador to France, Michele Suriano, reported that Catherine de' Medici had told him that Gualterio was 'evilly disposed, and endeavoured to influence her by menaces' (22 September 1561): A. H. Layard (ed), *Despatches of Michele Suriano and Marc'Antonio Barbaro: Venetian Ambassador at the Court of France* (Lymington, 1891), p. 44. In a later report, Suriano confirmed that 'la regina non poteva tollerare l'asprezza e la senestrezza del vescovo di Viterbo': Tommaseo (ed), *Relations*, i, pp. 534-536. See also L. Romier, *Catholiques et Huguenots à la cour de Charles IX* (Paris, 1924), p.

<sup>16</sup> '[The French] erano fin arrivati a ritener i suoi corrieri, persuadendosi di ritrovar nelle lettere qualche trattato occulto col re Filippo': N. Avanzini, 'Gualtieri, Sebastiano', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani*

<sup>17</sup> 25 May 1561: 'Il rigore e la querela non piace a Sua Santità […], ancora chè, avendo preso la strada della piacevolezza per confirmare et guadagnare quelli animi, tutto ciò che si farebbe per altra via sareb-

<sup>18</sup> Gualterio was ordered to wait for Santa Croce's arrival (in October) before leaving France. In the meantime, he had to help the cardinal of Ferrara by giving him any necessary information and devolving any final decision on him: Lestocquoy (ed)*, Correspondance: Lenzi et Gualterio* (Rome, 1977), p. 359. Pacifici, however, argues that the papal nuncio was removed because he had opposed the cardinal of Ferrara: Pacifici, *Ippolito II*, p. 301. For a brief summary of both Gualterio and Santa Croce's ecclesiastical and diplomatic careers, see: B. Barbiche, 'La nonciature de France aux XVI and XVII siècles: les nonces, leur entourage et leur cadre de vie', in A. Koller (ed), *Curie und Politik. Stand und Perspektiven* 

Pius IV's decision to send Ippolito d'Este to France had displeased the queen mother, who saw in his presence at Court an unnecessary foreign interference in French political affairs. According to the dispatch of the Venetian ambassador Michele Suriano to the Doge on 29 July, the queen 'remarked [...] that she was greatly surprised and grieved that the pope should mistrust her and that he showed more confidence in the cardinal of Ferrara'.24 If the pope had been banking on Ippolito's warm personal connections with the Valois monarchy, that calculation was about to be proved wrong. The French kingdom had changed since Ippolito's last visit, more than ten years before, and Catherine de' Medici, who was playing a dangerous game between two factions in a country on the brink of civil war, was afraid

(Rome, 2003). See also Pastor, *History of the Popes*, xvi, pp. 168-169.

be a distruzione del già fatto': Šusta, *Die Römische Curie*, i, p. 187.

*der Nuntiaturberichtsforschung* (Tübingen, 1998), p. 87.

*phonsi de Polanco...* (2 vols, Madrid, 1916-1917), ii, p. 627.

minican convent of Poissy.<sup>23</sup>

Intransigent behaviour had already proved unprofitable, as demonstrated by the animosity that arose between the nuncio Sebastiano Gualterio, Bishop of Viterbo, and the queen mother Catherine de' Medici, who had suffered the nuncio's endless and bitter recriminations on the bad state of religion in France.<sup>15</sup> Aware of the declining reputation of the nuncio, who was so close to the Spanish ambassador that he was suspected of being a spy,16 cardinal Borromeo had recommended Gualterio to use milder manners and to follow 'a path of pleasantness', as the pope did not want him to be too 'rigorous and polemic'.17 This failure in dealing with the Valois crown later induced Pius IV to replace Gualterio with Prospero Santa Croce and, at the same time, to delegate the supervision of the French diplomacy to Ippolito d'Este, who, as we have seen in his role as governor of Siena, generally sought compromise over conflict.18 It is thus clear that the pope's intention was to treat the French kingdom as a patient in need of the most effective antidotes rather than as a subordinate to be returned to the right track by some show of strength – which was indeed the same strategy that the pope was already applying to Germany through legate Giovanni Francesco Commendone.<sup>19</sup> Whether this initial disposition of Pius IV was to

Ajax'14.

is not signed.

228.

188-190.

430-431.

pp. 47-52.

<sup>24</sup> Layard (ed)*, Despatches,* p. 34.

148.

<sup>20</sup> Hollingsworth, *The Cardinal's Hat*, p. 63. The list of the men who took part in Ippolito's journey of 1561 is attached to a letter written to the duke of Mantua on 2 July, published in Pacifici, *Ippolito II*, pp. 430-431.

<sup>21</sup> H. Dufour and H. Meylan (eds), *Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze* (4 vols, Geneva, 1963), iii, p. 148.

<sup>22</sup> Pastor argues that Pius IV had decided to send Lainez with Ippolito d'Este in order to counterbalance the 'political spirit' of the legate with some proven and rigidly ecclesiastical advisors: Pastor, *History of the popes*, xvi, p. 165. In the introduction to the published letters of Diego Lainez, however, it is stated that the legate had asked the pope for the Jesuit's company, as he was looking for a partner 'probitate, prudentia, integritate et doctrina commendatum': D. Laynez *Lainii monumenta epistolae et acta patris Jacobi Lainii...* (8 vols, Madrid, 1912-1918), vi, p. vii. This suggestion was repeated by Lainez's secretary, Juan Polanco, in July 1561, who wrote that 'ottenne Sua Signoria Reverendissima [the cardinal of Ferrara] avanti la sua partita di Roma, da Sua Santità, di poter menar seco il reverendo nostro padre maestro Iacomo Laynez': J. A. Polanco, *Polanci complementa epistolae et commentaria p. Joannis Alphonsi de Polanco...* (2 vols, Madrid, 1916-1917), ii, p. 627.

<sup>23</sup> The French clergy was already in session in August, while the Protestant ministers, only officially invited in July, were beginning to arrive. The first session of the Colloquy took place on 9 September: D. Nugent, *Ecumenism in the Age of the Reformation: The Colloquy of Poissy* (Cambridge, 1974), pp. 92-95; N. Valois, 'Les essais de conciliation religieuse au début du règne de Charles IX', *Revue d'histoire de l'Eglise de France*, 31 (1945)', pp. 248-255. The cardinal's long journey is very well described in the letters by Annibal de Coudret, one of Lainez's assistants: Laynez, *Lainii monumenta*, vi, pp. 47-52.

#### The Path of Pleasantness

that the presence of the pope's emissary might affect her authority and her attempt to pacify the country by means of the religious assembly. She was not wrong, since – as we have seen – among the instructions Ippolito had been given was an order to prevent the French clergy from coming to any agreement on the reforms.<sup>25</sup>

Ippolito himself seems to have felt moderately confident about his good reception at court; but some unpleasant news, sent in great secrecy by his niece Anna d'Este, reached him in September, as he was still on his way to Paris. Anna had urged a courier to meet her uncle and let him know that 'he will neither receive an accommodation in the castle nor be admitted to the secret council, and his powers will not be recognised […] for he comes as an emissary of the pope'.26 This information was partially corrected about ten days later, when one of Ippolito's servants came back from the court bringing the news that some lodgings in the castle had been made been available to his lord.<sup>27</sup> But the compelling problem of Ippolito's faculties as a legate was far from coming to a resolution. Despite his good hopes,28 Chancellor Michel de l'Hôpital refused to accept Ippolito's powers upon his arrival, claiming that his faculties as a papal envoy were in contradiction to a decree of the Estates General recently made (January 1561). This decree, aimed to meet the monarchy's need for funds, deprived the pope of his rights over the French annates, and his representatives of their right to claim them. Furthermore, it stated that the French benefices were to be assigned by the bishops of each dioceses, whereas the legates had also power on this matter. Only in November (and after the promise of not making use of his authority on the annates) did the cardinal of Ferrara finally manage to obtain the royal *placet,* but he had to wait until February 1562 to see his faculties registered by the Paris parlement. <sup>29</sup> He would later describe this modest success as

139

128. See also Bonora, *Giudicare i vescovi*, p. 180; A. Tallon, *La France et le Concile de Trente (1518-*

<sup>30</sup> BEM, Fondo Campori, 189, Rangoni Fulvio – Copialettere (undated but written from Saint-Germain).

<sup>33</sup> About those difficult months, Beza wrote on 4 October 1561 that 'legatus hic valde friges, et supra quam possis credere': Dufour and Meylan (eds), *Correspondance*, iii, p. 182. Tuscan ambassador Tornabuoni also reported that the cardinal was regretting 'essere venuto qua': Desjardins (ed), *Négocia-*

<sup>31</sup> Layard, (ed)*, Despatches*, p. 44; Dufour and Meylan (eds), *Correspondance,* iii, p. 166.

something that 'in different times would not have been considerable, for being so

The legate was also welcomed coldly by the citizens of Paris: the Venetian ambassador stressed in one of his letters that nobody had asked for the Legate's blessing, which was an established tradition, whilst Theodore Beza wrote happily to Calvin that, on the day after his arrival, 'Ferrara is certainly much less happy than he thought he would be'. While entering the city, the member of Ippolito's household who was carrying the cross had been mocked by the crowd (as a personal comment, Beza sarcastically added that from that moment the cardinal had preferred to leave the cross at home or to keep it safe in his heart rather than expose his God to public derision).31 The contemporary writer La Place also reported that some servants laughed at Ippolito and his entourage, calling him 'fox', and that some injurious pamphlets about Alexander VI and Lucrezia Borgia (respectively, Ippolito's grandfather and mother) were circulating across the city.<sup>32</sup> The legate's mission appeared under every respect to be more difficult than initially thought: not only did he find himself opposed by the Calvinist minsters, who were his 'natural enemies', but also coldly welcomed by a court who saw him as an intruder, viewed with suspicion by rigid Catholics who did not appreciate Pius IV's politics of mediation and, on top of that, mocked by the Paris crowd. Compared to the welcome that Ippolito had had from Francis I, and the favour that Henry II had never stopped showing him, this cold reception highlighted that his role in France had changed, that his historic relationship with the Valois had lost ground, and that his representing the pope in such a delicate moment exposed him to unfamiliar resentment. To gain ground within a context which appeared marked by an all-round hostility, the cardinal exploited his

Ippolito d'Este stayed in France until 22 April 1563, when the civil war had already begun, but the crucial months of his legation were those between his arrival in September 1561 and the first months of 1562, when the Edict of Saint-Germain was issued and Antoine de Vendôme definitively took the side of Catholicism.<sup>33</sup> Historians have provided different accounts of the complicated events which followed during this short period of time. Consequently, the role played by the cardinal of Ferrara has been either praised or criticised. If we seek to analyse the outcome of his legation, our conclusion will be quite simple: the Colloquy of Poissy and the subsequent attempts to reach a religious compromise failed completely, as the majority of the French prelates were in favour of postponing any religious concern to a council, and the queen after many hesitations finally ordered the French bishops to go to Trent,

ordinary'.<sup>30</sup>

most effective asset: courtesy.

*1563)* (Rome, 1997), pp. 286-288.

*tions*, iii, p. 466.

<sup>32</sup> La Place, *Commentaires*, pp. 235-36.

<sup>25</sup> Neither the Guises nor Cardinal Tournon were pleased with the legate's presence, nor was the Spanish ambassador Chantonnay. Furthermore, the cardinals of Lorraine, Tournon and D'Armagnac had already been appointed 'legati in Francia per le sollevationi de li heretici' and interpreted the new designation as a lack of trust on the pope's part: ASMO, CDA, Roma, 66, 320.I.19 (17 July 1560); Pastor, *History of the Popes*, xvi, p. 171; Romier, *Catholiques et Huguenots*, p. 225; Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, i, p. 209. <sup>26</sup> ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVI.41 (6 September 1561).

<sup>27</sup> Ibid., 1709.XXVI.42 (15 September 1561).

<sup>28</sup> 'Voglio tuttavia sperare che se consideraranno oltra i meriti de l'antica servitù mia con quella corona, il buon zelo con che Nostro Signore mi ha mandato di qua, et la causa che mi ha fatto pigliar tanto incommodo, che non è stata altra che per servirli, non mi faranno così fatti affronti': ibid.

<sup>29</sup> The Tuscan ambassador, on 12 November, wrote that the queen could not win over the chancellor and had decided to register the legate's powers herself: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, p. 468. Canchellor de l'Hôpital, forced to seal the legate's official letters, had written on the top 'me non consentiente' to express his deep disagreement: P. de La Place, *Commentaires de l'estat de la religion et de la republique sous les rois...* (n. pl., 1565), pp. 234-235. On November 12, Ippolito d'Este wrote to the legates to the Council of Trent that 'dopo molte et lunghe dispute […] aiutandomi sempre gagliardamente la regina et portando ogn'uno di questi grandi rispetto all'honor mio con credermi fermamente ch'io sia per usarne con li debiti rispetti, si è concluso che io potrò usare le prefate facoltà liberamente come hanno fatto quelli che sono stati legati innanzi a me et come se questo editto non fosse stato fatto quanto a questa parte […]. Delle annate spero si farà il medesimo a breve': Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, i, p. 292-293. Ippolito d'Este arrived in France with nine different bulls, seven of which detailed his powers as a legate (including that of inquisitor) but the bulls needed to be registered by the local authorities. In Ippolito's case, the parlement never accepted all of his faculties and ratified only his generic powers as papal legate, as late as 6 February 1562: Barbiche and de Dainville-Barbiche, 'Les légats a latere', pp. 111; 127-

something that 'in different times would not have been considerable, for being so ordinary'.<sup>30</sup>

The legate was also welcomed coldly by the citizens of Paris: the Venetian ambassador stressed in one of his letters that nobody had asked for the Legate's blessing, which was an established tradition, whilst Theodore Beza wrote happily to Calvin that, on the day after his arrival, 'Ferrara is certainly much less happy than he thought he would be'. While entering the city, the member of Ippolito's household who was carrying the cross had been mocked by the crowd (as a personal comment, Beza sarcastically added that from that moment the cardinal had preferred to leave the cross at home or to keep it safe in his heart rather than expose his God to public derision).31 The contemporary writer La Place also reported that some servants laughed at Ippolito and his entourage, calling him 'fox', and that some injurious pamphlets about Alexander VI and Lucrezia Borgia (respectively, Ippolito's grandfather and mother) were circulating across the city.<sup>32</sup> The legate's mission appeared under every respect to be more difficult than initially thought: not only did he find himself opposed by the Calvinist minsters, who were his 'natural enemies', but also coldly welcomed by a court who saw him as an intruder, viewed with suspicion by rigid Catholics who did not appreciate Pius IV's politics of mediation and, on top of that, mocked by the Paris crowd. Compared to the welcome that Ippolito had had from Francis I, and the favour that Henry II had never stopped showing him, this cold reception highlighted that his role in France had changed, that his historic relationship with the Valois had lost ground, and that his representing the pope in such a delicate moment exposed him to unfamiliar resentment. To gain ground within a context which appeared marked by an all-round hostility, the cardinal exploited his most effective asset: courtesy.

Ippolito d'Este stayed in France until 22 April 1563, when the civil war had already begun, but the crucial months of his legation were those between his arrival in September 1561 and the first months of 1562, when the Edict of Saint-Germain was issued and Antoine de Vendôme definitively took the side of Catholicism.33 Historians have provided different accounts of the complicated events which followed during this short period of time. Consequently, the role played by the cardinal of Ferrara has been either praised or criticised. If we seek to analyse the outcome of his legation, our conclusion will be quite simple: the Colloquy of Poissy and the subsequent attempts to reach a religious compromise failed completely, as the majority of the French prelates were in favour of postponing any religious concern to a council, and the queen after many hesitations finally ordered the French bishops to go to Trent,

138

<sup>25</sup> Neither the Guises nor Cardinal Tournon were pleased with the legate's presence, nor was the Spanish ambassador Chantonnay. Furthermore, the cardinals of Lorraine, Tournon and D'Armagnac had already been appointed 'legati in Francia per le sollevationi de li heretici' and interpreted the new designation as a lack of trust on the pope's part: ASMO, CDA, Roma, 66, 320.I.19 (17 July 1560); Pastor, *History of the Popes*, xvi, p. 171; Romier, *Catholiques et Huguenots*, p. 225; Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, i, p. 209.

<sup>28</sup> 'Voglio tuttavia sperare che se consideraranno oltra i meriti de l'antica servitù mia con quella corona, il buon zelo con che Nostro Signore mi ha mandato di qua, et la causa che mi ha fatto pigliar tanto in-

<sup>29</sup> The Tuscan ambassador, on 12 November, wrote that the queen could not win over the chancellor and had decided to register the legate's powers herself: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations,* iii, p. 468. Canchellor de l'Hôpital, forced to seal the legate's official letters, had written on the top 'me non consentiente' to express his deep disagreement: P. de La Place, *Commentaires de l'estat de la religion et de la republique sous les rois...* (n. pl., 1565), pp. 234-235. On November 12, Ippolito d'Este wrote to the legates to the Council of Trent that 'dopo molte et lunghe dispute […] aiutandomi sempre gagliardamente la regina et portando ogn'uno di questi grandi rispetto all'honor mio con credermi fermamente ch'io sia per usarne con li debiti rispetti, si è concluso che io potrò usare le prefate facoltà liberamente come hanno fatto quelli che sono stati legati innanzi a me et come se questo editto non fosse stato fatto quanto a questa parte […]. Delle annate spero si farà il medesimo a breve': Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, i, p. 292-293. Ippolito d'Este arrived in France with nine different bulls, seven of which detailed his powers as a legate (including that of inquisitor) but the bulls needed to be registered by the local authorities. In Ippolito's case, the parlement never accepted all of his faculties and ratified only his generic powers as papal legate, as late as 6 February 1562: Barbiche and de Dainville-Barbiche, 'Les légats a latere', pp. 111; 127-

commodo, che non è stata altra che per servirli, non mi faranno così fatti affronti': ibid.

that the presence of the pope's emissary might affect her authority and her attempt to pacify the country by means of the religious assembly. She was not wrong, since – as we have seen – among the instructions Ippolito had been given was an order to

Ippolito himself seems to have felt moderately confident about his good reception at court; but some unpleasant news, sent in great secrecy by his niece Anna d'Este, reached him in September, as he was still on his way to Paris. Anna had urged a courier to meet her uncle and let him know that 'he will neither receive an accommodation in the castle nor be admitted to the secret council, and his powers will not be recognised […] for he comes as an emissary of the pope'.26 This information was partially corrected about ten days later, when one of Ippolito's servants came back from the court bringing the news that some lodgings in the castle had been made been available to his lord.<sup>27</sup> But the compelling problem of Ippolito's faculties as a legate was far from coming to a resolution. Despite his good hopes,28 Chancellor Michel de l'Hôpital refused to accept Ippolito's powers upon his arrival, claiming that his faculties as a papal envoy were in contradiction to a decree of the Estates General recently made (January 1561). This decree, aimed to meet the monarchy's need for funds, deprived the pope of his rights over the French annates, and his representatives of their right to claim them. Furthermore, it stated that the French benefices were to be assigned by the bishops of each dioceses, whereas the legates had also power on this matter. Only in November (and after the promise of not making use of his authority on the annates) did the cardinal of Ferrara finally manage to obtain the royal *placet,* but he had to wait until February 1562 to see his faculties

<sup>29</sup> He would later describe this modest success as

prevent the French clergy from coming to any agreement on the reforms.<sup>25</sup>

registered by the Paris parlement.

<sup>26</sup> ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVI.41 (6 September 1561).

<sup>27</sup> Ibid., 1709.XXVI.42 (15 September 1561).

<sup>128.</sup> See also Bonora, *Giudicare i vescovi*, p. 180; A. Tallon, *La France et le Concile de Trente (1518- 1563)* (Rome, 1997), pp. 286-288.

<sup>30</sup> BEM, Fondo Campori, 189, Rangoni Fulvio – Copialettere (undated but written from Saint-Germain).

<sup>31</sup> Layard, (ed)*, Despatches*, p. 44; Dufour and Meylan (eds), *Correspondance,* iii, p. 166.

<sup>32</sup> La Place, *Commentaires*, pp. 235-36.

<sup>33</sup> About those difficult months, Beza wrote on 4 October 1561 that 'legatus hic valde friges, et supra quam possis credere': Dufour and Meylan (eds), *Correspondance*, iii, p. 182. Tuscan ambassador Tornabuoni also reported that the cardinal was regretting 'essere venuto qua': Desjardins (ed), *Négociations*, iii, p. 466.

#### The Path of Pleasantness

appointing a lay ambassador who was known for being a good Catholic.<sup>34</sup> Furthermore, Antoine de Vendôme openly took the side of Catholicism, harshly quashing Calvin's hopes (who began from that moment to call him Julian the Apostate)<sup>35</sup> and tying the French crown more closely to Rome. In theory, therefore, the cardinal's mission was a success for the papacy – although it might easily be argued that things would have been the same without his intervention. After all, the Colloquy of Poissy did not need his presence to fail miserably, and the queen's decision to send the bishops to Trent was mainly a result of that failure.

However, whilst historiography had mainly focused on establishing whether the Colloquy of Poissy was a failure and, if so, what contributed to make it a failure, for the purposes of this work this episode is also interesting in terms of the different roles and powers that Ippolito d'Este was required to negotiate, especially in the light of his changed relationship with the French crown, the Este's diplomatic attempts to woo Philip II, and, as we will see, the changing politics of the pope.

The fact that, despite Ippolito's apparent success, the cardinal was overwhelmed by negative criticism from Rome makes the judgement more uncertain. Similar doubts were expressed by twentieth-century historians. Ippolito's biographer, Vincenzo Pacifici, used words of high praise in 1920 to describe the cardinal's amiable manners, forbearance, and subtle skills, but described his mission at Poissy as an apparent success only, because it had not prevented the start of the French civil wars.<sup>36</sup> In his nearly contemporary work, Lucian Romier criticised Ippolito more harshly: his appointment is called a mistake, and Ippolito himself a long since extinguished star, one of the most frivolous and mediocre characters of his time, a man only supported by his vast presumption.37 What Pacifici praised as humanistic spirit designed to establish harmony amongst the parties was for Romier nothing but a Machiavellian game, while the reports the cardinal wrote to Rome show a 'fatuousness that disarms any critic'. The legate's only achievement, in Romier's opinion, was having been the first to identify clearly how important it was for the Church that the king of Navarre should side with the Catholics.38 Fifty years after Romier, Donald Nugent resumed his criticism using almost the same words. He depicts Ippolito d'Este as 'a case of mediocrity as much as moderation, a residue of the frivolous and decadent side of the Renaissance', though he shows more indulgence toward the cardinal's strategy of moderation.39 Overall, these critiques seem to be based on little more than an evaluation of the legate's personality and habits, without considering the constraints that limited his actions and determined the role he played during those months. In particular, deeper attention should be paid to the fact that, during the short period between the legate's appointment and the collapse into war, the pope's opinion of his legate changed significantly, along with his increasing mistrust of the

141

tween the Emperor and the Protestant princes of the Schmalkaldic League.

<sup>40</sup> The Calvinist ministers were indeed surprised when they saw that the papal legate had arrived at Saint-Germain but had not ordered the Catholic clergy to leave the colloquy at once. Calvin himself had been persuaded that, upon Ippolito d'Este's arrival, the Catholics 'palam omne certamen detrectabunt':

<sup>41</sup> On 25 September 1561: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations*, iii, p. 464. The papal nuncio Prospero di Santa Croce believed that many converts had a personal interest for joining the Huguenots: 'Son securo che fra sei mesi, e al più in un anno, in questo regno non vi sarà più un solo ugonotto, per che molti cercano più l'interesse loro proprio che la religione, et gli beneficii che i templi' (17 January 1562): P. di Santa Croce*, Lettres du cardinal di Santa Croce, ècrites pendant sa nonciature en France...* (La Haye, 1717), p.

<sup>42</sup> 6 February 1562: I. Baudoin (ed), *Négociations, ou lettres d'affaires ecclesiastiques et politiques...*  (Paris, 1658), p. 46; see also S. Baluze et al. (eds)*, Miscellanea novo ordine digesta…* (4 vols, apud Vin-

kind of diplomacy practised in France, in the Valois monarchy and in the French sit-

The removal of the papal nuncio Gualterio, a result of his harsh opposition to Catherine de' Medici – which had achieved nothing other than an increase in her diffidence and hesitancy – is a significant example of this 'new' approach of the Papacy to the problematic French situation: in the summer of 1561, Pius IV appeared disposed to negotiate with Paris from a more political and a less dogmatic point of view.40 It was not an uncommon belief that the existing rivalries between the French princes were the principal reason behind the increasing tension that stirred Catherine's kingdom, as observed, for example, by Tuscan ambassador Tornabuoni: 'It is well known that the religious cause is not backed by real zeal, but it is this way because of the Guise and the Bourbons, and with this weapon they try to defeat each other'.41 This explains the high value attributed by Rome to the conversion of the king of Navarre, as Catherine had appointed him lieutenant general of France in March 1561, and he would have been the legitimate candidate for the throne if the

The means by which the pope tried to secure the king's loyalty was not therefore based on religious arguments, but on a more prosaic material exchange (or, to use a sixteenth-century diplomatic expression, the offer of a 'tangible sign' of the pope's good will). To achieve that goal, Pius IV could not have found a more dedicated man than Ippolito d'Este, as the legate himself was deeply convinced that the first step to take in order to heal the country's religious illness had to be to gain its princes to Catholicism, and he regretted that the Church had not intervened earlier: 'If the illness has become so dangerous, for not having been treated when it began to affect the body, should it win over the noble parts, would it not become incurable?'.42 Once the princes had joined the Roman faith, they would impose the true religion in France. Such view regarded a state's internal religious unity and concordance of faith between subjects and sovereign as the best guarantees for the maintenance of the social order. Indeed, in 1555, the principle of 'Cuius regio eius religio' (which translates roughly as 'whose sovereignty, his faith') had guided the division of the Habsburg Empire into Catholic and Protestant states, thus ending the conflict be-

uation in general.

male Valois line had been extinguished.

Dufour and Meylan (eds), *Correspondance,* iii, p. 148.

centium Junctinium, 1761-1764)*,* iv, p. 385.

44.

<sup>34</sup> Tallon, *La France et le Concile*, pp. 338-356.

<sup>35</sup> Dufour and Meylan (eds), *Correspondance,* iv, from 26 February onwards. See also DeCrue, *L'action politique de Calvin hors de Genève: d'après sa correspondence* (Geneva, 1909), pp. 43-70.

<sup>36</sup> Pacifici, *Ippolito II*, pp. 305-307.

<sup>37</sup> Romier, *Catholiques et Huguenots*, pp. 223-224.

<sup>38</sup> Ibid., pp. 226-227.

<sup>39</sup> Nugent, *Ecumenism*, p. 118.

kind of diplomacy practised in France, in the Valois monarchy and in the French situation in general.

The removal of the papal nuncio Gualterio, a result of his harsh opposition to Catherine de' Medici – which had achieved nothing other than an increase in her diffidence and hesitancy – is a significant example of this 'new' approach of the Papacy to the problematic French situation: in the summer of 1561, Pius IV appeared disposed to negotiate with Paris from a more political and a less dogmatic point of view.40 It was not an uncommon belief that the existing rivalries between the French princes were the principal reason behind the increasing tension that stirred Catherine's kingdom, as observed, for example, by Tuscan ambassador Tornabuoni: 'It is well known that the religious cause is not backed by real zeal, but it is this way because of the Guise and the Bourbons, and with this weapon they try to defeat each other'.41 This explains the high value attributed by Rome to the conversion of the king of Navarre, as Catherine had appointed him lieutenant general of France in March 1561, and he would have been the legitimate candidate for the throne if the male Valois line had been extinguished.

The means by which the pope tried to secure the king's loyalty was not therefore based on religious arguments, but on a more prosaic material exchange (or, to use a sixteenth-century diplomatic expression, the offer of a 'tangible sign' of the pope's good will). To achieve that goal, Pius IV could not have found a more dedicated man than Ippolito d'Este, as the legate himself was deeply convinced that the first step to take in order to heal the country's religious illness had to be to gain its princes to Catholicism, and he regretted that the Church had not intervened earlier: 'If the illness has become so dangerous, for not having been treated when it began to affect the body, should it win over the noble parts, would it not become incurable?'.42 Once the princes had joined the Roman faith, they would impose the true religion in France. Such view regarded a state's internal religious unity and concordance of faith between subjects and sovereign as the best guarantees for the maintenance of the social order. Indeed, in 1555, the principle of 'Cuius regio eius religio' (which translates roughly as 'whose sovereignty, his faith') had guided the division of the Habsburg Empire into Catholic and Protestant states, thus ending the conflict between the Emperor and the Protestant princes of the Schmalkaldic League.

140

<sup>35</sup> Dufour and Meylan (eds), *Correspondance,* iv, from 26 February onwards. See also DeCrue, *L'action* 

*politique de Calvin hors de Genève: d'après sa correspondence* (Geneva, 1909), pp. 43-70.

appointing a lay ambassador who was known for being a good Catholic.<sup>34</sup> Furthermore, Antoine de Vendôme openly took the side of Catholicism, harshly quashing Calvin's hopes (who began from that moment to call him Julian the Apostate)<sup>35</sup> and tying the French crown more closely to Rome. In theory, therefore, the cardinal's mission was a success for the papacy – although it might easily be argued that things would have been the same without his intervention. After all, the Colloquy of Poissy did not need his presence to fail miserably, and the queen's decision to send the

However, whilst historiography had mainly focused on establishing whether the Colloquy of Poissy was a failure and, if so, what contributed to make it a failure, for the purposes of this work this episode is also interesting in terms of the different roles and powers that Ippolito d'Este was required to negotiate, especially in the light of his changed relationship with the French crown, the Este's diplomatic attempts to woo Philip II, and, as we will see, the changing politics of the pope.

The fact that, despite Ippolito's apparent success, the cardinal was overwhelmed by negative criticism from Rome makes the judgement more uncertain. Similar doubts were expressed by twentieth-century historians. Ippolito's biographer, Vincenzo Pacifici, used words of high praise in 1920 to describe the cardinal's amiable manners, forbearance, and subtle skills, but described his mission at Poissy as an apparent success only, because it had not prevented the start of the French civil wars.<sup>36</sup> In his nearly contemporary work, Lucian Romier criticised Ippolito more harshly: his appointment is called a mistake, and Ippolito himself a long since extinguished star, one of the most frivolous and mediocre characters of his time, a man only supported by his vast presumption.37 What Pacifici praised as humanistic spirit designed to establish harmony amongst the parties was for Romier nothing but a Machiavellian game, while the reports the cardinal wrote to Rome show a 'fatuousness that disarms any critic'. The legate's only achievement, in Romier's opinion, was having been the first to identify clearly how important it was for the Church that the king of Navarre should side with the Catholics.38 Fifty years after Romier, Donald Nugent resumed his criticism using almost the same words. He depicts Ippolito d'Este as 'a case of mediocrity as much as moderation, a residue of the frivolous and decadent side of the Renaissance', though he shows more indulgence toward the cardinal's strategy of moderation.39 Overall, these critiques seem to be based on little more than an evaluation of the legate's personality and habits, without considering the constraints that limited his actions and determined the role he played during those months. In particular, deeper attention should be paid to the fact that, during the short period between the legate's appointment and the collapse into war, the pope's opinion of his legate changed significantly, along with his increasing mistrust of the

bishops to Trent was mainly a result of that failure.

<sup>34</sup> Tallon, *La France et le Concile*, pp. 338-356.

<sup>37</sup> Romier, *Catholiques et Huguenots*, pp. 223-224.

<sup>36</sup> Pacifici, *Ippolito II*, pp. 305-307.

<sup>38</sup> Ibid., pp. 226-227. <sup>39</sup> Nugent, *Ecumenism*, p. 118.

<sup>40</sup> The Calvinist ministers were indeed surprised when they saw that the papal legate had arrived at Saint-Germain but had not ordered the Catholic clergy to leave the colloquy at once. Calvin himself had been persuaded that, upon Ippolito d'Este's arrival, the Catholics 'palam omne certamen detrectabunt': Dufour and Meylan (eds), *Correspondance,* iii, p. 148.

<sup>41</sup> On 25 September 1561: Desjardins (ed), *Négociations*, iii, p. 464. The papal nuncio Prospero di Santa Croce believed that many converts had a personal interest for joining the Huguenots: 'Son securo che fra sei mesi, e al più in un anno, in questo regno non vi sarà più un solo ugonotto, per che molti cercano più l'interesse loro proprio che la religione, et gli beneficii che i templi' (17 January 1562): P. di Santa Croce*, Lettres du cardinal di Santa Croce, ècrites pendant sa nonciature en France...* (La Haye, 1717), p. 44.

<sup>42</sup> 6 February 1562: I. Baudoin (ed), *Négociations, ou lettres d'affaires ecclesiastiques et politiques...*  (Paris, 1658), p. 46; see also S. Baluze et al. (eds)*, Miscellanea novo ordine digesta…* (4 vols, apud Vincentium Junctinium, 1761-1764)*,* iv, p. 385.

#### The Path of Pleasantness

From the moment of his arrival at the French court, Ippolito d'Este had tried to win Navarre's support by promising him the Spanish Navarre or some other land as a compensation (such as the kingdom of Sardinia). In his diplomatic effort, the legate was backed by the Curia and the queen mother (and backed by the Guise and the Spanish ambassador).<sup>43</sup> Philip II deeply mistrusted the king of Navarre (and the French crown as a whole) and had been often using the promise of restoring Spanish Navarre to manipulate him – and he most probably had no intention to honour his word. Nonetheless, when an envoy reported that Philip II would reward Navarre with some land upon an open demonstration of political and religious loyalty,<sup>44</sup> Navarre must have believed Philip's words to be true, because he stood up in the assembly to defend Catholicism and to speak against the Huguenots and the Edict of Saint-Germain.<sup>45</sup>

After months of negotiations, it is easy to understand how this long-awaited demonstration of support was for the cardinal of Ferrara a major achievement. Therefore, the legate did not miss the chance to remind the pope that his policy of mediation had been successful. Given Antoine de Vendôme's well-known fickleness, though, he also warned Pius IV to offer promptly some sign of the pope's benevolence, or the king might rejoin the Huguenots:

His Holiness will recognise that I made no mistake when I believed that this prince would have thought that it was not wrong to listen to such a good deal. Under this circumstance, I prepare his mind the best way I can, showing him that this opportunity brings along great consequences; and that he must not miss it for any reason in the world (…). I do repeat that this deal is extremely important, committing us to persevere and to avoid, for his sake and for the general benefit, that he might conclude anything beneficial to these Novateurs [Huguenots]. However, as this prince has demonstrated to me that my reasons were really valuable to him, so I state that his intentions are not evil. (…) Therefore, under such a favourable circumstance, I would find the return of Abbot Niquet [Ippolito's secretary, who had been sent to Rome] very helpful, since the king of Navarre and the queen are awaiting with great impatience and ask me for news every day; and if he will carry with him another confirmation of His Holiness's intention on this business, it is certain that this will arrive in time to commit this prince to firmly remain in the right party; although I am not neglecting to hold him with every good hope and in every possible good way;

<sup>45</sup> Sutherland, *Princes*, pp. 70-71.

143

<sup>46</sup> On 10 January 1562: Baudoin (ed), *Négociations*, pp. 5-6; see also Baluze et.al. (eds), *Miscellanea*, iv,

<sup>48</sup> ASMO, CS, 150 (20 November 1561). The same description (with minor variations) is in a letter that Ippolito sent to Cardinal Borromeo a few days earlier, on 12 November (in this version, Ippolito says

<sup>47</sup> Pastor, *History of the Popes*, xvi, pp. 174-175 and Pacifici, *Ippolito II*, pp. 302-306.

that the sermon happened 'hoggi', today): AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 131, pp. 30-32.

and I want to believe that the aforementioned king will not let this assembly promulgate anything of danger, in order not to sabotage himself with respect to the hope

Ippolito d'Este doubled his efforts to hold Navarre. At the same time, he continued to use what he saw as a personal success as a shield against the several recriminations which were addressed to him from Rome. The Legate was blamed in particular for having attended a Huguenot sermon, on Catherine de' Medici and Jeanne d'Albret's invitation, and for having delivered to Rome a request for the concession of the chalice to the laity. With respect to the first point, both Pastor and Pacifici, scholars more favourable to the cardinal, believed that the unfortunate episode was due to 'the ingenuity of a true son of the Renaissance', justified by an excess of courtly deference and zeal.47 Ippolito himself, when justifying his behaviour to his nephew the duke of Ferrara and Cardinal Borromeo, insisted that it would be a *faux pas* to turn down the invitation he received from not just one but two queens, especially considering the general mistrust that had marked his presence at the French court since the very beginning. But he also explained his decision as part of his

I went there, and I do not regret it at all, because besides having pleased the queen as she wished, I could better evaluate the little power of them, as the person who gave the sermon is considered by his supporters as one of the best preachers and he is indeed less than mediocre. (…) If god allows me, I could have gained from this episode as little a trust as to carry on with providing my advices, which I will now be able to give in a more open way whenever it is needed, and I could say I did not waste this opportunity even though nothing will come out of it, because I do think it is sufficient to have pleased the queen mother and to have let her see that if the things here are not to come to that peaceful end that she wishes, that will not occur because of our harshness but rather because of their [the Huguenots'] pertinacity.48

As a return of courtesy, on the following Friday the two queens had heard a sermon by Angelo Giustiniani, the cardinal's preacher, but that neither lessened the scandal nor prevented Pius IV from bitterly complaining to his Legate, especially because while Ippolito claimed that Giustiniani's sermon had been praised by the queens and all those who attended, others pointed out that the preacher had been mocked by the audience and that the legate had conversed with the queen and other

46

that he has been given [the promise of a reward].

strategy of moderation and appeasement:

pp. 378-379.

<sup>43</sup> The queen mother had herself tried to persuade Philip II to satisfy Navarre's ambition: Sutherland, *Princes*, pp. 70-71. Pius IV had done the same, subtly suggesting Philip II 'think the matter through' before the upcoming Council of Trent deliberated in favour of Navarre. To persuade the king of Spain to back the Holy See and take into consideration the 'gran benefitio che può fare a la christianità con dare orecchie a questo negotio', the pope went as far as to send Count Persico Broccardo to Madrid to tell Philip II that he was ready to crown him king of England and France and to endorse his election as the new emperor after the death of Ferdinand I: Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, i, pp. 190; 268-271; 280-281.

<sup>44</sup> As Lucrezio Tassoni, a member of Ippolito's household, wrote to Montemerlo, Ippolito's agent in Spain: 'Monsignor di Usanza portò da Sua Maestà Cattolica la ricompensa al re di Navarra in qualche loco, purchè volesse favorir quelli della buona fede et catolici, et che quando non facesse questo che Sua Maestà Cattolica non poteva che aiutare a castigar gli heretici': BEM, Fondo Campori, 189, Rangoni Fulvio – Copialettere, 25 January 1562.

and I want to believe that the aforementioned king will not let this assembly promulgate anything of danger, in order not to sabotage himself with respect to the hope that he has been given [the promise of a reward]. 46

Ippolito d'Este doubled his efforts to hold Navarre. At the same time, he continued to use what he saw as a personal success as a shield against the several recriminations which were addressed to him from Rome. The Legate was blamed in particular for having attended a Huguenot sermon, on Catherine de' Medici and Jeanne d'Albret's invitation, and for having delivered to Rome a request for the concession of the chalice to the laity. With respect to the first point, both Pastor and Pacifici, scholars more favourable to the cardinal, believed that the unfortunate episode was due to 'the ingenuity of a true son of the Renaissance', justified by an excess of courtly deference and zeal.47 Ippolito himself, when justifying his behaviour to his nephew the duke of Ferrara and Cardinal Borromeo, insisted that it would be a *faux pas* to turn down the invitation he received from not just one but two queens, especially considering the general mistrust that had marked his presence at the French court since the very beginning. But he also explained his decision as part of his strategy of moderation and appeasement:

I went there, and I do not regret it at all, because besides having pleased the queen as she wished, I could better evaluate the little power of them, as the person who gave the sermon is considered by his supporters as one of the best preachers and he is indeed less than mediocre. (…) If god allows me, I could have gained from this episode as little a trust as to carry on with providing my advices, which I will now be able to give in a more open way whenever it is needed, and I could say I did not waste this opportunity even though nothing will come out of it, because I do think it is sufficient to have pleased the queen mother and to have let her see that if the things here are not to come to that peaceful end that she wishes, that will not occur because of our harshness but rather because of their [the Huguenots'] pertinacity.48

As a return of courtesy, on the following Friday the two queens had heard a sermon by Angelo Giustiniani, the cardinal's preacher, but that neither lessened the scandal nor prevented Pius IV from bitterly complaining to his Legate, especially because while Ippolito claimed that Giustiniani's sermon had been praised by the queens and all those who attended, others pointed out that the preacher had been mocked by the audience and that the legate had conversed with the queen and other

142

<sup>43</sup> The queen mother had herself tried to persuade Philip II to satisfy Navarre's ambition: Sutherland, *Princes*, pp. 70-71. Pius IV had done the same, subtly suggesting Philip II 'think the matter through' before the upcoming Council of Trent deliberated in favour of Navarre. To persuade the king of Spain to back the Holy See and take into consideration the 'gran benefitio che può fare a la christianità con dare orecchie a questo negotio', the pope went as far as to send Count Persico Broccardo to Madrid to tell Philip II that he was ready to crown him king of England and France and to endorse his election as the new emperor after the death of Ferdinand I: Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, i, pp. 190; 268-271; 280-281. <sup>44</sup> As Lucrezio Tassoni, a member of Ippolito's household, wrote to Montemerlo, Ippolito's agent in Spain: 'Monsignor di Usanza portò da Sua Maestà Cattolica la ricompensa al re di Navarra in qualche loco, purchè volesse favorir quelli della buona fede et catolici, et che quando non facesse questo che Sua Maestà Cattolica non poteva che aiutare a castigar gli heretici': BEM, Fondo Campori, 189, Rangoni

From the moment of his arrival at the French court, Ippolito d'Este had tried to win Navarre's support by promising him the Spanish Navarre or some other land as a compensation (such as the kingdom of Sardinia). In his diplomatic effort, the legate was backed by the Curia and the queen mother (and backed by the Guise and the Spanish ambassador).<sup>43</sup> Philip II deeply mistrusted the king of Navarre (and the French crown as a whole) and had been often using the promise of restoring Spanish Navarre to manipulate him – and he most probably had no intention to honour his word. Nonetheless, when an envoy reported that Philip II would reward Navarre with some land upon an open demonstration of political and religious loyalty,<sup>44</sup> Navarre must have believed Philip's words to be true, because he stood up in the assembly to defend Catholicism and to speak against the Huguenots and the Edict of

After months of negotiations, it is easy to understand how this long-awaited demonstration of support was for the cardinal of Ferrara a major achievement. Therefore, the legate did not miss the chance to remind the pope that his policy of mediation had been successful. Given Antoine de Vendôme's well-known fickleness, though, he also warned Pius IV to offer promptly some sign of the pope's be-

His Holiness will recognise that I made no mistake when I believed that this prince would have thought that it was not wrong to listen to such a good deal. Under this circumstance, I prepare his mind the best way I can, showing him that this opportunity brings along great consequences; and that he must not miss it for any reason in the world (…). I do repeat that this deal is extremely important, committing us to persevere and to avoid, for his sake and for the general benefit, that he might conclude anything beneficial to these Novateurs [Huguenots]. However, as this prince has demonstrated to me that my reasons were really valuable to him, so I state that his intentions are not evil. (…) Therefore, under such a favourable circumstance, I would find the return of Abbot Niquet [Ippolito's secretary, who had been sent to Rome] very helpful, since the king of Navarre and the queen are awaiting with great impatience and ask me for news every day; and if he will carry with him another confirmation of His Holiness's intention on this business, it is certain that this will arrive in time to commit this prince to firmly remain in the right party; although I am not neglecting to hold him with every good hope and in every possible good way;

Saint-Germain.<sup>45</sup>

nevolence, or the king might rejoin the Huguenots:

Fulvio – Copialettere, 25 January 1562. <sup>45</sup> Sutherland, *Princes*, pp. 70-71.

<sup>46</sup> On 10 January 1562: Baudoin (ed), *Négociations*, pp. 5-6; see also Baluze et.al. (eds), *Miscellanea*, iv, pp. 378-379.

<sup>47</sup> Pastor, *History of the Popes*, xvi, pp. 174-175 and Pacifici, *Ippolito II*, pp. 302-306.

<sup>48</sup> ASMO, CS, 150 (20 November 1561). The same description (with minor variations) is in a letter that Ippolito sent to Cardinal Borromeo a few days earlier, on 12 November (in this version, Ippolito says that the sermon happened 'hoggi', today): AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 131, pp. 30-32.

ladies on religious matters in such terms as to concern even the ambassador of the duke of Ferrara.49

The scandal of the Huguenot sermon took place shortly after the forwarding of a request, on the behalf of the queen mother, to allow communion under both kinds in France, which had greatly displeased Pius IV and increased his resentment. When trying to understand what had changed in the pope's inclination after the summer, one should first consider that the months before the civil war broke out were marked by an increasing mutual dissatisfaction between the pope and the French crown. The pope might have been willing to discuss some liturgical concessions in order to overcome the rift within French Christianity, but he had no intention of giving up his powers as the spiritual head of the Catholic world and allowing a national assembly to take any decision on this matter, and certainly not an open confrontation with the Huguenots led by a lay sovereign. It was Rome which had to set the time and the place of discussion, and the General Council at Trent was the only authorized forum.50

The fact that Catherine insisted promoting assemblies where the Calvinists were heard and allowed to express their theological beliefs, without any clear declaration of loyalty from the Valois to the Catholic Church, only served to increase the pope's mistrust. When the French ambassador to Rome, on 24 October 1562, addressed the pope with the request of communion *sub utraque specie nomine totius ecclesiae Gallicanae*, or at least a temporary concession in view of the opening of the Council of Trent, Pius IV promised to discuss the request in the College of Cardinals but never did. Besides the opposition of the Spanish ambassador and, presumably, of some of the cardinals, the news that no official resolution had been made at Poissy on the question of communion in both kinds, and that there was not unanimity amongst the clergy on this matter – contrary to what the French ambassador had claimed when presenting his request to Pius IV – no doubt helped to change the pope's mind. Therefore, when a few weeks later Ippolito's secretary Niquet arrived

145

<sup>51</sup> Letter from Pius IV to Ippolito d'Este, on 4 January 1562: Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, i, p. 330. <sup>52</sup> BEM, Fondo Campori, 189, Rangoni Fulvio – Copialettere (the letter is not dated, but it must have

been written between 17 January 1562 and the end of the month).

in Rome and presented the same request, Pius IV felt betrayed by his legate, and he replied that since no majority at Poissy had approved such a resolution, the request

Monsieur de Chantonnay, ambassador of the Catholic king to this court, had told me on behalf of and at the order of His Majesty that he heard about the request I forwarded to Rome for the concession of communion under both kinds, also kindly letting me know that, considering my position and my reputation, he was quite surprised. […] The queen insistently asked me if my powers allowed me to concede communion under both kinds, and since I replied that I could not, she pleaded me to write to His Holiness and beg him on her behalf to concede the communion, so that it could be used to comfort many people who greatly require it, because she hoped to keep them well inclined toward the good religion. I replied trying to persuade her with many good arguments to change her mind, but she did not […]. And Niquet's task was to report to His Holiness that, even if he wanted to satisfy the queen in this way, this should not have happened through a general concession. But I thought that it was not bad to give this power to the three cardinals, who represent together papal authority here, that is the cardinals Tournon and Lorraine and me […], the power to grant the chalice only to somebody who seemed to us to be moved by genuine devotion and when it could be done without scandal; this same authority has been already given to the bishops of Verona and Fano and to Paghino [Luigi Lippomano, Pietro Bertano and Sebastiano Pighino] when they were sent to Germany [in 1548].52

It is undeniable that the cardinal was playing with fire, and that in return for his initiative, he would collect severe criticisms from both the Spanish king and the increasingly dissatisfied Pius IV. Given that, as we have seen in the previous chapter, Ippolito d'Este was trying, at the same time as his legation to Paris, to make up for the military support that the Este had offered to France during the last stage of the Italian wars, it is easy to understand why any criticism from Spain might have nega-

The legate, however, was not the only Catholic prelate in France who believed that some reform of the liturgy would solve the Huguenot problem. The queen mother had not lied when telling the pope that many ecclesiastics were persuaded of the necessity of agreeing the reforms: in December 1561, after the failure of the Colloquy of Poissy, five Calvinist ministers and five Catholic ecclesiastics named by the queen had been summoned to define a common statement of belief around the

tive consequences not only for him as a legate but also for his whole family.

The cardinal of Ferrara's point of view is explained in a letter he wrote in January 1562 to one of his own agents in Madrid, to provide a defence of his behaviour in front of Philip II, since the Spanish king was no less irritated than the pope (and his ambassador Chantonnay had often accused Ippolito of complicity with the here-

coming from his legate seemed to him to be 'very extravagant'.<sup>51</sup>

tics):

<sup>49</sup> Ippolito to the duke of Ferrara on 20 November 1561: 'Essendo non solamente essa regina di Navarra, ma il re suo marito, cardinale di Armignach, Sciatiglione, Principe di Condè amiraglio et altri signori venuti a desinar meco et così doppo pranso tutti insieme andassimo ne la capella qui del castello con un gran concorso veramente di prelati et altre persone honorate, dove frate Angelo de l'ordine degl'Osservanti che ho con me fece la predica, la qual si conobbe che fu grata a molto etiamdio di quelli che erano stimati esserne abhorriti': ASMO, CS, 150 (20 November 1561). Quite different was the opinion of the Tuscan ambassador Tornabuoni, who reported that the audience had listened to Giustiniani 'con poca reverenza, perché vi fu sbeffeggiamento degli ascoltanti, né anco tanto coperti che non fussero conosciuti da tutti' (20 November 1561): Desjardins (ed), *Négociations*, iii, p. 468. The Ferrarese ambassador, Giulio Alvarotti, wrote to Duke Alfonso II d'Este that 'La regina istessa desinò poi il venere seguente con sua signoria illustrissima [Ippolito d'Este] ma portò il suo piato et fu di carne et il dopo disnar andò nella capella del castello alla predica d'un theologo, il cardinale malintendendo, stette la sù ad alto ov'è l'organo con altre dame ove sterono ragionando con dicendo et fondando, di maniera che chi non tocca con mano che qua si ride et burla di quelle cose della nostra religione sta in un grande errore, pure noi ci rimettiamo a chi la nega et intenda meglio di noi': ASMO, AE, Francia, 36, fo. 54v (24 November 1561).

<sup>50</sup> The pope had already manifested his point of view to the queen in the summer before the Colloquy of Poissy, when he unsuccessfully tried to persuade her to 'renvoyer toutes le questions […] à la decision du concile universel': Valois, 'Les essais de conciliation', p. 240.

in Rome and presented the same request, Pius IV felt betrayed by his legate, and he replied that since no majority at Poissy had approved such a resolution, the request coming from his legate seemed to him to be 'very extravagant'.<sup>51</sup>

The cardinal of Ferrara's point of view is explained in a letter he wrote in January 1562 to one of his own agents in Madrid, to provide a defence of his behaviour in front of Philip II, since the Spanish king was no less irritated than the pope (and his ambassador Chantonnay had often accused Ippolito of complicity with the heretics):

Monsieur de Chantonnay, ambassador of the Catholic king to this court, had told me on behalf of and at the order of His Majesty that he heard about the request I forwarded to Rome for the concession of communion under both kinds, also kindly letting me know that, considering my position and my reputation, he was quite surprised. […] The queen insistently asked me if my powers allowed me to concede communion under both kinds, and since I replied that I could not, she pleaded me to write to His Holiness and beg him on her behalf to concede the communion, so that it could be used to comfort many people who greatly require it, because she hoped to keep them well inclined toward the good religion. I replied trying to persuade her with many good arguments to change her mind, but she did not […]. And Niquet's task was to report to His Holiness that, even if he wanted to satisfy the queen in this way, this should not have happened through a general concession. But I thought that it was not bad to give this power to the three cardinals, who represent together papal authority here, that is the cardinals Tournon and Lorraine and me […], the power to grant the chalice only to somebody who seemed to us to be moved by genuine devotion and when it could be done without scandal; this same authority has been already given to the bishops of Verona and Fano and to Paghino [Luigi Lippomano, Pietro Bertano and Sebastiano Pighino] when they were sent to Germany [in 1548].52

It is undeniable that the cardinal was playing with fire, and that in return for his initiative, he would collect severe criticisms from both the Spanish king and the increasingly dissatisfied Pius IV. Given that, as we have seen in the previous chapter, Ippolito d'Este was trying, at the same time as his legation to Paris, to make up for the military support that the Este had offered to France during the last stage of the Italian wars, it is easy to understand why any criticism from Spain might have negative consequences not only for him as a legate but also for his whole family.

The legate, however, was not the only Catholic prelate in France who believed that some reform of the liturgy would solve the Huguenot problem. The queen mother had not lied when telling the pope that many ecclesiastics were persuaded of the necessity of agreeing the reforms: in December 1561, after the failure of the Colloquy of Poissy, five Calvinist ministers and five Catholic ecclesiastics named by the queen had been summoned to define a common statement of belief around the

144

<sup>50</sup> The pope had already manifested his point of view to the queen in the summer before the Colloquy of Poissy, when he unsuccessfully tried to persuade her to 'renvoyer toutes le questions […] à la decision

du concile universel': Valois, 'Les essais de conciliation', p. 240.

<sup>49</sup> Ippolito to the duke of Ferrara on 20 November 1561: 'Essendo non solamente essa regina di Navarra, ma il re suo marito, cardinale di Armignach, Sciatiglione, Principe di Condè amiraglio et altri signori venuti a desinar meco et così doppo pranso tutti insieme andassimo ne la capella qui del castello con un gran concorso veramente di prelati et altre persone honorate, dove frate Angelo de l'ordine degl'Osservanti che ho con me fece la predica, la qual si conobbe che fu grata a molto etiamdio di quelli che erano stimati esserne abhorriti': ASMO, CS, 150 (20 November 1561). Quite different was the opinion of the Tuscan ambassador Tornabuoni, who reported that the audience had listened to Giustiniani 'con poca reverenza, perché vi fu sbeffeggiamento degli ascoltanti, né anco tanto coperti che non fussero conosciuti da tutti' (20 November 1561): Desjardins (ed), *Négociations*, iii, p. 468. The Ferrarese ambassador, Giulio Alvarotti, wrote to Duke Alfonso II d'Este that 'La regina istessa desinò poi il venere seguente con sua signoria illustrissima [Ippolito d'Este] ma portò il suo piato et fu di carne et il dopo disnar andò nella capella del castello alla predica d'un theologo, il cardinale malintendendo, stette la sù ad alto ov'è l'organo con altre dame ove sterono ragionando con dicendo et fondando, di maniera che chi non tocca con mano che qua si ride et burla di quelle cose della nostra religione sta in un grande errore, pure noi ci rimettiamo a chi la nega et intenda meglio di noi': ASMO, AE, Francia, 36, fo. 54v (24

ladies on religious matters in such terms as to concern even the ambassador of the

The scandal of the Huguenot sermon took place shortly after the forwarding of a request, on the behalf of the queen mother, to allow communion under both kinds in France, which had greatly displeased Pius IV and increased his resentment. When trying to understand what had changed in the pope's inclination after the summer, one should first consider that the months before the civil war broke out were marked by an increasing mutual dissatisfaction between the pope and the French crown. The pope might have been willing to discuss some liturgical concessions in order to overcome the rift within French Christianity, but he had no intention of giving up his powers as the spiritual head of the Catholic world and allowing a national assembly to take any decision on this matter, and certainly not an open confrontation with the Huguenots led by a lay sovereign. It was Rome which had to set the time and the place of discussion, and the General Council at Trent was the only authorized fo-

The fact that Catherine insisted promoting assemblies where the Calvinists were heard and allowed to express their theological beliefs, without any clear declaration of loyalty from the Valois to the Catholic Church, only served to increase the pope's mistrust. When the French ambassador to Rome, on 24 October 1562, addressed the pope with the request of communion *sub utraque specie nomine totius ecclesiae Gallicanae*, or at least a temporary concession in view of the opening of the Council of Trent, Pius IV promised to discuss the request in the College of Cardinals but never did. Besides the opposition of the Spanish ambassador and, presumably, of some of the cardinals, the news that no official resolution had been made at Poissy on the question of communion in both kinds, and that there was not unanimity amongst the clergy on this matter – contrary to what the French ambassador had claimed when presenting his request to Pius IV – no doubt helped to change the pope's mind. Therefore, when a few weeks later Ippolito's secretary Niquet arrived

duke of Ferrara.49

rum.50

November 1561).

<sup>51</sup> Letter from Pius IV to Ippolito d'Este, on 4 January 1562: Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, i, p. 330.

<sup>52</sup> BEM, Fondo Campori, 189, Rangoni Fulvio – Copialettere (the letter is not dated, but it must have been written between 17 January 1562 and the end of the month).

#### The Path of Pleasantness

Lord's Supper (known as the *petit colloque*).<sup>53</sup> In the same period of time, the Legate's apartments had hosted the editing of a long memorial addressed to the pope, known as the 'Remonstrances faites au pape Pie IV de la part du roy Charles IX'.<sup>54</sup> The alleged author was the bishop of Valence, Jean de Monluc, who had already expressed his conciliatory view on the French religious division during the Colloquy of Poissy and stood amongst those who thought a liturgical reform was not only needed but recommendable. In the 'Remonstrances', he outlined a project to reunify the Church through some of the long-awaited liturgical reforms, such as communion under both kinds, the simplification of the rite of Baptism, the introduction of the Psalms in French during the Mass and a reduction in the use of sacred images. This series of concessions, in Monluc's opinion, were the only means of 'sweet persuasion' that could be adopted in a kingdom where a quarter of the population had already rejected Roman obedience, though they were not to be considered 'heretics' but only 'schismatics'.55

The 'Remonstrances' were then sent to the pope by Ippolito d'Este, upon Catherine de Medici's request, and circulated through the French Court, to the irritation and bewilderment of many on the Catholic side. The pope himself was extremely displeased by the reading of the memorial, and cardinal Borromeo wrote back to Ippolito that Pius IV believed Catherine's requests to be 'wicked' and 'impious'.56 Monluc and the other Catholic ecclesiastics who had taken part in the restricted colloquy of Saint-Germain were prosecuted for heresy by the Holy Office, summoned to Rome in April 1563 and excommunicated on the grounds of contumacy in the following October (Cardinal Chatillon had already been excommunicated in March 1563). They were, besides the bishop of Valence, the theologian Jean Bouteillier and six further bishops.<sup>57</sup> The records of the consistory that deposed and excommunicated the French prelates show that Jean de Monluc, in 1563, was considered not just as a heretic but almost as a heresiarch, and that the main charges against him entailed

147

<sup>58</sup> These included the worship of images, the sacrificial value of the mass, and communion under both kinds. He had also introduced in his diocese 'ritum baptismandi pueros et orandi modum pro ut Calvinii' and the Book of Psalms in French, so that 'non hereticus modo sed novorum auctor dogmatum inter

<sup>59</sup> 'In questo colloquio fu portato uno scritto quale già era stato dato alla regina, et in esso si conteneva molti articoli falsi, et molti credevano che quel scritto fosse stato composto dal sopradetto vescovo di Valenza, poichè lui non cessava di aludare el scritto […]. Et si sparse una voce, fra tutti quelli che erano in quella sopradetta camera, che persuadeva il cardinale legato che accettasse la sopradetta scrittura con tutti gli articoli contenuti in essa': ACDF, SO, St. St., R4-d, fo. 573-v. Elena Bonora has argued that this inquisitorial initiative was part of an effort to avoid that clerics whose orthodoxy was dubious could take part in the Council of Trent. At the same time, however, such intervention was setting the benchmark for a new 'inquisitorial paradigm' that would drive papal foreign politics in the following years, subjecting the work of Church diplomats operating in European 'dangerous zones' to the oversight of the Roman

<sup>60</sup> This was Lainez's only intervention during the Colloquy and focused on the Eucharist, as a reply to lecture on the same subject by exiled Italian reformer Peter Martyr Vermigli. Ippolito d'Este was absent. Both Lainez's secretary, Juan Polanco, and Annibal de Coudret summarised the speech in two letters written the day after the session: Laynez, *Lainii monumenta*, vi, pp. 54-64. See also La Place, *Commen-*

<sup>61</sup> The Society of Jesus was officially introduced to France in September 1561. Between December and February 1562, Lainez committed himself to preach in Paris (since, according to Juan Polanco, his

hereticos habebatur': AAV, *Arch. Concist., Acta Misc.*, 34, fos. 185-186.

Inquisition: Bonora, *Giudicare i vescovi*, pp. 165-179; 196-207.

*taires*, pp. 299-300.

almost everything that had been included in the 'Remonstrances'.58 Several witnesses were also questioned by Inquisitor Ghislieri to collect proof of Ippolito d'Este's heresy, using his participation to that episode as evidence. Some of the witnesses recalled that the bishop of Valence had denied the sacrificial value of the Mass and expressed other heretical opinions during some private religious discussions that took place in Ippolito's lodgings in the palace of Saint-Germain between Christmas 1561 and Lent 1562, in the presence of several Catholic ecclesiastics, who were all suspected of secretly professing Calvinism, and of Ippolito d'Este himself. According to one of those witnesses, on at least one occasion the Legate had had a 'very long conversation' with one of the 'heretics' and had been persuaded to accept all the liturgical requests put forward by the bishop of Valence in the 'Remonstranc-

Despite these accusations, Ippolito d'Este was never summoned for questioning by the inquisition. Nonetheless, the fact that his legation, which had started as the result of a political evaluation, was perceived by the end of November 1561 as excessively tolerant to the Huguenots (and almost as complicit with the heretics in 1563) demonstrates how the Church was gradually setting new standards in its foreign relations. Amongst Ippolito's colleagues in France, however, one person was already fully in support of cardinal Ghislieri's approach to foreign politics: the Jesuit Diego Lainez, delivering a lecture on 26 September, argued against the legitimacy of the Colloquy and, invoking the pope's superior authority, refused to take part in any open discussion with 'Satan's ministers' – whom he called 'monkeys' and 'foxes'.60 The Jesuit's letters are marked by an utterly negative opinion of the state of Catholicism and the loss of millions of French souls, but contain very few direct references to what was happening in Saint-Germain. Lainez's energies appear to have been more focused while he was in France on managing his Society's progress and visiting other Jesuits in Paris.<sup>61</sup> Overall, this behaviour was the perfect counterbalance to

es'.59

<sup>53</sup> On this subject, see: Nugent, *Ecumenism*, pp. 161-177. Nugent has also very appropriately defined the problem of the Eucharist during the Colloquy of Poissy as the 'apple of discord'.

<sup>54</sup> The text was published in L. de Condé, *Mèmoires de Condé, ou recueil pour servir à l'histoire de France…* (6 vols, Londres [i. e. The Hague?], 1743), ii, p. 562-575.

<sup>55</sup> Valois, 'Les essais de conciliation', pp. 263-264; Bonora, *Giudicare i vescovi*, pp. 170-173. On the discussion about the use of images and the 'position intermédiaire' of Monluc see also C. Occhipinti, 'Disputes françaises sur les images sacrées (1561-1562): le cardinal Hippolyte d'Este et les colloques religieux à la cour de Catherine de Médicis', *Seizième Siècle*, 11 (2015). On Monluc and his religious view, and especially on his role in the 'third party', or 'moyenneurs', see Turchetti, *Concordia o tolleranza?*, pp. 264-268; T. Wanegffelen, *Ni Rome ni Genève. Des fidèles entre deux chaires en France au XVI siècle* (Paris, 2006), pp. 194-208; Alonge, *Ambasciatori*, pp. 250-255.

<sup>56</sup> Valois, 'Les essais de conciliation', p. 264. Spanish ambassador Chantonnay, for instance, wrote that 'combien qu'il semble ce soit quelque Catholique complaignans la calamité du temps, si es-ce du dicté de l'evesque de Valence, pour (sous prétexte de piété) sémer sa faulce doctrine': Condé, *Mèmoires de Condé*, ii, p. 20. A copy of a 'reformation' – most likely the 'Remonstrances' – was sent by the English ambassador to France, Nicholas Throckmorton, to Queen Elizabeth I. Throckmorton had apparently read the text, because he described it to the queen as quite resembling her religious reform: C. G. Bayne, *Anglo-Roman Relations 1558-1565* (Oxford, 1968), p. 136.

<sup>57</sup> Antonio Caracciolo, bishop of Troyes; Charles Guillart, bishop of Chartres; Claude Régin, bishop of Oloron; Jean Chaumont de Saint-Roman, bishop of Aix; Louis d'Albret, bishop of Lescar; Jean de Saint-Gelais, bishop of Uzès: AAV, *Arch. Concist., Acta Misc.*, 34, fos. 184ss.

almost everything that had been included in the 'Remonstrances'.58 Several witnesses were also questioned by Inquisitor Ghislieri to collect proof of Ippolito d'Este's heresy, using his participation to that episode as evidence. Some of the witnesses recalled that the bishop of Valence had denied the sacrificial value of the Mass and expressed other heretical opinions during some private religious discussions that took place in Ippolito's lodgings in the palace of Saint-Germain between Christmas 1561 and Lent 1562, in the presence of several Catholic ecclesiastics, who were all suspected of secretly professing Calvinism, and of Ippolito d'Este himself. According to one of those witnesses, on at least one occasion the Legate had had a 'very long conversation' with one of the 'heretics' and had been persuaded to accept all the liturgical requests put forward by the bishop of Valence in the 'Remonstrances'.59

Despite these accusations, Ippolito d'Este was never summoned for questioning by the inquisition. Nonetheless, the fact that his legation, which had started as the result of a political evaluation, was perceived by the end of November 1561 as excessively tolerant to the Huguenots (and almost as complicit with the heretics in 1563) demonstrates how the Church was gradually setting new standards in its foreign relations. Amongst Ippolito's colleagues in France, however, one person was already fully in support of cardinal Ghislieri's approach to foreign politics: the Jesuit Diego Lainez, delivering a lecture on 26 September, argued against the legitimacy of the Colloquy and, invoking the pope's superior authority, refused to take part in any open discussion with 'Satan's ministers' – whom he called 'monkeys' and 'foxes'.60 The Jesuit's letters are marked by an utterly negative opinion of the state of Catholicism and the loss of millions of French souls, but contain very few direct references to what was happening in Saint-Germain. Lainez's energies appear to have been more focused while he was in France on managing his Society's progress and visiting other Jesuits in Paris.<sup>61</sup> Overall, this behaviour was the perfect counterbalance to

146

<sup>57</sup> Antonio Caracciolo, bishop of Troyes; Charles Guillart, bishop of Chartres; Claude Régin, bishop of Oloron; Jean Chaumont de Saint-Roman, bishop of Aix; Louis d'Albret, bishop of Lescar; Jean de

Lord's Supper (known as the *petit colloque*).<sup>53</sup> In the same period of time, the Legate's apartments had hosted the editing of a long memorial addressed to the pope, known as the 'Remonstrances faites au pape Pie IV de la part du roy Charles IX'.<sup>54</sup> The alleged author was the bishop of Valence, Jean de Monluc, who had already expressed his conciliatory view on the French religious division during the Colloquy of Poissy and stood amongst those who thought a liturgical reform was not only needed but recommendable. In the 'Remonstrances', he outlined a project to reunify the Church through some of the long-awaited liturgical reforms, such as communion under both kinds, the simplification of the rite of Baptism, the introduction of the Psalms in French during the Mass and a reduction in the use of sacred images. This series of concessions, in Monluc's opinion, were the only means of 'sweet persuasion' that could be adopted in a kingdom where a quarter of the population had already rejected Roman obedience, though they were not to be considered 'heretics'

The 'Remonstrances' were then sent to the pope by Ippolito d'Este, upon Catherine de Medici's request, and circulated through the French Court, to the irritation and bewilderment of many on the Catholic side. The pope himself was extremely displeased by the reading of the memorial, and cardinal Borromeo wrote back to Ippolito that Pius IV believed Catherine's requests to be 'wicked' and 'impious'.56 Monluc and the other Catholic ecclesiastics who had taken part in the restricted colloquy of Saint-Germain were prosecuted for heresy by the Holy Office, summoned to Rome in April 1563 and excommunicated on the grounds of contumacy in the following October (Cardinal Chatillon had already been excommunicated in March 1563). They were, besides the bishop of Valence, the theologian Jean Bouteillier and six further bishops.<sup>57</sup> The records of the consistory that deposed and excommunicated the French prelates show that Jean de Monluc, in 1563, was considered not just as a heretic but almost as a heresiarch, and that the main charges against him entailed

<sup>53</sup> On this subject, see: Nugent, *Ecumenism*, pp. 161-177. Nugent has also very appropriately defined the

54 The text was published in L. de Condé, *Mèmoires de Condé, ou recueil pour servir à l'histoire de* 

<sup>55</sup> Valois, 'Les essais de conciliation', pp. 263-264; Bonora, *Giudicare i vescovi*, pp. 170-173. On the discussion about the use of images and the 'position intermédiaire' of Monluc see also C. Occhipinti, 'Disputes françaises sur les images sacrées (1561-1562): le cardinal Hippolyte d'Este et les colloques religieux à la cour de Catherine de Médicis', *Seizième Siècle*, 11 (2015). On Monluc and his religious view, and especially on his role in the 'third party', or 'moyenneurs', see Turchetti, *Concordia o tolleranza?*, pp. 264-268; T. Wanegffelen, *Ni Rome ni Genève. Des fidèles entre deux chaires en France* 

<sup>56</sup> Valois, 'Les essais de conciliation', p. 264. Spanish ambassador Chantonnay, for instance, wrote that 'combien qu'il semble ce soit quelque Catholique complaignans la calamité du temps, si es-ce du dicté de l'evesque de Valence, pour (sous prétexte de piété) sémer sa faulce doctrine': Condé, *Mèmoires de Condé*, ii, p. 20. A copy of a 'reformation' – most likely the 'Remonstrances' – was sent by the English ambassador to France, Nicholas Throckmorton, to Queen Elizabeth I. Throckmorton had apparently read the text, because he described it to the queen as quite resembling her religious reform: C. G. Bayne, *An-*

problem of the Eucharist during the Colloquy of Poissy as the 'apple of discord'.

*au XVI siècle* (Paris, 2006), pp. 194-208; Alonge, *Ambasciatori*, pp. 250-255.

Saint-Gelais, bishop of Uzès: AAV, *Arch. Concist., Acta Misc.*, 34, fos. 184ss.

*France…* (6 vols, Londres [i. e. The Hague?], 1743), ii, p. 562-575.

*glo-Roman Relations 1558-1565* (Oxford, 1968), p. 136.

but only 'schismatics'.55

<sup>58</sup> These included the worship of images, the sacrificial value of the mass, and communion under both kinds. He had also introduced in his diocese 'ritum baptismandi pueros et orandi modum pro ut Calvinii' and the Book of Psalms in French, so that 'non hereticus modo sed novorum auctor dogmatum inter hereticos habebatur': AAV, *Arch. Concist., Acta Misc.*, 34, fos. 185-186.

<sup>59</sup> 'In questo colloquio fu portato uno scritto quale già era stato dato alla regina, et in esso si conteneva molti articoli falsi, et molti credevano che quel scritto fosse stato composto dal sopradetto vescovo di Valenza, poichè lui non cessava di aludare el scritto […]. Et si sparse una voce, fra tutti quelli che erano in quella sopradetta camera, che persuadeva il cardinale legato che accettasse la sopradetta scrittura con tutti gli articoli contenuti in essa': ACDF, SO, St. St., R4-d, fo. 573-v. Elena Bonora has argued that this inquisitorial initiative was part of an effort to avoid that clerics whose orthodoxy was dubious could take part in the Council of Trent. At the same time, however, such intervention was setting the benchmark for a new 'inquisitorial paradigm' that would drive papal foreign politics in the following years, subjecting the work of Church diplomats operating in European 'dangerous zones' to the oversight of the Roman Inquisition: Bonora, *Giudicare i vescovi*, pp. 165-179; 196-207.

<sup>60</sup> This was Lainez's only intervention during the Colloquy and focused on the Eucharist, as a reply to lecture on the same subject by exiled Italian reformer Peter Martyr Vermigli. Ippolito d'Este was absent. Both Lainez's secretary, Juan Polanco, and Annibal de Coudret summarised the speech in two letters written the day after the session: Laynez, *Lainii monumenta*, vi, pp. 54-64. See also La Place, *Commentaires*, pp. 299-300.

<sup>61</sup> The Society of Jesus was officially introduced to France in September 1561. Between December and February 1562, Lainez committed himself to preach in Paris (since, according to Juan Polanco, his

the endless patience characterised by the cardinal of Ferrara and his commitment to 'conform with the times'.62 Lainez's intransigence – at the other end of the religious spectrum compared to Monluc's idea of a larger, non-confessional Catholic Church<sup>63</sup> – was also an anticipation of the mentality which would dominate the Church's relations with the Protestants in the following years.

It is important, then, to stress how the expectations about religion in France were gradually diverging and how the communication gap between the Holy See and its political emissaries was widening. By the beginning of 1562, Pius IV's dissatisfaction entailed pretty much everything his legate had done: Ippolito's participation in the Huguenot sermon was 'not appropriate' and 'a public scandal'; the delayed departure of the French bishops to Trent 'seemed bizarre and based upon frivolous and weak reasons'; and the French Catholics were 'disfavoured and victims of persecution'. About Ippolito's behaviour, the pope also wrote that 'with regard to your way of behaving, it seems to us that this mild path of tolerance or of connivance cannot be good any longer. <sup>64</sup> What in the summer of 1561 was sought as a 'path of pleasantness', in January 1562 was seen as 'connivance'.

It is almost a paradox that the legate had been more appreciated by the lay ambassadors in France than by his Roman superiors, although it is arguable that the reason behind the pope's discontent lay only in the Legate's naivety. The reports written by the papal nuncio Santa Croce, a man with a strong professional background in diplomacy,65 focus on the same topics presented in the legate's letters: from the prominence assigned to Antoine de Bourbon's conversion to the evaluation of the Edict of Saint-Germain, which allowed the Huguenots to preach privately and was considered by both diplomats as a minor threat to the Catholic cause.<sup>66</sup> The

<sup>62</sup> As expressed by the cardinal in one of his letters, on 4 November 1561: Baudoin (ed)*, Négociations*, p. 22; see also Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea*, iv, p. 378.

<sup>63</sup> Wanegffelen, *Ni Rome ni Genève*, pp. 200-201.

<sup>64</sup> Letter from Pius IV to Ippolito d'Este, 4 January 1562: Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, i, pp. 330-331.

<sup>66</sup> The Edict of Saint-Germain was issued on 17 January 1562 but only approved by the parlement on 12 March 1562. It allowed the Huguenots to attend private worship (as long as it was set outside the city walls) but not to build churches; it was therefore more liberal than the previous edict of July 1561, which did not allow any private preaching (though the rule was never enforced). The parlement of Paris, overwhelmingly Catholic, opposed the new edict and refused to approve it for nearly two months in spite of the queen's repeated requests. On the edict, nuncio Santa Croce wrote to the pope: 'Si dirà che questo è un Interim tacito, ma se ella sapesse quanta fatica si è pigliata da tutti i cattolici, e principalmente da Monsignor Illustrissimo Legato, a tener che non si passasse a qualche cosa di troppa importanza': Santa Croce*, Lettres*, p. 43. Ippolito d'Este observed that, considering that 'questi ugonotti facevano ogni sforzo per fortificar tanto più la lor setta et n'havevano quasi ferma speranza', the new prescriptions of the edict 's'havriano potuto desiderare poco più favorevoli per gli catholici' (the letter is not dated, but it must have been written between 17 January 1562 and the end of the month): BEM, Fondo Campori, 189, Rangoni Fulvio – Copialettere. On the edict, see A. Tallon, 'Rome et les premiers edicts de tolerance d'après la correspondance du nonce Santa Croce', in M. Grandjean and B. Roussel (eds), *Coexister dans l'intolérance (1598)* (Geneva, 1998), pp. 39-351.

149

nuncio had indeed often praised the Legate: thanks to Ippolito's presence, he

If His Lordship leaves, there will be such a great damage to this cause that, in my opinion, even if His Lordship was in Constantinople we should still send to call him here. I do not know any person who has in this court the authority which His Lordship has, or his way to negotiate, and nobody who would know how to do it better.67

The fact that Santa Croce was also criticised by the Curia, so much so that he bitterly asked the pope if one had to be a pessimist in order to get some credit, led him to suggest that contact with the 'French infection' was enough to be viewed with suspicion by the papacy, a rule that did not apply only to Ippolito d'Este.<sup>68</sup> Moreover, if we take Santa Croce's words as reliable, it seems that by January 1562 one of Ferrara's supporters was Michel de l'Hôpital, the chancellor who had previously refused to approve his legatine powers.69 De l'Hôpital, as well as the queen mother, and others amongst the Catholics ranks, were seeking the liturgical concessions in opposition to the rigid theology defended as much by the professors of the Sorbonne as by Jesuit Lainez (and, on the other side, by the Calvinists).<sup>70</sup> It is unde-

<sup>68</sup> Santa Croce wrote: 'Se questo modo di scrivere satisfarrà più, io l'osservaro tanto più volontieri, quanto che oltre la sodisfattione, sarà con manco fattiga mia, poiché essendo in questi termini tutte le diligenze sono superflue e non accade pensarci più'; 'Ho ben più lettere che non vorria della mala sodisfattione che si ha in Roma, del mio proceder preterito, presente et credo ancora futuro'; 'Se ho camminato con una via placida et quieta, non mi pare di meritare almeno quelle riprehensione che mi si scrive'; 'Bisogna considerar il stato presente di questo regno, et li humori che vi sono, i quali forsa che di là non si intendano pienamente': ibid., pp. 21; 22; 26; 46. 69 'Et dicoli di fermo che il cancelliere disse l'altro giorno, con un che me l'ha riferito, che li romani non havevano inteso il caso loro, a lassar uscir di qua il legato': ibid., p. 47. On Michel de l'Hôpital, see: Turchetti, *Concordia o tolleranza?*, pp. 227-232; S-H. Kim, *Michel de l'Hôpital. The Vision of a Reformist Chancellor During the French Religious Wars* (Kirksville, 1997), pp. 1-5; L. Petris, 'Faith and Religious Policy in Michel de l'Hospital's Civic Evangelism', in K. Cameron, M. Greengrass and P. Roberts (eds), *The Adventure of Religious Pluralism in Early Modern France* (Berne, 2000), pp. 129-

<sup>70</sup> The position of the moderate Catholics during the Colloquy has been vastly discussed by historians, as well as the controversial role the cardinal of Lorraine played amongst them. On the latter topic, for a precise summary of the different interpretations given by historians, see: Wanegffelen, *Ni Rome, ni Genève*, pp. 149-170. On Lorraine's position, see also S. Carroll, 'The Compromise of Charles cardinal de Lorraine: New Evidence', *Journal of Ecclesiastical History*, 54/3 (2003), pp. 469-483. On moderate Catholics, toleration and religious pluralism, see: M. Turchetti, 'Religious Concord and Political Tolerance in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century France', *Sixteenth Century Journal*, 22/1 (1991), pp. 15-25; O. Christin, 'From Repression to Toleration: French Royal Policy in the Face of Protestantism', in P. Benedict, G. Marnef, H. van Nierop and M. Venard (eds), *Reformation, Revolt and Civil War in France and the Netherlands, 1555-1585* (Amsterdam, 1999), pp. 201-214; A. Tallon, 'Gallicanism and Religious Pluralism in France in the Sixteenth Century', in K. Cameron, M. Greengrass and P. Roberts (eds), *The Adventure of Religious Pluralism in Early Modern France* (Berne, 2000), pp. 15-30; id., 'National Church, State Church and Universal Church: The Gallican Dilemma in Sixteenth-Century France', in L. Racaut and A. Ryrie (eds), *Moderate Voices in the European Reformation* (Aldershot, 2005), pp. 104-

claimed, their side had certainly 'more gained than lost'. Furthermore,

<sup>67</sup> On 7 January 1562: Santa Croce*, Lettres,* p. 25; ibid., pp. 45-46.

142.

121.

preaching had been scarcely appreciated in Saint-Germain) and to support the Jesuit College, for which he also obtained some financial endowments from Ippolito d'Este: Laynez, *Lainii monumenta*, vi, pp. 182-186.

<sup>65</sup> On Santa Croce's diplomatic career, see the introduction in J. Lestocquoy (ed), *Correspondance des nonces en Frances: Prospero Santa Croce (1552-1554*) (Rome, 1972), pp. 8-41.

nuncio had indeed often praised the Legate: thanks to Ippolito's presence, he claimed, their side had certainly 'more gained than lost'. Furthermore,

If His Lordship leaves, there will be such a great damage to this cause that, in my opinion, even if His Lordship was in Constantinople we should still send to call him here. I do not know any person who has in this court the authority which His Lordship has, or his way to negotiate, and nobody who would know how to do it better.67

The fact that Santa Croce was also criticised by the Curia, so much so that he bitterly asked the pope if one had to be a pessimist in order to get some credit, led him to suggest that contact with the 'French infection' was enough to be viewed with suspicion by the papacy, a rule that did not apply only to Ippolito d'Este.<sup>68</sup> Moreover, if we take Santa Croce's words as reliable, it seems that by January 1562 one of Ferrara's supporters was Michel de l'Hôpital, the chancellor who had previously refused to approve his legatine powers.69 De l'Hôpital, as well as the queen mother, and others amongst the Catholics ranks, were seeking the liturgical concessions in opposition to the rigid theology defended as much by the professors of the Sorbonne as by Jesuit Lainez (and, on the other side, by the Calvinists).<sup>70</sup> It is unde-

148

the endless patience characterised by the cardinal of Ferrara and his commitment to 'conform with the times'.62 Lainez's intransigence – at the other end of the religious spectrum compared to Monluc's idea of a larger, non-confessional Catholic Church<sup>63</sup> – was also an anticipation of the mentality which would dominate the

It is important, then, to stress how the expectations about religion in France were gradually diverging and how the communication gap between the Holy See and its political emissaries was widening. By the beginning of 1562, Pius IV's dissatisfaction entailed pretty much everything his legate had done: Ippolito's participation in the Huguenot sermon was 'not appropriate' and 'a public scandal'; the delayed departure of the French bishops to Trent 'seemed bizarre and based upon frivolous and weak reasons'; and the French Catholics were 'disfavoured and victims of persecution'. About Ippolito's behaviour, the pope also wrote that 'with regard to your way of behaving, it seems to us that this mild path of tolerance or of connivance cannot

It is almost a paradox that the legate had been more appreciated by the lay ambassadors in France than by his Roman superiors, although it is arguable that the reason behind the pope's discontent lay only in the Legate's naivety. The reports written by the papal nuncio Santa Croce, a man with a strong professional background in diplomacy,65 focus on the same topics presented in the legate's letters: from the prominence assigned to Antoine de Bourbon's conversion to the evaluation of the Edict of Saint-Germain, which allowed the Huguenots to preach privately and was considered by both diplomats as a minor threat to the Catholic cause.<sup>66</sup> The

preaching had been scarcely appreciated in Saint-Germain) and to support the Jesuit College, for which he also obtained some financial endowments from Ippolito d'Este: Laynez, *Lainii monumenta*, vi, pp.

<sup>62</sup> As expressed by the cardinal in one of his letters, on 4 November 1561: Baudoin (ed)*, Négociations*,

<sup>66</sup> The Edict of Saint-Germain was issued on 17 January 1562 but only approved by the parlement on 12 March 1562. It allowed the Huguenots to attend private worship (as long as it was set outside the city walls) but not to build churches; it was therefore more liberal than the previous edict of July 1561, which did not allow any private preaching (though the rule was never enforced). The parlement of Paris, overwhelmingly Catholic, opposed the new edict and refused to approve it for nearly two months in spite of the queen's repeated requests. On the edict, nuncio Santa Croce wrote to the pope: 'Si dirà che questo è un Interim tacito, ma se ella sapesse quanta fatica si è pigliata da tutti i cattolici, e principalmente da Monsignor Illustrissimo Legato, a tener che non si passasse a qualche cosa di troppa importanza': Santa Croce*, Lettres*, p. 43. Ippolito d'Este observed that, considering that 'questi ugonotti facevano ogni sforzo per fortificar tanto più la lor setta et n'havevano quasi ferma speranza', the new prescriptions of the edict 's'havriano potuto desiderare poco più favorevoli per gli catholici' (the letter is not dated, but it must have been written between 17 January 1562 and the end of the month): BEM, Fondo Campori, 189, Rangoni Fulvio – Copialettere. On the edict, see A. Tallon, 'Rome et les premiers edicts de tolerance d'après la correspondance du nonce Santa Croce', in M. Grandjean and B. Roussel (eds),

<sup>64</sup> Letter from Pius IV to Ippolito d'Este, 4 January 1562: Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, i, pp. 330-331. <sup>65</sup> On Santa Croce's diplomatic career, see the introduction in J. Lestocquoy (ed), *Correspondance des* 

*nonces en Frances: Prospero Santa Croce (1552-1554*) (Rome, 1972), pp. 8-41.

<sup>64</sup> What in the summer of 1561 was sought as a 'path of pleas-

Church's relations with the Protestants in the following years.

antness', in January 1562 was seen as 'connivance'.

p. 22; see also Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea*, iv, p. 378. <sup>63</sup> Wanegffelen, *Ni Rome ni Genève*, pp. 200-201.

*Coexister dans l'intolérance (1598)* (Geneva, 1998), pp. 39-351.

be good any longer.

182-186.

si intendano pienamente': ibid., pp. 21; 22; 26; 46. 69 'Et dicoli di fermo che il cancelliere disse l'altro giorno, con un che me l'ha riferito, che li romani non havevano inteso il caso loro, a lassar uscir di qua il legato': ibid., p. 47. On Michel de l'Hôpital, see: Turchetti, *Concordia o tolleranza?*, pp. 227-232; S-H. Kim, *Michel de l'Hôpital. The Vision of a Reformist Chancellor During the French Religious Wars* (Kirksville, 1997), pp. 1-5; L. Petris, 'Faith and Religious Policy in Michel de l'Hospital's Civic Evangelism', in K. Cameron, M. Greengrass and P. Roberts (eds), *The Adventure of Religious Pluralism in Early Modern France* (Berne, 2000), pp. 129- 142.

<sup>70</sup> The position of the moderate Catholics during the Colloquy has been vastly discussed by historians, as well as the controversial role the cardinal of Lorraine played amongst them. On the latter topic, for a precise summary of the different interpretations given by historians, see: Wanegffelen, *Ni Rome, ni Genève*, pp. 149-170. On Lorraine's position, see also S. Carroll, 'The Compromise of Charles cardinal de Lorraine: New Evidence', *Journal of Ecclesiastical History*, 54/3 (2003), pp. 469-483. On moderate Catholics, toleration and religious pluralism, see: M. Turchetti, 'Religious Concord and Political Tolerance in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century France', *Sixteenth Century Journal*, 22/1 (1991), pp. 15-25; O. Christin, 'From Repression to Toleration: French Royal Policy in the Face of Protestantism', in P. Benedict, G. Marnef, H. van Nierop and M. Venard (eds), *Reformation, Revolt and Civil War in France and the Netherlands, 1555-1585* (Amsterdam, 1999), pp. 201-214; A. Tallon, 'Gallicanism and Religious Pluralism in France in the Sixteenth Century', in K. Cameron, M. Greengrass and P. Roberts (eds), *The Adventure of Religious Pluralism in Early Modern France* (Berne, 2000), pp. 15-30; id., 'National Church, State Church and Universal Church: The Gallican Dilemma in Sixteenth-Century France', in L. Racaut and A. Ryrie (eds), *Moderate Voices in the European Reformation* (Aldershot, 2005), pp. 104- 121.

<sup>67</sup> On 7 January 1562: Santa Croce*, Lettres,* p. 25; ibid., pp. 45-46.

<sup>68</sup> Santa Croce wrote: 'Se questo modo di scrivere satisfarrà più, io l'osservaro tanto più volontieri, quanto che oltre la sodisfattione, sarà con manco fattiga mia, poiché essendo in questi termini tutte le diligenze sono superflue e non accade pensarci più'; 'Ho ben più lettere che non vorria della mala sodisfattione che si ha in Roma, del mio proceder preterito, presente et credo ancora futuro'; 'Se ho camminato con una via placida et quieta, non mi pare di meritare almeno quelle riprehensione che mi si scrive'; 'Bisogna considerar il stato presente di questo regno, et li humori che vi sono, i quali forsa che di là non

#### The Path of Pleasantness

niable that a man like Ippolito d'Este, who had greedily collected benefices in spite of the charge of simony, lacked the sincere pastoral interest of Jean de Monluc or the political ability of Michel de l'Hôpital; nevertheless, his behaviour during the legation displays a coherence in following a path of mediation. Certainly, this attitude was not the result of his private religious conviction; it is quite clear, though, that the cardinal was driven by a genuine desire aimed to pacify the conflicts within Christianity, and that he was ready to defend his interpretation of the French political and religious situation against the recriminations that had been coming from Rome and from more radical Catholics.

Ippolito's view of the French situation remained steady even after all the criticism that had been coming from Rome in the previous months, and it is well summarised in a long letter written on 31 December 1561 to cardinal Borromeo, the cardinal nephew, where the legate insisted defending his past actions and his point of view:

Since I do really know that the things which pertain to religion have a completely different nature from the things which pertain to the State, I also agree with His Holiness and I share his wise opinion that it is not recommendable to walk the same path when negotiating one or the other one […]. But His Holiness really needs to understand that, had I found that the upheavals that are now going on in this kingdom arose from religion only, I would have not neglected to behave in a different manner and in a way that I reckon complies with His intention; but having found more and more that these things are not only mixed together but contaminated by private interests and that religion is just taken as a pretext to colour things up, I thought that one should try to handle a medicine as appropriate as it can possibly be and that the best way to pursue this was by paying attention to everyone and getting on good terms with everyone, as I thought this way I could more easily argue with them and persuade them […]. I do not see why this sweet way of behaving should be abhorred so much, since through this we can hope to obtain those things that would otherwise be impossible; and may God bestow me with this grace only, that His Holiness could see how things would have gone if we had taken a path different from the one we are following now; since we have known the poor result, as I have already written, that the others have obtained with their harsh and bitter manners […]. My only regret is that it seems that nobody is believed to be a good servant but those who lose the favour of the princes where they are staying, and that no one considers that these princes are very unhappy to see that those who are offending them are held in high esteem; and His Holiness has experienced this himself with the person of Vargas [the Spanish ambassador to Rome] and with the annoyance he was given when His Catholic Majesty was relying upon him, and He openly admitted that [Vargas] was neither doing well to his prince nor to the public […].<sup>71</sup> Those who like to say that there is no remedy to the things of this country, this really is as

151

<sup>72</sup> AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 131, pp. 61ss. See also ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVI.48 (31 December 1561). <sup>73</sup> On Gualterio, he wrote that 'poichè il predetto vescovo [Gualterio] par che habbia poste queste cose per tanto disperate, difficilmente possa poi procurare che si porgano loro quei rimedi che saria necessari', whilst, on Chantonnay: 'Da questo ambasciatore di sua maestà cattolica non ho anche ricevuto aiuto alcuno, dal qual me ne promettevo ben molto': ibid. The Venetian ambassador, Marcantonio Barbaro, wrote that Chantonnay 'è proceduto esso ambasciatore con la regina e Navarra, con parole quasi sempre aspre e severe, minacciando di guerra dal canto del re e suo, e dicendo in faccia alle lor maestà parole assai gagliarde e pungenti [… ] questo modo di procedere giovò poco, e fece esso ambasciatore tanto odioso […] che a pena poteva esser alla corte dalla regina e dalli altri grandi veduto': Tommaseo (ed),

though a doctor, finding someone who has a great fever, despaired of their recovery and refused to treat them at all; and in this case it is certain that most would pass away, and in this same way if we will not help this kingdom, or try and give it those remedies that are appropriate and decide to abandon it instead, then we will have to be afraid of losing it; but I have a different opinion and I want to take it for certain, that if we will not abandon it then we will always be able to hope for its recovery […]. I am used to go through such storms and I will easily go through this one as well, only being sorry that my actions are not judged well but rather blamed by everyone, in a time when I am putting all my efforts into being a trustworthy and thorough servant and postponing every other concern of mine […]. But as they say that they have an opinion different from mine and that they would win if things were managed according to their view, may God want that, if the opposite occurred, they would lose just as much; for I do not believe that wisdom only consists in predicting the bad (because, had this been true, one would need to look at Nostradamus as a very wise man), but rather in properly understanding what is going on and in suggesting the appropriate remedies and measures, and these need not to be Plato's ide-

Consequently, the cardinal blamed the Spanish ambassadors Chantonnay and Vargas, as well as nuncio Santa Croce's predecessor Gualterio, for having negotiated in such a 'harsh and bitter' way. Their intolerant behaviour, in his opinion, had nothing but aggravated the French illness.<sup>73</sup> Ippolito's religiously disenchanted outlook could make a much better match with Jean de Monluc's sincere pastoral interest rather than with the diplomatic aggressiveness embodied by the Spanish emissaries. If the moderate Catholic prelates were seeking some liturgical concessions in order to gain their flock back to the Catholic bosom, the cardinal of Ferrara aimed to put the religious division to an end by winning the French crown to Catholicism, as he regarded the Monarchy as the ultimate guarantor of a restored national unity. In order to do so, the concession of some liturgical reforms was part of the same strategy that encompassed supporting Vendôme's ambitions over Spanish Navarre.

That the original 'path of pleasantness' initially sought by Pius IV himself had gone too far and that the pope was reconsidering its foreign politics is demonstrated not only by the Inquisitorial trial which involved Ippolito d'Este in 1563, but also by the persistent echoes of his mission as a legate. In January 1562, after the issue of the Edict of Saint-Germain, the cardinal of Ferrara felt the need to write a long apol-

as but to suit the quality of the time and people.72

*Relations*, ii, p. 88.

<sup>71</sup> Nor to Ippolito d'Este, as ambassador Vargas fiercely opposed his negotiations with the 'heretics' and harshly criticised the cardinal's behavior in his correspondence with Philip II: C. Weiss (ed), *Papiers d'état du Cardinal de Granvelle, d'après le manuscrits de la bibliothèque de Besançon* (9 vols, Paris, 1841-1852), vi, pp. 403-406. It was true that Pius IV found ambassador Vargas annoying and had repeatedly asked Philip II to call him back to Madrid: Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, ii, p. 283.

though a doctor, finding someone who has a great fever, despaired of their recovery and refused to treat them at all; and in this case it is certain that most would pass away, and in this same way if we will not help this kingdom, or try and give it those remedies that are appropriate and decide to abandon it instead, then we will have to be afraid of losing it; but I have a different opinion and I want to take it for certain, that if we will not abandon it then we will always be able to hope for its recovery […]. I am used to go through such storms and I will easily go through this one as well, only being sorry that my actions are not judged well but rather blamed by everyone, in a time when I am putting all my efforts into being a trustworthy and thorough servant and postponing every other concern of mine […]. But as they say that they have an opinion different from mine and that they would win if things were managed according to their view, may God want that, if the opposite occurred, they would lose just as much; for I do not believe that wisdom only consists in predicting the bad (because, had this been true, one would need to look at Nostradamus as a very wise man), but rather in properly understanding what is going on and in suggesting the appropriate remedies and measures, and these need not to be Plato's ideas but to suit the quality of the time and people.72

Consequently, the cardinal blamed the Spanish ambassadors Chantonnay and Vargas, as well as nuncio Santa Croce's predecessor Gualterio, for having negotiated in such a 'harsh and bitter' way. Their intolerant behaviour, in his opinion, had nothing but aggravated the French illness.<sup>73</sup> Ippolito's religiously disenchanted outlook could make a much better match with Jean de Monluc's sincere pastoral interest rather than with the diplomatic aggressiveness embodied by the Spanish emissaries. If the moderate Catholic prelates were seeking some liturgical concessions in order to gain their flock back to the Catholic bosom, the cardinal of Ferrara aimed to put the religious division to an end by winning the French crown to Catholicism, as he regarded the Monarchy as the ultimate guarantor of a restored national unity. In order to do so, the concession of some liturgical reforms was part of the same strategy that encompassed supporting Vendôme's ambitions over Spanish Navarre.

That the original 'path of pleasantness' initially sought by Pius IV himself had gone too far and that the pope was reconsidering its foreign politics is demonstrated not only by the Inquisitorial trial which involved Ippolito d'Este in 1563, but also by the persistent echoes of his mission as a legate. In January 1562, after the issue of the Edict of Saint-Germain, the cardinal of Ferrara felt the need to write a long apol-

150

peatedly asked Philip II to call him back to Madrid: Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, ii, p. 283.

<sup>71</sup> Nor to Ippolito d'Este, as ambassador Vargas fiercely opposed his negotiations with the 'heretics' and harshly criticised the cardinal's behavior in his correspondence with Philip II: C. Weiss (ed), *Papiers d'état du Cardinal de Granvelle, d'après le manuscrits de la bibliothèque de Besançon* (9 vols, Paris, 1841-1852), vi, pp. 403-406. It was true that Pius IV found ambassador Vargas annoying and had re-

niable that a man like Ippolito d'Este, who had greedily collected benefices in spite of the charge of simony, lacked the sincere pastoral interest of Jean de Monluc or the political ability of Michel de l'Hôpital; nevertheless, his behaviour during the legation displays a coherence in following a path of mediation. Certainly, this attitude was not the result of his private religious conviction; it is quite clear, though, that the cardinal was driven by a genuine desire aimed to pacify the conflicts within Christianity, and that he was ready to defend his interpretation of the French political and religious situation against the recriminations that had been coming from Rome and

Ippolito's view of the French situation remained steady even after all the criticism that had been coming from Rome in the previous months, and it is well summarised in a long letter written on 31 December 1561 to cardinal Borromeo, the cardinal nephew, where the legate insisted defending his past actions and his point of

Since I do really know that the things which pertain to religion have a completely different nature from the things which pertain to the State, I also agree with His Holiness and I share his wise opinion that it is not recommendable to walk the same path when negotiating one or the other one […]. But His Holiness really needs to understand that, had I found that the upheavals that are now going on in this kingdom arose from religion only, I would have not neglected to behave in a different manner and in a way that I reckon complies with His intention; but having found more and more that these things are not only mixed together but contaminated by private interests and that religion is just taken as a pretext to colour things up, I thought that one should try to handle a medicine as appropriate as it can possibly be and that the best way to pursue this was by paying attention to everyone and getting on good terms with everyone, as I thought this way I could more easily argue with them and persuade them […]. I do not see why this sweet way of behaving should be abhorred so much, since through this we can hope to obtain those things that would otherwise be impossible; and may God bestow me with this grace only, that His Holiness could see how things would have gone if we had taken a path different from the one we are following now; since we have known the poor result, as I have already written, that the others have obtained with their harsh and bitter manners […]. My only regret is that it seems that nobody is believed to be a good servant but those who lose the favour of the princes where they are staying, and that no one considers that these princes are very unhappy to see that those who are offending them are held in high esteem; and His Holiness has experienced this himself with the person of Vargas [the Spanish ambassador to Rome] and with the annoyance he was given when His Catholic Majesty was relying upon him, and He openly admitted that [Vargas] was neither doing well to his prince nor to the public […].<sup>71</sup> Those who like to say that there is no remedy to the things of this country, this really is as

from more radical Catholics.

view:

<sup>72</sup> AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 131, pp. 61ss. See also ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVI.48 (31 December 1561). <sup>73</sup> On Gualterio, he wrote that 'poichè il predetto vescovo [Gualterio] par che habbia poste queste cose per tanto disperate, difficilmente possa poi procurare che si porgano loro quei rimedi che saria necessari', whilst, on Chantonnay: 'Da questo ambasciatore di sua maestà cattolica non ho anche ricevuto aiuto alcuno, dal qual me ne promettevo ben molto': ibid. The Venetian ambassador, Marcantonio Barbaro, wrote that Chantonnay 'è proceduto esso ambasciatore con la regina e Navarra, con parole quasi sempre aspre e severe, minacciando di guerra dal canto del re e suo, e dicendo in faccia alle lor maestà parole assai gagliarde e pungenti [… ] questo modo di procedere giovò poco, e fece esso ambasciatore tanto odioso […] che a pena poteva esser alla corte dalla regina e dalli altri grandi veduto': Tommaseo (ed), *Relations*, ii, p. 88.

ogy of his legation to Paris, which he addressed to the bishop of Caserta.<sup>74</sup> There, he reaffirmed that the only way of dealing with the heretical infection was to wear the clothes of a benevolent doctor, and that the French situation allowed no other way of negotiating than his own. The cardinal's apology must have had quite a quick public diffusion (although it is not clear from the text if this had been Ippolito's intention from the beginning),75 because it was not left unheard. An anonymous figure from the Roman Curia wrote an articulated reply that partially reiterated the accusations which had haunted the legate throughout his French legation. This time, though, a much stronger accent was put on his general unfitness as a diplomat and on his misconduct, which had led him to take much greater care in pursuing his own benefits rather than the universal (i.e., Catholic) good.<sup>76</sup> As soon as 1577, when the dramatic events that had filled Ippolito's reports from France were still far from reaching a solution, the cardinal's apology was published in Venice and reprinted four years later.<sup>77</sup> In the following century, the cardinal's letters were translated into French from an unspecified 'manuscrit Italien' and dedicated to the Gallican clergy,<sup>78</sup> while Ippolito's apology was mentioned in a coeval work with a direct reference to the Venetian edition and stressing that the cardinal had been criticised for having attended a Huguenot sermon during the 'turbolentissimis temporibus' of his legation.79 Both the letters and the apology addressed to the bishop of Caserta appear once again in an eighteenth-century *miscellanea*, proving that the controversial outcomes of Ippolito's legation were still rousing interest and curiosity.<sup>80</sup>

# **2. The cardinal's legation after Saint-Germain, 1562-1563**

Ippolito d'Este remained in France until 22 April 1563. As we have seen, the most critical moments of his legation culminated with the Edict of Saint-Germain, in January 1562. During the remaining fifteen months, and after the outbreak of the civil

<sup>80</sup> Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea*, iv, pp. 438-439.

153

<sup>82</sup> Lansac was appointed at the end of February 1562. He left Rome on 11 March 1562 to go back to Paris and, from there, left for Trent on 14 April 1562: Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, ii, p. 414; Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea*, iv, p. 403. On 6 April 1562, Cardinal Borromeo wrote to Ippolito to let him know that 'la risoluzione che hanno presa di mandare monsignor di Lansach per ambasciatore al concilio è stata grata a Nostro Signore sì perchè da questo si può credere che vogliono far da vero, et sì ancora per la qualità del gentilhuomo; quale è sempre stato tenuto per catholico': Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, ii, p.

war, his role at the French court shifted toward a more 'regular' performance of his duty as an emissary of the Holy See. The time of *colloquia* was over: Huguenots and Catholics were no longer facing each other in the religious arena but on the battle-

As the French bishops left France to cross the Alps and join the Council of Trent, and the king of Navarre, now firmly professing Catholicism, took the leadership of the country at the side of Catherine de' Medici, Ippolito d'Este's main concerns became not only to ensure that the king would not change his mind and reconvert, but also to provide economic and military support to the French crown in the fight against the powerful prince of Condé and Admiral Coligny, the leaders of the Huguenot faction. After the struggle to have his credentials recognised, the cardinal's position – and influence – at the French court seemed finally to be established. Catherine de' Medici held him as a trustworthy advisor and even invited him to join her restricted household when she moved with the king from Paris to Monceaux in March 1562. Now that her power and lineage were threatened by the war, the queen mother could not afford to dismiss the protection of Spain and the pope, as she needed their economic and military support to make up for the ruinous state of royal finances. This rendered the political conjuncture more favourable to the Catholics,

Although Catholic hopes that the French monarchy would eventually clamp down on the Huguenots and deprive them of their freedom had been nullified by the issue of the Edict of Saint-Germain, the relation between the pope and the queen mother slightly improved in the following months as a consequence of the longawaited appointment of a lay ambassador to the Council of Trent. The appointee was that same Lansac who, as we have seen in the previous chapters, was the French ambassador to Rome, and who was regarded, in the Curia, as a good Catholic.82 The firm defence of Catholicism undertaken, in the same period, by the king of Navarre

<sup>81</sup> Catherine de' Medici's last attempt to organise a religious assembly took place in January 1562, when she summoned both Catholics and Huguenots to Saint-Germain. The debate focused on the role of images but ended in a failure due to 'une dureté et obstination des ungs et des aultres, qui ont plutost combatu pour ne se laisser vaincre que disputé et conferé pour se soubzmectre à la vérité et à la raison', as the queen wrote in a letter to Lord de Rennes on 16 February 1562: H. de La Ferriere (ed), *Lettres de Catherine de Médicis* (11 vols, Paris, 1880-1943), i, p. 276. On this last assembly, see also Valois, 'Les essais de conciliation', pp. 265-274; Occhipinti, 'Disputes françaises', pp. 217-230; Tallon, *La France et le Concile*, pp. 326-327. Ippolito d'Este wrote to cardinal Borromeo on 17 January 1562 to let him know that the queen mother intended to organise a new religious colloquy and had strongly requested the legate's presence, even though he had objected that it would have been better to devolve every discussion to the Council of Trent: Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea*, p. 380. Since Ippolito could not convince the queen mother to give up her project, he took part in the colloquy and later forwarded a long report about

field.81

and hence to the papal legate Ippolito II d'Este.

it to the pope: ibid., pp. 385-388.

428. See also Tallon, *La France et le Concile*, pp. 340-345.

<sup>74</sup> AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 125, pp. 20-47. Also in Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea*, iv, pp. 437-438.

<sup>75</sup> A hint that Ippolito hoped his apology would have a public diffusion can be found in this sentence: 'Ho voluto scriverle tutto questo […] perché se ne possa servire di più in testimonio dell'animo mio con chi le occorrerà': ibid., p. 438.

<sup>76</sup> This text follows Ippolito's letter to the bishop of Caserta in AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 125, pp. 48ss.

<sup>77</sup> G. Ruscelli (ed), *Delle lettere di principi, le quali o si scrivono da principi…* (3 vols, Venice, 1562- 1577), iii, fos. 256v-258v. The apology was included in the last of three volumes, published between 1564 and 1577 in Venice by Giordano Ziletti. A second Venetian edition followed in 1581.

<sup>78</sup> Printed in Paris in 1658: Baudoin (ed)*, Négociations.*

<sup>79</sup> 'In qua legatione obeunda quamvis sibi magnam laudem comparaverit, non desuerunt, qui huic crimini darent, quod damnatae sectae viri concioni interfuisset'. It is also worth noticing that Chacon, in an effort to justify Ippolito's controversial behaviour, makes reference to a learned conversation about tolerance and sovereigns that had occurred between the cardinal and Marc-Antoine Muret (and that Muret had later written down). Quite surprisingly, Chacon asserts that Muret's account of this very generic and erudite conversation aimed to provide an explanation on 'eius [of Ippolito d'Este] cum Calviniano Beza de religionis controversiis colloquio': Chacon, *Vitae, et res gestae pontificum romanorum… usque ad Clementem IX* (4 vols, Rome, 1677), iii, column 650. For Muret's account of his conversation with Ippolito see Muret, *M. Antonii Mureti*, iii, p. 366.

war, his role at the French court shifted toward a more 'regular' performance of his duty as an emissary of the Holy See. The time of *colloquia* was over: Huguenots and Catholics were no longer facing each other in the religious arena but on the battlefield.81

As the French bishops left France to cross the Alps and join the Council of Trent, and the king of Navarre, now firmly professing Catholicism, took the leadership of the country at the side of Catherine de' Medici, Ippolito d'Este's main concerns became not only to ensure that the king would not change his mind and reconvert, but also to provide economic and military support to the French crown in the fight against the powerful prince of Condé and Admiral Coligny, the leaders of the Huguenot faction. After the struggle to have his credentials recognised, the cardinal's position – and influence – at the French court seemed finally to be established. Catherine de' Medici held him as a trustworthy advisor and even invited him to join her restricted household when she moved with the king from Paris to Monceaux in March 1562. Now that her power and lineage were threatened by the war, the queen mother could not afford to dismiss the protection of Spain and the pope, as she needed their economic and military support to make up for the ruinous state of royal finances. This rendered the political conjuncture more favourable to the Catholics, and hence to the papal legate Ippolito II d'Este.

Although Catholic hopes that the French monarchy would eventually clamp down on the Huguenots and deprive them of their freedom had been nullified by the issue of the Edict of Saint-Germain, the relation between the pope and the queen mother slightly improved in the following months as a consequence of the longawaited appointment of a lay ambassador to the Council of Trent. The appointee was that same Lansac who, as we have seen in the previous chapters, was the French ambassador to Rome, and who was regarded, in the Curia, as a good Catholic.82 The firm defence of Catholicism undertaken, in the same period, by the king of Navarre

152

ogy of his legation to Paris, which he addressed to the bishop of Caserta.<sup>74</sup> There, he reaffirmed that the only way of dealing with the heretical infection was to wear the clothes of a benevolent doctor, and that the French situation allowed no other way of negotiating than his own. The cardinal's apology must have had quite a quick public diffusion (although it is not clear from the text if this had been Ippolito's intention from the beginning),75 because it was not left unheard. An anonymous figure from the Roman Curia wrote an articulated reply that partially reiterated the accusations which had haunted the legate throughout his French legation. This time, though, a much stronger accent was put on his general unfitness as a diplomat and on his misconduct, which had led him to take much greater care in pursuing his own benefits rather than the universal (i.e., Catholic) good.<sup>76</sup> As soon as 1577, when the dramatic events that had filled Ippolito's reports from France were still far from reaching a solution, the cardinal's apology was published in Venice and reprinted four years later.<sup>77</sup> In the following century, the cardinal's letters were translated into French from an unspecified 'manuscrit Italien' and dedicated to the Gallican clergy,<sup>78</sup> while Ippolito's apology was mentioned in a coeval work with a direct reference to the Venetian edition and stressing that the cardinal had been criticised for having attended a Huguenot sermon during the 'turbolentissimis temporibus' of his legation.79 Both the letters and the apology addressed to the bishop of Caserta appear once again in an eighteenth-century *miscellanea*, proving that the controversial out-

comes of Ippolito's legation were still rousing interest and curiosity.<sup>80</sup>

Ippolito d'Este remained in France until 22 April 1563. As we have seen, the most critical moments of his legation culminated with the Edict of Saint-Germain, in January 1562. During the remaining fifteen months, and after the outbreak of the civil

<sup>74</sup> AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 125, pp. 20-47. Also in Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea*, iv, pp. 437-438. <sup>75</sup> A hint that Ippolito hoped his apology would have a public diffusion can be found in this sentence: 'Ho voluto scriverle tutto questo […] perché se ne possa servire di più in testimonio dell'animo mio con

<sup>76</sup> This text follows Ippolito's letter to the bishop of Caserta in AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 125, pp. 48ss. <sup>77</sup> G. Ruscelli (ed), *Delle lettere di principi, le quali o si scrivono da principi…* (3 vols, Venice, 1562- 1577), iii, fos. 256v-258v. The apology was included in the last of three volumes, published between

<sup>79</sup> 'In qua legatione obeunda quamvis sibi magnam laudem comparaverit, non desuerunt, qui huic crimini darent, quod damnatae sectae viri concioni interfuisset'. It is also worth noticing that Chacon, in an effort to justify Ippolito's controversial behaviour, makes reference to a learned conversation about tolerance and sovereigns that had occurred between the cardinal and Marc-Antoine Muret (and that Muret had later written down). Quite surprisingly, Chacon asserts that Muret's account of this very generic and erudite conversation aimed to provide an explanation on 'eius [of Ippolito d'Este] cum Calviniano Beza de religionis controversiis colloquio': Chacon, *Vitae, et res gestae pontificum romanorum… usque ad Clementem IX* (4 vols, Rome, 1677), iii, column 650. For Muret's account of his conversation with Ip-

1564 and 1577 in Venice by Giordano Ziletti. A second Venetian edition followed in 1581.

**2. The cardinal's legation after Saint-Germain, 1562-1563**

chi le occorrerà': ibid., p. 438.

<sup>78</sup> Printed in Paris in 1658: Baudoin (ed)*, Négociations.*

polito see Muret, *M. Antonii Mureti*, iii, p. 366. <sup>80</sup> Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea*, iv, pp. 438-439.

<sup>81</sup> Catherine de' Medici's last attempt to organise a religious assembly took place in January 1562, when she summoned both Catholics and Huguenots to Saint-Germain. The debate focused on the role of images but ended in a failure due to 'une dureté et obstination des ungs et des aultres, qui ont plutost combatu pour ne se laisser vaincre que disputé et conferé pour se soubzmectre à la vérité et à la raison', as the queen wrote in a letter to Lord de Rennes on 16 February 1562: H. de La Ferriere (ed), *Lettres de Catherine de Médicis* (11 vols, Paris, 1880-1943), i, p. 276. On this last assembly, see also Valois, 'Les essais de conciliation', pp. 265-274; Occhipinti, 'Disputes françaises', pp. 217-230; Tallon, *La France et le Concile*, pp. 326-327. Ippolito d'Este wrote to cardinal Borromeo on 17 January 1562 to let him know that the queen mother intended to organise a new religious colloquy and had strongly requested the legate's presence, even though he had objected that it would have been better to devolve every discussion to the Council of Trent: Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea*, p. 380. Since Ippolito could not convince the queen mother to give up her project, he took part in the colloquy and later forwarded a long report about it to the pope: ibid., pp. 385-388.

<sup>82</sup> Lansac was appointed at the end of February 1562. He left Rome on 11 March 1562 to go back to Paris and, from there, left for Trent on 14 April 1562: Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, ii, p. 414; Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea*, iv, p. 403. On 6 April 1562, Cardinal Borromeo wrote to Ippolito to let him know that 'la risoluzione che hanno presa di mandare monsignor di Lansach per ambasciatore al concilio è stata grata a Nostro Signore sì perchè da questo si può credere che vogliono far da vero, et sì ancora per la qualità del gentilhuomo; quale è sempre stato tenuto per catholico': Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, ii, p. 428. See also Tallon, *La France et le Concile*, pp. 340-345.

#### The Path of Pleasantness

also contributed to assuage the pope.<sup>83</sup> We have already seen that the cardinal of Ferrara was quick to take advantage of the king's conversion in order to shield himself against the recriminations that had been coming from Rome from the very beginning of his legation, and to ascribe this success to his much-criticised 'strategy of tolerance'. Despite this accomplishment – whose political importance had been recognised not only by the cardinal but also by the Catholic hierarchies – the relationship between the pope and his legate was so strained that on January the cardinal was given licence to leave France, even though there was still much work to do to conclude the negotiations between Navarre, Philip II and the pope, and to persuade the French bishops to go to Trent. Not even someone who was so self-confident as to overlook the usual paths of diplomacy and pursue his own idea of 'negotiating' to the point of provoking a breach with the Papacy could fail to misinterpret this clear sign of the pope's dissatisfaction. Not surprisingly, on 24 January 1562 Ippolito wrote a letter to his nephew Duke Alfonso II to express his resentment about a decision which he saw as unfair:

I most certainly did not like that licence, which the pope gave me, to leave this place, entrusting it to my judgement, because from this I clearly see that His Holiness is too strongly convinced that this kingdom is closer to the downfall than it really is, and there is no better way of bringing it to ruin than to believe it so desperate.<sup>84</sup>

A few days later, he sent his secretary Niquet to Rome to defend his behaviour, and the pope subsequently reversed his decision. Whether this was the result of Niquet's mission or of the good news that was coming from the papal nuncio Santa Croce and Cardinal Tournon about the favourable disposition demonstrated by Navarre, which was at least partially due to Ippolito's relentless work of persuasion, it is hard to tell.85 The Spanish ambassador to Rome Vargas, who had spent the previous four months trying to convince the pope to remove Ippolito d'Este from Paris,

<sup>84</sup> ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVII.5 (24 January 1562).

155

<sup>86</sup> On 22 February 1562, Vargas wrote to Cardinal Granvelle that Catherine de' Medici had sent ambassador Lansac to Rome also to 'sostener Ferrara en la legacion […]. El cardenal de Ferrara con lo que ha escripto en alabanca suya y con la venida de su Nicheto ha impetrado quedarse por aora en su legacion, que no puede ser cosa mas perniciosa'. He concluded, sadly: 'Ferrara se estarà quanto quisiesse': Weiss

<sup>88</sup> On the first stage of the French civil wars, see: Roberts, *Peace and Authority*, pp. 13-38; Holt, *The* 

attributed Pius IV's abrupt change of mind to both Niquet's plea in favour of his lord and Catherine de' Medici's support.<sup>86</sup> On 15 March 1562, Pius IV wrote to Ip-

We are every day more pleased with your good inclination and with the perseverance you display to put everything on the right track, […] and be sure that we will strongly and warmly embrace the king of Navarre's cause, if he will carry on with what he has started […]. As much as we thought, when we saw that things were getting worse day after day, that you should leave as soon as possible in order not to witness so much indignity, now that things have started to take the right direction, we think that you should not leave, and that you should exert as much pressure as you can in favour of the catholic religion, and you will not find it to be a tiresome endeavour now that we have the queen mother and the king of Navarre so positive

The pope's words were a moral renewal of Ippolito's diplomatic mandate after the storm he had gone through between November 1561 and January 1562. Supported by the queen's appreciation and by the diplomatic victory that was Navarre's profession of Catholic faith, the cardinal of Ferrara carried out the rest of his diplomatic mission without any new significant contentions with the Holy See. The outbreak of the civil war in France (traditionally marked by scholars by the massacre of Vassy on 1 March 1562) and the subsequent militarisation of the country, split the French court apart; the queen and the king left Paris, and the prince of Condè took up arms against the Catholics.<sup>88</sup> In this new scenario of war, where 'everything is upsidedown'<sup>89</sup> and 'there is more need of hands than tongue',90 there were certainly fewer occasions for the cardinal of Ferrara to provoke a scandal in the papal palaces by employing his 'worldly diplomacy'. This does not mean, however, that he was left

The best evidence of the fluidity that characterised the figure of Ippolito and of the clash of interests that was the *leitmotiv* of his ecclesiastical career is provided by the collateral work he carried out over the year and a half of his French legation in order to defend his clan and – especially – his own interests. We have already seen that the conflict that arose between Ippolito d'Este and the Holy See went so far as to become a public scandal and that it almost cost the cardinal an accusation of heresy. We have also seen that Ippolito felt compelled to write an apology for his legation, which was followed by a reply produced in the papal Curia that insisted partic-

polito in quite different terms from those of January:

and favourable, as they themselves promise.87

with nothing to do.

(ed), *Papiers d'état*, vi, pp. 512-514. <sup>87</sup> Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, ii, p. 413-414.

*French Wars of Religion*, *1562-1629* (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 50-75. 89 Santa Croce to Cardinal Borromeo: Santa Croce*, Lettres,* p. 94.

<sup>90</sup> Ippolito d'Este to Cardinal Borromeo: Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea*, iv, p. 405.

<sup>83</sup> On 11 February 1562, Ippolito wrote to Cardinal Borromeo that the queen mother and the king of Navarre 'mi hanno communicato a lungo […] molte buone deliberazioni loro, mostrando l'uno, e l'altra in ogni cosa, buona e ferma affetione verso la religione cattolica; e la regina mostrando grande allegrezza della buona inclinatione che ha il re di Navarra in questa parte, venne a dirmi in presenza sua queste proprie parole: che da qui in avanti ella non voleva esser scusata in queste cose della religione, se non anderanno bene; poichè ella aveva tanto bene il detto re di Navarra disposto, et unico seco in questa volontà. Il che è con evidente inditio della difficoltà che era ad esseguire alcuna buona resolutione quando erano differenti d'opinione': Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea*, iv, p. 387.

<sup>85</sup> The cardinal of Ferrara had already received a reassuring letter from cardinal Borromeo at the end of January 1562, that is before Niquet's arrival in Rome: Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, ii, p. 386-388. The letters that Santa Croce and Tournon addressed to the pope in January and February 1562 attested to the increasing good disposition demonstrated by the king of Navarre, who 'si è mostrato in ogni ragionamento molto catholico': ibid., pp. 371; 382; 403. On 28 January, Cardinal Tournon had also written to Borromeo that Ippolito d'Este, after the scandal of the request of the communion under both kinds, 'ha dimostrato qualche segno di ricognitione et di mutamento […] et si è dimostrato malcontento et di volontà di riunirsi con li signori catholici': ibid.*,* p. 372. Whether this was true or not, it probably contributed to changing the pope's mind.

attributed Pius IV's abrupt change of mind to both Niquet's plea in favour of his lord and Catherine de' Medici's support.<sup>86</sup> On 15 March 1562, Pius IV wrote to Ippolito in quite different terms from those of January:

We are every day more pleased with your good inclination and with the perseverance you display to put everything on the right track, […] and be sure that we will strongly and warmly embrace the king of Navarre's cause, if he will carry on with what he has started […]. As much as we thought, when we saw that things were getting worse day after day, that you should leave as soon as possible in order not to witness so much indignity, now that things have started to take the right direction, we think that you should not leave, and that you should exert as much pressure as you can in favour of the catholic religion, and you will not find it to be a tiresome endeavour now that we have the queen mother and the king of Navarre so positive and favourable, as they themselves promise.87

The pope's words were a moral renewal of Ippolito's diplomatic mandate after the storm he had gone through between November 1561 and January 1562. Supported by the queen's appreciation and by the diplomatic victory that was Navarre's profession of Catholic faith, the cardinal of Ferrara carried out the rest of his diplomatic mission without any new significant contentions with the Holy See. The outbreak of the civil war in France (traditionally marked by scholars by the massacre of Vassy on 1 March 1562) and the subsequent militarisation of the country, split the French court apart; the queen and the king left Paris, and the prince of Condè took up arms against the Catholics.<sup>88</sup> In this new scenario of war, where 'everything is upsidedown'<sup>89</sup> and 'there is more need of hands than tongue',90 there were certainly fewer occasions for the cardinal of Ferrara to provoke a scandal in the papal palaces by employing his 'worldly diplomacy'. This does not mean, however, that he was left with nothing to do.

The best evidence of the fluidity that characterised the figure of Ippolito and of the clash of interests that was the *leitmotiv* of his ecclesiastical career is provided by the collateral work he carried out over the year and a half of his French legation in order to defend his clan and – especially – his own interests. We have already seen that the conflict that arose between Ippolito d'Este and the Holy See went so far as to become a public scandal and that it almost cost the cardinal an accusation of heresy. We have also seen that Ippolito felt compelled to write an apology for his legation, which was followed by a reply produced in the papal Curia that insisted partic-

154

also contributed to assuage the pope.<sup>83</sup> We have already seen that the cardinal of Ferrara was quick to take advantage of the king's conversion in order to shield himself against the recriminations that had been coming from Rome from the very beginning of his legation, and to ascribe this success to his much-criticised 'strategy of tolerance'. Despite this accomplishment – whose political importance had been recognised not only by the cardinal but also by the Catholic hierarchies – the relationship between the pope and his legate was so strained that on January the cardinal was given licence to leave France, even though there was still much work to do to conclude the negotiations between Navarre, Philip II and the pope, and to persuade the French bishops to go to Trent. Not even someone who was so self-confident as to overlook the usual paths of diplomacy and pursue his own idea of 'negotiating' to the point of provoking a breach with the Papacy could fail to misinterpret this clear sign of the pope's dissatisfaction. Not surprisingly, on 24 January 1562 Ippolito wrote a letter to his nephew Duke Alfonso II to express his resentment about a deci-

I most certainly did not like that licence, which the pope gave me, to leave this place, entrusting it to my judgement, because from this I clearly see that His Holiness is too strongly convinced that this kingdom is closer to the downfall than it really is, and there is no better way of bringing it to ruin than to believe it so desper-

A few days later, he sent his secretary Niquet to Rome to defend his behaviour, and the pope subsequently reversed his decision. Whether this was the result of Niquet's mission or of the good news that was coming from the papal nuncio Santa Croce and Cardinal Tournon about the favourable disposition demonstrated by Navarre, which was at least partially due to Ippolito's relentless work of persuasion, it is hard to tell.85 The Spanish ambassador to Rome Vargas, who had spent the previous four months trying to convince the pope to remove Ippolito d'Este from Paris,

<sup>83</sup> On 11 February 1562, Ippolito wrote to Cardinal Borromeo that the queen mother and the king of Navarre 'mi hanno communicato a lungo […] molte buone deliberazioni loro, mostrando l'uno, e l'altra in ogni cosa, buona e ferma affetione verso la religione cattolica; e la regina mostrando grande allegrezza della buona inclinatione che ha il re di Navarra in questa parte, venne a dirmi in presenza sua queste proprie parole: che da qui in avanti ella non voleva esser scusata in queste cose della religione, se non anderanno bene; poichè ella aveva tanto bene il detto re di Navarra disposto, et unico seco in questa volontà. Il che è con evidente inditio della difficoltà che era ad esseguire alcuna buona resolutione quando

<sup>85</sup> The cardinal of Ferrara had already received a reassuring letter from cardinal Borromeo at the end of January 1562, that is before Niquet's arrival in Rome: Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, ii, p. 386-388. The letters that Santa Croce and Tournon addressed to the pope in January and February 1562 attested to the increasing good disposition demonstrated by the king of Navarre, who 'si è mostrato in ogni ragionamento molto catholico': ibid., pp. 371; 382; 403. On 28 January, Cardinal Tournon had also written to Borromeo that Ippolito d'Este, after the scandal of the request of the communion under both kinds, 'ha dimostrato qualche segno di ricognitione et di mutamento […] et si è dimostrato malcontento et di volontà di riunirsi con li signori catholici': ibid.*,* p. 372. Whether this was true or not, it probably

erano differenti d'opinione': Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea*, iv, p. 387.

<sup>84</sup> ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVII.5 (24 January 1562).

contributed to changing the pope's mind.

sion which he saw as unfair:

ate.<sup>84</sup>

<sup>86</sup> On 22 February 1562, Vargas wrote to Cardinal Granvelle that Catherine de' Medici had sent ambassador Lansac to Rome also to 'sostener Ferrara en la legacion […]. El cardenal de Ferrara con lo que ha escripto en alabanca suya y con la venida de su Nicheto ha impetrado quedarse por aora en su legacion, que no puede ser cosa mas perniciosa'. He concluded, sadly: 'Ferrara se estarà quanto quisiesse': Weiss (ed), *Papiers d'état*, vi, pp. 512-514.

<sup>87</sup> Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie*, ii, p. 413-414.

<sup>88</sup> On the first stage of the French civil wars, see: Roberts, *Peace and Authority*, pp. 13-38; Holt, *The French Wars of Religion*, *1562-1629* (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 50-75. 89 Santa Croce to Cardinal Borromeo: Santa Croce*, Lettres,* p. 94.

<sup>90</sup> Ippolito d'Este to Cardinal Borromeo: Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea*, iv, p. 405.

ularly on Ippolito's shameful pursuing of his own private benefit during his time in France. This was a point that the Spanish ambassador Vargas had also often brought to the pope's attention, in the hope that Pius IV would call the cardinal back to Italy and replace him with someone more suitable – from Vargas's perspective, someone more inclined to back Philip II's French politics and fight against the heretics. Vargas had depicted Ippolito as a man who 'only cares about his personal interests and passions and always aims at the pontificate, so much that even now he negotiates as though it was vacant'.<sup>91</sup> The idea that the cardinal of Ferrara was mainly working for his own benefit rather than for the Roman Church was reinforced by his very peculiar position as cardinal protector with huge economic interests in France and as member of an Italian ruling family with strong ties to the Valois monarchy.<sup>92</sup> This would not have been, per se, a good reason to distrust his commitment as a Roman representative; but, in Paris, the cardinal was quick to weave a network of relationships that allowed him to exploit his multifaceted powers to the utmost.

From the letters he exchanged with his nephew, Duke Alfonso II, it is clear that Ippolito d'Este's political agenda had been arranged even before he set off to France. Furthermore, it seems that this agenda had been at least partially conceived in collaboration with his nephew, the son of Renée of France and Anna d'Este's brother, who, having succeeded his father to the dukedom less than two years before, had much to expect in terms of political and economic support from the French monarchy. As we have seen, Ippolito had been away from France for a long time, and his old connections had weakened. In order to foster his personal and dynastic ambitions, therefore, he needed to reinforce his powerful alliances – something that can clearly be seen in the stops that the cardinal decided to make while he was travelling to Paris in September 1561. Over the two weeks that preceded his official entrance to Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Ippolito and his entourage stopped only twice: at Montargis, the residence of his sister-in-law Reneé of France, and in Meudon, where the duke of Guise and Anna d'Este were staying at the cardinal of Lorraine's castle.<sup>93</sup> Reneé was living a retired life in Montargis and did not have much influence on the royal court, although she still held a respected position due to her royal birth and had always been in contact with the Estense ambassador to Paris, Giulio Alvarotti, in order to promote the interests of her son Alfonso II.94 The Guise family, on

157

Guisa le ha detto una volta che per l'honor d'Iddio ella lasci predicare alli vescovi et alli curati et non s'impacci ella di queste cose che non toccano a lei. Un'altra volta le ha detto ch'essendo ella nata d'un così grande e savio re et christianissimo com'egli era, et parente stretta de tutti gl'altri christianissimi anch'essi, ch'ella continuova questi lenguaggi che la mostrarà ben non esser del vero sangue loro […]. Monsignor di Guisa et madama sua consorte [Anna d'Este] et il cardinale di Loreno quando era in corte sentivano un grandissimo dispiacere di queste cose, et così ci hanno detto tutti più di una volta et separatamente l'uno dall'altro, et sappessimo anco pur da essi che la regina parimenti se ne fastidisse infinitamente et par che tutti questi signori Chiatiglioni si siano molto intrinsecati co' essa lei': ASMO, AE,

<sup>95</sup> AAV, *Arch. Concist.*, *Acta Vicecanc*., 9, p. 74. The same consistory that appointed Ippolito II *legatus a latere,* on 2 June 1561, also confirmed Luigi as the apostolic administrator of the diocese of Ferrara, for which he had previously been granted a 'special exemption' due to his not being of age at the time of

<sup>97</sup> In March 1563, Michel de Hôpital told Prospero Santa Croce that 'un terzo delli beneficii della Francia sono in questo termine, che uno che ha moglie domanda una abbatia alla regina, et poi ne piglia possession sopra la testa o in nome di un pretazzolo, et lo nutrisce in casa dandoli un scudo al mese et tira il

resto delle entrate del beneficio ecclesiastico': Santa Croce*, Lettres,* pp. 231-232.

the other hand, were at the time the most influential French family and the head of the Catholic faction – the marriage of Anna d'Este, Alfonso's sister, into their clan had provided the Este with some formidable allies. In the year 1561, the House of Este was particularly eager to promote the ecclesiastical career of Alfonso's younger brother, Luigi d'Este, who, in compliance with the aristocratic rule of preserving the family assets, had been destined to the Church, like his uncle Ippolito II before him. The Este had already secured Luigi the diocese of Ferrara and obtained his promotion to the red hat in the consistory of 26 February 1561.<sup>95</sup> We will see in the next part how the Este managed to install Luigi at the highest ranks of the Catholic hierarchy and to confer him with his uncle's wealth and powers – cardinalate protectorship included – but for now it is sufficient to note that, from a perspective of familial and political reinforcement, Ippolito's legation to Paris was an unmissable oppor-

Less than two weeks after his arrival at court, Ippolito managed to obtain the queen mother's approval to resign his diocese of Auch, in the south of France, in favour of his nephew Luigi, retaining the *regressus* and all the revenues of the diocese – except 1.000 scudi, which were assigned to Luigi. Catherine de' Medici forwarded Ippolito's request to Rome, as Pius IV had to grant the legitimacy of the resignation in order to make it effective, and Ippolito wrote to his nephew Alfonso II to urge the papal approval through his ambassadors.<sup>96</sup> In the sixties of the sixteenth century, with the Council of Trent already in session and the long-awaited reform of the Church once again on the table, persuading the pope to approve blatantly nepotistic practice was not as straightforward as it used to be, and one needed to put as much pressure as possible on the papal hierarchies. Furthermore, the accumulation of residential sees and the abuses of the clergy were issues that were being debated not only at the Council of Trent but also in France,97 and that the monarchy was using against the pope to claim more independence and authority over the French benefices. When chancellor Michel de l'Hôpital announced to the papal nuncio Santa Croce that the cardinal of Lorraine had decided to participate in the Council and would bring with him a long document listing all ecclesiastical abuses in France, he

tunity and could not have occurred at a more propitious time.

Francia, 36, fos. 43v-44r (20 March 1561).

the conferral: ibid., p. 86. 96 ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVI.43 (4 October 1561).

<sup>91</sup> Weiss (ed), *Papiers d'état,* vi, p. 403. In his letters, Vargas often wrote that he feared that the cardinal of Ferrara would eventually manage to trick the pope with 'encantamientos y entratenimientos' and 'sperancas y negociaciones', in spite of the fact that 'la perdicion de la Francia todos la veen, y quan à paso largo corre el sathanismo': ibid.*,* vi, p. 405; 424 (7 November; 21 November 1561).

<sup>92</sup> To explain Ippolito d'Este's tolerant behaviour towards the heretics, the Venetian ambassador to France, Marcantonio Barbaro, mentioned 'l'interesse proprio del cardinale, avendo egli in Francia più di quaranta mila scudi d'entrata, e dubitando di non perderla per quei tumulti di religione, quando si fosse separato il regno da Santa Chiesa': Tommaseo (ed), *Relations,* ii, p. 86.

<sup>93</sup> Ippolito to Alfonso II: ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVI.42 (15 September 1561).

<sup>94</sup> Renée's position within the French nobility was complicated by the fact that, in 1561, she was publicly known for having reformist sympathies. In a letter of 15 September 1561, Ippolito inserted a cyphered paragraph to let Alfonso know that he had found the princess 'risolutissima in questa nuova setta, et si duole che le par d'haver simulato pur troppo': ibid*.* A few months earlier, Ferrarese ambassador Alvarotti had written to Duke Alfonso that 'perché ella [Reneé] parla di queste cose della fede, Monsignor di

the other hand, were at the time the most influential French family and the head of the Catholic faction – the marriage of Anna d'Este, Alfonso's sister, into their clan had provided the Este with some formidable allies. In the year 1561, the House of Este was particularly eager to promote the ecclesiastical career of Alfonso's younger brother, Luigi d'Este, who, in compliance with the aristocratic rule of preserving the family assets, had been destined to the Church, like his uncle Ippolito II before him. The Este had already secured Luigi the diocese of Ferrara and obtained his promotion to the red hat in the consistory of 26 February 1561.<sup>95</sup> We will see in the next part how the Este managed to install Luigi at the highest ranks of the Catholic hierarchy and to confer him with his uncle's wealth and powers – cardinalate protectorship included – but for now it is sufficient to note that, from a perspective of familial and political reinforcement, Ippolito's legation to Paris was an unmissable opportunity and could not have occurred at a more propitious time.

Less than two weeks after his arrival at court, Ippolito managed to obtain the queen mother's approval to resign his diocese of Auch, in the south of France, in favour of his nephew Luigi, retaining the *regressus* and all the revenues of the diocese – except 1.000 scudi, which were assigned to Luigi. Catherine de' Medici forwarded Ippolito's request to Rome, as Pius IV had to grant the legitimacy of the resignation in order to make it effective, and Ippolito wrote to his nephew Alfonso II to urge the papal approval through his ambassadors.<sup>96</sup> In the sixties of the sixteenth century, with the Council of Trent already in session and the long-awaited reform of the Church once again on the table, persuading the pope to approve blatantly nepotistic practice was not as straightforward as it used to be, and one needed to put as much pressure as possible on the papal hierarchies. Furthermore, the accumulation of residential sees and the abuses of the clergy were issues that were being debated not only at the Council of Trent but also in France,97 and that the monarchy was using against the pope to claim more independence and authority over the French benefices. When chancellor Michel de l'Hôpital announced to the papal nuncio Santa Croce that the cardinal of Lorraine had decided to participate in the Council and would bring with him a long document listing all ecclesiastical abuses in France, he

Guisa le ha detto una volta che per l'honor d'Iddio ella lasci predicare alli vescovi et alli curati et non s'impacci ella di queste cose che non toccano a lei. Un'altra volta le ha detto ch'essendo ella nata d'un così grande e savio re et christianissimo com'egli era, et parente stretta de tutti gl'altri christianissimi anch'essi, ch'ella continuova questi lenguaggi che la mostrarà ben non esser del vero sangue loro […]. Monsignor di Guisa et madama sua consorte [Anna d'Este] et il cardinale di Loreno quando era in corte sentivano un grandissimo dispiacere di queste cose, et così ci hanno detto tutti più di una volta et separatamente l'uno dall'altro, et sappessimo anco pur da essi che la regina parimenti se ne fastidisse infinitamente et par che tutti questi signori Chiatiglioni si siano molto intrinsecati co' essa lei': ASMO, AE, Francia, 36, fos. 43v-44r (20 March 1561).

<sup>95</sup> AAV, *Arch. Concist.*, *Acta Vicecanc*., 9, p. 74. The same consistory that appointed Ippolito II *legatus a latere,* on 2 June 1561, also confirmed Luigi as the apostolic administrator of the diocese of Ferrara, for which he had previously been granted a 'special exemption' due to his not being of age at the time of

the conferral: ibid., p. 86. 96 ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVI.43 (4 October 1561).

156

<sup>91</sup> Weiss (ed), *Papiers d'état,* vi, p. 403. In his letters, Vargas often wrote that he feared that the cardinal of Ferrara would eventually manage to trick the pope with 'encantamientos y entratenimientos' and 'sperancas y negociaciones', in spite of the fact that 'la perdicion de la Francia todos la veen, y quan à

<sup>92</sup> To explain Ippolito d'Este's tolerant behaviour towards the heretics, the Venetian ambassador to France, Marcantonio Barbaro, mentioned 'l'interesse proprio del cardinale, avendo egli in Francia più di quaranta mila scudi d'entrata, e dubitando di non perderla per quei tumulti di religione, quando si fosse

<sup>94</sup> Renée's position within the French nobility was complicated by the fact that, in 1561, she was publicly known for having reformist sympathies. In a letter of 15 September 1561, Ippolito inserted a cyphered paragraph to let Alfonso know that he had found the princess 'risolutissima in questa nuova setta, et si duole che le par d'haver simulato pur troppo': ibid*.* A few months earlier, Ferrarese ambassador Alvarotti had written to Duke Alfonso that 'perché ella [Reneé] parla di queste cose della fede, Monsignor di

paso largo corre el sathanismo': ibid.*,* vi, p. 405; 424 (7 November; 21 November 1561).

separato il regno da Santa Chiesa': Tommaseo (ed), *Relations,* ii, p. 86. <sup>93</sup> Ippolito to Alfonso II: ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVI.42 (15 September 1561).

ularly on Ippolito's shameful pursuing of his own private benefit during his time in France. This was a point that the Spanish ambassador Vargas had also often brought to the pope's attention, in the hope that Pius IV would call the cardinal back to Italy and replace him with someone more suitable – from Vargas's perspective, someone more inclined to back Philip II's French politics and fight against the heretics. Vargas had depicted Ippolito as a man who 'only cares about his personal interests and passions and always aims at the pontificate, so much that even now he negotiates as though it was vacant'.<sup>91</sup> The idea that the cardinal of Ferrara was mainly working for his own benefit rather than for the Roman Church was reinforced by his very peculiar position as cardinal protector with huge economic interests in France and as member of an Italian ruling family with strong ties to the Valois monarchy.<sup>92</sup> This would not have been, per se, a good reason to distrust his commitment as a Roman representative; but, in Paris, the cardinal was quick to weave a network of relation-

ships that allowed him to exploit his multifaceted powers to the utmost.

From the letters he exchanged with his nephew, Duke Alfonso II, it is clear that Ippolito d'Este's political agenda had been arranged even before he set off to France. Furthermore, it seems that this agenda had been at least partially conceived in collaboration with his nephew, the son of Renée of France and Anna d'Este's brother, who, having succeeded his father to the dukedom less than two years before, had much to expect in terms of political and economic support from the French monarchy. As we have seen, Ippolito had been away from France for a long time, and his old connections had weakened. In order to foster his personal and dynastic ambitions, therefore, he needed to reinforce his powerful alliances – something that can clearly be seen in the stops that the cardinal decided to make while he was travelling to Paris in September 1561. Over the two weeks that preceded his official entrance to Saint-Germain-en-Laye, Ippolito and his entourage stopped only twice: at Montargis, the residence of his sister-in-law Reneé of France, and in Meudon, where the duke of Guise and Anna d'Este were staying at the cardinal of Lorraine's castle.<sup>93</sup> Reneé was living a retired life in Montargis and did not have much influence on the royal court, although she still held a respected position due to her royal birth and had always been in contact with the Estense ambassador to Paris, Giulio Alvarotti, in order to promote the interests of her son Alfonso II.94 The Guise family, on

> <sup>97</sup> In March 1563, Michel de Hôpital told Prospero Santa Croce that 'un terzo delli beneficii della Francia sono in questo termine, che uno che ha moglie domanda una abbatia alla regina, et poi ne piglia possession sopra la testa o in nome di un pretazzolo, et lo nutrisce in casa dandoli un scudo al mese et tira il resto delle entrate del beneficio ecclesiastico': Santa Croce*, Lettres,* pp. 231-232.

#### The Path of Pleasantness

laughed and added that the first thing to do should have been to 'tear many abbeys from His Lordship [the cardinal of Lorraine] and His Lordship the legate'.<sup>98</sup>

Ippolito and Alfonso both seemed to be aware of the difficulties that the resignation of Auch would entail – not only because it was a nepotistic manoeuvre and Luigi already held the diocese of Ferrara, but also and especially because the French monarchy was troubled with religious problems and was trying to limit the pope's economic claims on the French benefices. As we have seen, this had largely contributed to the straining of the relation between Paris and Rome, and the fear that a strained relation would eventually take the form an irreparable political fracture explains why Ippolito was so eager to obtain the queen mother's approval.<sup>99</sup> That his relatives in Ferrara were equally concerned about Auch – and that the resignation had been clearly decided on a familial level – is proven by the fact that, in October 1561, Alfonso II wrote to Ippolito to remind him about it, to which Ippolito could reply a month later that the issue had already been taken care of.<sup>100</sup> In December, Cardinal Borromeo wrote that the pope had approved Ippolito's request, but this was probably not completely true as it took the Este two more years to obtain the official conferral of Auch to Luigi, in the consistory of 8 October 1563. The pope had been finally persuaded by the mighty influence of the cardinal of Lorraine, who, in the meantime, had left France to take part in the conciliar debates at Trent and could personally reassure the bishops about the lawfulness of Luigi's succession to the benefice.101

Not surprisingly, the scandalous resignation of Auch provided a powerful argument to those who were already criticising Ippolito's mild religious zeal, and it explains why one of the main accusations featured in the anonymous j'accuse was that the papal legate had gone to France to take care of his own business rather than the pope's. To claim the rightfulness of his actions, Ippolito wrote a resentful letter to cardinal Borromeo, which also provides a perfect example of the way Italian princes and their relatives used to deal with and think of ecclesiastical properties:

About the slander of which I have been the recipient, which is that I take better care of my private affairs than of the public ones, I do not want to neglect to let everyone

159

<sup>106</sup> Not surprisingly, Giulio Alvarotti's reports fill some 30 boxes and 81 folders at the State Archive of

know that this is so far from being true that I have never opened my mouth to remind this crown about all the several and important interests that I have with them; on the contrary, about the revenues of my benefices, which are indeed worth something, and which usually go exempted [from taxation], I did not say a word, but I content myself with paying them, in order not to mistake public with private. They will say that I have obtained the succession of Auch in favour of the cardinal my nephew. And what use is it for me? Or what benefit do I get from it? And is not that something that I could have obtained without being here? And should we go as far as to assume that the habit that is customary here for the great lords, to substitute uncles with nephews in their benefices, when they fall vacant and especially when [the nephews] are praiseworthy, has been violated and broken by him [Luigi]?<sup>102</sup>

The resignation of the bishopric of Auch was however only the tip of the iceberg represented by Ippolito's efforts to preserve and enhance his own power. He also committed himself to acquire lesser benefices, another collateral activity that was to increase the pope's lack of trust, as was the case when he obtained the abbey of Prémontré, motherhouse of the Premonstratensian order, from Cardinal Pisani, and supported the petitions of the French lords who wanted the pope to approve their own exchanges of benefices.103 Ippolito's intense activity of self-promotion is also clear in his correspondence: while the pope was lamenting that he had not received any news from his Legate – the first official report that he received from Paris was dated 4 November 1561 – and Ippolito's nephew Alfonso II was showing some signs of impatience,<sup>104</sup> the cardinal was in close correspondence with his Roman agent, Francesco Maria Visconti, to whom he had entrusted all his business with the

Although Alfonso II had initially been left unaware of the successful transferral of Auch, the presence of his uncle Ippolito in France brought a significant change of fortune to the business between the duchy of Ferrara and the Valois monarchy and to the work carried out by the Ferrarese ambassador, Giulio Alvarotti. Alvarotti was an exceptional diplomat in many respects: he was a resident ambassador to France for a remarkably long period of time (twenty consecutive years, from 1545 to 1565), throughout which he posted letters to Ferrara with an astonishing frequency – twice

Renée of France and Anna d'Este, but with the cardinal of Ferrara's arrival at court, he gained not only a new ally but also and especially a political shortcut to access

<sup>102</sup> Ippolito to Cardinal Borromeo, 27 January 1562: Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea,* p. 382. 103 AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 131, p. 40ss. See also ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVI.45 (4 December 1561). After Pisani's resignation, in 1562, Ippolito d'Este held Prémontré until his death, in 1572. 104 A month after Ippolito had arrived in France, Alfonso II wrote that he had still received no news from his uncle. Alfonso II also had an agreement with his relative Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga to exchange every week the news that they received from France and Germany, and Gonzaga too was complaining that he had not yet heard anything from Paris: ASMO, CS, 85, 1655.XX.61 (16 October 1561); ASMO, CDCPE, Vaticano – cardinali: Ercole Gonzaga, 1380A/115 (30 October 1561). 105 All the letters addressed to Francesco Maria Visconti are collected in one manuscript: AAV, *Misc.,* 

<sup>106</sup> Alvarotti was already in contact with

Roman Curia.

*Arm. II*, 131.

Modena.

105

a week, on average, and several pages long.

<sup>98</sup> Ibid., pp. 185-186. 99 As he explained to the pope through his Roman agent, in December 1561: 'Quando mi mossi a parlare de la cosa de lo arcivescovato d'Aux, lo feci pensando certo d'haver a rompere et conoscevo che s'io non havessi alhora ottenuto questo punto, sarebbe stato impossibile in ogn'altro tempo'. And again, at the end of the same month: 'Né haverei anche mossa parola de la cosa d'Aux se non fusse stato come vo ho anche scritto il dubbio che hebbi non si havesse da venir a rottura': AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 131, p. 40ss; 64ss. See also ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVI.45; 48 (4 December and 31 December 1561).

<sup>100</sup> Alfonso II had written to his uncle that 'se si lascia passar questa occasione senza far qualche cosa a comodo suo [Luigi d'Este] de' i beneficii ch'ella ha in cotesto regno, Dio sa quando se ne potrà presenter un'altra si opportuna': ASMO, CS, 85, 1655.XX.60 (16 October 1561). Ippolito agreed that the resignation of Auch was 'de la maggior importantia che ci fusse, perché de le altre cose confido che potremo più facilmente assicurarci': ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVI.44 (20 November 1561).

<sup>101</sup> The consistorial decision about the diocese of Auch caused nonetheless a scandal. Cardinal Borromeo wrote a letter to the papal legates in Trent to explain and justify Pius IV's decision, which seemed to be in open contradiction with the spirit of the ecclesiastical reform: Trisco, 'Carlo Borromeo', pp. 62-63 (also p. 63 n. 65 about Cardinal Morone's involvement in the polemic on Auch).

know that this is so far from being true that I have never opened my mouth to remind this crown about all the several and important interests that I have with them; on the contrary, about the revenues of my benefices, which are indeed worth something, and which usually go exempted [from taxation], I did not say a word, but I content myself with paying them, in order not to mistake public with private. They will say that I have obtained the succession of Auch in favour of the cardinal my nephew. And what use is it for me? Or what benefit do I get from it? And is not that something that I could have obtained without being here? And should we go as far as to assume that the habit that is customary here for the great lords, to substitute uncles with nephews in their benefices, when they fall vacant and especially when [the nephews] are praiseworthy, has been violated and broken by him [Luigi]?<sup>102</sup>

The resignation of the bishopric of Auch was however only the tip of the iceberg represented by Ippolito's efforts to preserve and enhance his own power. He also committed himself to acquire lesser benefices, another collateral activity that was to increase the pope's lack of trust, as was the case when he obtained the abbey of Prémontré, motherhouse of the Premonstratensian order, from Cardinal Pisani, and supported the petitions of the French lords who wanted the pope to approve their own exchanges of benefices.103 Ippolito's intense activity of self-promotion is also clear in his correspondence: while the pope was lamenting that he had not received any news from his Legate – the first official report that he received from Paris was dated 4 November 1561 – and Ippolito's nephew Alfonso II was showing some signs of impatience,<sup>104</sup> the cardinal was in close correspondence with his Roman agent, Francesco Maria Visconti, to whom he had entrusted all his business with the Roman Curia. 105

Although Alfonso II had initially been left unaware of the successful transferral of Auch, the presence of his uncle Ippolito in France brought a significant change of fortune to the business between the duchy of Ferrara and the Valois monarchy and to the work carried out by the Ferrarese ambassador, Giulio Alvarotti. Alvarotti was an exceptional diplomat in many respects: he was a resident ambassador to France for a remarkably long period of time (twenty consecutive years, from 1545 to 1565), throughout which he posted letters to Ferrara with an astonishing frequency – twice a week, on average, and several pages long. <sup>106</sup> Alvarotti was already in contact with Renée of France and Anna d'Este, but with the cardinal of Ferrara's arrival at court, he gained not only a new ally but also and especially a political shortcut to access

158

<sup>101</sup> The consistorial decision about the diocese of Auch caused nonetheless a scandal. Cardinal Borromeo wrote a letter to the papal legates in Trent to explain and justify Pius IV's decision, which seemed to be in open contradiction with the spirit of the ecclesiastical reform: Trisco, 'Carlo Borromeo', pp. 62-63

laughed and added that the first thing to do should have been to 'tear many abbeys

Ippolito and Alfonso both seemed to be aware of the difficulties that the resignation of Auch would entail – not only because it was a nepotistic manoeuvre and Luigi already held the diocese of Ferrara, but also and especially because the French monarchy was troubled with religious problems and was trying to limit the pope's economic claims on the French benefices. As we have seen, this had largely contributed to the straining of the relation between Paris and Rome, and the fear that a strained relation would eventually take the form an irreparable political fracture explains why Ippolito was so eager to obtain the queen mother's approval.<sup>99</sup> That his relatives in Ferrara were equally concerned about Auch – and that the resignation had been clearly decided on a familial level – is proven by the fact that, in October 1561, Alfonso II wrote to Ippolito to remind him about it, to which Ippolito could reply a month later that the issue had already been taken care of.<sup>100</sup> In December, Cardinal Borromeo wrote that the pope had approved Ippolito's request, but this was probably not completely true as it took the Este two more years to obtain the official conferral of Auch to Luigi, in the consistory of 8 October 1563. The pope had been finally persuaded by the mighty influence of the cardinal of Lorraine, who, in the meantime, had left France to take part in the conciliar debates at Trent and could personally reassure the bishops about the lawfulness of Luigi's succession to the

Not surprisingly, the scandalous resignation of Auch provided a powerful argument to those who were already criticising Ippolito's mild religious zeal, and it explains why one of the main accusations featured in the anonymous j'accuse was that the papal legate had gone to France to take care of his own business rather than the pope's. To claim the rightfulness of his actions, Ippolito wrote a resentful letter to cardinal Borromeo, which also provides a perfect example of the way Italian princes

About the slander of which I have been the recipient, which is that I take better care of my private affairs than of the public ones, I do not want to neglect to let everyone

<sup>98</sup> Ibid., pp. 185-186. 99 As he explained to the pope through his Roman agent, in December 1561: 'Quando mi mossi a parlare de la cosa de lo arcivescovato d'Aux, lo feci pensando certo d'haver a rompere et conoscevo che s'io non havessi alhora ottenuto questo punto, sarebbe stato impossibile in ogn'altro tempo'. And again, at the end of the same month: 'Né haverei anche mossa parola de la cosa d'Aux se non fusse stato come vo ho anche scritto il dubbio che hebbi non si havesse da venir a rottura': AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 131, p. 40ss; 64ss. See also ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVI.45; 48 (4 December and 31 December 1561). <sup>100</sup> Alfonso II had written to his uncle that 'se si lascia passar questa occasione senza far qualche cosa a comodo suo [Luigi d'Este] de' i beneficii ch'ella ha in cotesto regno, Dio sa quando se ne potrà presenter un'altra si opportuna': ASMO, CS, 85, 1655.XX.60 (16 October 1561). Ippolito agreed that the resignation of Auch was 'de la maggior importantia che ci fusse, perché de le altre cose confido che potre-

and their relatives used to deal with and think of ecclesiastical properties:

mo più facilmente assicurarci': ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVI.44 (20 November 1561).

(also p. 63 n. 65 about Cardinal Morone's involvement in the polemic on Auch).

from His Lordship [the cardinal of Lorraine] and His Lordship the legate'.<sup>98</sup>

benefice.101

<sup>102</sup> Ippolito to Cardinal Borromeo, 27 January 1562: Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea,* p. 382. 103 AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 131, p. 40ss. See also ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVI.45 (4 December 1561).

After Pisani's resignation, in 1562, Ippolito d'Este held Prémontré until his death, in 1572. 104 A month after Ippolito had arrived in France, Alfonso II wrote that he had still received no news from his uncle. Alfonso II also had an agreement with his relative Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga to exchange every week the news that they received from France and Germany, and Gonzaga too was complaining that he had not yet heard anything from Paris: ASMO, CS, 85, 1655.XX.61 (16 October 1561); ASMO,

CDCPE, Vaticano – cardinali: Ercole Gonzaga, 1380A/115 (30 October 1561). 105 All the letters addressed to Francesco Maria Visconti are collected in one manuscript: AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 131.

<sup>106</sup> Not surprisingly, Giulio Alvarotti's reports fill some 30 boxes and 81 folders at the State Archive of Modena.

the French monarchy and hasten the usually long times of diplomacy.<sup>107</sup> Alfonso II's attention, in the years 1561 and 1562, was focused on economic matters: he was trying to obtain a pension of 48.000 francs from the Valois monarchy, the restitution of a loan made by his father Ercole II, and the confirmation of the right of possession of some lands that he had inherited from Renée of France.<sup>108</sup> The restitution of the loan had to be postponed to better times (the monarchy was on the verge of bankruptcy and indebted to several French lords and foreign bankers for large amounts of money),<sup>109</sup> but, thanks to the support of Ippolito and the duke of Guise, Alvarotti managed to obtain the pension and the payment of the revenues that were due to Alfonso for the lands he owned in Normandy and in Montargis.110

Ippolito's influence was more effective when he had to take up the defence of Alfonso II's political position rather than the defence of his economic interests. The honour of his own family was of course a matter that affected the cardinal's personal political weight and therefore, for him, a much more compelling issue. In matters of honour, he also had much more freedom of action, given that the French bureaucracy had little power over issues that were usually addressed directly to the sovereign. This was the case when the Estense ambassador Alvarotti was involved in a quarrell over the right of precedence against the Medicean ambassador. To perform his duties, any ambassador needed to spend a good deal of time sitting in the waiting room of a powerful nobleman who could support his petitions or influence the outcome of an ongoing negotiation, especially when these entailed a monetary concession; in such cases, it was also recommended to strengthen the goodwill of the potential intermediaries by offering them a 'present'.111 Resident ambassadors were also expected to defend their lord's rank and dignity at every social occasion, and to act as a sort of 'political mirror'.<sup>112</sup> For this reason, they often found themselves involved in harsh disputes with other ambassadors over their right of precedence, as the hierarchical disposition of diplomatic representatives at public events, such as religious processions or festive celebrations, did not have a merely symbolic value but also reflected the relationship between a lord and a monarchy and between that same lord and his peers.<sup>113</sup> Florence and Ferrara had rivalled each other for about two decades,

<sup>113</sup> On the crucial importance that all European sovereigns attributed to the precedence, see: M. A. Visceglia: 'Il cerimoniale come linguaggio del politico. Su alcuni conflitti di precedenza alla corte di Roma tra Cinquecento e Seicento', in C. Brice and M. A. Visceglia (eds), *Cérémonial et rituel à Rome (XVIe-*

161

<sup>116</sup> The same problem occurred in March 1562, when Florence and Ferrara were about to send their representatives to the Council of Trent. Cardinal Gonzaga suggested that Alfonso II should appoint a member of the clergy, because Cosimo had already appointed a lay ambassador and, this way, the two diplomats would have been assigned a seat in different parts of the room, thus avoiding the problem of prece-

dence: ASMO, CDCPE, Vaticano – cardinali: Ercole Gonzaga, 1380A/115, 19 March 1562. 117 ASMO, CDA, Francia, 36, fo. 45v (28 September 1561).

*XIXe siècle)* (Rome, 1997)', pp. 117-176; M. J. Levin, 'A New World Order. The Spanish Campaign for Precedence in Early Modern Europe', *Journal of Early Modern History*, 6/3 (2002)', pp. 233-264. <sup>114</sup> The dispute apparently began in Italy in 1541, when Charles V placed the duke of Este at his right and the duke of Florence at his left. From that moment, the Este claimed superiority of rank over the Medici. The importance that both households attributed to precedence was such as to engage their respective chancelleries in the production of slanderous pamphlets and self-celebrating apologies, an activity that Ludovico Antonio Muratori condemned about 150 years later: L. A. Muratori, *Delle antichità estensi ed italiane* (2 vols, Modena, 1740), ii, pp. 392-393. For a contemporary summary of the dispute over the precedence between Ferrara and Florence in the course of the Sixteenth century, see: Albèri (ed), *Relazioni*, s. 2, ii, pp. 402-404. Similar disputes are discussed in Frigo, 'Guerra e diplomazia', p. 44

each claiming superiority over the other and alleging royal patents or privileges conceded by foreign rulers to support their claims.<sup>114</sup> If the right of precedence may appear as a political abstraction to the eyes of present-day observers, it was definitely not such to the eyes of sixteenth-century political players. Far from representing merely an aristocratic querelle with few real consequences, it was a matter that hugely affected diplomatic practice. When, in 1544, Cosimo de' Medici decided for the first time to send a resident ambassador to France, he learned that the Ferrarese representative had been given a privileged position over the Florentine one: rather than accepting that sign of diplomatic inferiority – with all its political implications – Cosimo called his ambassador back to Florence and did not send any other diplo-

At the time of Ippolito's legation, both Alfonso II and Cosimo de' Medici were already seeking the French monarchy's support to boost their claims of precedence – and this subject was often discussed among the resident ambassadors to Paris<sup>115</sup> – the casus belli occurred when Alvarotti heard from several people that he would be denied attendance at the feast of Saint Michael because the queen mother did not want to prevent the Florentine ambassador from participating, and the two diplomats could not be present at the same time as a consequence of the pending problem of precedence.<sup>116</sup> Alerted by this rumour, Alvarotti immediately told Ippolito d'Este; the cardinal replied that he could not believe that the queen mother would do something so disrespectful when he was staying at her court.117 Given the privileged relations that traditionally existed between Paris and Ferrara, it is easy to understand why both Alvarotti and the cardinal interpreted this rumour as a serious and dangerous political precedent – a rumour that, if true, could have undermined their household's position amongst the competing Italian powers. While a rapid inquiry made by Anna d'Este and the duke of Guise had confirmed that the rumour was true, Alvarotti's plea addressed to the master of ceremonies failed to convince the queen to reverse her decision. Only the intervention of Ippolito, who personally talked to the queen mother over dinner and summoned the duke of Guise to give her further evidence on the privileges that had always been granted to the duke of Ferrara's en-

mat for the following two years.

and Visceglia, 'Il cerimoniale', pp. 127-133. <sup>115</sup> ASMO, CDA, Francia, 36, 13 August 1560.

<sup>107</sup> This was also true for the papal nuncio Santa Croce, who used to rely on the cardinal of Ferrara whenever he was struggling to obtain a hearing or to arrange a meeting with a French lord: Sûsta, *Die* 

*Römische Curie,* ii, p. 437. 108 ASMO, CDA, Francia, 36, fos. 26; 12; 31 (9 February; 24 August; 14 October 1561). 109 Ibid., fo. 45 (23 November 1560).

<sup>110</sup> ASMO, CS, 85, 1655.XX.65.

<sup>111</sup> As Renée of France once explained to ambassador Alvarotti: ibid*.* 

<sup>112</sup> For an analysis of the political and cultural role of ambassadors in the sixteenth century, see D. Frigo and A. Belton (eds), *Politics and Diplomacy in Early Modern Italy. The Structure of Diplomatic Practice, 1480-1800* (Cambridge, 2000). Contemporary treatises depicted the qualities required of a good ambassador: D. Frigo, 'Virtù politiche e "pratica delle corti": l'immagine dell'ambasciatore tra Cinque e Seicento', in C. Continisio and C. Mozzarelli (eds), *Repubblica e virtù. Pensiero politico e monarchia cattolica fra XVI e XVII secolo* (Rome, 1995)', pp. 355-376.

each claiming superiority over the other and alleging royal patents or privileges conceded by foreign rulers to support their claims.<sup>114</sup> If the right of precedence may appear as a political abstraction to the eyes of present-day observers, it was definitely not such to the eyes of sixteenth-century political players. Far from representing merely an aristocratic querelle with few real consequences, it was a matter that hugely affected diplomatic practice. When, in 1544, Cosimo de' Medici decided for the first time to send a resident ambassador to France, he learned that the Ferrarese representative had been given a privileged position over the Florentine one: rather than accepting that sign of diplomatic inferiority – with all its political implications – Cosimo called his ambassador back to Florence and did not send any other diplomat for the following two years.

At the time of Ippolito's legation, both Alfonso II and Cosimo de' Medici were already seeking the French monarchy's support to boost their claims of precedence – and this subject was often discussed among the resident ambassadors to Paris<sup>115</sup> – the casus belli occurred when Alvarotti heard from several people that he would be denied attendance at the feast of Saint Michael because the queen mother did not want to prevent the Florentine ambassador from participating, and the two diplomats could not be present at the same time as a consequence of the pending problem of precedence.<sup>116</sup> Alerted by this rumour, Alvarotti immediately told Ippolito d'Este; the cardinal replied that he could not believe that the queen mother would do something so disrespectful when he was staying at her court.117 Given the privileged relations that traditionally existed between Paris and Ferrara, it is easy to understand why both Alvarotti and the cardinal interpreted this rumour as a serious and dangerous political precedent – a rumour that, if true, could have undermined their household's position amongst the competing Italian powers. While a rapid inquiry made by Anna d'Este and the duke of Guise had confirmed that the rumour was true, Alvarotti's plea addressed to the master of ceremonies failed to convince the queen to reverse her decision. Only the intervention of Ippolito, who personally talked to the queen mother over dinner and summoned the duke of Guise to give her further evidence on the privileges that had always been granted to the duke of Ferrara's en-

<sup>114</sup> The dispute apparently began in Italy in 1541, when Charles V placed the duke of Este at his right and the duke of Florence at his left. From that moment, the Este claimed superiority of rank over the Medici. The importance that both households attributed to precedence was such as to engage their respective chancelleries in the production of slanderous pamphlets and self-celebrating apologies, an activity that Ludovico Antonio Muratori condemned about 150 years later: L. A. Muratori, *Delle antichità estensi ed italiane* (2 vols, Modena, 1740), ii, pp. 392-393. For a contemporary summary of the dispute over the precedence between Ferrara and Florence in the course of the Sixteenth century, see: Albèri (ed), *Relazioni*, s. 2, ii, pp. 402-404. Similar disputes are discussed in Frigo, 'Guerra e diplomazia', p. 44 and Visceglia, 'Il cerimoniale', pp. 127-133.

<sup>115</sup> ASMO, CDA, Francia, 36, 13 August 1560.

160

<sup>113</sup> On the crucial importance that all European sovereigns attributed to the precedence, see: M. A. Visceglia: 'Il cerimoniale come linguaggio del politico. Su alcuni conflitti di precedenza alla corte di Roma tra Cinquecento e Seicento', in C. Brice and M. A. Visceglia (eds), *Cérémonial et rituel à Rome (XVIe-*

<sup>107</sup> This was also true for the papal nuncio Santa Croce, who used to rely on the cardinal of Ferrara whenever he was struggling to obtain a hearing or to arrange a meeting with a French lord: Sûsta, *Die* 

<sup>112</sup> For an analysis of the political and cultural role of ambassadors in the sixteenth century, see D. Frigo and A. Belton (eds), *Politics and Diplomacy in Early Modern Italy. The Structure of Diplomatic Practice, 1480-1800* (Cambridge, 2000). Contemporary treatises depicted the qualities required of a good ambassador: D. Frigo, 'Virtù politiche e "pratica delle corti": l'immagine dell'ambasciatore tra Cinque e Seicento', in C. Continisio and C. Mozzarelli (eds), *Repubblica e virtù. Pensiero politico e monarchia* 

*Römische Curie,* ii, p. 437. 108 ASMO, CDA, Francia, 36, fos. 26; 12; 31 (9 February; 24 August; 14 October 1561). 109 Ibid., fo. 45 (23 November 1560).

<sup>111</sup> As Renée of France once explained to ambassador Alvarotti: ibid*.* 

*cattolica fra XVI e XVII secolo* (Rome, 1995)', pp. 355-376.

<sup>110</sup> ASMO, CS, 85, 1655.XX.65.

the French monarchy and hasten the usually long times of diplomacy.<sup>107</sup> Alfonso II's attention, in the years 1561 and 1562, was focused on economic matters: he was trying to obtain a pension of 48.000 francs from the Valois monarchy, the restitution of a loan made by his father Ercole II, and the confirmation of the right of possession of some lands that he had inherited from Renée of France.<sup>108</sup> The restitution of the loan had to be postponed to better times (the monarchy was on the verge of bankruptcy and indebted to several French lords and foreign bankers for large amounts of money),<sup>109</sup> but, thanks to the support of Ippolito and the duke of Guise, Alvarotti managed to obtain the pension and the payment of the revenues that were due to Al-

Ippolito's influence was more effective when he had to take up the defence of Alfonso II's political position rather than the defence of his economic interests. The honour of his own family was of course a matter that affected the cardinal's personal political weight and therefore, for him, a much more compelling issue. In matters of honour, he also had much more freedom of action, given that the French bureaucracy had little power over issues that were usually addressed directly to the sovereign. This was the case when the Estense ambassador Alvarotti was involved in a quarrell over the right of precedence against the Medicean ambassador. To perform his duties, any ambassador needed to spend a good deal of time sitting in the waiting room of a powerful nobleman who could support his petitions or influence the outcome of an ongoing negotiation, especially when these entailed a monetary concession; in such cases, it was also recommended to strengthen the goodwill of the potential intermediaries by offering them a 'present'.111 Resident ambassadors were also expected to defend their lord's rank and dignity at every social occasion, and to act as a sort of 'political mirror'.<sup>112</sup> For this reason, they often found themselves involved in harsh disputes with other ambassadors over their right of precedence, as the hierarchical disposition of diplomatic representatives at public events, such as religious processions or festive celebrations, did not have a merely symbolic value but also reflected the relationship between a lord and a monarchy and between that same lord and his peers.<sup>113</sup> Florence and Ferrara had rivalled each other for about two decades,

fonso for the lands he owned in Normandy and in Montargis.110

*XIXe siècle)* (Rome, 1997)', pp. 117-176; M. J. Levin, 'A New World Order. The Spanish Campaign for Precedence in Early Modern Europe', *Journal of Early Modern History*, 6/3 (2002)', pp. 233-264.

<sup>116</sup> The same problem occurred in March 1562, when Florence and Ferrara were about to send their representatives to the Council of Trent. Cardinal Gonzaga suggested that Alfonso II should appoint a member of the clergy, because Cosimo had already appointed a lay ambassador and, this way, the two diplomats would have been assigned a seat in different parts of the room, thus avoiding the problem of precedence: ASMO, CDCPE, Vaticano – cardinali: Ercole Gonzaga, 1380A/115, 19 March 1562. 117 ASMO, CDA, Francia, 36, fo. 45v (28 September 1561).

voys, succeeded in restoring Alvarotti's traditional rights and in granting him his usual seat during the ceremony.118

At the same time, something similar was happening in Spain, where, as we have seen, the Estense ambassador was trying to win Philip II over to Alfonso's cause – a difficult task given that the duke of Florence was personally related to the powerful house of Toledo on his mother's side and that Cosimo had been allied with the Habsburgs for a long time. Thanks to the frequent letters that both the Estense ambassador and Ippolito's agent to Madrid were addressing to the cardinal in Paris, Ippolito could complement – and often amend – Alfonso II's instructions to the Estense ambassador. As we have seen, the ambassador himself seemed to rely more upon Ippolito's advice than Alfonso's, and to consider the cardinal as the ultimate protector of the household's prestige. The aggressive diplomatic strategy that Alfonso II was pursuing in Spain – which also entailed the diffusion of propaganda pamphlets<sup>119</sup> – was about to prove ineffective, and the cardinal feared the intervention of Pius IV, whose election had been warmly supported by Cosimo de' Medici and on whose preference between Ferrara and Florence there could hardly be any doubt.<sup>120</sup> The fact that the international situation was overall so unfavourable to the claims of the duchy of Ferrara meant that everything that was happening in Paris acquired, by reflection, more importance, and that the preservation and enhancement of Ferarra's power had necessarily to pass through the French monarchy.

Prospero Santa Croce and Ippolito d'Este's relationship with the French royal court changed when they became the intermediaries of the economic negotiation between Paris and Rome. Rather than trying to win over the monarchy to the Catholic cause, they were now sought after to sponsor the avances that the queen mother was making to the pope to obtain the money she needed. In April 1562, Constable Montmorency asked Prospero Santa Croce to inquire whether the pope was willing to pay 200.000 scudi to the French kingdom, and not long after the queen mother

<sup>118</sup> Ibid.; ibid., CS, 85, 1655.XX.60 (16 October 1561).

<sup>120</sup> In March 1561, Alfonso II had already entrusted his uncle, Don Francesco d'Este, with a mission to the pope, to express Alfonso's dissatisfaction about the better treatment received by Cosimo de' Medici: 'Tutti gli honori et ricevimenti regii fatti da Vostra Santità al duca di Fiorenza […] et quelli fatti al Signor Duca mio nepote molto inferiori, […] delli quali il Signor Duca si vorrà valer come di atti nuovamente fatti in cospetto del mondo': ASMO, CDA, Roma, 66, 321.1 (Instruttione a voi Conte Hercole Tassoni). Alfonso's complaints, however, put Ferrara in a diplomatic deadlock: the pope asked Ferrara and Florence to submit their respective claims to the Curia and to accept the pope's deliberation on the precedence – an official request that was difficult to dismiss, but that was also coming from a pope whom the Este knew was partial to Florence. Whilst Alfonso II wrote to the cardinal that he was 'ben risoluto a non rimettermi a quel giuditio', Ippolito warned his nephew about the tricky diplomatic situation in which the pope's intervention had put them (perché 'si come s'ha d'aspettar molto poco favor da quella banda, così da l'altro canto penso che il non contentarla sarà per far restar Sua Santità mal sodisfatta'): ASMO, CS, 85, 1655.XX.60 (15 October 1561); 150, 1709.XXVI.44 (20 November 1561).

163

<sup>121</sup> Santa Croce*, Lettres,* p. 145. 122 Ippolito to Cardinal Borromeo (27 April 1562): 'Oltre che obbligherà questo regno tuttavia più alla protezione della Sedia Apostolica, leverà l'occasione di metter mai più innanzi né editti né cose che diminuiscano l'auttorità di quella': Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea,* p. 407. On Rome's response to the

<sup>123</sup> Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie,* ii, p. 463-465. On the removal of de l'Hôpital, Ippolito wrote to Alfonso II that the only way to obtain it would have been to put him on trial, and this was made difficult by the fact that the chancellor regularly attended mass, took confession and generally behaved as a good Catholic: ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVII.24 (15 June 1562). Pius IV's suspicion had probably been aroused by the news he had received in March from the papal nuncio Santa Croce about a meeting between de l'Hôpital and the Calvinist brothers Cardinal Chatillon and prince of Condé: Santa Croce*, Lettres,* p. 91. <sup>124</sup> Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea*, p. 418. When the cardinal of Ferrara reiterated his offer on the following day, the queen mother replied that there was no need to abrogate the edicts given that France was already at war against the Huguenots, that she could not reverse a decision made by the Estates General and that she refused to let the pope instruct her on the way of selecting and employing her officials:

edicts, see: Tallon, 'Rome et les premiers edits', p. 39.

ibid., p. 423.

approached Ippolito d'Este with the same request.121 The cardinal forwarded Catherine's call for help to Rome and provided another demonstration of the realpolitik spirit that, as we have seen, had always characterised his behaviour as a legate: he suggested to Pius IV that he accept the queen mother's request, not only to defend the survival of Catholicism in France, but also to be able to claim his credit back in

Upon Catherine de' Medici's request, on 29 April 1562 Ippolito's secretary Niquet was dispatched to Rome to set the terms of the financial agreement between the French crown and the papacy. When Niquet came back from his mission, more than a month later, Ippolito d'Este found himself once again in the very difficult position of being caught between the expectations and needs of the Holy See and the French monarchy. The pope had agreed to pay France 200.000 scudi, but he had also listened to Ippolito's advice and decided to use this economic aid as a leverage to obtain what he had not been able to obtain thus far: a declaration of loyalty to the Roman Church, both religiously and politically. If Pius IV was keen to secure the predominance of Catholicism in France by supporting the Valois monarchy, he was also keen to secure the predominance of Catholicism within the Valois monarchy by requiring very precise political assurances before disbursing the money. Those assurances – which entailed much more than the mere abrogation of the edicts of tolerance – were: an official promise that the war would exclusively pursue the interest of Catholicism, the cancellation of the decree approved by the Estates General on the papal revenues, the cancellation of the edicts favourable to the Huguenots and the immediate removal of all 'suspected characters' from the court, in particular the chancellor Michel de l'Hôpital.123 Meanwhile, the pope arranged for 25.000 scudi in lettere di cambio to be withdrawn in Antwerp, instructing his legate to bestow them to the French crown only upon acceptance of all the conditions attached. The remaining sum would be paid over a period of three months, half of it being a 'gift' and half a loan to be paid back with interest. On 15 June, Ippolito d'Este informed the queen mother of Pius IV's conditions and she became so distressed that the cardinal did not manage to get through the whole list.<sup>124</sup> On the same day, Ippolito

future and demand the cancellation of the much-hated edicts of tolerance.122

<sup>119</sup> Fulvio Rangoni wrote to the cardinal that he believed it would be more appropriate to 'tacer poi le invettive et le accuse della casa de Medici, che non facevano al caso […] nominandolo in voce poi pubblicamente pescatore di pane et mercantuccio': BEM, Fondo Campori, 189, Rangoni Fulvio – Copialettere (1 May 1562). In March 1562, Alfonso had had news of a 'scrittura senza nome' that contained a 'nota d'infamia ai nostri maggiori', to which he intended to provide a response: ASMO, CS, 85, 1655.XX.65 (19 March 1562).

approached Ippolito d'Este with the same request.121 The cardinal forwarded Catherine's call for help to Rome and provided another demonstration of the realpolitik spirit that, as we have seen, had always characterised his behaviour as a legate: he suggested to Pius IV that he accept the queen mother's request, not only to defend the survival of Catholicism in France, but also to be able to claim his credit back in future and demand the cancellation of the much-hated edicts of tolerance.122

Upon Catherine de' Medici's request, on 29 April 1562 Ippolito's secretary Niquet was dispatched to Rome to set the terms of the financial agreement between the French crown and the papacy. When Niquet came back from his mission, more than a month later, Ippolito d'Este found himself once again in the very difficult position of being caught between the expectations and needs of the Holy See and the French monarchy. The pope had agreed to pay France 200.000 scudi, but he had also listened to Ippolito's advice and decided to use this economic aid as a leverage to obtain what he had not been able to obtain thus far: a declaration of loyalty to the Roman Church, both religiously and politically. If Pius IV was keen to secure the predominance of Catholicism in France by supporting the Valois monarchy, he was also keen to secure the predominance of Catholicism within the Valois monarchy by requiring very precise political assurances before disbursing the money. Those assurances – which entailed much more than the mere abrogation of the edicts of tolerance – were: an official promise that the war would exclusively pursue the interest of Catholicism, the cancellation of the decree approved by the Estates General on the papal revenues, the cancellation of the edicts favourable to the Huguenots and the immediate removal of all 'suspected characters' from the court, in particular the chancellor Michel de l'Hôpital.123 Meanwhile, the pope arranged for 25.000 scudi in lettere di cambio to be withdrawn in Antwerp, instructing his legate to bestow them to the French crown only upon acceptance of all the conditions attached. The remaining sum would be paid over a period of three months, half of it being a 'gift' and half a loan to be paid back with interest. On 15 June, Ippolito d'Este informed the queen mother of Pius IV's conditions and she became so distressed that the cardinal did not manage to get through the whole list.<sup>124</sup> On the same day, Ippolito

162

voys, succeeded in restoring Alvarotti's traditional rights and in granting him his

power had necessarily to pass through the French monarchy.

<sup>118</sup> Ibid.; ibid., CS, 85, 1655.XX.60 (16 October 1561).

1655.XX.65 (19 March 1562).

At the same time, something similar was happening in Spain, where, as we have seen, the Estense ambassador was trying to win Philip II over to Alfonso's cause – a difficult task given that the duke of Florence was personally related to the powerful house of Toledo on his mother's side and that Cosimo had been allied with the Habsburgs for a long time. Thanks to the frequent letters that both the Estense ambassador and Ippolito's agent to Madrid were addressing to the cardinal in Paris, Ippolito could complement – and often amend – Alfonso II's instructions to the Estense ambassador. As we have seen, the ambassador himself seemed to rely more upon Ippolito's advice than Alfonso's, and to consider the cardinal as the ultimate protector of the household's prestige. The aggressive diplomatic strategy that Alfonso II was pursuing in Spain – which also entailed the diffusion of propaganda pamphlets<sup>119</sup> – was about to prove ineffective, and the cardinal feared the intervention of Pius IV, whose election had been warmly supported by Cosimo de' Medici and on whose preference between Ferrara and Florence there could hardly be any doubt.<sup>120</sup> The fact that the international situation was overall so unfavourable to the claims of the duchy of Ferrara meant that everything that was happening in Paris acquired, by reflection, more importance, and that the preservation and enhancement of Ferarra's

Prospero Santa Croce and Ippolito d'Este's relationship with the French royal court changed when they became the intermediaries of the economic negotiation between Paris and Rome. Rather than trying to win over the monarchy to the Catholic cause, they were now sought after to sponsor the avances that the queen mother was making to the pope to obtain the money she needed. In April 1562, Constable Montmorency asked Prospero Santa Croce to inquire whether the pope was willing to pay 200.000 scudi to the French kingdom, and not long after the queen mother

<sup>119</sup> Fulvio Rangoni wrote to the cardinal that he believed it would be more appropriate to 'tacer poi le invettive et le accuse della casa de Medici, che non facevano al caso […] nominandolo in voce poi pubblicamente pescatore di pane et mercantuccio': BEM, Fondo Campori, 189, Rangoni Fulvio – Copialettere (1 May 1562). In March 1562, Alfonso had had news of a 'scrittura senza nome' that contained a 'nota d'infamia ai nostri maggiori', to which he intended to provide a response: ASMO, CS, 85,

<sup>120</sup> In March 1561, Alfonso II had already entrusted his uncle, Don Francesco d'Este, with a mission to the pope, to express Alfonso's dissatisfaction about the better treatment received by Cosimo de' Medici: 'Tutti gli honori et ricevimenti regii fatti da Vostra Santità al duca di Fiorenza […] et quelli fatti al Signor Duca mio nepote molto inferiori, […] delli quali il Signor Duca si vorrà valer come di atti nuovamente fatti in cospetto del mondo': ASMO, CDA, Roma, 66, 321.1 (Instruttione a voi Conte Hercole Tassoni). Alfonso's complaints, however, put Ferrara in a diplomatic deadlock: the pope asked Ferrara and Florence to submit their respective claims to the Curia and to accept the pope's deliberation on the precedence – an official request that was difficult to dismiss, but that was also coming from a pope whom the Este knew was partial to Florence. Whilst Alfonso II wrote to the cardinal that he was 'ben risoluto a non rimettermi a quel giuditio', Ippolito warned his nephew about the tricky diplomatic situation in which the pope's intervention had put them (perché 'si come s'ha d'aspettar molto poco favor da quella banda, così da l'altro canto penso che il non contentarla sarà per far restar Sua Santità mal sodisfatta'): ASMO, CS, 85, 1655.XX.60 (15 October 1561); 150, 1709.XXVI.44 (20 November 1561).

usual seat during the ceremony.118

<sup>121</sup> Santa Croce*, Lettres,* p. 145. 122 Ippolito to Cardinal Borromeo (27 April 1562): 'Oltre che obbligherà questo regno tuttavia più alla protezione della Sedia Apostolica, leverà l'occasione di metter mai più innanzi né editti né cose che diminuiscano l'auttorità di quella': Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea,* p. 407. On Rome's response to the edicts, see: Tallon, 'Rome et les premiers edits', p. 39.

<sup>123</sup> Sûsta, *Die Römische Curie,* ii, p. 463-465. On the removal of de l'Hôpital, Ippolito wrote to Alfonso II that the only way to obtain it would have been to put him on trial, and this was made difficult by the fact that the chancellor regularly attended mass, took confession and generally behaved as a good Catholic: ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVII.24 (15 June 1562). Pius IV's suspicion had probably been aroused by the news he had received in March from the papal nuncio Santa Croce about a meeting between de l'Hôpital and the Calvinist brothers Cardinal Chatillon and prince of Condé: Santa Croce*, Lettres,* p. 91.

<sup>124</sup> Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea*, p. 418. When the cardinal of Ferrara reiterated his offer on the following day, the queen mother replied that there was no need to abrogate the edicts given that France was already at war against the Huguenots, that she could not reverse a decision made by the Estates General and that she refused to let the pope instruct her on the way of selecting and employing her officials: ibid., p. 423.

wrote to his nephew Alfonso II that, in his opinion, the assurances requested by the pope were 'impossible to obtain'.<sup>125</sup>

After 'many battles'<sup>126</sup> to persuade the French crown to comply with Pius IV's requests, in July the cardinal of Ferrara decided to overcome this political impasse by exploiting the fluidity that his hybrid role of prince-legate offered him:

Because of the conditions put forward by His Holiness, I can now say that I have never found myself in such a state of perplexity and distress, as I see that I cannot satisfy both His Holiness's orders and the needs of princes of such a nature at the same time. I really hope that he can be sure that I have never been one of those who do not mind harming their masters in order to make themselves agreeable to the lords they are staying with […]. I see that their need is so compelling that […] I will not know how to deny them those 25.000 scudi, not because I intend to invalidate my aforementioned statement but because I think I could do something on my own, and His Holiness will not bear any obligation, as this will be done as though he had lent that money to me: if the money will be paid, and he will not think it a good choice, I will immediately pay him back, either in Antwerp or in any other place of his choice.127

As he had preannounced, Ippolito d'Este paid the 25.000 scudi to the French court without receiving any of the required assurances.<sup>128</sup> By doing so, he clearly trespassed the boundary of what was a legitimate code of conduct for a diplomatic envoy. There are few doubts that a more 'regular' diplomat could have hardly thought of doing the same, not only because it explicitly contradicted Pius IV's orders, but also because the amount of money involved in the transaction was so large that only a man from the highest ranks of society could have afforded to pay it from his own income. From this economic scenario, one can really see the fluidity of the cardinal's role, and his inherent 'Frenchness': he was probably the first one to think of his political and economic welfare as strongly tied to the destiny of the French kingdom, given that his private fortune largely relied upon his French benefices (and some of them had already been destroyed during the first outbursts of military violence)<sup>129</sup> and he was therefore personally interested in preserving the social order that was at stake because of the ongoing war. It is not surprising, then, that the French aristocracy seemed to have established a 'peer-to-peer' relationship with him and acknowledged his double role of papal emissary and 'private citizen' with major interests in the kingdom. If this situation guaranteed the cardinal many privileges and freedom of action, it also meant that it was particularly difficult to him to dis-

<sup>129</sup> 'A Blois hanno abbruciato una badia bellissima che era di Tournon, pervenuta al cardinale di Ferrara, con certi altri luoghi, che furono tutti guasti': Desjardins (ed), *Nègociations,* iii, p. 476.

165

miss the cardinal of Lorraine's reiterated requests to pay the 25.000 scudi donated by the pope, as Lorraine was not only France's most powerful clergyman but, as the brother-in-law of his niece Anna d'Este, one of Ippolito's most important points of reference at the French court (and, as we have seen, the person who had made possi-

This ambivalence is made clearer by another episode of an economic nature. As the French monarchy was desperately trying to raise the money necessary to fund the war, some of the greatest lords of the kingdom were asked to contribute: both the king of Navarre and the cardinal of Lorraine paid 20.000 francs, while other noblemen paid 10.000 francs each. Ippolito d'Este was the only non-French lord who took part in the fundraising and endowed the monarchy with 10.000 francs.<sup>130</sup> Furthermore, Ippolito's outstanding position within the French ecclesiastical ranks had just been further improved by the death of Cardinal Tournon: because of the *regressus*  that the cardinal of Ferrara held on many of Tournon's benefices (some as important as the archdiocese of Lyon),131 he suddenly gained 40.000 francs in income – and that was the money he used when he was requested to pay his 10.000 franc share to

As the management of the papal loan clearly shows, the cardinal of Ferrara was ready to exploit the fluidity that his multi-faceted position allowed him, and he did it both consciously and skilfully. As an actor who changes his costume whenever he needs to play a different role, Ippolito shifted from 'prince' to 'legate' and back, in order to pursue his own agenda of self-promotion and defend the privileges of the Este household. The pope himself had acknowledged Ippolito's polymorphous characteristics when he appointed him to the French legation, in the hope that Ippolito's personal prestige and connections would make up for the imposition of a papal envoy. Pius IV had also sanctioned Ippolito's ambivalence when he had entrusted him with a secret negotiation between the Holy See and the queen of England: given that Elizabeth refused to listen to any official papal emissary, the cardinal of Ferrara had been allowed to approach the queen by letter as a member of a ruling family and not

As we have seen in this chapter, though, Ippolito's powers turned to be a double-edged sword for the papacy, as he could bank on his good relationship with the monarchy whenever he was being criticised by the Roman Curia (and when the pope blamed him for having attended the Huguenot sermon, Ippolito could reply that he

<sup>130</sup> Ippolito d'Este to Cardinal Borromeo on 28-29 April 1562: Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea,* p. 408.

<sup>132</sup> 'Sperando di poter satisfare con queste entrate che mi sono accresciute per la morte del cardinal di Tornone': Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea,* p. 408. Prospero Santa Croce wrote to Cardinal Borromeo, on 29 April 1562, that 'Monsignor Illustrissimo Legato per certi regressi guadagna quaranta mille franchi d'intrata': Santa Croce*, Lettres,* p. 159. The Ferrarese ambassador Alvarotti estimated that Tournon's death had benefited Ippolito with around 36.000-40.000 francs of extra income: ASMO, CDA, Francia,

<sup>133</sup> This episode, which is not very well known, is analysed in Bayne, *Anglo-Roman Relations,* pp. 133- 158. On the diplomatic relation between England and the Holy See, see also: K. Bartlett, 'Papal Policy and the English Crown, 1563-1565: The Bertano Correspondence', *The Sixteenth Century Journal*, 23/4

as a legate of the pope, as Pius IV's involvement had to remain secret.<sup>133</sup>

ble Luigi d'Este's appointment to the bishopric of Auch).

the French crown.132

<sup>131</sup> Eubel, *Hierarchia catholica,* iii, p. 230.

37, fo. 25r (23 April 1562).

(1992), pp. 643-659.

<sup>125</sup> ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVII.24 (15 June 1562).

<sup>126</sup> Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea,* p. 424.

<sup>127</sup> Ibid.*,* p. 416.

<sup>128</sup> After many negotiations, at the end of the year 1562 the cardinal of Ferrara managed to obtain the abrogation of the edict on the annates. In January 1563, he could therefore forward to Rome a copy of the royal decree signed by the king that cancelled the 'prohibitioni fatte et imposte per il nostro detto editto et ordinationi d'Orleans': AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 13, pp. 464-466.

miss the cardinal of Lorraine's reiterated requests to pay the 25.000 scudi donated by the pope, as Lorraine was not only France's most powerful clergyman but, as the brother-in-law of his niece Anna d'Este, one of Ippolito's most important points of reference at the French court (and, as we have seen, the person who had made possible Luigi d'Este's appointment to the bishopric of Auch).

This ambivalence is made clearer by another episode of an economic nature. As the French monarchy was desperately trying to raise the money necessary to fund the war, some of the greatest lords of the kingdom were asked to contribute: both the king of Navarre and the cardinal of Lorraine paid 20.000 francs, while other noblemen paid 10.000 francs each. Ippolito d'Este was the only non-French lord who took part in the fundraising and endowed the monarchy with 10.000 francs.<sup>130</sup> Furthermore, Ippolito's outstanding position within the French ecclesiastical ranks had just been further improved by the death of Cardinal Tournon: because of the *regressus*  that the cardinal of Ferrara held on many of Tournon's benefices (some as important as the archdiocese of Lyon),131 he suddenly gained 40.000 francs in income – and that was the money he used when he was requested to pay his 10.000 franc share to the French crown.132

As the management of the papal loan clearly shows, the cardinal of Ferrara was ready to exploit the fluidity that his multi-faceted position allowed him, and he did it both consciously and skilfully. As an actor who changes his costume whenever he needs to play a different role, Ippolito shifted from 'prince' to 'legate' and back, in order to pursue his own agenda of self-promotion and defend the privileges of the Este household. The pope himself had acknowledged Ippolito's polymorphous characteristics when he appointed him to the French legation, in the hope that Ippolito's personal prestige and connections would make up for the imposition of a papal envoy. Pius IV had also sanctioned Ippolito's ambivalence when he had entrusted him with a secret negotiation between the Holy See and the queen of England: given that Elizabeth refused to listen to any official papal emissary, the cardinal of Ferrara had been allowed to approach the queen by letter as a member of a ruling family and not as a legate of the pope, as Pius IV's involvement had to remain secret.<sup>133</sup>

As we have seen in this chapter, though, Ippolito's powers turned to be a double-edged sword for the papacy, as he could bank on his good relationship with the monarchy whenever he was being criticised by the Roman Curia (and when the pope blamed him for having attended the Huguenot sermon, Ippolito could reply that he

164

<sup>128</sup> After many negotiations, at the end of the year 1562 the cardinal of Ferrara managed to obtain the abrogation of the edict on the annates. In January 1563, he could therefore forward to Rome a copy of the royal decree signed by the king that cancelled the 'prohibitioni fatte et imposte per il nostro detto

<sup>129</sup> 'A Blois hanno abbruciato una badia bellissima che era di Tournon, pervenuta al cardinale di Ferrara,

con certi altri luoghi, che furono tutti guasti': Desjardins (ed), *Nègociations,* iii, p. 476.

wrote to his nephew Alfonso II that, in his opinion, the assurances requested by the

Because of the conditions put forward by His Holiness, I can now say that I have never found myself in such a state of perplexity and distress, as I see that I cannot satisfy both His Holiness's orders and the needs of princes of such a nature at the same time. I really hope that he can be sure that I have never been one of those who do not mind harming their masters in order to make themselves agreeable to the lords they are staying with […]. I see that their need is so compelling that […] I will not know how to deny them those 25.000 scudi, not because I intend to invalidate my aforementioned statement but because I think I could do something on my own, and His Holiness will not bear any obligation, as this will be done as though he had lent that money to me: if the money will be paid, and he will not think it a good choice, I will immediately pay him back, either in Antwerp or in any other place of

As he had preannounced, Ippolito d'Este paid the 25.000 scudi to the French court without receiving any of the required assurances.<sup>128</sup> By doing so, he clearly trespassed the boundary of what was a legitimate code of conduct for a diplomatic envoy. There are few doubts that a more 'regular' diplomat could have hardly thought of doing the same, not only because it explicitly contradicted Pius IV's orders, but also because the amount of money involved in the transaction was so large that only a man from the highest ranks of society could have afforded to pay it from his own income. From this economic scenario, one can really see the fluidity of the cardinal's role, and his inherent 'Frenchness': he was probably the first one to think of his political and economic welfare as strongly tied to the destiny of the French kingdom, given that his private fortune largely relied upon his French benefices (and some of them had already been destroyed during the first outbursts of military violence)<sup>129</sup> and he was therefore personally interested in preserving the social order that was at stake because of the ongoing war. It is not surprising, then, that the French aristocracy seemed to have established a 'peer-to-peer' relationship with him and acknowledged his double role of papal emissary and 'private citizen' with major interests in the kingdom. If this situation guaranteed the cardinal many privileges and freedom of action, it also meant that it was particularly difficult to him to dis-

by exploiting the fluidity that his hybrid role of prince-legate offered him:

After 'many battles'<sup>126</sup> to persuade the French crown to comply with Pius IV's requests, in July the cardinal of Ferrara decided to overcome this political impasse

pope were 'impossible to obtain'.<sup>125</sup>

his choice.127

<sup>125</sup> ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXVII.24 (15 June 1562). <sup>126</sup> Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea,* p. 424.

editto et ordinationi d'Orleans': AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 13, pp. 464-466.

<sup>127</sup> Ibid.*,* p. 416.

<sup>130</sup> Ippolito d'Este to Cardinal Borromeo on 28-29 April 1562: Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea,* p. 408.

<sup>131</sup> Eubel, *Hierarchia catholica,* iii, p. 230.

<sup>132</sup> 'Sperando di poter satisfare con queste entrate che mi sono accresciute per la morte del cardinal di Tornone': Baluze et al. (eds), *Miscellanea,* p. 408. Prospero Santa Croce wrote to Cardinal Borromeo, on 29 April 1562, that 'Monsignor Illustrissimo Legato per certi regressi guadagna quaranta mille franchi d'intrata': Santa Croce*, Lettres,* p. 159. The Ferrarese ambassador Alvarotti estimated that Tournon's death had benefited Ippolito with around 36.000-40.000 francs of extra income: ASMO, CDA, Francia, 37, fo. 25r (23 April 1562).

<sup>133</sup> This episode, which is not very well known, is analysed in Bayne, *Anglo-Roman Relations,* pp. 133- 158. On the diplomatic relation between England and the Holy See, see also: K. Bartlett, 'Papal Policy and the English Crown, 1563-1565: The Bertano Correspondence', *The Sixteenth Century Journal*, 23/4 (1992), pp. 643-659.

The Path of Pleasantness

had participated as a member of a ruling family and not as a legate of the pope). Furthermore, the cardinal had too many private interests with the French Crown to take the risk of displeasing the queen mother and the court (as the former nuncio had done), even when the development of the political situation would have made it recommendable. If the cardinal was willing to exploit all the freedom of action that his peculiar situation allowed him, it is also true that his position forced him to always consider the consequences of his actions from a perspective that encompassed all his clashing roles and obligations: this appears particularly evident in the case of the papal loan, when he exploited his personal power to dodge Pius IV's instructions but was induced to do so by the heavy expectations of the house of Guise. The fact that Ippolito d'Este was at the same time the member of a ruling family, the papal legate and a man with wide private interests in France meant that each of these identities reflected some of their political shadows on the others. We have seen that this plurality could be actively exploited by Ippolito d'Este to enhance his private fortune; however, precisely because his private fortune relied on so many factors, this same plurality could be exploited by others as a powerful means of persuasion.

167

*Mi piaccerebbe che il signor Don Luigi si volesse dar alla vita pretesca, perché questo sarebbe il maggior contento ch'io potessi havere a questo mondo*

The last years of Ippolito d'Este's ecclesiastical career were mostly spent in his villa in Tivoli, a hillside town a few kilometres away from Rome that enjoyed a healthier climate and had become the cardinal's retreat. Compared to the events of the previous decades, Ippolito's elder years were fairly unremarkable. However, they overlapped with the beginning of his nephew's rise as one of the wealthiest cardinals of his time – mostly thanks to Ippolito's inheritance – and they are therefore worth describing from the perspective of a handover of power within a shared familial strate-

Luigi d'Este, Ippolito's nephew and Ercole II's second-born son, had been destined to become a prince of the church for the same reason that had motivated, a few decades before, the family's efforts to gain Ippolito the red hat – that is to say, in order to inherit and later pass on the considerable number of benefices accumulated by the previous generation of ecclesiastics, and in order to have a spokesperson for the

had obtained Luigi's succession to the bishopric of Ferrara – which was held by Cardinal Salviati, a friend of the Este – despite Luigi's young age and in competition

<sup>1</sup> 'I would be pleased if our lord Don Luigi wished to devote himself to a priestly life, as this would be the greatest happiness that I could have in this world'. From a letter sent by Ippolito to his brother, Duke

<sup>2</sup> The only comprehensive works on Luigi d'Este are Pacifici, 'Luigi d'Este' and G. Campori and A. Solerti, *Luigi, Lucrezia e Leonora d'Este* (Turin, 1888). A more up-to-date perspective (and a richer bibliography) is in P. Portone, 'Este, Luigi d'', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 1993). Also useful is Chiappini, *Gli Estensi,* pp. 273-277. Luigi's life and relationships with some prominent artists of his time are considered in M. Bizzarini, 'Marenzio and cardinal Luigi d'Este', *Early Music,* 27/4 (1999), pp. 519-532; Id., *Luca Marenzio. The Career of a Musician Between the Renaissance and the Counter-Reformation* (Aldershot, 1998), ch. 3; G. Campori, 'Gio. Battista della Porta e il cardinale Luigi d'Este', *Atti e memorie delle RR deputazioni di storia patria per le provincie modenesi e parmensi,* VI

<sup>2</sup> We have already seen that, in 1554, duke Ercole II

Ippolito II d'Este, cardinal of Ferrara1

**Chapter 6**

gy.

family's interests in the Curia.

Ercole II: ASMO, CS, 149, 12 November 1553.

(1872), pp. 165-190.

**The succession of Luigi d'Este**

# **Chapter 6 The succession of Luigi d'Este**

*Mi piaccerebbe che il signor Don Luigi si volesse dar alla vita pretesca, perché questo sarebbe il maggior contento ch'io potessi havere a questo mondo* Ippolito II d'Este, cardinal of Ferrara1

The last years of Ippolito d'Este's ecclesiastical career were mostly spent in his villa in Tivoli, a hillside town a few kilometres away from Rome that enjoyed a healthier climate and had become the cardinal's retreat. Compared to the events of the previous decades, Ippolito's elder years were fairly unremarkable. However, they overlapped with the beginning of his nephew's rise as one of the wealthiest cardinals of his time – mostly thanks to Ippolito's inheritance – and they are therefore worth describing from the perspective of a handover of power within a shared familial strategy.

Luigi d'Este, Ippolito's nephew and Ercole II's second-born son, had been destined to become a prince of the church for the same reason that had motivated, a few decades before, the family's efforts to gain Ippolito the red hat – that is to say, in order to inherit and later pass on the considerable number of benefices accumulated by the previous generation of ecclesiastics, and in order to have a spokesperson for the family's interests in the Curia. <sup>2</sup> We have already seen that, in 1554, duke Ercole II had obtained Luigi's succession to the bishopric of Ferrara – which was held by Cardinal Salviati, a friend of the Este – despite Luigi's young age and in competition

Giulia Vidori, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, giulia.vidori@gmail.com

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

166

had participated as a member of a ruling family and not as a legate of the pope). Furthermore, the cardinal had too many private interests with the French Crown to take the risk of displeasing the queen mother and the court (as the former nuncio had done), even when the development of the political situation would have made it recommendable. If the cardinal was willing to exploit all the freedom of action that his peculiar situation allowed him, it is also true that his position forced him to always consider the consequences of his actions from a perspective that encompassed all his clashing roles and obligations: this appears particularly evident in the case of the papal loan, when he exploited his personal power to dodge Pius IV's instructions but was induced to do so by the heavy expectations of the house of Guise. The fact that Ippolito d'Este was at the same time the member of a ruling family, the papal legate and a man with wide private interests in France meant that each of these identities reflected some of their political shadows on the others. We have seen that this plurality could be actively exploited by Ippolito d'Este to enhance his private fortune; however, precisely because his private fortune relied on so many factors, this same

plurality could be exploited by others as a powerful means of persuasion.

<sup>1</sup> 'I would be pleased if our lord Don Luigi wished to devote himself to a priestly life, as this would be the greatest happiness that I could have in this world'. From a letter sent by Ippolito to his brother, Duke Ercole II: ASMO, CS, 149, 12 November 1553.

<sup>2</sup> The only comprehensive works on Luigi d'Este are Pacifici, 'Luigi d'Este' and G. Campori and A. Solerti, *Luigi, Lucrezia e Leonora d'Este* (Turin, 1888). A more up-to-date perspective (and a richer bibliography) is in P. Portone, 'Este, Luigi d'', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 1993). Also useful is Chiappini, *Gli Estensi,* pp. 273-277. Luigi's life and relationships with some prominent artists of his time are considered in M. Bizzarini, 'Marenzio and cardinal Luigi d'Este', *Early Music,* 27/4 (1999), pp. 519-532; Id., *Luca Marenzio. The Career of a Musician Between the Renaissance and the Counter-Reformation* (Aldershot, 1998), ch. 3; G. Campori, 'Gio. Battista della Porta e il cardinale Luigi d'Este', *Atti e memorie delle RR deputazioni di storia patria per le provincie modenesi e parmensi,* VI (1872), pp. 165-190.

<sup>167</sup> 167 Giulia Vidori, *The Path of Pleasantness. Ippolito II d'Este Between Ferrara, France and Rome*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2612-8071 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518-266-9 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-266-9

with Ippolito's own hopes for that bishopric. The next and consequential step was to make sure that Luigi would be promoted to the cardinalate. After Ercole II's death in 1559, the effort to advance Luigi's position in the clergy was taken up by his uncle, Ippolito, who was certainly more knowledgeable about Roman politics than the new duke, Alfonso II, and who could use his influence not just as a cardinal but also as one of the leaders of the French faction. Whilst, in the thirties, Ippolito's promotion had been delayed by the ongoing clash that was between Ferrara and the pope, this time the political conjuncture was more favourable to the Este: according to Ippolito's own words, he and the cardinal of Guise were immediately promised Luigi's promotion by the newly elected Pius IV, as a reward for having supported him during the conclave.<sup>3</sup> Opposition to this plan, however, came from Luigi himself, who was not keen to embrace an ecclesiastical career and was hoping to marry some rich French noblewoman instead. Luigi's rebellion against this plan that his family had set up for him went as far as to send an express courier from France – where he had been staying since 1558 – in which he required his brother and uncle to refrain from pursuing his cardinalate any further.<sup>4</sup>

The negotiation between Ippolito and Alfonso II, on one side, and the very recalcitrant Luigi, on the other, continued for a year. In this period, a stream of letters and emissaries from both Rome and Ferrara flowed to France in order to convince Luigi to abide by the family's will and to agree to do – as Ippolito put it – 'something that is of such importance for the service and the reputation of […] all our house'.<sup>5</sup> Ippolito d'Este ascribed his nephew's rebellion firstly to the disadvantageous terms of Ercole II's will, which, as was tradition, had left Luigi 'with no jurisdiction' in order to pass on his wealth and the dukedom to his first-born son, and, secondly, to Luigi's personality, 'which inclines more to the secular way than to the ecclesiastical one'.<sup>6</sup> At the same time, however, the cardinal suspected the influence of Luigi's mother, Renée of France, whose Calvinist faith – as Ippolito feared – might have stirred in Luigi a dislike for the Roman clergy. The fact that Ippolito had heard rumours that his nephew had set eyes on a French lady who was a cousin of the prince of Condé – who was a Protestant and who was generally believed to be the mind behind the Conspiracy of Amboise – alarmed him further and strengthened his conviction that Renée was supporting her son's plan. More than the religious implications (Ippolito briefly commented on his nephew's supposed Calvinist sympathy by merely saying that 'it cannot bring him [Luigi] or our house anything good'),

169

<sup>7</sup> All these considerations are contained in a series of letters that Ippolito sent to Alfonso II between Feb-

<sup>8</sup> Luigi reserved for himself all the revenues of Ferrara except 1.000 *scudi*, which were assigned to the new bishop, Alfonso Rossetti. The importance of keeping Ferrara within the family was such that when, soon after his promotion to the cardinalate, Luigi fell gravely ill, Ippolito and Alfonso were quick to send an envoy to Rome to ask for the pope's special permission to transfer the bishopric to Ippolito in case of his nephew's death – and with Ippolito's promise that he would later resign either Ferrara or Auch ('che fra sei mesi havessi a lasciare o questo o l'altro che mi trovo, che d'altro modo la cosa non havria potuto passare, anzi così la gratia sarebbe molto segnalata'): ASMO, CS, 150, 24 August 1561.

ruary and April 1560: ASMO, CS, 150 (1 February, 15 February, 13 April and 20 April 1560).

<sup>9</sup> ASMO, CS, 409, 2056.XVI.1 (18 May 1561).

<sup>10</sup> Ippolito to Alfonso II: ASMO, CS, 150 (20 April 1560).

however, the cardinal of Ferrara feared a loss of reputation in the Curia and the decrease of his family's importance in Rome, to the advantage of other Italian dynas-

fonso Rossetti, one of Ercole II's most trustworthy advisors and diplomats.

rather than in Italy – as the choice of keeping Auch over Ferrara shows.

meantime, Ippolito also secured a royal brevet that granted Luigi the right to succeed him, after his death, to the abbey of Chaalis, one of the wealthiest benefices of France.<sup>9</sup> Compared to the opportunities that were available to Luigi at the very beginning of his career, it was undeniable that the cardinal of Ferrara, as he himself wrote to Alfonso II, had undertaken 'at a more mature age the same profession, with less income than what he [Luigi] will have, with no support, and with little hope'.

Whilst Ippolito d'Este had inherited from his uncle, the first cardinal Ippolito, the archdiocese of Milan and his benefices within the Estense duchy, it had been his own connection with France that ultimately built his fortune and provided him with an unprecedented portfolio of benefices, which Luigi could now hope to take up. From this perspective, Ippolito d'Este can be considered as the founder of his family's ecclesiastical tradition, and Luigi's career could only develop along the path that had been laid before him by his uncle: as in Ippolito's case before him, the bulk of Luigi's ecclesiastical properties was, from the very beginning, rooted in France

The transfer of the cardinal's fortune to his nephew, however, did not go smoothly. Between 1567 and 1571, a clash rose between uncle and nephew regarding Ippolito's French benefices. In 1566, Ippolito d'Este had obtained from the French monarchy, in consideration of his 'old age and indisposition caused by his illness of gout', the permission to name the cardinal who would succeed him to the post of cardinal protector whenever he decided to resign. Against all expectations, he did not name his nephew but cardinal Vitelli, who was on very good terms with

After much insistence on his family's part, Luigi d'Este returned to Italy and was eventually made cardinal by Pius IV in the consistory of 26 February 1561. His acceptance of the red hat preceded only by a few months Ippolito's mission to Paris as the papal legate. During his stay in France, Ippolito committed himself to obtain the transfer of his episcopal see of Auch to Luigi, which, as we have already seen in the previous chapter, was confirmed by the pope in October 1563. On that occasion, due to the legislation against the accumulation of benefices, Luigi had to resign the Este's home bishopric of Ferrara in order to take up Auch. Ferrara remained nonetheless firmly within the family's sphere of influence as Luigi was replaced by Al-

<sup>8</sup> In the

10

ties.<sup>7</sup>

<sup>3</sup> Three days after Pius IV's election, Ippolito d'Este wrote to Alfonso II about the outcome of his meeting with the new pontiff: 'Fra l'altre gratie di che noi supplicammo sua santità, la richiedemmo di dar il capello al signor Don Luigi nostro, il che ella ci promisse molto prontamente. Vero è che ci disse che ne la prossima promotione non intendeva di comprender altri che i suoi nipoti, et che ne l'altre che farebbe di poi non mancherebbe d'honorare esso signore senza fallo': ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXIV.21 (28 December 1559). See also Ippolito's following letter: ibid.*,* 1709.XXIV.22 (4 January 1560).

<sup>4</sup> As Ippolito wrote to Alfonso II: 'L'havermi esso signore [Luigi] con la lettera predetta espeditami per corriere espresso posto le mani innanzi non solo con prohibirmi di farne opra, ma di obviar ogni volta che Vostra Eccellenza la procurasse, mi ha ritenuto di passar più oltre': ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXIV.28 (1 February 1560).

<sup>5</sup> Ibid.

<sup>6</sup> Ibid.

however, the cardinal of Ferrara feared a loss of reputation in the Curia and the decrease of his family's importance in Rome, to the advantage of other Italian dynasties.<sup>7</sup>

After much insistence on his family's part, Luigi d'Este returned to Italy and was eventually made cardinal by Pius IV in the consistory of 26 February 1561. His acceptance of the red hat preceded only by a few months Ippolito's mission to Paris as the papal legate. During his stay in France, Ippolito committed himself to obtain the transfer of his episcopal see of Auch to Luigi, which, as we have already seen in the previous chapter, was confirmed by the pope in October 1563. On that occasion, due to the legislation against the accumulation of benefices, Luigi had to resign the Este's home bishopric of Ferrara in order to take up Auch. Ferrara remained nonetheless firmly within the family's sphere of influence as Luigi was replaced by Alfonso Rossetti, one of Ercole II's most trustworthy advisors and diplomats. <sup>8</sup> In the meantime, Ippolito also secured a royal brevet that granted Luigi the right to succeed him, after his death, to the abbey of Chaalis, one of the wealthiest benefices of France.<sup>9</sup> Compared to the opportunities that were available to Luigi at the very beginning of his career, it was undeniable that the cardinal of Ferrara, as he himself wrote to Alfonso II, had undertaken 'at a more mature age the same profession, with less income than what he [Luigi] will have, with no support, and with little hope'. 10 Whilst Ippolito d'Este had inherited from his uncle, the first cardinal Ippolito, the archdiocese of Milan and his benefices within the Estense duchy, it had been his own connection with France that ultimately built his fortune and provided him with an unprecedented portfolio of benefices, which Luigi could now hope to take up. From this perspective, Ippolito d'Este can be considered as the founder of his family's ecclesiastical tradition, and Luigi's career could only develop along the path that had been laid before him by his uncle: as in Ippolito's case before him, the bulk of Luigi's ecclesiastical properties was, from the very beginning, rooted in France rather than in Italy – as the choice of keeping Auch over Ferrara shows.

The transfer of the cardinal's fortune to his nephew, however, did not go smoothly. Between 1567 and 1571, a clash rose between uncle and nephew regarding Ippolito's French benefices. In 1566, Ippolito d'Este had obtained from the French monarchy, in consideration of his 'old age and indisposition caused by his illness of gout', the permission to name the cardinal who would succeed him to the post of cardinal protector whenever he decided to resign. Against all expectations, he did not name his nephew but cardinal Vitelli, who was on very good terms with

168

<sup>3</sup> Three days after Pius IV's election, Ippolito d'Este wrote to Alfonso II about the outcome of his meeting with the new pontiff: 'Fra l'altre gratie di che noi supplicammo sua santità, la richiedemmo di dar il capello al signor Don Luigi nostro, il che ella ci promisse molto prontamente. Vero è che ci disse che ne la prossima promotione non intendeva di comprender altri che i suoi nipoti, et che ne l'altre che farebbe di poi non mancherebbe d'honorare esso signore senza fallo': ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXIV.21 (28 De-

<sup>4</sup> As Ippolito wrote to Alfonso II: 'L'havermi esso signore [Luigi] con la lettera predetta espeditami per corriere espresso posto le mani innanzi non solo con prohibirmi di farne opra, ma di obviar ogni volta che Vostra Eccellenza la procurasse, mi ha ritenuto di passar più oltre': ASMO, CS, 150, 1709.XXIV.28

cember 1559). See also Ippolito's following letter: ibid.*,* 1709.XXIV.22 (4 January 1560).

with Ippolito's own hopes for that bishopric. The next and consequential step was to make sure that Luigi would be promoted to the cardinalate. After Ercole II's death in 1559, the effort to advance Luigi's position in the clergy was taken up by his uncle, Ippolito, who was certainly more knowledgeable about Roman politics than the new duke, Alfonso II, and who could use his influence not just as a cardinal but also as one of the leaders of the French faction. Whilst, in the thirties, Ippolito's promotion had been delayed by the ongoing clash that was between Ferrara and the pope, this time the political conjuncture was more favourable to the Este: according to Ippolito's own words, he and the cardinal of Guise were immediately promised Luigi's promotion by the newly elected Pius IV, as a reward for having supported him during the conclave.<sup>3</sup> Opposition to this plan, however, came from Luigi himself, who was not keen to embrace an ecclesiastical career and was hoping to marry some rich French noblewoman instead. Luigi's rebellion against this plan that his family had set up for him went as far as to send an express courier from France – where he had been staying since 1558 – in which he required his brother and uncle to refrain

The negotiation between Ippolito and Alfonso II, on one side, and the very recalcitrant Luigi, on the other, continued for a year. In this period, a stream of letters and emissaries from both Rome and Ferrara flowed to France in order to convince Luigi to abide by the family's will and to agree to do – as Ippolito put it – 'something that is of such importance for the service and the reputation of […] all our house'.<sup>5</sup> Ippolito d'Este ascribed his nephew's rebellion firstly to the disadvantageous terms of Ercole II's will, which, as was tradition, had left Luigi 'with no jurisdiction' in order to pass on his wealth and the dukedom to his first-born son, and, secondly, to Luigi's personality, 'which inclines more to the secular way than to the ecclesiastical one'.<sup>6</sup> At the same time, however, the cardinal suspected the influence of Luigi's mother, Renée of France, whose Calvinist faith – as Ippolito feared – might have stirred in Luigi a dislike for the Roman clergy. The fact that Ippolito had heard rumours that his nephew had set eyes on a French lady who was a cousin of the prince of Condé – who was a Protestant and who was generally believed to be the mind behind the Conspiracy of Amboise – alarmed him further and strengthened his conviction that Renée was supporting her son's plan. More than the religious implications (Ippolito briefly commented on his nephew's supposed Calvinist sympathy by merely saying that 'it cannot bring him [Luigi] or our house anything good'),

from pursuing his cardinalate any further.<sup>4</sup>

(1 February 1560).

<sup>5</sup> Ibid. <sup>6</sup> Ibid.

<sup>7</sup> All these considerations are contained in a series of letters that Ippolito sent to Alfonso II between February and April 1560: ASMO, CS, 150 (1 February, 15 February, 13 April and 20 April 1560).

<sup>8</sup> Luigi reserved for himself all the revenues of Ferrara except 1.000 *scudi*, which were assigned to the new bishop, Alfonso Rossetti. The importance of keeping Ferrara within the family was such that when, soon after his promotion to the cardinalate, Luigi fell gravely ill, Ippolito and Alfonso were quick to send an envoy to Rome to ask for the pope's special permission to transfer the bishopric to Ippolito in case of his nephew's death – and with Ippolito's promise that he would later resign either Ferrara or Auch ('che fra sei mesi havessi a lasciare o questo o l'altro che mi trovo, che d'altro modo la cosa non havria potuto passare, anzi così la gratia sarebbe molto segnalata'): ASMO, CS, 150, 24 August 1561. <sup>9</sup> ASMO, CS, 409, 2056.XVI.1 (18 May 1561).

<sup>10</sup> Ippolito to Alfonso II: ASMO, CS, 150 (20 April 1560).

#### The Path of Pleasantness

the French crown and who also held the post of cardinal camerlengo.<sup>11</sup> The reason for this decision is most likely to be found in Luigi's attempt to ensure that his uncle's benefices would be assigned to him after his death – something that he achieved through the issue of a royal brevet, but without Ippolito's permission.12 After the death of cardinal Vitelli, in 1568, Luigi eventually obtained a royal patent as 'procureur et vicaire et coadiuteur' to his uncle in the exercise of the protectorship, along with the right to succeed him in the position after his death.<sup>13</sup> As the cardinal of Ferrara remained in charge as the cardinal protector until his death, in 1572, and as there is no record of any activity related to the episcopal appointments performed by Luigi, the patent of 'vicar' to the protectorship was most likely meant to seal Luigi's future succession to the full position of protector rather than to provide a vice-protector or an assistant to the functions of the main post-holder.<sup>14</sup> In 1571, Luigi undertook a journey to France where he was again granted royal permission to succeed to all of Ippolito's French benefices. Subsequently, as Ippolito's health was deteriorating and he was in Rome, the French monarchy sent a request to the pope to waive the clause *ad sedem apostolicam* to which Ippolito's French benefices would have been otherwise subject, and to let the future appointments be decided by the monarchy (obviously in favour of Luigi).<sup>15</sup>

By the time Ippolito died, in 1572, a partial reconciliation must have taken place between uncle and nephew, because the dying cardinal drafted a will in which he split his estate equally between his nephews, Alfonso II and Luigi d'Este. To the latter, Ippolito also bequeathed his Villa d'Este, in Tivoli, and his palace of Montecavallo, in Rome, which would have provided his successor in the Curia with the appropriate means to represent their family's station in Rome. Alongside the buildings, Luigi would also inherit all that they contained: an incredible wealth of paintings, statues, furniture and precious objects that Ippolito had gathered over decades. At Luigi's death, the two properties would go to the cardinal most closely related to the Este and, should there be no cardinal in such position, to the dean of the College of Cardinals. <sup>16</sup> When Luigi died rather prematurely in 1586, when he was 48 years

171

vava allhora più propinquo alla casa da Este e non ci essendo cardinal propinquo a detta casa detti loghi siano del Decano dei signori cardinali': ibid., 390, 2038.VI*.*74; 75. 17 The dispersion of Ippolito's art collections after Luigi's death is discussed in C. Occhipinti, 'Roma 1587. La dispersione della quadreria estense e gli acquisti del cardinale Ferdinando de' Medici', *Studi di* 

<sup>19</sup> The twelve abbeys that Luigi inherited from Ippolito were: Chaalis, Saint-Médard de Soissons, Longpont, Prémontré, Notre-Dame de Breteuil, Saint-Georges de Boscherville, Notre-Dame de Lyre, Saint-Laumer de Blois, Saint-Mesmin de Micy, Pontigny, Boulbonne, and 'un'aultre petite abbaye de mil deux cent livres de revenu': ASMO, CS, 410, Abbayes appartenants à Mons. le Rev.me cardinal de Fer-

<sup>21</sup> Luigi claimed the pension that had been due to Ippolito for the loss of Brescello during the Italian Wars (in 1554), and those that had been promised him (and never fully paid) when the king had asked him to resign to other prelates his diocese of Arles and his abbey of Saint Martin d'Ainay (in 1566). For

rare*.* A list of Luigi's abbeys in 1575 is in ibid., 410 (March 1575).

<sup>20</sup> ASMO, CS, 409, 2056.XVI.42-54; ibid.*,* 409, Replica fatta; ibid.*,* 409, Proposta fatta.

old, Villa d'Este and Montecavallo were then inherited by the man who held the post of dean at the time: Ippolito's life-long competitor inside and outside conclave,

[Luigi d'Este], who is the protector of that crown [the French crown], is much loved by the king, and he has in that kingdom more than 60.000 *scudi* of ecclesiastical revenues, given to him by the late king […] He has about 90.000 *scudi* a year to spend, and he does spend them, and for this reason, and for his position and family, he is very much loved and appreciated in the Roman and in the French courts.18

Besides the bishopric of Auch and the abbey of Saint-Chinian, which his uncle had left him whilst he was still alive, Luigi also inherited the twelve abbeys that Ippolito held *in commendam* at the moment of his death, in 1572. By 1575, Luigi held Saint-Chinian, the group of Ippolito's twelve abbeys, and two more.19 Furthermore, after Ippolito's death, Luigi received the administration of the diocese of Narbonne, on which he also held the *regressus*. Because Narbonne had fallen under the control of the Huguenots during the wars of religion, Luigi never formally took possession of it, but rented it out in the years from 1575 to 1579. He eventually resigned it in 1581 to François de Joyeuse, in exchange for 20.000 *livres* worth of ecclesiastical revenues to be extracted from 'some peaceful and safe abbeys' in the areas that were firmly under the control of the monarchy.20 Not only did Luigi eventually inherit all of his uncle's French benefices, but, in 1576, he also obtained a brevet that transferred to him the payment of large sums of money that the French crown had owed to Ippolito d'Este since the fifties, in the form of some pensions that the monarchy had given him to make up for the loss of a few benefices. In order to cash in his uncle's pending pensions, Luigi's agents tracked back the history of Ippolito's possessions in France and thoroughly calculated that the money that was owed still amounted to 120.000 *scudi*, and eventually engaged in a legal dispute with the

At the same time as he acquired Ippolito's Roman properties, Luigi d'Este also succeeded to his uncle's French benefices and to the protectorship of the monarchy in the Curia*.* His enviable position was well summarized by the Venetian ambassador to Ferrara, who, in 1575, wrote the following description of the cardinal d'Este:

Cardinal Alessandro Farnese.17

French royal treasury.21

*Memofonte,* 2 (2009), pp. 1-23. <sup>18</sup> Albèri (ed), *Relazioni*, s. 2, ii, p. 419.

<sup>11</sup> ASMO, CS, 390, 2038.VI.30 (22 June 1566).

<sup>12</sup> Luigi obtained a royal brevet from King Charles IX that allowed him to succeed to all the benefices that his uncle had in France: ASMO, CS, 409, 2056.XVI.2 all. (16 August 1567). The fact that this permission had been sought without Ippolito's approval is mentioned in a series of letters that Alfonso II sent to the cardinal to try to reconcile him with Luigi: ASMO, CS, 85, 1655.XXI.53 (14 April 1567); ibid.*,* 1685.XXI.68 (15 November 1567). On the dispute between Ippolito and Luigi, see also Pacifici, *Ippolito II,* pp. 338-340.

<sup>13</sup> ASMO, CS, 409, Lettere del Re Carlo IX sopra la protezione di Francia (11 January 1569). 14 The last ledger recording Ippolito's earnings from his French ecclesiastical appointments is dated to 1570. Throughout his life, Luigi held very similar account books: the first to record the taxes that were due to him as the cardinal protector is dated 1572: ibid., 962; 1313.

<sup>15</sup> Ibid., 409, 11 October 1571.

<sup>16</sup> 'Sua Signoria Illustrissima lascia heredi per ugual portioni l'Illustrissimo et Eccellentissimo Signor Duca di Ferrara e l'Illustrissimo et Reverendissimo Signor Cardinal da Este di tutti suoi beni […] fuor che de Montecavallo e delle cose de Tivoli con tutte le massaritie et mobili che là si ritrovano al presente, le qual cose Sua Signoria Illustrissima lascia da vantaggio all'Illustrissimo Signor Cardinal da Este, con questo che doppo la morte di Sua Signoria Illustrissima detti lochi […] restino al cardinal che si tro-

old, Villa d'Este and Montecavallo were then inherited by the man who held the post of dean at the time: Ippolito's life-long competitor inside and outside conclave, Cardinal Alessandro Farnese.17

At the same time as he acquired Ippolito's Roman properties, Luigi d'Este also succeeded to his uncle's French benefices and to the protectorship of the monarchy in the Curia*.* His enviable position was well summarized by the Venetian ambassador to Ferrara, who, in 1575, wrote the following description of the cardinal d'Este:

[Luigi d'Este], who is the protector of that crown [the French crown], is much loved by the king, and he has in that kingdom more than 60.000 *scudi* of ecclesiastical revenues, given to him by the late king […] He has about 90.000 *scudi* a year to spend, and he does spend them, and for this reason, and for his position and family, he is very much loved and appreciated in the Roman and in the French courts.18

Besides the bishopric of Auch and the abbey of Saint-Chinian, which his uncle had left him whilst he was still alive, Luigi also inherited the twelve abbeys that Ippolito held *in commendam* at the moment of his death, in 1572. By 1575, Luigi held Saint-Chinian, the group of Ippolito's twelve abbeys, and two more.19 Furthermore, after Ippolito's death, Luigi received the administration of the diocese of Narbonne, on which he also held the *regressus*. Because Narbonne had fallen under the control of the Huguenots during the wars of religion, Luigi never formally took possession of it, but rented it out in the years from 1575 to 1579. He eventually resigned it in 1581 to François de Joyeuse, in exchange for 20.000 *livres* worth of ecclesiastical revenues to be extracted from 'some peaceful and safe abbeys' in the areas that were firmly under the control of the monarchy.20 Not only did Luigi eventually inherit all of his uncle's French benefices, but, in 1576, he also obtained a brevet that transferred to him the payment of large sums of money that the French crown had owed to Ippolito d'Este since the fifties, in the form of some pensions that the monarchy had given him to make up for the loss of a few benefices. In order to cash in his uncle's pending pensions, Luigi's agents tracked back the history of Ippolito's possessions in France and thoroughly calculated that the money that was owed still amounted to 120.000 *scudi*, and eventually engaged in a legal dispute with the French royal treasury.21

<sup>18</sup> Albèri (ed), *Relazioni*, s. 2, ii, p. 419.

170

<sup>12</sup> Luigi obtained a royal brevet from King Charles IX that allowed him to succeed to all the benefices that his uncle had in France: ASMO, CS, 409, 2056.XVI.2 all. (16 August 1567). The fact that this permission had been sought without Ippolito's approval is mentioned in a series of letters that Alfonso II sent to the cardinal to try to reconcile him with Luigi: ASMO, CS, 85, 1655.XXI.53 (14 April 1567); ibid.*,* 1685.XXI.68 (15 November 1567). On the dispute between Ippolito and Luigi, see also Pacifici,

<sup>13</sup> ASMO, CS, 409, Lettere del Re Carlo IX sopra la protezione di Francia (11 January 1569). 14 The last ledger recording Ippolito's earnings from his French ecclesiastical appointments is dated to 1570. Throughout his life, Luigi held very similar account books: the first to record the taxes that were

<sup>16</sup> 'Sua Signoria Illustrissima lascia heredi per ugual portioni l'Illustrissimo et Eccellentissimo Signor Duca di Ferrara e l'Illustrissimo et Reverendissimo Signor Cardinal da Este di tutti suoi beni […] fuor che de Montecavallo e delle cose de Tivoli con tutte le massaritie et mobili che là si ritrovano al presente, le qual cose Sua Signoria Illustrissima lascia da vantaggio all'Illustrissimo Signor Cardinal da Este, con questo che doppo la morte di Sua Signoria Illustrissima detti lochi […] restino al cardinal che si tro-

the French crown and who also held the post of cardinal camerlengo.<sup>11</sup> The reason for this decision is most likely to be found in Luigi's attempt to ensure that his uncle's benefices would be assigned to him after his death – something that he achieved through the issue of a royal brevet, but without Ippolito's permission.12 After the death of cardinal Vitelli, in 1568, Luigi eventually obtained a royal patent as 'procureur et vicaire et coadiuteur' to his uncle in the exercise of the protectorship, along with the right to succeed him in the position after his death.<sup>13</sup> As the cardinal of Ferrara remained in charge as the cardinal protector until his death, in 1572, and as there is no record of any activity related to the episcopal appointments performed by Luigi, the patent of 'vicar' to the protectorship was most likely meant to seal Luigi's future succession to the full position of protector rather than to provide a vice-protector or an assistant to the functions of the main post-holder.<sup>14</sup> In 1571, Luigi undertook a journey to France where he was again granted royal permission to succeed to all of Ippolito's French benefices. Subsequently, as Ippolito's health was deteriorating and he was in Rome, the French monarchy sent a request to the pope to waive the clause *ad sedem apostolicam* to which Ippolito's French benefices would have been otherwise subject, and to let the future appointments be decided by the

By the time Ippolito died, in 1572, a partial reconciliation must have taken place between uncle and nephew, because the dying cardinal drafted a will in which he split his estate equally between his nephews, Alfonso II and Luigi d'Este. To the latter, Ippolito also bequeathed his Villa d'Este, in Tivoli, and his palace of Montecavallo, in Rome, which would have provided his successor in the Curia with the appropriate means to represent their family's station in Rome. Alongside the buildings, Luigi would also inherit all that they contained: an incredible wealth of paintings, statues, furniture and precious objects that Ippolito had gathered over decades. At Luigi's death, the two properties would go to the cardinal most closely related to the Este and, should there be no cardinal in such position, to the dean of the College

<sup>16</sup> When Luigi died rather prematurely in 1586, when he was 48 years

monarchy (obviously in favour of Luigi).<sup>15</sup>

<sup>11</sup> ASMO, CS, 390, 2038.VI.30 (22 June 1566).

due to him as the cardinal protector is dated 1572: ibid., 962; 1313.

of Cardinals.

*Ippolito II,* pp. 338-340.

<sup>15</sup> Ibid., 409, 11 October 1571.

<sup>20</sup> ASMO, CS, 409, 2056.XVI.42-54; ibid.*,* 409, Replica fatta; ibid.*,* 409, Proposta fatta.

<sup>21</sup> Luigi claimed the pension that had been due to Ippolito for the loss of Brescello during the Italian Wars (in 1554), and those that had been promised him (and never fully paid) when the king had asked him to resign to other prelates his diocese of Arles and his abbey of Saint Martin d'Ainay (in 1566). For

vava allhora più propinquo alla casa da Este e non ci essendo cardinal propinquo a detta casa detti loghi

siano del Decano dei signori cardinali': ibid., 390, 2038.VI*.*74; 75. 17 The dispersion of Ippolito's art collections after Luigi's death is discussed in C. Occhipinti, 'Roma 1587. La dispersione della quadreria estense e gli acquisti del cardinale Ferdinando de' Medici', *Studi di Memofonte,* 2 (2009), pp. 1-23.

<sup>19</sup> The twelve abbeys that Luigi inherited from Ippolito were: Chaalis, Saint-Médard de Soissons, Longpont, Prémontré, Notre-Dame de Breteuil, Saint-Georges de Boscherville, Notre-Dame de Lyre, Saint-Laumer de Blois, Saint-Mesmin de Micy, Pontigny, Boulbonne, and 'un'aultre petite abbaye de mil deux cent livres de revenu': ASMO, CS, 410, Abbayes appartenants à Mons. le Rev.me cardinal de Ferrare*.* A list of Luigi's abbeys in 1575 is in ibid., 410 (March 1575).

Because the wars of religion in France had occasionally affected lands and properties, Luigi's agents also filed an incredible number of lawsuits aimed at restoring their lord's rights over the territories and properties that used to be attached to the benefices that Luigi had inherited from Ippolito.<sup>22</sup> Similarly, the cardinal's agents claimed all the rents that were still pending from the years in which Ippolito was the archbishop of Narbonne. This very intense managerial activity, which one can follow through Luigi's documents and which was mainly aimed at restoring the integrity of Luigi's inheritance in France, signals that the modalities with which Luigi d'Este administrated his assets in France were dramatically different from those which his uncle had used before him. This activity also shows the ways in which the understanding and management of 'ecclesiastical property' was changing – even in the case of a pluralistic and princely cardinal like Luigi d'Este.

For the mechanisms through which Luigi pursued his financial interests demonstrate a much more sophisticated administrative energy than is visible in the managerial work of his uncle. Whilst Ippolito, in order to enhance or maintain his position in France, seems to have primarily sought the favour of the monarch as well as that of other powerful players within the French court (such as the Guise), Luigi appears to have reinforced this approach with a concerted use of the 'more institutional' channels offered by the French state. This is particularly evident in the case of Luigi's claim to Ippolito's pensions, in which the general vicar of cardinal d'Este pointed out that part of the problem in receiving this money was in the fact that 'the cardinal of Ferrara […] never negotiated with this chamber [the French treasury], but only went through the king's private council and the king's brevets'.<sup>23</sup> Luigi agents, on the other hand, sought the enhancement of their lord's finances through negotiations with both the personal figures of the monarchy and the local and central institutions and their representatives. This was pursued through a centralised and much more professionalised body of agents and secretaries that responded to a general vicar and a general treasurer, both stationed in Paris. This centralisation did not prevent – or indeed aid – an attention to the local dimension of Luigi's French assets that functioned as another characteristic of the cardinal's management that, in comparison to Ippolito's, constitutes a novelty: when Luigi's general vicar left his post, in 1580, the instructions provided to his successor clearly stated that one of his main responsibilities was to take care to maintain a good relationship with the king's local representatives (such as the royal bailiffs),24 and we have already seen that the territorial and jurisdictional integrity of each benefice was defended through an intense legal activity that cost almost as much as Luigi's living expenses for his entire household in Paris.25

The transfer of wealth and assets from Ippolito to Luigi was motivated primarily by *raison d'état*. As we have seen, however, Luigi's succession to his uncle's bene-

173

We have examined the variety of roles that the cardinal of Ferrara held throughout his career: princely cardinal with papal ambitions; representative of the French king both within the clergy, as cardinal protector, and in the context of a secular conflict, as governor of Siena; member of a ruling family; and, lastly, papal legate. None of these roles did Ippolito d'Este perform independently of the others. We have seen that the coexistence of different levels of allegiances complicated the exercise of the specific functions that were associated to each of these roles. Never, throughout Ippolito's career, do we see one role fully dominating the others: on the contrary, the changeability of the dynamics between these different functions and duties allowed

The role of 'princely cardinal' entailed, in itself, a character of ambiguity: the double fidelity that this kind of figure owed to the two powers that they represented – Roman church and dynasty – and the fact that these might often become conflicted resulted in an inherent tension. The papacy was a central political player and a state entity as much as any other territorial dominion, but also a diplomatic centre of European significance and, often, a provider of social promotion. For this reason, especially, Italian rulers and patrician families were keen to maintain a privileged channel of communication with the Curia, through which to pursue their own enhancement, and to build networks of alliances through which they could influence the

a continuous renegotiation of the cardinal's multi-faceted identities.

fices did not fully take place within a shared familial strategy, as the clash between him and Ippolito spoilt the process during Ippolito's last years and could only be completed after his death. Rather than behaving as united force, uncle and nephew emerged, for a period, as rivals in obtaining the French monarchy's favour – Ippolito refusing to give way to Luigi's rise and Luigi trying to take hold of Ippolito's benefices without his approval. Whilst Ippolito's ultimate yelding to Luigi of the benefices over which they were arguing suggests precisely the priority for Ippolito of the Este dynasty, it is interesting to consider how the properties which were the cause of their familial disagreements were not actually their property in any formal way. Rather, these disagreements, the rivalries that uncle and nephew were continually enacting, in Ippolito's final years were always mediated by external powers – by the papacy and the French crown – who endowed them with this wealth and status in the first instance. The achievement of a continuity of lineage within the church property was sought, in the case of the Este, through the enhancement of their benefices in France and the exploitation of their personal relationships with the court and the aristocracy – something that was certainly an effective way of procuring wealth and power, but that, from a historical perspective, displays a significant degree of precariousness and instability. In fact, whilst we know of Italian families who became naturalised as French subjects, and who managed to maintain control over particular ecclesiastical benefices over generations, the Este's wealth in France – although certainly larger – never resulted in their racination in the territory, and, as such, whilst the ecclesiastical vocation of the family persisted, their presence in France ended

with Luigi d'Este.

**Conclusions**

the years 1572-1576, the cardinal d'Este claimed 60.000 *scudi.* For the years 1577-1581, he claimed 40.000 *scudi,* for a total of 120.000 *scudi*: ibid., 410, 2056.XVIII.9 (22 February 1584).

<sup>22</sup> ASMO, CS, 409, 2056.XVI.31; ibid., 2056.XVI.31 all., Distintione de processi di Parigi*.* 

<sup>23</sup> Ibid., 410, 2056.XVIII.9.

<sup>24</sup> Ibid., 2056.XVII.4 (20 November 1580). 25 From 1575 to 1580, Luigi spent 22.000 *scudi* to maintain his household. The expenses his general vicar faced to conduct his legal challenges amounted to 20.000 *scudi*: ibid., 2056.XVII.31.

fices did not fully take place within a shared familial strategy, as the clash between him and Ippolito spoilt the process during Ippolito's last years and could only be completed after his death. Rather than behaving as united force, uncle and nephew emerged, for a period, as rivals in obtaining the French monarchy's favour – Ippolito refusing to give way to Luigi's rise and Luigi trying to take hold of Ippolito's benefices without his approval. Whilst Ippolito's ultimate yelding to Luigi of the benefices over which they were arguing suggests precisely the priority for Ippolito of the Este dynasty, it is interesting to consider how the properties which were the cause of their familial disagreements were not actually their property in any formal way. Rather, these disagreements, the rivalries that uncle and nephew were continually enacting, in Ippolito's final years were always mediated by external powers – by the papacy and the French crown – who endowed them with this wealth and status in the first instance. The achievement of a continuity of lineage within the church property was sought, in the case of the Este, through the enhancement of their benefices in France and the exploitation of their personal relationships with the court and the aristocracy – something that was certainly an effective way of procuring wealth and power, but that, from a historical perspective, displays a significant degree of precariousness and instability. In fact, whilst we know of Italian families who became naturalised as French subjects, and who managed to maintain control over particular ecclesiastical benefices over generations, the Este's wealth in France – although certainly larger – never resulted in their racination in the territory, and, as such, whilst the ecclesiastical vocation of the family persisted, their presence in France ended with Luigi d'Este.

# **Conclusions**

172

The transfer of wealth and assets from Ippolito to Luigi was motivated primarily by *raison d'état*. As we have seen, however, Luigi's succession to his uncle's bene-

the years 1572-1576, the cardinal d'Este claimed 60.000 *scudi.* For the years 1577-1581, he claimed

<sup>24</sup> Ibid., 2056.XVII.4 (20 November 1580). 25 From 1575 to 1580, Luigi spent 22.000 *scudi* to maintain his household. The expenses his general vic-

40.000 *scudi,* for a total of 120.000 *scudi*: ibid., 410, 2056.XVIII.9 (22 February 1584). <sup>22</sup> ASMO, CS, 409, 2056.XVI.31; ibid., 2056.XVI.31 all., Distintione de processi di Parigi*.* 

ar faced to conduct his legal challenges amounted to 20.000 *scudi*: ibid., 2056.XVII.31.

Because the wars of religion in France had occasionally affected lands and properties, Luigi's agents also filed an incredible number of lawsuits aimed at restoring their lord's rights over the territories and properties that used to be attached to the benefices that Luigi had inherited from Ippolito.<sup>22</sup> Similarly, the cardinal's agents claimed all the rents that were still pending from the years in which Ippolito was the archbishop of Narbonne. This very intense managerial activity, which one can follow through Luigi's documents and which was mainly aimed at restoring the integrity of Luigi's inheritance in France, signals that the modalities with which Luigi d'Este administrated his assets in France were dramatically different from those which his uncle had used before him. This activity also shows the ways in which the understanding and management of 'ecclesiastical property' was changing – even in

For the mechanisms through which Luigi pursued his financial interests demonstrate a much more sophisticated administrative energy than is visible in the managerial work of his uncle. Whilst Ippolito, in order to enhance or maintain his position in France, seems to have primarily sought the favour of the monarch as well as that of other powerful players within the French court (such as the Guise), Luigi appears to have reinforced this approach with a concerted use of the 'more institutional' channels offered by the French state. This is particularly evident in the case of Luigi's claim to Ippolito's pensions, in which the general vicar of cardinal d'Este pointed out that part of the problem in receiving this money was in the fact that 'the cardinal of Ferrara […] never negotiated with this chamber [the French treasury], but only went through the king's private council and the king's brevets'.<sup>23</sup> Luigi agents, on the other hand, sought the enhancement of their lord's finances through negotiations with both the personal figures of the monarchy and the local and central institutions and their representatives. This was pursued through a centralised and much more professionalised body of agents and secretaries that responded to a general vicar and a general treasurer, both stationed in Paris. This centralisation did not prevent – or indeed aid – an attention to the local dimension of Luigi's French assets that functioned as another characteristic of the cardinal's management that, in comparison to Ippolito's, constitutes a novelty: when Luigi's general vicar left his post, in 1580, the instructions provided to his successor clearly stated that one of his main responsibilities was to take care to maintain a good relationship with the king's local representatives (such as the royal bailiffs),24 and we have already seen that the territorial and jurisdictional integrity of each benefice was defended through an intense legal activity that cost almost as much as Luigi's living expenses for his entire

the case of a pluralistic and princely cardinal like Luigi d'Este.

household in Paris.25

<sup>23</sup> Ibid., 410, 2056.XVIII.9.

We have examined the variety of roles that the cardinal of Ferrara held throughout his career: princely cardinal with papal ambitions; representative of the French king both within the clergy, as cardinal protector, and in the context of a secular conflict, as governor of Siena; member of a ruling family; and, lastly, papal legate. None of these roles did Ippolito d'Este perform independently of the others. We have seen that the coexistence of different levels of allegiances complicated the exercise of the specific functions that were associated to each of these roles. Never, throughout Ippolito's career, do we see one role fully dominating the others: on the contrary, the changeability of the dynamics between these different functions and duties allowed a continuous renegotiation of the cardinal's multi-faceted identities.

The role of 'princely cardinal' entailed, in itself, a character of ambiguity: the double fidelity that this kind of figure owed to the two powers that they represented – Roman church and dynasty – and the fact that these might often become conflicted resulted in an inherent tension. The papacy was a central political player and a state entity as much as any other territorial dominion, but also a diplomatic centre of European significance and, often, a provider of social promotion. For this reason, especially, Italian rulers and patrician families were keen to maintain a privileged channel of communication with the Curia, through which to pursue their own enhancement, and to build networks of alliances through which they could influence the pope's decision-making. In the context of Ferrara, the fact that the papacy was both the original source of the duke's authority over part of his land and, according to the political agenda decided by each pope, also a player in the Italian conflicts made the need of a family representative in the Curia instrumental to the preservation of the duchy's integrity.

Whilst the kingdom of France was the source of Ippolito's ascent and safeguard of his ecclesiastical wealth, his post of cardinal protector of the crown contributed to the problematic element in his relationships with Rome by adding another allegiance external to the Curia – which was, in the form of the protectorship, also a symptom of the growth and empowerment of national monarchies. Ippolito d'Este's tenure of the post can certainly be seen as transitional and, compared to the seventeenthcentury developments in the institution of the protectorship, provisional: it was subject to the greater struggle that opposed the French monarchy and the Holy See in conflict over the right to manage the ecclesiastical property in the French kingdom. A role that was mainly honorific, then, in the course of a generation, became much more institutionalised and regimented (as we can see in the different way Luigi d'Este's protectorship worked), reflecting a separation of spheres of influence between the monarchy and the papacy that, until the end of the sixteenth century, was still amenable to a partial renegotiation.

Whilst the dispute between the pope and the king of France over Church properties in France never forced Ippolito d'Este to take one side rather than the other, his loyalty to the French crown became a factor of high instability when he took up the post of governor of Siena, in 1552. In this case, the situation of conflict involved all the powers that the cardinal somehow represented. Furthermore, it revealed the clash between the European alliances – which contributed to outline the geopolitical map of the small Italian states – and the network of local relationships between the Italian players, amongst which stood Ferrara. Ercole II's reluctance to associate his duchy with French military operations and to the Sienese conflict was ultimately matched by Ippolito's attempt to avoid an outburst of hostility in Tuscany – an occurrence that would have exposed himself and Ferrara to the unpredictability of war.

The working of the relationships inherent to the Este dynasty were thus deeply affected, in the fifties, by Ippolito's association with the French crown. We have seen how, behind the image of unity that was conveyed to the outside world, there lay tensions and rivalries between Ercole and Ippolito, and how the cardinal's pro-French stance could not only be a source of problems for Ferrara's advocated neutrality, but it could also be exploited by the duke to the detriment of his brother's possessions in the duchy. After Cateau-Cambresis and Ercole II's death, however, the divergence of political identities that had characterised Ippolito's and Ercole's years was overcome in the context of a new setting for the Estense duchy and of the geopolitical situation. The fact that the cardinal took charge of Alfonso II's diplomacy and steered it towards Spain signals that the French retreat from Italy and the death of Henry II had had more serious consequences for the Este than for other Italian states.

The cardinal's legation to Poissy, in 1561, entailed – in theory – the predominance of the papal appointment, and, therefore, the allegiance to that power, over Ippolito's other interests. As much as Ippolito was supposed to be an emanation of

175

French power at the time of his Sienese governorship, the papal legation required him to adhere to the agenda set by Rome. But the private relationship that tied Ippolito to the Valois, and which had also been part of the considerations that had led to his appointment, overlapped and – eventually – overshadowed the cardinal's role as papal representative. The clash that rose with the papacy soon after Ippolito's arrival in France manifested not only the increasing incommunicability between the Pope's pretension of universality and the monarchy's advocacy of its own authority over French religious issues, but also Ippolito's incapacity to perform the role of nuncio whilst re-establishing that privileged relationship with the French crown that

was essential to the flourishing of the Estense duchy under Alfonso II's rule.

the French ecclesiastic elite.

peat itself during the age of the Bourbons.

The recurrent element that links these chapters, then, is the contamination and interplay between different powers that were simultaneously represented by the cardinal of Ferrara. Although this contamination developed in different ways in reaction to different contexts and needs, it worked, overall, to weaken rather than empower him, as the performance of each role in part at least to impair the others. The handover of benefices from Ippolito to his nephew, Luigi – an essential step in the context of a long-term familial strategy – reflects this ambiguous interplay too: for whilst Ippolito committed himself to obtain Luigi's succession to Auch, exploiting his presence at the French royal court, Luigi himself tried to take advantage of the Este's relationship with the Valois to sideline his uncle. The definitive succession of Luigi to his uncle's position, as we have seen, only took place after Ippolito's death. It is remarkable, in the context of the increasing opposition of the Curia to the accumulation of benefices that had characterised Ippolito's career, that the Este managed to preserve Ippolito's large array of French benefices throughout Luigi's life – a further sign that Ippolito had behaved and had been perceived, during his life, as part of

Everything we have just said makes Ippolito d'Este quite a unique character in the sixteenth-century Italian context, and a figure who certainly cannot be seen only through the lens of a faltering adherence to the principle of the Catholic reformation. He was, however, also the product of a specific historical moment: the involvement of French power in Italy, which made the *mésalliance* with the Este profitable for both sides and propelled Ippolito's ecclesiastical ascent. From a longer-term perspective, however, the basis on which Ippolito d'Este had performed his multifaceted role and on which he had paved the way to his nephew's succession, were factors of instability rather than of stability: the personal connection that linked these great princes of the Church to the French royal monarchy never developed into a more organic presence of their kin into the French apparatus. Whilst we can find Italian families, such as the Gondi or the Bonsi families, over the course of time becoming fully naturalised French, who kept ecclesiastical benefices or episcopal sees under their own control for generations – therefore succeeding in building a local dimension of power – the Este never managed, or never wanted, to do so. In the seventeenth century, we find other Este cardinals in the Roman Curia, one of them, Rinaldo, being, as his ancestors before him, the cardinal protector of the French crown. However, the strong connection between Ferrara and the Valois did not re-

French power at the time of his Sienese governorship, the papal legation required him to adhere to the agenda set by Rome. But the private relationship that tied Ippolito to the Valois, and which had also been part of the considerations that had led to his appointment, overlapped and – eventually – overshadowed the cardinal's role as papal representative. The clash that rose with the papacy soon after Ippolito's arrival in France manifested not only the increasing incommunicability between the Pope's pretension of universality and the monarchy's advocacy of its own authority over French religious issues, but also Ippolito's incapacity to perform the role of nuncio whilst re-establishing that privileged relationship with the French crown that was essential to the flourishing of the Estense duchy under Alfonso II's rule.

The recurrent element that links these chapters, then, is the contamination and interplay between different powers that were simultaneously represented by the cardinal of Ferrara. Although this contamination developed in different ways in reaction to different contexts and needs, it worked, overall, to weaken rather than empower him, as the performance of each role in part at least to impair the others. The handover of benefices from Ippolito to his nephew, Luigi – an essential step in the context of a long-term familial strategy – reflects this ambiguous interplay too: for whilst Ippolito committed himself to obtain Luigi's succession to Auch, exploiting his presence at the French royal court, Luigi himself tried to take advantage of the Este's relationship with the Valois to sideline his uncle. The definitive succession of Luigi to his uncle's position, as we have seen, only took place after Ippolito's death. It is remarkable, in the context of the increasing opposition of the Curia to the accumulation of benefices that had characterised Ippolito's career, that the Este managed to preserve Ippolito's large array of French benefices throughout Luigi's life – a further sign that Ippolito had behaved and had been perceived, during his life, as part of the French ecclesiastic elite.

Everything we have just said makes Ippolito d'Este quite a unique character in the sixteenth-century Italian context, and a figure who certainly cannot be seen only through the lens of a faltering adherence to the principle of the Catholic reformation. He was, however, also the product of a specific historical moment: the involvement of French power in Italy, which made the *mésalliance* with the Este profitable for both sides and propelled Ippolito's ecclesiastical ascent. From a longer-term perspective, however, the basis on which Ippolito d'Este had performed his multifaceted role and on which he had paved the way to his nephew's succession, were factors of instability rather than of stability: the personal connection that linked these great princes of the Church to the French royal monarchy never developed into a more organic presence of their kin into the French apparatus. Whilst we can find Italian families, such as the Gondi or the Bonsi families, over the course of time becoming fully naturalised French, who kept ecclesiastical benefices or episcopal sees under their own control for generations – therefore succeeding in building a local dimension of power – the Este never managed, or never wanted, to do so. In the seventeenth century, we find other Este cardinals in the Roman Curia, one of them, Rinaldo, being, as his ancestors before him, the cardinal protector of the French crown. However, the strong connection between Ferrara and the Valois did not repeat itself during the age of the Bourbons.

174

The cardinal's legation to Poissy, in 1561, entailed – in theory – the predominance of the papal appointment, and, therefore, the allegiance to that power, over Ippolito's other interests. As much as Ippolito was supposed to be an emanation of

pope's decision-making. In the context of Ferrara, the fact that the papacy was both the original source of the duke's authority over part of his land and, according to the political agenda decided by each pope, also a player in the Italian conflicts made the need of a family representative in the Curia instrumental to the preservation of the

Whilst the kingdom of France was the source of Ippolito's ascent and safeguard of his ecclesiastical wealth, his post of cardinal protector of the crown contributed to the problematic element in his relationships with Rome by adding another allegiance external to the Curia – which was, in the form of the protectorship, also a symptom of the growth and empowerment of national monarchies. Ippolito d'Este's tenure of the post can certainly be seen as transitional and, compared to the seventeenthcentury developments in the institution of the protectorship, provisional: it was subject to the greater struggle that opposed the French monarchy and the Holy See in conflict over the right to manage the ecclesiastical property in the French kingdom. A role that was mainly honorific, then, in the course of a generation, became much more institutionalised and regimented (as we can see in the different way Luigi d'Este's protectorship worked), reflecting a separation of spheres of influence between the monarchy and the papacy that, until the end of the sixteenth century, was

Whilst the dispute between the pope and the king of France over Church properties in France never forced Ippolito d'Este to take one side rather than the other, his loyalty to the French crown became a factor of high instability when he took up the post of governor of Siena, in 1552. In this case, the situation of conflict involved all the powers that the cardinal somehow represented. Furthermore, it revealed the clash between the European alliances – which contributed to outline the geopolitical map of the small Italian states – and the network of local relationships between the Italian players, amongst which stood Ferrara. Ercole II's reluctance to associate his duchy with French military operations and to the Sienese conflict was ultimately matched by Ippolito's attempt to avoid an outburst of hostility in Tuscany – an occurrence

The working of the relationships inherent to the Este dynasty were thus deeply affected, in the fifties, by Ippolito's association with the French crown. We have seen how, behind the image of unity that was conveyed to the outside world, there lay tensions and rivalries between Ercole and Ippolito, and how the cardinal's pro-French stance could not only be a source of problems for Ferrara's advocated neutrality, but it could also be exploited by the duke to the detriment of his brother's possessions in the duchy. After Cateau-Cambresis and Ercole II's death, however, the divergence of political identities that had characterised Ippolito's and Ercole's years was overcome in the context of a new setting for the Estense duchy and of the geopolitical situation. The fact that the cardinal took charge of Alfonso II's diplomacy and steered it towards Spain signals that the French retreat from Italy and the death of Henry II had had more serious consequences for the Este than for other Ital-

that would have exposed himself and Ferrara to the unpredictability of war.

duchy's integrity.

ian states.

still amenable to a partial renegotiation.

#### The Path of Pleasantness

This was a result of the and highly personalised nature of the power that Ippolito d'Este had accumulated in France during his lifetime rather than to the changes in the Italian scenario that followed the peace of Cateau-Cambrésis. In this sense, the death of Henry II had affected the cardinal and the Este more than the rise of the Spanish dominion over the peninsula. The particular condition of the French monarchy after the 1560s allowed, *in extremis,* a successful succession to Luigi d'Este: the factional strife and the weakening of the monarchy, however, limited the chances of Luigi's empowerment, as they multiplied the interlocutors. It is difficult to assess, in this context, the long-term influence of the family alliance between Este and Guise, which had been an 'invention' of Ippolito d'Este, accomplished through the marriage of Anna d'Este with the duke of Guise. It is certain, on the one hand, that Ippolito's rise within the French clergy and nobility had been facilitated by this dynastic union; on the other, however, one could argue that it made the essence of the Estense presence in France even less structural, and partially subject to the agenda of a more powerful family. A consideration of the network of these 'international' alliances between interest-based groups and of the way their action overlapped, in a game of mutual influences, with the broader political agendas that they represented – Estense and Roman, in the case of Ippolito d'Este – is essential in order to understand the dynamics that regulated the political and diplomatic life of European and Italian states. From this perspective, Ippolito d'Este's case can be seen as the perfect prototype of a phenomenon that continued, with due differences, in the seventeenth century. As every prototype, however, it was quickly outdated by the changing historical conditions and by the competition of other Italian dynasties which had been able to adjust themselves more successfully to those changes.

177

**Bibliography**

Florence

ASMI, CCS, 196; 202 ASMI, AUT., 27

Francia, 23; 24; 36; 37 Milano 35; 36; 37 Roma 48; 51; 65; 66

Roma – Papi: 1300/25

ACDF, SO, St. St., R4-d

1386/124 fasc. 1 (Cardinal Lorraine) 1416/164 fasc. 5 (Bernardo Salviati) 1416/164 fasc. 6 (Giovanni Salviati) 1431/184 fasc. 3 (Cardinal Tournon) 1329/54 fasc. 10 (Cardinal du Bellay)

1389/128 fasc. 2 (Cristoforo Madruzzo)

AAV, *Arch. Concist.*, *Acta Misc.*, 34 AAV, *Arch. Concist.*, *Acta Vicecanc*., 8; 9 AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 13; 79; 125; 131

ASMO, CS (documents), 389; 390; 409; 410

1362/94 fasc.2; 1362A/95 fasc.1 (Alessandro Farnese)

ASMO, CS (letters), 79; 85; 145; 148; 149; 150; 152; 163; 164

BEM, Fondo Campori, 189, Rangoni Fulvio – Copialettere

(Ercole Gonzaga)

Rome

ASMO, CDCPE Firenze: 1153, fasc. 7

Milan

Modena ASMO, CDA

**Manuscript and archival sources**

ASFI, MdP*,* 410; 413a; 1810; 1865; 1866; 3101a; 3271; 3272

ASMO, CDAP, 921; 922; 923; 944; 996; 998; 1002; 992; 957; 958; 961; 1316

Francia: 1159/1 fasc. 5; 1159 A/2 fasc.1; 1568/13 fasc.2; 1568 A/14, fasc. 1; 3; 4

Roma – Cardinali: 1378/112 fasc. 1; 1379/113 fasc. 1; 1380/114 fasc. 1; 1380A/115

# **Bibliography**

## **Manuscript and archival sources**

Florence ASFI, MdP*,* 410; 413a; 1810; 1865; 1866; 3101a; 3271; 3272 Milan ASMI, CCS, 196; 202 ASMI, AUT., 27 Modena ASMO, CDA Francia, 23; 24; 36; 37 Milano 35; 36; 37 Roma 48; 51; 65; 66 ASMO, CDAP, 921; 922; 923; 944; 996; 998; 1002; 992; 957; 958; 961; 1316 ASMO, CDCPE Firenze: 1153, fasc. 7 Francia: 1159/1 fasc. 5; 1159 A/2 fasc.1; 1568/13 fasc.2; 1568 A/14, fasc. 1; 3; 4 Roma – Papi: 1300/25 Roma – Cardinali: 1378/112 fasc. 1; 1379/113 fasc. 1; 1380/114 fasc. 1; 1380A/115 (Ercole Gonzaga) 1386/124 fasc. 1 (Cardinal Lorraine) 1416/164 fasc. 5 (Bernardo Salviati) 1416/164 fasc. 6 (Giovanni Salviati) 1431/184 fasc. 3 (Cardinal Tournon) 1329/54 fasc. 10 (Cardinal du Bellay) 1362/94 fasc.2; 1362A/95 fasc.1 (Alessandro Farnese) 1389/128 fasc. 2 (Cristoforo Madruzzo) ASMO, CS (letters), 79; 85; 145; 148; 149; 150; 152; 163; 164 ASMO, CS (documents), 389; 390; 409; 410 BEM, Fondo Campori, 189, Rangoni Fulvio – Copialettere Rome ACDF, SO, St. St., R4-d AAV, *Arch. Concist.*, *Acta Misc.*, 34 AAV, *Arch. Concist.*, *Acta Vicecanc*., 8; 9 AAV, *Misc., Arm. II*, 13; 79; 125; 131

Giulia Vidori, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, giulia.vidori@gmail.com

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

176

able to adjust themselves more successfully to those changes.

This was a result of the and highly personalised nature of the power that Ippolito d'Este had accumulated in France during his lifetime rather than to the changes in the Italian scenario that followed the peace of Cateau-Cambrésis. In this sense, the death of Henry II had affected the cardinal and the Este more than the rise of the Spanish dominion over the peninsula. The particular condition of the French monarchy after the 1560s allowed, *in extremis,* a successful succession to Luigi d'Este: the factional strife and the weakening of the monarchy, however, limited the chances of Luigi's empowerment, as they multiplied the interlocutors. It is difficult to assess, in this context, the long-term influence of the family alliance between Este and Guise, which had been an 'invention' of Ippolito d'Este, accomplished through the marriage of Anna d'Este with the duke of Guise. It is certain, on the one hand, that Ippolito's rise within the French clergy and nobility had been facilitated by this dynastic union; on the other, however, one could argue that it made the essence of the Estense presence in France even less structural, and partially subject to the agenda of a more powerful family. A consideration of the network of these 'international' alliances between interest-based groups and of the way their action overlapped, in a game of mutual influences, with the broader political agendas that they represented – Estense and Roman, in the case of Ippolito d'Este – is essential in order to understand the dynamics that regulated the political and diplomatic life of European and Italian states. From this perspective, Ippolito d'Este's case can be seen as the perfect prototype of a phenomenon that continued, with due differences, in the seventeenth century. As every prototype, however, it was quickly outdated by the changing historical conditions and by the competition of other Italian dynasties which had been

#### **Printed primary sources**


179

Spini, G. (ed), *Lettere di Cosimo I de' Medici* (Florence, 1940)

Varo Zafra, J. (ed), *Diego Hurtado de Mendoza: cartas* (Granada, 2016)

Ago, R., *Carriere e clientele nella Roma barocca* (Rome-Bari, 1990)

Alberigo, G., *I vescovi italiani al Concilio di Trento* (Firenze, 1959)

e Antonio Brucioli', *Italique,* XXI (2018), pp. 137-180

*siècle* (2 vols, Paris, 1838)

**Online primary sources**

(4 Nov. 2020)

264

2020)

2019)

*del Cinquecento* (Rome, 2017)

Babelon, J-P. (ed), *Primatice à Chaalis* (Paris, 2006)

den, 2006), pp. 99-132

*2,* 4 (1972), pp. 301-327

Nov. 2020)

1994), pp. 355-365

**Printed secondary works**

*escritas 1538-1552* (New Haven, 1935)

*thèque de Besançon* (9 vols, Paris, 1841-1852)

Tommaseo, N. (ed), *Relations des Ambassadeurs vénitiens sur les affaires de France au XVIe* 

Vasquez, A. and Selden Rose, R. (eds), *Algunas cartas de Don Diego Hurtado de Mendoza,* 

Weiss, C. (ed), *Papiers d'état du Cardinal de Granvelle, d'après le manuscrits de la biblio-*

Bandini, L., Casagrande A. and Pulini, C. (eds), 'Archivio Segreto Estense. Carteggi con principi esteri, 1144-1796', Archivio di Stato di Modena (2017) <http://archivi.ibc.regione.emilia-romagna.it/ead-comparc/IT-ER-IBC-036023-009-003>

Ago, R., 'Giochi di squadra: uomini e donne nelle famiglie nobili del XVII secolo', in M. A. Visceglia (ed), *Signori, patrizi, cavalieri nell'età moderna* (Rome-Bari, 1992), pp. 256-

Alberigo, G., 'Archinto, Filippo', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 1961) http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/filippo-archinto\_(Dizionario-Biografico) (4 Nov.

Alonge, G., 'Poesia ed evangelismo tra Italia e Francia: Luigi Alamanni, Antonio Caracciolo

Alonge, G., *Ambasciatori. Diplomazia e politica nella Venezia del Rinascimento* (Rome,

Alonge, G., *Condottiero, cardinale, eretico. Federico Fregoso nella crisi religiosa e politica* 

Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño, A., 'The State of Milan and the Spanish Monarchy', in T. Dandelet and J. Marino (eds), *Spain in Italy. Politics, Society, and Religion, 1500-1700* (Lei-

Antonovics, A. V., 'Counter-Reformation Cardinals: 1534-1590', *European Studies Review* 

Avanzini, N., 'Gualtieri, Sebastiano', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 2003) <http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/sebastiano-gualtieri\_(Dizionario-Biografico)> (4

Balmas, E., 'Ferrara e la Francia nel XVI secolo: uno sguardo d'insieme', in M. Bertozzi, *Alla corte degli Estensi. Filosofia, arte e cultura a Ferrara nei secoli XV e XVI* (Ferrara,

Barbiche, B. and de Dainville-Barbiche, S., 'Les légats *a latere* en France et leur facultés aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles', *Archivium Historiae Pontificiae*, 23 (1985), pp. 93-165 Barbiche, B. and de Dainville-Barbiche, S., 'Les pouvoirs des légats *a latere* et des nonces en France au XVIe et XVIIe siècles', in A. Vauchez and M. Maccarrone (eds), *Échanges* 

Vitalis, A. (ed), *Correspondance politique de Dominique du Gabre…* (Paris, 1903)

Spini, G. (ed), *Lettere di Cosimo I de' Medici* (Florence, 1940)


#### **Online primary sources**

Bandini, L., Casagrande A. and Pulini, C. (eds), 'Archivio Segreto Estense. Carteggi con principi esteri, 1144-1796', Archivio di Stato di Modena (2017) <http://archivi.ibc.regione.emilia-romagna.it/ead-comparc/IT-ER-IBC-036023-009-003> (4 Nov. 2020)

#### **Printed secondary works**


178

Albèri, E. (ed), *Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al Senato* (3 series, 14 vols, Florence,

Baluze, S. et al. (eds), *Miscellanea novo ordine digesta…* (4 vols, apud Vincentium Junctini-

Baudoin, I. (ed), *Négociations, ou lettres d'affaires ecclesiastiques et politiques...* (Paris,

Brandi, K., Duffel, A. et al. (eds), *Briefe und akten zur geschichte des sechzehnten jahrhun-*

Brown, R. and Cavendish Bentinck, G. (eds), *Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice* (38 vols, London, 1890), British History Online (26

Canestrini, G. (ed), *Legazioni di Averardo Serristori ambasciatore di Cosimo I…* (Florence,

Döllinger, I. von (ed), *Beiträge zur politischen, kirchlichen und culture-geschichte…* (Re-

Dufour, H. and Meylan, H. (eds), *Correspondance de Théodore de Bèze* (4 vols, Geneva,

Layard, A. H. (ed), *Despatches of Michele Suriano and Marc'Antonio Barbaro: Venetian* 

Laynez, D., *Lainii monumenta: epistolae et acta patris Jacobi Lainii...* (8 vols, Madrid, 1912-

Lestocquoy, J. (ed), *Correspondance des nonces en France: Capodiferro, Dandino et Gui-*

Lestocquoy, J. (ed), *Correspondance des nonces en France: Lenzi et Gualterio, legatiòn du* 

Lestocquoy, J. (ed), *Correspondance des nonces en Frances: Prospero Santa Croce (1552-*

Polanco, J. A., *Polanci complementa: epistolae et commentaria p. Joannis Alphonsi de Po-*

Ribier, G. (ed), *Lettres et mémoires d'Estat, des roys, princes, ambassadeurs…* (Paris, 1666) Ruscelli, G. (ed), *Delle lettere di principi, le quali o si scrivono da principi…* (3 vols, Venice,

Sainte-Marthe, D. de et al. (eds), *Gallia christiana, in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa…*

Santa Croce, P. di, *Lettres du cardinal di Santa Croce, ècrites pendant sa nonciature en* 

Sauzé de Lhoumeau, C. (ed), *Correspondance politique de M. De Lanssac (Louis de Saint-*

Scheurer, R and Petris, L. et. al. (ed), *Correspondance du Cardinal Jean du Bellay* (7 vols,

Segarizzi, A. (ed), *Relazioni degli ambasciatori veneti al Senato* (3 vols, Bari, 1912-1916)

*diccione (1541-1546). Légations des cardinaux Farnèse…* (Rome, 1963)

Molini, G. (ed), *Documenti di storia italiana* (2 vols, Florence, 1836-1837)

François, M. *Correspondance du Cardinal François de Tournon: 1521-1562* (Paris, 1946) Michaud, J-F. and Poujoulat, J-J-F (eds), *Nouvelle collection des mémoires pour server à l'histoire de France…*, *VI: Mémoires de Francois de Lorraine…* (Paris, 1839) La Ferriere, H. de (ed), *Lettres de Catherine de Médicis* (11 vols, Paris, 1880-1943)

Cuisiat, D. (ed), *Lettres du cardinal Charles de Lorraine (1525-1574)* (Geneva, 1998) Desjardins, A. (ed), *Négociations diplomatiques de la France avec la Toscane…* (6 vols, Par-

**Printed primary sources**

1839-1863)

1658)

1853)

1963)

1918)

*1554)* (Rome, 1972)

1562-1577)

um, 1761-1764)

March 2018)

is, 1859-1886)

gensburg, 1862)

*derts…* (6 vols, München-Leipzig, 1873-1913)

*Ambassador at the Court of France* (Lymington, 1891)

*Cardinal Trivulzio (1557-1561)* (Rome, 1977)

*lanco...* (2 vols, Madrid, 1916-1917)

(16 vols, Paris, 1715-1865)

*France...* (La Haye, 1717)

*Gelais)…* (Paris, 1904)

Paris, 1969-2017)


*religieux entre la France et l'Italie du Moyen Âge àl'époque moderne* (Geneva, 1987), pp. 259-277


181

Blanchard, J., 'Political and Cultural Implications of Secret Diplomacy: Commynes and Ferrara in the Light of Unpublished Documents', in D. Abulafia (ed), *The French Descent* 

Boucher, J., *Présence italienne à Lyon à la Renaissance du milieu du XVe à la fin du XVIe* 

Boyden, J., *The Courtier and the King: Ruy Gómez da Silva, Philip II, and the Court of Spain* 

Broderick, J. F., 'The Sacred College of Cardinals: Size and Geographical Composition

Brouhot, G. and Capodieci, L. (eds), *Il sogno d'arte di François I. L'Italie à la cour de Fran-*

Bullard, M. M., *Filippo Strozzi and the Medici. Favour and Finance in Sixteenth-Century* 

Butters, S. B., 'Contrasting Priorities: Ferdinando I de' Medici, Cardinal and Grand Duke', in M. Hollingsworth and C. M. Richardson (eds), *The Possessions of a Cardinal: Art, Pie-*

Butters, S. B., 'The Uses and Abuses of Gifts in the World of Ferdinando de' Medici (1549-

Byatt, L., 'Este, Ippolito d', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 1993) http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ippolito-d-este\_res-c21fd599-87ec-11dc-8e9d-

Byatt, L., 'Este, Ippolito II d'', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 1993) <http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ippolito-d-este\_(Dizionario-Biografico)> (4 Nov.

Calonaci, S., 'Ferdinando dei Medici: la formazione di un cardinale principe (1563-72), in

Campori, G., 'Gio. Battista della Porta e il Cardinale Luigi d'Este', *Atti e memorie delle RR deputazioni di storia patria per le provincie modenesi e parmensi,* VI (1872), pp. 165-

Campori, G., 'Notizie inedite delle Relazioni fra il Cardinale Ippolito d'Este e Benvenuto Cellini', in B. Cellini, *La vita di Benvenuto Cellini scritta da lui medesimo…* (Milan,

Campori, G., *Raccolta di cataloghi ed inventari inediti di quadri, statue, disegni, bronzi…* 

Cantagalli, R., *La guerra di Siena, 1552-1559. I termini della questione senese nella lotta tra Francia e Asburgo nel '500 e il suo risolversi nell'ambito del principato mediceo* (Siena,

Carroll, S., 'The Compromise of Charles Cardinal de Lorraine: New Evidence', *Journal of* 

Carroll, S., *Martyrs and Murderers. The Guise Family and the Making of Europe* (Oxford,

(1099-1986)', *Archivum Historiae Pontificiae,* 25 (Rome, 1987), pp. 7-81

*ty, and Politics, 1450-1700* (University Park, 2010), pp. 185-225

0016357eee51\_(Dizionario-Biografico) (4 Nov. 2020)

*Archivio Storico Italiano,* 154, 4/570 (1996), pp. 635-690

Campori, G. and Solerti, A., *Luigi, Lucrezia e Leonora d'Este* (Turin, 1888)

Campori, G., *Diciotto lettere inedite di Bartolomeo Cavalcanti* (Modena, 1868)

Cantagalli, R., *Cosimo I de' Medici granduca di Toscana* (Milan, 1985)

Carroll, S., *Blood and Violence in Early Modern France* (Oxford, 2006)

Casanova, C., *La famiglia italiana in età moderna* (Rome, 1997)

1609), *I Tatti Studies: Essays in the Renaissance,* 11 (2007), pp. 243-354

Bonora, E., *Aspettando l'imperatore. Principi italiani tra il papa e Carlo V* (Turin, 2014) Bonora, E., *Giudicare i vescovi. La definizione dei poteri nella Chiesa postridentina* (Rome,

*into Renaissance Italy, 1494-95* (Aldershot, 1995), pp. 231-248

Bonora, E., *Roma 1564. La congiura contro il papa* (Rome, 2011)

Boucher, J., *Societé et mentalités autour de Henri III* (Paris, 2006)

2007)

*siècle* (Lyon, 1994)

(Berkeley, 1995)

*ce* (Rome, 2019)

2020)

190

1962)

2009)

1874), pp. 403-409

*dal XV secolo al XIX* (Modena, 1870)

*Ecclesiastical History*, 54/3 (2003), pp. 469-483

*Florence and Rome* (Cambridge, 1980)


180

*religieux entre la France et l'Italie du Moyen Âge àl'époque moderne* (Geneva, 1987),

Barbiche, B., 'L'influence française à la cour pontificale sous le règne de Henri IV', *Mélan-*

Barbiche, B., 'La nonciature de France aux XVI and XVII siècles: les nonces, leur entourage et leur cadre de vie', in A. Koller (ed), *Kurie und Politik. Stand und Perspektiven der* 

Bardati, F., 'Between the King and the Pope: French Cardinals in Rome (1495-1560), *Urban* 

Bardati, F., 'Ippolito II d'Este e i cardinali francesi: dialogo, emulazione, competizione', in M. Cogotti and F. Fiore (eds), *Ippolito II d'Este. Cardinale, principe, mecenate* (Rome,

Bardati, F., *Hommes du roi et princes de l'Église romaine: les cardinaux français et l'art ita-*

Bartlett, K., 'Papal Policy and the English Crown, 1563-1565: The Bertano Correspondence',

Baudouin-Matuszek, M-N., 'Hippolyte d'Este, cardinale de Ferrare, à Paris et à l'abbaye de Chaalis', *Bullettin de la societé de l'histoire de Paris et de l'Ile-de-France,* 125-128

Baumgartner, F. J., 'Henry II and the Papal Conclave of 1549', *The Sixteenth Century Jour-*

Baumgartner, F. J., 'Henry II's Italian Bishops: A Study in the Use and Abuse of the Concor-

Baumgartner, F. J., *Change and Continuity in the French Episcopate: The Bishops and the* 

Beaven, L., 'Elite Patronage and Collecting', in S. Ditchfield, P. Jones and B. Wisch (eds), *A* 

Béguin, S., 'Précisions et hypotheses sur le séjour d'Hippolyte d'Este à Chaalis et à Senlis (1536-1549)', *Bulletin de la Societé de l'histoire de l'art français*, 2000 (2001), pp. 29-

Bellati, F., *Serie de' governatori di Milano dall'anno 1535 al 1776 con istoriche annotazioni* 

Belligni, E., 'Renata di Francia tra Ferrara e Montargis', in P. Benedict, S. Seidel Menchi and A. Tallon (eds), *La Réforme en France et en Italie. Contacts, comparaisons et contrastes*

Benzoni, G., 'Ercole II d'Este', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 1993) <http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ercole-ii-d-este\_(Dizionario-Biografico)> (4 Nov.

Bergin, J., 'The Decline and Fall of the House of Guise as an Ecclesiastical Dynasty', *Histor-*

Bertoni, L., 'Este, Francesco d'', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 1993) <http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/francesco-d-este\_(Dizionario-Biografico)> (4 Nov.

Bizzarini, M., 'Marenzio and Cardinal Luigi d'Este', *Early Music,* 27/4 (1999), pp. 519-532 Bizzarini, M., *Luca Marenzio. The Career of a Musician Between the Renaissance and the* 

Black, C. F., *Church, Religion, and Society in Early Modern Italy* (Basingstoke, 2004)

dat of Bologna', *The Sixteenth Century Journal,* 11/2 (1980), pp. 49-58.

*ges d'archéologie et d'historie,* 77/1 (1965), pp. 277-299

*Nuntiaturberichtsforschung* (Tübingen, 1998), pp. 64-97.

*The Sixteenth Century Journal*, 23/4 (1992), pp. 643-659

Bayne, C. G., *Anglo-Roman Relations, 1558-1565* (Oxford, 1968)

*Companion to Early Modern Rome* (Leiden, 2019), pp. 387-411

Belligni, E., *Renata di Francia (1510-1575): un'eresia di corte* (Turin, 2011)

*History,* 37/3 (2010), pp. 419-433

*lien (1495-1560)* (Rome, 2015)

pp. 259-277

2013), pp. 73-99

(1998-2001), pp. 1-15

50

(Milan, 1776)

(Rome, 2007)

2020)

2020)

*nal,* 16/3 (1985), pp. 301-314

*Wars of Religion, 1547-1610* (Durham, 1986)

*ical Journal,* 25 (1982), pp. 781-803

*Counter-Reformation* (Abingdon, 2003)

Cato, E., *Oratione fatta dal cavaliere Hercole Cato…* (Ferrara, 1587)


183

Dean, T., 'Court and Household in Ferrara, 1494', in D. Abulafia (ed), *The French Descent* 

DeCrue, F., *L'action politique de Calvin hors de Genève: d'après sa correspondence* (Gene-

Del Piazzo, M., *Il carteggio "Medici-Este" dal sec. XV al 1531. Regesti delle lettere conser-*

Delumeau, J., 'Contribution à l'histoire des Français à Rome pendant le XVIe siècle', *Mélan-*

Delumeau, J., *Vie économique et sociale de Rome dans la second moitié du XVI siècle* (2

DeSilva, J. M., 'Senators or Courtiers: Negotiating Models for the College of Cardinals under

Ditchfield, S., 'Innovations and its Limit: The Case of Italy (ca. 1512-ca.1572)', in P. Benedict, S. Seidel Menchi, A. Tallon (eds), *La Réforme en France et en Italie. Contacts,* 

Donati, C., 'The Profession of Arms and the Nobility in Spanish Italy: Some Considerations', in T. J. Dandelet and J. Marino (eds), *Spain in Italy. Politics, Society, and Religion,* 

Dubost, J-F., 'Enjeux identitaires et politiques d'une polémique. Français, Italiens et Espagnols dans les libelles publiés en France en 1615', in A. Tallon (ed), *Le sentiment national dans l'Europe méridionale aux XVI et XVII siècles* (Madrid, 2007), pp. 91-122

Durand de Maillane, F-T., *Dictionnaire de droit canonique et de pratique bénéficiale* (4 vols,

Edelstein, M. M., 'Foreign Episcopal Appointments During the Reign of Francis I', *Church* 

Evennett, H. O., 'Pie IV et les bénéfices de Jean du Bellay', *Revue d'historie de l'Église de* 

Fasano Guarini, E., '"Ètat moderne" et ancien ètats italiens. Èlements d'histoire comparée',

Fasano Guarini, E., '"Rome, workshop of all the practices of the world": from the letters of Cardinal Ferdinando de' Medici to Cosimo I and Francesco I', in G. Signorotto and M. A. Visceglia (eds), *Court and Politics in Papal Rome, 1492-1700* (Cambridge, 2002), pp.

Fasano Guarini, E., 'Cosimo I de' Medici', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 1984) <http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/cosimo-i-de-medici-duca-di-firenze-

Fasano Guarini, E., 'Italia non spagnola e Spagna nel tempo di Filippo II', in L. Lotti and R.

Fattori, M. T., *Clemente VIII e il Sacro Collegio (1592-1605). Meccanismi istituzionali ed* 

Ferrari, M. L. and Vivenza, G., 'Tutelare la famiglia: conservazione o incremento del patrimonio. Percorsi sei-settecenteschi italiani o inglesi', in S. Cavaciocchi (ed), *La famiglia* 

Firpo, M. and Maifreda, G., *L'eretico che salvò la Chiesa. Il cardinale Giovanni Morone e le* 

Firpo, M., 'Il cardinale', in E. Garin (ed), *L'uomo del Rinascimento* (Rome-Bari, 1992), pp.

*into Renaissance Italy, 1494-96* (Aldershot, 1995), pp. 165-190

*vate negli Archivi di Stato di Firenze e Modena* (Roma, 1964)

Julius II and Leo X', *Renaissance Studies,* 22/2 (2008), pp. 154-173

Donati, C., *L'idea di nobiltà in Italia. Secoli XIV-XVIII* (Roma-Bari, 1988)

Eubel, C., *Hierarchia catholica Medii Aevi…* (6 vols, Regensberg, 1913)

*Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine*, 45 /1 (1998), pp. 15-41

granduca-di-toscana\_(Dizionario-Biografico)> (26 May 2018)

Villari (eds), *Filippo II e il Mediterraneo* (Bari-Rome, 2004), pp. 5-24

*nell'economia europea, secoli XIII-XVIII* (Florence, 2009), pp. 203-241

*ges d'archeologie et d'histoire,* 64 (1952), pp. 249-286

*comparaisons et contrastes* (Rome, 2007), pp. 145-160

Dubost, J-F., *La France italienne, XVIe-XVIIe siècle* (Paris, 1997)

*1500-1700* (Rome, 2007)*,* pp. 299-324

*History,* 44/4 (1975), pp. 450-459

*France,* 22/97 (1936), pp. 425-461

*accentramento di governo* (Stuttgart, 2004)

*origini della Controriforma* (Turin, 2019)

va, 1909)

Lyon, 1770)

53-77

75-131

vols, Paris, 1957-1959)


Cato, E., *Oratione fatta dal cavaliere Hercole Cato…* (Ferrara, 1587)

Chabod, F., *Storia di Milano nell'epoca di Carlo V* (Turin, 1971)

Chiappini, L., *Gli Estensi. Mille anni di storia* (Ferrara, 2001)

Chiappini, L., *La corte estense alla metà del '500* (Ferrara, 1994)

*beneficiarie nel ducato di Milano (1450-1535)* (Naples, 1989)

Church, F. C., *The Italian Reformers, 1534-1564* (New York, 1932)

*secoli XIII-XVIII* (Florence, 2009), pp. 47-68

Chabod, F., *Carlo V e il suo Impero* (Turin, 1985)

*Problems* (Aldershot, 1997), pp. 1-22

Chiappini, L., *Gli Estensi* (Varese, 1967)

*1531-1607* (Munich, 2007)

1989), pp. 293-354.

(Florence, 1958)

*1450-1800* (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 49-94

Dandelet, T. J., *Spanish Rome, 1500-1700* (New Haven, 2001)

*Contacts, comparaisons et contrastes* (Rome, 2007), pp. 331-349

Rome, 1677)

312

201-214

Cattini, M. and Romani, M. A., 'Legami di sangue: relazioni politiche, matrimoni e circolazione della ricchezza nelle casate sovrane dell'Italia centro-settentrionale nei secoli XV-XVIII (ricerche in corso)', in S. Cavaciocchi (ed), *La famiglia nell'economia europea,* 

Chacon, A., *Vitae, et res gestae pontificum romanorum… usque ad Clementem IX* (4 vols,

Chambers, D. S., 'Papal Conclaves and Prophetic Mystery in the Sistine Chapel', in D. S. Chambers, *Individuals and institutions in Renaissance Italy* (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 299-

Chambers, D. S., 'Postscript on the Worldly Affairs of Cardinal Francesco Gonzaga and of Other Princely Cardinals', in D. S. Chambers, *Renaissance Cardinals and Their Worldly* 

Chambers, D. S., 'The Economic Predicament of Renaissance Cardinals', in D. S. Chambers, *Renaissance Cardinals and Their Worldly Problems* (Aldershot, 1997), pp. 289-313. Chambers, D. S., 'The Renaissance Cardinalate: From Paolo Cortesi's *De Cardinalatu* to the present', in M. Hollingsworth and C. M. Richardson (eds) *The Possessions of a Cardi-*

Chittolini, G. (ed), *Gli Sforza, la Chiesa lombarda, la corte di Roma. Strutture e pratiche* 

Christin, O., 'From Repression to Toleration: French Royal Policy in the Face of Protestantism', in P. Benedict, G. Marnef, H. van Nierop and M. Venard (eds), *Reformation, Revolt and Civil War in France and the Netherlands, 1555-1585* (Amsterdam, 1999), pp.

Coester, C., *Schön wie Venus, mutig wie Mars: Anna d'Este von Guise und von Nemours,* 

Condé, L. de, *Memoires de Condé, ou recueil pour servir à l'histoire de France…* (6 vols, Londres [i.e. The Hague?], 1743), Eighteen Century Collections Online (10 Jan 2020) Contini, A., 'Aspects of Medicean Diplomacy in the Sixteenth Century', in D. Frigo (ed), *Politics and Diplomacy in Early Modern Italy. The Structure of Diplomatic Practice,* 

Coppola, G., 'Fisco, finanza e religione: lo Stato di Milano da Carlo a Federigo', in H. Kellenbenz and P. Prodi (eds), *Fisco, religione, Stato nell'età confessionale* (Bologna,

D'Addario, A., *Il problema senese nella storia italiana della prima metà del Cinquecento* 

Daussy, H., 'Les élites face à la Reforme dans le royaume de France (ca. 1520-ca. 1570)', in P. Benedict, S. Seidel Menchi and A. Tallon (eds), *La Reforme en France et en Italie.* 

Cooper, R., *Roman Antiquities in Renaissance France, 1515-1565* (Oxford, 2013)

*nal: Politics, Piety, and Art, 1450-1700* (University Park, 2010), pp. 17-24 Chambers, D. S., *Cardinal Bainbridge in the Court of Rome, 1509 to 1514* (Oxford, 1965)

Chiappini, L., *La corte di Ferrara e il suo mecenatismo, 1441-1598* (Modena, 1990)

Cellini, B., *The Autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini,* trans. G. Bull (London, 1956)


Giannini, M. C., 'Ippolito II d'Este arcivescovo di Milano fra interessi familiari e scelte politiche (1535-1550)', in A. Rocca and P. Vismara (eds) *Prima di Carlo Borromeo. Istitu-*

Giraldi, G. B., *Commentario delle cose di Ferrara, et de' principi da Este…* (Florence, 1556) Gotor, M., 'Mignanelli, Fabio', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 2010) http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/fabio-mignanelli\_(Dizionario-Biografico) (26 May

Guerzoni, G., 'Between Rome and Ferrara: The Courtiers of the Este Cardinals in the Cinquecento', in J. Burke and M. Bury (eds), *Art and Identity in Early Modern Rome* (Al-

Guerzoni, G., 'Di alcune ignote e poco nobili cause del soggiorno Bolognese di Kaiser Karl

Hernando Sánchez, C. J., 'Naples and Florence in Charles V's Italy: Family, Court and Government in the Toledo-Medici alliance', in T. J. Dandelet and J. Marino (eds), *Spain in* 

Hollingsworth, M., 'A Cardinal in Rome: Ippolito D'Este in 1560', in J. Burke and M. Bury

Hollingsworth, M., 'A Taste for Conspicuous Consumption: Cardinal Ippolito d'Este and His Wardrobe, 1555-1566', in M. Hollingsworth and C. M. Richardson (eds), *The Possessions of a Cardinal. Politics, Piety, and Art, 1450-1700* (University Park, 2010), pp. 132-

Hollingsworth, M., 'Ippolito d'Este: A Cardinal and His Household in Rome and Ferrara in

Hollingsworth, M., 'Materializing Power. Cardinal Ippolito d'Este in 1540', in L. Golden (ed), *Raising the Eyebrow: John Onians and World Art Studies* (Oxford, 2001), pp. 169-

Hollingsworth, M., *The Cardinal's Hat: Money, Ambition and Housekeeping in a Renais-*

Hollingsworth, M., Pattenden, M. and Witte, A. (eds), *A Companion to the Early Modern* 

Hook, J., 'Habsburg Imperialism and Italian Particularism: The Case of Charles V and Si-

Hours, H., 'Le XVIe siècle', in G. Gadille, R. Fedou et al. (eds) , *Histoire du Diocèse de* 

Hunt, J. M., 'Rome and the Vacant See', in S. Ditchfield, P. Jones and B. Wisch (eds), *A* 

Gundersheimer, W. L., *Ferrara: The Style of a Renaissance Despotism* (Princeton, 1973)

*Italy. Politics, Society, and Religion, 1500-1700* (Leiden, 2006), pp. 133-180 Hewett, E., 'Assessment of Italian Benefices Held by the Cardinals for the Turkish War of

(eds), *Art and Identity in Early Modern Rome* (Aldershot, 2008), pp. 81-94

V', in M. Fantoni (ed), *Carlo V e l'Italia* (Rome, 2000), pp. 197-217

Heller, H., *Anti-Italianism in Sixteenth-Century France* (Toronto, 2003)

1571', *The English Historical Review,* 30/119 (1915), pp. 488-501

Holt, M. P., *The French Wars of Religion, 1562-1629* (Cambridge, 1995)

*Companion to Early Modern Rome* (Leiden, 2019), pp. 99-114

Hurtubise, P., *Une famille-témoin. Les Salviati* (Rome, 1985)

ena', *European Studies Review,* 19/3 (1979), pp. 283-312. Hook, J., 'The Fall of Siena', *History Today,* 23/2 (1973), pp. 105-115

Hook, J., *Siena: A City and its History* (London, 1979)

1566', *The Court Historian,* 5/2 (2000), pp. 105-126

*zioni, religione e società agli inizi del Cinquecento* (Rome, 2012), pp. 107-120 Giannini, M. C., 'Politica imperiale ed ecclesiastici filo-francesi nello Stato di Milano tra fedeltà e interessi (1535-1548), in J. C. D'Amico and J-L. Fournel (eds), *François Ier et l'espace politique italien: États, domains et territoires* (Rome, 2018), pp. 105-128 Giannini, M. C., 'Una chiesa senza arcivescovo. Identità e tensioni politiche nella società ecclesiastica milanese (1546-1560)', *Annali di storia moderna e contemporanea*, 8 (2002),

pp. 171-222

dershot, 2008), pp. 59-77

2018)

152

173

*sance Court* (London, 2005)

*Lyon* (Paris, 1983), pp. 123-127

*Cardinal* (Leiden, 2019)


Firpo, M., 'Politica imperiale e vita religiosa in Italia nell'età di Carlo V', *Studi Storici,* 42/2

Folin, M., 'Il sistema politico estense fra mutamenti e persistenze (secoli XV-XVIII)', *Socie-*

Folin, M., *Rinascimento estense: politica, cultura, istituzioni di un antico Stato italiano* (Ro-

Fosi, I. and Visceglia, M. A., 'Marriage and Politics at the Papal Court in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century', in T. Dean and K. J. P. Lowe (eds), *Marriage in Italy, 1300-1650* 

Fragnito, G., '"Parenti" e "familiari" nelle corti cardinalizie del Rinascimento', in C. Mozzarelli (ed), *«Familia*» *del principe e famiglia aristocratica,* ii (Rome, 1988), pp. 565-587 Fragnito, G., 'Cardinals' Courts in Sixteenth-Century Rome', *The Journal of Modern Histo-*

Fragnito, G., 'Le corti cardinalizie nella prima metà del Cinquecento: da Paolo Cortesi a Francesco Priscianese', *Miscellanea Storica della Valdelsa,* CVIII (2003), pp. 97-105 Fragnito, G., *Cinquecento italiano. Religione, cultura e potere dal Rinascimento alla Contro-*

Fragnito, G., *Gasparo Contarini. Un magistrato veneziano al servizio della Cristianità* (Flo-

Fragnito, G., *Storia di Clelia Farnese. Amori, potere, violenza nella Roma della Controri-*

François, M., 'Le rôle du cardinal François de Tournon dans la politique française en Italie de janvier à juillet 1556', *Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire,* 50 (1933), pp. 293-333 Frigo, D., 'Guerra e diplomazia: gli stati padani nell'età di Carlo V', in M. Fantoni (ed), *Car-*

Frigo, D., 'Politica estera e diplomazia: figure, problemi e apparati', in G. Greco and M. Rosa

Frigo, D., 'Virtù politiche e 'pratica delle corti': l'immagine dell'ambasciatore tra Cinque e Seicento', in C. Continisio and C. Mozzarelli (eds), *Repubblica e virtù. Pensiero politico* 

Frommel, S., 'Hippolyte d'Este à Chaalis. Architecture projetée, architecture peinte', *Monu-*

Frommel, S., 'Ippolito II d'Este committente in Francia: dimore e architettura dipinta', in M. Cogotti and F. Fiore (eds), *Ippolito II d'Este. Cardinale, principe, mecenate* (Rome,

Frommel, S., 'Le residenze del Cardinale Ippolito d'Este in Francia: il Grand Ferrare e Chaalis', in M. Folin and F. Ceccarelli (eds), *Delizie estensi. Architetture di villa nel Rinasci-*

Galasso, G., 'L'Italia nel sistema imperiale spagnolo da Filippo II a Filippo IV', in P. Pissavino and G. Signorotto (eds), *Lombardia borromaica, Lombardia spagnola* (2 vols, Ro-

Gardi, A., 'Cardinale e gentiluomo: le due logiche del legato di bologna Alessandro Sforza

(eds), *Storia degli antichi stati italiani* (Rome-Bari, 1997), pp. 117-161

*e monarchia cattolica fra XVI e XVII secolo* (Rome, 1995), pp. 355-376

*ments et mémoires de la Fondation Eugène Piot*, 87 (2008), pp. 143-172

*mento italiano ed europeo* (Florence, 2009), pp. 387-417

Gams, P. B., *Series episcoporum Eccleasiae catholicae* (Graz, 1957)

(1570-1573)', *Società e Storia,* XX (1997), pp. 287-311

Fosi, I., *All'ombra dei Barberini. Fedeltà e servizio nella Roma barocca* (Rome, 1997) Fosi, I., *Papal Justice. Subjects and Courts in the Papal State, 1500-1750* (Washington,

Firpo, M., *Juan de Valdés e la Riforma nell'Italia del Cinquecento* (Rome-Bari, 2016) Firpo, M., *La presa di potere dell'Inquisizione romana, 1550-1553* (Rome-Bari, 2014) Fletcher, C., *Diplomacy in Renaissance Rome. The rise of the Resident Ambassador* (Cam-

(2001), pp. 245-261

*tà e Storia,* XX (1997), pp. 505-549

(Cambridge, 1998), pp. 197-224

*ry,* 65/1 (1993), pp. 26-56

*riforma* (Bologna, 2011)

*forma* (Bologna, 2013)

2013), pp. 91 – 114

me, 1995), pp. 13-40

*lo V e l'Italia* (Rome, 2000), pp. 17-46

rence, 1988).

bridge, 2015)

me-Bari, 2004)

2011)


Magoni, C., *I gigli d'oro e l'aquila bianca. Gli Estensi e la corte francese tra '400 e '500: un* 

Mallett, M. E. and Shaw, C., *The Italian Wars, 1494-1559: War, State and Society in Early* 

Marcora, C., 'Il Cardinal Ippolito I d'Este arcivescovo di Milano', *Memorie storiche della* 

Marcora, C., 'Ippolito II arcivescovo di Milano (1519-1550), *Memorie storiche della Diocesi* 

Marcora, C., 'La Chiesa milanese nel decennio 1550-1560', *Memorie storiche della Diocesi* 

Martin, J. J., 'Elites and Reform in Northern Italy', in P. Benedict, S. Seidel Menchi and A. Tallon (eds), *La Réforme en France et en Italie. Contacts, comparaisons et contrastes*

Martin, J. J., '*Renovatio* and Reform in Early Modern Italy', in R. K. Delph, M. M. Fontaine and J. J. Martin (eds), *Heresy, Culture, and Religion in Early Modern Italy. Contexts and* 

Martínez Millán, J. and Rivero Rodríguez, M., 'Hacia la formación de la Monarquía Hispana: la hegemonia hispana en Italia (1547-1566), in J. Martínez Millán (ed), *La Corte de Car-*

Martínez Millán, J., 'Alessandro Farnese, la corte di Madrid e la monarchia cattolica', in A. Bilotto, P. Del Negro and C. Mozzarelli (eds), *I Farnese. Corti, guerra e nobiltà in anti-*

Martínez Millán, J., 'Fazioni politiche e correnti spirituali nel servizio dell'Imperatore', in F. Cantù and M. A. Visceglia (eds), *L'Italia di Carlo V. Guerra, religione e politica nel* 

Mayer, T., 'The War of the Two Saints: the Conclave of Julius III and the Cardinal Pole', in T. Mayer, *Cardinal Pole in European Context: A Via Media in the Reformation* (Alder-

McClung Hallman, B., *Italian Cardinals, Reform, and the Church as a Property* (Berkeley,

McKinley, M., 'Iconoclasm in Lyon (1562): Three Contemporary Chroniclers', in S. Seidel Menchi and R. Pierce (eds), *Ritratti. La dimensione individuale nella storia (secoli XV-*

Menniti Ippolito, A., *Il governo dei papi nell'età moderna. Carriere, gerarchie, organizza-*

Menniti Ippolito, A., *Il tramonto della Curia nepotista. Papi, nipoti e burocrazia Curiale tra* 

Michon, C., 'Hippolyte d'Este (1509-1572)', in C. Michon (ed), *Les conseillers de François* 

Michon, C., 'Le cardinal Jean du Bellay et ses bénéfices en France sous François Ier et Henry II', in C. Michon and L. Petris (eds), *Le cardinal Jean du Bellay: diplomatie et culture* 

Michon, C., 'Les richesses de la faveur à la Reinassance: Jean de Lorraine (1498-1550) et François Ier', *Revue d'histoire moderne et contemporaine,* 50-53 (2003), pp. 34-61 Michon, C., *La crosse et le sceptre. Les prélats d'État sous François Ier et Henry IV* (Paris,

Milstein, J., *The Gondi: Family Strategy and Survival in Early Modern France* (Aldershot,

*secolo di rapporti* (Ferrara, 2001)

*Modern Europe* (London, 2012)

*di Milano,* 6 (1959), pp. 305-521

*di Milano,* 7 (1960), pp. 254-501

(Rome, 2007)

*Diocesi di Milano,* 5 (1958), pp. 325-520

*Contestations* (Kirskville, 2006), pp. 1-16

*co regime* (Roma, 1997), pp. 93-116

shot, 2000), pp. 1-21

*XX)* (Rome, 2008), pp. 225-247

*XVI e XVII secolo* (Rome, 1999)

*Ier* (Rennes, 2011), pp. 527-532

*zione Curiale* (Rome, 2007)

1985)

2008)

2013)

*los V* (Madrid, 2000), part I: *Corte y Gobierno*, ii, pp. 189-208

*primo Cinquecento* (2 vols, Rome, 2003), i, pp. 3-39

Meiss-Even, M., *Les Guise et leur paraître* (Rennes, 2013)

Mayer, T., *Reginald Pole: Prince and Prophet* (Cambridge, 2000)

Merkle, S., *Concilii Tridentini diariorum pars secunda…* (Freiburg, 1965)

*dans l'Europe de la Renaissance* (Tours, 2013), pp. 67-88


Hyde, H., *Cardinal Bendinello Sauli and Church Patronage in Sixteenth-century Italy* 

Iacovella, M., 'L'apprendistato politico del cardinal Ercole Gonzaga. Militanza filofrancese, conflitti famigliari, impegno pastorale (1527-1532)', in G. Alonge and R. Ruggiero (eds), *Relations diplomatiques franco-italiennes dans l'Europe de la prèmiere modernité. Communication politique et circulation des savoirs* (Lecce, 2020), pp. 157-182 Iacovella, M., '«Padrone di me et del voto mio». Militanza filoimperiale e coscienza religiosa nel cardinal Ercole Gonzaga', *Riforma e movimenti religiosi. Rivista della società di stu-*

Isaacs, A. K., 'Impero, Francia, Medici: orientamenti politici e gruppi sociali a Siena nel primo Cinquecento', in *Firenze e la Toscana dei Medici nell'Europa del '500* (2 vols, Flo-

Jacobson Schutte, A., *Pier Paolo Vergerio. The Making of an Italian Reformer* (Geneva,

Jedin, H. and Prodi, P. (eds), *ll Concilio di Trento come crocevia della politica europea* (Bo-

Jenkins Blaisdell, C., 'Politics and Heresy in Ferrara (1534-1559)', *The Sixteenth Century* 

Jestaz, B., 'Benvenuto Cellini et la cour de France (1540-1545), *Bibliothèque de l'école des* 

Kaplan, B. J., *Divided by Faith. Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early* 

Kim, S-H., *Michel de l'Hôpital: The Vision of a Reformist Chancellor During the French Re-*

Lavagne d'Ortigue, X., 'Le temps des faux abbés: la commende en France du XVI au XVIII siècle', in D-M. Dauzet and M. Plouvier (eds), *Abbatiat et abbés dans l'ordre de Pré-*

Le Gall, J. M., 'Les princes italiens et François Ier: 1515-1530', in C. Lastraioli and J-M. de Gall (eds), *François I et l'Italie / L'Italia e Francesco I. Échanges, influences, méfiances entre Moyen Âge et Renaissance / Scambi, influenze, diffidenze fra Medioevo e Rinasci-*

Lemaitre, N., 'Les évêques italiens de François Ier', in C. Lastraioli and J-M. de Gall (eds), *François I et l'Italie / L'Italia e Francesco I. Échanges, influences, méfiances entre Moyen Âge et Renaissance / Scambi, influenze, diffidenze fra Medioevo e Rinascimento*

Levin, M. J., 'A New World Order: The Spanish Campaign for Precedence in Early Modern

Levin, M. J., *Agents of Empire: Spanish Ambassadors in Sixteenth-century Italy* (New York,

Lockwood, L., *Music in Renaissance Ferrara 1400-1505: The Creation of a Musical Centre* 

Lutz, H., 'Il cardinale Ippolito d'Este. Schizzo biografico di un principe della Chiesa', *Atti e memorie della Società Tiburtina di Storia d'Arte,* XXXIX (1966), pp. 127-156

Europe', *Journal of Early Modern History*, 6/3 (2002), pp. 233-264

Libanori, A., *Ferrara d'oro imbrunito* (3 vols, Ferrara, 1665-1674)

Knecht, R. J., *Renaissance Warrior and Patron. The Reign of Francis I* (Cambridge, 1994) La Place, P. de, *Commentaires de l'estat de la religion et de la republique sous les rois...* (n.

(Woodbridge-Rochester, 2009)

*di valdesi,* 07 (2020), pp. 13-47

rence, 1983), pp. 249-270

*Journal,* 6/1 (1975), pp. 67-93

*chartes*, 161 (2003), pp. 71-132

*ligious Wars* (Kirksville, 1997)

*montré* (Turnhout, 2005), pp. 161-183

*mento* (Turnhout, 2018), pp. 107-130

*in the Fifteenth Century* (Oxford, 2009)

(Turnhout, 2018), pp. 145-167

*Modern Europe* (Cambridge-London, 2007)

1977)

logna, 1979)

pl., 1565)

2005)

Iotti, R. (ed), *Gli estensi. La corte di Ferrara* (Modena, 1998)

Jedin, H., *A History of the Council of Trent* (2 vols, London, 1957) Jedin, H., *Geschichte des Konzils von Trient* (4 vols, Freiburg, 1951-1976)


Picot, É., *Les Français italianisants au XVIe siècle* (Paris, 1906-1907) Picot, É., *Les Italiens en France au XVIe siècle* (Bordeaux, 1918)

*Méditerranée,* 108/1 (1996), pp. 407-402

pp. 433-454

2011)

2018)

pp. 49-57

(Venice, 2010)

stoke, 2013)

*moderna* (Bologna, 1982)

*Network* (Leiden, 2009)

Polachek, D., 'Le mécénat meurtrier, l'iconoclasme et les limites de l'acceptable: Anna d'Este, Catherine-Marie de Lorraine et l'anéantissement d'Henri III', in K. Wilson-Chevalier (ed), *Patronnes et mécénes en France à la Renaissance* (Saint-Étienne, 2007),

Poncet, O., 'Antonio Barberini (1608-1671) et la papautè. Rèflexion sur un destin individuel en cour de Rome au XVIIe siècle', in *Mélanges de l'Ecole française de Rome. Italie et* 

Poncet, O., 'The Cardinal-Protectors of the Crowns in the Roman Curia During the First Half of the Seventeenth Century: the Case of France', in G. Signorotto and M. A. Visceglia (eds), *Court and Politics in Papal Rome, 1492-1700* (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 158-176 Poncet, O., *La France et le pouvoir pontifical (1595-1661): l'esprit des institutions* (Rome,

Portone, P., 'Este, Luigi d'', *Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani* (Rome, 1993) <http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/luigi-d-este\_(Dizionario-Biografico)> (22 Apr.

Presutti, G., 'Alcuni documenti a proposito delle querele tra il Cardinale Ippolito d'Este giuniore ed i Tiburtini', *Atti e memorie della Società Tiburtina di Storia d'Arte,* I (1921),

Prodi, P., *Il sovrano pontefice. Un corpo e due anime: la monarchia papale nella prima età* 

Prosdocimi, L., *Il diritto ecclesiastico dello Stato di Milano dall'inizio della signoria viscon-*

Rebecchini, G., *"Un altro Lorenzo". Ippolito de' Medici tra Firenze e Roma (1511-1535)* 

Reid, J. A., *King's Sister-Queen of Dissent: Marguerite of Navarre and her Evangelical* 

Reinhard, W., 'Papal Power and Family Strategies in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century'*,* in R. G. Asch and A. M. Birke (eds), *Princes, Patronage and the Nobility: The* 

Reinhard, W., 'Struttura e significato del Sacro Collegio fra la fine del XV e l'inizio del XVI', in *Città italiane del Cinquecento tra riforma e controriforma: atti del convegno* 

Riccardi, L., 'An Outline of Vatican Diplomacy in the Early Modern Age', in D. Frigo (ed), *Politics and Diplomacy in Early Modern Italy. The Structure of Diplomatic Practice,* 

Ricci, G., 'L'empia alleanza franco-ottomana: una prospettiva italiana', in C. Lastraioli and J-M. de Gall (eds), *François I et l'Italie / L'Italia e Francesco I. Échanges, influences, méfiances entre Moyen Âge et Renaissance / Scambi, influenze, diffidenze fra Medioevo* 

Rimoldi, A., 'La prima metà del Cinquecento (1500-1559)', in A. Caprioli, A. Rimoldi and

Roberts, P., *Peace and Authority During the French Religious Wars: c. 1560-1600* (Basing-

Rodríguez Salgado, M. J., 'Terracotta and Iron. Mantuan Politics (ca. 1450-1550)', in C. Mozzarelli, R. Oresko and L. Ventura (eds), *La Corte di Mantova nell'età di Andrea* 

L. Vaccaro (eds), *Diocesi di Milano* (Brescia, 1990), pp. 375-390. Rivero Rodríguez, M., *Felipe II y el gobierno de Italia* (Madrid, 1998)

Prodi, P., *Il Cardinale Gabriele Paleotti (1522-1597)* (2 vols, Rome, 1959-1967)

*Court at the Beginning of the Modern Age,* (Oxford, 1991), pp. 329-356

*tea al periodo tridentino (secoli XIII-XVI)* (Milan, 1941)

*internazionale di studi* (Lucca, 1993), pp. 257-265

*1450-1800* (Cambridge, 2000), pp. 95-108

*e Rinascimento* (Turnhout, 2018), pp. 169-179 Ricci, G., *Il principe e la morte* (Bologna, 1998)

*Mantegna: 1450-1550* (Rome, 1997), pp. 15-59

Picot, É., *Les Français italianisants au XVIe siècle* (Paris, 1906-1907)

Picot, É., *Les Italiens en France au XVIe siècle* (Bordeaux, 1918)


188

Monluc, B., *Commentaires de Messire Blaise de Montluc Marechal de France…* (4 vols, Pa-

Montalvo, A., *Relazione della guerra di Siena di Don Antonio di Montalvo…* ed. C. Ricco-

Muret, M. A., *M. Antonii Mureti opera omnia, cum brevi adnotatione…* (3 vols, Lips, 1834-

Murphy, P. V., *Ruling Peacefully: Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga and Patrician Reform in Six-*

Nugent, D., *Ecumenism in the Age of the Reformation: The Colloquy of Poissy* (Cambridge,

Occhipinti, C., 'Disputes françaises sur les images sacrées (1561-1562): le cardinal Hippolyte d'Este et les colloques religieux à la cour de Catherine de Médicis', *Seizième Siècle*, 11

Occhipinti, C., 'Documents inédits sur le séjour d'Hippolyte d'Este en France (1544-1549)'*,* 

Occhipinti, C., 'Iacopo Palma il Vecchio: «Ritratti di doe signore antiche». Vicende estensi tra Ferrara, Parigi e Roma (1535-1579)', *Studi di Memofonte,* 5 (2010), pp. 1-14 Occhipinti, C., 'Roma 1587. La dispersione della quadreria estense e gli acquisti del cardinale

Occhipinti, C., 'Le immagini sacre e profane e la riforma cattolica: le lettere di Ippolito II d'Este dalla Francia (1561-1563) e la fortuna dei *libri carolini*'*, Atti e memorie della So-*

Occhipinti, C., *Carteggio d'arte degli ambasciatori estensi in Francia (1536-1553)* (Pisa,

Pacifici, V., 'Luigi d'Este', chapters I-II-III in *Atti e memorie della Società Tiburtina di Storia e d'Arte,* IX-X (Tivoli, 1929-1930), pp. 1-128; chapters IV-V in *Atti e memorie della* 

Pacifici, V., 'Villa d'Este', *Atti e memorie della Società Tiburtina di Storia e d'Arte,* I

Pade, M., Petersen, L. W. and Quarta, D. (eds), *La Corte di Ferrara e il suo Mecenatismo,* 

Papagno, G. and Quondam, A. (eds), *La corte e lo spazio: Ferrara estense* (3 vols, Rome,

Pastore, S., 'Una Spagna anti-papale: gli anni italiani di Diego Hurtado de Mendoza', *Roma* 

Pellegrini, M., *Ascanio Maria Sforza: la parabola politica di un cardinale-principe del Rina-*

Petris, L., 'Faith and Religious Policy in Michel de l'Hospital's Civic Evangelism', in K. Cameron, M. Greengrass and P. Roberts (eds), *The Adventure of Religious Pluralism in* 

Peyronnet, G., 'The Distant Origins of the Italian Wars: Political Relations Between France and Italy in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries', in D. Abulafia (ed), *The French De-*

Peytavin, M., 'Government/Administration: The Italian Kingdoms within the Spanish Monarchy', in T. Dandelet and J. Marino (eds), *Spain in Italy: Politics, Society and Religion,* 

*Bulletin de la Société de l'histoire de l'art français,* 2000 (2002)*,* pp. 9-27.

Ferdinando de' Medici', *Studi di Memofonte,* 2 (2009), pp. 1-23

*cietà Tiburtina di Storia e d'Arte,* LXXXIII (Tivoli, 2010), pp. 63-108

*Società Tiburtina di Storia e d'Arte,* XI-XII (1931-1932), pp. 262-316

*1441-1598 / The Court of Ferrara and its Patronage* (Copenhagen, 1990)

Pattenden, M., *Electing the Pope in Early Modern Italy (1450-1700)* (Oxford, 2017)

Pacifici, V., *Ippolito II d'Este, cardinale di Ferrara* (Tivoli, 1920)

Pastor, L. von, *History of the Popes* (40 vols, London, 1899-1953)

Péronnet, M. C., *Les évêques de l'Ancienne France* (2 vols, Paris, 1977)

*scent into Renaissance Italy, 1494-96* (Aldershot, 1995), pp. 29-54

*Moderna e Contemporanea,* 15/1-3 (2007), pp. 63-94.

*Early Modern France* (Berne, 2000), pp. 129-142.

*1500-1700* (Leiden, 2007), pp. 355-382

manni, F. Grottanelli and L. Banchi (Turin, 1863)

*teenth-century Italy* (Washington, 2007)

Muratori, L. A., *Delle antichità estensi ed italiane* (2 vols, Modena, 1740)

ris, 1746)

1841)

1974)

2001)

1982)

(1921), pp. 58-90

*scimento* (2 vols, Rome, 2002)

(2015), pp. 217-230


Simoncelli, P., *Fuoriuscitismo repubblicano fiorentino 1530-1554* (2 vols, Rome, 2006)

Sozzini, A., 'Diario delle cose avvenute in Siena...', in *Archivio storico italiano,* ii (Florence, 1842), pp. 1-434

191

Tocci, G., 'Sul "piccolo stato" nel Cinquecento italiano', in G. Signorotto (ed), *Ferrante* 

Tricou, J., 'Un archevêque de Lyon au XVIe siècle, Hyppolyte d'Este', *Revue des études ita-*

Spagnoletti, A., 'Guerra, stati e signori in Italia nell'età di Carlo V', in M. Fantoni (ed), *Car-*

Spagnoletti, A., 'Matrimoni e politiche dinastiche in Italia tra gli anni Trenta e Cinquanta del Cinquecento', in F. Cantù and M. A. Visceglia (eds), *L'Italia di Carlo V. Guerra, reli-*

Spivakovsky, E., 'El vicariato de Siena. Correspondencia de Felipe II, princípe, con Diego Hurtado de Mendoza y Ferrante Gonzaga', *Hispania,* XXVI (1966), pp. 583-596 Spivakovsky, E., *Son of the Alhambra: Don Diego Hurtado de Mendoza, 1504-1575* (Austin,

Šusta, J., *Die Römische Curie und das Concil von Trient unter Pius IV* (4 vols, Wien, 1904-

Sutter Fichtner, P., 'The Disobedience of the Obedient: Ferdinand I and the Papacy, 1555-

Tallon, A., 'Conflits et mediations dans la politique internationale de la papauté', in M. A. Visceglia (ed), *Papato e politica internazionale nella prima età moderna,* (Rome, 2013),

Tallon, A., 'Gallicanism and Religious Pluralism in France in the Sixteenth Century', in K. Cameron, M. Greengrass and P. Roberts (eds), *The Adventure of Religious Pluralism in* 

Tallon, A., 'Le "parti français" lors des conclaves de 1549-1550 et de 1555', in B. Barbiche, J. P. Poussou and A. Tallon (eds), *Pouvoirs, contestations et comportements dans l'Europe moderne, Mélanges en l'honneur du professeur Yves-Marie Bercé* (Paris,

Tallon, A., 'Le clergé française et l'obéissance due au rois très chrétien sous les règnes de François Ier et de Henry II', *Nouvelle Revue du XVIe Siècle,* 22/1 (2004), pp. 111-125 Tallon, A., 'Les cardinaux à la Reinassance. Profil Historique', in F. Lamerle, Y. Pauwels and G. Toscano (eds), *Les cardinaux de la renaissance et la modernité artistique* (Ville-

Tallon, A., 'National Church, State Church and Universal Church: The Gallican Dilemma in Sixteenth-Century France', in L. Racaut and A. Ryrie (eds), *Moderate Voices in the Eu-*

Tallon, A., 'Rome et les premiers édits de tolerance d'après la correspondance du nonce Santa Croce', in M. Grandjean and B. Roussel (eds), *Coexister dans l'intolérance (1598)* 

Tamalio, R., 'Tra Parigi e Madrid. Strategie famigliari gonzaghesche al principio del Cinquecento', in C. Mozzarelli, R. Oresko and L. Ventura (eds), *La Corte di Mantova nell'età* 

Tiraboschi, G., *Dizionario topografico-storico degli stati estensi* (2 vols, Modena, 1824) Tocci, G., 'Nel corridoio strategico-politico della pianura padana: Carlo V, Paolo III e la creazione del ducato farnesiano', in F. Cantù and M. A. Visceglia (eds), *Carlo V e l'Italia. Guerra, religione e politica nel primo Cinquecento* (2 vols, Rome, 2003), ii, pp.

*Gonzaga. Il Mediterraneo, l'impero (1507-1557)* (Rome, 2009), pp. 37-57

*gione e politica nel primo Cinquecento,* i (Rome, 2003), pp. 97-114 Spagnoletti, A., *Le dinastie italiane nella prima età moderna* (Bologna, 2003) Spagnoletti, A., *Principi italiani e Spagna nell'età barocca* (Milan, 1996)

Sutherland, N., *Princes, Politics and Religion, 1547-1589* (London, 1984) Sutherland, N., *The Huguenot Struggle for Recognition* (New Haven, 1980)

1564', *The Sixteenth Century Journal,* 11/2 (1980), pp. 25-34

*Early Modern France* (Berne, 2000), pp. 15-30

*ropean Reformation* (Aldershot, 2005), pp. 104-121

Tallon, A., *La France et le Concile de Trente (1518-1563)* (Rome, 1997)

*di Andrea Mantegna: 1450-1550* (Rome, 1997), pp. 69-90

*lo V e l'Italia* (Rome, 2000), pp. 77-100

1970)

1914)

pp. 117-130

2005), pp. 101-121

neuve d'Ascq, 2012) pp. 7-21

(Geneva, 1998), pp. 339-351

*liennes*, V (1958), pp. 147-166.

375-388


Rodríguez Salgado, M. J., *The Changing Face of Empire: Charles V, Philip II and Habsburg* 

Rurale, F., 'Ercole e Ferrante Gonzaga. Tra ragione imperiale e ragione domestica', in G. Signorotto (ed), *Ferrante Gonzaga. Il Mediterraneo, l'Impero (1507-1557)* (Rome, 2009),

Sanfilippo, M. and Tusor, P. (eds) *Gli "angeli custodi" delle monarchie: i cardinali protetto-*

Scheurer, R., 'Jean du Bellay (1492 ou 1498/1499-1560)', in C. Michon (ed), *Les conseillers* 

Scheurer, R., 'L'accession de Jean du Bellay au décanat du Sacré Collège', in C. Michon and L. Petris (eds), *Le Cardinal Jean du Bellay: diplomatie et culture dans l'Europe de la* 

Sénié, J., 'Ippolito II d'Este, cardinal «de famille», agent français et médiateur des relations franco-ferrarais', in G. Alonge and R. Ruggiero (eds), *Relations diplomatiques francoitaliennes dans l'Europe de la prèmiere modernité. Communication politique et circula-*

Sénié, J., 'Ippolito II d'Este, les artistes et le royaume de France (1536-1563), *Cahiers* 

Sénié, J., 'Jalons pour une histoire des relations entre le duché de Ferrare et le royaume de France', *Cahiers de recherches médiévales et humanistes / Journal of Medieval and* 

Sénié, J., 'L'ambassade de Giulio Alvarotti en France (1544-1565): le «parfait ambassadeur» ferrarais d'une diplomatie asymétrique', *Revue d'histoire diplomatique*, 3 (2020), pp.

Sénié, J., 'Le jeu comme continuation de la politique: les stratégies Curiales d'Ippolito d'Este

Sénié, J., 'Une affaire de famille: les enjeux politiques des héritages de la maison d'Este', *Les Mélanges de l'École française de Rome - Italie et Méditerranée modernes et contem-*

Signorotto, G., 'Identità e interessi nell'Italia dei potentati', in A. Tallon (ed), *Le sentiment national dans l'Europe méridionale aux XVI et XVII siècles* (Madrid, 2007), pp. 33-50 Signorotto, G., 'Lo Stato di Milano nell'età di Filippo II. Dalle Guerre d'Italia all'orizzonte confessionale', in L. Lotti and R. Villari (eds), *Filippo II e il Mediterraneo* (Bari-Rome,

Signorotto, G., 'Note sulla politica e la diplomazia dei pontefici (da Paolo III a Pio IV)', in

Signorotto, G., 'Papato e principi italiani nell'ultima fase del conflitto tra Asburgo e Valois', in J. Martínez Millán (ed), *Carlos V y la quiebra del humanismo politico en Europa,* 

Simoncelli, P., *Fuoriuscitismo repubblicano fiorentino 1530-1554* (2 vols, Rome, 2006) Sozzini, A., 'Diario delle cose avvenute in Siena...', in *Archivio storico italiano,* ii (Florence,

Setton, K. M., *The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571* (4 vols, Philadelphia, 1976-1984) Shaw, C., 'The Papacy and the European Powers', in C. Shaw (ed), *Italy and the European* 

*Powers: The Impact of War, 1500-1530* (Leiden, 2006), pp. 107-126

M. Fantoni (ed), *Carlo V e l'Italia* (Rome, 2000), pp. 47-76

*1530-1558: congreso internacional,* i (Madrid, 2001), pp. 259-280

Romier, L., *Catholiques et Huguenots à la cour de Charles IX* (Paris, 1924)

Romier, L., *Les origines politiques des guerres de religion* (2 vols, Paris, 1913-1914) Rosa, M., *La Curia romana nell'età moderna. Istituzioni, cultura, carriere* (Roma, 2013) Rowland, I. D., 'A Summer Outing in 1510: Religion and Economics in the Papal War with

*Authority, 1551-1559* (Cambridge, 1988)

Ferrara', *Viator*, 18 (1987), pp. 347-59

*de François Ier* (Rennes, 2011), pp. 319-330

Seidel Menchi, S., *Erasmo in Italia, 1520-1580* (Turin, 1987)

*Renaissance* (Tours, 2013), pp. 99-111

*tion des savoirs* (Lecce, 2020), pp. 129-156

*Humanistic Studies*, 38 (2020), pp. 111-127.

(1536-1563)', *Ludica*, 25 (2019), pp. 94-104.

*poraines*, 131-132 (2019), pp. 357-370

*ri delle nazioni* (Viterbo, 2018)

*d'études italiennes,* 31 (2020)

pp. 237-257

225-252

2004), pp. 25-56

1842), pp. 1-434


Weil-Garris, K. and D'Amico, J. F., 'The Renaissance Cardinal's Ideal Palace: A Chapter from Cortesi's "De Cardinalatu"', *Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome*, 35

Wilkie, W. E., *The Cardinal Protectors of England. Rome and the Tudors Before the Refor-*

Williams, A. B., 'Power and Painting in Sixteenth-Century Ferrara: Titian's Portraits of Al-

Wodka, J., 'Das Kardinalsprotektorat deutscher Nation und die Protektorate der deutschen nationalen Stiftungen in Rom', *Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte*,

Wodka, J., *Zur Geschichte der nationalem Protektorate der Kardinäle and der römischen* 

Wolfe, K., 'Protector and Protectorate: Cardinal Antonio Barberini's Art Diplomacy for the French Crown at the Papal Court', in J. Burke and M. Bury (eds), *Art and Identity in* 

Wolfe, K., 'Cardinal Antonio Barberini (1608-1671) and the Politics of Art in Baroque Rome', in M. Hollingsworth and C. M. Richardson (eds), *The Possessions of a Cardinal:* 

Wood, J. B., *The King's Army: Warfare, Soldiers, and Society During the Wars of Religion* 

Yardeni, M., 'Antagonismes nationeaux et propaganda durant les Guerres de Religion', *Re-*

*Art, Piety, and Politics, 1450-1700* (University Park, 2010), pp. 265-293

*vue d'historie moderne et contemporaine,* 13/4 (1966), pp. 273-284

fonso I d'Este', *Visual Resources*, 28/1 (2012), pp. 80-102

*Early Modern Rome* (Aldershot, 2008), pp. 113-132

*in France, 1562-1576* (Cambridge, 1996)

(1980), pp. 45-123

*mation* (Cambridge, 1974)

33/1 (1944), pp. 301-322

*Kurie* (Innsbruck, 1938)


Trisco, R., 'Carlo Borromeo and the Council of Trent', in J. M. Headley and J. B. Tomaro (eds), *San Carlo Borromeo: Catholic Reform and Ecclesiastical Politics in the Second* 

Trucchi, F., *Vita e gesta di Piero Strozzi, fiorentino, maresciallo di Francia, scritta su docu-*

Tuohy, T., *Herculean Ferrara. Ercole d'Este (1471-1505) and the Invention of a Ducal Cap-*

Turchetti, M., 'Religious Concord and Political Tolerance in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-

Turchetti, M., *Concordia o tolleranza? François Bauduin (1520-1573) e i "moyenneurs"*

Turchi, L., 'Le ambascerie estensi alla corte di Filippo II a Bruxelles (1558-1559)', *Atti e memorie della deputazione di storia patria per le province modenesi,* XI/XXXVIII

Turchi, L., 'Storia della diplomazia e fonti estensi: note a margine', *Quaderni Estensi*, VI

Valenti, F., 'Note storiche sulla cancelleria degli Estensi a Ferrara dalle origini alla metà del sec. XVI', *Bollettino dell'archivio paleografico italiano,* II-III (1956-57), ii, pp. 357-365 Valois, N., 'Les essais de conciliation religieuse au début du règne de Charles IX', *Revue* 

Venturi, A., 'L'Arte e gli Estensi. Ippolito II di Ferrara in Francia', *Rivista Europea,* XXIV

Vercruysse, J. E., 'Die Kärdinale von Paul III', *Archivum Historiae Pontificiae,* 38 (2000),

Vester, M., *Transregional Lordship and the Italian Renaissance. René de Challant, 1504-*

Visceglia, M. A., 'Convergencias y conflictos: la monarquía católica y la Santa Siede (siglos

Visceglia, M. A., 'Factions in the Sacred College in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Century', in G. Signorotto and M. A. Visceglia (eds), *Court and Politics in Papal Rome, 1492-*

Visceglia, M. A., 'Farsi imperiale: faide familiari e identità politiche a Roma nel primo Cinquecento', in F. Cantù and M. A. Visceglia (eds), *L'Italia di Carlo V. Guerra, religione e* 

Visceglia, M. A., 'Il cerimoniale come linguaggio politico. Su alcuni conflitti di precedenza alla corte di Roma tra Cinquecento e Seicento', in C. Brice and M. A. Visceglia (eds),

Visceglia, M. A., 'Politica internazionale, fazione e partiti nella Curia romana del tardo Cin-

Visceglia, M. A., 'The Pope's Household and Court in the Early Modern Age', in J. Duindam, T. Artana and M. Kunt (eds), *Royal Courts in Dynastic States and Empires. A* 

Visceglia, M. A., *Roma papale e Spagna. Diplomatici, nobili e religiosi fra due corti* (Rome,

Wanegffelen, T. (ed), *De Michel de l'Hospital à l'édit de Nantes: politique et religion face* 

Wanegffelen, T., *Ni Rome, ni Genève. Des fidèles entre deux chaires en France au XVI siècle*

Weber, C., *Senatus divinus. Verborgene Strukturen im Kardinalskollegium der fruhen Neu-*

XV-XVIII), *Studia historica. Historia moderna,* 26 (2004), pp. 155-190

*politica nel primo Cinquecento* (2 vols, Rome, 2003), ii, pp. 477-508

quecento', *Rivista Storica Italiana,* 127/3 (2015), pp. 721-769

*Global Perspective* (Leiden, 2011), pp. 239-264

*aux églises* (Clermont-Ferrand, 2002)

*zeit (1500-1800)* (Frankfurt, 1996)

*Cérémonial et rituel à Rome (XVIe-XIXe siècle)* (Rome, 1997), pp. 117-176

Visceglia, M. A., *Morte e elezione del papa. Norme, riti e conflitti* (Rome, 2013)

*Half of the Sixteenth Century* (Washington, 1988), pp. 47-66

*d'histoire de l'Eglise de France*, v. 31 (1945), pp. 237-276

Century France', *Sixteenth Century Journal,* 22/1 (1991), pp. 15-25

*menti originali* (Florence, 1847)

*ital.* (Cambridge, 2002)

(Geneva, 1984)

(2016), pp. 131-168

(2014), pp. 368-395

(1881), pp. 23-37

*1565* (Amsterdam, 2020)

*1700* (Cambridge, 2002), pp. 99-131

pp. 41-96

2010)

(Paris, 2006)

# **Index**

Abulafia, D. 20 Ago, R. 105 Alamanni, Luigi 24-25 Alba *see* Toledo, Ferdinando Álvarez de Albèri, E. 39, 47, 53, 101, 103, 161, 171 Alberigo, G. 11, 121, 123 Albertino, Paolo 122 Albone, A. d' (cardinal) 55-56, 58 Albret, Jeanne d' 143 Albret, Louis d' 146 Alexander VI (Rodrigo Borgia) 19, 29, 139 Alonge, G. 12-13, 17, 24-26, 146 Álvarez-Ossorio Alvariño, A. 114, 118 Alvarotti, Giulio 144, 156, 159-162, 165, Archinto, Filippo 55, 120-124 Arcimboldi, Giovanni Angelo 55-57, 118-121 Ariosti, Claudio 120, 122 Aristotle 25 Armagnac, Georges d' (cardinal) 45, 138, 144 Avanzini, N. 136 Babelon, J-P. 62 Badoer, Federico 118 Bainbridge, Christopher (cardinal) 31 Balmas, E. 20 Baluze, S. 141, 143, 148, 152-155, 159, 163-165 Banchi, L. 75 Barbaro, Marcantonio 101, 151, 156 Barbiche, B. 45, 134, 136, 138 Bardati, F. 12, 31, 44 Bartlett, K. 165 Baudoin, I. 141, 143, 148, 152 Baumgartner, F. 36, 39-40, 58-59, 120 Bayne, C. G. 146, 165 Beaven, L. 23 Bellati, F. 124 Bellay, Jean du (cardinal) 30, 33-36, 45-46, 53- 54, 62, 83, 85 Belligni, E. 21

Belton, A. 160 Benedetti, Giovanni Maria 67, 69-70 Benedict, P. 18, 134, 149 Bentivoglio, Cornelio 69 Benzoni, G. 126 Bertano, Pietro 145 Bertoni, L. 107, 117 Beza, Theodore 139, 152 Bilotto, A. 102 Bizzarini, M. 167 Boncompagni, Ugo (cardinal) *see* Gregory XIII Bonora, E. 43, 45, 52, 66, 133, 136, 139, 146-147 Borgia, family 130 Borgia, Francisco 130 Borgia, Lucrezia 11, 19-20, 107, 129, 139 Borromeo, Carlo (cardinal) 37, 57-58, 121-123, 136, 143, 146, 150, 153-155, 158-159, 163, 165 Bourbon, Charles de (cardinal) 34, 40, 52, 55 Bourbon, family 141, 175 Bouteillier, Jean 146 Boyden, J. 130 Brandi, K 45-46 Brice, C. 160 Broccardo, Persico 142 Broderick, J. F. 41, 46 Brouhot, G. 22 Brown, R. 44, 118 Brucioli, Antonio 25 Burke, J. 24, 28, 31 Bury, M. 24, 28, 31 Butters, S. B. 17 Byatt, L. 20, 106 Caetani, Niccolò (cardinal of Sermoneta) 30, 75, 78-80 Calcagnini, Celio 21

Camaiani, Pietro 70

Calvin, John 22, 134, 136-137, 139-141

Giulia Vidori, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, giulia.vidori@gmail.com

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

195 Giulia Vidori, *The Path of Pleasantness. Ippolito II d'Este Between Ferrara, France and Rome*, © 2020 Author(s), content CC BY 4.0 International, metadata CC0 1.0 Universal, published by Firenze University Press (www.fupress.com), ISSN 2612-8071 (online), ISBN 978-88-5518-266-9 (PDF), DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-266-9

Cameron, K. 149 Campori, G. 16, 90, 167 Canestrini, G. 45, 48, 51, 54, 85, 95 Cantagalli, R. 71, 74, 77, 87, 89, 91-93, 96, 99 Cantù, F. 66, 119 Capodieci, L. 22 Capponi, Luigi 108 Caprioli, A. 123 Caracciolo, Antonio 146 Carafa, Carlo (cardinal) 34 Carafa, Gian Pietro (cardinal) *see* Paul IV Caroldo, Gian Giacomo 57 Carpi *see* Pio da Carpi, Rodolfo Carroll, S. 49, 69, 126, 149 Casanova, C. 104 Castiglione, Baldassarre 11, 23 Cato, Ercole 19, 23 Cavaciocchi, S. 107 Cavalcanti, Bartolomeo 90, Cavalli, Marino 41 Cavendish Bentinck, G. 44, 118 Ceccarelli, C. 62 Cellini, Benvenuto 22, 62 Chabod, F. 118 Chacon, A. 152 Challant, René de 13-14 Chambers, D. S. 23, 28, 31, 42 Chantonnay, Thomas Perrenot de 138, 145- 146, 151 Charles IX (king of France) 39, 146, 170 Charles V (emperor of the Holy Roman Empire) 12-13, 21, 52, 66-67, 69-72, 75- 76, 87-89, 91, 93, 104, 108, 114-115, 118, 124, 126, 133, 135, 161 Chatillon, Odet de (cardinal) 52, 144, 146, 163 Chaumont de Saint-Romain, Jean 146 Chiappini, L. 19, 20, 34, 107, 124, 167 Christin, O. 149 Church, F. C. 24 Cicero 25 Clement VII (Giulio de' Medici) 21 Cocciano, Agostino 46 Cogotti, M. 12 Coligny, Gaspard de 153 Commendone, Giovanni Francesco 136 Condé, Louis de 144, 146, 153, 155, 163, 168 Contarini, Gasparo (cardinal) 135 Contini, A. 75 Continisio, C. 160 Cortesi, Paolo 23, 31 Coudret, Annibal de 137, 147 Cuisiat, D. 49

30, 35 D'Addario, A. 74 D'Amico, J. C. 123 Dainville-Barbiche, S. de 134, 138 Dandelet, T. J. 75, 114, 118, 126 Dandolo, Matteo 47 Daussy, H. 134 Dauzet, D-M. 40 Dean, T. 20 DeCrue, F. 140 Del Monte, Giovanni Maria (cardinal) *see* Julius III Del Monte, Innocenzo (cardinal) 57 Del Negro, P. 102 Della Cornia, Ascanio 94 Della Cornia, Fulvio (cardinal) 79 Della Rovere, Giulio (cardinal) 56-57 Desjardins, A. 46, 49, 51-52, 67-69, 71-72, 75, 81, 87, 89-90, 108, 110, 138, 139, 141, 144, 164 Ditchfield, S. 23, 44 Donati, C. 104 Doria, Giovanni Andrea 131 Dubost, J-F. 12 Duffel, A. 45-46 Dufour, H. 137, 139, 140-141 Durand de Maillane, F-T. 40-41 Edelstein, M. M. 28, 39 Elizabeth I (queen of England) 146, 165 Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy 126 Erasmus of Rotterdam 25 Este, Alfonso I d' (duke of Ferrara) 11, 19-21, 104-107, 109, 116, 124 Este, Alfonso II d' (duke of Ferrara) 14, 36, 49, 58, 104, 117, 125-130, 134, 144, 154, 156- 164, 168-170, 174-175 Este, Anna d' 30, 68, 138, 156-157, 159, 161, 165, 176 Este, Borso d' (duke of Ferrara) 19 Este, Ercole I d' (duke of Ferrara) 106 Este, Ercole II d' (duke of Ferrara) 12, 14, 20- 22, 24, 34, 46, 48-51, 53-54, 56, 61-62, 67, 73, 76-77, 79-80, 82-83, 86, 92-99, 102- 115, 117-118, 120, 122, 124-127, 160, 167-169, 174 Este, family 14, 17-20, 30, 34, 43, 50-51, 54, 68, 70, 86, 102, 104-107, 109, 113-116, 126-127, 129-131, 140, 145, 157-158, 161-162, 165, 167-170, 173-176 Este, Ferrante d' 105

Este, Francesco d' 104, 106-109, 117, 124, 128, 162

Cupis, Gian Domenico de (cardinal of Trani)

Este, Giulio d' 105 Este, Ippolito I d' (cardinal) 17, 20, 55, 105- 106, 114, 116 Este, Luigi d' (cardinal) 15, 17, 30, 37, 54, 56- 57, 104, 117-118, 120, 125, 128, 157-159, 165, 167-176 Eubel, C. 39, 58-59, 118, 165 Evennett, H. O. 30, 32, 36, 63 Fantoni, M. 20, 66, 102, 107 Farnese, Alessandro (cardinal) 18, 43, 47, 54, 62, 72, 102, 128, 171 Farnese, family 34, 102, 128-129 Farnese, Ottavio 66, 128 Farnese, Pier Luigi 65 Fasano Guarini, E. 66, 99 Fattori, M. T. 42, 122 Fedou, R. 58 Ferdinand I (emperor of the Holy Roman Empire) 142 Ferdinand of Aragon (king of Aragon and Castille) 135 Ferrari, M. L. 107 Ferrier, A. du 37 Figueroa, Juan de 119 Fiore, F. 12 Firmani, Ludovico 45, 52 Firpo, M. 18, 23, 25, 45 Folin, M. 20, 62, 124 Fournel, J-L. 123 Fragnito, G. 18, 23, 30, 66, Francis I (king of France) 11-12, 20-22, 24, 30-31, 36, 38-39, 56-57, 61-62, 114-115, 127, 135, 139 Francis II (king of France) 115, 135 Frigo, D. 75, 102, 128, 160-161 Frommel, S. 62, Gabre, Dominique du 77, 80, 87, 94, 96, 113 Gadille, G. 58 Galasso, G. 128 Gams, P. B. 58-59 Garin, E. 23 Ghislieri, Antonio (cardinal) *see* Pius V Giannini, M. C. 57, 114-155, 117, 120-124 Girolamo da Pisa 69, 76 Giustiniani, Angelo 137, 143-144 Golden, L. 24 Gonzaga di Novellara, Alfonso 136 Gonzaga, Ercole (cardinal of Mantua) 13, 15, 17-18, 39, 43, 48, 50, 52, 54, 75, 102, 117- 118, 159, 161

Gonzaga, family 102 Gonzaga, Ferrante 57, 70, 75, 107-108, 110, 118, 120 Gonzaga, Ludovic 50 Gotor, M. 66, 74 Grandjean, M. 148 Granvelle, Antoine Perrenot de (cardinal) 123-124, 155 Greco, G. 128 Greengrass, M. Gregory X (Teobaldo Visconti) 43 Gregory XIII (Ugo Boncompagni) 42, 53 Grottanelli, F. 75 Gualterio, Sebastiano 134, 136, 141, 151 Guerzoni, G. 24, 106-107 Guillart, Charles 146 Guise, Charles de (cardinal of Lorraine) 27, 35, 40, 45, 47-50, 53, 95, 138, 145, 149, 156-158, 165 Guise, family 13, 30, 49-50, 68-69, 73, 78, 94, 98, 126, 138, 141-142, 156, 166, 172, 176 Guise, François de (duke of Guise) 48, 68, 94, 127, 156-157, 160-161, 176 Guise, Louis de (cardinal of Guise) 45, 47, 50, 168 Gundersheimer, W. L. 19-20 Habsburg, family 12-13, 43, 73, 109-110, 115, 124-126, 130 Hadrian VI (Adriaan Florensz) 29 Headley, J. M. 57-58 Heller, H. 12, 72, 87, 93 Henry II (king of France) 11-12, 23, 27-30, 36- 40, 44-45, 47-48, 52, 57-58, 62, 66-68, 72-73, 76, 79, 82-83, 85, 87, 93-95, 97, 104, 108, 110, 113, 124, 126-128, 131, 134-135, 139, 174, 176 Hernando Sánchez, J. 75, 87 Hewett, E. 39 Hollingsworth, H. 16-17, 21, 23-24, 31-32, 39, 48, 57, 59, 61, 110, 115, 137 Holt, M. P. 155 Hook, J. 67, 71, 73 Hôpital, Michel de l' 138, 149-150, 157, 163 Hours, H. 58 Hunt, J. M. 44 Hyde, H. 17 Iacovella, M. 13, 15 Iotti, R. 20 Ippolito da Correggio 88 Isaacs, K. 67, 74

Jacobson Schutte, A. 24

Jedin, H. 11, 41, 135 Jenkins Blaisdell, C. 21 Jones, P. 23 Joyeuse, François de 171 Julius II (Giuliano della Rovere) 20 Julius III (Giovanni Maria del Monte) 23, 36, 41-42, 44-46, 48, 51, 54, 57-58, 65-66, 68, 72-76, 78-79, 81-86, 94, 103, 118 Kim, S-H. 149 Knecht, R. J. 22 Koller, A. 136 La Ferriere, H. de 153 La Place, Pierre de 138, 139, 147 Lainez, Diego 137, 147-149 Lambert, Pierre de 56 Lamerle, F. 23 Lansac *see* Saint-Gelais, Louis de Lastraioli, C. 20, 39, 74 Lavagne d'Ortigue, X. 40, 62 Layard, A. H. 136-137, 139 Le Gall, J-M. 20, 39, 74 Lemaitre, N. 39 Lenzi, Lorenzo 62 Leo X (Giovanni di Lorenzo de' Medici) 20 Lestocquoy, J. 62, 134, 136, 148 Levin, M. J. 54, 75, 161 Libanori, A. 59 Lippomano, Luigi 145 Lockwood, L. 19 Lodève *see* Gabre, Dominique du Lorraine, Jean de (cardinal) 47, 55, 56-57 Lotti, L. 115 Louis XII (king of France) 38 Loyola, Ignatius of 137 Lutz, H. 16 Machiavelli, Niccolò 25 Madruzzo, Cristoforo (cardinal of Trent) 48, 50, 124 Magoni, C. 69, 124 Maifreda, G. 18, 25 Mallett, M. E. 66, 126 Manolesso, Emiliano 101 Marcellus II (Marcello Cervini) 42, 45-46, 54, 119-120 Marcora, C. 57, 114, 120 Marguerite of Navarre 24-26 Marino, J. 75, 114, 118, 126 Marnef, G. 149 Martin V (Oddone Colonna) 29

Martin, J. J. 18 Martínez Millán, J. 99, 102, 119 Massarelli, Angelo 45 Maximilian II (emperor of the Holy Roman Empire) 131 Mayer, T. 45 McClung Hallman, B. 40-41, 59, 62, 106 Medici, Catherine de' (queen of France) 25- 26, 72, 86, 93, 120, 135-137, 141, 143-144, 146, 153, 155, 157, 163 Medici, Clarice de' 93 Medici, Cosimo de' (duke of Florence) 48-49, 51, 53, 67, 69, 71-75, 77-78, 81, 84-99, 108-110, 129-130, 161-162 Medici, family 19, 75, 86, 129, 161-162 Medici, Giovanni Angelo (cardinal) *see* Pius IV Medici, Lucrezia de' 127-130 Mendoza, Diego de 70-71, 75, 87, 89 Menniti Ippolito, A. 14, 42 Merkle, S. 45, 47 Meylan, H. 137, 139-141 Michaud, J-F. 46, 48-49 Michon, C. 12, 22, 34, 36, 57, Mignanelli, Fabio (cardinal) 72- 74 Milstein, J. 12 Molini, G. 76 Monluc, Blaise de 66-67, 69 Monluc, Jean de 146, 148, 150-151 Montalvo, Antonio di 75, 86, 88, 93, 95, Montemerlo 129, 142 Monterchio 90-91 Montmorency, Anne de 90, 94, 162 Morato, Fulvio Pellegrino 21 Morato, Olimpia 21 Morone, Giovanni (cardinal) 18, 25, 135, 158 Mozzarelli, C. 102, 160 Muratori, L. A. 161 Muret, Marc-Antoine 133, 152 Murphy, P. V. 17 Niquet 113, 142, 144-145, 154-155, 163 Nugent, D. 137, 140, 146 Occhipinti, C. 11, 22, 24-26, 146, 153, 171 Oresko, R. 102 Orsini, Camillo 94 Ovid 25

Pacheco, Pedro (cardinal) 53 Pacifici, V. 16, 20, 22, 25, 32, 35, 39, 48, 51, 53-54, 57, 62, 66-69, 72-74, 90, 96, 103, 107-108, 116, 118, 133, 136-137, 140, 143, 167, 170

Pandolfini, Pierfilippo 69, 71, 81-89 Panvinio, Onofrio 47 Pastor, L. von 44, 135, 136-138, 143 Pastore, S. 75 Pattenden, M. 17, 23, 42 Paul III (Alessandro Farnese) 22, 40-44, 54, 56-57, 61, 65-66, 115 Paul IV (Gian Pietro Carafa) 33-35, 42, 45-46, 48, 51-54, 101, 103, 120-121, 126, 133 Pauwels, Y. 23 Péronnet, C. 39-40 Perugia *see* Della Cornia, Fulvio Petris, L. 34, 36, 149 Peytavin, M. 118 Philip II (king of Spain) 18, 48, 52-53, 99, 104, 118-119, 122-131, 135, 140, 142, 145, 150, 154, 156, 162 Piccolomini, Enea 71 Picot, É. 31, 38, 122 Pighino, Sebastiano 145 Pio da Carpi, Rodolfo (cardinal) 30, 34, 43, 50 Pisani, Francesco (cardinal) 50, 55, 57, 62, 159 Pissavino, P. 128 Pius II (Enea Silvio Piccolomini) 29 Pius IV (Giovanni Angelo Medici) 33, 36-37, 42, 53-56, 58, 62-63, 121, 125-126, 129, 133-137, 139, 141-146, 148, 150-151, 155-158, 162-166, 168-169 Pius V (Antonio Ghislieri) 18, 25, 42, 53, 133, 147 Plouvier, M. 40 Polanco, Juan 137, 147 Pole, Reginald (cardinal) 18, 25, 45 Poncet, O. 28-32, 36, 40, 58 Portone, P. 167 Poujoulat, J-J-F. 46, 48-49 Poussou, J. P. 45 Primaticcio, Francesco 22, 62 Prodi, P. 14, 135 Prosdocimi, L. 119 Ptolemy, 25 Quazza, R. 127 Racaut, L. 149 Rangoni, Fulvio 129-131, 139, 142, 145, 148, 162 Rebecchini, G. 17 Régin, Claude 146 Reid, J. A. 24 Reinhard, W. 42 René of Anjou 68

Renée of France 14, 21-22, 24-25, 127, 156, 159-160, 168 Requesens, Louis de 48 Ribier, G. 27, 30, 34-35, 44-48, 52 Ricasoli, Leone 49, 72-74, 88-91 Ricci, G. 20, 74 Riccomanni, C. 75 Richardson, C. M. 17, 24, 31 Rimoldi, A. 123 Rivero Rodríguez, M. 118 Roberts, P. 134, 149, 155 Rocca, A. 57, 114 Rodríguez Salgado, M. J. 102, 118 Romier, L. 16, 28-29, 32, 39, 44, 62, 67-68, 70, 72-74, 90, 93-94, 97-99, 103, 126, 136, 138, 140 Rosa, M. 14, 42, 128 Rossetti, Alfonso 169 Roussel, B. 148 Ruggiero, R. 13, 17 Rurale, F. 102 Ruscelli, G. 152 Ryrie, A. 149 Saint-Gelais, Jean de 146 Saint-Gelais, Louis de 44, 57, 76-77, 79, 83, 93-95, 153, 155 Sainte-Marthe, D. 58 Salvi, Giulio 91 Salvi, Ottaviano 91 Salviati, Bernardo (cardinal) 35-36, 120 Salviati, Giovanni (cardinal) 14-15, 47, 115- 118, 120, 167 Sanfilippo, T. 28 Santa Croce, Prospero di 37, 56-57, 136, 141, 148- 149, 151, 154-155, 157, 160, 162-163, 165 Santa Fiora *see* Sforza, Guido Ascanio Santi, Leone 88 Sauli, Antonio Maria 72 Sauzè de Lhoumeau, C. 35-36, 57, 76-78, 82, 93-94, 96, 98 Scheurer, R. 34 Segarizzi, A. 57, 122 Seidel Menchi, S. 18, 21, 134, Selve, Odet de 69 Sénié, J. 14, 16, 17 Seripando, Girolamo (cardinal) 46 Serlio, Sebastiano 22-23, 62 Sermoneta *see* Caetani, Niccolò Serristori, Averardo 48, 51, 75, 87, 94 Sertorio, Cristoforo 50 Setton, K. M. 53, 74, 76, 85, 99, 133

Sforza, family 19 Sforza, Francesco 114 Sforza, Guido Ascanio (cardinal of Santa Fiora) 50 Sforza, Ludovico 106 Shaw, C. 66, 126 Signorotto, G. 20, 28, 43, 99, 102, 115, 118, 126, 128, 133 Solerti, A. 167 Soranzo, Giacomo 53 Sozzini, Alessandro 67, 69, 71, 76, 78, 81-83, 85, 91, 99 Spagnoletti, A. 66, 102, 104-106 Spini, G. 89 Spivakovsky, E. 74 Strozzi, Filippo 93 Strozzi, Piero 48, 67, 77, 86, 93-98, 103 Strozzi, Roberto 94 Stuart, Mary 29-30 Suriano, Michele 136-137 Šusta, J. 37, 134, 136, 138, 142, 145, 148, 150, 153-155, 160, 163 Sutherland, N. 134, 135, 142 Tallon, A. 12, 18, 23, 45, 54, 134, 139, 140, 148-149, 153, 163 Tamalio, R. 102 Tasso, Bernardo 68 Tassoni, Ercole 162 Tassoni, Lucrezio 142 Taverna, Francesco 119-120, 122 Thermes, Paul de 69, 71-72, 76, 78, 83, 92-93, 96 Throckmorton, Nicolas 146 Thucydides 25 Tiraboschi, G. 106 Tocci, G. 66, 102 Toledo, family 75, 162 Toledo, Ferdinando Álvarez de (duke of Alba) 118-120, 122, 124-125 Toledo, Garcìa de 74, 81 Toledo, Juan de (cardinal Burgos) 75 Tomacelli, Plinio 131 Tomaro, J. B. 57-58 Tommaseo, N. 39, 41, 102, 128, 136, 151, 156 Tornabuoni, Niccolò 141, 144 Toscano, G. 23 Tournon, François de (cardinal) 34-35, 40, 46- 47, 55-57, 63, 68-70, 90, 94, 113, 138, 145, 154, 164-165 Trani *see* Cupis, Gian Domenico de Trent *see* Madruzzo, Cristoforo

Tricou, J. 58 Trisco, R. 57-58, 158 Trivulzio, Agostino (cardinal) 29-31, 37, 39- 40, 66 Trotti, Brandelisio 56, 58-59, 125 Trucchi, F. 48, 93-94, 96 Truchsess Von Waldburg, Otto (cardinal) 46, 50 Tuohy, T. 19 Turchetti, M. 135, 146, 149 Tusor, P. 28 Urfé, Claude d' 44, 47 Vaccaro, L. 123 Valois, family 12-13, 21-22, 37, 42-43, 51, 67, 73, 80, 86, 97, 104, 109-110, 115, 122, 124-128, 131, 135, 139, 144, 175 Valois, N. 137, 144, 146, 153 Van Nierop, H. 149 Vargas, Francisco 150-151, 154-156 Venard, M. 149 Vendôme, Antoine de (king of Navarre) 135, 139-143, 151, 153-155, 165 Ventura, L. 102 Vercruysse, J. E. 43 Vergerio, Pier Paolo 24-25 Vermigli, Peter Martyr 147 Vester, M. 13-14 Villari, R. 115 Vimercato, Giovanni Andrea 65, 78, 81-86 Vinta, Francesco 29 Visceglia, M. A. 14, 28, 42-44, 46, 50, 52-54, 66, 105, 119, 160-161 Visconti, Francesco Maria 62, 119, 122, 159 Vismara, P. 57, 114 Vitalis, A. 21, 76, 87, 94, 96, 113 Vitelli, Vitellozzo (cardinal) 169-170 Vivenza, G. 107 Wanegffelen, T. 146, 148-149 Weber, C. 42, 46 Weiss, C. 150, 155-156 Wilkie, W. 28-31 Wisch, B. 23 Witte, A. 17, 23 Wodka, J. 28-30, 36 Wolfe, K. 28 Ziletti, Giordano 152

# **Tables and figures**

**Tables and figures**


**Index 195**

Giulia Vidori, University of Oxford, United Kingdom, giulia.vidori@gmail.com

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

# **Acknowledgements**

Several people helped me shape this book and I am grateful to each and everyone of them. Nick Davidson, whose wisdom, generosity, and good spirits make our chats in his office on the High Street a treasured memory. David Parrott and Olivier Poncet, who were the kindest of readers and whose comments on my work I truly cherished. All the historians of the Early Modern Catholicism Network, whose fortnightly discussions often opened new avenues for my work. Elena Bonora, Lyndal Roper, Gervase Rosser, Irene Fosi, David Chambers and all the other scholars whose suggestions I picked up along the way. The staff at the archives of Modena, Florence, Milan, and at the Queen's College and the Bodleian Libraries, Oxford. Pierpaolo Piergentili at the Vatican Archives, who went out of his way to make my time in Rome worthwhile. All the amazing people of Harris Manchester College, students, scholars and staff alike, and especially Sue and Niall, who every day made the library the best place a researcher could ask for. Sandra, Nicolò and Charlie, whose presence has always mattered the most. Finally, I wish to thank wholeheartedly the Istituto Sangalli for giving me the opportunity to publish my work and Massimo Carlo Giannini for helping me give this book its final form.

FUP Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOI 10.36253/fup\_best\_practice)

#### Premio Istituto Sangalli per la storia religiosa

#### *Titoli pubblicati*

#### anno 2015

Di Marco A., *Lourdes: storie di miracoli. Genesi e sviluppo di una devozione planetaria* Marconcini S., *Per amor del cielo. Farsi cristiani a Firenze tra Seicento e Settecento*

#### anno 2016

Pomara Saverino B., *Rifugiati. I moriscos e l'Italia* Pozzi V., *Kant e l'ortodossia russa. Accademie ecclesiastiche e filosofia in Russia tra XVIII e XIX secolo*

#### anno 2017

Campigli F., *Un cammino a ostacoli. Neocatecumenali e Chiesa di Roma* Manzi S., *Le lingue della Chiesa. Latino e volgare nella normativa ecclesiastica in Italia tra Cinque e Seicento*

#### anno 2018

Cruz C.H., *A escola do diabo. Indígenas e capuchinhos italianos nos sertões da América (1680-1761)* Papasidero M., *Translatio sanctitatis. I furti di reliquie nell'Italia medievale*

anno 2019

205

De Santis J., *Tra altari e barricate. La vita religiosa a Roma durante la Repubblica romana del 1849* Vidori G., *The Path of Pleasantness. Ippolito II d'Este Between Ferrara, France and Rome*

*Premio* 2019

**Ippolito II d'Este (1509-1572), cardinal and prince of Ferrara, played a crucial role in shaping the political and cultural connections between Italy and France. Seen by his contemporaries as staunchly 'French', his life rather followed a difficult balance between the political and spatial entities – Rome, Paris and Ferrara – through which he continuously moved and from which he derived his power. Following his career as cardinal protector of the Valois crown, royal administrator of Siena on behalf of Henry II and papal legate to France on the eve of the Wars of Religion, this book argues that Ippolito's apparent diplomatic success ultimately weakened his family's position in Italy and left it ill-equipped to compete in the changing politics of the peninsula.**

**GIULIA VIDORI graduated from the University of Milan before completing a D.Phil in History at the University of Oxford. She has written about religious conformism and ecclesiastical property, and her research focuses on cultural and religious history in Early Modern Europe.**

> ISSN 2704-5749 (print) ISSN 2612-8071 (online) ISBN 978-88-5518-265-2 (print) ISBN 978-88-5518-266-9 (PDF) ISBN 978-88-5518-267-6 (XML) DOI 10.36253/978-88-5518-266-9 www.fupress.com