I processi inquisitoriali di Pietro Carnesecchi (1557-1567). .

Massimo Firpo and Dario Marcatto, eds. I processi inquisitoriali di Pietro Carnesecchi (1557-1567). Vol. 2, Il processo sotto Pio V.

(Collectanea Archivi Vaticani, 48.) Vatican City: Archivio Segreto Vaticano, 2000. clxxix + 1,453 pp. index. [euro] 93. ISBN: 88-85042-34-1.

"Io mi arendo," I give up. This phrase might serve both as Pietro Carnesecchi's epitaph and a succinct summation of his third and last inquisitorial proceeding. Its dynamics are even more interesting than those in his second trial, the record of which was first edited by Massimo Firpo and Dario Marcatto four years ago. This time Carnesecchi found himself in much greater danger since he had already been condemned once. Nevertheless, one of the most striking points about this proceeding is Carnesecchi's refusal (whether feigned or genuine) to cooperate with the inquisitors despite his steady protests that he wished to do nothing mote than this, for the good of his soul. With good reason convinced that the inquisitors had it in for him, Carnesecchi often as here pronounced himself unable to think of a way to satisfy them and fully answer their questions. As Firpo and Marcatto bring out clearly in their lengthy introduction, Carnesecchi refused to admit his position and tried to follow a dual defense, one that wo und up helping to condemn him: he over and over again claimed a weak memory and he tried to argue with the judges' construction of his behavior and beliefs. No, I did nor intend to flee to Geneva, I merely toyed with the idea. Yes, I know a great deal about Juan de Valdes and his "spiritual" religion, but I did not actually believe most of it, or if I did, I got over it. Perhaps understandably, his interrogators frequently retorted that Carnesecchi's answers were "nor verisimilar." The judges had one unbeatable ace, in addition to the openings Carnesecchi's twisting and turning offered them. At Giulia Gonzaga's death, her extensive correspondence with Carnesecchi had been seized, and it became one of the inquisitors' favorite tricks to ask Carnesecchi whether he had ever said thus-and-so, or knew so-and-so, or whatever, and when he replied in the negative, to produce a letter trapping him in a lie or an evasion. They also seem to have tried to wrong-foot Carnesecchi by abrupt changes of direction in the inter rogations. Thus one very useful project for future research would be investigating how the questioning changed depending upon who was in charge on a given day. Giulio Antonio Santoro, already notorious from Cardinal Morone's case, seems especially hard-nosed. It would also be useful to compare transcripts kept by the several notaries involved, one at least of whom was clearly bored. Carnesecchi's is far the fullest published transcript and would readily lend itself to the kind of analysis that Andrea Del Col has applied to the now more famous (but virtually insignificant at the time) Menocchio.

Another striking point about this trial is its wide range. In part this happened because of the inquisitors' dogged pursuit of any and all leads thrown up by the Gonzaga-Carnesecchi letters. If Carnesecchi happened to mention a person he had met in France, his interrogators immediately wanted to know whether that person was a heretic. When Carnesecchi reported news from England, in which he and Gonzaga continued to interest themselves long after the death there of one of their principal inspirations, Cardinal Pole, and sometimes incautiously expressed approval of Queen Elizabeth I, the judges demanded to know whether he approved of her because she was a heretic. Carnesecchi's trial was only one of several high-profile cases being conducted at once, and the judges often used material from these other investigations to tighten the box into which they shoved Carnesecchi. He was confronted with enormous long lists of names and asked to tell what he knew of those people. He almost never said anything damaging unle ss the person in question was dead. Firpo and Marcatto theorize convincingly that the person he most successfully avoided saying anything incriminating about was Morone, himself once in the hands of the Roman Inquisition, as we learned a decade ago through Firpo and Marcatto's magnificent edition of his trial. Unfortunately, Carnesecchi's refusal to betray Morone was probably the most important factor leading to his condemnation to death. His repeated torture, perhaps intended to crack his resistance on the score of Morone (although he was never asked specifically about the cardinal) and recorded in detail, makes distressing reading.

Yet another striking point is the thick documentation of the fate of many of Carnesecchi's former allies, offering a fascinating study of how "Catholic Reform" became "Counter Reformation" (in both cases for lack of a better label). One of the most interesting cases is Vincenzo Parpaglia, who assumes a much higher profile here than he has had before. Formerly one of Pole's right-hand men and chief diplomatic agents whom Carnesecchi had known for at least twenty-five years, Parpaglia danced very carefully away from Carnesecchi as the trial progressed. His name came up frequently, more than once with one of the marginal annotations that often pointed out a suspect for further investigation. He should have been incriminated most directly in Carnesecchi's subsequent and hitherto unknown trial for breaking the secrecy of the Inquisition by trying to smuggle letters out of his cell in the Tot di Ripetta. Carnesecchi wrote Parpaglia the longest letter, begging him to arrange other letters in his defense. That this l etter was intercepted made no difference. By mid-1567 Parpaglia had moved well over to the "Counter Reformation" end of the scale and washed his hands of Carnesecchi, going so far as virtually to say that he deserved his fate. His standing then as ambassador of the duke of Savoy neatly highlights how much Carnesecchi's fate depended on political circumstances, principally Cosimo I's refusal finally to intercede for his subject once it was clear how determined Pius V was to make an end of Carnesecchi, twice absolved by that pope's predecessors Paul III and Pius IV. For aficionados of diplomatic history, it is worth emphasizing more than the editors do that the typically large Florentine diplomatic establishment in Rome did not all sing quite the same tune and some of its members appear to have gone beyond Cosimo's wishes in their zeal to see Carnesecchi condemned.

The fullness of the record offers several surprises about Carnesecchi, perhaps chief among them his (and Gonzaga's) pronounced interest in astrology. The point should not need to be made explicit that this substantially alters the shape of Valdesian religion. We already knew that Pole's long-term companion Advise Priuli made use of astrological prognostications, if only every once in a while, but Carnesecchi seems to have relied on it heavily, especially but not exclusively in the case of papal conclaves.

A good deal of the material in these three volumes was published by Giacomo Manzoni in 1870 in a slightly inferior text, edited without warning, and without the promised footnotes. As always, Firpo and Marcatto provide impressive documentation, even if they do nor succeed in identifying all the legion of persons mentioned nor unraveling the significance of the many incidents discussed. Given the European sweep of Carnesecchi's correspondence and acquaintanceship, this is to be excused. Still, they might have delved a little deeper into the prominently featured English side, rather than relying almost exclusively on the now very out of date Dictionary of National Biography, especially because Carnesecchi's many references to affairs in England and France might well provide information not widely known. They certainly indicate how much at least some Italians thought was riding on events in both places.

Carnesecchi's record is a good deal more complex than Morone's, and this has posed some editorial problems, not all as successfully resolved as others. The editors usefully chose to indicate Manzoni's text by setting it in boldface, but did not provide page references to it. This makes it more difficult than strictly necessary to locate passages in it in their edition, although notes correcting Manzoni sometimes provide guidance. For another, complexities arise because of the attached documentation, principally Gonzaga's correspondence. When cited directly by the inquisitors, it is given in the text. If not, it is sometimes held to the notes and sometimes not published at all. Fortunately, there are fewer massive notes than there are in some of the earlier volumes of both Morone and Carnesecchi. Of notes there is only one series, meaning that textual matter and explanatory material appear confusingly intercut. The index is also not entirely reliable.

These are minor criticisms. As we have come to expect, Firpo and Marcatto have added another tier to their already formidable edifice. Now, as we have also come to expect from their many other works, especially the pair of volumes covering Lorenzo Davidico's trial, it is time for a major new study of Carnesecchi, once more impressively demonstrated to have been one of the central figures of the missing Italian reformation.