Robinson - The Career of Cardinal Giovanni Morone (1509-1580) Between Council and Inquisition (2012)

The Career of Cardinal
Giovanni Morone (1509–1580)

Between Council and Inquisition
Adam Patrick Robinson

The Career of Cardinal Giovanni Morone (1509–1580)
For Gemma, Isabella and Benedict
The Career of Cardinal
Giovanni Morone
(1509–1580)
Between Council and Inquisition
Adam Patrick Robinson

Independent Scholar
© Adam Patrick Robinson 2012
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission
of the publisher.
Adam Patrick Robinson has asserted his moral right under the Copyright, Designs
and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as the author of this work.
Published by
Ashgate Publishing Limited Ashgate Publishing Company
Wey Court East Suite 420
Union Road 101 Cherry Street
Farnham Burlington
Surrey, GU9 7PT VT 05401-4405
England USA
www.ashgate.com
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Robinson, Adam Patrick.
The Career of Cardinal Giovanni Morone (1509–1580: Between Council and
Inquisition.
1. Morone, Giovanni, 1509–1580. 2. Morone, Giovanni, 1509–1580 – Trials,
litigation, etc. 3. Catholic Church – Bishops – Biography. 4. Cardinals – Italy
– Biography. 5. Catholic Church – Italy – History – 16th century. 6. Council
of Trent (1545–1563)
I. Title
282’.092–dc23
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Robinson, Adam Patrick.
The Career of Cardinal Giovanni Morone (1509–1580): Between Council
and Inquisition / Adam Patrick Robinson.
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index.
1. Morone, Giovanni, 1509–1580. 2. Cardinals – Italy – Modena. 3. Catholic
Church – Italy – Modena – History – 16th century. 4. Modena (Italy) Church
history – 16th century. I. Title.
BX4705.M72517R63 2012
282.092–dc23
[B] 2011044380
ISBN 9781409417835 (hbk)

ISBN 9781409446033 (ebk)
III
Contents
Abbreviations vii
Brief Chronology xi
Acknowledgements xiii
Introduction1
1 Early Life and Career, 1509–1540 15
2 Morone and Contarini: Regensburg and the Accademia

Crisis, 1541/1542 37
3 Morone, Pole and the Spirituali, 1542–1549 59
4 Spirituali vs Intransigenti: Morone under Suspicion,

1550–1559 87
5 Morone, Pius IV and the Resumption of the Council,

December 1559–March 1563 111
6 Legate at Trent: Innsbruck and the Decree on Orders,

April–July 1563 137
7 Marriage, Reform, Conclusion and Aftermath of the

Council, July 1563–December 1564 163
8 Conclave and Final Years, 1566–1580 193
Conclusion 215
Bibliography 229
Index 249
This page has been left blank intentionally
Abbreviations
ADSPPM Atti e memorie della deputazione di storia patria

per le antiche provincie modenesi
AHR American Historical Review
ASV Archivio Segreto Vaticano
BAV Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana
BL British Library
CHR Catholic Historical Review
Constant Gustave Constant (ed.), La Légation du Cardinal
Morone près de l’empereur et le Concile du
Trente, avril–décembre 1563 (Paris: Librairie
Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1922)
CRP Thomas Mayer, The Correspondence of Reginald
Pole (4 volumes to date, Aldershot: Ashgate,
2002–)
CS Critica storica
CSP Calendar of State Papers
CT Concilium Tridentinum. Diariorum, Actorum,
Epistularum, Tractatuum, nova collection
(13 volumes to date, ed. Görres Gesellschaft,
Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1901ff.)
DBI Dizionario biografico degli Italiani (Rome:
Istituto per la Enciclopedia Italiana, 1960ff.)
Dittrich, HJ Franz Dittrich (ed.), ‘Die Nuntiaturberichte
G. Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg
1541’, Historisches Jahrbuch der Görres
Gesellschaft, IV (1883): pp. 395–472 and
618–673
Dittrich, NBGM Franz Dittrich (ed.), Nuntiaturberichte
Giovanni Morones vom deutschen Königschofe
1539–1540 (Quellen und Forschungen, 1/1,
Paderborn: Ferdinand Schoningh, 1892)
Dumeige et al.,
Latran V et Trente Olivier de la Brosse, O.P., Joseph Lecler, S.J.,
Henri Holstein, S.J. and Charles Lefebvre,
Latran V et Trente (Histoire des conciles
œcuméniques, Tome X, under the direction of
viii Abbreviations
Gervais Dumeige S.J., Paris: Éditions de l’Orante,

Paris, 1975)
Dumeige et al.,
Trente Joseph Lecler S.J., Henri Holstein S.J.,
Pierre Adnès S.J. and Charles Lefebvre, Le concile
de Trente 1551–1563 (Histoire des conciles
œcuméniques, Tome XI, under the direction
of Gervais Dumeige S.J., Paris: Éditions de
l’Orante/Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2005)
Fragnito,
Gasparo Contarini Gigliola Fragnito, Gasparo Contarini: un
magistrato veneziano al servizio della cristianità
(Florence: L. S. Olschki, 1988).
Hillerbrand Hans J. Hillerbrand (ed.), The Oxford
Encyclopedia of the Reformation (4 volumes,
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)
HJ Heythrop Journal
Inquisizione romana Massimo Firpo (in conjunction with Dario
Marcatto for two of the studies), Inquisizione
romana e Controriforma: Studi sul cardinal
Giovanni Morone (1509-1580) e il suo processo
d’ eresia. Nuova edizione riveduta e ampliata
(Brescia: Editrice Morcelliana, 2005)
Jedin, Storia Hubert Jedin, Storia del Concilio di Trento
(4 volumes in 5, Italian translation of the German
original, Brescia: Editrice Morcelliana, 1953–
1979)
Jedin, Trent Hubert Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent
(2 volumes, English translation of the first two
volumes of the German by E. Graf OSB, London:
Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd., 1957)
JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History
JMH Journal of Modern History
Laemmer Hugo Laemmer (ed.), Monumenta Vaticana
historiam ecclesiasticam saeculi XVI illustrantia
(Freiburg: Herder, 1861)
Morandi,
Monumenta G. B. Morandi (ed.), Monumenta di varia
letteratura (2 volumes, Bologna: Istituto per le
scienze, 1797–1804).
Abbreviations ix
NB Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland nebst

ergänzenden Aktenstücken (Various, Preussisches
historisches Institut Rom, 1892ff.).
Pastor Ludwig von Pastor, The History of the Popes from
the Close of the Middle Ages (40 volumes,
translated by F. I. Antrobus, R. F. Kerr, E. Graf
and E. F. Peeler, London: Kegan Paul, Trench,
Trübner, 1891–1953)
PC Massimo Firpo and Dario Marcatto (eds),
I processi inquisitoriali di Pietro Carnesecchi
(1557–1567), Edizione Critica (2 volumes in 4,
Vatican City: Archivio Segreto Vaticano, 1998–
2000)
PM Massimo Firpo and Dario Marcatto (eds),
Il processo inquisitoriale del Cardinal Giovanni
Morone. Edizione Critica (6 volumes, Rome:
Istituto storico italiano per l’età moderna e
contemporanea, 1981–1995)
RSI Rivista storica italiana
RSLR Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa
SCJ Sixteenth Century Journal
Speranze Susanna Peyronel Rambaldi, Speranze e crisi
nel cinquecento Modenese: Tensioni religiose e
vita cittadina ai tempi di Giovanni Morone
(Milan: Franco Angeli, 1979)
Šusta J. Šusta (ed.), Die römische Kurie und das Konzil
von Trient unter Pius IV (4 volumes, Vienna:
Hölder, 1904–1914)
Tanner Norman P. Tanner S.J. (ed.), Decrees of the
Ecumenical Councils (2 volumes, London and
Washington, DC: Sheed & Ward and Georgetown
University Press, 1990)
Giovanni Morone, Medal, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna
Brief Chronology
1509 Born Milan

c. 1523/1524 Studies at Padua
1529–1550 Bishop of Modena
1533 Formal entry into Modena
1536–1538 Nuncio to Ferdinand
1539–1540
1540/1541 Colloquies of Hagenau, Worms and Regensburg
1542 Sent to Diet of Speyer
Appointed cardinal, negotiations with accademici
1542/1543 Legate to aborted opening of the Council of
Trent
1544–1548 Legate in Bologna
1552–1560 Bishop of Novara
1553 Helps found Germanicum
1555 Legate to the Diet of Augsburg
1557–1559 Imprisonment and Trial
1560 Acquittal from all charges
1563 Presiding legate at the Council
1564–1570 Bishop of Modena again
1565/1566 Close to being elected pope
1566–1572 Under suspicion again
1570–1580 Dean of the Sacred College and Bishop of Ostia
and Velletri
1576 Legate to the Diet of Regensburg
1579 Protector of the English College
1580 Death at Rome
Acknowledgements
How could the same individual be both the leading cardinal at Trent and
chief suspect in a heresy trial? This interest in Giovanni Morone dates
from my Masters studies at Heythrop College, University of London,
and the course on the Reformation led by Dr Anne Murphy S.H.C.J. The
initial fruit of this interest was a dissertation, which in due course led to
doctoral studies and finally to this book. None of this would have been
possible without Anne’s steadfast support, encouragement and advice, not
to mention the hospitality in Oxford offered by her and her community
during the final stages of the tortuous crawl towards completion of the
thesis. I am immensely fortunate to have benefitted from such a dedicated
thesis supervisor.
Along the way, I have also enjoyed interested support from other
current or former members of staff at Heythrop, notably Professor
Richard Price, Michael Walsh and Dr Anna Abrams, the latter kindly
helping me nervously negotiate the thesis exam one snowy January day.
I would like to thank Professor Eamon Duffy and Dr Norman Tanner
S.J. for their interest in the project and their criticisms and suggestions
for improvements. I am also indebted to a number of members of the
staff at Ashgate for their support and help in the preparation of the book,
in particular the immensely useful suggestions made by the anonymous
reader for Ashgate, and the work done on the text by Gail and Kirsten.
Translations, especially of Morone’s comments, have largely been done by
me, but I would like to thank Dom Senan Furlong O.S.B. for checking some
of the Latin. Any errors or omissions that remain after all this assistance
are very much my own.
As any author knows, the assistance of library staff is indispensable
and I would like to acknowledge the courteous help I have received
from staff at various institutions, particularly Heythrop College Library,
the British Library (both in its old and new locations), the Institute of
Historical Research and the Warburg Institute. I would also like to thank
the respective prefects and staff of the Archivio Segreto Vaticano and the
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana and staff at the Kunsthistorische Museum
in Vienna. On several research trips to Rome I was able to enjoy the
Benedictine hospitality of the monks of Collegio Sant’Anselmo and for
this too I am grateful.
xiv Acknowledgements
The interest and support of my parents and siblings has been

tremendous, with my father and sister, Clare, stalwartly assisting with
proofreading at the thesis stage. Last, but by no means least, there has been
the love, support and forbearance of my wife Gemma, and our children
Isabella and Benedict, all through the long years during which I have been
grappling with Giovanni Morone, a project which in fact began before the
birth of the latter two. This support has been constant, despite the delayed,
disrupted and hijacked holidays and it is to them that I dedicate this book.
At least it provided an excuse for a trip to Roma …
Introduction
… vir magnae auctoritatis, prudentiae et consilii, necnon sanctissimae vitae.1
Morone and Historiography
On 31 May 1557, Cardinal Giovanni Morone, experienced papal

diplomat and Bishop of Novara, was detained and escorted to the papal
fortress of Castel Sant’ Angelo on the orders of the reigning pope (Paul
IV 1555–1559). In fact, the formalities of an official processo had been
underway for some time. Within weeks, Giovanni Morone was writing
an Apologia to defend himself against allegations concerning his conduct
and beliefs, including his views about justification by faith. He remained
under arrest for over two years until Paul IV’s death in August 1559. In
stark contrast, in March 1563, the same Cardinal Morone was appointed
principal legate to the troubled final period of the Council of Trent,
whereupon he resolved the difficulties besetting the council – difficulties
which had brought it to a virtual standstill – and guided it to a successful
conclusion. Congratulatory letters poured in. The juxtaposition of these
contrasting moments in Morone’s career is startling, intriguing and lies at
the heart of the differing historiographical perceptions of the cardinal. As
the Italian scholar Massimo Firpo comments, Morone has been seen as
either a crypto-Lutheran or the saviour of the council.2
Clearly, the oscillating or polarized estimations of the cardinal date
from his own lifetime. Morone advised or collaborated with a succession
of popes and received the accolade at the start of this chapter from
Firmanus, papal Master of Ceremonies and diarist, in the wake of the
cardinal’s release from imprisonment. On the other hand, at least two
popes and a number of cardinal colleagues viewed Morone with suspicion.
Italian exiles like Pier Paolo Vergerio and Francesco Negri considered
Morone, like Pole and others, to be ‘nicodemist’: someone who agreed
with elements of Protestant thought, but who hid this from most of their
1
‘… a man of great authority, prudence and judgment and assuredly of most holy life’.
Diary of Cornelius Firmanus, Concilium Tridentinum. Diariorum, Actorum, Epistularum,
Tractatuum, nova collectio (13 volumes to date, ed. Görres Gesellschaft, Freiburg im
Breisgau, 1901ff.), II, p. 518: entry for 21 August 1559.
2
Firpo’s entry on Morone in Hans J. Hillerbrand (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of
the Reformation (4 volumes, Oxford, 1996), vol. 3, p. 96.
2 The Career of Cardinal Giovanni Morone (1509–1580)
contemporaries and outwardly conformed to Catholic belief and practice.3

During the course of Morone’s processo, witnesses were lined up to testify
both in defence of the cardinal’s orthodoxy and attacking it.
In the century after the cardinal’s death, Antonio Caracciolo wrestled
with the problem of how to honour Paul IV in his eventually unpublished
biography, while at the same time sensitively handling what he knew of
the investigations into figures like Morone and Pole.4 In contrast, the Jesuit
Sforza Pallavicino had no qualms about defending the final president
of the council.5 Slightly closer to our own time, the nicodemist view of
Morone has found supporters with Christopher Hare commenting that:
‘he (Morone) certainly had not the martyr’s zeal … stifled his religious
desires for reform and lived in outward conformity’.6 On the other hand,
Nicola Bernabei’s nineteenth-century Vita extolled Morone’s virtues and
Ludwig von Pastor argued that those who viewed people like Morone and
Vittoria Colonna as heretical were ‘unhistorical’, calling them rather the
‘ornaments of the Catholic Church’.7
3
The term seems originally to have been Calvin’s. See Paolo Simoncelli, Il caso
Reginald Pole: eresia e santità nelle polemiche religiose del Cinquecento (Rome, 1977),
pp. 42–60, especially 46 and 54–55.
4
Vita et gesti di Giovan Pietro Carafa, cioè di Paolo IV pontefice massimo. Caracciolo
had at his disposal the Compendium processum Sancti Officii Romae, qui fuerunt compilati
sub Paolo III, Iulio III et Paolo IV summis pontificibus, a document compiled by or for the
Inquisitor, Giulio Antonio Santoro, comprising extracts from Morone’s processo pertinent
not only to Morone, but to a number of the so-called spirituali. The text of the Compendium,
edited by Massimo Firpo with a lengthy introduction covering its use by Caracciolo and the
associated historiographical issues is in volume I of Massimo Firpo and Dario Marcatto
(eds), Il processo inquisitoriale del cardinal Giovanni Morone. Edizione Critica (6 volumes,
Rome, 1981–1995). Firpo’s introduction to PM, I, has been reproduced as two chapters in
his Inquisizione romana e Controriforma. Studi sul cardinal Giovanni Morone (1509-1580)
e il suo processo d’eresia. Nuova edizione riveduta e ampliata (Brescia, 2005), pp. 399–448
and 537–596. The most recent surveys of some of the historiographical issues are to be found
in the introduction by Firpo and Ottavia Niccoli to the collection of essays edited by them
as part of the commemorative events organized in Trent in 2009 to mark the five-hundredth
anniversary of the cardinal’s birth: Il cardinal Giovanni Morone e l’ultima fase del concilio
di Trento (Bologna, 2010), pp. 7–19, and the essay by Pierroberto Scaramella, ‘Una memoria
non condivisa: L’immagine del cardinal Giovanni Morone da Frickius a Jedin’, in the same
collection, pp. 225–256.
5
See for example Pallavicino’s praise for Morone, (Pietro) Sforza Pallavicino, Istoria
del Concilio di Trento (4 volumes, F. A. Zaccaria (ed.), Rome, 1833), IV, 24.9.5, p. 701.
On Pallavicino’s attitude and the reaction it provoked see Firpo, Inquisizione romana,
pp. 584–596.
6
Christopher Hare, Men and Women of the Italian Reformation (London, 1914), p. 32.
7
Nicola Bernabei, Vita del Cardinale Giovanni Morone, Vescovo di Modena (Modena,
1885). Ludwig von Pastor, The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle Ages (40
volumes, translated by F. I. Antrobus, R. F. Kerr et al., London, 1899–1953), XI, p. 498.
Introduction 3
More recently still, Morone has continued to receive contrasting

handling. Hubert Jedin essentially cast him as the council’s saviour and
took a similar view of the Inquisition’s activities in relation to the so-
called spirituali as that of Pastor.8 Morone’s position as the hero of the
council, at least in terms of its final sitting, has persisted and is often
commented upon in general treatments of the period.9 However, Firpo’s
extensive work in relation to Morone’s processo, often in conjunction
with Dario Marcatto, and in particular their multi-volume edition of the
processo documentation, has brought to the fore once more the image of
Morone as the suspected heretic.10 This account presents him as ‘seduced’
in 1542/1543 by Reginald Pole, Marcantonio Flaminio and others, into
espousing a range of radical theological positions, particularly in relation
to justification by faith.11
‘Catholic Reformation’, Evangelismo and Other Things: The Wider

Historiography
‘What’s in a name?’ asks John W. O’Malley at the outset of his work

on the historiography of Catholicism in the early modern era.12 O’Malley
proceeds to discuss different terms used to describe the Catholic situation
in the period from what in conventional historiography has been known
as the Reformation, down to the end (roughly) of the eighteenth century.
For the American, although categories such as Catholic Reform, Counter
Reformation, Tridentine Catholicism and Social Disciplining, etc., each
have their particular merits, none on their own adequately describes the
totality of the Catholic scene. They are parts of the whole and the best way
of describing the whole is to refer to it as Early Modern Catholicism.13 His
8
See Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent (2 volumes – a translation by Dom Ernest
Graf of the first two volumes of the German, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, 4 volumes,
1949–1975 – London, 1957–1961), especially I, p. 365; Storia del Concilio di Trento
(4 volumes also translated from the German, Brescia, 1949–1981), especially IV/II, and Crisis
and Closure of the Council of Trent (translated by N. D. Smith from the 1964 original, Krisis
und Abschluss des Treinter Konzils 1562/3, London, 1967).
9
Michael Mullett, The Catholic Reformation (London and New York, 1999),
pp. 62–3, to give but one example.
10
Firpo and Marcatto’s activity has produced a raft of studies, but see initially the
works cited in n. 4.
11
For Firpo’s thesis of Morone’s induction into the spirituali properly speaking,
see especially ‘Vittoria Colonna, Giovanni Morone e gli “spirituali”’, RSLR, IV (1988):
pp. 211–247, now reproduced in Inquisizione romana, pp. 131–180.
12
John W. O’Malley, Trent and All That: Renaming Catholicism in the Early Modern
Era (Cambridge, MA and London, 2000).
13
O’Malley, Trent and All That, pp. 119ff.
contribution to the debate is made from a background of considerable

scholarship from both sides of the Council of Trent, itself one of the
traditional watersheds. However, it seems unlikely that it will find
unanimous acceptance.14
In relation to the historiography of the Cinquecento, an important
subset deals with the phenomenon known as Italian Evangelism or
evangelismo.15 This contentious and troubled historiographical appellation
has links to Catholic Reform or Reformation, the Italian Reformation, the
Counter Reformation or Tridentine Catholicism, to point to the obvious
categories and the ones with which this book will largely be concerned.
Per O’Malley, the historiographical picture is in something of a state of
flux, and this is particularly so concerning categories like evangelismo,
Catholic Reform and Counter Reformation.16
It is more than 50 years since Eva-Maria Jung’s intriguing article on the
nature of Italian Evangelism and many of the positions she espoused therein
14
See Wolfgang Reinhard, ‘The Idea of Early Modern History’,’ in Michael Bentley,
Companion to Historiography (London and New York, 2002), pp. 281–292. There has been
both support and criticism for O’Malley’s thesis. In respect of the former, it is unsurprising
to find O’Malley’s terminology taken up in a number of the essays in the Festschrift in his
honour: Kathleen M. Comerford and Hilmar M. Pabel (eds), Early Modern Catholicism.
Essays in Honour of John W. O’Malley S.J. (Toronto, 2001). On the other side of the fence,
see Firpo’s comment in Inquisizione romana, at p. 27 n. 14 and Hillerbrand has recently
quibbled with the notion that either ‘early’ or ‘modern’ are apposite terms, see Hans
J. Hillerbrand, ‘Was there a Reformation in the Sixteenth Century?’, Church History, 72
(2003): pp. 525–552 at 543–545.
15
See O’Malley, Trent and All That, pp. 83–85.
16
On evangelismo, see especially, Elisabeth G. Gleason, ‘On the Nature of Sixteenth-
Century Italian Evangelism: Scholarship, 1953–1978’,’ SCJ, 9, 3 (1978): pp. 3–25; Susanna
Peyronel Rambaldi, ‘Ancora sull’ evangelismo italiano: Categoria o invenzione storiografica’,
Società e storia, 18 (1982): pp. 935–967; Anne Jacobson Schutte, ‘Periodization of
Sixteenth-Century Religious History: The Post-Cantimori Paradigm Shift’, JMH, 61 (1989):
pp. 269–284, and William V. Hudon, ‘Religion and Society in Early Modern Italy – Old
Questions, New Insights’, AHR, 101 (1996): pp. 783–804. For a recent overview of the
Italian situation see Massimo Firpo, ‘The Italian Reformation’, in R. Po-chia Hsia (ed.),
A Companion to the Reformation World (Oxford, 2004), pp. 169–184. Indispensable for
scholars interested in the Cinquecento is John Tedeschi (in association with J. M. Lattis),
The Italian Reformation of the Sixteenth Century and the Diffusion of Renaissance Culture:
A Bibliography of the Secondary Literature (ca. 1750–1996) (Modena, 1999), which also
has an historiographical essay by Firpo, ‘La Riforma italiana del Cinquecento: Le premesse
storiografiche’, now reproduced in his ‘Disputar di cose pertinente alla fede’: Studi sulla vita
religiosa del Cinquecento (Milan, 2003), pp. 11–66. Of interest too are Adriano Prosperi’s
‘‘Riforma Cattolica, controriforma, disciplinamento sociale’, in G. De Rosa, T. Gregory and
A. Vauchez (eds), Storia dell’Italia religiosa. L’età moderna (Rome and Bari, 1994), vol. 2, pp.
3–48, and his historiographical ‘Introduzione’ in Maurizio Sangalli (ed.), Per il Cinquecento
religioso italiano: Clero, cultura, societa. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi. Siena,
27–30 giugno 2001 (2 volumes, Rome, 2003), vol. 1, pp. 13–25.
Introduction 5
have since come to be challenged.17 Jung traced the origin of the term
evangelismo in French historiography (évangelisme) and its application
by Hubert Jedin to the similar Italian situation, notably in his immense
biography of Girolamo Seripando.18 For Jedin and Jung, evangelismo was
an aspect of the movement christened Catholic Reform that many scholars
have detected in the pre-Tridentine Church.19 In this way, it was essentially
orthodox. Hence Jung’s grandiose description of it as the last Catholic
reform movement before the Council of Trent and the first ecumenical
movement after the German schism.
Although both scholars noted the importance of the issue of
justification for many of the proponents of evangelismo as part of a
wider spiritual questioning in the early decades of the sixteenth century,
they saw the movement’s religious outlook as rather vague and sketchy.
Jung called it undogmatic and Jedin argued that it was undefined and
fluid: part of the pre-Trent theological milieu that he characterizes as
lacking clarity. In the English-speaking world, Philip McNair was one
of the first to attack some of these positions.20 Putting forward rather
trenchant views on the way Catholic scholars like Jedin and Jung sought
to present evangelismo as orthodox, he was much more insistent on its
essentially derivative nature, placing greater emphasis on the issue of
justification by faith alone. The perceived influence of the Protestant
reformers in this area is still disputed and recent scholarship has shed
further light on other key antecedent or contemporaneous currents such
as savonarolismo, erasmianism, pre-Luther paolinismo, Augustinianism
and, arguably the most important trend, valdesianesimo. These now vie
with their contentious cousin for prominence.21
Others, like Paolo Simoncelli and the Morone expert, Massimo
Firpo, challenge the validity of Catholic Reform as a category or the
thesis of autonomous, pre-Tridentine reform seamlessly feeding into the
17
Eva-Maria Jung, ‘On the Nature of Evangelism in Sixteenth Century Italy’, Journal
of the History of Ideas, 14 (1953): pp. 511–527. On Jung’s article, see Gleason, ‘Italian
Evangelism’, p. 3.
18
Hubert Jedin, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent: Cardinal Seripando (translated
from the 1937 original, Girolamo Seripando: Sein Leben und Denken im Geisteskampf,
2 volumes, by Frederic C. Eckhoff, St Louis and London, 1947). The term was used in
connection with the reformist circle that gathered around the Bishop of Meaux, Guillaume
Briçonnet in the 1520s.
19
For Jedin on pre-Trent fluidity and the Catholic Reform movement see especially
Trent, I, pp. 355–370 and 410–445. For his view on the historiographical issues see Riforma
Cattolica o controriforma? (Brescia, 1957). See also Hubert Jedin and Giuseppe Alberigo,
Il tipo ideale di vescovo seconda la riforma cattolica (Brescia, 1985).
20
Philip McNair, Peter Martyr in Italy. An Anatomy of Apostasy (Oxford, 1967).
21
On evangelismo and Savonarola, see Simoncelli, Evangelismo italiano. On Erasmus,
see Silvana Seidel Menchi, Erasmo in Italia 1520–1580 (Turin, 1987).
council and the Counter Reformation.22 Firpo, as much interested in

valdesianesimo as anything else, certainly argues for a concerted religious
policy on the part of the spirituali including Morone, in the first years
of the 1540s.23 His wider thesis might be briefly stated as follows. Either
shortly before, or upon the death of Juan de Valdés in 1541, the circle that
had gathered around the enigmatic Spanish thinker dispersed and sought
other congenial households. In particular, Marcantonio Flaminio, Pietro
Carnesecchi, Vittoria Colonna and others linked up with Pole in Viterbo,
in whom they found a kindred spirit and formed what became known
as the ecclesia viterbiensis.24 Within this group, Valdesian spirituality
fermented to the extent that they began to espouse ever more radical
positions and drift away from Gasparo Contarini, hitherto the leading
figure in evangelismo. After the Venetian’s death, the Pole group was left
as the most prominent faction.
Firpo contests the view of the spirituali as an esoteric group of
churchmen and noblewomen with an intense, radical, perhaps heretical,
but ultimately private spirituality. According to the Italian, they undertook
a conscious and audacious campaign of propaganda to publicize their
agenda with the use of the pulpit and the publication and dissemination of
22
See for example, Firpo, Inquisizione romana, especially his comments at p. 27, and
recently, Vittore Soranzo: vescovo e eretico. Riforma della chiesa e Inquisizione nell’Italia
del Cinquecento (Rome-Bari, 2006), especially pp. 8–10. See also Paolo Simoncelli, Reginald
Pole; Evangelismo italiano del cinquecento: questione religiosa e nicodemismo politico
(Rome, 1979); ‘Inquisizione romana e Riforma in Italia’, RSI, C (1988): pp. 5–125; and
Paolo Prodi, ‘Controriforma e/o riforma cattolica: Superamento di vecchi dilemmi nei nuova
panorami storiografici’, Römische historiche Mitteilungen, 31 (1989): pp. 227–237. Note the
comments of Hudon, ‘Old Questions New Insights’, especially pp. 783–789.
23
Valdesianesimo so named after Juan de Valdés (c.1500–1541), the Spanish thinker,
whose religious outlook and its origin have been notoriously difficult to pin down. Valdés
had links to the Alumbrado movement and when, at the end of the 1520s, his situation
had become too difficult with respect to the Spanish Inquisition, he moved to Rome and
a post at the court of Pope Clement VII. His circle of contacts increased and included the
Gonzagas (both Cardinal Ercole and Giulia), Pietro Carnesecchi and Peter Martyr Vermigli.
After Clement’s death in 1534, he moved to Naples. There he encountered Bernadino Ochino
who preached a famous series of Lenten sermons. Valdés’ own spirituality seems to have
deepened during these years and the noted Neapolitan circle gathered around him until his
death. He wrote a number of commentaries and works of spirituality, later banned, not all
of which have come down to us. See Hillerbrand, vol. 4, pp. 212–214, Jose C. Nieto, Juan
de Valdés and the Origins of the Spanish and Italian Reformation (Geneva, 1970), and the
works of Firpo, who believes the Spaniard’s contribution to the Reformation generally has
not been fully understood: Massimo Firpo, Tra Alumbrados e ‘spirituali’: Studi su Juan de
Valdés e il valdesianesimo nella crisi religiosa del ‘500 italiano (Florence, 1990); Dal sacco
di Roma all’Inquisizione: Studi su Juan de Valdés e la Riforma italiana (Alessandria, 1998);
and, in English, his overview, ‘The Italian Reformation and Juan de Valdés’, SCJ, XXVII
(1996): pp. 353–364.
24
Marcantonio Villamarino found his way to Morone’s household.
Introduction 7
suspect literature especially the tract known as the Beneficio di Cristo. It

was a campaign conducted against the background of the rise of dissident
groups in Italian cities like Modena, Lucca, Naples and Venice. Morone’s
induction into this group represented an important coup, given his status
in the Sacred College and his initial appointment as one of the council
legates. The approaching assembly was a key component in their hopes,
and it was the Decree on Justification (1547) and the rejection of the
Beneficio di Cristo, which signalled the defeat of their enterprise.25
Certainly, the weight of studies has gradually revealed a clearer picture
of the extent to which the ideas and currents of thought associated with
evangelismo were prevalent, not only among the elite, but more widely
amongst the men and women of the towns and cities of northern Italy and
also penetrating the religious orders.26 Indeed, should the term evangelismo
be applied to so wide a range of people? Are the groups of artisans turned
up in studies such as John Martin’s on Venice to be classed alongside
Contarini, the Viterbo circle and Morone? The category of evangelismo
is arguably being asked to do too much. Others have tried to avoid the
problem by utilizing a term some of the protagonists themselves used
for the leading figures of the movement: the spirituali.27 This raises the
question whether spirituali and evangelicals are coterminous or whether
the spirituali formed a smaller group with links to the wider current
of evangelismo? Certainly, recent scholarship has tended to avoid the
latter in favour of the former. However, judgments still have to be made
about individuals. Perhaps we should speak of ‘Catholic Evangelism’ in
order to delineate its supporters from their more obviously heterodox
contemporaries like Ochino, Vermigli and Vergerio who chose exile,
25
Of Firpo’s numerous studies see particularly: Inquisizione romana, especially pp.
131–180 and 246–261; ‘Il “Beneficio di Christo” e il concilio di Trento (1542–1546)’, in
Cesare Mozzarelli and Danilo Zardin (eds), I Tempi del Concilio: Religione, cultura e società
nell’Europa tridentina (Europa delle Corti, Centro studi sulle società di antico regime,
Biblioteca del Cinquecento, Rome, 1997), pp. 225–252; and ‘The Italian Reformation’.
26
See for example, Susanna Peyronel Rambaldi, Speranze e crisi nel cinquecento
modenese: Tensioni religiose e vita cittadina ai tempi di Giovanni Morone (Milan, 1979),
or John Martin, Venice’s Hidden Enemies: Italian Heretics in a Renaissance City (Berkeley,
Los Angeles and London, 1993), for studies of the penetration of heretical thought in
particular places. More generally, see Salvatore Caponetto, The Protestant Reformation
in Sixteenth-Century Italy (Kirksville, 1998), and Firpo, ‘The Italian Reformation’. Useful
also is Agostino Borromeo, ‘Il dissenso religioso tra il clero italiano e la prima attività
del Sant’Ufficio romano’, in Maurizio Sangalli (ed.), Per il Cinquecento religioso italiano:
Clero, cultura, societa. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi. Siena, 27–30 giugno 2001
(2 volumes, Rome, 2003), vol. 2, pp. 455–485.
27
See Gigliola Fragnito, ‘Gli “spirituali” e la fuga di Bernadino Ochino’, RSI, 84
(1972): pp. 777–813, now in Gasparo Contarini: un magistrato veneziano al servizio della
christianità (Florence, 1988), pp. 251–306, and Dermot Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience in
Tridentine Italy: Cardinal Pole and the Counter Reformation (Cambridge, 1972).
or from the shipwrights of Venice and shopkeepers of Modena? Part of

the problem is the sometimes shifting reality of an individual’s religious
trajectory as their life and career unfolded.
In dealing with the leading figures associated with evangelismo, a number
of scholars (Firpo, Simoncelli, Fragnito) have argued for something of a
power struggle at the heart of the Church between the spirituali including
Morone on the one hand, and other more conservative churchmen: the so-
called zelanti or intransigenti, such as Gian Pietro Carafa (Paul IV).28 Their
analysis of curial politics might be unfairly caricatured along the lines of
moderates or progressives versus hardliners or conservatives: doves versus
hawks. Some scholars tender criticism precisely in this way, arguing that
such a thesis lacks subtlety. They argue that some of the old judgments
about individuals are no longer sound or lack sufficient nuance, or that
analysis along such lines risks projecting modern preoccupations and
sensibilities back into the past. Instead, some utilize the term ‘humanist
reformers’ as a category and Thomas Mayer has written of a larger ‘reform
tendency’, which breaks down over the course of the middle years of the
Cinquecento.29
Thus, it seems that for some, the category of evangelismo either needs
to be shelved or has to be applied with more circumspection. Gleason,
having seemingly been prepared to use the term in connection with
Contarini, does not mention evangelismo in a later essay, adopting the
usage of spirituali, and giving a definition that seems to claim them as
essentially orthodox.30 Mayer’s study of Pole was not greatly concerned
28
See especially Simoncelli, Reginald Pole, his Evangelismo italiano, and ‘Inquisizione
romana e eresia’, and Fragnito, Gasparo Contarini, and ‘Evangelismo e intransigenti nei
difficili equilibri del pontificato farnesiano’, RSLR, 25 (1989): pp. 20–47.
29
See for example William V. Hudon, Marcello Cervini and Ecclesiastical Government
in Tridentine Italy (DeKalb, 1992), who feels his misunderstood subject should be classed
as one of the ‘humanist reformers’ alongside Contarini. See also his comments in ‘Old
Questions New Insights’, especially pp. 794–796 and 802, and his recent reprise of some
of the issues: ‘The Papacy in the Age of Reform’, in Kathleen M. Comerford and Hilmar
M. Pabel (eds), Early Modern Catholicism. Essays in Honour of John W. O’Malley S.J.
(Toronto, Buffalo and London, 2001), pp. 46–66. Thomas F. Mayer, Reginald Pole: Prince
and Prophet (Cambridge, 2000), also argues for more subtlety in assessing individuals. In
partial response to some of this, see Massimo Firpo, ‘Note su una biografia di Reginald Pole’,
RSI, CXIII (2001): pp. 859–874 and his sharp comments, particularly in regard to American
scholarship, in Soranzo, pp. 15–16.
30
‘… men and women who desired a serious reform of the Church, and who responded
to the Gospel message in a deeply personal way by embracing Pauline spirituality with its
emphasis on metanoia …’. Elisabeth Gleason, ‘Catholic Reformation, Counterreformation
and Papal Reform in the Sixteenth Century’, in Thomas A. Brady Jr., Heiko A. Oberman
and James D. Tracy (eds), Handbook of European History 1400–1600. Volume II: Visions,
Programs, and Outcomes (Grand Rapids, 1996), pp. 317–345 at 322. See her Gasparo
Contarini: Venice, Rome and Reform (Berkeley and London, 1993).
Introduction 9
with the issue of evangelismo and he has preferred to pursue his subject
along other schematic and analytical channels. Nevertheless, evangelismo
still rears its head in the scholarly literature and, despite criticism, the
notions of Catholic Reform or of a Catholic Reformation certainly still
have currency.31
Both Jedin and Jung saw evangelismo as a transitory phenomenon. Jung
regarded it as important for a decade between 1532 and 1542, although she
was aware of its antecedents and of aspects of its subsequent influence. Jedin
saw evangelismo as part of the fluid religious state between the dawning of
the Protestant Reformation and the hardening of positions on both sides,
which came principally for the Catholic side with Trent: a component
of his Catholic Reform sliding into Counter Reformation thesis.32 Delio
Cantimori argued for a more lengthy and complex chronology. The Italian
accepted 1542 as a turning point for the movement, but regarded this
date as the start of a middle crisis period running until 1560. This central
period was sandwiched between a formative period and a second wave
that lasted until about 1580.33
Thus, Jung’s chronology for evangelismo has come to be viewed as
far too narrow with her choice of a start at 1532 as arbitrary. Cantimori’s
more elaborate periodization has also been challenged, both in his choices
of 1541/1542 and 1560 as watershed dates and in his choice of 1580 as
the terminus ad quem. Indeed, establishing timeframes for many of the
historiographical categories jostling for attention in this area is no easy task
and precisely one of the difficulties recognized by O’Malley.34 What relative
weight should be attached to the rise of the Inquisition (1541/1542) or the
Decree on Justification (1547), the election of Paul IV (1555) or the end of
the council (1563)? Gleason has proposed another chronology and model
31
For example, Firpo, reluctantly, in Inquisizione romana, p. 24, or see Adriano
Prosperi’s tentative question, ‘Evangelismo di Seripando?’, in Antonio Cestaro (ed.),
Geronimo Seripando e la chiesa del suo tempo nel V centenario della nascita. Atti del
convegno di Salerno, 14–16 ottobre 1994 (Rome, 1997), pp. 33–49, to which he gives a
qualified yes. Mullett’s Catholic Reformation is an obvious example of the survival of this
concept.
32
Jedin, Riforma cattolica.
33
See Delio Cantimori, Prospettive di storia ereticale italiana del Cinquecento (Bari,
1960) and now reproduced in a new edition of Cantimori’s Eretici italiano del Cinquecento
(Turin, 1992), pp. 419ff.
34
O’Malley, Trent and All That, p. 120. See Schutte, ‘Periodization’, and Hudon, ‘Old
Questions New Insights’, p. 787. Schutte has recently endorsed a view of early modern Italian
Catholicism in terms of disciplining and confessionalization, with 1580 marking the starting
line for this ‘process’: Anne Jacobson Schutte, ‘Religion, Spirituality and the Post-Tridentine
Church’, in John A. Marino (ed.), Early Modern Italy 1550–1796 (Oxford, 2002). Firpo
situates evangelismo within the tensions and conflicts running through the Catholic world
between the sack of Rome (1526) and the election of Pius V (1566), Inquisizione romana,
p. 24.
that bears resemblance to a hybrid of Jedin and Cantimori. She argues

for a period of pre-conciliar reform ideas and efforts until about 1540,
followed by what she categorizes as two decades of ‘survival and defence’
– equating to Cantimori’s first crisis period for evangelismo – and then
culminating in a ‘new era’ which she calls the ‘Tridentine Reformation’,
taking over a term used by Eric Cochrane.35
Indeed, what fate has befallen the council of O’Malley’s title? A feature
of much of the recent scholarship has been concern with the activities
of the Inquisition (Roman or otherwise).36 As well as the processo
documentation in respect of Morone, we now have critical editions for the
trials of a number of other figures with links to the spirituali or evangelismo
italiano: for example Pietro Carnesecchi and Bartolomé Carranza to name
but two.37 The importance of the Holy Office and the Index in shaping
the development of Catholicism, particularly Italian Catholicism, in the
Tridentine period has been thrust to the fore, and has tended to eclipse the
Council of Trent as the dominant feature of the landscape.38 However, the
council has not totally lacked for interested scholars and there have been
a number of recent additions to the corpus of studies related to the event
35
Gleason, ‘Catholic Reformation’. See Eric W. Cochrane, ‘Counter Reformation or
Tridentine Reformation? Italy in the Age of Carlo Borromeo’, in John. M. Headley and
J. B. Tomaro (eds), San Carlo Borromeo: Catholic Reform and Ecclesiastical Politics in the
Second Half of the Sixteenth Century (Washington, DC, 1988), pp. 31–46. Cochrane argues
that Counter Reformation is misunderstood as a category, burdened with too many negative
connotations and proposes first ‘Tridentine Reformation’, as long as it is not confined to the
council, but then at the last gasp seems to proffer the clunking ‘Age of Consolidation’. See
also Hudon, ‘Old Questions New Insights’, where he leans towards ‘Social Disciplining’ as a
useful category whilst also backing ‘Tridentine Reformation’ on similar terms to Cochrane.
36
Amongst the raft of scholarship, see for example Adriano Prosperi’s, Tribunali della
coscienza: Inquisitori, confessori, missionari (Turin, 1996), and his L’Inquisizione romana.
Letture e ricerche (Rome, 2003). In English there is Christopher Black’s recent overview, The
Italian Inquisition (New Haven and London, 2009).
37
Massimo Firpo and Dario Marcatto (eds), I processi inquisitoriali di Pietro
Carnesecchi (1557–1567). Edizione Critica (2 volumes, Vatican City, 1998–2000). In respect
of Carranza, see the immense corpus of José Ignacio Tellechea Idígoras especially, Fray
Bartolomé Carranza: Documentos Históricos (Madrid, 1962–1994); El Arzobispo Carranza
y su tiempo (Madrid, 1968), and El processo romano del Arzobispo Carranza (1567–1576)
(Rome, 1988 and 1994).
38
See Firpo, Soranzo, p. 21. See also the comments of Prosperi about how the
Inquisition does not feature in some of the older studies, ‘Riforma cattolica, Controriforma’,
pp. 14–15. Even a recent general work such as Raymond F. Bulman and Frederick J. Parrella
(eds), From Trent to Vatican II: Historical and Theological Investigations (Oxford, 2006),
can gambol through 500 years with barely a mention of the Holy Office. New work on the
Index too and the Congregation of that name is emerging after the opening of the archives of
the former Holy Office, see Gigliola Fragnito (ed.), Church, Censorship and Culture in Early
Modern Italy (Cambridge, 2001).
Introduction 11
that both provides a historiographical term, as well as lending its name to

400 years of Catholic culture.39
Morone: The State of the Question, the Scope of the Book
The recent five-hundredth anniversary of the cardinal’s birth did not slip
by unnoticed, inspiring a short conference and an exhibition of artifacts
in Trent.40 However, no modern critical biography of Giovanni Morone
has been undertaken.41 Perhaps the dispersal of the archival source
material the length and breadth of the Italian peninsula and beyond has
acted as a deterrent to scholars who considered such an undertaking.42
An integrated study of the cardinal’s life and career seems opportune.
The staggering activity of Firpo, Marcatto and others over the last few
decades has made available a wealth of new, primary material on the
cardinal and his friends and associates. Furthermore, in the last 20 years
there have been monographs, full-scale studies or collective studies on
a number of the leading spirituali.43 How do the older assumptions
about Morone stand up in the light of this considerable and sometimes
39
Two important recent overviews are, Alain Tallon, Le concile de Trente (Paris,
2000), and Adriano Prosperi, Il Concilio di Trento: una introduzione storica (Turin, 2001),
the latter containing useful bibliographical suggestions.
40
L’uomo del concilio: Il cardinal Giovanni Morone tra Roma e Trento nell’età di
Michelangelo, 4 April to 26 July 2009, at the Museo Diocesano Tridentino and the Torre
Mirana di Palazzo Thun, Trent. There is a wonderful catalogue for the exhibition bearing
the same name and edited by Roberto Pancheri and Domenica Primerano, (Editrice Temi,
Trent, 2009). The catalogue includes half a dozen scholarly essays, the second of which is a
biographical essay by Massimo Firpo: ‘“Amorbato delle cose lutherane” o “fidei catholicae
propugnator”? Giovanni Morone tra Inquisizione e concilio’, pp. 19–47, similar to that
which adorns his Inquisizione romana, pp. 35–53. The fruit of the conference held over 5–6
June 2009 is Firpo and Niccolo’s Il cardinale Giovanni Morone.
41
There is a bibliographical and chronological essay by Riccardo Fangarezzi:
‘Giovanni Morone: Una cronologia della vita’, ADSPPM, XI, 17 (1995): pp. 223–252, and a
bibliography by Firpo, in Hillerbrand, vol. 3, p. 96. There is a brief anonymous vita in Italian
in ASV, Misc. Arm. II, 19, ff. 507r–510v. Of interest is the dated vita by Bernabei and also
the following older studies: Iohannes Georg Frickius, De Ioanne Morono S.R.E. Cardinali,
Articulisque, quibus ad Inquisitionis officio iussu Pauli IV, olim tanquam Lutheranismo
suspectus, et in vinculis detentus accusabatur, in Johan Georg Schelhorn, Amoenitates
literariae quibus variae observations, scripta item quaedam, anecdota et rariora opuscola
exhibentur (Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1725–1731), XII, pp. 537–586, Frederic Scolpis, Le
Cardinal Jean Morone: Ètude Historiques (Paris, 1869), and Cesare Cantù, ‘Il Cardinale
Giovanni Morone’, in Cantù, Italiani illustri (Milan, 1873), vol. II, pp. 393–465.
42
See Jedin, Storia, IV/II, p. 36 n. 15. Note the comments of Firpo, Inquisizione
romana, p. 35 n. 1.
43
For example the already cited works on Pole, Contarini and Seripando. Note Firpo’s
comments on the usefulness of the biographical approach, Soranzo, p. 17.
extremely detailed scholarship, conducted against the backdrop of the

historiographical shifts outlined in the preceding section? What is to be
made of the contrasting perceptions of the cardinal already alluded to in
this introduction? Furthermore, Morone’s generation is part of the bridge
between the late medieval world and the early modern era and a study of
his life will contribute to the debate about the nature and timing of the
change and the naming that is of concern to O’Malley.
These are the broad aims of this book, with the core formed by
consideration of Morone’s status and activity during the reign of Pope Pius
IV (1559–1565), years of shift and change according to a number of the
timescales considered in the preceding section. I will be concerned with
a retelling and re-evaluation of Morone’s role as presiding legate at the
Council of Trent. How does Morone’s activity at Trent in 1563 now look in
the light of the information available to us in connection with his processo?
Were the spirituali and/or evangelismo spent forces by this point or did Pius
IV’s pontificate in fact allow possibilities for them to flourish once again?
Did Morone’s career inexorably slide towards wistful alienation and regret
as a result of his difficulties in the 1550s as some suggest it did?
Analysis of Morone’s spiritual and religious development seems a
prerequisite for discussing Morone’s role at the council. His experiences
as a young diplomat (another positive in Morone historiography) were
formative, as he gained firsthand knowledge of the problems afflicting the
Church in the empire. Should the image of Morone as diplomat be, in
fact, the dominant one with all the positives and negatives that this might
imply? Upon Morone’s death, Cardinal Giulio Santoro, noting the Milanese
cardinal’s expertise in the affairs of the world, acerbically added that he
was not held in much regard in religious matters.44 The initial chapters of
this work consider Morone’s early life, the beginnings of his ecclesiastical
career and his experiences as a young and talented papal diplomat.
For much of his career, Morone was entrusted with pastoral
responsibility and in his dioceses was confronted with the full range
of typical problems. He is often portrayed as one of the conscientious
reformers. How does Morone fit with the ‘ideal bishop’ current traceable
in some of the scholarship: a current in fact prevalent in the writings and
example of a number of his contemporaries and near contemporaries? To
adapt a question posed by O’Malley of Ignatius Loyola: was Morone a
reformer bishop and what does his career tell us, if anything, about the
coherence of Catholic Reform or Reformation as categories?45 The validity
44
‘… homo d’eminente valore circa le cose del mondo, ma non tenuto di molta
religione’, cited in Firpo, Inquisizione romana, p. 15.
45
John W. O’Malley, ‘Was Ignatius Loyola a Church Reformer? How to Look at Early
Modern Catholicism’, CHR, 77 (1991): pp. 177–193.
Introduction 13
of the image of Morone as a reformer will be a recurring question and will

necessarily require a glance at his post-Trent activity.
Tracing the development of Morone’s career will also compel us to
confront the image of Morone as the suspected heretic, the adherent of
valdesianesimo and, in later life, for some, the disillusioned ‘nicodemite’.
These will be the concerns particularly of Chapters 3 and 4 of the book.
Here, the evaluation of Morone’s life and career in the 1540s and early
1550s raises a methodological problem in terms of the handling of sources.
We are compelled to look at these years through the lens of the evidence
given during the course of later, sometimes much later processi, especially
that undertaken against the cardinal. In Morone’s case, this means the
interpretation of testimonies given perhaps 15 years after the events with
which they are concerned. This problem for modern scholars was necessarily
a difficulty for the agents of the Inquisition as well. A practical investigative
hurdle then, and source problem now, does it also suggest issues of equity in
connection with the whole process?
A challenge to face up to with any study of the Milanese cardinal is his
illusiveness. Paul III reputedly commented that Morone was like St Patrick’s
Well (il pozzo di San Patritio), apparently suggesting a profoundly reserved
and taciturn character, according to Carnesecchi. For the farnese pope
then, Morone’s nature hinted at a murky depth. This is perhaps confirmed
by the mercurial frown on one of the few contemporaneous likenesses
of the cardinal, preserved on a medallion in the collection of the Vienna
Kunsthistorisches, and reproduced in this book.46 An interesting summary of
the differing contemporary perceptions of the cardinal comes in an account
of the 1565 papal conclave. The anonymous source sets out Morone’s high
profile and prestige, mentioning the esteem with which he is held because of
his handling of the council. The source goes on to describe Morone’s grave
46
‘… “ il pozzo di San Patritio” … era stato battezzato per tale da papa Paolo terzo …
volendo – credo – inferire che il cardinale fusse huomo … cupo et coperto et da non essere
facilmente penetrato quid sentiat aut velit’ [‘… “the well of St Patrick” … he was baptized
such by Pope Paul III … wishing – I believe – to infer that the cardinal was a man … deep
(taciturn?) and closed and not being easily penetrated that which he felt or wished’]. PC II/II,
pp. 763–764 and cited by Firpo, Inquisizione romana, p. 14. Still waters run deep – perhaps.
Carnesecchi, disillusioned with the lack of attention he was getting from Morone at the time,
actually recounted the epithet for Giulia Gonzaga with the aim of pointing to the surprising
shallowness of the murky water. On likenesses of the cardinal see R. Pancheri’s comments
in Pancheri and Primerano, L’uomo del concilio, pp. 158–60 and his ‘Scipione Pulzone,
Bartolomeo Cancellieri e alter novità sull’ iconografia del cardinal Giovanni Morone’, in
Massimo Firpo and Ottavia Niccoli (eds), Il cardinal Giovanni Morone e l’ultima fase del
concilio di Trento (Bologna, 2010), pp. 257–279. There is a deep and architecturally complex
well in the former papal city of Orvieto, started by Clement VII and completed during the
pontificate of Paul III, which came to be known as il pozzo di San Patritio, although when it
attracted its appellation is less clear.
presence, most honest habits and welcoming, gentle manner, attracting those
with whom he has contact. However, the author adds that Morone’s depth
of mind is such that some suspect similar designs as his father and goes on
to suggest a certain duplicity on Morone’s part, at least in the eyes of some.
The suggestion seems to be that if elected, Morone would behave rather
diversely to how he behaved under the rule of others.47
There appears to be some unanimity in the estimation of Morone
as reserved, difficult to penetrate: ‘cupo’ as both Carnesecchi and the
anonymous author of the account of the conclave put it.48 In this sense,
Morone can be compared with Pole, who also seems to have been something
of an enigma or at least a ‘slippery eel’, both to contemporaries and to
subsequent historians.49 Pole’s recent biographer has sought to recover the
whole Pole by unifying different aspects of the Pole persona or myth: the
life as lived and the life as written, the Italian Pole and the English one, the
prince and prophet.50 Since Morone’s career likewise appears in contrasting
keys, to what extent is this coincidence, and can recent approaches to Pole
be adapted to help shed light on Morone?
This book is a study of Morone in the light of recent scholarship,
scholarly trends and a re-reading of the sources. The intention is to give
greater play to the cardinal’s own voice than I believe has hitherto been
the case.51 Such analysis has to be more than a monochrome evaluation of
orthodoxy. The task is to recover the complexity of choices, relationships,
motivations and circumstantial forces of the historical reality. Confronted
by the human and religious experience of the spirituali, a question that urges
itself upon us, it seems to me, is this: what makes one man or woman stay
with the Church whilst another chooses exile? In seeking a partial answer to
this question in respect of one individual, Giovanni Morone, this work aims
to probe Morone’s ecclesiology and attachment to the santa chiesa romana,
as well as reconsidering, as others have done, his soteriology and spirituality
47
ASV Miscellanea II, 121, ff. 174–213 at 191v. Cited and quoted by Firpo,
Inquisizione romana, pp. 426–427 n. 94. A version of this source can be found in BL, Add.
ms. 8266, ff. 98r–135v.
48
The word seemingly has a range of meanings such as taciturn, closed, reserved,
gravely preoccupied or dark/deep.
49
See Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 1–3 and 356ff., and his recent ‘Cardinal Pole’s
Concept of Reformatio: The Reformatio Angliae and Bartolomé Carranza’, in John Edwards
and Ronald Truman (eds), Reforming Catholicism in the England of Mary Tudor: The
Achievement of Bartolomé Carranza (Aldershot, 2005), pp. 65–80, especially pp. 65–66 and
80, where Mayer repeats the ‘slippery eel’ appellation.
50
See Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 1–12 and ‘Cardinal Pole’s Concept of
Reformatio’, pp. 65–66.
51
Including Morone’s problematical Apologia voice – see Chapter 3.
Chapter 1
Early Life and Career, 1509–1540
Io ero nato tra christiani sotto l’ubedientia della sede apostolica et della santa
romana chiesa, madre et maestra di tutte le altre chiese …1
Giovanni Morone was born in Milan on 25 January 1509 to Amabilia

Fisigara (or Fisiraga) and Gerolamo Morone.2 Like other members of the
family before him, Gerolamo was in the service of the state and connected
to the ruling sforza family. In 1522, he became Gran Cancelliere to the last
sforza duke, Francesco II.3 The family were thus solidly connected to the
Milanese ruling classes and there were likewise links to the Church.4 During
these early decades of the Cinquecento, Milan, like much of northern Italy,
became the battleground between France and Hapsburg Spanish/imperial
interests. The fluctuating fortunes of the duchy reverberated into the lives
of Morone’s family and they spent time in exile between 1515 and 1521 at
Trent and possibly Modena, two places which would figure prominently
in Giovanni’s career.5
Gerolamo was heavily involved in the anti-Hapsburg plot of 1525,
which sought to turn the Marchese di Pescara against the emperor, Charles
V (1519–1558). Pescara played a double game, betraying Gerolamo at
the crucial moment. Imprisoned and threatened with execution, he was
1
‘I was born amongst Christians under the obedience of the Apostolic See and the
Holy Roman Church, mother and teacher of all the other churches …’ Apologia, PM, II/I,
p. 448.
2
Bernabei, Pastor (XI, p. 206) and Giuseppe Pistoni, ‘Il Cardinale Giovanni Morone,
cittadino di Modena’, ADSPPM, X, III (1968): pp. 29–49. The family tree (unreliable and
lacking dates) in Bernabei, Vita, p. 122, derived from Dandolo, implies he was one of three
boys and four girls. Morone’s nephew, responsible for the Ricordi Inediti published by
Dandolo, states that Morone’s father died leaving four young children, Tullio Dandolo (ed.),
Ricordi inediti di Gerolamo Morone: Gran Cancelliere di ultima Duca di Milano (Milan,
1855), pp. 292–293. Mention of Morone’s siblings naturally occurs in his correspondence
and his sister Anna, in particular, surfaces in the sources connected with his processo. At least
two nephews became bishops. See the likeness of Gerolamo with a short biographical note,
L’uomo del concilio, pp. 154–155.
3
Dandolo, Ricordi inediti, pp. 92–112.
4
Tadeo, Giovanni’s uncle, was a canon of the Cathedral – family tree, Bernabei, Vita,
p. 122. See also Scolpis, Morone, p. 2 n. 1.
5
See Dandolo, Ricordi inediti, pp. 69–84, Speranze, p. 73 n. 21, Bernabei, Vita, pp.
2–3 and Pistoni, ‘Morone, cittadino di Modena’, pp. 29–49.
forced to find a huge ransom to obtain his freedom.6 It was a blow to the
family’s fortunes, later compounded by Gerolamo’s death in December
1529.7 Perhaps the financial impact of these calamities led to Giovanni’s
choice of career. They certainly seem to have left him with a lingering
fixation with money matters.8
Unfortunately, we do not know much about Giovanni’s childhood and
education. In about 1524, he went to Padua to undertake studies, possibly
in law.9 The university had suffered in the wake of the political instability
that had engulfed northern Italy, enduring a disastrous closure between
1508 and 1517 because of the War of the League of Cambrai. However, by
the 1520s, it had reclaimed much of its reputation as one of the foremost
centres of learning in Europe. Humanist ideals were prevalent.10 Certainly,
law would have been a coherent choice, but Morone does not seem to have
been in Padua long enough to complete the doctorate and he cannot be
traced in the university records.11 He later pleaded before the Inquisition
that, ‘Io non ero theologo né canonista ma più tosto ignorante’.12 While he
may have been playing down his achievements in view of the circumstances
in which he found himself, we cannot now be sure what it was he studied
nor for how long he studied it.
What does seem likely is that Morone’s education at Padua was
interrupted and probably remained incomplete because of the crisis
that engulfed the family in 1525. In an attempt to obtain his father’s
6
Pastor, IX, pp. 290–292.
7
Dandolo, Ricordi inediti, pp. 293–294.
8
See Dandolo, Ricordi inediti, pp. 292–293 where Morone’s nephew states Gerolamo
died, ‘lasciando quattro figliuoli piccoli con molti debiti, e senza appoggio di poter ricorrere
all’Imperatore per ottenere ricompensa della servitù sua …’. See also Speranze, pp. 70–72
and the letters sent by Morone to Francesco II Sforza for financial help.
9
Speranze, p. 74 and especially n. 24, which cites the principal evidence that it was
law – a reference to a now lost letter from Morone to Pole to this effect.
10
See discussions on the importance of Padua and its legal faculty in Ann Jacobson
Schutte, Pier Paolo Vergerio: The Making of an Italian Reformer (Geneva, 1977), Francesco
Cesareo, Humanism and Catholic Reform: The Life and Works of Gregorio Cortese 1483–
1548 (New York, 1990), and Thomas F. Mayer, ‘Marco Mantova, a Bronze Age Conciliarist’,
Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, 14 (1984): pp. 385–408, and ‘Marco Mantua and the
Paduan Religious Crisis of the Early Sixteenth Century’, Cristianesimo nella storia, 7 (1986):
pp. 41–61, both reprinted as items VIII and IX respectively, with original page numbering,
in Thomas F. Mayer, Cardinal Pole in European Context. A Via Media in the Reformation
(Aldershot and Burlington, 2000).
11
See Schutte’s description of the usual course for legal studies at an Italian Renaissance
faculty, Vergerio, pp. 28–30. Morone’s name does not appear in E. Martellozzo Forin (ed.),
Acta graduum academicorum Gymnasii Patavini (Padua, 1969), though some of the volumes
for the relevant period are missing, see Speranze, p. 74 n. 24.
12
‘I was not a theologian, nor a lawyer, but rather ignorant.’ Apologia, PM, II, p. 448.
See also p. 464.
Early Life and Career, 1509–1540 17
release, Giovanni was engaged to make representations to Clement VII

(1523–1534) and thus made his first acquaintance with the papal court.13
The pope was later grateful to Gerolamo, by then in the service of the
emperor, for helping to end his confinement in Castel Sant’Angelo in
the wake of the terrible sack of Rome in 1527. Perhaps in consequence,
Clement nominated Giovanni briefly for the diocese of Tortona, and then
in 1529, to that of Modena, vacant since 1527.14 Pirro Gonzaga had
been nominated to fill the see, but the local ruler, Alfonso I D’Este of
Ferrara, sought the appointment of his own son, Ippolito II, already the
Archbishop of Milan. The policy of the estensi was to resist papal influence
and Gonzaga was never able to take up office. With the nomination of
Morone upon Gonzaga’s death, the estensi again saw their hopes dashed.
Indeed, it was reported that Clement explicitly sought to antagonize
them.15 Morone initially shared Gonzaga’s fate. Alfonso refused to back
down and Morone was forced to tarry, impecunious, at the papal court.
Finally, at the end of 1532, a breakthrough occurred, although the deal
cut was not advantageous. Whilst Morone now had a job, the terms of the
settlement meant his financial worries were far from over and his control
over appointments in the diocese curtailed.16 The reality of the situation
would require him to maintain good relations with the estensi.17
On 28 January 1533, Morone made his solemn entrance into Modena,
avoiding much of the pomp and ceremony that often accompanied such
an event. It was an encouraging sign for those hoping for an energetic,
reforming bishop who might provide a break with the rather poor record
of ecclesiastical leadership characteristic of the recent past at Modena. A
further indicator of his determination to take his responsibilities seriously
was his episcopal ordination at Bologna two weeks previously.18 The
13
See Dandolo, Ricordi inediti, p. 207.
14
Pastor, IX, p. 463, Speranze, p. 33. Carnesecchi testified to the Inquisition in 1566,
that Clement held Morone in great affection because of ‘le rare qualità et virtù suoe’, which
had caused him to appoint the 20-year-old Morone to Modena, see PC, II/I, 267.
15
Speranze, p. 33 n. 85.
16
Speranze, pp. 34 and 72.
17
Ercole II D’Este between 1534 and 1559. It adds a further frisson of interest to
the reputed period Morone spent as a hostage of the estensi, after one of his father’s other
misadventures, see Dandolo, Ricordi inediti, pp. 232–234 and Pistoni, ‘Morone, cittadino
di Modena’, pp. 30–31. Morone later successfully enlisted Rome’s assistance in alleviating
the financial burden connected with his tenure. See Morone to Farnese, 2 December 1539,
Franz Dittrich (ed.), Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morones vom deutschen Königschofe
1539–1540 (Paderborn, 1892), pp. 64ff., Morone to Cervini, 31 December 1539, pp. 75ff.,
Morone to Sforza, 21 March 1540, pp. 102–103, and Morone to Paul III (thanking him for
‘liberating’ his church), 8 April 1540, Hugo Laemmer (ed.), Monumenta Vaticana historiam
ecclesiasticam saeculi XVI illustrantia (Freiburg, 1861), pp. 252–253.
18
Bernabei, Vita, p. 6. It is not clear whether Morone was ordained a priest before his
episcopal consecration or whether he received Orders all at once as Bernabei suggests.
prevailing custom for those who intended to rule their dioceses from afar
was to avoid episcopal consecration. During the following years (1533–
1536), Morone gained his first experience of ecclesiastical governance and
sought to exercise it diligently. Soon after taking up office, in the March of
1533, he held a meeting with local clergy and strove to deal with various
abuses in relation to dress and the Office.19 He seems also to have initiated
a visitation of the diocese the following year.20
Early Contacts, 1524–1533
It is frustrating that we do not know more about Morone’s time at Padua.

The city was probably the starting point for a number of contacts that
would be important through the rest of Morone’s long career. Padua, and
in particular its university, played host to an intriguing group of influential
figures of the Renaissance, Reformation and early modern period.21
Gasparo Contarini and Gregorio Cortese studied at the university before
the troubled period of its temporary closure, and Pier Paolo Vergerio and
Peter Martyr Vermigli were two graduates who would later chose exile
from Italy. Morone and Vergerio’s paths crossed several times, culminating
in a vitriolic literary campaign directed by Vergerio from exile, targeting
Pole, Morone and others for being ‘nicodemist’. The list of Paduan alumni
from these decades includes future cardinals like Cristoforo Madruzzo and
Stanislaus Hosius, and future bishops like Vittore Soranzo and Tommaso
Sanfelice who both, like Morone, later encountered trouble with the
Inquisition.22 Otto Truchsess von Waldburg, another future cardinal with
links to the spirituali, and Gian Angelo de’ Medici, later Pope Pius IV
(1560–1565) were also Paduan ‘old boys’. Finally, Reginald Pole was
there at about the same time as Morone along with some of those closely
associated with him such as Alvise Priuli and Marcantonio Flaminio.
Some of these people would later become more clearly connected
with one another in circles such as the one that collected around Pole, or
19
On his early activity at Modena, see Speranze, pp. 74 and 97–190.
20
Speranze, pp. 100–101. Note Peyronel Rambaldi’s assertion of the likely influence
of Matteo Giberti.
21
On Padua as a magnet for important individuals, see McNair, Peter Martyr, p. 86,
Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience, pp. 24–26, and Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 48–52. See
also Massimo Firpo, ‘Riforma Protestante ed eresie nell’Italia del cinquecento’, in G. De
Rosa, T. Gregory and A. Vauchez (eds), Storia del Italia religiosa. L’età moderna (Rome
and Bari, 1994), especially pp. 53–64, where Firpo places Padua’s importance in the context
of the wider significance of Venice and its perceived role as a porta for reform thought, as
Ochino is supposed to have commented.
22
Soranzo and Sanfelice went on from Padua to work at the court of Clement VII, per
Carnesecchi, PC, II/I, pp. 262–265.
that centred on Valdés in Naples at the end of the 1530s. A key figure in
Padua in these years was Pietro Bembo (1470–1547), the noted humanist,
who formed the focus of the links between some of these individuals.23
Bembo may well have introduced Morone to Pole, although the two were
probably not close at this stage.24 Also noteworthy was the presence of
the humanist and conciliarist canonist Marco Mantua Benavides. He too
seems to have had links with a range of people including members of
the spirituali like Pole and important churchmen like Madruzzo and de’
Medici.25 Unfortunately, Morone’s links with these figures at Padua cannot
be reconstructed. He was young and only there briefly.26 Nevertheless, his
strong ties to some of them can be traced back to this period and it was one
of the starting points for the Inquisition when they came to sift through his
contacts for evidence.27
The anti-imperial plot of 1525 suggests two further relationships
probably activated at about this time. Gian Matteo Giberti, one of
Clement’s closest advisers, had also been heavily implicated in the plot
and his position at the papal court became increasingly difficult. He retired
to his diocese of Verona after the terrible events of 1527, seeking to be
a better shepherd for his flock. In so doing, he assumed a paradigmatic
position in the reform movement for many of his contemporaries, no less
than for later historians. Giberti (and his satellites) form another key link
connecting many of the spirituali.28 In addition, while the Marchese di
Pescara died of natural causes soon after the plot, his wife was none other
than Vittoria Colonna, later closely associated with Valdés, Ochino, Pole
and Morone himself. Morone’s relationship with the poetess seems to date
from a visit to Naples at this time, and he later recalled that she had given
him presents on his appointment to Modena.29
While waiting for a solution in the standoff between Clement and the
estensi, Morone’s circle of contacts was augmented in Rome and during his
23
Bembo was already a noted scholar, poet and patron. He attests to the warmth of his
association with Morone at Padua in a letter dating from the time of Morone’s elevation to
the Sacred College, cited in PM, II, p. 500 n. 157. See also Schutte, Vergerio, p. 35.
24
See Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience, p. 26, and Mayer, Prince and Prophet, p. 50,
especially n. 156.
25
See Mayer, Pole in Context, VIII, especially pp. 506–507 and IX, especially
pp. 56–61. It would be interesting to link Morone’s intellectual formation with such a figure
with his conciliarist ecclesiological outlook, coupled with an interest in justification by faith.
Unfortunately, we are in even murkier territory here.
26
Morone later recalled that, ‘Io alhora haveva da quattordieci a quindici anni …’,
PM, II, p. 523.
27
See PM, II, pp. 516–525.
28
See Adriano Prosperi, Tra evangelismo e controriforma: G. M. Giberti (1495–1543)
(Rome, 1969).
29
Speranze, pp. 79–80, PM, I, pp. 294 n. 97, 313 n. 145 and II, pp. 500–501.
visit to Naples. Pietro Carnesecchi testified that his friendship with Morone
dated from 1527 and Morone also met Paolo Sadoleto, the nephew of the
famous humanist scholar and Bishop of Carpentras, Giacomo Sadoleto.30
Morone may have had contact with others regarded later as heterodox or
suspect, such as Giulia Gonzaga, Pietrantonio Di Capua and Marcantonio
Villamarino.31 That he was well connected to humanist circles is clear
from his links with people like Bembo and Carnesecchi. Giberti may have
contributed to his attitude to episcopal office. In these years he also struck
up a relationship with Gerolamo Aleandro, another humanist prelate and
German expert at the curia, though they disagreed over religious policy
in 1539.32 The slightly older Aleandro perhaps represents an influence on
Morone’s thinking in a role that Contarini would later fill.
When questioned by the Inquisition in the 1550s, Morone played
down many of his past contacts. He spoke in a perfunctory way about his
relationship with Colonna, mentioning the unfortunate business with his
father as a factor in an unremarkable acquaintance with her. This contrasts
markedly with the apparent warmth of their surviving correspondence.33
Morone skated over his relationships at Padua and distanced himself from
any suggestion of student discussions of contentious religious issues.34
The reality of his links to people of interest in these early years seems
certainly to have been both more extensive than he admitted, as well as
being wider than can be reconstructed today. Unfortunately, outside of
the few documented connections, the sources tend only to hint at or allow
glimpses of possibilities.
Papal Diplomat at the Court of Ferdinand of Austria, 1536–1540
In the autumn of 1536, seemingly against his own wishes, Morone was
called upon to undertake diplomatic service for the new pope, Paul III
30
Giacomo Sadoleto to Morone, 22 November 1537, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte,
I, pp. 375–376.
31
Carnesecchi stated that Morone was one of his oldest ‘patroni’ and that their fathers
had also known one another, see PC, II/I, pp. 266–267, and also p. 389. He also testified that
Morone had met Giulia Gonzaga in Naples, whilst visiting his father, PC, II/I, p. 324.
32
See Morone to Aleandro, 16 May 1537, Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland,
Part 1, 1534–1559 (17 volumes, various authors, Rome, 1892–1981), 1/2, pp. 168–169.
On their falling out, see Gustave Constant (ed.), La Légation du Cardinal Morone près de
l’empereur et le Concile du Trente, avril–décembre 1563 (Paris, 1922), p. x n. 3, and a May
1539 memorandum by Morone in NB, 1/4, pp. 402–404, especially 404. See also Morone’s
dispatches from Vienna, NB, 1/4, pp. 127–133, 196–200 and 217–222.
33
See PM, II, pp. 501/502 and Speranze, pp. 79–80.
34
‘… non havemo mai ragionato delle cose della fede’. PM, II, p. 523, where he is
talking of his relationship with Soranzo.
(Alessandro Farnese, 1534–1549).35 He was to replace Vergerio as nuncio

at the court of the emperor’s brother, Ferdinand: ruler of Austria and the
hereditary Hapsburg lands in the east.36 This first stint north of the Alps
was the start of a long and distinguished diplomatic career, which would
see Morone become the foremost curial expert on German affairs.37 He
was dispatched as one of several diplomats charged with presenting to the
leading European rulers the pope’s plan for a general council.38 Paul III’s
letter notifying Ferdinand of the decision is dated 21 October 1536 and
Morone’s instructions 24 October.39 Upon his arrival in Vienna at the end
of November 1536, the new nuncio was formally presented to Ferdinand,
on 1 December, by Cardinal Bernhard von Cles, the Archbishop of Trent.40
Of all the periods of Morone’s life, these years are some of the best
documented on a day-to-day basis because of the dispatches he sent back
to Rome.41 While essentially business letters, they are nevertheless of
interest on a number of levels and catalogue in a detailed and immediate
way, the experiences at work on him during these years away from Italy
in proximity to the turmoil of the German Reformation. As such, they
are a valuable window upon the European situation of the late 1530s and
early 1540s and, through Morone’s eyes, chronicle the increasing religious
division in Germany. They chart the search for religious accord by means
of the Lutheran–Catholic colloquies (dialogue), the alternative struggle
towards the hoped-for general council, and the pressing and influential
issue of the Turkish threat. Such weighty matters share the dispatches
alongside an assortment of other items, some trivial and some not.
35
See Speranze, p. 78.
36
This first part of his diplomatic career falls into three ‘tours’: his first stint as nuncio
largely based in Vienna, but with a trip to Bohemia, October 1536 to September 1538; a
second stint as nuncio, including a trip to the Low Countries and the colloquies at Hagenau,
Worms and Regensburg (attached to Charles V), May 1539 to June 1541; and finally, the
mission to the Diet of Speyer for talks over the location of the council, January to June 1542.
Archduke of Austria since 1521, ruler of Bohemia and Hungary from 1526, Ferdinand was
elected King of the Romans in 1531. He eventually became emperor – 1558–1564.
37
Per Jedin, Trent, I, p. 334. On Vergerio’s fall from grace, see p. 333.
38
On the long struggle towards the council, see Jedin, Trent, I, pp. 288ff., and Olivier
de la Brosse, O.P., Joseph Lecler, S.J., Henri Holstein, S.J. and Charles Lefebvre, Latran V et
Trente, Histoire des conciles œcuméniques, Tome X, under the direction of Gervais Dumeige,
S.J. (Paris, 1975), pp. 165–217. Paul’s bull Ad Domini gregis curam convoking the council to
meet at Mantua in June 1537 was dated 3 June 1536.
39
NB, 1/2, p. 57.
40
NB, 1/2, p. 69. Morone’s first dispatch to Rome is dated 2 December 1536.
41
Much of this material has been published thanks to the work of Dittrich, Laemmer
and the editors of the Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland series.
The bulk of this material is in the expected formal diplomatic

style.42 Morone recounts his meetings with Ferdinand, Charles and their
representatives. He passes on news and rumour, as well as requests for
assistance with legal and financial problems. He recommends or gives
warnings about people encountered, particularly if they are on their way
to Rome. Only 27 when he was appointed, Morone grew in confidence
to become more than just a ‘shrewd observer and acute reporter’. He
represented the position of the Apostolic See in the fullest sense, and
gradually began to provide his interpretation of events and his opinion on
the best way to proceed in a given situation.43
One of the noticeable features of the dispatches is that Morone was a
rather reluctant nuncio. While often professing loyalty to the Apostolic
See and to the farnese and expressing his desire to serve them in whatever
way they saw fit, it was, nevertheless, not long after his arrival in Vienna
that he began to request relief from the job and asked to be replaced the
following summer.44 In fact, the number of times he raised the issue is
truly staggering and becomes faintly comical. Throughout his first tour,
he adduced various different reasons necessitating his return to Italy: the
death of an older brother and the disarray of the family’s affairs,45 the need
to attend to his diocese,46 or (ingeniously) the desire to present a fuller,
face-to-face account of his experiences.47 Finally, in August 1538, Morone
did receive permission to depart, doing so the next month.48
Ordered back to Vienna the following May, Morone was soon restless
again, particularly in view of Ferdinand’s plans to go to Prague and thence
to the Low Countries to meet up with his brother Charles.49 In several
letters from this period Morone proffered the view that someone else
should come up from Rome to attend the proposed colloquies, someone
better qualified and more senior.50 In May 1540, he petitioned that he be
42
Amidst the expected obsequiousness, Morone’s modesty, noted both by his
contemporaries and by Jedin, is also evident, see Trent, I, pp. 333–334.
43
Per Jedin, Trent, I, p. 334.
44
Morone to Rome, 5 March 1537, NB, 1/2, p. 122.
45
See letters dated 30 October 1537, 15 December 1537, 23 January 1538 and
4 February 1538, NB, 1/2, pp. 233, 243, 247 and 251 respectively.
46
See letter dated 6 March 1538, NB, 1/2, p. 256, also, letters dated 12, 15, 23 March
and 2 April 1538, NB, 1/2, pp. 260, 262, 266–268.
47
NB, 1/2, pp. 321–322.
48
NB, 1/2, pp. 334 and 336.
49
Dittrich, NBGM, p. 67, letter dated 13 December 1539.
50
See for example Morone to Cardinal Guido Ascanio Sforza, Ghent, 17 April 1540,
Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 117–118, where he suggested someone like Contarini. Sforza was one
of Paul III’s grandsons. The other papal ‘nephew’, also a grandson, Cardinal Alessandro
Farnese, and by then the regular recipient of Morone’s dispatches, was on legation to the
emperor with Cardinal Cervini.
permitted to depart, because he was in receipt of disturbing reports about

the situation at Modena.51 These requests continued as Morone followed
the colloquies from Hagenau to Worms and ultimately to Regensburg.52
Upon hearing that he was to proceed to the colloquy at Worms, he openly
declared his reluctance because his instructions had come too late and he
would not get there in time. He seems positively petulant and resentful.53
What were the causes of Morone’s acute homesickness? His worries
about his diocese were almost certainly genuine and not merely tactical.
He believed he should be resident especially when alarming reports began
to arrive from his vicar.54 He was certainly uncomfortable being away from
Italy in an alien environment, and at one point decried the bestial customs
of Germany in connection with an outbreak of plague.55 Morone was also
an inveterate moaner about the weather. After his journey from Worms
to Augsburg in January 1541, he memorably commented that the route
was known more to wind and snow than to man.56 Upon taking up his
appointment, he had been quick to point out the probable need to shadow
Ferdinand to be effective and had sought the necessary financial backing
to do so.57 However, he clearly found the travel arduous. Unspecified fears
about the Lutherans also crop up in his reports.58 His letter of 25 July 1540
to Marcello Cervini is a good example of one of his grumbling dispatches,
encompassing as it does his favourite triumvirate of bugbears: the weather
(in this case the heat), the plague and the Lutherans.59
The difficulties and constraints within which he was working must
also have influenced his attitude. Communication with distant Rome via
51
Morone to Sforza, 8 May 1540, Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 128–130, especially p. 129
and Morone’s famous remarks about what is being discussed openly in Modena.
52
See for example letters of 27 July, 1 and 24 August 1540 to Farnese from Hagenau,
Dinkelsbühl and Vienna respectively, Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 176–179, 180–181 and 187–189.
53
Morone to Farnese, Vienna, 2 November 1540, Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 226–230.
54
See Morone to Farnese, 6 March 1538, NB, 1/2, p. 256 where he suggests someone
else should be appointed to Modena, and Morone to Sforza, 21 March and 8 May 1540,
Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 102–103 and 128–130. In the 21 March letter, Morone commented on
how his absence from Modena gnawed at his soul. The letter marks the start of something
of a low period for Morone and he mentions how he no longer feels up to the job. He is
pessimistic and appears exhausted.
55
Morone to Farnese, 13 October 1540, Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 34–36, at p. 36.
56
Morone to Farnese, 27 January 1541, Franz Dittrich (ed.), ‘Die Nuntiaturberichte
G. Morone’s vom Reichstage zu Regensburg 1541’, Historisches Jahrbuch der Görres
Gesellschaft, IV (1883): pp. 395–472 and 618–673, at 428–430. See also Morone to Sforza,
Prague, 25 January 1540, in which Morone laments about the journey from Vienna through
intolerable wind and snow, Dittrich, NBGM, p. 89.
57
Dispatch, 1 January 1537, NB, 1/2, pp. 97ff.
58
See for example Morone to Farnese, 19 and 27 November 1540, Dittrich, NBGM,
pp. 232–236, in connection with his journey to Worms.
59
NB, 1/5, pp. 461–462.
couriers was not easy and it could take as long as a month for letters
to arrive at their destination.60 Morone sometimes lamented the fact that
he had not received news or updated instructions, once resulting in the
farcical situation where he positively avoided going to court because he
did not want to be tackled over a particular issue.61 In a July 1540 letter
to Cervini, Morone thanked him for his recent communications and
commented caustically that otherwise he would know nothing of what
was going on and that it rather seemed as though he had been forgotten.62
There was also the discomfort of presenting unpopular policy to the
Hapsburg monarchs and German princes. With considerable aplomb,
Morone was able to explain the reasoning for the appointment of the
very young Cardinal Farnese, as legate to the peace talks in the Low
Countries.63 However, Morone’s unease is clearer with decisions taken in
respect of the Hungarian crisis of 1540 and the Ascanio Colonna affair
that encroached upon the negotiations at Regensburg in 1541. At times
Morone was concerned when he felt he had lost the confidence of the
Hapsburgs, or Rome, or when he encountered difficulties with colleagues.
Occasionally, he received the reassurance he craved, though sometimes
only after anxious months of waiting.64
Whilst suspicious of some members of the court and doubtful at times
of Ferdinand’s resolve, Morone nevertheless struck up a good relationship
with the king. In January 1537, he wrote of his ‘bon animo’, although it
did not prevent him later describing in frank detail Ferdinand’s character
and the composition of his court.65 With rare exceptions, he appears to
have enjoyed good access to Ferdinand and felt comfortable enough to
robustly present his views. In the dispatches, Morone can be found at
table with him, strolling in gardens, baptizing royal infants and having his
conferences interrupted by the queen. Ordinary enough occurrences indeed,
but indicative of the ease with which Morone slotted into the court. How
crucial this good relationship with Ferdinand would later prove to be.
60
See for example Morone to Farnese, Vienna, 24 August 1540, Dittrich, NBGM,
pp. 185–187.
61
See Morone’s letter to Farnese from Wiener-Neustadt, 6 October 1540, in which he
wonders whether his own letters are getting through and complains that he cannot present
the papal line on the forthcoming colloquies if he has not received instructions.
62
NB, 1/5, pp. 461–462
63
See Morone to Paul III, 21 March 1540, Dittrich, NBGM, p. 104, and Cardinal
Sforza’s reply praising Morone’s handling of the delicate matter, dated 24 April, NB, 1/5,
pp. 220–222.
64
See for example Farnese to Morone, 24 July 1540, Laemmer, pp. 292–297,
communicating satisfaction with Morone’s work. On the difficulty of satisfying distant
Rome whilst in the midst of changing circumstances, see Morone to Farnese, 12 July 1540,
Laemmer, pp. 290–292.
65
Dispatches, 1 January and 6 March 1537, NB, 1/2, pp. 97ff. and 123ff. respectively.
Morone appears generally to have worked well with colleagues like

Cles, Frederic Nausea (another ‘old Paduan’), Johann Fabri (Faber),
Johann Eck and others amongst the Catholic controversialists.66 While
pessimistic about the calibre of many of the Catholic prelates and
theologians, he expressed regard for others and some of these men may
well have influenced his thinking on the religious situation.67 He developed
an excellent relationship with Cristoforo Madruzzo, Archbishop of Trent
after Cles’ death in 1539. Morone greatly valued Madruzzo’s work during
the colloquies and had no hesitation about singing his praises.68 He also
seems to have worked reasonably well in tandem with Cervini when the
latter was on legation to the emperor. He clearly held Cervini in high
regard and urged his appointment as legate for the colloquies if someone
like Contarini could not come up from Rome. They appear to have had
similar outlooks on the religious and political situation in the empire and
Morone often wrote to him in candid terms.69
Backing the Council, 1536–1540
Morone’s brief in 1536 had been to present papal policy in respect of

a future general council. The young legate was quickly into his stride,
reporting to Rome his initial audiences and his presentation of the council
as the best way forward once peace had been established between France
and the empire.70 Morone very soon showed himself a strong advocate of
the conciliar solution and began to counsel Rome to expedite it, writing
both to the pope and to advisors like Aleandro.71 He noted the scepticism
with which papal declarations of intent were being greeted, and urged
66
A notable exception was his relationship with Tommaso Campeggio at Worms.
67
On Eck, see Morone to Farnese, Worms, 18 January 1541, Laemmer, pp. 336–338.
Confusingly both Faber and Nausea were appointed to the see of Vienna, the latter as
coadjutor. Interestingly, Faber had known Erasmus.
68
See for example Morone to Farnese, Hagenau, 3 June 1540, Dittrich, NBGM,
pp. 135–137, and 19 June 1540, Laemmer, pp. 279–281. On the enduring links between
Morone and Madruzzo and their parallel career paths, see Alessandro Paris, ‘“Trento è
todesco ed ha la lingua sciolta”. Cristoforo Madruzzo e Giovanni Morone tra Impero e
Inquisizione’, in Massimo Firpo and Ottavia Niccoli (eds), Il cardinal Giovanni Morone
(Bologna, 2010), pp. 159–186.
69
See for example, Morone to Cervini, Hagenau, 10 July 1540, Laemmer, pp. 288–290.
70
See letter of 2 December 1536, NB, 1/2, pp. 69ff.
71
See letters of 17 and 26 December 1536 to Paul III, NB, 1/2, pp. 79ff. and 92ff.
respectively, and the letters to Aleandro, 17 December 1536 and 16 March 1537, NB, 1/2,
pp. 81ff. and 134ff. respectively.
Paul to go ahead with the council despite the difficulties, in order to dispel
such scepticism.72
Morone’s shrewd grasp of the importance of the propaganda dimension
is ably demonstrated by his dispatch of 5 May 1537. He advised that if
there were to be a delay in the opening of the assembly, then Rome should
make it plain that the pope was not blameworthy.73 He made a similar
point later in the year. Relaying the disillusion of the Hapsburgs and
the poor state of things in Germany, he insisted that the situation would
only worsen without a council, and that delay would cause displeasure
amongst the interested parties – even those favourable to the Church.74
Indeed, as the year wore on, Morone warned that the strength of feeling
north of the Alps was such that there was a real danger of some sort
of national assembly, which might exclude consideration of the Apostolic
See’s position. In January 1538, he even urged the pope to make his way
to Bologna to be close to the proposed location, thus manifesting his desire
for it.75 Make a start at least he urged Cardinal Farnese, in spite of the
difficulties, even if momentous business were delayed once the assembly
had been opened.76
Morone’s support for the council continued into his second term.77 The
first half of 1540 was taken up by his second trip to Prague, with the ensuing
trip to the Low Countries hot on its heels. This was followed by the attempts
to find a solution to the religious situation in the empire by means of direct
negotiations (the via of the colloquies), a strategy Morone mistrusted. He
periodically reiterated his warnings that something, preferably the opening
of the council, must be done to meet the religious crisis north of the Alps or
else the magnitude of the problem would only increase.78
Why did Morone so forcefully back calls for a council? The answer
lay in what he had seen of the religious situation with his own eyes and
heard from reliable witnesses. As early as December 1536, he was writing
of how bad things were in the light of what he had noticed on his way
72
Morone to Paul III, 26 December 1536, NB, 1/2, pp. 92ff.
73
NB, 1/2, pp. 159ff.
74
See letters of 22 and 30 October 1537, NB, 1/2, pp. 228ff. and 233ff. respectively.
There were a succession of postponements and changes of venue for the council until, in May
1539, the pope indefinitely suspended the assembly and the colloquies took centre stage, see
Jedin, Trent, I, pp. 313–354.
75
Dispatch, 23 January 1538, NB, 1/2, pp. 247ff.
76
Letter to Farnese, 11 February 1538, NB, 1/2, pp. 252ff. Morone pointed out that
attendance was likely to be gradual, as indeed eventually proved to be the case.
77
See his draft advice, dated Rome, 14 May 1539, NB, 1/4, pp. 404–407. Morone
left Rome at the end of May and arrived in Vienna towards the end of June, see NB, 1/4,
pp. 85–87 and his first dispatch, 2 July 1539, pp. 115–117.
78
For example in his letter to Farnese of 8 July 1540, written as the inconclusive
Hagenau conference was ending, Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 168–170.
up to Vienna.79 By July 1540, he had considerably more experience to

inform his views. He had been nuncio for four years, bar the short spell
back in Italy, and had travelled through a large portion of the empire. Just
as important were his contacts with other diplomats, Catholic princes,
prelates and theologians. He noted the struggles of the religious orders
– more monasteries than friars – and the acute pastoral crisis engulfing
many regions: the lack of pastors in many places and the dismal quality
of those in others.80
In a letter of 6 October 1540 endorsing a certain prelate, he admitted
that whilst this particular man was reputed to be sound, it had become
difficult to tell.81 Earlier that year he passed on and somewhat endorsed
Ferdinand’s low opinion of many of the bishops in his lands.82 While
relaying with alacrity the king’s witticisms in this regard, Morone added
that he thought the German bishops were as fearful of the Catholic secular
rulers as of the Lutherans and accused them of self-interest at the expense of
the dignity of the Apostolic See.83 They wanted an easy life.84 Morone was
also alert to the fact that the good intentions and efforts of conscientious
bishops could be frustrated by their own clergy. He wrote on 26 June
1540 of the difficulties of the Bishop of Bremen, commenting that he
(Bremen) was surrounded by Lutherans and fighting the machinations of
his dubious clergy ‘… contaminato dalle heresie moderne et disobediente
et rebelle …’, who sought support over his head from the Roman curia.85
Doubtless, some of these problems had a familiar ring in the light of his
own diocesan experience.
Morone’s introduction to the Bohemian situation provided him with a
clear projection of how things might look in Germany in a few generations:
a deeply entrenched schism. He had harboured hopes of negotiating with
the ‘utraquists’, though was soon disabused of this.86 Inevitably also,
Morone came into direct contact with suspect people and literature and
during the round of colloquies met with some of the Lutheran secular and
religious leaders. While there is no evidence he ever met Luther, he certainly
spoke with Melancthon and Bucer amongst others. Morone also showed
79
Dispatch, 17 December 1536, NB, 1/2, pp. 79ff. See also that of 28 January 1537,
p. 110.
80
See Morone to Farnese, 23 March 1538. On religious, see the dispatches of 16 April
1537 and 2 April 1538, NB, 1/2, pp. 145ff. and 267ff. respectively.
81
Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 208–210
82
Morone to Farnese, 15 June 1540, Laemmer, pp. 275–279.
83
See also Morone to Farnese, 12 October 1540, Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 214–215, on
how some German ecclesiastics would rather be popes in their own domains.
84
Laemmer, p. 276.
85
‘… contaminated by the modern heresies and both disobedient and rebellious’.
Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 157–160.
86
See the dispatches of 19 April 1537 and 29 June 1537, NB, 1/2, pp. 184ff.
an astute awareness of the role played by heretical literature in the spread of

dissent and the channels through which this literature was disseminated.87
The tone of Morone’s correspondence was largely one of suspicion
towards the enemies or detractors of the Apostolic See, and especially
towards all things Lutheran – the ‘modern heresy’ as he called it in his
June 1540 letter. Yet, he showed himself capable of nuance. He maintained
a pragmatic approach, exemplified by his reaction when rumour reached
him in Prague in August 1537 of the death of Luther. Weighing it up,
he argued that it would not be such a good thing if true because Luther
might become a figure of reverence as had Hus. He also commented that
while Luther were alive he could still recant.88 Once the colloquies were
underway, Morone was pleasantly surprised when positive breakthroughs
occurred and never entirely shut his eyes to the possibility of accord.89 In
an advice written back in Italy between tours, he urged that the Catholic
controversialists be reined in from provoking the Lutherans.90 Interestingly,
at this early point in his career, Morone backed calls for concession of the
chalice to the laity and discussion of the issue of clerical marriage at the
council.91 There was flexibility and moderation in his approach. Similarly,
in 1538, he attacked blinkered extremism in a letter to Cardinal Sadoleto,
lamenting how some so-called defenders of Catholicism seemed to think
that the Catholic religion consisted entirely of hatred for the Lutherans.92
Upon embarking on his second tour (1539), he wrote to Farnese to
inform him that the situation in Germany had continued to worsen and
that the Hapsburgs were unable or appeared disinclined to do anything
about it.93 Morone became increasingly suspicious of the motives and
resolve of the Hapsburgs to solve the problems in a manner acceptable to
the Apostolic See. Over the winter of 1539/1540, he informed Cervini of
how fearful the Lutherans were of the emperor’s anticipated arrival from
Spain and how they were trying to establish a league against him. Morone
felt that the whole of Germany might be lost. He wrote of the need for
holding firm the leading Catholic princes. He knew the difficulties that
87
Dispatch, 29 June 1537, NB, 1/2, pp. 184ff.
88
Dispatch, 25 August 1537, NB, 1/2, pp. 202ff.
89
See for example, Morone to Farnese, Worms, 12 January 1541, Laemmer, pp. 324–
328, where he expresses the hope that the minds of their adversaries will be opened to the truth.
90
Dated, Rome, 14 May 1539, NB, 1/4, pp. 404–407.
91
NB, 1/4, p. 406.
92
Morone to Sadoleto, Prague, 25 March 1538, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte,
I, pp. 378–379 at 378. The context was an exchange of correspondence between Morone,
Sadoleto and Sadoleto’s nephew, occasioned by criticism of a letter written by Sadoleto to
Melancthon, see pp. 375–380.
93
Morone to Farnese, 24 October 1539, NBGM, pp. 36–40.
Ferdinand faced from the Turkish threat and was worried he would try to
forge a deal with the Lutherans, in order to obtain their military support.
What increasingly concerned Morone was the thought of some local
solution to the German situation excluding or unfavourable to the
Apostolic See.94 This informed his attitude towards the colloquies and his
apparent change in attitude towards the establishing of a Catholic league.95
Morone felt that it was important that the Catholics presented a strong,
united front, with the prospect of direct negotiations at the planned diet
and the associated colloquies. Certain of the Catholic princes were very
keen on the formation of a league and any support that the pope gave
to it, politically or financially, would bind them to the pope’s side in the
negotiations.
Council vs Colloquy, April 1540
In April 1540, Morone wrote a memorial summarizing his opinions on the

political and religious situation in the empire.96 The context was the meeting
of the Hapsburg brothers in the Low Countries, the fragile peace between
Charles and France, and the emerging plans to tackle the religious disunity
by means of the colloquies. From what Morone says, it appears that Cervini
had urged him into taking this step, possibly as part of a concerted effort by
the diplomats to present to Rome the reality of the situation.97
Hinting that it was important for Rome to react quickly to political
developments, Morone also drew attention to the need for peace as
a prerequisite for the holding of the council. He pointed out that the
Lutherans were not a homogeneous group but comprised of three
categories: the princes, the doctors and the ordinary people, each having
diverse motives for following wayward teaching and differing levels of
culpability. Some of the princes were out for political or fiscal gain and
likewise some of the doctors sought worldly acclaim. The latter were often
as not the true villains and instigators of defection from the Church and
94
See for example, Morone to Cervini, 31 December 1539, in which he warns of the
threat of a national council and the loss of the whole of Germany, Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 75ff.
95
Compare Morone to Farnese, 27 April 1538, NB, 1/2, pp. 282ff., and 17 November
1539, Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 50ff. See also Morone’s letters of 11 and 13 March, and
7 July 1540, Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 94–97 and 167–168.
96
Morone to Cardinal Sforza, Ghent, 8 April 1540, Laemmer, pp. 253–260. There
was also a short letter drawing the pope’s attention to it from the same day, Laemmer,
pp. 252–253.
97
See the letter of Cervini or Giovanni Poggio possibly, to Sforza, wrongly attributed
to Morone, which covers much of the same ground, Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 105–108.
had misled ordinary people into thinking that they were doing the right
thing.98
Morone examined the relative merits of finding a solution to the
religious crisis through war (the via belli) or by negotiation. With respect
to the latter, there were also two options: colloquy or general council.99
He argued against warfare as an appropriate or practical way of achieving
the aims of the Catholic parties. Armed conflict was full of danger and
difficulty. It tended to get rid of the men, but not the heresy. In this regard,
he pointed to the example of the Bohemian schism. In respect of private
negotiations, Morone felt the Catholic side was at a disadvantage over the
use of scripture as the basis for discussions, and he doubted the calibre of
the Catholic representatives.100
While recognizing the grave practical and political obstacles in the
way of the council, Morone argued that the pope was sometimes called
upon to govern in ways that did not always match human wisdom and
that to allow things to run on would be too damaging.101 He argued that
a council would bring many of the ordinary people back because of its
persuasive authority and guidance. The heretical princes would be placed
in a dilemma, seeing the Catholic side strengthened and their own support
weakened, and the doctors could be dealt with through persuasion or
punishment. Morone supported the dual strategy of stiffening Catholic
resolve through the league and opening the council. However, he suggested
that Paul III should reissue the convocation and invite the Lutherans with
every possible kindness, affection and encouragement.102
Morone’s convictions seem largely derived from practical motives,
rather than from any strong theoretical, theological basis. There is
nothing to suggest adherence to conciliarism in terms of council over
pope. Indeed, his guiding concern throughout his mission appears to
have been the safeguarding of the rights of the Apostolic See, and the
concomitant avoidance of potentially threatening solutions. That being
said, he introduces the concept of reform towards the end of his argument,
asserting the need for this regardless of the other problems afflicting the
Church. Morone argued that there had not been a true council for some
time, contrary to the ancient custom of the Church (consuetudine antica),
98
99
Laemmer, p. 256. The structure of this analysis is the same as the letter in Dittrich,
NBGM, pp. 105–108. The views of the Bishop of Vienna may also have influenced
Morone’s thinking.
100
Laemmer, p. 256.
101
He had previously remarked on the pope’s unique position by virtue of his office,
clearly hoping to see results in terms of leadership. See Morone to Farnese, 24 August 1540,
102
and in disregard of its needs.103 Morone clearly had a positive attitude to

the role of councils in the governance of the Church, which was not at odds
with his support for the papacy. He indicated that the pope would be well
advised to attend to the problems closer to Rome, or else his credibility
before a council would be compromised.104
In October 1540, Morone wrote to an unknown correspondent at
Rome complaining about the colloquies and predicting a bad end.105
He mentioned that reform at Rome had been inadequate, lamented that
the position of representatives like him was often undermined, that the
Lutherans were tenacious, that the Catholic doctors limped theologically
by comparison and that the Hapsburgs had temporal concerns in the
forefront of their minds. He asserted that the chosen route was ‘… contra
la consuetudine della chiesa laudabile et osservata in ogni tempo in ogni
controversia della religione’.106 Words that are his sharpest presentation
of something approaching an ecclesiology for controversy: an ecclesiology
envisaging an important role for a general council in healing wounds,
rooting out heresy and reforming abuses.
Hagenau and Worms, June to December 1540
After his lengthy April letter, Morone spent a tense spring and summer
attending the inconclusive colloquy at Hagenau.107 As the parties embarked
on the colloquy route, Morone was anxious to advise both Rome and
Ferdinand about the way things should be done and to seek reassurances
from the latter about his intentions and resolve to control the process. In
particular, Morone advised Rome to send a more senior representative.
In the correspondence, sometimes his mood of caution lightens, but
usually he shares misgivings and warns of the ramifications. After the
summer at Hagenau, he spent a period at Vienna before reluctantly
103
Laemmer, p. 258.
104
‘… avanti S.S. venghi al Concilio, con effetto facesse la lungamente pratticata
riformatione, accio che iudicium inciperet a Domo Dei, et non si potesse dire un Concilio
medice cura te ipsum …’, Laemmer, p. 260. This issue of reform from the centre had arisen in
Morone’s letter to Farnese, 6 March 1538, NB, 1/2, pp. 256ff. He had warned that the news
that reform articles had been printed, but not acted upon, had been the target of surprise and
mockery in Vienna.
105
Letter dated 28 October 1540, Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 223–224, possibly to Aleandro
according to Dittrich.
106
‘… against the custom of the Church, praiseworthy and observed in every age in
every religious controversy’. Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 223–224.
107
Jedin, Trent, I, p. 374. The colloquy took place in mid-June 1540. Morone travelled
to Hagenau from Ghent via Trier and arrived at the end of May. He remained there until the
end of July.
going to Worms. With the approach of the Worms colloquy, he tendered

more advice to Farnese in one of his most perspicacious letters. He made
suggestions as to who should represent the Catholics in the forthcoming
meetings, recommending John Widmanstetter because of his knowledge of
languages, a skill the Lutherans sometimes thought they held a monopoly
over, according to Morone. He also advised that Rome should enlist the
services of a tame printer regardless of the cost. Their opponents were
bound to have such services available and there was too much at stake.
Once again, Morone showed himself to be sensitive to the different fronts
on which Rome must fight if the papacy was to prevail in the battle for
hearts and minds.108
The combination of his role as the focus for many of the Catholic parties
at both Hagenau and Worms, his known opposition to the colloquies,
and the personality clash he had with his colleague, Tommaso Campeggio,
who undermined his position with the emperor, caused Morone to feel
isolated, insecure and under severe stress.109 He may also have had to do
without the assistance and companionship of several of his familiars at this
difficult time.110 His letters betray his mood. He wrote to Cervini on 12
December 1540 of his suspicions of the imperial party and their evident
concerns about him.111 He was wary of Nicola de Perrenet Granvelle, the
emperor’s chief advisor and alarmed at the presence of Vergerio who had
turned up for no apparent reason. Morone wanted out and asked Cervini
to intercede for him. He no longer had the stomach for these negotiations
about which he had serious misgivings. He wrote to Aleandro on 27
December, reiterating his belief that someone with more clout should be
sent to represent the pope.112 The same day, he wrote to Farnese in the
strongest terms yet about the problems afflicting his diocese, famously
describing Modena as worse than Prague for dubious religious discussions
in the shops.113 On 10 January 1541, he wrote to Cervini again, mentioning
how he was out of favour at court, apparently because of what Campeggio
had said about him. He felt he no longer had the credibility to do an
108
Morone to Farnese, 10 September 1540, Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 205–206.
109
Campeggio, Bishop of Feltre, was the papal legate for the Worms colloquy. Morone
had consistently argued for the sending of a ‘big-hitter’ – Contarini or Cervini. See Morone
to Farnese, 27 November 1540, Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 233–236, on his disappointment that
Campeggio’s briefs do not appear to give him (Morone) any status at the negotiations.
110
See Morone to Giovanni Domenico Sigibaldi, his vicar in Modena, 1 November
1540, Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 224–226. He tersely commented that he hoped he would not be
without divine assistance.
111
112
Dittrich, NBGM, p. 238.
113
NB, 1/6, pp. 91–93.
effective job and had lost the appetite to oppose the wishes of the imperial
party. It was a low point in his correspondence.114
During January and February of 1541, Morone defended himself
to Rome against the criticisms of his conduct, whilst at the same time
continuing to relay information about the unfolding situation.115 Although
his suspicions of the imperial party persisted, his mood did brighten,
particularly after the progress made in the direct talks on the issue of
original sin.116 He seemed relieved to get away from Worms, when the talks
were suspended for the show to move to Regensburg where the diet was to
be held. On the other hand, he was disappointed to be kept on as the link
to the emperor while others departed.117 Although he eventually received
affirmation that he still had Rome’s confidence, Morone looked forward to
the arrival of Cardinal Contarini, whom the pope had eventually decided
to send as his representative for the planned resumption of negotiations at
Regensburg.118
A Fledgling Career
It is not possible to be as certain about Morone’s early life and education

as we would wish. We know that he had to assume responsibility for the
affairs of the family at an early age, and that he was at Padua, albeit briefly,
in the 1520s, before embarking on his ecclesiastical career. Despite his
later reticence before the Inquisition, and the uncertainty over the extent
of his connections, Morone was briefly exposed to the vibrant atmosphere
of the university and city of Padua, and began to make notable contacts.
Later, at Rome and Naples, he augmented these. He was moving amongst
people who were humanist in outlook and concerned with reform of the
Church and good pastoral government. Some of them would later come
114
NB, 1/6, pp. 120–122.
115
In particular, see Morone to Farnese, 7 February 1541, which was in fact his first
report from Regensburg, Dittrich, HJ, pp. 430–434. See also, Morone to Farnese, 12 January
1541, Laemmer, pp. 324–328.
116
See Morone to Farnese, 18 January 1541, Laemmer, pp. 336–338. See also his
previous letter in which he admits that the process is diverting, Laemmer, pp. 324–328. The
colloquy officially opened at the end of November 1540. The actual religious discussions
only began in the January and, after the promising start of the accord over original sin, they
were suspended by the emperor to be continued during the forthcoming Diet of Regensburg,
see Jedin, Trent, I, pp. 376–377.
117
Morone to Farnese, 12 March 1541, V. Schultze (ed.), ‘Aktenstücke zur deutschen
Reformationsgeschichte’, Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, 3 (1879): pp. 609–641, at 611–
613.
118
Farnese to Morone, Rome, 3 March 1541, NB, 1/7, pp. 28–30. Morone to Farnese,
1 March 1541, Laemmer, pp. 364–366.
to be regarded as suspect in the eyes of their colleagues, because of the

doctrinal positions they appeared to support, the company they chose to
keep and their attitude to the Church’s enemies.
The evidence of his early career suggests a diligent, reforming bishop,
perhaps influenced by Giberti. In 1536, his undoubted talents were pressed
into the service of papal diplomacy, ironically highlighting one of the key
problems in the Church at the time – ineffectual pastoral leadership through
non-residence. While Morone may well have been an effective diplomat,
he was also a rather reluctant one. Whether this should be attributed to
moroseness, fragility of temperament, or matters of principle or practical
exigency is difficult to assess fully. In Morone’s case, home was clearly
where the heart wanted to be. Certainly, pressing problems influenced his
seeking to return to Italy, particularly the difficulties beginning to surface
in his see. He may have thought it the best argument he possessed, but it
clearly amounted to more than a tactical ploy. Diplomatic service abroad
did not fit with Morone’s ideal of a diocesan bishop. However, while
on diplomatic duty he widened his circle of important contacts and his
diplomatic dispatches are a fascinating read on all sorts of levels.
Morone’s experience of the religious situation in Germany supplemented
his insight into the problems afflicting the Church already gained as a
diocesan. Sent north as an emissary of the conciliar solution, he became
personally convinced of its efficacy as the best method of solving the religious
problems and sought to convince Rome that something had to be done.
He was, however, suspicious of the colloquies. His thinking seems largely
to have been practical, yet there are sufficient hints of an underbelly of
principle to this pragmatism. Voicing his reservations about the colloquies
at one point, he counselled that participation should be widened to include
representatives and experts from other countries.119 This may reflect his
fear of an all-German gathering producing a cosy German solution, or
could hint at an Erasmian type belief that an international group could
better hammer out the differences.120 As we have seen, he was willing to
appeal to the custom of the Church to back his call for the conciliar option.
The influence on him of figures like Nausea, Faber and Johann Cochlaeus
seems probable.121 The tactical astuteness and pragmatic flexibility that
would serve him well at Trent later in his career were already evident.
So too is a certain moderateness which would be the cause of suspicion
119
Morone to Farnese, 2 December 1539, Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 64ff., and from
Hagenau, 7 July 1540, Laemmer, pp. 285–288, where Morone mentions having put this
view to Ferdinand.
120
See Jedin’s view on the intellectual background to the colloquies, Trent, I, pp. 356–
370.
121
See Jedin’s discussion of their views, Trent, I, pp. 372–374. The similarity to
Morone’s is striking.
about him. Morone’s low points, as betrayed in the correspondence,

seem to have been real enough, particularly as the colloquy process got
underway. However, the pending arrival of Contarini, long advocated by
the beleaguered nuncio, promised some respite.
Chapter 2
Morone and Contarini: Regensburg

and the Accademia Crisis,
1541/1542
Molti anni fa le cose della religione in Italia andavano con poca regola, perché
non era instituito l’offitio della santa Inquisitione o non era ben fondata et
gagliardo. Et però in ogni cantone si parlava delli dogma ecclesiastichi et
ogn’uno faceva del theologo … Et molti luohgi senza inquisitori et molti
inquisitori erano do poca portata …1
These comments by Morone attest to the fluidity of the period before the
firm establishment of the Roman Inquisition, at least in his mind. They also
allude to the religious problems flaring up in his own diocese of Modena,
which he was anxious to return to Italy to address. As Morone scuttled to
meetings of the diet in different locations, these less regulated days were
arguably numbered. However, any return to Modena, let alone a decent
interval of time resident there, was not immediately on the agenda and, in
spite of his personal and professional misgivings, Morone travelled from
Worms to Regensburg at the end of January 1541 for the diet and the
resumption of the suspended religious negotiations.2 There was relief at
least in the welcome news that Cardinal Contarini was coming as legate. In
fact, Contarini’s advent marks the commencement of a significant deepening
of the brief but important relationship between the two men. The story of
their friendship unfolds in the context of the 1541 colloquy and the attempt
to soothe the religious crisis at Modena the following year.3 Sandwiched
between these events was Morone’s first great diplomatic triumph: the
1
‘Many years ago religious matters in Italy were little regulated because the Holy
Office of the Inquisition had not been instituted or was not well founded and strong. And
therefore in every region people spoke about ecclesiastical dogma and every one acted as a
theologian … and many places were without inquisitors and many inquisitors were of little
repute.’ Morone, Apologia, PM, II/I, p. 465.
2
See Morone to Farnese, Regensburg, 7 February 1541, Dittrich, HJ, pp. 430–434.
3
Elisabeth Gleason commented that the story of their friendship had yet to be written,
Contarini, p. 222.
mission to the Diet of Speyer, a success that doubtless contributed to his

elevation to the College of Cardinals in June 1542.
The Regensburg Colloquy, April–July 1541
Made a cardinal in 1535 by Paul III, Contarini had been appointed to

various reform commissions, perhaps most notably that which had
produced the Consilium de emendanda ecclesia in 1537, the most famous
product of the pre-Tridentine reformist group of prelates.4 The Venetian
is also considered to have been the focus for the spirituali and the group
of churchmen and intellectuals, linked to evangelismo. Precisely when
Morone and Contarini first met is difficult to pinpoint. Morone had already
begun to move in the same reformist circles, although his religious outlook
at this point defies easy categorization. The Venetian warmly informed
Morone in May 1540 that he had been appointed as legate for Germany.5
He commented that it would have been a great wrong to their friendship
if he had not personally written to Morone with the news.6 Certainly, their
paths must already have crossed. In the period running up to the colloquy
at Regensburg, Morone kept Rome and Contarini informed of what was
happening at Worms, even to the extent of leaving Contarini in no doubt as
to how welcome his arrival at Regensburg would be, not least to Morone.7
Later, in his Apologia, Morone would recall that it had been the needs
of the emperor, which had been determinate in the pursuit of a solution
to the religious question through direct negotiations. Underpinning the
imperial policy was the desperate need of the Hapsburgs for help with the
Turkish threat and the desire for Charles to avoid facing armed conflict
on several fronts simultaneously.8 The attempt at Regensburg to find a
4
The other members of the commission were: Aleandro, Pole, Sadoleto, Tommaso
Badia, Gian Pietro Carafa, Cortese and Frederigo Fregoso, see Jedin, Trent, I, pp. 423–428.
Latin text in CT, XII, pp. 131–145. English text in John C. Olin, The Catholic Reformation:
Savonarola to Ignatius Loyola (New York, 1992), pp. 182–197. On Contarini see especially
Gigliola Fragnito, Memoria individuale e costruzione biografica: Beccadelli, Della Casa,
Vettori alle origini di un mito (Urbino, 1978); Gasparo Contarini, and Gleason, Contarini.
5
Paul III then wavered about whether to actually dispatch Contarini.
6
Contarini to Morone, 26 May 1540, G. B. Morandi (ed.), Monumenta di varia
letteratura (2 volumes, Bologna: Istituto per le scienze, 1797–1804), I/II, pp. 80–82. It is
possible that Morone’s attitude to episcopal office had been influenced by Contarini’s 1517
tract, De officio boni viri ac probi episcopi, see Speranze, p. 121.
7
Morone to Contarini, 10 and 12 January and 7 March 1541, Morandi, Monumenta,
I/II, pp. 95–98, 100–105 and 123–124 respectively.
8
The basis of the negotiations was the so-called ‘Regensburg Book’, a text proposed
by the emperor, which was largely the work of Johann Gropper. See Morone’s comments,
Apologia, PM, II, p. 454.
Morone and Contarini 39
religious settlement has received considerable scholarly attention.9 Jedin

refers to it as the ‘Dream of an Understanding’, while Gleason entitles her
chapter on the colloquy ‘Illusion and Reality’ and subtitles the core section,
‘The Chimera of Concord’. Most scholars believe that things had already
gone too far. Luther would have nothing to do with the meetings, whilst
in Rome the attitude was that the Protestants were simply heretics who
should recognize or be made to recognize the error of their ways, rather
than equal partners in negotiations.10 Morone perhaps typified this way of
thinking when he expressed to Farnese the hope that his misgivings about
the colloquy might prove wrong and that the hearts of their adversaries
might be opened to the truth.11
It is clear that Morone and Contarini struck up an easy and effective
working relationship. They were able to agree upon a division of tasks long
before Rome imposed one in April 1541 in relation to the Ascanio Colonna
affair, which henceforth Morone principally was to handle.12 Although in
many respects he remained the first port of call for the Catholic princes
and prelates, Morone’s dispatches from Regensburg betray none of the
anxiety about this that he had felt at Worms. Nor did he feel superfluous
and irritated, as he seems to have done with the presence of Campeggio. In
fact, Morone keenly informed Rome of how well he and Contarini were
cooperating.13 He deferred to the Venetian in respect of the negotiations
with Granvelle, and explicitly rejected overtures from the latter aimed at
dividing the papal representatives by attempting to persuade Morone not
to discuss with Contarini every aspect of their business.14 It is noticeable
9
On the colloquy, see Jedin, Trent, I, pp. 355–409, Peter Matheson, Cardinal Contarini
at Regensburg (Oxford, 1972), and Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience, pp. 45–61. Gleason’s
excellent treatment is the best recent analysis, Contarini, pp. 186–256, with a bibliography
at p. 208 n. 96. She challenges Matheson on some points. Although coming from a different
perspective, see also Matheson’s more recent The Rhetoric of the Reformation (Edinburgh,
1998), pp. 215–237. On the relationship between Contarini and Morone see Klaus Ganzer,
‘Gasparo Contarini und Giovanni Morone. Das Regensburger Religionsgespräch von 1541
und das Werden einer Freundschaft’, Cristianesimo nella storia, 30 (2009): pp. 99–134.
10
Fenlon agrees with Matheson’s negative view that dialogue between Protestantism
and Catholicism never really took place at Regensburg, Heresy and Obedience, p. 48 n. 1.
However, Matheson is more positive in Rhetoric, pp. 224–229.
11
Worms, 12 January 1541, Laemmer, pp. 324–328. This letter also appears to have
been copied to Contarini by Morone or Farnese, see Morandi, Monumenta, I/II, pp. 100–
105. Jedin asserts that Morone was there to counterbalance the irenic Contarini, Jedin, Trent,
I, pp. 379–380.
12
Gleason, Contarini, p. 218. Ascanio Colonna, brother of Vittoria and a vassal of
the emperor, provoked the pope into armed conflict, see Gleason, Contarini, pp. 213–222.
13
Morone to Farnese, 3 April 1541, V. Schultze, ‘Aktenstücke zur deutschen
Reformationsgeschichte’, Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, 3 (1879): pp. 621–623.
14
Morone to Farnese, 22 March 1541, NB, 1/7, pp. 37–38. See also Morone to
Farnese, 11 July 1541, Dittrich, HJ, pp. 633–636, which shows both Morone’s adeptness
too how Morone wrote in glowing terms about the work of the legate
and the esteem in which he was held by all parties.15 Gleason comments
that the Colonna business in particular threw the two men together. She
notes Morone’s steady opposition to the colloquies and argues that, under
Contarini’s influence, Morone’s views shifted as he became more aware of
the complexity of the religious situation.16
Not directly involved in the religious negotiations, Morone only refers
to them in passing in his correspondence. His efforts at Regensburg
appear to have been concentrated in the two areas already mentioned:
representing the pope with regard to the Colonna business, and acting as
a point of reference for the Catholic leaders. His standing was such that
the imperial party also looked to him to exert influence over the likes of
the Bavarians.17 In the circumstances, he dealt deftly with the fallout from
the Colonna war, and did his level best to present the farnese side of the
matter in a favourable light. Indeed, this was precisely the problem. It
appeared in Germany that Paul III was more interested in safeguarding the
interests of the farnese, than in his office as the successor of Peter, which
should have evinced greater concern for the progress of negotiations aimed
at healing the religious divide. Morone wrote candidly to Farnese about
the criticism the pope was attracting in terms of how he was choosing to
spend his cash – on a feudal war rather than the conflict with the Turks.
He was effectively adding his weight to calls for the pope to deal with the
Colonna affair more sensitively and to have regard for how the picture
looked north of the Alps, an aspect of policy that Morone often tried to
highlight for Rome.18
When the experts unexpectedly reached agreement over Article 5 (on
justification) of the ‘Regensburg Book’, Contarini wrote to Rome on 3 May,
saying that all the Catholics, Morone included, agreed as to the orthodoxy
of the formula. The Venetian could not help expressing his joy.19 However,
his assertions regarding the unanimity of the Catholic experts were
exaggerated: Eck, for one, seems to have been highly uncomfortable with
the formula.20 In fact, Morone was much less effusive when he wrote the
at dealing with delicate requests from Granvelle and the firm cooperation between him and
Contarini, as they jointly work up a good reply to Granvelle’s enquiry over the league.
15
See Morone to Farnese, 28 April and 3 May 1541, Dittrich, HJ, pp. 447–449 and
pp. 453–455, respectively.
16
Gleason, Contarini, p. 222.
17
See Morone to Farnese, 14 April 1541, Laemmer, pp. 369–373, and Morone to
Farnese, 23 and 28/29 May 1541, Dittrich, HJ, pp. 463–465 and 465–472 respectively.
18
Morone to Farnese, 12 May 1541, Dittrich, HJ, 460–462 and 462–463.
19
Gleason, Contarini, p. 229.
20
Contarini was soon defending the formula, in particular in his Epistola de
iustificatione of 25 May 1541 (CT, XII, pp. 314–322), sent to Cardinal Ercole Gonzaga. See
Gleason, Contarini, pp. 229–235. See PM, II, p. 458 n. 30.
same day. The nuncio took some encouragement from the breakthrough,
just as he had in respect of the Worms accord on original sin, and praised
the irenic efforts of Gropper and Bucer, describing the latter as holding
things together.21 He also wrote to his vicar in Modena, commenting that
the Lutherans had come round to see things from their perspective and
expressing the hope that the rest of the negotiations would go well and
have positive repercussions in other places including Modena.22 However,
Morone never entirely shook off his uneasiness about the whole business.
Even before the colloquy began to run into difficulties in the May, his fears
were beginning to resurface.23
By the end of the month, the failure was apparent and there was open
talk of what was to happen next. Morone could not help indulging in a little
‘I told you so’.24 He wrote to Cervini, commenting rather ingratiatingly on
the good news of how the war with Colonna had been progressing.25 He
then moved on to discuss the religious negotiations, reminding Cervini
that he (Morone) had had different views about the proceedings (than
those in favour) and intimating that he had not hidden his feelings from
Contarini. He defended himself from the charge of being an enemy of
peace saying that God knew that the contrary was true. He mentioned
that Contarini had a willingness to see more good in people and that he
(Morone) may have fallen a little under the older man’s spell and wanted
to believe in a positive outcome to the discussions.
This letter should be seen in the context of Cervini’s important position
in the farnese papacy at this juncture. Cervini too was suspicious of the
emperor’s religious policy, had been instrumental in narrowly defining
Contarini’s remit and may have been the most influential of the critics of
the agreement on justification in Rome.26 Morone seems to be confiding in
someone whose opinion he respected and with whom he had substantially
agreed, at least on some of the issues. It also has to be admitted that
he appears to be covering his own back in a rather unedifying manner.
Nevertheless, towards the end of June, he argued that the pope ought to be
effecting a reformation in Italy as a prelude to the council, demonstrating
that he was still unafraid to express strong opinions.27 It was a brief
restatement of his position on the religious situation and included a barbed
21
Dittrich, HJ, pp. 453–455. See also Morone’s recollection of the agreement in his
Apologia, PM, II/I, pp. 457–459.
22
Morone to Sigibaldi, 3 May 1541, PM, III, pp. 131–132.
23
Morone to Farnese, 28 April 1541, Dittrich, HJ, pp. 449–450.
24
Morone to Farnese, 28/29 May 1541, Dittrich, HJ, pp. 465–472.
25
Morone to Cervini, 9 June 1541, NB, 1/7, pp. 65–66.
26
See Gleason’s important discussion of Cervini’s role, Gleason, Contarini, pp. 197–
201 and 242–248.
27
Morone to Cervini, 27 June 1541, NB, 1/7, pp. 71–72.
call for action.28 Morone remained a strong advocate of the conciliar

solution, but continued to press for some real reforms beforehand.29
Cervini was also an advocate of self-reform for Rome.30
The agreement on justification, received frostily in both Rome and
Wittenberg, was in any case rendered inconsequential by the subsequent
disagreement on other issues, notably transubstantiation and authority in
the Church.31 By the end of May 1541, the talks were effectively over
and the following two months saw the slow demise of the colloquy and
the haggling over what was to happen next. Morone had reason to feel
somewhat vindicated and his correspondence seems to reflect this. In a
letter to Farnese of 14 June, he commented on how the likely outcome
would be much as he had always predicted and, weighing up the relative
standing of the two sides after the talks, he concluded that the Lutherans
would come out better.32 Morone later remarked that the one good result
was that it might open the eyes of the Hapsburg brothers to the true
intransigence of the Lutherans.33 He continued to praise Contarini’s efforts
in defence of the pope’s position and, on 13 August, wrote in satisfaction
from Trent on his way back to Italy of how all the serious business was still
reserved for the council to determine as the pope had wanted.34
Commentators have noted a shift in Contarini’s perceptions as the
negotiations wore on. While some attribute it to disillusionment or
bowing to curial ‘hawkishness’, Gleason argues that Contarini simply had
to modify or develop his attitudes in the face of the realities confronting
him, but did so in a manner entirely consistent with his basic temperament
and philosophy.35 It seems probable too that Morone, with four years’
28
He had raised the issue of reform with Farnese a few days earlier, Morone to Farnese,
21 June 1541, Dittrich, HJ, pp. 620–623.
29
See Morone to Farnese, 27 June 1541, Dittrich, HJ, pp. 624–627, where he relates
how he defended the possibility of a council in the face of objections during a meeting with
Granvelle and Ferdinand. Note also Morone’s reiteration of objections to the via belli in his
letter to Farnese, 28/29 May 1541, Dittrich, HJ, pp. 465–472.
30
On Cervini’s attitude, see Hudon, Cervini. In January 1542, on his way to Speyer,
Morone wrote to Farnese requesting details of reforms undertaken recently at Rome, so that
he could better solicit reform in Germany, Laemmer, pp. 398–399 at 399.
31
On the demise of the negotiations, see Gleason, Contarini, pp. 235–259. It is notable
that, even with the breakthrough in Lutheran–Catholic dialogue with the 1999 accord on
Justification (Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification), recently extended to include
elements of Methodism (see the report by the Zenit News Agency – The World seen from
Rome, ‘Methodists Join Declaration on Justification’, www.zenit.org/english (28 July 2006)),
the validity of such agreements is challenged by some and the Eucharist and papal authority
remain critical areas of difficulty.
32
33
Morone to Farnese, 6 July 1541, Dittrich, HJ, pp. 631–632.
34
35
See Gleason, Contarini, pp. 235–249.
experience of the German situation, exerted an influence on Contarini, as

the problems with the colloquy began to mount and the ‘religio-political’
reality dawned on the cardinal legate.
The Diet of Speyer, February–May 1542
The remainder of 1541 saw unfruitful negotiations between Charles and

his representatives and the papacy over the council and its location.36
The imperial party pressed for a site within the empire such as Trent or
Trier, while Rome suggested other venues such as Ferrara, Mantua and
even Cambrai.37 Towards the end of the year, Paul III dispatched Morone
northwards once more to the Diet of Speyer with a threefold commission:
to discuss the location of the council, to urge reform measures, and to
negotiate assistance with the Turkish threat.38 Morone left Italy in the
January and arrived at Speyer on 8 February 1542, having stopped at
Innsbruck, Munich and Dillingen on the way.39
The trip furnished further confirmation, if confirmation were needed,
of the dire state of things in parts of Germany. Whilst pausing after leaving
Munich to await a safe-conduct enabling passage through the territory
of the Duke of Württemburg, Morone spent time with the Bishop of
Augsburg, Christoph von Stadion. The elderly German complained about
the situation in his diocese, appraised Morone of some of the problems
he faced and lamented that reform was coming 20 years too late. Morone
urged him to persevere and not to fall into the trap of complaining about
the past, looking forward to the future, but neglecting the present and thus
letting the bad get worse.40 Morone also held discussions with the Bishops
of Speyer, Bressanone (Brixen) and Albrecht, the Cardinal Archbishop
of Mainz. In the light of his experience, Morone was clearly persuaded
of the need for an improvement in the number and standard of clergy
and religious, and for improvements in education that might serve as a
36
Morone returned to Italy from Regensburg via Bavaria and Trent during August
and September of 1541. In October, he was in Milan on personal business. See Laemmer,
pp. 388–393.
37
38
7 November 1541. See CT, IV, p. 206 n. 5 and Jedin, Trent, I, p. 450. Instructions
from the pope CT, IV, pp. 214–215, dated 8 January 1542. See Morone to Farnese, Speyer,
10 February 1542, Laemmer, pp. 406–411, where Morone recounts his initial meeting with
Ferdinand.
39
See Morone’s dispatches, Laemmer, pp. 398–406.
40
Morone to Farnese, Speyer, 8 February 1542, Laemmer, pp. 399–403 at 402–403.
Morone admonished the Cathedral Chapter, individually and as a group. The list of problems
– concubinage, drunkenness, gaming and hunting – speaks for itself.
bulwark against the encroachment of Protestantism and provide vocations

of a higher calibre.41
Morone approved of the Bishop of Bressanone’s efforts with regard to
education and lent his support to a request to be able to ordain candidates a
little younger.42 Notably, he suggested that German boys be sent to Italy to
receive a securer Christian education, probably the kernel of the idea that
would later mature into the Collegio Germanico. He also suggested that
religious be sent from Italy to renew houses north of the Alps.43 However,
his urgings of reform on the part of the prelates seem largely to have fallen
on deaf ears.44 In conversation with the reluctant Archbishop of Mainz,
who wanted everything left to the council, Morone drew a distinction
between issues like clerical celibacy or communion under both kinds,
which might properly to be left to the council, and reforms of clerical
morality that could be implemented immediately. He was also of the view
that reform had to be undertaken tactfully, ‘… by the way of exhortation
and charity … with … dexterity and kindness …’ rather than ‘… by the
way of violence’.45
In respect of the location of the council, Morone scored a notable
success. His reports back to Rome persuaded the pope to relent in his
objection to Trent as the site of the assembly if none of his preferences
were acceptable.46 At one stage, Rome appeared to resile on this and
sought again to hold out for Cambrai.47 However, exercising considerable
diplomatic skill, Morone was able to get all parties to settle on Trent.48
He returned to Italy in May 1542, and was raised to the Sacred College
in the consistory of 2 June, along with, amongst others, the Benedictine,
Gregorio Cortese, and Tommaso Badia, O.P., the Master of the Sacred
Palace, two men with strong spirituali credentials.49
41
He was accompanied on this mission by members of the Society of Jesus: Pietro
Fabro (who already knew Morone from 1540 and who had sung his praises to Loyola),
Nicolás de Bobadilla and Claude Jay, who then stayed to work in Germany for the next few
years. See PM, II, pp. 472 n. 72, Jedin, Trent, I, p. 452 and John W. O’Malley, The First
Jesuits (Cambridge, MA, 1993), p. 273.
42
Morone to Farnese, Speyer, 10 February 1542, Laemmer, pp. 403–406 at 404–405.
43
Morone to Farnese, Innsbruck, 18 January 1542, Laemmer, pp. 398–399.
44
45
‘… per via d’essortatione et carità … con … desterità et mansuetudine …’ rather
than ‘… per via de violentia’. Morone to Farnese, Speyer, 20 February 1542, Laemmer,
pp. 412–415 at 412.
46
Morone’s proposal to the diet of the pope’s offer, CT, IV, pp. 218–219.
47
See Farnese to Morone, 21 March 1542, CT, IV, p. 218 and Morone’s second
proposition to the diet, of 1 April, backtracking on the earlier one, CT, IV, pp. 220–221, and
the response by the diet, p. 221.
48
Jedin, Trent, I, pp. 450–455. See in particular Morone to Farnese, Speyer,
3 April 1542, where he relates the problems that Rome’s change was causing.
49
He formally received his red hat from Contarini at Bologna on 5 June.
The Accademia Crisis: May–September 1542
Morone’s parting shot before leaving Regensburg had been an expression

of hope that the dangers of religious dissent would remain in Germany and
not spread.50 It was a fear that he seems to have shared with Contarini and
something the two men might well have discussed, especially as the news
from Morone’s diocese indicated that dissent had in fact already leapt the
Alps.51 The challenge Morone faced upon his return to Modena for a short
period in the late spring and summer of 1542 was indeed the spread of
heretical opinions, in particular the activities of the group of intellectuals
known as the Accademia. The episode has been analysed by scholars from
several standpoints, and is viewed by some as a crucial stage in the history
of the spirituali, following on from the failure of the Regensburg colloquy
in more respects than the obvious temporal proximity.52
As previously noted, Morone had become increasingly alarmed about
the situation in his diocese during his prolonged absence on diplomatic
duties.53 His able vicar, Giovanni Domenico Sigibaldi, had kept him
informed as to what was occurring in Modena and Morone, in turn, relayed
his concerns to Rome.54 With mounting anxiety, he had raised the matter
with both the cardinal grandsons during the course of 1540. In the March,
he had told Sforza how the absence from his see gnawed at his soul.55 Later
that year, he had described in detail how serious he thought the situation
in Modena had become and had not hesitated to make use of the spectre
of the German experience to bolster his argument. He had written of how
publicly people spoke of religious issues such as purgatory, indulgences,
the Mass, intercession of the saints, the authority of the pope and other
matters.56 At the end of the year, Morone had written to Farnese from
Worms about how Modena was worse than Prague, reiterating comments
50
Morone to Farnese, 27 July 1541, Laemmer, pp. 382–384.
51
See Contarini to Farnese, 9 June 1541, Dittrich, HJ, p. 480, cited by Jedin, Trent,
I, p. 446.
52
In particular, see Massimo Firpo, ‘Gli “spirituali”, l’Accademia di Modena e il formulario
di fede del 1542: Controllo del dissenso religioso e nicodemismo’, RSLR, 20 (1984): pp. 40–
111, now in, Inquisizione romana, pp. 55–129. See also, Speranze, pp. 230–268; Simoncelli,
Evangelismo Italiano; Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience, pp. 62–68, Gleason, Contarini, pp.
284–292, Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 125–133. A reasonably sure reconstruction of the
main events of the episode is possible from the sources: Morone’s correspondence, that of other
spirituali and the chronicle of Tommasino Bianchi, called Lancillotti, Cronaca modenese, a
diary for events in the city between 1504 and 1554, Monumenti di storia patria delle provincie
modenesi. Serie delle cronache, vols I–XII, 1862–1884.
53
See Chapter 1.
54
Cited and discussed by Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 61–68.
55
Morone to Sforza, 21 March 1540, Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 102–103.
56
Morone to Sforza, 8 May 1540, Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 128–130 at 129.
made to him by Sigibaldi about how in the shops people spoke against
various items of Church teaching, and reeling off a similar list as that given
to Sforza. Again, he had alluded to the outbreak of dissent in Germany,
spicing the report with reference to Luther and the Augustinians.57
Morone had done what he could from a distance to support his vicar.
On 7 December 1540, urging diligence and vigilance, he had written of
how the origins of the problems in Germany had been ignited from a lesser
spark and had asked Sigibaldi to let him know if there were anything
he could do to assist.58 More concretely, he had requested from Rome
an instruction to enable control of preaching.59 He had also later advised
Sigibaldi to contact Cervini for assistance in dealing with problems,
especially those concerning heresy, a further example of Morone’s esteem
for the cardinal.60
Interestingly, Morone had been prepared to ask for help of an
inquisitional nature if that were what the situation required. He had written
to Farnese on 27 December 1540, saying that in order to get to the roots
of the problems, inquisitors should be engaged, who were discreet, faithful
and learned, and with full authority to carry out their office.61 His backing
for such intervention was thus hedged by certain conditions. When writing
to Sforza earlier, he had requested that someone be sent from Rome as an
inquisitor to instil sanity, suggesting Badia.62 Morone revealed something
of his attitude to Sigibaldi, explaining that the use of inquisitors was a
burdensome necessity in some cases. However, any such office should be
carried out by men of the right calibre, who were prudent, learned and
energetic. Otherwise, such an initiative would be counterproductive.63
57
Morone to Farnese, 27 December 1540, NB, 1/6, pp. 91–92, at 92. See Firpo,
Inquisizione romana, pp. 62–63.
58
PM, III, pp. 122–123.
59
Morone to Farnese, 27 December 1540, NB, 1/6, p. 92. Morone thanked Farnese for
the requisite brief on 25 February 1541, Dittrich, HJ, pp. 435–438.
60
Morone to Sigibaldi, 9 May 1540, PM, III, pp. 111–113. Before the Inquisition,
Morone later included some of this correspondence in his defence in order to demonstrate
his concern for his diocese. See PM, III, pp. 94–189.
61
NB, 1/6, p. 92.
62
Dittrich, NBGM, pp. 128–130 at p. 129. In fact, Cortese made a seemingly
ineffectual visit to the city at the pope’s behest early in 1542, see Firpo, Inquisizione romana,
pp. 69–69. Note also n. 42 and a reference to a visit by Sadoleto as well. Both these men
happened to be Modenese.
63
‘L’inquisitione contra heretici mi piace somamente, ma è necessario sia fatta per
huomini prudenti, dotti et vivaci …’ PM, III, pp. 111–113 at 113. Two decades later, his
views on the matter had altered little, see Morone’s comments from Trent to Borromeo,
9 August 1563, Constant, at p. 225, amidst widespread worries about the extension of the
Spanish Inquisition to Milan.
Detailed analysis of the growth of the religious problems at Modena

can be found elsewhere.64 Over and above the commonplace problems
of clerical laxity and lukewarm adherence to religious life, there came
the growing problem of heterodox thought, discussion, preaching and
literature. By the end of the 1530s, Modena had become one of the hotspots
on the Italian peninsula for suspected heresy. The so-called Accademia, a
group of intellectuals centred on the doctor Giovanni Grillenzoni, provided
a forum for discussion of religious belief and practice and offered support
to suspect preachers and teachers. The group included the writer Ludovico
Castelvetro and the famous anatomist Gabriele Falloppia.65
However, Morone’s alarmed reports testify to the fact that religious
discussion and dissent had permeated a wider spectrum of society than
the intellectual elite. The role of the pulpit was critical, as Morone had
tacitly recognized with his attempt at control of preaching.66 Towards
the end of the 1530s, something approaching a battle of the pulpit had
developed, which ran into the subsequent decade. Contentious and more
traditional preachers took it in turns to stir up controversy and provoke
denunciations. The pulpit could be a good way to unmask and combat
heresy as well as a means of sowing dissent.67 Indicative of the profound
complexity of the times, was the preaching of Bernardino Ochino in the
city in February 1541, apparently to the satisfaction of all sides.68 The
dissemination of literature was also crucial.69 Writings of the protestant
reformers began to circulate often surreptitiously, or popularized tracts
emerged summarizing or influenced by their teaching. One example was
the Beneficio di Cristo, which Morone himself approved.70
Several clerics were implicated in the growing dissent. The preposito
of the Cathedral, Bonifacio Valentini, led opposition in the Chapter and
proved to be a long-standing thorn in Morone’s side.71 Varying degrees
of dissimulation made it difficult to deal with these clerics.72 However as
1541 wore on, the problems became more accentuated and the dissenters
bolder. Giovanni Bertari, another priest with ties to the Accademia, began
a series of lectures on St Paul in a private house, but open to all-comers.
64
See primarily Speranze, pp. 206ff., Cesare Bianco, ‘La communità dei “fratelli”
nel movimento ereticale modenese del ‘500’, RSI, XCII (1980): pp. 621–679, and Firpo,
65
On the Accademia see Speranze, pp. 230–233.
66
On preaching in Modena see Speranze, pp. 206–221 and 225–228.
67
Speranze, p. 210.
68
Firpo, Inquisizione romana, p. 65.
69
Speranze, pp. 256–263.
70
See Chapter 3.
71
See PM, II/I, pp. 516–525.
72
See the comments to this effect by Peyronel Rambaldi in Speranze, pp. 244–245.
Suspicion turned to denunciation as he called into question the efficacy of

fasting and prayer in Latin. It was said that the dissidents broke fasts and
ate meat on prohibited days. The series became a cause célèbre leading
to a clash between the local Dominican inquisitors and elements of the
Cathedral Chapter lead by Valentini.73
Morone’s Attempt to Control the Dissent at Modena, Summer 1542
Morone had briefly returned to Modena at the end of 1541. Aware of the
growing problems and the need for action, he had written to the Duke
of Ferrara on 21 November to the effect that he sought with charity to
rid the city of the reputation it was attracting.74 However, only upon his
return in May 1542 was he able to fully concentrate on the brewing crisis
that had obtained for the city an unenviable reputation, not unnoticed by
those of a more conservative bent in Rome.75 Morone candidly wrote to
Contarini on 21 May about the problems and the initial steps that he had
undertaken to defuse the situation.76 He expressed his thanks to God that
Contarini was near at hand and informed him that he hoped to call on his
assistance.77
A key text in relation to the Accademia issue is Morone’s letter to
Cardinal Farnese of 3 August 1542. In it, Morone summarized his
attempts to find a solution to the problems and then deferred to the
Roman authorities on the final decision whether to proceed with the
strategy upon which he had embarked.78 He outlined the extent of the
problem and how he had thought to proceed with dexterity and kindness,
wishing to avoid suspicion and keen to get at the root of the difficulties.79
The cardinal explained how it was hard to reveal fully the opinions of the
dissenters and that he had sought initially to obtain a profession of faith
from them, a method he refers to as the ‘via regia’, implying an attempt
73
See Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 64–67, and also Menchi, Erasmo in Italia,
pp. 74–76. The latter suspects an Erasmian influence upon Bertari’s choice of themes – p. 76.
74
Cited by Jedin, Trent, I, pp. 440–441 n. 5 and Firpo, Inquisizione romana, p. 68.
The letter refers to an eight-day sojourn. Morone then travelled to Rome to receive the
appointment to the Diet of Speyer. He stopped off again in Modena on his way to Germany,
see Morone to Farnese, 18 January 1542, Laemmer, pp. 398–399.
75
Morone arrived back on 7 May, tired and seemingly in poor health, see Firpo,
Inquisizione romana, p. 72.
76
Morone to Contarini, 21 May 1542, Querini, Epistolae, III, pp. cclxix–cclxxi, cited
PM, III, pp. 141 and 143–144 nn. 3 and 7 respectively and Inquisizione romana, pp. 75–76
n. 62 Contarini’s warm reply was dated the following day, see PM, III, p. 141 n. 3.
77
Contarini had been appointed as legate for Bologna on 27 January 1542.
78
PM, III, pp. 140–156. Cited and discussed by Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 73–75.
79
PM, III, p. 141.
to guide the situation to a satisfactory conclusion. Morone had mentioned

to Contarini in the May his goal of returning those at fault to the Church
with charity.80 The accademici demurred from such a step, fearful for their
reputation and Morone had sought to reassure them that the matter would
be handled delicately. He apparently told them that he sought to satisfy
himself as to their catholicity so that he could defend their reputation and
that of the city. However, he recounted to Farnese how he was not able
to allay their fears of a set-up.81 Although his initial overture had been
rebuffed, Morone had gone back with a catechism in Italian drawn up by
Giberti for use in Verona. This too had been rejected.82 It was in the face of
this inflexibility that he had sought outside help: from Contarini and from
Rome, seeking authority from Farnese to deal with suspected heretics by
punishment or extra-judicial absolution.83
Notably Morone had also written to Cervini the same day as his letter
to Contarini, seeking his assistance in obtaining the necessary authority
from Rome.84 For their part, the accademici had put forward texts
of their own choice: one attributed to Fregoso,85 and another that had
apparently emanated from Marcantonio Flaminio and Cardinal Pole’s
Viterbo ‘compagnia’.86 Morone had felt neither of these satisfactory. He
had travelled to Bologna to consult with Contarini and to be formally
invested with his cardinal’s hat. They had agreed that the Venetian would
draw up a suitable text and this Contarini duly sent some eight days after
Morone’s return to Modena on 6 June 1542.87
There had been further negotiation with the accademici and prevarication
on their part, both in respect of some aspects of Contarini’s text, much to
80
Querini, Epistolae, III, pp. cclxix–cclxxi.
81
PM, III, pp. 142–143.
82
L’interrogatorio del maestro al discepolo per istruire li fanciulli e quelli che non
sanno nella via di Dio.
83
Morone to Farnese, 22 May 1542, Firpo, Inquisizione romana, p. 75. PM, III, pp.
142–143 n. 5. Farnese replied in a letter dated 23 June with the requested brief, although
they were not sent until the beginning of the following month. The brief is in ASV, Conc.
Trid. 94, f. 235rv.
84
PM, III, pp. 143–144 n. 7.
85
Tentatively identified by Firpo as Fregoso’s lost Tractato della vita christiana, see
PM, III, p. 145 n. 9 and Inquisizione romana, pp. 78–79.
86
Morone to Farnese, 3 August 1542, PM, III, p. 145. Firpo identifies this text as
probably Juan de Valdés’ catechism, Qual maniera si dovrebbe tenere in formare i figliuoli
de christiani nella christiana religione, known also as Lacte spirituale, a copy of which was
confiscated from amongst Morone’s papers by the Inquisition, provoking them to raise the
point with him, see p. 145 n. 10. Inquisizione romana, pp. 79–80.
87
Morone to Farnese, 3 August 1542, PM, III, p. 146. Contarini’s, sive christiana
instructio, one of his last works, a copy of which under the title Articuli orthodoxae
professionis was included amongst the documentation assembled to support Morone’s
defense, PM, III, pp. 190–221. See Gleason, Contarini, pp. 284–292.
the annoyance of the Venetian, and with regard to the precise form of
assent they would actually use to show their agreement with its contents.88
Morone had made another visit to Bologna to confer with the older man,
for the last time as it turned out and other members of the spirituali with
links to the city had also begun to be drawn into the matter.89 Cortese,
himself a modenese, expressed his agreement with Contarini’s text and
visited the city to add his support to Morone’s initiative.90 Another was
Sadoleto, whose initial intervention appears neither to have been sought
by Morone nor to have been helpful.91 In addition, Contarini had sent
his text to Badia, a key person at Rome. Badia was soon to be appointed
to the new inquisition commission and was yet another modenese.92 He
had been at Regensburg with Contarini and Morone. Finally, the Venetian
Cardinal had sought the opinions of Pole and the ecclesia viterbiensis.
The Reorganization of the Inquisition and the End of the Accademia

Affair
The episode dragged on through the summer of 1542. Eventually, Morone

and Contarini had felt constrained to put the matter before the authorities
in Rome, especially in the light of Paul III’s July bull, Licet ab initio,
confirming a reorganization along centralizing lines of the inquisitional
apparatus.93 This was Morone’s letter to Farnese of 3 August, which
included a copy of Contarini’s text as well as the formulas for assent.94
Morone left the next step to the pope, but suggested the appointment of
88
Morone to Farnese, 3 August 1542, PM, III, pp. 146–151. See also Firpo, Inquisizione
romana, pp. 97–105. Contarini wrote on 13 July of the ‘arrogantia et superbia’ and ‘grande
ignorantia’ of the dissidents and seems to suggest that it was time for Morone to get tougher
with them.
89
Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 84–103.
90
Morone to Farnese, 3 August 1542, PM, III, pp. 146–150. Firpo, Inquisizione
romana, pp. 85–86 and 100–103. On Cortese’s involvement see also Gigliola Fragnito, Il
cardinale Gregorio Cortese (1483?–1548) nella crisi religiosa del Cinquecento [extract from
Benedictina 30 (1983)] (Rome, 1983), especially pp. 95–99.
91
92
Sent to Badia sometime before 20 June 1542, see Contarini to Morone, 23 July
1542, PM, III, pp. 135–137, and in respect of dating, the letter of Priuli to Beccadelli cited
at pp. 135–136 n. 4.
93
21 July 1542. The process had begun a year previously when the pope entrusted
Aleandro and Carafa with responsibility for direction of the Inquisition, see Jedin, Trent, I,
p. 446. The new commission with responsibility for combating heresy consisted of Carafa,
Badia, Juan Alvarez de Toledo, Pier Paolo Parisio, Bartolomeo Guidiccione and Dionigi
Laurerio, and had in fact been formed on 2 July. See Prosperi, Tribunali della coscienza.
94
It seems this was Badia’s advice to Contarini, see Containi to Morone, 23 July 1542,
PM, III, pp. 135–137. But see also Priuli to Beccadelli, 20 June 1542, representing no doubt
a learned resident bishop: an effective preacher who, little by little, could

attack the suspect beliefs that had taken root. Morone also suggested
that some of the Roman cardinals might sign up to the Articuli as an
inducement to the dissidents.95 Morone had already written to Cervini
towards the end of July, explaining his tactics and likewise recommending
the need for the appointment of a new, resident pastor, suggesting the
name of Peter Martyr Vermigli.96
Any hopes the dissidents might once have harboured of a discrete
resolution of the problem thus evaporated and news of the turn of events
at Rome caused something of a panic.97 Eventually, the pope chose to
reinforce the Morone/Contarini approach and entrusted Sadoleto with the
job. The dissidents were induced to sign up to the Articuli with a formula
of Rome’s construction, along with several people beyond reproach, which
sweetened the pill. In the end, no one asked to sign refused to do so.98 The
process was more or less completed by the middle of September, by which
time events had already moved on. Morone had left the city to travel to
Rome. Contarini was dead. Ochino and Vermigli had fled Italy and the
long hoped for council was again on the horizon.
1541/1542 – a Crisis in the Spirituali?
The Colloquy of Regensburg has been viewed as a defeat and personal

setback for Contarini and by extension the spirituali. The event demonstrated
the impossibility of reaching agreement with the Protestants through
negotiation. The little that had been agreed was dubious as far as Rome
was concerned. Moreover, it is reckoned to have led to tensions within
the spirituali.99 Pole avoided endorsing Contarini’s views in their private
correspondence and notably failed to back him in consistory, choosing to
remain away from Rome during the critical period. Fregoso, the only ‘big
the view of Pole, which also counselled referral to the pope, cited by Firpo, Inquisizione
romana, p. 90 n. 104 and PM, III, pp. 146–147 n. 15.
95
PM, III, pp. 155–156.
96
Cited PM, III, pp. 151–152 n. 25. Firpo believes these letters to be rather apologetic,
see Inquisizione romana, pp. 107–111, but Morone and Cervini had a good relationship and
Morone respected the judgment of the future pope. The suggestion of Vermigli must have
looked bad just a few weeks later when he fled Italy.
97
98
For the dénouement, see Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 118–125.
99
See Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience, pp. 59–61, Gleason, Contarini, pp. 249–252,
Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 107–113, and Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 89–91, and
PM, III, pp. 146–147 n. 15.
hitter’ to defend the agreement in consistory, was soon dead. Bembo too
came to Contarini’s support and seems to have been critical of Pole.100
For Firpo, the Modena business was likewise a failure for the spirituali.101
He sees the episode as almost a mini-Regensburg: more Contarini inspired
irenicism. Instead, it aggravated tensions, both amongst the spirituali
themselves, and between them and other elements in the Sacred College.
Firpo argues that it was a failure in terms of pastoral strategy and a
manifestation of the fault-lines in a religious stance seeking to combine
acceptance of the doctrinal insights of the reformers with obedience to the
institutions, sacramental teaching and authority of the Church. The Italian
regards the solution opted for as merely a face-saving compromise. Fenlon
too discusses the events in terms of a struggle to reconcile contradictory
doctrinal tendencies and the search to find adequate pastoral solutions
based upon them.102
Furthermore, Firpo sees it as a failure of Contarini’s leadership, in the
face of developments at Rome. Whilst Cortese supported the efforts at
Modena, Firpo points out that the best Contarini could say in respect of
Badia was that he had not criticized the content of the Articuli.103 The
role of Pole and his circle is the most intriguing and leads to the most
disagreement. One of the texts offered by the accademici had allegedly
emanated from Pole’s group. This raises questions as to the links between
the members of the dissident group and the ecclesia viterbiensis, and the
role of the latter in the proceedings.104 Firpo argues that Pole remained aloof
from Contarini’s efforts.105 For some scholars, this is evidence that Pole
and his group were growing away from Contarini and, under the influence
of members of the Valdesian diaspora, were becoming ever more radical.
In short, there was a split in the ranks of the spirituali into a moderate and
a more progressive wing, and that after the death of Contarini, it was the
latter who were in ascendance and soon adding Morone to their number.
Neither Gleason nor Mayer accepts that a widening chasm had opened
up between Pole and Contarini. Gleason recognizes the differences
in theological approach and that Pole and his circle had become more
100
Mayer, Prince and Prophet, p. 111.
101
See Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 17–18, 55–59, 114–118 and 121–125, for his
assessment of the episode.
102
Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience, pp. 62–68.
103
See Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 85–87 and 106–107. See Cortese to Morone,
22 June 1542, and Contarini to Morone, 23 July 1542, PM, III, pp. 147–148 n. 16 and
135–137 respectively.
104
Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 78–80. See also Firpo, ‘The Italian Reformation
and Juan de Valdés’, p. 361, where he says that Pole sent the Valdés catechism to Modena for
the accademici to present to Morone.
105
radical, but rejects the view that Pole was ‘some sort of crypto-Protestant
in the summer of 1542’.106 Mayer believes that the split between Contarini
and Pole has been overplayed and that there are grounds for believing Pole
repaired the damage done by his failure to support Contarini.107 Mayer
also sees the Accademia crisis differently. While acknowledging that Pole
may have disagreed with Morone and Contarini over strategy, he rejects
any direct involvement of the Englishman with the stance of the dissidents.
Moreover, he points out that Pole did respond to Contarini’s Articuli and
that there are sensible alternative explanations for any delays. Finally,
Mayer argues that Pole, although detached from the specific negotiations
at Modena, did not demur from offering advice more generally. He relayed
information to Contarini about the developments at Rome and suggested
a course of action: information and advice that influenced Morone and
Contarini’s eventual choice, a role that Firpo himself recognizes.108
A Career Ascendant
The Regensburg business was certainly a disappointment for many and

caused Contarini particular discomfort.109 It did give rise to tensions in the
Contarini/Pole axis. By contrast, Morone had a good colloquy. His doubts
about this route had been vindicated and he could distance himself from
the failure of the talks, as he duly seems to do with Cervini. Moreover,
his stock with the farnese must have risen with his adept handling of the
Ascanio Colonna affair. Certainly, when a legate was needed for Speyer, it
was to Morone the pope turned. Finally, he seems to have repaired some
of the damage in his relations with the Hapsburgs, and the emperor had
hoped that he would accompany him on his Algerian adventure and thence
on to Spain as nuncio.110 His standing was further increased when he
returned from Speyer clasping an agreement about the site of the council.
Morone’s advocacy of the conciliar solution, coupled with calls for
clear reform by and at Rome, had not waned. At Speyer, through tactful
negotiation, Morone personally kept the council project on the rails and
he had travelled north with a brief to promote reform. The trip confirmed
106
Gleason, Contarini, pp. 274–276 and 292–298, Fenlon also notes the methodological
divergences, Heresy and Obedience, pp. 66–68.
107
Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 108–125.
108
Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 125–130. Mayer quibbles with Firpo over points
of detail here.
109
Gleason plays down the long-term damage to the Venetian’s career, Contarini,
pp. 299–300. Both Gleason and Fragnito make much of the 1542 crop of cardinals that
included Badia, Morone and Cortese, Fragnito, Cortese, pp. 92–93.
110
See PM, III, p. 130 especially n. 9.
the difficulties facing sincere bishops and of the existence of plenty who
were not sincere. It both cemented in his mind the need for renewal and
sparked ideas about how this might be achieved.
The idea for using a formula to prove the orthodoxy of the accademici
seems to have been Morone’s and must have been inspired by the limited
agreements achieved at both Worms and Regensburg.111 Firpo’s cogent
criticisms of the initiative are certainly telling. Arguably, it did not solve
things even in the short term and aspects of Morone’s conduct do appear
to raise questions about his judgment. Perhaps he and Contarini did not
fully grasp the nature of the Italian dissident groups then emerging above
ground. There was a tendency in some strands of Italian Reformation
thought to edge towards the radical. This indeed was the fate of Ochino
and of elements within the dissident community in Modena.112 The
troublemakers offered stony ground for the sort of initiative undertaken
by Morone in the summer of 1542. However, it is perhaps harsh to expect
Morone and Contarini to have been fully alive to the complexities of the
times. Indeed, Morone later alluded to what a difficult period it was and,
in fact, it is precisely one of the axioms of modern scholarship in this
area that Italian dissent was not merely imitative of or transplanted from
northern Europe, but something more distinctive.113
Nevertheless, perhaps harsh judgments about the incident have been
made too readily. Paul III confirmed Morone’s strategy and assumed it into
the solution he imposed with minor adjustments. The inclusion of more
signatories stemmed from Morone’s initial and at first sight extraordinary
suggestion that some of the cardinals sign. It had clearly been a part of
Morone’s strategy for some time and had lain behind his and Contarini’s
involvement of other members of the spirituali.114 Moreover, large-scale
inquisitional intervention was avoided, at least for the medium term and
this is the key to understanding the episode in a more positive light. The
initiative with the accademici was only a part of the solution and Morone
always understood this. It was an attempt to put a lid on the immediate
problem and prevent it worsening. For the longer term, Morone sought
the appointment of a theologically capable pastor who, importantly, could
also be resident.
111
See, Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 66–68, and Morone’s clear hope that agreement
in Germany would assist calming of the troubles in Modena.
112
See Speranze, pp. 246–256.
113
See his comments about this period in connection with his support of the Beneficio
di Cristo, in his Apologia, PM, II/I, p. 465.
114
See Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 85–87 and Cortese’s letter to Morone of 22
June 1542, PM, III, pp. 147–148 n. 16.
In 1540, Morone had commented to Cardinal Sforza that it was the

learned (dotti) who were often responsible for leading people into error.115
Morone probably viewed the activities of the accademici in this key, and
hoped to nullify their notoriety and influence. Furthermore, in line with
his comments in the memorial to Sforza about the practical disadvantages
of the via belli, so too here, even after Licet ab initio, Morone was willing
to argue that a belligerent intervention would be counterproductive.116 He
was putting into practice what he had preached to Albrecht of Mainz about
reforming with charity and kindness. Morone could agree with the rising
zelanti that some urgent and determined remedy was required to combat
religious dissent.117 Matters of religion were indeed under-regulated as he
would later express it in the quotation introducing this chapter. However,
Morone and the spirituali sought a more subtle and varied pastoral strategy.
The Accademia crisis can certainly be seen as a part of the struggle within
the spirituali to reconcile tensions between soteriology, ecclesiology and
pastoral practicalities. However, there is a danger in building it up too
much and overelaborating the extrapolations that can be derived from the
episode. Much about it was rather contingent and transitory.
Over the 19 months from the end of January 1541, Morone certainly
cemented a close understanding with Gasparo Contarini.118 I have sought
to fill a little of the gap highlighted by Gleason, but the story necessarily
feels incomplete with their friendship cruelly brought to an abrupt end just
as it was blossoming.119 There were obvious points of contact between the
two men in their backgrounds and career experience. Pre-existing irenic
tendencies in Morone’s character were probably confirmed and augmented
by the older man and he was given a greater insight into the doctrinal
complexity of the religious situation as Gleason suggests.120 By his own
115
Morone to Sforza, Ghent, 8 April 1540, Laemmer, pp. 253–260, discussed in the
previous chapter.
116
‘… come assai temo che con la violentia non si farebbe cosa buona, anzi seguirebbe
maggior et irreparabile disordine …’, Morone to Farnese, 3 August 1542, PM, III, p. 155.
117
The pastoral strategy of Morone’s eventual, and generally more resident, successor
– Egidio Foscarari – can be judged to have followed exactly these lines, see Michelle
M. Fontaine, ‘Making Heresy Marginal in Modena’, in Ronald K. Delph, Michelle M.
Fontaine and John Jeffries Martin (eds), Heresy, Culture and Religion in Early Modern Italy:
Contexts and Contestations (Kirksville, 2006), pp. 37–51.
118
Contarini sang Morone’s praises to others, describing him as ‘prelato veramente
singulare’ to Sadoleto on 5 July 1542, and their relationship in terms of being ‘congiunto (to
Morone) d’un amore et affettione così grande quanto si possa dire’, to another correspondent,
cited by Firpo, Inquisizione romana, p. 99 n. 124.
119
Gleason, Contarini, p. 222. See also now, Ganzer, ‘Contarini und Morone’.
120
For example, see Contarini to Morone, 6 July 1542, PM, III, pp. 132–133, in which
he affirms Morone’s general stance. Ganzer too concludes by emphasizing the influence of
Contarini on Morone, ‘Contarini und Morone’, pp. 133–134.
admission, his views on justification were influenced by the Regensburg

agreement.121 However, Morone’s impact on the older man should not be
discounted.
Regensburg and the summer of 1542 have been seen as crucial for the
political fortunes of the spirituali and evangelismo.122 Certainly, Contarini,
Pole and Morone all shared a view on the treatment of heretics at odds with
another trend in the reform movement exemplified by Carafa’s approach
that heretics should always be treated for what they were.123 This latter
trend was gaining ground in Rome because of the mounting concern with
outbreaks of heresy in cities such as Naples, Lucca and Modena. Licet
ab initio was evidence of this. Pole saw the way the wind was blowing
and this moulded his caution over the summer and informed his advice
to others. The events of 1541/1542 serve to highlight more this emerging
division, rather than the splits in the spirituali. The cluster of reformers,
whose consensus had been instrumental in producing the Consilium de
emendanda ecclesia in 1537, was strained and fracturing along the lines
that commentators like Simoncelli and Firpo allege.124
Contarini’s death was a severe blow to the spirituali, and the flight
of Ochino and Vermigli an embarrassment, which served to heighten
the suspicions of their more conservative colleagues.125 Nevertheless,
the surviving spirituali quickly put distance between themselves and the
former Capuchin and the damage done was probably limited.126 Before
his death, Contarini had been entrusted with the important legation to the
emperor and so, with Sadoleto going as legate to France, key diplomatic
posts were intended for members of the group. Badia had been placed on
the newly created inquisitional commission and he, Morone and Cortese
had been made cardinals at the start of the summer. Pole and Morone were
then appointed as two of the three legates for the council in the autumn.
These realities are symptomatic of the complexity that characterizes the
farnese pontificate. The spirituali were still getting good jobs and their
121
See Morone’s comments in his Apologia, PM, II, pp. 454–459, discussed at length
in the next chapter. Also, see Gleason, Contarini, pp. 229–235.
122
Fenlon for one, citing Giberti’s concerns as confirmation, views the summer of 1542
as a watershed, see Heresy and Obedience, p. 52.
123
Carafa in a memorial to Pope Clement VII in 1532, De lutheranorum haeresi
reprimenda et Ecclesia reformanda ad Clementem VII, CT, XII, pp. 67–77, cited by Firpo in
124
Carafa was already a hardliner and so the consensus was always going to be fragile,
see Simoncelli, Reginald Pole, pp. 22–26.
125
Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 130–131 on Pole’s reaction to Contarini’s passing.
126
See Fragnito, Gasparo Contarini, pp. 251–306. Interestingly, she suggests Ochino
may have travelled north via Modena, though Morone does not seem to have been rocked by
his flight and there is no evidence of contact between the two men at this dramatic moment,
pp. 302–303 n. 149. Of course, Vermigli’s flight was an embarrassment for Morone.
influence could still tell.127 The group was not in disarray. The struggle at
the heart of the Church was just beginning.
Indeed, cautioning against the tendency to pigeonhole too easily is
Morone’s relationship with Cervini. Notably, he continued to look to him
for advice and as a link with the farnese. Whilst Morone may never have
been as close to the Cardinal of Santa Croce as he was to Contarini and
Pole – there is not quite the same warmth in their correspondence – the
relationship was not merely opportunistic.128
Morone’s standing with the farnese was not compromised by the
Accademia episode. The facts point in the opposite direction. His offer
of resignation was not accepted. He had been created a cardinal, one of
the legates to the council and was later appointed legate at Bologna. His
appointment to the council meant closer contact with Cardinal Pole. In the
shadow of the death of their mutual friend, Contarini, they were to forge
a strong bond in the coming months.
127
For an analysis of the farnese pontificate in this light see Fragnito, ‘Evangelismo e
intransigenti’. See also Fenlon’s comments on the coincidence of so many of the spirituali in
the north, Heresy and Obedience, p. 49.
128
See Morone’s comments on their relationship, Apologia, PM, II/I, p. 453.
Chapter 3
Morone, Pole and the Spirituali,

1542–1549
Conscio a me stesso delli peccati miei et delli pochi beni ch’io ho fatto …
ho detto più volte ch’io non voglio tener conto con Dio delli miei meriti, ma
desidero entrar nel ciel per la sua misericordia et per li meriti della passione di
Iesu Christo … Et questo mio dire non è stato per contempto delle buone opere
… ma perché sono poche, sono imperfette et io ne sono debitore di molte più.1
Are these comments evidence of a suspect soteriology or simply sentiments

of Christian humility inspired by a Christo-centric spirituality? Whilst
1542 may or may not be judged a turning point in the fortunes of the
spirituali and evangelismo italiano, it is certainly true that the 1540s were
of most interest to the Inquisition, when they came to sift Morone’s past in
the search for compromising material. These were the years of the aborted
opening of the Council of Trent in 1542/1543 (when Morone was one of
the legates) and the years leading to the actual opening and first phase of
the council (1545–1548). It is the landscape of Massimo Firpo’s thesis for
Morone’s religious development and the wider aims and activity of the
spirituali in the run up to Trent.
Much of the source material for the critical points in these years is
retrospective, deriving from the evidence given in connection with the
processi undertaken against Morone and others from the 1550s onwards. It
necessarily throws up problems of interpretation. The inherent difficulties
extend to the evidence that Morone gave to the Inquisition, both during
interview (the costituti) and in his Apologia.2 Morone was interviewed
1
‘Conscious myself of my sins and of the little good that I have done … I have said
more times that I do not wish to hold account with God of my merits, but desire to enter
heaven through his mercy and through the merits of the passion of Jesus Christ … and this I
say not through contempt of good works … but because they are few, they are imperfect and
I owe many more of them.’ Morone, Apologia, PM, II, p. 477.
2
The critical edition of the Apologia is in PM, II, pp. 448–505, with introductory
notes at pp. 140–146. It draws on two sources, one at Milan and the other at Foligno.
Cesare Cantù made use of the former in his Gli eretici d’Italia. Discorsi storici (3 volumes,
Turin, 1866), and Pastor the latter. Following Morone’s arrest on 31 May 1557, on 12 June
the essential allegations were verbally put to him. Morone was invited to make a statement,
some 10 times: eight during 1557 and once each in the following two years.
It is difficult to know what to make of the cardinal’s evidence. He was
evasive and probably deliberately vague, periodically pleading memory
loss.3 We cannot underestimate the immense pressure he was under, yet
he undoubtedly knew he had to be circumspect.4 His notable capacity for
humility and self-deprecation are also to the fore. The fact that both sides
during the processo sought to rely upon the Apologia is indicative of its
ambiguities.5
Morone’s ‘Seduction’, Trent 1542/1543
Morone and Pole do not appear to have been close before 1542, although
their paths had certainly crossed.6 Pole had been appointed a cardinal in
1536, along with Carafa and Sadoleto, and was part of the group that
produced the Consilium de emendanda ecclesia. Only after the death of
Contarini and the appointment of the two men, along with Cardinal Pier
Paolo Parisio, as legates to the Council of Trent, can we begin to trace their
close and important association.7 Indeed, in the eyes of Firpo, the encounter
between Morone and the ascetic Englishman would be the spark for a
profound religious and spiritual reorientation in the Milanese cardinal.
In the autumn of 1542, Morone twice stayed at Viterbo. After
both visits, Pole’s secretary, Alvise Priuli, wrote of how much Pole had
‘spontaneously and with truth’, trusting in the mercy of the pope, as Morone himself
recalled when he began to write (Apologia, PM, II, p. 447). His accusers hoped the resulting
document would amount to a confession, hence the alternative name – confessio. Morone did
as requested, putting into writing his thoughts and explanations in respect of the allegations
over the course of the next six days.
3
See his comments at the outset of the Apologia, PM, II, p. 448.
4
Carnesecchi wrote to Giulia Gonzaga on 12 June 1557, shortly after Morone’s arrest,
relaying his apparent calmness in the face of the unfolding calamity, PC, II, p. 269.
5
Firpo and Marcatto raise similar questions over the nature of the Apologia, PM, II,
pp. 141–142.
6
See Pole’s lukewarm response after Morone’s elevation to the Sacred College in letters
to Contarini and Morone, 2 June and 20 June 1542, in Thomas F. Mayer, The Correspondence
of Reginald Pole (4 volumes, Aldershot, 2002–2007), vol. I, pp. 287 and 289, and discussed
in Mayer, Prince and Prophet, p. 127. On Pole, in addition to works already cited see;
Thomas F. Mayer, A Reluctant Author: Cardinal Pole and His Manuscripts (transactions
of the American Philosophical Society 89/4, Philadelphia, 1999); Dermot Fenlon, ‘Pole,
Carranza and the Pulpit’, in John Edwards and Ronald Truman (eds), Reforming Catholicism
(Aldershot, 2005), pp. 81–97; David Loades, ‘Cardinal Pole’, Reformation, 7 (2002): pp.
197–205; Dermot Fenlon, ‘Pietro Carnesecchi and Cardinal Pole: New Perspectives’, JEH, 56
(2005): pp. 529–533, and Eamon Duffy, Fires of Faith: Catholic England under Mary Tudor
(New Haven and London, 2009).
7
They were appointed on 16 October 1542 (CT, IV, pp. 261–262).
Morone, Pole and the Spirituali, 1542–1549 61
enjoyed the encounters.8 It seems that Morone and Pole, though not
travelling precisely together, made the journey to Trent in tandem and
in part together. Morone’s recollection was to the effect that the three
legates travelled separately, only meeting up to make their entrance into
Trent, inauspiciously delayed a day because of teeming rain.9 The point is
not without interest. The Bolognese layman Giovan Battista Scotti later
testified that it was during the journey to Trent that Morone was seduced
into Lutheran belief about justification by Marcantonio Flaminio, with
Pole backing up Flaminio, taking the role of some sort of adjudicator.10
In his first deposition, Scotti talked floridly of Flaminio wrestling
Morone to the ground and forcing his submission, an allegation he
subsequently repeated, though less colourfully.11 Scotti admitted not
being present himself, but he had heard the story later from dissidents
at Modena, who informed him of how Morone had undergone a change
in outlook.12 Whatever the situation on the journey, Pole and Morone
certainly saw a great deal of each other once they had arrived in the city.13
The Dominican and Viterbo group member, Bernardo de’ Bartoli, also
testified that Vittoria Colonna had said that she and Morone had been led
by Pole to view justification in a Lutheran manner and that Morone had
later confirmed this to Bartoli in 1543.14
Morone remained in Trent for eight months, finally departing when the
start of the council had definitively been aborted at the end of July 1543.15
8
See Firpo, Tra Alumbrados, pp. 141–142, Inquisizione romana, pp. 126 and 145–
146, and Mayer, Prince and Prophet, p. 134. See also PM, II, p. 556 n. 41.
9
Their formal entrance was on 21 November 1542, see the legates to Farnese, 24
November, CT, IV, pp. 286–287. See also PM, II, pp. 548–563 especially pp. 552–553 and
556–557, especially n. 41 and Mayer, CRP, I, pp. 300–301. Morone’s recollection seems
to have been broadly accurate: Pole and Morone appear to have joined forces shortly after
Verona, on 16 November. See also Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 146–147.
10
PM, II, pp. 245ff., VI, pp. 133ff. Scotti was interviewed three times and, as with a
number of the witnesses, the record of his evidence in PM, II (pp. 245–253, 347–375 and
753–771), has now to be cross-checked with that of the so-called Summarium (Summarium
processus originalis) published in PM, VI (pp. 133–146, 221–240 and 307–311). On Scotti,
see PM, I, pp. 291–294 n. 93. On Flaminio, see DBI and Hillerbrand, vol. 2, Alessandro
Pastore, Marcantonio Flaminio: fortune e sfortune di un chierico nell’ Italia del Cinquecento
(Milan, 1981), and more recently, A. Pastore and A. Toffoli (eds), Marcantonio Flaminio
(Serravalle 1498–Roma 1550) nel 5 o centenario della nascita (Vittorio Veneto, 2001).
11
PM, II, pp. 245–246; VI, pp. 133–134.
12
PM, II, pp. 356–357, 757 and VI, p. 237.
13
Mayer, Prince and Prophet, p. 136. Mayer is suspicious of Scotti’s story, pp. 133–
134, and downplays the role of Flaminio in the Viterbo group.
14
PM, II, pp. 263–264 and PM, VI, pp. 163–169. On Bartoli, see PM, I, p. 259 n. 34.
15
On this stalled attempt to open the council, see Jedin, Trent, I, pp. 446–489. The Bull
of suspension is in CT, IV, pp. 352–355 dated 6 July 1543. Morone’s last report from Trent
is dated 25 July 1543. By 16 August, he was back at Modena, from where he journeyed to
During this sorry attempt to open the assembly, Morone’s pro-conciliar

attitude persisted. When asked what was to be done in connection with the
gathering, he argued in favour of perseverance rather than abandonment
or translation and, on 30 June 1543, wrote a balanced roundup of the
prelates’ views for Cardinal Farnese. Recognizing the delicacy of the
dilemma and resolving to pray ‘instantissimamente’ for the Holy Spirit’s
guidance, Morone commented that ‘… at no time had there been a matter
of greater importance …’. Pietrantonio Di Capua was the only other
supporter of perseverance.16
The following decade, the Inquisition probed Morone in relation both
to the journey up to Trent, and the months spent waiting in the city.17 He
was asked about the people in Pole’s entourage and about discussions that
may have taken place with Flaminio, Priuli and Pole, in an effort to find
some echo of Scotti’s story. Morone was prepared to admit conversations
about spiritual issues, but deflected attempts to establish details.18 Asked
in his final interview whether people had spoken about disputed matters
of faith, Morone agreed that they had, but that he could not remember
the particulars.19 However, he added that he had felt it a necessary part of
the preparation for the council for the participants to rehearse the various
arguments about the important issues and convenient for them to do so
when gathered together at his ‘tavola’ as many of them used to do. Indeed,
he suggested that he had felt it his duty to facilitate such discussion and
clearly viewed it as legitimate.20 This was certainly not the view of the
members of the Holy Office in 1559, in the context of an anti-council
papacy. The questioning narrowed to a specific incident of interest – an
alleged dispute between the Augustinian preacher Andrea da Volterra and
an unnamed bishop.21 Morone testified that he was not able to remember
Rome in September for the autumn and winter months before being appointed to the legation
of Bologna, see CT, IV, p. 356 and Jedin, Trent, I, p. 486.
16
‘… in nessun tempo mai fosse cosa di maggior importantia’. CT, IV, pp. 345–348.
See Jedin, Trent, I, pp. 483–484. In the context of Firpo’s thesis, the stance of these two
figures, at this particular time, might be regarded as suspicious.
17
PM, II, pp. 552–562.
18
PM, II, pp. 559–560.
19
PM, II, pp. 857–864.
20
PM, II, pp. 859–860. In the course of discussing leniency towards Lutherans when
he was legate in Bologna, Morone admitted a similar attitude during this period at Trent: that
he sometimes took their part in discussions, hoping to present the reasonable face of Rome
and convince them to attend, knowing that there would have been Lutheran spies about. He
conceded that this (perhaps farfetched?) attitude had been presumptuous and regrettable, but
he had thought that no one could suspect him of disloyalty given his service to the Church,
see the Apologia, PM, II, pp. 480–482.
21
PM, II, pp. 860–861. The bishop in question was Dionigi Zannettini, known as Il
‘Grechetto’, who later had a celebrated run-in with Tommaso Sanfelice, resulting in the latter’s
exile from the council after he had torn part of Zannettini’s beard from his face, see Jedin,
this particular episode. It was Scipione Bongalli who had probably put the
inquisitors onto it.22 Bongalli also testified to Morone’s persistent concern
for reform over the period and the talk of it in Pole’s and the Milanese
cardinal’s circles.23
Scotti’s story about the journey was not the only trail followed by
the inquisitors involving Flaminio and his possible influence on Morone.
During the fourth and fifth interviews with the cardinal, they probed about
the writings found amongst Morone’s papers.24 It was in the course of
these interviews that Morone appears at his most insouciant. Questioned
about the writings of Flaminio and Valdés, he admitted possession of a
number of works, which he had received from Flaminio, breezily adding
that despite having had them for many years, he had not had the time or the
inclination to read them all. Challenged further, he argued that Valdés had
not then been banned, although he disarmingly admitted that his papers
could do with an overhaul. He also rather provocatively commented that
it was said the works were beautifully written. During further questioning
he admitted in respect of one item that it was a case of much bought, little
read, a sentiment with which we might all sympathize, but one unlikely to
satisfy his interrogators.25 What certainly emerges from these interviews
is that Flaminio passed on to Morone a number of writings, including
commentaries on the Psalms, and that Flaminio apparently encouraged
Morone to have a go himself.26 Firpo suggests that this was the ‘Flaminio
Trent, II, pp. 189–193. Staunchly conservative, Il ‘Grechetto’ was also clearly something of
a hothead. Labelled a ‘pelagian’ in the past by Contarini, see Carlo Ginzburg and Adriano
Prosperi, Giochi di pazienza: Un seminario sul ‘Beneficio di Cristo’ (Turin, 1975), p. 137,
Zannettini later wrote to Rome several times in 1546, denouncing the spirituali and their
agenda for the council, see Simoncelli, Reginald Pole, pp. 36–38 and CT, X, pp. 538–539
and 585–586.
22
Bongalli, Bishop of Orte and Civilta Castellano, could neither remember what the
dispute had been about, nor whether Volterra had spoken heretically or not, see PM, II,
pp. 842–856; PM, VI, pp. 334–337. Zannetttini never mentioned the episode in his brief
testimony, PM, II, pp. 639–644.
23
Bongalli went on to specify the shopping list the cardinals sought and further added
that Morone had once commented on how the heretics had been given plenty of cause to
become so, because of the poor example at Rome. See PM, II, pp. 842–856 at 847–848 and
852–853.
24
PM, II, pp. 564–577 and 579–586. Inventories of material sequestered by the
Inquisition from Morone’s casa can be found at PM, VI, pp. 385–395 and 396–414. See also
Alessandro Paris, ‘“Quando io leggo un libro o odo una predica, io piglio quello che è buono
et che può fare edificatione.” I libri del Cardinal Morone e il suo processo inquisitoriale’,
in Roberto Pancheri and Domenica Primerano (eds), L’uomo del Concilio (Trent, 2009),
pp. 65–81.
25
PM, II, p. 583.
26
PM, II, pp. 583–584.
technique’ for bringing ‘neophytes’ to Valdesian spirituality, and it had

previously been applied to Pole.27
Morone and Colonna, 1542–1547
Another focus of enquiry for the Inquisition was Morone’s connections with
the poetess Vittoria Colonna in the early 1540s. Part of her correspondence
with Morone from these years up to her death in February 1547 survived
and fell into their hands. Unfortunately, we have only Colonna’s side of
the exchange.28 Morone played down their relationship in his testimony
and the degree of their contact before 1542 is hard to estimate.29 Certainly,
Colonna welcomed the gravitation of Morone towards Pole and, on
30 November 1542, wrote with evident satisfaction and gratitude that
Morone had seemingly agreed to look out for Pole at Trent.30 Just before
Christmas 1542, Colonna wrote to Morone in response to a letter from
Trent.31 She noticeably praised his quicker grasp and humble acceptance of
the spiritual reality of finding all things in Christ, a reference to instruction
at the hands of Pole and company, at least as far as the Firpo thesis goes.32
27
See Firpo, Tra Alumbrados, especially pp. 173–176. However, Mayer (Prince and
Prophet, pp. 116–119) plays down Flaminio’s influence. In the Apologia, desiring to distance
himself from the realm of professional or semi-professional theology, Morone stated that he
had never written anything of note except for a few attempted commentaries on some of the
Psalms and the Epistles of St Peter, done for his own personal use, see PM, II, pp. 459–460.
If Morone’s choice of the Psalms fits the pattern, his selection of the Petrine Epistles does
not set alarm bells jangling in the way that selection of St Paul’s works might have done.
These intriguing bits of ‘homework’ have failed to surface so far. Interestingly, the choice of
Psalms mentioned (33 [not 34 per Firpo and Marcatto n. 32], 88, 22, 116 and 125 Septuagint
numbering), might be categorized as popular, with a common and upbeat theme of God’s
providential care tentatively poking through.
28
Versions of the correspondence are in PM, II, pp. 1065–1106, and PM, VI, pp. 351–
370. A fuller critical edition of the letters is Sergio M. Pagano and Concetta Ranieri (eds),
Nuovi documenti su Vittoria Colonna e Reginald Pole (Vatican City, 1989). Each version is
of interest. On the Morone–Colonna relationship see, Inquisizione romana, pp. 131–180,
especially 152–166, and Massimo Firpo’s recent, ‘Giovanni Morone, Vittoria Colonna e
Michelangelo’, in Roberto Pancheri and Domenica Primerano (eds), L’uomo del Concilio
(Trent, 2009), pp. 83–101. On Colonna’s links with the spirituali and the importance of
her poetry in this regard see the interesting discussion of Abigail Brundin, Vittoria Colonna
and the Spiritual Poetics of the Italian Reformation (Aldershot, 2008), especially pp. 47–56.
29
They had known one another from the late 1520s – see Chapter 1. Carnesecchi
testified about gifts sent to Morone by Colonna, but admitted he did not know the extent of
their contact, see PC, II/III, p. 1030 and PC, II/II, p. 432.
30
PM, VI, p. 351.
31
PM, VI, pp. 353–356.
32
PM, VI, p. 354.
In fact, Morone seems to have found himself in the midst of some jostling
for the attentions of the Englishman, although as Mayer has pointed out,
it is difficult to reconstruct the precise nature of the dynamics at work
behind the correspondence.33 Mayer believes that Colonna and Priuli did
not get on and this seems borne out by some of Colonna’s comments and
Morone’s attempts to soothe her.34 An extraordinary text in relation to
the Pole–Priuli–Morone–Colonna matrix is the notoriously difficult letter
of 30 November 1546, sent only a few months before Colonna’s death.35
The meaning of the possibly corrupt text is obscure, but Mayer may be
right in seeing in it more evidence of the edginess in the Priuli–Colonna
relationship.36 The Inquisition sought clarification for some of the more
mystifying sections and Morone came up with an elaborate explanation,
which arguably tends in this direction.37 Dermot Fenlon connects the letter
to religious tensions felt by the spirituali at the time, proposing that Morone
played a substantial role in soothing the alarm felt by Colonna and Priuli
in the face of the emerging orthodoxy on justification.38 However, Fenlon’s
analysis is unconvincing and Morone gave no indication to the Inquisition
of having played any such role.39
Colonna’s letters show that she gained much from her contact with
Morone. The letters also testify to the emerging relationship between
Morone and Pole. At the beginning of one (20 May 1543), Colonna almost
chides the two of them for trying to outperform the other in humility and
says that she enters between such holy extremes hoping, in a sense, to
participate vicariously in the grace conferred upon them by the author
of all good things.40 She went on to console Morone for the fact that he
had been left in Trent as sole legate, alluding to the shared virtue of the
cardinals, which they ignite within each other, a process of inflammation
33
34
See for example, Colonna to Morone, 15 March 1543, PM, VI, pp. 357–358. Part
of Mayer’s general thesis is to posit an extremely close relationship between Priuli and Pole,
see Prince and Prophet, pp. 439–451, especially p. 445.
35
Pagano and Ranieri, Nuovi documenti su Vittoria Colonna e Reginald Pole,
pp. 164–166, PM, VI, pp. 369–370. She died on 25 February 1547.
36
37
PM, II, pp. 702–711.
38
Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience, pp. 213–217.
39
Morone was quick to repeat the ‘Pole saved Flaminio for the Church’ story that
Pole himself had apparently tried to sell to Carafa in 1553 (see below), and spoke of Pole’s
counselling of Colonna against ‘vane fantasie’, see Apologia, PM, II, pp. 501–502. See also
the comments of Carnesecchi (PC, II/III, pp. 1027–1041, especially 1034–1035 and 1040–
1041), Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 131–137, and Colonna’s comments to Morone, 22
December 1542, Pagano and Ranieri, Nuovi documenti su Vittoria Colonna e Reginald Pole,
pp. 140–141, cited also by Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 135–136.
40
PM, VI, pp. 358–359.
from which she says she feels left out.41 She contented herself with the
knowledge that she was prayed for by the two of them.42 Morone seems to
have taken Colonna’s request to look after Pole very seriously, judging by
her comments in a letter of 15 March 1543 referring to Morone playing all
manner of spiritual and human roles for Pole during a period of sickness.43
Pole and Morone also began to correspond in the immediate aftermath
of the Englishman’s departure from Trent in 1543. Initially, Pole appears
to have thought so much of Morone that he became self-conscious about
the quality of his Italian.44 He wrote of how he valued discussing spiritual
matters with Morone and sought to console Morone in the face of his
continued toil at Trent and his apparent feelings of solitude. In March
1546, Pole sent Easter greetings to Morone and wrote of how he had
longed to write so as to receive the consolation he brought. Before the
Inquisition, Morone shielded and at times openly defended his friend.
When talking of Pole in the Apologia, he intones the section with great
solemnity and then goes on to speak of Pole’s great faith in providence,
which left Morone awestruck, and of how he had heard Pole defend the
Church’s position on purgatory. Importantly, he also recounted how Pole
had told him the story of saving Flaminio for the Church.45
Finally, the Colonna–Morone correspondence raises questions in
relation to the cardinal’s spiritual development. In a letter from early January
1543, Colonna spoke of her joy that Morone had by now read and tasted
‘li scritti di Monsignor’, and went on to urge Morone to read them again
in order to obtain ‘that sweetest ointment that refreshes and comforts in a
way that supremely one tastes of salvation (health)’.46 Similarly, in her last
letter, Colonna spoke of how much she enjoyed their contact, especially in
respect of ‘that book which (Morone) often opens’, a reference perhaps to
41
Pole and Parisio were recalled to Rome in May 1543.
42
PM, VI, p. 359.
43
PM, VI, pp. 357–358. It seems to be an in-joke in fact, harking back to previous
criticism by others of Colonna’s relationship with Pole. Mayer (Prince and Prophet, pp.
137–138) is perhaps too serious about the exchange here.
44
Pole to Morone, 22 May (twice) and 28 May 1543, CRP, I, pp. 307–309 and 309–
310, respectively. See the discussion of the letters in Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 138–139.
See also Pole to Morone, Trent, 24 October 1545 and 28 March 1546, CRP, I, pp. 337–338
and 349–350. Morone’s side of these exchanges is missing.
45
‘Et perché siamo a ragionare del reverendissimo Polo et più volte ho udito dire che
si sono havuti sospetti di lui, io voglio dire ingenuamente et coram Deo quel che ne sento …’
[‘And because we are to discuss the Most Reverend Pole and more times I have heard said
that some have had suspicions of him, I wish to say honestly and before God what I feel of it
…’] Apologia, PM, II, pp. 460–463. On the Flaminio story, note the contents of p. 463 n. 46.
See also Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 117–119 and 196–197.
46
Pagano and Ranieri, Nuovi documenti su Vittoria Colonna e Reginald Pole, pp.
143–144.
a work by Valdés, Flaminio or another of the spirituali.47 Indeed, perhaps

it is a tantalizingly veiled reference to the Beneficio di Cristo. Do these
fragments show that Morone underwent a process of quasi-instruction
from members of the ecclesia viterbiensis, confirming the testimonies of
Scotti and Bartoli? The latter told the Inquisition that Morone had spoken
of having been ‘illuminato’ by Pole about justification, something he had
been opposed to before.48
The Beneficio di Cristo and Suspect Preachers for Modena, 1543/1544
Was the supposed reorientation in Morone’s beliefs discernible and

not restricted merely to private sentiments conveyed in personal
correspondence?49 This was the Inquisition’s view and the evidence was
to be found in the testimony of witnesses and the conduct of the cardinal
himself. Scotti alleged that the dissidents of Modena found a changed
Morone returning to their city in the summer of 1543. They commented
that he had become one of them and had sought their pardon.50
Key evidential planks in this view of Morone’s ‘seduction’ are his
choice of preachers for Modena and his support for the controversial
libretto known as the Beneficio di Cristo.51 The writing, refinement and
dissemination of this tract, first in manuscript and then in a printed
edition, has been seen as a crucial part of the campaign by the spirituali
to spread Valdesian thought to a wider audience.52 The debate about its
nature and origin will no doubt continue to run.53 Various people testified
about Morone’s support for the tract, a matter that the Inquisition targeted
and something Morone could not deny. He explained in the Apologia the
47
Colonna to Morone, 30 November 1546, Pagano and Ranieri, Nuovi documenti su
Vittoria Colonna e Reginald Pole, p. 165.
48
Firpo certainly thinks so, see PM, VI, p. 168. Inquisizione romana, pp. 149–152.
49
Firpo would say so, see, Inquisizione romana, pp. 125–129, 152 and 249–253.
50
See for example Scotti’s second deposition, PM, VI, p. 237.
51
Trattato utilissimo del beneficio di Giesú Cristo crocifisso verso i cristiani.
52
53
On the tract, see Salvatore Caponetto (ed.), Il Beneficio di Cristo: con le versioni
del secolo XVI, documenti e testimonianze (Corpus Reformatorum Italicorum, DeKalb,
1972). Helpful also is the entry by Elisabeth Gleason in Hillerbrand, vol. 1, pp. 142–143,
and the preceding one by Paolo Simoncelli, pp. 141–142, on Benedetto di Mantova. See also
Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience, pp. 69–99, Barry Collett, Italian Benedictine Scholars and
the Reformation (Oxford, 1985), especially pp. 157–185 and Firpo, ‘Il “Beneficio di Christo’.
Mayer attempts to give Pole greater credit for the work than has hitherto been the case and
to truly make it a group effort involving the Viterbo ‘compagnia’, plus input from Contarini
– Prince and Prophet, pp. 119–125. There is also an interesting discussion of it by Brundin,
Vittoria Colonna, pp. 47–56.
context in which he became acquainted with the libretto: the difficult and
fluid time before the more centralized and well-founded Inquisition.54
Morone’s recollection was that he saw a printed version of the tract,
brought to his attention by the Modenese bookseller, Antonio Galdadino.55
He admitted that he had avidly read it, devoured it in fact, and that it had
seemed to him ‘molto spirituale’. He had been struck particularly by the
sections concerning the Eucharist and had thus been reassured that there
could be no hidden danger in the book.
Morone went on to describe how Sigibaldi and Gregorio Cortese,
a member of the Inquisition, had endorsed the worth of the libretto.56
However, as the cardinal explained, rumours about the tract persisted and
he had set it aside. Disarmingly, he stated that he no longer remembered
anything about the book other than the good things it had to say about
the Eucharist, and that he would never have allowed it to be sold had
he known of defects in its teaching, or, crucially, had it been banned. He
concluded the section with his own vague (evasive perhaps) contribution
to the debate about its authorship.57
Choosing preachers also proved to be a problematical issue. During Lent
1543, while he was at Trent, Morone sent Bartoli to preach at Modena,
probably on the recommendation of members of the Viterbo group. The
following year he engaged the services of a Franciscan, Bartolomeo della
Pergola, who was also known to the spirituali.58 Both these men came to
be regarded as suspect choices and both testified about their commission
to preach Lenten cycles. Bartoli alleged that Morone had wanted him
to preach of the ‘beneficio di Christo’, an obvious echo of the famous
54
PM, II, pp. 465–468.
55
Bartoli alleged Morone gave him two copies (PM, II, pp. 266–267; PM, VI,
p. 183), and Scotti testified about Morone’s support for it, information he had received from
Galdadino, who was in turn interviewed by the Inquisition, see PM, II, pp. 146–147; 357;
544–547 and 749–752; PM, VI, pp. 133–146 and 305–306. Apollonia Merenda alleged
Morone had been shown a manuscript version by Flaminio and Galdadino’s evidence
partially confirmed this. Merenda, one of Pole’s satellites, gave the evidence in his own trial
in 1551. Extracts were then used in Morone’s as Merenda had by then fled; see PM, II,
pp. 266–279. See also the testimony of the Modenese Dominican, Alberto Foscheri Da Carpi,
PM, II, pp. 247–249; PM, VI, pp. 406–412.
56
Morone quoted Cortese’s famous remark about clothing himself in the morning with
this ‘Beneficio di Christo’. Apologia, PM, II, p. 466.
57
That he did not know who the author was but had heard said it was Flaminio, who
denied it, and later had heard that it was a Benedictine monk, from Sicily or the Kingdom,
but whose name he could not recall. Apologia, PM, II, p. 468.
58
Morone acknowledged that Bartoli came with the endorsements of Pole and others,
but that he had also verified his soundness with senior Dominicans, see PM, II, pp. 468–469
and 538. He stated that Pergola, who was linked to Soranzo, had actually come via Cardinal
Rodolfo Pio Da Carpi, and had preached in Rome; see PM, II, pp. 430–431 and Morone in
his Apologia, PM, II, p. 499. See also Inquizione romana, pp. 172–174.
libretto.59 In later testimony, Bartoli asserted that Morone had asked him
to preach about justification in a Lutheran manner, but without giving
scandal to the people.60
Bartoli also alleged that Morone had engaged Pergola on similar terms,
adding that Pergola had described his commission from Morone, as the
preaching of ‘Christo nudo, et non tante novelle et tanti meriti et tante
cose’.61 Pergola more or less confirmed Bartoli’s allegations: Morone
had commissioned him to preach about justification, the invocation of
the saints and predestination ‘ad mentem Lutheri’.62 He went so far as
to say that Morone’s opinions were more heterodox than his on some
issues, except about the Eucharist. The cardinal had apparently warned
Pergola against preaching about this in a Lutheran manner, believing that
in this regard Luther was mistaken.63 It is a point that neatly ties in with
Morone’s attraction to the Beneficio di Cristo. Bartoli’s preaching does not
appear to have been contentious, but Pergola’s sermons certainly caused a
stir.64 He was hauled across to Bologna and forced into a public retraction
on certain points.65
Naturally, Morone’s recollection of his conversations with these men
was at variance with theirs and he denied commissioning them to preach
in obviously heterodox terms.66 He explained that he had wanted someone
who would preach the scriptures and teach the people to know God and
Jesus Christ. He asserted that he had desired nothing other than the health
of souls, truly feeling fervour for the name and glory of Christ.67 Of
course, preaching ‘Christo nudo’ does not necessarily amount to preaching
59
PM, II, p. 269 and PM, VI, pp. 187–188.
60
‘… questa nova dottrina, cioé la giustificatione ad mentem Luteri, ma in modo che
non desse scandalo ad populo’. PM, II, pp. 713–715; PM, VI, pp. 293–294. This issue of
not causing scandal was a sensitive and taxing one in spirituali circles. See Carnesecchi’s
comments, PC, II/II, p. 567.
61
‘Christ naked, and not many novelties and many merits and many things’. PM, II,
pp. 266–269, 282 and 731; PM, VI, pp. 182–187 and 198.
62
PM, II, pp. 426–428, 432–433 and 742–743; PM, VI, pp. 253–254, 256–257 and
303.
63
See PM, II, pp. 432–433; PM, VI, pp. 256–257.
64
See Cesare Bianco, ‘Bartolomeo della Pergola e la sua predicazione eterodossa a
Modena nel 1544’, Bollettino della società di studi valdesiani, 151 (1982): pp. 3–49.
65
See Morone’s letters to Sigibaldi, 29 March 1544, PM, III, pp. 172–173 and 14 June
1544, PM, III, pp. 177–179. See also Apologia, PM, II, p. 499, and Pergola’s retraction, PM,
III, pp. 180–181. This material was included in Morone’s defence bundle.
66
See PM, II, pp. 538 and 562.
67
‘… ben li exortava a predicare la Scrittura et insegnare al popolo a cognoscere bene
Dio et quem miserat Iesum Christum, perché io non desiderava altro che la salute de le anime
et con verità me senteva infervorato del nome et della gloria de Christo’. PM, II, pp. 538–539.
‘ad mentem Lutheri’.68 Morone also seems to have been conscientious,

both in terms of obtaining references for those whose services he sought,
and in monitoring their effectiveness.69 He clearly found the whole thing
a minefield. From Bologna, on 25 May 1544, he wrote to Sigibaldi in an
exasperated tone, lamenting being at a loss in respect of what to do about
friars and preaching. He observed how he had received positive testimony
about Pergola before sending him to preach, but ruefully added that both
he and Sigibaldi knew how that had turned out.70
The Tale of the Missing Letter on Confession, 1543
When interviewed in the 1550s, Bartoli also made allegations about a

letter Morone had written from Trent to his vicar, the contents of which
were to be communicated to confessors in the diocese. Bartoli maintained
that to dissident elements amongst the clergy, the letter showed that
Morone had become ‘one of us’ (di nostri).71 When recalling the incident,
Morone started by mentioning an encounter with a priest from one of the
outlying parishes in the diocese. It seems that the cardinal had sought to
verify for himself the suitability of such pastors.72 The priest in question
was confused as to how God, merciful and just at the same time, could
remit the sins of penitents. Morone explained that, although sin merits the
severe justice of God, this justice turns to mercy (si voltava in misericordia)
for true confessed penitents (veri penitenti confessati), through the love of
Jesus Christ because of what He has done, an explanation that apparently
reduced the elderly priest to tears.73 Morone explained that recollection of
this incident had prompted him to write the contended letter and he had
instructed Sigibaldi to make Bartoli understand that he should admonish
the people about going to Confession, but that they should hope for
68
The motif of ‘Christo nudo’ may echo the phrase, ‘nudus nudum Christum sequi’
– ‘naked following a naked Christ’. With roots back to the Patristic period, this phrase or
saying was popular with movements for renewal in the Church in the medieval period,
although the context was rather different. As such, it had currency in both Dominican and
Franciscan literature with the context being the debate about evangelical poverty, see Kajetan
Esser, Origini e inizi del movimento e dell’ ordine francescano (Milan, 1975), esp. pp. 225–
226 and Nicholas M. Healy, Thomas Aquinas: Theologian of the Christian Life (Aldershot,
2003), esp. p. 28.
69
PM, II, p. 538.
70
PM, III, pp. 175–177, at p. 175. See also Morone’s comments about the Modena
problems and his hopes with regard to successful preaching, Apologia, p. 468.
71
PM, II, p. 265 and pp. 277–279; PM, VI, pp. 179–180 and pp. 195–196. On Bartoli
and this letter, see also Chapter 4.
72
73
remission of their sins by Christ (da Christo) and that all confessors should
teach the same.74 Morone therefore did not deny the fact of the (by 1557
lost) letter.75 Nor did he dispute the basic content. Morone’s position was
that the letter had been misconstrued by ‘li cattivi’.
Sigibaldi advised Morone on 1 March 1543 that the letter had ignited
a problem after its contents had first been divulged by one of the priests
present at the clergy gathering, and then massively and publicly distorted
by a certain carpenter, whom Sigibaldi described as the trumpet of the
dissidents. By the time the information was being trumpeted loudly,
Morone was supposed to have said that it was no longer necessary to
attend Mass, fast, confess or other such orthodox practices, because Christ
had made satisfaction.76 No wonder the Modenese dissidents had been
rejoicing. Sure enough, righteous citizens were soon beating a path to
Sigibaldi’s door to complain. He and Morone then attempted to dispel
the misconceptions about the letter.77 Morone instructed that the formula
from the so-called Council of Cologne be recommended to confessors.78
The contents of the original letter, as far as they can be reconstructed from
Morone’s comments and those of Sigibaldi, do not necessarily amount to
what was alleged by Bartoli. The cardinal does not appear to have been
denying the necessity, efficacy or form of the sacrament. Rather, he sought
to clarify and thus increase its pastoral effectiveness or potency.79
74
75
See Firpo’s comments, PM, II, p. 265 n. 9.
76
PM, III, pp. 156–166.
77
Sigibaldi to Morone, 1 March 1543, PM, III, p. 165. Apologia, PM, II, p. 471.
78
Apologia, PM, II, p. 471. Morone was probably referring to the provincial synod
held in 1536, at the instigation of the Protestant leaning archbishop, Hermann Von Wied,
and under the direction of Johann Gropper. See Mullett, The Catholic Reformation, pp.
33–34. In itself, it was a problematical choice. Giberti had printed an edition of the acta in
Verona but, as Morone admitted earlier in the Apologia, this too had become suspect, see
PM, II, p. 467. See also PM, I, p. 347 n. 228.
79
See especially PM, III, pp. 156–157. Morone may have been influenced by Contarini
in his attitude. See Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 83–84, for discussion of Penance and
Contarini’s 1542 Articuli, drawn up for the Accademia crisis. See also Mayer, Prince and
Prophet, p. 128 on Pole’s possible quibbles with Contarini on the issue. By the 1550s, Morone
was more circumspect in his instructions to preachers; see both the Aviso di quanto si ha da
osservare dalli predicatori nella città et diocese di Modena per ordine del reverendissimo
et illustrissimo cardinale Morone, issued under his name in 1551 by his successor, Egidio
Foscarari, and the 1553 Disposizioni sulla predicazione per la diocesi di Novara, PM, III,
pp. 280–287 at pp. 282 and 285, and 302–310 at p. 308, respectively. Notable in the latter
however, is a reminder of God’s mercy in # 11, evidence that even in the 1550s Morone was
concerned with emphasis of this aspect of pastoral theology.
Jesuits and Dominicans: Relics and Saints
In contrast to Bartoli and Pergola, a solid choice of preacher was the

Jesuit, Alfonso Salmerón. However, this initiative also backfired and led
to damaging testimony against Morone and even regret on his part.80 On
returning to Modena while Salmerón was carrying out his commission
in the summer of 1543, and having received mixed reports about it,
Morone went to listen to the Jesuit for himself. According to Morone,
Salmerón’s preaching on human merit seemed in danger of stoking up
human arrogance and pride towards God. Morone called him into his
rooms and the two men had argued. Morone conceded that he had made
some injudicious and inept comments, most of which he could no longer
remember precisely except for one. This was to the effect that he did not
know of many merits, and that even when he said Mass, which must be
the most holy work one could perform, he still sinned.81
Morone regretted the comment and recognized the gravity of what he
had said. He pleaded that it had come out wrongly and that he had really
meant that nothing could be more pleasing to God than to celebrate the
Mass with devotion, but that unfortunately his experience was of distraction
or lack of devotion causing him to fail in this regard. He emphasized that
he had patched things up with Salmerón some years later. The Jesuit’s own
testimony more or less tallied with the cardinal’s. He added that, while the
cardinal’s comments could have been construed as Catholic, they had not
seemed so at the time.82 He confirmed that the two had been reconciled
later and that he had found Morone’s opinions altered.
Bartoli was in fact one of a battery of Dominicans to testify in
Morone’s processo. A Modenese friar, Cherubino della Mirandola, told
the Inquisition that he felt that Morone ‘non fusse catholico’, and went on
to specify that the cardinal had been critical about the custom of singing
the Salve Regina.83 He placed the episode in 1540 or 1541 and added
that Morone had conducted a blazing row about the issue with the prior
of the house, who attributed Morone’s shortcomings to having been in
Germany.84 Another Dominican called upon to testify was the Bolognese
80
Apologia, PM, II, pp. 472–474.
81
82
Interviews with the Jesuit can be found at PM, II, pp. 335–345 and 623–638; VI,
pp. 218–220 and 283–286. See also Inquisizione romana, pp. 251–252.
83
PM, II, p. 388. His testimony can be found at PM, II, pp. 386–393, 773–783; PM,
VI, pp. 243–244 and 312–314.
84
The said prior, Domenico da Bergamo, does not mention it in his testimony and felt
Morone was not ‘machiato de heresia’, at the time, although he later (1550s) had suspicions,
PM II, pp. 415–425; PM, VI, pp. 250–252.
inquisitor, Reginaldo di Nerli.85 Nerli had links with a number of reformers

such as Giberti, Pole and Gonzaga, and seems to have been utilized by
Morone to undertake what were quasi visitations as well as preaching in
Modena. The essence of Nerli’s first deposition in June 155386 was that he
had found slackness in the diocese and some notorious heretics operating
in the city, like Bonifacio Valentini.87 When called upon to give evidence
again two years later, he amplified his earlier testimony and made further
concrete allegations about Morone’s attitude to the adoration of the Cross
and relics of the saints.88
For his part, in evidence Morone maintained that while legate at
Bologna, he never failed to visit the relics of St Stephen or accompany
the Madonna of San Luca, according to the custom of the place.89 While
emphasizing the strong affection he always carried for the saints, he
admitted to harbouring doubts about and even being openly critical of
some relics on show in Rome, mentioning the piece of the crib at Santa
Maria Maggiore and the hair and clothing of the Madonna.90 He also
spoke of his unease with the trade in relics plied by fraudsters. Affirming
his reverence for true relics at one point, Morone cited his possession
of a silver reliquary in the form of a cross, which had accompanied him
everywhere for the previous 12 years or more.91
Morone admitted that the issue of the intercession of the saints had
given him ‘un poco di molestia’, and he had felt it better to ask for their
intercession through Jesus Christ as found in the breviary or the missal.92
However, Morone pointed out that he had never allowed his questions to
85
Michele della Coltre, another Bolognese Dominican, also testified that Morone had
become suspect at Modena (PM, II, pp. 376–385; PM, VI, pp. 241–242), and the Florentine
friar, Matteo Lachi (PM, II, pp. 312–326 and 645–649; PM, VI, pp. 210–214), alleged that
Morone was, ‘machiato de heresia et heretico’ after his return from Germany.
86
Nerli initially testified during the Holy Office’s clandestine period of investigation
during Julius III’s reign, see Chapter 4.
87
See PM, VI, pp. 147–150. See also PM, II, pp. 298–299 and especially n. 5.
88
Nerli’s further depositions at PM, II, pp. 298–311, 784–802; PM, VI, 204–209 and
315–320.
89
Apologia, PM, II, p. 486. As per Firpo and Marcatto in n. 108, there were plenty
willing to testify about Morone’s conventional piety during the defensive phase of the
processo held at Bologna in 1560 (published in PM, IV), including Morone’s involvement
with the local devotion to the Madonna of San Luca. See for example that of Morone’s
familiar, Marcantonio Bentivoglio, PM, IV, pp. 183–218 at 214. However, note Firpo and
Marcatto’s citation of contradictory testimony from local chroniclers in n. 73, although it too
does not appear to be contemporaneous reportage.
90
Bongalli testified that Morone had been critical of customs associated with the feast
of the Chair of St Peter, in particular the sale of cords to ward off labour pains, see PM, II,
pp. 846–847.
91
92
detract from his fulfilment of the usual ecclesial customs. He concluded

by saying that the example of the fathers and medieval writers, including
acquaintance with the teaching of Aquinas, had finally banished any
scruples he had once held in this area.93 Admitting some difficulties with
the text of the Salve Regina, Morone went on to assert a strong devotion
to the Madonna, adding as proof his visit to the shrine of Santa Maria
de Loreto.94 With tremendous aplomb he interjects a little prayer at this
point, to the Virgin Mary, for her intercession, that he might be delivered
from the present difficulties, if it be the will of God and good for his soul.95
The Tridentine Decree on Justification, 154796
When the Council of Trent finally opened on 13 December 1545, Morone

had already been assigned to the territorial legation of Bologna.97 Pole
was reappointed as legate, but joined by two new colleagues: Giovanni
Maria Ciocchi Del Monte and Marcello Cervini. Nevertheless, Morone
was in correspondence with the legates (and with Cervini and Pole
separately), who asked his opinion from time to time on various issues,
particularly in relation to German matters.98 He also spent time in Rome
on the advisory commission for conciliar business.99 As is apparent from
a March 1545 letter from the legates, whether by strategic design or
93
Apologia, PM, II, pp. 489–490. Note the works of Aquinas cited by Firpo and
Marcatto at n. 124.
94
On the Salve Regina, Morone discussed modifications ‘… perché se sariano possuto
intendere quelli attributi esser fatti a Christo, il quale è propriamente “vita, dulcedo et spes
nostra”, secondo dicono infiniti luochi della Scrittura, del qual Christo ella è madre’ [‘…
because one would be able to understand those attributes to be made to Christ, who is
properly “life, sweetness and our hope”, as numerous places in Scripture say, of which Christ
she is the mother’]. Apologia, PM, II, pp. 490–491. See also, Apologia, PM, II, pp. 491–492
and especially n. 133. Morone seems to have subscribed to the largely Dominican view on
the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Sensitivity towards the position of Christ seems
to lie behind his convictions in this whole area of Catholic devotion.
95
96
Sixth General Session, 13 January 1547. CT, V, pp. 790–820. See Jedin, Trent, II,
pp. 304–311. Text of the Decree, Tanner, II, pp. 671–681.
97
Appointed in April 1544, Morone formally entered the city on 5 May. He remained
legate, though not always resident, until replaced by Cardinal Del Monte in July 1548.
On Morone’s legation, see Candido Mesini, ‘La Legazione a Bologna del Card. Giovanni
Gerolamo Morone Vescovo di Modena (1509–1580)’, ADSPPM, X, III (1968): pp. 63–102.
See also the comments of Firpo and Marcatto, PM, II, pp. 485–486 n. 107 and Mesini,
especially p. 71 n. 18. Morone’s tenure at Bologna provoked its share of discomforting
allegations.
98
Some of the correspondence is in CT, X.
99
See Jedin, Trent, II, pp. 42–43, and Farnese to Morone, 27 November 1545,
summoning Morone back to Rome because of his experience of the German situation, CT,
merely geographical proximity and convenience, Morone acted initially

as something of a link between Trent and Rome, with the legates’
correspondence being fed through Bologna.100 As the year went on,
Morone can be seen advising on such matters as the emperor’s attitude
to the assembly in the light of the March 1545 diet, or about who might
replace the newly deceased Archbishop of Mainz.101 When Morone
received news of the eventual opening of the council, he passed on his
congratulations, clearly feeling it would act as a sign of the pope’s good
intent and a spur to others to fulfil their duty. He assured the legates of
prayers from Bologna for its ‘buon progresso’.102
It seems clear that there was disappointment amongst the spirituali
and the humanist reformers with the passage of the Tridentine Decree on
Justification during 1546/1547. Set aside were Seripando’s advocacy of a
position close to that of Contarini and based on a theory of duplex iustitia,
and the arguments of others such as the group of humanists identified
by Alberigo.103 Pole’s views on the decree have been a matter of debate
from that time on. In the summer of 1546, the English cardinal wrestled
IV, p. 440 and CT, X, p. 275 n. 6 and 346 n. 2. Morone took the opportunity to go to
Modena and Milan, eventually arriving in Rome in January 1546.
100
CT, X, pp. 10–11.
101
Morone to the legates, 8 April 1545, CT, X, pp. 26–27 and 7 October 1545,
p. 209. The continuity of Morone’s concerns in these letters with his previous views is
striking. He comments on the unwelcome spectre of a German national assembly deciding
matters of religion and manifests fears about the quality of German prelates.
102
Morone to the legates, 20 December 1545, extract in CT, X, p. 275 n. 6. In a sense,
Morone was picking up the thread of his final dispatch from Trent in 1543 and the theme of
much of his advice to the pope from his time as nuncio in Vienna. On the opening and early
sessions of the council, see Jedin, Trent, II, pp. 13–97, Dumeige et al., Latran V et Trente,
pp. 219–283.
103
See Fenlon’s chapter on the group of prelates and theologians who sought a different
decree, Heresy and Obedience, pp. 137–160. Fenlon relies on Giuseppe Alberigo’s I vescovi
italiani al Concilio di Trento (1545–1547) (Florence, 1959). For a detailed treatment of the
conciliar debate, see Jedin, Trent, II, pp. 166–196 and 239–316. For Seripando’s position, see
Jedin, Seripando, and Alfredo Marranzini, ‘Il problema della giustificazione nell’ evoluzione
del pensiero di Seripando’, in Antonio Cestaro (ed.), Geronimo Seripando e la chiesa del suo
tempo nel V centenario dlla nascita (Rome, 1997), pp. 227–269. The theory of duplex iustitia,
supported by Contarini in connection with the colloquy at Regensburg and advocated in vain
by Seripando at Trent, was based around the idea that there could be detected two formal
causes for the justification of human beings – one imputed justice, which would accord more
with a Lutheran understanding of justification as forensic and external to the subject, and
another inherant justice productive of good works, which accorded more with what was
clarified as the orthodox Catholic view. On the history of the issue of justification generally
and the Reformation debates about it particularly, see Alistair McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A
History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge, 1998), esp. pp. 242–273 on
debates within Catholicism in the sixteenth century culminating in the debates at Trent. The
view that there was more than one formal cause of justification was specifically excluded by
the Tridentine decree.
with the prospect of having to return to Trent and express his opinion on
the draft. He had decamped from the city and direct involvement in the
business of the council, ostensibly on the grounds of health on 28 June.104
As his plight became more desperate, it was to Morone (then in Rome)
that he turned to present his case to the pope.105 Noticeably, he wanted to
satisfy Morone as to his views and referred to the twin poles of council and
pope, which were likewise the core of Morone’s ecclesiology. On the other
hand, we might ask if Morone had also been pressurising Pole to return
to the fray?106 When the decree was finally passed, it seems clear that Pole
too was unhappy. Carnesecchi certainly suggested as much during one of
the last acts of his processo in 1567.107
Morone’s own recollection was to the effect that Pole had once
expressed regret about the structure of the decree.108 Under questioning,
Morone admitted that there had been discussion of justification and
associated matters – even mention of it in sermons – whilst he had been
at Trent in 1542/1543. However, he added that he knew nothing of Pole’s
views about justification, other than what the Englishman had written: a
reference to the opinion on the draft decree eventually wrung from Pole
and sent to the council in October 1546. Morone had already referred to
it in his Apologia.109 In the latter, he went further, remarking that Pole had
tended to emphasize the badness in human beings after the sin of their
first parents and that he was accustomed to magnify the great charity and
104
On Pole at Trent, and his attitude towards the decree, see Fenlon, Heresy and
Obedience, pp. 116ff. and Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 143–163. Endimio Calandra
testified in 1568 that he had heard that Pole had feigned his illness; see Sergio Pagano,
Il processo di Endimio Calandra e l’inquisizione a Mantova nel 1567–1568 (Vatican City,
1991), p. 309.
105
Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience, pp. 166–171, and Mayer, Prince and Prophet,
p. 155. Pole wrote a summary of his view on the timeliness of a decree, which Morone passed
on to the pope’s secretary, Pole to Morone, Treville, 28 August 1546, CT, X, pp. 631–633
(summary in CRP, I, pp. 357–358). Pole clearly felt more thought should go into it and more
effort made to produce a decree that the entire Christian world could endorse. Interestingly,
he also expressed reservations about the representation at the council.
106
Paul III considered replacing Pole as legate with Morone during the summer/autumn
of 1546, Jedin, Trent, II, pp. 278–280 and CT, pp. 589 n. 3 and 670. This provoked one of
‘Il Grechetto’s’ rants.
107
Carnesecchi testified that Colonna had celebrated Pole’s departure from Trent as a
fortuitous Divine intervention, so that he (Pole) was not directly involved with the decree.
Carnesecchi took her to mean that Pole was at variance with others at Trent over the issue.
Flaminio and Priuli had confirmed as much to him but he had not learned the precise nature
of Pole’s dislike of the decree. PC, II/III, pp. 1232–1233.
108
Apologia, PM, II, p. 461. Note the comments of Firpo and Marcatto in n. 42.
Mayer dismisses Morone’s testimony, Prince and Prophet, p. 161.
109
PM, II, pp. 561–562 and Apologia, PM, II, p. 461. See Mayer, Prince and Prophet,
pp. 155–161. Texts of the two versions of Pole’s memorial are in CT, XII, pp. 671–676.
grace of God given in Christ.110 Morone might have added that it was a
spirituality in which he too was thoroughly at home. After being formally
relieved of his legatine duties, Pole eventually wound up in Rome at the
end of 1546 and was appointed to the conciliar commission. Both he and
Morone, along with Cortese and Crescenzio, opposed the publication of
the Decree on Justification in January 1547.111
Seeking to clarify his own position for the Inquisition, Morone admitted
to holding a view on justification, before the determination of the matter
at Trent, which accorded with the agreement reached at Regensburg.112 He
recalled that, although he had heard of differing opinions on the agreement,
and that the Lutherans had claimed it for their own, whilst Catholic writers
took the opposite view, he had held to it, there not being anything better.
He had felt able to defend it, given the calibre of the Catholic experts
present at the meetings, the favourable opinions he had heard about it
subsequently, and because it described faith operating through charity – a
key concern in spirituali circles. There was also mention of the sacraments
and good works he recalled (the former cropped up in other articles in
fact). Morone made it plain that he was no expert and that he had been
at the negotiations as nuncio and not as a theologian. He concluded that
after 1547, he had subsequently held firm to the determination of Trent,
but pointed out that the decrees had not received papal approval and as
such were not yet valid, comments that must have acted like the proverbial
red rag to the inquisitors’ bull. He added for good measure that he was
content with this position (the decree) and would hold it, with divine help,
as long as (and here is the sting) the Church did not change it, which he
did not believe would happen.113
110
111
Sensitivity to the situation in Germany seems to have been a factor in their
opposition, Jedin, Trent, II, p. 312. See Mayer, Prince and Prophet, p. 161, and Fenlon,
Heresy and Obedience, pp. 196–198. Whilst Pole refrained from endorsing with his signature
any of the semi-official versions of the decree that did emerge, a fact noted at the time, it
seems he never directly wrote an opinion on it. Some scholars detect a shift in Pole’s thought
towards the Tridentine orthodoxy over the early 1550s, see Simoncelli, Reginald Pole, pp.
108–111, Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience, pp. 196–208 and Mayer, Prince and Prophet,
217–218.
112
See Gleason, Contarini, pp. 229–235.
113
‘Io fui presente al trattato come nuntio non come theologo, et non parlavo; et
benché sentisse dir doppo varii pareri di questo articulo, nondimeno, non essendo alcuno
altro risoluto per migliore, mi tenevo a quello … Io, che m’ero trovato presente al tratto et
sapevo che li nostri deputati erano dotti et reputati catholici, quando m’occorriva ragionare,
defendevo questo articulo perché pareva si potesse difendere, essendovi dentro (se ben mi
ricordo) che quella fede per quam iustificamur est fides viva et efficax et quae per dilectionem
operatur. Dipoi, nel fine del capitolo, vi era che a questa si doveva aggiungere la dottrina delli
sacramenti et delle bone opere. Et ho sentito dir da molti dotti che stava bene, et così mi stetti
fino alla conclusione fatta nel concilio Tridentino sopra detto articulo. Et allhora mi fermai
Morone went on to comment on whether he might have said or written

anything about the issue subsequently. He was resolute that, when he had
spoken of it, he had always said that, ‘Il Concilio l’ha determinato’.114 It
had been alleged that he had expressed the opinion that the decree would
need to be debated afresh in the future. Scotti had testified that Morone
had told Cardinal Francisco y Bobadilla Mendoza Di Burgos that the
decree would have to be revised.115 A variation of the allegation cropped
up again in an anonymous letter sent to Carafa, by then Pope Paul IV,
sometime between 1557 and 1558.116 In contrast, Scipione Bongalli
testified about Morone’s subsequent attitude to the decree in a manner
that both seemed to echo what Morone said about Pole and tended to
corroborate Morone’s own position.117
Morone was specifically tackled about the matter during his penultimate
interview with the Inquisition.118 The Milanese cardinal stated that he
could not remember ever having said anything akin to what was alleged.
He went on to comment that he might have suggested that, should the
Germans come to the council in the future, there might be a need to go
over the arguments again, not to revoke what had been determined but to
nella determinatione di detto Concilio, sebene non è stata fatta sino ad hora la approbatione
autentica dal papa di quel Concilio, senza la quale si sa che li Concilii non sono validii;
nondimeno, com’ho detto, io mi acquietai in quella et sempre l’ho tenuta et tengo et tenerò
con il divino aituo sin che hora viva, se la chiesia non mutasse, che non credo.’ Apologia,
PM, II/I, pp. 454–459.
114
‘The Council has determined it’. Apologia, PM, II, p. 459.
115
PM, II, p. 249. It was a subtle and niggling point. The lack of papal approval did
lead to tension between the papacy and the zealous Iberian episcopacy, who in the 1550s
sought prematurely to rely on aspects of the Tridentine legislation, see Jedin, Storia, IV/I,
pp. 20–24. The issue of a possible treating anew of certain matters was still floating about in
1560, see Chapter 5.
116
Text PM, II, pp. 1121–1122 and VI, p. 382. Mendoza was not interviewed
specifically about it and only related the story in 1560, in connection with the processo
against Carranza. He also commented on the closeness of Pole and Morone to Contarini in
religious outlook. See Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 422–424, and, ‘La ripresa del processo
contro Giovanni Morone sotto Pio V’, PM, V, pp. 13–102, now in Inquisizione romana,
pp. 471–536 at 517.
117
He quoted the cardinal as saying, ‘Io servarò quanto hanno determinato, ma
l’haveria aspettato questa materia di iustificatione un poco più chiara’ [‘I serve what they
determined, but would have expected this material of justification a little clearer’], see PM,
II, p. 851. Endimio Calandra raised the pulses of the Holy Office officials in 1568 with his
testimony about what Carnesecchi and Pietro Gelido had said about Morone and Pole’s
views of justification in the 1550s. However, the testimony (to the effect that the cardinals
agreed with them) was in fact pretty vague, see Pagano, Calandra, pp. 294–296, 308–311
and 344.
118
PM, II, pp. 825–832.
make it easier for them understand or receive it.119 He maintained that ‘…

depoi la determinatione del Concilio io sempre son stato quietissimo’.120
The inquisitors continued to push on the door, asking if he had ever
hinted that the Holy Spirit might indicate that matters should be treated
of anew (retractare), probing further on the issue. Morone, seemingly a
little exasperated, strenuously repeated his defence. It is one of the few
occasions the cardinal appeared riled by the line of questioning, doubtless
all too aware of the importance of the issue.
In Morone’s final interview, the questioning ultimately came to rest
on the issue of grace and free will.121 Some of the text of the interview is
difficult, but it is apparent from the development of the argument that
Morone was keen to clarify that he believed in free will and had taken steps
in the administration of his dioceses to ensure that preaching conformed to
what the council had taught.122 He admitted that he certainly esteemed the
grace of God, but free will too, commenting that it separates humans from
the irrational animals.123 Finally, asked about inherent grace, he replied
that he understood it as God giving his good spirit and grace to those he
wished to save and who do good works through it. If this was inherent
grace, then he had never denied it, although he might have said he was
unsure if he had it himself.124
In the Apologia, Morone had stated unequivocally that he had never
thought good works were unnecessary for salvation and could not be
meritorious of all that Christ had promised, when performed in grace.125
This was manifest from scripture and held by the whole Church. However,
the cardinal explained that he could not trust in his own works and merits.
Rather, he desired to enter heaven on the strength of God’s mercy and
the merits of the Christ’s passion. This attitude towards human capability
echoed what Morone had said about Pole’s outlook. As Morone stated in
119
‘non per rivocare le cose che non se possono revocare, ma per farni capaci loro’.
PM, II, p. 829.
120
‘Since the determination of the Council, I have always been most quiet’. PM, II,
p. 830. Note the comments of Firpo and Marcatto in n. 25.
121
PM, II, pp. 857–864. Around this time the Bishop of Belcastro, Giacomo Giacomelli,
had given his two depositions and mentioned inter alia Morone’s suspect views on grace and
free will and that the cardinal ‘… teneva totum provenire ab ipsa gratia et nihil a nostro
proprio libero arbitrio …’ see PM, II, pp. 833–841 and 865–869; PM, VI, pp. 331–333 and
338–339. Morone had apparently defended himself on the basis that cardinals such as Pole,
Contarini and Badia shared his views. Giacomelli’s testimony related to 1542/1543.
122
See PM, II, p. 861, especially what Firpo and Marcatto say in n. 21. Morone was
presumably referring to the instructions for preaching issued in his name in the 1550s.
123
PM, II, p. 863.
124
PM, II, pp. 863–864.
125
the quotation at the outset of this chapter, it was not so much that he had
contempt for good works, but rather that his were few and poor.
‘Machiato di heresia’?126
During the 1540s, Morone had become an important figure in the papacy
of Paul III. Despite his efforts, the 1542/1543 attempt to open the council
was stillborn. Although not reappointed as legate when the council did
open, his influential presence hovers in the background, advising Cervini
and the others in Trent, or the pope in Rome. Council and pope tackling
the obvious need for reform and renewal had been Morone’s diagnosis
for healing the Church’s problems at the outset of the 1540s and this view
continued to burn brightly through the decade.
Important connections and friendships were made or continued
during the 1540s. Notable is Morone’s continuing link with Cervini.
Although possibly damaged by the denunciations of Scotti and others, the
connection persisted with each man asking the other for help.127 With Pole,
Morone formed one of the most significant relationships of his life. He
and Pole were never able to replicate the time spent in Trent together, but
the bond then formed lasted until Pole’s death in 1558, and would have
repercussions for Morone, both good and bad, for longer still.
There were problems in these years too. Morone’s difficulties at
Modena persisted and his tenure of the Bologna legation was far from easy.
The Holy Office had begun to pursue targets close to Morone and Pole –
Pietro Carnesecchi for one in 1546. As the decade waned, along with the
farnese pontificate as it turned out, Morone’s influence probably dipped.
First, there was the translation of the council to Bologna in March 1547,
a move resisted by the Hapsburgs with whom Morone had strong links.128
Then, in September 1547, came the assassination of Pier Luigi Farnese
in Piacenza, with the connivance of the emperor’s lieutenant in Milan,
126
Mixed or stained with heresy – the accusation levelled against Morone by some
Dominicans.
127
See, Cervini to Morone, 24 January 1545 in which Morone’s ‘diligentia et destrezza’
are praised, ASV, Segr. Stato, Legaz. Bologna, 178, f. 1rv., and Cervini to Morone, Trent, 29
January 1546, CT, X, pp. 346–347. It was Cervini to whom Morone turned for help when he
wanted relief from the position of legate in Bologna, see Cervini to Morone, 25 June 1548,
ASV, Segr. Stato, Legaz. Bologna, 179, f. 45r., and Mesini, ‘La Legazione a Bologna del
Card’, pp. 90–92. Pallavicino also noted the connection between the men, Istoria, II, 9.1.2.
pp. 335–336.
128
See Jedin, Trent, II, pp. 396–443 on the translation. On the council at Bologna, see
Jedin, Storia, III. Morone seems initially to have expressed concern about the translation and
backed calls for a return to Trent, although he later seems to have viewed this as no longer
necessary, see Jedin, Storia, III, pp. 30, 128 and 140–145.
Ferrante Gonzaga.129 The shattering death of the old pope’s son appears
to have signalled a shift towards a more pro-French stance. The alienation
between Morone and Cardinal Farnese (Pier Luigi’s son) seems palpable
even on the face of their formal correspondence.130 Morone was permitted
to resign the Bologna legation in July 1548 and returned to Rome.
Firpo’s thesis about the 1540s is persuasively argued. He essentially
sides with the Inquisition and accepts the veracity of the adverse testimony
given a decade later, coupled with the other evidence: the hints in Colonna’s
letters, Morone’s backing of the Beneficio di Cristo and the elusive and
unconvincing nature of some of the cardinal’s responses. However, just
how dramatic a change was precipitated in Morone by the encounter with
the Viterbo group, and just how ‘machiato de heresia’ the cardinal was
thereafter are legitimate questions. The evidence does not all go one way.
There was plenty of testimony during the defensive phase of Morone’s
processo at Bologna in 1560, which vouched for the cardinal’s piety and
probity, and which buttressed the cardinal’s assertions, that he had not
spoken of justification in a manner contrary to the decree of the council.131
Examining merely one example, Marcantonio Bentivoglio, who knew
Morone from his Vienna days, warmly testified to the esteem with which
the cardinal was held by others at the various courts of Europe and,
importantly, to Morone’s public and private conduct both during his time
in Bologna and afterwards. Bentivoglio asserted that Morone ‘… osservare
tutti li ordini della santa chiesa’ and goes on to specify the fasts kept in
Morone’s household at the appropriate times, the visits made by Morone
to churches, to ‘hospitali de poveri’ and the alms-giving practised by the
cardinal. He mentions a particular, touching example of the cardinal’s
generosity over a long period of time towards ‘a poor man with a wife
and about seven children’, living in the Borgo in Rome. Bentivoglio also
attested to Morone’s faithful recitation of the Office and daily attendance
at Mass, which the cardinal indeed often celebrated himself. With each
question put to him, Bentivoglio challenged the allegations made against
Morone: about what he is alleged to have said, for example, about the
Tridentine Decree on Justification, and about what he is alleged to have
done.132 Although Firpo is critical of this material as being rather generic,
129
See Mesini, ‘La Legazione a Bologna del Card’, pp. 83–84 and Jedin, Storia, III,
pp. 150–155.
130
See Mesini, ‘La Legazione a Bologna del Card’, pp. 89–92. See also Pallavicino,
Istoria, II, 11.2.2. p. 544. There exists one further intriguing tabloid trail in connection with
the casa farnese and the spirituali, which involved the untimely death of Cosmo Gheri and
Pier Luigi’s alleged complicity in it. See Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 71–72 and Fragnito,
Gasparo Contarini, p. 267.
131
See the testimonies in PM, IV.
132
PM, IV, pp. 183–218.
he is surely somewhat harsh.133 We should not be too quick to dismiss it,

nor indeed the cardinal’s own vehement denials. The Milanese prelate’s
evidence can often be stretched, albeit to breaking point, to cover all the
avenues of concern about a particular item, and an alternative explanatory
narrative adduced.
Furthermore, the adverse testimony is not itself above question. The
reliability of the witnesses who gave evidence has to be placed in context.
Given they were invariably under scrutiny themselves, did they not have
much to gain by providing the authorities with juicy morsels? Some like
Pergola may have had personal grudges against the cardinal. Scotti had
abjured twice in the 1540s, which placed him in considerable difficulty
and Bartoli likewise had been investigated.134 These men were suspect
themselves and the modern experience of ‘super-grasses’ is illustrative of
the pitfalls. It was the method the Holy Office employed and, whilst it
does not necessarily render such testimony wholly unsound, it does call for
circumspection.135 Other doubts arise too. The inquisitors appear to lead
Nerli into making accusations against Morone. Left to his own devices,
he had little of consequence to say about the activities of the Milanese
cardinal, aside from feeling that he had neglected matters in his diocese.
There is a suspicious break in the train of evidence given by Nerli, after
which point, his efforts to come up with something of note about Morone
appear to increase in extent though not in terms of the quality of the
material offered.136
Moreover, the totality of what was alleged of Morone did not amount
to as much as the number of testimonies might suggest. Rather, it was
the case of a small collection of points cropping up repeatedly, often in
the guise of rumour and hearsay and with varying degrees of consistency,
credibility and authenticity. The letter to the Modena clergy seems a case
in point. When it was only Morone, Bartoli, Sigibaldi (who was dead) and
perhaps some of the Modenese witnesses, who were really in a position
to comment, others refer to it as something they heard or believe to have
happened. Scotti admitted he had not been present at the discussions
133
See ‘La fase difensiva del processo inquisitoriale del cardinal Morone: documenti
e problemi’, CS, XXIII (1986): pp. 121–148, now in Inquisizione romana, pp. 371–398,
especially 384–388.
134
Some of the evidence given in Morone’s favour aimed at discrediting Scotti and
others. See, for example, the deposition of Boccadiferro, PM, IV, pp. 218ff. at 257–259.
135
Firpo concedes something in this direction in his thoughtful discussion of the
Inquisition, ‘L’eresia dottrinale: tra “spirituali” e riformatori’, in L’Inquisizione e gli storicic:
un cantiere aperto. Tavola rotunda nell’ ambito della conferenza annual della ricerca, Roma,
24–25 giugno 1999 (Rome, 2000).
136
PM, II, pp. 797–798. Note the comments of Firpo and Marcatto in n. 53, and at
PM, II, pp. 102–107.
between Flaminio, Pole and Morone and based his testimony in part on
what dissident elements at Modena told him. Yet, was this in turn based
on a distortion of the letter about Confession?
On justification, Morone mounted a robust defence of his position.
Here and elsewhere, he pointed to the fluidity and uncertainty of the
religious situation in the early 1540s. He admitted acceptance of the
Regensburg agreement until the determination of the matter at Trent,
whereupon he had accepted what the council fathers had decreed. As
the line of some of the cardinal’s testimony highlights, it was unfair to
judge him by an orthodoxy that had not been definitively determined until
at least the conclusion of the debates at Trent. Of course, the Mendoza
testimony and its echoes looks bad, yet even the way that emerged is
suspicious. Moreover, as Morone also had the gall to point out, until the
pope formally ratified the decrees they were not definitive.
Arguably, Morone was not radicalized by the encounter with Pole
and company. Morone’s own evidence, and some of that emerging from
Dominican circles, points more to a soteriological outlook based on duplex
iustitia rather than justification ex sola fide: more Contarini-Seripando,
than Flaminio-Carnesecchi et al. Of course, where Pole fits into this is
possibly irresolvable. At the least, the evidence seems to point to a two-
stage or more gradual development in the cardinal’s views: a Contarini
inspired first stage, augmented then by the encounter with the ecclesia
viterbiensis.137 Undoubtedly, Pole’s sombre spiritual anthropology either
influenced Morone or, more likely in my view, resonated with something
already in him and the Milanese cardinal admitted to admiring the
Englishman’s trust in providence. The importance of charity within the
matrix of a theology of justification was also of concern to Morone, as it
was to a number of the spirituali.
Evidently, Morone had developed a strongly Christo-centric piety
by the mid 1540s, with a strong emphasis on divine mercy and human
frailty. This was a spirituality firmly focused on Christ and his Passion,
and rather less interested in, if not actively disinterested in other aspects
of ‘traditional’ Catholic piety. It sprang from an innate humility and self-
deprecatory nature, but was doubtless nourished by the Reformation
debate about justification in which he became enmeshed through his career
and contacts. However, this Christ centred spirituality probably informed
his attitude towards theological issues rather than the other way around.
Moreover, certain excesses in the Catholic cult dismayed him and other
things troubled his spirit. He also felt that this religiosity ought to inform
the way his diocese was governed and he hoped to find in it a solution to
some of the problems that he had encountered there. It also led him to
137
So too Firpo and Marcatto in fact, see Inquisizione romana, pp. 246–247.
make some ill-judged remarks and to accept some suspect candidates for
work in his territories. Coupled with his manifest tolerance, these attitudes
and actions aroused suspicion.
Morone often portrayed himself as a loyal servant of the farnese. One
of Scotti’s accusations implied that Morone took this rather too seriously:
that he did not regard himself truly as the Bishop of Modena, viewing
the pope merely as a temporal ruler and obeying him as such.138 Indeed,
one of the perceived hallmarks of Valdés’ thought as betrayed by his
writings has been his lack of concern with respect to ecclesial institutions
and the sacramental system. Morone vigorously denied the allegation,
which carried the suggestion that he had no esteem for the structure of the
Church.139 In defending himself, Morone mentioned the mistakenness of
the Lutherans, who in failing to see the pope as the Vicar of Christ ignored
the teaching of the ancient councils.140 Carnesecchi made a similar point
during the course of his processo: admitting his and others’ attraction to
Luther in some respects, but their dissatisfaction with his separation from
the Church, brought about through pride (mera superbia), and contrary to
charity and the Spirit of God.141
Undoubtedly, this identifies both the attitude and dilemma of some of
the spirituali: their esteem for some of Luther’s insights, yet their continuing
commitment to the Roman Church, separating them from the likes of
Ochino, Vergerio and Vermigli. Carnesecchi often drew a distinction
between the teaching of Valdés on justification on the one hand and the
inferences (illationi) that could be drawn from it on the other.142 Morone
recalled in his Apologia speaking once with Apollonio Merenda, and being
surprised to hear Merenda deny the efficacy of the sacraments. Morone
had asserted that, ‘Your justification and mine are not the same, because
they have diverse consequences. They deny the sacraments and works and
I would not be able to live without either, although I am a sinner’.143
In fact, Scotti’s attack on Morone’s attitude to office seems very wide
of the mark. The evidence rather suggests that he was a conscientious
pastor, concerned with reform and renewal. Indeed, reform and pastoral
provision were arguably more important considerations for Morone
than the finer points of soteriology. The theological detail was not where
138
See PM, II, p. 248.
139
See PM, II, pp. 517–519 and 527–534.
140
PM, II, pp. 518–519.
141
See Carnesecchi’s comments at PC, II/II, p. 558, cited by Firpo and Marcatto, PM,
VI, p. 282 n. 4.
142
See for example, PC, II/II, pp. 566–570.
143
‘La sua giustificatione et la mia non è la medesima, perché hanno diverse
consequentie. Essi negano li sacramenti et le opere, io non potrei vivere senza l’uno et l’altro,
se bene sono peccatore.’Apologia, PM, II, p. 494.
Morone’s talents lay and he would have been happy to take refuge in
the trusted opinions of others such as Contarini, Badia, Pole and, for
that matter, the council fathers. That he was relatively untroubled by the
council’s decision – ‘quietissimo’ as he put it – is believable, though of
course likewise tinged with ambiguity. Morone’s allegiance to the Church
was too strong, his concerns for its renewal more dominant and his view
of salvation rooted in individual piety and spirituality rather than technical
theology. However, none of the above was enough for those who felt he
was suspect and who were concerned that someone like Morone or Pole
might obtain the papacy.
Chapter 4
Spirituali vs Intransigenti: Morone

under Suspicion, 1550–1559
Queste sono le cose che io sino qui, pensando et ripensando, tanto che con
l’afflittione nella qual mi ritrovo ho quasi in tutto perso il sonno, ho possuto
ricordarmi havere fatte o dette che m’habbi[no] ridotto in questa calamità …1
Morone’s words in June 1557 at the end of his Apologia, after having dealt
with the matters brought to his attention by the Inquisition. The calamity
causing loss of sleep was of course his arrest and imprisonment. However,
the road to this point had already been a long one. The calamity had been
brewing since the end of the farnese pontificate, if not for longer, and there
had been several twists along the way.
The Election of Julius III, 1549/1550
Paul III died on 10 November 1549 and the conclave to elect his successor
opened at the end of the month. Judged a pivotal point in the history of
the Italian Reformation, it was certainly a significant one for the spirituali
and the first in which they participated, precisely because they had been
appointments of the farnese pope.2 Pole led the field for the first half of
December and missed election on 5 December by a single vote. Several
factors probably contributed to this near miss. The deaths of spirituali
in the preceding years deprived Pole of likely support.3 Notable too, was
1
‘These are the things which I – thinking and rethinking over until now, so much that
with the affliction in which I find myself I have lost sleep almost entirely – have been able to
remember having done or said, that have reduced me to this calamity’. Morone, Apologia,
PM, II, p. 504.
2
See Mayer, ‘The War of the Two Saints’, Pole in Context, pp. 1–21, which is the
most recent study. See also Pastor, XIII, pp. 1–44, Simoncelli, Reginald Pole, pp. 60–73, and
Mayer and Peter E. Starenko, ‘An Unknown Diary of Julius III’s Conclave by Bartolomeo
Stella, a Servant of Cardinal Pole’, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, 24, (1992/1995): pp.
345–375, now reprinted in Pole in Context, as Chapter V, with a bibliography at p. 345 n. 1.
3
It was extraordinarily bad luck for so many of them to have died during the preceding
decade: Fregoso †1541, Contarini †1542, Giberti †1543, Bembo †1547, Badia †1547,
Sadoleto †1547, Cortese †1548.
Pole’s own reluctance to champion his candidature, and his refusal to

accede to a plan by Cardinal Alessandro Farnese to have him elected by
adoration on 4 December. In addition, the work of the more intransigent
cardinals to discredit him by raising doubts about his orthodoxy may
have caused others to waver in their support. Carafa was said to have
brandished a processo on Pole in the conclave during discussions on 2
December and again on 22 December.4
Morone too was one of the frontrunners, attracting 26 votes on 15 or
16 January 1550.5 He had been one of the emperor’s approved choices and
Pastor puts him in the imperial camp.6 However, a contemporary source
places Morone among the farnesiani.7 This ambiguity probably reflects
the shifting nature of Morone’s status towards the end of Paul III’s reign.
Thomas Mayer plays down the significance of the role of the intransigents
in scuppering Pole’s chances. He prefers to see the conclave as dominated
by the wider political struggles in Europe and as a failure by the whole
‘reform tendency’ to get one of their own elected, because of internal
divisions.8 However, that Carafa acted in the way he did in an obvious
attempt to damage the Englishman was a rather ominous development,
as was the rise of Carafa’s own candidacy. Eventually, Cardinal Giovanni
Maria Ciocchi Del Monte emerged in early February as a compromise and
duly became Pope Julius III (1550–1555).
Morone under Pope Julius
Morone was mainly resident in Rome during Julius’ pontificate.9 He

soon relinquished direct responsibility for Modena, writing to the Duke
of Ferrara on 7 June 1550 to inform him that the Dominican, Egidio
Foscarari, would be replacing him.10 He also alluded to his own inability
4
Mayer, Pole in Context, pp. 9 and 16.
5
Mayer and Starenko, ‘An Unknown Diary’, pp. 364–365. Pastor, XIII, p. 31.
6
Pastor, XIII, pp. 6 and 10.
7
See Mayer and Starenko, ‘An Unknown Diary’, pp. 370–371. One strange aspect
of the conclave, as reported in some sources, is that Pole could not automatically count on
Morone’s vote, see Pastor, XIII, p. 15.
8
See Mayer, Pole in Context, p. 21 and Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 175–176.
9
He spent time at Novara (December 1552 – August 1553, see Inquisizione romana,
pp. 181–182) and the summer of 1554 at Sutri, see Morone to Pole, 13 July 1554, NB, 1/15,
pp. 205–207.
10
Foscarari was appointed on 23 May 1550. Mayer states that Morone was among
a group of cardinals who opposed Foscarari’s appointment as Master of the Sacred Palace
in 1547, so perhaps he was not always an admirer of the friar, see CRP, II, p. 22 n. 71.
However, Foscarari had certainly gravitated towards the spirituali by 1550 when he is said
to have assisted at Flaminio’s deathbed. Flaminio died on 17 February 1550 at Pole’s house,
Spirituali vs Intransigenti 89
to reside in the diocese by indicating that the new incumbent, whose

credentials he flagged up, would do so.11 However, any assessment of
this change solely along the lines of it being motivated by concerns about
residence is clouded by Morone’s appointment to Novara, near Milan, on
12 September 1552. There was little real likelihood of his being able to
reside in this new see. Morone seems to have been one of those prelates
who were not immune from seeing ecclesiastical office, or some aspects of
it, as property. His desire for reform was tempered by the need to live and
work within the prevailing system and he doubtless accepted the post at
Novara for financial reasons. He was not one of the wealthy cardinals.12
Morone did attempt to govern Novara with care. In January 1553,
he published the ‘Aedicta sive constitutiones’ per la diocesi di Novara,
an instruction on the comportment and conduct of clergy. Morone had
undertaken a similar initiative at the outset of his tenure of Modena and
had repeated the exercise in 1542.13 The same month (January 1553) saw
the appointment of a new vicar, Giovanni Giorgio Paravicino, who was
soon (in April in fact), undertaking pastoral visitations in the diocese.14
The following year, Morone sent a set of instructions for preachers to
see Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 185–186. For Foscarari, see the entries in DBI and
PM, II, pp. 400 n. 23, and Lucia Felici, ‘Al crocevia della riforma. Egidio Foscarari nella
terza fase del Tridentino’, in Massimo Firpo and Ottavia Niccoli (eds), Il cardinal Giovanni
Morone (Bologna, 2010), pp. 79–116. On his time at Modena see Michelle M. Fontaine,
‘Making Heresy Marginal in Modena’, in Ronald K. Delph, Michelle M. Fontaine and John
Jeffries Martin (eds), Heresy, Culture and Religion in Early Modern Italy. Contexts and
Contestations (Kirksville, 2006), pp. 37–51. Morone seems to have retained the regressus, a
pension and appointment rights, see CT, IX, p. 533 n. 1.
11
Letter cited by Firpo and Marcatto, PM, II, p. 497 n. 148.
12
See Barbara McClung Hallman, Italian Cardinals, Reform and the Church as
Property (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1985). She judges Morone amongst those who viewed
pensions as private income and separate from the attached benefice. She says Morone had
some large Spanish pensions (probably picked up from the Hapsburgs), cites an instance of
him receiving one from Julius III from out of the see of Vicenza in 1550, and notes his largesse
towards Filippo Gheri and others, see pp. 57, 62–63 and 106–108. Morone’s attitudes in this
respect certainly persisted beyond the terminus ad quem of McClung Hallman’s work.
13
See citations by Firpo and Marcatto at PM, III, pp. 288–290. The text is at
pp. 288–301.
14
See PM, III, pp. 302–303. Note also the comments of Firpo on the challenges
presented by the new diocese and Morone’s use of the visitation as a tool for renewal,
Inquisizione romana, pp. 184–185. Unfortunately, again, his choice of co-workers sometimes
let him down. His use of Lorenzo Davidico proved to be a pastoral and political mistake.
Morone had to discipline Davidico, who for his part testified against Morone, see Firpo,
Inquisizione romana, pp. 181–241, and for Davidico’s testimony, PM, II, pp. 256–259 and
PM, VI, pp. 151–158. On Davidico see also, Massimo Firpo and Dario Marcatto, Lorenzo
Davidico (1413–1574) e il suo processo inquisitoriale (2 volumes, Florence, 1992).
Paravicino.15 It had been drawn up by Marcello Cervini for his diocese

of Gubbio, probably sometime between 1547 and 1549. Cervini also
used the instructions in his work for Julius III’s reform commission.16
Subsequently, both the Disposizioni and the ‘Aedicta sive constitutiones’,
along with another set of preaching instructions issued under Morone’s
name in Modena by Foscarari in 1551,17 were adduced during the processo
by Morone and his advisors in his defence. The Disposizioni has been
wrongly attributed to Morone because of this.18
If Morone had finished the previous pontificate slightly out of favour,
this was not the case with the new administration, which entrusted him
with various important tasks.19 Although not directly involved in the
resumption of the council in 1551, Cardinal Marcello Crescenzio being
chosen as the sole legate, Morone was on the conciliar commission
in Rome, and among those who advocated its reopening.20 Another
significant development was his appointment in November 1550 along
with others including Pole and Cervini, to a reform commission to do with
university studies in Rome.21 During these years he worked, with Cervini
in particular, towards the founding of the Germanicum at Rome (1553),
which was Morone’s idea.22
15
The Disposizioni sulla predicazione per la diocesi di Novara, the text of which, with
brief covering letter from Morone, can be found at PM, III, pp. 302–310.
16
After the closure of the second phase of the council (1551/1552), Julius reverted to
the strategy of proposing a great reform bull, see Jedin, Storia, III, pp. 13–25 and Hudon,
Marcello Cervini, pp. 144–151.
17
The Aviso di quanto si ha da osservare dalli predicatori nella città et diocese di
Modena per ordine del reverendissimo et illustrissimo cardinale Morone. See PM, II, p. 862
and III, pp. 280–287.
18
See Hudon, Marcello Cervini, pp. 109–115 and 149–150. Firpo and Marcatto
attributed it to Morone (see PM, III, pp. 76–77), but now accept it was Cervini, see
Inquisizione romana, pp. 217–220. Hudon’s and Firpo’s suspicions about Morone’s use of
this document seem misplaced. Morone may have obtained it directly from Cervini, whose
help he had sought in the past.
19
Morone was on the reform commission as well as that for the council. He may not
have continued on the former after the suspension of the council, see Massarelli’s diary, CT,
II, pp. 168–169 and 193, Jedin, Storia, III, pp. 14–19, Pastor, XIII, pp. 78–79, 159–160 and
167–168 and Hudon, Marcello Cervini, pp. 144–151, especially p. 144.
20
Jedin, Trent, III, pp. 315–317. Dumiege et al., Trente, pp. 15–16. Crescenzio, a
politically neutral choice, was to be assisted by two bishops. On the appointments, see Jedin,
Trent, III, pp. 333–338. The council met from May 1551 to April 1552.
21
Massarelli’s diary, CT, II, p. 198, Pastor, XIII, pp. 327–328.
22
See O’Malley, Jesuits, p. 234, Pastor, XIII, pp. 226–230. See Morone’s comments
to Farnese, from Innsbruck, 18 January 1542, Laemmer, pp. 398–399 at 399, discussed in
Chapter 2. Papers relating to Morone’s involvement with the college are in BAV, Vat. Lat.
12159. The Germanicum’s older sister, the Collegio Romano, benefited from Morone’s will,
see PM, II, p. 475 n. 78. Morone also supported a Jesuit college at Modena in these years
although it does not seem to have been a success, see Apologia, PM, II, p. 474, O’Malley,
Indicative too of Morone’s place in the administration, was the tapping

of his diplomatic experience. He acted as the link between Pole and Rome
during Pole’s legatine mission to England after the accession of Mary in
1553.23 Some of the correspondence between the Englishman and Morone
survives from this period and casts light on the situation at the papal court,
on Morone’s diplomatic shrewdness and, naturally, on the relationship
between the two cardinals.24 It seems that Morone’s precise role as a
link with the pope was not to be widely known. The point crops up in a
number of Morone’s letters from the first few months of 1554, although it
is unclear as to why there was the need for this secrecy.25 However, friction
and tensions within the administration might well have been influential.
Furthermore, in February of 1555 Morone was once again sent over
the Alps to act as legate for the critical Diet of Augsburg. The mission
was evidently in response to Ferdinand’s request for help in stiffening the
resolve of the Catholic parties. However, writing to Pole on 15 January
1555, Morone mentioned the difficulties he could foresee, referring to
dangers both in Rome and in Germany.26 Morone may have been mindful
of Contarini’s fate at Regensburg. At the end of March, he wrote again of
the scant hope he held for a good outcome from the diet.27 In the event,
the mission ended prematurely with the pope’s death, although at least
Morone was able to renew his acquaintance with Ferdinand.28
Jesuits, p. 231. There is a painting in the Germanicum celebrating the achievement depicting
Morone with St Ignatius Loyola; see L’uomo del Concilio, pp. 162–163.
23
Although Pole was almost immediately made legate for England, his arrival was
delayed until the following year by the opposition of Charles V, the superimposing of a peace
legation onto the mission and Pole’s own intransigence on certain issues, see Mayer, Prince
and Prophet, pp. 203–220.
24
A batch of original letters from Morone to Pole from this period is in BAV, Vat.
Lat. 6404, ff. 116r–159v, except for interloping folios (140r–142v). Extracts from them
and others can be found in Angelo Maria Querini (ed.), Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli S.R.E.
Cardinalis et aliorum ad ipsum Collectio (5 volumes, Brescia, 1744–1747), NB, 1/15 and
CRP, II and III. Pole’s attitude in certain respects, especially over the royal marriage, caused
tensions between the two men, see for example Pole to Morone, 25 and 28 May 1554, NB,
1/15, pp. 173–181 and 188, CRP, II, pp. 296–302 and Morone to Pole, 6 May and 13 July
1554, NB, 1/15, pp. 169–173 and 205–207.
25
Morone to Pole, Rome, 8 and 20 January 1554, NB, 1/15, pp. 107–112 and 113–
114, and 28 February 1554, Querini, Epistolarum, IV, pp. 127–130.
26
Querini, Epistolarum, V, pp. 96–97.
27
Morone to Pole, Augsburg, 28/29 March 1555, Querini, Epistolarum, V, pp. 97–99
and NB, 1/17, pp. 58–60.
28
See Morone’s dispatch from Augsburg, 26 March 1555, for an account of his initial
meetings and his view on the state of things, NB, 1/17, pp. 49–56. Once again Morone took
Jesuits with him – Diego Laínez and Jerónimo Nadal, see O’Malley, Jesuits, p. 275.
Spirituali vs Intransigenti, 1552/1553
It was a good thing too that Morone had Julius’ confidence, for it was during
the pontificate that agents of the Inquisition first interviewed Scotti, Nerli,
Bartoli and Lorenzo Davidico and, if they had not already done so, began
collecting a dossier on Morone.29 This clandestine action against senior
churchmen seems to have been initiated without the pope’s knowledge.
In 1552, in connection with Bartoli’s own processo, Julius got wind of
what was happening and sought to intervene, instructing the new Master
of the Sacred Palace, Girolamo Muzzarelli, to handle an investigation
into accusations made by his confrère about Morone, Pole and others.30
Bartoli’s original deposition has not survived. Indeed, it appears that it was
passed on to Morone by the pope. What we know of the 1552 incident has
come down to us through the subsequent testimony given by Bartoli and
others, during the formal processo later opened against Morone.31
It all revolved around the (eventually missing) letter about Confession
sent by Morone to Sigibaldi in 1543, in respect of the contents of
which Bartoli made certain allegations, as discussed previously.32 The
Dominican further testified that shortly after he had given evidence about
Morone’s letter in 1552, he was interviewed two or possibly three times
by Muzzarelli, accompanied by Stefano Usodimare the Procurator and
Vicar General (later to be Master General) of the order.33 At one meeting,
in the gardens of the convent of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, Muzzarelli
had with him one or possibly two of Morone’s letters, dating from 1543,
which failed to support what Bartoli had alleged. Bartoli subsequently
retracted his allegations, saying that he must have been mistaken.34
Muzzarelli had apparently shown him some letters and assured him of
Morone’s soundness. He had also ‘lent’ on him with threats of torture
amongst other things.35
29
On these opening salvos in the attack on Morone see Massimo Firpo and Dario
Marcatto, ‘Il primo processo inquisitoriale contra il Cardinal Giovanni Morone (1552–53)’,
RSI, 93 (1981): pp. 71–142, now in Inquisizione romana, pp. 243–314. Precise dating for all
the events is difficult but they seem to concern 1551–1553, see pp. 246–278.
30
On Muzzarelli, see PM, I, p. 285 n. 88 and the comments in Inquisizione romana,
pp. 280–281.
31
For Bartoli’s testimony in this matter see PM, II, pp. 272–280; 718–729; 814–824;
VI, pp. 190–196; 295–299 and 326–330.
32
See Chapter 3.
33
See PM, II, p. 262 n. 6.
34
In his 1555 interview and its reprises, Bartoli naturally sought to retract the
retraction, see especially, PM, II, pp. 273–274.
35
PM, II, pp. 275–276.
Muzzarelli’s version of the story was somewhat different.36 Entrusted

by an angry Julius with investigating the allegations, he had obtained a
number of Morone’s letters from the relevant period and had shown them
first to Julius and then to Bartoli. Using Morone’s letters as his leverage,
Muzzarelli persuaded his confrère that he had been mistaken. Muzzarelli
testified that he had brought to the interview with Bartoli all the letters
relevant to the matter. He spoke of two or three and remembered
something of their contents. One was a short letter instructing that people
be urged to confess to God, although he was not sure if priestly Confession
had been specified in it. Another had mentioned the Council of Cologne,
which was the only one Bartoli remembered seeing in 1552. Bartoli had
later spontaneously made his retraction, at least on Muzzarelli’s version of
events.37 According to Bartoli, he had been bullied into the change of tack.
It was as if he had been the victim of the equivalent of a card trick: actually
being shown a different letter to that which he had seen in Modena some
10 years before.
Questions about the episode thus remain unresolved. The key original
letter never surfaced again and its disappearance was never explained. The
final act of this precursor to Morone’s later troubles was the consignment
of the relevant papers into Morone’s hands by Julius on the eve of his
departure for Augsburg. In his Apologia, Morone mentioned how
Julius and he had discussed the issue of justification and the Regensburg
agreement. Morone recalled how Julius had embraced him with tenderness
and had said that if there were need, then he certainly gave Morone his
blessing and absolution. With tears in his eyes, the pope had stated how
he hoped Morone’s mission would have a successful outcome in terms of
reducing Germany to the true faith.38
The incident marks an important moment in the rise of the Holy Office:
a blip in its ascent. By 1552, the revamped Roman Inquisition had already
been in existence for 10 years. Although in some respects it had quickly
hit its stride with the rapid flushing out of Ochino and Vermigli, in reality
Paul III seems to have been unwilling to give it free rein. The pope had
been open to the circumvention of strict procedure and the granting of
personal absolutions. Besides, by mid-decade, the council had naturally
come to dominate the landscape, and the pope had been distracted with
Parma and Piacenza and the interests of the farnese.39
36
PM, II, pp. 803–813 and VI, pp. 321–325.
37
PM, II, pp. 807–809. Muzzarelli’s testimony broadly backs Morone’s version of the
1543 event.
38
Apologia, PM, II, pp. 471–472. See also Firpo and Marcatto, Inquisizione romana,
pp. 292–293 and PM, II, pp. 17 and 656–657.
39
On the rise of the Roman Inquisition, see Prosperi, Tribunali della coscienza,
especially pp. 5–194, L’Inquisizione romana, especially pp. 29–68, the interesting overview
However, although purportedly envisaged as an interim measure,

the Inquisition had certainly not lain dormant.40 In 1546, Carnesecchi
managed to wriggle from its grasp only via one of Paul III’s personal
absolutions, after the intervention of Pole and possibly Morone.41
Probably in the aftermath of Pier Luigi Farnese’s assassination, the
anti-Hapsburg Carafa had been able to gain ground within the farnese
administration. Certainly, from 1547, local political and religious
circumstance meant the Inquisition began to make inroads into the
ranks of those considered suspect in Naples and its surrounds.42 With
each new arrest and investigation came information with which others
in turn were accosted. Soon the enquiries began to touch highly placed
clerics, noblemen and women. The change in pope seems, if anything, to
have increased the Inquisition’s elbow room. A vigorous campaign was
pursued against those connected to Valdés, in Rome, in the Kingdom of
Naples and elsewhere, and significant figures linked to the spirituali like
Giovanni Grimani, Vittore Soranzo, Giulia Gonzaga, Apollonia Merenda
and Pietrantonio Di Capua were among those who felt the squeeze.43 Like
his predecessor, though, Julius seems to have shared little enthusiasm for
the rigorous pursuit of suspects, adopting extra-judicial solutions to the
campaigns against prelates like Grimani and Di Capua.44
This was the context of the extraordinary Bartoli business and Firpo and
Marcatto have highlighted its importance for our understanding of Julius’
pontificate: the evident tensions within the Sacred College, within Julius’
by Agostino Borromeo, ‘Il dissenso religioso’, in Maurizio Sangalli (ed.), Per il Cinquecento
religioso italiano:clero cultura societa. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi. Siena, 27–
30 giugno 2001 (2 volumes, Rome, 2003), II, pp. 455–485 and Firpo, ‘L’eresia dottrinale’,
in L’Inquisizione e gli storicic L’Inquisizione e gli storici: un cantiere aperto. Tavola rotunda
nell’ ambito della conferenza annual della ricerca, Roma 24–25 giugno 1999 (Rome, 2000),
pp. 35–46. In English there is also Black’s The Italian Inquisition. See also the essays in
Agostino Borromeo (ed.), L’Inquisizione: Atti del simposio internazionale, Città del Vaticano,
29–31 ottobre 1998 (Vatican City, 2003), especially the typically thoughtful comments of
Silvana Seidel Menchi, ‘Origine et origini del Santo Uffizio dell’ Inquisizione romana (1542–
1559)’, pp. 291–321. Prosperi argues that the appointment of the commission in 1542 was
in itself a watering down of Carafa’s power as he and the recently dead Aleandro had already
had sole control of the Inquisition for a year, see pp. 44–45.
40
Note the observations of Prosperi, Tribunali della coscienza, pp. 117–134.
41
See PC, I, pp. iii–xi.
42
See Dario Marcatto, ‘Questo passo dell’heresia’: Pietrantonio Di Capua tra
valdesiani, ‘spirituali’ e Inquisizione (Naples, 2003), pp. 31–32.
43
Inquisizione romana, pp. 255–256. On the onslaught in Naples and elsewhere and
the campaign by the Holy Office to discredit Di Capua and prevent him getting a red hat, see
Marcatto, Di Capua. On Soranzo, see Massimo Firpo and Sergio Pagano (eds.), I processi
inquisitoriale di Vittore Soranzo (1550–1558) (2 volumes, Vatican City, 2004), and Firpo,
Soranzo.
44
See Menchi, ‘Origine et origini’, pp. 306–307 on Julius’ moderate attitude.
administration generally, and the emerging power of the Holy Office.45 In

particular, they locate it as part of the broader campaign to ‘get something
on’ Morone (and Pole), which eventually led to the processo and which led
others to testify during these years, testimonies that seem to have evaded
Julius’ radar.46 Moreover, they place it in relation to the intriguing meeting
between Pole and Carafa at San Paolo fuori le muri, in 1553 and draw
attention to Muzzarelli’s role.47 Muzzarelli’s intervention at the instigation
of the pope probably indicates the spirituali held an advantage against the
hardliners (including Cervini in the eyes of some), at least temporarily. The
meeting with Pole sought by Carafa might be seen in this light.48 Politically
they were ascendant as they had the backing of the pope, even if Julius
lacked the will to gain total command of the Holy Office machinery.49
Could Morone and Pole have done more to block the activities of the
Holy Office, which was clearly both personally damaging to them as well
as repugnant to their religious sensibilities?50 Mayer has drawn attention
to Pole’s perplexing failure to pursue his appointment to the committee
of cardinals with responsibility for the Inquisition. He locates it alongside
Pole’s failure to back Contarini over Regensburg and his flight from
Trent in 1546, as part of a triumvirate of troubling decisions taken by the
Englishman at crucial times.51 Morone too seems to have been nominated
to the commission, at least at the outset of Julius’ pontificate, and likewise
appears to have been unable to make the nomination count.52 In addition,
45
Inquisizione romana, especially pp. 283, 293, 295 and 310–311. The manifest
tensions within the Dominican Order should not be overlooked either.
46
47
On this meeting between Carafa and Pole, which was preceded by similar encounters
with both Cervini and Cardinal Rodolfo Pio Da Carpi, see Simoncelli, Reginald Pole, pp.
81–85, Fenlon, Heresy and Obedience, pp. 238–250, Firpo and Marcatto, Inquisizione
romana, pp. 295–307, and Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 195–202. What we know of it
largely comes from a famous letter sent by Filippo Gheri, Morone’s collaborator, to Ludovico
Beccadelli in April 1553, Morandi, Monumenta, I/II, pp. 347–53. The Italian scholars are
much more suspicious than Fenlon or Mayer of Carafa’s conduct at this meeting. On the later
fallout for Muzzarelli, see Inquisizione romana, pp. 311–314. Muzzarelli, like Badia and
Foscarari before him, was a Master of the Sacred Palace and inquisitor, whose views seem
to have differed significantly from the intransigenti. On Pole’s indignation at the activities of
the intransigenti see his important letter to Muzzarelli, 9 August 1553, CRP, II, pp. 138–158.
He refers to the attacks on Morone and others as Satan’s work and draws comparison with
the attitude of the Jerusalem Synagogue in the Apostolic period.
48
Firpo and Marcatto, Inquisizione romana, pp. 301–302.
49
So too, Firpo and Marcatto, Inquisizione romana, p. 310. See also Menchi’s
comments on Carafa’s influence, ‘Origine et origini’, pp. 308 and 320.
50
Firpo and Marcatto, Inquisizione romana, p. 308.
51
See Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 105, 192–193 and 439. A tendency to flee secular
or political difficulties for private study seems to have been one of the implied criticisms of
Pole by Morone during their correspondence in 1554.
52
See Massarelli in CT, II, p. 157 and Pastor, XIII, p. 210.
the outcomes of the crucial conclaves of 1549/1550 and 1555 represent a

failure of the spirituali to maintain ascendancy or at least parity with their
enemies. Doubtless, a contributory factor was the campaign by the Holy
Office to discredit certain candidates for the College of Cardinals, which
meant that figures like Grimani and Di Capua never received red hats
despite influential support. Here, too, Morone seems to have been culpable
and backed away from throwing his weight behind Di Capua’s candidacy.53
1555 – the Year of the Two Conclaves
In the light of all this, the two conclaves of 1555 assume an equal importance
for the fortunes of the spirituali as the one five years previously. Morone and
Pole were absent for the first, which saw the election of Marcello Cervini.54
Pole was in England and Morone had not yet returned from Augsburg.
Indeed, he almost missed the whole pontificate, given its brevity. Julius
died on 23 March 1555 and notification was duly sent out from Rome.55
The conclave opened on 5 April and lasted a mere four days. Morone
received word of Julius’ death on 29 March as he made clear to Pole in a
postscript to a letter, and set out from Augsburg with Otto Truchsess on
1 April.56 He was back in Rome by 13 April. Marcellus II (of Palestrina’s
Missa Papae Marcelli fame) died on 1 May. How the spirituali would have
fared under his pontificate is hard to say. The placing of Cervini firmly
alongside Carafa may not be wholly accurate, despite his own meeting
with Pole, which took place shortly before the Carafa encounter. This
would certainly be the view of Hudon, who believes Cervini’s election was
widely celebrated amongst the spirituali and feels that Pole and Morone
probably had nothing to fear.57
In the letter to Pole of 28/29 March, Morone had referred to the need
to elect a worthy successor to Julius and to how much work needed to be
done, doubtless a reference to reform. He suggested that the Englishman
should ready himself to make his way to Rome with the prospect of an
53
Marcatto, Di Capua, p. 108. See Morone’s own comments in the Apologia (cited
also by Marcatto) to the effect that he had tried to dissuade the imperial ambassador in
Rome from pursuing Di Capua’s nomination after Di Capua’s private purgation before the
pope and how he essentially sat on the fence when asked for his opinion by Julius, see PM,
II, p. 503.
54
See Pastor, XIV, pp. 1-11,and Hudon, Marcello Cervini, pp. 151–153.
55
See the notification sent to Morone in NB, 1/17, pp. 47-48.
56
Morone to Pole, Augsburg, 28/29 March 1555, NB, 1/17, pp. 58–60, Querini,
Epistolarum, V, pp. 97–99, which seems to have a fuller version, CRP, III, pp. 75–76.
57
See Hudon, Marcello Cervini, pp. 154–157 and 161–174. Against this, see Marcatto,
Di Capua, p. 16 and Firpo and Marcatto’s comments in PM, II, p. 16.
election on the horizon but, leaving the matter to Pole’s good judgment,
asked for Pole’s prayers if he were not going to attend in person. He also
revealed to his friend his forebodings for the future and confided how he
had wondered about loitering outside of Rome, perhaps on the fringe of
papal territory, to await the outcome of the probably imminent conclave.
However, his sense of duty ensured that he had discounted this idea and
was instead resolved to face the dangers and hardships that might lie
ahead, although he frankly admitted that he recalled the events of the
previous conclave with horror. He concluded with a resignation to the
Divine Will ‘in whose hands all things are’.58
These fascinating, unguarded comments seem to confirm assessments
of divisions within the Sacred College.59 They show that Morone felt real
unease for the future, a fact that makes some of his later conduct more
perplexing. They also illustrate Morone’s sense of duty and adherence to the
Church, sentiments which outweighed any temptation to remove himself
from exposure to the heat of the political brazier that was the Roman
court. Novara and Milan were in Hapsburg control. He also doubtless
cast an envious eye towards Pole in England. Whilst often sending his
regards to Pole’s co-workers, he had once referred to the ‘compagnia’ in
a wistful way, reminiscent of how he had fretted when left alone in Trent
in 1543.60 Such feelings of dislocation would become even stronger in a
year or two.
In fact, Morone had previously referred to the 1549/1550 election,
mentioning in a December 1554 letter how people marvelled at past
events.61 The context had been the general rejoicing in response to the
news of the success of Pole’s mission to bring England back to obedience
to the Church. While the context is clear, the full drift of the remarks
is not. Morone seems to be alluding to Pole’s (and Queen Mary’s and
Phillip’s) personal history and painful association with England, as well
as to unspecified events from the conclave. It remains unclear whether
Morone’s main point is about providence or the infighting that had
occurred in 1549/1550.62
58
NB, 1/17, p. 59. ‘Quando mi raccordo del Conclave passato totus horreo, sed fiat
voluntas Domini, in cuius manu sunt omnia.’ Querini, Epistolarum, V, p. 98.
59
See Massimo Firpo, ‘Sulla legazione di pace di Reginald Pole (1553–1556)’, RSI,
XCIII (1981): pp. 821–837.
60
Morone to Pole, Rome, 15 December 1554, Querini, Epistolarum, V, pp. 92–94,
at 94.
61
Querini, Epistolarum, V, pp. 92–93.
62
The original, BAV, Vat. Lat. 6404 ff. 131r–132v., sheds no further light.
When it came to the second conclave of 1555 (15–23 May), Morone

was among the leading candidates again.63 The still absent Pole was also
a front-runner and enjoyed Alessandro Farnese’s support. Carafa had the
backing of the French king as his second choice. Morone’s candidature
(and Pole’s) was blocked by the French and not supported by all of the
imperial cardinals because of the suspicions that they harboured about
his religious views.64 Puteo was put forward as a possible compromise
but Farnese, who had begun to back Carafa, would not acquiesce to it.65
Remarkably, Farnese appears to have won Morone over to endorsing
Carafa and was then able to count on the Milanese cardinal’s help in
securing enough votes for Carafa to triumph on 23 May 1555.66 Pastor
has it that Morone put pressure on those opposing Carafa’s selection to
accede to the wishes of the majority in order to break the deadlock. Such
conduct seems astonishing in the context of Morone’s forebodings and the
manifest hostility of the zelanti cardinals.
The evidence of another source casts further light on the matter.67 Nofri
Camaiani, one of the conclavists of Cardinal Innocenzo del Monte and an
agent of Duke Cosimo I of Florence, recounted for Cosimo the events of
the brief conclave. Whilst agreeing with the sources underlying Pastor’s
account in many respects, Camaiani has some points of divergence. In
particular, although he too stated that in the face of the stalemate, Morone
had warned against the dangers of schism, Camaiani placed Morone’s
(and Truchsess’) switch to support for Carafa at the last moment, on the
day he was elected, which makes more sense.68
Perhaps Morone had been taken in by the ‘truce’ that Pole and Carafa
seemed to have stumbled upon at the end of their extraordinary encounter
at San Paolo fuori le muri two years earlier. Morone appears to give the
new pope something approaching the benefit of the doubt, judging by
comments to the emperor just a couple of days later. Morone wrote that
he was of good life and lettered, but old. He also passed on the pope’s
assurances of goodwill towards the emperor, assurances that in fact proved
63
On the conclave, see Pastor, XIV, pp. 56–65 and Inquisizione romana, pp. 355–
359. See also the letter of Pietro Camaiani to Girolamo Seripando, Naples, 3 May 1555,
in Michele Cassese, Girolamo Seripando e i vescovi meridionali 1535–1563 (2 volumes,
Naples, 2002), II, pp. 98–101, wherein Camaiani talks of Morone’s chances as well as his
virtue and goodness.
64
Firpo attributes Morone’s failure to the opposition of cardinals such as Juan Álvarez
de Toledo and, particularly, Carpi, who then had to justify themselves to the emperor after
the election of the anti-Hapsburg Carafa, Inquisizione romana, pp. 357–359 and 364–366.
65
Pastor, XIV, p. 62.
66
Pastor, XIV, pp. 62–64.
67
Antonio Santosuosso, ‘An Account of the Election of Paul IV to the Pontificate’,
Renaissance Quarterly, XXXI (1978): pp. 486–498.
68
Santouosso, ‘An Account’, pp. 495–496. See also p. 489.
worthless.69 However, the endorsement was not exactly effusive. Perhaps

Morone had simply felt it his duty to fall in line with the majority and warn
against the dangers of a continuing stalemate. It was the second conclave
in a little over a month and Morone had recently returned from the still
ongoing Diet of Augsburg. He may have felt that it was no time to have an
interregnum: a case of his concern for the good of the Church overriding
his reservations about Carafa’s candidature. His comments as reported
by Camaiano appear to confirm this. Perhaps Morone also hoped to grab
some semblance of a political marker for the future by backing Carafa at
the last minute and thus avoiding being left in a defeated minority.70
Under Investigation Again, 1555–1557
If Morone had hoped to curry favour by eventually voting for Carafa, it

was to no avail. A little over a month after his election, Carafa, now Pope
Paul IV, issued the brief that set in motion the formal processo, entrusting
the investigation to the Dominican, Tommaso Scotti da Vigevano.71 He
was authorized to collect testimonies from wherever, about whomsoever,
regardless of status or dignity. In stark contrast to the events of 1552, a
pope was now manifestly backing the investigations. Shortly afterwards,
testimonies about Morone were again being collected. By 7 July, Tommaso
Scotti was interviewing our old friend and his confrère, Bernardo de’
Bartoli.72 In the following months others were interviewed, many of them
fellow Dominicans.
The inquisitors also began to pursue smaller fish like Galdadino, the
Modenese bookseller and Bonifacio Valentini, targets who in turn might
assist their other enquiries. Pietro Carnesecchi wisely remained out of
reach in Venice during these years.73 Others were not so fortunate. Finally,
by the middle of 1557, the Holy Office felt ready to bring the whole project
into the daylight. The net drew obviously closer to Morone with the arrest
69
Letter cited and quoted in NB, 1/14, pp. 256–257 n. 3.
70
See the reflections in the contemporary source cited by Firpo and Marcatto, PM, II,
p. 449 n. 3, which suggest this. There are also Morone’s own protestations of his support for
Carafa before and during the conclave, Apologia, PM, II, p. 449.
71
For the basic facts of the conduct of the processo, see Firpo and Marcatto, PM, II,
pp. 15–45. The brief was dated 26 June and the text is reprinted in PM, II, pp. 20–21 n. 6.
On Paul IV, see most recently, Alberto Aubert, Paolo IV: Politica, Inquisizione e storiografia
(2nd Edition, Florence, 1999).
72
PM, II, pp. 20–21.
73
The Florentine considered complete exile, see PC, I, p. xxvi–xxvii and inter alia PC,
II/I, pp. 292–301, 346–350 and II/II, pp. 447–465, 471, 498–499 and 552–554. In 1566, the
Holy Office showed interest in his apparent concern to avoid damaging Pole and Morone by
choosing exile.
on 22 May of Domenico Morando, his maestro di casa, and a long-time

familiar.74 With the arrest of Morando, Morone’s own fate must have been
obvious.75
Whilst the investigation into Morone was being conducted in secret, the
cardinal himself had been able to track the worsening political situation.
Out of the window had gone any pretence of neutrality towards the two
great powers, and papal foreign policy had swung decisively in support
of France and equally decisively against Spain and the Hapsburgs. Both
Muzzarelli and Delfino, the respective nuncios at Brussels and Vienna,
kept Morone up to speed with how things appeared from their respective
ends, and the latter wrote bitterly in October 1555 of how badly papal
policy was being received at the imperial court.76 From his vantage point
in Rome, Morone looked on with horror as relations with the Hapsburgs
deteriorated to the point of armed conflict and his own political position
became more precarious.
The cardinal shared his misgivings with Pole in England. The days when
he could act as an effective link to the heart of the papal administration
were over, although he continued to do what he could to smooth over
difficulties and support his friend.77 In March 1556, he assured Pole of
how well the summary of his recent synod was going down in Rome,
although he could not mask coolness on the part of the pope. At the end
of the letter, he frankly apologized to his friend that he had been unable to
be of much help to him of late.78
Indeed, as the happier days of the Del Monte pontificate receded
into the past, Morone’s letters to Pole increasingly betrayed his troubled
mind. He did not openly criticize the pope, but accurately summed up
his vehemence. Increasingly, he asked for Pole’s prayers in a way absent
from their correspondence hitherto.79 He referred to the strangeness of the
times and there is perhaps a hint of wry scepticism in his recounting of
74
On Morando and the processo pursued against him, see PM, V.
75
See Firpo and Marcatto, PM, II, p. 24, especially n. 12. See also their comments in
PM, V, at pp. 14–15 on the arrest of Morando and reactions to it.
76
Muzzarelli to Morone, 3 October 1555, NB, 1/14, pp. 310–311. See also, for
example, Delfino’s comments to Morone, 17 June 1556, NB, 1/17, p. 257.
77
See Pole to Morone, 9 August 1555, mentioning that he had not heard from Morone
for some months, CRP, III, pp. 142–143.
78
Morone to Pole, 31 March 1556, Querini, Epistolarum, V, pp. 100–102, CRP, III,
p. 244. See also pp. 230–232, for a report of the synod sent to Morone.
79
See for example Morone to Pole, 11 December 1555, NB, 1/15 pp. 291–292, 31
March 1556, Querini, Epistolarum, V, pp. 100–102, 2 May 1556, Querini, Epistolarum, V,
pp. 102–103. See also Pole to Morone, 14 July 1556, CRP, III, p. 278 noting Morone’s efforts
to preserve peace.
scenes of public repentance in the city.80 Finally, as the correspondence is

on the verge of petering out, Morone once again dropped his guard a little
and admitted harbouring wishes to be amongst the Carthusians or the
Camaldolese or with Pole in England: anywhere, it would seem, but the
Roman court.81 On 28 November 1556, Morone wrote of the pope’s desire
that Pole return to Rome. Morone knew it would be a disappointment
and had done his best to persuade Paul otherwise.82 On 2 May 1557, he
wrote one of his last letters to his English friend. It is an 11-line piece,
notable in its brevity and in stark contrast to the fuller letters from a few
years previously. Then, the horizon had looked promising, he and Pole
were important cogs in a different pontificate and the whole group could
rejoice in the notable success of the English mission. This letter gives the
impression that so much is being left unsaid or rather left to the courier to
say instead of risking it in ink. The war is mentioned tersely and combined
with the scantiest reference to the ‘cose di qua’. Then Morone signs off,
wishing Pole contentment and the grace of God, asking him to find room
to remember his friend amidst the cares of his office and saluting Pole’s
company.83
Arrest and Imprisonment, May 1557–August 1559
During the morning of Monday 31 May 1557, Morone was called to

appear before Cardinal Carlo Carafa who apparently wanted to consult
with him over an important matter.84 Morone duly made his way to the
cardinal-nephew’s rooms and seems to have made light of the situation to
his companions. Cardinal Carafa arrived and informed him of the pope’s
wish that he be detained in Castel Sant’ Angelo. Morone reputedly replied
expansively that he did not know how he had erred, but that even had he
been distant from Rome, he would have hurried to the city to assure the
pope of his soul and his readiness to go to the fortress or wherever the pope
should wish him to. Agents of the Holy Office also made their way to his
80
See Morone to Pole, 31 March and especially 9 June 1556, Querini, Epistolarum, V,
pp. 100–102 and 103–106, CRP, III, pp. 244 and 266–267 respectively.
81
Morone to Pole, 19 August 1556, Querini, Epistolarum, V, pp. 108–110, CRP, III,
p. 292. Notably the pope was still consulting Morone on some matters to do with England,
see CRP, III, p. 294 # 1663.
82
CRP, III, pp. 336–337.
83
BAV, Vat. Lat. 6404, ff. 158r–159v. Querini, Epistolarum, V, p. 49, CRP, III, p. 415.
A slightly more optimistic letter is dated 8 May (CRP, III, pp. 422–423) and this seems to
have been Morone’s last to his friend.
84
See Scolpis, Jean Morone, p. 22 and especially the account of the events of the arrest
published by the Frenchman in the appendix to his study at pp. 89–91, Captura del Cardinale
Morono in Roma all’ultimo di maggio 1557, reproduced in PM, V, pp. 234–237.
palazzo in Trastevere. There, they arrested Marcantonio Villamarino and

temporarily detained other members of his household while they searched
the cardinal’s rooms and went through his papers and private documents,
seizing books, letters and other material.85
The following day, the pope in consistory explained to the stunned
audience why he had acted in such a dramatic fashion.86 Tommaso
Sanfelice was also arrested and other suspects, such as Vittore Soranzo,
were summoned to Rome. Morone’s auditor, Girolamo Parisetto, was held
temporarily.87 For his part, the cardinal apparently insisted that his friends
and family remain optimistic, that they refrain from trying to influence
events by talking of the matter with others, and to trust in the graciousness
of the pope.88 Shortly afterwards, Paul IV appointed a four-man panel of
cardinals to oversee the processo.89 All four were his creations, largely
part of the intransigenti and men far removed from the cultural sensibility
and the religious and human experience of the Milanese cardinal.90 On
12 June, they held the meeting with the accused in Castel Sant’ Angelo
at which they invited him to write the Apologia. On 25 June, the first
costituo with Morone took place, with a further one a few days later,
another on 6 July and two more in the September.91
In the background was Paul IV’s disastrous war against the Hapsburgs
in conjunction with the French, which ended with complete humiliation
for the Franco-papal alliance by that same September. The Duke of Alba
entered Rome to conclude the formalities of the treaty settlement and
discussions would have included Morone’s predicament as well as the
situation of Pole in England and his recall to Rome contrary to the wishes
of the Hapsburg monarchs and the queen. As if to highlight the parallel
fortunes of the two friends at this point, Pole too had been writing his own
robust Apologia in justification of his actions past and present and had not
failed to support his friend in the text. Pole also sent Niccolò Ormanetto
to Rome to represent his interests.92
85
Amongst the Valdesian diaspora, Villamarina seems to have gravitated to Morone’s
household initially, and then became a regular there in the 1550s. He continued to serve the
cardinal into the 1570s much to the disgust of Pius V. See PM, I, pp. 313–314 n. 145 and
VI, p. 140.
86
Captura, PM, V, pp. 236–237.
87
See Firpo and Marcatto, PM, V, p. 16.
88
Captura, PM, V, p. 235.
89
Michele Ghislieri, Giovanni Reumano, Scipione Rebiba and Virgilio Rosario.
90
Firpo and Marcatto, PM, II, p. 30. It was a point noted at the time, see the dispatch
of Bongianni Gianfigliazzi to Cosimo de’ Medici, 5 June 1557, extract printed in PM, V,
p. 245.
91
Firpo and Marcatto, PM, II, p. 31
92
Firpo and Marcatto, PM, II, pp. 31–32. On Pole’s Apologia see Fenlon, Heresy and
Obedience, pp. 272–277 and Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 316–320. There seems to be
The following month, the purely investigative part of the processo was
concluded and the articuli d’accusa (Articuli contra Moronum) drawn up
and forwarded to Morone and his advisors.93 This document contained the
list of charges, which in Morone’s case ran to 21 items. All the expected
allegations made by the likes of Bartoli, Scotti and Davidico found their
way into this charge sheet. They included item two that Morone had held
and believed a doctrine of justification ‘ad mentem lutheranorum’ both
before and after the determination of the matter at Trent, and (item three)
that he had advocated the retraction of the Tridentine decree. There were
charges relating to the lost letter on Confession and to his beliefs about
grace and good works, including celebration of the Eucharist, an obvious
echo of Morone’s argument with Salmerón. In addition, the list also
touched on Morone’s attitude towards ecclesiastical office, and included
articles in relation to preaching, the cults of the Virgin Mary and the
saints and the possession of suspect literature. Interestingly, there was an
item (15) on his view of the legitimacy of war against other Christians.94
The articuli would form the basis of further interviews with the various
witnesses. Morone, in conjunction with his advisors, was also allowed to
draw up a set of questions, the interrogatoria pro parte Moroni, that were
to be put to the witnesses when they were re-interviewed.95
This exchange of documents brought about a flurry of activity with
further questioning of witnesses and three further interviews with Morone
in November 1557. At the same time, Carlo Carafa travelled to the Low
Countries to meet with Philip II in order to resolve outstanding business
after the recent conflict. Moreover, he seems to have brought with him
copies of the evidence collected against Morone and Pole or at least
extracts thereof.96 The pope was determined to destroy Morone and Pole
too if he could be brought back to Italy, and was attempting to obtain the
acquiescence of the Spanish king, Queen Mary’s husband, in this long-
cherished goal. Paul IV manifested his determination to the Venetian
ambassador, Bernardo Navagero, during an interview that occurred around
this time. The elderly pope raged against Pole and those close to him as
some doubt as to whether it was ever sent, see Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 330–343.
93
Dated 4 October 1557, the text is in PM, II, pp. 589–595.
94
Morone was questioned about his attitude to war because of a gloss attached to
Isaiah 2:4 in one of his manuscripts. At first he had robustly argued that, when nuncio, he
had often exhorted Paul III and the Hapsburgs to wage war on the Lutherans. Confronted
with the gloss that suggested he was against war on fellow Christians, he modified his line
to say it was not legitimate if they were obedient to the ‘lege evangelica’, but valid and
sometimes necessary if they contravened this, see PM, II, pp. 581–582. See discussion of
Morone’s views in Chapter 1.
95
The texts of the two versions of the interrogatoria are at PM, II, pp. 596–622 and
660–687.
96
Firpo and Marcatto PM, II, p. 34.
apostates, naming Morone particularly as the Englishman’s disciple. He

added savagely that if his own father were found to be a heretic, he would
himself carry the wood with which to burn him.97
A fascinating struggle for Philip’s support thus unfolded. Ranged against
Morone and Pole were Carlo Carafa and the king’s Franciscan confessor,
Bernardo de Fresneda. Pleading for the continuation of Philip’s support
for the two embattled cardinals were Pole himself and his representatives
at court including Bartolomé Carranza, plus members of the Jesuit order
including Salmerón, who sought to repay Morone for his support of the
order. At court too was Morone’s close associate Filippo Gheri, fortunate
to have been away from Rome when the storm had broken.98 From further
afield, other influential and loyal allies of the Milanese cardinal sought to
keep Philip’s support in the face of the carafa overtures. Morone’s sister
Anna agitated in his favour, as did members of the farnese – Cardinal
Alessandro and the Duke of Parma, Ottavio.99
Morone received the backing of the other branch of the Hapsburg
axis – Ferdinand, now emperor.100 The leading spirituali cardinal of the
imperial faction, Ercole Gonzaga, also worked vigorously on Morone’s
behalf and provided a link between Rome and the incarcerated Morone
on the one hand, and the outside, particularly the Hapsburg courts.101
Gonzaga may have been assisted by another of the imperial cardinals
linked to the spirituali, Pietro Bertano. Firpo suggests that Bertano may
have passed a copy of the articuli d’accusa to Gonzaga in the October of
1557, though he wonders how Bertano might have obtained the document.
However, it is notable that he was a Dominican, as were many of the
officials and witnesses linked to the investigation.102 Was it simply a fact
97
Cited Firpo and Marcatto, PM, II, p. 35.
98
Firpo and Marcatto, PM, II, pp. 35–36. See also Firpo’s important article, ‘Filippo
II, Paolo IV e il processo inquisitoriale del cardinal Giovanni Morone’, RSI, XCV (1983): pp.
5–62, now in Inquisizione romana, pp. 315–369, especially at pp. 323–331. Soon to become
Archbishop of Toledo and the Primate of Spain, Carranza’s intervention has an extraordinary
poignancy. Just a few days after Morone’s release in 1559, Carranza would be arrested in
Spain on heresy charges and would eventually be brought to Italy where, after a decade
in captivity, he would be made to abjure. For Pole’s moves in the complicated dance, see
Simoncelli, Reginald Pole, pp. 168–191 and Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 330–343.
99
See Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 320–321 and 331 in respect of Anna Morone
Stampa’s continuing efforts. Both Anna and Morone’s brother Sforza turned to the farnese
for assistance, see PM, V, pp. 308 and 386.
100
See Firpo, Inquisizione romana, p. 331.
101
Firpo, Inquizione romana, pp. 328–331. See for example, Gonzaga’s letter to his
agent in Rome, Bernadino Pia, seeking to be kept abreast of developments, 19 October 1558,
PM, V, p. 393; Gonzaga’s letters to various parties canvassing support for the cardinal as
the processo entered the defensive phase in June 1559, PM, V, pp. 469–471; and indeed,
Gonzaga’s supportive letter to Morone of 22 June 1559, PM, V, p. 463.
102
Firpo, Inquizione romana, pp. 322–323.
that the processo investigation leaked somewhat or yet a further example

of elements of the order working in opposite directions? In fact, Bertano
was probably another of the prelates on the pope’s ‘hit list’, and only his
death in 1558 removed him from the line of fire.103
Philip held firm, at least for the moment and so, in the face of this
diplomatic reversal, the activity in relation to Morone’s processo once
more gathered pace. There were second and even third depositions through
February, March and into May of 1558. Muzzarelli gave his evidence in
relation to the Bartoli business and the latter was interviewed again. In
June, Morone was questioned for the penultimate time. There had been
some new testimonies, but in reality, the investigative work was done.
Egidio Foscarari was added to the list of those incarcerated, presumably
in an effort to drag up further evidence. However, after the middle of
1558, there was little more in the way of witness interviews and Morone
himself only appeared once more before the commission in the March of
1559.104 In the meantime, the Inquisition tried a different, more terrible
tack, torturing Domenico Morando in the October of 1558, though failing
to extract anything notable from the unfortunate priest.105
The investigation seems to have run its course and all that was needed
was entry into its final phase. Yet, Paul seems to have wavered. There
appears to have been a crisis in confidence about the likelihood of getting
the desired result in the face of the opposition from the Hapsburgs and
senior churchmen like Farnese and Gonzaga.106 Rumour and conjecture
coming out of Rome reflected the ambiguity of the cardinal’s situation,
with some notices peddling optimism that there would be a good outcome
for Morone, whilst others presented a contrary evaluation.
There is also the suggestion, in the swirl of notices relating to the
processo, that the cardinal was offered the chance to capitulate and abjure
in respect of admitted misdemeanours.107 Morone steadfastly refused to go
103
See Firpo, Inquizione romana, pp. 322 and 327. See also the dispatch of the English
Ambassador in Rome, Edward Carne, to Queen Mary, 21 August 1557, PM, V, pp. 295–296.
104
Firpo and Marcatto, PM, II, pp. 37–38. Carnesecchi wrote to Giulia Gonzaga in
October 1558 and commented on the summons to Rome of Foscarari, ‘come creatura sua’,
see PM, V, p. 392.
105
See Firpo and Marcatto, PM, V, pp. 31–47, especially 41–43 and the terrible record
of the event at which Cardinal Ghislieri (the future Pius V) was present, at PM, V, pp. 177–
189. Note the Italian scholars’ comments on Morando’s unflinching loyalty. Carnesecchi
actually feared that Morone would face torture. See PC, II/I, pp. 355–356 and 1152.
106
Firpo and Marcatto, PM, II, pp. 38–39.
107
The matter first crops up in correspondence from the summer of 1557. See for
example, Navagero’s dispatch, 5 August 1557, PM, V, p. 292 and a letter from the same
month from Carnesecchi to Giulia Gonzaga, cited p. 292 n. 1. There is also a letter from
September 1557 from Giovanni Agostino Fanti to Beccadelli, cited by Fragnito in Memoria
individuale, p. 42 n. 22. See also the Roman avviso from 6 May 1559, commenting that
down this route and held out for a proper judicial outcome. Perhaps he had
confidence in the likelihood of a satisfactory decision or felt that his best
chance lay in stringing the whole business out for as long as possible. Perhaps
the prospect of the concomitant political and personal ruin was simply too
unpalatable. In the end, his own principled belief in the righteousness of his
cause meant that he could not countenance any such concession of guilt.
In the mean time, death robbed the pope of his other main target. Having
fallen ill in September, Pole died on 17 November 1558.108
Morone’s Release, August 1559
Whatever the reasons for the pope’s apparent hesitation, he seems to have
decided initially on an extra-judicial solution to his fear of the papacy
falling into the hands of someone undesirable (in his eyes). On 15 February
1559, he issued the bull Cum ex apostolatus officio, in which he sought to
invalidate the election of anyone who had deviated from orthodoxy and
sought to deprive cardinals suspected of doctrinal deviation from having
any role in a conclave.109 Morone may not have been named in the text,
but there can be little doubt that it was principally aimed at him.110 The
pope was seeking to establish the conduct of future conclaves upon the
example of the past and to give the Holy Office massive influence in who
could be elected. Paul was old and dying and perhaps feared that he would
not be able to bring the processo to the conclusion he longed for.111
Carnesecchi likened Morone’s plight with that of David facing the
animosity of King Saul and, with the twilight weeks of the pontificate,
there came a renewed effort to get a definitive result from the long
campaign.112 On 13 June 1559, the commission formally notified Morone
of the commencement of the defensive stage. The Milanese cardinal and his
advisors would be able to organize his defence, with access once again to his
own confiscated papers and to a copy of the prosecution documentation.113
Morone had been invited to ask the pardon of the pope and that ‘chiedendo gracia, li sarà
fatta, ma lui ha risposto come sempre: ch’el non vuol se giustitia’. PM, V, p. 436.
108
Carnesecchi commented that joining Queen Mary in death had probably saved
Pole from joining Morone in prison – to Giulia Gonzaga, 17 December 1558, PM, V,
pp. 405–406. See PC, II/II, pp. 411–412.
109
Text in PM, V, pp. 414–418 n. 2.
110
This was certainly the judgment of the Gonzaga agent in Rome, see Bernardino Pia
to Cesare Gonzaga, 15 February 1559, PM, V, pp. 414–419. In the same vein is an avviso
from Rome of 8 April 1559 commenting on the bull, see PM, V, p. 433.
111
Firpo and Marcatto, PM, II, pp. 40–41.
112
Carnesecchi to Giulia Gonzaga, 17 December 1558, PM, V, pp. 405–407 at p. 407.
See also n. 4 on p. 407, and PC, II/II, pp. 413–415.
113
Firpo and Marcatto, PM, II, p. 41.
The defendant had a month in which to undertake this task and Morone’s
team were soon agitating that the designated period should not begin until
they had been formally given a copy of the prosecution documentation, a
procedural nicety which, despite Paul’s anxiety to conclude the matter, the
inquisitors had to concede, thus sending the pope into a towering rage.
Further procedural appeals were made in relation to his confiscated papers
and over his continued incarceration. These were matters of tactics as well
as principle. Morone and his team were stalling and with good reason. The
carafa pontificate was creaking and, on 18 August 1559, the old man died.
While the popular hatred for the dead pontiff and his regime was being
manifested in the sack of the palazzo of the Holy Office and the release of
prisoners from the Ripetta prison,114 the cardinals in Rome had to decide
whether Morone should be released and admitted to the conclave. Many
of them had been party to Paul IV’s bull only a few months before. After
a close vote on 21 August, Morone was informed of the decision in his
favour and at the beginning of the following month took his place in the
conclave to elect Paul’s successor.115 On the day of his release, he wrote to
his sister Anna to give her the good news.116 Like the one 10 years earlier
and in stark contrast to the two held mid-decade, the ensuing conclave
was lengthy.
A Tale of Four Conclaves
Girolamo Seripando assessed Julius III’s pontificate somewhat harshly,

despite the reconvening of the council and his faltering attempts at reform
with a grand bull, still in the pipeline at his death, although in the hands
of the respected Cervini.117 Whilst unsatisfactory to the spirituali in some
ways, Julius’ reign did see the continuation of their prominence with
appointments to various commissions and legatine or diplomatic offices.
114
See Pastor, XIV, pp. 414–415.
115
Firpo and Marcatto, PM, II, p. 43 and the notices collected in PM, V, pp. 507–514.
References to the event are in Massarelli’s and Firmani’s diaries, CT, II, pp. 334 and 518,
respectively. Firpo believes that the intervention of Philip II during these critical weeks was
decisive in obtaining Morone’s release, Inquisizione romana, pp. 331–335. The decision to
release Morone had been relatively straightforward, but the issue of whether to admit him to
the conclave had been a near run thing.
116
‘Con l’occasione d’uno corriero che parte in questa hora ho voluto con queste
quatro parole farli sapere come oggi per la Iddio gratia son stato liberato et mi ritrovo sano’
[‘With the occasion of a courier who departs this hour I wanted with these four words to
make it known how today through the grace of God I was liberated and find myself well’].
Morone to Anna Morone Stampa, Rome, 21 August 1559, PM, V, p. 506.
117
See Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 19–20 and Jedin, Seripando, pp. 491–494, for Seripando’s
negative assessment.
Julius also defended them in the face of the clandestine investigations of

the Holy Office, even if he was unable to hold the intransigents entirely in
check. The spirituali were still the acceptable face of papal foreign policy.
The second half of the decade obviously saw the virtual shipwreck
of Morone’s career. The Bartoli business during Julius’ reign, followed
by Pole’s meetings with Cervini, Carpi and Carafa, had been ominous.
Although these events illustrate that it was still possible for the spirituali
to muster enough resources to hold their own within the context of a
favourable administration, inquisitional activity was on the rise and this
upward curve increased under Paul IV. With Carafa’s election and the
pursuance of an anti-Hapsburg foreign policy, the position of members of
the imperial faction was always going to be difficult. Paul IV’s vehement
hatred of the Hapsburgs is astounding and typified by his extraordinary
desire to pursue formal inquisitorial proceedings against Charles V and
such a conservatively Catholic monarch as Philip II.118 As for Ferdinand,
it took a change of pontiff before he received proper recognition of his
status as emperor.
However, it would be wrong to view the Milanese cardinal’s problems as
resulting solely from secular political considerations, even of the brooding,
maniacal Carafa brand. Although notices emanating from Rome during the
course of the processo differed in their estimation of the motives of the old
pope, Paul IV himself was adamant that there was something more at stake
in relation to his pursuance of Morone and the others. He was convinced
that Morone and Pole were heretics and had to be treated as such, despite
their high office, indeed because of it. Probably, the pope’s animosity was
a complex and combustible mixture of political, religious and personal
motives. The extraordinary Pole–Carafa meeting, with the figure of the by
then dead Flaminio hovering in the background, is suggestive of a personal
element, the exact nature of which is probably irretrievable.
The result for Morone was the dark years of imprisonment, the lowest
point in his career. He surely knew what the likely outcome would have
been had Paul IV lived. We have no detailed record of Morone’s time in the
papal fortress: no prison diary or extensive collection of correspondence.
It is a pity. For example, we do not know how he reacted to the death
of Pole.119 Aside from the formal processo documentation there is a
hinterland of letters, notices and diplomatic dispatches that touch upon
the events.120 Morone evinced a certain stoicism and a desire that no one
should extend themselves too much on his account. Convinced of his
118
See Firpo’s comments, Inquisizione romana, pp. 315–319.
119
That it touched him goes without saying and an account of Pole’s last days lies
amongst Morone’s papers in the Vatican, ASV, Arm. LXIV, 28, f. 55r.
120
Many of which have been collected by Firpo and Marcatto in PM, V.
innocence, he relied on the legal process and the rectitude of the pope,
at least in public utterances.121 Nevertheless, the strain must have been
immense and at least one associate noted how imprisonment had left its
mark, physically aging the cardinal.122
The 1550s attest to the rising power of the Holy Office, the divisions
within the Sacred College and splits within and between other curial
organs and positions. The decade also witnessed further thinning of the
ranks of the spirituali with the deaths of Flaminio, Bertano and Pole.
However, Morone was still very much alive and so too were Gonzaga,
Seripando and a gaggle of lesser known men with links to the spirituali
like Foscarari, Gheri, Beccadelli and Ormanetto. Some argue that with
the election of Carafa the cause of the spirituali had been irrevocably
damaged.123 Aside from the direct onslaught made upon them by the Holy
Office, Paul IV’s appointments to the Sacred College shifted its make-up
in a markedly different direction.124 Gone are the humanist prelates like
Contarini and Bembo, to be replaced with men like Ghislieri, Giovanni
Bernadino Scotti and Scipione Rebiba.125 Paul IV’s batch might be viewed
as the coming men of the Counter Reformation, or the ones who were to
usher it in. But Morone still had 20 years to live. Had all the hopes of the
spirituali been exhausted?
121
See Anna Morone Stampa to Cardinal Farnese, 17 October 1557, PM, V, p. 308.
122
See the notice sent to Anna Morone Stampa from Rome, 14 June 1559, PM, V,
p. 454. The writer had had access to Morone and had found him ‘con assai buona ciera, però
canuta’, and that Morone ‘… spera nella giustitia di Nostro Signore et nella sua innocentia
di vedere termine il suo negocio a buon fine’ [‘… with a rather good air, tired however … he
hopes in the justice of Our Lord (the pope) and in his innocence to see his matter finish at a
good end’].
123
See Firpo, Inquizione romana, pp. 350 and 360–361.
124
Julius’ creations seem to have been the usual mixture of reformers, political and
personal favours, diplomats like Bertano and the usual crew of relatives, see Pastor, XIII,
pp. 171–176.
125
On the appointment of seven new cardinals in September 1555, see Pastor, XIV,
pp. 179–183. In March 1557 a further 10 cardinals were created including Ghislieri, see
pp. 199–202.
Chapter 5
Morone, Pius IV and the

Resumption of the Council,
December 1559–March 1563
Ma gratie a Dio che per mezzo della giustitia di Nostro Signore ha fatta chiara
al mondo la mia innocentia immaculata …1
Gian Angelo de’ Medici’s election as Pius IV on Christmas Day 1559 could
hardly have been bettered as a present for Giovanni Morone.2 Admittedly,
Paul IV’s designs had extended beyond the grave to some degree: from
the outset of the conclave any real chance of a Morone candidature had
lain in tatters and the cardinal must surely have been anxious about the
outcome. For his part, he seems to have backed Ercole Gonzaga and
sometimes de’ Medici.3 Although he did not play a prominent role for
much of the conclave, Morone did back the final drive to elect the latter,
and while de’ Medici’s elevation did not represent an outright victory for
the spirituali, nor necessarily for those ardent for reform, it was surely
the next best thing.4 The Milanese medici had long-standing links with
Morone’s family and Gian Angelo had been one of Morone’s vice-legates
at Bologna.5 As Carnesecchi recognized when writing to Giulia Gonzaga
on 3 January 1560 and noting the family and friendship ties between the
men, it represented an opportunity for Morone to salvage something from
the wreckage of the dark years of the processo.6
1
‘But thanks to God that by means of the justice of Our Lord he has made clear to
the world my complete innocence …’. Morone to Ercole Gonzaga following his acquittal,
6 April 1560, PM, V, p. 616.
2
The conclave began on 5 September 1559. See Pastor, XV, pp. 1–63.
3
See for example the lists at BAV, Urb. Lat. 1039, 97v and 94r. For contrasting views
on Morone’s papabile status, see PM, V pp. 507–508 n. 189.
4
See CT, II, pp. 583–584 and 630 and Pastor, XV, pp. 61–62 for Morone’s alleged role
in hastening the confirmation of de’ Medici’s election once it had become clear he was the
compromise favoured by the power brokers.
5
See Pastor, XV, pp. 67–69, 77 and 122–123.
6
‘Intendo che Morone è molto favorito del papa … essendo, oltre alla parentela, stata
sempre grande amicitia tra loro’. PM, V, p. 557. See also PC, II/II, pp. 750–752.
Morone’s Rehabilitation: The Spirituali Re-ascendant, 1560/1561
The change in Morone’s fortunes needs emphasis. By 30 December 1559,

he was writing both to the emperor, Ferdinand, and his friend Girolamo
Seripando, rejoicing in the outcome of the election and noting how it
augured well for the House of Hapsburg and the needs of the Church.7 It
was obvious to many that it was good news for Morone too.8 Not merely
was the trauma of imprisonment and investigation receding, but Morone’s
influence in the administration might once again be significant.
There is evidence that Morone perhaps wanted it otherwise and he
declined the post of Secretary of State, a position taken up by Pius’ nephew,
Carlo Borromeo.9 Why he might have wished to remain in the background
is difficult to assess. His pastoral responsibilities after February 1560
were local to Rome, so there was no real conflict on this score.10 He
undoubtedly wanted to go to Milan to attend to family business and did so
later in the year.11 However, it seems likely that the strain of the preceding
years, both mentally and physically, led him to seek a lower profile. Some
scholars imbue the post-processo Morone with a conscious perception and
understanding of the changed times in which he was living, attributing
his caution and his stance towards certain issues and friendships to this.12
However, given his diplomatic experience and his connections with the
7
PM, V, pp. 553–554. Seripando was amongst those who wrote congratulations to
Morone upon his release from prison, PM, V, p. 515.
8
Thus Paolo Sadoleto to Morone on 21 January 1560, BAV, Vat. Lat. 6409, ff. 6r–7v.
9
Morone would also initially decline the role of legate to the council, Pastor, XV,
p. 98, 202 and 243. See also the reports, emanating from Milanese circles at the end of
January 1560, and cited in PM, V, p. 572 n. 1, of Morone’s reluctance to be involved deeply
with the affairs of the administration.
10
Morone relinquished Novara in February 1560, Ferdinando Ughelli, Italia sacra: sive
De episcopis Italiae et insularum adjacentium, rebusque ab iis praeclare gestis, deducta serie
ad nostram usque aetatem: Opus singulare provinciis XX. distinctum, in quo ecclesiarum
origines, urbium conditiones, principum donationes, recondita monumenta in lucem
proferuntur (Venice, 1717–1722; Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, 1970), II, Col. 723.
He then worked his way through the Suburbicarian dioceses: Albano from 13 March 1560,
Sabina from 10 March 1561, and then Preneste from 18 May 1562, holding this until 1564,
see Italia Sacra, I, Col. 274 and Col. 184. He was Cardinal Bishop of Tusculano from 13
May 1564 until taking on Portuenses and Santa Rufina on 7 February 1565, which he held
until 1570, see Italia Sacra, I, 242 and 147. On these dioceses surrounding Rome see Maria
Chiabò, Concetta Ranieri and Luciana Roberti (eds), Le diocesi suburbicarie nelle ‘Visitae ad
limina’ dell’ Archivio Segreto Vaticano (Vatican City, 1988).
11
Morone eventually got away in September 1560 to visit his elderly mother, PC, II/
II, pp. 848–849. However, Carnesecchi also noted that the pope wanted him back quickly,
‘… faccendo aperta professione di non potere né saper vivere senza la compagnia di quel
signore’.
12
Firpo and Marcatto judge things this way, see PC, I, pp. xlvii–xlviii and II/I, p. vi.
Fragnito also analyses Morone’s attitude to the council dispute over residence and the decline
Morone, Pius IV and the Resumption of the Council 113
new pope, it is hard to imagine that he would have remained in the

background very long. Besides, a low profile does not necessarily equate
to zero influence. Towards the end of January, Carlo Gualteruzzi was able
to write to Ludovico Beccadelli that Morone was in supreme authority and
a February avviso referred to him as ‘favoritissimo’ of the pope.13
In January 1560, despite Morone’s release, the issue of the processo was
still essentially unresolved and this was perhaps a factor in his reticence
to accept political responsibility. Into the very changed circumstances of
the new administration, Morone held to his line of not wanting to rely
on a papal declaration of innocence. What he sought and needed was
a judicial decision in his favour: ‘per via de giustitia et non di gratia’.14
With the conclusion of the formalities in relation to Morone’s defence,
Pius IV entrusted the matter to Cardinals Giacomo Puteo and Michele
Ghislieri on 20 February 1560. The inclusion of the latter, heavily involved
in the processo, was arguably to ensure that he would be implicated in the
absolution, an astute move on the part of the pope and/or Morone.15 On
6 March 1560, Pius signed the judgment of absolution, and on 13 March
formally announced the same to the gathered cardinals.16 Not only read in
consistory, it was printed, published and distributed to the principal courts
of Europe and the universities of Paris and Louvain.17 Morone must have
been wholly satisfied with this resounding victory as reflected in the tone
of the letter to Gonzaga, cited at the beginning of this chapter. Of course,
some would later say that the pope had acted too hastily.18 However, this
particular round had gone to Morone unanimously. It was a good start to
the pontificate.19
In fact, the opening months of the reign witnessed a widespread
loosening up after the rigours of Paul IV’s regime. A group of cardinals
was deputized to draw up a bull on apostates, ‘… moderando quella crudel
in Beccadelli’s involvement in the posthumous preservation of Contarini’s memory along

these lines, see Gasparo Contarini, pp. 346–355.
13
PM, V, p. 572. Avviso, 3 February 1560, BAV, Urb. Lat. 1039, f. 125r. See also the
comments of Firpo and Marcatto at PM, IV, p. 21.
14
Avviso, 3 February 1560, BAV, Urb. Lat. 1039, f. 125r. For a discussion of the events
leading up to Morone’s absolution and an introduction to the documentation relating to one
of the processi difensivi, that undertaken at Bologna, see PM, IV, pp. 13–31.
15
See Firpo and Marcatto, PM, IV, p. 26.
16
Avviso, Rome, 9 March 1560, BAV, Urb. Lat. 1039, ff. 139rv. See also the extract
from the Acta Consistorialia in CT, VIII, pp. 11–13.
17
Firpo and Marcatto, PM, IV pp. 28–29.
18
See Firpo and Marcatto, PM, IV, p. 20.
19
A number of figures benefited from the change in regime including Sanfelice,
Foscarari, Grimani and Carnesecchi, although the absolutions for the latter two were much
more hard fought, see PC, I, especially pp. liv–xcix. Sanfelice was reappointed Commissarius
for the council the following year.
bolla che l’altro Papa gia fece’.20 The following month, the revision of the
Index became the subject of comment.21 Consciously or not, Pius IV was
putting clear water between his policies and those of his predecessor in a
number of areas.22 The new pope even absolved the Roman populace for
the eruption of rioting that had destroyed the palazzo of the Holy Office
in August 1559.23 We cannot say with certainty how influential Morone
was in shaping policy, but it is hard to believe that he was not involved.
Morone probably played an important role in the summoning to Rome
and promotion of Girolamo Seripando during 1560 and 1561.24 The
elevation of the Augustinian is enormously significant for understanding
the tone of the new administration. In December 1560, Seripando was
made a member of the commission in charge of the Inquisition. It was a key
appointment. At the behest of the pope, he was joining the group of largely
intransigent cardinals who had been running the Holy Office during the
reign of Paul IV. Clearly, Seripando was planted in their midst to exercise
some moderation. This was the view of Carnesecchi,25 and is evidenced by
Seripando’s conduct in cases such as that of Carnesecchi and Grimani.26
Pius IV also inserted two other cardinals with links to the spirituali into
20
‘moderating that cruel bull that the other pope had recently done’. Avviso, Rome, 24
February 1560, BAV, Urb. Lat. 1039, f. 132r.
21
‘La correttione del Cathalogo de libri che gia Papa Paolo 4to mando fuori con tanto
bibiglio et rumore universale. La cosa dell’ Apostati è parimente ridutta ad viam iuris’.
Avviso, Rome, 9 March 1560, BAV, Urb. Lat. 1039, ff. 135v–136r.
22
See Jedin’s discussion of a so-called ‘new course’ chartered by Pius IV in Seripando,
pp. 542–561.
23
A rather sombre marker of change, indicative of the perils of losing favour, were the
trials and eventual executions of Paul IV’s nephews, Cardinal Carlo Carafa and the Duke of
Paliano, Giovanni Carafa in March 1561, see Firpo and Marcatto, PC, I, p. lxxvi and Pastor,
XV, pp. 131–178.
24
See Jedin, Seripando, pp. 544–546. Substantial contact between the two men went
back to the reign of Julius III at least. On the Augustinian, aside from Jedin, Seripando,
see especially Alfredo Marranzini S.J., Il cardinale Girolamo Seripando. Arcivescovo di
Salerno, Legato pontificio al Concilio di Trento (Salerno, 1994), and ‘Girolamo Seripando
dopo Hubert Jedin’, in Giuseppe Alberigo and Iginio Rogger (eds), Il concilio di Trento nella
prospettiva del Terzo Millennio (Brescia, 1997), pp. 342–370; and Antonio Cestaro (ed.),
Geronimo Seripando e la chiesa del suo tempo nel V centenario dlla nascita (Rome, 1997),
particularly Adriano Prosperi’s, ‘Evangelismo di Seripando?’ pp. 33–49, in which he gives a
cautious and nuanced ‘yes’ in answer to his question. See also Michele Cassese, Girolamo
Seripando e i vescovi meridionali 1535–1563 (2 volumes, Naples, 2002), particularly the
chapter ‘Seripando e gli “spirituali”’, in vol. I, pp. 69–108.
25
Jedin, Seripando, p. 547. Firpo and Marcatto, PC, I, p. lxxvii–lxxviii, and Carnesecchi’s
testimony, PC, II/II, pp. 900–903, II/I, pp. 314–315 and II/II, pp. 820–825. Notable also is
what the Florentine says about hopes expressed by one of Seripando’s collaborators, Simone
da Firenze, that Seripando might bridge the divisions between Catholics and Lutherans, PC,
II/I, pp. 315–316.
26
This is certainly the view of Jedin, Seripando, pp. 549–551.
the Holy Office: Cristoforo Madruzzo and Otto Truchsess von Waldburg.
Perhaps resort to such steps was indicative of the rearguard action that the
Holy Office was fighting to retain its autonomy, but it surely also reveals
the desire of the pope and his advisors to exercise more control over it.27
Seripando was also entrusted with the reform of the Index, although
he was unable to make much headway with it, which again might be put
down to opposition at the Holy Office. Manifestly, the infighting of the
previous decades was continuing into the new pontificate. Some of the
personnel had changed. Seripando seems to have taken up the role vacated
first by Contarini and then Pole, as the leading theologically minded
moderate and Ghislieri had now become the leading figure in the rigorist
group. One constant was Morone. It does seem highly plausible that he
played a leading part in the promotion of Seripando, including the efforts
to get the Augustinian a red hat, duly obtained in February 1561.28
Trent Again – 1560
In his attitude to the Council of Trent, an unfinished item of papal policy

on the shelf for almost a decade, Pius IV again showed himself at variance
with his predecessor. He had been intimating a reconvening of the council
since the early days of his pontificate and the hints became more substantial
during the spring and early summer of 1560.29 In addition, the prospect
of religious colloquies in France and a French national council, raising
the spectre of a religious settlement that excluded the papacy’s concerns,
helped concentrate the mind and pushed Pius into pursuing the conciliar
question more vigorously.30 In August 1560, the French nobles firmed up
their intention of holding a national assembly, precipitating a consequent
increase in diplomatic activity as Pius sought to ensure that the major
powers would back a reopening of Trent. Philip II did not present too
much of a problem, but the French and the emperor needed convincing.
Wrangling over the nature of the assembly persisted, even after November
27
Firpo and Marcatto argue for the tenacity of the Holy Office, PC, I, p. lxvii.
28
On this, see Jedin, Seripando, pp. 562–567. Also PC, II/II, especially pp. 824–841.
29
The reopening of the council had been an election pledge by all the candidates. For
the story of the road to the issuing of the Bull, Ad ecclesiae regimen, 29 November 1560 (text
in CT, VIII, 104ff.), see Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 35–68.
30
During the late summer and early autumn of 1561, the inconclusive national council
and colloquy were held at Poissy. Just as had happened at Regensburg, the Eucharist proved
to be a sticking point. On the French situation, see Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 42–46, 52–56,
70–75 and 86–94, H. O. Evennett, The Cardinal of Lorraine and the Council of Trent
(Cambridge, 1930) and Alain Tallon, La France et le Concile de Trente (1518–1563) (thesis
for the Ècole française de Rome, 1997), especially pp. 283–335.
1560, when the Bull of Convocation was issued summoning the council to
open at Trent the following Easter. It is perhaps telling that the politico-
religious strategy being pursuing by the second half of 1560 – that of
reform at Rome coupled with reconvening the council – was exactly a
strategy Morone had long advocated, even if we cannot now say precisely
how much Morone influenced its shape.31
One notable issue in relation to the proposed reopening was the disputed
status of any new sittings of the council assembly.32 For the Spanish, they
had to be a continuation of the council begun in 1545, picking up where
it had left off during Julius’ pontificate nearly a decade before. In contrast,
the French and the emperor were keen to have a new council, freed from
the baggage of the past.33 Tied to this dispute was the issue of whether the
31
Morone was certainly on the reform commission, see CT, II, p. 343 and Pastor, XV,
p. 128. Evidence in Carnesecchi’s correspondence with Giulia Gonzaga, links the promotion
of Seripando with the reopening of Trent and hints at discussion of it in spirituali circles.
See PC, II/II, pp. 820–821, 824–825 and especially pp. 866–867, where Carnesecchi refers
to advice Seripando has given with regard to the council that ‘donna Giulia’ has passed on
in a letter to the Florentine, but which is apparently a little unclear. Carnesecchi wanted to
pass it on to Morone. Morone must have been influential in the choice of Filippo Gheri as
a special nuncio to Philip II to discuss the council, see the report of Paulo Tiepolo, Venetian
Ambassador in Spain, 22 November 1560, CSP, Venetian, Vol. 7 # 208. Going the other way
is Morone’s absence from Rome for several weeks in the autumn. Morone returned on 21
November 1560 (BAV, Urb. Lat. 1039, f. 198r, CT, VIII, p. 89 n. 2), although he clearly keep
abreast of developments, see Filippo Musotti’s comments to him in a letter of 19 October
1560, in CT, VIII, pp. 89–90.
32
For this part of the council, see Jedin, Storia, IV and Crisis and Closure, Dumeige et
al., Trente, pp. 203–360, which has a useful chronology, pp. 646–661, Evennett, Lorraine,
and, more recently in respect of French involvement, Tallon, La France. Of further interest
are Paolo Prodi, Il Cardinale Gabriele Paleotti 1522–1597 (2 volumes, Rome, 1959), Alberto
Marani (ed.), Muzio Calini. Lettere conciliari (Brescia, 1963), Robert Trisco, ‘Reforming
the Roman Curia: Emperor Ferdinand I and the Council of Trent’, in Guy F. Lytle (ed.),
Reform and Authority in the Medieval and Reformation Church (Washington, DC, 1981),
pp. 143–337, which deals with the activity of the emperor, and Marek Sygut, Natura e origine
della potestà dei vescovi nel Concilio di Trento e nella dottrina successiva (1545–1869)
(Rome, 1998), which looks at some of the doctrinal issues. Of interest also, particularly
in relation to Morone’s involvement, are the essays in Massimo Firpo and Ottavia Niccoli
(eds), Il cardinale Giovanni Morone e l’ultima fase del concilio di Trento (Bologna, 2010).
The decrees are in Tanner, II, pp. 722–799 and the Acta in CT VIII and IX with additional
material in CT, II and III/I and XIII/II. The correspondence between the legates and Rome
is in J. Šusta (ed.), Die römische Kurie und das Konzil von Trient unter Pius IV (4 volumes,
Vienna, 1904–1914). Paolo Sarpi, Istoria del Concilio Tridentino (reprint, Florence, 1966),
and Pallavicino, Istoria, remain of interest.
33
The pope and his advisers clearly thought in terms of a continuation. Ferdinand
initially fretted about whether a council would provoke a war with the Protestants, Trisco,
‘Reforming the Roman Curia’, p. 153. Such issues were also being aired in Rome – thus an
anonymous memorial on council matters in ASV, Conc. Trid. 13, ff. 259r–260v, a fondo
containing Morone papers – and remained a concern even to the end of the council.
previous resolutions of the council could be revisited as the French and the
emperor wanted. Fanning the hopes still harboured by some of persuading
the Protestants to participate, was the idea that the council could review
prior decisions if it were a fresh start. The matter was apparently floated at
Rome by the pope and in diplomatic circles in Spain and Vienna in October
1560.34 There is a suggestion that Pius believed the previous decisions of
the council could be revisited and that Protestant representations be heard,
although Jedin is sceptical that the advice given him would have amounted
to this. Morone had pointed out to the Inquisition that the decrees had not
been formally adopted by any pope, and had drawn a distinction between
revocation and hearing representations.35 However, Jedin believes that few
cardinals shared the hopes of the French and the emperor in respect of
what the council might achieve. He cites comments of Gheri to the effect
that the pope was now more concerned with preserving Spain and Italy,
than curing the ills of France and Germany.36
Having returned to Rome from Milan in November 1560, Morone
became directly involved in the preparation for the council, writing to
Charles Guise, Cardinal of Lorraine of the proposed resumption.37 At some
point over these weeks, Morone declined Pius’ request that he be one of the
legates.38 Why is unclear. He had certainly been a reluctant traveller in the
past and his health had suffered in prison. He must also have little relished
the prospect of navigating the minefield of different political and religious
interests. His standing with Philip II was already tainted thanks to the
activity of the Spanish ambassador in Rome, Francisco Vargas, who was
briefing against him and Seripando.39 Carnesecchi suggested that Morone
was put off by the experience he had had in 1542/1543 and the difficulties
that had subsequently arisen.40 All of these are plausible explanations for
his reticence. Perhaps Morone preferred to remain in Rome, close to the
34
Jedin, Storia, IV/I, p. 60–62.
35
There are echoes here of Morone’s exchange with the Inquisition about revoking the
Decree on Justification (see Chapter 3). Pius seems to have specifically ruled out revocation
of this decree in a letter to Philip II, but that he had to do so is interesting. See Firpo on
the letter and Spanish concerns about the appointment of Morone as a legate, Inquisizione
romana, p. 340 n. 110.
36
Jedin, Storia, IV/I, p. 67. Morone later took the same line in a letter to Borromeo
(Matrei, 13 May 1563, NB, 2/3, at p. 301), but the council was well underway by then.
37
Morone to Lorraine (Guise), Rome, 27 January 1561, CT, VIII, pp. 139. Morone
was critical of Guise’s attitude to the proposed resumption.
38
See Carnesecchi, PC, II/II, pp. 876, 886 and 922.
39
See Jedin, Seripando, pp. 566–568 and Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 339–345.
40
See PC, II/II, p. 904.
seat of influence, happy in the knowledge that Gonzaga and Seripando had
been appointed legates.41
The Roman Press and Pole’s De Concilio,42 1560–1562
Morone assisted Seripando in effecting another emblematic initiative

undertaken during these years: the establishing of a Roman press run by
the famous Venetian, Paolo Manuzio.43 This was not merely a case of
scholarly prelates pursuing their humanist inclinations. It must be viewed
in the context of the conflict between the spirituali and the zelanti, and that
between Catholicism and Protestantism. If we keep in mind the struggle
for control of Church policy, it was telling and audacious that the first
project for Manuzio’s press in 1561 was Pole’s De Concilio.
It is clear from Carnesecchi’s correspondence that plans to publish
unspecified works by the Englishman dated back to the early months of the
pontificate. Concrete proposals for such a scheme seem to have originated
with or been driven on by Morone, although the desire probably had its
origin closer to Pole’s household.44 Seripando may have been the first to
suggest De Concilio, believing that it would act as a counter to some of
the Protestant writings about councils, and he gained the backing not only
of Morone, but also of Borromeo and the pope.45 What is clear from the
41
Carnesecchi’s hints in this direction, see PC, II/II, p. 922. The other legates appointed
originally were Puteo, Stanislaus Hosius and Ludovico Simonetta, see Jedin, Storia, IV/I,
pp. 95–96 and 126–127.
42
De Concilio. Liber Reginaldi Poli cardinalis, together with his De baptismo
Constantini magni imperatoris and the Reformatio Angliae, ex decretis Reginaldi Poli
Cardinalis, Sedis Apostolicae Legati (Paolo Manuzio, Rome, 1562). On the De baptismo, see
the comments of Mayer, A Reluctant Author, p. 28.
43
See Jedin, Seripando, pp. 557–561 and Fragnito, Gasparo Contarini, p. 336
especially n. 78, on the efforts to engage Manuzio, and Morone’s underwriting of the
contract. Manuzio had long-standing links to the spirituali.
44
See PC, II/II, pp. 837–842 especially 839 and 868–869 and Mayer, Prince and
Prophet, pp. 356–359, A Reluctant Author, especially pp. 26–29. See also, Cassese, Girolamo
Seripando, I, p. 88, Jedin, Seripando, pp. 559–560, Fragnito, Memoria individuale, pp. 16–
21 especially p. 17 and Gasparo Contarini, pp. 326–341. Priuli, Pole’s executor, died on
15 July 1560 and Morone seems to have taken on the role at the behest of the pope, according
to Carnesecchi, PC, II/II, p. 848. The whole issue of the publication of Pole’s writings already
had a fraught prehistory.
45
See Jedin, Seripando, p. 559, and Seripando to Morone, 4 August 1561, Jedin,
Seripando (German Edition), II, pp. 632–633. From the tenor of Seripando’s letter, Morone’s
influence must not be discounted. Seripando (and Gonzaga) had been in Trent since April
1561. See also Fragnito, Gasparo Contarini, p. 337. On the content of the tract, see Mayer,
Prince and Prophet, pp. 143–147, and also the comments of Cassese, Girolamo Seripando, I,
pp. 89–92 on the points of contact between Pole’s De Concilio and Seripando’s own outlook.
correspondence is that the aim of the enterprise included the enhancing

and spreading abroad of the good name of the author, Reginald Pole.46
Foscarari and Beccadelli also wrote to Morone in connection with Pole’s
‘bellissimo libro’.47 Foscarari agreed that it was certainly an opportune
moment to publish with the council looming and was hopeful of the effect
that the work might have on the Protestants. Anticipating problems, he
suggested a quick publication with an endorsement from the legates.
This would stave off criticism, but also firmly lodge the publication in
the conciliar milieu.48 A work that had originally been written against the
backdrop of the opening of the council in 1545 was about to emerge in the
context of the reopening of the council 17 years later. The rationale for the
project had gradually mutated from being a question of Pole’s reputation
and an exercise in apologetics, to being of ecumenical value, without losing
its original aims. The publication of Pole’s important Reformatio Angliae
was included in the scheme.49
Gonzaga also took great interest in the project and, in November
1561, thought of arranging a religious colloquy at Trent.50 However, the
pope vetoed the scheme.51 All this activity rather suggests an effort on
the part of the spirituali to present the council in the best light to the
Protestants, in the (however unrealistic) hope that they might attend. It
46
Seripando to Morone, Trent, 11 September 1561, in Jedin, Seripando (German
Edition), II, pp. 636–637.
47
See Seripando to Morone, 14 August, ASV, Conc. Trid. 42, ff. 133r–134v, and
Foscarari to Morone, 18 August (ASV, Conc. Trid. 42, ff. 135r–136v), 11 September (CT,
VIII, pp. 247–248) and 29 September 1561 (ASV, Conc. Trid. 42, ff. 149r–150v). Beccadelli
also wrote on the 29 September, suggesting that if there were a problem printing it in Rome
then it should be done in Venice, ASV, Conc. Trid. 42, ff. 151r–152v.
48
CT, VIII, pp. 247–248.
49
The choice of the Reformatio Angliae was again probably Seripando’s, see Beccadelli
to Morone, 29 September 1561, ASV, Conc. Trid. 42, ff. 151r–152v. Seripando and Foscarari
appear to have wanted other reform tracts of the Englishman issued. Seripando refers to ‘un
altra sua operetta della Riforma’ in his letter of 14 August, said he had seen it in Brussels, had
an incomplete version of it and was hoping Morone could supply a fuller copy. This seems
to be Pole’s De reformatione ecclesiae, see Mayer, A Reluctant Author, pp. 60–67 especially
p. 63 item (d), where the opening referred to matches that identified by Seripando. Foscarari
mentioned a speech to the English Synod in a letter to Morone of 16 February 1562, ASV,
Conc. Trid. 42, ff. 212r–213v. See Mayer, A Reluctant Author, pp. 72–73 and on the synod,
Prince and Prophet, pp. 235–245, especially 237–239.
50
Mayer, A Reluctant Author, p. 27. See also Jedin, Seripando (German Edition), II,
p. 633, mentioning discussions with Gonzaga. On 12 January 1562, Gonzaga wrote to
Morone of his satisfaction with the project. Eager to receive the finished product, he suggested
Manuzio send it in instalments as he printed it off, ASV, Conc. Trid. 42, ff. 177r–178v. The
following month Gonzaga wrote again asking that more than the proposed 25 copies be sent
so that it could be distributed widely, Gonzaga to Morone, 2 February 1562, ASV, Conc.
Trid. 42, ff. 205r–206v.
51
Jedin, Storia, IV/I, p. 119.
is as if the publication of these works from Pole’s corpus acted as a sort

of manifesto for the surviving spirituali as the reopening of the council
approached. It also represents the struggle against the intransigenti being
waged in a different theatre of operations and can be linked to the revision
of the Index.52 While undoubtedly the opening salvoes in a campaign to
rehabilitate and cement the reputation of the English cardinal, for the sake
of the living as well as the dead, the involvement in the project of so many
of the surviving spirituali, Morone’s own important role in the campaign
and the timing and context of the venture all need greater emphasis than
has hitherto been the case.53 The decision to publish Pole’s works should
also be set alongside the ongoing efforts undertaken by surviving members
of Contarini’s family, encouraged by Morone, to print an edition of his
(Contarini’s) writings along with a vita of the Venetian.
Open for Business, January 1562
By December 1561, a reasonable number of prelates – Italians and

Spaniards mainly – had gathered and the council finally reopened on
18 January 1562.54 In order to circumvent the persistent problem of
whether the sessions were a continuation or not, it was decided to treat
of something neutral in relation to the immediately preceding sessions –
the revision of the Index.55 However, for revision read amelioration of its
severity, and so, while neutral it may have been in the sense of its position
52
Revision of the Index was taken up by the council and Beccadelli would later write
to Calini, from Pradalbino (14 October 1562, Morandi, Monumenta, II, pp. 367–368) about
working on Flaminio’s commentary on the Psalms with a view no doubt to publication.
53
Fragnito certainly believes that Morone’s interest in the publication of Pole’s works
along with a vita of the Englishman was heavily influenced by the desire to secure the futures
of the living. See Fragnito, Memoria individuale, especially, pp. 17–18 n. 16. Mayer agrees,
A Reluctant Author, p. 26.
54
CT, VIII, pp. 289–303, Tanner, II, pp. 722–723. On the run up to the opening, see
Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 125–152. The legates reported that 110 mitred prelates took part in
proceedings, more than three times the number that had been present at the opening of the
council in 1545, see Jedin, Storia, IV/I, p. 152 and CT, VIII, pp. 299–302. Morone made sure
that he was well informed as to what was unfolding in Trent. He was in correspondence with
his nephew Girolamo Gallarati, with Beccadelli, Filippo Gheri (once he arrived) and with
Gabriele Paleotti: for example Paleotti to Morone, 19 January 1562, ASV, Conc. Trid. 42,
ff. 187r–188v. Of greatest interest are Foscarari’s frequent and elegant reports for Morone
of the goings on at Trent. The Dominican wrote of the conciliar sessions, but also relayed
wonderful details from the swirl of gossip and rumour that comprised the wider council
milieu. See Foscarari to Morone, 11 September 1561, CT, VIII, pp. 247–248.
55
Although implicit, the bull of convocation had not decisively sided with continuation.
Resumption of business where it had been laid down in 1552 would have been a ‘clincher’,
see Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 66–69 and 146–150.
in the conciliar order of play, it was not entirely uncontroversial.56 It

surely signified a gesture of reconciliation towards those alienated from
the Church, coupled as it was with proposals for those affected by the
Index to be able to defend themselves and for exiles wishing to return to
the Church to have safe-conducts and the promise of a gentle reception by
the council.57 Council was being promoted over Inquisition (whether it be
Roman or Spanish) both in respect of the Index and in the adjudication of
some individual cases. Whilst Pius was happy to entrust the revision of the
Index to the council, there were certainly those at Rome who disagreed.58
The conciliatory spirit embedded in the designs of Gonzaga, Seripando
and others was taken up in debate at the assembly. There were suggestions
that the council should present as compassionate a face as possible to
those separated from the Church. However, much to the disappointment
of a number of prelates, it demurred from excessive ecumenism and the
decree approved was more limited.59
It seems clear that with the council’s arrival, the spirituali/moderates,
led by Seripando and Gonzaga, saw an opportunity to use the council as
a means of presenting the moderate face of Catholicism and encroaching
upon and militating against the power and severity of the Holy Office.
Historians have tended to present the confessional split as a given by this
point, especially after the political and religious settlement of the Peace
of Augsburg. Certainly, many prelates had reached this same conclusion.
However, some still thought in terms of accord, at least in these early weeks
when they still considered Protestant representation a possibility. Seripando
and others attempted to do what they could to make this more likely.60
Morone’s nephew, Gallarati, expressed the mood of optimism among
some.61 He wrote of how the emperor sought a delay to allow wider
representation, including from the Protestant lands and of how there
were differing views about it.62 Gallarati sided with those who thought
it a good idea, believing that every effort should be made to bring stray
56
Foscarari wrote to Morone in terms of the pope wanting the council to ‘moderasse
lo indice di Papa Paulo …’, and reported the scepticism of some at the council about the
practicality of the proposal, ASV, Conc. Trid. 42, ff. 207r–208v.
57
Jedin views it in these terms, Storia, IV/I, pp. 153–154.
58
Jedin, Seripando, pp. 587–590.
59
Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 155–161. The decree was passed on 26 February 1562
during the 18th (2nd) session of the council, CT, VIII, pp. 355–368, Tanner, II, pp. 723–725.
However, discussion of the exact terms of safe-conducts carried over into subsequent general
congregations. See Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 171–174, Dumeige et al., Trente, pp. 244–248,
and the observations of Norman P. Tanner S.J., The Councils of the Church. A Short History
(New York, 2001), pp. 82–83.
60
See the comments of Jedin in Seripando, pp. 590–591.
61
Gallarati to Morone, 14 February 1562, ASV, Conc. Trid. 42, ff. 211rv.
62
See Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 167–168.
sheep back to the Church.63 Some argue that these aspirations had no real
effect on the direction of the council. However, with two legates trying to
steer the council into a lane characterized by openness, they might have
done. A reasonably generous offer of safe-conducts was eventually issued,
recapitulating the terms offered during the previous sitting (when there
had been Protestant representation) and a short delay until mid-May was
agreed at the February session, against the wishes of some. In these early
months, the assembly hovered between two views of its function: a council
of reunion or a council of retrenchment.64
The Dispute over Residence, March/April 1562
The decision to publish Pole’s Reformatio Angliae alongside De Concilio

was indicative of the importance of reform for the spirituali as well as for
other groupings at the council such as the Spaniards. A plank of the reform
movement was diocesan renewal led by resident, conscientious pastor-
bishops and it can be traced through the Cinquecento from Contarini’s
De Officio viri boni et probi episcopi, and the example of pastors like
Giberti, through the Consilium de emendanda ecclesia to Pole’s Synod and
onwards.65 Although the council had legislated on the point in 1547, it
had stopped short of making residence a requirement of divine law.66 Some
felt that unless it were, there would always exist unscrupulous prelates
neglectful of their duties or that exigency would dictate that others were
unable to fulfil them. Morone’s career might be taken as a case in point.
63
Gallarati wrote that some had called for the sending of legates to invite the Protestants
again. Perhaps the feeling was that with the council underway, a renewed effort might evince
their participation, ASV, Conc. Trid. 42, ff. 211rv. Foscarari, for one, seems to have pressed
for this, see Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 171–172 especially n. 15.
64
The comments are Jedin’s, see Seripando, p. 591 and Storia, IV/I, pp. 171–173.
65
Contarini’s comments in his De Officio are in John Patrick Donnelly (ed.), The Office
of a Bishop. Gasparo Contarini (Milwaukee, 2002), at pp. 68–69. The relevant passage from
the Consilium is in Olin, The Catholic Reformation, p. 189. See also the 3rd decree of the
Reformatio Angliae, Gregg Press imprint, London, 1962. Beccadelli wrote to Gualteruzzi on
6 April 1562 that ‘Il desiderio comune è, che si faccia bene, e da senno; perche se la chiesa
a questa volta non risorge, potria cadere assai. Oggi si è cominciato a parlare de Residentia
Pastorum, che è uno dei più necessarii’. Morandi, Monumenta, II, pp. 321–322. See also,
Jedin and Alberigo, Il tipo ideale di vescovo, and in respect of the views of one of Pole’s
co-workers, Patrick Preston, ‘Carranza and Catharinus in the Controversy over the Bishops’
Obligation of Residence 1546–1552’, in Edwards and Truman, Reforming Catholicism in
the England, pp. 99–113.
66
See the decree of the 6th Session, approved at the same time as the Decree on
Justification, although there with less unanimity on the issue resulting in initial confusion as
to the status of the directive; Jedin, Trent, II, especially pp. 343–362. Dumeige et al., Latran
V et Trente, p. 323 and Tanner, II, pp. 681–683.
However, some believed that such a declaration would cut across papal
prerogative and bring the papacy into disrepute because of dispensations
granted in the past.
After the debate about the Index, the date of the next general session was
set for May. In the meantime, the fathers examined reform issues. Seripando
and a group of Italians, including Foscarari, Beccadelli, Muzio Calini and
Gallarati, had already been at work and, by the beginning of March, gave
concrete expression to hopes for reform by compiling a list of no less than
93 articles.67 Jedin describes this libretto as realistic, wise and balanced.
The call for reform in Rome was expressed cautiously. Direct confrontation
with the pope was played down, even if some of the stated wants on the
shopping list had conciliarist overtones, such as the call for regular general
councils. The major area of concern was the renewal of pastoral life at
parochial and diocesan level. Accordingly, there were articles about the
ordination of clergy and the selection of bishops, about the distribution
of benefices, and a call for the duty of residence to be declared a matter of
divine law if there were no other way of ensuring its observation. Seripando
chose 18 key articles and showed them to the group of canonists advising
the legates. He notably headed his select list with the article on residence,
although he took out any reference to divine law.68
Twelve of the articles survived, with amendments, to be presented
to the other legates. They were approved and passed to the imperial
representatives.69 It now remained for them to be presented to the council
on 11 March. However, at this point, differences of opinion began to
surface. Cardinal Simonetta, having seemingly been satisfied with the 12
articles, began to voice concerns about the article on residence as being
prejudicial to the curia, concerns that he duly conveyed to Rome. The
imperial orators made manifest their opposition to its dropping and after
further discussion the article survived.70 Rome, alerted by Simonetta, at
first vetoed any attempt to discuss the issue of ius divinum. However, at
the end of March the pope relented.71 The scene was set for one of the
council’s greatest controversies.
After a pause for the observance of Holy Week, the general congregations
restarted on 6 April 1562. Over the course of the next weeks the fathers
(now in the region of 150 in number) gave their opinions on the first four
of the articles proposed for discussion on 11 March, including the article
67
See Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 178–181.
68
Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 181–182.
69
Count Sigismund von Thun, Anton Brus von Müglitz (Archbishop of Prague) and
Georges Draskovich (Bishop of Fünfkirchen).
70
71
on residence.72 A letter from Beccadelli to Morone highlights the delicate

state proceedings had reached. He commented positively on the number
of prelates taking part and referred to the debate about residence and how
Simonetta had spoken with him. He described the range of opinions on the
issue, although suggested that only a minority were against the declaration
of residence as ius divinum. He urged that a free vote be allowed and
suggested that Morone might be able to facilitate this.73
The overall view of the fathers did not emerge sufficiently clearly
during the course of the debate and it was resolved to put the issue to
a simple vote on 20 April to discern the mind of the council. The result
was tumultuous. According to the minutes, 68 fathers voted placet in
favour of a definition of residence as de iure divino, 35 voted non placet,
and a similar number voted to refer the matter to the pope.74 Thus, the
combination of the non placet with the undecided gave a slight majority
against a definition of residence as ius divinum. The vote provoked or
revealed divisions within the council, within the college of legates, and
between the pope and elements at the council. Amongst the legates, there
was almost a complete breakdown in the relationship between Simonetta
on the one hand, and Gonzaga and Seripando on the other.
Morone’s role over these weeks cannot be reconstructed with certainty.
Jedin identifies that during the period in which Gonzaga’s secretary was
in Rome consulting with the pope in respect of the reform project, Pius
appeared open-minded.75 He had already changed his mind once about a
debate on residence and was receiving cautionary advice from a group of
cardinals in Rome and Simonetta’s noises of alarm from Trent. Jedin lists
the trusted cardinals as Borromeo, Francesco Gonzaga (Ercole’s young
nephew), Marcantonio da Mula, Giovanni Michele Saraceni, Giovan
72
For the different groupings and the opinions given during the debate, see Jedin,
Storia, IV/I, pp. 187–199 and Sygut, Natura e origine, pp. 144–155.
73
Beccadelli to Morone, Trent, 14 April 1562, Morandi, Monumenta, II, pp. 322–324.
Gallarati too asked for Morone’s intervention a few weeks earlier after hearing that the pope
did not want the issue discussed, Gallarati to Morone, 30 March 1562, ASV, Conc. Trid. 42,
ff. 251r–252v, discussed along with Gallarati’s subsequent letter of 6 April, by Jedin, Storia,
IV/I, pp. 193–194.
74
On the voting and the variations in the computation of the result, see CT, VIII, pp.
463–465 and Jedin, Storia, IV/I, p. 201 n. 20. Amongst the placet voters was to be found the
only Englishman at the council, Thomas Goldwell, the Bishop of St Asaph.
75
Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 203–204. Gonzaga’s secretary, Frederico Pendaso, was in
Rome between 20 April and 3 May, Storia, IV/I, p. 203 n. 22. Indeed, Morone in a letter to
Beccadelli of 25 April, perhaps having taken some steps in the direction of satisfying his and
Gallarati’s requests that he intercede with the pope, wrote of the pope’s desire that the fathers
be free to express their views, trusting in the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Cited by Fragnito,
Gasparo Contarini, p. 348 n. 109.
Battista Cicada, Vitelozzo Vitelli and Morone.76 The Spanish ambassador

believed that the pope relied particularly on Cicada and Morone.77 The
interests of some of these men tended towards the forestalling of severe
reform measures that would touch the curia.
After Gonzaga’s secretary left Rome, the pope seems to have sided
decisively with the curialist party, who saw in the call for a definition of
residence as ius divinum, an attack on the Roman court and the competence
of the papacy. On 8 May, the pope ordered that further discussion of
the point be suspended and censured the legates for having allowed the
matter to be raised, threatening to send more cardinals to Trent.78 What
had Morone’s advice to the pope been? Did he try to influence Pius in
accordance with Beccadelli’s and Gallarati’s hopes? Alternatively, did he
play a part in the pope’s hardening of position in the second week of May,
and if so, why did he fail to support his friends at Trent?
Divisions amongst the Spirituali
The April vote opened a rift in the ranks of the spirituali. Letters flew
thick and fast between Rome and Trent, if not more than was already
commonplace, then certainly containing more lively sentiments. Gonzaga’s
nephew was in touch with his uncle and Seripando with his friend da
Mula. There is no evidence that Morone was in contact with either of
them at this critical time, which is strange in itself, but he certainly let his
feelings be known to some of the other council fathers: both supporters of
the ius divinum and some of their opponents.79 Morone wrote to Foscarari
on 9 May, critical of his actions. Unfortunately, this letter is lost. However,
we have Foscarari’s reply, giving the main lines of Morone’s attack. Jedin
called it one of the most beautiful documents from the whole history of the
council.80 Foscarari expressed himself as almost welcoming of the criticism
doing the rounds in Rome, although saddened that it had affected Morone,
and set about rebutting it point by point. Morone had clearly accused the
76
77
Jedin, Storia, IV/I, p. 205 n. 23.
78
Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 204–207. Sarpi naturally plays up the fears at court about
the threat to its status, see Istoria, 6.4, pp. 629–639. Various names were batted around as
additional legates, including Morone’s and Cicada’s, who would have assumed the presidency.
The pope was persuaded not to send them. Gonzaga had threatened to quit Trent, see Jedin,
Storia, IV/I, p. 213.
79
Jedin (Seripando, p. 611) describes Morone as withdrawing from his cardinal
colleagues in Trent.
80
Jedin, Storia, IV/I, p. 216. Foscarari to Morone, 18 May 1562, in Morandi,
Monumenta, II, pp. 327–340, the original of this long letter is in ASV, Conc Trid. 42, ff.
291r–301v.
supporters of the ius divinum of having created a scandal and seems to

have suggested that previous legislation from the Fourth Lateran Council
would be contradicted.81 Secondly, even if the point about ius divinum
were valid, the raising of the matter in this way was inopportune. Morone
seems also to have accused Foscarari (or relayed the accusations of others)
of agitating in order to get the clause approved and of making regrettable
comments in the general congregations, accusations that particularly stung
the Dominican and caused him to forward copies of his voti.82
Letters also survive from the exchanges between Morone and both
Beccadelli and Gallarati in the aftermath of the vote. In respect of the latter,
it was clearly a frank and robust correspondence.83 In a long and vehement
letter of 13 June, Morone expressed surprise to Gallarati that residence
as ius divinum should still be contended at Trent, as he understood that
only 35 at the most supported it.84 It is a perplexing remark with a faint
whiff of condescension. Morone surely knew the depth of feeling about
the issue. His sources at Trent – Foscarari in particular – had made it
clear.85 However, Morone made the same point to Beccadelli later in the
81
The reference to Lateran IV by Morone is an odd one, as Foscarari seems to imply
when he deals with it in his letter. The issue of residence as a matter of ius divinum is not
an issue addressed by Lateran IV and Foscarari suggests that Morone has been ill advised
by others in this regard. In fact, Foscarari amusingly adds that he has a good acquaintance
with the Lateran legislation since it was all he was allowed to read when he was in Rome
during the last pontificate, a reference to his imprisonment presumably. He carefully refutes
any suggestion that the only two canons that could have any relevance (29 and 32) could be
used to build an argument against decreeing residence a matter of divine law. See Morandi,
Monumenta, II, pp. 329–331, and Tanner, I, for the relevant decrees of Lateran IV.
82
On the exchanges between Morone and Foscarari, see Felici, ‘Al crocevia dell
riforma’, especially pp. 102–116. As Felici observes, whatever the bitterness of this dispute,
they were able to patch up their differences well enough for Morone to rely considerably
on Foscarari’s help the following year. Testament, perhaps, to Foscarari coming to see some
merit in Morone’s attitude? More likely it witnesses to the depth of their relationship and the
profound integrity of the Dominican.
83
See Morone to Gallarati, Rome, 13 June 1562, in S. Ehses, HJ, 37 (1916): pp. 72–74,
taken from the copy in ASV, Conc. Trid. 42, ff. 332r–333v. Gallarati replied from Padua on
26 June, ASV, Conc Trid. 42, ff. 339rv. See Beccadelli to Morone, 8 June 1562, in Morandi,
Monumenta, II, pp. 347–350 and 29 June, Morandi, Monumenta, II, pp. 350–352, Morone
to Beccadelli, 30 May and 20 June 1562 (the latter in Morandi, Monumenta, I/I, pp. 114–
115), both cited from the originals (Biblioteca Palatina at Parma Ms. Pal. 1020/1, ff. 106r
and 108rv), by Fragnito, Gasparo Contarini, pp. 348 n. 109 and 349 n. 112 respectively.
Note Fragnito’s comments about the Beccadelli–Morone correspondence, at pp. 346–349
especially n. 107.
84
HJ, 37 (1916): p. 72.
85
Gallarati (to Morone, 6 April 1562, ASV, Conc Trid. 42, ff. 261r–262v), spoke of
the major part of the fathers wanting a declaration of residence as de iure divino. Foscarari
refers to the divisions in the congregations in letters of 2, 9, 13 and 16 April 1562, ASV, Conc
Trid. 42, ff. 255r–256v and 267r–272v, mentioning his hope for the guidance of God on 9
April, and noting that Sanfelice and Tommaso Stella had argued against defining residence as
month. Either the exact detail of the vote had not been relayed to Morone
accurately, or he was deliberately playing it down to suit his argument.86
Morone had previously argued that it was not expedient that the issue
be debated and also asked whether the opinion of the minority should
prevail over the majority: whether it should be assumed that the Holy Spirit
was more with the supporters of the ius divinum. He insisted (vi dico), in
flat contradiction of Gallarati, that it would be a greater scandal to declare
it a matter of divine law as it was not necessary. He maintained that it was
a scandal that the minority were trying to get their way, that previous popes
and councils who had refrained from determining the issue be brought
into disrepute, and that business be held up over an issue that had already
been treated. It was scandalous, damaging and shameful to seek this under
the pretext of piety and thus give opportunity for ridicule to the enemies
of Holy Church. Morone exhorted his nephew to end the argument and
quoted again from scripture to the effect that the Spirit arranges all things
delightfully – disponit omnia suaviter – an apparent call for greater trust in
providence, an important motif for men like Morone and Pole.87
Morone was also concerned about how the thing was playing in Rome
and it appears that he had been on the receiving end of criticism from
colleagues, perhaps along the lines that he should exercise more control over
those connected to him. To Beccadelli, he spoke of the dissatisfaction of the
‘grandi’ over his (Beccadelli’s) actions and those of ‘altri nostri amici’, which
had affected Morone.88 Morone accepted Beccadelli’s sincerity, but having
looked at the issue himself and with other learned and pious persons, he
believed that it was damaging and unnecessary.89 Morone touched on the
essence of the debate, affirming that few people would deny the obligation
to reside, but backing papal prerogatives over the area.90 Morone had also
written supportively to Tommaso Stella, Bishop of Capo d’Istria, one of
those who had voted non placet.91 He expressed compassion for Stella
and ‘all the others … of holy desire’, given that the situation provoked in
of ius divinum on 13 April. On 20 April, Foscarari sent an account of the vote, commenting
that, ‘La congregatione è stata tumultuo … mi s’havrebbe potuto desiderare piu decoro et
piu modestia’. He notably underestimated the number of fathers who voted non placet, ASV,
Conc Trid. 42, ff. 273r–274v.
86
Both sides seem to have been guilty in this respect.
87
Wisdom 8:1. See, HJ, 37 (1916): p. 73.
88
Morandi, Monumenta, I/I, p. 114.
89
Morandi, Monumenta, I/I, p. 114. Morone does not specify with whom he had been
in consultation – perhaps the canonist Cicada?
90
‘… son pochi che non sappino l’ obligo che portano seco quelle cure et gradi, et
che dubbitino della podestà del Papa sopra quello et altro.’ Taken from Fragnito, Gasparo
Contarini, p. 349 n. 112, rather than Morandi.
91
Morone to Stella, Rome, 13 May 1562, ASV, Conc. Trid. 42, ff. 287r–288v. Stella
wrote in reply to Morone on 21 May, ASV, Conc. Trid. 42, ff. 302r–303v, see Jedin, Storia,
Morone much displeasure.92 The council (santo Concilio) was not able to
attend to necessary and useful matters (cose utili et necessarie, et proprie),
but rather to those that caused disagreement and confusion.
Morone’s friends were clearly stung by the rebukes they received, quickly
seeking to deflect the criticism.93 Foscarari ended his letter with a request
to be allowed to return to Modena and Beccadelli likewise expressed an
unlikely desire to be in Ragusa. Both men were dismayed that Morone was
unhappy with their actions and probably taken aback by his stance. After
all, both Beccadelli and Gallarati had urged Morone to exert his influence
with the pope and Foscarari had written to the cardinal in the March
noting the harmony between their views on residence. The division in the
ranks of the spirituali appears to have come as a surprise to all concerned.
Either Morone had changed his mind or a colossal misunderstanding had
occurred. 94
Dubbed the ‘spiriti divini’ by their adversaries, an appellation
reminiscent of the term spirituali, the supporters of the ius divinum felt
frustrated and indignant in the aftermath of the April vote. However, they
continued to act militantly for what they believed was right.95 This first
stage of the dispute rumbled on through May and into June, aggravated
by the persistent quarrel over whether the council was a continuation.96 In
IV/I, pp. 214–215. See also Fragnito, Gasparo Contarini, p. 347 and her citation of Stella’s
further letter of 13 June.
92
‘tutti gli altri … di santo desiderio’, Morone to Stella, Rome, 13 May 1562, ASV,
Conc. Trid. 42, ff. 287r–288v.
93
Beccadelli complained to Gheri that Morone had judged without hearing the
evidence, Morandi, Monumenta, II, pp. 345–347. He complained about how some fathers at
the council (opponents of residence as ius divinum) were brandishing letters of support from
cardinals in Rome. Morone’s letter to Stella was probably one such trophy. Foscarari hinted
at rumours that Morone had been openly critical of Seripando, Morandi, Monumenta, II,
pp. 327–340.
94
Foscarari had written on 30 March 1562, having received a letter of thanks from
Morone, probably in response to the thoughtful condolences the Dominican had sent at
the beginning of the month in respect of the death of the cardinal’s mother (ASV, Conc.
Trid. 42, ff. 226r–227v.). Foscarari noted that, ‘Quanto alla residenza se sia de iure divino,
sono del medesimo parere di V. Ill.ma S …’. After considering some biblical and patristic
parallels, he mentioned that, ‘… spero che sarebbe determinata in maniera che non havrebbe
offesa alcuno …’, ASV, Conc Trid. 42, ff. 249r–250v. Noteworthy also is Beccadelli’s lengthy
sojourn with Morone in Rome from the end of 1560, during which time they must have
discussed the pending council, see Fragnito, Gasparo Contarini, pp. 323 and 346–347. On
the whole episode see also now Fragnito’s ‘La terza fase del concilio di Trento, Morone e gli
“spirituali”’, in Massimo Firpo and Ottavia Niccoli (eds), Il cardinale Giovanni Morone e
l’ultima fase del concilio di Trento (Bologna, 2010), pp. 53–78.
95
For Foscarari’s continuing concerns about residence, see Foscarari to Morone, 25
May 1562, CT, VIII, p. 502 n. 1. See also Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 233–234.
96
On 11 May, Foscarari wrote of how the problems were mounting, mentioning
residence, the issue of the continuation and that of who could propose business, the so-called
the end, the deadlock was only overcome when Gonzaga promised during
the general congregation of 6 June that residence would again be discussed
when the council looked at the Sacrament of Orders, which it would do
after treating of the Eucharist. Despite the undertaking, ill feeling persisted.
Some believed that Rome attempted to alter the balance of power, ordering
‘trustworthy’ prelates to Trent and instructing the legates to allow those
from the awkward squad to quit the council.97
Despite the difficulties, the council slowly proceeded with business. The
number of participants steadily climbed, decrees concerning the Eucharist
emerged and the rift between Rome and the legates seemed to heal,
particularly since the pope had sent Carlo Visconti, Bishop of Ventemiglia,
to Trent and no longer relied solely on Simonetta for intelligence.98 It was
of course merely a lull.
The Debate on Orders, the Arrival of the French: A Second Crisis
The spring dispute over residence had been fierce, but the theological
importance of the debate on the Sacrament of Orders raised the stakes.
Indeed, the spring debate might be considered as an oblique approach to
a more fundamental set of issues. Now at stake would be not merely the
good practice of pastors, but rather the theological underpinning of their
office and the relationship between this and the papacy. 99
The debate on Orders gradually gathered pace during the last weeks
of September and into October 1562.100 A commission was appointed to
proponentibus legatis issue, ASV, Conc. Trid. 42, ff. 285r–286v.

97
Although Beccadelli, Gallarati and Foscarari were all granted permission to leave the
council, it was related to illness. The legates prevented Foscarari from departing at the last
minute. Probably amidst fears about the arrival of the French, Gallarati and Beccadelli were
encouraged to return to Trent, although neither in fact took much further part. See CT, VIII,
pp. 639–640 n. 2 and p. 781 n. 6. See also Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 215–216 and 247, Prodi,
Paleotti, pp. 135–136, Fragnito, Gasparo Contarini, p. 350, and the letters of Foscarari to
Morone, 1 June 1562, ASV, Conc. Trid 42, ff. 308r–309v, and Morone to Beccadelli, Rome,
12 September 1562, Morandi, Monumenta, I/I, pp. 115–116.
98
See Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 320–326. At the September session there were six
cardinals, three patriarchs, 22 archbishops, 145 bishops, plus ambassadors and orators for
the secular rulers, religious superiors (eight), legal advisers and periti.
99
See Beccadelli to Morone, 9 November 1562, Morandi, Monumenta, II, pp. 372–373.
100
On the initial phase of this latest controversy, see Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 327–344
and Sygut, Natura e origine, pp. 31–52. Morone began to receive additional reports from
the newly arrived Gheri, see CT, VIII, p. 955 n. 1 and the texts of his reports in CT, III,
pp. 191–226. On the debate as a whole see, Giuseppe Alberigo, ‘Le potestà episcopali nei
dibattiti tridentini’, in Igino Rogger (ed.), Il concilio di Trento e la riforma tridentina. Atti
del convegno storico internazionale, Trento, 2–6 settembre 1963 (2 volumes, Rome, 1965),
II, pp. 471–523.
draw up a decree and the resulting proposals debated.101 The critical canon
(no. 7) was silent on the issue of episcopal orders being a matter of divine
law (ius divinum) and duly attracted criticism from the Spaniards led by
the Archbishop of Granada, from the imperial grouping and from Italian
reformers such as Foscarari and Calini. These prelates sought to ground
episcopal orders de jure divino directly with God and Christ Jesus, rather
than having it mediated through the pope. On the other hand, a large
group of mainly Italian prelates adhered to the view that it was either
inopportune or plainly wrong to declare that episcopal orders (or all
aspects of it) were based on ius divinum. A nuanced position adopted by
some prelates was to make a distinction between episcopal jurisdiction,
which they agreed came through the pope, and sacramental powers,
which had their origin directly with God. Various different versions of
the canon were drawn up, but each ran into objections.102 In addition,
issues of reform remained, including that of residence and whether it too
were a requirement of divine law, the point that had been at issue in April.
Gonzaga’s promise of a reprise of this debate would have to be fulfilled.
After negotiations with Rome during October, a reform project, including
a purely disciplinary canon on residence, was circulated.103 It was in the
midst of these debates that Charles Guise, Cardinal of Lorraine, and the
French group arrived on 13 November 1562.104
The discussions in the general congregations rolled on for the second
half of November and into December with the tension mounting and the
clashes between the opposing ecclesiological positions becoming more
heated.105 Guise made his first contribution to the debate on 4 December
and proposed another version of canon 7 recognizing the office of bishop
as instituted by Christ, yet not using the term ius divinum. He also
proposed a further canon on the power of the pope. At first, all the legates
agreed that Guise’s formula was acceptable, but after pressure from his
canonist advisers, Simonetta began to have doubts. The legates remitted
the matter to Rome, candidly laying before the pope the divisions at the
council. The pope replied by the middle of December. Guise’s canon was
not acceptable to Pius and his advisers and they smarted that discussion of
101
The proposals were substantially the same as had been composed a decade before,
minus reference to the divine origin of the episcopacy.
102
Sygut, Natura e origine, pp. 52–57. What was a dispute about theology of course
had implications on a practical level in terms of control and independence.
103
104
See Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 345–350, on the arrival of the French clergy and their
potential impact. Also, Dumeige et al., Trente, pp. 337–339. Three French bishops had
arrived the previous spring and another on 3 November. Lorraine brought a further 14 to
the assembly.
105
Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 355–359. Sygut, Natura e origine, pp. 57–94.
papal authority had been aired at all.106 Morone too waded in with a letter
to the legates of 12 December, in which he was critical of the fact that such
issues had been raised.107
It was a tactical error on Rome’s part and Guise was not pleased
with the rebuff. Then, adding oil to the fire, a proposed reform decree
on residence emerged again from the shadows, representing a stiffening
of previous legislation certainly, but falling short of defining it as ius
divinum. It did not go far enough for the majority of the Spaniards, but
did represent a possible basis for compromise for the likes of Foscarari.
Discussion of the canon went on into the New Year and finally ended on
18 January 1563, with some of the exchanges descending to the level of
personal abuse.108 However, the possibility of an agreement existed and a
committee under the direction of Guise and Madruzzo was entrusted with
the task of seeking it. After some tetchy discussion, the group arrived at a
form of words acceptable to a majority of them.109
At the same time (January 1563), efforts were still being made to
exit from the impasse over episcopal orders. In the middle of the month,
a proposal arrived from Rome on the disputed canon accompanied by
a draft for an additional canon on papal supremacy that reiterated the
teaching of the Council of Florence. This latter development tended
to muddy the waters as it touched the traditional Gallican nerve of
opposition to Florence.110 As January wore on, it was clear that the council
was becoming paralysed. The legates, burnt by their previous experience,
turned to Rome more directly for guidance. Visconti had been sent to get
instructions and to convey firsthand the mounting difficulties. Further
hopes of finding an accommodation receded and the postponement of
the next full session until 22 April 1563 was submitted at the general
congregation of 3 February. The proposal was accepted, but with a hefty
dissenting minority.111 Guise was critical that the draft canon on residence,
delivered to the legates, had not been put to the council. He was becoming
a key figure and the focus for disgruntled prelates: those who felt Rome
was working against the council, was not serious about reform and sought
a pretext to dissolve the assembly.112
106
107
See Šusta, III, p. 117.
108
Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 367–374. Sygut, Natura e origine, pp. 155–163. With
‘Grechetto’ still attending the council, it could not have been otherwise and he accused the
Spanish and Portuguese of having wives and concubines!
109
Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 374–376. Sygut, Natura e origine, pp. 163–164. Foscarari’s
accounts for Morone of the negotiations can be found in CT, IX, pp. 368–369, n. 7.
110
111
Foscarari’s description of the discord, CT, IX, p. 379 n. 4.
112
Death in Trent – March 1563
It was also during January 1563 that Ferdinand instructed his representatives
to push for the debate of the long-standing imperial list of reforms, which
they duly did.113 The French had already presented their proposals at the
beginning of January and Guise sent an intermediary to Rome to present a
French view on the situation to Pius.114 The legates replied that some of the
matters on the German memorandum could indeed be discussed, but that
others could not be put forward as they touched the curia and the pope
and accordingly would pit council against pontiff. They commissioned
Giovanni Francesco Commendone to go to the imperial court to dissuade
the emperor from aggravating the situation by sparking a conflict between
pope and council and to assist in moving business forward. Neither
Commendone nor the nuncio at the court, Delfino, could elicit assurances
from Ferdinand.115 Both France and the emperor were now pushing their
reform agendas and the Spanish prelates still agitated for their minimum
requirements: a declaration of the institution of bishops by Christ and a
similar declaration of ius divinum in relation to residence.116 In February,
Guise travelled to Innsbruck to see the emperor. He asked Ferdinand to
come to the council and to meet with the pope in order to settle what could
be on the agenda for the reform of the Church. Ferdinand was receiving
similar advice from his own representatives.117
The result was the dispatch of two letters to the pope dated 3 March
1563. One was a formal, emperor to pope letter. The second, for Pius’
eyes only, an appeal from an emperor who also saw himself as a loyal
son and faithful servant of the Church. The main drift of the first was
to urge Pius not to try to interrupt the council’s proceedings, asking him
to allow the proposing of business by the ambassadors so that a proper
reform could be initiated, and suggesting they both go to Trent to enable
the council to shake off its torpor. The second letter reminded the pope
of their heavy responsibilities and the expectations of the outside world
of the proceedings at Trent. Ferdinand urged reform, including reform of
the curia and the organs of the head, although not of the pope himself. He
alleged that there were in fact two councils: in addition to the one at Trent,
one at Rome centred on the pope and his advisors. The emperor would
defend the proper authority of the pope, but not privileges that had no
113
On Ferdinand’s monitoring of the progress of the council and the compilation of the
imperial reform libellus, see Trisco, ‘Reforming the Roman Curia’, pp. 162–242.
114
A memorial on this French proposal by Morone is in CT, XIII/II, pp. 114–115.
115
116
Additionally, in the background were the two issues of the proponentibus legatis
clause, and the council as a continuation.
117
foundation in the scriptures or the fathers. In short, legitimate reform had

to be undertaken by the council.118
This dramatic step undertaken by the emperor was matched by the
equally dramatic turn of events at Trent. On 3 March Gonzaga died.
Foscarari wrote to Morone having been present to the end.119 He likened
the following day’s atmosphere to Good Friday and concluded the letter
by telling Morone of the indecision now sown among the other legates as
to how to proceed. Seripando wrote to Rome asking that a new presiding
legate be appointed and suggested that a group of experts trusted by the
pope be formed to advise the legates. A few days later, Seripando’s own
health began to decline as a lingering cold took a turn for the worse. On
15 March 1563, Gheri wrote to Morone about Seripando’s failing health,
how he had been anointed and had made a confession of faith that Gheri
referred to as a ‘bella cosa’.120 The council was paralysed and in disarray.
Writing to Morone the same day, Stella recounted how some Italians and
Spaniards had come to blows in the street.121 Though these men were not
clerics, but members of the vast supporting cast, it was indicative of the
seriousness of the situation.122 Two days later, towards evening, Seripando
passed away.123 By this time, news had already reached Trent of the
appointment of two new legates, the Venetian Bernardo Navagero and
Morone who would preside.124
Pius, Morone and the Council
The election of Pius IV had a huge impact on the course of Morone’s

career. The judicial decision in his favour in March 1560 would have been
unthinkable under Paul IV. The change in Morone’s fortunes cannot be
emphasized enough. From the sorry state of imprisonment and the prospect
of further disgrace or worse, Morone rose to become a key person in the
new administration. In the face of the turmoil at Trent in March 1563, it
was to Morone that the pope turned to fix things. While there are clear
118
Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 402–404, Trisco, ‘Reforming the Roman Curia’, pp. 242–
244.
119
Foscarari to Morone, 4 March 1563, Constant, pp. 1–3.
120
Gheri to Morone, 15 March 1563, Constant, pp. 4–11.
121
Stella to Morone, 15 March 1563, Constant, pp. 11–13.
122
See the account of the fracas in the diary of Astolfo Servantio, CT, III, p. 69.
123
On the deaths of Gonzaga and Seripando and the prevailing situation at Trent in
March 1563, see Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 405–414.
124
Borromeo’s letter informing the surviving legates of Morone and Navagero’s
appointment on 7 March was dated 9/10 March (Šusta, III, pp. 267–268) and arrived at
Trent on 15 March.
indications that the cardinal had opted to remain in the shadows up to this
point, with consequent uncertainty about the true measure of his activity,
it is my contention that he was nonetheless influential in the shaping and
direction of policy.
The accession of Gian Angelo de’ Medici heralded an abrupt reversal
of policy in a number of areas. The harshness of the previous regime was
to be moderated: most emblematically in relation to the Index and the
operation of the Inquisition. The elevation of Seripando to prominence,
probably at the prompting of Morone, was an immensely significant move.
Reform at Rome and the resumption and conclusion of the council became
the key policy planks of Pius’ pontificate. The spirituali (or moderates is
perhaps a better description at this juncture), were again prominent in a
papal administration and this is most evident with the reopening of Trent.
Despite the passage of time, some manifestly still harboured hopes for the
participation and reconciliation of the Protestants, particularly the Italian
exiles and they expended effort in this direction with various initiatives.125
Moreover, in this third period, the latent council/Inquisition tension
emerges, with the assembly (under the legates’ guidance and with the
pope’s permission) assuming responsibility for some cases.126 It all points in
a rather different direction than the carafa pontificate in terms of the status,
prospects, hopes and activity of Morone and those connected to him.127
Over the course of the Cinquecento, a steady component of the hopes
of the spirituali (shared by others) had been the desire to see a substantial
reform leading to pastoral renewal. Residence had come to be seen as
crucial. The council had already sought a remedy for the problem of non-
residence, as had a number of popes, including Pius himself. The humanist
reformers, Spaniards and others, who sought a declaration of the duty
125
On the very different character of Pius’ reign and, in particular, his attempts to offer
changes in sacramental disciplinary issues to Germany, see Elena Bonora, ‘Morone e Pio IV’,
in Massimo Firpo and Ottavia Niccoli (eds), Il cardinal Giovanni Morone e l’ultima fase del
concilio di Trento (Bologna, 2010), pp. 21–52.
126
On this tension see Prosperi, Tribunali della coscienza, pp. 117–134 and Alain
Tallon, ‘Le concile de Trente et l’Inquisition Romaine’, in Mélanges de l’École Française de
Rome, CVI (1994): pp. 129–159. The Grimani case is perhaps the clearest concrete example
and it was resolved once Morone had taken over the presidency of the council. The group
delegated to assess the case included Guise and Madruzzo, along with Foscarari, Brus and
Draskovich: a healthy smattering of moderates and imperialists, who must have ensured the
‘right’ outcome, CT, II, p. 569 and IX, p. 681. On the outcome, see CT, IX, pp. 705 and
828–829.
127
It is also worth mentioning the concomitant discomfit of the intransigenti. In
relation to Ghislieri’s marginalisation during the reign, see the fabulous remarks attributed to
Pius IV in a letter from Guido Gianetti da Fano to William Cecil, cited by Firpo, Inquisizione
romana, p. 486. Ghislieri, seeking to withdraw from the papal court for some months to
attend to business, was told to take as long as he liked. It was a case of ‘don’t call us, we’ll
call you’. See also Bonora, ‘Morone e Pio IV’, pp. 42–46.
of residence as ius divinum, saw it as the only way forward. However,

perhaps surprisingly, certainly to them, Morone did not share their zeal for
it. He clearly felt that the effectiveness of the council to achieve other goals
was being hampered by what he regarded as a damaging obsession with
a less crucial matter. He seems to have had faith in the measures already
taken and felt that it would be sufficient for the pope to enforce them more
rigorously. He clearly believed that the pope should have a residual power
over the issue. Morone also seems to have set great store on the council
showing more unity of purpose and thought that the argument was ill
advised because of the potential damage it might inflict upon the papacy
and previous councils, which seems to indicate that he had accepted the
arguments of the curial party. These concerns were replicated with the
debate over Orders. Perhaps an example of his moderate pragmatism
cutting across friend and foe alike, Morone’s stance was not, however,
devoid of principle. It is worth noting that Contarini too envisaged
necessary episcopal absence at the behest of the pope for the good of the
Church.128 We might also ask who was more realistic, honest even, about
the matter. Foscarari died in Rome after the council working on various
commissions connected with its implementation. Beccadelli left Trent to
take up work at the Medici court and later sought Morone’s help to divest
himself of responsibility for Ragusa.
Nevertheless, it seems probable that loyalty to Pius partly conditioned
Morone’s attitude as well as his discomfort in the face of the mutterings in
Rome about the conduct of his friends. It is hard to say whether Morone
played much of a role in altering Pius’ position in the aftermath of the
vote, or whether he had been reacting to circumstances as they unfolded.
Morone’s own evidence suggests that he had not been merely flinching at
whispers against him, but had independently made up his mind on the
issue, with input from others, Cicada perhaps. There is also much merit in
the view that both Pius and Morone had a longer game in view: a carefully
considered direction for papal policy that persistent and damaging counciliar
disputes imperilled. However, some scholars give greater emphasis to the
fear factor as part of the thesis that Morone had emerged from prison to
recognize that the Counter Reformation was upon them.129
Morone’s disappointed friends were certainly taken aback by his
criticism. It was as if he had fumbled the ball – the reform hopes of a
generation – just as it had come to him. The episode represents a crisis for
the spirituali in much the same manner as the crisis in 1541 over Contarini’s
views on justification. Just like the events of 20 years previously, there was
128
See De Officio, Book I, Donnelly, The Office of a Bishop, pp. 68–69.
129
Thus Fragnito, Gasparo Contarini, pp. 349–352.
little time for recovery before death intervened to rob the group of leading
figures, in this instance Seripando and Gonzaga.
In March 1563, the council was in grave difficulties: divisions persisted
on the issue of whether it was a continuation, on who should be allowed to
propose business, on the matter of residence and on the origin and nature
of episcopal orders. In respect of the latter, the stakes had been raised with
the emergence of discussion of the papacy. The authority of the legates had
been compromised, Guise was becoming a dominant force and the emperor
had made manifest his grave frustration and dissatisfaction with the course
of the council. Philip of Spain had also made it plain, by means of a special
envoy to the papal court, that he too was profoundly troubled by the way
the council was being conducted.130
The dangers lurking were considerable. With the stalemate over Orders,
the threat of a council versus pope clash, and the mounting concerns
of the major powers, there was a very real chance that the whole thing
could unravel and the assembly crumble or be dissolved, with the all the
potentially disastrous consequences that might ensue. Undoubtedly, both
the credibility of papal policy and relations between the pope and the
major Catholic powers would be damaged, coupled with postponement
yet again of completion of the Tridentine recipe for renewal and reform of
the Church. This was the parlous situation that Giovanni Morone faced as
he left Rome to travel north in the March of 1563, initially to conduct a
reply in person to Ferdinand’s letters and assuage his concerns and then to
preside at the council sittings. Pius had persuaded Morone to take up the
role of council legate at the second time of asking and the reform hopes of
the Catholic world now rested on his diplomatic ability.
130
See Jedin, Storia, IV/II, pp. 11–14.
Chapter 6
Legate at Trent: Innsbruck and the

Decree on Orders, April–July 1563
Et vos lumen quoddam magnum et clarissimum scientiae et doctrinae accendetis

atque in alto collocabitis. Ad quod non solum ii, qui nunc vivunt, sed etiam
posteri cursum vitae suae dirigentes, tutissimum salutis portum facillime
tenebunt. Deus autem propter vos maxime laudabitur et glorificabitur, et
vos eiusdem laudis participes eritis in hac vita, et post hanc vitam gloriam
immortalitatis immarcescibilem percipietis.1
Upon hearing the news of Gonzaga’s death, Pius IV acted without hesitation.
On the morning of 6 March 1563, he announced the appointment of two
new legates – Morone and Bernardo Navagero – seemingly without hearing
the advice of the consistory.2 The two men received the legatine cross on
17 March and left Rome on 23 March. The cardinal eventually arrived at
Trent on Holy Saturday, 10 April 1563, making a formal entrance into the
city despite his usual misgivings about such ceremony.3 The following day
1
‘And you will set alight and erect on high some great and most clear light of knowledge
and doctrine. To which not only they who live now, but even later generations laying out
the course of their life, will very easily hold a most safe haven of health. Moreover, on your
account, God will be praised and glorified in the highest degree, and of the same praise you
will be participants in this life, and after this life will take possession of the unfading glory
of immortality.’ Morone’s rallying call to the council fathers, 13 April 1563, CT, IX, p. 473,
ln. 45–50.
2
See Constant, pp. xxxiii–xxxvi on the possibility of Guise being appointed. Jedin
says that the pope acted quickly to forestall any move in this direction, Storia, IV/II, p. 9. As
Venetian ambassador at the papal court in the time of Paul IV, Navagero had been harangued
by the old pope about Pole, Morone and heretics generally.
3
Accounts of his entry are in Servantio’s diary, CT, III/I, p. 71, and Paleotti’s Acta,
CT III/I, pp. 602–603. Note also Nuccio (Paleotti’s secretary) on the anxiety about whether
Morone would be there for Easter, suggesting high expectations of his advent, p. 602 n. 6.
Indeed, Paleotti wrote, ‘Magna erat eius expectatio, ut prudentia ac pietate sua collapsis
pene rebus nostris praesidium posset affere’, p. 603. Note also Calini’s comments, Marani,
Calini, p. 423. The Bishop of Salamanca, Pedro Gonçalez de Mendoça, raised questions
with his diary that must have been on the lips of many. Writing of the legate’s grand entry,
he mentioned Morone’s past problems, and noted the extent of the trust and honour being
given him, CT, II, p. 677. A little later in the month he noted the contents of a pasquinata
about the two new legates; ‘Alter claudicat in fide, alter utroque pede … Nunca dexa de decir
he presided at the Mass for Easter Sunday. On the Tuesday, the secretary
of the council read to the assembly the pope’s brief appointing the new
president, who then addressed the fathers for the first time.4
Morone spoke of the state of Christianity: of the disturbance of religion
and the lamentable state of ecclesiastical discipline, of wars, insurrections
and the threat from the Turks, made worse by the divisions amongst
Christians. He reminded the assembly that it had been to remedy such
problems that the pope had convoked the council.5 The new president
assured his audience that if purity of faith and innocence were regained
then, with God having been placated, wars and insurrections will cease and
the imminent dangers threatening them will be routed.6 With the humility
both customary for the genre but also quintessentially typical of Morone,
he revealed how reluctant he had been to take up the task, in the face of its
seriousness and his feebleness. However, he admitted that obedience had
conquered fear: obedience to the Vicar of Christ, who commended to Peter
and his successors the duty of caring for and governing his sheep.7
Morone spoke of two things he was bringing to the task. The first was
the goodwill of the pope in relation to the objectives of the council, which
he described as optimam, firm and settled. Morone made it clear that
the pope wanted doctrine to be cleansed from heresies, corrupted morals
emended, abuse of office lifted, and peace and union effected, even with
the Church’s adversaries. He added the rider that the piety and dignity
of the Apostolic See ought not be violated. Morone’s second point was
his assurance that he (Morone) would invest all his ingenuity, toil and
diligence in the task.8
Morone also reminded the fathers that the extent to which his efforts
would bear fruit lay also in their hands. It was by their prudence, learning
and authority that the council would be led to a good and welcome end. It
was a candid recognition of the importance of the conciliar body. However,
the council fathers had a responsibility and Morone solemnly reminded
them of it. He urged and implored them (hortor et per Deum immortalem
obtestor) to set aside contentions and discords, offensive to the Christian
world, and to leave aside ancillary points (remotis quaestionibus inutilibus),
malicias: porque el uno ha estado dos años por la inquisicion, y el otro no se puede menear
de la gota’. CT, II, p. 679.
4
CT, IX, pp. 472–473, for the texts of the brief dated 20 March and Morone’s address.
5
CT, IX, p. 472.
6
CT, IX, pp. 472–473.
7
CT, IX, p. 473, ‘… parendum fuit vicario Christi, qui Petro et eius successoribus oves
suas pascendas regendasque commendavit’ (ln. 20/21). Morone had a traditional view of
the Office of Peter, even if this rhetorical flourish probably included a hefty dose of personal
loyalty to Pius.
8
CT, IX, p. 473.
Legate at Trent 139
which he argued tended to consume valuable time and subvert rather than
edify. The fathers might then attend carefully and seriously to what was
necessary (quae maxime necessaria sunt). Morone knew better than to
name names, but the ecclesiological issues that had bedevilled the council
since its resumption were doubtless uppermost in his mind. Success, he
argued, lay in prayer, humility and unanimity, and the Church of God (a
characteristic Morone term) would thus take possession of abundant fruit
(fructum uberrimum).9
Morone rounded off his first address to the assembly with the rallying
call that appears at the outset of this chapter, holding out to the fathers the
prospect of what they might achieve, their potential legacy, but also their
inheritance. Morone’s speech may not have been quite the masterpiece
that his friend Pole had delivered at the very first session of the council 18
years previously. Nevertheless, it was a memorable start to his tenure of
the presidency.10 Characteristic in its humility and subtlety, it apportioned
responsibility for the progress of the council to the pope, the legates and
the assembled fathers, clearly reminding the latter what was at stake, what
attitudes and stances ought to be embraced in order to achieve good results
and what they should eschew.11 However, before the cardinal could take
personal control of guiding the assembly, it was necessary for him to travel
to Innsbruck to negotiate with the emperor and assuage his concerns.
Morone at Innsbruck, April/May 1563
Morone remained in Trent a few days, apparently awaiting the return of

Cardinal Guise, but also in need of rest.12 He took the opportunity to bring
himself up to speed on the state of things, in pursuance of which he seems
to have relied particularly on the uditore (legal official), Gabriele Paleotti,
who was attached to the council to assist the legates. Paleotti also drafted
an advice, in response to the emperor and the petitions of the French: a
sort of extra brief for Morone’s use in the forthcoming negotiations.13 The
French cardinal was delayed (by design or otherwise) and so Morone left
9
CT, IX, p. 473.
10
Printed editions of the address were soon forthcoming; see L’uomo del concilio, pp.
309–310.
11
Whether the assembly was impressed is hard to say. Paleotti’s secretary seems to have
been in two minds about the assembly’s response, see CT, III/I, p. 604 n. 4.
12
See Morone’s letter (always to Borromeo unless otherwise stated), Innsbruck, 21
April 1563, Constant, pp. 33–35. Jedin says that the Frenchman deliberately left Trent to
avoid Morone, Storia, IV/II, p. 17.
13
Text of the ‘instructions’ in CT, XIII/II, pp. 351–355. See also Prodi, Paleotti, pp.
171–172.
for Innsbruck anyway. After a cold and rainy journey, he arrived on 21

April 1563 and was met and accompanied to his lodgings by the expectant
Ferdinand.14 The two men had known one another for more than 25 years
and their relationship was one of the key factors that augured well for
Morone’s task of rescuing the council from the impasse into which it had
descended. The cardinal informed Borromeo that he would be lunching
with the emperor the following day.15
Morone indeed lunched with Ferdinand, the nuncio Delfino and others
on 22 April, but the real business was undertaken later during a four-
hour meeting. On 23 April, he wrote again to Borromeo relating what
had transpired. He explained that he had made a detailed reply to the
points raised in Ferdinand’s two March letters and he recounted the
content of the arguments he had deployed in an appendix to his letter to
Borromeo.16 Morone had assured the emperor that delays at the council
equally dismayed Pius, but that some of the causes lay beyond the pope’s
control. There were a great number of voti to be heard, not all of which
were always entirely apposite.17 With this in mind, Morone had regretted
the introduction of disputes confined to Catholic circles. Two other factors
were the delayed arrival of the French and the limited autonomy of the
ambassadors. Morone had suggested some remedies for these problems,
arguing that the emperor should instruct his representatives to work with
the legates and that the secular rulers should allow the prelates freedom. The
council should only treat of issues disputed by the Protestants. Duplication
of reform initiatives ought to be avoided and some agreed way found
of limiting the interventions of the fathers in the general congregations.
Morone had maintained that matters pertaining to the pope ought to be
remitted to him alone.
The cardinal had also sought to present the pope’s assurances in respect
of the rumoured suspension of the council, affirming Pius’ desire for the
council’s progress and for reform. Morone had offered assurances on the
liberty of the assembly. In an obvious rebuttal of claims that the legates
were too beholden to Rome or that there were two councils, he had argued
14
Morone, 21 April, Constant, pp. 33–35 and Morone to the legates, 24 April 1563,
Constant, pp. 46–48. Morone’s characteristic concern for the weather emerges again!
15
See Constant, p. xlvi. On Morone at Innsbruck, see Jedin, Storia, IV/II, pp. 22–39,
Crisis and Closure, pp. 102–103, Trisco, ‘Reforming the Roman Curia’, pp. 257–285, and
Dumeige et al., Trente, pp. 363–367.
16
NB, 2/3, pp. 266–276, including the appendix, pp. 270–276, now in CT, XIII/II,
pp. 356–360. Morone’s responses were based on the consultations that had taken place in
Rome and Trent. In particular, two draft letters from the pope to the emperor, although never
sent, nevertheless fed Morone’s arguments. See the texts in CT, XIII/II, pp. 346–351.
17
By the July 1563 session, there would be approximately 224 prelates, not to mention
the periti.
Legate at Trent 141
that it was only proper that the pope be kept informed as to what had
been taking place. Consultation did not impede the council’s liberty, as
the voting of the fathers determined questions at the assembly. Morone
had also sought to deflect criticism of the exclusive right of the legates to
propose business.
With regard to the ‘riforma in capite’, treating of this in the council
would mean that the authority of the pope would be up for discussion
and this was not desirable even to the emperor, Morone had argued. In
a strong rebuff to any conciliarist sentiment, he had asserted that it was
not for the council to dictate laws to the pope, but rather for the pope
eventually to ratify the work of the council. Morone had explained how
the pope was unable to tolerate any limitation on his power, which had
been given by God. The council should not be used by secular rulers as
a means of wresting authority away from the pope, whom the emperor
should defend. The pope would reform the conclave with his bull.
At the meeting, Morone had striven to justify recent contentious
promotions to the Sacred College, had warranted that no more were
contemplated and that any future promotions would be of eligible and
suitable candidates.18 A similar tack was taken in respect of the appointment
of bishops. However, he had added the tart observation that the emperor
should have these things in mind when he nominated candidates for
bishoprics. On residence, Morone had expressed regrets about the trouble
the issue had caused, but also gave pledges about the pope’s attitude. The
cardinal was able to pass back to Rome assurances about the emperor’s
piety, affection and devotion. Although there were still differences between
the two sides, Morone reported to Borromeo that he felt these were not
due to the ill will or stubbornness of the emperor.
Morone did not write again until 2 May, when he sent letters both to
Borromeo and to the other legates.19 He explained in both that he had been
laid up in bed with severe gout. His frenetic activity had clearly taken its
toll. In the meantime, the emperor and his advisers had been considering
Morone’s submissions.20 Based in part on these, the vice-chancellor,
Sigmund Seld, had drafted a set of 14 points for the emperor’s experts to
consider. A further four-point document was also drafted and Ferdinand
18
Pius had recently given red hats to two under age candidates, Ferdinando de’ Medici
and Frederico Gonzaga.
19
NB, 2/3, pp. 279–284 and Constant, pp. 74–75 respectively.
20
The emperor’s commission included Friedrich Staphylus, the Jesuit, Peter Canisius, the
Franciscan, Francisco da Córdoba, Franz Forgach (Bishop of Grossvardein and president of
the group) and Conrad Braun, a canon from Augsburg. The vice-chancellor Sigmund Seld also
played a prominent role in the negotiations. See Constant, p. 44 n. 1, Jedin, IV/II, pp. 30–31.
Dumeige et al., Trente, p. 363, suggest additionally a Dominican, Matthias Citard and Brus,
one of the imperial representatives at Trent.
had visited the cardinal on his sickbed.21 Morone had been able to obtain
copies of some of these documents and with his advisers had analysed
and made notes on them.22 He had then been able discreetly to feed these
ideas into the discussions within the imperial camp through sympathetic
members of the commission. The cardinal forwarded copies of all of this
documentation to Rome.23
In the 2 May letter, Morone again passed on assurances about
Ferdinand’s goodwill, but also the concerns that had been expressed about
the pope’s commitment to reform, sullied by his recent appointments.
Morone explained how he had reassured the imperial camp over Pius’
appetite for meaningful reform, asserting that the pope would not go
against the strictures of the council (in the future presumably), whilst
pointing out that the decrees had yet to be ratified.24 Morone had told
Ferdinand something that Contarini had once said to him in another
context: that the Lutherans sought to sow discord between three sister
friends that ought to be held together, namely the virtues faith, hope and
charity. Morone had recounted the story, he said, because he had wanted
to show the emperor that some wished in a like manner to sow discord
between two things which are united – the council and the pope. Morone
had explained that this should not be tolerated. The pope gave force and
authority to the council and it should recognise his authority, per the
custom of the Church. According to Morone, the emperor had seemed
struck by the anecdote and analogy and later spoke to the nuncio Delfino
about council–pope unity.25
21
For the longer set of ‘articles’, see Constant, pp. 44–46 and now CT, XIII/II,
pp. 360–362. For the shorter set drawn up after 26 April, see Constant, pp. 72–74 and now
CT, XIII/II, pp. 364–365. On the dating of the latter, note the comments in Constant, p. 72 n.
1. Confusingly, there was also an older four point set, the text of which and a response by an
imperial theologian are in Constant, pp. 67–69. On the deliberations in the imperial camp,
see Trisco, ‘Reforming the Roman Curia’, pp. 259–267.
22
See Morone, 6 May, NB, 2/3, pp. 285–288 for mention of some of Morone’s
group of advisers. He refers to Girolamo Parisetto, Giovanni Battista Castello and Mariano
Vittorio, the latter having been a familiar of Pole, see Mayer, A Reluctant Author, pp. 31–32
and Jedin, Storia, IV/II, p. 22. He was also assisted in his work by Zaccaria Delfino, the
nuncio, with whom he had worked before.
23
See NB, 2/3, pp. 281–282. Morone’s notes on the three sets of articles/questions are
in Constant, pp. 70–74 and now see also CT, XIII/II, pp. 363–365. Morone warned Rome to
handle the information with care so as not to compromise their friends – probably Canisius
and Seld.
24
Despite his best efforts, it is clear that Morone was discomforted by these attacks
and struggled to defend the pope, see NB, 2/3, pp. 282–283.
25
NB, 2/3, p. 283. This was certainly Morone’s view as well as a line of argument in
defence of Pius. Note the comments of Trisco, ‘Reforming the Roman Curia’, p. 268 on the
competing ecclesiologies.
Legate at Trent 143
Both Morone’s illness and his wait for a response from the imperial
camp persisted.26 The cardinal informed Borromeo of their continuing
success in penetrating the discussions of the emperor’s group and, while
they waited for further developments, Morone and Delfino continued to
offer assurances to the emperor and his advisers. However, Morone also
warned them of the dangers of conceding the right of proposing business to
all, thus going back on what had been agreed at the outset of the assembly,
and cautioned against any drive towards having the council reform the
head. Morone argued that anyone who disagreed was not a true advocate
of reform. He also attacked the idea of working according to nations,
sought by some to negate the Italian majority at the council.
Breakthrough at Innsbruck, May 1563
The next time Morone wrote to Borromeo (13 May), he had already quit
Innsbruck and begun to make his way back down the Brenner Pass. From
Matrei, he paused to write a long letter in explanation of all that had
happened.27 He wrote a similar report of the whole legation upon his arrival
back in Trent.28 He explained how he had still been bedridden when, on
7 May, the emperor had again visited him and presented a written reply
to Morone’s representations. The following day, Morone had emerged
from his sickbed and held discussions with Delfino on the content of this
reply. Both men had been mightily encouraged by what Morone called
its meekness or mildness (mansueta). They had been expecting the worst
given the hostility and scepticism that they had noted in some quarters.
The groundwork laid down had borne fruit, as Morone himself asserted.
Later that day, the cardinal had met with the emperor for three hours to
discuss the three remaining problematical issues: the proponentibus legatis
clause, organization by ‘nations’, and the reform in capite.
Some days elapsed during which the emperor and his experts had
debated matters further, sometimes heatedly according to the intelligence
that Morone obtained.29 Additionally, Guise had tried to influence the
negotiations by sending a memorial on the title of the pope as Pastor
26
Morone, 6 May, NB, 2/3, pp. 285–288.
27
NB, 2/3, pp. 295–302.
28
Morone, Trent, 17 May 1563, NB, 2/3, pp. 303–313. For the written documentation
exchanged between the two sides at Innsbruck: the questions put to the emperor’s theologians,
their response, Morone’s response to the response etc., see Constant, pp. 44–126, now largely
repeated in a more critical form in CT, XIII/II, pp. 346–394.
29
It seems Francisco da Córdoba vehemently took a stricter line against the arguments
of the pope’s representatives, see Morone, Matrei, 13 May, at p. 296. He is presumably the
theologian ‘more astute than good’, referred to later in the letter at p. 299.
Ecclesiae universalis, attacking inflated papal claims. Morone had been

unable to obtain a copy, but seems to have succeeded in neutralizing its
bearing on the discussions.30 Morone mentioned in his letter of 13 May
that matters had been complicated by rumours that the pope had already
conceded to Luis d’Avila, the Spanish special envoy in Rome, over the right
of proposing business. As tactfully as he could, Morone left Borromeo in no
doubt that he felt this had rather undermined his efforts. Morone believed
that the main contentious issues were or should be linked and that ground
could not be given on one without affecting the others. Morone’s concern
here was clearly one of control of the assembly. This had to be vested in
the legates as the pope’s representatives and allowing proposals by others
and voting in blocks would diminish this. He would also have wanted to
avoid a runaway council colliding with papal prerogative. Morone was in
fact upbeat about the response over the reform in capite and felt that the
imperial camp was travelling in the right direction, away from radical and
conciliarist stances.
On 12 May, the emperor had come back with another position statement
and there had been a further two-hour session between Morone and
Ferdinand. At that point, while Morone had been happy with the way the
emperor now perceived the pope’s intentions, he had begun to think that
Ferdinand was unlikely to move any further on the outstanding problem
issues. Nevertheless, he had resolved to make one last two-pronged assault,
making approaches to the emperor’s secretary and to Seld, both perceived
as favourable to the Holy See, and drawing up another memorial. He had
entrusted it to Delfino to deliver, whilst beginning the journey back to
Trent. That morning (13 May) Delfino had caught up with him in Matrei
with the emperor’s response, conceding ground in almost every respect on
the three troublesome items.31
In the conduct of the negotiations, Morone had striven to present the
papal position through personal contact with the emperor and others and
through formal written submissions. He had been patient and discreet when
necessary, yet as Jedin points out, he was willing to go on the offensive
in order to mitigate the responsibility of the pope for the difficulties at
the council and remind that Rome did not have a monopoly on abuses.32
The successful penetration of the imperial camp’s deliberations was clearly
30
Morone, 2 May, NB, 2/3, pp. 279–284 at 284. See Dumeige et al., Trente,
pp. 364–365.
31
See Ferdinand’s response to Morone’s final submissions now in CT, XIII/II,
pp. 389–391. Morone mentioned to Borromeo that Seld had also assured Delfino of Ferdinand’s
attitude in respect of the ‘tre capi’, NB, 2/3, p. 300. The emperor’s son, Maximilian, was
apparently disgruntled with the ground conceded, see Dumeige et al., Trente, pp. 366–367.
Morone wrote in thanks to Ferdinand on 13 May, see Constant, pp. 125–126.
32
Constant, pp. 108–109 n. 3. Jedin, Storia, IV/II, p. 24.
Legate at Trent 145
of immense benefit.33 Finally, Morone had sought to keep the pope and
Borromeo aware of how things were progressing, allaying fears about the
emperor’s intentions and hoping to ensure that any platform of agreement
was reinforced in Rome.34 Working against Morone had been his own
health and sceptical members of the emperor’s court, who had briefed
against him. Additionally, there had been the wider political complications
in terms of the emperor’s relations with other rulers.35
In respect of the substantive issues, Morone told Borromeo that
although he had been granted space in which to manoeuvre, he had decided
to hold to a restricted line, fastening upon two fundamental points. The
first was the pope’s willingness to assist the emperor. The other was Pius’
resolve to fulfil the duties of his office: to effect necessary reform and to
apply it rigorously, including at Rome, though not to the detriment of the
powers given him by God.36 These were Morone’s basic tools for aiding the
negotiations. A further basic principle emerges from the sources. Morone
was keen to safeguard certain aspects of the conciliar assembly where it
suited his purpose. Whether this was a principled stance or merely tactical
expediency is harder to say. Evidence runs in both directions. In favour of
the former is a vision of the Church’s composition and crisis management
mechanisms, which seems a prevalent facet of Morone’s thought: the view
that sometimes renewal should stem from the pope and from a council.37
Morone was keen to preserve what he perceived as the traditional
modus operandi and had warned against innovation unsupported by
conciliar history. Thus, he had persistently argued against the call for the
council to be organized ‘by nations’, distinguishing what had happened at
Constance and Basle as aberrant or the result of particular circumstances
such as the election of a new pope (with the consent of the cardinals) or the
33
Jedin (Storia, IV/II, p. 31) believes Seld’s 14 articles betray a favourable inclination.
It is also clear that papal diplomacy included legatine largesse to smooth the way or reward.
On 17 May, Morone listed the gifts he had made to members of the court, including Seld,
Braun, Staphilus and Canisius: 100 scudi here, 150 there, a silver jug and dish for one and a
ring for another, see NB, 2/3, at pp. 311–312.
34
Hence, Morone’s concern that Rome might have conceded ground. Furthermore,
Morone urged that hearty thanks be expressed to the imperial representatives in Rome for
the flexibility that Ferdinand had shown. See NB, 2/3, pp. 297–298, 300 and 308–309.
35
See Morone’s letters of 13 and 17 May, NB, 2/3, at pp. 299 and 306 respectively.
36
Morone, 17 May, NB, 2/3, at p. 306.
37
Morone was not a conciliarist in the strict sense and does not really fit in any of the
categories identified by Francis Oakley in his overview of the area: The Conciliarist Tradition:
Constitutionalism in the Catholic Church 1300–1870 (Oxford, 2003), especially pp. 66–81.
Nevertheless, Morone believed in a role in the Church’s constitution for the conciliar idea,
perhaps along the lines that Alberigo argues for at the end of his study of Constance, see
Giuseppe Alberigo, Chiesa conciliare: Identità e significato del conciliarismo (Brescia, 1981).
Hus affair. He had appealed to the broader stream of conciliar custom.38

He had also argued that it would be wrong to deprive the bishops of their
authority. What they brought to the council had been given them by God,
an interesting statement when remembering the debate about orders.39
Furthermore, one of his main arguments in relation to the varying of the
proponentibus legatis clause was that it would damage prior decisions
of this and indeed previous councils.40 Thus, on Morone’s part, a certain
reverence for the status of the council pervades his arguments, whether
opportunistically seized upon or not. Appeal is made at times to the work of
the Holy Spirit in guiding the assembly, just as he had in his correspondence
with supporters of the ius divinum clause the previous year.41
The matter of whether others besides the legates should be accorded
the right to propose business clearly deeply concerned Morone and had
caused a considerable tug of war during the negotiations.42 Principle
and practicality were intertwined here, with Morone alarmed by the
ramifications of wider access to the setting of the agenda. On 22 April,
he had argued that change would give rise to infinite and interminable
questions, which far from ensuring the council’s freedom would rather
cause popular sedition. True freedom, Morone had opined, lay in
38
See for example the notes he made in respect of the fourth of the four-fold set of
questions drawn up in the imperial camp, Constant, pp. 73–74, CT, XIII/II, pp. 364–365.
Morone reiterated the point about custom in his response of 8 May and again in his parting
salvos of 12 May, see CT, XIII/II, pp. 381–384 at 382 and pp. 389–391 at 390.
39
Whilst the exact composition of the council fluctuated, of the 224 prelates who later
took part at the 23rd session in July, there were approximately 130 Italians, 30 Spaniards,
26 Frenchmen and an Englishman, along with handfuls of clerics from countries like Ireland,
Flanders, Portugal, Poland, Hungary and other parts of the empire. As the negotiations
proceeded, Morone’s arguments on this became more practical, although he did stick to the
point about innovation in the mix of points that he made on 7 and 12 May. He began to
argue that there had already been mixed committees chosen to look at particular issues, thus
levelling the numerical imbalances in a certain sense. He pointed out the absurdity of rigidly
assigning the same weight to each nation: giving the same importance to a single Englishman
or a handful of Irishmen, as to 30 French or Spanish bishops let alone the numerous Italians.
He also pointedly highlighted the absence of the Germans, see CT, XIII/II, pp. 382 and 388.
Morone had come to see some merit in Ferdinand’s more limited concerns about inclusiveness
and resolved to ensure the continuation of mixed committees, see Morone, 17 May, NB, 2/3,
at pp. 308–309.
40
See the decree of the first session under Pius, CT, VIII, p. 291, Tanner, II, pp. 722–
723. It was an argument slightly contradicted of course by the point advanced elsewhere
about the pope’s role in approving the decrees.
41
See the comments on the ‘nations’ issue in the older fourfold set of questions and
a separate memorial on the proponentibus legatis issue, both in Constant, pp. 69–70 and
pp. 119–121.
42
On this issue, see Umberto Mazzone, ‘Giovanni Morone legato al concilio di Trento
e la clausola del “proponentibus legatis”’, in Massimo Firpo and Ottavia Niccoli (eds), Il
cardinale Giovanni Morone e l’ultima fase del concilio di Trento (Bologna, 2010), pp. 117–141.
Legate at Trent 147
conserving the customary legal order.43 Manifestly, this was the view of
the next man charged with responsibility for guiding the assembly. At an
early stage, Morone had conceded the need for the emperor’s ambassadors
to intervene if it were felt that the legates had been negligent.44 Assuring
the emperor that they were ready to propose all the items that the princes
wanted tabled, he had both hoped to allay the concerns about what would
be proposed, whilst steadfastly holding to the already agreed manner of
how it would be proposed or rather by whom.45 Morone had repeatedly
raised the spectre of a free for all if access to the agenda were widened.46
He had shrewdly played on the fears of the secular rulers by suggesting
that open access might mean that the prelates would seek to raise with the
council their grievances with the princes.47
The other persistent matter under discussion had been the reform of
the head: in particular, the bull that Pius had drawn up on conclaves and
the issue of the appointment of cardinals, other items having already been
left to the council.48 In line with one of his stated guidelines, Morone had
strenuously sought to safeguard the pope’s rights, successfully challenging
reference to reformatio in capite, because of the connotations the phrase
might have. In no way must the pope and council be pitted against each
other, hence his Contarini anecdote.49 He could not deflect Ferdinand from
discussion in the council of some of the issues in this area, particularly in
respect of the quality of appointments to the Sacred College. However,
they had reached an agreement to the effect that aspects of the reform of
the head could be remitted to the council of the pope’s own volition, almost
as a courtesy or practical necessity rather than as a matter of obligation.
Morone had wanted to keep the bull on the conclave totally out of the
council’s hands, arguing that it would only create delays, and had sought
to sooth concerns by arguing that if Ferdinand thought there were matters
insufficiently dealt with by the bull, he could make representations to
the pope himself.50 Haunting the background was also the question of
what would occur in the case of a sede vacante arising with the council in
progress. Rome was keen to ensure that the election remained firmly in the
43
CT, XIII/II, p. 358.
44
See CT, XIII/II, p. 358, Constant, p. 69 and CT, XIII/II, p. 364.
45
CT, XIII/II, p. 358.
46
See CT, XIII/II, pp. 354, 358 and 388 respectively, and Constant, p. 120.
47
See the summary of Morone’s initial discussions with Ferdinand, CT, XIII/II, p. 358
and the separate memorial on the issue, Constant, p. 121.
48
Morone, 17 May, NB, 2/3, at p. 309. Pius’ bull on the conclave was dated 9 October
1562. Text in Bullarium Romanum, 4/2, 145–148.
49
See Morone’s 7 May reply, CT, XIII/II, at pp. 382–383.
50
CT, XIII/II, pp. 382–383 and 389. Morone, 13 and 17 May, NB, 2/3, pp. 198–199
and 309–310.
hands of the cardinals and Morone had obtained verbal assurances from
Ferdinand along these lines.51 He suggested Rome ought to obtain written
confirmation through the ambassador there.52
Of the other issues aired, that of episcopal residence does not appear
to have been as vexatious as might have been expected. Shrewdly,
Morone had adduced it as ample proof for the freedom of the fathers
from any perceived restraints.53 He had also quickly availed himself of
the opportunity of suggesting that it was an example of the sort of thing
holding the council back.54 He had stated that the pope felt it would have
been preferable had the issue not been up for dispute since the controversy
concerning the ius divinum had followed. However, Morone had assured
Ferdinand that the pope would have been satisfied with some sort of
declaration, provided that it could have been done with peace and unity
and that Pius judged residence necessary, and wished it were practised even
by the cardinals.55
In the gloss on the fourth of Seld’s 14 articles, Morone had commented
that since there had been such strong feeling over the issue of the ius
divinum clause and with the controversy persisting and increasing, it
would be preferable to omit it from the decree, as long as it was provided
for that bishops and curati truly reside.56 These comments and the reported
position of the pope certainly reflected Morone’s own thinking, as he had
made clear to Beccadelli and the others the previous year. He undoubtedly
shared the view that residence was desirable, but felt no need to anchor it
in divine law, as long as the goal was achieved, especially if it were likely
to obstruct the council’s progress and damage the papacy.
Trent: Cardinal Guise and Diplomatic Disputes, May/June 1563
Back in Trent on 17 May, Morone clearly felt he had achieved much from
his trip. This was also the way it was quickly being viewed at Trent and,
more importantly, at Rome.57 Borromeo wrote with satisfaction and praise
51
Any interest the council might have had in a papal election was strenuously denied,
with Constance distinguished, see CT, XIII/II, p. 365. This issue had been floating about since
before the reopening, thus a Roman avviso for 22 November 1561, ASV, Urb. Lat. f. 313r,
and would recur at the end of the council.
52
See Morone, 17 May, NB, 2/3, at p. 310. Perhaps there is more than a hint here of a
member of the ‘aristocracy’ looking to safeguard their prerogatives?
53
See point 5 of Morone’s reply to Ferdinand, 7 May, CT, XIII/II, at p. 382.
54
See summary of Morone’s initial discussions with Ferdinand, CT, XIII/II, at p. 357.
55
CT, XIII/II, pp. 359–360.
56
CT, XIII/II, at p. 363. This was essentially the path duly followed in the final decree.
57
Servantio was positive about Morone’s return, CT, III/I, p. 73. The view in the Jesuit
camp was also positive. See the comments in a letter to Polanco, 24 May 1563, Epistolae
Legate at Trent 149
on 19 May, having received Morone’s report of 13 May. He also expressed

the hope that Morone would now be able to guide the council to the
desired end. It was clear that Rome’s view was that it should be wrapped
up as soon as possible.58 The cardinal-nephew wrote again on 27 May, in
similar terms.59 He seems also to have written warmly on 29 May of the
satisfaction felt in the whole college (tutto il nostro Collegio).60
The success of the negotiations at Innsbruck and the evident
contentment felt in Rome must have both cemented Pius’ trust in him
and given confidence to Morone to carry out the rest of his mission in the
manner he saw fit. On the last day of the month, Morone mentioned the
pope’s reaction in a letter to Delfino. Typically, he generously sought to
share the glory with the nuncio, as indeed he had sought to share the credit
in his correspondence with Rome.61 Noteworthy too are his comments
in a letter of 31 May to Borromeo. He wrote of his determination to
conclude the council to the satisfaction of the pope and the Apostolic See
and (finally) to the great benefit of Christianity and how he would keep
the pope and Borromeo informed so they could see that every effort had
been made in this regard. After this, ‘… the rest one will remit to God.’62
Having finally taken up the hot seat at Trent, Morone faced two delicate
diplomatic tasks. The first must have been rather irksome and appears
almost ludicrous, if not viewed within the context of the intense diplomatic
rivalries between the secular powers. With both the Spanish and French
ambassadors now at Trent, a dispute broke out as to their precedence at
formal acts of the assembly, including issues of liturgical etiquette.63 The
dispute eventually subsided after the high (or low) point of a squabble over
precedence in being incensed and receiving the Pax at the liturgy on the Feast
of Saints Peter and Paul. The squabble had flared after Luna had suddenly
P. Alphonsi Salmeronis Societatis Iesu. Monumenta Historica Societatis Iesu (volumes 30–32,
Rome, 1971–1972), 30: pp. 673–677, at p. 673 where there is also reference to the helpful role
played by Canisius. For assessments of Morone’s mission to Innsbruck see Trisco, ‘Reforming
the Roman Curia’, pp. 272–285, who generally plays down Morone’s achievement.
58
Constant, pp. 137–139.
59
Constant, pp. 152–158. Šusta, IV, pp. 30–35.
60
BAV, Vat. Lat. 6408, ff. 256r–257v.
61
Constant, pp. 162–167, at 163.
62
‘… il resto si rimetterà a Dio’, Constant, pp. 158–162.
63
On these diplomatic wrangles, see Dumeige et al., Trente, pp. 374–377, Jedin, Crisis
and Closure, pp. 34–36, and Prodi, Paleotti, pp. 176–179. The Spanish representative was
Claudio Fernandez de Quiñonez, Conte de Luna, who had only properly taken up residence
at Trent on 21 May, see Dumeige et al., Trente, p. 362. He was to be an awkward player for
the remainder of the council.
breezed in during the Introit or Gloria, halting the Mass temporarily as the
parties retired to the sacristy for hasty negotiations.64
Of more consequence was the matter about which Morone wrote to
Borromeo on 7 June: how to handle the Cardinal of Lorraine. As Morone
pointed out, Guise had great influence at the council.65 Having missed
out on being appointed a legate and been outflanked by Morone’s trip to
Innsbruck, Guise’s ego was bruised and in need of soothing. Nullifying
the Frenchman or better still getting him on board would be an important
part of keeping the atmosphere calm and moving things forward at the
council, as the legates noted in their collective letter of 28 May.66 Guise
may have been further put out by not having heard anything from Morone
of his negotiations with the emperor.67 It is a point that Sarpi picks up and
perhaps Morone uncharacteristically missed a trick here.68 He wrote to
Borromeo on 31 May, describing his initial encounter with Guise who had
arrived back in Trent two days before.69 In his letter of 7 June, Morone
mentioned how he had discussed with the Frenchman the arrangements for
the recent congregation with his apparent approval, only for him to create
difficulties at the actual session. Morone reported that he was not slow to
publicly point out Guise’s inconsistency.70 Clearly, Morone’s strategy was
to be twofold: an effort to include Guise in discussions and thus woo him,
coupled with the intention to be firm when necessary and to discount any
sense of there being a rival power base at the council.
By the early part of July, Guise was being reported as willing to
cooperate in bringing the council to a satisfactory end.71 So much so
that Borromeo was soon asking whether he should indeed be made one
64
See the legates’ letter (always to Borromeo unless otherwise stated), 4 July, Šusta, IV,
pp. 105–107. The problem was the attendance of both orators at the same liturgy for the first
time. The pope had decreed that they should be incensed at the same time, but this proved
unacceptable. The offending rites had to be omitted that day! There is a good account of the
drama by Servantio, CT, III/I, p. 78. See also CT, III/I pp. 677–679 and CT, IX, pp. 591–592.
Morone’s camp in retrospect viewed the dispute as perhaps putting a useful wedge between
the French and the Spanish, see Šusta, IV, p. 107, Constant, pp. 436–439, and Dumeige et
al., Trente, p. 376.
65
66
Šusta, IV, pp. 21–25 at p. 22.
67
See Morone, 31 May, Constant, pp. 158–162, especially Constant’s comments at
p. 159 n. 2.
68
Sarpi, Istoria, II, 8.1, p. 903.
69
Several commentators refer to Morone showing Guise a 42-point draft on reform
to convince him of the pope’s resolve. Guise is alleged to have said that one issue (residence)
mattered above all. See Jedin, Crisis and Closure, p. 109. See also Sarpi, Istoria, II, 8.1,
p. 904. However, Morone does not seem to mention this in his letter of 31 May.
70
Constant, pp. 169–170. See Jedin, Crisis and Closure, p. 110.
71
See Morone, 4 July and 19 July, Constant, pp. 190–191 and 200 respectively. See
Jedin, Crisis and Closure, pp. 109–111.
Legate at Trent 151
of the legates.72 A combination of factors had brought the Frenchman

around. First, the assassination of his brother (24 February 1563) had
made it desirable for him to return to France as soon as possible. Secondly,
Arnaud du Ferrier, one of the French orators, and the Bishop of Viterbo,
Sebastiano Gualterio, had devised a plan to bring the council to a quick
closure. It involved promulgating very general reforms and leaving the
details to legatine representatives for each nation with Guise, of course,
being offered the French post. They relayed the plan to Rome where it was
embraced and in turn fed back to Morone to put into action by means of
secret negotiations with the French cardinal.73 Morone reported on 4 July
that Guise was interested and even wanted to go to Rome to receive his
legatine powers directly from the pope.
Morone dutifully pursued Rome’s instructions with regard to Guise.74
He initially did recommend that the Frenchman be made a legate to the
council or at least be treated as such.75 However, Morone later repented of
the advice, essentially believing that it would cause too many diplomatic
waves with the Spanish and giving the impression that he remained
unconvinced about Guise’s reliability.76 The Frenchman was viewed as a
danger to be mollified with a charm offensive rather than a stalwart ally.77
Nevertheless, despite his misgivings, Morone found it expedient to treat
the Frenchman effectively as an extra legate, including him and Ludovico
Madruzzo (the other non-legate cardinal present and the assembly’s host)
72
Borromeo to Morone, Rome, 17 July, Constant, p. 194.
73
See Borromeo to Morone, 23–26 June, Šusta, IV, pp. 102–104.
74
Morone was willing to back the plan, but sought to implement it in his own way,
later drawing criticism from Gualterio and du Ferrier.
75
See Morone, 23 and 26 July, Constant, pp. 202–204 and 204 respectively. Constant
(p. 203 n. 2) quotes Pallavicini’s summary of a memorial prepared by Morone, referred to
in his letter of 23 July and sent back with Gualterio, in which he inter alia backs the idea of
treating Guise as a legate (Pallavicino, Istoria, IV, 22.2.6, pp. 419–420). Note also Constant’s
citation (p. 204 n. 4) of a further, more cautious advice from Morone on the issue in which
he suggests a wait and see policy.
76
See Morone, 15 September, Constant, pp. 261–262. Was there any hint of self-
interest or even jealousy here? Morone was not usually small-minded and generally gave
credit where credit was due. It seems more likely that he feared the trouble such a move
would cause. There are in fact intriguing parallels in the religious experience of the two
men suggestive of common ground between them, such as Guise’s recent experience of
the religious colloquy, and his position, at times, as a moderate, attracting criticism from
different sides. On Guise as a moderate see Stuart Carroll, ‘The Compromise of Charles
Cardinal de Lorraine: New Evidence’, JEH, 54, 3 (2003): pp. 469–483. See also Tallon, La
France, pp. 777–811, particularly the comments at p. 811 on the understanding between the
two men and also his ‘Giovanni Morone, il cardinal di Lorena e la conclusion del concilio’,
in Massimo Firpo and Ottavia Niccoli (eds), Il cardinale Giovanni Morone e l’ultima fase del
concilio di Trento (Bologna, 2010), pp. 143–158.
77
See Morone, 5 and 9 August, Constant, pp. 218–220 at 218–219, and 224–226.
in most of the major discussions held with respect to conciliar business.78

Moreover, Guise became an important and necessary ally at the end of the
council with respect to obtaining its closure and Morone found himself
writing to Rome to hurry the French cardinal’s return to the fray.79 By
this point, there had been an open and irreparable breach between the
legates and the secular French orator, du Ferrier. If Morone seems to have
used Guise at times, there was a nice touch a few weeks before the closure
when he wrote warmly to his mother in France, extolling the qualities and
service of her son.80 Amidst all this the diplomatic tiptoeing, there was of
course the small matter of a resolution to the debate over Orders and the
vexed issue of residence.81 The understanding with Guise only emerged as
a solution to these issues finally revealed itself.
The Debate on Orders – June/July 1563
The legates wrote several letters in the first weeks of June detailing the
inch by inch (or rather word by word) progress being made towards a
deal.82 Specifically, the problem was now the wording of Chapter V of
the draft decree, relating to the origin and status of episcopal orders and
their relationship with the pope. Two points of particular note emerge.
The first is that the legates were resolved to persist with the process of
negotiation with the French, led by Guise and the Spanish group including
the influential Archbishop of Granada, Pedro Guerrero. Arduous though
this process was, it seems to have been the view that some acceptable
form of words could be found. In this, we can surely detect the hand of
Morone. Furthermore, it was decided to utilize Foscarari as a go-between
78
Ludovico Madruzzo was coadjutor Bishop of Trent with his uncle, Cristoforo, who
was resident in Rome.
79
See Morone, 10 October, Constant, pp. 304–317 at p. 315. He effectively says that
Guise should be sent back with sweet praises ringing in his ears. Elements in Rome tried to
stir things up in the light of Guise’s visit (September/October). The pope had praised Guise
for the progress made and some cardinals had commiserated with Morone’s Roman agent
about how the Frenchman was getting all the plaudits. Morone’s agent astutely replied that
Morone did not seek praise, but rather the honour of God, see Luigi Fedele to Morone, 9 and
23 October, Constant, pp. 299–302 and 344–348.
80
Morone to the Duchess of Guise, 16 November 1563, Constant, pp. 388–389.
81
In Morone’s absence, the debate on the abuses connected with Orders had
commenced. The proposals included the canon on seminaries. See Jedin, Storia, IV/II,
pp. 43–74, Dumeige et al., Trente, pp. 368–374. The plenary session to approve the legislation
had already been postponed a number of times and was now scheduled to take place in June.
82
Legates, 4, 7, 10 and 12/13 June, Šusta, IV, pp. 41–43, 44–45, 50–54 and 55–60
respectively. See Dumeige et al., Trente, pp. 381–382, Sygut, Natura e origine, pp. 102–106
and on the whole debate, Jedin, Storia, IV/II, pp. 75–115.
Legate at Trent 153
and here again it seems likely that Morone took the lead.83 Clearly, the
new president was exercising his influence on the proceedings even if the
theological detail was to be left to others.
Foscarari did find a form of words acceptable to the French and Spanish
for Chapter V and it was discussed by a group in Morone’s lodgings on
8 June. While Foscarari and Paleotti were prepared to defend this version
(known as ‘C’ in the legatine correspondence), nine others, including the
Jesuits Laínez and Salmerón, rejected it.84 On 9 June, the same group met
again and a further version was thrashed out (referred to as ‘D’), which
addressed some of the concerns raised the preceding day.85 The legates
manifestly hoped for an agreement on the clause to which all the parties
could sign up without too much heartache. A breakthrough would open up
the possibility of holding the session and moving the council on. However,
they wanted to avoid a full-scale debate about all the issues with everyone
getting everything off their chests (dispute et controversie inestricabili as
they put it). They wrote to Rome with details of the drafts and asked for
a response, lacing their tentative request for endorsement of compromise
with a healthy dose of warning. In the congregations, militant voices had
been muttering about reform of the Roman court including the cardinals,
and of increasing the powers of bishops.86
Foscarari took the revised version (‘D’) to the French and Spanish, but
they were unhappy with it and another variant (‘E’). Yet a further version
(‘F’) was drafted and discussed by a group including Guise, Madruzzo
and the ecclesiastical ambassadors. Although amusingly they could not
really see the importance of the changes, on the other hand, the canonisti
et theologi found plenty about which they could argue once this draft
had been given over to them.87 When the detailed debate about version
‘F’ on 11 June appeared to have ended with tentative agreement amongst
the experts, Foscarari was once again dispatched to sound out wider
83
See the legates, 10 June, Šusta, IV, pp. 50–54.
84
See the legates, 10 June, Šusta, IV, pp. 50–54 and CT, III/I, pp. 654–656. See also
Prodi on this meeting and his belief that Morone was guiding the choices being made, even
in the face of opposition from the majority. Morone then opted not to expose Foscarari and
Paleotti to censure: relaying the discussions on a non-attributable basis, see Prodi, Paleotti,
pp. 173–175. The author of the letter gives plenty of space to the reasoning of the dissenting
minority, without ever letting on that it was a minority. The essence of Foscarari’s version
was that the bishops, the successors of the apostles, were instituted by Christ and chosen
by the authority of the Holy See under the pope. However, for the majority it conceded too
much on the origin of the powers of bishops and was too weak about the pope. The theme
of compromise shining through this letter seems very Morone.
85
CT, III/I, p. 656.
86
Legates, 10 June, Šusta, IV, pp. 50–54, especially 53–54.
87
Legates, 12 June, Šusta, IV, pp. 55–59.
opinion.88 However, Guise was unable to sell it to all of his followers and,
as Morone wrote in the collective report of 13 June, the legates began
to despair of a breakthrough.89 They decided to consult again with their
advisers as to how best to proceed.90 It was the opinion of the majority of
this group that the decree should be pared down to the barest content on
Orders without overly mentioning the papacy and the issue of jurisdiction
and that the issue of residence be set aside again temporarily. Morone took
this on board and relayed it to Rome on 13 June.91
On 14 June, the legates, not without a certain note of exasperation,
wrote a report detailing the different groups amongst the council fathers,
their motives, goals, and how they interacted with one another. There is a
definite sense that they wanted to make clear their dilemma. Turning the
screw, they again mentioned how reform of the Roman court had been
very prevalent in recent discussions. Meanwhile, a group of senior figures
including Guise and Madruzzo met in Morone’s rooms that morning and
passed a resolution to seek a postponement of the general session until 15
July. This was later ratified during the general congregation, thus affording
more time for an agreement to emerge.92
This meeting and others like it during this period signal an important
shift in tactics. Morone had clearly decided that it would be expedient to
consult more widely in the preparatory phases of any decisions. Henceforth
he oft refers to meetings in his rooms with the other legates, plus Madruzzo,
Guise and selected prelates, with the addition sometimes of some of the
periti (theologians who were not prelates). He was to operate this policy
for the rest of the council and, although these ‘private congregations’ did
cause enmity with Luna, the policy served him well. Morone’s aim was
obvious. He sought to build enough of a consensus about a matter, so that
when it came to the general congregations, progress would be smoother
and there would be less likelihood of unwelcome surprises.93
Thus, on 17 June, Morone wrote that after two or three days of
negotiations, a meeting had taken place in his rooms after lunch at which
there had been some prelates, religious superiors and periti, and they had
88
CT, III/I, pp. 661–662.
89
Šusta, IV, pp. 59–60.
90
See CT, III/I, pp. 666–670.
91
‘… et la somma è stata per l’opinione delli più che quanto all’ordine s’habbiano da
formar i canoni più succinti et più brievi che sia possibile …’, Šusta, IV, pp. 59–60. This seems
to be the first time during Morone’s tenure that this possible road to daylight was aired. It
had initially surfaced at the end of the previous year.
92
Šusta, IV, pp. 64–68. Morone also mentioned how Luna had raised the issue of the
proponentibus legatis clause, the last thing that Morone needed raising its ugly head at such
a time.
93
de Mendoça wrote approvingly on 3 July of Morone’s strategy, praising his efforts
to get an agreement, see CT, II, p. 685.
Legate at Trent 155
spent time examining the version of Chapter V designated ‘F’. The meeting
went on into the night and resumed the following day as they went
through the text, ‘diligentissimamente di parola in parola fin alla fine’.94
Further input from the French prelates was to be sought, but Morone
made the point again in his report that discussion was in connection with
the authority of the bishops and that anything that was said about the
pope was said ‘incidentemente’.95 Morone seems to have been trying to
ease Rome’s attitude towards the possibility of accepting less than they
would have wanted included in the decree.
The Breakthrough – 23rd Session of the Council, July 1563
On 19 June, the legates wrote seeking approval for a further draft

version (or versions) of the disputed text – ‘G’.96 They were hopeful of a
resolution, as Guise seemed willing to back it.97 They particularly sought
a response from Rome because they felt that some of the dissenters were
being too obstinate.98 A draft clause on residence was also included and
the letter covered two other important issues of the moment: the reform of
the cardinals and the continued calls for a variation in the proponentibus
legatis clause. On both issues the legates were frank about what they felt
was for the best.99
This dispatch of 19 June is also important as the legates (reluctantly
apparently) expressed their overall view on the ecclesiological debate at
the core of the dispute on Orders. Although they hoped for an agreement,
they also felt that it might prove illusory and that the underlying disputes
might continue to dog the council. The legates felt that there was a valid
argument for resolving the contentious issues, and that the best place
to do so was probably a council, although this carried a risk with the
94
‘Most diligently, word by word right ‘til the end’. Šusta, IV, pp. 69–72 at p. 69.
95
Šusta, IV, pp. 69–72 at p. 71.
96
Šusta, IV, pp. 74–81. They submitted two versions with an explanation by Paleotti,
see pp. 79–81 and CT, III/I, pp. 672–673.
97
See Guise’s comments to Rome (Šusta, IV, pp. 81–82), warning of the dangers that
might follow upon the destruction of an agreement supported by the majority aside from
what he refers to as a few Italians.
98
The letter tellingly named names and they complained that ‘… gli aversarii (se così
li vogliamo chiamare) divengono più ostinati et quasi insolenti …’ (Šusta, IV, p. 75). In their
letter of 17 June, the legates had mentioned their dissatisfaction with a votum delivered by
Laínez vigorously defending papal prerogatives. It was not so much that they disagreed with
him, but that his comments had been unhelpful, Šusta, IV, p. 69.
99
On cardinals, the legates advised that either Pius made reforms satisfactory to the
parties at Trent or it might be wise to remit the matter voluntarily to the council, Šusta, IV,
p. 75.
bishops deciding matters in which they had a vested interest. If there were
no determination of the issues, then there was a danger that the Church
would never be truly free from schism or quiet.100
The legates went on to state that if the draft did not find favour with
Rome, then it might be best to dodge the issues altogether and settle for
canons solely on Orders without mention of the authority of the pope
or the institution of bishops. The legates recognized that this would be
turning the clock back to a position suggested some months ago and
would be a risky strategy in terms of the reputation of the pope and the
Holy See, given the amount of time and effort that had been expended on
the problem thus far. Their critics might say that they could not determine
anything in favour of the authority of the pope because there was no
support for it and the problems at the council might worsen. They sought
a swift and decisive reply from Rome with Morone apparently warning
that the matter must not be left to them.101
It is clear, then, that the situation was serious and that Morone was
faced with the danger of the kind of stalemate (or worse disarray) that
had bedevilled the efforts of his predecessors.102 In addition to the essential
dispute, other niggles were beginning to accumulate: the ongoing row
about ambassadorial precedence, the conciliar desire for reform and
the difficulties that Luna was beginning to present. Morone needed a
breakthrough. Borromeo’s tetchy reply was partially a holding letter
indicating that the pope wanted to consult with a wider group of cardinals
and experts.103 However, he added that as they were pressing for an answer,
then the pope was inclined towards the position that the less said in the
decree the better.104 Borromeo seemed a little wearied with the difficulties
being created at the council, but indicated that the legates were free to act
as they saw fit.105
Borromeo’s letter offered a chink of light. It was enough for the
experienced diplomat and Morone did not wait for the definitive reply on
draft ‘G’. By 5 July, the legates were writing of their hope of a sufficiently
neutral new draft acceptable to all the parties and the chance that they
could proceed with the planned session for 15 July.106 On 6 July, they
100
Šusta, IV, pp. 74–79 especially 76–77.
101
Šusta, IV, pp. 74–79 at p. 77. Note Šusta’s comments p. 77 n. 1 on words specifically
inserted in the original by Morone.
102
See CT, III/I, p. 673, especially Nuccio’s comments in n. 2.
103
Borromeo’s reply was dated 26 June and arrived on 1 July, Šusta, IV, pp. 99–101.
104
Šusta, IV, p. 100.
105
Šusta, IV, pp. 100–101.
106
Legates, 4 July, Šusta, IV, pp. 108–109. CT, III/I, pp. 680–683. A factor spurring
the legates on must have been the reality that ‘G’ had not in fact pleased anyone. See Sygut,
Natura e origine, pp. 108–109 especially n. 303. The new, neutral text seems to have been
Legate at Trent 157
held a crucial meeting in ‘casa nostra’ with a large group of prelates, 40

or so ‘delli principali del concilio’, including Guise and Madruzzo. After
‘lunga discussione et gran contentioni’, which the legates later admitted
had been unavoidable in the circumstances, an agreement was reached on
Orders and residence. While the whole council had yet to consider it and
the legates were not sure whether further difficulties would emerge, they
were hopeful that the session could now go ahead.107
When Rome’s more substantial response to version ‘G’ finally arrived
on 9 July, the news was mixed. The views on ‘G’ were negative and
inconclusive. It was suggested that it might be prudent for the issue to be
deferred until the end of the council.108 Even as Rome’s response was being
formulated, further information had arrived that was enough to persuade
the pope grudgingly to endorse any plan to proceed on a basis of the less
said the better.109 However, Borromeo’s letter in fact arrived too late to
have any real impact. Whilst the legates might have been frustrated about
the hesitancy to back ‘G’, and encouraged by the final section endorsing
the path they had decided to pursue, the truth was that they had already
opted for a solution based on omission of the sticking points, a route they
admitted was more facilitating (giudicata più espedita), probably in the
sense that it was easier.110
On 9 July, they held a general congregation at which they presented the
revised canons on Orders and a text on residence.111 A majority approved
based on a version drawn up by Seripando in January, see Sygut, Natura e origine, p. 110.
Sygut states that the supporters of the ius divinum gained much by comparison with the
schema from the previous November, presumably on the basis that mention of the pope had
been omitted. Although, there was no statement of institution a Christo, nor a reference to
the ius divinum in the proposal for Canon VII, there was mention, in a echo of Acts 20:28,
introduced and also later made explicit at the behest of Guise, of the bishops ruling (regere)
a Spiritu Santo.
107
Legates, 7/8 July, Šusta, IV, pp. 110–113 at p. 111. On the days leading up to the
session of 15 July, see Dumeige et al., Trente, pp. 386–391 and CT, III/I, pp. 683–684.
108
Borromeo to the legates, 5/6 July, Šusta, IV, pp. 113–119, especially 114–116. The
pope was also happy for the council to determine the matter of residence and had agreed to
the inclusion of the cardinals, see Šusta, IV, pp. 116–117.
109
The information came from Musotti, Guise’s secretary, who had also previously
worked for Seripando, Šusta, IV, p. 119. In closing, Borromeo could not resist a swipe at
prelates who denied the pope his legitimate titles.
110
Legates, 12 July 1563, Šusta, IV, pp. 121–123 at 121. There had been a tussle over
canon VI mentioning the hierarchy of bishop, priest and other ministers, with the curialists
on the one hand seeking mention of the pope, whilst others sought one last time to have the
words a Christo inserted. The issue was resolved by Pietrantonio Di Capua’s suggestion of
divina ordinatione institutam, but without any mention of the pope, see Sygut, Natura e
origine, pp. 111–113.
111
Morone also took the opportunity to explain to a wider audience his new strategy of
extra meetings, CT, III/I, pp. 685–688, especially 686; ‘Nos habuimus aliquot congregationes
particulares non in iniuriam alicuius aut generalis sanctae synodi, sed ut tolleremus causas
all items. In the legatine report, Morone admitted that some Spaniards,
assisted by Luna, had fought a tenacious rearguard with some reneging on
the agreement reached at the meeting of 6 July.112 Although Morone clearly
held doubts about how things were going to go on the day of the session
and had received warnings that Luna was not in accord with the chosen
path, the legates were determined to stick to what they had. They were
mildly confident that with the majority having approved the new canons,
they would be able to get through it even if, as Morone was to comment, ‘…
possiamo esser come certi di dover haver una sessione molto travagliata’.113
As the Milanese cardinal had suspected, the Spanish had not given up the
fight. While general congregations were held in the days leading up to the
session, finishing off the debate on the articles dealing with abuses in relation
to Orders, Luna held meetings to try to subvert the agreement reached on 9
July.114 The day before the scheduled session, they raised further difficulties.
Morone met some of their demands and eventually the way was clear to
proceed.115 On Thursday 15 July 1563, the 23rd session of the council (7th
under Pius IV) finally took place in the Cathedral of St. Vigilius. Read and
voted on were the Decree on Orders and the canons on reform of abuses
connected with Orders, including canons on residence and seminaries.116
contentionum. Cupimus vos omnia boni consulere’. There were some negative comments, see
the intervention of Philadelphiensis.
112
Legates, 12 July, Šusta, IV, pp. 121–123 at 122.
113
‘… we are able to be almost certain of having to have a very painful session’. Šusta,
IV, at p. 123.
114
They persisted in trying to get a change to Canon VI and a reference to the hierarchy
as instituted a Christo, see Sygut, Natura e origine, pp. 113–115. See Paleotti’s Acta in CT,
III/I, pp. 689–690. Note also the comments of de Mendoça in CT, II, p. 686 on Morone’s
exasperation with these threats to the chance to move on.
115
Morone also had to defend the proposals to some of the curialists shortly before the
session, assuring them that the pope would be happy with a decree approved by the majority
and seemingly extended a gentle hint to Borromeo to back him, see Šusta, IV, p. 125, Prodi,
Paleotti, p. 181, CT, III, pp. 690–692 and Jedin, Storia, IV/II, pp. 101–105.
116
CT, IX, pp. 617–639. Tanner, II, pp. 742–753. The decree comprised of four
chapters (Chapter V having been conflated with Chapter IV) and eight canons. There were
18 reform canons dealing with abuses. The decree was silent on the issue of jurisdiction
and, whilst giving the bishops an important place in the hierarchy, likewise avoided the
issue of whether they were instituted by divine law or not. In line with the compromise,
the canon on residence spoke of the duty of pastors to know their flock (and thus reside),
as a divine precept. On seminaries, see J. O’Donohoe, Tridentine Seminary Legislation: Its
Sources and its Formation, Louvain, 1957, and ‘The Seminary Legislation of the Council of
Trent’, in Iginio Rogger (ed.), Il concilio di Trento e la Riforma tridentina. Atti del convegno
storico internazionale, Trento, 2–6 settembre 1963 (2 volumes, Rome, 1965), I, pp. 157–172.
Morone’s contribution to this drive towards a better-educated clergy is noted by Donohoe.
Indeed, in the aftermath of the decree, Morone urged Rome to set the standard by opening
one of the new seminaries, see the legates, 26 July 1563, Šusta, IV, pp. 140–143 at 142.
He had initially tried to persuade the council fathers that the Collegio Romano and the
Legate at Trent 159
The vast majority of the fathers voted simply placet.117 Some, a handful,
added comments of unhappiness or reservation and some voted against the
canon on residence.118
Moving Forward at Last: The Breakthrough Assessed
It all came as a tremendous relief.119 Paleotti attributed the breakthrough to

fatigue and the shift in Guise’s attitude, and Morone certainly recognized the
importance of the latter.120 It was precisely at this time that Guise was being
wooed through the du Ferrier/Gualterio ‘practica’.121 However, Morone’s
own careful handling of the whole business should not be overlooked and
Prodi calls him ‘the soul of this new course of the council’.122 In particular,
he first sought to find a form of words that satisfied all the parties and
made use of Foscarari, knowing that the Bishop of Modena would be as
trusted by the French as he was by Morone himself. He was also anxious
that Rome be involved in any outcome, even though this policy taxed
Borromeo and the pope’s patience. He was not going to be lumbered with
responsibility for the council passing something unacceptable to Rome.
With agreement along expanded lines seemingly remote, Morone revived
the plan of a text that concentrated on refuting merely as much as the
Protestants contested. He presented this as a possibility to Rome and with
the slightest hint of encouragement fixed it as the best way forward.123 It
was a point that he had made to the emperor at Innsbruck in the spring
and he realized that it would find enough cross-party support to make it
viable.
The sources do not allow one to say with certainty where Morone’s
sympathies lay. Whilst anxious for an accord, he seems to have been
Germanicum fulfilled the requirements here. It was not until the pontificate of Gregory XIII
that such a seminary opened. On the debate on this item see Jedin, Storia, IV/II, pp. 105–110.
117
Amongst those taking part in the session were the legates, two other cardinals, three
patriarchs, 25 archbishops and 189 bishops, plus sundry religious superiors.
118
CT, IX, pp. 623 and 632. Eleven voted non placet to the canon on residence.
119
See the comments of Servantio, CT, III/I, pp. 78–79.
120
Prodi, Paleotti, pp. 180–181. See legates, 12 July 1563, Šusta, IV, pp. 121–123 at
pp. 122–123 where Morone commented that ‘… perchè non è honesto defraudar alcuno
della sua degna lode diciamo a V. Illma Sria che (Lorraine) s’ è portato così bene et ha mostrato
tanta caldezza et prontezza d’animo …’.
121
See Borromeo to Morone, 10 July 1563, Constant, pp. 191–193. Jedin suggests that
Guise simply recognized the need to move the council forward as in the interests of France,
Crisis and Closure, p. 114.
122
Paleotti, p. 180. See also Jedin’s comments, Crisis and Closure, p. 115.
123
It showed he was willing to act independently and shoulder responsibility, but on
his own terms.
largely neutral in his reportage. It is easy to imagine him amongst those

unconcerned with textual changes that the periti later thought significant.
Morone probably had little sympathy with the extremes on either side.
No conciliarist, he would have been out of sorts amongst the Gallicans.
From his own experience as a bishop and his knowledge of the needs of
the Church, he might have been expected to sympathize with Spanish
episcopalist designs. On the other hand, he would have had little inclination
to accept the extreme positions attributed to them in the legates’ letter of
14 June: the pope and the cardinals to be stripped of all ‘grandezza and
dignità’, the cardinals shorn of all benefices away from Rome, and the
elevation of bishops to be ‘papi ne li loro vescovadi’.124 There is also a hint
of his disapproval of the position of the majority of the Italian prelates
who ‘… hanno sempre l’ occhio al servigio di N. Sre et alla conservatione
della corte di Roma’. There appears to be a suggestion that this grouping
was blinkered and inflexible.125 Morone’s two friends, Foscarari and
Paleotti, whom he shielded in correspondence, were in favour of form ‘C’,
and it seems likely that Morone too was favourable to this version, which
conceded much ground to the episcopalist/Gallican alliance.
To some, the pursuit of a declaration that the office of bishop was
instituted a Christo or by ius divinum in its totality – Orders (sacramental
powers), jurisdictional authority coupled with a duty to reside – and
not dependent upon the pope for some of these, smacked of Protestant
spiritual freedom. It might be interpreted as an attack upon visible
Church structure and a diminishing of papal prerogative: a spiritualizing
of Christian ministry.126 This resonates with the perceived characteristics
of valdesianesimo and evangelism: unconcerned with Church structure
and more concerned with spirituality. This might have been a sensitive
point for Morone given his past. Was this the root of his concern with the
attitude taken by Foscarari et al. the previous year? That they (and he by
association) would be perceived as not merely overly zealous for reform,
but suspect. Morone had also disapproved of the direction the debate on
Orders had taken the previous autumn. On the other hand, the cardinal
went a long way in the search for a compromise text for Chapter V, before
opting for the more restricted line.
In admitting that the ecclesiological issues would need to be resolved,
the legates were prescient. However, they were perhaps thinking more in
terms of years rather than the centuries it took for debate to be resumed in
a conciliar context. Morone was concerned that the ‘chiesa di Dio’ would
124
Šusta, IV, pp. 64–65.
125
‘They always have an eye on serving Our Lord (the pope) and for the conservation
of the Roman court’. Šusta, IV, p. 64.
126
See the conclusions drawn by Sygut, Natura e origine, at pp. 168–171.
Legate at Trent 161
‘non haverà mai quiete’.127 Whilst admitting that the resolution would
probably have to come through a council, one gets the distinct impression
that Morone and his colleagues were by that point thinking of any other
council, but the one they were guiding. However, that a conciliar context
was envisaged is significant and fits Morone’s attitude to authority in the
Church. Typically, the reason he gave was not one of theological principle,
but the practical point of the need for the resolution to be accepted by
everyone.
In the end, he coaxed a deal out of the division. With the success of his
mission to the emperor at Innsbruck and the holding of the long delayed
session, Morone had ensured that the council had taken a good stride
forward. However, there remained a considerable amount of work to
undertake before they could finally conclude the conciliar Iliad.128
127
Legates, 19 June 1563, Šusta, IV, p. 77. The debate about the status of bishops and
their relationship with the pope was taken up again in connection with Lumen Gentium of
Vatican II.
128
‘La Iliade del secolo’, Sarpi’s wry comment on the council’s length and tortuous
progress, Istoria, 1,1, p. 4.
Chapter 7
Marriage, Reform, Conclusion

and Aftermath of the Council, July
1563–December 1564
Se consideriamo la quantità et qualità delle materie risolute, dovemo darne

molte gratie a Dio, perchè siamo usciti de più periculosi scogli che havissimo
in questo mare del concilio, il quale veramente può chiarmarsi mare per il
continuo suo fluctuare …1
If Morone had thought that it would be plainer sailing after the issue of
Orders had been settled, then he was soon disabused of this. In a letter to
the Duke of Alba in Spain, he mentioned that the celebration of the recent
session had brought consolation and joy to the prelates. He explained that
they would now diligently attend to the reform (riformatione), and the
outstanding issues of dogma, so that Christianity would have reason to
be content with his holiness and the council. However, Morone candidly
admitted his fear that the Spanish seemed desirous of prolonging matters.2
As the legates had already explained to Borromeo, the Conte de Luna,
Philip II’s representative, had been to see Morone and had requested, of
all things, that the Protestants be invited once more to attend. It did not
auger well.3 Morone’s comments quoted above and made following the
24th session, not held until the November, indicate that the course indeed
proved difficult to chart.
1
‘If we consider the quantity and quality of the material resolved, we have to give much
thanks to God for it, because we have emerged from the most perilous rocks that we have
had in this sea of the council, which truly we are able to call a sea because of its continuing
fluctuation …’ Morone (to Borromeo unless otherwise stated), Trent, 11 November 1563,
Constant, pp. 373–380 at 374.
2
Morone to Alba, 20 July 1563, Constant, pp. 200–202.
3
Legates (to Borromeo unless otherwise stated), 19 July, Šusta, IV, pp. 128–130. See
Constant p. 201 n. 1 on Philip’s overtures to Ferdinand on the point.
Spanish Delaying Tactics, July 1563
Several letters from the weeks immediately after the 23rd session evidence
the growing realization that the Spanish were going to drag their feet.4
Luna had already begun making noises of dismay about the way Morone
and the legates were running things. His raising of the proponentibus
legatis issue had also been ominous. For his part, Morone made it clear
that he had no regrets about the conduct of the previous session.5 By the
end of July, Luna had also begun to agitate for the reform legislation to be
treated of ‘by nations’ in order to negate the large numerical superiority of
the Italians.6 Morone indicated on 29 July that they would resist this step.
As with the matter of the right to propose business, he was not about to
surrender a position established after lengthy negotiation with Ferdinand,
especially given the manifest dangers. For a start, it would have spelt the
end of the close control over the preparation and development of texts
that Morone clearly believed was necessary in order to manage the council
successfully. Furthermore, safeguarding the position of the pope was an
additional concern.7
Pius and Borromeo wanted closure and the French seemed amenable.
From Trent and from Rome there emanated an intense diplomatic effort to
get others to agree, hence Morone’s letter to Alba. The cardinal hoped the
Spanish diplomats in Rome (Francisco Vargas and Luis d’Avila) might put
pressure on Luna to cooperate and the legates wrote to the nuncio in Spain
– Alessandro Crivello.8 Morone also wrote to Ferdinand and sent Andréas
Dudith, Bishop of Csanad in Hungary, a biographer and former familiar
of Pole, to present the case for closure at the imperial court.9 Morone was
just as keen to see an end to the business as he made clear in instructions
he sent to Rome with Sebastiano Gualtieri.10 At the end of July, the legates
4
Thus for example Morone, 19 July 1563, Constant, p. 200 or the legates, 22 July,
Šusta, IV, pp. 135–136.
5
See the legates, 26 July, Šusta, IV, pp. 140–143.
6
Legates, 29 and 31 July, Šusta, IV, pp. 143–147 and 149–151 respectively.
7
See for example the legates’ comments to Borromeo in respect of the reform text
draft, 31 July, Šusta, IV, pp. 149–151. They were concerned that some bishops sought to
elevate their powers at the expense of the pope. They would try to prevent any discussion
of the pope or the conclave. See also the legates’ letters, 7–9 and 12 August, Šusta, IV,
pp. 163–168 at pp. 164–165 and 176–177.
8
Morone, 29 July, Constant, pp. 208–209.
9
See Morone, 19 July, Constant, pp. 195–199 especially 195–197 nn. 3 and 4 wherein
Constant gives more detail on Dudith and the mission entrusted to him by Morone. See also
NB, 2/3, pp. 377–388.
10
A summary of Gualtieri’s report to Rome is in Pallavicino, Istoria (IV, 22.2.6,
pp. 419–420) and is cited by Constant at p. 203 n. 2. Morone also suggested that a
representative from the council be sent to Spain to negotiate with Philip.
Marriage, Reform, Conclusion and Aftermath 165
received a positive response from the emperor to the effect that, in the
right circumstances, he would be willing to support a closure.11
The Reform Tract is Proposed, August 1563
There remained a few items of dogma needing to be treated by the council:

the Sacrament of Marriage, which the fathers were soon considering, and
issues like purgatory, indulgences and images.12 In addition, in the wake
of the July session, Morone quickly turned attention to the great reform
decree, of such concern to so many parties. While some took a short break,
Paleotti was put to work on the (already extant) draft texts and Morone
held numerous meetings with Paleotti, his fellow legates and the other two
cardinals.13 He ostensibly adhered to the idea that only general reform
measures needed to be enacted, with more detail being filled in afterwards
on a national basis. This was the line he took when writing to Ferdinand in
July. Nevertheless, Morone committed himself to a robust reform project,
attracting criticism from the French, who thought he was in danger of
derailing plans for the swift closure of the council.14 The legates had
already counselled the pope to allow the cardinals to be included in aspects
of the reform.15 Morone wanted a quick closure, but also a proper reform
11
Ferdinand to Morone, Vienna, 31 July, Constant, pp. 210–214. Morone, 9 August,
Constant, pp. 224–226. Delfino felt that Ferdinand would be hesitant in openly backing
closure and thus going against Spain, Delfino to Morone, 18 August, NB, 2/3, pp. 415–418.
12
A draft on Marriage, including the reform decree on clandestine marriages rendering
them invalid, was introduced on 20 July. Further drafts of the decree were tabled on
7 August, 5 September and finally on 13 October, Dumeige et al., Trente, pp. 443–445. See
Jedin, Storia, IV/II, pp. 139–173.
13
See Prodi, Paleotti, pp. 182–184 and especially the citations to Nucci’s diary from
CT, III/I. A draft had been extant from the spring, see the legates’ letter, 4 June, Šusta, IV,
pp. 41–43. On reform see especially Jedin, Crisis and Closure, pp. 121–139, Storia, IV/II,
pp. 175–200, Dumeige et al., Trente, pp. 415–532, and Trisco, ‘Reforming the Roman
Curia’, pp. 285–329.
14
See Prodi, Paleotti, p. 182 especially n. 30, Jedin, Crisis and Closure, p. 111,
Pallavicino, Istoria, IV, 22.2.1, pp. 415–416 and Constant, p. 206 n. 4. The suggestion was
that Morone was being too cognisant of the Spanish position and acted ‘troppo freddamente
o timidamente’. The information had come to Gualtieri from du Ferrier, the French orator.
Lorraine had apparently accused Morone of not truly serving the interests of the Apostolic
See, a role that only Navagero was fulfilling amongst the legates. The proposed reform was
too lengthy and would keep them at work for years. Borromeo wrote anxiously to Morone
on 28 July, rather suggesting that he had taken on board the French concerns relayed to him
in Rome by Gualtieri, see Constant, pp. 205–208 at 208.
15
Hence, they were included in the canon on residence. On this see Trisco, ‘Reforming
the Roman Curia’, pp. 285–301.
and he was prepared to exert every effort to achieve both goals.16 He seems
to have perceived better than anyone that the one depended somewhat
upon the other.17 On 29 July, the reform tract of 42 articles was passed to
the representatives of the secular rulers.18 By the end of the first week of
August, the legates had their submissions and set to work again intensively
preparing the legislation for presentation to the council fathers.19
Although all this represented progress, nevertheless, the correspondence
from these weeks is littered with references to the difficulties that the
legates were having with Luna.20 On 16 August, they recounted the details
of recent brushes with the Spaniard, during which they had denied cutting
deals or threatening anyone. Luna had mentioned complaints about ‘nostre
private congregationi’, but the legates had rebuffed these as ridiculous and
had referred to their duty to try to unite the fathers and find a consensus.21
Luna had complained there were not enough Spaniards and French called
to these meetings. However, the legates would have none of it and had
urged Luna to cooperate. The Spaniard tried writing directly to the pope,
both to air his grievances and protest his cooperation, but Rome’s support
of the legates remained solid.22 For their part, Borromeo and the pope were
trying all the means at their disposal to bring Philip (and Luna) around to
their point of view.
Rome did not want anyone to hold things up. The insistent message
was that the legates should do their utmost to conclude the council and
16
In the legates’ letter of 22 July, Morone commented that ‘… siamo sicuri che tutte
queste riforme saranno tali, che la Stà di N. Sre ne diverrà gloriosa, se ben ne risultasse qualche
incommodo alla corte di Roma et a particulari’. Šusta, IV, pp. 135–136 at p. 136.
17
See the legates’ comments of 31 July on the persistent and widespread desire for
reform, Šusta, IV, pp. 149–151 at p. 149.
18
Legates, 29 July, Šusta, IV, pp. 143–147 at p. 144.
19
See Morone, 9 August, Šusta, IV, pp. 163–168 at p. 167. See also Prodi, Paleotti,
pp. 184–185 (especially nn. 37 and 39 citing Nucci from CT, III/I) on the intense effort by
Morone and the other cardinals, assisted by Paleotti, to revise the reform tract. Nucci gives
the impression of Morone, Paleotti, Guise and Madruzzo holed up in Morone’s rooms for
hours, barely pausing to eat. On the reform debate, see Jedin, Storia, IV/II, pp. 175–200.
20
Morone seems also to have had another bout of ill health in the first weeks of
August. See Borromeo to Morone, 21 August, Constant, pp. 232–234 especially 233 n. 4.
21
Šusta, IV, pp. 181–185. Luna later alleged that some written voti were at variance
with the opinions expressed orally in the general congregations: the implication being that
fathers had been lent on in the meantime. Morone firmly denied the allegation, saying
prelates were permitted to change their minds if they so wished whilst a session was ongoing,
and if they had discussed matters in groups, then it was no more than the Spaniards did.
See Morone, 21 October, Constant, pp. 336–338 and the legates, 25 October, Šusta, IV,
pp. 345–349.
22
See Borromeo to the legates, 4 August, and the legates’ letter, 12 August, Šusta, IV,
pp. 169–172 and 176–177.
barely a letter arrived that did not raise the matter.23 Rome even sent an
emissary to reinforce the point in person, a step to which the legates did
not take kindly.24 Then, at the end of August, the imperial ambassadors
presented serious objections to the proposals for reform touching upon the
secular rulers and sought their removal.25 Morone memorably wrote on 28
August that ‘Questo concilio porta sempre qualche novità, nè è maraviglia
per la diversità delli negoci et delle persone interessate …’.26 The imperial
position came as a disappointment. The legates had understood that
Ferdinand wished to see a good reform and surely this should include
the secular powers where they were involved with ecclesiastical matters.
Candidly they told the imperial orators that such a demand would impede
the progress of the council, imperil its freedom and provoke an adverse
reaction from the fathers.
Morone tried a two-pronged strategy to avert the crisis. He wrote to
Ferdinand asking him not to oppose the reform.27 He also wrote to Rome
(as he promised Ferdinand he would do) in support of the emperor’s latest
position on the coronation oath for his son Maximilian.28 He thus hoped
to gain the emperor for the one thing by means, in part at any rate, of
backing him over another. However, the legates were sufficiently concerned
to raise the possibility of the council being dissolved and asked Borromeo
to ensure they had the necessary brief to compel everyone to depart.29 The
imperial group sought a delay. Eventually, it was mooted that the reform
should be tackled in two chunks, so the fathers could see progress despite
the holding back of the items touching upon the princes.30
23
See for example Borromeo to the legates, 21 August, Šusta, IV, pp. 205–208 at 207.
24
See Borromeo to the legates, 17 August, Šusta, IV, pp. 194–195, the legates’ response
of 23 August, Šusta, IV, pp. 197–199 and also Morone’s concerns cited in Šusta, IV, at p. 199.
25
They were supported by the other representatives of secular rulers. Jedin calls these
articles ‘nothing less than an attempt to regulate unilaterally church-state relations’, and
there were provisions safeguarding church figures and property from interference by secular
rulers, provisions annulling privileges granted and local custom, and others threatening
excommunication for transgressors. Jedin felt that the reaction of the princes was to be
expected, see Storia, IV/II, pp. 180–181.
26
‘This council continually brings some novelty, nor is it surprising for the diversity
of the business and of the people interested’. Constant, pp. 236–241 at p. 237. See also
the legates’ reports from the same day, Šusta, IV, pp. 200–205 and Jedin, Storia, IV/II,
pp. 182–183.
27
28
Constant, pp. 245–247. In the letter, Morone highlights a recurring dilemma about
his loyalties to the pope on the one hand and presenting the position of a secular ruler,
Ferdinand in this case, on the other.
29
Legates, 28 August 1563, Šusta, IV, pp. 200–205 at 202–203.
30
Šusta, IV, pp. 203–205. See also p. 213 and the extract from the legates’ report of
31 August 1563.
Morone’s Crisis, September 1563
It should not be underestimated how much of a blow all this was to

Morone who had associated himself personally with the reform project.
During these weeks, it also became apparent that elements in Rome were
‘briefing’ against him and the tabled reform. Certain cardinals were in
touch with contacts at Trent, intimating that the pope and Borromeo were
not happy with the way things were going and decrying the fact that the
inclusion of the cardinals in reform canons had come from the council
and the legates in particular. Morone aired his concerns with Borromeo
in early September. He wrote of how the legates had not sought that the
reform of the cardinals be done in Trent. With the pope having remitted
the matter to the council, it was their duty to obey.31 He stated that in this
and in the other matters of reform, it was difficult to satisfy all parties.
The princes sought a rigorous reform (riforma molto rigorosa) and it was
necessary to satisfy them at least in part. Morone highlighted the search
for a compromise and some mean. However, he complained about the
activities of certain cardinals and warned that, as well as prolonging
matters, controversy over the reform might lead to more extreme demands
(cose più dure) from the princes.32
Morone was clearly annoyed and, quite apart from any meddling in
the passage of the reform bill, he must have been fearful of his standing in
Rome amidst the whispering.33 Perhaps he now understood what Seripando
and Gonzaga had experienced the previous year and regretted some of
his own actions. When the reform tract, minus the part pertaining to the
secular rulers, came to be proposed to the fathers, Morone exchanged
correspondence with Cardinal Farnese, who was critical of the fact that
the Roman court was to be the subject of reform, but not the princes.34 To
Borromeo on 1 September, Morone stated that they would press on with
the work, believing more in the commission given them by the pope, than
in the notices arriving in the hands of prelates from outside.35 Clearly,
however, he was seeking some reassurance.
By the middle of September, Morone had Ferdinand’s initial response to
his August letters. The emperor stated he did not want to impede necessary
31
Although the legates had eventually advised that it would be expedient.
32
Morone, 1 September, Constant, pp. 247–248.
33
He wrote again on the 12 September, Constant, pp. 258–261.
34
See the comments about this correspondence, which Borromeo wanted to see, in the
letter to Morone from his Roman agent, Fedele, 29 September, Constant, pp. 280–282. There
is mention of murmuring by a group of cardinals including Farnese and Este (unsurprisingly),
also Carpi (an old foe of Morone), de Cesis, Santo Angelo and Saraceni. See also Visconti to
Morone, 29 September, Constant, pp. 277–280 at p. 279.
35
reform nor the liberty of the council, but that the issues were complex
and the proposals, as they stood, might cause problems in parts of his
domains.36 The legates wrote to Rome on 15 September, forwarding his
letter.37 As they had expected, some of the fathers had become suspicious
of the delays and Morone had promised that the balance of the reforms
would soon be forthcoming.38 The pressures on the legates were clearly
mounting. The emperor was unhappy with reform of the princes and the
prelates unhappy that this might be omitted. Luna, although apparently
behaving more compliantly at that particular point, was still a potential
source of aggravation.39 Furthermore, the actual debates within the
council were not proceeding smoothly. The issue of clandestine marriage
was proving a hard nut to crack and after one of Morone’s ‘private
congregations’ that dragged on late, the legates admitted that they had
dispersed in greater discord and confusion than ever over this issue.40
Eventually, they were forced to postpone the session scheduled for 16
September until 11 November.41
The temperature at the assembly was beginning to rise again and
Morone seems to have wanted out. In mid-September, Rome recalled
Carlo Visconti in order to send him as an envoy to Spain, in line with
Morone’s suggestion.42 Morone took the opportunity to instruct Visconti
to seek his release from office. Both Borromeo and the pope had already
written praising the legates’ efforts and advising them to discount voices
of criticism.43 Not surprisingly, they refused to countenance any suggestion
that Morone be allowed to relinquish his role.44
On 22 September, within a few days of Visconti’s departure, one of the
French diplomats, du Ferrier, made an intervention, castigating the work
36
Ferdinand to Morone, 12 September, Constant, pp. 252–258.
37
Šusta, IV, pp. 242–245 at 244.
38
See the legates’ comments, 11–13 September, Šusta, IV, pp. 237–239, CT, IX, p. 795
and Nuccio in CT, III/I, p. 712 n. 1.
39
See Morone’s comments, 12/13 September, Constant, pp. 258–261 at p. 260.
40
Legates, 13 September, Šusta, IV, p. 239, and CT, III/I, pp. 719–720.
41
Legates, 15 September, Šusta, IV, pp. 242–245.
42
See Borromeo to Morone, 18/19 September, Constant, pp. 262–266.
43
See Borromeo and Pope to the legates, 11 and 15 September, Šusta, IV, pp. 247–
253. See also Borromeo to Morone, 11 September, cited by Constant, p. 248 n. 4, and 22
September, Constant, pp. 268–270. Perhaps prescient of the council president’s need for
affirmation, Borromeo had also sent assurances on 4 September, Constant, pp. 248–250.
44
Borromeo to Morone, 29 September, Constant, pp. 274–277 at p. 277. Visconti
likewise wrote of how the pope wanted Morone to persevere. Fedele, Morone’s Roman
agent, whom he had also commissioned to persuade Borromeo to relieve him, similarly wrote
of how the cardinal-nephew had told him it would be almost impossible as Pius held all
his faith and hope in him. See Visconti to Morone, 29 September, Constant, pp. 277–280
and Constant on Fedele’s letter of 25 September at p. 278 n. 2. See also Fedele to Morone,
29 September, pp. 280–282. Whether Morone’s wobble was tactical or genuine is moot.
of the council and abuses at Rome. The legates and the assembled fathers
were stunned and Morone reported that he feared France was seeking to
break with Rome in a similar manner to Henry VIII of England.45 It was
yet another headache. The breach with the French ambassadors proved
irreconcilable and they quit Trent for Venice shortly thereafter. Fortunately,
this rupture with the French secular representatives was mitigated by the
good relations now existing with Guise.46 In fact, the scheduled session
had been postponed not only to make sure that the agenda was ready, but
also to allow the French cardinal to go to Rome, a journey that had been
tabled for some time. As Morone correctly predicted, the French cardinal
professed surprise upon hearing of the outburst and was not deflected
from his attitude of cooperation.47
During late September and into October the fathers debated the first
batch of reform provisions. The legates kept them hard at work with two
general congregations a day.48 Meanwhile, diplomatic efforts continued
to ensure the cooperation of the major powers. Pius had decided to
follow Morone’s advice and concede to the emperor and his son over the
question of the oath and he hoped it would bear fruit.49 As far as Rome
was concerned, although they wanted a good reform and the satisfactory
resolution of outstanding business at the council, above all they desired an
end.50 Pius and Borromeo had already suggested that they would be happy
with some form of compromise over the reform of the princes, perhaps
even its referral to the pope to effect by means of a bull.51
45
On this incident see Morone, 23 September, Constant, pp. 271–274, with extensive
footnotes, and the legates’ letter of the same day, Šusta, IV, pp. 267–271. See also CT, IX,
pp. 840–844, III/I, p. 726 and Dumeige et al., Trente, pp. 426–427.
46
Morone had thought the French government backed the reform, but he was seriously
mistaken, Constant, p. 259, especially n. 5.
47
See Borromeo to the legates, 2 October, Šusta, IV, pp. 303–304.
48
Legates, 27 September, Šusta, IV, pp. 272–275. The workload had been heavy for
some time, even in the heat of late July and August as the debate on marriage got underway.
The fathers had apparently complained that they were not getting their siestas, see the legates’
letter, 19 August, Šusta, IV, pp. 189–191.
49
See Borromeo to Morone, 19 September and 2 October, Constant, pp. 267–268 and
287–289 respectively.
50
See Fedele’s report for Morone of 9 October of a consistory at which the pope made
precisely these points, Constant, pp. 299–302.
51
See Borromeo to Morone, 8 September, Constant, pp. 250–251 and Pius and
Borromeo to the legates, 11 September, Šusta, IV, pp. 247–250. The legates too had come to
believe that a compromise was desirable and Morone wrote on 3/4 October of the need to
revisit the reform articles touching the princes to remove what was offensive to them without
however alienating the council fathers, Šusta, IV, pp. 284–291 at p. 290.
Navigating the Rocks, October/November 1563
News finally arrived from the imperial court with letters from Delfino and
from Ferdinand.52 The emperor let it be known that he would happily
have conceded on the reform if his own position were all that was at stake.
However, he had to safeguard the interests of the other princes of the
empire and the council had to be cognizant of this. Nevertheless, Ferdinand
let it be known that he was indeed grateful for the pope’s attitude towards
the business of his son and grateful to Morone personally for his good
offices with the pope. He stated that his objection to the reform of the
princes was not a ruse to delay the closure of the assembly, something he
was willing to support.
Clearly, Ferdinand’s general endorsement of the reform tract was
satisfying. In a letter of 10 October, Morone commented that the project
was now under discussion by the fathers and that alterations would be
made in the light of the voti.53 He observed that this revision would be
done carefully (si usa tanta diligentia et tanta sincerità), so that it would
be plain that all was done in accordance with the will of the Holy Spirit
and the opinions of the fathers. As far as the reform of the princes was
concerned, Ferdinand preferred that the council renew older provisions
of its choice and Morone endorsed this idea. He argued that it was more
robust and favourable to the Church and could be renewed ‘… senza
controversia’. Ferdinand had expressed the firm desire that the council
close by the feast of St Martin (11 November) and that the pope send a
legate to Germany to provide for other specific items. Morone advised that
the pope should acquiesce to Ferdinand’s ‘antiche domande maxime dell’
uso del calice …’. He also believed that it should be done sooner rather
than later, as any legate would benefit from dealing with Ferdinand rather
than his successor.54
Morone felt confident enough to argue that it was unlikely that
everything could be sown up by 11 November. Besides the reform tract,
there remained items like purgatory, indulgences, images and invocation
of the saints. Morone suggested that it might be possible to draw up
brief canons on these, likewise reiterating previous legislation and thus
52
Ferdinand to Morone, 2 October, Constant, pp. 283–287. Delfino to the legates, and
to Morone, 4/5 October, NB, 2/3, pp. 439–455.
53
54
In other words, granting particularly communion under both species – bread and
wine – for ordinary people and marriage for clergy. Constant, pp. 304–317 at 309–310.
Morone had held out the possibility of this during the summer when he sent Dudith to
negotiate with Ferdinand, see Constant’s comments, p. 309 n. 12. One of the documents
relating to Dudith’s mission refers to ‘… et calicem et alia omnia quae positivi juris sint …’.
avoiding prolonged debate.55 He mentioned to Borromeo how he thought

Guise should return to the assembly, primed on the need to work towards
closure. If Guise returned full of good feelings for the pope and of his own
importance, and keen to return to France, he ‘aiutarà il nostro disegno per
tutte le vie possibili’.56 The following day, Morone typically wrote again
about the same items. Upon further reflection (and after a dose of Luna’s
thoughts on the assembly) the cardinal seemed less confident and admitted
that ‘… io resto in molta confusione …’, primarily because Luna seemed
to be in the dark about Ferdinand’s overall satisfaction.57
Morone kept up the diplomatic pressure, writing in reply to the emperor
on 11 October and on 12 October to Crivello in Spain, to get him to lobby
Philip.58 He wrote of working towards a finish and expressed the hope
that they would all be celebrating Christmas where they would prefer.59
However, Morone made plain the predicament with Luna: he seemed
unaware of the emperor’s thinking, favoured prolonging matters and had
talked in terms of a suspension rather than a definite finish. The pope was
resolute in seeking a closure as more useful to the public and private good
and Morone too lent his backing, explaining that suspension followed
by a reopening at some future date would be costly, inconvenient and
damaging. Duty and conscience dictated the council should be finished.
Dogma and the reform would be established, the position of the heretics
thus weakened and the assembly would no more be the plaything of the
princes and the cause of suffering for the Apostolic See. Furthermore,
Morone pointed out that in future they might not have such a sympathetic
emperor. What was to prevent a successor not using a reconvened assembly
to seek to alter what had been established, a line of argument calculated to
jangle alarm bells in Spain.60
55
Constant, pp. 304–317 at 313–314.
56
He ‘will help our design through all possible ways’. Constant, pp. 304–317 at 315.
In a postscript, Morone also took the precaution of asking Rome to let them know what
exactly was said to Guise, at p. 317.
57
Morone, 11 October, Constant, pp. 318–320. The general legatine letter from 10
October had also been upbeat, Šusta, IV, pp. 305–306.
58
Constant, pp. 321–325. Crivello’s reply of 12 November, Constant, pp. 380–381.
59
Constant, pp. 321–325 at p. 322.
60
As ever, Morone’s thinking on all the issues remained flexible and his advice to
Rome thorough. Only the previous day, he had asked Borromeo to ensure they had the
necessary authority to close or suspend the assembly as required, Constant, p. 320. One point
of concern was the spectre of the pope’s death. Morone mentioned it in July to Alba, when
he also raised the possibility of the emperor’s death. As far as Morone was concerned, the
demise of either of these ‘principi’ would imperil the effort and achievement of the council
thus far. In a September advice about the various options, although, a definitive closure was
lauded, the advice veered away from it on the basis that it would not be acceptable to the
princes and suggested suspension instead. The perception was that the secular rulers would
The pope and Borromeo were relieved at the emperor’s apparent

willingness to get the business finished and discounted Morone’s second
thoughts in this regard. Their anxiousness to see the end was ‘cranked up’
a notch as October gave way to November and they began to take on a
distinct air of disdain for the efforts of Luna to hold things back. Borromeo
even began to mention in correspondence Morone’s own desire to see
the thing finished, as if he needed reminding.61 The Milanese cardinal’s
inclination was to be more sanguine about when this might be possible. He
certainly did not want to be marooned in Trent for another winter and had
another good moan about his health, age and the arduous nature of the
work to Borromeo on 25 October.62 Towards the end of the month, Luna
began creating further difficulties, threatening boycotts by bishops under
his influence. The status of clandestine marriages continued to divide the
fathers and there were other problems. During the course of the debates
over reform, a dispute blew up between archbishops and bishops about
visitation rights.63
On 18 October, Morone passed on proposals by the imperial
ambassadors to resolve the dispute over the secular princes. He did not
show them to his colleagues and asked that if Rome agreed, then they
should come back as Rome’s idea.64 On 28 October, he wrote an advice
on how things might be wrapped up more quickly, which Borromeo then
regurgitated without attribution in his letter to the legates of 6 November.
Again, Morone had suggested this, as he believed that only Simonetta
was with him.65 The tenor of the advice was that some of the outstanding
matters ought to be omitted or remitted to the pope. The former course
was unsatisfactory but, with regard to the latter, neither the pope nor the
legates could be seen to have been the force behind such a move. Morone
argued that it would be necessary that it should come from Guise or the
emperor’s ambassadors.
Guise arrived back on 5 November. On 2 November, the revised reform
canons had been put up for discussion, which lasted until 8 November,
when Guise spoke. Morone wrote that day explaining that he had had
be fearful of having to implement the decrees in all their territories, by force if necessary. See
Šusta, IV, pp. 256–263.
61
See for example Borromeo to Morone, 15, 15/22 and 23 October, pp. 325–331 and
338–344. Also Borromeo to the legates, 15, 23 and 27 October, Šusta, IV, pp. 327–328,
350–354 and 359–360 respectively.
62
See Constant’s comments p. 348 n. 1.
63
See legates, 24 October, Šusta, IV, pp. 335–337 at 334–335.
64
Constant, pp. 334–335 and Borromeo to legates, 27 October, Šusta, IV, pp. 359–
360, which duly included a draft canon.
65
See Constant, pp. 350–355 for the advice and covering letter. See also Borromeo to
Morone, 6 November, pp. 362–366.
contact with the Frenchman both shortly before and since his return to
Trent.66 Guise had reassured Morone that he would be steadfast in the
face of any overtures from Luna. Morone explained to Borromeo that
he had tried to plant ideas in Guise’s mind about ending the council, in
such a way that they would appear to the Frenchman to be his own.67
He recounted how Guise made one amendment to the plan, suggesting
that the remaining matters of dogma be treated in reform canons that
would not require much debate. Morone had agreed. In his letter of 8
November,he mentioned how they were busy preparing everything for the
scheduled session on the feast of St Martin, when they hoped to pass the
first part of the reform legislation, a declaration on the proponentibus
legatis clause to draw a line under that persistent bugbear and the Decree
on Matrimony.68 In respect of the latter, they were unsure how things
would unfold and were of the opinion that it would be a ‘quasi miracolo’
if it went smoothly.69
The 24th Session, November 1563
The session duly took place on 11 November 1563.70 In many respects, it

was one of the most arduous despite all the work that had gone into its
preparation. Morone wrote with satisfaction at the end of the day in the
66
67
Constant, pp. 367–371 at 370–371.
68
On 7 October, Morone had written to Rome about Luna’s recent resumption of the
campaign to get the clause modified, see Constant, pp. 289–291. See also the legates’ reports
of 23, 29/30 September and 3/4 October, Šusta, IV, pp. 267–275 and 280–291. Morone
drew up a memorial on the issue, setting out the pros and cons of conceding ground (text
in Constant, pp. 291–299 with background on p. 292 n. 3), but eventually recommending
concession on the point, thus cutting the ground from under Luna’s feet and isolating him in
respect of his opposition to closure. See also Morone, 10 October, Constant, pp. 304–317
especially 313, Dumeige et al., Trente, p. 432. Rome was happy to allow the legates to
resolve the matter, Borromeo to the legates, 2 and 10 October, Šusta, IV, pp. 303–304 and
319–322 and to Morone, 15 October, Constant, pp. 325–331. On this whole saga with some
reflections on its significance, see Mazzone, ‘Giovanni Morone’, especially pp. 132–141.
69
Legates, 8 November, Šusta, IV, pp. 363–367 at 367. The Decree on Marriage
had been through several versions over the summer and autumn, see Jedin, Storia, IV/II,
pp. 139–173 and 224–227, Dumeige et al., Trente, pp. 441–468.
70
The 8th under Pius. CT, IX, pp. 965–1007. Tanner, II, pp. 753–774. See Dumeige et
al., Trente, pp. 436–440. The Decree on Marriage consisted of a theological preamble and
12 canons, followed by 10 canons on reform commencing with the famous decree Tametsi on
clandestine marriage. The general reform decree comprised of 21 canons, the last of which
was the explanatory canon to soothe the proponentibus legatis dispute.
words at the outset of this chapter, relieved that it had been concluded.71
While there had been dissenting voices, the Decree on Marriage went
through, albeit with one of the largest votes against a provision in
the council’s history.72 Certain canons of the reform legislation also
attracted dissenting votes with the dispute between archbishops and
bishops persisting. However again, while some canons received minor
modifications, all were passed by majorities.73 Late in the evening, after
some 12 hours, the session came to a jittery end and the date of the next
was fixed for 9 December.74
Although by comparison with the previous session, theological and
pastoral issues had conceded ground in the legatine correspondence to a
mix of other pressures, they were of course still prevalent and the decree
passed at the 24th session was perhaps one of the most important in the
council’s history. The status of marriage as a sacrament had been rejected
by the reformers and the issue of clandestine marriage was an urgent
practical pastoral problem. Initial work in the area had been undertaken
during the Bologna period and theoretical problems of the relationship
between consent and the sacramental nature of marriage and the extent to
which the Church could legislate in the regulation of the sacrament, were
issues of note with which the fathers grappled. The teaching of the council
not only affirmed the sacramental nature and indissolubility of marriage,
but in the estimation of most commentators, tended towards the radical
clericalization and sacralizing of this social institution. The emphasis
71
Morone, 11 November, Constant, pp. 373–380 at 374. Šusta, IV, pp. 379–384.
See Gheri’s approving description of the session for Don Juan Manrique, 14 November,
72
More than 50 fathers opposed Tametsi, see Constant, pp. 373–380 at 373 n. 1,
quoting the legates’ collective report from 11 November.
73
Canons 3, 5 and 6 of the reform. See the letter of 11 November, Constant, pp.
373–380, Šusta, IV, pp. 279–384, and the comments of Tanner, II, p. 761 n. 4. Morone
commented that the alterations voted for, which subsequently had to be made to the texts,
showed the freedom of the fathers from any alleged coercion. An interesting sub-plot here
is the fact that aspects of the legislation were perceived as cutting across the rights of the
Spanish Inquisition. There is the suggestion that the legates were able to shrug their shoulders
and hide behind ‘the will of the fathers’ when fielding indignant Spanish complaints. Morone
seems clearly to have approved of the weakening of the inquisitional remit judging by
remarks in the draft of his letter to Borromeo, see Stefania Pastore, ‘Roma, il concilio di
Trento, la nuova inquisizione: alcune considerazioni sui raporti tra vescovi e inquisitori nella
Spagna del cinquecento’, in L’Inquisizione e gli storici: un cantiere aperto. Tavola rotunda
nell’ ambito della conferenza annual della ricerca, Roma 24–25 giugno 1999 (Rome, 2000),
pp. 109–146, especially pp. 117–134.
74
There was a disturbance outside, apparently caused by one of Madruzzo’s soldiers
discharging a firearm, see Dumeige et al., Trente, p. 440.
on the consent of the spouses was also a notable move.75 The issue of
clandestine marriage had proved difficult and there was still division
amongst the fathers from the legates down. Morone, although accepting
the text on clandestine marriages, nevertheless submitted his acceptance
to the opinion of the pope, a fact which tends to betray his indecision.76
Towards the Finish Line, November 1563
Morone clearly had the end in his sights now. He mentioned on 12

November how he, Guise and the imperial ambassadors had been
discussing ways to effect the conclusion of the assembly.77 A day or two
later in a group letter there was reference to a larger meeting of key
prelates at which was tabled Guise’s proposal (per Morone’s scheme) to
close the council on 9 December.78 The legates warranted to the meeting
that almost all the secular rulers and the pope sought this, with the only
slight reservation coming from the Spanish. For his part, the French
cardinal explained at length why it would be in the interests of France
to conclude business and many were won over. Although some Spanish
prelates said that King Philip’s acquiescence was required, others, notably
the influential Archbishop of Granada, spoke in support of the need for
closure. It was agreed that the remaining matters of dogma would receive
some attention, but the overall tenor of the meeting was that the assembly
could indeed be brought to an end.79 Over these days Morone too spoke
eloquently and persuasively of the argument for closure. Despite the best
75
See Jedin, Storia, IV/II, pp. 139–173 and 201–234. See also H. Jedin and
K. Reinhardt, Il matrimonio. Una ricerca storica e teologica (Brescia, 1981), Gabriella Zarri,
‘Il matrimonio tridentino’, in Paolo Prodi and Wolfgang Reinhard (eds), Il concilio di Trento
e il modern (Bologna, 1996), pp. 437–483, and also the interesting comments of Bossy,
Christianity in the West, 1400–1700 (Oxford, 1985), pp. 19–26, especially 24–25, Mullett,
Catholic Reformation, p. 65 and Prosperi, Il concilio di Trento, pp. 133–137.
76
See CT, IX, p. 971. Morone stated that he would follow the pope’s lead since he had
heard differing opinions from the experts, and since he knew that to Peter and his successors it
had been said, ‘Ego rogavi pro te, Petre, ut non deficiat fides tua’ (Luke 22:32), an interesting
view of the Petrine ministry. Of the others, Simonetta, Hosius and Madruzzo were against
it. On Tametsi, see Jedin, Crisis and Closure, pp. 140–145 and Dumeige et al., Trente, pp.
456–464. Bossy calls the Tridentine teaching a ‘bolt from the blue’ and a ‘revolution’ and
regards Morone’s negotiation of the competing demands as deserving ‘a prominent place
in the annals of chairmanship’, Christianity in the West, pp. 24–25. Sarpi of course took
a more jaundiced view, highlighting the oddity of valid marriages that the Church detests
(‘sacramenti detestabili’), Istoria, 8.9, p. 1008.
77
78
Legates, 13/14 November, Šusta, IV, pp. 385–390.
79
On the road leading to the celebration of the final session, see Jedin, Storia, IV/II,
pp. 235–269 and Dumeige et al., Trente, pp. 485–492.
efforts of the fathers, the heretics had not come to the council. Much had
been achieved in terms of dogma and discipline and, if there was more that
could be done, then the fathers should remember that they were men not
angels. They had been away from their flocks too long. Now they could
return, armed with what had been achieved.80
At a further meeting on 14 November, the decision to make this the
final session of the council was made explicit and it was explained how
they proposed to handle the last few items of dogma. Small commissions
would draw up canons for each item, directing attention only to abuses.
The legates also shrewdly suggested that Rome provide for some of the
expenses to be incurred by the prelates returning to their dioceses. Morone
and his colleagues were not going to leave any stone unturned in their
efforts to smooth the way towards the finish line.81 The cardinal wrote
positively on 15 November and intimated that he felt there would be no
further impediments from Luna – ‘… da esso conte non haveremo più
impedimento …’. Morone was also pleased with the interventions of
Granada and, characteristically, put in a good word for the two Spaniards.
He was clearly relieved that things were now above board and Luna
seemingly in agreement with the plans.82
Within a few days, they had finished listening to the voti on the balance
of the reform canons. Four new items of reform had emerged from the
conciliar deliberations and work had also to be done on a canon dealing
with religious.83 The end of the council was firmly in view. Rome was
80
See Pallavicino, IV, 24.3.1, p. 643 and Marani, Calini, p. 567.
81
Šusta, IV, pp. 385–390 at 388–390. Morone went further in his letter the following
day, explaining that he had been assuring prelates the pope would ‘… non solo provederà a
tutti di viatico ma non lascerà nissuno inremunerato …’ intimating that it was in their interests
to work towards the end of the council. He then suggested that Rome write something along
these lines, Constant, pp. 384–388.
82
83
Whilst the Cinquecento witnessed a remarkable flourishing of new forms of religious
life, encouraged at times by ecclesiastical authority, and a renewal in branches of the
traditional orders, none of this can be attributed to the council. It is sometimes said that we
should look not so much for Trent’s influence on religious, but rather the impact of religious
on the council [see Anne Conrad, ‘Il concilio di Trento e la (mancata) modernizzazione dei
ruoli femminili ecclesiastici’, in Paolo Prodi and Wolfgang Reinhard (eds), Il concilio di
Trento e il moderno (Bologna, 1996), pp. 415–436 at 423]. Trent’s legislation on religious
was unremarkable, although its estimation of the value of religious life, affirmation of
renewal, and provision for reform should not be discounted altogether, see Dumeige et al.,
Trente, pp. 496–511. On renewal, see Richard L. DeMolen (ed.), Religious Orders of the
Catholic Reformation (New York, 1994). Morone’s own views on religious had come under
attack from the Inquisition. Morone expressed regret in the Apologia for sometimes having
been publicly critical of ‘frati’ and ‘ordini’. He maintained that he had not been speaking
against ‘buone religioni’, which made for perfection, but against novelty and the badness
of life of many (Apologia, PM, II, p. 488). Of course, his support for the Jesuits belied any
anxious that the chance to close be seized and Borromeo blurted it out at
every opportunity.84 Perhaps sensing too much concern, it was Morone’s
turn to soothe and he wrote of how they should be assured that no one
wanted closure more than he did.85 A meeting was held in Morone’s rooms
after lunch on 28 November, with a good representation of fathers.86
Guise again spoke persuasively after the legates of the need to close in
the interests of France and most (three-quarters according to Morone)
were swayed by what he had to say. However, a small group sought a
longer period, in essence sticking to the scheduled date. Moreover,
Guise, Madruzzo and the imperial ambassadors were adamant that some
treatment of purgatory, images and saints had to be undertaken. As they
pointed out, it would have been ‘perniciosissimo’ not to discuss the very
things that had, in a sense, caused the council to be convoked. The legates
conceded. However, Morone expressed the hope that the matters could be
treated ‘senza disputatione’.87
intransigent opposition to innovation and his good relations with numerous Dominicans and
a willingness to make use of friars for work in his dioceses, militates against attributing to
him any general antipathy towards the older orders.
84
See for example Borromeo to Morone, 24 November, Constant, pp. 396–399. The
pope’s secretary also wrote to Morone the same day of Pius’ anxiety about clinching the
finish, Tolomeo Galli to Morone, pp. 395–396. Both these letters also mention Pius’ health.
85
Morone, 25 November, Constant, pp. 399–402. See also the collective letter of the
same day, Šusta, IV, pp. 402–403.
86
See the legates’ letter, 29 November, Šusta, IV, pp. 420–422 at 420.
87
Šusta, IV, pp. 420–422 at 421. Morone did not want lengthy theological disputation
about these areas. His desire to bring the curtain down was paramount. However, it is notable
that they included aspects of Catholicism that clearly jarred with his own spiritual sensibilities
(or had done so in the past) and about which he had been quizzed by the Inquisition. Was
he shy of discussion because of the potential for controversy? Perhaps he was satisfied that
reform would be enough to cut out the abuses that had dismayed him. However, right to the
last day he surprisingly argued for the omission of the Decree on Indulgences, see Paleotti,
Acta, CT, III/I, pp. 761–762. See the comments of Tallon on Guise’s steadfast insistence that
these matters be dealt with, ‘Giovanni Morone e il cardinal di Lorena’, pp. 156–157. Of
interest are Morone’s comments from earlier in the year in his memorial on French reform
demands. In connection with issues like indulgences, pilgrimages and relics, he seems to
have slotted into a fairly traditional attitude. On pilgrimages he noted the wisdom of God
who designates some places spiritually significant and others not, making a link with the
Old Testament story of Jacob and the ladder (Gen 28). On relics, he recalled the innumera
miracola that have occurred and again looked to the Old Testament and Elisha this time
for his parallel. Finally, with regard to indulgences he argued for their retention, as the
application of Christ’s passion and of the saints for the remission of punishment, by those
who have authority; CT, XIII, pp. 114–115.
Crisis and Closure, November/December 1563
In fact, by the time this meeting was being held and agreement emerging
about the last furlong, Luna was already attempting to pull hard on the
brake. In a letter of 27 November, Morone reported how he had been
to see Luna, but had not found him in good humour. The Spaniard was
concerned that the session was to be foreshortened and that Philip’s dignity
was not being properly respected. Luna was offended in essence that, once
again, he seemed to be ‘out of the loop’, grumbled generally about the
conduct of the legates and Guise, and appeared to be considering a more
formal protest.88
Late on 27 November, Luna came to complain further. His essential
points remained the same: the closure was too hasty and Philip should
be consulted. He was not swayed by arguments that the French situation
necessitated closure and that prolongation would be dangerous and
detrimental. The lengthy exchange of views became heated.89 During the
following days, as the legates felt for a consensus about closure, Luna
was holding closed sessions with the Spanish prelates. On 30 November,
Morone went to placate the Spaniard. However, the Conte could only find
a short space in his schedule to see the cardinal, itself indicative of the
breach. Morone found himself on the receiving end of a sharp personal
attack, critical of his conduct as president and his lack of regard for
Philip’s viewpoint. Morone professed unconcern to Borromeo about the
personal attacks, but he was worried about what Luna and the Spanish
bishops were planning and had been unable to penetrate their meetings.
90
Nevertheless, despite Luna’s complaints and the threat of some more
general Spanish protest, the work towards ending the council continued.
The legates were able to count on the support of the other parties, notably
the imperial ambassadors Brus and Draskovich, and Guise was adamant
that the French would not wait for any response from Spain.91
Before boiling point was reached, a crisis of another sort intervened
with the arrival of news that Pius was ill, causing consternation and
88
89
Legates, 27/28 November, Šusta, IV, pp. 415–420 at 418. See also Luna’s attacks on
Guise, Šusta, IV, pp. 418 and 423–424.
90
Morone, 30 November 1563, Constant, pp. 414–419. Constant and Šusta diverge
on the date of this letter, with the latter dating it 29 November, see Šusta, IV, pp. 422–426
especially p. 426 n. 1. Morone does refer to a general letter of the same day and there does
not appear to have been one of 30 November.
91
See the postscript to the legates letter to Borromeo, 27/28 November 1563, Šusta, IV,
pp. 415–420 at 420, and Guise’s comments to Morone relayed at p. 419. However, the issue
of whether to wait or not seems to have caused some tension amongst the legates, see Šusta,
IV, p. 426, with evidence that Hosius and Navagero felt they ought to wait.
throwing the legates initially into confusion.92 They resolved, nevertheless,

to hold to their adopted course and to attempt to achieve closure ‘… per
dare allei et a noi et al mondo insieme questa consolatione il più presto che
sia possibile’.93 At a meeting of the cardinals, the imperial ambassadors
and Luna this new urgency was emphasized. Luna still showed no sign
of relenting, but the legates gave some time for consideration before
reconvening the meeting. This subsequent session lasted late into the night.
In the end, the imperial ambassadors were willing to bring the session
forward by a few days. The legates also gleaned that Luna was less resolute
and, although he had not agreed to anything, they felt that neither would
he actively stand in their way.94
The legates now aimed for closure on 4 or 5 December and scheduled
meetings for the following day (2 December) with all the ambassadors and
then with a representative group of the fathers. Afterwards, they were able
to write that closure had been agreed upon – ‘… tutti hanno consentito et
lodato che si faccia la sessione quanto prima et si finisca il concilio …’. Luna
and a handful of prelates from Spain and Italy were the notable exceptions.
Nevertheless, the legates appeared hopeful that they could proceed given
the firm backing they were receiving from Brus and Draskovich.95 Morone
wrote on 2 December expressing his optimism that they would be able to
carry enough Spaniards with them to negate Luna’s influence.96
The last section of the reform legislation was also approved at the
general congregation on the 2 December, along with canons dealing with
items of dogma.97 Fourteen fathers voted against them. The way was thus
clear to hold the final session and this was scheduled for the following day
(3 December). The legates admitted that, whilst they had not explicitly
announced that the council would close, they had instructed the fathers
to pray for inspiration in this regard and felt confident that the closure
could be executed. This would occur on 4 December, for with the need
92
Legates, 1/2 December 1563, Šusta, IV, pp. 434–436 and Morone, 2 December,
Constant, pp. 419–420. Borromeo and Galli had both written of the pope’s indisposition on
24 November (see earlier), but Borromeo wrote to Morone and Simonetta on 27 November
of the real concerns about Pius’ health which had taken a turn for the worse, see Šusta, IV,
pp. 431–432, with a note of description of the pope’s condition pp. 432–433. Galli wrote
to Morone on 29 November, but by that stage the pope had already improved a little, see
93
‘… to give to him and to us and to the world together, this consolation as quickly as
possible’. Šusta, IV, pp. 434–436 at 435.
94
Šusta, IV, pp. 434–436 at 435. The legates did praise Luna for brokering an
agreement that the assembly would not seek to interfere in an election should Pius die, Šusta,
IV, pp. 434–436 at 436.
95
Šusta, IV, pp. 434–436 at 436.
96
97
CT, IX, pp. 1069–1076.
formally to read all the decrees from the council’s very beginning in 1545,
it would be impossible to complete all the business in one day. They
were also hopeful that Luna would finally consent, but were resolved to
proceed with or without him.98 Morone concluded the congregation with
an appeal for calm.99
The final session went ahead on 3 and 4 December 1563.100 The legates
felt it was the quietest of the council and marvelled at all they achieved in
a relatively short space of time. News of the improvement in the pope’s
condition had reached the council and the legates seem to suggest that
it acted as a ‘feel good’ factor as the fathers entered the session. They
were able to write phlegmatically that ‘… siamo iti in chiesa … et quivi
ogni cosa per gratia di Dio è passata bene et s’ è finito il concilio …’.101
Others spoke of tears amidst the Te Deum, blessing and dismissal intoned
or delivered by Morone.102
The Immediate Post-Conciliar Period – 1563/1564
The legates wasted little time in quitting Trent. Morone and Simonetta
were back in Rome for Christmas and able to brief Pius on what had
taken place at the council, the details of which, according to Sarpi, Pius
wanted to ‘… intendere in molte audienzie minutamente …’.103 Most of
the fathers likewise quickly left the conciliar city, some with the financial
assistance requested by Morone.104 Before the closure, Pius had indicated
98
Legates, 2 December 1563, Šusta, IV, pp. 437–438, though probably not sent until
the day after or even the day after that.
99
CT, IX, p. 1076.
100
CT, IX, pp. 1076–1120. Tanner, II, pp. 774–799. See Dumeige et al., Trente,
pp. 492–494 and Jedin, Crisis and Closure, pp 155–157. Passed were decrees on purgatory,
the saints, indulgences, fasting, a decree on religious consisting of 22 chapters and a general
reform decree in 21 chapters, the last of which was a contended canon preserving the
authority of the Apostolic See. The final part of the session on 4 December was preceded by
the last general congregation at which a text on indulgences was ultimately approved, despite
Morone’s opposition, Paleotti, Acta, CT, III/I, pp. 761–762. It was ironic that of all issues,
this should have been the last.
101
‘… we entered the church and here everything, through the grace of God, passed
well and the council is finished’. Legates, 3/4 December 1563, Šusta, IV, pp. 441–443.
102
See Dumeige et al., Trente, p. 532.
103
‘… to understand minutely in many audiences’. Sarpi, Istoria, 8.12, p. 1039. Sarpi
alleges the pope wanted to know who had worked in the interests of the council in order to
reward them.
104
See Borromeo to the legates, 21 November 1563, Šusta, IV, pp. 405–406. The
cardinal-nephew instructed the legates to distribute the money as they saw fit but also stating
that he knew they would have regard for the ‘bisogni et qualità et meriti di ciascuno’. Was
there a hint here of a hierarchy based on how helpful they had been?
his wish to confirm the decrees and he reiterated this desire.105 As 1563
gave way to 1564, a struggle ensued among the cardinals as to whether
the confirmation should take place. Morone argued vehemently in favour
in consistory on 26 January. His opinion was endorsed by the majority
of the cardinals save for Ludovico Madruzzo, who advocated a pause,
the canonist Cicada and Ghislieri.106 Sarpi says that the latter two argued
that too much power had been conceded to the bishops.107 Pius sided
with Morone and, eventually, after several months delay, the bull of
confirmation was published the following June, but dated the previous
January, and an edition of the decrees was produced by Manuzio.108
Leaving Morone to one side momentarily, who might be adjudged as
having had a good council and who not: who satisfied with the outcome
and who disappointed? Although Philip II had been against precipitate
closure, he was reasonably quick to adopt the decrees for his territories.
However, the conduct of the council perhaps further alienated him from
Morone. Luna remained disgruntled to the end and criticized the imperial
ambassadors for letting the legates get away with too much. Perhaps the
last casualty of the council, he fell ill soon after its closure and died in
Trent on 28 December 1563.109 In France, the decrees were not accepted
and the council did not prevent the onset of the disastrous wars of religion.
The Cardinal of Lorraine, who arguably had had a good council in many
respects, did not enjoy such a good aftermath initially, blamed as he was
for decrees perceived as detrimental to traditional Gallicanism and the
privileges of the French state.110 Du Ferrier went over to the reform.
In the empire, the questions of the concession of the chalice to the laity
and clerical marriage rumbled on into 1564. It was mooted that Morone
might go north again, but the legation did not materialize. Instead, in line
with Morone’s previous advice, Pius issued briefs allowing the chalice to be
given, although marriage proved more problematical and no concessions
emerged.111 Ferdinand died on 25 July 1564 and was succeeded by his son,
Maximilian II.
105
See Pius’ letters to the legates, 30 November and 4 December 1563, Šusta, IV,
pp. 443–444 and 449–452 respectively. See also Dumeige et al., Trente, p. 557.
106
Dumeige et al., Trente, p. 557. Pastor, XVI, pp. 3–4. Notably, Morone was
supported by Simonetta.
107
Sarpi, Istoria, 8.12, p. 1043.
108
30 June 1564, Benedictus Deus, but bearing the date of 26 January 1564. Canones,
et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici, et generalis concilii Tridentini, sub Paulo III, Iulio III, Pio
IIII, Pontificibus max (Paulo Manuzio, Rome, 1564). See Jedin, Storia, IV/II, pp. 325–334.
109
See Constant, pp. 418–419 n. 5.
110
See Dumeige et al., Trente, pp. 567–569.
111
Dumeige et al., Trente, pp. 565–566, Pastor, XVI, p. 126 and Gustave Constant,
Concession à l’Allemagne de la sous les deux espèces. Etude sur le débuts de la réforme
catholique en Allemagne (1548–1621) (2 volumes, Paris, 1923). Philip of Spain was
Many prelates who definitely had a good council were rewarded in

due course. Paleotti, Buoncompagni and Delfino were amongst those who
received red hats in the big promotion the following year.112 Sarpi noted
that, of those who had supported the declaration of residence as a matter
of ius divinum, none featured among the new cardinals, while those who
had ‘affaticati per il concilio’ received reward.113 Did Pius hold grudges?
Certainly, Beccadelli felt a cold wind blowing and had awful trouble
divesting himself of the see of Ragusa. Eventually Morone interceded on
his behalf.114 On the other hand, the task of finishing the Catechism was
handed to a group of four that included Calini and Foscarari.115 Although
it eventually only emerged under Pius V, perhaps this document was the
final and most lasting legacy of the humanist reform group. Foscarari
might have made it into the list of new cardinals in 1565. He was highly
respected by many, including Borromeo, and Morone would surely have
supported him.116 On the other hand, his brush with the Inquisition might
have counted against him, as it did in the cases of Di Capua and Grimani.
As it turned out, Foscarari was one of the first of Morone’s long-time
associates to die after the council.117
Of the other initiatives delegated to the pope, the revised Index surfaced
in March 1564 and a Profession of Faith in the December. The Missal and
the Breviary only emerged, like the Catechism, in the next pontificate.118
resolutely against the idea of concessions and a Morone legation. On the whole issue of
Pius’ willingness to embrace change in these areas, a willingness that seems to have been
long-standing as well as provoking bitter opposition and suspicion in 1564, see Bonora,
‘Morone e Pio IV’. She believes Morone offered lukewarm support to Pius as the issues
were aired in 1564 and was particularly reluctant to take up the role of legate in connection
with the matter. Her observations again raise the spectre of someone lacking the courage of
their convictions in the face of a potential scrap. However, Morone had been arguing for
concessions since the 1530s and Bonora perhaps makes too much of Morone’s reluctance to
travel at this juncture. He had always been the reluctant diplomat. Having spent the previous
March to December away from Rome, the last thing he would have wished for in March
1564 was a return to the imperial court.
112
Pastor, XVI, pp. 393–394. Indeed, the diplomats generally did well – Crivello,
Visconti, Commendone and Prospero Santa Croce (nuncio in France) were all included in
the promotion.
113
Sarpi, Istoria, 8.12, pp. 1039 and 1052.
114
See Morandi, Monumenta, I/I, pp. 56 and 137–140 and Fragnito, Gasparo
Contarini, p. 347.
115
Foscarari, Paleotti and Buoncompagni were among those entrusted with examining
the celibacy issue and Ferdinand’s requests for a relaxation of the law. See Prodi, Paleotti,
pp. 209–210.
116
The manner of his death made an impression on Borromeo, see Jedin, Il tipo ideale,
p. 120.
117
On 23 December 1564. In respect of this, see the comments of Prodi, Paleotti,
p. 216.
118
See Jedin, Storia, IV/II, pp. 334–348.
Although Pius confirmed the decrees, he also set up a commission to

oversee their implementation and control their interpretation.119 In the
aftermath of the council, Morone remained in Rome. Although apparently
a member of this commission, he does not seem to have been prominent
and Simonetta’s profile seems higher.120 Upon the death of Foscarari,
Morone once again became Bishop of Modena and wanted to travel there
in March 1565. Ironically, Pius would not allow it.121 If the future was
Tridentine, it was still going to be Roman as well.122
Morone’s Council: From Riforma to Disformazione?123
Given that he presided over the resolution of the debate over Orders
and residence, and the sessions that passed the reform legislation, then
it is hardly surprising that much assessment of his tenure has been
positive. It is the basis of Morone’s perceived triumph and reflected in the
historiography. As far as it goes, it is unassailable. Morone did guide Trent
119
Established formally in August 1564, but at work before this date.
120
See Prodi, Paleotti, pp. 195–214. Prodi discusses Paleotti’s involvement with plans
to publish the Acta in some form. Material connected with the commission is in ASV, Conc.
Trid. 104. Another commission Morone appears to have been involved with oversaw the
decision about what to do about Michelangelo’s Last Judgment. The famous artist had
long had links with the spirituali and Morone too seems to have been the recipient of at
least one work. In typical Morone fashion, the commission decided on modesty rather than
destruction of the frescos and, tactfully, it was Daniele di Volterra, a collaborator of the great
man, who was entrusted with the task, see Romeo de Maio, Michelangelo e la Controriforma
(Rome and Bari, 1978), pp. 37–45 and 405–406. On the links between Michelangelo and
the spirituali, and arguments for the manifestation of the rapport in his art, especially in
the 1540s and 1550s, see Maria Forcellino, Michelangelo, Vittoria Colonna e gli ‘spirituali’
(Rome, 2009).
121
See the avviso of 31 March 1565, BAV, Urb. Lat. 1040 f. 3r.
122
Giuseppe Alberigo draws attention to the distinction between ‘implementation’ and
the term used by the council itself, ‘reception’, see for example ‘Il significato del concilio
di Trento nella storia dei concili’, in Alberigo and Iginio Rogger (eds) Il Concilio di Trento
nella prospettiva del Terzo Millennio (Brescia, 1997), p. 54. The literature in this area is vast
but, see also the observations of Tallon, Le concile de Trente, especially pp. 65–93, Prosperi,
Il concilio di Trento, especially pp. 88–113 and the many contributions of Alberigo, most
recently in English his ‘From the Council of Trent to “Tridentinism”’, in From Trent to
Vatican II, pp. 19–37. Of course, the whole issue of the authentic interpretation of a council
is very much alive within Roman Catholicism with debates about the inheritance and ‘spirit’
of Vatican II.
123
Sarpi’s negative assessment of the council’s achievements, ‘… e maneggiato dai
principi per riforma dell’ ordine ecclesiastico, ha causato la maggior disformazione …’,
Istoria, I,1, p. 3.
to its close. It was a considerable diplomatic feat. The congratulatory

letters were soon rolling in.124
The success of the final sessions cannot of course be laid totally at
Morone’s feet. Ferdinand, hardly an implacable foe, was probably moving
away from confrontation with the pope even before Morone’s arrival at
Innsbruck.125 Rome’s own diplomacy, particularly with Philip, was also
important, and greater credit should accrue to Pius and Borromeo over
the degree of independence they gave the legates and the extent to which
they were supportive of reform. The cynicism that can overwhelm analysis
of Pius’ aims should be tempered by what seems to have been a genuine
desire for reform, which he attempted both through and independently of
the council.126 Guise too played an important part. He may have created
problems at times with his Gallican, conciliarist outlook, but he was open
to compromise and proved an invaluable ally in the closing weeks.127
Morone also relied on the assistance of others, particularly Paleotti,
Buoncompagni and Foscarari.128
Did the Holy Spirit arrive by courier?129 Of course, the legates sought
to instigate papal policy and Morone firmly sought to safeguard the rights
of the papacy and the Apostolic See. This was a constituent part of his
ecclesiological outlook. Some of Morone’s language suggests a distinction
between the papacy as it related to that particular administration, to
which Morone had close ties, and the papacy as a more generalized
entity, although in reality the interests were largely indistinguishable in
terms of his conduct. He certainly had an immense personal loyalty to
Pius. Nevertheless, the legates were also in receipt of pressures from other
quarters: the viewpoints of the secular powers, the opinions of influential
prelates like Guise or Pedro Guerrero, or periti like Laínez and Salmeròn
and, not least, the views of the mass of the council fathers, the number of
124
Some examples in BAV, Vat. Lat. 6408, ff. 301r–302v, 307r–308v and 334r–335v.
125
See Jedin, Storia, IV/II, pp. 19–20 and the emperor’s March instructions to his
representatives.
126
When Pius’ reform bull first emerged in 1562 there were murmurings against it
from Farnese and others but, ‘… S. S.ta chiuse la bocca a tutti et non ne fu palato piu’.
Avviso, 9 May 1562, BAV, Urb. Lat. 1039, f. 361v. See also Jedin, Storia, IV/II, pp. 10,
20 and 360–363. Robert Trisco seems to overly concentrate on the negative in his ‘Carlo
Borromeo and the Council of Trent: The Question of Reform’, in Headley and Tomaro, San
Carlo Borromeo, pp. 47–66, but he notes Pius’ reform efforts in his earlier ‘Reforming the
Roman Curia’.
127
On Guise’s role at Trent, including a more nuanced evaluation of his attitude in the
final months, see especially Tallon, La France, pp. 777–811.
128
Nor can the previous endeavour of Seripando and Gonzaga be discounted, see
Michele Cassese, ‘Girolamo Seripando, il concilio di Trento e la riforma della chiesa’, in
Cestaro, Geronimo Seripando, pp. 189–225 at 225.
129
The famous quip of the French diplomat, Louis de Saint-Gelais, Seigneur de Lansac.
whom had swollen to more than 200 by the end. It made for a potent mix,
which Morone and his colleagues handled skilfully.
Did the council end in haste amidst fears about the pope’s health? This
is true only up to a point. The actual scare about Pius’ health hastened
its closure by a few days, although it is true that the possible deaths of
both the pope and Ferdinand had featured in Morone’s thinking for some
time. Closure, closure, closure had been the papal mantra since at least the
previous May and it became an insistent clamour towards the end, with
the legates being counselled, urged even, to disregard Spanish objections.
Judging by the protestations that Morone and his colleagues made, they
became a little tired of the reminders arriving with each courier. After all,
no one was keener than Morone to scarper before the onset of deep winter.
In fact, Morone and his colleagues acted robustly and independently
of Rome at times. They sought a careful balance of interests in the last
months of the council: keen to see an end to the protracted and intermittent
assembly, but also concerned to ensure that most if not all business was
addressed. Theirs was a policy of deliberate, rather than overly hasty,
progress towards the closure. Morone was tempted and prepared to cut
corners, but also quickly recognized when the mood of the council was
against him. Whilst it is true the legislation on religious was conservative
and issues like purgatory, saints and indulgences were treated without great
theological depth or subtlety – by that stage, Morone was adamant that
potential cans of worms should be avoided – on the other hand, he was
quick to rule out a November closure when this was clearly impractical.
The sense of many of his dispatches from these weeks was that Rome
needed to be patient.
As he made clear to Alba in the summer of 1563, Morone was a
reluctant player in the unfolding drama.130 He had always hated going
north, especially in winter, and genuinely had concerns about his health.
At the end of the Innsbruck mission, with a further recurrence of gout
threatening, he tried to persuade Borromeo to substitute him.131 The
following September, both Fedele and Visconti conveyed Morone’s
anxieties to Pius who would of course have none of it. The cardinal
wrote to Borromeo in the light off this failure to escape, mentioning the
‘freddo sotilissimo et humidissimo’, and adding morbid thoughts about
following the path of Gonzaga.132 Morone’s September crisis should not
be underestimated, however much we might smile about his distaste for
130
Constant, p. 201.
131
Morone, Matrei, 13 May 1563, NB, 2/3, pp. 301–302. The gout returned and
forced his temporary absence from conciliar sittings. See CT, III/I, p. 635 n. 6 and Nucci’s
comment for 27 May that Morone had not left his house, causing rumours that his staff had
to dispel. See also CT, IX, p. 508 n. 5, Marani, Calini, p. 453.
132
Morone, 7 October 1563, cited by Constant, pp. 278–279 n. 4.
sub-Alpine weather. To request to be relieved at that very point in the

proceedings was as remarkable as it was unlikely to have been granted.
It may have been tactical and part of the campaign to ensure the pope
and Borromeo were firmly behind him. However, the blow of the imperial
rejection of the reform of the princes seems to have been both a surprise
and a grave disappointment. This setback, coupled with the criticism
trickling up from Rome, and the other difficulties at the council, all seem
to have dented the Milanese cardinal’s resolve and produced a personal
low point.
Morone deployed a range of strategies to achieve his goals, drawing on
all his previous experience. He kept important protagonists informed as to
what was happening and how they could assist, especially Pius, Borromeo
and the various papal diplomats. He had a shrewd awareness of the
different factions within the council and sought to keep them in check or
better still working in concert with the legates. He strove to focus on the
essential business and to leave aside extraneous issues. With a clear grasp
of procedure and an ability to anticipate difficulties, he battled to exercise
control over the assembly and was steadfast when this was threatened. He
espoused unpopular or potentially unpopular courses of action when he
thought it right to do so, backing attempts to negotiate a form of words
palatable to all the parties in the dispute over Orders, advising inclusion of
the cardinals in reform and endorsing Ferdinand’s particular requests. In
respect of the proponentibus legatis clause, the fact that he was eventually
prepared to concede ground highlights his pragmatism and flexibility
of thought, as does his attitude to the point about closure over against
suspension, although some might charge him with opportunism. Morone
was also prepared to cultivate favour and could certainly be cunning in the
tactics he employed to obtain his goals. Although for personal reasons he
wanted an end to the council, he was always mindful of the wider needs of
the papacy and the Church.
Whilst commentators such as Jedin have praised Morone’s independence,
he also strove hard to avoid the fate of Gonzaga and Seripando. He acted
cautiously and carefully both with Rome and at the council, where he
sought to build consensus by means of his ‘private congregations’ and in
good relationships with individuals. Perhaps it was in this caution that
the foundations of his achievement lay: knowing when to push on with
something and realizing when it was best to hold back and seek further
agreement. The use of the ‘private congregations’ of sometimes 40 prelates
was a masterstroke, as was his inclusion of Guise and Madruzzo as quasi
legates. Morone seems to have been able to hold down the temperature
within the council of legates and does not appear to have had a problem
with Simonetta.133 At times, there were certainly divisions within the

group, but this is not surprising and neither did it fatally hamper their
effectiveness.134
How important Morone’s long association with Ferdinand proved
to be. It raised tensions in his allegiances, but was crucial to the success
at Innsbruck and important again in selling the case for closure. Indeed,
the full effect of Morone’s success at Innsbruck was gradually to trickle
out over the course of the rest of the council. Morone soon rationalized
his disappointment over the reform of the princes by arguing that the
confirmation of previous law was of greater benefit. In terms of personalities,
it is hard to see how anyone else could have proved as effective as Giovanni
Morone, enjoying both the trust of Ferdinand and many of his advisers,
and the confidence of the pope and the cardinal-nephew.
Where Morone did encounter spectacular difficulty was with regard to
the Conte de Luna, critical as he was of the way business was conducted
and dragging his feet all the way to the finishing tape. With respect to
the French, the situation was complicated by the need to negotiate with
the orators and with Guise. As regards du Ferrier, Morone seems to have
happily involved himself with Borromeo and Pius’ attempts to keep him
sweet with financial inducements, to little avail however.135 The Milanese
cardinal was always willing to seek favours for his friends and for those
who had comported themselves well.136 At a relatively early stage of his
presidency he put in a good word for the Bishop of Gaiazzo (Caiazzo?)
who felt he had blotted his copybook. Morone advised considerate
treatment, ‘… essendo bene a questi tempi trattenersi benevole ognuno’.137
He also seems to have sought to increase the comfort zone of his voting
majority with the addition of more Italian bishops and petitioned Rome to
desist from giving permissions to quit the council.138 Perhaps the Milanese
133
Prodi (Paleotti, p. 184) says Simonetta was marginalized and it is true that Guise
and Madruzzo featured more in Morone’s correspondence. However, it seems more a case
of neutralization and bringing him onboard. By the end of the council, Morone was putting
in a good word for his fellow milanese in an attempt to secure for him the soon to be vacant
archbishopric of Bologna, see Constant, p. 252 n. 1.
134
See Borromeo to Morone, 4 December 1563, Constant, pp. 425–431, referring to
divisions over the closure.
135
See Borromeo to Morone, 10 and 28 July 1563, Constant, pp. 191–193 and 205–208.
136
See for example the comments in his letter of 5 August, Constant, pp. 218–220 at
p. 219 in respect of the Bishops of Sulmona and Albenga and the theologian Francisco Torres.
He obtained a change of see from Ischia to Assisi for Gherio and recommended Paleotti for
Bologna as well as mentioning him in dispatches. See Morone, 23 July 1563, Constant, pp.
202–204, in which Paleotti and Buoncompagni (the future Pope Gregory XIII) get a plug.
137
Morone, 21 June 1563, Constant, pp. 174–175.
138
See Gualtieri’s report, Constant, p. 203 n. 2, Morone to Borromeo, 10 October
1563, Constant, pp. 304–317 at pp. 315–316, the legates to Borromeo, 10 October 1563,
cardinal could indeed be a little slippery and pushed towards the very
boundaries of probity and rectitude.139
The Decree on Orders and the canon on residence were compromises but,
as Oakley has commented, the intersection of such competing ecclesiologies
and demands was such that it was nevertheless a considerable achievement
that any settlement emerged.140 The underlying idea for the solution may
not have been Morone’s originally, but in bringing it to fruition at precisely
the right time, he showed immense skill, patience and not a little courage.
The reform tracts of the 24th and 25th sessions and the other reform
measures were also of necessity a compromise. They did not go as far as
many would have liked and certainly went too far for others. What was
achieved should not be underestimated. In the decree on seminaries, the
provisions relating to diocesan organization and those pertaining to the
appointment of bishops and priests and the duties of pastors, the council
enacted in law the backbone of the Tridentine Church. Alberigo has called
it an ecclesiology of the salus animarum, and one suspects the cardinal
would have been very satisfied with such an analysis.141 Of course, much
can be said about the true influence of the decrees, their interpretation
and implementation, partial and gradual as it might have been in the
subsequent decades, even centuries. Nevertheless, the Tridentine reform
became the yardstick.142
Morone’s attitude towards the council, both personally and
professionally, fluctuated. A long-time backer, he appears to have become
Šusta, IV, pp. 305–306, and Borromeo to the legates, 15 October 1563, Šusta, IV, pp.
327–328. Note the contents of Constant, p. 316 n. 29 which carries further fragments of
correspondence on the point.
139
See Trisco, ‘Carlo Borromeo and the Council of Trent’. Trisco indicates that
Morone did not go as far as Borromeo was prepared to allow in terms of behind the scenes
manipulation.
140
Oakley, The Conciliarist Tradition, pp. 130–131. On Trent and ecclesiology
see, inter alia, Giuseppe Alberigo, ‘Concezioni della chiesa al concilio di Trento e nell età
moderna’, in Massimo Marcocchi, Claudio Scarpati, Antonio Acerbi and Giuseppe Alberigo,
Il Concilio di Trento: istanze di riforma e aspetti dottrinali (Milan, 1997), pp. 99, 117–153,
and Klaus Ganzer, ‘L’Ecclesiologia del concilio di Trento’, in Giuseppe Alberigo and Iginio
Rogger (eds), Il Concilio di Trento nella prospettiva del Terzo Millennio (Brescia, 1997), pp.
155–171.
141
Ganzer, ‘L’ecclesiologia’, in Giuseppe Alberigo and Iginio Rogger (eds), Il Concilio
di Trento nella prospettiva del Terzo Millennio (Brescia, 1997), p. 166, citing Alberigo’s older
study, ‘L’ecclesiologia del concilio di Trento’, RSCI, 18 (1964): pp. 227–242.
142
In the considerable literature on the subject see especially, Agostino Borromeo, ‘I
vescovi italiani e l’applicazione del Concilio di Trento’, in Cesare Mozzarelli and Danilo
Zardin (eds), I Tempi del Concilio: Religione, cultura e società nell’Europa tridentina (Rome,
1997), pp. 27–105, Prosperi, Il concilio di Trento, especially pp. 88–142 and most recently
in English, Anthony D. Wright, The Counter-Reformation: Catholic Europe and the Non-
Christian World (Aldershot, 2005).
more suspicious of its manipulation by others and thus ready to argue

and work for closure. On the other hand, he steadfastly adhered to the
belief that a reform had to be enacted and acted upon, even in his most
pessimistic moments. At the end of his Innsbruck mission, he wrote bleakly
of the European situation in terms that suggest he believed that Germany
and France were lost causes and that efforts should be concentrated upon
safeguarding Spain and Italy. To this end, he advised that consideration be
given as to how to establish a good reform and through it obtain the end
of the council.143
If the famous Consilium de emendanda ecclesia represented the
aspirations for the reform group – a cri de guerre – then Morone’s reform
tract does not match up too badly.144 By providing for pastoral renewal,
centred on the bishop residing in his diocese, the Tridentine reform seems
to fulfil many of the aspirations of the members of the commission, to
almost all of whom Morone had had close links. The notable deficiencies
related to the workings of the curia and a stricter reform of the fiscal abuses
linked to benefices. In respect of the former, although reform provisions
like residence were expressly applied to the cardinals, Morone defended
the papal line that it was up to the pope to reform such matters. This had
always been his view. He had urged it early in his career precisely because
of the fear that others, a council perhaps, might try to usurp the task. Fate
decreed that in the end he had to ensure that a council did not do so. In
respect of the latter, although the council did try to restrict plurality and
some financial irregularities (expectations), it failed to take on the wider
problems. Morone, for one, was pretty enmeshed in the system in any
case.145
As the end of the assembly drew tantalizingly closer, Morone seems
to have had a genuine sense of satisfaction. He wrote in a letter of 15
November 1563;
Ho sempre iudicato che il fine del concilio sia utile et necessario, ma se potemo
haverlo … veramente non conosco qual cosa potesse occorrere a questo secolo,
la qual fosse più utile alla chiesa et più gloriosa per tutti secoli a venire alla
memoria di S. Bne. La qual in tanti dispareri del mondo haverà con la prudentia
sua saputo convocare et terminare questo concilio che sarà stato uno de
maggiori concilii del mondo.146
143
Morone, Matei, 13 May 1563, NB, 2/3, at p. 301.
144
It is striking how the tract was still being cited, see Trisco, ‘Reforming the Roman
Curia’, p. 191.
145
For example Morone’s comments on various items in the memorial on French
reform demands, CT, XIII, pp. 114–115.
146
Constant, pp. 384–388 at 386.
[I have always judged that the end of the council would be useful and necessary,
but if we are able to have it … truly I do not know what would be able to occur
this century that would be more useful to the Church and more glorious for all
the ages to come to the memory of his holiness, who, with his prudence, amidst
the many objections of the world knew to convoke and end this council, which
will be one of the greatest in the world.]
This seems to be both a declaration of his belief in the council’s import

as well as a manifestation of his optimism with the end in sight.
Characteristically, it was to Pius he felt the accolades should go. However,
he was underselling himself. Morone had indeed had a good council and,
when Pius died in December 1565, Morone’s success propelled him to the
forefront of the papabile.
Chapter 8
Conclave and Final Years,

1566–1580
Sarete voi sì ciechi e sì furfanti

Di Dio nemici e senza discrezione
Che vi facciate papa ancora Morone
Nemico della Vergine e de’ santi?1
The Conclave, December 1565–January 1566
It is hardly surprising that upon the death of Pius IV (9 December 1565)

Giovanni Morone was perceived as one of the favourites to succeed
him.2 Contemporary reports tell us Rome was quiet as the conclave got
underway and Morone seems to have played a prominent role in some
of the official acts undertaken during the interregnum because the dean
of the college, Cardinal Pisano, was ill.3 Then, on 20 December, having
attended the Mass of the Holy Spirit, the cardinals entered the conclave:
‘… andarono poi tutti li Cardinali processionalmente nel conclave …’.4
1
‘Are you so blind and such scoundrels, enemies of God and without discretion,
that pope you would still Morone make, enemy of the Virgin and of the saints.’ Part of a
pasquinata doing the rounds during the conclave of 1565/1566, cited by Constant, p. xxii
n. 2, Cantù, Morone, p. 41, and Firpo, Inquisizione romana, p. 476.
2
An account of Pius IV’s last days is in BAV, Urb. Lat. 1040, ff. 153v–155v. Morone
is mentioned amongst the favourites in BAV Urb. Lat. 1040, f. 159v, along with ‘… Ferrara,
Aracelli, Montepulciano, Fererio, et Buoncompagno, et alcuni vi aggiungono anco Pisani, et
Trani …’ On the conclave, see Pastor, XVII, pp. 1–42; Nicole Lemaitre, Saint Pie V (Paris,
1994), pp. 83–101 and Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 424–428 and 471–536 especially
471–481.
3
BAV, Urb. Lat. 1040, f. 158v. Forty-eight cardinals were present at the start with
the number rising to 53. Morone seems to have responded to the official expressions of
condolence delivered by the ambassadors, and may have celebrated the Votive Mass of the
Holy Spirit on the opening day. Of course, such a high profile could work either for or
against a candidate. There appears to have been some murmuring against his candidacy
because of his too ‘caldo et affettuoso’ attitude towards the man entrusted with commanding
the guard, Conte Annibale Altemps, BAV, Urb. Lat. 1040, ff. 158v and 161v. On the other
hand, perhaps the conclave that saw the election of Benedict XVI illustrates how a prominent
immediate pre-election profile can enhance a candidacy.
4
BAV, Urb. Lat. 1040, f. 161r.
Initially, Morone was supported by Borromeo and his candidacy was

probably bolstered by the arrival of men like Delfino.5 It is likely, too, that
he had the support of the emperor, Maximilian II, and there is mention
in the sources of efforts to get a wider political backing from Florence
and Spain, although the detailed instructions from the various monarchs
would not reach Rome for a couple of weeks. However, other currents
of opinion looked elsewhere for likely victors: perhaps one of the newer
cardinals such as Buoncompagni.
At some point early in the conclave, during the first day even, there was
an attempt to have Morone proclaimed pope by adoration. Clearly, this
was a first strike by what might be viewed as the outgoing regime, seeking
to perpetuate a hold on power, or at least to ensure some continuity. The
thinking must have been to carry Morone’s prestige and standing into the
conclave and force a quick result. Indeed, the sources indicate that the plan
had been brewing before the formal opening of the election.6 One account
describes how Simonetta was deputized with the job of mobilizing the
Borromeo grouping and that he instructed them to gather on the Thursday
morning and proclaim Morone pope. This version asserts that the plan
was thwarted as the French ambassador got wind of it.7 Other sources
suggest that during the first night of the conclave, with rumours about
Morone’s candidacy flying around, the anti-Morone cardinals remained
vigilant least any attempt be made to move Morone’s candidacy forward.8
Many of these men had been close to Paul IV.
What seems clear, even if the exact run of events is not, is that some
cardinals made a drive to elect Morone, probably commencing before
the opening of the conclave. In the early rounds, the Milanese cardinal
certainly received plenty of votes.9 However, his candidacy was resisted
by various groups for varying reasons: Farnese, probably because Morone
had Borromeo’s support, and the French because of Morone’s political
allegiance.10 Others seem to have been critical of Morone’s advocacy of
concession of the chalice to the laity and marriage for clergy, suggesting he
5
BAV, Urb. Lat. 1040, f. 161v. See Firpo, Inquisizione romana, p. 476 and Lemaitre,
Pie V, p. 90.
6
BAV, Urb. Lat. 1040, f. 162v.
7
BAV, Urb. Lat. 1040, ff. 174rv.
8
Letter of Giulio Cavalieri to Giambattista Pico (Secretary to Ottavio Farnese in
Parma), cited by Firpo, Inquisizione romana, p. 479.
9
BAV, Urb. Lat. 1040, f. 161v. The source speaks of Morone attracting 30 votes in the
first ballot but this is doubtful given the number of cardinals present. It would have placed
Morone within a couple of votes of winning if 48 cardinals started the process.
10
BAV, Urb. Lat. 1040, ff. 161v–162v. Farnese undoubtedly did not wish to cede
influence to Borromeo. Morone’s stock with the farnese probably peaked under Paul III.
Another ‘big beast’, Cardinal Ippolito D’Este, the leader of the French grouping, still had
designs on the papacy.
Conclave and Final Years, 1566–1580 195
was still perceived as too willing to seek compromises with Protestantism.11

More vehemently, and for some commentators, more decisively, were the
interventions of those who sought to rake up the matter of the processo.
In particular, Ghislieri seems to have made a decisive intervention against
Morone’s candidacy armed with the processo documentation, which he
seems to have brought with him into the conclave for the express purpose of
damaging Morone’s chances.12 It was said that, while Morone’s supporters
argued he had been cleared and that his accuser had been involved in this,
the paolini had retorted that it had only been through a bull of Pius IV.13
History was repeating itself with the conclave mirroring that of
1549/1550, when Pole’s candidacy had been on the up. Morone’s past
was haunting his present and, in the light of what the paolini were saying,
there were ominous signs that it would continue to do so.14 Further efforts
were made to get him elected over 22/23 December 1565 and, on 23
December, in formal voting, he seems to have been five votes short of the
34 he needed to carry the two-thirds majority.15 Although listed as having
been the front-runner in reports emanating from Rome on 29 December,
the vote on 23 December in fact represented the high-water mark of his
chances. As the year turned, his candidacy waned and Borromeo began
to look elsewhere.16 He tried and failed to get Sirletto elected and, with
Epiphany approaching, the conclave seemed deadlocked.17 However, the
11
See the comments of Cardinal Pacheco quoted by Firpo, Inquisizione romana, p. 475
and those of Cavalieri, p. 479, recounting what the imperial ambassador at Rome had said
to him. The issue had been a contentious one in the aftermath of the council, see Bonora,
‘Morone e Pio IV’. She too notes the possible affect of the issue on Morone’s election chances
and the concomitant boost to those of Ghislieri and cites comments made by Paolo Tiepolo
in a report sent to Venice, see pp. 50–51, especially n. 102.
12
A Roman avviso describes how Alessandrino (Ghislieri) let it be known that he could
not support Morone because of the processo di eresia and that Morone’s absolution had
been ill judged, ‘… non mancano alcuni capi, che quando fossero stati ben ventillati, et che
si forse hauta debita cognitione della causa, non sarebbe stato cosi facilmente assoluto, come
precipitosamente fu nel principio di questo pontificato passato, et che l’esser stato solamente
sospetto di heresia, questa bastava di ragione per escluderlo dal Pontificato …’. BAV, Urb.
Lat. 1040, f. 163r. See Pastor, XVII, pp. 24–26, Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 476–478
and Lemaitre, Pie V, p. 90.
13
Firpo, Inquisizione romana, p. 479.
14
Firpo draws the parallel, see Inquisizione romana, p. 477. Morone’s candidacy did
not escape the perhaps unfair, but telling, attention of Pasquino, as indicated at the outset of
this chapter, Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 475–476.
15
Pastor, XVII, p. 27, Firpo, Inquisizione romana, p. 479.
16
For an astrological explanation of Morone’s failure see Firpo, Inquisizione romana,
p. 428 n. 98!
17
BAV, Urb. Lat. 1040, ff. 166r–167v.
two ‘big beasts’, Borromeo and Farnese, worked on a deal and Ghislieri
emerged as their compromise candidate on 7 January 1566.18
Although a Ghislieri candidacy had been noted in some quarters, his
eventual victory seems to have come as a surprise to many.19 With the
alliance between Borromeo and Farnese complete, the other cardinals
gave their votes in favour of the Dominican in order of seniority, starting
with Pisano. What Morone thought as he pronounced his apparently
favourable vote is hard to say. At that stage, a negative vote would have
been superfluous and damaging. Sources suggest that he and Borromeo
had come to an understanding about it beforehand, but whether Morone
could have tried to block the development is difficult to assess.20 It is
certainly tempting to ask why he did not agitate more vigorously against
a Ghislieri papacy. Indeed, this was another aspect of the conclave’s déjà-
vu character.21 Perhaps Morone felt he was in the clear after his formal
acquittal in 1560. Perhaps he was persuaded by assurances received from
Borromeo and viewed the election of the austere friar as in the best interests
of the Church, or possibly he did surreptitiously erect obstacles which have
left scant traces in the sources. There is also some suggestion that Ghislieri
did not act so overtly against Morone’s candidacy, although making it
clear that he could not support it.22 If this were the case, it might partially
explain why Morone acquiesced in the face of Ghislieri’s election. One
further factor in the Milanese cardinal’s apparent complacency may have
been the tendency towards resignation to the Divine Will, so prevalent
in Pole, but also a constituent part of Morone’s character, albeit to a
lesser degree. Nevertheless, much of the ‘post-match’ analysis attributed
Morone’s stumbling to the problems he had had with the Inquisition and
it was reported that Ghislieri only consented to being elected to thwart the
ambitions of the Milanese cardinal.23
18
BAV, Urb. Lat. 1040, ff. 169rv, avviso of 12 January, shedding light on what had
taken place the previous week. The source states that Borromeo made it clear to Farnese that
he could not be pope and that for his part, Farnese had stressed that he (Borromeo) owed the
farnese something for the elevation of his uncle Pius IV to the cardinalate. Farnese suggested
four possible candidates, Trani, Aracaeli, Montepulciano and Alessandrino. Borromeo had
plumped for the latter, who had received the backing of Philip of Spain.
19
BAV, Urb. Lat. 1040, f. 163v, Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 480–481, Lemaitre,
Pie V, pp. 93–95.
20
See the account of the conclave preserved in ASV, Miscellanea II, 121, ff. 174–213,
cited and quoted by Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 426–427 n. 94.
21
It is worth remembering Carnesecchi’s apparent regret at Morone’s ‘timidità’ at past
conclaves, PC, II/II, pp. 717–718.
22
See Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 426 and 477 n. 21 where he cites a quote from
an early biography of Pius V, Girolamo Catena’s, Vita del gloriossimo papa Pio Quinto
(Rome, 1586).
23
Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 480–481. Pastor, XVII, p. 42.
Ghislieri took the name of Pius V (1566–1572) out of deference to

Borromeo. Similarity with the previous regime ended there. The new
administration was soon flying rather different colours. It might be crude
to state that the gears were thrown into reverse and that the papacy
took on hues prevalent of the time of Paul IV. Yet, this is precisely how
contemporaries viewed it. An avviso from 12 January 1566, noted that
the new pope ‘… piglia et abraccia tutte le creature di Paulo IV. si dice che
fa venir Don Antonio Caraffa et il figliuolo del Duca di Paliano …’ and
went on to recount how Pius IV’s men were all being replaced with men
from Paul IV’s time and referred to the paying of all the dues (debiti) of
‘Pauolo Quarto’.24 It is not surprising that Morone did not feature on a
list of cardinals in receipt of favours from the new pontiff. By 19 January
1566, the carafa were back in town and apparently looking for revenge.25
Someone even commented to Giulio Antonio Santoro that ‘… Dio ci ha
resuscitato Paolo IV …’ and urged him to come to Rome.26 Perhaps it even
felt a bit that way for Giovanni Morone too.27
It was certainly ‘all change’. The Inquisition reoccupied a central
role in the administration and the new pontiff took a keen interest in
its activity.28 The family of Paul IV were rehabilitated, posthumously or
otherwise, and punishment meted out to those heavily associated with the
judicial process against the carafa nephews. Damaged monuments to the
carafa were repaired and others erected including one to the carafa pope
in the Dominican Church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva in Rome. The
propaganda element also went into reverse with unfortunate consequences
for some. The plan to bring out an edition of the works of Contarini seems
to have gone underground. There is little trace of it from 1563 until the
24
(Pius) ‘… grasps and embraces all the creations of Paul IV. They say that he makes
come Don Antonio Caraffa and the son of the Duke of Paliano’. BAV, Urb. Lat. 1040, ff.
170rv.
25
BAV, Urb. Lat. 1040, f. 172r.
26
‘God has resurrected Paul IV for us’. Cited by Firpo, Inquisizione romana,
p. 487. Santoro did of course come to Rome, was made a cardinal and would take over the
supervision of the Holy Office.
27
The ascendancy of the spirituali under Pius IV had not been absolute and, at the
height of his influence, Morone had been unable to extract documentation relating to his
processo from out of the clutches of Ghislieri, see PM, II, pp. 145ff. During Morone’s tenure
of the presidency at Trent, Ghislieri corresponded with him over certain matters, innocent
enough except when viewed against the background of their history. Ghislieri to Morone,
24 April and 26 June 1563, BAV, Vat. Lat. 6408, ff. 297r–298v. and 289r–290v., respectively.
They seem like little reminders that he was still around.
28
On the changes, see Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 487–497.
emergence of an edition at Paris in February 1571, which then attracted

the adverse intervention of the Inquisition.29
Niccolò Franco, who had penned a pasquinata critical of Paul IV, was
arrested in September 1568. Franco was questioned, tortured and finally
executed on 11 March 1571.30 The Franco trial was a concern for Morone
given that the Venetian had been a member of the cardinal’s household
from 1560 until January 1568. The Inquisition quizzed Franco as to
Morone’s involvement with his work, but were unable to unearth anything
compromising. Morone may have had only limited contact with Franco.
The Venetian seems in fact to have been somewhat disgruntled with the
treatment he received from Morone and mentioned how the cardinal had
been critical of the way he had been using his talents as a writer.31 Filippo
Gheri was also questioned in relation to Franco’s writing.32
The Carnesecchi Trial, 1566/1567
An even more alarming development was the arrest and reopening of

proceedings against Pietro Carnesecchi.33 The Florentine’s luck had
finally run out and Cosimo I de’ Medici of Florence, who had previously
shielded him, facilitated Carnesecchi’s arrest and transfer to Rome at the
end of June 1566.34 The Inquisition had more evidence with which to
29
See Fragnito, Gasparo Contarini, pp. 307–364, especially 342–346. Morone’s great
scheme for the rehabilitation in print of his dead friends had hit the buffers. Paolo Manuzio
had already closed up shop in Rome. Banned by the Inquisition, Contarini’s works were
eventually revised and issued in a Venetian edition in 1578.
30
See Angelo Mercati, I costituti di Niccolò Franco (1568–1571) dinanzi L’Inquisizione
di Roma, esistenti nell’ Archivio Segreto Vaticano (Vatican City, 1955).
31
See Mercati, Niccolò Franco, pp. 14–15 especially n. 18 and pp. 30ff. Franco had
been tempted to defend Morone during the 1565/1566 conclave in the face of pasquinate
about the Milanese cardinal, see pp. 30–32. See also Fragnito, Gasparo Contarini, pp. 357–
358, who sees Morone’s attitude here as part of his general caution after his release in 1559.
32
See Fragnito, Gasparo Contarini, p. 358.
33
On Carnesecchi and his processo see inter alia Massimo Firpo, ‘Il processo
inquisitoriale contro Pietro Carnesecchi (1566–67): Una proposta di interpretazione’, and
‘La ripresa del processo contro Giovanni Morone sotto Pio V’, both now in Inquisizione
romana, pp. 449–469 and 471–536 respectively; ‘Marantonio Flaminio, Pietro Carnesecchi
e la questione eucaristica’ (with Dario Marcatto) and ‘Teologia, storia e politica nell’ ultimo
processo inquisitoriale di Pietro Carnesecchi (1566–67)’, both now in ‘Disputar di cose
pertinente alla fede’, pp. 209–226 and 227–246 respectively; and especially PC. See also
the analysis by Christopher Black of what he calls ‘the Carnesecchi moment’, The Italian
Inquisition, pp. 123–130.
34
Arrested on 22 June 1566, Carnesecchi arrived in Rome the night of 3/4 July, Firpo
and Marcatto, PC II/I, pp. xv–xxiii. On Cosimo de’ Medici’s volte-face, see Firpo, ‘Disputar
de’ cose pertinente alla fede’, pp. 243–246, and Firpo and Marcatto, PC, II/I, pp. xv–xix.
attack following the sequestration of Carnesecchi’s correspondence with

Giulia Gonzaga after her death in the April.35 Moreover, in the bull Inter
multiplices curas issued later the same year, the pope ominously signalled
his resolve to revisit past judicial processes, whatever their outcome and
whoever had authorized it.36
Over the course of the subsequent 13 months, Carnesecchi was
questioned a staggering 119 times, twice with the additional encouragement
of torture.37 This time there would be no escape.38 In August 1567, the
four cardinals dealing with his case issued their sentence of death.39 On
21 September, Carnesecchi was publicly condemned at a solemn auto de fe
at Santa Maria sopra Minerva along with some 16 others. Ten days later,
early on the morning of 1 October, he was beheaded at Ponte Sant’ Angelo
along with a Franciscan friar, Giulio Maresi, and their naked bodies
burnt. It was a wretched end for the former secretary to Clement VII, who
nevertheless comported himself well. It was the very day that the carafa
nephews were formally rehabilitated, thus trumpeting loudly and clearly
the turnabout that had occurred under Pius V.40
There seems little doubt that in the pursuit of Carnesecchi, the
Inquisition hoped to arm itself with more incriminating material for
another attempt to land the bigger fish of Morone.41 In fact, it seems
likely this was the only way that the Florentine could have saved himself.
Morone’s name crops up time after time during the course of Carnesecchi’s
processo and the Milanese cardinal hovers in the background as a sort of
hidden protagonist.42 This was particularly so as the processo progressed
towards its sad finale. On 6 August 1567, during one of the last interviews
undertaken with the accused, Carnesecchi was asked once again about
his contacts with Giovan Battista Scotti, the Bolognese heretic who had
35
PC, II/I, pp. xi–xiv.
36
Published December 1566, see Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 497–498.
37
Firpo, ‘Disputar di cose pertinente alla fede’, pp. 227–228. For an account of the
torture, see Firpo and Marcatto, PC, II/I, pp. lxxxix–xcix.
38
Carnesecchi’s predicament was not helped by his clandestine correspondence with
contacts outside of prison. He was subjected to a further processo within the main processo
for having transgressed the secrecy rules. See PC, II/I, pp. lxxi– lxxxix and the documentation
at II/III, pp. 1235–1360.
39
Sentence, PC, II/III, pp. 1363–1379. For a description of the last acts of the processo,
see Firpo and Marcatto, PC, II/I, pp. cxiv–cli.
40
Firpo and Marcatto, PC, II/I, pp. cxlvi–cli. See also Roman avviso 4 October 1567,
BAV, Urb. Lat. 1040, f. 458v mentioning Carnesecchi’s execution, the fact he was not
permitted to speak and noting the carafa nephews’ rehabilitation.
41
Amply demonstrated by Firpo and Marcatto; see Inquisizione romana, pp. 449–469,
for a summary of the thesis.
42
Per Firpo and Marcatto, PC, II/I, p. cxxiii.
testified during Morone’s processo.43 Santoro asked him about whether he

had written to Scotti. Carnesecchi replied (as he had previously) that he
did not recall having done so. Santoro asked him whether he recalled the
time when Morone was legate at Bologna and questioned the Florentine
on his comments about how lucky Scotti and others (quelli altri amici)
were to have such a man as legate, producing the letter to add weight
and sharpness to the line of attack. Carnesecchi admitted the letter was
his, but stated blandly that he had meant only that Morone was an ideal
person to undertake the task, given his humane prudence and Christian
charity. He added that it seemed experience had demonstrated that his
hopes had been well founded. It was all probably infuriatingly ambiguous
stuff for his interrogator.44
Pressed further as to whether he had written such sentiments because
Morone held heretical beliefs, Carnesecchi averred that he could not have
written in that sense since he did not know that Morone held any such
beliefs. Although it were true, he added, that he had held slight suspicions
that Morone was not far from holding to justification by faith (alone),
based on Morone’s time in Germany and his connection with Priuli and
Flaminio, it had been merely conjecture. In reality, he had heard nothing
from Morone himself to lead him to believe that the cardinal was anything
other than orthodox and Catholic.45 He later added how he held Morone
to be amongst the ‘buoni et sinceri’ Christians, a characteristically double-
handed testimony.
On 29 September 1567, the Florentine ambassador wrote of the
pending execution and the rumours circulating in Rome causing some
to wager that it would be a matter of weeks before Morone too was in
prison once again.46 Some days later, Babbi mentioned the theory that
Carnesecchi had been held alive for a further 10 days in the hope that he
might yet give up something on Morone and Pietrantonio Di Capua and
thus be spared the ultimate sanction.47 However, Carnesecchi never did,
either because there was nothing more to give, or out of commendable
and courageous loyalty to the two survivors from the era of the ecclesia
43
Firpo and Marcatto, PC, II/I, pp. cxxii–cxxv and text of the costituto, PC, II/III,
pp. 1221–1226.
44
PC, II/III, p. 1224.
45
PC, II/III, p. 1224. See also his earlier similar testimony at PC, II/II, pp. 686–687.
46
Cited by Firpo and Marcatto, PC, II/III, pp. cxlv–cxlvi. Interestingly, Francesco Babbi,
whilst unable to conceal his disdain for Carnesecchi, refers to Morone as ‘così cattolico’ and
notes the ‘grandissimo suspetto e gelosia’ of his enemies, indicative perhaps of the mixture of
motives for which some sought to bring the Milanese cardinal down.
47
Cited by Firpo and Marcatto, PC, II/I, pp. cxlix–cl.
viterbiensis and the Beneficio di Cristo.48 Carnesecchi himself had come to

understand the reality of how he represented a path to get at others living
and dead: ‘parte vivi et parte morti’ as he put it in one of his clandestine
letters from prison.49
Morone Survives, 1567–1572
Of course, when the Inquisition discovered that Carnesecchi had been

illicitly sending letters to contacts, they were keen to know whether
Morone had been one of the recipients. The Florentine firmly denied that
he had sought to make contact with any cardinals, in particular Morone
and Madruzzo, who were the two he presumed Santoro meant.50 However,
rumours of contact emerged in connection with Franco’s processo. In
1569, a cellmate alleged Franco had told him that Morone had secretly
contacted Carnesecchi to ascertain what the Florentine had said about
him and had received assurances in this regard. The following year, Franco
himself testified that Morone had received notice from Carnesecchi that
the Inquisition was asking about him and that Morone had lamented the
fact to colleagues in public.51
Franco’s testimony and the connected hearsay rather suggest that the
men did have contact. It also indicates robust and public indignation
on the part of Morone. Other pointers of his attitude can be traced in
respect of Carnesecchi’s brutal end. The Venetian, Paolo Tiepolo, reported
that Morone had sought permission from the pope to be excused from
attendance at the auto de fe of 21 September, the ground apparently being
the close friendship (stretta amicitia et conversatione) between him and the
Florentine. Both Tiepolo and Bernadino Pia, the Mantuan agent, mention
that in the preceding consistory the pope had urged all the cardinals to
attend. Apparently, Buoncompagni had been exempted because of a family
connection with one of the accused, but Morone had sought permission to
be away. Pia mentions that Morone had a sharp exchange with Cardinal
48
Carnesecchi did offer a few morsels in relation to Pole and Colonna, both by then
out of harm’s way. See Firpo and Marcatto, PC, II/I, pp. cxxv–cxxvi and the text of the
confessio, II/III, pp. 1228–1233.
49
See Carnesecchi to Bartolomeo Concini, 1–3 March 1567, PC, II/III, pp. 1257–1260
at 1259, and to Antonio del Migliore, 19 February 1567, PC, II/III, pp. 1247–1249 at 1247.
See Firpo and Marcatto on the discovery of this clandestine and illicit correspondence and
its import, PC, II/I, pp. lxxi–lxxxix. Aside from landing the Florentine further in trouble, this
material is of particular interest as one might cautiously ascribe to it a degree of unguarded
frankness.
50
Firpo and Marcatto, PC, II/I, lxxxiii. Costituto 10 March 1567, PC, II/III, pp. 1281–
1282 at 1282.
51
Mercati, Niccolò Franco, pp. 132–133 and Firpo and Marcato, PC, II/I, lxxxiii.
Giovan Francesco Gambara, a member of the Holy Office, and had opted
to be out of town for a change of air (a mutar aria), comments suggestive
of dismay and disgust at the turn of events and contempt for elements in
the Holy Office.52
Babbi mentioned Morone’s absence in a report of 29 September and how
the cardinal wanted to remain away at his nearby suburbicarian diocese,
wishing to avoid the unfolding tragedy.53 Eleven days later, Babbi spoke
again of the matter and speculated about whether the cardinal would have
preferred exile from court for the duration of the entire papacy, recalling
Morone’s unsuccessful efforts to obtain permission to go to Modena.54
It seems clear that Morone did not want anything to do with the events
unfolding at Rome that autumn of 1567 and, whether with the leave of
the pope or otherwise, had decamped to his suburbicarian diocese of
Portuenses and Santa Rufina, which was not one of the plum jobs and not
a location cardinals normally rushed to visit. Could he have done anything
to save his friend: almost certainly not. However, his desire to be absent
from Rome was a gesture of his disapproval of the regime, which, in the
eyes of some, sought to burn Christians as if they were wood.55
Manifestly, Morone’s own situation was parlous. After Carnesecchi’s
arrest, Babbi had reported that he had heard of the cardinal’s consternation
and that ‘… è restato confuso e mezzo morte’ because of his links with the
Florentine and Giulia Gonzaga. Babbi later heard that Morone told Pius
V that he was ready to go back to prison if the pope wished, but that he
had received assurances.56 This seems a little far-fetched. Probably closer
to the mark was the snippet that another Florentine, Averardo Serristori,
passed on that same month. In the context of a discussion about future
conclaves, Cardinal Pacheco had apparently told him that Morone was
ruined. Serristori had the distinct impression that a new investigation was
under way in respect of Morone as well, and he stated that he had been
52
Morone, ‘… fece dir cinquanta paroline a Gambara et a tutta la menantaria’, see
Firpo and Marcatto, PC, II/I, pp. cxxxix–cxlii.
53
Morone, ‘… il quale se ne sta qua a certi luogi del suo vescovato di Porto, e non è
voluto tornar qui a questa tragedia e mancho alle cose del cardinale Caraffa’. Cited Firpo and
Marcatto, PC, II/I, p. cxlvi.
54
Cited Firpo and Marcatto, PC, II/I, p. cl. In a bitter twist of the knife, Morone
was only permitted to go to Modena the following year to stamp down on the remnants of
heretical elements in the city, see Bianco, ‘La communità dei “fratelli”’, especially pp. 622–624
and 673–675, and Inquisizione romana, pp. 514–515. Did Pius perhaps hope that Morone
would compromise himself once again in his actions as he had in the early 1540s? The brief on
Modena matters, dated 10 February 1568 is in ASV, Conc. Trid. 94, f. 191rv.
55
Thus the words of a pasquinata, cited by Firpo, Inquisizione romana, p. 495.
Although whether it was a fair summation is debatable; see Black, The Italian Inquisition.
56
On further alleged obsequious overtures by Morone to Pius V, see Firpo, Inquisizione
romana, pp. 496–497.
with the cardinal some days previously and that Morone had seemed out
of sorts (rimesso), though he could not say whether it was because he was
suffering illness (d’un poco di male) or for some other reason. The very
same month, Morone’s former co-worker at Innsbruck, Cardinal Zaccaria
Delfino, wrote of how the Inquisition sought to reopen the processo against
Morone and to ensure he was unlikely to be papabile again.57
While Morone still felt sufficiently strong to register disapproval, he
also clearly felt some discomfort in the face of the new interest being taken
in his case.58 For their part, following the fright of Morone’s near election
in 1565, the Holy Office sought to ruin the cardinal’s chances once and
for all. Early in Pius V’s reign, Santoro, or someone at his behest, compiled
the so-called Compendium, a sort of summary of the Holy Office’s case
against Morone and against a host of important figures both living and
dead. This was an important indication of the Inquisition’s hopes of
reopening Morone’s case or at least of revisiting the result.59 Important
too were the numerous other processi either reopened or instigated during
these years. Besides Carnesecchi’s, notable was that of Endimio Calandra,
one time secretary to Ercole Gonzaga, who testified adversely in respect of
numerous members of the spirituali including Morone, partly on the basis
of discussions he (Calandra) had held in the late 1550s with Carnesecchi
and Pietro Gelido.60
Next up to the plate seems to have been Di Capua, recalled to Rome in
1568 and who possibly made a deal with the authorities to testify about
others.61 Then came the arrests of Franco and Alessandro Pallantieri.62
Going on all the while was the interminable processo against Carranza: in
Spain from 1559–1566 and then in Rome until its conclusion in 1576. In
January 1570, Pius V’s enmity towards Morone appears to have become
open, with disparaging comments about the Milanese cardinal being made
57
See Firpo and Marcatto, PC, II/I, pp. xxvi–xxviii
58
Tittle-tattle even linked Morone with an alleged plot to bump Pius off, see Fragnito,
Gasparo Contarini, p. 327 and the letter of Vincenzo Parpaglia to Beccadeli of 24 May
1566, reproduced at 365–366. See also, Firpo, Inquisizione romana, p. 497. Additionally,
Fragnito discusses the spiriting away of a chest of Pole’s writings, see Gasparo Contarini, pp.
326–330. The Inquisition certainly had an interest in the whereabouts of Pole’s manuscripts;
see for example PC, II/II, pp. 868–869.
59
Per Firpo, Inquisizione romana, p. 499
60
Inquisizione romana, pp. 503–510, especially 505–506. See Pagano, Endimio
Calandra, pp. 294–296, 308–311 and 344. Calandra spoke of almost all the major figures
counted amongst the spirituali or linked to them, ranging from Pole and Morone to the
Colonna siblings, Giulia Gonzaga and Marguerite of Navarre.
61
Inquisizione romana, pp. 510–513. See also Marcatto, Di Capua, pp. 129–146.
Some suggest Di Capua’s pro-Rome stance at the last sessions of Trent was a ploy aimed at
rehabilitation, see p. 136.
62
The latter punished for his involvement in the trial of the carafa nephews.
to Madruzzo and repeated to Morone’s face soon afterwards, much to

Morone’s astonishment and dismay.63
Roughly contemporaneous with this open hostility was an initiative
undertaken by the Holy Office to get an expert opinion on certain aspects
of Morone’s processo. Documentation (disguised excerpts from the
processo including Morone’s Apologia) was sent to a panel of canonists
and theologians at Bologna, who were asked to rule on certain questions.
For the most part, they ruled against their unnamed subject, judging him
heretical or suspect in relation to the promotion of the Beneficio di Cristo,
the efficacy of sacramental Confession and good works, and in favouring
heretics. They were unimpressed with a defence that ran along the lines of
the accused not having had a good theological education, an argument that
Morone had often adopted.64 Furthermore, under Santoro’s supervision,
the Holy Office assembled another summary document, the Summarium
processus originalis, comprising extracts from the original processo.65
Nevertheless, despite the vigorous activity of the Holy Office, Morone
was never rearrested, nor was his processo ever formally reopened.
Probably to Pius’ bitter regret, Morone’s inextricable link to the Council
of Trent must have militated against such a course: his prestige for having
guided it to its conclusion and the potential scandal from any legal
proceedings against its last president outweighing any longing to bring
him down. Coupled to this was Morone’s acquittal, emphatically endorsed
by the then reigning pope and underwritten by the new one as a cardinal.66
The paradox about Morone’s discomfort at this time is that even Pius
utilized the cardinal’s diplomatic skills in the pursuance of papal policy.
Indeed, it led some contemporaries to posit an understanding between the
two men, an uneasy one perhaps, but one that nevertheless might also
have tended to preclude a reopening of the processo.67 In particular, Pius
involved Morone in the negotiations to secure the Holy League alliance,
the fruit of which was the victory over the Turkish fleet at the Battle of
Lepanto in October 1571.68
63
64
65
Critical edition of the Summarium, PM, VI.
66
So too Firpo, see Inquisizione romana, pp. 534–536.
67
See the 1568 notice of Ludovico Ceresuola about Pius’ public warmth towards
Morone and his desire to ‘… darle parte delle cose di Francia et di Spagna …’, cited by Firpo,
Inquisizione romana, p. 514. Pastor too believed that Pius sought Morone’s advice about
politics and reform and cites him as sitting on commissions for the reform of clergy in Rome
(1566) and the revision of the Vulgate (1569), see Pastor, XVII, pp. 81–82, 181 and 198.
However, Firpo suspects the accuracy of Ceresuola’s upbeat assessment of the Morone–Pius
relationship.
68
See Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 315–369 at pp. 348–349. Also Pastor, XVIII,
p. 383.
Moreover, despite the best endeavours of the Holy Office, not enough
new material surfaced in reality. Carnesecchi, like Domenico Morando
before him, had declined to sing the song they had wanted despite terrible
promptings. Others such as Franco had also failed to incriminate the
Milanese cardinal. There had been some new testimony, like that which
had emerged from Carranza’s processo in Spain.69 However, Calandra, at
first sight a rich seam, had not in fact provided information with which
to land particularly telling blows.70 The Bolognese experts had been
condemnatory, but not without reservations. It was not enough. What
had amounted to almost a second clandestine processo had also failed.
Morone survived.
Pius V died on 1 May 1572. As dean of the Sacred College, Morone
should again have had a high profile in the conclave, but he was not a
serious candidate this time around and he does not appear to have played
a decisive role in the election.71 In fact, it was an incredibly short conclave,
with the cardinals quickly selecting one of Pius IV’s appointments, Ugo
Buoncompagni.72 The election of Buoncompagni, who took the name of
Gregory XIII (1572–1585), probably came as a relief to Morone. They
had worked together at Trent and the election once again sent a signal of
change. The newly elected pope had not had a good relationship with his
predecessor, a fact that Cardinal Michele Bonelli (Pius V’s nephew) had
raised against his candidature.73 Whilst it was not exactly going to be a
return to the days of Paul III or Julius III, neither was the new pope in
the mould of his immediate predecessor, despite his future reaction to the
news of the St Bartholomew’s Day massacre.74 Like Pius IV, Gregory was
‘another man of the world’ with an illegitimate child.75
69
This was the testimony of Cardinal Francisco de Mendoza y Bobadilla (given in 1560
but lost, only to re-emerge anonymously in 1567), to the effect inter alia: that Morone had told
him the decree on justification would have to be changed – ‘Monsignor, vi dico a buona cera:
questo decreto de la iustificacione non può star’. See Inquisizione romana, pp. 517–519.
70
See Calandra’s testimony in Pagano, Endimio Calandra, pp. 294–296, 308–311 and
344.
71
Morone was impeded from fulfilling some of his duties as dean through poor health,
Cornelius Firmanus in his diary noting that on 13 May, Card. Augustus celebrated Mass
because ‘… Rmi Decani pedum infirmitate detenti …’ BAV, Vat. Lat. 12286, f. 4r.
72
As noted by Cornelius Firmanus, ‘Eadem die (that is the 13th May) circa horam xxiii
admirabili omnium Patrum consensu Rmus D. Hugo Boncompagnus … Rmi DD Cardinales
unanimos eumdem elegerunt in summum Pontificem …’ with Morone shortly thereafter
slipping a ring on the newly elected pontiff’s finger, BAV, Vat. Lat. 12286, f. 4r. Pastor, XIX,
pp. 11–15.
73
Pastor, XIX, p. 15.
74
Pastor, XIX, pp. 497–512. Inquisitional activity continued under Gregory though
not with the same intensity it seems, see Pastor, XIX, pp. 299–307 especially 301.
75
Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven and London,
1997), p. 170.
Diplomatic Missions and the English Question, 1563–1580
Morone’s prestige and diplomatic skills were also utilized by Gregory

XIII, the eighth and final pope he served. In March 1575, Morone was
dispatched to Genoa as the pope’s representative in efforts to resolve
constitutional wrangling amongst the Republic’s different social strata. A
purely secular dispute dating back to 1527, it had at times threatened
to descend into civil war. With characteristic perception of the needs of
the situation, Morone seems to have attempted to lower the temperature
before assisting (along with representatives from Spain and the emperor)
in the negotiations to resolve matters.76 The task kept him in Genoa for
almost exactly a year and he returned to Rome on 14 April 1576, to much
acclaim.77
There was, however, a sting in the tail of this warm welcome. At the
end of the month, Morone received his final legatine mission at the age
of 67. Entrusted with the task of representing the pope at the Diet of
Regensburg, he travelled one last time over the Alps, departing from
Rome on 27 April 1576 and arriving in Regensburg in June.78 Morone
remained in Germany until the following October, representing the pope
in negotiations about the Turkish threat and in matters relating to Poland,
the mission further complicated by the declining health and eventual death
of the emperor Maximilian. Morone was back in Rome on 17 November
1576 and reporting to the consistory two days later.79
Morone’s long association with British affairs likewise continued. After
Elizabeth’s accession, the Milanese cardinal had continued as cardinal
protector for the English and Irish: both a focus in Rome for British exiles
and an advisor to successive popes. He was probably behind Vincenzo
Parpaglia’s mission to England in 1560 to make overtures to the new
queen on behalf of Pius IV.80 Initial analysis of the English situation in
76
See Rodolfo Savelli, La repubblica oligarchica. Legislazione, istituzioni e ceti a
Genova nel Cinquecento (Milan, 1981), and Riccardo Fangarezzi, ‘Gli atti della legazione
genovese del Cardinale Giovanni Morone (1575–1576)’, ADSPPM, VII, 12 (1994/1995, ed.
1996): pp. 307–361.
77
See Fangarezzi (citing Scolpis), ‘Una cronologia’, at p. 252. On Morone’s welcome
in consistory, see NB, 3/8, pp. 550–551.
78
Pastor, XIX, pp. 344–346. Correspondence relating to the mission between Morone
and Cardinal Galli (Cardinal Como) and between the latter and the nuncio, Giovanni
Delfino, can be found in NB, 3/2 and 3/8 respectively. Galli noted the extremity of the step
of sending Morone in all the circumstances, in a letter to Delfino of 21 April 1576, NB,
3/8, pp. 554–556. It was both a sign of the pope’s concern about the diet and a mark of the
administration’s esteem for Morone.
79
NB, 3/2, p. 173.
80
Parpaglia set out from Rome in the May. See comments in J. H. Pollen, The English
Catholics in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth (London, 1920), p. 67, to the effect that it was
Pius’s pontificate seems to have been optimistic. Sources suggest that Pius
was being advised to make contact with Elizabeth and send one of the
English exiles to negotiate, though the pope and his advisors plumped
for Parpaglia.81 The following year, Pius sent Girolamo Martinengo to
England to invite representation at Trent. Neither diplomatic mission
came to anything, with neither man setting foot in England.82
The English issue also cropped up at Trent during Morone’s tenure of
the presidency. While the debate on Orders was creeping to its conclusion,
the issue of whether the council should make a formal declaration and
condemnation of Elizabeth was also under discussion both at Trent and in
Rome.83 Although, Morone and his colleagues do not seem to have really
given any strong view either way, Morone’s instinct to consult widely and
to have regard for the broader political realities proved a good one. Both
Ferdinand and Philip of Spain were against any such move and Rome
reluctantly agreed.84 The plight of the English exiles and those incarcerated
for the Catholic faith in England, particularly the surviving bishops, was
one that continued to concern Morone during the council and afterwards.85
Morone, Carpi and Madruzzo who had decided on this course.

81
An example of this line of advice is in A. O. Meyer, England and the Catholic Church
under Elizabeth (translated from the German by J. R. McKee, London, 1916), pp. 465–467
extracted from ASV, Arm. LXIV, 28, a fondo containing material relating to England, which
must have once been amongst Morone’s papers. Other versions of the advice can be found in
the fondo, at ff. 309r–310v and 353r–354v for example. The tenor of the memorial is that
negotiation would be preferable to force, a very Morone stance, although his authorship is
not definite. There is also the suggestion that more be made of the English hospice in view of
the arrival of exiled clergymen.
82
Jedin, Storia, IV/I, pp. 122–123. A letter from Martinengo to Morone, March 1561,
seeking advice about the missions with some annotations, apparently by Morone and a copy
of the instructions given to Martinengo in Rome are edited in A. O. Meyer, England and
the Catholic Church under Elizabeth (London, 1916), pp. 467–471. A nuncio also went to
Scotland the same year.
83
Rome was inclined towards a condemnation and so too were some English exiles.
See Borromeo to the legates, 2 June 1563, Šusta, IV, pp. 48–49 at 49 and Meyer, England
and the Catholic Church, pp. 51 and 471, Morone and the legates separately to Borromeo,
21 June 1563, Constant, pp. 176–177 at 176, Šusta, IV, p. 87, and in Meyer, England and
the Catholic Church, p. 471. See Meyer, England and the Catholic Church, pp. 50–54 and
J. H. Pollen, The English Catholics in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth: A Study of their Politics,
Civil Life and Government (London, 1920), pp. 76–78.
84
See Morone to Borromeo, 28 June 1563, Constant, pp. 186–187, Borromeo to the
legates, 30 June, 5–6, 10 and 17 July 1563, Šusta, IV, pp. 113, 117, 127 and 139, and the
legates to Borromeo, 7–8 July 1563, Šusta, IV, pp. 110–113 at 111. See Meyer, England and
the Catholic Church pp. 52 and 472–474.
85
See Morone to Borromeo, 9 August 1563, Constant, p. 225 wherein Morone asks
that assistance be rendered to English exiles and prisoners. See also the legates’ letter to
Borromeo, 27 September 1563, Šusta, IV, pp. 272–275 at 274. All but one of the Marian
bishops rejected Elizabeth’s 1559 settlement. Of these, Goldwell and Cuthbert Scot opted for
exile. Scot soon died. The other Marian bishops were either dead or enduring varying degrees
The issue of a condemnation and excommunication of Elizabeth

remained a possibility although Pius IV and Morone seem to have
harboured hopes that diplomatic contact, formal or otherwise, would bear
fruit.86 Of course, their estimation of Elizabeth’s attitude was hopelessly
over-optimistic. Perhaps Morone looked back to the mission of Pole and
held in mind the thought that since the country had reverted to Catholicism
once, it could and would do so again in time. Pius V did not immediately
throw the gears into reverse, although he did formally confirm the decision
banning English Catholics from attendance at Protestant services, thus
cementing the rise of recusancy.87 However, in the wake of the rebellion of
the northern earls in 1569 and the renewed requests for papal intervention,
Pius V gave the green light to the process of excommunication, which was
quickly accomplished in the first months of 1570.88
Pius V did not take the trouble to test the proposal through diplomatic
channels as had occurred during his predecessor’s reign at the instigation
of Morone and others. Predictably enough, Philip and the emperor (by
then Maximillian II) were not impressed. It is reasonable to assume that
Morone would not have been in accord with Pius’ actions at least in that
respect. Morone’s view of the essence of the decision is harder to assess,
as is whether he was specifically consulted about it.89 The Elizabeth issue
occurred at possibly the most wintry period of Morone’s relationship with
Pius. Did this add to the tensions? Was Pius dismayed by the advice he
received from Morone over England? On the other hand, before the year
was out, he was utilizing Morone’s skills in pursuit of the Holy League.
What is certain is that as time elapsed after the excommunication
interested parties began to ask whether it might not be possible to review
the decision. Predictably, it provoked objections from the more hawkish
of confinement in England. At one point, it was proposed that the pope appoint new bishops
from amongst the exiles to fill vacant sees, with these men attending the council alongside
Goldwell, and taking part in discussions about English affairs. See ASV, Arm. LXVI, 28, ff.
175r–176v and Pollen, The English Catholics, pp. 76–77. The proposal came to nothing.
86
See Pollen, The English Catholics, pp. 79–83 and Meyer, England and the Catholic
Church, pp. 55–56.
87
See Christoper Haigh, English Reformations: Religion, Politics and Society under
the Tudors (Oxford, 1993), p. 259 and Pollen, The English Catholics, p. 143.
88
Haigh, English Reformations, pp. 257–260, Meyer, England and the Catholic
Church, pp. 73–78, Pollen, The English Catholics, pp. 118–159. The cause was opened in
Rome on 5 February 1570 and the bull, Regnans in excelsis, dated 5 March.
89
There are indications that Morone was involved in discussions about England in
the light of the rebellion and with regard to what assistance might be given to the English,
see CSP, Venetian, vol. 7, # 463, report of Michael Surian, Venetian Ambassador at Rome,
5 November 1569.
elements.90 An undated memorial drawn up probably for Gregory XIII

and possibly by or for Morone, argues for a more subtle approach to the
English problem.91 The author mentions how he has advised previous popes
on English affairs, but that unfortunately his advice has proved ineffective.
The memorial, which is in Italian, goes on to argue how another approach
might bear more fruit.92 It mentions the obstacles to an understanding with
Elizabeth, including the decision of Clement VII against Henry VIII and
the condemnations issued by Paul III and Pius V. It then goes on to suggest
that it should be put to Elizabeth that the best way of securing her throne
in the face of the perceived threat from Mary Queen of Scots would be to
submit to the Holy See and to marry.93 The author then suggests that the
queen might be open to this line of argument in the same way that Henry
VII legitimized his standing through marriage and the recognition of the
Holy See, having taken the throne ‘con la spada’. The advice concludes
by stating that the knock-on effect might be the pacification of the rebels
against Spanish rule in the Low Countries, but the author notes the need to
have Cecil on board otherwise the business would be ‘quasi impossibile’.94
Whatever its origin, it seems highly probable that Morone would have
been in accord with it.
In May 1579, Morone was formally appointed protector of the newly
formed English College. He had been involved in the process by which
the old hospice for pilgrims and then exiles gradually became a college
for students for the priesthood from 1577.95 The same year (February/
March 1579), he tried to resolve a dispute and quasi-rebellion involving
the students and the rector, a Welshman, over the rector’s treatment of
the English students. Several accounts of the episode survive, none more
intriguing than that written by Anthony Munday, an interloper at the
90
There is an undated but clearly post 1570 letter in ASV, Arm. LXIV, 28 ff. 144r–145v,
addressed to a prelate (Morone it seems reasonable to assume) mentioning the advisability of
lifting the excommunication against Elizabeth. The author mentions that it is being aired in
Rome with the idea that the pope should send someone to England to negotiate. The author
clearly holds the reverse opinion and says that it is up to Elizabeth to come creeping back,
begging forgiveness and that it would only encourage her arrogance and pride.
91
ASV, Arm. LXIV, 28 ff. 172r–174v, entitled ‘Discorso sopra la redutt.ne d’Ingl.rra’.
92
‘Beat.me Pater, Havendo io visto, che li modi, quali ho propositi a due Predecessori
di V. B.ne per la reduttione del Regno d’ Ingl.ra alla fede Catt.ca non hanno havuto quel buon
esito, che si desiderava; suppl.co quanto (più) humilm.te posso La S.ta V. … di tentar un’ altra
strada, la quale non mi par tanto difficile …’ ASV, Arm. LXIV, 28, f. 172r.
93
‘… detta Reg.a fosse persuad dil Re’ Catt.co con il quale ha fatto qualche accordo, ch
ella potrebbe facil.te assicurarsi, et il regno suo con rimettersi all’ obediebtia della santa se.
Ap.ca et maritarsi con qualche prossimo dil sangue reale …’, ASV, Arm. LXIV, 28, f. 172v.
94
ASV, Arm. LXIV, 28, f. 173v.
95
See Michael E. Williams, The Venerable English College Rome: A History 1579–
1979 (London, 1979), pp. 3–5.
college feigning attachment to Catholicism, who wrote an account of life

there after his return to England.96 Morone’s sympathies seem to have lain
with the rector, Dr. Morris (Maurice or even Morus) Clenocke (Clynnog).
However, in this penultimate year of his life, his negotiating abilities for
once failed and he was outflanked by the students who won the sympathy
of the pope.97 Clenocke was replaced by a Jesuit, as the students seemed
to have wished. The pope placed the existence of the college for students
to the priesthood on a more formal footing in the May with the bull
Quoniam divinae bonitati.98 Morone remained protector until his death
the following year.99
The Tridentine Bishop, Morone’s Pastoral Activity, 1565–1580
Of his pastoral commitments during his last years, Modena, back in

Morone’s care from September 1564, once again featured prominently.
Although largely prevented from residing there, he did his best to govern
it in the spirit of the Tridentine reform.100 He organized a visitation of
the diocese in 1565 and further ones appear to have been carried out in
1569 and 1570, the latter two by Gasparo Sillingardi (Morone’s vicar) and
Alberto Mansoli, O.P., respectively.101 Morone also held synods for the
96
See Philip J. Ayres (ed.), Anthony Munday: The English Roman Life (Oxford, 1980),
especially pp. 79–94 on the Roman dispute.
97
Munday asserted that the ‘Welsh doctors’ had been in Rome longer and that thus
Morone had known them for longer, Ayres, Anthony Munday, p. 79. See also Williams, The
Venerable English College, p. 5.
98
An English text of bull is in Williams, The Venerable English College, pp. 209–219.
99
Morone’s own papers relating to the English hospice and (later) college are in
BAV, Vat. Lat. 12159. Morone was also consulted in respect of the foundation of a similar
institution for the Scots, see ASV, Arm. LXIV 28, ff. 33r–34v, and a letter from the Bishop
of Rosen (John Leslie of Ross?) to Morone, 9th November 1579. It was eventually founded
in 1600.
100
For example, ASV, Arch. Consist., Acta Misc. 12, f. 42r, recounts a consistory of 23
January 1566, during which Morone and others were released by the pope from their duty
to reside. Of course, this was precisely why some had sought a declaration of residence as a
matter of ius divinum.
101
Reports of the visitations can be found amongst Morone papers in ASV, Conc. Trid.
94, ff. 76r–97v (1565), 137r–161v (dated 17 September 1570) and 162r–174v (1569). See
also Maria Teresa Rebucci, ‘Le visite pastorali dei Vescovi di Modena: Giovanni Morone
e Sisto Visdomini’, ADSPPM, X, III (1968): pp. 103–116, especially 103/4, and Giuseppe
Pistoni, ‘Le visite pastorali a Modena nel secolo decimosesto’, Memorie dell’ Academia
Nazionale di Scienze, lettere e arti, VI, XV (1973): pp. 111–116. Rebucci does not include
the 1570 visitation in her article, but why is unclear. Pistoni does refer to the 1570 visitation,
but also attributes another from 1563 to Morone, a clear error in dating or attribution. The
exact picture of Morone’s pastoral activity after Trent in Modena could do with further
clarification. Also of interest in ASV, Conc. Trid. 94 (ff. 98r–121v), is what appears to be
diocese in 1565 and 1568. A synod, held over two days (3/4 September),
and a visitation within 12 months of taking up control of the diocese
again, were not bad going, although perhaps only to be expected from the
shepherd of the Tridentine reform.102 Indeed, Morone utilized the 1565
synod very much as a follow up to the council referring to its canons
and decrees in his keynote address.103 In accordance with the Tridentine
directive on establishing seminaries, the synod resolved to commission a
feasibility study with a view to the foundation of such an institution at
Modena.104 The resulting canons from the synod included directives on
residence, on preaching and catechetical instruction and on the literature
that the clergy should possess and read (including a copy of the decrees and
canons of Trent as well as scripture, commentaries and patristic texts).105
The diocesan seminary was established the following year.
In 1570, Morone, as the senior cardinal, became Bishop of Velletri
and Ostia.106 Although evidence of pastoral activity in his previous
suburbicarian sees is scant, his 10-year stint in charge of Velletri and Ostia
was more productive. In April 1571, he made his first visit to Velletri.107
Morone’s practical good sense shines through a number of the more
secular initiatives he ordered or sponsored while he had responsibility
a visitation record for the diocese of Verona, dating from Giberti’s time and addressed to
Morone (‘Al Rv.mo Monsignor di Modena’), which includes indications of some of the areas
to which a visitor should pay attention (ff. 100r–101v). This suggests (a little speculatively
based on the juxtaposition of the documents) that it may have been a blueprint for visitations
carried out on Morone’s behalf. As such, it would show in a striking fashion the extent of
the influence of the Giberti Verona experience, thus extending from the 1530s the length of
the so-called Catholic reform movement and into the post-Conciliar period, highlighting a
certain continuity that is precisely the battleground in some of the scholarly literature.
102
Even Morone was unable to fulfil the letter of the law and hold annual synods.
103
See Giuseppe Russo, ‘Il primo Sinodo modenese dopo il Concilio di Trento’,
ADSPPM, X, III (1968): pp. 117–124.
104
Russo, ‘Il primo Sinodo’, pp. 119–120.
105
Russo, ‘Il primo Sinodo’, pp. 122–123. Russo also highlights a chapter on peace-
making and the role of the clergy in facilitating and restoring peaceful coexistence in the
community, see Russo, ‘Il primo Sinodo’, p. 124. On this theme see, John Bossy, Peace in
the Post-Reformation (Cambridge, 1998). On other provisions of the synodal legislation,
see Riccardo Fangarezzi, ‘La moralità del clero e il cardinal Morone in un capitolo del
sinodo modenese del 1565’, ADSPPM, XI, XIII (1991): pp. 107–124. Of interest also are the
observations of Pistoni in respect of Morone’s attitude to the laity. In ‘Morone cittadino di
Modena’, pp. 43–44, Pistoni mentions Morone’s apparent concern that the laity be familiar
with the provisions of Trent and that he urged their attendance at the synod of 1565. He also
draws attention to Morone’s admonition to his clergy to make use of the laity in the provision
of charitable works.
106
4 July 1570. ASV, Arch. Consist., Acta Misc. 13, f. 7v.
107
See Alessandro Borgia, Istoria della chiesa e città di Velletri (Nocera, 1723), Libro
Quarto, p. 446. Morone’s responsibility for this territory was not limited to the religious
sphere.
for the territory.108 Nor were the spiritual needs of the diocese neglected
and he held at least one synod in 1573, the first since Trent.109 Items in
the resulting constitutions included instructions on preaching and on the
provision of Catechesis to children between the ages of seven and 16, at
least every Sunday, making use of suitable aliquos viros probos in the task.
This seems to be another instance of the cardinal’s willingness to ease the
burdens of the clergy with the inclusion of laity.110 A seminary for the
diocese seems to have been established before the end of the Cinquecento,
but whether it should be attributed to Morone or one of his successors is
unclear.111
The Twilight of a Career
Doubtless there was some slackening in Morone’s activity and influence

towards the end of his life, but it seems far from true to suppose that
he was an isolated and disconsolate figure during Gregory’s reign.112 A
memorial from a diplomat, dating from February 1574, discusses the
outlook and concerns of Gregory, his court and the College of Cardinals.113
Morone’s name features prominently. After ruminating about the pope’s
character, outlook and family, the author mentions how he (the pope)
‘Differisce assai alla prudenza di Morone et nella cose ardue chiama lui,
108
See Borgia, Istoria, IV, pp. 448–449.
109
See the reference to the synod and the promulgation of its constitutions in Enzo
Petrucci, ‘Vescovi e cura d’anime nel Lazio (sec. XIII–XV)’, in Giuseppina de Sandre
Gasparini et al. (eds), Vescovi e diocesi in Italia Dal 14 alla metà del 16 Secolo, Atti del VII
convegno di storia della chiesa in Italia Brescia 21–25 settembre 1987 (Italia Sacra 43/1 of
2, Rome, 1990), pp. 429–546, at pp. 454–455 especially nn. 80 and 82, and p. 510 n. 269.
110
See the citations from the constitutions by Petrucci, ‘Vescovi e cura d’anime’, p.
510 n. 269. It seems likely that the constitutions for Velletri resembled those from the first
Modenese synod of 1565.
111
Conflicting information can be found in Chiabò et al., Le diocesi suburbicarie.
References to Morone founding the seminary in either 1573 or 1575 can be found on pp.
71 and 75, nn. 32 and 36 respectively. However, the latter also lists Alfonso Gesualdo as the
founder in 1592. Confusingly, there is already a reference to a seminary in the first recorded
ad limina report in 1590 under Giovanni Antonio Serbelloni – p. 29 n. 1. To further muddy
the waters, Christopher Black lists the foundation of the seminary as 1570 in the appendix
to Church, Religion and Society in Early Modern Italy (Basingstoke, 2004), p. 248. Morone
may have opened a seminary, which later foundered or stuttered and was re-established.
112
Was he the last of the spirituali? Certainly, by 1579, at the age of 70, he was the
last of his ilk and necessarily a survivor from a bygone age. By then Beccadelli and Gheri
had died. Firpo tends to emphasize Morone’s isolation at the end of his life, see for example
Inquisizione romana, pp. 52–53, but is he unduly negative in his assessment?
113
Published as an appendix in Pastor, XIX, pp. 569–582.
Farnese et Santa Croce …’.114 A little later, Morone is mentioned as having

been influential in the appointment of an administrator for Rome and
the government of the city seems to have been ‘… alquanto adolcito et
temperato da quell’ aspro rigore che era …’, a change with which Morone
was surely in agreement.115 In fact, Morone seems to have had influence
both with the pope and with Cardinal Tolomeo Galli, his Secretary of
State, who had been private secretary to Pius IV.116
As one would expect, Morone is mentioned as a member of several of
the congregations of cardinals: including those pertaining to the council,
to German affairs, to the jubilee (1575), issues of reform and to areas
of foreign policy such as petitions from princes and ‘negotii de stati’. At
least two of the congregations (conciliar and German matters) regularly
met chez Morone according to the memorial and it is clear that the dean
was not merely making up the numbers for these standing committees.117
A 1579 report from Rome to the Duke of Mantua equally testifies to
Morone’s status in the administration even at this stage of his life: clearly
still a member of the inner circle.118 As late as this, however fanciful it
might have been, Morone’s name was first on the list of those whom
the author considered papabile.119 A rediscovered picture of the cardinal
probably dating from these years, and indeed the only portrait of its kind
of Morone, rather suggests lively, shrewd intelligence and the wisdom of
years with its querulous eyes and the grey beard, lines and sagging flesh
of old age.120
However, Morone was not to take part in another conclave. In the early
hours of 1 December 1580 he passed away, having two days previously,
with crucifix in hand, professed his continuous desire to live and die in the
unity of the faith and verbally to have sought to make peace with anyone
114
He (Gregory) ‘… much defers to the prudence of Morone and in difficult matters
calls on him, Farnese and Santa Croce …’ Pastor, XIX, p. 575. See also the comments at
p. 580 on Morone’s character and qualities as, ‘… intendente et molto prattico della attioni
di stato et di commune consentimento havuto per i primi del collegio, et tutte le cose difficili
et faticose che occorreno segli adossano a lui’.
115
‘… somewhat sweetened and temperate than that severe rigour that was …’, Pastor,
XIX, p. 577.
116
Pastor, XIX, p. 580.
117
Pastor, XIX, pp. 578–579.
118
‘… pochissimi sono quelli che partecipano de pensieri et secreti suoi (the pope’s)
et levatone Morone, Altemps et Como et Signor Giacomo et in alcune cose Madruzzo …’,
Orazio Scozia to Duke of Mantua, Rome, 17 January 1579, cited by Pastor, XIX, pp. 586–
588 at 586. See also the comments of the Venetian Ambassador cited by Firpo, Inquisizione
romana, p. 349.
119
Pastor, XIX, p. 588.
120
See Pancheri, ‘Scipione Pulzone’, especially p. 265 where it is reproduced.
who might have doubted him in this regard.121 In consistory on 5 December,

the pope paid tribute to the dead cardinal, but then things moved on as
is their way: the ranks closed up and Farnese took over at the head of the
Sacred College.122 As the Consistorial Acta note, Morone was buried in
Santa Maria sopra Minerva with a characteristically simple grave, marked
by a slab inscribed with a reference to his work at the council.123
121
Pastor, XIX, p. 590 and Firpo, Inquisizione romana, pp. 535–536.
122
ASV, Arch. Consist., Acta Camerarii 11, f. 345v–346r. There is a brief obituary and
mention of his final resting place at f. 347r.
123
His grave lies in the floor, about halfway up the right-hand side aisle walking
towards the High Altar, adjacent to the Chapel of the Annunciation. The inscription has
become somewhat worn by the feet of pilgrims and tourists in the intervening years. D.O.M.
Hic iacet corpvs, Ioannes Cardinalis Moroni, Patritii Mediolanensis, Et episcopi
Ostiensis, Qui fvit legatvs apostolicvs, In sacro concilio Tridentino et praeses. Vixit
annos septvagintavnum , M enses decem dies qvinqve , E t in cardinalatv , T rigintaocto
menses sex , R ogate D eum pro eo .
Conclusion
… et voleva morir in quella [la chiesa], sottomettendo sempre alla correttion

sua non solo ogni mia actione, ma ogni parere et sentimento, non essendomi
con la voluntà mai partito da essa … con l’aiuto di Dio...essendo certissimo che
nissuno si può salvare fuori di questa santa romana chiesa, come nel diluvio
universal nissuno fu salvato fuori dell’arca di Noè …1
Reforming Bishop, Papal Diplomat, Suspect Heretic and Presiding Legate

at the Council of Trent
The aim of this book was a re-evaluation of Morone’s life and career in
the light of recent scholarly developments, precisely because it was an
opportune moment for such a study of this lesser known but important
sixteenth-century figure. The goal has been the retrieval of a fuller,
balanced picture of this enigmatic man – cupo e coperto, as Carnesecchi
described him – encompassing more than one aspect of his religious and
human experience, and uniting the different phases of his career. Previous
consideration of much of the source material has been with an incidental
interest in Morone. My intention has been to examine the material precisely
qua Morone in a way never undertaken before. But which Morone
emerges? As the subtitle suggests, there are perhaps several possibilities.2
Contradictions exist with regard to Morone’s putative status as a
reforming bishop. In some respects he settles neatly into Barbara McClung
Hallman’s thesis that nothing really changes that much over the course
of the Tridentine period in relation to the treatment of church office as
property.3 On the other hand, Morone was ordained and consecrated
for Modena and recognized the importance of personal residence and
exercise of office, both in terms of government and the administration of
1
‘…And [I] desire[d] to die in that [the Church], submitting always to her correction
not only my every action, but every opinion and sentiment, not willingly wishing myself to
be parted from her ever … with the help of God … being most certain that no one is able to
be saved outside of this holy Roman Church, just as in the universal flood no one was saved
outside of Noah’s ark …’, Morone, Apologia, PM, II, p. 448.
2
This subheading reflects in part the somewhat unwieldy title of my doctoral thesis, so
constructed to emphasize the point that Morone’s career can be viewed under different lenses.
3
McClung Hallman, Italian Cardinals.
the Sacraments. That he was largely unable to fulfil it was not his fault.
He was scooped up by an administrative machine in need of competent
officials, and which rewarded or remunerated them with ecclesiastical
office. Moreover, whilst his instinct was to encourage and adhere to
residence, he was not an absolutist and if the pope required service in
other ways for the good of the Church, then so be it. Such a stance caused
tensions with some of his closest collaborators.
Despite the caveats, Morone is entitled to his place amidst the reformer
bishops of the Tridentine period: ipso facto tending to corroborate the
scholarly category of Catholic Reform. He held similar views, applied
similar methods, and above all shared their concern for ecclesiastical
governance based on probity, rectitude and the salus animarum. Initially
conventional and centred on the restoration of ecclesiastical discipline,
his vision of reform gradually expanded to became more than a mere
tightening up. Elisabeth Gleason characterizes the spirit of reform as
shifting in the middle of the Cinquecento from being backwards focused,
to an orientation more to the needs of the future. Morone is very much a
part of this reorientation. Of course, the desire or striving for reform and
its realization are not equivalent.4
Two related things place Morone squarely in the firmament of
reformers: his support of the fledgling Jesuits and, above all, his concern for
education. The Germanicum must stand as one of his finest achievements
in this regard, both in its own right and as a key contribution to the
quest for improvement in the Church that led to the Tridentine seminary
legislation, still acclaimed despite the recognized slowness and patchiness
of its implementation, as one of the most far-reaching items of the council’s
reform legislation and a constituent element of early modern Catholicism.5
It is fitting that there is a painting in the Germanicum (now the Pontificium
Collegium Germanicum et Hungaricum) depicting Morone standing next
to St Ignatius Loyola as co-founder of the college.6
Morone’s realization of the need for improved education was partially
born of his experience travelling. The older studies have often briefly
highlighted the image of the cardinal as the papal diplomat. I have sought
both to achieve a fuller, more personal reconsideration of his diplomatic
experience, as well as connecting it more concretely to the critical themes
of his career – council, negotiation rather than conflict, reform and renewal
in the Church, unity under the pope in the ‘santa romana chiesa’.
4
Gleason, ‘Catholic Reformation’. For a recent tilt at the achievements of the so-called
Catholic Reform, see Firpo, Soranzo, pp. 502–511.
5
See the comments of Hans Küng, My Struggle for Freedom (London, 2003), pp. 46–47.
6
See the reproduction and discussion of the painting in L’uomo del concilio, pp. 162–
163.
Conclusion 217
One of the great constants of his life, the extent of his diplomatic
career is extraordinary, taking in so many of the key events of the century,
and exposing him to numerous important figures, both Protestant and
Catholic. It is in connection with his diplomatic activity that some of the
characteristic traits of Morone’s personality are revealed, whether virtues,
weaknesses or merely endearing human foibles. Through the dispatches,
we glimpse his humility, his perceptiveness, his concern for the Church,
his willingness to resort to guile or enticements, his money concerns, his
family worries, his hatred of cold weather. He was a reluctant diplomat
and never let a good excuse pass without making use of it in argument
to Rome to obtain release from whatever mission he was undertaking.
Careful consideration of his dispatches reveals the skills he brought to
his task, both innate and learnt: his realism and pragmatic good sense,
subtlety and charm, acuity and perceptiveness. His inherent elusiveness
and inscrutability were probably accentuated by and certainly useful to his
career path (and in front of the Inquisition), but some of these skills and
traits carried the danger of leading others to mistrust him.
Despite his own reticence about travel, he readily saw the need for
personal, face-to-face contact to deal with problems on the ground. He
was annoyed in 1563 that he had not travelled to Innsbruck earlier and
later recommended sending a diplomat to Maximilian’s court because of
the growing importance of the emperor-in-waiting. He, himself, always
kept abreast of what was happening north of the Alps through regular
contact with the nuncios. Morone was part of the shift towards permanent
papal diplomatic representation abroad, a shift which cast the diplomat as
the representative and implementer of Tridentine papal policy in faraway
places. Morone both witnessed and contributed to this shift, characteristic
of the early modern era.
What is striking is the way that the spirituali or their satellites were
utilized on behalf of the papacy for diplomatic missions. Whether it was
because they were perceived as moderates, or reasonable, or imperialists
or simply adept at negotiating is hard to say with certainty. Over the
course of the Cinquecento, the spirituali were undoubtedly judged very
suitable as the acceptable face of papal policy in its presentation to the
wider world. Indeed, this study demonstrates Morone’s acute alertness
to the need for this positive presentation of the Church’s position and
he relentlessly championed better communication, or public relations
we might even say, grasping the potential of the relatively new media of
printing and the need for the Church to draw on all the expertise at its
disposal. Spin doctor? Perhaps not, but attuned to the challenges faced by
the Church in a changing world and certainly alert in an area where even
the twenty-first century papacy sometimes limps.
If assessments of Morone down the ages have tended to split: either

cheering the Catholic reformer and council president, or booing, for
whatever reason, the crypto-heretic and ‘nicodemite’, it is because Morone
was both the reformer and the suspected heretic. Whether the latter was
justified is another matter. Being suspected and being suspect do not amount
to the same thing. Here especially, the illusive Morone intrudes. What can
be established with certainty is that by the mid 1540s, the cardinal had
developed a Christo-centric religious outlook, which tended towards a
soteriology easily mistaken for a Lutheran position of justification ex sola
fide. By about 1541/1542, his views on justification accorded with those
of Contarini and therefore close to the position championed in vain by
Seripando at Trent. For Morone (and others), it was arguably a question
of concern for the right tone and emphasis in connection with the doctrine
of justification and the due place of charity was an important theme for
the spirituali. The cardinal’s attitude to the 1547 decree is perhaps tinged
with the regret widespread amongst the spirituali in the shadow of the
council’s adopted position. Morone’s self-confessed ‘quietissimo’ response
is ambiguous: pointing towards acceptance, but hinting at having to
actively work at it.
Firpo plays down the lack of theological clarity at this time. However, it
was evidently important for Morone’s self-understanding. Despite the best
efforts of the Inquisition, the view that there was legitimate theological
fluidity before the mid 1540s still seems coherent and is neither a modern
historiographical chimera, nor merely a sixteenth-century tactical
camouflage. It was on this basis that Morone tolerated and encouraged
mealtime debate during the wait for the council to open in 1543. Morone’s
point was then, and our view today might be, that judging him by an
orthodoxy established after the event lacks equity.
How much further matters should be pushed remains moot, recent
scholarship notwithstanding. There remains something unsatisfactory
about the processo and Morone’s supposed ‘seduction’ by Flaminio et al.
While some aspects of the evidence against him cannot readily be dismissed,
ambiguity lingers, partially created by Morone no doubt. However, the
‘seduction’ has been over-emphasized at the expense of Morone’s equally
important encounter with Contarini and the experience he had already
garnered on his diplomatic missions. The evidence for a sudden and
radical shift in his outlook in 1542 is insufficient. While indebted to the
excellent and detailed recent scholarship, I have, at times, drawn different
conclusions from the available evidence and allowed Morone’s own voice
greater prominence than has hitherto been the case.
Trent, above all else, is the great constant of Morone’s career, uniting
disparate aspects and providing the hermeneutical key for interpreting his
Conclusion 219
life.7 When the time came for him to play a leading role in the assembly,
he was tailor-made for the part. With his grasp of process, his feel for
establishing working relationships, his instinct for what was achievable
and what not, his patience and pragmatic flexibility, he skilfully guided
the ship to port. Although the tide had already turned in his favour,
there had still been a tremendous amount of work left to do when he
departed Rome in March 1563 and plenty of scope for things to go wrong.
Notwithstanding the perceived haste with which some matters were
treated, the passage of the reform legislation and the closure of the council
were great achievements.
For Morone, the general council was a constituent element in the
make-up of the ‘chiesa di Dio’, and he long believed that effective
renewal had to come from such an assembly as well as from the papacy.
Morone had a conciliar outlook, though not a conciliarist one in terms of
subjecting the pope to the council. Pope and council should not be split
he asserted to Ferdinand in April 1563, using his Contarini anecdote.
Perhaps this is a point of contact with the thought of Erasmus in terms of
an ecclesiology of consensus.8 Erasmus too has been judged as standing
between conciliarism and papalism.
However, Morone definitely had a more defined role for the papacy
in his conception of Church. His view of authority in this way was rather
traditional, conservative even, and he probably had a narrower view on the
matter than did his friend Pole. When it came to the dispute over marriage
in 1563, with the council fathers again divided and Morone unsure about
the issues, he wanted Peter to speak. He also anxiously defended what
he perceived as the rightful prerogatives of the pope in matters of reform
and subordinated the council’s decisions to papal confirmation. The origin
of such views is irretrievable. Perhaps it was his patrician background
and fears about the disorders and upheaval of the age, both secular and
religious. Perhaps they derived from his time spent amidst the Catholic
apologists: Eck, Faber, Nausea et al. Certainly, it is his views on the nature
of the Church and authority in the Church, coupled with orthodox views
about the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist, which add ballast to claims
for the cardinal’s orthodoxy.
7
In this regard, interesting are the reported comments of Jedin to the effect that, in
his view, no other Churchman could claim greater connection to the council – not even
Seripando. Reported by Iginio Rogger at the start of his, ‘Il concilio di Trento: opera valida
e imperfetta di una Chiesa pellegrina’, in Roberto Pancheri and Domenica Primerano (eds),
L’uomo del concilio (Trent, 2009), pp. 11–17.
8
Brian Gogan, ‘The Ecclesiology of Erasmus of Rotterdam: A Genetic Account’,
HJ, XXI, 4 (1980): pp. 393–411, Hilmar M. Pabel, ‘The Peaceful People of Christ: The
Irenic Ecclesiology of Erasmus of Rotterdam’, in Pabel (ed.), Erasmus’ Vision of the Church
(Kirksville, 1995), pp. 57–93 especially 77–82.
Early Modern Catholicism
In his attitude and activity at Trent, Morone contributed to the

construction of a reinvigorated papacy, symbolized by the gradual erection
of new St Peter’s over and around the Constantinian basilica. Incomplete
in Morone’s lifetime, perhaps he wondered how it would turn out as he
walked from his palazzo in Trastevere to frequent the papal apartments
at the behest of successive popes in whose administrations he served. The
early modern papacy, too, was a work in progress. It would take on a more
defined shape after Morone’s death with the pontificate of Sixtus V and
the consolidation of an already ongoing trend. Congregation gradually
replaces consistory and the power of the Sacred College diminishes.
Morone both experienced and contributed to the emergence of the early
modern papacy in this regard.
The spirituali’s manifesto included views on justification, pastoral
reform and reform in capite. It fell to Morone to deliver the pastoral
reform during his tenure as council president. This reform went too far
for some and certainly did not satisfy others. However, it fitted Morone’s
ecclesiology – based on concern for the salus animarum, and the unity
of the Church with the pope at its head. For Morone, cleaving to the
santa romana chiesa was a matter of Christian obligation: the chiesa di
Dio was the only boat to be aboard, as he made clear in his Apologia.
This is why he would never have contemplated flight. Salvation lay in
Christ in the Church and reform had to be located within the Church and
deferential to Tradition.9 This explains why he was reluctant to ‘unchurch’
others and extolled the preservation of unity. These have been undervalued
aspects of Morone’s religious outlook. Virtute et constantia is the motto
on one of the commemorative medallions produced in his lifetime.10
Certainly, Morone valued virtue and moral character, but constantia with
its overtones of steadfastness, patience, perseverance and an element of
placidity is very much a Morone trait.11 It is here we find the answer to the
question posed at the outset of this study concerning perseverance versus
9
In a modern context with obvious conciliar resonance, such an attitude was also
prevalent in the thought of Yves Congar. See Gabriel Flynn, ‘Yves Congar and Catholic
Church Reform: A Renewal of the Spirit’, in Gabriel Flynn (ed.), Yves Congar: Theologian of
the Church (Louvain, 2005), pp. 99–134, and the principles espoused by Congar particularly
in his key work, Vraie et fausse réforme dans l’Église (2nd Edition, Paris 1969).
10
This is the reverse of the medal in the Kuntshistorisches Museum, Vienna and
reproduced at the end of this chapter.
11
Likewise, it is worth drawing attention to the thought of Congar and his concerns
for patience and charity in connection with reform, see Flynn, ‘Yves Congar and Catholic
Church Reform’, in Flynn, Yves Congar, pp. 118–119.
Conclusion 221
flight. Of course, for those who chose the painful option of exile, there
could only be suspicion of those who did not.
There is a council versus Inquisition tension running through the
middle decades of the Cinquecento, mirrored by a similar tension in some
of the scholarship. Adriano Prosperi has drawn attention to a view of
the council as the way of peace over against the via belli, whether it be
in terms of armed suppression of Protestantism by secular rulers, or in
respect of the Inquisition viewed as waging spiritual warfare.12 Morone’s
life evidently has points of contact with this model and he certainly found
himself caught between the two. In 1540, Morone backed the council and
discussion over the via belli. His settlement with the Modenese accademici
and his anti-war gloss on the Isaiah text might be seen in this light. In
April 1563, Morone held out the possibility of healing in his speech to
the council fathers (albeit in a rhetorical fashion) and then, later in the
year, the council usurped the prerogative of the Holy Office and decided
the outcome of the Grimani case. The council was the way of negotiation
and persuasion, the way of peace, the way of the humanists, and the
Hapsburgs and the moderates and the spirituali. Undoubtedly, lines can be
traced from Erasmus’ ecclesiology into this irenicism.13 On the other hand,
the via belli, including internal religious warfare, was the way of the Holy
Office, the way of the zelanti, the way of those who sought to ‘unchurch’
others.
Morone’s career draws attention to the difficulties inherent in enabling
reform amidst conflicting interests. In the Tridentine period, the Catholic
Church was enmeshed in a complex matrix of religious and political
tensions and conflicts both within and without: between it and the secular
powers, between Rome and the Protestants, Christianity and the Turks,
Italian states and the great powers, German princes and the emperor,
France and the empire, Spain, France and the empire, between different
aspects of a papal administration – dynastic ambition and the interests of
the universal Church – in addition to rival groupings and strata within the
Church. Morone’s life experience illustrates many of the pressure points
and his dispatches draw out the competing political allegiances tugging at
ecclesiastical officials. Status in a papal administration necessarily carried
intertwined loyalties. The cardinal generally coped with the resulting
tensions, never losing sight of his duty to the Apostolic See in the face
of allegiance to a particular pontiff or monarch. Morone’s experience
and indeed his insight was that Church reform had to be a compromise,
negotiated by the parties. The Church is then able to press forward within
12
Prosperi, Tribunali della coscienza, pp. 117–134.
13
For a view of Erasmus’ ecclesiology that would have obvious relevance to this see
Pabel, ‘The Peaceful People’, pp. 57–93.
the broad stream of Tradition. Herein is the value, preciousness even of

the conciliar instinct of the Church, no less relevant today than it was in
the Tridentine period.14
On one level, the question of Morone’s actual orthodoxy is beside the
point. If not suspect, he was certainly under suspicion. The concerns about
his orthodoxy, doubtless genuinely held, also fed the political struggle at
the heart of the Church between the intransigenti and the spirituali. As
Firpo often argues, the Holy Office sought to monopolize the view of the
past and use it as a political tool for the (then) present. Fenlon agrees, but
quibbles as to the ultimate effectiveness of the strategy and the long-term
lesson that should be drawn.15 This has been the considerable contribution
of the Italian scholarship over the last few decades. The ‘reform tendency’,
perhaps fleetingly united in such a venture as Paul III’s commission, did
fragment and the reality is that it did so roughly along these lines. Indeed,
the reformers seem always to have been travelling along different tracks
even if it was sometimes in the same direction.
The struggle between the spirituali and their opponents from the
perspective of history seems somewhat one-sided. The zelanti cardinals
appear better organized and dogged in the pursuit of their aims. By contrast,
the spirituali seem to have been less well marshalled, particularly in relation
to the replenishing of their ranks in the Sacred College and in respect of
the politics of the conclave. Both Pole and Morone seem (at times) to have
been fatalistic in their approach to election outcomes, or appeared so to
their supporters, and this in turn points to another common aspect of their
religious outlook: a reverence for the providential hand of God.
As a faction in the conclave, the spirituali did not really fire. Individuals
gravitated towards other factional allegiances. To an extent, this was true
of their enemies, but at certain key moments, an alliance of hardliners held
strong against the candidatures of spirituali cardinals, whereas the reverse
seems not to have been the case.16 Thus, there does remain something
unsatisfactory about the activity of the spirituali, or at least about the
evidence we have of it, which encourages doubts about the nature of
their cohesiveness as a group, in terms of ideology and active pursuit
of an agenda. This is where the American scholarship is helpful with its
inclination to play down the bipartisan warfare and inject nuance into the
portraiture. The Morone–Cervini relationship is a good example of the
14
See the comments of J.J. Scarisbrick, ‘An Historian’s Reflections on Yves Congar’s
“Mon journal du concile”’, in Flynn, Yves Congar: Theologian of the Church (Louvain,
2005), pp. 249–275 especially 259–260 and the mediating role of Gerard Philips at Vatican
II glimpsed through Congar’s diary.
15
Fenlon, ‘Pietro Carnesecchi and Cardinal Pole’.
16
It is interesting to reflect that the election of Benedict XVI has been viewed in some
quarters as a case of the conservatives being the more organized grouping in the conclave.
Conclusion 223
ambiguity in the maze of relationships within the Sacred College. Morone’s

stance on the dispute over residence also negates easy categorization. The
evidence suggests a via media between the current poles of Italian and
American scholarship. Certainly there was a struggle at the heart of the
Church, but it is prudent to approach individual combatants with subtlety
least the richness and complexity of the struggle be obscured.
The opportunity to shine at Trent was thrust upon Morone by his friend
Pius IV. Pius’ pontificate lies on the points of sixteenth-century Catholic
history in a number of important ways. His attitude to appointments
glances over the shoulder to that of his predecessors, yet the pontificate
also looks forward to the new post-conciliar era. Gleason and Jedin
raise similar themes, but some scholars view Pius’ pontificate as a sort of
parenthesis between the reigns of Paul IV and Pius V.17 Such an attitude
diminishes its significance and neglects the drama of the moment. With a
whole range of policy initiatives, Pius’ reign suggested happier times were
once more upon the spirituali. The advancement, influence and activity
of the surviving spirituali in the first half of the 1560s was remarkable.18
In this light, the subsequent conclave takes on considerable significance:
a Morone pontificate would have looked rather different to that of Pius
V. However, in the midst of these brighter times, the spirituali were again
divided on theological and reform issues. By 1565, their ranks had been
further depleted without significant replenishment, partially because of the
smear activities of their opponents. The upshot was that at the critical
conclave the candidacy of their leading surviving figure fell five votes
short.19
Being under suspicion did prove costly for the careers of a number
of churchmen. The recent Italian scholarship has demonstrated as much.
However, emphasis on a triumph of the Holy Office thesis seems to have
two potential dangers. In the first place, the rise of the Holy Office can
appear to have been inexorable. I have sought to portray, particularly
in relation to Pius IV’s administration, that this was not the case. Papal
attitudes to the Inquisition varied.20 Morone’s fluctuating career trajectory
confirms this. Secondly, the emphasis can sometimes be at the expense
17
Gleason, ‘Catholic Reformation’, Jedin, Seripando. See also Bonora, ‘Morone e
Pio IV’.
18
Although their elusiveness bedevils the evaluation of the evidence here too.
19
‘Only five votes! We could get those votes’, so the Suenans character agonizingly
remarks in Roger Crane’s play The Last Confession. Suenens is speaking during the conclave
following the death of John Paul I, and of the votes Cardinal Benelli needs to see off his rivals.
Benelli replies, ‘Ah, but at what cost’, and concedes that a compromise favouring Cardinal
Wojtyla must be allowed to move forward.
20
As Eamon Duffy remarks, ‘there was no such thing as a “typical” Counter-
Reformation pope’, Saints and Sinners, p. 170.
of the achievement of Trent. This is the scholarly echo to the council/

Inquisition tension extant in the Cinquecento, alluded to earlier. Morone’s
career experience aptly unites the two phenomena as important facets of
the history of the Tridentine period.
Carnesecchi drew a distinction between Valdés’ insight on justification
and its implications. Therein lies the essence of both contemporary and
later criticism of the spirituali: that they were Protestant on justification,
but refused to accept the consequences. However, it presupposes that the
consequences necessarily had to be drawn or drawn in such a catastrophic
fashion for the full complexity of Catholic belief and practice. Morone
clearly believed otherwise. Did it amount to the equivalent of wanting to
have and eat the cake? The passage of time has rather shown the instinct of
the spirituali to have been correct, at least judging by the results of recent
ecumenical dialogue. In particular, the 1999 Joint Declaration on the
Doctrine of Justification issued by the Catholic Church and the Lutheran
Church and more recently subscribed to by parts of Methodism, points to
the reality of Lutheran and Catholic soteriology being able to find common
ground. Of course, it should also be admitted that the disappointment the
spirituali seem to have felt with the Tridentine decree has proved equally
misplaced. It is noteworthy too that papal authority and the Eucharist
remain the ecumenically troublesome areas.
The Ghosts of Santa Maria sopra Minerva
As for any of Rome’s historic churches, a stroll around the Dominican

church of Santa Maria sopra Minerva, taking in the art, architecture,
tombs and monuments, is an exercise in time travel. The centuries peel
away revealing the medieval era of Catherine of Siena, William Durandus
(Bishop of Mende) and Fra Angelico, all of whosebodies lie buried there
(in part or in whole). The architecture too, unique for Rome’s churches,
interrupts the diet of Romanesque and Baroque with the Gothic of the
Middle Ages. However, quite apart from Morone’s humble last resting
place, there is also plenty within the building to halt this time travel firmly
in the Cinquecento.
The church certainly featured in Morone’s career and seems to have
been prominent in Roman ecclesial life.21 It was in the garden of the
Minerva convent that the dramatic interviews with Bernardo de’ Bartoli
are supposed to have taken place, as Girolamo Muzzarelli and other allied
21
Inquisition ‘spectaculars’ were staged there and the pope seems to have celebrated
the Feast of the Annunciation there, see Massarelli’s diary, CT, II, p. 162. Of course, St Peter’s
was a building site.
Conclusion 225
senior Dominicans sought to counter the clandestine investigations by the

Holy Office during Julius III’s pontificate. It was in front of the Minerva
that Carnesecchi’s auto de fe had taken place in 1567. One time protector
of the Dominicans, Morone had a number of Dominican friends and
allies as well as Dominican foes. The church must have been very familiar
to him. Today, the art and monuments of the interior jostle with one
another in an effort to remind us of the fluctuating career fortunes of the
Milanese cardinal and the political and ecclesial struggles that provided
the backdrop and context for the life and career of this one sixteenth-
century churchman.
Morone lies amongst some friends: Badia and Foscarari were buried
there and so too in the choir area was the humanist Pietro Bembo, who
Morone knew at Padua and who may have introduced him to Pole.
Bartolomé Carranza lay at rest in the church until the transfer of his
remains to Toledo, providing both a further echo of Pole and one of
sad solidarity with Morone in terms of difficulties with the Inquisition.
Also in the choir area, known as the Medici Chapel, are the tombs of
the two Florentine Medici popes of the Cinquecento. Leo X was pope
as the Lutheran storm began to break over Europe and his successor but
one, Giulio de’ Medici (Clement VII), propelled Morone on the path of an
ecclesiastical career, appointing him Bishop of Modena. The architectural
work for their sepulchral monuments was done by Antonio da Sangallo
the younger, who also worked on St Peter’s, a structure perhaps symbolic
of the change Catholicism was undergoing. Santa Maria sopra Minerva
is also home to Michelangelo’s statue of the Redeemer.22 The artist, as
well as being another contributor to new St Peter’s, was connected to the
spirituali – Pole, Colonna and Morone. Finally, close to Morone’s tomb,
in the Chapel of the Annunciation, is that of Giovanni Battista Castagna,
the short-lived Pope Urban VII, who as Archbishop of Rossano was
prominent at the third session of Trent, thus providing a reminder of
Morone’s greatest triumph.23
Ironically, if you travel further up the aisle you soon come to the
magnificent Carafa Chapel with beautiful frescoes by Filippino Lippi.
Therein is the ‘grand but heavy’ burial monument erected for Paul IV, at
the behest of Pius V.24 On the other side of the church, Ghislieri (St Pius V)
in fact has a whole chapel dedicated to his memory. Belying the grandeur
of their setting and execution, these are reminders of more austere times
22
The statue is reputed to be an early, unfinished work, completed in an inferior
manner by others. The Saint Sebastian, in the Aldobrandini Chapel, has also been tentatively
attributed to the great Florentine in recent years, see I. P. Grossi, O.P., Basilica of Santa Maria
Sopra Minerva, Short Guide (English language edition).
23
Castagna reigned for 12 days in September 1590.
24
Grossi, Basilica, p. 18.
in comparison with the licence of the two Medici popes. They point to
the difficult years of Morone’s career: the clandestine investigation carried
out by Carafa in the early 1550s, the full blown processo and Morone’s
imprisonment later in the decade, and the return of suspicion and threat
under Pius V. They remind of darker times: of the torture of Domenico
Morandi, Morone’s maestro di casa, of the torture and dismal execution
of Pietro Carnesecchi and of other processi, autos de fe spectacles and
executions. These monuments point to the struggle between zelanti and
spirituali and by and large to the perceived victors. They point to the rise of
the Holy Office. Like many a Roman church, Santa Maria sopra Minerva
is a colourful history lesson for sixteenth-century Roman Catholicism
generally, as well as pointing in stone and pigment to the fluctuations in
the career of one Milanese cardinal. The carafa pope has his grandiose
monument, as does his protégé in Santa Maria Maggiore, where Pius V
was eventually buried. By contrast, Morone’s modest slab is at floor level
and easily missed. Was the propaganda war too ultimately won by the
zelanti?25
Assessment of Morone’s life and career need not end in such negativity.
Certainly, the importance of the rise of the Holy Office has rightly been
brought to the fore. It is true also that the composition of the Sacred College
changed over the middle decades of the Cinquecento. Fewer and fewer of
the sort of candidate likely to have affiliations with the spirituali received
promotion. In this sense, Morone must have looked around consistory in
the 1570s and seen a rather altered cast of colleagues. This would perhaps
fit a waning of the Renaissance thesis – Renaissance men giving way to
Counter Reformation men. However, this can be overly accentuated, and
general negativity about what has traditionally been called the Counter
Reformation age has found disfavour in some quarters, ignoring as it does
the burgeoning artistic vitality of the early baroque amongst other things.26
On a personal level, Morone enjoyed just the sort of influence one would
expect of the senior cardinal in the administration of Gregory XIII and
surely felt no more or less isolated than any other great survivor who has
seen most friends and colleagues predecease him. I suspect that after the
discomfort of Pius V’s reign, Morone would have been satisfied with his
place in the emergent Tridentine Church that he had helped/was helping to
mould. Notable are Morone’s reflections of satisfaction to Cardinal Galli
25
Of course, other members of the spirituali attracted more auspicious funerary
monuments – for that of Pole, see Mayer, Prince and Prophet, pp. 348–354. Fenlon (‘Pietro
Carnesecchi and Cardinal Pole’) believes that the propaganda war was not won by the zelanti
as the myth of Pole’s sanctity grew.
26
See for example the more positive assessment of Pamela M. Jones and Thomas
Worcester (eds), From Rome to Eternity: Catholicism and the Arts in Italy, ca. 1550–1650
(Leiden, 2002), especially the introduction by Worcester, pp. 1–16.
Conclusion 227
during one of his pit-stops (Eckmühl) on the way to Regensburg in 1576.

In stark contrast to the experience of his first trips north in the 1530s,
the Milanese cardinal was heartened by the piety and fervour of the local
church community.27
Morone’s life story is very much the story of early modern Catholicism’s
beginning or becoming. There is a sense in which the Tridentine period
is not quite early modern, but the making of it. Morone’s contribution
to this was considerable. If the canonization of Pius V in 1712 stands
as a marker of the importance of the Holy Office, then that of Carlo
Borromeo, a whole century earlier, does the same for the Tridentine pastor
bishop. This is a model that Morone helped to shape, perhaps personally
in his interaction with Borromeo in the early 1560s, but assuredly more
generally with the Tridentine reform legislation. Morone’s monuments are
the perseverance of the conciliar instinct to assist the Church to meet crises;
the importance of negotiation, compromise and consensus in the service
of Tradition; the provision of education to equip for ministry; and, above
all, the council texts, which entered the Tradition of the Church, helped
shape the countenance of early modern Catholicism and today are the
second most cited in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. One suspects
that these are monuments that would satisfy him rather more than figures
of marble and stone.
27
NB, 3/2, pp. 44–46.
Medal, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna

Bibliography
1. Manuscripts
Archivio Segreto Vaticano:

Acta Camerarii 11, Acta Misc. 12 and 13, Acta Vicecanc. 10, Arm. LXIV,
4, Arm. LXIV, 28, Conc. Trid. 41, 42, 94, 104, 131, Segr. Stato, Legaz.
Bol. 178 and 179, Misc. Arm. II, 19, Miscellanea II, 121
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana:
Vat. Lat. 6404, Vat. Lat. 6405, Vat. Lat. 6406, Vat. Lat. 6407, Vat. Lat.
6408, Vat. Lat. 6409, Vat. Lat. 6410, Vat. Lat. 12159, Vat. Lat. 12608,
Urb. Lat. 1039, Urb. Lat. 1040
British Library:
Add. ms. 8266, Add. ms. 8764
2. Printed Primary Sources and Collections
Canones, et decreta sacrosancti oecumenici, et generalis concilii Tridentini,

sub Paulo III, Iulio III, Pio IIII, Pontificibus max (Rome: Paulo
Manuzio, 1564).
Caponetto, Salvatore (ed.), Il Beneficio di Cristo: con le versioni del secolo
XVI, documenti e testimonianze, Corpus Reformatorum Italicorum
(DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press and The Newbury Library,
1972).
Chiabò, Maria, Concetta Ranieri and Luciana Roberti (eds), Le diocesi
suburbicarie nelle ‘Visitae ad limina’ dell’ Archivio Segreto Vaticano
(Vatican City: Archivio Segreto Vaticano, 1988).
Concilium Tridentinum: Diariorum, Actorum, Epistolarum, Tractatuum,
nova collectio, 13 volumes to date, Görres Gesellschaft (Freiburg in
Breisgau: Herder, 1901ff.)
Constant, Gustave (ed.), La Légation du Cardinal Morone près de
l’empereur et le Concile du Trente, avril–décembre 1563 (Paris:
Librairie Ancienne Honoré Champion, 1922).
Contarini, Gasparo, De Officio viri boni et probi episcope, published as
The Office of a Bishop, Latin text, introduction and translation by John
Patrick Donnelly S.J. (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2002).
Dittrich, Franz (ed.), ‘Die Nuntiaturberichte G. Morone’s vom Reichstage

zu Regensburg 1541’, Historisches Jahrbuch der Görres Gesellschaft,
IV (1883): pp. 395–472 and 618–673.
Dittrich, Franz (ed.), Nuntiaturberichte Giovanni Morones vom deutschen
Königschofe 1539–1540, Quellen und Forschungen, 1/1 (Paderborn:
Ferdinand Schoningh, 1892).
Epistolae P. Alphonsi Salmeronis Societatis Iesu. Monumenta Historica
Societatis Iesu (volumes 30–32, Rome: Institutum Historicum Societatis
Iesu, 1971–1972).
Firpo, Massimo with Dario Marcatto (eds), Il processo inquisitoriale del
Cardinal Giovanni Morone. Edizione Critica (6 volumes in 7, Rome:
Istituto storico italiano per l’età moderna e contemporanea, 1981–
1995).
Firpo, Massimo and Dario Marcatto (eds), I processi inquisitoriali di
Pietro Carnesecchi (1557–1567). Edizione Critica (2 volumes, Vatican
City: Archivio Segreto Vaticano, 1998–2000).
Firpo, Massimo and Sergio Pagano (eds), I processi inquisitoriali di
Vittore Soranzo (1550–1558). Edizione Critica (2 volumes, Vatican
City: Archivio Segreto Vaticano, 2004).
Forin Martellozzo, E. (ed.), Acta graduum academicorum Gymnasii
Patavini (Padua: Antenore, 1969).
Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, from the Lutheran
World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church (English-language
edition, Grand Rapids and Cambridge: W. Eerdmans, 2000).
Laemmer, Hugo (ed.), Monumenta Vaticana historiam ecclesiasticam
saeculi XVI illustrantia (Freiburg: Herder, 1861).
Lancillotti, Tommasino Bianchi, called ‘Lancillotti’, Cronaca modenese,
in Monumenti di storia patria delle provincie modenesi. Serie delle
cronache, volumes I–XII, 1862–1884.
Marani, Alberto (ed.), Muzio Calini. Lettere conciliari (1561–1563)
(Brescia: Fratelli Geroldi, 1963).
Mayer, Thomas F. (ed.), The Corresponence of Reginald Pole. A Calendar
(4 volumes to date, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002–).
Mercati, Angelo, I costituti di Niccolò Franco (1568–1571) dinanzi
L’Inquisizione di Roma, esistenti nell’ Archivio Segreto Vaticano
(Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 1955).
Morandi, G. B. (ed.), Monumenta di varia letteratura (2 volumes, Bologna:
Istituto per le scienze, 1797–1804).
Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland nebst ergänzenden Aktenstücken
(Various, Preussisches historisches Institut Rom, 1892ff.).
Pagano, Sergio M. and Concetta Ranieri (eds), Nuovi documenti su Vittoria
Colonna e Reginald Pole (Vatican City: Archivio Vaticano, 1989).
Bibliography 231
Pagano, Sergio M. (ed.), Il processo di Endimio Calandra e l’inquisizione

a Mantova nel 1567–1568 (Vatican City: Archivio Segreto Vaticano,
1991).
Pole, Reginald, De Concilio. Liber Reginaldi Poli cardinalis; De baptismo
Constantini magni imperatoris; Reformatio Angliae, ex decretis
Reginaldi Poli Cardinalis, Sedis Apostolicae Legati, Rome, Paolo
Manuzio, 1562 (London: Gregg Press imprint, 1962).
Querini, Angelo Maria (ed.), Epistolarum Reginaldi Poli S.R.E. Cardinalis
et aliorum ad ipsum Collectio (5 volumes, Brescia: Joannes-Maria
Rizzardi, 1744–1747).
Schultze, V. (ed.), ‘Aktenstücke zur deutschen Reformationsgeschichte’,
Zeitschrift fur Kirchengeschichte, 3 (1879): pp. 609–641.
Šusta, J. (ed.), Die römische Kurie und das Konzil von Trient unter Pius IV
(4 volumes, Vienna: Hölder, 1904–1914).
Ughelli, Ferdinando, Italia sacra: sive De episcopis Italiae et insularum
adjacentium, rebusque ab iis praeclare gestis, deducta serie ad nostram
usque aetatem: Opus singulare provinciis XX. distinctum, in quo
ecclesiarum origines, urbium conditiones, principum donationes,
recondita monumenta in lucem proferuntur (Venice, 1717–1722;
Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus Reprint, 1970).
3. Secondary Sources
(a) Specific to Morone
Bernabei, Nicola, Vita del Cardinale Giovanni Morone, Vescovo di

Modena (Modena, 1885).
Bonora, Elena, ‘Morone e Pio IV’, in Massimo Firpo and Ottavia Niccoli
(eds), Il cardinale Giovanni Morone e l’ultima fase del concilio di
Trento (Bologna: Società Editrice Il Mulino, 2010), pp. 21–52.
Bossetti, Lorenzo, ‘Nota iconografica moroniana’, Atti e memorie della
deputazione di storia patria per le antiche provincie modenesi, X, III
(1968): pp. 51–55.
Cantù, Cesare, ‘Il Cardinale Giovanni Morone’, in Cesare Cantù, Italiani
illustri (Milan: Libreria Brigola, 1873), II, pp. 393-465.
Dandolo, Tullio (ed.), Ricordi inediti di Gerolamo Morone: Gran
Cancelliere di ultima Duca di Milano (Milan: Ditta Boniardi-Pogliani
di E. Besozzi, 1855).
Fangarezzi, Riccardo, ‘La moralità del clero e il cardinal Morone in
un capitolo del Sinodo modenese del 1565’, Atti e memorie della
deputazione di storia patria per le antiche provincie modenesi, XI, XIII
(1991): pp. 107–124.
Fangarezzi, Riccardo, ‘Giovanni Morone: Una cronologia della vita’, Atti

e memorie della deputazione di storia patria per le antiche provincie
modenesi, XI, 17 (1995): pp. 223–252.
Fangarezzi, Riccardo, ‘Gli atti della legazione Genovese del cardinale
Giovanni Morone. (1575–1576)’, Atti e memorie della deputazione di
storia patria per le antiche provincie modenesi, VII, 12 (1994/1995, ed.
1996): pp. 307–362.
Firpo, Massimo (in conjunction with Dario Marcatto for two of the
studies), Inquisizione romana e Controriforma. Studi sul cardinal
Giovanni Morone (1509-1580) e il suo process d’eresia. Nuova
edizione riveduta e ampliata (Brescia: Editrice Morcelliana, 2005).
Firpo, Massimo, ‘“Amorbato delle cose lutherane” o “fidei catholicae
propugnator”? Giovanni Morone tra Inquisizione e concilio’, in
Roberto Pancheri and Domenica Primerano (eds), L’uomo del
Concilio. Il cardinale Giovanni Morone tra Roma e Trento nell’ età di
Michelangelo (Trent: Editrice Temi, 2009), pp. 19–47.
Firpo, Massimo, ‘Giovanni Morone, Vittoria Colonna e Michelangelo’,
in Roberto Pancheri and Domenica Primerano (eds), L’uomo del
Concilio. Il cardinale Giovanni Morone tra Roma e Trento nell’ età di
Michelangelo (Trent: Editrice Temi, 2009), pp. 83–101.
Firpo, Massimo and Dario Marcatto, ‘Il primo processo inquisitoriale
contro il Cardinal Giovanni Morone (1552–53)’, Rivista storica
italiana, 93 (1981): pp. 71–142, now reproduced in Inquisizione
romana e Controriforma. Studi sul cardinal Giovanni Morone (1509-
1580) e il suo process d’eresia. Nuova edizione riveduta e ampliata
(Brescia: Editrice Morcelliana, 2005), pp. 243–314.
Firpo, Massimo and Ottavia Niccoli (eds), Il cardinale Giovanni Morone e
l’ultima fase del concilio di Trento (Bologna: Società Editrice Il Mulino,
2010).
Firpo, Massimo and Paolo Simoncelli, ‘I processi inquisitoriali contro
Savonarola (1558) e Carnesecchi (1566–67): una proposta di
interpretazione’, Rivista di storia e letturatura religiosa, VIII (1982):
pp. 200–252, in part reproduced as ‘Il processo inquisitoriale contro
Pietro Carnesecchi (1566–67): una proposta di interpretazione’, in
Inquisizione romana e Controriforma. Studi sul cardinal Giovanni
Morone (1509-1580) e il suo process d’eresia. Nuova edizione riveduta
e ampliata (Brescia: Editrice Morcelliana, 2005), pp. 449–469.
Frickius, Iohannes Georg, De Ioanne Morono S.R.E. Cardinali,
Articulisque, quibus ad Inquisitionis officio iussu Pauli IV, olim
tanquam Lutheranismo suspectus, et in vinculis detentus accusabatur,
in Johan Georg Schelhorn, Amoenitates literariae quibus variae
observations, scripta item quaedam, anecdota et rariora opuscola
exhibentur (Frankfurt and Leipzig, 1725–1731), XII, pp. 537–586.
Bibliography 233
Gaiani, Mauro, ‘La diocesi di Novara celebrò un Sinodo sotto l’espiscopato

del Cardinale Giovanni Morone?’, Novarien, 20 (1990): pp. 3–11.
Ganzer, Klaus, ‘Gasparo Contarini und Giovanni Morone. Das
Regensburger Religionsgespräch von 1541 und das Werden einer
Freundschaft’, Cristianesimo nella storia, 30 (2009): pp. 99–134.
Gianelli, Andrea, ‘Lettere del Cardinal Giovanni Morone conservate
nell’Archivio di Stato di Modena’, Atti e memorie della deputazione
di storia patria per le antiche provincie modenesi, X, III (1968): pp.
57–61.
Mazzone, Umberto, ‘Giovanni Morone legato al concilio di Trento e la
clausola del “proponentibus legatis”’, in Massimo Firpo and Ottavia
Niccoli (eds), Il cardinale Giovanni Morone e l’ultima fase del concilio
di Trento (Bologna: Società Editrice Il Mulino, 2010), pp. 117–141.
Mesini, Candido, ‘La Legazione a Bologna del Card. Giovanni Gerolamo
Morone Vescovo di Modena (1509–1580)’, Atti e memorie della
deputazione di storia patria per le antiche provincie modenesi, X, III
(1968): pp. 63–102.
Pancheri, Roberto, ‘Scipione Pulzone, Bartolomeo Cancellieri e alter
novità sull’ iconografia del cardinal Giovanni Morone’, in Massimo
Firpo and Ottavia Niccoli (eds), Il cardinal Giovanni Morone e l’ultima
fase del concilio di Trento (Bologna: Società Editrice Il Mulino, 2010),
pp. 257–279.
Pancheri, Roberto and Domenica Primerano (eds), L’uomo del Concilio. Il
cardinale Giovanni Morone tra Roma e Trento nell’ età di Michelangelo
(Trent: Editrice Temi, 2009).
Paris, Alessandro, ‘“Quando io leggo un libro o odo una predica, io piglio
quello che è buono et che può fare edificatione.” I libri del cardinal
Morone e il sue processo inquisitoriale’, in Roberto Pancheri and
Domenica Primerano (eds), L’uomo del Concilio. Il cardinale Giovanni
Morone tra Roma e Trento nell’ età di Michelangelo (Trent: Editrice
Temi, 2009), pp. 65–81.
Paris, Alessandro, ‘“Trento è todesco ed ha la lingua sciolta.” Cristoforo
Madruzzo e Giovanni Morone tra Impero e Inquisizione’, in Massimo
Firpo and Ottavia Niccoli (eds), Il cardinale Giovanni Morone e
l’ultima fase del concilio di Trento (Bologna: Società Editrice Il Mulino,
2010), pp. 159–186.
Pistoni, Giuseppe, ‘Il Cardinale Giovanni Morone, cittadino di Modena’,
Atti e memorie della Deputazione di storia patria per le antiche
provincie modenesi, X, III (1968): pp. 29–49.
Pistoni, Giuseppe, ‘Il Cardinale Giovanni Morone e l’abbazia di
Frassinoro’, Atti e memorie della Deputazione di storia patria per le
provincie modenesi, X, VIII (1973): pp. 155–157.
Pistoni, Giuseppe, ‘Le visite pastorali a Modena nel secolo decimosesto’,

Memorie dell’Accademia Nazionale di Scienze, Letere e Arti, VI, XV
(1973): pp. 111–116.
Rebucci, Maria Teresa, ‘Le visite pastorali dei Vescovi di Modena: Giovanni
Morone e Sisto Visdomini’, Atti e memorie della deputazione di storia
patria per le antiche provincie modenesi, X, III (1968): pp. 103–116.
Russo, Giuseppe, ‘Il primo Sinodo modenese doppo il Concilio di Trento’,
Atti e memorie della deputazione di storia patria per le antiche provincie
modenesi, X, III (1968): pp. 117–124.
Sangalli, Maurizio, ‘Due principi della Chiesa: Giovanni Morone e Carlo
Borromeo’, in Massimo Firpo and Ottavia Niccoli (eds), Il cardinale
Giovanni Morone e l’ultima fase del concilio di Trento (Bologna:
Società Editrice Il Mulino, 2010), pp. 187–224.
Scaramella, Pierroberto, ‘Una memoria non condivisa. L’immagine del
cardinal Giovanni Morone da Frickius a Jedin’, in Massimo Firpo and
Ottavia Niccoli (eds), Il cardinale Giovanni Morone e l’ultima fase
del concilio di Trento (Bologna: Società Editrice Il Mulino, 2010), pp.
225–256.
Scolpis, Frederic, Le Cardinal Jean Morone: Ètude Historique (Paris:
Séances et Travaux des Sciences Morales et Politiques, 1869).
Tallon, Alain, ‘Giovanni Morone, il cardinal di Lorena e la conclusion
del concilio’, in Massimo Firpo and Ottavia Niccoli (eds), Il cardinale
(b) General Secondary Sources
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, L’Inquisizione e gli storici: un cantiere

aperto. Tavola rotunda nell’ ambito della conferenza annual della
ricerca (Roma 24–25 giugno 1999), Atti dei convegni Lincei 162
(Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 2000).
Alberigo, Giuseppe, I vescovi italiani al Concilio di Trento (1545–1547)
(Florence: G. C. Sansoni, 1959).
Alberigo, Giuseppe, ‘L’ecclesiologia del concilio di Trento’, Rivista di
Storia della chiesa in Italia, 18 (1964): pp. 227–242.
Alberigo, Giuseppe, ‘Le potestà episcopali nei dibattiti tridentini’, in
Iginio Rogger (ed.), Il Concilio di Trento e la riforma tridentina. Atti
del convegno storico internazionale, Trento, 2–6 settembre 1963 (2
volumes, Rome: Herder, 1965), volume 1, pp. 1–53.
Alberigo, Giuseppe, Chiesa conciliare: Identità e significato del
conciliarismo (Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1981).
Bibliography 235
Alberigo, Giuseppe, ‘Dinamiche religiose del Cinquecento italiano tra

Riforma, Riforma cattolica, Controriforma’, Cristianesimo nella
storia, 6 (1985): pp. 543–560.
Alberigo, Giuseppe and Iginio Rogger (eds), Il Concilio di Trento nella
prospettiva del Terzo Millennio (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1997).
Aubert, Alberto, Paolo IV: Politica, Inquisizione e storiografia (2nd
Edition, Florence: Casa Editrice Le Lettere, 1999).
Ayres, Philip J. (ed.), Anthony Munday: The English Roman Life (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1980).
Bianco, Cesare, ‘La communità dei “fratelli” nel movimento ereticale
modenese del ‘500’, Rivista storica italiana, XCII (1980): pp. 621–679.
Bianco, Cesare, ‘Bartolomeo della Pergola e la sua predicazione eterodossa
a Modena nel 1544’, Bollettino della società di studi valdesiani, 151
(1982): pp. 3–49.
Black, Christopher, Church, Religion and Society in Early Modern Italy
(Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).
Black, Christopher, The Italian Inquisition (New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 2009).
Blaisdell, Charmarie J., ‘Angela Merici and the Ursulines’, in Richard L.
DeMolen (ed.), Religious Orders of the Catholic Reformation (New
York: Fordham University Press, 1998), pp. 99–136.
Borgia, Alessandro, Istoria della chiesa e città di Velletri (Nocera, 1723).
Borromeo, Agostino, ‘I vescovi italiani e l’applicazione del Concilio di
Trento’, in Cesare Mozzarelli and Danilo Zardin (eds), I Tempi del
Concilio: Religione, cultura e società nell’Europa tridentina (Europa
delle Corti, Centro studi sulle società di antico regime, Biblioteca del
Cinquecento, Rome: Bulzoni, 1997), pp. 27–105.
Borromeo, Agostino, ‘Il dissenso religioso tra il clero italiano e la
prima attività del Sant’Ufficio romano’, in Maurizio Sangalli (ed.),
Per il Cinquecento religioso italiano: Clero, cultura, società. Atti
del Convengo internazionale di studi. Siena, 27–30 giugno 2001 (2
volumes, Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 2003), volume2, pp. 455–485.
Borromeo, Agostino (ed.), L’Inquisizione: Atti del Simposio internazionale,
Città del Vaticano 29–31 ottobre 1998 (Vatican City: Biblioteca
Apostolica Vaticana, 2003).
Bossy, John, Christianity in the West 1400–1700 (Oxford: Oxford
Bossy, John, Peace in the Post-Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge
Brundin, Abigail, Vittoria Colonna and the Spiritual Poetics of the Italian
Reformation (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2008).
Bulman, Raymond F. and Frederick J. Parrella (eds), From Trent to

Vatican II. Historical and Theological Investigations (Oxford: Oxford
Burke, Peter, The Italian Renaissance: Culture and Society in Italy
(Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987).
Cantimori, Delio, ‘The Problem of Heresy: The History of the Reformation
and of the Italian Heresies and the History of Religious Life in the First
Half of the Sixteenth Century – the Relation between Two Kinds of
Reasearch’, translated by Eric Cochrane, in Eric Cochrane (ed.), The
Late Italian Renaissance (London: Macmillan, 1970), pp. 211–225.
Cantimori, Delio, ‘Submission and Conformity: Nicodemism and the
Expectations of a Conciliar Solution to the Religious Question’,
translated by Eric Cochrane, in Eric Cochrane (ed.), The Late Italian
Renaissance (London: Macmillan, 1970), pp. 244–265.
Cantimori, Delio, Eretici italiani del Cinquecento (new edition with an
introduction by Adriano Prosperi, Turin: Giulio Einaudi, 1992).
Cantimori, Delio, Prospettive di storia ereticale italiana del Cinquecento,
reprinted with his Eretici italiani del Cinquecento (new edition with an
introduction by Adriano Prosperi, Turin: Giulio Einaudi, 1992).
Cantù, Cesare, Gli eretici d’Italia. Discorsi storici (3 volumes, Turin:
Unione tipografico-editrice, 1865–1867).
Caponetto, Salvatore, La Riforma protestante nell’Italia del Cinquecento
(Torino: Claudiana, 1992), published in English as, The Protestant
Reformation in Sixteenth-Century Italy (Kirksville: Truman State
Carroll, Stuart, ‘The Compromise of Charles Cardinal of Lorraine: New
Evidence’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 54 (2003): pp. 469–483.
Cassese, Michele, ‘G. Seripando, il Concilio di Trento e la riforma della
Chiesa’, in Antonio Cestaro (ed.), Geronimo Seripando e la chiesa del
suo tempo nel V centenario dlla nascita (Rome: Edizioni di storia e
letteratura, 1997), pp. 189–226.
Cassese, Michele, Girolamo Seripando e i vescovi meridionali 1535–1563
(2 volumes, Naples: Editoriale Scientifica, 2002).
Cesareo, Francesco C., Humanism and Catholic Reform: The Life and
Works of Gregorio Cortese 1483–1548 (New York and Bern: Peter
Lang, 1990).
Cesareo, Francesco C., A Shepherd in their Midst: The Episcopacy of
Gerolamo Seripando 1554–1563 (The Augustinian Series, volume 21,
Augustinian Press, 1999).
Cesareo, Francesco C., ‘The Episcopacy in Sixteenth-Century Italy’, in
Kathleen M. Comerford and Hilmar M. Pabel (eds), Early Modern
Catholicism: Essays in Honor of John W. O’Malley S.J. (Toronto,
Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press, 2001), pp. 67–83.
Bibliography 237
Cestaro, Antonio (ed.), Geronimo Seripando e la chiesa del suo tempo nel
V centenario dlla nascita (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1997).
Church, Frederic C., The Italian Reformers 1534–1564 (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1932).
Cochrane, Eric W., ‘Counter Reformation or Tridentine Reformation?
Italy in the Age of Carlo Borromeo’, in John M. Headley and John B.
Tomaro (eds), San Carlo Borromeo: Catholic Reform and Ecclesiastical
Polotics in the Second Half of the Sixteenth Century (Washington, DC:
Folger Books, 1988), pp. 30–46.
Collett, Barry, Italian Benedictine Scholars and the Reformation (Oxford:
Comerford, Kathleen M. and Hilmar M. Pabel (eds), Early Modern
Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press, 2001).
Congar, Yves, Vraie et fausse réforme dans l’Église (2nd Edition, Paris:
Cerf, 1969).
Conrad, Anne, ‘Il concilio di Trento e la (mancata) modernizzazione dei
ruoli femminili ecclesiastici’, in Paolo Prodi and Wolfgang Reinhard
(eds), Il concilio di Trento e il moderno. Atti della XXXVIII settimana
di studio, 11–15 settembre 1995 (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1996), pp. 415–
436.
Constant, Gustave, La concession à l’Allemagne de la communion sous le
deux espèces (2 volumes, Paris: E. de Boccard, 1923).
Delph, Ronald K., Michelle M. Fontaine and John Jeffries Martin (eds),
Heresy, Culture and Religion in Early Modern Italy. Contexts and
Contestations (Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies # 76, Kirksville:
Trumen State University Press, 2006).
DeMolen, Richard, L. (ed.), Religious Orders of the Catholic Reformation.
In Honor of John C. Olin on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday (New York:
Fordham University Press, 1994).
Dinan, Susan E., ‘Overcoming Gender Limitations: The Daughters of
Charity and Early Modern Catholicism’, in Kathleen M. Comerford
and Hilmar M. Pabel (eds), Early Modern Catholicism: Essays in Honor
of John W. O’Malley S.J. (Toronto, Buffalo and London: University of
Toronto Press, 2001), pp. 97–113.
Duffy, Eamon, Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven
and London: Yale University Press and S4C, 1997).
Duffy, Eamon, Fires of Faith. Catholic England under Mary Tudor (New
Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009).
Dumeige, Gervais, S.J. (ed.), Olivier de la Brosse, O.P., Joseph Lecler, S.J.,
Henri Holstein, S.J. and Charles Lefebvre, Latran V et Trente. Histoire
des conciles oecumeniques Tome X (Paris: Éditions de L’Orante, 1975).
Dumeige, Gervais, S.J., (ed.), Joseph Lecler S.J., Henri Holstein S.J., Pierre
Adnès S.J. and Charles Lefebvre, Le concile de Trente 1551–1563.
Histoire des conciles oecumeniques Tome XI (Paris: Fayard, 2005).
Dusini, Antonio, ‘L’Episcopato nel decreto dogmatico sull’Ordine Sacro,
della XXIII sessione del Concilio di Trento’, in Iginio Rogger (ed.), Il
concilio di Trento e la Riforma tridentina. Atti del convegno storico
internazionale, Trento, 2–6 settembre 1963 (2 volumes, Rome: Herder,
1965), volume 2, pp. 577–613.
Edwards, John and Ronald Truman (eds), Reforming Catholicism in the
England of Mary Tudor: The Achievement of Bartolomé Carranza
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005).
Esser, Kajetan, Origini e inizi del movimento e dell’ ordine francescano
(Milan: Editoriale Jaca Book, 1975).
Evangelisti, Silvia, ‘“We do not have it and we do not want it”: Women,
Power and Convent Reform in Florence’, Sixteenth Century Journal,
24, 3 (2003): pp. 677–700.
Evennett, H. Outram, The Cardinal of Lorraine and the Council of
Trent: A Study in the Counter-Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge
Evennett, H. Outram, The Spirit of the Counter-Reformation: The
Birkbeck Lectures in Ecclesiastical History given in the University of
Cambridge in May 1951 (edited with an introduction by John Bossy,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968).
Felici, Lucia, ‘Al crocevia della riforma. Egidio Foscarari nella terza fase del
Tridentino’, in Massimo Firpo and Ottavia Niccoli (eds), Il cardinale
Fenlon, Dermot, Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy: Cardinal Pole
and the Counter Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1972).
Fenlon, Dermot, ‘Pietro Carnesecchi and Cardinal Pole: New Perspectives’,
Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 56 (2005): pp. 529–533.
Fenlon, Dermot, ‘Pole, Carranza and the Pulpit’, in John Edwards and
Ronald Truman (eds), Reforming Catholicism in the England of Mary
Tudor: The Achievement of Bartolomé Carranza (Aldershot: Ashgate,
2005), pp. 81–98.
Firpo, Massimo, ‘Sulla legazione di pace di Reginald Pole (1553–1556)’,
Rivista storica italiana, XCIII (1981): pp. 821–837.
Firpo, Massimo, Tra Alumbrados e ‘spirituali’: Studi su Juan de Valdés
e il valdesianesimo nella crisi religiosa del ‘500 italiano (Florence:
Olschki, 1990).
Firpo, Massimo, ‘Riforma Protestante ed eresie nell’Italia del cinquecento’,
in G. De Rosa, T. Gregory and A. Vauchez (eds), Storia del Italia
Bibliography 239
religiosa. L’età moderna (Rome and Bari: Editore Laterza, 1994),

volume 2, pp. 49–133.
Firpo, Massimo, ‘The Italian Reformation and Juan de Valdés’, Sixteenth
Century Journal, XXVII (1996): pp. 353–364.
Firpo, Massimo, ‘Il “Beneficio di Christo” e il Concilio di Trento (1542–
1546)’, in Cesare Mozzarelli and Danilo Zardin (eds), I Tempi del
Firpo, Massimo, Dal sacco di Roma all’Inquisizione: Studi su Juan de
Valdés e la Riforma italiana (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 1998).
Firpo, Massimo, ‘L’eresia dottrinale: Tra “spirituali” e riformatori’, in
L’Inquisizione e gli storici: un cantiere aperto. Tavola rotunda nell’
ambito della conferenza annual della ricerca (Roma 24–25 giugno
1999) (Atti dei convegni Lincei 162, Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei
Lincei, 2000), pp. 37-46.
Firpo, Massimo, ‘Note su una biografia di Reginald Pole’, Rivista storica
italiana, CXIII (2001): pp. 859–874.
Firpo, Massimo, ‘Disputar di cose pertinente alla fede’: Studi sulla vita
religiosa del Cinquecento (Milan: Edizioni Unicopli, 2003).
Firpo, Massimo, ‘The Italian Reformation’, in R. Po-chia Hsia (ed.), A
Companion to the Reformation World (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing,
2004), pp. 169–184.
Firpo, Massimo, Vittore Soranzo: vescovo ed eretico. Reforma della chiesa
e inquisizione nell’italia del Cinquecento (Rome and Bari: Laterza,
2006).
Firpo, Massimo and Dario Marcatto, Lorenzo Davidico (1413–1574) e il
suo processo inquisitoriale (2 volumes, Florence: Olschki, 1992)
Flynn, Gabriel (ed.), Yves Congar: Theologian of the Church (Louvain:
Peeters Press, 2005).
Flynn, Gabriel, ‘Yves Congar and Catholic Church Reform: A Renewal
of the Spirit’, in Gabriel Flynn (ed.), Yves Congar: Theologian of the
Church (Louvain: Peeters Press, 2005), pp. 99-134.
Fontaine, Michelle M., ‘Making Heresy Marginal in Modena’, in Ronald
K. Delph, Michelle M. Fontaine and John Jeffries Martin (eds), Heresy,
Culture and Religion in Early Modern Italy. Contexts and Contestations
(Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies # 76, Kirksville: Trumen State
University Press, 2006), pp. 37-51.
Forcellino, Maria, Michelangelo, Vittoria Colonna e gli ‘spirituali’ (Rome:
Viella, 2009).
Fragnito, Gigliola, Memoria individuale e costruzione biografica: Beccadelli,
Della Casa, Vettori alle origini di un mito (Urbino: Argalìa, 1978).
Fragnito, Gigliola, ‘Per lo studio dell’epistolografia volgare del Cinquecento:

le lettere di Ludovico Beccadelli’, Bibliothèque d’humanisme et
renaissance, 43 (1981): pp. 61–87.
Fragnito, Gigliola, Il cardinale Gregorio Cortese (1483?–1548) nella crisi
religiosa del Cinquecento (extract from Benedictina 30 [1983], Rome:
Abbazia di San Paolo, 1983).
Fragnito, Gigliola, Gasparo Contarini: un magistrato veneziano al servizio
della cristianità (Florence: L. S. Olschki, 1988).
Fragnito, Gigliola, In museo e in villa: saggi sul Rinascimento perduto
(Venice: Arsenale, 1988).
Fragnito, Gigliola, ‘Evangelismo e intransigenti nei difficili equilibri del
pontificato farnesiano’, Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa, 25
(1989): pp. 20–47.
Fragnito, Gigliola, ‘“Parenti” e “familiari” nelle corti cardinalizie del
rinascimento’, in Cesare Mozzarelli (ed.), ‘Familia’ del principe e
famiglia aristocratica (Europa delle Corti, Centro studi sulle società di
antico regime, Biblioteca del Cinquecento, Rome: Bulzoni, 1989), pp.
565–587.
Fragnito, Gigliola, ‘Vescovi e ordini religiosi in Italia all’indomani del
concilio’, in Cesare Mozzarelli and Danilo Zardin (eds), I Tempi del
Fragnito, Gigliola (ed.), Church, Censorship and Culture in Early Modern
Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
Gasparini, Giuseppina de Sandre, Antonio Rigon, Francesco Trolese and
Gian Maria Varanini (eds), Vescovi e diocesi in Italia Dal 14 alla metà
del 16 Secolo. Atti del VII convegno di storia della chiesa in Italia
Brescia 21–25 settembre 1987 (Italia Sacra 43/1, Rome: 1990).
Ginzburg, Carlo and Adriano Prosperi, Giochi di pazienza: Un seminario
sul ‘Beneficio di Cristo’ (Turin: Giulio Einaudi, 1975).
Gleason, Elizabeth G., ‘On the Nature of Sixteenth-Century Italian
Evangelism: Scholarship 1953–1978’, Sixteenth Century Journal, 9
(1978): pp. 3–25.
Gleason, Elisabeth G. (ed.), Reform Thought in Sixteenth-Century Italy
(Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981).
Gleason, Elisabeth G., Gasparo Contarini: Venice, Rome and Reform
(Berkeley and London: University of California Press, 1993).
Gleason, Elisabeth G., ‘Catholic Reformation, Counterreformation and
Papal Reform in the Sixteenth Century’, in Thomas A. Brady Jr., Heiko
A Oberman and James D. Tracy (eds), Handbook of European History
1400–1600: Late Middle Ages, Renaissance and Reformation. Volume
Bibliography 241
II, Visions, Programs, and Outcomes (Grand Rapids: William B.

Eerdmans, 1996), volume 2, pp. 317–345.
Gogan, Brian, ‘The Ecclesiology of Erasmus of Rotterdam: A Genetic
Account’, Heythrop Journal, XXI, 4 (1980): pp. 393–411.
Haigh, Christopher, English Reformations: Religion, Politics and Society
under the Tudors (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).
Hallman, Barbara McClung, Italian Cardinals, Reform, and the Church
as Property (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press,
1985).
Hare, Christopher, Men and Women of the Italian Reformation (London,
1914).
Headley, John M. and John B. Tomaro (eds), San Carlo Borromeo:
Catholic Reform and Ecclesiastical Politics in the Second Half of the
Sixteenth Century (Washington, DC: Folger Books, 1988).
Healy, Nicholas M., Thomas Aquinas: Theologian of the Christian Life
(Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003).
Hillerbrand, Hans J. (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation
(4 volumes, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).
Hillerbrand, Hans J., ‘Was there a Reformation in the Sixteenth Century?’,
Church History, 72 (2003): pp. 525–552.
Hsia, R. Po-chia, Social Discipline in the Reformation: Central Europe
1550–1750 (London and New York: Routledge, 1989).
Hudon, William V., Marcello Cervini and Ecclesiastical Government in
Tridentine Italy (DeKalb: Illinois University Press, 1992).
Hudon, William V., ‘Religion and Society in Early Modern Italy: Old
Questions New Insights’, American Historical Review, 101 (1996): pp.
783–804.
Hudon, William V., ‘The Papacy in the Age of Reform, 1513–1644’, in
Kathleen M. Comerford and Hilmar M. Pabel (eds), Early Modern
Buffalo and London: University of Toronto Press, 2001), pp. 46–66.
Idígoras, J. Ignacio Tellechea, Fray Bartolomé Carranza: Documentos
Históricos (Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 1962–1994).
Idígoras, J. Ignacio Tellechea, El Arzobispo Carranza y su tiempo (Madrid:
Ediciones Guadarrama, 1968).
Idígoras, J. Ignacio Tellechea, Contarini, Pole, Morone, denunciados por
el cardenal Francisco de Mendoza (1560). Un documento del processo
Carranza, in Fray Bartolomé Carranza y el cardenal Pole. Un navarro
en la restauración católica de Inglaterra (1554–1558) (Diputación
Foral de Navarra, Pamplona: Institución principe de Viana, 1977).
Idígoras, J. Ignacio Tellechea, El processo romano del Arzobispo Carranza
(1567–1576) (Rome, 1988 and 1994).
Jedin, Hubert, Papal Legate at the Council of Trent: Cardinal Seripando

(translated from the 1937 original, Girolamo Seripando: Sein Leben
und Denken im Geisteskampf, by Frederic C. Eckhoff, St Louis and
London: Herder, 1947).
Jedin, Hubert, Storia del Concilio di Trento (4 volumes in 5, translated
from the German original, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, 1949–
1975, Brescia: Morcelliana, 1949–1981).
Jedin, Hubert, A History of the Council of Trent (2 volumes, translated
by Dom Ernest Graf, the first two volumes from the original 4 volumes
in 5, 1949–1975, Geschichte des Konzils von Trient, London: Thomas
Nelson & Sons Ltd., 1957–1961).
Jedin, Hubert, Riforma Cattolica o controriforma? (translated by Marola
Guarducci from the 1946 original, Katholische Reformation oder
Gegenreformation? Ein Versuch zur Klärung der Begriffe nebst einer
Jubiläumsbetrachtung über das Treinter Konzil, Brescia: Morcelliana,
1957).
Jedin, Hubert, Crisis and Closure of the Council of Trent (translated by N.
D. Smith from 1964 original, Krisis und Abschluss des Treinter Konzils
1562/3, London: Sheed and Ward, 1967).
Jedin, Hubert and Giuseppe Alberigo, Il tipo ideale di vescovo seconda la
riforma cattolica (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1985).
Jedin, Hubert and K. Reinhardt, Il matrimonio. Una ricerca storica e
teologica (Brescia: Morcelliana, 1981).
Jones, Pamela M. and Thomas Worcester (eds), From Rome to Eternity:
Catholicism and the Arts in Italy, ca. 1550–1650 (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
2002).
Jung, Eva-Maria, ‘On the Nature of Evangelism in Sixteenth-Century
Italy’, Journal of the History of Ideas, 14 (1953): pp. 511–527.
Küng, Hans, My Struggle for Freedom (London: Continuum, 2003).
Lemaitre, Nicole, Saint Pie V (Paris: Fayard, 1994).
Loades, David, ‘Cardinal Pole’, Reformation, 7 (2002): pp. 197–205.
Lytle, Guy F. (ed.), Reform and Authority in the Medieval and Reformation
Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press,
1981).
Maio, Romeo de, Michelangelo e la Controriforma (Rome and Bari:
Laterza, 1978).
Marcatto, Dario, ‘Questo passo dell’heresia’: Pietrantonio Di Capua tra
valdesiani, ‘spirituali’ e Inquisizione (Naples: Bibliopolis, 2003).
Marcocchi, Massimo, Claudio Scarpati, Antonio Acerbi and Giuseppe
Alberigo, Il Concilio di Trento: istanze di riforma e aspetti dottrinali
(Milan: Vita e Pensiero, 1997).
Bibliography 243
Marranzini, Alfredo, S.J. Il cardinale Girolamo Seripando. Arcivecovo di

Salerno, Legato pontificio al Concilio di Trento (Salerno: Elea Press,
1994).
Marranzini, Alfredo S.J. ‘Il problema della giustificazione nell’ evoluzione
del pensiero di Seripando’, in Antonio Cestaro (ed.), Geronimo
Seripando e la chiesa del suo tempo nel V centenario dlla nascita
(Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1997), pp. 225–269.
Martin, John, Venice’s Hidden Enemies: Italian Heretics in a Renaissance
City (Berkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press,
1993).
Martin, John Jeffries, ‘Renovatio and Reform in Early Modern Italy’,
in Ronald K. Delph, Michelle M. Fontaine and John Jeffries Martin,
Heresy, Culture and Religion in Early Modern Italy. Contexts and
Contestations (Sixteenth Century Essays and Studies # 76, Kirksville:
Trumen State University Press, 2006), 1-17.
Matheson, Peter, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1972).
Matheson, Peter, The Rhetoric of the Reformation (Edinburgh: T & T
Clark, 1998).
Mayer, Thomas F., A Reluctant Author: Cardinal Pole and His Manuscripts
(transactions of the American Philosophical Society, volume 89, part 4,
Philadelphia, 1999).
Mayer, Thomas F., Cardinal Pole in European Context: A Via Media in
the Reformation (Variorum Collected Studies Series, Aldershot and
Burlington: Ashgate, 2000).
Mayer, Thomas F., Reginald Pole: Prince and Prophet (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2000).
Mayer, Thomas F., ‘Cardinal Pole’s Concept of Reformatio: The
Reformatio Angliae and Bartolomé Carranza’, in John Edwards and
2005), pp. 65–80.
Mayer, Thomas F. and Peter E. Starenko, ‘An Unknown Diary of Julius
III’s Conclave by Bartolomeo Stella, a Servant of Cardinal Pole’,
Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, 24 (1992/1995): pp. 345–375,
reprinted with same pagination as item V, in Cardinal Pole in European
Context: A Via Media in the Reformation (Variorum Collected Studies
Series, Aldershot and Burlington: Ashgate, 2000).
McGrath, Alistair, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of
Justification (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
McNair, Philip, Peter Martyr in Italy. An Anatomy of Apostasy (Oxford:
Menchi, Silvana Siedel, Erasmo in Italia 1520–1580 (Turin: Bollati

Boringhieri Editore, 1987).
Menchi, Silvana Siedel, ‘Origine e origini del Santo Ufficio dell’ Inquisizione
Romana’, in Agostino Borromeo (ed.), L’Inquisizione: Atti del Simposio
internazionale, Città del Vaticano 29–31 ottobre 1998 (Vatican City:
Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2003), pp 291-321.
Meyer, A. O., England and the Catholic Church under Elizabeth
(translated from the German by J. R. McKee, London: Kegan Paul,
Trench, Trübner, 1916).
Mozzarelli, Cesare and Danilo Zardin (eds), I Tempi del Concilio:
Religione, cultura e società nell’Europa tridentina (Europa delle Corti,
Centro studi sulle società di antico regime, Biblioteca del Cinquecento,
Rome: Bulzoni, 1997).
Mullett, Michael, The Catholic Reformation (London and New York:
Routledge, 1999).
Nieto, Jose C., Juan de Valdés and the Origins of the Spanish and Italian
Reformation (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1970).
Oakley, Francis, The Conciliarist Tradition: Constitutionalism in the
Catholic Church 1300–1870 (Oxford and New York: Oxford
O’Donohoe, J., Tridentine Seminary Legislation: Its Sources and its
Formation (Louvain: Publications universitaires de Louvain, 1957).
O’Donohue, J., ‘The Seminary Legislation of the Council of Trent’,
in Iginio Rogger (ed.), Il concilio di Trento e la Riforma tridentina.
Atti del convegno storico internazionale, Trento, 2–6 settembre 1963
(2 volumes, Rome: Herder, 1965), volume 1, pp. 157–172.
Olin, John C. (ed.), Catholic Reform: From Cardinal Ximenes to the
Council of Trent 1495–1563 (New York: Fordham University Press,
1990).
Olin, John C. (ed.), The Catholic Reformation: Savonarola to Ignatius
Loyola (2nd Edition, New York: Fordham University Press, 1992).
O’Malley, John W., ‘Was Ignatius Loyola a Church Reformer? How to
Look at Early Modern Catholicism’, Catholic Historical Review, 77
(1991): pp. 177–193.
O’Malley, John W., The First Jesuits (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1993).
O’Malley, John W., Trent and All That: Renaming Catholicism in the
Early Modern Era (Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University
Press, 2000).
Pabel, Hilmar M., Erasmus’ Vision of the Church (Kirksville: Sixteenth
Century Journal Publications, 1995).
Pallavicino, (Pietro) Sforza, Istoria del Concilio di Trento (4 volumes,
edited by F. A. Zaccaria, Rome, 1833).
Bibliography 245
Pastor, Ludwig von, The History of the Popes from the Close of the Middle
Ages (translated by F. I. Antrobus, R. F. Kerr, E. Graf and E. F. Peeler,
40 volumes, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner, 1891–1953).
Pastore, Alessandro, Marcantonio Flaminio: fortune e sfortune di un
chierico nell’ Italia del Cinquecento (Milan, 1981).
Pastore, Alessandro and A. Toffoli (eds), Marcantonio Flaminio (Serravalle
1498–Roma 1550) nel 5 o centenario della nascita (Vittorio Veneto:
Comunità Montana delle Prealpi Trevigiane, 2001).
Pastore, Stefania, ‘Roma, Il Concilio di Trento, la nuova inquisizione:
alcune considerazioni sui rapport tra vescovi e inquisitori nella Spagna
del cinquecento’, in L’Inquisizione e gli storici: un cantiere aperto.
Tavola rotunda nell’ ambito della conferenza annual della ricerca
(Roma 24–25 giugno 1999) (Atti dei convegni Lincei 162, Rome:
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 2000), pp. 109-146.
Petrucci, Enzo, ‘Vescovi e cura d’anime nel Lazio (sec. XIII–XV)’, in
Giuseppina de Sandre Gasparini et al. (eds), Vescovi e diocesi in Italia
Dal 14 alla metà del 16 Secolo. Atti del VII convegno di storia della
chiesa in Italia Brescia 21–25 settembre 1987 (Italia Sacra 43/1, Rome,
1990).
Pollen, J. H., The English Catholics in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth
(London: Longmans, Green, 1920).
Preston, Patrick, ‘Carranza and Catharinus in the Controversy over the
Bishops’ Obligation of Residence 1546–1552’, in John Edwards and
2005), pp. 99–114.
Prodi, Paolo, Il Cardinale Gabriele Paleotti 1522–1597 (2 volumes, Rome:
Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1959).
Prodi, Paolo, ‘Controriforma e/o riforma cattolica: Superamento di
vecchi dilemmi nei nuova panorami storiografici’, Römische historiche
Mitteilungen, 31 (1989): pp. 227–237.
Prodi, Paolo and Wolfgang Reinhard (eds), Il concilio di Trento e il
moderno. Atti della XXXVIII settimana di studio, 11–15 settembre
1995 (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1996).
Prosperi, Adriano, Tra evangelismo e controriforma: G. M. Giberti (1495–
1543) (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1969).
Prosperi, Adriano, ‘Riforma Cattolica, controriforma, disciplinamento
sociale’, in G. De Rosa, T. Gregory and A. Vauchez (eds), Storia
dell’Italia religiosa. L’età moderna (Rome and Bari: Editori Laterza,
1994), volume II, pp. 3–47.
Prosperi, Adriano, Tribunali della coscienza: Inquisitori, confessori,
missionari (Turin: Giulio Einaudi, 1996).
Prosperi, Adriano, ‘Evangelismo di Seripando?’, in Antonio Cestaro (ed.),

Geronimo Seripando e la chiesa del suo tempo nel V centenario dlla
nascita (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 1997), pp. 33–49.
Prosperi, Adriano, Il Concilio di Trento e la controriforma (Trent: Edizione
UCT, 1999).
Prosperi, Adriano, Il Concilio di Trento: una introduzione storica (Turin:
Giulio Einaudi, 2001).
Prosperi, Adriano, ‘Introduzione’, in Maurizio Sangalli (ed.), Per il
Cinquecento religioso italiano: Clero, cultura, società. Atti del
Convengo internazionale di studi,. Siena, 27–30 giugno 2001 (2
volumes, Rome: Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 2003), volume 1, pp. 13-25.
Prosperi, Adriano, L’Inquisizione romana. Letture e ricerche (Rome:
Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 2003).
Rambaldi, Susanna Peyronel, Speranze e crisi nel cinquecento modenese:
Tensioni religiose e vita cittadina ai tempi di Giovanni Morone (Milan:
Franco Angeli, 1979).
Rambaldi, Susanna Peyronel, ‘Ancora sull’ evangelismo italiano: Categoria
o invenzione storiografica?’, Società e storia, 5, no. 18 (1982): pp. 935–
967.
Reinhard, Wolfgang, ‘The Idea of Early Modern History’, in Michael
Bentley, Companion to Historiography (London and New York:
Routledge, 2002), pp. 281–292.
Rogger, Iginio (ed.), Il concilio di Trento e la Riforma tridentina. Atti
del convegno storico internazionale, Trento, 2–6 settembre 1963 (2
volumes, Rome, 1965).
Rogger, Iginio, ‘Il concilio di Trento, opera valida e imperfetta di una
chiesa pellegrina’, in Roberto Pancheri and Domenica Primerano (eds),
L’uomo del Concilio. Il cardinale Giovanni Morone tra Roma e Trento
nell’ età di Michelangelo (Trent: Editrice Temi, 2009), pp. 11–17.
Sangalli, Maurizio (ed.), Per il Cinquecento religioso italiano: Clero cultura
societa. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi. Siena, 27–30 giugno
2001 (2 volumes, Rome, Edizioni dell’Ateneo, 2003).
Santosuosso, Antonio, ‘An Account of the Election of Paul IV to the
Pontificate’, Renaissance Quarterly, XXXI (1978): pp. 486–498.
Sarpi, Paolo, Istoria del Concilio Tridentino (Florence: G. Sansoni editore,
1966).
Savelli, Rodolfo, La repubblica oligarchica. Legislazione, istituzioni e ceti
a Genova nel Cinquecento (Milan, Giuffrè, 1981).
Scarisbrick, J.J., ‘An Historian’s Reflections on Yves Congar’s “Mon
journal du concile”’, in Gabriel Flynn (ed.), Yves Congar: Theologian
of the Church (Louvain: Peeters Press, 2005), pp. 247-275.
Schutte, Anne Jacobson, Pier Paolo Vergerio: The Making of an Italian
Reformer (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1977).
Bibliography 247
Schutte, Anne Jacobson, ‘Periodization of Sixteenth-Century Italian

Religious History: The Post-Cantimori Paradigm Shift’, Journal of
Modern History, 61 (1989): pp. 269–284.
Schutte, Anne Jacobson, ‘Religion, Spirituality and the Post-Tridentine
Church’, in John A. Marino (ed.), Early Modern Italy 1550–1796
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 125–142.
Simoncelli, Paolo, Il caso Reginald Pole: eresia e santità nelle polemiche
religiose del Cinquecento (Edizioni di storia e letteratura [Uomini e
Dottrine 23], Rome, 1977).
Simoncelli, Paolo, Evangelismo italiano del cinquecento: questione
religiosa e nicodemismo politico (Rome: Istituto storico italiano per
l’età moderna e contemporanea, 1979).
Simoncelli, Paolo, ‘Inquisizione romana e Riforma in Italia’, Rivista storica
italiana, C (1988): pp. 5–125.
Sygut, Marek, Natura e origine della potestà dei vescovi nel Concilio di
Trento e nella dottrina successive (1545–1869) (Tesi Gregoriana, Serie
Diritto Canonico, Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1998).
Tallon, Alain, ‘Le concile de Trente et l’Inquisition Romaine’, in Mélanges
de l’École Française de Rome, CVI (1994): pp. 129–159.
Tallon, Alain, La France et le concile de Trente (1518–1563) (Rome: École
Française de Rome, 1997).
Tallon, Alain, Le concile de Trente (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 2000).
Tanner, Norman P. S.J., The Councils of the Church. A Short History
(New York: Crossroad Publishing Co., 2001).
Tedeschi, John, ‘Preliminary Observations on Writing a History of
the Roman Inquisition’, in F. Forrester Church and T. George (eds),
Continuity and Discontinuity in Church History, Essays Presented to
George Huntston Williams (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979), pp. 232–249.
Tedeschi, John and James M. Lattis, The Italian Reformation of the
Sixteenth Century and the Diffusion of Renaissance Culture: A
Bibliography of the Secondary Literature (ca. 1750–1996) (Modena:
Franco Cosimo Panini, 1999).
Trisco, Robert, ‘Reforming the Roman Curia: Emperor Ferdinand I and
the Council of Trent’, in Guy F. Lytle (ed.), Reform and Authority in
the Medieval and Reformation Church (Washington, DC: Catholic
University of America Press, 1981), pp. 143–333.
Trisco, Robert, ‘Carlo Borromeo and the Council of Trent: The Question
of Reform’, in J. M. Headley and J. B. Tomaro (eds), San Carlo
Borromeo: Catholic Reform and Ecclesiastical Politics in the Second
Half of the Sixteenth Century (Washington, DC: Folger Books, 1988),
pp. 47–66.
Williams, Michael E., The Venerable English College Rome: A History
1579–1979 (London: Associated Catholic Publications, 1979).
Wright, Antony D., The Early Modern Papacy: From the Council of Trent
to the French Revolution 1564–1789 (Longman History of the Papacy,
Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2000).
Wright, Antony D., The Counter-Reformation: Catholic Europe and the
Non-Christian World (2nd Edition, Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005).
Wright, Wendy M., ‘The Visitation of Mary: The First Years (1610–
1618)’, in Richard L. DeMolen (ed.), Religious Orders of the Catholic
Reformation (New York: Fordham University Press, 1998), pp. 217–
250.
Zarri, Gabriella, ‘Il matrimonio tridentino’, in Paolo Prodi and Wolfgang
Reinhard (eds), Il concilio di Trento e il moderno. Atti della XXXVIII
settimana di studio, 11–15 settembre 1995 (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1996),
pp. 437–483.
Index
Accademia of Modena, the 45–57 Buonarroti, Michelangelo 184n, 225

Alba, the Duke of, Fernando Álvarez Buoncompagni, Ugo, see Gregory XIII
de Toledo 102, 163–164, 186 Burgos, Francisco y Bobadilla
Aleandro, Gerolamo 20, 25, 32, 38n, Mendoza di 78
50n, 94n
Apologia, Morone’s 1, 14n, 38, 59–60, Calandra, Endimio 76n, 78n, 203, 205
66–67, 79, 84, 87, 93, 102, Calini, Muzio 123, 130, 183
204, 220 Campeggio, Tommaso 25n, 32, 39
Avila, Luis de 144, 164 Canisius, Peter 141n, 142n, 145n,
149n
Babbi, Francesco 200, 202 Capua, Pietrantonio Di 20, 62, 94, 96,
Badia, Tommaso 38n, 44, 46, 50–52, 157n, 183, 200, 203
53n, 56, 79n, 85, 87n, 225 Carafa, Gian Pietro, see Paul IV
Bartoli, Bernardo de’ 61, 67–72, 82, Carafa, Carlo 101, 103–104, 114n,
92–93, 99, 103, 224 197, 199
and the primo processo against carafa family, the 197, 199, 203n
Morone 92–94, 105, 108 Carnesecchi, Pietro 6, 10, 13, 14, 20,
Beccadelli, Ludovico 95n, 109, 113, 76, 78n, 80, 83–84, 94, 99,
119–129, 135, 148, 183, 212n 105n–106, 111, 113n, 114,
Bembo, Pietro 19–20, 52, 87n, 109, 116n, 117–118, 196n, 215,
225 224–226
Beneficio di Cristo 7, 47, 54n, 67–69, his processo under Pius V 198–205
81, 201, 204, Carpi, Alberto Foscheri Da Carpi 68n
Bentivoglio, Marcantonio 73n, 81 Carpi, Rodolfo Pio Da Carpi 68n, 95n,
Bergamo, Domenico da 72 98n, 108, 168n, 207n
Bertano, Pietro 104–105, 109 Carranza, Bartolomé 10, 104, 203,
Bologna 17, 26, 49–50, 69–70, 75, 205, 225
113n, 175, 204, Cervini, Marcello (Pope Marcellus
Morone as legate at 57, 62n, II) 23–25, 28–29, 32, 41–42,
73–75, 80–81, 111, 200, 46, 49, 51, 53, 57, 74, 80, 90,
Bongalli, Scipione 63, 73, 78 95–96, 107, 108, 222
Borromeo, St Carlo 112, 118, 124, Charles V, Emperor 15, 17, 22, 25, 28,
183, 185, 194, 197, 207n, 227 29, 32–33, 38–43, 53, 56, 75,
liaising with Morone at Trent 80, 88, 91n, 98–99, 108
139–159, 163–189 Christ (Jesus) 59, 64, 68–73, 74n, 77,
the conclave of 1565/1566 79, 83, 130, 132, 160, 178n,
194–196 218
Brus, Anton von Müglitz 123n, 134n, Cicada, Giovanni Battista 125, 127n,
141n, 179, 180 135, 182
Bucer, Martin 27, 41
250 index
Clement VII (de’ Medici), Pope 17, 19, ecclesia viterbiensis 6–7, 49–50, 52,
199, 209, 225 61, 67–68, 81, 83, 200
Cochlaeus, Johann 34 ecclesiology 14, 31, 55, 76, 189,
Colloquy of Regensburg, see 219–221
Regensburg Eck, Johann 25, 40, 219
Colonna, Ascanio 24, 39–41, 53 Elizabeth I, Queen 206–209
Colonna Vittoria 2, 6, 19, 20, 61, England 91, 96–97, 100–102, 170,
64–67, 76n, 81, 201n, 203n, 206–210
225 Erasmian 5, 34, 48n
conciliarism 30, 219 Erasmus 5n, 25n, 219, 221
conciliarist 19, 123, 141, 144, 160, D’Este, Alfonso I 17
185, 219 D’Este, Ercole II 17n
Confession, Sacrament of 70–71, 83, D’Este, Ippolito II 168n, 194n
92–93, 103, 204 Eucharist, the 42n, 68–69, 103, 115n,
Consilium de emendanda ecclesia, the 129, 219, 224
38, 56, 60, 122, 190 evangelismo 4–12, 38, 56, 59, 114n
Contarini, Gasparo 6–8, 11n, 18, 22n,
25, 32n, 33, 35, 55–57, 60, Faber (Fabri), Johann 25, 30n, 34, 219
67n, 71n, 75, 87n, 91, 95, 109, Farnese, Alessandro, see Paul III
115, 122, 135, 142, 147, 219 Farnese, Alessandro 22n, 48–50, 62,
Accademia negotiations 45, 48–54 81, 88, 98, 104–105, 168,
influence on Morone 20, 55-56, 185n, 194, 196, 213–214
71n, 78n, 79n, 83, 85, 218 correspondence with Morone as
publication of his writings 113n, nuncio 22–34, 37, 39–44, 46
120, 197–198 farnese family/papacy 22, 40, 41, 53,
Regensburg Colloquy 37–43, 53, 56–57, 80–81, 84, 87, 93–94,
55 104, 194n, 196n
Cortese, Gregorio 18, 38n, 44, 46n, Farnese, Pier Luigi 80, 94
50, 52, 53n, 56, 68, 77, 87n Ferdinand I, Emperor 91, 104, 108,
Council of Cologne 71, 93 112, 182–183, 207, 219
Council of Trent, see Trent and Morone
as nuncio 20–24, 27, 29, 31
Delfino, Zaccaria 100, 132, 140, negotiations at Innsbruck
142–144, 149, 165n, 171, 183, 140–148
194, 203 and the final sessions of the council
Della Coltre, Michele 73n 116n, 132, 136, 163–172,
Del Monte, Giovanni Maria Ciocchi, 182–188, 207
see Julius III Ferrier, Arnaud du 151–152, 159,
Dominican Order, the 48, 61, 68n, 165n, 169, 182, 188
70n, 72, 73n, 74n, 80n, 83, 88, Flaminio, Marc Antonio 3, 6, 18, 49,
92, 95n, 99, 104, 126, 141n, 61–68, 76n, 83, 88n, 108–109,
178n, 197, 224–225 120n, 200, 218
Draskovich, Georges 123n, 134n, Foscarari, Egidio 71n, 88–90, 105,
179–180 109, 113n, 119, 183–185, 225
duplex iustitia see Justification at Trent 120–135, 152–153,
159–160, 185
Index 251
France 15, 25, 29, 56, 100, 115, 117, Hapsburg, House of 15, 21, 24, 26,
183, 190, 221 28–31, 38, 42, 53, 80, 89n, 94,
and the last period of Trent 132, 97–105, 108, 112, 221
151–152, 159n, 170, 172, 176, Holy Office, see Inquisition
178, 182 Holy Spirit 62, 79, 124n, 127, 146,
Franco, Niccolò 198, 201, 203, 205 171, 185, 193
Fregoso, Federigo, 38n, 49, 51, 87n Hosius, Stanislaus 18, 118n, 176n,
179n
Galdadino, Antonio 68, 99
Galli, Tolomeo 178n, 180n, 206n, indulgences 45, 165, 171, 178n, 181n,
213, 226 186
Gallarati, Girolamo 121–129 Innsbruck 43, 132, 139–143, 149,
Germanicum et Hungaricum, the 150, 159, 161, 185–186, 188,
Collegium 44, 90, 159n, 216 190, 203, 217
Germany 21, 23, 26–29, 34, 38, 40, Inquisition 46, 121, 223–225
42–46, 72, 77n, 91, 93, 117, Roman Inquisition (Holy Office)
134n, 171, 190, 200, 206 3, 9–10, 18, 37, 54, 56, 68, 80,
Gheri, Cosmo 81n 82, 114–115, 197n, 134, 205n,
Gheri, Filippo 95n, 104, 109, 116n, 218, 221–225
117, 120n, 128n, 133, 188n, Carnesecchi’s processo 198–
198, 212 201
Ghislieri, Michele, see Pius V destruction of palazzo of Holy
Giberti, Gian Matteo 18n 19–20, 34, Office 107, 114
49, 56n, 71n, 73, 87n, 122, early activity 93–95, 108–109
211n foundation under Licet ab
Gonzaga, Ercole 6n, 73, 104–105, initio 50, 55–56, 94n
109, 111, 113, 118n, 119–121, pursuit of Morone 13, 16, 19–
124–125, 129–133, 136, 137, 20, 33, 37, 49, 59, 62–68,
168, 185n, 186–187, 203 72, 73n, 77–78, 81, 87, 92,
Gonzaga, Ferrante 81 101–109, 117, 177n, 178n,
Gonzaga, Giulia 6n, 20, 94, 111, 199, 183, 196–205, 217, 225
202, 203n under Pius V 197–205
Granvelle, Nicola de Perrenet 32, 39 Spanish Inquisition 6n, 10, 46n,
Gregory XIII (Buoncompagni), 175n
Pope 159n, 183, 185, 188n, intransigenti, the, see zelanti
193–194, 201, 205–206, 209,
212–213, 226 Jesuits (Society of Jesus) 44, 72, 90n,
Grimani, Giovanni 94, 96, 113n, 114, 91, 104, 141n, 148n, 153,
134n, 183, 221 177n, 210, 216
Gropper, Johann 38n, 41, 71n Julius III (Del Monte), Pope 73, 74,
Gualterio, Sebastiano 151, 159 87–96, 100, 107–108, 109n,
Guerrero, Pedro 152, 185 116, 205, 225
Guise, Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine justification 5, 19n, 40–42, 65, 84,
117, 130–132, 134n, 136–137, 135, 218, 220, 224
139, 143, 148, 150–159, 165, and Morone 1, 3, 61, 67, 69,
166n, 170–179, 182, 185, 76–78, 81, 83–85, 93, 103,
187–188 117n, 200, 205n, 218
252 index
and Pole 75–77 and Morone as bishop 17–19, 37,

Decree on Justification, the 7, 9, 80, 82–84, 88–89, 184, 202,
74–77, 83, 117n, 205n 210–211, 215, 225
double justification (duplex iustitia) Accademia crisis, the 45–54
75, 83 appointment of suspect
Joint Declaration on the Doctrine preachers for 67–73
of Justification 42n, 224 reports of heresy at 23, 32, 37
Morone, Gerolamo 15–17
Lachi, Matteo 73n Morone Stampa, Anna 15n, 104, 107,
Laínez, Diego 91n, 153, 155n, 185 109n
Licet ab initio, see Inquisition Morando, Domenico 100, 105, 205
Loyola, St Ignatius 12, 44n, 91n, 216 Muzzarelli, Girolamo 92–95, 100,
Lucca, 7, 56 105, 224
Luna, Conte de, Claudio Fernandez de
Quiñonez 149, 154, 156, 158, Naples 6n, 7, 19–20, 33, 56, 94
163–166, 169, 172–174, 177, Nausea, Frederic 25, 34, 219
179–182, 188 Navagero, Bernardo 103, 133, 137,
Luther, Martin 5, 27–28, 46, 69–70, 165n, 179n
84 Nerli, Reginaldo di 73, 82, 92
Lutheran(s) 1, 21, 23, 27–32, 41–42, Novara 1, 89, 97, 112n
61, 62n, 69, 75, 77, 84, 103,
114n, 142, 218, 224–225 Ochino, Bernadino 6n, 7, 18n, 19, 47,
51, 54, 56, 84, 93
Madruzzo, Cristoforo 18, 19, 25, 115, Orders, Decree on, debate over, see
152, 201, 204, 207n Trent, Council of
Madruzzo, Ludovico 131, 134n, Ormanetto, Niccolò 102, 109
151–154, 157, 166n, 176n, Ostia 211
178, 182, 187, 188
Manuzio, Paolo 118–119, 182, 198n Padua 16, 18–20, 25, 33, 225
Marcellus II, Pope, see Marcello Paleotti, Gabriele 120n, 137n, 139,
Cervini 153, 155n, 159–160, 165,
Marriage, Decree on, debate over, see 166n, 183, 185, 188n
Trent, Council of Paul, St 8n, 47, 64n
Mary, the Virgin 74, 103, 193 Paul III (Farnese), Pope, 13, 20–22,
Mary Queen of Scots 209 26, 30, 38, 40, 43, 54, 76n, 80,
Mary Tudor, Queen of England 91, 87–88, 194n, 205, 209, 222;
97, 103 see also the farnese
Medici, Cosimo I de’ 98, 198, attitude to the Inquisition 50,
Medici, Giulio de’, see Clement VII 93–94
Medici, Gian Angelo de’, see Pius IV Paul IV (Carafa), Pope 1–2, 8–9, 38,
Melancthon, Philipp 27 60, 65, 78, 111, 113–114, 133,
Merenda, Apollonia 68n, 84, 94 194, 197–198, 223, 225–226;
Milan 15, 17, 46n, 80, 89, 97, 112, see also the carafa family
117 concern about heresy and the
Mirandola, Cherubino della 72 spirituali 56, 88, 95, 108
Modena 7–8, 15, 41, 54, 56, 61, 67, death 1, 106–107
75, 90, 93, 128, 159, election 98–99
Index 253
heading up the Holy Office 50n, 92, 94–96, 98–99, 115, 122,
94–96 127, 139, 164, 195–196, 201n,
imprisonment and trial of Morone 203n, 208, 219, 222, 225–226
98–109 crisis within the spirituali 49–53,
Penance, see Confession 56, 71n
Pergola, Bartolomeo della 68–70, 72, death 106, 109
82 English legation 91, 97, 100–101
Peter, St 40, 64n, 73n, 138, 149, 176, on justification 75–80, 83
219 publication of his De Concilio
Philip II, King of Spain 103–105, 118–120, 122
107n, 108, 115, 117, 136, 163, relationship with Carafa 95,
166, 172, 176, 179, 182, 185, 102–104, 108
196n, 207–208 relationship with Morone 18–19,
piety 73n, 81, 83, 85, 127, 138, 141, 57, 74–78, 80, 83, 91–92,
227 95–97, 100–101, 108, 225
Pius IV (de’ Medici), Pope 18, 19, and Colonna 64–67
196–197, 205, 206–207, 213, ‘seduction’ of Morone 60–64
and the Council of Trent 111–136, Prague 22, 26, 28, 32, 45
137–161, 163–191 Priuli, Alvise 18, 60, 62, 65, 76n,
and the spirituali 12, 112-115, 118n, 200
134, 197, 223 providence 66, 83, 97, 127
appointing Morone as legate 133, purgatory 45, 66, 165, 171, 178,
137 181n, 186
attitude to reform 185 Puteo, Giacomo 98, 113, 118n
break with previous regime
111–115 Rebiba, Scipione 102n, 109
death 191, 193 Regensburg 23–24, 33, 206, 227
election and links with Morone Colloquy of 37–43, 45, 50–56, 75,
111 77, 83, 91, 93, 95, 115n
importance of pontificate 12, Reumano, Giovanni 102n
133–134, 223 Rosario, Virgilio 102n
rehabilitation of Morone 112–113,
195 Sadoleto, Giacomo 20, 28, 38n, 46n,
Pius V (Ghislieri), Pope St 182, 183, 50–51, 56, 60, 87n
208–209, 223, 225 Sadoleto, Paolo 20, 28n
break with previous regime Saint Peter’s Basilica 220, 225
197–201 Salméron, Alfonso 72, 103–104, 153,
death 205 185
election 193–197 San Paolo fuori le muri, basilica of 95,
involvement in Morone’s processo 98
105n, 113 Sanfelice, Tommaso 18, 62n, 102,
leading zelante 109, 115 113n, 126n
marginalisation under Pius IV 134n Santa Maria Maggiore, church of 73,
pursuit of Morone 199, 201–204 226
Pole, Reginald 1–3, 6, 8, 14, 18–19, Santa Maria Sopra Minerva, church of
38n, 56–57, 63–64, 65n, 68n, 92, 197, 199, 214, 224–226
73, 74, 80, 83, 85, 87–88n, 90,
254 index
Santoro, Giulio Antonio 2n, 12, 197, attempts to open and Morone’s
200–204 early support for it 21,
Scotti, Giovan Battista 61–63, 67, 68n, 25–31, 34
78, 80, 82, 84, 92, 99, 103, closure 163–165, 176–181
199–200 deaths of the legates 129–133
Seripando, Girolamo 5, 9n, 75, 83, debate over Orders 129–132,
107, 109, 112, 114–125, 128n, 152–161
133–134, 136, 157n, 168, debate over marriage and
185n, 187, 218, 219n reform 165–175
Seld, Sigmund 141–142, 144, 145n, dispute over residence 122–
148 129, 134–136
Sforza, Francesco II 15–16 English question 207
Sforza di Santa Fiore, Guido Ascanio Morone at Innsbruck 139–148
22n, 45–46, 55 Morone’s contribution assessed
Sigibaldi, Giovanni Domenico 45–46, 184–191, 220, 223–224
68–71, 82, 92 Morone’s opening speech and
Simonetta, Ludovico 118n, 123–124, initial work 138–139, 148-
129–130, 173, 176n, 181–182, 152
184, 188, 194 negotiations over location
Soranzo, Vittore 18, 68n, 94, 102 43–44
spirituali, the 2, 6–14, 18–19, 38, opening and Decree on
44–45, 50, 59, 64n, 65, 67–68, Justification 74–77, 80, 83,
75, 77, 81n, 83–84, 87, 96, 103, 218
104, 120–122, 184n, 203, resumption under Julius III 90
212n, 217-226 resumption under Pius IV
assessment of standing in 1550s 115–122, 133–136
107–109 Truchsess, Otto von Waldburg 18, 96,
disputes within 50–57, 125–129, 98, 115
135
historiography of term 6–14, Usodimare, Stefano 92
222–224
resurgence under Pius IV 111–115, Valdés, Juan de 6, 19, 49n, 52n, 63,
134, 197n, 223 67, 84, 94, 224
struggles with the zelanti 92–96, Valdesian/valdesianesimo 5–6, 13, 52,
115, 118, 222 64, 67, 102n, 160
Stella, Tommaso 126n, 127, 128n, 133 Vargas, Francisco, 117, 164
Venice 7–8, 18n, 99, 170
Trent 11, 15, 21, 25, 42, 66, 68, 70 Vergerio, Pier Paolo 1, 7, 18, 21, 32,
Council of 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12–13, 84
34, 95, 225 Vermigli, Peter Martyr 6n, 7, 18, 51,
aborted opening of 59–63, 66, 56, 84, 93
97 Vienna 13, 21–22, 27, 31, 81, 100,
aftermath 181–184, 204–205, 117
211–212 Villamarino, Marcantonio 6n, 20, 102
as the lens for understanding Visconti, Carlo 129, 131, 169,
Morone 218–219, 227 183n,186
Viterbo 6, 60, 151
Index 255
Widmanstetter, John 32 zelanti (intransigenti), the 8, 55, 92,

Worms 23, 31–33, 37–39, 41, 45, 54 95n, 98, 102, 118, 120, 134n,
221–222, 226
Zannettini, Dionigi 62n, 63n, 76n,
131n

Robinson - The Career of Cardinal Giovanni Morone (1509-1580) Between Council and Inquisition (2012)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Robinson - The Career of Cardinal Giovanni Morone (1509-1580) Between Council and Inquisition (2012)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Robinson - The Career of Cardinal Giovanni Morone (1509-1580) Between Council and Inquisition (2012)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Career of Cardinal

Giovanni Morone (1509–1580)

Adam Patrick Robinson

Adam Patrick Robinson

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN 9781409417835 (hbk)

1 Early Life and Career, 1509–1540  15

2 Morone and Contarini: Regensburg and the Accademia

3 Morone, Pole and the Spirituali, 1542–1549  59

4 Spirituali vs Intransigenti: Morone under Suspicion,

5 Morone, Pius IV and the Resumption of the Council,

6 Legate at Trent: Innsbruck and the Decree on Orders,

7 Marriage, Reform, Conclusion and Aftermath of the

8 Conclave and Final Years, 1566–1580  193

ADSPPM Atti e memorie della deputazione di storia patria

Gervais Dumeige S.J., Paris: Éditions de l’Orante,

NB Nuntiaturberichte aus Deutschland nebst

1509 Born Milan

The interest and support of my parents and siblings has been

… vir magnae auctoritatis, prudentiae et consilii, necnon sanctissimae vitae.1

Morone and Historiography

On 31 May 1557, Cardinal Giovanni Morone, experienced papal

contemporaries and outwardly conformed to Catholic belief and practice.3

More recently still, Morone has continued to receive contrasting

‘Catholic Reformation’, Evangelismo and Other Things: The Wider

‘What’s in a name?’ asks John W. O’Malley at the outset of his work

contribution to the debate is made from a background of considerable

council and the Counter Reformation.22 Firpo, as much interested in

suspect literature especially the tract known as the Beneficio di Cristo. It

or from the shipwrights of Venice and shopkeepers of Modena? Part of

that bears resemblance to a hybrid of Jedin and Cantimori. She argues

that both provides a historiographical term, as well as lending its name to

Morone: The State of the Question, the Scope of the Book

extremely detailed scholarship, conducted against the backdrop of the

of the image of Morone as a reformer will be a recurring question and will

Early Life and Career, 1509–1540

Giovanni Morone was born in Milan on 25 January 1509 to Amabilia

release, Giovanni was engaged to make representations to Clement VII

Early Contacts, 1524–1533

It is frustrating that we do not know more about Morone’s time at Padua.

Papal Diplomat at the Court of Ferdinand of Austria, 1536–1540

(Alessandro Farnese, 1534–1549).35 He was to replace Vergerio as nuncio

The bulk of this material is in the expected formal diplomatic

permitted to depart, because he was in receipt of disturbing reports about

Morone appears generally to have worked well with colleagues like

Backing the Council, 1536–1540

Morone’s brief in 1536 had been to present papal policy in respect of

up to Vienna.79 By July 1540, he had considerably more experience to

an astute awareness of the role played by heretical literature in the spread of

Council vs Colloquy, April 1540

In April 1540, Morone wrote a memorial summarizing his opinions on the

and in disregard of its needs.103 Morone clearly had a positive attitude to

Hagenau and Worms, June to December 1540

going to Worms. With the approach of the Worms colloquy, he tendered

It is not possible to be as certain about Morone’s early life and education

to be regarded as suspect in the eyes of their colleagues, because of the

1 Early Life and Career, 1509–1540 15

3 Morone, Pole and the Spirituali, 1542–1549 59

8 Conclave and Final Years, 1566–1580 193