Preface to Third Book of “Chronicles” of Bernadino of Colpetrazzo
Edited by Melchior da Pobladura OFM Cap
Translated by Paul Hanbridge OFM Cap
© 2020 Capuchin Friars of Australia
Table of Contents
- I. The Subject and Codices of the Third Book
- II. The first section: Ratio vivendi of the first Friars Minor Capuchin
- III. The Ministers General of the Friars Minor
- IV. Section Three: The Capuchin Vicar Generals
- V. Section Four: The Cardinal Protectors
- VI. The Edition Method and System
Somehow it seems opportune to preface the third and last book of the Chronicles of Fr. Bernardino of Colpetrazzo to be published to get a better understanding of it and at the same time each of all the things to be treated.
The third book is divided into four parts or sections that are found arranged in this order. First of all, with a diffuse quill Bernardino broadly describes minutely the ratio vivendi of the first Capuchin Friars. Then he presents the time in which the old Franciscan habit or the shape of the oblong cowl was changed. Keeping chronological order, he reviews each of the Ministers general of the Order of Minors, beginning with the Holy Father Francis up until Michael of Cesena. Furthermore he presents the Vicars general of the Capuchin Order in a series beginning with Matthew of Bascio. Finally he lists the Cardinal Protectors of the Order.
Therefore this is subject material of the whole third book of Chronicles presented in its entirety. Its individual parts will be examined separately in this preface. However before we do this, it may help to briefly recall the manuscript exemplars that we use.
|A||= Minor Assisi codex, provincial archives OFM Cap, without a signature|
|As||= Major Assisi codex, provincial archives OFM Cap, without a signature|
|An||= Angelica Codex, Bibl. Angelica, Roma, sign: cod.965 (formerly R.5.16)|
|C||= Casanatense Codex, Roma, Biblioteca Casanatense, sign: 1689 (frmrly D.VI.24)|
|F||= Florentine codex, Biblioteca Nazionale, sgin: Magl.Cl. XXXVII, cod. 313|
|M||= Modigliana codex, Florence, provincial archives OFM Cap|
|N||= Naples codex, Biblioteca Nazionale, sign: IX.F.75|
|Ne||= Naples codex, Biblioteca Nazionale, sign: IX.F.58|
|R||= Roman codex, General Archives OFM Cap, sign: Arm. I, 9-10|
|Ro||= Roman codex, General Archives OFM Cap, sign: Arm. I, 6|
For the publication of the fourth volume of the Monumenta we have used the codices already known and described. Their initials are given above. The archetypon of this edition is cod.R which, in the first section, we compare against codices A, As, C, Ro and M. In the second section we make note only of variant readings from cod.As and C since the other codices omit this pericope. The one cod.R furnishes the third and fourth sections.
In the first book of the Chronicles Bernardino wrote these words: The way of establishing the Capuchin reform was this, namely, to take up again the kind of life of Saint Francis who founded his Order on most high poverty, contempt for the world, continuous prayer and devotion. Now this section may be called a practical demonstration of this thesis with facts much more than words. Indeed it is like a certain synthesis of those things fond the in the lives of the Friars and we do not think it an excessive work to reference each of the biographical facts already known and published to the particular affirmations or opinions put forward here. The biographical facts confirm these affirmations. At the foot of the page we have done this often. We could have done it more often. Furthermore, on almost every page appears the vehement desire of the author to prove that the Capuchin Friars walk very diligently in the footsteps of the Seraphic Father in the very faithful observance of the Franciscan Rule in private and common life, and in this way faithfully and integrally observe the Gospel of Jesus Christ. All things well considered, according to the opinion of Bernardino, the ultimate thing will be: that the Capuchin reform is the true, genuine Franciscan reform.
After he lays bare the sure foundations or pivotal aspects of the reform, Bernardino gives a particular exposition on each of the virtues of religious life. These are obedience and poverty, the strict use of things and austerity of life, silence and probity, fraternal charity and the love of solitude, and finally the effective preaching of the word of God. In a clear reading of these things we perceive the importance and influence of the Constitutions of the Order, since these things are nothing other than obvious and manifest examples that essentially allude to the praxis of the Constitutions.
One ought consider the vivid and at the same time candid narration of the pristine life of the Capuchins that may charm and refresh the heart; or the examples of the evangelical life and virtues of the Seraphic Father Francis that are carefully weighed; or the simple and since way of speaking with which the native shape and image of the Capuchin Friars is described. In this first section especially appears that beauty of words and elegance of speech that they extol with the highest praises.
Although not separate works, nonetheless much information is found here and there in the first book of the Chronicles which embellish the description given in this place. And perhaps it will be of advantage to the readers to indicate the main parallel places compared together at the same time: cf. MHOMC II, p.188-189, n.169; p.209, n.188; p.211, n.191,192; p.212 sq., n.193; p.214, n.194-195; p.248, n.226; p.250 sq., n.229 sq.; p.253, n.232; p.255, n.235; p.256-260, n.236-239; p.283, n.262; p.290, n.267; p.298, n.276; p.369, n.331; p.456 sq., n.410.
The treatise on the ratio vivendi is found in all the codices that we know. However since it is not produced in the same way entirely, therefore, with the exception of cod.R, they can be easily reduced to three families. α) The first form, which we consider to be the oldest, is found in codices A and As. β) There is little difference from that form and the reading of cod.M and also cod.Ro and all those codices derived from it. Cod.M has many variant readings that are certainly attributable to the scribe. However from one which is very important and which is also common to cod.Ro we believe that it belongs to the same family not immediately derived from the first family. γ) The third family is made up of one, cod.C. It gives a much more copious presentation indeed and is like an intermediate form that leads to cod.R which in the main takes up all these things except for the one chapter on the observance of the Testament of Saint Francis and manual work.
The order which this fragment has in each of the codices is of this kind, is precisely of this kind. a) In codices A and As it immediately follows the biography of Francis of Macerata and precedes the biography of Anthony of Corsica (Corso). b) In cod.C it is put at the end after all the biographies, but perhaps in its first form is used the same order as codices A and As. c) In cod.F this fragment is missing from the biographies themselves. d) Codices R, N, and Ne describe it between the biographies of Bonaventure of Cremona and Anthony of Corsica. e) Finally cod.M describes it outside the series of biographies and then after the narration of the chapter at Albacina and before the reform of the Capuchin Friars in Calabria.
If we inquire about the sources of this information, a two-fold kind is to be distinguished, namely the information that refers to Capuchin history and that which refers to the Capuchin Friars.
a) Bernardino often presents the Legend of the Three Companions which can and should be called the only, or at least the principal one regarding the life of Saint Francis and his companions. However as to which version he used we are not capable of know. However we can add that many of the testimonies given as if taken from the Legend of the Three Companions are not found in the editions of this Legend but in the text of the Legenda antiqua published in Italian by S. Minocchi in 1905 and the prologue of the Historia septem tribulationum of Angelo Clareno. Many learned men are still disputing about the authenticity and authority of this Franciscan Legend, but it is not ours to speak about this. Recently G. Abate OFM Conv. Wrote and ample commentary and published an unknown codex.
b) The first chronicler of the Order, namely Marius of Mercato Saraceno, in his Narrations or historical commentaries, elegantly present twice the kind of life of the first Capuchin friars. At the end of book one of the third Narration he would discuss in order: 1) the faithful observance of the rule; 2) poverty in clothing, buildings, the sustenance of life; 3) austerity, piety, fraternal charity and the exercise of all the virtues. He describes it again, following the same order, after the events of the origin of the reform in Calabria. He brings a lot of information that illustrates the life of those Friars. He narrates all those things that are considered as very important, indeed things that the author often saw or experienced himself. We have now doubts in asserting that Bernardino, although he was a witness himself, excerpted many things from the Narrations of Marius. Certainly his narration is more copious and follows another order, and not once are the opinions of Marius seen put forward by name.
c) However, by nothing less than his own work and industry, from those things that he saw immediately, our Bernardino collected many examples of the fathers for his own innate curiosity. Furthermore, he put these things in writing, moved by the ardent desire that his confreres be encouraged to imitate the same things.
May it be sufficient to have touched lightly upon these things about the sources. It is opportune to add a word about editions and versions. First of all, Fredegando d’Anversa OFM Cap published this section on the occasion of the fourth centenary of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin. As editor Cuthbert of Brighton OFM Cap produced an English version based on a part of this section.
In the first redaction of the Chronicles Bernardino knowingly omits discussion on the general history of the Friars Minor hoping that Marius of Mercato Saraceno will do it. Then when he observed that this part was missing from Marius’ third Narration, he added a short series of the facts of the Ministers General in his second redaction, namely, in codices As and C. He edited that series again and increased with more simple information when outside the mandate of the general chapter he took it upon himself to write the third Chronicle. For each Minister General he indicates the time of his election and the more important things that happened in the whole Order.
When these two series are compared with each other, one comes across this difference. In cod.R the author established this proposal for himself, namely, to show at which time the oblong cowl or the old form of the Franciscan habit was abandoned. Therefore he traverses the list of Ministers General up to the time when of Michael of Cesena. In codices As and C however he chose to put before the eyes of the readers that the reform begun by the Capuchin Friars was in no way the first or that it was taken up for some unknown or new reason. Because of this he follows the series of Generals up to the time of Anthony Rusconi, exactly to the year 1443 when the Cisalpine and Ultramontane Vicars General of the Observance were elected. Hence codices As and C refer to various reforms that sprang up in the bosom of the Franciscan Order up until the time of Matthew of Bascio. On the other hand, since it deals with the history of the reforms in another place and another way cod.R passes over that history here in silence.
Both series also differ in the historical information given, given that the information in cod.R is more abundant and copious than in the other codices. Especially worthy of attention in the biographical consideration of Holy Father Francis in cod.R. It is done in six chapters, namely, the observance of the Rule and Testament according to the will of the Lord Jesus; the composition and approval of the Rule; his preaching to the Sultan; the stigmata, and the shape of the habit. One should be aware that the chapter on the stigmata of Saint Francis was added to cod.R by another hand at a later time. This is adequately clear from the handwriting itself, but is also evident from folio 1310r written in 1585 where the author declared that he did not want to write about this question.
If this in fact raises the question about the historical value of the information, it should be answered that Bernardino’s narration has the same authority as the sources he uses and which are indicated here below.
a) Bernardino himself explicitly testified that he had in his hands the Legend of the three companions in order to write the biography of Saint Francis. We have already spoken above about which Legend. Here it is only to be called to mind that according to the opinion of Bernardino this Legend extensively tells about the imprinting of the stigmata, which we cannot find in any version. Certainly, with this narration abandoned, Bernardino asserts that he is following the Speculum Minorum. This affirmation surely requires an explanation too. The text about the stigmata offered by Bernardino differs somewhat from the text that is found in the Speculum seu Firmamentum trium Ordinum taken from the Oratio M.N. de Lyra Super vita et gestis S. Francisci.
b) Bernardino also could have used the Chronicles written by Mark of Lisbon. However a sure argument is still needed even if he the author refers the author a number of times to the Chronicles. We believe this should be understood to mean either the Chronicis XXIV Generalium or Historia septem tribulationum of Angelo Clareno.
c) It is completely certain that the information regarding the Generals has been excerpted from the miscellaneous work that is entitled the Speculum Minorum seu Firmamentum trium Ordinum; or better still, from the small work Memoriale Ordinis. It has been inserted into the preamble of all editions of this mixed opus. That Memoriale is like a compendium of the general history of the Franciscan Order stretching from the Seraphic Founder until the beginning of the 16th century. Its principle source until the year 1373 are the Chronica XXIV Generalium which the compiler often transcribed or reduced to a summary.
This Memoriale Ordinis is found in a triple editing (that we know about) of the work Speculum Minorum. The first edition, which came out in Rouen in 1509, reviews the Ministers general up until the year 1443. From there until 1508 it refers to the Cisalpine Observant Vicars only. The second edition, or the Parisian edition of 1512, follows the continuous series of Generals until 1509, although it also remembers the Vicars General of the Observance from the year 1443. The third edition, Venice 1513, after 1443 numbers only the Cisalpine Vicars until 1505. It would be more suitable to call them Ultramontane since they lived outside of Italy. It is opportune to add that in the first Peter Catani is not found, for John Parenti occupies the place immediately after Saint Francis. The other two editions omit Peter Catani from the series but also list John Parenti in third place.
The historian M. Faloci Pulignani prepared a new edition of the small work Memorialis Ordinis faithfully exact with the Parisian edition of 1512, with the variant readings of the other editions noted. This new edition remains incomplete since it only arrives up to the year 1387.
From these diverse arrangements we should say which of the these editions Bernardino may have used. We believe that to this question it can be affirmed straight away that he adopted the Rouen edition. Certainly a) as for the number in the series of Generals he agrees with it, and not at all with the other two; b) sometimes certain fragments, even if they are small, are found in Rouen edition and cod.R and not in the other two editions; c) and on the other hand, there are certain other fragments in cod.R not in the Rouen edition but which are found in the Paris and Venice editions.
d) Furthermore in more than one place Bernard takes important pieces of historical information from the Chronicles of the Order, which, as we may say again, are nothing other than the writings of Angelo Clareno, as will be clear from the places to which reference will be made.
e) We think it is important to be aware that in making this series Bernardino in now way depends upon Peter Rudolph of Tossignano, who at that time himself compiled the historical details of the General leaders of the Franciscan family. No trace of mutual dependence is found at all.
After Bernardino describes the memorable facts of the General Ministers of the Order of Minors he recalls the General Superiors who moderated the Capuchin Order in the course of the 16th century. In this Bernardino catalogue, just as he indicates most of the times of the elections and presents an opinion about the way of governing, he touches upon in summary certain more important facts that happened during the office of each Vicar General. If we wish to consider more closely the chronology he established, it is necessary to be aware that up to the year 1757 when Jerome of Montefiore was elected as supreme Moderator the calculation of time should be anticipated by one year. This will be evident from the edition of the text. The election of Vincent of Monte dell’Olmo (Corridonia) is assigned to the same day, month and year as the first election of Marius of Mercato Saraceno, the 3 June 1568, to be precise.
Before Bernardino continued this series up to the election of James of Mercato Saraceno and he immediately stopped writing. Because of this in the title of this present section the author promises to narrate himself the history of the Vicars General up to 1585. Then fulfilling his promises to Frederick Cesi, the duke of the place of Acquasparta, he wanted to complete the work begun and perhaps this was taken up on the occasion of the death of James of Mercato Saraceno. Then he described the series up to the vicar general Sylvester of Monteleone, during whose government Bernard himself finished his last day.
There is no doubt that he could have received the biographical information given here directly and immediately since he personally knew all the Moderators at the beginning of the Order of Capuchin Friars. Regarding the chronology, we do not dare to offer an opinion on whether or not he used an earlier catalogue or too it from an authentic official document. Nevertheless we can state that the Bernardino catalogue differs sufficiently from the others with that we know from that time with which we may come to dwell a little long on the value of this work.
Peter Ridolfi was from the area of Tossignano and was in the order of the Friars Minor Conventual. He carried out various offices in his Order and in the church of Christ. He was the pro-lector of the house or great Venetian College, confidential scribe of the Minister General, Procurator general, a counselor of the Inquisition. On 18 February 1587 he was nominated bishop of Venosa. Later he was transferred to the diocese of Senigallia. Death came to him in the year 1601. When this extraordinary man travelling on general visitation discovered unhappily that Franciscan history was unknown everywhere, he composed the weighty work. Moved by the desire to promote the study of that history he published the work in 1586.
Three times in the work he certainly directly and deliberately discusses the Capuchin Friars. a) In book II where ‘explicatur origo eorum qui ducta serie a B.P. Francisco emanarunt’ on f.158rv, he says: On the Capuchins and their origin and author. b) In the same book he describes the Lives and deeds of the General Leaders of the Franciscan Family and who have proceeded in continuous line from the founder and head blessed Father Francis up to these times (f.159r). In this series he also inserts the general Moderators of the Order of Capuchin Friars from Matthew of Bascio up to James of Mercato Saraceno. c) The houses and provinces of the Order are listed (f.302.)
In relating the chronology Peter Ridolfi is in total agreement with the information given by Bernardino and abounds with the very same imperfections and errors. His pieces of biographical information are shorter and more concise, and indeed there are other different judgements, e.g. on Louis of Fossombrone and Marius of Mercato Saraceno.
From which source does Peter Ridolfi draw his information? It is far from doubt that he mentions the general Ministers whom he knew, but it seems very likely to us that accepted chronological information from the Capuchin friars. Indeed since the same chronological errors are found in Bernardino and Peter Ridolfi, there can be some suspicion that both used the same catalogue and drew the rest of the biographical information and judgements about other things from other sources. Theophilus of St. Gallen favours another opinion. This opinion regards it probable that Bernardino depended on Peter Ridolfi since the election of Vincent of Monte dell’Olmo springs up among the same errors that both have. The work of Peter Ridolfi was published earlier in 1586 than the catalogue on Bernardino who lists the Superiors up to the 6 June 1593. However it must be known that the work of Peter Ridolfi was published ad the end of 1586 and it is clear from this the letter of commendation to the Venetians was transcribed before the Ides of September 1586. Come. Let us see. The Bernardine catalogue, up to the election of James of Mercato Saraceno where the series of Peter Ridolfi finishes, was written in all probability in 1585 and certainly before the death of the same James in the month of December 1586. That catalogue is entitled thus: Here begins a brief account of all the Generals of the Capuchin Congregation that there have been from 1525 until 1585. This fragment, which it must be said is older, finishes with the election of James. Immediately on the same page and the same line the hand that signed the commendatory letter of 1592 has added the added the productivity and death of the same James and lists the rest of the Vicars General. Furthermore Peter Ridolfi of Tossignano omits the generalate of Eusebius of Ancona and the second election of Bernardino of Asti in 1546, which are found in the Bernardine catalogue.
The text of the catalogue of Peter Ridolfi of Tossignano is published again as an Appendix to this present volume of the Monumenta.
In the Naples codex of the third Narration of Marius of Mercato Saraceno, which is kept in the Biblioteca Nazionale with the signature IX.F.57, there is a catalogue of the first sixteen General Superiors of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin. We have again published that catalogue before in 1938. We have not been able to throw any light on the identity of the author. The time of composition can be established easily between 1596 and 1599 since it narrates the election of Jerome of Sorbo and his successor, Jerome of Castelferretti is passed over in silence.
In this catalogue neither the day nor the month of the election of the General Ministers are indicated but only the year, with this general formula usually applied: ‘on the feast of Pentecost.’ A comparison with the catalogue of Peter Ridolfi of Tossignano reveals those differences both in chronological information being given, as well as the historical details to be noted. Therefore it may be seriously doubted whether or not the anonymous author of this catalogue knew the history. Therefore if we look into a comparison between Bernardino of Colpetrazzo and this catalogue we come to the same conclusion evidently: there are two independent sources. It is certainly true the opinion of Eduardo d’Alençon was another, namely, that the Naples catalogue was taken from the Chronicles of Bernardino. However this opinion does not seem probable to us. Apart from the fact that it follows another calculation of time until the year 1575, it often publishes new and sometimes contrary information, which any diligent reader may discover at first glance.
Furthermore we have surveyed the catalogues composed at the time of Bernardino of Colpetrazzo, let it be permitted to mention briefly the other ones that followed in time.
a) Francis Longo of Corigliano OFM Cap wrote a series of general Superiors up to his own times. Apart from the name of the order of the one elected and the place of the celebration of the chapters he offers no other information. In fact he says, “In surveying the aforementioned elections the year, month (and day) are not always cited since there is no accurate narrative of these things are found in the earlier Annals of the Order.” From this affirmation it is obvious that he did not know either the Chronicles of Bernardino nor the writings of Peter Ridolfi of Tossignano. However he sometimes refers to this author. Louis of Fossombrone is not included in this series.
b) Another chronological series has been edited in the Bullarium of the Order of Capuchin Friars and excerpted from the registers of the acts of the general chapters. In this series only the year of the election and the name of the elected are shown. The calculation of time up to 1575 differs from the chronology of Bernardino, which anticipates it by one.
c) In the Analecta of the Order in the year 1896 a new series came out. It refers to the names (often even the family name) of each of the General Superiors of the Order along with the date and place of election, re-election and death. Regarding the first election of Bernardino Ochino of Siena the compiler is doubtful. The calculation of time is that same as the one in the Bullarium and in after 1575 it differs from Bernardino only in assigning the day.
d) Finally it may be beneficial to mention the work Hierarchica seraphica Fratrum Min. Ordinis Capuccinorum that came out in Rome in 1914, under the care of Eduardo d’Alençon. Generally he uses information published in the Analecta. Make an exception for the two elections of Bernardino Ochino of Siena. He establishes 3 June 1538 for the first one and 7 June 1541 for the second. Again, for the election of Evangelista of Cannobio, he reports it not on the 19 May but the 19 April.
The institution of Cardinal Protectors of Religious Orders was devised and invented by the Seraphic Father Francis. Although the Franciscan Order was divided over the centuries into many families, there was only one Cardinal Protector the end of the 16th century when the Friars Minor of the Observance, the Friars Minor Conventual and the Friars Minor Capuchin each had its own Cardinal Protector.
In the fourth section of the third book of the Chronicles Bernardino mentions five Cardinal Protectors of the Capuchin Friars, from which the first three, namely, Andrew de Valle, Francis de Angelis and Rudolph Pius Leonelli exercised protection over the entire Franciscan Order. The other that, that is, Julius de Revere and Julius Anthony Santori had special or particular protection of the Capuchin Friars.
Therefore among the Franciscan families the Capuchin Friars were the first to obtain a Cardinal Protector of their own. It happened in this way. In 1564, agreeing with supplications of Rudolph Pius Leonelli, the Cardinal of Carpo, the Vicar General Evangelista of Cannobio postulated to the Holy See that the cardinal of Urbino Julius de Revere be made Vice-protector with the right of succession. This was done by the authority of the brief Exhibita siquidem (20 April 1564). Then on the death of the Cardinal of Carpo the Master General of the Conventual Friars sought to have Charles Cardinal Borromeo as Protector of the entire Order. However the supreme Pontiff judged it opportune that the tenor of the aforesaid brief ought to be observed, “especially since Cardinal Charles because of the friendship he had with Cardinal Julius and because of the advantages that he envisaged that would come to our Order from a division in the office of Protector.” Therefore on the 6 May 1564 St. Charles Borromeo was declared Protector of the Friars of the Observance and of the Conventual Friars. He resigned this office on 27 October 1572. On this occasion a difference of opinion arose between the Observant Friars and the Conventual Friars. The former invoked Alexander Cardinal Crivelli as the successor of Saint Charles while the latter wanted someone else again. Finally the Conventuals got Cardinal Julius de Ruvere who was exercising the protection of the Capuchin Friars. In January the following year 1573 the Supreme Pontiff assigned him to the Observant Friars.
The question now arises about who would take up the protection of the Capuchin Friars after the death of Cardinal Julius de Ruvere in September 1578. Namely, which of the two would take up the office? The one who was fulfilling the position of Protector in that moment, Julius Anthony Santori, the Cardinal of S. Severina, or Francis Cardinal Alciati, who by the Apostolic Brief Volentes sacro Ordini was elected Protector of the Order of Friars Minor of Saint Francis on 4 October of the same year 1578? It is truly regrettable that there is no brief in evidence for the nomination of Cardinal Julius Anthony Santori. That brief could have removed all difficulty. The compiler of the Bullarium of the Capuchin Friars mentions two opinions about this. Some thought that Cardinal Julius de Ruvere was still alive. Others thought that the Cardinal of S. Severina was made Protector of the Capuchin Friars not until after the death of Julius. From the other side, no certain argument can be derived from the recently published brief of the election of Francis Cardinal Alciati. While it is certainly true that the expression about the protection “of the Order of Friars Minor of Saint Francis” is in it, no mention is made about any of the families. However presents no obstacle since it is certain that when Saint Charles Borromeo was made Protector “of the entire Franciscan Order,” no mention was made about the families. Nor was any exception made about the Capuchin Friars, who as is known, had obtained their own Protector.
Other historiographers of the Order, having omitted the election of Julius de Ruvere to the protection of the Capuchin Friars in 1564, only affirm that each Franciscan family had individual Protectors in 1580. Hence they do not recognise Cardinal Alciati as the Protector of the Franciscan families. Placing our faith in Bernardino of Colpetrazzo, we hold that this is not true at all and that therefore either while Julius de Revere was still alive or immediately after his death Julius Anthony Santori, Cardinal of St. Severina, took up this office.
Since our Bernardino makes no mention about Vice-protectors of the Order, to say something about these will not far from subject.
Often in ages past for one reason or another evidently – because of poor health, or because they were compelled to stay outside the City, or because they were busy with other matters, etc. the Cardinal Protectors used to choose one or more for the carrying out of their office. The same thing happened in the 16th century. Andrew de Valle made use of Laurence Campegi, and when he died in 1539, Francis de Angelis, who later succeeded him in the same office. So Rudolph Pius Leonelli procured Julius de Ruvere as Vice-Protector, who then had two Vice-Protectors, namely: Mark Anthony Amulio and Julius Anthony Santori.
The Vice-Protectors had the same authority as the Protectors themselves. Other writers are of the opinion that they were nominated by the Protectors themselves. However at least Julius de Ruvere while fulfilling the position for the Order of Capuchin Friars was chosen by the Supreme Pontiff.
In the editing of the text of this third book we have divided it into single parts or sections. We have often added a summary to the headings. Whenever it happened that words were added, we have always indicated this with the sign [. . .]. Since it would be too long to put the variant reading of cod.As and cod.C in the margin below the text, since it was necessary to transcribe these codices more or less entirely, we have judged it more suitable to publish and annotated them as appendices to the first section. Furthermore we have compared the text of cod.As – which we have taken as the archetypon- with cod.Ro and cod.M published by Sisto of Pisa OFM Cap, and we have noted variant readings at the same time.
The second section which evidently deals with the General Ministers of the Order we have compared cod. As and C and have transcribed the particular parallel places with the main variant readings. Since cod.R actually stops with the Generalate of Michael of Cesena, the remaining part assembled from cod.As and cod.C is published in the appendix.
Finally we wanted the section on the Vicars General of the Capuchin Friars to be illustrated in the publication of the two catalogues of that time, namely the one from the work of Peter Ridolfi of Tossignano and the other taken from the Naples codex.
- Pobladura indicates p.xviii of MHOMC IV. I have included the abbreviations here in the text box. ↑
- “Quella bontà infinita … ei dia gratia di star’ nella riforma che fu il ritornare in quella prima forma et modo di vivere che diede il nostro Serafico Padre et tutti quei primi suoi compagni. Imperoché all’hora ci disformiamo, quando che ci venimo allontanare da quella prima forma; et questo fu il fare la Riforma de Capuccini, ripigliare il vivere che tenne il nostro Padre San Francesco, il quale fondò la sua Religione in altissima povertà et disprezzo el mondo et in continua oratione et divotione.” MHOMC II, p.485 sq. ↑
- honestate ↑
- Cf. A.Gemelli, I “Fioretti” delCinquecento in Studi Francescani, 26(1929) p.66sq. ↑
- The text of cod.C on the ratio vivendi of the Friars is included in this volume as Appendix II. ↑
- This fragment of cod.M has been published by Sisto of Pisa OFM Cap in L’Italia Francescana 2(1927) P.24-27,107-112, 416-420; 3(1928) P.52-54. ↑
- Leggenda antica. Nuova fonte bigrafica di S. Francesco d’Assisi tratta da un codice Vaticano e pubblicata da S. Minocchi con un’introduzione storico, Firenze, 1905. ↑
- Cf. F.Tocco, Le due prime tribolazioni dell’Ordine Francescano, Roma, 1908 ↑
- G.Abate, Nuovi studi sulla Leggenda di S. Francesco detta dei “Tre Compagni” in Miscellanea Franciscana 29(1939) p.1 sq. ↑
- Cf. MHOMC I, 246-269. ↑
- Cf. MHOMC I, 365-374 ↑
- La vita dei primi FF. Minori Cappuccini secondo la Cronaca di Bernardino da Colpetrazzo in Liber Memorialis, p.131-173. ↑
- Capuchin Chronicle. Translated and abridged from the original Italian by a Benedictine of Stanbrook Abbey, pp.170-198. ↑
- The part of cod.As to which this refers is published in Appendix III of this volume. ↑
- Cf. MHOMC II, p.44 sq. ↑
- Cf. MHOMC II, p.lxxi ↑
- Cf. Speculum seu Firmamentum trium Ordinum, ed. Veneta, f.11v. ↑
- Cf. MHOMC II, p.lxxx. The first Italian edition of the Chronicles of Mark of Lisbon translated from the Spanish came out in 1581-1591. Fredegando d’Anversa believes that Bernardino knew these Chronicles and adopted them in producing his writings. cf. AOC, 43(1927) p.226. See below (MHOMC IV) p.72. ↑
- Cf. Miscellanea Francescana 28(1928) p.15-25, 55-60; 29(1929) p.114-119. There one may see the title and description of all the editions which we have mentioned in the text. ↑
- Parallels will be indicated in each place in the text below. See (MHOMC IV) p.75 sq. ↑
- Cf. Pietro Ridolfi of Tossignano, Historiam seraph. Religionis libri tres, book II, f. 185 sq. On Pietro Ridolfi himself, see L.Wadding, Scriptores Ordinis Minorum, Romae, 1706, p.196; H.Sbaraglia , Supplementum et Castigatio ad Scriptores… Romae, 1806, p.607-608; G.Franchini, Bibliosofia e memorie letterarie di Scrittori Francescani Conventuali, Modena, 1693, p.523-527. ↑
- See the biographical references in footnote 21 on page 6. ↑
- Historiam seraphicae Religionis libri tres seriem temporum continentes, quibus brevi explicantur fundamenta, universique Ordinis amplificatio, gradus et instituta, nec non viri scientia, virtutibus et fama praeclari, Venetis, 1586. ↑
- ‘The origin is explained of those who in a direct line come from the blessed Father Francis.’ ↑
- See below (MHOMC IV p.216,218). ↑
- Eduardo D’Alençon was of the same opinion. Cf. 44(1928) p.235 sq. ↑
- “Bernardino hat die Ordengeschichte des Ridolfi sehr wahrscheinlich gekant. Für die Wahl des Vincneso von Monte dell’Olmo hat er die genau gleiche fehlerhafte Angabe wie der Chronist der Konventualen. Das Werk des Ridolfi erschien 1586 in Venedig, die Liste der Generalvikare ist von Bernardino bis zum Generalvikar P.Silvestro von Monteleone, der am 6. Juni 1593 gewählt wurde, geführt. Dieser Umstand bekräftig die Vermutung dass Bernardino von Ridolfi abhängig ist und nicht umgekehrt.” Theophil. Graf, Zur Entstehung des Kapuzinerorders,p.7, note 48. ↑
- See below (MHOMC IV p.216-219). ↑
- Cf. Melchior da Pobladura, Un catalogo inedito dei XV o XVI primi Superiori Generali dei Minori Cappuccini in Collectanea Franciscana 8(1938) p.7’-79. ↑
- Cf AOC 44(1928) p.237 ↑
- Cf. Breviarum chronologicum Pontificum et conciliorum omnium quae a S.Petro ad haec usque nostra tempora celebrata sunt, Lugduni, 1623, p.237 ↑
- Cf. ibid., p.395 ↑
- Cf. Bullarium Ord.Fr.Min.S. Francisci Capuccinorum, t.VII, p.436-440. ↑
- Cf. Bernardino of siena, IL Cardinale Protettore negli Istituti Religiosi specialmente negli Ordini Francescani, Firenze, 1940, p.15 sq. ↑
- Cf. Bullarium OFM Cap t.I, p.28 sq.; Bernardino of Siena, op.cit., p.29. ↑
- Bernardino of Siena OFM Cap asserts that up until the year 1580 that it was the office of Minister General of the Conventual Friars to petition the Holy See for a Cardinal Protector of the Order. However this is called into doubt by Saint Charles Borromeo, according to whom he was concerned with the Observant Friars. Cf. P. Sevesi, S. Carlo Borromeo, Cardinal Prottetore dell’Ordine dei Frati Minori in AFH 31(1938) p.394. ↑
- Cf. Bullarium OFM Cap, loc.cit, p.29; Bernardino of Siena, op.cit. p.29. ↑
- Cf. P.Sevesi, art.cit., p.387-395. ↑
- Opinion about the day of his death is discussed among writers: 10 September (cf. Peter Ridolfi of Tossignano, op.cit. f.233); 3 September (cf. AFH 31 p.397.) ↑
- Cf. Bullarium OFM Cap t.I, p.44. ↑
- Cf. P.Sevesi, art.cit., p.397 sq. ↑
- Cf. Peter Ridolfi of Tossignano, op.cit., f.233r; H.Holzapfel, Handbuch der Geschicte des Franziskanerordens, Frieburg im Breisgau, 1909. ↑
- The opinion that we have defended in the text as more probable is rendered more certain by a document discovered very recently. In August 1579 Sylvester of Rossano OFM Cao authethically testifed in the name and authority of the Cardinal of S. Severina “tunc temporis Fratrum Capuccinorum Protectoris” that he was mode visitator of the nuns of the Order of Saint Clare of Good Jesus monastery in the town of Gubbio. Moreover in the month of October in the same year Julius Anthony Santori himself approved the acta of the aforementioned visitation and signed them himself as the Cardinal Protector of the Order of Friars Minor Capuchin (cf. Vatican Archives, Misc. VIII, vol.57 nem. num.).However Francis Cardinal Alciati had been made Protector of the Order of Saint Francis on 4 October 1578.Finally this opinion is firmly re-enforced on the authority of Mattia Bellintani of Salò: “In the year that Brother Marius was elected General, the Archbishop of Santa Severina, who was very friendly towards the Capuchins, was made Cardinal by Pius V. When he came to the Chapter all the Friars accepted him as the Capuchin Cardinal, since he deigned to be taken up as such by the Capuchins. After Amulio died, he was made Vice-Protector in his place. When the Protector (the Cardinal) of Urbino died during the first triennium of Brother Jerome of Montefiore and since the Pontiff did wait for the three Congregations of the Franciscan Religion would ask him by themselves for a Protector in the Consistory, he made the Vice-Protectors Protectors. Thus the Cardinal Protector of the Capuchins remained the Cardinal Santa Severina.” Cf. Mattia Bellintani da Salò OFM Cap., (ms. Capuchin General Archives) t.I, p.280 sq. ↑
- Cf. Bernardino da Siena., op.cit., p.32. ↑
- Cf. AOC 12(1896) p.320. ↑
- Cf. ibid., p.320. ↑
- Cf. Bullarium OFM Cap., t.I, p.28-29. ↑
- Cf. MHOMC I, p.lxxxii.lxxxix; II, p.lxxxvi-lxxxix; III, p.xxxiv-xxxv. ↑
- Cf. L’Italia Francescana 2(1927) p.24, etc. ↑