By Isabel Harvey, 21/06/2021

Protagonists: Elisabetta di Giano, from the countryside of Spoleto, and her husband,  Bernardino di Filippo.

Sources: Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Congregazione dei Vescovi e Regolari, Positiones,  1601, Letter S-V. Spoleto. 4 letters, between 12 September 1600 and 2 January 1601 (See the sources here).

Between May 1600 and September 1601, the diocese of Spoleto was without a bishop: fifteen months that allowed Elisabetta di Giano to activate her strategy of liberation. Locked up for two years already in the Monastery del Palazzo of Spoleto, where she had been personally placed by the former bishop Paolo Sanvitale, she took advantage of his disappearance to try to escape. She sent a letter to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars towards the end of 1600, explaining how the Bishop, responding to her husband’s request, had had her “arrested and imprisoned in the Monastery de Palazzo of the said City with five and a half scudi by month as cost for her roof and cover,” a sum that she had to cover alone. However, he had made her the “promise that, if she did not like to stay in the said Monastery, she would be able to move to another one to her satisfaction.” This is the reason of her letter: she wanted to change convents, since she could no longer afford to pay the rent and food, and moreover, two nuns were relatives of her husband, “which is not without great suspicion and danger for her life.^[1]” However, she did not explain why her husband and his family resented her to the point that her physical safety was in danger. Nor did she explain why her husband had had her forcibly confined to a convent. The letter arrived in Rome, and the Congregation acted, as it usually did when letters were sent by lay people, by asking for more information from the Episcopal See, where only the vicar was left to dispatch urgent matters.

The vicar, Giovanni Matteo Fidutio, answered on 9 December, 1600, after having visited Elisabetta in the convent. According to him, she would have “told to Your Illustrious Lord many things that are not true,” such as the amount of money she had to pay to the convent each month. When he asked her where she wanted to be transferred, she replied that “such is not her intention […] and that she does not want to enter another Monastery but she would like to go out, and return to her house.” Seeing the vicar’s openness to grant her request, Elisabetta seized the occasion and asked instead to be completely released. The vicar refused, explaining to the woman “that she would have put herself in a manifest danger on her life for the serious offense, that she has made to her Husband.^[2]” But he did not say more about the crime that had led Elisabetta to the convent.

            The vicar’s answer did not satisfy the Congregation. The vicar, not very familiar with the case, turned to Elisabetta’s husband, Bernardino di Filippo, in order to better understand why he had asked to lock his wife in a convent. Bernardino sent a memorandum to Rome in which he explained his version of events. After an argument, Elisabetta had decided to leave the marital home and live alone in the castle of Giano, inherited from her father. She had stayed there for two years, and “at the end, in that Castle, she got pregnant.” The day of delivery came, “in bed saying that she was close to death, and in addition to doctors she called the parish priest, and two Capuchin Fathers who assisted her to restore the health of the soul. In presence of said monks, and of many women and men who were there, the good woman, with the assistance of the divine justice, gave birth to a girl. When the said monks saw the birth, scandalized by such fact, they immediately fled away. This episode revealed her adultery, and we do not know what happened to the newborn.” According to Elisabetta’s husband, nobody knows what happened to the child, but Elisabetta quickly realized the seriousness of her situation. Given the number of people in her home at the time of the birth, the rumor spread quickly. According to her husband, fearing the “danger of being killed by her husband,” she asked the Bishop Sanvitale to quickly send his sbirri to take her to a safe place, the convent. Bernardino added, still hurt by the adulterous actions of his wife, that he “humbly asks to His Holiness not to allow such an enormous crime to be unpunished.^[3]” He thus clearly opposed the release of his wife, without, however, ever showing a desire for revenge or presenting himself as the violent husband she described. The husband’s memorandum was accompanied by a short letter from the vicar who, cautiously, confirmed the adultery and accepted the version in which Elisabetta was the one who asked to be locked up.

            The case ends here for the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars: the husband’s version, supported by the Bishop, seems to have convinced the cardinals. Elisabetta did not insist: she most likely will request to be released to the new Bishop when he will be appointed. This story, however, demonstrates Elisabetta’s constant desire for freedom: she did not hesitate to leave her husband to live on her own, outside the control of a male figure, in her own property, and to lead the life that suited her. If, as her husband Bernardino stated, Elisabetta really asked the Bishop for protection when she realized the danger created by her adultery, then she fully assuming her act. Finally, the strategy she implemented at the time of the Bishop’s death in order to regain her freedom demonstrates her attention to the ecclesiastical justice system and its institutions, as well as a certain creativity and determination to move within it. If the case did not succeed in 1600, for Elisabetta it was certainly only a short postponement.

            The relationship between the woman and the Churchmen in this case was based on absence: the missing Bishop who left the episcopal see unoccupied for more than a year, offering an opportunity for both oblivion and action. Elisabetta tried to use this period of confusion and the space for action it created to convince other Churchmen, the cardinals of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars and the vicar of Spoleto, to erase the crime of adultery she committed that, in the end, did not appear so dramatic to her. 

^[1] Archivio Apostolico Vaticano (AAV), Congregazione dei Vescovi e Regolari (CVR), Positiones (POS), 1601, Letter S-V. Spoleto. (segregata et messa nel Monasterio del Palazzo di detta Città con cinque scudi e mezzo il mese di Provisione per suo vitto) / (promissione che non piacendoli stare in detto Monastero, di metterla in una altro à sua sodisfatione) / (il che non è senza gran sospetto et periculo della sua vita)

^[2] AAV, CVR, POS, 1601, Letter S-V, Spoleto, 9 December 1600. (narrato à Vostra Signoria Illustrissima molte cose, che non sono vere) / (non essere tale la sua intentione […] et che non vuol intrar in altro Monastero ma vorebbe uscire fuori, et tornarsene a casa sua) / (che lei si sarebbe posta a manifesto periculo della vita sua per la grave offesa, che lei ha fatta à suo Marito)

^[3] AAV, CVR, POS, 1601, Letter S-V, Spoleto, 2 January 1601. (ultimamente in quello Castello fu resa gravida) / (messo à letto dicendo ch’era vicino à morte, et oltre à Medici fisici fece chiamare il Parocchiano, et due Padri Cappuccini ch’assistessero à ramentarli la salute dell’anima, et in presenza di detti religiosi, et di molte donne, et homini che vi erano andati, la bona donna per permissione della divina giustitia partori una figliola femina, il che visto detti Religiosi scandalizzati di tal fatto subito fuggirno via, et fù palesi questo adulterio, ne si seppi quello che facessi del parto) / (pericolo che correva d’essere ammazzata da suo marito) / (supplica humilmente la Santità Sua non permetta, ch’un delitto cosi enorme debbia passare impunito)

By Isabel Harvey, 18/01/2021.

Protagonists: Virginio Gavelli, layman from Spoleto, and his wife Felice.

Sources: Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Congregazione dei Vescovi e Regolari, Positiones,  1605, Letter R-S. Spoleto, September 20th 1605. (See the sources here).

The case of the marital conflict between Galeazzo Garganello and Lucretia Pasi presented above is far from unique. It was abundantly documented by the archives of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars for two reasons: first, because Lucretia Pasi was a noblewoman, inviting the Bishop to give considerable attention to her situation, and second, because Galeazzo Garganello categorically refused to pay the allocation his wife needed to live in the convent, and refused furthermore to return her dowry, which a divorce would have compelled. This refusal to lose the economic benefits acquired during the marriage led the man to fight his legal battle at several levels of ecclesiastical justice, from the Episcopal Court to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars.

Numerous letters, usually written by bishops or their vicars and accompanying the pleas of women in distress, reported situations of marital conflict and asked Rome for permission to place the woman in a convent, at least temporarily. These letters presented the situation in a codified form, aiming to justify beyond any doubt the need for the Church’s intervention in the couple’s life and the need for a refuge for the woman in difficulty. The arguments in defense of these women were twofold: first, the husband’s adultery, which in itself was a valid reason for divorce, and second, the danger to the wife’s life if she remained with her husband. The bishops’ requests were always the same: to place the woman in a convent, where she or her husband would pay her living expenses for a limited period of time, until the dust settled and the couple would get back together.

An example is the letter sent to Rome by the vicar of Spoleto on 20 September, 1605 about the conflict between a certain Felice and her husband, Virginio Gavelli. The vicar began the letter by explaining that he asked, on behalf of Felice, “permission to withdraw to the Monastery of S. Giovanni, until she found an agreement with her said husband.”(1) He added that the nuns of the Convent of S. Giovanni would be happy to accept her, that they were used to accommodating such married women, and that they expected to receive alms from Felice at the time of her entry, in addition to a recurring allowance for food and other expenses. The convent’s solution for Felice seemed simple and already pre-planned, in response to a marital problem that the vicar explained bluntly.

Only six months after marrying Felice, Virginio Gavelli had “retreated himself from her company, to live in Rome for two years with a concubine.”(2) Only after being found by the Episcopal Court of Spoleto and being summoned to appear did he return to the Bishop’s territory. It was on Virginio’s return to Spoleto that Felice asked to enter a convent, “because between them there are such a dislike, that she swears, and protests that she doesn’t want, nor is able to go with her husband, for fear of some irreparable deeds, which she says she is sure will happen to her.”(3)

All the elements necessary for quick and unbureaucratic action by the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars are present in these cases: adultery and death threats, imminent danger for Felice, and a perfect solution, the convent, where the wife would be welcomed in exchange for a price that had already been negotiated. The churchman, vicar, or bishop then became the women’s advocate and their intermediary with Rome. 

(1) (licenza di poter ritirarsi nel Monasterio qui di S. Giovanni, sino che se sia accordata con detto suo Marito)

(2) (retirò dalla sua compagnia, habitante con una Concubina per spatio de due anni in Roma)

(3) (per il che tra loro ne sono nati disgusti tali, che ella giura, et protesta non volere, ne poter andare con esso Marito, per tema di qualche male irreparabile, che ella dice tener per sicuro, li sia per succedere)

By Isabel Harvey, 21/12/2020.

Protagonists: Galeozzo Garganello, a layman from Bologna, and his wife, the noblewoman Lucretia Past.

Source: Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Congregazione dei Vescovi e Regolari, Positiones, 1605, Lett. B-F. Bologna. (See the sources here)

In Bologna in 1605, the Bishop submitted a case to Rome that seemed to get more complicated every day. Galeozzo Garganello and the noblewoman Lucretia Pasi were newly married, but already the young woman was seeking asylum away from the marital home. She “was in danger of being poisoned, or in other way losing her life by the actions of […] Garganello her husband,” and “several times he heavily bet her.”(1) In addition, Galeozzo frequented a prostitute and kept her in the marital home in the presence of his wife Lucretia. The Bishop was informed of the situation by Lucretia, “showing him the beatings, and the bad actions done by her said husband.”(2) So, he removed the woman from the clutches of her husband and found her a safe place, which was at first her parents’ home. Then Lucretia wished to enter a convent: this refuge was generally suggested by the Bishops and chosen by the mismarried women. Since these women had to obtain a license from Rome in order to enter the convent, the Bishop acted as her representative to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars and obtained this permit. Lucretia thus entered the convent, with the intention of spending the rest of her days there. This solution suited her: she gave up asking for a divorce and therefore for her dowry of 5000 scudi, and in exchange her husband payed her alimenti, the annual allowance for roof and food in the convent. 

The Bishop and Lucretia both thought they had solved the problem. However, when it was time to pay, Galeozzo fought back. After prevaricating for a while, saying he was opposed to the choice of the monastery, he went to two local secular courts, where, after five years of trials, he obtained an order forcing Lucretia’s return to his home. The Bishop refused to enforce these judgments, considering the danger for Lucretia too severe. Galeozzo Garganello then wrote the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, the congregation responsible for Lucretia’s acceptance into a convent, and asked his wife to be sent back home, arguing that he “took a wife for having a succession, and also because he do not have the gift of continence.”(3) Rome quickly communicated this request to the Bishop, who was exasperated by Galeozzo Garganello’s behavior. Lucretia, on her side, refused to leave the monastery, but the nuns did not want to keep her for free. The Bishop sincerely feared for her safety. Rome thus launched a second investigation, in order to confirm the judgment of the Bishop who had suggested the divorce. 

In this case, many power dynamics and power games were conditioning the life of Lucretia, and fortunately, mostly in a positive way. The Bishop of Bologna, who refused to recognize the judgments of the secular courts on the pretext of the woman’s security, was certainly also motivated by an ambition to strengthen the predominance of ecclesiastical courts over secular authorities. Here, he was following in the footsteps of the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars who, precisely in the years of the pontificate of Clement VIII (1592-1605), were working to affirm ecclesiastical jurisdictions over secular powers. Galeozzo Garganello sought to circumvent the Bishop’s bias by appealing to Rome, aiming to short-circuit the Bishop’s authority, while naively presenting a change of opinion to those who had authorized the entrance of Lucretia Pasi into the convent. 

As in this case, the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars regularly dealt with family dramas, and did not hesitate to get involved in the problem even if, in the end, its capacity for intervention remained limited. In fact, Rome was called to intervene in cases of domestic violence whenever the woman found refuge in a convent, as in the case of Lucretia Pasi. The Cardinals of the Congregation took the opportunity to gather as much information as possible, preparing for a possible legal battle if the violent husband sought the help of another ecclesiastical court, for example the Sacra Rota of Rome. Bishops, for their part, tried to resolve these scandalous matters before the case reached higher authorities. In this case, the numerous letters exchanged between the Bishop and the Congregation show the extent of conjugal and family violence, which only interested the Episcopal justice when the life of the woman was in danger.

(1) AAV, CVR, POS, 1605, Lett. B-F. Bologna. (perche correva pericolo d’esser velenata, ò in altro modo perdere la vita per mano di Laeazo Garganello suo marito) / (più volte havendola malamente battuta)

(2) AAV, CVR, POS, 1605, Lett. B-F. Bologna. (et mostrandoli le percosse, et li mali deporti di detto suo marito)

(3) AAV, CVR, POS, 1605, Lett. B-F. Bologna. (prese moglie per haver successione, et anche per non haver il dono della continenza)

By Isabel Harvey, 26/11/2020.

Protagonists: Roberto Faitani, layman from Rimini and his daughter, Margherita.

Sources: Archivio Apostolico Vaticano, Congregazione dei Vescovi e Regolari, Positiones, 1605, Lett. R-T. Rimini. (See the sources here)

This case of domestic violence took place in 1605 in the Diocese of Rimini. Roberto Faitani wrote to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars to convince them to overrule the decision of the Bishop, who approved the publication of the wedding banns of his daughter, Margherita, without his authorization. He requested to “not be forced to give his daughter to a person of ill-repute and, by all accounts, inferior to him, an adversary who attempted everything to obtain the consent of the orator’s daughter with the help of some dishonest women and through other illegal ways.”(1) 

This person of bad life, as described by Roberto Faitani, is a certain Alessandro Pellegrini. The Bishop defined the groom in decidedly less aggressive terms: he was 35 years old, a widower,  not lacking for anything and even owning a few businesses, and was once the postmaster of Rimini. Nevertheless, Roberto Faitani, who had no worries about money, still considered Pellegrini as socially inferior. According to Faitani, his daughter was seduced and deceived not only by Pellegrini, but also by a certain Battaglino Battaglini and his wife – it is to her that Faitani referred when he mentioned dishonest women – who tried to organize the marriage and convince Margherita to act without her father’s consent. Made aware of the imminent marriage, Faitani, as he himself confessed to the Congregation, “I went back home really angry and punched my daughter,”(2) to maybe change her mind. Stubbornly, the 17-year-old girl decided to leave her father’s house and found refuge with the Battaglini family, who protected her for several days, refusing to hand her over to her father. In the meantime, the secular authorities, and then the Bishop, got involved in the conflict. Margherita was placed in a convent, waiting for a compromise to satisfy all parties. The Bishop took the opportunity to interrogate the girl several times, allowing a few weeks to pass between each interrogation, to test the strength of her will. During the first interrogation, as well as during the 3^rd and 4^th, Margherita confirmed that she wanted to marry Alessandro Pellegrini. Her will seemed to waver only during the second interrogation, when she maintained that she would follow her father’s will.

When Roberto Faitani wrote to the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, Margherita had already been at the convent for six months. The young girl seemed to have changed her mind several times, under pressure from her father, who suggested she take the veil, offering her “some clothes as she needed, conforming to the monastic use.”(3) But in the end, after also hearing  from the nuns who had welcomed Margherita, the Bishop, for his part, concluded that she was unfit for monastic life, and that her will to marry Pellegrini remained. The Bishop, in conformity with the Tridentine decrees, could not therefore oppose the will of the girl. It was in this context that Faitani turned to the Congregation, threatening to have to take justice in his own hands – and implying Pellegrini’s assassination – if the marriage should really take place.

The encounter between the young girl and the ecclesiastical power, represented by the Bishop of Rimini, took place in the midst of a family crisis: the Episcopal Justice was called in to protect the will – and the physical safety – of Margherita against her father. Roberto Faitani did not intend to stop there, however, and turned to Rome for an external recourse from a higher court of justice.

(1) AAV, CVR, POS, 1605, Lett. R-S. Rimini. (che il povero oratore non sia forzato à dare la propria figlia à persona di cativissimi costumi vile et in tutti i conti inferiore a lui havendo massime tentato l’adversario di havere il consenso dalla sua figlia con il mozzo di donne disoneste et altre vie illicite)

(2) AAV, CVR, POS, 1605, Lett. R-S. Rimini. (andai in casa sopragiunto della collera dieda a detta mia figliola alcuni pugni)

(3) AAV, CVR, POS, 1605, Lett. R-S. Rimini. (alcuni panni per il suo bisogno, conforme all’uso monacale)